Important Heresy Warning

This is based on a post on another website, although I have altered it for presentation purposes. A link to the post will be presented at the end of this post.

There are teachings in Rambams books that contradict Torah. Simple as that. An easy to understand example: Rambam says that the donkey did not speak to Bilam The Torah says the opposite. So why does Rambam say so? Because philosophy says so. Can the current philosophical interpretation of prophecy be wrong? That conclusion is unacceptable to Rambam.

Rambam does not say "We need to find an answer to tell Baalei Teshuva (or even FFB's) to this. Instead, he insists that there is no way to say, the way we all know the Torah does, that the donkey spoke to Bilam. It is just not so, he says. The donkey did not speak.

This alone qualifies Moreh Nevuchim as SIfrei Minim. He is insisting, and teaching to the public, that the fact is, the story of Bilam is not – indeed, he has proof that I cannot be! - as it says in the Torah.

Rambam says that the donkey didn't speak because philosophy tells us that animals don't talk to angels, and if you were taught differently in Yeshiva, well, he knows better. Better than your elemtary school Rebbi; better than the earlier Rishonim, better than the Gaonim; better than Chazal; better than everybody. I promise I am not making this up. He claims not a single shitah that agrees with him, This is his own observation, his own teaching, his own, lone, opinion. And for good reason: there is no way that anybody in his right mind can claim the Torah believes such a thing, seeing as it states black on just the opposite. Yet Rambam does just that. He claims that when the Torah says the donkey spoke to Bilam, the Torah doesn’t really mean it. His utterly botched attempt to make sense out of what the Torah says here, tells the reader one thing: When the Torah says the donkey spoke to Bilam, the Torah is wrong.

Whether this was Rambams intent or not is irrelevant. This book is halahicly Sifrei minim. Burn it.

Of course, this was not written about the Rambam. It was written about R. Nosson Slifkin. My point, though, is that logic is lacking from his argument. Here is the original post.

As to the comments about science, I revert to my post about pseudo-science.