- This topic has 737 replies, 58 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Wolf, aside from the fact the implications of your last comment contradicts what you explicitly said in the preceding comment, you make it sound as if Chazal were ordinary people. They were not. The were malochim. What they said in the Gemorah is simply 100% pure unadulterated Emes and Toras Moshe M’Sinai. There were no “personal feelings” (to use your terminology) on matters involved.
I must say Wolf, your posts are always so logical and reasonable.
Wolf,why would you want to prove chazal wrong, hypothetically?
I think it’s important to stick to the facts.
Anyway, I don’t think it’s derech eretz to try to prove chazal wrong even if it’s just in theory.
The were malochim
No, they were people. Saintly, wise, incredible people… but they were people.
I ascribe infallibility to only one Being… and it’s not Chazal.
The Wolf
Wolf,why would you want to prove chazal wrong, hypothetically?
I think it’s important to stick to the facts.
Anyway, I don’t think it’s derech eretz to try to prove chazal wrong even if it’s just in theory.
What I was aiming for was the possibility that while it was true in their day, it may no longer be true today.
The Wolf
There were no “personal feelings” (to use your terminology) on matters involved.
So you think it’s utterly impossible and incomprehensible that anything that Chazal or a latter rav says could possibly be influenced by their place/time/culture? You think that everything they said was said in a vacuum and eternally true regardless of changing social norms across the centuries/continents/cultures?
The Wolf
“I ascribe infallibility to only one Being… and it’s not Chazal.”
Let me guess, you ascribe that to… Benedict?
Who said anything about infallibility? That’s your fig-leaf. They are far closer to infallibility than anyone since. And therefore no one since has any right to dispute them.
And “malochim” was descriptive, not literal. You should have (and perhaps did) known that.
Let me guess… Benedict?
Yes. That’s right. I believe the pope is infallible. You figured me out as a closet Catholic. Sigh.
Who said anything about infallibility? That’s your fig-leaf. They are far closer to infallibility than anyone since. And therefore no one since has any right to dispute them.
Well, if you’re saying they can never be wrong, then you’re saying they’re infallible, no? If not, please explain what you mean by your statement.
And “malochim” was descriptive, not literal. You should have (and perhaps did) known that.
Yes, I knew what you meant. And you know what I meant.
The Wolf
“Well, if you’re saying they can never be wrong, then you’re saying they’re infallible, no? If not, please explain what you mean by your statement.”
I’m saying, at minimum, no one since them has the right to dispute them. No one since them has reached as close to the point of infallibility, as Chazal has. I can say that without even attributing infallibility to them.
If they are infallible, why don’t men ask their wives to wash their feet anymore? Or beat them when they don’t?
I’m with Wolf on Chazal.
Besides, their choice of clothing, food, lifestyle was all influenced by surrounding culture. A lot of their philosophy jives with thoughts that were prevalent during those times. And that was the reality at that time.
The problem with saying Chazal was infallible is if somethihng is shown to be incorrect, you either have to find a way around it (like lice) or risk admitting that Chazal was wrong. I prefer to assume Chazal were brilliant men who were much closer to truth that we are, but still not infallible.
Besides, there are many dissenting opinions in Chazal – does that mean they are ALL right?
I’m saying, at minimum, no one since them has the right to dispute them. No one since them has reached as close to the point of infallibility, as Chazal has. I can say that without even attributing infallibility to them.
Fair enough. I disagree, but your explanation is logical.
Can one say that culture and societal norms have changed since their times? Can one say that people, their perceptions of each other and the way they interact with each other has changed since their statements?
The Wolf
“Or beat them when they don’t?”
He was never able to “beat them.” Only Beis Din could use a stick against them if all else failed when attempting to force them to carry out their marital duties.
“Besides, there are many dissenting opinions in Chazal – does that mean they are ALL right?”
Yes, every dissenting opinion of Chazal is correct in some form. They are and were never wrong. Period.
“Can one say that culture and societal norms have changed since their times?”
It has degenerated certainly.
Wolf, would you make the same argument about Moshe Rabbeinu being human and infallible as you do about Chazal?
Chazal were molachim, they were not mere mortals and whatever they taught was from a divine source.
While I generally agree with you wolf, I take exception this time with your line regarding our great Rabbis because thinking that their words do not apply to us has led numerous people down a slippery slope.
Now whatever Chazal have said about woman can apply. That does not make women inferior in intellect. Chazal just show that womens’ thinking is inferior in the situations that they spoke about. However that doesn’t mean womens intellect is inferior in all situations. In fact in other situations their intelligence might be superior. Women and men think differently, their thought patterns are different and women learning to be rabbas are not learning like men are learning in serious yeshivas.
That does not mean women have overall lower intelligence. Not at all. Women have a binah yesierah. It is a DIFFERENT KIND OF INTELLIGENCE THEN MEN. It’s as simple as that. Women learn differently and think differently, but we are not less intelligent.
Now were I a man who learns Torah, I would be able to bring numerous sources on the intelligence of women. And I am also certain I would find sources which state that womens’ intelligence is greater in certain situations then men.
I’m repeating what I said before, no gender as a whole is better or smarter than the other, just different, each with their maalos and chasronos.
OK, so why don’t men have women beaten by Beis Din if they refuse to wash their feet?
So when they conflict they actually agree?
Do you agree that lice does not come from eggs?
“Fair enough. I disagree, but your explanation is logical.”
Disagree with what? That Chazal are closer to the point of infallibility than you or I?
“OK, so why don’t men have women beaten by Beis Din if they refuse to wash their feet?”
Legally perhaps the can still. But practically the cannot. No Beis Din (or spouse) is required to risk imprisonment by the secular authorities to enforce this right.
“Can one say that culture and societal norms have changed since their times?”
It has degenerated certainly.
That may or may not be — it’s beside the point. The point is that the culture HAS changed… for better or for worse. And, because of that, some statements that Chazal may have made in the past MAY not necessarily be true of today’s society and culture.
The Wolf
“There can be no harmony when there are two commanders.”
What about four Roshei Yeshiva?
The smart wife will make her husband think that he has made the decision on his own, but actually she has guided him into making it.
I recall a very wise and saintly Jewish woman who owned a business on Avenue J. While she was the brains and ran the business, this elderly woman (widowed and remarried) insisted that the customers actually pay her husband for the merchandise so that he would feel important.
OK how do you reckon what R’ Hillel says about Moshiach having come during the reign of Chizkiyahu with what we believe about Moshiach coming in the future? (Sanhedrin 98b)
Wolf, would you make the same argument about Moshe Rabbeinu being human and infallible as you do about Chazal?
When he wasn’t speaking “Mipi HaGevurah” he certainly was fallible. We know he made mistakes.
Chazal were molachim, they were not mere mortals
Obviously not. There are plenty of instances in the Gemara where Chazal were wrong — either where they admitted a mistake or where their opinions were disproven by other members of Chazal.
and whatever they taught was from a divine source.
I suppose this is a separate discussion of whether or not everything Chazal said is from a divine source or if they were affected by their contemporary culture and science. Obviously I hold the latter. You’re free to hold the former if you like, but I’m free to disagree with you.
While I generally agree with you wolf, I take exception this time with your line regarding our great Rabbis because thinking that their words do not apply to us has led numerous people down a slippery slope.
I appreciate the vote of confidence. But whether or not Chazal were influenced by their societies is really independent of whatever effect that may have on other people.
Suppose (hypothetically, again) it were proven that Chazal were mortal human beings. Incredible, saintly, righteous human beings… but human beings nonetheless. Would you say to hide the truth because it presents a “slippery slope?”
Now whatever Chazal have said about woman can apply. That does not make women inferior in intellect. Chazal just show that womens’ thinking is inferior in the situations that they spoke about.
I believe the Torah Temimah meant is as a general rule and not in specific “situations.” But I could be wrong on that. If so, please advise with sources.
However that doesn’t mean womens intellect is inferior in all situations. In fact in other situations their intelligence might be superior. Women and men think differently, their thought patterns are different
I don’t have any arguments on this point.
and women learning to be rabbas are not learning like men are learning in serious yeshivas.
I mentioned nothing about women being “rabbas.”
That does not mean women have overall lower intelligence. Not at all. Women have a binah yesierah. It is a DIFFERENT KIND OF INTELLIGENCE THEN MEN. It’s as simple as that. Women learn differently and think differently, but we are not less intelligent.
I might even agree with that statement.
Now were I a man who learns Torah, I would be able to bring numerous sources on the intelligence of women. And I am also certain I would find sources which state that womens’ intelligence is greater in certain situations then men.
I’m repeating what I said before, no gender as a whole is better or smarter than the other, just different, each with their maalos and chasronos.
So, what does all that mean? You state that women aren’t less intelligent — just intelligent in different ways. But is that what the Torah Temimah said?
The Wolf
Disagree with what? That Chazal are closer to the point of infallibility than you or I?
No, of course not. I can agree with that. But being “closer to infallibility” doesn’t mean that they can’t be argued with. There are many people in the world who are closer to infallability than I in many areas… both religious and secular — but that doesn’t mean that I don’t think that their every word is off-the-table for debate.
If you disagree, then fine… we simply have to disagree on that point.
The Wolf
BTW, Kasha,
My sarcastic reply to you aside, I just want you to know that I was offended at your even suggesting (in an attempt at humor) that I subscribe to the notion of papal infallibility.
I believe that we can “fight fair” and have a good argument despite our disagreements without going over the line and questioning each other’s beliefs in HKBH.
I don’t mind a good ribbing every now and again, but there are some things that are just over the line. I would NEVER suggest — even in humor — that you were a mechalel shabbos, a person who held idolatrous beliefs, or anything else of that nature. I would ask that you treat me the same way.
The Wolf
Wolf,
There are no instances in the Gemorah of Chazal being wrong. Period. It is indisputable that what they say is from a divine source. Period. You cannot dispute the word of Chazal. Period.
As far as the infallibility flap-up, I do point out you have used this term in the past, indeed you brought the term into this very conversation. And the subtle, albeit sometimes not explicitly stated, implication when bringing up the “infallibility” issue, is that your opposing conversationalist is making someone out to be infallible like the pope. That is a lie as I pointed out. That being said, I apologize for ruffling your feathers… err, fur.
Kasha, if its indisputable, please explain the gemora I quoted above. R’ Hillel said that Moshiach ALREADY came and is not coming in the future.
That being said, I apologize for ruffling your feathers.
Wolves have fur, not feathers. 🙂
Apology accepted.
The Wolf
Can we get back to the point?
Everyone (here) agrees that women should be paid the same as men for doing equal work (If anyone argues, say so now or forever rest your peace.)
Everyone agrees the “Gloria Steinhiem” movement is bad, and burning items of clothing movement is Assur (due to Tznius if nothing else).
Everyone agrees Chazal are NOT infallible, neither are Malachim for that matter (e.g. Hashem killing the Sar Shel Yam due to him rebelling (BB 74B)).
Everyone agrees that Chazal have additional insight into all things, both Torah and not, due to their additional connection to Hashem through his Torah. That does not mean they can’t be wrong, but its not for us puny people to say so (leave that to the Rabbonim).
Whether women should work out of the home is a Machlokes HaPoskim of today, follow your own Rav, but both points of view are legit.
Everything else is semantics.
Wolf: I was editing it as you were typing that! 🙂
There are no instances in the Gemorah of Chazal being wrong. Period.
So, when one Tanna disproves the statements of another Tanna, is not the latter Tanna wrong (eilu v’eilu aside)?
It is indisputable that what they say is from a divine source. Period. You cannot dispute the word of Chazal. Period.
How is that indisputable? Chazal themselves held that it was possible for them to be wrong — see the dispute regarding where the sun goes at night.
The Wolf
GAW, I basically agree with you. You always word your posts so nicely.
But Kasha disagrees with the infallibility of Chazal.
GAW,
I think, based on the comments made heretofore, you will not find that everyone agrees with those statements.
The Wolf
“So, when one Tanna disproves the statements of another Tanna, is not the latter Tanna wrong (eilu v’eilu aside)?”
1. There is no reason to put eilu v’eilu aside. 2. Correct, the latter Tanna is not wrong. What the latter Tanna said still stands in a certain manner that Tanna intended it, even if it isn’t paskened for the situation discussed. It’s a deep concept, and I probably am not the one who can explain it well.
“see the dispute regarding where the sun goes at night.”
I must have seen at least a couple of threads around here that more than sufficiently answered that question. I even thought I saw you participate in that conversation.
“But Kasha disagrees with the infallibility of Chazal.”
Do you read before you post? Where have I utilized that term? I already responded to this point to Wolf.
1. There is no reason to put eilu v’eilu aside. 2. Correct, the latter Tanna is not wrong. What the latter Tanna said still stands in a certain manner that Tanna intended it, even if it isn’t paskened for the situation discussed. It’s a deep concept, and I probably am not the one who can explain it well.
I’m not talking about where they argue about p’sak. I’m talking about where they argue about metzius in a mutually exclusive way. One of them must be (at the physical level) wrong.
The Wolf
They never argue about metzius. (Again, I don’t feel most capable of explaining this point in depth.)
Kasha, please see Sanhedrin 98b regarding Moshiach.
SJS: Only Basically?
Kasha: Do you disagree with any of the points that I have made above?
Kasha: All over Shas they argue what the Metzius is, or was (or will be). Eilu V’Eilu is not a simple topic, and you may prefer to defer the questioner to their own Rav, instead of answering in a forum.
I hate repeating myself. But then again, I am reminded of the story of the Rebbe who taught his talmid the same point over and over and over again 100 times until the talmid finally grasped it on the 100th (or was it 101st?) time.
They never argue about metzius.
Nonsense.
Was Iyov a real person or not? Was there ever a case of a Ben Sorer Umoreh or not?
The Wolf
I don’t agree that you can’t argue with past rabbonim, especially if its something that is based in local culture/science.
Or rather, *I* may not be able to argue, but my Rav would. I, however, can question.
Yes, and no. Yes, and no.
SJSinNYC: Fair, but I was talking about Chazal. I wouldn’t act on my own without backup. Arguing without doing differently seems to me like that would be OK.
It’s like saying we see lice grow from eggs, but since Chazal paskened like they didn’t, we will “act” like Chazal Paskened, even though we don’t understand.
That is that mark of a Maymin. Not “not asking”, but asking and doing anyway.
Wolf: Or something simple, like where Korbanos where shechted in the Beis Hamikdash.
Chazal meant what they said. If they intended to exaggerate a point, then it is an exaggeration, per their intentions. Determining when it is and when it is not an exaggerated point is the job of our meforshim, not your or my job.
So Kasha, are you going to review Sanhedrin 98b to look at the varying opinions on Moshiach? Did Moshiach come already and is not coming in the future? R’ Hillel says so. Everyone else disagrees. So…
If you have a brain in your head, you know when chazal is exaggerating, and you don’t need confirmation.
Yes, and no. Yes, and no.
Kasha,
What does that mean?
The choices are mutually exclusive. Either Iyov existed, or he didn’t. Either Beis Din executed a Ben Sorer UMoreh or they didn’t.
In any event, this proves that your statement about Chazal not arguing metzius is clearly wrong — as both of these arguments exist in the Gemara.
The Wolf
Wolf: I’m glad you don’t purport to know or even understand everything. I’m glad you admit there are things and concepts you don’t understand. I’m glad you realize what you think may be “mutually exclusive” in fact of reality your understanding is what may not be exclusive. That your very understanding of metzius itself perhaps, just perhaps, is incorrect.
Hereorthere, in general, female waitresses get a lot more tips from men than women. Their dress often mandates what their tips are. Is that men thinking “logically”? As to women staying in abusive marriages – you think that’s because women are illogical? I guess you are lucky that you are so removed from the reality of why abusive women stay. Many reasons include financial (they can’t support their kids), emotional (their self esteem has been reduced to nothingness and they think they don’t deserve to leave), physical (they are afraid their husband would literally kill them or the children) and they worry about the father having visitation rights with their kids, social (the stigma of divorce for them and their children)…and there are men in abusive relationships as well. Men are generally larger so they can generally wield more physical force.
As to the Clinton thing – I bet I could find plenty of men who voted for Obama because of his race. In fact, there was some sort of radio broadcast done with that kind of thing – showcasing people voting for Obama because of his race. I’ll try to find the source later. People (both men AND women) make stupid decisions.
I work for Coned. I can honestly say that most of the workers are trying hard and do a great job. They had no problem submitting to my authority when I was supervising them.
The women had to pass the same qualifications for the jobs (some mental, some physical and none washed down) for each position. Construction workers need to be able to lift about 50 lbs by themselves – anything else is classified as dangerous and is a “two man lift” or needs mechanical means. There are OSHA laws regulating things like this and its about safety. A lot of leniencies in job requirements today are actually about worker safety, not the feminist agenda.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.