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 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.