Forget about "Chakira vs.Emunah P'shuta" for a minute. This is for everyone.

Interesting post which reminded me of how I first got interested in the world of Kiruv about two decades ago.
See here
How many frum people do you know of who have asked themselves those questions and look for source-based answers?
Reminds me of Hashkafa Summer Camp!

Maybe you're just a fellow kofer b'ikkar...(or more likely, just woefully ill-informed of the truth)

I couldn't resist responding to this comment on "Rationalist Judaism"

"I just finished reading The Challenge of Creation. Here's what I have to say about it.

Maybe I'm just a fellow kofer b'ikkar but I couldn't for the life of me so what is wrong with the book. Really.

I mean, for example, look at Modern Orthodoxy. I often refer to their thinking as heter-hunting. You know, find a lone opinion somewhere that agrees with what you're thinking and go with it, to the exclusion of all competing opinions. They can't tell you why they're ignoring those other opinions and ascribing definitive authority to this sole opinion save because they agree with it. And this isn't the halachic methodology. You have to not only pick an opinion but justify why you didn't go with the others.

And in your book it seems you do just that. You are a very methodological person in addition to your brilliance. For each of your concepts you clearly first bring supporting opinions, not just one but a number of them, not poorly known authorities but all-time gedolim. Then you review the opinions that might oppose your point of view and show how these are not applicable to your particular case. In other words, exactly the halachic methodology that one should use in such a case.

So again, I just don't get it. You don't say anything that isn't amply supported by a wealth of halachic and haskafic positions. You don't deny any principles of Torah at any point."

Here we have an example of someone who has been innocently misled by Rabbi Slifkin's gifted, brilliant presentation of quotations and opinions in support of his approaches. It happens to be the same dishonest technique that creationists are accused of when citing evolutionists. It's called "quote-mining".

In addition to the posts which deal directly with a small number of Rabbi Slifkin's distortions of the major sources he cites for support, there is a more blatant issue of Rabbi Slifkin's use of heretic authors when trying to discern the theological lessons of the Torah.

In chapters 15 &16, Rabbi Slifkin liberally cites non-Orthodox and even non-Jewish scholars such as Sir John Eccles ("A Divine Design: Some Questions on Origins"), Nahum Sarna ("Understanding Genesis"), Henri Frankfort ("Myth and Reality" in "Before Philosophy"), Leon Kass ('The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis") and Leon Strauss ("On the Interpretation of Genesis").
Not about science-- but about the original meaning of the Torah's narrative -- contra to Chazal, rishonim and achronim. In other words, Rabbi Slifkin's treatment of Bereishis brings us to the conclusion that all of Jewish tradition completely missed the boat regarding the true message of Genesis, and that these 20th century non-Orthodox/non-Jewish scholars understood the true intent behind the seemingly historical account of creation in the Torah better.

What makes this approach to the Torah so controversial (if it isn't obvious already) is the straightforward position of the Talmud cited as halachicly definitive by prominent rishonim.
First is the Mishna in Sanhedrin Perek Chelek with the gemara's comment:

ואלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא האומר אין תחיית המתים מן התורה ואין תורה מן השמים ואפיקורוס רבי עקיבא אומר אף הקורא בספרים החיצונים

רבי עקיבא אומר אף הקורא בספרים החיצונים וכו' תנא בספרי מינים

See the Rif's additional comment to this definition of סיפרי מינים.

Second is the Gemera Shabbos דף עה:

אמר רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב המותח חוט של תפירה בשבת חייב חטאת והלומד דבר אחד מן המגוש חייב מיתה והיודע לחשב תקופות ומזלות ואינו חושב אסור לספר הימנו
מגושתא רב ושמואל חד אמר חרשי וחד אמר גדופי תסתיים דרב דאמר גדופי דאמר רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב הלומד דבר אחד מן המגוש חייב מיתה דאי סלקא דעתך חרשי הכתיב +דברים יח+ לא תלמד לעשות אבל אתה למד להבין ולהורות תסתיים

See the HaGaos Ashrei's additional comment to this gemara which is identical to the Rif's above.

Thirdly we have the story of Rabi Eliezer Hagadol in Avodah Zara דף טז

ת"ר כשנתפס ר"א למינות העלהו לגרדום לידון אמר לו אותו הגמון זקן שכמותך יעסוק בדברים בטלים הללו אמר לו נאמן עלי הדיין כסבור אותו הגמון עליו הוא אומר והוא לא אמר אלא כנגד אביו שבשמים אמר לו הואיל והאמנתי עליך דימוס פטור אתה כשבא לביתו נכנסו תלמידיו אצלו לנחמו ולא קיבל עליו תנחומין אמר לו ר"ע רבי תרשיני לומר דבר אחד ממה שלימדתני אמר לו אמור אמר לו רבי שמא מינות בא לידך והנאך ועליו נתפסת אמר לו עקיבא הזכרתני פעם אחת הייתי מהלך בשוק העליון של ציפורי ומצאתי אחד ויעקב איש כפר סכניא שמו אמר לי כתוב בתורתכם +דברים כג+ לא תביא אתנן זונה [וגו'] מהו לעשות הימנו בהכ"ס לכ"ג ולא אמרתי לו כלום אמר לי כך לימדני +מיכה א+ [כי] מאתנן זונה קבצה ועד אתנן זונה ישובו ממקום הטנופת באו למקום הטנופת ילכו והנאני הדבר על ידי זה נתפסתי למינות ועברתי על מה שכתוב בתורה +משלי ה+ הרחק מעליה דרכך זו מינות ואל תקרב אל פתח ביתה זו הרשות ואיכא דאמרי הרחק מעליה דרכך זו מינות והרשות ואל תקרב אל פתח ביתה זו זונה

(Apparently the Abarbanel did not view these gemaras as halachicly definitive enough to rule out accepting non-Orthodox/non-Jewish interpretations of verses of the Torah.
But on the other hand, when was the Abarbanel ever cited in halachic literature for his halachic opinion? I think we follow the Rif and the Hagaos Ashrei over the Abarbanel in p'sakhalacha. Appealing to the Abarbanel in this regard is precisely the "heter-hunting" methodology employed by the Modern Orthodox.)

My Favorite Analogy: Playing with the rules of Chess and the Mesorah, Or: the effects of Galus on Halachic Judaism

Here are some thoughts for the three weeks that I formulated years ago which may shed some light on the elusive "Mesorah" concept.

I once made an analogy from chess to halacha in the course of a debate I had with someone who was sympathetic to the Conservative movement's approach to halacha. The analogy below was my description/explanation of the opposing Orthodox system.
It seems that many Orthodox people on blogs are "fed-up"with the "lock-step" situation that the Orthodox halachic process seems to be mired in. Though I don't offer solutions to the problems, I hope this explanation will provide some understanding and reduce the intensity of people's frustration.
I posted this analogy in a comment in response to a post a while back by Brooklyn Wolf with some slight corrections. (Wolf is currently barking up the wrong tree on a diffent point of widespread misunderstanding again here, see comments here.)


Imagine you have a full chessboard with all the major pieces still on the board. You have the luxury of playing offensively and you can choose from a variety of strategies. But after you lose your "Queen" (the Shechina, prophecy, the beis Hamikdash) and your "Rooks" and "Bishops" (the Sanhedrin--lehavdil) you will play your game VERY differently and adopt a completely defensive strategy. All your remaining pieces are now devoted to protecting your King (the Torah) in unique ways under unfavorable circumstances and you are focused on just surviving.

In short: The RULES of Chess (Judaism) never change--you are just now missing a lot of crucial pieces which forces you to drastically change HOW you play your game.

Following the above analogy, I would add that the non-orthodox movements are characterized by the their fateful decision to actually alter the basic rules of chess. They invent new rules-- like turning a pawn magically into a queen right in the middle of the board and "allow it" move however it wants.

Due to the reality of history (orchestrated by G-d as a response to our failures) Orthodox Judaism is unfortunately strapped with only pawns and knights which are very limited in how they can move around the board. (The analogy to halacha should be obvious.) No-one should be happy about this state of affairs, but for us, the solution is to hold on and accumulate enough merit to bring the Moshiach.

The Orthodox are fervently waiting for the coming of Moshiach (reaching the end of the board) and for G-d to resurrect the dead (pieces), re-establish its lost connection of prophecy, and restore the powers of Sanhedrin to the rabbis (queen, rooks, and bishops). This removes all the handicaps in the halachic system accumulated over history.
The non-Orthodox by contrast, can't be bothered to wait patiently for the end of history and remain loyal to the rules till the end. They exchange the chess pieces artificially in the middle of the board as they see fit.

Wolf asked:

If "true" Judaism is so dependent on prophecy and the Sanhedrin, then one wonders why HKBH would withdraw them in the first place. It would be akin to my telling you (using your chess analogy) to checkmate your opponent with only a king and a bishop -- a feat which (according to the rules of the game) is impossible...

...I don't think HKBH would set us up in a system that is designed for failure -

You overreached. I never implied today's Judaism cannot "win the game" despite its massive handicaps. HKBH obviously only withdrew up to a point but was very careful to keep the mesorah sufficiently intact (yes, not completely, but sufficiently) to allow us to reach the Moshiach without making compromises to Judaism and changing the rules.
We still have a claim to "true Judaism" because we are still playing by the very same set of original rules. (Some --or maybe even most-- of the "previously applied" rules can't be applied anymore and some "never-applied-before" rules will only apply now due to the changes in historical circumstances. But no new basic rules are invented out of thin air.)

"Dark Energy" was in, now it's on it's way out

Just in case you got the impression that the basic elements of modern cosmology were fairly well established...
Read this.
Or, watch this.



Some excerpts below.
Note the author acknowledges that the level of certainty of the typical astronomer is not commensurate with the facts and are just the result of the acceptance of basic cosmological assumptions. These assumptions are promoted as facts simply for their pragmatic value in making the universe more comprehensible to us. The strange forces which later needed to be posited just in order to maintain those assumptions in the face of uncomfortable observations have finally reached the limits of credulity.
In other words, the decade long "search for dark energy" by the mainstream scientific community, is essentially a desperate attempt to preserve a convenient theory.

Most of us are very familiar with the idea that our planet is nothing more than a tiny speck orbiting a typical star, somewhere near the edge of an otherwise unnoteworthy galaxy. In the midst of a universe populated by billions of galaxies that stretch out to our cosmic horizon, we are led to believe that there is nothing special or unique about our location. But what is the evidence for this cosmic humility? And how would we be able to tell if we were in a special place? Astronomers typically gloss over these questions, assuming our own typicality sufficiently obvious to warrant no further discussion. To entertain the notion that we may, in fact, have a special location in the universe is, for many, unthinkable. Nevertheless, that is exactly what some small groups of physicists around the world have recently been considering.

Ironically, assuming ourselves to be insignificant has granted cosmologists great explanatory power. It has allowed us to extrapolate from what we see in our own cosmic neighborhood to the universe at large. Huge efforts have been made in constructing state-of-the-art models of the universe based on the cosmological principle a generalization of the Copernican principle that states that at any moment in time all points and directions in space look the same. Combined with our modern understanding of space, time and matter, the cosmological principle implies that space is expanding, that the universe is getting cooler and that it is populated by relics from its hot beginning predictions that are all borne out by observations.

...This accelerating expansion is the big surprise that fired the current revolution in cosmology. Matter in the universe should tug at the fabric of spacetime, slowing down the expansion, but the supernova data suggest otherwise. If cosmologists accept the cosmological principle and assume that this acceleration happens everywhere, we are led to the conclusion that the universe must be permeated by an exotic form of energy, dark energy, that exerts a repulsive force.

Nothing meeting the description of dark energy appears in physicists' Standard Model of fundamental particles and forces. It is a substance that has not as yet been measured directly, has properties unlike anything we have ever seen and has an energy density some 10¹²⁰ times less than we may have naively expected. Physicists have ideas for what it might be, but they remain speculative [see "The Quintessential Universe," by Jeremiah P. Ostriker and Paul J. Steinhardt; Scientific American, January 2001]. In short, we are very much in the dark about dark energy. Researchers are working on a number of ambitious and expensive ground- and space-based missions to find and characterize dark energy, whatever it may be. To many, it is the greatest challenge facing modern cosmology.

A Lighter Alternative
Confronted with something so strange and seemingly so improbable, some researchers are revisiting the reasoning that led them to it. One of the primary assumptions they are questioning is whether we live in a representative part of the universe. Could the evidence for dark energy be accounted for in other ways if we were to do away with the cosmological principle?

Now titled: The Feelings are Mutual (from my inbox, a year ago)

Just something I wanted to put out there for discussion.
Or, if not for discussion, then to illustrate the wide chasm that exists between the academic approach to the truth of Judaism and the traditional one.

(BTW I consider the medieval philosophical approach to Judaism to be just an earlier incarnation of today's academic approach. It shares the same flaw of analyzing and conceptualizing Judaism from the vantage point of a foreign system of thought. Therefore it's just as inauthentic as today's modern academic one. Antiquity doesn't automatically bestow authority. Philo is a good example of where one doesn't lead to the other.
The Rambam and a few hand-picked others were unique. They mastered both Torah and the secular disciplines thoroughly enough to identify where there was a genuine overlap between the two.)


Or, if not for illustrative purposes, then just to post something on a slow blogging week.


Towards the end, it relates to these posts about superstitions and intermediaries and raises the question that bothers me on an occasional Monday--given the wide spectrum of things that traditional Jews have believed over the centuries, what can really be considered authentic Judaism by objective standards?


(The identity of the sender has been removed because I think he was just taking an extreme position for argument's sake and not that he necessarily subscribes to it.)

Thank you for your response. First of all I think I should clarify what I meant by “truer,” which I left wide open. I meant truer as opposed to the Truth. The historical method leads one to a better understanding of history than one would have without the historical method. In particular it leads to a better understanding than what one would have if one went against the historical method.

How did I become so convinced of the usefulness of the historical method? Admittedly, unlike science, one has little hope of empirical confirmation. Sometimes new information will come up that will serve to strengthen the conclusions that one had started with. Following the historical method tends to lead to conclusions that I find to be intellectually satisfying. It seems to be useful in my day to day life when deconstructing newspapers and politicians. Admittedly there is a certain circular reasoning to such arguments. I will say that being a believer in the historical method has an advantage over religious claims. Since the historical method makes no claims as to absolute Truth it has a lower threshold of proof than religious claims. Therefore in order to justify myself I would need, at the bare minimum, to show that my reasons for becoming a believer in the historical method are no worse than the reasons why someone might become a believer in the mesoretic thinking of traditional Judaism.

I do believe that there is more to my acceptance of the historical method than my professors telling me to believe in it and that if I did not I was a heretic. It is something that makes sense to me and allows me to make sense of the world around me. One of the cardinal principles of the historical method is the privileging of written sources over oral traditions. That makes a lot of sense. There is a lot more room to for someone to manipulate information when you are dealing with oral traditions than with a written source. As an empirical matter, the experiences of anthropologists in dealing with the oral traditions of tribal societies does not give one a whole lot of reason to be confident with the value of oral traditions. Obviously there is a difference between contemporary oral evidence and oral traditions. Ultimately all historical evidence starts out as oral before someone actually writes it down. Another cardinal principle is that you go at texts from a sideways angle, ignoring what the author wants you to see and focusing on the incidental things that show up in a texts wake. Again, this makes sense; the moment someone is trying to convince you of something it makes him involved in the matter and therefore an unreliable witness. If your child comes to20you crying that his sibling hit him you immediately assume that there is something more to the story. You start asking questions about the story focusing on side details like what this child did to bring this about. This is the historical method at work. One should treat extraordinary claims with great suspicion. What would it take for you to believe that I saw a tiger yesterday? What would it take for you to believe I saw a little green man from Mars the other day? One of the implications of this principle is that you should be suspicious of accounts that have people behaving in ways that seem to be out of the ordinary. Another implication is that one is suspicious of miracle stories. (This does not mean that one has to believe that miracles are impossible.) The issue of miracle accounts also is connected to the second principle. In practice most accounts of miracles are written precisely to convince the reader of the miracle, which puts a red flag on them.

I am sure you would agree that all of this is very reasonable. It makes perfect sense that a young man trying to make sense of the world would take these principles as a guide and go questing to see where these principles might lead him. None of these principles contradict the Torah so there is no reason why an Orthodox person should not take them on. The trouble is that certain types of thinking currently in use amongst Haredim and even lots of Modern Orthodox Jews can easily run afoul with the historical method. To claim authority based on an oral tradition runs afoul with the first principle. Obviously T’nach and rabbinic literature are written to convince you of certain things so to accept them straight on would one afoul of the second principle. Taking miracle stories as point blank fact runs afoul of the third principle.

This does not have to stop someone from being an Orthodox Jew. What it would do is close of certain lines of thinking. Yes I can believe that I am part of some sort of divine tradition, that the Torah and the rest of the Jewish tradition help me to better understand God and that miracles can occur. I just cannot treat them as self evident facts of history. It is possible that historical evidence for such things may turn up, but I am not holding my breath.

To deal with your notion of insiders versus outsiders; the Rabbis are a form of oral tradition. This is true whether you are sitting in the Mir or sitting in the Ohio State University. I may be willing to admit that it is something better than some tribal elders, but nothing is going to change the fact that it is an oral source.

From the perspective of the historical method it is still reasonable to assume that you really are your parent’s child based on your claim, your parents claim or somebody. This is okay because it is still something current. As long as this claim is written down somewhere at a relatively contemporaneous time, all else being equal, it will be accepted by future historians. The problem would be if you wanted to claim that you are a descendent from, let us say, Maimonides. You cannot just say you have a family tradition. You need to have written records to connect you back all the way.

At the end of the day you must bring some hard, usually written, evidence or go home.

My Response:

Let's take things one step at a time:

I am sure you would agree that all of this is very reasonable. It makes perfect sense that a young man trying to make sense of the world would take these principles as a guide and go questing to see where these principles might lead him. None of these principles contradict the Torah so there is no reason why an Orthodox person should not take them on.

It only makes perfect sense to use the tools of historical principles in a vacuum where you have no other reliable sources of truth guiding you. But if we agree that Jewish tradition is another reliable source of truth, then it does not make perfect sense to use these historical tools in analyzing the tradition you have accepted as an alternative source of truth.

From the following next section of your letter, I guess you would label yourself "orthoprax", no? I emphasize the relevant sentences:

The trouble is that certain types of thinking currently in use amongst Haredim and even lots of Modern Orthodox Jews can easily run afoul with the historical method. To claim authority based on an oral tradition runs afoul with the first principle. Obviously T'nach and rabbinic literature are written to convince you of certain things so to accept them straight on would one afoul of the second principle. Taking miracle stories as point blank fact runs afoul of the third principle.
This does not have to stop someone from being an Orthodox Jew. What it would do is close of certain lines of thinking. Yes I can believe that I am part of some sort of divine tradition, that the Torah and the rest of the Jewish tradition help me to better understand God and that miracles can occur. I just cannot treat them as self evident facts of history. It is possible that historical evidence for such things may turn up, but I am not holding my breath.

Let me comment on some of the above:

Obviously T'nach and rabbinic literature are written to convince you of certain things so to accept them straight on would one afoul of the second principle.

This is not so obvious to me. I believe Tanach is written as a prophetic historical record of events-what has happened to the Jewish People for the first two millenia of history- and a record of the commands and prophecies from God to various prophets.

Rabbinic Literature is a very broad heading and most of it assumes the accuracy of the Oral Torah without trying to convince anybody of anything.

Taking miracle stories as point blank fact runs afoul of the third principle.

Yes, accepting miracle stories from various unreliable individuals who are trying to convince you of something is not sensible. But why are you confusing this with Jewish tradition?

You write with much certainty. I am afraid it seems that I am somewhat late in attempting to change your mind about certain core Jewish beliefs since you have already accepted the academic method as your sole guide.

I hope one day in the future you can find the space in your mind to re-evaluate the nature of our prophetically communicated and accurately transmitted Jewish tradition as an alternate source of truth.

Sincerely,
FKM

His first rebuttal:

Dear FKM

The assumption that I am Orthoprax is a bit of a jump on your part as I did not go against any of the fundamentals of faith. I have not denied that God gave the Torah on Mount Sinai or took the Children of Israel out of Egypt. I have not denied any of the miracles in the T’nach. I deliberately kept my personal beliefs wide open as I was outlining a train of thought which could go in many directions. Some of these places are within the boundaries of traditional thought, others are not.

What are my beliefs? I believe in God, who created the laws of nature and through these laws of nature created the universe. I believe that miracles are possible, though, in general, the world is run according to the laws of nature. I relate to this God through the lens of the Jewish tradition. I am even open to the possibility that events mentioned in the bible such as the exodus and the giving of the Torah are historical events. I am also open to the possibility that God is, in some sense, the author of the Torah. Does this make me Orthoprax? Depends on how you choose to define the issue. Within the context of the blogging culture, I am probably a step or two to the right of Godol Hador. Within the context of the Jewish tradition, I am a modern version of some of the more radical philosophical rationalist. One thing you cannot say about me is that I am not open minded. I am very open-minded to the possibility that Judaism can lay claim to the title “the True religion.” I just fail to see it as a self evident historical fact.

To turn the tables on you a bit, are you actually Orthodox? Do you believe in reincarnation, which Saadiah Gaon held to be heresy? Do you pray to angels by saying Shalom Aliechem or Machnise Rachamim ? Do you pray to rebbes? (i.e. go to them and ask them to bless you and pray on your behalf.) Do you believe in the existence of Sephirot, a heresy deemed by Rabbi Abraham Abulafia to be worse than the Trinity? Do you believe that God speaks or possesses traits such as charity or mercy, which Maimonides held to be heresy? If have no idea what your personal theology is, but it is clear that the rabbis who lead the Haredi world, the gedolim, have either explicitly or tacitly endorsed such beliefs. As such I am more than justified from the perspective of the Jewish tradition to view the gedolim as nothing but heretics in black hats, beards and jackets. From this perspective it becomes my duty as a believing Jew to reject the gedolim.

To bring in in evolution here, it is clear that evolution is either true or God planted evidence in order to trick humanity. Now in my Maimonidean theology when I say that God is Emeth I mean that God would never lie or try to fool anyone as humans beings are apt to do. Therefore it is heresy for me to believe that God tricked humanity into believing evolution and so I must accept evolution and simply read Genesis in a non literal fasion. So, not only is evolution not heresy, it is heresy to not accept evolution.

So who is the true believing Jew here, me or you?

My Response:

Dear XXXX

My response is interspersed in blue, below your comments in black.

Dear FKM

The assumption that I am Orthoprax is a bit of a jump on your part as I did not go against any of the fundamentals of faith.

I was careful not to make any definitive assumptions but restricted myself to asking leading questions like "why isn't this position you are describing an orthoprax position?" I wanted you to be more precise in describing your position. And now you do so by saying...

I have not denied that God gave the Torah on Mount Sinai or took the Children of Israel out of Egypt. I have not denied any of the miracles in the T'nach.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is not sufficient to be Orthodox. To be Orthodox, one has to affirm a positive belief in Torah from Sinai, the Exodus and the miracles, as I will attempt to explain. It is not enough to avoid a complete denial.

I deliberately kept my personal beliefs wide open as I was outlining a train of thought which could go in many directions. Some of these places are within the boundaries of traditional thought, others are not.

What are my beliefs? I believe in God, who created the laws of nature and through these laws of nature created the universe. I believe that miracles are possible, though, in general, the world is run according to the laws of nature. I relate to this God through the lens of the Jewish tradition. I am even open to the possibility that events mentioned in the bible such as the exodus and the giving of the Torah are historical events. I am also open to the possibility that God is, in some sense, the author of the Torah. Does this make me Orthoprax? Depends on how you choose to define the issue. Within the context of the blogging culture, I am probably a step or two to the right of Godol Hador. Within the context of the Jewish tradition, I am a modern version of some of the more radical philosophical rationalist. One thing you cannot say about me is that I am not open minded. I am very open-minded to the possibility that Judaism can lay claim to the title "the True religion." I just fail to see it as a self evident historical fact.

I choose to define the issue as the Rambam did. He did not write anywhere that it sufficient for a Jew to be "open to the possibility" that the 13 ikkarim are true. Yours seems to be an agnostic position, no? (It doesn't really matter that you are to the right of Godol Hador.)

For a person to join the Jewish faith community the Rambam says one has to make a positive affirmation of belief in the truth of these principles. Among them being that God has communicated with prophets and that their writings are true statements of fact.

Let me ask you: what would you say about the moral convictions of someone who declared he is open-minded enough to be "open to the possibility" that murder and rape is wrong?

I'll tell you what I would say: That hypothetical person shouldn't be let alone with other people until he can positively affirm the rights of other human beings to life and physical safety.

Saying one is "open to the possibility" is not the same as belief. Such a person neither denies nor believes in the wrongfulness of murder and rape. Such a person does not belong in civilized society.

Similarly, the Rambam requires a positive affirmation of the 13 ikkarim. They are not mere "possibilities".

To turn the tables on you a bit, are you actually Orthodox?

I understand why you feel your best defense is to go on the offensive. But I don't see any comparison between taking sides in well-worn theological disputes with legitimate opinions on both sides on the one hand, and your agnosticism couched in terms of open-mindedness on the other.

Please provide one authoritative source which sanctions the position that a Jew is not required to believe anything with conviction and "being open to the possibility" is sufficient.

Sincerely,

FKM

His Second Rebuttal:

The fact that other Jews have believed something is hardly a defense. If something is heresy it is heresy.

One of the mistakes Modern Orthodox people commonly make when dealing with Haredim is that they all too easily grant them legitimacy. This leaves them stuck in a mire of me tooism. I do not accept Haredi legitimacy point blank. On the contrary I am perfectly willing to challenge them from the perspective of traditional thought. Who would Maimonides have less of a problem with me or your average Haredi? I do not pray to rebbas or venerate holy objects. I actually believe in God; I do not believe he is in any way physical or that physical attributes can be attributed to him. As far as I am concerned the Haredi camp director who used to tell us about how Hashem looked down upon us from samayim and was waiting for us to come davaan was teaching us heresy, no different than if he had held up a crucifix and told us that Jesus was God and was sitting in heaven waiting for us to pray to him.

There is good reason to believe that Maimonides himself did not believe in a historical Sinai or see it as being important in practice. It would seem that his thirteen principles were intended not as a catechism but as a list of beliefs that were important to cultivate=2 0amongst the masses. When dealing with Maimonides it is important to keep in mind the gap between the philosophical elites and the masses. Maimonides himself admits that his work contains contradictions to say different things to different people so just because Maimonides declared in one place that it was important to believe in the giving of the Torah does not mean that it actually was important to him.

Some things to consider. For Maimonides, mitzvot serve as pedagogical aids to teach people about God and creating a society of believers. If this is the case then it makes no difference if mitzvot were the product of direct divine command or a committee of philosophers. Granted it might be important to convince the masses that mitzvot come from God, but that only serves to create a motivation to create such a belief. As such you cannot take the affirmation of this creed by anyone as meaning they actually believe in it. In Platonic political theory the philosophers are supposed to create legends in order to justify their political order. The moment we start dealing with anyone in contact with such thinking, which includes Maimonides, then all notions of mesorah go out the window. I have no reason to believe that they even believed. Following Plato, Maimonides held a dismissive view of history; unlike mathematics, physics or metaphysics, history does not deal with intrinsic truths. Does it make sense to you that Maimonides would on the one hand dismiss the relevancy of history and then turn around and hang his entire religion around the belief in historical event? The very notion that God could give a Torah goes against Maimonides’ theology; God is not physical so he cannot speak. For Maimonides a prophet is simply someone who comes to understand the divine will. What is the difference between that and the philosopher using his understanding of the nature of God to create a law code to teach people about God?

Belief is a fairly open ended concept. It generally is viewed as a willingness to accept something beyond what you can actually justify simply in terms of human knowledge. One has to make a leap of faith. I recognize that my academic training is not going to give me Torah mi Sinai as an unchallengeable historical fact. I am not going to pretend otherwise. That being said I am open to things that go beyond my academic training so I am willing to make my leap of faith; that makes me a believer.

My final response:

In your latest letter you invoke many wild and unsubstantiated theories about many fundamental theological matters in Judaism. I react sharply to such theories. Please take them in the spirit of my sincere intentions to have a reasonable dialogue.

The fact that other Jews have believed something is hardly a defense. If something is heresy it is heresy.

I wasn’t appealing merely to “other Jews have believed in something.”

To pick one main example of yours: The Ramban (and the entire kabbalistic tradition after him!`) has made re-incarnation a mainstream scholarly Jewish position which counters Rav Saadia Gaon.

BTW, where does Rav Saadia call this belief heresy? Not that it makes a difference if he does or doesn’t, I’m just curious.

I do not accept Haredi legitimacy point blank. On the contrary I am perfectly willing to challenge them from the perspective of traditional thought. Who would Maimonides have less of a problem with me or your average Haredi?

Let’s see.

I do not pray to rebbas

Neither does your average Haredi. He asks for brachos—just like Yaakov Avinu who petitioned his flesh and blood father for a bracha. He even provided a “food offering” to procure it! (He also petitioned an angel for a bracha before he met with Eisav) You think Maimonides had a problem with Yaakov? I don’t.

or venerate holy objects.

You wouldn’t cover a sefer Torah with a mantle and place it in any Aron Kodesh? You don’t put your teffilin in any special teffilin bag? Wow.

I actually believe in God;

So does your average Hareidi

I do not believe he is in any way physical or that physical attributes can be attributed to him.

Neither does your average MATURE hareidi

As far as I am concerned the Haredi camp director who used to tell us about how Hashem looked down upon us from samayim and was waiting for us to come davaan was teaching us heresy, no different than if he had held up a crucifix and told us that Jesus was God and was sitting in heaven waiting for us to pray to him.

You are assuming your camp director really meant God had a body and possessed physical eyes looking down on you, and physical ears to hear prayers.

Let me ask you: Do you assume that the Chumash and Midrash also really meant these things when they used anthropomorphic language in exactly the same way?

He was talking to children whom we know outgrow these literal conceptions as they grow older and wiser. Gimme a break.

I have a feeling you like to attack the unlearned “folk expressions” of some extreme segments of Hareidi society which are really straw men. We should focus more on your next questions.

There is good reason to believe that Maimonides himself did not believe in a historical Sinai or see it as being important in practice. It would seem that his thirteen principles were intended not as a catechism but as a list of beliefs that were important to cultivate=2 0amongst the masses. When dealing with Maimonides it is important to keep in mind the gap between the philosophical elites and the masses. Maimonides himself admits that his work contains contradictions to say different things to different people so just because Maimonides declared in one place that it was important to believe in the giving of the Torah does not mean that it actually was important to him.

I am well aware that this is the standard view of Maimonides in academia which likes to cast him entirely as a Greek philosopher with a Jewish veneer.

You’ll have to provide some kind of solid evidence for this if you want to be taken seriously. The line in the Guide that says he concealed deeper ideas within contradictions gives you no clue as to which direction those ideas lie.

Academics assume Maimonides had “less-than-Orthodox” ideas about the historical truth- claims and core beliefs of Judaism. I have seen no evidence of this whatsoever. All the explicit statements of Maimonides in all his various works state to the contrary and I have not seen them contradicted elsewhere. The burden of proof (or even strong evidence) is clearly on your shoulders to provide.

Some things to consider. For Maimonides, mitzvot serve as pedagogical aids to teach people about God and creating a society of believers.

Okay…But doesn’t Maimonides explicitly say they are GOD’s own “pedagogical aids”?

If this is the case then it makes no difference if mitzvot were the product of direct divine command or a committee of philosophers.

It sure does! That is, if you think divine authority carries more weight that human authority. I think divine authority carries more weight. Don’t you??

Granted it might be important to convince the masses that mitzvot come from God, but that only serves to create a motivation to create such a belief.

As such you cannot take the affirmation of this creed by anyone as meaning they actually believe in it. In Platonic political theory the philosophers are supposed to create legends in order to justify their political order.

So here it is: “the noble lie”. You think Maimonides was willing to lie to the masses for the sake of the greater good. Just like your archetypical Greek philosopher.

I’m sorry, this is just more fantasy-ridden academic caricatures of the Rambam.

The moment we start dealing with anyone in contact with such thinking, which includes Maimonides, then all notions of mesorah go out the window. I have no reason to believe that they even believed.

Just because Maimonides had contact with such thinking means he was willy-nilly influenced by this thinking about every foundational area of Jewish theology? Absurd.

According to your theory, he was incapable of rejecting this way of thinking once exposed. This theory can be falsified repeatedly.

Throughout the Guide, Maimonides is VERY CLEAR about which Greek philosophical ideas he accepts and incorporates and which he categorically rejected. I will provide specific examples upon request. I don’t have it now.

Following Plato, Maimonides held a dismissive view of history; unlike mathematics, physics or metaphysics, history does not deal with intrinsic truths. Does it make sense to you that Maimonides would on the one hand dismiss the relevancy of history and then turn around and hang his entire religion around the belief in historical event?

You need to distinguish between the HUMAN STUDY of the “field of history” and prophetic record of events in Chumash. The Rambam consistently committed himself—even in the Guide—to accepting the mesorah of the prophecy of Moshe who recorded the events in Chumash as historical fact. It has nothing to do with the general study of history by historians.

The very notion that God could give a Torah goes against Maimonides’ theology; God is not physical so he cannot speak. For Maimonides a prophet is simply someone who comes to understand the divine will.

That’s right. God at times decides to make “His divine will” available to human perception. This “divine will” can include an awful lot of different things. It can include true knowledge about the world—like you say-- and it can include a direct command from God in a language/medium of God’s choice!

What, God can’t “will” a divine voice to be heard by Moshe containing the exact words of the Torah? God needs a physical throat and lips and tongue to communicate “His divine will” in the form of spoken words? What kind of non-sense is this?

What is the difference between that and the philosopher using his understanding of the nature of God to create a law code to teach people about God?

Maybe there is no theoretical difference to you, but that just isn’t what Maimonides believed to be the truth about the Torah.

According to Maimonides explicit contrast between Moshe and all other prophets, God didn’t leave the legal code of the precise religious norms of the Torah “up to the philosopher’s understanding”. He actually found “some way” (non-physical of course) to transmit a direct communication of that code to a human being.

The Rambam says explicitly in his seventh and eighth ikkar that this human being was called Moshe Rabbeinu who wrote down the exact text of the Torah from some form of direct divine communication. Please read these ikkarim carefully in the primary sources before assuming what the Rambam should believe about this topic.

Do not ignore the plainly stated facts and replace them with theories.

Belief is a fairly open ended concept. It generally is viewed as a willingness to accept something beyond what you can actually justify simply in terms of human knowledge. One has to make a leap of faith.

I assume you are equating “human knowledge” exclusively with knowledge that is attainable only through pure secular academic research. I assume you are equating “a leap of faith” with anything you can’t verify through secular academic research. This is simple academic indoctrination. Shake out of it!

I recognize that my academic training is not going to give me Torah mi Sinai as an unchallengeable historical fact. I am not going to pretend otherwise.

I don’t know why you would have ever assumed it would. Accurate transmission of prophetic information is simply not in the academic lexicon. That doesn’t mean this information automatically becomes an inferior quality of human knowledge or one that requires a leap of faith.

I think it is quite unfortunate that you believe it to be so.

That being said I am open to things that go beyond my academic training so I am willing to make my leap of faith; that makes me a believer.

Maybe this qualifies as required belief by Maimonides. I don’t know. You should seek qualified halachic guidance on this very important issue-- how much conviction is enough to qualify as a member of the Jewish community of believers.

Sincerely,

FKM

His Rebuttal:

Saadiah Gaon attacks reincarnation in Emunot V’deot. (I can look up the exact place for you if you wish) He calls it a Hindu belief. He is either wrong or right. If he is right then everyone who accepts reincarnation is a heretic. This would mean that large swaths of traditional Jewish figures would lose all legitimacy. For one thing we would have to throw out pretty much all Kabbalists. Now Saadiah Gaon certainly thought he was right. We both agree that he is a legitimate haskafic authority. If this is the case then not only would someone be justified in not believing in reincarnation based on Saadiah Gaon, but would also be justified in taking out, so to speak, of his field of Torah authorities anyone who believes in reincarnation and cast them aside as heretics. Let us imagine that Rav Shach believed in reincarnation. If I were a partisan of Saadiah Gaon then you could no longer come to me and use Rav Shach as a Torah authority against me because for me Rav Shach would be a heretic with no authority. (I am personally agnostic about the issue of reincarnation.)

This basically cripples a person’s ability to appeal to the authority of the gedolim. Different people are going to be playing different fields of authority figures and putting different weights on them. I play with a very different playing field then you do. Examples of important historical figures for me would be people like Saadiah Gaon, Maimonides, Ibn Ezra, Elijah del Medigo Isaac Abarbanel, his son Leone Ebreo, Manasseh ben Israel and Samson Raphael Hirsch. Present day figures would be people like Rabbi Shalom Carmy, Yosef Blau and Aaron Lichtenstein.

As for the issue of Yaacov and the angel, Yaacov in no way acknowledged that the angel had any independent spiritual power. There is a reason why Rashi points out that when Yaacov asks for a bracha what he meant was that the angel should admit he had the right to the bracha. Anything else would have been idolatry. Similarly Yitzchak was allowed to give over the bracha that God gave to Avraham as an inheritance. There is no claim that Yitzchak had any independent spiritual power.

When people go to rebbes for a bracha what are they asking for. Obviously the more philosophically inclined people understand that rebbes have no actual spiritual power and are only going for spiritual advice. That may not be the case for others. The fact that rebbes do not actively try make sure th at people understand this means that they are failing to destroy idolatry and are tacitly supporting it. Like King Solomon when he did nothing to stop his wives from serving idols.

A cover for a Torah is a perfectly reasonable utilitarian device to protect it. While we are at it we might as well make the cover nice. This is all fine as long as no one is claiming that the Torah has some sort of intrinsic power.

I admit that in practice it is necessary to use physical imagery to talk about God. So we are allowed to repeat the things said in Tanach and by Chazal. You do not have a blank check to go on your own and start talking about God in physical terms. Remember the gemara in Megillah were a person is criticized for adding on to the praises for God in Shemona Esrai. So the camp director shooting his mouth off is a problem and anyone who is a legitimate believer should recognize that. You are right that I am attacking straw men. But my real target is not the straw men themselves but those who tolerate them, which includes your “mature” haredim.

One possible origin of the shift to the right/ Chumra Syndrome

I have a feeling that Izmir, Turkey in the mid 19th century is not exactly the time and place that come to people's minds...

Hat-tip to Rav Yaakov Hillel's sefer עד הגל הזה page 53

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33683&pgnum=242
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33683&pgnum=243
and
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21064&pgnum=41
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21064&pgnum=42

For a bio of Rav Chaim Palagi see here:

It's The Autonomy, Stupid**

After reading the recent posts on Rationalist Judaism, I see that Rabbi Slifkin likes to frame the conflict of Rationalism vs. Non/Anti-Rationalism in a way that makes him look smart and his opponents look stupid. In fact, the very terms employed to characterize his opponents is slanted to make his opponents look stupid. Ask anyone you know, if given the choice, they would prefer to be called "non-rational" or "irrational". The term conjures up images that most members of a Jewish, educated society simply does not respect.

He also developed a technique of setting up equivalence or parallels where the other side emerges just as guilty of impiety (or more so) as he is, and it turns out to be an easy way to defend yourself without having to respond directly to any criticisms.

So I want to articulate why there is no equivalence to anything between the 'rationalist' approach and the traditional one. I'm calling it the 'traditional' one because even the sources which Rabbi Slifkin holds up as his guiding lights were clear enough that they have this traditional element which Rabbi Slifkin's version of rationalism lacks.

It's called intellectual humility and submission to authority.

The way I see it, the greatest danger of rationalism comes not from what it can lead to but from what it is by definition.

"Accepting something as true only when there is sufficient reason." Or, "Not accepting something as true without sufficient reason." seems to be what rationalism is all about. It places the human mind at the center of his universe and allows the intellect to be the final arbiter of what is true and false.

This approach to the world by definition undermines all external sources of authority. God, Torah, Sages, anything claiming to have a truth which is not directly accessible to the individual's own mind is an enemy of rationalism. Rationalism demands freedom from any constraints on its ability to gather data and draw independently verified, reasonable conclusions. If sufficient data is simply unavailable, then no conclusion may be drawn. Faith-based conclusions where there is insufficient data is an irrational conclusion.

This leads us to directly the point of conflict between rationalism as a totally independent system of acquiring knowledge and the revelation/tradition-based system of acquiring knowledge.

As a consequence, the Orthodox rationalist strives to maximize his autonomy--perhaps not in his practical choices of action--but at least in his intellectual choices of belief. He wants the freedom to survey all the sources which he deems relevant to his inquiry and the "freedom to interpret" those sources according to what he has subjectively come to view as "reasonable" or "convincing". Rabbi Slifkin has often characterized this approach as one that is "intellectually honest". This is his preferred way of framing his approach since it conveyes the subtle implication that his opponents are not as honest as he.

By stark contrast, the traditionalist has accepted at the outset that the ultimate truth lies somewhere outside his powers of independent investigation and reason. He realizes that he will only apprehend the truth if he directs his intellectual efforts to understanding what the tradition has to say about the subject. If it has nothing further to say, only then is he on his own. If it has rejected certain sources or ideas, they become unworthy of attention because the tradition has passed the judgment that they do not contain the truth.

The intellect is seen only a tool to comprehend the truth conveyed by the tradition. It is not an independent arbiter of what is or can be true.

The hallmark of a traditionalist is his intellectual humility and heroic submission to the sources of ultimate truth which are external to him. He uses critical thinking as a vehicle to integrate them deeply into his heart and mind.

**the title is making a humorous referrence to a political campaign slogan of the 90's and is not intended to characterize any individual.

Another Rationalist Myth Debunked

In the comment to this post, Rabbi Beckerman graciously provided the Rambam's stamp of approval for "Jewish superstition" from his Letter on the Resurrection:

וזאת גם כן תועלת גדולה, רצוני לומר היות השמיעה מתקנת עניני עולמם והמרי מפסידם, וכבר זכר בתורה שהוא מופת מתמיד בדורות רצוני לומר תקון הענינים עם העבודה והפסדם עם המרי. אמר והיה בך לאות ולמופת ובזרעך עד עולם ומפני אמרו אין מזל בישראל ר"ל שתקונם והפסדם אינם לסבה טבעית ולא על מנהג המציאות אלא נתלה בעבודה ובמרי וזה אות גדול יותר מכל אות. וכבר בארנו שזה בדין צבור ובדין יחיד ... וזה הענין בעצמו הוא המכוון גם כן באמרו ביחוד האומה - אשר חלק ד"א אותם מכל העמים וכו' ואתכם לקח ד' רצוני לומר שעניניהם אינם נוהגים מנהג עניני שאר אומות אבל יחודם בזה המופת הגדול שיהיו פעולותיהם תמיד נקשרות בתקון עניניהם או בהפסדם

I would add that the above RambaM happens to overlap significantly with the RambaN's famous formulation of the idea of נס נסתר of which he said:

ומן הנסים הגדולים המפורסמים אדם מודה בנסים הנסתרים שהם יסוד התורה כלה, שאין לאדם חלק בתורת משה רבינו עד שנאמין בכל דברינו ומקרינו שכלם נסים אין בהם טבע ומנהגו של עולם, בין ברבים בין ביחיד, אלא אם יעשה המצות יצליחנו שכרו, ואם יעבור עליהם יכריתנו ענשו, הכל בגזרת עליון כאשר הזכרתי כבר (בראשית יז א, ולעיל ו ב). ויתפרסמו הנסים הנסתרים בענין הרבים כאשר יבא ביעודי התורה בענין הברכות והקללות, כמו שאמר הכתוב (דברים כט כג כד) ואמרו כל הגוים על מה עשה ה' ככה לארץ הזאת, ואמרו על אשר עזבו את ברית ה' אלהי אבותם, שיתפרסם הדבר לכל האומות שהוא מאת ה' בעונשם. ואמר בקיום וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך ויראו ממך. ועוד אפרש זה בעזרת השם (ויקרא כו יא):

Quote-mining the same letter here and elsewhere to conclude the opposite regarding the Rambam's view is very disingenuous. Like the RambaN, the Rambam's view of miracles and Providence is also quite nuanced and not as black-and-white as rationalists make him out to be.

Judaism and Enlisting Intermediaries: a list of classic Jewish sources

Human Intermediaries (enlisted by God and by humans):

בראשות פרק כ
ו) וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הָאֱלֹהִים בַּחֲלֹם גַּם אָנֹכִי יָדַעְתִּי כִּי בְתָם לְבָבְךָ עָשִׂיתָ זֹּאת וָאֶחְשֹׂךְ גַּם אָנֹכִי אוֹתְךָ מֵחֲטוֹ לִי עַל כֵּן לֹא נְתַתִּיךָ לִנְגֹּעַ אֵלֶיהָ:
(ז) וְעַתָּה הָשֵׁב אֵשֶׁת הָאִישׁ כִּי נָבִיא הוּא וְיִתְפַּלֵּל בַּעַדְךָ וֶחְיֵה וְאִם אֵינְךָ מֵשִׁיב דַּע כִּי מוֹת תָּמוּת אַתָּה וְכָל אֲשֶׁר לָךְ:

בראשית פרק כז
(יט) וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל אָבִיו אָנֹכִי עֵשָׂו בְּכֹרֶךָ עָשִׂיתִי כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ אֵלָי קוּם נָא שְׁבָה וְאָכְלָה מִצֵּידִי בַּעֲבוּר תְּבָרֲכַנִּי נַפְשֶׁךָ:

בראשית פרק ל
(א) וַתֵּרֶא רָחֵל כִּי לֹא יָלְדָה לְיַעֲקֹב וַתְּקַנֵּא רָחֵל בַּאֲחֹתָהּ וַתֹּאמֶר אֶל יַעֲקֹב הָבָה לִּי בָנִים וְאִם אַיִן מֵתָה אָנֹכִי:
יונתן בראשית פרק ל פסוק א
(א) וַחֲמַת רָחֵל אֲרוּם לָא יְלֵידַת לְיַעֲקֹב וְקַנִיאַת רָחֵל בַּאֲחָתָהּ וַאֲמָרַת לְיַעֲקֹב צַלִי קֳדָם יְיָ וִיהַב לִי בְּנִין וְאִין לָא הֵי כְמִיתָא אֲנָא חֲשִׁיבָא:
רמב"ן בראשית פרק ל פסוק א
(א) הבה לי בנים - אמרו המפרשים (רש"י, וראב"ע) שתתפלל עלי. ואם אין מתה אנכי - לשון רש"י שמי שאין לו בנים חשוב כמת, והוא מדרש רבותינו (ב"ר עא ו). ואני תמה, אם כן למה חרה אפו ולמה אמר התחת אלהים אנכי, ושומע אל צדיקים ה'. ומה שאמר, אבא לא היו לו בנים אני יש לי בנים, ממך מנע ממני לא מנע, וכי הצדיקים אינן מתפללים בעד אחרים, והנה אליהו ואלישע התפללו בעד נשים נכריות (מ"א יז כא, ושם ב ד טז).
ונראה שבשביל זה תפסוהו רבותינו, אמרו בבראשית רבה (עא ז) אמר לו הקב"ה כך עונין את המעיקות, חייך שבניך עתידין לעמוד לפני בנה:
ועל דרך הפשט אמרה רחל ליעקב שיתן לה בנים, ובאמת דעתה לאמר שיתפלל עליה, אבל שיתפלל עליה עד שיתן לה בנים על כל פנים, ואם אין שתמית עצמה בצער. דברה שלא כהוגן בקנאתה, וחשבה כי באהבתו אותה יתענה יעקב וילבש שק ואפר ויתפלל עד שיהיו לה בנים שלא תמות בצערה. ויחר אף יעקב - שאין תפלת הצדיקים בידם שתשמע ותענה על כל פנים. ובעבור שדברה דרך געגועי הנשים האהובות להפחידו במיתתה חרה אפו, ולכך אמר לה שאינו במקום אלהים שיפקוד העקרות על כל פנים, ואיננו חושש בדבר, כי ממנה נמנע פרי הבטן ולא ממנו, וזה ליסר אותה ולהכלימה. והנה הצדקת בראותה שלא תוכל להסמך על תפלת יעקב, שבה להתפלל על עצמה, אל שומע צעקה, וזהו וישמע אליה אלהים (להלן פסוק כב):
ואולי נתקן על דעת רבותינו, כי יעקב אי אפשר שלא נתפלל על אשתו האהובה כי עקרה היא, אלא שלא נתקבלה תפלתו, ובאה עתה רחל להתעולל עליו לאמר שיתן לה בנים על כל פנים בתפלתו כי לא נופל הוא מאביו שעשה כן, ויחר אפו ואמר לה כי הדבר ביד אלהים ולא בידו, ואביו נשמעה תפלתו שהוא צדיק, ועתיד להיות לו זרע, אבל היא נמנע ממנה פרי בטן. ונכון הוא:

(Of course, the enlistment of human intermediaries to pray on behalf of the people is a constant theme of many aggadic sections of Maseches Ta'anis. It is a senseless debate. What is more controversial and less understood is...)

Angelic Intermediaries (enlisted by God and by humans):

בראשית לב
(כה) וַיִּוָּתֵר יַעֲקֹב לְבַדּוֹ וַיֵּאָבֵק אִישׁ עִמּוֹ עַד עֲלוֹת הַשָּׁחַר:
(כו) וַיַּרְא כִּי לֹא יָכֹל לוֹ וַיִּגַּע בְּכַף יְרֵכוֹ וַתֵּקַע כַּף יֶרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב בְּהֵאָבְקוֹ עִמּוֹ:
(כז) וַיֹּאמֶר שַׁלְּחֵנִי כִּי עָלָה הַשָּׁחַר וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא אֲשַׁלֵּחֲךָ כִּי אִם בֵּרַכְתָּנִי:

בראשית פרק מח
(טז) הַמַּלְאָךְ הַגֹּאֵל אֹתִי מִכָּל רָע יְבָרֵךְ אֶת הַנְּעָרִים וְיִקָּרֵא בָהֶם שְׁמִי וְשֵׁם אֲבֹתַי אַבְרָהָם וְיִצְחָק וְיִדְגּוּ לָרֹב בְּקֶרֶב הָאָרֶץ

שמות פרק כג
(כ) הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי שֹׁלֵחַ מַלְאָךְ לְפָנֶיךָ לִשְׁמָרְךָ בַּדָּרֶךְ וְלַהֲבִיאֲךָ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר הֲכִנֹתִי:
(כא) הִשָּׁמֶר מִפָּנָיו וּשְׁמַע בְּקֹלוֹ אַל תַּמֵּר בּוֹ כִּי לֹא יִשָּׂא לְפִשְׁעֲכֶם כִּי שְׁמִי בְּקִרְבּוֹ:

אבן עזרא שמות (הפירוש הארוך) פרק כג פסוק כ
(כ) הנה אנכי אמר השם למשה, שיאמר גם זה לישראל, כי אם יקבלו כל הדברים והמשפטים מתחלת אתם ראיתם, אז יביאם אל הארץ. ורבים השתבשו בזה. יש אומרים, כי המלאך (הוא) ספר תורה בעבור כי שמי בקרבו. ואחרים אמרו (הוא) ארון הברית, ופירשו ושמע בקולו הכתוב בו, ואמרו לא ישא השם לפשעכם. וכל אלה דברי רוח, כי כל התורה והמקרא מלאים מזה הטעם.
הוא ישלח מלאכו לפניך (ברא' כד, ז), המלאך הגואל אותי מכל רע (שם מח, טז). ומשה אמר: וישלח מלאך ויוציאנו ממצרים (במד' כ, טז), ומלאך פניו הושיעם (ישעי' סג, ט), ויצא מלאך ה' (שם לז, לו), ויאמר למלאך המשחית בעם (ש"ב כד, טז), אלהי שלח מלאכה (דניאל ו, כג), דמי לבר אלהין (שם ג, כה), ורבים כאלה, ובס' דניאל: שר יון ושר פרס (דניאל י, כ), כי אם מיכאל שרכם (שם שם, כא), והוא הנקרא הגדול, כי הוא נכבד מאחרים רבים, גם כתוב עליו אחד השרים הראשונים בא לעזרני (שם שם, יג) שפי' במעלה, כמו היושבים ראשונה במלכות (אסתר א, יד), וזה המלאך הוא מיכאל. לשמרך בדרך שלא יגע בך רע. אשר הכינתי לך, כדרך בהנחל עליון גוים (דבר' לב, ח), כאשר אפרש

רמב"ן שמות פרק כג פסוק כ
(כ) הנה אנכי שולח מלאך לפניך - כאן נתבשרו שעתידין לחטוא ושכינה אומרת כי לא אעלה בקרבך (להלן לג ג). כי שמי בקרבו, מחובר לראש המקרא, השמר מפניו כי שמי משותף בקרבו. ורבותינו דרשו (סנהדרין לח ב) זה מטטרון ששמו כשם רבו, מטטרון בגימטריא שדי. לשון רש"י.
ובאלה שמות רבה (לב ז) ראיתי גם כן יש מי שדורש כך שזה על דבר העגל. ויש לשאול שהרי הגזרה ההיא לא נתקיימה, שהקב"ה אמר לו ושלחתי לפניך מלאך כי לא אעלה בקרבך (להלן לג ב ג), ומשה בקש עליה רחמים ואמר אם אין פניך הולכים אל תעלנו מזה, ובמה יודע אפוא כי מצאתי חן בעיניך אני ועמך הלא בלכתך עמנו (שם טו - טז), ונתרצה לו הקב"ה ואמר לו גם את הדבר הזה אשר דברת אעשה (שם יז). וכך אמרו (סנהדרין שם) דאפילו בפרונקא לא קבליניה, דכתיב אם אין פניך הולכים אל תעלנו מזה:

והתשובה לפי הדעת הזאת, כי הגזרה ההיא לא נתקיימה עם משה בימיו, הוא מה שאמר (להלן לג טז) ונפלינו אני ועמך, ואמר (שם יז) כי מצאת חן בעיני ואדעך בשם, ועוד אמר (שם לד י) וראה כל העם אשר אתה בקרבו, אבל לאחר מיתתו של משה רבינו שלח להם מלאך, וזה שאמר הכתוב (יהושע ה יג יד) ויהי בהיות יהושע ביריחו וישא עיניו וירא והנה איש עומד לנגדו וחרבו שלופה בידו ויאמר לו הלנו אתה אם לצרנו, ויאמר לא כי אני שר צבא ה' עתה באתי. ושם תראה ששאלו יהושע מה אדוני מדבר אל עבדו (שם יד), ולא צוה דבר שנגלה אליו בעבורו, אלא שאמר לו של נעלך מעל רגליך (שם טו), ולא בירר למה בא. אבל היתה המראה להודיע אותו כי מעתה יהיה מלאך שלוח לפניהם לצבא בבאם במלחמה. וזהו שאמר עתה באתי (שם יד). וכך אמרו בתנחומא (יח) אני הוא שבאתי בימי משה רבך ודחה אותי ולא רצה שאלך עמו. ומפורש אמרו (בשמו"ר לב ג) בטל שלא ימסרו להם שר כל ימי משה, וכיון שמת משה חזר אותו השר למקומו, שכן יהושע רואה אותו, שנאמר ויהי בהיות יהושע ביריחו ויאמר לא כי אני שר צבא ה' עתה באתי, לכך נאמר הנה אנכי שולח מלאך:

ועל דרך האמת, המלאך הזה שהובטחו בו בכאן הוא המלאך הגואל (בראשית מח טז) אשר השם הגדול בקרבו, כי ביה ה' צור עולמים (ישעיה כו ד), והוא שאמר אנכי האל בית אל (בראשית לא יג), כי דרך המלך לשכון בביתו, ויקראנו הכתוב מלאך בעבור היות כל הנהגת העולם הזה במדה ההיא. ורבותינו אמרו (סנהדרין לח ב) כי הוא מטטרון, והוא שם למורה הדרך. וכבר פרשתי זה בסדר בא אל פרעה (לעיל יב יב). וזה טעם לשמרך בדרך ולהביאך אל המקום אשר הכינותי, הוא בית המקדש, כדכתיב מקדש ה' כוננו ידיך (לעיל טו יז), והטעם אשר הכינותי לי, להיות בית קדשי ותפארתי כי שם הכסא שלם. ועוד אזכיר (להלן כד א) כוונתם בשמו כשם רבו, והנה קולו הוא קול אלהים חיים, והמצוה לשמוע בקולו מפי הנביאים, או הטעם שלא יקצצו בנטיעות ויעזבו תורה שבעל פה, כענין שדרשו (פתיחתא איכה רבתי ב) ואת אמרת קדוש ישראל נאצו (ישעיה ה כד) זו תורה שבעל פה. והנה פירושו ושמע בקולו (פסוק כא) לדברי, וכן אמר כי אם שמוע תשמע בקולו ועשית כל אשר אדבר (פסוק כב). ואונקלוס רמז זה, שתרגם ארי בשמי מימריה, כי בו ידבר:

...וגם שם במדרש רבה (שמות לב ט) רמזו לזה, אמרו הנה אנכי שולח מלאך, אמר לו הקב"ה מי ששמר את האבות ישמור את הבנים, וכן אתה מוצא באברהם כשבירך את יצחק אמר הוא ישלח מלאכו לפניך (בראשית כד ז), ביעקב המלאך הגואל אותי (שם מח טז), אמר להם הוא גאלני מיד עשו, הוא הצילני מיד לבן, הוא זנני ופרנסני בשני רעבון. אמר הקב"ה למשה אף עכשו מי ששימר את האבות ישמור את הבנים, שנאמר הנה אנכי שולח מלאך לפניך. ועוד אמרו שם (שמו"ר לב ד) בפירוש אמר להם הקב"ה לישראל הזהרו בשליח שאינו חוזר בשליחותו, מדת הדין הוא אל תמר בו וכו'.
ומכל מקום לדברי הכל המדרש שהזכרתי אמת הוא שכל ימי משה לא היה מלאך שר צבא הולך עמהם, כי משה היה ממלא מקומו, כענין שנאמר (לעיל יז יא) והיה כאשר ירים משה ידו וגבר ישראל, ובימי יהושע הוצרך לו שיבא אליו מלאך שר צבא ה' ללחום מלחמותם, והוא גבריאל הנלחם להם, וזהו שראה אותו וחרבו שלופה בידו (יהושע ה יג), כי בא לעשות נקמה בגוים תוכחות בלאומים:

מלאכי פרק ג
(א) הִנְנִי שֹׁלֵחַ מַלְאָכִי וּפִנָּה דֶרֶךְ לְפָנָי וּפִתְאֹם יָבוֹא אֶל הֵיכָלוֹ הָאָדוֹן אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם מְבַקְשִׁים וּמַלְאַךְ הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם חֲפֵצִים הִנֵּה בָא אָמַר יְקֹוָק צְבָאוֹת:

תהילים פרק לד
(ח) חֹנֶה מַלְאַךְ יְקֹוָק סָבִיב לִירֵאָיו וַיְחַלְּצֵם:

תהילים פרק לה
(ו) יְהִי דַרְכָּם חֹשֶׁךְ וַחֲלַקְלַקּוֹת וּמַלְאַךְ יְקֹוָק רֹדְפָם:

Judaism and Superstition: a list of classic Jewish sources which make promises for observing commandments

שמות פרק יב
יג) וְהָיָה הַדָּם לָכֶם לְאֹת עַל הַבָּתִּים אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם שָׁם וְרָאִיתִי אֶת הַדָּם וּפָסַחְתִּי עֲלֵכֶם וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָכֶם נֶגֶף לְמַשְׁחִית בְּהַכֹּתִי בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:

ויקרא פרק יט
כג) וְכִי תָבֹאוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ וּנְטַעְתֶּם כָּל עֵץ מַאֲכָל וַעֲרַלְתֶּם עָרְלָתוֹ אֶת פִּרְיוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים יִהְיֶה לָכֶם עֲרֵלִים לֹא יֵאָכֵל:
(כד) וּבַשָּׁנָה הָרְבִיעִת יִהְיֶה כָּל פִּרְיוֹ קֹדֶשׁ הִלּוּלִים לַיקֹוָק:
(כה) וּבַשָּׁנָה הַחֲמִישִׁת תֹּאכְלוּ אֶת פִּרְיוֹ לְהוֹסִיף לָכֶם תְּבוּאָתוֹ אֲנִי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:

ויקרא פרק כ
(כב) וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת כָּל חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת כָּל מִשְׁפָּטַי וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם וְלֹא תָקִיא אֶתְכֶם הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה לָשֶׁבֶת בָּהּ:
(כג) וְלֹא תֵלְכוּ בְּחֻקֹּת הַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מְשַׁלֵּחַ מִפְּנֵיכֶם כִּי אֶת כָּל אֵלֶּה עָשׂוּ וָאָקֻץ בָּם:
(כד) וָאֹמַר לָכֶם אַתֶּם תִּירְשׁוּ אֶת אַדְמָתָם וַאֲנִי אֶתְּנֶנָּה לָכֶם לָרֶשֶׁת אֹתָהּ אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ אֲנִי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר הִבְדַּלְתִּי אֶתְכֶם מִן הָעַמִּים:

ויקרא פרק כה
(יח) וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֶת חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת מִשְׁפָּטַי תִּשְׁמְרוּ וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם וִישַׁבְתֶּם עַל הָאָרֶץ לָבֶטַח:
(יט) וְנָתְנָה הָאָרֶץ פִּרְיָהּ וַאֲכַלְתֶּם לָשֹׂבַע וִישַׁבְתֶּם לָבֶטַח עָלֶיהָ:
(כ) וְכִי תֹאמְרוּ מַה נֹּאכַל בַּשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁבִיעִת הֵן לֹא נִזְרָע וְלֹא נֶאֱסֹף אֶת תְּבוּאָתֵנוּ:
(כא) וְצִוִּיתִי אֶת בִּרְכָתִי לָכֶם בַּשָּׁנָה הַשִּׁשִּׁית וְעָשָׂת אֶת הַתְּבוּאָה לִשְׁלֹשׁ הַשָּׁנִים:
(כב) וּזְרַעְתֶּם אֵת הַשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁמִינִת וַאֲכַלְתֶּם מִן הַתְּבוּאָה יָשָׁן עַד הַשָּׁנָה הַתְּשִׁיעִת עַד בּוֹא תְּבוּאָתָהּ תֹּאכְלוּ יָשָׁן:


דברים פרק ד
לט) וְיָדַעְתָּ הַיּוֹם וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ אֶל לְבָבֶךָ כִּי יְקֹוָק הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל וְעַל הָאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת אֵין עוֹד:
(מ) וְשָׁמַרְתָּ אֶת חֻקָּיו וְאֶת מִצְוֹתָיו אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִיטַב לְךָ וּלְבָנֶיךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ וּלְמַעַן תַּאֲרִיךְ יָמִים עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ כָּל הַיָּמִים: פ

דברים פרק ה
(כה) מִי יִתֵּן וְהָיָה לְבָבָם זֶה לָהֶם לְיִרְאָה אֹתִי וְלִשְׁמֹר אֶת כָּל מִצְוֹתַי כָּל הַיָּמִים לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָהֶם וְלִבְנֵיהֶם לְעֹלָם:
(כו) לֵךְ אֱמֹר לָהֶם שׁוּבוּ לָכֶם לְאָהֳלֵיכֶם:
(כח) וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם לַעֲשׂוֹת כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֶתְכֶם לֹא תָסֻרוּ יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל:
(כט) בְּכָל הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֶתְכֶם תֵּלֵכוּ לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּן וְטוֹב לָכֶם וְהַאֲרַכְתֶּם יָמִים בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר תִּירָשׁוּן:

דברים פרק ו
(ב) לְמַעַן תִּירָא אֶת יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹר אֶת כָּל חֻקֹּתָיו וּמִצְוֹתָיו אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּךָ אַתָּה וּבִנְךָ וּבֶן בִּנְךָ כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ וּלְמַעַן יַאֲרִכֻן יָמֶיךָ:
(ג) וְשָׁמַעְתָּ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְשָׁמַרְתָּ לַעֲשׂוֹת אֲשֶׁר יִיטַב לְךָ וַאֲשֶׁר תִּרְבּוּן מְאֹד כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֶיךָ לָךְ אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ: פ
(יז) שָׁמוֹר תִּשְׁמְרוּן אֶת מִצְוֹת יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וְעֵדֹתָיו וְחֻקָּיו אֲשֶׁר צִוָּךְ:
(יח) וְעָשִׂיתָ הַיָּשָׁר וְהַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵי יְקֹוָק לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ וּבָאתָ וְיָרַשְׁתָּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַטֹּבָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע יְקֹוָק לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ:
(יט) לַהֲדֹף אֶת כָּל אֹיְבֶיךָ מִפָּנֶיךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְקֹוָק: ס
(כד) וַיְצַוֵּנוּ יְקֹוָק לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת כָּל הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה לְיִרְאָה אֶת יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֵינוּ לְטוֹב לָנוּ כָּל הַיָּמִים לְחַיֹּתֵנוּ כְּהַיּוֹם הַזֶּה:
(כה) וּצְדָקָה תִּהְיֶה לָּנוּ כִּי נִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת כָּל הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֵינוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּנוּ: ס

דברים פרק י
(יב) וְעַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל מָה יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֶיךָ שֹׁאֵל מֵעִמָּךְ כִּי אִם לְיִרְאָה אֶת יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָלֶכֶת בְּכָל דְּרָכָיו וּלְאַהֲבָה אֹתוֹ וְלַעֲבֹד אֶת יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל נַפְשֶׁךָ:
(יג) לִשְׁמֹר אֶת מִצְוֹת יְקֹוָק וְאֶת חֻקֹּתָיו אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם לְטוֹב לָךְ:

דברים פרק יב
(כג) רַק חֲזַק לְבִלְתִּי אֲכֹל הַדָּם כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ וְלֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר:
(כד) לֹא תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם:
(כה) לֹא תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ לְמַעַן יִיטַב לְךָ וּלְבָנֶיךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ כִּי תַעֲשֶׂה הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינֵי יְקֹוָק:

(כח) שְׁמֹר וְשָׁמַעְתָּ אֵת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּךָּ לְמַעַן יִיטַב לְךָ וּלְבָנֶיךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ עַד עוֹלָם כִּי תַעֲשֶׂה הַטּוֹב וְהַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינֵי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֶיךָ: ס

דברים פרק יט
(יא) וְכִי יִהְיֶה אִישׁ שֹׂנֵא לְרֵעֵהוּ וְאָרַב לוֹ וְקָם עָלָיו וְהִכָּהוּ נֶפֶשׁ וָמֵת וְנָס אֶל אַחַת הֶעָרִים הָאֵל:
(יב) וְשָׁלְחוּ זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ וְלָקְחוּ אֹתוֹ מִשָּׁם וְנָתְנוּ אֹתוֹ בְּיַד גֹּאֵל הַדָּם וָמֵת:
(יג) לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינְךָ עָלָיו וּבִעַרְתָּ דַם הַנָּקִי מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְטוֹב לָךְ: ס

The bulk of promises of general good for general observance seem to come from Sefer Devarim, whereas promises for specific types of reward for observing specific commandments are found in the other books of Chumash. But this could easily be a skewed observation based on my limited survey from a few search words. I am sure there are many other promises that I overlooked.
(I suppose the academic minded would jump to make a dichotomy between the "Narrative sections" and the "Mosaic sermons".)

On the other hand, for the case against superstition we have...

ויקרא יט

(כו) לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם לֹא תְנַחֲשׁוּ וְלֹא תְעוֹנֵנוּ:

(לא) אַל תִּפְנוּ אֶל הָאֹבֹת וְאֶל הַיִּדְּעֹנִים אַל תְּבַקְשׁוּ לְטָמְאָה בָהֶם אֲנִי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:

דברים פרק י
(יז) כִּי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֵיכֶם הוּא אֱלֹהֵי הָאֱלֹהִים וַאֲדֹנֵי הָאֲדֹנִים הָאֵל הַגָּדֹל הַגִּבֹּר וְהַנּוֹרָא אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִשָּׂא פָנִים וְלֹא יִקַּח שֹׁחַד:

To know which contemporary practice falls under which category, I highly recommend the classic handbook written explicitly for this question:

Faith and Folly