28 August 2006

Kefira on JM in the AM? - Updated.

I noticed on Hirhurim that R' N. Slifkin was appearing on the popular JM in the AM show.
I'm surprised more was not made of this. Maybe everyone's on vacation.

JM in the AM has a very wide range of listeners, including chasidim
and Yeshivish and little children. I wonder what was going thru these
peoples minds when they heard about Evolution and Ancient Earth being discussed in so an open fashion.

If he planned it, Nachum Siegel was brilliant in his approach.
In the beginning he started simply with the Animal aspect and slowly
discussed the science and ban.

Anyhow, the way I see it this stuff is inoculation to JO. By putting
it on the table in a casual manner, I think it prevents people from
considering it to antithetical to OJ, unless of course they dig deeper.
The banners did themselves a huge dis-service.


One surprise was when Slifkin said the best way to approach Bereishis and Shemos is allegorical. You might as well just called it Moses's Fables

********************************************************************************
* Correction.
********************************************************************************


I must retract something. On re-listening, I only heard him refer to Shashes Yemei B'reishis as being Metaphorical and Allegorical. He did not refer to Bereishis and Shemos that way. He did suggest that the Miracles in Shemos were natural events pre-scheduled by God. This was backed up by references to Rishonim .


********************************************************************************
* Updated
********************************************************************************




A separate point of interest, is that they had no call in segment
with him.

Anyhow, hats off to Nachum and the Jewish Press for broaching these topics.

BTW, Where is everyone? The blogs are extremely quiet, unless the party just moved somewhere and no-one invited me. I hope everyone's enjoying their vacation, while I'm stuck blogging, oops I mean working.

  • ===> Use Haloscan: |
  • Do NOT enter new comments here 69 comments Do NOT use. links to this post

    69 Comments:

    At August 28, 2006 2:55 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    Interesting.

    However, from a purely technical definition, Shemote and Bereshit should be read allegorically. There is no point of the stories other than to learn things about how to behave as a human. The problem becomes, if you don't think its real, then why use these stories to learn from, instead of aesoph's fables?

    However, since most people never really ask that question in the first place, its really not a problem.

    But I am quickly discovering that most people don't see things like this the way I do.

     
    At August 28, 2006 3:24 PM, Blogger Avi said...

    However, since most people never really ask that question in the first place, its really not a problem.

    Most frum people never learned to ask questions. They accept the torah at face value. Also dont forget that to many of us on the blogs this is already " Old hat" Dont forget that we read the " gadol Hador" after that nothing schocks us.

     
    At August 28, 2006 3:59 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    IC, I'm not so much shocked at what he says but the forum. All of these "rationalizations" don't sit well with Chariedim, UOJ and Chasidim. I think JM in the AM listenership includes these segments of Frumkeit.

     
    At August 28, 2006 4:00 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    Avi,
    > Also dont forget that to many of us on the blogs this is already " Old hat" Dont forget that we read the " gadol Hador" after that nothing schocks us.

    yes, but many called him a koifer for that.

     
    At August 28, 2006 6:37 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    >All of these "rationalizations" don't sit well with Chariedim, UOJ and Chasidim. I think JM in the AM listenership includes these segments of Frumkeit.

    People keep saying that, but I keep not believing it.

    I have these sorts of discussions with people in my community all the time, and the stories I hear, don't quite fit the picture I get from these blogs about "those charedim"

     
    At August 28, 2006 6:37 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    However, I have met such people at blockbuster who ask me bizzare questions from the fundementalist christian side of things, and I just don't see the comparison.

     
    At August 28, 2006 8:20 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    > People keep saying that, but I keep not believing it.

    Well, that's how I grew up. and I wasn't even full chareidi. Ask Lakewood Yid.

     
    At August 28, 2006 8:49 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    If I were to ask your average charedi the following:

    What is more important, to know the name of Avraham's Father, or to know that Avraham's father was an idol worshiper?

    From what you are saying, I should expect them to answer that it is more important to know the name of Avraham's father?

    Because from my experience, I would think that it is more importan to know that his father was an idol worshiper.

     
    At August 28, 2006 9:06 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    Irviner, Irrelevant. Rashi's rule is that Ain Mikro Yotsa Miday Peshutu. A posuk's plain translation is the truth. Both, Avrohom's father's name and actions are in the Torah. But to say that each animal was not created independantly (as Evolution states) or that the Krias Yam Suf might have been a tsunami (as I heard this morning on JM) is heresy to the Chareidim, and to me too. I Emailed Lakewood Yid and asked him to comment here to see if I'm misrepresenting him.

     
    At August 28, 2006 9:39 PM, Blogger Moshe Kappoya said...

    BHB, IC,
    I can tell you without a doubt that to believe in Evolution is kefera in it's plainest form. To equate Shemote and Bereshit with Aesops fables cv"s is kefira as well.
    Every word in the holy Torah contains Hashem's infinite wisdom, and it is beyond man's ability to fully comprehend it.
    Please believe that all Torah true Jews agree on this.

    Avi,
    Most frum people never learned to ask questions.
    Perhaps this was true in previous generations, but today it is definetly not true. Most do ask, and find the answers. I hope that you will too.

     
    At August 28, 2006 9:57 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    MK,
    > I can tell you without a doubt that to believe in Evolution is kefera in it's plainest form.


    Well I agree that's the typical Chareidi take on things, but not necessarilly all. But think about it before you paint yourself into a corner. What if Evolution would suddenly be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. For example and I know this is an abusurd example. Let's say we suddenly find fish with hands that are born from regular fish. I know it's a poor example, But humour me. What then? Will you give up OJ? I hope not. You will rework the dogma and say evolution is NOT incompatible with OJ. Just like when the Church admitted the world was round or Spherical.

    So don't paint yourself into a corner. BTW, there are probably 100's of thousands or religious jews(I don't mean like me, but jews who honestly and sincerely believe in Torah M'sinai) who believe in Evolution.

    So be careful of creating what's known as a "God of the Gaps".

     
    At August 29, 2006 12:31 AM, Blogger FrumGirl said...

    Darn it, I would have wanted to hear that broadcast.... Hey I think he keeps audio of old shows that you can listen to online....

     
    At August 29, 2006 12:37 AM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    >Every word in the holy Torah contains Hashem's infinite wisdom, and it is beyond man's ability to fully comprehend it.
    Please believe that all Torah true Jews agree on this.

    I 100% agree with that. However, the Kabbalistic explanation of Chumash and Nach, which have been around long before the idea of "evolution" ever became popular, suggest that the theory of evolution is likely to be accurate. The only thing in the Chumash that I know of, that should not be possible to explain through "nature" is the death of the first born.. the fact that even the first born in jails were killed as well. Everything else, should in theory, be able to be explained in Nature one way or another. Also perhaps the "10 things created before the world" like the talking donkey, the mouth of the earth etc.

     
    At August 29, 2006 1:13 AM, Blogger Kylopod said...

    I've just finished listening to the program. Previously, I had read only two books by Slifkin, not among the banned works, and I wasn't terribly impressed. While I found him a neat sort of guy that I wouldn't mind meeting (being an animal lover myself, I always get along with the sorts of people who crawl with animals), his writing didn't stand out for me. People have made him sound like the Galileo of the Torah world, but I saw him more as a sacrificial lamb to advance the kannoim's sinister agenda.

    After listening to the program, I've now become an instant fan. The guy's great. Sure, not remotely great enough to merit the level of controversy which his books caused, but a fascinating guy full of interesting ideas.

     
    At August 29, 2006 1:14 AM, Blogger Kylopod said...

    frumgirl,

    You can hear it. Go here:

    http://www.wfmu.org/playlists/shows/20216

     
    At August 29, 2006 9:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    My impression is that JM in the AM is a Modern Orthodox very Zionist program.

     
    At August 29, 2006 10:17 AM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    > Kabbalistic explanation of Chumash and Nach...., suggest that the theory of evolution is likely to be accurate. The only thing in the Chumash that I know of, that should not be possible to explain through "nature

    IC, I think Moshe Kappoya has branded your opinions as heretical. And MK does not have his head in the sand, check his book meme.

    See, thats part of the problem. The flagship of Judaic scholarship, the individuals that devote themselves to Torah Study more than any other group, is not with the program.

     
    At August 29, 2006 10:26 AM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    > People have made him sound like the Galileo of the Torah world.

    I never read any of his books and yesterday was the time I heard him. I never got the impression that he had espoused any of his own theories. He himself said he is more like a Yalkut.
    He was just trying to make sense of it all and ended up saying the emperor is naked (at least to Charedim).

    BTW, are you sure you're not just taken with his accent? Anyhow, he is very likable.

     
    At August 29, 2006 10:35 AM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    > My impression is that JM in the AM is a Modern Orthodox very Zionist program.

    Anony, you are correct. But it has VERY broad appeal. He plays the current Jewish and even music by Chassidim singing in the Williamsburg Havvarah. They have Rabbi David Goldwasser with morning Chizzuk. It's an excellent well rounded program. Listen to the callers during fundraising and other times. You may be shocked.

    It is an excellent example of many segments of Juadaism coming together.

    I was just pleasantly surprized that he did slifkin. Who's next GH?

     
    At August 29, 2006 11:08 AM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    MK, see this. It's a recap of Slifkin's speech to some college.

    http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2006/08/heresy-of-intelligent-design-by-rabbi.html

     
    At August 29, 2006 11:12 AM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    MK, see this. It's a recap of Slifkin's speech to some college.

    http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2006/08/heresy-of-intelligent-design-by-rabbi.html

     
    At August 29, 2006 1:15 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    >IC, I think Moshe Kappoya has branded your opinions as heretical.

    I don't think he did. Most people who say that evolution is heretical have never actually learned about evolution. All they know is "man came from monkies" which is NOT what evolution states. (atleast not the proven aspects of evolution anyway)

    However, my ideas come from the Jewish schools and Yeshivahs I went to. Untill I went to college my entire education was Jewish and I didn't even have non Jewish friends. I still don't actually.

    I think you have a very narrow definition of "the program" that goes against what Chazal wrote.

     
    At August 29, 2006 1:22 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    > I think you have a very narrow definition of "the program" that goes against what Chazal wrote.

    IC, I don't. Maybe the Charedim do. I understand exactly where you're coming from. And I understand exactly where the Chareidim are coming from. But don't think you pass mustard with Charedim.

     
    At August 29, 2006 1:32 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    I understand where the charedim are commming from also, and I don't dissagree with them. However, Charedim don't exist on the internet. (by definition) But charedim also don't care about the "reconciliation" To think that there is anything to be "reconciled" just gives a completely different starting point. It would imply that there are two opposing truths and that just isn't the case, in any Jewish thought.

    I don't know enough specific Charedi thoughts that are differetn from my own to argue specifics, but I do know from my learning that Jewish opinions are not clear cut and black and white. Although they are ALWAYS presented that way, because thats what people need. But when you go iyun, you see that they are not clear cut. As far as I understand, Charedim, unless they are Rambam charedis, don't really appreciate the Iyun for the masses.

    Correct me if I am wrong here.

     
    At August 29, 2006 1:44 PM, Blogger Kylopod said...

    BTW, are you sure you're not just taken with his accent?

    I liked some of the things he said. He spoke as someone who had given considerable thought to the different sides of this issue.

    My seventh-grade science teacher was from Manchester. So was Davy Jones (of the Monkees). I thought I was familiar with the accent. But Slifkin sounds a bit odd. Maybe its his nasality. I thought I detected a slight speech deficit, the kind that makes you pronounce "r" as "w." But then maybe I'm just not as familiar with regional British accents as I thought I was.

     
    At August 29, 2006 1:49 PM, Blogger Kylopod said...

    However, Charedim don't exist on the internet. (by definition)

    Sure they do. They're only prohibited from Internet use in the home, and even that is a generalization. How is it that there are many self-identifying Chareidi websites, like Yated Ne'eman? And do you consider Chasidim to be Chareidim? There are loads of Chasidic websites.

     
    At August 29, 2006 1:52 PM, Blogger Kylopod said...

    The flagship of Judaic scholarship, the individuals that devote themselves to Torah Study more than any other group, is not with the program.

    See, but that's the crux of the matter: people who subscribe to the Torah U'Madda philosophy do not believe that learning Torah in isolation from anything else is sufficient. Disputes of this sort over the proper approach to Torah are ancient.

     
    At August 29, 2006 1:52 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    IC, I don't think you're wrong. Jewish opinions are not clear cut, and there is strong precedence for wiggle room in Jewish Thinking. But Charedim and Chassidim, hereafter called CO, are fundamentalists and are not believers in Evolution, etc. I'm not dis-agreeing with you about what JO *might* mean. But (most) mainstream CO, and there seems to be more of them than other groups, do dis-agree with you. You can't have it both ways. You think the only difference between you and CO is they learn more? No there are fundamental Hashkafa differences, secular education, entertainment and Theology, Israel, the list is long.

    You want to chalk it to what CO needs? Fine. But that's their belief. Evolution is *out* for Boro Park, Flatbush, Williamsburg, Monsey, Jerusalem, Bnai Brak, Golders Green, etc. I don't know about Fairfax.

    Just ask them. MK could not have been more explicit. "I can tell you without a doubt that to believe in Evolution is kefera in it's plainest form. To equate Shemote and Bereshit with Aesops fables cv"s is kefira as well"


    You want to change his definition of Evolution? Feel free.

     
    At August 29, 2006 1:58 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    >And do you consider Chasidim to be Chareidim? There are loads of Chasidic websites.

    I don't lump Chasidism with Charedism unless what I have been told about Charedi's is false.

    Chasidism by definition accepts Kabbalah. I was told that Charedim are Misnagids and anti chasidism.

    I know the full range of beliefs and differences between the various viewpoints. and until a few months ago, I have never heard any Jewish group reading Bereshit the same way the Christian evengalicals read it. So that is part of my confusion.

    My initial teachers were Chabad, and that is where I learned most of my chumash from until I started shnayim mikra.

     
    At August 29, 2006 2:00 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    Now with evolution, you can't deny evolution. Because when you take your anti-biotics but forget to take all of them, you get more sic and your anti-biotics don't work anymore.

    There may be spiritual reasons for that, but those spiritual reasons still show up under the microscope as your bacteria evolving.

    Its actually greater Kefira to say that such a mechanicism does not exist.

     
    At August 29, 2006 2:03 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    >Evolution is *out* for Boro Park, Flatbush, Williamsburg, Monsey, Jerusalem, Bnai Brak, Golders Green, etc. I don't know about Fairfax.

    Out or useless, irrelevant, not something worth discussing?.. because I agree that it is useles, irrelevant and not worth discussing.

     
    At August 29, 2006 2:03 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    > See, but that's the crux of the matter: people who subscribe to the Torah U'Madda philosophy do not believe that learning Torah in isolation from anything else is sufficient. Disputes of this sort over the proper approach to Torah are ancient.


    Kylopod. True, only time will tell who will pass the mantle down to future generations, but I suspect it will be the Chareidim. MO lives close to the edge, I think it's easier to fall off.

    On the other hand, someone like me, who grows up with a basic Chareidi type atmosphere and sees that what I've been taught is wrong, well that's a different slippery slope.

    CO is aware if this and is trying to segregate themselves from as much Secular learning and culture as possible. If they didn't do that, they would hemmorage (typo?)

     
    At August 29, 2006 2:06 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    > Chasidism by definition accepts Kabbalah

    It's a different context. They mean kabbala as in Red Bendel and don't sleep on R"H after Mussaf. You'd get escorted out of Williamsburg with your philosophies. All above is only my opinion.

     
    At August 29, 2006 2:09 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    > Now with evolution, you can't deny evolution. Because when you take your anti-biotics but forget to take all of them, you get more sic and your anti-biotics don't work anymore.



    That's because you know and care about the science behind it. To them it's medicine and your body got used to it abd now needs it. Or something like that. They aren't aware of the underlying mechanism. Chasidim have only the equivalent of a 4th grade education.

    Look, read Rejoice O Youth my R' Avigod Miller. It will open your eyes. Thats the kind of stuff I grew up with.

     
    At August 29, 2006 2:11 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    > Out or useless, irrelevant, not something worth discussing?..

    *out* as in outside the realm of Torah True Thought. Now there are exceptions, like Slifkin and many others like him. But he's been barred. Why do you think that is?

     
    At August 29, 2006 2:15 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    >It's a different context. They mean kabbala as in Red Bendel and don't sleep on R"H after Mussaf. You'd get escorted out of Williamsburg with your philosophies. All above is only my opinion.

    Then I am either not explaining my self clearly enough, or you are missing something.

    When I was in Israel, I learned meditation and Kabbalah from what I must assume was a Bostoner chasid. (as he kept talking about the Bonstoner Rebbe and took us to meet them) I spent over a month in Tsfat with Ascent and a few families which could not be confused with the "artists" and other "wackos" there. I have spent summers in Monsey learning at Ohr Semaach there, and have spent shabbats at New Square, where they all wear glasses even if they don't need them. (Or was that the chasidic group in Israel?) I have spent shabbats in Kfar Chabad in Israel as well and had the best Simchas beis hashoevahs with a group of Chasids who's child told me that Avraham avinu spoke Yiddish. I was also a big fan of the Kutzker Rav for a while, and read many of his stories and books.

    In other words, I have had conversations with a wide range of Chasids. And I have noticed that there is a strong difference between knowing what its important to spend your time learning and worrying about, and holding beliefs about how other people might understand reality.

     
    At August 29, 2006 2:18 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    >Chasidim have only the equivalent of a 4th grade education.

    I went to a chabad school and learned about geology there... in 8th grade. Its really not appropriate to denounce other Jews like that. When I was in Yeshivah in Israel I learned with a few people who didn't learn any secular studies after 6th grade, and they still knew plenty and were educated enough in the areas of science. One would wonder how you got access to your knoweledge if what you wrote was true.

     
    At August 29, 2006 2:18 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    IC, CO knows that evolution is a dangerous concept(for them), because they've been fighting it for so long. They can't just change minds mid-straem without causing lots of crisis of faith.
    Read the Jewish Observer and other articles like that. For CO to hear talk of Evolution as fact is very disconcerting.
    I hope that Moshe Kappoya did not freak out from some of this stuff just now. His Blog is gone.

    Moshe?

     
    At August 29, 2006 2:19 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    >But he's been barred. Why do you think that is?

    Because he writes that to undersatnd Chazal you have to go to university, which, I agree is not something that Cherdim should be reading.

     
    At August 29, 2006 2:22 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    IC, Chabad is in a class of it's own. When I say Chassidim I mean , the 100,000's of Satmar, Belz, Puppa, etc. I did not say Crown Heights. I don't know what Chabbad says, other than the Rebbe might still be the Moshiach ;) (I had great respect for Chabad and their outreach, until the Rebbe died, that is).

     
    At August 29, 2006 2:25 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    IC, Have you ever discussed Evolution with someone from New Square? Or naturalistic Shemos? I suspect you won't get the answer you suspect. But I don't know for sure.

     
    At August 29, 2006 2:31 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    IC, this chat with you is enlightening. It's almost as if thre are two different religions with different dogmas that just share religious practice.

    Anyhow, I must run and get some work done. I hope we'll chat again.

     
    At August 29, 2006 6:45 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    :( my nuanced thought is getting lost, and I'm not quite sure what we are discussing.

    What I was trying to explain, is that when you look at Torah in honest, with the words that are written, not just what you happen to remember right now, and not what the general population repeats as catch phrases, Judaism reads all of Tanach Alegorically. The Chumash however, unlike a normal allegory, is a Divine allegory for the entire universe and all of reality.

    I am not going to let athiest accademeics highjack my language so that it no longer becomes allowed for me to say what is Truth. However, I fully understand why a cheredi community would allow others to hijack a language and its uses of words. Nobody is going to hijack Yiddish away from them, and whats important is what people do on a day to day basis, not what is discussed in ivory towers.

     
    At August 29, 2006 7:04 PM, Blogger Kylopod said...

    IC, the commonly accepted definition of Chareidi (or "ultra-Orthodox") includes Chasidim, though Chasidim are less likely to self-identify by the label, because they already have a label.

    BH, True, only time will tell who will pass the mantle down to future generations, but I suspect it will be the Chareidim. It doesn't have to be one or the other. The Chareidim aren't going to disappear anytime soon, but then neither is the Torah U'Madda crowd. There will always be people in need of both approaches.

     
    At August 29, 2006 7:31 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    >IC, the commonly accepted definition of Chareidi (or "ultra-Orthodox") includes Chasidim, though Chasidim are less likely to self-identify by the label, because they already have a label.

    The common definition of Cheredi includes anybody who wears a "uniform" and grows a beard/payot. However, thats a really silly way to look at the definition since the views and ideas vary way to much from group to group. Especially in regards to which Rishonim they hold bye, and its the Rishonim who give us the most information about traditinal "beliefes" as comapred to Muslims and christians.

     
    At August 29, 2006 7:41 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    >The Chareidim aren't going to disappear anytime soon, but then neither is the Torah U'Madda crowd. There will always be people in need of both approaches.

    And some people will be Chareidim during Shabbat and Yomtov and Torah U'Madda during the weak.

    Personally, I hate spending shabbat with Torah U'Madda diehards, but I hate spending Motzei Shabbat with Charedim :P

     
    At August 29, 2006 9:51 PM, Blogger Kylopod said...

    The common definition of Cheredi includes anybody who wears a "uniform" and grows a beard/payot.

    No, that's the common image, but the concept can be defined more subtly. See the Wikipedia entry for a good example of how this can be done. The philosophical and theological differences between Hasidim and Misnagdim may obscure that the groups are similar in both practice and attitude toward the outside world.

     
    At August 29, 2006 9:52 PM, Blogger Kylopod said...

    And some people will be Chareidim during Shabbat and Yomtov and Torah U'Madda during the weak.

    Sounds like the typical Baltimore Yid.

    On an entirely separate note, I just posted to my blog my thoughts on Robert Pennock's book I discussed earlier.

     
    At August 29, 2006 11:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    >One surprise was when Slifkin said the best way to approach Bereishis and Shemos is allegorical. You might as well just called it Moses's Fables

    Pass this quote on to any Charedi Rosh Yeshiva. Their response will be the same:

    "Only someone who believes his ancestor was a monkey would suggest something like that."

    I would warn you though, that some RY's might respond a bit more harshly, depending on who is asking the question.

    In Chardei world, Breishis - Shemos is absolute Emes.

    A snake spoke.
    The moon used to be as big as the sun....
    Creation was in 6 days. 6 x 24 hours.
    Adam was the first human ever. God created him from a mound of earth. His wife was created from his 'rib'.
    etc etc etc

    There's no questions in Charedi world. This is what happened. No one gives a damn what Darwin the Apikoris has to say. "Its just another Nisayon", and we'll survive this one as well.

    If indeed Slikin said the above quote you attribute to him, I would ban him too. Chas Vesholom my kids or any charedi should read such Kefirah.

    Breishis Shemos allegorical????

    Lakewood Yid

     
    At August 30, 2006 12:21 AM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    must retract something. On re-listening, I only heard him refer to Shashes Yemei B'reishis as being Metaphorical and Allegorical. He did not refer to Bereishis and Shemos that way. He did suggest that the Miracles in Shemos were natural events pre-scheduled by God. This was backed up by references to Rishonim

     
    At August 30, 2006 12:27 AM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    > The philosophical and theological differences between Hasidim and Misnagdim may obscure that the groups are similar in both practice and attitude toward the outside world.

    KP, Very true, Misnagdim/Chareidim and Chasidim are moving closer together. Chasidim started emphasizing Torah more and Misnagdim are starting to withdraw and also starting to treat the "gedolim" like Chassidic "Rebbe's"

     
    At August 30, 2006 12:31 AM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    IC, well you see it straight from the Keyboard of LY. I don't want to generalize, but I think LY would call you a Koifer as well;
    Assuming that was Lakewood Yid. BTW, I emailed him with my correction and clarification of Slifkin's words.

     
    At August 31, 2006 12:22 AM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    Moshe K, can you email me at BAALHABOS@GMAIL.COM

    Thanks.

     
    At August 31, 2006 1:10 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    >"Only someone who believes his ancestor was a monkey would suggest something like that."

    This is exactly what I was saying. This is not a good understanding of evolution. I have full faith that the mechanics of evolution are true, however I will deny completely anyone who suggests there is more relation between me and a monkey than there is between me and any other animal in existance. Because evolution only discusses mechancism, its the only thing they can prove. Everything else is theological and philisophical questions.



    > His wife was created from his 'rib'.
    etc etc etc"

    I know you put 'rib' in quotes, but this is a problem because rib is a christain concept. Its upsetting that popular knowledge seems to be comming from popular culture instead of Torah. I don't think you can quote anyone who says its a rib.

    The most common explanation is that they were side by side and split into two.

     
    At August 31, 2006 10:49 PM, Blogger lakewoodyid said...

    >Assuming that was Lakewood Yid. BTW, I emailed him with my correction and clarification of Slifkin's words

    It was me.

    >however I will deny completely anyone who suggests there is more relation between me and a monkey than there is between me and any other animal in existance

    No difference. If you evolved from a fish or a bear, the point stands.

    >The most common explanation is that they were side by side and split into two.

    Find me a scientist, just one scientist who is OK with that.

     
    At September 01, 2006 12:05 AM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    >>The most common explanation is that they were side by side and split into two.

    Find me a scientist, just one scientist who is OK with that.

    Are you ok saying that that litterally happened, on earth in the world we live in, with the physics we know?

     
    At September 01, 2006 12:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    >Are you ok saying that that litterally happened, on earth in the world we live in, with the physics we know?

    Yes.

     
    At September 01, 2006 12:59 AM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    Interesting, so what is your responce to Rabbis like the Baal Hatanya who say it did not happen on this earth in the physical world that we know?

     
    At September 01, 2006 10:22 AM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    Daganev, I must say that when I first saw your comments on other blogs, I thought you were a quack. I still don't go for all that Kaballa stuff where anything can mean anything. Nevertheless, some of the things you say do stop and make me give slight pause. Either way, LY still consdiders that what you spout about Ancient Earth and Evolution is Kefira. You dismiss his position as stemming of ignorance and a lack of understanding. Unless you take the position of GOsse, the two of you are irreconcileable. I think.


    The interesting thing is that neither of you say Eilu V'eilu. You are both convinced of the truth of your positions.

    So which is. Which one of you is correct? You both profess fealty to OJ and religious dogam of the past.

    Anyhow, I'll try to address the remaining issues sometime today, in a continuation in the comments of Private Orthoprax at home, where we left off.

     
    At September 01, 2006 1:55 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    >The interesting thing is that neither of you say Eilu V'eilu. You are both convinced of the truth of your positions.

    So which is. Which one of you is correct? You both profess fealty to OJ and religious dogam of the past.

    Not at all. I perfectly accept that a person and a community would not accept the Baal Hatanya or the Arizal on these matters.

    I think the important thing to remember, and this is where it gets very tricky, is that one can not learn from Torah without there being reality behind it. What that reality means can be different for everybody.

    Lets take for example one scientific theory that in early evolution everything was single sexed. (like earthworms) But at one point, the cells divided and became male and female. A normal human being, would not learn anything from this in regards to thier own personal relationship between husband and wife. However, the concept of sex, in reality was created just hte way the Torah describes, even if the details are not there.

    So, for somebody like me, who sees that scientific concept, the fact that Kabbalah says that this happened in the spiritual world of Gan Eden and not on earth, allows me to learn from science. But someone who does not hold by the Baal Hatanya, would have to hold that it happened in a way that we don't understand, and as the skeptics like to say. "I don't know" is an ok answer.

     
    At September 01, 2006 2:42 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    > Not at all. I perfectly accept that a person and a community would not accept the Baal Hatanya or the Arizal on these matters.

    Let's not waffle. How can you accept that? If you are convinced of the science, then you MUST say that the Baal Hatania is correct. (I use Baal Hatania to mean all of the rationalizations, such as Slifkin, Meor Einayim, etc. If I misunderstand you, please correct me). To say the Torah is Literal means it's false, ay least to you.


    > the fact that Kabbalah says that this happened in the spiritual world of Gan Eden and not on earth

    Once you say this, it's all allegory, you can twist anything to meany anything. What about sh'mos?

     
    At September 01, 2006 3:10 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    >Once you say this, it's all allegory, you can twist anything to meany anything. What about sh'mos?

    NOT AT ALL!!!! No, that is NOT what it means.

    This is basic literature 101. Say you see a painting of a woman with one teet out and a baby on it. Say the painting was made in Europe. This means, almost always that they are making a refrence to the Maddona figure in christianity. Always. Either they are mocking it, or supporting it, but that is what it means. You can say its a symbol Tibeten freedom, but you would be wrong.


    > To say the Torah is Literal means it's false, ay least to you.

    I dissagree. I use to think that post modernism's look at writing was all B.S. I use to say, "They don't understand the book, or the poem, so they say its genious so they can milk some profit from it" but after learning Halacha, I have had to change my mind.

    I asked myself, how can it be that I have a minhag to stand during Kiddush and you have a minhag to sit during kiddush. One has to be more correct than the other! You can't have it both ways. However, that is not the case. It is correct for a yekki to wash before kiddish and it is WRONG for a Polish jew to wash before kiddush. This is especially true where cross contanimation is less likely, for example A sephard or a ashkanazic Jew can not switch customs just for the hell of it. But both are 100% legitimate.

    This is true all the way up the halachkic and Hashkafic food chain. However we get more strict about how much we allow depending on what level there is a dissagreement. But everyone agrees, that during the time of Mashiach, Hillel and Shammai will switch rulings. This is not a "waffling" or "flip flopping" this is a hard to understand and hard to grasp concept that, it turns out, is true in all of life. Making this black and white, either/or decisions is important for a specific community, but at large, its not necesary as often as people like to make it so.

    I know a lot about when its ok to abandon your minhag and when it isn't, because here in Irvine, its a daily issue since we have such a wide vareity of people. But we handle it with as much halackic correctness as possible.

     
    At September 01, 2006 3:45 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    IC, thats the problem with debating. It doesn't usually accomplish much.

    >Once you say this, it's all allegory, you can twist anything to meany anything. What about sh'mos?

    > NOT AT ALL!!!! No, that is NOT what it means.


    You switched to saying that it ocurred in Gan Eden and not Earth.

    Then I CAN say anything I want. Murder is only illegal for XYZ, etc.

    I know what you mean about the symbolism behind the Madonna's but I don't see the relevance.




    > To say the Torah is Literal means it's false, ay least to you.


    > I dissagree. I use to think that post modernism's look at writing was all B.S. I use to say, "They don't understand the book, or the poem, so they say its genious so they can milk some profit from it" but after learning Halacha, I have had to change my mind......


    I understand Eilu V'eilu but I don't see that aplicable here. Not on something as fundamental to our religion. How come we don't say Eilu V'eilu about "conservative othodoxy". Even if you're going to accept Charedi dogma as a possibility, they'll never accept you.

    BTW, I posted my reply in "private orthopraxy"

     
    At September 01, 2006 4:15 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    >How come we don't say Eilu V'eilu about "conservative othodoxy". Even if you're going to accept Charedi dogma as a possibility, they'll never accept you.

    Ok, my answer to this question should make you understand the relevancy of my Maddonna comment.

    Conservative theology blatantly says that we do not need the Sanhedrin to undo what Chazal ruled. This means that Conservative theology breaks with the system and structure of Judaism.

    They say, Some of this is good, some of it is bunk, lets use our infinite wisdom to figure out whats bunk, based on what we know from people who's stated goal it is to debuct the Torah. (i.e. the original 1850s Bible "scholars")

    Once you break with the system, then you can't be seen as following the system.

    We have a very complete and rich history of how to come to terms with our own personal realities. The Baal Hatanya, and Kli Yakar, and Arizal, and the RAmbam, all did it without relying on the scientists of the goyim.(some thought he did rely on the scientists and so burned his book, but later we saw that what he said is all within torah and does not rely on the scientists) Like Rav Kook, he was inormed by the world around him, but did not assume "they are right, we are wrong, lets figure out how to keep going"

    That is what many people think slifkin does. And that is what Conseravtives do. They start from the point of saying "chazal was wrong".. And YOU CAN NOT DO THAT!

    However, there are many ways to understand Chazal. Before 1940, I don't think anyone would have ever needed to learn Kabbalah to properly understand Chazal, but I think now that we know about Quatum mechanics and other aspects of the concept of "probability"(A very new and recent understanding) in my opinion, it becomes more necessary to understand how the Kabbalists understood Maa'seh Merkavah, and Maa'seh Bereshit, and how all that fits with what Chazal teaches.

    I assume that Chazal is correct, and then find out how Science supports that. That is staying within the system, and that is what allows for 70 facets of the Torah.

    Conservatives and other non orthodox assume that Chazal were wrong and find a way around that.

    And no, this is NOT about cognitive Dissonance... its IS however about consonos dissonance. But I'll post about that on the other thread.

     
    At September 01, 2006 4:41 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    OK, I admit that remark about conservative was way off base. Off course we don't say Eilu Veulu about them.

    I still don't get the Madonna connection.

    And sure, all my life I went with the presumtion that Chazal are correct. But at some point I reached a tipping point and now have to start questioning the other way. And once you do that, things make much better sense.

     
    At September 01, 2006 5:34 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    the Maddonna connection is that we have a tradition of how to understand our texts. We have numerous rules. We have rules of what it means when something is allegory. It can't just be "anything goes" you can be wrong about an allegory, and you can be wrong about how to interpret the torah. But just because you can be wrong, does not mean there is only one answer.

    The world makes less sense to me ignoring Torah. All it does is leave me with the idea that anything goes, and I might as well go back to being a thief.

     
    At September 01, 2006 6:30 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    >And sure, all my life I went with the presumtion that Chazal are correct. But at some point I reached a tipping point and now have to start questioning the other way. And once you do that, things make much better sense.

    Do they?

    Are you understanding Torah on the same level that people are understanding science? Because a person's level of understanding of science, is today, much more detailed and intricate that most people's understanding of Torah.

     
    At September 02, 2006 11:25 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    > Are you understanding Torah on the same level that people are understanding science? I spent many years learning, and still do. I believe I know more learning than science.

     
    At September 02, 2006 11:55 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    >I spent many years learning, and still do. I believe I know more learning than science.

    Hmm, that wasn't really my question.

    Ok, lets look at science. I will take something simple that I know about: Computers. In computer science I know quite a bit about machine language, how simple 0s and 1s get translated into Blogs.

    When it comes to Torah, though, do we know, and do we look at how an Aleph and a Bet, come together to mean "Father", Do we know Torah to the most fundamental level of its knowledge?

    When the gemorah says that the world stands on 7 pillars, and then argues that it stands on 12 or 3 or 1, do we know what that means and why they even argue it?(just something I was reading today) ... Because the artscroll "comments" on the topic were quite vague and left one really wanting to read the other sources it refrenced.

     

    Post a Comment

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home