A Note on the Nature of the Columns and the Comments on Them (Column 245)
With God's help
For some time now I have noticed that the comments on my columns present a problematic picture. I thought it proper to write a general note about this in the format of a short column, so that readers will take it to heart. As I shall explain below, the previous two columns provide good examples of the phenomenon I wish to comment on here.
In many cases, I tend to examine a case through the general aspects reflected in it. Even when I study Talmud, I tend to examine a difficulty, a resolution, an initial assumption, or a conclusion of the Talmud and the medieval authorities (Rishonim) through a broad, cross-cutting prism: what assumptions underlie it, how general they are, what can be learned from them about a general philosophical and logical worldview, and whether this can be seen in additional cases (preferably ones entirely different in content).
Such a perspective has many advantages: it yields a great many interesting conclusions, or at least points for discussion. It is also helpful for memory (one remembers a Talmudic passage better if it reminds us of a general principle). It is also useful for bringing proofs or examples for some principle one wishes to substantiate. It seems to me that the principles about which I write in the various columns usually arose for me in the course of discussing and analyzing specific topics.
Many of my columns are constructed this way as well. I take a topic or a specific case and try, through it, to examine a broader and more general principle. Sometimes the didactic method I choose is the reverse: to present a general principle and bring specific examples that illustrate it. That is what I did, for example, in the last three columns. In column 242 I discussed the comparison between Gedaliah and Rabin, and through it I tried to illustrate our inability to learn from the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)—that is, the fact that we use it rather than learn it. In column 243 I proposed a general analysis of different types of explanations that arise in response to difficulties, and compared them to various mathematical mechanisms. There too I illustrated the matter through my approach to divine providence and the theory of God's gradual disengagement from the world that I proposed in the past. And in column 244 I discussed the question of how we should judge a person who acted on the basis of a worldview with which we disagree. Once again, I resorted to Yigal Amir and drew a comparison between the way people who support abortion are judged by those who oppose it (or vice versa) and the case of Rabin's assassination.
In all these cases I used examples to illustrate the general principle, but the subject of the column was the general principle, not the examples. I should note that I generally tend to choose forceful and provocative examples, since such examples make it possible to sharpen the point under discussion. The trouble is, however, that almost all the comments (nearly all of them) dealt not with the principle but with the examples. Most people argued with me about the comparison between Gedaliah and Rabin, and much less about the question whether it is possible to learn from the Hebrew Bible. Admittedly, several columns had already been devoted to that in the past. But there it was not really clear-cut. In the other two columns this was far more conspicuous. In column 243 nobody (perhaps one person) addressed the analogy I drew, the explanation I offered (in my view very interesting and novel) for okimta (a restrictive reinterpretation), or the claim that okimta is a weaker explanation than an overcomplication explanation. And in column 244 the discussions revolved solely around Yigal Amir and abortion, and nobody discussed the question whether and how it is proper to judge a person who acts in accordance with a disputed position, even though that was the subject of the column.
I must note (and not because the forum here is almost entirely male) that in my experience such comments are more characteristic of women than of men. In my considerable experience, women tend to avoid abstraction, and when I bring an example of a general principle they tend to fasten on the example and not the principle. Even when I try to explain that they should leave the example aside, and that even if it is not a successful one it only comes to illustrate something, it is very hard to persuade many of them to do so. Somehow, with men this is easier. They are more inclined to abstraction and to discussions of theoretical issues. I have already commented in the past that perhaps this is the reason there are almost no women among the readers of this site.
But that is only an aside. Here on the site it turns out that men are like this too. For some reason the theoretical, abstract, and general subject almost never receives attention. Usually the examples, perhaps because of their extremity, take up almost the whole screen (but this happens quite a bit with non-extreme examples as well). It may be that this stems from interest in the examples, and that is entirely legitimate. It may be that people do not notice the principle because of the examples (especially the extreme ones). And it may be that people are simply not interested in abstract principles. This is strange to me, because for me that is the main thing in the world that interests me. The world, or the Talmud, or current issues, are nothing but a (boring) medium through which one can clarify (fascinating) theoretical questions. This happens in a great many columns, and I thought it proper to comment on it for the benefit of future discussions.
My remarks are of course not meant to invalidate comments on an example or examples. To each person his own areas of interest, and all are to be commended for the discussion and comments of every kind. Especially if discussion of the examples can also illuminate the general principle (which is precisely what I sought to do by bringing the example in the first place). But the overall picture nonetheless—that is, the proportions and the lack of engagement with the general principles among the comments as a whole—calls for reflection.
Food for thought. (I assume that now the comments will mainly concern columns 242-4, which are the examples of the general principle I raised here J).
May it be a good year for all of us.
Discussion
Now all the discussions will be about the differences between men and women..
Feeling good about myself for the question I asked a few minutes ago on the previous column before reading this one 🙂
If we need an example… for example, בעקבות Column 243 I read the rabbi’s article about the ukimtot. What I mean to say is that even if people didn’t comment on the abstract issue, that doesn’t mean they missed it, but perhaps only that it’s easier to discuss examples, especially in a forum format like this.
Excellent. This really is connected to the author’s inability to understand the need for the Bible/literature. He claims that one cannot learn from the Bible because there are always details in the story that do not allow one to infer a comprehensive moral principle from it, and he does not understand that this is precisely the Bible’s powerful way of conveying its messages. He does not recognize anything other than pure logical discussion, nor the power of spirit and emotion to affect a person, and their vital importance to a human being no less than philosophical discussion.
You surely understand Moses now: “If this is how You are treating me, then please kill me…”
Not “an inability to understand,” but setting a hierarchy. The world needs both paths. Some would argue that the abstract path is more advanced in terms of the development of the world and of human thought. That is certainly true chronologically; the question is whether it is true essentially. The Mishnah speaks in examples, the amoraim already formulate certain rules, and in Brisk they took it far—some would say too far. Human beings and the world probably need both of these powers, without disparaging either of them.
Just as a chiluk without a good practical difference is a problematic chiluk, so too an abstraction without a good example is a problematic abstraction. Therefore there is room to discuss examples.
Even if you are right, one should address the principled aspect of the examples and not only the examples themselves. That is exactly what does not happen. Clearly, using an example in order to address the principled plane is a principled discussion. Look at the last two columns and you will find that this almost never happens.
Orin. See my reply to Chayota. You are completely mistaken. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my attitude toward the Bible and aggadah.
I thought that was exactly what I did (addressed the principled aspect of examples).
After all, one’s general outlook is built through an ideational perspective on the examples. Therefore, if they show you that they are mistaken, perhaps they will succeed in changing your general outlook.
There is also another possibility: aside from the issue of learning from the Bible, which has already exhausted the full range of responses in previous columns, the other general issues raised here are not really disputed, and people do not tend to comment merely in order to nod in agreement.
It may be that some of the commenters really do intend to discuss the general theoretical issue, but they are continuing the line you began and doing so through the examples you brought.
For example, in my comment on Column 244 I tried to distinguish between judgment when the disagreement is factual and judgment when the disagreement is factual; I used the examples you brought only to illustrate my point. To be honest, I’m a bit offended that you didn’t understand my remarks that way; I even emphasized that this was theoretical only, since in practice there is always factual uncertainty as well.
I think this is the price of strong examples. Sometimes it is better to bring examples that are less controversy-provoking, so as not to draw the focus away from the central claim.
I don’t know which comment of yours you are talking about. It may be so (there are exceptional women. You also browse this site :)).
I have no problem with that. But I would expect a discussion of the principle, even if it is conducted through examples. Beyond that, I gave other reasons why people respond דווקא to the examples. I understand why this happens; I only regret it.
You are missing the point. I already explained that one can discuss the principle through examples. That is exactly what a practical difference does. But someone who begins discussing the example itself, not in the context of the principle, diverts the topic (incidentally, that is exactly what an ukimta does: it removes discussions that pertain only to the example and not to the principle). See at length in my article on ukimtot (which requires three examples that accompany it), and that is what I am crying about.
See my reply to the previous questioner.
That is indeed a possibility, but I find it hard to believe that everyone really agrees. There are principles here that are undoubtedly disputed.
Very true. That is indeed an example of discussing a principle through examples. I understood your remark there very well, and I even answered you again. In my opinion, you are mistaken.
Possibly. That is the claim against me. The column deals with claims against the commenters. I mentioned that possibility in this column.
Indeed.
Why do you think I put that in here specifically? So that they wouldn’t dare! 🙂
I mean my second comment here, about the essence of examples (in which, by the way, I defended you, most unusually). Are examples a primitive compromise in light of the superiority of abstractions, or do they have a power that abstractions do not?
I didn’t need to read the column in order to understand the point; I noticed this phenomenon long ago (also in myself). But you brought a very interesting example in this column… just kidding. The point is that in my opinion issues of this sort require a great deal of depth and are more complex and tangled than the examples, which are usually less complicated and usually familiar to readers, and therefore easier to respond to. When browsing the internet, people look for quick things, and even for a somewhat complex issue they do not devote more than a few short minutes. Moreover, in many cases the examples concern matters that are far more relevant and topical than the matter under discussion itself, and human nature is drawn more to that.
Hello Rabbi. Since the subject of improving the site has already been opened, as a relatively regular reader I would like to raise a difficulty I have, together with a suggestion for improvement: I very much enjoy the rabbi’s posts, and I would also like to enjoy the give-and-take that follows them—both the insightful questions and the answers. The problem is that people tend to go on a bit in their comments, and sometimes it is hard to follow. I would suggest (if it is possible at all) limiting the number of words allowed in a comment. In my opinion that would be a blessing.
A note to the “guys,” a small suggestion: I generally make a point of going over each of my comments one more time, both to make sure there are no mistakes and regarding the content. In my opinion it helps..
Thanks to everyone, and especially to the rabbi.
Since we are already dealing with examples and abstractions, here is an abstraction for a side remark (an example) the rabbi made: if the rabbi spoke about women and men, he surely knows the division of men—right side (kindness)—rules—abstractions; women—left side (judgment)—details—concretizations (examples, specific cases). And likewise the functions of the right and left hemispheres of the brain accordingly (as is commonly said, although I have heard objections on the matter). Presumably this is the explanation for the words of the Sages that women, on the one hand, are “light-minded” (knowledge is really the middle, not the right, but still from the right toward the left side), and on the other hand, were given extra understanding (left).
I am willing to continue with the analogy and claim that a considerable portion of the men on the site have a left-wing orientation, and therefore
they behave like women……:)
By the way, the rabbi’s claim about ukimta really was nice. But I don’t see why anyone would comment on it. All in all, it really does seem correct. Incidentally, personally, according to my “midrash of gaps” approach, I like to think of ukimtot as a midrash through which the Gemara expounds the Mishnah (a midrash that is halakhically binding like the midrashim on Scripture—for example, “an eye for an eye”), and I always look for the plain straightforward meaning of the Mishnah. This is beyond the possibility that ukimtot (especially those far from reality) are in fact a kind of abstraction, I think—like the cases given in physics problems, where one neglects friction, the mass of the rope, and so on, even though such cases never actually occur in reality, and this is done in order to examine through them general principles—basic laws of nature—and to see how these principles are expressed in reality. Abstraction for the sake of understanding. So too, the ukimta is a way of examining a halakhic principle (a general law) described in the Mishnah by means of a particular case (in the example of a bound slave—how the woman acquires the bill of divorce). But that itself seems to me to be my own midrash on the Gemara, because I am fairly convinced that in the period of the amoraim, people (including the amoraim) did not think in such a way systematically (this is a mode of thought that developed together with modern science). It seems more likely to me that the straightforward sense of that reality is that the amoraim expounded the Mishnah, or that they really believed the ukimta was its own plain meaning.
By the way, I have often seen that the rishonim also, in a sense, expound the Gemara, and also that Rabbi Ashlag in several places expounds the writings of the Ari in his commentaries on them. That probably requires a much broader discussion.
I never remember which way the smiley goes (:
Indeed true. Your comment there really did deal with the issue. But regarding the claim you repeat here, I will again repeat what I explained: using examples is very powerful and very helpful in principled discussion, and that is why I use them too. My claim was not against using examples for the sake of principled discussion, but the opposite: nitpicking at the examples themselves with no connection to the principled discussion. When you check, you will see that an overwhelming majority of the comments do this.
I do not like such limitations, because then a person will write his comment in several consecutive comments and we will gain nothing. It only makes things more cumbersome. One can ask people to invest more effort when they write a comment and try to be briefer (as is well known, Mark Twain once said when he wrote a long letter: sorry for the length; I didn’t have time to shorten it). True, I too am long-winded, but it seems to me that I do so in order to sharpen significant points. In any case, when I write, everyone has the privilege not to read or to skim. By contrast, when people comment on the site, I always answer everyone, and therefore I deserve consideration. As far as I am concerned, clarity is no less important than length. It is quite easy to read a long and clear comment.
You are repeating here my explanation of ukimtot. See my article on the subject here on the site. Whether this is a midrash about the amoraim or whether it was their intention, that is another question. I am not at all sure that you are right.
I will respond דווקא to the title (-:
[1. I reach the site mainly through Facebook.
2. If you enter the site through Facebook and then exit back, the link disappears, and then I really have to make an effort to hit Like.
Result: first people hit Like and then enter the site, or they save it for later reading, and then they do not always read it…]
As for the matter itself,
there is a concept on Facebook, “TL;DR” (too long; didn’t read), so obviously I am not, God forbid, criticizing, not even hinting at criticism; I am only pointing out the fact that the articles are long, and rightly so.
On the other hand, in order to get the most out of the article you worked hard on (many, many thanks!), I know I need to set aside a few hours, no less, in order to go through what is written thoroughly, and that is for several reasons: first, I am not a genius. Second, the articles are long and, as I already noted, rightly so.
Third, I do not really have the intellectual ability to illuminate or add something thoughtfully to an article into which you invested time and thought (to do that I need to sit down, go through your sources, and dig up counterarguments).
On the other hand, from time to time I have the desire and the chutzpah to comment (until today, if I commented, I commented on Facebook), and here I return to reason number two from a few lines ago: in the end, what remains beyond the main topic of the article are examples or immediate impressions of the article, and what is stamped most strongly are probably the examples you brought, or a general associative feeling in connection with the article, and not necessarily your main point.
Fourth, in my humble estimation, only a few people (men and women) can read your articles fluently and internalize them to the point where a truly worthy response can emerge. Here too is the place for you to examine, between yourself and yourself, what your expectations are, given all of the above (if you agree with it at all).
To be clear, I have no desire to change or reject your way of operating, and that is not the intention of my remarks.
Personally, if from time to time I manage to read one of the articles seriously from beginning to end, that is enough for me.
As far as I am concerned, you can prevent comments altogether and leave email for whoever really feels it is important to tell you that you are wrong, or something acute.
I hope I have been of help.
Much success, and may you be sealed well.
Thank you very much. You certainly have been helpful.
And perhaps it is worth considering in advance, when presenting an “example” of a principle, that the example should add clarification to the subject and not complicate it further?
With blessings, Sh.Tz., graduate of the ‘School of Examples’ in Jerusalem 🙂
Since this is a good procedure, it is fitting to ask..
Will there be a column about Sukkot?
Column
I don’t know. There are several topics on the table, but I haven’t yet thought of anything for Sukkot.
Rabbi, what about the circling of the hakafot? Have you found any solution since the “remembered for good” post?
I have not continued looking into it.
In practice, the meaning of abstract rules derives from the fact that they can be applied to examples.
In a world without examples (abstraction that is completely abstract), there would be no abstract rules.
I’m not sure. But let’s assume so—then what?
Indeed, most of us (human beings, not women) have difficulty with abstraction, and examples are a means of making our way through it. The (abstract?) question is: are examples merely crutches, a necessary constraint, and in a “perfect” Asperger world (ha!) one could forgo them, or are examples le-khatchila—a powerful, necessary, and compact platform that contains the abstract subject within it in a more vivid and fuller way, precisely the way good literature (the Bible, aggadah) handles ideas.