Igros Moshe (Y.D. 3:115): When the manuscript was sent to me I saw in it another matter. The wicked had intended to weaken the prohibition of homosexuality. First of all by raising the question as to why the Torah prohibited it. This itself is a great evil and it weakens the prohibitions to the wicked with this disgusting lust. In fact it is one of the greatest abominations that even the nations of the world know that it is an incomparable abomination. Therefore there is no need for any rationale to explain why it is an abomination that the whole world despises. The world already holds that the transgressors of this sin are disgusting and are not members of civilization at all. So when a reason is sought for this prohibition, this removes the obscenity from it. It removes the embarrassment, shame and disgrace and completely downplays the seriousness of this issue. Furthermore the answer - given in this manuscript to this question - is that the prohibition is in order to ensure that men will marry women and fulfill the obligation to have children. This further diminishes and weakens the prohibition. It is equivalent to saying that there is in this issue no sexual prohibitons at all but that the reason is just to ensure observance of the positive command to reproduce - which is not viewed as important by the world. These views are prohibited to publish. just as if they were outright heresy, since they represent a view which is contrary to the view of the Torah….
It might be worthwhile to mention the context of this teshuva:
ReplyDeleteRav Moshe is claiming that the then recently-discovered Torah commentary of R. Yehuda HaHasid is a heretical forgery (or, at least, that those sections which R. Moshe thinks are heretical are forgeries) and therefor its publication should be banned.
As a matter of fact, no evidence of forgery has ever been found and there is ample support for its authenticity.
What emerges from all this is that Rav Moshe is actually accusing Rav Yehuda Ha Hasid himself of being a heretic who's work should be banned.
Very interesting. Despite the title, R' Moshe doesn't seem to be saying that the reason for the issur of homosexuality is "obvious". He's saying that since homosexuality is universally reviled, even in non-Jewish society, a publication of reasons for the issur is counterproductive to the more important goal of keeping people from taking the sin lightly.
ReplyDelete"The world already holds that the transgressors of this sin are disgusting... So when a reason is sought for this prohibition, this removes the obscenity from it."
It is clear that in the communities where many Jews live today, there is no longer a general consensus that homosexuality is repulsive and wrong. My hunch is that given today's situation, where people are lacking in the automatic and visceral aversion towards homosexuality, R' Moshe will have a more favorable attitude towards a discussion of the ideas behind the Torah's prohibition.
As a matter of fact, no evidence of forgery has ever been found and there is ample support for its authenticity.
ReplyDeleteWhat emerges from all this is that Rav Moshe is actually accusing Rav Yehuda Ha Hasid himself of being a heretic who's work should be banned.
==========================
Your assertion needs to be documented
use the following link to see a discussion of the issue
http://www.aishdas.org/midrash/5765/Balak.htm
"Your assertion needs to be documented"
ReplyDeleteProf. Marc Shapiro has written extensively on this topic in several postings on the Seforim Blog. Here is but a single quote:
"[3] R. Moshe also detected a forgery in that R. Yehudah he-Hasid asks why homosexuality is forbidden, and then explains that the prohibition is to ensure that men procreate. According to R. Moshe, even asking such a question, and offering such a weak explanation, is a sign that the passage was not written by R. Yehudah he-Hasid but by a gay-friendly subversive. Yet as R. Chaim Rapoport points out, R. Yehudah he-Hasid is also quoted saying the same thing in the medieval Moshav Zekeinim al ha-Torah. Furthermore, the explanation he offers is also found in Ramban, Sefer ha-Hinnukh and Radbaz. See Rapoport, Judaism and Homosexuality: An Authentic Orthodox View (London, 2004), pp. 155-156"
http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2007/8/2/Marc-B-Shapiro--Forgery-and-the-Halakhic-Process
The truth is that giving a reason for the prohibition itself is demeaning. Does the entire torah need a reason? Why just homosexuality?
ReplyDeleteI would say that besides monotheism, sexual morality is something that Judaism brought into the world. Ancient civilization was rife with socially excepted homosexuality so the fact that the torah prohibited this in itself was an enlightenment.
Furthermore, the explanation he offers is also found in Ramban, Sefer ha-Hinnukh and Radbaz.
ReplyDelete=======================
I assume that Rav Moshe was well aware of these sources.
Chinuch (#209): Is a prohibition not to have sexual relations with males (Vayikra 18:22): And the male should not lie with the lying of a woman - it is an abominations. Rambam wrote that this prohibition is repeated in another place as it says (Devavrim 23:18): “There shall not be any kadesh amongst the children of Israel.” He apparently doesn’t agree with Onkelos that that is referring to relations with a non Jewish maidservant. Rather he says that it is an extra prohibition against homosexuality like we find with many sins that they are repeated in different words. I also saw that the Ramban also does not agree with Onkelos but says that this prohibition in Devarim is not to have a male prostitute amongst us since we are a holy people. This is referring to a man who is available to have sexual intercourse with males as is found amongst the Arab countries even until today…. The root of this mitzva is because G d wants the world which He created to be settled. Therefore He commanded that one should not destroy one’s seed in homosexual relations. Homosexual relations are truly a waste of seed since there is no possibility that it will produce offspring and it doesn’t fulfill the mitzva of sexual relations with a wife. That is in addition to the fact that this is truly disgusting and very repellent in the eyes of all intelligent people. Man was created to serve his Creator and not to do disgusting deeds like this….
this is acknowledging the inherent repulsiveness of the sin and that it is a sexual sin - and at the same time stating that it interferes with G-d's purpose in settling the world.
Rav Moshe was concerned that the document was removing it from the category of innately repulsive sexual sin and reducing it to a simple motivation to have children.
The Chinuch clearly doesn't do such a thing and thus is not a proof against Reb Moshe's position.
רמב"ן ויקרא פרק יח פסוק כב
ReplyDelete(כב - כג) וטעם הזכור והבהמה מפורסם, כי הוא דבר נתעב ואיננו בקיום המינין, כי אדם ובהמה לא יולידו. וכתב ר' אברהם אחר שמצאנו הן שכבתי אמש את אבי (בראשית יט לד), הנה לא תשכב - אזהרה לשוכב ולנשכב. ואם כדבריו, למה לא היתה האשה בכלל ובכל בהמה לא תתן שכבתך, כי הנשים בכלל האזהרות שבכל התורה. אבל טעם שכבתי אמש את אבי, בעבור שהן השוכבות כדי שיצא ממנו הזרע, כידוע שהזרע יבא מן התנועה, או מן הגוף כולו כמו שיתהווה הקצף בפיות הסוסים במרוצתם, או שיתילד בגידים הקרובים משם ויאסף שם בסיבוב התנועה ויצא, ואם לא שכבו אותו לא יצא ממנו זרע כי היה כאבן דומם בשכרותו:
Again the Ramban first says it is repulsive. Don't see that this would raise Rav Moshe's objections.
Support for Rav Moshe's position that it must be viewed as repulsive on a visceral level is a lecture of Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm on homosexuality.
ReplyDelete"It may be, however, that the very variety of interpretations of to'evah points to a far more fundamental meaning, namely, that it is an act characterized as an "abomination" is prima facie disgusting and cannot be further defined or explained. Certain acts are considered to'evah by the Torah, and there the matters rests. It is, as it were, a visceral reaction, an intuitive disqualification of the act, and we run the risk of distorting the Biblical judgment if we rationalize it. To'evh constitutes a category of objectionableness sui generis: it is a primary phenomenon. (This lends additional force to Rabbi David Z. Hoffmann's contention that to'evah is used by the Torah to indicate the repulsiveness of a proscribed act, no matter how much it may be in vogue among advance and sophisticated cultures: see his Sefer Va-yikra, II, p. 54).
RMF is a products of his time and like many others he sees Homosexuality as a sexual behavior not as Identity and condition as it is seen today.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that it is disgusting does not hold water because it is subjective definition, what used to be disgusting is normal now and what used to accepted and normal is disturbing and disgusting today.
For example the gemara talks in great details about intercourse with toddlers, there is even a sugya (nidah 45a) where it is discussed if the blood which comes out of such intercourse is dam nidah or dam besulin (no one even thought to have a takana not to have sex with toddlers).
While today no mainstream Orthodox rabbi [...] will ever give heter to have sex with children it is part nevertheless of the oral torah and a proof for changing perceptions of adjectives such as repulsive atc.
So the people should put sexual behavior of two consenting adults in perspective to having unconsented intercourse with a child.
Rav Moshe was obviously one of the greatest Torah scholars of the modern era, and I have no doubt that he was well familiar with the Ramban, Sefer ha-Hinnukh and Radbaz.
ReplyDeleteBut that is not the point. The point is that Rav Moshe is claiming that the work is a forgery without any textual evidence at all. Rather, he is offering the following logical argument:
1. This work attributed to R. Yehuda HaHasid contains heresy.
2. R. Yehuda HaHasid was a great Rabbi, not a heretic.
Therefore:
3. The work is a forgery.
Problem is, as I already quoted above: "as R. Chaim Rapoport points out, R. Yehudah he-Hasid is also quoted saying the same thing in the medieval Moshav Zekeinim al ha-Torah."
If Rav Moshe had simply said "I strongly disagree with the explanation of homosexuality offered in this work, it is dangerous and should not be published." I would have no objection at all. My objection is only to the totally unfounded claim of forgery.
Monsey Tzadik wrote:
ReplyDeleteWhile today no mainstream Orthodox rabbi [...] will ever give heter to have sex with children it is part nevertheless of the oral torah and a proof for changing perceptions of adjectives such as repulsive atc.
So the people should put sexual behavior of two consenting adults in perspective to having unconsented intercourse with a child.
===================
Your logic is difficult to understand. The Torah itself says it is repulsive. Your argument that the attitude to child marriage is the same as that of homosexuality simply is not a valid Orthodox assertion. However it is readily found amongst Reform and many Conservative Jews.
While it is true that there are things that change over time - saying that an explicit statement in the Torah is out of date is basically kefirah!
If you were simply saying that the perception of society in general has changed and that the Torah - as well as Rav Moshe Feinstein - do not represent the view of secular society - that is definitely true.
Dov said...
ReplyDeleteBut that is not the point. The point is that Rav Moshe is claiming that the work is a forgery without any textual evidence at all. Rather, he is offering the following logical argument:
1. This work attributed to R. Yehuda HaHasid contains heresy.
2. R. Yehuda HaHasid was a great Rabbi, not a heretic.
Therefore:
3. The work is a forgery.
Problem is, as I already quoted above: "as R. Chaim Rapoport points out, R. Yehudah he-Hasid is also quoted saying the same thing in the medieval Moshav Zekeinim al ha-Torah."
==============
The evidence supporting its authenticity - that it was quoted by another sefer - is not much support.
Rav Moshe said very simply - there are a number of problematic statements in the manuscript. R Yehuda HaChasid would not say such statements and so therefore they must have been inserted into his commentary.
This is really not a problematic view. The Chazon Ish also adopts such a view as did Rav Soloveitchik
Ancient manuscripts were often not the original work but were copies of copies or translations. It was fairly simple to add or delete material at a later time.
A similar problem exists with the letter of R' Avraham ben HaRambam. It is a translation by an unknown person from an unknown manuscript. It contains a unique statement regarding Science and Chazal. To build a whole edifice on this statement is problematic.
Igros Kodesh which is ascribed incorrectly to the Ramban (it is not unusually to have misattributions of entire manuscripts) introduced a new view of marital relations. It is widely quoted solely because it was assumed to be the work of the Ramban.
Bottom line - Rav Moshe had every right to be suspicious of a manuscript which introduced hashkofa views which were not main stream. The burden of proof is on the publisher that it is authentic. There is no such principle that a document is authentic unless proven decisively to be a forgery.
"The evidence supporting its authenticity - that it was quoted by another sefer - is not much support."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you mean. Quotes of old books in other old books is exactly how we authenticate them.
I don't deny that claims of forgery are a common way of dealing with texts we don't like. I'm just saying I think it's a bad idea, and disrespectful to authors we claim to hold in high regard.
Dov said...
ReplyDeleteI don't deny that claims of forgery are a common way of dealing with texts we don't like. I'm just saying I think it's a bad idea, and disrespectful to authors we claim to hold in high regard.
====================
In this case Rav Moshe felt it was showing respect to R' Yehudah HaChasid by saying that he could not have said these views.
Fascinating discussion. However, I don't believe that Monsey Tzadik was talking about "child marriage". He is talking about how today, sex with a minor - say a five year old - is viewed as repugnant and disgusting unlike the Talmud's view which treats it as a civil (and therefore financial) matter. He also contrasted consenting adult behavior with one that has a minor as a victim (since she is not a bas daas and cannot consent). Thus he makes a good argument that the definition of toevah has a cultural component. And, yes, I know that this is difficult to square with mainstream Orthodox thought.
ReplyDelete"In this case Rav Moshe felt it was showing respect to R' Yehudah HaChasid by saying that he could not have said these views."
ReplyDeleteThis statement is so oviously false and stupid that R. Eidensohn could never have written it. Someone must have hacked his account and posted it in his name.
That's what you want to call showing respect??
Rav Moshe said very simply - there are a number of problematic statements in the manuscript. R Yehuda HaChasid would not say such statements and so therefore they must have been inserted into his commentary.
ReplyDeleteBut those "problematic" statements are found elsewhere.
This is really not a problematic view. The Chazon Ish also adopts such a view as did Rav Soloveitchik
Please document your assertion.
A similar problem exists with the letter of R' Avraham ben HaRambam. It is a translation by an unknown person from an unknown manuscript. It contains a unique statement regarding Science and Chazal. To build a whole edifice on this statement is problematic.
You first seek to prove an assertion that to assume something's a forgery is not problematic because gedolei yisrael such as the Chazon Ish and the Rav took such an approach -- (btw, R' Yaakov Emden takes this approach towards the Moreh Nevuchim in certain places in his writings. See Dr. J.J. Schachter's essay in the Beerot Yitzhak). Then you seek to say that another approach which has been taken by gedolei, gedolei yisrael is problematic!? See http://torahandscience.blogspot.com/2006/04/sources-indicating-that-chazal-did-not.html
Then you seek to say that another approach which has been taken by gedolei, gedolei yisrael is problematic!? See http://torahandscience.blogspot.com/2006/04/sources-indicating-that-chazal-did-not.html
ReplyDelete===============
You need to be a bit more specific what point you are making. If you wish to get into the issue of Science and Chazal - please articulate your position.
If you wish to get into the issue of Science and Chazal - please articulate your position.
ReplyDeleteI do not understand what is unclear about what I wrote above. We seem to have a communications problem again.
You wrote that the letter of R' Avraham ben HaRambam "contains a unique statement regarding Science and Chazal. To build a whole edifice on this statement is problematic." But other gedolim take his approach and largely use him as a basis for their approach, as documented at the blog I sent you the link to.
Baruch said...
ReplyDeleteYou wrote that the letter of R' Avraham ben HaRambam "contains a unique statement regarding Science and Chazal. To build a whole edifice on this statement is problematic." But other gedolim take his approach and largely use him as a basis for their approach, as documented at the blog I sent you the link to.
==============
I don't have time to read the blog - If you wish to articulate a position for further discussion please do so.
I seem to have a shtickle a case of writers' block recently. I wrote above in regards to R' Yehuda HaChassid's commentary: "But those 'problematic' statements are found elsewhere." I meant to write, "But those 'problematic' statements are found elsewhere in R' Yehuda HaChassid's works."
ReplyDeleteI don't have time to read the blog - If you wish to articulate a position for further discussion please do so.
I'll pass. If you get a chance, I recommend that blog; I think it served as a major basis for the letter R' Slifkin sent to R' Feldman.
A similar problem exists with the letter of R' Avraham ben HaRambam. It is a translation by an unknown person from an unknown manuscript. It contains a unique statement regarding Science and Chazal. To build a whole edifice on this statement is problematic.
ReplyDeleteNonsense on all counts.
It is not an "unknown manuscript." Unlike with R. Yehudah HaChassid, there is widespread acceptance of its authenticity, which was entirely unchallenged for centuries. Most importantly, it is not a unique statement - many such similar statements exist, including in the Moreh. Nobody builds an edifice on just this statement. Haven't you seen http://torahandscience.blogspot.com?
Shlomo M. said...
ReplyDeleteDT: A similar problem exists with the letter of R' Avraham ben HaRambam. It is a translation by an unknown person from an unknown manuscript. It contains a unique statement regarding Science and Chazal. To build a whole edifice on this statement is problematic.
Nonsense on all counts.
It is not an "unknown manuscript." Unlike with R. Yehudah HaChassid, there is widespread acceptance of its authenticity, which was entirely unchallenged for centuries.
============================
DT Rather disingenuous response. Rav Reuven Margolis states that this Hebrew translation was found in the collection of R' Dovid Oppenheim and it is not known who wrote it.
We don't have the original version written by R' Avraham ben HaRambam nor do we know who or how reliable the translator-copyist was.
=====================
Shlomo M: Most importantly, it is not a unique statement - many such similar statements exist, including in the Moreh. Nobody builds an edifice on just this statement. Haven't you seen http://torahandscience.blogspot.com?
DT: From what I have seen this site is a mechanical sorting of statements. It is far from a scholarly work. Simply condescendingly stating "many such similar statements exists" is not much of an intelligent argument. it would be helpful if you stated precisely what these sources said. Who said them, and in what context. Simply referring me to such a website is not very convincing. An anonymous commentators statement isn't very authoritative. An not being challenged isn't prove of authenticity. It just means that it wasn't something that bothered anybody to challenge. Perhaps that was because it was authentic or perhaps because nobody cared.
Whether there are reliable sources that state Chazal are capable of inaccurate statements concerning Science is something I haven't really studied carefully. However you certainly haven't proven your point either that there are.
Margoliyos is hardly the final word on this topic. Look around and you'll find more info.
ReplyDeleteThe website to which I referred has dozens of further sources that say the same thing. Start with Rambam in the Moreh.
My comment was not intended to be either authoritative nor convincing - rather, the texts quoted on that website are.
From what I have seen this site is a mechanical sorting of statements. It is far from a scholarly work.
ReplyDeleteYou mean like "Daas Torah" by D. Eidensohn?
Collections of quotations can be very valuable (as long as they are not taken out of context).
Shlomo M. said...
ReplyDeleteMargoliyos is hardly the final word on this topic. Look around and you'll find more info.
================
Who is the latest word and what does he say that is different?
For starters, try http://torahandscience.blogspot.com/2006/04/rabbeinu-avraham-ben-harambam.html
ReplyDeleteFrom what I have seen this site is a mechanical sorting of statements. It is far from a scholarly work. Simply condescendingly stating "many such similar statements exists" is not much of an intelligent argument. it would be helpful if you stated precisely what these sources said. Who said them, and in what context.
ReplyDeleteDr. Eidensohn, I respect you, but you're not making any sense to me in this thread.
The reason we're referring you to that blog, a list of primary sources, is because that's where you can find what you're asking us for; the source literature and references are there. There's no need for either Shlomo or myself to redo the work that's already been done there.
You'll see there that the approach of R' Avraham ben HaRambam is not "unique" at all, but taken by gedolim throughout the centuries. R' Slifkin included many of these gedolim in his letter to R' Feldman defending this approach.
You wrote that the letter of R' Avraham ben HaRambam "contains a unique statement regarding Science and Chazal. To build a whole edifice on this statement is problematic." In light of the large amount of source literature that we (and I believe R' Slifkin is included in that "we") believe refutes your claim, you haven't shown that it's unique, nor have you shown that anybody built on edifice on this statement alone. Please document your assertion.
Dr. Eidensohn seems to have a dislike for URLs, here's a section from the webpage Shlomo referred to:
ReplyDeleteNote: A prominent Israeli rabbi has challenged the authenticity of this work. Rabbi Natan Slifkin, on his website, notes the following:
The treatise was translated into Hebrew in the 16th century, long before the maskilim came into existence. Fragments of the original Arabic, dating probably from the 14th century, were discovered in the Cairo Geniza. The treatise has been printed in the Ein Yaakov for a long time [over 100 years], without anyone challenging it as being heretical.
I would add that in all that time, no one, or virtually no one, challenged its authenticity. In addition, Rabbi David Sinzheim, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (see below, this section, for both), and Rabbi Shaul Israeli (Perakim Bemachshevet Yisrael, Chap. 21 (Pardes Chana, Israel: Midrashit Noam, 1973/74)) explicitly assumed it to be authentic. See also the post by Rabbi Gil Student at http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2006/07/afikei-mayim-vi_04.html for a detailed discussion of the passage's authenticity.
Baruch wrote: You wrote that the letter of R' Avraham ben HaRambam "contains a unique statement regarding Science and Chazal. To build a whole edifice on this statement is problematic." In light of the large amount of source literature that we (and I believe R' Slifkin is included in that "we") believe refutes your claim, you haven't shown that it's unique, nor have you shown that anybody built on edifice on this statement alone. Please document your assertion.
ReplyDelete=================
From Daas Torah page 158
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemiras HaGuf v’HaNefesh): [Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was asked why the views of R’ Sherira Gaon and the Rambam’s son—that the medical and scientific knowledge of our Sages was that of their times—should be listed as a minority view. He replied:] “At the present I don’t remember whether there was anyone who actually disagreed with their views or even whether anyone has the authority to disagree with them. However, rabbinic authorities typically explain disparities in medical and scientific understanding [between the views of our Sages and contemporary science] as the result in change in nature. They do not utilize at all the reason that medical knowledge has advanced from the time of our Sages. That is why I commented that this view should be classed as a minority view. Especially since concerning the laws of Shabbos, there are rabbinic authorities that permit violating the Shabbos [in certain circumstances that our Sages say are medically dangerous] despite the fact that contemporary doctors assert there is no danger at all.
There are two differences that you are overlooking.
ReplyDeleteR. Shlomo Zalman is talking about contemporary charedi poskim, vis-a-vis physiology, and he is correct - they usually say nishtaneh hateva. However what we are discussing is whether the position with regard to science in general is unique to RABH or shared by many other Rishonim and Acharonim. R. Shlomo Zalman's words are irrelevant, and certainly do not negate the dozens of sources at the aforementioned site.
We seem to be having a communications problem again. The letter doesn't say the view is only R' Avraham ben Harambam's. On the contrary, R' Auerbach also ascribes this view to R' Sherirah Gaon.
ReplyDeleteThe "edifice" we're discussing is whether Chazal are "fallible in science," correct? I'm going to include a section from R' Gellman's letter to R' Feldman:
Yet, once I spoke to a person who is one of the most prominent Roshei Yeshivah in Eretz Yisrael about this issue of our Sages and science. This Rosh Yeshivah, whose name I will not divulge here, answered me in these words, which have stuck in my memory: “I [the Rosh Yeshivah] asked R. Shlomo Zalman this very question. And R. Shlomo Zalman’s answer was: ‘When Mashiach comes several halachot will have to be changed.’” From this we can clearly conclude that R. Shlomo Zalman held that our Sages had erred in some matters of scientific fact, and therefore in the new order of Messianic times certain laws would have to be changed, but until then the integrity of halachah demanded that we be absolutely subjected to the decisions of our Sages, and indeed this was the will of Hashem...rejecting R. Avraham ben Harambam in practical terms would be consistent with accepting his position regarding the truth of the matter, that our Sages were fallible on scientific matters.
It is interesting that Rav Shlomo Zalman would be so reticent to say the words "Chazal made mistakes in science". What do you think that means?
ReplyDeleteHe does however note that these views are ignored.
My original statement was that R' Avraham ben HaRambam "contains a unique statement regarding Science and Chazal. To build a whole edifice on this statement is problematic."
I still stand by that statement which I view as the same as Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's statement.
It is interesting that Rav Shlomo Zalman would be so reticent to say the words "Chazal made mistakes in science". What do you think that means?
ReplyDeleteThat he had a strong sense of self-preservation? Why would he put something in writing that would get him in trouble?
He told R. Aharon Lichtenstein that Chazal made mistakes in science, you can ask him. But in any case, R. Shlomo Zalman may well have been unaware of all the other sources. Furthermore, he was discussing the more limited case of medical matters (although even there, there is also R. Sherira Gaon, which R. Shlomo Zalman was apparently unaware of).
My original statement was that R' Avraham ben HaRambam "contains a unique statement regarding Science and Chazal. To build a whole edifice on this statement is problematic."
I still stand by that statement
I don't know why you still stand by it, in light of the dozens of authorities who say the same thing. Even R. Aharon Feldman acknowledges that R. Sherira Gaon, Rambam and Hirsch say the same thing, and at the aforementioned website you will find many dozens of others.
Shlomo M. said...
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that Rav Shlomo Zalman would be so reticent to say the words "Chazal made mistakes in science". What do you think that means?
That he had a strong sense of self-preservation? Why would he put something in writing that would get him in trouble?
He told R. Aharon Lichtenstein that Chazal made mistakes in science, you can ask him. But in any case, R. Shlomo Zalman may well have been unaware of all the other sources. Furthermore, he was discussing the more limited case of medical matters (although even there, there is also R. Sherira Gaon, which R. Shlomo Zalman was apparently unaware of).
====================
Interesting - you assume that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was afraid to admit the truth in writing. I assume you would also assert that Rav Soloveitchik, Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky, Lubavitcher Rebbe etc etc were also afraid to admit the truth.
Obviously Rav Lichtenstein - who you claim knows the truth - is also afraid to mention this in writing to a Modern Orthodox audience
Simple question - you assert that there is a website full of citations of major rabbis who have claimed that Chazal were fallible in Science and yet you claim that contemporary gedolim are afraid to admit the truth.
Who are they afraid of and why? Who was the last gadol who acknowledged this truth in writing. What happened that made it prohibited to write such thoughts or even simply to teach it.
I am simply not into this issue nor do I have the time. But I am interested in the dynamic of how what you claim is a well recognized view that has been expressed regularly through out the ages - has now apparently becomes heresy.
I assume you read my last comment, considering that you censored it. It is not lashon hara to compare gedolim to the tzaddik I mentioned; indeed, the Rav basically makes this comparison in Kol Dodi Dofek.
ReplyDeleteWho are they afraid of and why?
I can't comment on this particular case, but I can tell you that even in the very recent past gedolim have been afraid of kannaim; I don't really understand all of the dynamics of it myself. My rabbi told me the following, albeit admittedly I'm quoting out of memory and if it mattered to you lmaaseh -- and you gave me a reason why it mattered lmaaseh -- I could ask him permission to let you contact him and get the facts straight:
My rabbi's wife once visited the wife of a certain gadol to ask a question. A bunch of the American gedolim of the time were in the room, discussing how they wanted to matir something but were having trouble figuring out how. My rabbi's wife was confused; they're the gedolim, can't they matir what they want? The answer given to her was that no, they can't, because they're afraid of what the kannaim will do.
(those were all the details my rabbi gave me although he was aware of all the details.)
Oh, and one more type of person the gedolim are sometimes afraid of: other gedolim.
ReplyDeleteI have a transcript of an interview I did with somebody forthcoming that sheds a great deal of light on this issue. I'll email it to you when I'm done with it.
Rav Soloveitchik had no interest in these matters. Rav Kamenetzky was quite naive and probably thought that it was an aberrant (but legitimate) view. The Lubavitcher Rebbe was totally irrational in these things, he said that Rishonim who said that Chazal were mistaken in science, didn't really believe it and wrote it for kiruv! On the other hand, R. Hirsch and R. Herzog z"l, who had expertise in this area, considered that which you call "R. Avraham ben HaRambam's view" to be the normative view.
ReplyDeleteWho do you mean by "contemporary Gedolim"? Charedim? Even those who are aware of this shittah, don't realize how widespread it was. They are quite unaware of the rationalist school of thought. (The same is probably true for the view that there is no such thing as gilgulim.)
Here's a simple test: In Pesachim, there is a machlokes as to where the sun goes at night. The Chachmei Yisroel say it goes behind the sky, the Chachmei Ha-Umos say it goes behind the earth. Rebbi acknowledges that the latter seem correct. Pick a Gadol and ask him how he explains the Gemara. Then ask him how most Rishonim explain it. Then check the results in the Rishonim (you can do it at the torahandscience website).
Baruch said...
ReplyDeleteI assume you read my last comment, considering that you censored it. It is not lashon hara to compare gedolim to the tzaddik I mentioned; indeed, the Rav basically makes this comparison in Kol Dodi Dofek.
=============
I don't know what comment you are referring to - I haven'e censored any of your comments. Please resend it.
Baruch and Shlomo M. You obviously are bothered by this issue. I have no time to read through the material carefully. So let me make a simple proposal.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't one of you write up your position regarding Science and Chazal and I'll post it.
I have enough trouble trying to figure out the Jewish view of sexuality, homosexuality and child abuse. But you seem to have decided that this blog is the proper venue for this issue.
You provide the post and I'll provide the platform.
The work has already been done at torahandscience.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteR. Slifkin has a summary in his letter to Rav Aharon Feldman (though he misses some sources) -
http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/LetterToRavFeldman.pdf
I don't know what comment you are referring to - I haven'e censored any of your comments. Please resend it
ReplyDeleteIt seems that somehow the comment did not make it to you then. This is the second time this has happened on your blog; maybe there's a comment problem or something. Oh well, no big deal. I don't feel like rewriting it and I think Reb Shlomo's generally correct in what he's writing. I apologize for assuming you censored my comment.
I have enough trouble trying to figure out the Jewish view of sexuality, homosexuality and child abuse. But you seem to have decided that this blog is the proper venue for this issue.
We merely responded to an assertion you made. It happened to turn into a conversation. That's all.
Why don't one of you write up your position regarding Science and Chazal and I'll post it.
We have clearly articulated the position; that's what we've been discussing this whole time. If you're looking for mekorot, I agree with Reb Shlomo that the work has been done by R' Slifkin as well as the Torah and Science blog. Perhaps you could email one of them and ask them for a guest post. Or you could copy a section out of R' Slifkin's letter to R' Feldman and make that into a guest post.
It seems we've discussed the issues round the bend. I think I'm going to sleep and hope the fast day goes faster! :p
Shlomo M. said...
ReplyDeleteRav Soloveitchik had no interest in these matters. Rav Kamenetzky was quite naive and probably thought that it was an aberrant (but legitimate) view. The Lubavitcher Rebbe was totally irrational in these things, he said that Rishonim who said that Chazal were mistaken in science, didn't really believe it and wrote it for kiruv! On the other hand, R. Hirsch and R. Herzog z"l, who had expertise in this area, considered that which you call "R. Avraham ben HaRambam's view" to be the normative view.
Who do you mean by "contemporary Gedolim"? Charedim? Even those who are aware of this shittah, don't realize how widespread it was. They are quite unaware of the rationalist school of thought. (The same is probably true for the view that there is no such thing as gilgulim.)
===============
In other words you are saying that most if not all contemporary gedolim were totally unaware of these mainstream sources or their ignorance of philosophy prevented them from noticing it. But that R' Slifkin was able to discern that this is in fact the majority view.
Your understanding of gedolim is outrageous. Rav Soleveitchik didn't care?! He wasn't interested in truth!? Rav Yaakov was naive?! the Lubavitcher Rebbe was irrational?? Chas v'shalom. Do you think that Rav Lichenstein would say such a thing or even think it? Does R' Slifkin think that his powers of discernment are greater than all these gedolim?
Thus we are faced with three possibilities. 1) Gedolim don't know how to learn as well as R' Slifkin 2) Gedolim are aware of this view but are afraid to say it because of fear of kanoim 3) there is an alternative way of understanding what these sources mean.
I assume your view is number 1 or 2.
I'll stick with number 3. Obviously gedolim are familiar with these sources but their understanding of them is different than yours.
Of course RYBS was interested in truth - but he wrote explicitly that Torah/science conflicts didn't interest him. I am unaware of him taking a position either way on the Chazal/science issue.
ReplyDeleteYes, Rav Yaakov was naive vis-a-vis rationalism. Look at Emes LeYaakov where he says that Rambam believes that magic used to be real, and that it only became fake with yeridas hadoros!
Yes, the Lubavitcher Rebbe was irrational in these areas. Claiming that fossils were planted in the ground by God is irrational. Claiming that every rationalist statement made by the Rishonim was "a lie for the sake of kiruv" is irrational.
Your three possibilities are all wrong. It has nothing to do with "Gedolim not knowing how to learn as well as R. Slifkin" or as well as me or as well as anyone else. It has to do with their being a product of a particular system of thought. Surely you must know that R. Moshe Shapiro insisted that the letter from Hirsch must be a forgery, even though it is abundantly clear that it is genuine. Check out Marc Shapiro's latest book, Maimonides and his Interpreters, where he brings lots of examples of charedi Gedolim totally misinterpreting Rambam because they are so far removed from the rationalist worldview.
Like I said, if you think that the Gedolim are familiar with these sources and this outlook, ask them what is peshat in the Gemara in Pesachim about the sun's path at night, then ask them what most Rishonim say, then go check it out in the Rishonim. It's an easy test.
With respect to the authenticity of the statements of R Yehuda Hachasid, see the thorough documentation by R Y TA Shma in his article in the Ashkenaz volume of his collected writings, he shows that such views were widely held in those days.
ReplyDelete