Dinosaurs | Imamother

amother

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 7:49 pm

I apologize if I misunderstood you, I thought you acknowledged the fact that for they were not "accepted opinions".

Do you really men to imply that a school of thought that contradicts the Rambam, Ramban, Rabbeinu Yonah, the Rashba, The Abarbenel,The Ramchal (author of Mesillas Yeshorim), Rav Yonason Eibushitz, The Chida, The Ben Ish Chai (the entirety of the Ben Ish Chai's work on Aggadita is directly contradicting the approach, The entirety of Chassidus, The Vilna Gaon, Rabbi Samson R. Hirsh, and the Chofetz Chaim was ever accepted in the chareidi camp?

Do you honestly truly not understand why an approach that has been roundly condemned explictly by all of the above Gedolei Yisroel. Who collectivley represent a good portion of the Leaders of the Jewish People from the time of the Rambam until WW2, virtually all of whom have explictly condemned in forceful terms central tenents of RJ.
I mentioned just four, here's places.
(Randomly)
Rambam-Aforementioned source in Perek Chelek.
Rabbeinu Yonah-well documented crusade against the approach of Moreh Nevuchim.
Rashba- Wrote severel Responsa describing his views and a commentary on Aggadita in opposition excerpts of which are available.
Ramchal-Detailed condemnation in Mamar Al haagdos.
Vilna Gaon- Well documented opposition, writes strongly against those who "fail to understand that the aggadita contains the Kabbalistic secrets of Chazal (Broght in Even Shelaima).
The Abarbenal-In Yeshuos Meshichio( see Torah, Chaza, And Science beginning page 128.
Chida- See entry on the Rambam in Shem HaGedolim.
RSRH-See Letter 18 of The Nineteen Letters.
Ben ISh Chai-See any couple of pages in Ben Yehoyada on Aggadita.

This is of course just a partial list you are free to look around for yourself and see the depth as well as uniformity crossing the many schools of thought in judaisim of the overwhelming opposition to much of the central tenenats of RJ through out the centuries.

I am realy truly sorry if you can't understand why we in the chareidi camp do not seee ourselves as worthy or capable of arguing with the entirety of our Mesorah. Nor can we change it to accomadate those who are unwilling to study alternatives to what they feel is truth.

amother

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 8:44 pm

yogabird wrote:

I would amend this to say that not everyone that is chareidi is necessarily limited in education.

Actually I would not amend it.

Chareidi education is designed to teach and transmit the Torah.

The only way one can understand Torah properly is from learning it from within Torah, by understanding it along the way the Torah itself says it is to be understood, that's the beauty of the synthesis of the Oral and Written Torah it's why one cannot be understood without the other.

It's actually a point made by Rabbi Samson R. Hirsh in his the begining of The Nineteen Letters and it's a point he makes repeatedly in Letter 18 when he discusses the Moreh Nevuchim.

So of course chareidi education defines the Torah on the Torah's terms, we teach the Torah on the Torah's terms. And we understand that the Torah was written, that is both the Oral and Written Torah in ways that the Torah itself has defined itself.

So from my point of view Chareidi education is eye opening. There are Judaic courses in Universities throughout the world, there are even "Orthodox"scholars who attempt to learn and teach Torah yet anyone who has come from "out of the Torah" has always missed the fundementals of Torah.

Be it the school of Biblical Criticism which is replete with basic "elementary school" errors because of their inability to understand the Torah due to a lack of knowledge of Oral Torah.

Be it the school of Rational Judaisim who are unable to understand a great portion of Talmud, virtually the entirety of Medrash, and a great portion of the esoteric meanings of the Torah due to their insistince of applying "outside rules" and "outside methedologies" to the Torah instead of attempting to find the meaning of the Torah from within the Torah.

Be it science which again cannot comprehend certain basic mysteries of the universe because once again they insist on applying outside rules to the Torah.

Case in point being the arguement that HKB"H created the world "old" so to speak. Whether or not it ansewers all questions is beside the point
.
The basic fact is actually an explicit Gemorah, and the understanding of it along with all the tests that come along with it raise fundemental theological questions.

If G-d would test us that way is one that requires a knowledge of Why did God create the world?
Why did God create humankind?

How do human beings fulfill their purpose in this world?

All of these are fundemtal theological questions that can only be ansewered by a deep knowledge of Torah, not by science.

So again and again it is only true Torah centered education that has succeaded in transmitting the Torah from generation to generation that has always been true and will always be true.

I personally am aware of someone who recieved a degree in studying the history of a foreign culture, the person related to me that at one point of their studies the professor told her. "if you want to go further you will have to learn this culture's language, if not you will never quite understand the culture you are studying".

To learn the Torah, to know the Torah, You must know the "language of the Torah. To know Chazal, You must know the language of Chazal. The ponly way that one can possibly understand the language of Torah, of Chazal is by learning Chazal on their own terms from within Chazal.

That is the point Torah Centered education and by all accounts it is a job, a mission, that we "B"h have had remarkable successs at.

yogabird

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 8:47 pm

I know the discussion has progressed from this, and now I don't really feel sophisticated enough to contribute in any meaningful way, but I still wanted to respond to this.

BlueRose52 wrote:

As I've been chopping my carrots, I've been thinking about this further.

Imagine a scenario of a couple who have been together for 50 years. They've been absolutely devoted to each other, committed in every way. One day someone comes to the man and says, "I hate to break it to you, but I have proof that your wife hasn't been faithful to you."
"Impossible!" says the man. "My wife and I love each other and she would never do such a thing."
"But I have photographic evidence!" says the fellow.
"I don't care about your photos!" he replies. "I know my wife. I know with absolute certainty that she would never be unfaithful! I know it with every fiber of my being!"
"But there are people who can testify to it!"
"It doesn't matter," says the man. "I know you're wrong, and there must be some explanation. I trust my wife implicitly and there's no way in the world she would do that. Your 'evidence' doesn't mean anything compared to a half-century of devotion which we've shared."

Let's think about this case. Is the man being logical here? Well, I think that on the one hand, one might say he isn't, since he seems to be in denial of the facts. But on the other hand, one might say that he's being very sensible, because his personal experience leads him to conclude that such an act is impossible. Is it logical to dismiss one's personal experiences and a lifetime of commitment?

I find it totally understandable when one's strong feelings of trust outweighs any external "evidence", but I don't think that deciding in that way can actually be considered acting intellectually honest. Intellectual honesty is by its very nature characterized by an unbiased attitude where one's personal beliefs do not come into play. Now, to be clear: this doesn't mean that the conclusions drawn based on what seems to be intellectual honesty is always going to be correct and true. Maybe those photos were doctored, and the witnesses were liars, and all the evidence was indeed fabricated. But to just reject the evidence based on the feelings he had - even if he was right - would not be acting in an intellectually honest manner.

Using this analogy, I can understand, and respect, that based on their immense trust in the literal truth of the torah, it makes sense to many people to place greater weight on what the torah seems to say about nature and reality than about what scientific investigations lead one to conclude, but it seems clear to me that that decision is not one that could be considered intellectually honest. Such a decision is being made based on personal beliefs and trust, which are fine - and may well even be more right! - but they go against the very definition of intellectual honesty, which is a decision-making process devoid of bias or personal beliefs.

I don't know if my belief in Torah as the basis of all reality (thus making any reality that contradicts statements made by the Torah a physical impossibility) and my belief in the idea that the Torah can not be divorced from its literal meaning (thus making any explanations that categorically deny a literal interpretation impossible to accept) are matters of knowledge or faith.

I suppose I trust in those that make these claims because they experience and sense this reality in the same way we experience physical reality is somewhat akin to the trust you have in the statements made by scientists that they have actually experienced what they are recording, and doing so accurately (IOW, I don't think you feel the need to replicate every study you read in your own lab-so there's a strong element of trust there...)

Regarding your analogy, here's what I see differently. I don't think any of the explanations scientists are offering specifically in the areas of age of the universe and evolution of species* are at all comparable to photographic or eyewitness evidence of "infidelity". I think it's more like someone (maybe with a prior agenda?) saying to the wife, "I think I saw your husband talking to some possibly young, possibly good-looking women on some corner in a seedy part of town. I couldn't really tell. It was dark and rainy."

And I was really baffled by the statement regarding faith based decisions not being intellectually honest, even if they are more likely to lead one to the truth. If intellectual honesty does not necessarily lead you to the truth, why is it intellectual, and why is it honest?!

*I've made this point before, but it seems to have been overlooked. I think science is awesome when they are actually doing what they profess to do; namely, measuring readily available phenomena. Fossils are a fact, and background radiation is a fact, but how long these fossils have been around and what exactly the radiation means is up for speculation. Of course, the speculations of scientists are extremely sophisticated, and their theories are not guesses by a long shot, but they are nowhere near fact.

bamamama

Mon, Jan 20 2014, 1:56 am

amother wrote:

Be it the school of Biblical Criticism which is replete with basic "elementary school" errors because of their inability to understand the Torah due to a lack of knowledge of Oral Torah.

I know I said I was done but you are like a train wreck, amother (or should I say, afather? I suspect you are the DH of a well-known imamother and that's why you are posting as amother). But whatever.

The quote above? You cannot conduct an intellectually honest argument by disparaging the learning of your (perceived) opponents.

And I have one last thing to say about MO and rationalism. Obviously you have dismissed them. You can close up your tent walls and claim that MO/rationalists aren't true Orthodox Jews all you want but you are not the arbiter. Your rabonim are not the arbiters of who is or isn't an Orthodox Jew. But keep arguing in circles. Certainly if you shout it loud enough and long enough, the rest of us will give up arguing with you and you will claim victory. I've put it on my list to warn my kids about people like you. Thanks for keeping it fresh in my memory.

amother

Mon, Jan 20 2014, 2:21 am

Look Bm

I am really sorry that I seem to have upset you. I really don't want to. I'm used to having debates based on ideas and based on facts. In a way analysis is part of what I do for a living.

One of the first things any person who studies Jewish thought is taught is the basic meanings of the different names of Hashem it's in Gemorah, throughout Medrash, and a basic premise in understanding various parts of Tanach.

So I'm sorry I don't really know how one can spin a philospophy that uses the fact that there different names used for Hashem as a basic part of the "proofs" of their theories as anything other than an elementary school mistake.

If you have another way of explaining it, Please feel free.

bamamama

Mon, Jan 20 2014, 2:29 am

amother wrote:

The difference is that you accept the Oral Torah as divine. To Bible Critics, the Oral Law is merely the first attempt at interpretation. So to say they aren't familiar with it is ridiculous. See?

You don't like their premise or their conclusions, but don't accuse them of stupidity or naivete.

And, ETA: you totally meant to offend. Your relentless potshots at Rabbi Slifkin and other rationalists are offensive.

amother

Mon, Jan 20 2014, 3:21 am

In regards to rational judaisim

(and I refuse to equate MO with RJ for numerous reason not the least of which is that MO regards Rabbi Joseph Solovetchik as one of their founding Rabbis and by any definition of his written lectures he was far from the tenents of RJ and Rabbi Mieselmann who is his nephew and was a longtime study partner of Rabbi Solovetchik actually uses his views to argue against RJ).

You are most certainly, most definitley, 100% right that I have no right to define what is and what is not Judaisim.
And I would not have the audacity to even imply that I do.

In fact, I would even agree with you that my Rabbis have no right to define what is and what is not Judaisim.

After all they are men here today, gone tomorrow.

I would argue that the one and only source for what is and what is not Judaisim is the Torah, the only source that can define what is and what is not Judaisim is the Torah.

And it is how we interpet the Torah, how we understand the Torah, that decide's what is and what is not Judaisim.

Now the question, and it's a good one, is who get's to interpet the Torah?

Who gets to define what the Torah say's?

And since it's a fundemental belief in Judaisim that there are two components to the Torah, the Written and Oral parts, the question is who get's to define both of them?

I'll admit that the Gemorah and Midrashim themselves are at times cryptic, and hard to understand, it's an undeniable fact so we can't ansewer the question by saying the Gemorah. In reality the real question is what in fact does the Talmud and Medrash mean with their cryptic writing, their hundreds of parables and examples and sometimes seemingly random statements?

Who get's to define those?
Who gets to tell us the right approach and the right methadologies as to how to understand the Talmud?

Is it the Rambam? The great author of the Mishna Torah on whose grave it was written from Moshe to Moshe none have risen like Moshe?

Is it the pious Rabbeinu Yonah whose classical work on Teshuvah and ethical conduct is still studied in yeshivos throughout the world each Elul?

Is it the Ramban? One of the primary commentaries on both Talmud and Chumash as well as leader of the Jews in his time.

Perhaps it's the famous Rashbah?

Or if we move on down the line perhaps it's the equally famous mystic the Maharal whose brilliance was admired by both Jews and non-Jews and whose works on Jewish thought are basic additions to Jewish libraries.

If not him perhaps it's the Abarbenal, the famous finacier who was offeredthe choice by the King of Spain to stay behind in his country even when the Jews were exiled, and yet he chose to join his people and leave behind the life of wealth that was his.

Or perhaps it's the legendary Arizal or Rav Yosef Karo author of the Shulchan Aruch. If not perhaps the famous Ramchal author Mesillas Yeshorim the basic text of Jewish Ethics and Derech Hashem the brilliant litte book explaining the fundementals of Jewish Thought.

If not him perhaps it's Rav Yonason Eibushitz another giant who authored countless Books of Jewish Law and and thought (Yaros Devash) who was renowned for both his pity and wisdom?

Or if not perhaps it's the legendary Maharshal, author of the Yam Shel Shlomo who is qouted with obvious respect by his contemporaries? And a man whose pity was so great that he actually arranged for another Rav to visit him and rebuke him over anything he saw him doing wrong since he was afraid no one else would.

If not hime then perhaps it's the Vilna Gaon and his student Rav Chaim Volozhiner everyone knows of their greatness and that the entire Yeshiva World claims them as their spiritual fathers.

If you are chassidic perhaps it's the Tanya the great Rav Shlomo Zalman of Liadi?

Or if not perhaps it's the legendary Rabbi Samson R. Hirsh who left one of the most prestigous Rabbinical posts in Germany to be Rabbi of a small group of people and defied the tide of Reform and the Conservatives (then caled the Historical School of Judaisim). A man who refused to bow to what was popular, who stood up to ridicule and slowly turned the tide rescuing Orthodox Judaisim in Germany.

Or if one is Sefardic perhaps the Chidah the genius who was capable of authoring the Shem HaGedolim in 40 days while in quarintine working from memory.

If not them perhaps it's the Ben Ish Chai the legendary giant of Baghdad or perhaps the Chofetz Chaim who I am sure we all know about.

You see, BM.

I don't have the audacity to claim that I can interpet the Torah.
I do not have the gall to claim I can tell someone what is right and what is wrong.
I do not have the temerity to suggest I can explain how one should learn the words of the Sages.

But don't these giants, Jewish scholars who we do not just say knew the entirty of Torah. They wrote commentary on it, they taught it. They left behind for us most of the books that grace the shelves of any Jewish Library.

When our men sit and study Torah 10 hours a day. It is primarily their words the words of the Rambam, the Shulchan Aruch, The Maharshal, the Vilna Gaon, Tanya, The Mishna Berurah of the Chofetz Chaim, The Ben Yehoyada of the Ben Ish Chai, the Mesillas Yeshorim of the Ramchal, the countless works of the Ramban and Rashbah that they learn.

It is their words that are studied, and when books are written by modern day scholars they almost always are focused on an attempt to understand these great mens words.

You see by no means is this list complete, but it does represent a great deal of the most famous Jewish Scholars in history. Not small Rabbis in thier time, rather the leaders of the Jewish people, those who until today are respectivley considered either the greatest or close to the greatest of their times.

And each and every single one of those that I have mentioned have written forcefully and clearly that the basic premises of Rational Judaisim are 100% wrong and have no place in a Jewish home.

So when someone goes against 1000 years of tradition, when someone who is not even considered a leading scholar in his own time, let alone previous generations seems to feel the write to express that al these scholars were wrong, they all did not understand.

Until Rabbi Natan Slifkin came along and attempted to find some obscure source's for his opinions.
Mainstream Jewish thought was wrong. The greatest men of Jewish Scholarship all did'nt understand the works they poured their very lives into understanding.

See, the Baalei Tosfas, to whom Torah was so precious that when they were about to be slaughtered by the crusades used their last moments of life to puncture their hands and write their commentary on the Torah with their own Blood, a commentary that somehow survived the massacre and is studied by any yeshivah student who learns that page of Talmud in Bava Kamma.

But they all got it wrong.

Rabbi Natan Slifkin has a keener, better understanding of the Sages then them.

At what point does such a person become a fool? (as the Rambam writes)

The question really is who understood the Talmud better.

The aforementioned Giants of Jewish Scholarship or Rabbi Natan Slifkin.

And if you feel it's Rabbi Natan Slifkin, I am sorry.

amother

Mon, Jan 20 2014, 3:30 am

bamamama wrote:

Actually the early advocates of Biblical Criticism were most assuredly un-aware of the Talmud as it was not avaiable in their language, I am not aware of whether or not the present day followers are aware of it.
I would assume not when one grapples with fundemental questions and attempts to use them as "proof" against a certain position when that position has raised those questions thousand years before you and explained them.

Thats not very intelligent is it?

Sort of like the time a missionary showed up at my door and asked my DH a question on Judaisim which happened to have been addressed by the Ramban in his debate with Pablo Cristiani around a thousand years ago.

The debbate ended with the Ramban winning hands down.

So my DH asked the missionary "Come on in a thousnd years you have'nt come up with anything better"?

And I may have intended to offend the school of RJ but I really have no desire to offend you personally.

bamamama

Mon, Jan 20 2014, 3:47 am

amother wrote:

Modern bible critics are most certainly aware of the Talmud. James Kugel, certainly is. And thanks for your lengthy treatise on "let Jews define Judaism."

Oh and high five on your smugness over the scenario with the missionary. It's really irritating when someone is so convinced of the truth that they just *know* they are right and you are wrong.

saw50st8

Mon, Jan 20 2014, 5:34 am

amother wrote:

Baruch Spinoza was a Jew. He most certainly was familiar with the Talmud.

Last edited by saw50st8 on Mon, Jan 20 2014, 5:39 am; edited 1 time in total

saw50st8

Mon, Jan 20 2014, 5:38 am

amother wrote:

Actually I would not amend it.

Chareidi education is designed to teach and transmit the Torah.

By definition, that is limited. Which is fine - its one way to teach the Torah. But it still is by its own definition, limited to just Torah.

PinkFridge

Mon, Jan 20 2014, 8:00 am

Well, OP, any conclusions?
And if I have time for a spinoff, I'd love to pursue the MO-RJ nexus.

amother

Mon, Jan 20 2014, 8:28 am

Spinoza is not exactly considered a "Bible Critic" while he unforunatley did engage in some of it.
Though I would think that would precisely prove my point.

Much of the basis of Bible Criticism is basically diproven by simply reading the Talmud, Hence the reason why so few serious Talmudical scholars have dedicated time and energy to writing formal refutations.
They would go something along the lines of
Observation:If you don't believe in the Oral Torah you have serious issues.
Rabbir:Yup, that's what we told the Karaites,

saw50st8

Mon, Jan 20 2014, 8:45 am

amother wrote:

Spinoza was an early bible critic. He was one of the first to call out problems and inconsisitencies.

Biblical Criticism isn't disproven by the Talmud. If you believe in the Talmud, then you believe its version. If you question if the Talmud is biblically inspired, then you can look at Torah differently. Even if you end up at the same conclusion.

I think that last "quip" is really eye rolling.

amother

Mon, Jan 20 2014, 9:28 am

Actually Spinoza was'nt one of the first at all.

The Talmud was the first to call out problems and inconsistencies. In fact the Talmud is based on these problems they are asked and explained.
The different names of God are explained. The Talmud makes a practice of pointing out how words are speled differently in different places and we are taught the halachos that are aluded to each time.

How to learn them is actually codified in the famous thirteen hermenteutical principles.

However Spinoza was from the first to pretend he had found something new.

saw50st8

Mon, Jan 20 2014, 10:22 am

Amother, I never said he was the first. You seem to like playing around with semantics.Baruch Spinoza was a Bible Critic. He was part of the first wave of what is generally refered to as biblical criticism relating to the last few hundred years. Feel free to spin it around.

Of course the Talmud discusses inconsistencies. But the way the talmud concludes is within the bounds of the Torah only, not looking at it from an outside perspective.

BlueRose52

Mon, Jan 20 2014, 11:00 am

amother wrote:

Chareidi education is in no way limited.

amother wrote:

Chareidi education is designed to teach and transmit the Torah. Chareidi education is based on the knowledge that all truths are contained in the Torah, it is based on the knowledge that each line of Gemora has incredibly deep meaning, some open to us, some not open to us.

I'm really glad you wrote this because it saves me a lot of trouble. I've been very frustrated by the way you've repeatedly distorted and skewed the meaning of passages in rabbinic texts and the words of individuals, selectively quoted them, and misrepresented their views in various ways, but I just don't have the time, energy or inclination to demonstrate the many examples of this behavior.

But from the above excerpts, which are your very own words, anyone can see so clearly how you change words to mean what you want them to be!

Even if one believes that all truths are contained in the torah, no one - not the most devoted of chareidi adherents - actually believes that a chareidi education as you described it provides its students knowledge in science, math, literature, history, and all the many other areas of knowledge which a student in a non-chareidi school will be exposed to. They might believe that those things aren't necessary, but they wouldn't ever claim that one who doesn't have that education has the same knowledge or skills or opportunities as one who does.

There is simply no disputing this. And yet, somehow you are able to staunchly and blithely insist that this isn't in any way "limited". (The somehow is by simply redefining the word "limited" from its plain and obvious meaning.) And you even further accuse someone who makes this simple factual observation, based on their own experience, as "attacking" or deriding it as "backwards".

I don't think any further demonstration is needed of your propensity towards misrepresentation.

Last edited by BlueRose52 on Mon, Jan 20 2014, 11:13 am; edited 1 time in total

bamamama

Mon, Jan 20 2014, 11:11 am

But that's the only way afather (I really think he's a man) knows how to argue - distorting your words to confuse the issue so you have to spend time correcting him. That and repeatedly suggesting that bible critics are stupid because clearly they haven't studied Talmid or they would be Believers. Seriously. His posts are more and more repetition of his circular thinking wih extra strawmen and ad hominems as time the discussion continues.

Yael

Mon, Jan 20 2014, 12:40 pm

Temporarily locked while I catch up and review this thread and decide whether the discussion has reached its end.

*seems like the discussion reached its end a long time ago and has been spiraling way off topic for some time.

Yael

Tue, Jan 21 2014, 1:22 pm

message from ascsam

Quote:

If I could add one thing to the dinosaurs thread it would be this:

One or two people referred to afather, insinuating that the amother who is posting is a man.

It's an attempt to try to put learned (& frum) women in their place. Turning learning or actually knowing stuff into a "male" thing. It's like the Barbie that said "Math is hard."

It's not cool. I was going to call them on it, before you locked the thread.