Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ROB
You claimed that you had some sort of translation of PEirush HaMishnayos that did not state your opinion was one of “fools”.
Can you provide it?
Sam 2
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.
ubiquitin,
I did not avoid your question, you just did’nt like my ansewer.
What I would have thought Chazal mean’s makes no difference the question is what they actualy meant. The Rishonim and Achronim make clear what it was.
See Even Shlaima where the GRa speks harshly against those that dismiss Aggadita “For they contain all thesecrets of the Torah”.
00646
Iunderstand that you have this caricature of what Rabbonim believe. However if you would like to understand what is the actual position from the source than why don’t you get a copy of the Mamar Al Aggadita from the Ramchal (author of Mesilas Yeshorim and Derech HaShem).
00646
I am not really certain that you comprehend the approacch that Slifkin calls “Rational Judaisim”.
Slifkin takes the approach that every word that Chazal said they meant literally and since there are certain things Chazal said that do not hold up to modern day science we therefore can disprove them and state Chazal only Knew the Science of their times.
The traditional Mesorah has been that Chazal knew far more then the science of their times both from a Mesorah on certain things from Sinai as well as a deep Kabbilistic understanding that taught them about the makeup of the world.
That is the discussion.
Did Chazal know a great deal more then what the scientists of their day knew?
The traditional opinion is yes.
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.
Now a consequenc of this is as follows.
If one feels Chazal knew more then the Science of their days then when they say things that have been proven wrong the question is whether or not we simply dismiss it by stating that they were wrong ch”v.
Or rather do we state that Chazal knew the truth and were trying to conceal sodos (The Ramchal, and Vilna Gaon’s approach amongst others).
Slifkin says Chazal thought what they thought we know they were wrong.
The Rambam says Slifkin is a fool. (Again I provided the translation).
Now what was the intention of Chazal at times was? Well at times it was not to be taken literally, according to us.
According to Slifkin;.
Well he thinks it was to be taken literally.
This is just one area of dispute.
There are many.
Regarding proof of the Rambam’s positions on matter’s again I am far from qualified to offer opinions however the Rogatchover and other’s who take this view do. If you would like to see “proof” I suggest you see Torah,Chazal,and Sciuence by Rabbi Meiselmann. The book is around 900 pages long and a good portion of it is devoted to the Rambam’s opinion.
Rabbi Meiselmann takes the view that the Rambam was using certain language’s to discuss Torah concepts and he marshals a great deal of proof from the entire gamut of the Rambam’s writing’s.
He also makes apoint of not asking the reader to rely on his “interpetation” of the Rambam, rather he provides the exact word’s of the Rambam whenever qouted, along with where they are taken from.
Based on what I am today I would like to think that I would have understood he intentions of Chazal.
Just as in the time of Purim I would have liked to think I would have had the courage to follow Mordechai, even though a great many of our brethern did not.
Just as in the times of Chanuka I would like to think that I would have joined the Chashmonoim and not the Hellenists.
Just as in the Eygpt in the time’s of the Rambam I hop eI would have had the courage to follow the Rambam and not the Karaites when the Rambam virtually single handidly led the War against them.
Just as I would have hoped in the time of the Spanish Inquistion I would have had the courage to follow the Abarbenel out of Spain though many of our brethern did not.
Just as in the time of RSRH I would like to think I would have joined with RSRH in Frankfurt, though the vast majority of our brethern did not.
Just as in the time when “ism’s” were sweeping through Russia I would like to think I would have joined Novardok,or other Yeshivah movements, though many of our brethern sadly did not.
Just as after the War, I would like to think I would have followed Rav Aaron and the Satmer Rebbe in America and the Chazon ish in Eretz Yisorel though the vast majority of our brethern sadly did not.
You see I cannot judge.
Who am I? What am I? Do I know if I would have had the courage to stand up against the YEtzer Horah throughout History?
Cetainly I don’t.
But I hope I would have.
I hope I would have had the courage to be from the few that always stayed true to a “Torah-centric” Hashkofa, but again I don’t know.
I do know if from the time of the Rambam until ours the Mesorah and approach to Aggadita has been virtually unchanged in a broad aspect (Of course like everything, there is disagreements but they are narrow one’s not over the broad approach)even though it’s been centuries and our Nation has weathered alot, and been attacked alot.
And that means on a Intellectual basis.
Well then, that means that the approach to Aggadita will not change.
The Ramban and the Rashbah, the Mahral and the Ramchal, the Mahrshah and the Ben Yehoyadah and the rest of the Meforshei Aggadita. The Gedolei Yisroel who’s approach and explanations make up the Mesorah we have today will remain what is learnt and what is understood.
And I do know is that if I would have ch’v been from those “on the other side” I would have been wrong. And history would have shown me to be wrong.
Just as Slifkin’s convulted “Rationlist Judaisim” approach will probably grow a drop more and then evaporate and join the dustbin of history along with all the other convulted approaches to Judaisim out there.
I would add as a side note.
It seems to me that the whoe discusion here confirms much of what Rav Shamshon R. Hirsh writes in the beginning of the Nineteen Letters.
RSRH writes that if one learns the Torah properly then they will come to understand the Mitzvos and much of their questions will be resolved.
However RSRH say’s there is one qualification.
One who learns Torah must do so from within the Torah, it is only by learning Torah from within that one can come and understand the Torah. But if one approaches the Torah from without then they wi become hoplessly confused.
I think that RSRH has been proven more then accurate when we can see those whose true “vocation” true love so to speak secular knowledge attempting to then go and interpet Torah in a way that is consistent with their “outside knowledge”.
All one see’s is hopeless confusion, misunderstandings, and mis-interpeting and result that is inherehntly contridictory.
(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!)
If one wants to really undestand Aggadita and what Chaza meant when they undertook to transcribe Torah Shel Ba’al Peh and included within it 1/7 that were seemingly stoies and observances of nature as well as seemingly fantastic tales.
Well then that person has to actually learn Chaza and the Gedolei Meforshei Aggadita such as the Mahrsha, Ben Yehoyadah, the Maharal and Ramchal on their own terms.
ROB,
I eagerly await any translation you can provide.
1) The Rambam did state that he w2as writing it for anyone struggling with emunah and if I recall correctly he also stated he was discussing things that he considered “Maseh Merkava” and therefore cannot be distributed widley nor can they be understood by everyone.
2) 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”.
3) As for why the Rambam rejected Aristotle’s notion’s of the universe and where the Rambam felt one can use allegory please see Torah, Chazal and Science.
4)I do not know what you are referrring to.
If you mean to tell me that saying the Rambam was deliberatley writing in a “conceaed manner” is something that is “infantile. Well then according to you the Remah, The Rogatchover Gaon, The Radziner, Rav Elchono Wasserman, and Rav Yerucham levovitz all took an infantile position.
I hope for your saake you don’t mean to say that.
If you yourself mean to say that it is infantile to understand Chazal as referring to esoteric concepts and deliberatley writing in allegorical form is “infantile”.
Well the Rambam states that someone who believes so is a “fool” and “cursed” (I qouted the Rambam word for word earlier and provided a link).
5) and 6) I really don’t think you understand my point.
In summation.
True the many took the Moreh Nevuchim at face value.
And since they took it at face value they argued forcefull against it and stated that the Rambam for what ever reason was not able to learn Kabboloh (again see the Chida in Shem HaGedolim for an intersting reason why) and wrote cerain things.
This included the Ramban, Rabbeinu Yonah, The Rivash, The Rashba, The Chasid Yaavetz, The Vilna Gaon, Rav Shamshon R. Hirsh and a host of others.
The Chida also brings down severel Gedolei yisroel who stated that the Moreh Nevuchim was a forgerythough the Chidah himself disputes that.
There were those Gedolei yisroel who stated the Moreh Nevuchim is not to be taken at face value and therefore accepted it that include the Rogatchover, Rav Elchono Wasserman.
To give you an idea about how forceful the opposition was Rav Shamshon R. Hirsh wrote that MN did more damage to Klal Yisroel then Moses Mendelsohn, this is the work that Slifkin advances as “mainstream”.
(Again I am always afraid to write on these things since I am afraid someone may miinterpet what I am saying as giving my own opinions or rendering judgment ch”v.
Far be it for me to give opinions on thse things. But also far be it for me when people seem to feel taht they have the right to distort and misrepresent our Mesorah.)
patur Avul Assur
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.
For a full anaysis of the section indicated please see Torah, Chazal, and Science.
Ubiqtuin,
I really have no idea what I would have told you.
Depends on what I would have been.
00646
As for whether the Rambam wrote it for everybody to understand it.
Well the Rambam wrote it as a private letter to a talmid and was pretty clear that it discussed matters that were not able to be understood by the general public.
I think that’s pretty clear.
As for scientific proofs, I think I must not have been clear enough.
One of the “mainstrea” positions, and the one I personally was taight as being that of the Ramchal is that of course there are various statments in Chazal that are not in line with conventional science.
However that is not because Chazal were limited only to the knowledge that science had in thier day. Rather Chazal knew far more based on Mesorah and Missed on their deep understanding of Torah and the way the world works “Hafuch Buh V’Hsfuch Buh Dkuloh Buh”.
However when Chazal wrote what appears to be simple scientific facts in most instances they did really care if what they were writing was in actuallity the case, rather the intent was the information that was “encoded within” What the Vilna Gaon says are the “all the secrets of the Torah”.
Writing it in such away meant that it would not harm people that are incapabe of properly understanding SOdos but they would be preserved for those who reached the level where they could understand Pardes.
And while the Rambam may not have learnt Kabbola in the piece I qouted He seems to be taking a similar approach based on the fact that the Rambam feels it is readily apparent from places in Chazal thatthey were far ahead of their times.
Again when it comes to Metzius, what has been virtually unanimously accepted since Rav Moshe Leon and the discovery of Zohar and more importantly from when the Ramban was exiled from Spain and spent time with the Raavad who proved to him the truth of the Zohar and the Pardes within is the esoteric leve of the Torah.
I just wanted to add that I ch”v am not trying to give my opinions on the Rambam’s approach to anything.
All am I am doing is stating what the opinions of the Gedolei Yisroel were on such matter’s and what the Mesorah throughout the Doros has been.
Again ch”v for me to give personal opinions on such matters when they have been discussed by all Gedolei Yisroel.
I also would like to point out that the Rishonim and Achronim did not condemn the Rambam ch”v and the perfect proof is RSRH whose sefer Chorev is actually based on the Rambam’s style, they did condemn and write against the approach of Moreh NEvuchim if it is to be understood a certain way.
There were of course Gedolei Yisroel who had different approaches to understanding the Moreh Nevuchim and in fact RAbbi MEiselmann in his book spends considerable time attempting to prove from the totality of the Rambam’s writing on such matter’s that they in fact were correct in their approach to the Moreh Nevuchim.
Such Gedolei Yisroel include the Rogatchver and Rav Elchonon Wasserman zt”l.
The sum total is that their is a “memuh nifshach” if one accepts the Moreh Nevuchim at face value and understands it in a literal sense then it was forcefully disputed and pushed away by the Rishonim starting from about 30 years after the Rambam’s petirah (according to the Chidah) until modern time
s.
If one wishes to point to the fact that there were in fact Gedolim who did accept Moreh Nevuchim, well if one would look a tad deeper they would see that they invariably understood the Moreh Nevuchim differently then the literal meaning i.e he couched certain Torah concepts in greek termininology to reach certain individuals.
As for the qoute that was 00646 provided from MN.
I admit that I am not entirey familiar with MN as opposed to the Rambam’s other writing since I was told by my Rabbeim that the Mesorah was not learn it without a Rebbi.
However I would offer that I do not think that it’s a contradiction since the Ramchall in Mamar Al Aggadita states that at times the main purpose of Chazal were to write “Sodos” so they woud not be forgotten.
However since they could not write this openly they used the “language” of their time to write things so that it would not harm those who did not understand the true meaning while it would be there for those on a sufficient level to understand the real intention.
Based on this it would seem to me that the Rambam you are qouting in MN is merely stating that when Chazal wrote things at times they only wrote according to what was the science of their day, since their intention was not to write things from MEsorah.
However in reality Chazal knew far more then what was scientifically known in their day, which is basicaly the position of the Rambam in Chelek and what is explained in detail by the Ramchal.
OO646,
If one wants to understand the Moreh NEvuchim in anextremly literal sense then it’s not that the Rambam was aDa’as Yuchid, it’s that all the Rishonim very forcefull argued and condemned the approach of Moreh Nevuchim including Rabbeinu Yonah, The Rashba, The Rivash,The Ramban, the Mahral and the achronim till out times.
The basis for the forceful condemnation of the Moreh Nevuchim is because the “metzius”was that the Rambam did not learn Kabbolah (See the Chida in Shem HaGedolim for an interesting reason why) and as such was limited in explaining certain concepts of Chazal.
Based on this the Rishonim and Achronim in virtual unison forcefully condemned the approach taken (Again see the last of The Nineteen Letters of Rav Shamshon R. Hirsh zt”l for an extremly forceful essay against Moreh Nevuchim.
As such many Gedolim have stated that Slifkin is basically taking an approach that was excoriated by the Gedolei Yisroel for over 1000 plus years as being “outside the pale” See Ramban on Chumash Parshas VaYeira for ex.) and stating it should be given legitamcy.
ROB I really don’t know how you can claim I am qouting “incorrectly” when all I am doing is providing a virtual word for word translation without offering any of my own “interpetations”.
However you asked for the ‘Third Group”.
Here goes.
“The Third goup,and they are so small they are so few it is hardly fitting to call them a group, rather a type. And they are those to whom it is understood the greatness of the “Wise Men” and the goodness of their knowledge from what is found within their words that point to things that are true in a deep way.
And even though these things are few and are scattered throughout in places of their works they point to the “completeness” and that they comprenhended the truth and realized what was things that caused things to stop and what was reality that had to be.
And all that they say do not say idle words.
And it is understood by this group that words of the Wise Men have a plain meaning and a deeper meaning and when they spoke about things that are impossibe they spoke in riddles and this is the way of the Wise Men.
And this is why the Wisest of all Men began his book by stating it is “To understand allegories the words of the Wise Men and their Riddles”
It goes on but I think I’ve written enough.
Of course if you can provide any examples of what I am “not understanding” or what I am not “translating correctly”, please feel free.
ROB
However misrepresenting positions of Rishonim to try and advance your agenda is at the very least gross dishonesty.
So since you have disputed what the meaning of the Rambam in Peirush HaMishnayos (that I linked to earlier is) I will provide a literal English Translation.
The Following is the Rmabma in Peirush Hamishnayos, the introduction to Chelek where he discusses Aggadita.
The second group and they are many as well are the ones who see the words of the sages or hear them and think they mean only the simple meaning. And they think that Wise Men had no intention other then what the simple MEaning indicates.
And they come to belittle and put forth “Dibah” on what has no “dibah” and they laugh at the words of the Wise Men.
They think their knowledge is more refined then theirs and that the Wise Men did not know the reality’s and did not comprehend matters of wisdom.
The majority of those people are Doctor’s and Astologers, BEcause they think that with their great thoughts they are wiser in their own eyesand their philosophy is sharp.
How far are these people they from mankind when compared to those who were really wise and philosophersof truth.
However this second group is better then the first hover many of them are fools and they are cursed because they ansewer on those who are far greater then them and men whos were considered Wise by Wise Men.
And if these fools would actually toil and work until they would actually know how it is proper to write the Wisdom of G-d for both the general public as well as wise men so they can know the practical from the philosophy then they would actually understand the wisdom of the Wise Men ect..”
Now how you ROB came to the conclusion that the Rambam is talking about PEsukim I have no idea.
To be clearer.
Slifkin’s position is that Aggadita and Halacha when it conflicts with science is wrong. period.
Slifkin claims he understands the Aggadita and understands science and therefore has the ability to make his statements.
The Torah view is that he is a fool.
Aggaditta is not wrong, we may not be able to rule based on it since we do not fully understand the words of Chazal (Mahral -Be’er HaGolah) who deliberatley wrote certain things in a cryptic fshion to conceal “esoteric” secrets from those not worthy of understanding them (Ramchal, Mammar Al HoAggadita, Vilna Gaon Mishlei Perek Aleph, Brought in Even Shelaima).
ROB
If you think that Slifkin who is not acedemically trained in anything and is not considered a major authority in any field by his “peers”, a man whose own “Rabbi” Rav moshe Shapiro (who is actually regarded as the final word on matters of Jewish Thought in our generation and is a student of Rav Dessler, is “peerless in his knowledge of zooology and astronomy, then you seem to be imply those are fields that lack major authority’s.
I most definetley don’t believe you regarding astronomy and am doubtful regarding zooology.
And the real question is whether or not one can causally dismiss
them based on our own apparent understanding.
Slifkin takes the position that yes, one can and a smart person does.
It’s what he has written about in his books, his blogs, and spoken about publicly.
Tose that argue on him staight he alternates between being a fool or a kofer.
The question is not whether one should take literally all words of Aggadita or rule accordingly since the traditional views of Aggadita in the chareidi camp were based on the Ramchal and Vilna Gaon, who bothe wrote extensivley on Aggadita and warned against taking them literally since they were written to conceal mysticism.
See the Ramchal in Mamar HaAgodos and the Gra brought in Even Shelaima (who also calls those who dismiss Aggadita “fools”).
and the Mahral (Be’er haGolah) of Prague whostated one generally cannot rule based on Aggadita since they cannot know for certain they understand what it ctually is saying.
ROB
So far the only specific thing Sam2 has said about rabbi Meiselmann’s book is that he does not address the “main” gemorah used by Slifkin.
That seems to be an oversight on his part as I pointed out the three different places where it is in fact discussed and in great detail.
Regarding the Rambam,
There is no way in the world that the Rambam mean’s what you say. I have no idea how you even came out with that (The Rambam is talking about Pesukim!?).
And the Rambam is pretty famous and discussed ( I think I pointed out the Shelah) it’s also brought down by Eidensohn in his Daat Torah book in English.
If I have time later I’ll post a basic word for word translation of the second and third groups.
Sam2
The question is whether or not he studied the topics at hand at a structured, university level.
Whether it was at an under-grad level or not is irrelevant.
He maintains he has, I find it extremely believable, especially in light of the fact that his reputation always has been that he. In fact Slifkin himself originally brought his books to him for review, which is when the personal disagreement between them started.
Sorry Truthsharer my mistake,
Of course Sam2, I would love to be able to respond to any other specific issues you had with Torah, Chazal, and Science. From what I have read from your posts this is the only specific one you mentiones.
( The dispute over his Rebbi’s views on certain matter’s is one that I damit I don’t fully understand, being I am not from that school, however from what I understand much of it is unrelated to the issues he has written about.
As an aside I do find it entirley possible that both sides are right.
R’Meiselmann knows what he wa told by his Rebbi in the private one on one study sessions they had together in Boston, the others were mostly YU talmidim and know what was taught there.
But again I can be wrong)
Sam,
If you read Rabbi Meiselmann’s book you must have missed part of it he deals with the Gemorah in Pesachim 94b in several places.
A) In the chapter on Rav Avrohom be Harambam.
B) In the chapter entitled “Two Passages in Need of Explanation” specifically beginning on page 14.
C) Again beginning on page 353.
Actually to the best of my knowledge Slifkin is not “college educated” at all.
Secondly while you may feel that someone would’nt bog their scheduale down with unrelated courses, Rabbi Meisellmen did (and considering his acknowledged brilliance it’s not so hard to understand why).
And it’s extremly hard to argue the fac thatin his book he demonstrates a pretty good knwledge of the subject matters.
In Rabbi Meisellman’s own words “Not only did I attend their lectures, but I also utilized their availability to discuss with them many of the issues that intriged and concerned me. In addition I was part of an intellectually vinrant circle of fellow students who discussed among themselves, at great length, the various issues of “Torah and science” and “:Torah and philosphy”.
So he describes having done exactly what you claim someone would not have done.
So lets see
Rabbi Meiselmann is by all accounts a PhD grad of Cambridge, ( I believe he studied in Harvard as well but he doesn’t mention it. He is also a respected Rosh Yeshivah (Dean) of a talmudical institution.
On the other hand Slifkin is not acedemically trained in anything, nor is was he ever considered a major Torah Scholar until he “invented” his new school of thought.
So I think that in regards to qaulifications, Rabbi Meiselmann has a lot more to put on the resume.
jkjkjk pointed out several points quite well.
I just think it should be added that the Rambam is not just a “mainstay” of Slifkin’s he is in fact the foundational pillar of Slifkin’s logic.
Yet the Rambam himself explictly condemned the approach taken by Slifkin! And it’s not some obscure text, I provided the link, it’s pretty hard to misunderstand the Rambam’s point.
He states expliclty that someone who thinks they know more then Chazal knew, is “cursed” and is a “fool”.
And Rabbi Meisallman does a tremendous job of not just putting forth the Rambam’s shitta, rather he provides the actual text of every source that he qoutes.
He himself writes that he put every effort in providing all primary sources and never relying on secondary or tertiary sources and he demonstrates as such in his book.
I fyou wish to see the relevent discussions and sources of the Rambam you can view go through it in detail in his work, Torah,Chazal, and Science,
Chapters 5,6,7,29,30,33,37,and 42.
Regarding the actua point of Rabbi Meiselmann’s work.
Rabbi Meiselmann makes it abundantly clear that the real point of his work (which is really obvious to anyone who read’s it) is to examine whether or not the position’s that Slifkin takes are in fact one’s that were considered “accepted” or not.
And to that end Rabbi MEiselmann does an unbelievable job of demonstrating that they were never accepted, and were roundly condemned.
Could he have done more?
He himself admit’s as much, but the book was already 900 pages how much longer should it be?
Sam2
I have read Rabbi Meiselmann’s book, I have also read one of Slifkin’s books, parts of the others and read through explanations he gives on his website. In addition I read through parts of Slifkin’s “responses” to Rabbi Meisellman’s books.
I did’nt read through al of them because it got tiring after awhile of reading Slifkin missing the point.
Regarding the purely scientific sections of Rabbi Meiselmann’s books.
Slifkin may be right regarding some of his point’s I don’t know enough science to be qualified to take a stand. I furthermore get the distinct impression that Rabbi Meiselmann himself admit’s to scientific questions that he does not fully ansewer . The same can be said for many of the theories espoused by Slifkin.
Rabbbi Meiselmann’s point in discusiing the science was not answer certain questions, it was merely to show there are other “theories”, othe rpossibilities, and other approaches.
He does an admirable job of doing so.
Truthsharer
Rabbi Meiselmann’s actual Ph.D may be in mathematics but his actual curriculum included many other subjects (that’s what goes on in any university) so his the pursuit od his degree required him learning a great variety of subjects that included many of the one’s touched on by Slifkin.
So basically Rabbi Meiselmann actually studied the topics at hand on a structured university level unlike Slifkin.
Here’s the link to the text on hebrew books
It’s pretty clear what the Rambam is saying in becomes even clearer if you read further into his explanation of the third group.
If anyone is aware of Slifkin”S philosophy it is squarley the one cals “cursed”.
ROB
I have no idea how you understood the Rambam.
The Rambam states quite clearly that he is discussint the three general approaches taken towards Mamorei Chazal. No where does he state in any way that he is only talking about specific cases. Not only that but if he would be discussing specific cases I would think he would mention which ones.
Secondly he states clearly that the problem is that these people feel they know more then Chazal.
A
I have no idea how you can possibly come out of this Rambam that it is possible to “question the paremeters” of Chazal when the Rambam is takes great pains to state exactly the opposite.
Furthermore this Rambam is discussed by other’s (the Shelah comes to mind) and no one ever understands it the way you are stating.
As for Slifkin himself, I have read one of his books and afterwords went on his website to confirm his beliefs.
Another core principle of his belief is actual having a “rational” approach, he rejects mysticism, so I have no idea how you can infer this Ramabam as agreeing with his approach, he states quite clearly that in his view Chazal got their knowledge from Pliny afact the Rambam clearly disputes.
And I would add that I have studied these matters and I can pretty confidently state that there is virtually no source that adopts the approach he takes.
An example being would be that he is correct that RSRH does take one aspect of the the view he advocates in a famous letter regarding Aggadita, however the conclusions he takes of of that in his approach towards Mitzvos (what he considers the Rambams approach) is one that RSRH bitterly attacks and belittles in The Nineteen Letters, Letter 18, RSRH writes regarding it that it did more damage to Klal yisroel then Moses Mendelsohn’s teachings!
So in other words Slifkin uses one letter where RSRH endorses one aspect of his views to imply that RSRH is a traditional source” that endorses his philosophy, when in fact RSRH wrote so strongly against it that when the Nineteen Letters was originally translated into Hebrew, the Chazon Ish himself advised the publishers to leave it out for fear that RSRH would be taken out of context in attacking the Rambam in general instead of one understanding of the Moreh Nevuchim specifically.
And the vast majority of the sources that Slifkin qoutes do the exact same thing.
There is virtually no one who endorses his approach or his conclusions. It has been used by Hellenists, By Maskilim, and by the founders of Conservative’s and at every time that it has reared it’s head it has been bitterly and vociferously denounced.
Actually that is exactly the position of Slifkin, it’s a fundemental principle in he’s “rational judaisim” approach.
He feels he has a better understanding of science then Chazal and they were simply wrong in many of thier statements, in fact if I recall correctly the position he takes in one of his books is that Chazal derived thier knowledge from Pliny the Elder.
It is exactly this position that the Rambam calls “cursed” and one of “fools”.
I realize that you thinkthat you believe Slifkin that the Gedolei Yisroel (including the person he at one time claimned as his Rebbi HaRav Moshe Shapiro shlita, considered by many the foremost authority alive today on Aggadita) who have come out against him are arguing for the literal meaning of Aggadita that’s absoltley untrue.
They are arguing over what the intention of Chazal was and whether in certain cases they intended for their words to be taken literally.
Slifkin (on account of the fact that he perceives himself to be “wise”) argues they did and they were wrong, we know more then Chazal.
The Rambam states that Slifkin is a fool.
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)
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
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.
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?
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.
And any unbiased examination of the Gemorah shows an understanding of market forces that may not be exactly in line with Friedman, Hayek or other “capitalist” economists, but is most definetly “philisophically” in tune with them.
An overarching example would be the law “Shelo Tinol Deles B’Fnei Luvin”.
The Rabbis understood the great need to ensure that if someone lent money they would be paid back otherwise capitol would dry up.
Towards that end they enacted numerous law including requiring borrowers to pay back with better classes of land then Biblicaly required.
Now-a-days we have seen the foresight of the Rabbis, The “left-wingers” on the pretense of pity and saving the economy forced onerous laws, regulations and public humilation on lenders. Leading to the current reality that if a financial institution lends money they are far from assured of the ability to collect.
The result?
Capitol Markets have all but dried up for the average person and the economy is stuck in permanent recession.
And once again the ones who have suffered are not the extreme wealthy, to whom institutions wil always lend (in many cases they themselves own the institutions) rather the middle class who are left without means of access to credit.