The conclusion is hilarious. "We're different from the heretical rationalists because *in principle*, we are fine with Rashi saying that Og was 500 feet tall, even though in practice we are actually uncomfortable with it."'
It's hilarious he finds this hilarious. Intellectual honesty would dictate admitting you are uncomfortable with something if you are actually uncomfortable with it, but apparently real intellectual honesty is not part of Natan's vocabulary. What's really hilarious is Natan's response to this:
I would wager most rishonim don't hold that Moshe was literally 20 feet tall.
And it was just Moshe, but not Aaron for some reason, right? What about Moshe's children - were they 20 feet tall too? What doesn't the Chumash note anywhere that Moshe inspired fear and terror wherever he went? After all, he was 20 feet tall!! How did Moshe and Aaron share the same staff? It would have been way too short for Moshe. (Can you guess why?)
Ah, forget it . . .
LIKE
REPLY (2)
author
Natan Slifkin
8 hr ago
Author
It was all the Leviim, not just Moshe. See Shabbos 92a.
LIKE
REPLY
author
Natan Slifkin
9 hr ago
Author
Most Sephardic Rishonim probably didn't believe that, but most Ashkenazic Rishonim probably did."
So with zero evidence, he just invents something out of thin air, that most Sephardic Rishonim probably didn't believe that. And here he doesn't even have the excuse that the Sephardic Rishonim were "rationalists" because as he himself admits, there would have been no reason for rationalists to disbelieve this. So he is just making stuff up for no reason, for the sake of making stuff up.
This comment demonstrates the danger of elitism. R Slifkin is a fellow Orthodox Jew who has written and published numerous treatises on Torah and has a museum which is dedicated to Torah education, yet he doesn't have the "actual truth" or "actual closeness to HKBH" by your own lights."
"
David Ohsie
1 hr ago
What does this have to do with the Chazon Ish? You were comparing his experience to your own and others in Yeshivah, not to that of the Chazon Ish.
You say Orthodox Jews should be believe that they have *the Truth*? Think about the implications of that given that each person's judgment will differ from the other. Book bans and all the rest.
Also, that is completely incompatible with the Daas Torah doctrine (which obviously I don't agree with)."
David Ohsie is very worried about Yeshiva elitism. He is very worried that yeshiva people believe they have access to the truth. He is very worried that Orthodox Jews believe they have access to the truth. One question for David Ohsie. Does he believe he has access to the truth compared to flat-earthers? Compared to anti-vaxxers? Compared to racists? One thing is for sure, secularists are very selective in their complaints about elitism!
Also, he writes that Slifkin is an Orthodox Jew. By any normal definition, he is not, since he is a kofer. Slifkin has written numerous treatises on "Torah" the same way the pope has. He has a museum dedicated to entertainment, given what an am ha'aretz he is, I doubt there is any Torah education going on (maybe he has workers who are more knowledgeable in Torah than he is).
RNS convincingly shows various approaches by respected Torah scholars that may not fit in with the approach you learned in yeshivah.. It's not unusual to discover that there are respected Torah scholars who are not aware of different approaches in Torah learning that were accepted by other respected Torah scholars."
He doesn't actually do that. He shows nonsense from ignoramuses like himself and Eric Lawee.
Having the warm feeling your are getting messages about God's will and actually having some special understanding of God's will are two very different things. I also have a hard time believe that sitting in Yeshiva in in the 21st century is going to give you some special sense not available to the prior sages which is going to let you know who was right. You are right that when you are in Yeshiva the message you get is that you are part of an elite with special access to the truth while the hoi polloi are doing their best to support your learning to get a share in Olam Haba. But that feeling of self-importance should not be confused with any privileged status when it comes to the actual truth."
I will focus focus on the last part of his comment "You are right that when you are in Yeshiva the message you get is that you are part of an elite with special access to the truth while the hoi polloi are doing their best to support your learning to get a share in Olam Haba." Well, that message is true. In yeshiva, you are getting special access to the truth. The ultimate Truth. In university, you'll get access to some mathematics if you're lucky. In the workplace, a whole lot of sheker. And on Rationalist Judaism, nothing but sheker. So yeah, I think the yeshiva guys and Bnei Torah deserve some nice pats on the back.
"But that feeling of self-importance should not be confused with any privileged status when it comes to the actual truth." Again, he says the truth word. As if the truth concerns these people, despite never giving the impression that they care about truth at all. In any case, I heard that according to modern pshychology self-esteem is very important, and we should definitely encourage yeshivaleit to feel that what they are doing is tremendously important.
I think that Slifkin is actually partially correct on this one, but not for the reasons he writes.
There is a difference between paskening like one rishon over another when it comes to Halacha, and when it comes to something that happened. When there is a machlokes in pesak, we say about both sides אלו ואלו דברי ה' חיים, both sides are correct, but we can only act on one of them.
When it comes to something that happened, it is harder to say that. The Rambam says that the 3 malachim coming to Avraham happened in a vision. The Ramban argues strongly with this. The generally accepted 'mehalech' , as far as I know, is like the Ramban. We understand that the 3 angels appeared in a physical form to Avraham. When we do that, we are implicitly saying that the Rambam;s understanding of that event did not happen! We actually do reject the Rambam's view on this!
When it comes to kishuf and sheidim, the machlokes between Rambam and others, was how did a particular event happen. Were the Egyptians really able to turn water into blood or was it sleight of hand? The Rambam maintains that they could not really turn water into blood, others maintain that they could. This is a machlokes as to what actually happened. When we go with the view that they could turn the water into blood, we reject the Rambam's view that says that says they could not.
The reason why we reject the Rambam's view on this, is not because we like Rashi better (as Slifkin maintains), but because the Rambam is a minority opinion on this. Far be it for us little folk to have the audacity to reject the Rambam on anything!! His view was rejected by the Rishonim, and that is why we too reject it. The Ramban argues on him. The Rashba argues on him (עיין שו"ת רשב"א חלק א סי' תי"ג). The mekubalim argues on this. The Rambam is a minority opinion on this, and that is why it is rejected.
Similarly, when it comes to getting money for learning in Kolel. The Rambam forbids this. However, most other rishonim who speak about this, do not follow this opinion. The Tashbetz (shu"t 142 - 148) argues strongly with this, and he cites many early authorities who argue with the Rambam on this. The Rambam himself (peirush hamishna avos 4:5) acknowledges that most Rabonim disagree with him. The kesef mishna writes that since even before the Rambam, the accepted opinion was to accept money. In other words, the Rambam is a minority opinion on this, and we don't pasken like him. Since this is a machlokes in pesak, we don't reject the Rambam's view on this. We say that we don't pasken like him. That is all. This is not a rejection, this is no different then when the Rambam speaks about chalita (Hilchos Maacholim Asurim perek 6 halacha 10), we simply do not pasken like him. It is not a matter of rejecting, it is a matter of not paskening like that.
There were those who burned the books of the Rambam because they believed his books to be heretical. We don't find such things about Rashi. No one (as far as I have seen) burned the books of Rashi because they were heretical. Again, not because people liked Rashi better, but because they actually felt the Rambam's works to be heretical.
In short, when it comes to paskening halacha (chalita, kolel), we don't say that we reject the Rambam, we say that we don't pasken like him. When it comes to things like sheidim and kishuf, one can make a case that we do reject the Rambam's view. It is ot us little folk who do this, there is a long tradition of rejecting this view. Slifkin is partially right, we do reject some of the Rambam's opinions. But this is only because the rishonim themselves rejected this view.
The Rambam was less of a minority than you think regarding kishuf, with some of the Geonim agreeing with him. However, as R' Feldman, and our resident Dovid Granik, and plenty of yeshivalite will you tell you, we reject the Rambam on this because the Arizal, Gra, and the like said it's wrong. Case closed.
I am aware that the Rambam was not the only one who said this. I still maintain that his view was a minority view. The Ramban and Rashba (among others) explicitly rejected it. The Radak struggles to explain the incident in sefer Shemuel with Shaul and the Ov practitioner according to this view. This was long before the Arizal and the Gra. The Gra specifically mentions that the Rambam was rejected "by all those who came after him", because this does not fit with many gemaras and chazal statements. This Rambam was rejected long before the Gra came along, and those are the words of the Gra.
I assume you are referring to the oft repeated idea that there is no pesak in halacha.
This idea is incorrect.
When someone is declared a kofer, we may not eat from their shechita, nor may we drink their wine. We need a clear definition of what a 'kofer' is, and that is why the Rambam provides us with clear definitions. When there is a machlokes, we need a pesak because we need to know if this person's wine and shechita are kosher. There is a clear pesak in this matter.
Yes, but the fact that he was a minority opinion doesn't make him *wrong* about a historical fact; at most it makes his view less likely. The only way we "know" that he's wrong is that the kabbalists, speaking from received Divine wisdom, said so.
We can "know" he's wrong from the many stories from the Gemara about kishuf and especially sheidim, it's extremely difficult if not impossible to "reinterpret" all those Gemaras in which the Tannaim and Amoraim testified many times to seeing it with their own eyes. Which is exactly the Gra's point. On the other hand we have the Rambam saying it's impossible cuz philosophers "proved" it.
Reading your comment again, it seems like an astonishing take. Are you in the habit of knowing that some Rishonim are wrong based on how others read the Gemara. You're machria whose read is correct?
The Rambam says he i arguing with Chazal. The "mekubalim" show that Chazal were right. We don't just accept thembecause of the 'divine wisdom' but because our shas is correct acc. to them. That's a strong reason, not just a side point.
Yeah, but the Rambam had his own approach to those Gemaras and we wouldn't be inclined to think (better yet "know") that the Gra's reading is better than the Rambam's (although it's obviously simpler). The only way we can "know" he's wrong is if we somehow have access to knowledge didn't have - i.e., kabbalah.
What approach? What reading? I would be glad to see an actual concrete, comprehensive approach that explains all those Gemaras. Did the Rambam ever write one?
It's not me, it's the Gra and everybody who goes like that. I wouldn't say it myself because I'm not comfortable rejecting the Rambam on my own.
Slifkin is partially correct on this one. We do in fact reject the Rambam's view on this. Not because we like Rashi better (as Slifkin maintains), and not because we are irrational idiots incapable of a basic analysis of the sources.
We reject this because this idea has already been rejected by the Rishonim. Those who write about this struggle to fit the Rambam's view with many gemaras and statements of chazal. The mekubalim also strongly rejected this view. That is why we reject it. Not out of favoritism to Rashi or such other Slifkinesque nonsense, but because it has been rejected by most of the great Jewish leaders over the years.
I think Shmuel's point here is that we always go with the majority opinion, but (he holds) our view of the minority opinion is necessarily different when talking about a Machlokes in Halacha (where you could say אלו ואלו), and a Machlokes in Metzius (where you can't)
Slifkin is exactly right that we're comfortable rejecting Rambam's views. Such as: on magic, demons, teva vis vis nissim, corporeal afterlife etc. An extremely common sentiment in contemporary yeshivos is "we're talmidim of the Ramban in these inyanim, not the Rambam," or "the Rambam is like Beis Shammai in these kinds of hashkafos." Have you really never heard that?
We are also comfortable rejecting Rashi's psak in ta'am k'ikkar. Whoopee. Rambam believed in nissim and techias hameisim, the nonsense of the academics notwithstanding.
It's an entire approach to hashkafah, in which the Rambam is בורח from nissim, that the Ramban opposed, that is followed by contemporary yeshivah circles. I don't know what you mean that we don't know what his views on magic, demons, astrology etc. were, but the Gra makes it's extremely simple: He didn't believe in them. It's not a particular perat but an entire constellation of views. Is this a chiddush?
But we don't reject the Rambam's entire approach. I never heard something like that from my mashgiach, to the contrary, the Rambam's hashkafos were quoted often. Maybe there are parts we don't pasken like, but that is not different from not paskening like certain Rashis. The Gra is free to argue on the Rambam of course, just like he argues on other Rishonim.
And then we have Rambam's entire understanding Maaseh Bereishis and Maaseh Merkavah, limitations on Chazal's wisdom and the like, which, according to R' Aharon Feldman has been conclusively disproven by the Arizal. (He's talking about R' Avraham beno, although I don't know if R' Feldman realized that it's really the Rambam who has been "disproven.")
That Maaseh Bereishis and Maaseh Merkavah is old Kabbalah stuff, R' Aharon Feldman didn't invent it. I didn't mean to deny that there are aspects of the Rambam that we don't go like, both in halacha and hashkafa- like I mention in the post. But that I doubt we feel comfortable simply arguing with him *ourselves* in a way we wouldn't do with other Rashi or other Rishonim.
In any case, your comments were valuable and I edited the post.
Because they though he was an actual kofer, like they thought he rejected techiyas hameisim. Do we think the Rambam was a kofer? Do we burn his seforim?
And Happy and his mates (Kornreich and co) would have been up there burning the books. With a brochoh probably. Only they would not have linked the burning of the shas as retribution for the burning of the Rambam.
I'm not sure what large swathes is. You can say the same thing about Rashi, there are larges swathes of Rashi we "reject", just not about exciting flashy subjects like magic and demons. We do accept a great deal of the Rambam's "rationalism". I don't see how we are more comfortable rejecting the Rambam, sorry.
(I'm not really interested in going through this again, but I'm pathetically unable to help myself - the Rambam seemed to believe in demons the same way he believed in angels - on the spiritual plane. But it seems you're not wrong about the rest)
I'll try to locate the thread where I argued over this with Rrkz and others... The Rambam about Adam harishon's sheidim were along those lines but seemingly not his main view
You should write a thesis on 'classic charedi responses.' You could have a section on whatabouttery, on deflection, etc. You could even include an addendum detailing various charedi kugel fressing habits.
Meanwhile, everyone else on this blog will be able to actually have a discussion about the topic at hand. Win-win.
Jumping in late here - there is a difference between Rashi and the Rambam, besides that we don't say 'the' before Rashi (what's with that?), Rashi meticulously followed the mesorah. If he quotes a 'strange' Midrah, but it's literally from the mesorah, as opposed to the Rambam who disagrees with the Mesorah from time to time. (Even if he is disagreeing as an overcompensation for his agreeing and explaining.) Turns out he got some things wrong. Why should we teach kids wrong ideas?
But yes, these rationalists adore the Rambam because he was willing to be 'anti.' I'm not sure why anti is good if he was wrong though. Wouldn't everyone want to be less wrong?
Why teach a kid that the Malachim of Avraham Avinu weren't in the physical world at all if they were somewhat? Same way even the Rambam agrees not to teach kids that Gehinom has to do with a non-physical affliction (way worse than physical fire) when the kids don't understand non-physical (see hakdama to chelek), we also teach that the Malachim were physical before explaining the nuance of the Ishim. So in Chinuch we teach the physicality and as we grow up we learn about how the world really works, and the Rambam fits right in to 99% of our Mesorah!
Minimizing the prevalence of nissim has plenty of uses for chinuch precisely. When a child begins to be skeptical of nissim supposedly abounding every where, to say, "Hey the Rambam didn't think they were very common," can be extremely helpful.
A child who is skeptical of Nissim usually needs to be reinforced in the other direction actually, but it depends what age and where he is coming from. Introducing the Rambam too early can be very dangerous!
Most people who are following the system aren't questioning that early. And by the time their mind is ripe and they begin, the Rambam isn't even so problematic anymore. But to those who aren't ready to hear that the donkey didn't actually talk, as a completely random example, it can actually lead them to more questioning and can throw off their entire path. It really depends on each kid and his experiences.
Your use was far from clear and I was about to respond under the same understanding as דוד. Nonetheless, "extremely helpful," how? In grooming unbelievers? I can see that.
Personally, I think this emphasis by rationalists on the Rambam downplaying miracles is misconstrued. I say this without having read Moreh Nevuchim (I do have the two-volume University of Chicago English translation I've been meaning to read). They do this about everything. I doubt there is a Rambam exception.
that does matter but even so, careful consideration should be taken before introducing the Rambam. the fact that he is questioning can mean a lot of things. We're probably on the same page here
I must confess I was never aware of the end of that statement of Rashi that he came to say pshat ....and fit agada between the lines, two totally separate things! Thanks!
"With Hashem’s help, sometime in the near future, I will review another piece of academic nonsense from Natan entitled Was Rashi a Corporealist?" Looking forward! That article was a classic! Some people really don't get it: (
btw, Happy, excellent chain of amazing topics recently!!
I have seen excerpts from this article, and Slifkin is way off the mark here. Some articles that you might find helpful in this:
תורה שלמה חלק ט"ז, מילואים ל"ב. The author has a 30+ page writeup about corporeality according to Judaism, and cites many many sources. I did not read it fully to see if he discusses Rashi, but whatever sources we have about corporeality, he does cite. It is helpful as background info.
Slifkin had his article published in the Hakirah journal, there is a back and forth there about it.
important comment. This is why Slifkin and test and Dr Marc will continue to repeat themselves. They genuinely don't understand what we do. And they think we genuinely never question anything.
There is some legitimate question here though. I wonder how many contemporary middling yeshivishe (say ner yisrael types) who claim fealty to yeshivishism, actually believe in magic or astrology. I suspect not all do.
I would say very few don't believe magic ever existed from the group you are talking about, from my own background as well as friends of the group you mention.
What do you mean "other worlds?" The Ramban says we can't ignore the numerous reports of magic (from the far east? I don't recall). That's talking about actual verifiable magic that anyone can see, not a spiritual plane.
Thread about comments from Rationalist Judaism regarding this post:
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/rashis-giants/comment/21002565
"Natan Slifkin
9 hr ago
Author
The conclusion is hilarious. "We're different from the heretical rationalists because *in principle*, we are fine with Rashi saying that Og was 500 feet tall, even though in practice we are actually uncomfortable with it."'
It's hilarious he finds this hilarious. Intellectual honesty would dictate admitting you are uncomfortable with something if you are actually uncomfortable with it, but apparently real intellectual honesty is not part of Natan's vocabulary. What's really hilarious is Natan's response to this:
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/rashis-giants/comment/21000388
"Weaver
11 hr ago
I would wager most rishonim don't hold that Moshe was literally 20 feet tall.
And it was just Moshe, but not Aaron for some reason, right? What about Moshe's children - were they 20 feet tall too? What doesn't the Chumash note anywhere that Moshe inspired fear and terror wherever he went? After all, he was 20 feet tall!! How did Moshe and Aaron share the same staff? It would have been way too short for Moshe. (Can you guess why?)
Ah, forget it . . .
LIKE
REPLY (2)
author
Natan Slifkin
8 hr ago
Author
It was all the Leviim, not just Moshe. See Shabbos 92a.
LIKE
REPLY
author
Natan Slifkin
9 hr ago
Author
Most Sephardic Rishonim probably didn't believe that, but most Ashkenazic Rishonim probably did."
So with zero evidence, he just invents something out of thin air, that most Sephardic Rishonim probably didn't believe that. And here he doesn't even have the excuse that the Sephardic Rishonim were "rationalists" because as he himself admits, there would have been no reason for rationalists to disbelieve this. So he is just making stuff up for no reason, for the sake of making stuff up.
More from apologist for homosexuality David Ohsie
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/rashis-giants/comment/21051872
David Ohsie
9 hr ago
This comment demonstrates the danger of elitism. R Slifkin is a fellow Orthodox Jew who has written and published numerous treatises on Torah and has a museum which is dedicated to Torah education, yet he doesn't have the "actual truth" or "actual closeness to HKBH" by your own lights."
"
David Ohsie
1 hr ago
What does this have to do with the Chazon Ish? You were comparing his experience to your own and others in Yeshivah, not to that of the Chazon Ish.
You say Orthodox Jews should be believe that they have *the Truth*? Think about the implications of that given that each person's judgment will differ from the other. Book bans and all the rest.
Also, that is completely incompatible with the Daas Torah doctrine (which obviously I don't agree with)."
David Ohsie is very worried about Yeshiva elitism. He is very worried that yeshiva people believe they have access to the truth. He is very worried that Orthodox Jews believe they have access to the truth. One question for David Ohsie. Does he believe he has access to the truth compared to flat-earthers? Compared to anti-vaxxers? Compared to racists? One thing is for sure, secularists are very selective in their complaints about elitism!
Also, he writes that Slifkin is an Orthodox Jew. By any normal definition, he is not, since he is a kofer. Slifkin has written numerous treatises on "Torah" the same way the pope has. He has a museum dedicated to entertainment, given what an am ha'aretz he is, I doubt there is any Torah education going on (maybe he has workers who are more knowledgeable in Torah than he is).
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/rashis-giants/comment/20959590
Yekutiel Weiss
Jul 18
RNS convincingly shows various approaches by respected Torah scholars that may not fit in with the approach you learned in yeshivah.. It's not unusual to discover that there are respected Torah scholars who are not aware of different approaches in Torah learning that were accepted by other respected Torah scholars."
He doesn't actually do that. He shows nonsense from ignoramuses like himself and Eric Lawee.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/rashis-giants/comment/21031961
"David Ohsie
2 hr ago
Liked by Natan Slifkin
Having the warm feeling your are getting messages about God's will and actually having some special understanding of God's will are two very different things. I also have a hard time believe that sitting in Yeshiva in in the 21st century is going to give you some special sense not available to the prior sages which is going to let you know who was right. You are right that when you are in Yeshiva the message you get is that you are part of an elite with special access to the truth while the hoi polloi are doing their best to support your learning to get a share in Olam Haba. But that feeling of self-importance should not be confused with any privileged status when it comes to the actual truth."
I will focus focus on the last part of his comment "You are right that when you are in Yeshiva the message you get is that you are part of an elite with special access to the truth while the hoi polloi are doing their best to support your learning to get a share in Olam Haba." Well, that message is true. In yeshiva, you are getting special access to the truth. The ultimate Truth. In university, you'll get access to some mathematics if you're lucky. In the workplace, a whole lot of sheker. And on Rationalist Judaism, nothing but sheker. So yeah, I think the yeshiva guys and Bnei Torah deserve some nice pats on the back.
"But that feeling of self-importance should not be confused with any privileged status when it comes to the actual truth." Again, he says the truth word. As if the truth concerns these people, despite never giving the impression that they care about truth at all. In any case, I heard that according to modern pshychology self-esteem is very important, and we should definitely encourage yeshivaleit to feel that what they are doing is tremendously important.
Modern psychology?
Intellectual honesty would recognise non sensicle word salads.
I think that Slifkin is actually partially correct on this one, but not for the reasons he writes.
There is a difference between paskening like one rishon over another when it comes to Halacha, and when it comes to something that happened. When there is a machlokes in pesak, we say about both sides אלו ואלו דברי ה' חיים, both sides are correct, but we can only act on one of them.
When it comes to something that happened, it is harder to say that. The Rambam says that the 3 malachim coming to Avraham happened in a vision. The Ramban argues strongly with this. The generally accepted 'mehalech' , as far as I know, is like the Ramban. We understand that the 3 angels appeared in a physical form to Avraham. When we do that, we are implicitly saying that the Rambam;s understanding of that event did not happen! We actually do reject the Rambam's view on this!
When it comes to kishuf and sheidim, the machlokes between Rambam and others, was how did a particular event happen. Were the Egyptians really able to turn water into blood or was it sleight of hand? The Rambam maintains that they could not really turn water into blood, others maintain that they could. This is a machlokes as to what actually happened. When we go with the view that they could turn the water into blood, we reject the Rambam's view that says that says they could not.
The reason why we reject the Rambam's view on this, is not because we like Rashi better (as Slifkin maintains), but because the Rambam is a minority opinion on this. Far be it for us little folk to have the audacity to reject the Rambam on anything!! His view was rejected by the Rishonim, and that is why we too reject it. The Ramban argues on him. The Rashba argues on him (עיין שו"ת רשב"א חלק א סי' תי"ג). The mekubalim argues on this. The Rambam is a minority opinion on this, and that is why it is rejected.
Similarly, when it comes to getting money for learning in Kolel. The Rambam forbids this. However, most other rishonim who speak about this, do not follow this opinion. The Tashbetz (shu"t 142 - 148) argues strongly with this, and he cites many early authorities who argue with the Rambam on this. The Rambam himself (peirush hamishna avos 4:5) acknowledges that most Rabonim disagree with him. The kesef mishna writes that since even before the Rambam, the accepted opinion was to accept money. In other words, the Rambam is a minority opinion on this, and we don't pasken like him. Since this is a machlokes in pesak, we don't reject the Rambam's view on this. We say that we don't pasken like him. That is all. This is not a rejection, this is no different then when the Rambam speaks about chalita (Hilchos Maacholim Asurim perek 6 halacha 10), we simply do not pasken like him. It is not a matter of rejecting, it is a matter of not paskening like that.
There were those who burned the books of the Rambam because they believed his books to be heretical. We don't find such things about Rashi. No one (as far as I have seen) burned the books of Rashi because they were heretical. Again, not because people liked Rashi better, but because they actually felt the Rambam's works to be heretical.
In short, when it comes to paskening halacha (chalita, kolel), we don't say that we reject the Rambam, we say that we don't pasken like him. When it comes to things like sheidim and kishuf, one can make a case that we do reject the Rambam's view. It is ot us little folk who do this, there is a long tradition of rejecting this view. Slifkin is partially right, we do reject some of the Rambam's opinions. But this is only because the rishonim themselves rejected this view.
The Rambam was less of a minority than you think regarding kishuf, with some of the Geonim agreeing with him. However, as R' Feldman, and our resident Dovid Granik, and plenty of yeshivalite will you tell you, we reject the Rambam on this because the Arizal, Gra, and the like said it's wrong. Case closed.
I am aware that the Rambam was not the only one who said this. I still maintain that his view was a minority view. The Ramban and Rashba (among others) explicitly rejected it. The Radak struggles to explain the incident in sefer Shemuel with Shaul and the Ov practitioner according to this view. This was long before the Arizal and the Gra. The Gra specifically mentions that the Rambam was rejected "by all those who came after him", because this does not fit with many gemaras and chazal statements. This Rambam was rejected long before the Gra came along, and those are the words of the Gra.
Theres no psak in these mattters so we can take the Rambams side even if others at the time didnt.
I assume you are referring to the oft repeated idea that there is no pesak in halacha.
This idea is incorrect.
When someone is declared a kofer, we may not eat from their shechita, nor may we drink their wine. We need a clear definition of what a 'kofer' is, and that is why the Rambam provides us with clear definitions. When there is a machlokes, we need a pesak because we need to know if this person's wine and shechita are kosher. There is a clear pesak in this matter.
The 13 ikarei emunah are pesak. Besides for that, not really.
Yes, but the fact that he was a minority opinion doesn't make him *wrong* about a historical fact; at most it makes his view less likely. The only way we "know" that he's wrong is that the kabbalists, speaking from received Divine wisdom, said so.
We can "know" he's wrong from the many stories from the Gemara about kishuf and especially sheidim, it's extremely difficult if not impossible to "reinterpret" all those Gemaras in which the Tannaim and Amoraim testified many times to seeing it with their own eyes. Which is exactly the Gra's point. On the other hand we have the Rambam saying it's impossible cuz philosophers "proved" it.
Reading your comment again, it seems like an astonishing take. Are you in the habit of knowing that some Rishonim are wrong based on how others read the Gemara. You're machria whose read is correct?
The Rambam says he i arguing with Chazal. The "mekubalim" show that Chazal were right. We don't just accept thembecause of the 'divine wisdom' but because our shas is correct acc. to them. That's a strong reason, not just a side point.
"which the Tannaim and Amoraim testified many times to seeing it with their own eyes."
As per his son. he interpreted it as seen in a dream.
Maybe that works for some, but I doubt it works for most of them. For example. פסחים קיא ע"א
אביי הוה שקיל ואזיל, ואזיל רב פפא מימיניה ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע משמאליה, חזייה לההוא קטב מרירי דקא אתי לאפיה דשמאליה,
אהדרא לרב פפא לשמאליה, ולרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לימיניה.
אמר ליה רב פפא: אנא מאי שנא דלא חשש לי? אמר ליה את שעתא קיימת לך
Yeah, but the Rambam had his own approach to those Gemaras and we wouldn't be inclined to think (better yet "know") that the Gra's reading is better than the Rambam's (although it's obviously simpler). The only way we can "know" he's wrong is if we somehow have access to knowledge didn't have - i.e., kabbalah.
What approach? What reading? I would be glad to see an actual concrete, comprehensive approach that explains all those Gemaras. Did the Rambam ever write one?
It's not me, it's the Gra and everybody who goes like that. I wouldn't say it myself because I'm not comfortable rejecting the Rambam on my own.
Slifkin is partially correct on this one. We do in fact reject the Rambam's view on this. Not because we like Rashi better (as Slifkin maintains), and not because we are irrational idiots incapable of a basic analysis of the sources.
We reject this because this idea has already been rejected by the Rishonim. Those who write about this struggle to fit the Rambam's view with many gemaras and statements of chazal. The mekubalim also strongly rejected this view. That is why we reject it. Not out of favoritism to Rashi or such other Slifkinesque nonsense, but because it has been rejected by most of the great Jewish leaders over the years.
I think Shmuel's point here is that we always go with the majority opinion, but (he holds) our view of the minority opinion is necessarily different when talking about a Machlokes in Halacha (where you could say אלו ואלו), and a Machlokes in Metzius (where you can't)
Slifkin is exactly right that we're comfortable rejecting Rambam's views. Such as: on magic, demons, teva vis vis nissim, corporeal afterlife etc. An extremely common sentiment in contemporary yeshivos is "we're talmidim of the Ramban in these inyanim, not the Rambam," or "the Rambam is like Beis Shammai in these kinds of hashkafos." Have you really never heard that?
We are also comfortable rejecting Rashi's psak in ta'am k'ikkar. Whoopee. Rambam believed in nissim and techias hameisim, the nonsense of the academics notwithstanding.
It's also not true that we are comfortable rejecting Rambam's views, most people don't know exactly what Rambam's views on magic and demon's were.
It's an entire approach to hashkafah, in which the Rambam is בורח from nissim, that the Ramban opposed, that is followed by contemporary yeshivah circles. I don't know what you mean that we don't know what his views on magic, demons, astrology etc. were, but the Gra makes it's extremely simple: He didn't believe in them. It's not a particular perat but an entire constellation of views. Is this a chiddush?
But we don't reject the Rambam's entire approach. I never heard something like that from my mashgiach, to the contrary, the Rambam's hashkafos were quoted often. Maybe there are parts we don't pasken like, but that is not different from not paskening like certain Rashis. The Gra is free to argue on the Rambam of course, just like he argues on other Rishonim.
And then we have Rambam's entire understanding Maaseh Bereishis and Maaseh Merkavah, limitations on Chazal's wisdom and the like, which, according to R' Aharon Feldman has been conclusively disproven by the Arizal. (He's talking about R' Avraham beno, although I don't know if R' Feldman realized that it's really the Rambam who has been "disproven.")
That Maaseh Bereishis and Maaseh Merkavah is old Kabbalah stuff, R' Aharon Feldman didn't invent it. I didn't mean to deny that there are aspects of the Rambam that we don't go like, both in halacha and hashkafa- like I mention in the post. But that I doubt we feel comfortable simply arguing with him *ourselves* in a way we wouldn't do with other Rashi or other Rishonim.
In any case, your comments were valuable and I edited the post.
How did the Arizal disprove the Rambam? Seems like a מחלוקת like any other
There is a reason why there were burnings of the Moreh but not of Rashi, no?
Because they though he was an actual kofer, like they thought he rejected techiyas hameisim. Do we think the Rambam was a kofer? Do we burn his seforim?
And Happy and his mates (Kornreich and co) would have been up there burning the books. With a brochoh probably. Only they would not have linked the burning of the shas as retribution for the burning of the Rambam.
"entire approach," we don't reject, but large swathes, yes. Slifkin didn't say "entire approach," did he?
I'm not sure what large swathes is. You can say the same thing about Rashi, there are larges swathes of Rashi we "reject", just not about exciting flashy subjects like magic and demons. We do accept a great deal of the Rambam's "rationalism". I don't see how we are more comfortable rejecting the Rambam, sorry.
(I'm not really interested in going through this again, but I'm pathetically unable to help myself - the Rambam seemed to believe in demons the same way he believed in angels - on the spiritual plane. But it seems you're not wrong about the rest)
1. I wasn't commenting on whether the Rambam believed in them or not, but that's the Gra's position.
2. The Rambam's accounting for demons in MN is "unformed" humans, and that is very much on the physical plane (and of course nothing like "demons").
I'll try to locate the thread where I argued over this with Rrkz and others... The Rambam about Adam harishon's sheidim were along those lines but seemingly not his main view
Classic deflection.
PS The Gaon vehemently rejected the Rambam too.
You should write a thesis on 'classic charedi responses.' You could have a section on whatabouttery, on deflection, etc. You could even include an addendum detailing various charedi kugel fressing habits.
Meanwhile, everyone else on this blog will be able to actually have a discussion about the topic at hand. Win-win.
Do not forget hottest mikveh bodies. One of the few areas that I would differ to Test's scholarship.
lol
Jumping in late here - there is a difference between Rashi and the Rambam, besides that we don't say 'the' before Rashi (what's with that?), Rashi meticulously followed the mesorah. If he quotes a 'strange' Midrah, but it's literally from the mesorah, as opposed to the Rambam who disagrees with the Mesorah from time to time. (Even if he is disagreeing as an overcompensation for his agreeing and explaining.) Turns out he got some things wrong. Why should we teach kids wrong ideas?
But yes, these rationalists adore the Rambam because he was willing to be 'anti.' I'm not sure why anti is good if he was wrong though. Wouldn't everyone want to be less wrong?
Why teach a kid that the Malachim of Avraham Avinu weren't in the physical world at all if they were somewhat? Same way even the Rambam agrees not to teach kids that Gehinom has to do with a non-physical affliction (way worse than physical fire) when the kids don't understand non-physical (see hakdama to chelek), we also teach that the Malachim were physical before explaining the nuance of the Ishim. So in Chinuch we teach the physicality and as we grow up we learn about how the world really works, and the Rambam fits right in to 99% of our Mesorah!
Minimizing the prevalence of nissim has plenty of uses for chinuch precisely. When a child begins to be skeptical of nissim supposedly abounding every where, to say, "Hey the Rambam didn't think they were very common," can be extremely helpful.
There is both nature and nurture. Still, IMHO, skepticism is largely taught, whether intentional or not, in speech or in deed.
A child who is skeptical of Nissim usually needs to be reinforced in the other direction actually, but it depends what age and where he is coming from. Introducing the Rambam too early can be very dangerous!
Most people who are following the system aren't questioning that early. And by the time their mind is ripe and they begin, the Rambam isn't even so problematic anymore. But to those who aren't ready to hear that the donkey didn't actually talk, as a completely random example, it can actually lead them to more questioning and can throw off their entire path. It really depends on each kid and his experiences.
"Child" as in "progeny" not "a very young person."
Your use was far from clear and I was about to respond under the same understanding as דוד. Nonetheless, "extremely helpful," how? In grooming unbelievers? I can see that.
Personally, I think this emphasis by rationalists on the Rambam downplaying miracles is misconstrued. I say this without having read Moreh Nevuchim (I do have the two-volume University of Chicago English translation I've been meaning to read). They do this about everything. I doubt there is a Rambam exception.
that does matter but even so, careful consideration should be taken before introducing the Rambam. the fact that he is questioning can mean a lot of things. We're probably on the same page here
R' Simchah Zissel says what I said explicitly. See Tenuas HaMussar volume beis page 206 and the Rambam he quotes in context.
I must confess I was never aware of the end of that statement of Rashi that he came to say pshat ....and fit agada between the lines, two totally separate things! Thanks!
Where exactly is that Rashi?
Bereishis 3:8
Thanks!
"With Hashem’s help, sometime in the near future, I will review another piece of academic nonsense from Natan entitled Was Rashi a Corporealist?" Looking forward! That article was a classic! Some people really don't get it: (
btw, Happy, excellent chain of amazing topics recently!!
I have seen excerpts from this article, and Slifkin is way off the mark here. Some articles that you might find helpful in this:
תורה שלמה חלק ט"ז, מילואים ל"ב. The author has a 30+ page writeup about corporeality according to Judaism, and cites many many sources. I did not read it fully to see if he discusses Rashi, but whatever sources we have about corporeality, he does cite. It is helpful as background info.
Slifkin had his article published in the Hakirah journal, there is a back and forth there about it.
But I'll try to take a look at your מראה מקום, sounds interesting
Of course he was way way way off the mark!!!!! I'm exciting to hear Happy views on that
important comment. This is why Slifkin and test and Dr Marc will continue to repeat themselves. They genuinely don't understand what we do. And they think we genuinely never question anything.
There is some legitimate question here though. I wonder how many contemporary middling yeshivishe (say ner yisrael types) who claim fealty to yeshivishism, actually believe in magic or astrology. I suspect not all do.
I would say very few don't believe magic ever existed from the group you are talking about, from my own background as well as friends of the group you mention.
You are either a sock puppet, troll, or AI.
He probably reports directly to Prigozhin.
Which one? The one described in the West? Or in Russia?
The real one.
The Lakewood types who have learned the Gra probably mostly go with that and understand that they don't understand.
What don't they understand?
what these other worlds are exactly, but they trust that there are
What do you mean "other worlds?" The Ramban says we can't ignore the numerous reports of magic (from the far east? I don't recall). That's talking about actual verifiable magic that anyone can see, not a spiritual plane.
Thanks!