[Avodah] Fables and Lies

[T613K at aol.com]

From: R' Akiva Miller _kennethgmiller at juno.com_ 
(mailto:kennethgmiller at juno.com) 


RAM: >>In the thread "proofs of G-d", we were discussing the  scenario that 
some gedolim posit a linkage, that a specific tragedy was caused  by a specific 
failing, and that they do this in order to inspire people to do  teshuva, 
even though those gedolim are not neviim, and cannot say for a *fact*  that this 
failing caused that tragedy.<<
 

TK:  I don't think that any rav should say there is a link  unless he really 
believes there is a link, just to "inspire people to do  teshuva."  Of course 
he may believe there is a link and he may be  mistaken, even horribly mistaken 
-- and others may argue vehemently against  linking tragedy X with sin Y -- 
but if he genuinely believes there is a link  then you can't say he's telling a 
"lie."  A mistake or misinterpretation is  not a "lie."  


>In this context, R' Ben Waxman wrote in that thread:
>  There is an even bigger problem that my wife pointed out to
> me: When  positing an cause and effect when in fact no one
> really knows the cause,  the people who are motivated to repent
> will basing their avodat Hashem  based on a fable, and maybe
> even on a lie. Do we really want that?
 
TK:  No we don't want people to base their avodas Hashem on fables and  lies.

RAM:  >>At this time of year, it is common for American  Christian families 
to teach their children a particular such "fable and lie", in  order to 
motivate those children to good behavior. This is so widespread, in  fact, that it is 
a rite of passage when those children come to learn the truth  of this 
fiction.

For many years, I was particularly proud that all of the  Midrashim, legends, 
and stories which we tell our children are true. And even if  an occasional 
story might appear with different details in different versions,  the main 
thrust is generally accepted as genuine. Torah Truth has no need for  fiction.<<
 
TK:  I had a long debate/discussion with a giyores about this some  years 
ago.  She said that our telling children that Eliyahu Hanavi comes to  every 
house on Pesach was no different than telling kids about Santa Claus or  the tooth 
fairy.  My contention is that the people who tell their kids  about Eliyahu 
Hanavi really believe themselves that he comes, and if they don't  believe it 
they shouldn't say it, or they should couch in general terms like,  "There is a 
/tradition/ that Eliyahu Hanavi comes to every house."  Of  course it is 
actually possible that he really does come to every Jewish  home -- he is 
presumably at this time an incorporeal being, no longer  subject to the constraints of 
space and time.  At any rate no parents are  dressing up as Eliyahu Hanavi 
and walking in the door when the door is opened  for Shfoch Chamascha.   If 
parents did dress up as Eliyahu Hanavi and  let the kids think they really did see 
Eliyahu Hanavi walk in their door, they  /would/ be perpetrating a lie, but 
no one has such a minhag.
 
As for other midrashim: 1. many people believe all or most midrashim really  
are true so they are not "lying" when they teach them to their kids
2.  I myself try to add, "That's a midrash" when I tell a story,  
distinguishing it from "That's in the Chumash" -- and when they are old enough  to 
understand the distinction, I tell my kids that not every midrash is  necessarily 
literally true,  but every midrash has an important lesson to  convey.

RAM:  >>And then, one Yom Kippur, during Ayleh  Ezk'rah, I chanced upon a 
comment by ArtScroll. The same who is so often derided  on these pages for taking 
a sanitized version of history, and passing it off as  true. And even Rabbi 
Scroll had to admit:

> that while all ten of  these righteous men were murdered by the
> Romans, their executions did  not take place simultaneously, as
> described here, nor could they have,  since two of the ten did
> not even live in the same generation as the  other eight.
> ...
> The liturgical accounts of the martyrdom were  not meant as
> historical records, but as dramatic accounts of the story,  in
> order to evoke feelings of loss and repentance on the part of
>  the congregation.

So it's not just the Christians. We too have fables,  fictions, and lies. 
Perhaps it is only this one solitary example. But one is not  zero.<<
 
TK:  All ten of the asara harugei malchus were actual historic figures  who 
really were martyred by the Romans.   Why does the fact that a  poem puts them 
all together constitute in your mind a "fable, fiction and  lie"?  I just 
don't see it that way at all.

RAM:  >>My  heart is still not fully healed from the pain of this 
disillusionment. And I  apologize if this post has disillusioned any others. <<
 
TK:  Forgive me for saying this but you are much too sensitive.   Your 
standards of absolute honesty are also impossible for anyone to meet.   Poetry is 
not history but in this case it is most definitely based on  history.  Plus I 
would not be surprised if the payetan who put all ten  martyrs together actually 
thought they did live at the same time -- they  didn't live so far apart from 
each other, after all.   He wasn't a  historian, either.  Only historical 
research in the last hundred years or  so has really clarified exactly who lived 
where and when, 2000 years  ago.   What if 500 years from now someone thought 
the Besht and the  Chofetz Chaim lived at the same time and wrote a story 
about them, say, talking  to each other?  Would that be a "lie"?  Would it 
invalidate everything  the Besht and the CC taught?   Would a writer taking some 
liberty  with the facts -- because of his own ignorance, or for literary reasons 
--  would that turn historical personages into mere legends, as if they had 
never  lived? 
 
 

>> To repeat [RBW's] question:
> the people who are  motivated to repent will basing their avodat
> Hashem based on a fable,  and maybe even on a lie. Do we really
> want that?

RAM:  My  gut reaction is to scream, "No! It is too dangerous! How will they 
react when  the lie is discovered!" But that consideration does not seem to 
have bothered  those who chose to include Ayleh Ezk'rah in the  machzor.<<

TK:  And again, I think you are being too  sensitive.  Eilah Ezkarah is not a 
"lie."  Do the notes to the  A/S machzor say that they never lived and were 
never persecuted and were never  killed by the Romans?  No it does not.  I 
think the A/S is to be  commended for acting like adults and not trying to fudge 
the fact that this poem  is just that -- a literary device.  BASED ON A TRUE 
STORY -- or actually,  ten true and tragic stories.
 




--Toby  Katz
=============




**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071125/465f480c/attachment-0001.htm>