| נשלח ב-21/1/2005 20:15 |
 |
| |
מי בחרם ומי בחיה - הרב נתן סליפקין
חיות יער והעופות למיניהם הם אובדי עצות. הרבי שלהם נחרם ע"י ה'גדולים.
הרב נתן סליפקין שהכתיר עצמו מקדמת דנא כרבי של החיות, ולמיטב ידיעתנו אין לו שום התנגדות מצדם, רכש לעצמו מתנגדים מסוג המדברים [שלא לטעות בה'מדברים' של הרמב"ם ששם כוונתו לסמל שהם מדברים ואינם יודעים מה הם מדברים, משא"כ כאן ח"ו ח"ו ח"ו]
סיבת החרם א"א לפורטם כי רבנים הם. ואחר טבעת המלך, מאן מלכי רבנן, אין להשיב. אבל תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך.
הוא ההין בנפשו לומר שהיקום קיים כבר מיליארדי שנים.
ושחז"ל לא ידעו כל המדעים שנתגלו עד היום [עפ"ל]
תוקן על ידי עצכח ב- 08/10/2007 11:27:14
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-21/1/2005 20:20 |
|
| |
There is an intersting debate going on in one of the websites where 'yours truly' is one of the contenders. I would like to hear your take on those issues.
Intellectual writes,
We should adress all the issues these ''banners'' have with R' Slifkins books.
1. Yes there is concern about the age of the universe.
2. Also that RS pushes for evolutions somewhat. Eradicating the ''argument of design'' by saying that he's sure there will be some naturalistic explanation for the whole of creation
3. The Torah should be understood as been written on the level of the people of those times
4. Torah needn't be interpreted literally except where dealing with practical halacha (I think that the Rashba was horrified on those interpreting Avrohom and Sarah as Chomer Vetzura. And he called them apikorsem)
5. The articulate approach that we should be skeptical on any talmudic statement when affirming strange zoological phenomena (not using 'delicate' language as R' Moshe supposedly used)
6. Even on Torah issues they could be mistaken and maybe even Lehalacha
7. The casual approach that the Talmud didn't interpret the Torah correctly he says ''remember this is not what the Torah says, it's what the Talmud interprets it''
It's the whole package deal that bothers these 'banners' and when discussing the issue we should realize the true issues involved.
I personally agree wholeheartedly with RS's approach (actually I go much further but that's not the issue)
#1 above has been discussed in all blogs adequately
#2 The Rambam in Moreh writes that he wouldn't have a problem to interpret Pesukim according to Aristotles theory of Kadmus Haolam (he does have other issues with this Aristotelian approach). By saying that he too has eliminated the 'argument of design'.
#3 RS cites Chovos Halvovos and Moreh (presumably where he explains Korbonos as appeasement to the masses habits etc.) See also Mamar Techias Hamesim where he says the same as CH in regards to Techiat Hamesim.
#6 The concept of many Rishonim (like Ramban Al hatorah) interpreting Peshat in a Posuk differently than Talmud (the common ''Al Derech Hapshat'' from the Ramban) says that Chazal weren't infallible but that we should simply abide by their rules regardless if they made mistakes. If they would be infallible why even think of differing of the Talmuds interpretation?
Yet if we will utilize all rishonim on all issues we can say the following.
1. The original substance of the world was not created by God (Chomer Kadmon) [Ralbag, Ibn Ezra, and Kuzari doesn't find this approach heretical ditto the Rambam.
2. God does not have foreknowledge on what we will decide with our free will [Raavad Baa'l Emuna Ramah, R' Eliezer Ashkenazi Baa'l Maa'she Hashem .
3. We don't have free will it's just an illusion. [Ohr Hashem R' Chasdai Kreskas]
4. The Laws of the Torah will Change due to our being in different cultures and environments than the times of the giving of the Torah. [Sefer Ha,ikarim]
5. Maaseh Merkava means Astronomy, mistaken astronomy that is. [Rambam according to how Abarbanel in his hakdomeh on Yechezkel interprets the Rambam, that it is astronomy according to Babylonian knowledge and that it's not the correct ones) ]
6. The Yidden at Matan Torah only heard a rumbling sound of a voice, that's it, nothing else no coherent utterance at all. [Rambam Moreh]
7. God is a physical entity, anthropomorphism in all it's glory. [some of the Chasidey Ashkenaz, Rishonim]
8. God doesn't listen to anyone's prayers [Rambam]
9. Many Jews were already in Israel while most Jews were in Egypt. (R' Yehuda Hachasid in Haggadah L'ballie Tosfat Hashalom]
10. Hallal Hagadol was part of the Torah but was taken out and put in Tehilim [R' Yehuda Hachasid]
I have no problem with any of the above but how about y'all?
intellectual
 |
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-21/1/2005 20:22 |
|
| |
Nona Responds,
You distort many of R Slifkin's positions. He doesn't argue against creation by design; he says that God worked through natural processes and not miracles. He doesn't say that any personalities from Adam to Avrohom & Sarah were allegorical. Skepticism about strange phenomena is not "shocking"; the more conventional explanations for these are allegorical. Your seventh point is taken out of context.
Your proof in #6 is a misinterpretation of the ramban's position.
On the rishonim:
Point #5: The rambam gives long explanations of what ma'ase merkava involves and why it is a "Dovor godol" and "havayos d'abaye v'rovo" are a dovor koton by contrast. He doesn't think it's "mistaken astronomy."
Taking isolated stances of rishonim that conflict with the 13 ikarim and putting them together to produce a religion that looks nothing like Orthodox Judaism as we recognize it today is not the same as taking a stance that doesn't conflict with the 13 ikarim at all.
nona
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-21/1/2005 20:23 |
|
| |
Nona also adds,
RMF thought that R. Yehuda Hachossid didn't write the line that was attributed to him and he thought it was kefira in that it violated the 13 ikarim. He was probably unaware of the support for R. Yehuda Hachossid's view in other rishonim. (Even if he knew, it may not have mattered to his view, but he probably didn't.) He spent his time learning gemara not looking at obscure rishonim on chumash and philosophy. I know it's kefira to suggest that there's something that R. Moshe didn't know, but it's the truth!
nona
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-21/1/2005 20:27 |
|
| |
Intellectual Responds,
Dear nona, Your wrote to me the following
You distort many of R Slifkin's positions
I'll respond to each of your points.
You wrote,
"He doesn't argue against creation by design; he says that God worked through natural processes and not miracles"
He clearly pushes somewhat for a naturalistic approach to the creation of the world in a way that natural selection and chance mutation can explain all of creation (except the original first laws etc.)
Here you have some quotes from his defense on his website.
''Next is page 161, where I suggest that even if Darwin's theory of evolution is
inadequate to explain the development of life, there is likely to be some sort of
naturalistic explanation, as that is how Hashem operates.''
I take the approach of Rambam (and Ralbag, and Rav Yerucham Levovitz etc.), which is to
minimize the occurrence of miracles and to explain that Hashem used a system of
natural laws wherever possible.
Next are pages 179-181, where I discuss the possibility that human evolution is
compatible with Judaism provided that one accepts that man possesses a unique
neshamah that makes him fundamentally different from animals.
He quotes this from R' Hirsch;
Judaism in that case would call upon its adherents to give even greater reverence than ever before to the one, sole God Who, in His boundless creative wisdom and eternal omnipotence, needed to bring into existence no more than one single, amorphous nucleus, and one single law of "adaptation and heredity" (Darwinian evolution) in order to bring forth, from what seemed chaos but was in fact a very definite order, the infinite variety of species we know today, each with its unique characteristics that sets it apart from all other creatures.
Is it really a distortion in saying that he pushes for evolution somewhat (well, maybe the somewhat part)
You wrote.
''He doesn't say that any personalities from Adam to Avrohom & Sarah were allegorical''
But he does write that we can interpret the torah allegorically except where dealing with practical halacha.
Is Avrohom and Sara's existence a practical Halchic issue?
You wrote,
"Skepticism about strange phenomena is not "shocking"; the more conventional explanations for these are allegorical."
The issue under discussion is when it's obvious that it was meant literally like a half beast half tree etc. Allegory means that Chazal were one hundred percent right, we just didn't interpret them correctly, whereas RS is saying ''no, the Talmud simply got it wrong'' . That's the major difference.
You wrote.
"Your proof in #6 is a misinterpretation of the ramban's position"
It's a well known concept that we are allowed to say peshat in Gemara different than Rishonim as long as we don't change Pesak. This implies that we accept the notion of us having a better understanding of that particular text than the Rishon.
It's also well known that Rishonim (Ibn Ezra and others) and even Achronim (Ohr Hachaim Al Hatorah) claim that we are entitled to say peshat different than Chazal as long as it's not a Halachic issue. We are not talking about Derashos Chazal we are talking about plain meaning of the text.
You wrote.
"Point #5: The rambam gives long explanations of what ma'ase merkava involves and why it is a "Dovor godol" and "havayos d'abaye v'rovo" are a dovor koton by contrast. He doesn't think it's "mistaken astronomy."
I specifically gave a Mareh Mokom for anyone to look up in Abarvanel in his Hakdomeh to Sefer Yecheskel. He understand the Rambam to be saying that Yecheskel's Maaseh Merkavah is the Babylonian astronomy and that it's wrong.
I'll quote here what I saw in a very interesting forum in Hydepark called Atzor Kan Choshvim. One of the writers there going by the name of Mistabra (an amazing personality in his own right) found the following.
אולם כעת בעידן פירסום כתב יד של ראשונים, מתברר שהראב"ד אכן התכוון לגדולים וטובים ממנו, "כפשוטו" ואינו משל ומליצה.
גדולי אשכנז וצרפת, אכן סברו שיש להבין המקראות אלו כפשוטם ולא בצורה אליגורית!
במחזור וויטרי (שדפס רק במאה שנים האחרונות) לתלמידי רש"י (רבי יעקב) בפירוש המשנה אבות עמ' 514 "חיבה יתירה נודעת לו כלומר חיבה יתירה חיבבו שנבראו בצלם אלקים עצמו שנאמר כי בצלם אלקים. בצלם אלקים עצמו עשאו המקום ואית דלא גרסא הא דכיון דאין לצור דמיון ולא תמונה מי שאומר בזה חיישינן שמא מין הוא!
כלומר מי שסבור שאין להקב"ה תמונה - מין הוא!
כדבריו כתוב בספר המדהים 'כתב תמים' לאחד מגדולי ראשוני אשכנז (מובא הרבה באור זרוע) רבי שמה ב"ר חסדאי תקו. הספר שנדפס בפעם הראשונה לפני כמאה ועשרים שנה באוצר נחמד וינה תר"ך (ולאחרונה צילמו את הכת"י בהוצאת מרכז דינור ירושלים תשמ"ד בדמות קונטרס עם מבוא, שיש בידי) הינו שריד של פולמוס ודעה שנשכח כליל מנוף היהדות. הספר בעצם הוא ספר חריף ופולמוסי נגד הרס"ג הרמב"ם האבן עזרא וחסידי אשכנז, וטוען שכל השיטה לפרש מקראות על הא-ל שלא כפשוטו הוא נטע זר ביהדות והוא מינות.
וכעת כבר התגלה מכת"י גם דעת רבינו ישעי' מטרוני האחרון בקונטרס הראיות על סנהדרין ודבריו כבר מתונים כדעת הראב"ד.
ואצטט דבריו המאלפים: ודבריו [של הרמב"ם] הם חוץ משטת התלמוד ואמנם כי כן הדעת הדעת מכרעת וכן פשוטן של מקראות שהקדוש ברוך הוא אינו גוף ובעל תמונה כמו שנאמר ואל מיד תדמיון א-ל ומה דמות תערכו לו וכל הדמיונות שראו הנביאים אינן אלא כדרך הנבואה כמו שנאמר וביד הנביאים אדמה....אבל מי שיטעה בכך ולא ירד לעמקו של דבר ומבין המקראות כפשוטן וסבור שהקדוש ברוך הוא בעל תמונה לא נקרא מין שאם כך הדבר איך לא פירסמה תורה על דבר זה ולא גלו חכמי התלמוד להודיע דבר זה בגלוי ולהזהר נשים ועמי הארץ על כך שלא יהוא מינים ויאבדו עולמם. הלא כמה אסורים קלים כגון מוקצה וכיוצא בו חברו חכמים כמה הלכות והרבו כמה דקדוקין להעמיד כל דבר על מכונו ועל דבר זה שכל האמונה תלויה בו ויש בו כרת בעולם הזה ובעולם הבא, איך לא הורו חכמים על דבר זה בגלוי?
אלא ודאי לא הקפידו לכך אלא יאמין אדם היחוד כפי שכלו ואפילו הנשים כפי מיעוט שכלן... ומה שכתוב ונשמרתם מאד לנפשותיכם כי לא ראיתם כל תמונה לא בא הכתוב להזהיר אלא שלא לעשות תמונה כמו שכתוב בסוף הפסוק פן תשחיתון ועשיתם לכם פסל תמונת כל סמל אבל אם יחשוב אדם שהקב"ה בעל תמונה לא הקפידה תורה בכך וכמה היו מחכמי התלמוד הקדושים שמהם תצא תורה לישראל שלא נתנו לבם להתבונן בענין האלהות, אלא הבינו המקראות כפשוטם ולפי תןמם חשבו כי הקדוש ברוך הוא בעל גוף ותמונה. וחלילה שנקר' מינים לאשר נאמר עליהם אשר בארץ המה".
If shows that many Rishonim believed in anthropomorphism and also very importantly it shows in the last quote of RY MiTroni that #1 some Amoroim believed such, and #2 THEY WERE WRONG. Wow.
As previously mentioned I'm all for RS, actually much further than him but heck we gotta look at the issue honestly.
Intellectual
He also adds,
Nona,
Why are you basing Kefirah on the 13 Ikarim?
The Rambam was considered a Kofer by many altough he believed in the 13 Ikarim, no?
Or maybe his detractors suspected him of posturing? hmm (I happen to suspect such myself)
Intellectual
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-21/1/2005 20:30 |
|
| |
Nona Responds,
במחזור וויטרי (שדפס רק במאה שנים האחרונות) לתלמידי רש"י (רבי יעקב) בפירוש המשנה אבות עמ' 514 "חיבה יתירה נודעת לו כלומר חיבה יתירה חיבבו שנבראו בצלם אלקים עצמו שנאמר כי בצלם אלקים. בצלם אלקים עצמו עשאו המקום ואית דלא גרסא הא דכיון דאין לצור דמיון ולא תמונה מי שאומר בזה חיישינן שמא מין הוא!
כלומר מי שסבור שאין להקב"ה תמונה - מין הוא!
Whoever that poster is, he misread the quote above from machzor vitry.
I don't see where RNS argues beyond "I take the approach of Rambam (and Ralbag, and Rav Yerucham Levovitz etc.), which is to minimize the occurrence of miracles and to explain that Hashem used a system of natural laws wherever possible."
This is a commonplace and no where close to kefirah. He brings R. Hirsch view, which is vague, but doesn't endorse it.
"Is it really a distortion in saying that he pushes for evolution somewhat (well, maybe the somewhat part)"
Yes, the somewhat part is the difference between kefira and lack thereof.
RNS doesn't take personalities as allegorical. He was accused of taking adom harishon as an allegorical figure, and denies that he does.
"Your proof in #6 is a misinterpretation of the ramban's position"
Your response seems like a nonsequitor. When the ramban says "al derech hap'shat" he is not arguing with midrashim. He is setting up p'shat vs. drash. Your conclusion that when the ramban says "al derech hap'shat" he is disagreeing with chazal is unwarranted.
It isn't news that many rishonim believed that anthropomorphism isn't kefira.
nona
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-21/1/2005 20:33 |
|
| |
Intellectual responds,
Nona,
RS says "that even if evolution is scientifically wrong there likely is another naturalistic explanation" and that "human evolution is compatible with Judaism"
If this is not pushing evolution a bit, what is?
He wrote in his book (as quoted on his defense page) that that Torah can be interpreted allegorically except where dealing with practical halacha.
Please understand that i'm not pro banning and i'm not even trying to defend the banners (they are to me like the inquistors of yore) I am just trying to be brutally honest in understanding the issue and realizing that it's not simply about the age of the universe and that Talmud science can be wrong.
It's about a major paradigm shift in the Ultra Orthodox mindset. It' the whole kit and caboodle that's worrying them (wrongly!!!)
About the Machzor Vitri,
What type of Min was he concerned about?
intellectual
By the way,
Talking of Adam Harishon, There are some Rishonim (including the Rambam, obviously) that interpret the story of the Etz Hadaas Allegoricaly (to the exclusion of a literall interpretation)
So with the the story of Kain and Hevel.
Intellectual
By the way,
Talking of Adam Harishon, There are some Rishonim (including the Rambam, obviously) that interpret the story of the Etz Hadaas Allegoricaly (to the exclusion of a literall interpretation)
So with the the story of Kain and Hevel.
Intellectual
Nona,
You wrote,
"It isn't news that many rishonim believed that anthropomorphism isn't kefira"
But it is news that according to some rishonim [Ksav Hatamim and possibly Machzor Vitri] it's acutaully Kefirah to think otherwise.
Also newsworthy is that one Rishon claims the Amoroim to have made this error to the extent of saying that the Rambams shitah does not allign with the Talmudic Shitah.
intellectual
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-21/1/2005 20:35 |
|
| |
Intellectual also adds,
Nona,
On the issue of Ramban's ''al derech hapshat'' or more generally on the whole issue of rishonim or achronim interpreting Torah different than Chazal where it doesn't conflict halacha, I think that it strongly implies that Chazal's understanding of the text may be wrong.
[It's just that we have agreed to abide by their ruling regardless of its correctness. In some sense similar to say the American Constitution. Can we easily change their ruling if we are certain it is based on a scientific error or if it's reasoning is not relevant today?]
Ohr Hachaim Al Hatorah writes in Bereshis 1, 3, ''Although we find that Chazal have already asked these questions and answered it …. (differently than his answer) You shall know that permission is given to explain the meaning of Pesukim through ways of contemplation and thinking even where the earlier ones have explained it differently (he's referring to Chazal is evident from context). We are prohibited from swaying from their words only in explanations that will affect Halacha. That is why we will see Amoroim not disagreeing with the Tanim on Halacha, Yet on explaining and interpreting the text we find many instances where they disagree with the Tanaim. See also Shemos 21,31, .
If he would take it for a given that Chazal understood everything much better than him/us why would he explain things in a way that he knows it's not true [Chazal explained it differently so that should show him clearly that he's wrong] why would there be this general rule that we are allowed to disagree on peshat where we don't affect Halachah?
Take the Ramban on last weeks Parsha (Shmos 12, 42,) he claims that the best Peshat is that the Jews were in Egypt Thirty years longer than traditionally accepted by Chazal (By the way, that makes our current year 5795). Whats he saying here, isn't it an exercise in futility? He's surely wrong, the Jews surely were not in Egypt these additional thirty years for that is how Chazal claimed the case to be.
When Ramban opines that only firstborn from the mother were killed in Egypt contrary to Chazal, claiming that that's what seems more likely according to the Pesukim, what's his point in wasting time if he knows that he's wrong and that all firstborn died as Chazal would have it?
It's obvious that this concept is a well accepted one and it implies the absolute fallibility of Chazal.
Note, the above is only valid in reference to Chazal or Rishonim. Our Holy Infallible Gedoily Hador have a complete different status. If anything written here is in any conceivable way at odds with even a single utterance of our Holy Gedoiley Hadores (chas veshalom, chas vesholem ad nauseam) then my words are Botul Umevotul Ke,afre D'are Me,eilov and should be burned and it's ashes scattered in the wind (we can't be Yoitze it with Kevurah Chas Veshalom)
intellectual
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-21/1/2005 20:40 |
|
| |
The poster's summary paraphrase, "klomar mi shesovur sheeyn lahkb"h temunah min hu" is incorrect. It would be correct if the word "she'eyn" was removed.
nona
He adds,
"It's obvious that this concept is a well accepted one and it implies the absolute fallibility of Chazal."
I wasn't disputing this. The gemara says that chazal were fallible; if chazal are infallible, they must be fallible.
I think your understanding of "al derech hap'shat" is mistaken. The ramban is not rejecting chazal; he is saying that chazal's interpretation is not p'shat. Ayin ponim latorah.
There are exceptions in many rishonim where they do reject specific midrashim. The claim that some rishonim reject specific midrashim, particularly when there are disputed views in midrashim, is different than proposing that every time an authority offers a p'shat that differs from the midrash, they are "rejecting the midrash."
nona
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-21/1/2005 20:42 |
|
| |
Intellectua responds,
I agree that the Machzor Vitri can be interpreted your way, it depends if we put a coma after ולא תמונה
חיבה יתירה נודעת לו כלומר חיבה יתירה חיבבו" שנבראו בצלם אלקים עצמו שנאמר כי בצלם אלקים. בצלם אלקים עצמו עשאו המקום ואית דלא גרסא הא דכיון דאין לצור דמיון ולא תמונה מי שאומר בזה חיישינן שמא מין הוא!"
For that reason I wrote and "possibly the Machzor Vitri"
But there still is the Ksav Hatamim.
When Ramban quotes a few different Midrashim and then says "and the most likely peshat is.... (a complete different one} it seems most likely that he's rejecting the others. Especially in the specific examples I quoted, where it's a matter of fact, did the firstborn from the father die or not, how many years were the Jews in Eygpt.
It could be argued that the Ramban's intent is to explain the simple meaning of the text yet agreeing that if Chazal didn't take the simple meaning they had some valid reasons for doing so thus ultimatley their assesment is the correct one, hence Galuth Mitzraim was not 30 years longer and the firstborn from the father surely did die.
Then there would still be the issue of why did the Ramban bother explaining the simple meaning when it's ultimately wrong.
On that too we might say that it's important to distinguish between Peshat and Derush, for the latter might be taken in a much lighter sort of qualified fashion (in 'many' cases the firstborn from father died too,)So this would be reason enough for the Ramban to explain the Peshat.
Yet there are many cases where it's quite obvious that Chazal meant it as simple Peshat. I would use the 'Timeframe of the Jews' stay in Eygpt' as an example.
The Ohr Hachaim Al Hatorah quoted above leans very strongly in the direction of him simply rejecting Chazals explanation of text (Yishuv Haksuvim).
This rule is also commonly used by many Achronim when explaining Peshat in a Sugya differently from Rishonim (Pnei Yehoshua's many 'Luley De'mistefina's' come to mind)
The Chazon Ish allegedly would disagree with Rashi in Peshat based on the above general rule.
For the sake of clarity, It would be helpful if you would be more explicit on the points you seem to concede to me, rather than just letting go of it.
Do you still think I distorted the position of RS?
Does he push the Naturalistic/Evolution approach somewhat thus eliminating the 'argument of design'?
Does the statement "that everything in the torah can be interpreted allegorically except where dealing with practical Halacha" bear out that Avarhom and Sara can be interpreted allegorically?
Is saying that "any strange statement in the Talmud on Nature should be taken skeptically", the same as interpreting Agadatta allegorically?
Does the Abarbenal explain the Rambam as I said?
Let us all be honest debators
intellectual
תוקן על ידי - אפכאמסתברא - 21/01/2005 20:46:00
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-22/1/2005 21:23 |
|
| |
דברתי עם ר' יצחק שיינר בענין זה. ושאלתי אותו מאי האי שיצא כנגד ספר זה כשאפשר למצוא סימוכין לדבריו. הוא ענה לי שעיקר הבעיה עם הספר זה לא הדעות אלא שמעלה נושאים שבני תורה לא אמורים לחשוב עליהם. הוספתי ושאלתי נניח שזה נכון, שהלה מעלה נושאים שעדיף לא לדבר עליהם, האם מגיע לו שישחטו אותו ברבים בצורה כזאת. הוא ענה לי שאין לו עסק בזה והוא אינו גדול והוא כלל לא חותם ברבים אלא שחווה דעתו ותו לא.
ליל שבת כשראיתי את החתימות ברה"ר יצאתי מדעתי לגמרי. והלכתי לדבר עם ר' ח"ק בין קבלת שבת למעריב. ובדעתי היה ללכת אחרי סעודת שבת לר' יצחק שיינר הביתה ולטעון לפניו שוב, שלא זו הדרך ולא זו העיר. אלא שר' ח"ק הניע אותי מדעתי וטען שא"א לדבר על נושאים מסויימים ברבים, ואין מה לעשות, זה מה יש. כראיה לדבריו הביא את יהדות איטליה שלא נשאר ממנה כמעט שריד ופליט בגלל הפתיחות שלהם. טען עוד שמנדלסון בא לשדה שכבר נחרשה טוב בגרמניה ועל כן הצליח לפעול מה שפעל.
בינתיים אשמרה לפי מחסום, אבל שאלה אחת מנקרת במוחי, האם באמת עדיף להשאיר את הציבור הרחב בער מדעת לגמרי או שאפשר לחשוף אותם לדעות מדעות שונות מבלי שזה יזיק להם?
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-22/1/2005 22:16 |
|
| |
אני לא חרדי ומבחוץ המאבק הזה נראה תמוה ביותר.
1. ברור שמה שאסור מושך את ציבור הקוראים. ספריו של סליפקין מוצאים עכשין ע"י מו"ל אחר והם זמינים לכל דורש בארה"ב שבה, כידוע, חופש הביטוי הוא דת המדינה. החרם יגביר את תפוצתם.
2. מה פירוש "... מעלה נושאים שבני תורה לא אמורים לחשוב עליהם"? אני איני בן תורה - האם מותר לי לחשוב על הנושאים האלה? ולנשים מותר? אולי בכלל עדיף להיות עם הארץ או אשה.
3. מסתבר שהיו רבנים חרדיים שתמכו בסליפקין ונתנו לו "הסכמה". עכשיו, לאחר הכרזת החרם, הם שותקים. האם מחלוקת לשם שמים לא קיימת יותר?
4. איש לא נתן לסליפקין הזדמנות להשמיע את טענותיו לפני שהטילו את החרם על ספריו. כך פועלים "גדולי התורה" בעניינים אחרים?
דיון טוב על הפרשה הזו בבלוג "דעת הדיוט":
http://tinyurl.com/6uhlf
The ban was really engineered by various zealots in the community and is motivated more by sectarian sociological concerns than a deep and true commitment to torah principles. That they succeeded in their campaign is an indicator of how extremist viewpoints and ideologies are gaining greater power in the mainstream frum community.
|
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-9/3/2005 15:45 |
|
| |
הודעת הנהלה: לפני הודעת יהוסף היתה הודעת מבחן באשכול נפרד כדלהלן:
מבחן:
בקשה מהחברים לעזרה להרב סליפקין
ראשית, יש לשבח מע"ג במה זו את הרב סליפקין. כפי הנראה מכל הידוע בענינו, לא הייתה לו כל כוונה לערער יסודות דת, ואף לא ערער בפועל.
המתקפה של ר"מ שטרנבוך, אינה עניינית, כי התעלם מהידוע בזה עד בריאת היצור ששמו "אדם" [הספורנו כבר הובא כאן ע"י אחד החברים].
שומה עלינו כאנשים המכירים שנעשה כאן עוול לברר מה מצבו של ר' נתן סליפקין.
ב' חברים כבר הכינו מאה דולר לעזרתו כל אחד.
אם אין אנחנו מי לנו, אי לכך אם יכול אי מי לברר את מצבו ואם ניזוק כלכלית.
עכ"ל מבחן
*****
רקע:
ר"נ סליפקין "העיז" לטעון לקיום אבולוציוני, וזאת מתוך התמודדות עניינית עם ממצאי המדע. הנ"ל הותקף ונקבע שאסור להחזיק בספריו מצד "לא תביא תועבה".
עומד אני בוש ונכלם שכל כך הרבה זמן עבר ותחושת ההשתפות איחרה לבוא, והאמת שלא חשבתי ללא הערת התשו"ל הנ"ל.
אני מצטרף לבקשה, ומקציב סכום זהה. יעלו נא החברים ידיעתם ממצבו, די בקצרה, ללא אריכות הגובלת ברכילות.
תוקן על ידי עצכח ב- 09/10/2007 17:29:02
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-9/3/2005 15:59 |
|
| |
האם אלו שעומדים מאחורי היוזמה מכירים אותו ויודעים שהוא צריך תמיכה כספית?
האם ידוע לחברים שהוא איבד מקור פרנסתו בגלל מתקפת הרבנים?
האם מישהו יודע אם הוא סבל בכלל מהמתקפה מעבר לבזיונות?
|
|
|
|
| נשלח ב-9/3/2005 16:04 |
|
| |
כל זה יש לברר, ההנחה היא שודאי נפדע גם כלכלית, השאלה עד כמה.
|
|
|
|
|
