Amazing post that really captures the underlying dynamic. Just off the top of my head, does anybody recognize "fozziebear", "Dstaum", "Baruch Pelta", "Rationalist Medical Halacha", "G*3"? Also, see this comment from one of Natan's friends, "liked" by Natan
I think you guys would do well to stop commenting on his site, especially his anti-chareidi posts. Let him see that nobody is interested. He's not going to change from people's comments on his blog - that's why I stopped commenting there.
Sorry, buddy. It's wishful thinking. He's been going strong for the last ten years with almost no opposition and hasn't come up for air. I think his current status of three consecutive posts without referencing Charedim once is a record for him.
I've been following for a while as well. Aside from when he ventures into the anti-vax or anti-trump world, his anti-chareidi posts are far and away more commented upon than his standard (or shall we see what should be standard based on his blog's title) posts. He knows that anytime he wants to get things going, he can just poke something chareidi and his site blows up.
Different commenters have been arguing with him at different times over the years, nobody has changed him.
I've been following him for many years, but never commented (as far as I can recall). I saw that almost anyone who disagrees with him, no matter what, is not treated with respect.
Gil Student supported him way back then because he felt (I have to say in this regard he was correct) that any shita in the rishonim shouldn't be outlawed. He wasn't really pro-slifkin, but anti-young earth and pro R Avraham Ben Harambam. Far as I can tell, he got off the Slifkin train after the organ donation post, though I could be wrong. (There are of course chashuv poskim who hold one should donate organs, but Natan's reasoning was particularly bad and egregious from both a rational and halakhic viewpoint)
Even his somewhat mainstream supporters have disappeared. As late as of a few months ago, he had Jeffrey, Not A Fan, and Nachum at his side. They're all gone. Now his biggest fans are Torrey, Howard Schranz, Adam Edelman and DRosenbach (who recently changed his moniker to Dawkin's Terrier!) All four of them are complete atheists.
Only registered users can comment at Substack. Some people won't do that.
I think he jumped the shark. Substack seemed like a good move at the time. Hey, it undid my banning, so there is that. For him though, I think it will prove to be a net negative.
The Chasam Sofer writes in a Teshuva about his fights against the nascent reform movement that he is careful to keep the fight within the parameters of 'good vs. evil' and not about individuals.
There are, I believe, two reasons for this:
1. A human being is more than his individual beliefs. If a person is trying to prove that a character like Geiger, for example, is completely wrong and a danger to Judaism, one runs the risk of finding the fight against the rest of his character. He may be a kind, generous individual, who is a good friend to his friends, a good father to his family etc.. Nobody who knows him will accept that he is a danger to society and Torah, and the fight will be lost. If the topic remains the issue itself, no other consideration can sully the argument.
2. The evil of the anti-Torah movements transcends humans. Geiger will die or disappear, but reform Judaism will remain a problem. By focusing on the actual issue - the warped belief system of the reform movement, the Chasam Sofer could ensure that his argument will endure.
The same is true about this new movement of pseudo-intellectualism, grounded in ignorance and based on frivolity. Stop mentioning people by name, ignore their personal existence. Keep the argument of Emes against Sheker and you will be more successful. Every time I see someone's name in a post title, I cringe. I am far from a fan of Slifkin's, but he is a human being and arguments should not be with humans. It sullies the purity of the argument.
Your point is well taken. I cannot speak to the Chasam Sofer because I don't know context, but both of the ideas you spell out have merit.
I do think however that there are times that it's important to alert readers to a particular person's chicanery, and much of our work is devoted to specifically that sort of thing. I actually have a post under preparation about this very point, it should come out sometime either before or shortly after Yom Tov.
At any rate, I don't see how I could have made the points I did in this post without addressing Dr. Slifkin directly.
ועוד בה שלישי' בתשובתי גם כי הארכתי קצת בדברים פשוטים רק לדחות האפיקורוס ואמנם נזהרתי מאוד שלא ללחום עם שום אדם ולא נזכר שום אדם באגרות שלי כלל ולא יראה החוצה שום התגרות אדם באדם כ"א האמת לוחם עם השקר
He continues with another reason (he considers it an 'additional' reason) why it would not be wise to discuss people by name, that may not be relevant here. But my points are also valid.
It is about אמת לוחם עם השקר and nothing else. There is a sheker out there of people only trusting their physical senses. There is a sheker out there of people trusting science blindly, yet demanding 120% proof for Torah. There is a sheker out there of people claiming Rishonim on their side, without having spent time actually learning things in their original texts, with no context to how the Rishonim speak and what is behind their words. There is a sheker out there of people treating important matters frivolously.
All of these can be addressed without mentioning names and people. Because the problem transcends this and that person.
Again, it all depends on context. Sometimes the point is to argue about ideas, in which case you can leave out the people. Sometimes the point is to alert people that a certain person should not be taken seriously, in which case you can't.
I didn't look up the teshuva yet, but I recall that a big reason the Chassam Sofer didn't want to debate Choriner publicly is because he didn't want to throw the discussion out to the street, and have a bunch of coffee shop lowlives weighing in. Unfortunately, in our situation that train has long since left the station.
I also want to add that based on following Natan for many years, I strongly doubt he is an atheist. He clearly believes in God. I also strongly suspect however (with no smoking gun evidence, just a hunch) that he accepts the documentary (or supplementary) hypothesis.
I haven't been following him for too long, and don't plan on following him any longer.
However based on what I've seen from him the past month, it seems he definitely doesn't believe in Judaism. He clearly writes there's no evidence. He doesn't believe in the mabul, creation, or any other stories of the torah. Ok he says the torah wasn't meant to be taken literally, it's fairytales. You think he really believes that?
Not to mention he doesn't give a hoot to what chazal say, i.e. bitachon, tefilla etc etc.
I don't know if he's an atheist, he may believe God created the world and then left it alone, like the old fashioned kofrim. afra lepumei
Are you familiar with the opinions of the rishonim who understand that Hashem controls every aspect of nature, but doesn't just stam change nature on an individual basis (aside from doing that for great tzadikim)? Like the Ramban, for example, on the words כי ידעדיו in פרשת וירא.
It's not the mehalech that has been fed to us from elementary school and is constantly thrown at us from lighter sources like TorahAnytime, but when you are familiar with it, it very much changes one's outlook on how we are supposed to live our lives and what to expect (or not expect) in terms of Divine intervention.
I believe NS's views are in line with that line of hashkafa
The Ramban writes that he doesn't change nature, but He controls it. He orchestrates things behind the curtain of nature, whereas in a supernatural situation, He ignores the rules of nature completely.
But the accident that happened to block the road to the airport was orchestrated by Him, even though it looks to us like it was caused by someone texting while driving. And the person texting will be punished for ignoring simple safety rules, it is no contradiction.
The issue is not so much what the Rishonim understand Hashem's chosen approach to running his world is or isn't. The problem is that "Rationalists" make this into some kind of theological necessity, as if Hashem is chv"sh constricted in how He can run the world.
Maybe there are lots of nissim, maybe there are very few; either way that's Hashem's prerogative for whatever reasons He has. It's a policy decision, not a "rational" necessity.
For someone who recognizes Hashem's omnipotence neither option is intrinsically more intellectually desirable. The question is simply what the facts of the matter are.
We discussed this earlier, in the post "What Would Rabbeinu Nissim Do?"
Can you give a couple examples? From what I can tell, he does try to stay within halacha and ikarrei emuna (maybe not ikarrie emuna for every shita, but always having something to rely on)
Well, we know how it panned out. Those who followed Slifkin and his mehalech became kofrim. The gedolim foresaw it and stopped it in time.
It just sucks that the gedolim don't actually have any good answers to the problems Slifkin came to answer. That might be why those following him became kofrim.
He was the victim of a somewhat vicious practical joke in high school (I think), which he boarded at in Jerusalem. He wrote about it last year. I don't condone such behavior but it is telling that he was the kind of student that inspired his peers in this manner.
it is not unrelated, right after he was called out for his inconsistent opinions of chareidim, he is left with no option but to dig deeper and deny more....
The question of "proof" today is very different than in past centuries. In the past, it wasn't a matter of proving the Torah is true, but of using philosophy to prove God and in that way understand His nature. Those on the pro side felt that an essential goal of Judaism is to know God through philosophy (just like kabbalists hold it is essential to know God through Kabbalah). Those on the anti side felt that too much involvement in philosophy would draw people away from what God really wants of us, His Torah and Mitzvos, and also lead people to be kofer in God. It was never a question of historicity of the Torah until quite recently. Very different dynamic. Maybe I will write a post on this issue.
Might be true but once you have the questions it no longer works to just say I believe and no need for seforim like moreh nevuchim (or even slifkins books) to help with the doubts.
Well, if you look and you just have questions and no good answers, it's a choice between Breslov or apikorsus. At least Rebbe Nachman explains why there won't be any answers. (Also, hi! I believe we've met before!)
Amazing post that really captures the underlying dynamic. Just off the top of my head, does anybody recognize "fozziebear", "Dstaum", "Baruch Pelta", "Rationalist Medical Halacha", "G*3"? Also, see this comment from one of Natan's friends, "liked" by Natan
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/the-drowning-man/comment/13759768
I think you guys would do well to stop commenting on his site, especially his anti-chareidi posts. Let him see that nobody is interested. He's not going to change from people's comments on his blog - that's why I stopped commenting there.
Sorry, buddy. It's wishful thinking. He's been going strong for the last ten years with almost no opposition and hasn't come up for air. I think his current status of three consecutive posts without referencing Charedim once is a record for him.
I've been following for a while as well. Aside from when he ventures into the anti-vax or anti-trump world, his anti-chareidi posts are far and away more commented upon than his standard (or shall we see what should be standard based on his blog's title) posts. He knows that anytime he wants to get things going, he can just poke something chareidi and his site blows up.
Different commenters have been arguing with him at different times over the years, nobody has changed him.
I've been following him for many years, but never commented (as far as I can recall). I saw that almost anyone who disagrees with him, no matter what, is not treated with respect.
Baruch pelta and G*3 are OTD for years. RMH and fozzie are frum, No clue about Dstaum, (I should write a book!)
Here's an interesting case- R Gil Student! What have you to say about him? Yes, you should write a book.
Gil Student supported him way back then because he felt (I have to say in this regard he was correct) that any shita in the rishonim shouldn't be outlawed. He wasn't really pro-slifkin, but anti-young earth and pro R Avraham Ben Harambam. Far as I can tell, he got off the Slifkin train after the organ donation post, though I could be wrong. (There are of course chashuv poskim who hold one should donate organs, but Natan's reasoning was particularly bad and egregious from both a rational and halakhic viewpoint)
Even his somewhat mainstream supporters have disappeared. As late as of a few months ago, he had Jeffrey, Not A Fan, and Nachum at his side. They're all gone. Now his biggest fans are Torrey, Howard Schranz, Adam Edelman and DRosenbach (who recently changed his moniker to Dawkin's Terrier!) All four of them are complete atheists.
Only registered users can comment at Substack. Some people won't do that.
I think he jumped the shark. Substack seemed like a good move at the time. Hey, it undid my banning, so there is that. For him though, I think it will prove to be a net negative.
משנה מקום משנה מזל
The Chasam Sofer writes in a Teshuva about his fights against the nascent reform movement that he is careful to keep the fight within the parameters of 'good vs. evil' and not about individuals.
There are, I believe, two reasons for this:
1. A human being is more than his individual beliefs. If a person is trying to prove that a character like Geiger, for example, is completely wrong and a danger to Judaism, one runs the risk of finding the fight against the rest of his character. He may be a kind, generous individual, who is a good friend to his friends, a good father to his family etc.. Nobody who knows him will accept that he is a danger to society and Torah, and the fight will be lost. If the topic remains the issue itself, no other consideration can sully the argument.
2. The evil of the anti-Torah movements transcends humans. Geiger will die or disappear, but reform Judaism will remain a problem. By focusing on the actual issue - the warped belief system of the reform movement, the Chasam Sofer could ensure that his argument will endure.
The same is true about this new movement of pseudo-intellectualism, grounded in ignorance and based on frivolity. Stop mentioning people by name, ignore their personal existence. Keep the argument of Emes against Sheker and you will be more successful. Every time I see someone's name in a post title, I cringe. I am far from a fan of Slifkin's, but he is a human being and arguments should not be with humans. It sullies the purity of the argument.
Your point is well taken. I cannot speak to the Chasam Sofer because I don't know context, but both of the ideas you spell out have merit.
I do think however that there are times that it's important to alert readers to a particular person's chicanery, and much of our work is devoted to specifically that sort of thing. I actually have a post under preparation about this very point, it should come out sometime either before or shortly after Yom Tov.
At any rate, I don't see how I could have made the points I did in this post without addressing Dr. Slifkin directly.
The Teshuva is in Chelek 6 Siman 85
ועוד בה שלישי' בתשובתי גם כי הארכתי קצת בדברים פשוטים רק לדחות האפיקורוס ואמנם נזהרתי מאוד שלא ללחום עם שום אדם ולא נזכר שום אדם באגרות שלי כלל ולא יראה החוצה שום התגרות אדם באדם כ"א האמת לוחם עם השקר
He continues with another reason (he considers it an 'additional' reason) why it would not be wise to discuss people by name, that may not be relevant here. But my points are also valid.
It is about אמת לוחם עם השקר and nothing else. There is a sheker out there of people only trusting their physical senses. There is a sheker out there of people trusting science blindly, yet demanding 120% proof for Torah. There is a sheker out there of people claiming Rishonim on their side, without having spent time actually learning things in their original texts, with no context to how the Rishonim speak and what is behind their words. There is a sheker out there of people treating important matters frivolously.
All of these can be addressed without mentioning names and people. Because the problem transcends this and that person.
Again, it all depends on context. Sometimes the point is to argue about ideas, in which case you can leave out the people. Sometimes the point is to alert people that a certain person should not be taken seriously, in which case you can't.
I didn't look up the teshuva yet, but I recall that a big reason the Chassam Sofer didn't want to debate Choriner publicly is because he didn't want to throw the discussion out to the street, and have a bunch of coffee shop lowlives weighing in. Unfortunately, in our situation that train has long since left the station.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/28/23660473/substack-retail-investors-revenue-profit
Natan should donate the money he makes from his paid posts to Substack. They need the money.
Related: https://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2011/07/natan-slifkin-rewriting-jewish.html
I also want to add that based on following Natan for many years, I strongly doubt he is an atheist. He clearly believes in God. I also strongly suspect however (with no smoking gun evidence, just a hunch) that he accepts the documentary (or supplementary) hypothesis.
I haven't been following him for too long, and don't plan on following him any longer.
However based on what I've seen from him the past month, it seems he definitely doesn't believe in Judaism. He clearly writes there's no evidence. He doesn't believe in the mabul, creation, or any other stories of the torah. Ok he says the torah wasn't meant to be taken literally, it's fairytales. You think he really believes that?
Not to mention he doesn't give a hoot to what chazal say, i.e. bitachon, tefilla etc etc.
I don't know if he's an atheist, he may believe God created the world and then left it alone, like the old fashioned kofrim. afra lepumei
Are you familiar with the opinions of the rishonim who understand that Hashem controls every aspect of nature, but doesn't just stam change nature on an individual basis (aside from doing that for great tzadikim)? Like the Ramban, for example, on the words כי ידעדיו in פרשת וירא.
It's not the mehalech that has been fed to us from elementary school and is constantly thrown at us from lighter sources like TorahAnytime, but when you are familiar with it, it very much changes one's outlook on how we are supposed to live our lives and what to expect (or not expect) in terms of Divine intervention.
I believe NS's views are in line with that line of hashkafa
The Ramban writes that he doesn't change nature, but He controls it. He orchestrates things behind the curtain of nature, whereas in a supernatural situation, He ignores the rules of nature completely.
But the accident that happened to block the road to the airport was orchestrated by Him, even though it looks to us like it was caused by someone texting while driving. And the person texting will be punished for ignoring simple safety rules, it is no contradiction.
Hi Padre,
Please drop me a line when you have a chance.
mecharkerbcholoz@gmail.com
Thanks!
Did you see the Ramban in parshas vayera? It doesn't sound like the way you are understanding IMHO
The issue is not so much what the Rishonim understand Hashem's chosen approach to running his world is or isn't. The problem is that "Rationalists" make this into some kind of theological necessity, as if Hashem is chv"sh constricted in how He can run the world.
Maybe there are lots of nissim, maybe there are very few; either way that's Hashem's prerogative for whatever reasons He has. It's a policy decision, not a "rational" necessity.
For someone who recognizes Hashem's omnipotence neither option is intrinsically more intellectually desirable. The question is simply what the facts of the matter are.
We discussed this earlier, in the post "What Would Rabbeinu Nissim Do?"
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/what-would-rabbeinu-nissim-do
There are problems besides the issue of Hashgakha Pratit
Esp. Zot HaTorah Lo T'he Mukhlafet!
What do you mean by that?
That he believes that Halakha and ikarrei emuna can and should be changed to fit in with what hr and his far left friends think.
Can you give a couple examples? From what I can tell, he does try to stay within halacha and ikarrei emuna (maybe not ikarrie emuna for every shita, but always having something to rely on)
I've been following him for many years (until he it started to cost money. I dpn't want to fund him).
It appears that he does want to have Chazal "on his side", and he likes to use very far-fetched explanations to achieve that goal.
I don't know for sure if he does that to deceive himself or to deceive other people, but it appears to me that the first option is correct.
hi, how do I get in touch with the authors of this blog? Email addresses?
You can reach out to me at mecharkerbcholoz@gmail.com.
Here's a blog from the very early days of the Slifkin affair: http://yoinosonschreiber.blogspot.com/2005/01/slifkin-affair-my-pennies-worth.html?m=1
Well, we know how it panned out. Those who followed Slifkin and his mehalech became kofrim. The gedolim foresaw it and stopped it in time.
It just sucks that the gedolim don't actually have any good answers to the problems Slifkin came to answer. That might be why those following him became kofrim.
I thought your title was going to make another, also devastating point:
Where are Nutty's friends from his yeshiva days?
Plenty of healthy speculation lies this way.
He was the victim of a somewhat vicious practical joke in high school (I think), which he boarded at in Jerusalem. He wrote about it last year. I don't condone such behavior but it is telling that he was the kind of student that inspired his peers in this manner.
What was the joke?
https://rationalistjudaism.blogspot.com/2022/05/arachnophilia.html
He could use fewer friends like that.
it is not unrelated, right after he was called out for his inconsistent opinions of chareidim, he is left with no option but to dig deeper and deny more....
As Rebbe Nachman said years ago, one who follows the Moreh Nevuchim and tries to prove Judaism with logic, will end up becoming an atheist.
The question of "proof" today is very different than in past centuries. In the past, it wasn't a matter of proving the Torah is true, but of using philosophy to prove God and in that way understand His nature. Those on the pro side felt that an essential goal of Judaism is to know God through philosophy (just like kabbalists hold it is essential to know God through Kabbalah). Those on the anti side felt that too much involvement in philosophy would draw people away from what God really wants of us, His Torah and Mitzvos, and also lead people to be kofer in God. It was never a question of historicity of the Torah until quite recently. Very different dynamic. Maybe I will write a post on this issue.
Might be true but once you have the questions it no longer works to just say I believe and no need for seforim like moreh nevuchim (or even slifkins books) to help with the doubts.
Well, if you look and you just have questions and no good answers, it's a choice between Breslov or apikorsus. At least Rebbe Nachman explains why there won't be any answers. (Also, hi! I believe we've met before!)
Wait, Ash is a Breslover? Now that's an unexpected twist!
I'm a postmodernist breslover in The style of Rav Shagar.