Don’t miss this opportunity to explore Israel off the beaten track, feel the conflict first hand, understand the security issues and politic realities, and have an unforgettable trip!
The most important discussion in orthodox Judaism right now is the pair of articles written by R’ Zev Farber. The articles have been deemed heresy by R’ Gordimer on Cross-Currents. If you are averse to reading anything that might touch on issues and ideas that are possibly heretical please stop reading and pick up a Nesivos Shalom or something.
Still here? Okay. The two articles say different things so I’d like to briefly address the Cross-Currents post as it relates to the “short article.” This article went through two versions. R’ Gordimer’s article used the first version which was more objectionable. R’ Farber’s article was edited a full week before the article on Cross-Currents was published. I find this to be egregious. If you are going to call someone a heretic, possibly the worst thing to call an orthodox Jew, you best be sure that every detail of your case is accurate.
The original version said this:
The simplest explanation for these differences between the accounts in Exodus-Numbers and Deuteronomy is that they were penned by (at least) two different authors with different conceptions of the desert experience.
Despite sharing many details with the desert story as told in Exodus and Numbers, there is no way to make the two versions work with each other without unreasonably stretching the meaning of the texts. Whether it be the description of the scout story, the reaction of the Edomites and Moabites to Israel’s request, or the legitimacy of dwelling in the Transjordan, the two versions work with contradictory assumptions.
I can see why R’ Gordimer thinks this is heresy. I don’t think it has to be as will be discussed later. But the second version is almost certainly not heresy. This is the revised version:
Despite sharing many details with the desert story as told in Exodus and Numbers, there appears to be no way to make the two versions work with each other without unreasonably stretching the meaning of the texts. The simplest literary approach is the academic one which posits multiple authors with multiple traditions. How such an approach meshes with traditionalist belief requires serious thought but it is necessary to start by recognizing the simplicity and straightforwardness of the academic approach.
There is nothing remarkable about this statement. It simply states that the academic approach is simpler. Simpler is not necessarily more truthful. Thus, there is no value judgment on whether the academic approach is preferable. I hope that if this was the only thing R’ Farber said, it would not have created a controversy. I hope. For this reason, I am disappointed in the Cross-Currents article.
However, whenever I raise this point I am reminded of the other “long article” where the heresy is stronger and harder to wiggle out of.
On to the second article.
This is R’ Farber’s worldview. It is his Grand Theory of Everything. His goal is clear. R’ Farber wants very badly to harmonize all the things he has taken for granted as an orthodox Jew, his adherence to halacha and social orthodoxy, with modern Biblical Criticism. This is his goal and it is important to begin with an appreciation of his assumptions.
R’ Farber takes the challenges presented by Bible critics very seriously. It’s hard not to take them seriously. They are asking good questions. It’s true that we have “frum” answers for most of these questions and some of the questions are not so bothersome. Yet, the challenges exist.
The maximalist Bible critic answer is the text is not Divine. It is a text that comes from people and therefore any anomaly is understood as poor editing by a later redactor. The various writers have different agendas and their works reflect their personal biases.
The maximalist orthodox Jewish answer is that the text is Divine. It is a text that comes from God and therefore any anomaly is understood as part of the infinite wisdom of the Author of the Torah. The different versions of stories and laws reflect Divine intent to teach us everything we need to know.
There is a huge chasm between these two approaches. They share nothing other than the questions that they ask.
About the Author: Rabbi Eliyahu Fink, J.D. is the rabbi at the famous Pacific Jewish Center | The Shul on the Beach in Venice CA. He blogs at finkorswim.com. Connect with Rabbi Fink on Facebook and Twitter.
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
JoeSettler uncovers the ultimate goal of Hamas in this war…
Why would Israel want a ceasefire. It would just signify our weakness that we blinked first.
Please, the Yeshiva boys should pray and study more and harder for this endangered young soldier!
Israeli’s are a religious people; even secular Jews believe that God is active in this world.
The beauty of a Jew is his relationship to other Jews and his involvement with Medinat Yisrael.
A ceasefire not only gives Hamas a victory, it will destroy the morale of the IDF and the country.
So-called US military aid props up US military industries while disposing of surplus supplies.
If Hamas would simply stop firing rockets into Israel, all the carnage would stop instantly.
Doug’s interview with engineer and personal finance blogger Len Penzo.
Rivlin is thought of as a warm, friendly uncle, one of the family.
In Islam, there is no such thing as peace with accursed dhimmis as the Muslims refer to us infidels.
A reader claimed the Disengagement from Gaza was good, because it reduced the number of murdered Israelis. Examining the numbers tells a different story…
JoeSettler points out that most Gazans want to leave, and most Jews want to go back home to Gush Katif. How about a solution that actually resolves the conflict?
These are the photos of our soldiers (and a citizen) killed in action during the current IDF ground operation in Gaza.
What do we do when we want to be mad at God but we also want God to make it all better? Indeed, what do we do?
There is no song that tells the story of freedom like Shir HaShirim.
It is unfair to judge a 52 year old man with the glasses of a person who lives in a different world.
Adegbile was not making a moral statement by representing a man convicted of killing a cop.
Women learning Torah is becoming increasingly permissive, but women wearing tefillin is becoming increasingly stringent.
When the “offensive” statements in our Talmud were stated, no one thought they were offensive.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/fink-or-swim/can-you-cry-heresy-in-a-crowded-beit-midrash/2013/07/23/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: