Hey, I don't mean to be difficult here, but this is the first time I ever even hear of Gil Pearl. but (1) What, really, is the point of such a lecture? (2) I don't believe for a second that the Netziv read the works of Mendelsohn and other maskilim, and that Torah Jews "hid" behing learning, so to speak, to avoid any contentious debates. That's baloney. The Netziv is known to have said he learned 16 hours a day, every day, for 25 years. He was a kadosh and a tahor. He did not read kefira. And It is a major chutzpa to deem Torah learning as some kind of "hiding" technique. Torah is the ikkar. There can only be one ikkar. IT IS NOT A MATTER OF HIDING!!! It does not make any sense to say that maskilim wanted to go to Volozhin, period. They did not care about Torah. Finally, I have the Netziv's pirush on the Sifra, it is published. I have yet to find anything he wrote that quoted kofrim. But to return to the first point, what on Earth is the point of these "issues?" It seems so frivolous. I understand if you want to explain pshat in a Gemara, but to view history so as to shtup one's perspective unto Judaism is downright silly. Those individuals who were a just degrees away from the GRA (I don't even know what that MEANS!!! Even R' Akiva Eiger and R' Chaim Volozhiner considered themselves whole worlds away) quoted from journals. Yay. So what? They still devoted themselves to learning Torah, understanding it, and fulfilled every prat of halacha. They were awesome, awesome talmidei chachamim--isn't that the most important thing? Even if they did read journals--and I really don't believe the vast majority did--this should be of no consequence to those who are not absolute bekim in Shas. The Rav was a baki. He could view things according to the Torah. But to grow, it is essential that we do what is important, an ordinary yutz should stick with Torah.In response, let me clarify my use of the word "hiding". I did not mean that the Netziv was a "closet-masqil" who used his gemara shiur as an ideological false front for his clandestine studies. I was referring to a phenomenon where, as the haskalah took more and more students "off the derekh," the tendency was to focus on learning safer subjects like gemara/halakha more and more exclusively. In this sense, learning gemara all day was sort of a shield, protecting the students from possibly falling into the haskalah. There is no debating that there was much more diversity in the writings that have come down to us from the GRA's students than from the yeshiva world 75 years later, and there is no debating the shift from interests in midrash to gemara.
There is a more fundamental issue here as well, but I want to deal with it after the jump, as I wrote a lot more than I wanted to. After reading it, I hope you'll understand why. Just one background point before you start: The Musar movement was at least partially a response to the attraction that the Haskalah had for many yeshivah students....
The PMOSE's weekly Torah publication is called Shema Koleinu. I can't link to this week's issue, because it's not online, but here's a selection. Rabbi Baruch Pesach Mendelson, Rebbe of the top 11th grade class, writes (some words transliterated and some typos corrected):
Who was saved from this massive subordination against Moshe [the Golden Calf]? The Da'as Zekeinim tells us later in the parsha that when Moshe returned and destroyed the eigel, he turned to the Jews and said "mi la-hashem eilaiy?" and the tribe of Levi reported to duty. Why the tribe of Levi in particular? Since they were related to Moshe, and therefore felt especially close to him, they didn't want anyone to replace him. The Ba'alei Musar (Musar Teachers) point out that the Levi'im, along with everyone else, saw images provided by the Satan which convincingly portrayed Moshe as dead. But the Levi'im who felt personally attached to Moshe, refused to believe their eyes. They just couldn't and wouldn't accept it. This implies that if all the Jews had loved their leader as much as the Levi'im did, then they would have all escaped the clutches of the Satan and would not have succumbed to his ploy. The more one loves his Rebbi, the closer he cleaves to the Torah transmitted by his Rebbi and the more faithful he will be in his observance of the Torah.I found this extremely thought-provoking. I had always assumed that, working within this midrash, anyone who saw the Satan-generated image had no reason to doubt its authenticity. The only question was what to do next; the people reverted to idolotry, and the Levites took the theological high road. Clearly, the people reacted to what they saw the wrong way; however, it seems hard to blame them for being traumatized in the first place. The images they saw were convincing. They all saw the fireworks at Sinai and they all saw Moses' casket flying overhead -- there seemingly was no reason to believe one miracle and disregard the other.
The lesson according to the ba'alei mussar, however, is that the correct course of action is to ignore our sense data when the facts we seem to perceive do not correspond with our preconceived notions. The Levites had no overriding reason not to believe the images before them -- its not as if they didn't know that ascending Har Sinai was a dangerous thing to be doing. The only reason, according to these sources, that they refused to believe their eyes is because of what any competent analyst today would call "denial". I doubt that the ba'ali mussar would have been happy if someone in their schools refused to believe that a close friend or relative had died, despite his having been to the funeral, simply because his intimate relationship with the deceased "couldn't and wouldn't" allow him to do so.
On the other hand, if we take this reading, we still have to contend with the fact that the Levites made the right choice. By refusing to consider the facts before their eyes they were actually able to cut through the confusion and perceive the truth. Maybe sometimes it actually is better to ignore, well, reality and live in a fantasy world, since living in that fantasy world allows us to make the correct decisions. If the Levites had accepted the veracity of Moses' apparent death, then they could have been cast into the same confusion that led the other Israelites towards idolotry. It was only because they steadfastly refused to accept the apparent reality before them that gave them the fortitude to remain within the fold.
There is a middle ground that the Musar read seems to be missing. Between the two extremes, there should be the possibility of someone absorbing the blow of Moses' death and yet preservering in the faith. After all, Moses did die a generation later, and the Jews and Levites of that time were both able to go on and continue the Divine mission where he left off. Incidentally, none of them created and worshipped the Golden Calf II, nor did any of them refuse to obey Joshua on the basis of Moses still being alive. Possibly they had a less intense connection to Moses than their parents had.
This middle group would seem to be the mentally healthiest, if not the most desirable to God. After all, it would be hard to assume that God really wanted a tribe of Levites that would refuse to believe that Moses had, in fact, died on Mt. Nevo. Instead, the Ba'alei Musar tell us, that the goal is creating a society where the cultural/ideological landmarks, structures, institutions, and narratives are so strongly ingrained that any deviation could only be traumatic. The fault lies with the ordinary Jews who were weak enough so that they believed the facts before them, and the credit goes to the Levites who acted based on what they perceived the Jewish community had to be (with a Moses in charge -- "he can't be gone, he just can't"), completely ignoring emperical reality. A possible motivation for such a setup is a pessimistic attitude towards peoples' ability to maintain the correct approach and direction. Rather than let them attempt to process confusing data, possibly making the wrong choice, it's better to avoid the entire issue by denying anything other than what we know to be true and disregarding any facts that contradict the internal reality we've constructed.
In this episode, the Levites proved the narrative correct. The other tribes did not have the strength to withstand the blow of Moses' apparent death as they did. On the other hand, we might consider whether it was this very raising of the ideological and emotional stakes that made the disturbing images traumatic enoughso as to generate the extreme reactions that they did. We might also consider whether the Levite's attitude might have proven harmful had they maintained the same level of devotion when Moshe had, in fact, died "for real". On the other hand, as long as they maintained the proper levels of faith and connection with their leaders and landmarks, they would remain immune to any and all temptations -- not to mention able to enjoy the benefits of the higher levels of devotion and faith that a more "objective" observer could never attain.
I believe this is relevent to our current discussion. With that out of the way: In Ha'ameq Ha-Netziv on the Sifrei, he quotes the Me'or Einayim in: (which, remember was put in cherem several times over several centuries by luminaries that included the Maharal. In fact, in a recent letter R. Moshe Shapira referred to the kefira of the Me'or Einayim while explaining the precise nature of the kerifa of R. Slifkin):
Posted by Avraham at February 24, 2005 07:16 PM
For what it's worth, the Maharatz Chajes quotes R. Azariah De Rossi (the author of Me'or Einayim) in his Mevo Ha-Talmud (soon to be re-released in English by Yashar Books as The Student's Guide through the Talmud) in chapters 18, 21, 25, 30 and 32.
Posted by: Gil at February 24, 2005 10:38 PMGil: In one of my earliest lunchtime discussions with R' Shalom Carmy [as a student in his "Intro to Bible" class a few semesters ago], I asked him about learning from the Maharatz Chajes as R. Azariah De Rossi is quoted in it. For his perspective on the Maharatz Chajes ... just wait :-) (HaMavin Yavin)
Posted by: Menachem Butler at February 24, 2005 11:19 PM"There is no debating that there was much more diversity in the writings that have come down to us from the GRA's students than from the yeshiva world 75 years later, and there is no debating the shift from interests in midrash to gemara."
I think there's been a huge reawakening in what the yeshiva world nowadays calls "machshava," which is similar to what you're calling "midrash." Think Pachad Yitzchak; R' Dessler etc.
Posted by: Zev at February 25, 2005 12:59 AMI think that Dovid does have a point in that we must preface any discussion of what the Netziv and his circle read with a discussion of his Yiras Shamayim and his committment to learning Torah Yomam va-Layla.
I also think that one can distinguish between different sorts of information. Meaning a vision of Moshe's death, combined with all sorts of psychological trauma and the overall intensity of Bnei Yisroel's experience over the last several months could lead to certain conclusions. But that is not the same as attending a funeral or literally seeing someone dead.
My point is that Maskilim & co. read many books and chose to go off the derech. While many read the same books & had their faith strenghtened. R. BPM notes that this may have had a much to do with personal relationships & committments as any philosophical or theological leanings.
Posted by: YK at February 25, 2005 10:06 AMSorry it took me so long to check the blog. I made a mistake; I have the Netziv's pirush on Sifri--Emek Netziv.
Posted by: Dovid at March 7, 2005 06:35 PMI would like to see the "Baalei Mussar" who say that. There must be more to what their said. They could not have been missing something. And surely they did not believe that someone who really loves someone should not beleive that he or she is dead if he really is.
More recent "Baalei Mussar" point out that Klal Yisroel reached an unusually high madreiga but did nothing to preserve it. Without making concrete those things which inspire us to be better, we have, ultimately, nothing. (R' Chaim Stuchiner, R' Berel, R' Reuven). According to this, we can suggest the Levi'im did go the extra mile. And because, as the "Baalei Mussar" say, people percieve only that which they seek to percieve, the others did not see the farce behind the Satan's charade (mostly the eiruv rav). Those who have attained a bona fide high madreiga in their Avodas Hashem saw the emes. At the second time around, when we earned the right to Torah because of our teshuva, the Sattan did not repeat his game. This was because he could not fool us. We did it on our own. Nothing can fool those who have made something of their inspiration, who have acted, accomplished and sacrificed for a real relationship with Hashem.
There were plenty of original thinkers who pondered beyond the realm of the daled amos of halacha at the time. R' Dovid Tevel has a wonderful sefer of mind boggling drushim. As does the Beis HaLevi. So does R' Issac Sher, R' Yitzchok Eizik Chaver, to name but a few. All these were contemporaries of, or were, in fact, younger than the Netziv. They were all products of Volozhin or its progeny. The Netziv is also at many times very, very original. Maskilim, much like their parallels of today, however, did not actually care about what they said, and they certainly did not care one wit about the Torah. Famously, when R' Chaim Volozhiner was encountered by two of his former students who went off the derech, and was bombarded by their attempts to justify their kefira with the "issues" and "questions" they had difficulty with, R' Chaim said, these are not questions, these are answers. If these "issues" bothered you, you could have always asked me to explain. And I am sure he would would have done just that.
So what makes one more "openminded" than another? Nothing, really. I doubt there was any agenda behind the focus on learning "safer subjects." It was always there. It's just that not everyone is great enough as those who were "few degrees away from the" Gaon (whatever that means). [They had the humility to recognize that, too]. And, perhaps, when people are, we can talk about all these "issues" that, until then, merely serve to detract from real learning, real scholarship, and real avodas Hashem.