Vayera - What is Faith?

I gave a shiur tonight(I know it is not Tuesday, but we can pretend, though the shiur may have to be renamed the 'Sunday night shiur' quite soon - thanks Yonit for hosting).

The shiur is on Vayera and the definition of faith. Do we arrive at faith/belief through rational investigation, or by accepting unquestioningly? It seems that both approaches are considered 'Jewish'. How do I know which is right for me? And why has it changed in recent times?

In passing I also discuss Douglas Adams and Richard Dawkins (why can't all atheists also be comedians - Tim Minchin and Terry Pratchett get extra credit for not taking themselves too seriously), and kiruv techniques to prove G-d.

I look forward to your comments.

Here is the audio shiur (and the pdf sheets to download if you want).

Parshat Vayera - What is Faith?

(Right click and then 'download as')

Parshat Vayera - Faith - source sheet

Your feedback is welcome and appreciated. I would love to continue giving a shiur to this group on a weekly basis, but to do that I would need some kind of sponsorship. If anyone is interested in sponsoring a shiur (either l'ilui nishmat someone, or just for no reason) please contact me.

Plain Logic

Moshe Grylak's column a couple of weeks ago stirred up a lot of discussion on the blogs. He was writing about the crisis of faith amongst those who are ostensibly religious and committed.

Since his article I have spent many, many hours thinking of the correct response, were someone to ask me to justify his (or her - though in my experience this problem is predominantly a male issue - for some reason) beliefs and practices. I have come to several different conclusions (usually changing my mind every couple of hours or so), and am still working through various different approaches to the problem.

I was very pleased when someone told me tonight that Rabbi Grylak has written a follow up column where he gives part of his answer to such a person. I wasted no time in looking at his article. You can read it too, if you wish. Here is the link.

On the one hand I am quite disappointed with his answer. On the other hand, I think that he makes a very good point.

Both he and Harry Maryles make a similar point. It is this:

plain logic compels a person to believe. Simple common sense recognizes that nothing gets made by itself.

This is also known as the 'argument from incredulity.' The eye/human being/universe/world/[insert object here] seems too complex for my mind to imagine that it was made without a Creator. Therefore there must be a Creator.

This is similar to what Rav Shach writes in Avi Ezri, and many of the great Rabbis have shared this belief. This is William Paley's argument and the 'proof' of Chovos HaLevavos before him, and Rabbi Akiva's argument before him (though I'm not sure if this is a real midrash or not):

An apikorus asked Rabbi Akiva to prove that Hashem created the world. Rabbi Akiva asked the fellow who made his suit. The fellow said that it was the weaver. Rabbi Akiva then said to his talmidim, "Just as the suit is evidence of its weaver (because how else could such a complex garment come about, do you think two threads just got together and formed a garment?), so too the complexities of the world (which is a lot more than a garment) is evidence of its creator.

In fact, all it shows is how limited the human mind is when it comes to grasping the true brilliance of nature. There are many things that amaze us. They do not 'prove' anything apart from the way our brain works.

In addition this line of argument has at least two MAJOR flaws if this is used as a proof.

Firstly, many people have shown how flawed the world is. If creation is 'proof' of G-d, then we would (erroneously) infer that G-d is cruel and bloodthirsty, having created a world of hunger, pain and suffering. We would also be misled into thinking that G-d is far from perfect, since the world appears to us to be far from perfect. Do we really want to believe in a G-d who made over 60,000 species of ichneumonidae? Whether or not Darwin is correct about evolution, I think he is certainly right when he makes the point that:

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars"

The other major flaw in this argument (from a Jewish perspective) is that it has nothing to do with Judaism or Torah, mitzvos or prayer. Any theist could use this argument. This 'proof' no more helps someone in kollel than it does an Muslim, Hindu, Christian or Buddhist. I don't see how it comforts or helps anyone. And it is certainly not a kind of Deity who we could have a relationship with.

This post has become too long, and I haven't said half of what I wanted to say. But I will conclude with agreeing wholeheartedly with Rabbi Grylak on his second (and major) point.

He writes:

One educator asked me, “So what do you want me to do? Believe me, I do talk to them about emunah.”

“Don’t talk to them!” I replied. “Show them! Words won’t help here; experiences are what’s needed. From an early age, bring them into living contact with the world and its wonders. Take them to the planetarium, where they can see the vastness of the universe, get them excited from an early age, and at every age give them suitable experiences, and then teach them the prayer Vayevarech David, and they’ll know what David HaMelech meant when he said, ‘You have made the heavens, the heavens of heaven and all their hosts, the earth and all that is upon it, and You give life to them all.’ Take them to the zoo, and teach them about the incredible wisdom underlying every animal’s characteristics.

This is exactly what Rambam writes. Not as a proof of G-d (that takes 26 axioms and many pages in Moreh Nevuchim) but in order to 'Love G-d'. The more we learn about the world, nature, science, history etc, the more we grow to love G-d, which then leads to fear of G-d. It does not prove anything. But once a person comes to love someone else (or some G-d else) many of their 'belief' issues fade away.

For this reason it is such a shame that science and other disciplines are neither taught nor encouraged in traditional Hareidi society. Or even worse - science becomes 'kiruv tricks' by the likes of Zamir Cohen, which distorts both Torah and science. If we would encourage people to learn about the world, and to read about the wonders of creation, they would come to be filled with a love of G-d and a yearning to know Him.

Perhaps Mishpacha Magazine will change the world in which we live. Let's hope so.

PS I found the source of the Rabbi Akiva story. It is from Midrash Temurah

Wikipedia tells me that

According to A. Jellinek, the Midrash Temurah was composed in the first half of the 13th century, since it drew upon Ibn Ezra and upon Galen's dialogue on the soul, even though it is cited by Me'iri and Abraham Abulafia

So it is not actually earlier than Chovos HaLevavos. Oh well.

Would you still be Religious?

Someone asked me the following question this week. This blog is my attempt at an answer (though I still don't have a final answer, and may change my mind in the future)

Let's say archaeologists find writings from 2700 years ago, were King Josiah and the priests discuss the name of what is going to become their new national hero. They were deciding between John, Samuel, Sebastian and Moshe, (finally decided Moshe) and you can read their opinions were they say they cannot believe that people actually believe what they tell them, etc. An actual proof for an open mind that Torah was invented for political reasons. It is a hypotetical case, that obviously is never going to happen, but I would like to know if you would continue being a rabbi.

I'll make the question slightly stronger, since I never wanted to be a Rabbi in the first place, - 'would you continue being religious?'

++A word to the wise. This is not a question about the validity of the Torah. The question is about what is the basis for my faith. Could my Judaism survive without the Chumash?++

For years I thought the answer to this was a simple 'no'. If the Torah isn't true, then everything that is built on it is also false, and why would I be religious if it wasn't true.

I could never really understand people who keep mitzvot without believing in revelation at Sinai.

But now that I'm actually confronting the question (and perhaps because I am a bit smarter now) I'm not sure. If the question includes certain knowledge that G-d did not give any commandments to the Jews or any system of legislation, or indeed any message, then I still think I would pack it in tomorrow. In the words of one of my Rabbinical colleagues 'We could be playing glam rock in Maddison Square Gardens'. Perhaps not! but you get the point.

On the other hand, if the question asks us to imagine that the Torah as we have it is not an authentic document, but it is based on traditions, customs and beliefs going back a millenia before Josiah, I think I would still be 'in'.

I'll try to explain why (though I'm not entirely sure myself). Perhaps the best analogy is to the Zohar. Many scholars and Rabbis held (and hold) that the Zohar is a forgery compiled by Moshe de Leon over a thousand years after it was allegedly written. R' Yaakov Emden wrote a book, Miṭpaḥat Sefarim, proving that the Zohar is a forgery. Yet he also wrote several kabbalistic works and commentaries on sections of the Zohar. He used kabbalah in his halachic works and commentaries. How could he hold that it is a forgery, and at the same time consider it authentic? (I know one could argue that he only claimed the Zohar was a forgery because of the threat of Sabbateanism, but I don't think it is possible to prove so convincingly that it is not genuine unless he really believed what he wrote, and I also tend to assume that people write what they think is true).

Perhaps the answer is that the beauty of the Zohar and the kabbalistic system is not dependent on the authority and accuracy of the text, but is a self contained system which works. It can be an expression of the Divine Will if it was written by Moshe de Leon just as much as if it was written by R' Shimon bar Yochai.

I'm not trying to show whether this Zohar is authentic or not, just giving an example that even if it is not genuine, it can still provide a basis for faith.

Perhaps the same could be true for the Torah. Even though I'm convinced that it is true, I think my faith could survive even if it were not. As long as I felt it was an expression of the Divine Will. As long as I can believe in G-d, and as long as the system works, I think I would still be religious.

Perhaps this kind of belief is 'cutting the saplings' which was Acher's heresy in the Talmud Chagiga. Perhaps it is heretical to say that Judaism could survive without the Torah.

On the other hand, none of our halachah comes directly from the Chumash. Our Halachah is from the Talmud through the eyes of the poskim. I think the Talmud could stand without the Torah. The derashot may be 'reverse engineering' anyway (according to 'Doros Rishonim' for example). And (with a few exceptions) Yeshivas certainly don't seem to spend much time, or have much interest, in learning Chumash and Nach. They know full well that Judaism is about Talmud and Shulchan Aruch, not Bible.

So, as of today, I think I would still be religious, even were the Torah to be proven to be a forgery.

I'm open to other opinions, and I reserve the right to change my mind. But after a week of thinking about this issue, these were my thoughts so far.

Over to you, my readers.