Q&A: Openness
Openness
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi,
A point I wanted to share with you, and from Facebook discussions about you (which are presumably known to you) I conclude that many share my thoughts.
In your interview in Besheva and in your articles, you propose an alternative to insularity: simply to open up.
At the time, many people really did rejoice over Two Carts, which was written in a yeshiva-style tone, combined words of reason, and served as an anointed shield against secularity.
Indeed, from the unrepresentative sample that I know, many educated religious people were happy with this find and saw it as a remedy for the problem of sweeping questions under the rug.
But in recent years people have become aware of the gap between what is written in the books (usually in a conservative tone) and the “old Rabbi Michi” they knew, and what you say today (mainly on the site, but also rumors passed by word of mouth)—denial of a significant part of the Thirteen Principles, calls to cut back prayer, and more.
[It is important for me to emphasize: I am not at all coming to express personal criticism of your views on matters of faith, although I do not share them. My criticism is only of the proposed solution.]
The problem is that instead of being an example of Torah together with openness, this has become the opposite example: “Look what happened to Rabbi Michi—today he denies the fundamentals of faith.” I’ve heard this more than once or twice.
The problem is this: yeshiva boys have questions that can lead them to becoming secular. The solution you propose is: teach them everything, and thereby expose them to a high risk (that is how it is perceived, and what “happened” to you is seen as proof of it) of denying some of the fundamentals,
which for many is very bad, not far from becoming secular.
Better to remain closed-off, those people say—and I too have wondered about it—and to open up the questions only in times of distress.
With great respect,
Anonymous.
Answer
A very strange argument. Don’t reveal the truth to people, otherwise they might discover the truth. By that logic, secular people also shouldn’t allow themselves to study, lest they repent, Heaven forbid. One can preserve faith and commitment by worshipping the wrong God (like Maimonides’ parable of the elephant), and therefore it is supposedly preferable not to worship Him correctly.
Discussion on Answer
Dear Anonymous,
Your words are interesting, but could you explain what you wrote? I wasn’t able to understand: “We believe that we are educating toward the right thing, so what is the point of opening everything up from the outset?”
Could the honorable Rabbi please address Anonymous’s remarks? Many thanks in advance.
I’ve written an answer to this here more than once. I’ll repeat it briefly. As a rule, I do not judge a worldview by its results. Beyond that, in my view clarifying the truth is an obligation and it must not be concealed (see the latest column, 576, and elsewhere). And if someone is harmed by this, that does not justify harming others in order to save him. Beyond that, there are many for whom this truth דווקא leaves them committed to Torah, although there are indeed others as well. There is no value in preserving an incorrect faith. There is value in preserving a correct faith. Therefore hiding the truth in order to preserve faith is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
It’s not “not revealing the truth to people.”
Opening people up to everything means that many people will believe in “untruth” for the wrong reasons—because they are not smart enough, or because things were not conveyed to them in the right way, or at least were perceived by them in the wrong way.
We believe that we are educating toward the right thing, so what is the point of opening everything up from the outset?
If someone has questions, then obviously one should present him with the best arguments, and in that I of course agree with you that the reality on the ground is not good (the students surpass their teachers), but in my humble opinion, addressing specific problems is preferable to massive openness to philosophy that will cause quite a few people to drop out.
The scenario of a good kid who is opened up to excessive analytical thinking at our initiative (assuming he would not have opened up to it on his own), and therefore becomes “too analytical” in an uncontrollable way, is quite plausible.
And casting doubt on what people see as Torah from Sinai (even in things that are mistaken) causes people to throw out the whole package. And sometimes it is better that they believe nonsense (because what can you do—we have no control over what they are told at home or by “simple” teachers) and the truth, than that they deny both.