העורך Editor

Kant on Judaism

Some Jews are overly enamored with the man.

Perhaps this piece on his “view” of Judaism will help a tiny bit.

Read it here (the hyperlink leads to the relevant excursus in the middle of the long page)…

(Kant says Judaism uniquely is not a religion. I say the only religion is Judaism.)

Here is a famous quote by Yeshayahu Leibowitz on Kantian ethics:

The foregoing considerations apply equally to the ethical importance the secularists attribute to the Torah and its commandments. Ethics, when regarded as unconditionally asserting its own validity, is an atheistic category par excellence. A person who is ethical in this sense regards man as the supreme end and value, that is, deifies man. A person who perceives man as one among God’s creatures and keeps in mind the verse, “I have set God always before me,” cannot accept ethics as the overriding norm or criterion. Being moral, from the standpoint of a secular ethic, can have only either of two meanings; directing man’s will in accordance with man’s knowledge of reality – the ethics of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Epicureans and especially the Stoics, and among the later philosophers Spinoza; or directing man’s will in accordance with man’s recognition of his duty – the ethics of Kant and the German idealists. Among the passages of the Shema we find the words: “that you seek not after your own hearts and your own eyes”: “after your own hearts” is the negation of Kantian ethics; “after your own eyes” is the negation of Socrates’. The admonition: “I am the Lord your God” follows shortly thereafter. The Torah does not recognize moral imperatives stemming from knowledge of natural reality or from awareness of man’s duty to his fellow man. All it recognizes are Mitzvoth, divine imperatives. The Torah and the prophets never appeal to the human conscience, which harbors idolatrous tendencies. No equivalent of the term “conscience” appears in Scripture. The counsel of conscience is not a religious concept. The “God in one’s heart” which humanist moralists sometimes invoke is a “strange god.” Halakhah as a religious institution cannot admit the category of the ethical. Needless to say, it cannot admit the utilitarian justification, whether it be for the good of individuals, of society, or of the nation. “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” is the great rule in the Torah not because it is a precept transcending the formalism of law and above the Mitzvoth but precisely because it appears as one of the 613 Mitzvoth. As a guide rule, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” is not specific to Judaism. Similar precepts were laid down in writing by thinkers who were not influences by Judaism and were not even acquainted with it, by the wise men of China, India, and Greece. Moreover, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” does not, as such, occur in the Torah. The reading is: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself, I am God.”

Needless to add, I don’t agree with every word I quote.

To Future Historians: Yes, the Opposition to Har Habayis WAS THIS Bad!

The following display of dishonesty and mockery by Rabbi Shraga Kallus (and the sheer ignorance of his audience who let him get away with murder) in the following audio class is barely out of the ordinary.

I myself downloaded this to show my descendants who and what we were up against. I suggest you do the same (downloading requires free, instant registration).

Listen to Rabbi Kallus (not after a meal) here…

P.S., We have written about Rabbi Kallus and his tone here before.

By the way, is lashon “Dayan” in Shvuos 30b lav davka (ומנין לדיין שלא ישב תלמיד בור לפניו ת”ל מדבר שקר תרחק)?

Defenders of Torah Slavery’s Morality Must Have Missed This One…

We hear how the Torah wants slavery to end (Rabbi Kook’s idea), which is why the Torah forbids one to return an escaped slave, etc. (plus other halachos which actually prove nothing; I presume their goal is לערבב השטן)

Well, what about the “non-Kiruvally Correct” dispute in Nazir 62b (find an English translation here)?

משנה עבר מכנגד פניו ר”מ אומר לא ישתה ורבי יוסי אומר ישתה: גמרא לימא בדשמואל קמיפלגי דאמר שמואל המפקיר עבדו יצא לחירות וא”צ גט שיחרור ר”מ אית ליה דשמואל רבי יוסי לית ליה דשמואל לא דכולי עלמא אית להו דשמואל אלא מאן דאמר ישתה סבר סוף סוף מיהדר הדר ואתי גביה לישתי חמרא כי היכי דלא ליכחוש ולמאן דאמר לא ישתה סבר ליהוי ליה צערא כי היכי דליהדר גביה.

I’m all for a grand theory, but let’s not form a theory to match our preconceptions while ignoring data or assuming away nuance, OK?