It's true teenagers have elders but they also have the vast majority of scientists against their parents. So they could say it makes more sense to trust the experts and stop taking religion seriously.
Gut moed. I agree R Hirsh is more correct than whoever has the genius idea of inviting some kiruv prover of truth to yeshivas as "studying emuna", I mean obviously any good yeshiva bachur can freg up their proofs. However I don't know if your solutions are gonna solve the basic paradox. I mean yes maybe some little questions like how old the universe is can be solved by just not believing that, ok so well. I think even some (most?) smarter kiruv rabbis will tell the yeshiva bachur he doesn't have to believe that. But the idea of there being more mature reasons, really ways, of being religious or studying torah, isn't limited to believing in evolution. Achieving any level of understanding (not "better proofs of the truth of a religion", thats not how any of this works) does take a certain maturity and depth probably not available to almost anyone the age of a yeshiva bachur. So we are left with two options, either let those people drop out at that age, or let them remain skeptics and either go one way or the other when they are at the stage to be able to do any thought. I don't know of a third option. What RMH is offering (without the "gaslighting") is really just a kind of conservative older person advice, which it's very hard to get younger people to listen to. It just says "don't make major decisions based on your thought when you are fifteen". If you have any good ways to convince a fifteen year old of this without some measure of "believe me I'm older and have seen enough and you're really kinda dumb" I'm interested in finding out what it is ..
Btw the thing RMH is factually opposed to isn't very much Miller style proving, he isn't even sure of allowing anyone to teach any kind of content around Tora or faith which isn't just lomdus or the really poor agada he knows how to do. Now that is a proposal that can be made and is done better in other communities, not that it causes less people to go otd or anything...
“Don’t make major decisions based on your thought when you are fifteen”
I’ve heard this before and don’t understand in this context. Are you saying that the person should behave as though the religion is true even though they don’t believe it?
Why is remaining orthodox not a “major decision” as well?
Oh I must have misunderstood. I thought you were saying that the line “Don’t make major decisions based on your thought when you are fifteen” applies when you are changing the status quo because you said it applies to both a religious and secular person changing.
However sure a teenager is, that surety is constantly changing with more information. As long as he is 'shteiging in learning', he is figuring out that things are more complicated than their first impression.
Questions in Emunah only morph into a problem when trust has been eroded. Contrary to the way these things are presented, the issues are not clinical and technical. With trust, the questions seem foolish, including this blog owner's loud protestations of a non-literal Bereishis narrative.
I think it is you. For me I told him after reading Avigdor Miller’s awake my glory that I became curious about evolution. And I thought maybe he changed some details. Seems like you were the anecdote he spoke about.
(My parents were divorced at the time I was at slabodka and no matter what I brought to him he kept saying if there was “simcha” in my home I wouldn’t have any of these questions. So I was surprised he wouldn’t mention that excuse.)
This comment from Rav Moshe Hillel is not new. I saw it years ago. Perhaps Danziger quoted it in his anti-Sapirman piece?
You are right that he isn't fully forthcoming.
A while ago I quoted a comment from Reb Moshe Feinstein printed in רשומי אהרן (written by his Talmid Rabbi Felder from Philly) in which he stated the truth; that these topics should not be discussed in public simply because the questions are usually better than the answers. Having followed these debates for awhile and reading what the Charedi gedolim have to say on this topic I believe the Charedi approach is not very different than that of Philosophical Jew, except that that they are reticent about explicitly acknowledging this, and they don't think they have the authority to issue any definite statements about the relevance or irrelevance of the Torah to science. This is also the approach I have taken in the essays and comments on my blog and in this comment https://intellectualshmaltz.substack.com/p/sanata-claus-keeps-us-frum/comment/110077483.
I think they should be more open about this, but at the same time I don't think they should be asserting anything definitely. All they should say is that the age of the universe is for science class not for religious classes, and "we don't understand פרשת בראשית anyway".
Specifically regarding what was labeled as apologetics regarding women being obligated in more mitzvos due to having no traditional mekor, I came across a couple that seemed to imply this that I was curious for your thoughts on.
“ In his Derush Al Ha-Torah (Sifrei Maharal, p. 28), the Maharal explains that women, who naturally exist on a higher plane, can more easily form a relationship with God. The same logic can be found in Yalkut Shimoni (Samuel I 1:13) where women are implied to have no evil inclination. A number of rabbinic authorities in later centuries put forth similar views. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch reasoned that women are exempt from TBPCs because they are superior; see R. Samson R. Hirsch, The Pentateuch (Gateshead: Judaica Press, 1976), Leviticus 23:43).”
… And now we can understand that woman who is material is obligated to observe the Negative Commandments but is not obligated in all the Positive Commandments. That is because the spiritual level of women does not reach to the highest level - which is the level of the Positive Commandments that a woman would function fully - because she is material. She only has the level of image (tzelem) which is relevant to the Negative Commandments. You should also understand why Positive Commandments displace Negative Commandments – because they are on a higher level then Negative Commandments.
Maharal Avis 1:5
… The man who is compared to the Form, if he follows after his wife who is Substance and substance is inherently deficient and he obeys her advice then it is definitely fitting that he should fall into Gehinom. That is because as we explained before – Gehinom is complete deficiency – as the names of Gehinom teach... Therefore since the Form deviates from his proper level to be drawn after Substance he is attaching himself to deficit and falls into Gehinom as the Form is drawn to Substance.
The question was raised from, People say If your wife is short then bend down and hear her whisper. The answer was given that one should not listen to her for worldly matters only for household matters. The explanation of household matters is that the man is not deviating after his wife when he listens to her in thes matters since the wife is the foundation of the home. And that is the way it has been in the order of the world. And consequently if he follows the advice of his wife in household matters we don’t say that the man is like the Form following after Substance and thus deviating from his spiritual level. That is because in this that the wife is the foundation of the home, from that aspect he is not attaching himself to deficit. In fact the opposite is true since the wife is the basis of the existence of the home and therefore she should be listen to in household matters. However in all other matters in which the wife is not the prime figure, if the man follows after her advice then he will be in fact going after deficit and will fall into Gehinom.
Maharal (Bava Metzia 59a): All those who follow the advice of their wife fall into Gehinom – This is truly incredible. We explain this also in relationship to Avos (1:5), All those who talk a lot with their wives are idle from words of Torah and in the end they inherit Gehinom. You should know that the woman is compared to Substance while the man is compared to the Form in every place. And when the Form is not separated from the Substance but rather the Form follows after the Substance entirely – he falls in Gehinom. That is because it is well known that the deficit is attached and bound with the Substance. This is alluded to by the Sages when they noted that when the woman was created the Samech was created with her. Because we don’t find the letter Samech in the Torah until the woman was created. ויסגר בשר תחתנה Bereishis (2:21) and closed up the flesh. That teaches you that with the woman was attached the deficit which is Satan who is the Angel of Death.
That's just a silly way of assessing somebody's view. The one's that Rabbi Eidensohn quoted don't contradict what he says in the Drashos al Hatorah. The point is that he has a more complex view than "women are inferior". Anybody with the understanding of more than a 4-yr old child understand that opinions can be complex. Would you apply such an infantile way of assessing things to your professional life also?
I think the common thread is that women are simpler than men. Olam haBa is more of a natural fit for them because it's all about kind of sitting around vibing and being holy, and women are more suited to that by nature. Plus, because they are simpler, they have fewer tasks to do in Olam haZeh, so in a way they are lucky to get the same reward for less responsibility. You can put a positive spin on that or a negative spin, and it seems the Maharal did both at different times.
I think it is fair to say that just putting the positive spin and then citing the Maharal is a misrepresentation, but then the Maharal kind of seems to endorse doing this himself when addressing women and implies that is what HKBH is doing in the pasuk.
Agreed, that is probably the way to put it. But I think what "a jew with questions" and Marty (and probably Rabbi Eidensohn also) are doing is also a misrepresentation
The way to assess someone’s opinion is to go through their writings and see how they generally address the subject. If the Maharal generally considers women inferior then the exception is the exception. I am not an expert in Maharal. Rabbi Eidensohn seems to me to be an expert in Jewish thought, he wrote a thousand page book about it and therefore I tend to trust his opinion about the Maharal.
Yes, and when one goes through the writings he sees the Derush al Hatorah that doesn't contradict the other writing but rather shows the Maharal had a complex view of women's disadvantages and advantages vis a vis men. This is not an "exception", it is part of his opinion. If you want to outsource your thinking to Rav Eidenshohn who conveniently didn't quote this Maharal, sure, go ahead. But don't pretend you have an argument.
Honestly, it's not clear to me what this means. If it literally means they have no yetzer hara, then how are they similar to children (who have a yetzer hara) or slaves (ditto). And it is literally crazy to say women don't have a yetzer hara. What would this even mean? Women never do aveiros???
The simplest meaning is that women are simple like children and slaves; their mind (לב) is not complex, but unitary. But it's genuinely unclear. At any rate, it won't serve the purpose of Charedi-lite pro-women apologetics.
I wonder if the Maharal actually says anything relevant either. My spider sense for such things gives me a 40-60 against. However, it's Erev Shabbos, so don't have time to look it up on 'page 28'.
שוב אמר כה תאמר וגו' לנשים בלשון אמירה ולאנשים בלשון הגדה. להורות כי באולי יאמרו הנשים אין לנו שכר בלמוד התורה בשאינם לומדות אותה, ואיך יהיה להם חלק בשכרה, וע"י כך אולי ימנעו את בעליהם מלקבלה כאשר אין להם תועלת בזה. לכך אמר כה תאמר וגו' לנשים בלשון רכה, ר"ל אדרבה ששכרם הרבה מאוד יותר משל אנשים ולכך מקדים הנשים תחלה. וכדאיתא בברכות (דף י"ז) גדול' הבטחה שהבטיחן הקב"ה לנשים יותר מן האנשים שנאמר נשים שאננות וגו' אמר ליה רב לר' חייא נשים במה זכיין באקרויי בנייהו לבי כנשתא ובאתנויי גברייהו לבי רבנן ונטרן לגברייהו עד דאתי מבי רבנן ע"כ. הנה מבואר נגלה כי יש לשאול למה ועל מה גדולה ההבטחה שהבטיח לנשים. ואם שכר הנשים גדול בשביל שמסייעים לבניהם ולבעליהם לתורה כל שכן היה ראוי להיות יותר גדול שכר אנשים הלומדים אותה. אמנם יש לך להבין זה ממה שאמר הכתוב שהביא נשים שאננות, כי האיש במה שהוא גבר איננו בעל שאנן והשקט מצד התגברותו והתפעלו, בכן אינם מוכנים גם כן כל כך אל השאנן והמנוחה הוא העולם הבא שהוא המנוחה בעצמו. אבל הנשים ראויים ומוכנים לה מצד עצמם שאינם בני פעולה והתעוררות מצד עצם בריאתן, לפיכך גדולה ההבטחה שהבטיחן הקב"ה יותר מן האנשים מצד השאנן ושלוה אשר המה מוכנים לו כי זהו חלק הנשים וראויות לזה ביותר. ובמעט הסיוע שמסייעים לתורה שכרם גדול מאד כאשר כבר הם מוכנים אל השאנן, וכל המוכן לדבר מה בנקל ישיגו מצד תכונתו. אבל האנשים צריכים מצד זה שיהיו עמלים וטורחים בתורה מבלי מנוח לילה ויום, וזהו גופו ותגיד לבני ישראל דברים הקשין כגידין הוא העמל הגדול הזה. אמנם לנשים בלשון רכה כי אינם צריכים כל כך, ואעפ"כ הם ראויים לשכר יותר גדול עד שלזה גם כן הקדימן הכתוב לאנשים כאמור. ועוד היה ראוי להקדימם בשהם ההתחלה והכנה לתורה, כי מן זריעת האשה נוצר גוף ובשר של הילד כדאיתא בנדה (דף ל"א) בענין חלוקת הג' שותפין. וידוע שהגוף הוא הוא ההתחלה וההכנה לקבל השכל בשהוא חומר זך ודק, ואי אפשר זולת התחלה זאת מצד בני אדם. בכן הנשים כשהם צדקניות הם הם ההתחלה להוליד בן זכות החומר שיהיה מוכן לקבלת שכל התורה, וזהו באקרויי בנייהו לבי כנשתא שהן המוליכות ומכינות הבנים לכך. וכן באתנויי גברייהו וגו', ר"ל כי בהיותה חומר מוכן לכך אזי מתאחדת ומתקשרת בתורה לגמרי בהשתוקקו' היותר נפלא עד שמתוך כך מתנויי גברייהו וגם מנטרי להן וכו'. שבהשתוקקות רב מצפין ומשתוקקין לבעליהן בעלי התורה עד דאתי מבי רבנן, ומצד החבור ודביקות היותר גדול שיש להם בתורה מצד הכנתם מתאחדין עמם לגמרי. והוא מה שאמר התם דפלגינן בהדייהו כי הם מתאחדים עמנו לגמרי לכן פלגינן בהדייהו זהו שהקדימן:
In what way is the Maharal not a traditional mekor?? Preposterous. And since when do you have such fealty to only accept what Chazal says (which knocks out most meforshim on Chumash and Nach)?? Is your "Mabul is a sacred myth" apologetics implied by Chazal??
Why is something from a traditional commentator who is traditional in every sense of the word not traditional? If the Maharal is not traditional, neither is the Ramban. Neither is the Rambam. Neither is Rashi.
The Maharal is probably traditional enough. Point taken. I'll edit the post. Does the Maharal say that that's the reason women have less mitzvos? Because the first I think who makes that connection explicitly is R Hirsh.
Who cares what Slifkin thinks about the Maharal? Are you going to tell me about Muhammad Ali's opinion on the Maharal also? Slifkin's opinion on this is wrong and absurd. There is no normal definition of "traditional" that would include the Rambam but exlude the Maharal. The Rambam was much more "revolutionary".
I always thought the portrayal of every Jewish woman in Chumash is overwhelmingly positive. Let's take a quick survey:
1) Sarah has it right while Avraham has it wrong about Yishmael. Hashem tells Avraham to listen to Sarah.
2) Rivka has it right and Yitzchak has it wrong about Eisav. Rivka takes the initiative and makes sure Yaakov gets the brachos and Yitzchok is forced to admit he was wrong.
3) Miriam has it right and her father Amram --the Gadol Hador--has it wrong about how to respond to Pharaoh's decrees.
4) Chazal say that we were redeemed from Egypt because of the נשים צדקניות. The women maintained hope and ensured the future of Klal Yisroel while the men gave up.
5) The men sinned with the Golden Calf--not the women
6) The men sinned by accepting the report of the Ten Spies and the women did not. They didn't die out in the Midbor.
And on and on...
The only exception is Chava's big mess up with the Tree of Knowledge, and she wasn't even Jewish technically speaking.
I see a pattern here, and it isn't modernishe kiruv apologetics
Right, and even putting this aside to what I put above we have the Yalkut Shimoni...
וחנה היא מדברת על לבה. למה נשתתפו (ה) הנשים עם הקטנים והעבדים לענין המצות, לפי שאין להם אלא לב אחד, שנאמר וחנה היא מדברת על לבה. ומוצא אני מר ממות את האשה אשר היא מצודים וחרמים לבה. ויקם אישה וילך אחריה לדבר על לבה. וכן הקטן אולת קשורה בלב נער, וכן העבד לבו אל אדונו בלבד. הרשעים הם ברשות לבם אמר נבל בלבו, ויאמר עשו בלבו, ויאמר ירבעם בלבו, ויאמר המן בלבו. אבל הצדיקים לבם ברשותם שנאמר וחנה היא מדברת על לבה, ויאמר דוד אל לבו, וישם דניאל אל לבו, דומים לבוראם ויאמר ה' אל לבו:
Rav Hirsch... (kedai to look inside for more context as well)
"... Regarding the mention of women in the context of Sukkah and other commandments, it is noted that the Sukkah is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא ("positive commandment that is time-bound"), meaning it is not typically obligatory for women. Women are generally exempt from time-bound commandments like Sukkah, Lulav, Shofar, and Tefillin, though there are exceptions (such as the Chagigah and Kiddush). However, women are still required to participate in other major aspects of Jewish life, like the Shabbat and Pesach commandments, and their exemption from the time-bound commandments is not a reflection of unworthiness, but rather the divine law recognizing that women’s greater spiritual devotion and less vulnerability to worldly temptations make these specific commandments unnecessary for them to fulfill."
etc.
I'm just slightly taken a back as labeling the Maharal, Yalkut Shimoni, R' Hirsch as apologetics... even if this isn't the only answer to the question.
I would define apologetics as a new explanation that was decided to avoid a modern day issue that the original statement did not have in mind originally.
That’s too negative a definition/use, I think. Apologia is a Greek word for defense. Plato’s apology is not some cheap trick to sidestep logic, nor is C.S. Lewis's Christian apologetics. There are strong and weak apologetics.
That's just begging the question...obviously the person issuing the new explanation thinks the original statement did have it in mind. You can disagree, but you have no way of demonstrating your position, so you just pretend the word "apologetics" is a dirty word that immediately makes you win the argument.
(1) You are ignoring other things Sora did that are not viewed in such a positive light. Even in relation to Hagar and Yismoel.
(2)Yitzchok admitted he was wrong? Where?
(3)Making a correct argument in itself does not make someone a Tzadik
(4)That does not imply all that all women at all times would do the same
(5)Only 3,000 people sinned with the Egel to begin with and it made sense that the women who had a lot less connection to Moshe would care less about his absence. The same way when Moshe actually did die Chazal say that only the men mourned him (unlike Ahron who was mourned by both)
(6)Shevet Levi and men over 60 and under 20 did not accept the report of the Meraglim either. For a simple reason. They weren't the ones who would have to fight so it wasn't their nisyon
That is aside from the general cherry picking of sources you are using
1) I said overwhelmingly positive. not completely. And where ^in the Chumash^ is Sarah's actions vis-a-vis Hagar not seen in a positive light--meaning, where do the verses in the Torah themselves indicate she did something negative regarding Hagar and Yishmoel?
Yitzchak acknowledges that Yaakov keeps his bracha even after he realized he has been deceived.
Also, in the very next chapter, Yitzchak gives Yaakov ANOTHER bracha! No rebuke, no recriminations. Yitzchak clearly accepted the fact that Yaakov deserved those brachos,
3),4),5),6): Gimme a freakin' break. Are you serious?
I'm not cherry-picking. Just take a survey of all the roles of women throughout the Biblical narrative. It is clear to me that the Chumaxh, and Tanach generally looks very positively at the women in the story. The only exceptions to this rule I can think of are Jezebel, Vashti and Zeresh. That's it. But there are a LOT of men who are villains. EVERY OTHER WOMAN in Tanach is the hero of the story. 2 out of 5 Megillos have women as the hero of the story.
'The only exceptions to this rule I can think of are Jezebel, Vashti and Zeresh'
Yeah, but that's because you don't know Nach. What about: עתליה, הפלגש בגבעה, מיכל, גומר אשת הושע, אשת לוט, דלילה, בעלת אוב באנדור?
Taking into account the dramatically fewer number of women in Nach, overall, there is absolutely no grounds for saying they are portrayed more positively. And your own cherry picked examples aren't even good:
1) Sarah Imeinu is rebuked for laughing at the prophecy, then denies she laughed, and is rebuked. [Parenthetically, Ramban says even her treatment of Hagar - possibly including physically punishing a pregnant woman! - you praise her for was a sin].*
3) Miryam is given leprosy and G-d compares this to a father spitting in his daughter's face!!*
So, I guess, if you cherry-pick the examples you want, promiscuously flip back and forward between p'shat and d'rash, and go with the mefarshim when it suits you and don't when it doesn't, then you can come up with a narrative whereby women are portrayed more positively than men, it's just that before the 19th century it never occurred to anyone to do that, which is why this is just *obviously* apologetics, and you are high off your own supply.
*Note, I am not saying either are portrayed negatively in the round, just refuting the obviously false claim they are portrayed more positively than the parallel male characters.
I don't know why you consider the pilegesh in Givah, Michal, Eishes Lot, and the Endor witch villains in the story. While maybe not exemplary individuals who had their faults, they are certainly not villainized on the level of Jezebel and Vashti!
You have a point about Delailah, although even there, she is after all a Philistine woman who you would expect to have allegiance to her people and not fault her for betraying Samson. About Atlia and Gomer, I will confess ignorance. I'll look it up and see if they are truly portrays as villains.
1) and 3): Straw Man. As I said to Schmerel, I said overwhelmingly positive--I didn't imply they were never criticized! This is why many of your examples above fall flat.
BTW, neither the Chumash not the midrash rebuke Sara for punishing Hagar. So I am not going back and forth between them.
You are the one cherry-picking now with the Ramban who criticize Sarah here. There are meforshim who say that she was justified for doing it for kabbalistic reasons.
I still deny I am cherry-picking. I set the bar at women being the villains of the story and there are MANY more male villains then female ones--which give me the distinct impression that the Torah has a higher regard for them.
I can see someone making the counter-argument that the hero to villain RATIO is in fact similar, but I didn't see you make it. Can you? And again it has to be actual villain, not merely criticized.
You ask for verses when so much of what you said is based on Medrash. Which verse in the Torah says anything about Noshim Tzidkonyis or Miriam and Amram etc? Even worse is when you do quote verses you give them the meaning you want to believe . The simple meaning and certainly the explanations given in the Rishonim of what Yitzchok was saying by וַיֶּחֱרַד יִצְחָק חֲרָדָה גְּדֹלָה etc do not imply that he was admitting that he was wrong and Rivka was right. And give you a break? That is standard manipulative way of arguing. You try to make the other person seem stupid and guilty so you don't need to answer their point. But I will give you break and ask you to address only one of the points. If the reason women didn't sin with the mergalim is because they are inherently better then why didn't the men under 20 or over 60 do so either? Explain this in a way that even the feeble minded like myself can understand
Who gives this reason for the men between under 20 and over 60? Maybe the ones under 20 were not yet בר עונשין בידי שמים so they didn't die for that reason even though they sinned? It's nowhere in the text. And I never came across this reason in Chazal.
So if you came up with this reason by yourself, that means YOU are interpreting the text in a way that removes the virtue from the women. My whole argument is that by simply reading the text and Chazal, you come away with the distinct impression that they are superior because they didn't keep failing and sinning time after time like the men.
But YOU can come up with a pshat which undermines all these observations! Shkoyach!
That we are dealing with two utterly unique things: either a lie of mass revelation spread across the nation, or a God appeared for the only time ever to a nation. Both are equally unlikely so there's no way to prove which is more likely.
You are making a comparison to something which is not similar at all.
If you measure G-d's actions by how people do things for their businesses, you will arrive nowhere.
Your claim that we need an update could only based on your self-coronation as the Ultimate Arbiter. You have studied the entire Torah in depth, as well as the entire universe, and have reached a conclusion that the original revelation is no longer relevant or appropriate. Seeing as neither of those premises are remotely true, your 'opinion' on the need for an update is mere smoke-blowing. Kinda like the anti-vaxxers over at rationalistwhatever.
Corrected the age order of the Hirsch brothers. Didn't want to resend the email, but pinning this because I know the original version has that error.
You can update the post without resending the email
I updated it. But the email still has the error.
The proofs are good enough for those who have never seriously thought about the questions.
It's true teenagers have elders but they also have the vast majority of scientists against their parents. So they could say it makes more sense to trust the experts and stop taking religion seriously.
Gut moed. I agree R Hirsh is more correct than whoever has the genius idea of inviting some kiruv prover of truth to yeshivas as "studying emuna", I mean obviously any good yeshiva bachur can freg up their proofs. However I don't know if your solutions are gonna solve the basic paradox. I mean yes maybe some little questions like how old the universe is can be solved by just not believing that, ok so well. I think even some (most?) smarter kiruv rabbis will tell the yeshiva bachur he doesn't have to believe that. But the idea of there being more mature reasons, really ways, of being religious or studying torah, isn't limited to believing in evolution. Achieving any level of understanding (not "better proofs of the truth of a religion", thats not how any of this works) does take a certain maturity and depth probably not available to almost anyone the age of a yeshiva bachur. So we are left with two options, either let those people drop out at that age, or let them remain skeptics and either go one way or the other when they are at the stage to be able to do any thought. I don't know of a third option. What RMH is offering (without the "gaslighting") is really just a kind of conservative older person advice, which it's very hard to get younger people to listen to. It just says "don't make major decisions based on your thought when you are fifteen". If you have any good ways to convince a fifteen year old of this without some measure of "believe me I'm older and have seen enough and you're really kinda dumb" I'm interested in finding out what it is ..
Btw the thing RMH is factually opposed to isn't very much Miller style proving, he isn't even sure of allowing anyone to teach any kind of content around Tora or faith which isn't just lomdus or the really poor agada he knows how to do. Now that is a proposal that can be made and is done better in other communities, not that it causes less people to go otd or anything...
“Don’t make major decisions based on your thought when you are fifteen”
I’ve heard this before and don’t understand in this context. Are you saying that the person should behave as though the religion is true even though they don’t believe it?
Why is remaining orthodox not a “major decision” as well?
yes the same point would be true for someone growing up secular who wants to become baal teshuva at 15.
Why is the status quo important?
Who said anything like that?
Oh I must have misunderstood. I thought you were saying that the line “Don’t make major decisions based on your thought when you are fifteen” applies when you are changing the status quo because you said it applies to both a religious and secular person changing.
Ok and this means "status quo is important" in what sense?
Don't make decisions before you get married and then it becomes too late to easily chose to drop out.
I’m not sure how this addresses the points I made in my reply.
He's being sarcastic.
Me too :)
I wasn't.
However sure a teenager is, that surety is constantly changing with more information. As long as he is 'shteiging in learning', he is figuring out that things are more complicated than their first impression.
Questions in Emunah only morph into a problem when trust has been eroded. Contrary to the way these things are presented, the issues are not clinical and technical. With trust, the questions seem foolish, including this blog owner's loud protestations of a non-literal Bereishis narrative.
Hi, I think I was the American bochur in question. (I wrote about some of our interactions here http://web.archive.org/web/20120501064824/http://www.unpious.com/2010/01/assume-the-position/ wrote this over 13 years ago.)
Ha, I guess the same thing keeps happening because like you said the “proofs” aren’t very good 😄 enjoyed reading your essay.
Hi Sam, good to see another Slobodka OTD alumnus who studied philosophy! I'm still gonna guess I'm the one in the story though. :) https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EWJUN6NLK/
I think it is you. For me I told him after reading Avigdor Miller’s awake my glory that I became curious about evolution. And I thought maybe he changed some details. Seems like you were the anecdote he spoke about.
(My parents were divorced at the time I was at slabodka and no matter what I brought to him he kept saying if there was “simcha” in my home I wouldn’t have any of these questions. So I was surprised he wouldn’t mention that excuse.)
You are the second person to tell me that!
This comment from Rav Moshe Hillel is not new. I saw it years ago. Perhaps Danziger quoted it in his anti-Sapirman piece?
You are right that he isn't fully forthcoming.
A while ago I quoted a comment from Reb Moshe Feinstein printed in רשומי אהרן (written by his Talmid Rabbi Felder from Philly) in which he stated the truth; that these topics should not be discussed in public simply because the questions are usually better than the answers. Having followed these debates for awhile and reading what the Charedi gedolim have to say on this topic I believe the Charedi approach is not very different than that of Philosophical Jew, except that that they are reticent about explicitly acknowledging this, and they don't think they have the authority to issue any definite statements about the relevance or irrelevance of the Torah to science. This is also the approach I have taken in the essays and comments on my blog and in this comment https://intellectualshmaltz.substack.com/p/sanata-claus-keeps-us-frum/comment/110077483.
I think they should be more open about this, but at the same time I don't think they should be asserting anything definitely. All they should say is that the age of the universe is for science class not for religious classes, and "we don't understand פרשת בראשית anyway".
Hi Ash hope chag is well
Specifically regarding what was labeled as apologetics regarding women being obligated in more mitzvos due to having no traditional mekor, I came across a couple that seemed to imply this that I was curious for your thoughts on.
“ In his Derush Al Ha-Torah (Sifrei Maharal, p. 28), the Maharal explains that women, who naturally exist on a higher plane, can more easily form a relationship with God. The same logic can be found in Yalkut Shimoni (Samuel I 1:13) where women are implied to have no evil inclination. A number of rabbinic authorities in later centuries put forth similar views. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch reasoned that women are exempt from TBPCs because they are superior; see R. Samson R. Hirsch, The Pentateuch (Gateshead: Judaica Press, 1976), Leviticus 23:43).”
The Maharal actually believes women are inferior to men. See https://ajewwithquestions.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-maharals-view-of-women-inferior.html
His view is actually more complex than that oversimplification you quoted:
https://www.sefaria.org/Drashot_Maharal%2C_Drush_Al_HaTorah.38?vhe=hebrew|OYW&lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
Maharal (Makkos 23b):
… And now we can understand that woman who is material is obligated to observe the Negative Commandments but is not obligated in all the Positive Commandments. That is because the spiritual level of women does not reach to the highest level - which is the level of the Positive Commandments that a woman would function fully - because she is material. She only has the level of image (tzelem) which is relevant to the Negative Commandments. You should also understand why Positive Commandments displace Negative Commandments – because they are on a higher level then Negative Commandments.
Maharal Avis 1:5
… The man who is compared to the Form, if he follows after his wife who is Substance and substance is inherently deficient and he obeys her advice then it is definitely fitting that he should fall into Gehinom. That is because as we explained before – Gehinom is complete deficiency – as the names of Gehinom teach... Therefore since the Form deviates from his proper level to be drawn after Substance he is attaching himself to deficit and falls into Gehinom as the Form is drawn to Substance.
The question was raised from, People say If your wife is short then bend down and hear her whisper. The answer was given that one should not listen to her for worldly matters only for household matters. The explanation of household matters is that the man is not deviating after his wife when he listens to her in thes matters since the wife is the foundation of the home. And that is the way it has been in the order of the world. And consequently if he follows the advice of his wife in household matters we don’t say that the man is like the Form following after Substance and thus deviating from his spiritual level. That is because in this that the wife is the foundation of the home, from that aspect he is not attaching himself to deficit. In fact the opposite is true since the wife is the basis of the existence of the home and therefore she should be listen to in household matters. However in all other matters in which the wife is not the prime figure, if the man follows after her advice then he will be in fact going after deficit and will fall into Gehinom.
Maharal (Bava Metzia 59a): All those who follow the advice of their wife fall into Gehinom – This is truly incredible. We explain this also in relationship to Avos (1:5), All those who talk a lot with their wives are idle from words of Torah and in the end they inherit Gehinom. You should know that the woman is compared to Substance while the man is compared to the Form in every place. And when the Form is not separated from the Substance but rather the Form follows after the Substance entirely – he falls in Gehinom. That is because it is well known that the deficit is attached and bound with the Substance. This is alluded to by the Sages when they noted that when the woman was created the Samech was created with her. Because we don’t find the letter Samech in the Torah until the woman was created. ויסגר בשר תחתנה Bereishis (2:21) and closed up the flesh. That teaches you that with the woman was attached the deficit which is Satan who is the Angel of Death.
That’s one Maharal, Rabbi Eidensohn quoted how many? A lot more which prove his point.
That's just a silly way of assessing somebody's view. The one's that Rabbi Eidensohn quoted don't contradict what he says in the Drashos al Hatorah. The point is that he has a more complex view than "women are inferior". Anybody with the understanding of more than a 4-yr old child understand that opinions can be complex. Would you apply such an infantile way of assessing things to your professional life also?
I think the common thread is that women are simpler than men. Olam haBa is more of a natural fit for them because it's all about kind of sitting around vibing and being holy, and women are more suited to that by nature. Plus, because they are simpler, they have fewer tasks to do in Olam haZeh, so in a way they are lucky to get the same reward for less responsibility. You can put a positive spin on that or a negative spin, and it seems the Maharal did both at different times.
I think it is fair to say that just putting the positive spin and then citing the Maharal is a misrepresentation, but then the Maharal kind of seems to endorse doing this himself when addressing women and implies that is what HKBH is doing in the pasuk.
Agreed, that is probably the way to put it. But I think what "a jew with questions" and Marty (and probably Rabbi Eidensohn also) are doing is also a misrepresentation
The way to assess someone’s opinion is to go through their writings and see how they generally address the subject. If the Maharal generally considers women inferior then the exception is the exception. I am not an expert in Maharal. Rabbi Eidensohn seems to me to be an expert in Jewish thought, he wrote a thousand page book about it and therefore I tend to trust his opinion about the Maharal.
Yes, and when one goes through the writings he sees the Derush al Hatorah that doesn't contradict the other writing but rather shows the Maharal had a complex view of women's disadvantages and advantages vis a vis men. This is not an "exception", it is part of his opinion. If you want to outsource your thinking to Rav Eidenshohn who conveniently didn't quote this Maharal, sure, go ahead. But don't pretend you have an argument.
I checked reference in Yalkut Shimoni, and it says this:
וחנה היא מדברת על לבה. למה נשתתפו (ה) הנשים עם הקטנים והעבדים לענין המצות, לפי שאין להם אלא לב אחד, שנאמר וחנה היא מדברת על לבה.
https://www.sefaria.org.il/Yalkut_Shimoni_on_Nach.78.3?lang=he&with=all&lang2=he
Honestly, it's not clear to me what this means. If it literally means they have no yetzer hara, then how are they similar to children (who have a yetzer hara) or slaves (ditto). And it is literally crazy to say women don't have a yetzer hara. What would this even mean? Women never do aveiros???
The simplest meaning is that women are simple like children and slaves; their mind (לב) is not complex, but unitary. But it's genuinely unclear. At any rate, it won't serve the purpose of Charedi-lite pro-women apologetics.
I wonder if the Maharal actually says anything relevant either. My spider sense for such things gives me a 40-60 against. However, it's Erev Shabbos, so don't have time to look it up on 'page 28'.
https://www.sefaria.org/Drashot_Maharal%2C_Drush_Al_HaTorah.38?vhe=hebrew|OYW&lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
שוב אמר כה תאמר וגו' לנשים בלשון אמירה ולאנשים בלשון הגדה. להורות כי באולי יאמרו הנשים אין לנו שכר בלמוד התורה בשאינם לומדות אותה, ואיך יהיה להם חלק בשכרה, וע"י כך אולי ימנעו את בעליהם מלקבלה כאשר אין להם תועלת בזה. לכך אמר כה תאמר וגו' לנשים בלשון רכה, ר"ל אדרבה ששכרם הרבה מאוד יותר משל אנשים ולכך מקדים הנשים תחלה. וכדאיתא בברכות (דף י"ז) גדול' הבטחה שהבטיחן הקב"ה לנשים יותר מן האנשים שנאמר נשים שאננות וגו' אמר ליה רב לר' חייא נשים במה זכיין באקרויי בנייהו לבי כנשתא ובאתנויי גברייהו לבי רבנן ונטרן לגברייהו עד דאתי מבי רבנן ע"כ. הנה מבואר נגלה כי יש לשאול למה ועל מה גדולה ההבטחה שהבטיח לנשים. ואם שכר הנשים גדול בשביל שמסייעים לבניהם ולבעליהם לתורה כל שכן היה ראוי להיות יותר גדול שכר אנשים הלומדים אותה. אמנם יש לך להבין זה ממה שאמר הכתוב שהביא נשים שאננות, כי האיש במה שהוא גבר איננו בעל שאנן והשקט מצד התגברותו והתפעלו, בכן אינם מוכנים גם כן כל כך אל השאנן והמנוחה הוא העולם הבא שהוא המנוחה בעצמו. אבל הנשים ראויים ומוכנים לה מצד עצמם שאינם בני פעולה והתעוררות מצד עצם בריאתן, לפיכך גדולה ההבטחה שהבטיחן הקב"ה יותר מן האנשים מצד השאנן ושלוה אשר המה מוכנים לו כי זהו חלק הנשים וראויות לזה ביותר. ובמעט הסיוע שמסייעים לתורה שכרם גדול מאד כאשר כבר הם מוכנים אל השאנן, וכל המוכן לדבר מה בנקל ישיגו מצד תכונתו. אבל האנשים צריכים מצד זה שיהיו עמלים וטורחים בתורה מבלי מנוח לילה ויום, וזהו גופו ותגיד לבני ישראל דברים הקשין כגידין הוא העמל הגדול הזה. אמנם לנשים בלשון רכה כי אינם צריכים כל כך, ואעפ"כ הם ראויים לשכר יותר גדול עד שלזה גם כן הקדימן הכתוב לאנשים כאמור. ועוד היה ראוי להקדימם בשהם ההתחלה והכנה לתורה, כי מן זריעת האשה נוצר גוף ובשר של הילד כדאיתא בנדה (דף ל"א) בענין חלוקת הג' שותפין. וידוע שהגוף הוא הוא ההתחלה וההכנה לקבל השכל בשהוא חומר זך ודק, ואי אפשר זולת התחלה זאת מצד בני אדם. בכן הנשים כשהם צדקניות הם הם ההתחלה להוליד בן זכות החומר שיהיה מוכן לקבלת שכל התורה, וזהו באקרויי בנייהו לבי כנשתא שהן המוליכות ומכינות הבנים לכך. וכן באתנויי גברייהו וגו', ר"ל כי בהיותה חומר מוכן לכך אזי מתאחדת ומתקשרת בתורה לגמרי בהשתוקקו' היותר נפלא עד שמתוך כך מתנויי גברייהו וגם מנטרי להן וכו'. שבהשתוקקות רב מצפין ומשתוקקין לבעליהן בעלי התורה עד דאתי מבי רבנן, ומצד החבור ודביקות היותר גדול שיש להם בתורה מצד הכנתם מתאחדין עמם לגמרי. והוא מה שאמר התם דפלגינן בהדייהו כי הם מתאחדים עמנו לגמרי לכן פלגינן בהדייהו זהו שהקדימן:
The maharal is by no means a traditional mekor. Chazal never imply such a thing.
In what way is the Maharal not a traditional mekor?? Preposterous. And since when do you have such fealty to only accept what Chazal says (which knocks out most meforshim on Chumash and Nach)?? Is your "Mabul is a sacred myth" apologetics implied by Chazal??
I was waiting for you!!! Gevaldig.
I happen to love the apologetic answer. But I don't think its traditional. That's kind of my point.
Why is something from a traditional commentator who is traditional in every sense of the word not traditional? If the Maharal is not traditional, neither is the Ramban. Neither is the Rambam. Neither is Rashi.
The Maharal is probably traditional enough. Point taken. I'll edit the post. Does the Maharal say that that's the reason women have less mitzvos? Because the first I think who makes that connection explicitly is R Hirsh.
See Slifkins views on the Maharal. https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/revolutions-in-jewish-intellectual
“Maharal himself was a revolutionary, who went entirely against the approach of all the Rishonim (and of Chazal).”
See Hakira https://hakirah.org/Vol%204%20Eisen.pdf
“In the realm of classic Jewish thought, Rabbi Yehudah Liva ben
Bez
ִalel, the Maharal of Prague, was a solitary revolutionary, especially
in the elucidation of Aggadah, the nonlegal components of the
Talmud and Midrash. On the one hand, he belonged to no well-
defined school, and his mentors’ identities remain a mystery. On the
other hand, despite founding a yeshivah in Prague and teaching several
of the following generation’s preeminent scholars, his legacy included
no immediate disciples who emulated or disseminated his unique
approach to Jewish thought. Even his many books on the subject
appear to have sunk into obscurity after his death (in 1609), none of
them reprinted for almost two centuries.
Who cares what Slifkin thinks about the Maharal? Are you going to tell me about Muhammad Ali's opinion on the Maharal also? Slifkin's opinion on this is wrong and absurd. There is no normal definition of "traditional" that would include the Rambam but exlude the Maharal. The Rambam was much more "revolutionary".
I always thought the portrayal of every Jewish woman in Chumash is overwhelmingly positive. Let's take a quick survey:
1) Sarah has it right while Avraham has it wrong about Yishmael. Hashem tells Avraham to listen to Sarah.
2) Rivka has it right and Yitzchak has it wrong about Eisav. Rivka takes the initiative and makes sure Yaakov gets the brachos and Yitzchok is forced to admit he was wrong.
3) Miriam has it right and her father Amram --the Gadol Hador--has it wrong about how to respond to Pharaoh's decrees.
4) Chazal say that we were redeemed from Egypt because of the נשים צדקניות. The women maintained hope and ensured the future of Klal Yisroel while the men gave up.
5) The men sinned with the Golden Calf--not the women
6) The men sinned by accepting the report of the Ten Spies and the women did not. They didn't die out in the Midbor.
And on and on...
The only exception is Chava's big mess up with the Tree of Knowledge, and she wasn't even Jewish technically speaking.
I see a pattern here, and it isn't modernishe kiruv apologetics
Right, and even putting this aside to what I put above we have the Yalkut Shimoni...
וחנה היא מדברת על לבה. למה נשתתפו (ה) הנשים עם הקטנים והעבדים לענין המצות, לפי שאין להם אלא לב אחד, שנאמר וחנה היא מדברת על לבה. ומוצא אני מר ממות את האשה אשר היא מצודים וחרמים לבה. ויקם אישה וילך אחריה לדבר על לבה. וכן הקטן אולת קשורה בלב נער, וכן העבד לבו אל אדונו בלבד. הרשעים הם ברשות לבם אמר נבל בלבו, ויאמר עשו בלבו, ויאמר ירבעם בלבו, ויאמר המן בלבו. אבל הצדיקים לבם ברשותם שנאמר וחנה היא מדברת על לבה, ויאמר דוד אל לבו, וישם דניאל אל לבו, דומים לבוראם ויאמר ה' אל לבו:
Rav Hirsch... (kedai to look inside for more context as well)
"... Regarding the mention of women in the context of Sukkah and other commandments, it is noted that the Sukkah is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא ("positive commandment that is time-bound"), meaning it is not typically obligatory for women. Women are generally exempt from time-bound commandments like Sukkah, Lulav, Shofar, and Tefillin, though there are exceptions (such as the Chagigah and Kiddush). However, women are still required to participate in other major aspects of Jewish life, like the Shabbat and Pesach commandments, and their exemption from the time-bound commandments is not a reflection of unworthiness, but rather the divine law recognizing that women’s greater spiritual devotion and less vulnerability to worldly temptations make these specific commandments unnecessary for them to fulfill."
etc.
I'm just slightly taken a back as labeling the Maharal, Yalkut Shimoni, R' Hirsch as apologetics... even if this isn't the only answer to the question.
Nothing wrong with calling something "apologetics". There are apologetics for science also. It just means devising explanations to answer questions.
I would define apologetics as a new explanation that was decided to avoid a modern day issue that the original statement did not have in mind originally.
That’s too negative a definition/use, I think. Apologia is a Greek word for defense. Plato’s apology is not some cheap trick to sidestep logic, nor is C.S. Lewis's Christian apologetics. There are strong and weak apologetics.
That's just begging the question...obviously the person issuing the new explanation thinks the original statement did have it in mind. You can disagree, but you have no way of demonstrating your position, so you just pretend the word "apologetics" is a dirty word that immediately makes you win the argument.
(1) You are ignoring other things Sora did that are not viewed in such a positive light. Even in relation to Hagar and Yismoel.
(2)Yitzchok admitted he was wrong? Where?
(3)Making a correct argument in itself does not make someone a Tzadik
(4)That does not imply all that all women at all times would do the same
(5)Only 3,000 people sinned with the Egel to begin with and it made sense that the women who had a lot less connection to Moshe would care less about his absence. The same way when Moshe actually did die Chazal say that only the men mourned him (unlike Ahron who was mourned by both)
(6)Shevet Levi and men over 60 and under 20 did not accept the report of the Meraglim either. For a simple reason. They weren't the ones who would have to fight so it wasn't their nisyon
That is aside from the general cherry picking of sources you are using
1) I said overwhelmingly positive. not completely. And where ^in the Chumash^ is Sarah's actions vis-a-vis Hagar not seen in a positive light--meaning, where do the verses in the Torah themselves indicate she did something negative regarding Hagar and Yishmoel?
2) לב וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ יִצְחָק אָבִיו מִי אָתָּה וַיֹּאמֶר אֲנִי בִּנְךָ בְכֹרְךָ עֵשָׂו:
לג וַיֶּחֱרַד יִצְחָק חֲרָדָה גְּדֹלָה עַד מְאֹד וַיֹּאמֶר מִי אֵפוֹא הוּא הַצָּד צַיִד וַיָּבֵא לִי וָאֹכַל מִכֹּל בְּטֶרֶם תָּבוֹא וָאֲבָרֲכֵהוּ גַּם בָּרוּךְ יִהְיֶה:
Yitzchak acknowledges that Yaakov keeps his bracha even after he realized he has been deceived.
Also, in the very next chapter, Yitzchak gives Yaakov ANOTHER bracha! No rebuke, no recriminations. Yitzchak clearly accepted the fact that Yaakov deserved those brachos,
3),4),5),6): Gimme a freakin' break. Are you serious?
I'm not cherry-picking. Just take a survey of all the roles of women throughout the Biblical narrative. It is clear to me that the Chumaxh, and Tanach generally looks very positively at the women in the story. The only exceptions to this rule I can think of are Jezebel, Vashti and Zeresh. That's it. But there are a LOT of men who are villains. EVERY OTHER WOMAN in Tanach is the hero of the story. 2 out of 5 Megillos have women as the hero of the story.
How on Earth do you consider this cherry picking?
'The only exceptions to this rule I can think of are Jezebel, Vashti and Zeresh'
Yeah, but that's because you don't know Nach. What about: עתליה, הפלגש בגבעה, מיכל, גומר אשת הושע, אשת לוט, דלילה, בעלת אוב באנדור?
Taking into account the dramatically fewer number of women in Nach, overall, there is absolutely no grounds for saying they are portrayed more positively. And your own cherry picked examples aren't even good:
1) Sarah Imeinu is rebuked for laughing at the prophecy, then denies she laughed, and is rebuked. [Parenthetically, Ramban says even her treatment of Hagar - possibly including physically punishing a pregnant woman! - you praise her for was a sin].*
3) Miryam is given leprosy and G-d compares this to a father spitting in his daughter's face!!*
So, I guess, if you cherry-pick the examples you want, promiscuously flip back and forward between p'shat and d'rash, and go with the mefarshim when it suits you and don't when it doesn't, then you can come up with a narrative whereby women are portrayed more positively than men, it's just that before the 19th century it never occurred to anyone to do that, which is why this is just *obviously* apologetics, and you are high off your own supply.
*Note, I am not saying either are portrayed negatively in the round, just refuting the obviously false claim they are portrayed more positively than the parallel male characters.
I don't know why you consider the pilegesh in Givah, Michal, Eishes Lot, and the Endor witch villains in the story. While maybe not exemplary individuals who had their faults, they are certainly not villainized on the level of Jezebel and Vashti!
You have a point about Delailah, although even there, she is after all a Philistine woman who you would expect to have allegiance to her people and not fault her for betraying Samson. About Atlia and Gomer, I will confess ignorance. I'll look it up and see if they are truly portrays as villains.
1) and 3): Straw Man. As I said to Schmerel, I said overwhelmingly positive--I didn't imply they were never criticized! This is why many of your examples above fall flat.
BTW, neither the Chumash not the midrash rebuke Sara for punishing Hagar. So I am not going back and forth between them.
You are the one cherry-picking now with the Ramban who criticize Sarah here. There are meforshim who say that she was justified for doing it for kabbalistic reasons.
I still deny I am cherry-picking. I set the bar at women being the villains of the story and there are MANY more male villains then female ones--which give me the distinct impression that the Torah has a higher regard for them.
I can see someone making the counter-argument that the hero to villain RATIO is in fact similar, but I didn't see you make it. Can you? And again it has to be actual villain, not merely criticized.
You ask for verses when so much of what you said is based on Medrash. Which verse in the Torah says anything about Noshim Tzidkonyis or Miriam and Amram etc? Even worse is when you do quote verses you give them the meaning you want to believe . The simple meaning and certainly the explanations given in the Rishonim of what Yitzchok was saying by וַיֶּחֱרַד יִצְחָק חֲרָדָה גְּדֹלָה etc do not imply that he was admitting that he was wrong and Rivka was right. And give you a break? That is standard manipulative way of arguing. You try to make the other person seem stupid and guilty so you don't need to answer their point. But I will give you break and ask you to address only one of the points. If the reason women didn't sin with the mergalim is because they are inherently better then why didn't the men under 20 or over 60 do so either? Explain this in a way that even the feeble minded like myself can understand
Who gives this reason for the men between under 20 and over 60? Maybe the ones under 20 were not yet בר עונשין בידי שמים so they didn't die for that reason even though they sinned? It's nowhere in the text. And I never came across this reason in Chazal.
So if you came up with this reason by yourself, that means YOU are interpreting the text in a way that removes the virtue from the women. My whole argument is that by simply reading the text and Chazal, you come away with the distinct impression that they are superior because they didn't keep failing and sinning time after time like the men.
But YOU can come up with a pshat which undermines all these observations! Shkoyach!
That's why I said "gimme a break."
Hey Ash hope all is well,
Completely unrelated to the post, but was wondering if you ever read Rav Dovid Gottlieb’s (somewhat?) recent book “Reason to Believe”?
I've read it. It's not bad. I think it misses the biggest issue with the Kuzari.
Which is what?
That we are dealing with two utterly unique things: either a lie of mass revelation spread across the nation, or a God appeared for the only time ever to a nation. Both are equally unlikely so there's no way to prove which is more likely.
Why is Hashem's appearance to a nation 'unlikely'? It doesn't happen often, or more than once, but that is not 'unlikely'? It is merely irregular.
It stands to perfect reason that a sentient G-d who created the world for a purpose would reveal that purpose once in history.
It is unlikely that a lie of mass revelation would spread across the nation against many odds.
No comparison at all.
But I never read Gottlieb's book, nor am I likely to. I am a primary source person.
Why only once? I for one think we need an update.
Anything that happens only once is concern for a forgery.
You are making a comparison to something which is not similar at all.
If you measure G-d's actions by how people do things for their businesses, you will arrive nowhere.
Your claim that we need an update could only based on your self-coronation as the Ultimate Arbiter. You have studied the entire Torah in depth, as well as the entire universe, and have reached a conclusion that the original revelation is no longer relevant or appropriate. Seeing as neither of those premises are remotely true, your 'opinion' on the need for an update is mere smoke-blowing. Kinda like the anti-vaxxers over at rationalistwhatever.
I'm a primary source person too, but this one is different. It's masterful. You are missing out.
Oy vey
R' Gottlieb adresses this in the book!
What page? I'll dig it out.
Right at the very end I believe
See my Why The Torah Is true post.
Could you bring a source for that Eli was a more serious learner?
My Grandfather almost got engaged to their sister…
He's my source.
Cool 🎤💧(mic drop)
In these type of stories the one who was lost is ALWAYS the one who was supposedly better than the one we still have.
Also with Rav Avraham Gurvitz's brother (he's still religious though just became a consolting engineer and inventor) they say that.