Comments on Rationalist Judaism: Three Types of Rationalists

Please clarify. Are you saying that this group of ...

2009-10-16T06:47:22.663+02:00

Please clarify. Are you saying that this group of people does not maintain some of Rambam's philosophical positions against the contemporary consensus, or that they do but they are justified in doing so?

Also, I truly do not understand what you meant by "Now that the veracity of Greek philosophy is no longer universally accepted, and in fact the philosophical consensus rejects it, the Rambam may not have been so influenced by it." Why does the fact that it is no longer accepted mean that Rambam was not so influenced by it?

I don’t see how that sentence could be simpler. W...

2009-10-15T22:52:48.206+02:00

I don’t see how that sentence could be simpler. Would the Rambam have worked hard to reconcile Torah with a minority position in philosophy? Reread my other comments and the book I recommended and you’ll understand what I meant.

This conversation though is beyond pointless. Whatever could you mean by “informed spectator”?

By “informed spectator” I meant someone who understands the issues being debated. In the evolution/creationist debate, an “informed spectator” would be able to define the term “punctuated equilibrium” and explain why some feel it may or may not be evidence for one side or the other. Presumably the philosophy people you trust would fall into this category.

I realize others may have a much more liberal definition of “informed spectator” and would go so far as to say anyone who can parrot the major buzzwords, even if they don’t understand them at all, is an “informed spectator”. To return to evolution/creationist, an “informed spectator” can recall the words “punctuated equilibrium”, and even though he can’t define them he knows they have some relevance to the debate.

I find that second definition to be absurd, as I’m sure you do. However, even if someone were foolish enough to accept it, you would still not be an “informed spectator” when it comes to the debates between modern and Greek philosophy. Modern philosophers for the most part have rejected Greek metaphysics and epistemology. They’ve done so for several reasons. I’m not asking you to explain the questions they’ve raised or to critique the strength of them. I am asking you to state them, or at least one of them. Any of them. Throw a single buzzword at me to indicate that at one time in your life you’ve read a single article discussing the issue.

I gave you a book recommendation to help rectify that deficiency. As it stands, you don’t even know enough to ask an intelligent question on those who accept much of the Rambam’s metaphysics. For if you did, your whole post would have been written differently. You may still have rejected their position, but you wouldn’t have dismissed it as you did. Your post indicates you don’t have an ounce of respect for those who take that position, and find it inconceivable that they may be correct, which is due ignorance on your part. The analogy to those who’ve attacked your evolution work is striking. I won’t even go into the ungentlemanly ad hominem aspects of attacking the yeshiva and philosophy of someone you just had a debate with.

I like your work in general, which is why I find this post so bothersome. It would be best for me to pretend that I never read it, which is what I will try to do. It would be best for you to get at least a layman’s understanding of the issues, so that you can rewrite this post in a manner that doesn't discredit yourself.

I guess we have different definitions of "inf...

2009-10-12T21:05:44.339+02:00

I guess we have different definitions of "informed spectator."

"I would think so, just like the principle of...

2009-10-12T21:00:48.975+02:00

"I would think so, just like the principle of halachah k'basra'i - they have the advantage of being able to consider everything. I am not certain of this, and philosophy really is not my field, but people who I trust tell me that the philosophical views of the Rishonim in these areas have been rendered obsolete."

The above words are yours, Rabbi Slifkin, from this very thread, on September 22. You absolutely did admit to not being an informed spectator!

I didn't admit to not even being an informed s...

2009-10-12T19:29:46.229+02:00

I didn't admit to not even being an informed spectator, and I didn't publicly attack anyone.

But I am curious to know what you meant with this sentence:

"Now that the veracity of Greek philosophy is no longer universally accepted, and in fact the philosophical consensus rejects it, the Rambam may not have been so influenced by it."

What has changed in the last 900 years is that ...

2009-10-12T19:15:24.056+02:00
What has changed in the last 900 years is that we have come to realize (or should have come to realize) that Rambam's opinions of these things are not reflective of classical Judaism but rather stem from his being influenced by Greco-muslim philosophy.

What a poorly constructed sentence! The allegation that the Rambam was overly influenced by Greek philosophy was made during his lifetime and the generations which immediately followed him. That is not a new innovation that unfolded over the past 900 years.

What I assume Rabbi Slifkin meant to write is that 900 years ago there was a consensus among philosophers that Greek philosophy was (in essence) True, and since Torah must be compatible with Truth the Rambam worked hard to reconcile the two. Now that the veracity of Greek philosophy is no longer universally accepted, and in fact the philosophical consensus rejects it, the Rambam may not have been so influenced by it.

To use an analogy, Kant held that the paradigm of what we know to be true is Euclidian Geometry and Newtonian Physics. That was before Relativity and non- Euclidian Geometry. Had Kant of lived a century later, his position would almost certainly have changed.

My question here is here for Rabbi Slifkin. By his own admission he doesn’t even know enough to be an informed spectator of this debate, let alone a contestant. For someone who hasn’t even read introductory books on this subject to publicly attack those who’ve spent years and decades thinking about the issues is not just foolish and imprudent. It’s rude.

One would think that someone who was unfairly attacked by those who didn’t even know enough to ask intelligent questions would refrain from making the same mistake himself. One would expect that he would want to meet a Rosh Yeshiva in person before attacking him and the whole approach of his Yeshiva. What we see from here is that life is full of surprises.

I wonder what the Rav, zt"l, after having del...

2009-10-08T12:28:10.128+02:00
I wonder what the Rav, zt"l, after having delivered his famous "makchish magideha" shiur, would say to your last comment...

As for the Rambam's belief that the next wo...

2009-10-08T06:02:12.502+02:00
As for the Rambam's belief that the next world is not open to those with mistaken beliefs and/or simpletons, one can agree or disagree, but I don't think any facts have changed in the last 900 years to prove or disprove that opinion.

What has changed in the last 900 years is that we have come to realize (or should have come to realize) that Rambam's opinions of these things are not reflective of classical Judaism but rather stem from his being influenced by Greco-muslim philosophy.

Keysor wrote: I think what you might have mean...

2009-10-02T02:14:11.790+02:00
Keysor wrote: I think what you might have meant to say is "It appears that some people try to erroneoulsy read the Rambam's approach into other Rishonim who in fact appear to have a different opinion and approach."

That has nothing to do with being a “Medieval Rationalist”, but is rather one aspect of a general disagreement between the Traditional and the Academic approaches. The Traditionalists assume that since there is one Mesorah, most Rabbis agree on most issues. When there are disagreements, Traditionalists primarily attribute it to differences in the nature of each Rabbi's intellect, and tend to downplay the impact of cultural and environmental factors. They also assume that opinions can be accurately transmitted across generations, so that when Rabbi X quotes Rabbi Y quotes Rabbi Z, Rabbi X is accurately and objectively conveying Rabbi Z’s opinion, and not simply using his name to convey his own idea.

Academics disagree on all of these issues. And so it seems the one attack of Rabbi Slifkin against that Yeshiva which is in fact accurate, is a bias or difference of opinion which most Traditionalists share. Show me a Yeshiva which doesn’t maintain that until you see evidence to the contrary, Rishonim are presumed to be agreeing and not disagreeing. I for one have yet to see one in the current Orthodox world. They disagree on how strong that evidence should be, but then you are truly hairsplitting.

This is what a blog is good for. You can post ideas on issues, and then hear feedback from those with more information. It’s much better than letting your initial opinions fester and build upon themselves.

If your post was in fact directed at that yeshiva,...

2009-10-01T02:28:32.653+02:00
If your post was in fact directed at that yeshiva, I think your examples could have been chosen better.
1) I would be shocked if anyone from that yeshiva believes in spontaneous generation (nor do they believe in a geocentric universe or any other scientific statements by the Rambam which by today's science are erroneous.)
2) As for God's existence being logically proven, I will just say that I heard the head of that Yeshiva comment once on one of the "proofs" of God's existence in the Yad which today is shown to be based on faulty science. He stated that the point was that one's knowledge and recognition of God should resonate with the intellectual part of man, not that one should accept that particular proof at face value no matter what.
3) As for the Rambam's belief that the next world is not open to those with mistaken beliefs and/or simpletons, one can agree or disagree, but I don't think any facts have changed in the last 900 years to prove or disprove that opinion.
4) Your last point is the most puzzling. "A rationalist today should follow Rambam's underlying guiding principles, not necessarily his specific application of them." I am quite sure that no one in the yeshiva believes that, for instance, the planets and stars are really intelligences, etc., despite the Moreh discussing them so much, so Im not sure where that is coming from.

I think what you might have meant to say is "It appears that some people try to erroneoulsy read the Rambam's approach into other Rishonim who in fact appear to have a different opinion and approach."

Rabbi Slifkin, Could you please respond to my mo...

2009-09-29T14:00:18.044+02:00
Rabbi Slifkin,

Could you please respond to my most recent post?

I still think you need to clarify the term "simple-minded" on your posting directly (with a footnote or something to that effect).

I would also like to know if I am understanding your position at this point correctly.

I would also like to know precisely what you meant when you said "rigidly locked into medieval positions and attitudes." Could you provide some examples?

Thank you.

By the way, from the very beginning of this websit...

2009-09-27T16:16:00.743+02:00
By the way, from the very beginning of this website, I made it clear that I am not interested (nor do I have the time) to engage in arguments with people from different epistomological frameworks i.e. non-rationalists. I am not interested in endless arguments about whether the world is billions of years old, whether Chazal were infallible in science, etc. It's futile. The point of this website is to explore rationalism with like-minded people. I know that I have broken my own rule on this a few times, but I try not to. So discussing whether someone is working from the same epistomological framework is not an ad hominem (which means a personal attack that is irrelevant to the discussion), but rather something extremely relevant: is it worthwhile to have a debate with that person or not?

Arnold, I am surprised at your take on things. I h...

2009-09-27T16:01:55.798+02:00
Arnold, I am surprised at your take on things. I have no problem debating issues, even difficult ones. I had no problem in debating RAbbi Zucker, and we will be doing so in the next issue of Hakirah. But as I wrote several times, there is no point in having arguments that go on and on and on and on and on forever. I gave my reasons as to why I believe that certain types of arguments are futile, and that has to do with the type of person having the argument. What do you believe I should have done with, say, the anti-evolutionists who wanted to debate the scientific merits of evolution? And with my debate with Rabbi Zucker, how many back-and-forths should there be exactly? I spent hours and hours on the argument. How long do I have to spend so as to avoid the charge that I am avoiding the issues? Can you answer that?

Besides, the issue of bias is not simply an ad hominem, but a very relevant issue when determining the framework of an argument. Most people will agree that when you have, say, an Xtian missionary at the door, there is absolutely no point in engaging in a theological argument. It's very relevant to discuss whether there is any point to having an argument.

With regard to Keyser's comment - of course it was the blog discussion that led me to think about that yeshivah. But my comments were primarily not a result of the discussion on this blog, but rather a discussion that I had with someone by email about something else relating to that yeshivah.

I fully agree with Keyser. I noticed a very distu...

2009-09-27T15:47:15.753+02:00
I fully agree with Keyser. I noticed a very disturbing trend, after having followed this blog for a few months now. When someone offers a convincing argument against what RNS put forward, or when someone asks a difficult kasha against him, RNS (not infrequently) turns the issue into an ad hominem one. My friends and I thought that RNS got trounced this summer in the debate he had, and were shocked when he turned the whole issue into an ad hominem one. Hey, RNS -- for the new year, how about just sticking to the issues? It makes no difference what yeshiva someone went to, or if they went to a yeshiva at all, or even if they're Jewish altogether. If they have a good kasha, how about just addressing the kasha??

Could this criticism of a certain yeshiva be stemm...

2009-09-25T06:50:01.472+03:00
Could this criticism of a certain yeshiva be stemming from a recent theologic debate you were engaged in on your blog?

How do you know they don’t “consider alternatives”...

2009-09-24T20:23:14.244+03:00
How do you know they don’t “consider alternatives”, and that they’re “rigidly locked into medieval positions and attitudes”. Unless if there is more than one such Yeshiva in the NY area, and there very well may be, you’re simply mistaken. I don’t know who you’ve met from there, but based on my exposure I’d say you’re empirically wrong, as I spoken to them about these very issues. In all Yeshivos the bochrim rely on the Rosh Yeshiva’s judgment, and he doesn’t always share with them every nuance and obstacle he dealt along the way. So while not every bochur there can defend every critique of maintaining the Rambam’s Aristotelian positions, the ones higher up the ladder can. To be fair, the more thoughtful ones are generally too busy learning and reading than to hang out on blogs and step into controversies, so you may be suffering from a classic selection bias error.

As a general rule the more specific the target, the softer the attack should be. There are certain phrases in your post which would be fine to write in general, but not appropriate to write about someone in particular, especially when you consider that your impressions about them may be mistaken.

As you have a blog dedicated to Rationalist Judaism, and for the rishonim this usually included an Aristotelian perspective, you may want to read Adler’s very basic and introductory book “Ten Philosophical Mistakes”. Understanding is always the first step to defusing controversy, as you know much better than I ever will.

Rabbi Slifkin seems to be critical of a certain...

2009-09-24T19:12:22.047+03:00
Rabbi Slifkin seems to be critical of a certain Yeshiva in NY for its position on how the Rambam’s philosophy should be applied today. Yet he was very happy to hear about the Dor De'im Teimani community which follows Rav Qafih and maintains the same exact position!

Number one, everything is relative. I'm always glad to hear of people "holding of" Rambam. That doesn't mean that I'm not critical of certain ways in which they do so.

Number two, my impression of the DorDeyim is that they don't try to read Rambam's positions into the other Rishonim, unlike the other group I was thinking of.

“I dislike these speculations about what Rambam would say today. It's impossible to know.” Quite right! It is impossible to know.

Right. But to automatically take the position that nothing has changed and nothing needs to be reconsidered is certainly wrong. One might decide that he would still maintain the same view, but one must at least seriously consider the alternatives.

Even those who study philosophy should not attack others who reach different conclusions.

As I already mentioned in the comments above, my focus was not on the aspect of philosophy per se. It was on the idea of being rigidly locked into medieval positions and attitudes.

By reading the comments here I noticed something f...

2009-09-24T18:32:40.468+03:00
By reading the comments here I noticed something funny. Rabbi Slifkin seems to be critical of a certain Yeshiva in NY for its position on how the Rambam’s philosophy should be applied today. Yet he was very happy to hear about the Dor De'im Teimani community which follows Rav Qafih and maintains the same exact position!

Rabbi Slifkin admits philosophy is not his area, yet he says those who only reject the Rambam’s medieval science and not his medieval philosophy are inconsistent. Yet he goes on to say “I dislike these speculations about what Rambam would say today. It's impossible to know.” Quite right! It is impossible to know. How would Rav Hirsch change his Torah Im Derech Eretz position if he was dealing with the decadent 21st century culture and not 19th century culture? No one knows, and it’s pointless to speculate. You try to understand his underlying positions and apply it to the new situation as best as you can. The one thing you never do is to attack those with a different understanding as not being true followers.

Before reading the comments I didn’t see what was going on here, but now it seems to me the tone and insinuations of this blog post are very wrong. Even those who study philosophy should not attack others who reach different conclusions. For someone who doesn’t even study the area and is simply following the consensus to make such an attack is very bad. He should revise the post and remove those parts which imply these people are wrong and are blindly following things the Rambam himself would no longer hold. If I’m mistaken in Rabbi Slifkin’ position, and I very well may be, then he should certainly rewrite it so that others don’t make the same mistakes I did.

“But as far as I understand, in the world of philosophy, that is no longer true; at best, it can be argued to be rational to accept God's existence.” Hume showed that you can’t even prove causality is true. It may be “rational” to accept it, but you can’t “prove” it. I’m fairly certain that if you asked the Rambam if I’m “yotzei the mitvah” if I intellectually believe in G-d to the same extent I believe in causality he would say, Avada.

Rabbi Slifkin, Given Slichos, work, chevrusas, an...

2009-09-24T02:37:29.436+03:00
Rabbi Slifkin,

Given Slichos, work, chevrusas, and studying for exams, I've only been able to respond every 12 to 24hours. I understand this may be tedious for you; I want to be makir tov to you for bearing with me.

"Rambam would certainly exclude the first category. The second two would be hampered, but it's not clear to me how much."

Given this, the phrase "simple-minded" in your post is ambiguous. You should clarify your post, or many people may take you to mean that a psychologically healthy but intellectually unadvanced individual has no portion according to the Rambam.

"How could it be well argued?"

I think this would make for good discussion, but as you'll see below, this point is now moot to the current discussion.

"My main focus was not on the idea of philosophical proofs. It was on the idea of being rigidly locked into medieval positions and attitudes."

Thank you for this clarification. I initially took you to mean that one who holds by any single statement on your list has a medieval mindset.

"Of course. Now let me ask you a question. Do you think its possible that religious thinkers are capable of erring in philosophy (possibly because of emotions they have in the area)?"

At first glance, this would appear to be a good "back atcha!" question. However, it is in fact less relevant than my question.

My objective here was to clarify 2things:

a) What can the philosophical layman conclude about who is right among the "experts."

b) If someone accepts 21st century science, but follows medieval phil. theories, is it appropriate to label him as a "medieval rationalist living in the 21st century."

My question was not meant as an attempt to show bias on your part; I wanted to clarify your views on the 2 points above. Based on your clarification, it seems you agree that a layman cannot know for sure who is right, and you hold that the individual in "b)" is probably wrong, but might be right, and should not be dismissed as having a medieval mindset.

Your question to me does not shed light on the content on this conversation; only on whether I'm biased (a perfectly legitimate point to be raised.) Given that we agree, I don't think it's necessary to pursue this line of thinking.

I'm happy to see your clarification, but I'm still left in a quandary. What do you mean by "rigidly locked into medieval positions and attitudes"?

I find it hard to believe that an entire community of Jews holds by medieval science, and you agree that one who holds by medieval philosophy does not (necessarily) have a medieval mindset. What else is there?

Please provide some specific examples of what these people hold. I understand this may be difficult, as you would rather not reveal the identity of this community. However, without specifics, the entire thesis of your post remains unclear to me.

Thank you.

Our scientific knowledge has surely progressed sin...

2009-09-23T23:15:36.087+03:00
Our scientific knowledge has surely progressed since the Middle Ages, and so the definition of rationalist should be updated. However when it comes to philosophical knowledge, a change of consensus among the experts does not necessarily mean the earlier scholars are wrong. Kindly read “Ten Philosophical Mistakes” by the highly prolific Mortimer J. Adler. He maintains that Aristotle was essentially correct on many core issues of ethics, epistemology and metaphysics, and that the questions raised by modern philosophers such as Descartes and Hume were themselves flawed.

I’m not saying that Adler is right and therefore the strong majority of philosophers who disagree and wrong. I’m simply pointing out how hard it is to disprove a school of thoughts in philosophy, compared to how easy it is to do so in science. There is therefore no criticism of those who in science are 21st century rationalists, but in matters of philosophy are 12th century rationalist, as the burden of proof is very different in each case. It goes without saying that religious Jews, who are a minority within a minority, should not and will not be swayed by the consensus of experts on matters of faith when no conclusive proofs are brought.

I see no inconsistency among those “21st century medieval rationalists” who follow the Rambam’s underlying philosophical approach and maintain (for instance) the next world is contingent on intellectual perfection. You may not care for their position, but I hope you understand and respect it.

I would first like to know what you meant by si...

2009-09-23T05:42:42.647+03:00
I would first like to know what you meant by simple-minded. It could mean mentally challenged, or incapable of advanced thinking but capable of understanding simple arguments, or theoretically capable of advanced thinking but never choosing to develop one's mind.

Rambam would certainly exclude the first category. The second two would be hampered, but it's not clear to me how much.

Indeed, the last one always has the advantage, but this is no proof that he is right.

Agreed. But it is a strong advantage nonetheless.

I would also add that the basra'i in the gemara tended to be on about the same intellectual level as the kama'i. It could be well argued that such is not this case with medieval vs. modern philosophers.

How could it be well argued?

My issue with your post is that you disparage an entire group of "rationalist" Jews as "medieval thinkers" without any knowledge of the area you are discussing.

My main focus was not on the idea of philosophical proofs. It was on the idea of being rigidly locked into medieval positions and attitudes.

Have you considered that these Jews have people they trust, or that they themselves have thought into the matter with greater clarity than others?

The people that I trust are people who would love to believe that, for example, it is still possible to logically prove the existence of God, but reluctantly find themselves forced to concede otherwise. Are the people you mention drawing their conclusions against their bias? I think not. This doesn't mean that they are wrong, but it gives them less credibility in my eyes.

Do you think it's possible (and I don't mean one in a trillion) that the academics\thinkers are capable of erring in philosophy (possibly because of emotions they have in the area)?

Of course. Now let me ask you a question. Do you think its possible that religious thinkers are capable of erring in philosophy (possibly because of emotions they have in the area)?

I have another question for you. Did you study at a yeshivah in New York?

Rabbi Slifkin, I would first like to know what yo...

2009-09-23T02:22:40.370+03:00
Rabbi Slifkin,

I would first like to know what you meant by simple-minded. It could mean mentally challenged, or incapable of advanced thinking but capable of understanding simple arguments, or theoretically capable of advanced thinking but never choosing to develop one's mind.

"I would think so, just like the principle of halachah k'basra'i - they have the advantage of being able to consider everything.I am not certain of this, and philosophy really is not my field, but people who I trust tell me that the philosophical views of the Rishonim in these areas have been rendered obsolete."

Indeed, the last one always has the advantage, but this is no proof that he is right. In halachah, we must have rules of psak, so we follow rules that make sense; they are not hard and fast rules about who is definitely right.

I would also add that the basra'i in the gemara tended to be on about the same intellectual level as the kama'i. It could be well argued that such is not this case with medieval vs. modern philosophers.

My issue with your post is that you disparage an entire group of "rationalist" Jews as "medieval thinkers" without any knowledge of the area you are discussing. You have your people that you trust. Have you considered that these Jews have people they trust, or that they themselves have thought into the matter with greater clarity than others?

Perhaps a broader question needs to be asked. Do you think it's possible (and I don't mean one in a trillion) that the academics\thinkers are capable of erring in philosophy (possibly because of emotions they have in the area)?

David, please see Kellner's book for a full di...

2009-09-22T20:26:07.031+03:00
David, please see Kellner's book for a full discussion of Rambam's views on the eligibility of people for the afterlife.

What makes modern philosophers superior? The fact that they came later?

I would think so, just like the principle of halachah k'basra'i - they have the advantage of being able to consider everything. I am not certain of this, and philosophy really is not my field, but people who I trust tell me that the philosophical views of the Rishonim in these areas have been rendered obsolete.

Rabbi Slifkin, I take issue with points you made ...

2009-09-22T15:10:48.380+03:00
Rabbi Slifkin,

I take issue with points you made on this post. (The quotes are not in order.)

"Rambam believed that being a good Jew and receiving a portion in the next world is contingent on intellectual perfection, and therefore simple-minded people, children, and those making fundamental hashkafic errors simply cannot receive a portion in the next world."

What do you mean by "simple-minded people," and where do you see they have no portion in the next world according to the Rambam?

"So, for example: Rambam believed that only a fool would deny spontaneous generation. That was a reflection of the scientific beliefs of his era, which a rationalist today should not accept. Many rationalist Rishonim believed that God's existence can be logically proven. But as far as I understand, in the world of philosophy, that is no longer true; at best, it can be argued to be rational to accept God's existence."

This is a faulty comparison. Science is based on incontrovertible, empirical evidence. Medieval scientists never performed the experiments we're familiar with, and thus did not have access to the facts which undermined their theories.

Philosophy is based on thought. The rishonim had there arguments, and modern philosphers have theirs. What makes modern philosophers superior? The fact that they came later? The fact that there are a lot of them who agree with each other?

Without knowing and understanding the actual arguments of both sides, you cannot evaluate who is correct. There are no experiments or newly revealed facts you can point to to demonstrate the veracity of the modern arguments.

To put this another way, if 22nd century philosophers arrived at arguments that broke down those of 21st century philosophers, and hence declared that the existence of God is provable, would they be medieval thinkers or 22nd century thinkers?

Again, since you seem to be going purely on authority, how do you know that the majority of modern philosphers are right, and are not flawed in their thinking? Since when does does the existence of a concensus of thinkers prove that they are correct?

I thought you might have been referring to us beca...

2009-09-22T14:04:14.144+03:00
I thought you might have been referring to us because, following Rav Qafih, n"e, based upon Rambam, we still maintain that the first miswa is to know from philosophical proof that G-d exists, regardless of what modern philosophers think. (By the way, we maintain this unashamedly).

Comments on Rationalist Judaism: Three Types of Rationalists

Please clarify. Are you saying that this group of ...

I don’t see how that sentence could be simpler. W...

I guess we have different definitions of "inf...

"I would think so, just like the principle of...

I didn't admit to not even being an informed s...

What has changed in the last 900 years is that ...

I wonder what the Rav, zt"l, after having del...

As for the Rambam's belief that the next wo...

Keysor wrote: I think what you might have mean...

If your post was in fact directed at that yeshiva,...

Rabbi Slifkin, Could you please respond to my mo...

By the way, from the very beginning of this websit...

Arnold, I am surprised at your take on things. I h...

I fully agree with Keyser. I noticed a very distu...

Could this criticism of a certain yeshiva be stemm...

How do you know they don’t “consider alternatives”...

Rabbi Slifkin seems to be critical of a certain...

By reading the comments here I noticed something f...

Rabbi Slifkin, Given Slichos, work, chevrusas, an...

Our scientific knowledge has surely progressed sin...

I would first like to know what you meant by si...

Rabbi Slifkin, I would first like to know what yo...

David, please see Kellner's book for a full di...

Rabbi Slifkin, I take issue with points you made ...

I thought you might have been referring to us beca...