I'd like to coin a new term called Mental Masturbation.
[I saw afterwards it's already out there. See below]
Mental Masturbation is the engaging in the pleasure of one's own solipsistic ideologies and self-projections with little or no corroboration with any empirical or factual data externally. The pleasuring of oneself mentally and intellectually, with one's own internal self-thoughts, even when their truth is completely unsubstantiated and ultimately conjecture.
An example I could think of would be a "scientific" discussion of the moon 1000 years ago. A man will come and "offer his thoughts" that the moon is made of cheese. That's why it has it's white color and dark spots and crevices, etc. Another man may come along and claim that the moon is it's own material (an ether of sorts), with other various characteristics and properties all uniquely specific unto itself, etc. Yet a third man could come along and suggest the moon is (as we know it to be true today) made of rock, and all of the accompanying features that come with that, etc
All these thoughts being offered mind you, without any substantive proof of logic or specific nuance making it evident that, yes, that is The Answer, the only answer. No calculations or experimentations. No broad canvassing of other heavenly bodies or phenomena to try and get a sense of patterns or unifying shared concepts. Just ad hoc: The moon is white and cheese is white so let it be cheese...or rock... or whatever is white. In other words, answers that "fit into" the question but not "fitting" the question.
Consequently they're all "wrong" here-- even the third man, insofar as everything that everyone said was just conjecture with no real proof of corroboration to facts. Everyone's just saying that which "speaks to them" or "feels right". Without having some kind of benchmark measure of data to "work within" or "verify against" it's all just conjecture and the "rock theory" is no better than the "cheese theory" even if generations later it's discovered (through scientific investigation i.e. drisha) that the moon is in fact composed of rock.
And so I come to my point: the hopeless state of Mental Masturbation among Torah Jewry (vis-a-vis the empirical truth of Torah) at even the highest levels of leadership and scholarship. The Rabbi's "Shabbos Morning" sermon where he conveniently "fits in" to the Parasha his agenda pertaining to current events, or the "cute vortlich" among Rebeiim and Roshei Yeshiva (which 75% of the time even the speaker himself knows that the vort is probably not the true intent of the Torah). The "Kabbala Centre" self-help ideas which have been just retrofitted to work within the "jewish framework" of Ten Sefirot or the yeshiva bochur, with his "bag full of ideologies" that he's picked up from yeshiva, with absolutely no cognizance as to how those same ideologies can be traced back to a Sinai and to a Torah she'Bichtav.
And so we live in a world that is totally oblivious to a "scientific methodology of Torah Study" (Drisha) but instead finds its particular circle of mental masturbators that matches best and just "joins in" as it were. A world oblivious to a Shimon haAmsuni (Pesachim 22b) , that will have one את to say a cute vort on and a thousand אתים in direct contradiction to, and still unashamedly make that one את their personal platform and podium for spouting whatever personal agenda they may want to say, all the while justifying it under protection of a שבעים פנים לתורה. A world that has completely abandoned a י"ג מדות שהתורה נדרשת בהם and practically doesn't even know that Midrashei Halacha like Sifra and Sifrei exist. A world of readers reading this blog and saying to themselves "I don't get it. How else can you learn Torah then???"
And so if I could just give over one message to the Torah world out there it would have to be:
Just Say NO to Mental Masturbation!
[יחזקאל טז יז- ותקחי כלי תפארתך מזהבי ומכספי אשר נתתי לך ותעשי לך צלמי זכר ותזני בם]
ספרא נגעים פרק יג משנה ב -- "אמר לו הרי אתה אומר לכתוב שתוק עד שאדרוש" עיי"ש
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
[Post Script: After Googling I see that the phrase Mental Masturbation is already around but fascinatingly enough with a slightly but fundamentally different meaning. The common usage seems to be "mental thought that is unproductive" i.e. just as masturbation is a non-productive activity... but i think that's wrong. The problem with masturbation is not that it's "non-productive", to the contrary it's very productive in giving a person pleasure. The problem with masturbation is that it's an act of fantasizing an external reality and engaging with that fantasy i.e. a denial of reality and an escape into one's own solipsistic world. It is with that understanding of masturbation that i use my term mental masturbation]
[Very happy to just discover shiurim of Rav Michael Avraham on the subject of Midrashei Halacha. Starting to listen to them now...]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
funny i just read this now, there's a book i just started reading and lost called learned "learning to read midrash" by simi peters. she discusses the distinction between homiletics (what you're talking about with derision- "drisha") & parshanut... forget what the formal translation / academic term is- but it's about trying to come to an understanding of the pshat (ie: Rshi). both are valid approaches to interpreting Torah, one with obvious agenda, the other less... but there will never "exist" one pshat, as even if there IS one, mankind will never know it, as our perception builds in multiple approaches and understandings. so, even the approach you extol is "flawed" in its result. obviously, just using the text to suit one's agenda without regard to the form / principles / consistency with which one should approach Torah responsibly... duh, not cool. solution: individual responsibility to learn as much and think as critically and consistently with one's learning as possible; speak up when you can; and try to stay positive ;). later, t.
2 points:
1- obviously I recognize there is a concept of shiv'im panim la'torah, but within the proper parameters... just as you wouldn't argue there's a phenomenon of megaleh panim batorah sh'lo k'halacha
2- your mention of Rashi, just another example of the misconception I think. The "trying to understand the pshat" that you say Rashi attempted is replete with proofs of commonality of hebrew vocabulary and midrashic principles of exegesis (Rashi finds the DRASH that fits the PSHAT BEST, he doesn't make up a pshat that is plausible, there's a big difference in that).
When was the last time you heard a modern day dvar torah where someone even quotes (1!) pasuk or an additional reference to support his assertions?? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but it's few and far between.
To call flights of Torah fancy what you did equates or relates an animalistic impulse that stimulates hedonism and violence and solipsism with a spiritual quest called להשתעשע בדברי תורה. What you castigate has been done for milennia by our greatest teachers; the point of drush is not to interpret, but rather to communicate a lesson of mussar or hashkafa. It's like Aggadeta. One of the rules of drush is that when applied to Tanach, the Drush has to fit in with all the facts. But nobody expects it to be factually true. That's why in so many sefarim we find ten or fifteen answers to one question. What matters in Drush is that the idea communicated is valuable and meaningful, and that it is faithful to the words of Tanach.
So, in short, drush is not at all like being motzi zera le'vatala. In fact, if you were to try to find a diametric opposition, these two might make good bookends.
various points:
- I haven't "hedonized" the act of learning Torah (and the consequent masturbation comparison in the absence of true analyzing/learning) any more than Shlomo Hamelech דדיה ירווך בכל עת or many various kabbalistic descriptions, מיין נוקבין being one of many.
- You misquote me. Derush is neither interpretaion nor, as you say, to communicate an idea. My position is that Derush is to "seek" what the text of the Torah is saying on its own as much as possible. I frankly am incredulous that you would actually put in writing that the word for דרישה = seeking/investigating could mean a mode of giving over an idea of the seeker...
- the difference between a mental masturbator versus an עוסק בתורה is a function of the consciousness of the individual engaging in the act. As such there is no way for you nor I to know to what degree any scholar of history was involved in the pursuit of understanding the Torah rather than self-projection and indulgence. That's between them and their Creator. [See צדקת הצדיק on ירבעם בן נבט that החדש אשר בדה מלבו was actually accompanied with scholarly derashot and arguments. דואג האדומי being another example]
However, there are certain signs or characteristics of mental masturbators that give good reason when found to label them as such.
- note the thin line between להשתעשע בדברי תורה vs להשתעשע or as in the vulgar "play with oneself"...
Post a Comment