tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post5389840540825636426..comments2024-01-30T12:26:03.019-05:00Comments on The Blog of Garnel Ironheart: The Disappointment of Aish HaTorahMighty Garnel Ironhearthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09571194550300367249noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-88834818771197753602011-05-29T04:09:51.533-04:002011-05-29T04:09:51.533-04:00try this link for the Rabbi Kaplan transcript<a href="http://www.sendspace.com/file/iicwif" rel="nofollow">try this link for the Rabbi Kaplan transcript</a>Yitz Waxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626409388081098891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-2548501927080512032011-05-27T01:15:53.788-04:002011-05-27T01:15:53.788-04:00For RYGB:
The link for Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's s...For RYGB:<br /><br />The link for Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's speech does not work: (http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/the-age-of-the-universe---a-torah-true-perspective/11191032?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/2)<br /><br />Perhaps you have another link to this lecture?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-12157050438955082152011-05-24T16:20:19.322-04:002011-05-24T16:20:19.322-04:00Answers were almost what I expected. Thank you fo...Answers were almost what I expected. Thank you for them.<br /><br />Would be nice if Garnel Ironheart would share his own proofs of Torah from Mt. Sinai.<br /><br />I always believed in G-d, even when terrible things happened.<br /><br />After ten months at Aish, very difficult time dealing with both G-d and Judaism.<br /><br />Arguing whether Noah’s ark is real with grown men is just depressing. Doing it with Jews is even more depressing. I would prefer to have those kinds of talks with fundamentalist Christians.<br /><br />Hearing proofs of G-d is actually one good way to lose your belief in G-d. Having been hammered by Jewish thought, the ikkurim, Jewish practice I now say: I accept the idea of G-d. Kind of miss my younger self’s quiet, unspoken belief.<br /><br />Two ideas I have:<br /><br />First, the rabbaim, the sages had/have one larger goal: keep belief high, keep Judaism alive.<br />I believe that if emmes ever conflicted with emunah, the sages and the rabbis went with whatever kept emunah higher. The Mesorah is built with this in mind.<br /><br />To make it impervious to criticism, we are commanded to accept that our sages are on a higher plane than us and we therefore cannot really (in orthodoxy) refute them.<br /><br />Second idea:<br /><br />As Jews, we have thoughts about Judaism and beliefs about Judaism. And Judaism can go on, even if they are in conflict.<br /><br />We have thoughts about our mesorah, about Torah, about Jewish history that could hurt our belief in Judaism. These thoughts do not go away. They are just collected and sit there.<br /><br />We also have a desire to believe – to keep Judaism alive, to be Jewish, to embrace ritual and Torah Judaism, and Jewish thinking.<br /><br />Judaism remains possible because we are able to do both. A lame illustration of this in the secular world is when we go to a horror movie. We get frightened and enjoy the suspense (akin to belief), but we know we are sitting in a theater and munching on popcorn and are safe from the monster on the screen (akin to thinking). <br /><br />Actually, in the movie industry, they call the film experience “suspended disbelief.” We don’t quite believe the horror movie, but we gain something from immersing ourselves in it. This is called suspending disbelief.<br /><br />All religion will survive modernity because of this.<br /><br />Any thoughts?<br /><br />TuviaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-24599828877600617422011-05-22T15:39:05.203-04:002011-05-22T15:39:05.203-04:00Rav YGB,
> Are we permitted to see the mabul a...Rav YGB,<br /><br />> Are we permitted to see the mabul as allegory?<br /><br />> No. But it need not be believed that it was global<br /><br />Yet Rav Hirsch, zt"l, uses his grammatical approach to conclude that the flood was not one of water but of an unspecified type of destruction. No, the floor was not an allegory but one must consider that it was not simply a lot of water in one place all at once either. Clearly something happened during that time that we simply can't conceive.Mighty Garnel Ironhearthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09571194550300367249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-88394979916061341332011-05-22T12:24:29.116-04:002011-05-22T12:24:29.116-04:00(1) The universe existed 15 billion years.
(2) 6,...(1) The universe existed 15 billion years.<br /><br />(2) 6,000 years ago G-d literally breathed breath into Adam haRishon, who was formed directly from dust.<br /><br />I have trouble accepting both of these. If one accepts (2), then it seems to me that young earth creationism is far superior. IOW, if we are obligated on (2), we didn't gain much by being granted the right to believe in (1).Yitz Waxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626409388081098891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-45054494325927376992011-05-20T11:54:44.149-04:002011-05-20T11:54:44.149-04:00Tuvia, even a kofer like me can tell you the very ...Tuvia, even a kofer like me can tell you the very simple answer to all those questions (with the possible exception of "are we permitted to see the Torah as having been fixed and edited over time," if you mean anything more than the rishonim Marc Shapiro quotes in <i>Limits of Orthodox Theology</i> maintained): It's a machlokes! :)Baruch Peltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13178212221463356386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-80162351484255070392011-05-19T22:18:55.931-04:002011-05-19T22:18:55.931-04:00In my opinion:
Are we actually permitted to see t...In my opinion:<br /><br />Are we actually permitted to see the universe as old?<br /><br /><b>Yes.</b><br /><br />Are we permitted to see evolution as possible and even likely given the fossils?<br /><br /><b>Yes to the first part of the question; yes - but disagree with "likely" - to the second part of the question.</b><br /><br />Are we permitted to see Adam and Eve as allegory, their story “written in the language of men?”<br /><br /><b>No.</b><br /><br />Are we permitted to see the mabul as allegory?<br /><br /><b>No. But it need not be believed that it was global.</b><br /><br />Are we permitted to see the Torah as having been fixed and edited over time at the very least, as at least some Talmud statements and Rabbinic statements over the centuries seem to suggest?<br /><br /><b>Too vague.</b><br /><br />Finally, what prophecies that Aish trots out are bad proofs? What prophecies that Garnel reads as being fulfilled are good proofs?<br /><br /><b>Can't answer for him :-)</b><br /><br />And very finally, in matters of Daas Torah, can rabbaim (today and in the past) be in error? Can Chazal be in error?<br /><br /><b>Yes and yes.</b>Yosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-53275526084706948442011-05-17T23:45:05.635-04:002011-05-17T23:45:05.635-04:00My questions are these:
Are we actually permitted...My questions are these:<br /><br />Are we actually permitted to see the universe as old?<br /><br />Are we permitted to see evolution as possible and even likely given the fossils?<br /><br />Are we permitted to see Adam and Eve as allegory, their story “written in the language of men?”<br /><br />Are we permitted to see the mabul as allegory?<br /><br />Are we permitted to see the Torah as having been fixed and edited over time at the very least, as at least some Talmud statements and Rabbinic statements over the centuries seem to suggest?<br /><br />Finally, what prophecies that Aish trots out are bad proofs? What prophecies that Garnel reads as being fulfilled are good proofs?<br /><br />And very finally, in matters of Daas Torah, can rabbaim (today and in the past) be in error? Can Chazal be in error?<br /><br />Thanks for your answers,<br /><br />TuviaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-8738857237690725062011-05-16T01:43:55.986-04:002011-05-16T01:43:55.986-04:00RBH -
Well said. At the risk of over-simplificat...RBH - <br /><br />Well said. At the risk of over-simplification, any substantive division between "kiruv Torah" and "yeshivah Torah" constitutes a hidden agenda, which is a desecration of Torah.Yitz Waxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626409388081098891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-40946731272281836212011-05-15T14:39:54.377-04:002011-05-15T14:39:54.377-04:00Part 2 - RBH
It is the distinction in these two p...Part 2 - RBH<br /><br />It is the distinction in these two paths that needs to be further articulated and investigated. Do we only ask these questions because of kiruv? If the answer to that is yes than the evaluation of these questions should be based on what works. If, though, we are to ask these questions because they are Torah questions that need to investigated and studied, then the answer actually should not depend on what works, in fact what works may lead us astray accepting that which should not be accepted. <br /><br />In developing my organization Nishma, I found that much of what I was doing was taking questions found in the world of kiruv and trying to truly answer them as questions in learning, just for the sake of knowing Torah. For example, one of the classic questions that became a focus of Aish was: what is love? If you think about it, this is actually quite a good question and the way Aish presented the question really highlighted its importance. Afterall, why would someone be willing to mesh his/her life with another, sharing assets, based upon an emotion? Aish in answering this question with a focus on kiruv gave one defintion of love that, simply, would 'sell'. The question, more emphatically, was seen solely as a kiruv question and didn't really surface in the beit midrash (for other reasons as well). What I found, though, in taking this question as a serious question in learning was that there was actually variant viewpoints on the definition of love with major implications on certain hashkafic and halachic matters. The subject was really most complex, perhaps too complex to be presented in its entirety to a kiruv audience. But then comes the big question -- perhaps in the first stage of kiruv you need simplicity but isn't there also the need to deal with these questions within the complex Torah parameters that they deserve? <br /><br />We have to get beyond the question of what works, both in the short term and the long term. Perhaps, actually, we have to start recognizing that there is a short term and long term in kiruv and what we really have to start doing is recognizing that what works in the short term to get someone in the door is not going to work in the long term when we also want the same person to be a thinking person within Torah. Then, such a preson has to integrate with a Torah world that actually should be sophisticated in its approach to these questions not because of kiruv but because of our obligation to understand Torah. Sadly that is often not the case, often because our concern for kiruv actually leads many of us to maintain the simplicity because that is what the new ba'al teshuva will understand (and then what is ensured that they will continue to only understand until 120)<br /><br />The bottom line is that maybe simplicity works in the short term as a first stage but if, because its success at this level, we are satisfied to allow it to be the accepted approach beyond this first elementary stage we will suffer. There will be people leaving and leaving with a disgust for Orthodoxy. Sadly, also, the people staying, in accepting this simplicity, will lower the future standards of Torah on many levels. The greatest sadness, though, may be in what we do to Torah, allowing simplicity to take the place of the truth of Torah<br /><br />Rabbi Ben HechtNishmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04237299801109329429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-20457284793100130532011-05-15T14:39:11.212-04:002011-05-15T14:39:11.212-04:00In looking over this dialogue, the question to me ...In looking over this dialogue, the question to me seems to be: What are we really discussing? Is the question: how to best accomplish kiruv? or is the question: what is the corerct path to the emet haTorah? And then there may be the further question: how these two other questions relate to each other?<br /><br />At some points within this discussion, the issue seemed to focus on the effect of kiruv and how well the approach of organizations such as Aish were working. To this there were responses ranging from that it did work or does work to the fact that to a large extent people become initially intrigued but then almost violently become anti-Orthodox rejecting these proofs for being so simplistic, with many possibilities in between. The evaluation of the whole process is based upon effect and the argument seems to be in this evaluation of effect, some saying that for the most part it is working while others arguing that in the end it doesn't work. It would all seem to come down to Kiruv.<br /><br />At some points in this discussion, though, the issue seems to leave the realm of kiruv and enter the realm of Torah thought itself and the desire and need to know the truth to the best of our abilities. The question is not then what works but how we really should be approaching these questions with a recognition that what we may feel is the right approach is actually not the one that will be most successful in regard to kiruv. The call seems to be for the truth and not what works.<br /><br />end of part 1 -- comment to continue<br /><br />Rabbi Ben HechtNishmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04237299801109329429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-92070355827317556462011-05-12T11:45:38.265-04:002011-05-12T11:45:38.265-04:00Rabbi Bechhofer,
It seems to me that Rav Kaplan&#...Rabbi Bechhofer,<br /><br />It seems to me that Rav Kaplan's approach fits squarely into "2a - the universe is 15 billion years old and also created in six days".<br /><br />Is this approach a tacit agreement to naturalistic evolution? It would thereby put it squarely outside of acceptable belief as dictated by our present day chareidi sages.Yitz Waxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626409388081098891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-62856579077892830532011-05-11T15:56:44.469-04:002011-05-11T15:56:44.469-04:00R. Bechoffer, It seems to me that R. kaplan's ...R. Bechoffer, It seems to me that R. kaplan's approach only deals with the age of the universe and not with evolution.Yeshivishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-66992454089632017022011-05-11T14:31:40.657-04:002011-05-11T14:31:40.657-04:00>>>> But your assertion is contradicte...>>>> But your assertion is contradicted by the latest archeological evidence that there was a sudden increase in population that could only be explained by a mass migration. <br /><br />Garnel, could you kindly link to something that supports this assertion. Thanks.Anonymoushttp://(optional)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-79568376044051013492011-05-11T12:36:44.385-04:002011-05-11T12:36:44.385-04:00As always, Rabbi Kaplan is honest, straightforward...As always, Rabbi Kaplan is honest, straightforward, unapologetic and brilliant. Kind of like Garnel... :-)Yosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-27271898313166673762011-05-11T12:17:21.327-04:002011-05-11T12:17:21.327-04:00Rabbi Bechhofer -
I am still digesting the R'...Rabbi Bechhofer -<br /><br />I am still digesting the R' Kaplan z'l article (transcription) on the subject of the age of the universe. Thanks for posting the link.<br /><br />I wonder why you find this article as the best approach?Yitz Waxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09626409388081098891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-28365344172417768092011-05-11T11:57:53.293-04:002011-05-11T11:57:53.293-04:00> ,pelta is american not israeli
Like Noam Cho...> ,pelta is american not israeli<br /><br />Like Noam Chomsky?<br /><br />As for the deluge, one must keep in mind that, like ma'aseh Bereshis, a literal simplistic reading of the text is clearly not the most tenable way to understand what happened. Clearly there was, as described, a suspension of the natural order which means that a naturalistic approach will always misunderstand what happened.<br /><br />> thus making it seem the Bible's story is connected to earlier precedents<br /><br />The problem is that, unlike surrounding cultures, there are no really, really ancient copies of the Torah for obvious historical reasons. (Including that they wrote on stone and we wrote on parchment) Yes, Sumerian artifacts are a lot more ancient but that doesn't prove their story came first, only that older versions of their stories than ours have been discovered.<br /><br />As for KiruvAwarenessNetwork, I lost respect for his approach when he reached the point where he concluded that UltraOrthodoxy is like Nazism.Mighty Garnel Ironhearthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09571194550300367249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-14708196396602333732011-05-11T10:37:02.475-04:002011-05-11T10:37:02.475-04:00The point I was making was that there sure are a l...The point I was making was that there sure are a lot of flood stories which seem to be connected (even as they differ in various ways), thus making it seem the Bible's story is connected to earlier precedents. <br /><br />I wasn't addressing the hypothetical point you tease out from the multiplicity of flood stories that the Deluge must have happened. <br /><br />There are very good reasons to think there wasn't a global deluge (as religio-nonskeptics like Marc Shapiro have pointed out), so the point that the skeptic is just looking for reasons not to believe seems invalid: <br /><br />http://kiruvawarenessnetwork.blogspot.com/2007/12/historical-and-scientific-scholarship.html<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.htmlBaruch Peltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13178212221463356386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-90312606799846503872011-05-10T20:02:54.233-04:002011-05-10T20:02:54.233-04:00Garnel,i'm sure if only the bible hadn written...Garnel,i'm sure if only the bible hadn written about a flood affecting mankind.Then sceptiks like pelta would say if there really was such an event the whole world would have written it down.Now that they did,they say everybody made it up!tnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-56545384947892933022011-05-10T19:58:26.002-04:002011-05-10T19:58:26.002-04:00Yitz,tuvia wanted a frum person of integrity so i ...Yitz,tuvia wanted a frum person of integrity so i responded that pelta isn't that person at all.As for garnel,pelta is american not isralei,where they use hebrew name,unlike american jews.tnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-30507699205396349112011-05-10T16:39:34.379-04:002011-05-10T16:39:34.379-04:00> I stand by my previous assertion
But your as...> I stand by my previous assertion<br /><br />But your assertion is contradicted by the latest archeological evidence that there was a sudden increase in population that could only be explained by a mass migration. The only historical record of any migration into Israel during that time is ours. Done.<br /><br />Go see the Hertz inside and you'll realize that the only thing in common between the two stories is:<br />1) Flood<br />2) One guy survives.<br />That's kind of like saying that The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant was ripped off from The Lord of the Rings because each book features<br />1) Reluctant hero<br />2) Ring of power he doesn't know how to use<br />Yet anyone who's read both will tell you that's all they have in common.<br />And yes, I said there was lots of flood myths and from civilizations large distances apart. I suggested that there may be an actual ancient event to account for that.Garnel Ironheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-60788182300211885682011-05-10T16:34:21.265-04:002011-05-10T16:34:21.265-04:00Here's what I wrote:
Anyways, if we're dis...Here's what I wrote:<br /><i>Anyways, if we're discussing the Bible's account on its own terms, the idea that this massive influx of Jews entered Israel is archaeologically unsound (even religio-nonskeptics like R' David Wolpe and R' Gil Student admit that; see eg http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2004/12/Did-The-Exodus-Really-Happen.aspx )</i><br />I stand by my previous assertion and haven't seen evidence to the contrary. If there is evidence, I await seeing it.<br /><br /><i>As for the Epic of Gilgamesh, Rav Hertz in his classic Chumash commentary clearly demolishes the argument by concluding that the only real idea they had in common was a global flood. Whoopee.</i><br />Prima facie, that sounds ridiculous, although I'll admit I haven't seen that Hertz inside. Nothing in common? See http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm . Heck, there were a lot of other flood myths which preceded the Torah (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html).Baruch Peltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13178212221463356386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-66715010665941405002011-05-10T15:45:41.549-04:002011-05-10T15:45:41.549-04:001) Actually there's good archeological evidenc...1) Actually there's good archeological evidence of an influx of Israelites right around the time the Bible says it happened. The problem is not the existence of an Israelite invasion. The problem is that the Torah's population numbers don't match what was known about populations at that time. However, it's very clear that there was a period right around when we say it was that the population of central Israel jumped exponentially along with the appearance of non-Canaanite pottery in large numbers. Considering that Joshua describes the Israelites entering Israel but only really settling in the middle of the country and down towards the souther Jordan valley, this is remarkably consistent.<br />As for the Epic of Gilgamesh, Rav Hertz in his classic Chumash commentary clearly demolishes the argument by concluding that the only real idea they had in common was a global flood. Whoopee.<br />At any rate, what's interesting about that is how cultures across the ancient near east all the way to the far east have a variant on the flood tradition, almost as if one just might have happened on a large scale...Garnel Ironhearthttp://garnelironheart.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-18763784428465055512011-05-10T14:55:46.492-04:002011-05-10T14:55:46.492-04:00A well-established tradition doesn't really me...A well-established tradition doesn't really mean anything, as we've established in the cases of multiple other cultures, dead and alive. If you mean what Gottlieb calls a National Experiential Tradition, I addressed that in the link I referred to earlier.<br /><br />The fact that we're still around is pretty cool, but it isn't evidence of anything. In fact, precisely what is so cool is how we're still around after so much hester panim.<br /><br /><br />Anyways, if we're discussing the Bible's account on its own terms, the idea that this massive influx of Jews entered Israel is archaeologically unsound (even religio-nonskeptics like R' David Wolpe and R' Gil Student admit that; see eg http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2004/12/Did-The-Exodus-Really-Happen.aspx ). Moreover, the Bible's account is clearly influenced by the Epic of Gilgamesh. While the Bible's talking about the global flood which other cultures also believed in, it just never happened.Baruch Peltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13178212221463356386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-21081263645197250442011-05-10T13:56:35.202-04:002011-05-10T13:56:35.202-04:00Ah but what's considered without evidence?
We ...Ah but what's considered without evidence?<br />We have good evidence that as early as 2300 years ago there was a well-established tradition that the Jewish people had originated in Egypt, received the Torah at Sinai and subsequently moved to Israel. Older records from surrounding civilizations do not contradict this in any way. We presume our assumptions are based on the fact of Yetzias Mitzrayim and Matan Torah. The continuity of Jewish history since then supports such an assumption. Where's the contradictory evidence because, in the presence of such an established tradition the burden of proof is on the denier.Garnel Ironhearthttp://garnelironheart.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com