The Gedoylim Know Everything Other “Experts” Do
Ron Coleman has taken me to task for suggesting that rabbis don’t have a right to act as experts outside of those usually designated for rabbis.
Truth is, he is correct. The bigger the rabbi, the wider his areas of expertise.
Take the Chazzon Ish. He is widely attributed to have understood the best way to perform a brain surgery for one of his peeps. How do I know this? It’s in a “biography” I read about him once, and its all over the net. Everyone knows this happened. Can you prove it didn’t happen? So, it’s my word against yours. I believe in the Gedoylim. Shouldn’t you believe in the Gedoylim?
Do you know the story of how the Chazzon Ish once mapped out and detailed, for a doctor, how to conduct a particular [sic] invasive brain surgery? This doesn’t mean that all “gedolim” are out of place (or better yet their element of expertise) when they rule on science/medical issues, but some have the Siyata D’Shmaya and have proven it.
Wow! Of course they have! What a very big godol the Chazon Ish was! You see, when you are that big, you understand secular studies like brain surgery even without studying it directly.
This nonsense is believed by so many that Rabbi Gil Student felt it necessary to write that he doesn’t believe it happened.
7 comments
Like you and me, Gil doesn’t believe the brain / Chazon Ish story. Or the preposterous notion that all sciences and arts are at the disposal of those who know all the Torah.
But I firmly doubt that Gil would agree with you that a veteran rabbi and talmid chachom is not an ideal source for an answer to an ethical or human relations question.
As usual, DK, you defend a preposterous accusation by changing the subject.
Ron, I stand by the following:
1) Ohr Somayach/Neve dictate aspects of their recruits lives far outside the realm of Jewish ritual.
2) This story is emblematic of that phenomenon, and even if the advice in question seems normal, the fact that it is being presented in a rabbinical column is not normal.
Siyata D’Shmaya means something like “the help of Heaven”, right?
This sounds more and more like Christianity all the time.
DK, I always said you were cheesy.
Like the cheese, on this issue you stand alone! Or at least on this attempt by you to prove your dubious points via these rather tepid maaselech.
Jeff, you believe that the Christians invented the concept of invoking the “help of Heaven” in one’s endeavors, eh, or that people of special merit get more of that help than those without it?
Fascinating. Maybe you can demonstrate this hypothesis?
They obviously are reading from a damaged piece of paper. It probably went along the lines “a master of Talmud and Torah study will have the capability (missing part: to learn) to do anything”.
Okay, so that’s being silly, but you get the point. If you can master Hebrew, nearly memorize the Torah and every bit of Talmud, argue Halacha faster than John Moschitta can talk, and more accurately than math scholar can recite multiplication tables, then your learning temperament can probably handle pretty much any area of intellectual endeavor.
But do it without learning it? As if G-d granted the knowledge? He granted us incredible abilities to leap beyond logic we can follow, for sure, but on the spot figuring out brain surgery without any reading up on the brain is unlikely to the point of silliness. He might have helped a doc talk through the problem and come to the solution as talking with a person outside the problem can often help to do, but…
No, Christianity didn’t invent the invocation of G-d’s help, but for a long time they cornered the market on it, or more to the point making it look less like hope and faith than using G-d to justify themselves in everything.
Jeff, you believe that the Christians invented the concept of invoking the “help of Heaven” in one’s endeavors, eh, or that people of special merit get more of that help than those without it?
I meant in terms of developing a “cult of personality” - convincing people that they aren’t equipped to make their own decisions, even regarding mundane affairs, that one individual has “superhuman” status and can act as an intermediary to God, and so forth.
Although, we did have an hereditary priesthood, back in the day. I think it’s a natural human tendency, but, as suitepotato said, Christianity has for a long time cornered the market on it (Islam isn’t doing too badly on that score, either) - so, in that regard, I see it as being analogous to Christianity, particularly to fundamentalists.
I don’t think it’s a healthy tendency, Ron. It’s something that belongs to our childhood as a species. We should be getting beyond it, now.
You know I think highly of the Dalai Lama, but I don’t think he’s infallible, or even close. A young monk of my acquaintance, a close student of the DL, once told me, “Look, I’m devoted to him, I’d take a bullet for him any day - but if he says something that I think is wrong, you’d better believe I’m going to challenge him.” I see this as a much healthier outlook.
I should have said, “as an intermediary between man and God”.
Leave a Comment