tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post7251478785832599622..comments2024-03-18T09:44:19.269-04:00Comments on Divrei Chaim: nir'in divreihem m'divreinu -- did Chazal get facts wrong?Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comBlogger113125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-89500604031903512752009-12-22T21:29:22.736-05:002009-12-22T21:29:22.736-05:00[url=http://italtubi.com/tag/levitra-10-mg/ ]compr...[url=http://italtubi.com/tag/levitra-10-mg/ ]compra levitra onlin [/url] whA richiesta risposta - non un problema. <a href="http://italtubi.com/tag/levitra-generico/" rel="nofollow">levitra senza ricetta </a> hhrwdoyshj [url=http://www.mister-wong.es/user/COMPRARCIALIS/comprar-viagra/]cialis online[/url]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-87537162634032253632009-06-19T17:23:54.398-04:002009-06-19T17:23:54.398-04:00>>>Hashem did not reveal basic scientific...<i>>>>Hashem did not reveal basic scientific concepts (viz., the seasons) to Adam HaRishon, is it any surprise that He did not necessarily reveal them to Chazal?<br /><br />Hashem was not megalah Torah to Adam -- he was to Chazal.<br /><br />Secondly, these are two different issues entirely: 1) lack of knowledge, as in the case of Adam vs. 2) incorrect knowledge.<br /><br />Thirdly, what possible advantage is there to saying Chazal erred when there is a perfectly reasonable explanation, i.e. Chazal were not speaking about science but rather were speaking of pnimiyus hadevarim, which solves the conflict without necessitating that dochak?<br /><br />Not only does taking this approach preserve the truthfulness of what Chazal say, but it also grants one far more latitude to discuss scientific observations without having to worry about stepping on Chazal's toes (so to speak). Science can never be in conflict with Chazal because the latter deals with pnimiyus and the former with chitzoniyus. Davka were I a scientist would I be applauding this approach as the most reasonable! (e.g. see Stephen Jay Gould's "Rocks of Ages").</i><br /><br />1. To the best of my understanding, Adam HaRishon had ultimate knowledge. This is evident from many of the Gemaros, Midrashim and particularly the Zohars cited in Ishei HaTanach, ayain sham.<br /><br />2. In both cases, a lack of revealed knowledge led to mistaken assumptions.<br /><br />3. Your approach is that of REED and others. I have no problem with it. I am proposing an additional mahalach.<br /><br />The advantage, however, is in the corollary: Chazal were given authority even if they err (so long as it is not an error in Torah a la M. Horios). The halacha is therefore as they legislated regardless of "reality" - as the legislation determines the Halachic (and metaphysical) reality.<br /><br />This, BTW, is more or less the mahalach of the Derashos HaRan.Yosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-4130966599920918312009-06-10T16:32:04.926-04:002009-06-10T16:32:04.926-04:00">Regarding Rav Vachtfogel - can't you...">Regarding Rav Vachtfogel - can't you read?"<br /><br />Can't you read in the context of a full sentence?"<br /><br />Sure can. He says that it is Chas v'shalom to say that Chazal erred in science, and it is ALSO chas v'shalom to say that they erred in halachah.<br />Have you ever heard him speak about this? I have, and I can promise you that this is his view. He would be furious with you for trying to water him down.<br /><br />"A) Where is this open letter available."<br /><br />It was in circulation a while back, I don't know where it is now. You can probably ask him for it.<br /><br />"B) How does this contradict the obvious Me'or Einayim/Slifkin context of a GENERAL APPROACH to Chazal that is asserts they were GENERALLY ignorant?"<br /><br />Rav Moshe/ Rabbi Nissel are very clear that it means even a single instance. And there is nothing in Maharal which distinguishes between one instance or five or twenty.<br /><br />You're just trying to make the Gedolim's opposition more palatable for yourself! Have you spoken to any of them at all?Not a Rav Nissel Fannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-74078576597014324402009-06-10T16:29:57.867-04:002009-06-10T16:29:57.867-04:00>>>If you apply that to the whole general...>>>If you apply that to the whole general philosophic approach of the majority of Rishonim, then you are in fact maintaining that those Rishonim are tainted and not to be relied upon, and that the transmission of our mesorah has serious issues.<br /><br />1) Your entire formulation is wrong. Do you think the mesorah is 'tainted' because R' Akiva Eiger left a kashe as a tzarich iyun until R' Chaim Brisker came along with a new derech halimud and showed how it can be answered up? Or how R' Akiva Eiger's chiddush was wrong? It's not just the specific psak that made R' Chaim a genius, it was the creation of a new way of looking at torah. The abandonment of rationalism in favor of other approaches was a similar revolution. <br /><br />2) Bottom line is rather than change your pre-conceived set of ideas of what can/cannot be you would rather toss aside a well known ma'aseh of tzadikim involving goral haGR"A -- are you making decisions based on evidence or based on pre-conceived notions? <br /><br />Also, since when is 'ruach hakodesh' a rational force? Can it be tested in a laboratory or explained using laws of logic? All you are doing is substituting one mystical set of phenomenon for another -- semantic games. ***end quote<br /><br />Way to set up and then knock down the straw man on the first point! You dismiss the general approach of the majority of Rishonim regarding rationalism, and then you turn around and say you arent doing that by quoting R Chaim answering a question of R Akiva Eiger on a specific point?!? Really? Does that make any sense at all? If you can show me that R Chaim maintained that R Akiva's Eiger general approach to Torah was invalid (not merely different or lacking, but "outside the mesorah"), then we can start talking. Otherwise, your point is, well, pointless. But go ahead, call the Rishonim's philosophy "outside the mesorah" and tell yourself that you still respect them.<br /><br />2) A story in a book is not overwhelming evidence, and even if you take the story completely at face value, there is no way to verify that the identifications made were actually correct!<br /><br />Every culture has the exact same nonsensical bibilomancy, amulets, faith healing, astrology, predictions, talking to the dead, etc. They can give you all of the same "evidence" of it working, eyewitness accounts, testimonials, etc. Guess what. Its all bunk. All of it.<br /><br />Yes I am biased, based on overwhelming evidence. No one has ever been able to reproduce any of these so called phenomenon under any semblance of controlled settings. When I see that the whole category of such nonsense is exactly that, Im not going to be moved by a story here or there to say "Oh wait, everything else is wrong, but this story must be true, because person/rabbi A said so." Sorry, no, thats not good enough. <br /><br />This is a practical example. Uri Geller claims he can bend spoons with his mind. In fact, a lot of people into "kabala" claim the exact same power. People smarter than everyone else on this blog, including me, were fooled by him. Magicians have since come along and shown that it is all a magic trick. Fortunately, we live in an era where that knowledge is disseminated and the results reproducible. Now pretend Mr. A comes along and claims to be able to do it, only this time "its real" and these people will attest to it. Am I biased to believe that Mr. A is also not really able to use his minds to bend spoons? You bet I am! Is this a good bias to have? Yes, it is. <br /><br />Practically though, if you can't tell the difference between God interacting with the world via prophecy or miracles and the supposed existence of magic, etc., then you are practicing a different religion. Good luck with your voodoo, errr, I mean "Non-rationalist Judaism"Keysernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-7601099350819042712009-06-10T16:22:18.204-04:002009-06-10T16:22:18.204-04:00A couple of quick thoughts, from someone with far ...A couple of quick thoughts, from someone with far less lumdus than most other people on this thread:<br /><br />>>>This whole idea of divorcing halacha from reality strikes me as philosophically wrong. It is very hard to say (for example) that the to axioms of human behavior the Talmud refers to as the basis of laws are incorrect but the laws still stand. Why did the Talmud play charades and hide the "real" reasons for laws while leading us down the wrong track with red herring? Why keep laws that contradict or conflict with what we know about reality?>>>><br /><br />Actually, the Torah specifically directs us that the laws still stand even when the reality of the situation does not match the rationale of Chazal (see Rashi on Lo Tasur - note he does not say even if it "seems" Chazal said 'right' is 'left', but when they <i>actually</i> do)<br /><br /><br />>>>>>>Agree 100%. And the answer is, as you wrote, that the vast majority of Achronim lean towards away from the rationalism of the Rambam and others of that ilk. It is a historical relic, not a living philosophical system. >>>>>><br /><br />Maybe in the Chareidi world, but certainly not in the yeshivos I learned in.Akivahttp://torahexchange.proboards.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-16846678160271092952009-06-10T13:45:43.886-04:002009-06-10T13:45:43.886-04:00"Regarding Rav Vachtfogel - can't you rea..."<i>Regarding Rav Vachtfogel - can't you read?</i>"<br /><br />Can't you read in the context of a full sentence?<br /><br />"<i>Rabbi Menachem Nissel, a long-time talmid of Rav Moshe, wrote an open letter a while back to explain Rav Moshe's view. He wrote: "Maharal paskens that it is kefira to question the writings of chazal when they spoke about science and nature... Rav Moshe says that this is our mesorah. It is kefira to question the knowledge of chazal in madda."</i>" <br /><br />A) Where is this open letter available.<br />B) How does this contradict the obvious Me'or Einayim/Slifkin context of a GENERAL APPROACH to Chazal that is asserts they were GENERALLY ignorant?Freelance Kiruv Maniac (Mr. Hyde)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10298176204317506218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-45194548086561932652009-06-10T10:17:05.709-04:002009-06-10T10:17:05.709-04:00fact of the matter is sometimes a kashe that could...<i>fact of the matter is sometimes a kashe that could not be answered earlier becomes resolvable or resolvable with a better solution because we have new tools</i><br /><br />2 points.<br />First of all, you are assuming that there is a kashya. From the point of view of the Gemara k'pshuto, and the Geonim, and the Rishonim, there is no kashya. <br /><br />Second, it is indeed the case that R' Chaim Brisker's ingenious methods of reconciling contradictions in Rambam are phenomenal but yet are often unconvincing from a historical standpoint of asking whether this is really what Rambam meant. That's why he reportedly didn't like Rambam's letters to the Chachamei Lunil, where Rambam answered some of the kashyas on him without using the Brisker derech.<br /><br />So again, the reason why many of us would not like to use the approach of pnimiyus in this sugya is that there is no reason to believe that it is actually what Chazal meant. It's not a matter of being left with a tzarich iyun - there is no tzarich iyun! The peshat of the Geonim and Rishonim works just fine. It's the pnimiyus pshat that is tzarich iyun - how come there is no hint of it in the text, and how come there is no mesorah of it (using the word "mesorah" in its true sense).Natan Slifkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04488707201313046847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-20526529122866746152009-06-10T10:08:31.738-04:002009-06-10T10:08:31.738-04:00>>>Are you saying that paskening against ...>>>Are you saying that paskening against this approach<br /><br />repeating what I wrote above yet again:<br />"I don't see (to return to Baruch's point) how you can "pasken" on a philosophical system (i.e. declare it illegitimate) or pshat in a gemara without a halachic nafka minah."<br /><br />FKM put it nicely as well- <br />"What is being said is that it is a wrong view of Chazal TO PROMOTE TODAY (in resolving conflicts with Science)." <br /><br />>>>all those who lived closest to their time (i.e. the Geonim and Rishonim) did not see them as speaking allegorically. <br /><br />The derech halimud has undergone many changes through the centuries and fact of the matter is sometimes a kashe that could not be answered earlier becomes resolvable or resolvable with a better solution because we have new tools. When R' Chaim uses Brisker methodology to answer a kashe of Tosfos or R' Akiva Eiger, do you reject R' Chaim because the Rishonim were not Briskers and early Achronim never learned that way? <br /><br />Hashem was nice enough to reveal to us the ideas of pnimiyus haTorah to an extent that the Rishonim perhaps did not have access to or maybe did not utilize because they felt it was possible to resolve conflicts l'shitasam of secular philosophy). Now that these avenues are accessible, why in the world would you say it is logically better to say Chazal were in conflict with science than to say there is no conflict and Chazal and science are speaking of different areas? This is no different than using a R' Chaim to answer a kashe of R' Akiva Eiger -- is it better to remain with a tzarich iyun just because R' Akiva Eiger was written first?Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-31264241349322628062009-06-10T09:10:42.354-04:002009-06-10T09:10:42.354-04:00No where in my post of my comments has anything be...<i>No where in my post of my comments has anything been declared 'illegitimate'</i><br /><br />You are sending out conflicting messages. You wrote that it is "outside of the mesorah" and "further from the amitah shel Torah." <br />Are you saying that paskening against this approach has nothing to do with passing judgment on its propriety?!<br /><br /><i>given the choice of (1) taking Chazal literally and thereby reading them as in conflict with empirical evidence and therefore wrong; or (2) reading Chazal as dealing with pnimiyus and not in conflict with science -- why would anyone view the first option as the better logical choice than the second?</i><br /><br />The answer to that is very simple. Because, from an intellectually honest perspective, it looks vastly more likely that that is what they actually meant. There is no hint of any allegorical meaning in the text, and all those who lived closest to their time (i.e. the Geonim and Rishonim) did not see them as speaking allegorically. Only much later, when people found it distasteful, did this solution of allegorical readings arise.Natan Slifkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04488707201313046847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-86353135561267836312009-06-10T09:03:03.369-04:002009-06-10T09:03:03.369-04:00Rabbi Menachem Nissel, a long-time talmid of Rav M...Rabbi Menachem Nissel, a long-time talmid of Rav Moshe, wrote an open letter a while back to explain Rav Moshe's view. He wrote: "Maharal paskens that it is kefira to question the writings of chazal when they spoke about science and nature... Rav Moshe says that this is our mesorah. It is kefira to question the knowledge of chazal in madda."Not a Rav Nissel Fannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-87453688933349701812009-06-10T09:02:58.998-04:002009-06-10T09:02:58.998-04:00>>>Because halachah requires that we choo...>>>Because halachah requires that we choose a single course of action, so we pick the one that seems most correct to us, but accept that the other ways are based on a different (yet legitimate) general approach. <br />But in this case, what is being said is that it is a wrong view of Chazal to say that they were making fallible scientific statements.<br /><br />OK, I give up. You keep discussing things I haven't said instead of the point at hand. No where in my post of my comments has anything been declared 'illegitimate'. I responded earlier -- "I don't see (to return to Baruch's point) how you can "pasken" on a philosophical system (i.e. declare it illegitimate)..." I don't know why you keep creating a straw man and knocking it down. <br /><br />Here is the issue, plain and simple: given the choice of (1) taking Chazal literally and thereby reading them as in conflict with empirical evidence and therefore wrong; or (2) reading Chazal as dealing with pnimiyus and not in conflict with science -- why would anyone view the first option as the better logical choice than the second? This is without even getting into puk chazei the damage making that first choice has created by undermining emunas chachamim in so many areas that have nothing to do with this.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-4838599955939763592009-06-10T08:58:06.624-04:002009-06-10T08:58:06.624-04:00Regarding Afikei Mayim - the author makes his view...Regarding Afikei Mayim - the author makes his views clear, and it's clear that he is Rav Moshe's talmid and has his haskomah.<br /><br />Regarding Rav Vachtfogel - can't you read? "And he also writes that Chazal Hakedoshim can err chas vesholom in worldly matters chas vesholom" - not just one chas v'sholom, but two!Moshe M.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-36836037377997697072009-06-10T08:49:42.684-04:002009-06-10T08:49:42.684-04:00Where is this shiur uploaded so I can confirm it?
...Where is this shiur uploaded so I can confirm it?<br />Also, which part of Afikei Mayim are you discussing? Rav Moshe's own essay there never discusses gemaras where Chazal themselves say other members of Chazal were wrong on things they were speculating about. Just when insolent students deny things said by Chazal because they are not empirically confirmed.<br /><br />And regarding Rav Vachtfogel's letter onthe cherem, again, there relevant passage says this:<br /><br />"<i>To this letter HaRav Elya Ber Wachtfogel, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas South Fallsberg, adds, "And he also writes that Chazal Hakedoshim can err chas vesholom in worldly matters chas vesholom <b>and therefore [they can err] in halochoh as well</b> chas vesholom, as he wrongly proves from maseches Horayos—all nonsense! And the whole book is filled with similar instances of total heresy.</i>"<br /><br />So you see that the issue is about concocting a general approach to Chazal that will undermine their authority in halacha.<br /><br />My observation still stands completely.Freelance Kiruv Maniac (Mr. Hyde)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10298176204317506218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-48287840067381882602009-06-10T08:11:57.044-04:002009-06-10T08:11:57.044-04:00Rav Moshe said it explicitly in a shiur he gave ab...Rav Moshe said it explicitly in a shiur he gave about the controversy. It's also clear in Afikei Mayim. And it's also clear in Rav Vachtfogel's letter on the cherem. <br /><br />And I have heard it from the other Gedolim in, yes, second and third hand accounts, but they count for more than your claim, which is not based on anything that they are claimed to have said.Moshe M.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-80186176289234921282009-06-10T07:53:59.941-04:002009-06-10T07:53:59.941-04:00Explicit in writing? Or overheard and passed on th...Explicit in writing? Or overheard and passed on third and fourth hand?<br />The most relevant thing I see in what Rav Moshe wrote against Rabbi Slifkin on his cherem was this:<br />והדבר נורא כי<br />כלפי חוץ נראים הדברים כאילו חלילה התירו פרושים את הדבר ונתנו מקום להתיר<br />לדברים אלו לבא בקהל חלילה,<br /><br />As a general point:<br />Although the Maharal reprimanded the Me'or Einayim's straightforward approach to this gemara in Pesachim under discussion, this has to be seen in context.<br />This was just one of the many examples brought by the Me'or Enayim to paint Chazal as simpletons with primitive knowledge of the world and history.<br />The Maharal gave his penimiyus pshat to this gemara as part of a overall response to the basic thrust of the Me'or Enayim's insulting view of Chazal.<br /><br />I'm sure that if people would use this gemara in isolation to go with the rishonim, and not use it as a linchpin to an entire approach to Chazal's lack of knowledge of science, no one would make a big deal.<br /><br />The issue is about a general approach to Chazal's knowledge. Not one isolated gemara.Freelance Kiruv Maniac (Mr. Hyde)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10298176204317506218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-10722408914097231652009-06-10T07:31:40.558-04:002009-06-10T07:31:40.558-04:00FKM, maybe that is how you would like to present t...FKM, maybe that is how you would like to present the position of the Gedolim, in order to make it more palatable to yourself and the public, and maybe that is indeed the position of some of them, but for many of them, they clearly believe that it is a wrong view, period, not merely a wrong view to promote. <br /><br />(Rav Moshe Shapira and Rav Elya Baer Vachtfogel in particular have been very explicit about this.)Moshe M.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-24680988449041165862009-06-10T07:20:03.291-04:002009-06-10T07:20:03.291-04:00"But in this case, what is being said is that..."<i>But in this case, what is being said is that it is a wrong view of Chazal to say that they were making fallible scientific statements.</i>"<br /><br />More accurately:<br />What is being said is that it is a wrong view of Chazal TO PROMOTE TODAY (in resolving conflicts with Science).<br />Which is exactly the distinction Chaim B. is trying to make.<br /><br />Some people seem to have an agenda to make this position of the gedolim more disrespectful and ignorant of the rishonim than they really are.Freelance Kiruv Maniac (Mr. Hyde)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10298176204317506218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-8692791889051822762009-06-09T22:58:37.000-04:002009-06-09T22:58:37.000-04:00Take any area of halacha you like. If we pasken li...<i>Take any area of halacha you like. If we pasken like some deyos of Rishonim against others, does that mean the ones we no longer follow are incorrect, or did not know how to learn?</i><br /><br />Of course not. Because halachah requires that we choose a single course of action, so we pick the one that seems most correct to us, but accept that the other ways are based on a different (yet legitimate) general approach. <br />But in this case, what is being said is that it is a wrong view of Chazal to say that they were making fallible scientific statements. That is what is being said. So it is impugning the Rishonim.Natan Slifkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04488707201313046847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-21319071452883581432009-06-09T21:49:31.752-04:002009-06-09T21:49:31.752-04:00"The abandonment of rationalism in favor of o..."The abandonment of rationalism in favor of other approaches was a similar revolution. "<br /><br />Rationalism may be abandoned by the Torah world-- ain hachi nami. But some people want to explore it as a reaction and a balance to what they feel to be excessive intellectual conformity.<br /><br />Also, it can help one's faith. The Stiepler in preface to Chayie Olam says that someone should say to himself, "do you think you are smarter than the Rambam or the Rashba who thought of the same issues?"(I agree that this may not always be helpful) Similarly here as well: psychologically, one has a kosher means of satisfying one's rationalistic tendencies by saying that Judaism of old had great rationalists who dealt with issues in a very rigorous way (even if the Rishonim's rationlism is irrelevant to many issues of today).<br /><br />I read that R. Baruch Ber told over that his rebbe Rav Chaim Brisker used to learn the Moreh in private together with the "Malach", forerunner of today's Williamsburg Malachim sect.<br /><br />Bottom line, rationalism may have been abandoned, but those who have such tendencies and feel them thwarted by what they feel is a more intellectual-conformist society can continue to explore the world of rationalism, with no contradiction at all to accepting Kabbalah. Each to his own.Shades of Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03029177164921795725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-76933758958081758062009-06-09T20:06:12.349-04:002009-06-09T20:06:12.349-04:00>>>If you apply that to the whole general...>>>If you apply that to the whole general philosophic approach of the majority of Rishonim, then you are in fact maintaining that those Rishonim are tainted and not to be relied upon, and that the transmission of our mesorah has serious issues.<br /><br />1) Your entire formulation is wrong. Do you think the mesorah is 'tainted' because R' Akiva Eiger left a kashe as a tzarich iyun until R' Chaim Brisker came along with a new derech halimud and showed how it can be answered up? Or how R' Akiva Eiger's chiddush was wrong? It's not just the specific psak that made R' Chaim a genius, it was the creation of a new way of looking at torah. The abandonment of rationalism in favor of other approaches was a similar revolution. <br /><br />2) Bottom line is rather than change your pre-conceived set of ideas of what can/cannot be you would rather toss aside a well known ma'aseh of tzadikim involving goral haGR"A -- are you making decisions based on evidence or based on pre-conceived notions? <br /><br />Also, since when is 'ruach hakodesh' a rational force? Can it be tested in a laboratory or explained using laws of logic? All you are doing is substituting one mystical set of phenomenon for another -- semantic games.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-79233808930960597862009-06-09T18:40:42.906-04:002009-06-09T18:40:42.906-04:00[quote begin] >>>If you maintain that sin...[quote begin] >>>If you maintain that since the majority of modern day scholars take the non-rationalist approach, then the mesorah has "Paskened" in their favor, then are you saying that the Rishonim were incorrect?<br /><br />Take any area of halacha you like. If we pasken like some deyos of Rishonim against others, does that mean the ones we no longer follow are incorrect, or did not know how to learn? " [quote end]<br /><br />If someone maintained that those Rishonim's overall approach to halacha was in error and not accepted today, then yes, you would be saying exactly that. <br /><br />Its one thing to say "We don't follow Rabbenu Tam's Shita on tefillin", its entirely different if you were to say (this is hypothetical) "Rabbenu Tam bases his psak on a method of reconciling various sources of Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi which most achronim maintain is flawed, so the mesora has ruled against his method"<br /><br />It is one thing to say "Most Achronim don't agree with the Ramban when he says that since the Greeks have proved that rainbows are a natural phenomenon of water, the rainbow therefore could not have been a new creation during the time of Noah." It is quite another to say "To maintain as the Ramban did that if something is scientifically proven, then we must alter our understanding of Pesukim which appear to contradict that knowledge, is outside the mesora" This is very problematic. If you apply that to the whole general philosophic approach of the majority of Rishonim, then you are in fact maintaining that those Rishonim are tainted and not to be relied upon, and that the transmission of our mesorah has serious issues.<br /><br />As for the Goral Hagra, I could easily say that the possibility that someone could pray for and receive "Ruach Hakodesh" in a precise moment, and that you cannot extrapolate from that that there is some underlying "magic" phenomenon permeating the world. There are many examples in Tanach of people asking for signs and receiving them, and this does not imply that these are anything other than one time phenomenon. When Elijah asked God to make his sacrifice be consumed in the test against the prophets of baal, no one would extrapolate from that that you can tap into a magic source of fire by using a cartain method.<br /><br />However, I won't resort to that. I don't believe the goral hagra works. Firstly, there is no way to confirm that R Levin's identifications were correct (unless you have preserved DNA or dental records and want to dig up the bodies). Secondly, the source for this story is only in one place which I would not exactly call reliable. Thirdly, the attribution of the "Goral Hagra" to the Gra is extremely shaky. <br /><br />Lastly, Solomon was entirely wise when he said "There is nothing new under the sun". There are tons of variations of this "magic" in numerous cultures. Its called Bibliomancy. You can find tons of similarly sourced stories in many cultures claiming to be able to use this method with the Christian Bible, the Quran, the Iliad, the I Ching in Chinese literature, and other books. There are websites dedicated to it (here is just 2): http://www.bibliomancy.org/ http://www.facade.com/bibliomancy/<br /><br />What they all have in common is that when put to scientifically controlled studies, they all fail miserably. They are all bunk.Keysernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-88904982206070888852009-06-09T16:47:56.632-04:002009-06-09T16:47:56.632-04:00>>>Therefore, today anyone on the interne...>>>Therefore, today anyone on the internet can figure out how these tricks are done.<br /><br />Please explain to us how R' Arye Levin was able to perform the "magic trick" known as goral haGR"A successfully.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-66553146089412354652009-06-09T16:45:35.736-04:002009-06-09T16:45:35.736-04:00>>>If you maintain that since the majorit...>>>If you maintain that since the majority of modern day scholars take the non-rationalist approach, then the mesorah has "Paskened" in their favor, then are you saying that the Rishonim were incorrect?<br /><br />Take any area of halacha you like. If we pasken like some deyos of Rishonim against others, does that mean the ones we no longer follow are incorrect, or did not know how to learn? <br /><br />>>>Hashem did not reveal basic scientific concepts (viz., the seasons) to Adam HaRishon, is it any surprise that He did not necessarily reveal them to Chazal?<br /><br />Hashem was not megalah Torah to Adam -- he was to Chazal. <br /><br />Secondly, these are two different issues entirely: 1) lack of knowledge, as in the case of Adam vs. 2) incorrect knowledge.<br /><br />Thirdly, what possible advantage is there to saying Chazal erred when there is a perfectly reasonable explanation, i.e. Chazal were not speaking about science but rather were speaking of pnimiyus hadevarim, which solves the conflict without necessitating that dochak?<br /><br />Not only does taking this approach preserve the truthfulness of what Chazal say, but it also grants one far more latitude to discuss scientific observations without having to worry about stepping on Chazal's toes (so to speak). Science can never be in conflict with Chazal because the latter deals with pnimiyus and the former with chitzoniyus. Davka were I a scientist would I be applauding this approach as the most reasonable! (e.g. see Stephen Jay Gould's "Rocks of Ages").Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-54191405336006423782009-06-09T15:06:31.158-04:002009-06-09T15:06:31.158-04:00"Rambam's school disagreed with the conce..."Rambam's school disagreed with the concepts."<br /><br />So when you say that you are going according to the Rambam you are essentially saying that you deny pnimius HaTorah correct?Not Briskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12813820881313898157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-86369595624039124642009-06-09T15:06:29.646-04:002009-06-09T15:06:29.646-04:00"Rambam's school disagreed with the conce..."Rambam's school disagreed with the concepts."<br /><br />So when you say that you are going according to the Rambam you are essentially saying that you deny pnimius HaTorah correct?Not Briskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12813820881313898157noreply@blogger.com