Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 2, 2014 5:37 am at 5:37 am in reply to: Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread #1001957jkjkjkMember
A comment about the quote of the Pachad Yitzchak: A look at the context (meaning, the other entries he writes, his letters about the subject with his Rebbi, and other issues) makes his views very different than that quote seems at first glance.
R’ Meiselman’s book discusses this as well.
January 22, 2014 5:23 am at 5:23 am in reply to: Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread #1001890jkjkjkMemberCharlie Hall:
Have you read “The Rav: Thinking Aloud” by R’ Holzer? The serious inconsistencies (noted by Professor Kaplan himself in his essay “Revisionism and the Rav Revisited”) throw a wrench in the mix. It is no longer simply Professor Kaplan versus the right-wingers.
Prof. Kaplan addresses them in a way he sees fit there. Personally, I feel that the correct approach lies along the difference between the way one feels about an issue and the way he relates to others regarding it. This difference is apparent all the time–we choose how to deal with different people based on a myriad of factors, only one of which is our personal views on the matter. (For example, although I may be highly critical of many things heavily associated with Mizrachi, I honestly think I can–and would, if appropriate–give an even more Zionistic speech than most American Zionists would. Why? Because I’m more interested in serving G-d than having silly, fruitless arguments. It would not lie at all, I would simply highlight the congruent areas and build upon them.) In other words, I think R’ Soloveitchik, because he saw a good cause, chose to motivate them and highlight those positives and keep his reservations out of the public sphere.
But no matter how you feel they should be addresse]d, simply saying that “Prof. Kaplan has caught R’ Meiselman” distorting the truth belies the reality of the matter.
January 21, 2014 5:45 am at 5:45 am in reply to: Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread #1001862jkjkjkMemberSam2:
January 21, 2014 5:10 am at 5:10 am in reply to: Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread #1001856jkjkjkMemberTruthSharer:
People repeat your question all the time. It is noteworthy, then, that Slifkin has not criticized his science significantly (actually, I don’t remember him doing so at all. I’m just covering myself there in case someone has a better memory than me).
I think that the fact that people even ask the question is only because they think that R’ Meiselman’s book is like most other Science and Chazal books, which is untrue.
January 21, 2014 5:05 am at 5:05 am in reply to: Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread #1001854jkjkjkMemberSam2:
A few points:
1- You wrote about R’ Meiselman’s book. Have you read it? I ask because while it sounds like that from some of your statements, from others it sounds like you are solely working off the critiques that he has posted (which, in my opinion, are not actually based on the book. He distorts much).
2-You say that people should deal with Slifkin’s sources, which is undoubtedly true, so I want to ask you what you thought of R’ Meiselman’s research on the R’ Avraham Ben Harambam texts (assuming you read the book). (Also of note: One cannot critique R’ Meiselman for both not bringing new material into the debate and not dealing with Slifkin’s sources–he discusses many things, and every text is in at least ONE of those categories). I would also be interested in your thought’s on the R’ Lampronti-R’ Briell letters. I think he has undermined Slifkin’s support from these positions, and (unless I misremembered) Slifkin has not dealt with these. (Has he?)
3-The issue of why R’ Meiselman deals with some Sources and not others: (In truth, he deals with the Rambam extensively throughout all his topics, and since that is a mainstay of Slifkin’s, he is dealing with a lot of his sources right there. He also discusses R’ Avraham, R’ Lapronti, and Saadiah Gaon at length. These are a lot of SLifkin’s go to’s. I’m not saying he dealt with everything Slifkin quotes, but I think that’s a lot of Slifkin’s major sources right there, no?) But you may find some of your answer to this question towards the end of the book when he talks about R’ Soloveitchik’s approach to various Rishonim who were either not a part of the MEsorah or did not right on Gemara. Perhaps it is relevant to the sources you feel were not addressed but should have been?
jkjkjkMemberI have a BA from Excelsior. I was able to get into a Master’s program at Johns Hopkins EP (Education for Professionals). Needed to take Pre-req’s but got in.
Also got into a post-bac type program at NYU which was geared to covering the pre-req’s I was missing.
-
AuthorPosts