Ethics and Entenmann’s

SR (OP): Should every ice cream store lose their hashgacha?

Welcome to the CR Michael Bloomberg!

If we would have that eventually nothing would be kosher because one can find something “ethically” wrong with anything

Square: You didn’t answer whether all ice cream stores should be banned, have their hechsher revoked and forced to close down.

> , don’t project the world’s ignorance on to chazal and rishonim.

So, you are saying Shmuel knew how to run a steam engine, but chose to watch yidden working with donkeys instead? I think it is total apikoirosus to claim that chazal were so insensitive to human condition.

> The rambam, as it happens, does mention not to eat fatty or sugary foods
That said, fat is only bad because we learned how to get too much of it. Most people in old times would benefit from extra fat. What would Rambam do in our days? I think he would be in medical school, after learning nuclear physics.

@5t, Self control what a novel concept, does it exist in 2024?

Aaq, the medrash says that shlomo hamelech created essentially a car, but hid it when he saw that the reshoim would use it for evil. He also had a sefer of refuos, chazal sau, with the cure for every disease, but it was hidden awa, so that people need to daven.

Chazal knew the interworkings of creation not only on a physical level, but on a deeper one as well.

Your question can be asked of lots of other things chazal were capable of – the arizal says that the smallest of the amoraim was capable of techias hamaysim, so why didn’t the chachamim just revive everyone who died everyday? The answer is they knew not to disrupt Hashem’s plans. The chovos halevavos writes that every invention and discovery in the non jewish world has its time and place. For chazal to interfere with that would have been catastrophic.

And yes, making a statement that chazal were missing in their knowledge of the physical world is heresy according to the vast majority of rishonim and achronim.

A truly kosher store would have these products in a separate aisle, protected by a narrow hallway with a weight trap – you can only get in if you fit into the hallway and not fall in the trap. Will be good for business also as the customers will live and shop longer.

AAQ: Is your day job doing stand up comedy?

you guessed my day job correctly. In fact, I rely heavily on CR for the material. Midwestern goyim love this stuff.

Looking at discussions of R Messelman, I see this: an explicit statement that chazal relied on science of their time is attributed to Avrhaham b’ Rambam – and many disagreed. R Ovadia Yosef disagrees but does not allow calling those who in our time agree w R Avraham heretics.

To clarify my view, I don’t think that Chazal “relied” on science of their time in a simplistic way – we do halakha and ask scientists for quotes in science. Some Chazal relied sometimes on their own expertise and filtered science of the time through both tradition and their own high standards of proofs. Furthermore, most Amoraim did not live in places/times of high science, so they mostly react to generic knowledge of the society.

One needs to take a certain degree of responsibility for one’s own physical well being, including nutrition and exercise. The inyan of “ushamartem es nafshosechem” is not some abstract prescription to make personal health decisions based on the state of scientific knowledge regarding nutritional links to disease a thousand years ago.

Avira > rav meiselman’s sefer

I apologize if I created such impression. I did not read this sefer, just read reviews and discussions about it, and also read and met some of the authors he is quoting/discussing.

As to bans, I hope you had a chance to read another infamously banned sefer about making a Rav Kamenetsky that does not go into hard scientific problems, but simply provided high quality research in the life of the author’s father. If you believe into bans after that … Even if someone thought that publicizing the book in certain circles with have some harmful effect, surely one should contact and appease the author who spent years on this research, and this does not seem to happen.

switching to modern situation. A Rav who works for a yeshiva that takes in boys who have problems in “top” yeshivos writes a number of great articles about how to deal with kids as people, nurture them, quoting a lot of roshei Yeshivos, etc. Wonderful approach and writing. I think, he undersells himself, as same approach should also be applied to “top” students.

So, he spends several articles arguing that yeshivos should not be evaluated (including by parents who decide, or not, to send kids there) by quality of students at the beginning or even at the end – but by improvement they make at the end over the initial condition, and improvement includes middos and learning ability, not just amount of memorized material.

Wonderful. Now, it happens that there is academic work on measuring school and teacher quality using exactly this method – relative improvement over initial stage. I do not recall details, but there were lots of details learned from this. Of course, secular educators in general do not care for this. Now, does this Rav know about such research? Maybe no, or maybe yes, but he does not see any use in bringing it xto his yeshivish readers.

So, he goes around using his heimishe version of this scientific approach without any contact with the existing literature. Would he go further if he were to read about existing work? Maybe, he would go further and actually measure that improvement .. I don’t know. But clearly even great Rabonim might be disconnected from the existing chochmah.

Avirah…, so you are saying that one is obligated to believe that Amoroim knew how to make nuclear bombs, computers etc.?!? I believe it is you who is twisting the sources trying to read things in there which were never meant.

Aaq, the quote from rav hirsch is from a manuscript not written in his handwriting, discovered by a grandson and put into “collected writings.” Not only is it incongruous with rav hirsch in general(it’s the only place such an idea is expressed) but it’s also demonstrably false. Chazal darshened pesukim to identify the geographic location of bavel. They had a mesorah for the synodical month (necessary for halacha) and the gestation period of a snake(not necessary for halacha) – in both of these areas, pesukim and kabalos are recorded in shas numerous times.

See rabbeinu tam and the Gaon on the famous gemara in pesachim about the machlokes between the chachmei umos haolam and the chachmei yisroel; while they give a reason-based answer, the meforshim explain that they were communicating with goyim and could not teach them Torah, but they knew the truth from mesorah.

The rambam writes that klal yisroel had a mesorah for all forms of astronomy from Sinai (direct refutation of whatever maskil wrote that thing attributed to rav hirsch) but it was lost, so now(only now) we have to use the goyishe chachamim.

Regarding bavel on the map, see chasam sofer who writes that knowledge derived from the Torah is more true and real than that which is observed by the senses and scientific inquiry, this is why a pasuk was preferred.

The maharsha on the beginning of mi she’achzu writes that the gemara quotes refuos(which were relevent in their time) in order to show that chazal knew all the chochmos of the world and were not missing anything.

Mdd… Hashem created the world from the Torah. Everything that we see physically, is found in the Torah, and since chazal were its masters, they perforce knew everything about the physical world.

For example, chazal state that there are almost as many stars as what scientists today theorize, though in the sky you can only see a few thousand.

Chazal also identified the pituitary gland as the source for זרע, saying that a drop comes from the brain and causes it to form.

There are many, many observations chazal make which show an awareness of the world that can only be explained through their Torah knowledge.

Now, the apikorsim will bring many examples of things chazal say which don’t fit modern science – they ignore the fact that baalei machshava have used sifrei kabalah to explain these anomaliea for hundreds of years. There is not one mesorah in klal yisroel that didn’t do that until nathan slifkin decided he knew better. My rebbe rav Belsky would often give amazing answers to such questions, which are valid questions, but are not to be used as a means of justifying apikorsus.

Firstly, the rishonim don’t go with that explanation for refuos – the maharsha was fully aware of such shitos, as were ALL of the rishonim and achronim who followed, and they did not follow that shitah, to the point where they called it apikorsus. Just like the ralbags brias haolam shitah, or the shitos against gilgulim. One who accepts it may not have olam haba.

Tosfos says that the refuos don’t work because nishtana hateviim. That expression is used across the board in rishonim and achronim.

Do you think you can “refute” the maharsha – one of the gedolei achronim? Shame on you.

Learn the maharals beer hagolah. Get something into your head besides nathan slifkin and blogs.

And where did you get that the snake issue was wrong? Again, it’s a pasuk. It’s on US to understand it, just as any other drasha of chazal. It’s the height of arrogance for us to think we can approach them.

Re, bavel; you just need a map. It’s very, very clear.

Moreover, the physical world is not only known to chazal, but thsy controlled it with their understanding of Torah. If a besulah was born in an iber yahr, her beuslim are chozrim eveb though she’s physically 3 years old.

Some say that there were shitos (minority) in the geonim and rabbeinu Avrohom, because it was before hisgalus hakabalah, whereas afterwards, those statements of chazal were revealed to have been referring to levels of creation that are beneath the physical.

Avira, are other quotes from my post also questionable? But it seems we are moving towards throwing at each other quotes form authors who argue with each other and accuse each other from not quoting enough. For example, R Tam above is not an only one commenting on Pesachim. I can’t commit time required to verify all these claims right now. My opinion was not based on specific claims, but on overall scene of Talmudic discussions. Just for fun, though, while we are on Pesachim 94, how about a much simpler question: what is the length of parsah that corresponds to the size of Mitzraim?

Avira, my saying that Rav Natrunai Gaon refutes the Maharsha is no worse than you saying that the Rambam refutes Rav Hirsch (which by the way I don’t think he does).

I have plenty in my head besides Nathan Slifkin and blogs. I probably know more than you. (Haven’t you seen my screen name? 😉

The fact the snake issue is a drosho doesn’t change anything. We are not obligated to accept Chazal’s non-Halachic droshos. As Rav Shmuel bar Chofni Gaon says (quoted in Radak, Shmuel Alef 28 ): “Even though it would appear from the words of Chazal that…these words cannot be accepted when contradicted by שכל,” and there, too, the reference is to a non-Halachic drosho.

Now, it is true that on today’s maps Bovel is very slightly north of Eretz Yisroel (under one degree of latitude), but in Chazal’s times they did not have modern maps. I’m not even sure Chazal had access to any maps at all. And every map that did exist then contradicted every other map. Moreover, most reconstructions of Greek and Roman maps have Babylon SOUTH of Eretz Yisroel, so of course Chazal had to bring a posuk. The fact you can show me that on a modern map Bovel is very slightly north is entirely irrelevant.

Square, I apologize for hurting your feelings.

Life is about learning.

It hit me hard to learn that zionism was a sham when i was 16, too; a large part of my Jewish identity was based on nationalism, and when i saw rav avigdor miller trash it it was very, very difficult.

Rabbi aryeh kaplan is not getting into the minutiae of every category of emunah in his well written and important books, but this is included in the belief in Torah shebaal peh, in the truth of all that chazal passed down, and in the understandings of what Torah is and how its masters were endowed in its infinite knowledge. He also was writing for people who are not frum and had no education – he had a lot bigger issues to teach than these finer points of the parameters of torah shebaal peh.

As it happens, he was not some sort of gadol hador or posek either, and he made some mistakes of his own, including accepting evolution on some level, when chazal clearly say that every part of creation was made as is, and did not develop. But he was a very holy person and had a tremendous amount of positive influence and Yiras Shomayim, so this is a side issue.

I don’t know where you came from, or who your teachers were, and i too would praise someone for amassing Torah knowledge – this is a finer point, which is, however, important, and discussed in poskim.

Chief among them in achronim is the aruch hashulchan. Not a chassidishe sefer or an obscure shailos veteshuvos sefer – one of the main sources for halacha in klal yisroel. And he says it outright that it is completely forbidden to believe that chazal erred in science issues.

This idea is in the gra, rav yonasan eybeshuts, maharal, maharsha…in rishonim it’s in the rashba, and the parts where chazal darshen pesukim – that would certainly be considered disbelief in drashos, “machchish magideah” in the lashon of the rambam, one who disbelieves in drashos chazal.

Of course, we’re not commander to be fools. We’re supposed to investigate and understand chazal, and we’re not necessarily supposed to ignore empirical scientific fact – the maharal and others routinely reconciled chazal with science…you never see achronim or rishonim just say that they were wrong.

the rebbe of the sefardi pachad yitzchak reprimanded the author severely for suggesting that chazal had erred in their understanding of lice not reproducing – and he was trying to be more machmir, and say rhat we shouldn’t be allowed to kill them because “now” we know that spontaneous generation – something chazal never even talked about, is not true. His rebbe sternly told him he was wrong, and he accepted.

Again, I’m sorry for the news coming as such a surprise. Feel free to read “torah, chazal and science” for a very clear, lengthy and well sourced position on the issue in its entirety.

“We are not obligated to accept Chazal’s non-Halachic droshos”

Oh yes we are.

One who denies techias hamaysim min hatorah is a “kofer bedrashos” in the lashon of rashi, even if he believes it is stam a mesorah and not based on a pasuk.

The rambam clearly includes those who learn torah but are “machchish magideah,” deny those who passed it down, as apikorsim; he makes no distinction between drashos.

The ibn ezra, who often sounds like he’s arguing with chazal(and was, for that reason, completely rejected by the maharshal) elsewhere explains that he is trying to explain the pasuk on its pshat level, but “kol divreihem emes” the radak does this sometimes too, and the achronim, including the chasam sofer and many others, explain their kavanah as above.

See abarbanel in yeshuos meshicho where he defends the ramban who seemingly denied a medrash in his vikuach.

And of course, the “sechel” of someone from the gaonim is not the same as the muddled heads of online trolls.

We don’t find any of the later rishonim or achronim taking issue with drashos – quite the opposite. When the haskalah spread among people who wore fabric on their head and kept the sabbath, gedolim such as the malbim, the author of hakaav vehakabalah, rav hirsch, and many others, went to herculean lengths to explain the nom halacha drashos of chazal. That’s the mesorah – you’re on the side of the maskilim, unearthed by ifkin, who proceeded to brand a new yiddishkeit after his neo-haskalah musings.

I am sure that had you stayed in the koslei beis medrash you never would have heard of the concept of not accepting a word of chazal, or any of the above; chazal were chazal! We take every word of theirs as given. It is only the poison of haskalah that you’ve allowed to enter your bloodstream…perhaps it makes life easier to think that you’re more advanced, perhaps certain issurim which seem ‘archaic’ are more easily transgressed….after all, these are ancient rabbis working with outmoded thoughts…

Avira> it is completely forbidden to believe that chazal erred in science issues.

Avira is attacked for allegedly claiming that “chazal knew all science”.
We probably need to separate “knew all science” from “erred in science issues”. Chazal did not have to address all science issues, and it seems to me that they filtered science and general knowledge of their times thru both Torah positions and their expertise in logic, omitting a lot of errors prevalent in their times.

The question whether ” chazal erred in science issues” is an interesting question by itself, but is different from “chazal knew all science”. And, when discussing this issue, hopefully posters would honestly discuss it rather than simply bringing opinions that support their side, leaving for the opponents to bring other opinions, sometimes from same author. It is bitul zman & Torah to argue like this on a complicated matter, on which there are clear disagreements throughout generations of respectable thinkers on both sides.

Techias hamaysim min hatorah refers to a concept that’s medeoraysoh, which is the drasha of az yashir. I don’t know what makes you think rashi is referring to anything other than that; the mishnah would include one who believes it was taught by neviim to be in that category too, as that is not included in the term “min hatorah.” Rashi is clearly saying that denying that particular drasha makes one a kofer.

The radak calling something a taimah is no different than when tosfos asks a kasha on a gemara. No idea where you want to go with that.

Rav saadya gaons perush on chumash was written in Arabic. There are also parts before and after that sniper that are missing from our text.

And rav saadia was not the only one who criticized the belief that the mabul did not affect eretz yisroel, and he was not the sharpest in his expression; the Ibn ezra says that people who think that are chaseirei daas, they are missing in daas. There is obviously no way the ibn ezra would refer to rebbe yochanan as a chaser daas, chas veshalom. One of the meforshim on ibn ezra, rav shmuel matot, writes that the ibn ezra(and we can say rav saadya, as he does not mention rebbe yochanan by name, and doesn’t even call him a chacham, rather just one of the nation) is referring to people who say that the mabul didn’t affect eretz yisroel at all, whereas rebbe yochanan agreed that there was some effect. Many medrashim also say like rebbe yochanan, so it’s not just “one from our nation.”

Further proof that rebbe yochanan agreed that the water touched eretz yisroel was from his encounter with a kusi, mentioned in bereshis rabbah, who said that har grizim was not flooded, whereas other mountains, including har habayis, were. Rebbe yochanan could have said that har habayis also wasn’t, if he held totally that eretz yisroel was not touched.

I haven’t heard of this piece from the abarbanel, but that’s defective at best. He goes to lengths to defend the ramban and say that he was not arguing with chazal. Period.

Re, the rambam; what other people could he have used as examples? Tzadok and baysus actually did begin with non halacha drashos, as it happens, because their issues started with denying olam haba(al tehiu k’avadim etc…)

Regarding rav shmuel bar chofni Gaon – not familiar. Maybe he means that you’re allowed to explain the pesukim in ways additionally to the kabalos and drashos of chazal; just speculation. Where does he say that?

Nom, i guess the pachad yitzchaks rebbe, the maharal, who devoted an entire sefer to the subject, the aruch hashulchan, and many others, weren’t “Benei Torah” in your world. Sorry, but grandstanding without making any coherent or sourced claims will only make your position look all the more foolish and arrogant.

Avira, the amount of amaratzus in your latest (long) post is simply astounding. How are you able to make such ridiculous statements with such confidence?

In the sugya in Sanhedrin, I counted no fewer than five Tannoim and Amoroim who prove תחית המתים מן התורה from a פסוק in נ”ך. The term תורה in this context refers to the entirety of תנ”ך. Rashi cannot be referring to a particular דרשה, as you mistakenly imagine; he says, “שכופר במדרשים דדרשינן בגמרא לקמן מניין לתחיית המתים מן התורה.” (For your information, the word מדרשים is a plural.)

When the Radak says a non-Halachic interpretation of חז”ל is דברים של תימה, he is rejecting their פשט. This is entirely unlike תוספות, which asks a קשיא, and then (9 times out of 10) continues to a תירוץ.

I know Rabbeinu Saadiah Gaon’s פירוש was written in Arabic. Not sure what you want from that. There is no reason to assume it’s unreliable. Regardless, he is certainly referring to Rebbi Yochanan, as he even brings R’ Yochanan’s proof text – the פסוק in יחזקאל. (See the מגיה for further confirmation that this is his meaning.) R’ Shmuel Motot’s פשט doesn’t hold much water (pun intended): he learns that according to R’ Yochanan it did not rain in Eretz Yisroel, but the water which rained on other lands flowed into Eretz Yisroel. If so, the whole Gemoro in Zevochim makes no sense. For example, Rebbi Yochanan understands the word בחרבה as a reference to Eretz Yisroel STAYING DRY during the flood. He also says that the people in Eretz Yisroel died from heat, not the floodwaters.

You then move on to Rebbi Yochanan’s encounter with the kusi. Now, as far as I know this Medrash appears in four places: Breishis Rabbah, Shir haShirim Rabbah, Devorim Rabbah and Yalkut Shimoni. In all four places the name of the אמורא is רבי יונתן. I know this may come as a surprise, but Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yonasan were two different people! (Tosafos in Zevochim 113a s.v. lo has the story happening to Rebbi Yishmael beRebbi Yosi, who was also a different person.)

I’m not sure why the Abarbanel goes to such lengths to explain how the Ramban can fit with Chazal. Maybe he was scared that if people saw the Ramban rejecting one Chazal about Moshiach, they would feel free to reject others. But it is undeniable the the Abarbanel himself often disagrees with Chazal. In that very same chapter (Melochim I 10) he brings the words of Chazal that מלכת שבא wasn’t a queen but a kingdom, and rejects them, saying ואין לנו לזוז מפשט הכתוב.

The Rambam did not need to bring any examples of מכחיש מגידיה; the fact he does so proves he is only referring to people like צדוק ובייתוס, and not people who only reject Chazal’s non-Halachic droshos. Denying Olam Habo is a serious matter, and falls within Chazal’s remit. I accept Chazal’s religious authority (and so their ability to codify articles of faith), just not their scientific authority, even when based on droshos.

The quotation from Rav Shmuel bar Chofni Gaon is still in the same place it was on Sunday: in the Radak to Shmuel Alef 28, 24.