- This topic has 60 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
You must must see the latest apikorsus springing forth from the bottomless well (read “pit”) that is YCT. You can google around for it; it is by some clown named zev farber.
Then, for more fun, you search for the google cache and see the original version which is even nuttier.
Hat Tip Rabbi Gordimer on Cross-currents.
For those not interested enough for all the googling: He says that the Torah is contradictory and therefore must have multiple authors.
There’s a difference between saying the Torah has multiple authors and multiple narrative voices. The latter was proposed and understood by Mordechai Breuer, zt”l, who clearly saw these 4 distinct voices (and offered his own theory, while remaining within the camp of Orthodoxy), but Jews must believe G-d is the source of Torah, ultimately. For anyone to deny that there are 4 distinct narrative voices indicates that that individual never studied religion from a critical or academic perspective. I long believed that Modern Orthodoxy must not ignore the evidence and claims made by the Academy.
I see a number of contradictions in his article that cannot be explained without unreasonably stretching his meaning. For example, in his list of contradictions he says that G-d wrote something in Numbers and that G-d wrote something in Deut. But in the summary he says there were two authors. So it appears that the simplest approach is that more than one author wrote the article, and at least 2 of them were drunk.
Seriously though, I am an academic myself, and purely from that viewpoint alone this article is garbage. He forced an article to present a predetermined premise. If this is representative of his caliber of work, I would drop him from my program.
They do require kabbalat ol hamitzvot. Their converts have to go through at least a year of study and observance.
Rav Benzion Uziel, zt”l, the first Rishon leTzion of Medinat Yisrael, paskened that kabbalat ol hamitzvot isn’t me’akev, even le chatchila.
PBA: To be fair, while the article is stupid and an obvious attempt to open people up to possibilities of Apikorsus (and the author is clearly a Meisis Um’diach), it is not fair to attack YCT with this. There are plenty of reasons to attack YCT. But every institution, no matter how Frum, has bad Musmachim. Even the Tannaim had Talmidim go off. Attack YCT on its own merits; not on what their Musmachim do wrong.
If he heads their Geirus board I retract my previous statement. But I thought that YCT doesn’t do their own Geirus to avoid problems with the RCA? I guess they do.
And I am not holding in R’ Uziel’s P’sak on this, but if he did Pasken that way then he is still a Da’as Yachid Min HaYechidim and that doesn’t mean he can be relied upon.
Sam, you would be making a good defense if he were disavowed by YCT. The examples you bring to mind were disavowed by their institutions.
Quote from the CrossCurrents article, Avrohom Gordimer, July 18 2013:
I find nothing funny about apikorsus.
This is sad.
I am very reluctant to label something apikorsus, but Farber is across that line. I hope Rabbi Linzer, Rabbi Weiss and others and YCT find out about Farber’s article and denounce it as beyond the pale of Torah Judaism.
rebdoniel,
Your dan l’kaf zechus is appreciated but Farber clearly refers to multiple authors, not just “voices.”
Popa, that practice was discontinued, though.
For anyone to deny that there are 4 distinct narrative voices indicates that that individual never studied religion from a critical or academic perspective. I long believed that Modern Orthodoxy must not ignore the evidence and claims made by the Academy.
A yiras shamayim does NOT study Torah from a critical or academic perspative. We study to learn to fulfill the mitzva of TT and instruction of how to do mitzvos.. This bible critique is a product of the haskala. RD im afraid you have gotten a hold of some rotten ideas of what Torah is.
And to claim that Chumash has 4 distinct voices is an idiocy based on solely academic reasoning. If you want to be honest, you can find up to 8 or more distinct styles in Chumash. And guess what? Chazal noticed those distinct styles and Darshaned them accordingly. HKBH put the different styles in there for myriad reasons, always to teach us something. The academics, who don’t believe that the Torah came from God, miss that boat entirely.
PBA -“He says that the Torah is contradictory”
I’m not going to comment on whether this guy is an Api or Not because I’m not going to waste my time looking at his Teretz. All I know is this statement is nothing new! Rebbe Yishmael Omer -“Vechein Sney Kesuvim Hamacheshim Zeh Lozeh Ad Sheyovo Hashilishi Veyachreah Beyneyhem”. “And the same with two Pesukim that contradict one another, until a third comes along and explains what the Din is.”
I wouldn’t be so quick to condemn Rabbi Farber as an apikores.
I am waiting to see how long it will take for the usual cast of characters to proclaim that what Farber wrote is perfectly fine. It was really just askonim feeding false information to gedolim.
Soon there will be a whole bunch of “????” blogs around proclaiming that we have gone too far to the right and gedolim are nothing. And Farber will be considered “The Gadol” on these “intellectual” blogs who will refer to themselves as centrists.
They will be promoting his new book, The Morals of the Hairy Bear.
????.
Popa, by our traditional definitions of apikorsus, one has to agree with your observation about this individual. And coming from someone who is guiding others in a religious leadership position, it is even more of a violation of our mesora.
I do have a question, though.
In our day and age, it is simple enough for any individual, Rabbi or not, to simply disengage emunah in anything, altogether. In fact, I would argue, in most western cultures its easier to be an atheist than it is to hold any belief.
In this respect, our reality is wholly and completely different, than, say, the Rambam’s, where perhaps the only thing more dangerous than being a Jew was being a total non believer.
Setting aside this rabbi’s position of responsibility for a moment, must we as frum Jews look exactly the same way at someone who says – its all a fairy tale – as at someone who says – its written in more than one voice, a singular revelation collected over a period of time?
I don’t know the answer, I’m not presupposing it, but that nasty bugaboo of critical thinking that we can’t really avoid rears its head again, and if we say, yes, its exactly the same apikorsus, then it is perhaps incumbent upon us to reasonably explain in a Torah context the elements of the text that are giving him and those who follow the documentary hypothesis their ammunition.
“I thought that YCT doesn’t do their own Geirus”
Individual YCT musmachim might serve on batei dinim for geirut, but there is no formal “YCT Geirut Board”.
It is very clear that those defending Farber did not read this piece. Anyone who did cannot explain away what he said. Until such time as he retracts his statements, there is nothing more to say about him.
Charlie,
Thank you for the clarification. I am sure you noticed Sam’s earlier comment about this and PBA’s comment earlier as well.
But, if you are interested in being honest, it appears that the IRF Vaad Hagiyur is almost entirely affiliated with YCT and the leadership overlap is so substantial that they would be considered related to YCT for IRS purposes. So this distinction you are trying to make is moot.
There have long been traditionally/halakhically-observant thinkers who have engaged academic approaches in a serious way. R’ Farber is doing nothing new or revolutionary.
Rebdoniel,
Farber quite clearly claims that Devarim is written by a different author than Shemos and Bamidbar. Not in the sense that Devarim is, for the most part, Moshe’s speech which Hashem made part of the Torah as compared to the rest of the Torah which is, for the most part, Hashem’s narration. Rather Farber clearly states that he believes there were “multiple authors with multiple traditions.” He uses different traditions to explain away the contradictions he perceives.
That is worse than even what HaLivni has written and HaLivni is a Conservative scholar and an apikorus according to the Rambam.
I don’t have any particular knowledge to refute your claims about the other Rabbis you mentioned but I am very, very skeptical that they would have agreed with Farber’s statement. It is no small shakes to accuse these men of a position that is clearly apikorsus without citations to sources.
There have long been traditionally/halakhically-observant thinkers who have engaged academic approaches in a serious way.
Like mendelson, ezriel landau, Mapu,etc.
traditionally/halakhically-observant thinkers who have engaged academic approaches in a serious way is the definition of an apikores who doesnt believe in Torah min hashamayim.
(he argued that we can accept ascription of much of the Pentateuch to other hands as longs as we maintain- that Torah is from heaven
utter foolishness!!!
mz: To be fair, R’ Schachter once said something similar. He said that the different voices you see in Chumash is because HKBH took pieces from different books and traditions (from the Avos, Sefer Bilam, and things like that) and put His stamp of approval on them when He told Moshe Rabbeinu what to write from them at Sinai. But any and all of those were things that were pre-Sinai (or Arvos Moav, in the case of Bilam, I guess; that bears looking into; maybe Sefer Bilam is not the curses and such but rather only his Nevua of Acharis HaYamim that could have been written down at Sinai) and they only made it into Chumash if HKBH dictated to Moshe Rabbeinu to put them in and exactly how to write them so that we could Darshen them accordingly.
(he argued that we can accept ascription of much of the Pentateuch to other hands as longs as we maintain- that Torah is from heaven
utter foolishness!!!
“traditionally/halakhically-observant thinkers who have engaged academic approaches in a serious way is the definition of an apikores who doesnt believe in Torah min hashamayim.”
No it is not. Engaging with academic approaches, in the sense of reading their arguments and grappling with them, does not mean that you deny Torah min hashamayim. Occasionally, academics make good arguments or ask good questions. It is their conclusions that are usually problematic, but engaging with them and answering their questions is fine.
Sam2, I didn’t criticize the voices, you did. I didn’t like the pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo of studying Torah with a “critical or academic perspective”.
“To be fair, R’ Schachter once said something similar. “
In a shiur about seven years ago I personally heard him say something similar, and also that the final redaction of the Torah took place not at Sinai but at the Plains of Moab.
Beni, Saying there were multiple writers of Chumash (sic) is denying Torah min hashamayim. And somehow RD doesn’t want to call farber an apikores.
” it appears that the IRF Vaad Hagiyur is almost entirely affiliated with YCT”
Who are the members? I could not find them on the IRF web site.
I did notice that the IRF President, Secretary, and Treasurer are all musmachim of YU, not YCT. And the Treasurer is one of the featured rabbis on the RCA web site.
“the leadership overlap is so substantial that they would be considered related to YCT for IRS purposes”
That is nonsense and you should know that. And as a counterexample, Yeshiva University’s high schools and rabbinical school are separate institutions for IRS purposes.
Hashem Wrote the Torah in MANY voices kivyachol.There are times He writes in masculine form, times He writes as feminine (lach, as opposed to lecha), sometimes as the Shem Hameforash, sometimes as Elokim. There is ALWAYS, ALWAYS something to be learned out from His style in a given area. I see no contradiction whatsoever. Anyone who truly believes the Torah could EVER have been written by a human mind however genius that mind might have been, does not know Torah.
Ibn Ezra specifically writes that the version of the Ten Commandments in Sefer Shmot were written by God, and that the version we will read this Shabat are the words of Moses. I guess Ibn Ezra was an apikoros?
anything written in the Torah: Hashem told Moshe rabbeinu what to incude in The Torah. Moshe’s words, but Hashem’s Torah.
Oomis: I don’t think the Torah ever uses the feminine voice (that I can think of). There are a few cases where Hashem is described in the feminine and the Gemara/Rishonim comment on them. But when it uses Lach instead of Lecha and things like that, those are usually grammatical syntax changes, not changes in masculine or feminine.
Charlie: There are lots of things in the Ibn Ezra that would be considered Apikorsus if theyr were said today. I’m not sure what your point is.
“There are lots of things in the Ibn Ezra that would be considered Apikorsus if theyr were said today. I’m not sure what your point is.”
Maybe the people who are so judging of others’ alleged apikoros need to be less judgemental. Ibn Ezra’s commentary is in every Mikraot Gedolot.
Charlie,
If you couldn’t find it, you did not look. It took me about 15 seconds to find. But, I am not a professional researcher. From the web site.
International Rabbinic Fellowship
Vaad Hagiyur Members (listed alphabetically)
Rabbi Dov Linzer, Co-Chair
Rabbi Joel Tessler, Co-Chair
Rabbi Zev Farber, Coordinator and Editor Rabbi Marc Angel
Rabbi David Bigman
Rabbi Yuval Cherlow
Rabbi Yehuda Gilad
Rabbi Alfredo Goldschmidt
Rabbi Asher Lopatin
Rabbi Yaakov Love
Rabbi Daniel Sperber
Rabbi Avi Weiss
And your comment about related parties shows that you know nothing about IRS regulations regarding related parties. Your comment is so off base.
And regardless if they may be YU alumni, they are now affiliated with YCT. Using your thought process, neither Avi Weiss nor Dov Linzer are connected to YCT.
Charliehall and Sam2,
No one denies that when people are talking in the Torah it is the person’s words and not Hashem’s words. That isn’t apikorsus. It is apikorsus to say that Hashem did not authorize those words to be put into the Torah but Moshe (or some hypothetical anonymous author) decided to put the words in on his own accord.
All the Ibn Ezra is saying is that Moshe is restating and paraphrasing the 10 Commandments, not quoting them. That is the opposite of what Farber is saying. Farber is saying (at a most charitable reading) that the differences between Shemos and Devarim are that there are two different traditions as to what Hashem’s words were but both hypothetical authors think they are quoting Hashem.
I disagree that the Ibn Ezra said things that were apikorsus according to the Rambam (which is the normal standard used today).
I too think he has “crossed a line”. But what is there to be gained from mocking? We should be saddened, not amused.
“And your comment about related parties shows that you know nothing about IRS regulations regarding related parties. Your comment is so off base.”
Your comment shows that you don’t know about the operations of either group. I pulled the Form 990s for both YCT and the IRF. The number of Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees they share is zero. One person listed on the IRF list is employed by YCT. That is Rabbi Helfgot, who as I said earlier is also one of the featured rabbis of the Rabbinical Council America’s web site. Note that they are and remain separate institutions.
“apikorsus according to the Rambam (which is the normal standard used today).”
As Prof. Shapiro has proven, we say that we follow Rambam but we don’t really follow him in practice. How many of you recite “machnesei rachmim” in the Selichot service?
jfem- that CC in shmiras halashon says that one is mechuyav to mock a rasha in order to discourage others from following in his footsteps. i think its pretty applicable.
Here is what Rabbi Nathaniel Helfgot, the Chairman of YCT’s Bible Department, who is also the Treasurer of the IRF and one of the featured “Chaverim” on the RCA web site, wrote a year ago:
[Ch]azal and some of the Rishonim, belief in the latter is an article of faith, and denial of it potentially shatters the foundation of the entire structure of the binding nature of Torah. There clearly were Rishonim, such as the Sephardic exegete Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra and the Ashkenazic pietistic scholar Rabbi Yehuda HaHasid, who maintained that an isolated section of the Torah was post-Mosaic, a gloss from the pen of a subsequent prophet. However, the notion of the entirely composite makeup of the Torah has no precedent in classical Jewish sources, and it is therefore impossible to term such a theological understanding as Orthodox in any meaningful sense.”
*Mikra and Meaning: Studies in Bible and Its Interpretation*, page 40.
I fail to see how this is heresy.
R’ Dr. Farber recently came out with a manifesto:
I believe in Torah Min Ha-Shamayim, that the Torah is from heaven, and that the entirety of the book is nevua (prophecy) and represents the encounter between God and the people of Israel.
So where does this inquiry leave me? First, it appears that the Torah is a layered document. While I am not convinced of the documentary hypothesis (JEPD) per se, it seems that the Torah has evident signs of being an edited work which makes use of multiple sources and contains layers of redaction. The Torah contains inconsistencies both in its laws as well as its narratives and lists. At first I toyed with the possibility that these might be literary devices, but this only works for some of the examples (and not for many of them).
Second, religious practices as well as aspects of the Jewish belief system have changed and developed over the generations. The Oral Torah explanation proffered by the rabbis, i.e. that all of the practices not found in the Bible were either told to Moses directly at Sinai or are derived from midrashic reading of text, does not even begin to realistically address the religious changes Judaism has gone through in a believable way.”
I’d look at his own approach and manifesto in its entirety before deciding whether he’s an apikores. R’ Farber, R’ HaLivni, etc. are extremely learned men, and their ideas and accomplishments should be understood fully.
Charlie,
You should read what I wrote. I never said the IRF is related, I said the IRF Vaad Hagiyur has so much overlap that for they would be considered related under IRS definitions.
The point being they there is no legitimate way YCT can divorce itself from this apikorsus. Nor would they want to.
And we are not surprised that you feel compelled to defend absolute apikorsus. Not surprised at all.
Charlie,
Helfgott’s appearance on RCA website is a question on the RCA not answer for apikorsus. Nor a proof of his kashrus.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.