Between the Zomet Institute and the Weizmann Institute (Column 557)
Why a clear halakhic ruling does not end the discussion
The column opens by comparing several levels of involvement in holiness: public needs, rare mitzvot, obligatory mitzvot, and Torah classes. On all these scales it seems that, halakhically, they are preferable to discovering relativity or producing art. And yet he stresses that this is only a partial truth: from a broader perspective it is hard to accept that slicing herring, or even some halakhic initiative, is more important than an enormous scientific or cultural contribution to the world.
Why science and creativity seem more important to humanity without negating the value of mitzvot
He rejects the claim that an automatic chametz detector is merely a formal matter with no value, since if chametz is forbidden then avoiding it has real spiritual benefit. But even after that reservation, it is hard to ignore that science has both the intrinsic value of knowledge and understanding and enormous consequences in healing, technology, and improving human life. He cites Maimonides as a major source for the view that knowledge and intellectual attainment are substantive values, while social and moral order are also the infrastructure that makes them possible.
Why a universal contribution is also a Jewish contribution
Even if science benefits humanity first and foremost, the column argues that this does not make it foreign to Judaism. Knowing the world and God is itself a religious value, and contributing to human health and welfare is, in a certain sense, comparable to charity and rescue on a different scale. Hence the gap between universal value and Torah value narrows considerably: a Jew is first of all a human being, and general human obligations also apply to him. Still, the question remains whether the particular halakhic value should nevertheless be preferred over the universal one.
Why ordinary religious education still pulls toward mitzvot
When the discussion moves from what matters to Judaism to what is right for me or for my children to choose, he sharpens that the usual practical concerns, like fear of spiritual corruption or kiddush Hashem, are secondary to the core issue. At the center stands the familiar religious intuition that worldly life is only a platform, whereas Torah and mitzvot are the purpose of creation and what earns the World to Come. He acknowledges that this is a very powerful picture, but adds that his intuition rebels against it: knowledge is not merely instrumental, and one must distinguish between what is foundational and what is important.
Ramban on positive and negative commandments as a model for distinguishing the basic from the important
To sharpen that distinction, the column brings Ramban on zakhor and shamor. Ramban writes that positive commandments are higher than prohibitions, and in the same breath that the punishment for violating a prohibition is more severe; the Sdei Chemed explains that there is no contradiction. Fulfilling a positive commandment is a higher level and therefore earns greater reward, but refraining from a prohibition is a more basic demand and therefore violating it is punished more severely. The conclusion is that something can be more basic and at the same time less important, and vice versa.
The application: the mundane as infrastructure, and science and art as values that are not merely instrumental
From here he suggests applying the distinction to our question. One can say that even if Torah and mitzvot are the supreme purpose, the basic infrastructure required of every person is to be a human being and to build a decent society; therefore the universal and mundane dimension is more basic. This is more persuasive regarding morality than regarding science and art, but they too are not merely auxiliary tools. It may be that they are a second story rather than a basic halakhic demand, and therefore refraining from them is neither a transgression nor something that enters halakha; yet the very engagement in them has intrinsic value. So the tasks of the nations are not necessarily less important but different, and just as Torah study is not only a means to issuing halakhic rulings, so too cultivating a moral and intellectual society and pursuing scientific research are substantive values and not merely a platform for mitzvot.
“You’ll send your son to the Weizmann Institute and I’ll send mine to the Shimshon Institute, and we’ll see who gets there first.”
(Salim and Raza about his beloved son Nesharke, in the Gashashim’s basketball skit.
With a great and pity-tinged hope to see that schlemazel serving honorably as a PIVOT.)
In column 121 I celebrated finding a marvelous song I had searched for many years. The song is about the squandering of the talents of people like Einstein, Spinoza, and Ahad Ha’am, who could have been magnificent synagogue sextons (shamashim): making kugel and slicing herring (during the Musaf prayer) and reciting the “Mi Sheberach” for those called to the Torah; instead, they wasted their time and abilities on trivialities like the theory of relativity, philosophy, and the like.
There I noted that hearing this raises the following question, which is a serious one:
The question that arises here is essentially what is more important: the Zomet Institute or the Weizmann Institute? Or, in the golden words of Salim and Raza to their son Nesharke: you send your son to the Zomet Institute and I’ll send mine to the Weizmann Institute and we’ll see who gets there first. Is it more important to develop the theory of relativity or an automatic chametz detector? Who is more faithful and contributes more to Judaism: Einstein or the synagogue sexton? What do you say about this? I certainly think these are questions worth pondering. There is something to these claims, except that it’s only a partial truth. But as noted, this is not the place for an overly heavy investigation; we’ll leave that for another time.
About half a year ago Yaakov demanded that I redeem the note, meaning to discuss the question I left open. What really is more important, the Weizmann Institute or the Zomet Institute? Einstein or the synagogue sexton? Einstein and physics, of course, serve here only as a parable. We could speak as well about a writer, poet, or artist in another field who creates masterpieces—and of course also about one who contributes in other areas of knowledge, technology, and science. In this column I will try to address that question, as a continuation of the earlier column.
Several levels of discussion
By way of preface, we can distinguish here among several levels of engagement with the sacred. There is no commandment to be a sexton, though it is a service of communal needs and has religious value. There is direct engagement in mitzvot, such as establishing a “rare-mitzvot society” (transporting groups of righteous people to fulfill the commandments of redeeming a firstborn donkey and, if not redeemed, breaking its neck). These are mitzvot for which we are under no obligation (neither an absolute obligation nor a conditional one). Alternatively, what about engaging in positive commandments (building the Temple, promoting the public’s donning of tefillin), which are already a halakhic duty? Or perhaps establishing and advancing Torah classes for the children of Israel. Is that preferable to developing relativity theory, quantum theory, psychology, evolution, and the like?
For now I will set these differences aside and ask more generally: from a religious perspective, what is truly preferable? I think that from a halakhic standpoint there is no question: all of these, at every level, take precedence. But there’s a sense that this does not exhaust the discussion, because from a broader vantage it is very hard to accept such a sweeping and total ruling. Something here doesn’t really “make sense.” In what follows I’ll raise a few reflections on the matter; I have no decisive and crushing argument for my intuition. I’ll be happy to read additional remarks and arguments in the comments, pro and con.
First formulation: What is more important for humanity?
Of course one can ask: what is more important for humanity? On that question, it would seem that an automatic chametz detector—or even establishing a charity organization—is surely less important to humanity than a significant scientific discovery or even an important work of art (though I assume some will dispute this). Why is that, really? A chametz detector prevents us from a prohibition, and many would say there is no benefit in that to society or to other people; therefore it’s a formal matter and thus less important. But I reject this outright. It is clear that the prohibition of chametz is significant; otherwise it would not have been prohibited to us. There is some spiritual benefit in guarding against it. If so, a chametz detector that prevents our violating chametz is a matter of real significance and does have benefit for the world and/or for ourselves.
One can argue that theoretical knowledge has value in itself. To my understanding, this is a very important value. But beyond the value of knowledge itself, there is here a direct or indirect contribution to healing and helping many people, and these are certainly enormous contributions to the world—somewhat more than slicing herring or even engaging in an actual mitzvah. Of course, one might claim that the rectification of “Netzach within Hod” also constitutes a contribution to the world, and that it is more important than contributions that seem greater to us. Perhaps; but I am very doubtful.
We should remember that regarding science too, there are approaches that locate its principal value in its contribution to humanity—namely, in the technology built upon it. But scientists and philosophers generally see research and the accumulation of knowledge as a value in itself. It is not merely a “means to a mitzvah” for the sake of advancing technology and practical benefit to humanity; rather, possessing knowledge and exercising thought are themselves a very important value. Needless to say, there are many sources in Maimonides pointing in this direction. In his view one gathers that knowledge and study are the true and essential value, while helping people (ethics and technology) are only the infrastructure enabling us to have a proper society and people in sound condition, so that all of us—or at least those of us suited to it—can learn and grow wise.
Second formulation: What is more important for Judaism?
Even if we grant the premise that Einstein’s contribution to humanity is more significant, one might say this is not a contribution to Judaism but to humanity. Therefore we can ask: which of the two contributes more to Judaism?
One can argue that the contribution of relativity theory is also to Judaism and not only to the world. Both because there is Jewish-religious value to knowing the world and the Creator (as noted, Maimonides emphasizes this in several places, should anyone need a source), and because the implications of relativity for healing and improving people’s condition are no less important than saving people through an act (rescuing from drowning) or through charity that improves a poor person’s life. In this sense, we are talking here about charity on an entirely different scale. On this view, this is literally the fulfillment of a mitzvah.
Even if it is a contribution to humanity and a universal value, that doesn’t mean the Torah is indifferent to it. It’s not included in halakhah, but it certainly constitutes a value according to the Torah as well. A Jew is first of all a human being (or at least ought to be), and only afterward also a Jew. The obligations incumbent upon all human beings also apply to him, beyond his particularistic obligations. This is the meaning of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 59a): “There is nothing that is forbidden to a descendant of Noah yet permitted to a Jew.” This, of course, greatly smooths the difference between the two formulations: the question of religious value and that of universal value now appear very similar, if not identical.
Still, even if we accept that universal values possess religious value, one may wonder whether there remains room to prefer the particularistic value over the universal—akin to the legal canon called lex specialis (preference for the specific). I will arrive at this later (in the discussion of the relation between the basic and the important).
Third formulation: What is more important to me?
Even if we conclude that being a gabbai (sexton) contributes more to Judaism than inventing relativity theory, there still remains the question of whether I, as a Jew, would prefer (on an axiological plane, not merely a utilitarian one) to be a gabbai rather than a physicist. Alternatively, as a parent or educator, would I send my child toward scientific research rather than toward a track in “Gabbai-hood: Introduction to Herring Slicing 1,” followed by “Advanced Kugel Slicing”?
Why indeed not? There is, of course, the fear of spiritual decline: quite a few people, when exposed to academic fields, find that their religious commitment and/or faith is impaired. It is easier to preserve religious commitment and faith within a bubble of simple, conservative life—the synagogue sexton, a rank-and-file herring slicer. By the same token one can speak of sanctification of the Name (Kiddush Hashem) in a Jew’s being an important scientist or significant creator (perhaps even more than the Kiddush Hashem of the certified herring-slicers). But these are side matters for the issue at hand. I am trying to examine the intrinsic value, not the collateral outcomes of these pursuits.
If we set those side considerations aside, it would seem that the essential value is engagement in mitzvot. The secular world and life of the mundane are only a platform for the essence of our lives, which lies in the religious sphere. Somehow we’ve learned that one doesn’t merit the World to Come for discovering relativity theory, but for a small or great mitzvah—yes. Beyond that, I have argued more than once that it seems implausible to me that the purpose of the creation of the world and humanity is culture and ethics. Those are only means to a proper society, but it is not plausible that they were the purpose of creation, because if a human society had not been created, we wouldn’t need it to be proper. It is therefore more plausible that there should be another purpose to creation, and it would appear that this is precisely the Torah and the mitzvot.
And yet, with all due respect to the education we received, my intuitive feeling is that this is untenable. Partly because knowledge as such has intrinsic value (not only as a means)—an important value both universal and Jewish—and partly because there is an important distinction, which many ignore, between the question of what is more fundamental or basic and the question of what is more important. This also returns us to the question I left open above, regarding the relation between universal and particularistic value. I will now elaborate.
Between the basic and the important
There is a built-in tension between the basic and the important. Not only do they not necessarily go together, but sometimes they are outright opposites. One source for this principle may be found in Nahmanides (Ramban) on Parashat Yitro, in his commentary on the commandment of Shabbat in the Ten Commandments. He writes there (Exodus 20:8):
“And it is also true that the attribute of ‘Remember’ alludes to a positive commandment, which issues from the attribute of love and is of the attribute of mercy, for one who fulfills his Master’s commandments is beloved to Him and his Master has mercy upon him; and the attribute of ‘Keep’ is in the negative commandments, and it is of the attribute of judgment and issues from the attribute of fear, for one who guards himself from doing that which is evil in the eyes of his Master fears Him. Therefore, positive commandments are greater than negative commandments, just as love is greater than fear, for one who fulfills and performs with his body and money the will of his Master is greater than one who merely guards himself from doing what is evil in His eyes; and thus they said that a positive commandment comes and overrides a negative commandment.”
That is, “Remember” (zachor) is a positive commandment and “Keep” (shamor) is a negative commandment. Zachor is love and shamor is fear. He writes that for this reason positive commandments are greater than negative commandments, and therefore a positive commandment overrides a negative one. But his next sentence is surprising:
“And because of this, the punishment for (violating) negative commandments is greater, and we carry out judgment in them—such as lashes and death—whereas we do not carry out judgment at all for (neglecting) positive commandments, except in cases of rebellion, as when someone says ‘I will not perform lulav and tzitzit; I will not make a sukkah,’ for the Sanhedrin would beat him until he accepted upon himself to perform (the mitzvah) or until his soul departed.”
He states that the punishment for a negative commandment is more severe than for neglecting a positive commandment—which is, of course, a simple fact. But he claims this is “because of this,” i.e., for the very reason just stated. Yet above he wrote that positive commandments are weightier than negatives; so why, for that very reason, is the punishment for a positive less severe?
The She’dei Chemed explains that with regard to fulfillment, a positive commandment is higher than a negative; but with regard to neglect, a negative is more severe than a positive. Transgressing a negative commandment is a graver offense than neglecting a positive; but fulfilling a positive commandment is more significant than refraining from violating a negative. Note that there is now nothing surprising in Ramban’s words; it is even to be expected, since we are dealing with two sides of the same coin. Because the positive is higher, the reward for its fulfillment is greater than the reward for refraining from a negative. But the flip side is that the punishment for neglecting a positive is lighter than the punishment for violating a negative. One can put it this way: the positive is more important, but the negative is more basic. Not violating a negative commandment is a basic requirement; therefore, one who fails to meet it deserves a more severe punishment. But fulfilling a positive is a higher demand; thus one who fulfills it merits greater reward, while one who fails to meet it is not such a serious offender. Fulfilling a positive is righteousness of a high order; precisely for that reason it is not a basic demand, and one who does not meet it is not gravely wicked. Violating a negative, however, is great wickedness; therefore refraining from it is not a great virtue but a basic requirement.
For the same reason there is a hierarchy within the negatives: refraining from very severe transgressions is less “significant” than refraining from lighter ones. So too regarding transgressions from which it is easy to abstain (they carry little cost) versus those from which it is hard to abstain. Conversely, with transgressions that people “trample underfoot” (which everyone belittles and violates), one could argue the punishment should be greater (see Rashi at the beginning of Parashat Ekev), but one could also say the punishment should be lighter (since it is hard to avoid them and perhaps their severity is not great).
Applying this to our case
We can apply this principle to our questions in several ways. First, even if the mitzvot are the purpose of the world, the basic infrastructure required of all inhabitants of the world is to be human beings and to create a proper, mundane society. Therefore, the mundane and the universal are more basic, even though Torah and mitzvot are higher. It is easier to say this about moral values vis-à-vis halakhic values, but scientific knowledge or artistic creativity do not seem like something more basic than mitzvot. Here, of course, we must distinguish between slicing herring and establishing charity organizations or Torah classes.
But from a Jewish perspective one can say that precisely the mitzvot are the basic platform, and scientific research and artistic creation are a second story built atop it. Engagement in them earns greater reward, but abstaining from them is not so grievous. This is not a basic demand of every person, which is why it is also not part of halakhah. On the other hand, it is clear that these values are relevant and shared by all humanity and not only by Jews, whereas halakhah is unique to Jews. Does that not indicate that science and art are more basic and therefore less important? I’m not sure, because the premise that the missions of non-Jews are less important is, in my view, not necessarily correct. They are different, but not necessarily less important or more basic. They have fewer missions, of course, but it does not follow that these are less important or more basic.
People say: “Your this-world is my next-world.” Caring for another’s material needs is a spiritual-religious value. Perhaps similarly one can say that the concern for establishing a proper, moral, and intellectual society has intrinsic value, not only as a means for repairing society and the human being. Even if ethics and science are the platform for a proper society that can engage in mitzvot, investing in and advancing the platform is itself a value, not merely a means.
So too regarding Torah study versus issuing halakhic rulings. At first glance, Torah study is a means intended to enable me to render halakhic decisions. There is some truth to this: learning in order to do; arranging the sugya in accordance with the halakhah; study that leads to action; and the like. But it is quite clear that study itself has value, not merely instrumental value (I expanded on this in column 479 and elsewhere, where I showed that Torah study is specifically non-instrumental study).
Discussion
I’ve had this post planned for a few weeks already. Soon.
I suggest the rabbi run an experiment: let the chat read the responsa on the site, the posts, and the books from “Good Measure,” “God Plays Dice,” the trilogy, and the rest of the rabbi’s books.
When the chat is ready, it will answer all questioners here on the site; the answers will be immediate, and it will save the rabbi a lot of effort and time.
On second thought, maybe my suggestion is unnecessary? Maybe I’m already corresponding right now with a chat? Who knows?
The chat hasn’t gone over the icons and learned them yet. Otherwise you’d have caught a few here.
It reminds me of R. Shalom Shwadron’s joke, when in a talk he said in the name of the Hazon Ish that it is permitted to say your own ideas in the name of a great man so that people will accept them from you (that is what the Magen Avraham rules. I discussed this in the past). And then he added: “And I won’t tell you whether the Hazon Ish really said this.”
Rambam began the Mishneh Torah with the Account of Creation, but on the other hand he wrote that the Account of Creation should be studied in depth only after “the discussions of Abaye and Rava” (which is exactly what you said about a second story built on top of Torah). I think one can understand from this a double importance to the study of science: both as an infrastructure (worldly conduct, perfumery, and cooking) but also as a kind of end in itself. Something that can and should be understood deeply only after there is a Torah foundation. Perhaps it was truly thanks to Torah that you solved Schrödinger’s equation for a rotating potential well :-).
They say that Bialik said that from the Rogatchover’s brain one could hew out two Einsteins.
And when this was brought before the Rogatchover, the Rogatchover said—as the legend tells it:
And from the shavings—how many Bialiks.
I am astonished at our teacher Michi’s admiration for this fake, hollow poem.
We have never heard of a Jew who aspired for his son to be a synagogue sexton, or a gabbai.
And the question that arises is more general, and does not concern Judaism alone—
to be Heisenberg—the father of quantum theory and a Nazi—or to be Private Audie Murphy? (the most decorated American soldier in the history of the American army).
Would any American writer write such a parody about Audie Murphy, who could have been Shkoli?
It requires further study.
And Douglas Adams likewise said, according to Wikiquote:
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”
Appalling misunderstanding.
The poem is truly marvelous. Precisely because it completely captures the traditional Haredi mode of thought. Many there would indeed tell you that this is preferable. They do not even see any value in Einstein regardless of sextons. He is simply valueless in their eyes.
Of course no person aspires for his son to be a sexton, but if you were to present him with the alternative—Einstein or a sexton—the answer is clear. Besides, a caricature is always exaggerated; its point is to present a real point in an exaggerated way.
You see Torah as having instrumental value. Does someone who studies the discussions of Abaye and Rava thereby improve his philosophy? That seems far-fetched to me.
Limor, in your messages I detect trolling, and I ask you not to continue with it. If you have an opinion—any opinion—write it in a reasoned and clear way. All this nonsense is useful for nothing. One can use cynicism (it is even desirable), but only as a way of expressing ideas and arguments. Not in place of them.
In New York I knew a Jew who served as the sexton of the Munkatch Hasidim synagogue on 14th Avenue in Boro Park (besides his regular occupation arranging the prayer quorums and so on, he also sold wines in the corner of the synagogue), who was the son of a well-known professor of mathematics whom I also knew, in a synagogue in one of the neighborhoods of Queens …
The conclusions are your responsibility.
S.Z.H.
It depends on the conceptual inquiry: are we speaking of the decline of the generations or of their ascent?
Hello Rabbi Michi,
As mozer perhaps meant, there is a certain unfairness in presenting the question as gabbai or Einstein (though the poem is very cute in my opinion).
The question is perhaps about a gabbai versus a man selling sausages on a street corner, or the Rogatchover versus Einstein (without getting into the matter of “ten Einsteins from the Rogatchover’s brain”).
In my opinion, the presentation of the question should touch more on the middle and not the extremes—for example: knowing half of the Talmud by heart, or being the owner of a successful high-tech company.
And perhaps even more accurately: to know half of the Talmud thoroughly, or to know all of Shakespeare’s books thoroughly. To run a large free-loan fund, or to lead a struggle to change an unworthy system of government (apropos..).
I wrote “perhaps more accurately” because in my opinion you are deliberately trying to emphasize the value of study in the sacred realm as opposed to the practical world in the secular realm, while skipping a few steps.
In any case, I think that by presenting the question in this way, I may perhaps answer the question according to my intuition. I think one can distinguish between the general and the particular. That is, it is true that in general there need to be doctors, there need to be Einsteins, and there also need to be S. Y. Agnons (forgive me, but he is simply beloved to me), but on the personal level, when I come to decide in which path and in which place I want to be—whether in the “basic” or the “important” place (as you defined it)—I choose the important, and prefer that others choose the “basic”; only if there were no choice and there were no people who would choose the “basic,” would I go and send my children to the “basic.”
By the way, “basic” can also be the study of physics, insofar as it is done מתוך the world of holiness itself (as in the Rambam you cited, and in his manner).
I would be glad to hear your response.
I will correct the end of my remarks:
“By the way, ‘important’ can also be the study of physics, insofar as it is done מתוך the world of holiness itself (as in the Rambam you cited, and in his manner).”
Well, I know the marvelous poet B. Michael too—and his caricatures are not meant
to present a real point. True satire comes from a desire to correct—not relevant in his case.
And please answer the point I raised—to be the Nazi Heisenberg—or a gabbai in the synagogue—
it may be that even you would give up science in such a case.
According to Kabbalah, the purpose of creation is the revelation of God’s glory. It is something a bit complicated. On the one hand it is not for His own sake but for the sake of the created beings, because He does not need it. It is a benefit to the creatures (to whom God’s glory is revealed), and it is the nature of the good to do good (as it were, the Holy One, blessed be He, has no choice in this). The discovery of relativity and every understanding of the nature of reality and the wonders of creation is a kind of revelation of God’s glory (which is revealed to whoever understands relativity; perhaps one should say here the revelation of divine glory). Therefore Einstein is preferable to an ordinary kugel-slicer. But really this has nothing to do with profession. The vast majority of physicists deal in trivialities of very little significance, and most of them are people lacking inspiration and imagination. My brother is a doctoral student in high-energy physics at Weizmann, and he tells me that this field is dying today and everyone is engaged in pointless calculations. The same is true in mathematics (only there it is proofs instead of calculations). It is preferable to be a master cobbler, an artist in his craft, than a mediocre physicist. What is important to teach is excellence and inspiration (if possible); that will bring about the revelation of God’s glory in the world. There is also revelation of God in sacred fields, in what is relevant to them. That is, anything that brings new light into the world.
Our master Michi’s words about trolling have not moved from their place.
It is a shame that she/he does not take a bit of her own advice:
“Without pretenses, masks, appeasement, and speaking in the language of strangers”—
Not true. You are missing the point. The question is precisely sexton versus Einstein. If one accepts the assumption that the sacred has a value essentially different from the secular, then a sexton is preferable to Einstein. That is precisely the serious question. It is precisely when you demand a comparison of levels that you assume there is no essential difference between sacred and secular, or between Torah values and human fantasies (on the assumption that beyond Torah things have no meaning. That is the discussion).
A relevant question—what do I tell my son when he asks which path to choose?
I tell him this:
My son, my son, light of my eyes,
It does not matter at all which path you choose,
What matters is the devotion in your path.
My son, my son, beloved of my heart,
Your true and only choice is the path of truth. All the other choices will lead you to it in any case.
My son, my son, truly a portion of God above,
What is the essence of your hesitation? What stands before your eyes? Is it the measure of your influence on humanity, what the common folk will say? What is the reason that each of the two or three options—or more—succeeds in existing? What result are you striving toward? Do you notice that you are afraid? Afraid of what? What is the root of this fear? That you will err in the path? That you will not choose correctly? What is the nature of the dispute within you? What does it represent? How can the two possibilities before you be reframed, redefined, in order to free them from the old reasons and place them in your service in a newly unified conceptual framework, both in terms of the reason and in terms of the result? Is the reason compelled by the result? Is the result compelled by the reason? Is the reason the result of something else entirely within you?
My son, my son, son of a king,
Your question—what to choose—is itself raw material for character work. For devotion. For thought. For understanding. For trust in God.
In the process of inward examination, you can discover within yourself the fear, the fabricated inner doubts, observe them, increase faith, and strengthen your bond with God.
And my son, how will you know what the answer is??
You will know when you no longer have a question.
All the questions in the world,
their essence is one.
To draw you inward toward truth, through recognizing doubts, purification, and closeness to the Blessed One, the only necessary being who releases every flawed cause-and-effect bond. He alone, and only He—not my power and not the might of my hand—did, does, and will do.
The more inwardly purified you are,
establish the work of your hands,
and that is the purpose. “So that they may know Him.”
And for that reason,
process-oriented thinking, inner investigation of causality, frees you from the straits in which you are trapped by false inner cause-and-effect bonds. The Lord smites Egypt and heals Israel. The Lord shepherds you.
The Lord watches over you, my son,
and over all Israel.
Be strong and courageous on your path upon the very narrow bridge,
great is your faith; He believes in you, that you believe in Him. May He lead you when you understand. Understand.
Understanding. Thought. Inner reflection. And He grants you the power to reflect, to think, and to let go of irrelevant cause-and-effect bonds.
Every query is meant to come undone,
out of true fear of Heaven.
Toward joy in life and gladness of heart.
Why are you angry? What difference does the person’s history make to the discussion about choice?
What to choose, coffee or tea?? What difference does it make—the main thing is that you make a blessing. And try to understand why, why you are asking.
And you too, who are writing—what do you know about the depths of his heart? Do you think human beings act without authorization? Do you believe that so much as a peep happens here against His blessed will? What is with you? Why are you so alarmed?
What are you afraid of? What do you think will happen?
Do you really think people are so feeble-minded that they can be swayed away from the work of devotion??
And if you think there are such feeble-minded people, then let them go through it until, with God’s help, they gain some sense.
Everything is really okay.
Everything truly is okay.
It is all for the sake of Heaven.
And you too.
Be strong against your fears about the poor feeble-minded ones;
there is real divine providence over them too.
In addition, in your writing, you can combine both humor and cynicism,
so as, truly, to free yourself from the fabricated terror that has seized you.
It will pass when you gather inward and ask: what is the truth? What is really happening here?
Who is it that did, does, and will do? Why do I experience things this way and not otherwise? What do I know about the reckonings of Heaven? Who am I? Why am I in panic? What is the reason that a portion of God should worry? It is a fiction, it is a story, just a story,
from which the flawed foundation-pillars must be untied.
Hello Liba. Is there any book or place where one can hear or read and delve more deeply into the approach you are describing?
And do not forget, at every moment of awareness, to ask: what do I want? Why? What do I imagine is missing for me? Why should I miss the mark and blame reality by wanting things from it? What is my responsibility here? Why is this hard for me? What pose am I maintaining? Why do I care? Why do I care about myself and about what people will think? What is the main thing here? Where am I going? Where did I come from? Why am I carrying a burden of nonsense????? Only the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven do I want. Am I lacking money? Think, think—what do you want to receive from reality? For what purpose? Whom are you serving? Whom and what will this money serve? What do you want???
This is called the method of internal digging within myself, within my evil inclination,
in its splendid ship within me,
in the investigation of truth, drilling holes,
truth fills everything—Torah.
Purification is toil.
If you did not toil, do not believe, Man Dehu.
It is a privilege.
And one must not despair of despair.
Despair too is raw material for investigation.
Everythinggggggg
is raw material for investigation.
Maybe you just need a sheet of paper and a pencil, only for the beginning, and even that is not obligatory.
You
have
a Father.
You
have
yourself—a portion of God.
You need absolutely nothing,
no skill and no theory,
only alert awareness,
active,
investigative,
courageous, not afraid to be afraid,
fearful from so much fear, straining toward courage,
to ask.
To ask.
To ask.
God helps. God is with us, with His people,
our time has come.
It is also hard because it is digging,
and it is also easy precisely because it is hard.
Do not allow your thoughts to wander just like that;
force them into submission and investigate.
Only thoughts of devotion, of your love for the Blessed One—only they are free, and nothing can or is able to coerce them or endanger them.
For they, they are the truth.
Fortunate are you, Israel,
what a people Israel is,
alive and enduring.
I am indeed hesitating. You already know my sensitivity to censorship. But I am definitely close to using it. If this continues, I will delete everything, including retroactively.
As for the site’s popularity, this kind of trolling only harms it and disrupts the discussions. I assume you are being cynical here too. 🙂
A. Why not say that our goal is to create a proper society, and to develop culture, morality, and science? You wrote that it is unlikely that this is the purpose of creation, but that seemingly is unrelated. God’s purpose in creation need not correspond to our purpose in the world.
B. Why should there be value in theoretical knowledge as such? That sounds entirely unlikely. It is strange to think of a person who possesses knowledge of something (for example, someone who knows the second law of thermodynamics) as more valuable than someone who does not know it…
I admit: I still haven’t read everything.
I read the beginning; I hope to read the rest afterward.
But I can’t resist saying that this sounds to me like asking what is preferable, shakshuka or gefilte fish.
The answer would be that it is a matter of personal taste, knowledge, availability of ingredients, and the ability to prepare it.
But apparently I still have not grasped the depth of the puzzlement.
Maybe after reading I will understand more.
A. According to the accepted tradition, the Holy One, blessed be He, told us that our purpose is different. Presumably it coincides with His own purpose.
B. The striving for knowledge is an inseparable part of the value in it. But values are hard to justify. One can also ask what is wrong with murder, or with simply wasting time.
Maybe you really will understand more. Next time, I suggest that before you are called up, wait a bit, read, and then express an opinion. What’s the rush?
Of course. If your brother is a doctoral student, then you are entirely qualified to state emphatically that sextons engage in more intellectual and inspiring activity than physicists. Beyond that, the discussion was not about physicists but about Einstein. Reading comprehension is also one of the important skills. I know, because my brother is a doctoral student in reading comprehension at the Samson Institute.
In my opinion, at the end of his remarks B mentioned a point that ought to be relevant to the discussion: what is the field in which you can invest all your strength and not do it at “half power.”
This should not be the only parameter, but there is some truth to the claim: it is better to choose a field in which 100% of your strength will be directed toward benefit than a field in which only part of your strength will ultimately be useful, without necessary dependence on the question of what is preferable in itself.
Simply put, what I am trying to say is that a full Einstein is preferable to half a synagogue sexton, and a sexton is preferable to half an Einstein; and the whole question begins, in my opinion, only when one compares a full Einstein to a full sexton.
I am aware of the fact that there are those who would say that even half a sexton is preferable to Einstein, but in my opinion the worst thing is that the person (or even half of him) should be wasted on nothing.
First of all, I myself also have a background in physics and I have the ability to assess the work of a physicist. It is just that I spoke in my brother’s name because he is really immersed in it today, whereas I have already been detached from that world for several years (because of that same disappointment). It has nothing to do with intellectual activity but with creativity and fruitfulness (which are also something mental).
In addition, I really was speaking about Einstein versus gabbaim, and everything else was a side remark. And because of your brother and the Samson Institute, it turns out that reading comprehension is indeed one of the important skills for you too.
There is a beautiful story that Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein told, and it gives an interesting perspective on the matter of Torah and worldly conduct.
I quote: “Many years ago, the wife of my teacher and rabbi, the Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi R. Yitzhak Hutner, of blessed memory, passed away, and I traveled to Bnei Brak to comfort him in his mourning. When I came to him, I found him sitting alone. We spoke privately, one on one, and it was an open and honest conversation, heart to heart. Rabbi Hutner told me that one of the Torah scholars who had come to comfort him tried to persuade him and explain to him how positive the death was, since his wife was now in alma de-kushta, the world of truth, a world that is entirely good, and other such idle things. Needless to say, such words are altogether inappropriate. I remember that when Rabbi Hutner told me this, he raised his voice and cried out about that Torah scholar the severe words of the Midrash [Vayikra Rabbah, parashah 1]: ‘Any Torah scholar who has no understanding—a carcass is better than he.’ And Rabbi Hutner added in his thunderous voice: ‘Do you hear? Any Torah scholar who has no understanding!’ Note well: it is not speaking here of an ignoramus who has no understanding, but specifically of a Torah scholar, a learned disciple of the sages, who has filled his belly with Talmud and halakhic decisors, proficient in Ketzot and Netivot; yet if he lacks the understanding that can guide and direct him so that he will interact sensibly with people and conduct himself with them in a manner of proper worldly behavior, a carcass is better than he. Had I not heard these piercing words with my own ears from the mouth of my teacher and rabbi, I would hesitate to say them on my own. It seems that the understanding to which Rabbi Hutner referred is a blend of common sense—the sense of ‘ordinary householders’ [which some Torah scholars tend to disparage]—together with a deep understanding of the situation. A Torah scholar who has understanding tries to understand both the person and his place and standing. For this, a deep psychological understanding is required, alongside an understanding and recognition of the developmental and existential reality in which the questioner finds himself… I very much doubt whether one can take into account the Torah judgment of a rabbi and great Torah scholar, however great he may be, if he lacks the integrity and honesty to say, ‘I do not know.’”
From the book Ashrei Adam Oz Lo Vakh, on the path and character of Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, of blessed memory [a beautiful book, truly strengthening in fear of Heaven].
Wow, the subject of the post is fascinating. It is interesting that the rabbi sees value in knowledge in itself. Fine, art has value—but does painting also have value? Or only artistic painting? Someone who has skill in something (a cobbler for 50 years)—is he also more valuable? Or is there value only in knowledge?
Art has value. Skill also has a certain value. I do not know how to draw a map with unequivocal criteria. The expression “more valuable” is not being used by you in its accepted sense.
Wow. That is really strange to me. To see skill as a value regardless of its actual use?
I do not understand why engagement in morality and science should have value in itself. But as stated, it is an intuition, so apparently it cannot be explained.
In this context I recall something from one of the Shabbat supplements (“Shabbat Kodesh,” the Torah supplement of the newspaper Yated Ne’eman) a few years ago. They conducted an interview there with a Haredi scientist, and in his remarks he and the writer explained how, from a Jewish perspective, there is no difference whatsoever between a person who works as a scientist and a person who works as a cleaner and the like.
So then what? A few lines later they quoted “the great mathematician,” Professor Rabbi Rips.
And the reader is left wondering why, in quotations about other professionals, it does not say “the great cleaner”??
That is only in the sense of “according to your own view” (that mathematics is a different field from house-cleaning).
See also the fascinating women’s evening with the pilot who became a top women’s hairdresser and discovered the truth.
Here is the quotation from Rambam (end of ch. 4 of the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah) about “the discussions of Abaye and Rava”:
“They are fit to be given precedence, for they first settle a person’s mind, and moreover they are the great good which the Holy One, blessed be He, bestowed for the ordering of this world, in order to inherit the life of the world to come; and it is possible that all may know them—young and old, man and woman, one of broad understanding and one of limited understanding.”
Three points may be noted:
– “they settle a person’s mind first” – this is not necessarily instrumental value, but rather making the person a learner ‘first,’ so that he will have a settled mind for the study of the Talmud (which, according to Rambam, includes Pardes and the Account of Creation).
– “they are the great good” – for the ordering of this world and for inheriting the life of the world to come. Apparently something like Rambam’s approach that halakhah means a combination of wisdom and practice (this can be seen at length in the introduction to the Mishnah).
– “it is possible that all may know them” – the Torah basis required for what follows is not all that great, a level of knowledge suited even to those of limited understanding.
But as the Kesef Mishneh writes—would that Rambam had not written this.
Faithful to this approach, in his second composition—the Shulchan Arukh in the laws of Torah study—the author of the Kesef Mishneh omitted this part of Rambam’s words, until the Rema came and spread out Rambam’s words again (and got attacked for it).
Thank you, interesting as always.
An idea for a topic for an article: deciding halakhic rulings באמצעות Chat GPT.
This new and much-discussed tool is based on machine learning. The tool has “learned” millions of texts (Wikipedia, newspapers, articles, and more) and answers questioners in a highly impressive way. Every now and then it spits out nonsense, but most of the time it is surprisingly good.
The tool was not trained on many sources in Hebrew, so its abilities in Hebrew or in halakhic knowledge are limited. But still, when I asked it a few questions on the laws of mixtures and Shabbat, it managed to answer some of them correctly.
(I recommend that the rabbi try it himself.)
In any case, the question arises: what will happen when such a tool is trained on the entire Jewish bookshelf? (The Responsa Project and so on.) It is likely that it could surpass any Torah scholar, even the healthiest one.
Many halakhic questions arise: is such a tool admissible for issuing halakhic rulings? Will we be able to rely on it?
And one can think of another question: will this allow us to save thousands of avrechim who labor over halakhah so that it not be forgotten, and make do with a smaller number of Torah scholars who know code? The benefit to society would be enormous.