Sam2:
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?