Dear Rabbi Blatt,



You are still not sure you understand our mission? Really? If truth be told, we are not so sure about your sincerity. You do not understand what it is we are trying to say? Do you really mean that?



Evidently you assume that we are conducting an interdenominational debate, holding a classical Jewish powwow intended to untangle, to everyone’s satisfaction, the knot of contradictions that makes up the Jewish Orthodox tradition and thereby to strengthen the latter. In short, you believe or hope that we are playing in the tiny Talmudic court. Alas, our court is far wider, and our objective is different: to discover and comprehend the truth – both the truth about the surrounding world (in other words, a lucid picture of the world), and the truth concerning Jewish thought. You must agree that our ambitions are modest.



As you know perfectly well, the Torah (or, if you wish, the Orthodox Jewish teaching) is not a vague metaphysical theory detached from empirical reality, but a rather concrete and binding picture of the world in its physical, historical and social aspects. It is the concrete and binding nature of this picture that makes the question of its conformance to reality so acute. The few Jewish theorists (such as Rabbi Kook and Yeshayahu Leibovitz) who undertook an earnest attempt to detach the Torah from reality were not particularly successful in their undertaking, at least if we continue to regard the Torah as a collective teaching rather than a personal domain.

There is no point in pretending that this issue (of the relationship between the Torah and reality) is marginal or badly formulated. There is no sense in trying to confuse the issue. The Torah rests its authority on continuity, i.e. on the traditional nature of the information it contains. If we are to believe the Orthodox teaching, its core is ancient and changeless, an open testimony to all times, from the dawn of the world to our days. Thus the Torah is a self-proclaimed part of history, both natural and human, with all that this entails. This means that the Torah views itself as a verifiable theory.

The scope of the information contained in the Jewish theory, its multifaceted and frequently earth-bound nature, render a large part of it subject to verification. In order to be genuine, the Torah must display considerable mastery of a wide range of natural sciences (from physics to biology), as well as history in its various aspects – political history along with social history and the history of oral and written languages. Therefore a systematic inquiry into the Torah’s assertions must of necessity be multifaceted; what is more, the Torah cannot afford be caught in crude and systematic inaccuracies. Since the ambitions of the Jewish teaching go far beyond the limits of knowledge available to humans at the time it coalesced into a codex (or rather codices), an inquiry which makes systematic use of all currently available scientific information can either destroy this teaching in its Orthodox form or emphatically confirm its extraordinary, superhuman nature.

To repeat, there is no sense in trying to evade such an inquiry. Essentially, the issue of the factual veracity of the Jewish teaching is totally separate from that of faith and collective religious conduct. This is not to say that objective verification of the key tenets contained in the Jewish teaching will have no effect – be it positive or negative – on its potential adherents. We must admit, however, that real seekers of truth should not be deterred from their quest by pragmatic considerations. Let us therefore clearly define the questions with which we should be exclusively concerned:



Did the Jewish religious teaching paint a true picture of the world? Did the creator of this teaching – whoever he was – had a correct grasp of the world? How accurate is this teaching’s account of itself, of its origins and evolution?



Or, if you wish, in a few words: Is the Torah true in its Orthodox version?

Any sort of qualified analysis of the material available to us today leads to an unequivocal conclusion: all of these questions can only be answered in the negative. Here there is no room for doubt: the material is varied and vast; the statements under question are sufficiently clear and have an empirical meaning. The picture painted by the Jewish teaching barely withstands critical examination using two-thousand-year-old methods and criteria and instantly crumbles when subjected to modern-day scrutiny. The author of this teaching lacked the knowledge presently available to any schoolchild. What is more, the statements he made (largely erroneous) betray his cultural origins and clearly date his lifespan, and most importantly, he was completely in the dark as to the history of his own religion and his people. Thus the Torah and other classical Jewish texts, for better or worse, are far from being products of superhuman wisdom. On the contrary, these works are quite earthly and fairly outdated – as, indeed, are all other ancient books and teachings – with all that this entails.

We are quite familiar with the unsophisticated ruses employed by professional apologists of Judaism in an attempt to conceal the glaring flaws in the Jewish teaching. At the moment we do not intend to discuss these ruses – above all because we have already discussed them in detail elsewhere. What is more important is the fact that the Jewish teaching fails not in marginal elements, not in debatable or vaguely defined details, but along the entire spectrum of its assertions, and above all in its self-description. If we resort to a legal analogy, the teaching’s defendants find themselves in the deplorable position of having no case: they are incapable of making a rational non-apologetic assertion, of offering, for example, any sort of accurate, consistent, empirically verifiable version of Jewish and regional history. At one time we appealed to virtually every existing authority with a request to create such a version. Predictably enough, our efforts amounted to nothing. Today we realize that such a version simply does not exist.

We will try to clarify our position in somewhat more detail:

By now, mankind has accumulated, through considerable effort, certain kinds of knowledge that are relevant to our discussion.

We know that the universe we inhabit has existed for billions of years, probably for over ten billion years, that our planet has existed for some five billion years, and that life on our planet has existed for some three billion years. What is even more important, we know that throughout this time both animate and inanimate matter changed and evolved under the influence of fairly intelligible natural laws.

We know that the sun is but a mere star, one among a countless number of such stars in the universe; neither the sun nor, needless to say, the earth form the center of the world.

We know that the animals and plants living on this planet today came into existence relatively recently – several million or even several hundred thousand years ago. They were preceded by other species that have become extinct. On the other hand, none of the known species appeared on earth during only the last six thousand years.

We know that modern man (from the biological point of view) is the end-product of a long evolutionary process, that he has existed for around one hundred thousand years, and that he was immediately preceded by other species possessing some measure of intelligence and a primitive culture (humanoids and humanoid apes which, in their turn, descended from animals which had no intelligence). What is even more important, both humans and animals trace their origins, by way of evolution, to the fossil protozoa which were the only living organisms on earth a billion years ago.

We know that humans who may be defined as civilized even by today’s standards lived on earth as early as thirty or forty thousand years ago. They built houses, made tools, painted, and had their own cultures. Somewhat later they domesticated an entire series of animals. These humans were genuine Homo sapiens and our immediate biological forebears to boot. To repeat: they lived long before the presumed Jewish date for the creation of the world and of man.

We know something even more important. The civilizations we are familiar with – certainly those of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia – easily trace their continuous existence and evolution to the deep reaches of the third millennium BCE, i.e. the antediluvian time – which means that they were not destroyed by any flood. Moreover, their earliest forms, in a similarly continuous manner, go as far back as 4,000 BCE and beyond, thus preceding the traditional Jewish date for the creation of the world. To this we should add that our own region (Palestine and Southern Syria) which was among the major centers of world civilization in prehistoric times, contains clear traces of cultures that effortlessly date their origins to as far back as 4,000, 5,000, and 6,000 BCE. These cultures have left such abundant marks of their activity that it would be pointless to question their existence.

We know something else. Accounts of later historically recorded times presented by the Bible and the Talmud are far removed from reality. The authors of these works were either ignorant of ancient history, or, what is even more serious, had a muddled notion of it. Their tales abound in anachronisms; they had no idea of the history of relevant oral and written languages, let alone of the material culture of various countries and peoples. Thus the Torah refers to millions of Jews and even larger numbers of Egyptians and Canaanites, in total disregard of ancient demographic realities. Its accounts of Canaan are outside history altogether. The oral and written languages attributed by the Torah to ancient Hebrews did not yet exist in the second millennium BCE. Analysis of Biblical texts gives a fairly precise idea of when they were written and by whom. The results of such analysis help explain the majority of factual blunders present in the Bible. These blunders are quite natural, for in actual Jewish antiquity, especially during the Second Temple period – the time when most of the Biblical texts were written and edited – and certainly in the Talmudic period, the history of Canaan, along with many other histories, had been forgotten, and thus could be reinvented practically from scratch. Even more regrettable is the fact that Jewish authors often lacked the information that was theoretically available during the times in question. Yet the real tragedy of the authors of Jewish texts is that today we have a far better and deeper knowledge of ancient history than they ever did. That is why it is fairly easy for us to separate their fictions from any kind of actual living memories.

We know that the Biblical narrative (regardless of whether it is accompanied by the totally fanciful Talmudic commentaries) has almost no connection to real history until it reaches the 9th-10th centuries BCE. The picture is particularly true where earlier periods are concerned. The accounts of the patriarchs, Egyptian slavery, wandering through the desert, the conquest of Canaan, and other events attributed up to the time of the Judges are almost invariably outside of history. They cannot be called exaggerated, inexact, or even tendentious; their link to reality is far more tenuous than the legends of the Trojan War.

We know – and readily repeat – that starting in the 9th century BCE, the Biblical narrative gradually turns historical, or at the very least recognizable. Yet even then the linkage between Biblical narrative and common history is far from tight; for instance, the figures cited in the Bible cannot be taken seriously. Moreover, the historical accuracy of this narrative is limited by its Deuteronomic part. The Jewish tradition commits atrocious historical errors, in fact detaching itself from history once again as it moves to later periods with which we are far more familiar. Thus it is extremely inaccurate in describing events from the 6th-4th centuries BCE, including mistakenly reducing this period by about 150 years. As a result, the entire Jewish chronology up to the Hasmonean period is misrepresented. As we can easily guess, the Bible is equally inaccurate in depicting the history of other peoples.

We know that the Jewish tradition lacks any understanding of real history of culture, Jewish culture included. The traditional history of Jewish culture is one unmitigated failure resting on outrageous anachronisms. The Jewish tradition does not realize that up until at least the 8th-7th centuries BCE, the Jews had virtually no written language and thus could not have possibly created and maintained a rich Jewish culture that required, among other things, intense literary activity. Equally fictitious is the earliest history of Jewish religion, which was retroactively assigned a much later theology.

We know that the Halachic tradition, in the form we are familiar with, is the product of the pre-Talmudic and Talmudic periods. Its traditional projection onto earlier times frequently gives rise to anachronisms. Thus, for example, the prohibition against mixing meat and dairy products appeared around the year zero CE and did not wear its Talmudic form. The first ritual baths were constructed during the time of the Hasmoneans with all the interesting consequences that this entails, including the “eternal” status claimed for the theory of Jewish family laws. Without a doubt the well-ordered rabbinical tradition that emerged at the turn of the new era was coated with an artificial patina of age. From our present standpoint, this was done in a rather clumsy manner.



This list, the list of relevant knowledge, may be continued; for our purposes, however, what we have said thus far is quite sufficient.



Our current notions about the world are irreconcilable with the claims that the world was created less than six thousand years ago, that the earth is flat and surrounded by a thick, opaque firmament, that it is the center of the world around which the entire universe revolves, that all biological species were created in their present form, that mankind is also very young (less than six thousand years old), the same age as the universe, that a worldwide flood took place in the 22nd century BCE, destroying all humanity, so that today’s civilization is second in line, that until the 19th century BCE, all men spoke the same language – Hebrew – which gave rise to all the other languages, that the population of Egypt and Canaan in the 13th-14th centuries BCE numbered in the millions, that millions of Jews lived in Egypt for centuries, that at least two million Jews conquered Canaan, which was inhabited by several times as many people (we should keep in mind that the population of ancient Canaan never reached the one million mark), that in the 13th-14th centuries BCE both the Hebrew of the Torah and a well-developed alphabet used to write it down already existed, etc. There is no point in amending this theory (or, if you wish, this mismatch) in its minor points; the gap is too great, the pictures too disparate. Moreover, the very fact that no one has introduced any such amendments in the last fifteen centuries speaks for itself. There is no doubt that throughout the entire history of rabbinical Judaism Jewish sages regarded this theory as absolute truth.

Another important point: Many apologists console themselves with the claim that unlike religion, science (which they for some reason consider their main enemy) does not assert ownership of absolute truth, and thus can still repent and revert to biblical notions about the world. Some of them take pleasure in pondering the change of paradigms in science: Newton’s mechanics, considered irrefutable for centuries, gave way to Einstein’s mechanics of relativity. Why should the biblical picture not re-conquer the intellectual arena in time?

Alas, it would have been far better had this argument never been made. It is not only that it ignores the headlong advance of scientific knowledge — never have refuted empirical data and arguments returned to triumph over their adversary. The refuted biblical views are of an empirical rather than theoretical nature, so the only way they can return is if we suddenly realize that for centuries we have been completely blind in our daily observations. What is even more important is something else. The model of a flat earth, the idea of a geocentric universe, the fantastical tales of ancient Canaan, the factual exclusion of King Cyrus from a history of the Persian Empire shortened to a mere 52 years – all of these have been irrevocably cast aside by us. The earth, alas, is an almost perfect sphere, clearly visible from space, crisscrossed by travelers; the fact that we are part of the solar system is hardly open to doubt. The facts as portrayed by the Bible present an outdated model of the world rather than a theory biding its time – at least for those who are concerned with the empirical picture of the world.

The Jewish tradition clearly and indisputably shows itself to be a totally human endeavor – one that is “all too human”, in Nietzsche’s words. It carries no abundance of knowledge or remarkable wisdom – not in any objectively verifiable area, at any rate. Moreover, its version of common and sacred history is clearly wrong, no less so than its physical notions. On the whole, this should not necessarily deter someone who chooses Judaism as a religious belief, yet a potential believer should not refer to or rely on rational arguments to support his choice. On the other hand, for those who choose their belief on rational grounds, expecting it, for example, to provide an accurate description of reality or to guide the believer through the real world, Judaism is not a viable option.



What is more, our inquiry has clearly shown that the classical version of Jewish tradition is not only mistaken but also poorly constructed. In other words, it would be fairly easy to construct an interpretation of Jewish tradition that is far more compatible with reality, and thereby virtually irrefutable. To be sure, this is typical thinking “in hindsight”: today, after all, the information we have at our disposal is far more comprehensive and reliable than centuries ago, the time when Judaism was being codified. However, this fact appears as a shortcoming only to the skeptics. If we assume for a moment that the Jewish sages did indeed have all the necessary knowledge, or that their teaching was divinely inspired, then why does it lag so far and so clumsily behind today’s level of knowledge? When all is said and done, we can well be more astute and erudite than Aristotle or Rabbi Akiva – but certainly not more so than the Almighty Himself!



Thus the classical Jewish tradition simply has no leg to stand on – a typical instance of no case. Yet this only the beginning of the road, for this negative conclusion does nothing to exhaust the issue the way we see it. Being deeply interested in Jewish history and culture, and aware of their mysterious nature, we ask ourselves and anyone ready to listen the most intriguing of all possible questions in this context – how did all this actually happen? – and try to answer it the best we can. Rejection of simplistic transcendental answers has done nothing to quench our curiosity; we are looking for answers that are substantiated and rational.



In any case, the time of doubts and hesitation is long behind us. There is no point in endlessly shuffling through the aforementioned claims about “relevant knowledge” in a search for flaws. Even if some of them are found to contain a significant flaw – which we doubt – the sum total of the remaining passages renders apologetic discussion meaningless: the accumulated dissonances are too many and too serious.



In our opinion, Rabbi Blatt, we should be discussing your mission rather than ours. We have dedicated ourselves to a search for truth and genuine commitment to the cause of Jewish culture. You are more than welcome to join us – yet you can equally choose to defend philosophical speculations you yourself no longer believe in. In our view, no theory deserves to be defended by mere virtue of being traditional. We believe that the standards for truth are common to all, and that they are similar, if not identical, to the standards for morality. We would very much like to hope that eventually you come to agree with us.



Sincerely,



Daat Emet

Dear Rabbi Blatt,



In your last letter you wished us a happy Purim. For various regrettable reasons our reply has been so delayed that our intended good wishes for Pesach and Shavuot are late in coming. All we can do is wish you happy High Holidays.



Before we proceed to the final, definitive (and possibly joint) search for truth, we should probably define the relevant concepts. A lapse in this area can lead at the very least to misunderstanding, if not to unfounded resentment.

As you obviously know, one and the same object may be viewed from different angles. You probably remember the well-known anecdote about several blind men trying to examine an elephant in just such a manner. One of them discovered the trunk, another the tail, a third the legs. Yet what about the elephant itself? An irrelevant point, you must agree. In other words, it was the elephant itself they failed to grasp.

That is to say, the most difficult (and at the same time the most important) thing in these circumstances is to arrive at the necessary synthesis, to refrain from treating as absolute one’s subjective observations, and what is even more important, one’s narrow view and the generalizations it engenders (in other words, to avoid a false synthesis of a narrow view and a narrow ideology, or to put it in simple words, a situation where the one who examines the tail becomes with time the tail’s advocate, while the one who examines the trunk becomes the advocate of the trunk), in favor of a different, comprehensive, neutral, non-ideological (at least until it has become familiar) synthesis.



The meaning of this true synthesis is, primarily, through the combination of the viewers’ private projections to see the complete and common synthesized object, the organization and unity within it during the actual comparison with the external world and in its context. We see what the elephant really is and we may discuss it in a fair and productive manner. We should note that more often than not the tail’s advocate and the trunk’s advocate have nothing to argue about – on the contrary, they are both quite self-sufficient, albeit at the cost of missing the objective reality of the actual elephant, whose qualities or very existence they tend to dismiss. Alas, even from the theoretical standpoint a real synthesis, one that requires both talent and courage, is not always possible (not fully, at any rate), yet we must always strive toward it.



You and I are trying to discuss the Torah. In the case of the Torah, as in the case of the elephant, we should highlight two crucial and dissimilar points of vantage and evaluation, which give rise, at least initially, to two fundamentally different approaches: the inside and the outside perspectives. You can easily imagine how difficult it is to “synthesize” the views of those who observe an elephant, respectively, from the inside (from inside the stomach, for example) and from the outside (from a nearby treetop). Their observations will have very little in common. It is quite likely that, having formed their respective points of view and defined their ideological positions, these observers will eventually come to advocate diametrically opposed views. Many of the objects and concepts clear and even obvious to one are completely hidden from the other. One may be a top-notch expert on gastric juices while the other is extremely adept in classifying elephants by the shape of their ears . Time has long convinced them of the overriding importance of their views. How can they find a common ground for discussion?

You and I are at a similar position.



Let us begin with you. You claim to be searching for truth, objectivity, honesty and integrity. Among other things, you write:



… You are discussing Torah which includes the understanding of everything.



Our sages of blessed memory were giants of intellect and morality.



The Torah was given in 2 parts… the oral and the written.



I have been blessed to be exposed to some of the holy Torah truth.



Jews have never been stupid, nor easily lead.



… Our Torah has stood the test of time.



These and similar statements clearly demonstrate that you view the Torah from within. What is more, you have come to believe in it completely. A view from the outside, one that would inevitably compare it to other objects and define its relative virtues and shortcomings – such a view is incompatible with your beliefs. In any case, you do not share your external observations – as opposed to the internal ones. This means that your brand of objectivity is one-sided at the very least.



Thus, for example, you do not write:



… You are discussing Torah, which claims to understand everything.

Our sages of blessed memory were men of their times.

The Orthodox claim that the Torah was given in 2 parts… the oral and the written.



You have preferred to “forget” that the theories you present as indisputable and self-evident are actually subject to intense debate; in fact, if we do end up discussing anything at all, it will be these very theories. What is more, your claims to the effect that (a) the Jews have never been stupid or easily led, and (b) the Torah has stood the test of time, are, by all accounts, questionable from a factual standpoint. Any version of Jewish history, from Orthodox beliefs to scientific criticism, clearly shows that the Jews – like any other nation – have frequently proved thoughtless and easily misled. (Suffice it to mention the story of the golden calf and the careless meraglim [spies], the countless transgressions of the entire people, the messianic madness at the turn of the new era which led to the collapse of Judea and Jerusalem, the refusal of the ultra-Orthodox, who blindly obeyed their rabbis, to escape the Nazi persecutions, the belief, held by a significant part of today’s religious Jews, in the divine nature of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe and the outburst of Jewish nationalism which threatens Israel’s very existence.) Similarly, the distancing of the larger part of Jewish people, above all the greatest Jewish minds of the modern era (such as Einstein or Freud; the list is open) from Orthodox Judaism, coupled with the latter’s alienation from the cultural and scientific accomplishments of the last centuries, are a telling testimony to the fact that the Torah has been far from successful in passing the test of modern intellectual progress. This is something we will have to discuss at more length.

And so you assume the Torah (at least as of the start of our debate) to be omniscient, a “given” rather than a written work, certainly in the two parts attributed to it by Orthodoxy, with the rabbinical sages as giants in every thing at which they wished to try their hands. We do not question your right to this belief, but one should not use this outline as a basis for discussion without obtaining the partner’s consent beforehand. What if he disagrees? What is there left to debate then?

In other words, such an a priori position, no matter whether explicit or implicit, is inappropriate. You cannot expect your opponent to accept it beforehand. Therefore, for the sake of honesty and integrity you should not introduce it into the discussion in a stealthy, roundabout fashion. After an honest victory it is another matter. Win the battle and it’s yours.

Let us return to our observations posts. There is no doubt that an observer sitting inside the elephant’s stomach may be an exceptional and scrupulous thinker and elephant expert as well as a brilliant authority on elephant digestion. Nevertheless, he will have difficulty comparing the elephant not only to a rhinoceros but even to a crocodile. Moreover, he will find it all but impossible to imagine what happens outside the elephant; he will have trouble forming a picture of its habitat. You are well aware that for our purposes comparative considerations far outweigh the gastric ones.

Therefore, before we proceed to the specifics let us be completely clear about our positions. You are evidently a religious Jew. In all likelihood your faith does not hinge exclusively on the accuracy and reliability of the picture of the world generated by Orthodox Judaism. Moreover, even if you yourself believe so (i.e. if you consider yourself a religious rationalist), you are probably not being completely objective.

Let us try a little experiment. What are your “red lines” – the boundaries of Judaism’s veracity? What do I mean? Let us suppose that one of the fundamental tenets of Jewish theory turns out to be manifestly wrong – even from your point of view. Let us say that is has been conclusively proven that there was no biblical flood. In such a case, what would you do? Would you immediately repudiate or change your religion? Start driving on Shabbat and eat non-kosher steaks? Hardly. And what if two, five, or even ten of Judaism’s equally basic precepts fail? You will still be unlikely to deviate from your path. There are probably no rational arguments that would shake your conviction. Thus you are not a rationalist, but rather an irrationally believing Jew.

In all truth, we do not think you can define your “red lines”, you cannot clearly formulate those theoretically verifiable dogmas whose refutation would make you renounce Judaism. In other words, you will remain loyal to it with your heart, soul, body and common sense in every conceivable scenario . How, then, do you intend to conduct a discussion and a search for truth pertaining to Judaism?

To be sure, you are not alone in this. Not a day goes by when we do not have to deal with people who present themselves as religious “objectivists” and “rationalists” and then wiggle when pressed on the factual side of the issue. We have repeatedly invited a wide range of people – from “ordinary” Jews speaking on their own behalf to prominent rabbis supposedly authorized to represent Jewish communities – to freely formulate these “red lines”. Alas, all of them kept their lips sealed and have not unsealed them to this day. No lines. We even tried to help them out by offering them various rough versions. For example: would they admit that Judaism was a faulty theory if it turned out (in a manner even they found conclusive) that evolution actually did take place? Or that human history is considerably longer than six thousand years? That in the pre-monarchic or even the monarchic period of Jewish history monotheistic Judaism did not exist? That David and Solomon did not have an empire stretching from the Sinai to Euphrates, that there was no unified kingdom and in fact no David or Solomon? That the Torah text did not exist not only in the pre-monarchic period, but even in the era of the kingdoms? That the Jewish chronology, with its origins in Seder Olam and the Talmud, is fundamentally inaccurate ? Naturally, they were all invited to modify or supplement this list. Alas, not one of them has risen to the challenge. Nor, in all probability, will you.

The religious “stomach” position that clearly marks your letters leaves an enormous methodological imprint on all your arguments. We are long acquainted with these arguments, which can be summed up as follows: The Torah is a great and mighty theory which spans boundless realms in every possible dimension. It represents the sum total of all knowledge of the world accessible to man. We as humans have an obviously faulty grasp of this knowledge, and thus our model of the Torah (for man can only perceive the models of phenomena rather than the phenomena themselves) is inevitably prone to errors. It is no wonder, therefore, that information obtained from external sources is not always compatible with Jewish knowledge – it simply cannot be otherwise. External sources may be wrong, we may misunderstand them, sometimes our notions of the Torah are incomplete or inaccurate. There may be truly problematic instances that require in-depth study, but who said that such a study would show the Torah in a bad light? So far no one has managed to really drive the Torah into a corner. It would be incorrect (or at least unwise) to claim that this is completely impossible, yet one can certainly not make the opposite claim: that the Torah has been caught in manifest mistakes.

You’ll agree that we have been honest and reasonable in outlining your point of view. Despite being in disagreement, we nevertheless have no particular complaints against it – there is room for argument.

What is far more important is to admit that this is precisely the way – both in form and in content – that an observer sitting inside the elephant and thoroughly influenced by this fact should perceive his surroundings. For such an observer, the elephant’s stomach is virtually synonymous with the world. He will almost inevitably conclude that the stomach is far more than a mere subject of study, that it defines his entire existence, and finally, that external, independent data that have not passed the elephant’s censorship do not really exist. Moreover, even if he happens to encounter some such data they will be tinted with elephant realities. Indeed, how can it be otherwise when even the observer’s sensory organs (not to mention his mentality) have become adapted to the stomach realities with time: the eyes have weakened while the senses of smell and touch have become more acute. In short, an extended period of observation from within an elephant’s stomach makes it extremely difficult to form an objective picture of the elephant and the world, producing a stomach-specific worldview. Alas, in order to properly observe an elephant one must do so at a certain distance. This is an axiomatic fact that applies to you and me alike.

Consequently we believe that your honesty and integrity are from the outset subjected to a test that is not easy to pass. See for yourself! On the one hand you assert that “Torah… includes the understanding of everything”, on the other hand, you actively exploit the fact that the Jewish teaching does not contain any kind of clear, verifiable description of the world that is external to itself. Like many of your colleagues, rather than make any unambiguous statement you make half-hearted defensive gestures reminiscent of the “hare site” you quote. And yet the onus is on you. If you possess the “understanding of everything”, then do share it with us, lay it out in a lucid and intelligible manner, at least where specific rational issues are concerned. Only then will we see whether your claims of intrinsic omniscience are indeed tenable. Unlike you, we make no such claims. On the contrary, we are convinced that our knowledge of the world is quite fragmentary. It does, however, possess the advantage of having been sifted through the sieve of rational criticism. Moreover, unlike you, we make no secret of our knowledge, which is available to all. Make your overall picture public – then we will have something to compare.

Let us now recall your thesis: “I did not grow up with the Torah world; I searched.” We will leave aside for the time being the spiritual and emotional – i.e. irrational – elements. They deserve a separate discussion. Both linguistically and conceptually you claim that you have subjected the Jewish Orthodox picture of the world to rational scrutiny, and come up with an impressive result – in terms of both the accuracy of this picture and its predictive power – and that you accepted the Orthodox rules of the game as a consequence. Fascinating. In the light of the above, our next question should not come as a real surprise: exactly which picture of the world – concrete, definitive, binding and having predictive powers – have you scrutinized (and that even before you became an Orthodox Jew)? Can we take a look at it? Why is it being hidden from us? Make no mistake: we have searched for it within the Orthodox world and its yeshivas, as well as on its margins – to no avail. Where did you find it?



To sum up: over the course of many years we have been trying to discover some kind of an integral Jewish description of the world – at least in order to subject it to our own analysis and to draw clear “red lines” around it. Alas, we have failed to find anything intelligible and definitive. What is fascinating is that we did not find it within Orthodox Judaism while you had no trouble finding it, despite being a secular person. Something is fishy here, wouldn’t you agree?



To be sure, Judaism possesses a developed system of views and concepts. The trouble is that this system remains more or less tenable only as long as it stays within the framework of Judaic phenomena proper – i.e. categories it has introduced itself. Yet concepts that hold only within the system cannot be subjected to rational analysis! The Torah has every right to maintain that the hare is a non-kosher animal since it was the Torah that introduced the very concept of kashrut to begin with. Its word is law. It can compel the Jews to pray three times a day, permit a man to marry his niece and forbid him to marry his aunt – once again, these are ritual injunctions, licenses and prohibitions. There is nothing to verify here.

Rational inquiry can only be applied to things that are rationally defined and rationally observed. At the very least this should concern those concepts that have a functional meaning outside the system being analyzed. In this instance, we can apply physical, biological, astronomical, linguistic, social and historical standards; we can stage mental and real experiments – but only when the Torah has come up with a clear set of its views regarding this matter. To repeat: we have made sincere attempts to obtain such a set. Among other things we appealed to prominent rabbis – yet failed to get a coherent answer. Nor is this any wonder: in our opinion a rational synopsis that incorporates the main Jewish dogmas would look somewhat far-fetched.

Still, the Jewish bookcase is capacious, and a thorough search may unearth some Orthodox literature dealing with “external” issues (those that are not bound by ritual). Even though all such works were written by third-rate religious thinkers, they have received impressive haskamot (approbations) from Orthodox luminaries.

We believe that this is not enough; what is more, the third-rate status of their authors is a glaring and non-coincidental flaw. Indeed, what has prevented leading Jewish sages, at any time in the entire Jewish history, from making an effort and compiling something like the Ein Ya’akov collection dealing with the aforementioned external topics? Ein Ya’akov, as you know, is a compendium of agadot contained in the Talmud. Why didn’t the sages compile a similar work, one that clearly expresses their views on all kinds of interesting issues: the structure of the solar system, the geography and geology of the earth, classification of animals, various languages, the history of the Jewish and other peoples, physical and chemical laws, astronomy, the structure of matter and so on? Why, for example, couldn’t they have presented a drawing of the internal combustion engine or the laser, the way Leonardo left us his drawings of flying machines? Then again, we are not the ones to tell the sages what to include in this immortal work – so long as it is sufficiently extensive. Since the Torah is regarded by the Orthodox as eternal, such a book could have been written at any time – be it in the Talmudic period, the time of the rishonim, or as part of the Shulchan Aruch or Mishna Brura. Naturally such a compendium would have had to meet one modest requirement – that of being lucid and straightforward as behooves a vessel of eternal truth. If that were the case we could make a simple and, you must agree, appropriate choice: either to daily take off our hat to the eternal wisdom of the Torah (provided that rapidly advancing science were to merely reconfirm the information contained in the Jewish compendium), or (in the case of undeniable inconsistency) to conclude with a sigh that this information is nothing but long outdated ideas about the world. If the information contained therein were discovered to manifestly precede contemporary knowledge and to become increasingly precise over years and centuries, that would lend immense support to your position.

Alas, the sages have not left us any such compendium. On the contrary, judging by both anthologies and original classical sources, their knowledge concerning “external” issues was rather hazy . What is the cause of this haziness? It would be simplest to assume that Orthodox Judaism does not concern itself with external issues – but if so, how did you come up with your idea about its omniscience (“understanding of everything”)? Moreover, what was the reason for writing the aforementioned contemporary books? The matter is further complicated by the claims (with which you are well acquainted) to the effect that Jewish compendiums suffused with unearthly wisdom – whether Issachar’s mathematical treatises or music manuals for the Levites – actually existed once, but they have not survived. You must agree this sounds strange: books can certainly vanish, but not with all of their scientific contents! As for the modern “external” books, they are scientifically inadequate, full of contradictions, and devoted solely to adjusting various rabbinic pronouncements to fit today’s scientific paradigms. They lack any original ideas or scientific predictions, frequently lapsing into crude manipulations, not to say outright anti-scientific propaganda. No wonder: their authors may have reluctantly (and rather belatedly) resigned themselves to the fact that the earth is round, yet for reasons of ideology, they are forced to this day to defend such dubious ideas as the universal flood or the denial of the evolutionary process. We repeat, however, that the most telling testimony to their irrelevance is the patent contemporaneousness of the content. Instead of informing us of things we do not yet know, they try to tailor “Jewish science” to fit today’s (and often yesterday’s) state of scientific discourse. What will happen to these books fifty years from now, when the scientific front has significantly advanced? In some instances, concerning books written several decades ago, the answer has already come: one embarrassment after another. Consequently it would be reasonable to ask: to what extent does the content of these books compromise those who have given their haskamot?

In any case, the lack of an authoritative “external” compendium forces us to refer to living rabbis. As we have mentioned earlier, we have done this on a great many occasions. For example, we held countless discussions about Jewish history with leading sages. In our opinion Judaism – in light of its declared traditional character – simply must have precise and consistent ideas about its own history. Indeed, history is the body and soul of tradition. Therefore – particularly due to the lack of recorded “external” Jewish wisdom – it is historical questions rather the issues of self-generating fleas, ruminant hares and a flat earth that acquire critical importance. It is this ground that we would pick for the critical test that would enable one to make a rational choice – the one you mention, naturally – with proper honesty and integrity. When all is said and done, Judaism defines itself as a traditional teaching, and tradition exists only in time and in a historical environment. Therefore the traditional Jewish view of its own history must of necessity be authentic and competent, chronologically and semantically balanced; in other words, tradition can hardly be more authentic than its overall historical component. How, to take one example, can the Passover commandments be sensible, accurate and authentic, when (for the sake of example) the entire history of Jewish slavery and the exodus is a myth? What is even more dangerous, how can we assert that the halachic tradition was accurately transmitted through the millennia if we have no distinct idea of what actually took place in those millennia? At any rate, Jewish history, in its material and chronological as well as cultural aspects evidently does not fit the confines of either the biblical or the Talmudic framework. We have repeatedly and insistently urged leading rabbis to resolve these problems, to share their historical knowledge, to hold up, as it were, the official Jewish version of Jewish history and the evolution of Jewish tradition to objective scrutiny. Like yourself, we too placed great hopes on them, believing them to be the bearers of the omniscient Jewish tradition – who else, indeed, if not they? We seriously hoped to obtain from them an accurate version of Jewish history, one that merits a scrupulous critical analysis. Little did we know that the rabbis were not ready for a serious discussion. In other words, such a version simply does not exist.

To our greatest regret, the sages have let us down. Some of them simply could not understand what we wanted of them. Others, in disregard of the traditional, axiomatic Orthodox hierarchy, handed us down to third-rate askanim who trade in apologetics and the conversion of non-believers. Still others referred us to the same wretched and, moreover, mutually inconsistent books that they themselves never read. In a word, there was not a hint of any profound insight into ancient history exceeding the level of today’s scientific knowledge on the subject.

It turns out that our sages are incapable of either deflecting or accepting scientific criticism aimed at the Orthodox historical viewpoint. Basically they stand outside the Jewish historical discourse, without any real grasp of its meaning. This makes for a dismal situation, particularly in view of the huge importance of this issue, the vast discrepancies between the scientific and the Orthodox versions and the great expectations any objective observer has toward the true bearers of the Orthodox doctrine. Yet this is not all. In effect, they are on the retreat. What modern-day scientific fundamentalists are protecting, as they attempt to defend the quasi-religions views on history, is no longer the Jewish Orthodox version – a task even they regard as hopeless – but some dubious surrogate theory that adheres to the scientific rather than the traditional Jewish chronology, merely asserting that the Bible offers a relatively authentic historical outline. Importantly, it is the Bible and not the Talmud, and the word is outline rather than an absolutely accurate picture. This leaves no place for tradition, if only because the timeframe of the theory being defended deviates from the traditional chronology by centuries; to reaffirm the dates traditionally assigned to the rule of such as King David would turn him into an obvious anachronism. This is a sad state for traditional affairs, you must agree.

To convince you that the situation is exactly as we describe it, we agree and even volunteer to conduct a joint experiment: to meet with any leading rabbi of your choosing, and to have a discussion on the problems of Jewish history, for example. You will be invited to join the discussion. It is our belief that as a result you will come to have misgivings about either the Torah or rationalism.



To sum up:

Your approach to Judaism constitutes a view from the inside – with no regard or even concern for the context. You view Judaism in apologetic terms, accepting on faith its wisdom, universal validity and divine origin. You see the Jewish people – once again on faith alone – as possessing unique virtues, a wise and chosen nation, and the leading rabbis even more so. Your protestations as to the rationality of your Jewish Orthodox choice remain suspended in midair – both in the context of the aforementioned a priori statements and in view of the fact that you have not specified the rational criteria that determined your choice. And there is one more consideration. Since on the one hand Judaism lacks a consistent rational theory which could be accurately analyzed by a skeptical observer and on the other hand, you as a Jew have made a specifically Jewish national choice, this raises the serious suspicion that this choice had other than purely rational motives. Had you come to embrace Judaism having been raised a Chinese adherent of Confucianism, such a choice would have been – or at least would have appeared to be – much more significant. Alas, it is not often that Confucianists – or, in fact, atheists, Buddhists, Japanese and Swedes – come to adopt Judaism.



Let us now proceed to our stance and our point of reference.

If we are to regard you as a prototype, there is no doubt that we are your antipodes. To be more exact, we have been moving in opposite directions. You fell in love with Judaism while viewing it from the outside, and only later did you end up within its stomach. We began inside the stomach, which we found less than satisfactory.

As you can certainly guess, many of us, as you do now, had long observed Judaism from the inside, and are therefore familiar with your present point of view. It is hardly an accident that in the legendary “stomach” times, the view taken by the “many” was more or less identical to yours. Abiding within the Orthodox environment, they viewed Judaism as you do – an incontestable, immutable and unchallenged source of knowledge, the center of the world if not the entirety of the world. An inseparable part of the ultra-Orthodox society, they began to experience problems – along with doubts – after they allowed themselves the intellectual luxury of taking a cautious peek outside. An immediate consequence of this was an overwhelming, dangerous and compelling dissonance. One of the things it compelled them to do was to use accurate research methods.

Let us return to the fruitful example of the elephant. We observe this beast – along with the surrounding landscape, other animals, the rising and setting sun, the changing of seasons and so on – from the fairly tall tree (one we did not plant) we have managed to climb. Yet this is not all. Since memories of the elephant stomach are still alive in our minds, we spare no effort in an attempt to bring about that same famous synthesis which is indispensable for the elephant to exist as a whole. In a word, we are not only developing a more or less objective model of the elephant, but are also studying its habitat, the larger world that envelops this habitat, as well as comparing the elephant model with the model of a rhinoceros.

We have among us recognized experts on Judaism, people whose profession is the study of the Talmud and other Jewish disciplines. We would be lost without them. However, the substance of our study is by no means intra-Judaic. We do not invent or reconcile the internal contradictions in Judaism for the sake of the contradictions or of Judaism. Instead we conduct a cold, rational and critical inquiry into the theories that aspire to explain the world – philosophies, naturphilosophies and religions in general and Judaism in particular. We neither combat nor defend Judaism – we study, evaluate and compare it. We definitely compare it. The Talmudists cannot accomplish this undertaking alone.

In our opinion no theory – including Judaism – can be regarded as the a priori center of the world. This status must be won rather than inherited or handed down by tradition. We believe that such crucial things as concepts of nature, religion, history and society must be neither national nor apologetic – the same as nuclear physics, for example. Alas, these concepts must be adequate first and foremost. The matter is so complex that they can hardly be expected to be more than that. Thus any theory – no matter whether it is narrow or broad, physical or philosophical, historical or social – must initially arise as an informative and verifiable hypothesis. The verification procedure for hypotheses is well known: their factual elements are subjected to detailed examination; then, if they pass this examination, the proposed version of their synthesis is critically analyzed. We believe that this equally applies to Judaism. Since Judaism is a theory, it too should spend some time as a hypothesis.

From where we stand, therefore, Judaism is not some dim, enormous and given theory – not, in other words, something long completed. As any other intellectual construct, it must invariably go through the transformation from a chrysalis to a butterfly – if it can. Thus, to repeat, for us it inevitably starts off as a hypothesis; all the rest depends on what happens next.

What this means, first of all, is that we do not accept assertions of its a priori wisdom, its all-embracing and exclusive status. There is no such a thing as a priori wisdom. We do not discriminate against Judaism on this point – this regrettable truth applies to all hypotheses, without exception. The first thing it should do, therefore, is speak out. Its statements must be informative and verifiable. Next, they must be accurate in their visible, above-water elements, and have predictive power. Otherwise, what good are they?

After sufficiently lengthy Talmudic inquiries, we began to study Judaism from scratch, rejecting all axioms, whether they speak for or against it. This fruitful approach yielded some very interesting results. Moreover, it enabled us to raise new and absorbing questions regarding Jewish history, and, no less importantly, the history of the evolution of Jewish culture .



It is time to sum up. Our approach to the study of Judaism is purely rational and it starts with declaring it a hypothesis among other hypotheses, putting it on the same footing with any other theories willing to join it at the starting line, with our rejection of a biased attitude to Judaism. Otherwise the contest (and a study is always a contest) will not be objective and correct. We insist that an objective exploration of any issue explicitly presupposes a view from the outside. A stomach-centered view of things is unfortunately liable to result in a stomach-centered worldview, which is incompatible with honesty and integrity. Viewed from the inside an elephant cannot be compared with anything. Thus the view from the inside gives a distorted and irrational picture of the elephant.



And so you invite us to join forces in the search for truth. We have no objections. On the contrary, we are all for it – after all, every rational inquiry is essentially public property. But are you willing to accept the basic prerequisites for a rational inquiry?

In order to set things into motion, you would have to join us and agree to start from the beginning. You would have to acknowledge that there are a great many theories with a claim to being a true description of the world, and that Judaism is but one of them. You would have to agree that if Judaism considers itself a contender for the status of a universal theory, it must provide an accurate description of itself and that such a description must systematically include issues external to Judaism (it can keep the internal ones) and have predictive power to boot. Furthermore, you would have to agree that it has not done so as yet. By the way, why has it not?



If you are truly ready to join a purely rational search for truth, we will be happy to collaborate with you. Once again, however, you would have to discard the axioms you have put forward, at least due to their irrelevance to any kind of study. You will be unable to resort to either the a priori wisdom of the Jewish sages or to the prodigious intellectual abilities of the Jewish people. Either we will arrive at these claims in the course of our inquiry or they will be discredited and discarded. Naturally, you will have to accept in advance that our inquiry is liable to yield any result – both one that appeals to you and one that does not. In other words, Judaism may prove to be either an exhaustive description of the world or merely a crude ancient myth given social communal expression. Are you ready for such a test?



Sincerely,



Daat Emet



N.B.



In order to help you make this existential choice, we will cite several important arguments that, in our opinion, anticipate the results of a rational inquiry into Judaism and do not bode particularly well for such an inquiry. Without being direct and exhaustive – being, in fact, indirect and partial – they nevertheless indicate that the chances of Judaism’s emerging victorious from a rational inquiry are rather slim. To be sure, you are the one to decide if that is indeed the case, and whether to pick up the research gauntlet. You might just find some convincing counterarguments. Why not? We are more than willing to give you the moral and intellectual benefit of the doubt.



1) The first, pivotal, argument (already mentioned) is the lack of any clear predictive Jewish theory of “external” phenomena. It is hard to imagine that the Jewish sages, possessing as they did absolute knowledge, would have failed to formulate such theories over so many centuries.

2) The next argument is the lack of prominent scientific, technical or material achievements produced in an obvious, indisputable and verifiable manner from within Judaism. Rabbis (in contrast to Catholic priests and monks, for example) have not given birth to a single major scientific discovery, not a single technical innovation, not one noteworthy external theory. This is particularly apparent against the backdrop of the brilliant discoveries made by the Jews in every conceivable field in the last 120 years. Alas, all the Jewish pioneers, inventors, writers, artists, and so on were people disassociated from Orthodoxy. What is even more interesting, up until the middle of the 19th century, while majority of Jews were still immersed in the orthodox framework, the Jewish contribution to areas external to Judaism was virtually nil. In the framework of your present concept, this is implausible.

Note: you are living in a complex industrial (or even post-industrial) world. You are surrounded by countless innovations that were unknown as little as 200, 100 or 50 years ago, or even less. These include the elevator, the automobile, the airplane, gas stoves, highways, computers, the Internet, common suffrage, division of power, insurance, social welfare, medical care and so on. These are the things that distinguish your life from that of people in centuries past. None of this was produced or even predicted by the supposedly omniscient Judaism.

3) Today it is a plain fact that Orthodox Judaism is trying to adopt others’ scientific achievements and to eliminate, or at least smooth out, the inconsistencies between science and its dogmas. We view this as doubly suspicious.

First, Judaism should by rights be at the forefront of science, rather than lag behind it, and in such a clumsy manner. Thus, for example, instead of looking for a Biblical verse containing an allusion to the relativity theory, the rabbis should modify it in a predictive fashion. After all, it is only a matter of time before it becomes clear that Einstein had overlooked something. That could mean a real coup for them. Alas…

Second, the Orthodox reactions to scientific discoveries and social reforms are extremely derivative, inconsistent and contradictory. Recall your colleagues’ crudely concocted interpretation of the story with ruminant hares – is this how a mighty, all-knowing theory should look like? Anyone who has studied the rabbinical literature would have encountered refusal to accept that the earth is round, rejection of Copernicus and denial of America’s existence. Today’s Orthodoxy, loudly and clearly, is waging a fight against archaeology and Darwin’s theory. Orthodox views of the external world have changed considerably over the last century and continue to chance at a rapid pace. Eternal theories do not behave this way.

Third, the fact that the Torah is forced to adjust to all sorts of modern trends (strangely enough, this includes morality – it is no longer acceptable to keep an object lost by a gentile or to shortchange him) suggests another unpleasant thought. We have frequently had to disown rash statements made by sages of the past. You yourself have remarked that in many instances, the Torah is very different from what the majority of Orthodox Jews think it is. Yet if so, what exactly is it? What is the point of constantly resorting to the omniscient Jewish sages, when we are daily forced to use one of them to shield a dozen others (the way Meiri’s statements are used to shield Maimonides and the Maharal)? In fact, why do we need a teaching that must be constantly defended? The way we see it, it should be the exact opposite: a teaching should provide us with theoretical comfort rather than discomfort. What can we possibly learn from people who invent more or less effective means of proving that the Torah espouses the very same views that were adopted by society and science a century or two centuries ago?

4) Even more revealing is the lack of stability exhibited by other – economic, social and political – Judaic viewpoints. At present, we will not enlarge on this topic – it deserves entire dissertations. We will only mention the changes in Judaism’s attitude toward slavery, polygamy, taxation and shmita, farming, democracy, the status of women in the family and society, monarchy and so on. Judaism transforms itself in the same areas and the same frameworks as other ancient theories, and Jewish society undergoes the same changes as other societies. There is no indication of an eternal, immutable theory, let alone a theory possessing real knowledge inaccessible to others.

5) We have already pointed out that Judaism has a poor grasp of Jewish history, and of ancient history in general. This being the case, how can it continue to remain a traditional theory?



There is much more. For the time being we will put on hold some factors – such as the attempts on the part of today’s Jewish classical authors to hide behind meager and thoroughly outdated metaphysics or even the Cabbala. You can probably guess what we are driving at: whatever Judaism actually is, all through history and most importantly today, its envoys do not behave like people possessing some great hidden knowledge that exceeds the knowledge available to the external, gentile world – nor do they display any particular worldly wisdom. You must agree that given the circumstances, your chances of success are rather slim. Perhaps the game isn’t worth the candle? Think about it. If you decide that it is, we will gladly take you aboard.



Sincerely,



Daat Emet

Dear Rabbi Blatt,



Your letter was a considerable disappointment for us. Unfortunately, it looks like our joint quest is unlikely to happen. Time and time again, you bring our discussion back to its point of departure, while ignoring its constructive part. Alas, this treading water has become totally unacceptable.

Before ending this correspondence, permit us to highlight certain portions of your letter. Perhaps this type of a reply will provide at least a partial elucidation of our viewpoint, one which you have ignored so far.



1) You continue to regard the rabbis as superhuman, at least on the intellectual plane. Alas, rabbis as people, however famous and influential, are of no interest to us. We are certainly interested in their thoughts, theories, and claims, but only where they are rationally motivated and stand up to rational scrutiny. This is exactly the way we treat famous scientists – only their achievements merit serious discussion. Since we have had opportunities to converse with both, we note that rabbis do not deserve any preferential treatment.



2) You write:



I, as a believer in G-d’s holy Torah, claim that it contains the internal & external view unified into a totality. Whether I am qualified to understand all the details is highly doubtful. It is the issue of the finite mind attempting to understand the infinite. You on the other hand would readily claim that you are viewing the issues from the myopia of “your” understanding. I trump your point by bringing G-d into the picture.



As people who do not believe in the “holy Torah” we are immune to this kind of argument – it has no substance. In a rational discussion it is pointless to talk about some “unfathomable theory” or rather use one as a smokescreen. Either you can explain the world in a predictive way or you cannot. All the rest is sentimental claptrap. You not only bring God into the picture – you trumpet Him. Whatever for? Introducing God adds nothing to the discussion. You might as well bring in the many-armed Shiva while you are at it. The only thing of any relevance to this discussion is not God but the rabbis, who have no need for God. Yet even they will have to say something of import, or else melt away.



3) You write:



I will share with you the truth about why I believe they are trustworthy. It is due to a firm belief that the L-rd almighty gave us a Torah that we can live with. If it is an ivory tower utopian dream world; then who would be qualified to lead? Our Sages themselves teach us that we have a responsibility to follow them even if it appears they are wrong!



Here probably lies the most malignant element, the one that makes our discussion meaningless. From the start we pointed out that we are interested solely in rational analysis of the issue in hand. You, on the other hand, nip rationality in the bud. Your arguments are alarmingly reminiscent of the common Israeli objection to the introduction of civil marriages. I quote: “Repealing the Orthodox monopoly on marriage will lead to a schism within the nation. Why? Because the Orthodox Jews do not recognize any other form of marriage or divorce.” In other words, the Orthodox cannot be deprived of their monopoly because they will not agree to that. In your case it is the same: our sages are sage because they proclaim themselves to be such. Even in those cases where from a rational standpoint they do not look sage, they are still sages – after all, they took the trouble to inform us of that beforehand. But if everything is so clear and simple, what is there left to discuss? Even if we prove them to be illiterate and misguided you will always be able to say, “We have a responsibility to follow them even if it appears they are wrong!” Thus they are entitled to make any claims whatsoever, no matter how absurd, without being discredited. We have already written that Judaism is a tautology. You have now corroborated this fact.



4) You cite a well-known statement by Nachmanides:



The Ramban says that judges are called Elohim because they are literally representing G-d. So what happens if they error? He says that then it is a decree from G-d.



Are you really unaware that this is a compromising statement? Nachmanides’ arguments are as tautological as your own. By claiming that your side is invariably right, you exempt yourself from the necessity to provide rational arguments, and just like Nachmanides (who, incidentally, engaged in shameless chicanery in the course of the famous Judeo-Christian dispute, for which we do not rebuke him – those were difficult times), you make it impossible to hold any sort of reasonable discussion. Yet if you claim your side is eternally right, what are we arguing about?



5) You write:



If you were to demonstrate that I was wrong I would be forced to rebuild my world. That said; I honestly (not naively) do not believe you can.



Well, on this point you are absolutely right: it is totally impossible to prove that you are wrong to you or to Nachmanides. After all, you have already established that your side is permitted to err! And if so, the rabbis are always right, the Torah contains unknown absolute wisdom, and most importantly, we should not let reality put us off. Yet you don’t stop there. Your already forged and impenetrable armor notwithstanding, you prefer not to make any verifiable statements. Your position is devoid of content, and thus irrefutable. If you yourself have no problems with it, if its zero informative value (we will not discuss the moral aspect of the issue here) does not repel you, if living a tautology is your cup of tea – then you have every reason to rejoice! Just do not expect us to do the same.



6) You write:



If you could disprove anything stated in the Torah, based on the combination of Oral and Written law, in a clear demonstratable fashion; then you would have disproved the very foundation of my belief.



Let us dot the i’s and cross the t’s. You can bet that we could disprove plenty of statements made by Oral and Written Torah, as well as by every single rabbi who has left us any kind of sizable legacy. We are more than capable of shattering your castle in the sky. We could even convince you personally to violate the Sabbath. We have done things like this on numerous occasions. If you stop yourself from escaping into the irrational even for a moment, we have got you. However, battling for your soul is not our objective. From a practical point of view, we are far more concerned for the fates of the Israeli avrechim. Had you seriously wished for a rational, academic discussion, you would have had one, for we never try to avoid it. Yet you run from such a discussion like the devil from holy water. We have no intention of pursuing you.



7) You write:



Now, for the sake of fairness, you must concede this following point. Ultimate & pure knowledge are not the goals of science. Science deals in forming hypothesizes… that describe observable fact. The strength of the hypothesizes is always a statistical declaration that out of all the measurements made; it would violate the pattern that has been demonstrated to exist. It is only a pattern that is demonstrated; not ultimate fact.

Dearest Rabbi Blatt, the very mention of pure knowledge is nothing but an attempt to escape the rational. Pure knowledge was the focus of metaphysics when it was still taken seriously; it is the stuff of religion. The assertion that it is prohibited to light a fire on Shabbat is pure knowledge. Pure knowledge, however, has one major shortcoming: it is true only for those who agree with it. For you the Shabbat prohibitions are pure knowledge; for us they are of no consequence. What makes it pure is that it cannot be refuted by any ignoble, “impure” worldly arguments. In the rational world pure knowledge does not exist; even the notion of pure knowledge is simply irrelevant. Science does not concern itself with knowledge of this sort. It is concerned exclusively with premises that have predictive power. Surely you agree that pure knowledge in Judaism, such as the idea of the sanctity of Shabbat, does not have any predictive value whatsoever. For the rationalist, the nature of knowledge is always dialectical, acquired through practical dynamics. The world of rationalistic truth is a world rooted in theories that make it possible to build bridges that do not collapse, to launch missiles that hit the target, to predict the time Venus will traverse the sun’s path, or the nature of the pottery shards to be unearthed at an as yet unexcavated site. The quality of a theory is measured exclusively by its predictive power or, what is essentially the same, by the ability to live according to that theory without too much confusion or misjudgment. Here there is no room for evasive statements like “I know but I will not tell”, or “Torah has foreseen everything, but no one knows exactly what” made by your colleagues on the “hare site.” Judaism has no such theory. What is more, Judaism and such theories are totally incompatible. Instead of taking the “let’s see how accurate the prediction proves to be” approach, Judaism says: “Our rabbis are right even if their prediction is wrong.” If this is the extent of your rightness, what is there to argue about?



8) You write:



A case in point. Evolution. Evolution is a theory which to my mind has not been treated with the rigor that is appropriate. It is easy to demonstrate microevolution. That was done years ago, and in fact is not contrary to anything in the Torah.



We must confess that Judaism’s attack on evolution is alone more than enough to repudiate Judaism – even if we did not have more major reasons for doing so. This attack is far too senseless and socially transparent. Atheism is quite possible, regardless of evolution. This is borne out by the simple fact that it existed long before Darwin. Theism, too, could do very well without paying any heed to Darwin. The all-out attack unleashed by the rabbis against the theory of the origin of the species has nothing to do with biology. The rabbis were defending their monopoly (or their god’s monopoly, which is the same thing) on what they viewed as crucial phenomena such as the origins of life and of man. The considered it intolerable that random choice, coupled with commonplace natural laws, is capable of such prodigious achievements. Had the rabbis been more astute, the very idea that evolution is contrary to the Torah would never have arisen. After all, the problem is not the Book of Genesis and its account of the way life was created. Today’s rabbis are not unduly disturbed by the fact that world has existed for somewhat longer than 6,000 years. Why, then, were they so angered by Darwin? For no other reason than that he endangered their hegemony. From the psychological standpoint, they are absolutely right: once having apprehended the power of insensible nature as revealed by Darwin, one is highly unlikely to go back to the idea of God. Whatever for?



9) You write:



What would prove that evolution took place? If you found god dead on the floor and watched the entire develop; you might have a valid point. But, you can’t do that. Demonstrable fact has drastic limitations that you to must face.



Yet another disappointment. You have resorted to the classical fallacious argument used by most theists: in every vexing case, they declare that nothing trustworthy can be said about the past. When discussing history below, you will repeat the same argument. Interestingly, the same theists totally forget about this idea when this suits their interests. For example, they boldly proclaim that the Sinai revelation is a proven fact. So the past is a verifiable entity after all! We are not about to engage in a serious discussion of the evolutionary theory and its implications; we will only point out that due to its formidable predictive power, it can be seriously questioned today only by those who reject it on ideological grounds. Note that there is no non-ideological, purely scientific opposition to Darwinism. The opposition, as is to be expected, is made up of theists, Christians and Jews.



10) You write:



The background concept that man can understand and plot every stage of development of the universe is a serious perspective of man’s grandeur. The concept that there is no true difference between man and beast is an unconscious attempt to remove the glory of the soul from the picture. That is a major statement that should define your world. If there were science that pointed to more that the observable world; would you cross your “red line”?



If we intended to continue this discussion, it would probably center roughly around this point. Naturally, we take the soul out of the picture. It simply has no place in a rational view of the world; it neither explains nor predicts anything. Unfortunately, we decided not to substantiate this far-reaching crucial statement, so you can feel free to ignore it.

We would like to note something else. Science, rational science that is incompatible with pure knowledge, is by definition unable to go beyond the boundaries of the observable world; it has no business there, its language does not contain non-empirical concepts. About this unobservable world one can say anything at all: that it is inhabited by Shiva, Jupiter, the Judeo-Christian God, his son and mistress, and scores of others. Have you never been discomfited by this overpopulation? Or by the fact that the adherents of different theistic systems find equally moral satisfaction in their theories? Below you assert that you and your associates feel good and comfortable in the Judaic space. Trust me, the Buddhists feel just as comfortable in their nirvana, the Hindus with their gods.



11) You write:



Next. The “hare site” you so disparaged. I heartily object. They followed a long tradition of attempting to delve into the nuances of the text in order to gain greater understanding of the words of our Sages of blessed memory. There are many classic works that do this.



We have already said that we have no interest whatsoever in classical authors of any kind; all we are concerned with are the results they obtained. We have already written that your “hare site” friends have given birth to a classical tautology: the Torah is right in every possible instance; all that remains to do is choose the way in which it is right. If ancient tradition does not lend itself to rearrangement, we will declare it invalid and mistaken and supplant it by another. How convenient and irrefutable – and of no more worth than a plugged nickel! To repeat: we are familiar with both the authors and the complete editions of the texts they have partially posted on the Internet, so that the site came as no revelation to us. It would be a pity if you have swallowed their quite elementary bait .



12) You write:

There are subtleties that you will not appreciate because you are unwilling to walk the entire path; which often takes a lifetime. You will laugh at them without more perspective… Some of the greatest things life has to offer involve a non-logical logic. You have to take the plunge.



We repeat: this argument is good for everything except for building a rational model of the world. It can be used to persuade someone to take up meditation or sailing – but can anyone persuade a bridge not to collapse? Alas, the rational picture of the world is more or less objective and independent of our views. Evolution is either fact or fiction, the Exodus from Egypt either took place or it didn’t, the incorporeal soul either exists or it doesn’t. Therefore do not be afraid of corrupting mankind with your revelations – it is quite capable of assimilating them. That is precisely why we will continue undaunted in our struggle against irrationalism. In our opinion religion (or at least irrational religion like fundamentalist Judaism or fundamentalist Christianity) is harmful and amoral, misleading its adherents and thus fated to disappear. By fostering its disappearance we facilitate progress. If the afterlife does exist, then our efforts to benefit humanity are certain to guarantee us eternal bliss.



13) You write:



Next point. You asked what was convinced me of the truth of Torah. I will be honest. It was a consistent health that a total dedication to it’s methods & goals produced. There is a quality of person that is unique among those who are truly students of the Torah.



Once again the familiar irrational argument: only those who have wholly dedicated themselves to Torah are men of quality. Tell me, what constitutes the yardstick for quality in this instance? Have you tried a comparison? Have you visited any Christian and Buddhist monasteries, or Princeton for that matter? We will not challenge your conclusions, for the sole reason that arguing about tastes is a risky business. The things that you view as admirable look extremely unsavory to us. Where then is the quality? What is even more remarkable, you do not specify what it is that provokes your admiration. Is it the black caftans? The loathing for outsiders? The Talmudic discussions? The Shabbat meals? Or is it all of the above? Fine, but the fact is that not everyone is likely to find this picture appealing. Thus the only real answer on your part would have to be a description of the process: what it was you saw, how it influenced you, its empirical effects, the way you verified them. Yet you have opted to gloss over all of that.



14) You write:



If you are asking me if I proceeded to try out Buddhism before making my declaration of faith; I obviously didn’t. I was convinced and have never been truly subjected to any real doubt since. The greatest doubt I ever faced was after my wife had a series of 3 consecutive miscarriages. However it became a tremendous source of growth to me after I thought about it. If you are saying I was not rigorous; then you underestimate the level of my honesty. I am a searcher to this very day. However I have taken the truth that I have found and built on it to greater understanding of truths.



You are searching for non-verifiable truth. This is convenient and totally non-binding. For example, at any given moment you can say about anything at all. “It inspired me, it looked wonderful, it became a tremendous source of growth to me.” These are not valid arguments. However, we have no intention of shattering your personal illusions. Since you find it legitimate to replace objective problems with subjective ones, to argue with you would be not only pointless but outright cruel. What if our inquiry were to make you an unhappy person? We could never forgive ourselves for this.



15) You write:



You ask for good works on issues outside of traditional religious perview.



You are mistaken. We are interested in ideas, ideas that are purely rational and have predictive power, and not in books that explain why these ideas are unnecessary. You know perfectly well that no rabbi, whether in the past or the present, possesses knowledge that surpasses the knowledge of today’s science. If any one of them is informed about what happens in the world, it is solely due the scientific education he has received, and not as a result of Talmudic study. This in itself should be enough to leave Judaism in its proper place – in the library, on the shelf labeled “beliefs of the past.” We are not interested in the rabbis’ expressions of regret, in their apologetics, or in their comments on the existing physics developed by others. If they have any rational goods to offer, let them put them up for sale. Until they do so, we will publicly proclaim that they have no such goods. That is all.



16) In an immediate sequence to the previous passage, you write:

I will list a few; but I do not claim that they are entirely up to date.



The idea that the books in question may not be “entirely up to date” is alarming in itself. For the accounts of Judaism to acquire at least a modicum of sense, they must forestall today’s knowledge. In hindsight, one can always vindicate oneself, no matter how clumsily. An omniscient theory is expected to have predictive power.



17) You write:



But the question of general physical health is a better question. Oddly there does seem to have been a Sefer Refuot which was locked away because people stopped turning to G-d. They just looked up their solutions a violah`, they got better and didn’t take the ailment as a message from G-d.



It seems impossible that you could possibly believe in this fable. Still, for the sake of the argument, let us assume that such a book did exist. Don’t you think that the “concealment” of all-powerful medicine is an amoral act? Even if some people proved ungrateful, why punish all the rest? Why should babies suffer?

I have three other rhetorical questions. First: when, for goodness’ sake, was this “concealment” supposed to have taken place? Second: is it final and irreversible, or are there sages living today who still possess this wisdom? Third: have you noticed that once again, you have given an irrational answer, an answer it is useless to discuss and pointless to question? Once there was knowledge, but it’s all gone now…



18) You write:



If you do not like the concepts of the 4 basic elements; then look at its source in Sefer Yetzirah and try to understand what is meant. You will not like my answer. It is not referring to the physical makeup, but the spiritual background of the physical makeup. The Mazalos (astrological formations) are not referring to the physical stars but the constructs that are visible because of those stars which hint to us how G-d is running the world.



Another instance of irrational reasoning. Another vicious circle: to prove that God exists, that the thoughts attributed to him are true, you are forced to postulate his existence and wisdom. You would have been better off had you demonstrated that Jewish astrology can predict the future – that would be a rational answer. Naturally, we do not accept the line of reasoning itself. Jewish fables about the four elements are no different from other, non-Jewish ones; they are no more absurd or insightful. Similarly, astrology is quite capable of explaining how it is that the world is ruled by Shiva rather than Jehovah. Alas, all of this literature had nothing “spiritual” in mind. The Jews, like many others, viewed the theory of the four elements in completely practical terms. In exactly the same fashion, the “wise” Maimonides, in full earnest and certainly not in any figurative sense, described the universe exactly according to Ptolemy, by means of his crystal spheres and cycloids. Open the Mishneh Torah. Any objective observer would be ashamed – yet I have yet to hear about an Orthodox Jew who admitted Maimonides’ astronomical ignorance.



19) You write:



You say: “We seriously hoped to obtain from them an accurate version of Jewish history, one that merits a scrupulous critical analysis. Little did we know that the rabbis were not ready for a serious discussion. In other words, such a version simply does not exist.” I understand your frustration; but who did you ask. Were they really qualified to answer? Jewish history is a very underdeveloped field.



Frustration is not a feeling that should be attributed to us. On the contrary, the rabbis’ ignorance is our strongest weapon. Perhaps you raise the issue because of your own frustration? Unfortunately, you ignore once again the things we have written to you previously. Believe me, we have given this issue a great deal of thought – this is one of our major areas of expertise. Jewish history, which you declare to be a “very underdeveloped field,” is far from that. That historical science categorically rejects the Orthodox model is quite another matter – here it is the model that is at fault. We have written to you that we are willing to discuss this topic with any authority in your presence. We have no desire to offend the authorities, but they do not deserve any more respect than university history professors. A discussion with the rabbis must take place in an even environment and on equal terms. The times when we reverently came to them with questions is past. This said, the rabbis have every right to keep silent – just as you have every right to ignore our proposal.



20) You write:



Aish HaTorah, for example, is led by HaRav Noach Weinberg. He is an incredible man who may be able to respond if he has the time.

Doesn’t it occur to you that we may be too busy for him? In our opinion, HaRav Noach Weinberg is an ignoramus, albeit one not devoid of business acumen. He is interested in neither the truth nor the fate of the Jewish people – his sole interest is money, which he is presently extracting from sundry celebrities. That is his prerogative. Then again, if he wishes to take part in an academic discussion on Jewish history, we will not boycott him.



21) Further on, you write:



However he is busy building a huge outreach network and has better things to do then become a historian. He probably would hand you off to some of his junior teachers who are often totally undeveloped… Similarly, I doubt if you met with any of the Roshei Yeshiva who lead very cloistered lives.



So you admit that your Rav Noach Weinberg permits “totally undeveloped junior teachers” to teach at his yeshiva? What a strange, we would even say compromising, idea. Next, it should be noted that we cannot prevent you from doubting. The trouble is, however, that not only have we met them, but we have had lengthy heart-to-heart talks with none other than the gdolim themselves. In fact, to this day they are more than willing to continue meeting with us, probably in the hope of putting an end to our activity. Their ignorance in every area external to Judaism, including Jewish history, is astounding. Actually it is quite understandable, for they have absolutely no interest in the subject. They do not even realize to what extent it undermines their position.



22) You write:



I am no historian. I am a Menahel of a Yeshiva High School and a fund raiser.



It was this critical factor that, among other things, has led us to discontinue this discussion. Indeed, what will you do if we convince you that Judaism is a false theory? You will undoubtedly be forced to choose a new profession in order to support your family, and these are difficult times. We are definitely not ready to assume such a responsibility.



23) You write:



I should share with you an offer of a friend of mine who is a reformed rabbi. He wanted a chance to answer your letter.



You are free to show our letters to anyone you like, including your reformed friend. They are unlikely to corrupt him – in any case, he does not believe in the Torah given at Sinai. He is most welcome to answer us. Then again, it is up to you. If you hope to convert him to Orthodox Judaism, this correspondence is liable to hamper you.



24) You write:



I will be glad to pursue the truth with you. I will even show your questions to people who are qualified to answer them. However I will not perform any public debate. I will be glad to communicate through email, letter or in person.



Yet another reason to terminate our correspondence. We are a public organization, and see no reason to conceal our work or any criticism directed at us. It is true, however, that we become the soul of discretion in cases of people who decide to leave Judaism and turn to us for help. We fail to understand what it is that you, an orthodox believer, are afraid of. To be sure, it is your right to demand discretion, just as it is our right to refuse it. If we are to have a futile and irrational discussion, then at least it should be instructive for the public. This approach, however, rules out discretion.



25) Finally, you pose a question:



In order to make my positions more coherent let us take this question. Is your wife/husband in bed with another man at this moment? If you are not with her how do you know?



As a matter of fact, we have countless ways of knowing the whereabouts of our wife/husband, even from Antarctica if need be. We can hire private detectives, plant microphones and hidden cameras, use special chemicals, and so on. We can find out what they have been up to, even in retrospect, if we are willing to pay enough money for investigation. By means of molecular tests we can discover whether they have been indoors, and certainly whether they have visited a certain house, taken off their clothes, engaged in sex, and if so, with whom. Enough? And yet these are far from all the means we have at our disposal. Incidentally, we can use roughly the same kind of logic to determine whether David’s kingdom actually existed or whether there was a Jewish exodus from Egypt. To do so we do not have to be present during the events in question – especially since there is actually no place to be present in.

Summation. Let us quit while we are ahead. At this stage we can still part on good terms, having exchanged our opinions and agreed to disagree. You will continue to head your yeshiva and we will keep convincing the youth to stay away from it. To judge from your letters you like your way of life, you feel good about yourself. On the individual level, this is probably the most important thing. Our problem is that our primary concern is for the public good, while you mostly care about your irrational state of mind. The future is certain to show which of us is right. All we can hope for is that the loser does not find himself in the wrong.



Sincerely yours,



Daat Emet.