The 'Lev Tahor' Cult as a Parable (Column 265)
With God's help
A few days ago I saw an episode of "Uvda" dealing with the rescue of a teenager from the cult "Lev Tahor" in Guatemala (see a review here). The cult "Lev Tahor" is an extremist Hasidic cult led by a man who became religious, Shlomo Erez Helbrans (who died about two years ago, and it is now led by his son Nachman, who is currently under arrest in the US for kidnapping children). This cult is closed off and advocates the absolute authority of the cult leader, with a bizarre worldview that repudiates everything outside it. They marry off their children at very young ages and abuse them severely (and of course the women are completely covered). The people there apparently truly believe in their leader (and are not merely held captive by force), just as in films about various cults. The program stirred somber thoughts in me on various subjects, and of course they concern not only the cult "Lev Tahor" but religious faith in general. Here I would like to address two of them.
Description of the Case
For years the media have published reports about various people who suffered and fled, about parents and families lamenting the loss of their children or relatives who were captured among the "pure ones," and there is no way to do anything. When adults decide to destroy themselves, it is very hard to intervene, but when children and severe abuse are involved, the situation raises difficult questions about law-enforcement authorities in Israel and around the world. This cult wanders from place to place – Canada, Guatemala, Mexico, and more – and is now seeking political asylum in Iran on grounds of religious persecution (!). The children there are beaten for hours for wondering or asking questions. Of course they are forbidden to do anything on their own, and they must provide a written accounting of every moment of their daily schedule. They are married off against their will in childhood, required to serve the leader absolutely, and subjected to more and more horrifying things that the mind cannot bear. The children do not belong to their parents but to the cult and its leader. It is hard to believe that sensible, educated people fall into the net of such charlatans and are willing to place everything dear to them in their hands.
Back to the program. The story begins with a man who served in the paratroopers and studied engineering at the Technion, what is usually called the salt of the earth, who became religious, lived in Bnei Brak, and at a certain stage got drawn into the cult in question. Yisrael Amir, the hero of the program, is the son of that man who joined the cult, and he arrived there at age 11 together with his parents and several siblings. It turns out that before his father's becoming religious, the aunt, who was very close to him, was worried about losing the ability to maintain her relationship, and that of her children, with him and with the family in general. The father (her brother) reassures her and does not understand the concern at all, but of course the relationship is quickly cut off, since the cult leader forbids all contact with the outside world.
The film begins with a message that Yisrael manages to send to his aunt, asking her to come and rescue him from the fenced compound in which he lives with the rest of the cult in Guatemala. Upon receiving this message, his amazing uncle and aunt (his father's brother and sister) do not hesitate, pack their belongings, and set out immediately for Guatemala to rescue him (he is already 19, an adult, and therefore there is presumably no legal problem, even though his parents are there). It turns out that Yisrael managed to get hold of a smartphone, and in secret he learned about the internet and succeeded in sending a message, until they realized he had such an 'impure' device. I will not weary you with all the abuse he went through, including his marriage to a girl several years younger than he was, and the birth of his child, with whom he now, after managing to escape the cult, has no way to make any contact. As part of the rescue operation, his uncle and the cameraman are beaten with extreme violence by members of the cult, and it seems that law-enforcement authorities in all the countries do not really succeed, and perhaps do not want, to do anything about it. This whole business is really not clear to me.
When he leaves the cult compound and joins his relatives, Yisrael buys new clothes, cuts off his sidelocks in a painful scene (very hard for me to watch), and is reborn. It seems that the question of faith was not on the table at all at that stage. His relatives do ask him what he thinks and what his beliefs are, but naturally it is clear to him that in leaving the cult he is also leaving his faith and his religious commitment.
The Meaning of Utopias: On Complexity
Before I enter the heart of the discussion, I would like to make a remark about the inability of religious society and leadership themselves to cope with such extreme phenomena (the shawl women, cults like "Lev Tahor," hilltop youth, and so on).
For years the Haredi leadership has tried unsuccessfully to deal with the shawl women and adjacent cults, yet it has not succeeded. Likewise, the Religious Zionist leadership has not managed to deal with the hilltop youth. At first glance, this is surprising, since these groups operate from a point of departure of commitment to Jewish law and to halakhic authorities (the Haredi or Religious Zionist ones, in the two examples I brought here). The difficulty in understanding these phenomena is twofold: it is not clear why they themselves, seemingly ultra-observant, do not obey the instructions of their leaders. Nor is it clear how the leadership itself fails to cope with these phenomena.
I have already written here in the past that the explanation for both phenomena lies in the fact that these extreme and marginal cults express, in a purer and braver way, the ideology of the entire society (religious or Haredi). The shawl women practice maximal modesty, which ostensibly constitutes a perfect realization of Haredi education. Ostensibly, this is the pinnacle of Haredi purity. Truly a model to emulate. The Haredi leadership does not like this phenomenon, apparently because it expresses feminism (distorted, in my opinion, precisely because of Haredi norms), disobedience, and intellectual independence ('more righteous than the Pope'), but nothing helps them. The reason is that the shawl women themselves understand that the problem is not their conduct as such. On the contrary, they are convinced, and to a large extent justifiably, that they live in a way that is more correct and pure, more fitting to broad Haredi values, and that the rest of society, including the leadership, compromises only out of weakness. It is no wonder that the leadership itself finds it difficult to come out against women who so clearly realize the education they received from it, and everyone senses this very well. The same is true of the hilltop youth. They too feel that the rabbinic leadership broadcasts weakness and compromise in the face of contemporary winds that come from outside (from the gentiles, from the secular), and that they are the avant-garde acting according to the true values on which they were educated. They actualize the values on which we were all raised, and therefore it is clear to them that the leadership itself, were it not for its weakness, would be pleased with their conduct (and there is justice in this assumption). That is also why they externalize their marginality (flowing sidelocks and unusual dress), in order to show that they, unlike the rest of us, do not surrender to the spirit of the times and are consistent with the values and ideology.
In both of these cases, the disobedience of the margins and the lack of control by the center over the margins stem from the same point. It is hard for a society to deal with groups that express its own values in a pure form, even if extreme. In the "Uvda" film one sees Helbrans being interviewed and explaining to journalists that he goes only by 'logic' (that was his term). He meant to say that they are the only consistent group, acting according to the foundational assumptions of religious faith, and in particular of Haredi society. There is in this an implicit criticism of the Haredi leadership, which compromises (is inconsistent, and therefore not logical). What they ("Lev Tahor") do is nothing but the inevitable conclusion of Haredi starting points, and hence their great confidence in the justice of their path and their unwillingness to accept the authority of rabbis. It seems to me that this is true of quite a few marginal groups.
It is hard to deny the attraction of these purist approaches. The Hazon Ish's famous letter lavishly praises extremism. He too sees extremism as a pure expression of devotion to values and ideology, and disgust with compromise and weakness. And indeed, in quite a few cases one should be extreme and not compromise on one's truth. In many cases compromise certainly does express weakness, except that a mature person is supposed to understand that this is not so in every case and every situation. There are situations that require complex thinking, and sometimes even compromise.
It seems to me that the way to deal with these phenomena is to educate people toward complexity. This is somewhat hard for us, since complexity means that the important values on which we educate are neither exclusive nor absolute. But the alternative is "Lev Tahor" and the hilltop youth. At the root of the difficulty lies the common feeling that a complex outlook is necessarily weakness or compromise (this too emerges from the aforementioned letter of the Hazon Ish). People feel that consistency means extremism. Therefore it is hard to convey to people that complexity is not necessarily compromise, nor weakness. The importance and necessity of complexity in matters such as these derive, among other things, from two kinds of considerations: first, there is an inherent gap between theory and reality. Even a perfect theory cannot find perfect expression in reality, and it is neither good nor right to bang one's head against the wall of reality.[1] Recognition of reality is an unavoidable necessity. But that is only a technical matter (albeit an important one). Beyond that, there is also an essential matter. The extreme theory is not always the correct one, even in an ideal world free of constraints. Thus, for example, modesty, even in an ideal world without environment and constraints, is not the wrapping of women in shawls. In reality there are always additional considerations that must be taken into account beyond modesty. The restrictions on women's lives and their confinement within a black bubble are problematic not only because they make things difficult for women (a surrender to weakness), but also because it is not proper to do this in the first place. With all due respect to modesty, it is not the only value in our lives.[2] These considerations are not a compromise with constraints but considerations of principle (which are also related to Maimonides' middle path in the Laws of Character Traits).
I am reminded now that during my years at the hesder yeshiva in Yeruham, students often criticized the yeshiva and the head of the yeshiva on the grounds that the yeshiva had no line (as opposed to the 'Kav' yeshivot, which projected a very sharp and unequivocal message regarding all the issues on the agenda). The head of the yeshiva tried again and again to explain to the students that this itself was the yeshiva's line, and that a complex outlook is also a line. It was very difficult to convey to the students the message that complexity is not necessarily compromise or weakness. On the contrary, extreme consistency (a straight, linear 'line') is usually an expression of childish thinking. Hard Platonism is a product of undeveloped thought.
Up to this point, a discussion of an important but secondary aspect of the subject. From here on I will focus on another aspect that concerns all of us more directly, namely insularity and openness. I will discuss this from two perspectives: the usefulness of insularity and the ethical wrong it involves.
Was Yisrael a Believer?
The first question I asked myself when I saw the program was whether Yisrael had ever been a believer at all. It is not clear to me whether he ever really believed and only left because of the abuse, or whether he never believed in the first place but merely created a facade because of the circumstances and the environment. I do not necessarily mean deliberate deceit out of fear, but the religious conduct of a person who does not put the difficulties on the table and does not formulate a view of his own. Such a person can live his entire life in a certain way and perhaps even think that he truly believes, but only because the other option is not legitimate in his eyes (the fear of being a heretic), and therefore does not arise as an option. He is of course not exposed to arguments for and against. On the contrary, dealing with them is forbidden in the gravest terms. If so, the first question that occurred to me was whether a cult member, and certainly a child born into it, is really a believer.
I have already written in the past that I doubt whether a person who adopted a worldview only because other options were closed off to him can indeed be considered a believer, that is, whether insularity really achieves its aim. Insularity leaves the person believing and committed on the practical plane, but in essence he is actually not a believer (for if he were exposed to other ideas and arguments he would abandon it. So he is merely unaware that he is an unbeliever).[3] Is there any point in closing a person off if that closure does not truly achieve its goal?
On the Value of Autonomy
Up to this point, the question of the usefulness of insularity. Another question, even more important in my opinion, is whether it is morally justified to close a person off in this way. Beyond the question of abuse, about which I assume there would be broad agreement even among believing people, there is also the question of choice as such. Is it not right to give a child growing up in a religious home a genuine option to choose his path? I do not necessarily mean sending him to boarding school in a secular environment or into secular society, but allowing him seriously to examine other arguments and opinions. It seems to me that on this there is fairly broad agreement among religious families and people of all stripes. Most of the religious people I know do not support opening all value-laden and ideological options before their children, certainly not beyond fairly narrow boundaries. Different religious groups exhibit different degrees of openness, but it is clear that there is no full presentation of the possibilities and certainly no legitimacy for choosing among all the options. This question touches on the dilemma between truth and autonomy.
A person like me, who believes that religious commitment is the truth and that this is how everyone ought to live, and who perhaps also believes that every deviation from it will bring suffering and problematic consequences to my child and to the world, am I not justified in educating the child in the direction that seems true to me? Does the value of openness and autonomy override the value of truth? What could be more important than religious commitment and the service of God? Is that not what we were created for?
My feeling is that it does. Every person has a fundamental right to formulate his positions and his way of life. As alarming as this may sound to a believer, that right seems to me prior to the duty to serve God and to do what is true and proper. It seems unbearable to me that parents should determine their children's way of life without giving them the possibility of deciding and shaping their path on their own. In principle, in my opinion, there is no difference between raising a child in a cult like "Lev Tahor" and raising a child in a conservative religious society that does not open options before him. In other words, the problem in the upbringing of Yisrael and his friends was not only the abuse they underwent, but the very prevention of the freedom to decide on their path. But that freedom is denied to a great many children who live in a normative environment.
I think watching a program like this arouses difficult feelings in the viewer, but it seems to me that the average viewer may not distinguish between these two aspects. As far as he is concerned, it is obvious that he is not there, and that what they do there is despicable and shocking, but that is only because he does not torture and abuse his children. But what about granting the right of choice and decision? What about a child's possibility of deciding what the right path is for him? It seems to me that here many of us suffer from the same failings as "Lev Tahor." For if truly the service of God is our purpose in the world and it is more important than any other value, then why indeed not beat children nearly to death when they show signs of leaving or raise doubts? After all, this is a momentary surgery intended to heal them and secure for them eternal life in the world to come, no? How can one condemn the abuse but justify the insularity? If the justification for insularity is the supremacy of truth and the service of God, then it can justify abuse as well (at least if it is effective, that is, if it 'puts the child back on the right path').
Here a somewhat different claim may arise. Regarding the educational path of "Lev Tahor," the religious viewer may perhaps criticize it also for not opening options, and not only for the abuse. There we are dealing with a bizarre path, and therefore parents have no right to dictate it to their children without giving them the possibility of deciding for themselves. But we (ordinary religious or Haredi people) are right. With us, it is not the same thing. We indeed do not open all the options before our children, but our option is reasonable and rational. We are not "Lev Tahor." Here it is important to remember that every parent thinks his path is the truth and the correct one. It is hard to come with such a claim against the believers of "Lev Tahor." Such a claim is honest only if I myself adopt a path of openness toward my children, even within the education I provide.
One must understand that the religious option, even the normal and ordinary one, appears to many people not very different from the option of Lev Tahor. They look at my children and their mode of education as I look at the children of "Lev Tahor." I am not a pluralist and do not believe in multiple truths, but I do believe in a person's right and duty to choose his path, even if he chooses the wrong path. Therefore I oppose parents making decisions for their children, even if the decision seems to them reasonable and rational, and perhaps even necessary. Remember that Yisrael's parents feel this way about their own path as well, and therefore they too justify educating him in this way (truth is preferable to freedom of will).
It is important to understand that the value of autonomy is not just one value among many others. It is the basis of all values, and in fact without it there are no values. If a person does not choose his path for himself, what meaning do his values and his adherence to them have? (This is somewhat related to the previous column.) Autonomy is such a fundamental right and duty that its status goes far beyond any other right and value. A person must be given an opportunity to decide about his values and his path for himself, whatever the result may be.
Well, here the following claim naturally arises. Who in the world does open all the options before his children and students? Is there any person or group in the world exempt from this claim?
And What About the Secular?
The picture would not be complete without examining the other side of the barricade, the secular side. Up to this point I have spoken about the denial of freedom in religious education. But this is no less true of secular education. Contrary to what is commonly thought, it seems to me that in most cases secular children have fewer options for choice than religious ones. The secular option is always in the background of religious education, even if people try to hide it and not expose teenagers to it. These things are certainly true in our time, when the internet and social media are open to almost everyone. Any educator can tell you that (some with complaint and some with joy). Many educators complain about it, and no fewer have difficulty dealing with the problems and challenges this raises. But that itself is proof that this is indeed the situation.
By contrast, in my impression, in secular education the religious option is not really on the table. As far as I know, it is not true that every secular young person asks himself at some stage why he should be secular or why he should not observe commandments. Many of them grow into it as though it were the only option. Within a secular framework, even if one encounters religious people and religious faith in some way, in many cases they are presented as some sort of ancient and irrational aliens. Faith is usually presented there as standing opposite science, or faith versus reason, and the like. At most, this is our people's ancient (and primitive) heritage, toward which it is fitting that we feel some sentiment. But usually there is no real presentation of these things as a rational and reasonable option for life (certainly not as the possibility that this is the correct path. Is there even such a thing as a correct path? As noted, we are pluralists). It is hard to imagine someone seriously considering an option that is presented to him in such a way. There are, of course, people who become religious, but in the overwhelming majority of cases this is not a matter of choosing one option from among those presented to them; rather, they discover it by one route or another (parents, be warned: secular teenagers surf the internet too).
Moreover, sometimes the openness and pluralism (supposedly) in secular society are precisely the perfect way to neutralize the relevance of these options. We are willing to listen to everything, but precisely when the context is such that there is no real possibility of adopting any of the alternatives presented to us. It is as though one says to the child, 'We will present before you every Indian who wants to ramble at you,' for every fool in the world has a right to speak and appear. But in the subtext it is hard not to notice that this is some delusional fool to whom, in our generosity, we merely give a hearing because we are very pluralistic. Religious people are in the same boat as Indians, various cults, those who think the earth is flat, and the like.
Atheists never stop criticizing the religious system for not teaching evolution (even though that is not entirely accurate), but no one even thinks of giving genuine airtime to the creationist option in secular education. That, heaven forfend, must not be mentioned. When I asked people about this, they replied to me innocently: 'What do you mean? We study the Hebrew Bible.' Do you see? They teach evolution in science classes, and the Hebrew Bible in the boring 'Jewish heritage' classes taught by a teacher who is usually secular like them, and everything is presented as ancient folklore that at best has literary value. If that is considered presenting all the options to the student, then religious education also presents all the options.
So What Should We Actually Do?
As stated, I am not a pluralist. I believe in the existence of truth, and I do not think that everyone is right (or that no one is). I certainly think it is important to educate children and guide them toward the truth. But at the same time I believe in the value of autonomy (see above) and in our duty to present all the options before them and give them the choice. That does not mean they must all be presented equally and without criticism, for in my eyes they do not have equal standing. But they do have to be presented honestly. Thus, for example, it is right and proper to encourage young people to examine things as much as they can and to ask people who actually believe in those options to present them in a straighter way. My education will present the truth as I understand it in full force, but alongside other possibilities (which I will tell them I do not believe in, and I will explain why I do not accept them). My duty to educate children toward the correct and proper path comes alongside my duty to allow them a genuine choice.
Let me anticipate the obvious objection and say that I am indeed in favor of opening all the options in every field, not only in the religious sphere. One should allow a platform for Christian missionaries, Holocaust deniers, pagans, egoists, rebels against the rule of law, and the like. Of course, this can be postponed to a later age and done in varying degrees. But at the end of the day, in my opinion all the options should be presented honestly. This thesis rests on two pillars: the right to express oneself (freedom of expression), and the value of autonomy, which requires giving each person the possibility and legitimacy to make decisions in light of the greatest possible amount of information and acquaintance with the greatest possible range of arguments and opinions. In order for a person to make a decision for himself, he needs to be aware of and have access to the widest possible range of arguments and views. In certain cases (such as Holocaust denial) this is indeed infuriating, but suppression, beyond being grave in itself, also has problematic consequences. The question of the boundary in such cases is very problematic. For one person the boundary is Holocaust denial, and for another the boundary is questioning Helbrans's leadership. Therefore, as I understand it, the correct path is not to restrict freedom of thought at all, at least so long as we are dealing with reasoned arguments. Let everyone present his position, and let each person choose and formulate his own view.
I once heard that among the fundamentalist Amish in the US, it is customary to give an adolescent a year or two of life apart from the community, in the big city and in general society, after which he is supposed to decide whether he wants to return to the Amish community and live among them as one of them, or whether he wants to leave. This is part of their Anabaptism. When I heard that I was truly impressed by this approach, and I think it would be fitting for all of us to adopt it. As stated, the problem with "Lev Tahor" is not only the abuse but also the denial of freedom of thought and of the legitimacy of deciding autonomously, but in this almost all of us fail in one way or another. Watching this film helped convince me greatly of the importance and centrality of the value of autonomy.
[1] I have already mentioned here Karl Popper's book, The Open Society and Its Enemies. He devotes the entire first part of the book to Plato and Platonism, since he sees Platonism as the root of the evil in all the extremist ideologies of the twentieth century. Platonists act with an idea of a perfect world, a utopia, before their eyes, and their task is to realize it exactly as it is. People who try to realize their rigid utopian ideal at any cost tend to be stiff and harsh, and not to compromise even where it would be proper to do so. The preferable prescription is the sages' midrash about David, who was called Adino the Eznite (Mo'ed Katan 16b):
He is called Adino the Eznite: when he sat and engaged in Torah study, he made himself gentle like a worm; and when he went out to war, he made himself hard like wood.
See a fuller discussion of this in column 180.
[2] I have not entered here at all into the discussion of whether walking around in a shawl is in fact modest. It is not a simple question at all.
[3] It can be argued that there is no end to this. After all, no person is exposed to all the arguments and all the positions, and it is hard to accept that none of us should be considered believers. But there must be a striving for maximum exposure, and it is certainly not right to adopt a policy of deliberate closure.
Discussion
I know that even fools have a right to autonomy, but are your words directed at them too? Because it seems to me that extreme views are also more attractive, and fools will listen and believe. That is, presenting a range of opinions is suitable for educated people who know how to think.
Presumably you will also expose your child to prostitution and drugs, so that he can decide for himself whether he desires a life of debauchery or a life of learning. For there is no point in exposing him to every reasoned opinion only in matters of ideas, while in matters of lifestyle itself you restrict him.
Good luck.
P.S. You wrote your view that the value of autonomy overrides every other value, even eternal life and maximal closeness to God [according to the religious]. I would be glad to understand why it seems to you that this value indeed prevails. Would it not be preferable to place my child in eternal happiness through no fault of his own, rather than in eternal hell through his own fault [if, as expected, he chooses evil]? True, his position might not be personal, but what is the great disaster in that?
“If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you in secret, saying: ‘Let us go and serve other gods’—which neither you nor your fathers have known—
of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near to you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth—
you shall not consent to him, nor listen to him; nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him.
Rather, you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.
And you shall stone him with stones so that he dies, because he sought to lead you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
And all Israel shall hear and fear, and shall no longer continue to do such a wicked thing in your midst.”
What about freedom of speech?
Not to love the enticer
We are likewise commanded not to incline an ear to the words of an enticer, nor to feel affection for him in any way. An enticer is one who entices one of the children of Israel to go and worship idolatry, for example by praising the practice of idolatry and extolling it to him so that he will follow it and worship it and leave from under the wings of the Shekhinah. About this it is said (Deuteronomy 13:9): “You shall not consent to him.”
Sefer HaChinukh 457
He didn’t say that the value of autonomy really overrides the value of truth, but rather that without it there is no value to the value of truth. That is, without it a person cannot say that he truly believes in something as long as he has not weighed the other options. And in your analogy, your child cannot merit eternal happiness through no fault of his own—that is, not by his own choice. I would add that he would simply be an animal, which has no eternal happiness. And in that sense I will be poetic and say that the road to heaven (eternal happiness) passes through hell (which is not even eternal as you said, for the judgment of the wicked in hell is 12 months. It is temporary; that is not an accidental fact. It is directly connected to my metaphor).
Romantic notions of returning to the roots, in short.
An unwillingness to feel as though inside the beit midrash there is something “Western” or “modern” (this is true of the Hilltop Youth, Har Hamor, and substreams in Religious Zionism; regarding sects like Gur Hasidism and Lev Tahor with all kinds of new rules and halakhot—it seems to me just a phenomenon of wanting to become more extreme and build walls as high as possible).
Indeed, this also happens among other peoples and religions in the world, and it is not at all unique to the Jewish people.
I don’t think a person should actively present opinions to his child that he does not believe in (more accurately, that he knows are not true), and not in an unmethodical way. The idea is that we advance the world and do not reinvent the wheel each time. Every generation develops the truth it received from its predecessors, and the child is supposed to continue from the point his father reached. One must simply not block criticism and asking questions. Only to curious children who love learning and know how to think and exercise critical judgment should one indeed present additional views and explain why we think they are incorrect. And if we do not know why they are incorrect, then say that too, and say that our judgment nevertheless leans toward our own view. Those places where it is not clear to us that we are indeed right—those will be the places where the next generation will discover the truth and decide whether our judgment was correct or not. Sometimes, indeed, once in a while a person arises and discovers that one of the fundamental truths is not correct as we thought (like Einstein in relation to Newton), but it does not seem especially fruitful to me to undermine the existing paradigm anew each time just for the sake of undermining it.
And regarding your question whether fundamentalists are believers—depends; there are all sorts. Leaders in various communities and their students who grew up with these outlooks—certainly.
People who, after balanced inquiry, came to want to join them—and heard arguments from all kinds of directions—yes (they, and the first ones I mentioned above, are also often very moderate).
However, there are certain personalities who change their worldview from one extreme to the other in a moment and become more extreme than the movement’s own members, and in my opinion that shows some desire for inner and emotional comfort, and also a desire to remove from yourself as quickly as possible every trace of the previous world I was in, in the sense of “a convert who converts is like a newborn child.”
It doesn’t seem to me that they have no faith, but rather that they do have some particular doubt gnawing at them, and they hide it. And many times, especially when that return to religion / move toward the hardal world / becoming Haredi comes from emotional motives of wanting to receive happiness and spiritual satisfaction at its base, it can end in a crash. (And Yaron Yadan, who was mentioned here in the posts, is an excellent example: in a lecture he gave, he himself admitted that his return to religion was motivated emotionally—and indeed, from the moment he discovered that not everything they taught him in yeshiva was 100 percent correct, he flipped 180 degrees.)
And apropos of “a convert who converts is like a newborn child”—there have also been many phenomena of converts in recent years who come to Judaism for the same reasons (especially those who were ashamed of their culture after the Holocaust and came to Judaism from the thought that it is the most exalted culture).
Interesting whether their conversion is considered valid halakhically.
A fascinating article, as usual.
However, does Your Honor not think that the approach of “laying out all the possibilities” at a young age is in fact simply a mirror image of the sentence you wrote: “Rigid Platonism is a product of undeveloped thinking”? That is, laying out all the options before one’s son or daughter is in fact also an internalization of the idyll in which I want them to walk (faith born of rationality, or secularism, or Lev Tahor, or Amish) — and all this openness is a false display? Why not be honest with yourself, and first and foremost pour content into a life that is supposedly “imposed” on the child from his childhood, before laying out all the possibilities before his eyes—for “heresy is different, because it draws one in” (Avodah Zarah 27b), since after all there is an element of risk here, and not two equal philosophical conceptions, for one obligates in a total way (even in its more liberal form), and the other is at most a worldview without far-reaching practical implications.
Even Maimonides (and I know that in matters of thought and philosophy Your Honor holds that one need not be bound to the ancients, but still I brought it in order to frame the issue), when he speaks about entering the Pardes (the philosophical/scientific one, in his view) — says that a person should first fill his belly with meat and wine; that is, create for himself an elementary and basic commitment to the framework of halakhah (through study), and in my humble opinion it seems that this is for the reason above.
I wrote all this because your words seem to imply that in your opinion the first thing that should be presented to the student is a laying out of all the outlooks and presenting them one opposite the other as completely equal. Is that really so? For if so, what is education, essentially? What advantage does a father have over his son? Is this not an idyll that leads to chaos, just like the shawled women and the like?
With God’s help, 27 Kislev 5780
To the dear youth!
Indeed, religious and Haredi society have failed because of their unwillingness to open up to original ideas. The time has come for a turning point. Come to our 'Lev Tahor' community and discover an original path, a path your educators from all circles concealed from you. Do not be deceived by the conventions of religious and Haredi society. See in Rabbi Michael Abraham’s book, “No Man Has Power Over the Spirit,” that the truth can also be found with the individual who disagrees with everyone. Therefore, come for a trial year, as the Amish do, allowing their youth to taste also of “the other side”; try our path, which promises radical change, and decide for yourselves whether it is really as bad as everyone says. Come with an open mind!
To arrange Shabbat visits, please contact our representative: Shimshon Hershel Levingrantz 🙂
And perhaps it is דווקא the person who is confused by the abundance of “legitimate methods” colliding in the “marketplace of ideas” who, “at the end of the day,” looks for some authoritative and charismatic person to bring order to the chaos?
The remedy for intellectual chaos is not to be thrown straight into the stormy sea without a guiding instructor and without tools to cope. The tools to cope come precisely through in-depth study of an orderly doctrine that explains its method and also addresses the questions and difficulties that arise and tries to answer them.
Comparative study of two parallel methods in biblical interpretation or Jewish thought—when one gets used to asking, “What difficulty was Rashi addressing?” and, by contrast, “Why did Ramban explain it differently?” — gives one tools to understand and cope with the full complexity of the subject. And when one gets used to understanding two basic methods thoroughly — one acquires tools to cope successfully with new ideas and with new questions, without “losing one’s hands and feet.”
With a bright Hanukkah blessing, S.Tz.
How are we to interpret the words of the Sages about “What is the son to do and not sin?” For it seems to imply that there are doors which, if opened, the temptation to pass through them is so great that this is not an autonomous choice of evil but a compulsion to choose evil. That is, the choice between two or more paths does not become equal and balanced simply because both are presented as options. If one is very tempting and the other seems difficult at first, they are not equal and the struggle between them is not fair, even though they have spread all their wares before the autonomous chooser.
And this is not only a matter of a young trainee or a child who still does not know what he wants to do when he grows up. We are all there, each according to his own level. There is no categorical difference between one who is tempted not to guard his eyes when a beautiful woman passes before him, and one who is tempted by the lightning of intellect and logic to propose an argument against the binding tradition. Both will claim: we were coerced, and both may perhaps be right to some extent (perhaps coercion is binary, but maybe a person can be coerced both in guarding his eyes and in guarding his heart; it is the same command of “do not stray after”). The answer would be either a full exemption because of “What is the son to do and not sin?”—that is, acceptance of the claim that it was impossible to choose in the given situation. Or one would argue about the earlier stage: why did you bring yourself into temptation when you had the option of choice? Narrowing the boundaries is an unavoidable necessity, because the frontal confrontation between them is biased from the outset by the very fact that we are human beings and not angels. Like in the story of Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschütz, who was asked by a gentile judge why the Jews bribe him, and replied that it is in order to balance the biased starting point.
Perhaps the author is trying to justify to himself why half of his children are secular, but why distort the public?
I don’t agree with the way the matter is presented.
You present it as though if we do not expose them to those methods, then we are essentially no different from the Lev Tahor sect.
In my view that is a mistake; this is a spectrum. In the sect in question, as you mention, there is a prohibition on asking questions, wondering, or doubting.
If I raise my child according to my beliefs and allow him to ask questions and see the world and understand that there are others who think differently, that is already so far removed that the comparison is just demagoguery.
I think what they do there is called training more than education, and one should indeed keep away from that and give the child the tools to understand what we believe and why, and heaven forbid not silence questions.
From there to what you are proposing—an open university in which every opinion-holder can influence the child—the distance is also great, and I think that is the opposite extreme.
I don’t see how you present a child with all these options and expect him not to come out confused.
In addition, with high probability, if a child decides to change, in my opinion it will not be for pure philosophical reasons.
I do not think my role as an educator is to seek out people whose opinions seem entirely wrong to me and present them to my son.
My role is to teach him my views and give him the tools to think and analyze and deepen.
If I understood correctly, the solution you present is only that one must not lie when presenting other positions, or make sure that children do not hear about other opinions at all. All a religious person needs to do is let his children see secular discourse in the media, and not present it incorrectly (in my opinion many do do that). All a secular person needs to do is let his children hear a religious position from someone who really believes in it, and not present it incorrectly (here those who do that are indeed few, but I assume they exist). Was I mistaken?
It may very well be that in their time idolatry was not another opinion, but simply lust, like sexual immorality in our time. Therefore this is really just about incitement to do an act that is evil and not true (even according to the doer’s own view), and not about persuasion and presenting another opinion.
Deciding that someone is a fool is paternalistic. Indeed every fool has the right to make decisions, and you are not supposed to make them for him. If there is someone whom you assess as such, make sure to accompany him as he forms a position. Helbranz thought all his followers were fools (and perhaps rightly so). My words are directed at every person. No one has the right to make decisions for another person.
Eliezer, actually no. A bit of reading comprehension. I spoke about opinions and arguments, not experiences. I also would not throw my son off the Empire State Building to see whether he dies.
It seems to me that your words are an example of the danger of exposing complex thinking to people who draw hasty conclusions from it. Would you want me to make decisions for you? Or is it more correct and proper to say everything and accompany the drawing of conclusions?
Helbranz too wants to grant his followers eternal happiness and pure truth, and therefore beats them to death for their own personal good. That is what I weep over.
Eilon, a fine definition.
Incitement is not the raising of arguments but demagogic preaching. I too am against demagoguery and not in favor of encouraging it.
Simcha, well said. See my previous response.
Hello Shlomo.
First, “Your Honor” thinks nothing. I think certain things.
I did not write that one should do everything at a young age. There is definitely room for gradualness and for presenting my truth in full force. I only meant to say that one should be honest and encourage the student to investigate and hear more opinions and more arguments. Not that I should present counterarguments that I do not agree with. This certainly can and should be done in dosage and gradually according to age and level of development. One should not present a kindergarten child with all the opinions and worldviews in the world. That is simply foolish. My claim is that the goal at the end should be that each person has a well-formed position of his own. Let him do so at the age and in the situation he finds appropriate. He should be encouraged to do so, but the presentation of positions and the encounter with arguments can take place on his own, facing other people and books, and not necessarily through you.
In my opinion there is a substantive difference between wanting a person to form a position and supporting a particular position. By the same token you could argue that I take the child to eat certain foods and not others, or to behave in certain ways. That is not our discussion here. I am speaking about choosing between different value-conceptions and forming a position. That is not on the same level as any other specific value. This is the advantage of autonomy over every other value, because autonomy is not a value but a meta-value. As Eilon phrased it nicely above: autonomy is not a substitute for truth and does not override truth. Without it, what you hold in your hand is not truth (for you).
Incidentally, I have no objection at all to Maimonides’ recommendation that before entering the Pardes one should fill his belly with Talmud and learn halakhot. It is a matter of ranking and order of conduct. I was speaking about the principle. And no, this is definitely not the first thing one should present to a student and do with him. Where did you see that in my words? This is an unnecessary caricature.
Certainly to do this with a guide and not without one. Who spoke of throwing someone into the sea without guidance?
If that is the interpretation of the words of the Sages, I do not accept them. Only after I have reached a conclusion can I close doors to myself. But first I must reach a decision and form a position. There cannot be a system that forbids someone to examine that very same system and demands that he accept it without examination. That is absurd.
If there is no difference between temptation from a woman and temptation from the intellect, then your student too is forbidden to accept your words. After all, that is intellectual temptation. So perhaps you suggest hypnotizing him. That is best, no?
Even if the struggle is hard and there are biases, there is no alternative. The paternalism by which you make decisions for the other is a grave injustice. It is the right and duty of every person to form a position on his own. Do you have complaints against idolaters for not opening options before their children? Or against secular people? Why? For “heresy is different, because it draws one in.”
No. That is indeed a faithful description of my view. I would only add encouragement to hear and examine more arguments and more opinions (and not merely to allow it).
And perhaps you are trying to conceal the fact that the closed education given to youth in the period of the Haskalah created all the secularization, and continues to do so today as well. Everyone has his own motivations. I suggest discussing arguments and positions, not motivations. And certainly it is not recommended to present incorrect facts (as is well known, slander is a halakhic prohibition. I hope you are committed to it).
Rani, of course there is a difference, and I pointed it out. But the common root is similar. My claim is that the common root is the problem, not the distinction. You put into my mouth a claim as though one should send a child to the Open University. But I was not speaking specifically about children, and the dosage and gradualness with which one does this is a legitimate educational judgment. What I claim concerns only the ultimate goal: in the bottom line, a person is supposed to form a position of his own in light of the greatest possible range of arguments and relevant information. If he reaches that at age 30, 50, or 20—that is an educational decision and everyone should do his own soul-searching. My opinion is that the encouragement to do so should indeed begin already at a young age. And if he is confused, accompany him and guide him. If you leave him without this, I do not think he will come out less confused, nor necessarily less secular.
I did not write that you need to seek out people with wrong opinions, but rather that he should be encouraged to look for people with different opinions and examine them. You should honestly say what you think about every opinion.
With God’s help, 27 Kislev 5780
To Simcha — greetings,
Idolatry was in its time the ruling philosophy throughout the world, and it was held even by peoples of a very high level in culture and science. And the Sages of Israel, in their war against the phenomenon, tried to trace its ideological roots, for one cannot cure the sickness without understanding what causes it.
According to Maimonides at the beginning of the Laws of Idolatry, idolatry grew from the notion that just as one honors the king, the King of the universe, so should one accord honor to His ministers and senior servants. From there they deteriorated down the “slippery slope” to a conception that attributes independent rule to the “ministers.” Abraham our father proved the emptiness of the ministers’ supposed independence when he saw that the great luminaries are subject to cyclical regularity, proving that there is One who governs above them.
According to Maharal (in Netzach Yisrael), the root of idolatry was the fact that the world appears as one great “mess” in which opposing forces clash, without it seeming that there is a guiding hand behind the “mess.” Therefore they concluded that “opposing forces cannot emanate from one source.” The philosophical answer to idolatry is given by Manasseh in the parable of baked bread, which has a starting point where it is more baked. The diversity and opposition appearing in the world are intended to bring about a process in which, “at the end of the day,” the opposites reach balance and completion.
With Manasseh, says Maharal, there was an understanding of the philosophical principle of unity, and his idolatry came from an intense desire that is almost impossible to conquer. What was this desire? Perhaps here it helps to understand Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi’s explanation of the sin of the Golden Calf, which stemmed from the people’s psychological need to feel a connection with God. Idolatry gave the wonderful feeling of an immediate connection with “what is above.” The intensity of man’s psychological need for a strong bond with his God is testified to by the fact that the first murder happened because of the frustration of a person whose God did not regard his offering.
The Torah commands us to keep away from idolatry as from fire: to keep away from its worshippers and their seductions, and to destroy its symbols and alluring beauty. But “turning from evil” is not enough. The Torah filled human life with “doing good.” A person is connected with his Creator at all levels of his being: intellectually, through study of His Torah and listening to His prophets and sages; in his emotional world, through the service of the heart, which is prayer, and the elevation of ascending to “the place that the Lord shall choose”; and on the practical level, through the system of commandments that encompasses all of life and brings faith and values to be internalized.
And “at the end of the day” the people of Israel defeated idolatry in spirit and eradicated it, until after the “two thousand years of Torah,” in which monotheism was the inheritance of a small people that “went against the current,” the civilized world accepted the principle of monotheism—though unfortunately with many distortions and falsifications and with denial of the nation that bequeathed to them the faith of divine unity and its values. And “the vision is yet for an appointed time.”
With a bright Hanukkah blessing, S.Tz.
I did not understand the criticism of religious people. After all, you yourself wrote that secularization is always there as a legitimate option for them.
They are not closed to other opinions in any way, especially not in the internet age.
Of course secularization is in the background, but that is only from the standpoint of the young people themselves. The religious establishment tries to forbid and deny it legitimacy. One who is not courageous will not really examine it. Others will just become secular out of weakness, and some will examine it despite not having been encouraged to do so (and that itself will become one of their arguments against faith and the religious establishment). In the religious world there is no educational policy of encouraging people to examine arguments and other opinions.
Incidentally, in my view this is also not encouragement toward secularization but toward examination. If secularization exists even without this, that is an argument in favor of institutionalized openness, because such encouragement and guidance could actually prevent departure, since the guide would be able to try to contend with the arguments the young person encounters. Which does not happen when he does so secretly and alone.
I thought of resolving it by saying that sometimes the value of autonomy is overridden in the face of dangerous opinions. In our time racist opinions can be dangerous, and therefore with regard to them there is logic in limiting freedom of speech and thought even at the price of harming autonomy (and that is what is done in practice). In biblical times, opinions of idolatry were likewise dangerous, and therefore there was justification for suppressing them by force. Nowadays it seems that idolatry has disappeared or that its destructive potential no longer exists, and therefore there is no longer sufficient justification to override the value of autonomy in order to suppress it.
I also thought to explain that the verse says the enticement is done in secret. When something is done in secret, that teaches that even the enticer himself understands that this is a disgraceful act, for if according to his own view it is a worthy act, why do it in secret? But if we are speaking of opinions that are expressed with good intentions, even if they entice toward idolatry or other dangerous opinions, then they no longer fall under the category of “in secret”—that is, the enticer himself is not aware, in his own view, of the problematic nature of his opinions, and then he is exempt from punishment.
One could also add that one who worships idols because that is what he thinks is right to do is coerced by his opinions and therefore exempt. All the more so one who incites to idolatry because that is what he thinks is right to do.
With God’s help, 27 Kislev 5780
To Oren — greetings,
From the Torah’s instructions that in all halakhic disputes one must turn to the priest or the judge who will be in those days and act “according to all that they instruct you,” and from the sanctions against “the man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest… or to the judge” — it does not emerge that the Torah sees “autonomy,” in which “every man does what is right in his own eyes,” as a great value.
In the process of clarification among the Sages of the Sanhedrin, it is important that each sage state his opinion and not “withhold his words,” but after the halakhah has been determined by the view of the majority of Torah sages — an individual has no right to challenge it and rule the opposite. Even the greatest of sages, Rabbi Eliezer the Great, “paid dearly for it” when he challenged the decision of the majority after they had taken a formal vote. A Torah that is meant to be the constitution of a “kingdom of priests” cannot be divided into “a thousand opinions.”
Even after the central court in the Chamber of Hewn Stone ceased, central rabbinical courts remained that issued halakhic rulings to a broad circle of communities; from them we have the Talmuds. And even on the local level there was insistence on “Do not form factions.” According to Rava, at least within one court there must emerge a single ruling; and according to Abaye (whose view Maimonides rules like), it is forbidden for there to be two courts in one city that differ in ruling. And in practice, until the great expulsions of the sixteenth century, there was generally one community in each city (exceptions were Baghdad in the later Geonic period, where there were two separate yeshivot, and Cairo, where there was a separate community of natives of the Land of Israel).
The absurd situation of non-territorial communities, in which even within one family each person belongs to a different school of thought and halakhah, is the product of the crisis of modernity and the undermining of communal authority that followed it, both because no one is willing to accept another’s authority and because a modern state does not tolerate autonomous corporations.
A state in which “every man does what is right in his own eyes,” with the Torah split into thousands of Torahs, is the product of necessity, a state of “no choice,” not an ideal. Our hope is that just as the Mishnah brought closure to the period of the Tannaim, the Talmud to the period of the Amoraim, and the Shulchan Arukh and Rema to the period of the Rishonim—so too, with God’s help, we will merit that a great Torah authority arise who will gather all the opinions and bring closure and decision that will be accepted by the collective, so that the Torah may again become the constitution of the people of Israel and its state.
With a bright Hanukkah blessing, S.Tz.
The point many commenters do not understand when they bring sayings of the Sages and of the Torah regarding the prohibition of incitement to idolatry, and the prohibition in Maimonides and the Sages of “do not stray after your hearts — this is heresy” (and this is also true regarding the positive commandment of knowing God and His unity, etc.; the prohibition of accepting slander; the commandment to judge favorably—commandments that belong to the “intellect” in common parlance. And in truth this is also relevant to the commandments of fearing God and loving Him, which belong—in the very poor common parlance in this case—to “emotion”) is that a person’s perception of reality precedes any discussion of anything at all. It is in the category of sight. One cannot command sight. Nor can one forbid denial of what one sees. And the perception of the intellect is like sight. If they want, I would say this belongs to proper conduct that preceded the Torah (a kind of proof from the Torah that proper conduct is needed before it, which makes this also a kind of Torah), but even that is unnecessary because there is no need for the Torah’s or God’s agreement with our perception of reality. One who denies what he sees is insane and lacking understanding. A person must trust himself in his perception of reality, otherwise he will not be able to believe anything. Even if God revealed Himself to him and said that he may not rely on himself, why should he rely on himself to believe that God revealed Himself and that it was not an illusion or imagination or dream? Understanding precedes Torah. A person’s trust in his own understanding and intellect precedes Torah and in fact precedes any discussion of any subject in the world. Therefore every prohibition and commandment in the Torah ought to be interpreted in light of this principle. Otherwise the concept of “interpretation” itself has no meaning. I call all this verbiage “the principle of understanding” or “the principle of insanity.” That is, the Torah does not command and cannot command us to go insane or to be mindless. This is a much broader principle than only those prohibitions. It includes, for example, certain kinds of insane behavior that are sometimes seen among people who are meticulous in Torah and mitzvot (and I too, in my sins, was guilty of some of them in my youth). Like those who go around the synagogue from person to person gently rebuking them about every little thing (which in any case is not at all suited to the spiritual level of the person being rebuked, and even without the excuse of “better that they be inadvertent sinners…” Well, in that, thank God, I never sinned…). If something does not fit with the written halakhah, one must seek a real explanation—not an excuse—for why that is not truly the halakhah in such a case. Of course I am speaking about a case where it is one hundred percent clear to us that this is insanity. For otherwise it may really be the halakhah, and we are the ones who are mistaken.
I say this because I specifically do not accept the rabbi’s explanations that the prohibition of incitement is a prohibition of demagoguery and that the prohibition of being drawn after heresy is a prohibition of following desires. Maybe so, but I do not feel that I understand those prohibitions in light of these things. One must seek (and I indeed seek) a real explanation for those prohibitions that will not contradict the “principle of insanity.” I have not yet found one. I have several theories in the pipeline, but they are in laboratory testing. (As opposed to accepting slander, judging favorably, and knowledge of God, where I have, in my opinion, a very good and successful explanation.) This is science in every respect. There are halakhic phenomena that require a good explanation that will yield predictions (a better understanding of the Torah, that is, understanding its principles) and even technological and engineering applications (novel halakhic rulings and details of halakhah).
Oren, the third is what I wrote. As for the rest, I agree.
And now that we have come to this—that one who thinks it right to worship idols is exempt as “coerced,” because he thinks that is what ought to be done—shall we also exempt one who murdered because he thought that was what ought to be done (cf. Yigal Amir and Yishai Schlissel)? Likewise, one who commits adultery should be exempt if he thought that was what ought to be done (for example Potiphar’s wife, who believed that worthy offspring would come from her and Joseph). And why was the wood-gatherer stoned? Perhaps he too believed that “this is what ought to be done”?
And another question: why publish a trilogy proving that one must keep the commandments? After all, one who ceased keeping commandments because he believes that is what ought to be done is completely coerced, so why should we disturb his peace? 🙂
Regards, A.D. Absurdum
Regarding the author’s answer—“I spoke about opinions and arguments and not about experiences.”
One can formulate Eliezer’s words differently: presumably you would also expose your child to lectures and information and the like on prostitution, drugs, and suicide so that he can decide for himself, etc.
And in my opinion that is an argument to which there is no answer.
The author replied, “Incitement is not the raising of arguments but demagogic preaching.”
That is indeed how the word “incitement” is used in modern Hebrew, but that is not the meaning of the verse—see Targum Onkelos, Rashi, and others.
With God’s help, 28 Kislev 5780
To Yehudi — greetings,
Lectures and information about negative phenomena, their harms, and advice on how not to fall into them and, God forbid, if one has fallen, how to get out—these are in fact worthwhile as part of education. But encouraging the student also to hear the other side, which sees something positive in such phenomena—clearly seems undesirable.
And regarding questions of faith—Israel’s sages dealt with all the arguments and difficulties against faith and answered them one by one. One who studies faith thoroughly from the books of Israel’s sages acquires solid tools to cope with all the questions and difficulties, old and new. There is no need to seek faith from sources full of heresy, and you are right in your criticism of Rabbi Michael Abraham.
Regards, S.Tz.
It seems to me that at the basis of the article lies the assumption that one should never use force but only explanation and persuasion (at most). Are there really no situations that require the use of force? It is agreed that a person who is about to commit a crime should be stopped by force. And if a parent believes that his son’s desecration of the Sabbath is a crime that harms the people of Israel and humanity, is there no place for using force (that is, exercising authority and not presenting the possibility of Sabbath desecration or of not performing circumcision for one’s son as something that can be considered)?
I stress that the whole question is on the principled level and on the assumption that the use of authority works.
In addition, regarding the statement “Here it is important to remember that every parent thinks that his path is the truth and the correct one” — is it not legitimate for me to think that parents who think desecrating the Sabbath is fine have not clarified the matter enough, whereas I have clarified it and know it with high certainty? And if that is legitimate, then what relevance is it that every parent thinks his own path is the truth?
I note that I understand and identify with the direction of giving a child freedom of thought. I feel the certain suffocation around the difficulty of opening our assumptions up to discussion, and that is why I also ran to buy your new books. But at the same time I think there is another side here that may be getting missed—there is also logic in using a certain “force” and the influence we have as parents to reduce the chance that the child will err in directions that we are sure are very bad (all on the assumption that we do have such power, that the degree of certainty is high, and that the risk is high), even if that somewhat reduces the child’s autonomy and freedom of thought (it is not black and white; it is not “either thought out of complete freedom or madness and lack of autonomy.” There is naturally a great deal of autonomy).
You asked regarding a murderer whether he too can be exempt as coerced (in the case of one who says, “it is permitted”). Plainly he indeed is exempt if it is clear to us that he says “it is permitted.” How is unintentionality or “it is permitted” in murder different from other cases of unintentionality and “it is permitted”? But of course one who claims that in his view it is permitted to murder would have to prove his claim, because this is an implausible claim, and prove that he examined the matter properly.
A question similar to the one about the wood-gatherer was already raised by Tosafot in Bava Batra. And of course there is no difficulty (for the court did not know that he intended for the good).
As for the trilogy, this is a mistake that recurs again and again regarding my view. There is an obligation to make a person aware of his duty. There is no contradiction at all to the claim that if he does not know, he is exempt. First, because the obligation is toward the Holy One, blessed be He (who wants people to fulfill their duty), but also toward the person himself, since in that way he will live a more correct life.
And in my opinion there is a very simple answer to it. Indeed, if someone raises arguments in favor of drug use, I will certainly listen to him and also suggest that others do so, and I will also express my opinion about his arguments. I have already written that I support freedom of speech for Holocaust deniers, and I think arguments in favor of drugs deserve a similar attitude.
I did not understand why you insist on noting that the question is only on the principled level. Apparently you yourself do not really believe what you wrote and would not actually act that way. The use of force is justified where a person directly and clearly harms another. If he does something that you think is bad but there is no direct and clear proof, there is no justification for using force.
The parents of Lev Tahor are also sure they have clarified everything. They think you are talking nonsense.
I am against using our influence as parents, if by that you mean non-substantive influence (that is, not through persuasion and arguments). And again, this of course depends on age, and the discussion here is on the principled plane.
A. I noted that the question is on the principled level in order to stress that we are speaking on the basis of the assumptions I posited (1. The parent thinks with a high level of certainty that this is a harmful crime. 2. Authority works) without entering into the question whether the assumptions are correct, since I understand that you wrote your words even in a case where those assumptions are correct, and on that I disagree. I stress that the use of force I meant is not physical but influence such as a certain censorship of opinions that in my view are harmful and wrong, where there is concern that the son may be swept after them by mistake.
B. I do in fact agree with the conclusion that one should give a child broad autonomy and let him choose his beliefs freely. I have also heard rabbis express themselves that way, for example Rabbi Uri Sherki. But I do not agree with comparing the above sects to religious conservatism. And incidentally, I do not agree with the claim that appears in the advertisements, “religious conservatism is failing.” Failed at what? In everything? Are you sure there are not also positive results to this conservatism?
B. It seems to me that the article itself falls into the very error it seeks to negate—complexity is not necessarily compromise, especially on the issue of giving autonomy to one’s son: one can work toward some reduction of autonomy (again, on the assumption that this works); it is not black and white. You wrote: “It is hard for society to cope with groups that express its own values in a pure form, even if extreme,” meaning that just as those sects are very negative, so too the society that has some measure of conservatism and closedness, though not extreme, is also negative. This itself is seemingly exactly an extreme conception that does not accept that sometimes complexity (striving for a certain closedness together with broad autonomy) is not a compromise and is not merely a partial version of its own extreme form, but something more whole than that extreme.
C. I think it is reasonable to conceive the relation between the parent’s exercise of authority and the child’s freedom of belief as follows: certainly the child has very broad autonomy over his life and beliefs, but it is also reasonable that in certain cases naturally the parent has influence by virtue of authority. One can look at it this way, for example: among all of the child’s actions even when he is an adult, 90% stem from his own choices, and 10% stem from his father’s choices in the way he exercised authority over him (pleasantly). For that 10%, the child is not responsible but the father is. What is wrong with such a complex conception? Who said that necessarily 100% of the child’s life must be under his own autonomy and not a bit less? (And incidentally, not that it is critical in my eyes, but perhaps he will be compensated by having some autonomy over the lives of his own children.) Who told you that God did not create the world in such a complex way and does not want us too to live that way and not fight it?
*I made a mistake in the numbering of the paragraphs; it is of course A, B, C, D.
Hello Rabbi,
According to your approach, should one send children to a religious kindergarten and raise them to a religious life from a young age? Where does education enter this whole story? A child cannot really examine arguments critically, so is there not brainwashing here? The fact is that most people born into a religious family will end up religious, and most people born into a secular family will end up secular, even if they are exposed to other opinions later in life.
A. You keep stressing that you do not mean the use of force. And I keep pointing out that this means that in fact you do not stand behind the thesis you present. Why not use force according to your own view?
B. I did not understand your argument against my statement that conservatism is failing. It fails on several parameters. Does it also have positive results? Maybe. So what? Every discussion focuses on what it chooses. Bottom line, in my opinion it is failing, and that is that. The comparison I made to the above sect is on the principled plane. Obviously there is a difference in degree and in style, but my claim is that in essence it is similar. See section A (why not use force).
C. I did not say that this is necessarily compromise. I claimed that here it is compromise.
D. This just repeats the previous points.
Definitely yes. I wrote about this in the previous comments. The opening-up does not have to be immediate and complete. There is gradualness and dosage, but in the end the goal is that each person form his own position מתוך מלא information. This does not have to happen in first grade, and certainly I support religious education. I have written more than once on the site about that correlation.
With God’s help, 29 Kislev 5780
The dividing line is not necessarily “the use of force.” A student may receive a resounding slap and receive it with love and appreciation, out of understanding that he really was not okay and that his educator means one hundred percent for his good; and there may be an apparently calm conversation that hurts far more than a beating—a speech of contempt and cynical mockery or public humiliation that makes clear to its hearer how worthless he is. About such a thing it is said: “For with the crookedness of their anger they slew a man.”
And “openness” too cannot be a “categorical imperative.” There are souls of “The Generation” essay who want to arrive at truth through their own personal choice and not through accepting authority. For them, openness and controlled exposure to different paths is good. And there are souls of “A Letter of Ordinance” who seek clear guidance, and exposure to a thousand and one opposing views will leave them confused and perplexed with no way out. And not infrequently there can be two twin brothers, one this way and the other that way.
Therefore education requires understanding and attentiveness to the student’s soul—to know what suits him better: clear and detailed guidance or intellectual openness? And on the practical plane: does a demanding and meticulous regime suit him, or flexibility that allows him “trial and error”? As the wise man instructed us: “Train the lad according to his way” — the unique path suited to him.
With a bright Hanukkah blessing, S.Tz.
Faith in its purity through the possibility of heresy
Midot HaRe’iyah
In my opinion you are mistaken in demanding symmetry in openness to secular and religious views. The default is secularity—a person need not serve anyone nor obey commandments until proved otherwise. Therefore I do not think a secular person needs to encourage his son to meet with a rabbi (and if we were to require this and expect it of him, then we would also expect him to investigate all the streams and shades within Judaism and even other religions, and there would be no end to the matter). By contrast, I do expect a religious person to encourage his son to examine the default before taking upon himself a system of obligations.
The discussion of this opinion of yours itself should be conducted openly. I, for example, think the opposite of you: the default is observance of the commandments.
Would you also say regarding morality that the default is to educate him to be an egoist, and the burden of proof lies on whoever demands that he be moral?
With God’s help, 2 Tevet 5780
There is no need to bring the question “What is this service to you?” to the religious student from outside; this is the first question the student asks—why accept the yoke of demanding commandments? And the Torah itself is ready and prepares the educator to answer the question. All Torah literature—Bible and the Sages, the early and later authorities—deals with grounding faith and giving answers to the questions that arise. Indeed, on the Seder night we encourage the children to ask so that we may give them the answers found in the treasures and expanses of Torah.
Regards, S.Tz.
Please, a real answer—if there were a lecture in favor of using hard drugs that could cause destructive consequences for life, would you send your beloved son there or not? Would you take the risk that he might indeed be persuaded by the lecture and not by you?
To Yehudi — greetings,
I do not know whether the decision to expose a child to a lecture supporting hard drugs is wise, but without doubt it is a heroic decision 🙂
Regards, Shacht Zingler
Yehudi and Shacht Zingler, I will try to argue a bit in favor of using hard drugs—maybe you will be persuaded:
1. Heroin, for example, is a drug from the opiate family that is used as a strong painkiller, and it is routinely used in hospitals for pain relief. Patients who receive it by doctor’s order do not become addicted to the substance, and do not suffer any short- or long-term negative effects. From here there is proof that there is no problem in using this substance when needed, so long as it is done in a controlled and responsible manner.
2. LSD, for example, is a psychedelic drug that in terms of degree of dangerousness is ranked as safer than alcohol, which is legal. This substance enables people to undergo interesting psychedelic experiences and explore the boundaries of human consciousness.
3. Ecstasy (MDMA) is a substance that in clinical studies has been shown effective in treating people with post-traumatic stress disorder (in combination with psychological therapy). The FDA is in advanced stages of approving the substance for treatment in humans. This substance was discovered only recently to be effective for treating PTSD, and it may be that there are many additional uses for hard drugs that have not yet been discovered because of the negative stigma against these substances in the public sphere, and the silencing against anyone who tries to argue that these substances also have beneficial uses. If you were open to hearing about these substances, perhaps you would discover that the demon is not so terrible, and can sometimes even be beneficial.
With God’s help, 3 Tevet 5780
To Oren — greetings,
Among other things, prayer helps the worshipper understand what he ought to aspire to. The first request among the blessings is: “Grace us from You with knowledge, understanding, and insight.” The foundation is knowledge, through which one attains the redemption of body and soul, of the individual and the nation. Whatever causes the blurring of the mind leads the one who uses it into a loss of direction with no way out.
It is no accident that the blessing “Who graciously grants understanding” is adjacent to the blessing “You are holy.” This teaches us that the Jewish path to holiness is not, as is common in certain religions, through enthusiasm to the point of intoxication and loss of reason, after which moral restraints usually loosen. In Judaism, the path to holiness passes precisely through knowledge, which brings about the rectification of character and deeds.
Wine is good in moderation, in that it brings joy that arouses a person toward the good. About such things they said: “Wine and fragrance make one wise,” “Great is the drink that brings the distant near,” and the like. But drunkenness, which takes from a person his reason and self-control, is unworthy in itself apart from being addictive, and all the more so drugs, with which the path to deterioration and addiction is far easier.
It seems that even on Purim we were obligated “to become mellow,” not “to become degraded”: to rejoice in order to remove from our hearts all anger and resentment, as the Sages said, “until one does not know between ‘cursed be Haman’ and ‘blessed be Mordechai.’” The angry person tends to see the object of his anger as some horrifying Haman. When drinking brings a person to joy and he remembers God’s salvations and kindnesses, that He did not forsake us even in hard moments—all resentments melt away. And not for nothing is the blessing of thanksgiving what paves the way for the blessing of peace.
Regards, S.Tz.
I do not send my son to any lecture. Nor to a lecture by Christians. I encourage him to examine his way, and let him decide for himself what is worth checking and how.
Oren, that was not the question. The question dealt with a lecture that incites them to use drugs in a harmful way. Maybe just for pleasure. They are raising here a test case for my thesis, not a question about drugs as such.
Of course. I wanted to show through this test case a general principle: that even things that seem to us the very embodiment of evil may contain good things we are not aware of, and therefore it is worthwhile to be open even to such things.
With God’s help, 3 Tevet 5780
I mentioned in my comment above (“And perhaps?”) one of the factors in joining sects: that precisely someone who comes from an atmosphere of intellectual chaos that makes everything legitimate may more easily fall captive to the charm of a charismatic person who will bring order to the “chaos,” and sometimes he reaches the wrong person whose path lacks a proper Torah basis.
It is worth noting that in a considerable portion of the sects they engage in sharpening the negative sides in others. Thus one also gets used to looking for defects and blemishes even in normative communities of Torah learners and commandment-observers, and thus one arrives at continual suspicion even toward neighbors and acquaintances from the same community, and a depressing and threatening atmosphere is created within the community itself.
The advice for avoiding this is the advice of King David, peace be upon him: “I am a companion of all who fear You and of those who keep Your precepts.” After all, no person is perfect and in each of us there are things that need improvement, including in ourselves 🙂 Just as we strengthen ourselves through the little additional good that is in us, which we try to expand—so too can we develop trust and patience toward the failings of others, and “a willing spirit will sustain us.”
Regards, S.Tz.
S.Tz., it seems you are not getting to the bottom of Michi’s view as I understood it, and perhaps Michi will agree to correct me if I am mistaken.
A lot of what he says in his books and trilogies and in general in his articles is based on the idea that although there is one and only one truth—there is no plurality of truths and no “each person and his own truth”—still, and precisely because there is only one truth, you can never be a million percent sure it is with you. And just as you would not want in a secular home that they prevent you from receiving a religious education and reaching the truth, so too it is not right to take from a person the freedom to reach what, in his opinion, is the correct conclusion—both because you cannot be a million percent sure you are right, and also, and perhaps mainly, because in Michi’s view a person who keeps commandments only because he never heard of additional options (as in Haredi society, the Amish, and so on) and “would switch sides” if he only heard of another option—is not a true believer, and it is doubtful whether he will manage to hold on over time.
Of course, if you are a billion percent sure and have not the slightest doubt that the truth is in your pocket, the picture is completely different (but even here there comes in the point that it is doubtful whether a faith that is done under total compulsion without critical examination will endure over time).
As for people coerced in their opinions and all that—after all, all the great sages of the generations have already ruled that a Jew who worships idols because he was raised in such an environment is exempt, no? (And regarding gentiles the story is somehow different for many decisors, who are unwilling to see gentiles as infants taken captive by the same criterion, as if an African black man worshipping idols ought to have more sense than a Jew worshipping idols—but that is another discussion.)
With God’s help, 5 Tevet 5780
To Rational — greetings,
If we hold to your reasoning that I do not truly believe in the path of Judaism so long as I have not also examined the other paths—then we will have to assume that a foundational knowledge of Jewish thought from its sources, Scripture and the words of the Sages and the books of the early and later authorities, Saadia Gaon and Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi, Maimonides and Nachmanides, Maharal and Ramchal, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Rav Kook, Rabbi Soloveitchik, and the rest of the accepted philosophers and the thinkers of Hasidism and Musar—a foundational study of all of whom requires decades—is still not enough. (I, for example, am 61 years old and have not merited to go through more than a small part of “our library of Jewish thought.”)
According to you, even after I succeed in encompassing all the huge bookcase mentioned above—I am still “believing under compulsion,” an infant taken captive among the Jews 🙂—and I must thoroughly examine all the other systems as well. To study Islam for several years at al-Azhar College; several more years in a Catholic Christian theological institute, and several more in all the Protestant shades.
After that I will devote several more years to a serious study of all the classical and modern philosophical systems, and several more years to acquaintance with Zoroastrian and Indian thought, Buddhism in its various forms, Confucianism and Taoism, and for dessert a few systems of tribes from the Indians, Africa, and the Pacific islands.
Then, at roughly age one hundred and fifty, I will be able to say that I have exhausted all the ever-renewing opinions, and I can begin deciding, with the help of my phenomenal memory, what to reject and what to embrace from each system, and then I will be considered a true believer. In short, it is not all that practical :).
***..
In my humble opinion, it is more practical to be exposed in depth to complexity and to the questions through analytical study in the books of our own thinkers. Our thinkers were not only exposed to all the questions and ideas raised by outside thinkers, but many of them also studied thoroughly the general thought of their times and dealt with it, absorbed what they thought fit to absorb, and explained their own approach in a reasoned way.
By serious study of Jewish thought throughout the generations—I acquire basic knowledge and understanding of general thought throughout the generations as well. Their conclusions came after a thorough examination of outside thought, and you will hardly find an idea or question “from outside” that was not discussed in depth by the great thinkers of our people throughout the generations.
Regards, S.Tz.
That is not what I said, S.Tz.
I said that, quite simply, if a person wants to examine additional systems of belief—he should be allowed to, because he has the right to arrive at what he considers the correct faith, and if he is not allowed to examine, it is doubtful whether the faith will be genuine.
If a youth has simple faith—there is nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.
Of course no one can investigate all the systems in the world, but a person who wants through inquiry to reach the truth—should be allowed to do so.
And after all, the greatest righteous converts came to faith through inquiry, did they not? Imagine what would have happened if they had prevented Onkelos (who rectified the soul of Eliphaz son of Esau!) from reaching the truth.
With God’s help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath, Vayigash, 5780
One of the central factors in the creation of sects is precisely “autonomy.” In a situation where “small and great are made equal,” any person with a little Torah knowledge, confused, and whose “charisma is greater than his wisdom,” can establish for himself a congregation of the poorly informed or confused, who will follow after him without capacity for self-criticism and without commitment to acknowledged great Torah authorities—a charismatic leader of this sort can impose the most bizarre ideas on his flock, and “who will say to him, ‘What are you doing?’”
When there is awareness and an aspiration to walk in paths backed by solid tradition and broad halakhic consensus—the risk of deterioration into corrupt paths is very small. Fine is the advice of King Solomon: “If you do not know, O fairest among women… go forth in the footsteps of the flock and feed your kids beside the shepherds’ tents.”
Regards, S.Tz.
In paragraph 1, line 1
… in a situation where “small and great are made equal,” and every person…
With God’s help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath, Vayigash, 5780
As we saw above, in halakhah, which is the constitution of the people of Israel, there is no place for “autonomy,” for the law is a “categorical imperative” that must be equal for all citizens, as explained by Maimonides in chapter 11 of the Laws of Robbery regarding “the law of the kingdom is law” (and the fact that nowadays there is in practice “autonomy” is due to the constraints of exile, from whose legacy we have still not been freed).
But there are broad areas in Torah in which “autonomy” is ideal from the outset. So long as the “boundaries” of halakhah and the Thirteen Principles of Faith are preserved—there is broad room for each person to emphasize the aspects and dimensions to which he feels more connected.
There are those who will place emphasis on love and the quality of kindness, and those who will place emphasis on awe and the quality of judgment; there are those who will find their place in controlled openness to general culture, and those for whom it is better to focus on what is “inside” (as explained in Rav Kook’s Iggeret Takanah); there are those who will excel in cultivating the world of intellect, and those who will excel precisely in cultivating emotion; there are those inclined to be spiritual people, and those whose being is rooted in the world of action.
And all are good and complement one another so long as they are done in aspiration to harmony. This is the beauty of an orchestra, in which different instruments—and even ones opposite in character—join together to create a wondrous harmonious work.
Halakhah aspires to define uniform and clear “boundaries” from which no one may deviate, whereas Aggadah encourages and helps each person develop and cultivate the unique direction suited to him within the shared general framework.
With Sabbath peace blessings, S.Tz.
Dear Ratzi,
As I understand it, Michi is not speaking from a utilitarian consideration, but out of a basic moral principle that gives value to human autonomy. And to choosing the truth by virtue of its being a choice, and not something imposed on a person. The dispute between him and Rabbi S.Tz. is whether to encourage inquiry openly through an explanation of the truth, but with a genuine opening of possibilities and channeling toward self-examination without a filter, out of independent thought. And Rabbi S.Tz. argues that, in his humble opinion, one should not go so far as to encourage study from the sources themselves, but rather through religious spiritual thinkers who have already dealt with other ideas.
In paragraph 5, lines 3–4
… absorbed what they thought fit to absorb, rejected what they thought fit to reject, and explained their method in a reasoned manner.
Dear Rabbi Michi,
More power to you for the fascinating article. But a few comments:
A. If all sides were equally balanced, then indeed it would be called for to give each student the right to clarify his own path. After all, since I as an educator am certain of the justice of my path and arrived at it through my own intellectual examination, I have no reason to fear that my intelligent child will not reach the same conclusion. The problem is that Jewish faith, relative to other options, is much less attractive and much more demanding. Rationally, I am not afraid to let the child examine things on his own, but the fear is that desires and impulses will draw him to wrong places, even though he too is aware that that is not the truth. In my estimation (perhaps you will disagree with me), a very large majority of those who leave religion in this generation do not do so because they reached the rational conclusion that the truth is there, but because of urges and desires (and of course they try to justify themselves with various theological arguments).
B. In the comments you clarified your view that you are in favor of religious education, only that one should later gradually give and encourage the possibility of clarifying the truth. To the best of my judgment, this is in any case the reality nowadays in most of the religious public (and even the Haredi one). The average 18-year-old youth has quick and easy access to any material he wants on matters of faith and ideas. Before that age, most youths do not have sufficiently mature and developed judgment to decide their path in life. So if I understood correctly, you are emphasizing that around that age it is important to encourage the child to examine honestly and openly for himself what the right path is. In other words, at the end of twelfth grade one should not encourage the child to go to yeshiva, but open before him all the possibilities—from joining the ‘Lev Tahor’ sect to casting off the yoke. From joining the army for life to leaving the country and marrying a gentile—did I understand correctly? (Of course I do not agree with that because of point A. One must give significant corrective preference to the less attractive options over the more attractive ones, and that means encouraging [though certainly not forcing] continuation on the correct path; perhaps that may help so that the temptations from outside do not prevail.)
C. On the substance of the matter: you write that in your opinion there is only one truth, and yet there is no value in walking in the path of truth unless it was preceded by one’s own self-examination. But from where is that derived? I am sure that the Torah of Moses is true, and in this Torah the value of autonomy is not written. Even morally it is not at all clear that it is right to give a person the possibility of falling into an erroneous path just so that he may be free in his actions. So what is the obligating factor behind the value of autonomy? And what are the boundaries of this value anyway? Why is it obvious even to you that one should keep a child away from fire, and even an older teenager from drugs and prostitution, but it is not obvious to you that one should keep him away from heresy, whose end is a far more terrible ruin according to the Torah’s conception?
The only possibility I can think of is that although you think there is one truth, you are not one hundred percent sure that you are the one who has hit upon it (out of humility that perhaps you are not wise enough, or the like), and therefore you think one should give each person the possibility of choice and self-clarification. Is that really so?
For if so, then there is no room to complain about one who does not encourage autonomy as you say, since apparently to him it is clear (just as it is clear to me) that the truth is with him, just as it is clear to him that fire is dangerous, and therefore for him the value of rescue from the pit overrides the value of autonomy.
Forgive the length, but it is Torah and we must learn.
A. I do not agree. The fact is that there are many others who disagree with you. Therefore, although you think you are right (and so do I), we are obligated to let the child form a position on his own. And for the same reason there is also no certainty that he will reach the same conclusion as you/me. These are not only urges and desires but also judgment and basic assumptions and the like.
B. You described my words in a caricaturing way. I wrote that one should encourage him to form his own position, but I did not say that one should not guide him in the direction you believe in. I also do not agree that this is the situation today in most places. Absolutely not. Even if the sources of information are open to him, the framework sees this as a necessity and a problem, not as a positive state, and therefore it sends very clear messages about what conclusions one is supposed to draw and threatens (sometimes only indirectly) anyone who does not draw them.
C. Why do I need a verse? It is reasoning. The Torah of Moses also does not say that one must use one’s intellect. See Rabbi Shimon Shkop at the beginning of Gate 5.
My claim that one must give each person the right of decision is not connected to humility, and not only to a real fear that perhaps I am not right (though that too is part of the matter). Every person has a duty and a right to form a position. Moreover, if his position was not formed by him, it has little value even if it is correct. I explained this above.
A. I agree that every religion or non-religion is based on arguments and not on urges. But my main claim is that there is a natural tendency in an adolescent boy to cast off restraint because that is where his body pulls him, and it is very likely that this pull will bias his judgment and affect his decisions. It is impossible to balance the situation, because in truth our religion, on the face of it, has nothing to offer in the material sphere. I claim that it is neither right nor moral to put a child into such an unbalanced situation.
B. In my estimation, an 18-year-old youth, in any sector, feels completely independent and does not feel threatened by the system that indirectly imposes its path on him. As I understand it, the reason most youths at that age do not clarify their path is mainly because that is what they are used to or because they are fine that way, not because of fear of the system. But I agree that encouragement can nevertheless cause such youths to emerge from the fixed mindset they were educated into and clarify the truth for themselves.
C. I know R. Shimon well; I use him often, but here, in my humble opinion, there is no compelling reasoning as you say (see Tosafot, Shevuot 16b: “why do I need a verse?” is said only where the reasoning is compelling, not with every reasoning. Therefore, apparently blessings over enjoyment, whose source is reasoning in Berakhot 35a, are not de’oraita). I agree that there is reasoning to say there is such a value of autonomy, but in my opinion its application here is very far from logically compelled, and even the opposite (just as you too surely agree that the value of autonomy is not applied when a small child stretches out his hand to a burning fire, because here there is already clear reasoning).
My reasoning (and apparently that of most of the religious public who do not act according to your guidance) says that it is preferable that a child be religious at first by virtue of the education he received and not from himself, and only when he is sufficiently spiritually and religiously established, when I feel that the temptations of secularity no longer significantly affect him, then I will let him and even encourage him to clarify his path. A kind of “from not for its own sake one comes to for its own sake.” In the end he will be religious out of recognition and self-formation, and that is what matters.
With God’s help, 12 Tevet 5780
To Bentz — greetings,
Why should a young man’s faith until age 18 need to rest only
on habit? Do not the “Jewish Thought” studies in the high schools, in pre-military academies, in hesder yeshivot, and in women’s seminaries provide sufficient grounding for faith and an adequate answer to questions and arguments against faith?
I do not hold, as Rabbi Michael Abraham does, that one should encourage the student to investigate in foreign sources opposed to faith, but one should study from the writings of the greats of the generations, from Maimonides and Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi to Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Rabbi Soloveitchik, Rav Kook, and their continuators in our generation, who knew well the questions and arguments against faith in Torah and dealt with all the questions.
Has “Jewish Thought” been removed from the religious education system?
Regards, S.Tz.
We are repeating ourselves.
S.Tz., it has not been removed yet, and what a pity.
With God’s help, 12 Tevet 5780
Why is it “a pity” that “Jewish Thought” has not been removed from the curriculum? After all, our master, the author of the “trilogy,” the wise knower of “secrets,” has taught us that one must allow the student to become acquainted also with different beliefs so that he will have a real possibility of choice 🙂
The arguments of heresy and secularity, after all, the student in religious education encounters in a “flooding deluge” on the internet, in the media, on social networks, and in the street; and in his near future he will hear all the arguments of heresy from his friends in the army, at the university, and at work. Does he not deserve the right to taste something of Jewish thought and its sources? And who if not the religious education system is charged with making religious thought accessible to its students?
Regards, Sh. Mendrick
With God’s help, 13 Tevet 5780
For a selection of rabbis, books, and websites dealing with clarifying and grounding faith in the spirit of the sages of the early and later generations, while addressing the old and new questions that arise בעקבות modern culture and science—I mentioned them in my comments “The answer already exists” and “Clarifying faith in our generation—easy and hard,” on column 36, “On the phenomenon of leaving religion” (and in the comments following them), and “Give to the wise and he will become yet wiser.”
And for the 60th birthday of the host, Rabbi Michael Abraham (which, God willing, will fall the day after tomorrow on the 15th of Tevet), we bless him that just as he has defined the questions and doubts well—so may he merit in his seventh decade that his mind settle enough to find the correct answers to his questions, in the spirit of and following the sages of Israel, early and late, who prepared for us “fat meat on a golden table” on the subjects of the foundations of faith and the duties of the heart.
As “elder Torah scholars,” whose minds become more settled the older they grow, so may the “master of the place” merit to understand their words with intellect, to delight in the Lord also emotionally, and to see eye to eye the providence and salvation of God. And may it be fulfilled in him: “They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be full of sap and freshness,” and it says: “My soul shall be satisfied as with marrow and fatness, and my mouth shall praise You with joyous lips.”
Regards, S.Tz.
Because both the texts and the way they are usually taught in classes generally do more harm than good. I remember my Jewish Thought classes as pure and anachronistic tedium.
Many thanks for the good wishes. 🙂
You wrote: “Every person has a basic right to formulate his positions and his way of life. As alarming as this may sound to a believer, in my view this right precedes the obligation to worship God.” Is there support for this approach in the Talmud or the Midrashim? It is important to stress: it is perfectly fine if there is no such support; I am not looking to refute your reasoning. It is just that, according to my limited scope of knowledge in the Talmud and Midrashim, I have never encountered such an approach, and I am simply curious to know whether you know of such an approach in the words of the Sages. On the contrary, I have always found opposite approaches in the words of the Sages. Common examples in the Sages are, for example: “Do not stray after your hearts” — this is heresy (that is, do not expose yourselves to non-Jewish theology). Or for example: “Do not turn to the idols” — do not turn to your own mind (that is, one should focus only on Judaism; empty space in the head is dangerous and liable to fill up with heretical ideas). There is a prohibition on reading external books, and these are books of heretics (according to one interpretation). In short, it seems to me that the Sages held that the obligation to worship God takes precedence over everything and certainly overrides a person’s desire to expand the boundaries of his thinking.
Why do I need a verse? It is reasoning! I also interpreted those prohibitions differently in my trilogy books.
A small note — the rabbi presumably means that he is not a postmodernist who believes in the existence of many truths. A pluralist recognizes that there are different ways of thinking; the pluralist as such does not necessarily think they are true.
No. I identify those two. To recognize that different people have several different ways of thinking is a simple fact that no one has ever disputed.
When I saw the article and the bit where he said that he doesn’t believe because of what he read on the internet under the name Hawking, I immediately thought of you and your response.