The Breslov Post: Why I Did It.

Not Na Nach. Nor not not na nach neither.

A lot of people were outraged by the previous post, calling it all sorts of names.

I definitely don’t agree with it, but I consider myself a Breslover in many ways and am very close to the Breslov Torah of Rav Shagar especially.

The point of the post is quite simple: Once someone believes the Torah is truth, because he feels it or knows it to the depth of his heart for whatever reason, all the questions melt away. There’s no reason to dwell on them. If a person has questions, he can try answering them or not. It might be considered Talmud Torah. But they shouldn’t bother him. Emuna is the great balm (opiate?) and that’s a good thing.

However, the questions do bother those who do feel there’s a chance the Torah is not true. Then, unfortunately, the half-answers given by anyone from R Avigdor Miller to Gerald Schroeder won’t work. They’re obvious apologetics. I hate to say it, but the Torah loses. You can’t say I’ll reinterpret Bereshis to mean 6 million years but accept the mabul. You end up picking and choosing and looking foolish to both talmidei chachamim and scientists.

The only other possible approach than blind emuna besides for calling Torah a lie cha”v is not to do post-hoc apologetics but to find an honest approach that completely explains why the Torah is written with seeming science mistakes and why that doesn’t affect its divinity at all - because Hashem had a specific, intelligent and valid reason that makes sense why he would write it that way. Furthermore, Hashem always intended for science and Torah to work in tandem - not as bedieved tirutzim but lechatchila. That is what I am trying to accomplish with my still-ongoing series. (In brief: The Torah was written as countermyth to lift the Yidden to pure monotheism and because myth was considered the most trustworthy medium at the time the Torah was given. It makes perfect sense for Hashem to use that medium for the first receivers of the Torah, while hiding deeper mystical and other truths for later learners. More on this in my ongoing series.)

But should my series be disproven, I am far more sympathetic to R Lerner’s approach than any so-called chareidi rational approach.

On for all those calling Mr. Lerner’s approach farfetched, there’s actually a great science fiction story called Unsong where the physics machine of the universe breaks and there are times where 1+1=3! If you can comprehend that happening in a story, you can comprehend that in real life as well! (I actually referred to that great book in one of my first posts).