Ultra-Orthodox Apologetics: Some Notes on R’ Ahron Lopianski’s Lecture Series “Da Ma Shetashiv”
God; Evolution; Torah Sheba'al Peh; Talmud; Aggadah; Kuzari; Biblical Criticism; Age of the Universe; Zionism; Holocaust; Gedolim
Based on a draft of notes written in 2012.
R’ Ahron Lopianski's lecture series, “Da Ma Shetashiv,” is one of the most systematic works of Chareidi apologetics that I’ve seen. It tries to give over the Chareidi ideology, along the way trying to prove its truth against other religions and other streams of Judaism.
The term apologetics
First, let’s discuss the often-misunderstood term apologetics. Wiktionary give two sense to the word apology:
An expression of remorse or regret for having said or done something that harmed another: an instance of apologizing (saying that one is sorry).
A formal justification, defence.
The second sense is often misunderstood in the far more common first sense. The two senses are indeed etymologically related. However, in contemporary parlance, they in fact have very different meanings.
Wikipedia defines the term apologetics as follows:
Apologetics (from Greek “apologia” - "speaking in defense") is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse [...] In 21st-century usage, apologetics is often identified with debates over religion and theology.
This is the scholarly usage of the term apologetics, and how I’m using it here.
R’ Ahron Lopianski's Apologetics
R’ Ahron Lopianski is Rosh Yeshiva of the relatively liberal Chareidi yeshiva in Silver Spring, Maryland.[1] His lecture series “Da Ma Shetashiv” consists of 44 lectures, each about 35 to 45 minutes long. The lecture series is a total of around 30 hours of audio. The title “Dah Mah Shetashiv,” which can be literally translated as “know what to answer,” refers to the Mishnah in Avot which states that a Jew should know how to answer a heretic.
Based on its title, one might assume that the lectures consist of proofs for the beliefs of Orthodox Judaism, and rebuttals of claims against it. This, in fact, is what R' Dovid Gottlieb's online book, Living Up to the Truth (1996),[2] and R’ Shmuel Waldman's[3] book, Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, do. However, despite its name, only the first 27 lectures of “Da Ma Shetashiv” are directly related to refuting claims of “heretics,” and the rest of it is simply a primer for Orthodox Jewish, particularly Chareidi, ideology.
R’ Lopiansky is an interesting speaker, speaking slowly and deliberately. He is moderately well-informed, especially relative to most Rosh Yeshivas. However, he does make some glaring errors. I would like to give a short overview of these lectures, and then note some comments and critiques.
Comments and critiques on R’ Ahron Lopianski's Apologetics
For further details and expansion on many of the points raised in what follows, see the impressive essay by Naftali Zeligman, “Letter to My Rabbi” (June 20, 2005)
#1-3 – General Introduction. Discussion about the nature of our understanding of God
1. R’ Lopiansky (from here on: RL) states that “no one ever took God anthropomorphically”. However, contra this, see R’ Natan Slifkin, “Was Rashi a Corporealist?”, in Hakirah journal (2009).
2. RL makes a comparison between buying a house and finding the true religion (or atheism, by “religion” I simply mean way of life). This comparison is shocking, to say the least. Is it possible to make such a comparison?! A person's religion—his value systems and the way he will live his life—is arguably the most important decision a person will make in his life.
Additionally, where a person lives, as with so many decisions in a person's life, is only a question of scale of happiness. In other words, if a person makes a wrong decision of where to live, he will be less happy, but he will still have some degree of “happiness”. On the other hand, religion is zero-sum game. If a person follows Judaism, and Christianity is correct, then he is condemned to Hell forever. This is not simply a question of chocolate or vanilla.
3. RL says that it is impossible to truly research the truth in all religions. Therefore, he says, one should take his present religion as the starting point, and simply calculate if his religion is reasonable, as well as that other religions aren't overwhelmingly reasonable.
A number of points can be made. First, of all, why is it impossible to truly research all religions? RL states that to truly research a religion, one must immerse himself in that religion for a minimum of a few months, if not years. But is this really true? Although most religions claim that following their prescriptions will generally lead to a happier life than not following them, they generally claim that even if they theoretically do not lead to greater happiness, they still must be followed, as the command of God. (However, Hinduism, as far as I know, completely bases itself on experiential proof. In that case, one would theoretically have to experience the system in order to test its veracity.) Simply hearing and weighing the proofs that each religion offers should be enough to empirically test which religion (again, religion including atheism, agnosticism, etc.) seems to have the most truth to it.
If one will claim that this is impossible, and one will never find the truth this way, because human knowledge is so limited, life is too short to reach a conclusion on such matters, people's biases are insurmountable, etc., then a reasonable person could throw up his hands and say that he could do whatever he wants, and it's just as likely to be true. Or, he could take all the possible religions, and pick one by chance. But to follow a religion simply because he was born into it, does not make any sense from a philosophically truthful point of view.
A person can follow the religion he was born into because that is what he is used to, and to break away from it would be uncomfortable, but that isn't saying that that way of life feels more true to him, rather that in the present circumstances his religion provides him with the most happiness and well-being.
#6-9 – Questions on the theory of evolution
Specifically regarding three things: 1) the appearance of life from non-life (abiogenesis); 2) the evolution of one species to a different species (macroevolution); 3) the evolution of man from lower species (specifically the evolution of the mind).
1. All these questions are asked by proponents of intelligent design (=ID). ID is not taken seriously by mainstream science, and is considered a pseudoscience. Its main proponents are Christian apologists.
2. RL says that morality cannot be explained with evolutionary processes. However, this is not the case. See Wikipedia: “Evolution of morality”:
“The emerging fields of evolutionary biology, and in particular evolutionary psychology, have argued that, despite the complexity of human social behaviors, the precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals. “
#20-21 – Discussion of Aggadah
The point is made that all Aggadah is important and wise, though not always on a literal level, many times on a deeper level.
This perspective ignores many sources, see Chaim Eisen, “Maharal’s Be’er ha-Golah and His Revolution in Aggadic Scholarship —in Their Context and on His Terms” in the journal Hakira (2007).
#22 – Discussion of the Kuzari Argument
Also proof for the chosenness of the Jewish people from their continued existence until today. Discussion of the Masorah.
The famous Kuzari Argument is very problematic:
1. Who says there were 3 million people there? Only the Torah says so, and we are attempting to bring proof for the Torah, therefore it is tautological.
2. There were breaks in the messorah, in the time of the Shoftim and in the time of time of Yoshiyahu
3. We find numerous miraculous mythologies in all cultures. People then were much more credulous, uncritical.
4. It is possible that the story developed from some natural phenomenon (ie. volcanic eruption).
5. The truth is that the Kuzari does not in fact bring this “proof”.
See extensive discussions at the Talk Reason website:
Avi Norowitz, “CRITIQUE OF THE KUZARI ARGUMENT” (January 29, 2003) - a succinct overview of the major flaws.
David Yust, “THE KUZARI – THE PRINCIPLE AND THE FORMALISM” (June 7, 2002) - an extensive, formalized discussion, with close readings of the sources.
The masorah is problematic: We find in the Talmud in a few places that Amoraim lied about sources to bolster support for their halachic opinions.1 Also, “Halacha L'moshe Misinai '' is in fact not always understood even traditionally to be from Sinai. Also, drashot many times (or always, according to R’ Yitzhak Isaac Halevy’s Dorot Harishonim) are asmachtas, and unclear if d'oraytah or not, seems that they were intentionally deceiving people.
#23 – Discussion of Biblical Criticism
Epic of Gilgamesh and Code of Hammurabi found to have little in connection with their respective parallels in the Torah.
The Epic of Gilgamesh has many parallels with the Flood story in the Bible. To say they are both referring to an actual historical Flood is difficult, as the geological record does not back this up.
#28 - Discussion of archeological finds
Aspersions cast on archeology in general. Mesha Stele and Ipuwer Papyrus specifically mentioned.
1. No questions from archeological finds are tackled head-on, rather aspersions cast on the whole archeological enterprise.
2. RL quotes the Encyclopedia Britannica as saying that the Bible has generally been historically verified archaeologically. This is not true for the time of the United Monarchy (which ended in the mid-9th century BCE) and earlier.
See this more at this Wikipedia entry: “Historicity of the Bible”, sections “The Patriarchs”; “The Exodus“; “The "conquest narrative" in Joshua and Judges“; “Books of Samuel“; “United Monarchy“.
#25 - “The Age of the Universe”
Age of the Universe discussed. Possibilities brought: 1) World created to look old; 2) Six days of creation not discussing days, but epochs; 3) Nothing is known of nature before the Flood. Third option preferred by RL.
See R’ Natan Slifkin, Challenge of Creation (2012), where he discusses all these options at length. RL is aware of this book, or at least of its predecessor, R’ Slifkin’s Science of Torah (2001), as he was involved in the controversy (referenced many times in the shiur). However, very few of Slifkin's points are addressed. For example, it seems impossible to take the third possibility seriously, as no evidence of a global flood exists (to say “we don't understand anything about the Flood” is a cop-out and intellectually dishonest).
#28 - “What's in It for Me”
RL claims that pleasure is the only “positive” a person has, i.e., the only motivating factor possible.
This is a strange claim. It is generally the atheistic claim, that all human actions, including moral acts, are in order to make the person acting happy. The general religious view is that moral actions are done for completely altruistic reasons, and only understandable if caused by God.
#29 - “Common Threads”
1. RL states (21:00) that “Lesheim Yichud” said by Chassidim before doing some mitzvos, is stating the “Achdus of Hashem,” i.e., the oneness of God. In fact, it is a proclamation that one is doing the mitzvah in order to bring about the oneness of God, by bring together the “Kudshah Brich Hu” aspect of God with the “Shechina” (feminine) aspect of God, as the Shechina is currently in exile from Kudsha Brich Hu. (Of course, there are any number of explanations as to what this means. But none of these explanations take away from the fact that “Leshem Yichud” is not a declaration of God's oneness.)
2. RL states (23:00) that in the Vilna Gaon (=Gra)'s school of thought (RL strangely refers to the Gra's school of thought as “the Gra's Cheider” !), Torah study is the most important thing, as opposed to any other practice. However, while it may be true that in the contemporary Litvishe world Torah reigns supreme, it is not so simple to ascribe this to the Gra. See Nefesh Hachayim where R' Chaim Volozhiner quotes R' Chaim Vital as saying that nowadays, when we live in the “footsteps of the Messiah” (עיקבתא דמשיחא), Tefilah and Tzedakah are the most important practices.
3. RL states (27:00) that in the Litvishe world, “the yeshiva was Klal Yisrael.” However, this is an anachronistic viewpoint. There were very few yeshivas in Europe, even in Lithuania, and the focus there too was mostly on the community.
#30-32 “Finding Our Way” “Finding Our Purpose” “Learning”
Discussion of primacy of learning Torah as opposed to working.
RL states in #31 that to say that some people's tafkid (=role) in this world is simply to support Torah is kefirah (=heresy). However, the Rambam in his introduction to Mishnah Tractate Avot says that most people are created to be “company” for Torah scholars.
#37 - “Zionism”
Discussion of the history of Orthodox relationship to Zionism.
Satmar anti-Zionism is discussed with sympathy. Rav Kook and Religious Zionism are only mentioned in passing.
#38 - “Zionism and the Holocaust”
Discussion of why Orthodox Jewish leaders did not recommend their followers to leave Europe and immigrate to America or Israel before the Holocaust.
RL says that leaders never preferred themselves to be saved at the expense of others; this was simply a decision by followers. However, as RL himself alludes to in the beginning of the lecture, some leaders personally escaped, while promising their followers that no harm would befall them if they stayed. This was the case, for example, with the Satmar Rebbe, as well as the Belzer Rebbe. See this Hebrew Wikipedia entry: יציאת האדמו"ר מבעלז מהונגריה.
#41 - “Gedolim and Leadership”
Discussion of the idea of leadership by those great in Torah.
RL quotes the Sefer HaChinuch as saying that one should listen to Torah leaders for two reasons: 1) If everyone does what he personally thinks is right, there will end up being anarchy. 2) Torah leaders are guided by God.
1. The Chinuch mentions these reasons regarding the Great Beit Din (בית דין הגדול) at the time of the Temple. Although the Chinnuch himself later says that the prohibition of Lo Tassur (לא תסור) applies even nowadays, most Rishonim disagree with him.
2. RL says at the end of the lecture that although Torah greats may not be the best possible leaders, there is no better alternative. This is a strange claim. How about a democratically elected leader? Or a properly qualified leader chosen by Torah greats? In fact, Agudas Yisrael's lay leadership has always claimed to defer to the decisions of the Torah scholars on the “Moetzes,” and never claims to be greater leaders than the Gedolim. RL claim is clearly against standard Chareidi ideology.
[1] Rabbi Ahron Lopiansky - The Tikvah Fund: “Rabbi Ahron Lopiansky is the Rosh HaYeshiva of the Yeshiva of Greater Washington – Tiferes Gedaliah, accepting the position in July of 2014. He studied and received rabbinic ordination from the Mir Yeshiva of Jerusalem. In Israel, Rabbi Lopiansky taught at Aish HaTorah from 1983-1990, and then taught at the Mir for five years before assuming the post of Rosh Yeshiva of the Yeshiva Gedolah of YGW in 1995 [...] Rabbi Lopiansky is a prolific author, having written more than 20 works on Torah thought, liturgy, and philosophy, and lectures widely both nationally and internationally. He is a contributor to Encyclopedia Talmudis and various journals, and sits on several boards [...] “
[2] See now also his Reason to Believe (2017). I have not examined this book.
[3] Regarding R’ Waldman’s personal life: “Shmuel Waldman was arrested in March 2014 on numerous charges of distributing child pornography, and subsequently plead guilty in 2015.” full name: shmuel waldman)