I must say that I don't feel this apology is warranted. I think it is only due to Rationalist Traditionalist's exceptionally excellent Middos that cause him to go well, well beyond לפנים משורת הדין. But his criticism of Natan's statement was completely on the mark. The idea that ignoring the Bas Kol has something to do with this idea of stability (of never changing the halacha) is flat-out-ridiculous, and the comparison to the lice case is as absurd as can be.
Just the past couple of days we had Natan's supporter/friend/proxy here trying to convince me that his incredibly silly post here (https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/lots-of-legs) was reasonable, and that I misrepresented him by saying he thought "Tosafos thought centipedes had asymmetric legs because Aristotle though men have more teeth".
So, no, I don't think an apology is necessary here.
"Just the past couple of days we had Natan's supporter/friend/proxy here trying to convince me that his ... post ...was reasonable, and that I misrepresented him."
referring to me or someone else?
if someone else, no worries. If me, I don't consider myself a "supporter/friend/proxy" of RNS. I don't pay to play on his blog, I've never personally met him, and I certainly don't represent him.
So who am I? I do read his blogs often, have a copy of a few of his books (though not nearly all) - and even have read parts of some of them. And I have communicated with him by email on a few occasions - most recently when I noticed a sculpture at Versailles of a Salamander living in fire. I think he's got a lot of great information and generally great ideas (especially when his focus is on his main expertise), but unfortunately sometimes I feel he gets a little too bogged down on certain topics that I don't see as being particularly interesting - but which tend to result in some of the largest numbers of responsive comments on his blog; so I guess I am in the minority regarding which topics are of greater and lesser interest.
"so I guess I am in the minority regarding which topics are of greater and lesser interest."
No you are not in the minority. The reason why his frequent anti-semitic posts get the most comments, is not because anyone finds them particularly interesting.
I don’t know about “frequent anti-Semitic posts”. I can see how “some” of his posts can be taken that way (at least in a similar way that some statements by R. Mizrachi and R. Avigdor Miller in comments to the prior post might be taken).
More likely however, they’re just more instances of what Jews have a long history of: internal strong statements - brother against brother. Chazal calling each other brainless (yevamot 9) and satan’s bechor (yevamot 16) are some early colorful examples…. But It’s been going on for our entire history. Plus there’s no doubt some regular blogger
click-bait hyperbole thrown in for good measure.
More importantly though, I think your word “frequent” is out of place; as I just said, there may be “some” to which the term anti-Semitic “might” be applicable, but I don’t think “frequent”. Indeed, many of his posts which discuss particular details of Jewish machshava and Halacha - such as “Rashi’s giants”, “The Rabbi who Murders Gedolim” and of course “Duran Duran” (along with many others) tend to be lumped together with those others by many readers and commenters, but are actually quite different and not even close to being anti-charedi or anti-Semitic.
"More likely however, they’re just more instances of what Jews have a long history of: internal strong statements - brother against brother" That's ridiculous. Slifkin has a venomous hatred for anything chareidi. His demented rants can by no measure be excused as "brotherly". A lovely brother would not say that "chassidim in America make their money through cheating the government", for example. (After all, someone told him that in an email. Some award winning research there!).
But I do agree we have a long history of Slifkinesque haters. Even a quick glance at "protocols", is enough to suspect that Natan plagiarizes most of his drivel.
Oh, well. It's a pity. Really annoying situation. Feeding your comments to him on his site and having him respond there while you then respond here has the feel of middle east peace negotiations.
You're nothing until you're banned from RJ (:-). It's our claim to fame. I was banned TWICE (at the old blog, then the new blog; I should be president). Natan liked to boast for years about his free speech bona fides and simple clearly stated rules of the blog. Now we know there are unstated constantly evolving arbitrary rules. The main one being, don't get under his very thin skin.
You're right, I'm actually banned on Astral Codex 10 on substack. (Slate star codex is the Reddit and I haven't been banned there yet, but even Scott Alexander agreed to change the reason for my original ban, so I'm okay with it now)
Well, originally he banned me for being incomprehensible. I am banned for the next hundred years. But he recently agreed to change the reason for my ban from me being incomprehensible to me being annoying.
After some experimenting, I came to the conclusion that he unbanned me, but I am still blocked by the Natan Slifkin account. Banning and blocking are two different things, but it seems if you ban somebody permanently, he will automatically become blocked by your account and still remain blocked even after you unban him, in which case you must unblock him as well in order for him to post on any substack under your account.
Even according to Chasam Sofer, promoting stability does not equal "national acceptance". If it is ultimately G-d's will, in order to promote stability (or any other reason), then we accept that view because it is G-d's will. National acceptance can lead to the exact opposite - it is saying the will of the people can decide halacha even absent G-d's will! It is taking G-d completely out of the equation. That is why Reconstructionist Judaism pushes it. One can deny Torah min Hashamyim or even be a complete atheist and still make a case for following halacha. At least for a non-believer it makes some kind of demented sense. But to believe in Hashem and Toras Hashem and still go with this ridiculous theory is really nuts. That's saying you believe in G-d but you're going to ignore Him because of National Acceptance. I know killing lice is netilas neshama and G-d doesn't want that on Shabbos, but too bad G-d - I've got to promote stability and all that.
Maybe you can't call it absolute kefirah because it doesn't require that the follower be a non-believer - only that he be a complete idiot.
(I'm giving NS the benefit of the doubt that he still believes in G-d and Torah min Hashamyim.)
"Without any knowledge of what exactly in my books was being condemned, my initial response was that if there is anything that is shown to be incorrect, inappropriate, or, God forbid, heretical, I would remove it in future editions of the books. But as far as I was aware, all the significant points in all three books were solidly grounded in reliable sources that are legitimate and appropriate to cite. In addition, I carefully followed proper procedure in having everything checked by many Torah scholars of high standing and possessing expertise with these topics, so that if they would find anything inappropriate, I could change it.
In the many months following the ban, I endeavoured to find out the positions of those that condemned my books, and following is my understanding of their positions and my responses. As I currently understand it, the opponents of my works are levelling four charges (some of my opponents subscribe to several of these charges, others to only one):
Charge #1: It is genuinely heretical to believe that the universe is billions of years old.
Charge #2: It is genuinely heretical to believe that the Sages of the Talmud erred in scientific matters.
Charge #3: The above positions are not actually heretical, but they are not the preferred approach in the yeshivah world and they are dangerous and should be prohibited.
Charge #4: The "tone" of the books is wrong; the author writes without the proper reverence for Torah sages.
Charge #5: The approach is wrong; e.g., the author takes science as a given and makes Torah fit it."
It occurs to me that if I were on the Slifkin defense team, I could easily prove all his opponents completly wrong from the gemara in Bava Kama that says R' Yochanan thought Rav Kahana was sneering at him, when in reality Rav Kahana just had a scar on his lip. See? Chazal *can* make mistakes. (With tragic consequences - Rav Kahana died as a result...)
I'm not aware of any meforshim who explain the gemara differently, ergo - unanimous consensus of rishonim and acharonim for Slifkin and against R' Elyashiv.
I don't know why he limits himself to just a majority of rishonim in Pesachim.
Bottom line: If you have an objection to his worldview, it's probably best to write it up as a standalone post where you develop your own view first and then contrast it to his, rather than being another installment of an ongoing tit-for-tat. It just makes for smoother comparisons, IMHO.
Point taken. But it was not my intention to articulate a comprehensive view on the topic. And for a variety of reasons, I don't plan on doing so. I simply made an observation that arises from this discussion, which I think stands on its own and is eminently pertinent.
Without understanding the objection, you cannot draw parameters to where it applies. Without parameters, proving it wrong with counterexamples is tricky business.
It may not be his fault. But there you have it.
Certainly, things he presents as affecting the discussion are iffy at best. And some are downright ludicrous.
For example, his exhibit a, which is the justification of his constant claim that the majority of rishonim hold like him, is based on a sugya that is essentially a machlokes tanaim, (of which if there's any hachraa in the gemara at all it's to the factually correct answer).
"Without understanding the objection, you cannot draw parameters to where it applies. Without parameters, proving it wrong with counterexamples is tricky business."
I think he understood it. He responded at length at the link which I posted them from. But in general, it's not his responsibility to dig up objections to his own views. It's the responsibility of whoever's doing the condemning to make clear what their objections are.
In this particular case, your objection is that he said something ridiculous. And you spelled that out nice and clearly. I also happen to agree with said objection, but it isn't *by itself* evidence that his entire worldview is crazy or uninformed.
Nobody has a responsibility to do anything. The gedolim weren't offering to debate him on the topic. They were informing those who care about their opinion that their opinion is that his worldview is a wrong approach to learning and appreciating Torah. As a member of said constituency I'm grateful they did. Cuz now I know, and otherwise I might not have. I can live with the residual gray areas and adayin tzaruch iyuns. This is not the only sugya that has those.
NS doesn't either have a "responsibility" to understand their position. But if he wants his claims of having disproved them to be logically meaningful, his counter arguments have to relate to their actual position. If their lack of clarity makes it difficult, that's too bad, but doesn't make irrelevant arguments more meaningful.
That's not to say that the way things went down l'maisa wasn't a fiasco, an avla and a tragedy. From what I know about it, it certainly sounds like it was.
I truly feel terrible for NS on a personal level. And I have no idea how hahu gavra would react in such a situation chv'sh, Hashem should protect us all from nisyonos.
Unfortunately, the fact on the ground now is that he's a machshil harabim.
"They were informing those who care about their opinion that their opinion is that his worldview is a wrong approach to learning and appreciating Torah"
The problem was that they weren't clear about what was wrong with his worldview. It was difficult to even know what they were condemning about his books. Were all 3 heretical? Or only the one regarding evolution? IIRC, R Shmuel Kamentsky gave a haskama to all 3, R Belsky gave only on the hyrax one.
Note that we *still* don't have clear answers to those questions.
"In this particular case, your objection is that he said something ridiculous. And you spelled that out nice and clearly. I also happen to agree with said objection, but it isn't *by itself* evidence that his entire worldview is crazy or uninformed."
I'll take that. We can leave the dismantling of the rest of his worldview in the capable hands of HGLP.
"For example, his exhibit a, which is the justification of his constant claim that the majority of rishonim hold like him, is based on a sugya that is essentially a machlokes tanaim, (of which if there's any hachraa in the gemara at all it's to the factually correct answer)."
I assume you're referring to his monograph on the rakia. If so, he's well aware that the hachraah is like the correct metzius. (Page 10)
The point is not that the hachra was for the correct view (that's why I put that line in parentheses). The point is that Shas reports it as a machlokes. And certainly is not machria the other way. There is no sensible hagdara to the rule of Talmudic infallibility that includes a case where what the Talmud tells you is that there are those who think this is the metziyas and others that think that's the metziyus. Which makes this sugya irrelevant to the discussion.
(I assume that any rishon who contended that the chachmei Yisroel were right, it's because they believed that to be the metziyos. Which may very well be a proof against the rule of rishonic infallibility, but that's a conversation for a different day.)
I remember other charges, particularly that he misconstrued or misstated the positions of others. Rav Dessler comes to mind, because I saw side by side something Natan said about his writings and his writings, and Natan's interpretation of Rav Dessler's words was strained to the breaking point. It was close to 20 years ago and I didn't bookmark it, so you can do your own research. In any case, 20 years of prodigious output has proven that point in spades. Natan has a twisted view of reality and that twisting is reflected in his warped understanding of Chazal and the rabbonim through the ages.
Before I saw what I saw, I protested to my rav about the injustice of it all, and after, I realized they were right and I was wrong.
I think your assertion that when disagreeing in psak one opinion is right and the other wrong should be worded much more carefully. In a case where Rishonim are disputing the mehalech hasugya, psak halacha means that preponderance is given to one side and the tzibbur will follow that ruling by observing that psak and behave accordingly. The opposing psak is not necessarily wrong logically, but may be giving more weight to a contrary opinion that the majority of poskim decide should not be acted upon.
I must say that I don't feel this apology is warranted. I think it is only due to Rationalist Traditionalist's exceptionally excellent Middos that cause him to go well, well beyond לפנים משורת הדין. But his criticism of Natan's statement was completely on the mark. The idea that ignoring the Bas Kol has something to do with this idea of stability (of never changing the halacha) is flat-out-ridiculous, and the comparison to the lice case is as absurd as can be.
Just the past couple of days we had Natan's supporter/friend/proxy here trying to convince me that his incredibly silly post here (https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/lots-of-legs) was reasonable, and that I misrepresented him by saying he thought "Tosafos thought centipedes had asymmetric legs because Aristotle though men have more teeth".
So, no, I don't think an apology is necessary here.
Heavens, don't get me wrong. His statement certainly was imbecillic, just not for the specific reasons I mentioned. And for that I apologize.
As for my midos (modest cough), well, we like them.
"Just the past couple of days we had Natan's supporter/friend/proxy here trying to convince me that his ... post ...was reasonable, and that I misrepresented him."
referring to me or someone else?
if someone else, no worries. If me, I don't consider myself a "supporter/friend/proxy" of RNS. I don't pay to play on his blog, I've never personally met him, and I certainly don't represent him.
So who am I? I do read his blogs often, have a copy of a few of his books (though not nearly all) - and even have read parts of some of them. And I have communicated with him by email on a few occasions - most recently when I noticed a sculpture at Versailles of a Salamander living in fire. I think he's got a lot of great information and generally great ideas (especially when his focus is on his main expertise), but unfortunately sometimes I feel he gets a little too bogged down on certain topics that I don't see as being particularly interesting - but which tend to result in some of the largest numbers of responsive comments on his blog; so I guess I am in the minority regarding which topics are of greater and lesser interest.
Chill, man. He was not talking about you.
gotcha
"so I guess I am in the minority regarding which topics are of greater and lesser interest."
No you are not in the minority. The reason why his frequent anti-semitic posts get the most comments, is not because anyone finds them particularly interesting.
I don’t know about “frequent anti-Semitic posts”. I can see how “some” of his posts can be taken that way (at least in a similar way that some statements by R. Mizrachi and R. Avigdor Miller in comments to the prior post might be taken).
More likely however, they’re just more instances of what Jews have a long history of: internal strong statements - brother against brother. Chazal calling each other brainless (yevamot 9) and satan’s bechor (yevamot 16) are some early colorful examples…. But It’s been going on for our entire history. Plus there’s no doubt some regular blogger
click-bait hyperbole thrown in for good measure.
More importantly though, I think your word “frequent” is out of place; as I just said, there may be “some” to which the term anti-Semitic “might” be applicable, but I don’t think “frequent”. Indeed, many of his posts which discuss particular details of Jewish machshava and Halacha - such as “Rashi’s giants”, “The Rabbi who Murders Gedolim” and of course “Duran Duran” (along with many others) tend to be lumped together with those others by many readers and commenters, but are actually quite different and not even close to being anti-charedi or anti-Semitic.
"More likely however, they’re just more instances of what Jews have a long history of: internal strong statements - brother against brother" That's ridiculous. Slifkin has a venomous hatred for anything chareidi. His demented rants can by no measure be excused as "brotherly". A lovely brother would not say that "chassidim in America make their money through cheating the government", for example. (After all, someone told him that in an email. Some award winning research there!).
But I do agree we have a long history of Slifkinesque haters. Even a quick glance at "protocols", is enough to suspect that Natan plagiarizes most of his drivel.
You are not. We would all benefit if he spoke less about the topics you "don't see as being particularly interesting."
FYI, I clicked the link in your comment, and it indicated that you're no longer banned. (I think the bans expire after a month. https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/the-fox-the-skeptic-and-the-politics/comment/21613461 )
You're the third person to tell me that! Despite the lack of the "banned" strikethrough, I am still banned.
Oh, well. It's a pity. Really annoying situation. Feeding your comments to him on his site and having him respond there while you then respond here has the feel of middle east peace negotiations.
He has commented here on occasion. There's no need.
We can make a club. I'm banned from Slate Star Codex.
You're nothing until you're banned from RJ (:-). It's our claim to fame. I was banned TWICE (at the old blog, then the new blog; I should be president). Natan liked to boast for years about his free speech bona fides and simple clearly stated rules of the blog. Now we know there are unstated constantly evolving arbitrary rules. The main one being, don't get under his very thin skin.
Is this the blog that banned you? https://slatestarcodex.com/ Doesn't sound like it, because it's defunct.
You're right, I'm actually banned on Astral Codex 10 on substack. (Slate star codex is the Reddit and I haven't been banned there yet, but even Scott Alexander agreed to change the reason for my original ban, so I'm okay with it now)
What did you do to get yourself banned? You don't sound like a caustic commenter to me.
Well, originally he banned me for being incomprehensible. I am banned for the next hundred years. But he recently agreed to change the reason for my ban from me being incomprehensible to me being annoying.
You *can* edit comments. Click on the 3 *** to the right of where it says 'like' and 'reply.'
You guys are hilarious. This is the first time I laughed out loud on Substack. I’m too much of a wimp to be banned by anyone.
For some reason, I only get those sometimes
After some experimenting, I came to the conclusion that he unbanned me, but I am still blocked by the Natan Slifkin account. Banning and blocking are two different things, but it seems if you ban somebody permanently, he will automatically become blocked by your account and still remain blocked even after you unban him, in which case you must unblock him as well in order for him to post on any substack under your account.
LOL, that makes sense. I had a similar episode.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/a-basic-law/comment/21592083
I had no idea what Edelstein was referring to until I clicked on his profile by chance and saw that he had blocked me.
Even according to Chasam Sofer, promoting stability does not equal "national acceptance". If it is ultimately G-d's will, in order to promote stability (or any other reason), then we accept that view because it is G-d's will. National acceptance can lead to the exact opposite - it is saying the will of the people can decide halacha even absent G-d's will! It is taking G-d completely out of the equation. That is why Reconstructionist Judaism pushes it. One can deny Torah min Hashamyim or even be a complete atheist and still make a case for following halacha. At least for a non-believer it makes some kind of demented sense. But to believe in Hashem and Toras Hashem and still go with this ridiculous theory is really nuts. That's saying you believe in G-d but you're going to ignore Him because of National Acceptance. I know killing lice is netilas neshama and G-d doesn't want that on Shabbos, but too bad G-d - I've got to promote stability and all that.
Maybe you can't call it absolute kefirah because it doesn't require that the follower be a non-believer - only that he be a complete idiot.
(I'm giving NS the benefit of the doubt that he still believes in G-d and Torah min Hashamyim.)
See Chinuch מצוה תצו who explains תנור של עכנאי like Natan.
"He has absolutely no idea what the opposition to his worldview is about."
http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/scienceresponse.html
"Without any knowledge of what exactly in my books was being condemned, my initial response was that if there is anything that is shown to be incorrect, inappropriate, or, God forbid, heretical, I would remove it in future editions of the books. But as far as I was aware, all the significant points in all three books were solidly grounded in reliable sources that are legitimate and appropriate to cite. In addition, I carefully followed proper procedure in having everything checked by many Torah scholars of high standing and possessing expertise with these topics, so that if they would find anything inappropriate, I could change it.
In the many months following the ban, I endeavoured to find out the positions of those that condemned my books, and following is my understanding of their positions and my responses. As I currently understand it, the opponents of my works are levelling four charges (some of my opponents subscribe to several of these charges, others to only one):
Charge #1: It is genuinely heretical to believe that the universe is billions of years old.
Charge #2: It is genuinely heretical to believe that the Sages of the Talmud erred in scientific matters.
Charge #3: The above positions are not actually heretical, but they are not the preferred approach in the yeshivah world and they are dangerous and should be prohibited.
Charge #4: The "tone" of the books is wrong; the author writes without the proper reverence for Torah sages.
Charge #5: The approach is wrong; e.g., the author takes science as a given and makes Torah fit it."
Those are categories of objections, not explanations of objections.
It occurs to me that if I were on the Slifkin defense team, I could easily prove all his opponents completly wrong from the gemara in Bava Kama that says R' Yochanan thought Rav Kahana was sneering at him, when in reality Rav Kahana just had a scar on his lip. See? Chazal *can* make mistakes. (With tragic consequences - Rav Kahana died as a result...)
I'm not aware of any meforshim who explain the gemara differently, ergo - unanimous consensus of rishonim and acharonim for Slifkin and against R' Elyashiv.
I don't know why he limits himself to just a majority of rishonim in Pesachim.
Nobody claims here that chazal gedolim whoever never make mistakes. As they make clear whenever I dare suggest they are not popes.
The point is you are not allowed to act as if they could ever get anything wrong or make mistakes.
Go figure.
Not sure what you want. If they're objections to his worldview, they're almost by definition going to be general principles. And it isn't fair to fault him for not being clear about what the objections are when 1) his opponents haven't been all that systematic/clear themselves, and 2) disagree among themselves. R Moshe Shapiro (at least as he's portrayed by his talmid in chayyim be'emunosom) seems pretty emphatic that no statement in the gemara is mistaken. http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/ChaimBEmunasam.pdf R Meiselman is more 'liberal' in allowing for mistakes in theory, although his own position was never made entirely clear either. http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2015/06/heads-i-win-tails-you-lose.html?showComment=1435086446427 http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2014/12/please-read-part-i-first.html?showComment=1432312207795 [EDIT- I thought I linked to specific comments, but it doesn't quite seem to have worked. Worth reading the actual posts anyhow, so just as well, I suppose.]
Bottom line: If you have an objection to his worldview, it's probably best to write it up as a standalone post where you develop your own view first and then contrast it to his, rather than being another installment of an ongoing tit-for-tat. It just makes for smoother comparisons, IMHO.
Point taken. But it was not my intention to articulate a comprehensive view on the topic. And for a variety of reasons, I don't plan on doing so. I simply made an observation that arises from this discussion, which I think stands on its own and is eminently pertinent.
Without understanding the objection, you cannot draw parameters to where it applies. Without parameters, proving it wrong with counterexamples is tricky business.
It may not be his fault. But there you have it.
Certainly, things he presents as affecting the discussion are iffy at best. And some are downright ludicrous.
For example, his exhibit a, which is the justification of his constant claim that the majority of rishonim hold like him, is based on a sugya that is essentially a machlokes tanaim, (of which if there's any hachraa in the gemara at all it's to the factually correct answer).
"Without understanding the objection, you cannot draw parameters to where it applies. Without parameters, proving it wrong with counterexamples is tricky business."
I think he understood it. He responded at length at the link which I posted them from. But in general, it's not his responsibility to dig up objections to his own views. It's the responsibility of whoever's doing the condemning to make clear what their objections are.
In this particular case, your objection is that he said something ridiculous. And you spelled that out nice and clearly. I also happen to agree with said objection, but it isn't *by itself* evidence that his entire worldview is crazy or uninformed.
Nobody has a responsibility to do anything. The gedolim weren't offering to debate him on the topic. They were informing those who care about their opinion that their opinion is that his worldview is a wrong approach to learning and appreciating Torah. As a member of said constituency I'm grateful they did. Cuz now I know, and otherwise I might not have. I can live with the residual gray areas and adayin tzaruch iyuns. This is not the only sugya that has those.
NS doesn't either have a "responsibility" to understand their position. But if he wants his claims of having disproved them to be logically meaningful, his counter arguments have to relate to their actual position. If their lack of clarity makes it difficult, that's too bad, but doesn't make irrelevant arguments more meaningful.
That's not to say that the way things went down l'maisa wasn't a fiasco, an avla and a tragedy. From what I know about it, it certainly sounds like it was.
I truly feel terrible for NS on a personal level. And I have no idea how hahu gavra would react in such a situation chv'sh, Hashem should protect us all from nisyonos.
Unfortunately, the fact on the ground now is that he's a machshil harabim.
"They were informing those who care about their opinion that their opinion is that his worldview is a wrong approach to learning and appreciating Torah"
The problem was that they weren't clear about what was wrong with his worldview. It was difficult to even know what they were condemning about his books. Were all 3 heretical? Or only the one regarding evolution? IIRC, R Shmuel Kamentsky gave a haskama to all 3, R Belsky gave only on the hyrax one.
Note that we *still* don't have clear answers to those questions.
"In this particular case, your objection is that he said something ridiculous. And you spelled that out nice and clearly. I also happen to agree with said objection, but it isn't *by itself* evidence that his entire worldview is crazy or uninformed."
I'll take that. We can leave the dismantling of the rest of his worldview in the capable hands of HGLP.
"For example, his exhibit a, which is the justification of his constant claim that the majority of rishonim hold like him, is based on a sugya that is essentially a machlokes tanaim, (of which if there's any hachraa in the gemara at all it's to the factually correct answer)."
I assume you're referring to his monograph on the rakia. If so, he's well aware that the hachraah is like the correct metzius. (Page 10)
http://www.zootorah.com/RationalistJudaism/TheSunsPathAtNight.pdf
"But it must be stressed that one does not need to be a rationalist in order to
interpret the Talmud here in this way. It is the simple, straightforward meaning of
the Talmud that there was a dispute regarding the physical reality and that R.
Yehudah HaNasi preferred the view of the non-Jewish scholars. It therefore comes as
no surprise that there are numerous Rishonim and Acharonim who explain the
Talmud in this way, even those who were not part of the rationalist school."
The point is not that the hachra was for the correct view (that's why I put that line in parentheses). The point is that Shas reports it as a machlokes. And certainly is not machria the other way. There is no sensible hagdara to the rule of Talmudic infallibility that includes a case where what the Talmud tells you is that there are those who think this is the metziyas and others that think that's the metziyus. Which makes this sugya irrelevant to the discussion.
(I assume that any rishon who contended that the chachmei Yisroel were right, it's because they believed that to be the metziyos. Which may very well be a proof against the rule of rishonic infallibility, but that's a conversation for a different day.)
I remember other charges, particularly that he misconstrued or misstated the positions of others. Rav Dessler comes to mind, because I saw side by side something Natan said about his writings and his writings, and Natan's interpretation of Rav Dessler's words was strained to the breaking point. It was close to 20 years ago and I didn't bookmark it, so you can do your own research. In any case, 20 years of prodigious output has proven that point in spades. Natan has a twisted view of reality and that twisting is reflected in his warped understanding of Chazal and the rabbonim through the ages.
Before I saw what I saw, I protested to my rav about the injustice of it all, and after, I realized they were right and I was wrong.
I think your assertion that when disagreeing in psak one opinion is right and the other wrong should be worded much more carefully. In a case where Rishonim are disputing the mehalech hasugya, psak halacha means that preponderance is given to one side and the tzibbur will follow that ruling by observing that psak and behave accordingly. The opposing psak is not necessarily wrong logically, but may be giving more weight to a contrary opinion that the majority of poskim decide should not be acted upon.
Chas v'shalom. Of course not [necessarily] wrong logically. I think I specifically said otherwise.
Great title!