Dinosaurs | Imamother

BlueRose52

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 11:32 am

amother wrote:

If I would take a poll of many of the top Doctors in the World over certain matters.

Al these Doctors would say the same thing, there would be pretty much a consensus opinion regarding a certain matter.

Thena couple of respected but minor Doctors would state they disagree.

Would you then be suprised that the majority of individuas follow those who have earned the position of being the top in thier field, the fin address so to speak.

It's kind of similar.

The two Rabbis you are qouting are not considered by anyone to be final authorities or even close to that.
Talmidei Chachomim yes, responsible for a great deal of harbotzas torah, yes.
Leaders? Final Authorities?
No even close.

You see, here's the problem. The situation is not at all like you're portraying it, in such a dramatically imbalanced way. It's not just these two people. There's actually a lot more variety and diversity within the texts, and within the community of talmidei chachaimim. However, due to various cultural, political and societal dynamics, this diversity has been deliberately stifled and censored, and vociferous efforts to impose a particular uniform view of hashkafa and history have taken hold. (And not just in the science/torah debate, but in most other major hashkafic issues also.)

Keep in mind, Rabbi Slifkin's books were out for many years, living comfortable on chareidi bookselves around the world with no one ever having any major problems with it. He had haskamos from major chareidi rabbonim. He was lecturing on these topics in Ohr Somayach and other chareidi institutions for quite a while. And of course, he himself identified as unequivocally chareidi! The positions he was promoting were well known, and while of course not everyone agreed with them, they were allowed placement in the beis medrash.

I'm sorry, but your depiction of how these things have always been viewed is not at all accurate, IMHO.

amother

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 11:45 am

BlueRose52 wrote:

Oh, please, you really don't want to start accusing people of cherry picking sources. Rest assured, the traditional position on just about every major issue is far from consistent. I really wouldn't recommend opening that can of worms.

I really do not like accusing people of cherry picking sources.

However in this case I didn't accuse.

I demonstarted that it quite blatanlty has been done.

The condemnation of the school of RJ was in fact done by those who in actuallity are presented as being part of the rational for it.

Thos are facts they can't be disputed. They published their views of the approach.
The Rambam himself most certainly did not view the underlying philosphy as legitimate he calls it one of "foolls" and "cursed" and RSRH wrote a scathing condemnation of it as part of what one of his most famous works!

Those are facts, they can't really be disputed.

Are all traditional approaches nuanced?

Of course there is a reason it takes rigorous study for years and years for one to be considered a legitimate Torah Scholar.
The Torah is huge, the sources are vast, the depth is amazing.
But that does not mean black is white and white is balck.

BlueRose52

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 11:51 am

amother wrote:

When I qoute Rav Chaim Kanievski shlita one of the Gedolei Yisroel by any yardstick and renowned sage who has written commetnary on every little known topic in the Torah (including a disertion on the anatomy and different species of grasshoppers) and you respond with Rabbi Chaim Malinowitz a little known Rav in Beis Shemesh it's a little disingenous.

You see, I don't think it's disingenuous at all because while I can respect that Rav Chaim Kanievsky might indeed be a renowned sage in Torah matters, it doesn't mean that I have to also accept that he understands contemporary issues related to scientific (or other non-Torah ideas) with the same level of expertise.

And two examples come to mind:

1) Here is a discussion of his belief that non-Jews posses a different number of teeth than Jews: http://parsha.blogspot.com/200......html

2) In this teshuva, he expresses that doctors who think that smoking is bad for your health don't know what they're talking about: http://is.gd/A70S20

I'm sorry if this is taken as horribly disrespectful by some people here, but I'm just quoting exactly what he writes. This isn't my opinion, it's his own words. I understand how it might seem to others, but I think this sort of thing can very reasonably explain why many people are dubious of some of the claims of talmidei chachamim when it comes to certain matters.

amother

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 11:57 am

BlueRose52 wrote:

Actually Rabbi Slifkin was always considered controversial and plenty of people were extremley uncomfortable about many of his positions. In fact years before the ban my DH asked a leading figure in the Kiruv world about Rabbi Slifkin's approach and he responded by stating "I don't want to discuss it, he 's the only one who tries that and it's nopt simple".
And while Rabbi Slifkin would like to present thing certain ways again my DH personally witnessed how one Godol a"h came out against it.

Every day he had two individuals join him for lunch and read from the books to him word for word and transalate into Yiddish word for word, for around 30 minutes to an hour a day for several days.
Finally he stated he had heard enough. He then condemned the works publicly as "kefirah" but was careful to state that he was unaware if the person had meant what he wrote L'shem Shomayim, however regardless the writer demonstrated a fundemental misunderstanding of Judaic thought and principals.

Similarly the book recently published by Rabbi Meisalmann is quite large and extensivley sourced, in fact Rabbi Meisalmann himself makes a point of explaining how he did not rely on secondary sources, rather consulted primary sources again and again, a fact he apty demonstrates.

So Rabbi Slifkin's potrayal of those opposed to him as fundemtay misinformed seems to be misplaced.

amother

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 12:01 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

That's kind of a bait and switch.

The question posed to Rav Kanievsky was regarding the legitamcy of a certain approach to Aggadah.

The ansewer was that historically it was viewed as an illegitamate approach.

What does that have to do with his view of contemporary science?

amother

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 1:14 pm

It's been awhile since I had the oppurtunity to see all of R' Slifkin's posts on the book.

However the one's I did see seemed to be pretty interesting.

Rabbi Slifkin begins by discussing Rabbi Meiselmann's overall acedemic credentials noting that Rabbi Meisalmann's Ph.d is in mathematics.

A point that Rabbi Meisalmann does not dipute, rather he contends the obvious fact that while he was in Cambridge and harvard( I think that the second one) part of his curriculum included taking courses in the topics covered by R' Slifkin. A point that's pretty har tto dispute and he was able to form a relationship with many leading lights in the field since he studied in leading Ivy League university's.

Rabbi Slifkin then acknowledges that he personally has no acedemic credentials waht so ever, however contends he has been studying these issues his whole life which somehow makes him more legitamte.

Am I missing something?

Rabbi Meiselmann actually begins his prologue by noting the fact that he has been studying these matters and forming opinions on them his entire life. Furthermore his book is some 900 odd pages long and extensivley sourced and footnoted. Furthermore in the past Rabbi Slifkin himself names Rabbi Meiselmann as one of the people he brought his books to for review!

(which actually touched off their eprsonal disagreement, Rabbi Meiselmann states that he told R' Slifkin he disagreed with him on both a scientific level as well as Judaic theology level entirley, yet R' Meiselmann feels that R' Slifkin seemed to present him as having agreed with somethings and disagreeds with others.)

The other posts I read from R' Slifkin regarding different theories in Rabbi Meiselmann's book.

However that completley misses the point. Rabbi Meiselmann himself notes that when it comes to the science some of what he is presenting is personal theory and not "Torah MiSinai" he is simply showing that there are different ways of looking at certain things, alternatives that are known in the acedemic world but are not presented by Rabbi Slifkin, he is not stating that his theories are the definite ansewer to certain scientific questions.

The general point of his book and the thrust of it (which again is clear to those who have actually read it) is made clear by Rabbi Meisalmann in his Introduction.

It is a discussion of rat5ional judaisim, it's approach it's origins and whether it historically has been considered within the bounds of acceptable Judaic thought.

The point of the book is to examione Rabbi Slifkin's Judaic sources, see if they say what he claims they say, see iof tradtionally things were the way he says they were.

And that is exactly what Rabbi Meiselmann does.

A perfect example is the Rambam. Rabbi Meiselmann uses entire chapters (Topic 1 Chapter 5,6,7 Topic two Chapter 13 Topic 4 Chapter 29, and 30, Topic 5 Chapter 37 Topic 6 Chapters 42, 43,and 44) to discuss all the Rambam's writing's and provides footnotes containg the original hebrew words from Moreh Nevuchim, Peirush HaMishnayos, Mishna Torah, and Teshuvos.
He does not merely assert what the Rambam's view was nor does he cherry pick single sources he gives it an exhaustive and intellectualy honest treatment that incorporates the entirety of the Rambam's writing.
Which is something Rabbi Slifkin has never done and in probablity cannot do, since very few people have the erudtion that Rabbi Meiselmann has and even fewer have a university level education of the caliber of Rabbi Meiselmann and a high level knowledge of Judaic sources that is typical for a Rosh Yeshivah of his caliber.

The same goes for the famous Mamar of Rabbi Avrohom Ben HaRambam (topic 1 Chapter 8 and appendix b).

Yet it seemed to me that Rabbi Slifkin was ignoring the main point of Rabbi Meiselmann's work, basicaly that historically the approach of RJ has never been considered legit.

Like I have indicated I have read a great deal of Rabbi Slifkin's work's and a great deal of Torah, Chazal, and Science (Rabbi Meiselmann's book). I am admittedly unqaulified to lend my opinion on Scientific matters, however I do not think that Rabbi Slifkin is any more qaulified then Rabbi Meiselmann and perhaps considerably less so, nor for that matter do I think that Rabbi Slifkin is more qaulified froma scientific perspective then Dr. Spetner or Dr. Shroeder both of whom are trained physicists and disagree with many of Rabbi Slifkins conclusions froma scientific perspective.

Nor do I think that Rabbi Slifkin is more qualified then Rabbi Dr. David Gottlieb another trained scientist who Rabbi Meiselmann thanks specificaly for "having served as an invaluable aid and sometimes sounding board for the development of many of the ideas contained" in the book.

What I do understand a drop is the "torah perspective". And it seems to me that Rabbi Meiselmann does a very good job of articulating and explaining point by point the tremendous problems in Rabbi Slifkin's approach and that it is one that has always been regarded as extremley questionacle at the least.

However I could be wrong and it could be that Rabbi Slifkin has know actually discussed the actual point of the book,

amother

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 2:00 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

Here's another one of those assertions that I can't let go by without protest.

Unmistakable conclusion?

Sorry, I beg to differ. That's just more black-and-white misrepresentations of the situation.

Why is it not an unmistakabe conclusion.

The Rambam himself called those who feel they know more then Chazal "fools" and "cursed" another of the sources so to speak of RJ. RSRH skewered the approach of Moreh Nevuchim in Letter 18, of the Nineteen letters.

And that is just two of the sources that the RJ camp themselves use to try and bolster some of their claims, it does not even begin to touch on those they admit to being at variance with them I.e the Ramban the Ramchal The Vilna Gaon, The Chofetz Chaim ect.

(Just to clear up any possible cofusion a) there are different components of RJ one being the feeling that we "ch"v) know more then Chazal regarding science, the other is the rational reason behind certain mitzvos one is attacked by the Rambam himself, the other is seemingly advocated in Moreh Nevuchim and was never accepted begining with Rabbeinu Yonah and continuing on through the centuries, the sum total of the opposition is expressed for the layman by RSRH in The Nineteen Letters.

It is however important to note that properly understanding Moreh Nevuchim is pretty hard. The Rambam deliberatley (as he himself writes) wrote it in an "unclear manner" so it could not be easily comprehended.
Over the centuries thaere have been a wide variety of approaches taken towards it the simple one and the one advocated by RJ is the one that has virtually been unanimously rejected by the traditional camp over the centuries it is this approach that the Chida cites was what some Sefardic scholars had a tradition was the real intent of the Rambam and consequently the Rambam himself reversed course later in his life when being exposed to a more detailed Kabbalistic thought process.

There are those who had no such tradition of the Rambam reversing himself and consequently fully disputed the premise of Moreh Nevuchim and stated it was aresult of not having a full exposure to Kabbola for various reasons, it is this view taken by RSRH in Letter 18 and is the view taken by the Vilna gaon who completley rejected the MN.

There are other schools of thought that if one properly understands Moreh Nevuchim it all correspons to Torah and the Rambam simply used the vernacular I.e philisophical terms to express them this view was advocated by the Rogaatshover Gao and Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman zt"l. It is this view that Rabbi Meiselmann seems to be taking in his recent book and he seems to bring a great deal of evidence to bolster this view.

An additional view by some is that the Moreh Nevuchim if properly understood actually dovetails with Kabbaloh as advocated in Sefer Ha'akdumah u'pesicha by Rav Chanoch Radziner zt"l.

For a brief synopsis of the various approaches see Rabbi Elias's notes on the Nineteen Letters.

Again I dare not voice my own opinion on these matters I am merely collecting the various opinions as expressed by the great Jewish Scholars over the centuries.)

BlueRose52

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 2:35 pm

As I've said, I'm really not that interested in getting too much into the details of the specific issues you keep writing about. I'm more drawn to the meta-discussion.

But you know, at this point, I kind of can't help seeing this whole discussion as really kind of sad. I wonder if I'm alone in this.

I mean, what we have here is a group, represented by Slifkin, who sincerely desire to observe halacha, to practice mitzvos, to be part of the Jewish community, and from what I see of the situation (and what I believe I've demonstrated with all the sources I brought into the thread), it seems like there's plenty of basis in tradition and in contemporary rabbinic viewpoints for allowing them room to do so. They aren't trying to eject anyone else from the beis medrash, they just want a small space in the corner where they can be left alone to learn as they understand tradition allows them to. Yet, as your passionate arguments so well demonstrate, there is so much energy being expended against them, endlessly, to prove that they are wrong, that they're dangerous (hashkafically), that they shouldn't be tolerated, that we should absolutely refuse to make room for them at all! No matter what is offered in his support, not to insist that he's right, but just to say that there's room for him, it's never good enough. If it's rabbinic sources I show, they're rejected as minority opinions. If it's a text, it's explained or interpreted away. If it's a rabbinic figure who supports him, he's not big enough. If there's a few rabbinic figures, they're outnumbered by his opponents. If it's history, it's denied. If it's subject expertise offered, then he's not a qualified, credentialed expert.

Honestly, at this point, this discussion seems almost MacCarthyesque to me.

amother

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 3:30 pm

Actually BlueRose as you correctly noted R' Slifkin's ideas and books were around for a while even though they were not approved of.
however as you eloquently pointed out, as long as he was willing to leave Traditional Judaisim alone and sit in his corner, no one wanted a public fight.
Judaisim has bigger problems.
What did happen is that certain things were made impossible to ignore.

Here's a qoute from R' Slifkin that you brought

"Every intellectual challenge is also an emotional challenge. When that which we have been taught by revered teachers, and which is a preciously held-belief in our community, is demonstrated to be incorrect, it's hard to make an adjustment. Modern Orthodox Jews who have no problem with my books are not necessarily more open-minded; it's just that evolution and Talmudic inaccuracies about science are within their societal comfort zone.

Furthermore, because every intellectual challenge is also an emotional challenge, this is why radically overhauling one's intellectual approach can be emotionally overwhelming. There are theological approaches which I am now comfortable with, but which I was only able to reach after a long struggle, due to my long and very limiting charedi yeshivah education. There are ideas that would have been much easier for me to accept, had they not come as such a shock."

Stating that he had a long struggle because of "long and very limited charedi education" sounds like they are not attacking the chareidi yeshivah system?

Stating MO are more comfortable with his approach is because "Talmudical inaccurracies about science" are more within their "comfort zone" in a context in which it imply's that it's not really a bad thing is not an attack on Chareidim?

And that isn't a qoute I went searching for, if I did I could find whole articles written by R' Slifkin describing the "truth" is the way he say's it. That Charedi education is "backwards" or "limited".

You know it, I know it, every person who has looked into RJ knows it.

Yup the Torah is taught in in Torah schools in a way that would not have the Rambam calling us "fools" or saying we are "cursed" ch"v nor in a way that has the Rashba declarin a "Cherem" on anyone who professes such beliefs nor in away that would have RSRH saying that we are inflicting more damage on Judaisim the Moses Mendelsohm.

I don't think that it's fair to call that limited.

I think it's fair to call that "accurate".

amother

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 3:51 pm

Furthermore what I really truly do not understand is the following.

When the ban on R'Slifkin and in turn the school of "rational judaisim" first was announced they expressed bewilderment.

They claimed they had sources on which to back themselves up.

They claimed that traiditionally there has always been room for their philosophy. R' Slifkin still introduces himself as following the rational school of 'Maimonidies".

They screamed plaintivley "if we are wrong show us"! "If we have mis-understood show us"! Let's have an honest discussion.

Well Rabbi Meisellman is not the first nor the second to do exactly that. (Though to my knowledge he is the only person to invest the time and effort into writing a detailed book of close to 900 pages explaining it.)

But other's have shown that what R' Slifkin claims as following in the tradition of the Rambam is an out and out untruth.

It's simply not true.
The Rambam states explictly that one who as result of their knowledge of science thinks they know more then Chazal is a "fool" and is "cursed".

That is the Rambam's position, a position taken hundreds of years after the Talmud was codified when science had seemingly advanced well beyond what it was at that time!

So if the school of RJ wants to be considered honest why do they not admit the Rambam advocated against thier position?

And if they wish to base things on Moreh Nevuchim's approach to the reasoning behind the Mitzvos, then why do they not admit that it was not just rejected by some of traditional judaisim. There is a credible mainstream source (the Chida is one of the main sources regarding Jewish history) that the Rambam himself reversed his opinions on it. And if you decline to follow that view the overwhelming majority of Jewish Scholarship throughought the ages have taken the position that the Moreh Nevuchim is incorrect.

Including the founders of the yeshiva system that R' Slifkin claime's to be a part of namely the Vilna Gaon, Rabbi Chaim Volozhiner down to the Chofetz Chaim (it is well known that the Chofetz Chaim aside from qouting liberally from Zohar in his works also did not allow his children to learn Moreh Nevuchim).

Chareidi education is in no way limited.
Chareidi education is based on the knowledge that all truths are contained in the Torah, it is based on the knowledge that each line of Gemora has incredibly deep meaning, some open to us, some not open to us.

Chareidi education is based upon the Mesorah that we have had through generations as articulated in many places (see the afore mentioned Rambam see also the Ramchal in Mamar Al Ha Aggodos) over the correct way to approach Chazal.

BlueRose52

Sun, Jan 19 2014, 4:22 pm

amother wrote:

Actually BlueRose as you correctly noted R' Slifkin's ideas and books were around for a while even though they were not approved of.

More misrepresentations.

I simply never said that. In fact I said the opposite. He was approved of. His books had glowing haskamos from choshuve chareidi rabbonim. They were bought by and read by countless chareidim without concern. He taught in chareidi yeshivos. He was the one that people were directed to when they had questions regarding science and torah difficulties. If that's not approval, I don't know what is. What I said was that of course SOME disagreed with his positions. That they weren't universally accepted by ALL.

That's just one simple example which I can show you're twisting. There's actually a whole lot more which you wrote that could be demonstrated similarly, but at a certain point, one recognizes when it's futile to keep pursuing the issue. I realized that around 2 pages ago. And like I wrote already, I find this all incredibly sad. Honestly, it's depressing, seeing how determined you are to reject people like him, and excise us from the community. I've decided to stop watching this thread from now on. This is one heretic who's had enough of being chased. Maybe I'll check in in a few days to see what I missed.