Wednesday, November 9, 2022

KA's big lie!

 KA made the following claim - after I challenged him - he brought a number of irrelevant citations which do not support his claim

"Today's Hareidi-Khomeini mob are reinventing the wheel, and perhaps to buttress their own fantasies of being infallible, are painting previous generations as also being infallible ."

While there is acknowledgement that the facts of Chazal's reality sometimes do not always match our modern experience - I only see  claims that they were only quoting beliefs of their times or nature changed. I see nobody of any significance claiming "Today's Hareidi-Khomeini mob are reinventing the wheel, and perhaps to buttress their own fantasies of being infallible, are painting previous generations as also being infallible " In short he is clearly wrong


  1. OK, I am not going to use "big lie" type language.

    How about DT's big dilemma / paradox?

    "Chazal/Talmud are infallible - except for those areas which explicitly reject my extreme hareidi interpretations.."

    "Sanhedrin is not Chazal and Chazal were not part of any sanhedrin."

    "From Moses to the Sanhedrin, there was nobody like Chazal, since the earlier, greater gedolim were fallible."

    "Rule of learning: Where the Talmud discusses precisely the topic we are learning now, the Talmud is irrelevant - case in point - Horayos."

    "Elisha ben Abuya , whose teaching it brought in Avot, was either not Chazal, or he was not wrong. To accept either of these points ruins my thesis of infallibility" . In fact, where the Gemara Tractate Chagigah, says:

    Four men entered into “Pardes” - it clearly means that Acher was a man and not a Tanna."

  2. Totally missed the point!
    You made a claim that is clearly wrong - All your what about statements are irrelevant to proving your false claim

  3. There's R' Moshe Meiselman's book in which he makes repeated claims that Chazal were correct about science which is clearly bunk.

  4. The false part being that this view is not recent? OK, so if not 100 years, maybe 500.
    The point being that in the days where gedolim commented on all of shas, they accepted horayos.
    The claim is that classical Judaism held by horayos. Horayot is totally relevant.

  5. Did Chazal themselves hold themselves to be infallible? Seems they devoted a whole mesechta to the issue. Plus other cases, some of which you say above are not relevant.

  6. That is irrelevant.
    You claimed that the claim of infallibility for Chazal is recent - You are wrong and it isn't dependent on how they viewed themselves.


    Meiri says aggadic Claim is false.

    Gra attacks Rambam view - perhaps the beginning of modern hareidi view.

    CI attacks Yosef Caro, giant of the shulchan aruch. Closing of the Jewish mind intensifies. Rabbi Caro and Rambam say the people give validity to the shas, by acceptance. Not necessarily intrinsic infallibility.

  8. Nope! You keep repeating Horayos as if it means something
    Why not just repeat Sinai or Bereishis or Goren

    When do you claim their was a Change in Judaism?
    Who are you claim changed it?

  9. Please produce a respected source that says a view expressed in Talmud is Wrong and that the person saying it is mistaken

  10. Saying that Agada is not to be taken literally is not the same as saying it is false. It just means it needs to be understood differently. Maharal has an extensive discussion of this
    Rambam not accepting astrology - he says it was only a minority view
    Rambam never said agadata is false not did anyone else of stature
    I am sure you can find a maskil or Professor making such a claim - but not a respected authority

  11. "The Rambam had such a view because he was influenced by philosophy. Therefore he writes that witchcraft, use of Divine names, incantations, demons, and charms are all false. "

    The Gaon, whom you cite gives this reading of the Rambam, not me.

    Rambam has high respect for aggadatas, but says they need to be interpreted in a sophisticated rational fashion.
    That citation when i brought his comments in Helek was regarding the discussion of whether to take them literally or with interpretation. I think Rambam says that literal understanding debases the entire story.

    : incapable of error : UNERRING
    an infallible memory
    : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN
    an infallible remedy
    : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

    The above definition of Infallible is my understanding of the word, hope I am not mistaken.

    No, It is totally relevant - since Horayos allows for error. the Torah describes sacrifices for error. Hence the Rabbis are not infallible.
    Now, you are confounding 2 separate statements -
    the statement that they are not infallible, does not mean that anything they said has to be wrong. It simply means it is possible for errors to occur. It does not mean errors did occur.

  13. Is the Talmud respected enough for you?

    The Talmud says that Acher, who was a massive Gadol, and teacher of Rebbe Meir, expressed views that were wrong (heretical), that he in fact went off the derech to become a secular apikores, and that he was "mistaken".

    This means that Chazal were not infallible - there was the possibility of them being misled, erring, being bribed, or having other imperfections.

  14. Horayos does mean something. You are caught in a trap not of your own making. With one fist you beating the table saying how perfect and true and binding the Oral law (Talmud) is. with the other fist your tossing away one of the mesechtas of the same talmud - because it goes against the way Litvish yeshivas comprehend things.

    There is a clear historical change, away from Rambam the rationalist, towards the Hareidi mindset we see today. It may have begun with the response to the enlightenment, or before, I do not know. According to the Modern Orthodox interpretation, Rambam says Philosophy is Maaseh Merkavah. Gra calls it the accursed philosophy, which misled Rambam.

    But Gra is still a very open minded light unto Israel - and , he says as quoted in Ruach hachaim, that sometimes the teacher can be wrong, the student be right. This is anathema to any purveyor of Litvish "Daas Torah" perspective.
    Gra also berates the Mechaber of the Shulchan aruch.
    This closing of the hareidi mind progresses, when we reach Rav Elchonon H'YD, and he seems to be most influential in the Litvish world.
    Whereas Rambam rules that one must escape from a land where there is danger, if possible, reb Elchonon , based on his own precedent, sees the value of voluntary self sacrifice.
    In Parallel, Satmar and many others change the view of the 3 oaths, aggadas that were never incorporated in any halachic code, as the new 3 cardinal sins, for which one must be yehareig v 'lo yaavor - a total inversion of Rambam's criteria. Note the Ramban's view that it is a Torah mitzvah to both conquer and dwell in Eretz Israel.
    Then there is Daas Torah - not referring to your website or book. Statements being made on pashkevils, without halachic reasoning. Statements being made with absolute authority, not open to debate. Again, in the days of Rambam, there was give and take, the greatest gedolim, Raavad and Rambam would critique each other's arguments, but had immense respect for the stature and learning of their rivals.

  15. Well the Talmud itself brings Hillel II saying that there's no more Moshiach because we missed our chance and another amora asking God to forgive him for being so wrong.

  16. Saying all Aggada must be true is like saying there's a cottage out there in the woods made of gingerbread and candy and there's a witch inside that eats little children.
    Just like Bereishis 1 isn't an archeology or history lesson but a theological one, most aggada is there to teach us something, not make us think trees can talk with rocks.

  17. Daas Torah was not the issue - Your original claim is simply wrong,
    Again where are your sources that not saing Chazal are nistaken - post Talmud - is a recent change?

  18. Nope! The fact that G-d said Moshe erred doesn't mean that you can reject part of the Torah because it was transmitted by Moshe
    If Acher erred that doesn't mean the credibility of Chazal is now in doubt!
    The gemora says Adam was a heretic and therefore?
    You are trying to say if the people of the Talmud could err therefore halacha could be mistaken - but nobody within yiddishkeit says that.
    Going from people are fallible to Talmud is fallible is a claim no one but you is saying

  19. But the Rambam didn't say Chazal were wrong just thyat modern concern for the supernatural was wrong. In sum the message was what the Rambam criticized not the messengers

  20. Nope, it's a claim no one but you is saying.
    chazal are the protagonists in the Talmud. the entities are different.
    in any case, I uphold the Torah. I hope I'm upholding horayos rather than bury it.
    it's for a future Sanhedrin to determine if halacha needs to change. rambam says an error could be spotted after the enacting Sanhedrin members all died, hence anything is possible. You forget that horayos, and rambam are halacha on this topic, not Chas v shalom conservative.

  21. "You are trying to say if the people of the Talmud could err therefore halacha could be mistaken - but nobody within yiddishkeit says that."

    Firstly, it is not me - it is the Talmud itself that says any BD or Sanhedrin could theoretically err, or even be b'zadon.
    (The Neviim actually went a step further and criticised the entire Judicial system - as in their days it was corrupt or immoral, to some degree. )

    But the people of the Talmud were Chazal, in theory - it is a technical discussion - they could err. I am not saying they did err. And I am not trying to reconstruct halacha, like the Reconstructionist movement does.

    The Talmud has several different types of content. It has halachic, exegetical, and aggadic content. Some aggadic content deals with secular matters, some with mystical or occult, or scientific.
    The issue of science is an area where, if you say they only relied on the best of their day - then the error could be a transmitted one.

    There is actually a story of a Rav who said examine your witness testimonies very carefully - and I heard he said this because he was once deceived by a conniving witness. so errors in judgement, due to factors liek deception are even recorded in shas.

  22. Individuals who were part of Chazal did err or go OTD. Whether an error of a Sanhedrin or BD comprised of Chazal is recorded, i have no such information on that.

  23. the sources that Rishonim and earlier acharonim held aggadot not be binding on their literal meaning are in this

    But today, everyone on the right wing says we must accept them literally, and even the ancient science , which we now can be very skeptical of, is suddenly the real science, whereas modern scince is rejected - at least in the pashkevil /yeshiva world. the duplicity, is that the same people, when chas v'shalom are ill, head to the modern secular trained doctors, get their lenses from opticians, fly planes (and harass other passengers to change their seats).

  24. Changing topic rather than admitting error - are you infallible?
    Whether agada is accepted literally - against Rambam and most authorities - is not saying anything about whether fanatics recently invented a principle of not saying that Chazal erred

  25. irrelevant to your original claim - post talmud who says that chazal erred?

  26. Being fallible does not mean certainly erring.
    There is the possibility that a navi can be false. That doesn't mean we reject our accepted neviim.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.