R' Zev Farber's articles on thetorah.com sparked considerable hostility at the beginning of this summer, and calls for Orthodox refutation of biblical criticism. At that time I was doing some reading on Enlightenment ideas in ancient Greece and in 18th century Europe, and that research led me to some conclusions I've been reflecting on these past few weeks.
Two of my conclusions are:
1. Disproving biblical criticism is impossible, and
2. Modern Orthodoxy, as opposed to more traditional forms of Orthodoxy, is particularly drawn to biblical criticism.
First: Disproving biblical criticism is impossible
Biblical criticism both ancient and modern, as I understand it – and I've read quite a bit of it – is not about debunking religion. Rather, it's about identifying problems in biblical text and offering reason-rooted explanations. It's based on the assumption that the human mind is powerful enough to be able to solve any problem, an approach which was found in ancient Greek philosophers, in the Karaite-related heresies of the early Middle Ages, and in Enlightenment Europe.
Because biblical criticism is about a search for answers via human reason, it examines and rejects answers which are illogical or which run counter to evidence. The answers which survive that examination are logically convincing.
This is why Orthodox Judaism cannot reasonably disprove biblical criticism: you simply cannot use critical reason to disprove the entire product of critical reason.
This doesn't mean that the school of reason is correct, or consistent with faith and revelation - only that reason won't disprove reason.
We might show particular hearos of the critics to be flawed, but one cannot disprove every finding of logical analysis. It would be like refuting the study of biology – one might debunk a particular scientific finding due to a weakness in its reasoning, but how likely are you to be able to refute the reasoning behind every finding of a field of research?
Our Sages understood this. This is why they banned the study of Greek philosophy [which was founded on the idea that the human mind could comprehend everything on its own] and why they prohibited reading sefarim hachitzonim. Despite the mishnaic imperative, "Know how to reply to an apikoros," the sages did not publish challenges to each of the ideas expressed by the Greek schools (other than a few scattered debates recorded in the Talmud). Rather, they rejected the entire approach, and simply banned it. Ditto, in a more modern age, the opposition to university education.
So there can be no disproof of the set of findings of biblical criticism, only a faith-based rejection of its method.
Second: Modern Orthodoxy is particularly drawn to biblical criticism
Judaism is bound to revelatory tradition, but it also endorses the use of human reason, even within the development of Jewish law. We have hermeneutical methods which operate only based on received tradition, but we also have the kal vachomer which is applied by human reason, within certain limits (אין עונשין מן הדין). There is a balanced relationship, in which Revelation is primary and Reason is secondary.
Classically, Orthodoxy honored the primacy of revelatory tradition, and opposed empowering the investigations of human reason. Hence the aforementioned bans on Greek philosophy and university attendance, and hence the fervent opposition to Rambam's publication of Greek philosophical ideas as part of Judaism.
Modern Orthodoxy, to my mind, is an embrace of the Enlightenment ideology that touts the power of the human mind to comprehend and assess all phenomena. The various isms of Modern Orthodoxy – women's education, Zionism, universalism, personal autonomy – are only applications of the fundamental idea that I, with the cells inside my cranium, am able to draw my own conclusions about the world.
To that point of view, biblical criticism, rooted in personal critical thinking, is very appealing. How can we send our children to university and train them in critical thought and the idea that the mind can comprehend the universe, and then expect that the application of critical thinking to Torah will not draw them?
Question
My question, then, is this: If our Modern Orthodox community is being drawn to this approach, which opts for logical evisceration of the meaning of "Torah miSinai", and if we cannot disprove that which people are embracing, then what do we do? Is it a matter of reinforcing the primacy of faith? Or re-examining our approach to university education? Or simply accepting the problem?
Showing posts with label Judaism: Modern Orthodoxy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judaism: Modern Orthodoxy. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Wanted: A Modern Orthodox Talmud
[Post I'm contemplating: Why does mussar have such bad street cred? at Modern Uberdox]
Many of my friends take umbrage when “Modern Orthodoxy” is challenged by those who consider themselves more traditional. They argue that our claim to Torah-loyalty is made no less serious and no less legitimate by our kippot srugot, embrace of the State of Israel and universalist tendencies.
Fair enough. But, at the same time, I think that our claim to Torah-loyalty is less clear, so long as we don’t state what, exactly, we mean by Torah.
Open up your gemara to Berachos 6a, and read about trapping sheidim in a lead pipe. Then read the Modern Orthodox Jew say that he prefers the alternative view of Rav Hai Gaon and others, that sheidim may not be real.
Turn to Yevamos 118b and learn the suggestion that a woman will be satisfied with any marriage, even a quarrelsome one, because she is better off married than alone. Then read the Modern Orthodox Jew say that he wishes to extend Rav Moshe Feinstein’s ruling from Igrot Moshe Even haEzer 1:180 to permit re-marriage without a get where the husband exhibits certain flaws.
There are many other passages of gemara we could cite –
Declarations regarding physical reality that are very difficult to support in light of our observations of physical reality;
Assertions of biological differences between Jews and non-Jews;
Lessons predicated on readings of pesukim which vary from our own editions;
and so on.
Many of these passages are challenged by many Jews today, people who identify themselves with YU or YCT or Rabbi Riskin or Gush Etzion. Granted that they accept the vast, vast majority of gemara, but there are quite a few passages of concern.
This post is not designed to weigh in on whether a Jew should trust certain challenging passages, or what mechanisms should be employed to determine that trust. That is an important issue, but it’s not the point of this post.
The point of this post is: One of the reasons why many traditional groups challenge the legitimacy of Modern Orthodoxy is that it’s hard to pin down what, exactly, Modern Orthodoxy accepts and rejects.
This is relevant regarding Talmud as well as midrash, and it’s relevant regarding the centuries of commentary and responsa that build on both.
It’s relevant when the Rashba rejects observed reality that contradicts the gemara.
It’s relevant when the Tashbetz supports the idea of learning in kollel.
It’s relevant when Rav Yosef Karo describes personal conversations with angels.
It’s relevant when Rashi, building on midrash, reads apparently-strained hints into the text of the Torah.
And so on.
Several years ago, I did research on the Conservative position on homosexuality in Judaism, and found that some Conservative rabbis believe that the pasuk in Vayyikra condemning homosexuality was Moshe’s own thought, based on his environment, and not from Gd. Aside from the interesting questions this generated in my mind (such as why would Gd select a herald who would get a law so wrong, with such great repercussions for so many) it also forced me to ask what other biblical passages those Conservative writers might similarly downgrade.
The same question, though, may fairly be asked of the Jew who self-identifies as Modern Orthodox.
Remember the old line, "Orthodox is crazy, Reform is lazy, Conservative is hazy?"
While it’s legitimate to say that these are gray areas, and that the vast, vast majority of passages are accepted by all, the bottom line is that until this question is answered clearly – until one knows what “Modern Orthodoxy” believes, until there is a “Modern Orthodox”-approved version of Talmud and masorah - I believe it’s legitimate for those outside of our camp to feel that we are hazy, too.
Many of my friends take umbrage when “Modern Orthodoxy” is challenged by those who consider themselves more traditional. They argue that our claim to Torah-loyalty is made no less serious and no less legitimate by our kippot srugot, embrace of the State of Israel and universalist tendencies.
Fair enough. But, at the same time, I think that our claim to Torah-loyalty is less clear, so long as we don’t state what, exactly, we mean by Torah.
Open up your gemara to Berachos 6a, and read about trapping sheidim in a lead pipe. Then read the Modern Orthodox Jew say that he prefers the alternative view of Rav Hai Gaon and others, that sheidim may not be real.
Turn to Yevamos 118b and learn the suggestion that a woman will be satisfied with any marriage, even a quarrelsome one, because she is better off married than alone. Then read the Modern Orthodox Jew say that he wishes to extend Rav Moshe Feinstein’s ruling from Igrot Moshe Even haEzer 1:180 to permit re-marriage without a get where the husband exhibits certain flaws.
There are many other passages of gemara we could cite –
Declarations regarding physical reality that are very difficult to support in light of our observations of physical reality;
Assertions of biological differences between Jews and non-Jews;
Lessons predicated on readings of pesukim which vary from our own editions;
and so on.
Many of these passages are challenged by many Jews today, people who identify themselves with YU or YCT or Rabbi Riskin or Gush Etzion. Granted that they accept the vast, vast majority of gemara, but there are quite a few passages of concern.
This post is not designed to weigh in on whether a Jew should trust certain challenging passages, or what mechanisms should be employed to determine that trust. That is an important issue, but it’s not the point of this post.
The point of this post is: One of the reasons why many traditional groups challenge the legitimacy of Modern Orthodoxy is that it’s hard to pin down what, exactly, Modern Orthodoxy accepts and rejects.
This is relevant regarding Talmud as well as midrash, and it’s relevant regarding the centuries of commentary and responsa that build on both.
It’s relevant when the Rashba rejects observed reality that contradicts the gemara.
It’s relevant when the Tashbetz supports the idea of learning in kollel.
It’s relevant when Rav Yosef Karo describes personal conversations with angels.
It’s relevant when Rashi, building on midrash, reads apparently-strained hints into the text of the Torah.
And so on.
Several years ago, I did research on the Conservative position on homosexuality in Judaism, and found that some Conservative rabbis believe that the pasuk in Vayyikra condemning homosexuality was Moshe’s own thought, based on his environment, and not from Gd. Aside from the interesting questions this generated in my mind (such as why would Gd select a herald who would get a law so wrong, with such great repercussions for so many) it also forced me to ask what other biblical passages those Conservative writers might similarly downgrade.
The same question, though, may fairly be asked of the Jew who self-identifies as Modern Orthodox.
Remember the old line, "Orthodox is crazy, Reform is lazy, Conservative is hazy?"
While it’s legitimate to say that these are gray areas, and that the vast, vast majority of passages are accepted by all, the bottom line is that until this question is answered clearly – until one knows what “Modern Orthodoxy” believes, until there is a “Modern Orthodox”-approved version of Talmud and masorah - I believe it’s legitimate for those outside of our camp to feel that we are hazy, too.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Tznius and Modern Orthodoxy
[ This week's Haveil Havalim is here]
First: I dislike the term “tznius” as applied to clothing, because it more accurately refers – both linguistically and historically - to an overarching sense of privacy and humility, expressed in all levels of behavior. However, “tznius” is the term our generation uses to refer to Judaism’s traditional, conservative halachic and philosophical approach to dress. So I’ll use it here.
Second: I also dislike the term “Modern Orthodoxy”... but we’ve been through that before.
This past week I witnessed a discussion on the reasons why many in the Modern Orthodox community are lax regarding tznius.
Some participants laid the blame on popular ignorance, and I suppose that is a part of it - especially as our leaders and role models send mixed messages on the issue, even in their own dress. How many of our kids go to shabbatonim or youth programs where their advisors dress in a manner that is less-than-tzanua?
To this I'd add that many Jews don't recognize the difference between halachah, minhag and personal preference in these matters.
And I’d add an agnatological point: It’s a willful ignorance, as many don’t want to learn more, and therefore they don’t know more.
I also think part of it is that some modern rabbis mock those who dress in a more tzanua way, or in a more chassidish way (how many times have I heard people justify their own choice of garb by mocking those who dress "like a 16th century Polish nobleman"), and this adds fuel to the non-tzanua fire.
Both the ignorance and the scorn are eminently solvable, though, via commitment to greater education, and to respect for those whose practices are different.
I think another, more challenging point is the Universalist ideology that is second nature to Modern Orthodox Jews – an appreciation for the value of our world, and a desire to engage other citizens of that world as equals. This Universalism, perhaps better rendered as Humanism, makes tznius difficult.
Being tzanua in a non-tzanua world, and believing that being tzanua is a moral statement rather than a technical observance, carries the implication that those around us are immoral, or less moral than we are. This runs counter to the idea that the people around us are our moral equals.
And being tzanua in a non-tzanua world makes mixing in society difficult. Today’s multiculturalism encourages tolerance of the Other, but not engagement of the Other. The tzanua is definitely the Other, and has a hard time feeling socially accepted.
In a sense, the anti-tznius phenomenon manifests the flip side of the parochialism practiced by other groups of Jews. Parochialism, taken to its extreme, causes its practitioners to (a) look down on others, and (b) avoid activities which will help them blend in. And universalism/humanism does the opposite.
Perhaps one solution is a more nuanced universalism. A universalism which deems all equal in substance (Tzelem Elokim), but not in actions. A universalism which is balanced with the rest of our halachic/philosophical values. Allowing any one plank in our platform to become outsized is unhealthy.
Ultimately, dressing in a tzanua manner is an expression of a halachic and philosophical value of our Judaism. Whether this is dropped out of ignorance, or scorn, or a desire to blend in, the result is the loss of a major element of Judaism, and a significant lacking in each individual's experience of Torah.
[You might also see this old post from November '08.]
First: I dislike the term “tznius” as applied to clothing, because it more accurately refers – both linguistically and historically - to an overarching sense of privacy and humility, expressed in all levels of behavior. However, “tznius” is the term our generation uses to refer to Judaism’s traditional, conservative halachic and philosophical approach to dress. So I’ll use it here.
Second: I also dislike the term “Modern Orthodoxy”... but we’ve been through that before.
This past week I witnessed a discussion on the reasons why many in the Modern Orthodox community are lax regarding tznius.
Some participants laid the blame on popular ignorance, and I suppose that is a part of it - especially as our leaders and role models send mixed messages on the issue, even in their own dress. How many of our kids go to shabbatonim or youth programs where their advisors dress in a manner that is less-than-tzanua?
To this I'd add that many Jews don't recognize the difference between halachah, minhag and personal preference in these matters.
And I’d add an agnatological point: It’s a willful ignorance, as many don’t want to learn more, and therefore they don’t know more.
I also think part of it is that some modern rabbis mock those who dress in a more tzanua way, or in a more chassidish way (how many times have I heard people justify their own choice of garb by mocking those who dress "like a 16th century Polish nobleman"), and this adds fuel to the non-tzanua fire.
Both the ignorance and the scorn are eminently solvable, though, via commitment to greater education, and to respect for those whose practices are different.
I think another, more challenging point is the Universalist ideology that is second nature to Modern Orthodox Jews – an appreciation for the value of our world, and a desire to engage other citizens of that world as equals. This Universalism, perhaps better rendered as Humanism, makes tznius difficult.
Being tzanua in a non-tzanua world, and believing that being tzanua is a moral statement rather than a technical observance, carries the implication that those around us are immoral, or less moral than we are. This runs counter to the idea that the people around us are our moral equals.
And being tzanua in a non-tzanua world makes mixing in society difficult. Today’s multiculturalism encourages tolerance of the Other, but not engagement of the Other. The tzanua is definitely the Other, and has a hard time feeling socially accepted.
In a sense, the anti-tznius phenomenon manifests the flip side of the parochialism practiced by other groups of Jews. Parochialism, taken to its extreme, causes its practitioners to (a) look down on others, and (b) avoid activities which will help them blend in. And universalism/humanism does the opposite.
Perhaps one solution is a more nuanced universalism. A universalism which deems all equal in substance (Tzelem Elokim), but not in actions. A universalism which is balanced with the rest of our halachic/philosophical values. Allowing any one plank in our platform to become outsized is unhealthy.
Ultimately, dressing in a tzanua manner is an expression of a halachic and philosophical value of our Judaism. Whether this is dropped out of ignorance, or scorn, or a desire to blend in, the result is the loss of a major element of Judaism, and a significant lacking in each individual's experience of Torah.
[You might also see this old post from November '08.]
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Toward a Modern Orthodox Ideology
A dozen years ago, a rabbi who was among the founders of Edah explained to me that Edah was meant to develop an ideology for Modern Orthodoxy. As he put it, the vision of Modern Orthodoxy cannot be, “I’m Modern Orthodox because I go to shul and I go to movies.”
A dozen years later, I am told that Edah, for better or for worse, no longer exists. In the meantime, Modern Orthodoxy, for many of its adherents as well as opponents, still lacks a formal ideology. And I agree with that rabbi – this movement needs an ideology.
Movies or Israel, Kashrut or Secular Education or Women’s Issues, no matter the topic, the choices which guide our lives must derive from a sound philosophy. Without such a driving engine, our religious practice, and even belief, are a function of our needs/wants rather than religious tradition and teachings, and that’s no way to run a movement.
But I think such an ideology is within reach, if we first define the term Modern Orthodox itself.
As I understand it (and some people might not even consider me Modern Orthodox in the first place, so take this with a grain of salt) "Modern Orthodoxy" describes an Orthodoxy which absorbs what we believe to be valuable in the Modern ideological world, if and only if those valuable ideas jive with our Orthodox tradition.
Or to borrow from R’ Shimshon Raphael Hirsch’s introduction to Horeb: Orthodoxy is שמעתתא and Modernity is אגדתא. Modernity provides insight into Orthodoxy, but only when it does not conflict with that Orthodoxy.
Given that definition, I would suggest that an ideology of Modern Orthodoxy should be composed of the basic primacy of Orthodoxy, as well as the ideas we have embraced from Modernity.
To illustrate, here are three modern isms which Modern Orthodoxy has embraced, having found their basis within Orthodoxy as well:
Universalism
Universalism, in my usage, implies an embrace of the world as a whole, in the recognition that all human beings are created in the special image assigned to them by Gd (Tzelem Elokim).
This modern idea, rooted in Enlightenment-era philosophy, leads to the conclusion that all human beings constitute a family of some sort, and it also promotes the idea that all human beings may have some lesson to teach me.
This idea is manifest in Modern Orthodox ideas of:
religious tolerance;
equal opportunity for religious education and religious engagement;
engagement with society;
study of both Jewish and secular wisdom.
Self-Determination
Self-Determination, here, refers to the right and responsibility of any individual or collective to determine their future path.
This modern idea, which has its roots in centuries-old political theory, teaches that if we wish to have a better lot we ought to take charge of creating that better lot for ourselves. Lack of control is the result of my own failure to create my own destiny.
This concept plays out in Modern Orthodox ideas of:
Zionism;
Political action.
Rationalism
Rationalism, as defined by Vernon Bourke, is an approach in which “the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive.”
This idea is less modern than the previous two, but it has gained significant ground in the public mind in recent centuries. It demands of us that we detemine truth based upon observable reality.
This concept generates Modern Orthodox ideas of:
Serious study of Jewish tradition, from text;
Adherence to text over tradition;
Secular study;
Skepticism toward mysticism.
Note, though:
While all three of these ideas have clear antecedents in both תורה שבכתב and תורה שבעל פה (the Written and Spoken Torah), nonetheless, they are not consistent with every aspect of Torah.
Universalism runs afoul of the particularism which drives laws governing ribbit, avdut and more. It also conflicts with mystical ideas, embraced by Kuzari as well as Chassidut, of the special character of the Jewish neshamah.
Self-Determination conflicts with some applications of bitachon (trust in Gd) and the expectation that we will rely on Gd to assign us our destiny.
Rationalism, unchecked by loyalty to tradition and revelation, risks violating the basic principle that Modernity must conform with Orthodoxy.
So that's a start. Universalism, Self-Determination and Rationalism, within the context of a robust Orthodoxy, are but a few pieces of a Modern Orthodox ideology; can you identify more?
A dozen years later, I am told that Edah, for better or for worse, no longer exists. In the meantime, Modern Orthodoxy, for many of its adherents as well as opponents, still lacks a formal ideology. And I agree with that rabbi – this movement needs an ideology.
Movies or Israel, Kashrut or Secular Education or Women’s Issues, no matter the topic, the choices which guide our lives must derive from a sound philosophy. Without such a driving engine, our religious practice, and even belief, are a function of our needs/wants rather than religious tradition and teachings, and that’s no way to run a movement.
But I think such an ideology is within reach, if we first define the term Modern Orthodox itself.
As I understand it (and some people might not even consider me Modern Orthodox in the first place, so take this with a grain of salt) "Modern Orthodoxy" describes an Orthodoxy which absorbs what we believe to be valuable in the Modern ideological world, if and only if those valuable ideas jive with our Orthodox tradition.
Or to borrow from R’ Shimshon Raphael Hirsch’s introduction to Horeb: Orthodoxy is שמעתתא and Modernity is אגדתא. Modernity provides insight into Orthodoxy, but only when it does not conflict with that Orthodoxy.
Given that definition, I would suggest that an ideology of Modern Orthodoxy should be composed of the basic primacy of Orthodoxy, as well as the ideas we have embraced from Modernity.
To illustrate, here are three modern isms which Modern Orthodoxy has embraced, having found their basis within Orthodoxy as well:
Universalism
Universalism, in my usage, implies an embrace of the world as a whole, in the recognition that all human beings are created in the special image assigned to them by Gd (Tzelem Elokim).
This modern idea, rooted in Enlightenment-era philosophy, leads to the conclusion that all human beings constitute a family of some sort, and it also promotes the idea that all human beings may have some lesson to teach me.
This idea is manifest in Modern Orthodox ideas of:
religious tolerance;
equal opportunity for religious education and religious engagement;
engagement with society;
study of both Jewish and secular wisdom.
Self-Determination
Self-Determination, here, refers to the right and responsibility of any individual or collective to determine their future path.
This modern idea, which has its roots in centuries-old political theory, teaches that if we wish to have a better lot we ought to take charge of creating that better lot for ourselves. Lack of control is the result of my own failure to create my own destiny.
This concept plays out in Modern Orthodox ideas of:
Zionism;
Political action.
Rationalism
Rationalism, as defined by Vernon Bourke, is an approach in which “the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive.”
This idea is less modern than the previous two, but it has gained significant ground in the public mind in recent centuries. It demands of us that we detemine truth based upon observable reality.
This concept generates Modern Orthodox ideas of:
Serious study of Jewish tradition, from text;
Adherence to text over tradition;
Secular study;
Skepticism toward mysticism.
Note, though:
While all three of these ideas have clear antecedents in both תורה שבכתב and תורה שבעל פה (the Written and Spoken Torah), nonetheless, they are not consistent with every aspect of Torah.
Universalism runs afoul of the particularism which drives laws governing ribbit, avdut and more. It also conflicts with mystical ideas, embraced by Kuzari as well as Chassidut, of the special character of the Jewish neshamah.
Self-Determination conflicts with some applications of bitachon (trust in Gd) and the expectation that we will rely on Gd to assign us our destiny.
Rationalism, unchecked by loyalty to tradition and revelation, risks violating the basic principle that Modernity must conform with Orthodoxy.
So that's a start. Universalism, Self-Determination and Rationalism, within the context of a robust Orthodoxy, are but a few pieces of a Modern Orthodox ideology; can you identify more?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
