- This topic has 138 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I find it amusing that if I was to argue on one of the rabbis in the talmud or mishna everyone would tell me I dont have the right to argue because they were a lot smarter and more knowledgeable then me but that these same people think they can argue against some of the most brilliant people to have lived on Earth in the past few hundred years. Einstein was, and you can not argue, a genius and i am sure he thought of many of the arguements many of you are bringing up, but i am just as sure that he was able to answer them even if you can not.
As an aside why is it so hard to believe that the sun may be revolving around Earth? They used to believe that and it turns out they were wrong. Perhaps they were actually right and what we believe now is wrong? Besides it does not go against the torah in any way so what makes you think that the scientists are wrong?
ulisis, it’s good to see you posting again.
Joseph, For the record I understand both Special and General relativity quite well. I have a BA in physics and studied both SR and a little bit of GR (Mostly its not done until grad school, tensor calculus is rather high level) as well as Quantum Mechanics.
In truth the difference between the Newtonian physics and relativity in terms of the solar system are pretty small. Except for the issue of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. and that amounts to 43 seconds of arc per century.
Your understanding of what Science is and how it operates is sadly lacking.
Joseph,
Just wondering: Do you believe man went to the moon?
As an aside why is it so hard to believe that the sun may be revolving around Earth? They used to believe that and it turns out they were wrong. Perhaps they were actually right and what we believe now is wrong? Besides it does not go against the torah in any way so what makes you think that the scientists are wrong?
Because they believed that the Earth was fixed and unmoving for reasons that are simply not correct. The basic idea from Ptolomy was that the earth was too big to move, the problem is that he did not have a correct understanding of forces or accurate data on the motion of the solar system. In fact the sun is about 1,000,000 times as massive as the Earth, though this was not known then.
The daily rotation of the Earth has physical manifestations that can be measured. As an object on the equator moves around faster then one at middle latitudes, it has a greater angular momentum. So for example a projectile fired from the equator to the north will feel a “force” pulling it to the East. This effect known as the “Coriolis” effect is well known, just ask anyone who works with artillery.
In addition if the Earth was not moving we would not see the effect of stellar parallax. As nearby stars appear to move vs farther objects as the Earth orbits the sun. the effect is very small but can be measured. For some stars it could even be measured with equipment held by a well equipped backyard astronomer. (a rig costing maybe $2000 or even less).
As for saying
Well G-d wanted it this waythe other problem is that its not a fruitful concept. It can not lead you to discover things that you would otherwise not know. Using Newton’s laws Urbain Le Verrier discovered the planet Neptune without ever looking threw a telescope. Yet it was less than 1 degree away from where he said it would be.Eppuir Si Mouve (and yet still it moves)
zachkessin: So let us hear your point-by-point scientific refutation of the points and quotes made by the scientists. There is quite a bit of scientific proofs cited in this thread, brought against your position. Please don’t leave out any of the scientific and physics points made, by brushing them aside as a misunderstanding or the like; be specific and responsive to the points.
proudtatty: ad hominems never succeed in hiding the truth.
by no means was that an ad hominem. I honestly wanted to know your answer to that question.
What is an ad hominem?
ZachKessin: Many scientific discoveries are eventually shown to be wrong,my point is what we know now as scientific fact may also be eventually disproven. Don’t be so full of yourself and say that what we know now is the 100% truth. It can easily turn out to be wrong.
From “The View of Modern Science” (in the article “Heliocentrism” on Wikipedia):
The thinking that the heliocentric view was also not true in a strict sense was achieved in steps. That the Sun was not the center of the universe, but one of innumerable stars, was strongly advocated by the mystic Giordano Bruno. Over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries, the status of the Sun as merely one star among many became increasingly obvious. By the 20th century, even before the discovery that there are many galaxies, it was no longer an issue.
Even if the discussion is limited to the solar system, the sun is not at the geometric center of any planet’s orbit, but rather at one focus of the elliptical orbit. Furthermore, to the extent that a planet’s mass cannot be neglected in comparison to the Sun’s mass, the center of gravity of the solar system is displaced slightly away from the center of the Sun. (The masses of the planets, mostly Jupiter, amount to 0.14% of that of the Sun.) Therefore a hypothetical astronomer on an extrasolar planet would observe a “wobble” in his perception of the Sun’s motion.
Giving up the whole concept of being “at rest” is related to the principle of relativity. While, assuming an unbounded universe, it was clear there is no privileged position in space, until postulation of the special theory of relativity by Albert Einstein, at least the existence of a privileged class of inertial systems absolutely at rest was assumed, in particular in the form of the hypothesis of the luminiferous aether. Some forms of Mach’s principle consider the frame at rest with respect to the masses in the universe to have special properties.
Modern use of geocentric and heliocentric
In modern calculations, the origin and orientation of a coordinate system often have to be selected. For practical reasons, systems with their origin in the mass, solar mass or in the center of mass of solar system are frequently selected. The adjectives may be used in this context. However, such selection of coordinates has no philosophical or physical implications.
Joseph,
I explained to you why if you beleive that a larger object has a greater gravitational pull then a smaller one, (a fact we have tested and sucessfully made predictions how things will travel based upon many many times) it dosnt make sense to say the sun orbits the earth.
I have also pointed out to you how the order of the planets that the Rambam (Sefer Hamada-Yisodei hatorah 3:4) held of, with the Sun being between Venus and Mars is now known beyond any shadow of a doubt to be wrong (as the Earth is located between Venus and Mars).
Aussie Boy,
The science of today is diffrent then the science of old. For example the Rambam (and just about evreybody else who lived in his time) beleived that the planets were all attached to hard clear spheres which turned and upon which the planets turned also.
This theory explained the motion of the planets as they saw them and was excepted as fact for hundreds of years.
That theory has now been disproven beyond any shadow of a doubt by modern science because we have sent satalites up past the orbits of evrey planet in the solar system and they havnt crashed into any hard spheres. There is no chance that we will one day discover that the theory that the Rambam thought was correct (hard clear spheres) is correct.
Joseph,
Why have you chosen not to answer my question?
I only have time to point out two errors in Joseph’s many posts — but severe errors they are.
The first serious error is regarding his understanding of science. It is not true that it is necessary to reproduce results in a laboratory for something to be empirically true. For example, it is beyond any doubt whatsoever that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer in humans, but chas v’shalom we ever force any human to subject themselves to such an experiment. The idea that we can only falsify but never prove was essentially proposed by Popper, but he was not a scientist!
The second serious error is that he presents a 150 year old Christian argument regarding the creator creating an ancient universe that looks young that has no basis in our mesorah. Chas v’shalom that a Jew accept such an argument from a competing religion. I can’t believe that YWN’s moderators allowed such to be posted on a frum site.
The second serious error is that he presents a 150 year old Christian argument regarding the creator creating an ancient universe that looks young that has no basis in our mesorah. Chas v’shalom that a Jew accept such an argument from a competing religion. I can’t believe that YWN’s moderators allowed such to be posted on a frum site.
Why should they not post it? What do you mean it has no part in our mesora? We know there were 26 generations between the creation of the world and matan torah (2448). We know when the temples were built and how long they stood for. What bothers you charlie? Better we say that science has it wrong or that G-d made it that way to fool those who want to take the bait?
btw, I think it is the Chasam Sofer who states that fossils are only around to fool those who want to be fooled by “science”.
Joseph, I am being genuine in my inquiry about your view of the moon landing. I am curious cause a friend of mine does not believe it happened and claims a “proof” from the “baba sali”
thanks Joseph, I actually had.
This guy told me (I think he said it was a baba sali) based on that we say in Kiddush levana. (k’shem sheani roked…) as a proof that we could not reach the moon.
I was not amused. He was being serious
ames, I think that is one of the cornerstone arguments of the flat earth people. But no one takes them seriously – and on a much different scale from the kind of stuff Joseph is bringing up.
As I mentioned earlier, all the arguments for and against orbital centricity are grounded in our basic premises of physics (e.g. gravity), which may well be fallacious. The Earth could be the center of the universe, if we dispel our preconceived notions of physics. A flat earth is a bit more extreme than that.
Joseph, you are making this thread very hard to follow, because you keep mixing in many different concepts, some of which contradict each other.
For example, you cite some poskim who hold that things like lice and the treifos are binding even if the science behind them is proven wrong. So you are contradicting your assertion that Chazal’s science was always right. We are not arguing here about the halachic ramifications, only the scientific facts.
Second, you bring evolution into this. I agree evolution and origin-of-life theories are unproven in science, thus far, and possibly unprovable, since we cannot conduct a 15 billion-year long experiment. But you also throw in things like astronomy, which modern science knows quite well, and are testable, evidenced by our man on the moon, and the fact that the GPS system works as advertised. You do not address the fact that some gedolim said Copernicus was totally wrong and even wrote sfarim to this effect (see Slifkin’s site for a PDF), which we know is not the case. Any attempt to answer this up with relativity is a very big dochak, and not the svara pshutah. Bishloma the psukim use the earth as a frame of reference because it is convenient to tell somebody to make a left turn to get to your house with respect to the earth, and not refer him to astronomical coordinates which will likely get him confused. Dibrah Torah kloshon bnei odom. But here is the point, this Acharon available on Slifkin’s site refused to accept Dibrah Torah as the pshat, and instead tried to refute Copernicus! This shows he is wrong. Your relativity suggestion can only possibly defend the geocentric view from the strong kashya that it is kneged the simple metzius, but cannot refute Copernicus who has no kashya on him to begin with. You need to read the PDF and see for yourself.
Third, you say that the view of the Meor Ainayim that science carries more weight than Chazal is incorrect, and gedolim say not to read it. But you have never addressed my point that the Rambam says the same thing in Hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh 17, 24 that anything proven scientifically or mathematically carries the same weight as divrei neviim. He further says that we do not go by who says a particular idea. We go by the truth of the idea itself, no matter who says it. I believe the source of the Rambam is simply Chochma bagoyim taamin which you also refuse to address. This idea is only reexpressed by Rabeinu Avraham ben HaRambam where he says that Chazal will never expect us to believe anything which goes against our rationality, as far as the aggados go.
Related to this is Point Four where you insists that all aggadtas are to be taken literally and it is kefirah to believe an allegorical interpretation. But Rabbeinu Avraham says that even the Chumash uses exaggerations, such as Arim betzuros bashamayim. The meraglim didn’t mean their cities were fortified in the sky. They simply meant fortified to the Nth degree. Similarly another very long intro to aggadta in the beginning of the Ein Yaakkov (Maharatz Chayos?) also says that Chazal exaggerated, such as 300 cities wiped out by the egg of the Bar Yuchni bird. In addition there are some very hard aggadtas such as Bava Metzia 84a Aivrei d’Rebbe Yishmael, and so on. He also brings views that many of the nissim of Chazal were dreams, such as the proofs in the case of Tanur dBen Achnai of the river reversing direction. In addition, Chazal themselves said Iyov lo hayah vlo nivra. So if Chazal can say about a whole sefer in Tanach that it is only an allegory, then why can we not say about Chazal that some of their words were the same.
My personal kashya on this mehalach is simply what about the concept of sheker. How can you tell us a story if it never happened. At least preface it with mashal lmah hadavar domeh, etc. That is why when I was younger I always believed in the literal, but now am open to other interpretations. I heard from Reb Yaakov Weinberg that the Rashi of Vatishlach es amasa by Bas Paroh may not be literal, and Rabbi Yissochor Frand is my eid, and was in the car with me then.
Point Five, you have never addressed my loads of questions on why we find no reference to modern technology in Chazal such as modern weapons, modern electric lights, modern plumbing, but we do find tons of references to ancient technology. Shouldn’t there be a single detailed reference as to how to construct a single modern device that was predicted 2000 years ago. It would blow everybody’s arguments away. You basically want everybody to believe they had this knowledge as incredulous as that would be, and they hid it from everybody, because you have decided it is one of the ikrei emunah. A) It is likely not one of the ikrei emunah. B) Believing that they deliberately hid it is rather weak, don’t you think? I mean if I say I can turn lead into gold in my basement, but I keep it a secret, will anybody believe me? By definition science is built on observable and repeatable experiments. Private science is not science.
Squeak,
We can, do and have made predictions succesfully and correctly on how an object will move based on our knowledge of the fact that a larger body has a larger gravatational pull the a smaller one. This fact is observable just like the earth being round is observable, it is not just an idea that may be fallacious. To say it may not be true is really not any more far fetched then saying that the earth may be flat
Joseph,
You also havnt explained why we would only find the names of planets already discoverd in the times of chazal mentioned by chazal if they knew about the others exsistence.
Joseph,
Joseph,
you have still failed to address the point i made in an earlier post so i will repeat myself here.
The fact that larger objects have a stronger gravatational pull then smaller ones has been proven by obeservation many times over and we can predict and have predicted how an object going by a larger body will travel based on this knowledge. It is the sun with its larger gravatational pull that makes the earth travel as it does so it therefore only makes sense to say that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around.
I don’t really know a lot about quantum physics or this stuff but i was just wondering.
Cant you say that the Earth travels around the sun in the same way that any planet further from Earth (i.e. Mars, Jupiter, Neptune) travels around Earth?
646, it wouldn’t hurt you to do a little research into gravity as an observable fact. It is not observable, only the effects of gravity are observable. But we may be in error when we attribute it to gravity. I admit that alternative theories are not as compelling as gravity is, but that does not prove gravity exists. In a few years we might discover a new thoery to attribute all of our observable facts to (I freely admit that this is not likely in my mind, I am just pointing out that we really do not have a leg to stand on). Meanwhile, it does not hurt to register in your mind that your entire frame of reference, and your entire basis for physics, is only based on an unprovable theory.
Joseph, your assertion that all the observables would be the same if the universe went around the earth I believe is incorrect. The impetus for Copernicus was the fact that the orbits of the other planets seemed to reverse at certain intervals, if they were observed from earth. These were called epicycles (fudge factors). Copernicus successfully reduced the number of these necessary to match theory with observation, but could not eliminate them entirely because of the unknown fact of eliptical orbits. After Newton and Kepler, it was possible to eliminate them entirely using simple pure heliocentric elliptical orbits derived from Newtons laws of motion, and match the observations perfectly with no need for those ugly retrograde circles.
It happens to be a major goal of science to find the most concise, short, and elegant explanation that completely explains a set of observations. When you have to kvetch all kinds of arbitrary constants and second and third order effects, the theory gets ugly, and is less and less likely to be accepted.
Squeak, it is true that gravity might be replaced by a larger and more comprehensive theory, but it is unlikely that the current law of gravity F=gm_1m_2/r^2 will be significantly changed. Scientists love to collapse various phenomena into one bigger law that explains both. Electromagnetics has a similar form for the electrostatic force. Einstein and many others have searched for a Unified Field theory that might show that both of these are special cases of one larger force. (They are also motivated to unify the forces that hold atoms together along with gravity and EM.) If they succeed, we may call gravity something else. But the physical phenomema we explain with the old law will probably stay pretty much the same. Just like we still use Newton’s laws to predict the motion of baseballs.
The current form of the law of gravity works so well that we understand how to send rockets into space and reach the moon, and what the weight of the astronauts would be on the moon without having been there before, and how far a baseball will travel, and what the water pressure is at 10000 feet below Earth’s surface, and how big a water pump we need for the bathrooms to work on the top floor of a skyscraper. We have reached Mars, and the GPS system works well based on current equations. The solar batteries in the GPS system are aimed towards the sun and keep it charged, because we know where the sun is at all times. All these depend on our understanding of gravity. You need to appreciate the incredible beauty of Newton’s work.
Maybe a new system will show that gravity is a special case of a different force, but I highly doubt the math will change significantly for everyday use. Scientists are generally honest when they don’t know something. If they were having trouble understanding one planetary body or set of experiments with current thinking you would see calls for papers and conferences scheduled on for example the “Jupiter-Moon 5 Anomaly”. You continually see and hear the phrases well-understood or not well-understood in conferences and journals about myriad things.
Scientists have a million things they don’t understand yet. We don’t even know how to prevent the common cold. Many revolutions are yet to take place. But don’t minimize the many things we do understand.
Squeak,
Come on! The fact that a larger object exerts a stronger pull then a smaller one is an OBSERVABLE effect of gravity. It is just as observable as the earth being round.
PY: I’m aware of how solid the theory of gravity is, and I have little reason to believe that it will be uprooted and replaced. I’m just making the point that we may be wrong about everything we know.
Let me give you an example. Before we sent rockets to the moon (yes, I believe we did), no one had ever seen the “far side” of the moon (again, this is assuming that everything we believe is correct). But we had bounced radio signals off of it, and they returned to Earth. Did that prove that the moon was a solid object or not?
Now let’s assume that when that first rocket ship circled the moon, we discovered that there was no far side of the moon. Let’s say that the photos from behind the moon showed Earth. What would that say about our science? It would say that we need to relearn some of what we call physics. Because physical science attempts to explain reality. Where it is contradicted by reality, science must change.
Before you get hung up on how my example is impossible, let me remind you that we have an object that we are all familiar with which has no “far side”. When standing behind it, you cannot see it at all. It is called a rainbow. And no – you cannot bounce radio waves off of rainbows – but that does not mean that a similar object cannot exist in this world which has those properties. Physics does not define the world. The world defines physics. If we find something that contradicts gravity, gravity goes out the window (I wonder if it would fall, though).
Getting back to the main topic. We have no reason to disbelieve gravity right now. But we could find one at some point. And that is just one example of a building block of science that if completely uprooted would change everything we have “proven”. Maybe it is not gravity that we are wrong about, but if we are wrong about ANYTHING, then our proof that the Earth orbits the Sun would be shattered.
I don’t understand why it’s so necessary to prove that Chazal understood all science and can not be wrong. I had once asked these question, but I don’t believe they were ever answered.
1. How come all of the major scientific discoveries and inventions of the past
4 centuries been made by either goyim or non-religious Jews and why is there
no mention of them in any any of the commentaries?
2. Why didn’t Chazal use their knowledge of how disease is transmited by parasites
to prevent Jews from dying in the Black Plague or their knowledge of the
atom or gunpowder to stop the slaughter of Jews during pogroms?
lesschumras: Do you believe that medicine cures, or do you believe that G-d cures, but he, at times, does so through medicine?
All these questions about Chazal’s inventions and why they did not build atom bombs for protection is such a crock. Chazal knew the source (i.e. G-d) and they knew why plagues and other hardships were sent. They knew atom bombs would be ineffective against an enemy Hashem sends because of Sinas Chinam.
These arguments of yours don’t prove that our Chachamim didn’t know science. They prove that you know neither Chachamim nor G-d.
proud tatty,
Chazal are not Hashem and it borders on Avoda Zorah to impute Hashem’s powers to Chazal. Would you say that Chazal knew of the Holocaust was coming but said nothing beacuse they knew the source? of course not. They are not deities and are not perfect.
To use your analogy, medicine now allows us to cure many more people , thru medicines or technology, than were possible centuries ago. Clearly these were permissable because Hashem allowed human beings to invent them for the betterment of Jews in particular and all mankind. So, why didn’t Chazal tell everyone about them, since they knew about them? Why don’t they cure cancer? I realize that that there are no answers to these questions, just as believing that the Chachomim are not perfect and all-knowing does not diminish on’e emunah in Hashem
Proud Tatty, so when the Rabbonim encourage Parnassah Initiatives in these hard times, they will be ineffective against the RBSH’s decree that we should be poor, and so they should not be held. In addition they show that these Rabbonim know neither the Chachamim or G-d.
Now please, what ever happened to the inyan of hishtadlus which we are mechuyav to make in every area of life–Medicine, Parnassah, Shidduchim, Warfare, etc.?
I’m talking about R’ Shimon Bar Yochai and you are replying with cases of modern day gedolim. For our next step, lets compare the Airbus A380 to the plane the Wright brothers flew.
What is this source of this histadlut you are mentioning? You make it sound like a mitzvat aseh sheyesh ba karet. Look at Rashin in Beshalach (just before shevii) where he says that Yirmiah told the people to go to yeshivot and learn to avoid the charban.
How about by bait sheyni, where the gemara said they were told to do teshuva, only to have a person who had his own da’at torah burn down the wheat supply in order that Jews side with him and go out to fight.
Are you accusing Yermiah of not doing his proper hishtadlut?
Could somone who beleives that chazal knew all the sciences bring some examples of places were chazal or a rishon says somthing about nature that was not known at the time when it was written and was later proven to be correct by modern science?
I believe the Rambam or Ramban (i could be wrong about who said it) said that in the 6 millenium (the one we are currently living in) will be a time for great discoveries about the world and if the jews deserved it then it would be through them otherwise nonjews would discover them.
This should answer lesschumras’s first question.
Just because you have knowledge of something does not mean it can be done. I know that to make an atom bomb you need to split atoms. Even if I knew how to do that it does not mean I have the necessary equipment to do it. I hope this answer your second question.
There is a maaseh in the gemara about two Tannaim (I think Rabban Gamliel was one) who are on a boat and one of them brought more food than was necessary on the trip. The other asked him why he brought so much food and he replied that once every 70 years there is a star that appears in the sky and confuses the navigation experts. Since the time for this star to appear had come, the Tanna brought extra food to eat while the boat would be lost at sea. Sure enough, the captain admitted that they were stuck and the two Tannaim had to share the extra food.
Some later Acharonim did the calculations and determined that the star in this story was Halley’s comet.
Why do you assume that people who knew astronomy in the times of the gemara didnt know about halleys comet? If it appears evrey 70 years astronomers would have noticed it within the first couple of centurys of recording astronomical calculations (which began far far before the times of the gemara.)
There is a maaseh in the gemara about two Tannaim (I think Rabban Gamliel was one) who are on a boat and one of them brought more food than was necessary on the trip. The other asked him why he brought so much food and he replied that once every 70 years there is a star that appears in the sky and confuses the navigation experts. Since the time for this star to appear had come, the Tanna brought extra food to eat while the boat would be lost at sea. Sure enough, the captain admitted that they were stuck and the two Tannaim had to share the extra food.
Some later Acharonim did the calculations and determined that the star in this story was Halley’s comet.
That does not make sense to me, First of all before Edmund Halley comets were considered unpredictable things. They would appear at random and then disappear. Also sailors in that day and age would have known the night sky as well as you know your way around your neighborhood. They would not confuse a comet with a star, a comet does not look anything like a star. For one thing a comet is a gray fuzzy thing, and they move against the fixed stars. It is possible to mistake some deep space objects for comets, but that can be figured out as comets move and DSOs don’t.
Actually one of the first catalogs of deep space objects was a list made of things that were not comets so that Charles Messier would not be fooled by them while looking for comets.
To be fair before modern times one would always assume a sea trip would take longer then planned, sometimes the winds don’t do what you want and on a sailing ship this could mean that you are becalmed for a while.
Eppur Si Muave
This is way over my head.
But Zack, the correct spelling is: Eppur Si Muove
Actualy the first recorded sighting of halleys comet dates back to 240 B.C.E. well before rabban gamliel’s times
Why do you assume that people who knew astronomy in the times of the gemara didnt know about halleys comet? If it appears evrey 70 years astronomers would have noticed it within the first couple of centurys of recording astronomical calculations (which began far far before the times of the gemara.)
Actually its more like 76 years. Because unless you look at the details of the orbit you would not notice it repeating. Comets pop up on a pretty regular basis. There is a bright one every 10 years or so on average, sometimes more sometimes less. People noticed the comet, but did not really notice, “hey that comet is in the same orbit that the one that my grandfather saw was in”, without that piece you are not going to realize that is a recurring event. And how bright it appears in the sky can vary a good bit depending on how close to earth it gets and other factors.
Actually the period of the comet can vary by up to a year or two depending on various factors.
Eppur Si Muove
Why do you assume that people who knew astronomy in the times of the gemara didnt know about halleys comet?
Why do you think it is called Halley’s? Noticing a comet and predicting it are two different things. It may have been observed by others, but clearly no one was able to predict it then. I was just bringing this as an example that you asked for – something that was not known during that time period but was later proven to be a predictable phenomena.
The truth is that, having seen Halley’s comet I understand that it is difficult to mistake for a star. Not because it moves, since its movement on a single night is not noticeable, but because of its brightness and its tail. The way I understand it is that since the sailors knew the night sky like the back of their hand, any unexpected object would throw off their calculations and confuse them. If I gave you directions based on landmarks, and there was an extra landmark where you didn’t expect it, you’d be confused and it would take you a little bit of time to think before you were able to filter it out and get back on track.
Anyway, it’s an example of what you asked for. You can try to discredit it if it helps you live with your preconceived notions. I don’t think that Chazal had to know everything, but I am sure that they knew more than you are willing to admit. And they knew it from the Torah.
Proud Tatty, if you see a Jew in danger, and don’t save him, you violate the dioraisa of Lo saamod al dam reacha. If Chazal or other gedolim knew of any technology, weapon or cure that could have saved any Jew at any time in history, they would have been mechuyav to use it.
PY.
I feel that we are going in circles here. But at least you were able to give me something here to work with.
If Chazal or other gedolim knew of any technology, weapon or cure that could have saved any Jew at any time in history, they would have been mechuyav to use it.
They did, why do you insist they did not. They knew that punishments come to Klal Yisroel due to averos, and they knew which ones. They knew what needed to be done to stop the tragedies (nebuch, Klal yisroel did not heed this message at times). You believe in teva. You believe weapons and medicine works without G-d.
The prescribed medicine for the guf and neshama, why is your counter argument about those things that would only work on the guf.
The only thing you are proving here is you do not know chazal.
By the way, the question raised earlier about why did Chazal not show us their scientific chachma more blatantly (e.g. by going out and building a nuclear bomb)
That’s because despite the knowledge they had. They had no desire to use it.
They had about as much interest in wasting there time with these inventions (Which only decrease belief in G-d, and still can only work if he wants them to, e.g. a parked car in a Haifa Mall) as you have in understanding pshat in a tosfot in nedarim.
anyway, this who thread has gotten repetitive, circular and annoying. Joseph, Why did you ever reopen this closed thread????
Is it too late to close it again??
- The topic ‘Science and Astronomy in the Torah’ is closed to new replies.