Part One of Rav Aharon Schechter on Rabbi Slifkin and creation

[ydkshow]

I am not familiar with Rabbi Slifkin or his books, so I cannot comment on them. However, I have to give him credit for posting a video of the Rosh Yeshiva's speech which was (apparently, per comments made) critical of his ideas.

[yainkee]

Anyone notice his blatant contradiction between 7:41 and 8:30?

[1w5w9]

@yainkee What contradiction?

[yainkee]

@1w5w9 At 7:41, "Some fellow comes along (Rabbi Slifkin), and I say fellow because I mean to use the word fellow (as opposed to rabbi)!" Clearly a indictment on a person. At 8:25, "you're an upstart, you're a chatzuf." Then right afterwards at 8:31 he says, "I'm not talking to anyone, I'm talking to the idea." Not true. He just spent 50 seconds ripping on Rabbi Slifkin with moronic arguments and then tried to cover himself by saying that he's not talking to the person but to the idea.

[ydkshow]

@yainkee re "At 7:41, "Some fellow comes... (Rabbi Slifkin)... (as opposed to rabbi)!" Clearly a indictment on a person" At 8:25, "you're an upstart, you're a chatzuf." ... 8:31 he says, "I'm not talking to anyone, I'm talking to the idea." Not true..." So, in your book, the word "fellow" is derogatory?? And a clear statement "I'm not talking to anyone, i'm talk to the idea" means he is making a personal attack?? You can't invent something that he didn't say and then complain about it.

[raphaeljudas]

In essence: Torah is about values. It is not rational and requires emunah. Science is about explaining natural events in a rational  way. Science is irrelevant to Thora values, or competing values, and vice versa. Rav Schachter is saying: Jews' assignment is to learn and put into practice Torah values, veduk...

[raphaeljudas]

Thora is not a rational discourse but a specific axiology that is the emunah in the values as they are organised by written and oral Thora. No contradiction, no stira between a discourse on values on one side and scientific theories/models on the other simply because they answer two uncorrelated questions.

[raphaeljudas]

I am not sure what Rav Schachter meant exactly because he seems to answer within the context of a book I have not read, nevertheless it seems to me that Thora and science fly on two different planes: science is a rational discourse about measurable and quantifiable events that aims at explaining HOW they occur, and certainly not WHY they occur (which is beyond the scope of science). Thora is not a rational discourse but the belief in a specific axiology, that is the emunah in the values as they

[AAAtourist]

It is great that a lot of Jews have educated themselves in Torah and science. This types of talks will be irrelevant and viewed as our past. Rabbinical Judaism reached the dead end and thus requires not to use your brains outside of Kosher pots. However, the new Judaism is clearly emerging, embracing new and brave world, embracing reality of today as G-dly, and past as our incredibly essential history and our experience. We also can be prophets. New Dynamic Judaism is essential.

[GorterPoss]

@AAAtourist Have not the modern orthodox more or less been on to what you speak of for the last 50 years?

[atpadp1987]

i think he gave a very fair response. Jews accept the Torah based upon its giving at Mt. Sinai to approximately 3 million jews. Judasim is unique in that we can base our beliefs on that tradition. This rabbi is arguing that we have a mission to follow that belief. There is no point in wasting time on science which will still be searching for completeness for hundreds of years. Why should we spend time on evershifting science, just to bolster our pseudo intellectual egos.

[hmanxy]

In other words, don't think for yourselves, and remain mindless monkeys. It is obvious that this question is so totally out of his depth that anyone with a modicum of self-respect could recognize this.

[lakeeriejew]

G-d says to Moshe, prior to the revelation of Sinai, 'and I have borne you here on the wings of an eagle.

Where was the eagle? Clearly this is a metaphorical statement.

So is an 'Eye for an eye'. Right?

Did a donkey talk to Bilaam? Ibn Ezra says donkeys don't talk. An angel stood by and pretended to speak for the donkey.

[dutchjaeger]

The response is disingenuous - to say the very least. He actually admits he is failing - or evading - to directly and honestly respond to the question. Naturally; since these ignorant Frum Mullahs have no real answer - because one does not exist. Science, history, and rationality have long ago done away with any truly educated, thinking person's ability to believe this silliness. The only possible answer left? The non-answer: "emunah" - peshuta indeed. Risible - and sad.

[remervision]

So much shouting , what's with all the shouting...

[judaicaman007]

according to the Kabbalah (via Rav Arhey Kaplan z"l) who was no apikores, but a well known physicst. the world is about 15 Billion years old.

Now, anyone taking a literal reading of Genesis is an idiot, case closed.

[rivkamord]

Kvod elokim haskel davar

It is the honour of HaShem to understand an issue.

"Understand" according to Rabbi Schechter is for it to remain hidden?!!

"Who are you to change pshat in chumash?" Is the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim not enough??

[KWRBT]

"We are not entitled to make new perushim on the Torah." 7:04

That sounds like a whole lot of sefarim that have to be burned, then. With all due kavod to this rav, what kind of statement is that?

[IanHunedoara8]

I read R. Slifkin's book and I failed to find anything offensive or even vaguely heretical. BTW- I'm not Jewish (or not yet anyway)

[morehn]

the point of the Rav is that slifkin is too speculative and is reaching for too much, looking into these areas of science.

[GorterPoss]

@morehn Maybe Slifkin is overreaching but the idea of being content with the pshat of bereishis after all we have learned about the cosmos is more than a little dissapointing to many people, especially when you consider that some of the pshat is very far fetched (e.g. Noah's Ark). Such people might be turned off from Judaism if not for Slifkin and his ilk.

[morehn]

@GorterPoss noah's ark is far fethched? archaeologists today have been saying that found parts of the ark. they say also that they found drawing of the ark on walls inside caves. the ark was on the mt. ararat, as the Torah calls it. serpents having legs? they say that serpents had legs and pelvic bones. the only reason these people get turned off by these things is bec. they learn it on their own instead of from a teacher. and slifkin only makes this worse bec. they don't understand him either.

[GorterPoss]

@morehn They found the Ark? That's news to me. Send me the link. In any case, the dimensions of the Ark are too small to accomodate the millions of species now on the planet. Further, I have yet to see a plausible explanation of how humans became so racially diverse so quickly after Noah and his sons left the ark. The pshat seems too inadequate to explain these and other things. My Rabbis never addressed these questions either. I think Slifkin plays a useful role.

[morehn]

@GorterPoss other than the fact that everything you have mentioned is believable with or without modern science, if one doubts the pshat based on a lack of scientific evidence, so then what abt sticking to pshat that's difficult to understand but not "dependent" on our research to qualify? why not stick to those areas first and then graduate to the next level? laziness? intellectual speculation? btw, you're from cleveland?

[GorterPoss]

@morehn I suspect you haven't really delved very deeply into the pshat if you find its literal text to always make accurate claims. Take human genetic diversity as an example. It's simply impossible to have so much diversity within so few generations. You should consider brushing up on genetics if you want to better understand this. In any case, Slifkin is not "starting" with any subject in particular. He happens to focuson some pshat that does not square with what we now understand.

[0davidberg0]

Best quote at 8:18 "It(stira between bereishis and science) bothers you. TO BAD FOR YOU."

[0davidberg0]

Best quote at 8:18 "It(stira between bereishis and science) bothers you. TO BAD FOR YOU."

[stalepieonceagain]

He reminds me of Estelle Getty.

[0davidberg0]

at 2:14 "That which is not for us to delve into. And that's the Briyah".

IT IS FOR US TO DELVE INTO THINGS THAT CAUSE US TO DOUBT THAT TORAH IS TRUE.

As it says in Avos 2:19 - "Know what to answer a heretic."

[GorterPoss]

I believe the rav is saying the answer to the heretic is that you're not mechuyev to know such things.

[0davidberg0]

To GorterPoss.

Thats twisting Mishna's words inside out. According to your words mishna should have said "You are not mechuyev to know how to answer a heretic".

[pine4u2]

@0davidberg0 Hey david, he was just bringing in that midrash to tell us that the BRIYAH is not for us to delve into. That's what he goes on to say for the entire clip. Questions in other areas are for sure for us to delve into.

[0davidberg0]

@pine4u2 My point is that R Slifkin is NOT delving into beriyah (like sefiros and tzimtzumim etc.) rather he is resolving obvious stirah between bereishis 1 and reality (like big bang). Even if R Slifkins solution does involve some secret (days are not chronological), still the goal is remove doubts as perkey avos obligates.

PS R Schechter never said that it is OK for us to delve into other areas, he said that our job is to study Torah and do mitzvos and everything else is irrelevant.

[0davidberg0]

More about hiding secrets of the Torah.

R' Slifkin was not talking about divine chariot or essence of ein sof.

He was trying to resolve the contradiction between geochronology and six days of Torah.

And when R' Slifkin quotes R' Desler who quotes Ramban that six days - does not mean days, but rather sefiros, he is not really revealing with how 1st day is gevurah etc. Rather he is using idea that days are not made of time, to help people not to have doubts about truth of Torah.

[0davidberg0]

Addressing his point about obligation of chazal to hide "secrets of the Torah"?

First of all, there is another obligation to know what to reply to a heretic. And that also means - heretic in oneself - meaning one needs to know how to resolve one owns doubts about the truth of the Torah.

Secondly - the secrets of the Torah/kaballah were already revealed by zohar, ari, taanya etc. Is he saying that chasidim and sefarding (who study secrets) are ok reading Slifkin books?

[Netanel1]

It is very scary that we jews look up to these types of rabbis.

[0davidberg0]

Rav Schechter by saying that getting involved in Breishis is not for regular people, rather for advanced Torah scholars, seems to imply that R' Slifkins books are ok for the later group. However in 2nd part of his speech Rav says that one is not allowed to come up with new explanations for parshah Bereishis, and that seems to refer to R' Slikins explanation of order of things in 6 days of creation as in spiritual order and not physical/scientific. But R Slifkin did not invent it- Rav Desler did.

[GorterPoss]

Read between the lines. The point is that getting into the whole discussion is pointless in the first place. All that matters is your servitude and for that purpose the literal interpretation of creation is good enough.

However, he sees the Yeshiva world as representative of the Jewish people. The problem is that outside of this world people without the benefit of not having had a secular education have difficulty accepting superstition and dogma to explain life's larger mysteries.

[khaybarkhaybar]

I hope they provided coffee, that was some really boring stuff.

[dwolpaw]

Essentially, he's saying scripture says that any area of scientific inquiry that would lead to information that contradicts scripture, you should stay away from. It's just plain silly on face. If a used car salesman said, "Don't listen to anyone who disagrees with me." you'd walk right out of the dealer.

[GorterPoss]

I disagree. He's saying that the exact origins of the universe are irrelevant for our purposes. Thus the traditional account of creation in genesis is good enough and doesn't need to be retooled or reinterpreted because doing so will have no practical benefit. So you have it ass backwards.

The problem is that the cat's out of the bag. We're already standing in the light of discovery. Therefore Slifkin is relevant. I suppose for those who have no more than a Yeshiva education its OK.

[1w5w9]

@GorterPoss He happens to be highly educated.

[GorterPoss]

@1w5w9 I was reffering to his many of his audience members. If your worldview is limited in scope, then perhaps the account of genesis is satisfying. For others, not so much.

[1w5w9]

@dwolpaw What If that used car salesman is GOD ALMIGHTY himself? You would be pretty stupid to walk away!!!!

[Iwanthax]

What a tzadik! A true Gadol Hador! It all makes sense now, whenever we find a problem based on logic and science, just Don't think about it! It's not for us to dwell into, and that's just how it's meant to be.

[funsy49]

I assume this comment was sarcastic. Because if it isn't, I truly feel bad for you.

[Iwanthax]

Of course it was sarcastic!

[funsy49]

Oh ok. I've heard many people say the same thing... except they're totally serious.

[0davidberg0]

Amazing speech by a Torah giant. R'Schechter was talking about seforim of R' Nosson S. And criticizing the radical departure from poshut pshat in Bereishis, trying to make Torah agree with atheists scientists reshoim For example on Bereishis 1:7 author quotes Hirsch and Malbim saying that rekiya is not a dome (chas vasholom), but an atmosphere. Of course there is a dome, that is how we know that people never landed on moon. I am talking obviously about Artscroll Chumash by R' Nosson Sherman.