my thoughts about Torah and Freedom in answer to Rebetzin's Husband. I could not put this on his blog because it is too long.

A problem with Orthodox Judaism is that it is a pathological belief system that advocates an end to human freedom for the tyranny of all-powerful Orthodox Rabbis regulating who shall live or die. The God (of whom the Torah speaks) loves humanity and made the earth re-sustaining for humans to flourish. This is opposed to the Orthodox world view that resents this and demands the oppression of humans under Rabbinic tyranny.

So while I believe in the Torah and Talmud I never heard of any Jews that came over from Europe that thought the Talmud was given on Mount Sinai or that rabbis somehow are given the authority they claim nowadays. It was after world war two that fanatic crazed Orthodox rabbis came over to America and tried to paint a picture of the world in which they were the heroes of WWII and not the actual people that fought and defeated the Nazis. The problem is that most American Jews were simply naive and innocent and highly involved in getting an education and paying bills and leading upright wholesome decent lives. No one expected the attacks on the very concepts of freedom and democracy in the 1960's that left a whole generation of America Jews afloat with no idealogical basis of coherent world view. no wonder so many fell for the lies of Orthodox Judaism that was presenting itself as traditional. I can tell you right now there is nothing traditional about Orthodox Judaism. Certainly not for the Jews that actually living and worked believing in Torah but nothing like anything in Orthodox pseudo Judaism.



There are a lot of different approaches to freedom and creativity which i have yet to organize in any sensible way. and only after i have organized the different approaches is it possible to try to spot the flawed reasoning in any one approach. That being said it is interesting that the chatam sofer and rebbi nachman has what looks like the same approach to this issue. They both were walking on some kind of middle path between individual freedom and the general view of the Torah that what matters is the service of God (and that is all that matters). They both found this sort of middle approach -individual freedom how one worships God within the constraints of halcha. But i tend to believe there was much more in what they were saying than simply taking the middle of the road.


my idea of a just society is that of a circle of freedom contained in a larger circle of government. The purpose of government is to protect the inner circle of freedom where people have a right to be left alone. The Torah has system in which the outer circle of force is not just government but 613 laws. But these laws were not meant to be expanded. There were meant to say what they mean and mean what they say. This leaves the inner area of freedom.



To be as brief as possible let me just say that the question of creativity and freedom in relation to Torah and Talmud is a immense project. It means first of all dealing with the origins of the idea of creativity being a good thing--Nietzsche and the whole critiques of Nietzsche and Rousseau against the enlightenment.any possible answer would have to answer this critique of freedom and defense of creativity. but not creativity in the modern sense in which a crayon kindergarten homework assignment equals a Leonardo de Vinci.This is an impossible task. There is no way i or anyone i have ever heard of can answer the greatest philosophers of the enlightenment on one side and the great and powerful thinkers that were arrayed against them. John Locke Machiavelli Hobbes on one side and Jonathan Swift, Roseau, Nietzsche Hegel Marx on the other side.. Rawls did a noble task of trying to find some middle path but Habermas blow him into smithereens. Kant did a good job in opening up a path between these paths. But his work is still in great need of elucidation. and how it could apply to Torah also is not clear.
In the Torah world the people that have the greatest degree of understanding of Talmud have a profound understanding of these issues which is: "I don't know what anyone is saying but whatever it is it is wrong because they are goyim."
They don't inspire a lot of confidence in their Torah understanding.


My personal take on all this goes back to the argument between Aristotle and Plato about universals. I am basically with Plato on this which means i go by Socratic ignorance that what we think we know we really don't know at all. And Platonic knowledge--that there are things we do know but we don't know that we know. For me this opens the area of Civil society in which people have the right to be left alone by rabbis and government to led the lives the what to lead and make the contracts and relationships with others that they want to make. Their individuality is realized not as part of a group or a nation but as part of their own family and circle of friends. This is the area of Freedom and free will. In this area there is Divine service. This is the area of the empty space of the Ari (Isaac Luria) that was necessary to make in order for God to reveal his traits.

sorry if this essay got out of hand. i wanted to write about cults today but ended up with this essay instead. My basic idea was supposed to be that any system can become a cult. I wanted to show that orthodox Judaism is a cult because it has expanded into the area of personal freedom. Not just that rabbis can in theory legislate for every thought and belief and word and deed of a person but do so. This is in spite of the open prohibition of the Torah "Do not add to the mitzvot which i command you this day and do not subtract." I wanted to go into the idea that once one has become part of this cult he can never leave it because it becomes hardwired into his mental neural network. If he tries to leave it cause more damage than staying. I also wanted to go int the idea that it is not a bad cults cults go.
It has some redeeming features (like Maimonides and Rebbi Nachman.) I think that Habermas hit the nail on the nose when he said that Judaism has centrality of law and Christianity has compassion and Love. Together these two work well. Alone they don't work at all. But I would like to add Plato and Kant.

(1) Some sincerely believe in the Torah and Talmud,

(1)Some sincerely believe in the Torah and Talmud, critically evaluate its teachings, and attempt seriously to model their lives on its tenets.
This leaves room for creativity in other realms of value.(Art, Music, Math, Science Politics, Economics, Philosophy, Engineering, etc.)
(2) Some adhere to the Torah out of sincere conviction but disagree with important tenets. They attempt to recast the Torah in more personally palatable terms, or possibly work to redirect the Torah itself into more agreeable lines. The changes may be real reforms or merely redefinition into something more palatable.
This second approach seems to me to taken often. It seems to me that the gap between the Torah and the Talmud was bridged in this way. Also it seems to me that Maimonides did this when it came to Aristotle. And it seems to me that Rebbi Nachman did this also (Private conversation with God taking the place of sitting and learning Talmud all day).
These are two honest approaches.



But what passes for creativity in the Torah world is usually a case of people misunderstanding the Torah and stressing trivial issues, ignoring or downplaying significant ones, or garbling concepts.
In extreme cases people attempt to redirect Torah into a form very different from the original, or take it over entirely.

Many people will use the Torah to rationalize other motives; they will use it as a pretext for a power trip, or dominating others, or lashing out at authority.

I don't need to give examples for this because people can fill in the missing gaps here on their own.

I deplore abuse and misuse of the Torah. Like any work of literature, the text has meaning, words have meaning.

I cant ignore the question of what to do with a text. Do you go by (1) Charity (i.e. one gives it an interpretation that makes more sense to him) or (2) "He meant what he said." This questions comes up in many texts that either I believe in fully or at least believe they are inspired. Take for example the Torah. Or the Talmud or Plato.
My attitude towards this is based on my experience with the side commentary in the Talmud called Tosphot. But also on a separate group of experiences that happens to me when people ask my advice about something or other. Also I like to look at the wide message of a text. This later idea I got from English literature classes.
My first set of experiences with Tosphot is "he meant what he said." But then inside of what he says is always contained something that looks like a glitch. But you go over it until you see the meaning in such a way that the glitch was actually not a glitch at all but you see that you thought it was a glitch because you did not understand it perfectly. This has given me confidence in the he meant what he said approach always even in Torah or anything that i read. But i have seen that often when people asked me for advice i would say exactly opposite things to different people-always. a person in a kollel in Israel learning to be rabbi in the rabbanut asks me should he stop. well you all know I am always writing against kollel and rabbis. But I told him no he should not stop but make sure that he does the job in a kosher way. Obviously my reason is simple, There was no other work in Netiovot (South Israel) for him and also I am not against rabbis per see--I am against bad rabbis.
But this just shows you how a book like the advice of Rabbi Nachman can say contradictory things.
The problem with the (2) charity approach is that any text can say anything you want it to say.

The third way of context i learned in my English literature classes in Beverly hills High School with some great teachers.
Take for instance the Five Books of Moses. The context is clear. The basic approach is clear. The theme of these Five books is clearly united.

just in case this needs a explanation let me just say what Torah is not about first. It is not about Pantheism. It is not about Learning Torah. It is not about minutia that you can pick out from halacha books. It is not about the length of girls skirts. It is not about belief in any tzadik including Moses.
It is about what King David said to Golath, "You come to me with a sword and a spear and I come to you in the name of the Lord God of the armies of Israel who you have insulted this day."
The basic theme of the Torah is the importance of Israel coming into the land of Canaan and building the temple there and keeping all the commandments of God.

I don't get the liberal Reform Jewish thing . Doesn't being Jewish mean anything? They don't generally stand for anything at all unless it has a word "progressive" attached to it..

It seems that all forms of sex, lying, cheating and stealing, being greedy and wanting plenty of worldly are given a pass but they are showing up in temple every Shabat, or maybe just every so often, so they must be Jewish. The lack of thought involved is sort of staggering. The Torah really is pretty hard to keep but to ignore it but to then say you are a Jew seems odd to me.

Liberal Jews are known for reinterpreting the Torah to fit their own agenda. They write book after book to explain why the Talmud interpretation of the Torah is wrong, misguided, or outdated. Never mind WHAT the text says. All that matters is making the square peg fit in the round hole.
When confronted with unambiguous teachings in the Torah that go against their social agenda they balk and attempt to reinterpret or explain away the clear teachings of the Torah.
Take for example Homosexuality: Many desperately want to believe the Bible is unclear on the matter of homosexuality. But , it is not. He is an English teacher. He values words and their meanings. What does the text say?
Some in classic postmodern fashion want to have a discussion. Perhaps some discussion is warranted. Like, does the Bible condemn homosexuality itself or the ACT of homosexual sex? What IS homosexual sex? What if a heterosexual couple performs anal sex or oral sex on their partner? Are they 1/2 homosexual? What about people who are bisexual or even asexual?

David Friedman: We also reject the idea that people have an enforceable claim on others, for anything more than being left alone.

David Friedman:

We also reject the idea that people have
an enforceable claim on others, for anything more than being left alone. A libertarian society would have no welfare,
no Social Security system. People who wished to aid others would do so voluntarily through private charity, instead of
using money collected by force from the taxpayers.

The place of Talmud is in a yeshiva i.e., a voluntary group of people that have come together to learn and keep it. This group should not try to undermine the freedom of other people that do not choose to join their group. The trouble with Modern and charedi Orthodox Judaism (outside of the actual institution of a yeshiva) is the basic principles are opposed to the open and free society. It is a Gan Eden for power freaks. The worst fate for a power freak in a Orthodox society is to be under the control of other power freaks. this is why people leave Orthodox Judaism.
The trouble in the orthodox world is not the Talmud which is holy and great. It is that the Orthodox rabbis are people that love to push other people around. This is not admitted in principle but it is a simple statement of the reality of the frum world.
I have no objection to a yeshiva where people come to learn Talmud on voluntary basis. The Talmud has much more to offer to people that anything in Philosophy or economies or psychology. It is one of the most deepest and most profound books i have ever read. But hey I think Plato is great also but i would not like to see his form of communism instituted .
Between the greatness of these books and the reality of human life there is a gap. And that gap is freedom. I cant and will not advocate any group that tries to undermine human freedom. Sorry. And if you ask me I think freedom was an inherent part of Talmudic Judaism when it was originally written down. people went to the local sage who had a reputation for honesty and not being able to be corrupted. The whole Talmudic system seems to be based on the freedom of the people that lived under it. This is in contradiction to orthodox today which is a tyranny and is trying in its own way to undermine freedom for all people--Jewish and not Jewish. This seems to me to be evil.
here is a great lakewood story: "Natan Slifkin said... "Hasn't it ever occurred to you that maybe the actions of the Gedolim influenced my development? Isn't that much more reasonable...."

not only is it more reasonable, there is actual anecdotal evidence to that effect. years ago a young well-meaning askan succeeded in blocking a left-leaning individual from being appointed as the rabbi of a certain shul. some time later this askan was at the agudah convention and he noticed that r aron kotler ztl was avoiding him. a few hours later r aron broke the ice and came over to him and said, had he gotten the position he would still have been one of ours and wouldn't be able to do anything rash. now you've sent him adrift, free to act on his own devices."


Talk about power freaks! Okay so reb aaron wanted to save the Torah> But from what i can tell Lakewood does not do this job very well. a good example in on the failed messiah blog today about a person that learned in Lakewood. While Reb Aaron was a scholar, still what he created was Jewish equivalent to the Soviet Union.

Habermas: On Israel (Considered by many to be the foremost philosopher of this generation.)

Habermas: In one respect, Palestinian terrorism still possesses a certain outmoded characteristic in that it revolves around murder, around the indiscriminate annihilation of enemies, women, and children—life against life. This is what distinguishes it from the terror that appears in the paramilitary form of guerilla warfare
Compare the new terrorists with partisans or conventional terrorists, for example, in Israel. These people often fight in a decentralized manner in small, autonomous units, too. Also, in these cases there is no concentration of forces or central organization, a feature that makes them difficult targets. But partisans fight on familiar territory with professed political objectives in order to conquer power. This is what distinguishes them from terrorists who are scattered around the globe and networked in the fashion of secret services. They allow their religious motives of a fundamentalist kind to be known, though they do not pursue a program that goes beyond the engineering of destruction and insecurity. The terrorism we associate for the time being with the name "al-Qaeda" makes the identification of the opponent and any realistic assessment of the danger impossible. This intangibility is what lends terrorism a new quality.

(Habermas is considered by many to be the foremost philosopher of this generation. They might be right But there are a few Americans which at least to me seem to be at the same level: Michael Huemer, David Friedman, Kelly Ross, Brian Caplan).
The thing I must say about these people is their forte is in discovering fallacious logic. This includes their ability to discover the falsities in philosophical, political and economic thinking in most American universities and includes the falseness and self contradictions in Marx, Rousseau and almost all philosophers after the Enlightenment. The interesting thing is they never discover a flaw in Medieval thinking. The reason is there never is. Medieval thinkers made damn sure never to write anything that could be a million miles near circular reasoning. [Here I only refer to first level Medieval thinkers like Maimonides, Tosphot, Aquinas and Anselm. I don't mean second level people like the Ramban (Rebbi Moshe Ben Nachman) that did make mistakes in logic.] Also I don't mean they did not make mistakes at all. Obviously they did-but not in logic, only initial assumptions.
Incidentally just as side note: The Jews are not outsiders who invaded and colonized Israel; they are a native people whom the legal government allowed to return, as legal immigrants, to their ancestral homeland. The Zionists were given sovereignty, again by the legal government, over only that part of Palestine with over 60% Jewish population, so rule of the majority was followed. The Arab response to this LEGAL establishment of a nation by a NATIVE people was a War of Genocide, which failed. Bottom line, as I've EXPLAINED numerous times, is that the Arabs themselves have created the situation they're in by refusing to make peace after their attempt to ethnic-cleanse a NATIVE people from Palestine failed.

How do you interpret torah? You have only two choices: (1) "He meant what he said," or (2) The Charity Interpretation- i.e. we give the words a interpretation that fits with making it make more sense.

You have only two choices: (1) "He meant what he said," or (2) The Charity Interpretation- i.e. we  give the words a interpretation that fits with making it make more sense. I disagree totally with the second way. The discussion here about Feminism is taking the second way. They say, "We have a world view that we would like Paul to have said." He said something different. This creates a conflict. No problem. We will change the meaning of his words to fit with our world view. I don't blame Feminism for this. This is the sole form of interpretation of  Torah that exist today. No one that I have heard of goes by the "He meant what he said" approach. That being said, let me just mention that there are forms of writing that have inherent sub levels. You can see this especially during the Middle Ages. But this has nothing to do with the idea of charity of interpretation or putting in ones own ideas into a piece of writing. The proper way that sub-levels become revealed is by slight glitches in a piece of writing. Then you go over it many  times until you start to see how the  glitch is not a glitch at all but is part of a whole sublayer of thought.
this applies to mishna. Shmuel will say a mishna says or means something that it clearly does not say. rav will not disagree with Shmuel openly but he will say something that you can tell means he thinks the mishna means what it says.
This question is of great moment. any text can be intercepted and interpreted to mean what someone what it to mean. why no one in the social sciences deals with when or how a text can be construed as allegorical just shows that the social sciences tend to be pseudo sciences. In the Jewish faith this question is dealt with by saadia geon and Maimonides. Obviously Christians encounter this difficulty all the time in the words of Jesus and Paul.