- This topic has 196 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
?? ?? ????? ??”? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? . ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ???[?]?? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? ????????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ???? ?????
(?’ ??? ???? ????, ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????)
“(An Ex. is Slifkin using RSRH letter on Aggadita to justify stating Chazal only knew the science of their times and then turning around and stating because of that we shoud adopt MN when RSRH himself wrote one of the most forceful condemnations of MN ever put in print by an Achron in a letter that was directed at Reform Jews!)”
So what would you call using RSRH condemnation of MN to justify that Chazal were scientifically omniscient when RSRH wrote a letter on Aggadita that is possibly the most blunt statement of Chazal’s lack of scientific omniscience ever put in print?
Ben Levi: You should have continued your earlier post concerning the Pirush Hamishnyaos. You quote the Rambam as far as the “third group” , yet you did not continue his words where he says the following: the “chachomims’ words are like a “chidoh” (puzzle) and have a deeper meaning .Then the Rambam quotes “chochom mikol odom” (Shlomo Hamelech) in his books of “mishlei and “Shir hashirim” and says we sould not interpret his words literally but as an example. He continues and quotes other Pessukim in Tenach (including Sefer Iyov) that have an inner meaning and because of that, chazal’s words too should not always be taken literally.
It is clear from the Rambam’s words that he is talking about the interpretaiton of sifrei Tenach, certain Pessukim and ultimately some divrei Chazal.
He is not talking about natural sciences or astronomy but about matters that puzzle us (Shir Hashirim,for ex. Sefer Iyov too)and that, in those circumstances, the inner meaning is what we should know.
If you want to believe that the gemoros that have to do with the solar system, certain animals (lice, rats,etc), medicine and such matters also are written in “sod” form ,you are welcome to it. I wrote in an earlier posting that,at times, we must accept the chazal’s words as written and deal with it accordingly.
What the Rambam writes in Pirush Hamishnayos has to do with the allegorical aspect of certain Sifrei Tenach and their own puzzling words. ( I gave an example of “Yaakov lo mes” earlier)It has been amply demonstrated by others that it does not include natural sciences.
Patur Avul Assur.
Bringing a Teshuvah regarding the Refuos written by Chazal is not really going to get you anywhere unlesss you are completley unaware of the wide ranging Machlokes about being reliant on what Chazal say regardin Refuos.
However to try and address your point’s more specifically.
You really do not have to try and find an obscure Teshuvos Geonim to try and bolster you’re point. There are more mainstream one’s (very few but they exist I have hinted at one of them in my posts. I don’t know if they come up in aGoogle search though.
You see the “man on the street” view and the one Slifkin would like the average person to think is that the Gedolim called him a kofer becuase he stated that Chazal did not know science.
That’s blatantly false, it’s a lot more nuanced then that and actualy requires a level of understandign that comes from learning Torah inside, it does’nt really come from Google.
Slifkin advocates a form of learning he calls Rational Judaisim.
In his books he dances around it without advocating his world view openly but if you understand what was being written it’s there as well.
Now this “philosphy” of his which he cals Rational Judaisim is based on nothing.
Absolutley Nothing.
He has no sources and not a leg to stand on.
Does he have backing for individual points?
I’ll give an example’s I’ve given before, and try to be more clear, perhaps you’ll stop ignoring them.
Rav Shamshon R. Hirsh zt”l wrote a letter about aggadita where he expresses the opinion that “it seemes to him that Chazal based there opinions of Science on the secular knowledge of their day”.
See? RSRH is a pretty mainstream view and was one of the Gedolim of his time.
So Slifkin would seemingly have a “source”.
The problem is that Slifkin takes this opinion and runs with it and attempts to interpet statements and opinions of Chazal on a “Rational Basis”, he build’s upon the opinion he identifies as that of RSRH to advocate an adoption of his understanding of Moreh Nevuchim’s approach to Aggadita.
Now the only problem is that one of the most detailed and forceful condemnation’s and refutation’s of Moreh Nevuchim ever written down and published to a wider audiance was that of RSRH zt”l in the last of the Nineteen Letter’s!
RSRH actually maintained that Moreh Nevuchim had done more damage to Klal Yisroel the Moses Mendelsohn!
And bear in mind the target audiance of The Nineteen Letter’s was the exact audiance that Slifkin claims to be introducing his philosophy for.
Rav Shamshon R. Hirsh’s written letter about Moreh Nevuchimm was so forceful and detailed that when The Nineteen Letter’s was published in Hebrew the Chazon Ish told the publisher’s to leave out that part for fear it would be misunderstood!
So using RSRH to justify introducing Moreh Nevuchim as mainstream is somewhat problematic.
So let’s leave RSRH aside and take the Rambam in of itself, Slifkin advocates his “Rational Judaisim” as a Maimomodean approach of examining the statments of Chazal on a “rational basis” with an understanding they may ch”v have been plain “Wrong”.
Agin though the Rambam himself writes quite clearly in several place (the most detailed of which I have translated above), that one who takes this approach is a “fool” and “cursed”.
So you see cutting and pasting qoutes won’t do.
The fact’s remain that Slifkin’s approach and understanding of Chazal does not have a leg to stand on and has been condemned at any time it has been advocated. Which is why his own Rebbi Rav Moshe Shapiro shlita called it kefira.
Sam2
The problem is pretty oobvious, Chazal in Mishan and Gemorah were writting down the Mesorah, for the first time they were writing down the Torah Shel Ba’al Peh because of “Eis La’asos L’Hashem”.
Chazal foresaw the Golus and the fact that the MEsorah from Sinai would not be able to be maintained.
In order to ensure that the Torah Shel Ba’al Peh would not be forgotten in it’s entirety they had to write down everything and that included the “Esoteric” secret’s of the Torah.
However there are many things that simply cannot be written down for everybody, as such they had to be written in a way that those who were on the proper level would understand them whie those who were not on the proper level would not.
If you want a detaile dexplanation see the Ramchal in Mamar Al Haggodos where he expains this in detail.
Why did you not approve my post?
It violated our guidelines.
Ben Levi
the rishonim ALL understood chazal as meaning what they said (eg regarding mouse being genertaed from dirt, the earth being covered by a dome)
No you have not answered my question you dodged it by saying you dont know what you would have thought
I am asking if you (who you are today) had lived then and I marveled to you how up to date chazal are on modern science, would you have replied something along thelines of “”not quite chazal dont beleive in mud-mice even though they talk about them they are reffering to some secret sod that nobody can decipher.”
(Note NONE of the rishonim understood chazal this way, in an attempt to “defend” chazal you are saying the rishonim, were wrong Rch”l, but this is a side issue)
It wasn’t said that Chazal knew ALL of science. But whatever science they DID discuss or write of, they knew from Torah sources. And since their knowledge — of the scientific items they actually discussed — derived from the Torah, it is certainly more correct that the science of the scientists (of their times or our times) even if we don’t understand the scientific concepts that Chazal are relating.
“Tha mains source that is qouted there is Rav Avrohom Ben HaRambam and while it seems to indicate that there is “ksav yad” that’s actualy not the case the Ksav Yad has the part nefore and the part after but not the one where that “shitto” is written.”
Also keep in mind that the only thing in the paragraph that I quoted that he was using R’ Avraham for was the rule that even in aggadita you can only reinterpret Chazal’s words when you are forced to.
Ben Levi:
I’m not sure why you are making this an argument about R’ Slifkin’s views. Nowhere in this thread did I profess support for him or his views. The only thing that I was doing was refuting claims that YOU made (in this thread) about Chazal’s knowledge of science.
To that end I quoted two Gemara’s that explicitly acknowledge that Chazal got scientific knowledge from non-torah sources, and a gemara in which there is a scientific machlokes in which the gemara uses a scientific (i.e. observable reality) argument to show which position seems to be correct (ayen Maharsha sham).
I also quoted the Maharatz Chayes who says that Chazal’s knowledge in these areas was according to the science of their time.
I also quoted you R’ Dessler who granted that the scientific statements of Chazal may have been inaccurate but the halacha doesn’t change.
I also quoted you the Pachad Yitzchak who said that Chazal’s scientific statement has been proven wrong and he even suggested that the halacha should change.
I also quoted a teshuvah from R’ Sherira Gaon which says that Chazal were not physicians and their medical statements were based on the medicinal procedures they observed in their time.
I also quoted the ?????? ??? ?????? which explicitly says that Chazal’s scientific statements must have been based on the science of their time, for we see that they said things which are ????? ????.
And I quoted the Moreh Nevuchim which explicitly says that Chazal made statements based on the science of their time.
In response to all this you said that the Moreh Nevuchim is a pasul source and that the ?????? ??? ?????? quoted R’ Avraham (which I pointed out was only for one point), and that the reason why we don’t follow Chazal’s medical advice is a machlokes. (The fact that it is a machlokes has no bearing on the reason R’ SHerira Gaon gave.) I fail to see how this is an adequate response.
ROB
If you would actually learn the entire Rambam in Chelek you would perhaps understand it a drop.
Again the Rambam explains he is talking about 3 different approaches to Chazal, the Rambam makes this clear and I translated it.
Then the Rambam after explaining the third group goas on to bring sources for how to understand the words of Chazal.
He starts by qouting Misheli which Begins “L’huvin Mushol U’Melitzah”.
If your understand differently then plese provide a word for word translation of the parts you claim back you up.
Patur Avul Asur.
I fail to understand what in the world you mean.
I did not start this post by claiming that Chazal did not rely on scientific knowledge of their time at all. Nor did I state that claiming Chazal only knew the science of their times is Kefira.
I think I have been pretty clear that I take no position of my own.
What I did state is that
1) Chazal definetly far more science then was known in thier times. Again this point is made by the Rambam who states that the non-jewish knowledge of sttronomy was taken from the Jews. However due to the exile we lost it and sonsequently had to rely on the translations of the non-jews. The fact that Chazal were more advanced then the science of their day’s os made by the Rambam in Chelek.
2) The point of Aggadita is not the science it contains. And if one thinks that. Well the Rambam makes clear “They area a fool”.
Regarding you’re Mare M’Komos.
Again I don’t really know you’re point.
I gave one of them myeslf RSRH.
The other’s are pretty well known.
Were they a m inority.
Yes they were a very small minority but they existed. Pachad Yitzchok is a bad one, since he offered it with “trepidation” in his own words and virtually everyone including his Rebbi argued on him. But their are a few other’s you can find.
My point was and remains that why Slifkin was attacked by the vast majority of Rabbonim, including Rav Moshe Shapiro who is considered the formost authority on Aggadita today and is the man Slifkin claimed ot be his Rebbi, is because the totality of his shitto is one that has been rejected as outside the pale by everyone throughout History.
Again you may find individual positions supported by some but those same people attack Slifkin’s total “worldview”.
For some reason this seems a hard point for you to grasp, so i’ll give you another examploe.
Slifkin bring’s Rav Desller as one of those who support the notion that Chazal were limited in their knowledge of science to what was know in their times.
However Slifkin’s “Rational Judaisim” states that due to this some of Chazal’sd ruling’s were “mistakes”.
Rav Dessler in the piece you yourself qouted rejects this completley!
Again Slifkin states that Chazal’s scientific knowledge came from Pliny the Elder.
The Rambam states that is categorically wrong and someone who does’nt realize that Chazal knew far more then their times is a” fool”.
So again I stated before and I’ll say it again.
Slifkin’s “Rational Judaisim” was forcefully rejected by the Rabbonim because at any point that it was introduced it was condemned and rejected.
If you wish to justify the viewpoint of Ration Judaisim” you are going to have to produce a credible mainstream opinion though out the Doros that endorsed it.
So far (at least from what I’ve seen) the only one’s that do bring it up to forcefully reject it.
Ben levi:mmmmm……interesting,you have very long entries to try to prove your points,yet you write a very brief non-answer to my accurate quoting of the Pirush Hamishnayos.You do not dispute my accurate quotes from the Pirush Hamishnays. I rest my case.
A comment about the quote of the Pachad Yitzchak: A look at the context (meaning, the other entries he writes, his letters about the subject with his Rebbi, and other issues) makes his views very different than that quote seems at first glance.
R’ Meiselman’s book discusses this as well.
ROB
Did ypou miss my post?
If you did I will rewrite it clearer.
The Rambam make’s clear he is talking about 3 different approaches to Chazal. I translated a good part of it word for word.
After discussing it at length he then goes back to explaining certain pesukim based on the “THird” and correct approach as saying what he said starting with the words of Shlomo hamelech “Lhuvin Mushol U’Melitzah.
Now if you claim that somehow there is a a part of the Rambam which indicates anything different then please do what I did.
Post a literal word for word translation.
Ben Levi: No, I did not miss your post. And you are yourself posting what the Rambam is saying- namely, that some Pessukim in Tenach, some books of the Tenach and some divrei chazal should not be taken at face value. He did not discuss divrei chazal on natural sciences but is talking about divrei chazal that can be puzzling- same as Sifrei tenach can be puzzling (Shir Hashirm certainly comes to mind). He is drawing a comparison between these two (Tenach and chazal)and I don’t think he was talking about natural sciences in Shir Hashirim.
You keep on missing the context of this Rambam.
Why is there such a need to prove that Chazal knew EVERYTHING? I don’t get that. Does it bother you if Chazal didn’t really know much about science? I’m sure your rav, rosh yeshiva, etc. don’t know much about science, yet their still your rav, rosh yeshiva, etc. and if they have a shailah about science, they will seek and learn.
But to jump through hoops to make it that our guys are the best and knew everything just seems childish.
And I’m not sure why my prior post was censored, so I’ll ask again (and I have heard this taught in yeshivah) did Chazal know a cure for cancer? Yes or no.
And while we’re at it:
??? ????? ??? ??”? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????, ???? ??? ??”? ??? ????, ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??”? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????
(??? ?????, ?????, ?????)
Why is there such a need to prove that Chazal knew EVERYTHING? I don’t get that….did Chazal know a cure for cancer? Yes or no.
Straw man argument. Is anyone claiming Chaza’l knew everything? The only thing being claimed is that the definitive statements found in the gemara are indeed correct.
ROB.
Look I posted the exact words of the Rambam stating someone who does not understand that Chazal were speeking in a concealed manner is a fool.
If you claim the Rambam is saying otherwise please provide your translation.
Patur Avul Assur
Again what’s your point?
I already explaine dhow it’s irrelevant to the point.
And what’s even more irrelevant is bringing down a couple of isolated opinions regarding something where there has been a Halachic Ruling and 95% of the Poskim have always ruled against those opinions.
Including Rav Dessler if you would pay attention to the sources you yourself bring down.
I just would like to emphasize.
Another central element of Slifkin’s approach is arguing that in Hashkafic matter’s there is no definitve ruling.
Yet in Halacha there is and I’m sure everyone here know’s the famous Mishna “Whoever does like Beis Shammai is “Chayiv Misah”.
That being the case bringing down an isolated few minority opinions in a Halachic matter (killing lice on Shabbos) merely destroy’s Slifkin’s position.
In the case of Kinnim there was a Halachic ruling that it remained permitted and the overwhelming majority of Poskim wrote the reason’s why.
In other word’s there was a Halachic ruling against Slifkin’s position.
And I don’t have to bother searching for the sources.
Patur Avul Assur already did it.
In the very ruling oral position PAO bring’s down from Rav Dessler, Rav Dessler states definitvley that it remains mutar because the Halacha was from Mesorah.
So again one of the sources, in fact one of the major sources, used to bolster Slifkin’s position not just fails to bolster it, rather it argues against it.
Like I said.
Slifkin has no source period that deems his approach to Chazal legitiamte.
None.
Ben Levi: Please use proper terms, by the way. Rav Slifkin claims to be “Rationalist”, not “Rational”. There is quite a large difference.
Ben Levi:
I wrote a rather lengthy response to you several hours ago which didn’t get put up. I’ll assume because it was too long, so I broke it up into several smaller posts.
The following are quotes from YOU in this thread:
“However that is not because Chazal were limited only to the knowledge that science had in thier day” “Actualy the opinion of many is not that Chazal did not write down many things based on the science of their time, rather it is whether they knew that was wrong and merely intended to use it to encrypt “Pardes”.” “An Ex. is Slifkin using RSRH letter on Aggadita to justify stating Chazal only knew the science of their times” “Slifkin disputes it, The Rambam that I qouted you from Chelek states that anyone who thinks Chazal were limited to the knowledge of their day is a fool” “You are entitled to “beleive” what you wish, however Slifkin has made clear that in his opinion Chazal knew no more then contemporary scientists when it came to scientific matters and in one of the books I read from him he theorizes that they derived their knowledge from Pliny the Elder” “And the relevance to Slifkin is quite simple a core principle of Slifkin’s philosophy (there are several, this is one of them) is that we in fact no more then Chazal” “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.” “he states quite clearly that in his view Chazal got their knowledge from Pliny” “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” “There is virtually no one who endorses his approach or his conclusions.”
continued
As can clearly be seen, you are disputing the claim that Chazal got scientific knowledge from the science/scientists of their time, and you are disputing the claim that Chazal’s scientific statements were incorrect (or you say that Chazal purposely said incorrect science but they themselves knew the correct science, but that renders the entire discussion irrelevant because no one is trying to prove that Chazal were stupid; only that their scientific statements may not reflect scientific reality).
I brought several sources that explicitly say that Chazal got scientific knowledge from the science/scientists of their time. These cannot be a “minority opinion because two of the sources were from the Gemara. (If you wanted you could have employed R’ Meiselman’s theory that there is a difference between definitive statements and non-definitive statements, but nowhere in this thread did you do so.)
continued
It is also interesting to note that one of your recurring attacks on R’ Slifkin is that he dared to theorize that Chazal got scientific knowledge from Pliny. Well in fact your hero, R’ Shamshon Refael Hirsch said basically the exact same thing:
?????? ??????? ??? ??”?, ??? ???? ????, ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????, ?? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????, ??? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????. ???? ???? ???, ?? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????, ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????, ??????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???????, ??? ?????, ??? ?? ???’ ??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ???’, ??? ??? ????? ????? ????, ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ?????, ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ??????. ??? ?? ???? ??? ???’ ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????, ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?”? ?????? ??????? ?????, ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????, ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??, ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????, ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????. ?? ??”? ?????? ??????? ????. ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ????, ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???”? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ???????
??? ?????, ?? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ?????, ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????, ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????, ?? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??????, ??????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????, ????? ???”? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???, ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??”? ?????? ?????, ?? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??????, ??? ????? ???? ???”? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????, ????? ??? ????? ????? ???????, ??? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ????. ??? ?? ????? ??”? ?????: ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????, ???? ???? ????, ????????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????, ??”?: ?????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ????, ??? ???”? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????. ??? ???”? ????, ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ??”? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????. ?????? ???”? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ??”? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ?????, ??????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??”? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????
continued
Now regarding the pachad yitzchak, the “trepidation” was about changing the halacha. He took it for granted that the scientific fact was wrong. And R’ Dessler as well, merely said that the HALACHA is correct, which in fact is something that R’ Slifkin has said numerous times in his books and blogs, so I’m not sure what the issue is.
Ben Levi:
Your most recent comments again do not accurately reflect R’ Slifkin’s views. He has acknowledged dozen’s of times that the halacha does not change even when the science behind the halacha is wrong. So this fits with R’ Dessler and your point about a halachic ruling about lice is completely irrelevant.
I would just like to emphasize:
(Although I am not defending R’ Slifkin’s views) R’ Slifkin doesn’t say that the halacha is wrong. He says that Chazal may have made scientific errors (which caused them to pasken the way they did) but whatever they paskened is halachically binding.
R’ Slifkin doesn’t say that the halacha is wrong. He says that Chazal may have made scientific errors (which caused them to pasken the way they did) but whatever they paskened is halachically binding.
This compromise is absolute nonsense. Practically the only one we find questioning the accuracy of Chazal’s science was the Pachad Yitzchak, and he therefore wanted to pasken differently.
If the science was wrong, then the psak should change.
As I’ve posted before, I strongly believe that Chazal’s stated facts were correct, even when not in consonance with current scientific belief.
Slifkin brings a few “sources” for his contention that the halacha would remain the same, even were Chazal’s facts ch’v wrong, based on the notion that the importance of the authority of Chaza’l would supercede even an issur d’oraiso. This is impossible, and he misreads his “sources”.
Ben Levi:we are running in circles. You stick to the words of the Rambam without seeing how they are part of a much longer piece. There is a context to the long Pirush Hamishnayos. That context is what you are missing.
Paatur Avul Assur
Why oh Why do you insist on ignoring everything I post?
I acknowledged that RSRH takes the position of Slifkin in regarding certain “aggadita”s.
In fact I acknowledged that several times.
That was my exact point.
The letter you qouted from RSRH is one of the sources used by Slifkin as a justification for taking a “Moreh Nevuchim” approach (again I emphasize his understanding of Moreh Nevuchim)to Mitzvos.
Yet RSRH devoted virtually the entire Letter 18 of the Nineteen Letters to a no holds barred rebuttal and rebuke of Moreh Nevuchim.
A rebuke in which he lumps an adoption of Moreh Nevuchim with adopting Reform Judaisim.
(again I emphasize that ch”v I am not writing any of my own opinions regarding these matter’s).
So how in the world can Slifkin claim RSRH as a source that his version of “RJ” is correct when in fact it is true that RSRH understood MN as Slifkin does.
And as a result of that understanding RSRH penned what is perhaps the most detailed and strongest condemnation of MN by an Achron.
In other words Slifkin and his defenders claim that those who condemned him went overboard.
Have you ever bothered reading what RSRH thought of that approach?
It does’nt get much further then saying what RSRH writes in detail in Letter 18.
Patur Avul Assur
As for Slifkin saying “Halacha doen’t change even when the science behind the Halacha was wrong”.
Do you read Hebrew or are you just copying and pasting?
Go back and read the letter that R’ Carmel a”h wrote about Rav Dessler’s position again.
Rav Dessler emphasized in detail exactly the opposite of Slifkin. Rav Dessler emphasized Halacha does’nt change because Halacha was not based on the science, Halacha was based on Mesorah and in Rav Dessler’s view chazal were merely suggesting reason’s based upon the modern day science.
So Slifkin say’s Halacha was based on Science.
Rav Dessler says that Halacha was based on Mesorah.
Can you see the difference.
Again like I said Slifkin’s entire approach has no basis, period.
I just wanted to add that in no way am I suggesting that the approach to Aggadita is in line with RSRH’s letter.
I am merely explaining why Slifkin takes aisolated parts of the world view of Gedolei Yisroel to suggest things that those who he use’s as his basis themselves condemned voceiferously.
However what I was taught by my Rabbeim (before Slifkin’s controversy BTW) is that the mesorah in the Litvishe Yeshivos was to approach Aggadita in line with the Ramchal and Vilna Gaon’s approach. And that the definitve peirush in regards to Hashkofa on Chumash was the Ramban.
As for Moreh Nevuchim I was taught the mesorah was that the Rambam had not learnt Kabbolah for what ever reason and therefore wrote certain things in Moreh Nevuchim.
The exceptions were those Gedolei Yisroel who felt Moreh Nevuchim should be read differently (not according to it’s simple meaning.) and therefore used it and devolped it.
So in other words the approach that Slifkin advocates was rejected by everybody.
All of which are of course rejected by Slifkin since he rejects Kabbolah.
R’ Dessler’s Shittah is only tenable if you assume the Hishtalshlus of Torah Sheba’al Peh like the Geonim. If you assume that Chazal got their science from scientists and if you assume the Rambam’s Derech in how Halachah works, you are left with one conclusion.
Daas Yochid:
You say that this compromise is absolute nonsense, yet I just quoted R’ Dessler and the Dor Revii who posited such a compromise. I didn’t include that part of the text of the Dor Revii before so here it is now:
?????? ????????, ??? ??? ????? ???? ??????”? ???? ??? ??????, ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????, ????? ???? ?? ???? ????, ?????? ?????? ?????? ????, ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ??????, ?? ???? ????, ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???, ??? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???, ??? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????, ????”? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???, ?????? ????? ?? ?????, ????’ ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?????, ??? ????? ?”? ?????? ?”? ?”? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ??, ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?????, ??”? ????”? ??”? ???’ ????? ??’ ?”? ??”? “???? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ???, ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????????, ??????? ????? ???? ???? ?????, ???? ????’, ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????, ??”? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ????’ ???, ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?”? ????? ??? ?????” ??”? ????
…
???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ????, ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????”? ???? ??????, ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??”? ??????? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ???????, ??? ?? ????? ????? ????, ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???, ???? ???? ???? ????”? ????”? ?????? ????? ??”?
Also note that the Dor Revii is saying that this was the Rambam’s view.
You further claim that he misreads his sources. So please provide alternate readings for the sources that I quoted.
Notice the vastly differing responses between Slifkin and Rabbi Nosson Kamenetzky when the gedolim assured their books. Rabbi Kamenetzky also disagreed with the ban (even after it was issued) and said as much. But, nevertheless, he immediately withdrew his book from circulation and print. And he never once attacked the gedolim and even though he disagreed with them he followed their instruction vis-a-vis his book.
On the other hand, not only did Slifkin not follow the instructions of the gedolim, and instead tried to cobble together a few rabbis of notably lesser stature to back him, but he furthermore then went on the personal warpath against the gedolim who banned his book. Something that he continues prosecuting years later.
“Rav Dessler emphasized in detail exactly the opposite of Slifkin. Rav Dessler emphasized Halacha does’nt change because Halacha was not based on the science, Halacha was based on Mesorah and in Rav Dessler’s view chazal were merely suggesting reason’s based upon the modern day science.”
You are completely missing the point. R’ Dessler acknowledges that the science can be wrong although the halacha cannot because the halacha is not determined by the science. R’ Slifkin also says that the halacha is correct, but he explains this using the reasoning of the Dor Revii. R’ Dessler and the Dor Revii both are acknowledging that the science can be wrong, but they give different reasons as to why the halacha doesn’t change. R’ Slifkin, for his own personal views has to choose one of these reasons. So he chooses the reason of the Dor Revii, probably because that reason resonates with him more. So I don’t see what the problem is.
Sam2
The question is whether Rav Dessler is a source for Slifkin.
Rav Dessler according to the way Reb Aryeh Carmel a”h understood him seemed to have felt that Chazal got at least part of thier science from scientists of their day.
R’ Carmel makes that clear.
Yet Rav Dessler also took the view that Chazal were not forming the Halacha based on that science, rather they had a Mesorah as to what the Halacha was and merely used the science of their time to explain it somewhat.
The upshot of Rav Dessler is that he had a very very different understanding of Chazal and Halacha then Slifkin which is readily apparent in the letter qouted by Patur Avul Assur.
It is also kind of a joke when Slifkin use’s Rav Dessler to back him up on the one hand and then rejects Kabboloh on the other when Michtav M’Eliyahu is replete with ideas and explanation of Chazal which are based at least somewhat on Zohar.
In short Slifkin cherry picks one part of Rav Dessler’s world view and ignores the rest as he does with virtually all his supposed “sources”.
Which is why the overwhelming majority of Gedolim were “docheh” him “b’shtei yudayim” including one Rosh Yeshivah who at first was a backer
Ben Levi:
Why oh why do you insist on giving the same response to every point that is made – that RSRH blasted the Moreh Nevuchim. This is so irrelevant. The fact is that RSRH explicitly stated that Chazal got science from the science/scientists of their times and that their science can be wrong. I have no problem if you want to throw the MN out of Judaism, but there are plenty of sources even without it as well as plenty of sources who quoted the MN as support for this position.
And
ROB
You stated that you would provide a translation of the Rambam.
I am still eagerly awaiting it.
For example:
(?’ ????? ???, ?????? ?? ?’ ?????)
And:
In some non-halachic matters, however, such as medicine and other scientific areas, as we learnt from Rambam and his son Rabbi Avraham and other distinguished Rishonim, on the whole the science of our Sages was what was generally known in their time.
(Rabbi Aryeh Carmell “Freedom to Interpret”)
How about some more sources:
??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???????’ ????? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?????’ ????’ ?? ????? ????? ?”? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????’ ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???????? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????. ????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????’ ??????’ ???? ??????? ??????’ ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?????????? ????????’ ????? ????? ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ????????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??’ ??”? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???’ ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?????????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??
(??”? ?????? ?’, ???? ???? ???????, ???? ????, ???? ??)
And:
???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ??”?: ???? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ???’ ??”? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????????? ????? ????? ????”? ???”? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ??”? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?”?: ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?”? ???’ ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?”? ??? ??? ?”?: ?”? ????? ?”? ???? ???’ ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ?”?. ?”? ????? ?’ ?? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ????? ??? ?”? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ????????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??”? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?”? ???? ????”? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ????, ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?????
(?’ ???? ?????, ??? ?????, ?????? ?, ??)
Isn’t it interesting that much of the same crowd that claims that Chazal got science wrong but we should continue following Chaal’s end-result psak based on that “wrong science”, also posits that we should not follow Chazal’s instructions on doing Metzitza B’Peh because the science is incorrect today.
PAA, the footnote in Michtav M’Eliyahu says that Chazal’s halachos were inherently correct, but not for the reasons they said. Presumably this means that they had a mesorah as to the din, but not the reason.
The Dor R’vii just says the halacha remains even if we find factual errors. He does not say why, he just says it is so. R’ J.D. Bleich, IIRC, suggests it’s because the Hashgochah Elyonah caused them to pasken a certain way, and the halacha is this way because the fact that at chasimas haSha”s it was paskened this way shows that the halacha is true.
What Slifkin says, that the authority of Chaza’l must be upheld even though they were wrong, makes a mockery out of halacha.
It should be noted that the Chazon Ish writes (Kovetz Igros Vol. 1, 15) that saying Chaza’l erred in halacha or aggada is, according to our mesorah, kefirah.
???? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???”? ?????”? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ??”? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????. ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??”? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ??”? ?????? ?”? ?????? ???? ??? ??”? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ?”? ?????? ????? ????? ?????”? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ???”? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????. ???? ?? ???? ??”? ????’ ?? ???????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ????”? ????? ?? ??? ???”? ?????? ??? ?????? ????:
(????? ??????? ???”? ???, ??? ????, ????? ?)
Because Chazal never said to do MBP, they said to do metzitza.
Also, just for the record, R’ Soleveitchik, IIRC did in fact say as such.
Bringing in Rav Gedaliah Nadel zt”l is a joke.
Do you have any idea about Rav Gedaliah zt”l he gave shiurim about cetain things, he never wanted certain things publicized. Too the extent that he did you had to recieve permission from him to attend the shiur.
I personally know people who were close to Rav GEdalaih zt”l and yet were never allowed to attend.
So then someone someone goes ahead and publishes a sefer of his opinions based on some shiurim. All the talmidim were furious, as in really furious.
And now that’s your source?
- The topic ‘Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread’ is closed to new replies.