the palace of torah

Three years ago Dr. Tamar Ross published a book. last month, R. Aryeh Frimer wrote a review. I have to admit I was quite taken aback by 1- the tone and 2 - the complete failure to actually engage many of the points he attacks.*
I've just read her response.
I'm not sure I agree with everything she says, (rather, I'm pretty sure I'm not comfortable with some of it) but I do think she has the upper hand in this argument overall. And in general, I'm glad to be reminded of what she stands for, since it helps me in a lot of ways.

Also, I happened to have been discussing something very much like the first full paragraph on p. 14 with my former chavruta earlier today:

It is not internal religious logic, but rather the obsession with borders and denominational lines that drives considerable segments even of Torah U-Madda circles to selectivity in their willingness to veer from literalist interpretations of dogma that cannot be defended on rational grounds. It is this that drives them to engage in often ludicrous contortions and splitting of hairs in order to come up with some consistent doctrinal formula that distinguishes between Orthodox conceptions of Torah and halakha and those of other denominations...

* [eg, TR observes that it's odd that Torah study for women and innovations in women's prayer (eg, womens tefillah groups) have received very different responses/levels of acceptance despite looking like quite similar innovations, allegedly, from an ex-ante perspective. AF responds that the difference is that learning was implemented with rabbinic approval, WTGs not. Assuming any/all of the factual observations/assertions are true (TR points out that beis yaakov was hardly uncontroversial), somethings still sounds circular here, no?]
arg.