tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post7813700985673885052..comments2024-03-25T09:43:27.402-04:00Comments on Divrei Chaim: dealing with conflicts between science and ChazalChaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-46613767804844455722013-04-11T01:45:32.618-04:002013-04-11T01:45:32.618-04:00Ι visitеd multiρle blogs howeѵer the
audіο qualit...Ι visitеd multiρle blogs howeѵer the <br />audіο quality foг аudiо songs eхistіng at thіs wеb <br />рage iѕ genuinelу superb.<br /><br />My blog - <a href="http://Www.Biodiesel.com/index.php/member/19220/" rel="nofollow">Http://Www.Biodiesel.Com</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-33477733983422266782013-02-21T04:11:44.368-05:002013-02-21T04:11:44.368-05:00Havе you ever cοnsidered рubliѕhing an ebook оr gu...Havе you ever cοnsidered рubliѕhing an ebook оr guest authoring on otheг websites?<br /><br />I have а blog bаsed οn the ѕаme <br />topics yοu dіsсuss and ωoulԁ really lіκe to have <br />you share some stories/informatiοn. I κnow mу auԁiencе woulԁ apρreciate your ωοrk.<br />If уou're even remotely interested, feel free to shoot me an email.<br /><br />Also visit my web blog - <a href="http://howcanicureayeastinfection.com/category/yeast-infection-treatment/" rel="nofollow">Yeast Infection Treatment</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-39508312931476891512013-02-20T20:53:19.432-05:002013-02-20T20:53:19.432-05:00Greate pieces. Κeeр poѕtіng suсh kind of іnformati...Greate pieces. Κeeр poѕtіng suсh kind of іnformation οn your ѕite.<br />Im reallу impгesѕed bу it.<br /><br /><br />Hі there, You hаve pеrformed an excellent job.<br />I will ԁеfinitelу digg іt and for my part <br />recommend to my frіends. I'm confident they'll be <br />benefited from this ωebsite.<br /><br />Here is my blog ... <a href="http://www.grearequipa.gob.pe/siagie/userinfo.php?uid=5425" rel="nofollow">Just Click The Next Post</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-10438270277265062162013-02-20T06:50:22.733-05:002013-02-20T06:50:22.733-05:00Thiѕ text іs ωoгth eνeryone's attention. When ...Thiѕ text іs ωoгth eνeryone's attention. When can I find out more?<br /><br />My blog :: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-WG-qFA2Jc" rel="nofollow">backlinks checker</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-39853833031242553132009-06-26T01:02:09.708-04:002009-06-26T01:02:09.708-04:00As I wrote on rationaljudaism, this discussion is ...As I wrote on <a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6906205856510467947&postID=7852398053510470616&page=1" rel="nofollow">rationaljudaism</a>, this discussion is based on a false premise, that <i>There can be only three possible solutions:</i><br /><br />It is not true that there can be only 3 solutions.<br /><br /><i>Solution 4:</i> Accept the contradiction as a challenging puzzle and conclude that either we don't understand Chazal or we don't understand the science well enough, and hope that Eliyahu will come soon and resolve this and all of our other questions.<br /><br /><i>Solution 5:</i> Accept the contradiction as legitimate and conclude that we have an error in transmission of that Chazal.<br /><br />No need to sacrifice of intellectual honesty. No need to deny science. But also no need to add fuel to the fire of delegitimizing our very precious and very fragile mesorah.<br /><br />If Chazal told us that they weren't sure about all the details of physics or nature, that doesn't bother me (I'm thinking of the Gamara that discusses the path of the sun behind the earth). But if the tenor of our discussions decrease kavod ha-chachamim, then we are in trouble.<br /><br />We were all trained to say, "I don't understand Rashi" rather than, "I disagree with Rashi."<br /><br />In these discussions of Torah and science, is anything lost by pointing out a stira between science and a maamer chazal with those humble words, "I don't understand this Gamara"?<br /><br />To do so doesn't sacrifice one iota of critical thinking - nor does it sacrifice kavod.Rabbi Seinfeldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09519288133566248280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-19829899266685522572009-06-12T10:42:59.379-04:002009-06-12T10:42:59.379-04:00Okay, you're right. If you want to rely on the...Okay, you're right. If you want to rely on the Gra school, fine. But you can't question why others rely on the Rishonim and other Acharonim - we not only have great authorities to rely on, we also have textual and contextual reason from the Gemara to believe that they were actually correct.Natan Slifkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04488707201313046847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-6052768955869271852009-06-12T09:33:27.181-04:002009-06-12T09:33:27.181-04:00>>>you have to justify why you believe th...>>>you have to justify why you believe that they are more likely to be correct than the Rishonim<br /><br />Since when in halacha/hashkafa does one have to justify relying on Achronim who saw the same Rishonim you did and did not find the evidence compelling enough to read the gemara that way? <br /><br />Let's say you thought you had a great ra'aya from Rishonim to a din in hilchos Shabbos but the GR"A, R' Akiva Eiger, and the Mishne Berura, who also knew those same Rishonim, pasken against you. Someone who relies on those Achronim doesn't need to prove anything! So you have a kashe from a Rishonim -- even if the kashe is a great kashe, is it enough to uproot the established din? You need pretty big halachic shoulders to start saying stuff like that.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-57464855653298529792009-06-12T09:22:00.495-04:002009-06-12T09:22:00.495-04:00Sorry, too much to comment on, and so i apologize ...<i>Sorry, too much to comment on, and so i apologize for not responding to everything. If this approach can also be used by the Christians to legitimize their claims, why should I be concerned? I'm not following what difficulty you see</i><br /><br />Don't worry about it.<br /><br />But you can't have it both ways. You can't raise one practical concern (this might diminish emunas chachamim) while waiving away others (your approach empties any critique of missionary efforts aimed at not already strong torah jews of any persuasive force)Akivahttp://torahexchange.proboards.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-6988416435930599172009-06-12T01:48:30.055-04:002009-06-12T01:48:30.055-04:00I highly doubt that Rav Kook or Rav Soloveitchik w...I highly doubt that Rav Kook or Rav Soloveitchik would have differed from the RIshonim's take on Pesachim 94b.<br /><br /><i>The onus is not on me to explain why I read the gemara as I do; I am simply following the tradition of most chachamei yisrael of our time</i><br /><br />Well, if you want to rely on others, in that case you have to justify why you believe that they are more likely to be correct than the Rishonim with regard to what Chazal meant.Natan Slifkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04488707201313046847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-18016949686650020972009-06-11T20:39:21.328-04:002009-06-11T20:39:21.328-04:00btw, in terms of
"I don't know what "...btw, in terms of<br />"I don't know what "chareidi" has to do with it. R' Kook was not chareidi, but he (and his followers) was not a rationalist"<br />my point was *not* that (almost) all Y are X, but that (almost) all X are Y. that there are great non-chareidi non-rationalists is beside the point. the point (if valid) is that of those who appoint Gedolim and feel one may not deviate, one is seldom considered a Gadol if he adopts a position of the rationalists. as such, it is a sociological process which feeds back on itself.<br /><br />but this is beside the point we are now discussing (in the new post) and only a small part of the greater answer.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-4470378835662281792009-06-11T19:39:46.197-04:002009-06-11T19:39:46.197-04:00perhaps i'll get to it eventually. but i would...perhaps i'll get to it eventually. but i would not want to go to all the trouble explaining my answer to a question no one is having...<br /><br />in the mean time, you have another question, in another post, so perhaps it would be better in the meantime to focus on that.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-10218936931556336832009-06-11T19:25:59.733-04:002009-06-11T19:25:59.733-04:00>>>Given that *modern* Gedolim (who are t...>>>Given that *modern* Gedolim (who are those the chareidi, non-rationalist community deems gedolim)<br /><br />Josh, I don't know what "chareidi" has to do with it. R' Kook was not chareidi, but he (and his followers) was not a rationalist. R' Soloveitchik was not chareidi, and in part IV of Halakhic Mind critiques the rationalist approach of Moreh. <br /><br />Anyway, since you formulated the question you do the post. Karayna d'igresa etc.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-43559993464521688742009-06-11T19:18:58.857-04:002009-06-11T19:18:58.857-04:00Putting aside Pesachim 94, I want to throw out a c...Putting aside Pesachim 94, I want to throw out a completely different question (I will do it as a new post to break it off from this discussion): why are so many of you attracted to "rationalism"? Will do it as a new post sometime soon, so consider this coming attractions (of course, you can throw back at me why I am not, and I'll try to explain).Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-32344759591548004492009-06-11T19:00:45.662-04:002009-06-11T19:00:45.662-04:00>>"That question makes it into an issue...>>"That question makes it into an issue of personalities and gaavah, rather than an issue of competing ideas and their merits."<br /><br />>Agree with you 100% that the issue should be judged on its merits - but the judge should be gedolei yisrael who are experts in the field<br /><br />once again you end up in effect removing it to a matter of personalities -- in this case modern day personalities -- rather than ideas. whether it is correct or not, that is not the way to engage rationalists, who are the target of your remarks.<br /><br />regardless, i think we then agree that i have answered your remarks. namely, the question should *NOT* be option (1) or option (2) above regarding the Gra. Rather, you want to pose another related question: Given that *modern* Gedolim (who are those the chareidi, non-rationalist community deems gedolim) by and large support the mystical approach, how can rationalist "commoners", even rabbis who are not gedolim, dare to differ with them? Ask that formally, and you may get some interesting responses.<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-88283787442904125612009-06-11T18:45:36.293-04:002009-06-11T18:45:36.293-04:00>>>Tell me, do you take this approach wit...>>>Tell me, do you take this approach with the Rishonim too? How about the Acharonim? When the Shevus Yaakov says that the world is flat and not round like the scientists say, do you insist that he must be speaking allegorically so as to avoid a conflict?<br /><br />There is no mesorah/consensus that the Shvus Ya'akov meant anything less than what he said. With respect to Pesachim 94 there is a strong consensus of readers who do think Chazal did not mean to be taken literally. That's what I mean by relying on mesorah, otherwise chaos ensues.<br /><br />>>>I am simply saying that once you accept fallibility in areas of fact, you cannot logically use "but they can't be wrong" as a spur to conclude "they must be talking pnimiyus"<br /><br />As a general point Chazal can be wrong, otherwise we would not have a Mes. Horiyos. And Chazal in other places did rely on outside expertise (e.g. in Mes Shabbos we are told they learned agriculture from outsiders). <br /><br />>>>how is it that you have no problem with the "conflict" that is inherent in consigning the rationalism of the Rambam and most of the Rishonim and Gaonim to the dustbin of history?<br /><br />This is not a kashe on me, but on the GR"A -- I am just clinging to his coattails! I think the answer is that rationalism is a flawed and faulty system (I referred in comments to the other post to the GR"A in Y.D. 179) critiqued right down to our time by the likes of R' Soloveitchik (in part IV of Halakhic Mind), not just chassidishe rebbes and mystics. So (getting back to Josh) to say Chazal were wrong because that is what a "rationalist" reading leads you to believe would be distasteful to the GR"A and Maharal and others precisely because it is the whole system of rationalism that they rejected and found distasteful.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-6155098286736919252009-06-11T18:22:54.457-04:002009-06-11T18:22:54.457-04:00>>>Well, as far as their knowledge of sci...>>>Well, as far as their knowledge of science goes, most of the Rishonim didn't see any reason why they should not be like him in this regard. <br /><br />I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. Even if this were correct, the majority of Achronim do *not* take this approach, and that later view is what has become dominant in our community. <br /><br />The onus is not on me to explain why I read the gemara as I do; I am simply following the tradition of most chachamei yisrael of our time and the past few generations who saw the same Rishnim you did, and for whatever reason -- which is a seperate discussion -- chose to ignore them in preference to a different approach.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-49622169475064531552009-06-11T18:14:53.856-04:002009-06-11T18:14:53.856-04:00>>>Finally, can somebody please answer my...>>>Finally, can somebody please answer my question with regard to christianity? Objectively speaking, without simply relying on "because we're right and they're not," why is "there is a hidden meaning" a valid response from us, but not from them?<br /><br />Sorry, too much to comment on, and so i apologize for not responding to everything. If this approach can also be used by the Christians to legitimize their claims, why should I be concerned? I'm not following what difficulty you see.<br /><br />>>>That question makes it into an issue of personalities and gaavah, rather than an issue of competing ideas and their merits.<br /><br />Agree with you 100% that the issue should be judged on its merits - but the judge should be gedolei yisrael who are experts in the field. Would you be the judge of the best method of performing brain surgery because you took a science class? Would you risk your life by saying that the conclusions of the majority of brain surgeons who lived in the past 200 years is wrong because they are all biased by modern science and you are in a better position to draw an "objective" conclusion?Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-91671722516668299072009-06-11T17:51:53.729-04:002009-06-11T17:51:53.729-04:00Chaim B.:
"Would you intentionally pick a fig...Chaim B.:<br />"Would you intentionally pick a fight with your boss or with your wife if you could find a way to meet your own needs and avoid that conflict?"<br />But I would not consider this picking a fight with them. Chazal were lovers of emes. One Tanna darshened every "et" in the Torah, but retracted it all when he came to one he deemed impossible or implausible to darshen, noting כשם שמקבלים שכר על הדרישה כך מקבלים שכר על הפרישה.<br /><br />I would not consider it respect to falsify my Rebbe's words even if otherwise he would come out to be incorrect. It is a respect to acknowledge his position as it actually exists, rather than reinterpreting it towards falsehood. Now, I know from your perspective that you consider option #3 to be entirely plausible. But for those of us who (for whatever reasons) don't, no, I would not find some interpretation that avoids conflict.<br /><br />To sign off, the pasuk states אמת, ומשפט שלום, שפטו בשעריכם. With your focus on which *result* is preferable for people's honor, and considering that up front rather than the relative merits of the ideas, is your intent to judge Emet, or Shalom?<br /><br />I don't mean this as an insult, but rather an explanation of one rationalist's mindset.<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-91669235780107421382009-06-11T17:43:14.636-04:002009-06-11T17:43:14.636-04:00Chaim B:
"Let me return to the simple questio...Chaim B:<br /><i>"Let me return to the simple question I asked above which you haven't addressed. Let's say for a minute that your view of Chazal is correct. So do you think:<br /><br />1) The GR"A did not understand Chazal as well as you and that's why he preferred to speak of pnimiyus hadevarim, or"</i><br /><br><br />(I dealt with this a bit on my blog, but here is another, slightly different take.)<br /><br />That question makes it into an issue of personalities and gaavah, rather than an issue of competing ideas and their merits. One solution is to appeal to the authorities promoting the opposite position, but that is taking the argument to the wrong place.<br /><br />there is an idea of <i>lo sakir panim bamishpat</i> and <i>lo tehdar pnei <b>gadol</b></i>. they would typically ask the head of the sanhedrin for his opinion last. the obligation of one learning and judging is to evaluate the merits of the different theories and come up with the one *he* thinks is correct. (of course, one must be on the proper level...) of course, there also is a place for masorah and following the appropriate derech in learning, but this feels to me like an argument that we must shut off our brains and *prefer* one reading over another because of the holiness of the one promoting it.<br /><br />the brisker method was also an innovative method. but if i think (as i often do) that the Brisker derech is not the correct approach to a gemara, that does not mean that i am a baal gaavah who thinks he is smarter than Rav Chaim Brisker.<br /><br />In logic, there are many different types of proofs. There is proof by induction, proof by construction, proof by contradiction. But proof from authority is not a valid one. On the other hand, we do have the concept of masorah...<br /><br />The Gra, as I noted in my blogpost, had a particular approach he considered extremely strong, and I believe it was influenced by a particular intellectual climate. That I don't agree that the pnimiyus approach gives us an accurate picture of Chazal's intent in this or other gemaras does not mean that I am knocking the Gra. He was a genius and a tzaddik, but I respectfully disagree with him here.<br /><br />I also disagree with the Radak, Abarbanel, and Ibn Ezra about their philosophical interpretations of Chazal and pesukim.<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-65439193008636412652009-06-11T16:49:42.728-04:002009-06-11T16:49:42.728-04:00The problem with reductio ad absurdum is what you ...<i>The problem with reductio ad absurdum is what you think is absurd is another person's logic.</i> <br /><br />There's no reductio ad absurdum here (at least, not that I was intentionally making; I only mentioned "absurd" because I agree - the second option you presented: "The GRA was intentionally distorting Torah" is clearly not a viable choice). <br /><br />I am simply saying that once you accept fallibility in areas of fact, you cannot logically use "but they can't be wrong" as a spur to conclude "they must be talking pnimiyus"<br /><br /><br /><i>It is absurd to prefer to dismiss Chazal as wrong rather than avoid conflict. Would you intentionally pick a fight with your boss or with your wife if you could find a way to meet your own needs and avoid that conflict?</i><br /><br />Saying that someone is wrong as a matter of fact is not "conflict". It's not a fight, it's not a denigration of their chachma, and it doesn't render any single thing they ruled, from a halachic perspective, any less valid.<br /><br />So where is the conflict?<br /><br />And how is it that you have no problem with the "conflict" that is inherent in consigning the rationalism of the Rambam and most of the Rishonim and Gaonim to the dustbin of history?<br /><br />Finally, can somebody please answer my question with regard to christianity? Objectively speaking, without simply relying on "because we're right and they're not," why is "there is a hidden meaning" a valid response from us, but not from them?<br /><br />(Of course, "we're right and they're not" is a valid response if you are discussing the issues with someone who accepts the validity of mesora to begin with. But if, for example, you are discussing things with someone having a crisis of faith, someone weighing the competing claims of the religions . . . well, "we're right and they're not" isn't exactly persuasive)Akivahttp://torahexchange.proboards.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-67584411705337777452009-06-11T16:49:06.637-04:002009-06-11T16:49:06.637-04:00I think Ruach Hakodesh is siyata dishmaya to corre...I think Ruach Hakodesh is siyata dishmaya to correctly use Torah methods of analysis to resolve the question as it is asked. We don't really care if the facts are correct; we care about the methodology of reducing the question. Nobody really cares about the Sun. What we care about is Chazal's way of dealing with the facts they were given.Eliezer Eisenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-28212527787878912332009-06-11T16:26:22.527-04:002009-06-11T16:26:22.527-04:00"But what does ruach hakodesh mean? Consideri..."But what does ruach hakodesh mean? Considering all the sugyas where Chazal had to engage in empirical research, it does not seem likely that it refers to infallibility in all statements including scientific ones."<br /><br />I think that shittah would interpret the empirical research as the hishtadlus, the necessary effort which needs to be done to obtain ruach hakodesh. <br /><br />Ein hachi nami, ruach hakodesh in its purest form, would mean that there is no need to study from shepards, etc. But this already is a philosophical issue which one can deal with.Shades of Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03029177164921795725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-78471341493652498212009-06-11T16:15:19.525-04:002009-06-11T16:15:19.525-04:00"I would like to suggest a forth option to R ..."I would like to suggest a forth option to R Chaim's three:<br /><br />4) Explain that regardless of what Chazal actually thought concerning the facts, since their words are written with ruach hakodesh, we interpret them according to their inner, hidden meaning ."<br /><br />I have no problem with the above.<br /><br />On Cross Currents("Ready To Be Orthodox, But No Place to Go",<br />1/26/05), R. Emanuel Feldman quotes in the name of an anonymous Baal Teshuva friend the above-mentioned "tziruf", or combination, of infallible-pnimiyus plus fallible-metziyus(emphasis in quotation mine). <br /><br />According the this understanding, perhaps one makes Birchas Hatorah on medical gemaras not because of the incongruent, fallible, metziyus, but because of the pnimiyus which exists as well.<br /><br />Whether the BT in the article is an actual person, a composite of a few people, or R. Feldman's own views, we see he doesn't hold it to be kefirah, and he's been around a while. :) <br /><br />"Lately, for example, they have been banning certain books as heretical when the books dare sugest that some things are not black and white. If a writer hints that not all gedolim were born perfect, or — basing himself on solid authoritative sources - that the science of the great Sages, ***[though] containing hidden and profound truths***, is not congruent with contemporary scientific knowledge ( while fully committed to all halakhic rulings of the Sages) his material is forbidden....<br /><br />http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/01/26/ready-to-be-orthdox-but-no-place-to-go/Shades of Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03029177164921795725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-47514430584586774022009-06-11T15:58:26.638-04:002009-06-11T15:58:26.638-04:00Sorry, that should say:
In fact the Rishonim stra...Sorry, that should say:<br /><br />In fact the Rishonim straightforwardly interpreted Rebbi as explicitly relying upon precisely this approach.Natan Slifkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04488707201313046847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-10612435791975132292009-06-11T15:48:14.116-04:002009-06-11T15:48:14.116-04:00Let's put it this way. If you find a scientifi...Let's put it this way. If you find a scientific error in Aristotle, is this a conflict that ought to be resolved by interpreting it mystically? Or is it acceptable to say that he erred?<br /><br />So you'll say, Ah, but Chazal aren't Aristotle! <br /><br />Well, as far as their knowledge of science goes, most of the Rishonim didn't see any reason why they should not be like him in this regard. They were not considered to be scientifically infallible or to have ruach hakodesh in such areas. In fact the Rishonim straightforwardly interpreted Rebbi as implicitly making precisely this point.<br /><br />(By the way, I greatly appreciate your hosting and participating in this discussion.)Natan Slifkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04488707201313046847noreply@blogger.com