- This topic has 120 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Rabbi of Berlin:
R’ Elya Ber wachtfoigel, R’ Aharon Feldman, and most noticably Harvard and MIT graduate R’ Moshe Meiselman were all opposed to Slifkin, so to suggest that the emperor has no clothes is a chutzpa and azus, and has no space on a yeshivishe web site.
Anyway, i;m a bit scared to discuss the eiruv, since the menahel of PH made me walk home in socks when he caught me talking about the eiruv in class.
RR44,you are obviously very young ,as you are still attending PH,so if you want to follow Rav Roberts you are entitle to do that,just don,t cast aspersions on others who follow D. Ehrentreu.
As far as rav Slifkin, I am not impressed by your other authorities. Last time I checked, I still have a brain in my head that allows me to think independently.
RR44 – I have no problem with going down that route, but why limit it to eruvin? If you are going to be machmir in what is at the very least a sfek sfek sfeika, then surely you will not use an electric shaver, which is a vadai issur according to many of the greatest poskim? And how about doing melacha before Rabbeinu Tam zman, which the majority of Rishonim regard as an issur de’oraysa? If you want to be meikel on these issues you have poskim to rely on, but for those who are not machmir on many of the serious questions that are debated amongst the poskim (I am not addressing Rabbi Roberts himself, but rather his argument) to then pick one issue that klal yisroel were traditionally meikel on and decide that davka there everyone must be machmir without even providing a coherent argument for the stringent position is more than a little strange.
As J. said so correctly, echoing the words of Dayan Westheim, there is room for a baal nefesh to be machmir however that is for a baal nefesh who is machmir in all areas.
Again, we still don’t get to hear the responses of those that are against the Eruv.
My first issue is as above.
Secondly, the Rabbonim of the Yerushalayim Eriv have declared that this Eruv is better. Now even if you do not carry there (many don’t) I have never heard opposition to it.
So please answer these questions.
Do not give us a list of the Rabbanim who assur it. We all know this already.
ROB:
So then it is your contention that the people who oppose slifkin really agree with his ideas, but don’t want others to agree with them?
Modified list:
Anon1
Anon2
Anon3
Anon4
Anon5
Et cetera
Popa bar abba, no they genuinely believe in their own arguments.however.not allowing for any other views smacks of arguments
Smacks of political purpose
I still don’t know what you mean when you say political. Can you define it perhaps?
From the free dictionary:
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: “Calling a meeting is a political act in itself” (Daniel Goleman).
3. Relating to or involving acts regarded as damaging to a government or state: political crimes.
4. Interested or active in politics: I’m not a very political person.
5. Having or influenced by partisan interests: The court should never become a political institution.
6. Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives: a purely political decision.
It sounds like you’re accusing us of number 6. And that theory would make sense if we didn’t really believe in our positions and were just pretending to in order to get some other benefit. But you don’t actually think we don’t believe our positions–so that doesn’t really work.
Just to set some facts right about the Manchester Eiruv. R’ Osher Westheim wrote a letter stating one should NOT use it at the moment. An eiruv can be made by the best Poskim in the world, but if there is not the correct poskim in place to check it on a weekly basis and to take responsibility for it then it is not worth anything!
R Osher said he was makabel from his Rebbes (Dayan Weiss mainly) that you can make an eiruv in Manchester, but since it does go over the main roads Bury New and Bury Old, then he said he would imagine most Heimishe people would want to be machmir. He said this before he came out with the letter that nobody should use it.
Besides for this, there are Rabbonim who hold that Bury New Road may be a reshus horabim de’oraise as it services the whole of Manchester and Thousends of people use it every day.
Rabbi of Berlin, sorry for the misunderstanding, but i learnt in PH in the 1990’s, and am now based in e”y.
/
Just to bring out the point, i was in PH when the headmaster was Rabbi k., the school uniform, including socks, was grey, and before anyone thought of shabbos shoes, so if Rabbi K, took yur shoes, you were in seriusly painful and embaassing trouble. And he did it often. If you click on my user name you can reach other threads where it has been discussed recently.
.
Concerning R’ Slifkin – who is also english, like me and you, i have no idea who you are, so i cannot know if you compare to the gedoilei toira u’mada listed above. I definitely respect you if you do. However, i found your refernece to the emperor’s new clothes somewha disgusting.
I found it quite distressing to listen to Dayan Westheim (who I have a lot of respect for) complaining about the upkeep of the eruv, and the lack of necessary funds – if he’s not pleased with the mashgiach then he should work to improve the checks and, as for the funding, has he done anything to raise money for its upkeep?
I know of a similar situation in another town. A rov was concerned about the standard of the mashgichim checking the eruv, but he could not asser it because of such chashoshos, so he checked it himself every week until he was satisfied that they were doing their job properly.
Although he provided an excellent response to the mechutzaf who spoke a few days earlier, some of Dayan Westheim’s halachic points were also odd – the idea that a Baal nefesh should not use a mechitzos eruv that encompasses a road which services a population of shishim ribo has practically no support in the poskim (the Maharsham – the posek hador in his time, writes explicitly that this idea is mistaken), and was contradicted by the very sources that he brought.
I would like to see which sources the rabbonim who claim that Bury New Road is a reshus harabbim for the reason mentioned above base themselves on. I have tried to find out many times but nobody has been able to tell me anything of substance.
J. again iwm sorry fot the misuderstanding, although i realise why you misuderstood me. let me explain.
.
The shulchan Oruch lists two options for what defines a reshus harabim de’oyraisa, who in our context a place where an eiruv does not help.
1) any road 16 amos wide
2)yesh oimrim, a road on which 600,000 travel every day.
.
Although the pashtus in mechaber may sound like the first shita, as he refers to the secod as a yesh oimrim, nonetheless, the mogan Avraham, Taz, and Mishna Berura, all clearly state that one who chooses to rely on te makilim ??? ????? ???? the Taz further adds that this was indeed the minhag.
.
It being that there is no road in london which reaches that amount it may seem obvious the room for kula.
.
At this point, both the Chazoin Ish and r’ moishe throw a spanner in the works. The yesh oimrim in the mechaber is based on Rashi and the Mordechai, yet they do not refr 600,000 every day, rather to a town of 600k. As such they suggest that roads in such towns may have problems.
R’ moishe however carefully defines this, howver. (orach chayim 4, t.117&118) He points out thta in the midbar there was more than 600k, there fore one needs to take into the account the wider fmailies of the diglei midbar. He also limits it to roads that are built ot serve most of the town. This was the bsic reasoning for ossering the Brooklym eruv.
.
R’ Roberts, R’ Padwa senior zatzal, R’ ehalpern [S’dei Elchonon] and the michas Yitzchok, all felt that this is a problem in london too.
.
R’ Roberts would not expect his kehilla not to shave, etc…, he however feels that the eruv is a de’oraysa. He was however pointing out to those hwo may have heard to the contrary, that nonetheless they should take his opinion into account due to the severity of the matter.
.
Concerning the original pirtzah of the ten amos, there is a clear letter from maran R’ elyshiv zatzla to r’ Betzalel Rakow of gateshead, where he described Grach no’eh shiurim as having been the standard minhag both lekula and lechumra. It’s printed in koivets teshuvois t. 30, and some nored people hang it up in e”y every now and again.
RR44 – thanks for your response. I am well aware of everything you have written. Bli neder I will explain where I am coming from tomorrow morning.
Popa bar abba: I assume you know we are discussing Rabbi Slifkin, not Rabbi Avi Weiss. The opposition to rabbi Avi Weiss is much more principled, as he has made innovations that clearly represent a problem for Orthodox Jewry. As far as rabbi Slifkin goes, when he issued his books some years ago, he was assailed mercilessly and called names that even mechallelei shabbos do not deserve. Yet, his views did not broach any “ikrei hadas” but, as they went against some of the views of present chareidi jewry, he was virtually put in cherem. I maintain that these attacks were self-serving (in your language) because it had to put any idea of a modern world and modern ideas beyond the pale. This applies equally to evolution, age of the world , nautral science and ,most critically, working rather thasn learning for a lifetime. This is why I call these attacks political.
ROB, if they felt that his ideas should be considered beyond the pale, why is that self serving? And what does kollel have to do with Slifkin?
Precisely what DY said. If it was the ideas he was propounding that were objectionable, then what about that is “political”?
Precisely what DY said. If it was the ideas he was propounding that were objectionable, then what about that is “political”?
There is a vast range of statements that can be considured objectionable but not heretical. An attempt to classify them as heretical may be “political”.
Ok, so the claim is that the objection was real, but the extent of the objection was “political”.
Well, what do you mean by that? It seems you mean that it was done so that people shouldn’t be influenced by his incorrect ideas. Well–what about that is “political”?
Actually I think the protester’s against Slifkin are qiute similar as the prtests against large city Eiruvin.
They both assume a certain trust in Rabbonim that unfortunatley many people have worked to erode.
When top DR’s issue a diagnoses they do not write detailed explanations explaining why they disagree with every shnook out there. Rabbonim take the same view.
Eiruv,
There are certain basics. Every person who has a modicum of knowledge of Eiruvin is aware that Big City eiruvin are fundementally problematic as soon as the city reaches 600,000 people.
Take Jerusalem for example when the eiruv was built there was not 600,000 by any count. Recently there has been some controversy as to whether or not there is 600,000 people and it depends on a variety of factors.
This is a fundemental difference from Brookly which by all acounts contains that numnber. I don’t know what the population of Manchester is.
Slifkin;
He created an entirely new “approach” to Aggadita that at the most is one that was presented by outlying opinions in previous generations, and in all probablilty was actually expressed by no one.
Yet Slifkin claims that his shitto follows in the footsteps of the Rambam.
Really?
There’s a famous section of Rambam written in Peirush HaMishnayos in the intro to Perek Chelek.
In it the Rambam discusses three “groups” of people who learn Aggadita.
One of them he describes are people who percieve themselves to be “scientists” and as a result of that fact that their are “Wise” in thier own eyes they think they know the “reality” better then the Chachomim. The Rambam states these people are “cursed” and “fools”.
This was written by the Rambam centuries after the codification of the Gemorah when science had supposedly advanced quite alot.
Yet the Rambam himself calls the approach advocated by Slifkin and co. one of “fools” and “cursed”.
It’s printed in the back of every Gemora Sanhedrin look it up.
So Slifkin either a) doesn’t know the Rambam (a probablilty) or b) knows it and intentionally ignores it (anotherr eal possibility) you chose.
However again those who argued against his theorie, in line with the Rambam, took for ganted that peo-ple know this along with other things.
Sadly some people seem not to.
Dash, still not political or self serving. If they don’t think his stuff is literally apikorsus, but think it’s so close to the border that people will easily cross it, that’s a legitimate concern. Frankly, we’ve seen people do just that right here in the CR.
I’m not convinced that he hasn’t crossed the border himself.
popa bar abba: I suggest that the oppositon to Rabbi Slifkin fullfills numbers 1), 5) and 6) of your dictionary entry. If the opposition was because the opponents truly believed that these were heretic thoughts, then there are plenty of rishonim and acharonim that are in the same boat.
Which brings me to Ben levi’s comments. I don’t believe for one moment that rabbi Slifkin had a “entirely novel approach to aggadata”.If you have learned a bit of Ibn Ezra all hatorah, some of the perushim of the Maharsho on gemara and many other rishonim and acharonim (Tiferet Yisroel, for example), you will see that there is a very respectable school of thought that considers aggadat just that-agggadata-and not binding in any fashion as reality. The matter of medicine, astronmomy, geology were all matters that chazal had their opinions based on what they knew in their time. And times do change. To respect your views,I will check the Pirush Hamishnayos you allude to.
Daas Yochid: the matter of kollel is one reason why I think Rabbi Slifkin had such opposition. If all one can do in life is learn in kollel, then astronomy,geology,the natural sciences, all are ‘devorim beteilim’ and should never be studied-hence,kollel is the only way of life!
Well, you’ll have to give a bit more detail than that.
Ok, so the claim is that the objection was real, but the extent of the objection was “political”.
That’s how I interperted Rabbi Slifkin’s response. Even he agrees that his writings aren’t suitable for everyone.
Well, what do you mean by that? It seems you mean that it was done so that people shouldn’t be influenced by his incorrect ideas.
I never said incorrect, I said objectionable.
Well, what do you mean by that? It seems you mean that it was done so that people shouldn’t be influenced by his incorrect ideas.
I never said incorrect, I said objectionable.
Ok, but what do you mean by “political”? It seems you mean that it was done so that people shouldn’t be influenced by his objectionable ideas.
(also, you should look in a dictionary for definition of objectionable.)
Well rob
Lets see,
I qoute you an exact Rambam, virtually word for word where the Rambam states one who thinks they no reality better then Chazal are “fools” and “cursed” you ansewer with nothing.
First off I’ve learnt plenty of what you describe.
Taking the Ibn Ezra’s peirush is probably one of the worst things you can do.
No where does the Ibn Ezra state anything close to what Slifkin claims. He does explain pesukim differently then Chazal in many places however it has nothing to do with “teva” or science when ever the Ibn Ezra feels that the simple meaning of the pesukim is something different then Chazal he explains accordingly based on the most basic Talmudical principle of Pardes. There are many Meforshei tanach who take the same tack.
And yes the Ibn Ezra does take it to far for some did you ever by chance take a looka t what the Maharshal has to say about it in Yam Sel Shlomo (intro)?
You’ll find it interesting, to say the least.
I’ll state it again there are any number of Rishonim and Achronim who excoriate the fundemtal principles of Slifkin’s approach.
Let’s name a few specificly.
The Rashba in Teshuvos.
The aforementioned Rambam.
The famous Ramban in the begining of VaYeira (regarding saying certain parts of Tanach are allegory)
The Yam Shel Shlomo
The Ramchal in Mamar Al Ha’Agdos.
The Abarbenal in Yeshuos Meshicho.
So since there are so many “rishonim” and “achronim” who take Slifkin’s approach and “you don’t for aminute believe” it’s a novel one and you so casually dismiss the opinions of many present day Gedolei Yisroel, perhaps you can qoute any specific (original) sources that back you up?
ROB.
You’re insinuation about Kollel and Rabbi Slifkin is quite amusing when you consider the fact that Rabbi Meiselmann of Toras Moshe has just come out with a detailed an extensivley sourced book that numbers close to 900 pages explaining why Slifkin is wrong.
For your info Rabbi Meisellmann is an actual Ivy League Ph.D who graduated summa cum laude (I think. Unlike Slifkin who is neiither a Rosh Yeshiva nor a trained academic.
Just to get the less complex stuff out the way, I will respond to the point about shiurim first, and then move on to the reshus harabbim issue in a future post. On pages 262-264 of ‘The Laws of an Eruv’, the authors note that the minhag in Europe was to use a shiur ammah that was near the Chazon Ish shiur for eruvin. They also bring show that Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky and R. Moshe Feinstein used shiurim that were larger than R. Chaim Noeh’s but smaller than the Chazon Ish’s, and that these shiurim are used in many communities outside of Israel bein lekula bein lechumra.
Rav Elyashiv himself recognised the legitimacy of this tradition when he issued a clarificatory letter regarding the NW London eruv. Rabbi Eider planned the NW London eruv using the same measurements he always used, but unfortunately certain inshei deloi maalei (who were later shown to be such) saw this as a convenient issue to latch onto for their own nefarious purposes, and had no qualms with distorting the historical record when doing so.
There are many misconceptions that people have regarding the larger measurements for a shiur ammah in general – for a start they were generally not taken on as a chumra, and they don’t even necessarily require using a larger shiur for kezeisim (as a thorough examination of the Chazon Ish’s position demonstrates). I’m happy to supply marei mekomos to anyone interested.
Ben Levi: As far as Rabbi Meiselman’s sefer-I cannot judge because I did not read his book- Rabbi Slifkin has some compelling answers against some of his points but I cannot judge either. BTW- it is ironic that you rely upon Rav Meiselman’s secular knowledge (degrees,etc) yet you will totally dismiss arguments from anyone who has studied natural sciences in (horror!) university because it does not align itself with your views of chazal!In other words, you laud secular knowledge when it suits you and dismisses it when it does not suit you….
As far as the main point of contention- you prove my point by pointing to the rishonim who may not agree with the approach to “aggadata’ that Rabbi Slifkin (and others) espouses. Since some of these sources are being questioned, ipso facto, there are views that do espouse these so-called “novel” approach.
As far as these sources, Rabbi Slifkin has a website where he has dealt with this quite exhaustively. I cannot add to his arguments.
May I add that I do not espouse all of Rabbi Slifkin’s views and I accept a lot more the mystical aspect of our traditions than he does but I also don’t accept the views of some of his detractors who reject all rational approaches to chazal.
Incidentally, if you rely on the Rambam that much,the present positions on kollel learning by the non-chareidi world have a lot more in common with the Rambam than the chareidi side.
Lastly, I have principal objections to Rabbi Meiselman when he aligns himself with anti-Israel positions.And again,I will respect your vies and try to look up the ones you mentioned.
Ben Levi: I checked the Pirush Hamshnayos that you mentioned. It is a very long introduction to “chelek’ with some very interesting discussions on many matters of “emunah” but I digress.
I read (and re-read) the section that you are alluding to and I do not read it at all as you did. The Rambam does divide the people into three groups when it comes to understanding chazal. The first ,those who take everything exactly as it is said. (A group that,incidentally, he is not too complimentary about). The second group who dismisses “divrei chazal” if they do not understand what they mean and thirdly, the very few who understand that divrei chazal have hidden meanings. I don’t think the Rambam dealt with any natural scientific fact at all. You misquote the Rambam when you write that “they think they know reality better”.Nowhere does the Rambam say this. He says that they dismiss sayings that they think are erroneous. Incidentally, the Pirush Hamishnayos was written in arabic and what we have is a translation,hence one cannot deduce too much from its wording. The Rambam, I think, talks about a saying like, for ex.: that Yaakov Ovinu is not dead (chelek). The first group will take this saying as it is said; Yaakov Ovinu is not dead, without understanding that there is a hidden meaning to it.
The second group will dismiss it as totally erroneous as, after all, they embalmed him and buried him! The very few who know will understand that the “maaamar chazal” should not be taken as it is written but that there is a hidden meaning to it.
Nothing what the Rambam writes here has anything to do with the matter that we are discussing.
ROB
Here’s a basic translation of the exact words;
The Second Group is as follows.
They are also big, they’re the one’s who saw the words of the Sages or heard them and understood them according to their literal meaning.
They think that the Sages had no intention other then their literal meaning. And they come to ridicule what contains nothing to ridicule and make fun of the words of the Sages.They think they are smarter and know more of reality, things that the Sages were not able to comprehend.
Most of those who error in this path are those who feel they are wise men of medicine and astrology, They consider themselves men of understanding and wise in their own eyes and great philosopher’s.
The truth is they are far from the Sage and philospophers of truth!
In a way this second group is better then the first.
However they are cursed because they challenge those men who are far greater then them and whose wisdom was already proven to wise men.
These fools, if they would but toil they would understand how to organize and write the wisdom of God, both for the general populace as well as “chachomim”, so that the practical lessons could be understood from philosophy and then then they would’ve understood the Sages and the end point of their words.”
If you find a link on hebrewbooks, we can post that. -Mod 95
Ben levi: I learned the original in the Hebrew translation so, although thankful for your translation, I read the original.
I still don’t see what this Rambam (Pirush Hamishnayos) has to do with our discussion. The Rambam attacks the so-called second group because they can only understand the chazal literally and therefore, dismiss the “maamar’ for contradicting what they believe is correct. However, because there may be a mystic explanation to this “maamar”(“chidoh” in hebrew, mysterious) their views should be refuted. Nothing about reality or accepting every chazal at face value. On the contrary, based upon the Rambam’s rather sour view of the first group, you can see that he does not interpret chazal literally, if another, underlying explanation can be found.
goldersgreener: There may be differences between jerushalaim and london but J. has a very compelling argument. Bnai braq is totally continguous to the rest of Gush dan with a population probably in excess of two million jews, kein jirbu. Hence, streets in bani braq would be-at least- “tsidey reshus horabim’ yet no one argues that the eiruvim in bnai braq, ramant gan, tel aviv ,etc are not valid.
goldersgreener: I am disturbed by your comment D)quoting R”Moshe Sternbuch shelita. If his view is correct, this can be translated to other spheres too- for example, kashrus. You may say that you can only rely on old kulos but not make new ones. “Mai nafka minah”? This approach is at the crux of the “chumrotization’ of yiddishkeit, something which has engulfed our “tsibbur’ for years now. (no strawberries, no broccoli, no lettuce…etc). Certainly ,I will never question the wish of individuals who want to refrain from basing themselves on certain kulos but to do this for the “tsibbur’ at large is an inoovation that has only occurred in recent years and was never pasrt of halacha in the past.
Nu, so what do you mean by political? Just how do you figure that they really do agree with him? But don’t want other people to?
I think you’re being a wee bit too cynical. In fact, I would kind of accuse you of being political–you do not have a real disaagreement with the rabbonim but you want to villianize them because it fits with your worldview of being cynical about the rabbis.
I apologise but I do not have the time to respond fully to the discussion regarding shishim ribo. But I would advise taking a look at the following summary of issue, which appeared in Ohr Yisroel:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=13626&st=&pgnum=230
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1418&st=&pgnum=166
There is no evidence that Rav Padwa senior was concerned about a reshus harabbim. I have heard from one of his family members that this was not his concern at all, and one of his sons said as much to the Chernobyler rebbe of Boro Park when he was sitting shiva for his father.
It has been demonstrated elsewhere that the Minchas Yitzchok would have no issue with an eruv in NW London. Anyway, as Dayan Westheim testified in his shiur, the Minchas Yitzchok was only concerned with whether shishim ribo traversed a particular street, and not whether they inhabited the city.
95, I think this is what they’re discussing (starts at the bottom and continues in the next page).
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37945&st=&pgnum=462&hilite=
ROB
The Rambam as he makes clear is not talking about any specific “mamar” he is talking about a general approach to aggadita.
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, the Rambam makes clear both in the discussion of the second group and the discussion of the third group that someone who thinks that is a “fool” and “cursed”.
In other words completley the opposite of what Slifkin would have you believe the Rambam held.
(Mod-95 I am not that good at hebrewbooks so I can’t find the link However after ROB replies and I’ll have to post a couple of exact lines from Peirush HaMishnayos I’ll figure it out)
Please continue the non-eiruv part of the discussion here:
Can a kind mod please make sure to copy the posts from the new thread to here, cause I sure as blazes aren’t going there
I’m a kind mod, how much is it worth to you? – 29
goldersgreener – It’s not a competition. It was a rare pleasure engaging with someone with a real bikush ha’emes and such a strong sense of kovod talmidei chachomim. Hatzlocho rabboh.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.