The Sefer Habris on frum kefira, and a fudamental class
There are many kofrim posing as religious Jews who believe Chazal were, at most, highly intelligent people working with the primitive knowledge of the times and outdated scientific beliefs. They did their best with the information available to them (a backhanded compliment), but they got a lot wrong, and their expertise doesn’t extend beyond halacha — if we can fully rely on them even there.
Frum kofrim enjoy nothing more than trying to demonstrate that Chazal got something wrong, or, nebach, didn’t know something we know today. They believe Chazal would be the ones learning from them if they were here. At most, it would be a fair exchange of knowledge.
Frum kofrim will not accept much of what Chazal said as objectively true unless it is supported by an archaeological or scientific discovery. That they fully trust. Chazal, not so much.
There is so much of that going around within the frum world, and it’s very insidious. Their seemingly innocent critiques of Chazal on “benign” matters, with feigned respect and an absence of awe and reverence, belie sinister beliefs and intentions. The Sefer Habris makes this point on page 197, in reference to those who challenge Chazal’s statements about the existence of sheidim, demons:
Those who delight in finding a man among men, a respected person to rely upon to deny the words of the sages of the Talmud in this matter [the existence of sheidim], it is only because they desire to deny them afterwards in a greater matter.
The Sefer Habris also writes the following on page 45 (English translation):
I am amazed by men who are wise in their own eyes, the maskilim together with the [self-styled] researchers. [They will] not [be able to] withhold their mouths; they will sharpen their tongues like a serpent; they will mock and laugh at them, if they find a perplexing statement of our Sages of blessed memory. They will open wide their mouths and say each one to his fellow “See what I found! The author of this statement did not know between his right and his left, and spoke of something in a matter whose substance he does not know at all; and his words are not spoken with wisdom.”
And they speak about our Sages of blessed memory with insults and revilements, mocking and aggrandizing themselves against the people of the Lord of Hosts; and the sages of our people are thought of as fools in their eyes.
If one says to them that there is in that statement a hidden riddle or a wondrous secret, a wisdom that is far and exalted, they will not desire understanding, they will hate knowledge, but they will scorn and revile the soldiers of the living G–D, and a foolish man despises his people, and against the Lord he is a blasphemer.
However, if they find in the books of the philosophers a perplexing thing, a wondrous opinion or a foreign matter, in the words of Aristotle, Pythagoras, Plato, and the like, they will say, “How great is his wisdom! How deep are his thoughts! In this saying it is deep — beyond reach of any finder; we cannot fathom it, on account of the weakness of our intellect and the deficiency of our knowledge! And we are not able to grasp it and to stand upon the nuances of the matter, for it is great!”
They turned their hearts to hate their own people, they have turned into strangers. They say of evil “good” and of good “evil”; they put darkness for light and light for darkness, bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter; and they push aside the [way of] honesty — instead of perfume, rottenness…
If you’ve ever learned Chullin, or Nidda, or Bechoros, you should be amazed by how much Chazal knew about science and nature, deep wisdom that would put your local doctor to shame. If you’ve ever learned anything, you should be humbled by how much they knew about human psychology and all areas of knowledge.
Does that mean they would know how to perform certain types of surgery, or that all of their personal beliefs were objectively true? Not necessarily. But I’m certainly not going to critique Chazal — let alone with hubris. If we can’t necessarily apply their medicinal advice, we should certainly not discount it as outdated or completely false. We are in no place to judge what they knew or didn’t know — certainly not with an air of superiority.
This brings us to last week’s Torah class.
Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta conducted an experiment with ants to test what Shlomo Hamelech stated about them. The results seemed positive, but turned out to be inconclusive. What gave him the right to test a divine teaching with a scientific experiment, and what are the ramifications?
Shlomo Hamelech stated in Mishlei that it is better to have a simple meal in good company than a fancy meal in poor company. Do we really need him to tell us this? Is this nothing more than the opinion of a wise man, or his own personal experience, codified in a holy book?
Rabbi Chiya bar Rabba and Rabbi Shimon bar Rebbi double checked that they didn’t leave anything behind when they traveled. Do we really need Chazal to teach us this, as if it’s a brilliant idea, and bring a proof from the Torah to support it, too?
We addressed these questions and more, shedding light on common sense, the ways of wisdom, and divine truth. The class is embedded above and on Rumble here.
This week’s class has been rescheduled from Thursday to Monday at 8 PM Israel time, and we will study another chapter of navi. The link to register for the live classes is here.
No comments:
Post a Comment