rabbiofberlin

Ben levi: writing ultra long entries and quoting totally irrelevant sources does not make you right. It is absurd to say that the rambam or even chazal wrote everything in “sod” and we, simple ignorant people, just cannot know anything. If, indeed, everything is “sod” who knows the real truth ? Maybe our enemies are right, how would you know? ” ein ledayan elo ma she-einov roi-os”. We can only judge what our eyes see. As I said many times, we are bound by halacha, we are not bound by non-halachic sayings, especially if reality shows otherwise.

Ben Levi: If anyone can understand what you are writing,please elucidate me! The contortions you have to go through to make any sense to support your shittah shows how untenable it is to normal people. You keep on saying that just anything chazal (and the Rambam) said concerning science and the natural sciences is a “SOD”- a secret! Well ,it must such a great secret because no one knows what your are talking about! You know perfectly well that,even in torah, we have a klal “ein mikro jotzei midei peshuto”. Why should we read the Rambam other than what he actually meant to write? And what secrets did chazal hide in some of their sayings about natural sciences that have been proven worng? Sorry but I prefer to be logical.

As far as the pirush Hamishnayos,why don’t you read a few lines further that you quoted? If I have time, I’ll write the translation.

nishtdayngesheft and others; the debate is not whether bugs of any kind are ossur.Of course,they are. Also, no one denies that vegetables and fruits should be checked. Of course, you check whatever you buy. What we are discussing is the limits of this checking and whether anything that is not seen by the naked eye can be declared as ossur. Washing with soap is,to my mind, ridiculous. Using a magnifying glass of any kind is not what halacha requires. (see Aruch Hashulchan who absolutely refuses to include a microscope as a checking tool). There are living creatures on anything. I submit that to go to the lenghts described by some posters (smashing the strawberries to see little things scurrying, declare that white dots on raspberries are bugs…)is not required. Anyone who has ever seen worms on vegetables knows that they are quite visible. Tiny dots on raspberries that cannot be identified as living things are not what is ossur.

The posters are allowed to do whatever they want for themselves but don’t pretend that it is normative halacha.

because a shaliach tsibbur leads the services…that’s why. And if you hadn’t noticed ,in many chassidische sthieblech, they will insist that the shaliach tsibbur put the tallis over his head,even as the people might not do it. And again, covering one’s head (especially in a shul) has become the hallmark of jewish tradition even though it is a minhag.

“Puk mo amo diber’-just look at the events where a gentile is in the shul (check,for example, the recent induction of the British Chief rabbi and see prince charles with a yarmulka)and you will see what is the minhag.

oyoyoyooy: see my earlier answer. Additionally, at all gatherings that I have seen that have occurred in shuls, I have always seen EVERYONE -including gentiles- wear a yarmulka.

DaasYochid: our understanding of “checking carefully’ is obviously quite different. (You mentioned the Chochmas odom). No one is arguing with checking vegetables and some fruits for obvious infestation. My argument is with the extravagant requirement that you ask for today. Washing with detergent? Filtering perfectly clean drinking water (that comes filtered,by the way)? And other outlandish ways. Again, we are not “malachei Hashores”. It is sensible to rinse, even rinse very carefully, vegetables and fruits. But soap? they had some very strong cleansers in antiquity, yet no ancient Possek requires to scour fruit so as to remove whatever creature may be there.

Water was way dirtier in previous centuries and all vegetables were infested to a much greater degree. Today, pesticides and other preventive ways have, by and large, removed bugs and obvious insects. If you want to be “machmir’, at least be practical. As I said, even I cut off the top of the strawberries that are said ( I never checked) to contain small insects. If you truly believe that New York water contains insects that are ossur, install a commercial filter. In other words, doing something sensible is certainly enough to be “yotzei’ the obligation of checking.

yoyoyo: if you do not understand why a male- and not a female- should cover his head in a “mokom kodosh”,I have no answer for you. Yourv analogy to tsitsis is laughable. A yarmulka is kovod for the sanctuary (and you see that they require it by the Kottel too!) tsitsis has nothing to do with kovod-it is a mitzvah. You willsee that ,in all yeshivas and ashkenaz shuls, the baal tefiallh always wears a tallis-even during maariv. Why? Again, for the kovod of the shul! similar to a yarmulka.

J: as far as taking taleisim home, many people do it and,not having seen the Shemira shabbos, I would imagine that fear of having it stolen or just plain mislaid would be enough to take it out of the concept of “meichim meshabbos lechol”, especially as these are probably special shabbos taleisim.

DASH2:see the erudite answers by all posters. Where you see an increase of “kulos’ I see the totslly opposite. the use of outlandish chumors that were never accepted in Europe. (men and wmen on opposite sides of the street? checking water for microscopic bacteria? Washing strawberries withv detergent?)

So, it is obviously in the eyes of the beholder.

left to write: you perfectly encapsulated what I felt watching this clip of YouTube. I know that it was all done for interracial peace- but there are many other ways to do that AND to show respect for the holiness of a sanctuary. I was also (very) bothered by the fact that-seemingly- none of the males in the choir wore yarmulkas. This,to me,is elementary!

edited

Too many to count but kwartin’s tiher rab yishmoel is at the top. So is anything from yossele rosenblatt like tal, rachem no and others. Elu devorim with hershman and moshe kouusevetsky too.

Ben levi: I don’t know Rabbi Slifkin and I certainly don’t know Rav Meiselman. Hence, I cannot evaluate Rabbi Slifkin whom O only know through his website “Rationalist Judaism”. Equally, I appreciate Rav Meiselman and his learning,even if I question the choice of his freinds.

But- I do not believe that Rabbi Slifkin says anywhere that one should dismiss halacha in any way- if this is what you imply. In general terms, he maintains that, in matters of medicine,astronomy,geology and other natural sciences, chazal had views that conflict to reality and that, therefore, one does not have to accept these views as correct.Chazal were not geologists, zoologist and maybe,just about astronomers. None of the chazal that he disputes has anything to do with halacha and not even with aggadata- the subject of your sources. As I said earlier, the underlying question in all of this is simple: must we accept every utterance of chazal as “torah misinai” and so, we can never question them. Or, we are certainly bound to the rishonim and gemara on matters of halacha but in matters of general subjects, we are not bound to their words .

Your mention of the Maharal and the Gro are beside the point. They try to find mystic and esoteric explanations to the aggadata and this is fine. Te question still stands, must you believe that the sun revolves around the earth (as is implied in the gemara) and does believing in the solar system make you an apikores? According to you, it is the latter. Slifkin and many others before him do not agree.

pedantic (thefreedictionary.com): characterized by a narrow,often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules, “a pedantic attention to details”

adjective: hairsplitting,particular,formal,precise,fussy,picky(informal),nit-picking(informal)punctilious,priggish,pedagogic.

pedantic: marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially in its trivial aspects.

Sam2- your point about “corporealism’ is interesting. Some very serious rishonim maintained that view and I would be very reluctant to call them “kofrim”. It is only after the Rambam wrote the thirteen principles (actually written in Pirush Hamsihnayos) that this became the guiding path. And- you probably know this- the first chelek of the Moreh is totally dedicated to show that the allusions to corporealism in Tenach are just allegorical. The Rambam goes to great lengths to refute this opinion so it is clear that it was current in his time. BTW- there is an interesting “kuntros” on this matter written by (yup!) Rabbi Slifkin,entitled “Was Rashi a Corporealist?” (I have it). I think it appeared in Tradition some years ago. You will see that it was a view quite prevalent a thousand years ago.

Ben levi and others: I don’t know Rabbi Meiselman and he certainly may be a big,very big talmid chochom. However, I’ll eat my hat if he knows more about zoology than rabbi Slifkin. (see Shofon). Dotti for astronomy.

The underlying argument is whether maamorei chazal that are not halachically based-in other words, aggadata- are binding on us and we must acccept them blindly(see R’Elya Ber Wachtfogel and others). This view has become popular recently but it was never accepted by many rishonim and acharonim. To say-as PbA says- that one is a “kofer” if one does not believe in aggadata is false and has contributed to the radicalization of yiddishkeit. The opposite argument, that we are only bound by halacha,not aggadata- is, in essence, what rabbi Slifkin is relying upon.

To Ben Levi and others: I’ll try to be brief. First of all, Ben Levi, you are totally-repeat,totally- wrong in your constant refrain about bringingsome proof from the Rambam in Pirush Hamishnayos. I re-read it for the third time and you absolutely miss the point. You referred us to one small part of the lengthy section in your reference. Well, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Please re-read the whole section and you will see that the Rambam is not dealing at all with maamorei chazal that discuss natural science, medicine or astronomy. He is talking about matters of emunah and how to interpret Pesukim who, at first blush, don’t correspond to reality. I am not going to address this point anymore. You are just wrong in how you learn the Rambam.

As far as Rabbi Slifkin and Rabbi Meiselman. Sam2 has pretty well skewered Rabbi Meiselman’s attacks on Slifkin. You can also read a very erudite discussion on this matter right now on Slifkin’s blog (not by himself!) ,that pretty conclusively shows that aggadata is not binding on us and we do not have to accept everything that chazal say in aggadata.

Lastly, and I ask mechilah for Rabbi Meiselman if this is not true, I think that Rabbi Meiselman was on the dais some months ago at an anti-israel rally by satmar (dealing with the new draft law). To me, that disqualifies him from having any authority on my own matters of emunah.

Ben Levi: First, I thank you for your civil discourse in this matter. It beats insults!

I read the Pirush Hamishnayos very differently than you. The Rambam (in my view) discusses some “maamorei chazal”that make little sense as said. The first group-whom he calls simple-takes these as its face value ,as illogical it may be. That is wrong,he says, because “maamorei chazal” may have very deep, mystic explanations. The second group, realizing that the face value understandings makes no sense, refutes these “maamorei chazal” in their totality. These, the Rambam, calls fools and does point the finger at people with some outside education (philosophers, medical personnel). Note that he means that this group totally rejects this saying from chazal. The third group,very small in number, understands that there may be a deeper ,mysitc explanation for this “maamar”. I gave an example of such a “maamar”. If the chazal say something that may not square with reality, you must have a mystic explanation. (Shir Hashirim may be another example). However, when the chazal discuss medicine,astronomy or other natural science, they may be wrong in their assessment and, unless you find a mystic explanation for their words, you can question their parameters.

I have read some of Slifkin’s words and this is how I think ,his thinking is.

goldersgreener: I am disturbed by your comment D)quoting R”Moshe Sternbuch shelita. If his view is correct, this can be translated to other spheres too- for example, kashrus. You may say that you can only rely on old kulos but not make new ones. “Mai nafka minah”? This approach is at the crux of the “chumrotization’ of yiddishkeit, something which has engulfed our “tsibbur’ for years now. (no strawberries, no broccoli, no lettuce…etc). Certainly ,I will never question the wish of individuals who want to refrain from basing themselves on certain kulos but to do this for the “tsibbur’ at large is an inoovation that has only occurred in recent years and was never pasrt of halacha in the past.

Ben levi: I learned the original in the Hebrew translation so, although thankful for your translation, I read the original.

I still don’t see what this Rambam (Pirush Hamishnayos) has to do with our discussion. The Rambam attacks the so-called second group because they can only understand the chazal literally and therefore, dismiss the “maamar’ for contradicting what they believe is correct. However, because there may be a mystic explanation to this “maamar”(“chidoh” in hebrew, mysterious) their views should be refuted. Nothing about reality or accepting every chazal at face value. On the contrary, based upon the Rambam’s rather sour view of the first group, you can see that he does not interpret chazal literally, if another, underlying explanation can be found.

Ben Levi: As far as Rabbi Meiselman’s sefer-I cannot judge because I did not read his book- Rabbi Slifkin has some compelling answers against some of his points but I cannot judge either. BTW- it is ironic that you rely upon Rav Meiselman’s secular knowledge (degrees,etc) yet you will totally dismiss arguments from anyone who has studied natural sciences in (horror!) university because it does not align itself with your views of chazal!In other words, you laud secular knowledge when it suits you and dismisses it when it does not suit you….

As far as the main point of contention- you prove my point by pointing to the rishonim who may not agree with the approach to “aggadata’ that Rabbi Slifkin (and others) espouses. Since some of these sources are being questioned, ipso facto, there are views that do espouse these so-called “novel” approach.

As far as these sources, Rabbi Slifkin has a website where he has dealt with this quite exhaustively. I cannot add to his arguments.

May I add that I do not espouse all of Rabbi Slifkin’s views and I accept a lot more the mystical aspect of our traditions than he does but I also don’t accept the views of some of his detractors who reject all rational approaches to chazal.

Incidentally, if you rely on the Rambam that much,the present positions on kollel learning by the non-chareidi world have a lot more in common with the Rambam than the chareidi side.

Lastly, I have principal objections to Rabbi Meiselman when he aligns himself with anti-Israel positions.And again,I will respect your vies and try to look up the ones you mentioned.

Popa bar abba: I assume you know we are discussing Rabbi Slifkin, not Rabbi Avi Weiss. The opposition to rabbi Avi Weiss is much more principled, as he has made innovations that clearly represent a problem for Orthodox Jewry. As far as rabbi Slifkin goes, when he issued his books some years ago, he was assailed mercilessly and called names that even mechallelei shabbos do not deserve. Yet, his views did not broach any “ikrei hadas” but, as they went against some of the views of present chareidi jewry, he was virtually put in cherem. I maintain that these attacks were self-serving (in your language) because it had to put any idea of a modern world and modern ideas beyond the pale. This applies equally to evolution, age of the world , nautral science and ,most critically, working rather thasn learning for a lifetime. This is why I call these attacks political.

RR44,you are obviously very young ,as you are still attending PH,so if you want to follow Rav Roberts you are entitle to do that,just don,t cast aspersions on others who follow D. Ehrentreu.

As far as rav Slifkin, I am not impressed by your other authorities. Last time I checked, I still have a brain in my head that allows me to think independently.

Discussion threads often tend to veer into new territories all the time and so, I’ll comment on the innuendos by some posters against Rabbi Slifkin. I read his writings all the time and I certainly have not found any reason to say he is “not kosher”. The vendetta against him is, as in most things, political, and has little to do with Yiddishkeit or honesty. And last I looked, the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale is still an orthodox shul,so why shouldn’t rabbi Slifkin be invited there?

J.: thank you for your thorough reply. People have very short memories. I grew up in a town (in Europe) that had one of the earliest eruvim in europe-and it was based on many kulos- more than the kulos used in boro park or london. No one has ever said that it is not a good eruv- at most, some people did not carry,as a ‘chumro’ for themselves. And certainly, no one ever called the people who used the eiruv “mecahllelei shabos” Chas vesholom.

What happened in london with the eiruv is a scandal and has little to do with halocho. It became a political matter and I think that some of the opponents did not exactly add to their prestige by calling other frum people “mechallelei shabbos”.Certain events that happened subsequently have weakened the opponent’s hand considerably. “Dai lechakimah beremizah”

Thanks for your post!

Daas Yochid: you are confusing me….I looked back on the thread and I did not see anything that smacks of apikorsus- are you seriously saying that when one maintains that one should work for a living and does not suscribe tot the kollel mentality of today ,one is an apikores??