Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 101

Monday, September 13 2004

• RE: Non-literal explanations
• Re: location of Gan Eden
• Re: Age of the Universe
• Age of the Universe (Haskamos to the Science of Torah by RNS)
• Re: Torah as Allegory
• Re: Rambam and allegory
• RE: Non-literal explanations/Gan Eden
• Re: Torah as Allegory
• Re: Torah as Allegory
• Re: Torah as Allegory
• Re: Torah as Allegory

Note the wording between Adam I (viyivra elokim et ha'adam) and Adam II
(vayitzar hashem elokim et ha'adam) and how Targum Onkelus indicates
(re: Adam II) that he was given "ruach memalela". Ergo, only *this*
human Adam SPOKE; the earlier hominid didn't speak. See also Rashi there.
Thus, there's no *stira* here.

KT
Josh

In  Avodah V13 #99 dated 9/11/2004 RYGB writes:
> We have a pretty good idea where it *was* - it is in the vicinity of
> present day Pakistan. The Shu"t Bnei Zion bases his shittah on the
> Halachic International Dateline (which it seems is the shittah that
> the Lubavitcher Rebbe championed) on the location of Gan Eden.

I thought Gan Eden was in present-day Iraq. Four rivers came out of
Eden: the Pishon, which Rashi identifies as the Nile. The Gichon,
unidentified. The Chidekel is the Tigris River, and the Peras is
the Euphrates. Of the three we can identify, none are anywhere near
Pakistan.

KVCT
--Toby  Katz
=============

Zoo Torah <zoorabbi@zootorah.com> wrote:
> But just to clarify - I didn't just mean that no evidence has been found;
> I mean that the evidence shows that such catastrophic events did not
> take place. I'm not just referring to the human records that R' Micha
> mentioned - also evidence from all the other fields cited above.

There is "proof" that there was no flood, not just complete lack of
evidence? You can prove a neagtive?

Please expain.

HM

Rabbi Nossen Slifkin wrote on Avodah (13:9):
>I do not accept that Ralbag only has validity if backed up by Chazal,
>and Ralbag apparently didn't think so either. Rav Nadel's position
>is that Rambam (and, by the same token, Ralbag) give us a license to
>allegorize when there is necessary cause, such as overwhelming scientific
>evidence. My specific allegory in my sefer has haskamos from Rav Aryeh
>Carmell, Rav Sholom Kamenetzky, and Rav Mordechai Kornfeld, shlita.

I asked Rabbi Sholom Kamenetsky Shlita whether his letter in the sefer
could be taken as expressing agreement with Rabbi Slifkin's approach.

Rabbi Kamenetsky has given me permission to forward his response to
Avodah. It is addressed to me by my Hebrew name ("Yoel").

September 13, 2004

Dear R' Yoel,

Thank you for the note. My name does appear in his book and a
careful reading of the haskomo will show that I gave no haskomo on the
content. What impressed me about the book is its science. The uninitiated
unlettered Jew often finds that the responses he gets when he questions
the seeming incompatibility between science and Torah (l'havdil) are
lacking. The science in the book is impressive, but I do not agree
with the positions he takes in the Torah. True, he has "unconventional"
sources that would lend some credibility to the theories he proposes, but
I see these as "suggestions" (based on somewhat spurious understandings
of unconventional sources) that are to allow the uninitiated to feel
that he can begin learning Torah, and see for himself that the issues
are irrelevant. More than anything else, RNS should be lauded for trying
his best to defend the Torah against a group of apikorsim that are bent
on mocking Torah and disseminating science as the "proof" that Torah is
false, Rachmono litzlan. But to say that these theories have credibility
as Torah positions was not my intent in my letter of approbation. I agree
with Rabbi Bechofer and there is no such thing as scientific evidence
which is "incontrovertible".

Respectfully,
Sholom Kamenetsky

MYG wrote:
>I don't care whether the world was created to look old or not. I don't
>care if science conflicts with my view of the world, or with the literal
>interpretation of the Torah. I'll take the Torah at face value. I'm
>not going to lose sleep about fossils and strata, about numbers higher
>than 5764, or about the possibility of my ancestors being apes. I have
>my beliefs, I recognize the problems in the arguments supporting them,
>and I don't care - because my raison d'etre is based upon the beliefs -
>which I have.

>To my mind, informed ignorance is best.

This reminds me of of the cynic's definition of belief - accepting that
which you know isn't true. However there is an alternative understanding
which I think is expresed by the following.

Michtav M'Eliyahu (3:177): Greater emuna is acquired step after step
as a consequence of deep immersion in Torah study and not by abstract
intellectual analysis of theological issues. It is a mistake to think
that it is possible to acquire genuine emuna by means of intellectual
analysis and philosophy. The intellect is biased by many factors that
prevent it from being objective. Personal desires twist and distort
thought to conform to it. When a person turns to his intellect and
wants that it be the final judge on issues of emuna ג€“ that is a clear
sign that the person doesnג€™t really want to have emuna and that is
why he is turning to the corrupt judge to make decisions according
to his desires. Not only is the intellect inherently biased but it
is also limited since it is based upon material imagery which itself
is finite. In contrast emuna which originates inside a person is not
restricted by these limitations. Rav Nachman of Breslov noted that
emuna starts at the limits of intellect. In fact we are obligated to
clarify emuna with our intellects as the Chovas HaLevavos says in his
introduction. The attitude is not ג€œwhatever I can make sense of I will
accept and otherwise I will reject itג€ Gג€‘d forbid. The intent is not
to be totally dependent upon intellectual analysis which can never lead
to proper clarification of truth ג€“ as we noted it is biased according
to desires and limited. The clarifying emuna intellectually means that
after one has established emuna in oneג€™s heart from the traditions of
our ancestors and by means of studying the holy Torah and perceives its
greatness and the greatness of our Sages ג€“ then a person should endeavor
to understand it intellectually that which he has accepted as true.

Michtav M'Eliyahu(1:170): We find in our holy books that emuna is belief
in that which we have not yet fully grasped with our intellect. In other
words, emuna is accepting something as true because it seems reasonable
to accept it. For example, a person might accept something his parents or
teachers told him primarily because he can not conceive that they would
tell him something which is a lie and not to his benefit. Similarly he
might note that a complex machine, made up of many precisely integrated
components, could not have been made by accident. A watch cannot be
assembled simply by dropping the components and assuming that they would
connect themselves correctly by chance. Therefore belief is a function
of what is considered reasonable rather than clear proof or direct
experience. Thus emuna stands in contrast to things like mathematics
that can be directly and conclusively proved. This reliance on the
standard of reasonableness instead of actual knowledge even applies
to such things as life and death decisions. Murder trials based upon
circumstantial evidence are an example. It is important to note that if
we multiply the strength of the circumstantial evidence in a typical
murder trial by a factor of 1000, it would still pale in comparison
that the evidence that the incredibly complex world was created by an
infinitely intelligent Creator. Thus emuna is something that we accept
because it is reasonable. However there is a level beyond merely being
reasonable. Emuna can develop into rational certainty that is as strong
as mathematical certainty. This shift happens when the obviousness of
the belief is so strong that it becomes equivalent to directly knowing
the facts that had initially appeared only reasonable. This shift
can also occur when the likelihood of the belief being wrong becomes
remote. When a belief is deeply thought about and analyzed and then
becomes intuitively obvious ג€“ it is called tzedek. In other words it
becomes totally rational. This is what the expression that a ג€˜Tzadik
lives by his emunaג€™. Tzedek is derived from that which starts as emuna.
However since emuna originates in the heart as something that seems
or feels reasonable ג€“ it also is strongly influenced by bias and
motivation. This problem is described in the Torah (Devarim 16:19),
ג€œBribery blinds the eyes of the wise and distorted the words of the
righteousג€. Because of this problem of bias our holy books say that the
entire reason for heresy is that a person wants an excuse to fulfill his
physical desires. Similar it is said that the only reason why Jews ever
worshipped idols was to provide an excuse to permit sin but not because
they believed in it. Thus the path of great people is that they start with
emuna that eventually becomes rational awareness i.e., they comprehend
from the perspective of tzedek. That is why the Torah (Bereishis 16:6)
describes Avrahamג€™s emuna as being, ג€œconsidered as tzedakahג€.

Avi Ezri(Hilchos Teshuva 5:5): I asked the Brisker Rav [concerning the
relationship between knowledge and belief]. He said that he had addressed
this question to his father - Rג€™ Chaim Brisker. Reb Chaim had replied,
ג€œThat which the intellect knows is not described as emuna but is
knowledge. The obligation of emuna only begins past the limits of the
intellect. This can readily be understood from the fact that intellect
is limited both in time and place. Consequently that which is beyond
time and place is clearly also beyond intellectual comprehension. The
essence of Gג€‘d is beyond time and place and thus is not comprehended
by the intellect ג€“ consequently it is in the realm of emuna.ג€

Maharal(Gevuras HaShem 9): We have already explained that the emuna
indicates the strength of the reality of the believer from which the emuna
comes. Therefore there can be redemption which results from emuna while
the absence of emuna causes enslavement. Furthermore when one understands
the nature of emuna fully then you will know that one who sins concerning
emuna is enslaved and one achieves emuna deserves freedom. The reason
for this is that someone who knows something from direct knowledge ג€“
that is merely physical perception. However someone who believes in Gג€‘d
and it is from this belief in Gג€‘d that he knows something ג€“ this is
truly an elevated level of being. This idea is found in the (Shabbos 119b)
where it says that a person who answer amen is greater than the one who
said the beracha. That is because the one who said the beracha did it
because of a direct knowledge concerning reality. This is not as great
as someone who answers amen who does it from his faith in Gג€‘d and not
from his direct knowledge. We find this idea also in the medrash which
says that whoever does a single mitzva with emuna deserves the state of
ruach hakodesh. The reason for that is that when he does a mitzva from
direct knowledge that direct knowing and perception has nothing to do
with ruach hakodesh. However when he does it because of emuna then the
action has a connection to Gג€‘d whom he believes in. Even though he
doesnג€™t know he still has emuna in Gג€‘d. Consequently he acquires
ruach hakodesh as it says in the Torah (Shemos 14), they believed in
Gג€‘d and in Moshe His servant. As a consequence of this emuna they all
acquired ruach hakodesh and were able to say lofty praises of Gג€‘d out
of great joy and exaltation. Because of this principle the Jews merited
being redeemed through emuna. That is because redemption is freedom
which results from attaching oneself to Gג€‘d and in that state no one
else can have dominion of him. Therefore the greatness of emuna has two
aspects. The first aspect is the demonstration of the strength of ones
attachment to his emuna as we explained in great detail concerning they
believed in Gג€‘d. The second aspect is the greatness that results from
accepting oneג€™s emuna from Gג€‘d in that he is attached to Gג€‘d.

<>Tanya(1:18): Chochma (wisdom) is the source of intellect and
understanding. It is above understanding i.e., the understanding of the
intellect and its comprehension. Thus chochma is above understanding and
comprehension and at the same time is their source. This is seen even in
the word chochma itself which is composed of ג€œkoachג€ and ג€œmahג€
i.e., that which above comprehension and understandingג€¦ Therefore
all Jews ג€“even the women and simple masses ג€“ have emuna in Gג€‘d
since emuna transcends knowing and comprehensionג€¦ Even the lowest of
the low and the sinners usually become martyrs for Kiddush HaShem and
suffer great torture rather than reject the One Gג€‘d. This is true in
spite of the fact that they are totally ignorant and do not know the
greatness of Gג€‘d. Even the little they know they donג€™t think about
at all so they are not sacrificing their lives because of knowledge
and understanding of Gג€‘d at all- rather in spite of their ignorance
and lack of understanding. The One Gג€‘d is apparently something which
is impossible to deny even without conscious understanding but rather
because of the transcendent reality of His Unity illuminates and gives
life to the soul through chochma which is above rational comprehension.

<>Kuzari(3:43): After we have clarified the general principles, donג€™t
concern yourself with the exact details of real life events. The details
are often subject to misunderstanding. Furthermore the details are given
to a multitude of interpretations and can cause confusion to those who
look at them from different viewpoints. Therefore a person who accepts
that Gג€‘d is wise and understanding should ignore the apparent injustice
that exists in this world.

Netziv(Shemos 13:9): Donג€™t be surprised that Gג€‘d requires us to do
so many mitzvos and techniques to acquire bitachon and emuna in Him. The
fact is that it was known that the Jews do not readily accept until they
are forced as we see by the plagues. Gג€‘d took us out of Egypt with a
strong hand because it was not easy for us to accept His dominion. This
concept in found in the medrash which explains ג€œThe Jews not listening
to Moshe because of their irritability and stress of their enslavementג€
meant that they were immersed in idol worship. The medrash thus tells
us that in fact they did not want to be redeemed. In truth though the
first time that they were told that Gג€‘d had remembered them and sent
Moshe to save them that all of them believed and bowed down. The reason
that they responded differently the second time was that then He informed
them that He wanted to be their Gג€‘d. In other words they had no problem
acknowledging Gג€‘d except when it meant they would be supervised and
controlled by Gג€‘d depending on their behavior. Thus they all didnג€™t
want to accept this until Gג€‘d took them out of Egypt against their
will. Something which is difficult for a person to accept requires many
activities to implant in his heart.

Beis HaLevi(Shemos 12:43): The main mitzva of emuna is to believe in all
the words of the Torah and the tradition from our rabbis concerning that
which is impossible to know according to direct proof or experience. In
fact all that is amenable to direct proof or experience is not called
emuna but is called knowledge. We have a mitzva to believe and that
applies to those things which are beyond the comprehension of our
intellect. Therefore a person who only believes that which is amenable
to direct proof or experience has not fulfilled the mitzva of emuna at
all. Just as a person is commanded to submit his energies to serve Gג€‘d
such as the breaking of the physical lusts concerning the pleasures of
this world ג€“ similarly a person has the obligation to submit and to
nullify his intellect to serve Gג€‘d. That is what we mean by emuna in the
words of Torah concerning that which is beyond the comprehension of the
intellect. Therefore someone whose intellect has become corrupt and his
heart weaken in emuna can not be directly aided by his friends. Instead
it is necessary to pray that Gג€‘d put faith in his heart and purify
his heart to serve Gג€‘dג€¦

Malbim[2](Hoshea 2:21): Yediya or knowledge is something which is
perceived directly with the senses or is understand through such clear
proof that it is impossible to doubt it at all. Emuna on the other hand
is something which is not comprehended in an irrefutable manner but is
accepted from highly reliable sources and is believed based on their say
so. Wherever there is a completely clear knowledge there is no longer
any relevance for emuna.

Daniel Eidensohn

[Micha:]
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 12:24:58PM +0300, Akiva Atwood wrote:
>: IN  fact, as anyone active in kiruv would know, your answer would be more
>: problematic, since it doesn't supply *any* answer that a non-frum person
>: with basic (high school) scientific knowledge would find acceptable.

>: That's why it's important to answer these questions, and not brush them away
>: with "Fuhn a kashya shtarbt men nisht."

> The following approach has worked (judging from email replies) on scj:

> There is a parallel within physics today. Quantum mechanics, the standard
> model, has been the most successful theory in history in predicting
> experimental results. Meanwhile, general relativity and its concept of
> gravity have also been well proven. Each is used in different domains:
> QM deals with the very small, relativity with the cosmic scale, the
> very massive or the very fast. However when trying to combine the two
> to merge gravity into quantum theory one gets infinities that just
> won't go away. It doesn't work.

> And yet, each  theory is so well established than scientists don't question
> either. Instead,  they expect a resolution is just over the horizon.

> Judaism isn't about prehistory, it's about man's purpose in this
> world. This conflict is therefore very similar to those scientists
> routinely shelf for later.

I remember reading this, now that I see it again, and I also remember
thinking it was not a very satisfactory answer, but if it works for
kiruv, good.

It's similar to what some of the secular science writers, like Stephen
Jay Gould, have been saying--science has its sphere, and religion has
its sphere, and one is not supposed to explain the other. Of course
when HE says it, he's being very condescending to religion, whereas you
are attempting to be respectful to both religion and science. Also, you
allow for the possibility--indeed posit the probabality--that further
knowledge will effect a reconciliation between the two some day.

But meanwhile we have this uncomfortable fact that there are two mutually
exclusive truth claims, and they couldn't both have really happened in
the objective sense of the word "real."

KVCT
 -Toby  Katz
=============

On Fri, 2004-09-10 at 15:03 -0400, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M.
Bechhofer wrote:
> At 11:29 AM 9/10/2004, you wrote:
>>> A prophetic dream is reality. We've been through this before too.

>>then why can't one claim the text of bereishis in regards to creation
>>and the mabul (and anything else that seems extraordinary) was just a
>>prophetic dream of some sorts?  i.e. where's the line b/w "allegory" and
>>"prophetic dream"

> The line is drawn between events that involve interaction between the 
> material and spiritual and events that are material.

and as someone else brought up, how does this fit w/ the story of sdom
that follows this "prophetic dream"

I would personally like to applaud the lengthy post written by R
Moshe Yehuda Gluck and thank him for taking the time to write it. It
was very insightful and I believe it accurately reflects a certain
dynamic that takes place amongst those of us who seek answers to the
eternal questions. I fully agree that in the vast majority of cases an
individual's Haskafas HaChaim is strongly determined by the "first come,
first serve" factor. Often an individual is "hit" with a Hashkafa at an
early age (the teenage years) before he ever begins his own search for
truth and will retain the first version of it he encounters, for the
rest of his life.

So when a highly respected educator such as R. Avigdor Miller writes a
book that totally rejects the theory of evolution as false despite much
scientific data to the contrary, it becomes psychologically impossible
to use that accumulated data and one's intellect to discredit RAM's
assertions, no matter how well made the argument against him.

RMYG puts it: 
> To one who already accepted RAMM (R' Avigdor Miller's Mehalech) as
> true, there would be an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance produced,
> trying, for example, to accept any sort of evolutionary process, or any
> redating of the universe.

I further agree with RMYG in that many people just do not want to face
these issues at all and are content to simply say, "I just don't know
enough about it and rely on... either one's belief system or on "Others
greater than myself" to determine the validity of one argument versus
another. So, for example, when a "Chasid" of RAM's says he trusts is
his Rebbe who after all is widely accepted, that is enough for him. He
will believe that RAM already thought it through better than he ever
could have.

However I do not understand this approach as I believe it to be an
intellectually dishonest ...or at least an intellectually lazy... one.

RMYG asks:
> Is there something wrong with
> having a mehalech hachayim that may be fundamentally wrong, and yet
> consistent with the Torah Mehalech as expressed by one of the leaders
> of merican Orthodox Jewry?

My answer is yes, there is something wrong believing in something that
is fundamentally wrong. If it "walks like a duck etc." but it is proven
not to be a duck, then it is wrong to believe it is a duck.

I also object to the notion of "informed ignorance" for the same
reasons. Knowing that what one believes in is incorrect, and making a
value judgment to continue to believe in it anyway is intellectually
dishonest. I question the very notion that one can actually believe in
something he knows is incorrect. Can one possibly believe that one plus
one equals three? It is impossibility. For one to say that he believes
that one plus one equals three when knows that is incorrect is a complete
lie. To know that the �Emperor has no clothes� but to say he does and to
comment how beautiful those non- existent clothes are may be politically
correct but is none-the-less ridiculous to believe. I would suggest
that a more appropriate term for the insistence by those who formed their
beliefs pre-maturely is "uninformed ignorance". Ignorance, after all,
is the very nature of being uninformed.

Perhaps there is a better description of what takes place amongst those
who were indoctrinated y the "first come first serve" phenomenon. It isn�t
that they are informed but that they are only partially informed. They
are taught a belief system that supercedes logic and reason when logic
and reason contradict those beliefs. Many, perhaps most people are
content to say that they are happy in their beliefs and do not really
think about or dwell on issues like: whether evidence of the theory of
evolution contradicts the Torah. It doesn�t seem to concern them. If
pressed they simply say they do not know enough about these issues and
trust in what their mentors say and leave any debate on the issue to them.
As RYMG says, it is an act of religious expression.

Bearing that in mind, It is understandable that this has not become a
major issue of the day. As RMYG puts it:
>  The Torah requires me to believe
> in Hashem. The Torah requires me to believe in its' truth. The Torah
> requires me to believe in Mashiach. I do. Does it matter if I cannot
> defend my beliefs? Does it matter if my beliefs are based upon erroneous
> foundations? The Torah requires me to believe; I do. I personally am not
> bothered by these questions - because I want to believe! With RAMM, I can
> believe, and thus fulfill my obligations in avodas Hashem.

And:
> I don't care whether the world was created to look old or not. I don't
> care if science conflicts with my view of the world, or with the literal
> interpretation of the Torah. I'll take the Torah at face value. I'm
> not going to lose sleep about fossils and strata, about numbers higher
> than 5764, or about the possibility of my ancestors being apes. I have
> my beliefs, I recognize the problems in the arguments supporting them,
> and I don't care - because my raison d'etre is based upon the beliefs -
> which I have.

In my opinion those who hold of the last two RMYG quotes are
intellectually dishonest, or lazy, or both.

One more thing . The following quote is quite upsetting: 
> (I am reminded of a quote: "Brainwashing is okay - as long as you use
> kosher soap." - R' Shaya Cohen of Priority-1, in a public forum.)

This is the "ends justify the means" argument. Brainwashing is NOT OK. It
may be important to use kosher soap but it is equally important to tell
the truth and not "wash" anyone's brain no matter how one feels about
the subject being taught. One needs to know all the facts to the best
of one's ability in order to be able to deal better with any possible
questions that may arise in one's trek throughout life.

The best you can offer a student is honesty and truth.

HM

From: "MYG" <mslatfatf@access4less.net>
> The previous two sections lead us to ask: Is there something wrong with
> having a mehalech hachayim that may be fundamentally wrong, and yet
> consistent with the Torah Mehalech as expressed by one of the leaders
> of merican Orthodox Jewry?

> To answer this I would like to coin a phrase: Informed ignorance
> (henceforth, II). That is, knowing that what one believe's in is
> incorrect, and making a value judgement to continue to believe in it
> anyway. (This is not cult-like behavior - the decision is not made
> for him.)

See Rambam PHM Hagigah 2:1 s.v. "vratuy lo k'ilu lo ba l'olam" and
"kol shelo has al kvod kono".

David Riceman

R' Daniel Eidonsohn quoted me (MYG):
> I don't care whether the world was created to look old or not. I don't
> care if science conflicts with my view of the world, or with the literal
> interpretation of the Torah. I'll take the Torah at face value. I'm
> not going to lose sleep about fossils and strata, about numbers higher
> than 5764, or about the possibility of my ancestors being apes. I have
> my beliefs, I recognize the problems in the arguments supporting them,
> and I don't care - because my raison d'etre is based upon the beliefs -
> which I have.

> To my mind, informed ignorance is best.

To which he responded: 
> This reminds me of of the cynic's definition of belief - accepting that
> which you know isn't true. However there is an alternative understanding
> which I think is expresed by the following.
<BIG SNIP>
> Basically the common denominator of the quotes he brought is that emunah
> is belief in ideas that are beyond the rational. I agree with that, so,
> RDE, I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or arguing with me. Please
> clarify.

Additionally, and I'll elaborate on this in another post - I'm not
saying to accept what you know isn't true. I'm saying to accept what you
know is true - even though your understanding of this truth was based
upon an inaccurate argument. (Apparently I phrased this incorrectly,
because a few people noted this.)

Moshe Yehuda Gluck

Thank you very much everyone for your kind words regarding my post. I
want to respond to a few comments, and also make one big correction
in my post. I beg everyone's mechila - my excuse is that I was writing
between selichos and 4:30 AM, and I didn't catch it. A few people noted
it, and I will respond in due course.

RnTK wrote:
>> I agree with you that R' Avigdor Miller deserves credit for making some
>> attempt to answer the questions--even though I don't personally find his
>> answers satisfying-- rather than just ignoring them. I also agree with
>> you his vigorous, unapologetic approach was a breath of fresh air to many.

> I'll add that when I was just turning a teen (all of twelve years ago)
> there was STILL (to the best of my knowledge) no other hashkafas hachayim
> sefer that dealt with all these questions, aside from R' AM. (There may
> have been others - but I didn't know about them, and I was a voracious
> reader.) If I hadn't had his seforim, who knows where I would be
> today? Certainly, he was a seminal figure in my spiritual development.

I wrote:
> The previous two sections lead us to ask: Is there something wrong with
> having a mehalech hachayim that may be fundamentally wrong, and yet
> consistent with the Torah Mehalech as expressed by one of the leaders
> of merican Orthodox Jewry?

To which RnTK asked:
> Begs a question: how CAN something be "fundamentally" wrong and yet
> consistent with Torah--if the Torah is true? That's the question we've
> been grappling with for lo! these many moons. Only a few issues of Avodah,
> but it FEELS like millions....

Here's where my error was. I meant to say the following: 
The previous two sections lead us to ask: Is there something wrong with
having a mehalech hachayim that was based on erroneous arguments, and
yet consistent with the Torah Mehalech as expressed by one of the leaders
of American Orthodox Jewry? I was using the word "fundamentally" as in
"something wrong with the mehalech's fundaments" or "something wrong
with the proofs to the mehalech." Sorry. Next time I'll have to respond
earlier in the evening. :-) I'm hoping RnTK will withdraw her question
after my correction.

RnTK wrote:
> Your phrase, "Informed Ignorance," is a brilliant coinage and aptly
> expresses the way most of us go about our lives most of the time.
> Who has complete knowledge about ANYTHING, let alone EVERYTHING? So we
> muddle through as best we can--with informed ignorance.

Thank you very much. RHM disagreed strongly with this phrase. I'd like
to come to that a little later.

RnTK wrote:
> One might say it is part of what made the Akeidah such a difficult
> test--the necessity of acting with emunah peshutah while aware at some
> intellectual level that "this just doesn't make sense."

Please see RDE's recent post in which he quoted many sources for this
concept of emunah being a step past rationality. However, in response to
RnTK, it seems to me that the difficulty in the Akeidah was the emotional
aspect - how can I sacrifice my own son? I would think that someone
who has reached the level of emunah peshutah is not bothered at any
"intellectual level" that it "doesn't make sense." Think of it as II. (Can
I assume that people remember the acronyms I invent? Nah. Informed
ignorance.) Once someone has made that decision than questions don't
bother him. A listmember emailed me off-list that I probably sleep well
at night. I do. In my opinion, so did Avrohom Avinu. The test was that
even if you don't have any questions, and you accept that it is the
ratzon Hashem, it is still nearly impossible to kill your own child.

RnTK:
> Just want you to know this posting is ZZZGG. OUTSTANDING.

Thank you very much. *blush with self-deprecating shrug*

RnTK wrote:
> When it seemed to me--as a young Bais Yakov girl--that my teachers were
> AFRAID to read science, I could not respect them.

Very understandable. I'm curious as to your father's opinion on these
matters. (BTW, your brother's sister-in-law, is my sister.)

I wanted to discuss RHM's post seperately, because I want to quote
extensively from it. V'itchem haslicha.  RHM wrote: 
> I would personally like to applaud the lengthy post written by R
> Moshe Yehuda Gluck and thank him for taking the time to write it. It
> was very insightful and I believe it accurately reflects a certain
> dynamic that takes place amongst those of us who seek answers to the
> eternal questions. I fully agree that in the vast majority of cases an
> individual's Haskafas HaChaim is strongly determined by the "first come,
> first serve" factor. Often an individual is "hit" with a Hashkafa at an
> early age (the teenage years) before he ever begins his own search for
> truth and will retain the first version of it he encounters, for the
> rest of his life.
> So when a highly respected educator such as R. Avigdor Miller writes a
> book that totally rejects the theory of evolution as false despite much
> scientific data to the contrary, it becomes psychologically impossible
> to use that accumulated data and one's intellect to discredit RAMג€™s
> assertions, no matter how well made the argument against him.
<small SNIP> 
> I further agree with RMYG in that many people just do not want to face
> these issues at all and are content to simply say, "I just don't know
> enough about it and rely on... either one's belief system or on "Others
> greater than myself" to determine the validity of one argument versus
> another. So, for example, when a "Chasid" of RAM's says he trusts is
> his Rebbe who after all is widely accepted, that is enough for him. He
> will believe that RAM already thought it through better than he ever
> could have.

RHM, at this point you agree with my analysis of the situation. Now you
begin to question:
> However I do not understand this approach as I believe it to be an
> intellectually dishonest ...or at least an intellectually lazy... one.

> RMYG asks:
>> Is there something wrong with
>> having a mehalech hachayim that may be fundamentally wrong, and yet 
>> consistent with the Torah Mehalech as expressed by one of the leaders
>> of merican Orthodox Jewry?

> My answer is yes, there is something wrong believing in something that
> is fundamentally wrong. If it "walks like a duck etc." but it is proven
> not to be a duck, then it is wrong to believe it is a duck.

Please see what I wrote in response to RnTK's question, I believe it
answers your's, as well.

R'HM cotinues in the following long quote:
> I also object to the notion of "informed ignorance" for the same
> reasons. Knowing that what one believes in is incorrect, and making a
> value judgment to continue to believe in it anyway is intellectually
> dishonest. I question the very notion that one can actually believe in
> something he knows is incorrect. Can one possibly believe that one plus
> one equals three? It is impossibility. For one to say that he believes
> that one plus one equals three when knows that is incorrect is a complete
> lie. To know that the ג€œEmperor has no clothesג€ but to say he does
> and to comment how beautiful those non- existent clothes are may be
> politically correct but is none-the-less ridiculous to believe. I would
> suggest that a more appropriate term for the insistence by those who
> formed their beliefs pre-maturely is "uninformed ignorance". Ignorance,
> after all, is the very nature of being uninformed.

> Perhaps there is a better description of what takes place amongst those
> who were indoctrinated y the "first come first serve" phenomenon. It
> isnג€™t that they are informed but that they are only partially
> informed. They are taught a belief system that supercedes logic and
> reason when logic and reason contradict those beliefs. Many, perhaps
> most people are content to say that they are happy in their beliefs and
> do not really think about or dwell on issues like:
> whether evidence of the theory of evolution contradicts the Torah.  
> It doesnג€™t seem to concern them. If pressed they simply say they do
> not know enough about these issues and trust in what their mentors say
> and leave any debate on the issue to them. As RYMG says, it is an act
> of religious expression.

> Bearing that in mind, It is understandable that this has not become a
> major issue of the day. As RMYG puts it:
>>  The Torah requires me to believe
>> in Hashem. The Torah requires me to believe in its' truth. The Torah
>> requires me to believe in Mashiach. I do. Does it matter if I cannot
>> defend my beliefs? Does it matter if my beliefs are based upon erroneous
>> foundations? The Torah requires me to believe; I do. I personally am not
>> bothered by these questions - because I want to believe! With RAMM, I can
>> believe, and thus fulfill my obligations in avodas Hashem.

> And:
>> I don't care whether the world was created to look old or not. I don't
>> care if science conflicts with my view of the world, or with the literal
>> interpretation of the Torah. I'll take the Torah at face value. I'm
>> not going to lose sleep about fossils and strata, about numbers higher
>> than 5764, or about the possibility of my ancestors being apes. I have
>> my beliefs, I recognize the problems in the arguments supporting them,
>> and I don't care - because my raison d'etre is based upon the beliefs -
>> which I have.

> In my opinion those who hold of the last two RMYG quotes are
> intellectually dishonest, or lazy, or both.

RHM seems to be accusing me of being "intellectually dishonest, or lazy,
or both." Naturally, I disagree with this characterization, although I
take it in the spirit of "es vo'heiv b'sufoh" as I respect RHM very much,
and I'm sure we can have an intellectual debate.

Firstly, as I noted above (and I may not have made this clear the first time around, for which I am sorry), I am not saying one should have an incorrect belief. I am saying one should have all the correct beliefs, and yet the source of these beliefs may be incorrect. I understand the mandate we have is to believe in the 13 ikkarim. And as the Aruch Hashulchan says in OC 1, the truth is that all the mitzvos are really the equivelant of the 13 ikkarim. Nowhere (to my limited knowledge) are we told how we MUST come to these beliefs. We are only told how we MAY come to these beliefs, for example the Rambam in Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah. 

In fact, the very fact that we can have the discussion of the last two weeks on Avodah proves this very contention. RNS seems to believe in a world 16 billion years old, and the possibility that Adam Harishon was an ensouled huminoid. (I say "seems" because I am not quoting directly, and I don't want to attribute inaccurate positions to anybody. My argument holds even if RNS does not agree with this definition.) RYGB seems to hold that the narrative of the six days of creation as a literal one. If we are told how we must come by our beliefs, how can we have such a dichotomy in belief from two acknowledged talmidei chachamim? 

So, I think that part of a person's obligation of emunah, bitachon, avodas Hashem, etc. etc., is to come to the beliefs mandated by the Torah in the quickest way possible. If the quickest way is along a path of illogic, pseudoscience, religious grandstanding, contextual misunderstandings, etc. -- and yet the result will be a person with a strong belief in HKBH, a strong belief in the validity of the Torah, a strong belief in the chiyuv hamitzvos -- then ashrei chelko that he was zoche to be among "l'chol ha'botchim b'shimcha b'emes." Because, although he came to this through sheker, but l'maase he believes with emes.

In response to your term, "Uninformed ignorance," I have two things to say. Firstly, as RED quoted from the Tanya in a recent post: "Therefore all Jews ג€“even the women and simple masses ג€“ have emuna in Gג€‘d since emuna transcends knowing and comprehensionג€¦ Even the lowest of the low and the sinners usually become martyrs for Kiddush HaShem and suffer great torture rather than reject the One Gג€‘d. This is true in spite of the fact that they are totally ignorant and do not know the greatness of Gג€‘d. Even the little they know they donג€™t think about at all so they are not sacrificing their lives because of knowledge and understanding of Gג€‘d at all-  rather in spite of their ignorance and lack of understanding." In other words, even someone with uninformed ignorance can be a Ba'al Emunah.

Secondly, I am saying that even in a situation where there is information available and known, one can choose to ignore it of his own free will. This is not uninformed, this is informed. One can choose to do so as an act of Emunah. (In fact, since all Emunah eventually has to rest on something illogical, as RDE pointed out, why do you object to my drawing the line earlier than you would?) I agree with you that there may be many who ARE uninformed, as the Tanya said. But, that does not contradict my thesis that one may be informed, and make himself as ignorant.

Intellectually dishonest? I don't think so. Lazy? I don't think so (that was a long post I wrote to justify my views ! :-) ) Intellectually dishonest would be someone who refuses to see the flaws in the proofs to his beliefs. I do see the flaws, yet I choose to disregard them. Lazy would be someone who makes no effort to believe in Moshe emes v'soraso emes. (Believe me, I've made an effort. RnTK's words, "Crisis of faith," come to mind.) But one who has exerted himself come to the beliefs that the Torah requires, through a methodology that you disapprove of, is not intellectually dishonest and lazy.

R' HM finishes:
> One more thing . The following quote is quite upsetting: 
>> (I am reminded of a quote: "Brainwashing is okay - as long as you use
>> kosher soap." - R' Shaya Cohen of Priority-1, in a public forum.)

> This is the ג€œends justify the meansג€ argument. Brainwashing is NOT
> OK. It may be important to use kosher soap but it is equally important
> to tell the truth and not ג€œwashג€ anyoneג€™s brain no matter how one
> feels about the subject being taught. One needs to know all the facts
> to the best of oneג€™s ability in order to be able to deal better with
> any possible questions that may arise in oneג€™s trek throughout life.

> The best you can offer a student is honesty and truth.

R' HM what would you rather your teachers offered you - happiness and
kiyum hatorah, or honesty and the possibility of p'rikas oyl?

K'siva v'chasima tova, I hope I haven't offended anyone, and if I did
I beg you to forgive me, Moshe Yehuda Gluck
mgluck@gmail.com

**********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]