Posts
As I stated earlier, I started this blog because I wanted to show that there was significant substance to what seemed to be a very broad sweeping over-generalized attack by Rav Meiselman on Slifkin's attitude and approach to Chazal and Torah scholarship. It was admittedly, half a critique-- the Rosh Yeshiva's overall message was primarily hashkafic and he was not interested in going through a tedious line-by-line, point- by- point analysis of the books in his lectures to his talmidim. Nor did he allow to have these shiurim publicized as his official position on the conflicts between Torah and science. It was to eliminate the growing confusion among his talmidim as to the Rosh Yeshivah's personal views on the matter. But because it was sorely incomplete, it left the impression on many as being a "soft" critique with little hard evidence to back it up. Rav Meiselman made small bursts of citations of "The Camel the Hare & the Hyrax" with long stretches of moral criticism and anecdotes in between.
Slifkin's letter to Rav Meiselman below is not representative of four full length lectures that revolved around the broader Haskafic issues. Slifkin's basic rebuttal amounts to this: "show me where all this Hashkafic criticism is justified. I don't see it at all." This apparent lack of justification spurred me to "fill-in" that missing line- by- line point- by- point analysis in my critique of "The Camel, the Hare and the Hyrax" posted on this blog here. (You won't find that critique on Slifkin's website, among other things)
I will take this opportunity to review some points from that critique that have direct bearing on this letter.
“The Torah was given to a group of people who were living in area of the world where you had camels all the time. So that the Torah would be given for 3500 years and people would be saying something about a camel that doesn’t happen to be true about a camel, obviously any normal intelligent person would decide that there’s something wrong. So this gentleman here says; so we’ll understand where he’s coming from and
where his mistake is - the reason why I want [to say this] is that I don’t want everyone screaming that [the Gedolim] are just a bunch of wild maniacs; so he says, No, a camel– its not true. It says uparsah ainenu mafris, it doesn’t have a split hoof. But he says it does. So then we’ve got a problem.” (19 Shevat)
(4) I cannot imagine where the Rosh Yeshivah thought that I wrote that the Torah was incorrect in writing that the camel lacks a split hoof. I specifically explained how the Torah’s disqualification for the camel’s foot can be understood in two ways (based on Rashi and Rashbam), both of which are zoologically accurate.
4) Frankly, I can't imagine where he saw this in the final version of the Camel Hare and Hyrax either. But that may not be relevant.
Slifkin himself mentions in many points below regarding the va'ad delivered by the Rosh Yeshiva on 19 of Shevat that he refers to an earlier manuscript that was distributed to a limited readership but wasn't intended for the wider public out of concern that it would publicly embarrass certain kiruv organizations.
Why can Slifkin not imagine a similar explanation here? And why do all other quotes from this date include the word "Va'ad" except for this one?
Would Slifkin appreciate it if I posted that manuscript on the world wide web too when I confirm this explanation- ostensibly in defense of the Rosh Yeshivah? I think not.
“It says the shafan… it says that it is a maaleh gerah… then he says, it’s not true.”
(Va’ad of 19 Shevat)
(5) I wrote that according to zoological definitions of rumination, the hyrax does not ruminate. I then discussed how other aspects of hyrax anatomy or behavior can nevertheless be described as maaleh gerah. My approach in raising this question and suggesting these answers is identical to that of Torah Sheleimah, Sichas Chullin, and others who have studied this topic. I certainly did not write that the Torah’s statement is not true, chas ve’shalom!
5) Slifkin's approach in raising the question and suggesting these answers is certainly NOT identical with these now classic commentaries. I cannot believe any commentary would have said the following: (from page 112-114)
"Some, however go much further with the idea of the broad acceptance of the Torah showing that the description of the shafan is not baseless. They argue that the ancients were very familiar with the animals concerned hence, they would not have accepted the Torah's statement that the shafan brings up its cud unless such is actually the case. They claim that the Torah could not have been accepted with a blatant mistake. Thus, since the Torah was accepted, and the hyrax does not chew its cud, then the shafan cannot be the hyrax.
Aside from the arguments that we have presented as to why it is difficult to accept that the shafan (and arneves) are unknown or extinct animals, this argument is entirely baseless for one who does not a priori accept the divine authorship of the Torah. There was no systemized study of zoology in earlier times, and there was no Encyclopedia Britannica or National Geographic. Consequently, there were innumerable prevalent misconceptions about the animal kingdom, even concerning animals with which people were familiar... The disbeliever will quite reasonably state that people might well have mistakenly assumed that the hyrax brings up the cud, since it chews like a ruminant.
The correct application of the point that the Torah's description cannot be entirely groundless is that there must be something about this animal which could lead someone to think that it brings up its cud, and then to explore whether these features might actually genuinely earn the appellation of ma'aleh gerah, which perhaps not intended to mean that the hyrax actually brings up the cud.
Before looking at specific aspects of the hyrax let us first deal with a more basic question. How legitimate is it to explain that ma'aleh gerah is to be translated loosely to refer to anatomical features or jaw movements? It has to be noted that this is not merely a "loose" translation, but rather one that is totally different from the literal translation. Can Orthodox Jews do this with the words of the Torah? And can it be defended as a reasonable interpretation to those who do not accept the Divine authorship of the Torah?
The answer is yes. Although there is a principle in the Talmud of ain mikra yotze midei peshuto, "a verse does not depart from its literal meaning," this is not a blanket principle. Scripture is full of euphemisms, metaphors, and idioms…
This is a fundamental flaw in the approach of the entire book: that the Torah's terms and definitions need to be understood and confirmed by the secular perspective of one who does not a priori accept the divine authorship of the Torah.
To reject the identity of the shafan mentioned in the Torah as something that unequivocally brings up its cud and to then reinterpret words in the Torah on such grounds is clearly a unique approach of Slifkin in this book, and can easily lead to raising doubts about the truth of the Torah's statements. This observation will be relevant to many points to follow.
“Then the chazir, it has a split hoof and doesn’t chew its cud. So that, he says at least the Torah got one out of four (laughter in background)…. At least the Torah got 25% right. That’s the basic thesis of this book.”
(Va’ad of 19 Shevat)
(6) In this shiur, the Rosh Yeshivah states that he is quoting from my manuscript of six years ago, rather than the final book. This early manuscript was not intended for publication, and was aimed solely at outreach workers who use this topic to prove the divinity of Torah. The final book was vastly different from the earlier draft. The basic thesis of the book is not to say that the Torah was only 25% right. It is to show how all these pesukim, despite being seen by many critics as reasons to doubt or deny the Torah, can nevertheless be resolved (although they cannot be used as proof of the Torah’s divinity). I exert great effort to show how this is the case. This is a book that seeks to prove that the Torah is entirely right. I cannot understand how the Rosh
Yeshivah can characterize it as a book that seeks to show how the Torah is mostly wrong.
6) This characterization may be entirely accurate- since according to the vast majority of (or as I argue, all) rishonim and achronim on the topic, the Torah and the Talmud are providing an exhaustive list of single -siman animals. His conclusions in the book resulted in the Torah and Talmud (as universally understood by all authoritative sources) being proven wrong. Slifkin argues that there is no exclusive list of animals that are ma'aleh gerah based on his identification of the shafan as the hyrax. In the Rosh Yeshiva's view, this is tantamount to saying the Torah is wrong.
(7) The Rosh Yeshivah states that “this gentleman bases his position (that Chazal could have been mistaken in science) on Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam,” but that “as a matter of fact, anyone who has done more learning,” will know that it is also in the Teshuvos HaGeonim. Yet I myself also quoted the Teshuvus HaGeonim in both Mysterious Creatures and The Camel, The Hare And The Hyrax. Surely the Rosh Yeshivah will therefore agree that this gratuitous insult concerning the extent of my studies was misplaced.
I agree. It does indeed sound gratuitous.
(8) In the va’ad of 19th Shevat, the Rosh Yeshivah criticizes my discussion of the terms mafris parsah and maaleh gerah based on the etymological explanations of the meforshim, because these are not relevant to the halachic definitions (which are based on Torah sheBaal Peh). But this was only in the early draft that was submitted to the Rosh Yeshivah for his comments, and which I subsequently corrected in the final edition!
Surely, now that the Rosh Yeshivah knows that I corrected this in the final edition, he will admit that it was unfair to publicly criticize me for it.
8) Apparently Slifkin did not correct it to a satisfactory degree. Slifkin did persist in his final edition of the book to cite extensively from the Rashbam, Radak, and Ibn Ezra on Chumash regarding definitions of items relevant to halacha with a partial disclaimer that these "Biblical commentators do not necessarily bear relevance to the halachic interpretations." So the general point was accurate and not at all unfair.
(9) We now come to the primary focus of the Rosh Yeshivah’s shiur, the topic of the shesuah. The Rosh Yeshivah introduces this section with saying that this will explain “more than anything else, what the problem with this guy is.” The Rosh Yeshivah, in quoting my reasons as to why shesuah seems to mean “split,” as Targum Onkelos translates it, rather than referring to a type of animal, as the Gemara states, interjects the list by pointing out that I am giving “all the reasons why Chazal were wrong.”
“...But I’m not – I’m not saying it, I’m not posting it. …”
This, which the Rosh Yeshivah explains at length to be the primary example of why I am a kofer, and to be a reason why I am an azzus panim, is based on a complete misunderstanding of what I wrote. I never for a moment would dream of saying that Chazal learned peshat wrong in this passuk. (If that is what I had thought, and that there is therefore no such thing as a shesuah, I would not have dedicated the end of chapter eleven to exploring the identity of the shesuah.) All I was saying is that it is not the simple peshat in the Torah – rather, it is Torah sheBaal Peh-based peshat. The Rosh Yeshivah himself later notes that Onkelos, who explains shesuah as meaning “fully split,” is giving peshat in the passuk divorced from Torah sheBaal Peh, whereas Rashi, quoting the Gemara, is giving peshat based on Torah SheBaal Peh. Since Rashi, in explaining the word shesuah, is basing himself on the Gemara, I think it is therefore difficult to use this to prove the divinity of Torah to someone who does not yet accept the authority of Torah sheBaal Peh (and which is why Rashi in Chullin does not explain the Gemara’s proof to be based on the shesuah). It seems that I am far from alone in
understanding that Rashi is giving Torah sheBaal Peh-based peshat rather than pashut peshat, since every English translation of the Chumash that I have seen – ArtScroll, Rav Hirsch, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, and so on – all translate shesuah as “completely split” rather than as a type of animal. They were surely not saying that Chazal were wrong, or that Chazal didn’t know how to learn peshat in a passuk, and neither was I.
There are a number of points to be made here.
The most obvious one is, what justification does Slifkin have to post the words I omitted that were prefaced with the clear statement: "I'm not saying it, I'm not posting it" on his web-site?
According to the Sefer Chafetz Chaim Hilchos Lashon Hara Klal 2 halacha 5-8 and sif koton 15-16, when a person says derogatory things about another EVEN IN PUBLIC, it does not give the listeners the license to repeat the statements when the speaker insists that the matter not be publicized. The Rosh Yeshiva additionally told people after the lectures not to distribute the tapes beyond the talmidim's peer group.
Did any Posek approve of Slifkin posting those words on the internet? After all, the only way that the average person knows about these lectures in the first place was due to Slifkin's own publicity campaign! Isn't it incumbent upon Slifkin to defend himself from the accusations of Rav Meiselman without violating the precept of 'holech rachil megaleh sod?"
Secondly, The fact of the matter is that Tosfos in Chullin 60 and in Niddah 24 state explicitly that there is a proof of the divine knowledge of Moshe Rabbeinu from the mention of the Shesuah. Another fact is that Rashi on Chumash clearly understands that the straightforward pshat in the posuk is in fact according the to Torah Shebaal Peh understanding-- that the Shesuah is an animal. (I wrote extensively to explain Rashi in the critique itself and subsequent discussions.) Tosfos therefore seems to build this proof on Rashi's understanding of the peshat in Chumash. But you assert:
"Since Rashi, in explaining the word shesuah, is basing himself on the Gemara, I think it is therefore difficult to use this to prove the divinity of Torah to someone who does not yet accept the authority of Torah sheBaal Peh."
This argument falls prey to the same fatal flaw of perspective when approaching Torah that I referred to above.
Slifkin has no sources to back this assertion. Rashi simply may have had only a variant text; he does not write the words "garsinan" as he typically does when choosing between to open possibilities.
And the Netziv in his commentary to the Sifri rejected Tosfos' proof in light of the technical difficulties that Tosfos himself raised based on the opinions of Rav and Shmuel in Niddah.
He does not mention any logical problem with Tosfos based on Slifkin's extraneous issue with having to convince a contemporary skeptic.
And the Netziv on Chumash is simply going with Onkelos and therefore not using Rashi's overall criteria for peshat in explaining Torah verses in general. Again nothing to do with any flaw in the logic that Tosfos claims is the proof of Chazal.
So Slifkin is indeed quite alone in asserting that there is some logical flaw with this proof of Chazal.
This dismissal of the proof, based on Slifkin's own logic which he self-describes as "numerous and powerful arguments," is apparently what the Rosh Yeshiva has characterized as making Slifkin a kofer and an azzus panim.
