When young adult leaves to be Frei

DH,

I respect your opinion, but my experience with some who went OTD or are Orthoprax leads me to beleive otherwise. There are some unanswerable questions, some things that look like paradoxes and some things that seem historically inaccurate. It does take emunah.

Health,

I’m sorry you don’t see the connection between OTD and Orthoprax. Most Orthoprax people that I know don’t go OTD because they are married and have children and they don’t think sacrificing their family is worth it, even if they don’t believe. They are OTD but they just don’t look it.

In addition, there is a myth that in order to go OTD you have to be screwed up in some way (see earlier posts on this thread). There is a growing trend for people to go OTD/Orthoprax because of belief, not because of any major issues in their life.

mw13, Judaism doesn’t claim to have all the answers in current form. They are all hidden within Torah. But to say that we know all the answers from Judaism is wrong.

MW13: What do you suggest to someone who has looked through the proofs and decides they are not good enough for him/her? Should he not believe?

DHM & Wolf: Interesting argument (I believe going back to the Rishonim, though I don’t have sources) if Hashem is restrained by logic. For the question Wolf poses, the Shiita of the Rambam works nicely, I think.

SJSinNYC:

“There are some unanswerable questions, some things that look like paradoxes and some things that seem historically inaccurate. It does take emunah.”

There may be things we don’t know the answer to, but we still must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Judaism is correct. For example, we may not understand how free will and Divine Providence can co-exist, but we can prove they do.

“mw13, Judaism doesn’t claim to have all the answers in current form. They are all hidden within Torah. But to say that we know all the answers from Judaism is wrong.”

To say we know all the answers to everything is indeed a mistake;

but to say that we can intellectually prove our religion is the correct one is from the basics of Judaism.

GAW:

“MW13: What do you suggest to someone who has looked through the proofs and decides they are not good enough for him/her? Should he not believe?”

No, I would suggest he go speak to a Rov, a kiruv professional, or somebody of the like. We have the answers, so we should not fear the questions.

If I’m not mistaken, the Rambam says something to the effect that it is not humanly possible to understand how free will and Divine Providence can co-exist.

If I’m not mistaken, the Rambam says something to the effect that it is not humanly possible to understand how free will and Divine Providence can co-exist.

I thought he just says not to ask it, not that the solution is unobtainium.

Wolf, you of all people should know that cause and effect do not necessarily follow each other, so you shouldn’t even have the question.

MW13: That just pushes off the question. And after that doesn’t work….

Mr 80:

Sounds good to me, if one is willing to accept it as that. It refers to the side of “Hashem doesn’t have to follow logic”.

of course by “logic” (which sounds like some kind of unchanging ultimate Truth) what you really mean is human logic, formulated by puny, human minds and culture.

Agreed. But you will not win any arguments that way with a sceptic.

Regarding the Ramabam it’s in Hilchos Teshuva Perek Hey Halacha Hey.

The Ravad there happens to take a strong stand against what the Rambam seemingly writes.

Rav Shach in Avi Ezri has a fascinating explanation of that Rambam and continues with a very fundemental explanation of Emunah.

Rav Shach writes clearly that Belief in G-d is a logical conclusion and not what emunah refers to.

Regarding the Ramabam it’s in Hilchos Teshuva Perek Hey Halacha Hey.

Also Yesodei Hatorah towards the end of the second perek.

binahyeseira & MW, the disconnection comes from NOT being taught the LOVE of Yiddishkeit rather being taught the Lav of Yiddishkeit. Everyone is so so busy teaching kids what they are doing wrong instead of teaching them or respecting them for what they are doing right! The best way to TEACH LOVE is with encouragement and positive energy not criticisms and negativity. There is no room for negativity when dealing with children. If you want children to love Hashem, love Yiddishkeit and Love learning you have to make it a loving experience, make it palatable and make it as sweet as heaven itself. The home has to be a symbol of the BEAUTY of yiddishkeit and NOT of how hard it is to be a Jew. The Yeshiva has to be a place where Yiddin are b’simcha and yiddishkeit is taught b’simcha. It has to be taught with love. Every mechanech has to be warm and caring. They have to be invested in the success of their students. It can’t just be a JOB for them. And if they goof and make a mistake THEY have to show that they are human and be accountable and responsible. IF they have to apologize do so. They can’t ignore an error just to teach you have to have respect for the mechanech. THAT backfires. Admitting you were wrong, apologizing and showing respect for the TALMID shows the talmidim that they must doubly respect the mechanech because they are being taught the true Torah Mode. They are taught that EVEN a Rebbe or a Rosh is only Human and NOT on the madreigah of Hashem and can make a mistake, correct it, and keep going. That is a very important lesson for children. Children are made to feel that if they make a mistake their life is over.

Mod 80, yes but tochacha and discipline must be done with love and not anger. When done properly it is accepted properly. When done coldly, impatiently and with anger it is rejected.

Language means alot

What is the opposite of FREI?

It in itself is a powerful word and says alot

SJSinNYC:

I don’t really understand where your hashkafa is coming from. It is certainly not what I have been taught and some of it doesn’t make any sense to me. So I will have to leave it at that.

Orthoprax is a big problem and I’m not sure how to fight it within our community….I have a feeling that many practice, look and act Frum, but don’t really believe or put their heart in it…

From what you are saying, you agree we can treat as “halachicly true” (love that term) what Chazal said, even if it has emperically proven to be false. For example the famous “lice” case, where we “know” the opposite of what Chazal said (lice grow from nothing): We either re-interpet Chazal to conform with known facts, or are Machmir as such (since it is well known Chazal did speak in allegory) while considering the other side as well.

Rav Breil, the Rebbi of the Pachad Yiztchok, teaches us that we do not even entertain the possibility of a statement in Chazal not coming from the Torah. This we see from Rav Briel’s answer to the Pachad Yiztchok’s question regarding the killing of lice on Shabbos. The Gemora permits it, based on a scientific fact. The Pachad Yiztchok asked his Rebbi that due to the possibility that this scientific fact is incorrect, perhaps we should be machmir and not kill lice on Shabbos, just in case.

Yes GAW. That sums it up well.

But apparently you are wrong about people believing in the infallibility of chazal.

Perhaps this is the fulfillment of the Tochacho’s terrifying curse: “the land of your enemies will consume you”? Galus, and the galus hasShechina cloud our vision. Things that are ‘consumed’ in nature are often gifted certain defenses. A trauma (emotional) free education is not enough. There needs to be a well conceived education in Yesodei Hadas, and the tools to ask and answer questions, along with all the love and beauty stuff mentioned above. Defense mechanisms.

The Rambam says that through limud haTorah and through contemplation of the briah a person will come to have emunah.

While that may be the case once one accepts the premise that God does exist and that he gave us the Torah, the Rambam is explicit that this is not the case for someone who is searching by way of pure logic. He writes [and I paraphrase]:

The speech is fairly logical and straightforward. In order to disprove it, you would have to introduce some pretty shaky hypotheses including the DH.

I do not wish to debate the technicalities of the DH and I doubt the mods would allow it anyway, but suffice it to say that it is only because you have a prior belief of Torah miSinai that you reject the hypothesis. As SJS correctly pointed out there are logical ways around, and even problems, with that argument. As a matter of fact I recently emailed four problems I had with it to a prominent Rabbi in this field and I am currently awaiting his response. The point is that from a purely academic standpoint it would seem that the DH is very viable. It is only because of emunah that you reject it out of hand.

The creation of a paradox should still be within means of an omnipotent being, do you not agree?

According to the Rambam, this is a serious mistake. Again, I quote [paraphrasing]:

Let me just say that I agree to what SJS and Charliehall have been saying; I am just adding my piece.

yitayning:

I don’t have a Moreh Nevuchim at home and it is very late. But according to the rest of your wuote in its original context at sacred-texts, it seems to me that he is saying that the amount of time it would take a person to go through all the various branches of Logic, Math, Phsyics and Metaphysics would not leave a person time to finish finding the truth, that there is a G-d. Not that it couldn’t be done just that it would take too long. But had there been time we would be able to “make assertions about Him”.

Just because I automatically reject the DH doesn’t mean I’m factually wrong. But to paraphrase a certain goy “You have to assume that the sources worked towards consistency while the R did the exact opposite”.

The gemarah in Chulin is also not a good proof, The line that I …’ed out above from the Ben Ish Chai was

????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??????

It’s widely known that Chaza”l hid sod in pshat. It is very easy to say that what they were talking about was not only what we see but also what we don’t see, but they saw.

Derech Hamelech-

Not that it couldn’t be done just that it would take too long.

I must disagree with you. The Rambam goes so far as to say that Aristotle got it right for someone who didn’t have the tradition we do. He explains with a mashal of a man who grows up alone on an island – he would devise fantastic scientific theories to explain his existence, simply because no one ever told him that he was born from a man and a woman or that a woman even exists. In theory he would be approaching the problem of his existence in the correct manner, he is simply missing information that is impossible for him to obtain. (See ibid 2:17)

As for the DH, I do not wish to debate it’s merits and demerits. I only wanted to say that the proof you brought (the article on simpletoremember) is not perfect, and in my opinion it still boils down to emunah.

Regarding the Gemara in Chullin, while in aggadic passages I am perfectly willing to say that they weren’t talking literally, I am sorry but I find it difficult that the Gemara is hiding sod in an obviously halachic Gemara. Once you go down that road where do you end, if you say that every place where their facts seem to be grounded in observation they were really talking about something else, then perhaps the halachos were never meant to be taken literally, and we should cross out half of Yoreh De’ah. Besides, I quoted a Rambam who says in no uncertain terms that Chazal didn’t always get it right in matters of Science and Mathematics.

The GRA declared in his commentary on Laws of Avodah Zarah that even the Rambam has had certain of his Torah positions corrupted due to the influence of his secular studies in philosophy.

But that Mashal is not a good one here at all. Any individual is not growing up in a vacuum, where the concept of G-d is alien and he needs to come to this brand new thought. The idea is already here and it is up to people to use whatever tools are at his disposal to conclude whether it is emes or not.

I acutally didn’t know that simpletoremember had an article on the DH altogether although after you mentioned it I found a couple. The professor that I was talking about is not mentioned there though. His book is considered a standard text on the critique of this. But let’s leave off it.

I am not saying that the gemarah is not also halachic, but there is definitely sod in every sugyah. And it is clear that this is what the Ben Ish Chai was saying. But really, think about it. They knew how to use the building blocks of the world that Hashem used to create the world itself -to create life (sanhedrin 67b) and you think they didn’t know that how the life they were creating worked?

Not being able to fathom anything about Hashem is not a stirah to anything I’ve said. About the atzmiyus of Hashem there is nothing we can say. It is only about what He created that we can talk about.

I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that from the Rambam’s works it is clear that he didn’t learn kabbalah since that is exaclty what I quoted to you earlier: That the Rambam said after he had already learned kabbalah that if he wouldn’t be so old already and his works would not have already gone out into the world he would have been chozer on many things he wrote.

I don’t know why you call the letter a forgery. The Shomrei Emunim HaKadmon didn’t think it was. The Abarbanel that he quoted didn’t. The Ramban and Mohara”m Alshker are also quoted. I don’t understand why you think it was a forgery.

I just realized that I think my ‘proof’ from the Gemara in Chullin may have been misunderstood.

I was not attempting to prove from R’ Mesharshia’s maskana that Chazal’s knowledge of scientific matters was based on observation. It was from the way he got there. He was trying to figure out a purely halachic sheila: If an animal has an unkosher foot, and then it gives birth, does the non-kosher status of the mother’s foot transfer to the child and in what way? He therefore said, let us figure out what happens when a child is conceived. Does a child’s foot come from the parent’s foot, and therefore the child’s foot will be unkosher too, or does the seed get mixed up, and the foot is coming from other body parts of the parent as well. Later on he retracted his question, because he said that if it were true that a foot bears a foot then every cripple would only bear cripples, and we see this isn’t true. If his science did not come from observation then what in the world was his hava amina and how did he retract it in his maskana?

The answers you are giving are not mistavra and take the gemara out of context. Besides, I have a mefurashe Rambam on my side.

I have a question: Why do you, or some acharonim and maybe even rishonim for that matter, assume in the first place that Chazal’s knowledge was from anything but observation? Where in the gemara is any tanna or amora quoted as saying that his knowledge of the physical world was perfect? For me the most compelling reason to accept what the Rambam says is that why must I bend over backwards to say mind bending and seemingly out of context pshatim in so many gemaras when the most pashute explanation is to simply that their scientific knowledge was based on observation?

health- I am sorry to read your post above. Its not so easy to show your love to the child and not love their actions.