R' Eliyahu Fink has an article up about Ami Magazine's recent piece, "The Impostors Among Us". (As I was writing this, Chana penned a piece as well which is quite good.)
In essence, the Ami piece is about Orthoprax individuals within the Orthodox Jewish community - people who don't believe in various integral aspects of Orthodox belief, but essentially go through the motions to stay within the community for various reasons. Orthopraxy (which seems important to differentiate from people merely struggling with aspects of frumkeit) is according to the article a growing phenomenon, boosted to a large extent by information, questions, and discussion which are available on the internet.
The most troubling aspect of Orthopraxy which is touched on in the article is the dishonesty involved. Regardless of one's own feelings about Judaism, is it fair to subject one's family and friends to one's own lying life? One Orthoprax individual in the article, "Eli", wishes to marry an Orthodox girl despite his beliefs, because that's all he can relate to; another serves as a posek despite not believing in his own judgments. This dishonest approach to life seems incredibly wrong, and unfair to all those whom it impacts.
But on the other side, the article is absolutely horrendous. It falsely portrays issues people have as idiotic and "so-called scientific questions"; proclaims itself as intellectual while presuming that those who fall off are not intellectual and instead are justifying "chasing after taavos"; describes those who have these struggles as having a "sickness" or emotional problems; and is otherwise absurd in its approach and how people could/used to avoid the issue, which is essentially never come across any questions via lack of access to them, especially via the internet. On top of everything else, the smug interviewer caps the article with a note that "steps have been taken to protect the public" from the posek mentioned above. This is a real sticky move, depending a lot on what actions were taken; obviously it's important to remove someone from a position where they are obviously not fit, but it's a real lack of journalistic integrity to act on a source like that.
If people truly wish to combat Orthopraxy in Judaism, then it will come not from sticking our head in the sand but by truly confronting the questions which we face and understanding both the questions and reasonable, logical approaches to them. If we believe in what we say, then we should have no issue saying what we believe and why. To dismiss those who question and struggle with a wave of the hand or by denouncing them as heretical, declaring them ill, or claiming they are simply out for taava is foolish at best, and most likely incredibly destructive. In fact, it would be reasonable to say that it is 'journalism' such as this which contributes heavily to people turning away from the fold through its disdain for those who dare think about their beliefs.
Horrible.
Wow, great post. I'd like to think that my protestations over the years might have had something to do with it. :-)
ReplyDeleteWhat's funny is that the typical excuse for OTDers like me -- that we're just chasing our taavas -- is undermined by the existence of Orthopraxers. (The fact that it takes most of us a long time -- months or years -- AFTER going otd to do something as trivial as trying a piece of bacon proves to me that this is not true, but not many Orthodox Jews want to know the details of OTD life.)
Orthopraxers are people who chase no taavas and still believe what we OTDers believe. It puts the lie to the idea that people don't have genuine intellectual questions (and answers!)
Admitting that is too close to admitting that Orthodox Judaism could, even in theory, be incorrect, though, so I guess it's necessary for some to make up "emotional issues" for Orthopraxers.
The most troubling aspect of Orthopraxy which is touched on in the article is the dishonesty involved.
I think "Eli" is an exception. Most Orthopraxers that I know of either because Orthoprax after marriage or were open about their Orthopraxy with potential spouses. Those who became Orthoprax after marriage are in a genuinely tough spot -- they fear, sometimes correctly, that their spouses will leave them if the truth comes out. Also, if they have children, they imagine all sorts of difficulties arising for them if the truth comes out, even beyond custody arrangements.
In my opinion, this is all the fault of the Orthodox community and the Orthodox mindset. In non-fundamentalist religions and denominations, it is understood that people have changes of belief and heart and that if one spouse's beliefs change it needn't break up the family or be a shonda, and the person doesn't stand to lose his community. (For example, I know of a great Conservative/Reform small town community that is quite tight-knit and has non-Jewish spouses who are every bit a part of the community. A community does not need to insist on ideological conformity, even on big issues like God's existence. The fact that community and religion are so tied together in Orthodox Judaism is a big problem for every honest skeptic, and there are many.)
Orthodox Judaism (and Islam, Mormonism, JW, etc.) does not handle this situation well.
While I would strongly advise "Eli" to be honest with any potential spouses -- and to seriously consider going OTD -- I'm not about to blame what I see as the victim of communal and cultural blackmail.
"Believe what we believe or get out" is a terrible message, even if it's only implied. Even if you think it's understandable or the only workable way to have such a community.
Anybody reading this who is Orthoprax or having issues should feel free to email me. Also, as always, I suggest therapy to all leaving or considering leaving.
"Most Orthopraxers that I know of either because"
ReplyDeleteshould be
"Most Orthopraxers that I know of either became"
I just wrote a whole reply, and it disappeared. Darn Blogger errors.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to think that my protestations over the years might have had something to do with it. :-)
ReplyDeleteWishful thinking... :)
It puts the lie to the idea that people don't have genuine intellectual questions (and answers!)
Agreed.
Admitting that is too close to admitting that Orthodox Judaism could, even in theory, be incorrect, though, so I guess it's necessary for some to make up "emotional issues" for Orthopraxers.
For some groups, apparently. But mainstream Orthodoxy would I believe approach things differently (note that Ami is a Charedi publication). I certainly agree that the best way to approach questions is to delve into them and attempt to give rational, honest replies. I do understand why some feel the subjects should be avoided in general, and those are not illegitimate concerns and for many I would venture that delving into them are not relevant or integral. But for those who are genuinely interested and/or troubled? Honest analytical analysis is important.
Most Orthopraxers that I know of either because Orthoprax after marriage or were open about their Orthopraxy with potential spouses.
Perhaps; I'd guess that many were basically Orthoprax before marriage, but didn't realize it fully until later on.
Those who became Orthoprax after marriage are in a genuinely tough spot -- they fear, sometimes correctly, that their spouses will leave them if the truth comes out. Also, if they have children, they imagine all sorts of difficulties arising for them if the truth comes out, even beyond custody arrangements.
Understood how difficult it is, but it's absolutely integral to a marriage to be honest about one's fundamental beliefs.
In my opinion, this is all the fault of the Orthodox community and the Orthodox mindset. [...]
That's ridiculous. (Because of limits I'll post why in next comment)
"Believe what we believe or get out" is a terrible message, even if it's only implied. Even if you think it's understandable or the only workable way to have such a community.
Completely disagree. It's true of any defined description. You can't be a non-Orthodox or non-Jewish Orthodox Jew any more than you can be a God-fearing atheist or a free-market, anti-abortion, flat tax liberal.
In my opinion, this is all the fault of the Orthodox community and the Orthodox mindset. In non-fundamentalist religions and denominations, it is understood that people have changes of belief and heart and that if one spouse's beliefs change it needn't break up the family or be a shonda, and the person doesn't stand to lose his community. (For example, I know of a great Conservative/Reform small town community that is quite tight-knit and has non-Jewish spouses who are every bit a part of the community. A community does not need to insist on ideological conformity, even on big issues like God's existence. The fact that community and religion are so tied together in Orthodox Judaism is a big problem for every honest skeptic, and there are many.)
ReplyDeleteOrthodox Judaism (and Islam, Mormonism, JW, etc.) does not handle this situation well.
That's ridiculous. In any relationship, there are fundamental pillars which both parties adhere to that are the backbone of the relationship. If one party were to change their beliefs in a fundamental fashion this would have a massive impact on the relationship. If your own wife had a change of heart on something which was fundamental to your relationship with one another you would not only wish to know it, but would have to figure out if that makes the relationship untenable moving forward. In Orthodox Jewish marriages, being Orthodox and Jewish are fundamental to the marriage, unless both parties have a change of heart together, and it is absolutely reasonable to have such an expectation.
I'm going to use an extreme example which you won't like: If the understanding in a marriage was for a couple to be exclusive, but one party decided after a few years that they wanted an open relationship, this is a fundamental change to the marriage.
I think the biggest point is that while yes, all people change as time passes, the general and reasonable expectation in a marriage is that it is in fact for life. You help one another through hard times, and you work together when struggles hit, but at the end of the day the basic goals need to remain the same or shifted in tandem.
I just wrote a whole reply, and it disappeared. Darn Blogger errors.
ReplyDeleteI just did that on your previous post. In general, I try to copy my posts to the clipboard before posting these days. Very frustrating.
I certainly agree that the best way to approach questions is to delve into them and attempt to give rational, honest replies.
I hear this a lot from well-meaning, educated OJs like yourself, but I never see it in practice. In practice, both in person and online, it usually works in one of these ways:
1) The OJ throws out a lame argument like the Kuzari or the watchmaker argument and is clearly not competent to handle challenges.
2) The OJ eventually admits that it comes down to a leap of faith or says that belief isn't important.
3) The OJ says that you just need to pray more and keep doing mitzvahs.
4) The OJ is a crazy person like "Jewish Philosopher" who will engage and continue to argue/discuss for longer than anyone could possibly want to, but doesn't in fact have legitimate answers.
Why isn't there a single website or blog that posts all these rational, honest replies? There are plenty of atheist sites and blogs that carefully and honestly lay out arguments, but the only OJ ones that do that are like Discovery institute dishonesty or Chabad irrationality.
Even somebody who mostly passes as rational like Rabbi Gil Student shuts down conversation and starts deleting comments when things aren't going his way.
Perhaps; I'd guess that many were basically Orthoprax before marriage, but didn't realize it fully until later on.
Sure, no doubt. But many others (e.g. XGH) were full-blown believers until they started questioning or discovered the internet or actually read Dawkins, etc.
Understood how difficult it is, but it's absolutely integral to a marriage to be honest about one's fundamental beliefs.
I agree. It's also absolutely integral to a marriage to not be willing to divorce over a difference in religious belief or practice.
Completely disagree. It's true of any defined description. You can't be a non-Orthodox or non-Jewish Orthodox Jew any more than you can be a God-fearing atheist or a free-market, anti-abortion, flat tax liberal.
One of these things is not like the others. "Atheist" and "Liberal" are things you believe. OJ is BOTH something you believe AND a community. It's that duality that causes the problem. As I pointed out, other religious communities manage to maintain communities without insisting that everybody believe the same dogma, let alone the same religion.
That's ridiculous. In any relationship, there are fundamental pillars which both parties adhere to that are the backbone of the relationship.
ReplyDeleteI think it's obscene to make religious belief a requirement for a relationship, personal or communal.
If your own wife had a change of heart on something which was fundamental to your relationship with one another you would not only wish to know it, but would have to figure out if that makes the relationship untenable moving forward.
Only insofar as the consequences might make the relationship untenable. If my wife (FSM forbid) became an OJ or a Hare Krishna or even a Republican, there is no way I'd ever divorce her for that. If she became a hermit that insisted on living alone in a cave with no visitors for 20 years, that might be a different story.
You almost never (I can't think of ever) hear about an atheist breaking up with his wife or disowning his children for becoming religious, but the opposite is common. It's one of the terrible consequences of fundamentalist religion.
I'm going to use an extreme example which you won't like: If the understanding in a marriage was for a couple to be exclusive, but one party decided after a few years that they wanted an open relationship, this is a fundamental change to the marriage.
Yes, that would be a change TO THE MARRIAGE. A change of religion is not.
I think the biggest point is that while yes, all people change as time passes, the general and reasonable expectation in a marriage is that it is in fact for life. You help one another through hard times, and you work together when struggles hit, but at the end of the day the basic goals need to remain the same or shifted in tandem.
I'm saying that putting religious belief or practice in that category is a terrible thing.
Very frustrating.
ReplyDeleteAnother agreement! :) I copy them often, but not always. Sigh.
Why isn't there a single website or blog that posts all these rational, honest replies? There are plenty of atheist sites and blogs that carefully and honestly lay out arguments
Perhaps there should be, but I'd guess that has a lot to do with internal Jewish differences over much of it; the depth and complexity required; and that the most equipped are unlikely to spend their time online doing so (mistaken or not). The enormity of putting literally everything that goes into the Torah and understanding it online is nearly impossible - the scholarship required would have to be insane. I mean just for Artscroll to put Shas into an understandable volume for a lay frum person who has a background in Torah learning was years and millions. But check places like Bar Ilan - they're starting to put stuff up.
You also have to remember that it's simply much easier for an atheist to put up challenges to things than for someone else to not only live a religious life, but teach religious students, help those with issues, and then on top of that do a project such as what you're suggesting, particularly in a religion that is called the People of the Book for a reason.
But many others (e.g. XGH) were full-blown believers until they started questioning or discovered the internet or actually read Dawkins, etc.
XGH is a special case for so many reasons, and there's a ton of (understandable) frustration there as well. Come on. His brother meanwhile, who has a much better grasp of the Torah side I think it's fair to say, is far different.
It's also absolutely integral to a marriage to not be willing to divorce over a difference in religious belief or practice.
Why? If it's fundamental to one's core beliefs? The issue is you simply don't accept that a religious belief can be fundamental to a person, which is wrong.
You didn't really address my broader point that as far as I can tell these honest, rational arguments for OJ don't even exist. Fine, they're not on a website. Why not a book? We just get lame things like "Permission to Believe," no "honest, rational" arguments.
ReplyDeleteXGH is a special case for so many reasons, and there's a ton of (understandable) frustration there as well. Come on. His brother meanwhile, who has a much better grasp of the Torah side I think it's fair to say, is far different.
Yeah, his brother compartmentalizes. XGH is honest even when it costs him so much and slipping into denial or compartmentalization like his brother would have been so much easier. But I've gotten several emails from married men who have been convinced as married adults that OJ isn't true.
Why? If it's fundamental to one's core beliefs? The issue is you simply don't accept that a religious belief can be fundamental to a person, which is wrong.
It's fundamental to you, but why can't your wife believe something else? Obviously, you wouldn't plan it that way, and obviously it would cause some difficulties, but grounds for divorce?? It's crazy.
One of these things is not like the others. "Atheist" and "Liberal" are things you believe. OJ is BOTH something you believe AND a community. It's that duality that causes the problem. As I pointed out, other religious communities manage to maintain communities without insisting that everybody believe the same dogma, let alone the same religion.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, liberal IS perfectly capable of being a community, and I'd bet atheism is as well. Here in NYC that is clear. The difference is that they simply don't exist much yet, but you can be assured that having conservative views in many parts of NYC is simply unacceptable and would ostracize someone socially. Do you really think that a conservative can be a part of the Village scene? Or in a black community? Those are false through and through.
And within Judaism in most communities you can have varied beliefs, so long as those maintain certain minimums. You can't proclaim yourself part of a community when you don't meet the standards or expectations of it.
I think it's obscene to make religious belief a requirement for a relationship, personal or communal.
Right. YOU think so, but that doesn't mean it's true, and since the people here have accepted it, then it's wrong to expect otherwise when they change their mind.
(FSM forbid), or even a Republican
LOL to those :)
Only insofar as the consequences might make the relationship untenable. If my wife (FSM forbid) became an OJ or a Hare Krishna or even a Republican, there is no way I'd ever divorce her for that. If she became a hermit that insisted on living alone in a cave with no visitors for 20 years, that might be a different story.
And if she insisted on a full Orthodox lifestyle, or a full Hare Krishna lifestyle which impacted your life? I think it's naive to think that a major religious difference in religious circles doesn't impact one's marriage.
Yes, that would be a change TO THE MARRIAGE. A change of religion is not.
Of course it is!
I'm saying that putting religious belief or practice in that category is a terrible thing.
I think you're completely wrong. A fundamental religious change is certainly something that needs to be at the least discussed seriously, and that often it will leave the marriage in a way that it cannot continue.
You didn't really address my broader point that as far as I can tell these honest, rational arguments for OJ don't even exist. Fine, they're not on a website. Why not a book? We just get lame things like "Permission to Believe," no "honest, rational" arguments.
ReplyDeleteAny serious scholar would say that until you've actually learned Torah you can't possibly critique it, which I think is fair. (You'd say the same about Dawkins.)
Yeah, his brother compartmentalizes. XGH is honest even when it costs him so much and slipping into denial or compartmentalization like his brother would have been so much easier. But I've gotten several emails from married men who have been convinced as married adults that OJ isn't true.
That's a clearly opinion-based approach. But realistically, have any of those married men been Torah scholars in a significant way? Shouldn't those people be the ones most likely to be troubled by such issues? Shouldn't we see more serious scholars among those who go OTD or become Orthoprax? I'm not saying this is a proof, obviously - but I think it's a significant point. Moreover, much of Torah scholarship (especially in the past millenia) was dedicated to solving seeming contradictions and questions on even the minutia of Torah and Judaism. I think that's an important point as well - you may not agree with the various responses, but Rashi/Rambam/Ramban etc. were all writing to answer questions. Perhaps that is part of the answer to what you're asking, albeit not online - the answers are there, if people learn them.
It's fundamental to you, but why can't your wife believe something else? Obviously, you wouldn't plan it that way, and obviously it would cause some difficulties, but grounds for divorce?? It's crazy.
Because it's fundamental to how you live your lives! It's why people are Orthoprax - they at least understand that fundamentally living differently would be a tremendous issue. But living that way is dishonest as well.
>Any serious scholar would say that until you've actually learned Torah you can't possibly critique it, which I think is fair
ReplyDeleteDoes that prevent you or anyone from making judgments about other religions? I don't see a whole lot of suspended judgment about Islam and Christianity in frum society - or a lot of experts on the Scriptures and teachings of those religions.
While I agree that you have to know something about what you're critiquing, I can't agree that you have to be, essentially, a talmid chochom to critique Judaism, or anything else, any more than you needed to be a Marxist scholar to have found fault with the Soviet Union.
Agreed, and I certainly didn't meant to imply that. I just mean that there are not many people who can make such a critique, and similarly there are likely none who can put up a comprehensive defense of Judaic beliefs online as JA suggested.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, liberal IS perfectly capable of being a community, and I'd bet atheism is as well. Here in NYC that is clear. The difference is that they simply don't exist much yet, but you can be assured that having conservative views in many parts of NYC is simply unacceptable and would ostracize someone socially.
ReplyDeleteI'm skeptical about that, but I'd oppose it if it were true.
Do you really think that a conservative can be a part of the Village scene?
Yes, probably.
Or in a black community?
100,000,000% they could. And are, of course.
And within Judaism in most communities you can have varied beliefs, so long as those maintain certain minimums.
Irrelevant.
You can't proclaim yourself part of a community when you don't meet the standards or expectations of it.
I'm arguing about what are reasonable standards or expectations.
Right. YOU think so, but that doesn't mean it's true,
Well, obviously, it's a matter of opinion.
and since the people here have accepted it, then it's wrong to expect otherwise when they change their mind.
I don't expect different, I'm just saying it "should" be different.
And if she insisted on a full Orthodox lifestyle, or a full Hare Krishna lifestyle which impacted your life? I think it's naive to think that a major religious difference in religious circles doesn't impact one's marriage.
Yes, of course it impacts it. I'm arguing that you should try to work it out instead of divorcing.
Of course it is!
Not in the same way.
I think you're completely wrong. A fundamental religious change is certainly something that needs to be at the least discussed seriously, and that often it will leave the marriage in a way that it cannot continue.
I think it's fair to discuss behaviors (e.g. keeping kosher at home) but people don't really have a choice about what they believe.
Any serious scholar would say that until you've actually learned Torah you can't possibly critique it, which I think is fair. (You'd say the same about Dawkins.)
Give me a break. I'm not talking about critiquing some nuance, I'm talking about things like hey this thing was obviously written centuries after Moshe would have lived and there doesn't seem to be any evidence for an Exodus, etc.
That's a clearly opinion-based approach. But realistically, have any of those married men been Torah scholars in a significant way?
ReplyDeleteThis is like the "pray more" excuse I listed above, except this one is "learn more." Come on.
Shouldn't those people be the ones most likely to be troubled by such issues? Shouldn't we see more serious scholars among those who go OTD or become Orthoprax?
This is silly. "More serious" scholars aren't "more serious" about the larger questions, they just get into the minutiae more. You can memorize shaas and still be a creationist. In fact, probably most people who have memorized shaas are creationists. Are you saying they're more qualified to discuss whether OJ is true than someone like XGH? Or Ben Avuyah (the blogger, although his namesake is a counterpoint to your argument too.)
Moreover, much of Torah scholarship (especially in the past millenia) was dedicated to solving seeming contradictions and questions on even the minutia of Torah and Judaism. I think that's an important point as well - you may not agree with the various responses, but Rashi/Rambam/Ramban etc. were all writing to answer questions.
Please. What you call "solving seeming contradictions" I call obvious rationalization. Just look at that silly example in the haggadah. "ALL the days of your life obviously means... blah blah blah." You can just make up anything if you have enough status in OJ. Obviously people who have experience doing that would be able to rationalize some explanation for how breishis is compatible with evolution or conversely how evolution is obviously false due to the gaps in the fossil record.
Perhaps that is part of the answer to what you're asking, albeit not online - the answers are there, if people learn them.
Ridiculous. It's not like I was a complete ignoramus. I was a smart kid who spend 15 years in Orthodox schools and went to Israel for a year. I'm not saying I'm a scholar, but come on, if you can't get enough during that time to determine if the whole thing's even possibly true or not, it's ridiculous.
This is exactly the kind of argument used by scientologists, by the way, except they charge money to continue learning.
Because it's fundamental to how you live your lives! It's why people are Orthoprax - they at least understand that fundamentally living differently would be a tremendous issue. But living that way is dishonest as well.
You've never seen a couple that makes it work despite major differences in religion? Really?
Few points.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the issue is a kind of critical thinking, not the scholastic model of traditional learning. If you don't break out of that mindset - not that you necessarily have to - then Torah - or Mormonism - can indeed all be one gorgeous tapestry that just makes perfect sense. So it's not necessarily a function of how much knowledge, but how you process it and how you think.
Secondly, who says no talmidei chachomim have questions or doubts or are actually heretics by Orthodox standards? There are many non-Orthodox scholars who can learn as well as your average talmid chochom and also know as much (even if their focus may be on different areas of Torah scholarship) yet they are not Orthodox, because it doesn't add up to Orthodoxy for them.
I happen to agree that it is reasonable for a person to be enveloped in the traditional kinds of learning and derive complete satisfaction from it. No wonder that such people don't have questions.
I think we may be confusing two issues. There is belief and there is practice.
ReplyDeleteIf my wife tells me that she wants our marriage to be open, and thus, she plans on cheating on me, I could see the grounds for divorce.
If my wife tells me that she really believes our marriage should be an open marriage, but understands that for various obvious reasons, that is not possible, and she remains committed to monogamy, I don't see that as a reason for divorce.
I understand what Ezzie is saying. The understanding at the time of marriage was that these were two believing, frum individuals who would be raising a bayis neeman b'yisrael together. It was certainly assumed that both actually believed that G-d wanted that.
On the other hand, if a person no longer believes, but is willing to go along with it for the sake of the family, and out of love, what's the huge problem?
I'm not sure what we would expect. Is having doubts a failure on your part? Is it a betrayal, even? You can't really change what you think is true. You can only change how you act.
Placing so much emphasis in a marriage on the beliefs of a person seems very misguided. Beliefs can change very easily. I would hope that marriages are built on much less mutable foundations.
>Shouldn't we see more serious scholars among those who go OTD or become Orthoprax?
ReplyDeleteThis sounds a bit like saying, there are not a lot of secret double agents in the highest echelons of government, because if there were, we would expect to see more of them. The whole point is that they are living lives of secrecy!
The bigger a talmid chochom or rabbi in Orthodoxy you are, the greater the incentives you have for not revealing your heresy. The very motives that make regular people orthopraxers exist even more strongly with members of the orthodox elite. I believe XGH has said he does, in fact, know many chashuv rabbis who are orthoprax.
JA - You'd think I'd have learned. Another reply wiped out. Sigh. Back to you in a few...
ReplyDeleteFirst, the issue is a kind of critical thinking, not the scholastic model of traditional learning. If you don't break out of that mindset - not that you necessarily have to - then Torah - or Mormonism - can indeed all be one gorgeous tapestry that just makes perfect sense. So it's not necessarily a function of how much knowledge, but how you process it and how you think.
ReplyDeleteOf course. Assuming you mean the classical Yeshiva approach to learning, that's not what I was referring to (though I do believe that there are rare exceptions there who go out of their way to approach things differently). I am referring to people who actually work through these topics critically. You would still need to know enough Torah, history, et al to understand and make a proper critique or defense of Jewish belief and approach.
Secondly, who says no talmidei chachomim have questions or doubts or are actually heretics by Orthodox standards? There are many non-Orthodox scholars who can learn as well as your average talmid chochom and also know as much (even if their focus may be on different areas of Torah scholarship) yet they are not Orthodox, because it doesn't add up to Orthodoxy for them.
Fair points. Ultimately anyone will have to come back to a point of faith in Judaism (which may strengthen your point in one way), so that they have chosen not to does not discount those who have; and obviously I don't actually know what people truly believe, though I would think it safe to assume that for the most part they do believe.
Getting back to my point, I am merely saying that those who are best equipped to (say) author a full defense are also unlikely to do so, and to assume based off a lack of such a defense online is extremely unfair.
I happen to agree that it is reasonable for a person to be enveloped in the traditional kinds of learning and derive complete satisfaction from it. No wonder that such people don't have questions.
Agreed again, but to me this is surprising at the same time. I enjoyed learning Gemara at least rather early, but was also troubled by questions rather quickly due to the very way we were thinking through it. Unless we're assuming that an overwhelming majority of the (let's call them) smart enough guys simply choose blind faith, it would strike me as odd that they never struggle with any of these questions, particularly in a traditional context.
VP - I think you mostly nailed it on the head in the open marriage example and even in the frum marriage example.
ReplyDeleteThe only caveat is that when it comes to Orthodoxy, I think that intent and therefore belief matters within practice as well. I was certainly not suggesting that doubts or even beliefs are automatic grounds for divorce - but they are certainly automatic grounds for discussion, and an *understandable* reason why a couple may feel the need to divorce, particularly in terms of how it impacts raising children and living daily life. For example, you would basically be having a parent who is either living a complete lie, which is difficult to do for anyone and show enthusiasm especially, or a parent who is giving off almost exact opposite messages from the other. Neither of those are healthy for children.
Placing so much emphasis in a marriage on the beliefs of a person seems very misguided. Beliefs can change very easily. I would hope that marriages are built on much less mutable foundations.
I'm not sure what you mean by so much; I believe that the core values of a person and a couple are integral to a marriage, and that what one believes plays a major role in that. If in fact it won't affect practice at all, that's wonderful and perhaps much easier to work out - but I think that that's a rare situation, and I would love to hear from a true Orthoprax-Orthodox couple as to how they work that out and feel about it.
This sounds a bit like saying, there are not a lot of secret double agents in the highest echelons of government, because if there were, we would expect to see more of them. The whole point is that they are living lives of secrecy!
The bigger a talmid chochom or rabbi in Orthodoxy you are, the greater the incentives you have for not revealing your heresy. The very motives that make regular people orthopraxers exist even more strongly with members of the orthodox elite. I believe XGH has said he does, in fact, know many chashuv rabbis who are orthoprax.
As I said to S., those are fair points. I still believe that they are likely few and far between, however, though we'll never know. Out of curiosity, do you think it's a common phenomenon or not really?
(S. if you read this comment I'm curious what you think as well.)
>Of course. Assuming you mean the classical Yeshiva approach to learning, that's not what I was referring to (though I do believe that there are rare exceptions there who go out of their way to approach things differently). I am referring to people who actually work through these topics critically. You would still need to know enough Torah, history, et al to understand and make a proper critique or defense of Jewish belief and approach.
ReplyDeleteThis is true, but did they have the end result in mind before they conducted their inquiry?
I'm not necessarily referring to the dominant style of learning which prevails in yeshivas today, as there are other kinds of traditional learning. But what they all share in common is that scholastic style, where stepping outside the box is not a factor.
>Agreed again, but to me this is surprising at the same time. I enjoyed learning Gemara at least rather early, but was also troubled by questions rather quickly due to the very way we were thinking through it. Unless we're assuming that an overwhelming majority of the (let's call them) smart enough guys simply choose blind faith, it would strike me as odd that they never struggle with any of these questions, particularly in a traditional context.
Why is it surprising? First of all, no two are alike. What one person finds totally stimulating another will not. Secondly, dare I suggest that you are too acculturated to find complete intellectual satisfaction within the tent of traditional Torah alone? You don't have to tell me yes or no, but think about it. If I am right then why is it suprising? Of course you had trouble with questions and so forth. Your way of thinking was shaped by other influences apart from Gemara, Gemara, Gemara.
Have a look at this post, where some shiutim by R. Reisman are summed up. He raises some excellent questions - but I am pretty sure that for him there's only one way of answering these questions: the usual - you find a chiluk, you quote two or three approaches among the acharonim, you make a diyuk, you tie it into a midrash.
>(S. if you read this comment I'm curious what you think as well.)
ReplyDeleteI think there are more people then anyone realizes who do not toe the party line of their particular group. Was this not revealed, apparently to most frum people's surprise, in the past 10 years or so with the rise of blogs and so forth? I'm sure it cuts across all sectors of Orthodox society. We already know that many rabbis refuse to go one record saying anything even slightly controversial. Because of this we'll probably never know that rabbis believe things that are *really* controversial - but how can there not be?
>I'm not sure what you mean by so much; I believe that the core values of a person and a couple are integral to a marriage, and that what one believes plays a major role in that.
ReplyDeleteIt might be helpful to put it this way. Before marriage, say in the pre-dating or dating stage, I think what you're saying is much more important. I would probably not date a charedi or a militant republican, for example. If we have different values, I might see little point in pursuing it further, or in expending more resources when there are other fish in the sea.
However, after you get married, raise a family, etc. the theological beliefs you share should probably diminish in importance in how integral they are to the marriage. What we've done after marriage should be much more important. We've shared a life together, raised children, laughed, cried, argued, etc. Our original points of commonality, while they may have been important at the early stages of our courtship, should be somewhat supplanted. I'm not saying the whole relationship will change, but I'm sure most people say their marriage five or ten years down the road is fundamentally different than the relationship they envisioned on day one of sheva brachos, or the second date. And that's a good thing! It's probably a richer, much more substantial relationship.
I think if a spouse has changed his or her theological beliefs after marriage but remains committed to performing all the mitzvos and raising his children in orthodoxy, I would be very skeptical of the utility of breaking up a marriage.
I think in most cases, divorce does not occur. But I have no way of knowing this. The Aharon Gutberg marriage from Ami seems to have been in trouble before all this came out, for what it's worth.
Additionally, my understanding is that many of the famous J-blogge kofrim are still married, and honest with their spouses, but I may be wrong.
Ezzie, you're just proving my point here. First you say that there are honest, intellectual answers, but ultimately you just accuse OTDers of not being knowledgeable enough, making excuses for why none of these honest, intellectual answers ever show up on the internet (or anywhere else), and you even admit that at some point it comes down to faith. QED.
ReplyDeleteI mean that's fine for what it is, just admit it from the start. There are no good answers for normal people, but if you have faith you can believe. I think all OTDers can agree with that -- we're just more interested in what seems true than in having faith.
Muslims and Mormons have faith, too. And you can't know they're wrong, because you haven't devoted your life to studying the Quran or Book of Mormon!
This is true, but did they have the end result in mind before they conducted their inquiry?
ReplyDeleteUnknown, though another fair point. At the same time, while I understand it, I don't think it's fair to assume that critical thinking can't be done even by people with inherent biases, though of course it generally has an impact.
I'm not necessarily referring to the dominant style of learning which prevails in yeshivas today, as there are other kinds of traditional learning. But what they all share in common is that scholastic style, where stepping outside the box is not a factor.
Got it.
Why is it surprising? First of all, no two are alike. What one person finds totally stimulating another will not.
Of course, but I believe that I'm more "typical" for lack of a better term.
Secondly, dare I suggest that you are too acculturated to find complete intellectual satisfaction within the tent of traditional Torah alone? You don't have to tell me yes or no, but think about it.
Again, perhaps, but friends with extremely similar if not more acculturated backgrounds do. Plus, I'd say no with regards to myself at least growing up, though now may be a different story.
If I am right then why is it suprising? Of course you had trouble with questions and so forth. Your way of thinking was shaped by other influences apart from Gemara, Gemara, Gemara.
See above. I think most of my own thinking was shaped by logic - I'm a big math/numbers guy, incredibly into structure and logical progressions.
Have a look at this post, where some shiutim by R. Reisman are summed up. He raises some excellent questions - but I am pretty sure that for him there's only one way of answering these questions: the usual - you find a chiluk, you quote two or three approaches among the acharonim, you make a diyuk, you tie it into a midrash.
Interesting point.
>Out of curiosity, do you think it's a common phenomenon or not really?
ReplyDeleteI think there are a lot more than commonly assumed. XGH estimates that upwards of 50% of MOs are OP. I don't know if this is true; all I can speak for is my community. A significant number of YU guys are OP. These are the hamon am.
It's probably much more common in MO communities for Rabbis to be OP; they have degrees, and at least the rudiments of a scientific education. Many of them have probably taken courses in philosophy and have been required to take Bible, where the DH is always discussed (in varying degrees of respect, to be sure). They also tend to be more educated in Jewish history, and aware that all sorts of beliefs we today consider heresies were once widely tolerated. They are also far more likely to have secular and agnostic friends, and even friends from other religions.
I think there are more people then anyone realizes who do not toe the party line of their particular group. Was this not revealed, apparently to most frum people's surprise, in the past 10 years or so with the rise of blogs and so forth? I'm sure it cuts across all sectors of Orthodox society. We already know that many rabbis refuse to go one record saying anything even slightly controversial. Because of this we'll probably never know that rabbis believe things that are *really* controversial - but how can there not be?
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure about that. I think there's a lot less care about toeing the line per se - i.e. my Charedi relatives, who are at least somewhat "up there" in the Charedi world, certainly don't fit any classical stereotype of Charedim. But I'm rather certain they have certain basic strong beliefs and I would be shocked if people around them didn't have the same ones.
I especially don't know that the blogs are much of a proof; I'd always assumed there was at least a decent amount, and I don't know that blogs are just a representative sample but rather an over-representative one, since anyone searching for similar people will find them rather quickly.
>Unknown, though another fair point. At the same time, while I understand it, I don't think it's fair to assume that critical thinking can't be done even by people with inherent biases, though of course it generally has an impact.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying it can't be done, but it isn't always done. And many of the chakira mindset absolutely do not conduct a real free inquiry (meaning that a basic outcome isn't already predetermined). Which is fine, but then these people aren't models for an examination of the faith or an assurance that qualified people have successfully done the examining for you.
>I especially don't know that the blogs are much of a proof; I'd always assumed there was at least a decent amount, and I don't know that blogs are just a representative sample but rather an over-representative one, since anyone searching for similar people will find them rather quickly.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a representative sample, but I was trying to say that I am pretty sure NO ONE within frum society expected that there is so much skepticism and cynicism about everything from Aleph to Tav that are just basic assumptions in Orthodoxy. True, we still have no numbers - but it's more than anyone realized, that I am certain of.
Of course it all gets into what is deviance and heresy. In some frum circles it is very normal and healthy and pious to be a Zionist. In others it's complete kefira. I think we have to talk about everyone by the standards of their own circle or sect.
By the way, you can often get a hint in what a rabbi who publishes may or may not think about controversial matters by what he admits to reading. If you think a yeshivish rabbi who reads academic Jewish studies remains totally uninfluenced by it, I think you are mistaken. And there's a certain type of rabbi who reads it and even flaunts it (often in a veiled sort of way) in their writings.
It might be helpful to put it this way. Before marriage, say in the pre-dating or dating stage, I think what you're saying is much more important. I would probably not date a charedi or a militant republican, for example. If we have different values, I might see little point in pursuing it further, or in expending more resources when there are other fish in the sea.
ReplyDeleteHowever, after you get married, raise a family, etc. the theological beliefs you share should probably diminish in importance in how integral they are to the marriage. What we've done after marriage should be much more important. We've shared a life together, raised children, laughed, cried, argued, etc. Our original points of commonality, while they may have been important at the early stages of our courtship, should be somewhat supplanted. I'm not saying the whole relationship will change, but I'm sure most people say their marriage five or ten years down the road is fundamentally different than the relationship they envisioned on day one of sheva brachos, or the second date. And that's a good thing! It's probably a richer, much more substantial relationship.
Agreed completely with these points.
I think if a spouse has changed his or her theological beliefs after marriage but remains committed to performing all the mitzvos and raising his children in orthodoxy, I would be very skeptical of the utility of breaking up a marriage.
I think in most cases, divorce does not occur. But I have no way of knowing this. The Aharon Gutberg marriage from Ami seems to have been in trouble before all this came out, for what it's worth.
Additionally, my understanding is that many of the famous J-blogge kofrim are still married, and honest with their spouses, but I may be wrong.
I don't know about the J-blogger kofrim, and obviously have no clue to what extent they really are; what they've been open/honest about; what stage of life they're in; etc. Obviously the later in life it is, and the stronger the marriage otherwise, the easier it would be to just 'go with it' at that point. I think the more difficult situation is pre-children for certain, or even when children are little. It could be very difficult for a spouse to really accept that, and a genuine (and IMO not unreasonable) concern would be that since the OP views Judaism as untrue, that it would impact their daily life - either openly as time goes on or in secret. (There was actually a horrible Ethics column in I believe The New Yorker with a similar situation about two years ago.)
Ezzie, you're just proving my point here. First you say that there are honest, intellectual answers, but ultimately you just accuse OTDers of not being knowledgeable enough, making excuses for why none of these honest, intellectual answers ever show up on the internet (or anywhere else), and you even admit that at some point it comes down to faith. QED.
ReplyDeleteI mean that's fine for what it is, just admit it from the start. There are no good answers for normal people, but if you have faith you can believe. I think all OTDers can agree with that -- we're just more interested in what seems true than in having faith.
No, you're misunderstanding me by associating what I write with standard answers from others.
Of course at some point we're going to come down to a question of faith - if God were truly provable, life would be a whole lot easier (or not). That doesn't mean that there aren't answers or discussions regarding much of whatever else is worth discussing.
I'm not "accusing" people who go OTD of not knowing enough, but certainly you can't claim to have a very strong knowledge of Torah any more than I could of anything I haven't learned or read.
And I would venture that there are people who would argue (reasonably) that much of what is questioned IS discussed in various seforim, responsa, etc. You can dismiss it as apologetics, but that doesn't mean you're correct.
I think there are a lot more than commonly assumed. XGH estimates that upwards of 50% of MOs are OP. I don't know if this is true; all I can speak for is my community. A significant number of YU guys are OP. These are the hamon am.
ReplyDeleteIt's probably much more common in MO communities for Rabbis to be OP; they have degrees, and at least the rudiments of a scientific education. Many of them have probably taken courses in philosophy and have been required to take Bible, where the DH is always discussed (in varying degrees of respect, to be sure). They also tend to be more educated in Jewish history, and aware that all sorts of beliefs we today consider heresies were once widely tolerated. They are also far more likely to have secular and agnostic friends, and even friends from other religions.
As surprised as most people are by this, I've never really been all that intertwined with the MO/YU worlds. Based on people I do know, I would be very surprised if it came close to 50%. I think many don't believe in or don't care much for a lot of what was passed on down, but at the end of the day they believe in God, Moshe, etc.
(Again curious what others - S., JA, whomever - think about this one.)
I'd be surprised to find more than a handful of OP rabbis as well, and agree it would be more likely in the MO world for the reasons you stated. That said, I would imagine they became OP later on; it would strike me as strange if not seriously dishonest if someone would pursue a Rabbinate position or similar knowing they don't believe, unless to cause trouble. Most of all, I would expect them to not be particularly interested at that age and in that world where there are less expectations in certain areas and greater acceptance of differing paths in life.
>It could be very difficult for a spouse to really accept that, and a genuine (and IMO not unreasonable) concern would be that since the OP views Judaism as untrue, that it would impact their daily life - either openly as time goes on or in secret.
ReplyDeleteFair enough, which ironically, provides all the more incentive to the fledgling OPer to keep it secret, at least for a few years. In fact, it might be better to keep it secret. If one reveals his OP-ish mindset, it opens all of his actions, both in the past and prospectively, to suspicion. Did he really get his suit checked for shatnez? Did he turn the bathroom light on/off on shabbos? Did he really do bitul chametz? And those are concrete actions. Imagine trying to determine if your spouse's new-found heresy is affecting his perceived level of enthusiasm in any real way. It could be a nightmare. I might suggest keeping it secret until both are too emotionally invested in the relationship to quit.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but it isn't always done. And many of the chakira mindset absolutely do not conduct a real free inquiry (meaning that a basic outcome isn't already predetermined). Which is fine, but then these people aren't models for an examination of the faith or an assurance that qualified people have successfully done the examining for you.
ReplyDeleteAgreed; however, there are certainly many people (at least in my experiences) who at least appear to be people who do true inquiries and not predetermined analysis, or at the very least approach it in a completely unbiased fashion even if they themselves may choose to believe regardless of the conclusion.
Of course at some point we're going to come down to a question of faith - if God were truly provable, life would be a whole lot easier (or not).
ReplyDeleteWe're not asking for anything close to provable. Even "reasonable" would do.
And I would venture that there are people who would argue (reasonably) that much of what is questioned IS discussed in various seforim, responsa, etc.
Well, it'd be easy to prove! Just show one! If you just suspect that there might be some good answers out there, then say you suspect that. Don't go around saying there are good answers when you can't even point to one.
You can dismiss it as apologetics, but that doesn't mean you're correct.
The kuzari proof seems like the most reasonable of the whole bunch and even that is clearly apologetic rationalization. Do you have a better argument?
So here's another point. You clearly aren't including yourself in that group of scholars who know enough to know the answers. That means you don't have them. That means that you believe despite not having the answers, even after you've read many of the questions and challenges. So you must be relying on pure faith. Why do you assume others aren't?
It's not a representative sample, but I was trying to say that I am pretty sure NO ONE within frum society expected that there is so much skepticism and cynicism about everything from Aleph to Tav that are just basic assumptions in Orthodoxy. True, we still have no numbers - but it's more than anyone realized, that I am certain of.
ReplyDeleteFair enough; I do think that the numbers won't be as high as some expect, either.
Of course it all gets into what is deviance and heresy. In some frum circles it is very normal and healthy and pious to be a Zionist. In others it's complete kefira. I think we have to talk about everyone by the standards of their own circle or sect.
True.
By the way, you can often get a hint in what a rabbi who publishes may or may not think about controversial matters by what he admits to reading. If you think a yeshivish rabbi who reads academic Jewish studies remains totally uninfluenced by it, I think you are mistaken. And there's a certain type of rabbi who reads it and even flaunts it (often in a veiled sort of way) in their writings.
Heh - very much agreed. It's part of why I don't believe the numbers are as large; I think we'd have a greater sense of it. But I don't read nearly as much as y'all, so I could be wrong.
>That said, I would imagine they became OP later on; it would strike me as strange if not seriously dishonest if someone would pursue a Rabbinate position or similar knowing they don't believe, unless to cause trouble. Most of all, I would expect them to not be particularly interested at that age and in that world where there are less expectations in certain areas and greater acceptance of differing paths in life.
ReplyDeleteNot sure. I think the seeds of kefirah could be planted early on, and they can germinate more fully down the road. I don't think someone hears the DH and then goes OTD from there. He may just find it very interesting (or very stupid), but as he goes through semicha and life, he will continue to interact with these issues, and eventually his belief can be eroded with time. If you have a background in law, shas and poskim can seem a lot less remarkable than they once did. Similarly, if you've learned Bible academically, some parshanut you hear can strike you as silly, and the more of that you hear, the more it irritates.
Fair enough, which ironically, provides all the more incentive to the fledgling OPer to keep it secret, at least for a few years. In fact, it might be better to keep it secret. If one reveals his OP-ish mindset, it opens all of his actions, both in the past and prospectively, to suspicion. Did he really get his suit checked for shatnez? Did he turn the bathroom light on/off on shabbos? Did he really do bitul chametz? And those are concrete actions. Imagine trying to determine if your spouse's new-found heresy is affecting his perceived level of enthusiasm in any real way. It could be a nightmare. I might suggest keeping it secret until both are too emotionally invested in the relationship to quit.
ReplyDeleteRight, which is dishonest. That's why I wrote in the original post that the most troubling part is the dishonesty aspect. An OP who is honest about their beliefs obviously may run into trouble with their marriage; but that means they may very easily choose to act selfishly in terms of keeping their marriage intact but live dishonestly. It's rough, obviously.
Again curious what others - S., JA, whomever - think about this one.)
ReplyDeleteI'd really just be guessing or extrapolated based on the people I know who are obviously an unrepresentative sample. I'd guess that 50% is way too high for YU and probably too high even for MO people in general. That's because most people don't bother thinking about these things. I do think that if you really press them, many will admit that they don't necessarily believe in this or that, including ikkarim, but they don't think of themselves as Orthoprax.
I suspect (without evidence) that the number of Orthoprax rabbis is higher than you might guess, though. These people are smart and educated and have enormous disincentives to "come out." They might even think it's good for the masses to believe even if it's not true.
I think S. has a good point about Rabbis who admit to reading X or Y. I'm thinking of one really brilliant (non-pulpit) rabbi I know from my old community who really really really teetered on the line of kefirah in public and kind of made a game of it. People used to joke about it. I'd bet serious money he's Orthoprax.
Ezzie, JA and S in one room. Always a great debate.
ReplyDeleteWoah. OK, I will come back to this later. I can't keep up with all the replies at once and still do other stuff here! :)
ReplyDeleteHH - Hehe.
>(Again curious what others - S., JA, whomever - think about this one.)
ReplyDeleteNot only do I have no way of estimating, I also don't know what we're talking about. Things that may be basic in certain segements, say, the sanctity and authenticity of the Zohar, are probably regularly doubted in the intellectual elite of MOx (the non-Centrist wing, because they only think about halacha). But that the Torah is really 3300 year old and written by Moshe? I don't know. I'm sure there are some who don't believe that in various ways (from flat out not believing it to some sort of vague non-answers) to those, probably most, who believe it pretty traditionally.
It all depends what you mean by "don't believe." Someone who considers himself very Maimonidean and slips into Deism may consider himself definitely a believer, whereas mainstream Orthodoxy could never consider that person a believer if they knew what they really believed. But why would such a person not be able to be a rabbi?
>Agreed; however, there are certainly many people (at least in my experiences) who at least appear to be people who do true inquiries and not predetermined analysis, or at the very least approach it in a completely unbiased fashion even if they themselves may choose to believe regardless of the conclusion.
Like whom? Don't forget the strong emotional attachment to many cherished beliefs. It is a profound thing to be sung "Torah tziva lanu" to from the time you are a baby or a very small child. Or the fact that all or most of the intelligent adults and authority figures in your life believed. You may think you grew out of that as an adult, and can put that aside, but maybe not. There are certainly many people who *so* see the evidence for post-Mosaic authorship of the Torah, but since they can use their imagination very easily marginalize the other arguments. Fine, but that's not real chakira.
>Fair enough; I do think that the numbers won't be as high as some expect, either.
Maybe - I don't know what anyone expects. I certainly have no idea.
>Heh - very much agreed. It's part of why I don't believe the numbers are as large; I think we'd have a greater sense of it. But I don't read nearly as much as y'all, so I could be wrong.
I, on the other hand, see loads of it in Torah journals like Yeshurun. Everyone wants to flaunt how much maskilishe stuff they read (maybe because it shows how elite you think you are). You think it makes no rosham? I doubt it.
>There are certainly many people who *so* see the evidence
ReplyDeleteShould say "who *do* see the evidence"
>Right, which is dishonest. That's why I wrote in the original post that the most troubling part is the dishonesty aspect. An OP who is honest about their beliefs obviously may run into trouble with their marriage; but that means they may very easily choose to act selfishly in terms of keeping their marriage intact but live dishonestly. It's rough, obviously.
ReplyDeleteI still think every situation requires its own evaluation. Living a lie may not just benefit the OP, but also his family, who know don't have to (a) pretend he is not their child or sibling in an attempt not to ruin the shidduch prospects of other family members, even though it still will; (b) divorce him (perhaps needlessly), and explain publicly how she married a kofer (it will most certainly come out); (c) share custody of children with a person whom you believe to be untrustworthy scum (even though he could be a committed OPer).
In short, not everyone is fully mature about these issues, or has really thought about what their reactions would be.
As for Eli, yeah, that's rough. If only there was some secret OP shidduch service.
I would love to take 20 random Orthodox rabbis who specialize in "Bible study," hook them up to a polygraph (or a brain scan that works better) and ask them if they really believe Moshe wrote Deuteronomy.
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw the title I thought it would be about so-called orthodox Jews who cheat, lie, or engage in illegal activities... Now there's an article waiting to be written.
ReplyDeleteWe're not asking for anything close to provable. Even "reasonable" would do.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that is quite true.
Well, it'd be easy to prove! Just show one! If you just suspect that there might be some good answers out there, then say you suspect that. Don't go around saying there are good answers when you can't even point to one.
The kuzari proof seems like the most reasonable of the whole bunch and even that is clearly apologetic rationalization. Do you have a better argument?
Me? Or in general?
So here's another point. You clearly aren't including yourself in that group of scholars who know enough to know the answers. That means you don't have them. That means that you believe despite not having the answers, even after you've read many of the questions and challenges. So you must be relying on pure faith. Why do you assume others aren't?
I've never claimed to be a scholar. I have and have read plenty of questions, but nothing that I find more compelling than the flip side. (Add'l point: I do not rely on faith alone or even heavily, though obviously at some point faith comes into play to an extent.) Plus, in general I find it more logical to believe in a God than not, and from what I do know of various religions (and I understand that assuming there has to be a religion is baseless from a zero point), Judaism holds more sway (and not IMO because I was born that way, though obviously I know it better). And within Judaism, I don't know that anyone would argue the idea that Orthodoxy is most compelling. Obviously this isn't a perfect set of arguments for a variety of reasons, but I'm oversimplifying since you asked. But honestly, I will not get into a discussion of this on my blog, period. It's not what the blog is here for, and why I have never to my recollection had a discussion of specific arguments. I have no interest in having such a discussion in a public forum.
JA and S. - Thanks for the replies re: estimates. Obviously it's hard to define and guesstimate, but I did mean the traditional basic core of God + Moshe/Torah about 3,300 years ago. It sounds like from what you are both willing to guess (which certainly S. at least is not guessing much), you'd say most people do believe in the traditional base but it's possible if not likely that there's a surprising amount of Rabbonim (at least in some circles) who do not. Interesting.
ReplyDeleteLike whom? Don't forget the strong emotional attachment to many cherished beliefs. It is a profound thing to be sung "Torah tziva lanu" to from the time you are a baby or a very small child. Or the fact that all or most of the intelligent adults and authority figures in your life believed. You may think you grew out of that as an adult, and can put that aside, but maybe not. There are certainly many people who *so* see the evidence for post-Mosaic authorship of the Torah, but since they can use their imagination very easily marginalize the other arguments. Fine, but that's not real chakira.
ReplyDeleteAgain, fair points. (I will not list names here for many reasons, most importantly that I doubt they'd wish to be.)
Obviously the big point there is that people who one respects who held a belief are going to be difficult to shake. One Rebbe I had (from a well-known family) essentially said as much when I asked him one question: "To be honest, I am not troubled by these questions; I believe because my father believed, and his father believed, and his father. At the end of the day it comes back to emunah anyway - if we could prove God there would be no such thing as free will - and that's what I have (emunah). I am not a person who spends time on these questions." I must admit that I respected his honesty.
I would love to take 20 random Orthodox rabbis who specialize in "Bible study," hook them up to a polygraph (or a brain scan that works better) and ask them if they really believe Moshe wrote Deuteronomy.
ReplyDeleteHeh.
When I saw the title I thought it would be about so-called orthodox Jews who cheat, lie, or engage in illegal activities... Now there's an article waiting to be written.
ReplyDeleteIn process!
Me? Or in general?
ReplyDeleteYou, in general, whatever. I just want to see all these intelligent, reasonable arguments that OJs keep saying are out there but can never manage to actually show.
I've never claimed to be a scholar. I have and have read plenty of questions, but nothing that I find more compelling than the flip side.
Can you say honestly that the propositions "Moshe wrote the chumash as dictated by God" and "the chumash was not finished until the time of the Temple" are equally compelling claims? Or that they would be to a (mythical) unbiased observer?
Plus, in general I find it more logical to believe in a God than not
That is much more reasonable than OJ in particular. I can accept that some unbiased people believe that.
and from what I do know of various religions (and I understand that assuming there has to be a religion is baseless from a zero point), Judaism holds more sway
That is much more debatable.
And within Judaism, I don't know that anyone would argue the idea that Orthodoxy is most compelling.
And THAT is ludicrous, depending on what you mean by "compelling". Some other denominations (Reform, Reconstructionist) don't require you to believe things which appear to be false.
But honestly, I will not get into a discussion of this on my blog, period.
Yeah, you won't, Gil Student won't, the Rational Rabbi won't, no OJ will at all unless he's a crazy person or a Discovery-type hack. I think that's very telling -- all of you seem to be some or all of the following:
1) Not confident that you can justify your beliefs.
2) Worried about social shunning if you say what you really believe.
3) Embarrassed at how hacky some of the rationalizations will sound. (E.g. getting into detail about how many Jews left Egypt, how the various anachronisms came to be in the chumash, etc.)
It's not what the blog is here for
That's fine and you're obviously under no obligation. My point is just that there is NOBODY willing to do it on record who is not obviously (even to an OJ like you) a hack (Discovery) or a crazy person (JP, Nate.)
Sorry to wade into the tail-end of this discussion, but I think that there is a category error in positing that each individual has 'a' view on this topic. I think this whole 'unified personality' thing is a bit of a myth. I know my beliefs are not coherent and may often change depending on my mood/who I'm talking to - it's not that I'm insane, it's just life is more complicated than that. When I'm hocking rebbe politics with the guy next to me at shalesheedes or going through the piskei teshuvos to be makayem every dikduk halocho I'm doing one thing; OTOH I can be in work with my gentile collegaues and basically affiliate with their materialist/humanistic outlook - it's not that one part of me is the true part and the other is in denial - rather that there is no ghost in the machine - I suspect this is the case for many of the semi-Orthoprax 'maaminim ve'einam maaminim' - there is no grand unifying theory - it just is what at is.
ReplyDeleteAnother issue to focus on is that with all the skepticism that has been revealed/encouraged by the internet, there's exponential population growth amongst hard-core Charedim who may or may not believe but certainly act like they do, and generally know little different, so will socialize their children into the same mehalech. In Europe there was a tidal wave of secularization which was changing everything pre WWII - how long will it take before this occurs in Williamsburg/Kiryas Tosh? My personal theory is that it is a function of welfare economics...