The Nature of The Rakia—The Complete Series

Dear Readers,

Recently I attempted to find a passage from my series, “The Nature of The Rakia,” and realized that it could only  be done with considerable difficulty. I am therefore providing a link to a PDF document containing  the complete series,and also separate links to each of the posts right here. I hope you will find this useful:

Prefatory Remarks (Important!)—Please read this to gain the context of the entire series.

Part One--A Mistaken Job

Part Two--A Mirror's Strength

Part Three--Accusations of Primitive Ideas

Part Four--How Hard Is The Sky?

Part Five--The Rakia and The BiasSphere

Part Six--Mistranslation, Again: "Chazak" Means "Strong," Not "Hard"

Part Seven--Chazal Did Not [at] All Think The Celestial Rakia is Opaque

Part Eight--A Superior Understanding of Pesachim 94b?

Related Posts by Zvi Lampel:

How The Days of Creation Were Understood by Our Sages (Original Version. A redone version is in the works.)

http://slifkin-opinions.blogspot.com/2010/11/we-community-following-moshe-rabbeynu.html

http://slifkin-opinions.blogspot.com/2011/01/not-so-solid-proof-about-spheres.html

http://slifkin-opinions.blogspot.com/2011/01/backtracking.html

http://slifkin-opinions.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-rationalist-understands-firmament.html

  —Zvi Lampel

Shafran versus Slifkin – Slifkin Responds

In our previous post, we discussed Rabbi Slifkin’s letter to Ami magazine and explained why his issues with Rabbi Shafran’s article were irrelevant. As it happens Rabbi Shafran also addresses Rabbi Slifkin’s letter to which Rabbi Slifkin then counters with a seven point response. It is these points that we would like to discuss here but before doing so we would like to quote the following statement from our previous post.

The purpose of Rabbi Shafran’s article was to criticize blogs that are dedicated to the disparagement of gedoley yisrael and the undermining of their authority, hence the comparison to Korach. The article was a one-pager in total, containing less than 700 words, and was written with a specific goal in mind; presumably to warn people of the dangers of such blogs.

If the preceding statement is kept in mind, Rabbi Slifkin’s seven point response is entirely irrelevant, at best. Before we proceed with our analysis, the following quote from Rabbi Slifkin’s post I Was Wrong is highly edifying. 

I would also like to stress that I most certainly agree that there is plenty to criticize about the blogosphere. There are blogs that are way too quick on the draw to judge unfavorably. There are blogs that level accusations without basis. There is also a tendency towards negativity which, even if it serves a useful purpose, is unhealthy… there is an inbuilt problem with the very nature of blogging, in terms of the rapid pace, and the loss of responsibility and respectability that accompanies anonymity. My dispute with Rabbi Shafran should certain not be read to mean that I think that there is nothing to criticize about the blogosphere. 

Beautiful! So Rabbi Slifkin agrees with Rabbi Shafran that there are things to criticize about the blogsphere. That’s precisely what Rabbi Shafran was doing in his article; providing criticism. The quote from Rabbi Slifkin above is similar to the statement we provided about the nature of Rabbi Shafran’s article. Seemingly there should be no issue here. But for some reason Rabbi Slifkin is still unhappy. Here are his points, with our comments interspersed after each one. 

1. "Whether or not the Jewish world would have been any slower to understand the scope and tragedy of abuse had the subject been raised, and the need to confront it promoted, in a responsible, honorable way is a question whose answer neither the letter writer nor I can possibly know." Surely he can't be serious. But even if he is, and even if he were to be correct, it's irrelevant. The point is that it's due to blogs that the issue was taken seriously, and appreciation should therefore be shown. 

Rabbi Shafran is making a side point. He's making the very reasonable assertion that the blogs that revealed the abuse issue did not have to do so in a fashion that was denigrating to the gedoley yisrael. He understands that any revelation of abuse, even one done in a malicious fashion, has its benefits. In fact, this is precisely what he states in the very next sentence! “One is, however, required to acknowledge good things and what brought them about, even if those vehicles are unworthy in other ways.” The word “however” is a qualifier. Ergo, Rabbi Slifkin is clearly quoting Rabbi Shafran out of context. 

2. "One is, however, required to acknowledge good things and what brought them about, even if those vehicles are unworthy in other ways... I think I can say with surety that Rabbi Zwiebel's comments were in that vein..." Exactly. So if Rabbi Zwiebel could do that in a few short paragraphs, why couldn't Rabbi Shafran do that even once in a full-length article on the topic? Even in this response, there is zero hakaras hatov! That was the main point of my letter. 

Full length article? The whole thing was one page, barely enough to develop an idea, any idea, properly. The message of the article was the dangers associated with reading blogs that denigrate gedoley yisrael. Why in heaven’s name would Rabbi Shafran choose this article to express hakaras hatov to blogs that revealed abuse? The very notion is absurd! Besides, who says they deserve hakaras hatov? They could have revealed the issue of abuse in a far more responsible and honorable manner. Rabbi Shafran is very careful with his words. We are required to “acknowledge good things”, that’s it. The hakaras hatov goes to Hashem, not to people whose primary purpose with such revelations is the undermining of Torah authority. 

3. "As to that place, I clearly wrote that I was not referring to all blogs but to those who, in their crassness, cynicism, negativity, and disdain for talmidei chachamim and gedolim, emulate Korach." Wrong. As Rabbi Kahn pointed out in his letter (which was unfortunately not printed), "While he accepts that there are some responsible bloggers, the examples he enumerates (those "who seek to share community news or ideas... [or] explore concepts in Jewish thought and law... [or] focus on Jewish history and society") demonstrate by omission that those who attempt to expose anything negative in Chareidi society are comparable to the villains in Parashat Korach." Rabbi Shafran, is it possible for a blog to point out genuine problems with Charedi society and its leadership, without you accusing it of emulating Korach? 

Wrong? What exactly is wrong about Rabbi Shafran’s response? Anyone reading the article can see that he is discussing blogs that evince patent disdain for Torah leaders. That’s what the article says. Rabbi Kahn’s remark is silly. How can “omission” be a stronger demonstration than the actual words of the article themselves?

As far as the omission, it may very well be that Rabbi Shafran has reservations about unregulated blogs writing critically regarding any branch of Orthodox Judaism, charedi or otherwise. But that doesn’t mean that he thinks that all blogs that write about charedi Judaism are “korach blogs”. Like Rabbi Slifkin himself admits, blogs are way too quick to judge unfavorably and generally tend towards negativity. If a public figure associated with the Agudah chooses to support the validity of certain blogs, he obviously must be very careful with his examples.  

4. "As to my neologism, the suffix "stan" has been used creatively by many to recall the lawlessness, malice, and violence in certain countries whose names end in that syllable. As such, it is most properly adapted for reference to the world of pernicious blogs." I think that Rabbi Shafran is correct in that the suffix does not necessarily mean what I thought it meant, and he is entitled to use it with this connotation. However, let us examine whether, with this connotation, it is indeed appropriate for him, of all people, to use it in reference to the blogosphere. "Lawlessness, malice, and violence"? With regard to lawlessness, the critique of the blogosphere towards the charedi system of authority and society is exactly that! Abuse is handled illegally and inappropriately (if at all) rather than through the legal system. Rabbinic pronouncements are arranged via all sorts of shady (sometimes criminal) askanim and with complete lack of protocol rather than via any halachic and professional procedures. And he is accusing the blogosphere of lawlessness?! With regard to violence, I assume that he means verbal violence (as far as I know, the only physical violence relating to charedi rabbinic authority is on the part of charedim, in Ramat Bet Shemesh, New Square, Ponovezh, and last week in the offices of Yated Ne'eman in Bnei Brak). Now, there's certainly plenty of unfortunate verbal violence in the blogosphere. However, I think that it is evenly matched by the verbal violence issued by the Gedolim and those who act in their name, whether in letters, speeches, or books calling for the execution of rationalists. I would further add that such verbal violence is much worse when issued by people in positions of authority rather than when issued by some random blogger. And with regard to malice - the malice in Rabbi Shafran's own article certainly matches anything coming from the blogosphere. 

This response requires no comment. Rabbi Slifkin admits that his original criticism of the term “stan” was unwarranted. The rest of Rabbi Slifkin’s remarks are entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand and amount to nothing more than a cheap shot at Rabbi Shafran.  

5. "It is telling that now, with the issue of abuse squarely in the focus of the Jewish world (indeed, of the larger world as well, on front pages and in lead newscast stories), the inhabitants of Blogistan continue..." Surely Rabbi Shafran is joking. Does he really expect people to accept that now, all of a sudden, the Gedolim are adequately taking care of matters? Agudah still insists that people with suspicions of abuse must not go to the authorities without asking a rabbi! The Gedolim still have not apologized for decades of covering things up! There are still "Gedolim" who are publicly known to have enabled abusers for decades that continue to receive honor! 

Now Rabbi Slifkin is taking cheap shots at gedoley Torah! This is precisely what Rabbi Shafran was talking about. But all this is irrelevant. Now that the abuse issue is out in the open, people have no choice but to deal with it! Whether the gedolim are “adequately taking care of matters” is irrelevant. If they don’t address the issues, the police will! (as has been done in Williamsburg recently). There is simply no reason to continue going on with tirades against our gedoley Torah. As far as Rabbi Slifkin’s remark that the gedolim need to apologize for decades of covering up, this comment is so pernicious it would be improper to dignify it with a response.   

6. "That really says all one needs to know about the true motivations of those militants." It's amazing that Rabbi Shafran considers it impossible to know whether the blogosphere effected the strongest change regarding abuse, but he is 100% sure regarding people's personal motivations. Rabbi Shafran should take a lesson from Rabbi Zwiebel, who said that he's not going to judge, and who pointed out that "I do believe that among them there are people who are deeply pained about certain issues and feel that this is the way they can express their pain." 

Nothing amazing about it. Rabbi Shafran lives on planet earth. He doesn’t bury his head in the sand like Rabbi Slifkin is trying to do here. He understands that people’s actions are an indication of their inner motivations and are therefore deserving of criticism. The truth of the matter is, Rabbi Slifkin understand this too. As he writes; “I most certainly agree that there is plenty to criticize about the blogosphere. There are blogs that are way too quick…to judge unfavorably. There are blogs that level accusations without basis.” So, Rabbi Slifkin, what kind of blog levels accusations without basis? Blogs with pristine intentions? Blogs with pure motivations?  

7. "It is not the welfare of the Jewish people that they seek, but rather, for whatever personal reasons they may feel they have, to attack and undermine true Jewish authority. That was the point of my essay, and its veracity is self-evident." The personal reasons of bloggers are unknowable and irrelevant. Rabbi Shafran's essay compared all those who critique Charedi society to Korach's entirely villainous act that was punished by death. Whereas the truth is that, despite shortcomings, the blogs are addressing real problems with charedi rabbinic authority and effecting real improvement, as admitted by none other than the Executive Vice-President of Agudah. Rabbi Shafran should be expressing some of the hakaras hatov that he quotes the baalei mussar on, and should be engaging in some introspection regarding the flaws of the system that he defends as "true Jewish authority," rather than issuing malevolent condemnations. 

In summary, Rabbi Shafran’s article is entirely justified and in fact needs to be taken under serious advisement by those who make it a habit of perusing the korach type blogs. Rabbi Slifkin’s claim that “Rabbi Shafran's essay compared all those who critique Charedi society to Korach's entirely villainous act” is false and is obviously a calculated distraction designed to avert the reader’s gaze from the truth of Rabbi Shafran’s message.

One final question needs to be addressed. If everything we are saying is so simple, so obvious, why does Rabbi Slifkin have such issues with Rabbi Shafran’s article? What’s wrong with criticizing blogs that are clearly out to criticize gedolim for the sake of criticism alone? And the answer is simple. Rabbi Slifkin (who, to his enormous credit, is brutally honest about himself) answers it himself. Here it is. 

“I most certainly agree that there is plenty to criticize about the blogosphere…There is also a tendency towards negativity which, even if it serves a useful purpose, is unhealthy. Indeed, my own blog certainly suffers from the latter (although, at least in my case, a large portion of the blame can certainly be attributed towards the Gedolim that Rabbi Shafran defends) 

‘nuff said…

Shafran versus Slifkin

In the most recent issue of Ami Magazine, an article appeared by Rabbi Avi Shafran which was highly critical of certain Jewish Orthodox blogs. The bloggers in question are the type who make it their business to disparage “Torah scholars and selfless communal leaders” in an attempt to create a “future…devoid of the old bearded men who so vex them.” Rabbi Shafran doesn’t pull any punches. He accuses these blogs of cynicism, self-aggrandizement and arrogance, and compares them to the congregation of Korach. Korach approached Moshe with seemingly objective claims but in reality they were a cover-up for his subconscious desire to undermine Moshe’s authority. Like Korach, the “Korach blogs” would like their readers to believe that they are animated by a “selfless pursuit of justice and truth”, but like Korach, their real objective is the undermining of Torah authority.

In a media atmosphere skewed by bias, political correctness, unjustifiable tolerance, and gratuitous compromise, Rabbi Shafran’s article shines forth like a beacon of light in the endless darkness. Finally a mainstream Jewish media outlet chooses to ignore the imperatives of PC and publish the uncompromising truth. It’s about time!  

As it happens, Rabbi Slifkin disagrees with this assessment and in fact wrote a letter to Ami Magazine criticizing Rabbi Shafran’s article. Before we address Rabbi Slifkin’s issues, the following should be noted.

The purpose of Rabbi Shafran’s article was to criticize blogs that are dedicated to the disparagement of gedoley yisrael and the undermining of their authority, hence the comparison to Korach. The article was a one-pager in total, containing less than 700 words, and was written with a specific goal in mind; presumably to warn people of the dangers of such blogs.

If the preceding statement is kept in mind, none of Rabbi Slifkin’s criticisms make any sense. In his letter to Ami, Rabbi Slifkin complains as follows: 

R. Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, Executive Vice-President of Agudath Israel of America, was recently interviewed in Mishpachah magazine. He explicitly acknowledged two obvious truths: (1) that abuse and molestation issues have not been taken seriously in the charedi community, and (2) that this has begun to change as a result of pressure created by blogs. In light of that, how could Rabbi Avi Shafran, in his latest column, deny any positive value to blogs that contain criticism of the charedi community, and equate them all with Korach?         

First of all, Rabbi Shafran didn’t deny that there was any positive value to such blogs just as he did not assert that there is any positive value to them. This simply wasn’t the topic of his article. The topic was the tremendous harm caused by blogs that disparage gedoley yisrael. This is not the time or place for equivocation. “Admitting” that there might be some value to these blogs amounts to nothing more than unwarranted vacillation, and would surely result in the undermining of the article’s primary message.   

Second of all, Rabbi Shafran was careful to avoid naming any of the blogs in question. His criticism was general and applied to all such blogs, not just the ones that happen to discuss abuse issues. There are plenty of blogs that post disparaging remarks against our gedolim without necessarily focusing on issues of abuse. These blogs can’t take any "credit" for supposedly bringing the abuse issue to the forefront so an “admission” by Rabbi Shafran here would not only be unwarranted, it would be patently false.

Third of all, perhaps Rabbi Shafran is not as convinced as Rabbi Zweibel that the abuse issue has changed in the charedi world because of such blogs.

And fourth, and most obvious, Rabbi Shafran does not “deny any positive value to blogs that contain criticism of the charedi community”. He denies any positive value to blogs that are dedicated to the disparagement of gedoley yisrael. That’s two different things entirely! You can write about problems of abuse in the charedi world without disparaging the gedoley yisrael. The abuse issue is just an excuse for these blogs to blast our Torah leaders and undermine their authority. Like Rabbi Shafran writes, these blogs are nothing but “Self-glorification in the guise of advocacy” and “Haughtiness pretending to the selfless pursuit of justice and truth.”

In the following post we will, bl’n, discuss Rabbi Shafran’s response to Rabbi Slifkin and Rabbi Slifkin’s seven point response back to Rabbi Shafran.

The Institution of Kollel

Normally this blog does not address social issues such as the institution of Kollel. But there’s an exception to every rule.

Rabbi Slifkin writes: 

When someone is in kollel, in 99% of cases, this is not merely a personal direction for their own life. It also means that they are raising their children with kollel as the expected norm, with no secular education, and with no expectation that they will be self-supporting. 

Let’s rephrase that.

When someone chooses to learn in kollel, this is not merely a personal direction for his own life. It also means that he is raising his children in an atmosphere saturated with Torah and yiras shamayim. His family is imbued with a love and respect for limud haTorah which will remain with them for the rest of their lives. The ramifications of his decision will influence the spiritual direction of his family long after abba/tatty is forced to leave the kollel in pursuit of a parnasa.

The above description is surely how Rav Aharon Kotler viewed the institution of kollel. Like any other institution, kollel can be misused, and is being misused in certain parts of Eretz Yisrael and America. The roshei kollel need to address these issues. In the humble opinion of this writer, kollelim need to enforce time limitations. There should be an industry standard. 2 years. 3 years. 5 years. Whatever it is. After the maximum has been reached, roshei kollel need to encourage their yungerleit to seek out a parnasa. Only the mitzuyanim can extend their kollel career beyond the stipulated limit and only the roshei kollel can decide who is a metzuyan.

Rav Aharon Kotler was one of the post WW II gedolim responsible for the rebuilding of yiddishkeit in America. When he first introduced the concept of Kollel, it seemed bizarre. He spent the rest of his life trying to educate American Jews about the idea of learning Torah l’shma (for its own sake). In retrospect, his innovations were instrumental in paving the way for the greatest explosion of Torah learning in recent history. Kollel may have its problems but let’s not forget how important this institution really is.

What Chazal Knew and What We Know – An Analysis of Rav Hirsch’s Letter

In the previous post we began discussing a letter which was ostensibly written by Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch in 1876. This post continues our discussion and provides a detailed examination of the first section of the letter, which appears under the sub-heading ‘What Chazal Knew and What We Know’. The purpose of this analysis is to provide the reader with a clear understanding of Rav Hirsch’s hashkafa on the issue of Chazal and Science. For the maximum benefit the reader is encouraged to read Rav Hirsch’s letter first before reading our analysis.

What was Rav Hirsch’s view regarding the scientific statements of Chazal? How did he approach contradictions to Chazal from current scientific attitudes? In order to arrive at a proper conclusion, the following two questions must always be kept in mind.

1) Is the ma’amar Chazal in question based on contemporary science or masoretic tradition?

2) If it is a science-based statement, what is the nature of the contradictory material? Is it a product of current observation/experimentation, or is it merely scientific speculation?

It seems clear from Rav Hirsch’s letter that he relates to Chazal as the authoritative receivers of our Torah traditions. These traditions originate at Sinai and comprise the very essence of our religion. Accordingly, if the ma’amar Chazal in question seems masoretic in nature (e.g. Noach’s flood occurred 1656 years after the creation of the world), the “contradiction” is automatically “resolved”. Current scientific attitudes simply play no role whatsoever when it comes to our mesorah. The only time Rav Hirsch feels the need to address the issue is in a case where the ma’amar Chazal seems to be a reflection of contemporary scientific thought. Such ma’amarei Chazal, says Rav Hirsch, are not part of the received tradition and are therefore open to future modification. An example of this would be the mud mouse in Mas. Sanhedrin.

An honest assessment of Rav Hirsch’s letter would seem to yield the conclusion that on occasion Chazal may have adopted certain scientific attitudes which are not necessarily accurate by today’s standards. And although this writer does not employ such approaches, it is difficult to deny that Rav Hirsch did appeal to them, at least in a limited sense. But is any of this really relevant? Rabbi Slifkin claims that “Rav Hirsch's letters were a powerful weapon in the great Torah-Science controversy of 2004-5”, but is this really true?

The answer is no. The controversy that exists between Torah and Science has very little to do with the question of whether Chazal accepted contemporary scientific attitudes such as, say, spontaneous generation. Rav Hirsch makes that clear. He explains that Chazal were simply responding to empirical science as it was presented to them, and only for the purpose of issuing halachic decisions. But Rav Hirsch also makes it clear that when it comes to the theories of the savants,

“only the masses who neither know nor understand the methodology of these disciplines believe all the boasts of our contemporaries”.

On the other hand,

"one who knows and understands how these disciplines function, knows and understands that while it is true that contemporary scholars deserve honor and glory in many matters that they have demonstrated… nevertheless the theories built upon these observations are for the most part no more than very shaky guesses… they all have no solid foundation”

The controversy between Torah and Science is an age-old controversy. In the olden days it was avodah zara. Later on it manifested itself in Greek philosophy, Roman decadence, and theological opposition from the Christians and Islamists. Today the Satan wears the guise of “rationalism” and manifests himself in organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences. It’s all the same thing. It’s opposition to the Torah, period. Like Rambam explains in Igeres Teiman, there are three kinds of opposition. Some come at us physically, some philosophically/theologically, and some combine both methods. And as Rambam concludes there, kulam yovdu, they will all go lost!         

The current controversy between Torah and Science is - as it always was - rooted in their mutually exclusive worldviews. The Torah espouses a Godly and spiritual worldview where as scientism adheres to a godless, materialistic view. Doctrines such as evolution, big bang, and ancient universe theories are diametrically opposed to the Torah’s idea of a recent, sudden, purposeful, meta-natural Creation. Attempts to reconcile the two are futile and Rav Hirsch understood this!

Rabbi Slifkin is guilty of improper conflation. He misuses Rav Hirsch’s principle (i.e. not all of Chazal’s science was received from Sinai) by extending it to all physical descriptions of Chazal, even those which are clearly masoretic in nature. This conflation results in a generally dismissive attitude towards Chazal as evidenced in Rabbi Slifkin’s books and blog writings. This is what the Torah-Science controversy of 2004-05 (otherwise known as “The Slifkin Affair) is really about. Rav Hirsch would never condone such attitudes and in fact was virulently opposed to them.  

This is not the first time this writer has accused Rabbi Slifkin of misrepresenting the issues. However, in Rabbi Slifkin's defense it should be pointed out that he has responded, at least somewhat, to our accusations. For instance, he was accused on this blog of being committed to “showing up Chazal”. To his credit he did not deny the accusation. Rather, he explained that due to the ban on his books he felt compelled to demonstrate that it is not kefira to maintain that Chazal erred in science. I am a bit skeptical of his explanation (his books evinced an attitude of dismissiveness before they were banned; that’s why they were banned!) but in the final analysis this blog is not about Rabbi Slifkin; it is about his publicly stated views. I am happy to accept his justifications but the bottom line is he continues to compare the well-substantiated facts of technological science with the unproven theories of the materialists. This distinction is made by Rav Hirsch in the clearest terms yet Rabbi Slifkin ignores it and instead chooses to misrepresent Rav Hirsch’s view in the service of apology.

As it turns out, Rav Hirsch is aligned with everything this blog has been saying about the unreliable nature of materialistic theories. There is absolutely no reason to imagine that Rav Hirsch is aligned with Rabbi Slifkin’s general views on Torah and Science. It goes without saying that Rav Hirsch would be enormously troubled by Rabbi Slifkin’s dismissive attitude towards Chazal. For an excellent presentation of Rav Hirsch’s real views on evolution and creation, see this post here by YSO.

Comments welcome… 

Rav Hirsch and the Science of Chazal

Here’s a question. Why is Rabbi Slifkin so anxious to demonstrate the fallibility of Chazal in the field of science? Anyone who has read The Science, Challenge, The Camel, Creatures or Monsters can easily answer this question. For those who haven’t, here’s the answer.

Rabbi Slifkin is a believer. He believes in Hashem and he believes in the Divinity of the Torah. He believes in both Torah she’bichtav (TSB) and Torah she’ba’al peh (TSBP). He understands that the leading sages of each generation are the recipients of TSBP and are charged with transmitting our oral traditions to future generations. Hence, he accepts the halachic pronouncements of our sages (as recorded in the Talmud) without reservation. But this is not the limit of Rabbi Slifkin’s belief system.

Rabbi Slifkin believes in Science. He believes in the pronouncements of the scientific world if they reflect the opinion of the global consensus of scientists in that field. These pronouncements need not be backed by hard evidence. He simply believes. Of course Rabbi Slifkin would deny such an assertion but anyone familiar with the posts on this blog knows that this claim has been proven time and again. For confirmation of Rabbi Slifkin’s unquestioning faith in science, see our analysis of his views in the online article entitled Defending the Mesorah.

So, Rabbi Slifkin believes in the authority of our sages and he also believes in the authority of scientists. When the opinions or statements of one group conflict with the other, a distressing mental state is generated in his mind. In psychology this state is referred to as Cognitive Dissonance. There is only one way to alleviate the mental stress associated with this condition. One of the “cognitions” (i.e. beliefs or premises) must be altered.

Rabbi Slifkin resolves his contradictory beliefs by modifying the nature of Chazal’s authority. When it comes to halacha, they are the final arbiters; but when it comes to nature, scientists are the final arbiters. If the majority of scientists adopt a certain theory, paradigm or description of physical reality, their opinion supersedes that of Chazal. This facile “resolution” is used extensively by Rabbi Slifkin in his books. Every time he encounters a stira between Chazal and Science, Chazal lose out. So for instance, if the consensus of science is that the universe is billions of years old, Chazal’s traditions are rejected in favor of the prevailing academic view.  

So, why is Rabbi Slifkin so anxious to demonstrate the fallibility of Chazal in the field of science? Simple. Because it reinforces his personal approach to the resolution of the Torah/Science loggerhead. That’s why he continuously attempts to attribute such approaches to the Rambam and other “rationalist” Rishonim, and why the quote from Rav Hirsch means so much to him. Here it is again.  

In my opinion, the first principle that every student of Chazal’s statements must keep before his eyes is the following: Chazal were the sages of God’s law – the receivers, transmitters, and teachers of His Toros, His mitzvos, and His interpersonal laws. They did not especially master the natural sciences, geometry, astronomy, or medicine – except insofar as they needed them for knowing, observing, and fulfilling the Torah. We do not find that this knowledge was transmitted to them from Sinai… We find that Chazal themselves considered the wisdom of the gentile scholars equal to their own in the natural sciences. To determine who was right in areas where the gentile sages disagreed with their own knowledge, they did not rely on their tradition but on reason. Moreover they even respected the opinion of the gentile scholars, admitting when the opinion of the latter seemed more correct than their own.

In Rabbi Slifkin’s mind, this quote supports everything he’s been saying for the past ten years! No wonder he likes it so much. But as we mentioned in the previous post, Rav Hirsch’s opinion of Chazal and Science is grossly misrepresented by Rabbi Slifkin. The quote Rabbi Slifkin chooses to delineate from Rav Hirsch’s letter (actually two disparate quotes stuck together to make it appear like one uniform paragraph) is preceded by the following section in the very same letter (my emphases).

What do we tell our pupils when they discover in the words of Chazal statements that do not agree with contemporary secular knowledge, particularly with the natural sciences which have made tremendous forward strides since ancient times?... we are not to keep the pupils from studying these subjects. On the contrary, we are to teach them the methodology of these subjects in a satisfactory and enlightening manner. For only the masses who neither know nor understand the methodology of these disciplines believe all the boasts of our contemporaries that this generation is the wisest of all and that all of nature - in the heavens and on earth - has been revealed to the contemporary sages who from the peaks of their wisdom look down upon all preceding generations.
But one who knows and understands how these disciplines function, knows and understands that while it is true that contemporary scholars deserve honor and glory in many matters that they have demonstrated - measured, weighed, or counted - that were unknown in earlier generations; nevertheless the theories built upon these observations are for the most part no more than very shaky guesses. New hypotheses are proposed daily. What is praised today as unalterable truth, is questioned tomorrow and then ignored. Each is different from the others, but they all have no solid foundation.
Similarly, there are statements in the works of the ancient nations that only 50 to 100 years ago were laughed at or denounced as lies by the wise men of the generation, whereas today’s scholars recognize that there is some truth in them. There are matters of wisdom that were known to the ancients which have been lost and are unknown to the contemporaries. Consequently if we find statements in the works of the ancients that contradict the estimates of our contemporaries, we cannot decide instantly that the former are lies and that the latter are definitely right.

This paints quite a different picture than the one Rabbi Slifkin would like his readers to believe about Rav Hirsch. In the following post we intend, bi’ezras Hashem, to provide an in-depth analysis of Rav Hirsch’s letter.

Rav Hirsch

Anyone familiar with Rabbi Slifkin’s writings is aware of his attitude regarding Chazal’s knowledge of nature. In a recent post entitled Rav Hirsch Lives!, he reiterates his opinion in this matter. Rabbi Slifkin believes that Chazal’s statements regarding nature are merely a product of the prevailing scientific attitudes held by contemporary naturalists (e.g. Aristotle). Furthermore, he claims that this notion was “normative” amongst the “rationalist Rishonim of Sefarad” but unfortunately produces no clear sources for such an assertion. The closest Rabbi Slifkin ever comes to providing explicit source material in the works of the Sephardic Rishonim can be found here (Rabbi Slifkin refers to this website here) and is limited to three Rishonim (Rambam, R’ Avraham and the Ralbag). Readers of this blog already know that Rabbi Slifkin’s claim has been refuted countless of times in these pages (e.g. here and here).

One of Rabbi Slifkin’s most important sources in support of his idea is Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch ztz’l. In general I have chosen not to comment on this source, for more than one reason. However Rabbi Slifkin’s above-noted post has persuaded me that perhaps a few well-placed comments might be in order.

Rabbi Slifkin writes as follows: 

One of the most significant sources in Torah-Science issues - specifically with regard to Chazal's knowledge of the natural world - is Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch's letters on the topic. 

He then goes on to quote Rav Hirsch as follows: 

In my opinion, the first principle that every student of Chazal’s statements must keep before his eyes is the following: Chazal were the sages of God’s law – the receivers, transmitters, and teachers of His Toros, His mitzvos, and His interpersonal laws. They did not especially master the natural sciences, geometry, astronomy, or medicine – except insofar as they needed them for knowing, observing, and fulfilling the Torah. We do not find that this knowledge was transmitted to them from Sinai… We find that Chazal themselves considered the wisdom of the gentile scholars equal to their own in the natural sciences. To determine who was right in areas where the gentile sages disagreed with their own knowledge, they did not rely on their tradition but on reason. Moreover they even respected the opinion of the gentile scholars, admitting when the opinion of the latter seemed more correct than their own. 

Ostensibly this quote does seem to support Rabbi Slifkin’s attitude to Chazal’s science. However, all is not as it seems.

Before we make any further comments, it is crucial to note the following. The above letter was not written in Rav Hirsch’s handwriting, was not signed by him, and was not published in his lifetime. Rabbi Slifkin attempts to address this issue by reassuring his readers that the above quote was part of a series of letters to one R. Hile Wechsler and that R. Wechsler’s original handwritten letters to Rav Hirsch are extant. This, claims Rabbi Slifkin, proves that Rav Hirsch must have written this particular letter to R’ Wechsler. Here’s Rabbi Slifkin’s reasoning. 

To maintain a belief that the Hirsch letters were forged, one would have to claim that somebody was consistently intercepting the letters that R. Wechsler was sending, and was writing responses in a style and handwriting that fooled R. Wechsler into thinking that he was corresponding with Rav Hirsch and continuing the correspondence! Clearly, this scenario is absurd; the Wechsler letters prove beyond doubt that the Hirsch letters are genuine. 

Here’s the problem. No one is claiming that the “Hirsch letters were forged”. The claim is that this one particular letter – which was not penned by Rav Hirsch, not signed by Rav Hirsch, and not published by Rav Hirsch – was possibly not composed by Rav Hirsch. In order to prove differently, Rabbi Slifkin would have to produce a copy of R’ Wechsler’s original letter to Rav Hirsch and subsequent letters from R’ Wechsler to Rav Hirsch which clearly refer to the material found in the letter in question. Unfortunately Rabbi Slifkin does no such thing. He makes reference to supposedly extant letters and expects his readership to accept the mere existence of these letters as proof of his contention. Well, this reader is far too seasoned to fall for such tricks. Experience has taught me that until evidence is produced, a protagonists’ claims are essentially meaningless.

Notwithstanding the above, our following post will treat Rabbi Slifkin’s quote of Rav Hirsch as authentic. Even if Rav Hirsch did write the letter in question, Rabbi Slifkin extends its parameters far more than Rav Hirsch ever envisioned.

More to come soon…