The Big Machlokes

I've been too busy to post to my blog, but just like everyone has room for Jello, everyone has time for Purim Torah. To the best of my estimation, GodolHador has also been too busy to post to his blog, so he's decided to do Purim Torah all year round. No doubt he's modeling himself after “The Godolim” who write those silly bans, but I get ahead of myself, even if this is a week late.

Perhaps the biggest question that has bothered me about the Rabbi Slifkin ban, is what is the Halachic status of those who agree with his books. What makes this problem especially troublesome for me is that I was always taught that “Nebech an Apikores is an Apikores”. Rav Yaakov Weinberg ZT'L always stressed this point, and lihavdil (Yiftach bedoro KiShmuel bedoro), the current Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisroel, Rav Feldman paskened the same way. He wrote:
Even though their belief is inadvertent (“shogeg”), it is already well known (from Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik of Brisk z”l) that one who holds an opinion of non-belief (“apikorsus”) inadvertently is considered a non-believer nonetheless. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in his work “Igros Moshe” (Orech Chaim, Vol 4, section 91 para. 6) draws the same conclusion.

Now once that is the case, to say Rabbi Slifkin's books are Kefirah is to create the greatest Halachic nightmare of our generation. A brisker or a talmid of Rav Moshe who feels the need to pasken like Rav Elyshav would have no choice but to be completely porush from the frum community, since he has no way of knowing which of them are Minim. Now some may view that as a good thing. The problem is that a porush min hatzibur is also ein lo chelek! Talk about “Damned if you do, damned if you don't”!

We therefore need to go back the original Machlokes between the Rambam and the Raavad on whether an inadvertent heretic is a heretic or not. Rav Chaim Soloveitchik famously gave up trying to understand the Raavad's lenient position, but that's because he limited himself to true lomdus. He assumed Raavad's position had to make sense. I however have a much simpler explanation. According to the Rambam, there are certain fundamental ideas which someone must have in order to have a relationship with Hashem in the next world. The reason why someone doesn't have that knowledge is irrelevant. Without it, he ceases to exist after his death. According to the Raavad, believing in heresy is simply a very very bad sin – so bad that you lose your entire chelek for violating it. However, if someone violates by accident, but was actually motivated LeShem Shomayim based on a mistaken understanding of Torah, the sin simply doesn't rise to the level of the heresy.

Now based on this chakira, it is clear that those who follow Rav Elyashiv's psak on Rabbi Slifkin have no reason to worry about the Rambam's position altogether. Rav Elyashiv's psak that Rabbi Slifkin's books are kefirah would only make sense according to the Shitah of the Raavad. Saying that Chazal made mistakes in science and either misunderstood or failed to properly transmit the pshat of 6 days = 13.5 billion years can only be kefirah is you say kefirah is simply a very very terrible and sinful thing to say. According to the Rambam's view that Kefirah means that one who holds of such a thing can have no relationship with Hashem in the next world, such positions can't possibly be Kefirah. It's not just that the Rambam paskens those views are not Kefirah. According to the Rambam (and Rav Chaim Soloveitchik and Rav Moshe), it is impossible and beyond absurd to even consider the possilbity of them being Kefirah. If anything, they are the antithesis of Kefirah.

This shouldn't come as a surprise to people, for every Kula can be a Chumra, and every Chumra can be a Kula. Chazon Ish shiurim are painful on Pesach, but very convenient for sick people on Yom Kippur. The knife always cuts both ways.

We can now answer another difficult question. Can something true be Kefirah? According to the Rambam, the answer if of course not. How can true knowledge keep one away from Hashem in the next world. To the contrary – it would deepen his relationship to Hashem. According to the Raavad though, the knowledge may be true, but it can be a terrible sin to think and believe such a thing. Take for example Hirhurim - no not that kind, the dirty kind. The type that pop into your head when you repeat the name “Jessica Alba”. [Halachic warning! For those of you who've seen here – especially in person – it's completely assur to repeat her name.] (To dark blue shaitel, of course you're more gorgeous than her, but you're even more tzanua than Sarah Emeinu so I had to use another example.) Hirhurim can be true, but they still can assur to think about. A person may have true desires, but thinking about them can be a terrible aveira.

For who think that this pshat is a bit far-fetched, you should know that of all the words Rav Elyashiv used to describe Rabbi Slifkin's books, he never called them Sheker. How could he? The evidence is overwhelmingly in their favor. He may not believe it, but he never went so far as to say that they are Sheker. He rather said that “they can say such things, but we can't.” In other words, the Rambam may very well have been right to say that Chazal made scientific errors. However, for us to say such a things would be such a terrible sin that it falls under the category of Kefirah.

It seems to me that the best policy is to be machmir according to both Shitos. With things that fall under the Ramabm's definition of Kefirah, such a belief in a physical G-d, you should be machmir to treat the inadvertent heresy as real heresy. However, with true statements that current Godolim think are bad for people to think about, you shouldn't be maikel like the Rambam and believe in them, but rather be machmir like the Raavad and include them in the category of Kefirah. However, to treat a Raavad low-level kefirah statement as a Rambam high-level kefirah statement is to undermine the whole basis of the machlokes, which means that you aren't paskening like either one of them.

Of course many people like to choose one side of each machlokes, the same way as they only root for one side during a ballgame. In that case, the next time someone asks how could you say such kefiradikah thing such as “Chazal didn't fully transmit the truth about the 6 days”, tell them “I'm machmir – like the Rambam. Only those who are crazy maikel like the Raavad and are willing to accept sevaros that Rav Chaim Soloveitchik rejected as absurd would be bothered by such a problem. If you want to be maikel fine, but please don't prevent me from being machmir in this most important area."

Is Rabbi Slifkin a heretic?

Perhaps the single most important Halachic question in the controversy over Rabbi Slifkin's books is what is the Halachic status of Rabbi Slifkin and the many who agree with his books? For if his books are in fact heresy, it would seem to follow that who agree with them are heretics. The ramifications of such a psak are simply mind boggling. Even if those who agree with the books are safek kofrim, the implication would wreak havoc on the daily lives of every frum Jew.

The basic source to be lenient is the well known Raivad in his hasagos to the Rambam Hilchos Teshuva 3:7. The Rambam writes that one who believes in a Corporeal G-d is a Min. The Raivad argues and says that you shouldn't call such a person a Min since there were those who were greater and better than the Rambam who believed such things because of what they saw in Tanach, and even more so because of what they saw in the Aggados which corrupt people's minds. (Note to self – don't corrupt your mind by mistakenly taking things literally.) The Kesef Mishnah is not happy with that Girsa, for how could the Raivad had used the words “Great and Better” than the Rmbam to refer to someone who believes in a Physical G-d?! The Kesef Mishnah therefore brings down a Girsa which says “Even though the fundamental belief is like that, one who believes G-d has a body because he took the language of the Pesukim and Midrashim literally is not worthy of being called a Min”.

There is a well known Rav Chaim Brisk on this Machlokes. As everyone knows, Rav Chaim was famous for finding the fundamental premises underlying the positions of the Rishonim. Rather than trying to prove one particular side of a debate was correct, he would create a framework to show how both sides had a coherent and rational position. His deep understanding of every side of an issue sometimes made it very difficult for him to pasken, for he was loathe to reject shitos which had so much merit to them. It is therefore very striking that in this case Rav Chaim said, “I don't understand the Raivad. Nebech an Apikores is still an Apikores”. Whatever psychological or epistemological excuses you may give, this person believes in a being other than G-d. Now without a doubt Rav Chaim was able to come up with creative explanations for the Raivad's position. However, he wasn't able to come up with one that he considered to be worthy of the Raivad. A sevara is not just a technical answer - it has to make sense. Rav Chaim was unable to come up with an explanation of the Raivad that made sense.

It therefore follows that for those who hold like Rav Chaim that inadvertent heretics are considered heretics, the ramification of saying Rabbi Slifkin's books are kefirah would be scary beyond belief. This would pose such an emergency to our Halachic way of life that we should literally stop everything and not touch another sugya until a solution was found. For the many Briskers out there, this should be their highest priority.

How about the rest of us though? We didn't all learn in Brisker Yeshivos, and even those of us who did don't necessarily need to follow every psak of Rav Chaim. It is therefore with a heavy heart that I quote to you this letter written by Rav Aharon Feldman and sent to Rabbi Gil Student. (Please go to the 11th entry of Moshiach Talk to read the full letter.)

In my humble opinion, the belief of the elokistim runs counter to one of the thirteen principles of faith and indeed the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva) rules that (such people) are in the category of heretics (“minim”). Therefore, their shechita and testimony (including that relating to kashrus) are invalid and one may not include them in a minyan. Even though their belief is inadvertent (“shogeg”), it is already well known (from Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik of Brisk z”l) that one who holds an opinion of non-belief (“apikorsus”) inadvertently is considered a non-believer nonetheless. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in his work “Igros Moshe” (Orech Chaim, Vol 4, section 91 para. 6) draws the same conclusion.

Thanks to Rav Aharon Feldman's bekius we see that Rav Moshe Feinstein paskens that an inadvertent heretic is a heretic. If there ever was a Posek Acharon here in America, it was without a doubt Rav Moshe Feinstein. For those concerned about Posek Acharon, it seems that by default you should follow Rav Moshe's psak until you specifically hear from your Rav otherwise. Now we don't know conclusively if Rav Moshe himself would have considered Rabbi Slifkin's books to be Kefirah. There is a debate between his son and his son-in-law on the books, with each of them on the opposite side of the spectrum. I'm would not be surprised though if they both would agree that if the books are in fact Kefirah, those who agree with them are therefore Kofrim, with all the halachic ramifications that follow.

Since there is a large segment of the frum community who follow the psak of the Rambam, Rav Chaim, and Rav Moshe in this area, it seems we have by far the most urgent Halachic emergency of our lifetime. Now a devil's advocate may say that the Gedolim only paskened the books are Kefirah for whose who held inadvertent heretics are not heretics. For those who consider inadvertent heretics to be heretics, they didn't pasken the books are kefirah. To even say such a thing is to leave the world of sevara and join Alice in Wonderland. For the countless people who pasken like Rav Moshe, to even be choshesh that Rav Dovid Feinstein is correct and the books are Kefirah leads to the most frightening shaylos imaginable.

The problem though is even worse than that. If you recall the language of the Raivad above, and especially the Girsa approved by the Kesef Mishnah, not all inadvertent heretics are exempt from Halachic consequences of their beliefs. The Raivad only said the Halachic system forgave them because they took the Pesukim and the words of Chazal at face value. It doesn't necessarily follow that one who mistakenly believes in Kefirah because of scientific evidence would be similarly excused. In fact, Rav Feldman on page 4 of his article makes a similar point. Interpretations which have no basis in the Written or Oral Torah and which contradict the tradition of the Midrashim and the commentaries are perversions of Torah ideas and may be classified as megaleh panim baTorah shelo ke-halacha (distorted interpretations of the Torah) which are forbidden to study. The third perek in Pirkei Avos says about one who is megaleh panim baTorah shelo ke-halacha that “even if he has Torah and Good deeds, he has no chelek in Olam Habah”. Even if everyone paskened like the Raivad, it may not be enough to save Rabbi Slifkin and his many followers.

The basic Halachic sources indicate we have an unparalleled Halachic nightmare here. However, you don't even need to open a sefer to see that there are those who pasken Rabbi Slifkin is a heretic. There were several well known and respected Rabbonim who slandered Rabbi Slifkin and accused him of things which simply weren't true. Now the Halacha in such a case is very clear. Anyone who publicly maligns someone must publicly ask for forgiveness. (While the Chafetz Chaim argued with Rabbeinu Yonah and said if the person didn't know you spoke badly about him, you shouldn't ask for forgiveness if doing so will make him aware of the lashon harah, in this case though the pronouncements were well known, and Rabbi Slifkin surely knew about them for he has written a beautiful rebuttal of them.) Aside for asking Mechila for themselves, these Rabbonim need to publicly ask Mechila for another reason as well. Through their libel they caused their many followers to be violate Issurei Deoraisah, and their followers must also ask for forgiveness, espcecially with the month of Elul coming up! Since this is a case of Machti Es HaRabbim, it is of utmost importance to rectify the problem right away. Yet we see that many of these prominent Rabbonim did no such thing. How could this be? The simplest explanation is that they pasken Rabbi Slifkin in a heretic, and therefore the libel that they spoke against him doesn't pose a Halachic problem.

Twenty three Gedolim signed a letter calling Rabbi Slifkin a Min. All I've heard so far is one unconfirmed account that one of these Gedolim said he didn't mean to call him a Min – but his books are Kefirah. That still leaves twenty two Gedolim who have yet to publicly retract their statement calling Rabbi Slifkin a Min, and even according to the one who did, if you pasken like the Rambam, Rav Chaim, or the “Posek Acharon in America” Rav Moshe, you still must consider him a Min. Now I must admit I try not to follow the rumor mill about how one of the Gedolim who signed the ban appeared to one of his Talmidim in a dream and said “Only an idiot would take a Kol Korei literally! The only thing stupider than that would be to take the first Perek of Biraishis literally!” If there are Gedolim who have publicly retracted their signatures or modified their statements, I haven't heard of it. (If anyone has information on this, please email me.) However, even if only one of the Gedolim still stands by the heresy charge, it creates Halachic nightmares beyond belief. There are many questions people have about the ban. Surely among the most perplexing though is why aren't the Gedolim acting on the ramifications of their own words and teaching us how to live in the a world where much of (if not most of) the frum world are posul for the most basic Halachic functions.

Yeridos HaDoros vs. Scientific Progress

I'm sorry for not posting sooner. There is a lot to discuss, but I've been very busy and haven't had the time to give these topics the justice they deserve. For starters, there have been some excellent comments left here, some of which I intend to develop into full posts. (I've always received excellent feedback via email, but it seems more and more people are leaving intelligent comments for all to see.) I also have several important posts in the works, a few of which I have even alluded to in my blog.

However, since I only have time for a brief post now, I'd thought I'd ask a classic question that I recently discussed with someone.

Anyone who learns is constantly amazed at how deep an understanding of Torah the previous generations had. The previous generations in turn felt the same away about their predecessors. And the situation was always that way. There are statements in Chazal of how much more the previous generations knew than they did. It therefore seems extraordinarily safe to say that the sum knowledge of Torah that we have today is but a tiny fraction of what existed at the time of Mattan Torah. Yeridos HaDoros at work.

With science however the opposite phenomenon is at work. Each generation stands on the shoulders of the previous generations and so our knowledge of science grows and grows. It is true that the situation wasn't always that way. One could argue that scientific progress went on very long vacation from the ancient Greeks all the way to the Renaissance. Since the advent of the scientific revolution though not only has the sum total of scientific knowledge been growing, but you can even make a strong case that the rate of growth is increasing.

Each of these points is somewhat self evident, but when you put them together it leads to a disturbing conclusion. When Torah was first given it represented at a bare minimum a very large part of the sum total of human knowledge. When you think about what the competition was, and how abstract and broad Torah is, I think it very safe to say that Torah was the overwhelming majority of mankind's knowledge. However, since then the percentage of mankind's knowledge which consists of Torah has been declining. Even if we could somehow stop Yereidos HaDoros, the progress of science alone would mean the Torah represents a smaller percentage of mankind's knowledge each year. This may lead some to conclude that Torah is Chas V'Shalom becoming less relevant to our lives, as it consists of a smaller and smaller percentage of the totality of what we know.

There are several ways of dealing with this question, depending on your Hashkafic point of view. I didn't have time for a full post, so I thought I'd throw out this question and learn more about the people who email me and comment here. In general, I try to only bring up Hashkafic points on this blog if I feel they have relevance to the Slifkin ban. Even though this post is a slight detour, it is no exception in that regard. Try to see how each side of the Slifkin debate would answer it, but don't let that one issue color your answer. The best answer emailed to me will receive bragging rights.

Battle Tested Hashkafah

When choosing between competing philosophical truths, it can be almost unseemly to consider the practical ramifications of each. After all, surely Truth is more important than whatever real life consequences happens to follow from it. We see though that time and time again people consider real life ramifications when they are engaged in philosophical debate. For example, there is a long running debate on whether free-will is real or merely an illusion because everything is predetermined. Even the determinists may agree though that the belief in free-will plays a useful role in getting people to live productive lives. While it may be a fiction, and one people are determined to believe in at that, it is still a useful fiction for without it no one would feel the urge to do anything. The practical real life ramifications of the two belief systems is itself one reason who many people choose to believe in free will – or so they tell themselves.

Some of the classic arguments in favor of G-d also make use of such a device. What type of world would you rather live in, one created with a purpose in which our actions matter, or a purposeless one in which nothing truly matters and morality as we conceive it is merely a useful fantasy? (I seem to think that some of those arguments have more merit than my fellow bloggers do, but that will be for a later post.) It is even used as a kiruv device. In elementary school one of my rebbeim told the class the story of the irreligious woman who enrolled her sons in Yeshiva, even though that required her to keep a kosher home and Shabbos, simply because of how much better behaved the Yeshiva bochrim were to the public school kids when walking to school in past her house each day. The beauty of Shabbos and other mitzvos are frequently used as reasons to become frum.

When dealing with the Slifkin ban, some of the pro-Ban forces have used such reasoning to support their position. For example, on page seven of his article Rav Feldman writes The Chazon Ish, considered by many to be the posek acharon (final Torah authority) for our times, writes in his “Letters” [Section I, Letter 15] that “our tradition” is that the shechita of someone who denies the truth of the Sages whether in the Halacha or Aggada (the non-halachic parts) of the Talmud is disqualified just as is someone who is a heretic. He adds that experience has shown that those who begin questioning the truth of the Sages will ultimately lose their future generations to Torah. [None of these opinions apply this approach to the words of the Rishonim or Acharonim; only to the Sages. They would not apply as well to passages in the Sages which are allegorical.] The argument that Chazon Ish used from experience is in no way a proof of whether Chazal made scientific errors or not. He is simply pointing out the dangers of such a belief – even if in truth the Rambam and those who agree with him about a fallible Chazal are correct. Now I have no doubt that the Chazon Ish was a shrewd observer of those around him, and therefore much thought much be given to what he reported.

However, we must also bear in mind a clear counter-example. Rav Hirsch held like the Rambam when it came to Chazal making errors, and not only did he not lose his own future generations to Torah, but he saved and actually built up a frum community that everyone had written off as doomed. When you read Rav Hirsch you are always struck by his fierce intellectual honesty and his commitment to truth. But surely he had strategic considerations in mind as well. Torah was being attacked on all sides, and Jews were abandoning it in droves. Rav Hirsch surely knew that is he claimed Chazal never made an error in any area whatsoever he would have been laughed out of Germany and have been unable to accomplish all that he did. One of the key steps to an effective defense is to limit the area vulnerable to attack. By conceding that Chazal may have made errors in science, Rav Hirsch was able to show how they still conducted themselves with the utmost integrity and how they were without equal when it come to their true area – understanding the Word of G-d.

The Chazon Ish and Rav Hirsch were living in different communities, and what would have beeb considered a statement of outright rebellion for an associate of the former – that Chazal may have been extraordinary in morality and theology, but were frequently mistaken in science – would have been the ideal thing to say in the community of the latter, or in the community of the Rambam for that matter. When there has been a well respected science that was openly threatening the Torah community, the approach of the Rambam and Rav Hirsch has proven to be effective. Many of us would not be frum or even Jewish had that approach not been used. When the community hasn't been under attack by science, those who focus their energy on questioning Chazal's science were very possibly taking the first steps to doubting all that they wrote.

The question is which approach would be most effective for us today? I think it quite clear that the approach which has been battle tested for today's environment is the one which acknowledges that Chazal made scientific errors. We are much closer to Germany at the close of the 19th century than we are to Bnei Brak in the first half of the 20th century. We live in the most open society in all of history, and people are exposed to more ideas – both good and bad – than ever before. Science and technology are becoming more and more entwined in everything that we do, and with that is coming more and more respect for them. Those Rabbanim who say that Chazal knew all of modern science will simply be laughed at as the frum community becomes ever more knowledgeable in these areas. And even if there are still some communities which would gain from the infallible Chazal position (better grab them while you can), in no way should someone make blanket statements which would cripple those living in different communities. Imagine if the Rambam and Rav Hirsch had to contend with their communities seeing statements from the most prominent Rabbonim alive that it is heresy to doubt that Chazal were infallible in science. Would they have been able to accomplish all that they did?

Now I prefaced this post by saying there is something unseemly about deciding such a monumental area by such a crude cost benefit analysis. It would surely be better if such considerations were removed from the discussion. If we do choose to include them though, we should realize that they give us far more reason to oppose the ban than to support it.

Torah disproven by Rav Feldman

Rav Feldman's article has a wealth of information in it and whether you approve of the ban or not, it is worth rereading his letter again and again. Among the interesting things that you find is that according to Rav Feldman's understanding of the Leshem, the Torah has been conclusively disproven.

Look at the following two quotes from the letter, the first from pages 6-7 and the second from pages 7-8.
Leshem Shevo Ve-achlama writes:
The main thing is: everyone who is called a Jew is obligated to believe with complete faith that everything found in the words of the Sages whether in halachos or agados of the Talmud or in the Midrashim, are all the words of the Living God, for everything which they said is with the spirit of God which spoke within them, and “the secret of God is given to those who fear Him (סוד ה' ליראיו).” This is just as we find in Sanhedrin 48b that even regarding something which has no application to Halacha and practical behavior, the Talmud asks regarding [the Sage] Rav Nachman, “How did he know this?” and the reply given is [that he knew this because] “The secret from God is given to those who fear him….”

...As the Leshem cited above says, if even regarding matters which are not related to halacha, the Sages say, sod Hashem liyerav, “G-d reveals the secrets of nature to those who fear him,” then certainly there must have been siyata dishmaya (Divine assistance) and even ruach hakodesh (a Divine spirit) assisting the Sages in their redaction of the Oral Law. It is therefore inconceivable, to these opinions, that G-d would have permitted falsities to have been transmitted as Torah She-be-al-peh and not have revealed His secrets to those who fear Him.

In other words, if Torah is in fact true, it would be inconceivable to say that Chazal made scientific errors under any circumstances, especially in areas which have halakhic ramifications. After all - “the secret of God is given to those who fear Him (סוד ה' ליראיו)” - could it be that secular, atheistic and even idolatrous scientists could have information that Chazal HaKadosh didn't? The very notion is absurd. And since we know the Torah to be true, we know that Chazal could not have made scientific errors, especially when there are Halakhic ramifications, and even more so when those who didn't fear Hashem weren't making those errors. The inverse though is also true. If we could show that Chazal did make scientific errors, it would prove that the entire Torah is not true according to Rav Feldman's explanation of Leshem.

This may strike some of you as a tremendous chiddush, and in fact it is. It is not without some precedent though. The Gemara in Peshachim 94B relates the dispute between the Chachmei Yisroel and Chachmei Umos HaOlam. The former said the sun travels beneath the sky by day and above the sky by night. In other words, the sky is a giant curtain which the blocks the sunlight from reaching us during the sun's return trip above the earth at night. The latter held the sun travels beneath the sky at day and below the earth at night. Rebbe said that their view is preferable to ours, because the wells are cold by day but warm at night. In other words, when the sun goes beneath the earth at night, the heat from the sun rises and warms the wells better than it does during the day time.

Most Rishonim understand from this Gemara that Rebbe agreed that the wise men of the Nations of the World were correct. The Gilyon HaShas on the side of the Gemara though brings down a Shitah Mechubetzit in Kesubos that quotes Rabbeinu Tam as saying that the Chachmei Umos HaOlam may have had better arguments than the Chachmei Yisroel, but in fact the latter were correct for we say in davening “UBokeah Chalonei Rakiah”. He seems to be saying that it is inconceivable that our Tefillos would praise Hashem based on a false understanding of the heavens, and therefore Chazal must have had “the secret of God", even if they couldn't win the debate. This may be the precedent that Leshem is relying on. Now some may complain that even Rabbeinu Tam is just one shitah, and many other Rishonim held that Chazal could make astronomical errors. The fact remains though that the Gedolim don't pasken like them, but they do pasken like the Leshem.

It follows then that according to Torah the sky is a heavenly curtain which the sun hides behind in its return trip. If in theory this fact would ever be scientificly disproven, it would mean Torah has been disproven. (This also has practical scientific relevance. We should tell NASA to make sure not to crash any space shuttles into the heavenly curtain. Think of the tremendous Kiddush Hashem when they listen to us and save the lives of the astronauts.)

For those of you agree with modern scientific understanding of these matters, there are several things which make this Gemara interesting. The first is that both sides of the debate were wrong, as they have the sun going around the earth. The theory of the earth going around the sun had actually been proposed long before this debate took place. It was first proposed by Philolaus the Croton in the 5th century BCE, supported by Heracleides of Pontus in the next century, and the finishing touches were added by Aristarchus – the man who first measured the distance from the Earth to the Sun – and who was born in 310 BCE. Thus the real truth had already been revealed long ago - and had been rejected as being absurd. Neither Chazal nor their opponents had the level of insight of some of those who lived long before them.

What is also interesting is the reason given by Rebbe for why the Chachmei Umos HaOlam are correct is itself mistaken. The heat from the Sun at night does not penetrate all the way to the surface at the other side to warm the water in wells. There is however a much better proof that the sun goes beneath the earth at night, which relies on a key insight by Anaxagoras that was subsequently used by Aristarchus to measure the distance to the sun. This key insight is that the moon is not a source of light and merely reflects the light of the sun. When we see the moon at night, it is only because it is reflecting the light from the sun which is beneath the earth. From the fact that is argument was not given, it seems from this Gemara at least that Chazal were not aware of that basic fact.

According to the current science then, not only were both Chazal and their opponents wrong – with Chazal being even more wrong, but Chazal even conceded defeat for the wrong reason. If the Torah is true though, it would be inconceivable for Chazal to have been so mistaken in so many different ways, especially when others who didn't have their level of Yiras Shomayim did have the truth, and when this misunderstanding even led to a mistake in davening! (Whether you consider the Tefillos written by Chazal to technically be Torah She-be-al-peh or not, this would still be a major problem according to Leshem.) According to Rav Feldman's interpretation of Leshem then, there is only one conclusion – The Torah is false.

Now there are other ways of viewing things, and I plan to post on them. In some ways though my attacks are a bit unfair, for it is quite obvious that Rav Feldman himself doesn't believe everything he wrote. I have several explanations for what really he is up to, and according to at least one of them he wants us all to point out the many flaws in his arguments. In no way are the many points I raise an attack on him. I'm merely showing what is inherent in the article that he wrote, as he no doubt knew that the many blogspots would.

Now some of you are no doubt thinking that even if I accept Rav Feldman's explanation of Leshem, I haven't disproven Torah. After all, who says you can accept the evidence of your senses? Maybe the sun does return above the sky every night? That is actually the most important point Rav Feldman touches upon in his article, and I have several major posts planned on that topic. Another argument is Nishtanu HaTeva. Maybe the sun used to travel around the earth and retrun back above the sky at night, but then things changed and now the earth revolves around the sun (due to environmental and nutritional differences, etc). In fact, maybe the Church was right to condemn Galileo, for at the time in which he published the sun was still going around the earth. If that is so then, how were others able to see the truth and know it was the earth that moved? You must say that they made a mistake, and then nature changed to completely conform to their misunderstanding. If that is so, they must have had a tremendous Zechus. This far outweighs any regular Tzadik Gozer V'Hakadosh Baruch Hu Mikayim. Hashem permanently changed the working of the cosmos to follow their predictions. That is far more impressive than Yehoshua merely stopping the sun for a few hours, and certainly more impressive than any miracles Chazal had ever done, for how many of them are still working and can be seen by us?

It seems that in defending a single psak by certain Gedolim, Rav Feldman has provided powerful evidence for those who want to prove that the entire Torah is not true. This may strike some of you as a bit counterproductive, so of like removing beams from the foundation of a building so that they can used to protect the top floor from nasty seagulls. Surely Rav Feldman has his reasons for doing so, but you can understand if many are deeply puzzled by it.

Once we are discussing the the earth going around the earth, it is worth revisiting another line in Rav Feldman's article. the source of all the knowledge of the Sages is either from Sinaitic tradition (received at the Giving of the Torah) or from Divine inspiration. That they were in contact with such sources in undeniable. How else could we explain numerous examples where the Sages had scientific information which no scientist of their time had? How were they so precise in their calculations of the New Moon? I already pointed out how this statement greatly insults both the Rambam and Chazal. There is however yet another problem with the statement, for it accuses Hashem of Bittul Torah. Anyone who studied Hilchos Kiddush HaChodesh is struck by how difficult the calculations are. There are actually though two things which can greatly simplify the calculations. If you know that the earth revolves around the sun, and does so in an elliptical motion, you can get better measurements with much less work. Time spent crunching numbers and balancing equations is time that could be spent learning other areas of Torah. If Hashem revealed the secret of how to calculate the new moon, why didn't he teach us the simpler and more accurate method, so that more Chachomim could have understood it with much less work? Why teach a method based on a false view of the universe, when doing so requires much more work than the correct one. According to the Rambam who said Chazal got the information from the Greeks, it is not a problem. According to Rav Feldman though, does Hashem want us to sweat our way through tedious math even when simpler methods are available? If so, this leads to many interesting conclusions with great relevance for those going to college and to those who use calculators and advanced math when dealing with Torah issues. The full scope of that discussion is beyond me, so we may have to hope Rav Feldman presents us with a follow-up on that topic.

Name that Kefirah!

One reason why so few people are willing to consider the possibility that the ban may have some merit is that so many false reasons have been given for it. I have a theory as to why that is, but I'll save that for another post. It should be clear by now that the reasons publicly given for the ban are misleading at best. There is one in particular though that I find particularly appalling, because it takes a powerful argument that I empathize with and twists it to support a ban that I vehemently oppose.

This simple, powerful, and utterly misleading explanation for the Slifkin ban is that we need to be Machmir when it comes to a Safek Kefirah. Even if the reasons to support the ban are not airtight, as long a case could be made that Kefirah may be involved we should be Choshes for that possibility. Now this is obviously not the real reason for the ban because the ban required Rabbi Slifkin to condemn and burn his books. If a Torah book only has a possibility of being kefirah you wouldn't burn it. The singers of the ban clearly felt the books were 100% Kefirah, not merely a Safek Kefirah.

There is however a more important reason why that argument is false. Despite the great importance of the Rambam's 13 Ikkarim, there are many Yesodei Hadas which Klal Yisroel is shockingly Maikel on. Since we are talking about the most serious issue imaginable, I think it only appropriate to play a favorite game of mine: “Name that Kefirah”. Below is a list of certain actions and beliefs that many frum Jews have. Please name which of the 13 Ikkarim each of them may violate, and if possible explain how precisely it would possibly violate them. Bonus points for when you can show it violates more than one of the 13 Ikkarim. The first person to email me all the correct answers will receive a PDF of Marc Shapiro's Torah U'Madda Journal article on the 13 Ikkarim. You could of course download it yourself, but that's not quite the same. Here is the list. I left out the all the Chas VaShalom's so that you can have the zechus of adding them yourself.

1) A shockingly large number of frum Jews believe that Hashem has emotions and that we make him happy when we do mitzvos and sad when we do aveiros.

2) Some frum Jews believe in various segulos that can protect us from an Ayin Harah, help us to recover lost objects, find a mate, or a parking space in Boro Park.

3) If there is one day a year in which you don't want to be a Min, it is on the Yom HaDin. (It's a long story but trust me on that one.) Despite that, the Ashkenazi Machzor has a prayer on that day directed to G-d's attribute of mercy. Additionally, the Tefillos on that day contain references to spiritual beings interceding on our behalf.

4) Many frum Jews believe there is a literal piece of G-d in every Jewish soul.

I won't even go into the recent heresies within a certain segment of Klal Yisroel and the idolatrous motivations behind them, but there have been some excellent books on the subject.

The point of this post is not to condemn the countless frum Jews who knowingly and unknowingly flirt with kefirah in each of the above cases. I have no problem being Dan L'Kaf Z'Chus and assuming that they must have who to rely on (though for at least one of the cases above I personally wouldn't bring non-mevushal wine to their homes). It should be clear though that each of the cases on the list above may possibly violate one or more of the Rambam's 13 Ikkarim. Whether they technically do so or not, they certainly go against the spirit of the 13 Ikkarim and it is safe to say that the Rambam himself would not approve of them. Moreover, that list has many more entries (where is Marc Shapiro when you need him). I've purposely kept this list much shorter than I could have in order to encourage people to find as many additions to it as they can (and to save my ammunition for the next time I play the game).

I've always wondered why Klal Yisroel was so Maikel on certain Yesodei Hadas. There are so many areas in Halacha where we pile Chumra upon Chumra, yet when it comes to being a Ben Olam HaBah we make no attempt to cover all the bases. You think this is the one area where you would want to be on the safe side. I'm sure there's a deep Sod in here somewhere; I just haven't found it yet.

If the Gedolim want to protect our Yesodei Hadas I'd be the first one to support them. However, let's begin with protecting the Rambam's 13 Ikkarim – which we all profess to believe in, before we begin adding new ones - especially when the new ones may very well lead to Kefirah. I realize that last remark contains a bold assertion, and I plan to back it up in a later post.

Rav Feldman - Part 1

Many people have commented on Rav Feldman's recent article on Rabbi Slifkin. The general consensus seems to great disappointment that such a subtle intellect gave such weak reasons. Unlike my fellow bloggers though I won't merely refute Rav Feldman's many points. I will present evidence that Rav Feldman himself did not believe everything he wrote in the article. As for why he would write something he did not believe to be true, there is only one explanation I can think of and those of you who regularly read my blog can probably guess what it is.

In general, it's quite hard to show someone doesn't believe what he is saying. In the case of highly intelligent people it is fortunately somewhat easier, for there are certain types of mistakes they wouldn't make accidentally. For example, if a genius writes an nine page article in which the underlying premise of page four openly contradicts the underlying premise of page six, it is clear he was aware of the contradiction and that at least one his premises must be mistaken. If a great mind makes several errors like that in the same article, it should be obvious to all that he didn't think the particular reasons he gave were valid. Mind you he most certainly believes in the conclusion he reached, for otherwise it would be dishonest. To give people bad reasons for doing the right thing is a time honored tradition, especially when the real reason can't be publicly stated. Parents and teachers use such techniques all the time and it shouldn't shock us to see an exceptionally talented Mechanech use it when he has to.

Let's look at some of the inconsistencies:

1) That they were in contact with such sources is undeniable. How else could we explain numerous examples where the Sages had scientific information which no scientist of their time had? How were they so precise in their calculations of the New Moon?

The Rambam says Chazal got their knowledge of astronomy from the Greeks. The Rambam knew the precise mathematical level of the ancient Greeks, as he mentions in several places in the Moreh, and he "wrote the book" on calculating the Halakhic new moon. Unlike Rav Feldman, most of us would not bring an "undeniable proof" by saying the Rambam is clearly mistaken - especially not in an area in which he was the acknowledged master.

That however is simply a factual error - ignoring those well known facts which disagree with a thesis even you bring in more obscure facts to support it. A more fundamental problem is how Rav Feldman ridicules the brilliance of Chazal. (I sent a sneak preview of this to another blogger - not sure if he wants the credit - to see how he would phrase it.) Many societies have made tremendous scientific breakthroughs. Look at Da Vinci and the Renaissance, Archimedes and the ancient Greeks, and Feynman and the countless achievements of American Jews in the last century. Everyone acknowledges that Chazal had the most sublime intellects humans could ever hope to achieve. To say that it was impossible for them to make certain scientific breakthroughs simply because Rav Feldman himself can't figure out how they could have done so is so shocking as to be beyond comprehension. He would never say Einstein must have had nevuah because he couldn't have been that smart. Yet he insists the far more numerous Chazal with their far more refined and developed intellects could never have made what are far less revolutionary breakthroughs and so it is therefore undeniable that they must have had a Mesorah on science.

To completely dismiss the shitah of the Rambam and to denegrate the intelligence of Chazal just to defend a single psak of certain current day Gedolim is the height of counter-productivity.

2) A bigger problem is when he wrote:

Slifkin goes on to posit that the Theory of Evolution in one form or another is a fact – only mentioning in passing those eminent scientists who have discredited this theory because the discovery of the DNA molecule make it statistically impossible. Cf. Professor Alvin Radkowsky, Encounter, 1989, p58, AOJS, citing Nobel-prize winning physicist, E.P. Wigner, that the probability of a simple life-form arising spontaneously from primeval “soup” and reproducing itself (as current evolutionary theories have it) is zero, or impossible.

First of all, look at how minority opinions are meant to be treated in Torah and how they must be treated in Science. With Torah, it is completely assur to maintain a minority opinion in Hashkafic matters, even if those opinions have not been conclusively refuted and have merely been rejected by current Gedolim. With science however you must believe the minority scientist even if he is speaking outside of his area of expertise and his question has been fully answered by those specializing in the field. (DNA itself must have evolved from more primitive ways of passing on traits to the next generation.)

There is however a more fundamental problem with what Rav Feldman has written. According to him not only is there no problem with DNA instantly popping into existence regardless of the mathematical odds, but this actually happened all the time in the recent past. Dirt and other inanimate matter would spontaneously generate into DNA – and the rest of the louse as well! You can't have it both ways. It is ironic that the biggest problem evolution has yet to fully answer in precise detail is not at all a problem for those who believe in Nishtaneh HaTevah, but that is the unfortunate corner Rav Feldman painted himself into. Once again, talk about a counter-productive attack.

3) A cynic would say maybe Rav Feldman got distracted and had forgotten what he had written two pages earlier. There are however even bigger contradictions within the same page on page eight.

One of the most powerful reasons why R. Avraham’s opinion was rejected by most opinions, is the introduction of the wisdom of Kabbalah of the Ari Zal in the sixteenth century. This cast the Sages in another dimension. Before then, many authorities had held that the esoteric wisdom described in the Talmud as Ma’aseh Breyshis and Ma’aseh Hamerkava was science and philosophy. After the introduction of Kabbalah it became clear that these were the Sefer HaYetzira, the Zohar and the Tikkunim. This was accepted by the overwhelming majority of Torah scholars since then. Kabbala made it clear that when the Sages spoke, they based themselves on their knowledge of the mysteries of creation. This would give them an accurate knowledge of matters of natural science as well.

Look at this bizarre train of thought. When the Rishonim thought the esoteric wisdom Chazal had was science and philosophy, they still disagreed with the science and philosophy of Chazal when presented with compelling evidence or a strong counterargument (The Rambam argues with some of Chazal's philosophical positions in the Moreh, and many Gaonim and Rishonim argued with their science). Now however that we know the esoteric wisdom which Chazal had a Mesorah on was Kabbalah – and not science and philosophy – it is completely assur to argue with them on scientific matters. In other words, you can dismiss the primary content of their esoteric wisdom, but not something which is a merely consequence and side benefit of it.

There is another problem with the statement as well. While it may not be as great a logical contradiction as the previous one it is in many ways even more disturbing. Rav Feldman has no problem changing our Mesorah in light of the new evidence - as long as it presented by the Arizal via Ruach HaKodesh and not via science and our own sense preception. Now where is a vast difference between the two, but rather than save Rav Feldman's explantion it utterly destroys it. We don't say that the Arizal was a greater lamdam than the Vilna Gaon or the Rambam. While he was a tremendous Talmid Chacham, his Kabbalistic insights were achieved through Ruach Hakodesh and the many heavenly beings who taught him because of his Tzidkus. As long we follow the Arizal in Hashkafic matters that is not a problem. However, Rav Feldman writes that the conclusions of the Arizal (such as that Chazal never made scientific errors) are Halakhicly binding and we have no choice but to follow them. That is a fundamental contradiction with what is one of the most important Halakhic principles we have -“Lo BaShamayim Hee" - the Halakhic system doesn't change because of new divine revelations. How can we possibly change the Halakhic status of certain beliefs and label them heresy based on a new revelation? It is only if the Arizal's insights are not Halakhicly binding that we would be allowed to follow them altogether. We don't pasken according to the Maggid of the Mechaber, yet Rav Feldman insists we must follow the Halakhic ramifications of the Arizal even when they contradict the previous Halakhic Mesorah that Klal Yisroel had - to the point that the old Mesorah is now kefirah!

There are more contradictions of this nature in Rav Feldman's letter in which his very premise undermines his conclusion, and I have yet to touch upon the more important aspects of the letter. Needless to say there is much in the letter that I agree with and he does discuss some fundamental issues that had not previously been given the attention they deserve. I hope to return to these in the near future. For now though it should be clear that just like the ban itself, there is far more to Rav Feldman's letter than meets the eye.

Breaking News!

I received the most incredible mail from a fellow blogger. I'm not sure if he wants me to use his name so I'll call him G HaDor. No, wait. That's too revealing. Lets call him Gadol H. Anyway, he heard from the next door neighbor of one of Rav Sheinberg's closest former Talmidim now living in Australia that Rav Sheinberg never signed the Slifkin ban. It seems that on the day in question Rav Sheinberg had been abducted by aliens and it was his body double from another planet who signed the ban. More importantly, even the body double never meant to condemn Rabbi Slifkin. He thought he was signing a Haskama for the books which he gladly did because he knows Rabbi Slifkin's body double very well from their Lamed Vov meetings on their home planet. It had never occurred to the body double that someone would condemn Rabbi Slifkin for merely repeating what the greatest of our Baalei Mesorah have written. So you have here irrefutable proof that to in any way give the slightest credibility to the ban is not only an assault on the kavod of Rav Sheinberg but also an assault on the kavod of his esteemed body double.

Now I've been called disingenuous (and sincerely disingenuous) for taking the ban seriously in my attempt to undermine it. My reasons though are not merely a strategic ploy to lure those who would never question the Gedolim to ask the proper questions which would force movement on the issue. I also refuse to believe that the Gedolim would make such a monumental decision without carefully considering the ramifications. And even if under extreme circumstances beyond my comprehension they did make such an error, they would fix it immediately. A Psak Halachah on the Yesodei Hadas is the most serious decision a Posek could possibly make. If people misunderstood or misinterpreted what they meant they would fix it immediately. If someone has the slightest doubt that a certain Posek for whatever reason would not do so, he shouldn't rely on that Posek for anything, ever.

Now it should be clear to everyone, especially those who support the ban, that the real reasons for the ban have not been given. For those who don't know what the real reason is, the fact that it hasn't been publicly given is itself a great hint to what it must be. If there is one thing everyone who's analyzed the ban agrees upon, it is that there has been much misinformation about what the means and why it has been done. I find it especially amusing how those who support the ban prefer to give demonstrably false reasons for the ban rather than simply saying I trust the Gedolim. That they feel the need to do so gives me hope that there will be movement on this issue. Even if the Gedolim though refuse to budge and to answer sincere and urgent Halachic and Hashkafic questions on the reasons and ramifications of the ban from their own loyal Talmidim, there are steps the rest of us can take to resolve this thing. The one obstacle I see is that it will require those who oppose the ban to acknowledge the terrible longterm damage it will do. Solutions which would strike those ignorant of the ramifications of the ban as being over the top would be considered overly moderate and cautious by those who realize what the lasting consequences will be. Spreading awareness of how the ban will have a major impact on those who agree with it, those who don't, those who are unsure, those who are already born and those who will be born centuries from now is the first step to fighting it.

Collateral Damage

At the end of the NY Times article on the Slifkin ban there is a heart wrenching quote. Rabbi Adlerstein of Loyola said: "I know rabbis, I know teens in yeshivas who were on the verge of quitting" when the letter first came out. "They look at themselves in the mirror and they say, 'What have I been representing?' " As bad as it has been for the Rabbis and for those in Yeshiva, the damage is much worse with those who don't have as strong a background in the first place. For the question isn't "What have I been representing" but "What absurd religion have I been living?" As a result of the ban they will now see Orthodox Jewry as being anti-Science and anti-Reason. People live their lives with a cost benefit analysis that depends on the perceived probability of certain facts. There are countless people, both Jewish and Gentile, both religious and irreligious, who as a consequence of the Slifkin ban now perceive the likelihood of Torah being true to be greatly diminished. As difficult as the ban has been for Kiruv workers – and the true damage it did there has yet to fully articulated - it will do even damage among those already frum. If Torah is true, how could the Gedolei Yisroel who study it all day be so mistaken? סוד ה' ליראיו - the secret of God is given to those who fear Him! (hat tip Rav Feldman). Society is already providing more than enough temptations for people to become irreligious. If people believe Torah to be in fundamental conflict with the science in which we live our daily lives, many people will leave Torah as a consequence. Like all good fiction, this letter is 100% true once you strip away the particulars and look at its underlying point. If you don't know anyone who's faith in Torah has been deeply shaken by the ban, then you simply aren't the type of person people feel comfortable confiding in.

The most conservative estimate of the number of people who no longer truly believe in Torah as a consequence of the ban would have to be in the low hundreds. When you consider it takes a while for these things to really affect people, the numbers are likely to grow every year. Every year there are countless Catholics who give up their faith when they become old enough to truly appreciate the ramifications of the Galileo incident. Even though the magnitude of the error in the Slifkin case is much worse, Yahadus won't lose nearly as many as Catholicism did simply because we don't have as many to lose. The longterm damage though will be similar. A hundred years from now bright and precocious children will challenge their Rebbeim for being anti-Reason because of the Slifkin ban.

The important thing to remember is that no intellectually honest supporter of the Gedolim will deny the damage already done to the frum community by the Slifkin ban. For to say the Gedlim were unaware of it would be to accuse them of negligent homicide – killing tens of thousands of neshamos because they were too ignorant to investigate the status of their own followers. The only defensible position is that they were aware of what the consequences would be and yet felt they had no choice but to proceed with the ban in the manner in which they did so. By now some of you are no doubt thinking I'm being disingenuous again. What could be so important that the Gedolim would sacrifice the Emunah of frum Jews? One source that was invaluable in helping me to solve that problem was the brilliant and frightening biography of Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg written by
Marc Shapiro But whether you can find a viable theory or not, it is important to realize it is impossible that the Gedolim did not see what the consequences of such a momentous decision would be. For even if you grant the absurd notion that they didn't, it still leads to the impossible question of once they know, why don't they backtrack and try to salvage the Emunah of those turned away and to stop new people from joining them. To say petty politics is the obstacle when the stakes are so high is to accuse the Geolim of Chas V'Shalom being Reshayim Gemurim. The only reasonable explanation is that they knew what they were doing and chose what they felt was the best of a range of bad choices. Like any good Machlokes, the argument over the ban will become interesting when the facts are settled and the difference between the two sides is pure sevara. While that is a topic for a later post, I hope everyone realizes that this is one of the major decisions affecting the future of Klal Yisroel. Whether you love the ban or hate it, understanding every side to this issue is crucial.

Aish HaTorah and the Slifkin Ban

In response to the ban against R’ Slifkin Aish HaTorah removed certain articles from their website and has changed their approach accordingly. Rav Noach Weinberg, the head of Aish HaTorah, is very politically connected in Israel, and he knows which pronouncements of the Gedolim need to be followed and which can be safely ignored - especially for a Kiruv organization. If he authorized pulling certain articles from his website - even though that is implicitly criticizing the Hashkafos of his older brother Rav Yaakov TZ'L (Former Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisroel) as well as the staff and graduates of his own Yeshiva - it is because he had to. You don’t go Lifnim Meshuras HaDin to handicap yourself when you are fighting to save lives. And handicap itself is exactly what Aish HaTorah did. Some of their most effective programs had been altered in order to comply with the psak of the Gedolei HaDor. Had Rav Yaakov Weinberg still been alive to meet with and refute Rav Eliashiv, things may have been different. For now though, Rav Noach felt he had no choice to but to obey the psak, regardless of the tragic consequences.

One can certainly empathize with the terrible position Aish HaTorah has been put in. The question though is on the Gedolim who signed the ban. Do they really prefer that people remain irreligious than for them to become frum but believe in an Old Universe, a non-word-for-word literal reading of Maaseh Bereishis and a fallible Chazel? The answer is clearly yes, for otherwise they would not have forced Aish HaTorah to change tracks when they have been so effective with the one they were on. In their ban of Rabbi Slifkin, they explicitly said he must not be allowed to engage in Kiruv, for there is no circumstance in which it is permitted to spread these ideas. The Gedolim clearly realized this would hurt kiruv efforts, just as they knew it would cause the non frum world to mock Torah.

The non-banned book on Rav Yaakov Kemenetsky has a wonderful story. Someone told Rav Yaakov that he became Shomer Shabbos because a Kabbalist had told them that Moshiach is coming very soon, and if he wants to be a part of it, he better start keeping Shabbos now. Rav Yaakov replied that even though we hope and pray for Moshiach to come everyday, logically there is no more reason to expect him to come now than to expect him to come a hundred years from now. Some of Rav Yaakov’s talmidim were surprised by his answer. Don’t we say Shabbos is equal to all the Mitzvos? Isn’t it worth his keeping it for the wrong reason and hope that he eventually keeps it for the right reason? Rav Yaakov replied that this person right now believes in Moshiach, which is one of the 13 Ikkarim. When he keeps Shabbos for a while and Moshiach doesn’t come, he will eventually open his store on Shabbos and no longer believe in Moshiach. Since Moshiach is one of the Yesodei Hadas, you can’t take a chance like that. While this is yet another case of a Gadol paskening based on the 13 Ikkarim (what would Marc Shapiro say?), it also teaches a valuable lesson: You can’t get someone to keep Mitzvos by destroying their beliefs in the Yesodei Hadas. It seems that these Gedolim feel that the Hashkafos in R’ Slifkin’s books are Mamash Kefirah, and you can’t get someone to become frum by teaching them Kefirah. If that ruling prevents people from becoming Shomer Shabbos so be it, but they stand by their psak and accept the responsibility for it in the next world.

Lest someone think I am reading more into the ban than the signers intended, read the text of the original ban The author should not be permitted to engage in outreach in order to avoid causing others to stumble in apostasy, chas vesholom. The Gedolim do not want people learning this approach, even if doing so would enable them to become Shomer Torah U'Mitzvot. As shocking as some may find this, it is not nearly as bad as some of the other casualties of this ban. It is worth focusing on the cost of the ban for it helps us to figure out what the motivation behind it truly is.

What was the goal of the ban?

I appreciate the many thoughtful emails I have received. Some feel the ban is here to stay and the damage is already done, so no matter what plan I may have it is doomed to fail and so I should go on to other public policies issues affecting the frum community. Others feel that taking the ban as a serious Halachic psak is a very shrewd way to get the followers of the Gedolim to do the same, which will at a minimum lead to some movement on the issue. There is one thing in common though to almost every email I have received. People assume I don't really believe the Gedolim planned all this, and that I'm merely acting as if I do for strategic reasons. A typical email was the one that told me I should continue to do the “smart” move of taking the ban at face value, while they will continue to fight for truth by attacking the Gedolim. While taking the Gedolim seriously is by far the smartest tactic here, it has the added virtue of being true. To avoid being called disingenuous, let me share some of the reasons why I reached that conclusion.

When ascertaining someone's motivation it is very important to look at their actions and not merely their stated reasons. I think it beyond obvious that the purpose of the ban was not simply to stop Rabbi Slifkin from spreading kefirah. To even suggest such a thing is to accuse the Gedolim of being Chas V'Shalom complete and utter idiots. Not only is that an attack on Klal Yisroel for choosing such foolish leaders, but it is an attack on human intelligence. Even an avowed atheist with no appreciation of Emunas Chachomim would realize that if there is a group of people who tens and hundreds of thousands people consider to be supreme geniuses who dedicate their lives to a highly intellectual endeavor, odds are that they are accustomed to analyzing things quite carefully. If nearly two dozen of them agree on something, there must be some justification for their doing so. Their conclusion may be wrong, but there must be some level of thought into what they were doing. To say that they all chose a plan so obviously mistaken that any high school kid would've told them it would backfire is absurd.

Let us count some of the many errors the Gedolim would have made if that were their sole motivation. The full list in fact is far longer than I have the patience to type right now. My goal here is simply to show that anyone of average intelligence in such a situation would have chosen a much better plan. Since the Gedolim are clearly smarter than your average DovBear, there must be another reason for what they are doing. I believe I have found it by asking these very questions, so let us begin.

I've already pointed out how the R' Slifkin situation could have been dealt with very smoothly. First contact those Rabbonim who gave the Haskamos to R' Slifkin and get them to retract. Afterwards invite Rabbi Slifkin to meet with the Gedolim and with the Rabbonim who previously endorsed his view but have now changed their minds. Explain to him which of his views they think are harmful and why he shouldn't teach them anymore. Then tell him they expect him to no longer teach that approach, and to explain to him the approach they prefer he takes. Find out from him precisely how he intends to react, and then word your public pronoucement accordingly. If the goal was simply to stop Rabbi Slifkin from spreading his views, that would've been one of several painfully obvious solutions. It is bloodless and puts R' Slifkin in a position in which he has no choice but to follow the Gedolim.

Aside from not going after those who gave the Haskamos, the Gedolim did many other inexplicable things. To stop people from reading a book written in English, they put up signs in Hebrew in Chareidi neighborhoods. Furthermore, the Gedolim made it almost impossible for R' Slifkin to listen to them, for they raised the bar beyond what he could reasonably do. They not only insisted that he no longer teach what is in his books. They insisted he publicly retract his kefira and burn his books – even the Torah parts of them. When Rav Eliashiv was asked how could previous Gedolim have held the heretical views of R' Slifkin, he replied “They were permitted to say these things, but we may not.” When the Gedolim tried to coerce R' Slifkin to denounce views held by the greatest of Gaonim and Rishonim, it was obvious what he was going to reply, if only implicitly. “Rav Eliashiv can say such things, but I may not”. How could someone not yet 30 condemn Gedolim of previous generations for being inadvertent heretics? One would think you need to be at least 40 before doing so, and one would expect a well-mannered Englishman to be even older than that.

What is more surprising is why they went after a 20-something-year-old for writing errors that others older and wiser than him have also made. It was bound to strike people as cowardly. There have been many prominent Rabbonim who have been denounced by the powers that be. While they are each lehavdil incomparable in their own way, The Rav, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rav Steinsaltz, and Rabbi Lamm all have something in common. Whether they chose to or not, they were all more than capable of defending themselves from the fierce charges throw at them (and some of them were even greater than the ones attacking them). They already had a deep knowledge of Torah and many followers. No one would possibly have pity and be shocked at how others could attack them. Great people have great enemies – it comes with the territory – and must be ready to protect themselves.

For the Gedolim to attack R' Slifkin required great bravery, for they knew it would strike many of their own followers as cowardly. Why would they choose to go after Rabbi Slifkin and not the Rabbonim who both read and praised his books. Publicly condemn Rav Shmuel Kamanetsky and Rav Yisroel Belsky. This would strike people as a fair attack. Great Rabbonim who publicly praise meenus should get condemned. Why go after such a lightweight? I spoke to one Yeshiva Bochur in particular who fully supported the ban and had no doubt the Gedolim were correct, yet was deeply shaken and somewhat confused at such a fierce attack on a sincere Ben-Torah not much older than himself. If Rav Moshe Shapiro feels that Rav Aryeh Carmel is perverting the words of Rav Dessler to support his own kefira agenda, let him condemn Rav Aryeh Carmel. Why condemn R' Slifkin for merely repeating what he read in seforim Rav Aryeh Carmel published, as that is guaranteed to upset and confuse people?

There are many more such questions to ask and I plan to get to them. If there is one thing we've learned from the war in Iraq, even the right thing to do if done improperly can do far more harm than good. The Gedolim of course know this, and so took the particular approach they did for a very good reason. It was the best possible way to go after their true goal, and it should be clear to everyone that the goal was not simply to stop R' Slifkin. There is much more going on over here, and it makes the issues even more urgent. For once you properly dismiss the false justifications for the ban, the real reasons become more apparent. While I can't answer every last question of why the Gedolim did things the way they did (and it is clear they didn't accurately predict every last detail of how things will unfold), I do have a theory that can explain most of them. I don't think it wise to post it on my blog just yet, but I will share my reasoning and let people draw their own conclusions.

Give Kavod its due

Last week I decided to explicitly state what my strategy for fighting the ban is. Rather than attacking the kavod of those who signed the ban, use that very kavod to fight against the ban. Halachicly, that is certainly the preferable approach. An aveira l'shmah is assur after Matan Torah, so even if someone felt the only way to combat the tremendous Chillul Hashem of the Slifkin ban is to ridicule Gedolei Yisroel, it would still be assur to do so. If Hashem's Halachic system forbids us from ending a desecration of His name, that is His problem, His responsibility and His call - not ours.

Fortunately, there is no need to attack the honesty and intelligence of the signers of the ban. In fact, if they were Chas V'Shalom as simple-minded and stupid as some of the anti-Ban bloggers portray them, petty arrogance would prevent them from backing down in the face of such harsh ridicule. If you believe they are capable of backing down in such a public matter despite the personal attacks against them, then they truly are perfected individuals. If so, treat them as such. If you don't believe they would back down when doing so would be a tacit admission that those who ridiculed them were correct, then why not save your time and energy for something more productive.

In short, even if ridicule were a Halachicly viable option – which it most certainly isn't, it is hard to find a situation in which it would be the most effective strategy of either ending then ban or healing the damage caused by it. Treating the ban as a deliberate and well thought out policy is a much wiser course of action. Some may fail to see how doing so will at all help us. After all, the psak was already made, and how can anything we do change that? I hope you'll excuse me, but I have reasons not to give a full answer at this point. I'd rather take things one step at a time, so the process unfolds naturally. I will say though that the target at this point in time is not the Gedolim themselves but rather their followers. As long as the Gedolim are being publicly attacked, their followers will instinctively rally to their defense and not even consider the possibility that they were mistaken. However, once an honest and open discussion of the issues involved begins, the followers will start asking very legitimate questions. If a book that quotes from the Moreh Nevuchim and Michtav MeEliyahu should be burned, why not those Seferim as well? If there are differences between R' Slifkin's book and those Seforim, why wasn't the tzibur told about them in the beginning when the ban first came out? If R' Slifkin's books in fact shouldn't be burned, how could so many Gedolim sign a public statement calling on R' Slifkin to do just that?

These are all very legitimate questions, and it would be a sign of great disrespect not to ask them, for that would imply there are no good answers. I believe the reasons these questions haven't been asked yet en masse by the Talmidim of these Gedolim is because to do so when the psak is under public assault would be disloyal. The sooner we end the public ridicule, the quicker honest introspection and analysis can begin. How the Gedolim respond to their own Talmidim dissecting the ban word for word will determine our next course of action. I'm fairly certain of how they will respond and what the next step should be, but for obvious reasons I think it best to wait before sharing them on my blog (email may be another story). I will say that I truly believe the Gedolim here were acting L'Shem Shomayim, and they took what they thought was the best course of action. As much as many of us disagree with the ban, it is worth finding the Chochmah in how they chose to do things the way in which they did, if for no other reason because it lets us see what we are up against.

Looking for a few good hats

Gil recently released his views on Marc Shaipo's book on the Ikkarim. I wish I had seen it earlier because I had started working on a similar post (as I mentioned), but obviously not nearly as scholarly and comprehensive. While I have a few quibbles with his presentation, his basic point is one I have already argued and strongly agree with. Even if in general Hashkafah is not subject to a Psak Halakhah, Yesodei Hadas is one area which is subject to Psak Halakhah, as it has profound Halakhic implications. If the recognized Gedolei HaDor call a shitah meenus, that has serious consequences. Even if you don't pasken like them, the fact that much of Klal Yisroel does is sufficient to create serious Halakhic nightmares, as I've started to post about. Someone who is serious about the future of Torah Judaism, and not just YU, should focus on the what those Halakhic implications are.

For that reason I'm hoping to start a multi-person blog called Hilchos-Slifkin. It won’t allow any comments on whether the ban was correct or not, no personal attacks, no political analysis or even Hashkafic discussions. It will only discuss the Halakhic ramifications of the ban. There are Halakhic ramifications for those who follow the ban, Halakhic ramifications for those who think it is mistaken, and Halakhic ramifications for those who are unsure. Each of these should be discussed and debated in an objective manner. I think focusing on the Halakhic aspects would make people aware of the seriousness of the issue, and help create an environment which focuses on understanding what is at stake for everyone, and not just scoring points for a particular side. If anyone would like to join, contact the email address to the right. I suspect I'll have a lot more so-called white hats than black ones. I do hope that some pro-Ban people will help us discuss the Halakhic implications.

Rav Chaim Brisk and the Rambam

There is a marvelous story told about Rav Chaim Brisk and the Rambam in Olam Habah. Like all such stories it almost certainly fictional - and 100% true.

There are different versions of it, but this is how I heard it.

180 days after entering Olam Habah, Rav Chaim gave a shiur to all the Rabbonim in Olam Habah. Marai Mekomos were handed out in advance so everyone could prepare and get their questions ready for the new Chiddushim the were bound to hear. As expected, Rav Chaim Brisk focused his shiur on solving a difficult problem in the Rambam. His answer though was so sublime, so penetrating yet simple, so revolutionary, elegant, and far-reaching that all the Gedolim in Olam Habah were speechless. Even those who knew Rav Chaim well were shocked and awed beyond belief. There was nothing to ask, no comments to add, nothing to say in response to such a brilliant solution. So the Rabbonim did the only thing they could do, which was to burst out clapping and to wait on line to congratulate Rav Chaim.

When everyone else had left, a Sephardic Rav went over to Rav Chaim and introduced himself as the Rambam. Before Rav Chaim could reply, the Rambam went on to praise the brilliance of the solution. He then added with a touch of sadness, “I wish I had thought of it. Actually though, I had a more pragmatic – almost baal habatish reason for paskening that way” which he proceeded to tell Rav Chaim. As he was speaking, Rav Chaim's face went from awe to disbelief to shock to anger. When the Rambam was done, Rav Chaim waved the back of his hand at him and said in disgust,“What does a Sephardi know from a Rambam!”

Now the person who made up this story clearly meant to criticize Rav Chaim, which is why he had him say something racist. In point of fact though, Rav Chaim in the story is 100% right. Why the Rambam said what he did is irrelevant. Rav Chaim's goal is to explain the internal logic of his position. He is coming up with the severa the Rambam would have come up with - if he were a great Lamdam. The fact remains that Gedolei Yisroel have accepted the Rambam and so their must be a valid reason for what he said.

The reason why I bring up this story is that it has great relevance to the Slifkin Ban. Even if you believe the ridiculous hearsay of how and why various Rabbonim came to sign the ban, they fact remains they stand by it. Even if they didn't know what they were signing at the time (again, I find that too absurd to believe), by now they certainly know what it was they signed, and they clearly agree with it and expect people to follow it. If they thought it was a mistake, they would publicly say so and remove their names from the list. To say otherwise is to accuse them of Rishus! Now there are some Rabbonim who allow social goals and public policy to color their psak a bit. However, for a Rav to allow his signature to stand on a declaration he considers to be false and not in conformity with Halachah is the most serious Aveirah. It would quite literally be megaleh panim baTorah shelo ke-halacha , about which the third perek in Pirkei Avos says “even if you have Torah and Maasim Tovim, you have no chelek in Olam Habah”. To say the Gedolim are afraid to publicly change their minds because of politics and “the kanoaim” is to further accuse them of cowardice. The contention is far too absurd to be taken seriously. In fact, it would be an issur Motzei Shem Rah to accept such a story.

KeBolo Kach Polto – If they disagreed with the statement bearing their signatures, they would take a public action of the same caliber as the original declaration. They wouldn't privately tell a single unknown Talmid of theirs to spread the word onto the Internet, for they wouldn't possible expect anyone to listen to such hearsay.

The fact remains that the Gedolim meant what they said – this is burnable kefirah - or else they would have publicly clarified things. Until you see hard evidence to the contrary, treat the ban as if each and every Gadol meant what he signed. Even if one Gadol clarified or modified his position, it in no way means they all did.

Now some of you may despair, “then how could we possibly fight this thing!”Ironically, treating the ban as legitimate is the best way to counteract it!. When both common sense and your own political self-interest say you should treat something as real, it makes sense to start doing so.

The Blogospere has failed!

There was a moment at the beginning of Rabbi Slifkin's lecture in Brooklyn last week that was simply priceless. He said “If there is anyone here today who is not a blogger, please raise your hand”. Everyone started to laugh. Then people started to look around, and in a room of about 30 people, only one of them had her hand raised. Then everyone starting truly laughing – literally ROTFL. It took a full two minutes to quite everyone down.

Now all of you reading this know that I made up that story, because all of you were at the lecture. The very way every one of you can disprove my story only goes to prove my deeper point. The bloggers are talking to themselves. Those who are truly bothered by the ban went to the web to find kindred spirits. After spending enough time disagreeing with the other bloggers they eventually start their own blogs. Nothing though has been accomplished towards ending then ban, and some steps have been counterproductive. “Not the Gadol HaBloggim”, while combining keen insight with crude caricatures, ending up providing the ammunition for Rabbonim to portray the whole pro-Slifkin movement as a Chillul Hashem. Whether that was fair or not (and it clearly wasn't), it played into their hands. Overextend yourself and you only wind up hurting yourself. The harsh responses that have been posted on the web haven't done any good, and many have even backfired. Even Rabbi Slifkin's brilliant and spirited defense hasn't accomplished what the true goal should be, which is to have the ban removed on friendly grounds. Even Rabbonim who may be opposed to it feel the need to protect the honor of the Gedolim from such attacks.

The blogosphere is filled with brilliant, insightful commentators with pens far sharper and wittier than my own will every be. What is lacking though is a strategy. Attacking the competence, mental health and foresight of Gedolim is ludicrous. It simply turns off those who follow them, and allows our movement to be portrayed as anti-Torah and anti-Gedolim. Unfortunately, those who are anti-Torah and anti-Gedolim will be supporting us anyway, and we have no need to recruit them. (I say unfortunately, because with friends like that, who needs enemies. It was reported that one audience member at the Brooklyn Dinosaur lecture asked about “the alleged Avraham Aveinu”. Talk about counterproductive! That Rabbi Slifkin has a vocal supporter who sees questioning the Science of Chazel as a first step towards questioning the veracity of Chamisha Chumsei Torah only makes our task much harder.)

What is needed is a method to get those followers of the Gedolim who would never question them to become involved in the anti-Ban movement. The obstacle that we face is how do you fight a group of people stronger and powerful than you? The answer is an old martial arts trick: use their strength against them. Don't attempt to hit back or even to block their punches. Rather, use their own weight and movement against them. Instead or refuting or mocking their words, take their words even more seriously than they were perhaps originally intended. Use your own slight weight to magnify and exaggerate their motions, until they themselves are forced to retract them.

If the Gedolim say R' Slifkin should burn his books, find out if others should do so as well. Ask shaylos if you can Halakhicly rely on someone who continues to believe Chazel made scientific errors after the psak. What if someone believes in it l'hachis – should he then certainly be considered a kofer? Find out if it is mutar to have the fifth Volume of Michtav Me-Eliyahu or the Moreh Nevuchim in your house. If you burn those seforim, do you have to do Teshuva?

Politically, assume that everything that followed was planned by the Gedolim. After all, they could have first contacted those Rabbonim who gave the Haskamos to R' Slifkin and gotten them to retract. They then could have invited R' Slifkin to meet with them and reach an accommodation, whereby they won't in anyway publicly attack him, but will insist in the future he teach a different approach and tell people his position has changed. From the fact that the Gedolim didn't defuse the situation - as they so easily could have, it is clear they wanted something that was guaranteed to make the NY Times, as has every one of their recent bans. To suggest otherwise is to accuse them of gross incompetence, which would render their judgment (and hence all of their psak) suspect.

Now I have an easier time taking this approach because I truly believe it to be true. With my own personal experience I've seen Gedolim thinking many steps beyond what us mere geniuses are accustomed to. They are the ones who seven moves into a normal looking chess game would say, “Game over, there is no possible way for white to even get a draw from that position”. I have a theory of why the Gedolim wanted things to unfold this way, which I plan to share when I have it all worked out. However, even those who don't believe my contention would do well to follow that approach on purely strategic grounds. Treat the ban as a psak Halachah, and analyze the implications as you would any other area of Halakhah. Flesh out the implications until consistency forces the signers to modify or clarify things. Attacking a Gadol for being a fool will not get a response, for why should they even dignify it. Showing them how their very words can lead an earnest and sincere person to severely violate Halakhah has to get a response from them. It is no longer their Kavod which is being attacked. To the contrary, their very Kavod is leading people to make Halakkhic errors. They then have no choice but to respond and protect the Halakhic system.

Treat the Gedolim and what they say with even more respect and sincerity than their own followers do. It gives the pro-Slifkin movement the high ground, and leaves no obvious way to discredit us. If they didn't properly think things through, as some of you undoubtedly think, this would hang them on their ropes and force them to concede. If I am correct though and they did know what they are doing, this will force them to share their real reasoning, and allow us to progress to the next step. Either way, the dialogue will be more productive, and we will no longer be turning off those who may sympathize with us but can't stand the lack of Kavod HaTorah.

Good news from Rav Scheinberg

While there are many signatures to the ban on Rabbi Slifkin's books, there are three that I primarily care about: Rav Elyashiv, Rav Scheinberg, and Rav Dovid Feinstein. My Rebbeim have frequently asked them shaylos, and they are considered by many to the Poskei HaDor. Their psak on Rabbi Slifkin has really upset me as my posts to the right in the Halakhah category explain. If I had to choose between those three Gedolim rescinding their psak or the other twenty, I would choose those three in a heartbeat. That they haven't done so have been very painful for me, and I'm not quite sure how to react.

In the case of Rav Scheinberg though, there is a major loophole. I can consider him my Posek and still ignore his psak by Rabbi Slifkin. How, you ask? Very simple. There is a marvelous sefer called Divrei Chachamim by Rav Aryeh Zev Ginsburg. The author went around asking different shaylos to different poskim. Rav Scheinberg wrote in his haskamah to the sefer that he testifies that whenever the sefer quotes him it is accurately presenting his position. On Page 290 (Reish Tzadi) of the sefer, point number 10, Rav Scheinberg says that today there is no issur to shop around and to go to a second a Posek to get a kula if you aren't happy with the psak of the first person you asked. (Though it is obviously better to get permission form the first one.) Now if you choose Rav Scheinberg as your Posek, there is no problem in shopping around for a psak on any area you want – including the Slifkin ban. Shop around until you find Rabbi Hershel Schachter, who will tell you in person that there is no problem with Rabbi Slifkin whatsoever. (It would be nice if he would say it louder and more often, but that's for another post.) The important thing is that while Rav Scheinberg signed a letter saying Rabbi Slifkin's books should be burned, he allows you to find a Posek who would say that not only is it an issur gamur to burn them, it is a great mitzvah to learn them. So one person can burn the seforim while another person learns them, and they each have the approval of Rav Sheinberg, albeit to different extents.

If anyone has any knowledge of Rav Sheinberg changing his mind on the Slifkin ban, please let me know. If anyone has any information about any of the signers of the ban publicly retracting and saying they are not kefirah, it is not assur to learn and to teach their contents, and they should not be burnt, please let me know. I want to have a post on where each of the signers of the ban stands, and the more information I have the better.

Slifkin and Galileo

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."

Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, during the trial of Galileo


Some of you may have noticed that in the links I give to the right, I refer to R' Slifkin as Galileo. At first I wasn't sure if that was a good idea, since it insults those I respect and offers a defense to those I despise.

It is insulting to R' Slifkin, who unlike Galileo did not mock those who differed with him. In his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo created a buffoon of a character named Simplicio to defend the Earth-Centered position. Rabbi Slifkin always made it clear that while he is taking the Torah approach that makes the most sense to him, there are other legitimate viewpoints out there. Furthermore, R' Slifkin took the courageous step of publicly defending his work and fighting for the truth, unlike Galileo who publicly caved to save his life, though to be fair, R' Slifkin was not (yet) threatened with being burned at the stake. While Galileo was no Avraham Aveinu and was not willing to be thrown into the Kivshan HaEish, R' Slifkin has yet to be put into that position, so we can't know how he would have acted. (This does beg a question though. These Babylonians burn Meenus, yet a Min himself - walking Meenus - they leave alone.)

It is also insulting to Galileo, who is the father of the scientific method and one of the greatest intellects of the past Millennium. To compare him to young man who hasn't even said something revolutionary, let alone discovered a fundamental breakthrough, is not worthy of the man. While we all hope R' Slifkin rises to Galileo's level of insight, it doesn't seem to have happened yet and most of us are not holding our breaths. (Unless if he really is one of the Lamed Vov Tzadikim, as Rav Elyashiv said is possible.)

It is most insulting to the Gedolim who signed the ban. To imply that they are making the same mistake the Catholic Church did over 370 years earlier is quite severe. On the other hand, it is offers a great defense to the Catholic Church. How bad could their error have been in 1633 if the Gedolim made the same one in 2004? You can no longer say the Medieval Church was alone in fighting reason and scientific progress.

Despite these problems, I think it is important to make the analogy, and I believe we need more people to say it publicly more often. Bloggers of the World Unite! The Chilul Christianity of the Galileo affair did the Catholic Church irreparable harm. In many people's minds, the Church is anti-reason, and Galileo is the proof they bring to that point. Many years from now, much of the world will feel the same way about Orthodox Jewry, and the Slifkin banning will be the proof the bring.

Some will say it is only some Gedolim who spoke out, so it doesn't reflect on Torah. Hogwash!
1) Even those who disagree with the ban agree that Rav Elyashiv, Rav Sheinberg and Rav Dovid Feinstein are among the Gedolei Hador and among the greatest Poskim alive today. Those who agree with the Ban don't say the same thing about Rabbi Hershel Schachter, let alone the others on the list. When every one agrees to the greatness of the Gedolim on one side, and not every agrees to the greatness of the Gedolim on the other side, the former clearly have the edge.
2) When you look at those who learn everyday and in general take Torah seriously, you find many more of them who follow and respect the first set of Gedolim than the second. Torah is certainly not a pure democracy - we only care about those qualified to vote. And those quallfied to vote overwhelming support the pro-Ban Gedolim.
3) The biggest problem though is that when you realize that only the pro-Ban Gedolim have been willing to speak out, while the anti-Ban Gedolim are unwilling to publicly fight for their position, it is clear the latter have in essence conceded the point.

Anyone within the Torah World who feels “The Gedolim” have clearly spoken out against R' Slifkin's positions would be more than justified in saying so. For someone outside the Torah World, to take that position would have even more merit. The next time someone says that “Torah conflicts with Science”, intellectual honesty requires that you acknowledge the legitimacy of the statement before disagreeing.

I know there are some within YU who feel that since their Roshei Yeshiva disagree with the ban, it is not their problem and they have nothing to worry about. I've already written how Halachically the ban would still concern them. Even if someone disagrees with my point though, the Chillul Hashem affects all of us.

Now I realize the Gedolim were aware of these ramifications, yet still decided to sign the ban. I hope to properly explain why at a later point in time. For now though, I'm simply adding this to the list of questions I'll have to answer. Why did they feel banishing these ideas from our Mesorah was so important that it was worth incurring the ridicule of the Non-Frum World, both Jewish and Gentile? What was so urgent that they decided to pay such a heavy price?


As many of you no doubt know, Rabbi Slifkin will be speaking this week at the Young Israel of Flatbush (Avenue I) on Tuesday at 8:00 and on Wednesday at 8:00. I hope to go there as I think it is very important that we show our support. Whether you personally agree with his Hashkafos or not, as long as you feel that they have legitimacy within out Mesorah, it is important to let him know that he is not in this fight by himself. While emailing him is a good idea, showing up in person to hear him is probably much more meaningful.

Was the Moreh Nevuchim written for Rashayim?

The text of the letter condemning Rabbi Slifkin and his books is very interesting both for what it says and in how it chooses to say it. One key word that I feel has not been given the attention it deserves is the word burn. I've already posted how that one word proves the ban was intended to be a Psak Halachah, and not just a gezera like the ones against the Internet, cell phones and DarkBlueHats. (Rav Moshe Shapiro emphasizes the need to burn the books in his letter as well.) The word burn is also interesting in another way, for it naturally reminds people of another Sefer dealing with the conflict between Torah and Science that was burned.

The Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim is an incredible work in many ways. While there are many nowadays who feel people shouldn't study the work, most won't go so far as to call it Kefirah – at least not Bepharhesia (publicly). After all, you can't call the Rambam's sefer Kefirah without calling him a Kofer as well. Considering that we rely on his Piskei Halachah in all areas and consider his 13 Ikkarim as the test of whether someone is a believing Jew, it would be absurd to say he himself held beliefs so outside the pale of Judaism as to render him a Kofer.

Now one of the big topics tackled by the Rambam in the Moreh Nevuchim is the age of the universe. Aristotle taught that the Universe is eternal, while the Torah says Hashem created the Universe. The Rambam expands much energy to answering this problem. If you would ask the average Rav today though, he would say what's the problem? When you have a machlokes between Aristotle and Torah, of course Torah is right. How can a frum person even be bothered by the question? To strengthen this position, the Rambam included the belief that Hashem created the world ex-nehilo as the fourth of his 13 Ikkarim. Someone who doesn't believe in it is a Min! Not only is this a Machlokes between Aristotle and Hashem, but this a machlokes between Aristotle and Hashem over an area so basic and so fundamental that if someone takes Aristotle's position they can have no relationship with Hashem whatsoever!

And yet the Rambam took the question seriously. I remember once reading the Chafetz Chaim on Reward and Punishment. In response to the claim “I'd rather go to hell, because that's where my friends are”, the Chafetz Chaim explained that hell is very large, and there would be many hundreds of miles between them and their friends, whom they would never get to meet over there. After reading that I thought, wow, now that's Ahavas Yisroel. A great mind is dealing with inane questions in the framework of the people asking them, because that's what he felt would be most effective in bringing them back to Torah. In the case of the Rambam in the Moreh Nevuchim though, that isn't what is going on. When you read the Sefer you soon realize if that Aristotle had conclusively proven his point the Rambam would have had no choice but to concede he made an error, and that the belief in creation ex-nihilo should not be a Yesod of our Emunah after all.

What is more surprising is who did the Rambam write the Moreh Nevuchim for. The Rambam says in his introduction that when in the course of writing this Sefer he had to displease 10,000 fools in order to properly teach the one Chachom and help him gain perfection, he would do so. The person who is deeply conflicted because of Aristotle's claim of an Eternal universe is not only not a Rasha for having been bothered by the question, but is in fact the great Chocham for whom the Rambam was willing to risk damaging a 10,000 fools in order to assist!

(As an aside to the “rationalists” here, it seems to me that we see from here something very important. For the Rambam, belief in Torah was not distinct from belief in Science, the two having different realms and methodologies, such that knowledge of one couldn't affect knowledge of the other. Rather for the Rambam everything was based on reason. Reason led him to Torah, and reason led him to accept Science. When there is an apparent conflict between the two, it is a conflict within reason, and such a conflict must be resolved with reason. Either our understanding of Science or our understanding of Torah must be mistaken, and the same mind which we use to understand each of them can also be used to see where the mistake was made.)


It would be the height of understatement to say that many Rabbonim are not comfortable with such an approach. They would say the Rambam is the Rambam, but his approach was already rejected and it is now assur for someone to think that way. Others would say that the Rambam's approach is even more appropriate today than it was in his time for many reasons, not least of which is that recent technology has done so much to improve out lives and earn our respect. I don't want to get into that discussion just yet, since there is a more basic area to be considered first. The same person who is considered by the Rambam to be so valuable that it's worth upsetting 10,000 fools to help him would be considered a Rasha and an idiot with a fundamentally corrupt approach by many others. That's a big Machlokes and it's not going to get resolved anytime soon. The two sides differ on the fundamental premises of what it means to be a frum Jew and what it means to believe in Hashem Yisborach. Anyone who thinks they can simply send a copy of the Moreh Nevuchim to the appropriate Gadol and this thing will work itself out is living in a dream world. For while it is generally agreed that the burning of the Moreh Nevuchim was a terrible mistake (wagons full of Shas were later burned in the very same spot, which most saw as Divine retribution), it is by no means accepted that those who opposed the Sefer were wrong for doing so. The consensus among the Ashkenazic Gedolim at the time was that in addition to being wrong on several keys points, the Sefer would do much more harm than good. It seems that not much have changed in this regard. While “Rambam the Halachist” of the Mishneh Torah is universally accepted, “Maimonides The Philosopher” of the Moreh Nevuchim is not.

(As an aside, even the Rav, at the end of Halachic Mind gave an example of one area in which the Rambam's philosophical approach in the Mishneh Torah “came nearer the core of philosophical truth” than did Maimonides' approach in the Moreh Nevuchim. It's worth reading from page 91 to the end of book even if like me you don't have the background to properly understand and appreciate the rest of it. Obviously the Rav in no way condemns the Moreh, and on the last page of the book talks about the need to analyze and discover the halakhic roots of the Sefer. I only mentioned this to give yet another example of how even one of the Rambam's staunchest supporters prefers the Yad to the Moreh.)

Not that I remotely have a right to voice an opinion on this area (I don't even qualify as koslei bais hamikdash) but it seems to me that the Rambam's views must always be given a seat at the Hashkafic table. In order to banish a position taught by someone of the Rambam's status from our Mesorah you would need universal condemnation, like was done with R. Hillel's view on Moshiach. With the Moreh Nevuchim that was never done as you always had Baalei Mesorah who approved or at least condoned it. On the other hand, it seems that those who were stridently opposed to the Sefer also must be given a seat at the Hashkafic table, for in every generation these were those who sympathized with their position. For reasons of decorum we may decide not sit them next to each other, but there will always be those who feel close to both sides, such as the Ramban. (I realize this paragraph leads to a very big question, and one that has been asked before, but I'll save it for another post.)

One of the few benefits of the whole Slifkin ban is that it brought these ideas to the fore. We've had frum Jews davening next to each other in the same shul their entire lives, and never once discussing what the meaning and purpose of prayer is, let alone discussing the nature of their relationship with the One they daven to. To realize that someone with diametrically opposed Hashkafos to you can still be a functioning member of the frum community is itself an important thing to remember. We should use this opportunity to expand our horizons and our appreciation of different approaches, even as we staunchly defend ourselves against unfair attacks. A position may be completely and utterly wrong, yet still have merit. Understanding the merit of the opposing side is among the first step towards understanding how to deal with it.

Can you rely on the Psak of someone you don't trust?

Imagine that you are the head of a Beis Din that is supervising a Get, and you need to find appropriate witnesses to sign it. It seems that you would do well to find Eidim who believe that the world was created in six literal days and that Chazal were infallible in all scientific matters. For even if you strongly disagree with those positions, you have a responsibility to the woman – and to Klal Yisroel for that matter – to ensure that the Get will have the widest possible acceptance. It would be the height of cruelty to put the woman in a position where the future children she will have will be considered Mamzerim by large segments of Klal Yisroel. And since there are acknowledged Gedolim who consider those who believe in an “old universe” or a “fallible Chazel” to be heretics, it follows that they are Posul L'Eidus, and any Get they sign is invalid.

Once the Get is safely delivered, you can then sit down and explain to the Eidim why you think out current Gedolim are mistaken and those Gedolim of previous generations who believed in an “old universe” and a “fallible Chazel” were in fact correct. When you realize how this will make things more difficult for you to supervise the next Get, you may decide that it is in your self-interest to let them maintain their status as Kosher Eidem, as mistaken as you consider them to be.

Such is the absurd position of someone who disagrees with the ban of the Gedolim, but still considers their Shitos to be a part of Torah and a legitimate Halakhic position. Those who learn realize that many times “Halakhic Reality” can differ from “Physical Reality”. A Chazakah does not create a time machine to go back and alter history to confirm with the conclusions it leads you to. If everyday of the year you eat a piece of meat that was found on a block with ten kosher butchers and one treif one, you have absolutely nothing to be mikhaper for on Yom Kippur, even thought statistically you certainly ate meat from the treif store on many occasions. So to, even if the “Physical Reality” of our universe is such that the world was created more than 6,000 earth years ago and that lice didn't use to spontaneously generate, it doesn't necessarily follow that believing in such positions is without negative Halakhic consequences.

By now many of you are no doubt throwing things at your monitor and screaming at the top of your lungs “The signers of the Ban were wrong! They completely messed up, and there are no Halakhic ramifications to their so-called Psak whatsoever!” Part of your motivation in believing that may be to avoid the nightmare scenarios I have described. I've already explained the Halakhic nightmare of those who wish to follow the psak. Without knowing the psak's parameters and the reasoning behind it, it is nearly impossible to correctly follow it, for its implications contradict the way we live our daily Halakhic lives. Even whose who disagree with the psak but recognize that it may have some Halakhic weight have been placed in a awful position. To round out this nightmare though, it is only fair if I point out the problems this psak creates for those who think it can be completely ignored without a moment's consideration since it is so obviously mistaken.

The big question is, can you rely on the psak of someone you don't trust? Let's give an extreme case to help illustrate the point. Imagine a gaon who has Shas and Poskim on his fingertips and who is a lamdan of the first order. For any question you can think of, he can instantly come up with countless ingenious answers from every angle and from every source imaginable. Unfortunately, you don't trust his judgment. To make things less drastic, let's assume the problem is not one of dishonesty. Certainly if someone's intellectual integrity is suspect, you can't rely on his psak for anything. Let's say though you don't trust his judgment in recognizing when someone is being truthful to him, and you don't trust his ability to discern which of the myriad arguments before him is the proper one to choose. You also don't trust him to know his own limitations, and when he is dealing with matters he is not qualified to handle. If you had a complicated civil case but sincerely felt that a complete and objective analysis of the case would favor you, you wouldn't want such a person deciding your case. He would be just as likely to be swayed by some of the side issues as he would by the essential issues. He may give as much weight to a clever but invalid argument as he would to simple but true one.

Now some may say that of course you can rely on the judgment of such a Posek. After all, we rely on experts in many fields who may hold personal opinions we don't like. Would you not use a doctor or lawyer because you disagree with his politics or religion? In the case of psak though, it requires a much greater reliance on someone's judgment than you find in other areas. Even when it comes to the optimal or “pure” Halachah (to use Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin's terminology from “Equality Lost”), there are countless arguments for every side. In fact, if someone can't find any decent sevaros to defend the positions he disagrees with, he is quite simply not a Lamdan. To choose among all these possibilities is a matter of judgment, and without such judgment one simply can't determine what the Halachah should be, and which of the many opinions should be followed. Next, a Posek must determine the Metziut, the facts on the ground. Here too there are always different claimants presenting different facts and a different spin on those facts. To figure out what the underlying facts of the case really are requires shrewd judgment. Next is Hora'ah, which bridges the gap between the pure Halachah and the facts on the ground. There are many Halachic principles involved in this too, and to choose the correct ones require judgment. In short, if you believe someone lacks judgment or common sense, it would be impossible to rely on their Piskei Halachah, since the most basic psak requires proper judgment every step of the way.

When you consider that the ban includes the signatures of some of the most prominent Poskim alive today, this is very scary. We rely on their psak everyday in every area. If they are no longer trustworthy, the Piskei Halachah they have given may no longer be relied upon. The consequences of saying that every psak they ever issued must be revisited by someone trustworthy would literally drown Rabbonim with more shaylos than they are equipped to answer. There are Rabbonim who will privately tell you that the ban is absurd and that the reasoning behind it is so weak and so clearly wrong that it shouldn't at all be a factor in our decisions. If that is so, what does it say about those who wrote the ban. If they could be so obviously wrong about an area of such fundamental importance – who is a member of Klal Yisroel in good standing who believes in Hashem Yisborach and who isn't – how could we rely on them on in more complex and esoteric areas, where things aren't as black and white? The only way to judge someone's capabilities in areas in which you aren't qualified is by seeing how they handle themselves in areas in which you are qualified to judge.

It seems that many Rabbonim are frighted by each extreme. The consequences of following the psak would be tragic, and the consequences of saying it can be safely ignored and dismissed is also terrifying. One of tragedies of the ban is that makes life impossible for everyone who takes Halakhah seriously, whether they think the ban is completely right, completely wrong, or if they are somewhere in the middle.

It seems to me that you must find a Rav whose judgment you trust, and ask him these Shaylos. I suspect that what they may have to do in the future when presented with the types of Shaylos they would normally pass on to one of the signers of the ban is the following. When they will ask the Shayla they will insist on getting a full Teshuva, with all the sources and Sevaros provided. They will then on their own have to go through the full Teshuva, and see if they agree with it. Only if they agree with it will they be able to tell people to rely on it. Now the Gedolim who signed the ban may be very insulted by a request for the Sevaros behind their psak, as if the person asking doesn't rely on their judgment. However, I refuse to imagine they didn't foresee this as a direct consequence of their psak. They have apparently redefined the classic definition of Meenus to exclude a large portion of the Modox, Yeshivish and Chaddish worlds, as well as several recent Gedolim, and did so without the detailed arguments people are accustomed to such a case and without guidance of how to follow the implications of the psak. To expect that everyone would treat them afterwards as if nothing happened is absurd, and would in fact be the ultimate proof of those who unfairly wish to cast aspersions on their common sense. Obviously the Gedolim involved must all be treated with the greatest Kavod. To explicitly say to them that I no longer trust you or your Da'as would be very wrong, even if you do in fact feel that way. However, our greatest obligation is to Toras Emes, and if that requires us to be both Kabdeihu VeChasdeihu with Gedolei Yisroel, I don't see any alternative. In the unlikely event the Gedolim didn't expect that some people would not trust them as much after the ban as before, there should be a way to respectfully notify them of the reactions. Just don't expect that to affect their decision. I realize this may just be my personal opinion, but I still feel that while "I completely and utterly disagree with the ban - it does have merit." There is an important reason why the ban was issued, and until it is properly handled, it won't be going away.

The Five Levels of Torah MiSinai Proofs.

It seems that several of the Slifkin related blogs have recently decided to critique the famous Proof of the Kuzari for accepting the historical reality of Torah MiSinai. While I have lot to say on that topic, I've been trying to refrain from voicing my personal opinions on any Hashkafic area and to focus on the Slifkin ban. After all, the whole point of this blog is that even if someone completely disagrees with my Hashkafah, they still must acknowledge that the Slifkin ban creates many urgent problems that need to be solved. In fact, I myself disagree with much that Rabbi Slifkin has written, and yet find the ban to be utterly distressing. While I may not go so far as to say “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", I certainly have newfound empathy for that view.

That being said, there are some very important connections between what Rabbi Slifkin has written and the famous Proof of Sinai from the Kuzari. It will take me several posts to develop the points I want to make and there are some urgent areas I want to discuss first, but since it is the week after Shavuos, I thought I would take a brief detour and start the Sinai conversation. You'll have to trust me for now that eventually I'll tie everything together, but if you want to skip it I understand.

Before even getting to the substance of the argument, I want to point out that there are different variations and formulations of the proof going around, each with a different purpose. From what I've seen, the people presenting the proof nowadays are trying to prove one of at least five different things:

1) Believing in Judaism is more rational than believing in other religions such as Hinduism,Christianity or Islam.

2) You can be rational and logically self-consistent while believing in Judasim, as opposed to other religions.

3) The historical reality of Matan Torah is the most likely explanation for Klal Yisroel having accepted it.

4) Anyone who is rational and logically self-consistent must believe in Matan Torah.

5) Matan Torah must have happened.

If presented with a strong proof of “Level 1”, an avowed atheist may readily concede to it without in any way invalidating his belief system. That Judaism may have a firmer epistemological basis than other religions does not in any way mean it is true, or even that it is rational to believe in it. “Level 1” places the bar pretty low. What is interesting is that for many people, such a proof would suffice for them. I can think of several types of people who would be more than satisfied with such a proof, were it to be provided:

A) Imagine someone who for other philosophical reasons believes in G-d, and who for whatever reason believes G-d must have given a revelation to mankind. The question is, which of the many competing religious claims should he accept? A proof of “Level 1” would settle the question for him.
B) Alternatively, someone may be impressed with Pascal's wager. The reward of the world to come so dwarfs any earthly pleasure that even if the odds of it being true are remote, it still pays from a cost benefit analysis to live a religious life. While there are many flaws in such an argument, there are those who buy it. The question then remains, which of the many mutually exclusive and conflicting religious claims should he follow? If one of them can be shown to be more likely to be true, the cost benefit analysis would favor it - assuming its conception of heaven was competitive.
C) Lastly, some may be bothered by the apparent injustice of G-d rewarding the adherents of one religion while punishing or ignoring the adherents of other religions. While there are various answers to that question, if the true religion which G-d favors could be shown to be a more rational basis than its competitors, it may help lessen the problem or even remove it altogether.

Now, of those who hold of “B” and “C” above, even if “Level 1” is not enough to satisfy them, “Level 2” may do the job. And even those who feel “Level 2” is not enough to save Pascal's wager may think a proper proof of “Level 3” would do the trick.

Most religious Jews would be more than satisfied with a proof of “Level 3”, even without Pascal's wager. An avowed atheist however may not be impressed. After all, big claims require big proof. This is something which if true will affect every aspect of someone's life. That it may be true, or even that it is likely to be true, may not be sufficient to make them willing to rethink their entire lifestyle. It is interesting to ask people how would they react if in theory someone conclusively proved “Level 3” to them. The answer they give says a lot about them.

The important thing to realize about “Level 4” and “Level 5” is that they are not the same. While a proof of “Level 4” should be more than enough for anyone to completely accept Torah, you will find those who refused to be swayed until presented with a proof of “Level 5”, and perhaps for that reason you will find those who claim to have proven it.

Those are the five levels of the proof I as I have heard it presented in different places. If anyone has other variations of it they should please let me know. I hope to return to the substance and premises of the Kuzari argument in the near future, as it pertains to the Slifkin ban in several important ways. There is one point in particular I want to make which I expect to be quite controversial. But before I antagonize even more of my readers though, I will first return to some Halakhic issues.

Burnable Heresy

It seems to me that the implications of the Slifkin ban have been vastly underestimated. When faced with a horrific situation, people are sometimes apt to downplay the dangers and to find justifications of why things will blow away. Some of you are no doubt rolling your eyes in response to that alarmist statement. So allow me to deal with some of the responses I've heard, and to show where I think they are lacking.

Some people say we can safely ignore the ban, since there is a firm divide between Halachah and Hashkafah. Just because someone is a Posek, it doesn’t mean he is qualified to decide on Hashkafic matters. While this is a complex area and there are some crucial differences between Halachah and Hashkafah, there are also areas where they overlap. Whether someone is a Min or not has Halachic ramifications. The Shikhitah of an Apikores is posul. Who is an Apikores is therefore a Halachic matter, and the opinions of a recognized Posek must be considered as much in that case as in any other. Whether someone is ultimately a Ben Olam Haba or not will ultimately be decided by the Dayan Emes. People are not yanked out of and into heaven based on the psak of the Rambam and the Raivad, just as Sheidim don't disappear and reappear based on the opinions of the Rambam and the Gra. In a similar vein, the age of the universe and the precise level of scientific understanding that Chazal had are historic facts that won't be changed. However, how we should treat certain beliefs in this world though is something that falls within the purview of Halachah.

Now one of my anonymous commentators had a simple way of making the problem go away. “It is clear that many if not most of the signatories to the ban do NOT think the books contain kefira. They thought that those who were upset by Slifkin's views would take the kol koreh at face value and be happy with it, and the rest would take it as social policy making (which is all the ban was intended to be).” If this statement were true, it would at least somewhat lessen the problem. While it would not make it disappear, as there would still be some Gedolim who DO consider it Kefira, it would somewhat lessen the sting. Unfortunately, it can't possibly be true, as the text of the ban says "I sign with heartache, and in the hope that the one who spreads ideas of heresy and minnuse will burn all his writings and declare in public that he recants everything." Rav Scheinberg and Rav Shmuel Auerbach among others affixed their signature to that statement.

Now any Posek who says Rabbi Slifkin should burn his books must at a minimum believe it is permitted for him to do so. To say a Posek signed a letter in which he publicly calls upon someone to violate Halakha is absurd. That would truly be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Now since the vast majority of Rabbi Slifkin's books consist of Divrei Torah which no one would argue with, the only possible justification to permit the burning of them is that they contain outright Kefirah. Now granted that the psak is a bit incomplete. For example, if the pages were all torn out and Rabbi Slifkin had to burn them one by one, are there any pages that should perhaps be spared? And if there are, wouldn't it be better for him to rip those out before burning them? Are others also allowed to burn the books, or is only Rabbi Slifkin himself allowed to do so as part of his Teshuva? Perhaps others are not only permitted to burn them, but are in fact required to do so? However many questions like this we may have on the psak though, it doesn't negate its existence.

The interplay between Halacha and Hashkafa is a fascinating topic, and I hope to return to it eventually when I discuss Marc Shapiro's famous Torah U'Madda Journal article, and the book that followed from it. For now though, I hope I've managed to convince at least some of you that the Slifkin ban does contain Halakhic ramifications. While I do plan to post on other aspects of the ban, I will return to some of the Halakhic issues as well, since I find them to be the most neglected. Among the questions I hope to get to are:

1) Is one who believes heresy necessarily a heretic?
2) According to the Gedolim who signed the ban, did Rabbi Slifkin's books became kefirah at the time of the banning, or were they in fact always kefirah?
3) What are the Halakhic ramifications of the ban for whose disagree with it?

While I can't be certain how my commentators will react, I strongly suspect that the answer to that last question will be the most shocking to people.

Now to end on a positive note, for those of you who didn't click on the Yated link above, the story has been modified and some of the slander that Rabbi Slifkin rebutted has been removed from the Yated website. It is my understanding that the Halakhah would require a public retraction and apology in such a situation as well, but removing the more obvious lies is a good place to start. Of course if the paper follows the psak that Rabbi Slifkin is a Min, that may very well lessen their Halakhic obligations towards him.

Conflict between Torah and the Holocaust

Please allow me to give you some more background of why this issue has been so painful for me. It’s sad writing this now, but I always looked down at those who claimed they were bothered by the so-called conflict between Torah and Science and in fact couldn't believe that they were sincere. The closest analogy I can give you is the way most people relate to those who abandoned Torah because of the Holocaust. There was a time when if someone didn't want to remain frum and needed an excuse to justify leaving the fold, he would invariably invoke the Holocaust. “If there is a G-d, how could He do this to his people?” The implication of this question is that the one leaving Torah has a greater attachment to Klal Yisroel, and so is more bothered by the theological implications of the horrors visited upon us. Meanwhile, those of us who rationally and impartially studied the area realized there was no conflict at all. In fact, when confronted with someone who claimed to be truly bothered by the problem, we instinctively felt that either this person is somewhat dishonest and is latching onto an emotional charged but intellectually absurd excuse for leaving Torah, or that this is someone whose intellect is so weak it would be hard to have a constructive conversation with them anyway.

Similarly, I couldn't believe that there were those who were truly bothered by the so-called conflict between Torah and Science, since I considered the solutions so obvious and straightforward. While those who were ignorant of Torah and/or ignorant of Science may latch onto superficial differences between them to prove they were incompatible, this in no way would affect those who put in the sincere effort to truly understood each of them with some level of depth. I always thought that people who claimed their faith in Torah was weakened by scientific developments were intellectually dishonest cowards who strategically chose ignorance to justify their lack of commitment to the Ratzon Hashem. They were more in need of emotional counseling that a point by point rebuttal of the errors they were making.

The banning of Rabbi Slifkin's books is upsetting for many reasons, but what was particularly painful for me was the introspection it inevitably led to. After my initial shock upon reading the ban for myself with my own eyes, I found myself asking “Who's the fool? With my feeble mind and shallow understanding of Torah and Science, I saw no conflict. But those whose depth and breath of Torah vastly knowledge exceed what I could ever hope to accomplish – let alone the tidbits that I actually have – have declared definitively that the two are in conflict. Those who I considered cowardly fools were in fact correct. Torah and Science are incompatible, and if I had greater knowledge of Torah I would see that. They may have chosen the wrong side of the conflict, but at least they correctly recognized that it was a conflict and did not fall the pat and simplistic answers I did.”

Now mind you, that was never my conclusion. While I hope to further clarify my thoughts by sorting them and writing them down, I can say once again I'm fairly convinced that there is no conflict and I hope to explain why. The analogy of the “so-called conflict” between Torah and the Holocaust is once again useful. If Gedolei Yisroel would say the Holocaust is incompatible with Torah and therefore it never happened, there would be frum people who would ask themselves “what have I been believing all these years?” In the end, most frum people would probably work things out without any permanent damage to their Emunah, However, I would say that those who weren't bothered by the question altogether were fooling themselves, and perhaps never truly believed in the first place. To return to the Slifkin affair, the foremost Torah authorities of our time have declared Torah to be incompatible with the scientific theories of our time. To glibly dismiss them or to underestimate the problems involved here would be a terrible mistake. The first step towards a solution is to recognize and acknowledge the existence of the problem.

What must we disbelieve?

Just because the consequences of classifying as Meenim those who believe Chazel made scientific errors and those who believe that the World may be greater that 6,000 years would be devastating and would destroy the frum world as we know it, is not reason in itself not to do it. A Posek must follow what the Torah tells him, regardless of how difficult it may be. Sometimes the Torah may require us to go to war. We may know that as a consequence many people will die, and we not even be assured of victory, but if the Rotzon Hashem requires that we sacrifice our lives, so be it. However, it is fair to ask that the greatness of the Chiddush and the ramifications of a new psak be matched by the forcefulness of the Halachic proofs given.

To say that believing Chazel made scientific errors is Meenus is a tremendous Chiddush. When it comes to Yesodei Emunah, Klal Yisroel has overwhelmingly relied on the Rambam's 13 Ikarim, of which the Rambam only considered the first 5 to fall into the category of Meenus. To expand the category of Meenus to such an extent would require clear and overwhelming proof. Unfortunately, that has yet to be provided. How are other Rabbonim meant to accept or refute the arguments if they don't even know what they are?

Aside from the Halakhic nightmare described in my previous post, there are other reasons why the burden of proof must be much greater here. As has been pointed out by others, many recognized Gedolei Yisroel throughout the ages have held these beliefs, including in our time Rav Dessler, the Mashgiach in Ponovitch. Of all the Gedolim who were with him in Bnei Brak, none of them ever told him to stop teaching Meenus to the Bnei HaYeshiva. They may not have all agreed with him, but they recognized his as a legitimate approach that had been endorsed repeatedly by great Rabbonim throughout the centuries.

However, what makes the ban even more perplexing, and completely impossible to follow, is that the ban never explicitly said which beliefs in the books are Meenus. Some supporters of the ban have said it is the belief that Chazel can make Scientific or Halachic errors, or that the universe is more than 6,000 years old. The ban itself though never explicitly lists which beliefs are in fact forbidden. Let's say someone read the books and believed them at the time, but now wishes to align his beliefs with the Halachic conclusions of these Gedolei Yisroel. Which beliefs should he change? The overwhelming majority of the books contents are Torah that no one argues with. Should he force those parts of Torah out of his mind as well? (That itself would be a terrible aveira). Should he reread the book carefully to remember line for line what it is he is obligated to forget? This would clearly do more harm than good. If I want to make sure my Sofer or my future spouse is not a Min, which questions should I ask? "Do you reject everything written by Nosson Slifkin?" Almost all the ideas contained within his books can be found in other sources as well. How can we possibly follow the new Halachically imposed Hashkafos if we don't even know what they are?

Tell us what it is we shouldn't believe, and tell us why it is not acceptable. Then tell us how to deal with the ramifications of the psak. Isn't that the bare minimum we should expect from a Posek?

The P'Sak of the Century

Before dealing with the Hashkafic and political ramifications of the ban, I think it best to start with some Halachic issues. This may seem like hyperbole, but if the p'sak banning these books stands, it may prove to be the p'sak of the century. From what it seems, the books were called Meenus because they claim the world may be more than 6,000 years old and because they claim that Chazal may have been mistaken in several scientific areas. Now it is important to realize that there are different categories of disbelief. There are certain Yesodos of our Emunah which if someone doesn't accept they are a Kofer BaTorah. There are other Yesodos which if someone doesn't accept they are an Apikores. The most severe category is that of a Min. That person is essentially an atheist. Either they don't believe in G-d, or they believe in a deity so different from the true one that they are functionally without a monotheistic belief. The Rambam holds that someone who does not accept the first five of his 13 Ikarim (first five lines of Yigdal) is a Min. Now mind you, that is a very serious violation. It seems that if a Jew would Chas V'Shalom convert to Islam, while he would undoubtedly be “Ein Lo Chelek LaOlam HaBah”, an Apikoros and a Kofer BaTorah, he would not technically be a Min. In other words, it appears at first glance that according to many Gedolei Yisroel, someone who believes Nosson Slifkin's books are in some ways further removed from Hashem than is a Muslim.

What are the Halachic ramifications of being a Min? As you may imagine, they are quite severe. The person is separated from Klal Yisroel and is Halachicly considered as a Goy in many respects. If he shechted an animal, the meat would be treif. If he were the Baal Tekiah on Rosh Hashana, no one listening would be yotzei that mitzvah. Many would say you couldn't even count him for a minyan. (I won't even get into rescuing him if his life were in danger, etc.) If he poured your non-Mevushal wine on the Seder night, it would be treif. If he were a sofer, all the mezuzos, tefillin and Sifrei Torah he wrote would be posul. And most frightening of all, if he were an Eid on a Get, the Get would be posul, and the children the woman would have when she remarried would be mamzeirim.

Now when you consider the percentage of the frum world that believes the universe may be older than 6,000 years, it is clear that these Gedolim, assuming they stand by both the words that precede their signature and by the implications that follow from them, have literally created many thousands of mamzeirim, countless tons of trief meat and wine, endless posul safrus, and invalidated untold other mitzvos. I don't think it hyperbole to say this may be the p'sak of the century. Even if they are saying these beliefs are Meenus from now on, and all previous Gittin signed by those who believe in the Big Bang are alright, there are still new Halachic nightmare happening everyday.


The nearest analogy in recent history was the banning of Chassidus centuries ago. At least in that case though, those who didn't considered Chassidim to be frum Jews had a chance of abiding by the ban. After all the Chassidim acted differently, were readily identifiable, and tended to congregate among themselves. In this case though, the separation would be much harder. Avoiding the Modox would be easy, at least in Eretz Yisroel where they have Hechshierim such as the Eidis Hachareidis, which doesn't employ them. The problem though is that throughout the Yeshivish and even the Chasidish worlds, these views are held by those who act and look no differently than anyone else. In fact, in some cases there were talmidim of those Gedolim who signed the ban who didn't know their Rebbeim held these beliefs to be problematic until they read the ban. Some of them apparently still hold by these beliefs even after the signing of the ban. You would literally have to grill everyone before they do any action that has any Halachic significance. And considering what the ramifications of a truthful response would be, there would be no reasonable expectation of receiving one. In essence, you are talking about the breakdown of the Halachic community as we know it.

A homework assignment for the more studious bloggers: What are the full Halachic ramifications of being a Min?

Why I'm doing this

There has been much interest in the blogosphere over the recent banning of several books written by Rabbi Nosson Slifkin. This may strike some as being reflective of the partisan nature of the blogoshere. Bloggers like to rant and rave, and a book banning naturally provides fresh ammunition for all sides to blast their adversaries. It seems to me though that if anything, the Slifkin ban has received too little attention, both in the real world and the virtual one. It gets to the core of what are the Yesodos of our Emunah, what it means to be a frum Jew in today’s world, the nature of Emunas Chachomim, the relationship between Torah and Science, and the relationship between Klal Yisroel and Gedolei Yisroel.

These are obviously all very weighty issues, and a proper discussion of all these issues would require the attention of one much wiser than myself. Unfortunately, those best qualified to tackle these issues seem to taking a wait and see approach, hoping for the situation to change into a more productive one, while fearful about engaging in a battle in which all sides are be sure to lose. Meanwhile, important topics are going undiscussed, and urgent questions are going unasked.

Like all those who take Torah and reality seriously, I have thought about some of these issues, and I have my two cents to contribute. My goal is not merely to vent and express my personal anguish over this controversy, though I suspect that may seep through at times. Nor do I think that my insights are so deep that I will be able to change minds on this topic. Rather, my modest goal is to help bring what I consider to be the most crucial questions facing frum Jews today to the fore. I hope that when people read my feeble attempts to solve these problems, it will provoke them to give better ones. Similarly, while I think I have practical advice on how people can help improve the situation, I'm looking forward to see how others will propose more effective ideas in response to my own.

I believe that many years from now our grandchildren will be asking us what we did to deal with this issue. I would like to be able to say I did all I could. Since the easiest step to take nowadays is to start a blog, I thought it would be a good place to start.