This is the lastest round in the debate concerning Science & Religion a.k.a the Slikin Issue. My publishing this is not an endorsement of the views expressed - on either side. I am willing to publish civil comments that deal with the substance of the issue. Comments that say nothing more than "kofer" or "rasha" will be discarded. Even though Rabbi Tropper has claimed that I am R' Slifkin's major supporter - it is simply not true. I am quite willing to publish the critique of this critique. I was undecided about publishing this but commentator Stanley's ready use of the word kofer served as a timely reminded that violent demonstrations in Jerusalem are not the only serious issue we must deal with.
A no holds barred opponent of R' Slikin here - R' Raphael Bearmant and here
ChaimBEmunasam-1
Even though Rabbi Tropper has claimed that I am R' Slifkin's major supporter
ReplyDelete--------------------------
Do not feel bad, Tropper (roni) called me buddy of r' Bomzer and follower of Shmaria Rosenberd and UOJ.
Tropper (Roni) really hates r' Slifkin and r' Bomzer which make me that they are the same petson. Did anyone see both of them in the same room in the same time? You see this is the re'aya.
This is rhe same login Tropper (roni) uses to say it is OK to run after the gentiles trying to teach them the good news and to convert them.
I guess by "no holds barred" you mean "flipping lunatic" - I consider myself a critic of Noson Slifkin, but that website is completely, totally, ridiculous. I don't know why you even bothered to link to it.
ReplyDeleteLazerA said...
ReplyDeleteI guess by "no holds barred" you mean "flipping lunatic" - I consider myself a critic of Noson Slifkin, but that website is completely, totally, ridiculous. I don't know why you even bothered to link to it.
============
It unfortunately characterizes many of R' Slifkin's critics. They perceive a need to get him - they are not too particular about the means. The book being reviewed is a good example. it is simply an embarrassment. Gedolim support something which is not only poor scholarship - but it presents a distortion of Torah.
If Slifkin had written a sefer like this he would have been laughed out of town.
There are definitely issues to criticize R' Slifkin - but producing such a sefer and claiming that it is the true version of Torah - is extremely damaging to the credibility of gedolim and anti-Slifkin forces.
It is interesting to note that R Tropper is acknowledged as one of the major supporter/contributors to the sefer.
As a reader of Slifkin's books and user of his materials in my Yeshiva science classes, I believe he has a wealth of useful materials.
ReplyDeleteThe original ban was in order due to the lack of maturity, scholarship and knowledge that our youth, young adults and even older adults possess regarding the world of science and scientific inquiries.
Perhaps in some future date, leadership will applaud and appreciate his writings.
Thanks for the link. 37 years rav avigdor miller is my rebbi. Halacha kmoso bkol makom.i hope rabbi rb expands. His words are strong but also rabbi miller was the same
ReplyDeleteTZK said...
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link. 37 years rav avigdor miller is my rebbi. Halacha kmoso bkol makom.i hope rabbi rb expands. His words are strong but also rabbi miller was the same
=============
Did Rav Miller speak in the same abusive manner about those he disagreed with - as the blogger did?
Comparing the style and language of that website to Rav Miller זצ"ל is an obscenity.
ReplyDeleteIt is a sad commentary on our generation that people cannot distinguish between the "straight talk" of Rav Miller and the crude and hateful diatribes of that awful website.
It should be noted rhat Tropper's partner in organizing the original ban Leib Pinter was sent to prison for 8 years after pleeding guilty to mortgage fraud.
ReplyDeleteMaybe God is on rabbi Slifkin dide.
I am disappointed you chose to give publicity to this blog. Authentic Yiddishkeit (!) does not endorse put-downs and insults. The moment I hear someone say so and so does not have an ounce of intelligence, I stop listening. It's avadeh not true.
ReplyDeleteI disagree very much with Slifkin's approach and hashkofo. But it does not help any Torah observant Yid to be associated with that kind of strident language.
For anyone to compare themselves to a godol who had a certain style and say it's mutar for them is presumptuous to an extreme.
I regret that I followed such a link.
We have long lost an art of arguing shitos in a respectful way and without agendas.
No wonder ahavas Yisroel is so hard to come by.
Yakov said...
ReplyDeleteI am disappointed you chose to give publicity to this blog. Authentic Yiddishkeit (!) does not endorse put-downs and insults. The moment I hear someone say so and so does not have an ounce of intelligence, I stop listening. It's avadeh not true.
==========.
I was merely trying to demonstrate - not only with the book review but also with the website - that much credibility is lost when intellectually dishonest arguments are presented and there is a demand that they be accepted or "else you are not really frum"
Unfortunately as you have noted
"We have long lost an art of arguing shitos in a respectful way and without agendas."
Perhaps you have some suggestions as to how to improve the situation.
It unfortunately characterizes many of R' Slifkin's critics. They perceive a need to get him - they are not too particular about the means. The book being reviewed is a good example. it is simply an embarrassment. Gedolim support something which is not only poor scholarship - but it presents a distortion of Torah.
ReplyDeleteIf Slifkin had written a sefer like this he would have been laughed out of town.
...producing such a sefer and claiming that it is the true version of Torah - is extremely damaging to the credibility of gedolim and anti-Slifkin forces.
I found this comment to be articulate and reflective of what many of us probably believe.
regarding the link, see the Hirhurim effort in this regard regarding Google pagerank.
ReplyDeleteperhaps, if you want to link to it, you could edit your HTML to include the nofollow attribute in the anchor tag. see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow
kol tuv,
josh
For one, listening to talk radio is one way Yidden lose eidelkeit in how we speak to each other. I believe it is a huge mokor for this behavior and we should stop being listening and being influenced by these people who are nothing but entertainers.
ReplyDeletePassionate disagreement has always been a trademark of rischa d'oraisa. But put downs and insults do not convince anyone and hurt the cause you wish to publicize.
Just like I heard Dayan Dunner say b'shem Reb Moshe zl- kach partzufeihem shonim kach deioseihem shonim. Why does it use a loshon of "face"? Because even if you disagree with the person eish l'hoveh, he still has a face- he's still a mentsch we owe kovod to. He said it l'gabai bein ish l'shto. But it for sure works and seems to me, fits better in daily bein odom l'chaveiro because if one speaks to his wife like that or the wife speaks to her husband in a way that wipes the floor with them, they have very serious problems. At least chaveirim can call it a day and try again another time.
LazerA is right on the money. that blog is just loony. Also, to indicate that it is typical of R. Slifkin's opponents is terribly unfair. I have a friend, a big talmid chacham that has never heard of R. Slifkin. But he is very opposed to R. Slifkin's ideas ideas. People that have time to make wacky blogs full of hysterical attacks are not intelligent opinions in this debate. The intelligent opinions, lots of great people the STILL do not even had web access, are busy doing what they are supposed, sitting and learning. On gets a skewed idea from reading blogs.
ReplyDeleteMichoel,
ReplyDelete"LazerA is right on the money. that blog is just loony. Also, to indicate that it is typical of R. Slifkin's opponents is terribly unfair."
This may be true in the real world outside of the internet. However, most of my personal exposure to the debate regarding R' Slifkin and his writings has been through the Web, and I thought that the type of discourse I saw at the "Authentic Judaism" blog fairly accurately reflects much of the anti-Slifkin rhetoric I've encountered online. Just check out the comments left on R' Slifkin's "Rationalist Judaism" blog.
Michoel,
ReplyDelete"One gets a skewed idea from reading blogs."
This is true. However, it's also true that blogs, and more generally the internet, has become the primary medium through which many people encounter news and opinions generated outside of their immediate physical and social environments. As long as those in the chareidi world that have the ability to generate intelligent opinion, on the whole, choose remain "off the grid," the public perception of the chareidi perspective on the Slifkin debate will continue to be shaped primarily by "[p]eople that have time to make wacky blogs full of hysterical attacks."
Chizki, you should see the comments that I didn't let through. They were much, much worse!
ReplyDeleteNatan Slifkin said...
ReplyDeleteChizki, you should see the comments that I didn't let through. They were much, much worse!
==============
R' Slifkin - why do you think you elicit such a strong reaction from your critics which is perhaps better characterized as a primal reaction i.e., beyond rationality?
In following the comments generated by R' Slifkin's critiques of "Chaim B'Emunasom" posted on his blog, I noticed that a number of commentors were highly critical of R' Slifkin's claim that irreconcilable differences of thought exist between various Rishonim and Acharonim. Granted, minimizing the number and scope of machlokos is an important modus operandi in Limud Torah, but I always thought that irreconcilable differences in shitos do, in fact, exist. I have been very much taken aback by the position taken by some of R' Slifkin's critics that irreconcilable differences in shitos do not exist, and that suggesting that they do exist within the mesorah is krum at best and kefirah at worst. How widespread is this approach within the yeshivishe world? I largely move within chareidi circles in an out of town community, and I've never personally come across it.
ReplyDeleteChizki said...
ReplyDeleteIn following the comments generated by R' Slifkin's critiques of "Chaim B'Emunasom" posted on his blog, I noticed that a number of commentors were highly critical of R' Slifkin's claim that irreconcilable differences of thought exist between various Rishonim and Acharonim. Granted, minimizing the number and scope of machlokos is an important modus operandi in Limud Torah, but I always thought that irreconcilable differences in shitos do, in fact, exist. I have been very much taken aback by the position taken by some of R' Slifkin's critics that irreconcilable differences in shitos do not exist, and that suggesting that they do exist within the mesorah is krum at best and kefirah at worst. How widespread is this approach within the yeshivishe world? I largely move within chareidi circles in an out of town community, and I've never personally come across it.
====
This concept is apparently from kabbalah. You can find it explicity discussed in the sefer Shomer Emunim HaKadmon where he explains there are no absolute disputes in the gemora. The Gra also apparently thought this way. See Michtav M'Eliyahu concerning Eilu v'eilu states that disputes are not about right and wrong but merely what perspective to take. He explains it is like look at a sheet of paper. If you look at it one way it is very thin and the other way it is expansive. I discuss these views in my Daas Torah sefer. The Maharal apparently did not hold by this kabbalistic view and says that Eilu v'Eliu only applied to Hillel and Shammai. Rav Moshe Feinstein rejects this view in the introduction to the Igros Moshe - but there is a later teshuva where he seems to agree with it.
Of interest was a conversation I had many years ago with Rav Yakov Weinberg the Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisroel. I told him what Rav Dessler said and he was shocked. "You can't tell me an intelligent person would say such a thing." I told him that everyone I knew in fact agreed with Rav Desssler. His reply, "If so words would have no meaning." This is especially interesting since Rav Weinberg was a student of Rav Hutner.
My understanding of Shomer Emunim(haKadmon) was that it was written to present the legitimacy of Kabballah after the Shabbtai Tzvi debacle. The way it is learned in the Kabbalistic yeshivot that I have learned in, is that it speaks only to Kabbalah.
ReplyDeleteI am fully unaware of any Kabbalistic view(at least within the traditional Kabbalistic Yeshivot of E"Y) that states that there were no real machloket.
On a sod level, granted there are many correct ways of understanding torah. Every posuk is elucidated in 70 ways(at least). However, on a P'shat(aka Halacha ect) level, all of my teachers have warned that this cannot be the case. If it were the case it would lead to disaster. You cannot have multiple correct views of what is and is not kosher. You cannot have opposing but correct views on what will heal or kill a human being physically.
Mekubal,
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between Sod and Halacha can't be that cut and dried. There are, most certainly, multiple correct views of what is and is not kosher.
First of all, it cannot be that case the Eilu v'Eilu only refers to sod. The machlokos between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai, which the Gemara describes as "Eilu v'Eilu", are disagreements of practical halacha. So there must be more going on.
I think learning a particular halachik topic makes looking at the issue of machlokes and "eilu v'eilu" easier.
Machlokos often come up out of ambiguities in the mikra or divrei chazal, for which there are a number of reasonable interpretations.
For example, the Gemara (Chullin 105a) cites Rav Chisda's assertion that "one who consumes meat may not eat dairy products and one who eats dairy products is permitted to eat meat."
Rashi explains that meat has a strong taste that comes up from the stomach into the mouth .
Rambam, in Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros, explains that the concern is for meat that remains lodged between one's teeth.
These two interpretations have practiacal nafka minas. For example, if one chewed meat for a baby, Rambam would say to wait, and Rashi would not require one to wait. OTOH, if one drank meat stock, Rambam would not require waiting while Rashi would. (btw - the Taz rules lechumra according to both)
Rashi and Rambam are certainly in disagreement about the pshat in Chullin and consequently are also in disagreement about practical halachah. Yet, both are correct since they are both basing themselves on equally reasonable readings of the applicable chazal. I don't think one needs mind-bending intellectual (or mystical) explanations to see how this is so.
Tzurah,
ReplyDeleteWhile that is true, there are also views that we absolutely reject. On just about any Blatt of the Gemarra you can find them. There are those places where we say someone was mistaken. That their view is not Halacha.
In the Rishonim there are also places where their views simply are not correct. If we write a Chet the way Rashi insisted upon(despite it being contrary to the mesora) what that Torah, Mezzuzah, Tefillin... would be posul.
When we say Eilu V'Eilu, according to my learning we are saying that both views are halachicly valid. Sephardim eat kitniot on Pesach, Ashkenazim don't, Eilu V'Eilu.
On the other hand Rov Poskim say that Chicken with Milk is ossur. However there are some Rishonim that hold by R' Yosi HaGalili that it is muter. Again we do not say Eilu V'Eilu.
R' Ovadiah Yosef has said in various places and quite often publically that Eilu V'Eilu only applies to areas of minhag and chumra.
Here is another. Microphones and Telephones were orignially ossured on Shabbat for the siimple fact that they relyed on transitors and vacuum tubes, thus causing a "light bulb" to light with their use. Today's modern equipment that is not the case. Who though is willing to say Eilu V'Eilu to those who wish to use them on Shabbat? Considering the savarra of the original issur those who use them have a seemingly valid Torah view. However, I know of no Posek who would not say they are over Shabbat for it.
P'shat is the anchor for the rest of the Torah. Look there is a Midrash that says the Ark was a submarine. There is another that says the water of the flood was boiling. There is still another that says that Og survived the flood by riding on the back of the Ark. There are some vary obvious contradictions here. However this is all on the level of Drash, thus we say Eilu V'Eilu. However on the P'shat level this is not so much a possibility. The Ari Z"L expounds that one can interpret the Torah 700 ways, so long as all agree with the P'shat. If then we don't agree on P'shat we are in serious trouble.
Actually Rashi and Rambam disagree on the Savara behind the P'shat. The P'shat is you need to wait. They are dealing with why
ReplyDeleteMekubal,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the long response. I'll have to take a closer look. But briefly - I agree that there is a greater level of flexibility (if that's the right word) in midrashim, and of course Poskim often take sides and even point out mistakes in others (or at least refer to taus sofrim). I'm just pointing out that, given the usage of the phrase "eilu v'eilu" in the Talmud, it has to mean something for halacha as well, not just sod. From a quick reading, it seems that you don't totally disagree.
On the shorter piece:
"Actually Rashi and Rambam disagree on the Savara behind the P'shat. The P'shat is you need to wait. They are dealing with why."
True, but the chiluk you raise is not important in this case. My point is that the reasons they give for waiting after meat result in the halacha being different depending on the specific case. At the end of the day, you still end up with different positions on halacha l'ma'aseh.
Just a brief comment, because I don't have time to look into it, but if my memory serves me correctly, one area where "eilu v'eilu" applies is regarding whether something is considered part of Torah for the mitzvo of limud haTorah.
ReplyDeleteIf one spends an entire day studying an opinion in the gemara or rishonim which is not followed l'halacha - even if we reject the opinion because it is simply incorrect - one has still spent the entire day studying Torah - which is "divrei Elokim chaim."
While that sounds obvious, if you think about it, its actually a very deep idea. It means that "Torah" is not exactly equivalent to halacha or even to truth (with a lowercase). "Torah" is a much broader and harder to define idea.
I suspect that the kabalistic idea that all Torah opinions, even contradictory one, are true in some deeper sense is rooted in this broader conception of Torah.
Lazer,
ReplyDeleteI agree 100%. Also there is a concept within Kabbalah that what is "correct" or "true" today was not always that way. There are several things that the mekubalim deal with as changes since the destruction of the Temple.
Two that come readily to mind are why we sit during the Shema, as opposed to standing. According to the Ari Z"L in Sha'ar HaKavanot Drush 4 on the Shema, when the Temple existed, it was proper to stand. Now that it is destroyed we need to sit.
Also with the wait between milk and meat. According the Zohar one needed only wait a half hour after eating meat before eating milk, and there was no need to wait the other way. Now according to the mekubalim one needs to wait a full six hours. The Ari himself said it was also commendable to not eat them within the same Onah, day or night, in addition to the six hour wait.
I know I am being fairly vague as to the reasoning, however, I do not want to openly reveal secrets that are too deep and I am worried on the Ben Ish Hai's ban of explicitly translating Kabbalah into a profane language.
Comming back to the point however, any one of those positions given the proper environment may be correct. Such as the milk and meat issue. However, in the current environment with all things considered, it is not. Just as we learn that we will follow Beit Shammai in the days of Mashiach, but now we follow Beit Hillel.
If we psak accoring to B"Sh today we are "wrong". Our decisions would be incorrect and we would do incredible harm to people. If we psak according to B"H b'yemei Mashiach, we will also be wrong and do untold harm. It is all Torah, and it all needs to be learned. But not all Torah is the correct halachah or the correct opinion for the now. There were even some errors. Those too need to be learned... lest we make them in our ignorance.
Another point, Eilu v' Eilu does not mean that one should refrain from taking sides (e.g. pasken according to one opinion and against another). After all, the full quote of the famous bas kol story in Eruvin 13b states "these and these are the words of the Living God, and the law is according to the view of the School of Hillel."
ReplyDeleteשלש שנים נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן והלכה כב"ה
"R' Slifkin - why do you think you elicit such a strong reaction from your critics which is perhaps better characterized as a primal reaction i.e., beyond rationality?"
ReplyDeleteWhy would Jews elicit such a strong reaction from Moslems and Christians? Jews stand for the truth, and "they" have vested interest in falsehood. When you see the violence of Edah Charedit, or the curses of "Authentic Judaism", you see Jews who fail the Jewish mission and have vested interest in falsehood.