<HTML>Dear Shalom,
I find the suggestion from Aharon Frazer quite problematic, for several
reasons.
First, the suggestion presupposes that every dvar torah is to be evaluated
with a Cartesian/Lockian foundationalist epistemology, in which every
given must be justified by a given underneath it, leaving nothing
unjustified except for basic ("incorrigible") truths. The advantage of
such a system is that it is accessible - any person with a properly
operating rational mind can evaluate any cognitive statement to determine
its truth value. However, the various levels of Torah operate within
various frameworks, not all of which respond to such a foundationalist
challenge. A student might easily tear apart a vort from the Kedushas
Halevi, since it doesn't fit the text and relies on unjustified
assumptions outside the text. The Kedushas Halevi does in fact rely on an
"outside" kaballistic framework, which brings many givens to the playing
field; and, even if the student were aware of this framework, it might
very well fail the foundationalist challenge. That is immaterial,
however, since it never claimed to fit the foundationalist epistemology in
the first place; and, in fact, it fits a coherentist epistemology very
well. But the student who is trained to think only in terms of rational
justification of basic beliefs will be led to throw out the whole thing.
Yes, our students must learn to be critical. But not before they have
learned to understand different layers of the Jewish tradition, and the
different epistemological frameworks in which they operate.
A teacher of mine used to say, "one person's derash is another person's
purim torah." That's fine, if it's a recognition of the differences in
framework, and a determination for one's self to work within one framework
and not another. But if it's a blanket statement that that person's
derash does not fit within my basic rational system and therefore that
therefore I can reject it as irrational and absolutely incorrect, we are
missing something.
A second factor regards capacity for hidush. Certainly the Torah itself
is allowed to suggest a new, counterintuitive idea. And chazal can then
suggest other ideas, unprecedented in Torah. Tannaim, Amoraim, Geonim,
Rishonim, and onward all have a certain license. The student must be
sensitive to the ability for certain generations and certain individuals
to suggest ideas which do not seem to have a rational basis in prior
concepts.
Finally, consider the havoc these self-confident monster students will
wreak as they go unbalanced out into the world of the Jewish community. As
someone who was in fact, at one point in my education, trained to analyze
divrei torah extremely critically, I can say that I got myself into a good
deal of trouble. I recall one Shabbos in Israel visiting a family who
resided within a certain yeshiva, and, during the Friday night meal with
this family, I remarked that I found the rosh yeshiva's sicha that evening
quite intellectually dishonest. Despite my attempts to justify my
comment, this family, comprised of ardent talmidim of that rosh yeshiva,
did not appreciate the comment.
Yes, it is true that adults today may take many things with a grain of
salt; but, adults also gradually gain respect and trust for certain
rabbinic figures, and it will not always do to have a high school student
rank out an adult's authority figure without the proper circumspect
formulation.
A final anecdote, from just a few weeks ago, will highlight this point as
well. Sitting in shul behind a fellow who had gotten out of his seat for
an aliyah, I leaned over to peek at the printouts which he had left on his
chair. Assuming it was from some two-bit yeshiva student just saying
things off the top of his mind, I formulated a critique, and upon this
fellow's return from his aliyah, I explained to him why I thought the dvar
torah was hypocritical in its conclusion. The fellow just turned to me
and pushed the header page of the dvar torah in my face (which had been
previously hidden under the other pages); that page revealed the name of a
very prominent rosh yeshiva in Israel today. Once again, the critical
person is pushed away by the trusting person. I don't think that stark
critical analysis is the key to building the Jewish community.
Avi Shmidman
Graduate Student, Bar Ilan University</HTML>
