Tuesday, March 10, 2009

R' Slifkin's defense of Gedolim


I have been having an exchange with Shlomo M [on this post] who asserts that gedolim are not aware that the majority view is that Chazal made mistakes in Science. I have asserted that they are fully aware of these views but have a different understanding of these critical views of Chazal by major rabbinic figures through the ages. Furthermore Shlomo M. assumes that only a "rationalistic" view is identical with truth - which it is not.

Shlomo M. said...

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.

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.)
===============

Daas Torah responded:

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.

===============================
I think that additional support for my understanding is contained in an essay of R' Slifkin entitled " In Defense of My Opponents".

"People are certainly entitled to strongly oppose the views of Rambam and any other Torah scholar. This need not be at all at odds with having great respect for Rambam himself. Ramban (Nachmanides) was full of admiration for Rambam, but this did not prevent him from condemning some of Rambam’s ideas in the strongest terms. If a person is entitled to follow Maimonides in adopting his views, why is someone else not entitled to follow Nachmanides in rejecting them? The actual burning of Rambam’s books was a tragedy, but it was not wrong for them to be opposed. It is certainly legitimate for today’s luminaries of the yeshivah world to reject the view of Rambam and others that the Talmud contains errant scientific statements, and to insist upon the absolute infallibility of the Talmud. They may be mistaken in believing in the existence of spontaneously-generating creatures, but they are fully entitled to hold this belief.

Of no less concern to my opponents is that the rationalist approach is not only wrong, but dangerous. In this, they are displaying sensitivity to a very real concern. The zealots who engineered the campaign against my books attained signatures by telling the Gedolim about how my books were causing harm, and about the angelic yeshivah student who read the books, dropped out of yeshivah and went off the derech. As it happens, I investigated the case and discovered that the student in question dropped out of the yeshivah and went to YU! I certainly don’t know of anyone who was harmed by my books, whereas I know of hundreds of people whose faith and Judaism was strengthened by them. But I definitely agree that there are potentially many people who could be harmed by my books. You don’t go into Mea She’arim and start teaching them about dinosaurs and evolution – it will rock the foundations of their world. And if someone has spent his entire life in an insular community, was taught to revere absolutely everything in the Talmud as the word of God, and has no knowledge of science that would lead him to doubt this, it would shake his faith terribly to learn of great Rishonim who said otherwise. Now, I don’t believe that such people ever read any of my books, at least not before they were banned. But I can certainly understand that books which are written by a graduate of mainstream yeshivos and published by a well-known Orthodox publisher, complete with prestigious rabbinic endorsements, can be perceived as targeting such an audience.

Furthermore, the rationalist approach innately involves dangers. It opens a Pandora’s Box; while issues such as evolution and Talmudic science can be resolved, other challenges, such as those from archeology and academic Biblical scholarship, are vastly more problematic. And in the long run, rationalism can have disastrous consequences. As Paul Johnson notes in A History of the Jews, Rambam “laid dangerous eggs which hatched later… he brought a confidence in the compatibility of faith and reason which fitted his own calm and majestic mind but which was in due course to carry Spinoza outside Judaism completely.” Of course, the anti-rationalist approach carries its own dangers – people who have their questions stifled, or who discover that they are being fed false information, will be resentful and rebel – but communities are entitled to choose which risks they wish to deal with.

But even if the Gedolim personally oppose the views of the rationalist Rishonim, don’t they have to respect their right to be taught? Absolutely not. Every community has the right to choose its own educational approach, and to select its own leaders who will make such decisions. The charedi community has the right to choose to submit to the directives of the rabbanim that they consider to be the Gedolim (albeit that there is no basis for asserting that the entire Jewish People is obligated to listen to them). And they have the right to say that they oppose the rationalist school of thought and that they wish to exclude it from the curriculum. When challenged with the question that Rambam’s Guide of the Perplexed contains the same unacceptable views as my books, Rav Elyashiv replied that if someone were to publish a contemporary edition of the Guide that was actually readable, he would equally oppose it. This is a perfectly legitimate and understandable position. In the same way as Rambam had the right to oppose the mystical and superstitious approach that he disapproved of and which was harmful for his community in Egypt, his opponents had the right to oppose his rationalist approach that was unsettling for their communities in France."

124 comments :

  1. I don't see what your quote from R. Slifkin has to do with what we were discussing.

    Also, with regard to your statement that "I have asserted that they are fully aware of these views but have a different understanding of these critical views of Chazal by major rabbinic figures through the ages." -I would partially agree, in that when they are confronted with these views, they are forced to interpret them differently, and claim that these Rishonim were only saying it for kiruv, or they were only referring to the chitzoniyos, or it was a forgery, etc. The point is that they are unable to accept them at face value (as we do in virtually all other cases, and as Hirsch etc. did).

    I refer you again to my Pesachim challenge. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "...The zealots who engineered the campaign against my books attained signatures by telling the Gedolim about how my books were causing harm, and about the angelic yeshivah student who read the books, dropped out of yeshivah and went off the derech. As it happens, I investigated the case and discovered that the student in question dropped out of the yeshivah and went to YU!"


    Rav Slifkin on another page in that web site elaborates about the student who went to YU R’L !!!

    http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/account.html

    It was a student of Leib Tropper (AKA Roni on this blog and as The Forger on another) and for Tropper going to YU is going of the derech. He did told a student to go St John’s Law than to go to Cardozo (the law school of YU).

    The way he sees it in his sick mind is that Jewish people who go to St John’s are tinok shenishba but when a Jewish Person goes to YU is a kofer baikar

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a very difficult topic. Let me first state that I have not read R' Slifkin's books. So I cannot comment upon his delivery and presentation, which could be as much at the heart of the issue as the material presented.

    However, I am compelled to say that it is not the shitta but rather the presentation that is the primary problem. My primary reason for saying this that there have been others in recent history such as R' Aryeh Kaplan and even R' Yaakov Hillel that have published works supporting old universe theory without suffering bans from Gedolim.

    Just as I do not believe that R' Eliashiv has a problem with the Rambam's work, Guide for the Perplexed, as it can still be found throughout Mea Shearim in easy to read Hebrew and well translated english. The difference is that the Rambam with his extremely well organized mind was able to lay out his views in such a way as to not lead to Kefirah.

    The same can be said of the presentation given by R' Kaplan. He never states that the view he is presenting is the "right" view or that it is superior to the others, he simply states that it is a view that can find its roots in Tannaim with R' Nehunia Ben Kanna, and thus it is an authentic and valid Torah view.

    Kabbalists have long held an old universe view, it was the view of the AR"I, interestingly enough R' Eliashiv's own father wrote at great length in defense of an Old Universe view in his work L'Shem. I do not see that book being banned either. It can be found in every Chareidi bookstore.

    A quick search of the Aish HaTorah website will produce many of the same basic ideas that are presented in Slifkin's books(at least from reading the descriptions of his books). However Aish also upholds the ban against him. What then can be said concerning their Rabbanim? Are they also ignorant ChV"Sh? Where then lies their supposed ignorance? They obviously agree in principle at least.

    Thus I am forced to conclude that the problem must not lie in the material as much as in its presentation. Was Slifkin a victim? Yes he was. He was a victim of a post-modern culture and attitude that has even found its way into Academia. He is the victim of being told that he does not need to be circumspect in his writing. Let's face it, gone are the days of Dr. Sus who was known to re-write some of his books up to three hundred times until he was certain that they conveyed exactly the thoughts and ideas that he wanted them to convey.

    I draw this conclusion simply because given that simple fact that many others have and continue to put forth ideas that at least mirror Slifkin's without facing such bans there really are only two possibilities.

    1)All of these Gedolim have something personal against Slifkin.

    2) Slifkin failed in his presentation.

    I cannot believe the first possibility so I am left with the second.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think any fair discussion of this topic has to make mention of the following sources mentioned on this website

    http://torahandscience.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_torahandscience_archive.html

    I have difficult understanding how these sources could be interrupted in other ways. Could you perhaps give an example?

    ReplyDelete
  5. In my opinion, Rabbi Slifkin is unjustifiably over-generous in what he writes, if he means what he writes (I think not). Judaism does not give any group the right to start a cult. Rashbi said that Chet HaEgel came about this way. See eg Midrash Tanchuma, Parshat Ki Tisa Siman 10, or Talmud Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10:2.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Something I remember reading in the Eim HaBanim Semeichah seems relevant here.

    Rav Teichtal, after laying out his conclusive proofs that supporting the return to Israel was halachically proper, and having brought examples of how he was able to convince other scholars of this, asked the question: Surely the Mukatcher and the Satmar rebbes knew all these things. Why were they opposed to any form of return to Israel?
    His answer was that these rebbes had handlers and they were reliant on these handlers for information from the outside world. And the handlers had an agenda: to villify any form of Zionism, even the religious kind. As a result, they were reacting to the distorted news they were given. Their answers were proper but the questions were not.
    In this day and age, it is quite easy to see how the same thing is happening: every major Chareidi "gadol" is surrounded by handlers, askonim, whatever you want to call them. Their contact with the outside world is through those handles. And these handlers have an agenda.
    I recall one story from the metzitzah b'peh kerfuffle a few years ago where Rav Eliashiv was told by a specialist in infectious diseases that herpes viruses are not passed by skin-to-skin contact! Outrageous, completely wrong but it formed part of the basis of his psak outlawing indirect metzizah.
    How about the Lipa Schmeltzer concert which was banned based on gross misinformation?
    There's an old saying in computer science: garbage in = garbage out.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Regarding Rav Kaplan zt"l, many many rabbanim did not approve of his writings except for use in KIRUV.

    Our generation is one of black and white, shades of grey are met with disapproval due to the lack of proper presentation. This is the same reason that during the lifetime of Rav Noah Weinberg zt"l, he was refered to as a 'cuckoo", since he utilized varied tools of Torah learning to bring Jews back to their heritage.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just as I do not believe that R' Eliashiv has a problem with the Rambam's work, Guide for the Perplexed,

    According to Rav Aharon Feldman, Rav Eliyashiv was explicit that he does have a problem with it, and if someone put out a popular (i.e. readable) edition of the Moreh, he would be as opposed to that as he was to R' Slifkin's books.

    You are totally off-base with your ideas. It is the shittos that the Gedolim are opposed to, not the presentation. Rav Elyashiv and others were explicit about that. And by the way, the shittah which they are most against is the idea of CHazal making mistakes in science, not the age of the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "it is not the shitta but rather the presentation that is the primary problem."

    A part of the "presentation" problem that R' Slifkin's books had, in cotrast to R' Kaplan z"l, Aish (e.g., Dr. Gerald Schroeder), and others was that he went through the trouble of getting haskomos and presenting it to a wider, non-kiruv readership.

    Reminds me of a 10th grade bachur I knew who attended a black-hat mesivta. He was caught with Dr. Schroeder's "Genesis and the Big Bang" (which has never been officially banned, AFAIK). The book was confiscated and he was told by the Menahel that it's not appropriate for a bachur like him to read such books.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ditto to the 1st comment by Reb Shlomo.

    Rafael has a point. Speaking broadly, I would argue that there are three possible positions the rationalists can take vis-a-vis antirationalism: A) the rationalist position can accept an eilu ve-eilu framework (IIUC, this is the position of Rav Hildesheimer), B) the rationalist position can accept an eilu ve-eilu framework but feel that their position is superior in certain aspects (like Rabbi Lamm for example), or C)it can say that various elements by the antirationalists are simply treif and therefore forbidden to follow(like Rambam. See for example the sources in Dr. Shapiro's appendix to Limits).

    Tzurah:
    When Rabbi Slifkin published Challenge of Creation, he did as you said. He didn't get haskamas from gedolim and directed it towards a non-chareidi audience. Then people -- Dr. Ostroff, for example -- complained that the book doesn't have chareidi haskamas.

    Historically, anti-Slifkinites have accused R' Slifkin of committing the crime of getting haskamot, of not getting haskamot which were good enough, of relying too much on science, of not being scientific enough, having so little sources and, at the same time, using so many sources which we don't hold by today. In fact, the only thing on which all anti-Slifkinites agree is that the world would be an infinitely better place without his books. What exactly R' Slifkin's crime is, however, remains endlessly elastic.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I draw this conclusion simply because given that simple fact that many others have and continue to put forth ideas that at least mirror Slifkin's without facing such bans there really are only two possibilities...

    You are missing the real reasons. Slifkin had a haskama from R. Shmuel Kamenetzky. Without that, he would never have been banned.

    You are under the misconception that book-bannings follow some kind of protocol which evaluate each book that is printed. That is not how it happens. You have to have askanim who take it on as a holy cause, and they need certain kinds of motivation. In Slifkin's case, what motivated them was the haskamah from R. Shmuel Kamenetsky, a long-wanted target.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Talmud Yerushalmi 10, Halacha 2 (page 28, Tor 2)

    ר"ש בן יוחי שלשה עשר עגלים עשו ישראל ואחד דימוסיא לכולן ומה טעמא ויאמרו אלה אלהיך ישראל הרי לשנים עשר שבטים זה אלהיך הרי דימוסיא אחת לכולן וכי מה עשה אחאב כתיב ויהי הנקל לכתו בחטאות ירבעם בן נבט

    Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai said: Israel made twelve calves, and a public one for all. What is the meaning of this? They said "This is your God, Israel." That is, to the twelve tribes (they said) "This is your God." That is, the public one is for all. And what did Achav do? He got used to doing the sins of Yerovam ben Nevat.



    The Sin of the right is to go against HaShem in a religious fashion. The danger looms when Israel is divided. To illustrate this, the Talmud mentions Achav. His Avodah Zarah originated from Yerovam, the first king of Israel after the split between Yehudah and Yisrael. Reuniting does not automatically solve the problem. Achav brought great unity between Yehudah and Yisrael (Melachim Aleph 22). Yet, as our Sages teach, Achav's smaller sins equal Yerovam's worst sins. If the uniting groups keep serving false doctrines, their unison will create the most vicious falsehood. This is how Chet HaEgel came about. The lesson for our days is clear.

    ReplyDelete
  13. According to Rav Aharon Feldman, Rav Eliyashiv was explicit that he does have a problem with it, and if someone put out a popular (i.e. readable) edition of the Moreh

    The truth is that there are many popular editions in english and Hebrew. None of them have been banned. Secondly to state that he would ban a readable edition, has to be speaking only to a non-Hebrew speaking audience as the Guide is written in very readable Hebrew.

    Thus I am left with a deep confusion over this alleged comment. It makes little sense. Has R' Eliashiv never read the Guide? Is he speaking only as a means of justification? Was this an overstatement?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Reminds me of a 10th grade bachur I knew who attended a black-hat mesivta. He was caught with Dr. Schroeder's "Genesis and the Big Bang" (which has never been officially banned, AFAIK). The book was confiscated and he was told by the Menahel that it's not appropriate for a bachur like him to read such books.

    You speak as though these views are not taught in "black hat" Yeshivot. Whether it be the views of ChaZaL was mistaken in scientific matters or the age of the universe. I have heard these views expounded as authentic Torah views in many "Black Hat" Yeshivot. Even R' Ovadiah Yosef has expressed these in his many Teshuvot stating, "If ChaZaL had the understanding that we do today..." or "If they knew then what we know now..."

    When I was in BMG the shitta that ChaZaL had imperfect knowledge was taught as being an equally valid shitta with that of the basic nature of humanity having changed.

    Furthermore to state that R' Kaplan, Aish et. al. say these things only for kiruv is ridiculous. If these are treife ideas then we should not be using them as a means of kiruv. Not only would it be laying a faulty foundation that will later need to be uprooted(possibly losing the person in the process as they are sure to have felt lied too), however it will lay a faulty foundation for all of their later Torah learning.

    Feel free to try to take the onus off of Slifkin, however there needs to be a significant reason why other Rabbanim and organizations are allowed to promote such ideas while he is not.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rav Ovadiah Yosef is firmly opposed to the idea that Chazal were mistaken in science. He writes this explicitly in several places.

    Re. Rav Elyashiv - even editions of the Guide in Ivrit are not easy to understand. And, yes, Rav Elyashiv is opposed to them. There will NEVER be an Artscroll Moreh Nevuchim.

    The significant reasons why other people are "allowed" to promote these ideas but Slifkin isn't are that:
    The askanim haven't gone after other people!
    The reason why the askanim went after Slifkin but not after other people is that Slifkin had a haskamah from R. Shmuel Kamenetsky.

    Look, the facts are clear. Many Gedolim have written explicitly that it is absolute kefirah to state that Chazal erred in science.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Here's something that's bizarre to me:

    Science and

    Torah are very different. Torah demands we accept yeridas hadoros so earlier authorities are not to be questioned, only elucidated. And a good elucidation does not change the original position, just makes it clearer to us. Thus it is obvious we cannot question Chazal's understanding of Torah.

    Science, however, is the exact opposite. Science is based on questioning the earlier authorities and challenging them. And if the challenge is successful then the original postulate is done away with. Electrons are not the smallest thing in the universe. The sun does not revolve around the Earth.

    So when Chazal talk about halacha, we must accept their positions because they are speaking as rabbinical authorities on rabbinical subjects. But when they're speaking about science, they're speaking as scientific authorities on scientific subjects. Why must we then abandon the scientific method?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Zitsfleich

    I would suggest that you read Yalkut Yosef, Chazon Ovadiah, Yechaveh Da'at. In all of those works R' Ovadia makes the statement, "If they knew what we know now..." dealing with issues of science and health. That definitely seems to suggest that their knowledge was in some way deficient.

    Re. Rav Elyashiv - even editions of the Guide in Ivrit are not easy to understand.
    Have you ever read the Moreh in Hebrew? Or looked at any of the english editions? The Hebrew edition is both easy to read, and easy to understand. It was for those precise reasons that the Rambam wrote it.

    Yes Artscroll will never do a version, just as they will never do a version of Yalkut Yosef, they are a Ashkenazic publishing house. I don't expect them to do Sephardic Hashkafa, or anything really.

    ReplyDelete
  18. ספר בניהו בן יהוידע על פסחים דף צד/ב
    שם ונראין דבריהם מדברינו. פירוש כפי השערת השכל נראין דבריהם בעולם יותר מדברינו, אבל ודאי כפי האמת דברי חכמי ישראל הם באמת וצדק. ולכן גם עתה שאומר נראין דבריהם קרי לדברי חכמי ישראל דברינו, כי רק מצד חסרון ידיעה שיש לבני אדם בעניינים אלו אז נראין דברי חכמי אומות העולם יותר, ולכן לא אמר תשובה לחכמי ישראל שביום מעיינות צוננין וכו' כי אין זו תשובה וטענה לפי האמת לסתור דבריהם. ועיין להרב ספר הברית במאמר ד' פרק יו"ד מ"ש בזה יע"ש, ואופן הישוב אשר עשה יש לעמוד עליו ואין כאן מקום להאריך בו. ואני אומר דמה שאמרו חכמי ישראל חמה ביום מהלכת למטה מן הרקיע ובלילה למעלה מן הרקיע לא קאי על גוף החמה, אלא קאי על כח הנשמה שלה אשר תוקף החום שלה הוא בא מן כח הנשמה שבה, וזה יסתלק ממנה בלילה להיות מהלך למעלה מן הרקיע שלה שעל ידי כן יתרחק מגופה הרבה מאד וממילא יחלש כח החום הבא ממנה, והוא בדוגמת האדם שהוא ישן שיסתלק ממנו כח הנפשיי שבו וישאר בגופו כח נפשיי קצת לצורך חיותו. וחכמי אומות העולם אומרים בלילה כח הנפשיי של החמה מתהלך תחת הקרקע, פירוש תחת קרקע ארץ העליונה הנקראת תבל שאנחנו דרים בה. וכאשר תשכיל להבין איך הוא מצב שבעה ארצות, ואיך הם עומדין בכדור הארץ תבין דברי אלה בטוב טעם. ובמקום אחר כתבתי בזה ואין כאן מקום להאריך בו:
    ואיך שיהיה ידוע תדע באמת ובאמונה כי דברי חכמי ישראל בכל מקום המה חיים וקיימים שהם אמת ודבריהם אמת, ומלבד הסוד אשר כוונו לרמוז אותו בתוך דבריהם, הנה לפעמים תמצא שגם בדרך הפשטי יש להם כונה עמוקה ומחמת שאנחנו חסרים כמה הקדמות גם בדרך הפשט לכך אין אנחנו מבינים כונתם על האמת אפילו כפי הפשט של הדברים, ואנחנו מצפים לביאת מורה צדק שאז השם יתברך יאיר עינינו ונראה נפלאות מתורתו ונבין דברי חכמים וחידותם ונשיג האמת לאמיתו:

    ReplyDelete
  19. ספר באר הגולה באר השישי פרק ג

    עוד שם (פסחים צד ב), תנו רבנן, חכמי ישראל אומרים, ביום החמה הולכת למטה מן הרקיע, ובלילה הולכת למעלה מן הרקיע. וחכמי אומות עולם אומרים, ביום החמה מהלכת למעלה מן הרקיע, ובלילה למטה מן הרקיע. אמר רבי, נראה דבריהם מדברינו; שביום מעיינות צוננים, ובלילה מעיינות רותחים, עד כאן. והם מבינים שכוונת חכמים ז"ל לומר, כי החמה עוברת תוך הגלגל, וזה שאמרו שבלילה הולכת למעלה מן הרקיע. ואם כן יהיה הרקיע נקרע לפי שעה, והחמה עוברת תוך הגלגל. ודבר זה מן הנמנעות. גם החוש מכחיש זה, שאין השמש שוקעת רק מעל האופק, שהרי אותם שיש להם אופק אחר אין השמש שוקעת להם. ודבר זה אי אפשר להכחיש האדם שיש בו דעת.

    והנה אלו בני אדם הם רוצים לחשוב על דברי חכמים, ולא עמדו כלל על דבריהם. שאילו היה דעת חכמים שהחמה בלילה עוברת הגלגל, והולכת החמה למעלה מן הגלגל, לא היו אומרים שהחמה הולכת 'למעלה מן הרקיע', רק 'למעלה מן הגלגל', כמו שאמרו לפני זה (פסחים צד ב) 'גלגל קבוע ומזלות חוזרים'. אבל ענין גלגל וענין רקיע כל אחד בפני עצמו. כי הרקיע נופל על מה שהוא הרקיע שהוא על התחתונים, ודבר זה נקרא 'רקיע' בדברי חכמים, והוא "רקיע" הנאמר בתורה. כי לא בא שם 'רקיע' על הגלגל כלל. ומעתה דעת חכמים שאמרו 'ביום [החמה] הולכת למטה מן הרקיע, ובלילה הולכת למעלה מן הרקיע', פירוש, ביום החמה נמצאת בעולם, והרקיע הוא התחלת התחתונים, והחמה הולכת למטה מן הרקיע ביום, והיא עם התחתונים. אבל בלילה החמה נבדלת מן העולם, ועל זה יאמר שהחמה למעלה מן הרקיע, פירוש 'הרקיע' שהוא התחלת התחתונים. ואז נאמר כי הרקיע מבדיל בין חמה ובין התחתונים, שהרי החמה אינה נמצאת עם התחתונים. ואין ספק כי התחתונים יש להם גבול בפני עצמם, והגבול הזה הוא הרקיע, ופירוש זה מבואר מאוד. ומפני שהיו חושבים כי דברי חכמים על הרקיע אשר הוא הגלגל, ולכך היה להם זה דבר זר.

    אבל יש לך לדעת, כי לא דברו חכמים בזה, רק שרצו בזה שהשם יתברך אשר הבדיל בין אשר הם בארץ למטה, ואשר אינם בארץ והם למעלה, והרקיע הוא מבדיל ביניהם. ולכך החמה שהשם יתברך נתן אותה ביום להאיר על הארץ (בראשית א, יז), היא הולכת למטה מן הרקיע, ואין הרקיע מבדיל בין החמה ובין התחתונים. אבל בלילה, שלא נתן חמה להאיר על הארץ, לכך הרקיע שנתן השם יתברך להבדיל בין העליונים ותחתונים, הוא מבדיל את החמה מן הארץ. וחכמי האומות אומרים כי הפך זה הוא, כי ביום, החמה הולכת למעלה מן הרקיע, שהרקיע מבדיל בין החמה ובין התחתונים. שכך ראוי, שאם לא כן, היתה החמה פועלת ביותר בתחתונים, ולא היה להם קיום. ולפיכך כאשר השמש היא על הארץ, הולכת למעלה מן הרקיע. וכאשר הוא לילה, ונבדלת מן הארץ, אין כאן הבדל הרקיע. והיינו שהשיב רבי 'ונראין דבריהם מדברינו; שביום המעיינות צוננים, ובלילה רותחים'. שמזה תראה שבלילה אין החמה נבדלת מן התחתונים, ולכך מעיינות רותחין. אבל ביום אין מעיינות רותחין כמו בלילה, כי השם יתברך נתן הרקיע, אשר הוא מבדיל בין העליונים ובין התחתונים, להבדיל, לכך מעיינות צוננים ביום. ולדברים שאנו אומרים, כי החמה הולכת למעלה מן הרקיע בלילה, היה הרקיע מבדיל בין החמה [ובין התחתונים], ולא היתה פועלת במעיינות. ודבר זה אמת, כי המים בעצמם מסוגלים בלילה לרתוח, במה שהחמה הולכת נגד הים, ומושלת ביסוד המים. וביום הפך זה. הרי התבאר לך דברי חכמים. ובני אדם שלא יבינו אמיתת הרקיע, שהרי הכתוב אומר (בראשית א, ו) "יהי רקיע בתוך המים ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים", ונאמר עוד (ר' שם פסוק ז) "ויבדל אלקים בין המים אשר מתחת לרקיע ובין המים אשר מעל לרקיע". וכל אלו דברים נעלמים מהם, ולא ידעו בזה כלום, כי אין לאותם אנשים חלק רק בנגלה ובמוחש. ואם כן איך ישיבו על דברים הנעלמים והנסתרים, שלא ידעו מהו עניין הרקיע. ואין כאן מקום לפרש יותר בעניין הרקיע, ועוד יתבאר זה.

    ReplyDelete
  20. שו"ת אפרקסתא דעניא חלק ב - אורח חיים סימן צה

    ואף גם זאת לא אכחד דקשה בעיני לפרש סתם ש"ס דתענית עפ"ד חכמי אומות העולם, דאע"ג דקאמר התם ונראין דבריהם מדברינו, הרי הגליון הש"ס שם מביא מהשטמ"ק כתובות י"ג ע"ב משם דאע"ג דנצחו חכמי אומות העולם, היינו נצחון בטענות, אבל האמת הוא כחכמי ישראל והיינו דאמרינן בתפלה ובוקע חלוני רקיע עכ"ל, ואיך נפרש סתם ש"ס נגד האמת.

    ReplyDelete
  21. שו"ת יביע אומר חלק ב - אורח חיים סימן כא

    (ו) וחזי הוית לה' לחם משנה (פ"ה מה' שבת), שהעיר עמ"ש ר"ת שאחר שקיעה ראשונה החמה מהלכת על פני כל עובי הרקיע. והשקיעה השניה היא אחר שהלך השמש כל עובי הרקיע וחוזר אחרי הכיפה. שהרי כבר אמרו בגמרא (פסחים צד:) שבדבר זה נצחו חכמי אוה"ע את חכמי ישראל, והיא סברא בדוקה, וחכמי ישראל עצמן חזרו וקבעו דינים ע"פ סברת חכמי אוה"ע, שאמרו בלינת המים בפסח שהמים בלילה מתחממים, מפני שהשמש הולך למטה מן הארץ, ולכן לא ישאבו המים בלילה. וא"כ איך קבע ר"ת ז"ל סברא זו אחר שנדחית. וצ"ע. ע"כ. והנה נעלם מעינו הבדולח מ"ש בשטה מקובצת כתובות (יג:) בשם ר"ת, דמ"ש רבי (בפסחים צד:) ונראין דבריהם מדברינו, לא נצחו חכמי אוה"ע את חכמי ישראל אלא בנצחון בטענות. אבל האמת הוא כחכמי ישראל. ולכן אומרים בתפלה ובוקע חלוני רקיע. ע"כ. והוב"ד =והובאו דבריו= בגליון הש"ס פסחים שם. ועמ"ש בזה בשו"ת רב פעלים ח"ב (סוד ישרים, סי' ג). ומכאן תשובה ג"כ לדברי מהר"ם אלשקר (סי' צו), שהעיר כמו כן מהא דחכמי ישראל הודו לחכמי אה"ע, ובטלו דעתם מפני דעתם. והשיג על ר"ת ששכח מזה. ע"ש. וח"ו לא שכח ר"ת דבר זה, אלא דס"ל כמ"ש בשמו בשטמ"ק הנ"ל. שו"ר לה' בית דוד (סי' ריט דנ"ו ע"ב), שג"כ כתב לדחות ד' מהר"ם אלשקר קרוב לזה. ע"ש. ואע"פ שהביא מהר"ם אלשקר (שם) שהגאו' רב שרירא ורב האי לא כתבו כן, והוכיח מהם שלא כד' ר"ת. ע"ש. לא זכר שר ד' רבינו האי עצמו שכתב כר"ת. ומצאתי בתשו' הרדב"ז (ס"ס רפב) שכתב, והוי יודע שאע"פ שחזרו חכמי ישראל והודו לחכמי אוה"ע, שהחמה חוזרת בלילה תחת כדור הארץ, ואינה נכנסת בחלונות ומהלכת אחורי הכיפה, כמו שאמרו תחלה, מ"מ לא נ"מ מידי לשיעור בין השמשות, דבין הכי ובין הכי שיעורו ג' חלקי מיל. ובציור השקיעה היתה המחלוקת ולא בשיעורה. תדע שכל המפרשים ז"ל לא הזכירו דבר מזה בהל' שבת, אף שהם היו בקיאים במהלך השמש ויודעים שחכמי ישראל חזרו בהם וכו'. ובודאי שאותה סוגיא דפסחים (דהוי ד' מילין עד צאה"כ) =צאת הכוכבים= ריהטא קודם שהודו. ואפ"ה הקשו התוס' הקושיא הכא והתם והעלו דב' שקיעות הם. וזה ברור בעיני. עכת"ד. וכ"כ ביתר ביאור הפר"ח בקונט' דבי שמשי (הנדפס בסו"ס שמן למאור, בד"ג סע"א), וכ"ה בס' מוצל מאש שבסו"ס רב יוסף (סי' א די"ב). שתי' ר"ת הוא אליבא דר' יהודה דס"ל כחכמי ישראל. ומיהו לדידן דפשיטא לן שהחמה מהלכת תחת הארץ, לפי שיש מופתים רבים ע"ז, אין לומר דלפ"ז ליתנהו להנך חילוקים דב' שקיעות הם וכו'. הא ליתא. דלטעמיך מי ניחא, דמנ"ל לומר דג' חלקי מיל מקמי צאה"כ הוי זמן ביה"ש. וה' מנחת כהן פ"ג הבין שסוף שקיעה היינו כשעברה כל עובי הרקיע. ואם היה זה אמת היה קצת קושיא בדבר, שלפי האמת שאין החמה נכנסת ברקיע, היה לנו ליתן גבול אחד מתחלת השקיעה עד צאה"כ ולקרות כל אותו זמן ביה"ש. אבל ד"ז אין לו קיום, שהרי אי' להדיא בפסחים שם, שעוביו של רקיע אחד מעשרה ביום, והם ד' מילין, נמצא שכל המשך עובי הרקיע הוא שיעור ד' מילין. וא"כ מנ"ל לר' יהודה לחלקו ולומר דג' מילין ורביע הוי יום וג' חלקי מיל ביה"ש, ועכ"ל דהכי קים ליה לר"י שבזמן זה אין ב' כוכבים נראים, לפיכך הוי ודאי יום וכו'. וה"נ לדידן הדין דין אמת וכו'. ודלא כמהר"ם אלשקר ז"ל שטעה לדחות סברת ר"ת בב' ידים בקושיא זו. וכו'. והאמת ששיטה זו היא היותר מחוורת ומסכמת עם סוגיות הש"ס יותר משאר שיטות. עכת"ד. ומעתה אף אם נאמר שדברי חכמי אוה"ע עיקר, שהשמש מהלכת בלילה תחת הארץ, וכמ"ש ג"כ הרמב"ם במורה נבוכים ח"ב (פ"ח). והובא בתשו' מהר"ם אלשקר שם. וע' בס' הברית (מאמר ד פ"י) מ"ש בזה. מ"מ אשכחן פתרי לשיטת ר"ת. והרי הוא כמבואר. ושו"ר בשו"ת תורת רפאל (ה' שבת ס"ס ו) שהעיר דר"ת לטעמיה אזיל דהאמת כחכמי ישראל. משא"כ לפ"ד רמב"ם וכו'. ע"ש. וע"ע להגאון מהרח"א בס' מקראי קודש (דף ריא סע"ב), שג"כ כתב לתרץ קו' הלח"מ כדרך הרדב"ז והפר"ח הנ"ל. ע"ש. [וע' בפר"ח ומקראי קודש שם, שהק' עוד על ר"ת ממ"ש (שבת לה) הרוצה לידע שיעורו של ר' נחמיה, יניח חמה בראש הכרמל, וירד ויטבול ויעלה, וזהו שיעורו של ר"נ. ופרש"י ובכדי שירד ויטבול ויעלה הוי לילה. ע"ש. ואיך אפשר שישהא כ"כ יותר מד' מילין. ע"ש. וכבר הרגיש בזה בשו"ת מהר"ח או"ז (סי' קפו). וע"ש היטב. וע"ע להרמב"ן בס' תורת האדם (דפ"ה ע"ב), מה שיישב לנכון ע"פ הירושלמי. וכ"ה בחי' הריטב"א (שבת לה.). וע' במנחת כהן. ובשו"ת קרן לדוד (סי' עט). ע"ש].

    ReplyDelete
  22. רבי עקיבא איגר מסכת פסחים דף צד עמוד ב

    ונראין דבריהם. עיין שיטה מקובצת כתובות יג: ד"ה השבתנו על המעוברת שכתב משמו של ר"ת דאע"ג דנצחו חכמי א"ה לחכמי ישראל היינו נצחון בטענות אבל האמת היא כחכמי ישראל והיינו דאמרי' בתפלה ובוקע חלוני רקיע עכ"ל.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Daas, Do you truly believe that people are reading the megillahs in ivrit that you are posting?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rav Ovadiah is indeed less opposed to the rationalist approach than others are - he has said that it is legitimate for others to follow the approach of R. Avraham ben HaRambam - however he himself says that he is firmly opposed to it.

    The reason why Artscroll will not do a Moreh has nothing to do with Rambam being Sephardi. It's because the charedi world is sharply opposed to the Rambam's philosophical/rationalistic approach.

    R' Eidensohn - were you bringing those citations to support what Shlomo M. said? Look at how many recent authorities, when confronted with that Gemara, either took the approach of Maharal (which was an innovation with no basis in any of the Rishonim), or took the approach of Rabbeinu Tam (against all the other Rishonim) and insisted that the sun really does go behind the sky at night! Where is the acknowledgment of the view of Rambam, R' Eliezer of Metz, Smag, Rabbeinu Yerucham, Maharam Alashkar, Lechem Mishneh, Chavos Yair, etc., who take the Gemara at face value and say that it shows that Chazal were wrong?
    Rav Ovadiah is indeed an exception; he shows awareness of this view. How many other Gedolim will acknowledge the prominence of the straightforward interpretation of this Gemara? As you yourself admitted, most Gedolim have insisted that this view is, at best, the lone view of R. Avraham ben HaRambam, and at worst, not even that (i.e. claiming that it must be a forgery).

    ReplyDelete
  25. Just a quick passing comment: It is extraordinarily unlikely that Artscroll (or any similar publisher) will ever publish an English Moreh Nevuchim regardless of the philosophical content for the simple reason that the general English reading audience would have limited interest in it.

    Perhaps a collection of interesting selections from the Moreh Nevuchim would be reasonably popular, but the full text of the Moreh is simply too technical and difficult for the average modern reader. The Moreh is discussing issues (Arabic/Aristotelian philosophy) that were big issues in his day but are utterly irrelevant to the ordinary reader today. While there are sections (some quite lengthy) that make interesting reading, the bulk would be tedious and pointless for most modern readers.

    Most of the classic works of Jewish philosophy have the same problem (with the notable exception of the Kuzari). This is why these books are generally only available in academic translations with very limited popular appeal.

    The fact is that there will also likely never be an Artscroll (or similar) Shu"t R' Akiva Eiger, Noda B'Yehuda, Chidushei R' Chaim, Zohar, Shnei Luchos HaBris, etc. etc. Simply because there is a minimal market for such translations.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Look, the facts are clear. Many Gedolim have written explicitly that it is absolute kefirah to state that Chazal erred in science.

    Said Gedolim also state in many places that the people of our generation have no ability to argue on those of previous generations, such as the Rishonim, and to do so is derech Kefirah, yet according to you R' Eliyashiv states that he feels he has the ability to "oppose" and "ban" a work written by one of the most eminent of the Rishonim. Your logic does not add up. If he can say that the Rambam was wrong, why can someone not say that R' Chiya was wrong?

    This undermines the very nature of the mesorah. It gives strength to heretical sects like the kairites. If someone, even a Gadol, of such a lowly generation can "oppose" and "ban" a Rishon, than by the same reasoning the kairites had every right to oppose the Gemorrah.

    Until you can produce something in writing from R' Eliyahisv specifically stating that he opposes the Moreh and that he feels that he can ban it, I simply will not believe it. Not only do I believe that he would not state something like that for Torah reasons, I also believe he would avoid making such a statement for political reasons. When R' Shach slighted R' Ovadiah he lost a majority of the Sephardi vote. If it were ever to become public that R' Eliayshiv "opposes" the Rambam it would completely galvanize Sephardim against him. Simply such statements are nonsensical on many levels.

    ReplyDelete
  27. .ספר בניהו בן יהוידע על פסחים דף צד/ב

    Interesting statement from the Ben Ish Hai. So Chazal was not wrong when the science they are speaking contradicts modern science. They simply were talking about hidden Kabbalistic secrets and not science at all. That definitely resolves a good number of problems.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Jack said...

    Daas, Do you truly believe that people are reading the megillahs in ivrit that you are posting?
    --------------------
    Actually I just wanted to establish that the issue is much more complex and nuanced then Shlomo M and the Torah blog are acknowledging.

    Let me brief summarize. There are a number of expositions to explain the statement that Chazal never made a mistake in science when faced with extremely rare acknowledgments in the gemora such as Pesachim 94b

    1) Maharal dealing with the phenomenon has the ignorant masses perceive it but that in true the reality is according to Chazal 2) Ben Ish Chaim - Chazal are dealing with kabbalistic issues 3) Rabbeinu Tam - Chazal are simply correct regardless of what it says.

    There is also the modified form which says that there are two sources of chazal's statements 1) Genuine mesora or ruach hakodesh - these are infallible. 2) material from the science or knowledge of their day. That can be simply wrong.

    There are also the issues of the medicines mentioned by the Gaonim in which it is assumed we don't understand their words properly and thus we are not allowed to use them because it casts aspersions on Chazal. This is consistent with infalliblity.

    Then you have the gold standard of opposition - Rav Avraham Ben HaRamam - that all of the statements of Chazal were from the science of their day.

    Putting it all together it is clearly obvious that the acceptance of infalliblity is well supported by the majority of views. Of course if you want to say that where it is not clearly stated it can be viewed as against it - that would support the rationalistic view. Thus we have two opposing views that can receive support from the same sources.

    Bottom line I share the view of the Ramban that there is rarely a killer proof to resolve these types of disputes

    ReplyDelete
  29. If he can say that the Rambam was wrong, why can someone not say that R' Chiya was wrong?

    Rav Elyashiv did not say that Rambam was wrong. He said, "Rambam can say it, we cannot." You can see it in the article from Rav Aharon Feldman on Slifkin's website.

    There are also the issues of the medicines mentioned by the Gaonim in which it is assumed we don't understand their words properly and thus we are not allowed to use them because it casts aspersions on Chazal.

    That is NOT what the Geonim say. They say that Chazal were incorrect in their medical advice!

    Putting it all together it is clearly obvious that the acceptance of infalliblity is well supported by the majority of views.

    Which majority? Amongst the Acharonim? For sure. But amongst the Geonim/Rishonim? No way.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Michael said...

    Look, the facts are clear. Many Gedolim have written explicitly that it is absolute kefirah to state that Chazal erred in science.

    Said Gedolim also state in many places that the people of our generation have no ability to argue on those of previous generations, such as the Rishonim, and to do so is derech Kefirah, yet according to you R' Eliyashiv states that he feels he has the ability to "oppose" and "ban" a work written by one of the most eminent of the Rishonim. Your logic does not add up. If he can say that the Rambam was wrong, why can someone not say that R' Chiya was wrong?
    ===================
    Several explanation why contemporary gedolim can ban earlier views and it doesn't destroy the mesorah.

    [BTW Mesora is that which is accepted so that there will be a viable next generation. It is not a simple reporting of what has been said. Rambam refers to the Sanhedrin as baalei Mesorah - who can and did argue with previous generations.(See Second chapter of Hilchos Mamrim) They are the determiners of mesora - not passive conduits.]

    1) The assumption that even though the views are true they are harmful for the present generation. This is used to explain the ban of Shaar HaYichud in Chovas HaLevavos

    2) There are views that are appropriate for each generation. See the explanation of the Yam Shel Shlomo in the introduction to Bava Kama. 49 ways of understanding were given to each piece of Torah and the gedolim in each generation decide which one to use.

    3) This I heard from Rav Sternbuch and it is also Rav Eliashiv's view.
    "The correct hashkofa goes by the majority of contemporary gedolim. So statements contrary to the majority view - even though they come from authentic gedolim of previous generations - are heresy if expressed against the majority view."They can say it but we can't"

    This is supported by the Chasam Sofer's explanation of why Hillel II view that Moschiach will not come was not heresy when he said it but it is now.

    4) Views such as the Rambam's & Hirsh were horaas shaah emergency measures for that generation and they are no longer need so we ignore them or ban them depending on how harmful they are for contemporary society.

    As opposed to that I heard from R' Shmuel Kaminetsky that he doesn't agree that one must follow the majority view.

    Rav Leff has a modified position - views represent a minority view and that a yeshiva person should follow the majority of gedolim. Not that they are prohibited to follow but that the person is simply out of step with the maximally correct view. A serious ben Torah does not follow exotic or interesting minority views

    ReplyDelete
  31. Zitsfleich said...

    R' Eidensohn - were you bringing those citations to support what Shlomo M. said?
    ==============
    I am surprised by your question. No I didn't bring these as support for Shlomo M. just the opposite. I wanted to show that the issue is much more nuanced and complex than his mechanical taxonomy allows for. See my other recent comments for an expansion of my views.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Garnel Ironheart said...

    His answer was that these rebbes had handlers and they were reliant on these handlers for information from the outside world. And the handlers had an agenda: to villify any form of Zionism, even the religious kind. As a result, they were reacting to the distorted news they were given. Their answers were proper but the questions were not.

    There's an old saying in computer science: garbage in = garbage out.
    =======================
    Interesting but not accurate situation of the present issue (or for Zionism either). While there are clearly issues where gedolim can by fed incorrect information - we are dealing with well known rabbinic sources and how to understand them. You don't have to adopt a paranoid view to explain why Gedolim accept interpretation of sources that are consist with a maximizing of Chazal's status

    ReplyDelete
  33. Shlomo M. wrote:

    DT: There are also the issues of the medicines mentioned by the Gaonim in which it is assumed we don't understand their words properly and thus we are not allowed to use them because it casts aspersions on Chazal.

    S.M. That is NOT what the Geonim say. They say that Chazal were incorrect in their medical advice!

    DT: Actually the Gaonim didn't say that Chazal were wrong. Rabbi Akiva Eiger understands it as I have stated. He notes that there is a ban using the medical adivce in the gemora since we don't understand them and the failure of these medicines will cast aspersions on Chazal. It could also be understood that these were not medical dicussions but deeper issues. Either way. Rav Sherira Gaon does not say that they didn't know but that they should not be viewed as doctors that one must follow their advice. Alternatively it could be understood that they were wrong on certain medical issues but that they were merely repeated that which they heard. This is consistent with the view that some - but not all - of what they said was merely common knowledge. It is not a categorical statement such as R' Avraham ben HaRambam that everything they said was limited to their culture.

    ================
    We must inform you that our Sages were not physicians. They may mention medical matters which they noticed here and there in their time, but these are not meant to be a mitzvah. Therefore you should not rely on these cures and you should not practice them at all unless each item has been carefully investigated by medical experts who are certain that this procedure will do no harm and will cause no danger [to the patient]. This is what our ancestors have taught us, that none of these cures should be practiced, unless it is a known remedy and the one who uses it knows that it can cause no harm. [translation in "Freedom to Interpret", by Rabbi Aryeh Carmell]

    =================================
    DT: Putting it all together it is clearly obvious that the acceptance of infallablity is well supported by the majority of views.

    S.M. Which majority? Amongst the Acharonim? For sure. But amongst the Geonim/Rishonim? No way.

    DT - Baruch HaShem we are making headway - at least you now acknowledge that the majority of Achronim agree with this view of the infallablity of the statements of Chazal on some level. In other words as Science it might not be true but on the level of Kabbala it might. Sometimes Chazal used contemporary science to explain deeper issues and thus the moshul is not literally true but the nimshal is.

    Now we just have to work on the Rishonim and Gaonim which I assume we will see that there are very few categorical statements supporting your view.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Baruch HaShem we are making headway - at least you now acknowledge that the majority of Achronim agree with this view of the infallablity of the statements of Chazal on some level.

    I always acknowledged that - that was my whole point! That there has been a move away from the rationalist approach of the Rishonim, with this approach steadily dwindling during the time of the Acharonim (along with the rise of kabbalah), until we reach today's point, where most charedi Gedolim either deny that anyone ever held this view, or claim it to be the aberrant view of R. Avraham ben HaRambam.

    By the way, Rav Sherira does NOT say that we do not understand their medicines. He is clearly saying that we cannot be sure that they were ever correct.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Essentially the view of the Ben Ish Hai and the Mekubalim. Often when ChaZaL seem to be talking about science in reality they are not. Rather they are talking about deeper mystical things, that are literally true from a Kabbalistic understanding.
    R' Moshe ben Nachman, the Ramban, was the last of the true Kabbalists. After his death nothing remained in the hands of those who were entrusted with the tradtion but a few general rules. Faith and Folly R' Yaakov Hillel p37. I quote this because of the many haskamot, virtually from every Gadol alive at the time of its initial publication in Hebrew under the title Kuntres Tamim tihyeh, including from my teacher R' Kaduri Z"L.

    This sums up the primary problem. If ChaZaL was speaking in Kabbalistic metaphor through the language of science, then ultimately the truth of what they were saying has been lost. Subsequent generations have by and large been found unworthy by Shamayim to understand their secrets. Thus to apply a rationalistic method to the literal statements found in Shas is by and large to not only do them a disservice and cast aspersions upon ChaZaL, but to, through either ignorance or willfulness, deliberately mis-understand them.

    In the sixteenth century, Eliyahu Ha-Navi appeared to the holy sage R' Yitchak Luria, the Arizal, and taught him the secrets hidden in its metaphors. The Arizal transmitted this knowledge to his disciples. His scribe and closest disciple, R' Chayim Vital, compiled Etz Chaim, which embodied the complete Kabbalistic tradition as revealed by R' Chayim's teacher. With the Zohar and the Arizal's books, Kabbalah became an integral part of the Torah tradition and an important part in Jewish thought, law and ethics. Nevertheless, the details and inner secrets have continued to remain the inheritance of the chosen few.p 37.

    Again this leaves us in a similar situation. The general public may have access to some of this knowledge and may be able to come to understand some of the secrets contained within the words of ChaZaL, for instance as the Ben Ish Hai put down in Beniyahu Ben Yehoida(which D"T quoted above) the majority still remain hidden from the eyes of the masses. Proof of this can be found in the same work, Beniyahu Ben Yehoida, in his commentary on the Gemmarra following the first Mishna in Berachot 44A, there he states simply "This mashal contains deep secrets". But does not elaborate. Leaving us either with the Ben Ish Hai not knowing them(which I personally doubt else he would have either stated this or remained silent as well as this mashal is treated at length in the Kitvei HaAri) or the Ben Ish Hai feeling that for whatever reason they are not fit for public consumption.

    Granted their are at least two traditional rationalistic movements, both to my knowledge Yeminite in origin, Dor Deah and Talmidei HaRambam, that would reject the above approach, within the greater Traditional/Hareidi Othrodoxy the above views are fairly normative. Meaning that by and large no one in any Haredi Yeshiva will tell a student that a serious Ben Torah shouldn't be reading Beniyahu Ben Yehoidah, even when he says that sun does not literally walk behind the heavens at night, but rather travels as modern science tells us, and ChaZaL was speaking in a mashal to transmit deeply Kabbalistic metaphors.

    The problem really is not whether ChaZaL erred, it ultimately comes in how we try to understand what they are saying. If we think that they are only speaking in legalistic and rationalistic terms we will be lead astray. There was once a time when I was having considerable trouble with a certain concept found in Eitz Haim. When I asked R' Kaduri for help he, in his typically terse fashion told me to read a certain daf of Gemmorra. When I simply stared at him, he stated, "If you want to be successful in Torah you must come to understand that Gemarrah is the repository of Jewish knowledge and Torah, ALL Jewish knowledge and Torah. It is the single most Kabbalistic work ever written."

    ReplyDelete
  36. From http://torahandscience.blogspot.com/2006/04/sources-indicating-that-chazal-did-not.html

    Rav Dovid Karliner

    It is clear that we rely on the judgment of physicians, for even in matters of capital punishment we must do so. It remains for us to explain how to rule in a case where the community of physicians, armed with their knowledge and experiments, contradict a tradition of Chazal. In such a case, ... if the tradition of Chazal is undisputed and comes from Sinai respecting halacha-related matters, such as tereifot – [an animal] that they have not learned from tradition to be a tereifah is certainly curable, and it is of no concern to us that the physicians, based on their studies, believe it to be uncurable. When all [the Talmudic sages] agree, the matter will never change and we do not pay heed to the physicians and biologists. All of this applies only to statements of Chazal pertaining to halacha. But those things they say one should be careful about because they are dangerous – such things can change over time, ... and it is also possible that in their days there was no known cure for something, and now, with the passage of time, a cure has been found – given that [in such contexts] Chazal's statements did not stem from Sinaitic tradition, but from their knowledge of medicine. It may be that they learned many things from the [gentile] physicians. ... It is true that many cures were known to them [via divine mechanisms], but we cannot say that about all the cures [they mentioned]. Even though they said that one violates Shabbat [to treat a particular ailment], their ruling would apply only in their era and in a place where no other treatment was known, and the ill person, based on experience, was in danger. When, however, the ailment is found to be treatable to the extent that it is no longer considered dangerous, Shabbat should not be violated. [translation by HWMNBN]

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mekubal and DT, your approach gladdens my heart. We have no fight with Science (or Slifkin). Our problem is with the literalists.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "The correct hashkofa goes by the majority of contemporary gedolim. So statements contrary to the majority view - even though they come from authentic gedolim of previous generations - are heresy if expressed against the majority view."They can say it but we can't"

    1) The last phrase is explained by R. Feldman,shlita(I am not sure if you are explaining it in the same way).

    "Since we are not permitted to follow Slifkin’s views, R. Eliashiv believes that they can be rightfully categorized as heresy (apikorsus) as the ban’s wording had it. I believe this is because they diminish the honor and the acceptability of the words of the Sages, which has the status of apikorsus."

    2) Prof. Marc Shapiro writes in the Jewish Action, linked below,

    "Yet nothing could be more at odds with the Rambam’s understanding. According to the Rambam, Principles of Faith are eternal truths. They define the essence of what Judaism was, is and forever will be. If the majority of posekim determine that God has a body, this will not change the fact that it is still a basic principle of the Jewish faith to assert the opposite. For the Rambam, Principles of Faith don’t depend on the majority, be they right or wrong, for they are part of the essence of Torah. Principles of Faith have not, and indeed can never, change. Unlike the Chatam Sofer’s pan-halachic approach, in the Rambam’s conception, one doesn’t need a halachic decision for the Principles to be binding. As Menachem Kellner has put it, “Dogmas, it must be recalled, are beliefs taught as true by the Torah; is the truth taught by the Torah historically conditioned?”

    Note that I am NOT endorsing Shapiro's or even Slifkin's views. But I would like to know how this works. During Rav Hirsch's and Rav Herzog's time it was okay, but now it's not? Are we at sof horaah despite yeridas hadoros, and how does this work retroactively(?) on a metaphysical level?

    http://www.ou.org/index.php/jewish_action/article/33200/

    3) "Views such as the Rambam's & Hirsh were horaas shaah emergency measures for that generation and they are no longer need so we ignore them or ban them depending on how harmful they are for contemporary society."

    What is contemporary society-Bnei Brak, Flatbush, Teaneck, or Franfurt Am Main?

    There is plenty of kefirah today as well(I am not sure if I should be more direct, but hamevin yavin--think to what and whom RNS was responding to).

    The above view qoted by R. Eidensohn follows this view in the Jerusalem Post article on Slifkin:

    "The educator at Machon Lev agrees that answers should be provided, but believes the apparent contradiction between science and religion is not a burning issue for most religious youth.

    "A century ago the contradiction destroyed the spirituality of thousands of Jews. But today there are many religious scientists and professors who have refuted supposed inconsistencies.

    "I think what truly bothers contemporary religious youth is a much more personal, existential question. The real thinkers are concerned with why they were put on this earth and what they are supposed to do here."

    As above, I am not sure if this is an over-simpflication. Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz has written about "Wallmart", " I think of the Internet not in terms of a mobile red-light district, but rather like the Haskalah on steroids"

    If so, the *entire* Hirschian, Hildesheimer and R. Shraga Feivel Mendelowitz legacies are as relevant today as ever, despite successes of the Yeshivah World. Perhaps this is too sharp, but would not only a fool discard useful tools of the past?

    I'd be interested in seeing R. Eidensohn's comments on these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  39. R' Eidensohn, after all your quotations from Rav Ovadiah etc., I just don't get where you stand any more. The other day you said that R. Avraham ben haRambam was the ONLY one to say that Chazal erred in science. Now you apparently acknowledge that Rambam, Lechem Mishneh, R. DOvid Karliner and a host of others did so too. Am I missing something, or did you drastically revise your position?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Many "scientific" statements of Chazal are Hakbalot to kabbalistic concepts. This does not mean that Chazal had scientific knowledge beyond the knowledge of their days. They did not.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yeah, but the claim that they were talking about kabbalah is only made by Acharonim, not by Rishonim.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Mekubal and DT, your approach gladdens my heart. We have no fight with Science (or Slifkin). Our problem is with the literalists.

    The problem is that there are two types of literalists:
    1) Those who take all Chazals about science literally and insist they are always correct. (The simple Chareidi approach)
    2) Those who take all Chazals about science literally and say they got it from their culture and therefore always got it wrong. (The Slifkin approach following the alleged Rav Avraham ben Harambam.

    The Rambam in his into to Chelek says both these types of groups (not discussing this exact topic but still relevant) are wrong but the second is much worse than the first.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Yet nothing could be more at odds with the Rambam’s understanding. According to the Rambam, Principles of Faith are eternal truths. They define the essence of what Judaism was, is and forever will be.

    I think this is just wrong. I do not believe the Rambam held that Rav Hillel--a member of Chazal-- lost his olam haba for believing there will beno future Moshiach.
    Nor would the Rambam say that Aharon and Miriam would lose their olam haba for equating Moshe Rabbeinu's prophecy with theirs before God corrected their mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Yeah, but the claim that they were talking about kabbalah is only made by Acharonim, not by Rishonim.

    First I am not sure that the Rishonim ever truly envisioned a time in which the people would not have basid Kabbalistic understandings of such texts.

    Secondly I wouldn't call Nehuniah Ben Kana a Acharon, and according to Yitzchak D'Min Acco, he(R' Nehuniah) was the frist to expouse an Old Universe theory, and to actually write explicity, even in Kabbalistic seforim about the Kabbalistic understanding of the six days of creation. Personally I find tackling Mikra and the its take on things a lot more ambitious than tackling Gemarrah.

    Third, I understand that you have probably never spent considerable time studying Zohar in depth. However, again we are dealing with a work that was authored by a Tanna, that deals with these issues in its own metaphorical way.

    In total however, we have to come back to the fact that the majority of the Rishonim were also great Mekubalim. Thus their comments must be understood in that light. In other words when they make statements about the "science" of ChaZaL they understood that there were deep Kabbalistic underpinnings going on, and thus their comments need to be taken in the light of that. Thus they are not literally saying that ChaZaL was wrong, but that they were not talking about physical science, and that to follow what they say as accurate physical science may lead you astray, as they were talking about metaphysical science.

    Finally it seems easy to criticize a lack of scienntific knowledge today. However, we must understand that science today is not what science was then. For instance today we see geometry as simple(or somewhat advanced) mathematics. We do not see it as a pagan religion. Mostly because modern science has been, more or less scrubbed clean of overt religious influence. However, in the days of ChaZaL, things such as geometry were actual religions, see:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism
    and were thus shunned. It was impossible to learn geometry without being immersed in a pagan religion. So it is possible to state that ChaZaL possibly had very little to do with actual science.

    All of these things combine to show that this situation is far more nuanced than you truly want to admit.

    ReplyDelete
  45. If you want your comment published - add a name. Anonymous comments are not published!

    ReplyDelete
  46. At this point I don't see any difference between Rishonim and Achronim in their attitutde towards Chazal.

    1) Chazal were special people with special knowledge either from Sinai or ruach hakodesh. Chazon Ish. Rambam and Rashba clearly insist on following them in treifos even when scientific evidence seems against them. Rashba says that normally we follow the words of philosopher/scientists unless it seems that Chazal had a specific mesora or knowedge. This approach is contrary to a simplisitc labeling of rishonim as rationalists and achronim as anti-rationalists or mystics. Ramban - who occassionally disagrees with Chazal - about 97 percent of the time will defer to them- in particular in halachic issues. See Hilchos Niddah where he raises questions about their view but defers to them anyway.

    2) There are some things which they stated are factually not true. It is often not clear whether the science was simply stated as a mashal to explain to to people who held that way (Ramchal) or whether they were simply stating a fact which had no deeper meaning. Thus it is dangerous to simply dismiss any thing that they say. Even in an apparently clear cut case Pesachim 94b - Rabbeinu Tam, Shita Mekubetzes and Maharal clearly understand that Chazal were correct even though Rebbe testified that it "appears that the view of the secular scholars seemed more correct."

    It is view of Rav Avraham ben HaRambam which seems unique in at first glance to be a blanket dismissal of Chazal's scientific knowledge as being merely that of the times. However even this can be understood as meaning that it shouldn't be taken as scientific truth but it could still be esoteric material.

    Finally the statements of the geonim seem to merely disqualify Chazal as a source of practical medical knowledge. They do not say that those statement which are not scientifically correct have no redeeming value.

    Putting it all together. Chazal have superior insights either from Sinai or ruach hakodesh. Especially in describing science in relationship to halacha it would seem that the halacha is correct even if the science is outdated. Concern that their words contained deeper meaning in the same manner of Agada would make a prudent person loathe to dismiss or ridicule anything they say. Rav Moshe also notes that one does not dismiss something that they say which relates to microsopic or astronimical phenomenon or anything which would seem to need scientific instruments that were not available in their time. He says the same can not be said about the rishonim.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Those who take all Chazals about science literally and say they got it from their culture and therefore always got it wrong. (The Slifkin approach)

    FKM, this is simply false. In most cases that R' Slifkin discusses, he says that Chazal were NOT speaking literally. He only says that they were being literal when the context forces it and when the majority of the Rishonim say so.

    The Rambam in his into to Chelek says both these types of groups (not discussing this exact topic but still relevant) are wrong

    Actually Rambam is not at all relevant. Rambam himself says that on some occasions, Chazal were speaking literally and they were wrong (e.g. with astronomy). Rambam's critique to which you refer, is to those who take all aggadatas literally, which is certainly not R' Slifkin's approach.

    ReplyDelete
  48. In total however, we have to come back to the fact that the majority of the Rishonim were also great Mekubalim.

    I'm sorry but this is contemporary revisionism. You might choose to believe that the Zohar was written by RSBY but the fact is that Rambam and many others were not kabbalists. Even those who were kabbalists, such as Ramban, did not inject this into everything in the Gemara.

    Thus they are not literally saying that ChaZaL was wrong, but that they were not talking about physical science, and that to follow what they say as accurate physical science may lead you astray, as they were talking about metaphysical science.

    This is simply nonsense. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.

    Chazal were special people with special knowledge either from Sinai or ruach hakodesh. Chazon Ish. Rambam and Rashba clearly insist on following them in treifos even when scientific evidence seems against them.

    Rambam does NOT say that Chazal had special knowledge of science! In fact he clearly states that they erred in astronomy, along with Yechezkel! How can you distort him like this?!

    It is often not clear whether the science was simply stated as a mashal to explain to to people who held that way (Ramchal) or whether they were simply stating a fact which had no deeper meaning. Even in an apparently clear cut case Pesachim 94b...

    That's a bizarre spin. Not clear to who? It would be more accurate to state that in the case of Pesachim, 100% of the Rishonim interpreted Chazal literally, one or two said that they were still correct (and nobody would say today that the sun goes behind the sky!), and only beginning with Maharal do we find the view that it is not literal. So there is a very blatant disconnect between the Rishonim and Acharonim.

    Putting it all together. Chazal have superior insights either from Sinai or ruach hakodesh.

    NO. Putting it all together, many Rishonim and many Acharonim say that Chazal sometimes erred in science because they did NOT have superior insights.

    Especially in describing science in relationship to halacha it would seem that the halacha is correct even if the science is outdated.

    That is an entirely different and unrelated topic.

    Concern that their words contained deeper meaning in the same manner of Agada would make a prudent person loathe to dismiss or ridicule anything they say.

    When every single Rishon interprets the Gemara in Pesachim literally, it would be wise to acknowledge that this is most likely the correct approach. And when most conclude that Chazal erred, it would wise to conclude that this is the mainstream approach amongst the Rishonim.

    And nobody here is "ridiculing" Chazal. We are talking about following the approach of many Rishonim and Acharonim in saying that they relied on the science of their era.

    ReplyDelete
  49. It is view of Rav Avraham ben HaRambam which seems unique in at first glance to be a blanket dismissal of Chazal's scientific knowledge as being merely that of the times. However even this can be understood as meaning that it shouldn't be taken as scientific truth but it could still be esoteric material.

    If you are going to read R. Avraham ben HaRambam that way, then you are so intellectually dishonest that any further discussion is pointless. Why don't you take a look at it again.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Kuzari(3:49): If a person was to rely entirely on his logic and commonsense in these matters he could in fact arrive at a totally different conclusion. Therefore, it is best not to rely entirely on logical reasoning concerning the observance of the Torah commandments because it is likely just to create doubts which can lead to heresy. Furthermore, since people often have different opinions of what is commonsense, it will lead to significant disagreement with other people who are relying entirely on their commonsense. Consequently, it is best to have one’s understanding rooted in traditional understanding and what is in the texts. With these as his starting point, he can then successfully apply logical reasoning—no matter where it leads—even if the conclusions are against one’s rational understanding and intuition… There are in fact many things in the physical world that reality conflicts with appearance or common understanding. Therefore everything that our Sages said is permitted, it was not because they followed their personal opinion or preference. Rather it was the conclusion of the inherited wisdom that had been transmitted to them by Tradition. It is exactly the same thing concerning that which they prohibit. A person who is unable to comprehend their wisdom and yet judges their words according to his own limited understanding—will view their words as bizarre. This is comparable to the fact that the ignorant masses think that the words of philosophers and scientists are bizarre. The sages, when they ascertain the parameters of each Halacha and determine what is permitted and prohibited, do it entirely according to the principles of the law...

    ReplyDelete
  51. Not false. I'm not discussing "most cases that R' Slifkin discusses."
    Listen carefully:
    I'm discussing one clear group of statements. R' Slifkin addresses. He that whenever Chazal are in fact making a scientific statement, they are wrong.
    As Daas Torah pointed out repeatedly, no-one but the letter attributed to RABH says this.

    And Yes, the Rambam is relevant to measure which typical responses to Chazal's statements are more appropriate than others.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Sefer HaIkkarim (3:49)If a person was to rely entirely on his logic and commonsense in these matters he could in fact arrive at a totally different conclusion. Therefore, it is best not to rely entirely on logical reasoning concerning the observance of the Torah commandments because it is likely just to create doubts which can lead to heresy. Furthermore, since people often have different opinions of what is commonsense, it will lead to significant disagreement with other people who are relying entirely on their commonsense. Consequently, it is best to have one’s understanding rooted in traditional understanding and what is in the texts. With these as his starting point, he can then successfully apply logical reasoning—no matter where it leads—even if the conclusions are against one’s rational understanding and intuition… There are in fact many things in the physical world that reality conflicts with appearance or common understanding. Therefore everything that our Sages said is permitted, it was not because they followed their personal opinion or preference. Rather it was the conclusion of the inherited wisdom that had been transmitted to them by Tradition. It is exactly the same thing concerning that which they prohibit. A person who is unable to comprehend their wisdom and yet judges their words according to his own limited understanding—will view their words as bizarre. This is comparable to the fact that the ignorant masses think that the words of philosophers and scientists are bizarre. The sages, when they ascertain the parameters of each Halacha and determine what is permitted and prohibited, do it entirely according to the principles of the law...

    ReplyDelete
  53. What is the relevance of the quote from the Kuzari? Are you claiming that he is condemning Rambam and others who said that Chazal erred on occasion? I guess it could be that he was.

    ReplyDelete
  54. R. S.R. Hirsch(Letter on Agada p 9–10): Question: What is the correct way of dealing with students when they find issues where the words of our Sages do not agree with that of secular scholars and scientists? Answer: It seems that the questioner is primarily interested in conflicts with science, which in our day has progressed ten times greater than in previous generations. If this is in fact the question, we already have a clearly established approach to save our students from this obstacle—which I view as true. Firstly, students should not be prevented from properly studying science. On the contrary, we should teach them these subjects adequately and intelligently. That is because it is only the uneducated masses who lack knowledge and understanding of the nature of science and therefore believe everything claimed in the name of contemporary science They believe that our generation is the epitome of wisdom and that all that is in Heaven and earth has been revealed to modern scientists—who from their exalted high perch look down upon all the previous generations. In contrast, someone who knows and understands thoroughly the study of science can acknowledge the many genuine proven accomplishments of science of matters that were concealed to the previous generations. However, he also is fully aware of the limitations of science. In particular, he is aware of the great number of issues which are not proven fact but are primarily hypotheses and guesses. Many of these theories are very doubtful speculations upon which other speculations are built daily. That which today is praised and glorified as if it were the absolute truth is questioned tomorrow and then rejected. It is uncertain that which can be fully accepted. At the same time, there are things in the books of the previous generations which for 50 or 100 years have been viewed as ridiculous and false by the scholars. Then someone decides that in fact there is some truth in these views. There is also profound knowledge of the ancients which has been lost that we still lack. Therefore, if one finds words in the books of the previous generations which contradict the views of contemporary scientists—we cannot be hasty to decide that the ancients were wrong and that contemporary scientists are always right.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Rivash(487): We are not to decide any of the laws of our Torah and its commandments based on the opinions of scientists and doctors. Because if we were to believe their words, then Torah is not from Heaven—Heaven forbid! They accept this mistaken view because of their false proofs. If you were to determine whether an animal is treyfa based on medical knowledge you would conclude that the majority of the defective animals to be kosher while some that were declared kosher would be declared defective… However, we in fact do not rely on the judgment of medicine but rather on the words of our Sages even if they tell us that right is left. That is because our Sages have received the truth and the interpretations of the mitzvos by tradition generation after generation from Moshe. We do not believe the Greek or Arab scholars whose only source of validation is from their own theory and experimentation which is open to many possible errors—as opposed to our Sages…

    ReplyDelete
  56. Ralbag(Milchemes HaShem 1:14): You should know that we do not adopt theological views that are incompatible with the Torah. In fact, in general the conclusions of philosophical thought are not accepted if they contradict our faith. Whenever we find such contradictions, we should assume that it is the result of our shortcomings. Therefore, one should not alter his religious beliefs because of apparent conflicts with philosophical arguments. That is our practice also when we see that our religious faith requires views that differ from what is determined solely on the basis of reason. This approach is obligatory for all religious people. Because if the door were open to reject those aspects of religion that were in apparent conflict with what is taught by pure reason—then religion would be finished and its benefits would disappear from the members of the faith. Then there would be major disputes and confusion amongst the members of the religion because of the lack of faith. This would produce major harm that could not be ignored. It should be understood that this point applies to everything discussed in this book. In other words, if it appears to any member of the faith that reason requires believing something which contradicts any aspect of the accepted religious beliefs—he should abandon the conclusions of reason and continue with his religious beliefs. He should attribute his inability to reconcile religion and reason to human inadequacies.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Rabbeinu Bachye( Bamidbar 18:29): It is well known that philosophical understanding is not of fundamental importance for us since it is only from intellectual analysis… The wise of Israel base themselves on the words of our Sages who were the scholars of truth which was learned from the prophets. They are the ones who know everything according to its truth.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Rambam(Me’ila 8:8): It is proper for a person to try to understand the meaning of the laws of the Torah to the best of his ability. However, those things which he can’t find a purpose or justification should not be viewed lightly and rejected as one does with mundane matters that one can not make sense of. …

    ReplyDelete
  59. Talk about selective quoting!
    R. S.R. Hirsch(Letter on Agada): wever, it seems to me that the guiding principle every student of our sages' words should bear in mind is that our sages were the scholars of the Godly religion and were the recipients, transmitters and teachers of God's guidance, ordinances, commandments and statutes; they were not especially natural scientists, geometers, astronomers or physicians except as it was necessary for their comprehension, observance and performance of the Torah – and we do not find that this knowledge was transmitted to them from Sinai.

    ReplyDelete
  60. What on earth is the purpose of these quotations from Rambam etc. which deal with entirely different topics? RAMBAM SAID THAT CHAZAL ERRED IN SCIENCE! (and other matters!) Why don't you actually address the points that I made?

    ReplyDelete
  61. רמב"ם הלכות שחיטה י

    הלכה יב
    ואין להוסיף על טריפות אלו כלל, שכל שאירע לבהמה או לחיה או לעוף חוץ מאלו שמנו חכמי דורות הראשונים והסכימו עליהן בבתי דיני ישראל אפשר שתחיה, ואפילו נודע לנו מדרך הרפואה שאין סופה לחיות.

    הלכה יג
    וכן אלו שמנו ואמרו שהן טריפה אף על פי שיראה בדרכי הרפואה שבידינו שמקצתן אינן ממיתין ואפשר שתחיה מהן אין לך אלא מה שמנו חכמים שנאמר על פי התורה אשר יורוך.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Thanks for bringing the quote from Rambam. As can be seen, his maintaining the halachos of terefos has nothing to do with his thinking that it is scientifically correct - in fact he explicitly states that they may not be. This is the exact opposite of how you paraphrased Rambam earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "I think this is just wrong. I do not believe the Rambam held that Rav Hillel--a member of Chazal-- lost his olam haba for believing there will beno future Moshiach."

    1) One can make a difference between losing Olam Habbah and being guilty of kefirah. However, this would not seem to agree with the Brisker Rav of "Nebech an Apikores" on Ikkarie Emunah, which is an explanation in the Rambam. Perhaps Rambam holds that Hillel didn't completely deny Moshiach(see Ikkarim, below).

    The specific case of Hillel is discussed by R. Yosef Albo and I belive by Abarbanel in Rosh Amanah(and I'm sure in other sources).

    Here is a link to Sefer Ikkarim Mamar Rishon, Perek Alef which discusses Hillel.

    http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/ikarim/a1-2.htm#1

    2) The Baal HaIkkarim himself seems to concludes that Hillel did not belive in Moshiach, but he would not be a Kofer, because it's not an ikkar according to RY Albo.

    Why didn't the Baal HaIkkarim conclude that Hillel was living before the Middle Ages(or the 21st Century :) ), when we finally are able to pasken what's kefirah and what's not?

    To quote from Professor Shpiro in the Jewish Action mentioned before:

    "We can see that the Rishonim held this view by how they dispute with the Rambam. When they want to show that one of his Principles is mistaken, they cite a Talmudic passage to show that one of the Tannaim or Amoraim disagreed with him. Thus, to give an example I only saw after my book was completed, Rabbi Isaiah ben Elijah of Trani’s proof that belief in God’s incorporeality is not a Principle, denial of which is heresy, is that there were Sages of the Talmud who held this belief (Sanhedrei Gedolah leMasechet Sanhedrin 5:2 [Jerusalem, 1972], p. 118).

    Rabbi Isaiah doesn’t assume, or even raise as a possibility, that it used to be permitted to believe this, but now, since the halachah has been decided, it is forbidden. On the contrary, he asserts, based on the fact that some Talmudic Sages believed in a physical God and they are not, Heaven forbid, to be regarded as heretics, that God’s incorporeality cannot be a Principle. This, to him, is the greatest proof that the Rambam is wrong in declaring that all who deny his Third Principle are heretics. In other words, Rabbi Isaiah also believes that for something to be a Principle of Faith, it has to be eternally true."

    As above, I'm not endorsing Professor Shapiro's views, but my thrust is on the Science/Chazal issues.

    3) I don't undestand the last line of the Ikkarim in Maamar Alef, where he says "who ever doesn't COUNT Moshiach as an Ikkar would be a kofer according to the Rambam"("v'chein mi shlo manah etc."). What does counting and listing as an ikkar have to do with being a kofer, even according to the Rambam who speaks of BELIEF?

    4) I also wonder what the Baal HaIkkarim, who concludes at the end of this Maamar that there is a "sakanah atzumah", grave danger, to make ikkarim would say today, when we seem to be making more required beliefs(granted, perhaps not literal "Ikkarim") than the Rambam had :)

    Ironically, it might be argued that kefirah is stronger in a post-Enlightenment Age, when we have issues Rishonim did not have to deal with. Let the same leniencies Hirsch had apply today, becuase PART of the frum world is no better than RSRH.

    On the other hand, this very fact(post-Enlightenment Age issues) might partially drive Bnei Brak et al. to ban what Slifkin calls the "rationalist approach"--"they can say it, and we can't"(besides the separate issues of Kabbalah, mentioned by RA Feldman in his essay, growth of the Torah Only world, Yeridas Hadoros mentioned by Kovetz Maamorim's letter to R Schwab eschewing rationalist approach, general insularity, and emunah peshutah emphasis).

    ReplyDelete
  64. Zitsfleich said...

    What on earth is the purpose of these quotations from Rambam etc. which deal with entirely different topics? RAMBAM SAID THAT CHAZAL ERRED IN SCIENCE! (and other matters!) Why don't you actually address the points that I made?
    ================
    You apparently haven't noticed that I agree with the statement that Chazal made statements which are erroneous as scientific statements. For example their explanations of earthquakes as being G-d's tears falling into the Mediterranean. It is clearly an erroneous scientific explanation of earthquakes. Does that mean that the statment has no meaning aside from the scientific? Sometimes the answer is yes and sometimes no. Similarly the two statements of Hirsch - they were both made by the same individual but they seem to contradict each other.
    I am arguing that a richer more nuanced understanding is required other than "yes their science was wrong."

    ReplyDelete
  65. I'm discussing one clear group of statements. R' Slifkin addresses. He that whenever Chazal are in fact making a scientific statement, they are wrong - FKM

    Er, I'm pretty darn sure that he doesn't say that. Every single scientific statement by Chazal is wrong?! I can't imagine for a moment that he says that.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Does that mean that the statment has no meaning aside from the scientific? Sometimes the answer is yes and sometimes no.

    Correct. WHich is why your claim that "the idea that Chazal could be mistaken about science is a daas yachid" is complete nonsense.

    Similarly the two statements of Hirsch - they were both made by the same individual but they seem to contradict each other

    They don't contradict each other in the slightest. The first statement expresses skepticism about science (which is very appropriate, considering the state of science in his day). The second statement expresses the fact that Chazal often made scientific statements based on the science of their day.

    I am arguing that a richer more nuanced understanding is required other than "yes their science was wrong

    The correct nuanced understanding is as follows:
    Most Rishonim held that occasionally their science was wrong and there was no deeper meaning (as opposed to aggadata where they interpreted it allegorically).
    Some Rishonim held that their science was always right.
    Some Acharonim (e.g. Maharal) introduced the idea that there is always deeper meaning.

    That is the correct nuanced understanding. That is the understanding of every honest person who approaches the topic.
    That is not the way that you presented it.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Daniel Eidensohn:
    I asked him [Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky], "Is it permitted to believe that the world is more than 6000 years [old]?" He responded that it was permitted…I mentioned that there are gedolim who have asserted that since the majority of gedolim reject the view that the world is more than 6000 years old that is is kefira to assert such a position today. He said he was aware of such an assertion but disagreed with it. He noted that in fact the discussion about the age of the universe is not a new topic. He said that Rav Avraham ben HaRambam disagreed with the approach of these gedolim and that after Techiyas HaMeisim these gedolim would have to explain to Rav Avraham ben HaRambam why they disagreed with him.”

    ReplyDelete
  68. Zitsfleich said...

    In total however, we have to come back to the fact that the majority of the Rishonim were also great Mekubalim.

    I'm sorry but this is contemporary revisionism. You might choose to believe that the Zohar was written by RSBY but the fact is that Rambam and many others were not kabbalists. Even those who were kabbalists, such as Ramban, did not inject this into everything in the Gemara.


    You name me those Rishonim who were not Mekubalim, and see where the majority lies.

    As far as the Zohar, considering the number of manuscripts that can be perused at institutions like Hebrew U and Bar Ilan that date back to the Gaonic period, I would say yes it was definitely written by the Rashbi. As it now stands we have a great many extant copies of the Zohar that predate any extant copy of Gemarra.

    There the facts are against you.

    Finally even if the Rishonim did not inject Kabbalistic comments into all of their commentary on Shas, it is also impossible to state that their overall learning, including Kabbalah, did not color their perceptions and comments.

    Even those who were not actual Mekubalim in that they were not practitioners of Jewish mystical practices, they were by far versed in Kabbalistic texts. Even the Rambam, arguably not a Kabbalist per se, through several of his comments demonstrates vast knowledge of Kabbalistic texts and concepts.

    Considering that this information can all be found in Kuntres Tamim Tihyeh, which has Haskamot from not only all of the Rabbinim that banned Slifkin's books, but a great many others as well(in fact over have the printed text is haskamot), then in fact you are saying that these Gedolim support, endorse and perpetuate this revisionism. Hmmm... sorry I think not.

    ReplyDelete
  69. As far as the Zohar, considering the number of manuscripts that can be perused at institutions like Hebrew U and Bar Ilan that date back to the Gaonic period, I would say yes it was definitely written by the Rashbi.

    There are ancient kabbalistic texts. This does not in any way prove that the Zohar was written by Rashbi.

    Finally even if the Rishonim did not inject Kabbalistic comments into all of their commentary on Shas, it is also impossible to state that their overall learning, including Kabbalah, did not color their perceptions and comments

    The ones who were into kabbalah, yes. However the fact remains that, for example, not a single Rishon interprets
    the Gemara in Pesachim about the sun in a kabbalistic or otherwise non-literal manner.

    Even the Rambam, arguably not a Kabbalist per se, through several of his comments demonstrates vast knowledge of Kabbalistic texts and concepts.

    That's one of the funniest sentences I've read in a long time. "Arguably not a kabbalist per se"? You mean someone who was staunchly against kabbalah! Sure, he knew about kabbalistic concepts - and fought against them! Read "Maimonides' Confrontation with Mysticism"

    then in fact you are saying that these Gedolim support, endorse and perpetuate this revisionism

    Uh, yes, of course. In fact that's the point with the whole debate with the Baal HaBlog. Not that they are deliberately perpetuating falsehood, but rather that their perception of the past is colored by the power of their belief in the current hashkafic framework. Based on your comments, I would say exactly the same about you. No offense!

    It's similar to those who claimed that at the end of his life, Rambam saw the light of kabbalah and recanted his philosophical approach. People can't imagine that Rishonim were really so different from Torah scholars today, so they force themselves to revise history in order to bring the Rishonim in line with current norms.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Mekubal:
    See http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/cjt/files/electures/zohar1.htm and http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/cjt/files/electures/zohar2.htm. Note that the picture on the first page is from a manuscript, Ms. Add. 1023.

    Kabbalah scholars who have access to the old manuscripts don't seem to see the Zohar's authorship the same way you do.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Rav Hirsch (CW 7, p. 85):
    "It is sad to think that the Jewish leaders of that period [the early 19th century] allowed themselves to lose their awareness of the character and intellectual depth and clarity of Judaism in both theory and practice, which certainly cannot be viewed as contrary to the essence of anything genuinely good and true produced by human civilization throughout the ages…Had they been in a position to do so, their broad vision surely would have enabled them to welcome everything good and true in general culture as eminently compatible with the views of Judaism. They would then have been the first to see to it that their disciples, too, became familiar with all that is good and true in genuine culture.”

    ReplyDelete
  72. Rav Hirsch (CW 7, 88)
    “…it seems to us that no thinking Jew, aware of his mission as a Jew, should deny that, quite aside from considerations of vocational and professional education, it also essential that young Jews, particularly those of our own times, should learn about the factors that influence the life of modern nations; in other words, that they should be introduced to those branches of study that will enable them to acquire this knowledge. This would hold true even if we were not so fortunate as to be living at the dawn of an era [of the Emancipation]…Even if our present-day contacts with general culture were merely passive, as they were in the days of our parents, it would be of vital religious importance for us to see that our young people should be guided toward that high level of insight which would enable them to evaluate, from the vantage point of truth and justice, all the personal, social, political, and religious conditions under which they would have to discharge their duties as Jews and as citizens. But now that our young people will be given an opportunity to participate in the public affairs of the land in which we live, how much more important is it that they should receive the education they will need in order that they may enthusiastically embrace all that is good and noble in the European culture of our day, within whose context they will have to perform also their own mission as Jews…

    ReplyDelete
  73. Rav Hirsch, CW 263-264:
    [Judaism does not have a quarrel with science] This will never change, not even if the latest scientific notion that
    the genesis of all the multitude of organic forms on earth can be
    traced back to one single, most primitive, primeval form of life
    should ever appear to be anything more than what it is today, a
    vague hypothesis still unsupported by fact. Even if this notion were
    ever to gain complete acceptance by the scientific world, Jewish
    thought, unlike the reasoning of the high priest of that nation,
    would nonetheless never summon us to revere a still extant
    representative of this primal form [an ape] as the supposed
    ancestor of us all. Rather, Judaism in that case would call upon its
    adherents to give even greater reverence than ever before to the
    one, sole God Who, in His boundless creative wisdom and eternal
    omnipotence, needed to bring into existence no more than one
    single, amorphous nucleus, and one single law of “adaptation and
    heredity” in order to bring forth, from what seemed chaos but was
    in fact a very definite order, the infinite variety of species we know
    today, each with its unique characteristics that sets it apart from all other creatures

    ReplyDelete
  74. Rav Breuer, The Relevancy of TIDE:
    "Anyone who has but a fleeting insight into the life and work of Rav Hirsch will realize that his Torah im Derech Eretz formula was never intended by him him as a Horo'as Sho'oh."

    ReplyDelete
  75. I am arguing that a richer more nuanced understanding is required other than "yes their science was wrong."

    You're absolutely right. Sometimes they were speaking allegorically (Maharal is of the view that they always were). Sometimes, according to the majority of views, they were speaking literally. In those cases, some say that their science was always right, and many others say that it was sometimes wrong.

    I am aware of people on the "right" who present it differently, but I am not aware of anyone on the center/left who does. Who exactly are you trying to oppose?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Zitst. said:
    "Er, I'm pretty darn sure that he doesn't say that. Every single scientific statement by Chazal is wrong?! I can't imagine for a moment that he says that."

    Let me clarify: R' Slifkin said that whenever Chazal make scientific statements, they are either wrong because they followed faulty contemporary science or only got it right because they picked it up from non-Jewish sources.
    He's basically saying that Chazal, on their own, got nothing right in science.

    From here:
    http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/Response%20to%20Rabbi%20Segal.pdf

    Many outreach workers claim that the Gemara is full of astounding scientific
    information that was unknown to the rest of the world at the time and could only
    have been known through ruach hakodesh. In the course of writing my book Mysterious
    Creatures I investigated dozens of such claims. I had hoped to include such cases in the
    section where I explain the approach that Chazal possessed superior knowledge of the
    natural world. Unfortunately, so far I have found all such claims to fall into one or
    more of the following three categories:
    1) A statement of Chazal that is very unlikely to mean what it is claimed to mean; [i.e kiruv people kvetch the correct science into their words when Chazal probably got it wrong- FKM]
    2) A scientific fact that is indeed in the Torah/ Gemara, but which the non-Jews of
    that time knew also, or:
    3) Something that is not true.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Daniel Eidensohn:
    "Views such as the Rambam's & Hirsh were horaas shaah emergency measures for that generation and they are no longer need so we ignore them or ban them depending on how harmful they are for contemporary society."

    ReplyDelete
  78. רמב"ם הלכות שחיטה י

    הלכה יב
    ואין להוסיף על טריפות אלו כלל, שכל שאירע לבהמה או לחיה או לעוף חוץ מאלו שמנו חכמי דורות הראשונים והסכימו עליהן בבתי דיני ישראל אפשר שתחיה, ואפילו נודע לנו מדרך הרפואה שאין סופה לחיות.

    הלכה יג
    וכן אלו שמנו ואמרו שהן טריפה אף על פי שיראה בדרכי הרפואה שבידינו שמקצתן אינן ממיתין ואפשר שתחיה מהן אין לך אלא מה שמנו חכמים שנאמר על פי התורה אשר יורוך.

    רמב"ם הלכות שחיטה י

    הלכה יב
    ואין להוסיף על טריפות אלו כלל, שכל שאירע לבהמה או לחיה או לעוף חוץ מאלו שמנו חכמי דורות הראשונים והסכימו עליהן בבתי דיני ישראל אפשר שתחיה, ואפילו נודע לנו מדרך הרפואה שאין סופה לחיות.


    Zitsfleich said...

    Thanks for bringing the quote from Rambam. As can be seen, his maintaining the halachos of terefos has nothing to do with his thinking that it is scientifically correct - in fact he explicitly states that they may not be. This is the exact opposite of how you paraphrased Rambam earlier.


    Um, this Rambam says that ANY WOUND outside the treifos listed by Chazal COULD LIVE--that's why they are not in the list--DESPITE medical knowledge which says it should not live.
    WE follow Chazal's assertion that it truly may live-- against medical knowledge.
    Its explicit.

    The next Rambam is more obscure. The expert reading of that next Rambam is that he holds of nishtaneh hateva, but that doesn't affect the practical definition of treifos fixed by the Sanhedrin for all time despite the changes in teva.
    הלכה יג
    וכן אלו שמנו ואמרו שהן טריפה אף על פי שיראה בדרכי הרפואה שבידינו שמקצתן אינן ממיתין ואפשר שתחיה מהן אין לך אלא מה שמנו חכמים שנאמר על פי התורה אשר יורוך

    ReplyDelete
  79. "People can't imagine that Rishonim were really so different from Torah scholars today, so they force themselves to revise history in order to bring the Rishonim in line with current norms."

    Rishonim and Geonim were radically different than contemporary Gedolim on certain issues:

    From the website of R. Jonathan Sacks :

    "R. Hai Gaon instructed R. Matzliach ben Albassek, the dayan of Sicily, to go to the head of the Christian church [the Nestorian patriarch] to ask him what he knew regarding the interpretation of a biblical verse, whose meaning was in doubt. When he saw that R. Matzliach was reluctant to go, he rebuked him and said, “Our ancestors and pious predecessors would ask the adherents of other faiths, and even shepherds, as is known, for guidance on the meaning or explanation of a word.”

    http://www.chiefrabbi.org/dd/sources/sourc63.html

    R Elchanon, in his letter to R Schwab, mentions Yeridas Hadoros as a reason why we don't adopt Rishonim's approach on Emunah al Pi Chakirah, and I mentioned other reasons above(such as Kabbalah) as why some would reject R Avroham ben Harambam's Science/Torah view's today.

    A rosh yeshivah said at the Agudah Convention a few years ago that " a person can bring tens's of proofs from rishonim to this or that scientic theory. If it's not according to our mesorah, it's irrelevant".

    This above RY agrees that some Rishonim were different, but deems them "irrelevant".

    R. Eidensohn mentioned Rav Elyashiv's view that:

    "there is no problem of raising issues and presenting multiple alternatives - as long as the source material was from mainstream accepted views. He did not see a problem "as long as I did not present sources from the Cairo Geniza"

    On the other hand, he quotes another view by an educator that "you are a danger to klall Yisroel. You are going to cause confusion and doubt by telling people that there are multiple ways of understanding fundamental hashkofa issues".

    It is likely that even the latter view admits that we should not see Rishonim anachronistically through today's eyes, but for educational purposes, people(certainly children) should be presented with little difference on fundamental issues.

    I may have painted separate issues using broad strokes(learning from non Jews, Emunah al Pi Chakirah, Science/Chazal, Multiple Views vs. Single Views), but my point is that there are those in the Yeshivah world who openly admit to differences between Rishonim and today's approach, even if the differences are underemphasized for educational purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I see that Baruch Pelta's citations from the C.W. of Rav Hirsch are all from the same Vol. 7.
    See the introduction to that volume, Vehamaven Yavin.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Baruch Horowitz said...

    "People can't imagine that Rishonim were really so different from Torah scholars today, so they force themselves to revise history in order to bring the Rishonim in line with current norms."

    Rishonim and Geonim were radically different than contemporary Gedolim on certain issues:
    ==================
    The cases you bring are not necessarily representative. So far the attempt to delineate a difference between rishonim and achronimim rests on wishful thinking rather than explicit statements. I will grant the possibility that rishonim took the statements of Chazal as being simply either true or false - but there is no explicit proof. In addition rishonim were not necessarily more similar to each other than they were to achronim. We have one example of one of the gaonim consulting a bishop - hardly makes it typical since I don't think there is a single additional statement like that.

    It reminds me of a conversation I had on Shabbos about the chasid versus the misnagid. We couldn't agree what the typical chasid or misnagid was.

    Even the Rambam writes in such a way it is really not clear what his views were and he himself acknowledges that there are deliberate contradictions in his writings.

    I think ulitmate all those in this discussion are in agreement on the factors involved but disagree about the distribution. I also think most of us have problems with the assertions that "they can say it and we can't" or that that hashkofa goes by majority vote even against clear statements of major rishonim and achronim as well as chazal.

    We all agree at this point that some statements of chazal are not scientifically accurate and are simply mistaken.

    An addition issue is that I just want to point out that while Hirsch is often taken as the model of enlightenment his words against the Rambam as well as Kabbala probably make most of us uncomfortable. His concept of Torah and Derech Eretz is not practiced by too many people. It is an interesting ideal but rather impractical for most of us. He was a breath of fresh air - a nice place to visit but simply not viable for most of us.

    ReplyDelete
  82. An addition issue is that I just want to point out that while Hirsch is often taken as the model of enlightenment his words against the Rambam as well as Kabbala probably make most of us uncomfortable.
    Honestly, they don't really make me uncomfortable.

    There are plenty of statements from Rabbi Aaron Kotler and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein that probably make most of us uncomfortable. Like how they interpret Rambam.

    His concept of Torah and Derech Eretz is not practiced by too many people
    I've published on this topic so I have to be even more careful than usual where I tread...But I will note one thing. One thing Rabbi Joseph Elias, Rabbi Leo Levi, and I (not to imply that those names are equals or near-equals, or that those names necessarily grant any legitimacy whatsoever to the teachings of each other) have all agreed on is that Torah im Derech Eretz may be followed by yidden today and that it is viable derech.

    In fact, the inaugural issue of the Jewish Observer, in an article by the original editorial board -- Chairman Dr. Ernst L. Bodenheimer, R' Nathan Bulman, R' Joseph Elias, Joseph Friedenson, and R' Morris Sherer -- states that the magazine should express the perspective of "Jews...some are Chassidim, others are Misnagdim, while some espouse the Hirschian principle of Torah Im Derech Eretz."

    ReplyDelete
  83. I've continuously asked you to stop cyberstalking/trolling me, but if you insist, I suppose there's nothing I can do.

    Volume 7's where he's most explicit but:

    See also the Schiller Rede, Rav Hirsch's perush on pirkei avos's mention of derech eretz, and...

    CW 6, p. 123:
    “The more the Jew is a Jew, the more universalist will be his views and aspirations, the less alien will he be to anything that is noble and good, true and upright in the arts and sciences, in civilization and culture…The more the Jew is a Jew, the more gladly will he give himself to all that is true progress in civilization and culture – provided that in this new circumstance he will not only maintain his Judaism, but will be able to bring it to ever more glorious fulfillment.”

    CW 6, p. 121:
    “Judaism was never alien to genuine civilization and culture. In almost every era, its followers stood at the very heights of the culture of their day; indeed, they often outstripped their contemporaries in this respect…Thank God, to this very day our sons and our daughters can compare favorably in civilization with the sons and daughters of those who have forsaken their ancestral faith for the sake of so-called progress. They need not shun the light of the world or the critical eye of their contemporaries. They have lost nothing of true human culture and civilization…”

    CW 8, p. 10:
    “Never at any time will the Jew sacrifice one iota of his Judaism, at no time will he bring his Judaism in conformity with the times. But he will gladly accept all values that his time will have to offer as long as they conform with the spirit of Judaism. In every age he will regard it as his task to evaluate the time and its conditions from the Jewish viewpoint in order to develop the spirit of his ‘old’ Judaism to ever-fresh vitality, applying the new means produced by every age, with the new circumstances created by every period of history.”

    NL, p. 275:
    “The preparation for breadwinning should be included in the program of such schooling for life, just as breadwinning itself will, later on, be a part of life – as a means to a full life, not as an end in itself. Let the pupils be taught to judge the value of a life…according to whether it is a life given inner content by dedication to the service of God.”

    ReplyDelete
  84. Let me clarify: R' Slifkin said that whenever Chazal make scientific statements, they are either wrong because they followed faulty contemporary science or only got it right because they picked it up from non-Jewish sources. - FKM

    So let's see. First you claimed that R' Slifkin "takes all Chazals about science literally and always got it wrong." Then when that was pointed out to be false, you claimed that you only meant to say that R' Slifkin said that "whenever Chazal are in fact making a scientific statement, they are wrong." Then when that was also pointed out to be false, you claimed that you meant that R' Slifkin said that CHazal may be either right or wrong, but their knowledge of science came from the scientists of their day.

    First of all, that is VERY different from your initial claims about what he said.

    Secondly, how do you know that this is his position? Maybe Chazal did their own independent studies? After all, the Chachmei Yisroel in Pesachim reached their own independent conclusions.

    Third of all, this is exactly what Hirsch says.

    ReplyDelete
  85. So far the attempt to delineate a difference between rishonim and achronimim rests on wishful thinking rather than explicit statements.

    What on earth are you talking about? Every Rishon took the Gemara in Pesachim literally.

    I will grant the possibility that rishonim took the statements of Chazal as being simply either true or false - but there is no explicit proof.

    Uh, yes there is, the fact that they all took it literally, and most said that Chazal erred. Are you basing yourself on the fact that they don't explicitly say that there is no deeper meaning? I might as well say that there is no explicit proof that the Rishonim don't accept the Lubavitcher Rebbe as the Moshiach, since they don't explicitly rule it out!

    Even the Rambam writes in such a way it is really not clear what his views were and he himself acknowledges that there are deliberate contradictions in his writings.

    Uh, yes, but his lack of clarity and acknowledgement of contradictions has nothing to do with this topic, where his view is clear and unambiguous.

    While I am normally a fan of your blog, this time you have greatly disappointed me. You started off with some absurd claims that were subsequently demolished, then you changed to other strange claims and irrelevant citations, and you seem incapable of formulating a coherent position or admitting that your earlier claims were wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  86. this Rambam says that ANY WOUND outside the treifos listed by Chazal COULD LIVE--that's why they are not in the list--DESPITE medical knowledge which says it should not live.
    WE follow Chazal's assertion that it truly may live-- against medical knowledge.
    Its explicit.
    - FKM

    Actually, Rambam says nothing of the sort. Nowhere does he say that it could live, as you claim he says. He only says that it is not classified as a terefah.

    The next Rambam is more obscure. The expert reading of that next Rambam is that he holds of nishtaneh hateva

    So now you're calling yourself an expert?
    There are other interpretations of Rambam. For example, in BDD, Rabbi Aryeh Carmell explains him to mean that Chazal had the authority to establish the halachah, whether or not their scientific understanding was right or wrong.
    Actually, your "expert reading" is very problematic, since Rambam would likely not have held of nishtaneh hateva, due to his Aristotelian belief in the immutability of nature.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Zitsfleich said...

    While I am normally a fan of your blog, this time you have greatly disappointed me. You started off with some absurd claims that were subsequently demolished, then you changed to other strange claims and irrelevant citations, and you seem incapable of formulating a coherent position or admitting that your earlier claims were wrong.

    Sorry to disappoint a fan. Wish I had your certainty as to what Rishonim and Achronim really think.
    As I said in the beginning I am not into this issue of Science and Chazal - I am trying to understanding sexuality and abuse.
    As you have noted I come from the world view of Achronim and on occassion I think about how the Rishonim and Gaonim think about the world. The Achronim are explicit. The Rishonim use a lot less words. I will acknowledge that your view can be understood from what they are saying. All I am saying is that I am not subscribing to it. This is simply the time honored practice of not asserting there is a machlokes if it can be avoided. I am not convinced at this point that the Rishonim and Achronim are disagreeing - you are.

    As the Ramban says - there are rarely killer proofs that can resolved a dispute.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Baruch said...

    Mekubal:
    See http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/cjt/files/electures/zohar1.htm and http://hsf.bgu.ac.il/cjt/files/electures/zohar2.htm. Note that the picture on the first page is from a manuscript, Ms. Add. 1023.

    Kabbalah scholars who have access to the old manuscripts don't seem to see the Zohar's authorship the same way you do.


    Interesting article. Though you should see sources such as Michael Sokoloff's Dictionary of Aramaic, most importantly the index of manuscripts in the back. There are several Zoharic manuscripts that he cites that predate 1000(far before the 13th century).

    My understanding from people I know who are currently students at both Hebrew U and Bar Ilan(as well as the vice Chair of the Bar Ilan Gemmarrah department who I am sometimes Chavruta with) is that the current scholarly consensus is that the Zohar was written well before the 13th century. Simply the many manuscripts leave no other option.

    The article you quoted first and foremost was published in 2002. Since that time several important discoveries of manuscripts in various geniza repositories have come to light. Which have lead to critical editions of important works being issued by lumminaries such as R' Yaakov Hillel and others.

    Furthermore the article you cite contains no original research, simply a synthesis of old, and arguably outdated sources to support a theory that has nothing to do with authorship of the Zohar itself, but rather a sad attempt to show the Rabbanim who wrote commentaries to be making some sort of power grab.

    Overall the author demonstrates a basic ignorance, whether or not intentional of modern scholarship in the area of Zoharic literature that even manages to have itself referrenced in a couple of scholarly dictionaries.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Fine, so let's say that whichever Rishon, Acharon or modern-day rabbi has not explicitly said that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is not the Moshiach, we will presume that he accepts that he is, and we can avoid a lot of machlokes.

    There is no glimmer of a hint of a clue in the Rishonim that they saw all Chazal's words as having kabbalistic meaning. You have perfectly demonstrated the point that many frum people today are incapable of accepting the truth of how the Rishonim differed from us. This is all the more true of the Gedolim, who are even more steeped in this perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Mekubal,

    Kabbalah is not my field, so I couldn't respond to many of those claims. Could be you're right on some of the issues. I am aware of earlier manuscripts, such as the one in London.

    I can simply note that my impression is that the "current scholarly consensus" is that the Zohar was not, in your words, "definitely written by the Rashbi."

    I have connections I could ask if it's important to you.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Zitsfleisch said...

    Fine, so let's say that whichever Rishon, Acharon or modern-day rabbi has not explicitly said that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is not the Moshiach, we will presume that he accepts that he is, and we can avoid a lot of machlokes.

    There is no glimmer of a hint of a clue in the Rishonim that they saw all Chazal's words as having kabbalistic meaning. You have perfectly demonstrated the point that many frum people today are incapable of accepting the truth of how the Rishonim differed from us. This is all the more true of the Gedolim, who are even more steeped in this perspective.
    ================
    I find it interesting that the followers or sympathizer of R' Slifkin are behaving like the intellectual bullies that they protest that they are being subject to.

    I find it interesting that R' Slifkin himself is a mentsch and doesn't speak this way at all. His recent essays have acknowledged that there are alternative ways of viewing data - all he wants is to be tolerated as he tolerates those who disagree with him. To agree to disagree - and be civil about it.

    I have repeatedly said that I have not investigated this issue thoroughly and that I am comfortable with the view of the achronim. However I have no problem with you presenting your interpretation of the issue.

    Why are you people such intellectual facists? This blog is a forum for open discussions. The only red lines are the requirement for basic civility and the Orthodox view which includes Torah from Heaven. As far as I am aware there are no life and death - or even significant differences as to whether your understanding or the majority of achronim views is espoused. It is far less significant than whether your wife wears a sheitel or a tichel.

    If you are mad because of what the establishment did to R' Slifkin and you want to attack me as a surrogate of the establishment - you have simply got the wrong guy. I have publicly defended R' Slifkin and criticized the ban - as well as published R' Sternbuch's criticism.

    Anyway guys - are you interested in truth or do you simply have an agenda to proselytize the world to your view? The anger that comes forth from your posts is at least as strong as I hear from R' Slifkin's opponents. I simply do not see this issue as important as sexual abuse or the lack of genuine intellectual discourse in the Orthodox world. Why is it so important to you?

    ReplyDelete
  92. Zits said:

    So let's see. First you claimed that R' Slifkin "takes all Chazals about science literally and always got it wrong." Then when that was pointed out to be false, you claimed that you only meant to say that R' Slifkin said that "whenever Chazal are in fact making a scientific statement, they are wrong."

    You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. There is no substantial difference between my first two statements. I started with scientific statements of Chazal and ended with scientific statements of Chazal.


    Then when that was also pointed out to be false, you claimed that you meant that R' Slifkin said that CHazal may be either right or wrong, but their knowledge of science came from the scientists of their day.

    I see you like to distort in order to score a point. If you would read what Slifkin wrote you would see that Slifkin sets up the following situation: whenever Chazal were in fact right, they can't get any credit for it because they took it from others.

    First of all, that is VERY different from your initial claims about what he said.

    Not really, once you stop distorting it.

    Secondly, how do you know that this is his position? Maybe Chazal did their own independent studies? After all, the Chachmei Yisroel in Pesachim reached their own independent conclusions.

    My understanding of his position didn't rule this out. Only your distortion does!

    Third of all, this is exactly what Hirsch says.

    So now you are distorting Rav Hirsch as well? You're really on a roll! Rav Hirsch never said that Chazal didn't know certain things about the world from Divine tradition. He explicitly mentions the possibility that they had a deeper insight into the world that is not accessible from science.

    Only Rav Avraham ben HaRambam allegedly says Chazal got it ALL from their own time. This is a unique position that Slifkin advocates.
    You really don't seem to be able to get this point.

    ReplyDelete
  93. If you are mad because of what the establishment did to R' Slifkin and you want to attack me as a surrogate of the establishment - you have simply got the wrong guy. I have publicly defended R' Slifkin and criticized the ban - as well as published R' Sternbuch's criticism.

    I have a feeling that its because a neutral person like yourself, who is completely source-oriented, actually sees the scholarship situation like the gedolim.

    You see R' Eidensohn, for years the Slifkin camp has painted the Gedolim-banners as know-nothings in the world of Medieval Jewish scholarship and intellectual history, and as being completely agenda driven.
    They have utterly convinced themeselves that ANYONE with a half a brain and an open mind to seeing the sources without bias will see it like Slifkin does-- hands-down.
    They simply cannot stomach the possibility that someone like you can read all their slam-dunk references and still see it like the know-nothing gedolim! It drives them up the wall.
    Yasher Koach.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Zits said:
    Actually, Rambam says nothing of the sort. Nowhere does he say that it could live, as you claim he says. He only says that it is not classified as a terefah.

    Um, please read and translate this phrase in הלכה 'ב':
    אפשר שתחיה--,

    Like I said, a serious reading comprehension problem...

    So now you're calling yourself an expert?

    Nope, I'm calling the Chazon Ish and Rav Moshe Feinstein experts. This is how they read that next Rambam.

    If Rabbi Carmell is the biggest name on your side, I'm afraid you don't really have a case here.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Baruch said...

    Mekubal,

    Kabbalah is not my field, so I couldn't respond to many of those claims. Could be you're right on some of the issues. I am aware of earlier manuscripts, such as the one in London.

    I can simply note that my impression is that the "current scholarly consensus" is that the Zohar was not, in your words, "definitely written by the Rashbi."

    I have connections I could ask if it's important to you.


    While this may not sound very scholarly minded. I really don't care who scholars currently believe wrote the Zohar. My views are what they are.

    My primary point was that the Zohar deifintely pre-dated the Achronim, and probably even the Rishonim, thus making it something that the Rishonim would have been familiar with(despite that is quoted by name in several Kabbalistic texts dating from the time of the Rishonim).

    Of primary concern to me was to point out that the Rishonim were familiar(even if they opposed) certain metaphysical and metaphorical views.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I find it interesting that the followers or sympathizer of R' Slifkin are behaving like the intellectual bullies that they protest that they are being subject to.

    If by "intellectual bullying" you mean "suppression of debate", I don't see how I am acting that way.
    If you mean "debating the issues until resolution is reached," I have never heard anyone protest this about the opponents of Slifkin.

    His recent essays have acknowledged that there are alternative ways of viewing data

    Of course there are alternate ways, and you are legitimately entitled to hold your way. However I am likewise legitimately entitled to explain why I believe it to be intellectually dishonest. Just like you are legitimately entitled to believe that the world is flat, and I am legitiamtely entitled to explain why I believe you to be mistaken.

    My problem with you is simply that you misrepresent the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  97. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. There is no substantial difference between my first two statements. - FKM

    First statement:
    R' Slifkin "takes all Chazals about science literally."
    Second statement: R' Slifkin is only referring to "whenever Chazal are in fact making a scientific statement."
    Looks like a substantial difference to me. Does he take all Chazals literally, or not?

    Only Rav Avraham ben HaRambam allegedly says Chazal got it ALL from their own time. This is a unique position that Slifkin advocates

    I don't see where Slifkin entirely rules out the possibility of them ever having other sources of knowledge. I also don't see where Rav Hirsch says that Chazal had supernatural sources of knowledge of science. Frankly, I don't see how any of this is relevant. The point is whether they were ever wrong, not whether they were ever right.

    I have a feeling that its because a neutral person like yourself, who is completely source-oriented, actually sees the scholarship situation like the gedolim

    He's not neutral. He's a product of the charedi weltanscheung.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Um, please read and translate this phrase in הלכה 'ב':
    אפשר שתחיה--,

    You are correct; I misread it. However it is still the case that there is much dispute as to what Rambam means. For example, he may be expressing skepticism regarding the medical knowledge of his era, rather than expressing belief that the Sages had a supernatural source of knowledge. Also, RAmbam caused a storm by apparently violating his own rule and adding a new terefah. There is much discussion on all this. But as I stated above, this is all beside the point. THe point is that Rambam said that Chazal could and did err in science - something which the Gedolim do not accept.

    ReplyDelete
  99. If Rabbi Carmell is the biggest name on your side, I'm afraid you don't really have a case here.

    Well, that's what it all comes down to, isn't it? After all, the Chazon Ish and Rav Moshe Feinstein would doubtless not have believed that dinosaurs ruled the earth millions of years ago, and they would have believed that salamanders grow from fire. Rabbi Carmell and many others disagree. Your position is that by definition the Chazon Ish etc. must be correct, because they are the Gedolim. THat's why all these arguments are ultimately futile; you are not evaluating the sources, you are just finding a way to support your necessary conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  100. The point is whether they were ever wrong, not whether they were ever right.

    That's your point.
    R'Eidensohn's point all along was that no-one besides RABH says Chazal can potentially ALWAYS be wrong about ANY scientific statement because they got ALL of them from contemporary knowledge.

    You guys are claiming he is not unique and in this respect you being intellectually dishonest in order to protect Slifkin from any criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Zitsfleich said...

    Well, that's what it all comes down to, isn't it? After all, the Chazon Ish and Rav Moshe Feinstein would doubtless not have believed that dinosaurs ruled the earth millions of years ago, and they would have believed that salamanders grow from fire.
    ====================
    Did they ever say such a thing or are you just making it up? If you are making it up - there is no purpose in trying to understand what is - when you have it permanently engraved in your head what must be.
    I personally don't know what they thought on these issues. But I didn't know that Rav Belsky and Rav Shmuel Kamnetsky would say that they have no problem with someone believing the world is more than 6000 years - until I asked them. You seem to think that all chareidim think identical thoughts and the proof is that they are chareidim.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Rav Moshe says in Igros Moshe somewhere that science books about the development of the universe are kefirah. HIs son Rav Dovid says its kefirah to believe that the world is millions of years old. The Chazon Ish writes that anyone who disbelieves anything in the Gemara is a kofer.

    Incidentally, with regard to FKMs claim that Rav Moshe Feinstein is an "expert" vis-a-vis understanding Rambam, Marc Shapiro's new book on Rambam lists many examples where Rav Moshe and others clearly misunderstood Rambam because of an unfamiliarity and incomprehension of his worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  103. R'Eidensohn's point all along was that no-one besides RABH says Chazal can potentially ALWAYS be wrong about ANY scientific statement because they got ALL of them from contemporary knowledge.

    Er, no. That's what you are trying to make the point into, so that you can draw a distinction between Slifkin (based on your typically as-uncharitable-reading-as-possible) and the other sources. R. Eidensohn spelled out the topic of this discussion in the post:

    I have been having an exchange with Shlomo M who asserts that gedolim are not aware that the majority view is that Chazal made mistakes in Science. I have asserted that they are fully aware of these views but have a different understanding of these critical views of Chazal by major rabbinic figures through the ages

    ReplyDelete
  104. You have perfectly demonstrated the point that many frum people today are incapable of accepting the truth of how the Rishonim differed from us. This is all the more true of the Gedolim, who are even more steeped in this perspective.

    For one second let's just say that the Rishonim held radically different views than the Acharonim and Gedolim of today.

    When did this change occur? Was it gradual or sudden? Where are the arguments and teshuvot by students against their teachers? What are your sources within the Achronim that they disagreed with the positions of the Rishonim? With whom did the change start?

    When you want to say that the Rishonim held radically different views than the Achronim or Gedolim, you need to demonstrate a certain amount of distance as well. Academic distance, geographic distance, cognitive distance or chronological distance. The main fault to your assertion is that Judaism is a mesorah. Handed down teacher to student, that is traceable for nearly 2000yrs. For instance I recieved instruction from R' Kaduri, who recieved instruction from the Ben Ish Hai, who recieved instruction from his father, who could trace the lineage of his Rabbis back to both Yosef Karo and the academies of Persia.

    This unbroken chain means that there had to be a major disruption of some sort along the way for views to so radically change. That kind of change does not happen without massive amounts of apologetic material. Simply look at Chassidus, a heterodox branch of Judaism. Even within those spheres, both Mitnaged and Chassid, there was massive amounts of apologetic flying because one was a break from the standard and had to defend its position, and the other needed to show the dangers of this new outgrowth. So massive was something that now seems so simple to us, that even the Ben Ish Hai(a Sephardic Rav mostly divorced from the issue) felt the need to address it, and most specifically his rejection of Chassidic insights into classic Kabbalistic thought.

    Here we are dealing with a subject that is fairly germane, compared to the vast and radical changes that you propose took place, yet there is a void of silence. Perhaps you can make an argument that there was some grand Rabbinic cover up. That the Black Velvet Yarmulke mafia somehow made it all disappear into the Cairo Geniza. However, there is not even a peep from the Scholarly community suggesting some kind of massive transition in Jewish thought. If they can produce articles on Rabbinic power grabs stemming from exegetical usage of the Zohar, surely they would be talking about something as massive as what you suggest.

    I am not even sure you truly realize how massive your suggestion is. Essentially you are saying that spontaneously throughout varied and diverse communities, many of which were disassociated from one another and in many ways still are, all of them within but a couple of generations massively changed their hashkafic outlook in an identical way, leaving no litterary trace of their divergence. Frankly I am not sure if I see the difference between what you propose, and spontaneous biogenesis from a primordial soup, or even salamanders being birthed from fire.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Your position is that by definition the Chazon Ish etc. must be correct, because they are the Gedolim.

    Talk about an uncharitable reading. We've already established your willingness to distort your opponent's position to score a point.

    My position was that in reading a Rambam in Mishna Torah about a practical halachic issue (with hashkafic implications no-doubt) Rav Moshe Feinstein and the Chazon Ish far and away have more expertise in this field than Rabbi Carmell.
    Anyway you want to define expertise in the correct reading of a halachik work, they have it way over Rabbi Carmel.

    (And PLEASE don't tell me that the Rambam cannot accept nishtaneh hateva in principle because of his view that natural LAW doesn't change. Nishtaneh Hateveh in the biological context of treifos does NOT meant any change in any of the LAWS of nature.)

    ReplyDelete
  106. Marc Shapiro's new book on Rambam lists many examples where Rav Moshe and others clearly misunderstood Rambam because of an unfamiliarity and incomprehension of his worldview.

    That's right, i.e. the gedolim are know-nothings in the world of Medieval Jewish thought. Thanks for confirming my accusation so candidly.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Mekubal - nice try, but very naive. Changes happen all the time, in many areas. Look how different the charedi world is today from even 50 years ago. I'm not talking spontaneous generation, I'm talking evolution. The greatest example is with kabbalah - but with your pen-name, you are probably not open to that! Look, even Rav Elyashiv explicitly agrees that there has been a degree of change in this area!

    FKM - My reading of you was not uncharitable, it was exactly accurate! Your position is that the Chazon Ish was a "Godol", therefore in a dispute with R. Aryeh Carmell he must be correct! And with regard to Rambam - your distinction between laws of nature and terefos is very valid today, but was almost certainly not valid for Rambam.
    With your response to my point about Shapiro, you have merely restated my point, albeit in an impolite way that I would never use.

    ReplyDelete
  108. What I learned is that very often when Chazal seem to derive a Halacha, that is in fact not at all what they are doing. They generally weren't searching for Halacha. Rather, they knew Halacha. In the context of Limud, they are giving justification, mnemonics, drash, whatever you want to call it. If you call it a basis, it is not a rigorous one. When Halacha is not truly derived the way it seems at the surface of the text of the Gemara, it does not fall with it. If Chazal arrive at a psak from a a Gezera Shava, this does not imply that the Gezera Shava is valid in some objective way indepedent of the way it is used by Chazal. I bring the case of Gezera Shava because I assume it is obvious. The principle extends to psukim taken out of context, mishnayot and Braitot taken out of context, and to "facts" of Nature.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Zits said:
    FKM - My reading of you was not uncharitable, it was exactly accurate!

    Funny, that what I always think I'm doing when I attack Rabbi Slifkin! We are really making progress here...


    Your position is that the Chazon Ish was a "Godol", therefore in a dispute with R. Aryeh Carmell he must be correct!

    Excuse me. Please cite the comment where I invoked the term "gadol" in this context. (you're even putting it in quotes!)

    Hint:
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/03/r-slifkin-defense-of-gedolim.html?showComment=1237207620000#c515372476890324800

    Now I'm starting to realize your not making intentional distortions.
    You REALLY do have reading comprehension problems. I guess that's more charitable.


    And with regard to Rambam - your distinction between laws of nature and terefos is very valid today, but was almost certainly not valid for Rambam.

    This response is so cliche. You academics pull this shtick virtually every time you get backed into a corner.
    But this time there is proof you are wrong:
    See Moreh Book II chap. 47
    [אורך חיי האנשים]
    אבל מה שנתפרש בתורה מדיוק חיי אותם האנשים 9, אני אומר שלא היה אותם החיים אלא אותו האיש האמור לבדו, אבל שאר האדם חיו החיים הטבעיים הרגילים, ותהיה הנדירות הזו באותו האדם, אם על ידי גורמים רבים במזונו והנהגתו, או על דרך הנס ונוהג לפי דרכו 10, ולא יתכן לומר בו זולת זה.


    With your response to my point about Shapiro, you have merely restated my point, albeit in an impolite way that I would never use.

    That's also part of the general problem here.
    You guys seem to mistakenly think that just because you found a "polite way" to say "incompetent" you are no longer being offensive to the gedolim.

    So I'm the only one who's offensive because I say what I think about the Slifkin camp in an "impolite way".

    ReplyDelete
  110. Zitsfleich:
    When Chazal say that the world lasts 6,000 years, do you consider that wrong, or would you accept that they express a kabbalistic concept?

    ReplyDelete
  111. Mekubal - nice try, but very naive. Changes happen all the time, in many areas. Look how different the charedi world is today from even 50 years ago. I'm not talking spontaneous generation, I'm talking evolution. The greatest example is with kabbalah - but with your pen-name, you are probably not open to that! Look, even Rav Elyashiv explicitly agrees that there has been a degree of change in this area!

    In the realm of Kabbalah. I am open to the idea of development over time, and certainly there have been some changes. The destruction of the Temple itself necessitated change. However, I doubt the change is in the ways that you imply. The truth of the matter is that here scholarly world is horribly misinformed. There is a reason why even an intellectual such as Aryeh Kaplan repeatedly rejected scholarly assertions about Kabbalah, and yes it has everything to do with his intimate involvement with Kabbalah. The simple fact was, and is Torat Nistar. Not every text has seen the light of day or the printing press. Even a good bit of the corpus of R' Haim Vital's works remain only in the hands of the Roshei Yeshivot of the Yeshivot HaMekubalim.

    Rabbi Eliashiv may acknowledge a degree of change, however that is a far cry from the amount of change that you are claiming. Simple question did the Acharonim view ChaZaL and Kabbalah the way the Rishonim did? Do the Gedolim Today Match the views of the Rishonim, or the Acharonim? Where did the change occur? Where are the arguments on either side? Where are the movements that opposed such change?

    Yes the Chareidi world is different than it was fifty years ago. On account of that we now have movements that have opposed thosed ideological shifts. The Chardal movement and the modern Orthodox movement to name but two.

    Take your scholarly approach to the development of Kabbalah. Let us say for a moment that they are correct. Here too we see movements that radically opposed what you want to call developments. Dor Deah for instance, to this day opposes the Zohar and Lurianic Kabbalah. In fact here is a brief overview of the various critics of Kabbbalh for the last 900 yrs

    Rambam (12th Century) rejected many of the texts of the Hekalot, particularly Shiur Komah whose starkly anthropomorphic vision of God he considered heretical.

    Rabbi Abraham ben Moses ben Maimon, in the spirit of his father explains at length in his book Milhhamot HaShem that the Almighty is in no way literally within time or space nor physically outside time or space, since time and space simply do not apply to His Being whatsoever. This is in contrast to certain popular understandings of Kabbalah which teach a form of panentheism, that His 'essence' is within everything, employing such statements as Ein Od Milvado.

    Around the 1230s, Rabbi Meir ben Simon of Narbonne wrote a letter (included in his Milhhemet Mitzvah) against his contemporaries, the early Kabbalists, characterizing them as blasphemers who even approach heresy. He particularly singled out the Sefer Bahir, rejecting the attribution of its authorship to the tanna R. Nehhunya ben ha-Kanah and describing some of its content as truly heretical.

    Rabbi Leone di Modena, a 17th century Venetian critic of Kabbalah, wrote that if we were to accept the Kabbalah, then the Christian trinity would indeed be compatible with Judaism, as the Trinity closely resembles the Kabbalistic doctrine of the Sefirot.

    Rabbi Yaakov Emden, 1697-1776, wrote the book Mitpahhath Sfarim a detailed critique of the Zohar in which he concludes that certain parts of the Zohar contain heretical teaching and therefore could not have been written by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.

    Rabbi Yihhyah Qafahh, an early 20th century Yemenite Jewish leader and grandfather of Rabbi Yosef Qafih, also wrote a book entitled Milhhamoth HaShem against what he perceived as the false teachings of the Zohar and the false kabbalah of the Arizal. He is credited with spearheading the Dor Daim who continue in R. Yihhyah Qafahh's view of Kabbalah into modern times.

    Yeshayahu Leibowitz 1903-1994, brother of Nechama Leibowitz, though Modern Orthodox in his world view, publicly shared the views expressed in R. Yihhyah Qafahh's book Milhhamoth HaShem and elaborated upon these views in his many writings.

    By far in every case these dissenting opinions are in the minority, but we can see that they existed. Likewise there is apologetic on the other side. The Rivash for example goes to great lengths to defend Kabbalah. Every place and every time in the Ktivei HaAri where the claim is made to have recieved the tradition directly from the lips of Eliyahu HaNavi, is another instance of apologetic. Where is your unbroken chain of dissent? Where is the apologetic for the change?

    All you have really been able to show is possibly the Rambam, Avraham Ben HaRambam, and from there a large skip to Slifkin, while simply stating that the Gedolim are blind to the truth. What you lack is sufficient evidence of criticism or apologetic to changing views to demonstrate that any real change in understanding has occured in the last 1000yrs.

    You can accuse me and R' Eidenshohn of intellectual dishonesty and being blind. However, I am willing to admit a chain of critique and apologetic that stands in contrast to my own views of Kabbalah(even though I may give my own apologetic). You however, cannot even produce a chain of critique and apologetic to support your view, yet you insist unreservedly that you are right and the rest of us are simply being intellectually dishonest. I posit that in truth you are the one who is being intellectually dishonest in that you have emotionally attached yourself to a specific view, and insist upon its veracity without offering any real substance.

    ReplyDelete
  112. All you have really been able to show is possibly the Rambam, Avraham Ben HaRambam, and from there a large skip to Slifkin, while simply stating that the Gedolim are blind to the truth

    What on earth are you talking about? Have you missed parts of the discussion? What about R. Eliezer of Metz, Tosafos Rid, Rosh, Smag, Rabbeinu Manoach, Rabbeinu Yerucham, R. Yitzchak Arama, Maharam Alashker, Hirsch, and all the other sources at torahandscience.blogspot.com?

    ReplyDelete
  113. Funny, that what I always think I'm doing when I attack Rabbi Slifkin!- FKM

    The difference is that we can document your uncharitable reading. You described R. Slifkin as saying that Chazal were always literal, were always wrong about science, and never figured anything out correctly on your own.

    Please cite the comment where I invoked the term "gadol" in this context.

    You didn't invoke the term. You said that between the Chazon Ish and Rabbi Carmell, there is no doubt that the Chazon Ish was correct. Is your reason not that the Chazon Ish was a Godol?

    But this time there is proof you are wrong:
    See Moreh Book II chap. 4


    I was wondering if you would quote that. It's just the opposite. Rambam here was making a radical break with the views of everyone else. He could not accept that everyone lived that long, because of his view of the immutability of nature, so he was forced to say that it was just a few freak individuals.

    You guys seem to mistakenly think that just because you found a "polite way" to say "incompetent" you are no longer being offensive to the gedolim.

    Rav Hirsch said that Chazal had no special knowledge of science and relied on the experts. THat was not offensive to Chazal. If he would have said "Chazal were incompetent," that would be offensive.

    ReplyDelete
  114. >Simple question did the Acharonim view ChaZaL and Kabbalah the way the Rishonim did?

    No.

    >Do the Gedolim Today Match the views of the Rishonim, or the Acharonim?

    Neither, but they are closer to the Acharonim.

    >Where did the change occur?

    The expulsion from Spain had a lot to do with it. So did the publication and subsequent increase in popularity in the Zohar. So did the reaction to the emancipation.

    >Where are the arguments on either side? Where are the movements that opposed such change?

    It was gradual, that's why not much was written on it. But in frum scholarly (academic) circles, all this is taken as a given. I'm not saying any chiddushim.

    ReplyDelete
  115. The expulsion from Spain had a lot to do with it. So did the publication and subsequent increase in popularity in the Zohar. So did the reaction to the emancipation.

    >Where are the arguments on either side? Where are the movements that opposed such change?

    It was gradual, that's why not much was written on it. But in frum scholarly (academic) circles, all this is taken as a given. I'm not saying any chiddushim.


    So essentially the change never happened. You keep banging on about the publication of the Zohar, again please check your facts, extant manuscripts of the Zohar date back to the Gaonic period. See Michael Sokoloff's work for verification. Or alternatively look at Abulafia's Chayee Olam HaBa(Published for the first time in the late 90's) where he quotes the Zohar five times by name, two hundred years before it was published. Where else are you off.

    The development of the various systems within Kabbalah was also gradual, in fact it was 2000 years of gradual, yet at every serious advance there was critique and apologetic.

    Yet you have the temerity to say that much more drastic changes occured between the Rishonim, Acharonim and Modern Poskim, yet no one within the Rabbinic world ever commented on it?!?!?

    Unless you can offer something, you really have nothing. The truth is you are simply parroting what you have heard others say that matches your misconceptions and emotional leanings. No you are not making chiddushim you are simply parroting tired and defunct arguments that don't even make the grade in modern scholarship.

    ReplyDelete
  116. "Where did the change occur? "

    "The expulsion from Spain had a lot to do with it. So did the publication and subsequent increase in popularity in the Zohar. So did the reaction to the emancipation."

    I think you would have to do a thorough study of the Maimondean controversey and Kabbalah through the ages to prove the above. Or reference your source which studies the intellectual history of the rejection of what RNS terms the "rationalist school" of Science/Chazal thought.

    R Aharon Feldman does indicate in his essay that a change occurred in Science/Chazal, but indicates that such a change was a throwback to the authentic, original, approach:

    "One of the most powerful reasons why R. Avraham’s opinion was rejected by most opinions, is the introduction of the wisdom of Kabbalah of the Ari Zal in the sixteenth century. This cast the Sages in another dimension. Before then, many authorities had held that the esoteric wisdom described in the Talmud as Ma’aseh Breyshis and Ma’aseh Hamerkava was science and philosophy. After the introduction of Kabbalah it became clear that these were the Sefer HaYetzira, the Zohar and the Tikkunim. This was accepted by the overwhelming majority of Torah scholars since then. Kabbala made it clear that when the Sages spoke, they based themselves on their knowledge of the mysteries of creation. This would give them an accurate knowledge of matters of natural science as well."

    ReplyDelete
  117. "This would give them an accurate knowledge of matters of natural science as well."

    You would have to prove this. It is a logical possibility, but not a logical necessity. Yishar Koach for your post.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Wow, so many misreadings in one comment! I've got to make a post out of this.

    Misreading #1:
    You described R. Slifkin as saying that Chazal were always literal,


    Actual statement #1: (Bold-faced for easier reading comprehension)
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/03/r-slifkin-defense-of-gedolim.html?showComment=1237134720000#c4480600932968408076
    2) Those who take all Chazals about science literally [Context-in distinction with the Maharal and Ramchal who say even the scientific statements are not literally about science-FKM] and say they got it from their culture and therefore always got it wrong. (The Slifkin approach following the alleged Rav Avraham ben Harambam.)

    Misreading #2:
    You said that between the Chazon Ish and Rabbi Carmell, there is no doubt that the Chazon Ish was correct. Is your reason not that the Chazon Ish was a Godol?


    (I've said the reason three times already. The lights are on but nobody's home.)
    Actual statements: #2
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/03/r-slifkin-defense-of-gedolim.html?showComment=1237150200000#c2431687112612464627
    The next Rambam is more obscure. The expert reading of that next Rambam is that he holds of nishtaneh hateva, but that doesn't affect the practical definition of treifos fixed by the Sanhedrin for all time despite the changes in teva.

    My Follow-up comment:
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/03/r-slifkin-defense-of-gedolim.html?showComment=1237207620000#c515372476890324800
    "So now you're calling yourself an expert?"

    Nope, I'm calling the Chazon Ish and Rav Moshe Feinstein experts. This is how they read that next Rambam.

    If Rabbi Carmell is the biggest name on your side, I'm afraid you don't really have a case here.


    Follow-up comment:
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/03/r-slifkin-defense-of-gedolim.html?showComment=1237293000000#c900281946054394548
    My position was that in reading a Rambam in Mishna Torah about a practical halachic issue (with hashkafic implications no-doubt) Rav Moshe Feinstein and the Chazon Ish far and away have more expertise in this field than Rabbi Carmell.
    Anyway you want to define expertise in the correct reading of a halachik work, they have it way over Rabbi Carmel.


    Misreading #3:
    He could not accept that everyone lived that long, because of his view of the immutability of nature, so he was forced to say that it was just a few freak individuals.


    Actual Statement #3 (I'll use the English trans. and bold-face it for easier reading comprehension):

    Scripture thus tells us that Og was double as long as an ordinary person, or a little less. This is undoubtedly an exceptional height among men, but not quite impossible. As regards the Scriptural statement about the length of man's life in those days, I say that only the persons named lived so long, whilst other people enjoyed the ordinary length of life. The men named were exceptions, either in consequence of different causes, as e.g., their food or mode of living, or by way of miracle

    So there is certainly room in the Rambam's view for GREAT flexibility in the NATURAL biological world--i.e. nishtaneh Hatevah. He does NOT say these people were freaks. (Perhaps you can read Og like that but not the rest.) He clearly says these people may have manipulated natural processes to achieve startling natural changes in lifespan.

    Misreading #4:
    Rav Hirsch said that Chazal had no special knowledge of science and relied on the experts.


    Actual Statements: #4
    There is also profound knowledge of the ancients which has been lost that we still lack. Therefore, if one finds words in the books of the previous generations which contradict the views of contemporary scientists—we cannot be hasty to decide that the ancients were wrong and that contemporary scientists are always right....

    ...they were not especially natural scientists, geometers, astronomers or physicians except as it was necessary for their comprehension, observance and performance of the Torah


    (This allowance for Chazal to be right and science to be wrong due to the ancient's superior wisdom is what makes Rav Hirsch unoffensive when he later says that SOMETIMES, occasionally, Chazal relied on faulty scientific information in non-halachic matters.
    Rabbi Slifkin endorses the view that Chazal can be wrong in ALL scientific matters and had no special knowledge--even in the halachic ones where they needed to be right.)

    ReplyDelete
  119. Oy, FKM. Your first two points need no response, my previous responses to them are still in effect. I am amazed that you can claim that you are not misrepresenting Slifkin when you claim that he said that "whenever Chazal are in fact making a scientific statement, they are wrong."

    With regard to Rambam on lifespans - the point is that he holds that the nature of Homo sapiens has NOT changed. SOme individuals were able to work around it, or have a miracle. WIth animals/terefos, there is no such option.

    Finally, with regard to your alleged chiluk between R' Slifkin and R' Hirsch - even if it is true, which I am by no means convinced, since it is not documented - it's only of concern to you. You are maniacally obsessed with R' Slifkin, so you devise creative ways to distinguish his view from that of RABH or Hirsch. But the dispute between the Gedolim and R' Slifkin, which is what concerns the rest of us here, is not on that point at all. It is a much broader dispute - they are arguing on RABH, Hirsch and even Rambam.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Mekubal, Abulafia's Chayei ha-Olam ha-Ba was published in 1280, 10 years after the Zohar was "revealed". You stated 200 years before!

    Second, you state "extant manuscripts of the Zohar date back to the Gaonic period". Please provide a source for where Michael Sokoloff stated this, as such news would ROCK the world of Jewish academic scholarship. (I believe that Sokoloff makes a claim for an early CE source for the Zohar based on the Aramaic used, but this is not what you are stating here.)

    Did you make up these "facts"?? Unless you can provide sources for both of these claims, it seems that you are totally out to lunch with these specific assertions re the Zohar.

    ReplyDelete
  121. With regard to Rambam on lifespans - the point is that he holds that the nature of Homo sapiens has NOT changed. Some individuals were able to work around it, or have a miracle. WIth animals/terefos, there is no such option.

    I wasn't arguing it was an example of Nishtaneh hateva per se. But you can see he holds that people could drastically change under the right NATURAL circumstances. Thus your theory about biological Nishtaneh Hatevah contradicting the Rambam's "Aristotelian view of nature" in principle is simply not correct here.

    And do you think he wasn't able to perceive the changes that the Ba'alei Tosfos perceived right in front of their eyes? Or are you going to kvetch that the cows in Spain and Egypt where the Rambam lived still reproduced like those in the gemara's time and only the cows in Ashkenazi lands changed?


    I'll give up on the rest. You obviously aren't honest enough to admit to any more mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  122. To start this article brings various proofs for earlier authorship.

    http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/sinay/hazohar-2.htm

    I realize that it is Hebrew, so the essential points are these

    * 1. Many statements in the works of the Rishonim refer to Medrashim that we are not aware of. He writes that these are in fact references to the Zohar. This has also been pointed out by R' David Luria in his work "Kadmus Sefer Ha'Zohar".
    * 2. The Zohar's major opponent Elijah Delmedigo refers to the Zohar as having existed for "only" 300 years. Even he agrees that it was extant before the time of R' Moses De Leon.
    * 3. He cites a document from R' Yitchok M' Acco who was sent by the Ramban to investigate the Zohar. The document brings witnesses that attest to the existence of the manuscript.
    * 4. It is impossible to accept that R' Moshe De Leon managed to forge a work of the scope of the Zohar (1700 pages) within a period of six years as Scholem claims.
    * 5. A comparison between the Zohar and De Leon's other works show major stylistic differences. Although he made use of his manuscript of the Zohar, many ideas presented in his works contradict or ignore ideas mentioned in the Zohar. (Luria also points this out)
    * 6. Many of the Midrashic works achieved their final redaction in the Geonic period. Some of the anachronistic terminology of the Zohar may date from that time.
    * 7. Out of the thousands of words used in the Zohar Scholem finds two anachronistic terms and nine cases of ungrammatical usage of words. This proves that the majority of the Zohar was written within the accepted time frame and only a small amount was added later (in the Geonic period as mentioned).
    * 8. Some hard to understand terms may be attributed to acronyms or codes. He finds corrolaries to such a practice in other ancient manuscripts.
    * 9. The "borrowings" from medieval commentaries may be explained in a simple manner. It is not unheard of that a note written on the side of a text should on later copying be added into the main part of the text. The Talmud itself has Geonic additions from such a cause. Certainly this would apply to the Zohar to which there did not exist other manuscripts to compare it with.
    * 10. He cites an ancient manuscript that refers to a book Sod Gadol that seems to in fact be the Zohar.

    As far as Michael Sokoloff references, he gives specific reference to manuscripts in the indices of both of his dictionaries.

    As far as Abulafia... I was going Baal Peh off of something I read in Kaplan's Meditation and Kabbalah years ago. You have me there.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Perhaps you are recalling R. Kaplan's mentioning of the "Zoharic literature" that allowed the Kabbalists of the 13th century to accept the Zohar as authentic. (p 28-29 in M&K).

    I'm really not sure how Scholem's thesis is currently held by academicians, but Yehuda Liebes suggests that there is more than one strata in the Zohar and recognizes that Moshe de Leon was not the sole author but part of a mystical school with older traditions.

    (BTW, I personally don't have an opinion one way or the other as I'm far from qualified to judge on the merits of the academic arguments.)

    ReplyDelete
  124. But you can see he holds that people could drastically change under the right NATURAL circumstances.

    If that was so, why would he be so fervently against the idea that everyone in those days lived that long? And why would he raise the possibility of miracle, something that he avoids wherever possible? It's clear that he is very uncomfortable with the idea of significant physiological change in a species. (The cows giving birth example of Tosafos is probably not a significant change. Or maybe Rambam simply didn't notice a difference, he was a city man, not a farmer.)

    By the way, thanks for the link on your blog to R' Buchman's excellent article, it was a breath of fresh air.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.