Monday, June 25, 2012
Monday, June 8, 2009
Intellectual honesty or dishonesty?
During my time in Yeshiva I was consistently encouraged to think critically about Torah. I was told that we should never accept things at face value and to always challenge assumptions. This is something that is usually practiced within the walls of the Beit HaMedrash- argument after argument resound. Abuse is hurled at each other as diligent students trying to impress their study partners as to the correctness of their own reading and elaboration of the text.
There were never simple answers to a kasha on Rashi. The Rambam could always be rationalised, often with the help of Reb Chaim , Rav Isser Zalman or Rav Meir Simcha. In fact so important was this approach that numerous works have been authored in order to m’taretz these kashas. We are determined, that such giants among the Rishonim, as well as ahcaronim, could not have made a mistake, misread the gemara or even chas v’shalom haven got the whole idea wrong.
This I feel is the correct way of textual analysis. Looking at the text in a one-dimensional manner is not only immature and superficial, it is intellectually dishonest.
When I read a piece of Rambam, I must ask myself: “Surely the Rambam thought of this question, how would he have answered it?” Even though I may never in fact find the definitive answer to my question, never the less I owe it to the great man that he would be able to debunk my kasha (‘Refutation’).
Modern academics often write in such a manner when dealing with issues relating to Jewish law. They ‘disprove’ entire thesis of Rabbinic literature because of difficulties that they find in the texts. Marginalised opinions are considered the mainstream and extreme views are presented as conventional- this is obviously necessary in order to promote their own dissertations and theories. Unfortunately because many of the readers are also ignorant of the subject matter; opinion is taken for fact and the Rambam’s old archaic view of reality is thrown onto the tip of ancient superstitious folk-lore. These books often are ‘best-sellers’. This is not surprising, because they allow the layman to feel comfortable in his state of laity, not needing to question his own beliefs or values.
Rabbinic literature of late has suffered the same fate as its academic opponents. Darwinism is viewed in a light of condescension that only the actual ape from which we evolved could possibly buy into. Their refutations arise from inconsistent fossil records, evolutionary jumps and disputes amongst academics. It is possible, even probable, that many of the authors of such well worked critiques have never even read Darwin.
The world of science is not the only world that feels the brunt of attack from these one-dimensional critics. Questions relating to Talmudic and even Biblical accuracy or inaccuracy are brushed-off with little fuss. The authors of such theories are labelled apostates and heretics and therefore their opinions need not be taken seriously.
So in a nutshell we find ourselves in an era that lacks intellectual honesty, critical self-analysis and therefore a generation that lacks the search for truth. People on the right accuse the left of heresy, those on the left accuse the right of fanatical close-mindedness due to an outdated, and obviously wrong, belief system.
The unfortunate consequence of these two positions is lack of tolerance. The wise man is lauded for his ability to learn from everyone- not necessarily to buy into his life-style or belief system. Until we are prepared to listen and seek to understand before we refute and critique- the era of intellectual dishonesty, and its fruit of intolerance and extremist opinions, will flourish and continue.
There were never simple answers to a kasha on Rashi. The Rambam could always be rationalised, often with the help of Reb Chaim , Rav Isser Zalman or Rav Meir Simcha. In fact so important was this approach that numerous works have been authored in order to m’taretz these kashas. We are determined, that such giants among the Rishonim, as well as ahcaronim, could not have made a mistake, misread the gemara or even chas v’shalom haven got the whole idea wrong.
This I feel is the correct way of textual analysis. Looking at the text in a one-dimensional manner is not only immature and superficial, it is intellectually dishonest.
When I read a piece of Rambam, I must ask myself: “Surely the Rambam thought of this question, how would he have answered it?” Even though I may never in fact find the definitive answer to my question, never the less I owe it to the great man that he would be able to debunk my kasha (‘Refutation’).
Modern academics often write in such a manner when dealing with issues relating to Jewish law. They ‘disprove’ entire thesis of Rabbinic literature because of difficulties that they find in the texts. Marginalised opinions are considered the mainstream and extreme views are presented as conventional- this is obviously necessary in order to promote their own dissertations and theories. Unfortunately because many of the readers are also ignorant of the subject matter; opinion is taken for fact and the Rambam’s old archaic view of reality is thrown onto the tip of ancient superstitious folk-lore. These books often are ‘best-sellers’. This is not surprising, because they allow the layman to feel comfortable in his state of laity, not needing to question his own beliefs or values.
Rabbinic literature of late has suffered the same fate as its academic opponents. Darwinism is viewed in a light of condescension that only the actual ape from which we evolved could possibly buy into. Their refutations arise from inconsistent fossil records, evolutionary jumps and disputes amongst academics. It is possible, even probable, that many of the authors of such well worked critiques have never even read Darwin.
The world of science is not the only world that feels the brunt of attack from these one-dimensional critics. Questions relating to Talmudic and even Biblical accuracy or inaccuracy are brushed-off with little fuss. The authors of such theories are labelled apostates and heretics and therefore their opinions need not be taken seriously.
So in a nutshell we find ourselves in an era that lacks intellectual honesty, critical self-analysis and therefore a generation that lacks the search for truth. People on the right accuse the left of heresy, those on the left accuse the right of fanatical close-mindedness due to an outdated, and obviously wrong, belief system.
The unfortunate consequence of these two positions is lack of tolerance. The wise man is lauded for his ability to learn from everyone- not necessarily to buy into his life-style or belief system. Until we are prepared to listen and seek to understand before we refute and critique- the era of intellectual dishonesty, and its fruit of intolerance and extremist opinions, will flourish and continue.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Keeping up with the Cohens or not?
It is always a challenge being in such a close-knit community where everyone knows everybody's business. It is hard to maintain on the one hand individuality and yet on the other hand tryong to conform to societal norms. Either extreme poses its own problems; those who claim that they could care less about what others think are either lying or allowing themselves the opportunity to behave in an unconscionable manner without remorse. Those who are complete conformers usually spend their time complaining about how much they hate conformity- these people are called FOMOs- for those less enlightened "Fear of missing out".
Like many things in life, there needs to be balance. We need to maintain our attachment to the community, participating in communal initiatives and sharing communal celebrations and calamaties, but we also need to be able to separate ourselves at certain times when communal behave is inappropriate- as the Mishna in Pirkei Avot teaches "Where there are no men, try to be a man."
This weeks portion Naso, tells of various princely offerings that were made during the dedication of the Mishkan. Everyone of the 12 Princes brought the identicle offering, yet the Torah goes out of its way to iterate everyone of the twelve in detail. Our Rabbis tell us that this shows the greatness of the entire episode. On the first day the first prince brings his offering. On the second day the prince stopped and asked himself- If I bring less than the first prince then it would look improper. If I bring more, then I will be starting a viscious cycle of one-upmanship that will continue for the next 10 days. By the time the last prince has to bring his offering he will have to take out a mortgage. So instead the prince brought the identicle offering to his predeccessor. This is the greatness of the episode- the ability to look in the future and see what the ramifications of one's actions now would be in the future and the senstivity to others.
We can well take a lesson from this incident- sometimes comformity is necessary and sometimes it is even a mitzvah- the goal is really in the motivation.
Shabbat Shalom
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
