- This topic has 79 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
שו”ת דעת כהן הל’ נדה סימן פו
ובכל זאת קשה לי למעשה להתיר בנ”ד עפ”ד הרופאים, מפני שאני מסתפק הרבה בידיעתם בפרטיות כל כך להחליט, שדוקא אם תתיחד בשבעה ימים אחר תחלת הות תתעבר, ואם יעברו איזה ימים יותר לא תתעבר, וביחוד מפני שדבריהם סותרים דברי חז”ל, שהרי בין לרבי אמי בין לרבי יונתן, בנדה ל”א ע”ב, אין אשה מתעברת אלא סמוך לוסתה, שהפירוש הוא להיפוך בימי טהרה האחרונים, הסמוכים להוסת, או סמוך לטבילתה, אבל לומר שתתעבר דוקא בשבעת הימים אחר התחלת הוסת זהו נגד הידיעה שקבלנו מחז”ל, ודבריהם נאמנים יותר מדברי מדברי הרופאים, שידיעותיהם הן רק השערות בעלמא. וידוע שהרופאים הרעישו לבטל מציצה, ואמרו שיש בזה סכנה, וכל חכמי ישראל בטלו דבריהם מפני
שאינם נאמנים נגד חז”ל, שחכמתם היא מכח דבר ה’ הנאמן לעד
RIGHT! WRONG! BUT WHAT ABOUT SLIFKIN! APIKORIS! VICTIM! lets roll…
I’m confused. Scientists make generalizations based on averages, no scientist claims an exact timeline for all.
mw13- nice.
Dash – I think he’s saying that there are doctors who make this claim about individuals (but I’m super-tired and didn’t read it super-carefully)
Rav kook was talking about a specific legal issue. In many cases poskim say that nature has changed or that we do not understand what Chazal meant 9for example, there is a cherem of the Gaonim against using the medical advice in the Gemara). See “Medicine in the Gemara” by Elli Friedman (on-line).
Avi K: “In many cases poskim say that nature has changed or that we do not understand what Chazal”
which is VERY different from saying that Chazal were wrong, which is something that some people think and that seems to be the attitude that Rav Kook was attacking here.
Mitzvah time please: Anyone want to summarize the OP’s OP?
LB – it seems that there was a woman whose doctor told her that she can only conceive during a time period when, according to halacha, a woman is forbidden to her husband. Rav Kook said that this can’t be correct according to Chazal, and Chazal are more reliable than doctors, and therefore he was not willing to permit her to her husband during the particular time period in question.
He also then went on to say that the doctors wanted to do away with metziza because they thought it was dangerous, but Chazal say differently and the doctors have no validity against Chazal because Chazal’s chachma comes from the Torah.
This is a not such a good example for the issue of how to understand chazal when their words purportedly contradict modern medicine/science, because what the woman’s Dr was saying about her case goes against basic medical knowledge as well. In this case there is no contradiction between Chazal and medicine, just what 1 doctor is reportedly saying about 1 particular exceptional case. But it is a very good answer to the issue, nevertheless.
Avi K’s reference has better examples.
Winnie, that is exactly the point of Rav Kook z”l.
HaLeivi – not really. The main point he makes is that Chazal can’t be wrong and that Chazal are always right against the doctors. So he seems to be saying that this would be so even in a case in which “basic medical knowledge” (as opposed to a particular case) are against what Chazal says.
So Winnie is pointing out that the case brought is not a good example of the general rule being demonstrated.
The general rule being stated is:
“Don’t believe general medical knowledge when it goes against Chazal”
and the example given is an example of one doctor in one specific unusual case.
A doctor once told myself and others “netain reshus l’ropheh l’raph’os”
How come doctors need permission derived from the passuk to practice more than other fields?
Because in Medicine every 10 years or so you need to throw out all the textbooks and start almost from scratch
So we need explicit permission for us to “go To the Doctors of your days”
do they have to be in complete contradiction?
Does what have to be in complete contradiction?
If you mean the doctors and Chazal, they usually are not in contradiction; that is why you are allowed to listen to them. It is only in the rare occasions when they do that you are not allowed to listen to them (at least according to Rav Kook – I don’t know what other Gedolim say).
LU +1,000 for your mitzvah 🙂
Thank you for your thoughtful translation ???
Lilmos, TY. Actually some Geonim, Rishonim and Achronim do say that Chazal were wrong about scientific matters and others say that they were actually talking about the spiritual counterparts of the physical world (on this see “Did Chazal Know Science? (Rhetorical Question)” posted on-line by the Bet Midrash of Bayswater).
Sources:
Teshuvos HaGeonim 394:
Our sages were not doctors and said what they did based on experience with the diseases of their time. Therefore, there is no commandment to listen to the sages [regarding medical advice] because they only spoke from their opinion based on what they saw in their day.
*Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim 3:14:
*Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim 2:8:
It is one of the ancient beliefs, both among the philosophers and other people, that the motions of the spheres produced mighty and fearful sounds… This belief is also widespread in our nation. Thus our Sages describe the greatness of the sound produced by the sun in the daily circuit in its orbit. The same description could be given of all heavenly bodies. Aristotle, however, rejects this, and holds that they produce no sounds. You will find his opinion in the book The Heavens and the World (De Coelo). You must not find it strange that Aristotle differs here from the opinion of our Sages. The theory of the music of the spheres is connected with the theory of the motion of the stars in a fixed sphere, and our Sages have, in this astronomical question, abandoned their own theory in favour of the theory of others. Thus, it is distinctly stated, “The wise men of other nations have defeated the wise men of Israel.” It is quite right that our Sages have abandoned their own theory: for speculative matters every one treats according to the results of his own study, and every one accepts that which appears to him established by proof.
Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam, Ma’amar al Derashos Chazal:
Maharam Schick, Teshuvas Maharam Schick 7
: Matters that were not received by Chazal as halachah leMoshe miSinai, but rather which they said according to their own reasoning – and with something that is not received [from Sinai] and has no root in our Torah, but rather comes from investigation and experience, it is difficult to determine [that it is true]. And there are many occasions when the sages determined, according to their own intellects, that a matter was a certain way, and the subsequent generation analyzed the matter further and disputed the earlier view.
* Regarding Rambam’s opinion, in his introduction to Perek Chelek he says that all of the aggadic statements are very deep metaphors.
Chazal themselves say that they deferred to gentile scientists (Pesachim 94b and Sanhedrin 5b).
However, either way you slice it we do not learn this-worldly scientific facts from the Gemara and midrashim. We learn how to conduct are lives in accordance with Halacha and ethical principles. According to all opinions, someone who wants to be a doctor goes to medical school. When Rav Hutner’s talmid muvchak, Rabbi Israel Kirzner, decided to become an economist he went to Brooklyn College and then NYU where he studied under Ludwig von Mises, who was an anti-religious Jew.
LB – my pleasure! Hope you enjoy your last day (or 2? or 3?) in EY! 🙂
As far as I know, I haven’t bumped into you. I actually met a few single girls over the past two weeks, but none of them were tourists.
Oh, well. 🙁 Maybe next time, IY”H.
I would like to add something to AviK’s post. He is talking about whether we learn science/medicine from Chazal. When it comes to halacha, we follow chazal even if modern medicine contradicts it. A very simple example- the tomato is scientifically classified as a fruit, but we say a haadama on it. We don’t say C”V that chazal did not know enough science and got the whole system of classification wrong and therefore we should say ha’etz. Rather, we say that chazal follow their rules on how to classify vegetables and fruits, and it does not have to follow the scientific definition.
Scientifically the differnece between a fruit and a vegitable has to do with the Seeds, Im not exactly sure, but it has to do how you get seeds.
You can get tomato seeds from a tomato, however you cannot get Radish Seeds from a raddish.
Haetz or Hadama has nothing to do with a fruit or vegitable, but rather how the item grows. Something that grows in a tree is Haaetz and something that grows in the ground is Haadama. An Avacodo is Haatez and a Melon is Haadama
WinnieThePooh,
When it comes to halacha, we follow chazal even if modern medicine contradicts it. A very simple example- the tomato is scientifically classified as a fruit, but we say a haadama on it. We don’t say C”V that chazal did not know enough science and got the whole system of classification wrong and therefore we should say ha’etz.
The English-based fruit and vegetable classification really has nothing to do at all with the halachos of brachos. All produce is called “fruit” (pri): borei pri haadoma, borei pri haeitz, borei pri hagafen. So pri seems to refer to the edible parts of plants.
Scientifically, “fruit” (not pri) refers to the seed producing parts of a plant, even when it’s not edible. Vegetables are the edible parts of plants that are not seed bearing. But even that is not the final say on the English word “fruit”, since, in most dictionaries, fruit is defined by its culinary properties (sweet), and vegetables are not-sweet plant products, whether or not they are seed bearing!
So pri != fruit(science) != fruit(culinary)
🙂
I think cases like this (different definitions) are a large part of the perceived contradictions between science and chazal that are not necessarily so.
Labeling the brachot according to fruits and vegetables is not a literal translation. It can be misleading when taught without context and the Hebrew.
I thought that tomatoes are “Ha adamah” because the tomato grows from the ground like a berry, or melon.
It does not have a tree trunk that grows tall, branches, and bears fruit
What we get from a tree “etz” is a fruit from the tree, thus “ha etz.”
Tomatos like strawberries and blueberries don’t grow on trees. They grow close to the soil/ground/dirt, or “adamah,” on plants, so they are “ha adamah.”
Also I don’t think the same rule of waiting three years to pick the fruit from the tree applies to something like a tomato plant or melons.
Sometimes these “adamah fruit” only grow for a season and the seeds have to be planted again for the next year.
Growing up, we planted our tomato (vines?) plants before harvesting season. They didn’t survive past winter’s frost.
OTOH My neighbor’s apple trees B”H blossomed every year.
Another example is how we treat lice on Shabbos. We follow Chazal, not modern scientists.
Avi – all my posts were in reference to the OP with Rav Kook’s opinion. I deliberately didn’t say anything about other opinions. I realize that there may be other opinions, but I don’t know enough about the subject so I didn’t want to discuss it, and I was just discussing Rav Kook’s opinion, as quoted here.
I do know that it’s a controversial topic, so I do feel that until I know definitively that I am allowed to believe that Chazal could be wrong about a scientific matter, I am not allowed to believe so. At best I could believe that there may be such an opinion, and it may be possible that I am allowed to believe such a thing, but m/w I am not allowed ti until I know for sure that that is the case.
Regarding your sources, until I look them up myself in the original Loshon Hakodesh, I also do not feel that I can rely on them. And even if I were to look them up, I would need to know what the Gedolim of today say. There may be opinions in the Rishonim that we do not hold by, or that aren’t relevant for us, etc.
I know enough to know that it is a very complex, controversial topic, and the fact that there are Rishonim who said this may not necessarily mean that it is okay for me say it. It is more complicated than that.
I’m not saying you’re wrong – just that I don’t know enough to have an opinion on it one way or another, and until I know differently, I am concerned that it may be problematic for me to be mekabel the other opinion on this.
Obviously, when it comes to specific halachic issues, everyone has to ask a reliable Rav. So far, I haven’t come across any such issues, so there are no practical ramifications for me at the moment.
Lilmod,
1. Rav Kook also did not necessarily take statements literally. For example, he said that the Theory of Evolution could be reconciled with Torah views.
2. So look them up. You can certainly find the books in any Torah library and even on-line.
Here are Rambam’s statements:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9462&st=&pgnum=27
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9463&st=&pgnum=31
Here is Maharam Shick’s opinion:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1494&st=&pgnum=260&hilite=
3. So ask whomever is your rav or look up the various contemporary opinions. You can start with “Challenge” edited by Rav by Aryeh Carmell and Cyril Domb, which you can purchase on-line.
MW, who are “we”?” I once heard that someone did not like something that was done in a certain shul. He said to the rav “We do not do that”. The rav replied “we do”.
I don’t think anything that anyone added about fruits vs vegetables contradicted the basic tenet of what I was trying to say, that Chazal has a separate definition of what is a fruit (pri haetz) and what is a vegetable (pri haadama) from botanists or cooks or the dictionary. By the way, what about the banana- it has seeds in it, grows on a tree-like plant high above the ground, would be considered a fruit by botanists and culinary experts, yet it is ha’adama because the tree is not permanent. My point is that we do not decide what bracha to make based on the botanists’ definition of fruit/vegetable.
By the way, LB, Blueberries and blackberries grow on high bushes that last from year to year and are Ha’etz, unlike strawberries.
Orla only applies to halachic trees.
AvramMD: “So pri seems to refer to the edible parts of plants.” or maybe pri just means “product of”, as in “pri bitna”.
Another example is how we treat lice on Shabbos. We follow Chazal, not modern scientists.
Please explain
Winnie, the same with “yom”. It sometimes means time period (in English also we say “in his day”). So the six days of Creation might be six time periods. Interestingly, archaeologists say that writing only started a bit over 5,000 years ago. It cannot be known when people began to speak but either could be considered the beginning of the world so far as Judaism is concerned.
Another example is how we treat lice on Shabbos. We follow Chazal, not modern scientists.
Please explain
Halachically, a louse is allowed to be killed on Shabbos, since it is “spontaneously generated”.
???? ????? ??’: ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?”? ????? ?”? ??? ????? ?”? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ?????
Even though we now know that lice are not “spontaneously generated”, none the less since Chazal said it was muttar we don’t have the ability to change the Halacha.
A similar concept (IIRC) exists by Treifos, where even though we now know that many Treifah can live more than 12 months, once Chazal declared a defect to be a Treifah the classification remains.
Gavra, you are defining ???? ??? ???? as spontaneous generation, but that’s likely an incorrect definition. Had we defined it that way and decided to accept the disproof, we would have assered killing kinim. See P”Y.
Also, the treifos issue is not similar. Nobody is claiming that Chazal were wrong, but that the classification of treifos, and therefore the halachah, is determined by what the metzius was at the time of Chazal, and doesn’t change when the metzius changes. IOW, the definition of a treifa is a condition which in Chazal’s times would not allow an animal to live for 12 months.
Gavra, you are defining ???? ??? ???? as spontaneous generation, but that’s likely an incorrect definition. Had we defined it that way and decided to accept the disproof, we would have assered killing kinim. See P”Y.
I thought that was the accepted definition of ???? ??? ????. Do you have a different definition? I am not claiming any level of expertise on this topic.
Also, the treifos issue is not similar. Nobody is claiming that Chazal were wrong, but that the classification of treifos, and therefore the halachah, is determined by what the metzius was at the time of Chazal, and doesn’t change when the metzius changes. IOW, the definition of a treifa is a condition which in Chazal’s times would not allow an animal to live for 12 months.
I don’t know what this means. If a cow gets a disease that would have killed it within 12 months, but we give it Penicillin and it lives, is it now a treifah?
I wasn’t saying they are similar in that Chazal were “wrong” CV (Afar L’pi), but rather that the Halachic definitions don’t change even if different circumstances now apply. We don’t know how ???? ??? ???? affected Chazal’s determination that killing a louse on Shabbos is Muttar, or how 12 months affected Chazal’s decision whether somthing is Halachically defined as a Treifa. All we have are the words of Chazal and their P’sak, which is final.
With respect to the question of killing lice and treifos, the issue is what the source of the halacha is. If the halacha is pure sevara, then a clarification of the metziyus should change the halacha. If the halacha is kabalah from Har Sinai then a clarification of the metziyus would not change a halacha, we would just need to find a new explanation for the halacha.
For example, if the reason we pasken it is mutar to kill lice on Shabbos is purely a sevara because of the presumed metziyus of ???? ??? ????, then now that we know the metziyus is incorrect, the halacha should switch and follow R’ Eliezer. If, however, the Chachomim were matir killing lice on Shabbos because they had a kabala m’Sinai that it was mutar and ???? ??? ???? was just their sevara to explain the halacha, then even now that we know that they are ??? ???? the halacha would remain the same.
Although in the case of lice it is unclear, if I remember correctly, there is a list of treifos that are a halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai and therefore certainly apply regardless of the metziyus. In addition, there is a halacha that if an animal is hurt in a way that it will not live for 12 months, then it is a treifah even if the injury is not on the list we received from Sinai. For this latter din, the current metziyus is what would be relevant.
I thought that was the accepted definition of ???? ??? ????. Do you have a different definition? I am not claiming any level of expertise on this topic.
Accepted by whom, and why? I assume it was defined that way based on the scientific beliefs, but who says Chazal meant that? They meant it doesn’t fit the halachic definition of parah v’ravah, not the scientific definition of reproduction. Sort of how a pri isn’t always a fruit.
I don’t know what this means. If a cow gets a disease that would have killed it within 12 months, but we give it Penicillin and it lives, is it now a treifah?
Assuming in the times of Chazal there was no known cure (and the illness fit one of the categories listed in the Mishna and B’raisa), it would be a treifah.
They meant it doesn’t fit the halachic definition of parah v’ravah,
I agree fully. Hence the quotations. See my note above:
“We don’t know how ???? ??? ???? affected Chazal’s determination that killing a louse on Shabbos is Muttar, or how 12 months affected Chazal’s decision whether somthing is Halachically defined as a Treifa. All we have are the words of Chazal and their P’sak, which is final.”
I don’t think you can argue that Chazal had a different definition for ??? ???? without running afoul of the next question in the Gemara: ?”? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???”? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?????
Abaya asks that how can the Chachomim say that that lice ???? ??? ???? when there is a posuk that refers to lice eggs? The Gemara answers that according to the Chachomim you have to say that it means a creature called “lice eggs” but not the eggs of lice. If the Gemara had a different definition of ??? ????, it would have answered “lice have eggs but they are still not ??? ???? because ??? ???? means X.”
Hilchos Shabbos is not an area where I have expertise (neither is hilchos Treifos) but I believe it is machlokis acharonim whether killing lice today is mutar.
All the things mentioned are not such a big deal
Now if there was somewhere in the Gemroah that Chazal said the Earth was Flat or that the Sun revolved around the earth…That would be a problem
I agree fully.
Interesting, because we seem to be saying two different things.
I’m saying we do know how they affect the din – it’s only muttar if and because they are ???? ??? ????. We may not know which physical characteristic is considered ???? ??? ????.
We also know how 12 months affects the din, just that the Chazon Ish explains that the specific treifos the Torah considers treifos are the ones which during the time Chazal codified it caused the animal to die within 12 months.
I don’t think you can argue that Chazal had a different definition for ??? ???? without running afoul of the next question in the Gemara:
It limits the possible definitions, but it still doesn’t need to mean spontaneous generation.
ZD: Albert Einstein, which is the most current science on the matter, stated in the theory of relativity that it is correct to state that the sun revolves around the earth, or to state that the earth revolves around the sun, as either description is functionally equivalent.
ZD – it’s not a question of big deal or not. It’s a question of what we are supposed to believe, and that is a big deal.
The issues that you mention are actually less important because there are no halachic ramifications (to the best of my knowledge).
I didn’t read through all the previous posts, but it sounds like they are dealing with issues with halachic ramifications. But in any case, our beliefs are very important too. If we are not allowed to believe something, it is possible that it is kefira (at least on some level) to believe it.
DY,
What is another possible definition?
Also, the current scientific knowledge is that lice are hatched from eggs. So even if you have some way of explaining the Gemara so that it isn’t presuming spontaneous generation, you would still need to explain the need for the dochek on ???? ?????.
I also don’t understand the Chazon Ish you are citing (noting that Treifos is not a sugya I have ever learned). The list of Treifos are a halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai, why would it depend on the metziyus at the time of Chazal and not the metziyus at the time of Matan Torah?
According to the Rambam a moon landing was not possible, While there are some (I heard Brisk) belive that the moon landings were fake.
Most gedolim today belive they happend
Not only did Chazal learn their science from the Torah, but Rav Breil, the Rebbi of the Pachad Yiztchok teaches us that we do not even entertain the possibility of a scientific statement in Chazal not coming from the Torah .This we see from Rav Briel’s answer to the Pachad Yiztchok’s question regarding the killing of lice on Shabbos. The Gemora permits it, based on a scientific fact. The Pachad Yiztchok asked his Rebbi that due to the possibility that this scientific fact is incorrect, perhaps we should be machmir and not kill lice on Shabbos, just in case.
Ben, I’ve heard someone propose that the physical eggs are not halachically considered from the louse, based on how they are formed (I don’t recall how).
ZD. I believe we have discussed this before. I don’t think that is what the Rambam is saying.
I thought louse was a typo but now I need to research
Albert Einstein, which is the most current science on the matter, stated in the theory of relativity that it is correct to state that the sun revolves around the earth, or to state that the earth revolves around the sun, as either description is functionally equivalent.
Actually he is not, We have sent Satellites into space. Voyager 1 and 2 have left the solar System and New Horizons is past Pluto near the Kuiper Belt. Cassini has gone to Saturn and there have been satellites to Jupiter.
Satellites can see the Sun and Earth from Angles not previously available
Albert Einstein’s theory hasn’t been overturned.
Joseph, quantum theory, which Einstein dismissed, has partially overturned it. It would be interesting to think about how it relates to the question of free will vs. Hashem’s foreknowledge.
But in any case, our beliefs are very important too. If we are not allowed to believe something, it is possible that it is kefira (at least on some level) to believe it.
If there was something in Chazal that was defiantly disproven without a shadow of a doubt, It cannot be Kefira to belive it. If Chazal ever said it cannot ever get dark in the middle of the day and you experienced a Solar Eclipse, If you belived the eclipse you just experienced actually happend, according to you, you are a Koifer
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.