Posts
I believe I've already adequately supplied ample justification of the main powerful hashkafic criticisms of Slifkin by Rav Meiselman in my two detailed critiques and dozens of posts and comments. I did not yet assume responsibility to exonerate every 'sif katan' of Rav Meiselman's attacks. Those attacks are the sole responsibility of its author. But because I was asked for my response, here's my attempt.
I will admit at the outset that I have a personal stake at vindicating my own Rosh Yeshivah's criticisms mentioned below. But I will also point out that Slifkin has a much bigger personal stake in dismissing the damning charges of kefirah and protecting his reputation and livelihood. My defense of the criticisms should be taken every bit as seriously as Slifkin's deflections from them.
The objective reader should take both sets of personal bias into account.
1
Rabbi Nosson Slifkin 37/1 Nachal Dolev Ramat Bet Shemesh 99630, Israel
Tel: (02) 992-0678 Cell: 054-599-5058 E-mail: zoorabbi@zootorah.com
June 4th 2005
Dear Rabbi Meiselman, shlita,
Shalom u’vracha, I hope that the Rosh Yeshivah is well.
I am writing to the Rosh Yeshivah concerning the shiurim that the Rosh Yeshivah delivered concerning me and my books. Recently I obtained a recording of these shiurim and I was stunned to hear the Rosh Yeshivah report information both about myself and my books that was factually incorrect and extremely defamatory.
Regardless of the hashkafic dispute, I am sure that the Rosh Yeshivah would want to correct false harmful information that was spoken about me. I shall quote the relevant extracts from the shiurim and explain why each of them is an inaccurate reflection of my position. (Some are quoted from the series of three shiurim delivered to the entire yeshivah, and some are highlighted as quoted from the va’ad given on the 19th of Shevat. I must point out that in the latter va’ad, the Rosh Yeshivah was working solely from the manuscript of years ago, and the final book is about 90% different.)
[These extracts are the ones that Slifkin feels are relevant. Relevant to what? As we will show, relevant to presenting the attacks in the worst possible light and himself in the best light. This is quite understandable, and if anybody else were in Slifkin's shoes, they'd probably do the exact same thing.
So these extracts are not at all a random sampling of the topics covered by four full length lectures by any stretch of the imagination. Slifkin justifies this large omission with the following:]
I will not spend time discussing the Rosh Yeshivah’s disputes with my views concerning the age of the universe, although obviously I must respectfully dispute the Rosh Yeshivah’s views. For example, it seems to me that there is factual basis for asserting that the laws of nature have, at least for the most part, functioned in the same way for billions of years, and it is not merely a (false) assumption of scientists, as the Rosh Yeshivah states. I also disagree that it is “absurd” and only “semi-intelligent” to believe that the scientific view concerning the development of the universe conflicts with a simple reading of the Chumash, as the Rosh Yeshivah states. But these are all substantial ideological disputes which are probably futile to debate.
[This is a major theological issue that comprised of a full 3rd of the lectures and Slifkin doesn't want to debate it at length? Maybe it's because he could not as easily portray himself as an victim of vicious attacks if he would.
I deal with this issue and vindicate the charges with the very sources that Slifkin used for his book, namely, Rambam and R' Hirsch. I suggest people read that critique to get a fuller picture of the charges of "absurdity" and "semi-intelligence" against Slifkin.]
There are other issues with which I disagree with the Rosh Yeshivah’s judgment of my personality, such as regarding the Rosh Yeshivah’s public description of me as an “incompetent nincompoop,” but this is likewise probably a waste of time to argue about.
[ Although I would never call Slifkin an "incompetent nincompoop" let's see if it can be justified . I believe Slifkin has vindicated this description with his understanding of Rashi's version of the proof of the divine origins of the Torah.
Please see my critique regarding this point. Slifkin stated that Moshe Rabeinu's ability to provide fairly detailed descriptions of common animals found and eaten in his region is not easily explained without having science text book available. Therefore the Sifri (according to Rashi, no less) says that Moshe's knowledge of their anatomy must have been supernatural information. (I'm still at a loss to comprehend how such a thing got published.)
Severe incompetence was also shown in employing an exceedingly weak "boich sevara" typical of the skeptic's perspective of Torah Shebichtav, regarding where proofs of divine origins ought to come from. Based on this flawed skeptic's perspective, Slifkin proceeded to plot out an entire book's thesis on that basis. If after five minutes of reflection, I could come up with a simple logical defense of the Malbim and Netziv, using a gemara that every kiruv worker should be familiar with as proof, then the whole thrust of the book seems very incompetent indeed.
( Though one has to wonder what was going through Slifkin's mind as he transcribed those insulting words and disseminated them to tens of thousands -far beyond the natural reach of the actual tapes. Did he think the publicity necessary for gaining such deep sympathy was worth the self-inflicted global humiliation? Probably.)]
In this letter, I will only discuss the primary focus of the Rosh Yeshivah’s shiurim, which is to attack my book The Camel, The Hare And The Hyrax. 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.
(1) The Rosh Yeshivah begins his discussion of my books by talking about my meeting with the Rosh Yeshivah, and introduces this in turn by making a claim about my personal life twelve years ago:
“A certain young man, from Manchester, England, who, when he came to see me a year ago, two years ago, whenever it was – it wasn’t a major event in my life so I don’t recall exactly what happened – I was not aware that my mechutan in Manchester had thrown him out of the yeshivah for inappropriate behavior before he subsequently went to a different yeshivah in this country…”
It shocked me beyond words to hear the Rosh Yeshivah claim that his mechutan, Rav Gavriel Knopfler shlita, had thrown me of Shaarei Torah in Manchester for inappropriate behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was just the opposite – I left against their wishes. As an extremely shy 17 year-old in Shaarei Torah,I was a model of perfect behavior, never missing davenning, seder or stepping out of line in any way.
[Edit: Deleted by author pending further investigation of the story and its sources.]
When I told the hanhalah that I wanted to move to Eretz Yisrael (since my family had just moved there), they placed enormous pressure upon me to persuade me to stay. It was only after my parents intervened that I met with Rav Gavriel Knopfler shlita (my first and only meeting with him) and he agreed not to pressure me to stay, although he still tried to persuade me that none of the options I was considering in Eretz Yisrael were suitable.
On Friday, I called Rav Gavriel shlita to tell him that people were claiming that I had been thrown out of the yeshivah. He said that I was catching him completely by surprise and that he could not begin to imagine where such a “ta’us muchletes” could have come from. When I told him that Rav Meiselman had stated it in a shiur, he said as far as he recalls he had never even discussed me at all with the Rosh Yeshivah, and he did not know who could have told the Rosh Yeshivah such a thing. He said that he will contact the Rosh Yeshivah to explain that this is an utterly false account. I hope that he has done so.
[Edit: Deleted by author pending further investigation of the story and its sources.]
Since the Rosh Yeshivah stated this false claim about my being thrown out of yeshivah, it has spread far and wide. Even people who don’t fully believe it think that there must be some truth to it, which is absolutely not the case. I must request that the Rosh Yeshivah take the necessary steps to rectify this terrible slander of me.
[Deleted by author pending further investigation of the story and its sources.
But the following sentences are still 100% accurate.
If Slifkin is capable of keeping Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky's approbation prominently posted on his website as if nothing happened, while carefully posting only the condemnations for which he has responses, then Slifkin is capable of intentionally publicizing any technically true but misleading statement to garner support.
If Slifkin can write and say to the press about his new book that most of the banners would not object to it at all, as long as it wasn't marketed to a Yeshivah audience, then he can say virtually anything to promote his false legitimacy. This is par for the course.]
(2) The Rosh Yeshivah then discusses our meeting of several years ago (which occurred when someone showed my manuscript to the Rosh Yeshivah, and the Rosh Yeshivah expressed interest in discussing it with me) and my subsequent mention of the Rosh Yeshivah’s name in the book:
3
“Somehow the author had even quoted me as a partial haskomoh for the book which sort of pushed me into a more awkward situation. I assume that its part of the general stupidity of the book rather than outright sheker.” (Va’ad of 19 Shevat)
“(he wrote) ke’ilu that there’s a point here that I didn’t agree with, a point here that I didn’t agree with - it’s not that not everyone agreed with everything. I agreed with nothing.”
I do not remember our meeting well, although I do know that it must have been six years ago, not “one or two years ago” as the Rosh Yeshivah stated. The Rosh Yeshivah himself explicitly states in the shiur that it wasn’t a major event in his life so he does not recall exactly what happened. I myself only remember two items from that meeting. One, the Rosh Yeshivah emphatically stressing that etymological explanations of pesukim given by the meforshim on Chumash do not necessarily relate to halachic definitions. I accepted this point and subsequently incorporated it into my book (it is on page 27). The second item I recall is the Rosh Yeshivah stressing that Chazal could not have believed in spontaneous generation and that Rashi’s interpretation of the Gemara is not correct, and shouting at me that I would have to ask mechilah from the Tannaim on Yom Kippur for having stated that they believed in spontaneous generation.
[I can't really make out the exact nature of this exchange, but neither this one nor the previous one sounds like there was any agreement whatsoever between the Rosh Yeshivah and Slifkin. See below.]
When it came to publishing my very different final version of the manuscript, five years later, I wanted to mention in the acknowledgements all those who had contributed to the book. I recalled that the Rosh Yeshivah had made a valuable point that I had incorporated, and I presumed that there was also other input that I had included in the various re-writes. But I also recalled that the Rosh Yeshivah objected to certain parts of the book. I certainly did not recall that the Rosh Yeshivah had objected to every part of it, nor that the Rosh Yeshivah had gone through the entire book, “step by step by step by step” as the Rosh Yeshivah states, showing what was wrong with every part of it. Again, I would like to respectfully point out that the Rosh Yeshivah also admits that he does not remember the meeting well. Therefore I thought that the appropriate thing to do would be to mention the Rosh Yeshivah’s name, but also to note that I am not claiming that every person listed endorses everything in this work.
[But in the only two instances that Slifkin managed to recall above, both were completely critical of his approach! So again, it's not merely that not everyone listed in the acknowledgments endorsed everything. The Rosh Yeshivah endorsed NOTHING. Thus his inclusion with people who probably endorsed part (without his consent ) creates a false implication and is quite misleading.]
In addition I specifically mentioned that the people in the list had variously reviewed different versions of the manuscript (i.e. so as not to give anyone aside from the maskimim any responsibility for the final version).
I am truly sorry if the Rosh Yeshivah was put into an awkward position as a result, which apparently caused the Rosh Yeshivah to address the issue publicly, but I can promise that I was simply presenting things as honestly as I recalled them. I had no recollection of the Rosh Yeshivah disagreeing with everything, and I knew that I had included at least one significant point that was contributed by the Rosh Yeshivah. I will gladly clarify matters both on my website and in future editions of the book.
4
“The use of my name by him is just another example of the absolute intellectual dishonesty that this individual has.”
(3) The Rosh Yeshivah does not detail other examples of my “absolute intellectual dishonesty” for which the aforementioned item was “just another example.” This is, of course, an extremely sweeping and damning description of me. The Rosh Yeshivah does not know me at all well, and I would like to state for the record that while everyone has strengths and weaknesses, most people consider that intellectual honesty is one of my strengths. In fact, this is specifically something that was highlighted by the rabbonim who wrote haskamos for my books. Even the Rosh Yeshivah’s chaver Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb, who subsequently deferred to the Rosh Yeshivah’s opposition to the book, initially complimented me on the honesty that he perceived in it.
[In addition to the two examples of Slifkin's dishonest propaganda methods mentioned above, I believe I vindicated this charge in my critiques by pointing out
1) Slifkin's careful omission of Rashi of Chumash explaining the Shesuah as an animal as pshat of Torah Shebichtav while he spared no effort to cite every other conceivable commentary.
2) Slifkin's citing the Rambam as support for allegorizing Bereishis: Although the Rambam considers it theoretically feasible from a literary point of view (no worse than anthropomorphism), he explicitly an definitively rejected it on the grounds that it would undermine the principle of faith (second to the unity of God) of creation ex-nihilo. Elsewhere in the Moreh he takes many verses in the creation story at face value.
3) Carefully omitting R' Hirsch's explicit mention of extrapolation as a basis for dismissing even advanced scientific evidence for old earth.
4) Citing the very same passage of Rav Hirsch in to two opposite ends of a book to support two completely different ideas that have no conceptual overlap.]
To be continued...
