- This topic has 56 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 months, 1 week ago by .
-
Posts
-
skripka > ow for example could they think that having a women sit on a barrel of wine and smelling her breath is a way of being able to tell that she is still a besulah? It just isn’t!
I simply can’t believe your strong position is based on rigorous testing. You are just making unscientific assumptions. Pot. Kettle.
Closer to home: we have a letter on the front page where the respected talmidei chachamim say that they do not know of any gadol (singular) that disagrees with their position on draft. This breaks the infallibility argument: either those who are verifiably Talmidei Chachamim and are known to hold opposite position are wrong and not gedolim; or Talmidei Chachamim that signed the letter are wrong not just in their conclusion, but simply in the veracity of their statement. I don’t see how this simple example can support that T’Ch are always right, unless you are using “no good scotsman” derech.
@always_ask_questions, My strong position on this is knowing basic anatomy, just in case @UJM asks.
The second point can be “somewhat” answered by saying that Chazal were infallible back then, but now they aren’t. But the “No True Scotsman”argument is definitely the way most people would argue and in fact lead their lives. Although we need something better than “No True Yid”. No Emese Baalabos? As in, “No Emese Baalabos would make a kiddush without a charcuterie board”
skripka > My strong position on this is knowing basic anatomy
There are two similar stories, one about Vilna Gaon, and another about a Muslim medieval philosopher – both asked the doctor how many layers are in the eye. The doctor answered according to “basic anatomy” (aka Galen) and Gaon/philosopher refuse to be seen by the doctor because there are way more layers (confirmed by now). Difference between book knowledge and actual experiment.
skripka > “No True Scotsman”argument is definitely the way most people would argue
Gemora learning should cure that by giving you plenty of examples of taking different views and information sources into account and building a valid sevorah. When I talk to people who are ostensibly very learned but are not good at thinking, I have to presume they did not learn Gemora right …
Over time, you can see whether you are able to see what is good, or at least remarkable, by looking back. For example, I noticed Apprentice and used it as a recommendation about business education before Trump got into politics. Thus, I can be sure that if I see sense in his position, it is not entirely based on political propaganda. Similarly, I noticed the early book by Nosson Slifkin that he wrote while he was in yeshiva (Lying for truth), recommended it to multiple people and gave him sone feedback. So, when he started writing controversial stuff, I know that there is some strength to his argument (even if he disavowed his early book when I asked him later). You can do similarly by looking back at what contemporary talmidei chachamim wrote about before and then make conclusions.
@Always_Ask_Questions, I was trying to be tzanua but I’ll say it straight out. The reproductive system is entirely enclosed. It doesn’t connect to the mouth. So there is absolutely no way to smell a woman’s breath while she is sitting on a barrel of wine to determine whether you can smell the wine through her. The Gemara says you can.
skripka, while I am making a light-heared argument here, I can tell you that – in my humble experience – if the lady in question smells wine, she is drunk. And, if she is sitting on a barrel of free wine and controlled herself so much that she did not drink any – she is a tzadekes. And this ability to withstand the yetzer very much correlates with the condition of her reproductive system.
Come to think of it, maybe that _is_ the allegory the gemorah is making – barrel of wine as yetzer.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.