mentalblog.com comments:
"Exile populates detachment from this tradition."
Not exile, but the Enlightenment, or as it's called in the frum world, the haskalah. Rambam lived in exile, pre-enlightenment, and had no difficulties with the integration of Torah and science. As secular knolwedge gained, and the scientific method was established, the ability to reconcile Torah with science (and its technological and social implications) became more and more difficult, despite the attempts of Rabbinic apologetics (of which the Rebbe contributed to in his letters, with most of his arguements being of dubious intellectual honesty).
Though I've lost interest in following this topic (as I've said before, apologetics gets so *tiresome*, once you've faced the facts) this seems to be discussed in depth in various threads at http://godolhador.blogspot.com/
I am referring to the metaphorical exile.
Tzemach, I agree with you. And it does seem that, as you said, "there is no one today who can even attempt it" - but who knows, things can change.
In all honesty, (in my opinion of course, which is of questionable value) the Rebbe, and all Chassidic leaders, are (and were) unlikely to reintegrate the specific traditional Jewish quest for knowledge that you refer to, into the sacred conversation - in the manner that you are seeking.
Rebbes are bound by their traditions, and chassidim are bound by their Rebbes. People often look at the Lubavitcher Rebbe as an original thinker - and in some ways this may be true - but when all is said and done, the Rebbe is adding to a structure, of which there are 7 generations of construction below him. The Rebbe must maintain a faithfulness to the Alter Rebbe's foundation, and as such he is not starting something entirely new - which is what I think you want. The Baal Shem Tov was a type of maverick; I'd say the Alter Rebbe was a maverick, R' Yisroel Salanter as well.
But if you're looking for a return to conversation instead of interpretation, I don't think it will come from Chassidic movements who spend their energies on interpretation. Radical change would be need, so I would guess that Moshiach is probably your man for that job ("Torah Chadasha meiti teitze?").
I met "Rabbi" Dr. Zalman Schacter-Shalomi in Philadelphia in 1977 , when I spent a Sabbath at his tisch and his community.
Reb Zalman told me then that he had hopd that the new rebbe , Rabbi Menachem Schneersohn , given his engineering and scintific background would change the nature of a chassidic discourse from an abstract Maamar reflecting ancient greek Philosophic discourse to a mathematical methodology and hoped the rebbe would use chalk and blackboard to arrive at a unified theroy of being.
I agree with you Tsemach 100% we are totally lacking this sort of view today . Knowledge is bifrucated into religious and secular.
Here at YU we have scholars who are very frum in observance teaching Bible criticism or the like.
I remember hearing that Prof. Bloch a faculty memeber at the University of western Ontario and a Lubavitcher with beard etc. once remarked in response to a question on how a Frume Yid could teach certain philosophic concepts - that being a philosopher is his job a parnossah.
We are lacking a unified theory binding all knowledge in a continum, without skipping a beat as was true in the times of the Chazal as reflected in Shaas.
I always thought that master of DACH like the Rebbe his brother (Israel Arieh Leib ) and Barry Gourary men who all had scientific , and a physics background were the people to bring it all together.
When teaching, you sometimes throw out a concept. And some people catch on quickly. Some don’t. So you elaborate on the concept. Now more people get it, but there are still some that don’t. So, on you go, elaborating, giving parables and f’rinstances. Hopefully, eventually everyone gets the point. I noticed something weird when teaching at times. I throw out the original concept. Some folks who did not get it listen well as I expand and expound. Then a few hours later, these same folks, who took so long getting it, come up to me and say, “I just figured out something amazing based on the stories and parables you just taught.” They then rattle off the original concept I had introduced, but in their own words. They think they’ve figured out this amazing insight, not noticing that all I had been teaching for hours on end had been a way of explaining that insight. Y’know the expression used by teens, “DUH”? That is what you have an urge to say at such times.
We humans are often like that, thinking we discovered this amazing insight as we are given more parables and stories explaining it. What am I talking about (and why am I talking in circles) you must be wondering?
Shlomo HaMelech says, “Ayn Kol Chodosh Tachas Hashamesh” There is no new innovative things, just expansion of ideas so mankind can finally “chap” the insights of G-d to be found in the world. And as we get closer to Yemos Hamashiach, when the “floodgates of wisdom” have been opened, know that it is not new wisdoms, but parables and explanations of old ones.
I had this feeling of “DUH” a few years ago when DNA was explained to have four strands – we know that we were created B’shem Hashem, with the four letters of G-d’s name. Now we can sit and discuss DNA, but we will not be forging new insights, just coming back to the original one.
Rabbi Shimon Green, Rosh Yeshiva of Bircas HaTorah, gave an amazing lecture on the Avos being the conduit of bringing G-d’s presence into the world. (For those who don’t know who Rav Green is, I urge you to get to know him as, in my opinion, he stands shoulders above our generation!) He explains it via satellite dishes. He wasn’t innovating. He was expanding on something known throughout the ages by those able to grasp the concept of conduits to Hashem’s presence, but he had the new stories/tools of satellite to get me, and others like me who take a longer time comprehending an insight, to finally get the point. Professor Branover used science to find Hashem. He could have done the discovery any which way, but that was his way of understanding the world. A mathematician can find his way to Avdus Hashem with mathematical truths. Every truth in the world ultimately leads to and is simplified to “Ayn Od Milvado.”
Tzemach, delving into this, will only bring us back to the original concepts of Judaism, just as all choices we make ultimately can be expressed in the one choice given to Adam. Just as all 613 can be simplified into 1. It is useful for those, like me, who need the further elucidation to the original concepts put forth in the Torah. But not necessary for many who are more advanced than me, who got the concepts without needing the science parables, and a reason why some don’t go this route.
I think that the real study and chakirah in Ein od bilvado, Techyas hameisim and the nature of Hashem and his relationship to us is going on in the world of physics, astronomy and mathematics.
Talk of time travel, study of the "measurements" of the Milky Way and the Stars etc , study of the nature of time in regards to light etc seem to deal with issues the Kabbalah and our traditions talk about.
Its unfortunate that our religious leaders (with the exception of the rebbe) probably do not have even the faintist idea about all these issues, and are not interested either.
Chassidic leaders are more interested in technicolor robes, leadership and thickness of female hose rather than the fundementals of G-D's creation on earth.
Only a few Breslover chasidim I met were even interested in these issues.
Imagine a Rav Yoel kahan who also had a physics and mathematical background to understnad time, space the universe from a modern scientific vanage point.
People like the rebbe his brother and his nephew had the qualities to throw new light on these core issues.
Schneur -
Do the math - simplify - what will all those concepts of time travel lead to - to the age-old truths that those who are not dabbling in the sciences might know already.
It is interesting to me that I keep seeing proposed great leaders mentioned here, all of which have questionable hashkofos, not highly Torah observant Jews.
Why aren't the proposals the other way around? Instead we could wish that real Gedolei b'Torah would have been more broad minded - and I don't know that none of them have been - rather than finding only broad minded people, with a lower standard of Torah observance, to propose? I guess the allure of secularism (haskala) is so very bewitching that it trumps Torah values/Yiddishkeit...
Schneur, I do agree with you to an extent. And I saw that you listed R' Yoel Kahn, and the Lubavitcher Rebbe there as possibilities for what you would like - but I am troubled by this infatuation with those who "didn't make it" in Klal Yisroel. Could it be that immersing oneself in secular studies is actually not what Torah yidden should be occupied with (as the Rabbeim have always said)? Could there be a connecting between secular immersion and krum hashafos?
Schneour, why are you mentioning, the Rebbes brother and nephew?I hardly see them as unheard of intellects.(Barry with all due respect, according to you had 'almost' a doctorate in physics and studied with some private tutors as a young boy in Otvock, hardly revOlutionary material.Leibel, who you did not know and who few people knew was said to be an 'iluy'.Ok.....I think you know that through the last 100 years yeshivas lost many such men.)
grose: You're completely off the mark. Science vastly increases one's appreciation of Hashem. Everyone appreciates seeing a tree grow. However, if one understands all the bilogical details involved in that growth, he will appreciate it so much more. Both the scientist and the locked-in-beis-midrash talmid chacham appreciate the miracles of nature. A scientist, however, has the ability to appreciate it so much more.
Shneur: I don't know what kind of Bible criticism you are implying to be illigetimate. Surely you know the relevant Ibn Ezras and Abarbanels on the issue. Judaism has to rest on truth. If some pasukim were not written by Moshe and if many of the spellings in our Sifrei Torah are incorrect, then that has to be taught. People can't go around spouting that the Torah, as we have, is exactly the same one Moshe wrote if contemporary evidence shows it not to be true. The bible scholars in YU do not separate holy and secular. They believe what they are teaching is Torah, not just what they do for a parnassah. I feel bad that R. Bloch doesn't feel the same way (if the story is true -- and even when the philosophic subject matter is clearly antithetical to Torah, surely you know the argument that white is more clearly white when placed on a black background. Additionally, to understand the world and the people in it, one needs to know the ideas that shaped it).
I never said that science doesn't make you appreciate G-d. I said that G-d, in the purest sense of understanding with our limitations, can be accessed through your science - if you need that. Do you reach science through G-d or G-d through science? Rabbi Chanina Ben Dosa could say, without any affectation, "Mi She'Amar" that oil has scientific properties to make it burn can just as easily give those same scientific properties to vinegar and have that burn too. And, lo and behold, Rabbi Chanina was able to "control" science through his G-d relationship. You are saying to go the opposite way - try to understand the science and reach G-d, which if you read my post, I say is possible - but a lower form of understanding.
At this point I am not going into the issues at YU and other MO Judaic studies academicians, but in my opinion there are clearly people teaching ideas and concepts at variance with the idea of Torah Mi-Sinai at least as it has been accepted by klal Israel over the last 300 years.At the same time these men are highly Orthodox in their day to day practice.
I am not acusing anyone of acting as a professor just for parnossah. Rather few here have been ready to do what Tsemach advocates trying to bridge the gaps and establish a continuim between Judaic Studies (academic and critical) and Torah (religion).
To my friend (bilti yuduah ad achshov) "greyse"Time travel is not only talk of techiyas hameisim , it may make it a reality hence being part of the Messianic age. I do not know how Techiyas Hameisim will happen . But Time travel sounds plausibile to me and meets the RAMBAM"S definition that littl will change in natural law , rather we will understand how the laws of Nature can be used to accomplish G-D's will on earth bepoel mamash rather than theory.
As I said and Tsemach said the idea we are advocating is to destroy the barriers (artifical) beween the natural sciences and Religion.
Torah is everything not just a legal system , just as Shaas includes data about the total human experience.
Chazal were great doctors , astronomers, and navigators etc. as well as rabbis teachers and judges.
I mentioned the rebbe's brother and nephew as people who had they remained Chassidic (Barry was a Shmoer Shabbes) with their knowledge of science and Chassiduth could have contributed much to the reallignment of chassiduth in line with scientific discoveries and advances of the 20th century. The rebbe of course chose not to integrate science into Chabad theology.
I did not advocate lowering the bar , punkt farkert, hiking the bar having as Chabad leaders men like Reb Yoel Kahan who could also understand physics, astronomy and math.Alas we still wait for the one who can teach us a unified teory of life using all that Torah-science can offer.
No doubt Barry Gourary, and Leibel Schneerson were not the 20th centuries greatest scientists. Neither for that matter was the Lubavitcher rebbe (Just a factual matter) . Yet their yichus , Jewish chassidic knowledge etc would have made them ideal candidates to do what we are talking about.
Do the readers here think its just a coincidence that so many memebers of this family dedicated to teaching Jewish metaphysics and kabbalah were interested in Math and physics in the 20th century . Mention can be made of the Rebbe, Reb Mendel Hornstein (engineering) Leiebe Schneerson, Bere Gourary , Dalia Roitman (the rebbe's niece a scintist in the Weitzman Institute). Moving just a tad , the study of the human mind occupied the mind of Dr. Fishel Schneersohn
a Kopuster eynikel.These people did not become Zionist leaders , Yiddish poets, platrights , politicians, Judaica scholars as did the modern children of the Twersky and Friedman dynasties.
No the Schneersohns chose science and not by coincidence.
Schneur,
Indeed, it is very interesting...
It seems that, at first, I misunderstood where you were going with this - But now that you've elaborated on your point, I can't really disagree.
Schenur, science was a particularly Russian religion, especially at the beginning of the century. So let’s not mix Schneersohn’s with the rest in that respect. Also the son of the Rov of Homel, Dr. Fishel Schneersohn was an accomplished writer in addition to being a professor of medicine. He wrote Chaim Gravitzer.
Shneur:
-300 years is not a great deal of time and new evidense has arisen since then.
-As far as I know, Leibel was a Marxist and Zionist during various periods in his life.
-Many people do combine the secular and Torah. The institution you work for has many such people. Unfortunately, though, these people are not regarded as the main religious figures of our day although I'm not completely sure why. (Yes, there seems to be aura surrounding "gedolim" but I'm not sure why they deserve this aura when they are 200 years behind their time). Therefore, I agree with you that it's a shame the geniuses in Torah aren't much interested in the secular and those knowledgable in secular don't know shas and poskim etc. baal peh. Hence, the lamentable divide.
I had no time before, but I just wanted to add, as a response to Schneur – but based on what I was trying to say earlier - this seems to me to be another example of the progression of leadership (yeridas hadoros?) that can be traced all the way back through history. Sure, there was a time when Chazal were doctors, scientists, philosophers, etc., but as the generations have passed, Jewish leaders have changed.
The leaders of later generations took a different form, and so it has changed from the time of Tanach, to Tanaim, Amoroim, Gaonim, Rishonim, Achronim, until now. Often, changes occurred as a response to external occurrences, or due to global developments (physical or otherwise). As it happened, when things deteriorated, revolutionary leaders arose, like the Baal Shem Tov at his time, and movements sprouted and blossomed.
We can see that the type of leaders, and the type of Yiddishkeit, that you seek has not existed for so long – and I believe that this is by design (most Talmidei Hamagid specifically criticize the Rishonim that you wish to emulate) – that it is hardly likely that current movements will produce them.
If you suspected that the Lubavitcher Rebbe would take such radical steps, I would only say that he, as Lubavitcher Rebbe, was remaining loyal to that role, and thus would not have taken steps of that sort.
I know that Schneur looks at the changing world and expects that parallel changes aught to take place among the chareidi community – but I don’t think that the Rebbe agreed. I’m not saying that anyone has to agree with him, that’s a personal matter, but it is unreasonable (in my opinion) to expect otherwise. For a return to the philosophies of a thousand years ago, you would need a maverick that challenged the entire system, to start something new.
Unusual individuals like this do arise, but seldom succeed (ex: the Lev Ivry) in implementing the changes they seek in a big and lasting.
Perhaps G-d does not want this to take place.
2 things:
-I don't know why everone is assuming that most of the tanaaim and amoraim were any more experts in the sciences of their day than modern talmidei chachamim are. Maybe they were but why is everyone assuming this?
-As some have pointed out, the range of knowledge that one must know to be knowledgable in science is vastly more than one had to know 2,000 years ago and therefore requires much more time to learn. This partly explains why talmidei chachamim tend not to study the sciences.
Disappointing comments. Why dwell on the obvious?
This was an interesting thread. May I add the following there were at least 2 mid 20th century rabbis who did try to incorporate "modern" sciences in their corpus of thought and writings. The first is Chief rabbi A.I. Kuk of Israel. I am no expert on his thought but I have read a bit and I see that he was aware of modern scientific ideas. Does anyone out there have further comments on this .
Secondly Rabbi Ashlag the Sulam was profoundly influenced by both karl Marx and his political thought and by Freud and his study of the universe within a human that is ,his mind. His commentary on the Zohar is based on psychological interpretation of Zoharic literature. His weltanshaung (sic) was marked by a partiality to communism (not Socialism) and he hoped Israel in 1948 would become a Communist state.He begged B.G. to act on this.
Rav Ashlag was a most original thinker. He also was a first class halachist whom Rav Sonnenfeld appointed More horah of anew shechunah in Jerusalem.
R' Schneur,
I did not realize Rav Ashlag had read Marx & Freud, but he is a good example of an origional thinker (as is Rav Kook). I'm sure your friend Betzalel Naor could shed more light on R' Kook's philophy, etc.
But, I don't think either of them fit the description of what you really are looking for.
Aren't you looking for a Maimonidean figure, an Even Ezra or R' Yehedua Halevi - even a Maharsha or a Ramchal? Although, the Ramchal was actually not so long ago...
Wasn't the Malbim close to this type of individual as well?
As to secularly knowledgeable leaders, would you say that the Tiferes Yisroel or Rav S.R. Hirsh were knowledgeable in secular studies? Or how about R' Yoshe-Ber Soloveichek?
Rav C.E.
Of course you are right in your view of what I am looking for.
I just mentioned Rabonim Kuk and Ashlag as examples of people (gedolim) who lived in the frum world and integrated modern ideas without having it affect their personna.
I read 2 bios of the Malbim and I do not see hima s a real scientist or scholar,(obvioulsy a Mlach Elokim ) the same is true of the Tifferes israel. they were aware of the modern world but not schoalrs of it.
Davka I was thinking of Admor rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson the man with a great mind, scintific background, chasidc knowledge , Messianic bent , because what I am lookinfg for is a combination of the mystical and the scientific the goal of the rebbe to end our galuth.
think Reb Michoel Ber Weissmandel - a scholar of the highest order, who knew more science than his day.
The Vilna Gaon (physics).
"think Reb Michoel Ber Weissmandel"
Schneur, that reminds me - remember your promise? Vaad Hatzoloh? Rings a bell?
Berl,
You sure are a man on a mission!
Did you ever get (or decide not to get) a copy of the Frierdiker Rebbe's Yoman from the nesia to Eretz Yisroel?
no - no yoman yet
Guilty as charged.
A "foiler hoont" as my father would say to me , my Lubavitcher heritage shows its face.
I will try to get both. The yoman - is it okay lefi Chaidei Chabad (normal) to make a copy? Berel tell me ?
Was Reb Michel Baer interested in physics and math. I know about the Torah codes and his studies in the British Museum , but could he be the one like the Lubavitcher rebbe for the unified theory of being ?
Schneur, as to the yoman -I do not know. While I would love to read it, I do not want to be the one responsible for it being exposed in to the general public.
I will be responsible...
schneur:
while many chaasidei chabad read it and enjoyed it, the Rebbe (Rama"m) expressed himself very strongly agains reading or copying the sections derogatory to rasha"g. I confess I only saw that part (obviously by someone with a long outdated agenda), if you have other parts of the yoman I would imagine it would be very ok to make a copy and publicize, if you have that section, please don't.
it wouldn't add to your friend berke's kovod and the Rebbe expressed himself as "m'shtecht dem shver" by publicizing those sections.
as to those 'kluge' chabad chasidim who still had a grudge against rasha"g all I can say is, that the yoman just showed that rasha"g was more of a chosid of his shvoger than his shver.
berel: if you want to read it yourself email me and I might be able to help you (but won't copy it for you)
Why was he writing derogatory things about own his son in law,in a diary?Nu,nu.....
(Berkeh, we need your dumb apologetics ASAP)
To all the Lubavitchers discussing this thing (Berel et al)If you had a 'trop seichel' you'd realize that these are things which should not be discussed on such open an accesible forums because it does not sound very good for Lubavitch.
(On the other hand if you indeed had a 'trop sechel' you would not be Lubavitch........)
Not that it matters much... but why is Avremel's non-substantive comments less acceptable than malach's? Is malach walking less of a thin line then his counterpart?
Eliyohu - I too would like to read it! Please (I have no problem if you edit out objectional pieces) - How can I contact you?
Big parts of the diary were printed in the foreword to Sefer HaSichos 5688-91. The parts which were omitted, were mostly the parts about the Rashag. Parts which are not Nogea anyways.
Actually most of the diary was printed in Dovid Rotenbergs's book titled "Maseh HaRebbe Be'Eretz HaKodesh", omitting the parts regarding the RaSHaG.
Thank You, CE for adding some sense.
Firstly I am going to try to find the Yoman. I have heard from many others that the Rebbe did not like this item publicized. The vast majority of material in what I have HAS NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED. It includes thoughts about his 2 sons in law (yes mostly about Gourary), his financial situation, specific comments about impt rabbis in Poland, Palestine and the USA and remarks about affairs in Europe.
The nature of the yoman reflects on the non religious n aspects of his personality of the rayaatz (that part of him not dealing with religious matters).
I am certain they are not part of any sichos etc. I am no baki in Sife chabad but I ahve never seen thses in print because they could be explosive.
Barry Gourary claimed a strange hand played with them.
I tend to doubt it because there are remarks about both sons in law I do not recall anything about Reb Mendel hacohen hayad.
A diary represents momentary thoughts and feelings. Anger and frustration are expressed there. There are such feelings expressed about the rashag , but as everyone knows at times we all act stupidly and without thought and the Rayaatz was reacting to such behavior of a youthful Gourary.
If someone saw my diary and what I wrote sometimes about people I love I would also be locked up , but as a rabbi friend of mine once said , but I love them anyway. Clearly the rayaatz loved his family and the Rashag only grew in stature. And my comments have nothing to do with the rebbe KEVODO BIMOKOMo MUNACH. The Rebbe was clearly a great Jewish leader.
Reb Mendel HaCohen HaY"D married in 5692, no? so the Yoman would not mention him, at least not the parts written in Eretz Yisroel and America (5690).
Schneur,
I too dont think that a few words written in a diary (even the Rebbe's diary)about his son in law would cause me to have any less respect for the R"Shag.
I assume that taken in Context they would shed some light on what the rebbe was going through at that particular time in his life, so I would very much like to see it.
maybe you can post it here as a Hemshach to the "non human family" posts of a few months back.
TA
When the Talmud ceased to be a record of the judicial debate process and began to be a book about magical men and creatures doing mythical acts, in other words, when it was overliteralized to an extent that its compilers did not intend, the breach that you mention at the end of your post was forged in stone.
I must admit I am in a quandry as what to do in regads the Yoman 's release although many people in CH and KCH must already have it.
After the Reshag died it was released by "firebrands" in Israel. I recall I was with Amnon Levy of the Israeli newspaper Chadashot at the Levaye and he told me about these statements concerning Gourary.
I will say 1 thing the diary is very critical of various rabbonim for being kalim and Zionists. (Not in reference to any Schneersohn or Lubavitcher follower). The Rayaatz was a true anti-Zionist.
Schneur,
The Rayatz was an anti-Zionist at that time, but what about later on?
This seems to have been a normal progression - look at R'Aharele Belzer for instance:
He was an ardent anti-Zionist, but later took a very different stance. He even bentched the Israeli soldiers, and supported the Israeli electoral process (with Aguda) - something he never did, even in Belz (as Machzikei hadaas was not supportive of Aguda there).
Hello, God Bless. I found your site and I am interested in prophecy, time travel, celestial events, and returning home to God. We need to open up and shed our fear of the greater work of God in both the terestrial and the celestial. It is a wonderous puzzle invented by an awesome creator who gives to all men liberally. Something miraculous is going on and we need to prepare ourselves.
Commenting by HaloScan
