Q&A: Regarding: Know What to Answer a Fundamentalist Hasid?
Regarding: Know What to Answer a Fundamentalist Hasid?
Question
Hello Rabbi, I wanted to know your position on an issue I keep running into in my environment regarding conversations I have with friends who are close to Chabad or Breslov Hasidism, or even Har Hamor. In every discussion I have with them, the leitmotif keeps returning: authority determines how to relate to the plain meaning and to midrash, and they tend to favor commentators who avoid seeing our figures as normal people struggling against their inclinations. Every argument gets cut short with a pretty similar sentence: “We are not pure enough to understand the depth of the case, and the rabbis already explained through their holy spirit how we are to relate to these matters.” Moreover, more than once, we find in the Sages absolute statements that are hard for us to accept and are not far at all from what I said above. For example, Rabbi Chaim Vital writes in the introduction to Etz Chaim: “And now today I will utter riddles and wonders, O perfect in knowledge, for in every generation the Lord has wondrously shown us His kindness and enlightened us through the remnant whom the Lord calls in every generation, as mentioned. And also in this our generation, the God of the earlier and later ones did not withhold a redeemer from Israel, but was zealous for His land and had compassion on His people, and sent us a watchful and holy one descended from heaven, the great divine Rabbi, the pious one, my teacher and master, our teacher Rabbi Isaac Luria Ashkenazi, may the memory of the holy be blessed, full of Torah like a pomegranate—of Scripture, of Mishnah, of Talmud, of dialectics, of midrashim and aggadot; of the Work of Creation and the Work of the Chariot; expert in the speech of trees, in the speech of birds, in the speech of angels; knowledgeable in the wisdom of physiognomy mentioned by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai in the portion ‘And you shall behold’; knowing all the deeds of human beings that they did and that they are destined to do; knowing the thoughts of people before they bring them from potential into actuality; knowing future events and all things that occur throughout the land and what has always been decreed in heaven; knowing the wisdom of reincarnation, who is new and who is old, and where that person’s measure is rooted in the supernal Adam and in the lower Adam; knowing through the flame of a candle and the blaze of fire wondrous things; gazing and seeing with his eyes the souls of the righteous, earlier and later, and engaging with them in the true wisdom; recognizing by a person’s smell all his deeds, in the manner of that child in the portion of Balak; and all these wisdoms were with him as though placed in his bosom, at any time he wished, without needing to seclude himself and investigate them. My own eyes saw, and not those of a stranger, astounding things, unseen and unheard in all the land from the days of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, peace be upon him, until now.”.
If we pay attention to what Rabbi Chaim Vital says, we can see here the root, and even a legitimization, of excessive veneration that leads the Hasid to abandon the world of plain meaning and inquiry in order to live in a parallel hidden world in which only one person can continue the tradition and bring solutions and repair to the world. Among Breslovers too, one finds that one must cleave to the righteous man of the generation, and they have already established that Rabbi Nachman is the righteous man of the generation even though he has been gone for more than 200 years. And how do they know he is the righteous man of the generation? It is commonly repeated by his followers that he himself said so, and therefore it is impossible to continue the discussion, because it gets stuck on a prophetic postulate, not an intellectual one.
What is harder for me, and also painful, is that I do not want to dismiss authorities like Rabbi Chaim Vital, or Rabbi Nachman, or even the Chabad rebbes, but I ask myself: with Moses our teacher, the greatest of the prophets, we did not see excessive veneration, we did not see the qualities described regarding the Ari, may his memory be blessed, or regarding the Rebbe himself, so why do people give them more credit than Moses our teacher himself? And therefore it is fitting to ask myself how to value them without rejecting their Torah because of the dogmatic things that appear in it. Did Rabbi Chaim Vital exaggerate in the description he gives, so that we should see it as mere hyperbole, or does he really mean what he says, in which case we would have to cast doubt on his books? But if I cast doubt on the truth of his words, I will have difficulty continuing to study the Rema, who brings many practices taken from the Ari himself. It is worth mentioning what Rabbi Mordechai Breuer wrote regarding the popularity of esoteric teaching and the abandonment of the plain meaning in the article “Faith and Science in Biblical Interpretation.”
Thank you if you answer, and I wish you a good week and a pleasant winter.
Moshe Sidi
Answer
I don’t think there is any good claim to make against them. If they are locked into the belief that there are people who exist on a different plane, then what can you say to them against that? Try to convince me that there is no heavenly teapot orbiting Jupiter.
At most, you can bring them sources from various sages throughout the generations who themselves say things like this, and then maybe they’ll be convinced. For example, there are mathematical and scientific mistakes in the Talmud and in the medieval authorities. There are halakhic mistakes by great amoraim that appear explicitly in the Talmud itself (see Shevuot 26a, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Assi). There is the bull-offering for an erroneous ruling of the community, which the Torah itself says must be brought for an error made by a religious court.
Another argument is circularity. Who told them that this is the level of those sages? Those very sages themselves. In other words, the decision that these sages are on that level is a decision made by the people you are speaking with. That is, after all, a position they themselves adopt by virtue of their own judgment. Who says it is correct? They certainly are not exalted above the people. Fine, but that probably won’t convince them either.
And above all, even if there is someone very wise who never makes mistakes, autonomy still has value. That is, I have an obligation to act in the way that seems right to me, even if I am mistaken. See Maharal, chapter 15 of Netiv HaTorah. But they probably won’t be convinced by that either.
Bottom line: I do not see any need or value in trying to convince fundamentalists. Leave them alone and act as you understand. Each river follows its own course.
Discussion on Answer
First, maybe it’s true. Second, Rabbi Chaim Vital wrote quite a few strange things. And third, maybe it was written for educational purposes and not as a factual description.
A slanderous video that I considered deleting. In the end I decided not to. I’ll just say here that the speaker’s leap there from the cynical use made of Rabbi Chaim Vital to a conclusion about Rabbi Chaim Vital’s own tendencies and character is cheap, unintelligent demagoguery (which raises the eternal dilemma: stupidity or malice).
I didn’t understand what the slander is.
It presents facts that he went to oil diviners and to a sorcerer.
Those are facts. Why is that slander?
And the video argues that you can’t follow someone who goes to such people (along with other things brought in the video).
One of the “facts” is that he is a fraud. One of the assumptions accompanying what is said there is that his going to all these figures is a scheme, and not a worldview (which of course one may disagree with).
Hello,
I didn’t really understand.
He wrote about himself that he went to oil diviners and to a sorcerer.
In your opinion, is a person who goes to oil diviners and sorcerers someone one can follow from a Torah perspective?
It seems to me I was very clear (you don’t need to go to coffee readers to understand).
I said that his position, bizarre in my opinion, is indeed strange and unclear. But that does not mean he is a fraud doing it intentionally. It is evident that he believes in these things, and he does not even bother to hide them. In my opinion this even borders on prohibitions, but it is hard to deny that quite a few sages accept such conduct to this very day. Therefore the smears that accompany all this are indeed smears.
That does not mean I would follow such a person, or that one should follow him. That is an entirely different discussion. And it also says nothing about his doctrine—whether there is something to learn from it and whether it has significance or not. One rule applies to the strange things in Rabbi Chaim Vital’s praises, and another rule applies to the writings of the Ari that he wrote down. Very simple.
Hello,
I’m very sorry, but I still didn’t understand.
You wrote:
1. “But that does not mean he is a fraud doing it intentionally.” In my opinion, most frauds “don’t do it intentionally.” Frauds who are really frauds on purpose are, in my opinion, the minority. Many of them are simply under the sway of the impulse and aren’t even aware of it. Many frauds who are caught deny what they did (in all kinds of offenses), and many times they really believe it (denial in the language of psychology). In general, the fact that someone doesn’t do something “intentionally” doesn’t mean he isn’t a fraud. Many sex offenders, for example, say they were seduced (even if it’s by children), and they sincerely believe it—they’re just completely inside it. A few examples below.
2. “In my opinion this even borders on prohibitions” — is there any rabbi today who would permit going to oil diviners and sorcerers for guidance?
3. “But it is hard to deny that quite a few sages accept such conduct to this very day” — what wise person accepts such behavior? Do you have even one name of one wise person who accepts such behavior? You wrote “quite a few”; I can’t think of even one.
4. “Therefore the smears that accompany all this are indeed smears.” To say about a person who goes to oil diviners and a sorcerer that he cannot be a Torah authority—is that slander?
5. “It also says nothing about his doctrine—whether there is something to learn from it and whether it has significance or not” — how do such behaviors say nothing about his doctrine? Torah, being a spiritual thing, is directly connected to the personality of the one who says it.
6. “One rule applies to the strange things in Rabbi Chaim Vital’s praises, and another rule applies to the writings of the Ari that he wrote down” — how can the rules be different? Torah is not a technical matter; everything is tightly connected to the personality of the author. That is why, for example, the giver of the Torah was the humblest of all people.
From – https://www.vice.com/en/article/gqmz4m/how-criminals-justify-crimes-psychology-gangsters-uk
According to criminal psychology expert Shadd Maruna, studies indicate that the majority of criminals either make excuses for, or attempt to justify, their actions. There’s little evidence that these justifications are made prior to committing the crimes, so it’s possible—and somewhat likely—that they’re thought up afterwards as a way to mitigate the guilt.
“Criminologists have interviewed every imaginable sample of individuals who break laws, and found remarkable consistency in the use of what we call ‘techniques of neutralization,'” Maruna explained. “There have been studies of deer poachers, terrorists, rapists, shoplifters, cyber hackers, murderers—you name it. And yet the individuals involved tend to use a very consistent and discernible number of post-hoc rationalizations to account for what they did.”
These “techniques of neutralization” form the basis of a concept known as “neutralization theory,” which was posited by sociologists David Matza and Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. The theory holds that criminals are able to neutralize values that would otherwise prohibit them from carrying out certain acts by using one or up to five methods of justification: “denial of responsibility,” “denial of injury,” “denial of the victim,” “condemnation of the condemners,” and “appealing to higher loyalties.”
“Denial of responsibility” is when an offender proposes that he or she was forced by the circumstances they were in to commit a crime; “denial of injury” means insisting that the crime was harmless; “denial of the victim” involves the belief that the person on the receiving end was asking for it;
and “condemnation of the condemners” is when the criminal claims that those criticizing or dishing out punishment are doing so out of spite or to shift the blame from themselves. The final method, “appealing to higher loyalties,” involves the perpetrator believing that the law needs to be broken for the good of a smaller section of society—for example, a gang or a group of friends.
From – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15006294/
Treatment of sexual offenders is routinely complicated by the presence of denial. This article examines how denial is related to the willingness to take responsibility for offense-related thoughts and actions and how conceptualizations of denial have developed and changed over time. Multiple facets of denial are described in detail, along with an assessment of how different forms of denial undermine acceptance of responsibility throughout treatment.
Evidence is presented to show that resistance and denial often hinge on cognitive and motivational processes that are commonly accepted as fundamental treatment targets rather than treatment obstacles. The authors propose that denial may be best understood as the acceptance of explanations that reduce accountability and are reinforced by distorted beliefs and self-deceptive thinking processes.
I’m done. If someone insists on digging in, nothing will help.
Among your remarks you wrote: “And above all, even if there is someone very wise who never makes mistakes, autonomy still has value. That is, I have an obligation to act in the way that seems right to me, even if I am mistaken.”
I wanted to know what the source of this is. Thank you very much in advance. (I so appreciate that the honorable Rabbi always answers questions and addresses difficulties. May it be His will that He add days to the days of the king.)
I don’t know what source you are expecting. It is like asking what the source is for the idea that one should act rationally or consistently. It is a logical argument and does not need a source. In my article on autonomy in halakhic ruling, I brought arguments and sources for autonomous halakhic ruling, even if it is mistaken. But in questions of life-path and faith, it is self-evident, and I do not know what source one could bring. If you want, there is a source from Elijah the prophet: “How long will you keep hopping between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; and if Baal, follow him.” So you see that one who thinks Baal is god is required to be a man and follow him. Of course, one could argue that this is only rhetoric, but in my opinion it is completely serious. In any case, this is a simple logical argument.
This is connected to the question whether, when judging a person morally or religiously, we judge him by his actions or by his motives; whether we judge him by his own outlook or by the truth. I have dealt with this quite a bit on the site. See, for example, column 372.
Thank you for your answer, and what about Rabbi Chaim Vital’s statements about his teacher, which seem completely exaggerated—how should one relate to them?