February 3, 2014 5:43 am at 5:43 am #1001996Sam2Participant
Swetkib (Joseph?)probably: Whatever mistakes Slifkin may have made as a person has no bearing on whether or not his Shittah that Chazal can err in science is Kefirah.February 3, 2014 5:45 am at 5:45 am #1001997Sam2Participant
And your proof is a proof against you. Even those who hold that Chazal can err in science and claim that we know nowadays that Metzitzah does nothing still do Metzitzah on Shabbos.February 3, 2014 5:51 am at 5:51 am #1001998
I am the one who is bringing irrelevent sources?
This discussion started when someone said that it was basically politics and to qoute that poster “has little to do with yiddishkeit or honesty”.
I then proceaded to demonstrate that the reason why Slifkin was condemned had everything to do with Yiddishkeit and everything to do with Honesty.
Slifkin wrote several books and was promoting a world view and approach to Aggadita as “legit” and viable whhen it most certainly was not.
Slifkin cherry picks source taking one part and ignoring the other to create an approach that has been condemned any time it has reared it’s ugly head.
that is the point.
The point was never whether Chazal knew all of science or not from the overwhelming majority of sources (including the Rambam who states clearly regarding astronomy that they knew most of it ina Kabbolah from Sinai) that they knew far more then their contemporaries.
Did they know all of it? That is above my pay grade.
However is Chazal’s knowledge of science relevent to understanding Aggadita.
The overwhelming majority of opinions since Rav Moshe Leon and the Zohar is no.February 3, 2014 11:46 am at 11:46 am #1001999
Patur Avul Assur.
Why do you keep trying to pretend this is an arguement about whether there are sources or not that Chazal did not know all science?
Why do you have such a hard time acknowledging the actual point?February 3, 2014 2:25 pm at 2:25 pm #1002001000646Participant
You are missing the point here!
1.) Rabbi Slifkin’s main point is simply that when Chazal say a scientific statement you don’t have to accept it. (So for example if Chazal say the world is not billions of years old, or that all animals that ever lived were created in one day a few thousand years ago, or that the Sun circles the earth etc etc etc) you don’t have to accept that as fact. Rabbi Miller and the Yeshivish establishment had for quite some time said that when modern Science contradicts Chazal’s statements then the Modern Scinetists are wrong.
2.) It doesn’t make a difference if only one person said that Chazal got their Science wrong and everyone who came after that one person argued very forcefully on him. If physical proofs have made it clear that Chazal’s scientific statements are not literally true, then they weren’t and whoever said they weren’t was correct. It doesn’t matter who argued or how forcefully they did so. Facts are facts no matter who on them.
(I am not discussing the proofs themselves here or if modern scientists have proven their assertions. This is not the correct venue for that discussion. Just pointing out that you are missing the point here)February 3, 2014 4:31 pm at 4:31 pm #1002002
Ben Levi! I gave you a summary of the Pirush Hamisnayos. To re-iterate- there is a context in thre discussion of the “three groups”. It is useless to translate the words verbatim-especially as the original was written in arabic- because you don’t want to see that what the Rambam is referring to has nothing to do with the natural sciences. It has to do with Maamorei chazal -same as in the context of the Tenach,like Shir Hashirim,Iyov and the like-that have a difficult meaning. The first group belieives that it is what it says (for example, believieng chas vesholom that the Almighty has a body-see the first chelek in Moreh nevochim), the second group dismisses the whole subject and laughs at it (tyhis is why they are fools) and then the third group that understands that there is a deeper meaning to chazal.
You are welcome to beleive that ever ymaamr chazal is written in code and I say that thsi does not apply to natural sciences. By the way, thsi has nothing to do whether we are bounf to aggadata.February 3, 2014 4:35 pm at 4:35 pm #1002003
DaasYochid: I am reluctant to engage in this line of discussion, but you will have to explain your quote of the Chazon ish. What do you mean “err in aggada”? I understand the halacha point- this is how we treat halacha, but aggadata? Are we now bound by every aggadata? And ,even if this is in the affirmative, why must I be bound by the Chazon Ish? there are many other acharonim who disagree.February 3, 2014 6:16 pm at 6:16 pm #1002004
You say that I am missing the point. R’ Slifkin has posited that a scientific statement made by Chazal was not necessarily culled from the infallible Torah, and it may be incorrect. This has no bearing on halacha. You have said several times that R’ Slifkin has no leg to stand on and has no basis. I provided quite a few sources that indeed show such a basis. You are entitled to believe whatever you want, but you are not entitled to say that everyone always held this way, when I have showed that this is not true. So what point am I missing?February 3, 2014 6:29 pm at 6:29 pm #1002005
I quoted the ?????? ??? ??????, the ??? ????, the ???? ??????, ?????? ???????, the ???? ??????, the Gemara in ???, the Gemara in ???????, the Gemara in ?????, the Maharatz Chayes, the ??? ?????, R’ Shamshon Refael Hirsch, R’ Gedaliah Nadel (incidentally, the fact that it wasn’t meant for publication – if that’s even true – does not change the fact that this is how he understood the Rambam), R’ Aryeh Carmell, ?’ ???? ???? ???????, the ??? ?????, and the ???”? ???. Your response was that the ???? ?????? is an invalid source, that there’s a machlokes about medicine, that R’ Avraham ben Harambam is a forgery, and that R’ Gedaliah Nadel was not meant for publication. I think I already adequately addressed all your responses. So again, what point am I missing?February 3, 2014 8:38 pm at 8:38 pm #1002006
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.February 3, 2014 10:58 pm at 10:58 pm #1002007
To sum it up.
You brought a few shittos that perhaps some of the science that Chazal wrote in Aggadita was based on the science of their time.
However as I indicated Slifkin’s approach encompass’s many aspects the sum tota of which have no source at all and actually have been condemned through out the ages.
You did not bring a single source supporting Slifkin’s approach to Aggadita or to Gemara.
Like I said you cannot bring any because they do not exist.February 3, 2014 11:07 pm at 11:07 pm #1002008
Look I understand that Slifkin and co. love to try and justify themselves by stating that all they said is something that has been said before them.
And I know that there are many out there who did’nt actually read his books or listen to his lectures who fall for it.
But the reality is that no ever called Rav A. Carmell zt”l a kofer for stating a similar point.
Au Contraire, Michtav M’Eliyahu which in large part was written by him is a staple in the yeshiva world.
Slifkin was called a Kofer for espousing a long a detailed shitto, so long that he spent several books developing it, that in totality represents a way of approaching The Halachic Mesorah and the Aggados of Chazal in way that has been condemned and refuted for centuries.February 4, 2014 12:16 am at 12:16 am #1002009truthsharerMember
Except that even R’ Elyashiv stated that the sources Slifkin used were allowed to say it but (in the year 2000 the world magically changed, and) we can no longer say those same things.February 4, 2014 12:31 am at 12:31 am #1002010
I think you are very much confusing the ikkar and the tafel. The reason why R’ Slifkin wrote his books, is to deal with contradictions between Chazal’s scientific statements and scientific reality. His shitta is that there we don’t need to uphold Chazal’s scientific words. Now it happens to be that once you reach this conclusion, a question presents itself: What do we do when an incorrect scientific statement was made in the context of a halachic ruling. There are very few people who discuss this. R’ Dessler says that the halacha is not based on the science. If anything, this is the shitta that needs explaining, because if Chazal’s halachic rulings were all from a mesorah or something of the sort, why do we find that Chazal researched the science? Now the Dor Revii explicitly argues with R’ Dessler’s approach by saying that we can’t change any halacha after the chasimas hatalmud and he understands this to be the Rambam’s view. He compares this to the Sefer Hachinuch who says that to preserve the Torah it’s better to allow a few mistakes. Additionally, the Pachad Yitzchak suggested to change the halacha so he obviously wasn’t such a fan of R’ Dessler’s approach. So R’ Slifkin had to choose an approach and mistama he chose the one that resonated best with him. So how exactly is this beyond the pale?February 4, 2014 12:37 am at 12:37 am #1002011
And again your point about R’ Nadel is irrelevant. He explicitly said that the Rambam’s shitta was that science was not fully developed in the time of Chazal which may have led to mistakes. He might not hold this way himself, and he might not want anyone to know that the Rambam said this, but he definitely understood the Rambam this way.February 4, 2014 2:07 am at 2:07 am #1002012
Actually if one want’s to truly understand Rav Gedaliah Nadel’s view’s itis very relevent.
Rav Gedaliah hald that the Rambam learnt different part’s of Chazal differently there were aspect’s of science that Chazal had in a Mesorah and aspects that were not.
That is one of the reason’s Rav Gedaliah zt”l did not discuss his approach to the Ramabam in a public forum since he learnt that the Rambam had a highly nuanced position which entailed taking a different approach to different Mamorim of Chazal based on various factor’s.
Basically the reason that Rav GEdaliah took this position is that irrelevent as to whether or not the Rambam learnt Kabbolah there are a great many basic question’s on various position’s of the Rambam from a textual standpoint that are asked by him again since the Ramban in the beginning of VaYeira or RSRH in Letter 18 regarding the Rambam’s statment on Korbonos for ex.
In addition there are various seemingly contradictory statement’s that are semmingly made by the Rambam that need to be resolved.
Rav Gedaliah (again he was a rare genius and talmid chochom who the Stiepler himself used as a Rov after the petirah of the Chazon ISh) was one of the only people capable of going through Chumash and Shas and providing a way to resolve these questions. Doing so like any sugya required taking a nuanced and highly analytical approach.
Which again is completley different then Slifkin’s approach since Slifkin feel’s Chazal only knew the science of thier time period.
Which once again is typical of Slifkin since he had a couple of conversation’s with Rav Gedaliah towards the end of Rav Gedaliah’s life when Rav Gedaliah was already bedridden and only publicized what he claims Rav Gedaliah told him after Rav Gedaliah’s death.February 4, 2014 3:23 am at 3:23 am #1002013YW Moderator-29 👨💻Moderator
Just a tip – if you want the posts to go thru faster, it would help if they were shorter. Even several shorter posts.February 4, 2014 3:27 am at 3:27 am #1002014
Thanks.February 4, 2014 3:34 am at 3:34 am #1002015
Are we now bound by every aggadata? And ,even if this is in the affirmative, why must I be bound by the Chazon Ish? there are many other acharonim who disagree.
Anyhow, why would you want to take a chance on being a kofer and lose your olam habo?February 4, 2014 4:41 am at 4:41 am #1002016
Patur Avul Assur
In no way am I exchanging an ikkar for a taful.
The question is why Gedolei Yisroel called Slifkin’s view’s Kefira. A poster went so far as to insinuate that it was “politics” and “had little to do with Yiddishkeit.
I took exception to that and stated it was because the sum totality of what he wished to suggest is indeed Kefira.February 4, 2014 4:52 am at 4:52 am #1002017
Now you state the reason why Slifkin wrote his books.
However what you leave out is the fact that virtually every single question that Slifkin raised, nearly all of them have been raised and debated. And the conclusions that Slifkin wishes to state were condemned as Kefira.
In Rav Moshe Shapiro (considered by many the foremost authority on Aggadita today and a talmid of Rav Dessler) penned a personal letter declaring Slifkin’s books Muktzah.
It’s an interesting letter if you know a little bit about Slifkin’s opinion’s.
A Sefer that Slifkin qoutes as a “Rishon” is one sefer Meor Einayim by someone called Azariah de Rossi.
What Slifkin neglects to emphasize is that in the part of the book de Rossi explains his veiw on Chazal he virtually explictly argues head on with the Remah.
Slifkin also neglects to mention that virtually everyone condemned De Rossi’s approach as “kefirah”.
Including the Maharal of Prague.
In Rav Moshe Shapiro’s letter he specifically mentions Meor Einayim and compares Slifkin’s approach to De Rossi’s and say’s something along the lines that the Mahral already declared it Kefira then.February 4, 2014 4:55 am at 4:55 am #1002018
Regarding Pachad Yitzchok.
Pachad Yitzchok is virtually a lone opinion in Halacha that takes that stance and his own Rabbi again argued on him and he himself later retracted.
If you wish you can see the entire Chapter by Rabbi Meiselmann regarding it, (Torah,Chazal, and Science chapter 21) with the entire Hebrew texts reprinted in the Appendix’s.February 4, 2014 4:57 am at 4:57 am #1002019
Anyone who say’s that there is very little discussion regarding what to do when Chazal make an apparent mistake based on science has obviously learnt very little.February 4, 2014 5:07 am at 5:07 am #1002020
“I took exception to that and stated it was because the sum totality of what he wished to suggest is indeed Kefira.”
So you are agreeing that there is no problem with R’ Slifkin’s shitta, but one side result of his shitta is kefirah. That is progress. But your explanation of why it’s kefira is that it doesn’t follow R’ Dessler’s view. How does that make it kefira? Especially keeping in mind that the Dor Revii said it and the Pachad Yitzchak suggested taking it even a step further.February 4, 2014 5:27 am at 5:27 am #1002021
Patur Avul Assur.
i have no idea what you define as Slifkin’s shitto and what you define as a side result of Slifkins shitto.
I tend to allow people to define themselves.
The approach that Slifkin has written blogged and lectured about is one that has been condemned as ranging anywhere from foolishness to outright Kefira since 30 years after the death of the Rambam at the least.
Seeing as it is not my personal view. I have emphasized numerous times I have no right to take a personal view on matter’s such as this, and I am not foolish enough to do so, if you do not understand why that is you will have to take it up with the Gedolei Yisroel who expressed this opinion.
1) The Rambam
2) The Ramban
3) Rabbeinu Yonah
4) The Rashbah
5) The Maharal
6) The Ramchal
7) The Vilna Gaon
8) Rav Yackov Emden
9) Rav Shamshon R. Hirsh
If you do not wish to open up a sefer a go through them inside then you can always approach someone like Rav Moshe Shapiro shlita and ask him to explain it to you.February 4, 2014 5:32 am at 5:32 am #1002022
And I really don’t get how you misunderstand what I write.
I never ever said that Slifkin’s view’s are Kefira because they don’t follow Rav Dessler.
I merely stated that Slifkin wishes to provide Rav Dessler as a source that he has a legitiamte vierwpoint. Yet in that very piece that Slifkin provide’s as a source for Rav Dessler’s position, Rav Dessler unequivically condemn’s the approach that Slifkin take’s.
In other words Rav Dessler is a source that states Slifkin’s viewpoint is illegitamte not the reverse.February 4, 2014 5:50 am at 5:50 am #1002023
DaasYochid:because I don t for one moment it is even remotely kefirah. Why fix up one’s rational thinking?February 4, 2014 12:42 pm at 12:42 pm #1002024
Because with a bit of thought, you might realize that when people like the Chazon Ish say something, it can’t be lightly dismissed, certainly not at the expense of eternal life.February 5, 2014 2:23 pm at 2:23 pm #1002025
R’ Slifkin does not use R’ Dessler as a source for his reasoning why the halacha does not change. He uses R’ Dessler as a source that Chazal’s scientific statements can be incorrect. I thing I have brought enough sources to show that it is not kefira to say that Chazal based themselves on the science/scientists of their time (and therefore can be scientifically incorrect). So that means that you are claiming that the kefira aspect is that granted the science may be wrong, it is kefira to say that the halacha was based on the science. If I have accurately summed up your position, then please explain why this is would be kefira as well as explain why Chazal bothered to research the science. If I have not accurately summed up your position then feel free to correct me.February 5, 2014 2:30 pm at 2:30 pm #1002026
And he doesn’t “unequivocally condem” this approach nor does he say that it is “illegitimate”.February 5, 2014 3:28 pm at 3:28 pm #1002027
PAtur Avul Assur.
You seem to be having a difficult time understanding that I have no position.
I am not fool enough to take a position on certain things, or think I am qualified enough to evern reaffirm positions by Gedolei Rishonim and Achronim.
All I have done is two things.
a) I have pointed out that Slifkin is twisting things and being intelectually dishonest when he attempts to claim his approach is based on “classical sources” when the totality of his approach has been condemned by virtually all of the very sources he claims to lean on for support.
There is nothing new under the sun.
The approach of Slifkin either in totality or many chunks of it has been called either “foolish” or Kefira by the overwhelming majority of Rishonim and Achronim throughout History.
Some of these include
1) The Rambam (Foolish)
2) Ramban (Kefira or borderline Kefira)
3) The Maharal (Kefira)
4) Yam Shel Shlomo ( Ignorant)
5) Rav Yackov Emden ( Foolish)
6) The Vilna Gaon (Foolish and Dangerous)
7) Rav Shamshon R. Hirsh( Dangerous, Foolish, Worse then Reform)
8) The Chazon Ish (Kefira)
So the point is merely that Slifkin himself shopuld have known that he expressed a view on Chazal that has been called either foolish, ignorant, or Kefira by Rishinim and Achronim throughout the centuries.
If he did not know that he is even more of a fool.
The Gedolim of today merely reaffirmed the view thoughout the centuries.
Now if you do not understand why they said said what they said I urge you to either open up seforim where they wrote it and attempt to understand what they said or go to someone such as Rav Moshe Shapiro shlita who can explain it to you.February 5, 2014 5:11 pm at 5:11 pm #1002028
You did not answer either of my questions.
1) Do you agree that I have provided ample basis for the notion that Chazal may have relied on faulty science?
2) Assuming that Chazal did rely on the aforementioned science, we need to decide how to apply the halacha. R’ Dessler says that the halacha wasn’t based on the science. The Dor Revii says that the halacha can’t change once it was codified by Chazal. R’ Slifkin adopts the latter position. What about this position is kefira?February 5, 2014 5:12 pm at 5:12 pm #1002029
Ben Levi: I have no wish to insert myself into your discussion with Patur aval ossur but you do notice, don’t you ,that, at the absolute minimum, there are plenty of voices on the “other’ side, don’t you? You have singular tunnel vision but it does not reflect the truth.February 5, 2014 6:36 pm at 6:36 pm #1002030
Again in this entire disccusion there has not been a single opinion cited that follow’s Slifkin’s approach.
I have cited numerous opinion that unequivacly denounce it.February 5, 2014 6:59 pm at 6:59 pm #1002031
“Again in this entire disccusion there has not been a single opinion cited that follow’s Slifkin’s approach.
I have cited numerous opinion that unequivacly denounce it.”
As I have already explained, there are two parts to his approach. Regarding the first part (about scientific fallibility) I think I provided enough support. The second part of his approach (that the halacha doesn’t change once Chazal codified it), you have called kefira. I’m awaiting your explanation of why this is kefira.February 5, 2014 8:25 pm at 8:25 pm #1002032
I’m really haveing a hard time figuring out why you keep bringing me into the discussion.
I have stated quite clearly that I am not foolish enough to try and render an opinion on certain things.
What was stated was that the attack on Slifkin “was “political” and had nothing to do with Yiddishkeit.
I demonstrated that while he may have support for individual parts of his “philosophy” as a whole he has no one who ever supported it and au contraire,
It has alway’s been denounced.
I have’nt just qouted you names, I have pointed yopu to places where you can find in detail the reasoning of the Gedolei Rishonim and Achronim who expressed that Slifkin’s approach ranges from “ignorant” to “foolish” to Kefira”.
If you do not understand why theRamban or Vilna Gaon for example’s or the Ramchal for another example or RSRH for another one.
Then I would urge you to look up their views inside, the way they wrote them, and try to understand them.
If you cannot do so then again I would urge you to consult a qualified person who can help you understand it an example being Rav Moshe Shapiro shlita who again is considered by many the biggest expert in these matter’s alive
today.February 5, 2014 8:27 pm at 8:27 pm #1002033
As an aside Slifkin’s approach encompasses more then two parts.
It also details a radical new interpetation of many Klulim such as when one can view pesukim as allegorical or the rule of “Ein Mukdum Uh Meuchar BaTorah”.February 5, 2014 8:56 pm at 8:56 pm #1002034
Ben Levi : I will admit that i have not read Rabbi Slifkin’s books but I have been reading his blof for manhy months and i have never- may I repeat, never- read any of the things you attribute to him. His main point (actually, virtually his only point) is that, in matters of natural sciences, the chazal did not know everything and could make mistakes. On this, “mutar aval ossur ” brought down numerous sources that this is the opinion of many Rishonim and acharonim. I truly believe that you keep on putting up smokescreens to defend your (untenable) position. As far as aggadata goes, there are numerous sources that hold that it is not binding. So, many people are pursuing a vendetta against Rabbi Slifkin- this is why some people have called the attatks on him as “political”February 5, 2014 9:11 pm at 9:11 pm #1002036
I admit I haven’t read his blog.
His books were condemned. I read his books.
I think that it’s pretty brazen of you not to have even read what Gedolim have condemned and still feel free to spout you’re opinions.February 5, 2014 9:20 pm at 9:20 pm #1002037
“I have stated quite clearly that I am not foolish enough to try and render an opinion on certain things.”
I am not asking for YOUR opinion. I am asking you to explain what the kefira is. From our previous exchanges it seems that you acknowledge that there is support for the claim about Chazal vs. science. It seems then that you are objecting to the application of this idea. Are you capable of explaining why this application is kefira? If yes then please do(and if you quote any sources please give an exact source/quote as I have done). If you cannot explain why it is kefira, then why are you debating me?February 5, 2014 10:20 pm at 10:20 pm #1002038
Some exact sources are
1) Ramban-Parshas VaYEira
2) Vilna Gaon-Brought in Even Shlaima
3) Ramchal-Mamar Al Aggadita
4) Maharal of Prague- In Letter written condemning De Rossi’s work.
5) Remah-Toras Olah.
7) Beis Yosef- In letter written by Rav Elisha Gallico regarding De Rossi’s work.
8) RSRH- In the Nineteen Letter’s letter 18.February 5, 2014 10:23 pm at 10:23 pm #1002039
Ben Levi: Every day, I read copies of “pashkavilin” on theyeshivaworld on many subjects-suppossedly signed by many Gedolim. I disagree with most of them and I daresay I would disagree with some of the condenmations too. If this is too brazen for you- consider me whatever you feel.February 5, 2014 10:49 pm at 10:49 pm #1002040
Ben Levi: When I say “exact source/quote” I mean an actual sentence so that I don’t have to peruse through entire seforim to find what you are referring to. Every source that I quoted here, I pasted the exact quote.
Also I asked you to explain why it is kefira. Can you, or can you not?February 5, 2014 11:14 pm at 11:14 pm #1002041SnaggedParticipant
We have definitely changed psak on the basis of a greater understanding of science.
We are mechalel shabbos – every week, in hospitals all over the world – to save the lives of eight month babies, which chazal say are not viable. I dare say there are a number of “eight month” babies reading this thread today.February 5, 2014 11:34 pm at 11:34 pm #1002042
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.
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?February 6, 2014 12:00 am at 12:00 am #1002043
And sources that say that Chazal got all their science from Torah/Mesorah are irrelevant to the point at hand. We need sources that grant that the science can be wrong but that it’s kefira to say that Chazal based the halacha on the science.February 6, 2014 1:22 am at 1:22 am #1002045
PAA, you keep on focusing on making a specific point kefirah, yet Ben Levi’s argument is that it’s not one point which is kefirah, it’s the totality of the approach.
- The topic ‘Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread’ is closed to new replies.