About All I Know About Slifkin I Learned from Rabbi Klein
I haven't read Slifkin's book. I have no plans on reading it. And I don't have much interest in Brooklyn gedolim either. So for me, Slifkin has never been much of a story, even though he is considered by some to be the rock star of the j-blogger world.
That said, I do read other blogs, where it seems that their entire definition of Judaism hangs in the balance of whether Sikin is right or those who banned him are right. And like I said, I don't care either way.
I go to a shiur at the kollel on Sunday nights. It is, without a doubt, the best shuir I have ever been to. The Rabbi who gives the Shuir, Rabbi Klein, keeps it interesting and interactive, and for the past year, we have gone through the Rambam's list of the 60 mitzvot that apply to the average Jew living in Galus.
Frequently we focus on Hashkafa issues, and tonight, while talking about the concept of an Apikores, Slifkin came up. Not that he was an Apikores, but the question was asked, since the Rambam defines an Apikores as someone who does not accept a single letter of the Torah, if someone does not accept the words of Chazal in non-halachik matters are they considered an Apikores.
Rabbi Klein felt that these people are not considered Apikorsim, and one can certainly disagree with non-halachik remedies and science found throughout the gemara, with the exception of when that science affects Halacha.
That said, Rabbi Klein went on to say that the problem with Slifkin, in his opinion, and I am paraphrasing here, is that in his books, which Rabbi Klein read, Slifkin dismisses the Tanaaim and Amaraim out of hand, making them seem small and insignificant.
Having read some of the letters gedolim have written about Slifkin on the subject, I have never seen any mention of this issue, which is the trivialization of the Tannaim and Amaraim's stature in Slifkin's book. So I would have to say that Rabbi Klein doesn't speak for all the book banners. But that is what Rabbi Klein had issue with in the Slifkin books.
Anyway, if you are in Detroit on Sunday night, I recommend the shuir. It is at the Kollel from 9:15 to 10.
That said, I do read other blogs, where it seems that their entire definition of Judaism hangs in the balance of whether Sikin is right or those who banned him are right. And like I said, I don't care either way.
I go to a shiur at the kollel on Sunday nights. It is, without a doubt, the best shuir I have ever been to. The Rabbi who gives the Shuir, Rabbi Klein, keeps it interesting and interactive, and for the past year, we have gone through the Rambam's list of the 60 mitzvot that apply to the average Jew living in Galus.
Frequently we focus on Hashkafa issues, and tonight, while talking about the concept of an Apikores, Slifkin came up. Not that he was an Apikores, but the question was asked, since the Rambam defines an Apikores as someone who does not accept a single letter of the Torah, if someone does not accept the words of Chazal in non-halachik matters are they considered an Apikores.
Rabbi Klein felt that these people are not considered Apikorsim, and one can certainly disagree with non-halachik remedies and science found throughout the gemara, with the exception of when that science affects Halacha.
That said, Rabbi Klein went on to say that the problem with Slifkin, in his opinion, and I am paraphrasing here, is that in his books, which Rabbi Klein read, Slifkin dismisses the Tanaaim and Amaraim out of hand, making them seem small and insignificant.
Having read some of the letters gedolim have written about Slifkin on the subject, I have never seen any mention of this issue, which is the trivialization of the Tannaim and Amaraim's stature in Slifkin's book. So I would have to say that Rabbi Klein doesn't speak for all the book banners. But that is what Rabbi Klein had issue with in the Slifkin books.
Anyway, if you are in Detroit on Sunday night, I recommend the shuir. It is at the Kollel from 9:15 to 10.
posted by Air Time at 11:37 PM
16 Comments:
great post!
much of the medicinal advice given in that time period is factually incorrect today based on medical advances.. someone doing a refuah found in the gemara when modern medicine proves otherwise is doing an aveira!
in the same vein...
That's a falsehood. Slifkin does not trivialize the Tannaim or Amoraim any more than the Rambam or Rav Hirsch do. He simply says they were not supernaturely skilled in scientific matters. Did your Rav actually read the books or is he just coming up with lame excuses on behalf of the signatories to the ban?
anonymous,
I think you could ask that question more respectfully. Or leave your name.
Anon- If you read the post, you would have seen that wrote he did read the books. I did not.
Just out of curiosity, how much Rambam and Hirsch have you actually read? Because while I am not a Hirsch fan, I have read quite a bit of Rambam and do not find him to put down tananim and amaraim.
Of course the Rambam doesn't put down Tannaim and Amoraim. Neither does Slifkin. That was exactly my point.
Hence the following quote from Moreh Nevuchim: "Do not ask of me to reconcile everything that they stated from science with the actual reality, for the science of those days was deficient, and they did not speak out of traditions from the prophets regarding these matters…"
I have come to the conclusion that a large segament of the "frum" blogesphere are Jews who are disillusioned with living as frum believing jews and are looking for other “frum people to agree with their fundamental questions. There will always be questions. The challenge to us as frum people is to live without answers and believe non the less. If believing was easy there would not be schar.
First of all Anon, to say that "The challenge to us as frum people is to live without answers" just shows how intellectually dishonest and cheap you are. Where does it say that as frum Jews we need to close our eyes?! On the contrary, as Jews we are expected to USE our sechel and UNDERSTAND. Trust me, you'll get no schar for being an idiot.
Secondly, I don;t know if you have any interest Air, but in case you do or there are some readers here that do, the following blog has recently been putting up some good stuff on this.
http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/
This is the original anonymous.
Thank you "just passing through" for making my point for me. Blind faith is not a Jewish concept.
JPT - you overestimate the power of your sechel. I do not believe that blind faith makes one an idiot. I believe that we have survived as a people by having emunas chachomim.
Judaisim has something called a chok - no reasons given nor needed. The reason for all mitzvos is just because G-d said so. If you are going to pick and choose, where do you draw the line.
You are better served by dealing with your emunah issues in private with a Rov, than in getting involved with the apikorsim who have lost interest in frumkeit. They will not help you answer your questions, rather they will introduce new questions and bring you further and further.
Talk to a Rov not the fools who blog
Anon without Sechel:
Remaining anonymous bears testament to the power of your sechel. As a result, let me apologize in advance for ripping you apart.
I agree that emunas chachamin has helped in keeping us together sometimes. Sometimes it has not. Had the European Jews not had such emunas chachamim and not listened to the gedolim who told them all not to leave, history would have a slightly different story perhaps. You can have emunas chachamim and still admit that they can be wrong.
Having a conflict between science and the literal reading of torah is NOT a chok. That's actually the first time I've heard THAT excuse given in this debate and you come off as an even larger ignoramus by raising it. A chok can be a commandment God gave for which our finite wisdom cannot fathom a reason. i.e. parah aduma. A chok IS NOT an excuse for intelectual mediocricy or closing your eyes to reality.
"You are better served by dealing with your emunah issues in private with a Rov, than in getting involved with the apikorsim who have lost interest in frumkeit."..."Talk to a Rov not the fools who blog"
So what are you doing here?? As a matter of fact, I have already done so and am thus quite confident in myself when I call you an idiot. You, and other, use the term apikores a little too liberally. If you'd like to say "I'm afraid to ask because I don't know where that will lead", fine. Just admit it. But don't call those unafraid an apikores to mask your inabilities.
JPT
I would rather be called an idiot by man that be one in the eyes of my creator.
I have no interest in calling you names beacuse I know you and don't think youre a idiot .(funny you would think I would use my annonimity to bash you freely)
In all honesty, I know nothing abou Slifkin or the ban. my comment had nothing to do with Slifkin, science, or your views on the matter. My only point was that the so called "frum" blogesphere is a collection of people with emunah issues and anger towards the gedolim. I dont know why that set you off.
I hope you find what you are looking for.
I remain Anon
Anon,
My using the term 'idiot' was referring to your original comment about our challenge to live without answers and the schar rewarded as a result. Perhaps I came off too strong (especially since you say you know me), but I think that this is what originally 'set me off'.
God gave us a head to think, not to stick it in the sand. Granted there are large area's in our beliefs that require emunah, but it bugs me when this is used to avoid thought.
I wasn't exaggerating when I said that this was the first time I've heard 'chok' given as a reason/aanswer in this particular debate. This was another thing that set me off.
I do agree with you that many of the bloggers out there may be disillusioned, and that is something I keep in mind when reading them. The fact is, they are the only one's addressing this issue. If I look or speak anywhere else for the opposing view, I'm only presented with vagueness and cheesy 'outs'.
Also, I DID meet with my Rav about this and plan on discussing this further with him.
Glad to hear you dont really think I am an idiot. Again my comment was not geared towards you. I dont have a position on Slifkin or even know your position.
When I mentioned a chok, my only point is I dont need to know the answer to everything. I keep Mitzvos even though I dont know the answer. I am not toubled by scientific findings that indicate a world older than the 5700 years the torah records. I dont need to understand or know - its not integeral to my emunah.
If I wanted explanations, dating the universe, and big bang would not be it. I would rather know whats the good in kids having cancer etc.
Again my point with the Chok. I no more need to understand evidence of a billion yr old universe than why I put on Tefilin, or what a parah adumah helps for tumah.
Anon and JPT-
thanks for hanging out here and debating a bit. I have enjoyed reading from the sidelines.
Anon:
Your emunah doesn't need to be tested by seeking answers. Granted, if a conflict of information doesn't bother you, kol hakavod. But what's troubling is that those who ARE seeking answers are being labeled apikorsim and their lives destroyed.
You mention how you'd have higher priority for understanding why children get cancer. If the Gedolim of the day proclaim that children get cancer because the mother doesn't cover her hair, or because the parents are not stringent in hilchos niddah, I'd question that. I wouldn't swallow it based on emunas chachamim. Along the same line, if chazal say that putting a raw egg on your head will help a headache, my emunah in them and my observance of torah u'mitvos is not at all shaken by saying that they're wrong.
(glad to hear we're entertaining you Air. Feel free to give us your two cents)
If Rabbi Klein thinks that "one can certainly disagree with non-halachik remedies and science found throughout the gemara", then the Gedolim think that he's espousing apikorsus also.
Post a Comment
<< Home