Talk:Natan Slifkin

Initial article

Obviously copied from somewhere (probably his website?); not so encyclopedic and no mention at all of the cherem, which is why the article is important. But nevertheless can serve as raw material to create a more serious article. Good luck. Dovi 17:04, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dovi, a copyvio is a copyvio. Please treat it as such. Does Slifkin require a serious article? It's only going be a figurehead for how backward those Orthodox are. JFW | T@lk 19:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Jfdwolff, Your generalization is simply wrong. Slifkin is the mere contrary of a closed.minded creationist, and he has many opinions behind him, e.g. he teaches at YU. His important role is a deep split between Jewish fanatics and reasonably Orthodox Jews justifies an article. And bashing Orthodoxy won't help us here, after all it is the future of Judaism. (Reform with a majority of intermarriage definitely is not).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.236.192 (talk)

Anon, it would be very helpful if you would log in. It would give your ideas more stature. JFW is correct that the initial material you copied is a copyright problem. (I was so focused on its needing lots of work that I forgot about copyright... Whoops.) I'll try to write a basic stub to hold the place, and hopefully you and others will chip in more (in your own words). By the way, I don't think the bibliography itself could possibly be a copyvio.

JFW, I agree with your concerns in principle, but in reality with the internet "the cat is out of the bag" already. Even information which perhaps should be kept within the community becomes the property of the world. The Slifkin controversy was the hottest thing on the Jewish internet for months, and it was laid open to the world for better or worse. On the other hand, when things are out in the open they usually better clarified in the long run (as often happens on Wikipedia). Actually, I think Nosson Slifkin and the many people who have stood behind him are a great credit to Orthodox Judaism. It is also worth getting sources and emphasizing the fact that Orthodoxy (unlike Christianity) has largely been untroubled by Darwin and by natural history. Why all of a sudden we have bans like this in 2005 is a question of its own.Dovi 20:55, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

You misread me. I was worried about dirty laundry, and my use of "backward" was purely sarcastic. Can we have some sources, please? And please - please no blogs. JFW | T@lk 06:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"Dirty laundry" is what I meant by "the cat is out of the bag...". I knew you were kidding... :-) I don't plan to write the article, I'm sure there are plenty of eager people willing to do that in time.

But despite your fervent request, there will be blogs here. Probably a number of them. The whole controversy was carried by blogs and e-mail lists, with stunning results. Prominent talmidei chachamim and rashei yeshiva from around the world took part. Just because something happens on the internet and blogs, doesn't mean it isn't real. This controversy is very real, with serious social and historical repercussions. It is of historical interest precisely because it shows what the internet can do. I hate to say it, but the blogs will be there. Otherwise you'll overlook the most important sources.Dovi 07:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

There must be a newspaper or journal article. I'm concerned that bloggers are not known for presenting particularly balanced views. If someone adds up all the opinions in an article that would be highly preferable over long lists of blog posts. In the end, this will end up in the printed/official media anyway. I have yet to see a Wikipedia article where blog postings have really made a significant change. They may maximally serve as temporary sources. JFW | T@lk 13:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

JFW, I wrote the part you just deleted. It is perfectly sensible, balanced, relevant, and not meant to "wind anybody up." With all due respect (I am a serious admirer of your writing and contributions), I think your negative attitude towards blogs in general, and your dismissive attitude towards this whole topic in particular, is very misplaced and has contributed negatively to the issue. Please don't let it influence your editing here too much. Blogs have obvious disadvantages, and so may not need to be consulted on a great many topics, but they are highly relevant here, and in fact both the primary source of information and the very reason for the importance of the topic. To dismiss "the impact of the internet on traditional Jewish communities" is to delete the entire importance of the topic!

There actually was a New York Times article on this topic (I don't have the reference). But sorry, you cannot avoid other forums for this topic. I will restore the deleted text later, which are central to the article and explain why it is important, if there are no objections.

Fair disclosure: I have no blog. During the entire Nosson Slifkin debate I contributed nothing to any blog or e-mail list (with the exception of a one-time comment on a blog that drew absolutely no attention :-). However, during the continuing Nosson Slifkin debate I did read them avidly, and their extraordinary importance to this topic cannot be denied by anyone who is aware of what did and is still going on.Dovi 14:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Proper name

I think this article should be moved to Natan Slifkin, with a redirect from Nosson. His books were published as Nosson, but he goes by Natan almost exclusively, especially here in Israel (even though he speaks Ashkenazes) (see [1], look for where his first posting). Comments? Mikeage 02:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Since no one commented, I went ahead with this. Mikeage 11:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I was about to write: I don't know, but let's wait until we find out more from someone. My hunch is actually that it shouldn't be moved, both because of the books (which are why he is important), and because that is how he has become known. A Brit living in Israel letting Israelis call him "Natan" doesn't really prove anything.Dovi 14:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think Nosson Slifkin makes more sense, that's the name he's "famous" for - it's his "English" name, so to speak. His Hebrew name is Natan Slifkin. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I must admit that I was unaware that he goes by "Natan". Nevertheless, I tend to agree with Jay on this. The Michael Savage (commentator) article, for one example, follows the popular pseudonym. HKT 02:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if he's back from his trip to the States yet -- perhaps I'll give him a call today and ask him ;). My understanding was always that he preferred Natan, but went by Nosson in print because it's more Yeshivish. Mikeage 02:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, if he wrote that he prefers Natan, who am I to disagree? But I think that it's a moot point as per my above comments. What do you think? HKT 02:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Savage is a good point, but I'm not sure it's the same case. There, he uses Savage exclusively in politics, and Weiner exclusively in homeopathy. Here, Slifkin seems to switch. Look at [2], where he writes his name (in his role the Zoo Rabbi and author) as Natan. Maybe we need to wait for him to decide first. Mikeage 03:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. HKT 03:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

English he may be, and FFB, but he only became Nosson later in life and he is still Natan to his family. I don't know what he prefers though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillkay (talk • contribs)

I do know: he told me (over a Shabbos meal, if you must know) that "Nosson" was his publisher's idea (I suppose he meant Feldheim, but I didn't ask and it was pre-controversy), to give better appeal to a Hareidi audience. Now we can all grin sardonically and say "fat lot of good that did." Nonetheless, the books in question say "Nosson" on them, so that's probably the best "home" for this article. FWIW, I have never heard anyone who has actually met him call him "Nosson," and he very clearly calls himself Natan in the audio of the video that greets visitors to ZooTorah. Jeffykins

I changed it a while ago to "Nosson" based on an analysis I did using Google. Looks like I was wrong. I'm not going to change it back, but anyone else who wants to do so, be my guest. marbeh raglaim 04:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think you were right to do it. His books should be treated as the authoritative expression of how he wants to be known publicly, regardless of privately. Jeffykins 13:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No such reaction before?

What about the cherem against the Hasidim by the Gra and other authorities in times of old?--Josiah 22:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

This is the first time blogs have led to many people being so critical of rabbis. It is not the first case of banning back & forth (think Emden/Eybeschutz). JFW | T@lk 11:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

That is because blogs have only recentely became popular.--Josiah 00:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

It is also a matter of historic and social context. This is the first time that there has been severe Orthodox (by this is I mean Orthodoxy in its modern sense since the 19th century) reaction to and outright rejection of a ban backed by a rav whose stature is recognized throughout the Orthodox world.Dovi 14:05, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, this is a historic even that is happening. But, as I see it, this is comparable to the cherem on the hasidim. The question is if R. Slifkin's view will survive this cherem or not.--Josiah 00:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

So how about the widespread defiance to the ban on Yehuda Leo Levi's Shaarei Talmud Torah in the 1980s by Rav E.M. Shach? And the "orthodox" people you are referring to are the ones who use the internet and read blogs. The Yated Neeman certainly did not mention any defiance. Nor would many other Haredim, at least publically. JFW | T@lk 20:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! Yes, book bans from the Rav Shach/Rav Elyashiv world have been ignored before (especially when others recognized as gedolim in related communities have disagreed). But here prominent opponents of the ban backed down on the one hand (at Rav Elyashiv's insistence). But on the other hand there was a vehement, vocal protest of the ban, open defiance and outright rejection. This is new. Something is changing.

You are also absolutely correct that the dividing line has something to do with who uses the internet and who does not, which is somewhat related to the differences between Israeli charedim (=Yated) versus some North American ones (I don't know about the UK...). Obviously Yated won't ever mention defiance - it is Rav Elyashiv's newspaper. But plenty of others are, including charedim.

And now an apology - I really don't know if I will have much time in the near future to look at this article. Good luck to the others, and I will try to get an update from time to time.Dovi 21:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Is Yated ran under R. Elyashiv's direction? That's something I didn't know before. Interesting.--Josiah 00:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yes.Dovi 08:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Bloggers

Here we go again. Dovi feels this case is unique, firstly because Slifkin's theories have wide support and secondly because of the internet. I think that while this case presently generates a lot of furore, it is hardly more notable than any other Kol Korei signed by 100s of Gedolim condemning something with many people reacting with indignation. Gedolim have banned going to the movies, using the internet and wearing blue shirts. A large section of the community follows blindly, while those who are more wordly either violate these bans in secret or in public or at least express their embarassment with them. Stigma is cast back and forth.

I think the only sensible response is that by Rav Berel Wein as cited on Slifkin's page; he feels that the banning should stop altogether, as it causes rifts and is a sign of an unhealthy community.

The reaction to the ban on Slifkin's books has been fuelled to a degree by bloggers, but I think the minority of the people who are against the ban have actually read about it on the internet. In the past, telephones and discussions at a sheva brochos filled a similar role, and probably have this time.

Do you have any numerical evidence that the reaction to this ban is more pronounced than any previous bans? Or is this original research? JFW | T@lk 09:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Why does Slifkin have an article, while Berel Wein, a noted historiographer, commentator and community leader has a red link? Is that also an outgrowth of the above phenomenon? JFW | T@lk 09:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this will probably be my last response for quite a while (need to do serious work... :-). For numerical evidence: The only way is to info from the people who know the details and have been following it. Hopefully as time goes on such people will join in.

I think you are definately mistaken about how this was spread. It was the internet. For a much more relevant comparison: Take the previous ban of "The Making of A Godol" by Rav Nosson Kaminetsky (Nosson and Nosson :-). There you have the first seeds of indignant opposition to a ban, but it never got nearly as far precisely because it lacked (at first) the internet as a tool to fight it (Rav Nosson didn't use the medium, and it was pretty much before the blogs). Now it too is slowly proceeding, once again because of the internet.

Previous bans before these two - little or no public opposition at all. Personal frustration by many - yes. Public opposition - no.

Someone should include Berel Wein's point in the article. It is extremely important, especially because this has been a major conclusion by a great many people in the internet debate. (I wonder if Rav Wein has a blog? Probably not...:-)

Obviously Rav Wein should have an article. So instead of bemoaning it, someone who knows a good deal about him should go ahead and write it! After all, we are here "to provide the sum total of human knowledge..." Dovi 09:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Dovi, your assertion that the public response to the ban is unprecedented is original research. Please do not push your version against consensus. JFW | T@lk 18:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

publisher?

Yashar Books didn't publish Slifkin's books they are just distributing them. "Yashar Books is pleased to announce that we are now distributing Rabbi Nosson Slifkin's highly acclaimed books Mysterious Creatures and The Camel, the Hare, & the Hyrax. " --PinchasC 09:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, valid point, so change it.Dovi 09:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Aish HaTorah is Charedi

Jayjg,

Aish HaTorah is a Charedi Organization. It describes itself as such on [3] where it says "Aish Hatorah, an Ultra-Orthodox organization...". Other organizations also identify Aish HaTorah as Charedi, such as The Foward--Josiah 23:30, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's not how Aish HaTorah describes itself, that's an article from Ha'aretz describing it that way. I'm somewhat familiar with the group; it considers itself a Jewish outreach organization, no more. It doesn't even describe itself as Orthodox. As for Ha'aretz and the Forward, they are not particularly good sources for deciding exactly which parts of Orthodox Judaism are Haredi and which are not. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, don't you think that when it quotes another source (on its own website!) - without disputation - calling it a Charedi Organization, that it pretty much is saying "Yeah, we're charedi"?--Josiah 00:32, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Josiah, Being involved in the Orthodox world my entire life, I have never heard of Aish Hatorah being refered to as a Haredi organization. Perhaps Modern Orthodox would be a better description, if you need to apply tags. I would agree with what Jayjg wrote above "As for Ha'aretz and the Forward, they are not particularly good sources for deciding exactly which parts of Orthodox Judaism are Haredi and which are not." --PinchasC 09:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't quote from another source, it reproduces an entire article from Ha'aretz. Do you think it should have published a rebuttal as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Aish is certainly Charedi; they just don't call themselves that when they're talking or advertising to someone who isn't. That's just good sense. --Jeffykins Okay; let me clarify: they view themselves as Charedi, without a doubt. All the "shtick" they do to be more "approachable" to do their kiruv work makes many in the Charedi world wonder (or worse), but they certainly consider themselves to be Charedi, individually at least, if not as an institution. They like to say that Aish is non-denominational because it makes people more willing to walk in the door. Duh.

Ok, but we would need a source for that claim as well. Certainly Aish is in many ways closer to Charedi than it is to modern orthodox but we need some sort of sourcing for it. I think that Ha'aretz would actually be a half-way decent source, despite all its other problems Haaretz does do a decent job of keeping the various forms of orthodoxy distinct. Still, better sourcing would be better. JoshuaZ 04:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding edit war

IZAK, the pertinent sentence said nothing about what is accepted in the "Torah world" (whatever that is). It said that these things were within the realm until 2005, and that is an absolute fact.

Nor, by the way, was it the "controversial nature" of the topic that caused the ban. To the contrary, it was the uncontorersial nature of the Slifkin's opinions that made the ban so surprising, and caused a revolt against it.

I will not get into an edit war with you. I will revert one last time to the pertinent sentence. If you choose to revert again I will letter others deal with the matter. Dovi 07:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Heavens, Dovi: I almost never get into "edit wars" with anyone, least of all you. By my single revert, I was making a point, which you do not seem to have grasped very well at all. The point is, it does not matter if a million articles are written by bloggers even if they quote hundreds of Orthodox "articles" because Halakha is NOT determined by "articles" or "books" but by acknowledged Halakhic authorities, which Slifkin is not. The modern Torah world is guided by the notion of Daat Torah. Insofar as Haredi Judaism and Haredi Jews are concerned, what matters is what leading poskim, rosh yeshivas and leading Halakhic authorities say, and in Rabbi Slifkin's case when he wrote kinda like a Jewish Dr. Seuss it was was fine and dandy BUT when he went beyond "children's books" about cutesy animal and dragon stories and began to take himself "seriously" as a "Talmudic sage" (sadly, popular success is like a bewitching "aphrodisiac" as it goes to the head and beyond..., you know) and by attempting to postulate his major theories about science and Talmud etc. -- which by the way, are NOT taught in any yeshivas -- it creates the question as to where he got these ideas about what the Talmud does or does not say about The Origin of Species which then becomes a huge question mark about what is really going on inside his mind and shows that he is consequently totally out of his depth as a Talmudist and his words about TALMUD have no reliability, particularly if the leading Haredi rabbis went to the trouble to ban his writings, which is something they rarely do, so he must have really deserved what he got from them. By the way, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliashiv is known to be a relative moderate in the Haredi world, and if he added his signature to the ban against Slifkin, then it's safe to say that Slifkin's books do not meet the highest standards of Kashrut ("fitness") even though they may be very readable and read by some Curious Georges out there. Perhaps Slifkin's failing is that he succumbed to the weakness of Apologetics in trying to convince secular Jews to become more observant. He cannot have it both ways by glorifying Judaism, yet at the same time "demote" Judaism's greatest work: the Talmud. This may be likened to the difference between popular science and pure science. Similarly, whose opinions about Judaism matter more, "pop-Talmudists" or pure Talmudists? Think about it. Shabbat Shalom ! IZAK 08:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Rav Elyashiv is a moderate? Heavens! Who are the extremists then? (Rav Elyashiv has become the ideological successor to Rav Shach, who was himself certainly no moderate... And this is far from his first cherem against both people and books.)

IZAK, the whole point is that none of this had anything to do with "psak halakhah" until 2005. Slifkin's kinds of ideas about creation were openly discussed and accepted by many (perhaps even most) people in chareidi yeshivos in America. Not everyone agreed, but hardly anyone considered it apikorsus, or something that may not be said or read, or something that there is a "psak" against. This is precisely what changed in 2005, and that is why the "psak" itself is far more revolutionary than the books themselves! The books themselves represent what was commonly known and accepted by many on the age of the world stuff (that is until this year). The "psak" changed that world.

Even the stuff about whether Chazal can err - Rambam's opinion was and is well-known in chareidi yeshivos. It is indeed considered "problematic" and troubles many people with black hats, but here too most chareidi institutions in America never considered banning books or ideas related to that view.

Your comments on Daat Torah are 100% correct. This issue was not really about how old the world is, or whether the Rambam is right, or whether Slifkin is a scholar or a "pop-Talmudist". It is about who are the "gedolim" and can one disagree with them (and can anyone ever "pasken" about an issue like this one in the first place). This is the main reason why the whole thing caused such an uproar, not the ideas themselves.

Gut Shabbos and let's keep working on the article! Dovi 10:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Dovi: You evidently know very little about the nature of Rav Eliashiv and how very different he is to Rav Shach. Yes, each is considered to be the leader of only part of the Haredi world by only some of the Haredim. No Hasidim, who are also Haredim, and few Sephardi Haredim, ever accepted either Rav Shach or Rav Eliashiv as their absolute leaders because they have their own Rebbes or Chachamim. It is only among a portion of the Haredi Lithuanian yeshiva world, both in the United States and Israel, that first Rav Shach was considered to be the RaShKeBeHaG and subsequently Rav Eliashiv is considered to be the Posek HaDor. But there is a vast difference in their roots and modus operandi. In the case of Rav Shach he was born in Eastern Europe with it's turmoils, his inherent anti-Bolshevism and he was considered to be very close to the strongly anti-Zionist Brisk yeshivas and regarded himself as a disciple of The Brisker Rov Rav Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik. On the other hand, Rav Eliashiv, born in Jerusalem and much more involved with the growth of Israel's people from its earliest beginnings in modern times, is considered to be the final authority not only for many Haredim, but also for the Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel and is consulted by the major pro-Zionist rabbis in the state's Batei Din. In fact even Israel's leading secular politicians come to him openly for consultations which he openly dispenses. For example, both current Chief Rabbis of Israel were accepted as the candidates for their respective positions only after Rav Eliashiv agreed to their appointment. The Eliashiv family had personal connections that go back to Rav Abraham Isaac Kook and they in fact helped to bring Rav Kook to Israel. Rav Shach kept a far greater distance from matters connected to Zionism and the state of Israel and was much more of a firebrand in any case, so one must conclude that if Rav Eliashiv who is by nature more patient, lenient, and open than Rav Shach ever was, and as someone literally involved with matters of state, sees fit to lend his signature to a ban on someone's writings, then that writer must surely have crossed a very serious "red line". And if that event happened in 2005 so what? It's just a number on a calendar to indicate when the subject was officially declared to be treif and beyond the pale for frum Jews. None is stopping anyone else from reading Slifkin or anything else for that matter, but if one aspires to somehow be part of the Haredi world, then they have at least received due notice to stay away from what may be trash in the eyes of the leading sages. What is wrong with that? There is also nothing to get excited about or to say that what Slifkin said or did not say was "accepted" "before 2005" because, to reiterate again very clearly, NO-ONE studies or cares much about the topics that Slifkin wrote about. In fact I live in a major Torah neighborhood and most people on the streets or in the yeshivas and other Torah schools have NEVER heard of Slifkin and few have read anything he wrote. He is not on anyone's radar screen in spite of what you may have read on the Internet. Open a Jewish newspaper and each week there are new controversies and subjects. Last week it was bugs in lettuce, the week before that it was how Torah scrolls were saved from the hurricane, this week it's an eruv issue and next week it may be how a few more Torah families have been orphaned by tragedies G-d forbid, not to mention keeping track of the rise and fall of Sharon and company and how that affects the frum world. So basically Slifkin and his books don't even exist in the Torah (i.e. Haredi) world's collective consciousness and the sooner one can grasp that then the sooner one will grasp the total insignificance of what happened to poor ol' Slifkin in the greater scheme of things. It does NOT help to place all famous "Haredi rabbis" into some sort of a "bogey-man" mould, as if they all share major common negative characteristics that are deserving of automatic sceptisism and scorn by those who are not Haredi themselves. Prejudice and arrogance is never a one-way street. IZAK 12:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Slifkin's work was only popular with English speakers and then only few. His work as a Zoo Rabbi probably gained him more popularity than his books. Still, I tend to agree with Dovi's assessement that many are appalled by the way this ban was promulgated. One should be careful not to dump everything at Rabbi Eliashiv's door. The incitement against Slifkin's writings obviously started in Bnei Berak and clearly did not originate from Jerusalem. The snowballing of signatures is a secondary phenomenon about which many things can be said.

Indigation about the Slifkin affair has originated mainly from those sitting on the fence between Haredi Judaism and Modern Orthodoxy. Analysts are not completely incorrect that this event has sharpened the borders between the two movements, and some sophisticated Haredi people have indeed found their ideas are not really Haredi anymore. JFW | T@lk 00:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

That Slifkin was known mostly to the English speakers is quite true, JFW. That is exactly why this whole thing exposed a rift between Israeli and North American chareidim. Dovi 18:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Dovi: There is NO "rift between Israeli and North American chareidim", on the contrary, Haredim in the United States are moving closer to the Haredim of Israel in a number of ways:

• Growth of identical communities with shared values, lifestyle, and leadership, e.g. Belzers, Gerrers, and Lubavatichers, or people in the Lakewood yeshiva in the United States are indistiguishable in world outlook (hashkafa) from their Israeli brethren.
• Many thousands of young male and female students from Haredi families from the United States travel to Israel to study for at least one year in yeshivas and Beis Yaakovs imbibing and connecting with Israel's Haredi life.
• Recognition by Haredim in the United States of the supreme leadership of Haredi leaders in Israel, susch as Rav Shach, Rav Kanievski, and Rav Eliashiv and others and consulting them about communal and policy matters in many areas. Or, did you know that the Israeli Haredi Eida Hachareidis recognizes the Satmar Rebbe as its official leader?
• American Haredim tend to be better off materially and are sending huge amounts of money to support Israeli Haredim and Haredi schools and building projects.
• Many Israeli Haredim come to live in Haredi communities in the United States and find it relatively easy to find employment and help from United States' Haredim if needed.
• Shared educational philosophy and methodology in the Haredi schools whether in Israel or the United States with a growing de-emphasis of anything secular in the main curriculum.
• While increasing communal isolation from secular society, Haredim in Israel and the United States are putting greater emphasis on kiruv ("outreach') to non-religious Jews and are succeeding in attrcting growing numbers of baal teshuvas everywhere.
• Increased family connections through constant shidduchim ("marital matches") between families on both sides of the Atlantic.
• Easy air travel to and fro, just check out the humdred of thousands of Haredim in El Al flights going back and forth from Israel and the USA each year.

There are are many more examples one could cite. But as regards the topic of Slifkin's writings, suffice it to say, that they did not make a dent on Haredi life anywhere. Perhaps, within the United States, where there is some movement of Modern Orthodox Jews who are moving to the right, i.e. towards a style of Haredi-type Judaism, or the very few Haredim who choose to become more Modern Orthodox, there may have been some interest in this, but Slifkin's books or views have nothing to do with the core sociological, psychological, or spiritual factors that are the true reaons for the tension on the frings of all the established movements. IZAK 08:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Vagueness

There is nothing in the article to say what particular views of Slifkin's resulted in his books being banned. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Joe, you are correct, because basically the article is not more than a stub, so all this hot air that is being ventd so far may seem like "much 'ado about nothing"...but hopefully soon someon will "fill in the blanks" and "lay out the issues" so that the reader can know what the controversy was all about. Thanks for the positive prodding, as always. IZAK 13:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The two main issues are briefly mentioned: The date of creation and the possibility of Chazal erring. I agree that this can and should be expanded, with references and links. Dovi 14:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It's true that the article is vague about the charges, but that strongly reflects what Slifkin's critics have been like. I must confess that I had never heard of Rabbi Slifkin until reading about the ban on a Haredi site, a long diatribe against Slifkin that provided barely any specifics at to what Slifkin had said that got him in trouble. From the tone of this essay, you'd think Slifkin had said something truly radical, like that it's okay to drive on Shabbos, or that King David didn't write the Psalms. But just about the only "crime" mentioned in the essay was that Slifkin had suggested the world is "millions" of years old.

If these rabbis believe it heretical to question the 6,000-year timeline, why on earth are they singling out Slifkin? There are tons of frum books that endorse an old-earth position, many of them very mainstream and found in numerous Orthodox homes and synagogues. Aryeh Kaplan's Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe is particularly worth noting, since it bases its conclusions on the writings of a thirteenth-century rabbi! To be sure, books like these have aroused considerable discussion and debate within the frum community, but up to now I've never heard of anyone seeking to ban them. What's striking about this backlash is not just its excessiveness, but its ignorance of views that are in fact widespread in the Orthodox community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.177.13 (talk)

Jeffykins: Natan also relies on very old impeccable sources. If you have the patience to read the Rabbi's objections carefully and look at their handwritten notes, it becomes clear what they object to, so I edited the first paragraph to reflect that. (I won't repeat it here.) Please don't infer that I'm terribly sympathetic to their position, as the rest of my edits should make abundantly clear. I really like Natan, and am very convinced that his heart and brain are filled with belief in the Torah; their objections are really to a few poorly chosen words, and they're apparently using this as an excuse to make an example of someone, which I agree is deplorable and terribly unfair. There's no excuse for making it hard for his kids to go to a decent school, IMHO. But before you can criticize another's position, you must first be able to state it, and that hadn't really been done yet. I'll wait for you all to thank me.  :-)

Can anyone find the original PDF of the Rabbis' notes? I think Natan originally put it on his site, but I can't find it now. I have a paper copy that I relied on to make my comments, but I accept the {fact} label; it would indeed be very helpful to have a link to them (there are a couple of notes that are fairly readable that support my contention very well) so the reader can see I didn't make it up. Jeffykins 13:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Rav Elyashiv

(This was posted yesterday. I assume it was deleted by accident.)

IZAK, I guess it all depends on how one evaluates things. Rav Elyashiv once took a position in the Chief Rabbinate against the wisdom of Rav Shach and others, but then admitted his error, left, and did teshuva.

He has deep respect for Rav Kuk personally as a scholar (if I recall, I think Rav Kuk was even his mesader kiddushin or something like that?), but shows no respect to his students in practise. He views the Chief Rabbinate as an institution to be manipulated for pragmatic reasons, and fights for chareidi control of it, while at the very same time despising it. His support for the choice of the current Ashkenazic chief rabbi was an example of his mix of derision and power-pragmatism, as you can and should find out by reading the news on this from when it was current.

Rav Elyashiv does have enormous influence on chareidi rabbinical judges who consult him, while he remains "pure" by not actually holding a position any longer. The minority of non-chareidi ("Zionist") rabbinic judges fight his influence, and every time new judges are appointed there is a power struggle. Read some recent news at the "Yahadut" section of nrg.co.il every week for updates on the agunah battles, all of which are ultimately fights against Rav Elyashiv's influence from the outside on the rabbinical courts.

Rav Elyashiv has a number of books and people, usually without any due process, and never speaking to the people involved. That was a major aspect of the Slifkin debate. One may claim that this is par for the course, but to many others like myself it is both very troubling and highly noteworthy. In one famous case the rabbi involved called to request to speak to him after he suddenly found that the chareidi newspapers were attacking him, and Rav Elyashiv simply hung up the phone. I have no POV trouble seeing RE as an "extremist" and I hope it is now clear why, though of course descriptions like that can never go in an article. You differ and I respect that, but please don't say it is based on ignorance. To me and to many others, RE's past associations with the rabbinate and Rav Kuk have become meaningless, and he has taken exactly the same position in the "Litai" world previosly occupied by Rav Shach.

What changed here is that for the first time ever, instead of the yeshiva world remaining silent out of respect for RE, there was a huge, open, vocal protest. Read the links at the bottom of the article. I'll see if I can dig up more stable links.

Plus, I do think it is historically important that we know the exact date when non-creationism suddenly became invalid for a large part of the Orthodox world. Dovi 14:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• I am sorry that you see Rav Eliashiv in such a poor light and that you deem Rabbi Slifkin to be a more "righteous" personality. Consider your line of reasoning, you are taking someone who is a mere "lad" (to be charitable) as someone who can go "head to head", so to speak, with a scholar on the level of Rav Eliashiv. In the Torah world (meaning the world where Torah is valued and studied) it is a non-starter. But this is Wikipedia, so we are free to have our little discussions which will not really reflect the true realities out there. Try as you may to paint him as such, I doubt that anyone in the Haredi world views Rav Eliashiv as "Rav Shach II". Only the Israeli journalists who know nothing of Torah life, and to add insult to injury try to dumb things down even further, like to have a "big bad guy" they can pillory. Rav Eliashiv is his own man and he is quite complex. Yes he is the leader of the Litvish Haredim in Israel as was Rav Shach (and in the United States, by extension) but he is not as universally accepted by many on the right flank within the Haredi world. The influential Briskers do not recognize his leadership and are suspicious of his connections to the State of Israel. I don't know of any Hasidim who accept Rav Eliashiv as their leader in any way. Rav Eliashiv's behind the scenes efforts for or against this-or-that rabbis is no different to any behind the scenes communal politics you would find in any religious group, or for that matter in any groups competing for influence. The point is Rav Eliashiv plays within the system to a greater degree than did Rav Shach. Whereas Rav Shach was a player mainly in the political field, Rav Eliashiv is also a key player in the Israeli rabbinate and has a deeper reach into the inner sanctums of secular Israeli politicians who treat him with greater veneration than they did Rav Shach who often called them scum (or worse). That Rav Eliashiv was part of a group that finally gave Rabbi Slifkin the boot (in the figurative sense) was evidently necessary because Rabbi Slifkin's profile was becoming greater than was due to someone who was such a "minor league" player in the world of Haredi rabbis, and it was necessary to "throw the book at him" (good pun too) so that people realize that he does not speak for the world of Torah Judaism. There are greater voices than R. Slifkin that will make themselves heard given the urgency and necessity of the situation. What happened was a rejection of Slifkin and the way he represented things and not an end to a philosophical debate about "Creationism" which those who want to delve into may do so on an individual basis, but not at the cost of the accepted views that are taught to the vast majority. Most parents who send their kids to yeshivas and Beis Yaakovs do NOT expect and do NOT want their sons and daughters becoming unwitting "believers" in modern-day age-of-earth and "evolution vs. creation" debates and discussions. Why is that so hard to grasp? It's not the job of the Torah educators to do Darwin's job, and the impression that came through was that Slifkin was beginning to appear and write more as an emissary of Darwin and his ilk than of the great rabbis in Jerusalem from where he had come. IZAK 09:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Aish HaTorah

Reading through the talk page, I wanted to clarify one point.

Aish is certainly a charedi organisation. No question at all. I know the group very well, and I say this with complete authority.

Their head is a Weinberg, they follow the rules laid out by charedi rabbis in their every action, they serve only the best heksherim, the rabbis are mostly black-hatters. They have little time for zionism and work closely with a number of major rebbes. Their actions are dictated at every step by charedi halachists, such as Rabbi Berkovitz. They are really hardcore. No doubt. jucifer 15:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed 100%, but it's not all "bad news" though... IZAK 04:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand your opinion, but in the Haredi world AIsh HaTorah is considered Modern Orthodox or less. They are certainly more Daati Leumi than Haredi. They even have a hesder program and take money from Israel to do propaganda missions to US universities. Shia1 05:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Rav Ovadia

Should we add these recent comments by Ovadia Yosef, or is it not notable enough? (english translation here).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachrach44 (talk • contribs)

Section removed: Haredi books banned by Haredi rabbis

The following section:

"Other recent Haredi books banned by Haredi rabbis

• Larger than Life, by Rabbi Shaul Shimon Deutsch, banned by the rabbis of Chabad-Lubavitch because it depicts Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the last Rebbe of Chabad-Lubavitch, as a mortal.
• Making of a Godol by Rabbi Nathan Kamenetsky, son of Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky. Haredi rabbis issued a ban on the book as it appeared in 2002, claiming that it undervalues the rabbis whose life it describes."

was removed from the article by User:Jfdwolff who states in his edit summary: "rm biased list of "also banned " books - arbitrary off-topic" [4] -- however the question remains why this is "off-topic"? It would seem that this is the underlying topic of the entire episode, and is surely no worse than a "See also" section. Where then should such a section go? User:HKT did precisely the same thing with the Making of a Godol article (see Talk:Making of a Godol#Section removed: books banned by Haredi rabbis). This deserves more discussion. IZAK 14:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

When I first saw the section appear, I made many modifications to it--some grammatical, and I also eliminated your description of the Slifkin affair, since it just reiterated what was already in the article. The above represented how the section looked following my modifications. But when someone else deleted the entire section, I sort of understood why. The article is specifically about R' Slifkin, not about frum bans in general, and the other controversies are tangential to the topic. My suggestion would be to create a separate article discussing this phenomenon. You could include some historical information also, such as the bans on Rambam and other famous rabbis of the past. You could discuss the role of bans in Judaism, and this would belong in a larger category of bans within other religions. marbeh raglaim 15:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think such a list would be a good idea. However I dispute the use of the word "recent" and also any description given about the books or the reason for ban, such information should be left on the book or author's wiki shoul;d a reader choose to look it up. --ZayZayEM 05:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Rabbis and Scholars?

Writing that Rabbis and Scholars have been discussing this ban on the internet ignores the fact that 99 percent of those who discuss this issue on blogs know little, if anything, about the Torah. And the 1 percent that do are not regarded as scholars on the part of the signatories of the ban. VERY misleading, and violative of NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.254.200 (talk)

Anonomous quotations

the Anonomous quote about Slifkin being treated unfairly is probably rubbish. At best, its still unsourced. The same goes for how "some" (who is this "some?") think about those who may be pretending to believe in the ban, but, in fact, do not. This is unsourced. It is also not conforming with Wikipedia standards. It ought to be changed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.254.200 (talk)

Read the Talk before you edit.

Before you edit here. Please read all the talk above. Preserve what has been said here, and use it to understand what is on the page now. --Metzenberg 01:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted content

Are you refering to this edit when you say I deleted sourced material? This appears to be original synthesis. Who is doing the "careful reading". You? If so, that is OR. Is it someone else's words? Then who? (Silfkin?) There was no footnote. And tehre was no in text attribution. Please attribute this claim to an independent RS and it can be included. As it stands it appears to be your opinion on the matter.--ZayZayEM 01:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say "banned by haredi authorities" rather than "haredic" which seems to be a non-existent Hebrew/English hybrid word. But certainly not "conservative authorities", suggesting conservative Judaism which I really don't think you meant. Perhaps you were subconsciously making an analogy to conservative Christianity, but in an article on a controversy within orthodox Judaism the word is confusing. Dirac66 02:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am trying my darndest to somehwo add words to that effect. Could you please perhaps use wording of your choice.--ZayZayEM 02:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph that you deleted, in order to restore your caption that you wanted:

The condemnation itself objects to two aspects of Slifkin's work: First, it objects to Slifkin's assertion that the scientific writing contained in the Talmud may not be as authoritative as the more overtly religious content, "that Chazal Hakedoshim can err chas vesholom in worldly matters." Secondly, it objects to the tone of Slifkin's work, stating that "even what is not heretical is expressed in a way only a heretic would speak."

After you deleted that paragraph that said, "careful reading," which I do agree was a synthesis, I did the previous author a favor and went back and sourced it properly. I went to the original sources and added them. You carelessly deleted them without even looking at them, even though I had carefully restored the picture you wanted here, after restoring the text you had deleted. You didn't see that I had reworded the paragraph so that it would no longer be POV or an original synthesis. I found the original source and turned it into a factual paragraph. You didn't even look to see that I had done that. You just deleted it again.

Furthermore, you have no idea what you were deleting? Do you know what Chazal Hakedoshim means, or what chas vesholom means? Do you understand that these words are written here, not as they would be spoken in modern Hebrew, but in Ashkenazi Hebrew, as spoken in a Yeshiva. I'm no Yeshiva bocher myself, but I'll translate for you. Chazel is an acronym that means, "our sages of blessed memory," and hakodeshim translates roughly, "the holy ones." The expression chas vesholom translates, roughly "heaven forbid" or "God forbid" (although that's not a literal translation).

that our sages of blessed memory, the holy ones, can err, heaven forbid, in worldly matters.

So that gets back to what I said about authority, on the Talk on page of Jewish opposition to evolution. You have the authority to do anything you want on Wikipedia. But it doesn't mean that you have any business doing anything you want. This is a page where you have no business doing anything. You don't know how to talk the talk of this page. Your efforts to edit here are about as absurd as it would be if you tried to edit Edgeworth's limit theorem. --Metzenberg 02:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I did no such thing. Please restore such text. it looks good. Please hyperlink (as I did before) to the edit history showing my deletion of such content. Please get your facts straight. Aside from deleting the original unsourced content, and then adding the photo of the book, and subsequent edits refining the caption, I have done nothing to this article. Such a deletion must havebeen an inadvertent result of an edit conflict I suspect. Please calm down. And above all remember WP:Civil. You are bordering on offensive with your continual attacks on me.--ZayZayEM 02:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

ZayZayEM. Frankly, Dirac66's point shows that your effort to edit here is just not appropriate. you don't understand the nuances of language that you need to be editing on this page. --Metzenberg 02:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not need to understand Yiddish to edit pages. I took words from the main body of the text! Pleas fix language. Do not just delete added content.--ZayZayEM 02:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not Yiddish, it's Hebrew. --Metzenberg 02:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to understand either. This is an English language encyclopedia. --ZayZayEM 03:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you are complaining so vociferously about somebody deleting or changing just a few of your words, even asking me to help you reword them, yet you casually deleted an entire block of my text without even looking. What are you here for? You are here to create trouble, pure and simple. You're not improving these pages. Yes, this is an English language encyclopedia, but some of the source material on this particular page is in Hebrew, of which I have at least a basic knowledge, while you know nothing at all. Can you read what is up above on the Talk page here? Of course not. So why are you trying to make changes here? --Metzenberg 03:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not deleted anything. Please see your own talk page. Please stop being reactionary. Please do not take edits personally. And above all CEASE your consistent attacks on my value as an editor.--ZayZayEM 05:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

References

incorrect link/link not working

^ http://fkmanaic.blogspot.com FKM's blog's critiquing Slifkin's controversial ideas and Slifkin's presentation of the ban on his books is no longer active. someone should find a new link to cite and remove this one. Preferrably someone who is familiar with Orthodox Judaism and can sift through proper linkage, not a random editor (like one I am seeing on this talk page who likes to edit that which he/she has no clue about. I'm not Orthodox (but I am Jewish) and I know much more than the alledged editor/stalker and agree he shouldn't be editing works of which he does not know unless they are grammatical in nature. It serves no point to the larger community which is to present information in a clear and concise way for lay people. If one does not understand the information or its context, one should not edit that material. It's just common sense. Hence why I am not editing this link to another working with relevant information, even though I am an editor and writer in Jewish life by trade. Those more familiar with the Slifkin debate among the Haredi or Ultra-Orthodox are more suited to dealing with the context within the content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.25.199 (talk)

Fair use rationale for Image:Slifkin creation.jpg

Image:Slifkin creation.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi Slifkin's companion

Is the good Rabbi married to that lemur? She seems to be with him in every photo I've seen. Myles325a (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

They are currently separated :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

External links

Thank you for the invitation to talk. The external links that I provided give balance to the entry by providing a challenging view to that of Rabbi Slifkin's. In fact, Rabbi Slifkin himself has engaged these challenges, either directly or indirectly - i.e., on one of those websites he himself has contributed, and for the other two, he has addressed their claims on his own website and blogsite. To continuously delete these links that a) provide new information to the entry, and b) provide a dignified balance is, in my opinion, the real disruption here. I welcome your comments.

Estherneiman (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Off the bat, Esther, your intentions are quite unclear and appear quite dubious. You are a new editor and your only contribution to Wikipedia has been 7 similar edits to the same article, Natan Slifkin. So far, you have reverted reversions to your edit 6 times in response to one bot and 2 other editors -- all without engaging in any bit of discussion or presenting any supporting arguments for your change. After placing a notice that all edits should be discussed prior to being submitted, you made the aforementioned modification once again, and then decided to discuss it -- that's not engaging in debate to discuss changes; that's engaging in retroactive assertion of purpose and credibility, despite there obviously being some resistance to your desired changes. As an editor, you have all the rights and privileges that I do and that most any other editor has, but we have got to express these privileges in an orderly fashion -- engaging in a continuous reversal of each other's changes is certainly not an efficacious use of anyone's time.

Generally, blogs are inadmissible sources because they are completely unregulated -- Wikipedia prides itself on verifiability, and blogs, being non-peer reviewed user-generated content, can and do assert anything the author would like without any check on validity, skewed POV and other pillars of Wikipedia's goal of being sourced and sourcing well substantiated information. For instance, you can begin a blog today and write whatever you want...how can that be claimed to be worthwhile?

Moreover, R' Slifkin includes all challenges to his position, very highly publicized, on his website at [5] that can be easily and readily seen under 'controversy' in the table of contents. To include an inordinate amount of contrary information, from a personal blog, that R' Slifkin is certainly not to be expected to respond to in an organized, thorough fashion undermines his credibility without actually generating any useful or positive objective. And even while I'm writing this, you again revert the revision of your disruptive edit.

Please cease making this obviously contentious and controversial change before its merits have been discussed and deliberated upon here. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way. If blogs were to be removed from Wikipedia, thousands of entries would need to be rewritten. I don't see how my editing history is relevant here, and that which you accused me of can be said of you as well. You have repeatedly revised my revision. I have explained exactly why I added these links. The do indeed provide new information for the reader. A balanced view, by presenting challenges to Rabbi Slifkin's view is, I think, completely reasonable. Your suppression of this balance appears to be censorship, or at least suggests an agenda that goes against the interest of balance. Saying that the balance should be provided by looking at Rabbi Slifkin's own website where he cites some of his critics flies in the face of an equal presentation of all sides of this issue. I do not understand your objections here.

Estherneiman (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please maintain this as a single thread for continuity. You are ignoring Wikipedia protocol by insisting on maintaining your controversial edit prior to an agreement on the talk page related to the controversy of your argument. Claiming that blogs are admissible because they are ubiquitous is a flimsy and cyclical argument -- they are frowned upon, you have been warned multiple times and you insist on ignoring these warnings, making you a disruptive editor. Your edit history is very relevant -- who appears to have an agenda, someone who registers and logs in solely to make disruptive edits, or someone who happens to catch that someone? You are in violation of the three-revert rule, and although the same complaint may (and likely) will be laid upon myself by you, I am engaged in maintaining status quo in the face of disruptive edits by a seemingly agenda-driven new editor while you are engaged in insisting that your edits be incorporated as a new status quo in the face of opposition but while ignoring warnings, invitations for open debate, etc. Blogs are by definition biased, and their credibility are so highly dubious in a self-defined manner that your suggestion that I am engaging in "suppressing balanced coverage" is really quite silly. Furthermore, heightened criteria apply in this case because unsubstantiated blogs are being used to potentially undermine and defame in violation of Wikipedia policy on biographies of a living person. Please cease and desist from further edit warring immediately and wait until consensus can be reached. And please read the links provided to you on your talk page by the revert bot on Wikipedia external link policy prior to re-engaging. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

To 212.143.128.211 (aka Estherneiman) -- how contemptible it is that you resort to continued disruption of R' Slifkin's article. Have you learned nothing? It's as though I was advocating removing your desired external links from the internet! Anyone can freely access any blog they wish -- they mustn't see it appended to Slifkin's article to access them, yet you insist on including them in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies, as explained above and on your talk page. And when you are warned -- you ignore it. And when you are engaged in debate -- you act unilaterally, undermined your own position by refusing to respond to challenge. And when you are blocked -- you wait with bated breath to sneakily and cowardly restore your reverted edits by adding them via an IP address, as though no one would figure you out. Your behavior undermines the entirety of Wikipedia, because if we cannot discuss, we cannot build. If we cannot deliberate, we cannot succeed. Your behavior is so inappropriate that there is almost no words to describe it. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just semi-protected the page against the insertion of personal websites as links, following a request on RfPP, but I see there are some still in the article. No self-published material is allowed in biographies of living persons, unless it has been written and published by the subject of the article, and even then should not be over-used. See WP:BLPSPS. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright -- thanks for your help! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving Websites to External links

Looking for feedback regarding Slifkin's website and blog from External links to Other writings and if necessary change that section to other works. My thought process is as this is the aricle's subject's own work they deserve precedence in the list of footers and should go with his books. Menachemsdavis (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Natan Slifkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091129021453/http://momentmag.com/Exclusive/2005/2005-10/200510-HeresyOfSlifkin.html to http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2005/2005-10/200510-HeresyOfSlifkin.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ohr Somayach is a Kiruv Yeshiva and does not ordain Rabbis

Just to clarify a point, the Yeshiva Ohr Somayach in Jerusalem does not ordain Rabbis It has a program that allows relevant individuals to learn the course material to obtain Semicha. It does not in any way ordain Rabbis, and does not provide any certification for it. An individual Posek ordains Rabbis, and has no connection to Ohr Somayach. He is not paid by Ohr Somayach nor is he affiliated with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A043:C25A:F5FA:C6A4:106E:D555 (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)