Rabbi Weissman – Akiva Tatz, Master Manipulator – Part Two (A)

 

In this week's Torah class we attempted to unravel the mystery surrounding Moshe hitting the rock instead of speaking to it.   What was the sin exactly?  Why was it such a big deal that Moshe and Aharon had to die in the desert because of it?  How did the punishment fit the crime?  Why was Aharon given the same punishment as Moshe if he didn't do anything?  

The meforshim offer a wide range of explanations, but each of them leaves us with more questions than answers.  After exploring some of these explanations, we found clues in the Pesukim and Midrashim, put the pieces together, and discovered an illuminating explanation that fits like a glove.

This is a special class that I developed over 20 years ago and wrote up in my sefer Keser Chananya.  (I have hardcover copies of Keser Chananya available for only 20 shekels; I don't monetize teaching Torah.)  Yesterday I shared this class on video for the first time.  The recording is available here, and the source sheet is available here.

Akiva Tatz, Master Manipulator – Part Two

(Part one is available here.)

At the 17-minute mark of his lecture, Akiva Tatz launched into a convoluted diatribe about evidence and experts. He expressed faux admiration for Lone Rangers who bravely go against the prevailing viewpoint, but immediately warned that such people are “not necessarily objective”. Tatz expressed no such caveat regarding those who side with the majority, despite the obvious incentives for doing so, and the great hazards of being a Lone Ranger.

Tatz continued, comparing it to Talmudic study: “Where's the preponderance of evidence? If there's evidence on one side of the debate, that's where we go. If you've not mastered the evidence yourself, but you're assessing expert evidence, we go with the majority of experts. That's how we handle it in the Talmud. When we do not have a majority, we know what to do. We have certain ways of handling certain doubts.”

This is largely incoherent, but what is somewhat coherent is so fundamentally erroneous that we must question whether Tatz is a serious student of the Talmud or is merely winging it. No one will confuse Akiva Tatz with a posek, but basic competence and understanding of how halacha works should be expected of anyone bearing a rabbinic title, and, frankly, every Jew with a modicum of education.

First of all, Talmudic debates (and, by extension, how halacha is determined) are not resolved by a vote of those who belong to the amorphous club of “experts”. There is no single simplistic rule for how debates are resolved; in fact, the Talmud itself provides numerous rules, which often have exceptions. In many cases the halacha pointedly goes against the majority, in some cases the minority opinion is completely disqualified, and in other cases the minority opinion may be followed in extenuating circumstances, or by communities following their tradition. There are certain sages whose opinions are given preeminence in disputes – depending on who they are up against. Sometimes the halacha follows the later opinion, though the teacher usually trumps the student – then again, not always.

Of course, many other factors come into play, such as whether we are dealing with biblical law or a rabbinic law, or the severity of particular mitzvos.

All the above and so much more illustrate why the job of a posek is so difficult, and only the cream of the crop are entrusted with this responsibility – which they must approach with the greatest of care and reverence.

There are indeed cases of halacha being determined by a vote of sages assembled specifically for this purpose, and of course the Sanhedrin did the same to decide between multiple legitimate opinions. However, for Akiva Tatz to make a blanket statement, as a matter of fact and principle, that Talmudic debates are settled merely by following a majority of “experts”, demonstrates either total ignorance of how things work or deliberate deception. There is no other option. Take your pick.

Indeed, if all we must do is “go with the majority of experts”, what point is there for us peasants to “assess expert evidence” altogether? And how could we even deign to do so?

That, ladies and gentleman, is the takeaway Akiva Tatz was really intending to drive home, under the false pretense of being the Talmudic way. When push comes to shove, it isn't really about evaluating evidence, but following the supposed “majority of experts”.

Of course, Tatz conveniently ignores the fact there is no such thing as a halachic ruling that all of Klal Yisrael – the overwhelming majority of which are healthy – must run to the doctor and take a particular medical treatment. No rabbi or consortium of rabbis can issue a binding ruling of this nature on the Jewish public. The opinion of both a rabbi and a doctor in these matters must be tailored to an individual before it carries any degree of weight, let alone render something obligatory.

But Tatz and many charlatans like him pretend that a majority of doctors – many of whom are heretics, frauds, or simply reading recipes and think they know how to cook – can issue rulings that rabbis must rubber-stamp, which then have the force of a Sanhedrin.

How could smart and educated Jews be so easily misled?

Then things become especially confusing. Tatz illustrates how we “handle doubts” with two anecdotes. There was a medical question without a clear consensus among the doctors. Tatz says he brought the matter to Rav Elyashiv, who reportedly said “Let the patient choose.”

Tatz found this amusing. Imagine, a patient, a mere peasant, actually deciding for himself between expert medical opinions!

He followed with another anecdote in which two senior doctors differed with a single doctor. However, the former were merely “national experts” while the latter was “more highly qualified”, an “international expert” (interesting ranking system they got there). In such a case, should we follow “a majority of highly competent opinion, or a minority of superior opinion”? Here too Rav Elyashiv reportedly said “the patient gets to choose”, which Tatz related with a very surprised look on his face.

After suggesting that superior expertise neutralizes a majority, Tatz zig-zagged in the opposite direction, returning to the mantra that “we go where the evidence leads”.

“If someone sends you a video telling you that covid is this or that...and they give you evidence, have they given you evidence on both sides of the question, or only one? If they are giving you evidence on one side of the question, that's irrelevant. 

That is an insult to intelligence. Somebody sends me a video, ten doctors standing up with their white coats and fancy labels, and the best medical institutions, the best medical educations, senior people...ten of them, making some unorthodox point about covid. That proves that they're right.

“No! For those ten people there are ten thousand doctors saying the opposite. Are you showing me both sides of the evidence? If not, you're insulting me...that is downright dishonest and it's an insult to the objective mind. What would you think of a court case where the judge allows one side to speak only?” Here Tatz cackles.

Do you follow that? We admire Lone Rangers and admit they can be right...but we follow the evidence...unless it's a case of doubt, in which case we follow the majority of experts...unless one of them outranks the others, in which case it's a draw...but if ten senior doctors with the absolute best credentials make an unorthodox point, it means nothing if there is a large majority against them.

Because, at the end of the day, it isn't really about evidence. It's about orthodoxy.

Furthermore, anyone who shares a minority opinion of highly credentialed experts must also bring evidence for the other side, otherwise he is immediately dismissed. The “objective mind” will not so much as examine evidence against the majority unless the one bringing this evidence also brings evidence in favor of the majority.

What should one do if he has considered the evidence of the majority position (which should be taken as a given) and found it terribly lacking? What if the majority position is based on bad science and fabrications – historical examples of which Tatz himself shared? Tatz does not explain.

In addition, this made-up rule, this most unreasonable moving of the goalpost, does not apply to those in the majority, where Tatz conveniently resides. Tatz makes no demands of himself to present evidence in favor of the minority position. No, that he swats away derisively.

continued