Well, I don't know. I don't recall him ever saying that the Torah was fabricated on the blog. He's actually always quite evasive when discussing the Mabul and Maaseh Bereishis and simply refers readers to his books. I guess he assumes that those fanatic Charedim won't spend the money on them.
Truly amazing. We've got to stand in awe of the foresight of Gedolim like Rav Moshe Shapiro Zatzal who recognized where this was heading way back when he was just an earnest sounding Yeshiva guy.
Shkoyach! This is really excellent. I thoroughly enjoy your comments on RJ - which are very important because they're read by Slifkin's followers - but these posts are really deep and detailed. Wow! I had no idea how krum he was - though I always suspected it. Have you considered writing an entire book?
Where's the actual kefira. It seems like the one about authorship was a footnote he dosent accept. I hear the whole דברה תורה is a stretch but it seems like most of the objections were his attitude
1. Nobody is discouraging questions, they are discouraging the wrong answers to the questions. Those people are fine with leaving the questions unanswered if we must. It is Slifkin who MUST have an answer, or else the Torah is false. And then he gives these really terrible "answers".
2. It is kefira in the Torah which talks about a miraculous Creation, far more miraculous than Yetzias Mitzrayim. All the Rishonim explain one of the points of Miracles is to give us Emunah in Creation. Slifkin turns this on its head, saying that Creation actually wasn't miraculous.
3. He says this about reinterpretations which Chazal do all the time. And of course you know he has no problem arguing with Chazal's interpretations.
4 and 5 are not mere footnotes, they are are the main body.
The amount of intellectual dishonesty, disingenuousity, out of context quotes, general twisting and all that goes with it in this so called 'review' means I shall maintain a distinguished silence.
Just two example. Questions left b'tzorich iyun are mainly those in gemorroh learning, tryin to understand rishonim acharonim resolving contradictions etc. Poskim on the other hand cannot leave a sheila b'tzorich iyun. They have to give a pesak or guide the question to someone who knows more than them. It's is completely shallow and false comparison to claim because, for example, the maharshoh leaves things b'tzorich iyun all difficult questions can be so left for everybody.
The second example is claiming slifkin will have trouble with a clear torah sh'pal peh in ayin tachad ayin
And second example, of course he will have trouble with that, all the academics do. It is not a tenable literal reading. They all say the Rabbis just made that up.
The amount of intellectual dishonesty, disingenuousity, out of context quotes, general twisting and all that goes with it in this so called 'review' means I shall maintain a distinguished silence.
Just two example. Questions left b'tzorich iyun are mainly those in gemorroh learning, tryin to understand rishonim acharonim resolving contradictions etc. Poskim on the other hand cannot leave a sheila b'tzorich iyun. They have to give a pesak or guide the question to someone who knows more than them. It's is completely shallow and false comparison to claim because, for example, the maharshoh leaves things b'tzorich iyun all difficult questions can be so left for everybody. The second example is claiming slifkin will have trouble with a clear torah sh'pal peh in ayin tachad ayin.
Thank you Harav Happy for an unbelievably clear and concise presentation of the issues! I have little patience to read his narishkeitin and I appreciate your explanation and commentary.
I honestly don't see much of a difference with making "non-literal interpretations", which you insist is fine, to what Slifkin is doing. Well, Slifkin's pshat is nuts, so that's a difference. But saying that the Torah is not literal is against the principle of אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, so it's similarly incorrect.
I also don't think Slifkin is an Apikores, since he believes in the 13 principles. His pshat is Krum, but I don't think it's kefirah. Kefirah in the Torah would be to say that God did not author the Torah. But if he believes that the Omnipresent God wrote it, just he is saying a whacky pshat in it, I don't think it's kefira.
That is a good question from אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו. What bothers me, though, is that there seem to be a lot of contradictions to that yesod from Chazal everywhere, like כל האומר ראובן חטא אינו אלא טועה. I'm sure the question has been asked, I just didn't look into it yet. Also, I learn Nach a lot, and it's very hard to not constantly see מקרא which is seemingly obviously allegorical in context. Abarbanel says the Rambam relied on the context of the Torah to explain the Gan Eden story allegorically; however, he disagrees (but still says the snake never really talked). IYH I will be writing another essay about this, and will try to address the point about אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו.
I think saying the Torah is lying/fiction is equivalent to denying the Torah. I think somebody who interprets the Torah in a way that it can't possibly interpreted is denying the Torah as well. Whether that is kefira or not, I will leave to competent halachic authorities to decide.
Interesting question if saying that the Torah is willfully lying would be considered heritical, it's unlikely to be discussed widely in the poskim due to its sheer preposterousness.
That is a good point from what chazal say about Reuven. I don't understand why that doesn't contradict אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו.
With regards to your second point "I think saying the Torah is lying/fiction is equivalent to denying the Torah.", then how do you explain what chazal say about Reuven? Aren't they saying the Torah is "lying"?
I don't understand why "allegorical" is any less of a lie than "fiction". They are 2 bad interpretations to the pasuk, but none of them are actually saying that G-d is a liar.
I think saying the Torah is fiction is calling God a liar -unless the people *knew* it was fiction. In which case you are right, it is not worse than allegory, at least with respect to lying. But Slifkin's whole point of לשון בני אדם is that that is what people already (falsely) believed, and the Torah was merely repeating+modifying their false belief with good intentions. I don't think if a person did that to you, you would call him any less than a liar. But when a person makes it very clear to you that what he is about to tell you is very deep and demands interpretation, he is not a liar.
"As stated in Part 1, the Torah is basically open to interpretation, as long as the interpretation makes sense, is consistent with the Mesorah, and is consistent with the ideology of the Torah."
Can you clarify what you mean about acceptable interpretive license? While it's obviously true that all Torah learning by definition involves interpretation, it sounds like you're saying something more. Can you clarify what the limits and guiding principles to reinterpretation are? For example, at what point would you be uncomfortable with saying that chazal (and all doros since) misinterpreted a passage and we know better because we have a better knowledge of scientific reality?
So I would never be comfortable stating unequivocally that Chazal erred, but I think Chazal themselves allow us to suggest different interpretations, as they told us, שבעים פנים לתורה. And this was the practice of Rashi, Rambam, Ibn Ezra, and all the meforshim on Chumash/Nach, to frequently propose different interpretations to Chazal. Part of the consideration is that many of the interpretations of Chazal are in the realm of Aggada, which is often not meant to be taken literally, as the Geonim and Rishonim mention.
IYH there will be another essay on the issue of interpretation of the Torah.
It's really stupefying, I must say. Bear in mind that Chazal said that creation is from the deepest secrets even before any scientific evidence of the complexity of it - at a time when it would have been very easy to understand Maaseh Bereishis at face value. Yet instead of using this as a way to point out the wisdom of Chazal, Slifkin completely ignores this and goes on to say that the Torah is fabricated R"L. Shimshon would call it "retarded". I think that doesn't do it justice.
The Gedolim were 100% right in going after this evil man.
I wasn't saying the man is evil as an individual. To the contrary, his approach is totally par for the course for left-wing Modern Orthodox education. It is that secularist approach which is very much anti-Torah.
I think "wicked" is more appropriate. He does not rise to the level of evil. But he is a "Hater of Hashem" as Rabbenu Yonah defines it. And the Gedolim were 100% correct.
Re footnote 3: I suppose in Slifkin's world you should never go into business with anyone who ever said he watched a "sunrise". After all, if he's willing to use technically inaccurate terminology that conforms with perception, he's also obviously willing to out and out lie...
Wow. Powerful stuff! Thank you HGL for another wonderful masterpiece.
I never realized how off the path Slifkin has strayed. The insidious borderline heresy that he writes on his blog is just the tip of the iceberg.
Well, I wouldn't call it insidious or borderline. I think the blog is worse than the book (which has many good parts), but הוכיח סופו על תחילתו.
Well, I don't know. I don't recall him ever saying that the Torah was fabricated on the blog. He's actually always quite evasive when discussing the Mabul and Maaseh Bereishis and simply refers readers to his books. I guess he assumes that those fanatic Charedim won't spend the money on them.
Truly amazing. We've got to stand in awe of the foresight of Gedolim like Rav Moshe Shapiro Zatzal who recognized where this was heading way back when he was just an earnest sounding Yeshiva guy.
Sod Hashem l'yireiav.
Shkoyach! This is really excellent. I thoroughly enjoy your comments on RJ - which are very important because they're read by Slifkin's followers - but these posts are really deep and detailed. Wow! I had no idea how krum he was - though I always suspected it. Have you considered writing an entire book?
I agree, HGL. You ought to write a book.
So many questions, so little curiosity.
Where's the actual kefira. It seems like the one about authorship was a footnote he dosent accept. I hear the whole דברה תורה is a stretch but it seems like most of the objections were his attitude
The attitude is very kefiradike.
1. He compares Judaism to a cult, and implies very strongly that if you don't answer the Questions, there is no reason to believe the Torah
2. He attempts to argue Creation was a natural process, which is kefira in the Torah that it was a special Creation from Hashem
3. He calls interpretations of the Torah "mental gymnastics"
4. His alternative is from Ibn Kaspi that the Torah is actually lying. This is real, absolute kefira.
5. He casts doubt on the divine origins of the Torah
I don't think it had serious haskamos, and haskamos don't mean the rabbi read through the whole book anyways.
1. Those that discourage questioning are acting like a cult.
2. Its not kefira that Hashem used natural methods to create.
3. Youre the one who said this means chazal.
Regarding the last two, are these mere footnotes? If so, these dont seem to be things he said למסקנא.
1. Nobody is discouraging questions, they are discouraging the wrong answers to the questions. Those people are fine with leaving the questions unanswered if we must. It is Slifkin who MUST have an answer, or else the Torah is false. And then he gives these really terrible "answers".
2. It is kefira in the Torah which talks about a miraculous Creation, far more miraculous than Yetzias Mitzrayim. All the Rishonim explain one of the points of Miracles is to give us Emunah in Creation. Slifkin turns this on its head, saying that Creation actually wasn't miraculous.
3. He says this about reinterpretations which Chazal do all the time. And of course you know he has no problem arguing with Chazal's interpretations.
4 and 5 are not mere footnotes, they are are the main body.
If the book was that extreme i dont think charedi audiences would have a hava amina to buy it. This had serious haskamot though.
Test is awfully quiet on this. Seems that claiming the Torah is lying is over his red line. That should tell you something.
Nah, I think he just has a hangover from binging on kugel and cholent.
The amount of intellectual dishonesty, disingenuousity, out of context quotes, general twisting and all that goes with it in this so called 'review' means I shall maintain a distinguished silence.
Just two example. Questions left b'tzorich iyun are mainly those in gemorroh learning, tryin to understand rishonim acharonim resolving contradictions etc. Poskim on the other hand cannot leave a sheila b'tzorich iyun. They have to give a pesak or guide the question to someone who knows more than them. It's is completely shallow and false comparison to claim because, for example, the maharshoh leaves things b'tzorich iyun all difficult questions can be so left for everybody.
The second example is claiming slifkin will have trouble with a clear torah sh'pal peh in ayin tachad ayin
Nonsense. Plenty of tzarich iyun in the poskim. And thousands of sfeikos. This is what 30 years of kollel gets you? Oy vey.
And second example, of course he will have trouble with that, all the academics do. It is not a tenable literal reading. They all say the Rabbis just made that up.
The amount of intellectual dishonesty, disingenuousity, out of context quotes, general twisting and all that goes with it in this so called 'review' means I shall maintain a distinguished silence.
Just two example. Questions left b'tzorich iyun are mainly those in gemorroh learning, tryin to understand rishonim acharonim resolving contradictions etc. Poskim on the other hand cannot leave a sheila b'tzorich iyun. They have to give a pesak or guide the question to someone who knows more than them. It's is completely shallow and false comparison to claim because, for example, the maharshoh leaves things b'tzorich iyun all difficult questions can be so left for everybody. The second example is claiming slifkin will have trouble with a clear torah sh'pal peh in ayin tachad ayin.
"Poskim on the other hand cannot leave a sheila b'tzorich iyun. They have to give a pesak or guide the question to someone who knows more than them."
Why would you compare מעשה בראשית to this? Pure nonsense.
Thank you Harav Happy for an unbelievably clear and concise presentation of the issues! I have little patience to read his narishkeitin and I appreciate your explanation and commentary.
I honestly don't see much of a difference with making "non-literal interpretations", which you insist is fine, to what Slifkin is doing. Well, Slifkin's pshat is nuts, so that's a difference. But saying that the Torah is not literal is against the principle of אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, so it's similarly incorrect.
I also don't think Slifkin is an Apikores, since he believes in the 13 principles. His pshat is Krum, but I don't think it's kefirah. Kefirah in the Torah would be to say that God did not author the Torah. But if he believes that the Omnipresent God wrote it, just he is saying a whacky pshat in it, I don't think it's kefira.
That is a good question from אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו. What bothers me, though, is that there seem to be a lot of contradictions to that yesod from Chazal everywhere, like כל האומר ראובן חטא אינו אלא טועה. I'm sure the question has been asked, I just didn't look into it yet. Also, I learn Nach a lot, and it's very hard to not constantly see מקרא which is seemingly obviously allegorical in context. Abarbanel says the Rambam relied on the context of the Torah to explain the Gan Eden story allegorically; however, he disagrees (but still says the snake never really talked). IYH I will be writing another essay about this, and will try to address the point about אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו.
I think saying the Torah is lying/fiction is equivalent to denying the Torah. I think somebody who interprets the Torah in a way that it can't possibly interpreted is denying the Torah as well. Whether that is kefira or not, I will leave to competent halachic authorities to decide.
Interesting question if saying that the Torah is willfully lying would be considered heritical, it's unlikely to be discussed widely in the poskim due to its sheer preposterousness.
That is a good point from what chazal say about Reuven. I don't understand why that doesn't contradict אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו.
With regards to your second point "I think saying the Torah is lying/fiction is equivalent to denying the Torah.", then how do you explain what chazal say about Reuven? Aren't they saying the Torah is "lying"?
I don't understand why "allegorical" is any less of a lie than "fiction". They are 2 bad interpretations to the pasuk, but none of them are actually saying that G-d is a liar.
I think saying the Torah is fiction is calling God a liar -unless the people *knew* it was fiction. In which case you are right, it is not worse than allegory, at least with respect to lying. But Slifkin's whole point of לשון בני אדם is that that is what people already (falsely) believed, and the Torah was merely repeating+modifying their false belief with good intentions. I don't think if a person did that to you, you would call him any less than a liar. But when a person makes it very clear to you that what he is about to tell you is very deep and demands interpretation, he is not a liar.
"how do you explain what chazal say about Reuven? Aren't they saying the Torah is "lying"?"
No, they are saying וישכב isn't to be interpreted literally. That's very different than saying something is willful fiction.
Well Natan would tell you the same thing. The Torah is not lying, it is just not literal.
Tried to answer your question here
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/reinterpretation-of-creation-and-633#footnote-3-102879527
"As stated in Part 1, the Torah is basically open to interpretation, as long as the interpretation makes sense, is consistent with the Mesorah, and is consistent with the ideology of the Torah."
Can you clarify what you mean about acceptable interpretive license? While it's obviously true that all Torah learning by definition involves interpretation, it sounds like you're saying something more. Can you clarify what the limits and guiding principles to reinterpretation are? For example, at what point would you be uncomfortable with saying that chazal (and all doros since) misinterpreted a passage and we know better because we have a better knowledge of scientific reality?
So I would never be comfortable stating unequivocally that Chazal erred, but I think Chazal themselves allow us to suggest different interpretations, as they told us, שבעים פנים לתורה. And this was the practice of Rashi, Rambam, Ibn Ezra, and all the meforshim on Chumash/Nach, to frequently propose different interpretations to Chazal. Part of the consideration is that many of the interpretations of Chazal are in the realm of Aggada, which is often not meant to be taken literally, as the Geonim and Rishonim mention.
IYH there will be another essay on the issue of interpretation of the Torah.
It's really stupefying, I must say. Bear in mind that Chazal said that creation is from the deepest secrets even before any scientific evidence of the complexity of it - at a time when it would have been very easy to understand Maaseh Bereishis at face value. Yet instead of using this as a way to point out the wisdom of Chazal, Slifkin completely ignores this and goes on to say that the Torah is fabricated R"L. Shimshon would call it "retarded". I think that doesn't do it justice.
The Gedolim were 100% right in going after this evil man.
I wasn't saying the man is evil as an individual. To the contrary, his approach is totally par for the course for left-wing Modern Orthodox education. It is that secularist approach which is very much anti-Torah.
Except rather that he gravitated that way from own ambition
I think "wicked" is more appropriate. He does not rise to the level of evil. But he is a "Hater of Hashem" as Rabbenu Yonah defines it. And the Gedolim were 100% correct.
Re footnote 3: I suppose in Slifkin's world you should never go into business with anyone who ever said he watched a "sunrise". After all, if he's willing to use technically inaccurate terminology that conforms with perception, he's also obviously willing to out and out lie...