Posts
The following few posts are a series of critiques of Rabbi Natan Slifkin's banned books. Previous attempts at explaining the ban has met with a simple parrotting of the alternate Jewish sources/views that seem to support Rabbi Slifkin's innovative approach to conflicts between Torah and science. The following is a departure from the above, which cites chapter and verse, pointing out basic errors in logic and scholarship even within his own sources that he claims for his support. These critiques were submitted to Rabbi Slifkin privately about two months ago and counting, with no direct response to any of the criticisms. Their publication via this weblog is an attempt to urge Rabbi Slifkin to either defend his books or retract them entirely. Lengthy comments are welcome.
>
The Camel, the Hare and the Hyrax
>
> I read with interest your response to Rav Meiselman's lectures condemning your books and yourself personally.
> I was bewildered by your conclusion that there was virtually nothing of substance to Rav Meiselman's critique. You wrote:
>
> "To my great surprise, despite the Rosh Yeshivah using this as a basis for determining that I am a kofer, it seems that every single one of the Rosh Yeshivah's stated objections is not based on any genuine dispute at all, but rather on a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of my book. Especially in light of the fact that I only printed 1500 copies of this book, and the majority of people hearing the Rosh Yeshivah’s shiurim will not independently verify his report of the contents of my book, it is important that the facts be set
straight.
This point was very well taken by me.
The following is my independant verification of the Rosh Hayeshiva’s report.
Now I'm not speaking on behalf of Rav Meiselman at all. (He thinks this whole thing it one big senseless distraction; he was trying to end the distraction of his students with the lectures and nothing more.)
> But I personally couldn't make peace with the notion that the WHOLE CRITIQUE was in no way relevant to your book.
> With your response of total innocence, I realized that I had a big job ahead of me.
> Please forgive the harsh language that I will occasionally be using. I always prefer divrei chachamim b'nachas nishma'im, but I can't afford to risk understating the gravity of the errors I humbly believe I've detected in your latest book.
>
>Part I
> Let's start with a very brief overview of the book:
> A person with your knowledge of current zoological research but with less yiras Shomayim would look at the Torah, Talmud and all the authoritative commentaries on this topic and easily conclude the Torah's argument of divine origins by exhaustive list of cud-chewing animals is simply disproved by zoologically confirmed fact.
> Instead, you have found an ingenious way to interpret the Torah and the Talmud as NOT claiming such any such argument that would contradict current zoology in the first place.
> Heaven Forbid that you would claim that either the Torah or the Talmud's arguments are flawed.
>
> Allow me to extract and examine certain elements of your careful reasoning and your position developed in Chapter Two.
>
> You seem to approach the topic of Torah claims and proofs of exclusivity with the following a priori assertions:
> a. the argument of divine origins of the Torah must come from a straightforward reading of Torah she'bichtav; (pages 46-48)
> b. to claim it is based on derivations from Torah she'baal peh “makes no sense” (page 48);
> c. the claim of exclusivity from the Torah's mere list of animals is
> “not proven” (page 49);
> d. the Torah and Talmud can therefore be understood in ways that avoid these unproven claims and nonsense arguments.
> The second half of chapter two is a carefully constructed attempt to show how the claim of proof of divine origins through exhaustive list can be avoided by dodging between the raindrops and explaining away each source individually.
> One basic problem is that this meandering position that weaves through all the possibilities, contradicts every consistent opinion at least once with the possible exception of an inference in Rashi.
> The balance of the book goes on to show in detail how the Torah's list seems in fact not exhaustive in light of current zoological research.
This supports the notion that we must abandon the claim of exclusivity- which is anyway unproven that the Torah or Talmud unequivocally claimed it.
> Am I right so far?
>
> As a direct result of the above, any of the numerous opinions that either understands the Torah, Talmud, or Sifri as claiming there is an exclusive list, or
> understands there is a Torah She'baal peh based proof of the Torah's divine origins, should be abandoned because it is either unproven, makes no sense, or contradicts current zoological research.
> I want to make clear that your grounds for abandoning all these Torah opinions are based solely on your personal view of what constitutes sufficient grounds. You bring no Torah sources that support your assertions a. b. or c. above. They are assertions upon which the thrust of half book rests. Let's just appreciate this situation properly.
> We now have the following scorecard:
>
> The Ramban who is basing himself on the Talmud or Sifri to say the Torah is claiming to give an exhaustive list-- is not proven.
> Rabbi Yitzchak Caro who says the Torah is claiming to give an exhaustive list-- is not proven.
> Rashi who says the Talmud is giving an exhaustive list on 59a (and most probably on 60b as well- see below) --is not proven.
> Tosfos 59a who says the Talmud is giving an exhaustive list --is not proven.
> Tosfos 60b who says the proof of Torah's divine origins is proven via derivation from Torah She'baal peh--makes no sense.
> The Maharitz Chayes who says there is proof from the exhaustive list of the Torah--makes no sense and "appears to be flawed" (page 56).
> The Malbim who says there is proof from the exhaustive list of the Torah --makes no sense and "appears to be flawed" (same as above).
> The Netziv who says there is proof from the exhaustive list of the Torah-- makes no sense and "appears to be flawed" (same as above).
>
It seems quite pretentious to pronounce all these authorities' understanding of the Torah and Talmud as being either unproven, nonsense, or flawed. Can there really be no way to make sense of the opinion of this entire group of Torah giants throughout the centuries? This isn't even a zoological dispute. It's how to understand a Gemara and Sifri. Perhaps a more concerted effort should be made.
Now make no mistake- no-one is denying you the right to pose tough challenges and difficulties. No-one is barring you from presenting novel solutions to those difficult problems.
> But to dismiss all these giants because they don't fit into your a priori understanding of what constitutes a proof, is what Rav Meiselman aptly described as not having sufficient humility in approaching Torah sources.
>
> (Parenthetically, a "matter of tone" can easily be understood as bordering Rabbeinu Yona's definition of apikorsus. He states in the Third Sha'ar 155: "The concept of the apikorus is explained by those of blessed memory that it is a man that does not conduct himself in ways of awe and tribute to Talmidei Chachamim; even if he does not degrade them..." And specifically regarding one's choice of words Rabbeinu Yona writes in 62: "And concerning people's words, if they are not cautious in their speech in honoring Talmidei Chachomim, whether in their presence or not, they become apikorsim that have no share in the world to come." These are very grave consequences for what seem by many to be a matter of political correctness. Comparisons to Rishonim who have used much harsher language with eachother is besides the point. In every case it was only used among contemporaries or among Rabbis that can be considered peers with one another. Have you written an acclaimed commentary on "Nashim Nezikin" to be able to "dispense with the formalities"?)
>
> Now on to those a priori assumptions.
>
>
>Part II
> A. the argument of divine origins of the Torah must come from a straightforward reading of Torah she'bichtav, and the shesuah as animal does not fit the criteria.
>
> The Shesuah.
> Natan, you go to great lengths to argue the unlikelihood of the shesuah being an animal referred to by the verse in the Torah.
> A. Onkelos.
> B. numerous English translations.
> C. the cantilation.
> D. the lack of prefix 'es'
> It is clearly not the straightforward reading of this verse. This would apparently support your inference in Rashi 60b of having a different text than Tosfos and will bolster your assertion: That the explicit proof of the Talmud that the Torah is divine, can't sensibly be derived from Torah She baal peh p'shat in the verse via the mention of the Shesuah.
> Tosfos there happens to clearly say it is coming from the mention of Shesuah as you cite.
> This is perplexing only because of your understanding of what a proof from a verse in the Torah should be.
> But despite your inference in Rashi 60a, you can't claim that Rashi also agrees to your general assertion- that the meaning of Shesuah as an animal is not a straightforward understanding of the Torah Shebichtav. Why?
>
> Every time you mention this posuk you omit the fact that Rashi on this posuk in Chumash happens to explainsthe shesuah as in fact referring to an animal.
>Why do you consistently avoid mentioning Rashi's p'shat? It seems fatal to your assertion since Rashi is pshuto shel mikrah and ought to be addressed.
> Here's my understanding of how Rashi sees p'shat of shesuah as an animal in Torah She'bichtav.
>
> Rashi in Chumash quotes the Talmud that deduced a necessary reference to a new animal by simply noticing the redundancy of this whole parsha. This REDUNDANCY is acc. to Rashi-- a form of difficulty in the straightforward understanding of the written Torah.
> The Torah isn't a collection of disconnected statements to be studied on an individual basis. Rashi appreciated that for serious scholars reading a text critically, the whole Torah needs to be coherent as a single unified text. Thus for Rashi, such redundancies require resolution for the sake of p'shat even at the expense of local grammatical anomalies.
> The same can be said for extra words which grammatically may be fine, but for a book purported to be divine, extra words are a glaring problem in p'shat; it MUST convey a hidden meaning. And that hidden meaning will become p'shat.
> The Ramban doesn't have to be 'arguing' with our text of Chulin 59a (page 42-43); this is the simple p'shat of the extra word "hu" in light of it being easily recognized as extra. The Torah as a consistent single divine book demands it. This happens not to be the methodology of Onkelos.He often takes the most simple literal translation regardless of many other considerations. This is just one way of determining p'shat. So what? Tosfos need not be constrained by Onkelos or any other translation. I believe Rashi is sufficiently authoritative.
> And it goes further than grammar- much further.
> I stumbled upon an innocent looking phrase in Bamidbar 18:1:"And Hashem said to Aharon..."
> That sounds like Hashem is telling Aharon something, right?
> Wrong. Says Rashi-- Moshe is being talked to here (to convey a message to Aharon). And Rashi doesn't even have any Torah-Sheba'al -peh on THIS verse to support him at all!
> "This is really surprising" you would say. "Clearly the straightforward meaning of the verse refers to Aharon and not Moshe.
> A.Targum Onkolos translates 'Aharon' as simply Aharon.
> B.The remainder of the verse must be referring to Aharon because it involves first person directives (-'you and your sons and your family line with you') regarding the priesthood. Etc., etc."
>
> Many editions of Rashi on Chumash insert the Sifri as Rashi's source for explaining this verse. This is technically incorrect. Rashi used the Sifri's comment to verse 8 and applied it to verse 1 without any justification other than it being the 'simple straightforward explanation' of verse-1. The commentators of Rashi appeal to overall unification of the Torah as a single flowing text to justify Rashi -even without direct sanction of Torah-she ba'al-peh- in 'translating' Aharon as Moshe conveying to Aharon. Revolutionary! See Gur Aryeh on Rashi and Netziv in Sifri.
>
> This dismantles assertion A. and vindicates Tosfos from the implicit charges of nonsense.
> The upshot of all this is that when it comes to understanding anything in Torah on a deeper level- even what is and isn't considered 'straightforward'- nothing is as it seems by observation.
>
>
>Part III
> Assertion B. One cannot use Torah Shebaal peh to then say the Torah is claiming an exhaustive list- to a skeptic in particular- as proof of its divine origins.
> The Talmud in Shabbos 31a however, can be seen as refuting this assertion. (The logic that I deduced stands on its own merits.)
> It relates how a non-Jew requests to be converted on the condition that he will only be instructed in Torah She'bichtav. Why? He tells Shamai: "In Torah She'bichtav I believe you. Not in Torah She'baal peh."
> Shamai rejects him and Hillel accepts him. The first lesson Hillel gives in Torah Shbch"t is identifying the letters alef, bais, gimmel, and dalet. In the next lesson, Hillel reverses yesterday's teaching. The convert protests and Hillel's response is relevant here: "Can you avoid relying on me to convey to you the content of Torah Shbch't? So then rely on me for the content of Torah She'baal peh as well!"
> In other words, if the skeptic isn't taking anything for granted, why should he distinguish between the two? All that the skeptic is interested in (acc. to R. Akivah in the Sifri) is proving the divine origins of “The Torah"- i.e. Torah based Judaism. Does it matter to him if it's through claims made via the written part or the oral part? And even if it matters to him emotionally, in any event he has to TRUST the Rabbis as to what the ORIGINAL TEXT of the written claims were in reality. WITHOUT RABBINIC TRADITION, THERE IS NO WRITTEN LAW- ONLY SCRIBBLES ON PARCHMENT.
> This is what Hillel is revealing to the convert.
> Bottom line: Even if the claim would be explicit in the written Torah, it won't authenticate the claim for the skeptic. For all the skeptic knows, the ancient Rabbis just cooked up the whole Torah She'bichtav themselves!
> All that counts is that its "Torah Judaism"'s claim. Which body of information this claim happens to be found in is irrelevant for the purposes of proving Torah Judaism's divine origins. Any questions?
> So this dismantles assertion B. which really makes assertion A. obsolete as well.
>
>Part IV
> Now I turn to your last hope to pin your reading of the Talmud on even one Rishon: the inference in Rashi in Chullin 60a.
> Although the inference is valid- its a possible indication that Rashi had the Sifri's text; YOUR explanation of how Rashi understood the proof of the Sifri that the Torah is divine, is patently absurd!
>
> From page 49:
> "It does not seem that the point is an exhaustive list. If so, the Talmud would say "Was Moshe omniscient [that he should know all the animals in the world]?" Hunters and trappers ['kenigi' and 'balistari'] don't know all the animals in the world either! Furthermore, Rashi says that Moshe was expert in 'these animals', not in all animals- he wasn't saying anything about the absence of these characteristics of all other animals in the world."
>
> So far so good.
>
> "Instead, the point seems to be that Moshe, a person with no zoological training, confidently volunteered fairly detailed information about animals. In those days, there were no biology classes or textbooks.
> The argument is, as Rashi says, "How was he expert enough to offer information about 'these animals'?" Where did his knowledge come from? Here, says the Sifri, there is something that cannot be easily accounted for by someone who claims that the Torah is the work of Moshe who was neither a hunter nor a trapper."
>
> You'll excuse me for saying this, but that argument for divine origins is extremely weak, to say the least. Moshe was a Shepard in Midian for goodness sake! He carried sheep on his back! It's explicit in the pesukim; of course he can give detailed information about animals! He was with them day and night fighting off the wild animals of the region as every good Shepard should!
> Anyone involved in the Artscroll editon of Chullin knows that crucial visual aids in animal anatomy are virtually non-existent in Tractate Chulin before this generation.
> Why is that? It's obvious that in all previous centuries, there was first hand access and thorough familiarity with all the halachicly relevant parts of common farm animals. One didn't have to rely on any science textbook to comprehend the Talmud's detailed descriptions of animal anatomy till this generation. Anyone living outside walled ghettoes or urban centers just takes a short stroll to the barn and the butcher and can see everything. Moshe needed a textbook with color photos?!!
> This version of the proof is making a laughingstock of the Sifri.
>
> But what of the inference in Rashi?
> Well, you can't have Rashi both ways. Let me explain.
> You can't devote pages and pages showing the Shafan and Arneves to be local animals commonly eaten in the Middle East (possibly by Moshe himself before Sinai) and NOT some rare species that was long extinct, and then turn around to say Moshe's knowledge of them was 'not easily explained' because he didn't have a science book.
> Your diyyuk is great but it has to make sense as well. The only way to make sense of this diyyuk is to say 'those animals' are very rare indeed and objectively difficult to identify.
> Now that's just my logic, but here's the evidence:
>
> You correctly translate 'kenigi' as referring to trappers or hunters and then incorrectly argue that even they can't be familiar with every animal in the world. The Talmud should have boasted of Moshe's omniscience instead of making a reference to hunters.
> This is how it would seem until you find another context where Chazal use the term 'kenigi'.
> Make a comparison with the identical phrase in Bereshis Rabba 32:8. (courtesy of Jastrow on 'kenigi') It refers to Noach's protest to being given the task to recognize RARE types of animals of the world. Probably even all of them. If they were local animals, he wouldn't have complained. This is the connotation of the word 'kenigi': Familiarity with RARE (if not all) animals.
>
> To summarize: If Moshe's knowledge of the anatomy of the COMMONLY eaten animals living in his OWN region (as you yourself illustrate convincingly) is THE proof of the Talmud to attack the theory of human authorship by Moshe, then this is by far more flawed than any proof via exhaustive list. How can you think to attribute this feeblest of proofs to the greatest sage of centuries - Rashi?
> I can't comprehend how all the distinguished reviewers accepted this proof as even remotely plausible. It defies my understanding.
> Rashi is much better off logically and textually being understood as granting Moshe the awareness of very rare animals of the world (or making the Torah's list exhaustive).
>
> Thus every Rashi fits squarely with all other Rishonim and Achronim in understanding the Torah, Talmud or Sifri as claiming an exhaustive or rare list.
>
> Now according to your problem of current zoological research, every single authoritative explanation of the Torah, the Talmud or Sifri "is flawed".
> This is what I believe Rav Meiselman referred to as playing brinkmanship
> with ‘Makchish Magidecha'.
> It has nothing to do with citing the Rambam in claiming that Chazal were mistaken in scientific matters- as your website understands it. It has to do with coming to decisive conclusions about very delicate concepts of Torah with total disregard of any Rabbinic authority that you personally don't comprehend.
>
>
>
> Part V
>
> In conclusion.
> This whole unfortunate episode reminds me of the tragic ending of Choni Hame'agel in Taanis 23a: He is troubled all his days over the first verse in Shir Hama'alos 126. It describes prophetically the return of the Jews from the seventy-year Babylonian exile as regarding themselves "as dreamers". Choni is perplexed all of his days at the feat of such extended somnolence. He sits down in a field to eat lunch, drifts off…and presto! He wakes up seventy years later. After reconfirming the evidence that he has actually been asleep two generations straight, he tries to re-enter society and finds himself misunderstood by all around him. Overcome with feelings of total isolation, he prays for and is granted a final end to his troubles. O chavrusah, o misusah.
> I derive a few important principles from this incident regarding your books and your career, Natan. Please don't take this cynically.
> (I'm aware the Ben Yehoyada cites an opinion that it was all a bad dream; the following, then, is just the message of that dream accordingly.)
> A. On the simplest of levels, Choni was bothered by a practical impossibility of sleeping for 70 years without eating. An empirical problem: the human physiology isn't designed to survive so long without nourishment.
> B. He was able to maintain the presence of such a problem in his mind to be bothered by it his ENTIRE LIFE, without resorting to an obviously valid metaphorical understanding. (Especially with the tempting prefix "AS dreamers")
> C. Hakadosh Baruch Hu in His infinite kindness enabled him to experience the resolution to the problem first hand; which turned out to actually be a literal interpretation contrary to scientific law (undesirable violation of the natural for 70 years straight not withstanding).
> D. (This I'll admit is derived from the tragic conclusion 'bi'derech drush') Sometimes it is in our own best interests to remain with an empirical problem and not agitate to get it resolved (in print) at any cost.
> I await your thoughtful response
