Thursday, January 18, 2007

Perlstein, Malinowiz and of course, Slifkin

Rav Shlomo Zalman Perlstein, known by many as Mara d'asra of Ramat Beit Shemeh Aleph, wrote a letter concerning the recently started series of shiurim by Slifkin in Beis Tefila on Torah and the Animal Kingdom.
In it he declares that one should not attend the shiurim as express by the Gedolim.
The rav of Beis Tefila, Rav Chaim Malinowitz, wrote a letter in reply, transation as follows:

About the question regarding the letter publisheda few days ago in a local RBS publication, as if it had been written by a local Rav ABD (av beis din) against R' Natan Slifkin. It is obvious and clear that the letter is a forgery, as I will show. And it is a shame for the honor of said Rav ABD that has been desecrated by this forgery, as if it emanated from him, that contains within it things that never happened.

The letter is forged by its content, as is clear from the wording of the letter that the forger never actually checked the facts of the situation (as will be explained). Even in regards to HKB"H it says in Breishis 11:5 and in Rashi in brieshis 18:21, etc, "And Hashem went down to see... this teaches us that a judge cannot convict until he goes down to see and understand." See Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 10:1 and 17:5-8

The facts are that the Rabbonim Gedolei hador have paskened for those who follow their words that they shall not read the science books of R' Natan Slifkin because those books deal with questions as if there is a contradictions between science and Torah, and R' Slifkin attempts to resolve the questions. Our Rabbis have taught that these books should not be read except by those disturbed by such questions (and some have said nobody should read these books); They have clearly stated (to all those who have asked) that they are not dsqualifying (passuling) chas v'shalom the person [R' Slifkin] himself and not his other books on subjects other than science, only those science books do they instruct not to read. The forger has contradicted the words of our Rabbis that "things that will be revealed to all, a person will not lie about". All this can be clarified to anybody who checks, and it is clear this is a forgery.

As well, R' Natan gives lectures (on the topic of the wonders of creation) in the English language, and those who attend the lectures are those who speak and understand English. The letter had been written in Hebrew and was placed in a magazine whose readership is the Hebrew speaking public. Had it been a serious psak, it should have been wirtten in English and publicized in a publication dediated to the English speaking public. This is another proof that the letter was forged and simply for the purpose of causing argument.

As well, the letter was written as if R' Slifkin is giving lectures on science topics, and just the opposite, because the Rabbonim have decreed that his words on science should not be read or listened to, R' Slifkin is careful in his lectures (which are for the Haredi public in RBS as well) to only lecture on topics of wonders of creation and thereby increase the glory of Hashem and love and fear of Hashem. The forger of the letter claims otherwise, and that is further proof to the forgery.
There is no need to lengthen the topic, and I write and sign in protest against the great desecration of the honor of the Rav AB"D whose name was forged in the letter.



This letter is difficult to understand for many reasons:
1) Our Rabbis have taught that these books should not be read except by those disturbed by such questions

The original ban can be found on zootorah.com/controversy. Where does Rav Malinowitz see that it was only intended for some? The opposite, it says to keep him away from kiruv!

2) and was placed in a magazine whose readership is the Hebrew speaking public

The chadash is distributed to all houses and is read by everyone. Some read just some of it, some just flip through it, but all chareidim will at least take a look.

3) Had it been a serious psak, it should have been written in English and publicized in a publication dediated to the English speaking public.

Is Rav Malinowitz's letter supposed to be taken seriously? Why can he not write in english?

4) There is to my knowledge no english language publication in RBSA that would publish such a letter. There are in fact very few english language publications at all, certainly not chareidi ones.

4) The chadash is the only weekly local paper distributed to all chareidi homes. Wouldn't that be the best place to put the letter?

5) Obviously Rav Malinowitz knows that the letter is original. So what's his explaination? Or according to his forgery theory, why was it in hebrew? Does he think the forgers can't write english? To cause argument - amongst Israeli's who haven't got a clue what a slifkin is?

In conclusion, I wish to state for the record that I have the greatest of respect for Rav Malinowitz. I have heard him speak on numerous occasions, seen him in action and read many of his writings. He is unquestionably a talmid chocham and a pikeach. But the questions I feel are so strong, I have no choice but to conclude that the letter must simply be a forgery.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Shalom,
I wrote almost the exact same thing on a boog yesterday. Hatzlacha raba.

Anonymous said...

You dope!

Perlstein wrote it because he loves condemning things, especially anything connected to Rav Malinowitz. So Rav Malinowitz put him in his place, very ingeniously.

Anonymous said...

I love the way anti-Torah/Hashem/pro-Slifkin trolls call everyone else names and fail to recognize the obvious merits of the other side. Talk about narrowminded.

Hamasig said...

Perlstein wrote it because he loves condemning things, especially anything connected to Rav Malinowitz.

So maybe you could give us a couple of examples of "Perlstein" condeming Rav Malinowitz. Any two will do.

Anonymous said...

I normally take the Chadash rag out of my mailbox and dump it straight in the garbage without wasting my time and energy in opening.

Anonymous said...

When Perlstein started the demonstration in the park and caused a child to be injured (see the video on LifeInIsrael.blogspot.com) Rav Malinowitz stated publically (and respectfully) that he was wrong. Perlstein now despises Rav Malinowitz.

There are no merits in Perlstein's letter. He is obviously completely unfamiliar with the books, and is obviously concerned with making a political statement rather than preventing people going to R' Slifkin's shiurim. Does anyone really think that his letter prevented a single person from going to the shiurim? The only effect it may have had is to give the shiurim more publicity, popularity and encourage people to show support.

Anonymous said...

Yonah Lazar must be seriously disturbed to equate pro-Slifkin with anti-Torah/Hashem. He probably also needs to ask mechilah from the thousands of sincere, ehrliche yidden in the pro-Slifkin camp.

Anonymous said...

see http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2007/01/and-slifkin-saga-continues.html

Anonymous said...

I meant http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2007/01/slifkin-situation-clarification.html

Hamasig said...

I fail to see how the park incident is at all relevant here. Rav Malinowitz voiced his opinion EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN HIS OWN KEHILLAH. He was careful to see it remain within the kehillah and it was done with great respect. If you are aware of his opinions, you must be aware of how he went about it. There is no reason here for Rav Perlstein to harbor bad feelings.
There is also not the slightest evidence that he does. I know of other such similar incidents where a local Rav has expressed a different opinion TO HIS KEHILLAH and there was no fallout, they're still the best of chums. Some people are capable of disagreeing without leading to hatred.
Furthermore, Rav Perlstein 's letter was not addressed to Rav Malinowitz at all, and contains nothing that could be considered personal. Rav Malinowitz's reply contains nothing that implies he took it personally, and there's no reason he should.
Seems that you're projecting your own feelings onto others.

As for the merits of the letter, he doesn't claim to have read the books. He is familiar with the ban and that's what counts. If recommending not attending the shiurim is called a political statement, rather than advice or protest, then Rav Malinowitz's letter is also no more than politics, since it will not encourage anyone who would have gone but refrained (remember, there's no one like that).

Anonymous said...

>>Yonah Lazar must be seriously disturbed to equate pro-Slifkin with anti-Torah/Hashem. He probably also needs to ask mechilah from the thousands of sincere, ehrliche yidden in the pro-Slifkin camp.

Thank you for proving my point. And if you want the definition of a sonei hashem, look up the Shaarei Teshuva.

Anonymous said...

Rabbi Perlstien (as well as all the Gedolei Hador) are not prophets- they know only what they are told. If they are fed Bubbeh Maises, then that is what they know.

And Rabbi Malinowitz is an emeseh Rodeif Shalom for writing this letter and stopping the machlokes before it starts.

Hamasig said...

And you? What about you? Are you also a rodef sholom? Or do you have no idea what you're talking about?