Saving A Life
I had an interesting conversation with a relatively new friend of mine recently. He referenced the whole Noah Feldman incident, where apparently Feldman criticized a Talmudic statement that a Jew may only break shabbos to save a gentile’s life on shabbos in order to prevent Jews from being killed in retaliation for not helping them. Apparently, there was a lot of yelling and screaming at Feldman that he was lying or taking it out of context, and my friend is a smart man, and knew that this wasn’t the case. And he asked me, “How am I supposed to see [traditional] Judaism as relevant? Because many of us hear things like that, and don’t feel Judaism is relevant to us.�
That made me quite sad, as even though I have plenty of issues with traditional Judaism, I think that’s where the action is. If there is no relevance to traditional Judaism, there is no relevance to being Jewish anymore period.
But I put that out of my mind, and thought about his first question.
My answer was basically as follows:
The rabbis of the Talmud did not really believe that a gentile’s life is not worth breaking shabbos for. Rather, they absolutely saw this as something everyone had to do. The rabbis believed that all people were created in the image of God. But the rabbis of the Talmud had a problem. They had a right-wing element that consistently saw to devalue gentiles, perhaps even to the point where the Torah concept of tzelem-Elokim, the idea that all people are created in the image of God, was undermined and compromised.
And the rabbis could not risk dissent on such an important issue as saving a life. Not a Jewish life; not a gentile life. For the Jews, this would be easier. After all, the Torah says you should live by the mitvahs. You should live by the mitzvahs, and not die from them. This was an exemption (except when dependent on breaking the big three cardinal sins: murder, sexual immorality, idol worship) that no person should die because of adherence to Jewish law.
But how does one convey the importance of saving a gentile life to preempt dissent from the radicals?
The answer was to connect saving all lives to saving Jewish lives. This would preempt the radicals from being able to claim they were too left-wing. It would preempt a second opinion from the radicals.
“Then why didn’t they say that?� He asked. Not the Talmud rabbis, but today’s Modern Orthodox rabbis, the kind of rabbis who ultimately hold the reigns of normative Judaism.
The answer is that they don’t publicly say it to for similar reason to why the Talmudic rabbis couldn’t say it. They would be roundly condemned by the far-right as “not really frum.”
But saving a gentile’s life on shabbos is universally accepted. Now they should just state the real reason.
55 comments
I’m so glad to hear this, and I sincerely hope you’re right.
Now why the hell didn’t you tell me this all those times I was bitching about my Chabadnik nephew who thinks that gentiles don’t have souls?
I am a Reform Jew and member of a Congregation in Overland Park, Kansas. I agree with your analysis. All I would add is what our Rabbi mentioned in Torah Study; it is an overarching principal in Judaism to save a life if one is able, the exceptions being as you stated.
You may or may be right, we have no way to know. What i am wondering is how little do you think of the rabbis who wrote the gemara. If they themselves didnt believe it and were merely being pressured into doing it, you truely believe they would codify something that would be the basis of jewish law purely for those reasons? I understand if it was some side book, but this is the talmud we are talking about. I find it very hard to believe
Judaisms stance on health and healing is that ideally, these things should be left in Gods hands. Non-interference. He made the guy sick, let him make him better. Or not. There’s a specific scriptural verse which is taken as giving permission for a doctor to heal ורפ×? ירפ×? although some Rabbis, if I remember right the Ramban and the Gaon say that a man of faith should preferably not use doctors and rely on God. For people who believe in God and hashgocho protis, leaving a person in Gods hands is neither cruel nor a lack of respect for life. If God wants someone dead, he’ll die. Trying to save him is futile. Or worse, as part of free will God will allow him to live even though he should’ve died and it would be better if he had died. From a religious perspective, God putting someone into a life threatening situation where you are forbidden to save him is the same as putting him in a life threatening situation where it’s impossible to save him. In both cases, it’s Gods will that the person not be saved. Whether it’s saving a religious jewish person with idolatry or a non jewish person through sabbath desecration is just petty technicalities.
Mohammed thinks we’re adherents to Christian Science.
All those Jewish doctors going to waste…
Trying to save him is futile… It’s Gods will that the person not be saved.
Source please? TM is one to something here; mohammed seems to be reading some lost book of Talmud.
The Ramban based those beliefs on a line from Berachot 60a that says, essentially, that it is not the way of men to use medicines. The Ramban took that to mean that people of faith would go to see a navi to be cured of their illness- not that they should just sit home and wait it out to see if God really wanted them dead.
Incidentally, the Ramban was known to wear amulets- idolatry- and believe in occult cures, in discordance with the Rambam’s view that they were worthless.
According to biographer Sherman Nuland, in the Rambam’s time, approx. half of the Jewish physicians were also rabbis (but it was considered gauche for one to earn a living as a rabbi in that era). My, how the times do change.
Polj
Source for what? You can look at the commentaries on ורפ×? ירפ×?- מכ×?ן ×©× ×™×ª×Ÿ רשות לרופ×? לרפ×?ות
You can look at the gemoro of חזקיהו ×’× ×– ספר הרפו×?ות
You can also look at מסילת ישרי×?/חובות הלבבות
on the difference between השתדלות and בטחון
There are also commentaries that learn טוב שברופ×?×™×? ×œ×’×™×”× ×? along those lines.
mohammed,
Times change. The medicine of today is exponentially superior to that of the Talmud’s time, which as we know, was quite flawed, and we know that from false statements the Talmud made about both medicine and sicence. So even if you learn the sugyas that way, it is a different situation by far.
Fran, I am giving the rabbis credit for shrewdness and latent universalism. This is hardly thinking little of them at all. It is thinking little of the zealots they had to contend with.
DK
I think what I said was logical, or at any rate, theological. I can’t see how the efficacy of the medicine would make any difference.
DK, considering your interest in intellectual rigor, don’t you think it’s at least a little incongruent that you look at what we may identify as a talmudic “problem” and just — notwithstanding any expertise demonstrated on your part of mastery of their milieu, nor any textual or other historical proof that the dynamic or dialogue or contratemps that you describe ever took place — and notwithstanding the wealth of not only orthodox but “bona fide academic” scholarship about the period and the texts — just fricking wing it? It’s like a parody of the way critics of Jewish tradition imagine the Tanach and the Talmud were written!
Dude, you’re just WINGING IT!
David, WADR your conjecture is anachronistic. In order to discern Chazal’s underlying intent and motivation — i.e. Is the exception rooted in concern for non-jewish life or Jewish life(for fear that goyim will not save Jews)? - - we need to analyze this law in the context Chazal’s other halachas applicable to non jews. When one does so, one can see that these halachas are part of a pattern that consistently de-values and denigrates the life of the OTHER. As difficult as it is for us to come to terms with our tradition’s bigotry and chauvinism (something Christianity and Islam adopted) we must confront these issues honestly and condemn the theological underpinnings that have resulted in such unconscionable laws.
If you want to contextualize the halacha forbidding one to desecrate Shabbat to save the life of a non–jew unless there is a danger that a failure to do so will cause animosity, one should consider the following halachas:
1.A Jew who murders a gentile is not punishable by death in the human courts
2. A non —jew who kills a Jew, even purely by accident and unintentionally, must be put to death. This applies to a ger toshav as well.
3.It is forbidden to save a gentile who is in mortal danger or cure him from a fatal condition, even for payment, unless there is a danger that a failure to do so will cause animosity towards Jews.
4.If a Jew is chasing a gentile in order to murder him, it is forbidden to kill the Jew in order to save the gentile, even if there is no other way to save the gentile’s life. A person who kills the Jewish pursuer in order to save the gentile’s life must be put to death. But if a gentile (or a Jew) is chasing a Jew in order to murder him, one must kill the pursuer in order to save the pursued person (if there is no other way to save his life). This law applies to a ger toshav as well.
5.A gentile, as opposed to a Jew, can be sentenced to death in a court of law by a single judge, based on the testimony of a single witness or on the defendant’s own addmission, with no prior warning, even if the witness is a relative [of either the judge or the victim]. This applies to a ger toshav as well.
6.The death penalty may be imposed on one (Jew or gentile) who abducts a Jew, but not on a Jew who abducts a gentile.
nice to see all those quotations of jewish law without sources…got sources K.A.N.?
KAN, why do you use the term Chazal — the acronym (for those who came in late) for “our Sages of Blessed Memory) — when you quite clearly do not consider their memory quite so blessed, and indeed seem quite contemptuous of them? Isn’t that somewhat misleading, for an “awareness” guy?
Now, as to the substance of your post, don’t you think, given your interest in full disclosure and “awareness,” that it would be appropriate to mention that the halachos you have listed all apply only in such times as we have not experienced in nearly 2000 years, namely when there is a Bais HaMikdash standing, and there are open miracles taking place on a daily basis? Speaking of anachronism, after all! These select halachos (and I am not sure all of them are actually halacha peshuta — are paskening out of the Rambam or the Aruch HaShulcah L’Asid Lavo, or just the gemara? you have skimped on the references) are premised on a metaphysical / ethical reality that simply has no bearing on the one we live in today.
You are also anachronistic and guilty of historicism in your use of the phrase “our tradition’s bigotry and chauvinism (something Christianity and Islam adopted),” which leaves one with the false impression that Jewish sensibility was unique in its lack of modern-day openness to differing traditions, ethnicities and beliefs and that the gentle peoples of Islam and Christendom were made to tuck away their natural gentility (so to speak) and to harshen up to meet Jewish standards. No one with any understanding of the ancient and antique worlds would ever make such a suggestion.
What other “awareness” do you have for us today?
Should be halacha pesuka (”definitively decided halacha”).
>>.KAN, why do you use the term Chazal — the acronym (for those who came in late) for “our Sages of Blessed Memory) — when you quite clearly do not consider their memory quite so blessed, and indeed seem quite contemptuous of them? Isn’t that somewhat misleading, for an “awareness� guy?
Are you trying to score points? Your gibes are unnecessary, inappropriate and certainly of no substance to the matter at hand. These along with your adversarial and defensive tone belie any openness or good will. You need to do your own Cheshbon on this; I am certainly not going to offer my armchair psychology.
>>>Now, as to the substance of your post, don’t you think, given your interest in full disclosure and “awareness,� that it would be appropriate to mention that the halachos you have listed all apply only in such times as we have not experienced in nearly 2000 years, namely when there is a Bais HaMikdash standing, and there are open miracles taking place on a daily basis? Speaking of anachronism, after all!
Some of these are indeed relevant today, like the saving of a non-Jew on shabbos. It was this very halacha that prompted me to provide the above noted additional halachas so that context could be provided regarding the value placed on non-Jewish life by Chazal AND these other halachas clearly demonstrate that Chazal did not value non-jewish human life. Therefore, whether or not these laws are of modern day import is not relevant to this issue.
Furthermore, the laws without modern day import WILL BE applicable when a Jewish theocracy is reestablished al pi halach . Consider, for example, what the Tur in Yoreh Deah 158 wrote, “When the Jews are on their land, a non-Jew who falls into a hole or a dangerous place–one who sees him does not have to help him up…in any case, they do not put him down the hole on their own.” Since most human beings would find that this and other halachas shock the conscience, I could see how non-religious Jews would consider the Orthodox fundamentalist tradition to be irrelevant. I’m sure you had no idea about these halachas, as well as other hateful and bigoted attitudes, before you became frum, as most morally and emotionally developed people would find these views and laws unacceptable.
And another point: Whether these halachas apply in the past or future or today, Ultra Orthodox Rabbis (Aish is Ultra Orthodox) consider these halachas to be morally just and the will of a faultless and righteous creator. I find this disturbing. If you think otherwise, I would challenge you to find an Orthodox Rav who will (or who has) publicly issue(d) a statement with regard to the noted halachas that affirms in substance the following:
1. These laws were never meant to be applied and will never be applied at any time in the future. Therefore, these laws are of no practical import
2. The laws themselves, if they were to be applied to non - - - jews, are inhuman, unconscionable and deeply chauvinist. As such, we expurgate these halachas from the tradition.
FYI, I wrote about this issues in a recent post regarding Modern Western Morality vs Orthodox Jewish Morality :
>>> These select halachos (and I am not sure all of them are actually halacha peshuta — are paskening out of the Rambam or the Aruch HaShulcah L’Asid Lavo, or just the gemara? you have skimped on the references) are premised on a metaphysical / ethical reality that simply has no bearing on the one we live in today.
Here are your references:
1.A Jew who murders a gentile is not punishable by death in the human courts Mishna, Tractate Makkot 2:3, Sanhedrin 9:2, Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 57a, Avodah Zarah 13b,Maimonides, Laws of Murder and the Saving of Lives 1:1, chapter 2, 5:4, 10
Maimonides, Laws of Idolatry chapter 10
2. A non —jew who kills a Jew, even purely by accident and unintentionally, must be put to death. This applies to a ger toshav as well.
3.It is forbidden to save a gentile who is in mortal danger or cure him from a fatal condition, even for payment, unless there is a danger that a failure to do so will cause animosity towards Jews. Avodah Zarah 26a, 64b; Pesachim 21b, Rashi on Pesachim 21b;Maimonides, Laws of Idolatry chapter 10
4.If a Jew is chasing a gentile in order to murder him, it is forbidden to kill the Jew in order to save the gentile, even if there is no other way to save the gentile’s life. ………………). This law applies to a ger toshav as well. Minchat Chinuch commandment 600
5.A gentile, as opposed to a Jew, can be sentenced to death in a court of law by a single judge, based on the testimony of a single witness or on the defendant’s own addmission, with no prior warning, even if the witness is a relative [of either the judge or the victim]. This applies to a ger toshav as well. Sanhedrin 57b, Maimonides, Laws of Kings 9:14
6.The death penalty may be imposed on one (Jew or gentile) who abducts a Jew, but not on a Jew who abducts a gentile. Sifrei Devarim piska 273, Maimonides, Laws of Theft chapter 9
If you have some metaphysical explanation I would love to hear it. The laws are anything but metaphysical and the yare certainly not ethical.
Practical application aside- these laws are reprehensible. They should be condemned. What kind of a lesson do you think we teach our children with laws on the books like this, whether they are enforced or not. Just talking about human beings in this way is morally problematic and deeply troubling.
Please be honest. I understand the need to engage in apologetics on these sensitive matters, but BT’s have a right to know about these ugly aspect of our tradition
>>> which leaves one with the false impression that Jewish sensibility was unique in its lack of modern-day openness to differing traditions, ethnicities and beliefs and that the gentle peoples of Islam and Christendom were made to tuck away their natural gentility (so to speak) and to harshen up to meet Jewish standards.
I don’t think this is a false impression. Lets take a look at the historical precedents (700 to 1000 years before Chazal) regarding treatment of the OTHER left by ancient world powers in India (Ashoka) and Persia (Cyrus). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
5th century bce Perisa under Cyrus: Laws and attitudes toward the *OTHER*
1000 years before Chazal, there was precedent for the concept of equal rights for all ethic groups. “The Achaemenid Persian Empire of ancient Iran established unprecedented principles of human rights in the 6th century BC under Cyrus the Great. After his conquest of Babylon in 539 BC, the king issued the Cyrus cylinder….. The cylinder declared that citizens of the empire would be allowed to practice their religious beliefs freely. It also abolished slavery,……. These two reforms were reflected in the biblical books of Chronicles and Ezra, which state that Cyrus released the followers of Judaism from slavery and allowed them to migrate back to their land. …[Most significant] In the Persian Empire, citizens of all religions and ethnic groups were also given the same rights, while women had the same rights as men.â€?
3rd century bce. India: Laws and attitudes toward the *OTHER*
3rd century bce. India, 700 years before Chazal, provides another interesting contrast to Talmudic morality “The Maurya Empire of ancient India established unprecedented principles of civil rights in the 3rd century BC under Ashoka the Great. During his reign, he pursued an official policy of nonviolence (ahimsa) and the protection of human rights, as his chief concern was the happiness of his subjects…………..…. offered common citizens free education at universities. He treated his subjects as equals regardless of their religion, politics or caste, and constructed free hospitals for both humans and animals. Ashoka defined the main principles of nonviolence, tolerance of all sects and opinions, obedience to parents, respect for teachers and priests, being liberal towards friends, humane treatment of servants, and generosity towards all. These reforms are described in the Edicts of Ashoka.
In the Maurya Empire, citizens of all religions and ethnic groups also had rights to freedom, tolerance, and equality. The need for tolerance on an egalitarian basis can be found in the Edicts of Ashoka, which emphasize the importance of tolerance in public policy by the government. The slaughter or capture of prisoners of war was also condemned by Ashoka. Slavery was also non-existent in ancient India.�
Ron,
If you really soul searched on the issue, I would think that your response would have been completely different. Instead, you responded defensively and apologetically. In contrast, please contemplate the unapologetic and truthful, yet pained, response of R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, a Gadol B’Torah and a man of gadlus. On September 19, 1957, he poignantly writes:
“The entire world hates us. We assume that this
hatred is due to the wickedness of the nations, and no one stops to think that we also bear some guilt. We regard all the nations as similar to an ass. It is forbidden to save a Gentile, it is forbidden to offer him free medical treatment, it is forbidden to violate the Sabbath to save his life, his sexual intercourse does not render a woman forbidden to her husband according to R. Tam because their issue is like that of horses.
Can the nations resign themselves to such a deprivation of rights? It is permitted to deceive a Gentile and cancel his debt as well as forbidden to return his lost object! What can we do? Can we uproot our Torah teaching with apologetic formulae or clever deceptions. God knows that I have written this with the blood of my heart, the blood of my soul.”
So, as I surmised, you are paskening out of the Rambam and the Talmud in areas that have never been otherwise codified or in any way applied by poskim to life in our time. That’s fine as far as it goes, but you must realize that you are resting your argument on a mighty reed, perhaps the mightiest, but only one; and that you are discussing what is absolutely halacha lo l’maaseh in our time as if it were known and understood by the Gentile world and that this is the reason for their hatred of Jews. It can be argued that during the period of time when anything remotely resembling an halachic commonwealth existed, Judaism’s view of ritual and social exclusivity was one basis of that hatred (there were many others) among the universalistic Greeks. In contrast, however, as Paul Johnson explains, “It is notable that in Babylonia, where Greek ideas had not penetrated, the apartness of the large Jewish community was not resented . . .” A History of the Jews, p. 134.
Beyond this, I don’t think in this format it is possible to debate the “other” question as to other nations of the world, but I can hardly be persuaded by virtue of your choice of quotations about two particular civilizations in a world filled with them. For a general statement, though, I will revert to Johnson, who says,
Ibid, p. 154.
In fact the extremely dubious proposition that these obscure and largely theoretical halachos have had any role in Jewish-Gentile relations for much if any of the last 1500 years — which is contrary to the entire history of the Jewish people, who have been persecuted regardless of their degree of assimilation (and typically, as in Spain and Germany, in direct proportion to it) — you dig up a thought in a letter from R’ Weinberg, who was surely an outstanding scholar and thinker who would not eat at your house or drink wine you have touched. Now you decry what you call apologetics, yet your thesis is premised on the words of a scholar who would not agree either with your slanderous denigration of Chazal nor certainly with your practical conclusions. Or your halachic ones — for on page 118 of the article you link to, he rejects the Rambam’s psak halacha as not based being found in any gemara.
Indeed, R’ Weinberg wrote critically shortly above that piece of the Rav’s own opposition to the approach by certain Jewish leaders to request pretty words from the contemptuous, and at that time still largely contemptible in terms of its views regarding Jews and the State of Israel, Catholic Church, and he decried the hatred between religions that evidently he believed the Rav’s opposition stemmed from. I will let a scholar of the constellation of REITS-affiliated scholars slug that one out.
I understand that it is a proper rhetorical tactic, and not illogical, to use the adversary’s own admissions (actual or, let us concede for this argument, adoptive) against him, without necessarily endorsing the whole of the adversary’s position. But a quotation from a private letter of a sad remark by one particular scholar — who you know (were you baiting me?) is not part of the mainstream of “yeshiva world” thinking in any event — does not move me, especially when cited by one who would not agree with 98% of what that same scholar has to say on any topic having to do with Judaism, and when the statement itself is a free-floating cry from the heart on the state of world affairs and hardly an endorsement of the abrogation of any aspect whatsoever of Jewish religious practice or outlook.
K?
Ron,
Let me ask you this. If the contempt for gentiles occasionally espoused by the Talmud and consistently espoused by the haredim is, indeed, the true Jewish position, with no recourse, and at least no basis for serious dissent, and in the off chance that most liberal and secular Jews will never believe that the Torah is literally true in the first place, never mind the Talmud, what do you want from us? Maybe my friend is right? Maybe traditional Judaism has no place in today’s world for most Jews?
And Ron, I would remind you that there were no shortage of infuriated, xenophobic Middle Eastern tribes. I know the anti-gentile voices of the haredim based on the Talmud are considered wonderful according to the faithful because they aren’t politically correct, but such thinking was a dime a dozen in that time and region. Hell, it still is.
DK, let me just point out that your second paragraph is exactly what I am saying. It’s historicism to suggest that the world was full of tolerant, accepting multiculturalists and then the Jews came along and deposited the turd in the punch bowl.
As to your first graf, I will tell you that I was actually clicking back to this page — thinking surely no else had commented again just yet — to add the following, which I believe will answer you as to my view of the matter.
I learned the tractate Avodah Zarah with my chevrusa over a period of several years. Unlike me, he is a bona fide talmid chachom who also has a Ph.D. from Columbia. The two of us learned the dinim in the gemara dealing with virtually every aspect of Jewish-gentile relations, many of which are actually more severe in the commentary of Tosfos than in the text, though some are not; and shook our heads just not understanding “what we do with them.” We both interact with innumerable gentiles in our work and, to a lesser extent (for him especially) social lives, and I think we both concluded as follows:
This is the idealized world view of Chazal. Virtually none of these halachos are of practical signifance for us. If they were, we would ask a shayla. They are somewhat discomfiting, but, David, the intellectual approach of a committed Jews is to live with paradox and discomfiture and wrestle with that angel while still saying Modeh Ani in the morning and putting on your tefillin.
That’s my answer. To answer both you and your friend, to be completely, intellectually up front with you, yes, I find these contradictions with my own “default” moral sensibilities troubling. Let us put aside the question of whether and why that default sensibility is to be given any particular honor here; I do believe we have inherent moral sense, after all, though I believe it is considerably befogged by the muck we live in and our very compelling desires for physical pleasures and ego gratification.
In fact, I find it preposterous, WADR, that most of the “skeptics” in the room advocate or practice Shabbos desecration, free love and all the other aspects of “Hebonism” and the like because they are offended by women’s roles in Judaism, the mean things the Sages said about goyim, or — for Heaven’s sake — the flow of petrodollars. The intellectual dishonesty that is the premise of this supposed skepticism is of the flimsiest kind. People go out and have sex with strangers because in the short term it’s fun and and gratifying; they do it on Shabbos because that’s when the parties are; and they drink whatever’s served not to make a statement against the hurtful dinim of Gentile wine but because that helps move along the process of getting laid.
As I have said to you so many times in other places, there are plenty of important issues, hard ones, for men and women of good faith to worry about and seek clarification on from the premise of shared values. When the values are not shared — when halachic practice is not considered a desideratum; when respect for our hallowed teachers and mentors is turned on its head as the crudest of jokes; and when those who try to live their lives, with great earnestness, and treated with the rudest contempt and derision — it’s pretty obvious that the values are not shared, the questions are not only merely academic but are what we on the Internet call TROLLING; and that the “most Jews” who ask these questions, tears of universal mankind’s pain streaming down their faces, couldn’t really care less what the real answers are, and would not be any more likely to make a commitment to a Torah and mitzvos if I conjured up Moshe Rabbeinu and Eliahu themselves to resolve all difficulties.
I think that’s about what I’d answer “most Jews.” The thing is, I’d rather answer the other Jews — you and your friends, if they will engage me, and the handful of people who care to ask, notwithstanding — and again I say this with all due respect, solely from an intellectual / rhetorical point of view — the cynicism inherent in the exercise. I love the discussion and I love you for having it because you are different from “most Jews” in this country who absolutely couldn’t care less and, regrettably, never will. I don’t imagine I am changing any minds with it, of course, but I respect you for letting me put a point of view contrary to the local culture out here, and for your own nuanced and evidently evolving take on the whole matzah ball.
Ron,
The type of wrestling you do is one within the confines of halacha and Jewish practice. And the kind of wrestling I do is outside that practice and halacha, and is clearly a less rigorous and less committed wrestling.
But of course, I wrestled for real in my time, and frankly, believe I left not because of hurtful attitudes towards others, but because these anti-Western attitudes were harming me personally by living by them.
The rabbis of the Talmud and the major commentaries did not appear to understand human history in context. When we look at the Jewish people in context of millions of years of human development, and reject literalism entirely (as opposed to partially and only when too explicitly absurd), it changes what it means to be a Jew to a very large degree.
As for your contempt for breaking one of Bais Shammai’s Laws (was the gazera against gentile wine one of the 18?), well, I hope you can understand that this might not be the best place to advocate adherence, as there is particular resentment in the way these legislations were pushed through, and by whom.
I think (and hope) you know that your comments generally are overall well appreciated here. Your voice is one of the best defenders of what I consider Left-wing ultra-Orthodoxy on the net, and no conversation about traditional Judaism is complete without such a voice.
I believe my best learning has come through discussions with those who disagree with me, and never had all that much interest in an echo chamber.
I love it when supposedly well-meaning people throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Quoting R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg suggesting that loathing of Jews and by extension the violence and hardships imposed upon them by other cultures are justifiable or understandable in light of obscure Jewish beliefs that nobody ever practiced and no Jews faced in real life over a period as long as a couple of millenia is nothing less than sordid rhetoric intended to win a debate by shutting down the opposition. What can anybody answer, that they support calling gentile issue similar to that of horses?
Whether it’s anti-Kiruv Guy’s claims or the claims of Jews are Christian Scientists Guy, the fact is that the vast majority of Jews are just as removed from these beliefs as they are from laws of what to do when an ox lands in a neighbor’s property’s hole or the proper way to offer an animal as a sacrifice to God in the Temple.
To ignore the evolution of Jewish thought and practices while stressing that obscure ideas may have bearing on our lives today is effective strategy if one happens to support neo-Nazis, but what bearing does it have on us today? It appears obvious to me that Haredi rabbis won’t negate these statements because their sources are considered akin to holy ones, but these rabbis would also never have an opportunity to actually live by these laws. If they did, they would find workarounds, in large part because even they have watched their faith and practices evolve as well.
I would add that the opposite view regarding non-Jews has developed over these millenia. It is true that certain Jewish communities still stress their differences and distance from non-Jews, but this is related to persecution of Jews and a desire to thwart intrusion of the outside world on a fragile culture. However, as a persecuted people the Jewish people - even most Haredim - have developed and evolved into a highly sympathetic, understanding and considerate group that feels kinship particularly with those who are down-trodden or suffering and who would not wish to cause others harm. It is our experience of being persecuted to a far worse degree than these rules indicate while never persecuting others according to these rules that has made us into a people that lives and believes in ways entirely different than what this discussion has suggested.
Ron,
I hear your arguments as follows:
1. The rabbis of the Talmud were operating at a much higher level of cognition/spirituality than we are.
2. Their pronouncements may offend our modern sensibilities, but we aren’t free to dismiss them; it’s our obligation to live with the “tension”. (I can’t tell you how often I hear that one.)
3. Those who disagree and/or are non-observant simply want to live lives of unabashed hedonism, primarily of the sexual variety. They won’t allow themselves to believe, because they don’t want to be held “accountable”.
As David knows, I’ve spent the past thirty years sifting through the catalogue of world religions. I’ve heard the same distressing rationalizations from fundamentalists of all backgrounds. Apart from a few points of doctrine, there is really no difference between you and a conservative evangelical Christian. You’ve all exhausted me. I had hoped, in middle age, to find some refuge in Judaism; attitudes like this have made it impossible for me. I can honestly say, without exaggeration, that it is because of people like you that I have no more taste for living.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go worship an idol then commit sodomy with a gentile on Shabbat.
Cipher, when is the funeral? Or are you simply going to continue your tasteless existence?
The fact that you’ve heard something over and over and still don’t “get it” doesn’t necessarily mean you’re smarter than the people saying it. There is another possibility, too.
Fine, then. Let’s say I’m an imbecile. The Christian fundies employ, essentially, the same arguments. Should I start worshiping Yoshke?
Ron, be fair to Cipher’s issues. Take the “yeridos hadoros” argument — thatmakes no sense to me or to most. The sages of yester-dor (generation) did not have the information that we have now. They just didn’t. A certain chassidic group (maybe most of them) do weird dances to show that the earth really goes around the sun because that’s how Rambam interpreted it. A certain rabbi stated on Beyondbt that if Rabbi Akiva says one thing, and ANY scientist says something else conflicting with such a statement, he has no problem “paskening” by Rabbi Akiva.
The whole “yeridos hadors” is an idea not only that most of us don’t buy into, but is horribly abused by all too many that too.
DK, I am happy to engage Cipher. I see in his follow up he has dropped the melodrama and name-calling and we can talk a little more sensibly.
Cipher, the arguments are not “the same.” They may be superficially similar but that doesn’t make them both equally valid. If my father comes up to me along with another man, and they each argue persuasively why I should believe each of them respectively is really my father, need my real father be wrong? Of course the Catholic church echoes Judaism; it is an echo of Judaism.
DK, I don’t know anything about hasidic earth dances. I never heard of such a thing in my life. Yeridas hadoros means spiritual superiority. Could Rabbi Akiva drive a stick shift? Of course not. Does he have a clearer perception of the Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu than his disciples did? Of course; all the more so was it clearer than that of the amoraim and so on. Does he have access to scientific and other empirical information that we don’t? No. You know there is a very vivid debate about how and to what extent we draw the line between what is the “Torah” part of a psak din and what is the “metzius” part. Different poskim wrestle with these issues in different ways.
I could not live within the halachic and hashkofic universe created by the Chazon Ish, who among Lithuanians took the sort of approach as to literalism of the words of the Midrash and of the Rishonim that you seem to be identifying. Luckily, I don’t have to; this continent is R’ Moshe Feinstein’s continent, and his Torah gives me a lot more oxygen, though it is quite, er, orthodox, and indeed there are many chumros in the R’ Moshe approach that are frequently overlooked — I have had what you would call haredi rabbonim tell me, in fact, not to keep them, even though I may continue to drink chalav stam. Tricky issues, but we are talking about strains of halachic Judaism here.
But, Ron, you are using your independent moral judgment to “choose” between this and that halachic or hashkafic strain in Judaism! Picking and choosing! To which I plead guilty. The Torah is big enough easily to include both gedolei hador and their worldviews. It is part and parcel of the system of Judaism, however, that ultimately I come to rest within the scope of Jewish guidance that is represented by a recognized transmitter of the mesorah — because yeridas hadoros is merely a corollary of the mesorah. It is not, logically, a necessary one, but it is axiomatic to our particular mesorah.
You bring up the issue, DK, of what I would call flat-earthers. Their views are hard for me to reconcile with common sense, but you know what? These are nearly entirely academic issues! As I push into a quarter of a century of orthodox observance, I have yet had, in my life, to resolve a question based on a cure recommended by the Rambam or a geological conundrum raised by the Mishna or the occurrence vel non of the Flood.
But don’t these contradictions and troubling conclusions keep me up at night? Why, no. Is it because I’m a know-nothing? I hardly think so. It is because as smart as we all know I am, I have no problem at all acknowledging there are some questions I will not get answers to in this life. These are in fact utterly petty questions compared to the fundamental challenge of theodicy, after all.
Indeed, DK, my fundamental answer to your many good questions is that the system of the Torah is premised on acceptance of all of it, in its present form, per the now arguably “canonized” parameters of the mesorah. Every movement that has tried to toy with this unified whole along the margins has met with disaster, from a theological and continuity point of view. I actually see the hand of Providence in this.
I believe that it is possible to find an agreeable enough orthodox Jewish worldview, within the confines of serious commitment to halachic observance, that does not challenge the moral or intellectual foundations of any serious searcher who comes to the table sincerely. What I see in all the contrary arguments in this thread is a focus on either minutiae, issues only of the most esoteric interest and rationalizations for non-halachic living.
I do think it was an error for me to say, earlier, that everyone who doesn’t see it me way is just looking for a good time. I can recognize sincere skepticism and I do. But I have not, WADR, seen it enunciated here in any recognizable form. Talking about obscure halachos regarding gentile relations tells me that my interlocutor does not want to talk about whether God gave the Torah, as presently understood, on Mt. Sinai. If he does not believe that He did, then fine; we have nothing to discuss, and if I can get him to a program that deals with that aspect of kiruv, I am happy to do so. If he says he does believe, but he still wants to tell me he doesn’t keep Shabbos because rabbis are being arrested for child molestation and the hasidim are dancing in circles to spin the earth or whatever mishegas you heard — I cannot accept that it is a sincere conversation.
As to the “anti-Western” business, you and I agree more than we disagree, as I have said here and here, to give just two examples. I just don’t see why I have to, as TM says, throw the baby out with the backwater. Philosophical and cultural challenges don’t stop me from doing mitzvos. Why should they, you?
Urk. “Bathwater.”
A rabbi (Orthodox with creds) once told me that if Chazal had known as much about science as his young son did, Judaism would be very different today.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the absurdity of some of the comments in this thread. Y’know, throughout the ages, Jews have been persecuted for refusing to bow to the idols of those who held the power. How ironic it is that these days, Jews are the ones coercing other Jews to worship the idols.
Ron, if living that way makes you happy, good for you.
C-Girl, I don’t understand — Ron isn’t coercing anyone, and as far as I know, not demanding others do either. For the record, Ron doesn’t hold by the examples I mentioned. That’s why I mentioned them — cause he can’t defend them, only our friend Mohammed would.
Well, half thanks for that DK. Obviously the other half — the “idols” half — is left for me.
Is the mere use of metaphor a substitute for developing a logical argument?
But I must admit, I grow fatigued.
Oops. I apologize to Ron. Last line wasn’t meant for him, as DK astutely pointed out.
Oh! OK. Apology accepted!
Ron, sorry, that longer post above you wrote was in moderation without me realizing it.
Ron, you wrote,
“Talking about obscure halachos regarding gentile relations tells me that my interlocutor does not want to talk about whether God gave the Torah, as presently understood, on Mt. Sinai.”
There is plenty in the Torah that does not add up literally.
Why anyone really believe that is literal anymore than eight people got on a boat with the only two survivors of each animal a mere four thousand years ago?
Why should I take any of this literally? It doesn’t add up. None of those stories — including TMS — make sense literally.
I just got home a little while ago. You’ve all obviously been at this for much of the day.
DK, I am happy to engage Cipher. I see in his follow up he has dropped the melodrama and name-calling and we can talk a little more sensibly.
Ron, I didn’t call you names, and I didn’t say it for dramatic effect. I shouldn’t have said it at all - I got pissed off and jumped into it - but I meant it sincerely. I am 51 years old, I am genuinely tired of life and it is because of people like you.
Cipher, the arguments are not “the same.� They may be superficially similar but that doesn’t make them both equally valid. If my father comes up to me along with another man, and they each argue persuasively why I should believe each of them respectively is really my father, need my real father be wrong? Of course the Catholic church echoes Judaism; it is an echo of Judaism.
There is so much wrong with this that I wouldn’t even know where to start. I’m out; I’m sorry that I even got involved in the first place.
I do think it was an error for me to say, earlier, that everyone who doesn’t see it me way is just looking for a good time.
Thanks, at least, for saying that.
Hey DK
I think I made my point better in person than I’m doing online. In any case, to reiterate another point I made last night, every one of these gemoros, and many others, which you can find on vanguard or any other antisemetic site have been dealt with,many times in the past, by leading orthodox Rabbis. The talmed itself was on trial many times throughout the middle ages,there were jewish christian debates, and more than enough antisemites and meshumodim that brought up all of these points and more. And the consequences of losing those debates was a lot more serious than someone posting a lol on an internet forum.
There has to be reams of apologetica out there somewhere, and one day when I get the chance I hope to go looking for them. If I remember correctly, the last two cases were the Mendel Beilis blood libel and another one in Saloniki or somewhere. I googled the mendel beilis trial but I couldn’t find a full transcript of the proceedings anywhere. Maybe someone else here will be able to find it.
C-Girl
I’m not forcing you to do anything. Yes, I would unapologetically coerce you and every other jew to follow my version of orthodoxy if I had the power.
That’s part of kol yisroel areivim ze lozeh. Unfortunately, I don’t. Calling it the one true faith, right wing ultra orthodox fanaticism or idol worship is just semantics. So you find it ironic, whoop de doo.
Hm. Well, Cipher, if after 51 years a guy sitting at a computer can make you “tired of life” because he says something you don’t like, I think we actually have identified a chicken and egg question. That really is one of the saddest things I’ve ever heard. Have you seen someone? They have pills for that.
DK, I agree, there is plenty in the Torah that does not add up literally. But if you don’t believe in some conceptual sense that the Torah is not “from God” — directly imparted by God to Moses — then I agree with you, the whole thing, all of it, is a fraud, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and none of this matters at all. I don’t see any in-between position, and I spent a lot of time looking for one.
Should be: “But if you don’t believe in some conceptual sense that the Torah is ‘from God’”
>>>>that most of the “skeptics� in the room advocate or practice Shabbos desecration, free love and all the other aspects of “Hebonism� and the like because they are offended by women’s roles in Judaism, the mean things the Sages said about goyim, or — for Heaven’s sake — the flow of petrodollars. The intellectual dishonesty that is the premise of this supposed skepticism is of the flimsiest kind. People go out and have sex with strangers because in the short term it’s fun and and gratifying; they do it on Shabbos because that’s when the parties are; and they drink whatever’s served not to make a statement against the hurtful dinim of Gentile wine but because that helps move along the process of getting laid.
*********************************************
This argument is of no substance, is shallow, naïve, and is nothing more then an Ad Hominem attack against those who dare not to validate what you believe to be true. It is also crude and insulting. Moreover, it reflects more of your mind set (projection) then others with whom you disagree. Unfortunately, it is a line of reasoning that is typical of fundamentalists of all religious persuasions and its ubiquity is evident from even a cursory perusal of fundamentalist Christians, Mormons and Muslims,etc literature.
This approach allows for the easy dismissal of challenges, thereby allowing the believer to evade responsibility for confronting any challenges, as well as protecting him psychologically from the cognitive dissonance and existential insecurity that emanates from taking these issues seriously. Such psychopathogizing of dissenters is an essential element of most fundamentalist indoctrination; it begins early and is particularly insidious when used against young and vulnerable children. I find that its use at BT yeshiva’s is particularly pernicious, given the fact that many of the students are in the vulnerable situation of navigating their life in a new and uncertain world.
I can psychopathogize YOU as well and impugn YOUR self-interested motives; It works both ways - - Let’s examine YOUR motives, and hence potential for intellectual dishonesty, by asking a few questions:
What do you have to loose if Frumkeit is false? Do you loose your family?
Do you have a substitute for the comprehensive set of ideas that has shaped your consciousness and guided your actions if they are proven false?
Did you become Frum in part to escape?
Did you become frum because you are emotionally ill equipped to deal with a world of subtlety and nuance and find comfort in the black and white mindset of fundamentalist cheredi Judaism.
Are you emotionally capable of admitting that such a life altering decision was made in error? Would the embarrassment in front of friends and relatives be too much to bear?
I don’t know you but I hope that I can be a catalyst for your own self- discovery. You and others may find that your adherence to fundamentalist Judaism is rooted in deep emotional needs that may have predicates in harmful and pathological beliefs that may not be on the surface nor easily seen and may require more professional probing to uncover.
What do you think about these rhetorical and provocative questions? I assume you would agree that, since I do not know you, I am not in a position to psychoanalyze your motives. The same holds for you with regard to your attempts to impugn my motives; please extend this courtesy to those who take exception to your views. Remember, this is about issues, not personalities.
>>>>that most of the “skeptics� in the room advocate or practice Shabbos desecration, free love and all the other aspects of “Hebonism� and the like because they are offended by women’s roles in Judaism, the mean things the Sages said about goyim, or — for Heaven’s sake — the flow of petrodollars. The intellectual dishonesty that is the premise of this supposed skepticism is of the flimsiest kind. People go out and have sex with strangers because in the short term it’s fun and and gratifying; they do it on Shabbos because that’s when the parties are; and they drink whatever’s served not to make a statement against the hurtful dinim of Gentile wine but because that helps move along the process of getting laid.
KAN:This argument is of no substance, is shallow, naïve, and is nothing more then an Ad Hominem attack against those who dare not to validate what you believe to be true. It is also crude and insulting. Moreover, it reflects more of your mind set (projection) then others with whom you disagree. Unfortunately, it is a line of reasoning that is typical of fundamentalists of all religious persuasions and its ubiquity is evident from even a cursory perusal of fundamentalist Christians, Mormons and Muslims,etc literature.
This approach allows for the easy dismissal of challenges, thereby allowing the believer to evade responsibility for confronting any challenges, as well as protecting him psychologically from the cognitive dissonance and existential insecurity that emanates from taking these issues seriously. Such psychopathogizing of dissenters is an essential element of most fundamentalist indoctrination; it begins early and is particularly insidious when used against young and vulnerable children. I find that its use at BT yeshiva’s is particularly pernicious, given the fact that many of the students are in the vulnerable situation of navigating their life in a new and uncertain world.
I can psychopathogize YOU as well and impugn YOUR self-interested motives; It works both ways - - Let’s examine YOUR motives, and hence potential for intellectual dishonesty, by asking a few questions:
What do you have to loose if Frumkeit is false? Do you loose your family?
Do you have a substitute for the comprehensive set of ideas that has shaped your consciousness and guided your actions if they are proven false?
Did you become Frum in part to escape?
Did you become frum because you are emotionally ill equipped to deal with a world of subtlety and nuance and find comfort in the black and white mindset of fundamentalist cheredi Judaism.
Are you emotionally capable of admitting that such a life altering decision was made in error? Would the embarrassment in front of friends and relatives be too much to bear?
I don’t know you but I hope that I can be a catalyst for your own self- discovery. You and others may find that your adherence to fundamentalist Judaism is rooted in deep emotional needs that may have predicates in harmful and pathological beliefs that may not be on the surface nor easily seen and may require more professional probing to uncover.
What do you think about these rhetorical and provocative questions? I assume you would agree that, since I do not know you, I am not in a position to psychoanalyze your motives. The same holds for you with regard to your attempts to impugn my motives; please extend this courtesy to those who take exception to your views. Remember, this is about issues, not personalities.
I apologize if this comment is entered more then once. I was having difficulty saving the comment
Ron:>>>>that most of the “skeptics� in the room advocate or practice Shabbos desecration, free love and all the other aspects of “Hebonism� and the like because they are offended by women’s roles in Judaism, the mean things the Sages said about goyim, or — for Heaven’s sake — the flow of petrodollars. The intellectual dishonesty that is the premise of this supposed skepticism is of the flimsiest kind. People go out and have sex with strangers because in the short term it’s fun and and gratifying; they do it on Shabbos because that’s when the parties are; and they drink whatever’s served not to make a statement against the hurtful dinim of Gentile wine but because that helps move along the process of getting laid.
KAN:This argument is of no substance, is shallow, naïve, and is nothing more then an Ad Hominem attack against those who dare not to validate what you believe to be true. It is also crude and insulting. Moreover, it reflects more of your mind set (projection) then others with whom you disagree. Unfortunately, it is a line of reasoning that is typical of fundamentalists of all religious persuasions and its ubiquity is evident from even a cursory perusal of fundamentalist Christians, Mormons and Muslims,etc literature.
This approach allows for the easy dismissal of challenges, thereby allowing the believer to evade responsibility for confronting any challenges, as well as protecting him psychologically from the cognitive dissonance and existential insecurity that emanates from taking these issues seriously. Such psychopathogizing of dissenters is an essential element of most fundamentalist indoctrination; it begins early and is particularly insidious when used against young and vulnerable children. I find that its use at BT yeshiva’s is particularly pernicious, given the fact that many of the students are in the vulnerable situation of navigating their life in a new and uncertain world.
I can psychopathogize YOU as well and impugn YOUR self-interested motives; It works both ways - - Let’s examine YOUR motives, and hence potential for intellectual dishonesty, by asking a few questions:
What do you have to loose if Frumkeit is false? Do you loose your family?
Do you have a substitute for the comprehensive set of ideas that has shaped your consciousness and guided your actions if they are proven false?
Did you become Frum in part to escape?
Did you become frum because you are emotionally ill equipped to deal with a world of subtlety and nuance and find comfort in the black and white mindset of fundamentalist cheredi Judaism.
Are you emotionally capable of admitting that such a life altering decision was made in error? Would the embarrassment in front of friends and relatives be too much to bear?
I don’t know you but I hope that I can be a catalyst for your own self- discovery. You and others may find that your adherence to fundamentalist Judaism is rooted in deep emotional needs that may have predicates in harmful and pathological beliefs that may not be on the surface nor easily seen and may require more professional probing to uncover.
What do you think about these rhetorical and provocative questions? I assume you would agree that, since I do not know you, I am not in a position to psychoanalyze your motives. The same holds for you with regard to your attempts to impugn my motives; please extend this courtesy to those who take exception to your views. Remember, this is about issues, not personalities.
>>> Virtually none of these halachos are of practical signifance for us
1.They are very significant with regard to elucidating the underlying intent behind the halacha (saving a non-jew) that IS applied by poskim in our time. As already stated, and which was ignored by you, these halachas clearly indicate that the motivation behind the exception to the rule of saving a non-jew, has nothing to do with concern for the humanity of the non-jew and everything to do with concern ONLY for Jews. This is the reason why I invoked these other halachas and you disregarded this main point with red-herrings.
Consider also what the Chafetz Chayim writes in Mishnah Berurah, 330, subsection 8 “Know that the doctors in our time, even the most religious, are not careful about this at all, for every Sabbath they travel beyond the borders of the Sabbath domain to heal those who worship the stars, and they write [prescriptions], and grind substances [to prepare medicines] — and they violate the Sabbath willfully and completely, G-d save us.”
Note that this does not speak of people who actually worship the stars, the sun, and the moon, for there were no such people in the Chafetz Chayim’s milieu, but of any non-Jew, all of whom one is forbidden to heal on the Sabbath. (The term “those who worship the stars” was used in Halachic literature for fear of the gentile authorities.).
2.These halachas are also important because these laws inform much Orthodox bigotry and chauvinism. I could list hundreds of deeply disturbing comments by Chazal, Rishonim, and Achronim. If you think this does not affect views, you are fooling yourself.
3.Furthermore, and most importantly, these halachos are very relevant with regard to the tradition’s credibility; no one who could construct such a discriminatory and unconscionable legal code has the moral and ethical authority and/or credibility to direct my life. You expect me to believe that those who could promulgate such hatred are close to an all loving and just G,d. Sure, there is a lofty ring to the notion that I must subordinate moral common sense to Chazal, but I for one, do not think the creator of the Universe expects me to check my humanity or intellect at the door and I think one who does, does so at his own spiritual peril.
>>> It appears obvious to me that Haredi rabbis won’t negate these statements because their sources are considered akin to holy ones,
No, they will not negate it because they believe that these halachas are timeless, perfect and just expressions of G,d’s will. If you think otherwise, I would challenge you to find an Orthodox Rav who will (or who has) publicly issue(d) a statement with regard to the noted halachas that affirms in substance the following:
1. These laws were never meant to be applied and will never be applied at any time in the future. Therefore, these laws are of no practical import
2. The laws themselves, if they were to be applied to non - - - jews, are inhuman, unconscionable and deeply chauvinist. As such, we expurgate these halachas from the tradition.
First of all, I am not advocating “frumkeit.” I am arguing in defense of the Torah. Secondly, while I have questioned your motives, I have not raised anything like the obnoxious and offensive questions you have about my psychological well being. But I will, of course, answer your questions honestly, because, well, I am an immensely bigger man than you, and it least you don’t accuse me of making your life sad and bad as other people do. If you had I could not handle that level of responsibility!
As to the first inquiry, I say yes, of course, I would lose my family if I determined that the empty, meaningless life I led before I became orthodox was in fact preferable to the full, meaningful life I am living now. Does that prevent me from an honest re-examination of my worldview? I am sure it is a factor. But the thing is, I already went through these changes and asked the same questions you are, and decided I had answered them in a satisfactory form. Nothing you say remotely suggests to me that there is any reason to re-examine that analysis, and, in fact, the persistent ugliness and intellectual dishonesty you display wherever I encounter you only makes me feel better about which “side” I’m on.
That was the first question.
No, I would just live the way I did the first 22 years of my life, unless you count that as a substitute. I have satisfied myself that there is no systematic substitute. I could envision, however, a scenario of being basically observant but not being committed, as I am, to life within the strictly orthodox Jewish world. I think that is something a reasonable person can do. But I feel a lot better about myself and my observance when I am among people also committed to serious Jewish practice, so here I am.
No, I was doing pretty well. A lot of people, frum and not frum, would be very pleased to be in the space I was in when I became frum. I had just graduated from Princeton University and was on my way to law school at Northwestern University — which is exactly where I ended up going. My family is and was stable. No skeletons in the closet. So I didn’t escape from anything. I profoundly enhanced my life in every respect by becoming frum, and left virtually nothing of value behind.
The question is objectionable because based on a false premise. Anyone who could read what I have written here, and elsewhere, and call my mindset black and white is projecting, stupid or biased. I think even DK would agree with that. I think I handle subtlety and nuance immensely better than you do, and I do not hide behind anonymity when I do it. So I will let readers judge for themselves on this score.
I am also not really a haredi. I am “yeshivish orthodox.” I could not be a haredi in the sense that term is used in Israel. I also reject the use of the term “fundamentalist,” which just amounts to name-calling especially calculated to scare non-orthodox Jews.
I don’t know. How would I know that? How do you measure that? I’m not going to try it on for size to get you an answer!
Gosh, what a long way you have of saying, “Sure you say that, you’re stuck being frum so you’re rationalizing.”
Yeah, we might, rabbit, we might. We might also already be mass murderers. Again, KAN, my life is an open book. Anyone who wants to see how well adjusted I am can look me up, read what I have to say under my own name, examine my professional life (which is also an open book), and with a few inquiries even find out about what people think of me in my many personal spheres (I am still in touch with many college and even high school friends, though like most people we have little to do with each other as a practical matter as life moves on) and then, if they are — as you are — inclined to making judgments regarding psychological health, they can make that judgment.
I have no fear of what they would find because, with God’s help, I think I have put together a decently successful and highly functional life by any standard, such that if the degree of psychological dysfunction that you posit were in fact present in me, it would be probably be worthy of a journal article.
Whereas for all I know, you could live in a cardboard box under the 59th Street bridge, sitting there anonymously trashing everyone else’s life, lashing out bitterly at their success, and egging on doubters to vindicate your own failure.
And don’t tell me that this is about “issues, not personalities,” when your entire enterprise is — notwithstanding the astonishingly dishonest disclaimers on your website — about vicious personal attacks on the greatest people in Jewish history, orthodox leaders, and orthodox Jews as a whole — all from the cozy chicken-hearted perspective of anonymity.
You’ve made us the issue. To us, it’s personal.
>>>First of all, I am not advocating “frumkeit.� I am arguing in defense of the Torah.
I ‘ll take you at your word. However, it comes across to me, here and over at GGG, as if you are engaged in both activities. Your original approach and tone, before this became adversarial, appeared to be an attempt to influence, but I will accept your assertion as trustworthy.
>>> Secondly, while I have questioned your motives, I have not raised anything like the obnoxious and offensive questions you have about my psychological well being.
I agree that these questions are obnoxious, and I acknowledged as much at the end of my comment and although I appreciated the sincerity of your response, I never expected you to answer those questions. Please read carefully, I wrote: “I assume you would agree that, since I do not know you, I am not in a position to psychoanalyze your motives. The same holds for you with regard to your attempts to impugn my motives; please extend this courtesy to those who take exception to your views. My point was only to make you aware that motive works both ways; you have your motives, I have mine, and others have theirs. They all cancel each other out. Since we do not know each other, we have to have the humility and decency to refrain from presumptuous personal attacks that relate to the motive of one’s interlocutor.
However, since you did answer the questions, I will respectfully comment on your answers below:
>>.>As to the first inquiry, I say yes, of course, I would lose my family if I determined that the empty, meaningless life I led before I became orthodox was in fact preferable to the full, meaningful life I am living now. Does that prevent me from an honest re-examination of my worldview? I am sure it is a factor.
I appreciate the honesty here. With the stakes so high, don’t you think this would be a major factor that would prevent honest introspection? Who wouldn’t foreclose with such grave consequences? I see nothing wrong with foreclosing under such circumstances; indeed, it would be entirety appropriate as long as long as the frum framework is not an enabler of family dysfunction. No doubt, such a framework can be very effective in raising a spiritually and emotionally well-adjusted family.
>>> in fact, the persistent ugliness and intellectual dishonesty you display wherever I encounter you only makes me feel better about which “side� I’m on.
That’s how I feel whenever I encounter amateur or professional kiruv workers. The obfuscations, the half truths, the outright lies (bible codes,etc), the superficial apologetics laced with straw men depictions of science and history make it very clear to me that Orthodoxy has something to hide and that its evangelists can not be trusted.
>>>KAN:Do you have a substitute for the comprehensive set of ideas that has shaped your consciousness and guided your actions if they are proven false?
RON:No, I would just live the way I did the first 22 years of my life, unless you count that as a substitute. I have satisfied myself that there is no systematic substitute.
KAN: This is a common view, particularly among non religious Jewish Americans who live(d) very shallow spiritual lives before becoming frum. Unfortunately, many who have not been exposed to real depth, see life outside of Orthodoxy as a false dichotomy: Orthodoxy Vs. empty meaninglessness. I think life has much more to offer then this. I wrote about this tendency within Orthodoxy in a post entitled Kiruv Orthodoxy and denigration of the wider world. You may not agree with, and you may have valid criticism of, the examples I invoke in the first few paragraphs of the post, but I speak from the heart about how I see the world and to me, the world outside of Orthodoxy is not an empty meaningless place.
>>>>. But I feel a lot better about myself and my observance when I am among people also committed to serious Jewish practice, so here I am.
I can relate to this and I respect this. My only teina is against dishonest attempts to influence people to enter this world, a world that requires momentous life changes. If you want it fine, just make sure that when you evangelize to others, you do it honestly without dishonestly explaining away of or evading of disconfirming realities.
>>>No, I was doing pretty well. A lot of people, frum and not frum, would be very pleased to be in the space I was in when I became frum. I had just graduated from Princeton University and was on my way to law school at Northwestern University — which is exactly where I ended up going.
I respect your accomplishments, but in may view, such academic and professional achievements do not exclude the need to escape (which exists on many different levels), and they certainly are not indicative of emotional maturity. I, my sister, and many of my co-workers and friends also went to Ivies, and I personally don’t think, from what I have witnessed from my peer groups, that it should be used as any kind of barometer of psychological maturity or emotional health, especially as it regard the need to escape. That said, I want it to be clear that I do not question your own assertions in the matter; I take you at your word.
>>>> I profoundly enhanced my life in every respect by becoming frum, and left virtually nothing of value behind.
I can see this and I do not doubt it can also be enriching for many others.
>>>> Anyone who could read what I have written here, and elsewhere, and call my mindset black and white is projecting, stupid or biased.
WADR - - your Ad Hominem attack on me and others who differ, by way of crude innuendo’s regarding motive, was anything but the expression of a subtle and nuanced mind. As I already explained, such black and white thinking is typical of a classic fundamentalist rant. However, I grant that on other issues you may demonstrate the capacity to appreciate life’s subtleties, but not in this regard.
>>> I do not hide behind anonymity when I do it.
Unfortunately, Orthodox Jews can be particularly vindictive and hurtful in subtle and sometimes very gross ways, and I see no reason to invite such abuse. When people with a weak sense of self bolster their identity by linking it to their beliefs (I am not saying you do), they often react viciously to those who directly or indirectly undermine their beliefs. The matter is even more troubling when one considers the license granted by halacha to discard all the rules of lashon hara when dealing with kofrim. I have seen vicious attacks on such individuals, attacks that have the sanction of respected Rabbis. It can be quite unsettling to witness. Myself, I have never named specific individuals for criticism, only approaches that are dishonest and I write on issues that I believe need to be addressed. Whatever one’s view, others and I have the right to give voice to our views and experiences. I could certainly be incorrect about my views and I am always open to reassessment. At the end of the day, I leave it to the reader to decide whether my views are of value.
>>>Whereas for all I know, you could live in a cardboard box under the 59th Street bridge,
How did you guess?
>>>>You’ve made us the issue. To us, it’s personal.
Again, this is very unfortunate. I have nothing against you or even those kiruv workers who are dishonest, no hatred or malice and I think it is to your spiritual and emotional benefit to respond in kind. People are not their opinions. We all need to get past this.
Well, KAN, we have reached a point of diminishing returns, I believe (assuming we had not done so quite some time ago), though in fact it must be acknowledged that the level of discourse has probably improved. Nonetheless, my view of the matter is that this has happened in large part because you must acknowledge at this point that you are being watched — and to some extent, you are. You could be all over the Internet, but where I do encounter you, I will call you on your misrepresentations, overstatements, generalizations, and lack of courage as to revealing your identity — which in my view is a sine qua non of credibility in almost any honest engagement.
You disagree with this, just as you disagree with my characterizations of my own life (which was happy and satisfactory, mind you — it just had no goals outside of myself, nor any deeper meaning, besides “being a good person”) and whether or not the fact that I recognize absolutes (as anyone who believes in special revelation must) logically leads to the conclusion that I see the world in black and white terms. In my view it is you who lacks the ability to appreciate nuance — but I repeat myself.
I find your claim to lack malice toward people in kiruv incredible, given the lengths to which you have gone to not only undermine their work, but to cast them in a most unfavorable light. People are not their opinions, though by and large anonymous people may as well be to the rest of us; as for those of who live and act in the world of daylight, it is true that we are more than that (though regrettably also sometimes less as well)!
Having said that, I’m willing to call this one a day and a weekend if you are, though!
Kiruv people are snakes.
>>I’m willing to call this one a day and a weekend if you are, though!
Me Too, Enjoy the new year
Kiruv Awareness Network said: Myself, I have never named specific individuals for criticism
Funny, your website surely has a bunch of names, someone else slip those in there?
Kiruv Awareness Network:
Wow, I’ve been browsing your site. I must say that all of your arguments for intellectual integrity fall flat. You put up a dialogue between yourself and another blogger and then shut down commenting for a month or three to take a break! Meanwhile, during your break you’ve been commenting a lifetime on other blogs. Sounds evenhanded to me. Nice job!
Leave a Comment