Viral heretics

 

 

A video has recently gone viral on the internet. In it an yeshiva guy gives a "vort" based on the fact that Avos kept all of the Torah and a respondent ridicules him for naivette and simple-mindedness. "How could Yakov have the entire Torah", he asks, " and not just look at it to find out what happened to Yosef, etc".

Several responses *R. Yair Hoffman) and commentaries have appeared in the blogosphere. They discuss what the "accepted" position is, what points the author had made erroneously and what is the "public" position that should be taught about Avos learning Torah. See here and here. Some responses are indignant, others are supportive; this is an improtant issue and it touched a sensitive nerve.

I have a minor issue with R. Hoffman's comment but I understand where he is coming from. There is no question that a Rav and teacher in Israel has a responsibility to teach that which strenghtens his congregants and charges and not what weakens them. As pointed out on another blog, he is not unique in this feelign of stewardship; a famed "rationalist" Jew felt the same way. Most peopel cannot abide rationalism and faith at the same time and the chosen few who can, must exercize stewardship and not "farshter" the faith of the many. The idea of necessary versus popular truth was already taught by Rambam and the Sages of the Talmud (halacha vlo morin ken). Here is an quote from Yosef Kaspi Amudei Hakessef Umaskiyot Hakessef, p. 8a: "If the people were to find out about this doctrine, they would not be able to tolerate this truth, and would grow wild and uncontrollable in their conduct." What should be the public position varies from generation and  setting to generation and setting and should be determined by the "gedolim" and consensus. Blogwriters do not share the sense of responsibility of their rabbinically involved brothers and often do not realize that there words have an effect on others, far and wide.

The minor issue is that R. Hoffman concludes on the basis of his review of sources that the maximalist position is the more common one and should be the one publicly taught, except in the kiruv situation where all three positions can be presented. However, his review did not comprehensively include kabbalistic and chassidic surces and had they been included, the minimalist position would, in my opinion win by numbers.

I also, like R. Hoffman,  find the mocking of simple faith and gedolm to be off-putting and unpleasant.

This is important not only as a "body count" but in esence and approach. I believe that the post-modern age demands a post-rationalist approach. The only sure way of transcending troublesome issues of philosophy, science and religion is by rising into the exalted sphere of feeling, imagination and direct mystical experience in which questions are answered in ways that cannot be communicated and probems become springboards for increased perception and growth.

For those schooled in this manner of religious expression, there is no disconnect between actual physical performaance of the mitzvos and their experiential, emotional, symbolic and spiritual effects. It is not that they lose interst in the narrow question of whether Avrohom put on tefillin or fulfilled the mitzva of writing Sefer Torah - it is that their mitzva experience transcends this question so much that it no longer even makes sense and the historical issues do not occupy them at all.

Some might see this as an excape into fantasy. To them I say, your are missing the heart of religion which is in the heart and not in the mind. You live in the improverished  and limited world of sense-perception and experience. Do you not hear the Torah's clarion call to leave behind the body and its world of sense-percepton and, yes, even logic and thought, and enter a world of elevated feeling and Holy inspiration. The choice is clear. You can remain on the level of the physical and concrete or rise to the levels that cannot be expressed. The color of the sefira of Keter is black. Why? Because it so bright and  so light that it cannot be perceived on lower levels. What some peopel think to be fantasy is other's spiritual bread. If you believe in Prophecy, believe then also  in the world beyond, which is not concrete and graspable, and many of the questions that arise in the Great Void, of themselves dissappear, like vapor before Spirit.

 

 

Comments

[Steve mcqueen]

I could not agree more - if we are to take Chazal seriously in the modern age, how else can we interpret such things. One the one hand, we have close to no historical tools by which we could assess the historicity of either Sefer Breishit or the various midrashic approach. Any attempts at historical conclusions are little more than a shot in the dark. We may as well not bother. At the same time, anyone with a religious sensibility can develop a sense of appreciation for the approaches taken by Chazal, and their successors in the Jewish tradition. So let's see what religious lessons, lessons of emuna, lessons of civilisation or peoplehood we can take from such matters. If we do this not only will we have tools to grow as individuals but we will also be able to learn from each other without shouting about our pre-adopted positions.

[Mendy]

In other words, to hell with emes. The only important thing is emunah. If our emunah happens to be in a false God, so be it. It doesn't matter. So long as we don't "farshter" the false faith of the many.

Well done, Avakesh.

[avakesh]

Not really what I said, Mendy. What I said is that belief, akin to intuition is arch-knowledge. Meta-knowledge can be done poorly or well. When it is done poorly, it is a belief in a false g0d. When it is done by a refined individual who follows the rules of obtaining meta-knowledge, it is a belief into the true G-d, although it cannot be communicated to one who has no concept of how to obtain meta-knowledge and has not even embarked on the quest.

To a mystic who has attained this knowledge, those who have not attained it are like children who must be protected and tended in hope of brinigng them slowly and eventually to this knowedge. There is is a great danger to the mystic who may grow to believe that he is now exempt from the rules that govern mere humans.If he is caught up in it, he will become a Bilaam.

Once he transitons beyond this danger, he will know what can and cannot be shared and taught.He will give to each person what he can assimilate and through which he can rise. He will pursue beneficence and chessed because that is what Hashem does for the world. On the other hand, feeding people knowledge which they are not yet ready to digest is not only irresponsible, it is a sign of smallness.

Unfortunately, in our age and time, the world has literally shrunk, both physically and spiritually. Distances are smaller and spiritual distance and levels are also not as well appreciated. We want to know everything quickly and we want to do it thorugh our brains. We don't want to understand that there are many different kinds of knowledge and the some of them take years and decades of preparation and work

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.166-7), Hamlet to Horatio