I Was Wrong And I'm Sorry

(So was someone else, but he's not)

A little over a week ago, Dr. Slifkin published a post something or other about birds. The topic doesn't interest me, and I only gave it a quick look over. I did not notice anything in there that was hashkaficly problematic (but please don't take my word for it; honestly, I wasn't paying much attention).

One line that did catch my eye read as follows:

"This is similar to the celebrated case of the oven of Achnai, where the objectively correct view - as attested by none other than G-d himself - was overruled in favor of the majority. And the reason for this in turn is that stability is a crucial component of halachic authority."

Now, I don't know all that much about birds, but tanur shel achanai is something I'm familiar with. And, as I read it, Dr. Slifkin's presentation of the sugya's rationale was, quote, "incredibly ridiculous".

The problem should be obvious: the chachamim shouldn't disregard ANY objective evidence when formulating their opinion. The idea that "we must follow the majority for stability" is a downright stupid reason for the MAJORITY THEMSELVES to maintain their position when faced with proof that they were wrong.

And so I called the doctor's interpretation just that: incredibly ridiculous.

Things immediately spun out of control. Despite repeated attempts by myself and others to explain the problem, Dr Slifkin insisted that he had sources (indeed, "everything I say has sources, whether I quote them or not"), and never addressed the actual issue. Eventually, his response was to put up an all-new post advising his readers to pity the "zealots" - i.e. his conservative critics (specifically, me) that just can't handle the fact that chazal could be wrong - who in their firebrand zeal to hunt out his heresies end up denigrating great rishonim like the Ran who says the exact same thing he does. This was all rather silly, because I never called him a heretic (not for this post at least), nor was the issue a hashkafic one at all (nor does the Ran say anything remotely similar to what he does). It was simply that his pshat in the gemara made zero internal sense.

It took about a week, but Doctor Slifkin finally clarified himself. He never meant that the chachamim didn't retract because we must follow the majority to maintain halachic stability. He meant they didn't retract because of the rule of lo bashamayim he, which in turn was established for the purpose of maintaining halachic stability [of a totally different sort]. This should have been obvious, he says, and perhaps it should have. And I therefore apologize. I was wrong, I misinterpreted his words to mean what they say, not what he meant. And I'm sorry.

(His pshat in lo bashamayim does indeed have a possible source in the Chasam Sofer¹, though we're still wondering what on earth the Ran - which was the focus of his second post - has anything to do with it. Additionally, his tzu shtel of this discussion to the case of killing lice remains a figment of his imagination, as already elaborated upon by my dear friend and colleague, whose fear of heaven exceeds his go-luckyness, the silenced but not forgotten Happy. But that is neither here nor there for the purposes of this contrite apology.) 

I immediately posted a retraction on his site, and mentioned that he may want to likewise concede that his entire second post was a hysterical reaction to his completely misunderstanding the point that I and several others were trying to get through to him. Surprisingly, the good doc - who takes great pride in his ability to admit error unlike his obtuse opponents - has yet to acknowledge this suggestion. Ah well, I suppose it's harder to admit error than it is to talk about your ability to admit error.

THE FAR MORE SIGNIFICANT TAKEAWAY

This whole comedy of miscommunication would be an amusing Abbot-and-Costelloesque sideshow, but lost in the shuffle was something far more significant. Namely, how Dr. Slifkin understands the opposition to his ideas.

Slifkin has spent the better part of two decades stridently upholding the ideology of Talmudic fallibility (the position of the "majority of the rishonim", as he gradually convinced himself), in the face of opposition by such radicals as Rav Elyashiv, Rav Moshe Shapiro, and yb'l R' Aharon Feldman. It's no wonder that when called out about this post his mind immediately processed it as a continuation of the same old - "here the conservative opponents go again, insisting Chazal can't make mistakes. Well shtuch, the Ran says that the bas kol proved them to be mistaken about tanur shel achnai. Eat that, zealots".

Step back for a moment. Does he really believe that that's what the opposition is about? Does he really think that those who reject his approach do so because they think tanaim couldn't possibly say a wrong psak? Er, does he think R' Elyashiv never learned mesechtes Horiyus? Or that R' Shapiro was never ma'avir sidra Parshas Vayikra? The possibility of everybody, including Sanhedrin hagadol, making a mistake in psak is rather explicitly affirmed by the Torah itself.

Nor does it have to be. Even if they somehow missed this, the Rabbis who oppose Slifkin were presumably aware that our heritage consists of thousands of disagreements in psak. In each one, somebody is right and somebody is wrong². Does Slifkin believe that all his opponents completely missed this point?

The answer, amazingly, is yes. He has absolutely no idea what the opposition to his worldview is about. And he therefore believes that the sugya in Pesachim 94 somehow proves that everyone from the Rosh to the Maharam Shick agree with him. And that tanur shel achanai demonstrates the zealots to be deserving of nothing but our pity.

Pity the man who has spent twenty years missing the boat.

1. The topic, and the Chasam Sofer's position, is far more nuanced than we are giving credit for here (and certainly than Dr Slifkin gives it). Perhaps in a later post we will try to work through it properly.

2. Eilu v'eilu notwithstanding, someone is clearly mistaken in hashara of what the practical psak should be.