- This topic has 100 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
torah and chazal are one; they cannot be separated. chazal functioned as the transmitters of the dvar Hashem, and in so doing were greater than neviim – chacham adif minavi. For you to dismiss some things that they say without even having gained the tools of study that we received from the rishonim and achronim….I doubt you’d be able to translate, much less delve into one ket’a of a ma’aracha of reb akiva eiger….to say that you who presumably went to college or at least are knowledgeable of modern thought, are superior in perspective, that you see clearer than they do, casts you outside the torah world into an abyss of apikorsus.
megaleh panim betorah shelo’kahalacha applies to hashkofo too.
And here we see a prime example of how taking one heretical idea (that chazal erred in science), which at least was espoused at some point by one or two authentic rabbonim, leads to a wholesale apikorsus that no one has ever condoned – to say that chazal’s worldview is limited by their time and place, and that we can ignore or ‘reinterpret’ statements, torah, that they write such as tav lemaysav, chazakos, based on current society and our ‘enlightened’ perspective. Chazal say that a woman’s place is to be subservient to her husband? trash it! because they were in a time and place where that was the norm.
averah goreres averah.
Saying rav hirsch erred because scientists say that they don’t see a particular species is spurious. chazal say ‘lo rainu aino raya’, that not seeing something is not a proof. Unless that too was because of their time and place – in which case, what parts of the gemara do you ‘agree’ with? conservative judaism basically says that they’ll keep whatever hasn’t been ‘invalidated’ chas veshlom, by modern thought and studies. afra lepumayhu.
you’re knocking on their door without realizing it; actually, you’ve busted that door wide open.
Dear Yehudis,
I think you meant our view of the world has changed, instead of we should change our worldview.
Dear Avira,
So your fooling yourself instead of being called a fool.
If you really believe that you must take chazal’s word for it, than you would. And say it’s a crushing question, I’m sorry I can’t help you but I believe chazal more than all the evidence of the world.
By your counter-attacking anyone who disagrees with your belief system and insisting that chazal have not been disputed by the evidence, you demonstrate that whole chazal-knew-everything-even-if-they-never-said-it belief system is a cover up.
If you have strong convictions, it’s worth being called a fool for them. Just simple values. Drop the intellectual superiority for once. Chazal had great human insight, besides their intellectual pursuit of wisdom.
I have no problem with you labeling me an apikores. I couldn’t care less. People burned Rambam’s sefarim because of the same knee-jerk reaction, seeing his radical (at the time) ideas as way too far beyond the pale. I will steadfastly hold my ground and believe firmly that it’s only a matter of time until the rest of the mainstream frum world walks through the door that I, and a few brave others, have “burst open”, according to your logic.
By the way, it’s not me who originally said that it’s possible for chazal to err in matters of science. Rabi Yehuda Hanasi himself, in the gemara, states that the secular philosophers were right about the movement of the sun, and the Jewish scholars were wrong. I suggest you go rethink your views on that matter.
The words of rebbe were “nerein divreihem midivreinu”, their words appear true more than ours”. Rabbeinu tam says that he didn’t agree, but lacked a way of answering them at the moment.
The divrei yoel writes that he couldn’t explain to them the kabalistic channels in shomayim, since you can’t teach that to goyim.Others say that he was admitting. But the chachmei yisroel had noy darshened a pasuk. Most of the physical statements in chazal are derived from pesukim, carrying the full weight of a deoraysoh drashah. Some are mesoros, like the synodic month.
Even their own conclusions were based on their immersion in learning. They didn’t copy the goyim; we have no reason to think they did when they ruled seforim chitzonim assur.
Opposition to the rambam can be used to justify every deviant idiocy – maybe na nachers are right, and if you say they’re wrong, then….what about the rambams opponents?
Was shabsai tzvi later recognized as valid? Or did he fall aside into the trashbin of history?
What about frankel?
And solomon shechter?
Most deviants who aren’t accepted, are never accepted later. The only three times it happened that someone was opposed and later accepted was the rambam, chasidim, and the ramchal (who is a bad example – he was only opposed because he learned kabalah at an early age in the wake of shabsai tzvi, not because of any particular teaching he had – so it’s not “shitas haramchal” that was first rejected and then accepted).
Every other deviant remained so.
Dear Avira,
History wrote you off to, before you rewrote it. But you get to decide who was or wasn’t written off. As well who is accepted now. So of course, History must be on your side. Chazal practically said so I’m your previous post.
It’s telling that you left off Rav Yisrael Salanter and the Ben Ish Chai. And you have no idea how problematic the Ramchal was.
No one didn’t hold of rav yisroel; there was opposition to his shitoh, but no one ever trashed him himself.
Ben ish chai – huh?
Ramchal – i stand by what i said
So you are unaware of all three. I’m not c”v rejecting any of them. But your history is vary selective.
Avira, I could have predicted you’d bring up Rabbeinu Tam’s explanation of that gemara. Yet you conveniently chose not to talk about the many, many commentaries who learn that gemara at face value. Rambam, the gaonim, abarbanel, maharam, ben ish chai,to name just a few. Bottom line, I have plenty of sources on which to rely to make the claim that chazal can be wrong about scientific matters. Thus, I’m sticking to my guns, and while I couldn’t care less if you call me an apikores, it does make me uncomfortable that you seem to be willing to call these great Jewish scholars apikorsim as a consequence.
Bottom line: I have valid sources to support my statements, and thus, on the issue of whether or not it is ok to trash our planet, I’d recommend erring on the side of caution, just in case we *can* mess it up. It doesn’t hurt to be a responsible human being.
Dear Yehudis,
The question is what degree of truth should automatically be attached to chazal’s statements. The rishonim discussed this matter. Your not saying anything revolutionary, or demonstrating any particular insight.
If you have a problem with trashing the planet, than there are many egregious polluters to go after. If a poster recycles or does not, is between him/her and his/her local ordinances.
n0mesorah, of course I’m not saying anything revolutionary. Which is why I find it disturbing that there are people who are so agitated by my views on this. I am not particularly perturbed at people who don’t recycle. What I was most upset about was the carelessness demonstrated by a poster who suggested we can do whatever we want to our planet without global consequence. This poster has claimed to be someone in a teaching position, which further frightens me, to think that these dangerous views are being given over to others. I actually do contribute monetarily to organizations that aid in reforestation and fight mass producers of pollution.
Yehudis, I addressed the other rishonim who argue with rabbeinu tam; it’s you who omitted his shitah. They never said that chazal wrote conclusions in gemara which are wrong. The only rishon who may have said that there are statements in chazal which are wrong at the end of the day is rabbeinu avrohom Ben harambam, but even he didn’t address directly when chazal darshen a pasuk. That opinion in either way was rejected by rishonim and achronim across the board, and was deemed “assu to say” during the slifkin affair.
Contrary to nomesorah’s claim that it’s not “revolutionary”, the slippery slope you went down where you can reject other things chazal say is totally, unequivocally baseless, and there has not been a single shitah ever who says that they said hashkofa things that were based on their time and place.
Dear Avira,
Without heavy influence from some misinformed maskil, why would chazal only be truthful when darshaning a possuk? Similarly, who is the one to decide when a gemara has conclusions and when it is not? You completely missed this point a hundred times. But let’s try a hundred and one.
You do not believe one bit of chazal to be truthful. You demand for yourself the right to arbitrate every word of every talmid chacham ever. And if no arbitration is possible you just write him off completely.
Sorry for the strong words. I’m hoping my point is clear, now. The fact is that there are yeshiva guys saying Slifkin is an apikorus and also chazal had some silly idea that we could eat bugs in fish.
Many great people wrote long essays on how to approach the pursuit of the truth. If a learning guy has no interest in that then fine. It seems like a contradiction, but it is his life. If he is so insecure about his own objectivity, that’s his own issue. Nobody should abandon the truth, because somebody else is afraid of it.
If this whole pilpul shell hevel was true, than why couldn’t the Rambam and Ramban address it in the shoroshim? And the blatant fact is, that they both wrote about believing chazal dozens of times. And they do not have your dogma. Not one drop of it. They talk about proof and evidence and ??? the last part they do not call it trusting chazal, get ready for this. They call it some funny word….. EMES.
Why do we pasken like Beis Shamai in the future? Currently we don’t understand their stringencies but leosid lavo we will gain a new understanding such that the majority will follow them.
Nom – i don’t see anything to respond to in that diatribe. I answered your claims and yehudis’, but im not going to argue about whether or not chazal are emes. They are. The rambam says if you disagree with them (mach’chish magideah) you’re an apikores.
Dear Avira,
Mach’chish magideah means to reject them as the transistors of Torah. It’s intrinsic to the phrase. Your stretching it.
Macchish doesn’t mean reject. It means to disagree with, like when there’s hacchasha by adim
You know why I “forgot” to include Rabbeinu Tam’s radical interpretation of that gemara? Because I was stating the pashut pshat, backed by the majority of commentaries on the topic: namely, that Rebbi freely admitted that the secular philosophers were correct in regard the issue of the movement of the sun. It’s not apikorsus to say that the holy Tanaaim, Amoraim, Rishonim, or Acharonim were people. People can, and do, make mistakes. That doesn’t disqualify everything else they’ve ever said. It actually makes them more relatable, more human, and more inspirational. Putting them all on this untouchable pedestal strips them of their humanity. Tanach is full of stories of our greatest leaders making mistakes, for a reason.
It’s actually funny you talk about a “slippery slope”, because that is exactly how I’d describe your attitude about the “Godly” status of of Rabbanim across the centuries (even including such recent ones as Rav Hirsch) and their inability to make mistakes. That, my friend, is indeed a slippery slope toward avoda zarah, not to mention a severe slight against our own abilities as well as a logical fallacy.
Clearly, you have no intention of changing your views and would like to continue preaching that we can destroy the world as much as we want without consequence. I will stop wasting my time talking with you, and will spend more time trying to clean up our planet after edited like yourself.
Have an eco-friendly shabbos.
You’ve yet to bring a single source among rishonim or achronim who advocate dismissing or even questioning chazals statements about hashkofa, worldview, human nature (chazakos), or anything else besides certain scientific pronouncements. That is the view of the conservative movement and it was simply ripped from maskilim, no one else.
Even the physical scientific statements being questionable, were only held of by one rishon who was before hisgalus hakabalah (achronim use kabalah to explain many stiros) and since has not been followed by achronim, not even mentioned at all by the gaon, shach, taz, magen avrohom..all of whom, for instance, allow killing lice on shabbls…the only achron who quoted it was the sefardi Pachad Yitzchok, who was rebuked by his rebbe for invoking it.
Donating money to environmentalism is a good way to fool yourself into thinking you’re doing tzedaka when you’re squandering the opportunities you’re given.
I don’t believe in “trashing” the planet. I believe in living chayei teivel – i drive a car, don’t think much about recycling, eat beef, and live without caring about what climatologists say I should do. I slso don’t believe in violatinf bal tashchis, so i try to use up my resources and not waste, but not because of environmental concerns…i do it because of the mitzvah which is intended to discourage ingratitude.
Rabbeinu tam is hardly a radical opinion. It relates to the machlokes gaonim and rishonim regarding when tzeis hakochavim is; many would agree to rabbeinu tam.
How are you qualified to be mach’riah between rishonim? My point was that you misstated the sugya by avoiding one of the main rishonim which doesn’t fit into the picture you were trying to paint. Unlike my explanation which was universal. The rashba for instance, writes clearly that chazal are always right about science, and deals with the gemara in question.
Many say the pshat i mentioned (which you did not address, because it’s a strong ta’anah) that there’s a difference between chazal’s conclusions and the ideas they had to begin with, like hava amina’s. Hava amina’s are discarded routinely; if chazal admitted to the chachmei umos haolam, it was their conclusion (which happens to be scientifically correct!) But whatever was the maskanah and was in the finished chasimas hatalmud, is authoritative.
I also mentioned, which nomesorah derided but did not address(and neither did you) that even rabbeinu avrohom did not speak about chazal’s description of physical realities when pesukim are darshened, like the gestation period of a snake.
Also, besides the RCA’s decision to endorse environmentalism, we have no one on record who says to watch out for the environment.
Another point to be made is that chazal speak openly about how dangerous things that are done by a large amount of people are not actually dangerous – this is based on shomer pesayim Hashem. To an uninitiated, if something is poisonous, then the alarm must be sounded – how can chazal let people do things that are sakanah!??!
The answer is that danger depends on how much Hashem makes something dangerous, like every other physical existence. Since a lot of people do something, the danger that scientifically would exist ceases to be effective, because like I said earlier, a person being damaged by, say, playing in traffic, is due not to being in traffic, but a punishment for violating the mitzvah of venishnartem.
When something is not done by a multitude, like meat and fish, the sakanah is there and if someone does it, there’s no shomer pesayim Hashem.
So too with environmentalism – even if we were to accept that there is a danger, we’d have a halachik device of shomer pesayim Hashem to rely on that there would not be any damage from, say driving our cars and so on.
@N0 mesorah
I’m not understanding what you’re saying to @avira.
I get what he and yehudis are discussing; I’m familiar with both approaches, although avirah seems to be taking his position further than I’ve seen before. I need to think about his approach more, and look things up inside, before I respond to him.Yehudis’ s approach also is straightforward and not rlrevilutionary (according to that shita to which she is ascribing). If you believe that science is correct, and make a distinction between chazal’ s Torah and their observations, then of course we need to be more conscientious of the environment.
But I’m not sure what you’re adding to the discussion.
It sounds like you’re accusing avirah of not believing chazal and arbitrating truth. What do you mean by that? Isn’t he claiming that chazal is true? This is where I’m confused.Dear Avira,
Hmmmm. I hear you. But I’m not convinced.
Anyways, the Rambam is intrinsic to disagreeing or denying the Torah of the Chachamim. It’s not saying that you lose your olam haba because you had a raiya that they were mistaken.
Avira > how dangerous things that are done by a large amount of people are not actually dangerous – this is based on shomer pesayim Hashem.
Maybe this is an explanation: why is Hashem protects peshayim and, presumably, does not protect people who know better? The fact that knowledgeable people are not protected means that the danger is present and presumably a smart person would have to avoid it. BUT, how would a simple person know a difference between a true and a false danger (false positives). He can trust his senses on obvious dangers when he sees a tiger or a car damaging a victim, but what about remote dangers where connection between cause and effect are not obvious. So, if you tell a simpleton to beware these, he’ll fall prey to all kind of superstitions, rumors, environmental propaganda. His life will be consumed in avoiding black cats and plastics. He will be advised to spend his time doing maasim tovim. If every climate protester would simply bring food to the neighboring elderly, the world be better, and cooler, of. What do you think?
Is shomer peshayim Hashem discussed in S’A or other sources, or is it just an asmahta for irresponsible behavior? I hope the former, and I have a bunch of questions, any sources on this?
1) who is pashut enough. For some reason, a lot of humble people are claiming an honor when it excuses them some simple inconvenience, while same people would ask for a shishi otherwise.
2) Is pashut about intellectual abilities or separate by area of knowledge? If R Kamenetsky claimed it, even if for a minute, reluctant to quit smoking, maybe the latter
3) We learn from Avimelech who was not polite to Avraham starting conversation by asking about Sarah. If he were to claim he did not learn derech eretz, the answer is – Avraham was teaching about it and he had a chance to enroll. So, if someone has intellectual ability, he might not have an excuse to not find out how cholesterol works or whatever. Maybe one can claim that he is too busy with learning and chesed.
4) Does this work when the danger also affects others, such as dangerous driving, coughing, ? Can I be pashut on behave of others? Do they also have to be pashut,, or can I endanger life of professor or a Talmid Chacham I am driving, or who might be driving near me? What if I will be protected but they will not and I become a murderer? Or will my protection convers them like a comprehensive insurance policy?
Whatever one may choose to believe with respect to the Ebeshter’s “long-term plan” for the the olam he created, there are frequently immediate adverse environmental effects of human actions ( or shorter-term cumulative effects) that pose risks of pikuach nefesh and/or material property loss that make it insanity to rely upon some abstract notion of “shomer pesayim Hashem” to inoculate them from those effects. Nor are we permitted to “dump our garbage” on the goyim and simply ignore the adverse consequences we impose on others.
Gadol – normal activities are shomer pesayim Hashem; we’re not obligated to follow the opinions of climatologists, there’s no source or mesorah for it. Doctors, which have a pasuk of rapo yirapeh, should be heeded when they say something is dangerous.
Dear Avira,
We should follow the truth. What is so hard to understand about that?
And the truth is that is not what the passuk tells about doctors. In your realm, you just gave faith to doctors as opposed to trust.
The RCA has now found another wacky hole to jump into by becoming environmentalists? They find one left-wing cause or another to ingratiate themselves with the liberals every few years.
I highly doubt Rav Hirsch was wrong, more like Avira is misquoting him.
Chanan….or he was right, and lo ra’inu ainoh rayah. Not seeing isn’t a proof.
Nomesorah – what truth am i not following? We’re not achrai to delve into how the environment can be damaged. We’re commanded to investigate and guard our health, and even then, there is an approach to not investigating…some things are better left samui min ha’ayin, and hezek won’t come from it. Rav moshe said that about dor yeshorim, not as a ruling against it, but as an idea to not require it. He did not use their services, nor does his family.
And yes, reality is determined by the pesukim and even by what chazal say. We go to doctors because the Torah says we can wnd ahould.
Remember besulim chozrim?
Avira > we’re not obligated to follow the opinions of climatologists, there’s no source or mesorah for it.
n0 > We should follow the truth.I agree with both! We have great mesorah from Gemora that we should use sevorah to make decisions. Sometimes, you can experiment yourself, others – consult experts. In all cases, you need to be critical of what experts are saying and strive for truth. Of course, one should listen to gedolim here – who know halocha and either studied science themselves or can consult sufficient authorities.
Edited. Leave it to the rabbeim to decide who is qualified to pasken.Dear Avira,
Rav Hirsch was using a scientific position which is now known to contradict thousands of known phenomena. This not a questionable matter, as Rav Hirsch himself says that we would discard our theories when they are not in conformation with even one known instance. You should follow the truth that Rav Hirsch was not stating that this is an eternal truth. He was understanding the science based on what he knew from the Torah.
Dear Gefilte,
I’m trying to say that there is a lot more nuance to a statement from chazal than just it’s conclusions. That chazal used the science of their day, as well as a great Chacham can be on the wrong side of the evidence, is not a question to me. It would take a lot more than that, to negate a single statement of any two-bit-talmid chacham. When a statement is preserved for centuries, it is worth putting in the effort to uncover what ever insight can be gleaned, even when the reality of it is in conflict with known phenomena.
No one seems to address this – lo ra’inu aino rayah. Not seeing is not a proof. How can scientists prove that a species is extinct? They can’t. Where does rav hirsch write that we would discard our views if proven wrong scientifically? Rav schwab writes quite the opposite – that if science would disprove a statement in chazal, we would “shecht our reasoning as a korban” in the way avrohom was ready to sacrifice his reasoning for Hashem by akeidas Yitzchok.
Dear Avira,
My argument with you on this topic is that this is not that kind of statement. And if you think it is such a statement, than you should really look into it, and then say “I don’t care about all this evidence. Call me a fool everyday.”
It’s more that just saying such a species is no longer known. It’s tracking almost every one else a species and knowing their entire habitat. This could be parsed a lot. Is the American Jaguar the same species as the Mexican Jaguar? (I’m not sure if I got the right cat. I’m almost sure it has a different name for north and South.) What about when a new species is brought about temporarily? Like a certain type of dog or monkey that is engineered for lab experiments. A few dozen are developed, and are not replaced.
It also has to do with finding fossilized creatures that are no longer known to exist. When we study the historicity of extinction, it is debatable if even species that are common today, can be considered coming from an extinct ancestor. The cows we know today, are in no way similar to the taurus described by the ancients.
The science Rav Hirsch was using, assumed that since a dog did not come from a horse or vice versa there is nothing similar about them. Their brains, nerves, organs, are all different. The only similarity is that they are both animals and can be classified differently than the owl, turtle, or otter. This has been mostly selected. It is now known that there are many similarities in species that have no connection to each other. Some of these are found in a bunch of random creatures and are not found in any of the species that are extremely similar to them. This completely changes the implications of extinction from that it was in Rav Hirsch’s day. It’s not just a lo ra’inu.
As I write this, I realize that maybe I’m stepping on some toes here. Was this one of the Slifkin ‘debates’? I’m to young to know the majority of them. And I find his blog condescending and without much of a point. Most of his questions that he calls obvious proofs are satisfactorily answered with a shrug.
I would tell you what the scientific consensus on this topic is. I’m just unaware of any. Nobody could prove either way if a species is ever really extinct. Wherever the dodo bird came from originally, it could theoretically come from again.
Nomesorah, I’m not sure which is a bigger assumption… Evolution being true itself, or that a hardline anti-everything Yeshiva man would accept it as fact.
Dear Avira,
I purposely avoided the whole evolutionary dialogue. If you aware of how the science of the Genesis shifted in Rav Hirsch’s day, and even more so a hundred years ago, you would know how ideas formed in the old thought system would age into today’s science. Even the atheists don’t think that evolution is anymore a problem for literalists. But still, I carefully avoided it. You seem to be stuck on Rav Hirsch’s scientific knowledge, not just his conclusion.
Now this is just a retort from you, but it is my main point. You can only operate the way you claim to be correct, by controlling the entire narrative. It won’t work for you to accept something you understand to be incorrect to get clarity on a different part of the dialogue. You have to be right everywhere, or else risk being disproven on some point. In sum, you don’t have a concept of truth as a guide. You work on the assumption that the conclusions that we are aware of are the Truth. And that defines the guiding concept by force of it being true.
So this is my problem. The idea that chazal’s conclusions are absolute truth, would require us to accept them as unknowable but true. Or to arrange our knowledge around these accepted truths. The problem is that the Rishonim did not use either method. Rather they had two fountains of flowing into one river of Truth. Knowledge – the five senses, logical deduction, known observation, etc. And the Torah. As in revelation, prophecy, and tradition. When it was unclear to them, they state their dogmas. There many instances of questioning and doubting chazal. None of them insisting that chazal’s conclusions define the truth.
noMessorah: So with all your study of what chazal have brought down and taught us on the relevant subject matter, is it OK for a frum yid to sort the trash into regular and recycling bags on pickup day or is it a bigger mitzvah to avoid the woke solution and to combine all the garbage and drive 25 miles to dump it ourselves in the landfill??
Dear Gadol,
Oh no! The first option will fill this world with mindless trash-sorting zombies and the second will send all the pollution to the world to come. The only way to be maleh all the nitzotzos in our waste is to wash it out well to the point that it is reusable. Than pile it up in a pyramid. Douse with gasoline. And sent it up to the heavens.
GH- when recycling cans were first offered in my city we were all in. Within days we realized that our kitchen had room for only two cans and we filled both with garbage. It wasn’t a physical possibility. Somehow I feel your advice to us would have been to tell us we shouldn’t have had such a big family or that we should buy a bigger house.
aside from the rambam’s statements about astronomy and his son, rabbeinu avrohom’s seeming expansion of it to cover other areas of science, which rishonim question chazal’s conclusions at all? in drush, many do, like the radak and ibn ezra, but they give reasons for doing so. they aren’t saying chazal are wrong, but rather that they must express their 70 ponim latorah understanding which as a rishon, they are entitled to do. after which time, no one else engaged in such study, even in drush, but definitely not in chazal’s statements such as killing lice on shabbos, etc..
you’re parroting online talking points without giving a stitch of evidence, much like your theories on orthopraxy. they’re just hollow. achronim across the board enshrine every word of chazal as torah misinai; check out the beer hagolah from the maharal, gr”a, and tons of others.
Dear Avira,
I’m not parroting anything at all. I see that we agree on what is a higher truth. I’m just not willing that every word of chazal should be considered Torah M’Sinai. And I don’t see the sages of yore thinking differently. I believe that you think your position is Kovod HaTorah. My disagreement is based on that the Torah’s honor becomes dependent on you – the understanding student – being correct at least in the majority of instances.
There is no way for me to know if my argument is getting through to you and ignored. Or if you missed it. Or if you think you answered it. Let’s take this somewhere else. In your last post, you made a claim that the Rishonim do not disagree with Chazal’s conclusion. You also threw in a disclaimer. In your approximation, what statement would a bona fide talmid chacham not proclaim? I’ll respond to that if I agree or know of a universal rishon that makes such a statement.
Avira, gemora generally respects facts and logic. To understand your position better, I would like to see your examples of, say, Amoraim, researching facts and then paskening against the facts. I am sure there are some examples when we “do not believe our eyes”, but let’s analyze what are limits.
For example, there is a discussion between Jewish and Greek scholars whether the world was created and seemingly Greeks won the argument, but Jews are staying with our position due to the strength of the tradition (some of the conclusions may be Tosfos, not fully in Gemorah times).I understand that this is due to the incompleteness of the Greek proof. Were they to be shown a video recording of the eternal world (I guess this would have been an eternal video), they would have agreed.
When something is in the Torah, any scientific evidence to the contrary is disregardes. Torah is an absolute; science is simply not. It’s a handmaid of Torah, not the other way around.
Dear Avira,
I asked you what is the parameters of Torah. What type of statement is absolute truth and cannot be debated?
Anything can be debates internally; as in, what do chazal mean, but chazal’s authority in all areas of philosophy, worldview, psychology, sociology, history, science, etc…are dvar Hashem.
Avira > chazal’s authority in all areas
you have to be more specific on what you mean here. chazal’s authority is collective, of course. We have amoraim presenting a position, but then rescinding it when someone else brings a baraita. This is normal. There are many social takanot that hinge on the result.
Say, R Huna would buy leftover vegetables at the end of the market day. But, now farmers have cellphones and abuse it by quickly sharing the news and bringing more vegetables to sell to R Huna. Will R Huna insist on his minhag or change his policy?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.