Following the arguments of Rabbi Soloveitchik in his talk “This is Chinese”
I will quote here the arguments of the Grand Rabbi, zt”l, which I would be happy to hear the Rabbi’s response to:
1. Attitude towards the traditional sages –
“Fourth, accepting the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven requires us to revere, love, and admire the words of the sages of the Masoretic text. Whether they are Tannaim, Amoraim, or Rishonim – they are the ultimate authority. Irresponsible statements towards the Sages border on – I don’t like to use the word, but that is how the Rambam says – on heresy. Thus the Rambam writes (Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8): “And so is the infidel in its interpretation, and it is a Toshabeh”p and the denier of its interpretations, such as Zadok and Baytus.” Anyone who denies the truth and reliability of the Torah as it is is a Zadokite. Why did he add “and the denier of its interpretations,” meaning someone who denies the authority of the sages of the Masoretic text? Because under the category of ‘Torah heretics’ are classified not only those who deny Toshba’s truth, of that there is no doubt, but even those who acknowledge the truth of Toshba’s truth – but criticize the personality of one of our sages, z”l. They find shortcomings in the sages, defects in their character traits, their behavior, their philosophy, their view of the world, or attribute to them prejudices against the sages. They truly have no influence on Halacha, and in 27 they should be seen as heretics. Such a person is a heretic because he denies their impeccable integrity, and their credibility as truth-tellers.”
Where is the line drawn between acknowledging the mistakes of Chazal (which they certainly were, ‘he was wrong about a Mishnah,’ etc.) and “denying the Magi”?
Is there really a problem in saying that the sages were influenced by foreign philosophies, just as they were influenced by erroneous scientific concepts?
2. The validity of the sages’ rulings –
“Not only the laws, but also the assumptions that the Sages used to judge the laws of the Torah, are unassailable. Do not tamper, not only with the laws but also with the assumptions, because the assumptions that the Sages spoke of are not based on transient, changing psychological behavioral patterns, but on fixed ontological principles (ontology = that part of metaphysics that discusses the essence of beings), rooted in the very depths of the metaphysical human personality, which cannot be changed like the heavens above.”
(He later refers to “Tev Lemitav” and the forfeiture of Kiddushin)
Again, is it really necessary to say this?
It is true that if you abolish the precepts, countless laws are overturned, but that is not an argument. Why wouldn’t human precepts change over the years? Just as ‘the sorrow of giving birth to sons’ may change with the right medical treatment (an epidural right now, who knows what in a few years), it can also be said that ‘your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you’ will change with the right development of feminism.
3. For the method of studying Halacha –
“The study of Halacha and its interpretation, Korach argued, are exoteric activities, democratic activities, in which every reasonable person is permitted to participate. Moses’ claim to be the sole Halacha authority and the sole interpreter of Halacha, Korach argued, has nothing to rely on. The implication of this democratic philosophy is clear. What Korach wanted, and many want even now, and I am not just talking about opposition groups, I am talking about the Orthodox community, whether they declare it openly or use ambiguous language, or cunning language to cover it up, is that the ‘tool of interpretation’ of the Torah be common sense, everyday empirical knowledge, not the esoteric, abstract logic, which can only be acquired through diligent study, practice, and effort…”
Does the Rabbi agree with the statements regarding the logic of the thirteen virtues that the Torah requires?
Regarding questions 1 and 2, I can understand that the Grand Rabbi presented a relatively extreme position because he probably had to counter conservative-reform approaches (although that doesn’t fit with my description of his character), but the positions he presents – in conversation with rabbis – seem too absolute to me.
Thank you in advance.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
- The limit is common sense. These are people like you and me, and they should be treated accordingly. See the commentators on the mishna “Judge every man fairly” who explain that it should be interpreted according to common sense. See also my article on Occam’s razor. https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%93-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D/
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This conversation is simply a matter of thought and not just a form of study.
I will quote more from the conversation: “One should not judge, evaluate Torah laws and laws according to the standards of a secular value system. Such an attempt, whether based on historical or psychological interpretation, whether coming from a utilitarian (utilitarian) direction, undermines the very essence of the Torah and the tradition, and ultimately leads to the more tragic results of ideologies of assimilation and nihilism, and it does not matter how good the intention of the person making these suggestions is. We must not surrender emotionally. We must not feel inferior… the one who suffers from an inferiority complex surrenders to the fleeting charm of a modern political or ideological slogan. I say not only not to compromise… but even not to surrender emotionally, not to feel inferior. It must never occur to someone who has taken upon themselves the yoke of the kingdom of heaven that it is important to cooperate even in some way with a direction of modern secular philosophy. In my opinion, Judaism does not need to apologize either to the modern woman or to modern representatives of religious subjectivism… It goes without saying that one should not try to adapt the eternal halakhic norm to the transient values of a neurotic society, and indeed such is our society”
Is this actually like the rabbi's approach to morality and halakhic law?
Not exactly, and in my opinion, this is not his own approach either.
I do think that the two categories are not dependent on each other, and the basis of halakha is not necessarily based on moral values, but he presents it too extreme. First, there is room for criticism. Second, it is likely that the basis of “Thou shalt not murder” is the value of human life, but halakha says that human life has a religious value and not just a moral one.
I do not believe that he himself sees the values of the culture in which he lives as a neurotic society. And the call not to cooperate with secular philosophy really sounds strange when it comes from someone who has written quite a bit and used quite a few such sources. These are slogans that I am sure he himself does not stand behind. You can also see this in his writing.
It is natural that he means pushing philosophy towards Torah and also canceling Torah towards philosophy. He says that one can study philosophy but one should know that it is unrelated to Torah.
I actually heard two days ago that he himself did not think that his philosophical books were within the scope of Torah.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
