Questioner:
It’s just that I see your way of pursuing the truth as a courageous one, not hesitating to ask and confront the hard questions, and not taking things for granted, and therefore your outlook matters to me as well. Since you don’t have books on outlook that I know of, it’s enough for me to know which general line you identify with.

I noticed the conspicuous absence of the Maharal, whom many rely on in matters of outlook, and perhaps also the Vilna Gaon. Is there a special reason you didn’t mention them?

Also, regarding Rabbi Auerbach, I’m not familiar with books of his that deal with non-halakhic matters. Did you mean that you identify with him in his method of halakhic ruling? Or also in matters of outlook?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
As a rule, I don’t place much trust in books of thought/outlook.
In any case, they should be approached differently from books of Jewish law and Talmudic analysis. The main difference is that in books of thought we are dealing with ideas that were generated within the person himself (with the various influences on him), out of his own reasoning, and there is no tradition there. The mode of thought of a thinker is one of creation, not interpretation. So if what is said speaks to me, excellent; and if not, then not. In any case, these books are not a source of authority in any sense. Therefore, in my view there is no difference between books of Jewish thought and books of general philosophy written by non-Jews. If I find something that speaks to me, I take it. By contrast, books of Jewish law—which of course are also influenced by the patterns of thought of the decisor/commentator—operate in a mode of interpretation. Every commentator or halakhic decisor tries to understand what the sources that came down from Mount Sinai are saying. Of course the interpretive product varies from person to person, but it is still interpretation. Therefore, in my opinion, someone studying a halakhic or analytical text is studying Torah in any case, even if it doesn’t speak to him. But someone studying a text of Jewish thought, if it doesn’t speak to him, then it’s just a waste of Torah study.
That is the basic distinction. Since in Jewish thought there is no authority, only inspiration, and since in terms of content I do not broadly identify with any of the writers in Jewish thought (though good ideas can be found anywhere, including non-Jewish literature), I therefore see no point in following any of them. Usually their words are also not especially useful and/or interesting to me. One of the reasons is that they are outdated, and the influences on them (including their conceptual framework) come from ancient philosophy. Today we already have better tools and more precise conceptual and analytical abilities to formulate things, and so I see no reason in the 21st century to follow Aristotle. To me that sounds absurd. Ironically, the only place where Greek philosophy is still taken seriously (that is, seen as containing something true and binding, as opposed to those who study it for historical or scholarly interest) is in yeshivot. That is simply ridiculous, if you remember what is said there about Greek wisdom. What Maimonides did with Aristotle should today be done with Kant and Wittgenstein and others. Of course, without the ridiculous authority that was granted to Aristotle.

What characterizes Jewish thought is usually a lack of precision in defining concepts. Discussion of vague concepts with blunt methods leads to a word mill that says nothing, even though sometimes it sounds very profound.
As for the Maharal, his conceptual framework doesn’t speak to me (it is old and imprecise), and in my opinion he does far too much brutal violence to the midrashim of the Sages in order to make them say what he wants them to say.
In general, I do not recognize the existence of a field called Jewish thought (and “outlook” is an especially repulsive Haredi term, whose purpose is to create a binding system in an area where there are no binding things. In the Hardal world there is a parallel term. No less repulsive: there they study “faith”). Nor do I recognize “Jewish philosophy.” There is correct philosophy and incorrect philosophy, and I don’t care where it comes from. If it is the philosophy of a non-Jew and it is correct, then it is my thought. Likewise, if it is the philosophy of a Jew, however great he may be, and it is not correct, then it does not interest me.
Needless to say, in my opinion you also should not follow my path, or that of anyone else, but rather determine what seems right to you. When you ask, I answer, but that is certainly not a source of authority—at most a source of inspiration. If it helps you, take it. And if not, then not.
Have a kosher and happy holiday.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Questioner:
What matters to me in books of thought/outlook are the topics that deal mainly with the principles of faith—especially the existence of God, Torah from Heaven, the chain of tradition, the Oral Torah versus the Written Torah, the hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is interpreted, the manner in which the Torah was transmitted and passed down from generation to generation, disputes among religious thinkers (as in the Kuzari), the attitude toward Kabbalah and the Zohar, the attitude toward biblical criticism, laws given to Moses at Sinai, and the like. In my opinion these topics fall under the field of Jewish thought, because general philosophy does not really deal with them much, and therefore they can be called “Jewish thought” or “Jewish philosophy.” These topics are what give Jewish law its authoritative validity, and attaining correct views on these matters is, in my opinion, a prerequisite for intensive involvement in books of Jewish law. The problem is that the material on these subjects is vast, and the opinions are divided, and at the moment I do not have the ability to decide correctly in these areas. Therefore, I wanted to know from you whether there are books you would recommend on these subjects, and in practice to rely on your judgment on these matters. I know that Maimonides deals with these topics in his Commentary on the Mishnah (the Eight Chapters) and in The Guide for the Perplexed. Saadia Gaon, the Maharal, the son of Maimonides, Nachman Krochmal (Guide for the Perplexed of the Time), Rabbi Kook, and Rabbi Neugershal also deal with these areas in their books. The question is which books are preferable to focus on, and which books are closer to the truth. As for following someone else’s path, I think that sometimes, in cases where you recognize your own inability to decide a certain issue, the best thing you can do is rely on an authority in the field. What remains for you to investigate is who the most suitable person is from whom to receive the correct determination on the issue.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
I’m not very familiar with the books in that genre, and I don’t think there is anything especially useful in them.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Questioner:
Do you mean that there’s no point in dealing with these subjects too much? How did you form an opinion on these matters?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
No. There is definitely value in them, but not through books of Jewish thought. On meta-halakhic topics one should think in light of halakhic sources, and on matters of thought one should think independently.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Questioner:
Wouldn’t it be better to base yourself on the opinion of some authorities rather than think for yourself, especially when you are not an expert (to put it mildly) in these matters? And it could also be that thinking through these things yourself could take a huge amount of time and would not be very practical.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
In my opinion there are no authorities in this field. If you don’t have the time or ability to investigate things for yourself, you can remain without a settled position on some of the questions. Especially when these things do not affect practice, there is no necessity to formulate a settled doctrine on the matter.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Questioner:
How is this field different from all other fields, that only here there are no authorities? I agree that there are fields in which one can rely more on authorities, like medicine, but why do you think that in this field one can’t at all?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
Because it is not based on knowledge. It mainly requires various analytical skills. Similar to philosophy.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Questioner:
Well, and aren’t those analytical skills also a kind of knowledge?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
No. For two main reasons: 1. It is hard to identify such experts (the fact that someone wrote books or articles on the subject does not mean much). 2. The product is open to critique by laymen. That is, when you see the analysis, you yourself can be impressed by it and convinced. There is no need to invoke considerations of authority here. That is unlike Jewish law, medicine, or physics.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Questioner:
What do you mean by saying that the product is open to critique by laymen?
That even a layman can decide regarding the question under analysis?
Or rather that the product of the supposed authority is subject to the critique of laymen, who decide whether he is an authority or not, and therefore their determination regarding his authority is not necessarily correct?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
The former
———————————————————————————————————————-
Questioner:
Let’s take, for example, issues like the existence of God, divine providence, Torah from Heaven, and the immutability of the Torah. Do you think that regarding these issues too, even a layman can decide correctly? And if so, then how is it possible that opinions are so divided on these issues? After all, in issues that are easy to decide, I would expect there to be relative unanimity or some kind of broad consensus, but as is well known, that is not the case.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
It’s not because they are simple. Rather, it is because knowledge provides no added value regarding them, and it depends on reasoning. There is a lot of reasoning. A significant part of it cannot be decided at all, in my opinion.

I would be happy if the Rabbi could explain what he meant by the sentence: “In the Hardal world there is a parallel term. No less repulsive: there they study ‘faith.’”

In both cases we are talking about dogmatic conceptions, and the terms “outlook” and “faith” replace the term that was and still is common in less ideological places: “thought.” To my mind, this symbolizes the desire not to think but to study thought, and therefore it is convenient to call it faith or outlook. As if you are studying material in which they convey to you what you are supposed to think.

1) Didn’t Maimonides “teach thought” in The Guide for the Perplexed?
2) What is your opinion of Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto and Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook?
And more generally, the doctrine of Kabbalah?
Thank you very much

1. He did, so what?
2. Those questions are too general. You can search the site.