Reply To: Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread

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

#1002006
Ben Levi
Participant

So do you ever intend on actually reading what I posted?

Again there are sources for stating that Chazal made scientific statments based on the science of their times.

I acknowledged that. I am aware of that.

And trust me I do need google to tell me about them (I did qoute a couple of them before you copy’d and pasted them)

The arguement against Slifkin was not based on that.

1) Slifkin claims that the Halacha was based on science. Chazal arrived at the Halacha through mistaken science. i.e lice on Shabbos.

He acknopwledges that now Halacha does not change for some side ridiculaous reasin.

Some of the very sourcs you qouted take great pains to make clear that that is not the case. And it’s outside of the pale to even suggest it. For Ex. Rav Dessler takes great pains to do so.

As such when Slifkin suggestted it he was told that such a notion is outside the pale in accordance with the Gedolei Yisroel of the last thousand years or so.

2) Slifkin claims that Aggadita is to be taken at face value. He rejects Kabbola and rejects most of the deeper understandings. Most everyone who stated Chazal qouted scientific knowledge of their day also made the point that they were not trying to teach science rather they were using the science of their times to write things that could not be written openly (i.e the Rambam)

3) Slifkin wishes to take an approach to understanding Mitzvos based on a literal understanding of Moreh Nevuchim when that approach has been unaninmously rejected by all Rishonim and Achronim to the present day, and rejected in a most clear cut and fierce way i.e Letter 18 of The Nineteen Letters.

4) As an aside, I did not state that Rav Gedaliah Nadel’s views were not meant to be published.

I stated that he refused to allow them to be publicized at all, a fact which is well known by anyone who actually knew him. And this is precisley why.

Rav Gedaliah zt”l gave shiur on how the Rambam would understand certain things and how they could be explained (mostly in an effort to ansewer the myriad of question’s brought against him by Rishonim and Achronim).

Rav Gedaliah (who was a talmid muvhak of the Chazon Ish, considered by many his biggest talmid) did not publicize this for the very reasons you are demonstrating.

In the shiur he gave he hand picked the attendees (as I indicated I personally know people who were told they cannot come) based on his feelings of whether they could understand that what he was doing was answering and explaing things based according to the Rambam himself, on the Klal that the Rambam has to be understood. He was not offering an approach that is the way Aggadita should be approached when taught in of itslef. And he did not want his shiurim publicized precisley so he should not be taken out of context.

(The only reason I am going into B’Toroso Shel Gedaliah is because I have a number of people close to me who were talmidim of Rav Gedaliah zt”l and were among those furious when it was published).

P.S I am trying really hard not to bring exact sources other then the ones PAO brings simply to show that the very sources that Slifkin brings to back himself up are the ones that condemn his approach.