I-B. I have been compiling this list because recently certain eminent Torah authorities, and many lesser figures following in their wake, seem to have questioned or denied the legitimacy of the belief, most famously advocated by Rabbeinu Avraham ben Harambam, that the Talmudic sages possessed flawed scientific knowledge. This type of viewpoint is presented in numerous works, such as the essay by Rabbi Aharon Feldman, Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Israel Rabbinical College of Baltimore, entitled "The Slifkin Affair – Issues and Perspectives" (available at www.zootorah.com/controversy/ravaharon.html), which is partially based on a discussion Rabbi Feldman had with Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv.
A similar point of view is presented in the first section – entitled "Likut Kedushat Hatorah" – of the book Afikei Mayim, by Rabbi Reuven Mordechai Schmeltzer (Monsey, NY, 2006), which bears the approbation of Rabbi Moshe Shapiro; and Rabbi Schmeltzer's Chaim Be'emunatam (Monsey, 2009), which I have not seen, but which I am told bears the approbations of Rabbi Shapiro, Rabbi Malkiel Kotler of Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood, New Jersey, Rabbi Elya Ber Wachtfogel of the Yeshiva of South Fallsburg (New York), and others. Note that the former work, which I have studied, reflects poor scholarship and is an inaccurate source of information. I have it on good authority that the latter book is even more dramatically unreliable. See Rabbi Gil Student's seven posts on Afikei Mayim, linked to at http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2006/07/afikei-mayim-vi_04.html; and Rabbi Natan Slifkin's critique of Chaim Be'emunatam, available at http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/ChaimBEmunasam.pdf.
I have been taught, and continue to believe, that Rabbeinu Avraham's position is legitimate, first and foremost because it is almost certainly true. This list helps me to clarify to myself, and, especially, to explain to others, why I believe it to be true.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
You say
"
first and foremost because it is almost certainly true
"
If you only allow pro Rabbi avraham opinions and disallow
those who disagree, it is difficult to work out which is the majority opinion which is relevant to your thesis.
how about a section for those who disagree with rabbi avraham. ?
then everyone can make up their minds with full info.
I say "first and foremost because it is almost certainly true" not principally on the basis of which rishonim and acharonim say what, but on the basis of other arguments, such as (a) the similarity of various scientific beliefs of Chazal to beliefs known to be current among contemporaneous philosophers or other ancients, and (b) the lack of evidence that they knew science better than their gentile counterparts, whose knowledge we now know was severely flawed, though we understand and can explain why they believed what they believed. To these one can add the Gottliebian perspective I discuss in http://torahandscience.blogspot.com/2006/04/some-preliminary-observations.html.
(Claims advanced by rabbis a millenium after the Talmudic era do not, in my view, constitute independent evidence of any sort regarding Chazal's science. Such an individual's claim is only as strong as the independent evidence he marshals to support it.)
So to answer your first question, the sources I quote are almost irrelevant to my claim that Chazal's scientific fallibility is "almost certainly true;" and the fact that the sources are chosen selectively is inconsequential. The sources are relevant only insofar as the existence of some Rabbeinu Avraham-type opinions argues against there being a clear, unbroken and unequivocal tradition that Chazal's science was always right. (If every rishon and acharon in history maintained that Chazal were scientifically infallible, this might be significant: one would have to account for how they universally agreed on this point, when they agreed universally on almost nothing.)
For the reasons discussed above, I disagree with you that which opinion was held by the majority is relevant. The minority - whichever side it is - could well be right. I believe the evidence from outside the realm of post-Talmudic Torah literature speaks for itself, and the fact that so many great Torah scholars have affirmed Chazal's scientific fallibility is really just the icing on the cake. Identification of the majority and minority views is irrelevant in the determination of what is correct.
"How about a section for those who disagree with rabbi avraham?" I would like to add such a section. The problem is that it would be a long list too, like the one I currently have, and I just don't have the time to compile it from scratch. I could post a few sources, but I think that would be even worse: it would suggest that only a handful of authorities believed Chazal's science was always right, and that would make the opinion seem deceptively unpopular.
If I do eventually add such a section, I think analysis of who is in which list will show that the belief in Chazal's infallibility has grown over time, becoming popular only in the era of the early acharonim, and being hardly mentioned among the rishonim. This coincides with the observation of Rabbi Aryeh Carmell in "Freedom to Interpret."
The above comment is a slightly modified version of my original response, posted Tue Feb 26, 03:21:00 PM EST.
Let's say Rav Abraham Ben Harambam is right. Let's say you don't follow a da'at yachid. Let's say that you in fact have all these sources to support your claim and that it is perfectly Kosher to believe that Hazal could be wrong and that the Torah is allegorical and all that;
what do you care???
Where do you go from here? You have this troubling view of the inaccuracies of the statements upon which we rest our religious beliefs. And even if only the science-realted statements are those that are errable but the halachic ones are solid, you still ascribe fallacy to the rabbis who captain the ship of our religious experience. So when some average Modern Orthodox kid who can't get religous catharsis by experiencing truth reads your books and asks himself why he's doing any of this [religion], what do you do then?
Yasher Koach--you're smarter than Chazal. Ken tatzliach bechol nechasecha--you probably made a tiny profit while your books were not yet under ban--so? Where does this get you?
Response to Anonymous:
Preliminarily, there seems to be some confusion regarding my identity. You seem to believe that I have written books, some of which have been banned. I have not written any books. I am not Rabbi Natan Slifkin, Rabbi Nathan Kamenetsky, Rabbi Azariah de Rossi, Rabbi Moses Maimonides, or any other author of banned books.
Continued in next comment....
Response to Anonymous continued:
Let's say that you in fact have all these sources to support your claim and that it is perfectly Kosher to believe that Hazal could be wrong and that the Torah is allegorical and all that;
what do you care???
I will give 2 reasons for caring:
1. Chosmo shel hakadosh baruch hu emes ("God's seal is Truth"). I care about the truth, especially in matters as important as our religious tradition, our holy books, and the statements of our sages.
2. If it is perceived as religiously unacceptable to think that Chazal's scientific statements could be false, then if someone becomes convinced that at least one scientific statement of Chazal is false, he will have to reject Judaism. (I could easily have been that person.) If, however, he is aware that the scientific accuracy of Chazal's statements is not a tenet of the faith, his will have no reason to reject Judaism. I consider this desirable.
As an aside, when you refer to the "Torah," I assume you mean the Chumash. I don't believe that I have ever written that the Chumash, or any portion thereof, is allegorical, though I am not necessarily opposed to that idea.
You have this troubling view of the inaccuracies of the statements upon which we rest our religious beliefs.
Perhaps you find it troubling. I do not. And I know many people of strong and fervent religious conviction who share my sentiments.
Also, I don't believe that I call into question the accuracy of any statement upon which we rest our religious beliefs -- or at least, I cannot think of any issue of doctrine or dogma which hinges upon the scientific statements of Chazal. There may be a few specific halachos, such as the killing of lice on Shabbos, which are predicated upon a certain scientific premise, but I don't think that's what you had in mind. Bear in mind also that this view that you find troubling is not merely "mine;" it is the view of many of the greatest Torah scholars of the last 1500 years, as I think my compilation adequately demonstrates.
And even if only the science-realted statements are those that are errable but the halachic ones are solid, you still ascribe fallacy to the rabbis who captain the ship of our religious experience.
Yes. And I do not see why that is problematic, or why it should be surprising. They were, after all, people. All people make mistakes. Chazal noted quite a few mistakes made by such religious and intellectual luminaries as Moses and Solomon. Is it not possible for Chazal to have made a few themselves? Indeed, is it not to be expected? Why would any reasonable, realistic, thinking person believe otherwise?
So when some average Modern Orthodox kid who can't get religous catharsis by experiencing truth reads your books and asks himself why he's doing any of this [religion], what do you do then?
I would explain to him, at length and in detail, why I believe in and "do" this religion. Are you suggesting I should tell him that Chazal never made mistakes, when I believe that that is a lie?
As I noted above, I have not written any books.
Yasher Koach--you're smarter than Chazal.
I neither claim that nor believe it. To the extent that I think my scientific knowledge is more accurate in certain areas than that of Chazal, the credit goes not to me, but to the thousands of thinkers and researchers over the last 1500 years who have each added a small bit to humanity's accumulated scientific knowledge.
Ken tatzliach bechol nechasecha--you probably made a tiny profit while your books were not yet under ban--so? Where does this get you?
Again, as noted above, I have not written or published any books, let alone turning a profit on them. However, a general comment: my impression is that in our day, in Orthodox Jewish circles, having one's books banned is not necessarily bad for business.
Post a Comment