The fiction of R. Haim Sabato is a welcomed change in the depiction of Orthodox Jews in fiction. In any case, all 3 of his novels are now available in English. I would love to hear some comments about these works.

How beneficial it would be for all of us not to divide ourselves with such black and white lines, and throw these divisive “wing” labels away. They don’t suit a nation such as ours. Don’t you agree?

“Ban Slifking, ban the Rambam? One doesn’t lead to the other.”

The possible comparisons between the Rambam and RNS are in the areas of:

A)Taking the pesukim of Maseh Berishis in a non-literal manner as far as the simple meaning is concerned(eg, days of creation) B) reinterpreting Torah in light of science C) preferring a rationalistic approach to supra-rationalistic approach D) Being less concerned with the multitudes who need to be protected, and more concerned with the searching intellectual E) The nature of the scientific knowledge of Chazal.

I only have general ideas of both the Rambam’s and RNS’s books, but I would agree that one has be certain before making comparison’s between the two. It is true that the Rambam was criticized by both RSRH and the Gra for crossing the line and bending Torah to conform to Greek philosophy, the equivalent of the science of his day. But I do not know enough to make comparisons regarding A-C.

However, in the last two areas(D and E), I think that the comparisons are clearer, even if RNS went further in some ways regarding Chazal’s knowledge of science(E). There are definitely some Gedolim who would likewise hold that the Rambam’s approach regarding chazal’s knowledge of science would be considered kefirah today, whether or not RNS took the approach too far(i.e., “tone” of his writings). Also, see quotations from Rav Dessler(comment #30) above, as to possible differences in historical eras regarding the approach to emunah (D).

“it is hard to conclude that R Parness’s POV is the only valid POV on that issue.”

I indeed did not say that. To generalize, I think the position of the Orthodox academics on this matter would be close to that of the Hildesheimer Seminary.

I think the issue is if everyone can say that they are on the level of the Rambam who studied heretical sources. Rabbi Carmy brings his and others’ experiences with RYBS as a Maseh Rav, but on the other hand, R. Parnes writes that the Rambam in Avodah Zarah can not be swept under the carpet. R. Parnes also wrote:

“…Nothing less than a classically documented and formulated teshuva by a recognized Torah authority either in America or in Eretz Yisael can resolve this festering issue…”

As I wrote on other blogs, I think a compromise would certainly be to allow students to avoid courses like Academic Bible or Talmud. As RHS said, it should theoretically be possible for a student from Torah Voddas to be able to study at YU without needing to be concerned about these issues.

Luckily, medieval science was relatively stable so they were more likely to have scientific consensus than we do.

“The Rambam believed that science has validity”

So does every observant Jew of every stripe. Implying otherwise doesn’t lend credibility to your comments. Perhaps you need to visit some “right wing” schools at science lesson time.

“to the point that when the science of his time contradicted the science of the gemara, he held by the science of his time.”

Every time? Indiscriminately? Perhaps you will learn otherwise when you learn the Rambam in greater breadth and depth, rather than relying on sound bites that have long lost credibility. Are you reading Sefarim, or have you come to your conclusions from reading periodical essays?

“R. Slifkin’s book reflects the same approach to the validity of science.”

We all have that approach. We all agree that science has validity. We just all may not accept every theory and “finding” that science has to offer. Neither do scientists, which is why ongoing research continually reveals new information that oftentimes are in direct contradiction to previous findings. Science is continually advancing because we DON’T have that the approach that our current scientific knowledge is infallible.

So yes, since we ALL agree that science has validity, it boils down to, would the Rambam, as you assert, have agreed with the particular science and content found in Slifkin’s books. I know you prefer not to deal with the question, but a sweeping generalization that since the Rambam agreed with some of the science of that time, he would agree with Slifkin’s books, unfortunately begs the question.

“By saying that R. Slifkin’s books are kefirah, they are saying that the Rambam’s approach to science is kefirah. Plain and simple.”

Quite simply not plain and simple, but a distortion of the facts. The Rambam’s approach to science does not have any bearing on whether Slifkin’s books are kefirah or not. You seem to be confusing ‘approach’ with specific science.

“We don’t need to posit that the Rambam would or would not have written a haskama. R. Slifkin takes the same approach to science as the Rambam. Ban Slifkin, ban the Rambam. QED.”

The above may suit an agenda, but doesn’t add up. R’ Slifkin takes the same approach as the Rambam (I don’t feel knowledgeable and wise enough nor great enough to determine that this is so- I’m sure you don’t either), so therefore his books would automatically be something the Rambam would approve of? Ban Slifking, ban the Rambam? One doesn’t lead to the other. No matter how much the concept suits a particular viewpoint.

Having studied science in great depth in graduate courses, I find that approach a bit silly, but you are welcome to keep science on a pedestal, and “hold” that the Rambam felt the same way as you. As the Rambam said, let us stuff ourselves with Torah first- perhaps then we will have the clarity and wisdom to assess scientific theories and findings as the Rambam did.

Baruch-when you read the exchange of views between R Parness and R D D Berger, et al, it is hard to conclude that R Parness’s POV is the only valid POV on that issue.

And Steve, I hope you equally abhor the use of “Modern Orthodox” to define the Rambam or any other Rishon as well. To be honest, I feel it is gargantum arrogance to engage in this type of talk.

The terms Chareidi, right wing, left wing, MO, are primarily political terminology, and have no function in describing Klal Yisrael and their diverse derachim of serving H-Shm. They are generally used in a divisive context such as, as opposed to X, we as Y think think or do “this way”.

Steve, your position is well presented. I am in agreement; as I believe is most Torah observant Jewry.

The Rambam was a giant, and we don’t have the credentials to assess any of the Rambam’s positions in a way other than, “how can I understand this better”, or, as in so many Torah discussions, after learning them in depth, “these are the two positions, we follow the position of the Rambam/____.” As an aside, Chareidi Jewry learns and quotes Rambam continually – just step into any Yeshiva. It is baffling that others may think otherwise

An important source is also the Rambam in Hilchos Avodah Zarah concerning learning heretical material. As I am sure you know, there was an exchange of articles in the TUM journal between Rabbi Yehuda Parnes and others concerning this Rambam.

That being the case, one should understand that some Talmidie Chachamim view the Yad as reflecting Halacha LMaaseh and the MN being a philospophical work addressed to the attack of Aristotelian philosophers. Others such as R Meir Simcha ZTL in Meshech Chachmah ( see beginning of Vayikra) and the Rogatchover try to demonstrate their unity and that halachos can and were derived from the MN as well.Obviuosly, the rise of Kabbalah after the Spanish Inquisition and expulsion led many to question the rationalistic views of Rambam. The points raised by Dilbert cannot be viewed as either MO or Charedi-but rather the view of Rambam. Whether one accepts or rejects them is simply a matter of whether one views them as within the Mesorah and noone , even Rambam’s critics on these views, denies their validity. They merely question their universal applicability-a question that remains unresolved and at the core of many discussions vis a vis Torah and the outside world. There is no question that Rambam is more of a rationalist ala Ibn Ezra than Ramban. OTOH, none less than RYBS viewed Ramban as expressing a more authentically Jewish POV because Ramban did not resort to foreign hashkafos to prove his point.

dilbert, the Rambam isn’t here today, and we don’t know what he would comment on R’ Slifkin’s books. It would be of benefit if those who use some of the Rambam’s quotes as sound bites would learn the Rambam in depth, not cherry picking to extrapolate hechshers where they don’t exist. Perhaps there indeed would be a hechsher if the Rambam were here today, but assumptions to this effect are all too often made on a grand, sweeping, and absurd scale. As Baruch wrote, “the Rambam, if one takes his writings as a whole, was neither charedie nor modern-Orthodox, as the terms are used today.”

I think that the Rambam would have recognized that the direction of the generation is to be left in the hands of each generation’s Torah leaders. Would the Rambam be happy in Yeshiva University, in Lakewood, or start his own yeshivah? It’s a fascinating question, at least to me, but it remains guesswork.

Rav Dessler(Michtav Meliyahu, volume I, pgs 175-176) explains that historically, the different approaches to emunah(faith) were formulated in response to the needs that existed during different periods in Jewish history. Rav Dessler(Michtav Meliyahu, volume IV, pg 355) also indicates that the Rambam’s derech was designed for people who needed this special guidance. This is not revisonisim, after all, everyone knows that the Rambam’s seforim were burned. It’s merely taking an holistic approach to Jewish philosophy, and taking into account the needs of each generation.

I am not sure why you find that objectionable. There are poskim today, as there were in previous generations, who indeed hold that the opinion in question subsequently became Kefirah. I, personally, feel that the status quo in Orthodoxy has been to allow people to “hold” by the shittah as a possibility, and it is therefore unfortunate that recently, people have been made to feel that they are beyond the pale for holding or believing the opinion even as a possibility. But these are my personal feelings, and does not make the “hard-line” view illegitimate.

I agree with you that the Rambam indeed should be a guide for modern-Orthodoxy. As I said previously(comment # 9), the Rambam, if one takes his writings as a whole, was neither charedie nor modern-Orthodox, as the terms are used today. We have to be careful of “kol hamoseif gorea”. One has to look at the mesorah at a whole and include supra-rational views, but if one disqualifies the Rambam’s views entirely, some indeed, might not take seriously things which he did, hameiven yavin.

To hold that is appalling, not legitimate at all. The Rambam was a holy Torah giant, and no one of our caliber should have the audacity to “hold” that something the Rambam said is Kefirah. These debates are in the realm of the Rishonim. How can we even utter such words?

It is well known that “right wing” orthodoxy inteprets some of the Rambam’s words very differently than do “modern” orthodox segments. It is unfortunate that after interpretating some of the Rambam’s teachings in a particular way, some segments of modern orthodoxy have determined that the Rambam is not the guide for the “right wing”.

By “extreme polarization”, I mean when comparing the two groups referred to above, they are relatively on extreme poles; to hold that the Rambam’s opinion is Kefirah is a legitmate position in of itself.

I was referring to the Moreh Nevuchim’s opinion(and others) on the issue of Chazal’s knowledge of science. It is not the topic of this post, and any event, I was not taking sides, but merely observing that there appears to be an extreme polarization of hashkafah amongst some observant Jews.

Baruch, can you give an example of this? This is an intriguing statement.