Multiple Views?


Moshe Ben-Chaim



Reader: Your site is quite odd.

You seem to negate any idea of any arguments throughout Jewish History and 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.


You quote the Rambam a great deal despite many views (especially in areas of philosophy) that clearly argue with his views.  To presume any of these views as the "correct one" or "truth" is a) quote presumptuous b) a dangerous foolish move.  There are many philosophical and spiritual views in Judaism, yet you claim your opinions are correct.


In my experience the beauty of Orthodox Judaism, from both a halachic and philosophical perspective is the wealth of views we have in people trying to better find how Hashem fits their lives.  To make a statement that your view is correct or "better" than someone else’s is wrong and can lead that person astray.


You should really consider placing on your site a greater variety of views and quote sources from many different philosophical backgrounds. You should also get an education... many of your claims are clearly stated from a lack of one.



Mesora: Answer a few questions to yourself:

1) Why did all the Rabbis and Sages argue on each other, stating their views with absolute conviction, equally convinced their opponent was wrong? They should have accepted other views equally, but they didn't.


2) You write, “the beauty of Orthodox Judaism, from both a halachic and philosophical perspective is the wealth of views..." According to you, my view should be equally acceptable as yours, which places you in an unanswerable contradiction.


3) You claim that by many people arguing on Rambam, this validates their positions as equally tenable. I fail to see the logic in your argument. Perhaps today, I will argue on Einstein. I doubt my position will ever be viewed as entering the arena with that “heavyweight”. The validity of a position does not emerge from either, numbers of supporters, nor from the simple act of opening one’s mouth in opposition. Credence for one’s argument emerges though a single criterion: rationality.


4) Your most obvious problem is your statement, “people trying to better find how Hashem fits their lives”. You thereby suggest that what is absolute, is one’s predefined life. From that ‘starting point’, according to you, only then do we seek how G-d “fits” into our predefined philosophy. You miss the entire point of Torah, that G-d’s knowledge is absolute, and the purpose in life is for man to “fit” himself into G-d’s philosophy. Not the opposite as you state.


G-d’s Torah contains no problems. All is true and harmonious. The Torah has only one position on each concept, i.e., “absolute truth” reflecting G-d’s knowledge The Rabbis taught, (paraphrased) “originally, there were no arguments in Torah. It was only due to man’s ignorance that arguments arose.” It is for this reason that we find the Rabbis so vehement in their positions, not accepting what their minds saw as incorrect. They did not accept a “wealth of views” as you do. They understood the concept that truth is ‘singular’ by definition. There cannot be two true views on a single point.


If you condone Maimonides’ teaching of his own view, to the exclusion of others, than you must be consistent with all teachers. Maimonides taught what he saw as truth, although others taught differently than he taught. Do you feel Maimonides should teach other opinions, with which he disagreed? This makes no sense.