What is 'coping'? (Zohar – 2007)
How to 'cope'
(Response to Aryeh Katz's article 'Dealing with Biblical Criticism in the Rabbinic Conversations')
In his article, Aryeh Katz describes the Rabbi's approach to biblical criticism as an original and new approach, essentially different from that of Rabbi Hoffman (=locally dealing with every critical claim) and of Rabbi Mordechai Breuer, the late (author of the method of examinations, which is a comprehensive dealing with the critical method).
I found nothing new or different from these two methods in all his words, and in fact nothing beyond the trivial. The Rachi's 'confrontation'[1], according to the Dachtz, boils down to the fact that if the Torah is seen as a whole, it makes no sense to examine it piece by piece. This is of course a tautological statement[2], since this is what the debate itself was about (is the Torah a single whole or composed of patches). How does he deal with the body of the critical claim that the Torah is not a single whole? Even if such an intention was there, this is not made clear in the article.
Arguments like this are good, if at all, when they are made within the Beit Midrash, to the convinced only. But today a large part of the public is already aware of detailed claims, and it is known that their victims are enormous. Almost everyone who has seriously encountered the critical claims describes the serious problems they raise for him. Therefore, a confrontation is needed here, and not a 'confrontation' such as the one described in the article.
The article describes the speaker's 'dealing' with criticism through two theses: 1. Each Pentateuch has a different role, and therefore parashits in different Pentates should be read according to the role of the Pentateuch in question. 2. The parashits appear in pairs that present contradictory aspects of the same matter. I will make a few comments on this (precisely as a reader who is not at all versed in biblical criticism):
1. Throughout the entire article, not a single example of the criticism's claim is given (in note 9 there is an apology that, since he does not want to give room to heretical opinions, he does not detail the claims), nor of the answers to them. It is difficult for me to see 'dealing' with something that one is reluctant to address. Someone who does not want to address something should not say (and should not think) that he is dealing with it. You cannot eat your cake and have it too.
2. What is in the article are only general slogans (which have a strong smell of arrogance), as the article's concluding sentence reads:
When we see [how? where?] the systematic structure of the Torah in its entirety, again the attempt to cut it into pieces glued together in the form of patchwork seems like utter nonsense.
I did not see in his words the 'structure' he speaks of, and whose existence he assumes without providing evidence for it. Therefore, I fail to see the foolishness of the criticism. In fact, in light of these things, the reader may be left with a real need to see what things are supposed to be, and with this type of 'coping' tool, I think his chances of coming out on top are quite slim.
3. The two above-mentioned theses are described at a general and non-binding level. The author does not provide any proof for these claims. The claims themselves are also vague, general, and non-binding theses. Beyond that, I also did not understand the novelty of the things (which on the surface seem trivial).
4. As far as I know, biblical criticism does not divide specifically between Pentateuchs but between sources (which are sometimes mixed in the various Pentateuchs), and therefore it is not clear to me why an argument about the role of the Pentateuch is contested. On the contrary, in light of what I have said, the picture presented in the article only exacerbates the difficulty.
5. Of course, 'critical' contradictions do not only occur between adjacent parshas. And the reversal of aspects is nothing more than a very partial and non-concrete formulation of Rabbi Breuer's theory of tests.
6. The main problem that biblical criticism raises does not lie in one or another claim, but in their accumulation. As far as I understand, it is the entire complex that really calls into question the integrity of the Torah, and therefore a local approach (such as that of the Radetz, as opposed to that of Rabbi Breuer) will not be useful here. Rabbi Chaim is known for his words (on the issue of the fool in the feast) that one can bring one or two local excuses, but not three. If there are three problems (and there are many, many more) it will be very difficult to solve them with local excuses.
7. I did not find a third approach here, as the author claims. There is a reference here (very indirect and without providing evidence) to marginal and unimportant problems only, which basically recycles part of Rabbi Breuer's method (but unlike him, without any detail and without any attempt to offer a general picture and structure).
To be honest, I don't know who to direct my criticism at: the Ritz himself? I'm not sure he even intended to deal with biblical criticism.[3] The author of the article, whose arguments seem to belong to a period thirty years ago, and are addressed at most to a convinced audience within a very specific beit midrash (to whom, according to the Ritz, there is no point in directing criticism of biblical criticism). Or perhaps the editorial staff, which allowed an article such as this to be published? Perhaps the admiration and love (for the Ritz) spoiled the line.
Regardless of the intended recipient of my criticism, a rather bleak picture emerges here regarding the ability of the traditional yeshiva world to cope with the new spirits (actually not so much anymore) around us. The academy presents a system that attempts to establish and define its claims (of course, mixed with quite a bit of nonsense and speculation, as is the custom of the humanities), and statements are written against it without any systematic investment and consideration of the subjects of the criticism, and without arguments and justifications. Admiration of the rabbi is no substitute for arguments, and what is good inside the beit midrash is not necessarily good for dealing with the outside world.
We have long since passed the period when 'joking, without argument or justification, directed mainly inwardly' was sufficient to deal with ideas. The disdain for the opponent (as well as the automatic cataloging of everything outside as an 'opponent') has already brought upon us, and is still bringing upon us, quite a few destructions. The time has come to free ourselves from these anachronistic and harmful approaches.
I suggest asking students who come to study Bible at university how beneficial such 'confrontations' are to them and their friends in encountering what they hear there. For the sake of argument, they do more harm than good. Such references give the impression that the criticism (= the Bible) is indeed well-founded, and that the traditional world really has no real possibility of confronting them. There are already several better and more fruitful directions today, and I do not see any unique contribution here to this important effort, which is a shame.
[1] Two important clarifications:
A. The quotation marks are not intended to express cynicism, but rather the main point of my argument that there is no confrontation in these things. This expression is intended to emphasize the fact that I am not trying to dispute the form of confrontation here, but to point out its absence.
B. My claims in the article are directed against the theses attributed by Aryeh Katz to the Rachi, and not against the Rachi himself, since I am not familiar with his writings nor his method on these issues. The only exception is the footnote that deals with the Rachi's confrontation with Christianity, as published in 'Tzohar' 2.
[2] Definition: A sentence that does not assert anything, but rather presents a definition (or identity) in the guise of a claim.
[3] Although, even with regard to the speaker's criticism of Christianity, as presented in 'Tzohar' 2, I feel that it is difficult to see it as a real confrontation. He attacks Christianity with Torah and halakhic arguments, and his arguments assume what is wanted and therefore appeal to a convinced audience. He also accuses Christianity of absurdities that can certainly be found in our country as well (it's all a question of empathy and willingness to accept). Beyond that, it is not clear to me what the point is in confronting Christianity at all? Does it pose any threat in our time? We see here a phenomenon of making claims that assume what is wanted against a convinced audience, and there too, if someone were to try to examine things seriously, they might reach completely opposite conclusions, precisely because of this 'confrontation' itself. Incidentally, at least there is a relatively detailed reference there (although far from systematic) to the object of criticism, and there is no fear of presenting problematic positions to the reader, unlike Aryeh Katz's approach in the article discussed here.
Not always, important, wise, and influential scholars, however they may be, can successfully deal with ideas that exist outside the Beit Midrash. Sometimes their main importance is in providing general guidance to students and students of students, who will do it better than they do.