Regarding the matter of knowing what to reply to a fundamentalist follower?
Hello Rabbi, I wanted to know your position on the issue that I get stuck in my environment regarding conversations I have with friends who are close to Chabad Breslov Hasidism or even Mount Moriah. In every conversation I have with them, the leitmotif of the authority that determines how to relate to the Peshat and Midrash and how we are more fond of the commentators who avoid seeing our characters as normative people fighting against their instincts recurs. Every argument is interrupted by a sentence quite similar to: “We are not pure enough to understand the depth of the case and the rabbis have already interpreted with their holy spirit how we relate to these issues.” Moreover, more than once and a half times we find absolute statements in the Sages that are difficult for us to accept and are not at all far from what I said before. For example, Rabbi Chaim Vital writes in the introduction to The Tree of Life: “And behold, today I will express riddles and wonders that are clear to all, for in every generation His grace has been wondrous to us by the Lord, and He has explained to us through the remnants that the Lord calls in every generation as mentioned, and also in our generations, this is the God of the first and the last, who did not withhold a redeemer from Israel, and He was jealous for His land, and He had compassion on His people, and He sent us a city and a kaddish from the heavens, the great divine rabbi, the pious teacher and rabbi, the great Rabbi Yitzchak Luria Ashkenazi, may God have mercy on him, a man full of Torah, a carmon, in the Bible, in the Mishnah, in the Talmud, in the discussion of the Midrash and Haggadot. In the act of Genesis, in the act of the Merkava, he is knowledgeable in the conversation of trees, in the conversation of birds, in the conversation of angels, he knows the wisdom of the face mentioned by the Rabbi in the Parasha.” And you will see, knowing all the deeds of men that they have done and that they will do, knowing the thoughts of the Almighty before they are brought out of power into action, knowing the future and all the things that have been in existence throughout the land and for what is always decreed in the heavens, knowing in the wisdom of the incarnation who is new and who is old, and the nature of that man in which place depends on the upper man and the lower Ahar, knowing in the flame of the candle and the flame of fire wonderful things, looking and observing with his eyes the souls of the first and last righteous men and dealing with them in the wisdom of truth, knowing the smell of man, all his deeds by the grace of God will be purified in the presence of Balak, and all the wisdom mentioned were with him as if placed in his lap whenever he wished, without having to isolate himself and inquire about them, and his eyes saw and did not see strange things, frightening things not seen or heard in all the land from the days of Rashbi, may God bless him and grant him peace, until now.
If we pay attention to what is said in the words of Rabbi Chaim Vital, we can see here the root and even legitimacy for excessive admiration that leads the Hasid to abandon the world of simplicity and investigation in order to live in a hidden parallel world where only one can continue the tradition and bring solutions and correction to the world. In Breslov, we also find that we need to cling to the Tzadik of the generation and have already established that Rabbi Nachman is the Tzadik of the generation despite not being here for more than 200 years. And how do we know that he is the Tzadik of the generation, that it is common knowledge in the mouths of his Hasids that he himself said this and therefore it is not possible to continue the discourse because it is stuck by a non-rational prophetic postulate.
What is more difficult for me and also painful is that I do not want to deny the closeness of people like Rabbi Chaim Vital or Rabbi Nachman or even the Chabad rabbis, but I ask myself, in the great prophet Moses we did not see excessive admiration, we did not see the qualities described by the late Ari or by the Rabbi himself, and why do they give them more credit than Moses himself? Therefore, it is appropriate to ask myself how to evaluate them without denying their Torah by virtue of the dogmatic things that appear in them. Did Rabbi Chaim Vital exaggerate his qualities in the description he makes and should this be seen as an exaggeration on purpose, or does he really think what he says, and then we will have to cast doubt on his books. But if I doubt the truth of his words, I will have difficulty continuing to study the Rema, who cites many of the traditions taken from the late Ari himself. It is worth noting what Rabbi Mordechai Breuer wrote about the popularity of the secret doctrine and the abandonment of the simple in the article “Faith and Science in Biblical Interpretation.”
Thank you for answering and I wish you a good week and a pleasant winter.
Moshe Sidi
I don’t think there’s a good argument to make against them. If they’re locked into the idea that there are people in another sphere, then what can you say to them against it? Try to convince me that there’s no celestial teapot around Jupiter.
At most, one can bring them sources from various sages throughout the generations who themselves say such things, and then perhaps they will be convinced. For example, there are mathematical and scientific errors in the Talmud and in the Rishonim. There are halachic errors by the great Amoraim that appear in the Talmud (see Shavuot 26a, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi). There is a public saying that the Torah itself says to bring about an error in the Bible.
Another argument is circularity. Who told them that this is the rank of those sages? Those sages themselves. In other words, the decision that this is the rank of those sages is a decision of your interlocutors. After all, this is a position that they themselves adopt by virtue of their decision. Who said that it is correct? After all, they are certainly not elevated from the people. Good, but that won’t convince them either.
And above all, even if there is someone very wise who is never wrong, there is still a value of autonomy, meaning that I have an obligation to act in a way that seems right to me (even if I am wrong). See Maharal Petu from the Torah Path. But even in this they probably will not be convinced.
Bottom line, I see no need or value in trying to convince fundamentalists. Leave them alone and act as you see fit. Nahra Nahra and Pashtia.
Thank you for your answer, and what about the statements of Rabbi Chaim Vital about his rabbi, which seem completely excessive? How should we respond to them?
First, maybe it's true. Second, Ra'hu wrote quite a few strange things. And third, maybe it was written for educational purposes and not as a factual description.
A slanderous video that I considered deleting. In the end, I decided not to. Here I'm just saying that the speaker's jump there between the cynical use of the word "Rach" to a conclusion about the tendencies and character of the word "Rach" itself is cheap and unintelligent demagogy (which raises the eternal dilemma: stupidity or wickedness).
I didn't understand what the slander was?
There are facts there that he went to oil readers and a sorcerer.
These are facts. Why are these slanders?
And the video claims that it is impossible to follow a person who goes to such people (and other things that are presented in the video).
One of the "facts" is that he is a crook. One of the assumptions that accompanies his words is that going to all these factors is a conspiracy (not a perception, which one can of course disagree with).
Hello,
I didn't quite understand.
He wrote about himself that he went to a fortune teller and a sorcerer.
In your opinion, is a person who goes to a fortune teller and a sorcerer a person who can be followed from a Torah perspective?
I think I was very clear (you don't need to go to the readers in the cafe to understand).
I said that his position, which I think is bizarre, is indeed strange and unclear. But that doesn't mean he's a crook who does it on purpose. It's clear that he believes these things, and doesn't even bother to hide them. In my opinion, it even borders on prohibitions, but it's hard to deny that there are quite a few sages who accept such behavior to this day. Therefore, the slander that accompanies all of this is slander.
That doesn't mean that I would follow such a person or that it's appropriate to follow him. That's a completely different discussion. And it also doesn't say anything about his teaching, whether there's anything to learn from it and whether it's important or not. One rule for the strange things in praise of the Rach and another for the Ari writings that he wrote. Very simple.
Hello,
I'm very sorry but I still don't understand.
You wrote:
1. ” But that doesn't mean he's a crook who does it on purpose”. In my opinion, most crooks “don't do it on purpose”. Crooks who are really crooks on purpose – In my opinion, this is the minority. Many of them are simply “under the influence” and aren't even aware of it. Many crooks who are caught deny what they did (in all types of offenses) and many times they really believe it (denial in the language of psychology). In general, – Just because someone doesn't do something “on purpose” doesn't mean they're not a crook. Many sex offenders, for example, say they were seduced (even if it's children) and they truly and sincerely believe it, they're just completely into it. A few examples below
2. “In my opinion, this even borders on prohibitions” – Is there a rabbi today who would allow going to oil readers and sorcerers for guidance?
3. “But it is hard to deny that there are quite a few sages who accept such behavior to this day” – Which wise person accepts such behavior? Do you have even one name of a single wise person who accepts such behavior? You wrote “quite a few”, I can't think of a single one.
4. “Therefore, the slander that accompanies all of this is slander”. To say that a person who goes to oil readers and sorcerers cannot be a Torah authority is slander?
5. “It also says nothing about his teachings, is there anything to learn from it and is it important or not” – How can such behaviors say nothing about his teachings? Torah, which is a spiritual thing, is directly related to the personality of the one who says it.
6. “One law for strange things in praise of the Lord and another law for the writings of the Ari that he wrote” – How is it possible that the laws are different. Torah is not a technical thing, everything is closely related to the personality of the writer. Therefore, for example, the giver of the Torah was the humblest of all people.
from – https://www.vice.com/en/article/gqmz4m/how-criminals-justify-crimes-psychology-gangsters-uk
According to criminal psychology expert Shadd Maruna, studies indicate that the majority of criminals either make excuses for, or attempt to justify, their actions. There's little evidence that these justifications are made prior to committing the crimes, so it's possible—and somewhat likely—that they're thought up afterwards as a way to mitigate the guilt.
“Criminologists have interviewed every imaginable sample of individuals who break laws, and found remarkable consistency in the use of what we call ‘techniques of neutralization,'” Maruna explained. “There have been studies of deer poachers, terrorists, rapists, shoplifters, cyber hackers, murderers—you name it. And yet the individuals involved tend to use a very consistent and discernible number of post-hoc rationalizations to account for what they did.”
These “techniques of neutralization” form the basis of a concept known as “neutralization theory,” which was posited by sociologists David Matza and Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. The theory holds that criminals are able to neutralize values that would otherwise prohibit them from carrying out certain acts by using one or up to five methods of justification: “denial of responsibility,” “denial of injury,” “denial of the victim,” “condemnation of the condemners,” and “appealing to higher loyalties.”
“Denial of responsibility” is when an offender proposes that he or she was forced by the circumstances they were in to commit a crime; “denial of injury” means insisting that the crime was harmless; “denial of the victim” involves the belief that the person on the receiving end was asking for it;
and “condemnation of the condemners” is when the criminal claims that those criticizing or dishing out punishment are doing so out of spite or to shift the blame from themselves. The final method, “appealing to higher loyalties,” involves the perpetrator believing that the law needs to be broken for the good of a smaller section of society—for example, a gang or a group of friends.
from – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15006294/
Treatment of sexual offenders is routinely complicated by the presence of denial. This article examines how denial is related to the willingness to take responsibility for offense-related thoughts and actions and how conceptualizations of denial have developed and changed over time. Multiple facets of denial are described in detail, along with an assessment of how different forms of denial undermine acceptance of responsibility throughout treatment.
Evidence is presented to show that resistance and denial often hinge on cognitive and motivational processes that are commonly accepted as fundamental treatment targets rather than treatment obstacles. The authors propose that denial may be best understood as the acceptance of explanations that reduce accountability and are reinforced by distorted beliefs and self-deceptive thinking processes.
I'm done. Anyone who wants to insist won't help anything.
Among your words you wrote: “And above all, even if there is someone very wise who is never wrong, there is still a value of autonomy, meaning that I have an obligation to act in a way that seems right to me (even if I am wrong).”
I wanted to know what the source of these things was? Many thanks in advance. (I so appreciate it that the Honorable Rabbi always answers questions and addresses difficulties. May there be a will that will add days to the days of a king)
I don't know what source you're expecting. It's like asking what the source is for the fact that one must act logically or consistently? This is a logical assumption and it doesn't need a source. In my article on autonomy in ruling on halakhah, I provided reasons and sources for autonomous ruling on halakhah (even if it is wrong). But in questions of lifestyle and faith, this is self-evident and I don't know what source I can provide. If you want, there's a source from Elijah the Prophet: "How long will you ignore both points? If the Lord is God, follow Him, and if the husband is God, follow Him." After all, whoever thinks that the husband is God is required to be a man and follow Him. Of course, one can reject this as just rhetoric, but in my opinion, it is completely serious. In any case, this is a simple assumption.
This is related to the question of whether when judging a person (morally or religiously) do you judge him by his actions or his motives, whether you judge him by his system or by the truth. I have dealt with this quite a bit on the site. See, for example, column 372.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
