Talk:Shlomo Miller

Untitled

My most recent edit to the article reflects that the ban on Rabbi Slifkin's books is controversial even among Haredim (whether or not you agree may depend how you define "Haredim"). For example, many Haredim reconcile apparent contradictions between scientific statements in the Talmud and modern scientific knowledge (e.g. regarding spontaneous generation) by acknowledging that Chazal (the Sages) followed the scientific knowledge of their time and, were not infallible in scientific matters (this would not change any matters of Halacha). Far from being radical, this view was held by sages such as: Rav Sherira Gaon, Rambam, R. Avraham ben HaRambam, Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, Rav Dessler, Rav Aryeh Carmel, Rav Gedaliah Nadel, and many others. Danielb613 (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Continued from my previous post.

Those who insist that Chazal could not err in matters of science usually respond that, in fact, every scientific statement of Chazal was correct at the time it was pronounced, but Nishtaneh Hatevah (nature has changed). Although we do sometimes find this statement in Rishonim, it is difficult to apply to all situations (does anyone believe that lice EVER reproduced by spontaneous generation? If so, when and how did they stop? Furthermore, is everyone required to believe that?).

Another problem with the concept of Nishtaneh Hatevah is that, if Chazal were aware of this concept, they should have indicated that their statements regarding science and medicine were not applicable to all times. If, on the other hand, they were unaware of Nishtaneh Hatevah, then what is wrong with believing that they were unaware of other scientific facts?

Danielb613 (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The disagreement is well known and has been discussed to death on Areivim and Avodah. The point is that Haredi by definition is somebody who is of the opinion that Chazal did not err in any scientific matter. --Ezra Wax (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that it's well-known. However, in my view, there are Haredim on both sides of the issue. Your response will, presumably, be: if you take the other posistion (i.e. that the Sages can err in matters of science), then you're not Haredi. In my view, that logic is circular. Was Rav Hirsch not Haredi? Unless you mean "Haredi" purely in the political sense, which I, personally, have little use for.

Danielb613 (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not at all certain that you can unequivocally show that Rav Hirsch held like that. Please give me a source. In any case, I don't think it makes a difference. Haredi is defined by today. Today, having the opinion that Chazal could err is a clear indicator that somebody is not Charedi. But a much clearer indication that somebody is not Charedi is if somebody is certain that Chazal erred when it is clear that there are major authorities who hold that Chazal could not have made such errors especially when it is clear that science is treating its best hypothesis as fact. --Ezra Wax (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed References

For example, Rabbi Miller is strongly opposed to raising or lowering the temperature of a Sabbath Mode oven on Yom Tov, and is believed to have coordinated the June 2008 Kol Koreh (public pronouncement), signed by a number of prominent Poskim, against following the lenient view on this matter;see [1]. Some would characterize this strongly held viewpoint as being designed to protect the sanctity of Yom Tov from being gradually eroded. However, others would argue that the lenient view of Rabbi Moshe Heinemann, see [2], is fully consistent with the rulings of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, who was not only one of the greatest Poskim of his generation, but whose understanding of electricity and technology was unparalleled among any of his peers. See [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8].

I removed the above references from the article. Please add in whatever you think is relative to the new paragraph discussing his disagreement regarding Shabbos mode ovens. --Ezra Wax (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Without having first read the discussion page, I reinserted much of what had been deleted. I apologize for not first checking the discussion page. In any event, I don't agree that the references should be deleted, as they make a good argument that Rabbi Heinemann's lenient ruling is consistent with the rulings of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach regarding electricity, which is further evidenced by the fact that none of Rabbi Auerbach's sons or sons-in-law participated in the Kol Koreh (I should add - even Rabbi Ezriel Auerbach, who is the son-in-law of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliashiv).

Danielb613 (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Strict Halachic Decisions

""Many members of the Haredi community, view Rabbi Miller as taking a strong stand against any weakening of the rule of Halacha (Rabbinic law), while many in the wider Jewish community (including some Haredi members as well), see his opinions as being overly stringent, and intolerant of more lenient viewpoints that are based on the ruling of other prominent authorities.""

What references is this based on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.155.150 (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I just made an edit noting that Rabbi Miller's ruling regarding Sabbath Mode ovens (discussed further down in the article) is a possible example of the above statement.

Danielb613 (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)