A Response to Rabbi Aharon Feldman’s Article
THE SLIFKIN AFFAIR – ISSUES AND PERSPECTIVES
Compiled by Meir Ben-Tzvi
Second Version (Greatly Expanded Throughout)
Rav Aharon Feldman, Rosh Yeshivah of Ner Israel, has performed a great service for Torah Jews. In the half-year or so since the ban on Rabbi Slifkin’s books was publicized, there has been much confusion as to what the reasons for the ban could have been and why it took place in the way that it did. Some people assumed that Rabbi Slifkin had proposed some radical new heretical theories; then it emerged that his books did not contain any novel ideas at all. Others assumed that the problem was with his tone; but this did not seem to warrant a charge of heresy, and besides, most of the Gedolim who condemned the books had not even read them and were not in a position to evaluate the tone. But now Rav Feldman has clarified matters. By virtue of his position as one of the Moetzes Gedolei Torah, his close personal relationship with Rav Elyashiv, and his reported meetings with Rav Elyashiv, Rav Moshe Shapiro and Rav Elya Ber Wachtfogel about the ban, he is in the pre-eminent position to explain the basis of the ban, and the reason why it took place in the way that it did, thus rendering any further speculation unnecessary. 
His letter to this effect, however, in which he sided with the condemnation, came to the great surprise and dismay of many. It is already public knowledge that Rav Feldman told many people over the last year that he was deeply distressed by the ban and was opposed to it (and, of course, he did not sign on to it). He even said this almost explicitly in a lecture at Ner Israel, where he stated that one must respect the drive and goals of those who fight heresy, even when they are wrong. Yet several months after matters had been dying down, Rav Feldman has changed his position entirely. It is not wrong for a person to change their mind, but one must wonder why his essay makes no mention of his long period of opposition to the ban, and which new information or development caused him to so radically change his stance.
In this article I will respond to all of Rabbi Feldman’s points. Many of the rejoinders that I shall raise are not of my own original insights, but rather are points that I heard from others, including Rabbi Slifkin in his recent New York lectures, or are from discussions that I have read on the Internet and elsewhere. I consider it beneficial to collect all these points together in a single response, and I thank all the various writers. I would particularly like to acknowledge http://jewishworker.blogspot.com, which has an excellent series of detailed and respectful discussions which were used extensively in this essay. Some material was also taken from http://darkbluehat.blogspot.com. 
I will admit that the name under which I write this letter is a pseudonym. It is said that anonymity is a sign of cowardice, and I agree: I am afraid. In light of this year’s events, however, I think this is understandable. I have no wish to undergo the endless persecution and slander to which Rabbi Slifkin and others have been subjected, nor to subject my family to any problems. It is regrettably therefore necessary for me to adopt anonymity. Let this letter be judged on its own merits. 

Rav Feldman opens with a statement that is undeniably true:
	Probably the public issue most damaging to the honor of Torah and to its leaders in recent memory is what is known as the Slifkin affair. 
The damage is immeasurable, and the effects will be felt for many years. There was a huge chillul Hashem caused by the articles in the New York Times and other newspapers. One must ask who is truly responsible for this tremendous damage.

Rabbi Nosson Slifskin, a talented young man still in his twenties, wrote three books in the past several years in which he attempted to justify certain conflicts between the findings of modern science and parts of the Torah and the Talmud. 
Although he is still in his twenties, everything that Rabbi Slifkin wrote was checked by senior and respected talmidei chachomim and Gedolei Torah. In his letter, Rav Feldman completely fails to address the issue of the prestigious haskamos that Rabbi Slifkin received. Yet it is of critical importance for at least two reasons. One, it means that Rabbi Slifkin should not be condemned as a lone maverick who is not taking the correct approach to dealing with these topics. Two, it means that Rabbi Feldman should acknowledge that there are Gedolei Torah who strongly disagree with those who banned the books.

The author is a fully observant chareidi Torah Jew whose intent was clearly leshem shomayim (for the sake of Heaven), to defend the honor of the Torah. Nevertheless, in September of last year a public letter banning the books was issued by some of the leading Torah authorities in Israel, and then shortly afterwards a similar ban, signed by many prominent American Roshey Yeshiva, was issued in the United States. The books were banned because they were deemed to contain ideas antithetical to Torah, and therefore forbidden to read because of the Torah commandment, לא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם (“You shall not stray after your hearts and after your eyes”) which forbids tempting oneself with matters which might turn one away from the Torah. 
Yet several of the most prominent American Roshei Yeshivah, including Rav Feldman himself, did not sign on to the ban. Surely this indicates that they were opposed to it – especially since some of them wrote haskamos to either Rabbi Slifkin’s books or the similar book by Dr. Yehudah Levi! The attempt to portray this dispute as “The Gedolim Vs. Nosson Slifkin” is wrong. It is “Some Gedolim Vs. Other Gedolim.”

The ban was met with resistance by Slifkin….
The ban was met with resistance by the majority of Orthodox Jews. Why single out Rabbi Slifkin?
And why does Rav Feldman refer to Rabbi Slifkin without any honorifics? I understand that his essay was intended for the Jewish Observer (which, under instruction from some of the Gedolim in the US, refused to publish it). That has featured an article on Rabbi Slifkin in the past, in which he was given his proper title, as did the Yated Ne’eman when it used to publish his essays. Why did the condemnation by the Gedolim, and Rabbi Feldman’s letter, strip him of his title?

 …who vigorously defended himself on his Internet site on several grounds. First, he argued that there was nothing heretical in his books; his views were based on opinions already offered in the past by the greatest authorities in Jewish history. The ban was based, he claimed, on excerpts of the book taken out of context by extremists who manipulated the signatories, many of whom do not read English, into signing against them. 
There is little doubt that some of the signatories would have banned the books even had they read them in their entirety. But in any case, surely it is inappropriate to issue a verdict that is intended to destroy a person’s career and reputation based on extracts selected and translated by hostile parties and without speaking to the author. Why did the Gedolim refuse to meet with Rabbi Slifkin, or at least with the Rabbonim who wrote haskamos to his books? Aside from the halachos that would seem to require such a meeting before ruining his reputation and career, didn’t basic derech eretz require it? I sincerely regret any disrespect towards these Gedolei Torah, but this a point that disturbs many of us. Even many people who have no position at all on the issues of Torah and science, or even strongly reject the approach that Rabbi Slifkin uses, are stunned by the lack of due procedure involved in issuing the ban, and by the way that Rabbi Slifkin was demonized.

Secondly, the ban was unjustifiably personally cruel to him: it damaged his reputation and caused him to lose his job as a teacher of newcomers to Judaism. 
That is quite correct. No matter what one’s opinion of Rabbi Slifkin’s books – even if one genuinely believes them to be heretical – there is no doubt that he wrote them with good intentions, following his rebbeim, and receiving haskamos. As Rav Elyashiv said, he could even be one of the lamed-vav tzaddikim. It was therefore unjustifiable for him to be tarred and feathered. I do not see where Rav Feldman addresses this point.

Finally, he portrayed the dispute as pro- or anti-science, with himself as a champion of truth and his detractors as uneducated deniers of the discoveries of modern science.
I do not recall Rabbi Slifkin portraying the dispute in quite this way. Had he done so, he would have been neither unjustified nor alone in viewing it as such. After all, the letters of condemnation mentioned that he is accursed for believing that the world is billions of years old – something for which even Rav Feldman will shortly concede that there is clear evidence. And Rav Feldman will later state that it is forbidden for us to accept the position of all scientists that the sun and moon existed long before there was plant life on earth, or that salamanders are not generated by fire, or that mice never grow from dirt. Is this not an anti-scientific position?

Slifkin’s campaign was eminently successful. In short time, most people were convinced that the ban had no basis or reason, and that Slifkin had been unwarrantedly victimized. 
They did not need Rabbi Slifkin’s campaign to convince them. Most people, including many outstanding talmidei chachomim, reached that opinion quite independently of anything that Rabbi Slifkin wrote on his website. They were very capable of reaching their own conclusions without Rabbi Slifkin’s assistance.

His campaign made the signatories appear easily swayed and naive. Easily swayed, because they had relied on the “extremists” and had not sufficiently checked the accuracy of their claims. 
It was not Rabbi Slifkin’s campaign that did this. Rather, it was the investigations by many people who determined that several of the signatories had no real knowledge of either the books or their market.  Some said that they did not know they were signing a ban – that they thought they were signing a recommendation to the publisher not to republish his books. Others said that they were not familiar with the issues at all, and signed only because there were other signatures already in place. Furthermore, many people spoke to the maskimim and discovered that they had not retracted their haskamos, contrary to what the ban had stated and to what the signatories had presumably believed without checking (the other alternative is too disturbing to consider).

Naïve, because the tumult over the ban catapulted the books into best-sellerdom. The books had been previously virtually unknown but after the ban began selling by the thousands even at inflated prices – which meant that the ban accomplished nothing.
Anyone who drew such a conclusion (I do not know if Rabbi Slifkin drew this conclusion) was clearly mistaken. The ban certainly accomplished one of its goals, which is to warn anyone away from ever trying to publicly present these views in a charedi framework. On the other hand, if the purpose of the ban was to prevent harm to people’s emunas chachomim, then it was indeed naïve, because it utterly devastated people’s emunah in the Gedolim, as Rav Feldman himself openly admitted at the very beginning of the letter. 
 
	Blogspots, Internet sites (mostly anonymous) where anyone with access to a computer can express his spontaneous, unchecked and unedited opinion with impunity, became filled with tasteless, derogatory attacks on these authorities, at times to the accompaniment of vulgar caricatures.
While I would not dream of justifying these attacks, it is easy to understand why many people reacted angrily. A popular young rabbi was vilified for possessing views that are shared by many Orthodox Jews, without being given any chance to defend himself. Would anyone not expect there to be an angry response?
It must also be noted that the packet of extracts from Rabbi Slifkin’s books that were marked up and passed to the Gedolim for their condemnations was likewise filled with tasteless and derogatory personal attacks, referring to him as a “sick man,” “peasant,” “evil rasha,” “animal,” etc. Are these not vulgar caricatures? Did this not alert the Gedolim to the fact that there were unsavory characters engineering this campaign? (In fact, I did hear a rumor of one Gadol b’Torah who refused to be involved in the ban for this very reason.) And let us not forget that all the condemnations of Rabbi Slifkin’s books are implicitly also condemnations against the Gedolei Torah who wrote haskamos for his books, and against the Rishonim whose positions Rabbi Slifkin presents.

	As a result, many thoughtful, observant Jews were beset by a crisis of confidence in the judgment of the signatories. This was an extremely vital crisis since these authorities constitute some of the greatest Torah leaders of our generation, authorities upon whom all of the Jewish people rely for their most serious decisions. More important, it threatened to make any of their future signatures on public announcements questionable. 
This is perhaps the most disturbing part of Rabbi Feldman’s letter. How can he possibly suggest that it was as a result of Rabbi Slifkin’s website or any other websites that many Jews were beset with a crisis of confidence in Rabbinic authority? The crisis came about solely due to the ban itself. Many of us were expressing our shock and dismay long before we saw Rabbi Slifkin’s website, which itself consisted of an extremely mild and brief defense and an account of events that has not been disputed. Many of the people who suffered a crisis of confidence never even looked at any websites at all. Our shock was due to several factors:
•	The branding of views held by the Rishonim as heretical
•	The demonstrably false statement in the ban that the maskimim withdrew their haskamos
•	The statement in one of the letters that it is unacceptable to believe that the universe is millions of years old
•	The declaration that beliefs which are held by many thousands of us in the Torah world are kefirah
•	The lack of any explanation as to the reasons for the ban
•	The lack of any explanation as to the parameters of the ban (what exactly is it prohibited to believe?)
•	The refusal of the Gedolim to talk to Rabbi Slifkin or the maskimim
•	The harsh and unmitigated treatment delivered to someone who successfully worked for years at being mekadesh Shem Shamayim under the guidance of his rabbonim, and whose basic approach has been used by countless rabbonim for decades.
I regret any disrespect, but it is blatantly obvious that it was the Gedolim themselves who brought about this crisis of confidence in Rabbinic authority. It is wrong to blame it on Rabbi Slifkin or any websites.
The irony of it all is that the books, which had originally been written to defend the honor of Torah, became one of the most potent vehicles in our times for weakening the authority of Torah.
This would not appear to a fair assessment of the situation, and it would be more accurate and honest to express this differently: The irony of it all is that these books, which had originally been written to defend the honor of Torah, were subject to an attack by the Gedolim which became one of the most potent causes in our times for weakening the authority of Torah.

	Since very few matters could be more serious, it is important to examine the issues of this affair and to render them in their proper perspective. 
Agreed. One can only wonder why, since the matter is indeed so serious and caused so much confusion and anger, the Gedolim who signed the ban did not see fit to provide any detailed explanation for it.

	To attain this perspective, the foremost question to be addressed is: do the books contain anything which is antithetical to Torah - in which case the ban was justified, or do they not – in which case the signatories committed a grievous error. If the books are forbidden and the ban is justified, then the other issues become secondary.
This is simply not true. Even if the books were to contain heresy, the way that the ban came into being was enough to precipitate a crisis of confidence in the way information is transmitted to Gedolim, and the care with which rabbonim sign letters to the community.  These issues are not linked at all.  Justifying the ban by simply explaining why the books are heretical will not restore the confidence of the substantial part of the community that has learned not to take seriously what they read in frum papers and on placards.

The rabbis were asked if the book is permitted to be held in a Jewish home and were obligated to respond, as they are on any other halachic question. Their intention was not to halt the sales of the books, and it was not their concern if, as a result of their ruling, the book would sell more copies. If a rabbi is asked if a certain product is kosher, he is obligated to rule accordingly even if knows that there will be those who will rush out to buy the product for the thrill of eating something forbidden. Also, as unfortunate as is the loss of employment of the author, if his world-view on Torah is incorrect this would indeed disqualify him from teaching newcomers to Judaism.
This paragraph is so bizarre that it is difficult to imagine that Rav Feldman himself believes what he is writing. Many people are firmly convinced that he doesn’t, and that had other reasons for writing it.
First of all, the Gedolim were not merely “asked a question.” They were approached by people who were already determined to ban these books and discredit the maskimim, and who knew exactly how to arrange signatures condemning them.
Rav Feldman writes that their obligation was only to rule accordingly, and other effects did not need to be their concern. Yet Rav Feldman has already pointed out the obvious truth that this whole episode is “the public issue most damaging to the honor of Torah and to its leaders in recent memory.” Were the Gedolim not obligated to assess this effect? It is clear that there are many people whose entire Judaism has been utterly shattered. The articles in the newspapers were the most appalling chillul Hashem. A public letter was recently posted by someone who declares that he has abandoned Orthodoxy as a result; whether or not that particular letter is genuine, there are clearly many people approaching that situation. Were the Gedolim really not responsible to take all this into account? Do poskim indeed have to give a public answer for every question put to them? Do they not often take into account the consequences of their answer upon the public? Don’t all of us have experience with poskim who, when asked a question, beg us not to – because they do not want to answer? Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, as just one example, used to answer certain questions privately, but refrained from taking a public stance because of the potential ramifications of a ruling.
Furthermore, it was precisely for these reasons that Rav Feldman himself, as is widely reported, exerted considerable efforts to try to prevent the ban from coming about in the first place! So how can he now state that those who issued the ban had no obligation to consider these consequences?
 
	There are two problematic theses in Slifkin’s books which brought about the ban. These are: a) his approach to cosmology (the creation of the world), and b) his approach to the credibility of the Sages. Each of these need to be examined separately.

THE COSMOLOGY ISSUE

Most scientists believe that the world is 15 billion years old, and that the human species evolved from lower life forms. The Torah says that it is less than 6000 years and that man was created individually at the end of Creation. 
	It is quite obvious that the world appears older than 6000 years. 
While I fully agree with Rav Feldman’s assessment, it seems that several of the signatories on the ban dispute it. Rav Yitzchok Shiner wrote, “he believes that the world is millions of years old – dust in his mouth!”

One needs only look up to the sky and see stars billions of light years away for evidence of this. On the other hand, for a Torah Jew, because his ancestors experienced a revelation by G-d of Torah at Mount Sinai and the Jewish People bears an unbroken tradition of that revelation, there is no doubt that the Torah is true. If so, the appearances which make the world seem older must have some explanation. 
	In truth, explanations are elusive. Creation does not follow the laws of nature. According to natural law nothing can come into existence ex nihilo; therefore by its very definition creation is an act which defies the laws of nature. 
Rav Feldman argues that since the universe came into existence without following the laws of nature, therefore its subsequent development also did not follow the laws of nature. However the two are not remotely connected.

The apparent age of the universe is based on observations made after the laws of nature came into being, and applying these observations to nature as it existed during the days of Creation is therefore illogical; for perhaps during Creation time passed at a greater speed, or perhaps natural reactions proceeded at a faster pace.
Although one might question whether one can use these scientific methods to establish a precise age of the universe, it is quite obvious that one cannot use Rabbi Feldman’s reasoning to argue that the world is only 5765 years old, because the geological record shows very plainly that there were many different eras of different animal life that existed long before there were any human beings in the world. This does not rest on any scientific assumptions, merely on what is clearly visible to the naked eye. 

	In spite of these considerations, several explanations have been offered by the great commentaries of the previous generations. Basing themselves on Midrashim which say that G-d created many worlds before ours and destroyed them, some say that the earth upon which these worlds were built was not destroyed. Accordingly, the world is as old as the first world created while the six days of creation of the Torah refer to our present world. Along the same lines, sources in Kabbala state there are seven cycles in creation and that we are in the third cycle or, some say, in the fifth. Leshem Shevo VeAchlama, basing himself on Kabbala, states (without addressing the issue of the age of universe) that each of the 24 “hours” of the day during the days of Creation was at least a thousand times the length of present day hours. In fact, he says, longer “hours” continued, albeit at a reduced pace, until the Generation of the Mabbul (Flood). Still others have explained that though there were 24 of our present day hours in each day, but that time flowed at a different, more compressed speed during the days of creation; in other words more events occurred during the course of a day even though a day lasted from the light of one day to that of the next. According to all these explanations, the world could appear to be vastly old and yet would still not be older than the age which the Torah gives it. All of these interpretations do not distort in any way the plain meaning of the Torah.
Surely the explanation of the Leshem, in which each hour was much, much more than sixty minutes, is far from the plain meaning of the Torah! Yet Rav Elyashiv and Rav Feldman consider this acceptable. Why?
Conspicuously absent from Rabbi Feldman’s list of acceptable explanations is the one that is probably most prevalent – that each day lasted for billions of years. This explanation was proposed by the great Rabbi Dovid Tzvi Hoffman and others. Does Rav Feldman consider such an explanation unacceptable, or is he simply unwilling to discuss it? And is there in fact a “plain meaning” of the first perek of Bereishis? Rabbi Feldman’s predecessor at Ner Israel, Rav Yaakov Weinberg zt”l, once said that if someone put a gun to his head demanding to know pshat in a pasuk in this perek, he would be unable to answer – because Chazal themselves say that we cannot know the pshat of that perek! 

	Slifkin has a totally different explanation. 
It is not Rabbi Slifkin’s explanation. It is Rav Dessler’s, and it can clearly be seen in the Michtav Me-Eliyahu.

Rather than saying that the six days of creation were literal days, i.e. periods of time extending from the beginning of one day to the next, which is the position of the above explanations and of virtually every commentary on Torah, he posits that they refer to actual 15 billion literal years during which the world evolved from the first Big Bang until the creation of man. 
As noted earlier, Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman and others also stated this.

The six days of creation, explains Slifkin, do not refer to the real world but are concepts of creation which existed in G-d’s mind. Accordingly, there were no six separate acts of creation, as the Torah teaches, but a seamless evolution put into action at the first moment of Creation, a single act which expressed six Divine concepts.  
	In support of this he cites the Ramban’s statement that all matter was created from an original matter called hyle (hiyuli). This, however, has no bearing on the issue: the Ramban never said that there were no other acts of creation after the creation of the hyle; only that the hyle was the material with which the rest of Creation was formed, each on its own day. 
	Another source given for his theory of Creation is a cryptic statement by Rav E. E. Dessler, cited by Slifkin at least twice, that before man was created the idea of time was meaningless and the idea of “days” is simply man’s way of perceiving this pre-human “time”. 
Actually, it was not Rav Dessler who should be credited with it.  This is all explicit in the Ramban, albeit not the one Rav Feldman cites.  Ramban offers two explanations for the word yom.  The first is a period of time lasting twenty-four hours, just like today.  His second approach is that the word does not refer to time at all, but the seven lower sefiros, or different ways in which the Divine Will is transmuted before taking material form.  Rav Dessler opines that the Ramban’s second opinion is the one that is closest to the truth! 

Slifkin implies from this his theory that the days did not really occur in the real world. But Rav Dessler is not saying this. All Rav Dessler is saying is that humans perceive the “time” of Creation as “days.” He makes no mention of the days as being Divine concepts.
It seems to me that Rabbi Slifkin did indeed present Rav Dessler’s ideas correctly. But I am no authority on this topic (and certainly not in my capacity as an anonymous commentator.) However, Rabbi Aryeh Carmell is renowned as one of Rav Dessler’s leading disciples, and is the editor of Michtav Me-Eliyahu. Surely the fact that he wrote a glowing haskamah to Rabbi Slifkin’s book, which he stands by, proves that he considered that Rabbi Slifkin had accurately presented his rebbe’s thoughts.

	Furthermore, says Slifkin, although the Torah relates that vegetation came before the luminaries (on the third and fourth days, respectively) and birds came before animals (on the fifth and sixth days, respectively), the actual order of creation follows the view of current scientific opinion, that the luminaries preceded vegetation and that animals preceded birds. Slifkin explains that the Torah refers to G-d’s conceptual plan of creation, not to its actualization. In reality the luminaries and the birds came first; conceptually, in G-d’s mind, the order was reversed. 
	To explain G-d’s mind, Slifkin suggests that birds and fish are more spiritual than animals since they “fly” through their media of locomotion, and also their habitats are blue (the sky and the sea) which is a more spiritual color. He does not explain why vegetation is more spiritual than the luminaries.
	In support of this theory that the actual order of creation did not follow the order written in the Torah, Slifkin applies the principle, Eyn mukdam u-me’uchar batorah – “The Torah does not follow a chronological order.” This application borders on the absurd. The Talmud employs this principle only to explain why two separate portions of the Torah do not have to follow a chronological order. In no way can it be employed to uproot the plain meaning of the verses which explicitly give a specific order for creation.

Rabbi Slifkin is not stating that there is no specific order for creation; rather that the order is conceptual/ spiritual, not chronological/ physical. In Rabbi Slifkin’s recent lectures in Brooklyn and Queens, he explained that when he wrote his book, he reasoned that since Rav Dessler explains the real meaning of the six days to be sefiros rather than time-periods, it is not problematic to posit that the sequence of Bereishis is a conceptual sequence following a spiritual hierarchy rather than a physical chronological sequence. Rabbi Slifkin then said that just a few weeks previously, it was pointed out to him that Rav Dessler explicitly states this in the most recent volume of Michtav Me-Eliyahu, and he has since posted this on his web-site:
“ ‘Scripture does not teach us anything about the chronological order of events’ – Rashi. The reason for this is that the ten utterances with which the world was created (see Avos 5:1) are the ten sefiros whose order is the order of distinguishing revelations (havchanas hagiluyim). The Torah instructed us according to this order in Maase Bereishis, not according to the order of physical time.” (Michtav Me-Eliyahu vol. 5 p. 348)
Of course, Rav Feldman is fully entitled to describe Rav Dessler’s explanation as bordering on the absurd. I myself am not sure if I agree with it. However, surely Rabbi Slifkin is equally entitled to present this explanation in his book, and to favor it as being the only solution that adequately accounts for the overwhelming physical evidence that the luminaries preceded plants and that animals preceded birds. And if it is wrong, then it is merely a wrong explanation, not kefirah. And if it is absurd, then it is Rav Dessler who should be described as presenting absurd explanations, not Rabbi Slifkin.

	Slifkin goes on to posit that the Theory of Evolution in one form or another is a fact – only mentioning in passing those eminent scientists who have discredited this theory because the discovery of the DNA molecule make it statistically impossible. (Footnote: Cf. Professor Alvin Radkowsky, Encounter, 1989, p58, AOJS, citing Nobel-prize winning physicist, E.P. Wigner, that the probability of a simple life-form arising spontaneously from primeval “soup” and reproducing itself (as current evolutionary theories have it) is zero, or impossible.) 
Regrettably it seems that Rav Feldman has not properly understood what Rabbi Slifkin wrote, and it appears that he is mixing up entirely different aspects of evolution. The part of evolution that Rabbi Slifkin accepted in the book is “descent with modification”- that, somehow, animals gave rise to different types. Rabbi Feldman’s mention of the problems with DNA molecules relate to a different point, that of evolutionary mechanisms, which Rabbi Slifkin admits in the book to be indeed the subject of fierce debate and to be far from conclusively proven. Rabbi Feldman’s footnote refers to the origins of life, which is another point entirely and which Rabbi Slifkin likewise describes in his book as far from scientifically proven.
In his footnote, Rav Feldman refers to a lone opinion by a physicist on the impossibility of biological evolution – against the view of most biologists. This seems to reveal an inconsistency in his approach regarding how minority opinions are meant to be treated in Torah and how they must be treated in Science. Rav Feldman will later write that with Torah, it is completely forbidden to accept a minority opinion in Hashkafic matters, even if those opinions have not been conclusively refuted and have merely been rejected by many current Gedolim. With science, on the other hand, Rav Feldman believes that one should accept the minority view, even if it is presented by scientists speaking outside of their area of expertise.
Incidentally, it is peculiar that Rav Feldman here rejects the origins of life via natural causes as scientifically impossible, and yet later utterly rejects the view that the spontaneous generation discussed by the Gemara is scientifically impossible! Surely, as unlikely as the formation of DNA from primordial soup is, it is still vastly more conceivable than the formation of a mouse from dirt!

According to Slifkin, when the Torah says that man was created, it means that the human species evolved until a certain point in time when this species was invested with a Divine spark which made it “human” in our sense of the word.  
Not “according to Slifkin.” According to an approach approved by Rav Hirsch, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Rav Gedalyah Nadel, and others that Rabbi Slifkin simply quotes and explains. It is wrong to repeatedly pin these ideas on “Slifkin” when he is simply quoting greater authorities.

He does not explain why the first woman, who presumably evolved together with man, had to taken from his side, as the Torah teaches us she was.
	These cosmological explanations have no basis in any commentary or Midrash and clearly violate the plain meaning of the Torah. 
Rav Feldman is quite correct that these cosmological explanations have no basis in any commentary or Midrash and clearly violate the plain meaning of the Torah. But the same can be said for heliocentrism, which likewise has no basis in any commentary or Midrash and clearly violates the plain meaning of the Torah. The Sages of old did not have to deal with the scientific evidence that presents itself nowadays and therefore did not present such explanations. Rav Gedalyah Nadel z”l presents this point succinctly: 
“…The expression ‘one day’ that the Torah uses, according to its literal translation, refers to one [conventional] day. Rambam and the other early authorities truly held of this view, that each of the six days of creation lasted for one [ordinary] day, because they had no reason to believe otherwise. However, for us, there are indeed such reasons.”

Like the famous archer who painted the targets after the arrows landed and thereby ensured himself a perfect bulls-eye each time, Slifkin uses questionable sources as proofs for his a priori belief that the theories of modern science which he cites are indisputable fact.
I do not see why Rav Dessler is a “questionable source.” Nor Rav Hirsch, who writes that there is no conflict between the evolutionary explanation of human origins and Torah. And with regard to the general approach, surely it is perfectly appropriate that, when faced with an accepted scientific theory that seems to conflict with Torah, one searches for Torah authorities that deal with these problems. Rambam and others who followed his approach made it very clear that when something is well proven and does not conflict with basic Torah ideology, there is no problem in reinterpreting the Torah to suit it – indeed, we are obligated to provide such an approach and to help those that are understandably disturbed by such conflicts.
Furthermore, with regard to the famous metaphor that Rav Feldman cites, it would seem more applicable to assign this parable to many of the supporters of the Gedolim. They were faced with a ruling of Rav Elyashiv that these books were heretical, and then created an explanation for this. For example, it is clear that the Gedolim were not especially familiar with the books, particularly since many of them do not read English. Yet some people are searching to find anything in the books that will retroactively justify the ban, even if it be a single section that the Gedolim probably didn’t even see (such as that describing the chronology of the six days); and even though a single unacceptable section does not disqualify an entire book (Marc Shapiro’s The Limits of Orthodox Theology makes it very clear that this would disqualify much Torah literature). Some are even searching for personal flaws with Rabbi Slifkin, such as the Rosh Yeshivah who falsely reported that he was thrown out of yeshivah, or those who brand his self-defense as arrogant – as if any of this would justify condemning the books. They are painting the target around the arrow.

 Interpretations which have no basis in the Written or Oral Torah and which contradict the tradition of the Midrashim and the commentaries are perversions of Torah ideas and may be classified as megaleh panim baTorah shelo ke-halacha (distorted interpretations of the Torah) which are forbidden to study. 
Rav Feldman’s charge of megaleh panim baTorah shelo ke-halacha is extremely serious. The Mishnah in Pirkei Avos states about such a person that even if they have Torah and Ma’asim Tovim, they have no portion in Olam Habah. Does he really want to level such a charge against someone that he describes as “a fully observant chareidi Torah Jew” and who received haskamos from Gedolei Torah?
In a recent booklet entitled Maamar Mevo HaShemesh, someone used precisely Rav Feldman’s line of reasoning to prove that it is an unacceptable perversion of Torah to believe that the earth orbits the sun. There is no basis in the Written or Oral Torah for it, it contradicts the tradition of the Midrashim and the commentaries, and prominent Acharonim condemned it as a perversion of Torah. Clearly this is not a basis for defining something as megaleh panim baTorah shelo ke-halacha.

Even if the Torah authorities who signed the ban based their ruling on excerpts which were translated before them, it would therefore appear that they were not misled.  They were perfectly justified in terming his views inauthentic interpretations of Torah.
Rav Feldman appears to be stating that ultimately, their verdict was correct, even if the methods used to obtain these verdicts were entirely inappropriate. Is this really an adequate justification of their actions?
 
	We will now turn to the second problem in Slifkin’s books, his view regarding the credibility of the Sages.

THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SAGES

	There are many places in the Talmud where statements made by the Sages seem to contradict modern science. The most common are the cures and potions which the Talmud gives for various diseases. Our great halachic authorities have noted the phenomenon that these cures, in the vast majority of cases, do not seem to cure illnesses in our times. 
	The most widespread explanation offered for this is nishtanu hatevaim, “nature has changed” - cures that worked in the times of the Talmud are no longer effective. There are many examples of illnesses and cures, which because of environmental and nutritional differences and physical changes to the body over the years are no longer effective. 
That is true. But this is far from adequate to explain the vast disparities between Talmudic science and modern science. Rav Feldman himself earlier said that evolution is scientifically impossible – how can he now suggest that the most widespread explanation of Talmudic science is that the most radical evolution of all has taken place? In other words, the difference between certain descriptions in the Gemara and our perception of reality requires that organisms changed or evolved at a far, far speedier rate than any evolutionist would consider possible!
Furthermore, if Chazal had divine inspiration or a Sinaitic tradition about science then you would think that they would have also known that the world is going to change, and that these remedies would one day be useless and potentially dangerous. After all, if you are going to claim that all of science is in Torah, then the very important fact of nishtaneh hateva should be there as well. Yet, Chazal never even hint that the scientific pronouncements that they are making are only temporary. They didn't say that remedy X will only work for a limited time; they made a blanket statement that remedy X cures Y. It seems clear that Chazal had no idea that nishtaneh hateva was going to happen. If Torah included science it should have included nishtaneh hateva as well.

Another explanation is that we cannot reproduce these cures, either because the definitions or the amounts of the ingredient of these cures are unspecified in the Talmud. 
This is a very difficult explanation to accept. What would be the purpose of Chazal describing these cures, if they did not give sufficient information to be able to put them to use?

It has also been suggested that the cures had their effect on the inner, spiritual level of the affected person, and therefore were effective only for the people of the era of the Sages who were on a higher spiritual level than nowadays but not for later generations when increased physicality did not permit the cures to take effect.
This is an interesting but far-fetched explanation that many will not accept.  It also does not address the scores of places in the Gemara not related to cures at all, where the Gemara is completely at odds with our experience. For example, Chazal’s statement that the sun passes being the atmosphere at night, their statement that salamanders are generated in fires, that mice grow from dirt, etc., etc.

	Against these explanations, there is another opinion which Slifkin uses explicitly and implicitly in his books. This theory goes as follows. The Sages based their wisdom on the medical knowledge of their times. This would seem perfectly legitimate, for why should they not rely on the experts of their time on issues not directly addressed by the Written or the Oral Law? Therefore, when subsequently medicine indicates that these cures are ineffectual, there would be nothing disrespectful in asserting that the scientific knowledge of antiquity available to the Sages was flawed. 
	This approach is mentioned by many eminent authorities in Jewish history. Rav Sherira Gaon mentions it with respect to cures. R. Avraham, son of the Rambam, mentions it with respect to all science and the Rambam with respect to astronomy.
Pachad Yizchok says that statements in the Talmud which seem to uphold spontaneous generation are incorrect, even though we do not change any laws based on their words. Rav Shamshon Refael Hirsch applies this argument to animals mentioned in the Talmud which do not seem to exist nowadays. Finally, a conversation with R. Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler  recorded by Rabbi Aryeh Carmel indicates a somewhat similar approach.
To this list we can also add Ramban (commentary to Vayikra 12:2), who notes that according to Greek philosophy, Chazal’s explanation of how conception determines the gender of a child is incorrect. We can also add Maharam Schick (Teshuvas Maharam Schick 7), whose position is not well known and is worth citing in full:
“Matters that were not received by Chazal as halachah leMoshe miSinai, but rather which they said according to their own reasoning - and with something that is not received [from Sinai] and has no root in our Torah, but rather comes from investigation and experience, it is difficult to determine [that it is true]. And there are many occasions when the sages determined, according to their own intellects, that a matter was a certain way, and subsequent generations analyzed the matter further and disputed the earlier view.”

	This approach (henceforth, that of R. Avraham) is used often by Slifkin to explain many difficulties he has with the Sages’ statements. 
Why does Rav Feldman refer to it as “henceforth, that of R. Avraham”? He is the least prominent of the authorities listed. Why not refer to it as the approach of Rambam, Ramban, or if we are to discuss relatively contemporary authorities, the approach of Maharam Schick and Rav Hirsch?

It is a recurring theme of [Slifkin’s] book, Mysterious Creatures, where he assumes that the Sages relied on various legends of antiquity.
It is not quite a recurring theme, although doubtless many of those who support the ban but have not read Rabbi Slifkin’s books are under that impression. In fact, he explains most of the mysterious creatures in his book to be metaphorical concepts that Chazal did not intend to be understood as actual animals. As far as I can recall from several readings of the book, the only cases where he states that the Sages relied on various legends of antiquity are with the spontaneous generation of mice from dirt (where he is quoting Rav Hirsch,) lice from sweat (where he is quoting Rav Lampronti and Rav Dessler) and salamanders from fire. In the last case he does not base himself on any source – but does Rav Feldman consider it unacceptable to doubt that salamanders are generated from fire?

With it he explains why we have no record of certain animals mentioned in the Talmud, and why certain rules of the Sages regarding animals seem to have exceptions. Because they based themselves on the information available at their time, they simply made a mistake.
He did indeed write the former, but I believe that the latter point, about rules with exceptions, is a misunderstanding of Rabbi Slifkin’s book The Camel, The Hare And The Hyrax. He writes that it is unnecessary to say that such exceptions indicate an error on the part of Chazal – rather, Chazal did not need to concern themselves with remote exceptions when making their rules.

	This theory, more than the first, has caused the most misunderstanding. How could Slifkin be faulted for espousing a view stated by giants of previous generations?
	 The answer to this question is that although these giants did indeed espouse this view, it is a minority opinion which has been rejected by most authorities since then.
Rav Feldman has explained that merely by citing certain approaches of the Rishonim and Acharonim as viable explanations, Rabbi Slifkin’s books earned the status of heretical works. It was therefore unnecessary for the Gedolim to actually read the books. Merely being told that he cites the views of these authorities was enough grounds to condemn his books.
Yet even if it were to be a minority opinion that had been rejected by most authorities, this would not qualify it as heresy. This is true for a number of reasons, including the long-accepted fact, stated by several of the Rishonim, that there is no “psak” in matters of aggada. Outside of the realm of halacha, we simply do not use the same criteria of counting up voices and looking for a majority. (An exception may be matters deemed to be among the fundamentals of faith, as described by the last teshuva of the Chasam Sofer to Yoreh Deah, something clearly not applicable to the discussion at hand. We shall return to this point later.) 
But in any case, as we shall discuss, this characterization of it as “a minority opinion that had been rejected by most” is far from accurate.

	In Lev Avraham Dr. Abraham Abraham-Sofer, discusses why the cures mentioned in the Talmud should not be relied upon in actual practice. As above, he explains that either a) the cures worked for the Sages but not for us; or b) following R. Avraham, that the Sages erred when they thought that these cures work. 
Are we to presume that Rav Elyashiv would therefore rule that it is forbidden to bring this book into a Jewish home (along with many others) and that it should be burned? Surely that is the logical consequence of Rav Feldman’s explanation.

In a note to a later edition of this work, the world famous authority R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach asked to add the following comment: “The principal explanation is the other views; that which is written “when the Sages spoke etc.” [R. Avraham’s view], should be mentioned in the name of yesh omrim.” This means that the view of R. Avraham is a minority opinion which only “some say.”
	Ten years later, a scholar, about to publish a book on the topic of Torah and health, asked R. Shlomo Zalman how an opinion held by such giants of Jewish history be relegated to the position of yesh omrim? Rav Auerbach responded in a letter stating that he did not remember his sources (it was ten years later), but he believes one source to be that it is the accepted opinion of poskim that we rely on the medical opinion of the Sages to violate Shabbos even though according to modern medical opinion the cures are ineffectual and we are violating Shabbos unnecessarily. 
This is not an accurate presentation of R. Shlomo Zalman’s letter. The citation is actually as follows:
I saw in the work Nishmas Avraham 14:4 that he brings the words of Rav Sherira Gaon and Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam, and rates this view as one of the reasons why we cannot use the medical cures brought in the Talmud; and the gaon Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach raised the point that it is appropriate to bring this view as "some say," but the main approach is with the other views. I asked Rav Shlomo Zalman who are those views that argue with Rav Sherira Gaon and Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam. He wrote to me as follows: "At the moment I do not remember if there is someone who actually argues, or even if there is anyone who is able to argue with them. But it could be that my intent was that since many have given the reason of nature having changed, and did not mention at all the aspect of improvements and increased knowledge in medical methods in our time, therefore I raised the point that it should be written as 'some say'..." (Shemiras HaGuf VeHaNefesh p. 54)
It was not merely that R. Shlomo Zalman “did not remember his sources” – it was that he did not remember if there is anyone who argues with this approach or even if there is anyone who is able to argue with it.
What is undeniably clear is that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (unsurprisingly) endorsed the approach of Rav Sherira Gaon and Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam as a legitimate alternative approach. He did not say that it should be rejected as unacceptable, and certainly not as heretical.

Thus, for practical purposes we reject the view of R. Avraham.
Which “practical purposes”? True, for actually ruling in halachic purposes, as Rabbi Slifkin himself writes that according to most opinions the halacha holds true regardless of the perceived consistency of the explanation that accompanies it. But this is certainly not true for our way of understanding strange (and non-halachic) statements in the Gemara!

	There are other sources that this opinion is only one which “some say.” In countless places where the commentaries, whether Rishonim or Acharonim (Early or Later Authorties), are faced with a contradiction between the science of their times and a statement of the Sages, they commonly apply the principle, nishtanu hateva’im (“nature has changed”).  
The Shevus Yaakov notes that the clear implication of one passage in the Gemara is that the earth is flat. (He rejects the science of his day for believing otherwise, which is not only clearly a mistake, but furthermore exactly the same mistake that some consider it inconceivable that today’s Gedolim could make). Are we to believe that the earth was once indeed flat, and it has changed since the time of the Gemara?

Hishtanus Hateva’im, by Rabbi Neria Moshe Gutel, lists these places.
It should be noted that Hishtanus Hateva’im also lists the Rambam’s approach as a viable approach and makes no mention of it being a perversion of Torah that has been rejected by consensus. It would thus appear that according to Rav Elyashiv and Rabbi Feldman, it should likewise be prohibited from being brought into a Jewish home, despite containing haskamos from many Gedolei Torah.

Slifkin suggests (p. 207, Note 1) that R. Moshe Feinstein uses the principle of nishtanu hateva’im as a euphemism for R. Avraham’s opinion. This is too brazen an absurdity to require refutation. 
I personally strongly dispute Rabbi Slifkin’s understanding off the Iggros Moshe. However, it can hardly be called either brazen or an absurdity, in light of Rabbi Slifkin’s report (in his “response to the campaign package” that was on his website) that he heard this explanation from Rav Moshe Feinstein’s son-in-law, Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler.

Had they held R. Avraham’s view, they would have simply explained that the Sages erred in following whatever was the medical or scientific opinion of their times.
This does not follow at all. Of course it is always preferable not to say that the Sages erred, as Rabbi Slifkin also emphasizes. Furthermore, the concept of nishtaneh hateva is usually used in cases where the facts were readily available, so it is difficult to attribute it to an error by the Sages. The cases in which it is used are very different from the cases discussed by Rambam or Rav Hirsch. Did the sun used to pass behind the sky at night, but then later changed to passing behind the earth? Did creatures used to spontaneously generate, but then later change to being born of other animals? These are very different from cases such as medicinal cures, where one could understand that people would propose nishtaneh hateva. One cannot derive any proof from citations of nishtaneh hetava that these authorities absolutely rejected Rambam’s view in other cases.

	The Rivash, the Rashba  and the Maharal write, as well, that it is forbidden to say that the Sages erred in matters of science.
This, too, does not appear to be accurate. The Rivash and Rashba are only addressing halachic matters – tereifos – that are halachah l’Moshe miSinai. They do not discuss other areas. Furthermore, Rivash explains that the scientific methodology of his day is deeply flawed – which was indeed true for the science of his day, but is not true for the science of today!
Maharal is condemning de Rossi’s general approach, which takes many statements of Chazal at face value and casually dismisses them. Nowhere does Maharal categorically state that it is forbidden to say that the Sages erred in matters of science.  
In any case, finding a few sources who reject the approach of significant Rishonim surely does not justify us unequivocally branding the approach as kefirah!

 Leshem Shevo Ve-achlama writes:
	The main thing is: everyone who is called a Jew is obligated to believe with complete faith that everything found in the words of the Sages whether in halachos or agados of the Talmud or in the Midrashim, are all the words of the Living God, for everything which they said is with the spirit of God which spoke within them, and “the secret of God is given to those who fear Him (סוד ה' ליראיו).” This is just as we find in Sanhedrin 48b that even regarding something which has no application to Halacha and practical behavior, the Talmud asks regarding [the Sage] Rav Nachman, “How did he know this?” and the reply given is [that he knew this because] “The secret from God is given to those who fear him….” 
In light of all the Rishonim and Acharonim who held that, on occasion, Chazal relied on the flawed science of their day, perhaps the Leshem’s reference to “everything” is an exaggeration. The fact that sometimes God gave His secrets to those to fear Him does not mean that this was always necessarily the case, as we see in the dispute between the Sages of Israel and the Sages of the Nations regarding the course taken by the sun, in which the latter emerged victorious.  He may also mean that within every statement of Chazal there is a core teaching and truth that is part of Torah – regardless of the “reality” of the facts they used to convey it.

 	The Chazon Ish, considered by many to be the posek acharon (final Torah authority) for our times, writes in his “Letters” that “our tradition” is that the shechita of someone who denies the truth of the Sages whether in the Halacha or Aggada (the non-halachic parts) of the Talmud is disqualified just as is someone who is a heretic. 
Such an extraordinary citation cannot be quoted without analysis. Is the Chazon Ish also referring to someone who says that Chazal based their scientific knowledge on contemporary science? If so, this would be a very extreme view. Does Rav Feldman (or anyone else) follow such a view? Would Rav Hirsch’s shechitah be disqualified? Would the shechitah of the many thousands of Torah Jews who accept his approach be disqualified? If so then there is a serious kashrus crisis. After all, the OU’s most senior Poskim all accept the legitimacy of Rambam’s approach. There are many, many shochtim who do not believe that salamanders develop from fire or mice from dirt. Does Rav Feldman believe that there is such a serious kashrus crisis? Surely not. In which case we cannot accept the Chazon Ish’s statement at face value as suggested by Rabbi Feldman. 
It should also be noted that, like the Chazon Ish, Rav Elyashiv is considered by many to be the posek acharon for our time, and yet many people are challenging his definition of heresy. It would be equally acceptable for people not to follow the Chazon Ish’s extreme views on this topic. There is no halachic obligation for everyone to agree with a person described as the “posek acharon.”

He adds that experience has shown that those who begin questioning the truth of the Sages will ultimately lose their future generations to Torah.
Did this happen to Rav Hirsch’s descendants? I doubt that the Chazon Ish was referring to the scientific statements of Chazal.
Interestingly, here Rav Feldman is raising a new issue – not whether the approach of these Rishonim is innately heretical, but what its effects will be. Yet as can be seen from the letters on Rabbi Slifkin’s website, the effect of his books – and indeed of all such efforts to reconcile Torah with contemporary challenges - has been to bring many people closer to Torah. I do not know of any cases where this approach has caused people to be distanced from Torah. On the other hand, the ban on this approach has had the opposite effect, as Rav Feldman himself concedes. So, if we are to take into account the effects of one’s beliefs rather than just their innate propriety, the conclusion should be that we should ban the ban, not the books.

	Why does mainstream opinion reject R.Avraham’s opinion? This is not because they considered the Sages greater scientists than their modern counterparts. Rather, they believed that, unlike R. Avraham’s view, the source of all the knowledge of the Sages is either from Sinaitic tradition (received at the Giving of the Torah) or from Divine inspiration. 
The implications of this are drastic. It means that Rav Sherira Gaon, Rambam, Rabbeinu Avraham, Ramban, Maharam Shick, Rav Lampronti, and Rav Hirsch, possessed a fundamentally flawed understanding of the nature of the Chazal and the Gemara.
I would also like to know how Rav Feldman explains the Gemara in Pesachim, which clearly states that the Sages believed that the sun passes behind the sky at night (and the Rishonim all understand this to be factual statement with halachic ramifications). It further states that Rebbi Yehudah HaNasi noted that the Sages were mistaken in this belief. How can this possibly be reconciled with Rav Feldman’s assertion that “the source of all the knowledge of the Sages is either from Sinaitic tradition or from Divine inspiration”? I think it clearly disproves it.

That they were in contact with such sources is undeniable. How else could we explain numerous examples where the Sages had scientific information which no scientist of their time had? 
Regrettably, this is nothing more than a popular myth. That which Rav Feldman considers to be “undeniable” was immediately denied by many who read his article. There are not numerous examples where the Sages had scientific information which no scientist of their time had. There are probably no examples at all.

How were they so precise in their calculations of the New Moon? 
Has Rav Feldman researched the situation with other nations? Many other nations at that time were equally or more precise with their calculations. The lunar month was measured by Babylonians before 300 BCE and was adopted by the Greek astronomer Hipparchus and the Alexandrian astronomer Ptolemy. Its remarkable accuracy was achieved using records of lunar eclipses from the eighth to fifth centuries BCE. We see clearly that the Babylonian and Greek astronomers (who lived at around the same time as Chazal) were able to make the same precise calculations, without needing either Sinaitic tradition or Divine inspiration.

How did they know that hemophilia is transmitted by the mother’s DNA, a fact discovered relatively recently? 
The most reasonable explanation is that they said this because they (mistakenly) believed, as did many ancient peoples, that different parts of a baby are made by the mother and father. The Gemara in Niddah states: “The man provides the white from which the bones and sinews grow ... the women provides the red from which the skin, meat, and blood come.” Chazal thought that the blood comes from the women and therefore it made sense that a blood disease would go through the mother. However this has nothing to do with DNA. They believed this due to a mistaken idea that the blood of a person comes from his mother (as explained by the Gra). Coincidentally, this mistake about the blood coming from the mother allowed them to get things right by hemophilia.
But in fact, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deyah 263:2) rules that the law applies equally to a man whose two sons died from circumcision – even if they are from a different wife. (The Rema says that some argue and say it only applies to a woman, but because of the doubt one should be stringent even in the case of a man.) This is inconsistent with medical knowledge.
Furthermore, the Halacha states that for the third child you wait until the child gets older and stronger before performing the circumcision. If they understood hemophilia, they knew that it would not help to wait for this.

How did they know that “a drop exudes from the brain and develops into semen”  without having known that the pituitary gland, located at the base of the brain, emits a hormone which controls the production of semen.
But they said that it develops into semen, not that it regulates its production! Thus, this is a case where Chazal were wrong, not where they were right. In any case, most ancient cultures believed that semen came from the brain.

None of this could have been discovered by experimentation   Either they had a tradition directly teaching them these facts, or they knew them by applying principles which were part of the Oral Torah regarding the inner workings of the world. Thus they knew the precise cycle of the moon; they knew that there was a relationship between the coagulation of blood and motherhood; and they knew that there was a relationship between the brain and male reproduction.
As discussed, none of these examples hold water. They are all either things that non-Jews also knew, or they are being conveniently re-interpreted to match modern science, or they are actually false, or all three. 
Even if one were to find a few examples where Chazal demonstrated knowledge of matters that was unattainable by ordinary means in those days, one cannot deny that there seem to be many more examples where Chazal’s statements seem to be in error. To give a few examples: Chazal said that the sun passes behind the sky at night; that the world is flat; that bats lay eggs; that salamanders grow from fire; and that there are mice that grow from dirt.

	Furthermore, the Talmud is not a mere compilation of the sayings of wise men; it is the sum total of Torah- she-be-al-peh, the Oral Torah which is the interpretation of the Written Torah. It is, then, the word of G-d, for which reason we are required to make a birchas hatorah (a blessing) before we study it, which we do not make before studying other wisdoms. As the Leshem cited above says,  if even regarding matters which are not related to halacha, the Sages say, sod Hashem liyerav, “G-d reveals the secrets of nature to those who fear him,” then certainly there must have been siyata dishmaya (Divine assistance) and even ruach hakodesh (a Divine spirit) assisting the Sages in their redaction of the Oral Law. 
Sod Hashem liyerav means that sometimes Hashem reveals secrets to those who fear Him. It obviously does not mean that this is always necessarily the case, or else Rav Sherira Gaon, Rambam, Rabbeinu Avraham, Ramban, Maharam Shick, Rav Lamponti, and Rav Hirsch would not have said that Chazal can err on scientific matters.

It is therefore inconceivable, to these opinions, that G-d would have permitted falsities to have been transmitted as Torah She-be-al-peh and not have revealed His secrets to those who fear Him.
As noted, there is a long list of authorities who do not agree with the Leshem. Rav Elyashiv is fully entitled to follow his grandfather’s view, as are others, but there does not seem to be any basis for condemning the other views as being beyond the pale.

	One of the most powerful reasons why R. Avraham’s opinion was rejected by most opinions, is the introduction of the wisdom of Kabbalah of the Ari Zal in the sixteenth century. This cast the Sages in another dimension. Before then, many authorities had held that the esoteric wisdom described in the Talmud as Ma’aseh Breyshis and Ma’aseh Hamerkava was science and philosophy. After the introduction of Kabbalah it became clear that these were the Sefer HaYetzira, the Zohar and the Tikkunim. This was accepted by the overwhelming majority of Torah scholars since then. Kabbala made it clear that when the Sages spoke, they based themselves on their knowledge of the mysteries of creation. This would give them an accurate knowledge of matters of natural science as well.
This paragraph contains some extraordinary implications. 
First, Rav Feldman is asserting that Lurianic Kabbalah changed Torah Judaism to the extent that an approach to Chazal espoused by Rambam and Ramban (himself a kabbalist) can later be defined as heretical.
Second, Rav Feldman appears to be stating that after the sixteenth century there was some kind of consensus reached that Chazal possessed special, divinely-based knowledge of the world. How is it that Maraham Schick and Rav Hirsch were not aware of this? How is that Rav Yitzchak Herzog and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach were not aware of this? In fact, it seems that almost nobody was aware of it, which is why there was so much confusion as to why Rabbi Slifkin’s books were banned.

	 In any event, R. Avraham’s opinion is a minority opinion, one of many which have fallen by the wayside in the course of the centuries and which we do no longer follow. 
It is not “a minority opinion” – it is presented by a long list of prominent authorities, including Rav Sherira Gaon, Rambam, Rabbeinu Avraham, Ramban, and others. It has not “fallen by the wayside” – it was also used by Maharam Shick, Rav Lampronti, Rav Hirsch, and others. It is not “no longer followed” – it is still followed by the majority of Torah Jews, including talmidei chachamim, who are learned in the natural sciences.
It should also be noted that Rabbi Slifkin did not claim that the approach of these great authorities is the only approach (although that seems to be the false impression of many of the signatories). He made it clear that there are other approaches, and even gave them precedence. He simply favored this approach as producing what to him and many of us are the most reasonable solutions.

Thus, on the issue of the credibility of the Sages as well, the signatories to the ban were correct in terming Slifkin’s books as perversions of the correct approach to the Sages’ words.
One can personally consider this approach to be a perversion, but in light of its illustrious proponents, one cannot possibly deny anyone the right to adopt it.
Furthermore, the signatories did not only refer to the books as perversions of the correct approach – they referred to them as kefirah gemurah, absolute heresy. I fail to see how Rav Feldman has justified this charge. One can personally disagree with the approach of Rambam and Rav Hirsch, but how can it be termed heresy?

	R. Yosef Shalom Eliashiv, a signatory to the ban, was asked: if he considers Slifkin’s approach wrong how could so many earlier authorities have held it? He answered: “They were permitted to hold this opinion; we are not.” In other words, they were authorities in their own right qualified to decide matters of Jewish law. We are not permitted to do so. We are enjoined to follow the majority opinion and our tradition as to how we are to approach Torah.
Perhaps nothing has left people more perplexed than this. Since when can we not follow significant if minority opinions in our understanding of Torah? True, for halachic purposes, we usually follow the majority, unless there is pressing need otherwise. But in a non-halachic area, how can it be forbidden to follow a minority opinion? This is especially since there is indeed a pressing reason to do so, namely that many people, for the best of reasons, cannot accept that the science of the Gemara is always accurate. Furthermore, there is the pressing fact that the sun does not travel behind the sky at night, and mice do not grow from dirt.
In understanding the Gemara in Pesachim about the sun traveling behind the sky at night, why is it forbidden to understand it in accordance with the approach of Rambam and Maharam Schick? In deciding whether we must believe that there are mice which spontaneously generate from dirt, why is it forbidden to follow the approach of Rav Hirsch? 
For that matter, is it so clear who the “we” is in Rav Elyashiv’s statement?  Might he not mean that the Torah community in Israel (of which he himself is a product), completely sheltered from the world of secular knowledge, unchallenged by the questions we routinely and successfully deal with in the West, should not be exposed to the Pandora’s Box of critical thinking that the sources cited by Rabbi Slifkin open? Perhaps what is impermissible for them is a lechatchila for us!

We now come to the issue of whether these approachs are actually heretical. This is perhaps one of the most important points in this entire controversy, and yet Rav Feldman only refers to it in a footnote, where he adds the following:
Since we are not permitted to follow Slifkin’s views, R. Eliashiv believes that they can be rightfully categorized as heresy (apikorsus) as the ban’s wording had it. I believe this is because they diminish the honor and the acceptability of the words of the Sages, which has the status of apikorsus.
(Once again, it is not Slifkin’s views, but rather those of Rav Sherira Gaon, Rambam, Ramban, Rabbeinu Avraham ben haRambam, Maharam Schick, Rav Hirsch, Rav Dessler, etc.)
The authority who defined a category of apikorsus relating to our approach to Chazal is Rambam, who spoke of makchish maggideha, contradicting the transmitters of the Oral Torah. But Rambam himself had the views for which Rabbi Slifkin is being condemned! How can one condemn Rambam’s own approach as apikorsus under Rambam’s own definition?!
A closer study of Rambam reveals that makchish maggideha refers to someone who denies the very basis of the Oral Torah. It certainly does not refer to someone who states that not everything in the Gemara was received from Sinai, and that the scientific knowledge is sometimes inaccurate. 
Furthermore, doing so does not diminish the honor of the words of the Sages. If one denies that Chazal knew about modern technology – cellphones and microwaves - has one diminished their honor? If one denies that the Rishonim knew about modern science, which some claim to be the case, has one diminished their honor?! If one denies that the Rishonim knew about the revelations of Lurianic kabbalah, as Rav Feldman does, has one diminished their honor?
Another critically important point is also relegated to a footnote:
It also explains why Rav Eliashiv, in the above conversation with the author, said that one cannot rule that Slifkin is a heretic (apikores) even though the views he espoused have the status of heresy, as in the previous note. My understanding of his opinion is that Slifkin did, after all, intend to give a correct interpretation of the Torah and he did follow, at least, a minority opinion. Nevertheless, Rav Eliashiv added, “Even if he is one of the lamed vov tzadikim, these books may not be taken into a Jewish home.”
Many of us are mystified at how someone can espouse heresy and yet not be classified as a heretic. We heard Rabbi Slifkin at his lectures in New York; while he was clearly traumatized by the events of this year, he nevertheless firmly maintained his views. How can a firm belief in heretical views not turn someone into a heretic? And if it does, then surely Rambam and Rav Hirsch and the other authorities were also heretics!
The quasi-justification given here for Rabbi Slifkin’s writings raise even more questions. Since he did intend to give a correct interpretation of the Torah, and was following authentic opinions that even Rav Feldman did not know until recently were heretical, why should he be condemned at all? Shouldn’t the pronouncement of the Gedolim have included this point, so as not to cause him to be the center of vilification? Instead, the pronouncement included the following extraordinary statement: “There are no rejoinders or explanations possible in order to justify him and his writings.” How could this be said, in light of the fact that Rabbi Slifkin was simply using the approach of numerous Rishonim and Acharonim with the guidance and approval of Gedolei Torah?

	Can an individual on his own decide to follow the minority opinion? No more than he is permitted to do so in any matter of Jewish law and certainly not in matters which determine our basic approach to Torah she b’al peh which is the domain of the poskim (recognized decisors of halacha) of the Jewish people.
This is a breathtakingly novel and far-reaching ruling. Is it accordingly forbidden for a person to accept the Tiferes Yisrael’s approach that dinosaur fossils are the remnants of previous worlds? After all, it is a minority view. Is it forbidden to accept the view of the Leshem, which is likewise a minority view? 
What about in other contexts? Is it forbidden for a member of the Washington Heights community to follow the approach of Rav Hirsch to Torah im Derech Eretz, which is likewise a minority view?
In fact, as noted earlier, it seems that the situation is actually the reverse of how Rav Feldman presents it. The majority view is that Chazal could indeed err in science. This is the view of Rav Sherira Gaon, Rambam, Ramban, Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam, Maharam Schick, Rav Lampronti, Rav Hirsch, and Rav Dessler. Only the Leshem and Chida state otherwise. According to Rabbi Feldman’s reasoning, it would appear to be forbidden to follow the view of the Leshem and Chida.
In fact, Rabbi Slifkin is much more balanced and honest in his treatment of this topic than others usually are. He presents all the different approaches in his book, and gives a reasoned explanation of why in some cases he prefers that of Rambam. Most people do not even admit to the existence of other approaches.
Furthermore, on what basis does Rav Feldman describe such matters as the domain of poskim? In cases that have no halachic ramifications, it would seem that it should more be the domain of authorities in hashkafah – of those who are fluent in the Moreh Nevuchim, in the Kuzari, in the various hashkafic writings of the Rishonim. In a very specialized topic such as Torah and science, it is unlikely that a posek is fluent in the obscure sources from Ramban, Maharam Schick and Rav Hirsch; and Moreh Nevuchim is not on the yeshivah curriculum at all. 
The Rambam writes in three places (Perush Hamishnayos to Sanhedrin 10:3, Sotah 3:3, Shavuos 4:1, and Sefer Hamitzvos Lo Taaseh 133) that there is no psak on hashkafa which is not relevant to halacha. Here is a quote (from Sotah 3:3 - the language is almost the same in all of them): “As I already wrote many times, when there is a dispute between the sages on a matter of faith that has no relevance to action, we don't say that the halacha is like ploni.” 
Nevertheless, according to Rambam there could be a psak regarding the ikkarei ha-emuna, as that is relevant to the halacha of who is a kofer. Thus, in order for Rabbi Feldman’s point to hold true, the beliefs discussed in Rabbi Slifkin’s books must relate to the ikkarei ha-emunah. But as noted, it is impossible to say that Rambam’s approach to Chazal’s knowledge of science falls under one of Rambam’s categories of heresy. And since it is not heretical and does not relate to the ikkarei ha-emunah, there is no pesak on such matters of belief.
In any case, the great posek Rav Sholmo Zalman Auerbach ruled that it is a legitimate alternative view. That alone is enough to reject any charge of heresy.
 
	What about the conflicts between science and the Talmud which Slifkin raised? Like all difficulties in our Torah studies, we are obliged to seek solutions. However, the solutions have to be within the parameters of the true interpretation of the Torah and of the proper honor to the Sages. The fact that we are faced with a problem does not permit us to compromise our obligation as to how to properly approach Torah.
That is why the vilification of Rabbi Slifkin over the last year was so wrong. He meticulously followed his obligation to how to properly approach Torah. He sought solutions to famous difficulties, both for himself and to help others who were desperate for answers. He found solutions written by the greatest Rishonim and Acharonim. He followed the guidance of Gedolei Torah in presenting them. 

There are cogent answers to the questions which Slifkin raised but these will of necessity, G-d willing, have to be the subject of another article.
It is a great pity that neither Rav Feldman nor anyone else has ever presented such cogent answers. I am not aware of any answers that are more cogent and reasonable than those of Rambam and Rav Hirsch. In light of the considerable effort exerted by many people to find such answers, I doubt that any better answers exist.

In the meantime we can be sure of one thing: the answers which Slifkin proposed are not the right ones.
Yet again, Rav Feldman is hanging matters on Rabbi Slifkin, presumably so as to make it easier to dismiss. It would be appropriate to name the greater authorities that Rav Feldman is dismissing, and to rephrase the sentence as follows:
In the meantime we can be sure of one thing: the answers which Rav Sherira Gaon, Rambam, Ramban, Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam, Maharam Shick, Rav Lampronti, Rav Hirsch, and Rav Dessler proposed are not the right ones.
Somehow, this does not carry quite the same punch. And I do not understand how Rav Feldman can be so sure that Rav Sherira Gaon, Rambam, Ramban, Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam, Maharam Shick, Rav Lampronti, Rav Hirsch, and Rav Dessler were all wrong – and held opinions that reflect a fundamentally flawed view of Chazal and that can be deemed heretical. 

One website referred to the ban on Rabbi Slifkin’s books as “the pesak of the century.” I think that this was an understatement. It is the pesak of the millennium. Consider the following extraordinary aspects of it: 
•	The definition of heresy has been expanded beyond what it was for thousands of years;
•	It has been redefined to include an approach utilized by several of the most prominent Rishonim and Acharonim;
•	This includes indicting the very Rishon who defined the categories of heresy in the first place as taking an approach that is (now?!) heretical;
•	It has been done for reasons that nobody can comprehend – even Rav Feldman had to meet Rav Elyashiv to ask what the basis for it was;
•	It is claimed to have been expanded in this way by consensus ever since the Arizal’s time, yet most of Orthodox Jewry (including Rav Feldman himself for the first six months following the ban) were completely unaware of this;
•	It means that tens of thousands of Jews, fully halachically observant, and including many Roshei Yeshivah and other rabbonim that are fully part of the community, subscribe to views that are heretical.
•	It was carried out without any of the usual methods involved in producing a pesak, and certainly without the care that a pesak of this magnitude and of such ramifications should surely require; without reading the books, researching the situation, or consultation with the author or the Gedolim who endorsed this approach.

In conclusion, it would be appropriate to mention the breathtaking statement of Rav Yehudah Halevi in Kuzari, the work that the Vilna Gaon termed the accurate mesorah of our people.  He writes that Hashem never asks us to accept beliefs that our minds demonstrate are impossible.  Rabbi Slifkin and his supporters can say that about the approach they take. What viable alternative does Rav Feldman offer? The questions are not new ones, and no reasonable approaches have been suggested in decades, other than those based on dismissed iconoclasts and poor knowledge of science.  We should applaud those who successfully transmit the approach of the great Rishonim and Acharonim in resolving these difficulties, not condemn them.