On Style and Essence – Clarifications and Basic Assumptions for Website Readers (Column 63)

With God’s help

Lately I have received repeated comments about my words. People claimed that they contained heresy and disrespect for our great rishonim and poskim. Some of the comments concerned style and some concerned substance. As a result, I thought I should clarify my starting points, my relationship to the rishonim, the poskim and the tradition in general, and of course also the style.

This column will be more personal, unlike the regular columns, but I think it's important to clarify things. I'll say right away that I'm not apologizing for anything and I didn't come to interpret my words, but rather to clarify my starting points for the benefit of the readers. Of course, if they bring to my attention any place where I deviated from what is written here, I'll be happy to apologize and retract. Readers are invited and called upon to do so.

Writing in the Internet Age

Writing in the Internet age has a uniqueness compared to previous times. Things are accessible to everyone, you can quote a partial quote from them that is taken out of context (cut & paste), and the rapid passage of these partial quotes may cause a distorted picture of things. People are unaware of these characteristics, both readers and writers, and therefore judge things in light of partial quotes without checking the context and the complete picture and without reading the entire article. This is despite the fact that the Internet also has an advantage in this sense, since today it is very easy to check things inside and read them in their original form. But the flow of information probably causes people to make a judgment quickly and move on to the next site (I guess I suffer from this too).

The appreciation for our

This is for my own good. I greatly respect our sages of all generations, the first and last sages. There were real giants among them. Most of them were people full of talent and knowledge, honest in heart and mind, seekers of truth, and possessed of impressive and extensive knowledge. I am proud to be the youngest of their students and the one who continues their path. It is difficult for me to evaluate the patriarchs, Moses and the prophets, but the sages, the geniuses and the first, and so the last until today, are people worthy of enormous appreciation. No less impressive is the collective enterprise that they all created together, and which I, the little one, hope to join and be a part of.

I will use Maimonides as an example, one of the comments I received touched on my relationship with him. Maimonides' work is unparalleled, and I have great doubts about how many parallels there are in the entire world to such a vast, diverse, and original work. A Jew who single-handedly managed to reorganize all of Judaism, halakha, thought, and meta-halakha, to understand, sort, and arrange in his own way all the material that had accumulated up to his time, and all this in parallel with his work as a physician and his vast knowledge in all fields. This is a phenomenon that deserves admiration. The man also showed awareness and reflection on his own methodology. He built the structure of his great work on a systematic, orderly foundation that he himself also built almost from scratch and took the trouble to lay out before us. I have no words to express my admiration for this man, and he certainly doesn't need my words. The same is true of the rest of our sages, the first and the last, and certainly Chazal. To think that I despise him is nothing greater than foolishness. Anyone who despises him is a person who lacks any understanding.

All these are my gentlemen whose waters I thirstily drink and to whom I am bound with deep appreciation and love. I dedicate a significant part of my time and efforts to understanding their words through various means, and to deciphering their intent and the meanings hidden within them. For me, the Torah in its broadest sense is an existential rock. From within it and within it I seek my path and formulate my worldview, when here too I incorporate sources, arguments, beliefs, and through various means. This is my extended family, and my worldviews are formulated within it and within it.

The attitude towards our elders and their authority

But respect for a person does not mean seeing him as an angel who never makes mistakes. And certainly love is not supposed to spoil the story. All these wonderful people were human beings like me and you, and that is precisely why I respect and love them and am connected to them. I have no relationship with the ministering angels (if there are any at all), and I do not see much connection between me and them. My family is made up of humans.

I have already brought up the words of theMGA In the book of Kenu, which cites the Talmudic law that it is permissible to say something in the name of a great person so that they will accept it from me. This is astonishing, since any person can say any nonsense in the name of a great person and cause those who hear him to commit the most serious sins. How can this permission be understood? I explained that in my opinion, the assumption ofMGA It is the opposite of what could be understood. He probably assumes that when I hear things in the name of a great person, I will not automatically accept them, but will only consider them seriously and with respect. The reason someone will criticize a great person is not so that they will accept his bottom line, but because he feels that his arguments are not being treated properly. The listeners do not seriously consider his arguments out of contempt for him. His intention is to get them to take them seriously, to consider the things, and then decide for themselves. Therefore, he is allowed to present the things in the name of a great person, because this will get the listeners to consider the arguments seriously. But in the end, the assumption is that everyone does what he thinks. Even if he hears things from a great person, he does not accept them just because of the speaker. He considers the things themselves and forms a position on them.

I have already mentioned the distinction between two types of "visionaries": the first type is the regular ones, that is, those who actually do everything that is written in my book. Vision of IsraelThe second type is the true visionaries, those who do what they themselves think just like their majority.Vision of Israel Did and ordered to do. I belong to the second type. Respect for many of us does not mean that I will accept everything they said, but on the other hand I will definitely seriously consider what they said before I formulate my own position. And with all due respect to everyone, the bottom line is that I will think, say and do, what I myself think.

There are, of course, also formal considerations of authority, such as the authority of the Sanhedrin or the laws of the Talmud, which are not halachically possible to dispute. This is despite the fact that there are certainly halachic and factual errors in the Talmud as well (and there certainly are). Authority means that the halachic instructions must be accepted despite the error. But I have already explained more than once that in the realms of thought, which usually deal with facts, there is no possibility of speaking of authority. If I have come to the conclusion that the Messiah will not come (and to dispel any doubt: I have not), then even if all the sages of Israel stood up and said the opposite, it would at most make me reconsider my position. But formal authority is not possible here. And if I say with my mouth that I believe with complete faith in the coming of the Messiah, will that change what is in my mind? As long as I am not convinced, I cannot claim that I believe it, but only say it out loud. Therefore, in the realms of beliefs and opinions, one can only convince and not argue by virtue of authority. Furthermore, even in the realms of Halacha, where, as stated, one can speak of authority, it should not be extended beyond its limits. He who has authority has it, and he who does not, with all his wisdom, has no authority. Regarding his words, one can only be convinced by them, but not accept them just because he said them.

already I have written more than once. That there is a halakhic value to an autonomous decision. After a voice came out of the sky in Yavneh (in the case of Achnai's oven) – the sages did not accept it because, even though it was the truth, they thought otherwise. They understood that they were wrong, because God in heaven certainly knows what the halakhah is. But there is an autonomous obligation to rule as I understand it, even if I am wrong. And so the Gemara also says that they did not rule on the halakhah of the Rabbis because his friends did not come to the conclusion of his opinion. Even though he was so wise, in a rank above all others, they did not rule like him. Not because the truth was with them and not with him, but because as long as they were not convinced, then this was their position and they were obliged to act according to it even though they also understood that it was probably incorrect.

About respect and disrespect

It seems to me that the approach that discusses and considers the words of our sages and formulates an independent position gives them much more respect than the approach that accepts their words blindly. The approach that assumes that these are angels who are infallible and who have absolute authority presents them as unwilling to accept an appeal and error in their position. The second approach that ostensibly gives them a lot of respect actually assumes that their words cannot be justified from a factual standpoint and therefore also exempts us from doing so. Around Maimonides' Composition The strong hand A great controversy arose, among other things, because he did not cite sources or provide reasoning. The sages felt that this was not a way that gave respect to the Torah and to them. No one has the right to demand that their words be accepted simply because they said them. The things said in the court (unlike the Sanhedrin) are in the nature of proposals for discussion and an expression of a position. And these are my words here.

Rabbi Soloveitchik in his composition And you asked from there, gives a wonderful description of his experiences as a child. He describes how his father (Rabbi Moshe) sits around a round table with Rabbi Akiva, Abaye and Rava, the Maimonides, the Rabbani, and the Gra, and they are engaged in Torah. A problem arises for the Maimonides and he is in tension as to whether his father and the Rabbaniides will win or not. He feels part of the group, and in fact sees all of them as his family. When I read these things, I realized that my experience is very similar. For me, I sit around a round table with all the students of the sages from all generations and we all study together. I am a partner in this discourse, and I am not willing to give in to any of them. Giving in to someone out of respect is an expression of disrespect or lack of closeness. Moreover, when I talk to family members, I am not careful with my words. If one of them talks nonsense, then I tell him so. Sometimes I laugh at him and joke at his expense. But all of this is done because I feel an inseparable part of the group. I am at home and not in a museum that perpetuates the past, where one must be careful that nothing is broken there.[1]

A few years ago, when I was teaching at the Hesder Yeshiva in Yeruham, several events occurred that aroused my anger. I posted ironic and cynical posts in which I mocked all of us. The students went into a mental turmoil because they felt the Yeshiva was being harmed, especially its head (Rabbi Blumentzweig). I gathered them in the dining room in the evening and told them that the words were written precisely because of my deep appreciation for the Rosh Yeshiva. I got angry because people were making fun of all of us (including him) and we were following them like a pack of dogs. I added that anyone who is in a museum is tiptoeing. He doesn't want to break anything in this glass house. He wants things to remain intact and pastoral and to accompany him in his life when he is already far (in all respects) from the Yeshiva. He will have a corner that is both pastoral and accompanying that he can miss (theoretically) but remain far from. I, on the other hand, feel at home, and at home I don't tiptoe. Anyone who does stupid things (in my opinion) will get bites and scoldings from me. Of course, he is also welcome to return the favor in kind. But these things are said and stem from connection, not distance. They stem from love and respect, but they are the result of a family bond, not a distant and alienated respect for the exhibits in the museum.

So, in my opinion, the excessive and unrealistic respect given to many of us from all generations often expresses a kind of disdain. People do not dare to honestly discuss their words and criticize them, but this actually indicates a hidden assumption that this criticism will destroy the status of those being criticized. As if they have no answers and therefore we should spare them. I have full trust in them and their honesty, and in my opinion, true respect for their words is given precisely when we discuss their words honestly and sharply. Anyone who participates in this discourse, that is, sits around the table in the group, needs to understand this. Anyone who remains outside and sees this as a museum will continue to be careful about the honor of our first and last great men, and thus deprive them of the respect and love they deserve.

Connection with people brings closeness. Closeness leads to seeing them as human beings, with their lights and shadows. No one is perfect, and everyone has shortcomings, mistakes, downfalls, and the like. When you are close, you see all of this, and when you feel close, you don't hesitate to point it out. Caution indicates distance. Admiration for a plaque hanging on the wall rather than a life together. With those close to me, I joke and tease, go down on them, and then pat them on the head with friendship and a wink. The Torah belongs to all of us, and we all need to take part in shaping and shaping it. Anyone who does not take part in this process has no part in it. He will treat it like a church. With full respect and at the same time with distance.

About the style

Here I return to the Internet. Things written for a wide audience cannot be said like things said within the Beit Midrash, that is, within the family. My assumption when I write these things is that the readers want to belong and therefore also belong to this family. They sit around the table in this virtual court and are full partners in everything that is done there. It is true that sometimes things come out, sometimes in a fragmented manner, and sometimes they simply don't understand or don't pay attention to the context.

Although my style is cynical and ironic, and I express things somewhat sharply, cynicism is not disrespect. I do not remember a place where I disrespected the former, or even the latter (perhaps some of our contemporary rabbis, and I do not remember that now either). I do remember that I presented them as human beings who can make mistakes and who have flaws, just like you and me. Thus, when I say that I do not care whether according to the Rambam I am an apocryphal scholar, I mean that the definitions he gives to my words are not an argument. Whoever wants to convince me must explain to me where I am wrong. Therefore, it is not enough to tell me that I am an apocryphal scholar according to the method of so-and-so or an unknown person, and therefore I do not accept comments of this kind. There is not the slightest disrespect in these things for the Rambam, whose relationship to him I clarified above. After all, the Rambam himself did exactly what I do. He disagreed with his predecessors without batting an eyelid, including in things that were perceived as highly unusual. He imposed his logic on the sources (as the Rambam showed several times in his explorations of the roots), and in some places he also disparaged and even mocked his predecessors and those who disagreed with him. None of this necessarily expresses disrespect. It expresses involvement and a sense of family. Within the family, people speak freely. That's part of the point of this family experience.

If there was anywhere an expression of disdain towards any of the first or the greatest of the latter (as mentioned, I don't remember any), I invite readers to present it here (preferably with a link). If there are any, I will pull them back here. But if I expressed my position cynically or ironically, that's my way. This should not be seen as disdain because it does not express disdain. It is a form of expression that came to sharpen the points and the difficulties they entail. It is difficult for me to understand an interpretation that sees my words as disdain for the people whose position I have dedicated my life to clarifying. As far as I am concerned, the reader of this site is a participant in a Beit Midrashic discussion. This is how my words should be seen, and anyone who interprets them differently is mistaken and misleading.

[1] Worth seeing here.