Home › Forums › Controversial Topics › Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread › Reply To: Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread
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.