It has been almost a year
since Zev Farber published his online manifesto about Torah MiSinai.
The reverberations from that essay continue to be felt and show no
sign of quieting down. Although Farber was not the first one to raise
questions about the challenges of reconciling TMS and current
biblical scholarship, nor was he the first to suggest a less than
traditional solution, for various reasons that need not concern us
here, his essay was widely disseminated, and thus, read, critiqued
and attacked. I have been giving a lot of thought to effect that the
essay had, on Farber, Orthodoxy in general, Modern Orthodoxy and Open
Orthodoxy specifically, as well as to the other individuals who
entered the fray. It is my contention that each player made a mistake
in how they dealt with the article, including Farber himself. Over a
serious of essays, I will discuss the errors that were made, and make
suggestions on how they might have been avoided. To be sure, I do not
do so in an attempt to play Monday-morning-quarterback. I do so in
the hope that in the future all involved, or those who might become
involved, whether in this specific issue or other similar ones, will
learn from the mistakes, and learn how to proceed in a more
successful manner.
For no particular reason,
I will begin with the oddest player in the controversy that followed
the publication of Farber's essay; the American Charedi-lite position
(I apologize for the title, but it seems to be the most accurate
descriptor). By this phrase, I refer to Avi Shafran, Yaakov Menken
and others who either wrote responses or published them on their
websites. I say oddest player, as there are many good reasons why
those from this world might have avoided entering the fray in the
first place. Additionally, in many ways, for those who care to
examine this episode carefully, the Charedi-lite world had the most
to gain by remaining silent, and their participation harmed their
position considerably. Few of their readers were aware of the major
issues in modern biblical criticism, or I suspect, biblical criticism
in general. By attacking Farber's essay, they brought his questions
to their audience.
This might not have been
such a bad thing had they had any reasonable responses to his essay.
That might have included a way of reconciling the two somewhat
contradictory worlds of Torah and biblical scholarship, or even
showing why the questions were wrong. Of course they did neither of
the two, while leaving the impression that they did so because they
were unable to do so. To make matters worse, they gave the impression
that questioning and struggling are not really legitimate, and thus,
gave fodder to their opponents who suggest that they do not have the
intellectual tools to deal with the challenges of modernity. Even
worse, those within their ranks who think deeply, were given a
reminder that their questions and struggles are illegitimate,
something which our great tradition would certainly reject.
On my recent trip to
Israel, I had the opportunity to visit various seforim stores,
libraries and batei midrash. One of the things I saw astounded me.
While the world of Gush Etzion, Bar-Ilan and their ilk are writing
and publishing creative works on Tanach and Jewish thought, the
charedi world, for the most part remains silent. I got the distinct
impression that for those in the former group chiddush and creativity
are not only allowed, but even encouraged, whereas for the latter, it
is forbidden to say anything that has not been said. This is
unfortunate for a number of reasons.
First, and most important,
such an attitude is an insult to God and his Torah. If all that can
be said has already been said, what does that say to the modern Jew
who is seeking to understand what his tradition has to say to him in
the 21st Century? If our Torah, is, as we believe, a Toras
Chaim, it certainly should continue to speak to us today. Indeed, our
chachamim have always been willing to deal creatively with new
challeneges, whether from without or from within the Jewish world.
Second of all, there are questions that Chazal obviously could not
have dealt with, as discoveries in linguistics, archeology and other
areas had not yet been discovered in their time. If we follow the
charedi approach of only relying on earlier rabbis who were greater
than ourselves, than are we not admitting that we have nothing to say
on this and other pressing issues? I say this while recognizing the
dangers and difficulties involved in plowing ahead without much
assistance from those great thinkers who came before us, but in
truth, what other choice do we have? Furthermore, although those like
Rav Saadyah Gaon and Rambam did not, indeed could not, have answered
our current questions, they did suggest the methodology which might
be used. The fact that the charedi-lite world did not do so leads one
to wonder whether this was due to a lack of knowledge or the fear to
engage in this challenging endeavor.
All of this suggests that
the best course for those from the charedi-lite world, silence would
have been the preferred approach. That they did not do so, leaves me
wondering what their real goal really is.
Post by Pesach Sommer.
No comments:
Post a Comment