Academic Bias in ‘Akdamot’

The Rabbi’s Opening Post

Academic Bias in ‘Akdamot’

Posted on 12/3/2006

| |

Academic Bias in ‘Akdamot’

I have encountered at least two cases (those I remember at the moment, and in my impression there are more) that are puzzling in the editorial judgment of ‘Akdamot’, and I do not know whether this is merely coincidence.

1. The first is Asher Cohen’s article, entitled ‘The Knitted Kippah and What Lies Behind It’, which opens ‘Akdamot’ 15 and runs for about 22 pages. The article deals with empirical research and theoretical discussion regarding religious Jewish identity in our time. Cohen opens his article with the claim that, for most of the religious public, a religious murderer is conceivable (Yigal Amir, of course), but a religious person who eats non-kosher food or desecrates the Sabbath is not. In the end, his main explanation is that the focus of identity is determined by external criteria rather than by inwardness. Beyond this trivial claim, I see no connection at all between it and the data it is supposed to explain. Is murder somehow hidden, as opposed to desecrating the Sabbath or eating non-kosher food? After all, those are done much more secretly than murder is (certainly the murder of a prime minister). Beyond that, the entire article is riddled with internal contradictions and irrelevant research. Some of the conclusions are downright banal. The methodology is terrible, and the analysis is simply appalling. I sent a response to ‘Akdamot’, in which I pointed out the contradictions and the serious methodological problems in that foolish article, but I was rejected on the grounds that the topic had been exhausted. I do not know why it was exhausted after a single article that appeared without any response. My response shows that the whole article does not hold even mud, let alone water; it is riddled with holes. So what exactly has been exhausted here?

2. And then, in the latest issue, I see Zvi Zohar’s article, which in itself merits discussion, on permitting conjugal life without marriage ceremony and betrothal (relying on the law of concubinage), but this is not the place to elaborate. At least part of it is simply idiotic, and the halakhic judgment in it is plainly unreasonable. Alongside the article, because of its sensitivity and novelty, three responses were published (Rabbi Henkin, Rabbi Shmuel Ariel, and Michal Tikochinsky and Racheli Sprecher), as well as an introduction by the editors in an apologetic tone. In my view, all three responses were excellent and touched on all the important points. After a detailed reading (some of them are very long, and I do not know how many people will bother to read them all), it is clear that Zohar was tendentious and that a significant part of his arguments fail. In his reply, Zohar refers to the responses only in general terms and does not address any of the problematic points (apart from the feigned innocence common among academics of his stripe, namely, that he is only raising question marks and not making assertions. It is worth reading the article, because it is very hard to see there anything resembling a question mark. There are categorical assertions there, more categorical than anything you will find on the broadsides of Mea She’arim. This is a common technique for promoting a very clear agenda under the guise of research, proposals, or raising doubts).

To get to the problem, I will focus on his response to Rabbi Shmuel Ariel. When I read it, I was astonished. Rabbi Ariel (incidentally, the son of the president of the Rabbinical Court for Matters of the People and the State, long may he live) wrote a model response, systematic and meticulous, examining the various aspects one by one and refuting almost all of Zohar’s arguments. In his reply, Zohar does not address a single one of the points (out of dozens) raised by Rabbi Ariel. His treatment of Rabbi Ariel’s response is confined to two points: a. Rabbi Ariel supports concealing halakhic facts (= ‘holy lies’) for reasons of halakhic policy. Zohar attacks him on this point. b. Rabbi Ariel claims that the spirit of the Torah regarding the family unit is encapsulated in three points, and Zohar claims that the spirit of the Torah changes from generation to generation.

Now, point a. is simply a bald lie. Rabbi Ariel did not write anywhere in his article that he supports concealing halakhic facts. That was not part of his argument at all. He simply argued that there was no concealment, because the permission regarding concubinage raised by Zohar is simply incorrect. It is not hidden; it is halakhically incorrect (see his reasons there). Point b. is taking words out of context. Rabbi Ariel mentioned those three points (two of them in passing in a footnote) as an empirical fact about the attitudes of people in our generation, not as a normative claim about the spirit of the Torah. Therefore Zohar’s argument is irrelevant to them (I am abbreviating in order to make things easier for the pleasant reader here on the forum). So Zohar does not address at all a response dozens of pages long, despite the fact that, according to him, his entire purpose in publishing these remarks is to arouse a serious and substantive discussion of the issue (so he says!). The two points he extracts from Rabbi Ariel’s entire article are simply falsehoods, and to everything else he does not respond at all.

And now, when I spoke with Rabbi Ariel about the matter, I heard to my astonishment that he had approached the editors about it before publication and asked to set the record straight (that is, that the editors should approach Zohar and ask him to revise his remarks and try to aim more closely at the truth, or that they should address the falsehoods themselves, or that they should allow Rabbi Ariel himself to respond). He was refused, and it is not clear to me (or to him) what the reasons for this were.

In my opinion, the introduction written in that issue, which tells us that the purpose of publishing the article is to arouse a serious and substantive discussion of a burning issue and to stop sweeping it under the rug, should have obligated the editors to ask Zohar to address the points raised in the responses. That is how a serious, substantive, and open discussion ought to be conducted. But to allow a mendacious reply of this kind to be published and not insist on correcting the distortion already crosses the bounds of good taste by any standard.

These two events raise somber thoughts in me regarding the editorial board’s academic biases. In both cases, the matter concerns an academic whose words are marred by serious errors. In both cases, the claims of that academic are very much in fashion and are blatantly tilted in the ‘enlightened’ direction. In both cases, the responses come from the more ‘traditional’ (= yeshiva) world, which opposes that ‘enlightened’ direction. And in both cases, there are puzzling considerations that prevent publication of the material and prevent placing those researchers in their proper place.

My question is: is this coincidence? Pure coincidence, or not so pure?

Shloymele? Gog? What do you say?

Source (the ‘Stop Here, We Think’ forum): http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=1839072