3 Yedidim Scenarios
Submitted by:
Dovid Kornreich
August 4, 2009
1. You are working in a Yeshiva that caters to boys who come from weak Jewish backgrounds. You have been assigned to a boy named Sam. Sam comes across as a bright boy but not very committed to growing in Yiddishkeit. In the course of conversation Sam reveals to you that he doesn't believe in G-d. You ask him if he's interested in discussing the topic. Sam says that he is open to discussing it, but is not interested in any long philosophical conversations. To put in in his words “I've got ADD. If you can give me a clear and straight proof in a half hour's time then I'm game.” The ball is in your court.
I would take up the challenge, but as Rabbi Dovid Kaplan suggested in his session, I would first set ground rules for what is considered a valid proof. Although as ma'aminim we have absolute certainty about our fundamental beliefs, that certainty is due to a madreiga of emunah which cannot be intellectually argued to someone who has not developed that emunah for any length of time. So the goal here with Sam is not to arrive at emunah sheliema.
What we are shooting for here is a relative certainty that G-d exists-relative to the alternatives. The alternatives seem to be either that “we are relatively certain G-d does not exist” or that “we just don't know one way or the other”. The first question to ask before possibly going around in circles is “Where is Sam holding on this issue?” I first want to know which argument I need to make, and I can't know without first knowing what position he is taking. This is setting the ground rules.
But then there is a dilemma: if Sam takes a firm position on one of the alternatives, then I run the risk of pinning him into an intellectual corner and proving him wrong. And Rabbi Kaplan also pointed out that by trying to “win the argument” it will not have a happy ending. Loosing face in a debate makes you feel like you were made a fool of, and it will increase the resistance to hearing and accepting logical arguments made by your opponent. It's also not productive for building or maintaining a positive relationship with the person you are arguing with. But on the other hand, if he stays wishy-washy and refuses to take a position, I can go on and on against one alternative and not get anywhere because he will be able to just jump to the other alternative as a defense against my conclusion.
Perhaps I can allow him to save face by letting him sit back and have the luxury of not taking any specific position. Then my job is to systematically go through each of the alternatives and show why they produce less certainty than the position that G-d exists. The down-side to this approach is that it will basically be a lecture to a passive audience of one. It would be much better to have Sam engaged in the discussion by having a position that he needs to fight for. But that, as we've mentioned, has it's own down-sides. So I'll try to engage him along the way by prompting him with leading questions at every stage of the argument.
Here it goes:
Speaking in general terms, very few people are even relatively certain that G-d does NOT exist. Most people naturally feel that there is some higher power that brought the universe into existence and causes things to happen. This power is guiding the world towards some ultimate purpose and that life is not completely random and senseless. The people who think there is no G-d are usually either: people who have experienced extreme injustice—either personally or witnessed it first-hand, OR, people who are so arrogant to think that they have reached a complete understanding of the world-- have everything scientifically worked out --and there is no need for a G-d to explain all the mysteries of life and the universe. (Ex: Laplace 's infamous line “we have no need for that hypothesis”)
(I would explain that I am stereotyping because I am talking in general terms. If Sam wants to argue to defend this position and explain how one can be certain about G-d not existing without fitting into one of these types of people, I will hear him out.)
In addressing the first type, I would point out that this impression often depends on one's perspective. Many, many people have gone through terrible ordeals in life and have emerged incredibly stronger in their faith, and serve as a powerful source of inspiration for others. They have taken their experiences and used them for making the world a better place as a result. It is safe to say that without their horrible experiences they would have been ordinary people who would have accomplished much less with their lives. They themselves have come to the realization that they were chosen for their lot and have considered it a privilege to fulfill their special mission in life.
There are inspirational and motivational speakers who were born with no arms and no legs. There are holocaust survivors who went through a living hell in the camps and saw their entire families go up in the chimneys and are giving chizuk in emunah to others by teaching and by example.
Now we go on to the area of Scientifically Induced Atheism.
People erroneously think that once science proves or (even hypothesizes!) that a certain event is the result of a predictable chain of physical cause and effect, there is no more room for attributing that event to G-d's Divine planning and intervention.
But again, as with human suffering, this is just a matter of perspective. Traditional Judaism dictates that we make a blessing upon relieving ourselves in the lavatory. This blessing is an expression of wonder and appreciation directed at G-d for the basic functioning of our digestive system. This is so even though Jews have been doctors and have had a rudimentary medical understanding of the digestive system since antiquity. We do not require that the workings of the human digestive system be due to an unexplained miracle in order to discern G-d's wisdom and kindness in the physical world. So there is no support for atheism even if all of the events of the universe can be explained scientifically (which is not even the case in reality).
What people are expecting is that if G-d was truly out there, there ought to be some open, miraculous way to see it in which no-one can deny it. This expectation is simply immature.
This deals with the position that claims relative certainty that G-d doesn't exist.
What about any positive evidence for the Existence of G-d? Can anything be said to counter the skeptical position that we cannot be certain either way?
The following argument, which has been made by scientists and philosophers is:
“Mathematically, the more complex and ordered a structure is, the less the probability of its structure being due to chance. The chemistry of life is by far the most complex process in our experience, and yet we find that the inorganic matter of the universe can support this process. Since there is only one type of matter in the physical universe, the chances of its having all the chemical and physical properties needed to support life are remotely small, unless we take into account a purposeful Creator.” (R' Aryeh Kaplan, “Handbook of Jewish Thought Vol I” Maznaim, 1979 p.1 fn.3)
The following argument, which has been made by historians and philosophers (and the Passover Haggadah) is:
The survival of the Jewish People throughout the past three millennia (and especially their return to their ancestral homeland and the preservation of their original beliefs, practices and language) is inexplicable within the framework of the recurrent patterns of human history and civilization. It is a singularity which points in the direction of a spiritual force which is capable of guiding world events and protecting this people from annihilation and assimilation. We commonly refer to this force as G-d's Divine Providence. (R' Dovid Gottleib “Living Up...” Ohr Someach)
In addition, (as heard from Rabbi Mordechai Neugroshel) what makes things more interesting is that the Torah has made clear predictions that have proven correct by history. Among them being this very topic; the survival of the Jewish People despite the precarious conditions of living in exile among many hostile nations and its return to the land of Israel
This was obviously a thumbnail sketch of a deep and scholarly topic that many great minds have contemplated for millenia. The more you read up about it, the more you will get an appreciation of how rational and logical the belief in G-d can be for someone who is open-minded to the idea.
Although I can't make any promises that you will be personally convinced, it may help to know that thousands of intelligent, educated, critical thinking people just like you have come to relative certainty in the existence of G-d. Keep reading, keep learning, and keep asking questions.
- Shlomo's father has approached you to tutor his son. He describes his son Shlomo as a boy of average intelligence who does well on most of his tests. “when I learn with him on Shabbos” says his father, “he does fine reading and explaining the Gemora. However if I ask him questions about the gemara he clams up and becomes belligerent. I would like you to figure out what is happening and to try to help him get past this.” The father then makes you an offer you can't refuse. How will you approach this?
First I would compliment the father on his admirable concern for his son's development in gemara proficiency. While most people would be satisfied with mediocrity knowing that their son is getting good marks and is staying above water, this parent is trying to help his son really succeed and gain true satisfaction from what will probably be many years of involvement in gemara learning. I would convey to him what Rabbi Alon Bruckenstein revealed to us from his considerable experience as a gemara rebbe. He estimated that more than 80% of a given classroom population in a standard yeshiva don't really have a solid comprehension of the arguments and logical structure of the gemara they are learning. Most of these kids learn to squelch the frustration of lack of clarity and focus on spitting back the information the rebbe is able to put on a test. Those who can't manage to squelch their frustration are the ones who disrupt the class out of desperation.
Therefore, I would re-assure Shlomo's parents that what his son is going through is normal, but it is very wise of them to take an active role in improving their son's chances of blossoming into a genuine talmid chacham who is truly at home with a blatt gemara.
The next step is to prepare the material that I will be learning with Shlomo very carefully.
Of course I need to master the simple shakla vetaria. But as Rabbi Elchonon Fishman explained in his presentation, I also need to challenge myself and learn up the sugya be'iyun and plumb its depths. Teaching students on a lower level is no excuse to neglect personal growth. Special siyyata deshmaya in achieving gadlus baTorah is given to those who learn with the intention of helping others learn.
My personal goal should be to arrive at a real amkus of the pshat in the sugya, looking up all the related gemaras in other mesechtos (typically brought by Tosfos), covering all the main rishonim and perhaps some achronim. Although I should not plan on presenting this level of iyun to Shlomo and probably get him even more frustrated with things that will go over his head, it frequently happens that an elementary problem in the logical flow of the shakla vetarya is a signal that a deeper more subtle issue is involved which rishonim pick up on. Although the resolution will probably be more complicated than the problem, and may have to be put aside, it is very re-assuring and confidence-building just to know that one's basic question has been taken seriously by the greatest Jewish minds of the past thousand years. And who knows? Perhaps with a little coaching and prodding with the right leading questions, Shlomo will be able to arrive at the same resolution given by the rishonim and his spirits will be soaring!
After going through the sugya and mastering all the various twists and turns, the next step is to implement the system Rabbi Bruckenstein developed: isolate each logical step and think of how to make all the complex abstract arguments of the gemara into a bite-sized, concrete, visual flow-chart. A “power-point presentation” is beyond my technological capacity, so I can use index cards instead.
For example, the gemara goes from A to B to C and back to A again. First give Shlomo an overview of the terrain. Rabbi Bruckenstein emphasized that the student needs to have a sense of where the gemara is going to lead to with each of the steps. Otherwise is becomes a heap of unconnected bits of information and he will go back to spitting back what you want to hear without any real comprehension.
Then go through each of the steps in detail with the index cards. Define A on one card, explain why A is problematic on the second card, and how it leads the gemara to propose B on the third card. Then define B on the fourth card, and contrast the key differences between A and B on the fifth card—referring to the first and second card if he forgot it. Ditto for C and ditto for going back to A.
The goal is not just to have Shlomo absorb the information, but to produce a genuine appreciation that the gemara makes sense and is working with some form of logic in posing its questions and providing its solutions. This makes all the hard work involved in learning gemara so much more rewarding and stimulating.
3. You are the head Counselor of a summer camp. Moshe, who is a JC, is schmoozing with you while the kids are swimming under the watchful eye of the lifeguards. In the course of the conversation, Moshe tells you that he is friendly with a girl. , “but” he adds, “that's where it starts and stops”. When you tell him you don't think it’s good for him he responds “I don't really see the harm. We only talk, mostly on the phone, and I feel very comfortable discussing my personal issues with her. She helps me through them and I don't find it affects me in any negative way.” He is waiting for your response.
A few general points of advice provided by Rabbi Schwab come to mind which would serve as my introduction to the discussion with anyone who is not living up to the demands of traditional observance:
1) Don't judge the individual who is going through a test. He deserves your respect and admiration just for the act of confiding in you and his willingness to hear what you have to say.
2) Don't induce guilty feelings or imply that your concern for him is dependent on his outward change of behavior. Without showing approval for his behavior, let him know you care for him in a genuine, unconditional way and hope he succeeds in overcoming his obstacles to shleimus. You are in his corner, not his opponent.
3) If he doesn't feel guilty about his behavior on his own, just let him know in a neutral way what a Torah viewpoint has to say about such a situation and let him decide how to take it. Do not make demands or tell him what he must or must not do. He is approaching you for guidance, not for orders.
Rabbi Dovid Kaplan provided two general approaches to confronting gender issues in Judaism:
1) The halacha is unequivocal about the issurim involved. One cannot falsify the Torah in order to maintain a good-feeling relationship and avoid making someone feel uncomfortable about the Torah's disapproval for what he is doing.
Reb Moshe Feinstein has a detailed teshuva about platonic “frum” relationships in strictly halachic terms (and in some cases they come under the category of “yaharog ve'al ya'avor” based on the gemara in Sanhedrin 75 and Shulchan Aruch YD siman 157 Schach S"K 10)
2) There are unforeseen future negative emotional consequences in forging and maintaining a pre-marital relationship with members of the opposite gender.
Your relationship with your future spouse will not be as exclusive and special as it could be. The temptation to make comparisons between the feelings about the relationship with your spouse and your previous relatrionships will be present.
I would add that the platonic aspect of a social relationship is easy for the boy to maintain but nearly impossible for the girl. A boy's ego needs are usually satisfied just knowing he has “a girlfriend” that he can talk to regularly, but a girl's natural craving for emotional intimacy will not be. Sooner or later, the girl will want to think there is something special developing between them. This will either lead you to take the relationship further and violate more (serious) transgressions, or, she will be put through needless emotional distress when you have to push her away and clarify that you do not have reciprocating feelings and do not want to get more intimately involved.
This is a no-win situation in the long-term. Better to end things earlier-- when not so much has been invested into the relationship and there will be no hard feelings by its termination.
Another ethical problem to consider is that it is callous and cruel to use someone else for your own ego satisfaction-- even when the other person consents. If you are not willing to get serious about this relationship and quite possibly consider marrying this girl, then you are simply taking without giving-- and are basically using her friendship selfishly. Just wanting to be friends puts the girl in a vulnerable emotional state in this kind of relationship and you are taking unfair advantage of it.
This is all by way of abstract arguments in favor of a total dis-engagement.
However, the person involved may not be ready for this. If so, I perhaps would suggest taking certain practical steps to gradually break off the relationship. It would include:
1) Reducing the frequency, duration, and intensity of the phone conversations
2) Eventually shift to writing letters or e-mails only
If the person's primary motivation for having the relationship is to have a good friend with a listening ear with no sexual overtones in the background, then writing should be the perfect medium. Writing helps one clarify one's feelings and thoughts to one's self and helps work out issues more efficiently than talking.
Additionally, Reb Moshe challenges the questioner with the following:
If all you want is friendship and someone to share your feelings with, why not seek out a sympathetic male listener? After some sincere soul-searching and self-evaluation it should become clear that illicit sexual enjoyment from being in the company of a girl is inevitably present even in an ostensibly platonic relationship.
This is the food for thought that I would leave with the person.
