Go to Our New Site
| Go to Our New Site
|
Read-Only Topic|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
 |
On a personal note: the Gerard Dou Synagogue in Amsterdam. (have a look here: http://www.gerarddou.org/)
This is the shul at which my parents married, where my uncle (whom I never knew) had his bar mitzvah. The last service at this shul was Rosh Hashanah 1943, i.e. exactly 61 years ago, to the day. After that the services ceased. By then my parents were already in hiding, and the rest of the family had been sent 'op transport' - as the dutch euphemism has it which describes those who were transported to 'the East' never to return. The Gerard Dou Synagogue re-opened after the war, is one of the few places where, now, the centuries-old musical tradition of the Dutch Ashkenazi can still be heard. (Some available under http://www.chazzanut.com/nusach/mp3s/) This message has been edited. Last edited by: F van Gelder, |
|||
|
GY Teacher  |
To F.van Gelder
I think our debate reached a serious snag. i gave some thought on how to keep the debate focus and not to go off tangent and repeating propaganda and rediric. I think this would greatly increase the debating of ideas 1)Authoritative Opinion The definition of authoritative opinion is : someone's opinion that is accepted by all sides. Since we both come from oppiopposites of the spectrum, it will be hard to find anybody who will have an authoritative opinion for our debates (since I see you often bring up MaMaimonidesmaybe he can be an authoritative voice, since I would accept him too.) We both have people who we feel are brilliant and informed and with whom we look up to, yet the other side would not accept them at all. Thus i feel the main thrust of our debates should only be in logic and reasoning. If you want to quote someone who says something logical, that's fine. I don't care who said it, take away the person and you're still left with a logical argument. I just won't accept that it's true "just because sos and so says so. I will only reference Talmud and rabbis only to prove that my logic agrees with traditional Judaism, and not for the proof itself. 2) We must answer questions that are asked to us. I find it frustrating that when I bring up a valid point it's ignored. Either argue the point or concede it, but don't ignore it. There is no use debating without that. It's not a debate, rather a monologue. To remove any confusion, at the end of every post should have a summary of the points one wishes the other to address. Like: 1) We should argue only in logic and reasoning and not opinions of people not accepted by all 2) We must answer each other questions If these conditions are fine with you, then we can continue. If you have any reservations about this,please give your explanations for it so we can debate it |
|||
|
|
|
Rav Chaim,
I agree entirely with your suggestions concerning procedure. If I have not yet had the time to respond in detail to the points you raised in previous mails that is simply because of work pressure - it's in the pipeline, and your points have not been forgotten or simply passed over. I'm not for 'sniping' and then running away; and this is not a polemic from the standpoint of what you call 'liberal-humanism.' (Not that I find liberal-humanism such a heinous heresy, but that's a substantive point on which we differ.) For all of these reasons I need a bit of time to work through the issues raised before responding - even consult some people here in the Jewish community in Holland. There has not been a day since we started this exchange that I have not devoted time to it; often in the library. (Amsterdam has some of the oldest and most famous Judaica libraries in the world, like the Rosenthaliana, or the Ets Haim) I share with you the willingness to argue this through, to do so on the basis of the texts, to give very careful attention to logic, reasoning and proof, and to do so in a dignified manner which is not overly injurious to the feelings of the other. I kept mentioning Maimonides/Rambam *because* of my assumption that here at least there is an author for whom we *both* feel a deep respect - even if the differing traditions in which we stand will approach him from opposite directions. But by the same token we're heading for issues on which contemporary Judaism is deeply divided - hence 'shooting from the hip' makes little sense. This message has been edited. Last edited by: F van Gelder, |
|||
|
 |
I am certain that R. Chaim can produce all of this and more, but for myself I wish to add that it is our Tanach which teaches the idea of divine retribution. No one wants to think of him-or herself as deserving of such terrible things. As children we seem instinctively to avoid blame and project our guilt on others or make excuses for our own shortcomings. SURELY after Yom Kippur and our detailed admissions of our faults, we should be aware that WE RATIONALIZE our failures to obey HaShem's law.
Many words have been bandied about regarding the Tanach, the Talmud and subsequent lights of Judaism, such as Rambam. But even a cursory examination of the Tanach will readily verify R. Chaim's position. In Bereshith 18: 20 to 19: 23 is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Clearly, HaShem has sent angels because, as stated, "their (Sodom and Gomorrah's) outcry has become great, because their sin has been very grave.." In spite of the patriarch Abraham's attempt to obtain leniency, the cities are destroyed. In Devarim 16: 17, we are commanded to destroy the remnants of the Canaanite tribes previous in the land because of their transgressions -- 'do not do as they do'. Devarim 28: 15 to 68 details all of the curses that will befall Israel for abandoning the Torah. It was on reading this Parashah, indeed, that I was struck by how these things have occurred. We are simply unwilling to accept such a terrible responsibility. We would rather deny our part than learn to rectify our ways. "You will be scattered among the peoples .... And among those nations you will not be tranquil, there will be no rest for the sole of your foot; there HaShem will give you a trembling heart, longing of eyes and suffering of soul. Your life will hang in the balance, and you will be frightened night and day.." Nor do the references end there. The entire history of our people as written in the NaCh again and again speaks of this cause and effect. The books of 2nd Chronicles and 2nd Kings states in no uncertain terms that the kings of Israel and their people went astray and 'did evil in the sight of HaShem'. More remarkable is the forebearance shown by HaShem, allowing the reversals of certain kings to give grace for additional periods of time, as Jehu in 2 Kings 10: 30. Nevertheless, eventually the kingdom was taken by the Assyrians: "And it was so, because the children of Israel had sinned against the Lord their God, who brought them up out of the land of Mitzraim, and had feared other gods, and walked in the statutes of the nations, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel, which they practiced; and the children of Israel did impute things that were not right unto the Lord their God, and they built them high plpaces in all their cities.. and they set up pillars and Asherim upon every high hill and under every leafy tree.." 2 Kings 17: 7 - 10. Finally, in spite of brief reversals, such as Hezekiah (and the miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem from the Assyrians -- see 2 Kings 18 to 20 and Isaiah 37 and 38) and Joash, payment came due. As the prayer of Daniel in chapte 9 indicates, they clearly understood that it was their transgressions which had caused this catastrophe, and it was for this that Daniel repented. I have not spoken of the Talmud, nor even of but a few of the references in Tanach. You need only to read the Tanach to KNOW that this cause and effect is repeatedly emphasized and, unfortunately, repeated. To assert that HaShem would not punish for such transgressions is as ludicrous (given the available data) as asserting that smallpox is not a viral illness. Or that the world is flat. You may not like the implication that HaShem has the authority to punish us and that we deserve it, but that does not change the fact that THAT is exactly what is taught in Tanach and Talmud. Science is a search for consistent cause-effect relationships. Whether the Holocaust was one such or not, only HaShem can say. It does follow the pattern, however. |
|||
|
|
|
R. Chaim:
I want to ask you further concerning the sciences and medicine, but I will initiate another thread rather than cause us to digress too much on this one. In fact, this one seems to have taken a turn from the initial outreach question/plea which began it. Moshe |
|||
|
|
GY Teacher |
To Dr. van Gelder
I would also like to make sure that this is the point we are arguing with. You have a question on G-d how he let the Holocaust. As you wrote "that most disturbing question of all: 'why did it happen?' why the murder of millions? " I want to see if you agree to this standard of proof. How I see it, you must prove that there is no possible answers to it. Once there is one possible theory, then there is no more question. (My aversion to liberalism comes more from Rush Limbough and my common sense than from Maimonides per se. I just wanted to point out anything that can be said about Orthodox Jews can easily be transfered to other groups that you are fond of. The whole question is in perspective. As you know, that someone doesn't see there own faults, or the faults of their friends as well as of people whom they disagree with, so sometimes it takes pointing out the lack of consistency. This happens in everyday life (like when my wife suggest that, when we go visit NY, we should spend more time with her family than mine, because of reasons XY and Z), and nothing special about it in our debates. I have also seen over the past 2 decades that the liberal world is at odds with Orthodox Judaism (So much so, that Bernie Goldberg, In his book "Arrogant" (About liberal bias in the Media), brings down a few times that Orthodox Judaism is a group that the Liberal Media is bias against). I don't think that by large, in the pure sense of liberalism (helping people), that is at odds with Orthodox Judaism, I think it just evolved in the political sense to a monster that is anti religion and anti religious people. (Besides being anti Capitalism and anti values.) I don't think this is the same movement as it was a few decades ago, and hence the Orthodox, that were all Democrat 30 years ago (my great uncle was a delegate for Carter in '76) are leaving in droves to the Republican party.) Even non Orthodox Jews are starting to come around, becoming more conservative, just on the way how liberals deals with Israel. How they are very critical of Israel's right to protect themselves. Take the side of the Arabs, and refuse to call them terrorist when they attack Israel. They support the UN, which many feel in whole is a antisemitic organization. Thus they start rethinking the policies of liberals and what attitudes causes such policies. I also see it among Jews as a substitute for Judaism (hence my comment in one of my earlier posts.)I even seen it written by a Liberal Jew suggesting to those that feel lacking in their involvement in Judaism to seek spirituality in serving at a soup kitchen. I have nothing against serving at a soup kitchen, but don't make it as a substitute to Judaism. I also feel that if it is a way to feel spiritual, it's basically done for the need of the doer and not of the receiver, thus they feel they must do something for themselves and not to solve the problem. Thus I feel a lot of liberal policies do not work, because that's not the purpose, the purpose is to feel good about yourself. It's like the boy scout that crosses the old lady the street even though she wanted to stay on her side. OK, this is what my beef with liberalism, at least how I see it practiced here in the US. Again, this is mostly out of my own opinion and not necessary the opinion of Orthodox Judaism.) |
|||
|
|
|
The mails come flying in thick and fast, and each one could be the topic of a full evening's discussion. (I'm particularly grateful for Pat Moore's interpretation, which I intend to reply to in some detail.) My own procedure at the moment is to spend a lot of time reading and reflecting, but it does mean that everything gets postponed - and is then of course superceded by the next mail and the next set of issues. (I've been reading the *Guide of the Perplexed* this whole week - which I'm not confusing with something by Alan Dershowitz at all, cross my heart - as well as Heinrich Simon: *Geschichte der jüdischen Philosophie*.)
Rav Chaim, You set up this strawman called 'pc liberalism' and 'media bias against the orthodoxy' and then beat me about the head with it, as if I'm personally responsible for all of this. This is the donkey you keep beating, hoping it will shy away. But I live in Europe, and I don't form my opinions on the basis of either local media or US media. When you speak of 'thought police', of liberal terrorists, of greenpeace, of una-bombers, of psychobabble, of Rush Limbaugh, Bernie Goldberg and a lot of other names/swearwords/topics I note them with interest - 'pointy-headed elitist liberals' was particularly noteworthy - but they have nothing to do with me, and they do not represent the level at which I'm going to enter into a debate. Perhaps we would get somewhere if you would criticise what I really *do* stand for, and where I really *do* come from, which is (besides the Dutch Jewry) the German-Jewish tradition associated with the names of Herman Cohen, Leo Baeck, Franz Rosenzweig, Walter Benjamin, Max Horkheimer, T.W. Adorno. (In Israel, Ilan Gur-Ze'ev has been promoting these ideas energetically, and to my mind even courageously: http://construct.haifa.ac.il/~ilangz/new/) There has never been a more thorough attack on the mass media than in the chapter "Culture Industry" of the *Dialectic of Enlightenment* by Horkheimer and Adorno. We are, as far as the media are concerned, - even as far as a shared conception of a deeply disturbing groundswell in the whole of the 'European Enlightenment' is concerned - *entirely in agreement.* There's no argument there at all, and none of these things can be construed as 'using secularism to disprove theology'. I mean by this: if you want to criticise my ideas, I look forward to it, but it will not help if you keep swearing at some strawman of your own making. (I may say that on my reading list there are two books which I'm hoping will tell my where *you* come from: Efron's *Real Jews: Secular versus Orthodox*, and Freedman's *Jew vs. Jew: The Struggle for the Soul of American Jewry*.) (On my shelf I also have Cohen/Susser: *Israel and the Politics of Jewish Identity*, as well as Novick's *The Holocaust in American Life*.) I'll try and write something more substantial tonight. This message has been edited. Last edited by: F van Gelder, |
|||
|
|
GY Teacher |
I did not mean the above as part of the subject (that's why I put it all in (parenthasees). I wrote clearly it has nothing to do with Judaism, just my personal views. My real point was my first paragraph saying I was just comparing an idealism you agree with with the idealism you disagree with. The rest (except maybe the last , that talks about people exchanging liberalism for Judaism) was just my personal opinion, once we were on the subject. I did not mean to offend you, sorry.
|
|||
|
|
|
I get the idea that Pat Moshe Moore has been much better at formulating the problems I have than I have myself been able to do - I got sidetracked (I realize now, looking back at the posts of last week) by the anger I felt at what seemed to me pious plattitudes in the face of the real suffering of the survivors, in the face of the real dangers threatening us with regard to Israel. His topic "Science, Medicine and Talmud" summarizes succintly the *methodological* side of this: the problem of secular/scientific knowledge versus Talmud, which I originally raised by mentioning the names of Darwin and Freud. (i.e. that whole realm of knowledge in which the certitude we feel is based not on Talmud knowledge but on advances within purely secular fields of knowledge: medicine, science, sociology, psychology, anthropology.) I keep asking myself, when insight into the necessity of maintaining a clear *distinction* between Talmud knowledge and secular knowledge is already there in RamBam (is i.e. almost a thousand years old within the Jewish tradition) why *contemporary* orthodox thought seems not to have heard of it. (That these sciences have lost their innocence is another matter - perhaps that's the key to the popular movement away from secular expertise.)
Besides: the thread of this forum was originally 'outreach', as Pat Moshe rightly reminds us, so that a great deal of this must seem like digression. I guess my original impulse was: if you *are* going to 'outreach' to the secular world, then that's hardly going to work if you're going to pretend that all secular knowledge is nonsense. At least: if that is what the Orthodox seem to be saying, then the seculars can exclaim with some justification: 'Oh boy, besides Tanach, you should maybe also read Brecht's *Life of Galileo* some time.' But then: the computer science necessary to run this list isn't in Tanach either... This message has been edited. Last edited by: F van Gelder, |
|||
|
|
GY Teacher |
I would first like to correct van gelder's assumption that the outreach community does use modern sciences to help prove Orthodox Judaism. There are plenty of Orthodox Scientist, doctors and other related fields that do not feel there is any contradictions between them. There are plenty of seminars on this, you can go to any Aish or Ohr sameach and hear a lot on this.
Secondly, on what you write " when insight into the necessity of maintaining a clear *distinction* between Talmud knowledge and secular knowledge is already there in RamBam " I would like you to write back where the Rambam write this. Thirdly, it's very clear that the Rambam's position of learning science is only after he has a very strong knowledge of Talmud, as the Ramah quotes him in Yoreh Deah 246:4. One of the reasons is in order to have a mature idea of Talmud and theology before learning these things. Besides enhancing the thinking process, it helps one from taking concepts in science the wrong way and draw the wrong conclusions. Which leads to my 4th point. this which you write "the problem of secular/scientific knowledge versus Talmud, which I originally raised by mentioning the names of Darwin and Freud", you are making 2 mistakes. First you are trying to lump science and scientific theory in the same category. Your trying to validate Darwin and Freud by linking them with pr oven scientific data. There are scientific data that has been proven over and over which are used in everyday life and is very valid and doesn't contradict Orthodox Judaism an iota, on the contrary, they help Orthodox judaism's world point, as Dr. Moore has written in an earlier post. But Darwin and Freud, not only their ideas are at best just theories, without any decisive proof, but there are plenty of debunkers of both their theories, many questions raised. (Even Freud's prize pupil went on a different way than him and embraced religion.) There are plenty Orthodox Psychiatrist that does not accept Freud and have successful practices (most notable Dr. Avraham Twersky). This leads to my next point... Why are these theories, that time and time have been questioned, are still so popular among the scientific elite and establishment, even though among individual scientist it may not be as popular? It's been the feeling of many, including myself, that the scientific community is runned by politics. The image that all the scientist want is to come out with is only the truth and nothing else, has gone by the wayside. The political consequences of debunking evolution is too hard for the establishment, that it fights the non evolutionist with such venom and political tactics, as been testified in all non evolutionary works, how they wouldn't accept to consider there works, and the tactics they do in order to bury them. Hence I wrote in an earlier post "Now, since there at least 2 sides to the story, why would one take the secular side of science and one the religious. I think the difference is where the heart is. If someone's heart is to do what's right and to be a pious Jew, there is enough evidence for design that he can be a religious Jew without any questions of the truth. But if someone's heart is not to do what's right, but to do what's easiest for him, he's prone to set up a philosophy that goes with his lifestyle" In conclusion, I want you to deal with the questions 1) Where does the Rambam write you need a distinction between other knowledge and Talmud? 2) Doesn't Rambam also write you should only venture into other knowledge only after being well verse in Talmud. 3) Is there not a difference between proven science and theories that are not proven and have many debunkers and you can't validated the theories on the coat tails of the good science? 4) Do you feel there is no politics played in the scientific community today, and not only theories that support that political point is considered? |
|||
|
|
|
quote: There are many passages in the *Guide* in which the knowledge of the 'Philosophers' is contrasted with knowledge of "the Law", i.e. of Talmud. (Where under 'Philosophy' is meant, in the first instance, the natural sciences of Rambam's day: Aristotelian physics and logic, Euclidian geometry, Ptolemaic astronomy, the medicine of Galen, as well as our 'speculation' about them.) One example, a passage in which he's drawing attention to the different forms of argumentation in science as opposed to religion: "For if the philosopher says, as he does: that which exists is my witness and by means of it we discern the necessary, the possible, and the impossible; the adherent of the Law says to him: The dispute between us is with regard to this point. For we claim that that which exists was made in virtue of will and was not a necessary consequence." (211, I, 73, in the Pines translation: U. of Chicago Press, 1963) In this passage "that which exists" is contrasted to that which is 'willed', i.e. that which is subject to Mosaic Law and its interpretation. Following Plato and Aristotle, "that which exists" includes both the 'forms' and their 'content', meaning that it includes both geometric/mathematical proof and empirical evidence in the modern sense. Both of these meanings are included in our word 'reason', which is why most scholars interpret passages such as the above as a juxtaposition of 'faith' versus 'reason', 'religion' versus 'science', 'freedom' versus 'necessity', 'revelation' versus 'logos', 'prophecy' versus 'philosophy' and so on. (e.g. "Rationality and Revelation in Maimonides' Thought" by E. Goldman, in: Pines/Yovel: *Maimondes and Philosophy*, conference papers, Jerusalem 1986; , or "Maimonides' Quest beyond Philosophy and Prophecy" by I. Gruenwald in: *Perspectives on Maimonides*, 1991, ed. J.L. Kraemer; or "Maimonides' Regels van het Gedrag en de verhouding tussen rede en traditie" [M's rules of conduct and the relationship of reason and tradition] by A. van der Heide, in: *Joodse filosofie tussen rede en traditie* [Jewish philosophy between reason and tradition], Festschrift H.J. Heering, 1993. I have’nt worked through the classic work, in two volumes of Jacob Gutmann, ed., *Moses ben Maimon: sein Leben, Seine Werke, und Sein Einfluss*, Leipzig 1908, although I intend to do so.) Of the scholars that I've consulted to date some interpret the *Guide* as an *application* of science and logic to the interpretation of the Torah, in order to "liberate men from the tormenting perplexities arising from their understanding of the Bible according only to its literal meaning", as the dustcover of the Pines/Strauss translation puts it. An example of such a reading: "The *leitmotif* of *The Guide for the Perplexed* is the application of reason to the Bible and religion. ... With Maimonides, the Bible was assumed to be true, and reason took the form of allegorical interpretation in order, as it were, to save the Scripture. Wherever a biblical passage was obviously untenable or conflicted with his philosophy, he interpreted it allegorically, claiming that the words should not be taken literally but that they had an esoteric meaning. 'Those passages in the Bible', writes Maimonides, 'which, in their literal sense, contain statements that can be refuted by proof, can and must be interpreted otherwise. Certain passages must either be allegorical or pronounced false. The Law is perfectly true when properly understood.'... The weakness of this exegesis is that it presupposes a subtlety and sophistication on the part of ancient writers that can hardly be expected. When a man writing in Palestine 2,500 years ago told the story of a miracle, he believed it literally because his primitive intellectual frame of reference gave him no reason for thinking otherwise. In other matters, Maimonides takes the scientific position that there are no miracles. Law, not caprice, regulates the universe. We must take the immutable laws of the physical world as they are and accommodate ourselves to them." [Fred Gladstone Bratton: *Maimonides, Medieval Modernist*, p. 86 ff.] Others - a more contemporary reading - emphasize a second aspect, the defence of human freedom and ethics against the encroachment of science and technology. Shlomo Pines, the translator of the Guide, favours this second, latter, interpretation, i.e. sees in the *Guide* a defence of religious tradition against the corrosive power of secular knowledge: "Philosophy is thus regarded as a dangerous temptation and a very potent one at that. From Maimonides' point of view the fascination it exercises can easily be accounted for. It is the fascination of truth. Maimonides was in a difficult predicament not so much because of the belief that he claims to hold that there can be no intellectually convincing answer to certain crucial questions, such as the temporal creation of the world, but because of his certainties; he knew, because his reason told him so, that for the greater part the Aristotelian doctrines were wholly true." (Pines, p. lviii) i.e. there are two complementary approaches to the *Guide*: the one emphasises the use of scholarship and reason to clarify passages in the Bible which are indecipherable or in clear contradiction to science, the other sees in the *Guide* a defence of free will and human autonomy in the face of encroachment by science and rationalism. (today we would say encroachment by the military-industrial complex.) (It is the 'dialectic' of these two approaches - to defend 'the transcendental' against secular knowledge and secular knowledge against too much traditionalism - that leads straight to modern philosophy.) Nowhere however, and that is the point, does one find anyone who defends, in all seriousness, the notion that Rambam rejects the concrete results of secular knowledge in favour of a *literal* interpretation of Talmud. If a modern medic says: it is impossible to maintain that one kidney promotes the impulse for evil, the other for good - you had better (and Rambam would) accept that fact. If an anthropologist says that a humanoid fossil has been found and has been dated at over 3 million years, you had better (and Rambam would) accept that fact. If a historian says that the Nazis would not have risen to power without the crash of 1929, or the provisions of the Versaille treaty of 1918, you had better (and Rambam would) accept that fact. If a psychologist says that what happens to children in their early years is decisive for their character, you had better (etc.) accept that fact. The reason why you do this is the same one that convinced Rambam to accept Aristotle's logic - you make yourself and the Jewish faith ridiculous in the eyes of the world if you don't, and in the process weaken Judaism substantially. The only alternative is to take it upon yourself to go through the training of a surgeon, or physiologist, or anthropologist, or psychologist, and then prove the whole tradition wrong - a tall order. quote: He writes that it is not for the simple of soul. Pines again: "The introduction to the *Guide* makes it clear that philosophic science may be dangerous; that the study of philosophy, or of its rudiments, may bring about that state of perplexity - due to an unresolved conflict between religious tradition and nonreligious knowledge - which gives the book its name; that strict precautions must be taken with a view to keeping the average reader, who is also an average man, in the dark concerning the philosophic solution propounded by Maimonides." (p. lviii) Since I lectured in philosophy for many years I cannot say that the reading of Maimonides has plunged me into confusion - it has rather awakened my interest in one of the greatest thinkers of the (my) Jewish tradition, while strengthening my resolve to defend him again those who dislike his anti-traditionalism but are afraid to show just how un-Jewish their opposition really is. Pines – who I keep quoting because he is the translator of the *Guide* and one of the most respected of the Rambam scholars – interprets the obvious tension which exists between the *Guide* and the *Mishneh* as a consequence of M’s reception of al-Farabi, whom he held in high esteem, and caused in him a crisis which he solved in a way eminently modern: “Maimonides held al-Farabi in higher esteem than any other Arabic philosopher; and the effect which the Commentary and the other texts quoted above has had on M may have been comparable to that produced by Hume on Kant; he may have been awakened by them from dogmatic slumber and have adopted as a consequence a critical (rather than a sceptical) philosophy, according to which only the sciences that deal with the sublunar world may be claimed to be certain. Metaphysics, conceived as the knowledge of God and other immaterial entities, transcend the human understanding.” [Pines: “Maimonides’ Halachic Works and the Guide of the Perplexed” in: Pines/Yovel: *Maimonides and Philosophy*, p. 11/12.] No one who understands anything about philosophy can fail to see those aspects in M's thought which are an adaptation of the Greek classics, or those aspects which will lead, a couple of centuries later, to Spinoza and Kant. Some time before the French Revolution a certain Polish Jew - out of admiration for Rambam - changes his name to Salomon Maimon, moves to Berlin and writes a celebrated critique of Kant. Kant himself reads this work and proclaims "that not a single one of his critics had understood himself or his work as well as here." [Löwenthal: *Judaica, Vorträge, Briefe*, vol. 4 p. 19.] Salomon Maimon's book, published 1789, *Versuch über die Transcendentalphilosophie*, [Speculations about transcendental philosophy] is a critique of Kant which is still taught *today*, and can be found on the internet under http://tiss.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de/webroot/fp/fpsfr01_W0304/seminarmaterial.html#VTP In it one can pick out, argument for argument, the points where he is obviously indebted to Rambam. All of that is supposed to be possible on the basis of a reading of the *Guide* which sees in it a defence of a literal Talmud interpretation against science and mathematics? quote: If this peculiar sentence is meant to imply that the *existence* of a debunker indicates the *truth* of what such person is saying - without actually examining in detail what it is that is at issue - one would have to accept the thesis that the earth is flat for no other reason than that we *know* that there are 'debunkers' who claim that the earth is not a sphere. Rav Chaim's logic here has gone, to use his metaphor, 'MIA'. quote: Please explain to Dr. Moore why his rejection of the proposition that the kidneys are the seat of our impulses towards good and evil is 'political'. Please explain to Yad Vashem why their rejection of the anthropomorphic nonsense according to which Hitler was an angel of God is 'political'. I have another suggestion, while we are on the topic of political influences. Dan Diner, a historian from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, argues in a recent book (*Gedaechtniszeiten - ueber juedische und andere Geschichten*, 2003) that the real reason why Jewish fundamentalism professes such horror of secular knowledge is political: they are not prepared to debate the premise: 'land for peace'. What they want instead is a new Massada. This message has been edited. Last edited by: F van Gelder, |
|||
|
|
GY Teacher |
First thing, I must commend you for finally writing some
answers . (Although they are not correct, at least I have something to respond to.) On topic #1 you bring s quote from the Guide and a lot of gobblygook from everyone else. I will answer your quote from the Guide. There is definitely no contradiction between the philosophers and the Law. The philosophers are defining the laws of nature and the Law explains why they exist. I'm sitting at my computer. It exists all right. It has a certain geometric shape, weight and other natural prpoperties. Yet it doesn't tell met how it got here. Thus you need the Law to tell us how it came to existence. Just because you give claim to these "scholars" and apply great adjectives to them why, in their humble opinions why the Rambam wrote what he wrote, does not add any legitimacy to the argument. I thought we agreed that we'll argue only in logic and not with name droppings (or any other droppings). Just giving them names like "contemporary" or the like, has zero meaning to me. Also, don't "talk" for the Rambam what he would do or not. You have no proof whatsoever for such speculation, and it's disingenuous to do so. In one that is quoted "Those passages in the Bible', writes Maimonides, 'which, in their literal sense, contain statements that can be refuted by proof, can and must be interpreted otherwise" The one who wrote the above passage is completely clueless of Talmud and Medrish literature. Any child that started learning any of this can tell you how the Bible is not to be learned in a literal sense, the pages are full of them. This is not the Rambam's invention. It's only a Christian idea to take it literally. (and also other Jewish wannabees like the Karaites (Karayim), who where Rambam's main opponents and for against their influence he wrote the *"Guide"* for, and the Reform) About your tirade on what we must accept from *"the scientific community"*, I will deal more about it in points #3 and 4 but I'll comment first on the whole feel of the statement. It sounds like a person who wants power and is having a tirade why nobody accepts everything that he said hands down. If people question his ideas and motives behind them, he's at a lost, and can't deal with the critics. He just jumps up and down that nobody listens to him. One point I won't get into later, so I'll do it here. You wrote ". If a historian says that the Nazis would not have risen to power without the crash of 1929". Are you saying the Holocaust happened because there was a market crash. Now I'm now going to play the part of the "pointy head intellectual". It's a proven "fact" that a market crash causes 6 million dead Jews. There was a market crash at the same time in America. So now I have Historical evidence that there were 6 million Jews killed in the USA from 1940-45. I'm sure if you do anthropological work around Utah you'll find it. Topic #2 You did not answer this question at all! My question was: did the Rambam said that you shouldn't go into the sciences until one is an expert in the Torah? I didn't ask if he must of reached a certain I.Q.. You can be very smart, but without the maturity, you still can be lead astray from the truth. This is SO evident in today's colleges, where you have a lot of bright students, but very immature (as a famous philosopher calls them "skulls full of mush") They go to school for a few months, they think they have all the answers to all the world problems. They think the older generation are a bunch of fools bumbling through the way they're running the world, and when there turn comes they'll turn the world right. Thankfully, eventually a few years in the real world changes most of their perception 180 degrees and they become normal again. The rest become college professors and teaches that junk to the next generation of students and start the cycle all over again. This is why the Rambam warns against learning to early without the proper background in Torah, because without it can warp your thinking. This which you said you skipped that step, doesn't mean the Rambam didn't give the warning. You can be the reason why the Rambam gave the warning in the first place. I have no doubt that the Rambam would disagree with you . Topic #3 about the debunkers, which you wrote "to imply that the *existence* of a debunker indicates the *truth* of what such person is saying - without actually examining in detail what it is that is at issue ". First of all, why should anybody take "your word" over anybody else's These debunkers come from at least as good as experts as you quote, if not better. You seem to bring up the name Freud a lot, as if his view is "the word". I had a chat with a psychologist (who is a student of mine in a night Talmud study group) over the holidays, and he told me that nobody takes Freud's idea seriously for over a half a century (it should of been enough time for you to hear of it). Psychology isn't an exact science, and there are many views on many issues, which you cannot prove. period. This is a point which you are ignoring over and over. "Science" (The so called scientific community) has lost it's innocence. The time they can have their tirade of saying you must believe everything we say since we are the "experts" are long gone. (I'm sure youlong for the old days again). Nobody bows anymore to name dropping of Freud and Darwin, as they shouldn't be. There was a book I recommended to you in the beginning of our dialogue that raises many question about Darwin, not to mention my own personal question I wrote you, which you never answered to date. As science gets more complex, there becomes less and less room for these (no pun intended) dinosaurs can hide. You can stand on your soapbox screaming "I'm correct and my debunkers are wrong" but this is no use, no one is listening. There are too many experiments fudged and perimeters of proof changed to fit their "beliefs" to give full faith in the "science establishment". Especially, since the debunkers write their arguments in plain English, which is easily absorbed by the intelligent masses. It makes plenty of sense to them. Without any viable answer from the "establishment" still hoping to have their "names" to be enough proof that they are correct. When you write "If an anthropologist says that a humanoid fossil has been found and has been dated at over 3 million years, you had better (and Rambam would) accept that fact." Well, what happens when other does the "heretical" thing and questions the anthropologist on his dating techniques. Does the scientific community bend their ears to listen, or they try politically to destroy and quiet there critics? When you say ." If a psychologist says that what happens to children in their early years is decisive for their character, you had better (etc.) accept that fact." What happens if 150 psychologists give 150 things what happens to children in their early years is decisive for their character , which should you listen to ( of course we should all drop to van Gelder's feet that he should settle it for us.) So, my logic is found again, and thank G-d, it's in good shape. (Now if we can just get a hold of van Gelder's, and this debate will be in good shape) The question is again: who is authorotive? which leads into topic #4... Is this all political? It seems so at my vantage point. What you brought from Dr. Moore (who is both a believer in G-d and an orthodox Jew), so we already dealt with it in that forum that either the medicine of the Talmud was only based on the medicine of the time. That the Rabbis where not doctors nor that medicine is Per Se part of the Oral Law. Just put in the Talmud so that people should know how to leave healthy lives (according to the medicine of the day) so they can lead productive lives. It's not an interpretation of the Law. The other way it's talking in the spiritual sense, about the resting place of the soul, which would seem the most probable with a careful reading of that passage. I have no reason to explain my position to Yad V'shem. They might be historians, but definitely not theologians, as I pointed out countless times before. At least the others you quoted before, even if they aren't correct, at least they have some expertise in the field. But what expertise do they have in theology. They can say the market crash or a treaty that Germany got the short end caused the death of 6 million Jews, but these phenomena happened a lot of other places in history, but didn't lead to million of dead Jews. Especially in the so called "civilised world". The last point you bring, just strengthens my view that there is a strong connection between the far left liberalism and secular Judaism. I mean, the "peace process" is Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton written all over it. Especially from someone who allegedly went through the Holocaust, shouldn't sound so much like a Chamberlanly appeaser. |
|||
|
 |
Dear Rav Chaim,
I looked through this whole most interesting discussion, especially as it touches quite a bit of sore nerves for many people, including myself. I do consider myself a Torah Jew and a student of Torah, even though I only observe Shabbat at home and do not go to the shul for the Shabbat services: there are plenty of members in our shul to make up a minyan. I grew up in the Soviet times in Russia, and therefore my parents did not have the luxury of having me, like you are saying, start learning Torah at the age of 5 and Talmud by 10. Like all Soviet children, I went to a Soviet public school, and then to a college. My favorite subjects were physics and philosophy - the only two subjects available to a Jew interested in the Torah. You probably won't believe me, but even for learning Hebrew - even more so for learning Torah - I could be expelled from school, college, sent to the infamous Soviet psychiatrtic penitentiary system, from which there was no return. When we would come to the synagogue on Simchas Torah, we had to be very careful not to be seen by the Communist and Comsomol leaders of the college, work place, etc. I started learning Hebrew when I was married, because it coinsided with Gorbachev's perestroika, when it became OK. The reason I am telling you all this is to explain that some people may have had a late start in Judaism, and saying that children in your school know the dogmas that adults are attemtping to bridge to from what they know from the secular knowledge is not very respectful of others, which is not what I understand the Law commands us to show, and - well, it sounds very much like "my way or high way" - no offence intended. Believe me, Orthodox Judaism does not at all need to go on the defensive. Every new discovery of modern science (mathematics, physics, chemistry, medicine, and yes, even biology) is confirming what the Torah says, even if it appears to contradict the *letter* of the Talmud. What's much more important is that modern science does not contradict the *spirit* in which the Talmud was written; nor does it contradict the precepts of Jewish metaphysical studies and Kabbalah. The Talmud was compiled in the 7th century CE; where does Talmud forbid us to use electricity on Shabbat? And let us not forget that the late Lubavitscher Rebbe earned a degree in mathematics from Sorbonne. And another case in point: why did it take so long to compile the Talmud - wasn't it because the understanding of the interpretation of the Torah portions that are discussed there was changing with the new knowledge coming in? I am not talking about the Oral Torah; I am talking about the interpretation of the Written and Oral Torah. This overprotectiveness of our Jewish faith and - pardon me, but it is my honest opinion, and I am hoping to find an honest discussion on this forum - too literal reading of the Talmud, are causing people to learn Kabbalah before they know Torah in their search for Jewish spirituality and Jewish ethics. As a result, the Talmud ends up getting totally missed. Not every non-Orthodox Jew is such because of mercantile inclinations. Not all secular Jews worship the Mighty Dollar. Not all Gentiles are waiting for us Jews to stagger. And not all European Jews turned away from serving Hashem by 1929. By saying that the Holocaust was God's punishment for the Reform movement, we are insulting the memory of those righteous Jews who were murdered in the Sho'ah. It is also an insult to the memory of those Jews who died fighting against the Nazis to save the millions of lives of Jews an Gentiles; how many of them wore kippoth and Tzitziyoth in the trenches of Stalingrad? How many of them said "Sh'ma" on the beaches of Normandy? For me, they are Tzsaddikim, even if they never lit a Shabbat candle, because they made it possible for us to do that. Rav Chaim, I agree with you when you say that the people are responsible for the Holocaust. But it is not the innocent Jews who "angered" God. People like Elie Wiesel, who went through it and survived, have every right, in my very humble opinion, to keep God responsible. For the rest of us - it's blasphemy. If we say that God caused, or did not prevent, the Holocaust, how can we not blame Him for allowing Cain to wipe out one-third of the male human population of the Earth, and His favored one-third at that? We don't, because Cain made his choice to murder Abel, despite God's warnings. The human race is grown-up now, at almost 6,000 years of age. Our Father gives advice, but does not watch our every step, like He did when we were babies and toddlers. *We* are responsible when we don't stop the other "us" from coming to power and murdering the rest of us. Sorry if I offended anyone. This message has been edited. Last edited by: Alex, |
|||
|
|
GY Teacher |
Dear Alex,
First, I would like to welcome you to the forum. To your points, when you wrote "especially as it touches quite a bit of sore nerves for many people". I was kind of surprised why this ruffles people's feathers so much. Honestly, when I wrote it, I thought it to be just as an answer to my position, which my opponent doesn't recognize anyhow. In other words, that if he held there is no G-d, why should he care if a believer held his views is a cause for punishment. Either your a believer of Toras Moshe, and you are anyhow Orthodox, so it's not offensive to you, or you disagree with the whole premise, and therefore what I write is wrong. So where does the sore nerves come from? I know Christians believe that I would burn eternally, but that doesn't bother me. Let them think what they want to think, it doesn't change reality. So I'm surprised at the hard feelings. When you wrote "saying that children in your school know the dogmas that adults are attempting to bridge to from what they know from the secular knowledge is not very respectful of others" my point was not to be disrespectful. It was to respond to my opponent's quoting supposedly "authoritative scholar" on the Rambam, which seem to claim that the Rambam was going "out on a limb" to explain Scriptures not like the plain meaning, because of his need to reconcile Torah to "science" (Thus they, who do not hold the Torah as being from G-d, needs not to push in any of these forced explanation and can conclude the Torah is wrong ). To this I responded that it's so rudimentary and elementary that Scriptures are not necessary to be kept in literal manner, that it's obvious that the "scholar" has no knowledge of Talmud literature. Which raises the question: How can anybody claim to be a scholar of Rambam without being an expert in Talmud, not to mention being completely ignorant of Talmud. Thus van Gelder accepting him as an authoritative voice on the Rambam is the blind leading the blind. (thus I use the example of "that every kid knows" to show that this can't be an honest overlook from an obscure place in the Talmud, it's something very fundamental) When you wrote "Orthodox Judaism does not at all need to go on the defensive. Every new discovery of modern science (mathematics, physics, chemistry, medicine, and yes, even biology) is confirming what the Torah says". This should be true. But the problem is that it depends more on the P.R. and who's running the establishment. As you know from growing up in the U.S.S.R., that if you have the propaganda machines out there spewing out the "party line" there is not a lot of truth that can go through. Here also, these discoveries do not make it into High School text books or onto the science page in the N.Y. Times. They are buried in science journals until the time comes when they can answer it according to their beliefs. It's only because religious scientist, from all religions, and even a few secular ones, are trying to get the word out, do we ever see the light of these discoveries.( At least this is what seems to me to be the case.) When you wrote "By saying that the Holocaust was God's punishment for the Reform movement, we are insulting the memory of those righteous Jews who were murdered in the Sho'ah." I had responded to this question earlier in the in the posts, and due to the miracle of copy and paste, I'll bring it here  ."To answer your question about the Orthodox that died during the war (I was actually waiting for Dr. van Gelder to ask this), you can use the same reason I brought in the last post. Once the "destroyer" was given permission to destroy he doesn't differentiate between the righteous and wicked. Compare this with the gemarah in Shabbos 32a which says that when someone is in a situation of peril, it is much easier for him to be judged for death than in normal situations.Another possible answer is in Gemora Shabbos 55a: One who has the ability to protest a sin and doesn't gets the same punishment as he who actually sinned" To understand the first answer I'll bring down the earlier post (dealing with children)Your question about why children suffered is a fair question. The reason that Hashem has to let such a thing happen, is because the way the world is set up, you can't punish an adult without punishing everyone around him. We live in a very interconnected world, thus, without open miracles, you can't separate the two. In Shmos Chapter 12 verse 22 Rashi says that once permission was given for the "destroyer" to destroy, he doesn't differentiate between the righteous and the wicked. This is also done in any criminal system. If you send the father to jail, aren't you making his kids suffer? We shouldn't be sending anybody to jail? Now, a child, in the way the world works, is totally dependent on his parents. Many times that would put them in certain perils. Do you expect Hashem to give children only to the best parents? The world runs by the nature that Hashem commanded it, and everybody gets to run their lives as they feel fit, and ruin other lives for that case. The same way that Hashem lets people hurt other people, this is part of the interconnected world he put us on. So you can understand, that when one sins, and causes punishment on themselves, or a city sins and causes punishment upon themselves, when the havoc comes in, it will directly affect other people. This is what the Talmud means by the statement "woe to the sinner and woe to his neighbor". In D'varim Chapter 24 verse 16 Rashi comments that small children die for the sins of their parents (why this happens, I personally didn't look into it, but at least in Talmudic thought there is such a concept). There is also a concept in Kabbalah of "Gilgulim", souls that come back to this world in a reincarnated form, to receive punishment for the sins they did in their past life, so they can then be let into heaven. These children could possibly be punished for something they did in their past lives. This would also answer The last Rashi I brought down. " I would also have to argue with what you wrote "People like Elie Wiesel, who went through it and survived, have every right, in my very humble opinion, to keep God responsible." My grandfather went through Auschwitz and he never talked like this. He just said that we can't understand why Hashem does things. Of course, I would never bring up this theory to him, but he doesn't need it. Finally, your question "why did it take so long to compile the Talmud" The reason is because it was supposed to be kept Orally (to make it more intense to learn, so we would be more involved). When they felt that the scholarship dropped and a need to write it down lest it would be forgotten, that's when they compiled the Talmud Electricity is a long subject, and it's basically a comparison to existing laws (either it's fire (which a physicist once told me that the more he studies electricity, he's convinced it's fire) or it's either building or creating a vessel,(before using the electronic device, it was a non usable object, now, by connecting the circuit, you are now making it usable, like winding a watch) or some hold it's only rabbinical like they decreed on making any new "power" on Shabbos (Molad) because it looks like your making something. If you can get a hold of Rabbi Ribiat's 39 Malachos book, I think he writes about it at length, and he's very understandable |
|||
|