Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DY and Popa: Ooh, I could join in too. I don’t actually do Daf Yomi but the last time I tested myself (which was 7 years ago) I knew Sukkah pretty well.
Oomis: How are you defining moral? Because otherwise this is silly. Is it immoral for me to not take a Lulav on Sukkos? Is it immoral for you? What’s the difference? Why? And what does that have to do with morality?
notasheep: “Parody” in music doesn’t mean making fun of. It means copying the song with different lyrics.
Shopping: That’s not true. Copyrights expire after a certain period of time, whether or not the holder is still alive.
Jbaldy: Wrong. Gezel Akum is the exact same as Gezel Yisrael. Also, the music being inspirational is one of the (weak) Heterim for listening to music altogether.
I retract my original comment because this is a silly discussion until we define terms. “Moral” can mean many different things.
rob: Ikkarei Emunah is not a straw man. It’s important here. The Rambam says that we cannot Pasken disputes in things that have no Halachic relevance (what you call Aggadita). Ikkarei Emunah are Halachically relevant and therefore can be Paskened.
And there is a tremendous difference between saying “We can’t Pasken disputes in Aggada” and “we can’t Pasken by Aggada”. Namely, the difference is that one is Mach’chish Magideha and one isn’t.
Where do I begin?
PBA: You may have a point but we are not discussing Slifkin as an individual (at least, we shouldn’t be). We are discussing the Hashkafic movement that he epitomizes. Thus, defects in his formulation of the Hashkafa do not delegitimize what super-rationalism actually is. And my point was that Ikkarei Emunah are not the place for glib points to be made.
ROB: This statement, “that pretty conclusively shows that aggadata is not binding on us and we do not have to accept everything that chazal say in aggadata.” is Mach’chish Magideha and Kefirah. It’s not what Rabbi Ohsie (I read it after you mentioned it) said and not what the Rambam said. He just says that we cannot Pasken it, meaning that we cannot exclude one valid viewpoint (in Chazal) in favor of another. It does not mean that we can ignore Aggadic issues entirely, as you seem to want to do.
That being said, I will have to look through all of Rabbi Ohsie’s Mekoros because I think he might be mistaken anyway. While we cannot Pasken “Hashkafa” (according to the simple reading of the Rambam), the Rambam holds that Ikkarei Emunah fall under Halachah and not “Hashkafa” anyway.
It is certainly clear that we sometimes do reject Hashkafic viewpoints. The Gemara itself says that Rabbi Hillel’s Shittah is untenable. So we can call believing in Mashiach an Ikkar Emunah.
Whether we can do that with later opinions is an interesting issue. I don’t know how to answer that. I think it’s clear that we all believe that corporealism is absolute Kefirah, even though legitimate Rishonim said it. How we have come to reject those Rishonim, I can’t quite say. But it greatly troubles me when people write off Rishonim’s Shittos as Apikorsus and ignore them. We do it with the corporealist Rishonim, yes. But I don’t know how anyone today can claim the authority to do it in any other situation.
Machlokes Rishonim. In general, we assume that there are some form of “natural laws” that God commanded us to do anyway and that all other Mitzvos that have moral implications though they are not inherently intuitive.
Ben Levi: You missed the point again. I don’t know what he did undergrad. But it’s not about “bogging down” by taking other courses. PhDs are, by definition, extremely rigorous studies in a very specific area. No PhD program would let you take outside courses. Certainly not on a PhD level unless you were in a second program as well.
jk: I read the book and have not read Slifkin’s responses. If I could spot obvious problems with the book I thought I had no need to (presumably) see Slifkin bash it. Let’s just say that I felt that R’ Meiselman’s reading of many of Rabbi Slifkin’s supports were, well, not Pshat. He glaringly ignores dealing with Slifkin’s most important Gemara (Pesachim 94b). I have to ask R’ Schachter about this in particular, but it is well-known amongst Talmidim of R’ Soloveitchik that R’ Meiselman has his own Shittos about what his Rebbe held and those other Talmidim do not agree with R’ Meiselman in the slightest. R’ Schachter, R’ Aharon (Lichtenstein), and R’ Ilsen, among others, have had harsh words about R’ Meiselman’s distortions (in their opinions) of the Rav’s Shittos.
Ben Levi: What else can I say? I read the book. I saw a poor, poor attempt at refuting Slifkin. I honestly thought I could have done a much better job.
Ben Levi: You have no idea how a PhD works, do you? It’s actually the exact opposite of what you said. PhDs are very intensive in a very specific area. His PhD has nothing to do with zoology, astronomy, or any of those sciences. But that point is irrelevant. Anyone who read the book would know that the book does not hurt Slifkin’s position in the slightest, as I pointed out above.
PBA: Because, once again, you are misrepresenting his opinion. He does not say that only his rationalists are right and that the others are wrong. He accepts the mystical Shittos as a valid and important part of our Mesorah. He just doesn’t think that they are Pashut P’shat. There is a huge difference there. You see it when you learn any Sugya. Some Rishonim have Dachuk Shittos. We don’t treat them with any less respect or dismiss them. But when discussing the Sugya we have to point out the Kashyas and why we think they are Kashyas. And sometimes we are forced to say that we cannot, in good faith, figure out how this Rishon read the Gemaras. It’s the same thing here.
Whether or not it was accepted for the past millennium is interesting because no one really (outside of the Rishonim who couldn’t create a consensus because most discussed these issues independently and didn’t build off each other) bothered to discuss this issue directly until the whole Slifkin saga exploded. (Well, the Chazon Ish did, but that doesn’t create anything near a consensus either).
To your first paragraph, you know that you are just being glib. You really find it entirely untenable to believe that Slifkin’s super-rationalism isn’t Kefira. In general, the onus of proof lies solely on the one that wants to call something Kefira. As long as Slifkin has a strong list of Rishonim in his corner and no massive Haskama throughout the generations against it, I really don’t see how it can be called Kefira. If you want to say what he says is Mach’chis Magideha, you need an incredibly strong Ra’aya for it. I don’t think such a Ra’aya exists. He is wrong and misguided, certainly. But I can’t see how you can call him a Kofer. To do so would be to call the Rishonim he’s agreeing with Kofrim as well. No one alive today has that Koach. It would have taken an immediate M’cha’ah from contemporaries as well as hundreds of years of rejection of these Shittos. That’s how we invalidate Shittos in the Rishonim. That didn’t happen here. I don’t know why people are trying. People should actually deal with Slifkin’s sources and explain why we don’t hold like them. Pretending they don’t exist only exacerbates the problem.
PBA: No. You’re being silly and silliness like that which you just displayed is the reason for his forced extremism. The opposite of “rationalist” is not irrational. The opposite end of the “rationalism” spectrum is mysticism. He does not call mysticism silly or foolish (at least, the rationalist movement does not; a mode of thought should not be held accountable for what one of its members says). He just feels that he cannot honestly hold by it. I think that’s an acceptable approach to life. He is not calling mysticism “irrational”. He is just pointing out that it is not “rationalist”. The word “rationalist” may have the same basic root as “rational”, but they are far from the same word. The sooner people understand that the less hateful this debate will immediately become.
I don’t know if Rov Rishonim call super-rationalism Kefira. Some seem to. Many seem not to. The issue is that it would have to come under Mach’chish Magideha, something which few Rishonim actually define. I honestly think it’s hard to call Slifkin super-rationalism (yes, I invented the term, but that’s really what it is) Kefira. I really don’t think Rov Rishonim do. And, at least in Pesachim, Rov Rishonim do seem to think that Chazal can, at least in very limited circumstances, err in science. So you can choose to “hold” like a Rishon and call people Kefira, but that’s really not how Ikkarei Emunah work. I would have expected better of you. Even if you were slightly tongue-in-cheek, Ikkarei Emunah are not the place to make extreme statements just to prove a point.
Ben Levi: I am not a fan of Rabbi Slifkin in the slightest for numerous reasons, but he does have a leg to stand on. Rav Avraham Ben HaRambam stands firmly in his corner. It’s in Sefer HaMaspik and other places. The Chizkuni also turns things into allegories similar to what Slifkin likes to do. He has Rishonim that back him up on several things, and they are not so few.
That being said, I think he takes these Rishonim farther than they themselves were willing to go. He uses Pesachim 94b as a Ra’aya that Chazal could err in science (and his list of Rishonim that say precisely that is quite impressive) and therefore assumes that they could err in anything scientific. I think it’s a misguided approach, but I don’t think it’s Kefirah because of who he has supporting him.
The whole debate here always is on the wrong track. Anti-Slifkin camps (yourself included) always bring Mekoros that Slifkin’s Derech is untenable. But he doesn’t dispute that. He just says that he was whom to rely upon and that therefore he has to take this Derech because otherwise Yiddishkeit doesn’t make sense to him. He is not denying those against him. So you bringing in 1 or 3 or even 10 more Mekoros against him doesn’t do anything in this dispute. He has proven, in my opinion, that his opinion (or at least opinions similar to his own; as I said, he goes too far with it) is one that has support in the Gedolei HaRishonim, even if other Gedolei HaRishonim are against him.
And this is where things get woefully misrepresented. There are people who are so sure that Slifkin’s Derech is so far beyond the pale that no one legitimate ever considered it. Because of this, they dismiss, ignore, or just write out dozens of Rishonim. It is unfortunate when we are unable to admit that Shittos existed because we don’t like the implications thereof. In fact, that in and of itself is quite possibly Kefirah. See Yam Shel Shlomo Bava Kama 4:9.
And since you mentioned Rav Meiselman’s book, I just want to say that it is not worth bringing up in this debate. He didn’t quote anything new in all 900 pages. He gave his own readings of Rishonim that are Dachuk at best. He pretends that Shittos of Rishonim that agreed with Slifkin don’t exist. He forces himself to dismiss countless opinions in Rishonim (something he says we aren’t allowed to do) as being in error because he has to reinterpret Gemaras so that Chazal is never even close to wrong.
Basically, if this was a pure academic debate with no meaning to it, Rabbi Slifkin absolutely destroyed Rav Meiselman. Luckily for us, there are those out there who can read and explain Rishonim better than both of those. So the fact that Rav Meiselman’s response to Slifkin was very subpar does not change the fact that Rav Meiselman is more right overall than Slifkin.
I once heard a Choshuv Rav explain how the conversation probably went:
Askanim: Is someone with an iPhone Passul L’eidus?
R’ Chaim Kanievsky: Mah Zeh iPhone?
Askanim: It’s a thing where you watch all types of Znus and Gilui Arayos.
R’ Chaim: Passul L’eidus!
We had a thread about this. People think it’s Assur to put them in their pockets. They conveniently ignore Kavod Habriyos for it.
RF: As far as T’shuvos go, it depends on what style you enjoy. The Tzitz Eliezer will take you on a Mehalach through a Sugya, but often Paskens based on a Haskama or assumption of Achronim 300 years ago that the later Poskim rejected.
Most of R’ Moshe’s T’shuvos are not in what’s called the “classical style” of written T’shuvos. But there is nothing more L’ma’aseh for Americans than the Igros.
If you can handle Rav Ovadia, the Yabiya Omer is the way to go. Then again, no one alive today can handle Rav Ovadia.
All in all, I think the Tzitz Eliezer and the Igros Moshe are the most interesting for most people.
And if you have the right edition with the footnotes (it’s a sky blue 5-volume set, I think published by Hamaor), R’ Akiva Eiger is the best way to go.
fkelly: Something about souls being eternal and us not being able to realize it and enlightenment being the path towards realizing it or something like that. I’m sure the Wikipedia page explains it fairly well.
People believe in it. It’s not a revelation-based system. It’s a belief-logic based system. So there’s nothing obviously false to stop people from believing in it. Aside from the fact, you know, that it was invented by a science fiction writer on a bet.
It’s a joke. It was founded on a bet.
They tried to enforce nittel and got the night wrong?
DY: Sure it could. It would just have to be that <em)these anisakis could be proven to grow outside the fish. The Psak is still valid; we’re just talking about a different Metzius. That happens all the time.
DY: R’ Shlomo Zalman said (I think R’ Shachter said he heard this straight from him, I think) very much like R’ Dessler. Basically, Chazal knew they were Muttar. They thought the reason was that they’re not Pare V’rave. They got that wrong. The real reason is… eggs are too small? Slifkin basically follows this line. He says that Chazal’s Mesorah on the Halachah is indisputable (he admits the Pachad Yitzchak is a minority). They definitely got the Halachah right. He just holds that they can get the scientific reason wrong.
(Now, this leads to a Chiluk that if Chazal say a scientific fact and extrapolate a Halachah from that, maybe we have to worry about the Halachah being incorrect. But as long as they are only using science to explain what they know the Halachah to be, then he can say that the science is wrong but the Halachah doesn’t change.)
By the way, the T’shuvos Nezer Kohen (very new) says Chazal were actually right. He says they mean that it’s Muttar to kill any insect that reproduces via parthenogenesis.
DY: I hear that. I didn’t think he was going that far. He was just saying that changes from tradition need super-strong proofs and serious Rabbinic backing, otherwise you risk losing everything. It’s, in essence, the Chassam Sofer’s “Chadash Assur Min HaTorah” Shittah.
PBA: It depends where. I expect a Rabbi in Lakewood to be significantly more learned than his congregation and therefore more learned than other average Rabbis in 100-member Shuls. All else equal, I expect the average Rabbi in random out-of-town places to be equally learned, “modern” or “Yeshivish”. In my experience, that pretty much holds true. There is a higher expectation in more learned places for the Rabbi to be more learned. And I do think that it’s a misconception (especially nowadays where even “modern” guys spend a year or two learning in Israel and continue learning on some level forever) that the average “modern” Baal Habayis is significantly less learned than the average Yeshivish Baal Habayis. It’s certainly true in the more Baal T’shuvah modern communities, but is much less true in average communities.
In short, in my experience, the average young new Rabbi coming out of YU, Ner Yisrael, Chofetz Chaim, and even Lakewood has about the same level of knowledge, both in Halachah L’ma’aseh and in general Shas knowledge. (Actually, the YU and Ner Yisrael Rabbis usually are slightly better on the daily L’ma’aseh stuff but that is counteracted by being slightly behind in general Shas knowledge; but the differences in both, on average, are negligible.)
DY: I guess not. He basically said (among other examples) that he doesn’t wear Tcheiles because he (since he views himself as a leader of the super-rationalist Frum world) can’t make such a world-changing statement on his own without absolute, complete proof. It’s something that feels very out of character for him but came across very honestly. If you want to read it yourself, know that it is currently the top post and there’s nothing so objectionable in there.
PBA: Oh, and in that world not-learned=Chashud. So the point stands.
PBA: Don’t be dense. Please. It’s unbecoming.
DY: I don’t read him often, but Slifkin’s recent blog posts actually represent this perfectly.
PBA: In my experience, a “Rabbi” wearing a Kippah S’rugah is treated with contempt by more right-wing communities, regardless of level of knowledge or observance.
I am very close with a more “modern” Rabbi from an out-of-town community who was a massive Talmid Chacham. He was in Lakewood for a wedding and had a few free hours so he stopped by a Beis Medrash. He came to the wedding in tears. He said that the two hour he spent there (and how he was treated) almost made him give up hope for the future of Yiddishkeit. (He gave a few details of what happened.) So while ZD is silly because all generalizations are wrong, as a general rule I think we he said has merit. If you’re a “modern” Rabbi you’re assumed to be an Am Ha’aretz, even when proven otherwise.
Wolf: That was my (and their) point.
PBA: With all due respect, I don’t think you can call him Chashud AKol Hatorah Kula without either knowing him personally or citing somewhere in his writings where he denies an Ikkar Emunah.
So there was an article with comments by Rabbi Dratch on JTA. It makes sense (though Rabbi Dratch does not quite speak for the whole of the RCA). This wasn’t about Geirus at all.
Basically, Avi Weiss gave the Rabbanut testimony that someone was Jewish. After speaking with some RCA members, the Rabbanut decided that Avi Weiss has no Ne’emanus on anything and cannot testify to someone’s Yahadus. That was what the RCA was against. They believe Avi Weiss is misguided but that he (as an individual) is still Kosher. This has nothing to do with YCT, Zev Farber, Shmuly Yanklowitz, or anyone else. It has to do with the reliability of Avi Weiss saying that someone was born Jewish.
I don’t know if this makes things better or worse, but we just need to clarify the exact case here.
There should be no meaningful reason to be M’chalek between this and a computer. By computers, R’ Elyashiv Assered and the whole world was Meikil (though R’ Schachter has some interesting Chumros about it).
DY: It certainly wasn’t the Chassam Sofer’s Mehalach. It is similar to R’ Yisroel Salanter’s Mehalach.
Besides, how well did the Mehalach against reform really work? (Yes, doing things differently may have been worse, but our losses to reform are staggering when you think about it.)
GAW: The Tzitz Eliezer has a T’shuvah (in Chelek 14, I think) about using blood type for paternity. He knew the medicine, but rejected it based on the Aggadta that a man gives the white part of the baby (bones and skin) while a woman gives the red (blood), thus blood type can’t prove paternity. R’ Moshe Shternbuch has a T’shuvah (chelek 4 in the middle, I think) that says that blood type and DNA can’t prove paternity because maybe the doctors will realize 50 years from now that this really doesn’t work.
Both of these Rabbonim know the Metzius. These are just more examples of where we reject any new way to create Mamzerim.
There were a few articles published post-9/11 with the concern that if we use DNA as a S’nif to be Mattir an Aguna, then it would mean we have to be Chosheish for it for Mamzerus issues. Poskim still came out (I think R’ Elya Svei was one) and made a Chiluk that you can use DNA to prove that a person is this person but we don’t know enough to use it for paternity.
DY: Anyone who asks R’ Schachter about Avi Weiss knows R’ Schachter isn’t a fan (to say the least). He just thinks if an institution comes out against them they’ll look like a bully and people will be more sympathetic to YCT than the RCA. But I would not complain in the slightest if you went to YU and tried to convince him otherwise.
Gamanit: “It’s only human nature” is an awful excuse. Plenty of things are “human nature”. It’s our job (as human beings, not only as Jews) to rise above that. Life is about understanding natural tendencies and going against them when they are wrong.
This whole story honestly makes me sad. Apparently this is the sort of drivel the Post always writes, but Frum Jews are only upset now that the target of a moronic article was a Frum Jew. Where was all the outrage when they called non-Jewish murder victims deserving? Are we really so insensitive to others’ pain?
DY: There are cases where we allow Kohanim to remain married to a Giyores, but the kids are still Challalim.
Also, R’ Schachter himself has said that publicly blasting Avi Weiss/YCT (which he himself has done) as an institution will probably cause more harm than good, which is why they don’t do it.
DY: The political issue is that the RCA is scared that they will look like a bully and that good, Frum people who don’t know any better will end up siding with Avi Weiss and becoming not Frum. Leading RCA Rabbis have said as much (never in public though).
Wait, did Joseph admit to DDOSing the site in this thread?
Let him learn for a few years. The only mistake would be getting married and being financially incompetent at that time. If he can afford to learn for a few years, let him learn. When he’s ready to get married, he has to do what is necessary to earn a living (whether that be college, have a job lined up through connections, etc.). The important thing is being able to make ends meet. Once that is met (and it’s very easy for most 18-year-olds) he should learn as long as he can afford it.
DY: Right, so that’s the issue. We’re okay with commemorating random milestones (birthdays, anniversaries, etc.). So is it Chukas Akkum to commemorate another year on the calendar? I’m leaning no, but I hear the Tzad to say yes.
WIY: It’s not my fault that there’s an Issur D’oraisa that comes up relatively often but no one knows about.
DY: You missed my point. I’m not saying he is or should be Mashpia on others currently. I was trying to explain why post-facto he shouldn’t resent being around classmates who weren’t so Frum years ago. Also note, he didn’t complain that he was led to do Issurim in elementary school. He just feels bad about his former classmates substandard level of Frumkeit. I was trying to explain why not to feel bad about that.
DY: Read the post again. He’s becoming upset with the community because of the elementary school. That post did not contain a single word of complaint about his current school.
DY: Yes, but this 15-year-old isn’t in the co-ed school with the non-Frum people anymore. It’s about someone in a good, Frum school who is upset about the school he went to as a 12-year-old.
LF: Well, if it had been you I was wondering why you wouldn’t just write what is already “public knowledge”.
Syag: The reason why brain death is a hot-button issue isn’t because of money or letting the body die (L’kulai Alma) on its own. It’s about taking organs in the interim.
Syag: Healthy, low-stress hearts last for plenty of people well into their 90s. Why would this be any different?