Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
00646
Actually that proposal give’s credence to those who say that the overall point is to secularize chareidi youth.
If the point was merely to have Chareidim provide service to the country then any half honest observer would admit that Chareidim far and away are successful at that.
Chareidim have started and maintained numerous services that provide support for the entire population.
Ezra L’Marpeh, Bikur Cholim, Hatzolah, Zaka, Va’ad HaRabbonim, Yad Sorah, Exrah l’Marpeh and many more.
The overwhelming majority of these “chesed” orginizations were started by Chareidim and have a large number of chareidi volunteer’s that make them run.
So why not just recognize the important contributions that C hareidim already make?
Why the need to force them to do so under secular authority?
And if the tens of thousands of Chareidim sitting and learning are not at the minimum viewed as playing a supoorting role similar to those reparing the tanks, jets ect…then it’s afundemental disagreement.
As for the part that Chareidim pay no taxes.
That’s impossible there’s an 18% VAT tax in ISreal how can you pay not taxe’s?
Plus 45% of Chareidi men end up working as do the majority of Chareidi women.
Add to that the Tourisim industry in Isreal in which Chareidim play an outsized role. (El-Al’s most profitable route by far is JFK-Tel Aviv ever checked who goes on that flight?)
First of all I argue the point that Shivyon B’Netel is all about the money since a large part of the Chareidi population i.e Brisk, Eidah Hachareidis and Satmer as a whole, which together actually add up to a sizeable number, take no funding from the Medinah.
Yet the Draft Law make’s no exemptions for them.
Those that serve in the military with the intent of protecting Yidden I feel desrve thanks.
And what I feel is largley unimportant since the facts are that many of the same Gedolim that called for the Atzeres Tefilla also have stated that soldiers deserve thanks. I think YWN recently had such an article from Hagaon Rav Gershon Edelstien shlita.
However leaving out the emotions from all of this lets look at it in cold logical way.
Is “Shivyon B’Netel’ about chareidim sharing combat risks?
Well it can’t be since right now virtually all combat positions in the IDF are voluntary. Even if someone is drafted into the army they don’t serve in a combat position unless they volunteer for it.
Those that don’t volunteer serve in positions that are largley out of the line of fire and hardship. Many become “jobniks” of the sort that cost the military more then they gain.
So Shivyon B’Netel is not in any way about everyone in the nation taking an equal share in combat hardships.
However it can be argued that Shivyon B’Netel is because the p’tur of “Torati Umnati” has become a mockery. Hundreds of chareidi youth do not serve nor do they sit and learn rather they roam the streets.
The only problem with that is that many, many of these youth do serve and until the Ateres were encouraged to do so by Maran HaRav Aaron Leib Shteinman shlita, the very one who called for the Atzeres.
So Shivyon B’Netel cannot be about that either.
So what is Shivyon b’Netel about?
Well it can be argued that Shivyon B’Netel is about everyone at least playing a supporting role for the IDF since without support the combat missions can not be successful.
But if that’s the case then we really truly have reached an ideological impasse.
We chareidim believe, in fact our way of life the thinkinking that make’s us “chareidi” is the Mesorah that in fact is layed out in full display with literally thousands of sources in Nefesh HaChaim Shar Daled by Rav Chaim Volozhiner the founder of the modern day yeshiva movement, that the tens of thousands of Lomdei Torah are playing the most important support roles possibe.
We believe that the Yeshivos, and the Kollelim that is unparelled in the entire world and is largley chareidi, is what provide’s the zchusim for the combat missions to be successful.
Without them the military would lose, just as the odds in virtuallye very single all out war have said they should lose.
As such we Chareidim believe that “playing” with the Status Quo agrrements in Isreal is perhaps the single most dangerous thing that can be done.
And at this time when the State of Sireal is truly in Peril when the modern day nation of Haman in Persia raise they’re head, and the Sec of State of a country the State of SIreal has always counted on seem’s to be uniting the seventy wolves against the State.
Well, people would be wise to think twice over who cant teach us how to merit Divine mercy Lapid, Bennet, and co or the Gedolei HaDor Shlita.
nfgo3
Considering the fact that women in Yerushalyim are invited as well as children. I think you are already wrong.
Besalel
I am sure you have may think that you are of the opinion that the “intent” of the Torah was for us to be happy in life.
However since that is not the understanding of the Pillars of JEwish though (Please see the Mesilas Yeshorim in the Introduction as well as Chovos Halevovos Sha’ar Avodas Elokim) you are simply wrong.
Unless you feel qualified enough to argue with them regarding the purpose of life.
BYM
You still did not explain to me what is the intrinsic value in a “career”?
BYM
I”m kinda curious what is the value of a “career”?
BTW
I don’t know about now-a-days but in Even Shleima the Vilna Gaon writes very strongly about the need for girls to learn and be familiar with Mussar Seforim to be Yirei Shomayim.
apushtayid,
That is the best comment I’ve seen on this or similar threads!
I should add that I do feel bad for women who try really hard to do men stuff and then find they have no idea how to run a home take care of children ect…
BYM
I am curious what reality what bubble you think I live in.
Is it a lack of exposure to the “non-religous” world view?
Let’s see I have a medical condition that requires pretty close monitoring which requires me to spend a considerable amount of time with some top doctor’s in a top hospital, I own a buisness, I also study torah with ir-religous people.
Perhaps it’s a lack of exposure to other culture’s? I have traveled in South America as well as Europe and lived in two different countries.
Perhaps I have’nt studied enough Torah to know what the Hashkofa of the Torah is on the Woman’s role in this world?
Well then if you would explain what the Torah’s view is and where you are basing it on then perhaps we can discuss it.
But I suspect that you don’t really have sources.
Isuspect that your reply will be something along the line’s of I feel….So I feel….and that’s why I feel…..
Which of course proves my point.
BYM
Yes someone who learns and teaches Torah get’s more schar simply because they are spreading Torah, they are causing and helping more Torah to be learnt. It has nothing to do with affecting other’s positivley.
For a full in depth discussion of Torah it’s purpose and the definition of Torah L’shmoh please see Nefesh HaChachaim of Rav Chaim Volozhiner Zt”l Shar Daled.
As for the purpose of man and woman being the same.
Again man and woman are part of one unit and ultimatley part of the unit of Klal Yisroel so yes they have the same purpose.
However just as different people working in a company all have different tasks and all must be accomplished and done well for the company to thrive, man and woman have different tasks as part of the unit they are enjoined to form together.
And I really don’t see logically why this is a hard point to grasp.
Man and woman are physically different.
They are emotianally different.
They are different.
So why is it so hard to grasp G-d created them differently to suit different role’s?
Sam is correct that Chazal emphasize that one should perform mitzvos, in fact the Vilna Gaon went out of his way to make sure he could perform every single mitzva applicable now-a-day’s.
However the difference lies in the fact that the Kedusha of Mitzvos are derived from the Torah while the Torah is intrinsically kadosh.
It’s a pretty hard concept to explain however anyone who want’s can learn the last 5 perakim or so of Shar Daled of Nefesh Hachaim.
Also see the Maharal in Tiferes Yisroel who explains the two names of Klal Yisroel the first is Yackov and is the level of Mitzvos the section and higher level is Yisroel which is the level of Torah.
Besalel.
have you any idea what you are talkiing about?
The Mishna you just qouted states Medrash not Talmud.
as for the Chazal you speak about why don’t you just look up the sugya in Kiddushin with the Rambam and Poskim.
You’ll learn something.
Starting with the fact that the Mishna we state every morning say’s “Talmud Torah Kneged Kulam”.
It’s a Mishna.
besalel
The only problem with what you said is that the it’s wrong. Torah has intrinsic value someone who sit’s and learns all day is actually very accomplishes.
please see the Rambam in Hilchos Talmud Torah for a pretty clear delineation.
Logician
If someone got married then yes the hope was that a Bayis Ne’eman would be built.
Of course there are times, exceptions not even close to the amount that are bandied about now-a-days that one spouse failed in thier duties due to an inability to conquer or change thier middos in what ever respect and therfore a divorce was needed.
However that in no way diminishes the fact that it is tragic that the home was broken.
BYM
First off B”H yes I am married with children K”h.
Secondly we seem to be speaking in two different directions.
All agree that if a leg contains a growth ch”v that is inoperable and the only way to ensure that a life is saved is to remove the leg, then it is best to remove it.
I am quite sure that after the operation the person who’s life is saved on account of the removal of his leg is quite happy and is better off then if the leg was not removed.
However at the same time it is a tragedy that the person lost his leg. And tht person is I am sure sad that he no longer has his natural leg.
Marriage is the same thing.
We are not Goyim.
We do not marry because “personally” it’s more enjoyab;le. Nor do we have children because “personally” it’s more enjoyable.
We marry and we build a home because that is a fundemental part of our job in this world.
That is a main part of Parshas Bereshis and is a statment that is emphasized by Chazal “Man was created to reproduce” Tractate Chagiggah Daf Beis Amud Beis)”.
If the Marriage that was supposed to build a Bayis Ne’eman B’Yisroel fails for whatever reason.
Then yes it is a tragedy of untold proportions.
It is a tragedy so great that Chazal tell us the Mizbeach sheds tears.
At times yes, it is a needed tragedy, at times there is a situation in which the Torah commands us to disolve the marriage.
Where a person’s life is in danger the Torah commands us to remove the leg.
Yet it is tragic.
And perhaps if we would keep this in mind more and the influences of the outside culture less then there would be more Sholom Bayis and less divorce.
Mod’s thank’s for the edit, you were probably right.
As for “outlet’s for ruchniyous.
Again “outlets” for ruchniyuous.
Lerning Torah is not an outlet for ruchniyous ch”v.
It’s what we are, it’s why we are here.
Ki Heim Chayeinu is literal in every sense of the word.
And so if someone does chesed ect… through their job well yes the chesed is valuable.
Whether they are a man or a woman.
Make’s no difference.
Is the chesed of their job more important if they are a man or a woman?
I have no idea, but I would think it depends on that individual’s circumstances. It depends on what that individual person should be doing. Which has nothing to do with if they are a man or awoman.
As for woman per se.
Like I stated earlier.
Rashi explains the Gemorah of Nushim B’Mai Zachyan as stating since the woman are the one’s who send their sons husbands to learn and son’s to yeshivah while keeping the home they are zoche to a greater portion in Olam haboh then Men.
So what does that say Rashi held was more “important”?
And if you want to go down to the modern era Rav kaplan who stood by his wife’s side in starting Bais Yackov in America was actually a Maggid Shiur in Yeshiva, he could’nt do both and asked Rav Aaron what to do. Rav Aaron told him to devote his time to Beis Yackov, and Rav Aaron also said the Kaplan’s were the biggest “Roshei Yeshivah” in America they were most responsible for building Torah in America because it all depend’s on the woman.
Again BYM you have it wrong.
Marriage according to the Torah is so much more then a partnership.
It is a union , a creation of a unit that when working properly is a place theat the Shechinah itself makes home.
Yes it can be that one spuse is better off by ending this union becuase it did not work properly.
However it ending is a tragedy.
Every ending is by definition an operation to remove a limb, whether or not the end result is one spouse being better off.
Period.
It is one that cause’s the very Mizbeach to shed tears.
(Again I am sorry if it’s hard to join the non-jewish thought process with the Torah thought process which is completley and diametrically different.)
Edited to preserve the point
People talk about divorce as if it’s a bad thing because it is.
Some time’s it’s needed sadly.
It’s still a tragedy.
Sometimed operations are needed to remove a foot.
It is done to save a life.
It’s still a tragedy.
BYM
Whether a woman is a CEO or some other such thing it matter’s little in the long run.
The same goes for a man.
In Judaic thought what we do for a living does not matter a great deal.
It’s a means to an end not an end in itself.
What we do from a “ruchniyus” perspective is what matters.
BYM
After Churba HaBayis many thing were less then ideal.
My point wa that you stated the notion of thousands of men dedicated soley to the pursiut of Dvar Hahshem is not rooted in tradition.
That is false.
BYM
You are right you won’t find any shiurim about “Man’s Tafkid in the home”, nor will you find shiurim about the interchangeble roles for men and women.
They are’nt there.
You see there are very basic differences in Judaic philosophy and secular feministic philosphy.
Feminism view the man and the woman as two distinct peaple who may join together in a partnership for one reason or another.
Now even if they “partner” up they remain iindividuals.
Judaisim is diametrically opposed to that.
In Parshas Bereshis we learn Chava was taken from the body of Adam and the Torah then enjoins us when we marry to be as “one body”.
We do not just form a partnership we “unite” we become one.
That is the goal.
The goal is for a man and woman to join together and build thier home, one home.
Now the Home that they are supposed to create is not one for themselves.
Rather we are trying to create a home that fulfills the mission G-d gave us.
In Pirkei Avos we are enjoined to view ourselves as “workers’.
So let’s look at the home as our “buisness”.
In a buisness there are different people with different roles to play.
How does a good employer find workers?
You try and find the ones who are most suited to the job, one’s that have a particular skill set.
Now what would happen if the graphic artist would walk in and attempt to take over the copy writer’s job and then the copy writer would take over the sale’s manager and the sale’s manager would take over the graphic artist’s job?
It would be disaster.
Now how about when they all play the role’s they are emeant to.
They all do their job’s properly.
Who is responsible for the finished product?
The all are.
And a succesful company is one that has the top in all categories that work in unison together,
A home is the same.
Hashem created man and woman differently.
They have different skill sets, any objective person will can see that.
If they don’t fight and compete with each other. Rather they both perform the roles they are meant to, then together they will build a great home.
Actually the parrellel’s to Kollel pretty much exist in the Torah.
The entire Shevet Yissoschar as well as Shevet Levi were set aside to be in “kollel”.
As per Chumash 2 out of 12 shevatim means 1/6.
Furthermore the Gemara in Megilla teaches us that in order to be considered a major city there had to be at least ten “batlanim” i.e a kollel of Ten.
So yes it was an anomaly that sadly for years Klal Yisroel lacked the requisite amount of people being dedicated to the Dvar Hashem.
B”h we know do have thousands of Yidden doing just that.
However sadly due to the millions of “not yet” observant jews as well the amount of Yidden dedicated to being “batlanim is still far below 1/6 of the nation.
As long as people are qouting the Gemora in brochos about “Nashim B’mai Zachyun”, I thought I would just add in that Rashi over there explains that the question was “why are women zoche to a greater chelek then men.
Which makes sense since in Judaisim the enabler is often times granted mote schar then the actual doesr i.e someone who collects Tzedak get’s more schar then the giver.
Why in the world should I set about explaining each and every aspect of Slifkin where he went wrong?
If I wanted to I can certainly qoute what the Rambam,Ramban, Rabbeinu Yonah, Rashbah, Ramchal, Mahral of Prague, Rav Yackov Emden, Vilna Gaon, RSRH, and Chazon Ish amongst other’s state.
However I have no intention of doing it.
I addressed the claim that Slifkin is putting forth that he is advocating a “traditional” approach to Chazal.
Slifkin claim’s is that his approach is a legitamite way based upon classical sources. Not only that but his detractor’s are “political in nature ect..
I merely pointed out that that is blatantly untrue.
There is no source that condone’s Slifkin’s viewpoint. It has never been condoned. It has always been seen as either foolish or kefirah.
Take your pick.
Why exactly it’s been condemned is to be honest not a discussion I am willing to enter into, especially not in this forum. (Rabbi Meiselmann is to this point the only person I am aware of who has actually attempted to comprehensivley expain all of Slifkin’s mistake’s and distortions and his book is some 900 pages long)
All I set out to do is ask for any sources that support Slifkin’s approach to Chazal.
Any.
You googled some sources that provide support to one aspect.
However those same sources fiercly condemn the entirety of Slifkin’s approach as being incompatible with Torah Shel Ba’al Peh.
I am still asking you for a single support for Slifkin.
Other then De Rossi’s Meor Einayim which was of course called Kefirah by the Maharal of Prague, The Beis Yosef, and Remah, and simply “foolish and misguided” by Rav Yackov Emden amongst a host of other Gedolei Yisroel.
Or are you attempting to acknowldge that Slifkin does not have a single source and is arguing on all of the above Gedolei Yisroel?
PAO
Some exact sources are
1) Ramban-Parshas VaYEira
2) Vilna Gaon-Brought in Even Shlaima
3) Ramchal-Mamar Al Aggadita
4) Maharal of Prague- In Letter written condemning De Rossi’s work.
5) Remah-Toras Olah.
7) Beis Yosef- In letter written by Rav Elisha Gallico regarding De Rossi’s work.
8) RSRH- In the Nineteen Letter’s letter 18.
ROB
I admit I haven’t read his blog.
His books were condemned. I read his books.
I think that it’s pretty brazen of you not to have even read what Gedolim have condemned and still feel free to spout you’re opinions.
As an aside Slifkin’s approach encompasses more then two parts.
It also details a radical new interpetation of many Klulim such as when one can view pesukim as allegorical or the rule of “Ein Mukdum Uh Meuchar BaTorah”.
PAO
I’m really haveing a hard time figuring out why you keep bringing me into the discussion.
I have stated quite clearly that I am not foolish enough to try and render an opinion on certain things.
What was stated was that the attack on Slifkin “was “political” and had nothing to do with Yiddishkeit.
I demonstrated that while he may have support for individual parts of his “philosophy” as a whole he has no one who ever supported it and au contraire,
It has alway’s been denounced.
I have’nt just qouted you names, I have pointed yopu to places where you can find in detail the reasoning of the Gedolei Rishonim and Achronim who expressed that Slifkin’s approach ranges from “ignorant” to “foolish” to Kefira”.
If you do not understand why theRamban or Vilna Gaon for example’s or the Ramchal for another example or RSRH for another one.
Then I would urge you to look up their views inside, the way they wrote them, and try to understand them.
If you cannot do so then again I would urge you to consult a qualified person who can help you understand it an example being Rav Moshe Shapiro shlita who again is considered by many the biggest expert in these matter’s alive
today.
ROB
Again in this entire disccusion there has not been a single opinion cited that follow’s Slifkin’s approach.
None.
I have cited numerous opinion that unequivacly denounce it.
PAtur Avul Assur.
You seem to be having a difficult time understanding that I have no position.
None.
I am not fool enough to take a position on certain things, or think I am qualified enough to evern reaffirm positions by Gedolei Rishonim and Achronim.
All I have done is two things.
a) I have pointed out that Slifkin is twisting things and being intelectually dishonest when he attempts to claim his approach is based on “classical sources” when the totality of his approach has been condemned by virtually all of the very sources he claims to lean on for support.
There is nothing new under the sun.
The approach of Slifkin either in totality or many chunks of it has been called either “foolish” or Kefira by the overwhelming majority of Rishonim and Achronim throughout History.
Some of these include
1) The Rambam (Foolish)
2) Ramban (Kefira or borderline Kefira)
3) The Maharal (Kefira)
4) Yam Shel Shlomo ( Ignorant)
5) Rav Yackov Emden ( Foolish)
6) The Vilna Gaon (Foolish and Dangerous)
7) Rav Shamshon R. Hirsh( Dangerous, Foolish, Worse then Reform)
8) The Chazon Ish (Kefira)
So the point is merely that Slifkin himself shopuld have known that he expressed a view on Chazal that has been called either foolish, ignorant, or Kefira by Rishinim and Achronim throughout the centuries.
If he did not know that he is even more of a fool.
The Gedolim of today merely reaffirmed the view thoughout the centuries.
Now if you do not understand why they said said what they said I urge you to either open up seforim where they wrote it and attempt to understand what they said or go to someone such as Rav Moshe Shapiro shlita who can explain it to you.
And I really don’t get how you misunderstand what I write.
I never ever said that Slifkin’s view’s are Kefira because they don’t follow Rav Dessler.
I merely stated that Slifkin wishes to provide Rav Dessler as a source that he has a legitiamte vierwpoint. Yet in that very piece that Slifkin provide’s as a source for Rav Dessler’s position, Rav Dessler unequivically condemn’s the approach that Slifkin take’s.
In other words Rav Dessler is a source that states Slifkin’s viewpoint is illegitamte not the reverse.
Patur Avul Assur.
i have no idea what you define as Slifkin’s shitto and what you define as a side result of Slifkins shitto.
I tend to allow people to define themselves.
The approach that Slifkin has written blogged and lectured about is one that has been condemned as ranging anywhere from foolishness to outright Kefira since 30 years after the death of the Rambam at the least.
Seeing as it is not my personal view. I have emphasized numerous times I have no right to take a personal view on matter’s such as this, and I am not foolish enough to do so, if you do not understand why that is you will have to take it up with the Gedolei Yisroel who expressed this opinion.
Among them,
1) The Rambam
2) The Ramban
3) Rabbeinu Yonah
4) The Rashbah
5) The Maharal
6) The Ramchal
7) The Vilna Gaon
8) Rav Yackov Emden
9) Rav Shamshon R. Hirsh
If you do not wish to open up a sefer a go through them inside then you can always approach someone like Rav Moshe Shapiro shlita and ask him to explain it to you.
Anyone who say’s that there is very little discussion regarding what to do when Chazal make an apparent mistake based on science has obviously learnt very little.
Regarding Pachad Yitzchok.
Pachad Yitzchok is virtually a lone opinion in Halacha that takes that stance and his own Rabbi again argued on him and he himself later retracted.
If you wish you can see the entire Chapter by Rabbi Meiselmann regarding it, (Torah,Chazal, and Science chapter 21) with the entire Hebrew texts reprinted in the Appendix’s.
Now you state the reason why Slifkin wrote his books.
However what you leave out is the fact that virtually every single question that Slifkin raised, nearly all of them have been raised and debated. And the conclusions that Slifkin wishes to state were condemned as Kefira.
In Rav Moshe Shapiro (considered by many the foremost authority on Aggadita today and a talmid of Rav Dessler) penned a personal letter declaring Slifkin’s books Muktzah.
It’s an interesting letter if you know a little bit about Slifkin’s opinion’s.
A Sefer that Slifkin qoutes as a “Rishon” is one sefer Meor Einayim by someone called Azariah de Rossi.
What Slifkin neglects to emphasize is that in the part of the book de Rossi explains his veiw on Chazal he virtually explictly argues head on with the Remah.
Slifkin also neglects to mention that virtually everyone condemned De Rossi’s approach as “kefirah”.
Including the Maharal of Prague.
In Rav Moshe Shapiro’s letter he specifically mentions Meor Einayim and compares Slifkin’s approach to De Rossi’s and say’s something along the lines that the Mahral already declared it Kefira then.
Patur Avul Assur
In no way am I exchanging an ikkar for a taful.
The question is why Gedolei Yisroel called Slifkin’s view’s Kefira. A poster went so far as to insinuate that it was “politics” and “had little to do with Yiddishkeit.
I took exception to that and stated it was because the sum totality of what he wished to suggest is indeed Kefira.
Sure,
Thanks.
Actually if one want’s to truly understand Rav Gedaliah Nadel’s view’s itis very relevent.
Rav Gedaliah hald that the Rambam learnt different part’s of Chazal differently there were aspect’s of science that Chazal had in a Mesorah and aspects that were not.
That is one of the reason’s Rav Gedaliah zt”l did not discuss his approach to the Ramabam in a public forum since he learnt that the Rambam had a highly nuanced position which entailed taking a different approach to different Mamorim of Chazal based on various factor’s.
Basically the reason that Rav GEdaliah took this position is that irrelevent as to whether or not the Rambam learnt Kabbolah there are a great many basic question’s on various position’s of the Rambam from a textual standpoint that are asked by him again since the Ramban in the beginning of VaYeira or RSRH in Letter 18 regarding the Rambam’s statment on Korbonos for ex.
In addition there are various seemingly contradictory statement’s that are semmingly made by the Rambam that need to be resolved.
Rav Gedaliah (again he was a rare genius and talmid chochom who the Stiepler himself used as a Rov after the petirah of the Chazon ISh) was one of the only people capable of going through Chumash and Shas and providing a way to resolve these questions. Doing so like any sugya required taking a nuanced and highly analytical approach.
Which again is completley different then Slifkin’s approach since Slifkin feel’s Chazal only knew the science of thier time period.
Which once again is typical of Slifkin since he had a couple of conversation’s with Rav Gedaliah towards the end of Rav Gedaliah’s life when Rav Gedaliah was already bedridden and only publicized what he claims Rav Gedaliah told him after Rav Gedaliah’s death.
Look I understand that Slifkin and co. love to try and justify themselves by stating that all they said is something that has been said before them.
And I know that there are many out there who did’nt actually read his books or listen to his lectures who fall for it.
But the reality is that no ever called Rav A. Carmell zt”l a kofer for stating a similar point.
Au Contraire, Michtav M’Eliyahu which in large part was written by him is a staple in the yeshiva world.
Slifkin was called a Kofer for espousing a long a detailed shitto, so long that he spent several books developing it, that in totality represents a way of approaching The Halachic Mesorah and the Aggados of Chazal in way that has been condemned and refuted for centuries.
To sum it up.
You brought a few shittos that perhaps some of the science that Chazal wrote in Aggadita was based on the science of their time.
However as I indicated Slifkin’s approach encompass’s many aspects the sum tota of which have no source at all and actually have been condemned through out the ages.
You did not bring a single source supporting Slifkin’s approach to Aggadita or to Gemara.
Like I said you cannot bring any because they do not exist.
So do you ever intend on actually reading what I posted?
Again there are sources for stating that Chazal made scientific statments based on the science of their times.
I acknowledged that. I am aware of that.
And trust me I do need google to tell me about them (I did qoute a couple of them before you copy’d and pasted them)
The arguement against Slifkin was not based on that.
1) Slifkin claims that the Halacha was based on science. Chazal arrived at the Halacha through mistaken science. i.e lice on Shabbos.
He acknopwledges that now Halacha does not change for some side ridiculaous reasin.
Some of the very sourcs you qouted take great pains to make clear that that is not the case. And it’s outside of the pale to even suggest it. For Ex. Rav Dessler takes great pains to do so.
As such when Slifkin suggestted it he was told that such a notion is outside the pale in accordance with the Gedolei Yisroel of the last thousand years or so.
2) Slifkin claims that Aggadita is to be taken at face value. He rejects Kabbola and rejects most of the deeper understandings. Most everyone who stated Chazal qouted scientific knowledge of their day also made the point that they were not trying to teach science rather they were using the science of their times to write things that could not be written openly (i.e the Rambam)
3) Slifkin wishes to take an approach to understanding Mitzvos based on a literal understanding of Moreh Nevuchim when that approach has been unaninmously rejected by all Rishonim and Achronim to the present day, and rejected in a most clear cut and fierce way i.e Letter 18 of The Nineteen Letters.
4) As an aside, I did not state that Rav Gedaliah Nadel’s views were not meant to be published.
I stated that he refused to allow them to be publicized at all, a fact which is well known by anyone who actually knew him. And this is precisley why.
Rav Gedaliah zt”l gave shiur on how the Rambam would understand certain things and how they could be explained (mostly in an effort to ansewer the myriad of question’s brought against him by Rishonim and Achronim).
Rav Gedaliah (who was a talmid muvhak of the Chazon Ish, considered by many his biggest talmid) did not publicize this for the very reasons you are demonstrating.
In the shiur he gave he hand picked the attendees (as I indicated I personally know people who were told they cannot come) based on his feelings of whether they could understand that what he was doing was answering and explaing things based according to the Rambam himself, on the Klal that the Rambam has to be understood. He was not offering an approach that is the way Aggadita should be approached when taught in of itslef. And he did not want his shiurim publicized precisley so he should not be taken out of context.
(The only reason I am going into B’Toroso Shel Gedaliah is because I have a number of people close to me who were talmidim of Rav Gedaliah zt”l and were among those furious when it was published).
P.S I am trying really hard not to bring exact sources other then the ones PAO brings simply to show that the very sources that Slifkin brings to back himself up are the ones that condemn his approach.
Patur Avul Assur.
I’m curious.
Why do you keep trying to pretend this is an arguement about whether there are sources or not that Chazal did not know all science?
Why do you have such a hard time acknowledging the actual point?
PAO
I am the one who is bringing irrelevent sources?
This discussion started when someone said that it was basically politics and to qoute that poster “has little to do with yiddishkeit or honesty”.
I then proceaded to demonstrate that the reason why Slifkin was condemned had everything to do with Yiddishkeit and everything to do with Honesty.
Slifkin wrote several books and was promoting a world view and approach to Aggadita as “legit” and viable whhen it most certainly was not.
Slifkin cherry picks source taking one part and ignoring the other to create an approach that has been condemned any time it has reared it’s ugly head.
that is the point.
The point was never whether Chazal knew all of science or not from the overwhelming majority of sources (including the Rambam who states clearly regarding astronomy that they knew most of it ina Kabbolah from Sinai) that they knew far more then their contemporaries.
Did they know all of it? That is above my pay grade.
However is Chazal’s knowledge of science relevent to understanding Aggadita.
The overwhelming majority of opinions since Rav Moshe Leon and the Zohar is no.
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?
And
ROB
You stated that you would provide a translation of the Rambam.
I am still eagerly awaiting it.
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