Judaism has several axioms, called
ikkarei emunah. Rejecting these axioms puts one into the category of heretic. Yet there are few of them. There are many other beliefs in Judaism, and someone who rejects any of those
might be grievously
wrong, and an
idiot, but not necessarily a
heretic. This despite how these beliefs have always had, or have gained over time, common acceptance, including among great rabbis. The
Rambam says that there is no
pesak in
hashkafa, which would compel one to follow the majority or precedent. E.g:
וכבר אמרתי פעמים רבות כשיש מח' בין החכמים בסברת אמונה אין תכליתו מעשה מן המעשים שאין אומרים שם הלכה כפלוני
As I already wrote many times when there is a dispute between the chachamim on a matter of faith that has no relevance to action we don''t say the hakacha is like Ploni.
And indeed, it seems that he argued with Chazal in certain theological matters, such as in the existence of
sheidim or about the
precise nature of Divine providence.
Yet in a theological debate, there is great temptation to turn one's
frum position into an
ikkar, an axiom. That way, you are automatically right; no one can question the foundations of the axiom, and you are not forced to grapple with its foundations yourself. Furthermore, your disputant need not be engaged. He is a heretic for daring to say this, and one should not engage with a heretic! And proof that he is an
oisvorf whose words and proofs should not be considered is this position he is putting forth.
Thus, as an example, the belief in the integrity of the transmission of the Oral Torah is
expanded to include the integrity of the Zohar, despite it being revealed / having been invented in the 13th century. If someone argues that this is not part of Oral Torah, and has proofs of late authorship, this should not be considered. After all, he is a heretic, according to Rambam! This even though Rambam did not agree with certain kabbalistic beliefs and considered them nonsense.
One way of expanding the axioms of Judaism is via appeal to authority, combined with the idea of
makchish maggideha. Thus, for example,
Rav Tzadok Hakohen writes:
וכבר מפורסם אצל כל ישראל דברי חז"ל וכל קדושים מחכמי האמת, עניני מעשה מרכבה מה הם. [ואין צורך להשיב כאן על דברי המתפלספים הקדמונים, בפירוש מעשה מרכבה (גם כן) שהוא בהשגת חקירות הפילוסופים בחכמת הטבע ושלאחר הטבע, שכבר תמהו עליהם חכמי הדורות דאם כן כבר נגלו לקטני אומות העולם המסתכלים בספרי חכמיהם, יותר ממה שנתגלה לגדולי הנביאים ברמזים וחידות: ואין צורך להאריך מזה לכשרי ישראל עתה שנתפרסמה חכמת האמת בעולם, מוסכם בפי כל חכמי ישראל האמיתים. וכל הכופר בה הוא מכלל האפיקורסים, וכמו שיתבאר במצות לא תסור, וכמו שכתב בתשובות הב"ח הישנות (סימן ה') דהמלעיג על דברי חכמים ומדבר דופי על חכמת הקבלה, שהיא מקור התורה ועיקרה וכולה יראת שמים, פשיטא דאין לך מזלזל בדברי חכמים גדול מזה שחייב נידוי, עיין שם]:
Rabbinic consensus, such that an idea is
muskam befi kol chachmei yisrael ha'amitim {=true Scotsmen}, creates a new axiom, such that one who argues upon it is a heretic, because he is mocking the words of the
chachamim. Thus, according to this, there
is pesak in
hashkafah. This is, in effect, using
makchish magideha to make rabbinic consensus into
pesak and into an ikkar.
Yet I don't think Rambam held this, as he held that there is no such thing as demons, or real magic.This despite Chazal maintaining the existence of each of these. And despite widespread contemporary rabbinic consensus that certain impossible midrashim were absolutely literal, Rambam maintained that they were allegorical, and considered those who thought otherwise to be fools.
Similarly, there is a rather silly "debate" raging at
Rationalist Judaism, in which someone is arguing that one
cannot say that Rambam was influenced by Greek philosophy which moved him from the
masorah -- despite that this is what some of the most prominent Rishonim and Acharonim indeed say -- because that would be
makchish magideha.
What about belief in
dybbuks? There is indeed some precedent in early Jewish sources for demonic possession, or possession by an evil spirit, though this is not necessarily the same as modern
dybbuks. But suppose I follow Rav Saadia Gaon and don't think
dybbuks are real. Am I a
kofer, because this is a widespread Jewish belief among chareidi rabbonim and rabbonim in general in recent generations past? Since the Chofetz Chaim (purportedly, or thought he) saw a
dybbuk, and the Gra saw a
dybbuk, by saying that
dybbuks are not real, would I be
makchish magideha?
It gets better than that. Forget general belief in
dybbuks, which can take us on several tangents. I will grant the reality of
dybbuks in the
general case. What about in the particular case? Let us say several prominent chareidi rabbis, dubbed Gedolim, attest to the reality of a
particular dybbuk. What if I then say that this is likely, or certainly no dybbuk, and that the fellow needs the assistance of a psychologist or psychiatrist? Am I a kofer for saying this?
I would assert that I am not, and that to claim otherwise is
hashkafic overreach.
Let us consider the case of the present-day
dybbuk. I will cite Rabbi Shternbuch, but we should not
hide behind Rabbi Shternbuch. As the
Daat Torah blog puts it:
I showed Rav Sternbuch various press releases which asserted that he had placed the Brazilian dybuk in niddoi to protect R Batzri. He categorically denied the story. He added this is not a case of a dybuk but of mental illness. He expressed dismay that thousands of people believed that this was a dybuk and were involved with R Batzri's ceremony. He urged me to please write an article regarding his denial and emphasized the urgency to publicize his denial of involvment with the proclamation of nidoi and that he viewed this is a case of mental illness.
Thus, we can simply say that we are relying on Rabbi Sternbuch. And I've heard some people say this, thus holding like one legitimate side in a
machlokes. But that is not all that Rav Sternbuch said, that this was a case of mental illness. Rather,
He expressed dismay that thousands of people believed that this was a dybuk and were involved with R Batzri's ceremony.
Why should he be
dismayed at these thousands of people believing it. After all, at the time, no prominent rabbinic authority came out to say that it was mental illness. Rav Shternbuch only spoke up because of the nonsense attributed to him. So any random person of those thousand -- how could they
not think that it was a
dybbuk? What permission did they have to think for themselves, when other Gedolim had spoken in its favor? The answer is that people
can and
may think for themselves, and they should not be gullible and superstitious fools. When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. And the horses in this case, for non-superstitious, sane people, is mental illness rather than evil ghostly possession. So think it is not a dybbuk, but
think. And think so
before Rav Sternbuch has to say it.
But before Rav Sternbuch said it was mental illness, various Gedolim (purportedly) went on record that it was an actual
dybbuk. And this made it difficult and awkward for the more rational among us to assert it was mental illness.
Which Gedolim? Well, there is
Rav Chaim Kanievsky and Rav Shteinman:
The community rav was notified, and he contacted HaGaon HaRav Chaim Kanievsky Shlita, with whom he maintains contact. Rav Chaim was briefed at length, leading to many questions, until he began probing seforim, ultimately announcing “this is a real dibuk”. Rav Chaim explained that the Chafetz Chaim and the Chazon Ish knew how to expel a dibuk, but in our generation, there is only one man, sending them to Maran HaGaon HaRav Aaron Leib Shteinman Shlita. “Tell him that by all the signs, this is a genuine dibuk. Perhaps he will know what to do,” Rav Chaim is quoted as saying.
Rav Shteinman also probed and questioned, as well as investigating in seforim, coming to the same conclusion, adding there is a man in Yerushalayim by the name of Rav Batzri who knows how to remove a dibuk, and “perhaps he will know what to do”.
Thus, for a non-Gadol to say that it was no dybbuk would be to argue on the Gedolim. Which we certainly
can and may do, though people think we may not, and that to do so is a breach of Emunas Chachamim.
I would assert that this was also the reason that the dybbuk
made the Gadol-tour upon arriving in Eretz Yisrael:
The Yid was brought to Eretz Yisroel over the last few days. He visited the homes of various rabbonim and gedolim, including Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman, Rav Chaim Kanievsky, Rav Levi Rabinowitz (author of Madanei Hashulchan), Rav Yaakov Meir Schechter, Rav Zundel Kroizer and the Amshinover Rebbe. The visits to the gedolim were arranged at the recommendation of Rav Batzri, who said that prior to the attempt to banish the dybbuk, the Yid should visit gedolei Torah and get brachos from them.
That is, though the purported reason was to get
brachos from them, I would guess that Rav Batzri's reason was to effectively get the
haskamos of all these Gedolim, such that their followers would be forced to concede the reality of the dybbuk, and not assert that it was a hoax, just as the woman from Dimona with the dybbuk about 10 years ago confessed, after Rav Batzri performed a well-publicized exorcism. Though that is my jaded suspicion, rather than something provable. I think that was also why the false report about Rav Shternbuch putting the
dybbuk in niddui surfaced.
Must we give way to the determinations of Rav Kanievsky and Rav Shteinman (even where they did not see the person, just as Rav Shternbuch did not see the person)? It is either
dybbuk, mental disorder, or hoax. Can they tell the difference?
Catholics also believe in demonic possession and exorcism. See
here. To cite:
This widespread explosion of interest in exorcism was confirmed by aWashington Post article (Feb. 10, 2008) titled "Exorcism makes a comeback in Europe: Citing modern ills, hundreds of priests have trained to expel the devil." In that anachronistic news report, a Catholic priest in Poland routinely conducting twenty exorcisms per week explains, " ' there is a group of people who cannot get relief through any other practices and who need peace.' " Another priest who holds a doctorate in theology and serves as the resident exorcist at a psychological counseling center outside Warsaw, states that "the institute realized they needed an exorcist on staff after encountering an increase in people plagued by evil.' " The article notes that, in keeping with current Vatican policy, exorcists regularly consult with psychologists and psychiatrists in an effort to differentiate mental disorders from bona fide demonic possession.
That is, they believe in
demonic possession, but they also acknowledge mental disorder as a possibility. And, believing in New Testament UMadda, they will consult with psychologists and psychiatrists in order to differentiate the two.
Did Rav Kanievsky or Rav Shteinman consult with psychologists of psychiatrists? Nope. According to the report, they relied on a second-hand description, and consulted
sefarim. There are probably particular signs in such
sefarim, but I do not think that Rav Kanievsky or Rav Shteinman are equipped to recognize mental or emotional disorders as well as a trained psychologist.
That is right. I do not think that either of these two rabbis are infallible when it comes to topics touching on science. That is why Rav Kanievsky had to look at a grasshopper up close in order to understand matters pertaining to
chagavim. (A good thing, BTW, though I don't think that story has been
really proven true, despite Rav Kanievsky's first-hand statements. I'll have to explain in another post, how what Rav Kanievsky said in that interview is
not at all what was reported, and how there are important differences.) That is why
Rav Kanievsky thinks Jews differ from gentiles in number of teeth, and that an anti-Semitic dentist in the US counts his patients' teeth, and will not work if there are 32. (And that was
after consulting someone he thought was an expert!) And that is why Rav Shteinman was unable to understand just why facilitated communication for autistics is
nonsense in many or most cases, and supported it as a real phenomenon, with disastrous results. Unless they actually consulted experts on the matter, I would not grant much credence to these Gedolim's diagnosis. Nor to the other Gedolim on the Gadol-tour.
Now, it is unclear that Rav Kanievsky and Rav Shteinman actually said it, even though people were leveraging their approbations to frumly shut up any dissent. For example, this comment:
R’ chaim Kanievsky And R’ Yehuda Leib Shteinman both said that he should go to R’ Dovid Batzri. That implies that they know he’s legitimate and not one who can be fooled into thinking that anyone can say there’s a dibuk. Why, then, are many suggesting that this is a hoax?
I saw a comment, which I cannot track down at the moment, asserting (after the failed exorcism) knowledge that Rav Kanievsky and Rav Shteinman just referred them to Rav Batzri, but did
not confirm that it was a
dybbuk. And more than that, based on an article in the Hebrew Mishpacha magazine, Yachdus now
reports that:
Rav Chaim Kanievsky has dismissed it as a mental case
I don't know whether that means that he changed his mind as more information came to light, or whether his support was fabricated in the first place.
2010appeared to him. The Tzaddik Kadosh Elyon told my husband that all the prayers I prayed at his Tzion for all the people around the world, including my personal prayers, reached him.
