"Back when I was having arguments with people about the scientific merits of evolution, I gradually came to a realization that such arguments were a bad idea. Beyond the general impossibility of changing people’s minds in an argument, there was another problem. The whole idea that we were having a “scientific argument” was a farce. Science is about weighing up evidence from the physical world. But for my opponents, the only thing that mattered was their theological conviction that it was heresy. While they may have pretended to be interested in discussing the scientific arguments for or against, this was actually not at all relevant to them - and obviously their “conclusions” about the scientific evidence were predetermined."
This is a vacuous and dishonest way of escaping from the debate, by calling your opponents crazy. He did a similar thing in the back and forth about his revoltingly idiotic article "Was Rashi a Corporealist?", when he was utterly TROUNCED debating Rabbi Shaul Zucker, and then instead resorted to calling everybody who disputed him "biased".
The truth is that the basic idea of design, and thus against random evolution, is an extremely strong philosophical argument that has existed for millenia among many different philosophers of many different cultures. Not a "theological conviction". See more here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/what-we-have-against-evolution
Where did I say he used the word 'crazy'? Comparing people debating you about evolution to crazy Trump supporters is calling them crazy, even if you don't use that word. If you look on the old RJ, he compares them to moon-landing deniers.
He doesn’t use the word 'crazy' in his latest post. He doesn't consider whether or not Trump supporters are crazy as relevant to his point.
"Comparing people debating you about evolution to crazy Trump supporters is calling them crazy, even if you don't use that word". I trust you don't learn torah in that style. I suppose I need to spell it out. Comparing A with B does not mean every attribute in A is in B or vice versa.
And therein lies my point. You create stuff he never says.
I never said he used the word crazy in his latest post. I said he is calling them crazy, by comparing them to other people he clearly thinks are crazy.
I suppose since you spelled it out, I will spell it out more also. He is saying their mental faculties are impaired and they have no way to discern the truth, similar to those crazy Trump supporters and moon-landing-deniers, thus using that as an excuse to give himself a victory pat on the back and escape the debate.
Again, comparing X with Y, in one respect, does not mean every property of X applies to Y or vice versa.
Repeating yourself does not make you correct, or changing 'crazy' to 'mental faculties' but this conversation has completed its course, so good bye. I only hope your standard of learning is better than what you demonstrate here.
Evolution and the Big Bang (along with the composition of the moon) go hand in hand. The latter exists particularly because the former needs it. "Science" just declared the universe twice as old as previously accepted for decades. It may as well have always existed at this point, according to them. It's the Steady State Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model) in all but name.
Certainly more than you. Even if you have a PhD, it doesn't mean you investigated anything. You could call me "Formerly Frei" not so clever one. I am not your buddy.
Woah chill with the antagonism. I was just wondering because the vast majority of religious people reject evolution yet very few have studied it at all (which is a fact I’m certain you’d agree to).
Just wondering what you find so non-compelling about the science behind it. Do you think all the evidence has been manufactured? ( Do you think the same thing in regards to dínosaurs?) Or do you believe the evidence is genuine just not compelling enough for you?
Genuinely interested as you claim you’ve done a significant amount of research regarding this.
MB - It's hard to watch someone who has thousands of subscribers, i.e. a large audience, bash those who live their lives to serve God. If you care about God and see this person disgracing His name, shouldn't we stand up for ourselves, play his own game and show how fallacious he is being? Is that not something that would move you as well?
Perhaps you don't think of Natan as awfully as the authors here, but I think they've been pretty clear about their mission.
In January 2005, when the affair went public, I asked my rabbi about what transpired, since I wasn't happy about what I read. Here are his exact words, from almost 20 years ago (you can disagree, but it's pointless to rebut, and the parameters are pretty clear):
Wall posters appeared here about 3 or 4 weeks ago, followed by articles in Yeted (Hebrew, and a few days later English).
The Announcement was signed by numerous Gedolim (I don't remember who, but I
can probably still find a copy if its necessary - but with no doubt whatsover, true Gedolim). The fact that it's reported in Yeted proves that it is in line with Daas Torah, and not a forgery.
The gist of the message was that an English speaking Rav read the books, and reported to one of the Gedolim, (who knows him and trusts his competence) who paskined it is apikorsus. The others concurred. By the (very brief) reports of the contents, it's a no brainer.
Briefly, a money dispute between two people must be resolved by a Beis Din, (or mutually agreed Rav). But when it is a matter of prohibitions, any competent authority can paskin (Other equivalent authorities can concur or differ; that's what happened recently with the Indian hair sheitels; there were some very big Poskim who tended to be somewhat more lenient, but they all concurred with Rav Elyashiv's psak when he heard their arguments and defeated them. As an aside - as far as I am aware, the most tenacious fighters were a couple of American rabbis who are effectively unknown here).
If someone is selling traif meat as kosher, you don't need a Beis din to denounce it. And you don't need to give the guy a chance to defend himself if the facts are beyond doubt, and the holochos are clear. You just stop him. Any Rav who knows the facts and the holochos MUST do so. As soon as possible. With apikorsus, even more. The Chofets Chaim paskins unequivically that the tiniest amount of apikorsus is enough to posul a person completely; there is no prohibition of loshon horo regarding even the "tiniest" apikorus.
In this case, the facts are public - you need only open his book. The Gedolim have paskined, but in this case (based on the brief report) it was an open and shut case.
Precisely one posek, Rav Shlomo Miller, a known anti science person, declares his writings (not him) as heretical. I asked for more, only one was supplied. The other poskim made quite clear that he is not a heretic. And like everything else, the whole matter is a machlokas haposkim (you don't get to chose who the poskim are, plenty of rabbonim do not consider him a heretic and still permit his books).
" And you don't need to give the guy a chance to defend himself if the facts are beyond doubt,". Absolute nonsense. There is never such a thing as 'the facts are beyond doubt'. And everybody gets a right to defend themselves.
The Indian hair sheitel controversy was the biggest embarrassment to the charedei world ever. Who bans sheitels on the basis of avodah zoroh today? The facts on which the pesak was based were completely erroneous.
There is so much to say about this comment but I don't debate test.
About the sheitel's however, it is actually a VERY hot topic now in the U.S. and Rabbanim and Roshei Yeshiva are taking it very seriously, recognizing that "the facts on which the pesak (to be matir) was based were completely erroneous".
Because 20 years ago the heavyweights in halochoh decided it was not a problem. Although takrovas AZ is not botel, the multiple sfeikos around the issue do assist. For example,m The Hindus themselves don't even agree whether it is a korban or an act of self-nullification. Like us, everything is a machlokas.
A few people who have nothing else to ban right now can't reopen something that has been paskened ok 20 years later unless the metzius has changed.
Taking what you say at face value, so if some Hindus say avoda zara and others say no, we are now to be maikel on them, rather than machmir?! Only retarded modox think this way.
It was not "reopened." The issue never went away, even if you don't know. And why should you?
Good. I can save quite a lot of money. Bring on the kol korehs and the sheitel bonfire burning.
20 years ago it was discovered the facts on which the pesak to be ossur was based were completely erroneous. What's changed now?
No doubt you will find the Rabbonim that are 'taking it very seriously' will be the ones offering expensive hechsheirim on AZ free sheitels. Business is business. There is precedent for that in the Israeli chicken chumros. As for Roshei Yeshivos, I thought they stuck to noshim nezikin. Since when do they start paskening on hilchos avodah zoroh?
Why bother, test? You don't care about our answers to questions you ask. Kal v'chomer I don't care about your answers to unasked questions. Answer when asked. Otherwise, why bother?
1) Where is that halochoh in shulchan oruch or any other code of halochoh?
2) You wrote "shouldn't we stand up for ourselves, play his own game and show how fallacious he is being? ". That is not 'know what to answer a heretic'. 'Playing his own game' is not answering a heretic. Words mean things, you know.
3) Precisely one posek, Rav Shlomo Miller, a known anti science person, declares his writings (not him) as heretical. I asked for more, only one was supplied. The other poskim made quite clear that he is not a heretic.
It is also Rav Ovadiah Yosef, Rav Moshe Shapiro, Rav Aharon Schechter, and more (not pashkevilim, but letters from them). And this is *before* his blog, which has much worse kefira.
You have it the wrong way round - which poskim state he is a kofer? You are asking me to prove a negative, which is impossible, and is not my responsibility. You and your folk here call him a kofer - you provide the sources.
I asked you before, and you were only able to provide Rav Shlomo Miller who is known to be somewhat anti-science (writing about his books, it did not go as far as calling him a kofer). You will need to ask Rav Miller if it is possible for his writings to be kefirah, not him. Even Rav Meisleman does not go as far as calling him a kofer.
"The other poskim made quite clear that he is not a heretic."- So you retract this statement, since you can't even provide one.
If you read my previous comment, I provided three other rabbis who say his books are kefira, minus, and/or against the Torah. And there are more in the link. I have no idea what you mean by Rav Shlomo Miller is known to be anti-science, that's just made up. It would be like me saying "It's known that test is a child molester". I have no idea what you mean by his writings are kefirah but not him. That makes no sense and sounds like made up coffee-room malarkey.
(*) ולא יתבייש וכו' - עיין במ"ב בשם הב"י. דע דהב"י לא איירי כ"א במצוה שהוא עושה לעצמו ובני אדם מלעיגים עליו אז בודאי אין לו לחוש כלל ללעגם ולא יתקוטט עמהם אבל אם הוא עומד במקום שיש אפיקורסים המתקוממים על התורה ורוצים לעשות איזה תקנות בעניני העיר ועי"ז יעבירו את העם מרצון ה' ופתח בשלום ולא נשמעו דבריו בכגון זה לא דיבר הב"י מאומה ומצוה לשנאתם ולהתקוטט עמהם ולהפר עצתם בכל מה שיוכל ודהמע"ה אמר הלא משנאיך ד' אשנא ובתקוממיך אתקוטט תכלית שנאה שנאתים וגו':
As for your second paragraph, you are not the judge, jury and executioner of these things. Plenty of rabbonim do not consider him as far as a 'kofer b'toras Hashem'. It's not for you to chose.
A. He supports political parties who certainly want to pass laws against הלכה, and have done so in the pat, when they could. That's the very definition of what the ביאור הלכה is talking about.
B. Please re-read במתינות what the חפץ חיים wrote, and you will see that what you wrote now is not correct.
It's mainly a gut feeling which comes from caring about God. I couldn't explain it to someone who doesn't understand it already. (Similar feeling to the good יהא שמיה רבה's I've had.)
I'm not saying this is the best way either. But you have to admit that there seems to be a need that is being filled here, as we see from the amounts of people who appreciate this blog. If you don't appreciate it, either you don't feel it's justified in the first place, or you don't feel this is the right way to go about it, I understand your POV. But I also understand the authors' POV as well. And don't necessarily know of a better way.
A blog is an echo-chamber of like minded individuals, who would think the same with or without the existence of this blog. Not a single person who thinks that Slifkin is not a heretic will change his opinion based on the content of this rather immature blog.
As such, this blog does not fulfil that objective. The start of a better way is to avoid silly pictures of piranha fish and nonsense about restaraunts.
I don't 'support DNS', whatever that is supposed to mean.
The world is not black and white, you know. In some cases I think DNS is totally incorrect, in some cases I think he has a point, and in other places it's a grey area.
What bothers me is the approach of this blog, which is fundamentally based on leitzonus, which is not halachik, as well as calling another Jew who is shomer mitzos a kofer, which is also not halachik, and then all the out of context and general shabbiness of the arguments presented here.
He, and you, and your fellow rationalists are unquestionably "Haters of Hashem" as per Rabbenu Yonah's definition:
"The aspect of "haters of Hashem" can also be found at times among those who perform mitzvos and are scrupulous in avoiding sin, both in deed and in speech -- if they are pained and inwardly troubled when their friends engage in Torah study, and it bothers them when others serve Hashem and fear Him."
Shaarei Teshuva, Gate 3:160 (translation by Feldheim)
I think the power of analogy is a real thing. It can bring out points in ways that can't be done otherwise. It allows for objectivity and has been used for millenia. The author here happens to be very good at it. If you don't appreciate it, that's not an issue with the author.
"think the power of analogy is a real thing. It can bring out points in ways that can't be done otherwise."
No. There is a reason why you do not find analogy (or very rarely) in the writings of the acharonim on shas, in poskim, in shuirim from Roshei Yeshivos and similar. In learning and pesak, it is actually a very poor tool. Because the debate shifts to the accuracy and appropriateness of the analogy, rather than the fundamental points. If a point cannot be illustrated or explained without referring to an analogy, it is by definition very poor.
Reb Ahron Lopiansky’s article on the topic is a classic, elegant yet simple, straight to the point yet encompassing the depth of the issue. He shows that is unnecessary to debate the apikursim head on as anyone who has a clear understanding of the issues will recognize clearly the stupidity of the other side.
The only thing I take issue with is the intro to his article where he writes “This article should never have been published. It deals with a topic that should not be discussed in an English-language journal. Rather, the article requires dedicated reading by sophisticated scholars fluent in Hebrew, and, due to the sensitivity of the topic, should be approached with trepidation.”
Personally, I feel that while Shapiro and Slifkin present a real threat for the uninitiated am haaretz they are in effect doing a service to Klal Yisroel. By exposing themselves nakedly for all the world to see they show us how far-reaching the terrible effects of amhaaratzus is. This teaches us the importance of exposing every single Yid to the idea that every facet of Torah has unlimited depth to it. We can never know who the next Slifkin will be, but we do know that it will be someone who has some connection to the wide expanses of Torah but never grasped the importance of delving deeply into every facet of it. In our generation, simply reciting the Ani Maamins, while still important, is not enough. We all need to study and teach the full depth of every facet of the Ikrei Haemunah, not as a debate or a topic of “machshava”, but as a real and very relevant sugya with great depth. This is why people like Reb Ahron Lopiansky are so critical for today’s generation.
In essence, this is the lesson of all the Galuyos, and especially Gog Umagog and Ikvesa Demshicha (of which S&S are only 1 small slice), to bring us to the recognition of גילוי הייחוד, which is exactly this concept, that there is no facet of Torah or of Hashem’s creation that is not full of immense depth, which leads one to גילוי יחודו יתברך and this is something that everyone can grasp ומלאה הארץ דעה את ה’ כמים לים מכסים.
It’s time people recognized the depth of Happy’s understanding. Read this comment https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/trump-and-truth/comment/22313122 and understand that Happy is showing Slifkin that he can play the same game. Just post a benign irrelevant discussion and from “between the lines” one will realize the utter craziness of the actual opponent.
And I quote" but I find it highly ironic whenever Natan starts talking about “The Truth”, while his own reckless disregard for the truth is plain for all to see."
Are we supposed to comment on your review or Natan's views on Trump and the truth?
Regarding Trump, I know I speak for many. The election was stolen, Trump did nothing (we expected him to Cross the Rubicon and put his "life, fortune, and sacred honor" on the line as America's Founding Fathers did; he didn't; good riddance), and now whines about it.
If he wins in 2024, as I think likely, the only thing it will prove is that, really, the election wasn't stolen, it was staged, as they all are in reality, and Trump is playing a role, like all presidents do.
Consider 2016. Trump won three states Hillary needed, the loss of any one which would have lost her the race. But he didn't win three states. He won five counties in those states with highly anomalous voting patterns, while the remainder of those states' voting patterns reflected historical norms. 2020 was just the opposite, on steroids, because his support was so strong.
Also, Natan is a binary-thinking idiot who never met a newscast he didn't believe implicitly.
I'm pretty sure this has less to do with that post, and has more to do with people that bash Judaism (or religion) and never even studied its premises...
I think he's comparing this review of a place he's never visited and knows nothing about, to Natan's post about "truth", something he likewise knows nothing about.
Serious question. Why are you so obsessed with what R.Slifkin writes on his substack blog? I get it, you don't like what he writes. But why the obsession?
And I quote" but I find it highly ironic whenever Natan starts talking about “The Truth”, while his own reckless disregard for the truth is plain for all to see."
And I quote" but I find it highly ironic whenever Natan starts talking about “The Truth”, while his own reckless disregard for the truth is plain for all to see."
About this line in Natan's latest post:
"Back when I was having arguments with people about the scientific merits of evolution, I gradually came to a realization that such arguments were a bad idea. Beyond the general impossibility of changing people’s minds in an argument, there was another problem. The whole idea that we were having a “scientific argument” was a farce. Science is about weighing up evidence from the physical world. But for my opponents, the only thing that mattered was their theological conviction that it was heresy. While they may have pretended to be interested in discussing the scientific arguments for or against, this was actually not at all relevant to them - and obviously their “conclusions” about the scientific evidence were predetermined."
This is a vacuous and dishonest way of escaping from the debate, by calling your opponents crazy. He did a similar thing in the back and forth about his revoltingly idiotic article "Was Rashi a Corporealist?", when he was utterly TROUNCED debating Rabbi Shaul Zucker, and then instead resorted to calling everybody who disputed him "biased".
The truth is that the basic idea of design, and thus against random evolution, is an extremely strong philosophical argument that has existed for millenia among many different philosophers of many different cultures. Not a "theological conviction". See more here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/what-we-have-against-evolution
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/trump-and-truth/comment/22314645
"....This is a vacuous and dishonest way of escaping from the debate, by calling your opponents crazy..."
Where does he use the word 'crazy'? You are the one that hurls insults when you feel you are losing. Not him.
This is the entire problem. You cherry pick, misquote, quote out of context, and make up things such that he calls his opponents 'crazy'.
Where did I say he used the word 'crazy'? Comparing people debating you about evolution to crazy Trump supporters is calling them crazy, even if you don't use that word. If you look on the old RJ, he compares them to moon-landing deniers.
He doesn’t use the word 'crazy' in his latest post. He doesn't consider whether or not Trump supporters are crazy as relevant to his point.
"Comparing people debating you about evolution to crazy Trump supporters is calling them crazy, even if you don't use that word". I trust you don't learn torah in that style. I suppose I need to spell it out. Comparing A with B does not mean every attribute in A is in B or vice versa.
And therein lies my point. You create stuff he never says.
I never said he used the word crazy in his latest post. I said he is calling them crazy, by comparing them to other people he clearly thinks are crazy.
I suppose since you spelled it out, I will spell it out more also. He is saying their mental faculties are impaired and they have no way to discern the truth, similar to those crazy Trump supporters and moon-landing-deniers, thus using that as an excuse to give himself a victory pat on the back and escape the debate.
Again, comparing X with Y, in one respect, does not mean every property of X applies to Y or vice versa.
Repeating yourself does not make you correct, or changing 'crazy' to 'mental faculties' but this conversation has completed its course, so good bye. I only hope your standard of learning is better than what you demonstrate here.
The respect he is comparing evolution debaters to crazy Trump supporters is in regards to their mental faculties. Good bye.
Evolution and the Big Bang (along with the composition of the moon) go hand in hand. The latter exists particularly because the former needs it. "Science" just declared the universe twice as old as previously accepted for decades. It may as well have always existed at this point, according to them. It's the Steady State Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model) in all but name.
Buddy have you ever actually investigated the claims of science in regards to evolution?
Certainly more than you. Even if you have a PhD, it doesn't mean you investigated anything. You could call me "Formerly Frei" not so clever one. I am not your buddy.
Woah chill with the antagonism. I was just wondering because the vast majority of religious people reject evolution yet very few have studied it at all (which is a fact I’m certain you’d agree to).
Just wondering what you find so non-compelling about the science behind it. Do you think all the evidence has been manufactured? ( Do you think the same thing in regards to dínosaurs?) Or do you believe the evidence is genuine just not compelling enough for you?
Genuinely interested as you claim you’ve done a significant amount of research regarding this.
MB - It's hard to watch someone who has thousands of subscribers, i.e. a large audience, bash those who live their lives to serve God. If you care about God and see this person disgracing His name, shouldn't we stand up for ourselves, play his own game and show how fallacious he is being? Is that not something that would move you as well?
Perhaps you don't think of Natan as awfully as the authors here, but I think they've been pretty clear about their mission.
"shouldn't we stand up for ourselves, play his own game and show how fallacious he is being? "
Where is this commandment written? What are its parameters?
In January 2005, when the affair went public, I asked my rabbi about what transpired, since I wasn't happy about what I read. Here are his exact words, from almost 20 years ago (you can disagree, but it's pointless to rebut, and the parameters are pretty clear):
Wall posters appeared here about 3 or 4 weeks ago, followed by articles in Yeted (Hebrew, and a few days later English).
The Announcement was signed by numerous Gedolim (I don't remember who, but I
can probably still find a copy if its necessary - but with no doubt whatsover, true Gedolim). The fact that it's reported in Yeted proves that it is in line with Daas Torah, and not a forgery.
The gist of the message was that an English speaking Rav read the books, and reported to one of the Gedolim, (who knows him and trusts his competence) who paskined it is apikorsus. The others concurred. By the (very brief) reports of the contents, it's a no brainer.
Briefly, a money dispute between two people must be resolved by a Beis Din, (or mutually agreed Rav). But when it is a matter of prohibitions, any competent authority can paskin (Other equivalent authorities can concur or differ; that's what happened recently with the Indian hair sheitels; there were some very big Poskim who tended to be somewhat more lenient, but they all concurred with Rav Elyashiv's psak when he heard their arguments and defeated them. As an aside - as far as I am aware, the most tenacious fighters were a couple of American rabbis who are effectively unknown here).
If someone is selling traif meat as kosher, you don't need a Beis din to denounce it. And you don't need to give the guy a chance to defend himself if the facts are beyond doubt, and the holochos are clear. You just stop him. Any Rav who knows the facts and the holochos MUST do so. As soon as possible. With apikorsus, even more. The Chofets Chaim paskins unequivically that the tiniest amount of apikorsus is enough to posul a person completely; there is no prohibition of loshon horo regarding even the "tiniest" apikorus.
In this case, the facts are public - you need only open his book. The Gedolim have paskined, but in this case (based on the brief report) it was an open and shut case.
Precisely one posek, Rav Shlomo Miller, a known anti science person, declares his writings (not him) as heretical. I asked for more, only one was supplied. The other poskim made quite clear that he is not a heretic. And like everything else, the whole matter is a machlokas haposkim (you don't get to chose who the poskim are, plenty of rabbonim do not consider him a heretic and still permit his books).
" And you don't need to give the guy a chance to defend himself if the facts are beyond doubt,". Absolute nonsense. There is never such a thing as 'the facts are beyond doubt'. And everybody gets a right to defend themselves.
The Indian hair sheitel controversy was the biggest embarrassment to the charedei world ever. Who bans sheitels on the basis of avodah zoroh today? The facts on which the pesak was based were completely erroneous.
There is so much to say about this comment but I don't debate test.
About the sheitel's however, it is actually a VERY hot topic now in the U.S. and Rabbanim and Roshei Yeshiva are taking it very seriously, recognizing that "the facts on which the pesak (to be matir) was based were completely erroneous".
What has changed? The metzius or the halochoh?
Because 20 years ago the heavyweights in halochoh decided it was not a problem. Although takrovas AZ is not botel, the multiple sfeikos around the issue do assist. For example,m The Hindus themselves don't even agree whether it is a korban or an act of self-nullification. Like us, everything is a machlokas.
A few people who have nothing else to ban right now can't reopen something that has been paskened ok 20 years later unless the metzius has changed.
Taking what you say at face value, so if some Hindus say avoda zara and others say no, we are now to be maikel on them, rather than machmir?! Only retarded modox think this way.
It was not "reopened." The issue never went away, even if you don't know. And why should you?
Good. I can save quite a lot of money. Bring on the kol korehs and the sheitel bonfire burning.
20 years ago it was discovered the facts on which the pesak to be ossur was based were completely erroneous. What's changed now?
No doubt you will find the Rabbonim that are 'taking it very seriously' will be the ones offering expensive hechsheirim on AZ free sheitels. Business is business. There is precedent for that in the Israeli chicken chumros. As for Roshei Yeshivos, I thought they stuck to noshim nezikin. Since when do they start paskening on hilchos avodah zoroh?
Now I realize you are retarded. You are responding to my rabbi's words FROM 20 YEARS AGO.
I don't care what you say. The Indian hair thing is still an issue today.
The Indian hair thing is not an issue today. Just like whether the world is flat or round is not an issue today.
The 'Indian hair thing' is not mentioned on any anti-sheitel propaganda produced today. Why do you think that is?
https://www.hamichlol.org.il/%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A1_%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%95%D7%93%D7%95
https://avodazara.net/
http://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=19088&hilit=%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A8+%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99&sid=89d179a58dbe1bf0ee0f17016e3342b0#p184887
I am "anti-science" according to the same definition.
Indeed you are. We have noticed.
"We" meaning you and your fellow rationalists and no one else. Big deal.
Why bother, test? You don't care about our answers to questions you ask. Kal v'chomer I don't care about your answers to unasked questions. Answer when asked. Otherwise, why bother?
Great response (not).
"Know what to answer a heretic."
1) Where is that halochoh in shulchan oruch or any other code of halochoh?
2) You wrote "shouldn't we stand up for ourselves, play his own game and show how fallacious he is being? ". That is not 'know what to answer a heretic'. 'Playing his own game' is not answering a heretic. Words mean things, you know.
3) Precisely one posek, Rav Shlomo Miller, a known anti science person, declares his writings (not him) as heretical. I asked for more, only one was supplied. The other poskim made quite clear that he is not a heretic.
Which poskim (who are familiar with his writings, including his blog) made it clear he is not a heretic? Show me at least one.
It's not just Rav Miller. Look here https://zootorah.com/controversy/
It is also Rav Ovadiah Yosef, Rav Moshe Shapiro, Rav Aharon Schechter, and more (not pashkevilim, but letters from them). And this is *before* his blog, which has much worse kefira.
You have it the wrong way round - which poskim state he is a kofer? You are asking me to prove a negative, which is impossible, and is not my responsibility. You and your folk here call him a kofer - you provide the sources.
I asked you before, and you were only able to provide Rav Shlomo Miller who is known to be somewhat anti-science (writing about his books, it did not go as far as calling him a kofer). You will need to ask Rav Miller if it is possible for his writings to be kefirah, not him. Even Rav Meisleman does not go as far as calling him a kofer.
"The other poskim made quite clear that he is not a heretic."- So you retract this statement, since you can't even provide one.
If you read my previous comment, I provided three other rabbis who say his books are kefira, minus, and/or against the Torah. And there are more in the link. I have no idea what you mean by Rav Shlomo Miller is known to be anti-science, that's just made up. It would be like me saying "It's known that test is a child molester". I have no idea what you mean by his writings are kefirah but not him. That makes no sense and sounds like made up coffee-room malarkey.
ביאור הלכה, סימן א:
(*) ולא יתבייש וכו' - עיין במ"ב בשם הב"י. דע דהב"י לא איירי כ"א במצוה שהוא עושה לעצמו ובני אדם מלעיגים עליו אז בודאי אין לו לחוש כלל ללעגם ולא יתקוטט עמהם אבל אם הוא עומד במקום שיש אפיקורסים המתקוממים על התורה ורוצים לעשות איזה תקנות בעניני העיר ועי"ז יעבירו את העם מרצון ה' ופתח בשלום ולא נשמעו דבריו בכגון זה לא דיבר הב"י מאומה ומצוה לשנאתם ולהתקוטט עמהם ולהפר עצתם בכל מה שיוכל ודהמע"ה אמר הלא משנאיך ד' אשנא ובתקוממיך אתקוטט תכלית שנאה שנאתים וגו':
חפץ חיים, הלכות איסור רכילות, סוף כלל ט:
וְדַע דְּכָל מַה שֶּׁכָּתַבְנוּ בְּסֵפֶר זֶה מֵעִנְיַן גֹּדֶל הַזְּהִירוּת מֵעֲוֹן לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, הַיְנוּ לְמִי שֶׁהוּא עֲדַיִן בִּכְלַל "עֲמִיתֶךָ". אֲבָל בְּאוֹתָן הָאֲנָשִׁים, הַכּוֹפְרִים בְּתוֹרַת ה', אֲפִלּוּ רַק בְּאוֹת אַחַת, וְהַמַּלְעִיגִים מִדִּבְרֵי חֲזַ"ל, מִצְוָה לְפַרְסֵם דַּעְתָּם הַכּוֹזֶבֶת לְעֵינֵי הַכֹּל וּלְגַנּוֹתָם, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִלְמְדוּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂיהֶם הָרָעִים.
So what city ordinances is Slifkin making?
As for your second paragraph, you are not the judge, jury and executioner of these things. Plenty of rabbonim do not consider him as far as a 'kofer b'toras Hashem'. It's not for you to chose.
A. He supports political parties who certainly want to pass laws against הלכה, and have done so in the pat, when they could. That's the very definition of what the ביאור הלכה is talking about.
B. Please re-read במתינות what the חפץ חיים wrote, and you will see that what you wrote now is not correct.
Spare me, test. See my other reply. Your questions are not questions, because you don't care about any answer.
Re #2 I didn't write that. I am not shulman. He is writing his "gut feeling". I am not.
And what is going on here is certainly one way to answer a heretic.
It's mainly a gut feeling which comes from caring about God. I couldn't explain it to someone who doesn't understand it already. (Similar feeling to the good יהא שמיה רבה's I've had.)
I'm not saying this is the best way either. But you have to admit that there seems to be a need that is being filled here, as we see from the amounts of people who appreciate this blog. If you don't appreciate it, either you don't feel it's justified in the first place, or you don't feel this is the right way to go about it, I understand your POV. But I also understand the authors' POV as well. And don't necessarily know of a better way.
He won't admit anything. His questions are dishonest, because he doesn't care about the answers.
A blog is an echo-chamber of like minded individuals, who would think the same with or without the existence of this blog. Not a single person who thinks that Slifkin is not a heretic will change his opinion based on the content of this rather immature blog.
As such, this blog does not fulfil that objective. The start of a better way is to avoid silly pictures of piranha fish and nonsense about restaraunts.
How is this blog an echo-chamber if you (and others) write many comments supporting DNS?
I don't 'support DNS', whatever that is supposed to mean.
The world is not black and white, you know. In some cases I think DNS is totally incorrect, in some cases I think he has a point, and in other places it's a grey area.
What bothers me is the approach of this blog, which is fundamentally based on leitzonus, which is not halachik, as well as calling another Jew who is shomer mitzos a kofer, which is also not halachik, and then all the out of context and general shabbiness of the arguments presented here.
He's shomer mitzvos, like that means anything.
He, and you, and your fellow rationalists are unquestionably "Haters of Hashem" as per Rabbenu Yonah's definition:
"The aspect of "haters of Hashem" can also be found at times among those who perform mitzvos and are scrupulous in avoiding sin, both in deed and in speech -- if they are pained and inwardly troubled when their friends engage in Torah study, and it bothers them when others serve Hashem and fear Him."
Shaarei Teshuva, Gate 3:160 (translation by Feldheim)
That's not what you wrote.
You complained that tis blog is an echo chamber.
I explained why it is not.
"Support DNS" means that you don't think that he is a כופר, which is the context of the current discussion.
I think the power of analogy is a real thing. It can bring out points in ways that can't be done otherwise. It allows for objectivity and has been used for millenia. The author here happens to be very good at it. If you don't appreciate it, that's not an issue with the author.
"think the power of analogy is a real thing. It can bring out points in ways that can't be done otherwise."
No. There is a reason why you do not find analogy (or very rarely) in the writings of the acharonim on shas, in poskim, in shuirim from Roshei Yeshivos and similar. In learning and pesak, it is actually a very poor tool. Because the debate shifts to the accuracy and appropriateness of the analogy, rather than the fundamental points. If a point cannot be illustrated or explained without referring to an analogy, it is by definition very poor.
It gives a voice to people.
What does Slifkin's blog do btw? Is that also just an echochamber?
If yes, is it just blogs in general that you don't like?
Brilliant!
Looking forward to the upcoming post.
Reb Ahron Lopiansky’s article on the topic is a classic, elegant yet simple, straight to the point yet encompassing the depth of the issue. He shows that is unnecessary to debate the apikursim head on as anyone who has a clear understanding of the issues will recognize clearly the stupidity of the other side.
The only thing I take issue with is the intro to his article where he writes “This article should never have been published. It deals with a topic that should not be discussed in an English-language journal. Rather, the article requires dedicated reading by sophisticated scholars fluent in Hebrew, and, due to the sensitivity of the topic, should be approached with trepidation.”
Personally, I feel that while Shapiro and Slifkin present a real threat for the uninitiated am haaretz they are in effect doing a service to Klal Yisroel. By exposing themselves nakedly for all the world to see they show us how far-reaching the terrible effects of amhaaratzus is. This teaches us the importance of exposing every single Yid to the idea that every facet of Torah has unlimited depth to it. We can never know who the next Slifkin will be, but we do know that it will be someone who has some connection to the wide expanses of Torah but never grasped the importance of delving deeply into every facet of it. In our generation, simply reciting the Ani Maamins, while still important, is not enough. We all need to study and teach the full depth of every facet of the Ikrei Haemunah, not as a debate or a topic of “machshava”, but as a real and very relevant sugya with great depth. This is why people like Reb Ahron Lopiansky are so critical for today’s generation.
In essence, this is the lesson of all the Galuyos, and especially Gog Umagog and Ikvesa Demshicha (of which S&S are only 1 small slice), to bring us to the recognition of גילוי הייחוד, which is exactly this concept, that there is no facet of Torah or of Hashem’s creation that is not full of immense depth, which leads one to גילוי יחודו יתברך and this is something that everyone can grasp ומלאה הארץ דעה את ה’ כמים לים מכסים.
It’s time people recognized the depth of Happy’s understanding. Read this comment https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/trump-and-truth/comment/22313122 and understand that Happy is showing Slifkin that he can play the same game. Just post a benign irrelevant discussion and from “between the lines” one will realize the utter craziness of the actual opponent.
And I quote" but I find it highly ironic whenever Natan starts talking about “The Truth”, while his own reckless disregard for the truth is plain for all to see."
QED
That is a mere footnote
Are we supposed to comment on your review or Natan's views on Trump and the truth?
Regarding Trump, I know I speak for many. The election was stolen, Trump did nothing (we expected him to Cross the Rubicon and put his "life, fortune, and sacred honor" on the line as America's Founding Fathers did; he didn't; good riddance), and now whines about it.
If he wins in 2024, as I think likely, the only thing it will prove is that, really, the election wasn't stolen, it was staged, as they all are in reality, and Trump is playing a role, like all presidents do.
Consider 2016. Trump won three states Hillary needed, the loss of any one which would have lost her the race. But he didn't win three states. He won five counties in those states with highly anomalous voting patterns, while the remainder of those states' voting patterns reflected historical norms. 2020 was just the opposite, on steroids, because his support was so strong.
Also, Natan is a binary-thinking idiot who never met a newscast he didn't believe implicitly.
Dont understand whats flyin here.
Read Slifkins most recent post
I'm pretty sure this has less to do with that post, and has more to do with people that bash Judaism (or religion) and never even studied its premises...
Happy, yes?
Right, it's about the Torah, not Natan's recent post.
I think he's comparing this review of a place he's never visited and knows nothing about, to Natan's post about "truth", something he likewise knows nothing about.
Me neither. But here's what ChatGPT thinks.
https://chat.openai.com/share/25d510ad-5b0e-4911-8917-6931c41040b7
Serious question. Why are you so obsessed with what R.Slifkin writes on his substack blog? I get it, you don't like what he writes. But why the obsession?
This wasn't about him. This was about a restaurant.
Then why mention him?
Disclaimer. Most people come to the blog expecting a skewering of Natan, not a review of a restaurant that may or may not feature skewers.
He also skewers the restaurant, thus sowing even more confusion.
Doesn't answer my question
I answered this question: "Then why mention him?"
And I quote" but I find it highly ironic whenever Natan starts talking about “The Truth”, while his own reckless disregard for the truth is plain for all to see."
QED
He literally mentioned him to say that it's NOT about him because people will assume it is otherwise
right
And I quote" but I find it highly ironic whenever Natan starts talking about “The Truth”, while his own reckless disregard for the truth is plain for all to see."
QED
In a footnote. If that's what you meant, got it. But the post was not about that is all
As I asked, why the obsession? Even in a post supposedly not about him?