Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Granted. But that implies that there is room for argument. In this case, my point was that a statement based on opinion instead of solid proof, although not necessarily discredited, is not strong enough to uproot other opinions.”
It doesn’t have to uproot any opinions. It just makes the Rambam an invalid proof because how can you say that all 66,000 people fall into that category.
Also, note that the Radvaz says
?????? ?????? ?”? ???? ????? ?? ????”? ??? ?????? ?? ????”? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??????
“I posted the source in another feed or Article on this website. Search for it.”
Well I found your source – but I didn’t see the Rambam mentioned at all there.
[mizu]”.
And my original point has not been addressed. The only source that I have seen so far that mentions the Rambam in hilchos shemita v’yovel(before nowadays) (feel free to correct me and provide such sources) is the Biur Halacha in siman 156 where he specifically applies it to yechidim. (Incidentally, would you say that the Biur Halacha is using an emotional argument?)
And that is also only in regards to learning without working, but not about a military exemption – my objection from the lashon wouldn’t apply to the former beacuse the Rambam does say ???? ?? ???”? ??? ?????? ??.
“Patur Aval Assur – I’m not sure why you felt it necessary to answer each point in a separate post. You could have put them all in one post.”
Because when I put it in one long post it takes forever to be moderated (at least that’s what the moderators tell me).
“”By all means, if you provide a source.”
Like I said, (If you don’t believe me look it up) yourself.”
I can’t look it up if you don’t provide me a source where I can look it up.
“In both cases (his argument and yours about 66,000) it is based on feelings, not solid proofs.”
Not every argument is automatically either emotional or a solid proof. There is something in between – a logical argument which may not be a case closing proof. It is very LOGICAL that many of the people under discussion do not fall into the Rambam’s category.
“Good question. I’d like to hear what your definition is.”
I would altogether avoid the term “gadol” with all the confusion that comes along with it and instead I would talk about “tremendous talmidei chachamim”. While there may be no exact definition of this, someone who is holding in shas and poskim would clearly qualify. Once we have established that, I would add that I don’t think that anyone or any group of scholars has a monopoly on Torah – even if we were to somehow rate the top ten torah scholars, that wouldn’t preclude the next ten torah scholars from having an opinion.
“Yes, you have a legitimate argument, but it can also be leart that it is going on the whole previous Rambam. That is why there is a machlokes haposkim on this.”
The Rambam says
??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?”? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ?”? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????…
According to you he should’ve then simply just said ??? ?? ???? ???
why then does he specify
??? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?”? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ???”? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?????
while leaving everything else out?
“Eilu V’Eilu Divrei Elokim Chaim!”
Does this mean that you agree that there is a legitimate shita that Jews should go to the army?
“(I assume you believe in this concept as well.)”
It depends what you mean by it. If you mean that both sides in any machlokes are gospel truth then no. If you mean that both sides are entitled to interpret the Torah as they see fit then yes, but this means that if a position is shown to not fit with the primary sources then it is a flawed position.
Also, although when discussing Shevet Levi, the Rambam specifically mentions that they get a military exemption, when he discusses those who can make themselves like Shevet Levi he doesn’t mention a military exemption. All he says is
??? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?”? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ???”? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?????
“PAA: you quoted Rabbis Aviner and Lichtenstein, both of whom are Zionist”
You are missing the point. I did not quote R’ Aviner for his own opinion. I only quoted him as saying what R’ Isser Zalman Meltzer had said. So unless you are saying that being a Zionist Rabbi removes his credibility…
“We are required to follow the Gedolim.”
This is an entire discussion in its own right and for some reason every time it is attempted to be discussed in the coffee room, it gets closed down.
“One thing is for sure, ALL the Gedolim of today are against the Bnei Yeshivas going into the Army. Rav Drukman, R. Aviner, Rav Stav, and R. Lichtenstein may all be fine Talmidi Chachamim, but they are no where near being Gedolim. Anyone who believes so certainly has never had a relationship with a Gadol.”
What is the definition of “gadol”?
“In truth, it appears to me, that the really reason(s) of not doing army service is much deeper than this discussion on the Rambam.”
As I already said twice, I am not here to discuss whether one should go to the army; I am here to discuss a statement of the Rambam.
“If he sees that Hashem is providing his needs then he can assume that he is L’shem Shamiyim. I’ve meet some many Bnei Yeshivas that can’t explain how they get by, just that every time they need to pay a bill or purchase something, etc. the money just comes (and not from the government).
If Hashem is not behind them than why is he constantly doing miracles for them?”
This phenomenon is not limited to benei yeshivos.
“Furthermore, the answer is simple. The Rambam says
?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? “??? ???? ????” ????
this implies that he decides for himself (not others).”
The Rambam says that anyone can be inspired to reach the level of ??? ?????. How does that indicate that anyone who decides that he is going to go for it is automatically it?
“As far as R’ Aharon Lichtenstein, he is a very nice man, but his arguments are based on feelings, not logic. It is not in his place to decide who is L’shem Shemayim and who is not. Can you go into any Yeshivah and honestly point out who is l’shem Shimayim and who is not? Who gave anyone the right to put a limit on this din? The Rambam didn’t, so how can he say maybe 5%, 10%, etc. It’s a case by case situation.”
What about his argument is not logic? And there is a difference between saying someone is not lesheim shamayim and saying that they are not “sanctum sanctorum, in the Rambam’s terms”. It would not be such a big chiddush that there are not 66,000 people on this level.
“But Rav Avraham Kook zt”l was considered a zionist (at least by the D”L) and he held that those in Yeshivas are Patur from army service and uses the Rambam that you don’t want to recognize. (If you don’t believe me look it up)”
By all means, if you provide a source.
“Why bring up this discussion by Zionist Rabbis, as if serving in the IDF is worth even discussing?”
This thread began as a discussion about army service and became diverted when people started arguing whether working or kollel (or both) is a Jewish ideal. This Rambam was brought up and people have also used this Rambam as a source for army exemption. Anyway, as I said, I was not discussing serving in the army; I was discussing using this Rambam as a source for army exemption. And correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think that R’ Isser Zalman Meltzer was a Zionist Rabbi, and as for R’ Aharon Lichtenstein, if you want to discredit his opinion, it would be more helpful if you addressed his arguments than simply calling him a Zionist Rabbi.
Disclaimer: I am just arguing about a specific source; I am not espousing a position on Kollel or army service.
Also, since many people use this same Rambam as a source for army exemption:
R’ Shlomo Aviner writes (translation)”Ha-Rav Tanenbaum, who was the secretary of the Va’ad Ha-Yeshivot in Israel, heard from Ha-Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer that it is a falsification to claim based on this Rambam that yeshiva students are exempt from military service.”
and R’ Aharon Lichtenstein writes “Even if we grant that the Rambam’s statement does imply a categorical dispensation in purely halachic terms, it remains of little practical significance. We have yet to examine just to whom it applies. A levi is defined genealogically. Those who are equated with him, however, literally or symbolically, are defined by spiritual qualities; and for these the Rambam sets a very high standard indeed. He present an idealized portrait of a selfless, atemporal, almost ethereal person – one whose spirit and intelligence have led him to divest himself of all worldly concerns and who has devoted himself “to stand before God, to serve Him, to worship Him, to know God; and he walks aright as the Lord has made him and he has cast off from his neck the yoke of the many considerations which men have sought.” To how large a segment of the Torah community – or, a fortiori, of any community – does this lofty typology apply? To two percent? Five Percent? Can anyone… confront a mirror and tell himself that he ought not to go to the army because he is kodesh kodashim, sanctum sanctorum, in the Rambam’s terms?”
The Rambam famously paskens:
?? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???. ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ???. ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????. ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???. ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???. ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??????
Many later authorities discuss this psak. The Kesef Mishnah discussses it at lenth. It’s brought up in Shulchan Aruch YD 246 by the Rema and discussed by the commentaries there. The Biur Halacha in siman 231 discusses it etc. etc.
They all either bring dissenting views against the Rambam or argue that the Rambam would agree nowadays (or they accept the psak). None of them mention the Rambam’s famous psak that “one may choose to dedicate his life to learning Torah and rely on Hashem for his parnosa.” which would seemingly be very relevant to the issue they are discussing.
Regarding the Rambam and shechita of tzedukim, the Chazon Ish discusses it in Yoreh Deah Siman 2. R’ Hershel Schachter says it over in a shiur at yutorah entitled “Q and A – Tanach, Textual Differences in the Torah, Deciding Halacha, Choosing a Profession” at around.
“One of the main topics stirred up by the Slifkin affair was the binding nature of Agadda. He, and many others, quote several Rambams in Pirush haMishnayos, which they understand to mean that he won’t pasken divrei Agada. Of course, in Yad HaChazaka he paskens several of those same issues…”
Why are we assuming that the fact that something is written in Yad HaChazaka makes it a “psak”? All it means is that the Rambam feels it to be true. In fact the Tosfos Yom Tov [on the Mishnah in Sotah(3:5)where the Rambam says that he doesn’t pasken these types of things] says exactly what I just said, to answer why the Rambam brought down Rebbe’s position in the Yad HaChazaka.
“The basic problem with the position is that it is very halachically significant to know if someone is a kofer/min etc, and that depends if their beliefs are correct – but the issues of correct beliefs are (mostly) Agada!”
Just because the Rambam couldn’t “pasken” what the correct beliefs are doesn’t mean that he couldn’t determine what they are, and thereby determine who is a heretic.
Ben Levi:
“We believe that the Yeshivos, and the Kollelim that is unparelled in the entire world and is largley chareidi, is what provide’s the zchusim for the combat missions to be successful.
Without them the military would lose, just as the odds in virtuallye very single all out war have said they should lose.”
The amount of Charedim that will be drafted will decrease the amount of people learning by a little bit. It will still be unparalleled in the entire world. How can you know that this will cause the military to lose? The countries that are Israel’s enemies have few if any people learning. So Israel would still completely surpass them in terms of zechuyos. And about the odds – I think we can all agree that with the state (not State) of Israel’s military today the odds are not all that bad and in fact are probably in Israel’s favor. So again how can you know that drafting Charedim will cause Israel to lose in battle?
Disclaimer: I am not expressing an opinion on the draft; I am merely attacking the specific points quoted.
Almost all the meforshim define argaman as red not purple. (Perhaps one could argue that they didn’t have a good Hebrew word for purple.)
However, Philo and Josephus who saw the argaman of the Bais Hamikdash, describe it as purple.
If it is in fact purple, then it almost definitely comes from Murex snails. Even if it’s red it could come from Murex snails.
Also, this is all assuming that Techeiles is blue. But the Chavos Yair says that Techeiles is purple, and the Yerushalmi and several midrashim, imply that Techeiles is green.
And sources that say that Chazal got all their science from Torah/Mesorah are irrelevant to the point at hand. We need sources that grant that the science can be wrong but that it’s kefira to say that Chazal based the halacha on the science.
Ben Levi: When I say “exact source/quote” I mean an actual sentence so that I don’t have to peruse through entire seforim to find what you are referring to. Every source that I quoted here, I pasted the exact quote.
Also I asked you to explain why it is kefira. Can you, or can you not?
Ben Levi:
“I have stated quite clearly that I am not foolish enough to try and render an opinion on certain things.”
I am not asking for YOUR opinion. I am asking you to explain what the kefira is. From our previous exchanges it seems that you acknowledge that there is support for the claim about Chazal vs. science. It seems then that you are objecting to the application of this idea. Are you capable of explaining why this application is kefira? If yes then please do(and if you quote any sources please give an exact source/quote as I have done). If you cannot explain why it is kefira, then why are you debating me?
“Again in this entire disccusion there has not been a single opinion cited that follow’s Slifkin’s approach.
None.
I have cited numerous opinion that unequivacly denounce it.”
As I have already explained, there are two parts to his approach. Regarding the first part (about scientific fallibility) I think I provided enough support. The second part of his approach (that the halacha doesn’t change once Chazal codified it), you have called kefira. I’m awaiting your explanation of why this is kefira.
You did not answer either of my questions.
1) Do you agree that I have provided ample basis for the notion that Chazal may have relied on faulty science?
2) Assuming that Chazal did rely on the aforementioned science, we need to decide how to apply the halacha. R’ Dessler says that the halacha wasn’t based on the science. The Dor Revii says that the halacha can’t change once it was codified by Chazal. R’ Slifkin adopts the latter position. What about this position is kefira?
And he doesn’t “unequivocally condem” this approach nor does he say that it is “illegitimate”.
Ben Levi:
R’ Slifkin does not use R’ Dessler as a source for his reasoning why the halacha does not change. He uses R’ Dessler as a source that Chazal’s scientific statements can be incorrect. I thing I have brought enough sources to show that it is not kefira to say that Chazal based themselves on the science/scientists of their time (and therefore can be scientifically incorrect). So that means that you are claiming that the kefira aspect is that granted the science may be wrong, it is kefira to say that the halacha was based on the science. If I have accurately summed up your position, then please explain why this is would be kefira as well as explain why Chazal bothered to research the science. If I have not accurately summed up your position then feel free to correct me.
“I took exception to that and stated it was because the sum totality of what he wished to suggest is indeed Kefira.”
So you are agreeing that there is no problem with R’ Slifkin’s shitta, but one side result of his shitta is kefirah. That is progress. But your explanation of why it’s kefira is that it doesn’t follow R’ Dessler’s view. How does that make it kefira? Especially keeping in mind that the Dor Revii said it and the Pachad Yitzchak suggested taking it even a step further.
And again your point about R’ Nadel is irrelevant. He explicitly said that the Rambam’s shitta was that science was not fully developed in the time of Chazal which may have led to mistakes. He might not hold this way himself, and he might not want anyone to know that the Rambam said this, but he definitely understood the Rambam this way.
Ben Levi:
I think you are very much confusing the ikkar and the tafel. The reason why R’ Slifkin wrote his books, is to deal with contradictions between Chazal’s scientific statements and scientific reality. His shitta is that there we don’t need to uphold Chazal’s scientific words. Now it happens to be that once you reach this conclusion, a question presents itself: What do we do when an incorrect scientific statement was made in the context of a halachic ruling. There are very few people who discuss this. R’ Dessler says that the halacha is not based on the science. If anything, this is the shitta that needs explaining, because if Chazal’s halachic rulings were all from a mesorah or something of the sort, why do we find that Chazal researched the science? Now the Dor Revii explicitly argues with R’ Dessler’s approach by saying that we can’t change any halacha after the chasimas hatalmud and he understands this to be the Rambam’s view. He compares this to the Sefer Hachinuch who says that to preserve the Torah it’s better to allow a few mistakes. Additionally, the Pachad Yitzchak suggested to change the halacha so he obviously wasn’t such a fan of R’ Dessler’s approach. So R’ Slifkin had to choose an approach and mistama he chose the one that resonated best with him. So how exactly is this beyond the pale?
Ben Levi:
To summarize:
I quoted the ?????? ??? ??????, the ??? ????, the ???? ??????, ?????? ???????, the ???? ??????, the Gemara in ???, the Gemara in ???????, the Gemara in ?????, the Maharatz Chayes, the ??? ?????, R’ Shamshon Refael Hirsch, R’ Gedaliah Nadel (incidentally, the fact that it wasn’t meant for publication – if that’s even true – does not change the fact that this is how he understood the Rambam), R’ Aryeh Carmell, ?’ ???? ???? ???????, the ??? ?????, and the ???”? ???. Your response was that the ???? ?????? is an invalid source, that there’s a machlokes about medicine, that R’ Avraham ben Harambam is a forgery, and that R’ Gedaliah Nadel was not meant for publication. I think I already adequately addressed all your responses. So again, what point am I missing?
Ben Levi:
You say that I am missing the point. R’ Slifkin has posited that a scientific statement made by Chazal was not necessarily culled from the infallible Torah, and it may be incorrect. This has no bearing on halacha. You have said several times that R’ Slifkin has no leg to stand on and has no basis. I provided quite a few sources that indeed show such a basis. You are entitled to believe whatever you want, but you are not entitled to say that everyone always held this way, when I have showed that this is not true. So what point am I missing?
???? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???”? ?????”? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ??”? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????. ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??”? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ??”? ?????? ?”? ?????? ???? ??? ??”? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ?”? ?????? ????? ????? ?????”? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ???”? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????. ???? ?? ???? ??”? ????’ ?? ???????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ????”? ????? ?? ??? ???”? ?????? ??? ?????? ????:
(????? ??????? ???”? ???, ??? ????, ????? ?)
And:
???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ??”?: ???? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ???’ ??”? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????????? ????? ????? ????”? ???”? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ??”? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?”?: ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?”? ???’ ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?”? ??? ??? ?”?: ?”? ????? ?”? ???? ???’ ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ?”?. ?”? ????? ?’ ?? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ????? ??? ?”? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ????????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??”? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?”? ???? ????”? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ????, ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?????
(?’ ???? ?????, ??? ?????, ?????? ?, ??)
How about some more sources:
??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???????’ ????? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?????’ ????’ ?? ????? ????? ?”? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????’ ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???????? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????. ????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????’ ??????’ ???? ??????? ??????’ ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?????????? ????????’ ????? ????? ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ????????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??’ ??”? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???’ ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?????????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??
(??”? ?????? ?’, ???? ???? ???????, ???? ????, ???? ??)
And:
In some non-halachic matters, however, such as medicine and other scientific areas, as we learnt from Rambam and his son Rabbi Avraham and other distinguished Rishonim, on the whole the science of our Sages was what was generally known in their time.
(Rabbi Aryeh Carmell “Freedom to Interpret”)
For example:
(?’ ????? ???, ?????? ?? ?’ ?????)
Ben Levi:
Why oh why do you insist on giving the same response to every point that is made – that RSRH blasted the Moreh Nevuchim. This is so irrelevant. The fact is that RSRH explicitly stated that Chazal got science from the science/scientists of their times and that their science can be wrong. I have no problem if you want to throw the MN out of Judaism, but there are plenty of sources even without it as well as plenty of sources who quoted the MN as support for this position.
“Rav Dessler emphasized in detail exactly the opposite of Slifkin. Rav Dessler emphasized Halacha does’nt change because Halacha was not based on the science, Halacha was based on Mesorah and in Rav Dessler’s view chazal were merely suggesting reason’s based upon the modern day science.”
You are completely missing the point. R’ Dessler acknowledges that the science can be wrong although the halacha cannot because the halacha is not determined by the science. R’ Slifkin also says that the halacha is correct, but he explains this using the reasoning of the Dor Revii. R’ Dessler and the Dor Revii both are acknowledging that the science can be wrong, but they give different reasons as to why the halacha doesn’t change. R’ Slifkin, for his own personal views has to choose one of these reasons. So he chooses the reason of the Dor Revii, probably because that reason resonates with him more. So I don’t see what the problem is.
Daas Yochid:
You say that this compromise is absolute nonsense, yet I just quoted R’ Dessler and the Dor Revii who posited such a compromise. I didn’t include that part of the text of the Dor Revii before so here it is now:
?????? ????????, ??? ??? ????? ???? ??????”? ???? ??? ??????, ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????, ????? ???? ?? ???? ????, ?????? ?????? ?????? ????, ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ??????, ?? ???? ????, ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???, ??? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???, ??? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????, ????”? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???, ?????? ????? ?? ?????, ????’ ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?????, ??? ????? ?”? ?????? ?”? ?”? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ??, ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?????, ??”? ????”? ??”? ???’ ????? ??’ ?”? ??”? “???? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ???, ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????????, ??????? ????? ???? ???? ?????, ???? ????’, ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????, ??”? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ????’ ???, ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?”? ????? ??? ?????” ??”? ????
…
???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ????, ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????”? ???? ??????, ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??”? ??????? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ???????, ??? ?? ????? ????? ????, ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???, ???? ???? ???? ????”? ????”? ?????? ????? ??”?
Also note that the Dor Revii is saying that this was the Rambam’s view.
You further claim that he misreads his sources. So please provide alternate readings for the sources that I quoted.
I would just like to emphasize:
(Although I am not defending R’ Slifkin’s views) R’ Slifkin doesn’t say that the halacha is wrong. He says that Chazal may have made scientific errors (which caused them to pasken the way they did) but whatever they paskened is halachically binding.
Ben Levi:
Your most recent comments again do not accurately reflect R’ Slifkin’s views. He has acknowledged dozen’s of times that the halacha does not change even when the science behind the halacha is wrong. So this fits with R’ Dessler and your point about a halachic ruling about lice is completely irrelevant.
continued
Now regarding the pachad yitzchak, the “trepidation” was about changing the halacha. He took it for granted that the scientific fact was wrong. And R’ Dessler as well, merely said that the HALACHA is correct, which in fact is something that R’ Slifkin has said numerous times in his books and blogs, so I’m not sure what the issue is.
continued
It is also interesting to note that one of your recurring attacks on R’ Slifkin is that he dared to theorize that Chazal got scientific knowledge from Pliny. Well in fact your hero, R’ Shamshon Refael Hirsch said basically the exact same thing:
?????? ??????? ??? ??”?, ??? ???? ????, ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????, ?? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????, ??? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????. ???? ???? ???, ?? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????, ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????, ??????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???????, ??? ?????, ??? ?? ???’ ??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ???’, ??? ??? ????? ????? ????, ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ?????, ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ??????. ??? ?? ???? ??? ???’ ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????, ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?”? ?????? ??????? ?????, ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????, ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??, ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????, ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????. ?? ??”? ?????? ??????? ????. ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ????, ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???”? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ???????
??? ?????, ?? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ?????, ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????, ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????, ?? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??????, ??????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????, ????? ???”? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???, ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??”? ?????? ?????, ?? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??????, ??? ????? ???? ???”? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????, ????? ??? ????? ????? ???????, ??? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ????. ??? ?? ????? ??”? ?????: ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????, ???? ???? ????, ????????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????, ??”?: ?????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ????, ??? ???”? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????. ??? ???”? ????, ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ??”? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????. ?????? ???”? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ??”? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ?????, ??????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??”? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????
continued
As can clearly be seen, you are disputing the claim that Chazal got scientific knowledge from the science/scientists of their time, and you are disputing the claim that Chazal’s scientific statements were incorrect (or you say that Chazal purposely said incorrect science but they themselves knew the correct science, but that renders the entire discussion irrelevant because no one is trying to prove that Chazal were stupid; only that their scientific statements may not reflect scientific reality).
I brought several sources that explicitly say that Chazal got scientific knowledge from the science/scientists of their time. These cannot be a “minority opinion because two of the sources were from the Gemara. (If you wanted you could have employed R’ Meiselman’s theory that there is a difference between definitive statements and non-definitive statements, but nowhere in this thread did you do so.)
Ben Levi:
I wrote a rather lengthy response to you several hours ago which didn’t get put up. I’ll assume because it was too long, so I broke it up into several smaller posts.
The following are quotes from YOU in this thread:
“However that is not because Chazal were limited only to the knowledge that science had in thier day” “Actualy the opinion of many is not that Chazal did not write down many things based on the science of their time, rather it is whether they knew that was wrong and merely intended to use it to encrypt “Pardes”.” “An Ex. is Slifkin using RSRH letter on Aggadita to justify stating Chazal only knew the science of their times” “Slifkin disputes it, The Rambam that I qouted you from Chelek states that anyone who thinks Chazal were limited to the knowledge of their day is a fool” “You are entitled to “beleive” what you wish, however Slifkin has made clear that in his opinion Chazal knew no more then contemporary scientists when it came to scientific matters and in one of the books I read from him he theorizes that they derived their knowledge from Pliny the Elder” “And the relevance to Slifkin is quite simple a core principle of Slifkin’s philosophy (there are several, this is one of them) is that we in fact no more then Chazal” “He feels he has a better understanding of science then Chazal and they were simply wrong in many of thier statements, in fact if I recall correctly the position he takes in one of his books is that Chazal derived thier knowledge from Pliny the Elder.” “he states quite clearly that in his view Chazal got their knowledge from Pliny” “And I would add that I have studied these matters and I can pretty confidently state that there is virtually no source that adopts the approach he takes” “There is virtually no one who endorses his approach or his conclusions.”
And while we’re at it:
??? ????? ??? ??”? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????, ???? ??? ??”? ??? ????, ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??”? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????
(??? ?????, ?????, ?????)
Ben Levi:
I’m not sure why you are making this an argument about R’ Slifkin’s views. Nowhere in this thread did I profess support for him or his views. The only thing that I was doing was refuting claims that YOU made (in this thread) about Chazal’s knowledge of science.
To that end I quoted two Gemara’s that explicitly acknowledge that Chazal got scientific knowledge from non-torah sources, and a gemara in which there is a scientific machlokes in which the gemara uses a scientific (i.e. observable reality) argument to show which position seems to be correct (ayen Maharsha sham).
I also quoted the Maharatz Chayes who says that Chazal’s knowledge in these areas was according to the science of their time.
I also quoted you R’ Dessler who granted that the scientific statements of Chazal may have been inaccurate but the halacha doesn’t change.
I also quoted you the Pachad Yitzchak who said that Chazal’s scientific statement has been proven wrong and he even suggested that the halacha should change.
I also quoted a teshuvah from R’ Sherira Gaon which says that Chazal were not physicians and their medical statements were based on the medicinal procedures they observed in their time.
I also quoted the ?????? ??? ?????? which explicitly says that Chazal’s scientific statements must have been based on the science of their time, for we see that they said things which are ????? ????.
And I quoted the Moreh Nevuchim which explicitly says that Chazal made statements based on the science of their time.
In response to all this you said that the Moreh Nevuchim is a pasul source and that the ?????? ??? ?????? quoted R’ Avraham (which I pointed out was only for one point), and that the reason why we don’t follow Chazal’s medical advice is a machlokes. (The fact that it is a machlokes has no bearing on the reason R’ SHerira Gaon gave.) I fail to see how this is an adequate response.