Russian posts

I wish I had patience to write like this, translating all my English posts into the language of Pushkin, and all my Russian posts into the language of Douglas Adams.

I also wish I could write this well or be as smart in general.

OK, the program. I skipped about half of the lectures, preferring to hang out with friends, but I did take in some. Haven’t heard anything new, but did notice a certain (already oft-mentioned) tendency of the kiruv workers to pass their opinions as fact. For example, Esther Segal (a really good speaker, BTW) referred to the existence of a single primal Jewish soul as fact at least four times, whereas AFAIK it’s only a contested kabbalistic opinion, just like transmigration of souls is; and as Saadia Gaon said about that (free translation): “Gilgul? Bloody nonsense!”

Another speaker, one David Karpov, spoke about reconciling science and religion. He described three method of settling conflicts: 1) science must yield; 2) religion must yield; 3) let’s compartmentalize and not think about them. After dressing down these straw men, he offered a fourth alternative (to which I have long subscribed): science and religion speak about different things in different languages, and there can be no real conflict between them. However, while knocking the straw men down he mentioned Goedel’s incompleteness theorem and claimed that this was why science could never figure out the mechanism of emergence of life or put together a unified field theory. I collared him after the lecture and asked: first, Goedel’s theorem is formulated in the abstract, so why are you claiming as fact that it’s precisely those two problems that science can’t solve? Second, does it bother you as a Habadnik that the Rebbe had unequivocally chosen the first method, writing about how unreliable carbon dating is and how God must have created dinosaur bones in situ, etc.?

In response to the first question Mr. Karpov told me a story of a pauper who was making rounds of an apartment building, asking people to help a poor cello player, until one of the dwellers asked him to come in and play the cello he happened to have. “Just my luck to run into a cello!” muttered the poor man. “I, too, have run into a cello,” Mr. Karpov told me, “for I normally don’t count on my audience being familiar with Goedel’s theorem. You’re right, this is my personal opinion.” The answer to the second question was more equivocal: since the late Rebbe propounded the aforementioned opinion in the 70s and 80s, thereafter abandoning the topic, Mr. Karpov made a far-reaching conclusion that he must have changed his mind.

Read on.

This is why Chabad started in Russia. I mean, what Americans speak this way? And don’t talk to me about Rav Soloveitchik. He was educated in Berlin, and it’s not clear how much of what he wrote his followers actually understand (perhaps they understand it and merely use it as an excuse to break Halacha).

Also, all of you know this story:

The knight Godfrey, before leaving to the Holy Land on a crusade, asked Rashi to prophesy about the success of the crusade. Rashi answered that Godfrey would fail on the crusade and return with only three horses. Godfrey answered that even if one detail of this story would be off, he would kill Rashi.

Godfrey’s crusade failed, and he had to return back to Europe. But — with four horses! He was making sure they all four survived with great care. As he was about to enter his city, with bloodthirsty thoughts, a stone from the gates fell down on one of the horse’s heads and killed it. Godfrey, full of remorse, went to see Rashi only to find out that the great sage had died a few days before.

Well, the problem is that Godfrey died in the Holy Land. And Rashi died five years after Godfrey.