Sunday, March 29, 2009

a strange defense - part II

The second critique of Rabbi Slifkin is that R’ Kanievsky and R’Shternbruch and others from their world do not retain the exclusive right to speak on matters of mesorah. In that I fully agree, and as I wrote last post look forward to Rabbi Slifkin producing haskamos from R’ Hershel Shachter or someone of that ilk to bolster his views. Until that happens, the point is academic.

It is with respect to his third critique that it is ludicrous to disallow disagreement with an authority because he is a great Torah scholar that I find myself most strongly disagreeing with Rabbi Slifkin. Once again, he knocks down an easy strawman rather than deal with the real issue.

The issue is NOT whether there can be legitimate disagreement on Torah issues. Anyone who deals with a machlokes Rambam and Tosfos or Shach and Taz knows this. The issue, and I will put it bluntly, is given the overwhelming criticism of Rabbi Slifkin’s views by gedolei yisrael and Roshei Yeshiva, who is he to disagree?

The Pri Megadim can disagree with Rabbi Akiva Eiger, but no matter how well I learn a sugya it indeed would be ludicrous for me to disagree. At best I can say R' Akiva Eiger is tzarich iyun to me. In one of the biographies of R' Baruch Ber it is related that when R' B.B. would say a shiur and answer a question RAKE left b'tzarich iyun he would say the shiur is just a hava amina but not a real answer or surely RAKE would have thought of it!

Not only does Rabbi Slifkin think he is a bar plugta of the gedolei hador, he writes quite confidently that "virtually none of them knew about the sources in Rishonim and Achronim on which I was relying". Indeed! I find my eyebrows raised reading rhetoric like this, but maybe it's just me.

The question R' Slifkin raises as to why Rav Hirsch's writings should not be expunged from Torah texts because of some of the non-traditional views Hirsch held just as his [Slifkin's] works have been banned shows a shortsightedness as to why and how works become part of the canon of great Torah texts and why certain people become enshrined by history as great Torah leaders. One can point to the writings of any Torah great and find views that are sometimes difficult to understand -- the fact that you may not have an answer for Tosfos' critique of Rashi in no way diminishes Rashi's greatness. It is the totality of vision, thought, and character that makes a gadol, and given that totality of personality, we assume there must be logic and justification even behind writings that strike us as perplexing. Does Rabbi Slifkin truly believe he has shown a mastery of the totality of Torah literature that would demand we give his writings the same benefit of the doubt we might give to a Rav Hirsch even in the face of the staunchest opposition?

Rabbi Slifkin "defends" his opponents by suggesting that they adhere to a different understanding of mesorah than the one he subscribes to and within that framework their opposition in understandable. Putting aside for a moment whether the fact that so many Torah giants subscribe to a different viewpoint itself should give one pause (see part 1), it does not seem to dawn on Rabbi Slifkin that disagreement with his views may not stem from an alternate framework of mesorah, but simply because the understanding of sources he is so confident even gedolim are ignorant of is either 1) wrong; 2) only partially correct; 3) perhaps defensible as an "..v'od yesh lomar" but not the best approach; 4) not for public consumption for other reasons. (See R' Daniel Eidensohn's blog who made these same points here.)

Would a person in their wildest dreams think of saying they "choose" to pasken like a Magen Avraham against a Ta"z even though the greatest poseki hador say otherwise? Does that fact that in previous doros other poskim might have paskened like that Magen Avraham make any shred of difference? I think not. So why in areas of emunos v'deyos do the same rules not apply? Unless there are gedolei yisrael on whose shoulders you sit, "Torah archeology" of past views and your personal interpretation of whether or not they agree with your views carries little weight.

Rabbi Slifkin argues that just as one can be part of the chareidi community without necessarily following the gedolim's advice as to who to vote for in the Israeli elections, so too, perhaps one can be chareidi and still agree with his views as opposed to those of gedolim. Does Rabbi Slifkin see no difference between what gedolim advise in a non-halachic context and what they teach with respect to fundemental emunos v'deyos?

For the final time let me reiterate: R' Slifkin's books are of little interest to me. I am far more interested in R' Elchanan's chakira of whether psik reisha assumes an implicit kavanah or needs no kavanah than whether chickens can really live without heads; I am far more interested in the geder of kinyanim than whether elephants can jump. What I find far more troubling than a few books is the attiutude toward gedolei torah this controversy has engendered. R' Slifkin claims "thousands" in the chareidi community agree with his approach but "virtually nobody dares say so." I am reminded of Hillary Clinton's famous remark about a "vast right wing conspiracy" -- is this really how we should think of gedolei yisrael? Is the public lack of support just a product of societal pressure and politics reaching even the hallowed halls of the Beis Medrash, or could it be, just maybe, that when push comes to shove, gedolei yisrael from the right and left (as I noted before, I have not read a single haskama from the YU Roshei Yeshiva either) plain and simple do not think these ideas should be taught or supported publicly?

16 comments:

  1. Avi the Grok4:35 AM

    given the overwhelming criticism of Rabbi Slifkin’s views by gedolei yisrael and Roshei Yeshiva, who is he to disagree

    I think the point is that they are not just disagreeing with him, but also with Rishonim, Acharonim and recent authorities, through to his own rebbeim. And some of the Gedolim have been explicit about this - the sources in the Rishonim are forgeries, Rav Hirsch is not from our Beis HaMidrash, etc. That's why it becomes clear that there is a different framework of mesorah.

    ReplyDelete
  2. the sources in the Rishonim are forgeries,

    This accusaion has serious substance behind it regarding Rav Avraham Ben HaRambam,s letter on Aggados.
    see here:
    http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?topic_id=8660&forum_id=59&topic_title=The+Rambam+and+Rebeinu+Avrohom%27s+Opinion&forum_title=Torah+and+Science&M=0

    "Rav Hirsch is not from our Beis HaMidrash,

    I've heard that this statement is contested. I have seen no-one who is willing to put his name behind it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Avi the Grok8:04 AM

    See what I mean?

    (btw, the statement about Hirsch was reported by Gil Student as having heard it from someone who heard it from R. Moshe Shapiro. apparently this was after R. Moshe Shapiro had stopped saying that it was a forgery).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Daniel3:51 AM

    Divrei Chaim, your understanding of R' Slifkin's essay is very strange.

    "The question R' Slifkin raises as to why Rav Hirsch's writings should not be expunged from Torah texts because of some of the non-traditional views Hirsch held..."

    I understood it as pointing out that Rav Hirsch's specific views which have been deemed heretical can nevertheless be found referenced in charedi literature.

    "Rabbi Slifkin argues that just as one can be part of the chareidi community without necessarily following the gedolim's advice as to who to vote for in the Israeli elections, so too, perhaps one can be chareidi and still agree with his views as opposed to those of gedolim."

    Wasn't he arguing that you can NOT be part of the charedi community (at least hashkafically) if you don't follow the voting advice?

    ReplyDelete
  5. btw, the statement about Hirsch was reported by Gil Student as having heard it from someone who heard it from R. Moshe Shapiro.

    You call that a verifiable source??
    You said "the gedolim were explicit about this."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tal Benschar7:14 PM

    R' Slifkin claims "thousands" in the chareidi community agree with his approach but "virtually nobody dares say so."

    This reminds me of another "gadol" of some 30 years ago, who claimed to have single-handedly solved the modern agunah problem through afkinan kiddushin. Problem was that virtually the entire rabbinic world disagreed with him. So his defense became that "really many agree with me" but "they are afraid of ostracism from the right" if they express their true views.

    Which of course is pure loeg al divrei chachamim. This person's hetter was roundly rejected by the gedolim of that time -- including R. Moshe Feinstein and R. YB Soloveichik, both of whom were fearless when it came to adopting a halakhic position they feld was correct.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Avi the Grok12:03 PM

    You call that a verifiable source??


    Sure it's verifiable! Speak to Gil!

    You said "the gedolim were explicit about this."

    Yes, R. Moshe was explicit!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Avi the Grok12:08 PM

    Unless there are gedolei yisrael on whose shoulders you sit...

    So Rav Herzog is not a Gadol b'Yisrael? And all the other sources at http://torahandscience.blogspot.com/2006/04/sources-indicating-that-chazal-did-not.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. moshe5:34 PM

    I would like to add my $.02 to the conversation.

    When the entire controversy exploded, I went to quite a number of Rabbonim, and they all told me in private that what was occuring was a massive chilul hashem, and that there should never have been any uproar against slifkin at all.

    I went to speak to R Moshe Shapiro (I went to the kotel to daven vasikin to speak to him), and he told me things that were simply untrue about the books. He was either lying intentionally or was misinformed. I personally think he was misinformed and was not simply slandering slifkin. I fail to see how I can take this seriously after hearing directly from RMS falsehoods (intentional or not) about slifkins books.

    To claim that what slifkin wrote is not part of the mesorah is simply not correct, IMO. All of the Rabbonim I spoke to (if you would like, I can email you with the specifics) felt that it was a valid approach. They were simply afraid to speak up due to the charedi mafia. They did not want to get caught up in the mess and bothered by it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Moshe --

    I'm doing a sociology project next year that will hopefully be encompassing these topics. I would appreciate it if you emailed me said information.

    baruch.pelta@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  11. I know there was a lot of misinformation about the books, but I STILL don't hear anyone saying he heard from RMS that Rav Hirsch is "not from our Beis Midrash". This is more important to me than any misinformation about the books.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ex Talmid of Rav Moshe4:49 AM

    Once it was proved to him that the Hirsch letters were genuine, he had no choice. He couldn't possibly admit them as being a legitimate Torah approach, it is fundamentally opposed to his whole mehalech in Gemara. Why don't you go ask him yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  13. :sigh:
    I STILL don't hear anyone saying he heard from RMS that Rav Hirsch is "not from our Beis Midrash".

    I said the report was contested. It was contested by a talmid of Rav Moshe Shapiro. I did not get permission to disclose his name.

    I'd rather not bother Rav Moshe Shapiro about it if it is not a rumor with any substance to it.
    If there is no name who can stand behind a rumor, it's presumed false.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ex Talmid of Rav Moshe3:46 AM

    Of course it was contested. ANY statement reported said by Rav Moshe will be contested by at least one of his talmidim, for whom it does not fit with the view of Rav Moshe that he is trying to defend. Such contestations are meaningless, unless the person is saying that he was AT THE MEETING where Rav Moshe is said to have said the statement, and he claims that he did not say it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If there is no name who can stand behind a rumor, it's presumed false.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous1:09 AM

    In passing, I don't think it was appropriate to use the word "ilk" in connection with the reference to Rav Schachter.

    ReplyDelete