I have a feeling that email and internet with its ability to spread confidential statements of anyone across the globe in seconds has changed the rules of the game.
People are looking for juicy sound-bites to spread around, for convenient pigeon-hole-ing and once distributed, can never be fully retracted.
Rhetoric that obliterates nuance seems to be the name of the game in this forum. Because you may not get a second chance to clarify your message to people who just read the posts once and then leave.
I have been a victim of this tendancy and find myself repeating the various layers of my anti-Slifkin position over and over--to the same people!
Long gone are the days where people are willing to do serious leg-work and take the time to achieve a nuanced position that reflects the intentions of the sources they are researdhing.
how does Rabbi Slifkin understand the following Moreh Nevuchim?
He openly admits in his book that the Rambam himself personally believed in a meta-natural process of creation. He also acknowledged that ALL classic commentaries believed this.
But he is not interested in the Rambam's or any commentary's personal view of the details of creation!
He was only interested in showing how the Rambam can be used as a precedent for stretching the limits of interpreting Bereishis. Since the Rambam wasn't a literalist, Slifkin can accept modern cosmology about creation with no theological problems!
The fact that the Rambam explcitly confined his non-literal interpretations to where Chazal indicated as acceptable, (second chapter re: garden of eden and not first chapter of overall creation) and retained the overall thrust of the mesorah regarding a meta-natural creation is too subtle a point for Slifkin to acknowledge.
He found what he needed in "the non-literal approach of the Rambam" and took all the liberties he wanted after that.
It seems like the nuance issue and intellectual honesty is really at the heart of this whole mess.
Baruch, do you have the book, "Challenge" do see this for yourself?
"Baruch, do you have the book, "Challenge" do see this for yourself?"
I did not read it, but only browsed through it at the YI of KGH book launch(after giving Shalom to RNS); thank you for the clarification regarding his position on the MN.
If you look at anything I've written, while I have some focus on RNS because it's relevant, I'm looking at the larger issues and not at RNS's personal views(although I certainly have a general sense of them based on what's available in the public),and I've made that clear in previous posts.
I don't have to read the book to join the discussion at some level ; I have been browsing through Sacred Monsters, though, but have not read it thoroughly either, as I noted in a previous post.
I thus may discuss publicly written rabbinic letters regarding Rav Avroham ben Harambam, etc. Reread my posts, and you'll see that I never focused on anything that I haven't read carefully.
Here, I focused on what was mentioned in the Jewish Press, and on the concept of how one can still keep "intellectual honesty" while reconsidering positions towards a "Contra-Slifkin" view(eg, admitting the strength of a question, as opposed to just offering proofs from today's science to chazal, e tc).
In this case, I felt that the "Contra-Slifkin" view was done as appropriate for the JP audience(feel free to tell that to RJO, if you wish), and in the spirit of "intellectual honesty", I gave it a link; at the same time I look forward to seeing continued discussion in the Jewish Press, as I am unafraid of open debate.
I wasn't trying to insinuate that you don't have a right to discuss these issues. Please don't take me the wrong way.
I was merely wondering if your principled neutrality on the issue is because you already read up on everything , thought it through, and still don't know where you stand?
Or you are still going through the material and are checking what people have to say about it.
I don't think there are many people sitting on the fence anymore. (Not that this should pressure you in any way.)
Most people either think Slifkin/academic modern Orthodoxy is justified in ignoring the kabbalistic establishment's revision of Chazal's knowledge of science, or he's not.
I'm trying to argue for a third position: that the revision isn't as radical as people make it out to be. I need not forswear the shitos of REED or Rav Avrohom.
(The pro-Slifkin camp has an interest in making the rift look as wide as possible in order to marginalize the banners and paint them as the radicals.)
"Or you are still going through the material and are checking what people have to say about it"
My tone of "neutrality" is more because of the "bathwater" thrown out(acccording to some) with the ban of RNS.
Also, I have no "shaychus" to taking an actual stand on what's kosher and what's not; I write in a "neutral" way to encourage rational and non-polemical discussion. I at least try to make it clear,though, that there are objections to RNS's opinons, and I also distinquish between different issues.
"Most people either think Slifkin/academic modern Orthodoxy is justified in ignoring the kabbalistic establishment's revision of Chazal's knowledge of science, or he's not."
I don't think its termed "revison", but you probably mean in the sense of disagreeing with rationalistic Rishonim, as R. Feldman mentions in the letter( "the introduction of the wisdom of Kabbalah of the Ari Zal in the sixteenth century...After the introduction of Kabbalah it became clear that these were the Sefer HaYetzira, the Zohar and the Tikkunim"). I assume it would be termed "hisgalos"(revelation), expanding upon previous mesorah of kabblah.
Also, I have no "shaychus" to taking an actual stand on what's kosher and what's not; I write in a "neutral" way to encourage rational and non-polemical discussion.
I wonder if there isn't some disconnect between the first statement and the second:
If you don't feel that you have the right to form your own opinion about who is right, (even if it's a tentative and non-definitive one,) what exactly is the point of discussion?
If you do have a tentative opinion, what is it?
"If you don't feel that you have the right to form your own opinion about who is right, (even if it's a tentative and non-definitive one,) what exactly is the point of discussion? "
I suppose I would rewrite that, leaving out the part about "no shaychus".
I myself tend to lean to towards going back to the status quo whatever was acceptable in parts of the Yeshivah world before Rabbi Slifkin came along. If someone asks me what's your opinion of "Challenge", "I would say ask your LOR, but I can tell you it used to be acceptable, and I think it still should be acceptable".
The point of my post was 1) encourage discussion about the particular JP article for those who wish to comment. But more important that 2) intellectual honesty needs to be paramount in both the MO and Yeshivah world in many issues,no matter what the outcome of the Slifkin issue.
Intellectual honesty means facing a question head on. I didn't read COC as of yet enough to review it, but referred here to the JP article. The questions raised by the article seem to be good ones; I think admitting that is intellectual honesty, even if I dislike the whole Slifkin Ban. If someone wants to read the book, again, they can ask their LOR, and not me(which is obvious).
From the other side, my whole approach to Charedi hashkafa and even basic emunah values intellectual rigor and acknowledging a questions, and debating proofs as well. I admit that's a throwback to emunah al pi chakirah, and that I don't feel qualified to lead such a discussion, but I touched on the issue here.
I hope this clarifies matters.
On another note, I am thinking where I want to go with this blog, due to time concerns, and whether it is indeed a "toeles". You can either comment here with your view, or e mail me at borhowitz@yahoo.com, if you would like.
If your toeles is for readership, then I think more right-of-center blogs is better than less.
If your toeles is for yourself to clarify and articulate your views to the world then only can decide.
"but I can tell you it used to be acceptable, and I think it still should be acceptable".
I don't think you've read chapters 15 & 16 of "Challenge".
The bulk of those chapters are taken form the following people in presenting the idea that Bereishis is not at all factual but as theological lessons that Genesis was intended to impart to the Ancient Israelites as well as to us:
John Eccles ("A Divine Design: Some Questions on Origins"), Nahum Sarna ("Understanding Genesis"), Henri Frankfort ("Myth and Reality" in "Before Philosophy"), Leon Kass ('The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis") and Leon Strauss (On the Interpretation of Genesis), Dr Carl Feit ("Darwin and Drash: The Interplay of Torah and Biology")
Anonymous1/FKM,
"If your toeles is for readership, then I think more right-of-center blogs is better than less."
I tend to agree as well, but a different view was taken in the JO, if I understand it correctly. E mail me if you'd like more info.
"I don't think you've read chapters 15 & 16 of "Challenge".
I have to look at it again, but I am sure there is "baby" in the book as well, and if not in every chapter of "Challenge", certainly in what used to be acceptable kiruv in parts of the RW.
But he is not interested in the Rambam's or any commentary's personal view of the details of creation!
EVERYONE admits that Rambam was trying to reconcile Torah with Greek philosophy (to a greater or lesser extent). Now that Greek philosophy is consigned to the garbage, obviously what is relevant to take from Rambam is not his specific view, but rather his general approach to these issues.
The fact that the Rambam explcitly confined his non-literal interpretations to where Chazal indicated as acceptable
You've got to be joking. You think that Chazal interpreted Avraham and the malachim, or Bilaam and the donkey, as non-literal?
EVERYONE admits that Rambam was trying to reconcile Torah with Greek philosophy (to a greater or lesser extent).
The oversimplification here is clearly to your advantage.
A more nuanced study of the Moreh reveals that he does not reconcile Torah with Greek philosophy AT ALL COSTS.
When the accomodation is feasible and does not do any violence to the fundamental principles of Judaism, he is accomodating.
When is squarely conflicts with any clear theological Jewish principle, he rejects the philosophy completely!
(The Rambam just happens to say that certain key ideas asserted by Slifkin under the "hechsher" of the Rambam is in violation of some fundamental principles that the Rambam himself laid forth in III:50. Let's not forget that.)
Now that Greek philosophy is consigned to the garbage, obviously what is relevant to take from Rambam is not his specific view, but rather his general approach to these issues.
Yes, let us take his general approach of the Rambam:
The fundamentals of Judaism (about the Torah's account of creation, for example) are not to be compromised by any foreign systems of thought.
Oh, how I wish Slifkin would follow the Rambam in such areas! But no, Slfikin says. We are not bound by the Rambam's fundamentals. Since modern scholarship has made those fundamentals obsolete, we, living in the modern era, only have to believe that the Torah was given by God. Not that anything in the Torah is factual or anything!
Please don't clam to be following the Rambam! It makes you look so transparently two-faced!
You've got to be joking. You think that Chazal interpreted Avraham and the malachim, or Bilaam and the donkey, as non-literal?
You are taking me out of context. The context where SLIFKIN claims the Rambam as support for his non-literal approach is to BEREISHIS.
The Rambam about BEREISHIS give no such support for Slifkin.
If you want to schlep in the Rambam's carefully constructed shita about treating all the incidents involving celestial beings interacting with terrestrial beings as spiritual events (which still literally happened but not in the physical world), you are clearly throwing red herrings.
It is only to distract us from Slifkin's missing support in the Rambam for his approach to creation. (No angels in that story! And only the talking snake in Gan Eden is a similar sort of spiritual experience.)
Yes, let us take his general approach of the Rambam: The fundamentals of Judaism (about the Torah's account of creation, for example) are not to be compromised by any foreign systems of thought.
Puh-leaze! Rambam's fundamentals that were non-negotiable were very, very few. He was even willing to accept a Platonic view of an eternal universe, if it were to have been proven! He certainly wouldn't have had any problem with modern science, which does not contravene any of the 12 fundamentals.
Why don't you list the cases where Rambam feels that the Greeks proved something, but we have to reject it because it contradicts a fundamental. There isn't a single example.
What do you mean by "proved"? Slifkin isn't discussing things that have actually been proven! Slifkin is discussing the acceptance of the science of the time to re-interpret fundamentals. That is the topic at hand.
The Rambam rejected many conclusions of the intellectual trends of his time, -Greek and Moslem- when they contravened Torah principles.
To list all of them is a project that will take time to track down.
I seem to recall off-hand that the issues of free-will and providence was one of them. The issue of origins of the universe is another one.
In case you doubt the Rambam treated general issues of origin described as true historical events in the Torah as fundamental (not just creation ex-nihilo per se) Please note the following quotes from the
Moreh III:50:
It is one of the fundamental principles of the Law that the Universe has been created ex nihilo, and that of the human race, one individual being, Adam, was created. As the time which elapsed from Adam to Moses was not more than about two thousand five hundred years, people would have doubted the truth of that statement if no other information had been added, seeing that the human race was spread over all parts of the earth in different families and with different languages, very unlike the one to the other. In order to remove this doubt the Law gives the genealogy of the nations (Gen. v. and x.), and the manner how they branched off from a common root. It names those of them who were well known, and tells who their fathers were, how long and where they lived. It describes also the cause that led to the dispersion of men over all parts of the earth, and to the formation of their different languages, after they had lived for a long time in one place, and spoken one language (ibid. xi.), as would be natural for descendants of one person. The accounts of the flood (ibid. vi.-viii.) and of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (ibid. xix.), serve as an illustration of the doctrine that "Verily there is a reward for the righteous; verily He is a God that judgeth in the earth" (Ps. lviii. 12).]
Slifkin has accepted modern scholarship in the fields of biology, geology, archeology and anthropology to deny the historicity of the Torah's account that the Rambam took absolutely literally as a fundamental.
The Rambam rejected many conclusions of the intellectual trends of his time, -Greek and Moslem- when they contravened Torah principles.
Right but only when they are not proven or violated a fundamental of our religion.
It is one of the fundamental principles of the Law that the Universe has been created ex nihilo, and that of the human race, one individual being, Adam, was created.
Does the Rambam include these in his list in the Perush Ha'Mishnayos? I know the Guide was written later, but something so fundamental should have made it into some rendering of the Ikkarim.
Also, is Slifkin obligated to agree with the Rambam's belief of what is fundamental? In II:XXV the Rambam argues that he would willing to countenance Aristotle's position on the eternity of the universe if it was sufficiently proven and did not go against a fundamental of our religion. An eternal universe with eternal fixed laws, would deny the possibility of miracles and even revelation itself. Surely revelation and miracles are fundamental to Judaism. But is the belief that a single man was created a few thousands years ago fundamental? It's possible the Rambam believed as much, but we don't have to accept his philosophical conclusions, but only his method.
Please don't clam to be following the Rambam! It makes you look so transparently two-faced!
I don't see that at all. Following someone's approach does not require supporting his conclusions.
Right but only when they are not proven or violated a fundamental of our religion.
Naphtali, I think that you mean "and" not "or."
But is the belief that a single man was created a few thousands years ago fundamental?
Naphtali, you're absolutely correct. Of course it isn't fundamental; Rambam only presented it as a way (the only way, in his time) to get to creation ex nihilo.
Slifkin isn't discussing things that have actually been proven! - FKM
Of course, a very lot of people who are actually qualified in these topics (unlike FKM) - in fact pretty much EVERYONE who is actually qualified in these topics - would consider that these things are very much proven. So FKM is really making himself sound quite silly.
And D is making himself sound quite superficial by not thinking through how the Rambam's APPROACH to origin issues II:17 dismantles the all the basic operating principles of "all the people qualified in these topics".
He just can't think outside of the materialistic box and see the view of creation from the vantage point of his own religion.
A real tinok shenishba.
And D is making himself sound quite superficial by not thinking through how the Rambam's APPROACH to origin issues II:17 dismantles the all the basic operating principles of "all the people qualified in these topics".
How does it do that?
From Here:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/.../gfp/
gfp104.htm
Moreh II:17
“It is therefore quite impossible to infer from the nature which a thing possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the condition of the thing has been in the moment when this process commenced; nor does the condition of a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually existing, you will fall into great confusion: you win reject evident truths and admit false opinions...
If philosophers would consider this example well and reflect on it, they would find that it represents exactly the dispute between Aristotle and ourselves. We, the followers of Moses, our Teacher, and of Abraham, our Father, believe that the Universe has been produced and has developed in a certain manner, and that it has been created in a certain order. The Aristotelians oppose us, and found their objections on the properties which the things in the Universe possess when in actual existence and fully developed. We admit the existence of these properties, but hold that they are by no means the same as those which the things possessed in the moment of their production; and we hold that these properties themselves have come into existence from absolute non-existence. Their arguments are therefore no objection whatever to our theory...
I will now return to our theme, viz., to the description of the principal proofs of Aristotle, and show that they prove nothing whatever against us, since we hold that God brought the entire Universe into existence from absolute non-existence, and that He caused it to develop into the present state.
Aristotle says that the materia prima is eternal, and by referring to the properties of transient beings he attempts to prove this statement, and to show that the materia prima could not possibly have been produced. He is right; we do not maintain that the materia prima has been produced in the same manner as man is produced from the ovum, and that it can be destroyed in the same manner as man is reduced to dust. But we believe that God created it from nothing, and that since its creation it has its own properties...
In short, the properties of things when fully developed contain no clue as to what have been the properties of the things before their perfection…This … is a high rampart erected round the Torah, and able to resist all missiles
directed against it. … In attempting to prove the inadmissibility of Creatio ex nihilo, the Aristotelians can therefore not derive any support from the nature of the Universe.”
[The identical argument of the Rambam can be made to deny the validity of ALL lines of evidence that support the modern origin sciences that contradict the meta-natural description of creation via mesorah.]
FKM, R' Slifkin neatly destroys that argument on page 147 of the Challenge of Creation (he's not destroying Rambam's argument, but rather the application of it to this case).
IIRC, he simply hand-waves it away because he is trying to imagine what meta-natural creation should look like through scientific instruments, and scientists simply don't detect "it". It's pitiful.
If that isn't what he says there (he said it somewhere, I'm sure), give me more details to refresh my memory.
Why don't you look it up?
And what do you say that meta-natural creation should or should not look like? (Don't say "we have no way of knowing", that's such a cop out. How many cycles of seasons were there in creation, less than one or many millions?)
"why don't you look it up?"
My copy is on loan at the moment. I told you my response. Saying we don't have enough information from the mesorah to describe the physical world before the seventh day is not a cop out. It's an honest admission of ignorance.
Science is too full of itself to keep itself from venturing hypotheses about which it can know nothing about.
I don't see why a Jew should buy into such hubris.
Amazing how these scientists, who know nothing, can look at a piece of ground and know exactly what kind of fossils it will and will not contain.
That's after decades of false predictions and of high hopes of finding all the missing links of many chains of descent! Nowadays, they are not even confident of ever finding ONE complete chain since they've been burned so many times.
So yes, painful experience has taught scientists much about what they should expect to find from now on. I never said they were stupid.
You're mixing up different things. Your response to my point, which was that scientists can make many flawless predictions, was that they were wrong many times while they were developing the theory of evolution. So??? The point is that in the already established field of geology, they can make correct predictions.
Which is why your statement:
"Science is too full of itself to keep itself from venturing hypotheses about which it can know nothing about. I don't see why a Jew should buy into such hubris."
Is itself hubris and ignorance of the worst kind.
Amazing how these scientists, who know nothing, can look at a piece of ground and know exactly what kind of fossils it will and will not contain.
Commenting by HaloScan
