Jessie Fischbein
Dear Jewish Times,
In your article, "Plural Positions," you defended your adherence to
the concept of one, absolute truth. You explained that we must fit into the
Torah, not fit the Torah into our predefined philosophy. You explained that you
would only teach opinions that you agree with.
You did not respond to two points that I would like to address.
The writer said: "[You] presume yourself as the sole source on what is
considered "correct" and "truth," whether it be in areas of
Philosophy or Halacha. To presume either is quite laughable even for the
greatest talmid chacham, which I'm sorry to say from reading through your
website, you do not seem to be."
The language "I'm sorry to say that you do not seem to be a talmid
chacham" came across as a personal attack. I would have liked to see an
example cited of an area of philosophy or halacha, with proof that it is
clearly
false. This would have backed up the accusation more specifically.
The writer said: "You should also get an education... many of your
claims are clearly stated from a lack of one."
Once again, this is a personal attack unaccompanied by specific data. I have
seen many examples of questions sent in by readers with the following format:
"You claim X. This gemara/midrash/practice, etc. contradicts that.
How do you explain that?" This gives Mesora the opportunity to defend its
position. The writer of this letter must address all of the points he disagrees
with by bringing clear sources that contradict what Mesora says, and then
receive unsatisfactory explanations, in order to justify this complaint. His
current contentions are vague. He criticized Mesora personally instead of
attacking the halacha or philosophy with sources.