Q&A: Great Figures on the Same Scale in the Religious Sector
Great Figures on the Same Scale in the Religious Sector
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Why do you think the Religious Zionist sector does not produce Torah greats on the same scale as those in the Haredi sector? Is this an optical illusion (perhaps because in the religious public the style of learning is different), or perhaps because the best minds in the religious public go into academia, and perhaps because they also invest in general knowledge?
More generally, do you think that the Haredi greats, who have nothing but the four cubits of Jewish law, and whose level of thinking about worldly issues is similar to that of an average yeshiva student, fall into the category of a Torah scholar who has no understanding?
And for dessert: as far as I understand, you studied in the Hazon Ish kollel back when Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky was still learning there. Maybe you can amuse us with some interesting story about an encounter of yours—between you (the thinking man) and him (the learning man)?
Answer
I assume you mean true Torah greats, not specifically political leaders (who are usually the ones called “the gedolim”).
Indeed, there is a noticeable gap in knowledge and mastery of the material. There are many possible explanations for it, and in my opinion too it is mainly the decentralization, as you mentioned. In the sense of: no one ever defeated me except a single craftsman.
But greatness, in my opinion, is not measured by knowledge—certainly not by knowledge alone. There is common sense, familiarity with the world, understanding of conceptual depths, and acquaintance with different fields of knowledge, and all of these are included in greatness in Torah (especially nowadays, when the weight of raw information has greatly diminished because of the existence of information databases, as Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin already wrote). By those parameters, in my opinion, the picture you described is reversed.
I didn’t have any encounters with him. I studied there in a framework that learned Choshen Mishpat until noon, and at noon I ran to the university. By the way, the Ponevezh kollel impressed me much more (I sat there for a few months as well).
Discussion on Answer
But the Rabbi didn’t address the issue of a Torah scholar who has no understanding (in a certain sense, of course—being part of Haredi society, which generally thinks in a primitive way), and I’d be interested to know the Rabbi’s opinion on that. Can one say about a person who is great in Torah that, since he is part of a primitive society, he too is primitive? It sounds a bit harsh to my ears, but still one needs to know.
Why not? It certainly can be said. The Sages already said this in their midrash about a Torah scholar who has no understanding.
Ailon, why do you think the greatest Torah scholars in the Haredi sector think “in a primitive way”?
And in general, what does it mean to “think in a primitive way”?
To Shai: To think in a primitive way is to think in a childish way—which is basically a kind of not thinking. That is, a lack of critical thinking. Of course this is relative. Torah greats do show more critical thinking than the average person in the Haredi world, but not relative to people outside it. For example, their attitude to science and its view of the world. In our language, “primitive” means the modes of thought of the Eastern world as opposed to those of the Western world. For example, the mythological worldview is called primitive in relation to the scientific one.
Continuation of the previous comment: And with regard to Torah greats, I’m usually talking about the tendency in the Haredi world to deny the obvious when it seems to them to contradict the Torah, and the lack of any attempt to understand how the two can coexist—rather, they just wave away apparent reality with one sweep of the hand. I’ve seen forms of this attitude even among major Torah scholars. See also the Rabbi’s articles here on the site about a state governed by Jewish law and about state’s witnesses. I just wanted to know whether the Rabbi really thinks this can be the reality—that Torah greats can be primitive (despite their personal greatness. I would ask this even about Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, who was interested in electricity—wanted to know about nature—for example, and even about the Lubavitcher Rebbe, even if I were to believe in his ability to work miracles, for example), because it is still uncomfortable for me to think so.
Ailon,
You maintain that:
A. The Haredi Torah greats have no critical thinking in the matters they deal with.
B. They ignore certain realities.
Serious accusations.
My question is whether you have evidence for what you say, because my impression is not that way. On the contrary, I see extremely serious judgment when I see and read conversations with them, and certainly in the Torah literature they publish.
To Shai,
First of all, I’m not accusing anyone. Being a child is not a sin. I’m occupied with diagnosing what reality is, as much as possible, without judging it. I’m not trying to dispute your impressions, and I don’t know what background you come from, but of course I’m speaking relatively. You asked for evidence, but the question is what counts as evidence for you. For me this is a general impression based on my acquaintance with the Haredi world, and therefore also an impression of them as the leaders of that society. If you say they are not really its leaders in practice, then that is not what I was talking about. The behavior of Haredi society is a case of “what a child says in the street comes from either his father or his mother,” and it points to how its great figures perceive reality. And the truth is, I don’t even know where to begin. The reality I’m talking about is, for example, the scientific worldview—evolution, or the age of the world. I have never heard sensible words from major rabbis on these subjects. It ranges from total ignoring and rejection of science to responses that show a lack of understanding of the thinking that stands at the basis of science (see, for example, the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s words regarding these contradictions in the book The Road to a Meaningful Life). In other words, excuses that show no desire to understand, only to plug a hole and calm the stomach. The main thing is that finally we can go back to learning “Toyre” in Choshen Mishpat and Yoreh De’ah. I’m talking about something that seems to me like a kind of lack of self-confidence that comes from an inability to accept reality as it is, and from a sort of obsessive need to show how the Torah comes out looking fine. And that is not the same as believing in the Torah. Another similar thing is the desire to show that everything true in reality comes from the Torah, even when it is just plain common sense. That shows a lack of confidence in our own humanity and in common sense itself. All kinds of things that need to be done simply because it is abnormal not to do them are justified by saying it’s a commandment, or a desecration of God’s name, and so on. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s my impression.
Or, for example, their lack of understanding of the whole modern reality of Western justice and equality (even if they are false! I’m speaking about understanding, not justification. If there were understanding, then the whole conduct—even as tactics—of Haredi society toward secular people would be different).
Another example is the Hazon Ish’s statement: “What they call love, we call karet.” But that is not a contradiction. There can be romance (which I too believe is mostly false or cheap), and there can also be karet. It just seems that for him there is no such thing as “love” at all (and the question is how he understood Song of Songs). Only karet. Or commandment. Or some other halakhic concept. In the Haredi world society is class-based and hierarchical, and there is no romantic love there at all, like in every primitive society where people marry through matches (see the Indians), and all the explanations about the superiority of the matchmaking system—good as they may be—change nothing. They were invented to preserve the structure of society, which is the goal, and not the reverse (that is, it is not that the social structure was designed to achieve the goals indicated by those explanations). And that isn’t bad. Just primitive (primary, childish). And it does not seem to me that the Hazon Ish was any different in this sense from the rest of society. In addition, I referred you to the Rabbi’s articles on the site.
Hello Ailon.
I think the example from the Hazon Ish’s words is not a successful one. The Hazon Ish didn’t mean that there is no love here in the factual sense, but rather that with all due respect to love, we choose to call it karet.
Actually, the Hazon Ish strikes me as a Torah scholar who did have understanding. Even if I don’t agree with every thought that came out of his mouth, still, his words were always said with deep understanding. To me, the Hazon Ish also comes across as an open person—certainly more than many of those who are somehow called his disciples today.
I think in the attached collection by Professor Nadav Shnerb you can find quite a few stunning examples of a Torah scholar who has no understanding. In my opinion Shai Zilberstein too will be satisfied by that, and “give to the wise and he will become wiser.”
http://woland.ph.biu.ac.il/?page_id=146
The truth is that I knew about Nadav Shnerb’s article and hesitated whether to refer to it, but notice that at the end he brings their quotes saying that one should not believe anything said in their name unless they themselves wrote it or it was heard directly from their mouths (even though I myself tend to believe they actually did say these things). Besides, most of the quotes don’t show lack of understanding, but rather what they secretly think about the Zionists.
And about the Hazon Ish, I disagree with you. I’m not dealing with openness versus conservatism, but with primitiveness and its opposite, development. Openness is not identical with development. I think almost all Haredi greats had deep understanding in Torah and were not stupid, but they still looked at the world through the eyes of the Sages, including in matters of this world. And that is simply connected to lack of critical thinking and naïveté, like the whole society they grew up in. It doesn’t seem to me that the Hazon Ish was an exception to this. Take, for example, his statement to Ben-Gurion about the empty wagon and the full wagon. What did he think to himself? That if he insulted him, Ben-Gurion would grant his request? What kind of strategy is that—to address the ruler that way? How can you speak to a person who does not believe in the Torah with claims taken from the Torah itself? Is that how you would speak to a secular person? It’s as if he assumes no one could possibly think that this claim is untrue, and also that the secular people are an empty wagon.
And by the way, I also thought about what you noted regarding love and karet, and you are mistaken. You can’t choose here to call it karet. Romance is romance, period. Sex with a menstruant is, in addition, punishable by karet. Karet does not replace love; it is an additional layer that limits the realization of love. It’s simply that in his world there is no such thing as love. An excellent example in this matter is Rabbi Soloveitchik (who was not primitive, and was also a genius in the true sense of the term) regarding accepting the yoke of Jewish law together with “I saw a drop of blood like a rose…” in the book Uvikashtem Misham or Halakhic Man—I don’t remember which. There you will see how a Torah great who is not primitive relates to the conflict between romance and the prohibition of niddah. By the way, since you mentioned openness, I read that in Rabbi Soloveitchik’s youth the Hazon Ish tried to prove that he could not be a great Torah scholar (because he changed his religion to Zionism). It’s just interesting that before he became a Zionist, Rabbi Chaim of Brisk said extraordinary words of praise about him.
Recently I read an article by Rabbi Lichtenstein on Da’at Torah in which he explains that a Torah scholar who has no understanding is someone who is incapable of saying, “I don’t know,” about subjects he does not understand. Someone who does not understand that he doesn’t understand certain areas also doesn’t really understand the areas he supposedly does understand. And by the way, Rabbi Lichtenstein explicitly mentions Rabbi Shlomo Zalman as someone who did have understanding, and about what he didn’t understand or know, he said, “I don’t know.”
Regarding the religious public versus the Haredi public, my analogy is the New World versus the Old World. In fact, until the beginning of the twentieth century the United States did not match the Old World in scientific level, scholarly ability, or technological power. The religious public is like a New World. Coping with the new reality makes it harder for it to develop a level of scholarship equal to that of the Haredi world.
To Ailon,
I just can’t understand how you reached the conclusion that in the Hazon Ish’s world there is no such thing as love. It simply isn’t his topic in that context. His intention is only to say that what, among secular people, is emphasized as love, among us is emphasized as karet—not because there is no reality of love there as well.
Regarding Nadav Shnerb, you are absolutely right.
To Y.D.,
I’m sure Rabbi Lichtenstein too (who in my eyes is definitely an excellent example of a Torah scholar who has understanding) did not mean to reduce the whole teaching of “a Torah scholar who has no understanding” to the single criterion of someone who doesn’t know how to say “I don’t know.” That’s only one example among many.
To Boaz,
It’s simple. I know the Haredi world, and in the Haredi world that lives through matchmaking, romance has no role in their lives (maybe as a need for women after marriage). In that world people live by status. When a man and woman meet, what interests them is not some interpersonal connection, but whether he or she would be embarrassed to bring the partner home to their parents. And that is also true regarding acceptance into yeshivot and acceptance of children into institutions. This was the reality of ancient times all over the world (even in the nineteenth century. If you want to get a sense of it, there is a book that describes life in England back then, and all they deal with concerning women is matches and status—I mean Pride and Prejudice, of course). The Hazon Ish is not an exception in this regard. And by the nature of the exchange value that circulates in that world, in its male part, the currency is greatness in Torah. Therefore there is no emphasis on karet. There is only karet. And what comes after marriage no longer belongs to romance but to genuine love (and that is true of the whole world). Besides, if you read my reference to Rabbi Soloveitchik’s words and compare them to the Hazon Ish’s words, you’ll immediately understand what I’m talking about.
Ailon,
As someone who grew up in the Haredi world and lives in that environment, I think your words suffer from a few inaccuracies, or perhaps from insufficient familiarity.
Your criticism of Haredi “childishness,” especially in the context of Torah and science, is in my opinion completely justified. I grew up in Haredi yeshivot, and I was always bothered by the mismatch between reality and science as they are, and the “excuses” the rabbis/mashgichim produced in order to “arrange” them with the written text (as the saying goes: “Don’t let reality confuse you with the facts”).
I too, like those who wrote above, did not understand what you found specifically in those words of the Hazon Ish. He probably really meant to point out the difference between the religious and secular perceptions. If we’re already talking criticism, I would latch onto the things Nadav Shnerb brought, which may be hard to look at, but what can you do if a large part of them were probably said by the leaders of the Haredi public.
As for the marital relationship that you “know” from the Haredi world, I’m sorry, but apparently you have no idea what you’re talking about. Clearly there are certain communities—mainly among Hasidim—that get married through matchmaking and suitability mainly to the parents, but most Haredim get married after a very nice romantic relationship.
Exactly my point.
To Binyamin,
I didn’t come to market romance (as I said, I don’t believe in most of it). I came to argue that the Hazon Ish didn’t understand this concept (even if it is false). Or more precisely, he did not understand what the Western world found objectionable in the worldwide marriage system that had existed until then, and wanted to cast off through a kind of freedom and liberation from the yoke of suffocating and pressuring social frameworks. I don’t know what happens today in this respect in the Haredi public. I’m fed by Haredi websites on the internet and by guidance books from Haredi rabbis on these subjects that I read in my distant past. I came to speak about the Hazon Ish. You will surely agree with me that this was the reality in their day. And if you want to understand what someone looks like who does understand what romance is, I suggest you read the words of Rabbi Soloveitchik that I mentioned earlier. Someone who is not primitive has no such thing as a “secular perception.” He lives this world as one who is part of it, without “perceptions,” except that he also has additional commandments that limit him—or more: he has holiness and not only the mundane. But regarding the mundane, he does not go looking for justifications for its existence from holiness. He knows it has a right to exist in its own right. I claim that the Haredim, and the Hazon Ish among them, do not understand this. As I mentioned once, they can’t simply marvel at nature and physics. They always have to mention the “wonders of the Creator,” lest Heaven forbid He be offended that He didn’t get credit for it.
By the way, I have an even more striking example than that. I once happened to leaf through the sequel to The Torah that Gladdens about the life of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. There is a passage there about matchmaking in which he spoke with some young man (I think a Religious Zionist) who had problems in these matters and spoke about a girl he had gone out with and did not like. So the rabbi asked him whether, from his point of view, it would be okay to bring her home—pretty enough, etc. Would he be embarrassed by her in front of his sisters and mother? And the young man said no, everything was fine in that respect, he just didn’t feel anything for her (something along those lines). So Rabbi Shlomo Zalman said that was enough, and afterward claimed that he doesn’t understand this generation, what it is lacking, and said that in his time everything was simpler and nobody got tangled up. I didn’t claim the young man was right (he wasn’t), but I was amazed by the lack of understanding.
Exactly my point.
Ailon,
I think you are making assumptions that are plainly baseless, but I can’t find any more words to express that.
By the way,
Precisely the story with the wagons of the Hazon Ish and Ben-Gurion is presented by you in a very naïve way. It has great depth; not for nothing has it occupied the public to this very day. And certainly the Hazon Ish did not intend to insult Ben-Gurion, but to present him with the truth he believed in. (Didn’t the local master of this place, Rabbi Michael, start his philosophical career with that wagon story?).
I know the Rabbi’s interpretation of the story, and I didn’t claim the Hazon Ish was stupid, but what did he think Ben-Gurion would think? How did he imagine Ben-Gurion would take those words? Doesn’t he understand that with secular people you can’t speak in lomdus? And not intending to insult is not enough. Usually people are insulted by those who don’t intend to insult them (the mashgichim in their innocence). In short, the whole story on its face is ridiculous unless you show what great depth he had in mind. After all, it should have been obvious to him that the secular people would not view themselves as an empty wagon.
By the way, I know Rabbi Michi likes the Hazon Ish, but it’s beyond me why (I know he had an original way of thinking, as is reflected in his book. But to me it seems he was even more pigheaded than the other Haredi leaders).
Ailon,
What you said, if you like, is a good example of the Haredi mindset. In the Haredi newspapers they won’t mention anything too explicit connected to relationships and personal connection between spouses, and clearly the same is true among rabbis. But beneath the surface every marriage counselor and every married couple will tell you about romantic and mature relationships. That is the Haredi contradiction that constantly exists: the gap between what is permissible to say out loud and write in the newspaper, and what everyone knows and talks about only quietly.
It seems a bit naïve to me to think that in the internet age, when everything is accessible even to a closed-off Haredi person, people would still live with a low level of expectations from the marital structure, as they lived a hundred or two hundred years ago (there are very closed communities where this still exists, mainly because of lack of openness and familiarity with the modern world).
The story you brought from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is not representative in my eyes. We all have or had the grandmother who didn’t understand why getting married had become so complicated. It’s simply the perception of older people, because apparently in the past it really was different.
What is really interesting is that there are many educated and open Haredim—until it comes to the matter of the famous “Da’at Torah.” No criticism will be voiced, however justified, against the establishment and its rabbis, and if Heaven forbid you have clarified for yourself something—scientific, say—that contradicts what is accepted, you will generally be met with cries of “heretic” (or worse: “mizruchnik”…).
To Binyamin,
Actually, the reality you spoke about is familiar to me from the Rabbi’s stories here on the site. (There is an old article about the “Eitz Chayil Association” and the Bechadrei Haredim forum.) That of course is not surprising, because there is also reality outside the declarations, so it is only logical that in a society that becomes even slightly open to the outside reality this would happen. But I don’t know why the external appearance is less representative than what happens beneath the surface. After all, we are talking about whether it can be that a great Torah scholar is primitive. The external appearance of Haredi society is what its great figures truly and sincerely believe in. And the external appearance also represents what society thinks reality ought to be. And presumably you are Lithuanian-Haredi, and the reality you describe belongs only to the modern Lithuanians (which is a kind of derogatory term), and only to people like you, who always seem to think the whole society is what you are. But the truth is, I don’t know what percentage of those who shout “heretic” (the diehards) actually constitute of it. The fact that they succeed in imposing their fear on everyone actually teaches us about everyone no less than about them.
And of course, regarding the story with Rabbi Auerbach, that is exactly the point. How did you put it—an older generation? That is exactly what I was talking about. The very fact that he was great in Torah did not manage to free him from the primitiveness of that generation. The question asked at the head of this thread applies here too: will Torah greats of the same scale arise from among the educated Haredim? Is there nevertheless no choice, and the world moves forward, and greatness in Torah cannot come at the expense of deficiency and primitiveness? Certainly it cannot. But mediocrity is certainly out of the question in any form.
Personally, I believe that the way to some sort of settlement of the contradiction is simply to aspire to something greater than both. Being great in Torah is like high priesthood. And there are things more important than priesthood—like prophecy or kingship (of the kind of David). But this is not the place to elaborate.
Ailon,
Amazing how confident you are in judging something whose background you have absolutely no idea about (are you maybe Haredi??)
You think the Hazon Ish was stupid and thought that if he insulted Ben-Gurion he’d get what he needed—do you have any idea how and in what manner it was said and what the background was? How do you judge a story without minimal knowledge?
By the way, Shlomo Lorincz claims that afterward Ben-Gurion said extravagant words of praise about the Hazon Ish. Maybe that’s Haredi hagiography, but maybe not.
Ailon,
It’s not necessarily true that the external appearance represents the inner reality. One has to remember that it is very difficult to leave the sector or move around within it because of social, family, and personal difficulties. Many Haredim no longer believe all the moral preaching the newspapers feed them every day, but they also are not interested in getting up and leaving, say, for the religious sector, because of those difficulties. That doesn’t mean they want the sector to be represented this way; it may simply mean they don’t have the strength to try to change it. Nobody is imposing “fear.” A “heaven help us” headline in the newspaper doesn’t really bother anyone in day-to-day life. (Maybe a few saints…)
Personally, I’m not among the enthusiastic believers in the “gedoilim,” and I don’t know what exactly the “greatness meter” for measuring greatness is.
By the way, I personally know many young Religious Zionists from the “Torani religious” sector (or whatever they call it), and some of them hold views more severely primitive (see the attitude toward women of the rabbis of Eli) than many Haredim.
To Itai,
I’m not Haredi (though I once had such a mentality). A judge has only what his eyes can see. For years I really had no position on that story, and I told myself I don’t really know what happened. The thing is that I read a bit more about the life of the Hazon Ish, and it did not sound to me like something he was incapable of doing. I judge the story as it is presented, and the character as it is presented in books and articles. And it is toward that representation that I am speaking. If you tell me the man was completely different and what happened was completely different, then that is not what I am talking about. But what is presented, for example, before the eyes of the rest of the people in order to educate them—that is what I’m speaking about, and regarding that representation I said: a judge has only what his eyes can see.
To Binyamin,
Here I agree with you one hundred percent. Leaving a society like Haredi society is very hard (and not necessarily even the right thing to do). But my words are not directed at the people. I’m not interested in sociology but in wisdom, in understanding—rather, they are directed at Haredi consciousness and mentality as it is reflected in books and writers. And that is what my words address.
Also regarding the young Religious Zionists you met, I again agree with you one hundred percent. And how this evil disease penetrated Religious Zionism is beyond me (actually, not beyond me, as I would explain). It is simply depressing and teaches how naïve human beings can be (myself too, with all my many sins). This is of course true even of a very substantial part of the rabbis of Religious Zionism, and in some cases it even seems to border on feelings of inferiority toward the Haredi public. It almost seems that the moment a person becomes stronger in Torah and commandments, he becomes devoid of understanding and weak-minded—at the level of the rabbis themselves, and all the more so at the level of the youth.
Signed in anticipation of salvation,
Ailon
By the way, if we’re talking about inwardness and outwardness,
https://www.kikar.co.il/321743.html
By the way, Y.D. mentioned here Rabbi Lichtenstein’s words that “a Torah scholar who has no understanding is someone who is incapable of saying ‘I don’t know’ about matters he does not understand,” and that is exactly what I was talking about regarding the excuses concerning contradictions between science and the Torah. Someone genuine and serious, once he studies the scientific topics seriously, will understand that there are extremely serious “difficulties” here that cannot be solved with a wave of the hand. These are already more than difficulties. It seems that the whole scientific language and thought and conception are very different at their base from the language and thought of the Torah, and all these contradictions stem from that. A Torah scholar who has understanding—if he doesn’t have the patience or motivation to study it—will say, “I don’t know. It is probably important, but I’ll get to it later.” When he studies and reflects, he will say, “I believe in the Torah, but the questions posed by science are serious and I still have no explanation (or no good explanation).” And he certainly will not, in utter lack of sense, deny what is visible to the eye and to common sense (if he does, he will lapse into madness. Why then should the Israelites believe what their eyes saw at Mount Sinai if they do not believe what their eyes see?).
In addition, once one delves into these subjects, one begins to take an interest in science—in fact, in the surrounding nature—for its own sake, because it is interesting, and not only because of the nuisance of heretical scientists who sting us like mosquitoes and the contradictions have to be brushed away as though they were mosquito bites. At that stage one relaxes from the pressure to try to reconcile two things one believes in, and begins to take interest in the mismatch for its own sake. Then what previously seemed like a stressful problem becomes an interesting challenge and draws the mind and imagination. At that stage one no longer looks for an “excuse” to a “difficulty,” nor even a “reply” to a “question” (which is already a deeper level than a difficulty and an excuse), but rather an “explanation” for a lack of understanding. One seeks understanding. The discovery and the answer to the contradiction are only a bonus to the understanding itself. Understanding will grant us not only the answer but also the explanation of why it is so. An excuse for a difficulty is like sewing a patch over a hole in a garment. An explanation for lack of understanding is like weaving a garment from the start so that it has no holes. An explanation also answers several questions in one stroke, and the more questions it answers, the better it is. Whereas an excuse or an answer responds locally to a difficulty or question that comes up (an excuse is just another kind of ad hoc answer, what is called a weak rejection), a real explanation illuminates things in such a way that the question never arises to begin with. In fact, as I said, a whole cluster of questions does not arise. Answers and excuses are local; explanation and understanding are global.
“This is my beloved and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”
Amazing—just this month an article went online on the subject of the Haredi approach to fields of knowledge outside Torah and voices calling for change.
https://iyun.org.il/article/torah-umadda/
The change proposed there is this: nonsense wrapped in wisdom, instead of nonsense wrapped in nonsense.
Boaz,
Are you talking about the article in Tzarich Iyun? From the little I read, actually (I didn’t survive that long-windedness…), I got the impression that it favors openness to science as it is. What do you mean by “nonsense wrapped in wisdom”?
To Binyamin,
I am indeed talking about that article.
It certainly projects openness to science, and that indeed is the wrapping, but on careful examination there is no intention there whatsoever to examine the “science” of the Sages honestly. They will be willing to say anything, just not that sometimes the Sages were mistaken. In my view, the first tool for real openness is the sincere willingness to admit the truth even if it comes at the expense of the Sages. Someone who is incapable of doing that (as Maimonides and many of the great medieval authorities did) genuinely—in my eyes, it’s the same lady in a different dress.
Boaz, the article there was not meant to deal with the substantive question of Torah and science; it speaks only about the educational attitude to the subject. It does briefly mention that there are several ways of coping with this question, citing Professor Rosenberg’s summary of all the methods on the issue, and in some of them there is certainly a statement that the Sages were mistaken in matters of science. It also cites Maimonides’ words that the sages of Israel relied on the science of their time—what could be clearer than that?!
In any case, the thrust of the article is against ignoring or zeroing out science, and it seeks to change that approach, while leaving it to the reader to choose for himself which way to cope with the Torah-and-science question. Too bad you rushed to speak of “nonsense.”
To Shugi,
In Shochat’s article there are indeed indirect hints in that direction, but there are no clear statements on the table. For the average Haredi person (assuming such a person even has access to Tzarich Iyun) there is no way to understand this. You are probably well grounded in the material, and therefore you understand even what is not said explicitly.
I agree that the aim of the article was to create a positive attitude toward science, and not a direct confrontation with problems of Torah versus science, but in my humble opinion, if they stop there, they will get the result of what I called above: nonsense in a wise wrapping.
It is proper to emphasize that I greatly appreciate the work of the editors of Tzarich Iyun, and I have no intention of belittling them. But in the end there is no escaping looking the truth in the eyes.
By the way, in Shochat’s article, under the heading “When,” a foolish saying is quoted about the attitude to science. It is interesting to note that this is probably a saying of Rabbi Shach of blessed memory, brought in Nadav Shnerb’s article on a Haredi reader. I assume they omitted Rabbi Shach’s name for fear of one of the four death penalties of the religious court.
http://www.toviapreschel.com/he/%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9D-%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%97%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%9B%D7%94-%D7%90%D7%97%D7%AA/