Forum Replies Created
I would tend to agree to an extent that if all issues are settled and the husband refuses to give a get simply out of spite or in some deluded attemptto save a marrigae that is over becuase he thinks the marriage is salvagable, then he is wrong.
However if the wife is the one who decided to end the marriage for no valid reason and the custody agreement put forth is not something the husband is happy with, then I really see no reason why he cannot tell the wife.
You want to end the marriage? Fine.
However you cannot force me to give up my right’s to my children. I’ll give a get as soon as there is a custody agreement to my satisfaction.
I don’t think that’s abusive. I think thats dealing with a spouse that has shown a callous disregard for other’s in the only way possible.
I actually think that walking away from a man she dated commited to marrying, built a home and had children with.
Now telling such a man that he is not good enough or she want to try something else is abusive towards hima and the children.
His refusing to give a get is more like a desperate attempt to shield himself from her abuse.
The thing is that in Judaisim the husband is under nop obligation in many of these case’s to give a get and Beis Din does not have the kegal basis to obligate him even if they feel that the “smarter” thing for him is to give one.
If there are children involved?
Then in many cases the “immoral” decision is a person (man or woman) who is trying to break up a home and thereby significantly impacting the children that he or she brought into the world.
If there are no such factors, then I do not know if it is “cruel”, there really are very very rare cases where the husband refuses to give a get simply for “spite”. (I am aware of several cases, none of them were cases where the husband was refusing to give a get simply for “spite”.)
Yes the q is what the husband should do.
However how about looking at it from another perspective.
Instead of asking whether the husband shougive the get, how about asking if the wife has the moral right to ask for the get?
You see in case’s (and there are many of them, sadly) where the wife really has no moral right to be asking for a get, I do not see why the husband is morally obligated to give the get.
I think Lior has some really great points.
In fact personally I’m aware of a pretty famous case where every Dayan involved was fully aware that there was no reason what so ever for her to demand a get.
In fact the Beis Din was in possesion of a letter she wrote right before leaving where she stated unequivically that the man in question was a “great husband”. She just decided she wanted something else in life. The husband then said fine, however he stated that he was not fine with the sutody arrangements and would withhold the get until it was arranged to his satisfaction.
In this case the Dayanim involved all agreed that from a Halachic standpoint there was absolutly no reason that he had to give a get.
Yet demonstrations were held in front of the mans house, and some Dayanim tried to come out with convulted reason swhey he was mechuyov to give the get even though halachically she was wrong!
I think the wider, underlying problem is that we as a society have absorbed a drop to much of the culture around us.
Even in America until recently there was no concept of a “no-fualt” divorce.
If you married and you committed to a relationship. You now had a responsibilty to maintain that relatonship, a responsibilty that was strengthened once children would come into the picture. If you wanted to end it you had to have a good reason to.
You could not just have “divorce on demand” and who cares about what it meant for the person you committed to.
I think the obvious question is that we did what we did not becuase we “interpeted” our religoun to mandate that.
We did it becuase at the very time G-d “personally. told our leader’s to do that. And since3 we were told to do it directly by G-d we did it , even though it went against our personal feeling’s of pity.
This is evidenced by the fact that year’s later Shaul HaMelech did display trait’s of mercy shouwin his personal discomfort with following the directives of SHmuel HaNavi and lost his crown becuase of it.
They (ISIS) do what they do becuase they enjoy killing, they are intrinsic murderer’s so they decide that g-d wants them to do it.
We abhor killing, and kill only when G-d tells us to, not when we decide he wants us to.
Again, why do you keep bringoing up McCain?
Obama last ran against Romney not McCain and Romney know’s more about the economy and how to fix thing’s up in his little finger then Obama will ever know!
To state someone with a chronic medical condition was worse off before Obamacare is a complete lie.
I had a chronic medical condition before Obamacare and still do.
Not only is it chrinic, it’s also extremley rare.
Good, Competent care for those in my condition under Obamacare virtually doesn’t exist per the Docot’s who treat me!
And as I stated before the insurance coverage that I had before Obamacare, the coverage that paid well over a million dollars in just one year ofr my care stopped covering Small busniess as a direct result of Obamacare.
And while my primary care Doctor was covered before Obamacare now he’s not.
But I am paying more.
And the Manhattan hospital where I am treated does not accept any Obamacare plans, period.
Of course I could go back to the Hospital which mis-diagnosed me in almost fatally for thier “care”.
You may know people that have a complex medical issue.
I personally have one.
And thank G-d it broke out before Obamacare had been implemented.
So I got treated by top dr’s who csually admitted that many of the things they did would will not be able to be done in 5 years from now if Obamacare still stands since they were long-shot’s.
Thank G-d they were done and I had the long shot recovery they hoped for.
And the following year the insurance plan that I had (which had shelled out over a million dollars covering my tratment) stopped covering small buisness’s as a direct result of Obamacare and I was forced to joing a different plan.
My new plan does not cover my primary care DR who incidentally saved my life after I had been mis-diagnosed by an ER.
So yes I am quite sad that Obama succeaded.
You see now as long as you don’t get sick and are within the proper age limit’s you can get health care but if r’l someone get’s sick then they have no hope.
Unless you are really wealthy or a connected politician. (Like Obama)
And I think that the economy has proven the Conservative Republican’s correct.
They claimed that the implementation of Liberal economic policies would cause stagnation that in many ways is similar to the Lost Decade of Japan (which implemented many similar economic policies).
And guess what?
We had a six year trial period.
And it caused utter stagnation unless you happen to be very rich, becuase under Obama the rich have been getting very rich.
Actually the real IRS scandal is when the IRS broke the law.
IT is no scandal for political groups to be doing exactly what the law allow’s.
Don’t try and obfusicate.
It’s funny how you go back to McCain.
I think that the results of the last six months have made it clear that we would have been way better off if Romney had won.
And yes Obama was not telling the truth over Benghazi, neither was he telling the truth over the IRS scandal’s.
And the economy remains in utter shambles unless you are pretty wealthy or work for the government.
Actually that proposal give’s credence to those who say that the overall point is to secularize chareidi youth.
If the point was merely to have Chareidim provide service to the country then any half honest observer would admit that Chareidim far and away are successful at that.
Chareidim have started and maintained numerous services that provide support for the entire population.
Ezra L’Marpeh, Bikur Cholim, Hatzolah, Zaka, Va’ad HaRabbonim, Yad Sorah, Exrah l’Marpeh and many more.
The overwhelming majority of these “chesed” orginizations were started by Chareidim and have a large number of chareidi volunteer’s that make them run.
So why not just recognize the important contributions that C hareidim already make?
Why the need to force them to do so under secular authority?
And if the tens of thousands of Chareidim sitting and learning are not at the minimum viewed as playing a supoorting role similar to those reparing the tanks, jets ect…then it’s afundemental disagreement.
As for the part that Chareidim pay no taxes.
That’s impossible there’s an 18% VAT tax in ISreal how can you pay not taxe’s?
Plus 45% of Chareidi men end up working as do the majority of Chareidi women.
Add to that the Tourisim industry in Isreal in which Chareidim play an outsized role. (El-Al’s most profitable route by far is JFK-Tel Aviv ever checked who goes on that flight?)
First of all I argue the point that Shivyon B’Netel is all about the money since a large part of the Chareidi population i.e Brisk, Eidah Hachareidis and Satmer as a whole, which together actually add up to a sizeable number, take no funding from the Medinah.
Yet the Draft Law make’s no exemptions for them.
Those that serve in the military with the intent of protecting Yidden I feel desrve thanks.
And what I feel is largley unimportant since the facts are that many of the same Gedolim that called for the Atzeres Tefilla also have stated that soldiers deserve thanks. I think YWN recently had such an article from Hagaon Rav Gershon Edelstien shlita.
However leaving out the emotions from all of this lets look at it in cold logical way.
Is “Shivyon B’Netel’ about chareidim sharing combat risks?
Well it can’t be since right now virtually all combat positions in the IDF are voluntary. Even if someone is drafted into the army they don’t serve in a combat position unless they volunteer for it.
Those that don’t volunteer serve in positions that are largley out of the line of fire and hardship. Many become “jobniks” of the sort that cost the military more then they gain.
So Shivyon B’Netel is not in any way about everyone in the nation taking an equal share in combat hardships.
However it can be argued that Shivyon B’Netel is because the p’tur of “Torati Umnati” has become a mockery. Hundreds of chareidi youth do not serve nor do they sit and learn rather they roam the streets.
The only problem with that is that many, many of these youth do serve and until the Ateres were encouraged to do so by Maran HaRav Aaron Leib Shteinman shlita, the very one who called for the Atzeres.
So Shivyon B’Netel cannot be about that either.
So what is Shivyon b’Netel about?
Well it can be argued that Shivyon B’Netel is about everyone at least playing a supporting role for the IDF since without support the combat missions can not be successful.
But if that’s the case then we really truly have reached an ideological impasse.
We chareidim believe, in fact our way of life the thinkinking that make’s us “chareidi” is the Mesorah that in fact is layed out in full display with literally thousands of sources in Nefesh HaChaim Shar Daled by Rav Chaim Volozhiner the founder of the modern day yeshiva movement, that the tens of thousands of Lomdei Torah are playing the most important support roles possibe.
We believe that the Yeshivos, and the Kollelim that is unparelled in the entire world and is largley chareidi, is what provide’s the zchusim for the combat missions to be successful.
Without them the military would lose, just as the odds in virtuallye very single all out war have said they should lose.
As such we Chareidim believe that “playing” with the Status Quo agrrements in Isreal is perhaps the single most dangerous thing that can be done.
And at this time when the State of Sireal is truly in Peril when the modern day nation of Haman in Persia raise they’re head, and the Sec of State of a country the State of SIreal has always counted on seem’s to be uniting the seventy wolves against the State.
Well, people would be wise to think twice over who cant teach us how to merit Divine mercy Lapid, Bennet, and co or the Gedolei HaDor Shlita.
Considering the fact that women in Yerushalyim are invited as well as children. I think you are already wrong.
I am sure you have may think that you are of the opinion that the “intent” of the Torah was for us to be happy in life.
However since that is not the understanding of the Pillars of JEwish though (Please see the Mesilas Yeshorim in the Introduction as well as Chovos Halevovos Sha’ar Avodas Elokim) you are simply wrong.
Unless you feel qualified enough to argue with them regarding the purpose of life.
You still did not explain to me what is the intrinsic value in a “career”?
I”m kinda curious what is the value of a “career”?
I don’t know about now-a-days but in Even Shleima the Vilna Gaon writes very strongly about the need for girls to learn and be familiar with Mussar Seforim to be Yirei Shomayim.
That is the best comment I’ve seen on this or similar threads!
I should add that I do feel bad for women who try really hard to do men stuff and then find they have no idea how to run a home take care of children ect…
I am curious what reality what bubble you think I live in.
Is it a lack of exposure to the “non-religous” world view?
Let’s see I have a medical condition that requires pretty close monitoring which requires me to spend a considerable amount of time with some top doctor’s in a top hospital, I own a buisness, I also study torah with ir-religous people.
Perhaps it’s a lack of exposure to other culture’s? I have traveled in South America as well as Europe and lived in two different countries.
Perhaps I have’nt studied enough Torah to know what the Hashkofa of the Torah is on the Woman’s role in this world?
Well then if you would explain what the Torah’s view is and where you are basing it on then perhaps we can discuss it.
But I suspect that you don’t really have sources.
Isuspect that your reply will be something along the line’s of I feel….So I feel….and that’s why I feel…..
Which of course proves my point.
Yes someone who learns and teaches Torah get’s more schar simply because they are spreading Torah, they are causing and helping more Torah to be learnt. It has nothing to do with affecting other’s positivley.
For a full in depth discussion of Torah it’s purpose and the definition of Torah L’shmoh please see Nefesh HaChachaim of Rav Chaim Volozhiner Zt”l Shar Daled.
As for the purpose of man and woman being the same.
Again man and woman are part of one unit and ultimatley part of the unit of Klal Yisroel so yes they have the same purpose.
However just as different people working in a company all have different tasks and all must be accomplished and done well for the company to thrive, man and woman have different tasks as part of the unit they are enjoined to form together.
And I really don’t see logically why this is a hard point to grasp.
Man and woman are physically different.
They are emotianally different.
They are different.
So why is it so hard to grasp G-d created them differently to suit different role’s?
Sam is correct that Chazal emphasize that one should perform mitzvos, in fact the Vilna Gaon went out of his way to make sure he could perform every single mitzva applicable now-a-day’s.
However the difference lies in the fact that the Kedusha of Mitzvos are derived from the Torah while the Torah is intrinsically kadosh.
It’s a pretty hard concept to explain however anyone who want’s can learn the last 5 perakim or so of Shar Daled of Nefesh Hachaim.
Also see the Maharal in Tiferes Yisroel who explains the two names of Klal Yisroel the first is Yackov and is the level of Mitzvos the section and higher level is Yisroel which is the level of Torah.
have you any idea what you are talkiing about?
The Mishna you just qouted states Medrash not Talmud.
as for the Chazal you speak about why don’t you just look up the sugya in Kiddushin with the Rambam and Poskim.
You’ll learn something.
Starting with the fact that the Mishna we state every morning say’s “Talmud Torah Kneged Kulam”.
It’s a Mishna.
The only problem with what you said is that the it’s wrong. Torah has intrinsic value someone who sit’s and learns all day is actually very accomplishes.
please see the Rambam in Hilchos Talmud Torah for a pretty clear delineation.
If someone got married then yes the hope was that a Bayis Ne’eman would be built.
Of course there are times, exceptions not even close to the amount that are bandied about now-a-days that one spouse failed in thier duties due to an inability to conquer or change thier middos in what ever respect and therfore a divorce was needed.
However that in no way diminishes the fact that it is tragic that the home was broken.
First off B”H yes I am married with children K”h.
Secondly we seem to be speaking in two different directions.
All agree that if a leg contains a growth ch”v that is inoperable and the only way to ensure that a life is saved is to remove the leg, then it is best to remove it.
I am quite sure that after the operation the person who’s life is saved on account of the removal of his leg is quite happy and is better off then if the leg was not removed.
However at the same time it is a tragedy that the person lost his leg. And tht person is I am sure sad that he no longer has his natural leg.
Marriage is the same thing.
We are not Goyim.
We do not marry because “personally” it’s more enjoyab;le. Nor do we have children because “personally” it’s more enjoyable.
We marry and we build a home because that is a fundemental part of our job in this world.
That is a main part of Parshas Bereshis and is a statment that is emphasized by Chazal “Man was created to reproduce” Tractate Chagiggah Daf Beis Amud Beis)”.
If the Marriage that was supposed to build a Bayis Ne’eman B’Yisroel fails for whatever reason.
Then yes it is a tragedy of untold proportions.
It is a tragedy so great that Chazal tell us the Mizbeach sheds tears.
At times yes, it is a needed tragedy, at times there is a situation in which the Torah commands us to disolve the marriage.
Where a person’s life is in danger the Torah commands us to remove the leg.
Yet it is tragic.
And perhaps if we would keep this in mind more and the influences of the outside culture less then there would be more Sholom Bayis and less divorce.
Mod’s thank’s for the edit, you were probably right.
As for “outlet’s for ruchniyous.
Again “outlets” for ruchniyuous.
Lerning Torah is not an outlet for ruchniyous ch”v.
It’s what we are, it’s why we are here.
Ki Heim Chayeinu is literal in every sense of the word.
And so if someone does chesed ect… through their job well yes the chesed is valuable.
Whether they are a man or a woman.
Make’s no difference.
Is the chesed of their job more important if they are a man or a woman?
I have no idea, but I would think it depends on that individual’s circumstances. It depends on what that individual person should be doing. Which has nothing to do with if they are a man or awoman.
As for woman per se.
Like I stated earlier.
Rashi explains the Gemorah of Nushim B’Mai Zachyan as stating since the woman are the one’s who send their sons husbands to learn and son’s to yeshivah while keeping the home they are zoche to a greater portion in Olam haboh then Men.
So what does that say Rashi held was more “important”?
And if you want to go down to the modern era Rav kaplan who stood by his wife’s side in starting Bais Yackov in America was actually a Maggid Shiur in Yeshiva, he could’nt do both and asked Rav Aaron what to do. Rav Aaron told him to devote his time to Beis Yackov, and Rav Aaron also said the Kaplan’s were the biggest “Roshei Yeshivah” in America they were most responsible for building Torah in America because it all depend’s on the woman.
Again BYM you have it wrong.
Marriage according to the Torah is so much more then a partnership.
It is a union , a creation of a unit that when working properly is a place theat the Shechinah itself makes home.
Yes it can be that one spuse is better off by ending this union becuase it did not work properly.
However it ending is a tragedy.
Every ending is by definition an operation to remove a limb, whether or not the end result is one spouse being better off.
It is one that cause’s the very Mizbeach to shed tears.
(Again I am sorry if it’s hard to join the non-jewish thought process with the Torah thought process which is completley and diametrically different.)
Edited to preserve the point
People talk about divorce as if it’s a bad thing because it is.
Some time’s it’s needed sadly.
It’s still a tragedy.
Sometimed operations are needed to remove a foot.
It is done to save a life.
It’s still a tragedy.
Whether a woman is a CEO or some other such thing it matter’s little in the long run.
The same goes for a man.
In Judaic thought what we do for a living does not matter a great deal.
It’s a means to an end not an end in itself.
What we do from a “ruchniyus” perspective is what matters.
After Churba HaBayis many thing were less then ideal.
My point wa that you stated the notion of thousands of men dedicated soley to the pursiut of Dvar Hahshem is not rooted in tradition.
That is false.
You are right you won’t find any shiurim about “Man’s Tafkid in the home”, nor will you find shiurim about the interchangeble roles for men and women.
They are’nt there.
You see there are very basic differences in Judaic philosophy and secular feministic philosphy.
Feminism view the man and the woman as two distinct peaple who may join together in a partnership for one reason or another.
Now even if they “partner” up they remain iindividuals.
Judaisim is diametrically opposed to that.
In Parshas Bereshis we learn Chava was taken from the body of Adam and the Torah then enjoins us when we marry to be as “one body”.
We do not just form a partnership we “unite” we become one.
That is the goal.
The goal is for a man and woman to join together and build thier home, one home.
Now the Home that they are supposed to create is not one for themselves.
Rather we are trying to create a home that fulfills the mission G-d gave us.
In Pirkei Avos we are enjoined to view ourselves as “workers’.
So let’s look at the home as our “buisness”.
In a buisness there are different people with different roles to play.
How does a good employer find workers?
You try and find the ones who are most suited to the job, one’s that have a particular skill set.
Now what would happen if the graphic artist would walk in and attempt to take over the copy writer’s job and then the copy writer would take over the sale’s manager and the sale’s manager would take over the graphic artist’s job?
It would be disaster.
Now how about when they all play the role’s they are emeant to.
They all do their job’s properly.
Who is responsible for the finished product?
The all are.
And a succesful company is one that has the top in all categories that work in unison together,
A home is the same.
Hashem created man and woman differently.
They have different skill sets, any objective person will can see that.
If they don’t fight and compete with each other. Rather they both perform the roles they are meant to, then together they will build a great home.
Actually the parrellel’s to Kollel pretty much exist in the Torah.
The entire Shevet Yissoschar as well as Shevet Levi were set aside to be in “kollel”.
As per Chumash 2 out of 12 shevatim means 1/6.
Furthermore the Gemara in Megilla teaches us that in order to be considered a major city there had to be at least ten “batlanim” i.e a kollel of Ten.
So yes it was an anomaly that sadly for years Klal Yisroel lacked the requisite amount of people being dedicated to the Dvar Hashem.
B”h we know do have thousands of Yidden doing just that.
However sadly due to the millions of “not yet” observant jews as well the amount of Yidden dedicated to being “batlanim is still far below 1/6 of the nation.
As long as people are qouting the Gemora in brochos about “Nashim B’mai Zachyun”, I thought I would just add in that Rashi over there explains that the question was “why are women zoche to a greater chelek then men.
Which makes sense since in Judaisim the enabler is often times granted mote schar then the actual doesr i.e someone who collects Tzedak get’s more schar then the giver.February 5, 2014 11:34 pm at 11:34 pm in reply to: Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread #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 5, 2014 10:20 pm at 10:20 pm in reply to: Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread #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 9:11 pm at 9:11 pm in reply to: Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread #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 8:27 pm at 8:27 pm in reply to: Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread #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 8:25 pm at 8:25 pm in reply to: Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread #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 6:36 pm at 6:36 pm in reply to: Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread #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 3:28 pm at 3:28 pm in reply to: Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread #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 4, 2014 5:32 am at 5:32 am in reply to: Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread #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 5:27 am at 5:27 am in reply to: Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread #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 4:57 am at 4:57 am in reply to: Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread #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.