Maharetz Chajes(Introduction to Talmud 31) Concerning the subject of demons, the evil eye, and the evil ,spirits referred to in the Talmud, there can be no doubt that the Rabbis believed in their existence. and consequently we should take all ,reference to them in their literal sense, and we should nor attempt to offer other interpretations which will explain them in a sense remote from the literal.
The Rabbis talk of the existence, the natural characteristics, and the Behavior of these beings in a straightforward way. Thus, we read (Hag- 16,a): 'Six things arc said of the demons: in three things they are like ministering angels, and in the other three they are like human beings The Miishnah, Aboth (5, 6), says: 'The demons were created on the eve of the Sabbath at twilight'. The existence of demons was the general belief, indeed, of all the peoples of the Eastern and Western parts of the world a at the time of the Tannaim and Amoraim.
They also believed in witchcraft and incantations, and although Maimonidcs, in his Commentary on the Mishnah, A.Z. 4, 7, with refcrence to the qucstion" put to the elders' in Rome, and also in Yad, Ab. Kochabim 11, 16, is of a different opinion, yet the wording of the Baraithoth, and of the Talmud in several places must be taken literally and not in an allegorical or figurative sense. We do, however. observe a substantial difference in regard to this matter between the Babylonian and the Palestinian sages, although both believed in the existence of these beings and both tell us or conversations which they held with them, and the marvelous things which these demons sometimes perform- for example, we read in Jcr. Tcr. 8, fol. 47, how,, when the baths were heated by Diocletian's' orders, the demon Antigorus cooled them
what is the differnece between Sheidim and Mezikim?
ReplyDelete"when the baths were heated by Diocletian's' orders, the demon Antigorus cooled them" - this has a physical explanation - the baths would be much colder in the winter, that is the encasement, whether stone, tiles or metal, than in the summer. And the water temperature, as well as the air temperature are much colder. Stone or metal have a high heat capacity, to heating them up will require a lot of energy. same goes for water which is eg 4C.
So the observer could have seen the workers using eg 5 logs of wood to heat up the baths. Thsi might be the summer requirement. The baths would then col very quickly because the walls are made of cold stone, and they absorb any heat from the water. Hence a demon. But why is this attributed a a wonged creature, when it is a law of physics, whcih was yet undiscovered, and the bath attendant was inexperienced?
Sheidim are demons -
ReplyDeletesome are harmful (mazzikim) while others are beneficial
As the Bard said, there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with many of the demon stories is that lots of them could be explained by the vast world of microbes. Chazal were not aware of microscopic organisms or the germ theory of disease. I can't find the reference but I recall yeasr ago reading something by Rav Hirsch where he said just that.
So 1500_ 2000 years ago people understood the world differently, whether the physical world, cause and effect, uncertainty, luck etc.
ReplyDeleteThere definitely are sheidim and mazikim, or incidents that make me think these agents exist. However, no reproducible evidence exists to show they are winged creatures.
In Israel, they have huge fruit bats flying around between the date palms, especially in tel aviv. They have faces, somewhat human or mammalian. And they can be scary, or cute depending on one's disposition. And people tend to associate them with bad luck or the occult. So that could be a rationalist explanation for sheidim. Seeing them at night is very scary.
ReplyDeleteAnd all this tip toeing, why are we afraid to say chazal may simply have had wrong beliefs? Or concepts of the ancients. For example, nobody does blood letting anymore, even though it is mentioned by chazal, eg when is a good or bad time to do it.
ReplyDeleteAll cultures believed in them.
ReplyDeleteHere is wiki on goblins
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goblin
Although my father, a"h, swore by cupping which was endorsed by Chazal.
ReplyDeleteLook, there's a view that if you see Chazal as anything less than perfect in every way, you will see them as imperfect in every way and go off the derech. The idea that you can accept their halakhic authority while noting that they were educated in non-halakhic matters like science according to the knowledge of the time is not something they can grasp.
Today's Hareidi-Khomeini mob are reinventing the wheel, and perhaps to buttress their own fantasies of being infallible, are painting previous generations as also being infallible - although it is difficult say that you believe in the Talmud , but you reject the Mesechta which says that the Sanhedrin was not infallible, and prescribes the Torah based korbanot for errors if a sanhedrin makes errant decisions.
ReplyDeleteYou are revising history
ReplyDeleteInfallibility of Chazal is an old belief
Not as old as the Talmud Horayot, which does not hold by this. Unless chazal are distinct from and above any Sanhedrin.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Horayot is regarding halakhic decisions of the sanhedrin. It is based on korbanot prescribed by the Torah.
ReplyDeleteThe discussion of cosmology is not even on the agenda. Lo tasur is regarding halakhic decisions, it does not refer to cosmology.
Even in the Talmud, there are various stories of chazal making errors and leading to consequences, eg zechariah Ben avkulos, acher, even according to rashi rabbi meir vis a vis Beruriah.
you forgot the Chazom Ish's criticism of the Beis Yosef
ReplyDeleteDid your Rebbes Goren or Rackmnan ever say Chazal erred?
ReplyDeleteInfallibility is not vadai error. It means only that error is technically possible.
ReplyDeleteRegarding my Rebbes _ rav goren made some famous comments regarding touching the moon, since after the moon landing in 1969, we know it is reachable and also not made of spiritual green cheese.
But my Rebbes the rambam and rav Karo say that the bavli is authoritative because the people accepted it. It's a valid view , with the greatest of respect to the chazon ISH.
Accepted views of their or our times can be wrong. The fact that they lived in a certain age does not mean the general knowledge of their age received emes min hashamayim. Every Greek or Roman philosopher was not imbued with daas Torah for it to filter through to chazal.
ReplyDeleteGoren never claimed Chazal erred. He just recommended saying an alternative text for Kiddush Levana
ReplyDeleteSo any truth to the old story that the Satmar claimed the moon landing was a hoax because the Rambam said the moon was just a symbol in the sky, not an actual astral body?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, he implies rambam may have erred about constituents of moon.
ReplyDeleteThat's where the other end of the spectrum to satmar _ namely Shlomo goren ztl, thinks differently: Since the moon landing is metzius, we have rock samples, therefore rambam 's view needs updating.
ReplyDeleteThe chatam sofer did claim this, regarding their gynecology knowledge.
ReplyDeletecant find reliable source
ReplyDeleteWhere does he claim this?
ReplyDeleteWho and how?
ReplyDeleteI was talking about Rav Goren, in one of seforim I have. I can't remember the exact article - he writes a lot about the Rambam's view of Jewish sovereignty in Israel before Moshiach, of dilemmas regarding building the temple whilst we are impure, and how would we prepare Parah Adumah if we are still impure. He leaves this to Moshiach to figure out, but he also brings the Yerushalmi which says a Temple will be built before Moshiach comes.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, he points out that not everything the Rambam says is factually true, and he points to the comments on what the Moon is made of.
What I have raised previously is Rambam's claim that building a metal ship that can fly like a bird in the air is impossible. Ok, he was 900 years premature, but it was scientifically possible then as well, it is just that people didn't have the knowledge yet.
good point - he apparently disagreed with Rashi and Tosefot's interpretation of the Mishnah:
ReplyDelete"Moses Schreiber known as Chatam Sofer, (d. 1839) was a leader of Hungarian Jewry and he too weighed in on the issue in his talmudic commentary to Niddah (18a).
What is the "corridor" or the "room" or the "roof" or the "ground" or the "aliyah" ? After some investigation using books and authors experts and books about autopsies it is impossible to deny the facts that do not accord with the statements of Rashi or Tosafot or the diagrams of the Maharam of Lublin...but you will find the correct diagram in the book called Ma'asei Tuviah and in book Shvilei Emunah...therefore I have made no effort to explain the words of Rashi or Tosafot for they are incompatible with the facts... "
https://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2017/2/8/bava-basra-24a-anatomy-that-isnt-there-ddbns
Some definition of terms are required in the discussion of the (in)fallibility of Chazal:
ReplyDelete1. Who do we consider as Chazal? Any named Rabbi or Torah Scholar in the oral law? Or also from previous generations, Anshei Knesset Gedolah, Tanach?
2. What does infallibility mean?
3. What sources make the claim that an error was or could theoretically be made?
4. What evidence or test proves that Chazal are fallible?
Chazal generally refers to Tanaim-Amoraim. Hence Rishonim are post Chazal, and Biblical figures are pre-Chazal. The Sanhedrin as we know it, terminated in the last days of the 2nd Beit Hamikdash, as is tragically told at the end of Sotah. When was it formed? Perhaps by David Hamelech, or even earlier, by Moshe Rabbenu.
We also know that the earlier generations were greater than the latter – and also that the level of greatness of Torah scholars, again as described in Sotah, kept deteriorating as the Sanhedrin crumbled, and after that too. Hence, The Sanhedrin in its full glory was greater than the last days, which in turn were greater that the generations of Tannaim after the Churban – again this is elaborated in Sotah.
2. Infallible means protected from error (Shogegot), or even deliberate sins – Z’donot. Being fallible does not suggest that anyone has definitely sinned or erred. It simply means it is not impossible for this to happen. So in recent times, major poskim held that RSK/NG at the very least made errors. Gra alleges that Rambam was swayed and made an error. Rambam makes the claim that his opponents erred in their argumentation or conclusions.
3. Source, which is backed up by the Talmud Horayos:
הלכות שגגות - הקדמה יש בכללן חמש מצוות עשה, וזה הוא פרטן: …….
ה) שיקריבו הסנהדרין קרבן אם טעו והורו שלא כהלכה באחת מן החמורות. וביאור מצוות אלו בפרקים אלו:
This introduction to Hilchot Shogegot is based on Torah – and is hard to reject, and still remain orthodox.
It clearly states that the Sanhedrin – especially that of the Lishkat Hagazit, the highest level, is not infallible, and is theoretically fallible, and liable to bring sacrifices if they err! The statement is quite severe – and requires thought.
4. There are theoretical textual and halachic proofs of fallibility of Judges. But there are actual examples of transgressions or errors made by great men in the Talmud. The text, as per that in Shogegot are proof of fallibility, as are the Torah verses :
Devarim 16
יט לֹא-תַטֶּה מִשְׁפָּט, לֹא תַכִּיר פָּנִים; וְלֹא-תִקַּח שֹׁחַד--כִּי הַשֹּׁחַד יְעַוֵּר עֵינֵי חֲכָמִים, וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִם. 19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons; neither shalt thou take a gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.
Shemot 23
ח וְשֹׁחַד, לֹא תִקָּח: כִּי הַשֹּׁחַד יְעַוֵּר פִּקְחִים, וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִים. 8 And thou shalt take no gift; for a gift blindeth them that have sight, and perverteth the words of the righteous.
Plus many criticisms of the Neviim against Judges, Kohanim, and even Torah scholars.
But there are actual cases of at the very least errors being made even by Chazal:
Dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish – which ends in double tragedy.
Dispute between Reb Elazar and his colleagues (Tanur of Aknai) , which leads to excommunication, and near disastrous damage to Rabban Gamliel.
Akavya ben Mehalelel – at least from his detractors view, he erred, although he maintains he stuck to the truth.
Eliezer b. Durdya.
Zecharia b. Avkulos.
Kamtza / Bar Kamtza.
Yochanan b. Zakkai – he himself regrets that he didn’t ask to save Jerusalem.
In other words your claim was wrong. He was not discussing Chazal!
ReplyDeleteI never claimed rav goren said chazal erred. You asked about my rebbeim, goren and rack man. I was only aware of Goren on the moon. Sounds funny, but you know what I mean.
ReplyDeletePoimt being you have no authority who agrees with your views
ReplyDeleteIs that one sentence or 2?
ReplyDeleteI actually asked a brisk /ponovezh rav, who is against rav j b soloveitchik, r goren etc. And the state of Israel. But he said the gemara gives many examples of chachamim who went off the derech.
Is it possible that you are mistaken. Are you claiming that Horayos is wrong or simply not part of shas..?
one! what does that have to do with misquoting Chasam Sofer?
ReplyDeleteYou have been trying to find a source that Chazal are not viewed post talmud as infallible and that such a view is very recent. Your attempts have all failed!
I brought the Chatam Sofer, but i accepted your hint, since he was rejecting Rashi and Tosefot.
ReplyDeleteNo, i brought you a source, in the Rambam. Seems you missed that entire chapter.
if it is one sentence, I don't need authority, since the Talmud clearly rejects Sanhedrin's infallibility.
ReplyDeleteYour only way out of that is to reject the talmud as being wrong - ergo - self - contradictory position.
Meiri on Horayot 3a
ReplyDeleteסנהדרין עצמם שעשו על פי הוראתם חייבין בקרבן עצמם כשאר יחידים ולא עוד אפילו טעו מעוט הקהל אחריהם אינם מצטרפים עמהם להשלים לרוב עד שישגו רוב הקהל בזולת הבית דין:
https://www.sefaria.org/Meiri_on_Horayot.3a.3?lang=bi
We were not discussing Sanhedrin but Chazal! -
ReplyDeletechanging the topic doesn't make your original claim any more inaccurate
We is your evidence that claims of infallibility of Chazal is a recent invention?
ReplyDeleteWe is your evidence that claims of infallibility of Chazal is a recent invention!?
ReplyDeleteAs long as the Sanhedrin stood in the Chazalic period), they were constituted by Chazal.
ReplyDeleteSee Mamrim ch.1
א
בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם הֵם עִקַּר תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. וְהֵם עַמּוּדֵי הַהוֹרָאָה וּמֵהֶם חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט יוֹצֵא לְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל. וַעֲלֵיהֶן הִבְטִיחָה תּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז יא) "עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ" זוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה. וְכָל הַמַּאֲמִין בְּמשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ וּבְתוֹרָתוֹ חַיָּב לִסְמֹךְ מַעֲשֵׂה הַדָּת עֲלֵיהֶן וְלִשָּׁעֵן עֲלֵיהֶן:
entire chapter is relevant.
Also, the previous generations did not write down the Oral law, but only when they feared forgetting it. Since forgetting it shows fallibility, the generations who wrote it, both the Mishnah and the Gemara, were fallible - .
Even Rambam says :
"3: There can never be any difference of opinion with regard to matters received through the Oral Tradition. Whenever there arises a difference of opinion with regard to a matter that shows that it was not received in the tradition from Moses our teacher."
So by the point of Chazal having varying opinions, there is already doubt as to what is the correct Oral tradition.
see also the Mishnah Sotah, ch.9, the last Mishnayot 9- 15, which say that there is a decline, and no one to rely on וְאֵין שׁוֹאֵל, עַל מִי לָנוּ לְהִשָּׁעֵן, עַל אָבִינוּ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמָיִם.
ReplyDeleteLet me put it to you another way - does Rambam or Meiri, or others who teach Horayos, claim explicitly that Chazal were infallible?
ReplyDeleteWhen Elisha ben Abuya was Kotzetz be netiot, does anyone other than Shabbetai Zvi and his Frankist successors say that Acher was correct and did not sin?
Wow? New standard if Chazal are not explicitly said to be infallible then it must be a recent innovation
ReplyDeleteRambam doesnt explicitly say demons are nonsense either
Horayos is irrelevant !
You simply cant admit that you are wrong!
ReplyDelete"Horayos is irrelevant !"
ReplyDeleteSure, all sources you don't like are irrelevant. Like Ketubot and Gittin are irrelevant for for marriage and divorce .
I am not disputing demons, that is a separate discussion. I think demons are the same as Murphy's law, just each generation see it in a different paradigm.
ReplyDelete