As a therapist who often works with this demographic, my experience is that most that leave had toxic authority figures or trauma.
This is by no means to say that my experience is reflective of the statistical reality and I am sure there are a lot of people that leave for intellectual reasons.
That being said, I think you are minimizing the amount of people that DO leave because of toxic authority figures because you feel that that label has been used to discredit any intellectually honest OTDers.
It is quite hard to have a healthy relationship with G-d if all of your earthly representations of authority are toxic, punitive and controlling.
As far as Reb Gershon Ribner, I honestly do not know him but if you are right about his children going off the derech then maybe we should have compassion for his sentiments as they very well can be sourced in pain just like we should have compassion for those that have left.
status and labels aside...pain is pain.
I hope this does not come across as offensive and I am sorry for the pain you have been through.
Not offensive at all. I really appreciate you taking the time to engage.
I agree that toxic authority figures and trauma are deeply significant, and I don’t mean to dismiss or minimize that at all. But I do wonder - do you know anyone who hasn’t been exposed to some version of that in our world? I think those experiences are, sadly, near-universal among frum adults, particularly in places like Lakewood.
So while it's true that many people who leave have encountered trauma or unhealthy authority, I’m not sure that fact tells us much about causality. It may just reflect a shared background, not a decisive reason for leaving.
In my experience, those who walk away tend to be thoughtful, sincere, and deeply curious. People who feel things strongly. People who care about truth. And maybe that sensitivity makes them more vulnerable to pain, more attuned to dissonance. But even then, the pain isn’t the thing that makes them leave - it’s the crack that lets the questions in.
And once the questions arrive, what happens next is usually not about trauma at all. It’s about honesty.
"the pain isn’t the thing that makes them leave - it’s the crack that lets the questions in."
I'd say more. There is definitely a parallel universe in where I would have gone otd due to my questions. My healthy family life led me to find what I think are intellectually honest answers - after a whole lot of trying. Had I not had the strong pull to stay in, I would have given up long ago and gone off.
I’m a psychologist and have met many in this position who do not have significant trauma histories or poor experiences with frum leadership. And the research does in fact reflect intellectual reasons being reported as a reason to leave significantly more than corrupt authority figures. See figure on page 6
Agreed. There are many more research studies done since then but not sure if there is updated quantitative data, I’ll take a look. There is a study from 11/2023 that identifies intellectual reasons and doubting god as primary reasons for leaving OJ for over 700 participants. I emailed the author for access. You can type in key words to Google scholar and read interesting abstracts to keep up with research more topically!
Ok, impossible to object to any fact major claims made here. Your point about questioning the sincerity of the questioner and attribution of insincere motives the strongest among them. However, I tend to be a bit disappointed in people’s reasons for leaving their faith, and amused at the lack of any further questioning done about their lifestyle. Almost No one was influenced by Paul’s Epistle and decided to become Christian. Even fewer read Al Ghazali and became Muslim. Why the blind acceptance of the tenants of secularism? Does it leave nothing to be questioned? Or also limit the scope of discussion?
If we don’t believe anymore God doesn’t punish us… our family, friends, and community do.
Those of us lucky enough to heal from the dogma/superstition, shame programming, and grief of realizing all the love in our lives was conditional… start to become whole for the first time.
At a certain point in that healing process we realize we never needed a reason not to believe. That was just the gaslighting.
I'm a Reason #3 guy. I had intellectual / theological doubts. I prayed, studied, talked to others and ... nothing. I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when it all came undone.
I don’t even understand the premise that these people struggling should go to gedolim or great people who have thought about these questions.
Once one person has doubts and doesn’t understand why they should believe, it’s not like there’s a default that they should believe in Judaism. So why go to Gedolim? Why not to Atheist Philosophers? Or Christian ones.
The whole claim of how they should have gone to the smart Jews who know better presupposes that they should also believe that those people have the right answers. Generally, someone struggling with doubt of Judaism also questions that premise that Gedolim know better than other smart people.
The premise is their agenda to keep you in the club. And since they control the narrative… and likely your nervous system (if you were born frum), they have sway with most early stage questioners.
Well the apologetics are the arguments so not sure what you’re after. Did you grow up frum? If you did, these aren’t hypotheses. This is real life. If you didn’t, what are doing in this thread?
I just listened to the podcast episode, and while I respect those who left for other reasons, I believe that I (and many other people I know) have indeed went through the full process he describes as the third option. We have indeed went to the best resources in the Jewish world who are famed for being able to answer 'our questions', and we've found their answers deeply unsatisfactory. Some of us even have records of such discussions or at times 'debates', and we honestly feel that the arguments themselves lead to the conclusions we've made. Just saying
Regarding his other 'options' his basic point is that if judaism is true, any other consideration can't override that obligation. What he fails to not is that the reason why most people believe in the religion to begin with is also due to non-rational reasons, such as religous figures they respect, a desire to live up to their parents values, or becuase it properly anchors them in life. Once these things get shaken some people may abandon religous practice and it is just as rational the reasons why they (and other religous people) have observed judaism from the beginning.
This kind of post is typical of those who struggle to accept that Judaism is neither inherently paradise on earth nor is it all that compelling.
Another crucial point is also overlooked: while it may be true that a disproportionate number of those who leave Judaism have experienced some form of trauma or disillusionment with authority or the like, this does not invalidate their conclusions. In fact, many who remain within the fold do so not because they’ve seriously investigated its truth claims or ethical foundations, but because they’ve never had sufficient reason to question them. Their lives function well enough within the system, and subconscious bias or social indoctrination often keeps deeper inquiry at bay.
By contrast, those who’ve faced hardship or disillusionment are often forced into serious reevaluation, a process that may lead to a more honest, critical, and balanced exploration. Far from being simply reactionary, their decisions to step away from religious belief often come at great personal cost, and reflect deep introspection, not impulsive rebellion.
That said there are two other reasons that people have negative relationships with God.
1) Some form negative views of God simply by engaging seriously with religious texts themselves.
For many thoughtful (and yes, even very learned) readers, the image of God that emerges from the Torah, Talmud, and Midrash is not that of a compassionate, benevolent parent but rather that of an inflexible ruler demanding total compliance with hundreds of detailed and arbitrary laws. The God depicted often issues severe, disproportionate punishments, demands unceasing praise, and presides over narratives involving genocide, suffering, and the suppression of dissent.
Heck, we even sing of him every shabbos as an "El Kana" (a zealous God) and a "God of vengeance" (El Nekamot).
In these cases, a negative relationship with God does not stem from personal trauma or poor authority figures, but from a genuine, intellectually honest engagement with the primary religious texts. It’s not that people are rejecting a distorted image of God they are responding to the image that appears most plainly in the texts themselves.
2. Others simply don’t find belief in God intellectually or philosophically compelling.
Some people have thought deeply about the nature of existence, studied science, read theology, and explored philosophy and have come to the sincere conclusion that there is no compelling evidence for a personal God, let alone the specific God described in traditional Jewish (or any religious) belief. They are not traumatized. They are not angry. They are not “broken.” They simply find the idea that the origin of the universe/first cause/brute-fact is exactly the deity described in their religion to be implausible.
For such individuals, saying “I don’t know what caused the universe” is more intellectually honest than asserting with confidence that it was the specific God described in a single ancient tradition. They don't have a bad relationship with God, they just don’t see reason to believe in Him in the first place.
This may be a universal human response to disagreement:
- I've seen Catholics use the same accusations: "I know you must be angry/have been hurt by the church, but please you can always come home." Christians in general may say "You just want an excuse to do lots of drugs and have one night stands" or "You just didn't have enough faith."
- Politics? Yes! "You just want an excuse to be mean to people" or "You just want to maintain your privilege" or "You just want to control others with big government."
- Recreational drug users: "Oh the people who don't like pot must have had a bad batch" or "Anyone who didn't experience enlightenment from ayahuasca probably didn't have the right 'set and setting'".
- I've even found this in craft beer IPA fans when I say I dislike the bitterness of IPAs! "You just haven't found the right one." (I prefer dark ales)
There seems to be this resistance to believing that someone can disagree with us out of genuine intellectual honesty, conviction or good faith. Perhaps it is easier to dismiss their contrary view as having lazy or unsavory motivations. That way we don't have to entertain their arguments, and hence potentially be challenged by them.
As to Rav Shlomo Zalman and Rav Moshe, being of sterling character, even if the Rabbis he meets are not, people have to deal with the Rabbis and societies available to them in the present. The fact that Ribner had to invoke figures of the past and none of the present is quite telling.
Regarding reason #3, has Ribner "gone" to prominent Jewish academics or seriously engaged with their writings, to find out if the things he believes in could withstand their counter-arguments? Did any of the Torah geniuses he mentions do so? Does he even know what the arguments are?
Instead, he assumes that Rav Moshe Shapiro, Rav Elyashiv, etc seriously engaged these counter-arguments, with no evidence that they ever did, just that they MUST have the answers.
Why do you care what Rabbi Ribner thinks? It used to bother me a lot that my parents were convinced I only left due to religious trauma. But honestly, I've come to accept that they need to tell themselves that because accepting I left just because I don't believe threatens their entire world view.
You say that questions are not embraced and I don't doubt that's true in "standard" yeshivish places. But there are yeshivos with people who do embrace questions and who have great answers. My question is: how many people in your experience look outside their communities for answers? Or go to people in kiruv who are great at addressing questions - both intellectually and personally? There's clearly an (understandable) phenomenon of chasidim going otd from chasidus and never considering that the litvish yeshiva world (or YU world, as the case may be) has none of the problems that drove them away and are great options for them if they care about the truth. How applicable is that here?
"But there are yeshivos with people who do embrace questions and who have great answers"
Which? The only yeshiva I know of that has an intellectually honest cadre of talmidim that Is also science and philosophy aware is Har Etzion - hardly a Chareidi place. There are plenty of people in the Chareidi community that are intellectually honest and claim to have good answers (including me) but you need to find them, as theyre often sidelined in yeshivas.
I said yeshivos "with people" - not yeshivos whose Rabbeim tend to be good atI embracing questions. I learned in Ner Yisrael and, though in my day many Rabbeim (including Rav Yaakov Weinberg who was as good at this as anyone on Earth) were good at this, there were always a number of kollel guys who were both good and readily available and I believe it's that way now to some degree (and there are a few Rabbeim still who, though staying mostly within the standard yeshivish mindset, are far better than anything I hear about from standard Lakewood places). And I know of many people who have learned elsewhere who have had their questions embraced.
"Just a Nobody" (who sounds suspiciously like a somebody to me) is clearly correct, especially considering the cynicism dripping out of your comment (which happens to be completely absent from the sincere voice of the author). Personally, what I gained in my learning from the people I mentioned was an increasingly broad and increasingly deep and eventually increasingly sophisticated appreciation for what Torah is and how it all works, and how it comes to life in truly great people, emailing me to appreciate how challenging questions get appreciated and addressed seriously. In that context, though I've explored many approaches to the mabul and find some more compelling than others, the "answer" does not make a whole lot of difference to me, in that I'll be thrilled to discover it whatever it is - whether it's literal or not or anywhere in between.
As it happens, the mabul is the only question I've ever had that I have not eventually been blown away completely by future discoveries as I explored deeper, as the months and sometimes years passed. Science has quite a few of it's own great unanswered questions but if you learn to be a scientist, you've seen enough about the universe to only be excited about what discovery is around the corner to resolve them. You don't just say ha! a question, and go off the science derech.
The tragedy of this post is that the Torah that has been taught for a while now in so many places has become so narrow that the Rabbeim thrive in their roles with hardly a clue about how vast Torah is and how brilliantly it addresses everything imaginable in this world - if you take the world seriously. My comment was real. If you're in a bad sort of place, find the right place. They're out there.
Here is a response for both of you regarding the Mabul. The Torah states clearly that the תהום opened up and brought the flood. What is this תהום? Clearly, it is not merely the aquifer under the Great Plains. It is related to the תהו of והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על פני תהום. Well, what is that?
This is the problem I sense in the arguments of most of the skeptics - the unwillingness to state openly, "Well, you are right. I don't know".
This is referring to something called the עולם התהו, allusions to which can be found in numerous well-known teachings: "שני אלפים תהו, שני אלפים תורה, שני אלפים ימות המשיח" or "אברהם אבינו הוציא את העולם מן התהו".
I recognize that most people are not prepared to grasp the commentary of the Vilna Ga'on to ספרא דצניעותא, but please be honest (not you, and no one in particular). If we don't really understand the depth, grandeur and perspective of מעשה בראשית as described in the Torah, we have no idea what happened at the Mabul, and are certainly not yet up to reconciling how a narrative that we don't understand can be reconciled within the physical dimensions of modern day science.
That's your interpretation. I am not convinced that that represents the original intention of the text, and I consider it highly anachronistic. The evidence I am aware of suggests that tehom was a well known concept in ANE cosmology, and is the underworld which is the source for the water in the ocean. Genesis 1 is best interpreted as referring to this tehom which permeated existence until light and the earth were formed in the creation narrative, and the flood is based on this cosmological model where the water sources below (tehom) and above (the windows of the heavens) were breached to flood the earth in between.
You can bring deep explanations from the vilna gaon, and trust me, I've spent significant time studying such explanations and I am equally impressed by their depth. It's not that I don't appreciate it or understand it at all. It just still doesn't mean I think it accurately represents the intention of the biblical passages themselves.
"Can you share their *great* answers" was not a quote and it came across as heavily cynical, especially in light of the rest of the comment and considering my point. My point was not that I challenged them and got great answers for everything. It was that in general, they embraced questions, which creates an environment conducive to real learning and comfortable inquiry. If that's what you need, go there. But obviously, if you want to go with a list of questions you intend to effectively weaponize (as your comment sounded) to attack the yeshiva world and score points, you should probably stay home.
Ash, I think this cannot be done. You are trying to reduce the Torah to pat answers to specific questions. But is not the Torah all prophecy, and the Word of G-d, hence, the knowledge of which must be something that is assimilated through a different method?
I think it can be done. Quote easily in fact. I've written numerous articles on it and given multiple shiurim on it. And my answer is not anachronistic. It's that the Torah is coming to rewrite ancient mythology to bring the world closer to monotheism. This fits with the context, era, and goals of the Torah and is consistent with both many rishonim (though they don't claim this outright by the mabul they do in other contexts) and contemporary scholarship.
But my answer is unfortunately considered kefira by many in the yeshiva world. I have a post coming up on this iyh.
Perhaps the better approach is to live a life committed to Torah simply because it is far better to live with unanswered questions which is what a kashia and Teiku tell us from time to time than to propose poor answers that can be easily criticized and ultimately discarded as having little if any possibility of enhancing one’s Avodas HaShem . Recognizing as we see in the words of many Rishonim that we don’t have all the answers would be far more intellectually honest than in pretending that we do . I would note that in RIETS which traces itself back to Volozhin where there was no Mashgiach or Mussar Seder as opposed to Slabodka strongly believes that in depth learning is the way of achieving Avodas HaShem because once you see everything from the point of view of Chazal as opposed to the view of the secular world you slowly realize that Chazal were interested in and discussed every imaginable issue concerning Avodas HaShem both in and out of the Beis Medrash
This is an artificial binary choice. Saying we don’t have the answers feels like giving up - at least start looking. At least ask what “living better” means in a serious way. I’d always prefer a wrong answer that can lead me to a better one, than jumping ship because the questions are hard.
I’m exactly saying that you don’t have to abandon ship, and that the difficulty of a question shouldn’t prompt a reply of “well we’re never going to know the answer, so let’s just ignore the question and live the lives we enjoy (religious, irreligious no difference)
There's great value in the mental freedom that comes from getting away from ridiculous ideas that lack any evidence. Not to mention the restrictions and social control that Orthodox Judaism requires. The fact that the mind is free to explore any idea and not constrain oneself in an artificial box most likely created by simple and barbaric human beings is quite valuable. My mental health has improved greatly by realizing that I'm not trying to satisfy some being that I've seen no evidence that they exist and if they do that they care about me.
There is a well known Teshuvah of the Nodah BiYehudah in response to an inquiry by someone who committed a grave transgression and wanted guidance.The Nodah BiYehudah rejected a Seder in the then extant Sifrei Mussar comparing such a Seder to a house of cards and advised his correspondent to do Teshuvah The CI on Emunah UBitachon clearly champions in depth Limud HaTorah and knowing what the Halacha mandates as the basis for all of Jewish philosophy in a way that my Rav a CC musmach who did Shimush by RMF and R Elyashiv ZL calmed very similar to Halachic Man of RYBS and which clearly rejected the approach of the Baalei Musar in their view on this issue and also very critically on the definition of Bitachon
A few points.
As a therapist who often works with this demographic, my experience is that most that leave had toxic authority figures or trauma.
This is by no means to say that my experience is reflective of the statistical reality and I am sure there are a lot of people that leave for intellectual reasons.
That being said, I think you are minimizing the amount of people that DO leave because of toxic authority figures because you feel that that label has been used to discredit any intellectually honest OTDers.
It is quite hard to have a healthy relationship with G-d if all of your earthly representations of authority are toxic, punitive and controlling.
As far as Reb Gershon Ribner, I honestly do not know him but if you are right about his children going off the derech then maybe we should have compassion for his sentiments as they very well can be sourced in pain just like we should have compassion for those that have left.
status and labels aside...pain is pain.
I hope this does not come across as offensive and I am sorry for the pain you have been through.
Not offensive at all. I really appreciate you taking the time to engage.
I agree that toxic authority figures and trauma are deeply significant, and I don’t mean to dismiss or minimize that at all. But I do wonder - do you know anyone who hasn’t been exposed to some version of that in our world? I think those experiences are, sadly, near-universal among frum adults, particularly in places like Lakewood.
So while it's true that many people who leave have encountered trauma or unhealthy authority, I’m not sure that fact tells us much about causality. It may just reflect a shared background, not a decisive reason for leaving.
In my experience, those who walk away tend to be thoughtful, sincere, and deeply curious. People who feel things strongly. People who care about truth. And maybe that sensitivity makes them more vulnerable to pain, more attuned to dissonance. But even then, the pain isn’t the thing that makes them leave - it’s the crack that lets the questions in.
And once the questions arrive, what happens next is usually not about trauma at all. It’s about honesty.
I pretty much agree with everything said here.
Sensitivity, trauma and questions are almost always present and it's pretty hard to figure out what is the prime cause and what is secondary.
However, I have seen that healing the trauma often leads to a return to observance, making me believe that in those cases, trauma is the prime cause
"I think those experiences are, sadly, near-universal among frum adults, particularly in places like Lakewood."
I'd like to think the numbers are going down but it's still shockingly prevalent. If you can tell that's kind of the main focus of my blog recently.
"the pain isn’t the thing that makes them leave - it’s the crack that lets the questions in."
I'd say more. There is definitely a parallel universe in where I would have gone otd due to my questions. My healthy family life led me to find what I think are intellectually honest answers - after a whole lot of trying. Had I not had the strong pull to stay in, I would have given up long ago and gone off.
https://nishmaresearch.com/assets/pdf/Report_Survey_of_Those_Who_Left_Orthodoxy_Nishma_Research_June_2016.pdf
I’m a psychologist and have met many in this position who do not have significant trauma histories or poor experiences with frum leadership. And the research does in fact reflect intellectual reasons being reported as a reason to leave significantly more than corrupt authority figures. See figure on page 6
interesting...I will look at this. Thanks for sharing
Wow!
That is a real comprehensive study, but it is a bit dated. I would speculate that the numbers of openly OTD and ITC are much higher than in 2016
Agreed. There are many more research studies done since then but not sure if there is updated quantitative data, I’ll take a look. There is a study from 11/2023 that identifies intellectual reasons and doubting god as primary reasons for leaving OJ for over 700 participants. I emailed the author for access. You can type in key words to Google scholar and read interesting abstracts to keep up with research more topically!
I have YU library access...can you tell me the name of the study
Ok, impossible to object to any fact major claims made here. Your point about questioning the sincerity of the questioner and attribution of insincere motives the strongest among them. However, I tend to be a bit disappointed in people’s reasons for leaving their faith, and amused at the lack of any further questioning done about their lifestyle. Almost No one was influenced by Paul’s Epistle and decided to become Christian. Even fewer read Al Ghazali and became Muslim. Why the blind acceptance of the tenants of secularism? Does it leave nothing to be questioned? Or also limit the scope of discussion?
If we don’t believe anymore God doesn’t punish us… our family, friends, and community do.
Those of us lucky enough to heal from the dogma/superstition, shame programming, and grief of realizing all the love in our lives was conditional… start to become whole for the first time.
At a certain point in that healing process we realize we never needed a reason not to believe. That was just the gaslighting.
This is when life begins.
I'm a Reason #3 guy. I had intellectual / theological doubts. I prayed, studied, talked to others and ... nothing. I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when it all came undone.
I don’t even understand the premise that these people struggling should go to gedolim or great people who have thought about these questions.
Once one person has doubts and doesn’t understand why they should believe, it’s not like there’s a default that they should believe in Judaism. So why go to Gedolim? Why not to Atheist Philosophers? Or Christian ones.
The whole claim of how they should have gone to the smart Jews who know better presupposes that they should also believe that those people have the right answers. Generally, someone struggling with doubt of Judaism also questions that premise that Gedolim know better than other smart people.
The premise is their agenda to keep you in the club. And since they control the narrative… and likely your nervous system (if you were born frum), they have sway with most early stage questioners.
I’m more interested in what they think the argument is. Not really interested in hearing hypotheses about their motives.
I mean it’s faith. It’s not based on arguments. It’s based on belief. But if you want to know their apologetics, just look at Aish Hatorah’s stuff.
I am not interested in a list of apologetics.
You say it’s faith, but this is an argument put forth. And I’m trying to understand this specific one because it came up in this post.
I don’t care about hypotheses about why they believe or think I should believe. I’m interested in understanding the arguments they are saying.
Well the apologetics are the arguments so not sure what you’re after. Did you grow up frum? If you did, these aren’t hypotheses. This is real life. If you didn’t, what are doing in this thread?
I meant I’m not interested in random apologetic questions.
I’m interested in under specific arguments that are mentioned that peak my interest. Like this ones
I was frum and now orthoprax.
What are you referring to when you say “it’s real life” and not a hypothesis?
I just listened to the podcast episode, and while I respect those who left for other reasons, I believe that I (and many other people I know) have indeed went through the full process he describes as the third option. We have indeed went to the best resources in the Jewish world who are famed for being able to answer 'our questions', and we've found their answers deeply unsatisfactory. Some of us even have records of such discussions or at times 'debates', and we honestly feel that the arguments themselves lead to the conclusions we've made. Just saying
Regarding his other 'options' his basic point is that if judaism is true, any other consideration can't override that obligation. What he fails to not is that the reason why most people believe in the religion to begin with is also due to non-rational reasons, such as religous figures they respect, a desire to live up to their parents values, or becuase it properly anchors them in life. Once these things get shaken some people may abandon religous practice and it is just as rational the reasons why they (and other religous people) have observed judaism from the beginning.
I think it is appropriate to post my response to I had to a similar view to Ribner's written on https://substack.com/@vitalistjew:
This kind of post is typical of those who struggle to accept that Judaism is neither inherently paradise on earth nor is it all that compelling.
Another crucial point is also overlooked: while it may be true that a disproportionate number of those who leave Judaism have experienced some form of trauma or disillusionment with authority or the like, this does not invalidate their conclusions. In fact, many who remain within the fold do so not because they’ve seriously investigated its truth claims or ethical foundations, but because they’ve never had sufficient reason to question them. Their lives function well enough within the system, and subconscious bias or social indoctrination often keeps deeper inquiry at bay.
By contrast, those who’ve faced hardship or disillusionment are often forced into serious reevaluation, a process that may lead to a more honest, critical, and balanced exploration. Far from being simply reactionary, their decisions to step away from religious belief often come at great personal cost, and reflect deep introspection, not impulsive rebellion.
That said there are two other reasons that people have negative relationships with God.
1) Some form negative views of God simply by engaging seriously with religious texts themselves.
For many thoughtful (and yes, even very learned) readers, the image of God that emerges from the Torah, Talmud, and Midrash is not that of a compassionate, benevolent parent but rather that of an inflexible ruler demanding total compliance with hundreds of detailed and arbitrary laws. The God depicted often issues severe, disproportionate punishments, demands unceasing praise, and presides over narratives involving genocide, suffering, and the suppression of dissent.
Heck, we even sing of him every shabbos as an "El Kana" (a zealous God) and a "God of vengeance" (El Nekamot).
In these cases, a negative relationship with God does not stem from personal trauma or poor authority figures, but from a genuine, intellectually honest engagement with the primary religious texts. It’s not that people are rejecting a distorted image of God they are responding to the image that appears most plainly in the texts themselves.
2. Others simply don’t find belief in God intellectually or philosophically compelling.
Some people have thought deeply about the nature of existence, studied science, read theology, and explored philosophy and have come to the sincere conclusion that there is no compelling evidence for a personal God, let alone the specific God described in traditional Jewish (or any religious) belief. They are not traumatized. They are not angry. They are not “broken.” They simply find the idea that the origin of the universe/first cause/brute-fact is exactly the deity described in their religion to be implausible.
For such individuals, saying “I don’t know what caused the universe” is more intellectually honest than asserting with confidence that it was the specific God described in a single ancient tradition. They don't have a bad relationship with God, they just don’t see reason to believe in Him in the first place.
Exceptionally well put
This may be a universal human response to disagreement:
- I've seen Catholics use the same accusations: "I know you must be angry/have been hurt by the church, but please you can always come home." Christians in general may say "You just want an excuse to do lots of drugs and have one night stands" or "You just didn't have enough faith."
- Politics? Yes! "You just want an excuse to be mean to people" or "You just want to maintain your privilege" or "You just want to control others with big government."
- Recreational drug users: "Oh the people who don't like pot must have had a bad batch" or "Anyone who didn't experience enlightenment from ayahuasca probably didn't have the right 'set and setting'".
- I've even found this in craft beer IPA fans when I say I dislike the bitterness of IPAs! "You just haven't found the right one." (I prefer dark ales)
There seems to be this resistance to believing that someone can disagree with us out of genuine intellectual honesty, conviction or good faith. Perhaps it is easier to dismiss their contrary view as having lazy or unsavory motivations. That way we don't have to entertain their arguments, and hence potentially be challenged by them.
As to Rav Shlomo Zalman and Rav Moshe, being of sterling character, even if the Rabbis he meets are not, people have to deal with the Rabbis and societies available to them in the present. The fact that Ribner had to invoke figures of the past and none of the present is quite telling.
Regarding reason #3, has Ribner "gone" to prominent Jewish academics or seriously engaged with their writings, to find out if the things he believes in could withstand their counter-arguments? Did any of the Torah geniuses he mentions do so? Does he even know what the arguments are?
Instead, he assumes that Rav Moshe Shapiro, Rav Elyashiv, etc seriously engaged these counter-arguments, with no evidence that they ever did, just that they MUST have the answers.
Why do you care what Rabbi Ribner thinks? It used to bother me a lot that my parents were convinced I only left due to religious trauma. But honestly, I've come to accept that they need to tell themselves that because accepting I left just because I don't believe threatens their entire world view.
You say that questions are not embraced and I don't doubt that's true in "standard" yeshivish places. But there are yeshivos with people who do embrace questions and who have great answers. My question is: how many people in your experience look outside their communities for answers? Or go to people in kiruv who are great at addressing questions - both intellectually and personally? There's clearly an (understandable) phenomenon of chasidim going otd from chasidus and never considering that the litvish yeshiva world (or YU world, as the case may be) has none of the problems that drove them away and are great options for them if they care about the truth. How applicable is that here?
"But there are yeshivos with people who do embrace questions and who have great answers"
Which? The only yeshiva I know of that has an intellectually honest cadre of talmidim that Is also science and philosophy aware is Har Etzion - hardly a Chareidi place. There are plenty of people in the Chareidi community that are intellectually honest and claim to have good answers (including me) but you need to find them, as theyre often sidelined in yeshivas.
I said yeshivos "with people" - not yeshivos whose Rabbeim tend to be good atI embracing questions. I learned in Ner Yisrael and, though in my day many Rabbeim (including Rav Yaakov Weinberg who was as good at this as anyone on Earth) were good at this, there were always a number of kollel guys who were both good and readily available and I believe it's that way now to some degree (and there are a few Rabbeim still who, though staying mostly within the standard yeshivish mindset, are far better than anything I hear about from standard Lakewood places). And I know of many people who have learned elsewhere who have had their questions embraced.
Can you share their great answers? Say regarding the historicity or lack thereof of the mabul?
"Just a Nobody" (who sounds suspiciously like a somebody to me) is clearly correct, especially considering the cynicism dripping out of your comment (which happens to be completely absent from the sincere voice of the author). Personally, what I gained in my learning from the people I mentioned was an increasingly broad and increasingly deep and eventually increasingly sophisticated appreciation for what Torah is and how it all works, and how it comes to life in truly great people, emailing me to appreciate how challenging questions get appreciated and addressed seriously. In that context, though I've explored many approaches to the mabul and find some more compelling than others, the "answer" does not make a whole lot of difference to me, in that I'll be thrilled to discover it whatever it is - whether it's literal or not or anywhere in between.
As it happens, the mabul is the only question I've ever had that I have not eventually been blown away completely by future discoveries as I explored deeper, as the months and sometimes years passed. Science has quite a few of it's own great unanswered questions but if you learn to be a scientist, you've seen enough about the universe to only be excited about what discovery is around the corner to resolve them. You don't just say ha! a question, and go off the science derech.
The tragedy of this post is that the Torah that has been taught for a while now in so many places has become so narrow that the Rabbeim thrive in their roles with hardly a clue about how vast Torah is and how brilliantly it addresses everything imaginable in this world - if you take the world seriously. My comment was real. If you're in a bad sort of place, find the right place. They're out there.
Here is a response for both of you regarding the Mabul. The Torah states clearly that the תהום opened up and brought the flood. What is this תהום? Clearly, it is not merely the aquifer under the Great Plains. It is related to the תהו of והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על פני תהום. Well, what is that?
This is the problem I sense in the arguments of most of the skeptics - the unwillingness to state openly, "Well, you are right. I don't know".
This is referring to something called the עולם התהו, allusions to which can be found in numerous well-known teachings: "שני אלפים תהו, שני אלפים תורה, שני אלפים ימות המשיח" or "אברהם אבינו הוציא את העולם מן התהו".
I recognize that most people are not prepared to grasp the commentary of the Vilna Ga'on to ספרא דצניעותא, but please be honest (not you, and no one in particular). If we don't really understand the depth, grandeur and perspective of מעשה בראשית as described in the Torah, we have no idea what happened at the Mabul, and are certainly not yet up to reconciling how a narrative that we don't understand can be reconciled within the physical dimensions of modern day science.
That's your interpretation. I am not convinced that that represents the original intention of the text, and I consider it highly anachronistic. The evidence I am aware of suggests that tehom was a well known concept in ANE cosmology, and is the underworld which is the source for the water in the ocean. Genesis 1 is best interpreted as referring to this tehom which permeated existence until light and the earth were formed in the creation narrative, and the flood is based on this cosmological model where the water sources below (tehom) and above (the windows of the heavens) were breached to flood the earth in between.
You can bring deep explanations from the vilna gaon, and trust me, I've spent significant time studying such explanations and I am equally impressed by their depth. It's not that I don't appreciate it or understand it at all. It just still doesn't mean I think it accurately represents the intention of the biblical passages themselves.
"cynicism dripping out of your comment"
I'm not sure why you say that, considering I am quoting you.
"Can you share their *great* answers" was not a quote and it came across as heavily cynical, especially in light of the rest of the comment and considering my point. My point was not that I challenged them and got great answers for everything. It was that in general, they embraced questions, which creates an environment conducive to real learning and comfortable inquiry. If that's what you need, go there. But obviously, if you want to go with a list of questions you intend to effectively weaponize (as your comment sounded) to attack the yeshiva world and score points, you should probably stay home.
Ash, I think this cannot be done. You are trying to reduce the Torah to pat answers to specific questions. But is not the Torah all prophecy, and the Word of G-d, hence, the knowledge of which must be something that is assimilated through a different method?
I think it can be done. Quote easily in fact. I've written numerous articles on it and given multiple shiurim on it. And my answer is not anachronistic. It's that the Torah is coming to rewrite ancient mythology to bring the world closer to monotheism. This fits with the context, era, and goals of the Torah and is consistent with both many rishonim (though they don't claim this outright by the mabul they do in other contexts) and contemporary scholarship.
But my answer is unfortunately considered kefira by many in the yeshiva world. I have a post coming up on this iyh.
Can you provide examples of Rishonim understanding tanach as countermyth?
Here is what some people think of Kiruv guys.
https://www.reddit.com/r/exjew/comments/1li4hyb/is_being_a_kiruv_rabbidoing_kiruv_a_predictor_for/
Well stated piece. Open mindedness is uncommon in frumkeit, except possibly those in kiruv. It is by definition a closed society.
“Yeshivas don’t teach you to think. They teach you to obey. Inquiry is punished - and then the inquirer is blamed for not trying hard enough.”
….which religion does this sound like? (That very clever statement could potentially explain some of the criticisms leveled)
Ribner has two otd sons, which may explain 1.
Perhaps the better approach is to live a life committed to Torah simply because it is far better to live with unanswered questions which is what a kashia and Teiku tell us from time to time than to propose poor answers that can be easily criticized and ultimately discarded as having little if any possibility of enhancing one’s Avodas HaShem . Recognizing as we see in the words of many Rishonim that we don’t have all the answers would be far more intellectually honest than in pretending that we do . I would note that in RIETS which traces itself back to Volozhin where there was no Mashgiach or Mussar Seder as opposed to Slabodka strongly believes that in depth learning is the way of achieving Avodas HaShem because once you see everything from the point of view of Chazal as opposed to the view of the secular world you slowly realize that Chazal were interested in and discussed every imaginable issue concerning Avodas HaShem both in and out of the Beis Medrash
This is an artificial binary choice. Saying we don’t have the answers feels like giving up - at least start looking. At least ask what “living better” means in a serious way. I’d always prefer a wrong answer that can lead me to a better one, than jumping ship because the questions are hard.
Who says you have to jump ship? Far greater people than you have lived without answers to all of their questions
I’m exactly saying that you don’t have to abandon ship, and that the difficulty of a question shouldn’t prompt a reply of “well we’re never going to know the answer, so let’s just ignore the question and live the lives we enjoy (religious, irreligious no difference)
There's great value in the mental freedom that comes from getting away from ridiculous ideas that lack any evidence. Not to mention the restrictions and social control that Orthodox Judaism requires. The fact that the mind is free to explore any idea and not constrain oneself in an artificial box most likely created by simple and barbaric human beings is quite valuable. My mental health has improved greatly by realizing that I'm not trying to satisfy some being that I've seen no evidence that they exist and if they do that they care about me.
There is a well known Teshuvah of the Nodah BiYehudah in response to an inquiry by someone who committed a grave transgression and wanted guidance.The Nodah BiYehudah rejected a Seder in the then extant Sifrei Mussar comparing such a Seder to a house of cards and advised his correspondent to do Teshuvah The CI on Emunah UBitachon clearly champions in depth Limud HaTorah and knowing what the Halacha mandates as the basis for all of Jewish philosophy in a way that my Rav a CC musmach who did Shimush by RMF and R Elyashiv ZL calmed very similar to Halachic Man of RYBS and which clearly rejected the approach of the Baalei Musar in their view on this issue and also very critically on the definition of Bitachon
Ribner is a total joke
Somewhat apropos, I think, is my latest post:
https://dovidykornreich.substack.com/p/talmudic-psi-phenomena-trust-but