Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Dlm,
Thank you for your response with the exact pasuk in Shemos. The Rambam in his Sefer Hamitzvos also lists it as a “lo taaseh” 14. The way I understood it in Halacha was that it prohibits saying: “I swear by BLANK” or Pray to BLANK” because that’s giving legitimacy/ worshipping. What it doesn’t prohibit, according to most poskim: mentioning the name in a learning or dismissive context.
Example: the Gemara says yeshu and Mohammed plenty of times. Rishonim quote Xtian and Muslim arguments to refute them. The Rambam himself writes “Yeshu haNotzri” in Mishnah Torah and Iggeres Teiman.Torah has consequences, yes. But “testing Hashem”classically means demanding a miracle to prove He exists, like “If You’re real, strike me down now.” Quoting a name in a historical context isn’t in that category according to most mainstream piskei halacha.
Having said that, I can also understand and appreciate the stricter and more literal translation of “uvshem elokim acheirim”, especially in the context of this community. I will try reading the room more carefully going forward.
Being told you’re “evil” and testing G-d” is rough so I just want to remind everyone here (“rescue”) that your yiddishkeit isn’t measured by posters on a forum. Keep learning, keep asking. Seek out honest intellectual mentors and friends irl because even if they’re a rare breed, they’re out there, somewhere.
I agree with the dangers of epistemic dependency. That’s exactly why replacing the dogma of the Rambam with the dogma of The Lancet doesn’t make you a critical thinker, it just changes which robes you bow to.
Science isn’t resilient just because it says so. A real expert is someone who loses something when he’s wrong. Most “experts” today get tenure, grants, and TV spots. If their model blows up, you eat the downside, not them.
That’s not science. That’s scientism — a belief system with lab coats instead of bekishes. It inherits all the pathologies you listed: authority bias, groupthink, suppression of inquiry. “Peer review” becomes “peer pressure.” The 24-chromosome error lasted because no one wanted to contradict the big name. Same mechanism, different hat.
Antifragile systems don’t care about credentials. They care about survival. Water doesn’t ask if the engineer went to MIT. It finds the leak. Markets don’t ask if the Fed has a PhD. They reprice. When “science” becomes an institution that can’t be disconfirmed without career risk, it’s no longer science. It’s a guild. Guilds are fragile.
You’re correct that blind authority is dangerous. It’s also why a yeshiva isn’t a lab. The beis medrash isn’t built to test hypotheses; it’s built to transmit a mesorah. Its error-correction is chazara, machlokes l’shem shamayim, and 2,000 years of people trying to break it and failing.
Posting this here is like giving a lecture on peer review in the middle of Krias HaTorah. Not because the points are wrong — many aren’t — but because the forum has a different telos.
The beis medrash survived longer than any university because there’s a difference between mesorah & Kabbalah versus intellectual passivity. And there’s a very fine line where “epistemic dependency” can veer either to blind faith or to scientific dogma.
No human is immune to confirmation bias and narrative fallacy. That’s not a bug; it’s the operating system. We’re pattern-matching machines who tell ourselves stories so we can sleep. Scientists do it, rabbis do it, you do it, I do it.
The question isn’t “who’s unbiased?” Everyone’s biased. The question is “whose bias has been punished by reality for 3,000 years and lived?”
That’s why humbly accepting faith in Hashem isn’t a cop-out from thinking. It’s the recognition of epistemic limits that makes you reach outside the human box toward Hashem! You anchor to something outside your own head, something that outlived empires! That’s why Chazal say “al ta’amin b’atzmecha ad yom mos’cha”.
Hold it! Please don’t accuse people of proselytizing because you failed to understand a style of communication. Would you not mention the word “avoda Zara” because that would mean you recognize other idols? Or would you call them out for what they are?
My point was there is an etymology to words. Im trying to explain that the English word “obey” or the Yiddish word “fulgen” the German “hurchen” has a long history that has traveled through time. As I said we were forced to translate the Torah into Greek, lashon Hakodesh when translated may fail to convey very important nuances of the word. At the risk of mentioning Christianity again, their translation of the Old Testament isn’t our accurate truth, you know that right?! We are told to “keep” Hashems commandments, yes that means to do the Mitzvos and not to transgress, do aveiros. In “keeping” Hashems commandments we grow closer to Him. Is this not a relationship? I am not trying to borrow from foreign cultures and religions, Im trying to go back to the real Source. Im not stating anything as fact. I’m trying to I understand with the limited information I find available. Thank you for the compliment about my scholarly education. My highest degree is a high school diploma. I am self taught. But more than anything I wish to understand Torah. So thank you for being a wise contributor, and maybe tone down the derision? Chag Sameach!Can we talk about the word “obey” since i see it as a personal love language for some in their relationship to Torah?
The specific English word and its legalistic connotations were shaped by the translation process from Greek to Latin and finally to English.
The Greek Septuagint (LXX): When the Torah was forcefully translated into Greek, they often used the word hupakouo (ὑπακούω) for shama. This Greek word literally means “to hear under” (submitting oneself to what is heard).
The Latin Vulgate: Later Christian translations into Latin used the word obedire, which is a compound of ob- (towards) and audire (to hear). This Latin root directly gave us the English word “obey”.
Translation Shift: While the Hebrew shama is an organic, holistic term for “hearing-and-doing,” the Latin and later English “obey” can sometimes feel more like a legalistic or forensic term—complying with a law rather than responding to a relationship.So, while the Greek and Christian translations accurately captured the “listening” root of the Hebrew, the English word “obey” inherited a more formal, hierarchical tone from its Latin and Medieval roots that isn’t always present in the original Hebrew.
Torah isn’t viewed as a set of “orders” for a mindless soldier, but as Toras Chayim meant for a thinking human being.
The move from “obeying” (blind compliance) to “listening” (shama) and “guarding” (shamar) actually makes room for human intellect, logic and reasoning. Here is why:
1. “Na’aseh V’Nishma” (We will do and we will hear)
When we received the Torah, we said, “Na’aseh v’nishma” (Exodus 24:7). While this is often cited as “blind faith,” the word nishma (we will hear/understand) implies that the understanding comes through the doing. You aren’t meant to stop thinking; you are meant to analyze the experience as you live it.
2. The Torah “Speaks in the Language of Men”
A famous Talmudic principle states, Dibra Torah k’lashon bnei adam—”The Torah speaks in human language.” This acknowledges that the Torah is filtered through human perception. Therefore, using the best tools of human reason—including philosophy, science, or “humanist” ethics—is often seen as just another perspective or lens to apply the Torah to the real world.
3. Argument as Worship
Avraham Avine and Moshe Rabbeinu frequently argued with Hashem based on human concepts of justice (“Shall the Judge of all the earth not do justice?”). This proves that “blind obedience” was never the goal; God expects humans to use their moral compass.
4. Humanism as a Tool
Using humanist ideas (like the inherent dignity of the person or rational ethics) to understand the Torah is essentially what the Rambam (Maimonides) did when he used Aristotelian logic to write the Guide for the Perplexed. He believed that “Truth is truth, regardless of its source.” If a humanist tool helps you better “guard” (shamar) the dignity of a fellow human, it serves the Torah’s purpose.
In this view, the “commandments” are more like blueprints for a flourishing life than a test of how well you can follow instructions without asking “why.”Can we talk about the word “obey” since i see it as a personal love language for some in their relationship to Torah?
The specific English word and its legalistic connotations were shaped by the translation process from Greek to Latin and finally to English.
The Greek Septuagint (LXX): When the Torah was forcefully translated into Greek, they often used the word hupakouo (ὑπακούω) for shama. This Greek word literally means “to hear under” (submitting oneself to what is heard).
The Latin Vulgate: Later Christian translations into Latin used the word obedire, which is a compound of ob- (towards) and audire (to hear). This Latin root directly gave us the English word “obey”.
Translation Shift: While the Hebrew shama is an organic, holistic term for “hearing-and-doing,” the Latin and later English “obey” can sometimes feel more like a legalistic or forensic term—complying with a law rather than responding to a relationship.So, while the Greek and Christian translations accurately captured the “listening” root of the Hebrew, the English word “obey” inherited a more formal, hierarchical tone from its Latin and Medieval roots that isn’t always present in the original Hebrew.
Torah isn’t viewed as a set of “orders” for a mindless soldier, but as Toras Chayim meant for a thinking human being.
The move from “obeying” (blind compliance) to “listening” (shama) and “guarding” (shamar) actually using human intellect, logic and reasoning. Here is why:
1. “Na’aseh V’Nishma” (We will do and we will hear)
When we received the Torah, we said, “Na’aseh v’nishma” (Exodus 24:7). While this is often cited as “blind faith,” the word nishma (we will hear/understand) implies that the understanding comes through the doing. You aren’t meant to stop thinking; you are meant to analyze the experience as you live it.
2. The Torah “Speaks in the Language of Men”
A famous Talmudic principle states, Dibra Torah k’lashon bnei adam—”The Torah speaks in human language.” This acknowledges that the Torah is filtered through human perception. Therefore, using the best tools of human reason—including philosophy, science, or “humanist” ethics—is often seen as just another perspective or lens to apply the Torah to the real world.
3. Argument as Worship
Avraham Avine and Moshe Rabbeinu frequently argued with Hashem based on human concepts of justice (“Shall the Judge of all the earth not do justice?”). This proves that “blind obedience” was never the goal; God expects humans to use their moral compass.
4. Humanism as a Tool
Using humanist ideas (like the inherent dignity of the person or rational ethics) to understand the Torah is essentially what the Rambam (Maimonides) did when he used Aristotelian logic to write the Guide for the Perplexed. He believed that “Truth is truth, regardless of its source.” If a humanist tool helps you better “guard” (shamar) the dignity of a fellow human, it serves the Torah’s purpose.
In this view, the “commandments” are more like blueprints for a flourishing life than a test of how well you can follow instructions without asking “why.”