Rabbi Shmuel Kamentsky Flips Out

                                            [Please click on images to enlarge.]

Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky, the rosh yeshiva in Philadelphia and a supporter of the banned Rabbi Nosson Slifkin, has changed his mind and is now condemning Rabbi Slifkin and his books. From the appearance of his signature on a letter that he did not himself write, and from the dating on the letter (which closely corresponds with the dating on the letter condemning Rabbi Slifkin written by the Novominsker Rebbe), it appears Rav Shmuel was a reluctant signatory* forced to give in by pressure from Rabbi Elyashiv and the Israeli 'gedolim.'

All the vitriol hurled at Rabbi Slifkin is misdirected. The 'gedolim' created this mess by their boorish behavior, disregard of halakha and downright ignorance of science, history and Jewish theology. Any animus on their part should be wholly self-directed.

Make no mistake about it. Being a haredi now means believing the entire universe is less than 6000 years old and that all of science is an elaborate fraud. And this applies to Aish HaTorah, Ohr Somayach, Discovery and Chabad just as much as it applies to Lakewood, Mir and Ponevitch.

The 'gedolim' have killed Judaism.

[First seen on GodolHador, and Maven Yavin.]

*UPDATE: Rav Shmuel is claiming to be concerned about a new article posted by Rabbi Slifkin on his website. The books and original views were not the object of his signature appended to Rabbi Schechter's letter. The problem is the letter stands by the ban of the books and of Rabbi Slifkin. The other problem is Rabbi Slifkin's only new piece is on elephants and contanins nothing different from his earlier work. In other words, Rav Shmuel is apparently lying. Reports are also coming in that point out that Rav Shmuel did not give Rabbi Slifkin a chance to respond to charges against him before Rav Shmuel made them public, and that Rav Shmuel violated other aspects of halakha by issuing this letter.

Such little men with such big hats.

Comments

[BTA- Baal Tshuva's Anonymous]

Where's the Kamenetsky letter?

[yehuda shain]

Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky was not a reluctant signature, it was just easier joining Rabbi Ahron Schecter on the same letter which covered all of the issues.

The letter from the Noviminsker & Rabbis Schecter coincided with the Agudah Convention, as eveyone was there.
Yehuda Shain

[Shmarya]

This is the same Rabbi Shain who (incorrectly) insisted PETA did not demonstrate at Kosherfest? How do you know Rav Shmuel signed willingly? You stood next to him? You had a private conversation with him about this?

Please.

Rav Shmuel signed because the damage the so-called gedolim did to themselves and what you haredim call yiddishkeit was so great that the only way to "repair the breech" was for Rabbi Slifkin to be sacrificed like a baby to Molech.

That is why Rav Shmuel signed the letter.

Now, why don't you tell us how the the entire universe is exactly 5766 years old even though all scientific and historical evidence points to a universe billions of years old? I'm sure Rav Shmuel told you the answer to this question right after he 'freely signed' Rabbi Schechter's letter.

[http://noyravkadosh.blogspot.com/]

I am afraid you dont get it guys.

this was posted on

http://noyravkadosh.blogspot.com/

and it is so important for answering why they didnt talk to him....

What About the Slifkin Affair? See what Rabbi Slifkin wrote to some of these Gedolei Yisroel. [ see below in boldfaced type]
[ and see what he should have written instead ]

One of the parts of the "Slifkin affair" that masses of people find so objectionable besides the actual ban is the fact that, according to R Slifkin, he wasn't called in by the gedolim in order to tell him personally what they found objectionable and to let him have the opportunity to respond. You can see the text of both the first ban, on which Rav Elyashuv's name does not appear, as well as the second ban, on which his name and more than 20 other gedolim's names appear. Both texts, for example, maintain that the books contained divrei minus and kfirah.

Firstly, of course I am unaware of whether this particular charge is true in whole or in part. But for the purposes of this article I will begin by taking a look at R Slifkin's own writing. The only account of this we have is from R Slifkin. According to R Slifkin's own testimony, this is what ensued ( as per his website: in the section entitled " An Account of Events Updated June 30th- pay attention to my bold faced words - they are mine, not Rabbi Slifkins ) [ Just to give some background, this excerpt from R Slifkins web site takes place prior to the actual public ban that was circulated in the newspapers and on the walls of cities in Israel. The following excerpt takes place after R Slifkin was informed by emissaries of a number of Gedolim- not including Rav Elyashuv, as he was not on the first ban- that these gedolim were going to publicize a ban on three of his books if he did not agree to remove them from circulation and no longer sell them. R Slifkin was attempting to communicate a request to speak to them ...Here are Slifkin's words directly from his web site.......

"Subsequently, Rabbi Lyons called me back and said that he had heard that I was trying to arrange meetings with these Rabbonim. I explained my position (as I had worked it out in consultation with my own rabbonim), that it would be inconceivable to publicly condemn someone without meeting them first, and that I was fully willing to meet with all the Rabbonim at their convenience to discuss the matter, and if they showed me anything that I wrote which was wrong or mistaken, I would gladly retract it. I faxed this to Rabbi Lyons as my official response to the ultimatum:

'I have been told that the letters from Gedolei Torah concerning my books will be made public. But it is inconceivable that anyone, especially Gedolim, would condemn someone without meeting and talking with them. I am ready to meet with these Gedolim at their convenience and to hear what their objections are, and to discuss the matter fully. I am certainly willing to retract from anything in which I am proven wrong or mistaken, and kal v'chomer if I am proven to have written something that goes against the fundamentals of emunah, chas v'shalom. Surely to condemn someone without meeting them goes against both the spirit and the letter of Torah and Shulchan Aruch, and would be an unbelievable chilul Hashem befarhesya, and will be widely recognized as such. I spoke with my Rav, Rav Chaim Malinowitz shlita, and he fully concurs with the above. I therefore assume that the Gedolei Torah would wish to discuss the matter with me first, and I repeat my readiness to meet with them, together with my rebbe'im, whenever they want. I am independently making every effort to contact all of the Gedolim signed on the letters. Sincerely, Nosson Slifkin ' ."
[ End of Slifkin excerpt]

After that above letter was faxed, at a later point in time when Slifkin was still attempting to meet with the actual gedolim or their advisors and managed to get one to agree, R Slifkin writes on his site....

"A short while later, Rav Shiner called me to cancel his meeting with me. He said that I would just try to argue and defend myself. He also said that he was concerned that I might use his words against him. He added that he is not a gadol and is not really the leader of this, and I should meet with Rav Elya Weintraub. I said that Rav Elya is not willing to meet with me. He said, "He will if you come in remorse and willing to retract everything, not if you are going to argue." Rav Shiner added that I had done "a terrible thing." Despite my protests, he refused to meet with me."

[ end of slifkin excerpt]

We do not know the Rabonim's side of the story- as to whether any other conversation that was communicated on the phone would provide a different view than the one R Slifkin offers on his web site. Since R Slifkin doesn't maintain he is giving the entire word for word conversation that took place, and since we do not have the Robonim's postion in there matter, we are left without the ability to judge the story from what was exactly said or maintained by the Robonim involved.

It is interesting that R Slifkin knew the ban would take place and yet decided not to retract his books before the ban, and then perhaps attempt to engage the Robonim at a later date. He knew what bans were - he lived in Israel and he knew and his Rebbe with whom he says he consulted knew how bans effect people, yet he didn't withdraw the books. Agreeing to withdraw them would have availed him of the opportunity to meet with Rav Elya Weintraub as he maintains on his site [ interesting note: R Slifkin says Rav E Weintraub is Rav Sholom Kaminetsky's Rebbe ]

[ I think this is a relevant include at this point the following: after Rav Feldman, the Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisroel in Baltimore, went to Rav Elyashiv to discuss this matter [ after the second ban- the one on which Rav Elyashuv did sign], not only did Rav Elyashiv maintain the ban, but he even dictated a letter to Rav Efrati publicly reiterating his position regarding the ban since it came to his Rav Elyashuv's attention [ so the dictation states] that a rumor was being circulated that he [ Rav Elyashiv ] no longer maintained the ban!

The gedolim signed bans saying the books contained divrai krifah and minus. These Gedolim would not , seemingly lishitaso, engage him [ or in Slifkins own words " Prove " to him ] in any way except for the one exception: one gadol was supposed to have been prepared to speak with him if he promised to withdraw his books ahead of time [ according to R Slifkin's writing on his own web site - see quotes below]. While I am not aware of exceptions, the practice of not engaging someone spreading kfirah or minus seems to be the widely accepted practical halacha, and it is obviously reasonable that this was the halachic position that these gedolim were following, in part, or in whole. [ with the exception of kiruv rechokim ( bringing people to Torah who are tinok shenishbu]. The position of "not responding" may well be something accepted by the majority of all the contemporary gedolim, in which case it makes sense that since he was frum they extended the offer that he retract his books, but not engage him in any way over the material- even so far as to explain to him their position in detail- unless he first [ promises to ]retract[ed] his books.

A seismic outcry came from frum people, claiming that gedolim had rachmana litslan been remiss over the requirements Jews have with regard to proper derech eretz, or even moreso, that the gedolim engaged in actual infractions of a chiyuv or isur in not giving him the opportunity to hear from their own mouths the Torah reasoning for which they were banning the books, along with the opportunity for him to give his opinion of the matters they raised. Of course R Slifkin went further in requiring them to "prove" to him that they were correct in their positions. ( i.e. the commonly accepted intent of the word "proves" indicates that the proof would need to be to R Slifkins satisfaction for him to adhere to their request, otherwise he wouldnt. ) Obviously the Gedolim didn't maintain this same position as the masses. Proper etiquette according to these gedolim did not indicate the requirement to " prove" their position - at least not prior to withdrawl - in word and deed- of the objectionable material they deemed kfirah and minus which, as mentioned above, required such a position. [ Perhaps these gedolim had similar experiences in the past and felt that experience taught them not to call someone in to them, which is in sync with the possibility they maintained the halachic position of not responding to someone communicating kfirah and minus- but rather ONLY to issue the ultimatum of a ban in the event the person would not retract after granted the opportunity] Perhaps the fact that the response in the fax and in general was being done with the approval of his Rebbe also indicated to the Gedolim involved the futility of explaining the reasons for their decisions to him in the hopes he would recant.
[ We can't know what cheshbon was used since we havent heard the gedolims side of the story- we would know their position if, say, they wrote a book about it ]

The minimum one can see from Slifkins own words is that the gedolim perceived they were faced with someone who was going to not listen to them unless they proved to his satisfaction that his books were kfirah and minus. So he was telling them ahead of time that they were not his Torah authorities insofar as he was concerned, by virtue of the fact that he would not listen to their psak if he was not convinced of their position. Had they felt he looked at them as his authorities, they may have explained their position to him comprehensively. Perhaps they understood with this fax, with the short telephone exchanges the advisors of these gedolim had with Slifkin, along with, maybe, any information or testimony from reliable talmidei chachamim we are not aware of who may have had prior experience with R Slifkin regarding these very issues, and perhaps they concluded that since he had his haskamos and R Malinowitz behind him, nothing would come of a meeting and so they offered him a chance to retract, but didn't engage him. [We all know that any " proof" can always be dismissed with another svara, another quote from Rishonim, another posuk, etc... perhaps they chose to not deal with the issue this way, on account of the above, or some other combination of reasons. Without hearing the gedolims side, we must ol pi din be don likaf zechus.

The following is on slifkins site: [ i boldfaced the words here]

" Rumor #11 - "Rabbi Slifkin was asked to leave Yeshivas Shaarei Torah in Manchester and was encouraged to leave Yeshivas Midrash Shmuel by the Rosh Yeshivah because he was messed up."The Real Story: Yeshivas Shaarei Torah put immense pressure on me not to leave their yeshivah, but I left anyway. When I decided to leave Midrash Shmuel after nearly six years there and a very close and positive relationship with the Rosh Yeshivah, he first tried to talk me out of leaving, then changed his mind and supported my decision. He added that he could not be entirely certain if he was acquiescing because I had gained enough from the yeshivah and it was time to move on, or because my extensive writing on my laptop computer affected the rest of the student body engaged in the Yeshivah's regular program of Talmud study. "[ end of slifkin excerpt ]

This entry of R Slifkin is quite telling on account of the fact that it is hard to believe that just the fact of his using a computer was interfering with the studies of the yeshiva. Might it have been the content? R Slifkin leaves this cryptic sentence with no explanation.What is the pointing of pointing all of this out? Because without any guessing on any info, ol pi din we must be favorable to the gedolim involved here as there are gaps in our knowledge and we dont know the gedolims reasoning for what they did. Or maybe we do? Maybe they did apply the halacha of not responding to a conveyor of kfira and minus and maybe they also decided that, based on reliable information from talmidei chachamim who had prior experience with him coupled with his fax demanding "proof" prior to obeyance, they decided not to try to sway him and rather, decided that the only way to be rid of the books was to ban it, providing R Slifkin wouldn't remove them from circulation himself. Perhaps they deemed it very unlikely, so unlikely that they 'defaulted' to the basic halacha of not responding, rather, just giving him the opportunity to withdraw his books from circulation based on account of their authority, and then, if he refused, they would ban the books.After all, the actual ban actually includes this line: " there can be no room for justification whatsoever for spreading these books" and the Hebrew version of the ban says " vlo shayich bizeh shum teyrutzim v'svarim lihatzdik es atzmo v'es kisvuv " The ban letter itself actually nullifies the argument that there is in fact even an argument to be made.

From a standpoint of history ( which itself isn't a proof of anything per se but rather is being mentioned to mention to the reader an intuitive reference. We know about cases of Chazal , rishonim, and achronim who didn't "speak it out" with writers of epikursus kfirah or minus before issuing one form or another of condemnations of what they maintained was kfira or minus. [ Certainly we are aware of other examples of where they seem to argue with minim in order to silence them in public for some purpose - however the gedolim in this case did not deem it a relevant consideration].

Additionally, the fact that, after they requested that he retract ( and not agree to speak with him ) he wrote a charge of what they would be doing if they issued a ban without letting him have an open meeting face to face with these gedolim....

[ this is from Slifkins site ] : [it] would be an unbelievable chilul Hashem befarhesya, and will be widely recognized as such"

Never in my life have I or anyone I know even uttered anything remotely like this to any Rebbe. These circumstance may have further eroded the possiblity that they would agree to meet him? Who knows?

( Despite the fact that Rav Elyashuv signed the 2nd Ban he later dictated to his secretary Rav Efrati , in front of Rav Feldman Rosh Yeshiva of Baltimore, that the ban was not intended to say anything about him as a person and rather his intention was to prevent the book from entering the community of israel- and that Rav slifkin could be a lomed vuvnick for all he knew. Despite this latter positon of Rav Elyashuv, he still evidently decided to not call him in to speak with him. It is well known that people were pleading on his behalf, even according to R Slifkin's own words from his web site. At one point people he knew , he writes, were assuring him that Rav Elyashuv and Rav Shapiro werent going to ban it, but in fact they did so, and didn't ask to speak to him. These two bans and the subsequent meeting between Rav Feldman and Rav Elyashuv occurred over a period of months and despite the attempted intervention on behalf of some of R Slifkin's proponents, no acquiescence to speak to him was forthcoming. This repeat decision on the part of these gedolim, Rav Weintraub, Rav Shapiro, Rav Elyashuv, etc... was inconceivably an oversite or trespass in derech eretz but rather the execution and continued application of their position.

The above means that even if the circumstances that surrounded the issuance of the ban had entailed liars who misrepresented R Slifkins books -- we now have the documentary record testifying that Rav Elyashuv and Rav Shapiro had proponents of R Slifkin who pleaded his case and they -R Slifkin's own proponents - represented his books accurately to the two aforementioned gedolim. [ it is inconcievable that even his proponents did not accurately portray his writings. [ I am not implying that they had been innaccurately presented before ]

NOW LET'S IMAGINE R Slifkin WROTE THE FOLLOWING LETTER:

" I have been told that the letters from Gedolei Torah concerning my books will be made public. But it is my request that I be allowed to hear of this requirement from the actual gadol in person so I know it is really these gedolimn who are asuring these books and that I am not being tricked into thinking that they are prepared to ban them when they really are not. Please allow me to meet with you so I may hear that this is your position on my books and then I will stop the books from circulation. I am certainly willing to retract from anything that goes against the fundamentals of emunah, chas v'shalom. I therefore assume that the Gedolei Torah would agree to tell me in person so I am sure that these Gedolim are truly the ones making this request and that they were told correctly what was in my books. I also request that my rebeeim be permitted to accompany me and that the gedolim will tell me what parts of the books are objectionable so I may write kosher books in the future."

Imagine what a difference that may have made. And on top of that, Rav E Weintraub, as we read from Slifkins own writings above, would have agreed to meet him had he used this tone. As we read in R Slifkin's letter, R Slifkin told them outright they must prove it to him. Prove means, at least, that if they didn't prove it to him, to his own satisfaction or to his rebbe's satifaction, then he wouldn't remove the books from circulation. Plus, he stated to them that if they refused this request to meet with him, it would be a chillul Hashem. It is well known that if a Jew does something he is supposed to do, then only a kiddush Hashem occurs. So with this we can understand as explained above that gedolim, entitled to poskin as they see it, may actually have a reason to refuse to meet someone before they ban his book. As mentioned before, while we dont know the gedolim's side of the story, perhaps they had even more evidence than just the fax and the telephone calls from R Slifkin.

An interesting point to make here for those people aware of the ban on Making of a Gadol by Rav Sholom Kaminetsky: R Sholom Kaminetsky gave a speach in Brooklyn some time ago [ link to audio below]. Although he might or might not maintain that Slifkins books are fine, one thing is sure- after listening to his speech you will readily see that the manner in which R Sholom Kaminetsky dealt with the situation is much different than Slifkin. You will see the differences immediately if you listen to the tape and then read the portion of the website of Slifkin entitled "the Controversy".The differences I would like to point out are that while R Slifkin was being charged with disseminating kfirah and minus , R Kaminetsky was being charged with something different. R Kaminetsky even says this point in contrasting him and R Slifkins works explicitly.Secondly, Rav Kaminetsky immediately agreed to withdraw his books and sent word to R Elyashuv that he would do so and he did not require the conditions that R Slifkin required or take on the tone as you see in the R Slifkin fax.[ the ban on making of a gadol by R Shomlom Kaminetsky happened prior to the ban on R Slifkin [ more about this case below] -- Rav Elyashuv in fact requested that R Kaminetsky speak with him , and due to a series of events where Rav Elyashuv was lied to according to R Kaminetsky, the answer was given to Rav Elyashuv that he was told that Rav Kaminetsky would not come. But Rav Elyashuv had made the request in that case. [ it is found at this link...http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/04/daas-torah.htmlscroll to the last four lines and you will click the blue highlighted word " here" and listen )But at all points along the way Rav Kaminetsky would not disobey ( his own words ) Rav Elyashuv.So the reader will ask " but here Slifkin says that he didn't know Rav Elyashuv would ban the books. Yes, and then afterwards he does ban the books and even after Rav Feldman speaks with him, he still does not pull the books that are still in print and makes no attempt to prevent people from reading the books as Rav Kaminetsky did in fact do before the ban and after the ban ( you must listen to the tape to understand what I mean by this, otherwise it is impossible) .

[moshe kaufman]

rabbi kamenetzky is not only wrong in this area he also endorses an orginization called j.o.n.a.h. (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homoesexuality)this is an orginization run by frum jews that practice reparitive "therapy" this is a pseudoscientific aproach to "curing" homosexuality and has been discredited by every major health care orginization on the planet (with a few minor exceptions who cling to the belief it is a disease based on old time religeious values but not on science) it's time for these "holy men" to stop trashing science. LONG LIVE REASON!!!

[an intellectual religious jew]

being a religious jew does not mean believing that all science is wrong. That is very not true. Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan wrote a book about how the universe is around 10 or so billion years old, if I remember correctly. He uses nothing but jewish sources.It is called "kabbalah and the age of the universe". Look it up. Maybe you'll start thinking before you talk badly about anyone again, whether ther are a rabbi or not.

[Shmarya]

Perhaps searching the blog before you insult people would have been the "intellectual" choice:

READ THIS:

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2005/07/rabbi_aryeh_kap.html

[Jason]

I know this article is really old (I came across it by accident), but I couldn't help but write a comment.

I don't know much about "The Slifkin Affair," but as to how can Torah claim the universe is under 6,000 years old if science says it's billions, etc...

When I asked this question the answer I was given is that just like G-d created Adam and Eve as adults, and just like he created fully grown animals and trees, he created the universe as "fully grown."

Meaning, he created it already aged.

So an under 6,000 year old universe can appear to be billions of years old. So both Torah and science are correct.

I always thought that was a beautiful answer (if, of course, you believe in an omnipotent G-d).

[Shmarya]

Please.

There is no source in Judaism pre-Menachem Mendel Schneerson that makes that claim.

In fact, as Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan so clearly shows, God is not a liar and he doesn't 'hide bones in the earth' and warp science to test us.

Here's a better answer to you question: The Torah isn't meant to be taken literally when it conflicts with what we know to be true.

It is the position of many Rishonim including the Ramabam.