Why in the world should I set about explaining each and every aspect of Slifkin where he went wrong?
If I wanted to I can certainly qoute what the Rambam,Ramban, Rabbeinu Yonah, Rashbah, Ramchal, Mahral of Prague, Rav Yackov Emden, Vilna Gaon, RSRH, and Chazon Ish amongst other’s state.
However I have no intention of doing it.
I addressed the claim that Slifkin is putting forth that he is advocating a “traditional” approach to Chazal.
Slifkin claim’s is that his approach is a legitamite way based upon classical sources. Not only that but his detractor’s are “political in nature ect..
I merely pointed out that that is blatantly untrue.
There is no source that condone’s Slifkin’s viewpoint. It has never been condoned. It has always been seen as either foolish or kefirah.
Take your pick.
Why exactly it’s been condemned is to be honest not a discussion I am willing to enter into, especially not in this forum. (Rabbi Meiselmann is to this point the only person I am aware of who has actually attempted to comprehensivley expain all of Slifkin’s mistake’s and distortions and his book is some 900 pages long)
All I set out to do is ask for any sources that support Slifkin’s approach to Chazal.
Any.
You googled some sources that provide support to one aspect.
However those same sources fiercly condemn the entirety of Slifkin’s approach as being incompatible with Torah Shel Ba’al Peh.
I am still asking you for a single support for Slifkin.
Other then De Rossi’s Meor Einayim which was of course called Kefirah by the Maharal of Prague, The Beis Yosef, and Remah, and simply “foolish and misguided” by Rav Yackov Emden amongst a host of other Gedolei Yisroel.
Or are you attempting to acknowldge that Slifkin does not have a single source and is arguing on all of the above Gedolei Yisroel?