I have gone on record many times as being an advocate of learning tanach with classical parshanut as the main focus, rather than the "new school" literary approach. However, I found Yair Sheleg's attack of the "new" approach as being a cause of the rise of extremism in the dati leumi community to be rather unfair. As Shalom Berger has already pointed out, the vast majority of those utilizing this approach are responsible people who would never advocate extremist conclusions. Moreover, people who are looking for justifications for extremist views will find them, even if they use classical parshanut sources. People quote the Rashbam on the akeidaha, that it was a punishment for the peace treaty with Avimelech, as a proof that one can never make peace with an Arab country. Moreover, I have heard people use the Ramban on the Rambam's sefer hamitzvot, that there is still a mitzva to settle Israel, as a proof that we must fight until we have control of all the territory that was part of Israel in the time of Tanach.
While this is an appropriate time for our community to introspect on how such extremism has grown in our camp,Yair Sheleg's conclusion, that the modern approach to tanach study is to blame, is unwarranted.
