- This topic has 196 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
That thread has multiple discussions going on at once. It’s making me dizzy. Please continue the non-eiruv part here.
goldersgreener
Member
Mods, could we move all the slifkin posts to another thread?
Ben Levi: of course the Rambam is talking about “aggadata” in general. I realize that. However, the reason why he calls the people who will dismiss “maamorei chazal” fools is because they dismiss chazal totally!!! The Rambam tells us that , as unusual a chazal is, there are underlying, mystic understandings and explanations. The Rambam does not say that you have to accept “maamorie chazal”as they are written! Quite the contrary. That is the approach of the first group, whom he calls very simple people!
Rabbi Slifkin ,and others, have discussed “maamorei chazal” that contradict science and obvious reality. That is not what the Rrambam discusses in the “pirush hamishneh’ that you pointed to.
BTW-if you have any interest, on Rabbi Slifkin’s website (not himslef) there is a very erudite discussion specifically on this issue!
The last thing I want to do is to is to make a MOD r”l dizzy. I cannot even fathom it’s far reaching consequences, how I shudder (another of those shuddering threads) to think of the enormity of its aftermath.
(this was non-eiruv)
Actually that is exactly the position of Slifkin, it’s a fundemental principle in he’s “rational judaisim” approach.
He feels he has a better understanding of science then Chazal and they were simply wrong in many of thier statements, in fact if I recall correctly the position he takes in one of his books is that Chazal derived thier knowledge from Pliny the Elder.
It is exactly this position that the Rambam calls “cursed” and one of “fools”.
I realize that you thinkthat you believe Slifkin that the Gedolei Yisroel (including the person he at one time claimned as his Rebbi HaRav Moshe Shapiro shlita, considered by many the foremost authority alive today on Aggadita) who have come out against him are arguing for the literal meaning of Aggadita that’s absoltley untrue.
They are arguing over what the intention of Chazal was and whether in certain cases they intended for their words to be taken literally.
Slifkin (on account of the fact that he perceives himself to be “wise”) argues they did and they were wrong, we know more then Chazal.
The Rambam states that Slifkin is a fool.
Ben Levi: First, I thank you for your civil discourse in this matter. It beats insults!
I read the Pirush Hamishnayos very differently than you. The Rambam (in my view) discusses some “maamorei chazal”that make little sense as said. The first group-whom he calls simple-takes these as its face value ,as illogical it may be. That is wrong,he says, because “maamorei chazal” may have very deep, mystic explanations. The second group, realizing that the face value understandings makes no sense, refutes these “maamorei chazal” in their totality. These, the Rambam, calls fools and does point the finger at people with some outside education (philosophers, medical personnel). Note that he means that this group totally rejects this saying from chazal. The third group,very small in number, understands that there may be a deeper ,mysitc explanation for this “maamar”. I gave an example of such a “maamar”. If the chazal say something that may not square with reality, you must have a mystic explanation. (Shir Hashirim may be another example). However, when the chazal discuss medicine,astronomy or other natural science, they may be wrong in their assessment and, unless you find a mystic explanation for their words, you can question their parameters.
I have read some of Slifkin’s words and this is how I think ,his thinking is.
ROB
I have no idea how you understood the Rambam.
The Rambam states quite clearly that he is discussint the three general approaches taken towards Mamorei Chazal. No where does he state in any way that he is only talking about specific cases. Not only that but if he would be discussing specific cases I would think he would mention which ones.
Secondly he states clearly that the problem is that these people feel they know more then Chazal.
A
I have no idea how you can possibly come out of this Rambam that it is possible to “question the paremeters” of Chazal when the Rambam is takes great pains to state exactly the opposite.
Furthermore this Rambam is discussed by other’s (the Shelah comes to mind) and no one ever understands it the way you are stating.
As for Slifkin himself, I have read one of his books and afterwords went on his website to confirm his beliefs.
Another core principle of his belief is actual having a “rational” approach, he rejects mysticism, so I have no idea how you can infer this Ramabam as agreeing with his approach, he states quite clearly that in his view Chazal got their knowledge from Pliny afact the Rambam clearly disputes.
And I would add that I have studied these matters and I can pretty confidently state that there is virtually no source that adopts the approach he takes.
An example being would be that he is correct that RSRH does take one aspect of the the view he advocates in a famous letter regarding Aggadita, however the conclusions he takes of of that in his approach towards Mitzvos (what he considers the Rambams approach) is one that RSRH bitterly attacks and belittles in The Nineteen Letters, Letter 18, RSRH writes regarding it that it did more damage to Klal yisroel then Moses Mendelsohn’s teachings!
So in other words Slifkin uses one letter where RSRH endorses one aspect of his views to imply that RSRH is a traditional source” that endorses his philosophy, when in fact RSRH wrote so strongly against it that when the Nineteen Letters was originally translated into Hebrew, the Chazon Ish himself advised the publishers to leave it out for fear that RSRH would be taken out of context in attacking the Rambam in general instead of one understanding of the Moreh Nevuchim specifically.
And the vast majority of the sources that Slifkin qoutes do the exact same thing.
There is virtually no one who endorses his approach or his conclusions. It has been used by Hellenists, By Maskilim, and by the founders of Conservative’s and at every time that it has reared it’s head it has been bitterly and vociferously denounced.
Here’s the link to the text on hebrew books
It’s pretty clear what the Rambam is saying in becomes even clearer if you read further into his explanation of the third group.
If anyone is aware of Slifkin”S philosophy it is squarley the one cals “cursed”.
Ben Levi: I am not a fan of Rabbi Slifkin in the slightest for numerous reasons, but he does have a leg to stand on. Rav Avraham Ben HaRambam stands firmly in his corner. It’s in Sefer HaMaspik and other places. The Chizkuni also turns things into allegories similar to what Slifkin likes to do. He has Rishonim that back him up on several things, and they are not so few.
That being said, I think he takes these Rishonim farther than they themselves were willing to go. He uses Pesachim 94b as a Ra’aya that Chazal could err in science (and his list of Rishonim that say precisely that is quite impressive) and therefore assumes that they could err in anything scientific. I think it’s a misguided approach, but I don’t think it’s Kefirah because of who he has supporting him.
The whole debate here always is on the wrong track. Anti-Slifkin camps (yourself included) always bring Mekoros that Slifkin’s Derech is untenable. But he doesn’t dispute that. He just says that he was whom to rely upon and that therefore he has to take this Derech because otherwise Yiddishkeit doesn’t make sense to him. He is not denying those against him. So you bringing in 1 or 3 or even 10 more Mekoros against him doesn’t do anything in this dispute. He has proven, in my opinion, that his opinion (or at least opinions similar to his own; as I said, he goes too far with it) is one that has support in the Gedolei HaRishonim, even if other Gedolei HaRishonim are against him.
And this is where things get woefully misrepresented. There are people who are so sure that Slifkin’s Derech is so far beyond the pale that no one legitimate ever considered it. Because of this, they dismiss, ignore, or just write out dozens of Rishonim. It is unfortunate when we are unable to admit that Shittos existed because we don’t like the implications thereof. In fact, that in and of itself is quite possibly Kefirah. See Yam Shel Shlomo Bava Kama 4:9.
And since you mentioned Rav Meiselman’s book, I just want to say that it is not worth bringing up in this debate. He didn’t quote anything new in all 900 pages. He gave his own readings of Rishonim that are Dachuk at best. He pretends that Shittos of Rishonim that agreed with Slifkin don’t exist. He forces himself to dismiss countless opinions in Rishonim (something he says we aren’t allowed to do) as being in error because he has to reinterpret Gemaras so that Chazal is never even close to wrong.
Basically, if this was a pure academic debate with no meaning to it, Rabbi Slifkin absolutely destroyed Rav Meiselman. Luckily for us, there are those out there who can read and explain Rishonim better than both of those. So the fact that Rav Meiselman’s response to Slifkin was very subpar does not change the fact that Rav Meiselman is more right overall than Slifkin.
Sam2: I take my black hat off to you! You have brilliantly encapsulated what is the actual dfifferences between Rav Slifkin and his opponents. There are certainly more than just one way to look at “divrei chazal”, especially on “aggadata”. I did not read Rav Meisleman’s sefer but I have followed the debate on Slifkin’s website and Rabbi Slifkin has some cogent reasons to defend himelf.. methinks he is conducting too strong a vendetta but then, he was vlilifed to such a point that I don’t blame him for reacting so brusquely.
Ben Levi: I have a very different understanding of the Rambam than you have. I’ll try to point it out tomorrow ! for now, I appreciate your intelligent words.
I don’t know why the “rationalists” are allowed to pick and choose rishonim, but we aren’t allowed to. Why is it ok for slifkin to choose one rishon and then go about accusing everyone else of being idiots and “irrational” for not agreeing with him?
He “holds” like Rav Avraham ben Harambam? Fine.
Well, I hold like the majority of rishonim who consider that kefira! And in reliance therof, I’ll call him kofer.
PBA: No. You’re being silly and silliness like that which you just displayed is the reason for his forced extremism. The opposite of “rationalist” is not irrational. The opposite end of the “rationalism” spectrum is mysticism. He does not call mysticism silly or foolish (at least, the rationalist movement does not; a mode of thought should not be held accountable for what one of its members says). He just feels that he cannot honestly hold by it. I think that’s an acceptable approach to life. He is not calling mysticism “irrational”. He is just pointing out that it is not “rationalist”. The word “rationalist” may have the same basic root as “rational”, but they are far from the same word. The sooner people understand that the less hateful this debate will immediately become.
I don’t know if Rov Rishonim call super-rationalism Kefira. Some seem to. Many seem not to. The issue is that it would have to come under Mach’chish Magideha, something which few Rishonim actually define. I honestly think it’s hard to call Slifkin super-rationalism (yes, I invented the term, but that’s really what it is) Kefira. I really don’t think Rov Rishonim do. And, at least in Pesachim, Rov Rishonim do seem to think that Chazal can, at least in very limited circumstances, err in science. So you can choose to “hold” like a Rishon and call people Kefira, but that’s really not how Ikkarei Emunah work. I would have expected better of you. Even if you were slightly tongue-in-cheek, Ikkarei Emunah are not the place to make extreme statements just to prove a point.
Ok, but some do?
Well then fine. I’m not saying that my rishonim are definitely correct that slifkin is a kofer. I’m just saying that I cannot honestly hold any other way. I hope you’ll agree that an acceptable way of life.
I assume my point is clear. You can’t get up and decide that you are only able to believe in Judaism if one rishon is the only correct one. Especially when that rishon is not the theory that has been accepted in the mesorah over the next 1000 years.
(Also, are you saying that he makes himself extreme because of me? What is that supposed to mean?)
PBA: Because, once again, you are misrepresenting his opinion. He does not say that only his rationalists are right and that the others are wrong. He accepts the mystical Shittos as a valid and important part of our Mesorah. He just doesn’t think that they are Pashut P’shat. There is a huge difference there. You see it when you learn any Sugya. Some Rishonim have Dachuk Shittos. We don’t treat them with any less respect or dismiss them. But when discussing the Sugya we have to point out the Kashyas and why we think they are Kashyas. And sometimes we are forced to say that we cannot, in good faith, figure out how this Rishon read the Gemaras. It’s the same thing here.
Whether or not it was accepted for the past millennium is interesting because no one really (outside of the Rishonim who couldn’t create a consensus because most discussed these issues independently and didn’t build off each other) bothered to discuss this issue directly until the whole Slifkin saga exploded. (Well, the Chazon Ish did, but that doesn’t create anything near a consensus either).
To your first paragraph, you know that you are just being glib. You really find it entirely untenable to believe that Slifkin’s super-rationalism isn’t Kefira. In general, the onus of proof lies solely on the one that wants to call something Kefira. As long as Slifkin has a strong list of Rishonim in his corner and no massive Haskama throughout the generations against it, I really don’t see how it can be called Kefira. If you want to say what he says is Mach’chis Magideha, you need an incredibly strong Ra’aya for it. I don’t think such a Ra’aya exists. He is wrong and misguided, certainly. But I can’t see how you can call him a Kofer. To do so would be to call the Rishonim he’s agreeing with Kofrim as well. No one alive today has that Koach. It would have taken an immediate M’cha’ah from contemporaries as well as hundreds of years of rejection of these Shittos. That’s how we invalidate Shittos in the Rishonim. That didn’t happen here. I don’t know why people are trying. People should actually deal with Slifkin’s sources and explain why we don’t hold like them. Pretending they don’t exist only exacerbates the problem.
R’ Meiselmann’s PHD is in mathematics, so I’m not sure what expertise he has over Slifkin with regards to science.
Truthsharer
Rabbi Meiselmann’s actual Ph.D may be in mathematics but his actual curriculum included many other subjects (that’s what goes on in any university) so his the pursuit od his degree required him learning a great variety of subjects that included many of the one’s touched on by Slifkin.
So basically Rabbi Meiselmann actually studied the topics at hand on a structured university level unlike Slifkin.
Sam2:
A few points:
1- You wrote about R’ Meiselman’s book. Have you read it? I ask because while it sounds like that from some of your statements, from others it sounds like you are solely working off the critiques that he has posted (which, in my opinion, are not actually based on the book. He distorts much).
2-You say that people should deal with Slifkin’s sources, which is undoubtedly true, so I want to ask you what you thought of R’ Meiselman’s research on the R’ Avraham Ben Harambam texts (assuming you read the book). (Also of note: One cannot critique R’ Meiselman for both not bringing new material into the debate and not dealing with Slifkin’s sources–he discusses many things, and every text is in at least ONE of those categories). I would also be interested in your thought’s on the R’ Lampronti-R’ Briell letters. I think he has undermined Slifkin’s support from these positions, and (unless I misremembered) Slifkin has not dealt with these. (Has he?)
3-The issue of why R’ Meiselman deals with some Sources and not others: (In truth, he deals with the Rambam extensively throughout all his topics, and since that is a mainstay of Slifkin’s, he is dealing with a lot of his sources right there. He also discusses R’ Avraham, R’ Lapronti, and Saadiah Gaon at length. These are a lot of SLifkin’s go to’s. I’m not saying he dealt with everything Slifkin quotes, but I think that’s a lot of Slifkin’s major sources right there, no?) But you may find some of your answer to this question towards the end of the book when he talks about R’ Soloveitchik’s approach to various Rishonim who were either not a part of the MEsorah or did not right on Gemara. Perhaps it is relevant to the sources you feel were not addressed but should have been?
Sam2
I have read Rabbi Meiselmann’s book, I have also read one of Slifkin’s books, parts of the others and read through explanations he gives on his website. In addition I read through parts of Slifkin’s “responses” to Rabbi Meisellman’s books.
I did’nt read through al of them because it got tiring after awhile of reading Slifkin missing the point.
Regarding the purely scientific sections of Rabbi Meiselmann’s books.
Slifkin may be right regarding some of his point’s I don’t know enough science to be qualified to take a stand. I furthermore get the distinct impression that Rabbi Meiselmann himself admit’s to scientific questions that he does not fully ansewer . The same can be said for many of the theories espoused by Slifkin.
Rabbbi Meiselmann’s point in discusiing the science was not answer certain questions, it was merely to show there are other “theories”, othe rpossibilities, and other approaches.
He does an admirable job of doing so.
TruthSharer:
People repeat your question all the time. It is noteworthy, then, that Slifkin has not criticized his science significantly (actually, I don’t remember him doing so at all. I’m just covering myself there in case someone has a better memory than me).
I think that the fact that people even ask the question is only because they think that R’ Meiselman’s book is like most other Science and Chazal books, which is untrue.
Ben Levi: You have no idea how a PhD works, do you? It’s actually the exact opposite of what you said. PhDs are very intensive in a very specific area. His PhD has nothing to do with zoology, astronomy, or any of those sciences. But that point is irrelevant. Anyone who read the book would know that the book does not hurt Slifkin’s position in the slightest, as I pointed out above.
Ben Levi,
I am presuming then that you have no idea what goes on in a university. For someone to have a PhD in mathematics means that he studied mathematics at a PhD level and most likely got his masters in a math field as well. I doubt he did any science in college, especially not more than the average college educated person. If you’re not majoring in a science field, and especially if you’re going on for your masters or PhD, you’re not going to bog your schedule down with unrelated courses.
Regarding the actua point of Rabbi Meiselmann’s work.
Rabbi Meiselmann makes it abundantly clear that the real point of his work (which is really obvious to anyone who read’s it) is to examine whether or not the position’s that Slifkin takes are in fact one’s that were considered “accepted” or not.
And to that end Rabbi MEiselmann does an unbelievable job of demonstrating that they were never accepted, and were roundly condemned.
Could he have done more?
He himself admit’s as much, but the book was already 900 pages how much longer should it be?
jkjkjk pointed out several points quite well.
I just think it should be added that the Rambam is not just a “mainstay” of Slifkin’s he is in fact the foundational pillar of Slifkin’s logic.
Yet the Rambam himself explictly condemned the approach taken by Slifkin! And it’s not some obscure text, I provided the link, it’s pretty hard to misunderstand the Rambam’s point.
He states expliclty that someone who thinks they know more then Chazal knew, is “cursed” and is a “fool”.
And Rabbi Meisallman does a tremendous job of not just putting forth the Rambam’s shitta, rather he provides the actual text of every source that he qoutes.
He himself writes that he put every effort in providing all primary sources and never relying on secondary or tertiary sources and he demonstrates as such in his book.
I fyou wish to see the relevent discussions and sources of the Rambam you can view go through it in detail in his work, Torah,Chazal, and Science,
Chapters 5,6,7,29,30,33,37,and 42.
jk: I read the book and have not read Slifkin’s responses. If I could spot obvious problems with the book I thought I had no need to (presumably) see Slifkin bash it. Let’s just say that I felt that R’ Meiselman’s reading of many of Rabbi Slifkin’s supports were, well, not Pshat. He glaringly ignores dealing with Slifkin’s most important Gemara (Pesachim 94b). I have to ask R’ Schachter about this in particular, but it is well-known amongst Talmidim of R’ Soloveitchik that R’ Meiselman has his own Shittos about what his Rebbe held and those other Talmidim do not agree with R’ Meiselman in the slightest. R’ Schachter, R’ Aharon (Lichtenstein), and R’ Ilsen, among others, have had harsh words about R’ Meiselman’s distortions (in their opinions) of the Rav’s Shittos.
Ben Levi: What else can I say? I read the book. I saw a poor, poor attempt at refuting Slifkin. I honestly thought I could have done a much better job.
Sam2:
Actually to the best of my knowledge Slifkin is not “college educated” at all.
Secondly while you may feel that someone would’nt bog their scheduale down with unrelated courses, Rabbi Meisellmen did (and considering his acknowledged brilliance it’s not so hard to understand why).
And it’s extremly hard to argue the fac thatin his book he demonstrates a pretty good knwledge of the subject matters.
In Rabbi Meisellman’s own words “Not only did I attend their lectures, but I also utilized their availability to discuss with them many of the issues that intriged and concerned me. In addition I was part of an intellectually vinrant circle of fellow students who discussed among themselves, at great length, the various issues of “Torah and science” and “:Torah and philosphy”.
So he describes having done exactly what you claim someone would not have done.
So lets see
Rabbi Meiselmann is by all accounts a PhD grad of Cambridge, ( I believe he studied in Harvard as well but he doesn’t mention it. He is also a respected Rosh Yeshivah (Dean) of a talmudical institution.
On the other hand Slifkin is not acedemically trained in anything, nor is was he ever considered a major Torah Scholar until he “invented” his new school of thought.
So I think that in regards to qaulifications, Rabbi Meiselmann has a lot more to put on the resume.
Sam,
If you read Rabbi Meiselmann’s book you must have missed part of it he deals with the Gemorah in Pesachim 94b in several places.
A) In the chapter on Rav Avrohom be Harambam.
B) In the chapter entitled “Two Passages in Need of Explanation” specifically beginning on page 14.
C) Again beginning on page 353.
So now we go from MIT to Cambridge? Before you know it, he studied mathematics under Isaac Newton.
Of course Sam2, I would love to be able to respond to any other specific issues you had with Torah, Chazal, and Science. From what I have read from your posts this is the only specific one you mentiones.
( The dispute over his Rebbi’s views on certain matter’s is one that I damit I don’t fully understand, being I am not from that school, however from what I understand much of it is unrelated to the issues he has written about.
As an aside I do find it entirley possible that both sides are right.
R’Meiselmann knows what he wa told by his Rebbi in the private one on one study sessions they had together in Boston, the others were mostly YU talmidim and know what was taught there.
But again I can be wrong)
Sorry Truthsharer my mistake,
PBA: Because, once again, you are misrepresenting his opinion. He does not say that only his rationalists are right and that the others are wrong. He accepts the mystical Shittos as a valid and important part of our Mesorah. He just doesn’t think that they are Pashut P’shat. There is a huge difference there. You see it when you learn any Sugya. Some Rishonim have Dachuk Shittos. We don’t treat them with any less respect or dismiss them. But when discussing the Sugya we have to point out the Kashyas and why we think they are Kashyas. And sometimes we are forced to say that we cannot, in good faith, figure out how this Rishon read the Gemaras. It’s the same thing here.
Look, Slifkin is certainly not bound by your characterizations of him, but what you are saying here is very different from what you were saying before. And more importantly, that isn’t how I read slifkin (and yes, yes, of course I have read him).
To your first paragraph, you know that you are just being glib. You really find it entirely untenable to believe that Slifkin’s super-rationalism isn’t Kefira.
No, of course I don’t. And of course I couldn’t possibly.
But would it really be any more surprising if I did, than Slifkin’s deciding based on what he observes about the world which rishonim are right and which are wrong? And him finding it impossible to believe that there may be things about the world which he doesn’t understand?
That’s the whole point I was trying to make. Glibly.
To Ben Levi and others: I’ll try to be brief. First of all, Ben Levi, you are totally-repeat,totally- wrong in your constant refrain about bringingsome proof from the Rambam in Pirush Hamishnayos. I re-read it for the third time and you absolutely miss the point. You referred us to one small part of the lengthy section in your reference. Well, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Please re-read the whole section and you will see that the Rambam is not dealing at all with maamorei chazal that discuss natural science, medicine or astronomy. He is talking about matters of emunah and how to interpret Pesukim who, at first blush, don’t correspond to reality. I am not going to address this point anymore. You are just wrong in how you learn the Rambam.
As far as Rabbi Slifkin and Rabbi Meiselman. Sam2 has pretty well skewered Rabbi Meiselman’s attacks on Slifkin. You can also read a very erudite discussion on this matter right now on Slifkin’s blog (not by himself!) ,that pretty conclusively shows that aggadata is not binding on us and we do not have to accept everything that chazal say in aggadata.
Lastly, and I ask mechilah for Rabbi Meiselman if this is not true, I think that Rabbi Meiselman was on the dais some months ago at an anti-israel rally by satmar (dealing with the new draft law). To me, that disqualifies him from having any authority on my own matters of emunah.
Ben Levi: You missed the point again. I don’t know what he did undergrad. But it’s not about “bogging down” by taking other courses. PhDs are, by definition, extremely rigorous studies in a very specific area. No PhD program would let you take outside courses. Certainly not on a PhD level unless you were in a second program as well.
Sam2
The question is whether or not he studied the topics at hand at a structured, university level.
Whether it was at an under-grad level or not is irrelevant.
He maintains he has, I find it extremely believable, especially in light of the fact that his reputation always has been that he. In fact Slifkin himself originally brought his books to him for review, which is when the personal disagreement between them started.
ROB
So far the only specific thing Sam2 has said about rabbi Meiselmann’s book is that he does not address the “main” gemorah used by Slifkin.
That seems to be an oversight on his part as I pointed out the three different places where it is in fact discussed and in great detail.
Regarding the Rambam,
There is no way in the world that the Rambam mean’s what you say. I have no idea how you even came out with that (The Rambam is talking about Pesukim!?).
And the Rambam is pretty famous and discussed ( I think I pointed out the Shelah) it’s also brought down by Eidensohn in his Daat Torah book in English.
If I have time later I’ll post a basic word for word translation of the second and third groups.
Where do I begin?
PBA: You may have a point but we are not discussing Slifkin as an individual (at least, we shouldn’t be). We are discussing the Hashkafic movement that he epitomizes. Thus, defects in his formulation of the Hashkafa do not delegitimize what super-rationalism actually is. And my point was that Ikkarei Emunah are not the place for glib points to be made.
ROB: This statement, “that pretty conclusively shows that aggadata is not binding on us and we do not have to accept everything that chazal say in aggadata.” is Mach’chish Magideha and Kefirah. It’s not what Rabbi Ohsie (I read it after you mentioned it) said and not what the Rambam said. He just says that we cannot Pasken it, meaning that we cannot exclude one valid viewpoint (in Chazal) in favor of another. It does not mean that we can ignore Aggadic issues entirely, as you seem to want to do.
That being said, I will have to look through all of Rabbi Ohsie’s Mekoros because I think he might be mistaken anyway. While we cannot Pasken “Hashkafa” (according to the simple reading of the Rambam), the Rambam holds that Ikkarei Emunah fall under Halachah and not “Hashkafa” anyway.
It is certainly clear that we sometimes do reject Hashkafic viewpoints. The Gemara itself says that Rabbi Hillel’s Shittah is untenable. So we can call believing in Mashiach an Ikkar Emunah.
Whether we can do that with later opinions is an interesting issue. I don’t know how to answer that. I think it’s clear that we all believe that corporealism is absolute Kefirah, even though legitimate Rishonim said it. How we have come to reject those Rishonim, I can’t quite say. But it greatly troubles me when people write off Rishonim’s Shittos as Apikorsus and ignore them. We do it with the corporealist Rishonim, yes. But I don’t know how anyone today can claim the authority to do it in any other situation.
Ben levi: As i said, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. PLease check your Pirush Hamishnayos again and you will see that the Rambam ONLY brings down Pesukim and Tenach.And he alludes at the end of the section to HIS sefer, which he clearly meant the Moreh Nevuchim. If you haven’t yet learned the Moreh and you may in the future, you will see that the Rambam is intent in explaining the pesukim and tenach and fitting the maamorei chazal into a coherent explanation. Anyone who dismisses these Pesukim because of their unreality- now that is a fact that deserves to be called “fools”!
You sat that ‘this rambam is pretty famous” ,This is absurd. Please show sources! Rabbi Eidensohn may a good man but not an authority.
Ben levi and others: I don’t know Rabbi Meiselman and he certainly may be a big,very big talmid chochom. However, I’ll eat my hat if he knows more about zoology than rabbi Slifkin. (see Shofon). Dotti for astronomy.
The underlying argument is whether maamorei chazal that are not halachically based-in other words, aggadata- are binding on us and we must acccept them blindly(see R’Elya Ber Wachtfogel and others). This view has become popular recently but it was never accepted by many rishonim and acharonim. To say-as PbA says- that one is a “kofer” if one does not believe in aggadata is false and has contributed to the radicalization of yiddishkeit. The opposite argument, that we are only bound by halacha,not aggadata- is, in essence, what rabbi Slifkin is relying upon.
PBA: You may have a point but we are not discussing Slifkin as an individual (at least, we shouldn’t be). We are discussing the Hashkafic movement that he epitomizes. Thus, defects in his formulation of the Hashkafa do not delegitimize what super-rationalism actually is.
Actually, I was discussing him as a person. That certainly could explain our differences. I’m not precisely sure how this discussion started, and it’s hard to track it due to some moderator moving it, but I think it had to do with Slifkin speaking at HIR despite his not being a Baptist singer. Then, ROB said that the opposition to Slifkin was political, but ultimately seems to have backed down from that since he couldn’t explain what side benefits there were besides for discrediting the ideas in question which is the per se definition of apolitical. But meanwhile, Ben Levi started hitting at Slifkin directly to show that there are good reasons to be opposed to his ideas. Thus, the question at hand was Slifkin’s own ideas, rather than those of others in his “camp”.
But as it happens, your recent characterization is not how I read the rest of the rationalists either. They seem to quite conclusively determine that singular rishonim are correct based on their understanding of the world. It seems the height of arrogance to machria between rishonim, on the assumption that everything they observe about the world is correct.
And my point was that Ikkarei Emunah are not the place for glib points to be made.
Ok. I’m not sure I agree, but I’ll consider it.
Sam2: you are too intelligent and learned to write what you wrote. On the one hand, you say that maintaining that aggadata is not binding is “kefirah” and “meisis umadaich’ yet, on the other hand, you acknowledge that many rishonim (and acharonim) do believe that! Are they all kofrim? Have they all pushed us into denying the Almighty? (g-d forbid) Of course not!!!! You may not want to follow that path (that aggadata is not binding) but there are many sources that say exactly that! (See Ohsie!).
You are using sophistry when you assert that all what is maintained is that “we cannot pasken according to aggadata”, yet you attack me for saying that one can ignore it.
Sorry, but if I cannot (or do not have to) pasken according to agaddata, then ,ipso facto, I can ignore it! BTW- I never said that one can blithely ignore aggadata, I said that it is not binding- exactly what you wrote!
you are also already saying that Rabbi Ohsie is wrong, even after acknowledging his sources, yet you have not shown for one iota that his sources do not espouse this view. Judging before even having seen the evidence-yup- that is called true learning. PLEASE!
Lastly, you are putting up the proverbial straw man by talking about “Ikrey Emunah”. “MAN DEKAR SHEMEI?” Whoever-including Rabbi Slifkin- has denied the thirteen Ikrim? The discussion was never about that- it is whether aggadata (including statements about natural science, astronomy,geology,medicine) is somethng that we must accept blindly or does the matter of following chazal is only binding in halacha.
Sam2- your point about “corporealism’ is interesting. Some very serious rishonim maintained that view and I would be very reluctant to call them “kofrim”. It is only after the Rambam wrote the thirteen principles (actually written in Pirush Hamsihnayos) that this became the guiding path. And- you probably know this- the first chelek of the Moreh is totally dedicated to show that the allusions to corporealism in Tenach are just allegorical. The Rambam goes to great lengths to refute this opinion so it is clear that it was current in his time. BTW- there is an interesting “kuntros” on this matter written by (yup!) Rabbi Slifkin,entitled “Was Rashi a Corporealist?” (I have it). I think it appeared in Tradition some years ago. You will see that it was a view quite prevalent a thousand years ago.
PopabarAbba: I did not pursue the pedantic discussion whether opposition to Slifkin was political or not, because ,indeed , it was pedantic and not substantial. I said clearly that Slifkin’s attackers believe in what they say but that it has a political purpose too. As I wrote, if you can discredit any non-talmudic and non-traditional sources, then all that leaves you is a life of kollel, which is blatantly political as it pertains to jobs, positions,etc.
PopabarAbba: I did not pursue the pedantic discussion whether opposition to Slifkin was political or not, because ,indeed , it was pedantic and not substantial. I said clearly that Slifkin’s attackers believe in what they say but that it has a political purpose too. As I wrote, if you can discredit any non-talmudic and non-traditional sources, then all that leaves you is a life of kollel, which is blatantly political as it pertains to jobs, positions,etc.
I don’t think you know what political means…
And you’re the one who started the discussion, so it rings a little hollow that you recuse yourself from it when challenged, by calling it “pedantic”.
Also, I don’t think you know what pedantic means…
pedantic (thefreedictionary.com): characterized by a narrow,often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules, “a pedantic attention to details”
adjective: hairsplitting,particular,formal,precise,fussy,picky(informal),nit-picking(informal)punctilious,priggish,pedagogic.
pedantic: marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially in its trivial aspects.
ROB
If you think that Slifkin who is not acedemically trained in anything and is not considered a major authority in any field by his “peers”, a man whose own “Rabbi” Rav moshe Shapiro (who is actually regarded as the final word on matters of Jewish Thought in our generation and is a student of Rav Dessler, is “peerless in his knowledge of zooology and astronomy, then you seem to be imply those are fields that lack major authority’s.
I most definetley don’t believe you regarding astronomy and am doubtful regarding zooology.
And the real question is whether or not one can causally dismiss
them based on our own apparent understanding.
Slifkin takes the position that yes, one can and a smart person does.
It’s what he has written about in his books, his blogs, and spoken about publicly.
Tose that argue on him staight he alternates between being a fool or a kofer.
The question is not whether one should take literally all words of Aggadita or rule accordingly since the traditional views of Aggadita in the chareidi camp were based on the Ramchal and Vilna Gaon, who bothe wrote extensivley on Aggadita and warned against taking them literally since they were written to conceal mysticism.
See the Ramchal in Mamar HaAgodos and the Gra brought in Even Shelaima (who also calls those who dismiss Aggadita “fools”).
and the Mahral (Be’er haGolah) of Prague whostated one generally cannot rule based on Aggadita since they cannot know for certain they understand what it ctually is saying.
Excellent googling.
And now you can easily notice how your application to our discussion didn’t make any sense.
To be clearer.
Slifkin’s position is that Aggadita and Halacha when it conflicts with science is wrong. period.
Slifkin claims he understands the Aggadita and understands science and therefore has the ability to make his statements.
The Torah view is that he is a fool.
Aggaditta is not wrong, we may not be able to rule based on it since we do not fully understand the words of Chazal (Mahral -Be’er HaGolah) who deliberatley wrote certain things in a cryptic fshion to conceal “esoteric” secrets from those not worthy of understanding them (Ramchal, Mammar Al HoAggadita, Vilna Gaon Mishlei Perek Aleph, Brought in Even Shelaima).
Ben levi: I don’t know Rabbi Slifkin and I certainly don’t know Rav Meiselman. Hence, I cannot evaluate Rabbi Slifkin whom O only know through his website “Rationalist Judaism”. Equally, I appreciate Rav Meiselman and his learning,even if I question the choice of his freinds.
But- I do not believe that Rabbi Slifkin says anywhere that one should dismiss halacha in any way- if this is what you imply. In general terms, he maintains that, in matters of medicine,astronomy,geology and other natural sciences, chazal had views that conflict to reality and that, therefore, one does not have to accept these views as correct.Chazal were not geologists, zoologist and maybe,just about astronomers. None of the chazal that he disputes has anything to do with halacha and not even with aggadata- the subject of your sources. As I said earlier, the underlying question in all of this is simple: must we accept every utterance of chazal as “torah misinai” and so, we can never question them. Or, we are certainly bound to the rishonim and gemara on matters of halacha but in matters of general subjects, we are not bound to their words .
Your mention of the Maharal and the Gro are beside the point. They try to find mystic and esoteric explanations to the aggadata and this is fine. Te question still stands, must you believe that the sun revolves around the earth (as is implied in the gemara) and does believing in the solar system make you an apikores? According to you, it is the latter. Slifkin and many others before him do not agree.
“Rabbi Meiselmann’s actual Ph.D may be in mathematics but his actual curriculum included many other subjects (that’s what goes on in any university)”
As others have noted, graduate study does not generally include study in other fields, other than possibly a foreign language. I looked up MIT’s requirements for a PhD and there is no non-Mathematics coursework except for Applied Mathematics students, which Rabbi Dr. Meiselman was not. And Mathematics is not Science.
“R’Meiselmann knows what he wa told by his Rebbi in the private one on one study sessions”
Rabbi Dr. Meiselman has been found to have distorted Rav Soloveitchik’s views by no less a figure than The Rav’s translator Prof. Lawrence Kaplan. Rabbi Dr. Meiselman has even made the outlandish claim that The Rav agreed with his uncle the Brisker Rav on Zionism!
I think that anyone interested in the truth in this matter should extensively read the following list of sources before saying anything else on this matter. Google “torah science et al”
Click on the top option
Click on the link which says Sources indicating that Chazal did not…(inserted per user request)
It is important to note that R’ Meiselman’s thesis is very nuanced and therefore easily misunderstood, and I think it is more limited than some of the other anti-slifkin Rabbis such as R’ Wachtfogel and R’ Shapiro. Some of the above sources will not be relevant to R’ Meiselman’s thesis but one will only realize that if he has read (at least some of) the book. This is not to say that none of the sources are relevant to his thesis.
Another issue to keep in mind in this debate is that the positions are not parallel. Meaning that whereas the anti-slifkin side claims that there isn’t and never was a legitimate Torah view that supports R’ Slifkin’s theses, R’ Slifkin does not claim that there are no legitimate sources against him. He simply claims that there are legitimate sources on both sides and therefore if you are bothered by questions that his position answers, there is nothing wrong with following his position.
Also regarding the Ikkarim, just remember why R’ Yosef Albo wrote the Sefer Haikkarim. If you don’t, then read his introduction.
- The topic ‘Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread’ is closed to new replies.