Thursday, May 8, 2014

He Who Must Not Be Named

Let's get back to Rabbi Moshe Meiselman's book Torah, Chazal and Science (you can find a list of all the previous parts of the critique at the first post). As you may recall, Rabbi Meiselman's first foray into Torah and science was in a series of lectures that he delivered at Toras Moshe in response to my books. Those lectures were noteworthy not only for the repeated misrepresentations of what my books actually say, but also for the extraordinary extent and viciousness of personal insults and slander that Rabbi Meiselman issued. A number of people complained to Rabbi Meiselman about this, and although he never issued any kind of apology or retraction, I was interested to see whether he would continue this approach in his book.

In the preface to the book, Rabbi Meiselman writes as follows:
I have almost always avoided quoting directly from any specific work in the genre to which I am responding in order that my comments will not be taken to be, in any way, ad hominem. My response is not ad hominem.
After reading this, and the rest of the book, I had to double-check the meaning of ad hominem, because I thought that perhaps I was making a mistake as to the meaning of the term. But no, I wasn't.  

Ad hominem is an argument based on the perceived failings and shortcomings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case itself. There is absolutely nothing ad hominem in quoting from a specific work and attempting to rebut it - indeed, if one is addressing a specific work, then it is appropriate to quote it by name. However, throwing out charges regarding the personal shortcomings of people, as Rabbi Meiselman does throughout the book, is very much ad hominem, even if you don't name the person (and even if the person cannot be identified).

Perhaps one could claim that Rabbi Meiselman means that he doesn't want the book to be taken as a personal response/ vendetta against me. But that doesn't help his claim make sense; aside from Rabbi Meiselman's history of attacking me, the vast majority of his book is quite obviously targeted primarily or exclusively at my work. Simply not naming me does not change this!

I wasn't sure whether to write a post about this, but I just received the following letter, which I am presenting (with permission of the writer):
Hi,

Thanks for all your blog posts. I'm an anglo chareidi who after nearly a decade in kollel, has come round to your way of thinking regarding the legitimacy of the rationalist approach to reconciling Chazal with modern science. I just finished reading Rabbi Meiselman's book. I admit that I started out prejudiced against it, but nonetheless, having read it I was surprised by how annoyed it made me!
I literally laughed out loud when 600 pages in - after calling you an amateur, a dilettante, sophomoric, unsophisticated, unqualified, and a purveyor of ersatz Torah, again and again and again - he repeats the claim that your name is avoided in case people misconstrue this as an ad hominem attack!

I know you probably don't want to make this controversy more personal than it already is, but I think this point deserves a blog post of its own.

1. In a book which grapples with the definition of heresy, calling someone a Kofer is not an ad hominem attack. In this case, the issue itself is whether your approach is legitimate. If his argument is that your approach is illegitimate, and furthermore that it is so illegitimate that it makes you a Kofer, then spelling that out is not an ad hominem attack - it's an attack on your view.

2. Hypocrisy - he claims to play fair and avoid ad hominem attacks, yet he repeatedly and gratuitously insults you. 

3. Intellectual Honesty - If you are writing a book against an approach to torah-science, why not quote repeatedly from your chief opponents, to show where you think they are wrong, and help people make up their minds. 

4. Menschlichkeit/ Mean-spiritedness - OK, so he falsely claims in front of his whole yeshiva that Slifkin was thrown out of Shaarei Torah, and won't retract or apologize. Fine. But would it really kill him to include one sentence in the book naming you as his chief opponent, to say he believes you to be a well-meaning guy but nonetheless gravely mistaken. How hard is that? And even if he doesn't fully believe it, at least pretend to be a mentsch!

5. Ignoring your chief opponent is itself an ad hominem attack - This move implicitly states that R. Slifkin is less important than the hundreds of useless and irrelevant footnotes that made it into the book (Note from N.S. - This reminds me of Isaac Betech's book about the shafan, which boasts of having one thousand bibliographic references, but does not mention the only book that was written on this specific topic, and in response to which his book was written!) It also sends the message that the only worthy opponents are people who either can't defend themselves (R. Aryeh Carmell, R. Aryeh Kaplan), or won't defend themselves (R. Jonathan Sacks).

6. Abuse of high minded principles - It is quite obvious that the real reasons that he won't mention your name is because: 

a) Unlike R. Jonathan Sacks who won't fight back and cause a stink - you will.
b) He believes in demonization of opponents, so therefore he won't break the taboo of mentioning your name.
c) He is worried that quoting your work will give it legitimacy, and may cause his readers to look up your writings.

So why not come out and say what you think, instead of hiding behind the principle of avoiding ad hominem attacks?!
7. Name calling without naming names - making personal attacks against unnamed dilettantes and sophomores is no less ad hominem just because you didn't name them. It is merely ad hominem by stealth.
I thought you should know that this all really bothered me. Keep up the good work!

70 comments:

  1. Nice to know that another charedi has accepted that his tradition allows him to be reasonable. Keep up the good work Rabbi Slifkin. Your books are very helpful to people who have a certain kind of background. I know I very much appreciated them.

    (And of course, I agree with the letter writer's main points.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice post!
    "I wasn't sure whether to write a post about this, but I just received the following letter..."
    Care to explain what was holding you back from posting about this, and how the letter swayed you towards doing so?

    ReplyDelete
  3. There's also the opposite tack, of "praising" someone while failing to mention his name. I remember how shocked I was some years ago when I read the "official" collection of eulogies for Rav Soloveitchik. One was by a prominent charedi rosh yeshiva, supposedly one of the more "moderate" ones. In the course of a five or six page eulogy, the words "Soloveitchik" or even "Rav" occur not once. Not once! Instead, there are repeated references to "this man." (If you read between the lines of another eulogy, you can sort of see how this happened.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This eulogy from the Jewish Observer was better, but not perfect:
      http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2006/05/jewish-observer-obituary-for-rav.html

      Delete
    2. Here is Rabbi Moshe Dovid Tendler's critique of Jewish Observer's obituary. https://sites.google.com/site/masliah/RYBSJO.bmp

      Delete
  4. This "he who must not be named" is a common Haredi way of speaking that has always puzzled me. For instance, I heard that hespedim were made for Herzl and Ben-Gurion by pro-Zionist Rabbanim and supposedly the name of the departed was never mentioned.
    In a community I lived in in the US, a kosher restaurant opened, and I heard a Rav get up and give a long explanation of why one shouldn't eat there, without ever mentioning the name of the place, but with elaborate descriptions of it that made it clear to everyone which establishment was being referred to. I guess this is thought to be some way of technically avoiding "lashon hara", although it seems the effect is the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Hebrew, there is an expression, ללכת עם אבל להרגיש בלי
      In other words, get your message across but avoid responsibility for that message.
      It's typical chareidi double-speak that allows bashing someone while enabling the forthcoming denial. "I wasn't referring to him". Or, " did I mention his name? So how do you know that I was referring to him'?
      And so on.

      Delete
    2. Yes Y. Ben-David, there is no loopholes in the laws of lashon hara as many would have us believe, these Rabbis can and do fool the rest, but they cannot and do not fool the almighty.

      Delete
    3. Shlomo Zalman, saying "typical chareidi double-speak" is pretty objectionable coming from anyone, especially from one who is critical of the way people speak.

      Delete
    4. There is a long tradition in s'farim from the g'onim and especially rishonim on that speaks this way, not mentioning directly names for good or bad. It's terribly frustrating when learning (and I also partially blame my lack of understanding who was contemporary with whom on it). So if you're steeped in learning and the culture of rabbinics it's second nature. It is not all kharedim, however--just the rabbis and not even all of them. I don't know if Meiselman has this excuse because as he will tell you loudly and repeatedly, he went to Harvard.

      Delete
  5. You should know that for many people who don't feel qualified or informed enough to judge these scientific/torah debates on their substantive merits, one of the ways that they assess the validity of each side is by simply watching how each side argues. When one side give the other a fair hearing, does not misrepresent their opponents position, speaks about the other side respectfully, and overall behaves in a fair-minded manner, while the other side insults, mis-characterizes positions, selectively quotes, etc. it convinces people about each sides legitimacy in a whole other way than the actual intellectual ideas do.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interesting how you say you don't want to be attacked but you want to be named 'grand subject' of the book's thrust and argumentation. Have your cake and eat it too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I perfectly fine with having my work critiqued (as long as it is represented accurately). I have never said otherwise.

      Delete
    2. But why must you say that you need to be named but you feel the reviews are ad-hominem attacks. Even your friend writing in says its a ad-hominem attack to not name you, which is a tautological absurdity.

      Delete
    3. One should name the book when critiquing a book. One should not say "the author is an unsophisticated amateur."

      Delete
    4. Well, maybe the author didn't want to perpetuate an ad-hominem attack, which would happen if he had named you. His thesis about your work is just that, and naming you would make it personal. By naming you he wouldn't have been able to fully criticize the amount he wanted.

      Delete
    5. That doesn't make any sense.

      Delete
    6. Thucydides,

      Ad hominem doesn't mean what you think it means.

      I suggest you start by googling the term.

      Delete
  7. It's sad but unfortunately true that as a result of the controversy it's become news that a Chareidi has "come around" to R' Slifkin's point of view vis a vis Chazal and science. Before the controversy made it politically incorrect there were plenty of Chareidim who understood that there is no problem with accepting scientific discoveries since the Talmud and that there is no conflict between modern science and the Torah and were not afraid to say so. After all, the Rabbonim who gave haskamos to R' Slifkin's books are Chareidi.

    I myself was taught as a child that there is no conflict between an ancient universe and the Torah given the various Midrashim that mention or allude to a world way older than Adam harishon. When I got older and learned the Ramban al haTorah, I saw that he as well as others allude to an older universe, too. So naively, I never saw this as a big issue.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Similar argument to when someone may say, I know something about so-and-so, and I can either tell you what I know or who its about, but not both, because that would be L"H.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not lashon hara to dispute a book!

      Delete
    2. I wasn't saying its L"h, read my comment carefully. The argument is similar; either attack without the name or name with an insufficient review.
      One must consider on which type of battleground this is being fought

      Delete
    3. But there is no reason for not naming a sefer that you are critiquing.

      Delete
    4. Maybe there would be, if you would consider my argument.

      Delete
    5. Your argument is logically invalid. Scholarly work is built on peer-review and critique. To pretend to be doing otherwise when anyone with 2 brain cells can see what you are really doing is plain dishonest.

      Delete
    6. Not to mention that our sages throughout the generations have had no trouble with arguing with each other in writing, and even saying very harsh things about each other's opinions, without ever descending to ad hominem attacks.

      Just open a Ramban Al HaTorah at random.

      Delete
    7. Someone in this thread who I will not name is very bad at logic.

      Delete
    8. Also Thucyd, that lashon hara argumwent doesn't work when everyone in the room knows who you're talking about. Not giving thre name is a joke. As it is here.

      Delete
  9. My conclusion is that you want your name in the book, possibly to equate yourself with R'Aryeh Kaplan, R"A Carmel and so on. However, you seem to have a problem with the critiquing, which is the part after the citation. You decided it was wrong to critique them, but if only he would name you etc. etc.
    I am an author and I will telll you that you must dodge criticism not by living up to it in your retaliation but by showing, and certainly knowing, that your writing is more valuable in argument and presentation, not merely a give-and-take you wish would look differently.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Fighting fire with water is not always effective, sometimes it is best to fight fire with FIRE.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Can someone fill me in on how R' Meiselman attacked R' Jonathan Sacks? What was the context?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I wonder if this is somehow related to the statement 'may the name of the wicked rot.'. Marc Shapiro's book Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox mentions numerous cases in which Charedim cited Rabbi Leiberman z'tl's work without attribution to avoid giving him credit or so that the information could be absorbed on its merit rather than reflexively rejected because of its source.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is done a lot. Many times you'll see someone quote something and attribute it to "gadol echad" or the like. I think the reason is so that people will relate to the content of the quote without rejecting it out of hand because of the feelings about the person being quoted.

      Delete
  13. @ He Who Must Not Be Named:

    What was your perspective at the start? When I feel people out I find that that if they pass a certain line in their anti-rationalist convictions then there's no one to talk to. Where were you that you came around?

    @Anyone: What is that line of no return?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point at which they deny empirical reality or claim that logic doesn't apply.

      Delete
    2. True, G3. But it seems to depend how intensely they do so. There are those who can be weaned off of anti-rationalistism gently and gradually if you are lucky enough to stay clear from their buttons. You have to stay within their comfort zone. One false move and you’re out.

      Delete
  14. It is very probable that Meiselman by not mentioning the name of the book or its author is protecting himself from a libel suit. After all he did make very disparaging comments about N.S. and presented the facts of his books untruthfully.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Regarding the suggestion that leaving out someone's name provides technical protection from a Lashon Hara violation, see Chafetz Chayim, Hilchot Lashon Hara 3:4:

    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=15142&pgnum=115

    > אסור ספור לשון הרע הוא אפלו אם אינו מבאר בעת הספור את האיש שהוא מדבר עליו, רק הוא מספר
    > סתם, ומתוך ענין הספור נישמע להשומע על איזה איש כון המספר הזה, בכלל לשון הרע הוא

    > The prohibition against telling Lashon Hara [applies] even if one doesn't specify at the time of the telling who the person is that one is talking about, but just tells [without names], and through the content of the story, it's implied to the listener who the object of the story is - that's within the rubric of Lashon Hara.

    (my translation)

    Hat-tip to this answer on Mi Yodeya to a question about Lashon Hara against a pseudonymous online identity: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/10764/2

    ReplyDelete
  16. I understand you are upset how you were attacked by Rabbi Meisellman, however perhaps your frustration is not so much to do with the insults per se, rather because he has shown that what you have been saying for years is debatable to say the least.
    I have not finished the book, however after reading his piece on Rambam on Treifos it has put into question entire chapters of your work and how you portrayed the Rambam.
    Look, as a baal teshuva of 3 years I am in no position to start debating what the Rambam did or did not mean there are others more qualified than myself, but one thing is sure - after reading those 30 odd pages in his book on rambam on Treifos the subject is not as crystal clear as you make it out to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave, in that chapter, Rabbi Meiselman tries to show the Professor Sternberg's position that we ought to update the rules of animal Treifos, as we do with Treifos in people, is not consistent with the Rambam. Rabbi Slikfin's position, I believe, is that we should not update non-medical halachos, such as Treifos or the killing of lice on Shabbos, based on the latest scientific knowledge. In this, I believe Rabbis Slifkin and Meiselman agree, perhaps for different reasons.

      What about that chapter do you think puts into question what Rabbi Slifkin has been saying for years? I think that the Rambam is pretty consistent. He sees that Treifos are not like exactly as described by the Gemara, but he says we have to stay with the existing halachah (although in the case of a missing upper jaw, he may have actually made a small change). Unlike the other authorities mentioned in that chapter, the Rambam never give the explanation that nature changed.

      Delete
    2. I should add, based on the comment of Anonymous below, that my references to Professor Sternberg's position are actually to Rabbi Meiselman's characterization of his position. I haven't yet read what he wrote in BDD.

      Delete
  17. R' Dave,
    as a baal teshuva of 3 years i'm guessing you're familiar with Occam's razor. What is your general impression of the various data points related to science in the Talmud ? Do you think they are better explained by assuming that Chazal were operating based on the science of their times or that they knew much of that to be incorrect based on revelation and were communicating through the Talmud the correct revealed knowledge regarding science .
    KT
    Joel RIch

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think the charedi bashing in this context is undeserved. There is a long tradition in all circles of society of critiquing ideas without mentioning specific names (or, as in one example mentioned above, specific restaurants). It's actually sometimes considered more high class to do so.

    Note: I am not talking about Rabbi Meiselman's book. I am talking about sermons, speeches, etc. (examples of which were mentioned above). In those contexts, omitting names and specific institutions is often perfectly acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously, it depends on the situation. It's one thing not to mention the name of someone in a public speech. It's quite another to write an entire book, 900 pages long, ostensibly a scholarly work, refuting a specific person's position and not to mention him by name but to attack him personally throughout the book. Have you ever seen that before anywhere? I haven't.

      Btw, in halachic arguments, the names of the other side are usually mentioned.

      Delete
  19. Dave, don't rely merely on statements made by an author who, to all appearances, is misrepresenting sources to fit his world view. I read the long essay by Rav, Prof. Shlomo Sternberg in BDD some years ago and may not remember it precisely. If I can rely on that memory, he did not, as Rav Meiselman appears to state, question the halachic applicability of the talmudic signs of treifot given our superior knowledge of what constitutes a survivable wound or defect in an animal. While he mentoned various problems with the talmudic understanding of biology, he did not, as I recall, question their current applicability. As a very knowledgeable halachic person, he knows very well, that talmudic halacha doesn't necessarily have to reflect perceived current reality. Instead, he focused on a dispute between Rav Yosef Karo in his Shulchan Aruch and Rav Zvi Ashkenazy (Chacham Zvi) on whether a missing heart can be added to the list of treifot, i.e., he wasn't questioning the current validity of the list - only a putative addition to it. The Shulchan Aruch adds that defect, whereas the Chacham Zvi says that an animal missing a heart is not a treifa, it is a neveila, i.e., it could not ever have lived. Everything we know about the natural life of an animal argues for the Chacham Zvi's viewpoint. I fail, therefore, to see that the citations from the book lessen the credibility of the arguments by either R' Natan or R.D. Sternberg.

    ReplyDelete
  20. you are so obsessed with Rabbi Meiselman you are delirious and - at this point- are in need of psychotropic medication. You also need therapy- not once or twice a week, but rather you need 5 or 6 times a week and not just one doctor but a team of doctors and psychologists. Be matsliach

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At the time of the book ban, R. Slifkin asked for an explanation of why his books were considered treif. R. Meiselman was one of the book's noisiest critics. Now, R. Meiselman has responded to R. Slifkin's call. R. Meiselman obviously put a lot of time into writing his book. He deserves a very significant and honest response from R. Slifkin and others. It is no fault of R. Meiselman's critics that they are stupified by the scope and volume of twisted thinking found in his book.



      Gary Goldwater

      Delete
    2. narcissist - ad hominem much?

      Delete
  21. I personally feel (as a scientist) that this book is the worst book on the topic ever to be written. If you want to send someone off the derech, give him the book. Rabbi Meiselman goes out of his way to try to prove Chazal knew science from the Torah, and then quotes such "Science" not realizing (or even in saome cases admitting!) it is not accurate! It is as if Chas V'Shalom that he is trying to disprove the Torah's validity! Not to mention the extrapolations in almost every section, wild assumptions, dismissal of sources, and blatant contradictions in thought and position... I am forcing myself to read through it all to be open minded, but I can hardly read more than 2 pages without having to rant at someone at the illogical conclusions drawn. He says many good things that make sense, and then goes off the deep end at the end of the section. Very frustrating.
    Having said all that, I think it is VITAL for those who can (such as Rabbi Slifkin) to respond to the book for the simple reason that it is finding its way into many Jewish homes and being praised by the ignorant of being "great" and is lined up to be the defacto Torah and Science book for all frum Jews. Just to be clear, I do not agree with every conclusion of Rabbi Slifkin's books either, but an open, honest, and evidence-based discussion must be encouraged and pursued.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your analysis is kind of vague. Perhaps you can write up some specific examples so as to inform others who are not scientists.

      Delete
    2. > I am forcing myself to read through it all to be open minded, but I can hardly read more than 2 pages without having to rant at someone at the illogical conclusions drawn

      Sounds like the same experience I've had with every book I've read that tries to "prove" Judaism/OJ.

      Delete
  22. Moshe Meiselman isn't nearly as clever as he thinks he is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think Dan is a rabbi. And you seem to have forgotten the rest of your post.

      Delete
    2. Some people you wish never got s'mikha...

      Delete
  23. I thought I was the only Anglo Chareidi kollel guy that reads Rabbi Sacks. I wonder how big this crowd of nuanced thinking is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it may be quite big. "To Heal a Fractured World" is a book that I have read several times, as well as recommended to other Anglo Chareidim.

      Delete
    2. I think he has become mroe accepted than when I was in high school (y'shiva), Maybe I'm wrong.

      Delete
  24. talmid of a rabbi who will not be namedMay 9, 2014 at 5:49 PM

    As a baal teshuva of 7 years I can see that most of the arguments against Rabbi Slifkin, especially those from his most vocal opponents including the author mentioned here, are not only ad hominem but also rather pathetic. The pella in my mind is that other BTs that I know think they are obeying Judaism by hiding or getting rid of Slifkin's book in response to the ban, and then subsequently purchased this book of course and display prominently on their shelves.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yawn. While I agree with your comments, Rabbi Slifkin, enough is enough ad nauseum. Stop beating a dead horse. We really do get it. Now it's time to move on -- PLEASE.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I agree with G. Berry, but only if the Meiselmans and all those like him stop first and recant.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It's clear: as if it were possible, Rabbi Slifkin would have been well advised to publish The Challenge of Creation anonymously.

    ReplyDelete
  28. When the Chazon Ish came out in print against the use of the heter mechirah in shmita years and dealt first and foremost with the arguments advanced by Rav Kook, he never mentioned him by name. When Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld and Rav Diskin publicly criticized in the most extreme ways the sefer of Rav Kook on the positive role played by secular Zionists in the geula they never mentioned his name. The writing a polemical work against an author without saying openly who it is has been a common practice going back a long time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Come to think of it, in Chabad history as well: The Mitteler Rebbe, (the son of the Ba'al HaTanya) wrote Kuntres Hispa'alut, vs. Rav Aharon MiStrasheler (a talmid of the Ba'al HaTanya). Rav Aharon is not mentioned by name, even though the description (and criticism) of Rav Aharon's religious ecstasy leaves no room for doubt.

      Delete
    2. This "common practice" of omitting the names of the besmirched is nothing more than a tactic designed to delegitimize the opponent. The message is that their opponents are nothings, and are not even worthy of having their names mentioned.

      Delete
    3. I think it's for the same reason that the author of the 'Challenge of Creation' isn't mentioned. The idea not to legitimize by giving him his title, or acknowledging his existence while using your own clout. It's an old charedi shtick and is precisely what this post is pointing out, no? If Hazon Ish were to publish his opposition to an anonymous author anonymously it would have been fair, but what do you think would have been the result?

      Delete
    4. Non-standard spelling, arbitrary and regional rules of grammar, arbitrary text structures with lack of sections, chapters or page numbering, off-the-wall rants and diatribes and sloppy or absent attributions which would raise the charge of plagiarism and copyright violations in our days go back a long time too...in Jewish and non-Jewish texts. Conventions change, standards improve and honesty, accountability and academic courtesies are now the norm. R. Meiselman's work pretends to be the modern academic text on science and Torah published for an English-speaking Orthodox audience. It names and cites hundreds of authors (apparently not all of them fairly or even accurately) yet coyly and insultingly avoids a proper mention of the foremost source he attempts to demolish. This in itself is not only very strange, but highly unpalatable to most educated readers and very damaging to the credibility of the author.

      Delete
    5. @Shlomo Zalman, interesting conspiracy theory you have there.

      In the instance of the Gra, he left out names for the very opposite reason.
      כי יותר שהיה רבנו הגדול [הגר"א]... יותר היה נמוך ושפל בדעתו מכל מכל אדם אשר על פני האדמה... הלא תראו גודל ענותנותו שמעולם לא הזכיר שום חכם ברובא דרובא רק כפי שיטתו היה יושב ודורש... למען לא יתכבד בקלון החכם המושג או המחבר, ולזאת גם בסלתם אשר קלט [כלומר, כשהסכים עמהם] לא נשא שמותם
      --הקדמת ר' חיים ולוזין לפירוש הגר"א על סדר זרעים
      http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37939&st=&pgnum=567&hilite=
      (top of 2nd column)

      After Chazon Ish met with DBG, he said to some of his intimates, "Ich hub ehm gegebben a puhr gletten un a puhr petch -- I gave him (figuratively) a few love-pats and a few slaps." In other words, a nuanced, measured interaction. Chazon Ish also insisted that they prepare tea for DBG as a sign of respect (of the person?).

      Not every move in a protest is necessarily belligerent.

      Delete
  29. Hi all -

    I don't agree with those who are complaining ad nauseum about being "nauseous" at another of Rabbi Slifkin's post on this topic. He is the victim here, people! It his books and thinking that prompted R' Meiselman's book to come out. If YOU or YOUR writings, oh reader, were the primary reason for an attack book, wouldn't you be just as motivated to respond and keep responding????

    Let's keep some context here!

    Sincerely,
    M. Singer

    ReplyDelete
  30. Of course calling someone a kofer is ad hominem. Just because someone's a kofer doesn't mean all his ideas are wrong. Go through them.

    As for calling you sophomoric,a dilettante, and an amateur, pot calling kettle black? What are Meiselman's credentials in the matter and what credentials would even give you validity to discuss tora and science? A degree in the history of science? Is this really a Jewish idea? That you need university credentials to think about things? It's a very modern idea in the non-Jewish world and I didn't know it had permeated kharedi culture as well.

    As long as we're going ad hominem, I have close family relations with the Meiselman family and have had the opportunity to stay at his home a few times (not at his desire). His wife and children are beautiful people, but he's an egotistical blowhard with no reason for the egotism. That said, if he had good ideas, I'd hear them, but the way he treats others is despicable.

    ReplyDelete

Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.