“For example [Meiri] describes the idolatrous nations, those not ‘restricted by the ways of religion’ as violent people ‘who are possessed of no religion in the world and do not yield to fear of a Divinity and, instead, burn incense to the heavenly bodies and worship idols, paying no head to sin.”[6] Elsewhere he states, concerning the idolaters of old: ‘They were not restricted to the ways of religion, every sin and everything repulsive was fit in their eyes[7].’”
Just to give an example here’s what the Meiri says in the relevant paragraph Shapiro’s quoting from in the latter:
As for the gentiles and Jewish sheperds of small domesticated animals - whose flocks regularly engage in theft and [the sheperds of which] are engaged in it up to the point that they cast the yoke of Torah off themselves (except it’s not for the sake of the casting off [itself] but rather for monetary gain) - in any place where damage comes from them were are not commanded to strive to save them. Likewise with the gentiles you must analyze it based on what we’ve previously explained. About what gentile did they say this? One must say it was said regarding the idolaters who were not restricted in the ways of religion and, quite to the contrary [of being so disciplined], every sin and abomination was amazing in their eyes. The philosopher (Aristotle) said, “kill he who has no religion.” Anyhow, anyone who worships God even if he is not part of the religion is not included in this rule, God forbid. You already know well how with regards to a resident stranger (that is, one who takes the seven laws upon himself) that we are commanded to sustain him.
Literally no part of this paragraph is about the theological issue of idolatry or why it’s bad. (It might be relevant to who certain halachos apply to but that’s not the topic.)
Also the Hertz Chumash where Shapiro quotes refers to his comments on Deut 4:19 where he writes, “God had suffered [sic] the heathens to worship the sun, moon, and stars as a stepping-stone to a higher stage of religious belief. That worship of the heathen nations thus forms part of God’s guidance of humanity. But as for the Israelites, God had given them first-hand knowledge of Him through the medium of Revelation. It is for this reason that idolatry was for them [sic] an unpardonable offence; and everything that might seduce that from that Divine Revelation was to be ruthlessly destroyed. Hence the amazing tolerance shown by Judaism of all ages towards the followers of other cults, so long as these were not stepped in immorality and crime [sic]. Thus, the sacrificial offering of heathens to be a glorification of God (see on Mal. I, 11, pg. 103). Equally striking is the attitude of the Rabbis toward the heathen world. War had been declared against Canaanites not because of matters of dogma or ritual but because of the savage cruelty and foul licentiousness of their lives and cult. But the Rabbis never regarded the heathens of their own day as on the same moral level as the Canaanites. Their contemporary heathens in the Roman and Persian empires obeyed the laws of conduct which the Rabbis deemed vital to the existence of human society, the so-called ‘seven commandments given to the children of Noah’ (see pg. 303 on v. 7) They wisely held that in their religious life these heathens merely followed the traditional worship which they had inherited from their fathers before them (מנהג אבותיהן בידיהן), and they could not therefore be held responsible for failure to reach a true notion of the Unity of God, בני נח לא נזהרו על השיתוף. Such followers of other faiths – they taught – were judged by God purely by their moral life. חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא. “The righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come,’ and are heirs of immorality, alongside the righteous in Israel. A later midrash proclaimed: ‘I call heaven and earth to witness that, whether it be Jew or heathen, mean or woman, freeman or bondman – only according to their acts does the Divine spirit rest upon them.’ And in the darkest days of the Middle Ages, Solomon Ibn Gabirol, the great philosopher and Synagogue hymn-writer sang:
‘Thou art the Lord,
And all beings are Thy servants, Thy domain;
And through those who serve idols vain
Thine honour is not detracted from,
For they all aim to Thee to come.’
This is probably the earliest enunciation of religious tolerance in Western Europe.” In other words, God suffers avodah zara by non-Jews now so they can later advance to monotheism. Shapiro seems to want more than that though.
“The clearest support for Sacks' position is provided by R. Netanel ben al-Fayyumi (twelfth century), who maintains that "God sent different prophets to the various nations of the world with legislations suited to the particular temperament of each individual nation." Although Sacks is motivated by a post-modern vision, the medieval R. Netanel also claimed that God's truth was not encompassed by Judaism alone. According to R. Netanel, various religions are to be viewed by their adherents, and correctly so, as sanctified.”
I will note that R. Netanel goes to some lengths to try to demonstrate how the Quran is compatible with the Torah and even urges the Jews to keep the Torah. Sacks is doing no such thing (seemingly). I strongly believe, even if we take Netanel Al-Fayyumi at his word and assume he meant what he said, that he’d only say what he said if he thought the Gentile religion didn’t contradict Judaism (which, for instance, the Trinitarian doctrine most definitely does).
Thank you R' Choker for your insights. It's a lot, so let's summarize.
Basically, as far as Dr Shapiro's scholarship (which was the subject of the essay) you're pointing out even deeper levels of obfuscation and source manipulation than I stressed in the essay. I'm not at all surprised but I appreciate your bringing it to light.
Be aware that when you take just about any page of Dr Shapiro's provocative writings (by this I mean the contributions in which he is trying to drive home an agenda by throwing sources at it) and do similar basic research on the sources or the ramifications he assigns to them you'll get similar results. He's an excellent "researcher" but is incredibly superficial as well as often dishonest. What's amazing is that his books and chidushim are taken extremely seriously in the 'academic' community, which reveals an awful lot about their koach hahavchana (or, as Dr Slifkin will have it, how well they "know how to learn").
As for your first point about "religious pluralism". Read that quote you posted again. Religious pluralism is incompatible with ANY religion on its own terms (obviously - if there's one God there can't be many gods; if Jesus was the messiah then Mohammed isn't; and one plus zero does not equal 3). The point of religious pluralism is, as is clearly spelled out in your quote, to negate the intrinsic authority of any religion, and create a new master religion (the "Real") and have everything else just be more of a make believe way of going through the motions. They do so by reinterpreting each religion's teachings to make it "penultimate" and not the real truth. Which is fine for religious pluralists, but it's not what Christianity teaches about Christianity, nor what Islam believes Islam to be, and it's certainly not chas v'Shalom what Yiddishkeit is.
If Sacks was a religious pluralist that means he doesn't believe in Judaism. Which is quite by definition "religiously beyond the pale", as I wrote. And if he believes in Judaism but also insists on religious pluralism then his position is "intellectually ridiculous", as I wrote.
Quick correction: Mohammed never claimed to be משיח. He was quite clear Jesus (Is’a in Arabic) would be the Messiah and come back at קץ הימים.
More to the point: vis a vis religious pluralism, your criticism is a standard one of religious pluralism and I’d mostly agree with it. I wouldn’t agree with your characterization of the pluralist thesis though as saying that what the religion actually say are mere “make believe.” They seem to be saying it’s analagous to how we relate to corporealistic descriptions of Hashem in that they relate to us a valuable message but aren’t to be taken as literally true. That is not quite the same thing as a “make believe way of going through the motions.”
"is beyond the purview of this essay to debunk this current wildly popular idea that in non-halachic matters every Tom, Dick, or Harry can unilaterally choose to buck the entire Jewish mainstream in favor of a minority opinion he likes better; we hope to return to it at a later date."
Be careful where you go with that, because numerous Rishonim and Acharonim are quite comfortable bucking the mainstream when it comes to explaining pesukim - the radak frequently ignores the gemorroh. As for the Ibn Ezra, all we can say is the tochachah megulah and some dodgy talmid inserted the ahavah nisteres part of the quote.....
Yes, its obvious. Chareidim have declared that in non-halachik matters, only they can decide the 'entire Jewish mainstream' thereby declaring every other hashkofo heretical.
Because that is all you can do when a rishon says something you find uncomfortable. Just define yourself as 'the entire' hence the 'entire Jewish mainstream' as being your hashkofo, and hence anybody that holds like that rishon is a heretic.
Indeed. I am no fan of Marc Shapiro or Rabbi Lord Dr Sacks. Nonetheless, the latter has substantial achievments to his name. Because here in the UK he is has convinced numerous wavering teenagers to stay shomer shabbos (granted, you wouldn't consider those teenagers orthodox) with his writings and thoughts - not that kollel fellow with the ill-fitting suit who declares every body without chareidi hashkofos heretical (when he is not trying to work out the latest benefit wheeze). That kollel fellow stand for a very modern insular form of judaism which you never found amongst the rishonim.
Ok, that's fine. Because the point of this article had nothing to do with Rabbi Sacks, as I mentioned in one of the first footnotes. It was to demonstrate the tactics of Shapiro and the other "critical thinking" academics for the benefit of those (like Dr Slifkin and this fozziebear gentleman) who get duped by them. If we're on the same page about that, we're on the same team here.
As an aside, your sinah seems to be mikalkel hashura. Rabbi Sacks may have accomplished some fine things, and nobody can take that away from him. But to a large degree it's the kollel guys in the ill-fitting suits that brought about the revolution of ba'alei teshuva in the past generation through such institutions as Lev L'achim. So let's try to stay based in reality as we look for every irrelevant opportunity to get in whatever jibes you can against a community you clearly associate with some deep seated trauma you've suffered.
There is no proof to your assertion that Sacks convinced more teenagers to keep Shabbos than 'that Kollel fellow with the ill-fitting suit'. But in fact, one of those Kollel fellows founded SEED in England, under constant guidance of the late Gateshead Rav, the leader of the opposition to Sacks' book. He actually has data on how many people returned to Torah, and without gimmicks and resorting to strange new ideas on Avoda Zara.
I always found it interesting how Sacks got away with his book. He wrote stuff that he basically thought up in the shower, with zero proof and no logical basis. Yet, the burden of proof was placed on his opponents!
The go-to justification of krumkeit has always been "it keeps people frum" - kind of the intellectual equivalent of allowing people to drive to shul or Shabbat afternoon synagogue football leagues. Throw in whatever towel you have to; we've got to appease the youth or whatever. As has always been the case with halachic capitulation, the tactic of "the hashkafic costumer is always right" is far better at matter-of-fact statements of achievement than it is at actually demonstrating any degree of success to outweigh the costs of ideological hefkeirus and ultimate meaninglessness.
Back when Slifkin was still relevant, this was always the high-minded condemnation flung at his opponents: "Do you know how many people went off the derech because Slifkin's resolutions to their vexing questions were deemed unacceptable?" As with R' Test's strident declarations, there never seemed to be any obligation to produce any actual data to support these claims, just blithely stating them as fact was enough.
Perhaps this speculative charge is worthy of a speculative response: Maybe people tend to be attracted to authenticity, and less likely to sacrifice and commit for something that doesn't really stand for much anyways. Just a thought. With the added benefit of 40 years of actual kiruv data that seems to support it...
Reb Padre's second point is critical and deserves more focus than it gets. He has nailed exactly what it is that props up frivolous, baseless, academic scholarship. They may be rather lousy at responsible analysis, but they are EXCELLENT at putting the burden of proof on their opponents. All you gotta do is talk with an air of sophistication and throw out some obscure quote as if it's something that everybody who knows anything on the topic knows. They manage to stir up doubts of maybe my assumptions in this area are just because of my insular upbringing leading to naivete.
That's why it's so important to call out the tricks they pull for what they are. Az mir geit gleich, mir treft mentchen. There's no reason to feel self-conscious about a hashkafa just because it's not scintillatingly provocative. Those who wish to shake things up should be required to bring the proof, not just that their innovations aren't technically "heretical", but that there's any particular reason to abandon accepted assumptions in favor of whatever they pulled out of their alphabet soup yesterday.
Rabbi Sack's writings are NOT krumkeit. They may not be chareidi, but I hate to break it to you, that doesn't make them krumkeit. Otherwise the Ramban who writes clearly Avrohom Avinu committed a great sin by going to mitzrayim would be krum. Because in chareidiland every rabbi (or maybe only those that feature in picture galleris in the heimish press) are popes and can never get anything wrong.
Hey maybe this will shake you but that's a pretty bad example. I don't know why, but in Rav Moshe Fienstien's personal chumash, that piece of Ramban is crossed out in pen.
"They may be rather lousy at responsible analysis, but they are EXCELLENT at putting the burden of proof on their opponents."
I think it more proper to say they are excellent at manipulating their opponents into adopting a defensive stance.
I am not a rabid, basement-dwelling, pajama-wearing retard projecting that onto my opponents. There is a reason I do what I do, and it has to do with the point you noted, just with more discernment applied to what is going on for real. I call out their tricks for what they are better than all the high-minded analyses and responses the rest of my compatriots combined. No offense guys. You do first rate work, for people who can appreciate it, which I do. For those who don't, just call them retard and their work retardery and be done with it. But do it with flair.
Check out the single exchange I had with Slifkin in his recent post about censorship and whether he should apply the vote results regarding blog censorship to me and be permitted to comment again.
I did to him what he does to us, when I accused him of comparing Rabbi Yaron Reuven to Hitler, knowing full well he said no such thing. I didn't put the burden of proof on him. I put him on the defensive. And Slifkin replied, exactly as I expected he would, because I put him in an untenable situation. I manipulated him. Don't let him, or any of them, manipulate you or any us any longer.
Indeed. That kollel fellow created SEED 50 years ago. Back then there were around 100 chareidim in the entire world and even Artscroll quoted Josephus. And obviously I am not taliking about 'community kollels' which is a relatively small number.
Yes, he created SEED 50 years ago. And did a better job being mekarev people with Torah, Gemara, Chumash and Halacha than any speeches of Sacks.
And his moreh derech was the leader of the opposition to Sacks.
Sacks was a lightweight, he could impress those who didn't know much in the first place. But his attempts to appease everyone helped nobody. He was the opposite of an ambassador for Torah. Anyone who heard him thought, "If Torah doesn't mean much, why give up my comforts for it?"
He does not claim to be an ambassador for torah, whatever that means. He never claims that torah does not mean much, whatever that means. His writings are not for you and not intended for you. You stick to short pshetlach in pesukim, which does not, unlike him, give any guidance for modern living in the modern world outside the beis hamedrash.
Also the Etz Yosef on the Midrash in Shemos Rabbah he quotes says
על עבודת כו"ם אלא לכם. פי' על דקדוקי עכו"ם. ולזה מייתי לא תעשו לכם שדרשוהו על הנמכר לעקר. וכן מ"ש לא נתתי משפט אלא לכם ר"ל דקדוקי משפט חקירות ודרישות. דאל"כ הלא הם מז' מצות בני נח:
Basically the Etz Yosef explains that the thing Shapiro makes a big deal about only applies to the particularities of idolatry and he cites as a proof the next example “I have given judgement to none but you” where it must mean the specifics of judgement because otherwise there could be no Noahide laws. This of course destroys Shapiro’s interpretation.
To be fair to Shapiro with the Rashbam if you translate it in a very specific way you can read it as he does. Here’s how I’d translate it normally followed by how I think he’s translating it:
אשר חלק - להאיר. ולפי עיקר הפשט: אשר הניח אותם לכל העמים לעובדם, כי אינו חושש בהם, אבל - אתכם לקח ה' ויוציא אתכם להיות לו לעם נחלה - ולעבדו והוא יהיה לכם לאלהים.
My normal translation: Who apportioned – to give light. According to the plainmost meaning: who left them for the nations to worship, because he does not worry about them [the non-Jews], but you God chose to be His people and to worship him and that he should be your God. (Basically how Rational Traditionalist suggests reading it.)
Shapiro’s translation: Who apportioned – to give light. According to the plainmost meaning: who left them for the nations to worship, because he does not care about [competition from the celestial beings the Gentiles worship] but you God chose to be his people and to worship him and that he would be your God.
[2] It is important to remind ourselves that we are not here to engage on the actual ideas propagated in the book. We are taking for granted that most readers instinctively recognize Sacks’ assertions to be intellectually ridiculous and religiously beyond the pale. Our goal here is simply to see what we can learn about methodology and tactics by analyzing the discussion.
The intellectually ridiculous part here is kind of unfair. Religious pluralism is an actually serious view in philosophy. As for the presumed question of religious doctrinal contradictions here’s a source on that:
“How do pluralists deal with conflicting claims? John Hick maintains that, despite conflicting truth claims, Christians, Muslims and Buddhists are all “in touch” with and responding appropriately to the religious ultimate – which he calls “the Real.” The Real transcends conceptions of religious ultimacy in the religions such as God the Holy Trinity, or Allah, or nirvana. The latter are merely penultimate symbols through which Christians, Muslims and Buddhists relate to the ultimate reality – the Real. Hick argues that teachings about the Trinity or Allah or nirvana cannot be accepted as they are taught within the respective religions but must be reinterpreted in mythological terms. Doctrinal disagreements thus pertain to penultimate matters and, according to Hick, are not significant since they do not affect ‘the transformation from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness.’” (Moreland, Meister & Sweis, Debating Christian Theism,503)
Yeah, but Choker, we don't draw our beliefs from philosophical doctrines of religious pluralism. We draw our beliefs from the Torah. And anyone with the most rudimentary Torah knowledge knows that idolatry is 100% forbidden. It is c"v not an understanding of G-d at all. Whether or not gentiles are no longer punished for not following the Seven Noahide Laws (which according to virtually all codifiers of Jewish law, they still are) is irrelevant. It is from the Ten Commandments and one of the three cardinal sins that one must give up one's life to avoid. It's ludicrous to say that we should be looking for ways to understand G-d through idolatry.
Rational Traditionalist was assuming that his readership has basic Torah knowledge. Not that they are picking up their hashkafos from secular theology books.
1. Religious pluralists are not saying Jews should worship avodah zarah c"v. They're (if I'm understanding them correctly) saying that each culture has their (possibly divinely ordained) means of approaching "the Real" and that each culture should do so in their own way. Presumably then Jews would approach "the Real" in our own monotheistic way. They're saying that Gentiles, perhaps, could approach "the Real" with such imagery.
2."It is c"v not an understanding of G-d at all." This is exactly the point of dispute with religious pluralists. If Sacks was a pluralist he'd probably say something like the progressive Christian theologian John Hicks did above.
3. "Rational Traditionalist was assuming that his readership has basic Torah knowledge. Not that they are picking up their hashkafos from secular theology books." I think Rabbi Sacks was well-read in these sorts of books and may've been influenced by them.
"As a general rule, source fudging tends to come in one of two forms. There are those where the disingenuousness becomes apparent by looking up the quote, analyzing its real meaning in context, and finding the subtle misapplication based on the underlying rationale of the subject matter. And then there are those where you just have to look it up"
You forgot the option, much beloved by the yeshivah world, of quoting a source that simply does not exist. You know, the instant response, 'Tosfos asks that kasho in makkos" or "The taz is meikel'. Wnen neither tosfos or the taz exist.
Typical 'Test'. Spewing BS. I don't know what you are talking about. Can you provide any source or evidence other than your belching that making up sources is 'beloved by the yeshivah world'? The only instance I can think of is when some ignorant online troll quoted a non-existent Gemara that the cause of Churban bayis sheini was znus...
Maybe he saw it in a Purimshpiel and, like the rationalist he is, assumed it was portraying an event that really happened, but humorously. No that makes no sense at all. But that is literally how they think.
Why thank you. That's from the finest compliments I've ever received!
Some additional notes on Shapiro’s article
“For example [Meiri] describes the idolatrous nations, those not ‘restricted by the ways of religion’ as violent people ‘who are possessed of no religion in the world and do not yield to fear of a Divinity and, instead, burn incense to the heavenly bodies and worship idols, paying no head to sin.”[6] Elsewhere he states, concerning the idolaters of old: ‘They were not restricted to the ways of religion, every sin and everything repulsive was fit in their eyes[7].’”
Just looked up these citations and wow.
Here’s page 39: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40778&st=&pgnum=48&hilite=
Here’s page 59: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40778&st=&pgnum=68&hilite=
Just to give an example here’s what the Meiri says in the relevant paragraph Shapiro’s quoting from in the latter:
As for the gentiles and Jewish sheperds of small domesticated animals - whose flocks regularly engage in theft and [the sheperds of which] are engaged in it up to the point that they cast the yoke of Torah off themselves (except it’s not for the sake of the casting off [itself] but rather for monetary gain) - in any place where damage comes from them were are not commanded to strive to save them. Likewise with the gentiles you must analyze it based on what we’ve previously explained. About what gentile did they say this? One must say it was said regarding the idolaters who were not restricted in the ways of religion and, quite to the contrary [of being so disciplined], every sin and abomination was amazing in their eyes. The philosopher (Aristotle) said, “kill he who has no religion.” Anyhow, anyone who worships God even if he is not part of the religion is not included in this rule, God forbid. You already know well how with regards to a resident stranger (that is, one who takes the seven laws upon himself) that we are commanded to sustain him.
Literally no part of this paragraph is about the theological issue of idolatry or why it’s bad. (It might be relevant to who certain halachos apply to but that’s not the topic.)
Also the Hertz Chumash where Shapiro quotes refers to his comments on Deut 4:19 where he writes, “God had suffered [sic] the heathens to worship the sun, moon, and stars as a stepping-stone to a higher stage of religious belief. That worship of the heathen nations thus forms part of God’s guidance of humanity. But as for the Israelites, God had given them first-hand knowledge of Him through the medium of Revelation. It is for this reason that idolatry was for them [sic] an unpardonable offence; and everything that might seduce that from that Divine Revelation was to be ruthlessly destroyed. Hence the amazing tolerance shown by Judaism of all ages towards the followers of other cults, so long as these were not stepped in immorality and crime [sic]. Thus, the sacrificial offering of heathens to be a glorification of God (see on Mal. I, 11, pg. 103). Equally striking is the attitude of the Rabbis toward the heathen world. War had been declared against Canaanites not because of matters of dogma or ritual but because of the savage cruelty and foul licentiousness of their lives and cult. But the Rabbis never regarded the heathens of their own day as on the same moral level as the Canaanites. Their contemporary heathens in the Roman and Persian empires obeyed the laws of conduct which the Rabbis deemed vital to the existence of human society, the so-called ‘seven commandments given to the children of Noah’ (see pg. 303 on v. 7) They wisely held that in their religious life these heathens merely followed the traditional worship which they had inherited from their fathers before them (מנהג אבותיהן בידיהן), and they could not therefore be held responsible for failure to reach a true notion of the Unity of God, בני נח לא נזהרו על השיתוף. Such followers of other faiths – they taught – were judged by God purely by their moral life. חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא. “The righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come,’ and are heirs of immorality, alongside the righteous in Israel. A later midrash proclaimed: ‘I call heaven and earth to witness that, whether it be Jew or heathen, mean or woman, freeman or bondman – only according to their acts does the Divine spirit rest upon them.’ And in the darkest days of the Middle Ages, Solomon Ibn Gabirol, the great philosopher and Synagogue hymn-writer sang:
‘Thou art the Lord,
And all beings are Thy servants, Thy domain;
And through those who serve idols vain
Thine honour is not detracted from,
For they all aim to Thee to come.’
This is probably the earliest enunciation of religious tolerance in Western Europe.” In other words, God suffers avodah zara by non-Jews now so they can later advance to monotheism. Shapiro seems to want more than that though.
“The clearest support for Sacks' position is provided by R. Netanel ben al-Fayyumi (twelfth century), who maintains that "God sent different prophets to the various nations of the world with legislations suited to the particular temperament of each individual nation." Although Sacks is motivated by a post-modern vision, the medieval R. Netanel also claimed that God's truth was not encompassed by Judaism alone. According to R. Netanel, various religions are to be viewed by their adherents, and correctly so, as sanctified.”
I will note that R. Netanel goes to some lengths to try to demonstrate how the Quran is compatible with the Torah and even urges the Jews to keep the Torah. Sacks is doing no such thing (seemingly). I strongly believe, even if we take Netanel Al-Fayyumi at his word and assume he meant what he said, that he’d only say what he said if he thought the Gentile religion didn’t contradict Judaism (which, for instance, the Trinitarian doctrine most definitely does).
Thank you R' Choker for your insights. It's a lot, so let's summarize.
Basically, as far as Dr Shapiro's scholarship (which was the subject of the essay) you're pointing out even deeper levels of obfuscation and source manipulation than I stressed in the essay. I'm not at all surprised but I appreciate your bringing it to light.
Be aware that when you take just about any page of Dr Shapiro's provocative writings (by this I mean the contributions in which he is trying to drive home an agenda by throwing sources at it) and do similar basic research on the sources or the ramifications he assigns to them you'll get similar results. He's an excellent "researcher" but is incredibly superficial as well as often dishonest. What's amazing is that his books and chidushim are taken extremely seriously in the 'academic' community, which reveals an awful lot about their koach hahavchana (or, as Dr Slifkin will have it, how well they "know how to learn").
As for your first point about "religious pluralism". Read that quote you posted again. Religious pluralism is incompatible with ANY religion on its own terms (obviously - if there's one God there can't be many gods; if Jesus was the messiah then Mohammed isn't; and one plus zero does not equal 3). The point of religious pluralism is, as is clearly spelled out in your quote, to negate the intrinsic authority of any religion, and create a new master religion (the "Real") and have everything else just be more of a make believe way of going through the motions. They do so by reinterpreting each religion's teachings to make it "penultimate" and not the real truth. Which is fine for religious pluralists, but it's not what Christianity teaches about Christianity, nor what Islam believes Islam to be, and it's certainly not chas v'Shalom what Yiddishkeit is.
If Sacks was a religious pluralist that means he doesn't believe in Judaism. Which is quite by definition "religiously beyond the pale", as I wrote. And if he believes in Judaism but also insists on religious pluralism then his position is "intellectually ridiculous", as I wrote.
Quick correction: Mohammed never claimed to be משיח. He was quite clear Jesus (Is’a in Arabic) would be the Messiah and come back at קץ הימים.
More to the point: vis a vis religious pluralism, your criticism is a standard one of religious pluralism and I’d mostly agree with it. I wouldn’t agree with your characterization of the pluralist thesis though as saying that what the religion actually say are mere “make believe.” They seem to be saying it’s analagous to how we relate to corporealistic descriptions of Hashem in that they relate to us a valuable message but aren’t to be taken as literally true. That is not quite the same thing as a “make believe way of going through the motions.”
"is beyond the purview of this essay to debunk this current wildly popular idea that in non-halachic matters every Tom, Dick, or Harry can unilaterally choose to buck the entire Jewish mainstream in favor of a minority opinion he likes better; we hope to return to it at a later date."
Be careful where you go with that, because numerous Rishonim and Acharonim are quite comfortable bucking the mainstream when it comes to explaining pesukim - the radak frequently ignores the gemorroh. As for the Ibn Ezra, all we can say is the tochachah megulah and some dodgy talmid inserted the ahavah nisteres part of the quote.....
Yes, its obvious. Chareidim have declared that in non-halachik matters, only they can decide the 'entire Jewish mainstream' thereby declaring every other hashkofo heretical.
Because that is all you can do when a rishon says something you find uncomfortable. Just define yourself as 'the entire' hence the 'entire Jewish mainstream' as being your hashkofo, and hence anybody that holds like that rishon is a heretic.
Thank you, these insights are very on target to the point of the article.
I assume that with regard to the actual substance of the discussion we're on the same page. I guess I can be satisfied with that.
Indeed. I am no fan of Marc Shapiro or Rabbi Lord Dr Sacks. Nonetheless, the latter has substantial achievments to his name. Because here in the UK he is has convinced numerous wavering teenagers to stay shomer shabbos (granted, you wouldn't consider those teenagers orthodox) with his writings and thoughts - not that kollel fellow with the ill-fitting suit who declares every body without chareidi hashkofos heretical (when he is not trying to work out the latest benefit wheeze). That kollel fellow stand for a very modern insular form of judaism which you never found amongst the rishonim.
Ok, that's fine. Because the point of this article had nothing to do with Rabbi Sacks, as I mentioned in one of the first footnotes. It was to demonstrate the tactics of Shapiro and the other "critical thinking" academics for the benefit of those (like Dr Slifkin and this fozziebear gentleman) who get duped by them. If we're on the same page about that, we're on the same team here.
As an aside, your sinah seems to be mikalkel hashura. Rabbi Sacks may have accomplished some fine things, and nobody can take that away from him. But to a large degree it's the kollel guys in the ill-fitting suits that brought about the revolution of ba'alei teshuva in the past generation through such institutions as Lev L'achim. So let's try to stay based in reality as we look for every irrelevant opportunity to get in whatever jibes you can against a community you clearly associate with some deep seated trauma you've suffered.
There is no proof to your assertion that Sacks convinced more teenagers to keep Shabbos than 'that Kollel fellow with the ill-fitting suit'. But in fact, one of those Kollel fellows founded SEED in England, under constant guidance of the late Gateshead Rav, the leader of the opposition to Sacks' book. He actually has data on how many people returned to Torah, and without gimmicks and resorting to strange new ideas on Avoda Zara.
I always found it interesting how Sacks got away with his book. He wrote stuff that he basically thought up in the shower, with zero proof and no logical basis. Yet, the burden of proof was placed on his opponents!
Reb Padre raises two excellent points.
The go-to justification of krumkeit has always been "it keeps people frum" - kind of the intellectual equivalent of allowing people to drive to shul or Shabbat afternoon synagogue football leagues. Throw in whatever towel you have to; we've got to appease the youth or whatever. As has always been the case with halachic capitulation, the tactic of "the hashkafic costumer is always right" is far better at matter-of-fact statements of achievement than it is at actually demonstrating any degree of success to outweigh the costs of ideological hefkeirus and ultimate meaninglessness.
Back when Slifkin was still relevant, this was always the high-minded condemnation flung at his opponents: "Do you know how many people went off the derech because Slifkin's resolutions to their vexing questions were deemed unacceptable?" As with R' Test's strident declarations, there never seemed to be any obligation to produce any actual data to support these claims, just blithely stating them as fact was enough.
Perhaps this speculative charge is worthy of a speculative response: Maybe people tend to be attracted to authenticity, and less likely to sacrifice and commit for something that doesn't really stand for much anyways. Just a thought. With the added benefit of 40 years of actual kiruv data that seems to support it...
Reb Padre's second point is critical and deserves more focus than it gets. He has nailed exactly what it is that props up frivolous, baseless, academic scholarship. They may be rather lousy at responsible analysis, but they are EXCELLENT at putting the burden of proof on their opponents. All you gotta do is talk with an air of sophistication and throw out some obscure quote as if it's something that everybody who knows anything on the topic knows. They manage to stir up doubts of maybe my assumptions in this area are just because of my insular upbringing leading to naivete.
That's why it's so important to call out the tricks they pull for what they are. Az mir geit gleich, mir treft mentchen. There's no reason to feel self-conscious about a hashkafa just because it's not scintillatingly provocative. Those who wish to shake things up should be required to bring the proof, not just that their innovations aren't technically "heretical", but that there's any particular reason to abandon accepted assumptions in favor of whatever they pulled out of their alphabet soup yesterday.
Rabbi Sack's writings are NOT krumkeit. They may not be chareidi, but I hate to break it to you, that doesn't make them krumkeit. Otherwise the Ramban who writes clearly Avrohom Avinu committed a great sin by going to mitzrayim would be krum. Because in chareidiland every rabbi (or maybe only those that feature in picture galleris in the heimish press) are popes and can never get anything wrong.
"Rabbi Sack's writings are NOT krumkeit."
Ha! Actually, this very blog post was an extremely illuminating example of an entire book of his that is the epitome of krumkeit.
Hey maybe this will shake you but that's a pretty bad example. I don't know why, but in Rav Moshe Fienstien's personal chumash, that piece of Ramban is crossed out in pen.
They are less krumkeit than lightweight.
Philosophy for dummies.
Deep thoughts for the shallow-minded.
"They may be rather lousy at responsible analysis, but they are EXCELLENT at putting the burden of proof on their opponents."
I think it more proper to say they are excellent at manipulating their opponents into adopting a defensive stance.
I am not a rabid, basement-dwelling, pajama-wearing retard projecting that onto my opponents. There is a reason I do what I do, and it has to do with the point you noted, just with more discernment applied to what is going on for real. I call out their tricks for what they are better than all the high-minded analyses and responses the rest of my compatriots combined. No offense guys. You do first rate work, for people who can appreciate it, which I do. For those who don't, just call them retard and their work retardery and be done with it. But do it with flair.
Check out the single exchange I had with Slifkin in his recent post about censorship and whether he should apply the vote results regarding blog censorship to me and be permitted to comment again.
I did to him what he does to us, when I accused him of comparing Rabbi Yaron Reuven to Hitler, knowing full well he said no such thing. I didn't put the burden of proof on him. I put him on the defensive. And Slifkin replied, exactly as I expected he would, because I put him in an untenable situation. I manipulated him. Don't let him, or any of them, manipulate you or any us any longer.
Indeed. That kollel fellow created SEED 50 years ago. Back then there were around 100 chareidim in the entire world and even Artscroll quoted Josephus. And obviously I am not taliking about 'community kollels' which is a relatively small number.
Yes, he created SEED 50 years ago. And did a better job being mekarev people with Torah, Gemara, Chumash and Halacha than any speeches of Sacks.
And his moreh derech was the leader of the opposition to Sacks.
Sacks was a lightweight, he could impress those who didn't know much in the first place. But his attempts to appease everyone helped nobody. He was the opposite of an ambassador for Torah. Anyone who heard him thought, "If Torah doesn't mean much, why give up my comforts for it?"
He does not claim to be an ambassador for torah, whatever that means. He never claims that torah does not mean much, whatever that means. His writings are not for you and not intended for you. You stick to short pshetlach in pesukim, which does not, unlike him, give any guidance for modern living in the modern world outside the beis hamedrash.
You remind me of Rabbi Aharon Feldman.
Also the Etz Yosef on the Midrash in Shemos Rabbah he quotes says
על עבודת כו"ם אלא לכם. פי' על דקדוקי עכו"ם. ולזה מייתי לא תעשו לכם שדרשוהו על הנמכר לעקר. וכן מ"ש לא נתתי משפט אלא לכם ר"ל דקדוקי משפט חקירות ודרישות. דאל"כ הלא הם מז' מצות בני נח:
Basically the Etz Yosef explains that the thing Shapiro makes a big deal about only applies to the particularities of idolatry and he cites as a proof the next example “I have given judgement to none but you” where it must mean the specifics of judgement because otherwise there could be no Noahide laws. This of course destroys Shapiro’s interpretation.
To be fair to Shapiro with the Rashbam if you translate it in a very specific way you can read it as he does. Here’s how I’d translate it normally followed by how I think he’s translating it:
אשר חלק - להאיר. ולפי עיקר הפשט: אשר הניח אותם לכל העמים לעובדם, כי אינו חושש בהם, אבל - אתכם לקח ה' ויוציא אתכם להיות לו לעם נחלה - ולעבדו והוא יהיה לכם לאלהים.
My normal translation: Who apportioned – to give light. According to the plainmost meaning: who left them for the nations to worship, because he does not worry about them [the non-Jews], but you God chose to be His people and to worship him and that he should be your God. (Basically how Rational Traditionalist suggests reading it.)
Shapiro’s translation: Who apportioned – to give light. According to the plainmost meaning: who left them for the nations to worship, because he does not care about [competition from the celestial beings the Gentiles worship] but you God chose to be his people and to worship him and that he would be your God.
[2] It is important to remind ourselves that we are not here to engage on the actual ideas propagated in the book. We are taking for granted that most readers instinctively recognize Sacks’ assertions to be intellectually ridiculous and religiously beyond the pale. Our goal here is simply to see what we can learn about methodology and tactics by analyzing the discussion.
The intellectually ridiculous part here is kind of unfair. Religious pluralism is an actually serious view in philosophy. As for the presumed question of religious doctrinal contradictions here’s a source on that:
“How do pluralists deal with conflicting claims? John Hick maintains that, despite conflicting truth claims, Christians, Muslims and Buddhists are all “in touch” with and responding appropriately to the religious ultimate – which he calls “the Real.” The Real transcends conceptions of religious ultimacy in the religions such as God the Holy Trinity, or Allah, or nirvana. The latter are merely penultimate symbols through which Christians, Muslims and Buddhists relate to the ultimate reality – the Real. Hick argues that teachings about the Trinity or Allah or nirvana cannot be accepted as they are taught within the respective religions but must be reinterpreted in mythological terms. Doctrinal disagreements thus pertain to penultimate matters and, according to Hick, are not significant since they do not affect ‘the transformation from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness.’” (Moreland, Meister & Sweis, Debating Christian Theism,503)
Yeah, but Choker, we don't draw our beliefs from philosophical doctrines of religious pluralism. We draw our beliefs from the Torah. And anyone with the most rudimentary Torah knowledge knows that idolatry is 100% forbidden. It is c"v not an understanding of G-d at all. Whether or not gentiles are no longer punished for not following the Seven Noahide Laws (which according to virtually all codifiers of Jewish law, they still are) is irrelevant. It is from the Ten Commandments and one of the three cardinal sins that one must give up one's life to avoid. It's ludicrous to say that we should be looking for ways to understand G-d through idolatry.
Rational Traditionalist was assuming that his readership has basic Torah knowledge. Not that they are picking up their hashkafos from secular theology books.
1. Religious pluralists are not saying Jews should worship avodah zarah c"v. They're (if I'm understanding them correctly) saying that each culture has their (possibly divinely ordained) means of approaching "the Real" and that each culture should do so in their own way. Presumably then Jews would approach "the Real" in our own monotheistic way. They're saying that Gentiles, perhaps, could approach "the Real" with such imagery.
2."It is c"v not an understanding of G-d at all." This is exactly the point of dispute with religious pluralists. If Sacks was a pluralist he'd probably say something like the progressive Christian theologian John Hicks did above.
3. "Rational Traditionalist was assuming that his readership has basic Torah knowledge. Not that they are picking up their hashkafos from secular theology books." I think Rabbi Sacks was well-read in these sorts of books and may've been influenced by them.
Mitzrayim was a כור הברזל for Klal Yisroel. They learned invaluable lessons from the wickedness of the Mitzrim and their punishment.
Ergo, the Mitzrim were part of G-d's plan for the world and the Jews.
So G-d spoke to the Mitzrim through their idol, whatever that was.
But they still got punished, and we celebrate those punishments.
How does that fit with the theology/logic of Sacks?
"As a general rule, source fudging tends to come in one of two forms. There are those where the disingenuousness becomes apparent by looking up the quote, analyzing its real meaning in context, and finding the subtle misapplication based on the underlying rationale of the subject matter. And then there are those where you just have to look it up"
You forgot the option, much beloved by the yeshivah world, of quoting a source that simply does not exist. You know, the instant response, 'Tosfos asks that kasho in makkos" or "The taz is meikel'. Wnen neither tosfos or the taz exist.
Typical 'Test'. Spewing BS. I don't know what you are talking about. Can you provide any source or evidence other than your belching that making up sources is 'beloved by the yeshivah world'? The only instance I can think of is when some ignorant online troll quoted a non-existent Gemara that the cause of Churban bayis sheini was znus...
Maybe he saw it in a Purimshpiel and, like the rationalist he is, assumed it was portraying an event that really happened, but humorously. No that makes no sense at all. But that is literally how they think.
Please use clean initials.
I suggest: "retardery".
Nice article, covered a lot of points. I specifically liked the off topic footnote of the nature of a ban!
Nailed it!