Friday, May 20, 2011

Dialogue: Review




See this post first.


















Having read the new Dialogue journal, these are my impressions:

Rabbi Eytan Kobre's article was written in classic JO style. Upshot of the essay is that one who engages in unorthodox practice should not label themselves Orthodox.

Rabbi Meiselman states that we will not change our views despite evidence shown by science. Science got it wrong regarding the origins of the universe, originally claiming that it was always here, now claiming the "Big Bang". Furthermore, RMM claims there IS Psak when it comes to Hashkofo, and we need to follow the majority. Finally, he rejects the famous Shitta popularized by Rav Aryeh Kaplan at the Feb 18, 1979 AOJS convention that R' Yitzchok M'Acco supports a 15 billion year old universe. He notes that the Big Three Kabbalists of the 16th century, the Ari, Rav Chaim Vital and the RaMaK rejected this opinion.

Rav Jeremy Kagan's article deals with repercussions of mass media on today's generation. He claims that the constant electronic bombardment, in addition to being an intrusion, keeps us so busy that we have no time to examine ourselves and grow spiritually. Showing youth the sweet side of Torah, the Ahava as opposed to Yirah will hopefully combat this problem.

Rav Wiener and Rav Ifrah's well researched article refuting Rabbi M. Broyde's recent Limud Zechut is convincing. These 2 Kollel fellows of the Ner Yisroel Yeshiva did a thorough job.

The issue is rounded out by the article on which gentiles are deserving of Olam Haboh and, to quote the editor, an enriching, lyrical elucidation of various dicta of the Sages regarding the study of Torah at night.

My only criticism is that the journal is thinner than I would prefer. I am assuming that with more exposure many others will vie to submit their articles for future issues.

31 comments:

  1. contrary to popular opinion, RMM claims there IS Psak when it comes to Hashkofo

    I never heard otherwise in the haredi world. It sounds like this journal is dedicated to promoting popular haredi viewpoints.

    Out of curiosity, did they elaborate on why it's called Dialogue?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have emended the text to remove the line in question. I was always under the impression that it is a Machlokes whether Psak applies to Hashkofo.

    As for promoting Chareidi viewpoints...see this from the first post. Their mission statement says that they will only print articles that... "...consider the truths of the Torah and the interpretations given by its teachers throughout the ages until our day to be immutable and fully binding."

    ReplyDelete
  3. "DIALOGUE will do its utmost to be engaging, literary, captivating. It will attempt to remain committed to its goals while at the same time eschewing any intellectual stuffiness. At the same time, DIALOGUE hopes to be true to its name and will welcome dissenting opinions as well..."



    Of course, this is with the limitation cited above.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hatzlocha. This looks very promising.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rabbi Meiselman asserts ex cathedra that there is psak in Hashkafa. WADR, he is not (nor is anyone in this generation) of a stature to make such statements. Moreover, his critique of R' Aryeh Kaplan is fatally flawed by his omission of the Ramban, the Rabbeinu Bachya, and Reb Tzadok HaKohen of Lublin - not to mention the Tiferes Yisroel - who are all in accordance with the Sefer HaTemunah, which is in sync with R' Yitzchok d'min Akko. In short, an inadequate and insufficient essay.

    ReplyDelete
  6. He doesn't discuss the topic in his article but just mentions that he writes about it in us upcoming book. Wait for his book to come out before you pass judgment

    ReplyDelete
  7. just posted on the lead article /essay:

    http://innate-differences.blogspot.com/2011/05/all-hail-conquering-havdala-hero.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is treat to read this blog. Others who cover this story, as in many cases of "reviews" feel the need to disparage others. I like the non-judgemental tone here.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't understand why naming names is so studiously avoided. Does it somehow diminish the severity of an attack if one provides easily discernible clues to the identity of the one being critiqued without naming them? This is an attempt at LH free blogging so I assume you know something about this? Would this wash in the laws of shmiras haLashon?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think the idea is that he is against the "idea", not the "person".

    I've studied the laws of LH, but don't have much experience putting them into practice, which is why I try to avoid speaking about people on this blog if possible.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I sort of hear that but not really. I mean these are the new schismatics in Judaism. They are not innocuous tinokos shenishbu but metastasizing menaces to our Torah and Mesorah. Shouldn't we know our enemies by name?

    I understand hating the sin but not the sinner and know how this impacts our tefilos but I also think that criticizing there shittos in a periodical without naming them actually dehumanizes the opponents more than if they had been named. It's like saying "I don't want to sully my lips/pen/word processor by allowing their names to pass same"

    ReplyDelete
  13. He doesn't discuss the topic in his article but just mentions that he writes about it in us upcoming book. Wait for his book to come out before you pass judgment.

    It strikes me as very inappropriate to dismiss R' Aryeh Kaplan zt"l out of hand and tell us to wait for the book for the basis of the dismissal.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There certainly is p'sak in hashkafa. See http://youngerlight.blogspot.com/2011/04/psak-in-hashkafa.html and the post I cite there.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Avi: the link doesn't work.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Frumteens moderator, R' Yaakov Shapiro, only represent a particular spectrum of thought on the issue of psak in hashkafa, Avi.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It should be noted that "Science" as we know it today did not "get it wrong" about the origin of the Universe. Scientists beleived in the eternal Universe due to that being the traditional Greek view and they had no evidence to the contrary. They did not use modern Science to come to that conclusion. They resisted the idea of an origin due to the fights between science and the church as well.

    When modern science was finally used in cosmology, they found scintific evidence of an origin to the Universe.

    (btw the new wave of scientists who doubt an origin rely on theoretical physics which have not been demonstrated to actually exist, and in some cases CANNOt be demeonstrated and thus, one may ignore them).

    ReplyDelete
  18. I don't think it's a unique view. Many contemporary Rabbonim seem to back the view that there is a concept of p'sak in hashkafa, I just think R' Kaplan explains it clearly. It also seems logical to me.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I commented further on the "Younger Light" post.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I have responded to RYGB on Younger Light.

    HERE

    ReplyDelete
  21. *Also, by R' Kaplan, I meant R' Shapiro.

    Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Rav Meiselman's article is now posted here:
    http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2011/05/rav-meiselmans-article-in-dialogue.html

    Although he does add much more material refuting Rav Kaplan, he does not elaborate there on the issue of psak in hashkafa (which is probably the more pressing issue for most people)

    ReplyDelete
  23. "...material refuting Rav Kaplan..."

    I saw no such material. The idea is absurd, as it would mean refuting the Sefer HaTemunah, the Sefer HaBahir, Rabbeinu Bachye, the Rema, the Tiferes Yisroel and Reb Tzadok, among others. Surely a feat well beyond the capacity of anyone alive today.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Maybe not in Dialogue but in Rav Shapiro's article linked by Avi it certainly is refuted. Read it, and you will see how correct Rav Meiselman was in describing R' Kaplan's idea as "shoddy thinking."

    ReplyDelete
  25. Welcome aboard FKM. Thanks for sharing your view.

    ReplyDelete
  26. >Many contemporary Rabbonim seem to back the view that there is a concept of p'sak in hashkafa, I just think R' Kaplan explains it clearly. It also seems logical to me.

    I'm afraid that's a convenient position which fails to account for the diversity of hashkafah. Perhaps because according to this position there is no diversity in hashkafah? There's only our hashkafah, which happens to be correct. Surely there is something flawed with this.

    Let's put it this way: a psak halacha can exist which is not followed in practice even by the posek himself. But how can hashkafah not be followed by him who thinks it? If we pasken that Rav Kook's hashkafah is off limits, who gave him a heter to have his hashkafos?

    ReplyDelete
  27. I removed some recent comments. Sorry to those who posted them, but as I am not an expert in what constitutes LH, I choose to err on the side of caution. Please restrict the conversation to ideas only.

    I would be curious to know why repeating something posted on cross-currents would yet still be considered LH.

    ReplyDelete
  28. If what it says in the link is not true, then you have hotzaas shem rah. That is never permitted to repeat.

    If what is says on cross currents is considered bizui talmidei chachamim then it is prohibited to repeat.

    If what was said years ago is not known to the readership here and it spreads further because of your blog it is assur to repeat. The heter of apei telasa does not apply to digging up years-old posts that are not being spoken about currently.

    However I do not think that the objection was to post comment not to the link. The comment in the post was the editorial opinion of the one posting and it was not a repeat of information.

    But most of all, even if it would be 100% muttar -- ask yourself -- is that the kind of material you want on your blog? Ad hominem attacks on people?

    ReplyDelete
  29. I found my (free) copy of this first issue interesting, but incomplete. If the argument is fully formed and sound, all necessary elements should be right there in the article. Some articles didn't really nail things down.

    ReplyDelete
  30. If you are referring to RMM's article, it was only a snippet of a forthcoming book and should be judged accordingly. The article on Feminism was quite thorough, as was the article on hair covering, footnotes and all.

    Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Welcome aboard.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The specific problem I had with the RMM article was that the book is not out yet. The article was too fragmentary to prove its case and the expanded version is unavailable to fill in the blanks.

    The article on mass media was good but could have broadened its theme and used more illustrations. Attempts by rulers, elites or opinion leaders to keep their own public's eye off the ball have been frequent throughout history.

    ReplyDelete

Locations of visitors to this page