Analyzing Hirhurim

I. Style

Gil used to write with his own voice. More recently, all his posts seem to have a very detached quality about them. Not sure what he's trying to achieve but it's just not as good.

II. Format

He keeps using the short paragraph format, with each section having a title. Who said this was a good idea?

III. Readership

For some reason, the bulk of Gil's commenters are centrist or LWMO. He doesn't seem to have any RWMO or Chareidi commenters anymore. Recently, when Gil was posting about women Rabbi's and such, someone commented that Gil was totally out of touch with his readership. But it's not Gil's fault, all his readership is to the left! Bizarre.

IV. Arguments

Gil's standards of arguments has fallen. Used to be he at least tried to make a case for his views. More recently, he just states his opinions. It's like his heart isn't in it.

V. Conclusion

I liked the old Gil better. Bring him back!

I LOVE Cross-Currents, I truly do

While everyone is all a flutter over the ridiculous evolution debate, I think the truly awful post this week on Cross-Currents was on another topic entirely, which everyone seems to have missed.

Rabbi Yitzchak Adlerstein, who is usually one of the more sane contributors over there, has a truly offensive and obnoxious post. Adlerstein comments on a NYT article about how with the advent of sperm donors and surrogates who can now enable otherwise childless couples to have kids, there are complications, especially when the donors are related e.g. sister of the mother. Adlerstein compares this new 'modern' family to Eisav's progeny "replete with many intimations of incest and other illicit relationships".

That's right - according to Rabbi Yitzchak Adlerstein, childless couples who use relatives as surrogates are basically like Eisav and his descendants. Nice going.

I love Cross-Currents. I truly do. Is there any other medium which so blatantly and articulately exposes Chareidi Judaism for what it has become - a hot mess of inane nonsense, often horrible values and sometimes questionable morality?

Cross-Currents: The ultimate anti-kiruv tool.

God can write the the Torah in multiple voices, but he couldn't create the world through evolution: Are all Orthodox Rabbis fools and fakers?

Yep, that's the message from Cross-Currents this week folks. What a bunch of idiots.

Let me add though, that as much as I am disgusted by the Chareidim's vehement opposition to evolution, I am equally disgusted by the 'Rationalists' defense of it.

First, the Chareidim. What's the big deal? They accept that the world can be billions of years old (as Menken keeps arguing, many Chareidim accept this, though it is also quite true that many don't - I don't see much value in debating how big each crowd is). So clearly, they can accept a somewhat allegorical understanding of Breishis. So why any different with evolution? What is so disturbing about evolution? Just say God did it and you're done. What, coming from monkeys is too awful to contemplate? How about a tipah seruchah? Is that better? It makes no sense.

Second, the Rationalists. What's the big deal? Who cares? So let's say evolution isn't quite 100% proven. So what? So there's global consensus that it's a solid theory? Okay, well there's global consensus that that the Torah was written by multiple authors. When was the last time you saw a rationalist accept the DH? Most of them are too scared or too fake to even bring up the subject.

Basically, I have zero respect for all the players here, as far as I can tell they're all a bunch of fools, fakers or in some cases, both. Realizing that all Orthodox Rabbis are hopelessly biased and incapable of seeing things honestly (or admitting to it) is one of the reasons I lost respect for OJ. (apart from the fact that it's fundamental beliefs are clearly untrue).

Of course I do know some wonderful OJ Rabbis who mean well and do nothing but good for the community, they are generally the types who stay far, far away from these utterly stupid debates.

There's no reason why God could not write a book in different voices.

It's not just Shafran writing inanities this week, Adlerstein is making a valiant effort too. Referencing Moshe Koppel (one of the scientists behind the computer analysis of multiple authorship of the Torah) as making a huge kiddush hashem, Adlerstein writes:

"Larger than life challenges to Torah values can be met in two different ways. We can prudently retreat, placing the sanctity of what is most important to us ahead of all other needs and feelings. Alternatively, we can face these challenges with confidence and certainty that nothing can compete with Torah, that it can and will triumph over every meretricious substitute."

What about the third way? Admit to the possibility that you're wrong? Guess that's not an option in delusionland.

"Neither approach is more correct than the other."

LOL, yeah, especially when both approaches are completely wrong. Adlerstein quotes the AP article:

“Those for whom it is a matter of faith that the Pentateuch is not a composition of multiple writers can view the distinction investigated here as that of multiple styles,” they said.

In other words, there’s no reason why God could not write a book in different voices."

So its hard to tell who is saying what - did Koppel say that last line? Or is it the reporter summarizing?

Either way, the article did NOT say what Koppel believes, seems to me the team was simply giving an 'out' so that the frummies wouldn't be on their case. But Adlerstein jumps on this with glee:

"In the space of a few lines, Moshe Koppel told the world three things. He told them that frum Jews still believe that the Torah was given by HKBH, even though that makes them part of a very small part of the world’s population.... He told them that, as a frum Jew, he has a way of looking at what seems to be evidence of multiple authorship, and interpreting it in an entirely different way, perfectly consistent with traditional belief."

But Koppel said no such thing, at least not in the article. Maybe Adlerstein is a buddy of Koppel and knows this from elsewhere? Could be. On the other hand, maybe Koppel is an MO faker like so many others, and actually does believe in the DH. He certainly wouldn't be the first ostensibly frum professor (or Rabbi) to be a faker like that. I could name 5 right off the top of my head right now (relax people, I'm not going to out you).

Either way, the quote is quite stupid anyways.

"There's no reason why God could not write a book in different voices."

Actually, there are two good reasons:

1. It's retarded, especially when the voices are all mixed up.

2. Chazal, rishonim and acharonim, the greatest experts on all Torah, never ever said that the Torah was written in different 'voices'. Sure, they created explanations for the more obvious flaws, but a 'different voices' theory isn't part of the mesorah and never was. Clearly it's just an invented excuse of an answer for those people who realize that the DH, BC or MA isn't going away.

The 'different voices' apologetic used to be only used by quirky individuals. Mainstream types like Gil lean more towards showing unity of the text. Is 'different voices' the new mainstream apologetic for the DH?

Shafran, Blinded

Avi Shafran is at it again, posting inane nonsense, which typically undermines whatever points he is trying to make. This time he outdoes himself. There's no need to go into detail about evolution. His first quote says it all:

“Just as ordinary, pig-headed and unreasonable as anybody else” was the eminent twentieth century psychologist H.J. Eysenck’s judgment of scientists. “And their unusually high intelligence,” he added, “only makes their prejudices all the more dangerous.”

Absolutely. Which is why scientists need to produce evidence, and experiments, and data, and have their work peer-reviewed, and we don't really truly believe them until there is global consensus in the academic community. If one lone scientist claims to have produced cold fusion, but no one else can re-produce it, well, we just don't believe it.

But according to Eysenck, Gedolim (and Chazal) are also pig-headed, unreasonable and biased. And much much worse, they have no evidence and no data. So why believe them? As Shaffran writes:

"But, as more traditional Jewish texts explain, only someone who has overcome the preconceptions, desires and imperfections of character to which we all play host can truly perceive the world with clarity."

So, only Torah greats can be unbiased because they learn Torah. And who taught us that? Why, the Torah Greats! Of course this is just Reb Elchnon Wasserman's proof of the Truth of Torah.

Shame it doesn't work, being completely circular and all. But Shafran can't see that. Why not?

Because, as he himself admits, he's just as stubborn and pig-headed and biased as everyone else. But without any evidence, experiments or actual data.