1) I'm not sure if I'm one of the 'zealots' you're referring to or not, but I by stand my comments on the previous post, and don't believe you've addressed them in any way.
"It's a bit odd for you to be crowing about them 'going silent,' when one of your most persistent critics got banned from posting here." He was not banned for being a persistent critic. I've read interesting debates & disagreements on this blog. But he continually insulted and belittled.
Would you like to explain how he misrepresented your views? Because in a subsequent post on his blog, he posted that comment that you banned him for misquoting you, and hyperlinked every word to another post of yours. I didn't go through all of them, but the few that I clicked on looked pretty accurate.
The crowd over at the other blog seems pretty certain that your decision to ban him was a cowardly move because he bests you in every argument and you don't know how to deal with him. I'm not too learned, but that's definitely how it seems to me as well. But if you think he is just misquoting you, then by all means, why not put this behind you once and for all?
I've explained NUMEROUS times how he misrepresents my positions. I'm not going through it all again. I'll just give you one example because it's very short and simple. He hyperlinks me as saying "Tosafos thought centipedes had asymmetric legs because Aristotle thought men have more teeth." I said nothing of the sort. Tosafos SAYS that centipedes have asymmetric legs, and I did not give a reason for this error, but I noted that even great people held mistaken beliefs which were not empirically checked, such as Aristotle.
Exactly. You said that Tosfos thought that centipedes have asymmetrical feet, because in the olden days, people made stuff up without checking, and you then brought Aristotle about men's teeth as proof of that. Isn't that exactly as he quoted you?
I am guessing here, but I think that RNS is pointing out that HAPPY said “Tosafos thought centipedes had asymmetric legs because Aristotle thought men have more teeth.” With the operative word in that quote being “BECAUSE.”
Of course, RNS did NOT say that. I think RNS did say that it’s not surprising that Tosafos made the mistake regarding thinking centipedes have asymmetrical legs; lots of other people, including Aristotle, made similar mistakes before empirical testing became popular.
I further think that the fact that you (Oiberchochom) didn’t realize that slight change in nuance between what RNS actually said and what Happy presented him as saying, even though you took the time to compare look at the hyperlinks - even stating “the few that [you] clicked on looked pretty accurate”, makes that sort of mis-quoting all the more dangerous.
It’s very difficult to spot such mis-quotes even when you look at them. But they still greatly change the meaning of the statement.
It’s very similar to the recent gaffe by US Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. She quoted a brief by what should have been a very trustworthy source (AAMC) which said that black women using black OBGYNs more than double the survival rate of the infants.
Of course that would be silly and she got called out for it. The actual study showed results of halving the mortality rates, not doubling the survival rates. The mortality rates were only something on the order of like 0.5% - which went down to something like 0.25%. Mathematically, That would translate to a very tiny increase of survival rate from say 99.5% to 99.75% - my numbers are probably off too, but the danger in seemingly close misquotes is glaring.
Of course people at the other blog think the way they do visa vis why Happy was banned; they are carbon copies of his views.
Interesting that you ignored the other reason for his being banned, his constant, continuous belittling and name calling of those who dared disagree with him.
Ha ha, I wonder if he knows who else was accused of being a "heresy hunter". Rav Hirsch. By Heinrich Graetz.
Guess I'm in good company, and Slifkin is in appropriate company.
(As for the actual discussion, I'm absolutely not going to spend more time explaining how badly Slifkin missed the boat on what we've been arguing about. Bottom line, his pshat in the gemara's shakla vitarya makes zero internal sense. And no, there's no Chasam Sofer or Ran who says it [Ran actually specifically says a different pshat, which - waddaya know - DOES make sense]. Readers who have more interest in understanding what's flying than Natan does can see here:
After looking at your comments it seems that you just misunderstood what rabbi slifkin was saying. Of course the reason they didn't retract in face of the bas kol was because they are supposed to decide halacha based on their own human intellect. But this leads to a system in which halacha will be decided based on the majority even if they are objectively wrong. Why would the Torah be set up in such a way? This is discussed by the ran. (Rabbi slifkin called it halachik stability, and others would argue the ran is saying something different, but thats not the issue here).
This is how I understood the post, and this is how I believe most levelheaded readers did.
Coming from someone who mostly disagrees with rabbis slifkin's worldview and thinks he's out of his league on many of the issues he discusses I think I can say you are too quick to assume he is saying something evil or idiotic.
Maybe. He was given about a dozen opportunities to explain himself on the old post, and failed to do so.
But hey, it could all be a misunderstanding. Let him just man up and say the entire premise of this ridiculous post was a boat miss on his part.
If it helps, I'll go first: I may have misinterpreted Natan's words to mean what they say and not what he meant to say. There. Not too difficult. Now waiting for Dr. I-Admit-My-Mistakes to follow suit.
(BTW what he meant to say is also silly, and has zero to do with the Ran, but I honestly cannot invest the time in a whole new angle of conversation now. Let's just have him admit error, and leave it at that,)
Seems this whole admiting error thing is not as easy for him as he made it out, once it comes down to it.
Must be akward to publish an entire pompous obnoxious post based on missing the boat in a conversation. He really ought to think these things through a bit more beforehand.
Check out R. Hirsch's letters about Graetz and Frankel, printed in Vol. 3 of Collected Writings of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. He's all fire and brimstone. His tone and the very topics he's discussing sound like he could have been writing for Irrationalist Modoxism!
Right. You seemed mighty surprised that Graetz would accuse R. Hirsch of being a heresy hunter. If you knew more about who R. Hirsch was, I don't think you would be surprised at all.
Is it volume 3? I thought it was 4 or 5. Don't have it with me to check though.
Most instructive is his treatment of Frankel (printed in the back of whatever volume that was), specifically his response to Rabbi S.Y. Rappaport's defense of Frankel.
Note the stridency of his tone, which would have many contemporary "conservatives" (forget about modox) cluck clucking. And bear in mind that these were men who were considered frum at the time. Just off hashkafically.
(History has since vindicated Rav Hirsch's views on Frankel. It's still a bit confused about SYR).
"Any replies written anonymously or signed with a fictitious name will not receive any consideration from me. One who lacks the courage to sign his true name to his views must be aware that what he is saying is meaningless and that he therefore cannot expect others to take notice of it.
Let the anonymous gnats buzz happily in the sunny meadows. I certainly do not want to spoil their pleasure."
He was referring to critiques. The context was a raging dispute over austritt. Nineteen Letters was a book of Jewish thought which wasn't an attack on anyone.
It's discussed at length in the bio which Slifkin posted a picture of. R Hirsch was a 'fanatic' when it came to the Graetz-Frankel positive historical movement.
Yessir. I believe the exact wording (in translation) was "heresy hunting hermit".
There's no reason this should surprise you. I hope you haven't fallen for the Modern Orthodox fairy tale version of Rav Hirsch as a genial fluffy tikun olam pulpit rabbi. He was quite the fiery zealot, he was. Far more strident than most of those that we are today uncomfortable with (I guess we'll just say he was "not from the Modox Beis Medrash")
Volume 4 or 5 of the Collected Writings should be instructive reading. Enjoy.
Wrong. Your a moron. I can bamboozle you with quotes from RSH that will make your head turn so hard your black hat will fall off and you might actually have you start treating the “schvartez” and “s—-s“ who clean your Shuls with a modicum of respect. It was Feldheim who censored the universalist themes in RSH
And then there was that wonderful quote about “Klein keppeldik “ fanaticism such as your own brand and what a blight it is on our society ..
BTW, RSRH had various programs. Among them were a school system that was the forerunner of Torah Vodaas, run by his Chassid R Mendlowitz, and the forerunner of Agudath Israel. Those programs are in the backbone of modern Torah Jewry.
" Bottom line, his pshat in the gemara's shakla vitarya makes zero internal sense. And no, there's no Chasam Sofer or Ran who says it "
The חת"ס was rather prolific. One should hesitate before making such sweeping claims. Not at least until one has studied all the writings of the חת"ס on the topic.
For example, see the דרשה on פרה that starts with מאמר חז"ל:
"שר"א כיון ההלכה כאשר העיד הבת קול, אלא שאין משגיחין בבת קול כי לא בשמים היא"
You may recall that one of Gedolei Roshei Yeshiva from before the war is quoted as saying that the only way to argue on RAE is to dispute one of his Hanachos, but in Cheshbon he's invincible to us.
Well well, an entire post devoted to your inability to process a simple logical problem and therefore misunderstanding an entire conversation. How embarrassing.
I'll try one more time, but my hopes aren't too high:
The problem here is not hashkafa (other than the hashkafa problem of misinterpreting a gemara to be saying something nonsensical). I never said a word about the theological viability of your hanachos, and as far as I can tell neither did RT (I don't know which third guy you're referring to, so I can't speak for him). The problem is that the understanding of the achnai sugya that you blithely passed of as voss shteit durtan is internally incoherent.
Here's why: you say that the bas kol demonstrated the chachamim to be objectively wrong, and they presumably understood this to be so. Yet they did not retract their position because we need to follow the majority in order to maintain halachic stability.
The problem is that the bas kol was revealed to the actual majority while they were still in the process of hashing out the debate.
If someone is in middle of arguing something and he is proven wrong, he retracts. That's not where the issue of "follow rules of psak for halachic stability" makes any sense. You argue, you're proven wrong, you stop arguing.
The fact that the chachamim didn't retract must therefore be for a DIFFERENT reason than "damn the torpedoes, halachic stability uber altz".
QED. V'su lo midi. Your pshat in the gemara is 'unbelievably ridiculous' and all the rest.
If you want to know a pshat in the sugya that actually makes sense, well, we can look at the Ran (there are many others as well). The Ran, DESPITE assuming the hanacha that the bas kol represents shamayim's objective truth, says an actual coherent reason why they didn't retract - and it's not because of halachic stability (which is meaningless as a rationale in this context), but rather because Torah is given to the human intellect, so the chachamim's human comprehension is the objectively correct psak for practical purposes ("lo bashamayim he").
Oh. So he doesn't say your pshat. Because your pshat doesn't make sense, and the Ran doesn't usually say nonsensical pshatim. Btw - it's cute, but totally typical, that you chose to completely skip that part of the Ran when quoting his words in this post.
Again, no theological problem here. Just plain old logical problem.
(I guess we can call you a heresy hunter hunter. Take your head out of religious provocation for a moment and just try to learn a sugya in a way that makes sense. You might find it refreshing.)
It's so funny. You are so determined to demonize me that you make up terrible crimes where none exist.
I never said that the reason why the chachamim didn't retract is stability. Obviously the basic reason why they held their position is because they were deciding it according to their own knowledge. That's the whole point of Lo Bashamayim He! I was explaining the more fundamental level of why would there be a SYSTEM that mandates Lo Bashamayim PLUS Acharei Rabim if the Rabim is wrong. (Note that you haven't explained at all WHY the Torah should be given to the human intellect if Hashem says that humans are getting it wrong.) And the reason for THAT is that the SYSTEM creates stability.
(Meanwhile, you concede here that the Bas Kol was representing objective truth, but then you say that the chachamim were presenting the objectively correct halacha. You are not using the word "objectively" correctly.)
Slow slow slow. First step, let's admit that this entire post was based on a misconception of what we (at least me and RT, still no idea who the third guy is) were trying to explain to you. Then we can start the new conversation. You're the intellectually honest admit-my-mistakes guy, remember?
Ok, now the we've done that (wasn't it cathartic?), we can focus on your new line of defense.
1. Firstly, you're so determined to be a victim of a radical yeshivish witch hunt that you're starting off with the same mistake all over again. Get over it - nobody is demonizing you, or inventing terrible crimes. We're just pointing out that you botched a gemara, big time. Not an apikores, just a plain old am ha'aretz. Sorry if that's not glamorous enough for your taste, but that's all you've got.
2. You absolutely did say that the reason they didn't retract was because of halachic stability.
If what you mean is "whoops, I misspoke - thanks for the correction", or "gosh I hadn't a clue what I was talking about - thanks for explaining it to me", then please phrase your sentiments more clearly.
3. Your new pshat in the gemara makes exactly as little sense as the old pshat. But I'm sorry, I've got a life on the side, I can't spend another week explaining your new mistake to you. Maybe RT or someone else can step in here. As long as we all agree that your old pshat is ridiculous, and that this entire post is based on a hilarious boat miss, I think I'm done.
4. I hate to bring up the obvious, but, uh, the Ran has absolutely nothing to do with what you are [now] saying. Your only point is to say that the reason for the system of acharei rabim and lo bashamayim is halachic stability? Um, which part of the Ran has anything to do with that...?
"This is similar to the celebrated case of the oven of Achnai, where the objectively correct view - as attested by none other than God Himself - was overruled in favor of the majority. And the reason for this in turn is that stability is a crucial component of halachic authority."
Again, more than amenable to a quick, noble, retraction along the lines of "hmmm, I guess I didn't word that properly. Boy do I feel dumb that it took you a week, three guys, and a dozen attempts to get that through to me."
Frankie, when I read those words of Rabbi Slifikin the first time I assumed that what they meant was not that the reason the rabbi's held their opinion was because of halachik stability, as everyone agrees that makes no sense. They held of their opinion because they genuinely thought it was the truth that came out of the Torah using their own intellect. Why would you assume Rabbi Slifikin is saying something that makes no sense when there is an equally viable (if not more) interpretation that makes sense? I also disagree with much of what he says but I don't think he's an actual idiot. He clearly was talking about the reason that the system is set up in such a way that the rabbi's go with their own opinion even against the objective truth - which is also what the ran is talking about.
What I said was that the Ran is discussing the issue that Rabbi Slifkin was addressing - "the reason the system is set up in this way". Rabbi slifkin said halachik stability, the ran says something else. But what is clear from the Ran and his understanding of the gemara is the basic idea that the system IS this way.
Don't be silly, of course he should be upset. But for the right reason.
In general, having to defend himself against accusations of am haaratzus is not his strong suite. He's much better with the exasperated "here we go again" about charges of heresy.
But it's gotta be applied properly. No fair to just pull it out regardless of the content of the discussion.
"(Note that you haven't explained at all WHY the Torah should be given to the human intellect if Hashem says that humans are getting it wrong.)"
"(Meanwhile, you concede here that the Bas Kol was representing objective truth, but then you say that the chachamim were presenting the objectively correct halacha. You are not using the word "objectively" correctly.)"
I think it would help clarify matters if you explained what you mean by 'objectively wrong' in the context of a machlokes which isn't amenable to absolute proof either way. Specifically, what *makes* something the *right* answer?
Torah given to human intellect means the Torah is not supposed to be non-understandable to the human mind, so if the Torah says something that the human mind cannot comprehend it is not Torah. That is the meaning of Lo Bashamayim he. However, not every "yukel" can set this Bar so the Chachamim determine so, and base it on the majority view. If one exception understands things the way it is understood in heaven, HE is wrong, since he is saying an unearthly understanding of the torah, which has no place in this world. The fact that Chazal may or may not be mistaken has nothing to do with the Ran. It also has nothing to do with a case when the evidence is clear when someone was factually wrong. There may be a place for that as well, but nothing to do with the Ran.
"If one exception understands things the way it is understood in heaven..."
It's an insightful comment, but it's not the way the חת"ס explains it in his דרשות.
However, the tight connect connection you make between אחרי רבים להטות and לא בשמים היא fails with anything but an overwhelming majority. Your thesis isn't that convincing when dealing with, e.g. a 70%-30% majority. It's quite conceivable that such a minority is nevertheless correct and that their superior intellectual abilities are yet earthbound and natural.
In any case, you're also allowing for a model of לא בשמים היא to endorse an incorrect position by virtue of its terrestrial accessibility.
But what I really have problems with, is that I suspect you're conflating לא בשמים היא with לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת. (Though, I'm willing to bet you have something interesting to offer about that to.)
I am not making this up, and I cited my sources. I already wrote I am not involving the חתם סופר, and I agree there are other opinions. I am explaining the Ran that is dealt with here, and how it is explained in כוכבי אור.
As far as your question regarding a 70-30 majority, I'll agree that we would think things are different in such a case, but the Torah says אחרי רבים. There are those who maintain it is a גזירת הכתוב. But regardless of that, no-one would say that 1 in 3 chances of this bottle being filled with poison is good enough to drink but the Torah allows for רוב in such a case, (a mixture of 3 solid pieces of meat and one is not kosher and you don't know which) and many poskim maintain that one who is "frum" in such a case is a heretic. Why? because Torah is a guide, literally. And we base things even on a slight majority, because we are not OBLIGATED to be scientific.
As far as לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת, I do remember reading in a sefer (Don't remember which, it could of been כוכבי אור but I don't have it available with me now) that when the מלאכים told Moshe they don't want Torah in the hands of humans they were against precisely this premise, if Torah was given to מלאכים then תורה בשמים היא.
Now you may be meaning תורה לא ניתנה למלאכי השרת in the sense that we may kill lice on Shabbos or eat worms in fish since you can't expect people to know every scientific discovery from the beginning of time. So the reason we keep this Halacha, is not because we follow the sages even when mistaken, since the Gemara in הוריות clearly says that when תלמיד שמגיע להוראה knows ב"ד is mistaken, he may not change halacha for others but he must not listen himself. The reason why we keep this halacha is because Torah was given to our senses, and our naked eye sees that this is not a שרץ השורץ על הארץ או על המים. This is not called a mistake just as much as one who eats non-kosher meat from a mixture is not doing an עבירה בשוגג.
I am aware it looks like I am making this up on the spot but this is actually something I spent a long time on a few years ago. And once again i'll repeat that I am aware that this does not fit with the חינוך, מהר"ל, ריטב"א and maybe others, but this is the Shitta of the Ran, Rav Yisrael Salanter, and the Chazon Ish.
It's interesting that you say this is the shita of the Chazon Ish, as the Chazon Ish himself seems to limit it to cases of nishtana hateva.
I wonder if this is how you understand the Rambam in Schita (10:13) too. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה בְּדַרְכֵי הָרְפוּאָה שֶׁבְּיָדֵינוּ כו' "עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ": The obvvious question is what happened to ידע שטעו. Perhaps the Rambam understood that ידע שטעו only applies to a טעות מעיקרא. However, if at the time the Bais Din Hagodol paskened their psak is chal and "עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ tells us that הֵם עִקַּר תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. The question however remains why should there be a difference between a טעות מעיקרו and a טעות of later, especially if even the טעות of later was simply due to the lack of scientific development in their days. However, if we apply the concept of לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת then it makes sense.
I hear what you are saying, but I am not sure the Rambam is saying that. He doesn't say they were mistaken. It sounds more similar to the Rivash in Teshuvos 447, that we do not follow science on treifos, since they are of a Mesorah from sinai, Not an observation by the sages. Now I know many people take this to all statements mentioned in the Gemara and many times it's a stretch and the Rationalists definitely don't like that, but by treifos it seems even the Rambam took this approach. As to why these treifos don't always die these days, none other than the Chazon Ish said that נשתנה הטבע applies in this case, and he further maintained that at different points in history different diseases were more deadly than others. (I can't prove that, I am just quoting him.) He still maintained that treifos remain the same. (Another example of when the Chazon ish applied נשתנה הטבע was with regard to the male member having two holes, one for urine and one for semen, and I don't think anyone can disagree with that.)
I'd like to add that the idea of psak remaining the same in the case of a mistake is the הלכה of אין ב"ד יכול לבטל דברי ב"ד אחר אלא אם כן גדולה מהם בחכמה ובמנין. That is normally said by a תקנה, not by a psak, especially allowing an isur. Maybe a good example of this is מים שלנו, based on the ancient scientific premise that evaporation in the morning is due to water in the springs heating up at night by the sun traveling under them. (If anyone has another explanation please let me know, I have been searching for a long time.)
Interestingly enough, Rav Yisrael maintains that the reason a בת קול was needed to decide between בית שמאי ובית הלל was because בית שמאי was sharper and were גדולים בחכמה, however בית הלל were גדולים במנין, and the question was who decides the consensus of the "human mind", so the בת קול said it is the majority. He learns this into one of the answers of Tosfos in the Gemara of Tanur shel achnai.
The funny thing is, every slightly curious Yeshiva Bochur knows this Ran. The unwritten code includes it.
Yet the author of this blog was willing to build himself an entire theology, claiming to be drawing on his twin experiences as a Yeshiva bochur and as a college graduate, without having seen or heard of it.
Yet he claims Reb Elyashiv was embarrassed by being shown up by him.
These types of discussions are what have my head shaking at what has happened to the Judaism I grew up with that arguably no longer exists. Normative orthodoxy can no longer see the forest through the trees, brings almost zero in terms of practical social norms and communal progress and focuses on petulant nonsense and pretends they are implementing Hashem's wishes. These atomized arguments render our faith almost pitifully inward looking, joyless and petty. I cannot understand how any of this in any way brings our faith and community forward or has any practical, let alone spiritual value. Quite apart from what it might mean to those who indulge in such reasonings/debates - the parochial nature of these debates is depressing and pointless.
You are correct, it's an observation. Despite your sarcasm, it's pointlessness and parochialism fades when compared to the impotency and irrelevance of sectarian discourse. But perhaps you are willing to at least offer some insight as to what value these discussions bring. How does Judaism benefit - let alone society?
I have no idea what you want from me. This is a blog, not a UN peace summit. I share my opinions, make arguments, and try to have some fun while doing so. You seem to want to have a meta-meta-conversation about how discourse about discourse can help improve some other discourse. I find those sorts of sentiments irritating. Hence my response. I didn't mean to insult you personally in any way.
It's bizarre - "Torah lo min hashamyim he" is exactly how I was taught the oven of Achnai story in my very mainstream yeshiva. I actually never heard of any other pshat until now!
Lo 'BA-shamyaim hi.' Not 'lo MIN-hashamayim.' It came from heaven. Past tense. Along with the rule of acharei rabim le'hatos. And zaken mamrei. And atem afilu mu'taim by kiddush ha'chodesh.
I should add that it may well be that stability is *a* reason for some of those rules, but it doesn't *define* them, and it isn't *what obligates us to follow them*, any more than the reasons given for any other mitzva does. I think a lot of the confusion going on here is related to conflating a *benefit* of following the majority, with the *source of the obligation* to do so.
Of course, the story is merely a self serving myth to justify the distinctly historically unjustified concept of rabbinic authority in Israelite religion. (Not to deny it is a nice story that has some merit in that it can be used to tackle the dangerous people who claim to know the will of God)
@Neil Harris, that's one way of cynically looking at it, or you can look at it as a way where the Rabbonim acknowledge that they are not infallible, yet doing the best they can using traditional methods of arriving at a halachic judicial decision. You can't have anarchy where everyone just "does their own thing". You need stability and consistency across the community.
Or to quote Aldous Huxley: " The greater part of the population is not very intelligent, dreads responsibility, and desires nothing better than to be told what to do. Provided the rulers do not interfere with its material comforts and its cherished beliefs, it is perfectly happy to let itself be ruled. "
It needn't be anarchy.......being in a religious community is a voluntary choice and one is free to leave and being outside such a community does not lead to anarchy - see most of the world's population.
I grant that being in a club means accepting the club's rules. On the other hand, it is only members of the "club" that can change the rules. That is always a conundrum.
My point is very simple: the mainstream pshat in the oven of Achnai story (and is very obvious from the Gemara too, I might add) is "Torah lo bashamyim he".
The Gemara couldn't be more clear -
"Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: It is written: “It is not in heaven” (Deuteronomy 30:12). The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of the phrase “It is not in heaven” in this context? Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since the Torah was already given at Mount Sinai, we do not regard a Divine Voice, as You already wrote at Mount Sinai, in the Torah: “After a majority to incline” (Exodus 23:2). Since the majority of Rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, the halakha is not ruled in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara relates: Years after, Rabbi Natan encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do at that time, when Rabbi Yehoshua issued his declaration? Elijah said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me."
We are obligate to follow the majority who, to the best of their ability, have used their intellect to decide the halacha. In addition, like any other court system, a society can't function if, say, rogue judge publicly disagrees with and refused to adhere to the ruling of the Supreme Court.
"We are obligate to follow the majority who, to the best of their ability, have used their intellect to decide the halacha. In addition, like any other court system, a society can't function if, say, rogue judge publicly disagrees with and refused to adhere to the ruling of the Supreme Court."
Your first sentence is correct and uncontroversial. Your second sentence is a muddle which simply repeats the stability talking point yet again. It doesn't clarify anything, and it certainly doesn't explain what the fact that the Torah was given at sinai has to do with anything- which is the point I've been making from the get-go.
You can't have a functioning judicial system if anyone can argue with it. It's especially not a good idea if the court you're arguing against (the Sanhedrin) is made up of the greatest halachic minds among the Jewish people.
But I'm glad you agree with me about pshat in the gemara 😉.
"You can't have a functioning judicial system if anyone can argue with it. It's especially not a good idea if the court you're arguing against (the Sanhedrin) is made up of the greatest halachic minds among the Jewish people."
Sigh. That may be true. But there's no reason to apply it to tannur shel achnai. That episode didn't involve the sanhedrin. It was a machlokes tannaim, of which we have many.
"But I described it as being a case in which R. Eliezer’s view was objectively correct, as attested by none other than God Himself, and was nevertheless overruled in favor of the majority (albeit mistaken) view of the Sages - which was the right thing to do, because the stability of the halachic system overrides objective truth."
I was educated as a physicist. That last clause -- that "the stability of the halachic system overrides objective truth" -- expresses exactly what I can't accept in Orthodox Judaism.
. . . Thank you for putting it so well!
There's an exchange that is credited to Winston Churchill and an opponent:
. . . O: You changed you opinion, sir !
. . . WC: The facts changed. And when the facts change, I may change my opinion.
. . . . . . . What do _you_ do, when the facts change, sir?
If that's your obstacle WRT Orthodox Judaism, there's good news. You're stuffing two systems into one bag and if you separate them you can overcome the obstacle. The Torah for example prohibits non-kosher meat. The non-kosher status derives from the meat's PHYSICAL condition and history. For example it comes from an animal that wasn't Schechted but died naturally. In special circumstances its HALACHIC status changes to a Schechted animal. Where do we see an opinion that its PHYSICAL status changes?
Such that physically speaking it died naturally, but the very Torah (after we establish the source) that normally prohibits naturally-demised meat, allows it in those special circumstances, on the Halachic level.
Almost no one ever admits mistakes, and that definitely includes yourself. Most people either ignore the problems, distinguish them in some meaningless way, or twist them around to pretend that far from undermining them, the problems actually support them. The whole Covid and Vaccine saga was a gigantic illustration of this principle in action.
So when will you be giving us your response to the serious challenges in the tisha b'av article?
I happen to agree with you in this post, the approach of the Ran is quite standard and accepted even in the chareidi world (at least amongst its more scholarly). Derashos Haran is a basic resource on many of these issues. It does seem that there are those that have a knee jerk reaction to everything you say which is a shame.
Perfect example of a meaningless distinction. You come up with two examples, spaced seven years apart, of admissions of mistake. 2 admissions from over, what, 2000 posts is statistically non-existent. And more importantly, these were minor errors of no significance. That's like "admitting" to a spelling mistake. When a person can only admit to two meaningless retractions in twenty years, it's a solid indicator that this person will never admit he's wrong on anything of importance.
A genuinely intellectual honest person is like Shimon Ha-Amsuni. Admitting that he was wrong on an entire methodology. In your case, we would need to see admission of error in sustained, programmatic, directional statements. Repeated viewpoints, perspectives, and opinions. Like your post - you want your interlocutors to admit that a perspective they believe is heresy is actually mainstream traditional opinion. When's the last time - in your current iteration of life, obviously - you conceded a cherished perspective of yours was wrong?
You have to realize that while everything I write is shocking and "obviously" wrong to my charedi critics, it's all perfectly normative in the non-charedi world, and generally not even especially novel. I don't even take a stand on issues that are controversial, such as women's rights.
I do very publicly admit that many, many things that I wrote in "the old days," when I was part of the charedi world, were badly mistaken. Likewise, I was wrong to defend my books as being based on a legitimate minority view - it was actually a very prominent view among the Rishonim!
Can you give some examples of where you admitted you were wrong? (Besides that you were wrong to follow the consensus of medical opinion, and now you realize that the vaccine was a conspiracy.)
That said, I do think you're intellectually honest. Or at least try to be. I just think you're extremely biased, and have an axe to grind with your former community. I realize you could say similar things about me or any of your other opponents. I still think these debates are worth having, for a variety of reasons.
As far as I can tell, in this particular post you explained a talmudic text the way most charedi scholars would (I had a dispute with my Rosh Kollel a year ago on this very subject and he holds like you).
I hope you realize that your attackers on this blog are not a great representative sample of the learned and scholarly amongst the charedi community.
I hate to keep bringing this up but you keep on "going silent" when I do - will you admit to being wrong about your tisha b'av post or will you provide us with some sort of response to the very serious challenges to it?
I find it very difficult to find comments that are "nested" down several levels. Can you post your comments as a new comment on that post. Meanwhile, I stand by what I wrote.
@Natan Slifkin you said: " I find it very difficult to find comments that are "nested" down several levels"
Exactly! I have trouble following all the nestings and sub set replies and then when reading the comments I also cant scroll back up to the original post, I have to open your post in another tab!! That's crazy and why I hate reading on substack. From a readers perspective your old method of posting was WAY better and easier to follow and read, HELP!! I hate substack!!!!
Also, somewhat unrelated, here is an article that might help assuage your concern about charedi unemployment and the future of Israel. It seems that like with most things in life, untenable realities create internal pressure that causes natural processes to evolve and develop on there own.
I did that already. On the post "what are we sad about" sort the comments by "top first" and its the second comment there. In it I summarized what I saw as the main challenges to the post.
Correct. The learned and scholarly amongst the chareidi community do not use this sort of language and constant mockery. In fact the learned and scholarly do not frequent blogs. They ignore controversy and simply get on with their lives.
correct. Although I wouldn't say they ignore controversy. they do get involved sometimes in controversy in a dignified manner when they see benefit in doing so. but definitely not on blogs.
I actually admitted I was wrong just last week, when I mistakenly referred to a post of yours on a proposed Israeli law as a post on judicial reform, when actually that was the previous post's subject, not the one I was addressing.
"Wrong" can only be said about facts, but what is a fact and what is an opinion is itself the subject of intense debate. (It's like the old perfect marriage joke - he decides מילי דשמיא, she decides מילי דעלמא, but all they do is argue about which is which.) Everything is subject to limitation and distinction. What you think is perfectly normative is practically idolatrous to yenem, and vice versa.
Your real mistake is in not following R. Yehuda (Leo) Levi's approach. I read his books in the early 90s, just like you did (we are exactly the same age) and came away impressed. But he never attacked anyone. He spoke בלשון רך and thus earned the approbations of men like R. Yaakov and the Gerrer Rebbe, even over R. Shach's unsuccessful ban attempt. But you are constantly coming from a position of pugnacity. Attacking, accusing, fighting. Give it up, man! It's never going to work. Promote what you believe in, and don't worry about the other side so much.
See Ramban’s hasagah on Shoresh 1 of Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvot. The scholar who believes Beit Din is wrong is forbidden to listen to them UNTIL he presents all his arguments to them. But if he presented all his arguments ( as did R “. Eliezer)!and they reject them then to the contrary he Is obligated to listen to them.
This is how he harmonizes the texts that say that a bait Din can err and a scholar cannot rely on their decision with the view that you are obliged to listen to their pesak even if you think they erred. In any event the Ramban himself is an authoritative source.
There is no contradiction. The mishna and gemara discuss at length who is allowed to disagree and who has to comply. And no one is an authoritative source against pesukim without at least a clear proof from Chazal.
I was referring to the apparent contradiction between the Mishnah and Gemara and the sifre on Deut 17:11. It is this problem which the Ramban seeks to resolve in his hasagah on the Ramban. You say you are aware of the Ramban but you don’t seem to understand it. And your attempt to “ schlugg up” ont of the greatest rishonim of all time, a veritable titan, is pathetic.
No, you are trying to nullify the explicit verse saying the Sanhedrin can err. There is no asterisk in either the pasuk, the mishna, the gemara, or other rishonim saying this only applies before the halakha was clearly established, after which point we say the mistake is the new truth.
Once again there is no contradiction, the Sifri is talking about someone who doesn't know what's right and what's left, like the mishna says only someone competent is supposed to follow his own judgement.
But even if there indeed was a contradiction we would not need to invent chilukim with no basis, as it is clear we follow the gemara, be it Yerushalmi, against any Sifri.
The stature of the Ramban has nothing to do with the matter. That is exactly the point of the Tanur shel Achnay story. We judge arguments and not people. See Rambam in his hakdamah to Avot.
In fact the Bavli (Horayot 2b) says explicitely that you are mistaken.
אלא היכי משכחת לה כגון דידע דאסור וקא טעי במצוה לשמוע דברי חכמי׳ לדידי נמי דטעו במצוה לשמוע דברי חכמי׳.
And the Rambam in Pirush Hamishnah:
וזה אשר ידע שטעו ועשה על פיהם, שאמר כאן שהוא חייב, רצונו לומר חייב בקרבן, יש בו קושיה, וזה, שאם ידע שטעו הרי הוא מזיד, והמזיד אינו חייב קרבן. ויישוב זאת הקושיה כמו שביארו, שהוא שגג באומרו יתעלה ״על פי התורה אשר יורוך״ (דברים יז, יא), וחשב שהוא חייב לעשות על פיהם אפילו טעו וידע בטעותם, ולפיכך עשה על פיהם אף על פי שידע שהם טעו, ולכן חייב בקרבן יחיד, ואינו מצטרף לאלה אשר עשו בשגגה על פיהם.
Furthermore, the case of Tanur shel Achnay doesn't work with that either if we take it literally. One of his arguments being that G.d actually said he is right, the others should have complied.
See Ramban on Deut 17:11 on lo tasur and particularly the hasagah I referred to. The point is once the court has listened to all the arguments and maintain their majority position, that becomes the law through The power given to them by God Himself, and God’s opinion that in this case the view of the minority is more correct is irrelevant,
You mean Ramban, please edit. As I wrote I am aware of this and there is no authorithative authority against pesukim without at least a source in Chazal.
Rabbi Slifkin, you have still not responded to the serious challenges on the tisha b'av post (as you implied you would in the comments section here). If you have effective responses but just don't have the time to enlighten us, just say so without stringing people along. If you have read the challenges there but can't really think of decent rejections I think it would go a long way in showing your sincerity here if you were to admit that there are some serious issues with that post and leave it at that. It would definitely give people like me more motivation to try to keep the debate here civilized and to the point.
In response to R’ Slifkin’s question/request “nested” several levels above (or perhaps below, depending on how you look at it), reposting my answer as a separate comment:
“Top first” seems to mean that the comments are sorted in descending order by their number of “likes” (with the comment that has received the most “likes” being the “top comment”).
1) I'm not sure if I'm one of the 'zealots' you're referring to or not, but I by stand my comments on the previous post, and don't believe you've addressed them in any way.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/halacha-science-and-birds/comment/21821831
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/halacha-science-and-birds/comment/21820335
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/halacha-science-and-birds/comment/21821063
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/halacha-science-and-birds/comment/21780707
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/halacha-science-and-birds/comment/21768248
2) You really should link to the comments which you're ridiculing, so that people can read them in context and draw their own conclusions either way.
3) It's a bit odd for you to be crowing about them 'going silent,' when one of your most persistent critics got banned from posting here.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/censorship-in-the-modern-orthodox
4) To the extent you prefer critics who post under their own names, I would recommend readers to the following blogs.
http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2016/11/rabbi-dr-natan-slifkin-showcases-what.html
http://slifkin-opinions.blogspot.com/2011/01/not-so-solid-proof-about-spheres.html
==Update:==
From a 'gone-silent'-because-because-he-GOT-silenced zealot.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/how-an-am-haaretz-reads-torah-sources
"It's a bit odd for you to be crowing about them 'going silent,' when one of your most persistent critics got banned from posting here." He was not banned for being a persistent critic. I've read interesting debates & disagreements on this blog. But he continually insulted and belittled.
I banned people for continually misrepresenting what I wrote, and for using severely inappropriate language in insulting people who participate here.
Would you like to explain how he misrepresented your views? Because in a subsequent post on his blog, he posted that comment that you banned him for misquoting you, and hyperlinked every word to another post of yours. I didn't go through all of them, but the few that I clicked on looked pretty accurate.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/a-public-apology-to-rabbi-dr-slifkin
The crowd over at the other blog seems pretty certain that your decision to ban him was a cowardly move because he bests you in every argument and you don't know how to deal with him. I'm not too learned, but that's definitely how it seems to me as well. But if you think he is just misquoting you, then by all means, why not put this behind you once and for all?
I've explained NUMEROUS times how he misrepresents my positions. I'm not going through it all again. I'll just give you one example because it's very short and simple. He hyperlinks me as saying "Tosafos thought centipedes had asymmetric legs because Aristotle thought men have more teeth." I said nothing of the sort. Tosafos SAYS that centipedes have asymmetric legs, and I did not give a reason for this error, but I noted that even great people held mistaken beliefs which were not empirically checked, such as Aristotle.
Exactly. You said that Tosfos thought that centipedes have asymmetrical feet, because in the olden days, people made stuff up without checking, and you then brought Aristotle about men's teeth as proof of that. Isn't that exactly as he quoted you?
Update:
Happy himself responded https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/how-an-am-haaretz-reads-torah-sources/comment/22005626
I am guessing here, but I think that RNS is pointing out that HAPPY said “Tosafos thought centipedes had asymmetric legs because Aristotle thought men have more teeth.” With the operative word in that quote being “BECAUSE.”
Of course, RNS did NOT say that. I think RNS did say that it’s not surprising that Tosafos made the mistake regarding thinking centipedes have asymmetrical legs; lots of other people, including Aristotle, made similar mistakes before empirical testing became popular.
I further think that the fact that you (Oiberchochom) didn’t realize that slight change in nuance between what RNS actually said and what Happy presented him as saying, even though you took the time to compare look at the hyperlinks - even stating “the few that [you] clicked on looked pretty accurate”, makes that sort of mis-quoting all the more dangerous.
It’s very difficult to spot such mis-quotes even when you look at them. But they still greatly change the meaning of the statement.
It’s very similar to the recent gaffe by US Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. She quoted a brief by what should have been a very trustworthy source (AAMC) which said that black women using black OBGYNs more than double the survival rate of the infants.
Of course that would be silly and she got called out for it. The actual study showed results of halving the mortality rates, not doubling the survival rates. The mortality rates were only something on the order of like 0.5% - which went down to something like 0.25%. Mathematically, That would translate to a very tiny increase of survival rate from say 99.5% to 99.75% - my numbers are probably off too, but the danger in seemingly close misquotes is glaring.
Hey, Slifkin has 'suddenly gone silent'!
Of course people at the other blog think the way they do visa vis why Happy was banned; they are carbon copies of his views.
Interesting that you ignored the other reason for his being banned, his constant, continuous belittling and name calling of those who dared disagree with him.
He has done the same on the ‘other blog.’
Ha ha, I wonder if he knows who else was accused of being a "heresy hunter". Rav Hirsch. By Heinrich Graetz.
Guess I'm in good company, and Slifkin is in appropriate company.
(As for the actual discussion, I'm absolutely not going to spend more time explaining how badly Slifkin missed the boat on what we've been arguing about. Bottom line, his pshat in the gemara's shakla vitarya makes zero internal sense. And no, there's no Chasam Sofer or Ran who says it [Ran actually specifically says a different pshat, which - waddaya know - DOES make sense]. Readers who have more interest in understanding what's flying than Natan does can see here:
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/halacha-science-and-birds/comment/21823987
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/how-an-am-haaretz-reads-torah-sources
After looking at your comments it seems that you just misunderstood what rabbi slifkin was saying. Of course the reason they didn't retract in face of the bas kol was because they are supposed to decide halacha based on their own human intellect. But this leads to a system in which halacha will be decided based on the majority even if they are objectively wrong. Why would the Torah be set up in such a way? This is discussed by the ran. (Rabbi slifkin called it halachik stability, and others would argue the ran is saying something different, but thats not the issue here).
This is how I understood the post, and this is how I believe most levelheaded readers did.
Coming from someone who mostly disagrees with rabbis slifkin's worldview and thinks he's out of his league on many of the issues he discusses I think I can say you are too quick to assume he is saying something evil or idiotic.
My official apology statement.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/i-was-wrong-and-im-sorry/comments
Maybe. He was given about a dozen opportunities to explain himself on the old post, and failed to do so.
But hey, it could all be a misunderstanding. Let him just man up and say the entire premise of this ridiculous post was a boat miss on his part.
If it helps, I'll go first: I may have misinterpreted Natan's words to mean what they say and not what he meant to say. There. Not too difficult. Now waiting for Dr. I-Admit-My-Mistakes to follow suit.
(BTW what he meant to say is also silly, and has zero to do with the Ran, but I honestly cannot invest the time in a whole new angle of conversation now. Let's just have him admit error, and leave it at that,)
Dear, dear, dear. Crickets from the doc.
Seems this whole admiting error thing is not as easy for him as he made it out, once it comes down to it.
Must be akward to publish an entire pompous obnoxious post based on missing the boat in a conversation. He really ought to think these things through a bit more beforehand.
"I wonder if he knows who else was accused of being a "heresy hunter". Rav Hirsch. By Heinrich Graetz."
Graetz accused Rav Hirsch of being a "heresy hunter"?
Check out R. Hirsch's letters about Graetz and Frankel, printed in Vol. 3 of Collected Writings of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. He's all fire and brimstone. His tone and the very topics he's discussing sound like he could have been writing for Irrationalist Modoxism!
I don't understand your response. I asked about Graetz. I didn't ask about RSRH.
Right. You seemed mighty surprised that Graetz would accuse R. Hirsch of being a heresy hunter. If you knew more about who R. Hirsch was, I don't think you would be surprised at all.
Wrong. I just asked a question. I don't know Graetz.
Is it volume 3? I thought it was 4 or 5. Don't have it with me to check though.
Most instructive is his treatment of Frankel (printed in the back of whatever volume that was), specifically his response to Rabbi S.Y. Rappaport's defense of Frankel.
Note the stridency of his tone, which would have many contemporary "conservatives" (forget about modox) cluck clucking. And bear in mind that these were men who were considered frum at the time. Just off hashkafically.
(History has since vindicated Rav Hirsch's views on Frankel. It's still a bit confused about SYR).
"Any replies written anonymously or signed with a fictitious name will not receive any consideration from me. One who lacks the courage to sign his true name to his views must be aware that what he is saying is meaningless and that he therefore cannot expect others to take notice of it.
Let the anonymous gnats buzz happily in the sunny meadows. I certainly do not want to spoil their pleasure."
(Collected Writings, vol. 6, pg. 198)
https://cross-currents.com/2010/10/05/what-r-samson-raphael-hirsch-would-say-about-comboxes/
(I should be clear that 'Shaul Shapira' is a pseudonym too.)
Touche.
But it's a bit late in the game for our friend to adopt this policy, don't you think?
This too demands nuance. It could be that he changed his mind since his youth when he published the Nineteen Letters anonymously.
In any case, there are many classic works which were written anonymously, and some remain so.
He was referring to critiques. The context was a raging dispute over austritt. Nineteen Letters was a book of Jewish thought which wasn't an attack on anyone.
It's discussed at length in the bio which Slifkin posted a picture of. R Hirsch was a 'fanatic' when it came to the Graetz-Frankel positive historical movement.
Yessir. I believe the exact wording (in translation) was "heresy hunting hermit".
There's no reason this should surprise you. I hope you haven't fallen for the Modern Orthodox fairy tale version of Rav Hirsch as a genial fluffy tikun olam pulpit rabbi. He was quite the fiery zealot, he was. Far more strident than most of those that we are today uncomfortable with (I guess we'll just say he was "not from the Modox Beis Medrash")
Volume 4 or 5 of the Collected Writings should be instructive reading. Enjoy.
Wrong. Your a moron. I can bamboozle you with quotes from RSH that will make your head turn so hard your black hat will fall off and you might actually have you start treating the “schvartez” and “s—-s“ who clean your Shuls with a modicum of respect. It was Feldheim who censored the universalist themes in RSH
And then there was that wonderful quote about “Klein keppeldik “ fanaticism such as your own brand and what a blight it is on our society ..
I’m gonna try to find it ..
I don't understand your response. I asked about Graetz. I didn't ask about RSRH.
It should be noted, that Graetz called many people "heresy hunter". He seemed to like the term.
"the Modern Orthodox fairy tale version of Rav Hirsch as a genial fluffy tikun olam pulpit rabbi."
I never heard that one. Have you actually heard such descriptions of RSRH coming out of centrist or even left leaning circles?
Or perhaps, RSRH's unique program has not been accepted fully by any community today, and hence distortions coming from the left and right?
The Yekkes (I mean the real ones, and what ever is left of them) did accept R. Hirsch's program.
BTW, RSRH had various programs. Among them were a school system that was the forerunner of Torah Vodaas, run by his Chassid R Mendlowitz, and the forerunner of Agudath Israel. Those programs are in the backbone of modern Torah Jewry.
"what ever is left of them"
Exactly my point.
" Bottom line, his pshat in the gemara's shakla vitarya makes zero internal sense. And no, there's no Chasam Sofer or Ran who says it "
The חת"ס was rather prolific. One should hesitate before making such sweeping claims. Not at least until one has studied all the writings of the חת"ס on the topic.
For example, see the דרשה on פרה that starts with מאמר חז"ל:
"שר"א כיון ההלכה כאשר העיד הבת קול, אלא שאין משגיחין בבת קול כי לא בשמים היא"
"I'm absolutely not going to spend more time explaining .... Bottom line, his pshat in the gemara's shakla vitarya makes zero internal sense."
If you ever change your mind to explain, please let me know. Excellent post here BTW https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/evolved-extinction.
===
EDIT
You may recall that one of Gedolei Roshei Yeshiva from before the war is quoted as saying that the only way to argue on RAE is to dispute one of his Hanachos, but in Cheshbon he's invincible to us.
As requested
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/i-was-wrong-and-im-sorry
Well well, an entire post devoted to your inability to process a simple logical problem and therefore misunderstanding an entire conversation. How embarrassing.
I'll try one more time, but my hopes aren't too high:
The problem here is not hashkafa (other than the hashkafa problem of misinterpreting a gemara to be saying something nonsensical). I never said a word about the theological viability of your hanachos, and as far as I can tell neither did RT (I don't know which third guy you're referring to, so I can't speak for him). The problem is that the understanding of the achnai sugya that you blithely passed of as voss shteit durtan is internally incoherent.
Here's why: you say that the bas kol demonstrated the chachamim to be objectively wrong, and they presumably understood this to be so. Yet they did not retract their position because we need to follow the majority in order to maintain halachic stability.
The problem is that the bas kol was revealed to the actual majority while they were still in the process of hashing out the debate.
If someone is in middle of arguing something and he is proven wrong, he retracts. That's not where the issue of "follow rules of psak for halachic stability" makes any sense. You argue, you're proven wrong, you stop arguing.
The fact that the chachamim didn't retract must therefore be for a DIFFERENT reason than "damn the torpedoes, halachic stability uber altz".
QED. V'su lo midi. Your pshat in the gemara is 'unbelievably ridiculous' and all the rest.
If you want to know a pshat in the sugya that actually makes sense, well, we can look at the Ran (there are many others as well). The Ran, DESPITE assuming the hanacha that the bas kol represents shamayim's objective truth, says an actual coherent reason why they didn't retract - and it's not because of halachic stability (which is meaningless as a rationale in this context), but rather because Torah is given to the human intellect, so the chachamim's human comprehension is the objectively correct psak for practical purposes ("lo bashamayim he").
Oh. So he doesn't say your pshat. Because your pshat doesn't make sense, and the Ran doesn't usually say nonsensical pshatim. Btw - it's cute, but totally typical, that you chose to completely skip that part of the Ran when quoting his words in this post.
Again, no theological problem here. Just plain old logical problem.
(I guess we can call you a heresy hunter hunter. Take your head out of religious provocation for a moment and just try to learn a sugya in a way that makes sense. You might find it refreshing.)
It's so funny. You are so determined to demonize me that you make up terrible crimes where none exist.
I never said that the reason why the chachamim didn't retract is stability. Obviously the basic reason why they held their position is because they were deciding it according to their own knowledge. That's the whole point of Lo Bashamayim He! I was explaining the more fundamental level of why would there be a SYSTEM that mandates Lo Bashamayim PLUS Acharei Rabim if the Rabim is wrong. (Note that you haven't explained at all WHY the Torah should be given to the human intellect if Hashem says that humans are getting it wrong.) And the reason for THAT is that the SYSTEM creates stability.
(Meanwhile, you concede here that the Bas Kol was representing objective truth, but then you say that the chachamim were presenting the objectively correct halacha. You are not using the word "objectively" correctly.)
Slow slow slow. First step, let's admit that this entire post was based on a misconception of what we (at least me and RT, still no idea who the third guy is) were trying to explain to you. Then we can start the new conversation. You're the intellectually honest admit-my-mistakes guy, remember?
Ok, now the we've done that (wasn't it cathartic?), we can focus on your new line of defense.
1. Firstly, you're so determined to be a victim of a radical yeshivish witch hunt that you're starting off with the same mistake all over again. Get over it - nobody is demonizing you, or inventing terrible crimes. We're just pointing out that you botched a gemara, big time. Not an apikores, just a plain old am ha'aretz. Sorry if that's not glamorous enough for your taste, but that's all you've got.
2. You absolutely did say that the reason they didn't retract was because of halachic stability.
If what you mean is "whoops, I misspoke - thanks for the correction", or "gosh I hadn't a clue what I was talking about - thanks for explaining it to me", then please phrase your sentiments more clearly.
3. Your new pshat in the gemara makes exactly as little sense as the old pshat. But I'm sorry, I've got a life on the side, I can't spend another week explaining your new mistake to you. Maybe RT or someone else can step in here. As long as we all agree that your old pshat is ridiculous, and that this entire post is based on a hilarious boat miss, I think I'm done.
4. I hate to bring up the obvious, but, uh, the Ran has absolutely nothing to do with what you are [now] saying. Your only point is to say that the reason for the system of acharei rabim and lo bashamayim is halachic stability? Um, which part of the Ran has anything to do with that...?
Re 2 above: Here were your exact words:
"This is similar to the celebrated case of the oven of Achnai, where the objectively correct view - as attested by none other than God Himself - was overruled in favor of the majority. And the reason for this in turn is that stability is a crucial component of halachic authority."
Again, more than amenable to a quick, noble, retraction along the lines of "hmmm, I guess I didn't word that properly. Boy do I feel dumb that it took you a week, three guys, and a dozen attempts to get that through to me."
Frankie, when I read those words of Rabbi Slifikin the first time I assumed that what they meant was not that the reason the rabbi's held their opinion was because of halachik stability, as everyone agrees that makes no sense. They held of their opinion because they genuinely thought it was the truth that came out of the Torah using their own intellect. Why would you assume Rabbi Slifikin is saying something that makes no sense when there is an equally viable (if not more) interpretation that makes sense? I also disagree with much of what he says but I don't think he's an actual idiot. He clearly was talking about the reason that the system is set up in such a way that the rabbi's go with their own opinion even against the objective truth - which is also what the ran is talking about.
Brilliance just sheer brilliance.
We have a new pshat in לא בשמים היא.
Halachik stability. What that has to do with the Ran is anyones guess.
What I said was that the Ran is discussing the issue that Rabbi Slifkin was addressing - "the reason the system is set up in this way". Rabbi slifkin said halachik stability, the ran says something else. But what is clear from the Ran and his understanding of the gemara is the basic idea that the system IS this way.
"Not an apikores, just a plain old am ha'aretz."
I.e., you never said his thesis contains any apikursus, so he shouldn't be so upset?
Don't be silly, of course he should be upset. But for the right reason.
In general, having to defend himself against accusations of am haaratzus is not his strong suite. He's much better with the exasperated "here we go again" about charges of heresy.
But it's gotta be applied properly. No fair to just pull it out regardless of the content of the discussion.
Try to find the quote sometime ago in the comments of either this blog or at IM from Feynman about having multiple reasons for something.
"(Note that you haven't explained at all WHY the Torah should be given to the human intellect if Hashem says that humans are getting it wrong.)"
"(Meanwhile, you concede here that the Bas Kol was representing objective truth, but then you say that the chachamim were presenting the objectively correct halacha. You are not using the word "objectively" correctly.)"
I think it would help clarify matters if you explained what you mean by 'objectively wrong' in the context of a machlokes which isn't amenable to absolute proof either way. Specifically, what *makes* something the *right* answer?
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/halacha-science-and-birds/comment/21820335
Also, what do you mean when you refer to stability? Do you mean uniformity?
Torah given to human intellect means the Torah is not supposed to be non-understandable to the human mind, so if the Torah says something that the human mind cannot comprehend it is not Torah. That is the meaning of Lo Bashamayim he. However, not every "yukel" can set this Bar so the Chachamim determine so, and base it on the majority view. If one exception understands things the way it is understood in heaven, HE is wrong, since he is saying an unearthly understanding of the torah, which has no place in this world. The fact that Chazal may or may not be mistaken has nothing to do with the Ran. It also has nothing to do with a case when the evidence is clear when someone was factually wrong. There may be a place for that as well, but nothing to do with the Ran.
"If one exception understands things the way it is understood in heaven..."
It's an insightful comment, but it's not the way the חת"ס explains it in his דרשות.
However, the tight connect connection you make between אחרי רבים להטות and לא בשמים היא fails with anything but an overwhelming majority. Your thesis isn't that convincing when dealing with, e.g. a 70%-30% majority. It's quite conceivable that such a minority is nevertheless correct and that their superior intellectual abilities are yet earthbound and natural.
In any case, you're also allowing for a model of לא בשמים היא to endorse an incorrect position by virtue of its terrestrial accessibility.
But what I really have problems with, is that I suspect you're conflating לא בשמים היא with לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת. (Though, I'm willing to bet you have something interesting to offer about that to.)
I am not making this up, and I cited my sources. I already wrote I am not involving the חתם סופר, and I agree there are other opinions. I am explaining the Ran that is dealt with here, and how it is explained in כוכבי אור.
As far as your question regarding a 70-30 majority, I'll agree that we would think things are different in such a case, but the Torah says אחרי רבים. There are those who maintain it is a גזירת הכתוב. But regardless of that, no-one would say that 1 in 3 chances of this bottle being filled with poison is good enough to drink but the Torah allows for רוב in such a case, (a mixture of 3 solid pieces of meat and one is not kosher and you don't know which) and many poskim maintain that one who is "frum" in such a case is a heretic. Why? because Torah is a guide, literally. And we base things even on a slight majority, because we are not OBLIGATED to be scientific.
As far as לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת, I do remember reading in a sefer (Don't remember which, it could of been כוכבי אור but I don't have it available with me now) that when the מלאכים told Moshe they don't want Torah in the hands of humans they were against precisely this premise, if Torah was given to מלאכים then תורה בשמים היא.
Now you may be meaning תורה לא ניתנה למלאכי השרת in the sense that we may kill lice on Shabbos or eat worms in fish since you can't expect people to know every scientific discovery from the beginning of time. So the reason we keep this Halacha, is not because we follow the sages even when mistaken, since the Gemara in הוריות clearly says that when תלמיד שמגיע להוראה knows ב"ד is mistaken, he may not change halacha for others but he must not listen himself. The reason why we keep this halacha is because Torah was given to our senses, and our naked eye sees that this is not a שרץ השורץ על הארץ או על המים. This is not called a mistake just as much as one who eats non-kosher meat from a mixture is not doing an עבירה בשוגג.
I am aware it looks like I am making this up on the spot but this is actually something I spent a long time on a few years ago. And once again i'll repeat that I am aware that this does not fit with the חינוך, מהר"ל, ריטב"א and maybe others, but this is the Shitta of the Ran, Rav Yisrael Salanter, and the Chazon Ish.
Interesting, Reb Leib. I actually made this point in a previous discussion with you https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-acceptance-of-torah/comment/16951099 I didn't realize that this was your intention too.
It's interesting that you say this is the shita of the Chazon Ish, as the Chazon Ish himself seems to limit it to cases of nishtana hateva.
I wonder if this is how you understand the Rambam in Schita (10:13) too. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה בְּדַרְכֵי הָרְפוּאָה שֶׁבְּיָדֵינוּ כו' "עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ": The obvvious question is what happened to ידע שטעו. Perhaps the Rambam understood that ידע שטעו only applies to a טעות מעיקרא. However, if at the time the Bais Din Hagodol paskened their psak is chal and "עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ tells us that הֵם עִקַּר תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. The question however remains why should there be a difference between a טעות מעיקרו and a טעות of later, especially if even the טעות of later was simply due to the lack of scientific development in their days. However, if we apply the concept of לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת then it makes sense.
Am I making sense?
I hear what you are saying, but I am not sure the Rambam is saying that. He doesn't say they were mistaken. It sounds more similar to the Rivash in Teshuvos 447, that we do not follow science on treifos, since they are of a Mesorah from sinai, Not an observation by the sages. Now I know many people take this to all statements mentioned in the Gemara and many times it's a stretch and the Rationalists definitely don't like that, but by treifos it seems even the Rambam took this approach. As to why these treifos don't always die these days, none other than the Chazon Ish said that נשתנה הטבע applies in this case, and he further maintained that at different points in history different diseases were more deadly than others. (I can't prove that, I am just quoting him.) He still maintained that treifos remain the same. (Another example of when the Chazon ish applied נשתנה הטבע was with regard to the male member having two holes, one for urine and one for semen, and I don't think anyone can disagree with that.)
I'd like to add that the idea of psak remaining the same in the case of a mistake is the הלכה of אין ב"ד יכול לבטל דברי ב"ד אחר אלא אם כן גדולה מהם בחכמה ובמנין. That is normally said by a תקנה, not by a psak, especially allowing an isur. Maybe a good example of this is מים שלנו, based on the ancient scientific premise that evaporation in the morning is due to water in the springs heating up at night by the sun traveling under them. (If anyone has another explanation please let me know, I have been searching for a long time.)
Interestingly enough, Rav Yisrael maintains that the reason a בת קול was needed to decide between בית שמאי ובית הלל was because בית שמאי was sharper and were גדולים בחכמה, however בית הלל were גדולים במנין, and the question was who decides the consensus of the "human mind", so the בת קול said it is the majority. He learns this into one of the answers of Tosfos in the Gemara of Tanur shel achnai.
Oh dear. It looks like Natan has decided to go silent.
I almost feel sorry for him. Maybe he should reconsider this posting under his real name business.
The funny thing is, every slightly curious Yeshiva Bochur knows this Ran. The unwritten code includes it.
Yet the author of this blog was willing to build himself an entire theology, claiming to be drawing on his twin experiences as a Yeshiva bochur and as a college graduate, without having seen or heard of it.
Yet he claims Reb Elyashiv was embarrassed by being shown up by him.
The hubris is mind-boggling.
Your assumptions and distortions of my words never cease to amaze.
Rav Slifkin,
To whom are you replying? This format is awful.
hate this format!
Yes. It would be slightly curious if every Yeshiva Bochur knows that Ran.
And how much more if the Ran knew every Yeshiva bochur.
An apology by RT!
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/i-was-wrong-and-im-sorry
These types of discussions are what have my head shaking at what has happened to the Judaism I grew up with that arguably no longer exists. Normative orthodoxy can no longer see the forest through the trees, brings almost zero in terms of practical social norms and communal progress and focuses on petulant nonsense and pretends they are implementing Hashem's wishes. These atomized arguments render our faith almost pitifully inward looking, joyless and petty. I cannot understand how any of this in any way brings our faith and community forward or has any practical, let alone spiritual value. Quite apart from what it might mean to those who indulge in such reasonings/debates - the parochial nature of these debates is depressing and pointless.
Thank for your deeply invigorating non-parochial, non-depressing, non-pointless observations
You are correct, it's an observation. Despite your sarcasm, it's pointlessness and parochialism fades when compared to the impotency and irrelevance of sectarian discourse. But perhaps you are willing to at least offer some insight as to what value these discussions bring. How does Judaism benefit - let alone society?
I have no idea what you want from me. This is a blog, not a UN peace summit. I share my opinions, make arguments, and try to have some fun while doing so. You seem to want to have a meta-meta-conversation about how discourse about discourse can help improve some other discourse. I find those sorts of sentiments irritating. Hence my response. I didn't mean to insult you personally in any way.
Rabbi Sacks says something basically similar to you in his article on "Creativity and Innovation'
in the YU Modern Orthodoxy Forum book on 'Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy', in the section where he discusses Tanur shel Achnai
It's bizarre - "Torah lo min hashamyim he" is exactly how I was taught the oven of Achnai story in my very mainstream yeshiva. I actually never heard of any other pshat until now!
Lo 'BA-shamyaim hi.' Not 'lo MIN-hashamayim.' It came from heaven. Past tense. Along with the rule of acharei rabim le'hatos. And zaken mamrei. And atem afilu mu'taim by kiddush ha'chodesh.
I should add that it may well be that stability is *a* reason for some of those rules, but it doesn't *define* them, and it isn't *what obligates us to follow them*, any more than the reasons given for any other mitzva does. I think a lot of the confusion going on here is related to conflating a *benefit* of following the majority, with the *source of the obligation* to do so.
Of course, the story is merely a self serving myth to justify the distinctly historically unjustified concept of rabbinic authority in Israelite religion. (Not to deny it is a nice story that has some merit in that it can be used to tackle the dangerous people who claim to know the will of God)
@Neil Harris, that's one way of cynically looking at it, or you can look at it as a way where the Rabbonim acknowledge that they are not infallible, yet doing the best they can using traditional methods of arriving at a halachic judicial decision. You can't have anarchy where everyone just "does their own thing". You need stability and consistency across the community.
Or to quote Aldous Huxley: " The greater part of the population is not very intelligent, dreads responsibility, and desires nothing better than to be told what to do. Provided the rulers do not interfere with its material comforts and its cherished beliefs, it is perfectly happy to let itself be ruled. "
It needn't be anarchy.......being in a religious community is a voluntary choice and one is free to leave and being outside such a community does not lead to anarchy - see most of the world's population.
I grant that being in a club means accepting the club's rules. On the other hand, it is only members of the "club" that can change the rules. That is always a conundrum.
'Of course, ...........................................................................................................................................'
You are caught up on RNS's "stability" comment.
My point is very simple: the mainstream pshat in the oven of Achnai story (and is very obvious from the Gemara too, I might add) is "Torah lo bashamyim he".
The Gemara couldn't be more clear -
"Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: It is written: “It is not in heaven” (Deuteronomy 30:12). The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of the phrase “It is not in heaven” in this context? Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since the Torah was already given at Mount Sinai, we do not regard a Divine Voice, as You already wrote at Mount Sinai, in the Torah: “After a majority to incline” (Exodus 23:2). Since the majority of Rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, the halakha is not ruled in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara relates: Years after, Rabbi Natan encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do at that time, when Rabbi Yehoshua issued his declaration? Elijah said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me."
We are obligate to follow the majority who, to the best of their ability, have used their intellect to decide the halacha. In addition, like any other court system, a society can't function if, say, rogue judge publicly disagrees with and refused to adhere to the ruling of the Supreme Court.
"We are obligate to follow the majority who, to the best of their ability, have used their intellect to decide the halacha. In addition, like any other court system, a society can't function if, say, rogue judge publicly disagrees with and refused to adhere to the ruling of the Supreme Court."
Your first sentence is correct and uncontroversial. Your second sentence is a muddle which simply repeats the stability talking point yet again. It doesn't clarify anything, and it certainly doesn't explain what the fact that the Torah was given at sinai has to do with anything- which is the point I've been making from the get-go.
You can't have a functioning judicial system if anyone can argue with it. It's especially not a good idea if the court you're arguing against (the Sanhedrin) is made up of the greatest halachic minds among the Jewish people.
But I'm glad you agree with me about pshat in the gemara 😉.
"You can't have a functioning judicial system if anyone can argue with it. It's especially not a good idea if the court you're arguing against (the Sanhedrin) is made up of the greatest halachic minds among the Jewish people."
Sigh. That may be true. But there's no reason to apply it to tannur shel achnai. That episode didn't involve the sanhedrin. It was a machlokes tannaim, of which we have many.
"That episode didn't involve the sanhedrin. It was a machlokes tannaim...."
Do you recall that R Elchanan in Divrei Sofrim indicates a connection between the two?
It seems like they were trying to settle the halacha, so you have the same idea.
"But I described it as being a case in which R. Eliezer’s view was objectively correct, as attested by none other than God Himself, and was nevertheless overruled in favor of the majority (albeit mistaken) view of the Sages - which was the right thing to do, because the stability of the halachic system overrides objective truth."
I was educated as a physicist. That last clause -- that "the stability of the halachic system overrides objective truth" -- expresses exactly what I can't accept in Orthodox Judaism.
. . . Thank you for putting it so well!
There's an exchange that is credited to Winston Churchill and an opponent:
. . . O: You changed you opinion, sir !
. . . WC: The facts changed. And when the facts change, I may change my opinion.
. . . . . . . What do _you_ do, when the facts change, sir?
. charles cohen / Canada
If that's your obstacle WRT Orthodox Judaism, there's good news. You're stuffing two systems into one bag and if you separate them you can overcome the obstacle. The Torah for example prohibits non-kosher meat. The non-kosher status derives from the meat's PHYSICAL condition and history. For example it comes from an animal that wasn't Schechted but died naturally. In special circumstances its HALACHIC status changes to a Schechted animal. Where do we see an opinion that its PHYSICAL status changes?
Such that physically speaking it died naturally, but the very Torah (after we establish the source) that normally prohibits naturally-demised meat, allows it in those special circumstances, on the Halachic level.
Same WRT our subject and other areas in Torah.
The sanhedrin brings a פר העלם ציבור If They Make a mistake so the Torah accounts for the possibility that the great sanhedrin can be mistaken
Almost no one ever admits mistakes, and that definitely includes yourself. Most people either ignore the problems, distinguish them in some meaningless way, or twist them around to pretend that far from undermining them, the problems actually support them. The whole Covid and Vaccine saga was a gigantic illustration of this principle in action.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/i-was-wrong
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/i-was-wrong-and-im-sorry
So when will you be giving us your response to the serious challenges in the tisha b'av article?
I happen to agree with you in this post, the approach of the Ran is quite standard and accepted even in the chareidi world (at least amongst its more scholarly). Derashos Haran is a basic resource on many of these issues. It does seem that there are those that have a knee jerk reaction to everything you say which is a shame.
Perfect example of a meaningless distinction. You come up with two examples, spaced seven years apart, of admissions of mistake. 2 admissions from over, what, 2000 posts is statistically non-existent. And more importantly, these were minor errors of no significance. That's like "admitting" to a spelling mistake. When a person can only admit to two meaningless retractions in twenty years, it's a solid indicator that this person will never admit he's wrong on anything of importance.
A genuinely intellectual honest person is like Shimon Ha-Amsuni. Admitting that he was wrong on an entire methodology. In your case, we would need to see admission of error in sustained, programmatic, directional statements. Repeated viewpoints, perspectives, and opinions. Like your post - you want your interlocutors to admit that a perspective they believe is heresy is actually mainstream traditional opinion. When's the last time - in your current iteration of life, obviously - you conceded a cherished perspective of yours was wrong?
You have to realize that while everything I write is shocking and "obviously" wrong to my charedi critics, it's all perfectly normative in the non-charedi world, and generally not even especially novel. I don't even take a stand on issues that are controversial, such as women's rights.
I do very publicly admit that many, many things that I wrote in "the old days," when I was part of the charedi world, were badly mistaken. Likewise, I was wrong to defend my books as being based on a legitimate minority view - it was actually a very prominent view among the Rishonim!
Can you give some examples of where you admitted you were wrong? (Besides that you were wrong to follow the consensus of medical opinion, and now you realize that the vaccine was a conspiracy.)
"Likewise, I was wrong to defend my books as being based on a legitimate minority view - it was actually a very prominent view among the Rishonim!"
Translation: 'Upon reflection, I was even more correct than I realized!' How inspiring!
That said, I do think you're intellectually honest. Or at least try to be. I just think you're extremely biased, and have an axe to grind with your former community. I realize you could say similar things about me or any of your other opponents. I still think these debates are worth having, for a variety of reasons.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-fallacy-of-economic-catastrophism/comment/18189558
As far as I can tell, in this particular post you explained a talmudic text the way most charedi scholars would (I had a dispute with my Rosh Kollel a year ago on this very subject and he holds like you).
I hope you realize that your attackers on this blog are not a great representative sample of the learned and scholarly amongst the charedi community.
I hate to keep bringing this up but you keep on "going silent" when I do - will you admit to being wrong about your tisha b'av post or will you provide us with some sort of response to the very serious challenges to it?
I find it very difficult to find comments that are "nested" down several levels. Can you post your comments as a new comment on that post. Meanwhile, I stand by what I wrote.
@Natan Slifkin you said: " I find it very difficult to find comments that are "nested" down several levels"
Exactly! I have trouble following all the nestings and sub set replies and then when reading the comments I also cant scroll back up to the original post, I have to open your post in another tab!! That's crazy and why I hate reading on substack. From a readers perspective your old method of posting was WAY better and easier to follow and read, HELP!! I hate substack!!!!
Also, somewhat unrelated, here is an article that might help assuage your concern about charedi unemployment and the future of Israel. It seems that like with most things in life, untenable realities create internal pressure that causes natural processes to evolve and develop on there own.
https://www.kikar.co.il/interesting/ryre78
I did that already. On the post "what are we sad about" sort the comments by "top first" and its the second comment there. In it I summarized what I saw as the main challenges to the post.
thank you for your response.
Correct. The learned and scholarly amongst the chareidi community do not use this sort of language and constant mockery. In fact the learned and scholarly do not frequent blogs. They ignore controversy and simply get on with their lives.
correct. Although I wouldn't say they ignore controversy. they do get involved sometimes in controversy in a dignified manner when they see benefit in doing so. but definitely not on blogs.
I actually admitted I was wrong just last week, when I mistakenly referred to a post of yours on a proposed Israeli law as a post on judicial reform, when actually that was the previous post's subject, not the one I was addressing.
"Wrong" can only be said about facts, but what is a fact and what is an opinion is itself the subject of intense debate. (It's like the old perfect marriage joke - he decides מילי דשמיא, she decides מילי דעלמא, but all they do is argue about which is which.) Everything is subject to limitation and distinction. What you think is perfectly normative is practically idolatrous to yenem, and vice versa.
Your real mistake is in not following R. Yehuda (Leo) Levi's approach. I read his books in the early 90s, just like you did (we are exactly the same age) and came away impressed. But he never attacked anyone. He spoke בלשון רך and thus earned the approbations of men like R. Yaakov and the Gerrer Rebbe, even over R. Shach's unsuccessful ban attempt. But you are constantly coming from a position of pugnacity. Attacking, accusing, fighting. Give it up, man! It's never going to work. Promote what you believe in, and don't worry about the other side so much.
See Ramban’s hasagah on Shoresh 1 of Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvot. The scholar who believes Beit Din is wrong is forbidden to listen to them UNTIL he presents all his arguments to them. But if he presented all his arguments ( as did R “. Eliezer)!and they reject them then to the contrary he Is obligated to listen to them.
I'm aware of what the Ramban says, but there is no source for this whatsoever.
This is how he harmonizes the texts that say that a bait Din can err and a scholar cannot rely on their decision with the view that you are obliged to listen to their pesak even if you think they erred. In any event the Ramban himself is an authoritative source.
There is no contradiction. The mishna and gemara discuss at length who is allowed to disagree and who has to comply. And no one is an authoritative source against pesukim without at least a clear proof from Chazal.
I was referring to the apparent contradiction between the Mishnah and Gemara and the sifre on Deut 17:11. It is this problem which the Ramban seeks to resolve in his hasagah on the Ramban. You say you are aware of the Ramban but you don’t seem to understand it. And your attempt to “ schlugg up” ont of the greatest rishonim of all time, a veritable titan, is pathetic.
No, you are trying to nullify the explicit verse saying the Sanhedrin can err. There is no asterisk in either the pasuk, the mishna, the gemara, or other rishonim saying this only applies before the halakha was clearly established, after which point we say the mistake is the new truth.
Once again there is no contradiction, the Sifri is talking about someone who doesn't know what's right and what's left, like the mishna says only someone competent is supposed to follow his own judgement.
But even if there indeed was a contradiction we would not need to invent chilukim with no basis, as it is clear we follow the gemara, be it Yerushalmi, against any Sifri.
The stature of the Ramban has nothing to do with the matter. That is exactly the point of the Tanur shel Achnay story. We judge arguments and not people. See Rambam in his hakdamah to Avot.
In fact the Bavli (Horayot 2b) says explicitely that you are mistaken.
אלא היכי משכחת לה כגון דידע דאסור וקא טעי במצוה לשמוע דברי חכמי׳ לדידי נמי דטעו במצוה לשמוע דברי חכמי׳.
And the Rambam in Pirush Hamishnah:
וזה אשר ידע שטעו ועשה על פיהם, שאמר כאן שהוא חייב, רצונו לומר חייב בקרבן, יש בו קושיה, וזה, שאם ידע שטעו הרי הוא מזיד, והמזיד אינו חייב קרבן. ויישוב זאת הקושיה כמו שביארו, שהוא שגג באומרו יתעלה ״על פי התורה אשר יורוך״ (דברים יז, יא), וחשב שהוא חייב לעשות על פיהם אפילו טעו וידע בטעותם, ולפיכך עשה על פיהם אף על פי שידע שהם טעו, ולכן חייב בקרבן יחיד, ואינו מצטרף לאלה אשר עשו בשגגה על פיהם.
The whole point of the Ramban is that the verse and the Gemara based on it only refers to some circumstances and not others.
Furthermore, the case of Tanur shel Achnay doesn't work with that either if we take it literally. One of his arguments being that G.d actually said he is right, the others should have complied.
See Ramban on Deut 17:11 on lo tasur and particularly the hasagah I referred to. The point is once the court has listened to all the arguments and maintain their majority position, that becomes the law through The power given to them by God Himself, and God’s opinion that in this case the view of the minority is more correct is irrelevant,
You mean Ramban, please edit. As I wrote I am aware of this and there is no authorithative authority against pesukim without at least a source in Chazal.
Merely a self serving interpretation of the court to maintain its authority?
To my mind, the whole thing comes down to whose authority one accepts - the rest is mere detail.
The Ramban disagrees with the Rambam here as he does in so many places.
I'm happy to see you're still alive and well.
Indeed he does. But he doesn't say so, and people might get the impression he is explaining him, don't they?
And I think we've sufficently seen whose position is sustained by actual sources in this particular place.
P.S. I know it's hard to follow comments on this awful platform, but please do try answering to me directly.
Rabbi Slifkin, you have still not responded to the serious challenges on the tisha b'av post (as you implied you would in the comments section here). If you have effective responses but just don't have the time to enlighten us, just say so without stringing people along. If you have read the challenges there but can't really think of decent rejections I think it would go a long way in showing your sincerity here if you were to admit that there are some serious issues with that post and leave it at that. It would definitely give people like me more motivation to try to keep the debate here civilized and to the point.
Please check out my post on this topic, posted yesterday https://ishayirashashem.substack.com/p/tsuyoku-naritai-does-the-torah-weaken?sd=pf
Well not exactly this topic. But please check it out anyway.
In response to R’ Slifkin’s question/request “nested” several levels above (or perhaps below, depending on how you look at it), reposting my answer as a separate comment:
“Top first” seems to mean that the comments are sorted in descending order by their number of “likes” (with the comment that has received the most “likes” being the “top comment”).