" Yet saying that there is no reward and punishment or a relationship with Hashem is by all means heresy. We are no longer talking about ‘Rationalists’ or ‘Traditionalists’ anymore."
"But the fact of the matter is that the academicians see no moral or ethical problem with revising the Rambam to conform to their materialistic, mechanistic view of the physical universe.
Hence, they routinely claim the Rambam 1) didn't believe in nature-breaking miracles, 2) didn't believe in Divine Providence (with a few rare exceptions) interfering in human affairs, 3) didn't believe in the efficacy of petitional prayer, 4)the soul being nothing more than "the intellect" or "consciousness" etc.
There are some academics who have gone so far as to say that the Rambam 5) didn't really believe in creation ex-nihilo. They also speculate that his Treatise on the Resurrection was really a ploy to 6) conceal his true disbelief in physical resurrection of the dead. Such is the fantasy world occupied by Judaic Studies professors.
The Rambam is simply not to be taken at his word.
I contend that Dr. Slifkin, who certainly finds these academics more credible than anyone else regarding the true beliefs of the Rambam, if he were to be honest, should re-name his blog "Materialist Judaism"."
As I have commented before in another thread, there was a a whole group of hyper-rationalists in תקופת הראשונים who wrote exactly the same כפירה things, and falsely based themselves on the רמב"ם
Welcome back מכרכר, it's been a while since you've posted! Refreshing as usual!
One הערה, "The idea of a Relationship with Hashem is “fluffy spirituality”." - the Rambam wouldn't be too upset with that one (let me finish). He discusses at length in חלק ג' פרק נ"א (required reading for every frum Jew! along with the following פרק) that there are indeed those that are not in the palace of the king (even those in the country) who really jus don't 'get it'. The Rambam's famous words: "והנה בארנו פעמים רבות כי האהבה היא כפי ההשגה" - the feeling for Hashem is according to the amount that he understands Hashem. If Judaism to someone is just 'fluffy spirituality', it is nothing more than indicative of his פחיתות הנפש, his small-mindedness and his lack of understanding of anything about Hashem, but it is nonetheless what connection to Hashem will be.
Instead of mocking, can you deal with his question?
"Why do charedim go on about torah protecting when it comes to not needing to share the burden of the army, but do not go on about torah protecting when it comes to rats, disease and similar?"
Of course you can't. Hence the mockery.
Don't bother referring to references in your earlier posts where this point is supposedly dealt with. If you can answer the question do so here, in a series of clear, bullet point paragraphs.
Torah does protect when it comes to rats and disease. But we still need physical effort. His latest post is like asking, why do Chareidim need to eat if they believe in mysticism?
Firstly, you are contradicting the gemoroh that states clearly that certain amoraim were careless in food safety preparation, and when asked about advised that 'torah protects'.
Secondly, you haven't explained why charedim do not join in the 'physical effort' of the army, excusing themselves with their claim 'their torah protects' so they don't need to join in.
And no, I am not going through all this again. You couldn't explain in the past, you can't explain now.
If you can answer the question do so here, in a series of clear, bullet point paragraphs.
People on a higher madreiga need less hishtadlus. Moshe didn't need to eat for 40 days and 40 nights. This is Judaism 101.
Why should they join? Are all the chareidim becoming pest control experts and getting exterminator licenses to deal with the rats? How silly. But more importantly, by going OTD in the army, they would actually be hurting the entire country very much.
Just like as before, you are not asking questions, you are just saying nonsensical things. I cannot answer such nonsensical ravings.
Torah protects is not the reason they don't go to the army, but it is the immense contribution they are making to the country, unlike the secular, who actively make the country unsafe.
Your article is full of inaccuracies, misunderstandings, and misconceptions. I cannot reply to all of your points, so, I will choose only a few and we can go from there if you want to continue. I will reply to some of your points.
Firstly, you write that "a mezuzah missing a letter will not create a protective force-field." Before even delving into the Rambam, it is important to note that this is idolatrous. The Torah is opposed to such superstitions. Are you seriously arguing that mezuza has some “power” of protection? Here's an experiment. If you ignite or light a match to a mezuzah, it burns. As it cannot protect itself; it cannot protect you. You need to ask yourself, if a mezuza cannot protect itself, how can it protect anything else?
Maimonides admonished fools who believe mezuzas are a protective device. (See Hilchos Mezuza, 5:4).
Regarding Maimonides. Yes, Maimonides is a big rationalist and an Aristotelian. Yes, Maimonides believed that the universe was eternal and he did not believe that God communicates with prophets. And yes, Maimonides did not believe in miracles that violate the laws of nature. Maimonides rejected the notion of resurrection in the early parts of Chelek.
You must internalize that Maimonides wrote for two audiences the intellectual and the common person. One needs to read the entire Guide to get a feel for what he understands is true. Maimonides did not believe in any, not even one of his 13 Principles, and all but the ones about God among the 13 principles were composed for the masses and Rambam did not believe them.
Now, to your points - I will reply only to two that I feel are most important.
You ask, "does it make a difference to them (the academics and true scholars of Maimonides) that no traditional authorities came up with the same outlandish explanations in the Rambam that they have?"
This is completely inaccurate. The most traditional understanding and the oldest understanding of Maimonides is that of Shmuel Ibn Tibbon who was Maimonides' translator and, Shmuel Ibn Tibbon understood Maimonides as a radical Aristotelian. This is the most traditional understanding of Maimonides. You have to face the fact that the earliest followers of Maimonides, his disciples, and all his contemporaries, as well as commentators such as Rabbi Moshe Narboni and Rabbi Joseph Ibn Caspi, understood Maimonides as an Aristotelian. His own contemporaries and disciples knew him better than you do. Are you seriously arguing that his own contemporaries cannot be relied upon in understanding the thought of Maimonides? This is absurd. Thus, from the testimony of Maimonides' own contemporaries and disciples, Maimonides was always understood to be a radical Aristotelian, buttressing the view of the academics (Menachem Kellner, Prof. Kreisel, and Leo Strauss.)
To your second point, you write that for Maimonides, a non-Jew only gets a reward if they observe the 7 laws on the authority of the Torah. Maimonides is a strict rationalist but such a condition that non-Jews must accept 7 commandments on the basis of the authority of the Torah is not rational, and makes no sense. What if one lives in, say, the far east who has never heard of the Torah, but is a righteous person, is this person to be denied spiritual salvation because such a person is not observant of the seven commandments on the basis of the authority of the Torah (especially when such a person has never heard of the Torah)?
True, Rambam writes that if non-Jews observe the Noahide commandments but do not think the commands are from God they do not merit the world to come. This is what the text states. However, this was a typo; it is the wrong letter. Maimonides actually felt that as long as a person acts properly, the person merits what observant Jews merit. The Mishna Torah which states non-Jews must believe God gave the Noahide commandments is wrong. It was a typo. This is the true view of Maimonides.
Spinoza agreed. Spinoza wrote that even the pagan Aristotle archived salvation (ie his ethics were above everyone else.) Indeed, even Maimonides felt that Aristotle was a prophet. The idea that non-Jews must believe that the noahides laws came from God is not supported by Torah. Spinoza writes:
"People who lay no claims to reason for themselves, are not able to prove by reason, this, their assertion; and if they hawk about something superior to reason, it is a mere figment, and far below reason. We can only judge a man by his works. If a man abounds in charity, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and chastity there is no law, such an one, whether he be taught by reason only or by the Scripture only, has been in very truth taught by God, and is altogether blessed."
I was almost going to respond to your utterly ridiculous comment, but then I clicked on your profile and saw your bio and comment you left on Ash's blog and realized you're completely out to lunch. Be well.
PS I was told that this isn't the only conspiracy theory that you go for. Trump won the 2020 election too. Do libs also eat kids at Comet Ping Pong Pizza?
What comment are you referring to? Why did you bring up politics? I did not bring up policies on your blog. So, why did you mention it in my comment? Does it matter what I think in relation tot he 2020 election a discussion about the Rambam? To answer your question, no, I am not a conspiracy theorist. No, I do not believe that the earth is flat. I am a rationalist in the footsetps of the great Rambam.
I here close the subject. I have shown in my comment that you hold radical misconceptions about the Rambam and that you are inventing a false Maimonides; and I leave the evidence I have produced (that is, the own contemporaries of Maimonides himself held him to be a radical Aristotelian) as proof of it to be refuted, if anyone can do it.
No comment on the post, which seems to repeat a lot of what I've read here, although I couldn't get through it. But a friendly comment on the style - I am finding the text a little dense to read through. It needs to be visually broken up a little better. May just be me, in which case I apologize.
They don't do clear, numbers, bullet point paragraphs. To academic and goyish. When was the last time a 'shtickel torah' was presented in clear numbered bullet points? With such goyshe things as an introduction, key assumptions, summary and conclusion? That might force the author to think in a logical, ordered, unbiased way rather than presenting a cholont of mareh mekomos and impressive sounding lomdus.
" Yet saying that there is no reward and punishment or a relationship with Hashem is by all means heresy. We are no longer talking about ‘Rationalists’ or ‘Traditionalists’ anymore."
Similar point here:
http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2016/07/materialist-judaism-part-iii-maimonides.html
"
"But the fact of the matter is that the academicians see no moral or ethical problem with revising the Rambam to conform to their materialistic, mechanistic view of the physical universe.
Hence, they routinely claim the Rambam 1) didn't believe in nature-breaking miracles, 2) didn't believe in Divine Providence (with a few rare exceptions) interfering in human affairs, 3) didn't believe in the efficacy of petitional prayer, 4)the soul being nothing more than "the intellect" or "consciousness" etc.
There are some academics who have gone so far as to say that the Rambam 5) didn't really believe in creation ex-nihilo. They also speculate that his Treatise on the Resurrection was really a ploy to 6) conceal his true disbelief in physical resurrection of the dead. Such is the fantasy world occupied by Judaic Studies professors.
The Rambam is simply not to be taken at his word.
I contend that Dr. Slifkin, who certainly finds these academics more credible than anyone else regarding the true beliefs of the Rambam, if he were to be honest, should re-name his blog "Materialist Judaism"."
R-A-B-B-I, Dovid's the man, oh my!
With wisdom and grace, he'll reach the sky.
A spiritual guide, so full of light,
Rabbi Dovid shines with all his might!
With Torah teachings, he's always there,
Guiding us with love and care.
From prayers to study, he leads the way,
Rabbi Dovid brightens each day!
His words inspire, his actions speak,
Compassion and kindness are what he seeks.
A pillar of faith, a source of hope,
Rabbi Dovid helps us all to cope!
He listens, he guides, he brings us close,
To our heritage, where goodness flows.
With open arms, he welcomes all,
Rabbi Dovid, you stand tall!
Through challenges and times of strife,
Rabbi Dovid strengthens our spiritual life.
With patience and understanding, he's our guide,
Rabbi Dovid, you're by our side!
So let's cheer for Rabbi Dovid, loud and clear,
The man who brings blessings, year after year.
In every way, he leads with a plan,
Rabbi Dovid Kornreich, you're the man!
As I have commented before in another thread, there was a a whole group of hyper-rationalists in תקופת הראשונים who wrote exactly the same כפירה things, and falsely based themselves on the רמב"ם
אין כל חדש תחת השמש
A previous anti-Slifkin blog already covered this topic.
http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2016/11/rabbi-dr-natan-slifkin-showcases-what.html
http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/search/label/Rambam%20vs.%20Dr.%20Slifkin
I've come to realize the following, truly sad, rule.
"Anything Modern Orthodox people quote in the name of the Rambam is expressly the opposite of what the Rambam actually believed."
Like all rules it has exceptions, but follow it and you won't be led astray.
Academics? Hashem Yirachem
Welcome back מכרכר, it's been a while since you've posted! Refreshing as usual!
One הערה, "The idea of a Relationship with Hashem is “fluffy spirituality”." - the Rambam wouldn't be too upset with that one (let me finish). He discusses at length in חלק ג' פרק נ"א (required reading for every frum Jew! along with the following פרק) that there are indeed those that are not in the palace of the king (even those in the country) who really jus don't 'get it'. The Rambam's famous words: "והנה בארנו פעמים רבות כי האהבה היא כפי ההשגה" - the feeling for Hashem is according to the amount that he understands Hashem. If Judaism to someone is just 'fluffy spirituality', it is nothing more than indicative of his פחיתות הנפש, his small-mindedness and his lack of understanding of anything about Hashem, but it is nonetheless what connection to Hashem will be.
Instead of mocking, can you deal with his question?
"Why do charedim go on about torah protecting when it comes to not needing to share the burden of the army, but do not go on about torah protecting when it comes to rats, disease and similar?"
Of course you can't. Hence the mockery.
Don't bother referring to references in your earlier posts where this point is supposedly dealt with. If you can answer the question do so here, in a series of clear, bullet point paragraphs.
Torah does protect when it comes to rats and disease. But we still need physical effort. His latest post is like asking, why do Chareidim need to eat if they believe in mysticism?
Firstly, you are contradicting the gemoroh that states clearly that certain amoraim were careless in food safety preparation, and when asked about advised that 'torah protects'.
Secondly, you haven't explained why charedim do not join in the 'physical effort' of the army, excusing themselves with their claim 'their torah protects' so they don't need to join in.
And no, I am not going through all this again. You couldn't explain in the past, you can't explain now.
If you can answer the question do so here, in a series of clear, bullet point paragraphs.
People on a higher madreiga need less hishtadlus. Moshe didn't need to eat for 40 days and 40 nights. This is Judaism 101.
Why should they join? Are all the chareidim becoming pest control experts and getting exterminator licenses to deal with the rats? How silly. But more importantly, by going OTD in the army, they would actually be hurting the entire country very much.
Just like as before, you are not asking questions, you are just saying nonsensical things. I cannot answer such nonsensical ravings.
Exactly. Chareidim don't go to the army because they are worried about going OTD. Nothing to do with 'torah protects'.
Torah protects is not the reason they don't go to the army, but it is the immense contribution they are making to the country, unlike the secular, who actively make the country unsafe.
Happy, consider my four words against your lawyerly-precise tractates of text trying to satisfy the unsatisfiable.
If he can't, I can. False dichotomies are retarded.
Your article is full of inaccuracies, misunderstandings, and misconceptions. I cannot reply to all of your points, so, I will choose only a few and we can go from there if you want to continue. I will reply to some of your points.
Firstly, you write that "a mezuzah missing a letter will not create a protective force-field." Before even delving into the Rambam, it is important to note that this is idolatrous. The Torah is opposed to such superstitions. Are you seriously arguing that mezuza has some “power” of protection? Here's an experiment. If you ignite or light a match to a mezuzah, it burns. As it cannot protect itself; it cannot protect you. You need to ask yourself, if a mezuza cannot protect itself, how can it protect anything else?
Maimonides admonished fools who believe mezuzas are a protective device. (See Hilchos Mezuza, 5:4).
Regarding Maimonides. Yes, Maimonides is a big rationalist and an Aristotelian. Yes, Maimonides believed that the universe was eternal and he did not believe that God communicates with prophets. And yes, Maimonides did not believe in miracles that violate the laws of nature. Maimonides rejected the notion of resurrection in the early parts of Chelek.
You must internalize that Maimonides wrote for two audiences the intellectual and the common person. One needs to read the entire Guide to get a feel for what he understands is true. Maimonides did not believe in any, not even one of his 13 Principles, and all but the ones about God among the 13 principles were composed for the masses and Rambam did not believe them.
Now, to your points - I will reply only to two that I feel are most important.
You ask, "does it make a difference to them (the academics and true scholars of Maimonides) that no traditional authorities came up with the same outlandish explanations in the Rambam that they have?"
This is completely inaccurate. The most traditional understanding and the oldest understanding of Maimonides is that of Shmuel Ibn Tibbon who was Maimonides' translator and, Shmuel Ibn Tibbon understood Maimonides as a radical Aristotelian. This is the most traditional understanding of Maimonides. You have to face the fact that the earliest followers of Maimonides, his disciples, and all his contemporaries, as well as commentators such as Rabbi Moshe Narboni and Rabbi Joseph Ibn Caspi, understood Maimonides as an Aristotelian. His own contemporaries and disciples knew him better than you do. Are you seriously arguing that his own contemporaries cannot be relied upon in understanding the thought of Maimonides? This is absurd. Thus, from the testimony of Maimonides' own contemporaries and disciples, Maimonides was always understood to be a radical Aristotelian, buttressing the view of the academics (Menachem Kellner, Prof. Kreisel, and Leo Strauss.)
To your second point, you write that for Maimonides, a non-Jew only gets a reward if they observe the 7 laws on the authority of the Torah. Maimonides is a strict rationalist but such a condition that non-Jews must accept 7 commandments on the basis of the authority of the Torah is not rational, and makes no sense. What if one lives in, say, the far east who has never heard of the Torah, but is a righteous person, is this person to be denied spiritual salvation because such a person is not observant of the seven commandments on the basis of the authority of the Torah (especially when such a person has never heard of the Torah)?
True, Rambam writes that if non-Jews observe the Noahide commandments but do not think the commands are from God they do not merit the world to come. This is what the text states. However, this was a typo; it is the wrong letter. Maimonides actually felt that as long as a person acts properly, the person merits what observant Jews merit. The Mishna Torah which states non-Jews must believe God gave the Noahide commandments is wrong. It was a typo. This is the true view of Maimonides.
Spinoza agreed. Spinoza wrote that even the pagan Aristotle archived salvation (ie his ethics were above everyone else.) Indeed, even Maimonides felt that Aristotle was a prophet. The idea that non-Jews must believe that the noahides laws came from God is not supported by Torah. Spinoza writes:
"People who lay no claims to reason for themselves, are not able to prove by reason, this, their assertion; and if they hawk about something superior to reason, it is a mere figment, and far below reason. We can only judge a man by his works. If a man abounds in charity, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and chastity there is no law, such an one, whether he be taught by reason only or by the Scripture only, has been in very truth taught by God, and is altogether blessed."
I was almost going to respond to your utterly ridiculous comment, but then I clicked on your profile and saw your bio and comment you left on Ash's blog and realized you're completely out to lunch. Be well.
PS I was told that this isn't the only conspiracy theory that you go for. Trump won the 2020 election too. Do libs also eat kids at Comet Ping Pong Pizza?
What comment are you referring to? Why did you bring up politics? I did not bring up policies on your blog. So, why did you mention it in my comment? Does it matter what I think in relation tot he 2020 election a discussion about the Rambam? To answer your question, no, I am not a conspiracy theorist. No, I do not believe that the earth is flat. I am a rationalist in the footsetps of the great Rambam.
I here close the subject. I have shown in my comment that you hold radical misconceptions about the Rambam and that you are inventing a false Maimonides; and I leave the evidence I have produced (that is, the own contemporaries of Maimonides himself held him to be a radical Aristotelian) as proof of it to be refuted, if anyone can do it.
Welcome back McCracker
No comment on the post, which seems to repeat a lot of what I've read here, although I couldn't get through it. But a friendly comment on the style - I am finding the text a little dense to read through. It needs to be visually broken up a little better. May just be me, in which case I apologize.
They don't do clear, numbers, bullet point paragraphs. To academic and goyish. When was the last time a 'shtickel torah' was presented in clear numbered bullet points? With such goyshe things as an introduction, key assumptions, summary and conclusion? That might force the author to think in a logical, ordered, unbiased way rather than presenting a cholont of mareh mekomos and impressive sounding lomdus.
I guess spelling "too" correctly would also be 'to academic and goyish', eh?
Also using commas correctly is 'to academic and goyish".
If they used numbered bullet points, would that serve as a kappara for the Minyan factories?
I actually find most of the writing here fascinating and worth the read. It was just a comment on the style.