Thursday, November 25, 2010

Why Chomsky went off the derech

Based on a recent interview in Tablet Magazine:
At the age of 10 I came to the conclusion that the God I learned about in school didn’t exist.
I remember how I did that. I remember it very well. My father’s family was super Orthodox. They came from a little shtetl somewhere in Russia. My father told me that they had regressed even beyond a medieval level. You couldn’t study Hebrew, you couldn’t study Russian. Mathematics was out of the question. We went to see them for the holidays. My grandfather had a long beard, I don’t think he knew he was in the United States. He spoke Yiddish and lived in a couple of blocks of his friends. We were there on Pesach, and I noticed that he was smoking.
So I asked my father, how could he smoke? There’s a line in the Talmud that says, ayn bein shabbat v’yom tov ela b’inyan achilah. I said, “How come he’s smoking?” He said, “Well, he decided that smoking is eating.” And a sudden flash came to me: Religion is based on the idea that God is an imbecile. He can’t figure these things out. If that’s what it is, I don’t want anything to do with it.
Perhaps he could have asked his grandfather -- unless he did not speak Yiddish -- rather than his father. Or asked his local Orthodox rabbi.

I don't think that his grandfather simply "decided that smoking is eating". Rather, we are not Karaites. One looks to pesukim as well as to Rabbinic interpretations of those pesukim. It is true that Shemot 12:16 states:


טז  וּבַיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן, מִקְרָא-קֹדֶשׁ, וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, מִקְרָא-קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם:  כָּל-מְלָאכָה, לֹא-יֵעָשֶׂה בָהֶם--אַךְ אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל לְכָל-נֶפֶשׁ, הוּא לְבַדּוֹ יֵעָשֶׂה לָכֶם.16 And in the first day there shall be to you a holy convocation, and in the seventh day a holy convocation; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done by you.


which gives us the exemption of ochel nefesh for Yom Tov. As Chomsky cited the Talmud, "ayn bein shabbat v’yom tov ela b’inyan achilah". However, in Ketubot 7a, we read the following:
Rav Pappi responded to Rav Pappa: Are you of the opinion that since wounding is permitted in a case of need [a case of ochel nefesh] it is also permitted even if there is no need [for food]? Are you then of the opinion that it is permitted to burn spices [this surely should be prohibited], because burning is permitted in a case of need and should therefore be permitted even if there is no need? 
Rav Pappa responded: Regarding this, the verse states: "Except for what is ye' achal lechol nefesh [literally: edible by all people] that alone may be done for you;" only something which is of benefit to all [shaveh lechol nefesh] may be done. 
Rav Acha the son of Rav asked Rav Ashi: Are you of the opinion that one who finds a deer on Yom Tov may not slaughter it because it is not shaveh lechol nefesh? 
Rav Ashi responded: What I mean to say is that the object to which the work is done must be shaveh lechol nefesh and a deer is shaveh lechol nefesh.
Thus, we do not restrict it (melechet ochel nefesh) only to things performed for the purpose of eating, but to other activities which are shava lechol nefesh.

From the same article by Rabbi Broyde I cited above is the following discussion of why smoking is permitted on Yom Tov:
Much debate among halachic decisors has focused on the permissibility or prohibition of smoking on Yom Tov.31 Magen Avraham writes that smoking tobacco is prohibited on Yom Tov as "it is not shaveh lechol nefesh".32He equates it with incense (mugmar)33 which was prohibited as not shaveh lechol nefesh - just as a majority of the people did not use the incense (mugmar) discussed in the Talmud and thus it was prohibited to burn it on Yom Tov, so, too, cigarettes should be prohibited inasmuch as the majority of people (in his day) did not smoke, although cigarettes were ready available.
Rabbi Jacob Falk, writing in Pnei Yehoshua,34 advances an argument which permits smoking on Yom Tov; he states that because so many people smoke, and smoking is viewed as of benefit to food digestion, and smoking contributes to one's overall health, it is therefore permissible as shaveh lechol nefesh.35 Rabbi Jacob Emden agrees with this reasoning and adds an even weightier concern: he notes that many people are nauseous at the sight of food if they do not first smoke - therefore, if halacha were to prohibit smoking on Yom Tov, it would severely dampen such people's simchat Yom Tav.36 Similarly Teshuvat Darchei Naam 37writes the following:
It is obvious that those who smoke enjoy it. The majority of people smoke, only an insignificant minority does not, and as with all Torah law a majority is treated like a unanimous consensus... Furthermore smoking is nearly in the category of ochel nefesh. This assertion holds true not only for the Rambam38 who is of the opinion that bathing is included in the same category as eating, but even those who exclude bathing from the category of ochel nefesh would include smoking because it stimulates the palate in a manner similar to eating.39
Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan (Mishnah Berurah) in his Biur Halacha40 ponders the permissibility smoking on Yom Tov based on an observation that in his time, most or many41 people smoked. Aruch Hashulchan also permits smoking, and he does so after a lengthy discussion of why most people do not mind cigarette smoke and enjoy smoking.42 So too, Rabbi Neuwirth in Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata43 quotes both lenient and stringent opinions with regard to smoking on Yom Tov for one who is accustomed to it.44 Rabbi Ovadia Yosef concludes that in practice one who does not usually smoke should abstain from smoking; however, "we are lenient so as to allow smoking for those whose Yom Tov would be darkened were they not permitted to smoke. For someone who does not normally smoke, it is best not to smoke on Yom Tov."45
See also this article by Rabbi Chaim Jachter.

So, contra Chomsky, religion is not based on the idea that God is an imbecile. If religious believes anyone to be an imbecile, it is Chomsky.

It is rather sad that he decided to dismiss his religion because he misunderstood it. He was not educated enough to realize that he was misunderstanding it, and he didn't respect it enough to do due diligence to get to the bottom of the matter.

Indeed, I would guess that it was not this one point which drove him from religion. Look at what he cites his father as saying. First, as “Well, he decided that smoking is eating.” Later in the followup question:
And what did your father say?
I was just thinking about that. He just quoted the line to me and then explained, “He thinks he is eating.”
My sense is that Chomsky's father didn't think much of the grandfather's actions either. Two pesukim come to mind. One is from parashat Haazinu:


ז  זְכֹר יְמוֹת עוֹלָם, בִּינוּ שְׁנוֹת דֹּר-וָדֹר;  {ס}  שְׁאַל אָבִיךָ וְיַגֵּדְךָ, זְקֵנֶיךָ וְיֹאמְרוּ לָךְ.  {ר}7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask thy father, and he will declare unto thee, thine elders, and they will tell thee.

He fulfilled the first part of the pasuk, of שְׁאַל אָבִיךָ וְיַגֵּדְךָ, though his father did not know enough about the topic to inform him correctly. (Deep knowledge of Hebrew is different from deep knowledge of the relevant sugyot and the derivation of a halacha.) He should have followed up with זְקֵנֶיךָ וְיֹאמְרוּ לָךְ, by asking his grandfather.

The other is from later in the same parasha:


מז  כִּי לֹא-דָבָר רֵק הוּא, מִכֶּם--כִּי-הוּא, חַיֵּיכֶם; וּבַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, תַּאֲרִיכוּ יָמִים עַל-הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים אֶת-הַיַּרְדֵּן שָׁמָּה, לְרִשְׁתָּהּ.  {פ}47 For it is no vain thing for you; because it is your life, and through this thing ye shall prolong your days upon the land, whither ye go over the Jordan to possess it.' {P}

where Chazal darshen the phrase כִּי לֹא-דָבָר רֵק הוּא מִכֶּם as that the Torah is not a vain thing, כִּי לֹא-דָבָר רֵק הוּא; and if you perceive it to be so, it is your own darn fault -- מִכֶּם!

29 comments:

Abe said...

1) I've only read the Chomssky portion you quoted but your defense isn't very strong. It's pretty clear that God doesn't write very clearly if indeed He meant to convey the laws the rabbis codified. I see no reason to think Chomsky would conclude differently if he knew the sources you quoted.

2) No doubt you yourself don't really believe the religion is static and the pasuk was always understood the same way. You just don't like the fact that he rejected whatever faith system your own knowledge forced you to create.

3) And speaking of intellectual pretzels, it's interesting that it's predominantly charedim who smoke on y"t. The justifications for permitting the practice were strained to begin with (worthy of citation in an article on "Where there's a Rabbinic Will there's a Halachic Way") and practically worthless today. The same people ready to break with tradition and forbid foods because they've newly discovered that living creatures don't spontaneously generate seem fine with continuing to rely on these no-longer applicable heterim.

S. said...

Chomsky is such a disturbed person. He's just like the proverbial Chasidim-stink-but-the-Amish-are-quaint person. Suddenly contempt for unlettered indigenous people is okay when it's your Zeide?

joshwaxman said...

There is no indication that Chomsky rejected rabbinic interpretations in general at this point. The fact is, he cited the *Talmud*, not the pasuk.

Had it been bathing in water heated on Yom Tov, for example, he would not have driven his erroneous conclusion.

That makes what drove him off the derech his own amaratzus, combined with his an denigrating attitude.

I disagree with you on points (1), (2), and (3). On point 2, it is not that I dislike whatever faith system I have adopted. Rather, I would say the same thing had he been a Catholic rejecting Catholic doctrine which he got embarrassingly wrong. And that Karaites might disagree, or that the pasuk itself might have been understood in a different way in different times, is entirely irrelevant. On point 3, the idea that it is only ochel nefesh for purposes of eating is NOT the established halacha, and saying otherwise is NOT a kvetch. And with all due respect, I don't trust your assessment that it is a pretzel.

(Also, I don't know if you read parshablog generally, but it should be fairly obvious that I am not chareidi.)

kol tuv,
josh

S. said...

>1) I've only read the Chomssky portion you quoted but your defense isn't very strong. It's pretty clear that God doesn't write very clearly if indeed He meant to convey the laws the rabbis codified. I see no reason to think Chomsky would conclude differently if he knew the sources you quoted.

It's Talmudic. Chomsky paraphrased the Mishna, the appropriate response is rooted in Talmudic discussion, not the Bible. There's plenty to say about whether halacha makes sense or is from God, but the question here was whether Grandpa decided that smoking is eating and therefore must think God's an idiot or whether Talmudic law permits melacha on Yom Tov beyond what is necessary for eating.

Abe said...

"There is no indication that Chomsky rejected rabbinic interpretations in general at this point. The fact is, he cited the *Talmud*, not the pasuk.

Had it been bathing in water heated on Yom Tov, for example, he would not have driven his erroneous conclusion."

Perhaps you're correct in your interpretation but I understood his comment differently. It is known that the only difference between shabbos and y"t is eating (the talmudic quote simply reflecting the biblical distinction) yet people think they can fool God and redefine "eating" in whatever way suits them.

"On point 2, it is not that I dislike whatever faith system I have adopted. Rather, I would say the same thing had he been a Catholic rejecting Catholic doctrine which he got embarrassingly wrong. "

I didn't mean to imply that you dislike your own faith system. I meant you dislike the fact that he rejects your faith system (or your response to the problem he raises). You know Chomsky is correct(by my interpretation) in his criticism of people redefining biblical passages and yet think he's an idiot for concluding that people think they can fool God. I understand disagreeing with him, but it's a legitimate criticism.

"On point 3, the idea that it is only ochel nefesh for purposes of eating is NOT the established halacha, and saying otherwise is NOT a kvetch."

I referred to the justification for smoking and not any non-eating melacha. When teshuvas need to reach for the added benefits of digestive aids, health, and appetite stimulation, the pretzel is forming. In any case, as today most people do not smoke and smoking is not only not healthy but a mortal danger, the pretzel is broken, and yet charedim smoke.

"(Also, I don't know if you read parshablog generally, but it should be fairly obvious that I am not chareidi.)"

This is exactly why Chomsky's point is troubling. A good charedi would reply, "But of course when God said that the difference between shabbos and y"t is eating he meant all the differences one find in the shulchan aruch and achronim, including the permissibility of smoking." You, on the other hand, know that's not true and are left dealing with Chomsky's criticism.

P.S. I don't mean this as a personal criticism and think your blog is great. In contrast to you and S, I believe that Chomsky's criticism applies to much of rabbinic law and is not to be dismissed out of hand.

joshwaxman said...

I wrote incorrectly above. Where I wrote "it is not that I dislike whatever faith system I have adopted," I had intended to write "it is not that I dislike his rejecting whatever faith system I have adopted."

oops!

Anonymous said...

Interesting interview with Chomsky. Maybe Chomsky went of your derech because he didn't encounter anyone there who would "just tell him the Truth"... Every child wants someone he can look up to, ye know.
SIMPLE.

S. said...

Chomsky didn't go off the Orthodox derech. He wasn't raised Orthodox. I suspect that Josh titled it that way for its slight sensationalist value, as all bloggers do at times. (Although I guess maybe he meant going from non-Orthodox Judaism to atheism.)

But I do think there's a good point here about drawing unwarranted inferences. He saw something he didn't understand, didn't know he didn't understand it, and 65 years later he's still reminiscing about it, probably still without any inkling that he just didn't know much more than Mishnayos. In all likelihood a more profound understanding of why smoking may be permitted on Yom Tov would not have kept him a theist, but that's not the point.

Anonymous said...

Are superclever-people-who-totally-get-it better, or imbeciles?

joshwaxman said...

i don't know. but people who know that they are not superclever, and are humble enough to explore and ask until they can get it, are certainly better, rather than imbeciles.

reishit chochma is knowing that you don't know. that was my essential point.

also, i think Chomsky *did* have someone who was willing to tell him the "Truth" (if one wants to define it that way) -- his father.

kol tuv,
josh

Anonymous said...

So did Abraham.

joshwaxman said...

how so, and therefore what? unfortunately, i don't understand the point you are trying to make.

(i also don't know how many anonymous commenters are present. please, choose a pseudonym.)

kol tuv,
josh

Anonymous said...

All the anon. posts till now are by the same author: me.

And i'm sure you're clever enough to get my point - if you really really try. :)

me

joshwaxman said...

sorry; i don't, and i'm not going to try to guess. rather, i am asking.

there may be an ambiguity that you don't realize, in your attempt to be clever and cryptic.

kol tuv,
josh

Vox Populi said...

Josh,

I don't think you understood Chomsky's point. I don't think Chomsky was denying there could be Talmudic or Rabbinic authority for his grandfather's smoking habit, but that, if it existed, it would be a loophole. To him, a loophole in a religious system is dishonest. Who are you trying to work around? G-d? You can't work around G-d, he's omniscient. Any attempt to do so is either a lack of faith in that omniscience, or an insult to it.

Sure, you would say the fact that there exists this long line of precedent, which possibly goes all the way back to the Talmud, proves that it's not a loophole or a work-around, but he would disagree, and see the attempt to either attach it to the Talmud, or fit it into the words of the Biblical verse are dishonest and pretextual.

joshwaxman said...

i didn't miss the loophole aspect of it. indeed, when i was originally writing the post, i was planning on having a paragraph stating that if it wasn't this that drove him "off the derech", it would have been something else, like that his grandfather thought that he had "sold his chametz", which would be another haarama.

but while that is certainly one part of it, it is not the entirety of it. he was ignorant as to the justification, his father made up a ridiculous explanation which Chomsky accepted as legit and therefore (further) looked down upon his backwards, medieval Zeide. the reasoning in this case, smoking on yom tov, meanwhile is NOT a loophole, any more than keeping a fire burning in one's house for light and warmth (contra the Karaites) is a "loophole" or Catholics eating pork and shellfish is a "loophole".

kol tuv,
josh

joshwaxman said...

"but he would disagree, and see the attempt to either attach it to the Talmud, or fit it into the words of the Biblical verse are dishonest and pretextual."

maybe he would, or maybe he wouldn't; u think you are giving a 10 year old ignoramus too much credit.

meanwhile, i personally don't feel like the "loophole" is against peshat in the pasuk, though i would arrive at it in a different way than the derasha does. the intent could be read as business-work as opposed to "work" to accomplish personal pleasure.

kt,
josh

joshwaxman said...

u think --> i think

joshwaxman said...

Abe:
sorry; your second comment got caught in the spam filter. it is now published, above.

S. said...

>I don't think you understood Chomsky's point. I don't think Chomsky was denying there could be Talmudic or Rabbinic authority for his grandfather's smoking habit, but that, if it existed, it would be a loophole. To him, a loophole in a religious system is dishonest. Who are you trying to work around? G-d? You can't work around G-d, he's omniscient. Any attempt to do so is either a lack of faith in that omniscience, or an insult to it.

It may be a loophole in the bibical system, but then he shouldn't have quoted the Mishna and made it a Talmudic issue. It's not a Talmudic loophole, but very open, and basic. Do we pretend that carrying on Yom Tov is eating? Smoking is exactly the same thing. If it's permitted it's because it's considered shva le-chol nefesh, like carrying something you need, and not because of eating. It has nothing to do with eating at all.

If he wants to attack loopholes, there are halachic loopholes to attack. This isn't one.

As I pointed out, and Josh pointed out again, here he is 65 years later still remembering his poor, deluded, embarrassing grandfather who didn't even know math. That's not only terrible but also directly contradictory to all he professes about people.

(That said, it's pretty impressive that he can still quote [albeit not word for word) the Mishna. No one ever said he doesn't have a good head.)

Vox Populi said...

Josh and S.,

From what I gathered from the article, I don't think Chomsky holds very highly of Catholicism or carrying on Shabbos.

I read Chomsky as saying that he thought the entire idea of loopholes is silly, and this is the event that made that realization stark to him. I don't think we have to read into him that of all the loopholes in the Torah, this was the one he thought was the most absurd, and formed the basis of his atheism. To him, this seemed like an effort to fit the pasuk to encompass a loophole (people want to smoke), and regardless of the origins of that loophole (whether it was well supported by rabbinic precedent or not), it seemed like a cop-out. What I mean to say is, that had he in fact asked his grandfather, and had his grandfather quoted this entire post, I don't think it would do much to dissuade him.

joshwaxman said...

"I don't think Chomsky holds very highly of Catholicism or carrying on Shabbos."

of course not. that wasn't the point.

we are going in circles, and I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. i think you are reading something into Chomsky that he didn't state, or at least was not the totality of what he stated.

here are two conversations:

Noam Chomsky: Dad, why is Zeida smoking on Yom Tov? Doesn't the Talmud say "ayn bein shabbat v’yom tov ela b’inyan achilah"?
William Chomsky: Well, as you know, Zeida comes from a backwards, medieval culture. He is so backwards he doesn't even know what country he is in! And since he is religious and backwards like this, poor fool that he is, he is so delusional that he thinks he is eating, when he smokes!
Noam Chomsky: Ah, I get it! Religion is for backwards fools, who think they can redefine the rules at whim, and that God is similarly fooled. OK, I guess religion is not for me.

the second conversation:

Noam Chomsky: Dad, why is Zeida smoking on Yom Tov? Doesn't the Talmud say "ayn bein shabbat v’yom tov ela b’inyan achilah"?
William Chomsky: Actually, that is only a partial citation. As the Talmud continues to discuss and clarify, there are many activities allowed on Yom Tov that do not directly involve eating. For example, washing your hands with hot water, or carrying in a public domain. So, he is keeping true to the rules, as laid out in the Talmud, and as understood by later rabbinic authorities, who were not fools, but were in fact quite intelligent. Even though we might not agree to their world-view or to their particular conclusions. In fact, if you would like, you could study with your Zeida and he could explain this a bit more.
Noam Chomsky: Hmm. While Zeida's beliefs and practices are not for me, there is something to respect there, and not necessarily something to denigrate. He is not an old, backwards and delusional fool.

Which response fosters an attitude of disparaging religion, and could drive someone towards atheism?

Not to say that he would have become an Orthodox Jew. Or that he would not have become an atheist. And regardless, even nowadays he is making fun of his Zeida, where the embarrassing mistake is his own.

kol tuv, and good night,
josh

Vox Populi said...

>i think you are reading something into Chomsky that he didn't state, or at least was not the totality of what he stated.

Right, but I think you're performing some substantial editorializing as to things he did not say. I may be guilty of trying to simplify his remarks, but I think you're focusing far too much on what you perceive to be the dynamics of this incident as a window into Chomskyism, as it were.

I have a sneaky suspicion that he's probably very aware of Rabbinic literature, and I don't think that a 10 year old Chomsky that can quote a mishnah would find it outlandish that there could be later Talmudic and/or Rabbinic literature that elaborates on it. And the Chomsky of this interview is much older than 10.

To me, most likely, this incident just speaks to Chomsky's dislike of what he perceives to be loopholes. To him, whether they are created by his grandfather or Moshe Rabbeinu makes no difference.

I don't mean to be annoying.

Good night.

joshwaxman said...

"as to things he did not say."
all these points are taken from the interview. maybe they didn't occur in this *particular* conversation, but they formed the basis.

thus,
"My father told me that they had regressed even beyond a medieval level."

i don't doubt that there ARE people who "went off the derech" for the reasons you, Abe, and Anonymous are stating, but I think this is reading a much more sophisticated point into the words of an ignoramus, because of somehow identifying with him.

and thus, you are *ignoring* the explicitly stated emotional context, zooming in on one point, and switching that one point for something very different when it betrays ignorance.

"I have a sneaky suspicion that he's probably very aware of Rabbinic literature"
i don't, for if he were, he wouln't give a quote that paints him as an utter am haaretz to those even slightly in the know.

kol tuv, and good morning,
josh

Anonymous said...

Atheists typically think of "god" in psychological termes: god is, quite literally, the parent (or: forefathers, or tradition..). And hence, religion is for 'children', not grown-ups. The "loophole" here is that Chomsky, both as an atheist and as a jew, knows to appreciate "thinking for oneself" (and leaving mom and dad! or the place of birth..), but simultaneously can't believe in God (read: dad) anymore, Because God (dad) turns out to be just as human as every other human: not living up to their own (perceived) standards.
And of course Chomsky is right, especially from the point of "none else" - if there's really ONE God, and "none else", and if that "one God" really means what he wrote, then.... well, that makes for a very "human god"...
Perhaps, Chomsky hasn't quite learned all there is to learn about the POV of the believer, but did the believers (Before judging Chomsky) really try and understand where Chomsky's coming from?

robert said...

I don't understand this whole debate about smoking on Yom Tov. Rambam rules quite clearly that lighting a fire on Yom Tov is permissible for any reason. Later, he mentions that the Rabbi's made a rule that work which can be performed prior to Yom Tov without reducing the pleasure of Yom Tov should be done prior to YT, citing the idea that people shouldn't spend their entire YT laboring. He then gives an example of baking bread, saying that even though you could bake the bread prior to YT, you still bake it on YT since hot bread fresh out of the oven is better. While he makes no mention ( to the best of my knowledge ) of any restriction regarding lighting fires from scratch, it could be assumed that the tirchah, which until recent times, was involved in lighting fires made it fall under the Rabbinic restriction mentioned above. Since a fire could be lit ( or transferred from an existing flame ) for any reason I can't think of any reason to even be discussing restricting smoking, especially since it is pleasurable, the same way fresh bread hot out of the oven is pleasurable. In fact, since lighting a fire from scratch today is so simple it's questionable whether it would still fall under the Rabbinic restriction.

b said...

Sorry,josh is 100% correct.Chomsky is at fault for not doing his research before making a lifetime descion.

Anonymous said...

By that logic everyone in the world is at fault for not researching every religious belief and system in existence before deciding to stay with the one they were born in, or to go with another. They didn't make an informed decision.

The Rabbis' logic was spurious. For most of human history tobacco had not been discovered and people ate just fine without it and didn't suffer nausea. It's ill effects were not yet proven, but were suspected quite early after its introduction to Europe. They mistook addiction for necessity, and the bad decisions of a majority for common sense.
Where Chomsky went wrong was that he failed to go back after he became educated as a scientist and relearn his Judaism. He could have easily learned from episodes in Science like Phrenology, that even intelligent people can make mistakes and fall into flawed logic and that doesn't make the whole system worthless.
We don't reject Science because experts once believed Phrenology. Science corrected itself and so, too, does Halakhah. With the greater information available about addiction and the harm of smoking, many Orthodox Rabbis now consider it close to forbidden. It's tolerable in those who are already addicted if they are unable to quit, provided they smoke away from others, but it's severely frowned upon to take up the habit. If all we know today had been known right from the start, I have no doubt those same Sages would have forbidden it in the strongest terms. Chomsky failed to learn from his own discipline to go back and correct decisions made based on poor information.

joshwaxman said...

Anonymous:

also, he rejected Judaism based on a mistaken understanding of what it was that the rabbis said. were he to relearn his Judaism, he would not need to understand that one mistake doesn't invalidate the whole system. he would realize that he misunderstood that which he labeled as a mistake.

"The Rabbis' logic was spurious"
Not really.

"They mistook addiction for necessity, and the bad decisions of a majority for common sense."
The thing is, "shava lechol nefesh" is a sociological observation, that it is enjoyed by most people. For instance, showering nowadays might be "shava lechol nefesh". Back in those days, when the people did not know that smoking was bad, it could readily be argued that it was shaveh lechol nefesh. And that is all that is necessary to permit it on Yom Tov -- not that it was a necessity, nor that it was common sense.

Nowadays, knowledge of the ill effects of smoking may indeed transform the sociological reality, such that it is not shaveh lechol nefesh, something non-exotic that is enjoyed by most individuals.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin