Two Forms of Emunah: Another View

In the spirit of stimulating interesting discussion which we hope Mishmar will become famous for, I present my comments stimulated by Bari's post in the form of a separate posting. I do not so much disagree, rather I am giving a little different balance to the issue of the two types of faith. I also discuss the Iggeres Teiman regarding a person's tendencies towards belief.

This issue of emunah peshuta vs. chakirah is an age-old debate, and the Chassid Yavetz's opinion is as relevant today as ever. Obviously, the views of current manhigim(leaders) are of utmost importance, for it is they who are guiding the Jewish People for the long haul: ad bias goeil(which we hope is actually not such a long-haul).

Regarding a slightly different topic, current charedi hashkafa and mesorah(and even MO for young children, to an extent) is a mix of rational and mystical; the Rambam, Emunah V'deos and the Chovos HaLevavos, yes, but also the Chafetz Chaim, Arizal and the Maharal. Personally, I feel one must be well-grounded in emunah peshutah, especially at a young age. However, I think that it's important to make clear that emunah al pi chakirah is not totally rejected from Yahadus, even though it has weaknesses, and they have, arguably, been proven over time. As Bari quotes from the Chassid Yavitz, it was the "simple people" that were willing to die al kiddush Hashem.

To say that chakirah, however, is totally rejected would be like saying today that some elements of the Moreh Nevuchim became kefirah today(although some hold that). Rav Schwab also quotes a Shu't regarding TIDE that "ki he machalokes yeshanah"; its an age- old debate in Jewish History. Similarly, the question of the two types of emunah is also an age-old one. Of course, all of these are separate issues, but it should be mentioned that there are opinions which favor, specifically, a rational approach. I quote Michtav Meliyahu and Emunah Ramah( Raavad I) here (last comment in thread) which provide a nice balance and historical context for the issue.

The Beis Halevi's opinion in parshas Bo on dealing with a one who is challenging the faith, is also interesting. He emphasizes emunah peshuta, and not debating, but rather davening for that person! In other words, to an extent, one can not "give" another person emunah peshutah-- certainly not overnight-- although one can expose a person to a Torah environment.

Also, see the preface to the Lev Tov edition of Shaar Hayichud at length, regarding the drawbacks of chakirah. There is, of course, basis to the decision to skip Shaar Hayichud in charedi Yeshivos. It should be noted, however, that the Chasam Sofer did teach Shar Hayichud in his shiurim.

My personal thoughts, are that much depends on the person, that there are different mixes of both types of faith, and that it is not an either or issue.

I feel, though, that everyone needs to be well grounded in emunah peshutah, especially at a young age. I would go so far as to suggest, that had the Rambam written the Moreh Nevuchim, or Rav Saadiah Gaon, Emunah V'deos, at age five, they might(chas v'sholem) have become Kofrim! In other words, they as well, possibly, benefited from emunah peshutah.

Iggere Teiman

I would also like to quote the Rambam's letter in Iggeres Teiman("Epistle to Yemen"). He encouraged the Jews of Yemen who were facing forced conversion and also the prospect of a false Messiah; that community subsequently was grateful to him for generations later.

The Rambam there writes that the Torah promises that the Jewish people will always believe in Moshe Rabbeinu, v'gam becha yaaminu l'olam(Shemos 19:9) From this we see, writes the Rambam, that someone who leaves the Jewish faith, did not originally stand at Haar Sinai.

Rav Shaach, in the fifth volume of Michtavim and Maamarim was asked: we see Jews who did leave the faith! He answers that a person still has bechirah, free-will. The Rambam should be understood as merely stating the tendency of the Jewish nation in general; in other words, what I think we would call "a pintle Yid". R Shaach continues that the greater a person, the greater his opposing tendencies as well(e.g., he mentions the example of Korach).

Rav Chaim Pinchas Sheinberg as well, in his sefer on emunah, quotes the Iggeres Teiman, Sefer Hayashar(Rabbeinu Tam) and Chasid Yaavetz, and maintains that emunah is a natural part of a Jew. Rather than create faith ex nihilo, the goal is to simply let the natural faith develop("mimelah") and expand through Torah and mitzvos, and to protect it by being careful regarding negative sources of exposure. He uses the approach of the Iggeres Teiman to answer questions raised by Rav Elchanon Wasserman in Kovetz Maamarim on the obligation to have faith.

However, I don't know for certain if we have ever "proven" this in the conventional sense. To do so, one would have to take ten Jews raised in a forest, and ten non-Jews raised similarly, and demonstrate the difference in the nature of the neshomos(souls), as far as belief. Also, as mentioned above from R Shaach, there is always the bechirah(free-will) factor that affects the equation.

It should be noted that Project Chazon and others have been developing programs to educate children with basic principles of Yahaadus. In a discussion on R Yaakov Horowitz site, the issue of children and emunah issues is raised(see my two comments there). I maintain that having doubts is a perfectly normal phenomenon, even if it is not publicly discussed, for good reasons. In fact, the Chovos Halevovos in Shar Yichud Hamaseh discusses at length natural thought- patterns that are in opposition to faith. This would indeed seem as R. Shaach states that a person has internal opposing, or conflicting forces. Clearly, it is not solely a recent phenomenon.

Challenges to Emunah may be viewed in a positive way: as a building block to growth; as I quoted above from Rav Shaach, "kol hagodel machaveiro, yitzro gadol heimeno". Rabbi Dr. A.J. Twerski also discusses the issue of doubts from a psychological perspective in a response in his "I am I".

Anyhow, thanks to Bari for translating RSZA writings; I agree as well with his last three paragraphs.

Read more...

The Gift of Gab

Rabbi Levi said: There are four characteristics of women...The Rabbis add an additional two: they are sensitive, and talkative (Devarim Rabbah 6).

I’ve taken some heat on the J-Bloggosphere for my radical stance that women are quite different in nature from men. Of course, the sages has no problem with the idea. And now it seems that even a female psychologist and self-proclaimed feminist has come to the same conclusion. From the article:

It is something one half of the population has long suspected - and the other half always vocally denied. Women really do talk more than men. In fact, women talk almost three times as much as men, with the average woman chalking up 20,000 words in a day - 13,000 more than the average man... The book - written by a female psychiatrist - says that inherent differences between the male and female brain explain why women are naturally more talkative than men.

In The Female Mind, Dr Luan Brizendine says women devote more brain cells to talking than men. And, if that wasn't enough, the simple act of talking triggers a flood of brain chemicals which give women a rush similar to that felt by heroin addicts when they get a high.

What I actually found most interesting in the article is the following admission:

“I know it is not politically correct to say this but I've been torn for years between my politics and what science is telling us...I believe women actually perceive the world differently from men.”

Dr. Brizendine admits that political correctness has, for years, caused her to struggle with the scientific truth before her eyes. Kinda makes you wonder what other political or secular orthodoxies are causing scientific evidence to be swept under the rug, no? Anyone think Harvard owes Larry Summers an apology?

Read more...

Barnie Fife And The Curious Incident At The Falafel Stand

When I was a child, I knew that there was a force of Good in the world. But it wasn’t G-d at that point in my life. It was the police.

There was a large police station just a couple of blocks away from our house. My siblings and I used to go to the huge park across from the station and watch the goings on, trying to guess what the uniformed officers were doing and where they were headed. Occasionally we got lucky and saw them leading a handcuffed prisoner into the station.

We never questioned that the police were the good guys. It was back in the days before 911 (gasp!) and I remember that we had a sticker with the number of the police stuck to the side of our phone. We knew who to call if there was trouble. Yes, it is true that cops were parodied in the media. Who can forget the bumbling Barnie Fife, or Boss Hogg’s half-wit lackey Roscoe P. Coltrane? But I think that at least in the civil portion of American society, police were respected as symbols of the law.

I don’t think that much has changed in the States over the years. The world has moved, on and cynicism has crept into every corner of society. And people are more weary of strangers in general, even ones in uniform. But I don’t get the impression that the average American has a fundamentally different view of the police force than I did as a child. If anything, in this day of public transparency, there is even a stronger feeling that the police are checked from corruption and brutality. In fact, many feel they are reigned in to an excessive degree. And the few times that I dealt with a policeman in the States only confirmed my impression that they are for the most part hard-working, courteous and honorable people.

Check out this link about a shooting in New York just the other day. What I found interesting is not the fact that the family is crying murder; that’s to be expected, regardless of what really transpired. What’s interesting to me is the fact that Mayor Blumberg is calling for a grand jury investigation. And yes, I know that somebody was killed. But surely officers of the law understand that there is a system of oversight in place, and that excessive actions at least in theory will lead to hearings and possible sanctions.

Now contrast this with the perception of the Israeli police force. The average Israeli understands that the police are virtually worthless, when not an outright danger to life and limb. Crimes frequently go unreported, except for insurance purposes. Why bother? It’s not as if there’s going to be a serious investigation and attempt to apprehend a mere thief. And corruption – just forget it. An acquaintance of a friend (admittedly a shady character, though he did not seem to be lying) related that he was once in a hotel room where mafia elements were passing out bribes to dozens of officers. The officers literally stood in line, waiting patiently for their turn to collect a plastic bag full of cash. One need only glance at the geriatric officers that amble in groups down the streets of major cities in Israel to know that it isn’t these yokels that protect the citizenry.

The current buzz in the Israeli media, for those who don’t check the local news, is the recent escape of serial-rapist Benny Sela, and the intense manhunt still in progress. Of course, it is true that escapes happen everywhere, even in the United States. But apparently, as one Ha’aretz reporter points out, such escapes are becoming an epidemic in Israel. And the general consensus seems to be that despite the claims of the officers transporting Sela, the rapist wasn’t even handcuffed at the time of his escape.

Why the difference between American and Israeli police? For starters, order in Israel is essentially kept by the IDF, not the police force. In America, police are paid a decent salary, but certainly nothing to write home about (www.salary.com has the average for a patrol officer at about 40-50k). Israeli police, on the other hand, are paid much better than the average Israeli. This means that while the US police forces will (as always) attract a certain percentage of power-trip types, the vast majority will be those dedicated to a career in the public service of law and order. The ranks of the Israeli police (and the army, for that matter) are filled with those who seek a decent paycheck and a wonderful package of benefits.

There seems to be an underlying sentiment among the American bloggers that I’ve seen that although the rioters against the planned Gay Pride Parade were brutalized by the police, they essentially deserved it. And I don’t mean to say that they deserved to be beaten for their ideological stance. Rather, I mean that the perception that on the ground, no policeman actually attacked any protester unless “he deserved it.” Nothing could be further from the truth. I know of countless first-hand reports that testify to the fact that there was a systematic attempt by the police to brutalize any protester, peaceful or otherwise. A few students related that personal possessions had even been stolen by policemen – one, a valuable watch, and another, his wallet emptied of cash in front of his eyes.

Don’t like it? File a report.

And yes, I know that Israel is a society fighting for survival; who has the time and energy to completely remake the police force when Qassams continue to rain down among us? But the fact is, too many internal ills of Israeli society are blamed on external foes. I think we’ve reached the stage where Israel must choose between being first world country or a third world society with a tangential high-tech industry.

What’s my point here? Perhaps what got me thinking about this whole subject was the police officer beside me at the falafel stand yesterday. Obese and elderly, he didn’t look fit enough to chase down the falafel ball that escaped his pita and rolled across the grimy counter, much less a youthful criminal escapee. Or perhaps it's the following: First, Americans should appreciate yet another facet of the G-d given gift that is the United States. And second, that people should be less hasty to retroactively condemn every action of the protesters against the Gay Parade. In previous posts, I have categorically denounced any violent actions taken by the protesters. Nevertheless, we should keep the state of the Israeli police force in mind whenever we hear of incidents in Israel involving the police as it exists today (…and I’m guessing that most Religious Zionists will agree wholeheartedly.)

Read more...

A New Look for Mishmar

Let's face it. Until now, Mishmar was like some of my Rebbis from my yeshiva days - you had to forget about the packaging and concentrate on the message. But there's no reason why Mishmar can't look great too. So with just this bit of fanfare, I introduce our new banner. In the near future, we'll be enhancing the overall design of the site too. Enjoy!

Read more...

Two Kinds of Scoffers

וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדת יִצְחָק, בֶּן-אַבְרָהָם: אַבְרָהָם, הוֹלִיד אֶת-יִצְחָק.
And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son: Abraham begot Isaac. (Ber. 25:19)

Rashi: Because the scoffers of the generation (the “leitzanei ha dor”) said that Sarah was impregnated from Avimelech, since for several years she stayed with Avraham and did not become pregnant from him. What did HKBH do? He formed the facial features of Yitzchok to be similar to Avraham, and everyone bore witness “Avrhaham begot Yitzchok.” That is what is written here “Abraham begot Isaac, that there is testimony that Avrham begot Isaac.”

The Brisker Rov asks a question on this Rashi. Scoffers (“leitzanim”) generally scoff because they are trying to avoid a mussar haskeil. Scoffers at miracles generally don’t want to contemplate that there is a Master of the Universe. Scoffing is a great mechanism to do this – “That’s just natural, no miracle, no Divine intervention . . .”

Here, however, what were the scoffers trying to accomplish? Sarah Imeinu was 90 years old! That SHE was able to give birth after all this time was at least a great a miracle, if not greater, than Avraham giving birth at 100. (Not to mention Ishmael had been borne 13 years prior.) The birth of Isaac still attests to Hashem’s intervention in the natural order.

Answers the Brisker Rov: the leitzanei ha dor were saying that while Hashem may have intervened in nature, the intervention was totally random. It was not a product of Avraham’s great tsidkus, the miracle actually happened to that well-known rasha Avimelech. Ergo, there is no need for us to try to emulate Avraham and his keeping of the derech Hashem.

As one surveys the J-Blogging world, there are a depressing number of scoffers and “leitzanei ha dor.” Some are of the first type – scoffing at the very notion of a Divine order to the world.

But there are others who know enough to recognize that there is a Master of the Universe. That much they won’t deny. What they deny is that there is anything special about Talmidei Chachamim and Tsaddikim or any need to try to emulate them. “I am just as good, and find just as much Divine favor as, them.” We should remember that this too is a bechinah of “leitzanei ha dor.”

Read more...

The Kiruv Movement

I wish I had more time to post on this, but I’m just too busy this week. Nevertheless, the recent posts I’ve seen concerning Avakesh’s BT post haven’t been up to par, so I’ll just throw out a few quick points. For what it’s worth, I think that Avakesh’s points are irrelevant more than they are incorrect. At any rate, here we go.

1. The BT movement is shielded from frank discussion in exactly the same way that issues of race are shielded in the United States. BT is the frum political correctness, and unless you familiar with, and have worked with many BTs, everything you think you know about them is probably “off.”

2. It is true that the BT movement is a blessing. The problem is that it’s really hard to pin down the real effects of modern kiruv – after all, the kiruv industry requires money to grease its wheels, and they have a strong bias to cook the numbers. Would the millions of dollars perhaps be spent better elsewhere, such as the day-schools, or perhaps kiruv krovim? I just don’t know, but I also don’t know of a serious effort to find out. And of course, it is true that fundraising for kiruv is not a zero-sum game; there are many sources for kiruv funding that otherwise wouldn't donate to Orthodox causes. Nevertheless, I would like to see some serious discussion of this fundamental question.

3. Many BTs come to religion through a deep recognition of the truth of the Torah. Some too, see the falsehood of the world about them, or have always felt an emptiness inside, and instinctively adopt Orthodox Judaism as the natural alternative. But the fact is, many and many more BTs become observant for less than altruistic reasons. Let’s face it – what sort of stable person would change his life on the basis of a few discussions with some kiruv punk who studied for six months at Aish? The answer is, not many at all.

4. The kiruv industry needs serious reform. Potential BTs are not made aware of the real hardships they will face in the frum world. Kiruv workers often seem to care about one thing – the sell, and are little concerned about what happens beyond that point, despite the fact that this should be a major, if not the primary, concern of kiruv. Also, many kiruv workers are of exceedingly low quality; the big, charismatic names we all hear and know are the exceptions, not the rule. How can we expect competent kiruv to come from this?

5. Our modern outlook of the BT is seriously skewed. To entice potential BTs, the kiruv movement has gone out of its way to convince people that BTs are the top of the food-chain, the pinnacle of religious virtue. Now, beyond the fact that much of the Torah taught on behalf of this idea is flatly false (the modern BT is not the BT of the gemara) the practical result of this overcompensation is even worse. Because many BTs are taught that “they are the best,” many feel no need to attempt to integrate into normative frum society. This applies even to young BTs that might integrate nicely, but are held back from doing so by this strange mentality. To use Yaakov Menken’s analogy, these are immigrants that refuse to learn the language, yet expect all the benefits of society. More precisely, the immigrants are both pleased and proud of the fact that they cannot speak the native tongue, and have been convinced by ideologues that their ignorance is in fact a form of enlightenment and cultural retention. (Note the parallels to political discussion of multiculturalism?)

6. The problem is not “us.” Yes, there is intolerance everywhere. But for the most part, people go out of their way to accept BTs into communal life.

7. I’ll say it once more. BT is the frum PC. Nothing will get solved until there is frank, honest discussion of this subject beyond the confines of the institutions that have a direct financial stake in the movement.

Read more...

Chovos HaLevavos

When we speak about emunah, we say, b'emunah s'hleimah, "with perfect faith". The mitzvah is to grow in emunah, to experience a clarity, and to reach levels of deep-seated, genuine belief. There have been traditionally two different approaches to faith, one more experiential, and one more rational. However, all agree that one's emunah must run deep. The mitzvah is also constant; the Biur Halachah and others speak of "six constant mitzvos".

From the fourth perek of Devarim we see how deep the Chovos HaLevavos run(Metzudah Translation):

Look out for yourself and guard your life exceedingly, lest you forget the words your eyes witnessed, and lest they are removed from your mind, all the days of your life; you will make them known to your children and to your grandchildren...

You will know today, and will restore to your perception that Ad-noy is the G-d in heaven above and on earth below; there is no other.

Regarding belief in Moshe Rabbeinu's prophecy, the Rambam in the eighth perek of Yesodie Hatorah says that our ancestor's believed fully in Moshe Rabbeinu, because they directly witnessed Hakadosh Baruch Hu speaking to him at the Revelation at Har Sinai.

However, human beings have limitations as far as their capacity to comprehend metaphysical concepts. Also, a person may reach a difficulty which is unresolved satisfactorily at a particular time.

Certain metaphysical concepts one can't comprehend fully. The Rambam for example, in Yesodie Hatorah(1st Perek) says that a human being can't fully comprehend the unity of Hashem. In the fifth perek of Hilchos Teshuvah, he states that we can't fully comprehend the essence of Hashem, nor completely understand how he knows a person's future actions.

In the gemera and in acharonim, we have cases when we remain with questions, and hope to resolve them at some future time. We say teiku, Hashem Yair Einai, or Tzarich Iyun. Interestingly, Rav Sholomo Heineman used to say that there is a difference in Rav Akivah Eiger between Tzarich Iyun, and Tzarich Iyun Gadol.

Is there, as well, a concept of teiku regarding hashkafa issues which impact upon emunah?

At the Siyum Hashas, Rav Matisyahu Salomon, if I recall correctly, mentioned the need to give "authentic answers", as opposed to "makeshift answers", and he also mentioned the concept of teiku. I believe that he was referring to science and Torah issues. Obviously, each case is different; I do not wish to extrapolate from his words, as he spoke in general terms.

I would like to call attention to an excerpt from a post by Rabbi Chaim B. , in which I participated in the comment section.

"Tzarich iyun is not surrender, but a recognition that the struggle for answers is an ongoing process of learning. The same holds true in the debate of science vs. Torah - sacrificing mesorah to the god of science is not the best approach, but neither is glibly asserting truisms that contradict reason or evidence"

Do you agree with his post? Feel free to continue the discussion there, in order to consolidate the conversation in one internet location.

Read more...

Some Prayers Should Be Private

I saw a vort by the Satmar Rov on this last week’s parsha which is pertinent to a contemporary issue.

After the destruction of Sodom, Avraham awoke early and returned to the spot he had previously stood before Hashem. (Ber. 19:27) Chazal tell us that he returned to pray to Hashem (Berakhos 6b) from which we learn the importance of having a set place to pray. Apparently Avraham intended to return to his place of prayer and continue asking for mercy for the people of Sdom.

Why did he wait till the next morning? The Satmar Rov brought a source (I forget where) that he was following the halakha that a talmid chacham may not go out alone at night (Berakhos 43b). He then asked the following: why didn’t Avraham simply take someone along with him? After all, by the Akeida we see he took along two “nearim” and we know Avraham had a substantial household. So why not simply take along a servant or two as accompaniment?

He answered: Avraham was planning on davening for mercy for the people of Sdom. Now while that is a great mitzvah, at the same time there was a danger that someone in his household would observe this and the grave sins of Sdom would seem less severe to this person. The chinuch of his household would not allow that. Hence, he waited to the morning to return alone to the place he prayed before and to try again for Divine mercy.

So while even the most wicked deserve our prayers for Divine mercy, these should be private prayers. Making a public spectacle of such prayers risks a grave chinuch mistake – there are those who will believe the sin is not so bad.

Ha mavin yavin.

Read more...

Patriotic Liberals and Other Creatures of Myth

I. Divisive Rhetoric?

I’ve been reading Ann Coulter’s works since she began publishing a few years ago. She levels many accusations at the liberal Left, but perhaps the sharpest invective in her repertoire is reserved for her theory that liberals are less patriotic than the average American.

“Why is the relative patriotism of the two parties the only issue that is out of bounds for discussion?” Ms. Coulter asks in her book Treason. “Why can’t we ask: Who is more patriotic: Democrats or Repulicans? You could win that case in court...Liberals want to be able to attack America without anyone making an issue of it. Patriotism is vitally important—but somehow impossible to measure. Liberals relentlessly oppose the military, the Pledge of Allegiance, the flag, the national defense. But if anyone calls them on it, they say he’s a kook and a nut. Citing the unpatriotic positions of liberals constitutes ‘McCarthyism.’ ”

To be honest, I’ve always assumed she was half-joking, or at least sprinkling her point with a liberal (ahem) dose of hyperbole. But recently, especially since reading James Burnham’s fantastic The Suicide of the West, I’ve come to realize that, Ms. Coulter’s intention aside, there is much truth to her rhetoric.

II. Liberal Egalitarianism

The starting point for our purpose is to note the liberal view of egalitarianism, though we might technically begin from even further back, to their relativist worldview. The liberal view of humanity states that there is no intrinsic difference between any brand of humanity, and therefore, humans should not discriminate against one another on the basis of property, sex, race, color, religion, or ancestry. At first, this egalitarianism found practical expression in the political realm, with the liberal program for universal suffrage. But in our time, it has bled into the social and economic fields, where it has actively sought leveling measures such as the progressive income-tax and inheritance taxes.

Once we accept this egalitarian assumption, the next step is simple: if all humans are essentially equal, then any basis for distinction, whether based on tradition, custom, prejudice, superstition or sentiment, is regarded as non-rational. As James Burnham puts it,

Looked at somewhat differently, liberalism’s egalitarianism is equivalent to a tendency - and we must continue to speak here of “tendencies” rather than of anything absolute - against social hierarchies and distinctions, against those factors in human life that mark off one group of men from the rest of mankind...Thus liberals are anti-aristocratic, and are opposed to political, economic or social distinctions based on family, religion or property, especially landed property, and perhaps most passionately of all to distinctions based on race or color.

As of yet, no great novelty, but this is where it gets interesting. Because of the liberal tendencies toward egalitarianism there is no real reason democratic centralization should stop with the single nation. In fact, the idea of a “nation” is viewed as an outdated and divisive concept. Thus liberals incline favorably toward ideas, movements and organizations that are universal in nature – world courts and united nations. And here, so that there be no mistake, I quote the liberal Quincy Wright, cited in The Liberal Papers:

Experience since the Second World War should have made it clear that a liberal foreign policy must assume that liberalism and democracy can only flourish or indeed survive in a suitable environment, that such an environment under present conditions can be no less extensive than the entire world, and that, therefore, liberal foreign policy must look at the world as a whole. Any form of isolationism and regionalism is obsolete. The nation that would save itself must subordinate its immediate interests to the maintenance of a peaceful, stable, and just world. That is the assumption that the United States and other nations made in establishing the United Nations.

III. A Matter of Priorities

In general, it is not the values to which a person adheres that reveal the most about his character, but rather the order of priority in which the values are arranged. Telling us, for example, that a person values family, life, liberty and peace tells us practically nothing – what human does not value these things? The real question is, what happens when there is a conflict of interests between the various values? Which takes precedence? Which is shunted aside ignobly?

Let’s take, for example, the values of Liberty (national independence and self-government) Justice (distributive justice of a more or less social welfare sort) Freedom (personal freedom and individual liberties) and Peace (the absence of large-scale warfare among major powers).

For the older liberalism of the nineteenth century, the order of precedence would be: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, and Peace (though Freedom and Liberty were used interchangeably). Older liberals tended to be patriotic and nationalist. They believed in the self-government, independence and sovereignty of their own country, and also in the right of other countries to self-determination. As rationalists, they believed that discussion was the preferred method of conflict resolution, yet Peace was still a modest priority.

But times have changed. For the majority of liberals, Peace has become paramount. The concepts of individual freedom (our Freedom) and national freedom (our Liberty) have become disassociated and downgraded, Liberty considerably more than the Freedom. What does the degradation of Liberty imply? Burnham answers,

To downgrade Liberty means to dilute the idea of the sovereignty of the nation and of the uniqueness and superiority of the civilization, and to reduce the importance that we attach to these in the scheme of public values. In terms of attitude, it means, concretely, that patriotism plus Christian faith are to one or another extent replaced by internationalism: not just an “international outlook” that views world affairs in global terms, with due realization that under modern circumstances there is a multiplicity of interests beside those of our own nation and culture that must be taken into account, but an active internationalism in feeling as well as thought, for which “fellow citizens” tend to merge into “humanity,” sovereignty is judged as an outmoded conception, my religion or no religion appears as a parochial variant of the “universal ideas common to mankind,” and the “survival of mankind” becomes more crucial than the survival of my country and my civilization.

Meaning, when push comes to shove, the interests of the “world” must take precedence over the interests of our nation. The fact that liberals often place the benefit of the world before the good of the United States should be patently obvious to any observer of the political scene. Tracts can, and have, been written about the damage caused to the interests of the US by global institutions such as the United Nations, adherence to international treaties, and subjugation to the decrees of the International Court of Justice.

Of course, some liberals will claim that while the US must certainly forsake its short term interests for the sake of the “greater good,” in the long run the US will be the ultimate beneficiary (and frankly, some will not even claim this much; the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the US alone). Yet this is a dangerous and specious argument – the tangible loss is often both immediate and catastrophic, while the supposed benefits are illusory and indefinitely delayed.

IV. Patriotic Liberals and Other Creatures of Myth

I want to make clear that I do not question the worth of the liberal values here. It may be that the internationalist view is correct – that the good of the world in fact outweighs the good of the US, and that the US should submit to the judgment of international institutions, even when it conflicts with the direct interests of the US. I leave that to the reader to decide (though my personal view should be clear).

Nevertheless, what we can learn from the above is that most liberals are, practically by definition, relatively unpatriotic. Of course, they are ostensibly patriotic in the sense that they wish for the benefit and advancement of the interests of the US. But that desire is tempered by the overriding internationalism inherent in liberal ideology. When the two values come into conflict – as is happening more and more often in our increasingly global community – it is national patriotism that loses out.

It also stands to reason, as we pointed out above, that patriotism is actually anathema to liberal ideology. Because patriotism promotes an ideal of national pride, it is inherently divisive in nature. Thus, even though a liberal, and certainly a liberal politician, may mouth paeans to the idea of patriotism, it certainly leaves a bitter aftertaste behind. And this is only when liberals are not attacking patriotism outright. As Phil Donahue put it, patriotism is “the last refuge of scoundrels...Beware of patriotism.”

So it seems to me that there is great truth to the charge that liberals really are less patriotic than most Americans. Does this make any practical difference? Perhaps, and perhaps not. The coming two years will probably shed some light on the answer.

Read more...

On Creativity and Potato Chips in Chinuch

There is much creativity going on at Hirhurim(inspired, naturally by a Mishmar post). From the simple idea of "Shatnez in Potato Chips", a host of ideas are being generated.

Since the very profound subject of potato chips is now receiving a great deal of attention in the blogosphere(blogging can be unpredictable), I thought I would post on a story of Rav Mendel Kaplan and potato chips, which illustrates an important chinuch(educational) principle. I will also comment on creativity techniques.

Rav Mendel Kaplan Zt'l was sitting in his succah with his students, and there was a bowl of potato chips on the table in front of him(I do not know if they were Kettle or regular). Rav Mendel did not take any for himself. He was asked about this, and he told his students that he doesn't like to eat potato chips because they make too much noise. Apparently, Rav Mendel felt that eating this snack himself was undignified.

However, when he saw a talmid who was overly serious also not taking the chips, he then took some. When asked by this student why he now was eating them, he said "because I do enjoy potato chips !"(Artscroll Biography).

The primary lesson I observed from this story is that a rebbe has to be aware of the needs of his different students. People are different and there is no one- size- fits- all approach. Thus, chanoch lenaar al pi darko, gam ki yazkin lo yasur mimenah.

However, I was also amazed that someone could do two contradictory actions in such a short time span. I think that the latter point can be related to the technique of looking at things from different perspectives, which in turn is related to the art of thinking creatively. Michael Gelb, author of How to Think Like Leonardo de Vinci refers to this concept as the DeVincian principle of Sfumato, which is a painting technique, but more broadly, is the willingness to embrace ambiguity, paradox and uncertainty.

And now back to brainstorming and creativity...

Brainstorming was introduced in 1953 by Alex Osborn, an advertising executive. One of the key principles is not to censor any ideas. Mind-Mapping, stream of consciousness writing, and meditation are similar methods which use the free flow of thoughts as a way to generate original ideas.

I remember reading in one of Rav Aryeh Kaplan's books on meditation that sometimes, one needs to stop thinking about a problem, and the solution will come by itself, or "pop into one's head". Evidently, this is the way Hashem created the brain, that one needs to "let go", and let ideas arise to consciousness.

In this vein, Rabbi Kaplan Zt'l relates that he was once trying to visualize a multi-dimensional figure for a physics problem and was having trouble doing so. Some time later, while taking a bath, the figure popped into his head.

I am not sure how many "marketable" ideas will come out of the "Potato Chips and Shatnez" concept, but if it promotes camaraderie in the blogosophere, brotherhood, and collaborative cogitations(whether cacophonous or melodious in nature), then more power to Reb Gil !

Read more...

Big Tent Blogs

In politics, the Big Tent Policy maintains that one should attract members with as diverse ideologies as possible. An example given is the 1932 elections. FDR then set up his New Deal and forged a coalition of Big City machines, labor unions, liberals, and ethnic and racial minorities.

A group blog can maintain a similar diversity. While having in common certain core Torah beliefs and values, there can certainly be room for disagreement. Thus, "cacophonous cogitations of a composite crew".

I was thinking about this because I had an e-mail correspondence with someone about an idea which was being discussed on this blog. The person noted parenthetically:

[although] I think am more with you on this specific issue... I recognize that chareidim are not monolithic. I also feel that this blog tends to be intellectual honest and there is room for people to agree to disagree (which is one reason I really like it) .

It's nice to find a kindred spirit in the blogosphere.

One can apply the Big Tent concept to the Orthodox world in general and to the more right-wing communities in particular. Sometimes, one might compare Bnei Torah to an army. An army acts in unison, wears the same uniform, and has allegiance to the commander in chief.

Conformity is indeed often stressed in our community. There are limits as far as dress, ideologies and behavior. We also have allegiance to leaders, and ultimately to Hashem.

But I think that even within the limits of the Torah world, there can and should be as much diversity and individuality as possible. In the area of dress, if I recall correctly from the biography, Rabbi Stienberg Z'l , of Beis Yaakov of Baltimore, was initially against instituting school uniforms for this reason. I also think that we have to be concerned that the walls that we erect to insulate us from the outside world do not take a life of their own. Too much of anything is no good.

We also need to focus on the individuality and emotional needs of each person. To quote David Mandel of Ohel in the Jewish Press :

People need to be comfortable with themselves, secure in their own skin, in order to find their place in the community. Dr. David Pelcovitz often speaks of the resilience of human beings, the inner strength people have that carries them through difficult times. Dr. Abraham Twerski is renowned for stressing the importance of self-esteem and positive self-image.

As long as we're comfortable with who we are and what we want to be, and as long as we don't feel pressured or compelled to be someone or something we're not ready to be or don't want to be, we can be in the Center, the Right, the Left-- or anywhere else on the spectrum.

And please, let's leave the labeling to clothing and food, not people.


Anyhow, I hope that this blog, while recognizing the primacy of the Torah, will offer as many people as possible opportunities to post their thoughts.

Read more...

The Torah Protest

I'll never forget the scene; it's one of my strongest memories from my first year in Eretz Yisrael.

We were walking in a non-religious neighborhood in Jerusalem on a sunny Shabbos afternoon. I was with a few friends and one stranger – the ultra-frum brother from Bnei Barak. It was very peaceful, and we were walking silently together, each of us lost in our thoughts about our prospects for the coming year. A car passed by in the street...and suddenly, a horrible scream broke the silence.

"SHABBOS!"

My friend's brother literally screamed at the passing car at the top of his lungs. This was very strange to us Americans, and he must have seen the expressions on our faces (mine was aghast; was this guy nuts?)

He explained, "It's straight in Shulchan Aruch. When a person sees the desecration of Shabbos, he is obligated to protest!" He seemed almost angry at our ignorance.

But somehow, despite the textual proof, this still struck me as strange. Did the Shulchan Aruch really want me to yell like a maniac every time I saw someone break the Shabbos? After all, one witnessed countless acts of borer every Shabbos meal at the yeshiva. Better to avoid non-religious neighborhoods, I supposed, if this guy was correct.

For many years, I was bothered by a statement of Chazal. The Mishna says, "Yehoshua ben Perachyah says: Appoint for yourself a teacher; acquire a friend, and judge everyone favorably" (Avos 1:6).

What precisely was the point? Why did Chazal care if I thought the worst of a person? It's one thing if I harm another physically, or spread tales of his misdeeds. But who am I harming if I simply think – in the confines of my own mind – that another person has committed a transgression?

The answer finally struck me during a shmuez I heard from Rav Reuven Leichter. I don't recall now what he was discussing, but somehow he got on the subject of this Mishna. He explained that each and every thought we have affects us somehow, often in a profound manner. It is not healthy for a person to believe that Jewish people sin. Obviously, seeing another person sin will not directly lead to a sin of my own. Nevertheless, it gets me used to the idea of sinning, and becoming comfortable with the idea of transgression is the first step in the long chain that leads to sin itself.

Chazal didn't say that we should judge others favorably because it really matters to the other person, just as they didn't tell us how to treat Shabbos challah because the challah really cares. Rather, we judge another person favorably for our own sake – to maintain our own sensitivity to the idea of transgression.

This is the reason we protest the desecration of Shabbos. Let's face it – certainly in the story above, and very often in general – the one who transgresses the Shabbos will not be affected by my protest. If I scream it loud enough, it may just have the opposite effect – to turn him further away from Judaism. I protest for my own sake. I remind myself that Shabbos is holy, and must never be desecrated. And these constant reminders (as the Chinuch points out dozens of times) are the source of my strength.

I had indirect confirmation last night of this idea. I spoke to a friend of mine who had just come from a gathering of Rav Elyashiv's students. He heard the following firsthand:

A bochur asked: Should we protest?

Rav Elyashiv answered: Of course. You should turn to your chavrusah and say, "I protest." And your chavrusah should turn to you and say, "I protest." Then, the two of you should get back to learning.

The bochur then asked: What about Friday [the day of the Parade]?

Rav Elyashiv answered: You should get ready for Shabbos.

To me, this represents the real protest of the Torah. Not burning garbage cans, not running wild in the streets. But reminding ourselves that the Torah remains, regardless of what the modern world thinks, the source of morality. If the Torah tells us that some act is an abomination, then that is precisely what it is. And then we return to our learning. It is of course, possible that Rav Elyashiv's dictum has limited applicability. Perhaps he is satisfied that others have protested enough on behalf of the honor of Heaven; I can't say for sure. But I do know that at this time and place, Rav Elyashiv is definitely of the opinion that enough is enough, and it is time to refocus on the truly important things in our lives.

Read more...

A Few Thoughts On The Mid-Term Elections

I received an email the other day, asking why I hadn't been posting on the upcoming (now past) mid-term elections. Wasn't I interested in this seemingly momentous event?

The truth is, I have a vastly greater interest in political theory than practical politics.This is all the more true because neither of the two major parties really represents my interests as a conservative. Nevertheless, I will offer a few thoughts on the unsurprising results of this election season.

My initial reaction is quite simple: good! President Bush, despite the ostensible backing of both the House and the Senate, has consistently failed to live up to the ideals and expectations of the conservative base that placed him in office. Conservatives have not been this bitterly disappointed since the unfolding of the Nixon presidency. Occasionally, some still justify his every action with the placating "at least he's tough on terror." And yes, the Supreme Court nominations have turned out well, despite Bush's best efforts to choose a lemon. But what, exactly, has Bush done for his conservative constituency lately?

Some, of course, will claim this view of the elections is nothing more than blithe justification, akin to fringe elements of the Left that claimed Kerry lost the election because he wasn't liberal enough (!). But this would miss the crucial point - the electorate continues to confound conservatism with N eo-conservatism; the two are as dissimilar as the Macy's Parade is from the Gay Parade. Perhaps this disaster will finally convince the Republican party to align with true conservative values - minimal government, secure borders, fiscal restraint, and a prudent foreign policy. And perhaps the Republicans will do some soul searching on the matter of party discipline (I noted with some satisfaction that the two Republican members of the Gang of 14 up for reelection were unseated.)

My second reaction is as simple as the first: Thanks, and enjoy your purchase! For months, Republicans have begged their constituencies to reelect their candidates rather than "punish" the GOP for its failings. Look, they said, at the alternative. Although the request itself is the height of audacity - might I tentatively suggest that more principled governance would have avoided the rebellion in the ranks? - essentially, they were correct. No matter how bad the GOP performed these past few years, the alternative is worse for the United States. Again, the lesson might do the GOP some good, but in the interem, the country will suffer.

In honor of the Democratic victory, I've decided to finally sit down and write a few pieces I've been meaning to compose, including the promised defense of a controversial (political) figure. Up next, Patriotic Democrats and Other Mythical Creatures.

Read more...

It's Gone International

The Parade, along with the protest, has finally made international news. The report is actually relatively neutral, referring to Ha'aretz as a liberal newspaper (when CNN calls you liberal, you know you're out there on the Left). The picture shows calmly marching Chassidim (albeit dressed in sackcloth) rather than the familiar teenage antics involving garbage bins. However, it should come as a surprise to nobody that the organizers are more willing to compromise on the venue - after all, the initial plan is a direct provocation.

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israel's attorney general refused to ban a gay pride parade in Jerusalem despite threats of violence from ultra-Orthodox Jews, instructing police and gay activists to try to work out a compromise, the police commander said Sunday.
A Justice Ministry statement said Attorney General Meni Mazuz ordered police to meet with gay activists "to work out a reasonable alternative proposal" for the march, set for Friday on a route through the middle of the city.
The meeting is to take place Monday, gay activists said, and a compromise was likely.

Read more...

Appreciating Rav Shach Zt'l

There is a discussion going on at Hary Maryles' blog, whose thoughtful posts I enjoy, regarding Rav Shach's view on Hesder Yeshivos. I would like to add some thoughts which will hopefully lead to an appreciation for this Torah giant, and increase tolerance amongst us bloggers.

I begin by quoting from an article by Dr. Marc Shapiro, titled "Of Books and Bans" which appeared in the Edah Journal:

As the guardian of haredi Orthodoxy, it was R. Shakh's role to establish the boundary line between his community and other forms of Orthodoxy, and he did so with a stridency many will find disconcerting...

Later in the article:

Because R. Shakh was regarded as a leader only by the haredi community, his pronouncements were not the subject of much concern in the wider Orthodox world. In fact, I think it is a testament to the respect people had for R. Shakh's great Torah learning that he was generally not subjected to abuse by those groups he condemned...

Dr. Shapiro lists the works, ideologies, and institutions which Rav Shach condemned, and also mentions a Religious Zionist Gadol who often talks about respecting even anti-Zionist leaders. Also mentioned is a Religious Zionist Gadol, who while expressing public criticism of Rav Shach's views, nevertheless rebuked a student who showed disrespect for Rav Shach, Zt'l. From the latter case, we see that although a Gadol may express criticism of another Gadol, a layperson may not to do the same, certainly not in the same way.

My view is that ordinary people such as ourselves need to take extreme care regarding respecting Talmedie Chachamim, especially when the issues are painful or when we have strong feelings about them. As Dr. Shapiro notes, Rav Shach's role was to establish boundaries of charedi-Orthodoxy. Whether or not I personally agree with those boundaries does not affect my ability to respect him. I also am aware that these issues are painful for students of Rav Soleveichik or for Lubavitcher chassidim.

Thus, I personally try to show respect towards Rav Shach, Rav Soloveitchik, Rav Kook, the LubavitcherRebbe--all of them Zecher Tzaddikim Livracha. I am also mindful of the sources regarding the crucial need to keep in mind Kavod Hatorah-- see Y'D 243:6 and Rambam Talmud Torah 6: 11--, as well as the need to avoid machalokes(controversy).

The second of the following two stories shows the depth of Rav Shach's feelings for fellow Jews, which all of us can certainly learn from. From an article which appeared in the Yated on Rav Shach:

“When I was a bochur, I was in Rav Schach’s house on a Monday, the day before his shiur klali.“When the doctor came in to see him, he sent everyone out of the room except for his gabbai. Since I was curious to hear the conversation, I hid in the closet.

“I heard the doctor telling the Rosh Yeshiva that he has a growth in his foot that must be operated on immediately. Although the surgery would take a few hours the anesthesia would knock him out for the rest of the day.

“Impossible!” said Rav Schach. “I must give the shiur klali. If I cannot be back by Tuesday I refuse to have the surgery.”

“There is only one way you can be done by tomorrow: if you agree to surgery without anesthesia, right here in your home.”

“Rav Schach readily agreed. I came out of the closet and offered to help. The gabbai and I both helped Rav Schach to remain still as the doctor operated on him, cutting open his leg without any painkiller or anesthesia. Though Rav Schach was in tremendous pain, he didn’t utter a sound. Soon the surgery was over and the doctor left. Rav Schach warned his two helpers not to tell anyone what occurred. The next day he was back in yeshiva with no one being the wiser.“

The second story: Once, while Rav Schach was sitting in the Bais Medrash, a man came over and whispered in his ear. Rav Schach began to cry, heartrending sobs. Later the man told the talmidim that he informed Rav Schach about a helicopter accident involving Israeli soldiers who were all killed. Rav Schach had such depth of feeling for every Jewish soul that he cried bitter tears over these soldiers he never met.

In wake of recent bans, I find myself thinking how Rav Shach Zt'l would have reacted. Recently, I was attempting to make my way through a section in Avi Ezrei, Rav Schach's magnum opus on the Rambam. I found myself distracted, because I kept on thinking how he would have responded to the recent bans. However, I imagined that he would say, "forget your concerns with those issues--just finish the shtikel here" :)

Read more...

A Few More Thoughts On The "Parade"

I’m beginning to get the strong impression that the Gay Parade won’t sashay forth as planned, the Attorney General’s recent remarks about Democracy aside. The Parade’s planners have apparently already begun bargaining for some meager scraps in return for the Parade’s cancellation; apparently, they too can smell the direction the perfume is blowing. Obviously, the High Court of Israel may yet force the issue. We’ll know one way or another soon enough.

The truth is, the Parade should have been a nonstarter from its conception. Supporters of the parade claim that “freedom of speech enables [us] to hold the event in Jerusalem, as a symbol of tolerance and pluralism, even if [ours] is the view of the minority of the city's residents.”

So ostensibly, the parade is about tolerance and pluralism. This is, of course, based on the relativist worldview. Homosexuality is not intrinsically any different – more or less moral – than any other sexual proclivity. And humans of all stripes deserve tolerance and respect.

But if one scratches just a bit beyond the surface, he finds the logical problem. If it is true that all opinions and moralities are equal, why isn’t the “bigoted” or discriminatory position of the protesters any less valid an opinion than any other? If so, it would seem that the logic of the protesters themselves would indicate that the Parade should not take place if it offends the cultural sensitivities of the residents of the Jerusalem.

We might turn to John Stuart Mill’s famous dictum for help. According to Mill,

That principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection; that the only purpose for which power can rightfully exercises over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others…The only part of the conduct of anyone for which he is amenable to society is that which converns others. In the part which merely concerns himself his independence is of right absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

In short, man should be able to do anything so long as it does not harm another.

Now, it is not clear that we need include a public parade within the rights of a sovereign and free individual. But even if we should, Mill’s fundamental argument is flawed. Who is to decide, precisely, what is considered “harm”? Mill was clearly referring to physical harm, but that is really arbitrary. What if my sensibilities are harmed by a splash of rainbow cloth and a tilted wrist? Why should Mill’s definition of harm take precedence over mine? This is all the more true when the majority of a city is offended by a particular display – after all, the marchers themselves admit their lifestyle represents a minority.

So it seems clear to me that by the logic of the organizers of the Parade, the protest is an affront to tolerance and diversity.

But the truth is, we all know this is so much hogwash. The Gay Parade is not really a symbol of tolerance, diversity, or any of the other rousing ideologies attributed to it.

In The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom, James Burnham developed a fundamental distinction between what he referred to as the “formal” and “real” meaning of a statement or ideology. The formal meaning,

“serves to express, in an indirect and disguised manner, what may be called the real meaning...By “real meaning” I refer to the meaning not in terms of the mythical world of religion, metaphysics, miracles, and pseudo-history...but in terms of the actual world of space, time, and events.”

One recent example would be multiculturalism. Its formal meaning might be the idea that there is value in a multiplicity of cultures, and at a deeper level, that all cultures are basically equal. As anthropologist Renato Rosaldo writes, “Each human culture is so unique…no one of them is higher or lower, greater or lesser than any other.”

But its real meaning is quite different, and a quick perusal of recent university offerings will confirm this. As Dinesh D’Souza writes, “Yet in the real world and in the traditional curriculum, all cultures are not on the same footing. Consequently, multiculturalism in practice is distinguished by an effort to establish cultural parity by attacking the historical and contemporary hegemony of Western civilization. This explains much of the rhetoric by the race merchants such as Jesse Jackson, and the statement of Barbara Johnson that identifies the multicultural project with “the deconstruction of the foundational ideals of Western civilization.” So while the formal meaning of multiculturalism might be that all cultures are equal, its real meaning is that Western culture is perverse.

The same is true of the Gay “Pride” Parade. Its formal meaning is about tolerance and pluralism. But as we showed, that tolerance is really only directed at opinions considered acceptable to the liberal elite. The real meaning is about the unceasing culture war between the liberal forces of Progress and the forces of family, tradition and community. It is not enough that the masses cease discriminating against behavior deemed, for whatever reason, to be destructive to society. No, the forces of Progress will not rest until the very minds of society have been turned, until the people accept and respect homosexuals.

And frankly, it’s about recruitment. The liberal elite does its utmost to persuade teenagers, confused about sexuality as they are about most things in life, that they are in fact meant for, and destined to, a life of homosexuality. Again, this is less to fill the ranks of the walking confused than to pierce the hearts and souls of the defenders of Tradition.

I admit that I’m not proud of the chosen methods of the protesters; in fact, I’m downright embarrassed. As I said a few days ago, I feel there is another way. Nevertheless, I feel strongly that the Gay agenda should not be allowed to have its way with Jerusalem.

Let this last bastion of Light and Truth remain.

Read more...

Avram Ha Ivri: Theological Countermajoritarian

In this past week’s sedrah, Avraham Avinu is referenced by the term Ivri, an in Avram ha Ivri. (Ber. 14:13) There is a famous Chazal that indicates that this connotes Avraham’s ability to hold to a position despite being against that of the entire world -- Avraham be-zad ehad ve-kol ha-olam be-zad aher. (The Seforno on that possuk says it means that he adhered to the beliefs of Ever.) When the almost the entire rest of the world adhrered to paganism, Avraham Avinu adhered to monotheism. That was part of his greatness – tha strength to be Avram ha Ivri.

I note this because lately I have seen a rather disturbing trend in some “Jewish blogs.” In discussing matters of emunah, a great deal of attention is paid to what “most” authorities of one kind or another hold. For example, it is intimated that since “most scientists” believe in evolution, it therefore follows that we are obligated to do so, and those who don’t are benighted ignoramuses. Or, for another example, when one prominent Orthodox writer wrote that atheism as a philosophy has a problem justifying morality and ethics, a prominent “J-Blog” took him to task that in fact many famous philosophers had come up with justifications for morality that did not depend on the existence of God. Variations on this theme repeatedly come up in the J-blogosphere – Dr. So-And-So is only a minority opinion, so therefore his opinion on _____________ (fill-in the blank: evolution, cosmology, age of the universe, morality and atheism, etc.) is trash and not worth even considering.

I am reminded of a famous maaseh of R. Yonasan Eybeschutz. (That’s in whose name I heard it, others have told me the same in the name of others.) A local bishop asked him, “it says in your Torah acharei Rabbim le hatos, go after the majority. Well the Jews are very much in the minority. Most people [at least in that part of Europe] believe in J-----, so shouldn’t you?”

His famous answer: “Our Torah only says to follow Rov where we have a safeik -- a doubt. If we are unsure what the halakhah is on one point, and the qualified authorities get together, we are commanded to follow the majority opinion. But that does not apply when we are sure – and in matters of faith we have a tradition and have no doubts.”

Simply put, the halakha of acharei rabbim le hattos has no application whatsoever to matters of faith. The fact that “most scientists” believe something is very interesting, but does not change our faith one iota any more than the fact that most people believe in J----.

In fact, this is also the case from a philosophical point of view. What difference does it make that “most scientists” or “most philosophers” adhere to one opinion or another? The truth or lack of truth of an opinion is not dependent on how many people hold to that opinion. There have been many occasions in the history of mankind when what the majority – even the majority of experts – believed turned out to be false.

Add to that the fact that in most disciplines, science included, there are a set of working axioms which most people use in analyzing whatever they are working with – evidence, scientific data, philosophical concepts, etc. Most people trained in the discipline accept those axioms unchallenged. Even if there is something wrong with one of those axioms, still “most people” will adhere to the way of thinking in which they have been trained and are comfortable. It is only the rogue thinker, the iconoclast, who will question the underlying assumptions. Maybe eventually the radical concept will be accepted – but in the meantime, the “majority” will be wrong, simply because of intellectual conservatism if nothing else.

So when discussing issues, the “majority” argument is at best a red herring and at worst misleading. In matters of faith, we should emulate Avraham ha Ivri – even if the whole world is on the other side.

Read more...