Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“It is up for debate, but it’s a tautological question. It measures what it says it measures. You can (and IMO, should) define intelligence more broadly than what IQ tests measure, but that would not be the test/results we are discussing.”
Veltz, you are right that it is tautological but the tautology should be expressed as follows: IQ tests measure how well people do on IQ tests.
It is not so much that intelligence is broader that what IQ tests test, it is that it is unclear whether the IQ test has any relationship with intelligence at all. It is also not clear that “general intelligence” even exists (as opposed to specific skills in specific areas).
I think that intelligence is very important, but I wouldn’t trade anything for additional IQ points because IQ points are valueless (and inane).
gitmeshiga,
Au contraire, R’Moshe teshuva, regarding riding packed buses or trains where touching members of opposite gender are inevitable, makes much more sense if you understand “derech chiba” to be objective.
Buses and the like involve bodies pressing together with a much greater likelihood of hirhur than a handshake. Af al pi ken, because on buses it is clear (to the objective onlooker) that the touching is not intentional, it is still mutar according to Reb Moshe. Ma shen kein, according to Rav Shachter and Rav Berkowitz it should depend on the attractiveness of the people on the bus and the self assessment of the individual.
Sam2,
The language is “derech tayva” and “nehena m’kiruv basar” not “chibas biah.”
R’Moshe acknowledged that people disagree with him about whether handshakes are “derech chiba v’tayva,” but disagreed. I agree that it is hard to see how an ordinary handshake is derech chiba but that is what R’Moshe held.
Adams,
In addition to what Popa wrote, I would add that many Orthodox Jews care because mishkav zachor is also forbidden to non-Jews (just because we don’t enforce the Sheva Mitzvos, doesn’t mean we don’t care).
Canadian Mountie & Mdd,
Only Lubavitch holds that we are responsible for getting non-Jews to keep the Sheva Mitzvos. Their position is based on a Rambam (which is not quite as muchach as they say), but the rest of Torah world firs like the Ramban that we are not required to encourage the non-Jews to keep the sheva mitzvos, and we certainly aren’t required to enforce them.
You are misreading the Gemara in Chullin (you are mushing together two different memras). All it actually says on the topic is that the non-Jews accepted 30 (additional) mitzvos and that they only keep 3 of them (one of those three not writing kesubos for mishkav zachor). If we are not required (and don’t actually) encourage non-Jews to keep the Sheva Mitzvos themselves, we surely are not required to encourage non-Jews to keep the additional mitzvos they were mekabel.
Sam2,
Unfortunately, I don’t have access to my notes (right now) from when I learned this sugya. Bli Neder, next time I am at home I wil look it up and direct you to the teshuvos.
R’Moshe holds that hand shaking is objectively “derech chiba” because the purpose of the handshake is to bring the two people closer (to create a bond in some fashion).
I should clarify that even according to R’Moshe improper thoughts from negiah that is not derech chiba are asur under Lo Sasuru (but they are not yehoraig v’al yaavor because Lo Sasuru is not abazrai d’gilui arayos).
There are many different aspects to the gay marraige issue:
1) Should states be allowed to sanction gay marriage?
2) Should states be allowed to prohibit gay marriage?
3) Should states be allowed to prohibit sodomy?
4) Should states saction gay marriage?
5) Should states prohibit gay marriage?
6) Do the answers to 4 & 5 change if the states are prohibited, by the federal government, from prohibiting sodomy?
7) Should Torah Observant Jews care one or another what the states do on this issue?
Sam2,
I believe it is a machlokes haposkim as to what the lomdus of “derech chiba” is. Some poskim (like R’Herschel Shachter and Rav Yitchak Berkowitz) hold that derech chiba is subjective so if the negiah creates hirhurim it would be assur m’doraisa and yehoreg v’al yaavor.
R’Moshe, however, holds that “derech chiba” is objective, meaning that there are types of touching that are asur and there are types of touching that are mutar regardless of the individuals internal thoughts. According to Reb Moshe in the case of the drowning woman, a man must save her regardless of the hirhurim both of them have because the touching of saving someone drowning, on an objective level (i.e. to the stam observer), is not derech chiba.
Each approach has nafka minos l’kula and l’chumra.
HaKatan,
I am not saying that R’Elchonon used the words “avoda zara” in a lav davka way. I am saying that R’Elchonon was using avoda zara as a mashul. I highly doubt that R’Elchonon would hold that Israeli flags are assur b’hana, for example, which they would be if Zionism was literaly avoda zara.
Similarly, the Brisker Rav’s statement doesn’t mean that Zionism is an eigel. The Satan is not limited in his tools to literal avoda zara. Rather the Brisker Rav is saying that the Satan was using Zionism as a means to cause Klal Yisroel to stray from the path of Torah.
Zionism isn’t literal avoda zara because it doesn’t require the denial of Hashem or the attribution of divine power to some other being, ChV”Sh, other than Hashem.
HaKatan,
Merely saying something is avoda zara, doesn’t make it actually avoda zara, and not everything a Rav calls avoda zara (when trying to criticise something) is literally avoda zara. I hope that you don’t actually mean that Zionism is literally avoda zara.
I wonder why the letter writer assumes that R’Shimon bar Yochai was correct and not R’Yehuda in the same Gemara.
I also wonder how the letter writer confused Hashem’s cricism of the nations of the world (in Avoda Zara 2b) based on their true motives, with our obligation to have hakaras hatov.
rebdoniel,
Even according to R’Shlomo Zalman and R’Elyashiv you cannot turn on and off electric circuits. Usage of a microphone, because it is on the whole time (and in modern microphones there isn’t even a change in current), doesn’t involve the creation or completion of a circuit.
rebdoniel,
My rebbi in Halacha told me in the name of R’Elyashiv that the only problem with the modern microphone (the original microphones worked differently) was zilusa d’shabbos.
charliehall,
When I mentioned the Rambam as the standard for ikarrim I was referring to the ikkarim relevant to this discussion.
(I have not read all of Marc Shapiro’s book on Orthodox theology, but I was not impressed with the portion I did read. Mr. (Rabbi?) Shapiro uses the academic tactic of ignoring the nuanced explanations that resolve contradictions [a staple of talmudic and rabbinic thinking] in order to maintain the simplistic readings that preserve the problem)
Charliehall,
This article wasn’t about what Rabbi Helfgott wrote, but about what Zev Farber wrote. Farber is an apikorus by Rabbi Helfgott’s standard. Farber has clearly decided that the Torah is a broad composite of at least two authors (even if “divinely inspired”). Farber is therefore outside the pale of Orthodoxy even according to Rabbi Helfgott, as you quoted:
“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.”
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).
“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.
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.
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.”
SecularFrummy,
It was never assur. What is different is that it has become institutionalized such that Torah is taught on a mass scale as opposed to only highly motivated individuals.
Sam2,
I can’t believe a Gadol really would have said that. Africans are not Canaan, they are Cush. It was Canaan that was cursed, that his offspring would be slaves to his brothers (i.e. Cush, Mitzrayim and Phut) and to his Uncles (i.e. Shem and Yaphes).
Oomis and Toi,
Whether Eretz Yisroel was flooded is a machlokes in the Gemara between R”Yochanan and Reish Lakish. The Gemara does not say that the mabul covered everything but E”Y. It is certainly possible to read that Gemara to mean that there is a machlokes whether the mabul reached E”Y but everyone agrees that it did not reach outside the Middle East.
“On the other hand, once you own them, you are not allowed to free them.”
Unless they have done something special for you or you need them for a minyan.
If I were in your position I would ask my professor the following hypothetical:
Say you are a very poor peasant, your standard of living is awful and your life expectancy is mid-thirties. On the other hand you can self yourself to the local lord and have a much higher standard of living and have a much greater life-expectancy.
Would he choose to sell himself or remain a free peasant? Even if he would choose to remain free, would he not understand why someone else would choose to sell himself? Is his moral problem with slavery a problem with the American institution or with the idea that people can own other people? If the peasant wants to sell himself because it benefits him to be a slave, could it possibly be immoral for the lord to purchase him (and treat him well)?
Agav, I suspect that much of the slavery in the Torah that he is familiar with will be eved ivri (which, in American law, would be indentured servitude, not slavery). You could then point out the great social advantages of the institution of eved ivri.
Pixate,
You question is different than SecularFrummy’s. SecularFrummy’s is a question of time, your question is one of ability.
I think there are two possible derachim to answer that question. The first possibility is something along the lines of Rabbi Dovid Brown’s (Z”L) teretz in Mysteries of Creation, that at the time of the mabul the continents were still together and they were only separated in the Dor Haphlaga.
The second possibility is that the mabul was only in the areas of human civilization and did not effect the Americas or Australia at all.
Regarding marupials in Australia, the standard scientific account is that that both placentals and marsupials migrated to Australia, but for some reason the placentals died out for the most part, with the marsupials dominating, while in the rest of the world the opposite occurred.
The only difference between the Torah and evolution, in this case, is the amount of time available for this to occur.
If all jewishfeminist meant by “therapy” was having a close relationship with someone and/or having a “mashpia” then I take back my comment.
jewishfeminist02,
You wrote: “Everyone, I mean every SINGLE person, can benefit from therapy.”
I profoundly disagree with this statement. But more importantly I am curious, what makes you believe the above to be true (it’s obviously impossible to know that to be true)?
I agree that foie gras is halachically problematic, but there are mattirim. Ma shein kein driving buses on Shabbos.
rebdoniel,
The things you list are not equal. I do not think it is fair to say that frum people reject scientific and public health evidence
1) Vaccinations: I have never heard of any Rabbi or any Frum person of prominence who has claimed that people should not vaccinate their children.
2) Brain Stem death: This is a halachic machlokes about what constitutes death, not a scientific one.
3) Abortion: the status of a fetus in its mother’s womb is a Machlokes Rishonim (Rashi v. Rambam) and has been the subject of debate within halacha since that time. It has nothing to do with a rejection of science (if anything the science is on the anti-abortion side).
4) The evidence on homosexuality is mixed. Both sides pick and choose what evidence they use.
Jewishfeminist,
I did not mean to suggest that the dominant partners in prisons should be categorized as homosexual. On the contrary, they are heterosexuals who using other men as an outlet for their sexual desires because there are no women around. I agree that they are not “becoming” homosexual. I just meant to counter your point that these occurences don’t have anything to do with sexual desire.
HaKatan,
The percentages are higher for identical twins than fraternal twins.
moi aussi,
You are correct for the most part (I think there was one study that found identical twins to be just over 50%). But almost all the studies did show that if one identical twin brother was homosexual there were higher incidences of homosexuality in the other identical twin brother than with non-twin brothers. This would seem to indicate some genetic factor.
jewishfeminist02,
While there are plenty of situations that are as you describe. There is no serious scientific basis for claiming that there is no sexual desire involved on the part of the aggressor.
Furthermore, not all homosexual encounters in prison are non-consensual. There are also plenty of consensual encounters by people who were, and return to being, heterosexual on the outside. The same thing occurs with women.
jewishfeminist,
As I noted above, there are studies on both sides of the issue. The twin studies indicate that there are both genetic and environtmental factors. Even LeVay and Hamer don’t claim that it is all biological.
The LeVay and Hamer piece doesn’t really speak that much to the causes of homosexuality. Rather it speaks to practicing homosexuals having differences in their brains than heterosexuals. There is no indication of cause and effect, and LeVay and Hamer don’t claim that their findings showed a genetic cause, or that homosexuals are “born that way.”
Furthermore, other researchers (William Byne’s team) have not found statistically significant differences in the INAH3. LeVay and Hamer’s study itself involved quite a small sample size.
Finally, if you are going to call bias, it is only fair that you mention that both LeVay and Hamer are themselves gay men.
heretohelp,
I don’t know what you are referring to in your first example, but Dr. Spitzer was always an advocate for the homosexual community (he was one of the people instrumental in getting it removed from the DSM).
In the 2000s Spitzer sought to study whether it was possible for some highly motivated individuals to change their orientation. He published a study concluding that it was possible but probably very rare. He was hit with a storm of criticism from both colleagues and the gay community (who felt Spitzer had betrayed them).
In 2012 Spitzer recanted the study on the grounds that the subjects were all self-reporting and there was no way for him to know if they were deceiving themselves or outright lying.
However, neither Spitzer nor anyone else has ever demonstrated that people cannot change sexual orientation. Rather they say that “reparative therapy” has never been demonstrated to work.
The research indicates that there are both genetic and environmental factors in causing homosexuality. There have been studies coming out on one side or the other and studies indicating that both genetics and environments play a role.
[of sexual orientation]
writersoul,
I agree in such cases. I don’t see how that is relevant, however, to CR postings.
moi aussi,
I think you post indicates what the nekudas hamachlokes is here. You are giving the word “choice” a very broad meaning. When I use the word “choice” I mean a conscious choice. Tayvas are certainly not conscious choices.
However, you are using the word choice to include “anything that can be prevented, no matter how difficult.” Even though a person does not, in the vast majority of cases, choose to have a tayva, a person is capable of working on themsevles so that they stop having certain tayvas in the future. It might be extremely difficult to change one’s character in such a fashion, but it is possible.
Thus under your definition past tayvas are not a choice but future tayvas are a choice.
Under my definition (and I believe that of jewishfeminist) no tayvas are a choice.
jewishfeminist,
Scientists never thought the world was flat. Your point still stands, however, because scientists used to believe the Universe was infinitely large and that phlogiston was necessary for combustion.
What difference does it make if the predisposition comes from birth or comes at a later date due to environmental influences? The point is that people who are gay are not making a conscious choice to be attracted to other men. They have a tayva, regardless of its source, and their challenge is to avoid acting on that tayva.
moi aussi,
The Torah forbids the action not the attraction. Everybody has different yetzer horahs. Although it is possible to develop a yetzer for something, for the most part people don’t have control of the tayvas they are subject to from the outset. The Torah forbids you from acting on those tayvas against halacha.
Thank Hashem that you don’t have this yetzer, that you don’t have this nisayon.
Health,
I think jewishfeminist is talking about choosing to have the yetzer, not choosing to act on the yetzer.
eyefortruth,
The Rambam in Mishna Torah is ambiguous, and he was misunderstood by some of his contemporaries. The Rambam clarifies his position in his Maamar on Techiyas Hameisim. Yes, the Rambam holds that Olam Haba refers to where we go when we die, but because we will, G-d willing, be brought back to life again, that trip to Olam Haba will not be everlasting.
The Rambam holds that the term “Olam Haba” doesn’t refer to Techiyas Hameisim, but he agrees that sometime in the future Techiyas Hameisim will occur. The people that come to life, however will eventually die again and go to Olam Haba. This second time in Olam Haba will go on indefinitely.
The Ramban uses the term “Olam Haba” to refer to techiyas hameisim and the post techiyas hameisim period (he uses other terms for where we go when we die). The Ramban also holds that the post techiyas hameisim period will go on indefinitely and there is no second time in a purely spiritual world.
I would like to point out that most people probably know the proper spelling of these words. However most people don’t view their comments in the CR as being so important as to spend time proofreading their posts. These aren’t essays, articles or even blog posts. They are comments on an internet forum.
Matan1,
The issue is overall effectiveness, not in comparison to medication. The following is a quote from the book The Undiscovered Mind:
“One ‘striking’ finding, Elkin said, was the ‘relatively small percentage of patients who remain in treatment, fully recover, and remain completely well throughout the 18-month followup period.’ Only 24 percent of the patients recovered from their depression by the end of the 16-week treatment period and remained free of major symptoms for the next 18 months. The percentage of paitents on each regime who stayed well were as follows: cognitive-behavioral therapy, 30 percent; interpersonal therapy, 26 percent; placebo plus clinical management, 20 percent; imipramine, 19 percent.”
Thus, although CBT appears to be the best treatment for depression out there, it still only produces long-term results in 30% of cases (and I wonder what the effectiveness rate would be if we stretched that out to 3 years instead of 18-months).
PBA,
Yes.
However, I don’t know if the right word is “therapy.” I think that if I devoted myself to becoming gay, I probably could do it (and if I would fail it would not be because it was impossible but because it was too difficult and I gave up).
I think that part of the perception that it cannot be done comes from people underestimating the plasticity of the brain and the power of the mind. If people can suppress the need for sustenance such that they can go on hunger strikes for months despite food being put in front of them, then people can suppress their sexuality as well.
Does anyone know the makor for the 6,000 year deadline for Moshiach?
I have seen the Gemara that seems to indicate that the world will only last 6,000 years but there was no mention of Moshiach (and it wasn’t clear if that Gemara was literal).
Another problem with deadlines is that the Ramban holds that even regarding a good nevua, if the people are not deserving it can get pushed off.
eyefortruth,
I think you have the Rambam’s shittah wrong. It has been a while since I looked into this, but if I remember correctly the Rambam holds that sometime after Moshiach will be techiyas hameisim where people will rise from the dead. That part is in line with most other Rishonim.
However the Rambam holds that the period of techiyas hameisim will eventually end and then Olam Haba begins where our neshamos will exist without bodies in purely spiritual form. The Ramban and other Rishonim hold that the period of techiyas hameisim is the final period (and therefore is what is meant by the phrase “Olam Haba”) and we will go on indefinitely in physical form.
“A bisexual or homosexual cannot change. Reparative therapy doesn’t work.”
I don’t know if reparative therapy works or not. I suspect that it may depend on how you define work. Does “work” mean an increased ability to suppress ones urges? Does “work” mean developing an attraction (even if minor) to the opposite gender? Or does “work” mean only a full blown change in orientation?
I also think that there is misapprehension as to the general success of psychotherapy. Almost no psychotherapy “works” in more than a 1/3 of cases and they define “work” very loosely. I wonder if reparative therapy does damage because there are false expectations.
However, I have a very hard time believing that it is literally impossible for them to change. There are very few things that one simply cannot change about themselves. It may just be so difficult that 99% who try will fail. One can then have an argument about whether it is worth it to try if failure is such an overwhelming likelihood.
I have never heard this directly from any source but it certainly makes sense. Not eating meat during the nine days is a minhag and minhagim usually don’t apply in abnormal cases or situations of great need.