- This topic has 119 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 2 weeks ago by .
-
Posts
-
Modern, i addressed this issue above; please read the whole thread and not just pieces here and there
Dear Avirah,
I can’t fathom why you would have such aggression toward learning properly as opposed to yelling from the rooftops. The fact is that a question from the metziyus is dealt with the same as a question from a different gemara. You would never find a Tosofos that says, we don’t bother with such questions.
There wouldn’t be any of these “rationalists” if there wouldn’t be any “fundamentalists” telling everyone how to think about learning instead of actually learning and actually thinking. I really don’t understand your position here. I am not here to correct the record.
Let me contrast two examples.
1) It is taught that washing of the hands after touching Sifrei Kodesh was instituted to prevent the problem of vermin that were attracted to Terumah produce from eating Seforim that were placed alongside them. One can interject that the mitziyus is that more species would be attracted to the Seforim of old then those that are known to eat stored produce. This may seem like a serious problem to the layman. But it is silliness to the real student. Chazal seemingly did not forbid placing Terumah alongside Seforim. This needs to be investigated fully before it would be of any consequence what the actual mitziyus is. Also, every serious person knows that whatever the mitziyus may be, it makes no difference to the present requirement to wash our hands. One who brings up this as a point of interest, is only highlighting their lack of interest in learning the actual sugya.
2) THe first Mishna in B”K lists four Avos Nizekin. Yet, the Gemara brings to larger lists. Also, there seems to be a discrepancy between Rav and Shmuel as to how much these four are comprehensive of anything. However, the first Tosofos does not claim to read the Mishna as specifically being exclusive. Even more, you should have studied the piece that there are no actual avos at all.
We are obliged to apply ourself to all these tangents and none of these seeming contradictions allow us to think that there isn’t a specific and exact method going on here. We keep studying in pursuit of the truth. One who leaves the beis medrash because Rav Chiya/Rav Oyshia/Rav/Shmuel/Rabbeinu Chananel/Tosofos/Pnei Yehoshua/Chassam Sofer/Brisker Rav/Rav Elyashiv/ is seemingly not in accordance with the basic statement of the Mishna, never came to the beis medrash to learn. They just want a “fundamentalist” position and when they saw the nuance and depth they leave for an easier enterprise.It is the same thinking pattern. Learning is attaining new awareness through knowledge. If we deny some new awareness, in effect we are stopping to learn at some level.
No, but thank you.While the “rationalist” and “fundamentalist” camps curse each other out, the real traditionalist camp continues to toil in Torah in obscurity. And they are fine with it. They do not have time for people who do not want to learn anything, new or old.
Dear Avira,
“Also, in your mind, what gave chazal the ability to codify “articles of faith”? And where would we even receive the idea of distinguishing between halacha and drashos, if not from chazal themselves – and if so, where is that stated? The truth is that everything is mesorah.”
Excellent starting point!
Please walk me through how you get from this to your aggressive stance on these issues.
Obviously, the Mesores was not universally preserved. So, how can you make a statement based on anything? Even if you are one thousand percent correct about the issue at hand, it won’t be of use to your opponent because you saying so doesn’t make it mesorah. It being found in claasic source also doesn’t make it mesorah.
Because at some point things become unclear enough that the majority of Jews in all parts of the Diaspora walked out on Judaism. Something must have broken down. Even a unanimity of sources doesn’t help because it still can’t self assert it’s own truth. So even if you and would agree on something being true and universal it wouldn’t have any impact to those whom we disagree with. If they didn’t receive what we did, there is no mechanism to force them of it being so.
Again, what are you fighting about? That you were taught or decided something that the other party doesn’t want to entertain as true. That has no relevance to our shared received knowledge. What you were taught does not mean that your teacher knew it to be true. We could only authenticate our knowledge when we see it echoing itself throughout the generations. There have been many who thought they received better than anyone else, but history and our destiny has shown them to be detached from both the past and the future. One more time. Just the fact that you were taught something has no relevance to our shared received knowledge. If it did, it would be paramount to saying that all our revealed knowledge was contrived throughout time ch”v.
Avira, sorry I haven’t replied yet. Hopefully tomorrow.
Let me address Rav Saadyah Gaon’s פירוש first. The מגיה is called Moshe Zucker; as far as I know he is considered reliable. He shows very clearly which words survived in the Arabic manuscript and which he adds in himself. There are only a few words missing in this piece. And Zucker is very reluctant to say that Rav Saadyah was referring to רבי יוחנן, because (as you say) the phrase אחד מאומתנו seems quite disrespectful in tone. He tries to suggest an alternative, that the reference is to the kusi in the Medrash you quoted, but this doesn’t work because the kusi held that only Har Gerizim wasn’t flooded, but the rest of Eretz Yisroel was. He therefore concludes על כרחנו עלינו להשלים עם העובדה שהגאון מתח כאן את בקורתו החריפה על מאמר אגדה של חז”ל.
Now, what I imagine happened is that the Ibn Ezra (whose פירוש is largely based on Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon) saw this piece in Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon and assumed he was talking about a Karaite, because (as Zucker points out) the phrase אחד מאומתנו in Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon’s פירוש usually means he’s talking about a Karaite. The Ibn Ezra probably didn’t know the Gemoro in Zevochim (the Maharshal you mentioned is happy to accept the possibility that he didn’t know Shas) and therefore rejected this פשט with language one expects him to use when talking about the Karaites. And again, the Avi Ezer understands the Ibn Ezra to be referring to Rebbi Yochanan, and struggles with the lack of respect.
I don’t see the psak of the Oruch Hashulchon as binding, and I feel able to argue with him. He is actually one of the ספרי הלכה I use most, but that doesn’t mean I accept everything he says. (I imagine that neither do you.)
Gedol – now we’re getting somewhere. You’ve removed the veneer of a person still in the “koslei beis medrash” and put your cards on the table.
You wrote that Zucker is “considered reliable.” I did a quick search online, and i have to think you’re aware of who he was. He learned in the haskalah’s Israelitisch-Theologische Lehranstalt in Vienna, founded by total maskilim. He then taught at the conservative Jewish theological seminary (same name, just English) in the US. He was a conservative “Rabbi”
So why do we care what he says? It’s an untenable position, because the ibn ezra very often, so too speak, “argues” with chazal(again see chasam sofer and others who defend him consistently) but never, ever refers to them with anything other than rav, chachameinu, etc… he asks strong kashos all the time, why would this particular issue be so different, and why would he and he alone ever refer to chazal as anything but… Chazal. The only other example we have is the SAME pasuk, in rav saadya(which again, might have been a corrupted text- you haven’t addressed this at all. It’s missing pieces, and it’s not in the tafsir or other widely used seforim of rav saadya. Maskilim love using obscure sources to prove outlandish claims… This is just about example of that)
Also, if you think you’re able to argue with an acharon who clearly mastered shas and poskim(his sefer doesn’t require much emunas chachamim to acknowledge – it’s a veritable masterpiece) not to mention the fact that rav moshe said to defer to him over the mishnah berurah(of course, this likely means nothing to a maskil either), then i think we’ve hit an impass. You are going in your own way against the psak halacha of a major posek, without others to rely on but your own “research” into shitos that were not accepted in halacha.
It’s not just the aruch hashulchan. The fact that achronim, without exception, constantly defend chazals drashos and scientific statements should serve as a clear hadracha to you that you’ve veered from their path.
Similarly, once we have a zohar and an arizal, accepted by every group in klal yisroel, it becomes untenable to deny gilgulim and other concepts.
Unless you don’t believe that klal yisroel and its mesorah are divinely guided and it’s a hefkervelt for every person to decide these issues for themselves. In what way then are you different from the conservative clergymen you quote without hesitation, who do the same with halacha and allegorizing of most of Tanach?
It’s likewise untenable that the ibn ezra simply didn’t know of a gemara and several midrashim regarding rebbe yochanan. His perush quotes medrashim and gemara constantly. The maharshal doesn’t accuse him of not knowing shas; that’s your own insertion. You can’t put rishonim and achronim on the level of a heintigeh kanoi who we can assume would only have ad things to say about their opponents. The maharshal was mostly upset about the ibn Ezra’s arguing with chazal(though he does acknowledge the places where the ibn ezra writes “kol divreihem emes” numerous times) and his use of science/philosophy.
Re, rav
Gedol, would you argue with a psak of the Rema too? Maybe you would, given what you seem to think is acceptable in halacha. Is the “beis medrash” you learn in by any chance the “beis medrash lerabanim” in Manhattan?
It had been several years since i was involved in this sugya, and while i remembered a long list of achronim and rishonim who pasken that chazal did not err in science issues, i forgot the mareh mekomos.
So i looked back and saw the rema in Torahs haolah (1:2) who says clearly that whatever chazal said about science is absolutely true.
Rabbeinu bachya in his hakdama to chumash says this as well, and says that all wisdom of the universe is in the Torah.
Chasam Sofer in beshalach,on the pasuk of “ki hi chachmascha ubinascha..” says that chazal knew all the chochmos of the world.
Avirah, there are people in Lakewood and other places who know Shas.
Also, there is a Gemora in Nidah 22B which talks about 2 occasions when Chachomim did not know about certain medical metziyus and they asked the doctors for help. According to you, what happened?!? Why did they need the doctors’ explanations?Avira, saying someone is considered reliable isn’t the same as saying that they should receive מפטיר יונה. If Zucker wasn’t reliable, his sefer wouldn’t be used. It probably wouldn’t be on Otzar Hachochma either. A Conservative Rabbi can also be considered reliable. Jastrow’s dictionary is used by many יראים ושלמים and considered reliable even though he, too, was a Conservative Rabbi. And look how hard Zucker tries to escape the conclusion that Rabbeinu Saadyah was referring to Rebbi Yochanan, yet you still think he has an agenda!
But let’s leave Zucker to one side. You don’t accept his pshat in Rabbeinu Saadyah; ok. So can you suggest an alternative? Look at the Arabic original in Zucker’s sefer. There is absolutely no reason (besides wishful thinking) to assume the text is corrupt. So I challenge you to find any other way to explain Rabbeinu Saadyah. You can even leave out the words in square brackets if you like. Just explain the rest. Go on, I’ll wait.
I have already explained why the Ibn Ezra uses the term חסירי דעת davka here. I’m not going to repeat myself. But what is really stunning is your confident assertion, “The Maharshal doesn’t accuse him of not knowing Shas; that’s your own insertion.” Can you read and translate Hebrew? Yes? So how do you translate the phrase אשר לא היה בעל תלמודא? And then a few words later: והתריס בכמה מקומות נגד דברי חכמי התורה והתלמוד, או מבלי השגחה או מבלי ידיעה.
And what about the Avi Ezri, who understands the Ibn Ezra like me? Was he also a Conservative rabbi? And how do you understand the Ibn Ezra? Do you have an alternative פשט (other than R’ Shmuel Motot’s פשט, which simply doesn’t work)?
I, too, think the Oruch Hashulchon is a masterpiece. Indeed, I consider it to be one of the greatest seforim ever written. And I also pasken like him against the משנה ברורה. But that doesn’t mean everything he says is binding. You ask whether I would also argue with a פסק from the רמ״א. Allow me to answer you by quoting from the מורה נבוכים ח״ב פט״ו:
כל דבר שהוכח לא תוסיף אמתתו ולא יתחזק הנכון שבו בהסכמת כל העולם עליו, ולא תגרע אמתתו ולא יחלש הנכון שבו אם יחלקו כל אנשי הארץ עליו.Gedol,, stripped of verbage, you’re arguing with not only the aruch hashulchan, but the rema.
Re, rav saadya; my point is that this was not part of rav saadyas mekubal writings, like the tafsir, emunos vedeos, etc…it is suspect. It is missing language – maybe more words were added – have you seen a ksav yad of the original? The bigger the claim, the bigger the evidence is needed. You’d like that line because it came from carl sagan, not chazal, so it’s not archaic and you are probably more convinced by him than rishonim kmalaachim.
You decided that you can pasken in a shailoh that can cost you your olam haba based on your own understanding and online research (be honest, you didn’t just come across these sources on your own, and neither do i).
Were this a shailoh of hilchos shabbos, would you overturn the nosei keilim because you learned the sugya with geonim and a few rishonim differently?
I forgot to mention that the mechaber also holds you can’t argue with chazal about science/history etc…when meor aynayim came out, the shulchan aruch was extremely upset, and was working on a letter to put the book in cherem due to such content, but was niftar. His talmidim reported this.
So we have the rashba, rabbeinu tam, the gra, maharal, maharsha, rema, shulchan aruch, gedolei italia who put the meor aynayim in cherem, the aruch hashulchan, the gedolei yisroel in our time who put slifkins initial denial of chazal in cherem, and many others.
But because you found an unused ke’ta of a translated rav saadya gaon and an ibn ezra, you decided to overturn this clear mesorah. You have an agenda, something is clearly driving you to embrace this ideology, and can it in any way be coming from the yatzer tov? Do you not feel the freikeit in it? Does it perhaps make you feel more comfortable doing certain things you were taught in yeshiva not to do, but have invented justifications for? Does thinking that you know better than chazal not make you feel empowered
Your tone is exactly the same as those who mock chachamim, which I’m sure also makes you chuckle…the idea of being accused of heresy is laughable only to people who are guilty of it. I’ve seen that defense mechanism over and over among this sort of self styled philosophers. Rather than consider the possibility and the risk involved, you just go further and further.
I think that about concludes my contribution to this discussion; if someone can reject the rema out of hand, we’re practicing two different religions. I am an Orthodox Jew, and this is the realm of proto-conservative/open “Orthodox”
Back to the OP, it’s pretty ridiculous to say it’s a problem to give a hechsher to products which most people can eat in moderation without any health risks.
You are being חושד בכשרים. I came across this piece of Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon because my father showed it to me. I came across the תשובה from רב נטרונאי גאון where he says that Chazal did not know medical science because my father showed it to me. And it’s not just those two גאונים: Rav Shmuel bar Chofni Gaon, the Redak and Abarbanel all feel free to reject Chazal in matters other than Halocho. And Rav Zev Wolf Einhorn, the פירוש מהרז״ו on מדרש רבה, says that Chazal believed in a flat earth. (I came across this when learning, not by doing an online search.) There are many others; you know where to find them.
And this is not a question of psak, where we (generally) follow the Remo. This is a question of מציאות, which by definition cannot be paskened. If the Remo would pasken that the earth is flat, would you accept that too?
There is nothing I do because of these beliefs that I wouldn’t do if I thought all of Chazal non scientific statements were true.
It’s a question of apikorsus. Those who said that chazal were mistaken were banned throughout the generations; that’s the “metzius.” Someone who has beliefs that are deemed apikorsus, even if based on Torah, are guilty of such. Their wine is assur, they lose their olam haba – it’s a pretty serious issue. And poskim are the ones who decide these things, such as the aruch hashulchan, the rabbonim who forbade the meor aynayim, and rav elyashiv, who forbade slifkins writings. They were quite familiar with the sources you brought; halacha doesn’t follow those opinions.
Instead, our job is to reconcile science with chazal, which is what gedolei yisroel have been doing for hundreds of years. Rav Belsky was a master of this, especially when it came to the places where chazal seem to be accepting spontaneous generation. What he said tied in an array of rishonim and gemaros.
But aside from apikorsus considerations, denying chazals statements has many other ramifications. Maybe their psychology was wrong, so we need to change אשה דייקה ומנסבה, אדם עשוי למשמש בכיסו בכל שעה, or hundreds of other psychological chazakos – the list goes on.
An idea cannot be אפיקורסות if it is true, no matter who says otherwise.
So you’re convinced of your understanding of both chazal, rishonim, and science enough to stake your olam haba on such a belief? That’s just not logical. It’s like someone who os convinced of hisgashmus haboreh, and has many proofs, and wants to rely on the raavad – he can’t. “But if it’s true it can’t be apikorsus,” is something every apikores since the beginning has said.
If someone steals their food, does that make it non-kosher?
Don’t confuse kosher with healthy.
These are the ways of the world. People perceive conservative positions as safe, and innovations as risky and criticized. Moshe was met with doubts, Rambams books were burned.
I am not saying that ANY innovation is good, but when metziyus changes, it requires a response. Mendelssohn is criticized, but maybe many jews were lost to assimilation not only by his translation, but by the inability of the rest of the community to come up with an appealing alternative. It took us generations to come up with yeshiva system, yu, chabad houses etc to somewhat deal with modernity.
RebE, I forgot which amora had a field in the middle of the river, someone asked to teach him Torah in exchange for working the field. To make it easier, this student told people upriver that halakha is that downriver had the priority for water, and to people downriver other way around. You know, it was a machloket … when amora found out about it, he didn’t harvest produce from that field. So, yes, stolen goods ate not kosher.
Maybe we should not let stores sell matches or candles they are very hazardous if not used carefully and in moderation.
Just a follow-up to the slander against the Ibn Ezra regarding the mabul – the avi ezer writes on that pasuk that “chalilah to say that rhe Rav (ibn ezra) would say such a thing about chazal,” ge goes on to say that the ibn ezra used the word chaserei daas but meant to say shlilas daas, because they’re synonyms, and he meant to say that we pasken like reish lakish. He then quotes elsewhere where rhe ibn ezra says that not one word of chazal should ever be dropped.
Avira, you ask whether I’m sufficiently convinced of my understanding of Chazal, Rishonim and science to stake my Olam Habo on my beliefs. Just so we’re clear, the answer is yes.
I finally see some people answering the original question. Kashrus organizations are for the purpose of determining that the ingredients don’t contain foods and/or byproducts of the foods (fish/meats etc) enumerated in Torah shebeK’sav and Baal Peh to be impure/unfit (in the common vernacular “treif”) as well as basar b’cholov.
If you want to know what’s healthy see a doctor.
Avira, I agree the Ibn Ezra would not have knowingly referred to Rebbi Yochanan as חסירי דעת; however, as I explained, he probably didn’t realise this was a מאמר חז”ל.
The Avi Ezra clearly said he knew the gemara; it is not for people in our time and level to make definitive statements about rishonim; we would disintegrate from the kedushah of their Torah if we were to meet them.
Rav Chaim volozhiner wrote that the Gra once slept and upon awakening, told him that while asleep, he had learned 50,000 perushim in one pasuk, and was able to understand the meaning of every eiver of every living thing with the first of them.
And the Gaon was not as big as the early rishonim.
The maharshal didn’t say he was not familiar with basic gemara; such a person never would rise to any sort of rank in the Torah world – the simple baalebatim in litvishe towns knew shas and shulchan aruch… it’s preposterous. What the maharshal wrote was that he was not a basl talmud; he wasn’t outstanding, a master, of the gemara; but that’s for him to say. Would you likewise take as given the litany of insults the raavad wrote of the rambam? We’re not permitted to speak that way; it would be malig al divrei chachamim, which is a capital offense. Not that that seems to matter much to you in the pursuit of “truth”
You must have had zero chinuch in how we approach rishonim, achronim, and today’s Torah leaders; either that, or you choose to ignore that chinuch and draw your own conclusions.
So you managed to squeeze out of the מהרש״ל’s writing that the Ibn Ezra wasn’t a בעל תלמוד. Great! But how do you explain the other piece I quoted והתריס בכמה מקומות נגד דברי חכמי התורה והתלמוד, או מבלי השגחה או מבלי ידיעה? Or maybe you just prefer to ignore it, since it doesn’t fit with your worldview.
I think there was a takana or just a suggestion to have at least two “beds” in the house. Reason: a person would sleep on one and then get up and move to the other. Without the second bed, he might stay in the same bed and not moving (before eating?) is bad for the health. So, amoraim cared about health.
Two beds are in BM 113, baraita says that beis din would leave two beds even for a poor person when taking a loan collateral.
Shmuel explains that he does not know how to heal only 3 sicknesses, including not walking after eating bread.
Interesting, that we not only presume that the poor person will eat bread but also that we need to make sure he exercises.
We can’t take the 2nd bed and just leave him directions to the gym.Also, it seems that Shmuel stresses these 3 incurable sicknesses are very much along the line of the OP – unhealthy things
people do to themselves. The other two are – bad diet (bitter dates when hungry) and wearing wet clothes.Avira, you seem to have picked up some progressive tools. They try to shout people down by calling them racists, homophobes etc, you do it by calling anyone who disagrees with you an apikores.
You actually present no evidence. How do we know that chazal
knew all science? Because chazal said so. Where are the inventions, discoveries, cures etc? They don’t exist because of convenient stories provided by chazal ( I. E. Shlomo hid the car,
Chazal didn’t want to upset the world order etc.).
What I really don’t understand is why it’s so important for you to believe they were all knowing regarding science. Believing this doesn’t enhance one’s emunahAJ: Halacha describes who is an apikorus. There’s morning wrong and everything right with calling out an apikorus as an apikorus. The Chofetz Chaim, the gold standard of what is and isn’t Loshon Hora, clearly paskens that everyone should publicly humiliate an apikorus.
Anon – i have a question.
What’s worse: one who openly denied chazal, tanach, or anything else in Torah, and does not try to put their apikorsus on to the rishonim/achronim, but rather says “chazsl say this, and I say that”
Or someone who twists chazsl, rishonim and achronim into their apikorsus, thinking that it is Judaism’s own perspective that chazal were mistaken and/or ignorant of science.
You’re the former; i think there’s a lot more hope for you, because you admit at least that chazal say something about their knowledge of science. So if you’re mechazek yourself and perhaps are careful about the things chazal say are tied to emunah(chometz on pesach, chalav akum, anger, etc..) you’ll join the ranks of shlomei emunas yisroel.
For our other discussion partner, i believe it’ll be much harder; he has actual apikorsus dripping from his words and is skilled enough to know better.
Avira,
Here’s the crux of our differences. Believing in Chazal’s knowledge of all science is not central to yiddishkeit. Not believing it is not denying chazal or Tanach. There is no proof of it other than their sayso.Anon, but if chazal are merely transmitting Torah, then their “sayso” is no different than accepting their teachings in any other area – you don’t, for instance, say “chazal say that one should be happy with the amount of money he has, but i disagree, and i don’t think that mishnah in pirkei avos is an important enough part of yiddishkeit that I need to accept”
Once we get into deciding for ourselves what parts of Torah we believe in and what parts we don’t, we’re no longer orthodox. Denying one letter of Torah is denying the entire Torah, because it’s one infinite continuum. Denying a statement of chazal because “well they just say so and you need to prove it to me” is no different than saying “prove to me that ervah is patur from yibum”
Chazal do not have to prove themselves to you. They proved themselves to klal yisroel ages ago and were accepted as the baalei mesorah.
You can’t logically say the two statements of “Not believing it is not denying chazal,” and then say that you deny chazal because it’s just their sayso! That’s a complete contradiction.
And yes, it is important enough to have earned deniers cherem throughout the ages, and was deemed apikorsus openly by the leading poskim.
Square, i disagree with the description of eggs on whatever list that’s from – scientists go back and forth every year or so on whether or not egg yolks are bad, if they increase “bad” cholesterol, or if they’re actually very healthy. The “one egg a day” idea is also constantly changing and is pretty outmoded. Eggs are a good source of protein if nothing else.
If someone steals their food, does that make it non-kosher?
One would hope that a hechsher wouldn’t certify a store selling stolen food
Kashrus organizations are for the purpose of determining that the ingredients don’t contain foods and/or byproducts of the foods (fish/meats etc) enumerated in Torah shebeK’sav and Baal Peh to be impure/unfit (in the common vernacular “treif”) as well as basar b’cholov.
If you want to know what’s healthy see a doctor.
They wouldn’t allow a mixture of fish and meat to be sold.
That’s a sakana issue.
However, something which doesn’t reach the level of sakana, but is “unhealthy” is okay to eat in moderation for most people, so it’s okay to give a hechsher. How much to eat and who should avoid these foods entirely is indeed a discussion one should have with their doctor, but is not the hechsher’s responsibility.
Avira, you ask whether I’m sufficiently convinced of my understanding of Chazal, Rishonim and science to stake my Olam Habo on my beliefs. Just so we’re clear, the answer is yes.
Big mistake. Someone who can make the egregious error of thinking the Ibn Ezra wouldn’t know a Gemara is totally unqualified to have an opinion on these matters.
Square, i disagree with the description of eggs on whatever list that’s from – scientists go back and forth every year or so on whether or not egg yolks are bad, if they increase “bad” cholesterol, or if they’re actually very healthy. The “one egg a day” idea is also constantly changing and is pretty outmoded. Eggs are a good source of protein if nothing else.
Yes, eggs are healthy.
The original study showing eggs cause high cholesterol was funded by the Cereal Board. At least thats what Atkins claimed in his book 🙂
Daas Yochid, so the Maharshal made an egregious error and is totally unqualified to have an opinion on these matters?
Daas Yachd, if the individual steals kosher food and eats it, he still ate kosher.
Avira, Chazal said that they knew all the science there is to know? Where? Also, how do you explain the Gemora in Niddah 22B which I mentioned above? What we can say is that mestama min Ha’Shamaim they would not allow them to write a mistaken psak into the Gemora.
Mdd, it’s in the rema in toras ha’olah cited earlier, maharal on beer hagolah, aruch hashulchan,maharsha in beginning of mi she’ochzu spells it out very clearly.
Re, niddah; like i said earlier, the mesorah is clear that we don’t ignore chazal and we don’t ignore science; gedolim have been reconciling chazal snd science for millenia. I’m not familiar with that particular gemara, but i can give many such examples, such as kinnim, where rav belsky explained that “coming from sweat” refers to the scientific fact that of all egg-laying species, only lice rely on outside materials to nurture the larvae. Just as worms that grow inside a fish are considered fish, since that’s all that they’ve eaten, so too lice are considered “sweat” because that’s how they derived the nutrients necessary to hatch.
So not only did chazal not contradict science, their statement shows a deep knowledge well beyond their era. Rav belsky had many, many such examples, but this approach is rooted in rishonim and achronim across the board.
If you want chazals which say that they knew all there is to know about science, there’s a statement about Shmuel knowing “shvilei derakiah” from the Torah, pesukim darshened for things like the gestation period of a snake…
Also see what i wrote above from rav chaim volozhiner about the gra’s knowledge of the scientific world, where he understood the nature of every limb of every aninal from one phat in one pasuk. Rav chaim also writes that the gaon once said that he could show philosophers all of creation and make them be machniah themselves to the chachmas hatorah.
Also Hashem used the Torah as a blueprint to create the universe; if one is an expert in Torah, they per force are experts in the universe
Avira, look up the Gemora – then you will understand the kasha.
It is true that it is all in the Torah. It does not mean, however, that every Talmid Chocham, even 2000 years ago, knew it all. Moshe Rabbeinu, Shlomo ha’melech — okay, but others?Re, niddah; it’s no different than when Rav went to farmers to learn about animals. It’s likely that within their learning which related to science, they had sfaikos, much like they had sfaikos in halacha pretty often. Sometimes those sfaikos result in a taiku.
Avira…, but if they knew all the science there is to know just by the virtue of being Talmidei Chachomim, why would they need to ask anybody?!?
Mdd, like i said, sfaikos.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.