Volume 46 Number 87
Produced: Wed Feb 9 5:19:22 EST 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Ban on Nosson Slifkin and his Books
[Nachum Binyamin Klafter]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nachum Binyamin Klafter <doctorklafter@...>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 22:50:29 -0500
Subject: Ban on Nosson Slifkin and his Books
This letter which was sent to Rabbi David Feinstein through a liaison who
has urged Rabbi Feinstein to respond in detail. It may be of interest to
mail-jewish readers. (Hebrew sections have been translated or
transliterated for the purposes of mail-jewish posting.)
From: Nachum Binyamin Klafter, MD
[address and phone removed]
Email: <doctorklafter@...>
To: The Esteemed Rabbi David Feinstein, Shlita
[address removed]
Shevat 21, 5765
I am writing this letter to Rabbi Feinstein in my capacity as the head
of the Education Committee of the Chafetz Chaim-Cincinnati Hebrew Day
School, which is a Torah U-Mesorah affiliated institution. I am also
writing personally, as a Jew who takes seriously Rabbi Feinstein's
positions in halakha and hashkafah. (Rabbi Feinstein may not remember
me, but he has spoken to me by phone when I was referred to him by Rabbi
Shmuel Kamenetsky for a very complicated she'elah (query for a ruling in
Jewish Law), and with Rabbi Feinstein's ruling we were blessed with
another daughter 3 months ago, b"h'.)
It has come to my attention that Rabbi Feinstein signed a ban on the
books of Rabbi Nosson Slifkin which calls upon him to burn his writings
and retract publicly the beliefs expressed in his books. The ban
characterizes his writings, among other things, as "melai'im divrei
kefira ve-minut" [full of heretical contents]. The ban also forbids the
book from being brought into any religious home. The books referred to
are The Science of Torah, Mysterious Creatures, and The Camel, the Hare,
and the Hyrax. The ban states that Rabbi Slifkin should no longer be
allowed to teach Torah or engage in "kiruv rechokim" [outreach]. The ban
additionally states that the Torah scholars who signed approbations to
his books have retracted their endorsements.
I am familiar with the contents of The Science of Torah, and Mysterious
Creatures, but have not yet read the third book mentioned in the ban.
Rabbi Slifkin's writings reflect the same teachings and attitudes to
which I have been exposed for many years now by my own rabbis regarding
statements by Chazal [our sages, of blessed memory] which appear to be
contradicted by contemporary scientific knowledge. In addition, some of
the religious studies staff members of our day school (who are all pious
and learned) share many of these attitudes. I am very concerned that our
school faculty and I espouse ideas which Rabbi Feinstein believes are
heretical
Therefore, I would like to present the following issues to Rabbi
Feinstein in light of his participation in the ban on Rabbi Slifkin and
his books.
1. How should we reconcile the contradictions between certain
statements by Chazal and the discoveries of modern science?
2. Several of the rabbis who have signed this ban have gone on to make
broad, sweeping statements to the effect that Chazal were infallible,
and that wherever science raises questions about how to understand the
Torah, science is false and must therefore be ignored.
3. A major segment of the Torah world is bewildered and disappointed by
the authorities who have signed this ban, and now wonder if they can
continue to rely upon these rabbis.
4. Those who have studied Rabbi Slifkin's writings closely wonder
whether the rabbis who signed this ban were thoroughly familiar with his
books.
5. The ban makes a false claim about Rabbi Slifkin's supporters having
retracted their endorsements of his books.
Issue 1: How should we reconcile the contradictions between certain
statements by Chazal and the discoveries of modern science?
The central theme of Rabbi Slifkin's books is as follows: Chazal were
experts in Torah scholarship, but for the most part did not personally
engage in scientific investigation. The scientific and medical knowledge
available to Chazal came from the scientists, philosophers, and
physicians of the ancient world. Therefore the scientific and medical
information to which Chazal were exposed included theories and practices
which, in many cases, have since been disproved or otherwise revised. Of
course, scientific knowledge is not absolute truth, and continues to be
revised in our times. In the meantime, however, the Torah allows or even
mandates that we make use of the best scientific and medical information
currently available to us, even when it seems to contradict certain
ancient or medieval scientific theories which were accepted by Chazal,
the ga'onim, the rishonim, or earlier acharonim [post Talmudic scholars
from ancient, medieval and modern times].
My questions for Rabbi Feinstein about this issue are as follows: What
is heretical or otherwise objectionable about this approach? This is
certainly the view of most rabbis with whom I have discussed these
ideas. As Rabbi Feinstein is certainly more aware than I am, this is
the view of many rishonim and acharonim. For example, this was the view
of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, who wrote 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 G-d'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....
Imagine if a scholar such as Humboldt [the great German
naturalist of the early 19th century] had lived in their times
and had traveled to the ends of the world for his biological
investigations. If upon his return he would report that in some
distant land there is a humanoid creature growing from the
ground, or that he found mice that had been generated from the
soil, and had in fact seen a mouse that was half earth and half
flesh, wouldn't we expect Chazal to discuss the Torah aspects
that apply to these instances? What laws of defilement and
decontamination [Tumah and Tahara] apply to these creatures? Or
would we expect them to go on long journeys to find out whether
what the world has accepted is really true? And if, as we see
things today, these instances are considered fiction, can Chazal
be blamed for ideas that were accepted by the naturalists of
their times? And this is what really happened. These statements
are to be found in the works of Pliny who lived in Rome at the
end of the time the Second Temple was destroyed... [goes on to
show that the notion that the human spine turns into a snake
after 7 years, which is found on Bava Kama 16b:, actually
predates the Talmud and was recorded by the ancient, Roman
naturalist, Pliny, in his own book, volume 10, p. 188.] (letter
by Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch published in the journal, Hama'yan,
1976, Chapter 4, Jerusalem)
Could Rabbi Feinstein please clarify if he feels that this statement by
Rav Hirsch reflects a legitimate approach? If Rav Hirsch's statement is
not heretical, could he please identify what in Rabbi Slifkin's books
constitutes Kefirah or Minus Is there any substantive difference between
Rabbi Slifkin's and Rav Hirsch's views on this issue?
Issue 2: Several of the rabbis who have signed this ban have gone on to
make broad, sweeping statements to the effect that Chazal were
infallible and that wherever science raises questions about how to
understand the Torah, science is false and must therefore be ignored.
There have been numerous statements made by several rabbis who joined
Rabbi Feinstein in signing the ban on Rabbi Slifkin and his books, which
were reported in various newspapers. (In case Rabbi Feinstein is unaware
of these statements, and I have attached some documentation of them.)
Included in these statements are the following assertions:
a. It is heretical for a Jew to believe that Chazal may have
tentatively accepted scientific theories which were subject to the
limitations of their era because their Divine inspiration or Divine
assistance made them infallible to errors, and impervious to
misinformation.
b. It would be heretical for a Jew to allow carbon dating, the fossil
record, genetics, or any other scientific information to bring a Jew to
the conclusion that the six days of creasion described in the Torah can
be understood as anything other than six literal days (i.e. six 24-hour
periods), or that the world is older than 5,765 years. (See, for
example, Rabbi Yitzchak Sheiner's statement at the bottom of the "Giluy
Da'at" poster, attached.)
c. A Jew is obligated to totally ignore modern science, his common
sense, or even the evidence of his own eyes and ears if there appears to
be any contradiction between this evidence and the most literal readings
of the Talmud. (See, for example, the melaveh malka speech by Rabbi Uren
Reich, attached.)
d. It is not only heresy but also desecration to the honor of Chazal to
suggest that they may have tentatively accepted scientific ideas which
were limited or flawed.
My questions about this issue are as follows: Does Rabbi Feinstein
endorse any of these attitudes? If not, would he be willing to go on
record and state that Rav Hirsch's approach is a legitimate method for
understanding many of the apparent contradictions between science and
the teachings of our sages. What is Rabbi Feinstein's opinion about the
whether it is legitimate for a Jew who believes in the Divinity of the
Torah to interpret the six days of creation in a manner which is
compatible with the view held universally by all scientists that the
earth was formed billions of years ago?
Issue 3: A major segment of the Torah world is bewildered and
disappointed by the authorities who have signed this ban, and now wonder
if they can continue to rely upon these rabbis.
I would like to highlight the impact that this ban has had already
throughout the Torah community. Many Jews I have spoken with now think
it may be appropriate to label (along with Rabbi Slifkin) Rav Hirsch,
Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman, the Tiferes Yisroel, Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg, Rav
Avraham Yitzchak Kook, Rabbi Eli Munk, Rav Eliyahu Dessler, the Rambam,
Rabbi Avraham ben Ha-Rambam, and so many others, as heretics (perish the
thought!), because all of these authorities have suggested that the six
days of creation are not literal, and several of them have stated
explicitly that the world may be millions or billions of years old.
***Most significantly, I am deeply troubled that many Jews now have the
impression that some of the leading Torah Scholars of our generation
demand that we abandon our common sense when we consider issues relating
to Torah and science. (Let me clarify that I do not suspect that Rabbi
Feinstein actually advocates this approach, which is why I am hoping he
can clarify his positions on these issues.) It is my impression (and the
impression of dozens of rabbis I have spoken with) that many, many Jews
are offended and upset by this ban. The ban has led them to lose
confidence in the Torah scholars who signed it. Their reasoning is as
follows:
1. They have concluded that the Torah scholars who signed the ban are
ignorant of and uninterested in modern science, and wonder if these
authorities are truly qualified to adjudicate matters in hashkafah
or halakha where some understanding of science and technology is
required. The ban also creates an unfortunate impression that the
rabbis who signed it are unwilling to acknowledge or consider
questions posed for traditional belief in Torah by the discoveries
of modern science in an intellectually honest fashion.
-or-
1. Alternatively, they have concluded that the Torah scholars who
signed the ban did so without studying Rabbi Slifkin's writings
carefully, and without granting Rabbi Slifkin the benefit of a
meeting in person in order to clarify his beliefs despite his
attempts to do so. Furthermore, the participants in this ban have
condemned, by association, all Jews who aim to reconcile the
findings of modern science with their faith in the Torah as heretics
(including the great rabbis mentioned above).
If these conclusions are not correct, it would be most helpful if the
Torah authorities who signed this ban could clarify publicly what their
positions are on all these issues in order to dispel various
misunderstandings which have seriously lowered the stature of our
gedolim (leading Torah authorities). I am very concerned about what the
consequences will be, Heaven forbid, if large numbers of Jews lose
confidence in the leading Torah scholars of our generation and stop
turning to them for guidance.
Issue 4: Those who have studied Rabbi Slifkin's writings closely wonder
whether the rabbis who signed this ban were thoroughly familiar with his
books.
I am told by several individuals in close contact with the leading Torah
scholars of our generation that the signatories of this ban were shown
only excerpts from Rabbi Slifkin's writings, and that none of them read
his books in their entirety. It is obviously very easy when dealing with
such delicate issues (like, for example, the limitations or fallibility
of our sages) to take Rabbi Slifkin's statements out of context and
create an impression that his remarks were derogatory or disrespectful
to Chazal. However, the noted Rabbis who have given their endorsements
to Rabbi Slifkin's books all have the impression that Rabbi Slifkin
shows tremendous reverence for Chazal and thirst for their
teachings. (See, for example, Rabbi Yisroel Belsky's enthusiastic
endorsement to The Camel, The Hare, and the Hyrax, which indicates that
he studied the entire book carefully.) Would Rabbi Feinstein consider
examining Rabbi Slifkin's books more thoroughly, or meeting with him for
clarification about what his beliefs are? As one can imagine, the
personal consequences of this ban for Rabbi Slifkin (now branded by this
ban as a non-believer and heretic) are quite severe.
Issue 5: The ban makes a false claim about Rabbi Slifkin's supporters
having retracted their endorsements.
It is evident from the language of the ban that the rabbis who signed it
were told that the Torah authorities who initially endorsed his books no
longer do so. However, I am aware that, in contrast to the claim of the
ban, the following Torah scholars have not retracted their endorsements
to his books, despite being approached to do so: Rabbis Shmuel
Kamenetsky, Sholom Kamenetsky, Yisroel Belsky, Mordechai Kornfeld, Aryeh
Carmell, Chaim Malinowitz, and Yitzchak Adlerstein. This can easily be
verified by phone calls to these individuals. Several have indicated
that they continue to hold Rabbi Slifkin in high regard as a pious Jew
with great reference for the our sages. (There may be others who did not
retract their endorsements, but I don't have reliable information about
them as of yet.) My question is as follows: Considering that these Torah
Scholars have in fact not retracted their endorsements, would Rabbi
Feinstein consider investigating his books more thoroughly, or agreeing
to a meeting in person with Rabbi Slifkin?
I very much appreciate Rabbi Feinstein's consideration of these issues.
I apologize for the length of this letter, but I wanted to be certain
that I could present these important issues clearly and in all their
details.
Sincerely Yours,
Nachum Binyamin (Andrew Bennett) Klafter, MD
University of Cincinnati
<doctorklafter@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 46 Issue 87
