Braishis Rabbah 20:4:
A certain philosopher wished to know how long the gestation period of a snake was. When he saw two snakes having intercourse he trapped them in a vat and would feed them, watching to see when they would give birth. When the Zekeinim came to Rome, [the Romans] asked Rabban Gamliel how long the gestation period was and he could not answer them. When Rabbi Yehoshua met Rabban Gamliel he saw that his face was sickly looking [because he was unable to answer]... "The answer is seven years," said Rabbi Yehoshua... " A dog is a chaya temeiya and gives birth after 50 days, a beheima temieya gives birth after 12 months, and the snake is described in the pasuk as "more cursed than all animals and chayos of the field." Just as the beheima's gestation period is 7 times longer than the chaya's, so too the snake's gestation is 7 times longer than the beheima's, hence seven years... When the philosopher heard this he began to bang his head against the wall. He said, "All I have labored to discover in seven years this Chacham was able to give me with the flick of a reed."
The message of the Midrash lies not in the particulars of the case, but in the contrast between the methodology of the "philosopher" or scientist and the methodology of Chazal. Ramban in his essay "Torah Hashem Temima" (p. 158-159 in the Chavel edition) writes that the meaning of the story of "ma'aseh braishis" is hidden and he does not understand it. However, Chachamim did understand the parsha. They were able to intuit from it the order of creation, the measure of the world and knowledge of astronomy and the universe, the calculation of the molad and tekufos, and all sorts of other knowledge which is hinted at in the count of letters, gematriyos, and their secrets. R' Yehoshua's knowledge of a snake's gestation did not require seven years of laborious scientific experimentation to discover but was obtained from Torah alone, based on his interpretation of the pasuk "arur atah...".
Clearly not even every Tanna possessed such knowledge -- Rabban Gamliel did not know the answer to the philosopher's question and admitted as such. And we know that Tanaim and Amoraim tell us that they went to doctors, consulted gentile experts about farming, etc. But that does not mean that such knowledge is not inherent in the Torah and accessible to those who can decode its secrets.
Doing a quick google search, it would appear that the gestation period of a snake is only a few months?
ReplyDeletedoes Ramban give the Bereishit Rabba example to illustrate?
ReplyDeletean interesting related side-point is that it was easier for Ramban to say this about astronomy and the like because the cutting-edge of science in his time was more or less the same as it was in Chazal. he was not grappling with incorrect science in Chazal. iirc, he talks about the four elements as they relate to maaseh bereishit. Does he say the same about all the medical cures in the Talmud?
it is also interesting that a snake's gestation is *not* seven years, as Anonymous above wrote.
kt,
josh
the other gestational ages in the midrash also seem off. 3 years for a monkey?!
ReplyDeletedo you believe this was a real incident, or rather that it was trying to teach this message?
kt,
josh
ah, i see the rambam himself mentions the snake...
ReplyDeletekt,
josh
"They were able to intuit from it the order of creation, the measure of the world and knowledge of astronomy and the universe, the calculation of the molad and tekufos, and all sorts of other knowledge which is hinted at in the count of letters, gematriyos, and their secrets"
ReplyDeleteA question I wonder about is whether Rambam would hold of this. Is there anything in any of the Rambam's writings to indicate that modern science is hinted in letters, gematriyos, etc?
I think very relevant is the Rambam's description of Maaseh Mercavah and Maaseh Bereishis in Yesodei Hatorah-- see R. Aron Feldman's letter on the Slifkin issue:
"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."
I would add that I'm not favoring the Rambam over Ramban, just questioning if the Rambam held that all contemporary science was hinted in the Torah.
One Rambam that is only a partial answer to your question: Rambam Hil Kiddush haChodesh 17:24 defends relying on the calculations of the Greek astronomers because math can be proven with "ra'ayos she'ain bahem dofi", but this is a b'dieved caused by our loss of the seforim written by the Nevi'im and experts of sheivet Yisachar. You see that the chochma of calculating the tekufah and molad was a mesorah independent of outside knowledge and only with its loss did we need to look elsewhere.
ReplyDeletethis may be in line with Rambam understanding Maaseh Bereishit as physics (or perhaps just astrophysics). but nowadays, we know that Maaseh Bereishit is really kabbalah, and so to maintain this position of Rambam nowadays in unacceptable, heretical, and not in line with our "masorah". Just as ShadesOf notes above.
ReplyDelete;)
seriously, though, Chazal were wrong about astrophysics. this was not apparent to Rambam, because it was in line, more or less, with non-Jewish astrophysics. The Gra and Shevus Yaakov (who you cannot argue against) held that Chazal held by a flat earth. And Rav Chaim Kanievsky (who you cannot argue against) holds that Chazal held by a geocentric model (and in this he is almost certainly correct).
If you assert that Maaseh Merkava is astrophysics, then you are effectively saying that Maaseh Merkava is false. Much like snake gestation, which is also derived from the Torah from those who had ruach hakodesh and knew how to derive it.
kt,
josh
oops, typo. Maaseh Merkava should read Maaseh Bereishit.
ReplyDeletekt,
josh
The Gemara end of Horeyus regarding 'sod Hashem liyereyav' is evident that not everyone possessed perfect knowledge regarding the world
ReplyDeleteIf you take the passage literally, you must assume that the philosopher measured a seven year gestation period for the snake. Had his experiment produced the modern result he would have just told R. Yehoshua that he was speaking nonsense. Thus you are forced, it seems to me, to accept one of three possibilities: that nature has changed dramatically between the time of Chazal and now (in which case the gestation period of animals cannot be set from ma'ase breishit), that both Chazal and their non-Jewish contemporaries had erroneous views of science or that the passage is not to be understood literally.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, we don't know if this story was before or after the 3 incidents where Rabban Gamliel so mistreated R. Yehoshua that the other Rabbonim removed him as Nasi. But R. Yehoshua's greater insight, represented by this story, does not seem to have resulted in R. Gamliel treating him with the respect we might think was due someone with knowledge from Ruach Hakodesh. Nor does this insight seem to have led R. Yehoshua to pasken like HaKaddosh Baruch Hu in the "tanur shel Achnai" story.
see my post on this midrash. (perhaps another post later.)
ReplyDeletehttp://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/07/galen-on-jews-jews-on-galen.html
kt,
josh
Mike S.
ReplyDeleteLeo Levi in "The Science in Torah" (available on google books) confirms that the figure of seven years in this case does happen to be accurate for certain snakes. In general, however, the best approach to resolve these discrepencies is to assume the Midrash is not speaking literally.
The issue of whether the figure of 7 years is accurate or not is secondary to the larger point of the Ramban: Chazal did not simply piggy-back on the scientific wisdom of their time, contrary to Josh Waxman's opinion.
or rather, your interpretation of the ramban's interpretation of a particular midrash.
ReplyDeletekol tuv,
josh
also, i think it is your interpretation of my position as well.
ReplyDeletethe question i think you are responding to is whether "sod hashem liyreav", used as an answer of last resort by the gemara, is actually the rule rather than the exception. not whether sod hashem liyreav is possible. can you demonstrate that this was indeed the case in general, rather than an option to a select few? can you demonstrate, e.g., that this was the operating principle for all the nonsensical medical cures in the gemara, or the false scientific statements that just so happen to accord with contemporary science?
and even if so, it is not just Ramban (the kabbalist) against Josh Waxman -- which by the way is an appeal to authority, rather than a convincing proof. it is the Ramban against Rav Shamshon Refael Hirsch as well. See this post at Rationalist Judaism, towards the end.
http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2009/06/i-dont-understand-or-do-i.html
kt,
josh
You mean a 19th century acharon like Hirsch (whose views are not all mainstream, as we know from the reaction R' Schwab's query about TIDE to R' Baruch Ber, the Rogatchover, and others ellicited) outweighs the words of a rishon like the Ramban?
ReplyDeleteThat point gufa is illustrative of the problem with thinking hilchos deyos is hefker and you can pull any shita out of a hat and declare it authoritative without regard to what the rest of klal yisrael and centuries of precedent have established.
"You mean a 19th century acharon like Hirsch ... outweighs the words of a rishon like the Ramban?"
ReplyDeleteapparently, only when he holds a chareidi opinion. you believe the Gra outweighs all the rishonim, no?
but this is beside the point. it is NOT about appeal to authority. Rav Hirsch was frum, and not an apikores, and he maintained that one could hold this.
(and it *is* normative thinking within my own group, just not among certain chareidim who also count among their Gedolim those who are unaware of how science has changed, and who think that Jews have more teeth than gentiles; and whose hamon am believes that shlomo hamelech could have invented the telephone (not the point of maharatz chajes, btw). btw, i'm only knocking them down because you are putting them up while saying one cannot argue with them.)
"That point gufa is illustrative of the problem with thinking..."
I deliberately cut off your quote here, because this is really what you are arguing. no, i do have the right to think.
and it is not a matter of declaring it authoritative, to my mind. truth is truth. i was only putting him up as an authority because you were making it all about authority, rather than truth.
kt,
josh
"You mean a 19th century acharon like Hirsch ... outweighs the words of a rishon like the Ramban?"
ReplyDeleteEvidently, R' Hirsch knew of a principle that would allow him to say what he did.
Bloggers should have some humility in evaluating the actions of acharonim.
"You mean a 19th century acharon like Hirsch ...outweighs the words of a rishon like the Ramban?"
ReplyDeleteR Chaim,
Perhaps you should speak to contemporary Rabbonim, as I have(I do not have a clarity on all issues and shittos). There may be some way of reducing the tension between mekkubalim, and RSRH.
I have spoken to rabbonim, and I'm not convinced they would go as far as some of the opinions cited by the banners.
If you are talking about contemporary rabbinical authority, why not ask R. Shmuel Kamentesky or Rav Hershel Shacter to what extent they agree with Rav Aharon Feldman's letter, for example?
I suspect that there might be a more a moderate medium, instead of effectively placing RSRH and Rishonim beyond the pale, kabbalah notwithstanding.
>>>you believe the Gra outweighs all the rishonim, no?
ReplyDeleteThe thought and psak of the GR"A as transmitted through R' Chaim Volozhiner and R' Chaim Brisker to almost every modern yeshiva (ad YU b'chlal) forms the basis of the Judaism most of us practice, which is why it is authoritative. It's not about who the bigger Rabbi is or whose opinion you understand better -- it's about which opinions klal yisrael have developed a consensus about as being correct.
>>>i do have the right to think.
Of course the Torah limits our right to think, otherwise there would be no prohibition of minus and idolatry.
>>>Evidently, R' Hirsch knew of a principle that would allow him to say what he did.
Never said otherwise. But until we know what that principle is the attitude we should take is that R' Hirsch was a gadol and talmid chacham but in this particular area his views are a minority that needs further iyun to understand.
>>>effectively placing RSRH and Rishonim beyond the pale, kabbalah notwithstanding.
ReplyDeleteSee above. There is a difference between "beyond the pale" and saying it is a minority view that is tzarich iyun and therefore not relevant to most of us.
Anticipating your next question, for those yechidim who it may be relevant for, so ask a shayla and see what to do. No different than any other area. When I ask a Rav something it is often not because I need to know what the Shulchan Arcuh says, but because I need to know if there is latitude to rely on other views in a less than ideal circumstance. Even if the answer is yes, it doesn't mean we should rewrite the shulchan aruch to reflect that.
"Of course the Torah limits our right to think, otherwise there would be no prohibition of minus and idolatry."
ReplyDeletethere *is* an answer and a distinction, but i will save this for later. (having to do with minus first being false, and only then heretical.)
instead, i will simply pose this hypothetical question for you. let us say it was not just Rav Chaim Kanievsky who held that it is was apikorsus to argue with the geocentric model of the universe (and not the Rebbe's weak geocentrism either). let us say it was the common chareidi consensus, and the consensus of all the chareidi Gedolim. and yet, you believe based on firm scientific evidence that it is not the case, but that the heliocentric model is correct.
would you then stop thinking, and refuse to believe your own eyes? would you say that it is forbidden to think?
if the answer is yes, then (and i apologize for the insult) your Judaism is false and stupid, and i want no part of it.
kol tuv,
josh
"Even if the answer is yes, it doesn't mean we should rewrite the shulchan aruch to reflect that."
ReplyDeleteThe issue is whether it is a valid shittah or not. I'm pointing out that your own analysis doesn't contain what the full range of contemporary gedolim from whom you no doubt hold from. Why should their opinions not be mentioned?
If you are appealing to the authority of gedolim over the centuries(which is of course valid), then I would say what the actual opinion of all contemoporary gedolim is, IMHO, very relevant.
Josh, the answer to your hypothetical question is the same as the answer to every situation where evidence contradicts what we know to be true. Let me cite the "chareidi" scholar Dr. Moshe Bernstein, Professor of Bible at that "chareidi" institition known as Yeshiva University -
ReplyDelete"When we confront the problems raised by modern scholarship (and I do not deny that such problems ought to be confronted), we answer those that we can, and allow the rest to remain with tzarikh iyyun gadol, hoping that in the long run, with continued study, investigation and analysis, more and more answers, solutions and resolutions will be found."
The only difference between the "chareidi" world and YU is in what beliefs are fundamental and what are secondary, but the response of both to what are perceived as threats to core Jewish belief remains the same, no matter how compelling the evidence.
>>>The issue is whether it is a valid shittah or not.
ReplyDeleteMy post was not devoted to a discussion of what is or is not a valid shita - my post was devoted to publicizing the opinion of the Ramban which I do not think gets the attention it deserves. Aderaba, my post is coming l'afukei whose who think the idea I have presented originated with "chareidi gedolim" who are unworthy of being taken seriously.
>>>then I would say what the actual opinion of all contemoporary gedolim is, IMHO, very relevant.
Good point. In my defense all I can say is I do not have time to research everything and this is a blog, not a book, so I am focussed on what interests me. But that's what comments are for, so if you know of contemporary poskim who discuss the Ramban or the Rambam on ma'aseh merkava, I'm all ears (or eyes, since I'm reading).
One caveat: there is a big difference between discussing a specific Ramban and discussing whether R' Hershel Shacther thinks a certain person's books are kefira. The former is the topic at hand and not the latter. Sorry for being insistant about keeping a tight leash on things, but otherwise the discussion is too broad to handle.
"Josh, the answer to your hypothetical question is the same as the answer to every situation where evidence contradicts what we know to be true."
ReplyDeleteso in other words, yes. how unfortunate.
let us say the chareidi consensus was that Jews have more teeth than gentiles, like Rav Kanievsky also holds. and the consensus was that to say otherwise was kefira, because this is a kabbalistic tradition. would you still say this? and not be delusional?
kol tuv,
josh
actually, now that i thought about it, you either accidentally or deliberately shifted my first question, such that you did not answer it.
ReplyDeletei asked about something you know to be true going against chareidi consensus. that is, that you know the geocentric model is false, and yet you are faced with a consensus of gedolim the opposite way. that is, something which is objectively true. you shifted that into something that, since the gedolim say it is true, is something which is objectively true, despite contrary evidence. that was not what i was asking. i was asking about belief in something which is ACTUALLY false.
so let me modify the question to try to make you answer the question i was asking. nowadays, the chareidi consensus is (purportedly) NOT that the geocentric model is correct. and as such, you yourself professed belief in the heliocentric model. now i build you a time machine, and send you back to the time of the early rishonim, where they do not have this model and the consensus is that Chazal were right in the geocentric model. let us say they would look askance at anyone professing the heliocentric model, just like Rav Chaim Kanievsky nowadays. must you maintain a false belief? is someone who argues against this false belief a kofer?
hopefully, i've explained this well enough to make the distinction between my question and your answer clear.
kol tuv,
josh
Chaim: Levi does not provide a citation for the claim, and suggest some reason to doubt it. I couldn't find anything close to seven years reported in the scientific literature.
ReplyDeleteBe that as it may, the Ramban's own well-known comments on the rainbow would seem to make clear that he had no such insight, and the Rambam also said that he had no such insight. If Chazal did, it seems to have been lost by the period of the Rishonim, even to a mekubal like the Ramban. That being the case, I am not sure why it would be directly relevant to us. Surely you will not claim that any Acharon or modern Talmid Chacham has more insight than Ramban.
It would seriously strengthen your case if you could point to a gemara or Midrash chazal with a clear statement of something we now believe to be scientific fact that was not believed by the gentiles of the period.
the regenerative powers of the liver and the ability for a ruminant to survive after its kidneys are removed are two examples from hilchos treifos in the gemara Chulin (forget which daf). Rabbi Lach mentions the liver in his illustrated book on Chullin.
ReplyDeleteI don't think these things were believed by the gentiles of the period.
Minor point here about the RAMBAM.
ReplyDeleteBut also a point about what chazal thought.
RAMBAM in the Guide says the model he uses for understanding of planets, moon, that stuff, is a Hypothesis. A good model because the calculations work.
(this then would answer some incorrect criticisms of hilchot kiddush hachodesh about rambam being mistaken)
Of course, some goyim even before RAMBAM thought the earth was round. e.g. Aristotle thought so.
this is not the case with chazal, who had different opinions. One can quote from the talmud itself. Why play authority and say this rabbi held that chazal held a certain way. Why not see what chazal say, and think for yourself what chazal thought.
There's an article by the anti-religiosu site daas emet, which mentions an opinion of chazal of a round earth. albeit a funny idea about water
The bavli does have some ideas about a flat earth. but the jerusalem talmud has the idea of a round earth quite clearly.
In the Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Avodah Zarah, chapter three, fol. 42c, it is written: "That the earth is made as a ball. R' Jonah said: when Alexander of Macedon wanted to rise above the earth, he went up higher and higher until he saw the world as a ball and the sea as a bowl."