Torah, Science, Et Al.

2010-12-12T23:59:00.000-05:00

Sources Indicating That Chazal Did Not Possess Perfect Scientific Knowledge:
Click Here

(a source list of rishonim, acharonim, and selected Talmudic-era passages, with quotations and translations)

Deceptive Memories and Yeridat Hadorot

2009-11-18T21:18:00.003-05:00

A recent comment on R. Natan Slifkin's blog discusses an idea I've been thinking about a lot lately. See the third paragraph of the November 18, 2009 5:09 AM comment of G*3 to the post http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2009/11/yeridas-hadoros.html. Quite well put. I don't necessarily agree with the rest of the comment.

Different Rabbis for Different Folks

2009-11-18T12:59:00.003-05:00

Ponder the following:

Suppose the Skverer Rebbe (whom I know nothing about) rules that X is permitted. Suppose that R. Elyashiv and, for good measure, the entire Agudas Yisrael, believes that X is forbidden. Suppose Mr. A believes that R. Elyashiv is the greatest posek alive today, and that the Skverer Rebbe, though a talmid chacham, just doesn't measure up to him. Would Mr. A think it wrong of Skverer chasidim to engage in X, as per their rebbe's ruling? Generally speaking, I think not.

Now replace Skverer chasidim with disciples of R. Hershel Schachter (of YU), and replace X with the belief that Chazal made mistakes in science, or any number of other issues on which R. Schachter (among others) disagrees with R. Elyashiv. Shouldn't the attitude of Mr. A be the same? Shouldn't Mr. A consider it acceptable for R. Schachter's talmidim to follow his views? -- Unless Mr. A thinks that R. Schachter is not a talmid chacham.

Harry Potter and Divine Foreknowledge

2009-07-07T11:02:00.002-04:00

The end of the chapter of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince entitled "Horcruxes" is probably one of the most intellectually challenging passages in the entire Harry Potter series. It deals with the relationship between the prophecy regarding Harry and Lord Voldemort, and the fulfillment of that prophecy. I think it can be of use in explaining how free will and divine foreknowledge can coexist, though the discussion in Harry Potter is not entirely analogous.

On the Term "Torah Umadda"

2009-05-20T08:47:00.002-04:00

I have written a letter to Rabbi Natan Slifkin suggesting that he not use the term "Torah umadda" in reference to his own position or "camp." The text (without salutations) can be found at www.rationalistjudaism.com/2009/05/torah-umadda-wrong-term.html.

Other Sources About Chazal's Science

2008-05-04T22:49:00.013-04:00

My ambition is one day to compile a source list complementary to "Sources Indicating That Chazal Did Not Possess Perfect Scientific Knowledge," which will present rabbinic sources indicating that Chazal did in fact possess perfect scientific knowledge, or at least that scientific statements that go unchallenged in the Talmud are always correct. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) I am much busier these days than I was back when I compiled the bulk of the original list, and I simply do not feel I have the time to produce any sort of decent work of the type I have just described. As an entirely inadequate and hopefully temporary substitute, I present below two small lists of sources (references only; no quotations) on the topic of Chazal's science which are not included in "Sources Indicating That Chazal Did Not Possess Perfect Scientific Knowledge." The first list consists of sources averring that Chazal's scientific statements - or at least those uncontested in the Talmud - were always correct. The second group of sources assert neither that Chazal were always right nor that they were sometimes wrong; these sources may nonetheless be of interest to those researching the topic of Chazal's science. Individuals marked with an asterisk (*) are also listed in "Sources Indicating That Chazal Did Not Possess Perfect Scientific Knowledge."

I apologize that these lists are currently extremely short. It goes without saying that there are far more sources of each type than appear here, many of which I am already aware of. I will try to add more sources to this post as my schedule permits. I am posting it now in this ridiculously abbreviated form so that I can solicit feedback and help in finding more sources. I request that anyone knowing of sources that ought to be cited in any of the three "science of Chazal" lists on this blog suggest them in the comments. Thank you in advance for your help.

Category 1: Chazal Did Not Err

Rema (R. Moshe Isserles; 1520-1572; Poland), Torat Ha’olah 1:2; 3:49.
R. Yehuda Briel (1643-1722; Italy), quoted in Pachad Yitzchak, by R. Yitzchak Lampronti, under the entry “Tzeidah.”
R. Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (1910- ; Israel), as quoted in "The Slifkin Affair – Issues and Perspectives," by R. Aharon Feldman, available at http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/ravaharon.html.

Category 2: Neutral but Interesting

Rabbeinu Tam (R. Yaakov ben Meir Tam; c. 1100-1171; France), quoted in Tosafot, Shabbat 35a s.v. “Trei tiltei mil;” quoted in Shita Mekubetzet, Ketubot 13b.
Tosafot (12th-14th centuries, France-Germany), Pesachim 94a s.v. “Rabbi Yehuda omer mishekiat hachamah ad tzeit hakochavim arba milin.”
*Ramban (R. Moshe ben Nachman; 1194-1270; Spain-Israel), Bereishit 9:12; Bereishit 35:16; Devarim 18:9; “He’ara Nosefet” immediately following the end of Ramban’s commentary on Devarim (Mossad Harav Kook edition).
Maharal (R. Yehuda Loew; 1525-1609; Bohemia), Be’er Hagolah 6.
Vilna Gaon (Gra; R. Eliyahu of Vilna; 1720-1797; Lithuania), Hagahot Hagra 1 to Eruvin 76b.
R. Akiva Eger (1761-1837; Austria-Hungary), Gilyon Hashas, Pesachim 94b s.v. “Venir’in divreihem.”

Links to Audio and Video Shiurim by Rabbi Hershel Schachter

2008-04-07T16:35:00.011-04:00

Rabbi Hershel Schachter is among the most masterful teachers of Torah I have had the privilege to see and hear in action. Below, I have assembled links to various recordings of his shiurim available online. These links are to web pages which themselves contain one or more links to recordings of Rabbi Schachter.

This list is undoubtedly incomplete. If you know of any shiurim available online in audio or video format that are not already linked to here, please let me know in a comment, and I will add the link.

If you possess a recording of a shiur (or many shiurim) by Rabbi Schachter or other YU-associated rabbis which you think is not currently available online, please inform me of that as well, and I will try to arrange to have it made available online.

Links to sites that link to shiurim:

613.org: http://613.org/speakers/schachter.html
Adath Israel Poale Zedek Anshei Ozeroff: http://www.adathcongregation.org/audio_classes.html
DRS: http://www.drsaddress.com/drsaudio.html
DRS: http://www.drsaddress.com/issues/0506/issue17/index.html
Kehillas Bais Yehudah Tzvi of Cedarhurst: http://kbyt.libsyn.com/?search_string=schachter&Submit=Search&search=1
Kerem B'Yavneh: http://www.kby.org/torah/filterpage.cfm?type=all&ram=other&language=both&medium=both&date=all&topic=all&sort=TopicRam
OU: http://www.ou.org/ and search for "Schachter".
OU: http://www.ou.org/audio/5764/mesorah64.htm
OU: http://www.ou.org/videos/
TifTorah: http://www.tiftorah.org/guest_lecturers
TorahMedia: http://www.torahmedia.com/author/Rabbi_Hershel~Schachter.html?sid=3e778bw63a7asz3&cid =
Torahspace (several pages of links): http://www.torahspace.com/c/All/
TorahWeb: http://www.torahweb.org/audioFrameset.html
YU Torah: http://www.yutorah.org/searchResults.cfm?types=ALL&length=ALL&publication=ALL&categories=ALL&teacher=80153&masechta=ALL&fromDaf=&toDaf=&series=ALL&dates=ALL&language=ALL&keywords=&submitType=advanced

A Note on Fears Regarding Internet Use

2007-12-28T13:59:00.001-05:00

A considerable number of current orthodox Jewish religious leaders, halachic authorities, and publications are hesitant or disinclined to permit internet use. I believe one of their principal reasons for objecting to internet use is the danger that the user will end up employing the internet for religiously inappropriate or prohibited purposes, in particular the accessing of pornography and other forms of sexually explicit material readily available on the internet.

In determining his attitude toward internet use, the halachic decisor must consider how much weight to assign this danger. (He must also evaluate and weigh the need for and/or benefits of internet use, but that is not the subject of this post.) In this regard, I have heard numbers bandied about regarding the widespread use of the internet for pornography and related purposes, presumably from surveys of American society; possibly from surveys of other industrialized countries as well. My input on this matter is merely the following: Studies regarding internet use for pornography etc. in society will not necessarily help our halachic decisor determine how much weight to assign this concern. Allow me to explain.

Consider a study designed to determine the likelihood that an American who enters into an A&P supermarket will buy and subsequently eat non-kosher food. My guess is such a study would find that a considerable percentage, probably a majority, will buy and eat non-kosher. Should our halachic decisor therefore conclude that no Jew should walk into an A&P, because of the great statistical danger that if he does, he will end up eating non-kosher? Obviously this argument is absurd. The flaw in it is that the study considers a population sample consisting mainly of people who have no reason not to eat non-kosher food, whereas an orthodox Jew does have such a reason. The study offers no data about people whose values include eating only kosher. Consequently, the study will not assist in predicting the likelihood that an orthodox Jew will buy and eat non-kosher food if he walks into an A&P. It's the wrong study to answer that question.

It is reasonable to assume that a considerably higher percentage of orthodox Jews than of the American, or Western, population at large consider not looking at pornography and other sexually explicit material to be a major value. Therefore, analogous to the A&P example, a study about internet use for pornography in any Western society will not assist - at least not much - in predicting the likelihood that an orthodox Jew will look at pornography if he uses the internet. Therefore, if such studies are quoted in this regard, their limited predictive powers regarding orthodox Jewish behaviour should be acknowledged.

(Obviously, this argument does not apply to a study specifically (a) about orthodox Jews, or (b) about a population sample from which one can reasonably extrapolate conclusions about orthodox Jews.)

Rashbam on Creation Days Before Creation Nights

2007-11-02T14:48:00.000-04:00

Rashbam - the great rishon and tosafist, Rashi's grandson, author of the standard commentary on most of Bava Batra and part of Pesachim - writes in his peshat-oriented commentary on the Torah that the words "Vayehi erev, vayehi boker" in the first chapter of Genesis mean that during the six days of creation, daytime preceded nighttime - in contrast to the general view. This interpretation does not imply that Rashbam contested the halachic principle that (for most purposes) a halachic day consists of nighttime followed by daytime, as Rashbam himself affirms; elsewhere he explains that his Torah commentary is not at all intended to serve as a source or explanation of halacha, or indeed to function on the halachic plane at all. He advances his interpretation exclusively as the simplest - not the halachic - meaning of the verse.

To my astonishment, I recently discovered that this piece of Rashbam has been edited out of some editions of the Mikra'ot Gedolot Chumash, seemingly because it has been misconstrued as a challenge to accepted halacha and is thus considered offensive. I find it shocking (or, perhaps more accurately, I wish I found it shocking) that someone would edit the words of one of the great rishonim because he found them distasteful. I cannot fathom how anyone today could with such confidence judge himself, and not Rashbam, the greater arbiter of exegetical propriety, particularly if one has already decided to print Rashbam's commentary alongside those of Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, etc. Even more atrocious than cutting out part of the commentary is the dishonesty of the publisher/s in not noting that portions of the work have been omitted; the reader is given the impression that he is being provided with Rashbam's entire (extant) commentary, when in fact he is not. This is destructive to scholarship and the pursuit of truth; perhaps it is theft as well.

In the interests of setting the record straight and helping provide access to that which has been so brazenly censored, what follows is the omitted piece of Rashbam, plus other related excerpts from the commentary. I have used the text of Mikra'ot Gedolot Hama'or (Jerusalem: Hamo'or, 1990).

בראשית א, ה - ולחשך קרא לילה. לעולם אור תחילה ואח"כ חשך: ויהי ערב ויהי בקר. אין כתיב כאן ויהי לילה ויהי יום אלא ויהי ערב, שהעריב יום ראשון ושיקע האור, ויהיה בקר, בוקרו של לילה, שעלה עמוד השחר. הרי הושלם יום א' מן הו' ימים שאמר הקב"ה בי' הדברות, ואח"כ התחיל יום שני, ויאמר אל[ק]ים יהי רקיע. ולא בא הכתוב לומר שהערב והבוקר יום אחד הם, כי לא הצרכנו לפרש אלא היאך היו ששה ימים, שהבקיר יום ונגמרה לילה, הרי נגמר יום אחד והתחיל יום שני: עכ"ל

א, ו - ויאמר אל[ק]ים יהי רקיע. לאחר שנגמר יום ראשון לבוקרו, ויאמר אל[ק]ים: עכ"ל

א, ח - ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום שני. שנטה היום לערוב, ואח"כ ויהי בקר של יום שני. הרי נגמר יום שני מששת הימים שאמר הקב"ה בעשרת הדברות, והתחיל עתה יום שלישי בבקר: עכ"ל

On Asking Questions the Rishonim Didn't Ask

2007-03-14T23:47:00.001-04:00

There is probably a difference between deviating from the methods of the Rishonim on intrinsic Torah issues, and deviating from them as a result of extra-Judaic developments. For example, the Rishonim were bothered by certain questions that bothered the philosphers of their day, and weren't bothered by others that the contemporary philosophers didn't care about (or never thought of). Moderns find some of the great medieval philosophic questions to be unimportant or trivially answerable, and have other problems that bother them which the Rishonim never dealt with. These shifts in what bothers people are often attributable not to deteriorating Torah knowledge and instincts, but to changes in how external society thinks. The Rishonim were influenced by the thought of external society just as we are, and the questions they pondered and answers they wrote because of that influence are not necessarily any more valid than the questions and answers our generation is inspired to offer by the equivalent influence in our times.

(Comment originally posted at http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2007/03/musings-on-proper-way-to-learn-chumash.html.)

On the Study of History

2007-03-13T19:27:00.000-04:00

Modern science has demonstrated the enormous value of empirical study in testing theorems and thereby isolating the truth from everything else. Unfortunately, planned and controlled experimentation is not possible in all fields of human intellectual endeavour. For example, a theory of national governance cannot be tested in a laboratory to see whether it results in a just and happy society.

I believe that one of the principal merits of the study of history is that it reveals the closest available approximations of experimental evidence regarding political and sociological questions. The dynamics of every historical situation are highly complex and only ever partially understood, and no situation ever repeats itself in all its details - so no social theory can ever be rigorously tested for accuracy or effectiveness in one historical scenario and then applied to another with any sort of guarantee of success. Nonetheless, history provides us with the best (and only) empirical evidence that exists about humanity - in particular, about the human collective. It therefore allows us to test and improve our understanding of humanity via some of the methods that make science so reliable and successful.

On Evolution: Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, and Rabbi Joseph Elias in The Jewish Observer

2007-02-19T23:50:00.000-05:00

Note: This letter was sent to The Jewish Observer for publication, but was not published.

January 2, 2007

Letters to the Editor
The Jewish Observer

To the Editor:

I am writing in response to Rabbi Joseph Elias' article and his subsequent response (in your September and December issues, respectively) regarding Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch's position on the theory of evolution, both of which I believe, with greatest respect, confuse two distinct issues.

Allow me first to clarify that I do not hold a strong personal position on whether the theory of evolution in any of its multitudinous versions is correct. I really don't care whether it turns out to be wholly true, partially true, or entirely false. I do strongly believe, however, that any conclusions on the matter ought to be drawn only after rigorous and thorough investigation, free of unnecessary dogmatic restraint and obscurantism, and with the exclusive purpose of discovering the truth. That stated, I shall proceed to Rabbi Elias' articles.

Rabbi Elias acknowledges Rabbi Hirsch's assertion that if ever evolution were to be accepted by the scientific community, "Judaism would be able to deal with it" (Dec. issue, p. 11, middle column). Rabbi Hirsch states thereby that there is no "Jewish" position on evolution; Torah is compatible with both the acceptance and the rejection of evolution. It necessarily follows that Torah study cannot tell us whether the theory is correct – that task falls to science.

Since the veracity of evolution is not a Torah question but a scientific one, surely (a) the experts on it will be scientists, not Torah scholars; and (b) in our day, the experts on it will be people familiar with the up-to-date scientific research. We would insist upon the same personal qualifications for every other scientific matter as well. Now, I would make the following two observations: (1) Rabbi Hirsch was not a scientist; (2) Rabbi Hirsch did not have at his disposal the last 120 years of scientific research – the broadest and deepest scientific research the world has ever seen. It follows that today, Rabbi Hirsch's scientific opinion on the veracity of evolution should be assigned little or no weight. Even if what he wrote on a scientific topic such as evolution is still considered true, we can know this only by the corroboration of his statements by modern scientists – not merely from the fact that he, an outdated scientific amateur (albeit a brilliant one), wrote it.

In light of the above, I am at a loss to understand the intent behind much of Rabbi Elias' two articles, which do not seem relevant to the topic of evolution in the modern context.

Rabbi Elias devotes considerable space to Rabbi Hirsch's discussion of species in his commentary on Genesis (Sept. issue: p. 42, title, and left and middle columns; p. 43, right column; Dec. issue: p. 10, middle and right columns). Though the commentary is of course a work of genius in its own right, I fail to see how it is relevant to a modern discussion about whether evolution is correct. Since Rabbi Hirsch believed that evolution was compatible with Torah (see above), he must not have felt that his interpretations of Genesis constituted a disproof of it – either because they did not contradict it, or because they were subject to modification in light of new information about it. His commentary thus reflects not a dogmatic position on evolution, but merely the scientific belief of an educated non-scientist of 124 years ago. While that belief is interesting for historical reasons, it is entirely inconclusive in a modern scientific discussion. Why is it quoted in an article that clearly focuses on what the modern Jew should think about evolution? It would seem to be irrelevant.

Rabbi Elias also discusses at length (Sept. issue: p. 43, all; Dec. issue: p. 11, middle and right columns) the numerous flaws and holes Rabbi Hirsch pointed out in evolutionary theory – some of which are still unresolved today. While the existence of these problems is significant, the fact that Rabbi Hirsch points them out is not. Unless I am mistaken, they are all problems that many other writers with greater and more current scientific knowledge than Rabbi Hirsch have discussed. Either they still present difficulties for evolutionary theory, or they do not. Again, Rabbi Hirsch wrote about these problems as a nineteenth-century scientific layman. Why should we assign weight (indeed, most of an article) to Rabbi Hirsch's presentation of information on this topic, when far more authoritative sources (both for and against evolution) are available?

I believe that, with greatest respect to Rabbi Elias, he conflates two distinct issues: Rabbi Hirsch's theological position on evolution, and his scientific beliefs about the same.

Theologically, Rabbi Hirsch was not opposed to evolution; that is clear and uncontested by Rabbi Elias. (It is also, based on what I have read, the principal point Rabbi Slifkin makes.)

Scientifically, as Rabbi Elias demonstrates, Rabbi Hirsch was strongly skeptical about the correctness of the evolutionary theory. Most of what Rabbi Elias quotes from Rabbi Hirsch serves to prove this assertion. However, there is no reason for Rabbi Hirsch's scientific views to be of especial interest to the modern Jew, given that all of his points are discussed, and either upheld or negated, by individuals better qualified for the task. (I believe the Observer has quoted such individuals in the past.)

Rabbi Hirsch also notes that many scientists may be motivated to advocate evolutionary theory despite its flaws, because without it there seems to be no choice but to recognize the existence and worldly interference of God, something they are loath to do. This point is still highly relevant today, and very much worth citing, but Rabbi Elias quotes it only at the very end of his two pieces; it is not the focus of his discussion. Hence my letter.

In sum, the bulk of Rabbi Elias' quotations of Rabbi Hirsch seem to be uninstructive for the modern Jew. Rabbi Hirsch's principal relevant statement is that which he made in his area of expertise – Torah: namely, that evolution is compatible with Torah, and that the Jew should let the scientific chips fall where they may, compensating, if necessary, for anti-theistic bias in the scientific community. Would Rabbi Elias not agree with this assessment?

(As a side point, I contest Rabbi Elias' understanding of Rabbi Hirsch's position regarding man's descent from the apes. Rabbi Hirsch writes ("The Educational Value of Judaism" – Collected Writings, Vol. VII, p. 264), "Even if this notion [evolution] were ever to gain complete acceptance by the scientific world, Jewish thought, unlike the reasoning of the high priest [Darwin?] of that notion, would nonetheless never summon us to revere a still extant representative of this primal form as the supposed ancestor of us all. Rather, Judaism in that case would call upon its adherents to give even greater reverence than ever before to the one, sole God Who, in His boundless creative wisdom and eternal omnipotence, needed to bring into existence no more than one single, amorphous nucleus and one single law of "adaptation and heredity" in order to bring forth, from what seemed chaos but was in fact a very definite order, the infinite variety of species we know today, each with its unique characteristics that sets [sic] it apart from all other creatures." Now, I do not have the benefit of being able to read the original German, but in my view this passage says merely that even if man is descended from the apes, it is solely to God, and not at all to primates (or amoebas) or natural laws, systems and processes – the so-called "Mother Nature" worshipped by so many in the scientific community – that we should give credit and reverence. I do not believe Rabbi Hirsch is negating the possibility of man's descent from apes.)

ברכה והצלחה בכל מעשי ידיכם.

On Government and Marriage

2006-12-17T22:36:00.000-05:00

As is my wont, I have copied portions of my comments on www.hirhurim.blogspot.com (this time on the post http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2006/12/civil-unions.html) and posted them here. I have edited the comments mildly in an effort to quote other people without license as little as possible. Some of my comments would be fairly unintelligible without either (a) a major rewrite, which I am too lazy to do, or (b) quotations from other commenters to provide context. In such cases, where I have judged my comment to be sufficiently worth posting here, I have quoted someone else's words in italics. I have not attributed these statements, since I do not know whether their authors would wish their (screen-)names to appear here. If any of them wishes to have his comments removed from here, or to have his name associated with what I have quoted from him, he may notify me by (a) emailing me, or (b) leaving a comment here.

If there is a legitimate religious reason to oppose homosexual marriages, should there not similarly be a legitimate religious reason to oppose homosexuality in general? While this reason does not necessarily imply that government should actively interfere with homosexual acts, it should argue against any sort of government recognition, legitimization or condonation of homosexuality. Thus I do not really see why use of the term "marriage" makes or breaks anything.

He Who Must Not Be Named Homepage 12.15.06 - 12:35 pm #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is not an issue that relates to any particular church; thus it is not strictly a matter of separation of church and state (which I do not believe in fully anyway). This has to do with what society considers to be moral or immoral. Society considers it immoral to rape or sodomize children, so it prohibits that activity. If society considers it immoral to involve oneself in a homosexual relationship, it may prohibit that activity; or it may discourage, that activity; or it may not lend any support to that activity. Doing so is not inconsistent with any intelligent philosophy of governance.

He Who Must Not Be Named Homepage 12.15.06 - 3:18 pm #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to [another commenter]:

don't we have anything better to do than seek to deny people a way to become fully functioning members of society? or is Torah so weak and frail that it can not abide other people and their differences?

Um... The Torah does not abide all people, nor all differences. That's not our call; it's God's, and God has made his position quite clear. Under Jewish law, male sodomy is a capital offence. (I personally can't fathom why, but again, it's not my call.) Why should we want our society to encourage or legitimize in any way the commission of capital offences, by Jews or by non-Jews?

Re. "oppression and ignorance": Why is it oppressive to oppose homosexual marriages? And why is it ignorant? Isn't promotion of homosexuality the result of (albeit excusable) ignorance of what God wants, i.e., what the true morality is?

compassion goes a very long way, and is notably absent fromthis dialogue.

Compassion is irrelevant to this dialogue. It goes without saying that one should feel compassion for someone who is naturally homosexual and has no moral means of acting on his desires. That feeling of compassion does not come into play in the analysis of whether government should recognize homosexual unions; at least as far as I can tell. That compassion is entirely trumped by the moralistic considerations.

He Who Must Not Be Named Homepage 12.15.06 - 3:34 pm #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Follow that argument to the conclusion that marriage should not be recognized by the government at all. Let people "get married" if they want. Pretty much every "benefit" given to married couples can be more efficiently utilizied in other ways.

I disagree. We should hope that whatever vestiges of old-fashioned (and therefore usually Torah-compatible) morality, practice and principles are still in our countries' legal codes remain there. The fact that they may be technically inconsistent with certain of our government's guiding principles (such as equality, or separation of church and state) should not concern us, for at least the following two reasons:

(1) No human collective as large and complex as a country can be governed well if it adheres with absolute consistency to any particular principle (I defy anyone to come up with a counter-example). Thus we need not be concerned with the violation of a principle of governance merely because it constitutes such an inconsistency.

(2) As Torah Jews, who says we have to want or advocate consistency in the application of meta-rules of governance? It seems far more plausible that we should wish to see our gentile hosts legislate with the help of some biblically inspired morality. If you think that never works out well for the Jews, consider the last 200-300 years of British, American and Canadian history, just as examples.

He Who Must Not Be Named Homepage 12.17.06 - 2:15 am #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note to (1): The only exception, if there is one at all, might be a divinely mandated rule.

He Who Must Not Be Named Homepage 12.17.06 - 2:17 am #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you oppose all homosexual partnerships, and liken them to such immoral acts as prostitution, one could argue that homosexual unions should be regulated for the same reason that other acts are regulated, in order to bring them into the ambit of the state and thus more easily controlled.

No, because it is the homosexual act, not the homosexual union, that Judaism principally objects to. Regulating homosexual unions will have little or no impact on the incidence of homosexual sex; just as government institutionalization of marriage does not (nowadays) prevent extramarital sex.

He Who Must Not Be Named Homepage 12.17.06 - 12:58 pm #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We need to ask whether or not the current continuation of past practices, at least those which follow Torah morals, is helpful or hurtful.

Why would continuation of past Torah-consistent practices be hurtful? I can conceive of its being hurtful if Torah morals were being forced down the throats of a large majority of the population who opposed it. But since we're talking about democratic governments, that's almost impossible, and need not concern us. If a democratic government legislates something so unpopular that the population at large will react destructively to it, the legislation is almost guaranteed not to stand, and thus the negative consequences will be minimal or nonexistent. The goal, theoretically, for Jews in this and other instances would thus be to convince people that our view is right - swinging popular opinion until our desired legislation is realistic for the democratic government to pass - if it is not already (which in this case I think is debatable).

(It remains to be discussed whether it is actually worth Jews' spending much time, energy and money on such a campaign. I'm almost sure it's not worth it. But at least on this blog, we can discuss what we would really like to see, even if we're not willing to do more than that to make it happen.)

He Who Must Not Be Named Homepage 12.17.06 - 10:29 pm #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, you have to ask, what's the benefit of the law? 300 years ago, where people weren't having as much extra marital sex, there may have been a benefit to marriage. But the benefits to marriage now consist of tax incentives and other benefits, nothing that's inherently "married" about them. The marriage of today is far different than the marriage 300 years ago, or even 100. And, if there's nothing inherently better, what's the point.

For those who care not a whit about marriage, there is very little benefit. But I think we are better off with a good and universal institution that (a) some people respect fully; (b) some people respect partially; and (c) some people respect at least insofar as it is so widely valued by others that the government has taken a hand in it; than we are if that institution exists merely parochially. Government recognition of something affects how people view that thing, often making it seem more legitimate, important and relevant. That's how I would like people to view marriage. Therefore I would like government to remain in the marriage business.

He Who Must Not Be Named Homepage 12.17.06 - 10:39 pm #

On Hosting

2006-11-27T16:33:00.000-05:00

Several years ago, I partook in a meal of some sort - I think it was Shalosh Seudos - sponsored by a husband and wife observing a yahrzeit, I think of the wife's father or grandfather. I think I was in Baltimore, Los Angeles, or possibly Toronto, but I don't remember for sure. (If anybody can figure out from the following account where I was or who the family was, please tell me.) Anyway, during the meal, the sponsoring husband spoke about the man whose yahrzeit was being commemorated. He had apparently been a rabbi in eastern Europe - Lithuania, I think; not one of the really famous ones, but a talmid chacham and respected leader of his community nonetheless. I don't remember much of what the speaker said about him, but one thing stuck in my mind. The speaker related that this rabbi had advised his wife not to put herself out too much, or to pour enormous energy, into hosting the houseguests they periodically had. He explained that if she tried too hard to be an exemplary hostess, she would end up feeling that having guests was a burden, and would be less amenable to putting people up - i.e., fulfilling the mitzvah of hachnasat orchim. Better, he advised, to be more modest in her hospitality, but to be always willing to provide it, than to put such effort into it that she would burn herself out and sometimes - consciously or otherwise - avoid hosting altogether.

I felt then, and still feel now, that this was truly wise and excellent advice. I travel not infrequently, and I have often been faced with the task of finding myself a place to stay. On several occasions I have struggled mightily to land myself a host, despite having many contacts in my destination city. How much happier I would have been to hear, rather than a gentle refusal on account of logistical considerations, the following: "You're welcome to stay here, but I don't think we'll have any beds available. I can give you a pillow and a sleeping bag, and you can sleep on the floor;" or "You can definitely sleep here, but we're eating out, so you'll need to arrange for meals for yourself." How much easier and less stressful my life would have been at those moments!

Additionally, I do not think I am unusual in preferring to stay with people who are moderate in the efforts they put into hosting me. I feel more comfortable in a home where I am treated more like a member of the family than like a guest at a hotel, because I find the experience far more relaxed and authentic. Hosts who roll out the red carpet for their guests and "go the whole nine yards" often put (generally unintended) pressure on the objects of their hospitality to put equal effort into being exemplary guests - through frequent and elaborate expressions of gratitude, fastidiousness in not imposing upon their hosts an iota more than they already are, etc. I think it is fair to say that the more effort a guest senses his host is putting into hosting him, the more the guest feels his presence to be an imposition, and the less comfortable he will consequently feel in asking for anything more. The experience of being a guest in such circumstances is simply more awkward and stressful than it would otherwise be.

Unquestionably, this is all a matter of taste. There are certainly people who enjoy being hosted in fine style, and consider anything less to be skimping, or even a slight. On the whole, however, I think the aforementioned rabbi's advice was good counsel to every potential host and hostess.

Thanks to SW for encouraging me to write this piece specifically, and to write, generally.

FKM and I

2006-11-16T11:34:00.001-05:00

The blogger known as "Freelance Kiruv Maniac" and I seem recently to have concluded a lengthy discussion about the scientific knowledge of Chazal; the reliability of scientific assertions contained in the Talmud in both halachic and aggadic contexts; and, in that regard, the appropriateness of banning the invocation of Rabbeinu Avraham ben Harambam's opinion (i.e., that Chazal made occasional scientific errors), as seems to have been the intention of Rabbi Y.S. Elyashiv and others in their banning of some of the books of Rabbi Natan Slifkin. The discussion took place in the comments on three posts on Freelance Kiruv Maniac's blog, as well as in the main body of the latter 2 posts. The posts are, in order:

http://fkmaniac.blogspot.com/2006/09/slifkins-sources-i.html
http://fkmaniac.blogspot.com/2006/10/rejoinder-to-he-who-must-not-be-named.html
http://fkmaniac.blogspot.com/2006/11/round-three-with-hwmnbn.html

Someone with an interest in the topic and a lot of time on his hands may find the discussion interesting.

The Problem with Rabbi Eliezer Breil's Response to the Pachad Yitzchak

2006-10-22T12:24:00.000-04:00

In the (now-)famous entry entitled "Tzeidah" in Rabbi Yitzchak Lampronti's Pachad Yitzchak, Rabbi Lampronti (1679-1756) suggests that since modern science has disproven the Talmudic belief that lice are spontaneously generated, the halacha should now proscribe killing lice on Shabbat, since the Talmudic statement that killing them is permitted was based on the ancient - and incorrect - view on how they are produced. He quotes a letter written to him by Rabbi Eliezer Breil, who strongly objects to his proposal. One of Rabbi Breil's principal arguments is that we must trust the Talmudic sages' understanding of science. In support of his assertion that Chazal's science is reliable, he writes (among other points) the following:

ועוד עדות נאמנה אצלי מ"ש בגמ' דפסחים על ענין אם הגלגל קבוע ומזל חוזר שחזרו חכמי ישראל באותו הזמן והודו לחכמי א"ה, וסוף דבר אחרי מאות רבות משנים כל התוכנים מא"ה בחקירתם עפ"י הנסיון והמופת שבו לדברי חכמינו וקבלתנו הקדמונית.

"Another sound testimony [to my view] is what is written in the Gemara in Pesachim (94b) about whether the sphere is fixed and the constellations move [or the opposite], regarding which question the sages of Israel recanted at that time and conceded to the gentile sages; yet finally, after many centuries, all of the gentile astronomers, as a result of their investigations and experiments, have returned to [accept] the words of our sages and our earlier received tradition."

This argument is invalid for several reasons. One is especially glaring, however, to anyone who has examined the passage in question on Pesachim 94b. The sages of Israel did not concede that the gentile sages were right regarding the movement of the sphere versus the movement of the constellations. Their concession was that at night, the sun travels beneath the earth, not above the sky. It goes without saying that all astronomers from Rabbi Breil and Rabbi Lampronti's time to the present have agreed that at night, the sun's path takes it beneath the earth, as per the gentile sages, not above the sky, as Chazal had first claimed. Thus Rabbi Breil's proof - that despite their recantation, the Jewish sages' original, tradition-based view was ultimately vindicated - is entirely fallacious.

I have noticed that in writing about the Jewish-gentile disputes on Pesachim 94b, numerous rabbis commit the same error of confusing the two issues of (1) whether it is the sphere or the constellations that move, and (2) whether the sun travels above the sky or below the earth at night. They write that the Jewish sages conceded in the former dispute, whereas in truth, the concession is recorded regarding the latter. Sometimes this inaccuracy is inconsequential. Other times, as in the case of Rabbi Breil's letter, it is enormously important. In yet other instances, it is not clear to me whether it makes a difference.

I just wanted to raise awareness of this issue.

Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Shechitah 10:12-13

2006-09-17T23:39:00.000-04:00

The following, except for the Hebrew, is from a comment I have posted to Lakewood Yid's blog article at http://lakewoodyid.blogspot.com/2006/09/rambam-ignore-evidence.html.

הלכות שחיטה פרק י

יב ואין להוסיף על טריפות אלו, כלל: שכל שיארע לבהמה או לחיה או לעוף חוץ מאלו שמנו חכמי הדורות הראשונים, והסכימו עליהן בתי דיני ישראל--אפשר שתחיה. ואפילו נודע לנו מדרך הרפואה, שאין סופה לחיות. יג וכן אלו שמנו ואמרו שהן טריפה--אף על פי שייראה בדרכי הרפואה שבידינו שמקצתן אינן ממיתין, ואפשר שתחיה מהן, אין לך אלא מה שמנו חכמים, שנאמר "על פי התורה אשר יורוך:

This Rambam says the following to me: Chazal wouldn't have said an animal can live with a certain injury unless they had reason to think it could - presumably meaning evidence that an animal with such an injury had indeed lived. Therefore, even if we can't explain it, we have to go with their empirical evidence.

However, it's much harder to understand how we could be witnessing a tereifah live more than a year. Maybe we're not so good at keeping non-tereifot alive, and so even though Chazal could sustain them for a year or more, we can't. But how do we explain a tereifah that lives beyond a year? Chazal couldn't sustain the animal, but we can?

Rambam's implicit answer is that this is indeed the case, but hilchot tereifot are nonetheless already etched in stone (perhaps because the 2000 years of Torah that the Chazon Ish spoke of have ended), and so, "Ein lecha ela mah shemanu chachamim." The halacha they established is permanent, as per "Al pi hatorah asher yorucha."

That doesn't, however, mean their science was right. Just as Rabbi Eliezer was theoretically right in the case of tanur achnai, but the halacha nonetheless follows Rabbi Yehoshua, so too in this case certain animals may really - medically speaking - not be tereifot, but since they have been established as tereifot by the halachic process, they are halachically tereifot, period.

Scruples Question

2006-09-05T23:14:00.000-04:00

Suppose you're a school principal looking to hire a new Judaic studies teacher. There's a certain fellow, X, you'd like to hire, who you think is well qualified and well suited for the job - in fact, you consider him the best person available. However, X subscribes to beliefs p and q, and the majority of the school board - the people who hired you - mistakenly believe p and q to be heretical. They therefore would feel that X was unsuitable for the job. (We will leave aside whether they actually consider him to be a heretic.) Should you hire X, because your mandate is (let's assume) to ensure your students get as good an education as possible, and your job is to pursue that goal to the best of your ability, or should you hire someone else, because your employer won't like the particular decision to hire X?

(Assume that (a) you cannot disabuse the board of their incorrect opinion regarding p and q; and (b) if you get fired, you're confident of landing on your feet without trauma to yourself or your family.)

The Harsh Truth About Quebec: Telling It Like It Is

2006-08-24T19:06:00.000-04:00

From "The 'Quebecistan' Question", by Brigitte Pellerin, in The Ottawa Citizen, Aug. 24, 2006, p. A12:

After prominent Quebec politicians were shown leading a "peace" protest in which Hezbollah supporters and Hezbollah flags appeared in sufficient numbers to warrant a healthy dose of criticism, Ms. [Barbara] Kay [of the National Post] wrote that Quebecers' "cultural and historical sympathy for Arab countries from the francophonie," plus their "reflexive anti-Americanism and a fat streak of anti-Semitism that has marbled the intellectual discourse of Quebec throughout its history has made Quebec the most anti-Israel of the provinces, and therefore the most vulnerable to tolerance for Islamist terrorist sympathizers."

Way to go, Barbara Kay (and Brigitte Pellerin)!

Spontaneous Generation in the Talmud

2006-07-19T17:36:00.000-04:00

Must we believe that spontaneous generation of lice occurs, or that it did, at least, during Talmudic times? Many claim we must, pointing to the fact that in this instance, there is a drasha (kind of; see Shabbat 107b) that discusses spontaneous generation, and we can't invalidate a drasha. Some (I believe Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, for example, as well as Rabbi Shlomo Fisher, in Derashot Beit Yishai, siman #47, fn. dalet) suggest Chazal really meant just that the reproduction of lice is not visible to the naked eye, and therefore is not recognized from a halachic perspective; but that they were not, in fact, contradicting the modern understanding of how a louse forms. I'm uncomfortable with this explanation; how are lice different from other insects in this regard? Also, the fact that the entire ancient (and medieval) world believed in spontaneous generation is quite suggestive.

I think we can preserve the validity of the drasha even if we think that Chazal were wrong about spontaneous generation of lice. The drasha (look at it carefully - Shabbat 107b), according to those who argue with Rabbi Eliezer, says that a species must reproduce, like the eilim me'odamim, in order for killing it to be prohibited on Shabbat. It doesn't specify lice. A Talmudic rabbi who thought that lice didn't reproduce would, indeed, derive from this drasha that killing lice is not prohibited mide'oraita, but the faulty science involved in his conclusion would reside exclusively in his application of the drasha, not in the drasha itself. And if the actual drasha doesn't assume that lice are reproduced spontaneously, then we are not obligated to do so either.

But why would there be a drasha about species that don't reproduce, if all species do reproduce (as per modern science)? Doesn't the drasha, regardless of whether it's really talking about lice, clearly endorse the notion that spontaneous generation of animals does occur? It does seem to, but I don't think that's at all in conflict with modern science; in fact, I think it can be explained using modern science. Modern medicine and biotechnology perform new wonders on a regular basis. There is now very serious talk of growing people extra sets of organs, to be used in case the originals need replacement. Such procedures are already in place for some organs. Animal cloning has been done. Test-tube fertilization has been done. Genetic modification has been done. Biologists can create all sorts of amazing things in today's laboratories. Is it far-fetched to think that one day they will be able to make animals "from scratch" (if, indeed, they can't already do it today)? I think that if science wants to, it will definitely be able to make, let's say, a louse, from a bunch of inanimate matter. Would one be permitted to kill such a louse (or fly, or deer) on Shabbat? Mide'oraisa, yes - that's what it says at Shabbat 107b. It may thus be that the drasha, far from being scientifically backward, is actually forecasting a level of scientific sophistication that man has only recently begun to see as within the realm of the possible.

On Evolution

2006-07-09T20:49:00.000-04:00

Updated July 16, 2006

In his article entitled "The Myth of Scientific Objectivity" (The Jewish Observer, May 2006), Rabbi Yonoson Rosenblum quotes the following sentence from the brochure for the British Museum of Natural History's 1981 exhibit on Darwin:

Evolution by natural selection is not, strictly speaking, scientific, because it is established by logical deduction rather than empirical demonstration.

I don't know whether natural selection is "scientific" - that's an uninteresting semantic debate. The important, and true, point, in my estimation, is that natural selection's being the exclusive origin of species is qualitatively different from most other scientific theses. I've tried to express this idea on several occasions; this brochure did it nicely.

Thoughts on Afikei Mayim

2006-06-12T21:36:00.000-04:00

I just borrowed the recently published volume entitled Afikei Mayim, composed by a (seemingly close) talmid of Rabbi Moshe Shapiro, a Rabbi Schmeltzer, if I remember correctly. (I've returned the book already, and although I took some notes beforehand, I'm working partially from memory.) I read through the introduction and the first section of the book, which is called "Likut Kedushas Ha-Torah," and is mostly comprised of quotations from various sources that advocate what one might call a sort of "fundamentalist" approach to the Torah, the Talmud, Chazal, and the Rishonim. I was glad to read it, because it argues (thoroughly, I hope) for a perspective fiercely opposed to what I present in "Sources Indicating That Chazal Did Not Possess Perfect Scientific Knowledge." The examination of opposing views is an important part of any truth-seeking endeavour; counterarguments will either reinforce a prior opinion, if they prove weak, or change it in their strength. I personally found this book's exposition uncompelling.

I'd like to note a few thoughts I had while reading and pondering the book.

1. Regarding the question that most interests me – the quality (and quantity) of Chazal's scientific knowledge: I counted, in an informal tally, about 7 sources that clearly assumed that Chazal never erred in their scientific statements. Three of them were major authorities: the Rivash, the Maharal, and the Chazon Ish. Two others – the Gra and the Chida – seemed borderline to me; I couldn't decide whether they were definitely taking this position or not. The earliest of all these writers were the Rivash and the Rashbatz, who lived in the fourteenth century. All the rest were Acharonim.

One thing that struck me (as it has in the past) about many of these sources was that they were long on the hyperbole but short on the proofs. Very short. The argument, it seemed to me, generally went like this: "Chazal were unfathomably holy and close to God. We are mere dust at their feet. Anyone who questions them is going straight to Hell. [Insert biblical verse here.] All of those passages that seem to contradict modern science mean something completely different, much deeper and more sublime. What exactly do they mean? I haven't the foggiest – or – I can't tell you. Also, all of modern science is wrong, except for the parts that they stole from us. Chazal never made mistakes. They knew it all. Trust me." That, to me, is not a convincing presentation.

Sorry if you found that last paragraph a bit too biting for your taste. I do generally try to be judicious.

2. I was blown away by the quotation of the Rashbatz in a footnote (#3 or #4, I believe) which seems to aver that Chazal not only didn't make scientific mistakes, but actually knew all scientific facts. I am reluctant to believe that the Rashbatz really thought that Chazal knew everything in the scientific sphere; nonetheless, the quotation from him may lead others to that conclusion. I had started to believe that the fourth grouping in my post on the topic of Chazal's scientific knowledge – sources indicating that "Chazal Were Not Scientifically Omniscient" – was redundant, for nobody with any intelligence would ever contest the point. Now I'm not so sure.

3. Notice footnote #6: a quotation from the Shevus Yaakov that includes his insistence that the Earth must be flat, since the Talmud says so.

4. Perhaps there are some fine distinctions that I missed, but my impression was that some of the sources the book quotes (Rabbi Chaim Vital, for instance) advocate complete literalism in interpreting the statements of Chazal, while others (Maharal, for example), reject literalism in favour of... something else – though maybe not what would classically be called allegory. This does not constitute a flaw in the book; a compilation of views need not present one unified approach to a topic (indeed, variety is often good!). I'm merely pointing out that the book seems not to present a unified approach.

5. I was a bit confused by the author's reference in a footnote (I think at the beginning of the Kabbalah section) to the statement of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (whom he does not actually name) that "They were permitted to hold this opinion; we are not." When Rabbi Aharon Feldman cites this statement of Rabbi Elyashiv, he describes the context as follows: "[Rabbi Elyashiv] was asked: if he considers [Rabbi Nosson] Slifkin’s approach wrong how could so many earlier authorities have held it? He answered: 'They were permitted to hold this opinion; we are not.'" However, as presented in Afikei Mayim, Rabbi Elyashiv seems to have been discussing belief in Kabbalah. It would be nice to know who his interlocutor was when he made this comment. (Or maybe someone could encourage him to write a piece on the topic himself?)

6. I really liked the responsum stating that it is heresy to contradict anything in the Or Hachaim.

7. The author calls into question the authorship of certain letters attributed to Rabbi Shamshon Raphael Hirsch. I'll assume that Rabbi Hirsch was indeed the author, given that Rabbi Dr. Mordechai Breuer, who I understand to be a leading expert on Rabbi Hirsch, believes the letters to have been his (and, indeed, published them as such).

8. The author also calls into question the authorship of certain passages attributed to Rabbeinu Avraham ben Harambam. I know that Mossad Harav Kook – a reputable company – published Rabbeinu Avraham's Milchemot Hashem, containing what I assume are the incriminating passages. The book was edited by Rabbi Reuven Margolios, author of Margoliot Hayam, and the title page says, "Published from a manuscript written during the lifetime of the author." I believe, as well, that the famous (and recently controversial) excerpt from it has been printed in the standard Ein Yaakov editions for more than a century, without any great fuss being made over it by the bulk of rabbinic authorities. These reasons all lead me to assume that it is indeed authentic.

(Aside: I suspect that the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible could be subjected to challenges far greater than those confronting the work of Rabbeinu Avraham.)

Overhaul of Sources on Chazal and Science

2006-06-04T18:44:00.000-04:00

As the title of this post indicates, I have made major changes to my post entitled Sources Indicating That Chazal Did Not Possess Perfect Scientific Knowledge, which can be accessed by clicking on the link provided.

The Shemitah Proof Reproof

2006-05-30T19:00:00.000-04:00

A well-known argument in favour of the Pentateuch's divine authorship is that advanced (according to Artscroll's Stone Edition of the Pentateuch) by the Chatam Sofer, who says that the section of Leviticus dealing with the shemitah year "proves" (Artscroll's word) that God wrote the Torah, because a mere human would have to be a fool to promise what the text actually predicts: three years' worth of crop in the sixth year of the shemitah cycle. Since only God could make good on such a commitment, it must have been God who made it. While I agree with the Chatam Sofer's conclusion - that the Torah was divinely authored - I think that at least in our age, his argument suffers from major flaws. To wit:

1. Suppose Moses (not God) made the prediction. Suppose Moses knew he was going to die before the shemitah laws were to go into effect - in other words, before the Jews entered Israel - either because he was near death, or, quite possibly, because he simply had no intention of leading the Jews there. He could then promise whatever he wanted with impunity, knowing he would never have to answer for any promise's lack of fulfillment: that would be his successor's headache. Why would he make such a grandiose promise? Possibly to impress the people, as, indeed, the Chatam Sofer was impressed; possibly he had announced the shemitah year without duly considering what the nation would eat, and came up with the three-year-yield promise in response to challenges from the community. No doubt one could conceive of other reasons.

2. The argument assumes that the prediction was made by someone who believed that the Jews would keep the shemitah laws. If the prediction's originator thought otherwise, he could have made the promise confident that he would never be called to task for its non-fulfillment, since no one (or relatively few) would care even if the prediction did not come true. (Indeed, Rashi (Leviticus 26:35) indicates that the Jews observed shemitah less than half of the time between their entrance into Israel and the destruction of the First Temple.) The predictor could also argue, quite legitimately, that only when the nation was observing shemitah properly could it expect extra produce in the sixth year.

3. The argument assumes the predictor had not planned how to explain the lack of fulfillment of the prediction, even if the Jews did observe shemitah. He could always have resorted to the old stand-by that the Jews weren't righteous enough on the whole, observance of one specific commandment aside. A general indictment of a nation is very difficult to refute.

Why would the author of this portion of the Pentateuch have made the promise in the first place? Why would he have created a problem for himself, even if he had a strategy calculated to surmount it? See (1).

4. The argument assumes that the Pentateuchal passage in question was composed for the Jewish nation before or at the beginning of its tenure in Israel. Suppose (as many today might argue) that it was composed later. Let us discuss two cases:

Case 1: It is composed in Israel, but after the Jews have already been living there for some time, without the mitzvah of shemitah. The author invents the idea of the sabbatical year and the three-year-yield pledge, and claims that it had existed since the time of Moses. The people are not well-educated, and no one is the wiser. There is little or no risk to him: the entire nation is in violation, and has been so for a long time. Their practice will probably be very slow to change.

Why would he invent this commandment and associated promise? See (1); also, perhaps, to explain sufferings that have befallen his people ("None of you have been observing this law! No wonder there's a famine!") He could claim to have "found" it, as per the discovery of the Torah scroll in the Temple in the time of King Josiah (II Kings 22:8 ff).

Case 2: It is composed and presented to Jews in exile outside of Israel. The author need not worry; his composition is entirely theoretical (for his purposes), since he and his listeners are not in the land in which his prediction applies. The nation's non-observance while in Israel (which no one, of course, would contest) could be used to explain their exile.

In short, though I believe, for other reasons, that the Torah was divinely authored, it seems to me that many theories aside from divine authorship can account for the inclusion of the three-year-yield shemitah promise in the Pentateuch, and hence the existence of that promise sheds little or no light on the identity of its originator.

More on Missionaries

2006-05-23T22:22:00.000-04:00

To my previous post on the topic, I would like to add the following thoughts:

Many, probably most, missionaries advocate many values that Jews believe in strongly. Judaism's morality isn't identical to that of the "Christian Right," but there are a lot of similarities. Overall, if Christians have success proselytizing to other non-Jews, most of whom are probably not very religious at all to begin with, I think that's terrific, because they are thereby increasing the average level of morality in our society. Therefore, unless they are targeting Jews, I hope that they meet with success.

If they're targeting secular Jews, I really don't know what to think. Is it better for a Jew to be an atheistic secular humanist or a devout Southern Baptist? I'm inclined to think the latter, but I'm not sure whether there are other considerations I'm missing.

In the broad picture, I think that groups that promote religion are almost always good to have around. Our society is predominantly secular, and although that's generally a pretty comfortable setting for orthodox Jews, it's not really what we believe. I figure the more people there are who publicly declare that God exists and that there are absolute standards of morality, the closer society as a whole will be to the real truth, and the closer non-religious Jews will be to Judaism. I also think there's less danger of losing Jews to Catholicism, or Mormonism, or Islam, etc., than there is of losing them to secularism. Thus I don't mind if the Pope gains influence on society; I do mind if atheism becomes more entrenched.

On a different but related point: I don't have all that much sympathy for the outrage some orthodox Jews feel toward proselytizers. This is mainly for the reason I described in my last post. I'll just add to it that what missionaries do is really just their form of kiruv, which we support when it's done by Jews. It's not an inherently objectionable or offensive act. We happen to know that it's wrong when the kiruv is to an incorrect religion, but the motivation is clearly noble and admirable.

On Missionaries

2006-05-23T21:52:00.000-04:00

I recently posted the following in the comments on this post of Rabbi Gil Student, which is about how to (or not to) interact with missionaries. As is my wont, I'm reposting it here. I have other thoughts on this matter, but I'll make them into a separate post at some point.

I once had a very pleasant conversation (mostly about animals; not at all about religion) with a Utahan lady at Yellowstone who had lent me her family's binoculars so I could look at some mountain goats. At the end of the conversation she rather apologetically (and, I might add, nervously) explained that she knew (from my kippah) that I was a Jew; she was a Mormon, and asked me whether I would accept her pamphlet. I took it - quite graciously, I think - and she thanked me with obvious relief and genuine appreciation, shaking my hand. (I later threw the pamphlet away, several states' distance out of her sight.) I believe (hope) my actions were a kiddush hashem. (Maybe I shouldn't have shaken her hand.)

My point: many (probably most) missionaries have undertaken an often unpleasant, thankless task in order to convince people of something that they themselves honestly believe, in an effort to save those others from a terrible fate and/or to serve and glorify God (all values we hold). We obviously don't agree with their understanding of theological fact, but given their beliefs, they're doing a noble thing, and for that I can't help but respect them. One can treat them with respect without implying that one agrees with their religious views. I think that's the way to go.

Who knows? Some missionary may be so impressed by how Jews treat him that he's won over to our beliefs.

On Bereishit

2006-05-01T16:05:00.000-04:00

The Talmud and midrash state that the (approximately) 70 rabbis who were forced to translate the Pentateuch into Greek (producing the Septuagint) all (miraculously), independently of each other, altered the verse "Bereishit bara elohim" to read, in their translations, [the Greek equivalent of] "Elohim bara bereishit." This statement is generally understood to mean that the rabbis switched around the words of the verse in their translation, so that one could not erroneously conclude from the verse that some entity named "Bereishit" had created ("bara") "Elohim" (God) - a mistake one could make when reading the words "Bereishit bara elohim" in the verse's original order.

Dr. Moshe Bernstein, a professor of mine at Yeshiva University, was bothered by the following question: ancient Greek was an inflected language (I'm taking his word for that), meaning that the subject and object of a sentence were gramatically identified. I'll explain inflection with an example from English. If I want to express the first person plural as a subject, I say "we", whereas if I want it to be an object, I say "us". This means that English inflects the first person plural to indicate whether it is acting as a subject or as an object. The distinct usages of "I" and "me", "he" and "him", "she" and "her", and "they" and "them" represent similar inflections. These examples notwithstanding, English does not, generally speaking, inflect nouns to indicate their role in a sentence; anglophones identify which words in a sentence play which role based on the sentence's word order. Hence, if I say "The dog bit the cat," you know that the dog did the biting, and the cat was what was bitten - not because of any grammatical modification to the word "dog" or "cat", but because "dog" came before the verb, and "cat" came after. "The cat bit the dog" has an entirely different meaning, while "The dog the cat bit," as a sentence by itself, is ambiguous: who bit whom?

However, when we use inflections, the word order can be changed around without altering the meaning. Thus, "I bit him," "Him I bit," "Him bit I," "Bit I him," etc., all mean the same thing (though some sound awkward). Now, imagine that English inflected all subjects by adding an "o" prefix, and all objects by adding an "i" suffix. Then, "The odog bit the cati" would mean the same thing as "The cati bit the odog," "The cati the odog bit," and "Bit the odog the cati." They would all mean that the dog bit the cat. According to Dr. Bernstein, ancient Greek inflected all subjects and objects, meaning that regardless of word order, the subject in a sentence was always unmistakably the subject, the object clearly the object, etc. If so, Dr. Bernstein asked, what does it mean that the rabbis translated "Bereishit bara elohim" as "Elohim bara bereishit?" In inflected Greek, the word order wouldn't make any difference!

The only answer I can think of is that the Talmud is distinguishing not between word orders but between meanings. In Hebrew, "Bereishit bara elohim" can mean "Bereishit created God," whereas "Elohim bara bereishit" means "God created in the beginning" (or "God created Bereishit"). Perhaps the Talmud is saying that all of the rabbinic translators, via the proper inflections, assigned Genesis 1:1 the meaning "God created in the beginning..." as opposed to "Bereishit created God." The problem with this explanation is, however, obvious: why would any of the rabbis have translated Genesis 1:1 otherwise? Isn't "God created in the beginning..." the interpretation they all actually held to be the correct one? Why is their agreement on this verse's translation noteworthy, and how did they change its meaning?

Again, I have only one suggestion: perhaps the Talmud is saying that in truth, the simple "peshat" of Genesis 1:1 is "Bereishit created God," and that our accepted interpretation of it - "God created in the beginning" - is actually a more awkward way to read the verse; not the "peshat". This seems like an absurd explanation, but I don't know how else to answer the question. Any ideas?

Yeshivish Mind Experiment

2006-05-01T00:28:00.000-04:00

Consider the following list of people:

1. Moshe Rabbeinu
2. David Hamelech
3. Eliyahu Hanavi
4. Ezra Hasofer
5. Shammai Hazaken
6. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai
7. Rabbi Akiva
8. Rabbi Yochanan
9. Abayei
10. Rav Saadia Gaon
11. Rashi
12. Rabbeinu Tam
13. Rambam
14. Ramban
15. Rav Yosef Karo
16. The Maharal
17. The Arizal
18. The Gra
19. The Chofetz Chaim
20. Rav Kook
21. The Chazon Ish
22. Rav Moshe Feinstein
23. Rav Aharon Kotler
24. Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik
25. The Satmar Rebbe
26. Rav Shach

Now perform the following mind experiment. Suppose, in conversation with your average, say, 19-year-old "yeshivish" yeshiva student, I argue that one of these people committed a particular grave error. Assume the student has never heard anybody make this allegation before, although I do have considerable historical evidence to back myself up. Concerning which people do you think I would encounter the most resistance in making my claim? List these personalities in order of least to most resistance. If there are too many people for you, you can leave some out, or make several different lists with different combinations of people.

Intelligent Design

2006-05-01T00:27:00.000-04:00

I just posted the following comment to http://hirhurim.blogspot.com. Since it doesn't really require context in order to be understood, I figure I may as well post it here too. It could have been better written, but I wanted to get it up quickly.

Intelligent design is a big deal among Christians in the United States because many religious Christians want it taught in the state-funded, nominally secular public school system, in order that Christian children not be atheistically brainwashed (as they see it). By contrast, orthodox Jews, almost without exception, send their children to schools where they get lots of religious instruction. There is relatively little risk that they will graduate high school believing, as a result of their educational curricula, that Judaism is a bunch of hooey. Since the practical implications of the debate are relatively small, the discussion is not nearly as important within orthodox circles as it is among the American populace as a whole.

I do not mean to imply that the origins of life should not be important to orthodox Jews. It's just that in such circles, the impact of such a discussion is, relatively speaking, more in the realm of philosophy, theology and intellectualism than it is a pressing practical matter.

Bible Criticism: Follow-Up

2006-05-01T00:17:00.000-04:00

The following post is taken directly from a comment I just posted here in response to an earlier comment to the same post. I feel the topic is sufficiently interesting and important (and that I have enough to say about it) for it to deserve a post of its own.

Please be aware that the site to which I link below (daatemet.org) is, unless I am mistaken, a site dedicated to convincing orthodox Jews to abandon orthodoxy (or maybe Judaism entirely; I'm not sure).

I read the article (in English - the translation is at times a bit clumsy) by Naftali Zeligman to which I believe Mr. Holloway was referring (it can be found here). Most of it is, I think, correct, and in fact I was taught much of the information it contains in my Intro to Bible course at Y.U. (which was a superb course; I will again express my appreciation for it to my professor, Dr. Moshe Bernstein). I think that most of its contents are worthwhile knowledge for people who aren't yet familiar with the material it contains. I object to a few of its assertions, however. To wit:

1. See the paragraphs beginning "Go and see" and "Understand: Reish Lakish", in which Mr. Zeligman cites the record in Tractate Soferim of the discrepancy found in three Torah scrolls - two scrolls had one reading, one had another - resulting in the authorities' deciding in favour of the reading of the two (the majority). Mr. Zeligman comments, "Perhaps it was the two books that were in error." If one believes that the Torah's origins are divine, then it is not unreasonable to posit that God "fixed," so to speak, the outcome, so that the "proper reading" (whatever that means) would prevail. The process might not have been as prone to error as Mr. Zeligman implies.

2. In the paragraph beginning "One who wants to expand", Mr. Zeligman quotes Dr. Menachem Cohen, who, for all I know, may be entirely correct. I disagree, however, with Mr. Zeligman's summary of his words. Mr. Zeligman interprets Dr. Cohen as saying that "the sanctity of the text [of the Torah] is only a human convention ... for it is clear ... that the Torah text has indeed greatly changed in the course of the centuries." I do not believe that this is what Dr. Cohen writes (nor, more importantly, do I believe that it is the truth). The correct principle, I think, is that the Torah text's sanctity does not derive from any precise sequence of letters and words, but from the fact that a (non-heretical) group of Jews has decided, using the proper halachic process, to accept a particular version of the text as valid. In other words, God (not just the Jewish people) assigns sanctity to our text of the Torah because we, following the procedure God wants us to follow, have adopted this text. God similarly would have assigned sanctity to variant texts when they were in use as a result of the correctly applied halachic method. The sanctity of the text is not a "human convention," as Mr. Zeligman would have us believe. It's very divine; it just doesn't work as simplistically as we might have been taught it did in elementary school (or yeshiva gedolah!).

3. Mr. Zeligman, in the paragraphs beginning "Then the high", "The great lights", "Thus wrote the", "Even the Cuzari" and "And though the", discusses the report in the book of Kings of the discovery of a Torah scroll in the Temple. He quotes largely from mainstream orthodox sources, but at the very end attacks the Kuzari's assertion that the Torah was forgotten by most, but not all, of the nation: Mr. Zeligman says that it was entirely forgotten by all, and that the Kuzari, in claiming that a small number of Jews had preserved their religious tradition, was just hypothesizing wildly and desperately to make excuses for his own belief. I would first point out that this issue seems not to be directly related to the accuracy of our written Torah. More importantly, however, I find it quite difficult to believe - all religious convictions aside - that over the course of, let's say, 60 years, there was such a complete and utter destruction of the Jewish religious traditions (which the same book of Kings records were firmly entrenched under King Hezekiah, King Manasseh's immediate predecessor) that no one - not one single person - was familiar with the old ways and beliefs. Is there any record of such a thing ever happening - of a long-held national belief system being completely supplanted, vanishing without a trace, in little more than half a century? I can't think of any such instance, but I know of many counter-examples. Thus, I find the Kuzari's supposition far more plausible than Mr. Zeligman's.

(Additionally, if, again, we assume that the Torah was given initially by divine revelation and that God was "behind" it, one would assume that God would have ensured that his instructions would not have been totally forgotten. But I think the Kuzari's argument stands firmly even if one leaves this consideration aside.)

Addendum: The correct parts of Mr. Zeligman's article, while challenging to various beliefs held by many orthodox Jews, do not undermine the validity of Judaism. To me this is obvious; if anyone wants elaboration, ask a question in the comments and I'll respond (or change my position, if need be!).

A Page Out of the Vatican's Playbook?

2006-05-01T00:04:00.000-04:00

This site contains the account - from the back of Lawrence Kelemen's Permission to Receive - of Rabbi Kelemen's correspondence with the Roman Catholic Church about several apparent inconsistencies within the New Testament. The Church referred Rabbi Kelemen to two books by Dr. Raymond E. Brown, both bearing the Vatican's stamp of approval. The site quotes a few different ideas from Dr. Brown's books, including the assumption that Jesus' birth was not virginal (contrary to popular Christian belief). Dr. Brown cautions, however, that "we should not underestimate the adverse pedagogical impact on the understanding of divine sonship if the virginal conception is denied." And the site reports that

"Brown also considers the possibility that Christianity's founders intended to create the impression that an actual virginal conception took place. Early Christians needed just such a myth, Brown notes, since Mary was widely known to have delivered Jesus too early: 'Unfortunately, the historical alternative to the virginal conception has not been a conception in wedlock; it has been illegitimacy.' Brown writes that:

"Some sophisticated Christians could live with the alternative of illegitimacy; they would see this as the ultimate stage in Jesus' emptying himself and taking on the form of a servant, and would insist, quite rightly, that an irregular begetting involves no sin by Jesus himself. But illegitimacy would destroy the images of sanctity and purity with which Matthew and Luke surround Jesus' origins and would negate the theology that Jesus came from the pious Anawim of Israel. For many less sophisticated believers, illegitimacy would be an offense that would challenge the plausibility of the Christian mystery." [emphasis added]

I quote this because of recent events in orthodox Jewish circles. The devoutly Catholic sentiments of Dr. Brown - his fears of the consequences of revealing the unromanticised facts about Christian doctrine to the public - make me think of the banning of Rabbi Nosson Slifkin's books (and of Rabbi Nathan Kamenetsky's The Making of a Godol), which it seems likely was for almost exactly the same reasons.

Sources Indicating That Chazal Did Not Possess Perfect Scientific Knowledge

2006-04-30T23:59:00.082-04:00

Revised November 16, 2010

Comments and update details at the bottom of the Table of Contents post.

View any section individually by clicking on one of the links below. Use the "Back" button on the screen to return to this menu.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

I-A. Overview
I-B. Purpose of This Compilation
I-C. Some Preliminary Observations
I-D. Technical Remarks
I-E. Acknowledgements

II. Sources from the Talmudic Era

II-A. Babylonian Talmud
II-B. Other Sources

III. Post-Talmudic Sources

III-A. Not All Scientific Assertions in the Talmud Are Necessarily Correct Even If Uncontested in the Talmud

III-A-1. Explicit
III-A-2. Indicative
III-A-3. Suggestive

III-B. Not All of the Talmudic Sages' Scientific Beliefs Were Necessarily Correct

III-B-1. Explicit
III-B-2. Indicative
III-B-3. Suggestive

III-C. Chazal Relied on the Scientific Knowledge, Research and Scientists of Their Times

III-C-1. Explicit
III-C-2. Indicative
III-C-3. Suggestive

III-D. Chazal Were Not Scientifically Omniscient

III-D-1. Explicit
III-D-2. Indicative

Appendices

Bibliography

2006-04-30T23:00:00.000-04:00

I. Introduction

Overview

2006-04-30T22:00:00.002-04:00

I-A. The bulk of this article consists of quotations from post-Talmudic sources indicating that the scientific knowledge of the Talmudic sages (henceforth, Chazal) was less than perfect. These sources are divided into four principal classes:

Class A sources indicate that scientific assertions found in the Talmud may be incorrect, even if they are uncontested in the Talmud.

Class B sources indicate that not every scientific belief of every Talmudic sage was necessarily correct. These sources may not specify that errors are possible in uncontested scientific assertions found (specifically) in the Talmud. Since Class A is just an "extreme" subset of Class B (any source belonging to Class A belongs to Class B as well; see below), I have "double-listed" Class A sources in Class B as well, so that Class B does not appear deceptively small.

Class C sources indicate that Chazal relied on the scientific knowledge, research and scientists of their times. These sources do not directly discuss whether Chazal's scientific beliefs were always correct.

Class D sources merely suggest that Chazal were not all-knowing in matters of science – though I do not believe that this assertion requires sources to justify it at all.

Unless I am mistaken, each class is a subset of the subsequent ones. That is, the sources in Class A also qualify for Classes B, C and D; those in Class B qualify for C and D; and those in Class C could correctly be classed in D. I reason as follows:

Each scientific assertion advocated in the Talmud reflects the scientific belief of at least one Talmudic sage. Therefore, if, as per Class A, scientific assertions found in the Talmud may be incorrect, it follows that at least some Talmudic sage may have held an incorrect scientific belief; this is the defining thesis of Class B.

If (one or) some of the Talmudic sages' scientific beliefs might have been incorrect, as per Class B, then where did their incorrect beliefs come from? Not, surely, from a divine source – God would not make a scientific error. The source must have been a fallible, human one. This having been established, I think it eminently reasonable to posit that their beliefs – at least the wrong ones – came from the science and scientists of their era (possibly as a heritage from previous eras); this is the defining thesis of Class C.

Finally, if Chazal were relying on the science and scientists of their era, as per Class C, then they could not have been scientifically omniscient unless either (a) their scientists were scientifically omniscient, or (b) the entire massive corpus of scientific knowledge came to them divinely, except for certain pieces of information which scientists had to fill in for them. Neither (a) nor (b) is plausible, and thus we conclude that Chazal were not scientifically omniscient, as per Class D.

Within each class, sources are divided into three groups:

Group 1 sources are explicit. (What they are explicit about depends, of course, on the class to which they belong.) I have tried to be fairly conservative in what I judge "explicit."

Group 2 sources are what I have called "indicative." An indicative source seems impossible to explain reasonably unless one supposes that its author accepted the thesis under which it is classified. It is not, however, explicit.

A Group 3 source is one whose most probable meaning (in my opinion, of course) implies the particular viewpoint I have linked it with. It could also be assigned a different, yet still reasonable – albeit less likely – interpretation, according to which its implication would be different.

In cases where I have quoted multiple passages from one individual, I have classed that individual in the first section to which he can be assigned (i.e., A before B, B before C; 1 before 2, 2 before 3; etc.), and all quotations of him appear together in that spot. I have indicated which quotations are out of place as a result, and to which class and group they properly belong.

Sources bounded by question marks are ones I have not yet been able to gain access to; I have read about them in secondary sources only.

The Talmud and other classical rabbinic sources record scores of disputes between Talmudic-era rabbis concerning what are, at least on the surface, questions of scientific fact. These records would seem to constitute strong evidence in favour of (B) (and hence (C) and (D) as well). Numerous other passages in the Talmud and contemporaneous writings record instances in which a Talmudic rabbi consulted with doctors or other scientific experts regarding matters of scientific fact or opinion. These passages would seem, in turn, to constitute strong evidence in favour of (C), as well as being indicative of (B). I have listed some of these Talmudic-era sources in Section II.

I discovered much of this information with the help of secondary sources, including Rabbi Natan Slifkin's book Mysterious Creatures (Jerusalem: Targum, 2003) and his website, http://zootorah.com/controversy; Rabbi Gil Student's website, http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/; the Open Access Project (http://www.yasharbooks.com/Open/) at Yashar Books' website; Torah and Science, by Judah Landa (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1991); and two fine books by Rabbi Dr. Yehudah Levi: Facing Current Challenges (Jerusalem: Hemed, 1998; especially Chap. 33 with accompanying endnotes), and The Science in Torah (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 2004). Please understand that this list began as mere personal notes and has evolved only somewhat beyond that stage of development, so it may strike you as cryptic, unhelpful, incomplete, poorly written, badly edited, inconsistent in style, or in other ways flawed. One flaw I hope you will not find is factual error. If you believe that any of this information is misinterpreted or wrong, please say so in the comments. Also, if you have any sources or other information to add to this list, I would be delighted if you would be kind enough to share your knowledge in the comments too. I will update this post periodically with additions and corrections.

Purpose of This Compilation

2006-04-30T21:00:00.003-04:00

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.

Some Preliminary Observations

2006-04-30T20:00:00.006-04:00

I-C. 1. It would seem that an investigation into the source(s) and quality of Chazal's scientific knowledge ought to be primarily historical, as opposed to halachic. Any particular sage either held a certain belief (belief in spontaneous generation, for example), or did not. He either derived all of his scientific knowledge from the Written Torah and oral tradition, or he employed other sources as well. The truth of the matter is not subject to moral or halachic arguments. It happened in a particular way; which way that was is a question of historical fact. We should attempt to resolve that question – if we wish to do so truthfully – not via the usual method of halachic ruling, but by examining the relevant historical evidence, assigning each piece its appropriate weight. Therefore, by way of example, it would seem appropriate in this matter to assign greater weight to the opinions of the Geonim – who lived closer both in time and in location to Chazal – than we would in a typical halachic debate, where they might be more easily trumped by later, European authorities such as Rashba, Rivash or Rema.

2. I have limited this investigation, somewhat arbitrarily, to the question of Chazal's scientific knowledge. I see no reason, however, to assume that the quality of their scientific knowledge was different from the quality of, for example, their historical knowledge. Thus if we conclude that they relied on the science of their times, with its flaws, for their scientific knowledge, we may then be justified in supposing that they relied on the historical beliefs of their times – accurate or inaccurate, complete or incomplete, as they may have been – for their historical knowledge. This conclusion, if warranted, may be instructive in resolving contradictions between certain historical assertions of the Talmud and the findings of modern archaeology, such as the dating of the construction of the Second Temple.

3. Occasionally a post-Talmudic authority appears, in different passages, to adopt conflicting approaches to the authority of Chazal's science. I believe that one must evaluate each of these apparent contradictions on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes it may prove that there is not really any contradiction. In other cases, the author may have changed his mind. It is also possible that he wrote different things for different audiences or in response to different circumstances; this is not unknown in rabbinic literature.

One general rule of which I am reasonably confident is that a genuine Torah scholar is far more likely to exaggerate Chazal's strengths than their weaknesses. I would not necessarily assume that a statement like "Chazal knew all science" was believed literally by the author, even if he did not contradict it elsewhere in his writings. In contrast, if an orthodox scholar states that Chazal erred in one of their scientific pronouncements, or that they were capable of error, I am inclined to think that he really believes it; for otherwise, his assertion constitutes inexcusable irreverence. This principle will be, I imagine, intuitive to anyone familiar with rabbinic texts.

All things being equal, then, in cases where two passages contradict each other and it seems that one of them does not accurately represent the author's belief, I am more inclined to think that one passage exaggerates Chazal's scientific competence than that the other falsely and gratuitously accuses them of error.

4. Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb of Ohr Somayach has written an excellent essay entitled "Living Up to the Truth" (available at www.dovidgottlieb.com/works/truth97.doc) regarding the grounds for rational belief in the veracity of the Torah and of orthodox Judaism. Very generally, he argues that many ascertained historical facts associated with the Torah are so exceptional and unprecedented as to defy any reasonable natural explanation. It is more rational, he asserts, to assume supernatural intervention as the cause of these historical anomalies; this assumption leads to the conclusion that there is a God, and that God gave the Israelites the Torah. (Obviously, his essay, more than sixty pages long, has hardly been done justice in my two sentences here.) I wish to examine briefly what bearing this approach to belief in Judaism may have on our topic of Chazal's scientific knowledge.

The crux of Rabbi Gottlieb's argument is that although the divinity of the Torah cannot be proven beyond all possibility of refutation, divine authorship is the most reasonable explanation of its provenance. The evidence in favour of divine authorship overwhelms the evidence against it. Thus, although we may have difficulty believing, for example, the Torah's report that manna fell from heaven for forty years to feed the Jews, the alternative – believing that this account in the Torah is false – is even more unreasonable, and we must therefore accept the truth of the Torah's claim.

Let us now perform the following mind experiment. Suppose the Torah said – without allowing for any possibility of interpreting its assertion non-literally – that Bill Clinton had never existed (and never would exist). What impact would this statement have on our assessment of its credibility (and, hence, its divinity)? I propose that the evidence in favour of the existence of Bill Clinton outweighs the evidence Rabbi Gottlieb presents in favour of the Torah's divinity. Thus if acceptance of the Torah's truth requires us to deny the existence of Bill Clinton – as it does, in our case, by construction – we must, if we are rational, reject instead the reliability of the Torah and maintain our belief in Bill Clinton's existence. We will have to find other ways to explain the historical anomalies associated with the Torah.

Suppose now that the Torah – or its extension, Torah Judaism (see Rabbi Gottlieb's essay) – required us to believe that spontaneous generation of living organisms occurs on a regular basis; or, at least, that it did in the times of the Talmud. What impact would this statement have on our assessment of the Torah's credibility (and, hence, its divinity)? We would have to compare the evidence in favour of the Torah's divinity with the evidence against the regular occurrence of spontaneous generation. If the former outweighs the latter, we would conclude that spontaneous generation occurs, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Otherwise, we would be forced to accept that the Torah is false, and, again, we would have to explain away the historical evidence Rabbi Gottlieb presents.

I personally assume that Talmudic science was flawed, and understandably so, given that the greatest scientists of the Talmudic era had reached conclusions that later investigations have since disproved. I do not consider the imperfection of Talmudic science to invalidate the bulk of the Torah, the Talmud, or Judaism as a whole, since I do not believe the assumptions of Talmudic science to be part of the indivisible corpus of Jewish dogma that one must either accept or reject in its entirety. The list of sources that follows is partially intended to demonstrate that many of the greatest scholars in the last 1500 years of Jewish history have held the same view.

Technical Remarks

2006-04-30T19:00:00.000-04:00

I-D. 1. Hebrew quotations (where provided) sometimes include sentences or even paragraphs that I have not translated into English. I have provided this material in the language of its origin in order to allow the reader to form a more complete impression of the primary source without my interference. Even in Hebrew, however, I have sometimes quoted only part of a paragraph or section where I judged the rest was not essential in the context of this article; my Hebrew typing skills are poor, and I didn't want to spend the time required to copy the rest of the piece.

2. I have provided scholarly translations, with attribution, in cases where I have been able to obtain them. In cases where no translation was available to me, I have, perhaps foolishly, attempted my own. I wish to emphasize that I do not claim my translations to be precise. I have tried to convey the meaning of each passage as best I understand it, and to make the translations smooth, coherent and readable. I have often skipped over or left out sentences or ideas that I did not consider relevant to the topic of this article. I am no expert, and I have no doubt made numerous errors, but I hope that I have at least correctly understood and adequately represented the overall thrust and principal ideas of every text. Any suggestions for improvements in this regard would be greatly appreciated.

3. For the exact names (including their transliterations), life dates and countries of residence of the authorities I cite, I have used a variety of sources, some probably more reliable than others. I would not counsel the reader to rely on this article as a source of precise historical data, though I believe the information to be reasonably accurate. Again, please submit any corrections in the comments.

4. To address some – though not all – of the errors that the blog software makes in displaying Hebrew, I have introduced each quotation with the Hebrew abbreviation ז"ל instead of the colon I would otherwise have placed after the bibliographical information, and I have added עכ"ל after the final punctuation at each quotation's conclusion.

Acknowledgements

2006-04-30T18:30:00.001-04:00

I-E. Many people have personally assisted me in my research of this topic, lending me their knowledge, their wisdom, their libraries, or simply (!) their time, and I am grateful to them all. Here I will give insufficient acknowledgement to those I can think of; a detailed account of how each has been invaluable would quickly become as long as this article itself.

N.B. The reader should draw no conclusions about the opinions of any of the people thanked herebelow. Not everyone whom I thank was aware of why I solicited his assistance; and some people, notwithstanding their help, disagree with the premise of this article, or have no opinion on the matter. My acknowledgement indicates only my gratitude; nothing more.

My parents, who have supported me through thick and thin, must top any list of those to whom I am grateful, always.

I wish first to thank my teacher, Rabbi Eliezer Ben-Porat, who has been an invaluable resource in many ways. It is a true privilege to have ready access to his storehouse of knowledge and wisdom.

Simon Basalely, the indefatigable Menachem Butler, Max Friedman, Shlomo Friedman, Michael Goldstein, Rabbi Micah Shotkin, Rabbi Gil Student, and another person who requested to remain anonymous, have made major contributions, each in his own way, to this compilation.

Dr. Moshe Bernstein, Yitzchak Brand, Ari Brodsky, Avi Brodsky, Rabbi Yonah Burr, Rabbi Baruch Clinton, David Hellman, Drew Kaplan, Dr. Hana Kasher, Dani Raymon, Dr. Benjamin Richler, Dr. Bernard Septimus, Dr. Marc Shapiro, Y. Shapiro, Rabbi Zischa Shaps, “Voldie,” Rabbi Dr. Jeremy Wieder, and Rabbi Netanel Wiederblank have all been helpful (some, perhaps, without realising it).

I thank the following great teachers and leaders of our generation for allowing me the honour and privilege of speaking to them about this topic: Rabbi Ephraim Greenblatt, Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky, Rabbi Hershel Schachter, Rabbi Aharon Schechter, and two other great rabbis who requested not to be named. Please note, again, that this acknowledgement should not be taken as an indication of their position on the subject of Chazal and science, or on any other topic.

I wish to express my appreciation also for my extensive use of the libraries of the Jewish Theological Seminary; the Kollel of Ottawa; the Soloway Jewish Community Centre of Ottawa (with special thanks to librarian Estelle Backman); and Yeshiva University. Rabbi Moshe Schapiro, Zalman Alpert and Zvi Erenyi of the Mendel Gottesman Library of Yeshiva University have been superbly helpful in a multitude of ways, and without them much of this article could not have been written.

I apologize to anyone whom I have neglected to mention.

2006-04-30T18:15:00.002-04:00

II. Sources from the Talmudic Era

II-A

2006-04-30T18:00:00.002-04:00

Babylonian Talmud

Berachot 44b

Shabbat 85a, Yalkut Shimoni

שבת פה, א; ילקוט שמעוני

Ta'anit 9b-10a, Eruvin 45b

תענית ט, ב – י, אף עירובין מה, ב

סוטה ג, ב – ד, א; ד, ב

עבודה זרה כז, ב-כח, א

Niddah 31b, Sotah 27a

נדה לא, ב; סוטה כז, א

Berachot 44b

2006-04-30T15:40:00.000-04:00

Two disputes regarding dietary science:

ברכות מד: (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

וא"ר יצחק כל האוכל ירק קודם ארבע שעות אסור לספר הימנו מאי טעמא משום ריחא וא"ר יצחק אסור לאדם שיאכל ירק חי קודם ארבע שעות אמימר ומר זוטרא ורב אשי הוו יתבי אייתו קמייהו ירק חי קודם ארבע שעות אמימר ורב אשי אכול ומר זוטרא לא אכל אמרו ליה מאי דעתיך דא"ר יצחק כל האוכל ירק קודם ארבע שעות אסור לספר הימנו משום ריחא והא אנן דקא אכלינן וקא משתעית בהדן אמר להו אנא כאידך דר' יצחק ס"ל דא"ר יצחק אסור לאדם שיאכל ירק חי קודם ארבע שעות
...
תנו רבנן דג קטן מליח פעמים שהוא ממית בשבעה בשבעה עשר ובעשרים ושבעה ואמרי לה בעשרים ושלשה ולא אמרן אלא במטוי ולא מטוי אבל מטוי שפיר לית לן בה ודלא מטוי שפיר לא אמרן אלא דלא שתה בתריה שכרא אבל שתה בתריה שכרא לית לן בה: עכ"ל

R. Isaac also said: If one eats vegetables before the fourth hour [of the day], it is forbidden to talk with him. What is the reason? Because his breath smells. R. Isaac also said: It is forbidden to a man to eat raw vegetables before the fourth hour. Amemar and Mar Zutra and R. Ashi were once sitting together when raw vegetables were set before them before the fourth hour. Amemar and R. Ashi ate, but Mar Zutra would not eat. They said to him: What is your reason? Because R. Isaac said that if one eats vegetables before the fourth hour it is forbidden to converse with him because his breath smells? See, we have been eating, and you have been conversing with us? He replied: I hold with that other saying of R. Isaac, where he said that it is forbidden to a man to eat raw vegetables before the fourth hour [but it is not forbidden to converse with him].
...
Our Rabbis taught: A small salted fish is sometimes deadly, namely on the seventh, the seventeenth and the twenty-seventh day of its salting. Some say, on the twenty-third. This is the case only if it is imperfectly roasted; but if it is well roasted, there is no harm in it. And even if it is not well roasted there is no harm in it unless one neglects to drink beer after it; but if one drinks beer after it, there is no harm. [translation by Maurice Simon in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Zera`im Vol. I (Berakhot), London: Soncino, 1958]

(Reference from Rabbi Micah Shotkin.)

Berachot 58b

2006-04-30T15:20:00.000-04:00

Shmuel admits ignorance regarding a certain astronomical question, despite his self-professed expertise on astronomy; amoraim then debate a matter of astronomy:

ברכות נח: (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

על הזיקין: מאי זיקין אמר שמואל כוכבא דשביט ואמר שמואל נהירין לי שבילי דשמיא כשבילי דנהרדעא לבר מכוכבא דשביט דלא ידענא מאי ניהו וגמירי דלא עבר כסלא ואי עבר כסלא חרב עלמא והא קא חזינן דעבר זיויה הוא דעבר ומתחזי כדעבר איהו רב הונא ברי' דרב יהושע אמר וילון הוא דמקרע דמגלגל ומחזי נהורא דרקיעא רב אשי אמר כוכבא הוא דעקר מהאי גיסא דכסלא וחזי ליה חבריה מהך גיסא ומיבעית ומחזי כמאן דעבר. עכ"ל

What are zikin? Samuel said: A comet. Samuel also said: I am as familiar with the paths of heaven as with the streets of Nehardea, with the exception of the comet, about which I am ignorant. There is a tradition that it never passes through the constellation of Orion, for if it did, the world would be destroyed. But we have seen it pass through? – Its brightness passed through, which made it appear as if it passed through itself. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: Wilon was torn asunder and rolled up, showing the brightness of Rakia. R. Ashi said: A star was removed from one side of Orion and a companion star appeared on the other side, and people were bewildered and thought the star had crossed over. [translation by Maurice Simon in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Zera`im Vol. I (Berakhot), London: Soncino, 1958]

(Reference from Landa, Torah and Science, p. 212)

Berachot 59a

2006-04-30T14:40:00.000-04:00

Dispute regarding the cause of thunder:

ברכות נט. (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

ועל הרעמים: מאי רעמים אמר שמואל ענני בגלגלא שנאמר קול רעמך בגלגל האירו ברקים תבל רגזה ותרעש הארץ ורבנן אמרי ענני דשפכי מיא להדדי שנאמר לקול תתו המון מים בשמים רב אחא בר יעקב אמר ברקא תקיפא דבריק בעננא ומתבר גזיזי דברזא רב אשי אמר ענני חלחולי מחלחלי ואתי זיקא ומנשב אפומייהו ודמי כזיקא על פום דני ומסתברא כרב אחא בר יעקב דבריק ברקא ומנהמי ענני ואתי מטרא: עכ"ל

AND OVER THUNDERS [RE`AMIM]. What are RE`AMIM? – Clouds in a whirl, as it says: The voice of Thy thunder was in the whirlwind; the lightning lighted up the world, the earth trembled and shook (Psalms 77:19). The Rabbis, however, say: The clouds pouring water into one another, as it says: At the sound of His giving a multitude of waters in the heavens (Jeremiah 10:13). R. Aha b. Jacob said: A powerful lightning flash that strikes the clouds and breaks off hailstones. R. Ashi said: The clouds are puffed out and a blast of wind comes and blows across the mouth of them and it makes a sound like wind blowing across the mouth of a jar. The most probable view is that of R. Aha b. Jacob, for the lightning flashes and the clouds rumble and the rain falls. [translation by Maurice Simon in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Zera`im Vol. I (Berakhot), London: Soncino, 1958]

(Reference from Landa: Torah and Science, pp. 258-259)

Shabbat 41a

2006-04-30T14:20:00.000-04:00

Rav Zeira listens to Rav Yehudah give medical advice in a bathhouse.  That medical advice is recorded in the Talmud.  Yet, since it was spoken in a bathhouse, it obviously does not qualify as Torah – as the Gemara makes clear.

שבת מא. (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

ר' זירא הוה קא משתמיט מדרב יהודה דבעי למיסק לארעא דישראל דאמר רב יהודה כל העולה מבבל לא"י עובר בעשה שנאמר בבלה יובאו ושמה יהיו אמר איזיל ואשמע מיניה מילתא ואיתי ואיסק אזל אשכחיה דקאי בי באני וקאמר ליה לשמעיה הביאו לי נתר הביאו לי מסרק פתחו פומייכו ואפיקו הבלא ואשתו ממיא דבי באני אמר אילמלא (לא) באתי אלא לשמוע דבר זה דיי בשלמא הביאו נתר הביאו מסרק קמ"ל דברים של חול מותר לאומרם בלשון קדש פתחו פומייכו ואפיקו הבלא נמי כדשמואל דאמר שמואל הבלא מפיק הבלא אלא אשתו מיא דבי באני מאי מעליותא דתניא אכל ולא שתה אכילתו דם וזהו תחילת חולי מעיים אכל ולא הלך ד' אמות אכילתו מרקבת וזהו תחילת ריח רע הנצרך לנקביו ואכל דומה לתנור שהסיקוהו ע"ג אפרו וזהו תחילת ריח זוהמא רחץ בחמין ולא שתה מהן דומה לתנור שהסיקוהו מבחוץ ולא הסיקוהו מבפנים רחץ בחמין ולא נשתטף בצונן דומה לברזל שהכניסוהו לאור ולא הכניסוהו לצונן רחץ ולא סך דומה למים ע"ג חבית:  עכ"ל

R. Zera was evading Rab Judah.  For he [R. Zera] desired to emigrate to Palestine, whereas Rab Judah said, He who emigrates from Babylon to Palestine violates a positive command, for it is said, They shall be carried to Babylon, and there they shall be.  Said he, I will go, hear a teaching from him, return and emigrate.  He went and found him standing at the baths and saying to his attendant, Bring me natron, bring me a comb, open your mouths and expel the heat, and drink of the water of the baths.  Said he, Had I come to hear nought but this, it would suffice me.  As for 'bring me natron, bring me a comb,' it is well: he informs us that secular matters may be said in the Holy Tongue.  'Open your mouths and expel the heat' too is as Samuel.  For Samuel said: Heat expels heat.  But 'drink the water of the baths' – what is the virtue of that? – For it was taught: If one eats without drinking, his eating is blood, and that is the beginning of stomach trouble.  If one eats without walking four cubits [after it], his food rots, and that is the beginning of a foul smell.  One who has a call of nature yet eats is like an oven which  is heated up on top of its ashes, and that is the beginning of perspiration odour.  If one bathes in hot water and drinks none, he is like an oven heated without but not within.  If one bathes in hot water and does not have a cold shower bath, he is like an iron put into fire but not into cold water.  If one bathes without anointing, he is like water [poured] over a barrel.  [translation by Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Mo'ed Vol. I (Shabbath I), London: Soncino, 1938]

(Reference from RBP)

Shabbat 85a, Yalkut Shimoni

2006-04-30T14:00:00.000-04:00

Shabbat 85a: The sages learned horticultural facts (or at least one) from non-Jewish experts:

שבת פה. (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

...
וקים להו לרבנן דחמשא בשיתא לא ינקי מהדדי ומנלן דהא דקים להו לרבנן (דחמשא בשיתא) מילתא היא דא"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן מאי דכתיב לא תסיג גבול רעך [אשר גבלו ראשונים] גבול שגבלו ראשונים לא תסיג מאי גבלו ראשונים אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן (מאי) דכתיב אלה בני שעיר החורי יושבי הארץ אטו כולי עלמא יושבי רקיע נינהו אלא שהיו בקיאין בישובה של ארץ שהיו אומרים מלא קנה זה לגפנים מלא קנה זה לתאנים וחורי שמריחים את הארץ וחוי אמר רב פפא שהיו טועמין את הארץ כחויא. עכ"ל

The Rabbis ascertained that five [species sown] in six [handbreadths square] do not draw [sustenance] from each other. And how do we know that that which the Rabbis ascertain is of consequence [to base a law thereon]? For R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: What is meant by, Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old have set (Deuteronomy 19:14)? The landmark which they of old have set thou shalt not encroach upon. What landmarks did they of old set? R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Johanan's name, [Even] as it is written, These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the earth (Genesis 36:20): are then the whole world inhabitants of heaven? But it means that they were thoroughly versed in the cultivation of the earth. For they used to say, This complete [measuring] rod [of land is fit] for olives, this complete [measuring] rod [is fit] for vines, this complete [measuring] rod for figs. [They know how to divide up the land for cultivation, and as a corollary they must have known how much earth each species required for its sustenance. It was from them that the Rabbis acquired this knowledge, whose correctness is vouched for by this verse.] [translation by Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Mo'ed Vol. II (Shabbath II), London: Soncino, 1938]

Almost identical passages appear in Yalkut Shimoni in two places: Torah, Parshat Vayishlach, remez 139; and Isaiah, remez 506.

Eruvin 56a

2006-04-30T13:00:00.000-04:00

Dispute regarding astronomy:

עירובין נו. (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

רבי יוסי אומר אם אינו יודע לרבעה בריבוע של עולם מרבעה כמין התקופה כיצד חמה יוצאה ביום ארוך ושוקעת ביום ארוך זה הוא פני צפון חמה יוצאה ביום קצר ושוקעת ביום קצר זה הוא פני דרום תקופת ניסן ותקופת תשרי חמה יוצאה בחצי מזרח ושוקעת בחצי מערב שנאמר הולך אל דרום וסובב אל צפון הולך אל דרום ביום וסובב אל צפון בלילה סובב סובב הולך הרוח אלו פני מזרח ופני מערב פעמים מהלכתן ופעמים מסבבתן אמר רב משרשיא ליתנהו להני כללי דתניא לא יצאה חמה מעולם מקרן מזרחית צפונית ושקעה בקרן מערבית צפונית ולא יצאה חמה מקרן מזרחית דרומית ושקעה בקרן מערבית דרומית.  עכ"ל

R. Jose said: If one does not know how to square a town so as to make it correspond with the directions of the world, one may square it in accordance with the circuit of the sun.  How? – The direction in which on a long day the sun rises and sets is the northern direction.  The direction in which on a short day the sun rises and sets is the southern direction.  At the vernal and autumnal equinoxes the sun rises in the middle point of the East and sets in the middle point of the West, as it is said in Scripture, It goeth along the south, and turneth about the north: 'It goeth along the south' during the day 'and turneth about the north' during the night.  The wind turneth, turneth about and moveth refers to the eastern horizon and the western horizon along which the sun sometimes moves and sometimes turns about.

R. Mesharsheya stated: These rules should be disregarded for it was taught: The sun has never exactly risen in the North East and set in the North West, nor has it ever risen precisely in the South East and set in the South West.  [translation by Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Mo'ed Vol. III (`Erubin), London: Soncino, 1938]

(Reference from Landa, Torah and Science, pp. 114-115)

Eruvin 76a-b

2006-04-30T12:00:00.000-04:00

Dispute regarding geometry (just before the first two dots):

עירובין עו.-עו: (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

א"ר יוחנן חלון עגול צריך שיהא בהיקפו עשרים וארבעה טפחים ושנים ומשהו מהן בתוך י' שאם ירבענו נמצא משהו בתוך י' מכדי כל שיש בהיקפו שלשה טפחים יש בו ברוחבו טפח בתריסר סגיא הני מילי בעיגולא אבל בריבועא בעינן טפי מכדי כמה מרובע יתר על העגול רביע בשיתסר סגיא ה"מ עיגולא דנפיק מגו ריבועא אבל ריבועא דנפיק מגו עיגולא בעינן טפי מ"ט משום מורשא דקרנתא מכדי כל אמתא בריבוע אמתא ותרי חומשי באלכסונא בשיבסר נכי חומשא סגיא רבי יוחנן אמר כי דייני דקיסרי ואמרי לה כרבנן דקיסרי דאמרי עיגולא מגו ריבועא ריבעא ריבועא מגו עיגולא פלגא: עכ"ל

R. Johanan ruled: A round window must have a circumference of twenty-four handbreadths, two and a fraction of which must be within ten handbreadths from the ground, so that, when it is squared, a fraction remains within the ten handbreadths from the ground. Consider: Any object that has a circumference of three handbreadths is approximately one handbreadth in diameter: should not then twelve handbreadths suffice? This applies only to a circle, but where a square is to be inscribed within it a greater circumference is required. But observe: By how much does the perimeter of a square exceed that of a circle? By a quarter approximately; should not then a circumference of sixteen handbreadths suffice? This applies only to a circle that is inscribed within the square, but where a square is to be inscribed within a circle it is necessary [for the circumference of the latter] to be much bigger. What is the reason? In order [to allow space for] the projections of the corners. Consider, however, this: Every cubit in [the side of] a square [corresponds to] one and two fifths cubits in its diagonal; [should not then a circumference] of sixteen and four fifths handbreadths suffice? – R. Johanan holds the same view as the judges of Caesarea or, as others say, as that of the Rabbis of Caesarea who maintain [that the area of] a circle that is inscribed within a square is [less than the latter by] a quarter [while that of] the square that is inscribed within that circle [is less than the outer square by] a half. [translation by Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Mo'ed Vol. III (`Erubin), London: Soncino, 1938]

Pesachim 93b-94a

2006-04-30T10:00:00.000-04:00

Rava knew one scientific fact from tradition and another from "sevara"; Rashi: "savar lah midaateih."  Later, tiyuvta of Rava and Ula about geography:

פסחים צג:-צד. (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

אמר עולא מן המודיעים לירושלים חמשה עשר מילין הויא סבר לה כי הא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כמה מהלך אדם ביום עשרה פרסאות מעלות השחר ועד הנץ החמה חמשת מילין משקיעת החמה ועד צאת הכוכבים חמשת מילין פשו לה תלתין חמיסר מצפרא לפלגא דיומא וחמיסר מפלגא דיומא לאורתא עולא לטעמיה דאמר עולא אי זה הוא דרך רחוקה כל שאין יכול ליכנס בשעת שחיטה אמר מר מעלות השחר עד הנץ החמה חמשת מילין מנא לן דכתיב וכמו השחר עלה ויאיצו המלאכים וגו' וכתיב השמש יצא על הארץ ולוט בא צוערה ואמר רבי חנינא לדידי חזי לי ההוא אתרא והויא חמשה מילין
...
אמר רבא שיתא אלפי פרסי הוי עלמא וסומכא דרקיעא אלפא פרסי חדא גמרא וחדא סברא סבר לה כי הא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן כמה מהלך אדם בינוני ביום י' פרסאות מעלות השחר ועד הנץ החמה ה' מילין משקיעת החמה עד צאת הכוכבים חמשה מילין נמצא עוביו של רקיע אחד מששים ביום מיתיבי רבי יהודה אומר עוביו של רקיע אחד מעשרה ביום תדע כמה מהלך אדם בינוני ביום עשר פרסאות ומעלות השחר עד הנץ החמה ארבעת מילין משקיעת החמה ועד צאת הכוכבים ארבעת מילין נמצאת עוביו של רקיע אחד מעשרה ביום תיובתא דרבא תיובתא דעולא תיובתא לימא תיהוי תיובתא דר' יוחנן אמר לך אנא ביממא הוא דאמרי ורבנן הוא דקא טעו דקא חשבן דקדמא וחשוכא לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרבי חנינא לא ויאיצו שאני ... עכ"ל

`Ulla said: From Modi'im to Jerusalem is fifteen miles.  He holds as Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: what is an [average] man's journey in a day?  Ten parasangs: five mils from daybreak until the first sparklings of the rising sun, [and] five mils from sunset until the stars appear.  This leaves thirty: fifteen from the morning until midday, and fifteen from midday until evening [i.e., sunset].  `Ulla is consistent with his view, for `Ulla said: What is 'a journey afar off'?  Any place whence a man is unable to enter [Jerusalem] at the time of slaughtering.

The Master said: 'Five mils from daybreak until the first sparklings of the rising sun.'  Whence do we know it? – Because it is written, And when the morning arose [i.e., at daybreak], then the angels hastened Lot, etc.; and it is written, The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot came unto Zoar; while R. Hanina said: I myself saw that place and it is five mils [from Sodom].
...
Raba said: The world is six thousand parasangs, and the thickness of the heaven [rakia`] is one thousand parasangs the first one [of these statements] is a tradition, while the other is [based on] reason.  [Thus:] he agrees with Rabbah b. Hanah's dictum in R. Johanan's name: What is an average man's journey in a day?  Ten parasangs: from daybreak until the first sparklings of the rising sun five mils, and from sunset until the stars appear five mils: hence the thickness of the heaven is one sixth of the day['s journey].

An objection is raised: Rab Judah said: The thickness of the sky is one tenth of the day's journey.  The proof is this: what is an [average] man's journey in a day?  Ten parasangs, and from daybreak until the rising sun four mils, [and] from sunset until the stars appear four mils: hence the thickness of the sky is one tenth of the day['s journey].  This is a refutation of Raba, and a refutation of `Ulla!  It is a refutation.  Shall we say that this is [also] a refutation of R. Johanan? – He can answer you: I spoke only of [an average man's journey] in a [complete] day, and it was the Rabbis who erred by calculating [the distance for] pre-dawn and after nightfall.  Shall we say that this is a refutation of R. Hanina? – No: 'and [the angels] hastened' is different.  [translation by Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Mo'ed Vol. IV (Pesahim), London: Soncino, 1938]

Pesachim 93b-94b contain many seeming contradictions to the notion that Chazal could not make scientific errors.  So does Chap. 3 of Chullin, including 45b.

Pesachim 94b

2006-04-30T08:00:00.000-04:00

Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi says that the gentiles' scientific theory is more probably correct than Chazal's:

פסחים צד: (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

חכמי ישראל אומרים ביום חמה מהלכת למטה מן הרקיע ובלילה למעלה מן הרקיע וחכמי אומות העולם אומרים ביום חמה מהלכת למטה מן הרקיע ובלילה למטה מן הקרקע א"ר ונראין דבריהן מדברינו שביום מעינות צוננין ובלילה רותחין. עכ"ל

The Sages of Israel maintain: The sun travels beneath the sky by day and above the sky at night; while the Sages of the nations of the world maintain: It travels beneath the sky by day and below the earth at night. Said Rabbi: And their view is preferable to ours, for the wells are cold by day but warm at night. [translation by Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Mo'ed Vol. IV (Pesahim), London: Soncino, 1938]

Sukkah 8a-b

2006-04-30T06:00:00.000-04:00

The Gemara rejects the geometric views of the dayanei dekeisari:

סוכה ח.-ח: (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

...
רבנן דקיסרי ואמרי לה דייני דקיסרי אמרי עיגולא דנפיק מגו ריבועא רבעא ריבועא דנפיק מגו עיגולא פלגא ולא היא דהא קחזינן דלא הוי כולי האי: עכ"ל

The Rabbis of Caesarea (and some say, The judges of Caesarea) maintain, The circumference of a circle inscribed in a square is a quarter [i.e., a quarter less than the perimeter of the square]; but the square inscribed within that circle is a half. But this is not correct, for we see that these are not so much bigger. [translation by Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Mo'ed Vol. VI (Sukkah-Bezah), London: Soncino, 1938]

Ta'anit 9b-10a, Eruvin 45b

2006-04-30T05:30:00.000-04:00

Dispute regarding meteorology at Ta'anit 9b-10a:

תענית ט:-י. (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

תניא ר' אליעזר אוצר כל העולם כולו ממימי אוקיינוס הוא שותה שנאמר ואד יעלה מן הארץ והשקה את כל פני האדמה אמר לו ר' יהושע והלא מימי אוקיינוס מלוחין הן אמר לו ממתקין בעבים ר' יהושע אומר כל העולם כולו ממים העליונים הוא שותה שנאמר למטר השמים תשתה מים אלא מה אני מקיים ואד יעלה מן הארץ מלמד שהעננים מתגברים ועולים לרקיע ופותחין פיהן כנוד ומקבלין מי מטר שנאמר יזקו מטר לאדו ומנוקבות הן ככברה ובאות ומחשרות מים על גבי קרקע שנאמר חשרת מים עבי שחקים ואין בין טיפה לטיפה אלא כמלא נימא ללמדך שגדול יום הגשמים כיום שנבראו בו שמים וארץ שנאמר עושה גדולות עד אין חקר וכתיב הנותן מטר על פני ארץ וכתיב להלן הלא ידעת אם לא שמעת אל[ק]י עולם ה' אין חקר לתבונתו (וכתיב מכין הרים בכחו וגו') כמאן אזלא הא דכתיב משקה הרים מעליותיו וא"ר יוחנן מעליותיו של הקב"ה כמאן כרבי יהושע ור' אליעזר כיון דסלקי להתם משקה מעליותיו קרי להו דאי לא תימא הכי אבק ועפר מן השמים היכי משכחת לה אלא כיון דמדלי להתם מן השמים קרי ליה הכא נמי כיון דסלקי להתם מעליותיו קרי ליה כמאן אזלא [הא] דא"ר חנינא כונס כנד מי הים נותן באוצרות תהומות מי גרם לאוצרות שיתמלאו בר תהומות כרבי אליעזר ור' יהושע ההוא בברייתו של עולם.  עכ"ל

It has been taught: R. Eliezer said: The whole world draws its water supply from the waters of the ocean, as it is said, But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole of the ground (Genesis 2:6).  Thereupon R. Joshua said to him: But are not the waters of the ocean salty?  He replied: They are sweeteend by the clouds.  R. Joshua said: The whole world drinks from the upper waters, as it is said, And drinketh water as the rain of heaven cometh down (Deuteronomy 11:11).  If so, what is the force of the verse, 'But there went up a mist from the earth`?  This teaches that the clouds grow in strength as they rise towards the firmament and then open their mouth as a flask and catch the rain water, as it is said, Which distil rain from His vapour (Job 36:27); they are perforated like a sieve and they slowly distil [mehashroth] waters on the ground, as it is said, Distilling [hashroth] of waters, thick clouds of the skies (II Samuel 22:12); there is but one hand-breadth space between one drop and another, in order to teach you that the day on which rain falls is as great as the day whereon heaven and earth were created, as it is said, Who doeth great things past finding out (Job 5:9); and it is written, Who giveth rain upon the earth (Job 5:10); and it is also written, Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard that the everlasting God, the Lord ... Is discernment is past finding out (Isaiah 40:28)?

Whose view is supported by the verse, Who waterest the mountains from Thine upper chambers (Psalms 104:13), which R. Johanan interprets to mean the upper chambers of the Almighty?  Whose view? – It is that of R. Joshua.  And R. Eliezer's view? – As [the waters] ultimately find their way above [Scripture] aptly terms them, 'from thine upper chambers'.  For if it were not so, how will you explain, Powder and dust from heaven (Deuteronomy 28:24)?  What you must [say is] that as these rise upwards [from the ground] the words, 'from heaven' are quite aptly applied to them.  Likewise as the waters eventually find their way above Scripture aptly refers to them as, 'from Thine upper chambers'.  Whose view supports R. Hanina who said this, He gathereth the waters of the sea together as a heap; He layeth up the deeps in storehouses (Psalms 33:7), [as meaning,] Who caused the storehouses to be filled with grain?  The deeps – the view of R. Eliezer.  And what of R. Joshua's [view]? – That [verse] refers to Creation of the world.  [translation by Rev. Dr. J. Rabbinowitz in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Mo'ed Vol. VII (Rosh Hashanah-Ta`anith-Shekalim), London: Soncino, 1938]

The Gemara makes reference to this dispute at Eruvin 45b as well:

עירובין מה: (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

אמר מר ביום טוב הרי הן כרגלי כל אדם ואמאי ליקני שביתה באוקיינוס לימא דלא כרבי אליעזר דאי כר' אליעזר הא אמר כל העולם כולו ממי אוקיינוס הוא שותה אמר ר' יצחק הכא בעבים שנתקשרו מערב יום טוב עסקינן ודילמא הנך אזלי והנך אחריני נינהו דאית להו סימנא בגוייהו ואיבעית אימא הוי ספק דדבריהם וספק דדבריהם להקל.  עכ"ל

The Master said: 'If [it fell] on a festival day the water is on a par with the feet of every man'.  But why?  Should not the rain water acquire its place for the Sabbath in the ocean?  Must it then be assumed that this ruling is not in agreement with the view of R. Eliezer?  For if it were in agreement with R. Eliezer [the objection world arise:] Did he not state that all the world drinks from the water of the ocean? – R. Isaac replied: Here we are dealing with a case where the clouds were formed on the eve of the festival.  But is it not possible that those moved away and these are others? – It is a case where one can recognize them by some identification mark.  And if you prefer I might reply: This is a matter of doubt in respect of a Rabbinical law and in any such doubt a lenient ruling is adopted.  [translation by Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Mo'ed Vol. III (`Erubin), London: Soncino, 1938]

(Reference from Landa: Torah and Science, pp. 255-257)

Chagigah 12b

2006-04-30T05:00:00.000-04:00

Dispute regarding the composition of the sky (possibly allegorical):

חגיגה יב: (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

א"ר יהודה שני רקיעים הן שנאמר הן לה' אל[ק]יך השמים ושמי השמים ר"ל אמר שבעה ואלו הן וילון רקיע שחקים זבול מעון מכון ערבות וילון אינו משמש כלום אלא נכנס שחרית ויוצא ערבית ומחדש בכל יום מעשה בראשית שנאמר הנוטה כדוק שמים וימתחם כאהל לשבת רקיע שבו חמה ולבנה כוכבים ומזלות קבועין שנאמר ויתן אותם אל[ק]ים ברקיע השמים.... עכ"ל

R. Judah said: There are two firmaments, for it is said: Behold, unto the Lord thy God belongeth heaven, and the heaven of heavens. Resh Lakish said: [There are] seven, namely, Wilon, Rakia`, Shehakim, Zebul, Ma`on, Makon, `Araboth. Wilon serves no purpose except that it enters in the morning and goes forth in the evening, and renews every day the work of creation, for it is said: That stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. Rakia` is that in which sun and moon, stars and constellations are set, for it is said: And God set them in the firmament [Rakia`] of the heaven.... [translation by Rabbi Prof. I. Abrahams in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Mo'ed Vol. VIII (Megillah-Mo`ed Katan-Hagigah), London: Soncino, 1938]

(Reference from Landa: Torah and Science, p. 66)

Nazir 52a

2006-04-30T04:30:00.000-04:00

The sages relied on physicians' expertise to render a halachic ruling:

נזיר נב. (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

תא שמע רבי יהודה אומר ששה דברים ר' עקיבא מטמא וחכמים מטהרין וחזר בו ר' עקיבא ומעשה שהביאו קופה מלאה עצמות לבהכ"נ של טרסיים והניחוה באויר ונכנס תודוס הרופא וכל הרופאים [עמו] ואמרו אין כאן שדרה ממת אחד טעמא דליכא שדרה דמחדא האיכא או שדרה או גולגולת דמחדא נזיר מגלח עליה ש"מ או שדרה או גולגולת תנן לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא שדרה וגולגולת דממת אחד ליכא אלא אפי' או שדרה ממת אחד או גולגולת ממת אחד ליכא... עכ"ל

Come and hear: R. Judah says: Six things were declared unclean by R. Akiba and clean by the Sages, and R. Akiba retracted his opinion. It is related that a basket full of [human] bones was taken into the Synagogue of the Tarsians and placed in the open air. The Theodos, the Physician, together with all the physicians, entered, and said that there was not the backbone of a single corpse there. The reason [that it was declared clean] is that there was not a backbone from a single [corpse], but had there been either a backbone or a skull from a single [corpse], a nazirite would have been required to poll because of it, whence it follows that we read in our Mishnah, either the backbone or the skull? - The case was put strongly. Not only was there not the backbone and skull of a single corpse, but there was not even the backbone of a single corpse or the skull of a single corpse. [translation from The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nashim Vol. VI (Nazir-Sotah), Nazir, the Rev. Dr. A. Cohen, trans. London: Soncino, 1936]

(Reference from Rabbi Gil Student, "The Approach of the Talmudic Sages to Science," available at http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_method.html.)

Sotah 3b-4a, 4b

2006-04-30T04:00:00.001-04:00

On Sotah 3b-4a, tannaim argue regarding the minimum length of time required for human sexual relations.  The Gemara explains, on Sotah 4b, that their dispute was based on their own personal experience.  Also on 4b, the Gemara questions how Ben Azai (who is initially assumed to have been a bachelor all his life) could have opined on the matter (which he did).  The Gemara proposes several answers, not all of which involve his having derived his knowledge from the Torah:

סוטה ג:-ד: (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

תנו רבנן אי זו היא עדות הראשונה זו עדות סתירה עדות אחרונה זו עדות טומאה וכמה שיעור סתירה כדי טומאה כדי ביאה כדי העראה כדי הקפת דקל דברי רבי ישמעאל ר"א אומר כדי מזיגת הכוס רבי יהושע אומר כדי לשתותו בן עזאי אומר כדי לצלות ביצה ר"ע אומר כדי לגומעה רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר כדי לגמוע שלש ביצים זו אחר זו ר"א בן ירמיה אומר כדי לקשור גרדי נימא חנין בן פנחס אומר כדי שתושיט ידה לתוך פיה ליטול קיסם פלימו אומר כדי שתושיט ידה לסל ליטול ככר
...
א"ר יצחק בר (רב) יוסף א"ר יוחנן כל אחד ואחד בעצמו שיער והאיכא בן עזאי דלא נסיב איבעית אימא נסיב ופירש הוה ואיבעית אימא מרביה שמיע ליה ואיבעית אימא סוד ה' ליראיו.  עכ"ל

Our Rabbis have taught: Which is the 'first testimony'?  Evidence of seculsion, and the 'final testimony' is evidence of 'defilement' [misconduct].  And how long is the duration in the matter of seclusion?  Sufficient for misconduct, i.e., sufficient for coition, i.e., sufficient for sexual contact, i.e., sufficient for a person to walk round a date-palm.  Such is the view of R. Ishmael; R. Eliezer says: Sufficient for preparing a cup of wine; R. Joshua says: Sufficient to drink it; Ben Azzai says: Sufficient to roast an egg; R. Akiba says: Sufficient to swallow it; R. Judah b. Bathyra says: Sufficient to swallow three eggs one after the other; R. Eleazar b. Jeremiah says: Sufficient for a weaver to knot a thread; Hanin b. Phineas says: Sufficient for a woman to extend her hand to her mouth to remove a chip of wood [from between the teeth]; Pelemo says: Sufficient for her to extend her hand to a basket and take a loaf therefrom.
...
R. Isaac son of R. Joseph said in the name of R. Johanan: Each of the teachers defined the duration [of coition] from his own experience.  But they included Ben Azzai who was unmarried!  – If you wish I can say that he had married and separated [from his wife], or that he had heard it from his master, or that The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him.  [translation by The Rev. Dr. A. Cohen in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Nashim Vol. VI (Nazir-Sotah), London: Soncino, 1936]

(Reference from Levi, Facing Current Challenges, Chap. 33, fn. 24)

Sotah 10a

2006-04-30T02:00:00.002-04:00

The Gemara proposes several possible reasons as to why Rav Nachman could describe the symptoms of a particular illness; not all of them involve his having derived his knowledge from the Torah:

סוטה י. (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

א"ל מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן לרב נחמן היכי דמי פדגרא א"ל כמחט בבשר החי מנא ידע איכא דאמרי מיחש הוה חש ביה ואיכא דאמרי מרביה שמע ליה וא"ד סוד ה' ליראיו ובריתו להודיעם. עכ"ל

Mar Zutra, son of R. Nahman, asked R. Nahman, What is Podagra like? – He answered, Like a needle in living flesh. How did he know this? – Some say he suffered from it himself; others say that he heard it fro his teacher; and others declare, The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him, and He will shew them His covenant. [translation by The Rev. Dr. A. Cohen in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Nashim Vol. VI (Nazir-Sotah), London: Soncino, 1936]

(Reference from Levi, Facing Current Challenges, Chap. 33, fn. 24)

Sanhedrin 5a-b

2006-04-29T22:00:00.000-04:00

Rav states that he spent 18 months living with a shepherd in order to be able to distinguish permanent blemishes from temporary ones; Rabbah bar Chanah was not as familiar with tereifos as Rav, but was judged by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi to be sufficiently competent to paskan on the issue (and to get smicha). Clearly not all amoraim were on equal footing when it came to scientific knowledge; some were more liable to err than others. That implies they could err.

סנהדרין ה.-ה: (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

כי הוה נחית רבה בר חנה לבבל אמר ליה רבי חייא לרבי בן אחי יורד לבבל יורה יורה ידין ידין יתיר בכורות יתיר כי הוה נחית רב לבבל אמר ליה רבי חייא לר' בן אחותי יורד לבבל יורה יורה ידין ידין יתיר בכורות אל יתיר מ"ש למר דקא קרי בן אחי ומ"ש למר דקא קרי בן אחותי וכי תימא הכי הוה מעשה והאמר מר איבו וחנה ושילא ומרתא ורבי חייא כולהו בני אבא בר אחא כרסלא מכפרי הוו רב בר אחוה דהוה בר אחתיה רבה בר חנה בר אחוה דלאו בר אחתיה ואי בעית אימא על שם חכמתו דכתיב אמור לחכמה אחותי את יתיר בכורות אל יתיר מאי טעמא אילימא משום דלא חכים הא קא אמרינן דחכים טובא אלא משום דלא בקיע במומי והאמר רב שמונה עשר חדשים גדלתי אצל רועה בהמה לידע איזה מום קבוע ואיזה מום עובר אלא לחלק לו כבוד לרבה בר חנה ואיבעית אימא משום הא גופיה דרב בקיע במומי טפי ושרי מומי דלא ידעי אינשי ואמרי כי האי גוונא שרא רב ואתו למשרי מום עובר. עכ"ל

When Rabbah b. Hana was about to go to Babylon, R. Hiyya said to Rabbi: ... 'May he declare firstborn animals permissible [for slaughter]?' – [Rabbi answered:] 'He may.' When Rab went there, R. Hiyya said to Rabbi: ... "May he declare firstborn animals permissible for slaughter?' – [Rabbi answered:] 'He may not.' ... What was the reason that Rab was not authorised to permit the slaughter of firstborn animals? ... Was it because he was not an expert in judging defects? But did not Rab himself say: I spent eighteen months eith a shepherd in order to learn which was a permanent and which a passing blemish? – Rabbi withheld that authorisation from Rab, as a special mark of respect to Rabbah b. Hana [so as to establish him firmly in the respect of the Babylonians, whilst Rab's standing was in any case high]. [translation by Jacob Schachter in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Nezikin Vol. V (Sanhedrin I), London: Soncino, 1935]

Makot 5b

2006-04-29T21:00:00.000-04:00

Rabbi Yehudah ben Tabai, a tanna with (real) smicha, has someone wrongfully executed because he was ignorant of a certain halacha.  (The only relevance of this passage to the topic of this article is that it indicates that even tannaim musmachim did not possess perfect knowledge – not even of halacha.)

מכות ה: (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

תניא אמר רבי יהודה בן טבאי אראה בנחמה אם לא הרגתי עד זומם להוציא מלבן של צדוקים שהיו אין העדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיהרג הנדון אמר לו שמעון בן שטח אראה בנחמה אם לא שפכת דם נקי שהרי אמרו חכמים אין העדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין לוקין עד שיזומו שניהם מיד קבל עליו ר' יהודה בן טבאי שאינו מורה הוראה אלא לפני שמעון בן שטח וכל ימיו של ר' יהודה בן טבאי היה משתטח על קברו של אותו העד והיה קולו נשמע וכסבורין העם לומר קולו של הרוג אמר קולי שלי הוא תדעו למחר הוא מת אין קולו נשמע אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי דלמא בדינא קם בהדיה אי נמי פיוסי פייסיה:  עכ"ל

It has been taught: R. Judah b. Tabbai said: 'May I [never] see consolation [of Israel] if I did not have one zomem-witness done to death to disabuse the mind of the Sadducees, who used to say that zomemim [found guilty] were put to death only after the [falsely] accused person had [actually] been executed.'  Said Simeon b. Shetah to him: 'May I [never] see consolation [of Israel] if you have not shed innocent blood because the Sages declared that witnesses found to be zomemim are not put to death until both have been proved as such, and are not [juridically] flogged until both have been proved as such.'  Forthwith did Judah b. Tabbai take upon himself a resolve never to deliver a decision save in the presence of Simeon b. Shetah.  And all through his [remaining] days, Judah b. Tabbai used to go and prostrate himself on the grave of that [slain] witness, and his voice would be heard and people thought that it was the voice of the slain man; but he would tell them, 'It is my voice!  You will be convinced when on the morrow of this man's [his own] death his voice will be heard no more'.

Said R. Aha, the son of Raba, to R. Ashi: He might perhaps have answered the summons of the deceased, or else he might have obtained his forgiveness.  [translation by H. M. Lazarus in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Nezikin Vol. VIII (Shebu`oth–Makkoth-Eduyyoth–Aboth), London: Soncino, 1935]

Avoda Zara 27b-28a

2006-04-29T20:30:00.000-04:00

Various amoraim, including Rabbi Yochanan and Abayei, relied on non-Jews for medical knowledge and treatment:

עבודה זרה כז:-כח. (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל מכה שמחללין עליה את השבת אין מתרפאין מהן ואיכא דאמרי אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר"י כל מכה של חלל אין מתרפאין מהן מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו גב היד וגב הרגל דאמר רב אדא בר מתנה אמר רב גב היד וגב הרגל הרי הן כמכה של חלל ומחללין עליהן את השבת אמר רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב כל מכה שצריכה אומד מחללין עליה את השבת אמר רב שמן בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן והאי אישתא צמירתא כמכה של חלל דמי ומחללין עליה את השבת מהיכן מכה של חלל פירש רבי אמי מן השפה ולפנים בעי רבי אליעזר ככי ושיני מאי כיון דאקושי נינהו כמכה דבראי דמו או דילמא כיון דגואי קיימי כמכה של חלל דמו אמר אביי ת"ש החושש בשיניו לא יגמע בהן את החומץ חושש הוא דלא הא כאיב ליה טובא שפיר דמי דלמא תנא היכא דכאיב ליה טובא חושש נמי קרי ליה ת"ש רבי יוחנן חש בצפדינא אזל לגבה דההיא מטרוניתא עבדה חמשא ומעלי שבתא א"ל למחר מאי אמרה ליה לא צריכת אי צריכנא מאי אמרה אשתבע לי דלא מגלית אישתבע לה לאלהא ישראל לא מגלינא גלייה ליה למחר נפק דרשה בפירקא והא אישתבע לה לאלהא דישראל לא מגלינא אבל לעמיה ישראל מגלינא והאיכא חילול השם דגלי לה מעיקרא אלמא כמכה של חלל דמיא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק שאני צפדינא הואיל ומתחיל בפה וגומר בבני מעיים מאי סימניה רמי מידי בי ככי ומייתי דמא מבי דרי ממאי הוי מקרירי קרירי דחיטי ומחמימי חמימי דשערי ומשיורי כסא דהרסנא מאי עבדא ליה א"ר אחא בריה דרבא מי שאור ושמן זית ומלח ומר בר רב אשי אמר משחא דאווזא בגדפא דאווזא אמר אביי אנא עבדי כולהו ולא איתסאי עד דאמר לי ההוא טייעא אייתי קשייתא דזיתא דלא מלו תילתא וקלנהו אמרא חדתא ודביק ביה דדרי עבדי הכי ואיתסאי ורבי יוחנן היכי עביד הכי והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל מכה שמחללין עליה את השבת אין מתרפאין מהן אדם חשוב שאני והא רבי אבהו דאדם חשוב הוה ורמא ליה יעקב מינאה סמא אשקיה ואי לא רבי אמי ורבי אסי דלחכוהו לשקיה פסקיה לשקיה דרבי יוחנן רופא מומחה הוה דרבי אבהו נמי רופא מומחה הוה שאני רבי אבהו דמוקמי ביה מיני בנפשייהו תמות נפשי עם פלשתים ... עכ"ל

Said Rabba b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: Any sore for which the Sabbath may be profaned should not be healed by a heathen. Others report that Rabba b. Bar Hanah said: Any internal sore should not be healed by them. Wherein do these versions differ? - They differ in the case of a swelling of the hand or a swelling of the foot. For R. Adda b. Mattena said in the name of Rab: A swelling of the hand or a swelling of the foot is to be regarded as [serious as] an internal sore, and the Sabbath may be profaned for it. Said R. Zutra b. Tobiah in the name of Rab: Any sore which requires [medical] opinion justifies the profanation of the Sabbath. R. Shaman b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: The inflammatory fever is to be regarded as an internal sore for which the Sabbath may be profaned. Which sore is to be termed internal? R. Ammi explained: [Such as are] on the lip and inward. R. Eleazar asked: How about the gums and the teeth: should they, being hard, be regarded as external; or do we say that, since they are placed within [the mouth], they are to be regarded as internal? - Said Abaye: Come and hear: One who is troubled with his teeth must not rinse them with vinegar [on the Sabbath]. [Which means that] if he is only 'troubled' he must not [rinse them] but if they hurt him very much it is proper [for him to do it]! - Probably this Tanna would call 'being troubled' even if they hurt very much. Then come and hear this: R. Johanan was troubled with scurvy [on his gums] and he went to a certain [heathen] lady who attended to him on the Thursday and the Friday. Said he: What about to morrow? She replied: You will not need [the treatment]. But what if I do need it? he asked. She replied: Swear unto me that you will not reveal [the remedy]. Said he: I swear, to the God of Israel I will not reveal it. She then divulged it to him and on the morrow he referred to it in the course of lecturing. But did he not swear unto her? - He swore: 'To the God of Israel I will not reveal it,' [implying that] I may reveal it to His people Israel. But is this not a profanation of the Name? He mentioned [that proviso] to her originally. Now is it not evident then that a sore on the gum is regarded as an internal sore? - Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Scurvy is different, because though starting in the mouth it extends to the intestines. What is its symptom? - If he places anything between his teeth, blood comes from the gums. What brings it on? - The chill of cold wheat-food and the heat of hot barley-food, also the remnant of fish-hash and flour. What did she apply to it? - Said R. Aha the son of Raba: Leaven-water with olive oil and salt. Mar son of R. Ashi said: Geese-fat smeared with a goose-quill. Said Abaye: I did all this but was not cured, until a certain Arab told me to get seeds of an olive not one third ripe and burn them on a new spade and spread [the ashes] on the gums; which I did and was cured. But how came R. Johanan to act as he did: had not Rabba b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: Any sore for which the Sabbath may be profaned should not be healed by a heathen? - It is different with a distinguished man [such as R. Johanan was; as the heathen would be afraid to commit any foul play]. What about R. Abbahu, who too was a distinguished man, yet Jacob the Min prepared for him a medicine for his leg, and were it not for R. Ammi and R. Asi who licked his leg, he would have cut his leg off? - The one [who attended] R. Johanan was an expert physician. - So too was that of R. Abbahu, an expert physician! - It was different in the case of R. Abbahu, for Minim adopt the attitude of let me die with the Philistines. [translation by A. Mishcon in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Nezikin Vol. VII (`Abodah Zarah-Horayoth), London: Soncino, 1935]

(Reference from Rabbi Gil Student, "The Approach of the Talmudic Sages to Science," at http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_method.html.)

Chullin 57a

2006-04-29T20:15:00.000-04:00

Rabbi Yosei berabi Chanina says that [the amora] Chizkiya erred, out of ignorance, in a statement about biology:

חולין נז. (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

חזקיה אמר אין ריאה לעוף ור' יוחנן אמר יש לו וישנה כעלה של וורד בין אגפים מאי אין ריאה לעוף אילימא דלית ליה כלל והא קא חזינא דאית ליה אלא דלא מיטריף ביה והתני לוי טרפות שמנו חכמים בבהמה כנגדן בעוף יתר עליהן עוף נשבר העצם אע"פ שלא ניקב קרום של מוח אלא אין לו לא לינפל ולא ליחמר מ"ט אמר רב חנה הואיל ורוב צלעותיה מגינות עליה והא מדא"ר יוחנן יש לו וישנה כעלה של וורד בין אגפיים מכלל דחזקיה סבר דלית ליה אלא אמרי במערבא משמיה דר' יוסי ברבי חנינא מדבריו של בריבי ניכר שאינו בקי בתרנגולין: עכ"ל

Hezekiah stated, A bird has no lungs. R. Johanan said, It has [lungs] and they are like rose petals situated immediately beneath the wings. What is meant by, ‘A bird has no lungs’? Does it mean that it has no lungs at all? But we see that it has! And should it mean that any defect therein would not render trefah? Surely Levi has taught: The defects enumerated by the Sages in the case of cattle apply also to birds, with this addition in the case of birds, namely, If the bone [of the skull] was broken even though the membrane of the brain has not been pierced! – We must therefore say that the statement ‘It has no lungs’ means that they are in no wise affected, whether the bird falls down [from the roof] or is scorched [in the fire]. Why is it so? – R. Hannah answered, Because they are protected by most of the ribs. But surely since R. Johanan has said that it has [lungs] and they are like rose petals situated immediately beneath the wings, it follows that Hezekiah was of the opinion that it has no [lungs] at all! – In truth, it has been said in the West in the name of R. Jose, son of R. Hanina, ‘It is evident from the statement of Beribbi [Hezekiah] that he knew nothing of fowls’.

[translation by Eli Cashdan in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Kodashim Vol. III (Hullin I), London: Soncino, 1948]

Chullin 57b

2006-04-29T20:00:00.000-04:00

Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta performed a scientific experiment to prove Rabbi Yehudah wrong. This indicates both that Tannaim assigned weight to empirical evidence and that Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta and Rabbi Yehudah disputed a scientific point.  Later on that page, Tannaim dispute matters of biology, and Rabbi Yosei ben Hameshullam quotes empirical evidence to prove a scientific point.

חולין נז: (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

אמרו עליו על רבי שמעון בן חלפתא שעסקן בדברים היה והיה עושה דבר להוציא מלבו של רבי יהודה שהיה רבי יהודה אומר אם ניטלה הנוצה פסולה ותרנגולת היתה לו לרבי שמעון בן חלפתא שניטלה נוצה שלה והניחה בתנור וטלה עליה במטלית של טרסיים וגידלה כנפיים האחרונים יותר מן הראשונים.
...
אמר רב הונא סימן לטריפה י"ב חדש מיתיבי סימן לטרפה כל שאינה יולדת רשב"ג אומר משבחת והולכת בידוע שהיא כשרה מתנוונה והולכת בידוע שהיא טרפה רבי אומר סימן לטרפה שלשים יום אמרו לו והלא הרבה מתקיימות שתים שלש שנים תנאי היא דתניא ובגלגלת (עד) שיש בה נקב אחד ארוך אפילו נקבים הרבה מצטרפים למלא מקדח א"ר יוסי בן המשולם מעשה בענבול באחד שנפחתה גלגלתו ועשו לו חידוק של קרויה וחיה אמר ר' שמעון בן אלעזר משם ראיה ימות החמה היה וכיון שעברו עליו ימות הצנה מיד מת.  עכ"ל

It was said of R. Simeon b. Halafta that he was an experimenter in all things.  Indeed he once made an experiment to disprove R. Judah's view.  For we have learnt: "R. Judah says, If its down was gone it is invalid."  Now R. Simeon b. Halafta once had a hen whose down was gone entirely.  He put it into the oven, having first wrapped it in the [warm] leather apron used by bronze workers, and it grew feathers even larger than the original ones.
...
R. Huna said, The test for a trefah is twelve months.  An objection was raised.  It was taught: The test for a trefah is that it cannot bring forth young.  R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says, If it improves in health it is certainly fit, if it wastes away it is certainly trefah.  Rabbi says, The test for a trefah is thirty days.  But they said to him, Is it not a fact that many continue to live for two or three years? – Tannaim differ in this, for it was taught: If in the skull thre was one long hole or if there were many small holes in it – in either case the hole or holes are computed to make up the emasure of a hole the size of a [surgical] drill.  R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam said, It happened at 'Ain Ibl that a person had a hole in his skull and they put over it a plaster of a gourd-shell and he recovered.  But R. Simeon said to him, Do you mean to prove your case from that?  It happened in the summer months but when winter set in he died.  [translation by Eli Cashdan in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Kodashim Vol. III (Hullin I), London: Soncino, 1948]

(Reference from Levi, Facing Current Challenges, Chap. 33, fn. 27)

Chullin 59a-b

2006-04-29T19:00:00.000-04:00

Dispute regarding zoology:

חולין נט.-נט: (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

ת"ר אלו הן סימני חיה חיה בכלל בהמה היא לסימנין אמר רבי זירא להתיר חלבה והכי קאמר אלו הן סימני חיה שחלבה מותר כל שיש לה קרנים וטלפים רבי דוסא אומר יש לה קרנים אי אתה צריך לחזור על טלפים יש לה טלפים צריך אתה לחזור על קרנים וקרש אע"פ שאין לו אלא קרן אחת מותר כללא הוא והרי עז דיש לו קרנים וטלפים וחלבו אסור כרוכות בעינן והרי שור דכרוכות וחלבו אסור חרוקות בעינן והרי עז דחרוקות וחלבו אסור מפוצלות בעינן והרי צבי דאין מפוצלות וחלבו מותר חדורות בעינן הלכך היכא דמיפצלא לא דינא ולא דיינא היכא דלא מיפצלא בעינן כרוכות חדורות וחרוקות והוא דמיבלע חירקייהו והיינו ספיקא דעיזא כרכוז. עכ"ל

Our Rabbis taught: The following are the characteristics of wild animals ... But surely the wild animal is included under cattle with regard to the characteristics [of cleanness]! – R. Zera said, [It must be distinguished from cattle] in order that its fat be permitted to be eaten. And it should read thus: The following are the characteristics of wild animals whose fat is permitted: All that have horns and [sharp pointed] hoofs. R. Dosa says, Those that have horns need not be examined as to their hoofs, but those that have [sharp pointed] hoofs must still be examined as to their horns. And the Keresh, though it has but one horn, is permitted. But is this a general rule? Behold the goat has horns and [sharp pointed] hoofs, nevertheless its fat is forbidden! – We mean horns that are rounded. But are not the horns of an ox rounded, yet its fat is forbidden? – We mean horns that are notched. But are not the horns of the goat notched, nevertheless its fat is forbidden? – We mean horns that are forked. But the horns of the deer are not forked, nevertheless its fat is permitted! – We mean horns that are pointed. Therefore, if its horns are forked, there is no question at all about it [i.e., it is certainly a wild animal]. But if they are not forked, we then require them to be rounded and pointed and also notched, and the notches must run one into the other. This indeed is the doubt in connection with the Karkuz goat[: it has all the characteristics of wild animals save that it bears the name 'goat' (Rashi)]. [translation by Eli Cashdan in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Kodashim Vol. III (Hullin I), London: Soncino, 1948]

(Reference from Rabbi Chizkiyah da Silva, Pri Chadash, Yoreh De'a 80:2.)

Chullin 63b

2006-04-29T18:30:00.000-04:00

The Talmud assumes a Torah scholar might not be able to identify particular species of birds:

חולין סג: (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

א"ר יצחק עוף טהור נאכל במסורת נאמן הצייד לומר עוף זה טהור מסר לי רבי א"ר יוחנן והוא שבקי בהן ובשמותיהן בעי ר' זירא רבו חכם או רבו צייד ת"ש דא"ר יוחנן והוא שבקי בהן ובשמותיהן אי אמרת בשלמא רבו צייד שפיר אלא אי אמרת רבו חכם בשלמא שמייהו גמיר להו אלא אינהו מי ידע להו אלא לאו ש"מ רבו צייד ש"מ: עכ"ל

R. Isaac said, For the eating of clean birds we rely upon tradition. A hunter is believed when he says, ‘My master transmitted to me that this bird is clean’. R. Johanan added, Provided he was familiar with birds and their nomenclature. R. Zera enquired, Does ‘master’ mean a master in learning or in hunting? – Come and hear, for R. Johanan added, ‘Provided he was familiar with birds and their nomenclature’. Now if it means a master in hunting it is well, but if it means a master in learning, I grant you that he would have learnt their nomenclature, but would he actually know them [so as to recognize them]? You must therefore say it means a master in hunting; this is proved.

[translation by Eli Cashdan in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Kodashim Vol. III (Hullin I), London: Soncino, 1948]

(Reference from Rabbi Gil Student, “The Approach of the Talmudic Sages to Science,” available at http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_method.html.)

Chullin 77a

2006-04-29T18:00:00.000-04:00

Rav asked a scientific question of doctors:

חולין עז. (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

אמר רב אשי כי הוינן בי רב פפי איבעיא לן נקדר כמין טבעת מהו ופשטנא מהא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב דבר זה שאלתי לחכמים ולרופאים ואמרו מסרטו בעצם ומעלה ארוכה אבל פרזלא מזרף זריף אמר רב פפא והוא דקנה גרמא דידיה: עכ"ל

R. Ashi said, When we were at the school of R. Papi he enquired of us, What is the law if some of the flesh around the fracture was cut away in a circle like a ring? And I suggested an answer from the following statement of Rab Judah in the name of Rab, 'I enquired about this of scholars and doctors and they said, One should make incisions around the edges of the flesh with a bone and it will then heal up, but [not with] an iron instrument [for it] would case [sic] inflammation'. R. Papa said, Provided the bone was firmly attached to it. [translation by Eli Cashdan in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Kodashim Vol. III (Hullin I), London: Soncino, 1948]

(Reference from Levi, Facing Current Challenges, Chap. 33, fn. 24)

Bechorot 21b

2006-04-29T17:30:00.001-04:00

The Gemara takes it for granted that the typical [Talmudic] sage will be unable to derive necessary physiological information about an animal by examining the discharge from its womb; only a shepherd is expert enough to ascertain the required information.

תלמוד בבלי, בכורות כא, ב (פרוייקט השו"ת, אוניברסיטת בר-אילן, 2008); ז"ל

היכי דמי טינוף? אמר רבא: כדאמרי רעותא דצלתא אצר חיותא, ושמואל אמר: בעבועי דדמא. וצריך להראותו לחכם; חכם מנא ידע? אמר רב פפא: רועה חכם. עכ"ל

What is the discharge [from the womb] like?—Rab said: As the shepherds of Zaltha said: The womb closes up. Samuel said: Casting up blood. And he is required to show it to a wise man [Sage] [to ascertain whether there was an embryo and thus to be exempted from the law of the firstling]. How does a wise man know?—Said R. Papa: [What is meant is] a wise shepherd.

[Translation from The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Kodashim Vol. Bekoroth-`Arakin, R. L. Miller and Maurice Simon, trans. London: Soncino, 1948.]

Tamid 31b-32a

2006-04-29T17:00:00.000-04:00

Dispute regarding the dimensions of the world:

תמיד לב. (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

עשרה דברים שאל אלכסנדרוס מוקדון את זקני הנגב אמר להן מן השמים לארץ רחוק או ממזרח למערב אמרו לו ממזרח למערב תדע שהרי חמה במזרח הכל מסתכלין בה חמה במערב הכל מסתכלין בה חמה באמצע רקיע אין הכל מסתכלין בה וחכמים אומרים זה וזה כאחד שוין שנאמר כגבוה שמים על הארץ [וגו'] כרחוק מזרח ממערב ואי חד מינייהו נפיש נכתוב תרווייהו כי ההוא דנפיש ואלא חמה באמצע רקיע מ"ט אין הכל מסתכלין בה משום דקאי להדיא ולא כסי ליה מידי... עכ"ל

Alexander of Macedon put ten questions to the elders of the south country. He asked: Which is further, from heaven to earth or from east to west? They replied: From east to west. The proof is that when the sun is in the east all can look at it, and when it is in the west all can look at it, but when the sun is in the middle of the sky no-one can look at it. The Sages, however, say: The distance in both cases is the same, as it says, For as the heaven is high above the earth [so great is His mercy towards them that fear Him]; as far as the east is from the west, [so far hath He removed our transgressions from us]. Now if one of these distances is greater, the text should not write both but only the one which is the greater. What then is the reason why no-one can look at the sun when it is in the middle of the sky? Because it is absolutely clear and nothing obstructs the view. [translation by Maurice Simon in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Kodashim Vol. VI (Temurah-Kerithoth-Me`ilah-Tamid-Middoth-Kinnim), London: Soncino, 1960]

(Reference from Landa, Torah and Science, p. 70)

Niddah 22b

2006-04-29T16:00:00.000-04:00

Tannaim relied on doctors' judgment in matters of physiology:

נדה כב: (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

א"ר אליעזר בר' צדוק שני מעשים העלה אבא מטבעין ליבנה מעשה באשה שהיתה מפלת כמין קליפות אדומות ובאו ושאלו את אבא ואבא שאל לחכמים וחכמים שאלו לרופאים ואמרו להם אשה זו מכה יש לה בתוך מעיה שממנה מפלת כמין קליפות תטיל למים אם נמוחו טמאה ושוב מעשה באשה שהיתה מפלת כמין שערות אדומות ובאה ושאלה את אבא ואבא שאל לחכמים וחכמים לרופאים ואמרו להם שומא יש לה בתוך מעיה שממנה מפלת כמין שערות אדומות תטיל למים אם נמוחו טמאה. ... עכ"ל

R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok stated, A report of the following two incidents was brought up by my father from Tib`in to Jamnia. It once happened that a woman was aborting objects like pieces of red rind and the people came and asked my father, and my father asked the Sages, and the Sages asked the physicians who explained to them that that woman had an internal sore [the crust] of which she cast out in the shape of pieces of red rind. [It was ruled that] she should put them in water and if they dissolved she should be declared unclean. And yet another incident occured when a woman was aborting objects like red hairs, and she came and asked my father, and my father asked the Sages, and the Sages asked the physicians who explained to them that the woman had a wart in her internal organs and that that was the cause of her aborting objects like red hairs. [translation by Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Tohoroth Vol. I (Niddah), London: Soncino, 1959]

Niddah 30b

2006-04-29T14:00:00.000-04:00

Rabbi Yishmael and Rabanan argue about "the amount of time required for the initial formation of a human embryo from the period of postnatal tumah of the mother" (quotation from Levi, p. 233), and both try to prove their case from empirical observation (how could they argue if they were scientifically omniscient, and why would they bother with empirical proofs if their knowledge were based exclusively on kabbalah or drashah?):

נדה ל.-ל: (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

מתני' המפלת ליום מ' אינה חוששת לולד ליום מ"א תשב לזכר ולנקבה ולנדה רבי ישמעאל אומר יום מ"א תשב לזכר ולנדה יום פ"א תשב לזכר ולנקבה ולנדה שהזכר נגמר למ"א והנקבה לפ"א וחכ"א אחד בריית הזכר ואחד בריית הנקבה זה וזה מ"א:  גמ'
...
רבי ישמעאל אומר יום מ"א תשב לזכר ולנדה כו': תניא רבי ישמעאל אומר טימא וטיהר בזכר וטימא וטיהר בנקבה מה כשטימא וטיהר בזכר יצירתו כיוצא בו אף כשטימא וטיהר בנקבה יצירתה כיוצא בה אמרו לו אין למדין יצירה מטומאה אמרו לו לר' ישמעאל מעשה בקליאופטרא מלכת אלכסנדרוס שנתחייבו שפחותיה הריגה למלכות ובדקן ומצאן זה וזה למ"א אמר להן אני מביא לכם ראייה מן התורה ואתם מביאין לי ראייה מן השוטים מאי ראיה מן התורה אילימא טימא וטיהר בזכר וטימא וטיהר בנקבה כו' הא קאמרי ליה אין דנין יצירה מטומאה אמר קרא תלד הוסיף לה הכתוב לידה אחרת בנקבה ומאי ראיה מן השוטים אימר נקבה קדים ואיעבור ארבעין יומין קמי זכר ורבנן סמא דנפצא אשקינהו ור' ישמעאל איכא גופא דלא מקבל סמא אמר להם ר' ישמעאל מעשה בקלפטרא מלכת יוונית שנתחייבו שפחותיה הריגה למלכות ובדקן ומצאן זכר לארבעים ואחד ונקבה לפ"א אמרו לו אין מביאין ראיה מן השוטים מאי טעמא הך דנקבה אייתרה ארבעין יומין והדר איעבר ורבי ישמעאל לשומר מסרינהו ורבנן אין אפוטרופוס לעריות אימא שומר גופיה בא עליה ודילמא אי קרעוהו להך דנקבה בארבעין וחד הוה משתכחא כזכר אמר אביי בסימניהון שוין:  עכ"ל

MISHNAH.  If a woman miscarried on the fortieth day, she need not take into consideration the possibility of a valid childbirth; but if on the forty-first day, she must continue [her periods of uncleanness and cleanness as] for both a male and a female and as for a menstruant.  R. Ishmael ruled: [If she miscarried on] the forty-first day she continues [her periods of uncleanness and cleanness as] for a male and as for a menstruant, but if on the eighty-first day she must continue [these periods as] for a male and a female and a menstruant; because a male is fully fashioned on the forty-first day and a female on the eighty-first day.  The sages, however, maintain that both the fashioning of the male and the fashioning of the female take the same course, each lasting forty-one days.
...
"R. Ishmael ruled: [If she miscarried on] the forty-first day she continues [her periods of uncleanness and cleanness as] for a male and as for a menstruant etc."  It was taught: R. Ishmael stated, Scripture prescribed uncleanness and cleanness in respect of a male and it also prescribed uncleanness and cleanness in respect of a female, as in the case of the former his fashioning period corresponds to his unclean and clean periods so also in the case of the latter her fashioning period corresponds to to her unclean and clean periods.  They replied: The duration of the fashioning period cannot be derived from that of uncleanness.  Furthermore, they said to R. Ishmael, A story is told of Cleopatra the queen of Alexandria that when her handmaids were sentenced to death by royal decree they were subjected to a test and it was found that both [a male and a female embryo] were fully fashioned on the forty-first day.  He replied: I bring you a proof from the Torah and you bring proof from some fools!  But what was his 'proof from the Torah'?  If it was the argument, 'Scripture prescribed uncleanness and cleanness in respect of a male and it also prescribed uncleanness and cleanness in respect of a female etc.', have they not already replied, 'The duration of the fashioning period cannot be derived from that of uncleanness'? – The Scriptural text says, She bear, Scripture thus doubles the ante-natal period in the case of a female.  But why [should the test spoken of by the Rabbis be described as] 'proof from some fools'? – It might be suggested that the conception of the female preceded that of the male by forty days.  And the Rabbis? – They were made to drink a scattering drug  [sic] And R. Ishmael? – Some constitution is insusceptible to a drug.  Then said R. Ishmael to them: A story is told of Cleopatra the Grecian queen that when her handmaids were sentenced to death under a government order they were subjected to a test and it was found that a male embryo was fully fashioned on the forty-first day and a female embryo on the eighty-first day.  They replied: No one adduces proof from fools.  What is the reason? – It is possible that the handmaid with the female delayed [intercourse] for forty days and that it was only then that conception occurred.  And R. Ishmael? – They were placed in the charge of a warden.  And the Rabbis? – There is no guardian against unchastity; and the warden himself might have intercourse with them.  But is it not possible that if a surgical operation had been performed on the forty-first day the female embryo also might have been found in a fully fashioned condition like the male? – Abaye replied: They were equal as far as these distinguishing marks were concerned.  [translation by Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Tohoroth Vol. I (Niddah), London: Soncino, 1959]

(Reference from Levi, Facing Current Challenges, Chap. 33, fn. 39)

Niddah 31b, Sotah 27a

2006-04-29T13:00:00.000-04:00

The Gemara, on Niddah 31b, records a dispute about the part of the menstrual cycle most conducive to impregnation:

נדה לא: (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

ואמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי אמי אין אשה מתעברת אלא סמוך לוסתה שנאמר הן בעון חוללתי ורבי יוחנן אמר סמוך לטבילה שנאמר ובחטא יחמתני אמי.  עכ"ל

R. Isaac citing R. Ammi further stated: A woman conceives only immediately before her menstrual period, for it is said, Behold I was brought forth in iniquity; but R. Johanan stated: A woman conceives only immediately after her ritual immersion, for it is said, And in cleansing did my mother conceive me.  [translation by Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Tohoroth Vol. I (Niddah), London: Soncino, 1959]

The same dispute is quoted at Sotah 27a:

סוטה כז. (ש"ס ווילנא); ז"ל

בעי רב עמרם היתה פרוצה ביותר מהו אליבא דמ"ד אין אשה מתעברת אלא סמוך לווסתה לא תיבעי לך דלא ידע בה ולא מנטר לה כי תיבעי לך אליבא דמ"ד אין אשה מתעברת אלא סמוך לטבילתה מאי כיון דידע בה נטורי מנטר לה או דלמא כיון דפרוצה ביותר לא תיקו:  עכ"ל

R. Amram asked: How is it if she was excessively dissolute?  According to him who maintains that a woman only conceives imemdiately before her period the question does not arise, because [the husband] may not know [when this is] and does not watch her; but the question does arise according to him who maintains that a woman only conceives immediately after the time of her purification.  How is it then?  Does he watch her since he knows when this occurs; or perhaps this is of no account since she is excessively dissolute?  The question remains unanswered.  [translation by The Rev. Dr. A. Cohen in The Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed., Seder Nashim Vol. VI (Nazir-Sotah), London: Soncino, 1936]

(Reference from Landa: Torah and Science, p. 253)

II-B

2006-04-29T12:00:00.002-04:00

Other Sources

Midrash Hagadol, Bereishit 1:17

מדרש הגדול, בראשית א, יז

Midrash Hillel

מדרש הלל

Midrash Rabbah, Genesis 6:8; Midrash Zuta, Kohelet 1

בראשית רבה ו, ח; מדרש זוטא, קהלת א

Sifra, Leviticus 23:2

ספרא, ויקרא כג, ב

Yerushalmi Terumot 3:1

ירושלמי תרומות ג, א

Midrash Hagadol, Bereishit 1:17

2006-04-29T11:00:00.000-04:00

מדרש הגדול, בראשית א, יז (ירושלים: מוסד הרב קוק, תש"ז); ז"ל

תנו רבנן כיצד מזלות קבועין ברקיע, ר' שמעון ור' אלעזר אומרין הרקיע עשוי כעטרה ומזלות מהלכין וגלגל עומד. ר' שמעון בן לוי אומר כהדין אנטיליא. ורבנן אמרי כהדין אדארגון. חכמי גוים אומרין הרקיע עשוי כגלגל ומזלות קבועין והגלגל מהלך, עגלה בצפון ואינה זזה ממקומה. ונצחו חכמי אומות העולם לחכמי ישראל. עכ"ל

The rabbis taught: How are the stars fixed in the sky? Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Elazar say that the sky is like a crown; the stars move [on it], while it itself is stationary. Rabbi Shimon ben Levi says, it is like a water-bucket. The rabbis say, it is like an adargon (?). The gentile sages say, the sky is shaped like a sphere; the stars are stationary and the sphere moves: Ursa Major is in the north, and never moves from its place [because the sphere to which it is affixed rotates about its location]. And the gentile sages defeated the sages of Israel [Chazal].

[Translation by DES.]

(Reference from R. Menachem Mendel Kasher, Kav Hata’arich Hayisraeli 2:8, p. 23.)

Midrash Hillel

2006-04-29T10:30:00.000-04:00

P. 89: The midrash records a dispute between various tannaim (and some scientists) about the sun’s path at night:

מדרש הלל, הנקרא ספר המעשים (מודפס בספר בית המדרש, חדר חמישי, מהדורה שלישית (ירושלים: ספרי ואהרמן, תשכ"ז), עמוד 89); ז"ל

ר' יודא אומר תיק עשה הקב"ה לחמה שנאמר לשמש שם אהל בהם ושוקעת במערב וחוזרת לתיק ועולה מן החלונות למזרח, וחכמים אומרים מחילה עשה לה הקב"ה בארץ ושוקעת במערב וחוזרת למעלה ועולה מן המחילה למזרח. אשטלורוגין אומרים כי הרקיע חוזר בגלגל והמזלות חוזרין בו, אמרו להם חכמים אם בגלגל חוזר צריכה העגלה להיות פעם אחת בדרום ופעם אחת בצפון ועקרב פעם בצפון ופעם בדרום אלא לעולם עקרב בדרום ועגלה בצפון, יוסה אומר החמה הולכת בדרום עד יסוד שנא' הולך אל דרום וסובב אל צפון זה מפני מזרח ומערב. עכ"ל

Rabbi Yehuda says, God created a case for the sun, as it says, “He pitched a tent for the sun in [the heavens].” It sets in the west, returns to its case, and rises from the windows to the east. The sages say, God created a tunnel in the earth for the sun; it sets in the west, returns above, and rises from the tunnel to the east. The astronomers say that the sky revolves in a sphere, and the constellations revolve in it. The sages said to them, If it revolves in a sphere, Ursa Major should sometimes be in the south, and sometimes in the north, and Scorpio should be sometimes in the north, and sometimes in the south; but Scorpio is always in the south, and Ursa Major is always in the north. Yose says, The sun travels in the south until the foundation, as it says, “It travels to the south, turns to the north:” [?].

[Translation by DES.]

(Reference from R. Menachem Mendel Kasher, Kav Hata’arich Hayisraeli 2:8*, pp. 28-29.)

Midrash Rabbah, Genesis 6:8; Midrash Zuta, Kohelet 1

2006-04-29T10:00:00.003-04:00

Midrash Rabbah, Genesis 6:8: Dispute between R. Yehudah bar Ilai and rabbanan about astronomy. Also quotes R. Shimon ben Yochai as expressing Chazal's ignorance about a scientific question. An almost identical passage appears in Midrash Zuta, Kohelet, Parasha 1.

מדרש רבה בראשית ו, ח (ניו יורק: ז. ברמן); ז"ל

ויתן אותם אל[ק]ים ברקיע השמים. כיצד גלגל חמה ולבנה שוקעים ברקיע. ר' יהודה בר אילעאי ורבנן. רבנן אמרין מאחורי הכיפה ולמטה. ור' יהודה בר אלעאי אמר מאחורי הכיפה ולמעלה. א"ר יוחנן נראין דברי ר"י בר אלעאי דהוא אמר מאחורי הכיפה ולמעלה בימות החמה. שכל העולם כולו רותח. ומעיינות צוננין. ומלהון דרבנן דאמרין מאחורי הכיפה ולמטה בימות הגשמים. שכל העולם כולו צונן ומעיינות פושרין. אמר רבי שמעון בן יוחאי אין אנו יודעין אם פורחין הן באויר. ואם שפין ברקיע ואם מהלכין הן כדרכן. הדבר קשה מאד. ואי אפשר לבריות לעמוד עליו: עכ"ל

How do the orbs of the sun and the moon set? R. Judah b. R. La'i and the Rabbis disagree. R. Judah said: Behind the vault and above it. The Rabbis maintained: Behind the vault and below it. R. Jonathan said: The view of R. Judah b. R. La'i that it is behind the vault and above it is preferable in respect of summer, when the whole world is hot while the wells are cold; and the opinion of the Rabbis that it is behind the vault and below appears correct in respect of winter, when the whole world is cold and the wells are tepid. R. Simeon b. Yohai said: We do not know whether they fly through the air, glide in the heaven, or travel in their usual manner. It is an exceedingly difficult matter, and no person can fathom it. [translation by Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman in Midrash Rabbah, Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, eds., Vol. I (Genesis I), London: Soncino, 1951]

(Reference to Midrash Zuta from R. Menachem Mendel Kasher, Kav Hata’arich Hayisraeli 2:8*, p. 29.)

Sifra, Leviticus 23:2

2006-04-29T08:00:00.000-04:00

The bet din (composed exclusively of smuchim) who are mekadesh the month can, theoretically, err (in their calculations):

ספרא אמור קמא (ויקרא כג, ב) (נמצא בתורה עם פירוש המלבי"ם, ויקרא ב', בני-ברק: מכון שע"י מוסדות אלכסנדר, תש"ס); ז"ל

לא היתה השנה צריכה לעבר ועברוה אנוסים או שוגגים או מוטעים מנין שהיא מעוברת, ת"ל אשר תקראו אתם במועדם, אתם אפי' שוגגים אתם אפי' מוטעים אתם אפי' אנוסים אם קראתם אתם מועדי ואם לאו אינם מועדי: עכ"ל

How do we know that the intercalation [of the leap month] is valid even if the year did not need to be lengthened (i.e., made into a leap year), and they lengthened it [anyway], inadvertently, or mistakenly, or because they were forced? [It is by reading the word "otam" in the verse] "that you shall announce in their proper times" [as "atem," resulting in an additional emphasis on "you"; hence,] "you," even mistakenly, "you," even if forced – if you proclaim them, they are my times, and if not, they are not my times. [translation by HWMNBN]

Yerushalmi Terumot 3:1

2006-04-29T06:00:00.000-04:00

The Gemara (Rabbi Binyamin bar Levi) objects to the notion that the rabbis would be arguing about a scientific question that could be resolved by empirical investigation. The implication is that their knowledge is based on scientific investigation, not kabbalah misinai (see the context in which Ramban quotes this Gemara in his commentary to (Bavli) Chullin 42a):

ירושלמי תרומות ג, א (ירושלים: ז. ברמן, תשנ"ה); ז"ל

תני בשם ר' יוסי אין לך מר בקישות אלא תוכו כיצד הוא עושה מוסיף על החיצון שלה ותורם ר' בנימין בר לוי בעי דבר שאפשר לך לעמוד עליו חכמים חלוקין עליו אלא על עיקר בדיקתה חלוקין. עכ"ל

It was taught in the name of Rabbi Yose, "The only bitter part of the cucumber is its interior. What should [the person separating tithes] do? [He should] add to its exterior and tithe." Rabbi Binyamin bar Levi asked, "Would sages be arguing about a matter that can be ascertained? Rather, they are arguing about the investigation itself." [Translation by HWMNBN. Note that I have left this translation quite literal, keeping explanatory insertions to a minimum, since interpretations of the passage vary considerably.]

2006-04-29T04:00:00.000-04:00

III. Post-Talmudic Sources

III-A. NOT ALL SCIENTIFIC ASSERTIONS IN THE TALMUD ARE NECESSARILY CORRECT EVEN IF UNCONTESTED IN THE TALMUD

2006-04-29T02:00:00.000-04:00

III-A-1

2006-04-29T00:00:00.002-04:00

Not All Scientific Assertions in the Talmud Are Necessarily Correct Even If Uncontested in the Talmud:

Explicit

R. Sherira Gaon (906-1006; Babylonia).

ר' שרירא גאון

אוצר הגאונים, גיטין שעו, סח (III-A-1)

מובא בתשובת מהר"ם אלשקר צו (III-B-1)

Rambam (R. Moshe ben Maimon; 1135-1204; Spain-Morocco-Egypt).

רמב"ם - ר' משה בן מיימון

מורה נבוכים ג, יד (III-A-1)

אגרת אל חכמי מונטפשליר (III-A-1)

משנה תורה, שחיטה י, יב-יג (III-A-3)

מורה נבוכים ב, ח (III-B-1)

משנה תורה, קידוש החודש ט, א (III-B-2)

משנה תורה, קידוש החודש יז, כד (III-B-3)

פירוש המשניות, הקדמה (Appendix)

R. Avraham ben Harambam (1186-1237; Egypt).

רבי אברהם בן הרמב"ם

מאמר על אודות דרשות חז"ל (III-A-1)

מלחמות השם (III-B-2)

Ralbag (R. Levi ben Gershom; 1288-1344; Provence).

רלב"ג - ר' לוי בן גרשום

פירושי התורה, ביאור דברי הספור, בראשית טו, ד (III-A-1)

פירוש לאיוב, ביאור דברי המענה, לח, יח-כ (III-A-1)

R. Shem Tov ben Yosef ben Shem Tov (c. 1461-1489; Spain).

ר' שם טוב בן יוסף בן שם טוב

שם טוב ב למורה נבוכים ב, ח (III-A-1)

R. Azariah de' Rossi (Min Ha'adumim; c. 1511-1577; Italy).

ר' עזריה די רוסי - מן האדומים

מאור עינים, אמרי בינה, א, יא (III-A-1)

מאור עינים, אמרי בינה, א, יד (III-A-1)

מאור עינים, אמרי בינה, ב, כז (III-A-1)

מאור עינים, אמרי בינה, ב, כח (III-A-1)

מאור עינים, אמרי בינה, א, יא (III-A-2)

מאור עינים, אמרי בינה, ג, מב (III-A-3)

מאור עינים, אמרי בינה, א, יא (III-B-1)

מאור עינים, אמרי בינה, א, ב (III-C-1)

Yashar of Candia (R. Yosef Shlomo Delmedigo; 1591-1655; Mediterranean-Northern Europe).

יש"ר מקנדיה - ר' יוסף שלמה דלמדיגו

מעין חתום, סז (III-A-1)

אלים, דפים 86-89 (III-B-1)

אלים, גבורות ה', מדרגה ח (III-B-2)

R. Yitzchak Lampronti (1679-1756; Italy), Pachad Yitzchak.

ר' יצחק למפרונטי – פחד יצחק

פחד יצחק, ערך צידה (III-A-1)

R. David Sinzheim (1745-1812; France; author of Yad David).

ר' דוד זינצהיים – יד דוד

קונטרס שבע חקירות, החלק האחרון (III-A-1)

Maharam Schick (R. Moshe Schick; 1805-1879; Hungary).

מהר"ם שיק - ר' משה שיק

שו"ת מהר"ם שיק, אבן העזר ז (III-A-1)

R. Shamshon Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888; Germany).

ר' שמשון רפאל הירש

אגרת לר' פנחס ווכסלר, נדפס בהמעין, 1976 (III-A-1)

R. Aharon Marcus (1843-1916; Germany).

ר' אהרן מרקוס
קסת הסופר, בראשית כא, א (III-A-1)

R. Moshe Shmuel Glasner (1856-1924; Austria-Hungary—Israel).

ר' משה שמואל גלאזנער

דור רביעי, חולין, הקדמה (III-A-1)

R. Yitzchak Herzog (1888-1959; UK-Ireland-Israel).

ר' יצחק הרצוג

Judaism: Law & Ethics, p. 152 (III-A-1)

Judaism: Law & Ethics, p. 166 (III-A-1)

מכתב, מובא באסיא, חוברת לה (III-A-1)

R. Eliyahu Dessler (1891-1954; Poland-UK-Israel; Michtav Mei'eliyahu).

ר' אליהו דסלר – מכתב מאליהו

מכתב מאליהו, כרך ד, דף 355, הערה 4 (III-A-1)

R. Menachem Mendel Kasher (1895-1983; Poland-Israel).

ר' מנחם מנדל כשר

קו התאריך הישראלי, ב, יא (III-A-1)

קו התאריך הישראלי, ב, יא (III-A-2)

קו התאריך הישראלי, ב, יב (III-A-2)

קו התאריך הישראלי, ב, ו (III-B-1)

קו התאריך הישראלי, ב, ח (III-B-1)

R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (1910-1995; Israel).

ר' שלמה זלמן אויערבאך

מכתב, מובא בספר שמירת הגוף והנפש, מבוא, פרק ו (III-A-1)

R. Yosef Kafach (1917-2000; Yemen-Israel).

ר' יוסף קאפח

הערות למשנה תורה, יסודי התורה ג, הערה א (III-A-1)

הערות למשנה תורה, שבת יא, הערה ד (III-A-2)

הערות למורה נבוכים ב, ח, הערה 8 (III-B-1)

R. Aryeh Carmell (1917-2006; UK-Israel; talmid muvhak of R. Eliyahu Dessler and co-editor of Michtav Mei'eliyahu).

ר' אריה כרמל - עורך מכתב מאליהו

"Freedom to Interpret," p. 13 (III-A-1)

R. Gedalya Nadel (1923-2004; Israel; talmid of the Chazon Ish).

ר' גדליה נדל

בתורתו של ר' גדליה, הקדמה לבראשית, אות ד (III-A-1)

R. Haim David Halevy (1924-1998; Israel).

ר' חיים דוד הלוי

שו"ת עשה לך רב, חלק חמישי, שאלה מט (III-A-1)

R. Eliezer Ben-Porat (current; Israel-UK-USA-Canada).

ר' אליעזר בן-פורת

R. Ephraim Greenblatt (current; Israel-USA; talmid muvhak of R. Moshe Feinstein and talmid of R. Menachem Shach and of the Chazon Ish; author of Rivevot Ephraim).

ר' אפרים גרינבלאט - רבבות אפרים

?R. Nathan Kamenetsky (current; USA-Israel)?

R. Shmuel Kamenetsky (current; USA).

ר' שמואל קמנצקי

R. Moshe Levi (current; Israel).

ר' משה לוי

מנוחת אהבה, פרק יח, מי מנוחות 13 (III-A-1)

מנוחת אהבה (מהדורה שלישית) מילואים לפרק יח, ו (III-A-1)

R. Yehudah (Leo) Levi (current; USA-Israel; musmach of R. Joseph Breuer and R. Yitzchok Hutner).

ר' יהודה לוי

Facing Current Challenges, Chap. 33 (III-A-1)

The Science in Torah (III-A-1)

Torah and Science, 2nd ed. section 9.4 (III-A-1)

R. Hershel Schachter (current; USA).

ר' הרשל (צבי) שכטר

Haskomah to 2 Giants Speak

R. Jeremy Wieder (current; USA).

ר' ירמיה ווידר

Personal email

Two senior Rashei Yeshiva at Yeshiva University (R.I.E.T.S.), who requested not to be named.

Rav Sherira Gaon

2006-04-28T22:00:00.000-04:00

(906-1006; Babylonia):

i. Otzar Hageonim, Gittin 68, #376 :

אוצר הגאונים, תשובות שעו – גיטין סח; ז"ל

ודשאלתון למיכתב לכון הני אסואתא דמי שאחזו קורדיקוס מן רב ושמואל עד פסאקא דמתניתין, האיך קיבלוהו ופירושו בלשון הגדים. צריכין אנן למימר לכון דרבנן לאו אסותא אינון ומילין בעלמא דחזונין בזמניהון וכחד חד קצירא אמרונין ולאו דברי מצוה אינון הילכך לא תסמכון על אלין אסותא וליכא דעביד מינהון מידעם אלא בתר דמבדיק וידע בודאי מחמת רופאים בקיאים דההיא מילתא לא מעיקא לה וליכא דליתי נפשיה לידי סבנה. והכין אגמרו יתנא ואמרו לנא אבות וסבי דילנא דלא למעבד מן אילין אסותא אלא מאי דאיתיה כגון קיבלא דקים ליה לההוא דעביד ליה דלית ביה עקתא. וכולהו מילי לא צריכינא לפרושנון וטעמי ליכא לגלואינון אלא מילי דחזיננא דעמיקן עליכון התם. עכ"ל

We must inform you that our Sages were not physicians. They may mention medical matters which they noticed here and there in their time, but these are not meant to be a mitzvah. Therefore you should not rely on these cures and you should not practice them at all unless each item has been carefully investigated by medical experts who are certain that this procedure will do no harm and will cause no danger [to the patient]. This is what our ancestors have taught us, that none of these cures should be practiced, unless it is a known remedy and the one who uses it knows that it can cause no harm. [translation in "Freedom to Interpret", by Rabbi Aryeh Carmell]

ii. As quoted in the responsum of Maharam Alashkar, cited in III-B-1.

Rambam

2006-04-28T20:00:00.000-04:00

(Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon; 1135-1204; Spain-Morocco-Egypt):

i. The Guide for the Perplexed 3:14:

רמב"ם, מורה נבוכים ג, יד (תרגום על ידי ר' יוסף קאפח; ירושלים: מוסד הרב קוק, תשל"ב); ז"ל

ואל תבקשני לתאם כל מה שאמרו מעניני התכונה עם המצב כפי שהוא, לפי שהמדעים באותו הזמן היו חסרים, ולא דברו בכך משום שיש להם מסורת באותם הדברים מן הנביאים, אלא מצד שהם ידעני אותם הדורות באותם המקצועות, או שמעום מידעני אותם הדורות, ולא בגלל זה נאמר על דברים שמצאנו להם שהם מתאימים עם האמת שהם בלתי נכונים או שתאמו במקרה, אלא כל מה שאפשר לבאר דברי האדם כדי שיהא תואם את המציאות שהוכחה מציאותה הוא יותר עדיף ונכון לבעל הטבעים הנעלים ואיש הצדק. עכ"ל

You must, however, not expect that everything our Sages say respecting astronomical matters should agree with observation, for mathematics were not fully developed in those days; and their statements were not based on the authority of the Prophets, but on the knowledge which they either themselves possessed or derived from contemporary men of science. [translation of M. Friedländer, Second Ed., New York: Dover, 1956, p. 278]

ii. Letter to the sages of Montpellier:

רמב"ם, אגרת אל חכמי מונטפשליר על גזירת הכוכבים (נמצא ב"אגרות הרמב"ם", מאת ר' יצחק שילת (הדפסה שלישית; ירושלים: הוצאת שילת – מעלה אדומים, תשנ"ה, כרך ב')); ז"ל

ודאתינן עלה מעקרא היא, שכל דברי החוזין בכוכבים שקר הן אצל כל בעלי מדע. ואני יודע שאפשר שתחפשו ותמצאו דברי יחידים מן החכמים בתלמוד ובמדרשות, שדבריהם מראין שבשעת תולדתו של אדם יגרמו לו הכוכבים כך וכך. אל יקשה זה בעיניכם, שאין הדרך שיניח אדם הלכה למעשה ויהדר אפירכי ואשנויי, וכן אין ראוי לאדם להניח דברים של דעת, ושכבר נתאמתו בראיות, וינער כפיו מהן, ויתלה בדברי יחיד מן החכמים, שאפשר שנתעלם ממנו דבר, או שיש באותן הדברים רמז, או אמרן לפי שעה ומעשה שהיו לפניו. הלא תדעו שהרי כמה פסוקים מן התורה הקדושה אינן כפשטן, ולפי שנודע בראיות של דעת שאי אפשר שיהיה הדבר כפשוטו – תרגמו המתרגם תרגום שהדעת סובלת. ולעולם אל ישליך אדם דעתו אחריו, שהעינים לפנים הן ולא לאחור. וכבר הגדתי לכם את כל לבי בדבר זה. עכ"ל

All the words of the stargazers are lies in the opinion of all who are knowledgeable in science. I know that if you will search you may find isolated statements from the Sages of the Talmud and the Midrashim, which show that at the time of one's birth, the stars will cause him some specific circumstance. This should not be a problem; just as it is not proper to follow various obscure opinions when it comes to a matter of halakhah, so too it is not right to discard things which are reasonable and have been proven to be true, to reject them and base oneself on the words of an individual Sage who may have been unaware of the facts, or whose words may be an allusion [and not to be taken literally], or may only refer to a specific time or incident which happened to him. Certainly you know that many verses of the holy Torah are not to be taken literally; because it is known on the basis of common sense that they cannot be meant literally; [Onkelos] translated them in a logically acceptable manner. One should never reject one's common sense. [translation in Levi, The Science in Torah, p. 133]

iii. Mishneh Torah Hilchot Shechitah 10:12-13 (belongs to III-A-3):

רמב"ם, משנה תורה, הלכות שחיטה י, יב-יג (ירושלים: דפוס אופסט "פאר", תשל"ג); ז"ל

יב ואין להוסיף על טריפות אלו כלל. שכל שאירע לבהמה או לחיה או לעוף חוץ מאלו שמנו חכמי דורות הראשונים והסכימו עליהן בבתי דיני ישראל אפשר שתחיה. ואפילו נודע לנו מדרך הרפואה שאין סופה לחיות: יג וכן אלו שמנו ואמרו שהן טריפה אף על פי שיראה בדרכי הרפואה שבידינו שמקצתן אינן ממיתין ואפשר שתחיה מהן אין לך אלא מה שמנו חכמים שנאמר על פי התורה אשר יורוך: עכ"ל

12. One may not under any circumstances add to this list of causes of terefah, for in the case of any other defect in an animal, beast, or bird, beyond those which the Sages of former generations have enumerated, and to which the contemporary Israelite courts of law have given their assent, it is possible for the animal to go on living, even if our own medical knowledge assures us that it cannot eventually survive.

13. Conversely, as regards the defects which the Sages have enumerated, concerning which they have said that they render the animal terefah, even if it should appear from our present knowledge of medicine that some of them are not fatal and that the animal can survive them, one must go only by what the Sages have enumerated, as it is said, according to the law which THEY shall teach thee (Deut. 17:11).

[translation from Louis I. Rabinowitz and Philip Grossman, The Code of Maimonides, Book V: The Book of Holiness (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1965), p. 307]

(Reference from Voldie.)

iv. The Guide for the Perplexed 2:8 (belongs to III-B-1):

רמב"ם, מורה נבוכים ב, ח (תרגום על ידי ר' יוסף קאפח; ירושלים: מוסד הרב קוק, תשל"ב); ז"ל

מן ההשקפות הקדומות הנפוצות אצל הפילוסופים והמוני בני אדם, כי לתנועת הגלגלים קולות נוראים מאד ועצומים, והיתה ראיתם על כך במה שאמרו כי הגופים הקטנים אשר אצלינו אם נעו תנועה מהירה ישמע להם שאון עצום והד מחריד, כל שכן גופי השמש והירח והכוכבים כפי גדלם ומהירותם. וכל קבוצת פיתאגורס סבורים שיש להם קולות ערבים קצובים על אף גדלם כקצב לחני המוסיקי, והם נותנים סבות למה שאין אנו שומעים אותן הקולות הנוראים העצומים. והשקפה זו ידועה גם באומתנו, הנך רואה חכמים מתארים עוצם קול השמש בעת מרוצתה בכל יום בגלגל, וכך מתחייב בכל. אבל ארסטו דוחה את זה ומבאר שאין להן קול, אתה תמצא את זה בספרו על השמים, ומשם תבין את זה, ואל יהא מוזר בעיניך שהשקפת ארסטו חולקת על השקפת חכמים ז"ל בזה, כי השקפה זו כלומר אם יש להן קולות נספחת לדעה גלגל קבוע ומזלות חוזרים וכבר ידעת שהכריעו השקפת חכמי אומות העולם על השקפתם בענינים הללו של התכונה, והוא אמרם בפירוש "ונצחו חכמי אומות העולם". וזה נכון, כי הדברים העיוניים לא דבר בהם כל מי שדבר אלא כפי שהביאו אליו העיון, ולפיכך צריך לסבור מה שנתקיימה ההוכחה עליו. עכ"ל

It is one of the ancient beliefs, both among the philosophers and other people, that the motions of the spheres produced mighty and fearful sounds. ... This belief is also widespread in our nation. Thus our Sages describe the greatness of the sound produced by the sun in the daily circuit in its orbit. ... Aristotle, however, rejects this, and holds that they produce no sounds. ... You must not find it strange that Aristotle differs here from the opinion of our Sages. The theory of the music of the spheres is connected with the theory of the motion of the stars in a fixed sphere, and our Sages have, in this astronomical question, abandoned their own theory in favour of the theory of others. Thus, it is distinctly stated, "The wise men of other nations have defeated the wise men of Israel." It is quite right that our Sages have abandoned their own theory; for speculative matters every one treats according to the results of his own study, and every one accepts that which appears to him established by proof. [translation of M. Friedländer, Second Ed., New York: Dover, 1956, p. 163]

v. Mishneh Torah Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 9:1 (belongs to III-B-2):

רמב"ם, משנה תורה, הלכות קדוש החדש ט, א (ירושלים: מהדורת שבתי פרנקל, תשס"ה); ז"ל

שנת החמה יש מחכמי ישראל שאומרים שהיא שלש מאות חמשה וששים יום ורביע יום שהוא שש שעות. ויש מהן שאומרים שהוא פחות מרביע היום. וכן חכמי יון ופרס יש ביניהן מחלוקת בדבר זה: עכ"ל

As to the solar year, there are certain Jewish Sages who have held that it consists of 365 days and one quarter of a day, which is six hours, while some have held that the fraction is less than a quarter of a day. And the same disagreement may be found also among the Greek and Persian scholars. [translation from Solomon Gandz, The Code of Maimonides, Book III, Treatise 8: Sanctification of the New Moon (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1956)]

According to Landa: Torah and Science, p. 156-158, the latter of the two opinions quoted by Rambam does not actually appear in the Talmud, in which case this source actually belongs to III-A-2.

vi. Mishneh Torah Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 17:24 (belongs to III-B-3):

רמב"ם, משנה תורה, הלכות קדוש החדש יז, כד (ירושלים: מהדורת שבתי פרנקל, תשס"ה); ז"ל

וטעם כל אלו החשבונות ומפני מה מוסיפים מנין זה ומפני מה גורעין. והיאך נודע כל דבר ודבר מאלו הדברים. והראיה על כל דבר ודבר. היא חכמת התקופות והגימטריות שחברו בה חכמי יון ספרים הרבה והם הנמצאים עכשיו ביד החכמים. אבל הספרים שחברו חכמי ישראל שהיו בימי הנביאים מבני יששכר לא הגיעו אלינו. ומאחר שכל אלו הדברים בראיות ברורות הם שאין בהם דופי ואי אפשר לאדם להרהר אחריהם, אין חוששין למחבר בין שחברו אותם נביאים בין שחברו אותם גוים. שכל דבר שנתגלה טעמו ונודעה אמתתו בראיות שאין בהם דופי אין סומכין על זה האיש שאמרו או שלמדו אלא על הראייה שנתגלתה והטעם שנודע: עכ"ל

As regards the logic for all these calculations – why we have to add a particular figure or deduct it, how all these rules originated, and how they were discovered and proved – all this is part of the science of astronomy and mathematics, about which many books have been composed by Greek sages – books that are still available to the scholars of our time. But the books which had been composed by the Sages of Israel, of the tribe of Issachar, who lived in the time of the Prophets, have not come down to us. But since all these rules have been established by sound and clear proofs, free from any flaw and irrefutable, we need not be concerned about the identity of their authors, whether they were Hebrew Prophets or gentile sages. For when we have to do with rules and propositions which have been demonstrated by good reasons and have been verified to be true by sound and flawless proofs, we rely [not] upon the author who has discovered them or has transmitted them [but on] his demonstrated proofs and verified reasoning. [Translation from Solomon Gandz, The Code of Maimonides, Book III, Treatise 8: Sanctification of the New Moon (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1956). Note that the translation has been slightly modified to correspond to the Hebrew Frankel edition's revised text: words within square brackets are not in the original translation, and the bracketed words "but on" replace the original "only because of".]

(Reference from Levi, Facing Current Challenges, p. 232.)

vii. Introduction to Mishna Commentary (belongs to Appendix). Rambam explains herein that a prophet has no greater knowledge of Torah law than any other Torah scholar.

רמב"ם, פירוש המשניות (תרגום ר' יוסף קאפח), הקדמה (משנה עם פירוש הרמב"ם; ירושלים: מוסד הרב קוק, תשכ"ג); ז"ל

ודע, שהנבואה לא תועיל בעיון בפירושי התורה ולמידת הדינים בי"ג מדות, אלא מה שיעשה יהושע ופינחס בעניני העיון והדין הוא מה שיעשה רבינא ורב אשי. אבל לשאלת מה הוא יתרון הנביא ופעולתו במצות הרי הוא חי נפשי מן היסודות הגדולים והעצומים שעליהם משען הדת ויסודו....

והנני מביא לך משל על פי הכלל הזה שתדון בו בכל המצות. נביא שכבר התאמתה נבואתו אצלינו כמו שביארנו, יאמר לנו ביום השבת שנקום כולנו נשים ואנשים ונבעיר אש ונעשה בה כלי זין ונחגרם ונלחם באנשי מקום פלוני היום שהוא שבת ונבוז ממונם ונכבוש נשותיהם, חייבים אנחנו המצווים בתורת משה לקום מיד, בלי להתמהמה במה שצונו, ונעשה כל אשר יצוה בזריזות וחריצות בלי פקפוק ובלי עכוב, ונאמין בכל מה שנעשה באותו היום שהוא שבת מהבערת האש ועשיית המלאכות והמלחמה וההרג שהיא מצוה, שעליה נקוה גמול מאת ה' לפי ששמענו לדברי הנביא שמצות עשה לשמוע לדבריו כמו שצונו ה' על ידי משה אליו תשמעון, ובא בקבלה בכל אם יאמר לך נביא עבור על דברי תורה שמע לו חוץ מע"ז, שאם יאמר לנו עבדו היום בלבד לצורה זו, או קטרו לכוכב זה בשעה זו בלבד הרי זה נהרג, ואין שומעין לו. אבל אדם שרואה את עצמו לפי דמיונו צדיק וישר והוא זקן וישיש, ויאמר הנני זקן מאד, ואני כבר בן כך וכך שנים ולא עברתי על שום מצוה מן המצות כלל, ואיך אקום היום שהוא שבת ואעבור על אסור סקילה ואלך למלחמה, ואני לא אוסיף ולא אגרע ויש אחרים במקומי, ובני אדם רבים שיקיימו את הצווי הזה, הרי אותו האיש עבר על דבר ה' והוא חייב מיתה בידי שמים על שעבר על מה שצוהו הנביא, ומי שצוה לשבות הוא שצוה לקיים דברי כל נביא ומה שיקבע, והעובר על צוויו חייב כמו שאמרנו, והוא אמרו יתעלה והוא האיש אשר לא ישמע אל דברי אשר ידבר בשמי אנכי אדרש מעמו. אולם הקושר קשר שלקיימא ביום השבת הזה בשעת עשייתו מלאכות אלו ואינו צריך לקשר זה לשום עזר במה שצוה הנביא הרי זה חייב סקילה. והנביא הזה עצמו שצונו במה שצונו לעשות ביום זה שהוא שבת, וקיימנו דבריו, אם יאמר שתחום שבת אלפים פחות אמה או אלפים ואמה ויחס הדבר מצד הנבואה לא שנראה לו בדרך העיון והדין הרי זה נביא שקר ומיתתו בחנק. ועל דרך זו תדון בכל אשר יצוך הנביא. וכל מה שתמצא במקרא מדברי הנביאים נגד מצוה מן המצות הנה היסוד הזה מפתח לכולם. ובזה בלבד נבדל הנביא משאר בני אדם בתורה, אבל בעיון ובדין ובחקירה בדיני התורה הרי הוא כשאר החכמים הדומים לו שאינם נביאים, ואם יפרש איזה פירוש, ויפרש מי שאינו נביא פירוש אחר, ויאמר הנביא אמר לי ה' כי פירושי הוא הנכון אין שומעין לו, אלא אפילו אלף נביאים שכולם כאליהו ואלישע פירשו איזה פירוש, ואלף חכמים וחכם פירשו היפך אותו הפירוש אחרי רבים להטות, ועושים כדברי האלף חכמים וחכם, לא כדברי האלף נביאים המופלגים, וכך אומרים חז"ל האל[ק]ים אלו אמרה לי יהושע בן נון בפומיה לא הוה צינתא ליה ולא שמענא מניה. ואמרו עוד אם יבוא אליהו ויאמר חולצין במנעל שומעין לו, בסנדל אין שומעין לו. כוונתם בכך שאין תוספת וגרעון בתורה מצד הנבואה בשום פנים. וכן אם אמר הנביא שה' אמר לו כי הפסק במצוה פלונית כך, ושדינו של פלוני הוא הנכון, הרי אותו הנביא נהרג לפי שהוא נביא שקר כמו שביארנו, לפי שאין תורה אחרי השליח הראשון ואין תוספת ואין גרעון, לא בשמים היא. ולא המחנו ה' אל הנביאים אלא המחנו אל החכמים בעלי הדין, לא אמר ובאת אל הנביא, אלא אמר ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים ואל השופט. וכבר האריכו חכמים בענין זה מאד מאד והוא הנכון. עכ"ל

Know that prophecy does not contribute to the analysis of the explanations of the Torah and the derivation of the laws via the 13 hermeneutical rules; Joshua and Pinchas went about matters of study and law in the same manner as Ravina and Rav Ashi....

Regarding [temporary suspensions of law] alone is the prophet distinct from everyone else in matters of Torah; but he is like every non-prophet comparable to him regarding study, law and investigation into the laws of the Torah. If he offers a certain explanation, and a non-prophet offers a different one, and the prophet says, "God told me this explanation, and it is the correct one," we do not listen to him. Even if one thousand prophets, all like Elijah and Elisha, offer one explanation, and one thousand and one [non-prophet] sages offer a different explanation, we follow the majority, and act as per the one thousand and one sages, not the one thousand tremendous prophets. So said Chazal: "By God, if Joshua bin Nun said this to me with his own mouth, I would not have listened to him, not accepted it from him;" and they said: "If Elijah came and said that chalitza is done with a shoe [as per the halacha], we would listen to him; [but if he said it is done] with a sandal, we would not listen to him." Their intention in these statements was that prophecy neither contributes to nor detracts from Torah study in any way. ... God did not refer us to the prophets, but to the sages, scholars of the law, as the experts; he said not, "You shall go to the prophet [for legal matters]," but "You shall go to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge." [translation by HWMNBN]

(Reference from De' Rossi, Me'or Einayim, Part II, Chap. 14, p. 269, fn. 16 (Weinberg ed.))

Rabbeinu Avraham ben Harambam

2006-04-28T18:00:00.002-04:00

(1186-1237; Egypt):

i. Ma'amar al Odot Derashot Chazal:

(Note: I believe that this piece was originally written in Arabic. I present it here in Hebrew translation.)

רבינו אברהם בן הרמב"ם, מאמר על אודות דרשות חז"ל (ירושלים: מוסד הרב קוק, תשי"ג); ז"ל

דע, כי אתה חייב לדעת, כי מי שירצה להעמיד דעת ידועה, ולישא פני אומרה, ולקבל דעתו בלי עיון והבנה לענין אותו דעת אם אמת אתה אם לא, שזה מן הדעות הרעות, והוא נאסר מדרך התורה וגם מדרך השכל, ואינו ראוי מדרך השכל מפני שהוא מתחייב גרעון וחסרון בהתבוננות מה שצריך להאמין בו, ומדרך התורה מפני שנוטה מדרך האמת ונוטה מעל קו הישר, אמר השי"ת (ויקרא יט, טו) לא תשא פני דל ולא תהדר פני גדול, בצדק תשפוט וגו', ואמר (דברים א, יז) לא תכירו פנים במשפט וגו', ואין הפרש בין קבלת אותו דעת להעמידה בלא ראיה, או בין שנאמין לאומרה ונשא לו פנים ונטען לו, כי האמת אתו בלי ספק, מפני שהוא אדם גדול, הימן וכלכל ודרדע, שכל זה אינו ראיה אבל אסור, ולפי הקדמה זו לא נתחייב מפני גודל מעלת חכמי התלמוד ותכונתם, לשלימות תכונתם בפירוש התורה ובדקדוקיה ויושר אמריהם בביאור כלליה ופרטיה, שנטען להם ונעמיד דעתם בכל אמריהם ברפואות ובחכמת הטבע והתכונה, [ולהאמין] אותן כאשר נאמין אותן בפירוש התורה שתכלית חכמתה בידם, ולהם נמסרה להורותה לבני אדם, כענין שנאמר (דברים יז, יא) על פי התורה אשר יורוך וגו'.

אתה רואה החכמים במה שלא נתברר להם מדרך סברתם ומשאם ומתנם אומרים: האל[ק]ים! אלו אמרה יהושע בן נון לא צייתנא ליה, כלומר לא הייתי מאמין בזה ואע"פ שהוא נביא, כיון שאין בידו יכולת להודיע הענין בכוונה מדרך הסברא והמשא והמתן והדרכים שבהם ניתן להדרש, ודי בזה ראיה ומופת, ולא נענעין להם עוד, כיון שאנחנו מוצאים להם אומרים שלא נתאמת ולא נתקיימו בגמרא דברי הרפואות, וכענין תקומה שאמרו (שבת סו:) שמונע להפיל הנפלים שלא נתאמת, וכיוצא בהם עניינים רבים שדברו פרק שמונה שרצים במס' שבת וכו', ובמקומותיהם אתרץ דברים שבחנו אותם הבוחנים ונשמעו ביניהם וסמכו הם עליהם, ולא יודה על אמתת עיון רופא אמתי ולא שכלי.

ודע כל לא יתחייב בעבור מה שאמרנו שיהא מה שאמרו חז"ל אי כפית אכול אי צחית שתה אי בשל קדרך שדי במכמנא, הדברים שאמרנו, כי זה המאמר הוא עיקר הבריאות כאשר אמתוהו הבחינה ורפואות הרופא, ר"ל שלא יאכל אדם עד שירעב, ושלא ישתה עד שיצמא, וכשיצמא שלא יאחר לשתות, וכשיתעכל המזון שבמעיו שישליכנו ולא יאחרנו, שאם צריך לנקביו שלא ישהה אותם.

וכן אין לנו לטעון לאריסטו ולומר הואיל ואדון חכמי הפילוסופים הוא והקים מופתים אמתים על מציאות הבורא ית' וכיוצא בזה מהדברים אמתים שבאו במופת ופגעו דרך האמת, כי כן מצא האמת באמונת קדמות העולם, ושאין הבורא ית' יודע הפרטים וכיוצא בזה, ולא להכזיבו ולומר הואיל וטעה באמונת אלו כי כן טעה בכל אמריו.

אבל יש לנו ולכל נבון וחכם להתבונן כל דיעה וכל מאמר, על דרך שיש להתבונן אותה, ולאמת ולקיים מה שראוי לקיים, ולבטל מה שראוי לבטלו, ולעמוד מלפסוק הדין במה שלא הוכרע האחד משני הפכים, אמרו מי שאמרו, כאשר אנו רואים אותם ז"ל שאמרו אם הלכה נקבל ואם לדין יש תשובה, וכן הם עושים במה שלא הוכרע האחד משני הפכין שמעמידים אותו באמרם בו "תיקו", וחוזרים להם מדעת שנתאמת להם באמרם בהרבה מקומות חזר בו ר' פלוני מדבריו, חזרו (בהם) [ב"ה] להורות כדברי בית שמאי, וגדול מזה בהוראתם ואהבתם דרך המשפט אמרו אוקי רבא אמורא עליה ודרש ואמר דברים שאמרתי בפניכם טעות הם בידי, וענינים אלו וכיוצא בהם אין להבינם ולהתבונן אותם מפני שהיה גדול העצה והחכמה אלא מפני הראיות והמופתים שיש עליהם, וכן אמר אבא מורי ז"ל ביאורה, והוא דבר מבואר וענין קל בעיני כל נוטה מעל תאות גופו.

וראיתי להביא כאן מאמר שאמרו ז"ל ואבארו לך כדי שיתיישב ויתקבל בדעתך אהבתם האמת והודאתם עליו אמרו מי שאמרו, אמרו ז"ל בגמ' דפסחים (צד:) ת"ר חכמי ישראל אומרים גלגל קבוע ומזלות חוזרים וכו' עד אמר רבי נראים דבריהם שביום מעינות צוננים ובלילה מעינות רותחים, ועתה שמע פירוש המימרא אמר רבי, לדעת חכמי ישראל שגלגל קבוע ועומד ולא יתנדנד ולא יתנועע והכוכבים והמזלות הם הנעים והנדים, ולחכמי אומות העולם שגלגל נע ונד והכוכבים והמזלות אין להם תנועה, אך הם כמסמרות נטועים ונעים בתנועות הגלגל ולא מעצמם להשיבם על דעת חכמי אומות העולם ולומר שגלגל קבוע, שהרי אנו רואים מזלות הקטנים השמאלי מהם והימיני, שלא ימצא לעולם השמאלי בימין ולא הימיני בשמאל אלא עומדים במקומם ולא יזוזו משם, הוא שאמרו חז"ל (שם) מעולם לא נראית עגלה בדרום ולא עקרב בצפון וכו', וזאת לא יתחייבו בה אומות העולם, אלא באמרם כי סבת הגלגל ותנועתו הוא מן הצפון לדרום או מן הדרום לצפון, אבל בהיותם סוברים כי תנועת הגלגל העליון הוא ממזרח למערב, וגלגל המזלות ממערב למזרח [נסתלקה התשובה ונשארה המחלוקת כי באומרו תנועת הגלגל שהיא ממזרח למערב וגלגל המזלות ממערב למזרח] ימצא כי עגלה בצפון ועקרב בדרום ולא יזוזו ממקומם, ולא יראה השמאלי ימיני ולא הימיני שמאלי כאשר נודע למי שהבינו בזה הענין והבין בענין התכונה, כי אין ספק כי רבי בהשיבו עליהם, שחשב כי סברתם היתה שתנועת הגלגל בין הצפון והימין, ישרה תשובתו מעולם לא ראינו וכו', ורב אחא הביא ספק על תשובה זו ואמר כי דילמא כי סדנא דרחייא וכי צנורא דדשא, ר"ל ואלו הגלגל בכללו יתנועע המזלות עומדת במקומה והגלגל סובב בתוך העוגה, כאשר תנוד הרחיים בתוך הכלי הסובב אותה, והעץ העומד בתוכה קיים ועומד במקומו, כן יהיה הגלגל סובב ועוגת המזלות עומד ישמור מקומו ולא ינוד השמאלי והימיני המזרחי והמערבי, זהו פירוש כי סדנא דריחייא, ופי' כי צרונא דדשא, ר"ל כאשר יסוב ינוד הדלת על מקומות שהציר סובב כאשר תסוב הדלת על צירה שעקר הדלת סובב ומשתנה מקומו, והציר עומד ולא ינוד, והאמת כי זה רחוק מגלגל קבוע ומזלות חוזרים, ואין צורך לכל זה כיון שנתברר שתנועת הגלגל בין פאתי מזרח ומערב כאשר בארנו.

ואמר בסוף הברייתא חכמי ישראל אומרים ביום חמה הולכת למטה מן הרקיע ובלילה למעלה מן הרקיע, ודעת זו בלי ספק דבוקה לגלגל קבוע ומזלות חוזרים, וחכמי אומות העולם אומרים ביום חמה מהלכת למעלה מן הארץ ובלילה למטה מן הארץ, ודעת זו בלי ספק דבוקה לגלגל חוזר ומזלות קבועים, וכאשר שמע רבי הדברים האלה שהם תוצאות מן ההקדמות שחלקו בהם תחילה, הכריע דעת חכמי אומות העולם בראיה זו, שאמר נראים דבריהם שביום מעינות צוננים ובלילה מעינות רותחים, והנה זה עם היות ראיה זו רפה וחלושה כאשר אתה רואה.

ומעתה התבונן מה שהורונו בברייתא זו, ומה יקר עניינה שלמדו, כי רבי לא הביט בדעת אלו אלא מדרך הראיות בלי להשים על לב [לא לחכמי ישראל] ולא לחכמי אומות העולם, והכריע דעת חכמי אומות העולם מפני ראיה זו שחשב כי היא ראיה מתקבלת, שביום מעינות צוננים ובלילה מעינות רותחים, והתבונן חכמת זה הסוד כי רבי לא פסק כדעת חכמי אומות העולם, אלא שהכריע דעתם מדעת שיקול הדעת בראיה שזכרנו, זהו שאמר נראים דבריהם הוא מלה מורה על הכרעה, ואלו נתברר לא בודאי ובראיה שגלגל חוזר ומזלות קבועים היה פוסק הלכה כמותם, כאשר עשו זולתו מן החכמים ז"ל בדעות אחרות, ואמר נצחו חכמי אומות העולם לחכמי ישראל.

ובאמת נקרא אדון זה "רבינו הקדוש" כי האדם כשישליך מעל פניו השקר ויקיים האמת ויכריענו לאמיתו ויחזור בו מדעתו כשיתבאר לו הפכה אין ספק כי הוא קדוש.

והנה נתבאר לנו כי החכמים ז"ל אינם מעיינים הדעות ולא מביטים אותם אלא מצד אמיתתם ומצד ראיותיהם, לא מפני האומר אותו יהיה מי שיהיה. עכ"ל

You must know that one who wishes to support a known opinion, and to favour its proponent and accept his view without studying or understanding it to ascertain whether it is true – this is one of the wrong mindsets, and is forbidden from the perspective both of the Torah and of reason. From the perspective of reason, because the perpetrator is guilty of insufficient investigation into what he is supposed to be believing; and from the perspective of Torah, because he strays from the path of truth and the "straight line," whereas God says, "You shall not favour the poor and you shall not honour the great; with fairness shall you judge your fellow," (Leviticus 19:16) and "You shall not show favouritism in judgment" (Deuteronomy 1:17). There is no difference between (a) accepting and supporting that opinion without having proof of it, and (b) believing its proponent, favouring him and advocating on his behalf on the grounds that since he is a great man, he must be right; for this is not proof, but, rather, it is forbidden. Accordingly, we are not obliged, on account of the great superiority of the sages of the Talmud, and their expertise in their explanations of the Torah and its details, and the truth of their sayings in the explanation of its general principles and details, to defend them and uphold their views in all of their sayings in medicine, in science and in astronomy, or to believe them [in those matters] as we believe them regarding the explanation of the Torah, which they had completely mastered and which it was their role to teach, as it says, "According to the Torah that they teach you" (Deuteronomy 17:11).

You see the sages saying regarding matters that their reasoning and discussion have not clarified for them, "By God! If Joshua bin Nun had said it, I would not listen to him." Meaning, I would not have believed it, despite his being a prophet, because he would be unable to demonstrate the point via reasoning or discussion or the proper methods of learning. Proof or empirical evidence [to the contrary] is sufficient to justify our not heeding the words of the sages [in such matters], since we find that they made medicinally related statements in the Gemara which have not been justified or validated – for example, the preserving [stone] which they said (Shabbat 66b) prevents abortion, which has not been justified, and similarly many things that they spoke of in Chapter Shemoneh Sheratzim in Tractate Shabbat, etc.; in their proper places, I will explain the things that their experimenters tested [successfully], which were known among them and which they relied upon, but which do not seem correct to a true or intelligent physician.

Know that what we have said does not mean that [we should invalidate] Chazal's statement (Berachot 62), "If you are hungry, eat; if you are thirsty, drink; pour out your pot before it boils;" for this statement – that one should not eat until he is hungry, that he should not drink until he is thirsty, that he should not delay drinking once thirsty, and that he should not delay in expelling the food in his innards once it has been digested, meaning that he should not restrain himself when he feels the need to relieve himself – reflects the essence of healthy living, as has been verified by experiment and by physicians' treatments.

So, too, we need not argue on behalf of Aristotle, claiming that since he is the greatest of the wise philosophers, and demonstrated the existence of the blessed Creator and other things that he happened to get right and correctly demonstrate, he must also have discovered the truth in believing in the eternality of the world, and that the blessed Creator does not know the details [of what happens in the world], and similar [ideas]; nor must we contradict him [at every turn], claiming that since he erred in these beliefs, he must have erred in all of his statements.

Rather, we, and every wise and understanding person, should consider each idea and statement in the manner appropriate to it, verifying and validating what it is appropriate to validate, invalidating what it is appropriate to invalidate, and refraining from drawing conclusions in matters that have not been decided either way – regardless of who said it; just as we see that [Chazal] would say: "If it is a [Sinaitic] tradition, we will accept it, and if it is a logical argument, then there is a counterargument;" just as they would do regarding matters that had not been decided one way or the other – they would say, "Let it stand [unresolved];" just as they would recant from a view they had believed correct, as they say in many places, "Rabbi So-and-So recanted from what he had said," "Beit Hillel recanted and ruled like Beit Shammai," and, in their demonstration and love of the just path, they went even further, saying, "Rava got himself an expounder, and said, 'The things I said before you were my mistake.'" These and like matters should be understood and considered as the consequence not of superior counsel or wisdom, but of proofs and empirical evidence; this is what my father [Rambam] of blessed memory said the explanation is, and so is it clear and evident to anyone who [thinks straight].

I have seen fit at this point to quote and explicate a statement of Chazal in order that Chazal's love of truth, and their willingness to recognize it from whatever the source, be accepted and settled in your mind. They said in the Gemara of Pesachim (94b), "The rabbis taught: 'The Jewish sages say that the sphere is stationary and the constellations rotate ... Rabbi [Yehuda Hanasi] said, "Their opinion seems correct, for during the day the wells are cool, and at night the wells are hot."'" Now listen to the explanation of the statement....

And it says at the end of the baraita, "The Jewish sages say, the sun travels beneath the firmament by day, and above the firmament by night" – this view being doubtless a corollary of [their opinion that] the sphere is stationary and the constellations rotate – "and the gentile sages say that the sun travels above the earth by day and below the earth by night" – this view being doubtless a corollary of [their opinion that] the sphere rotates and the constellations are stationary. When Rabbi [Yehuda Hanasi] heard these statements, which follow from their previous dispute, he decided in favour of the gentile sages' view based on the following proof: he said that their statement seems correct, because the wells are cool during the day and hot at night; notwithstanding that this proof is weak, as you can see.

And now, consider the guidance [Chazal] provided us in this baraita, and how precious is the principle that they taught: Rabbi [Yehuda Hanasi] regarded these opinions based on the evidence alone, taking into account neither [the identities of] the Jewish sages nor those of the gentile sages; and he favoured the gentile sages' view on the basis of this proof, which he thought would be accepted – that the wells are cool by day and hot by night. Reflect upon the wisdom of his deliberation: Rabbi [Yehuda Hanasi] did not decide conclusively in favour of the gentile sages' view, but merely favoured it as being more probable on the basis of the proof we have mentioned; this is why he said "Their statement appears correct" – a word suggestive of favouring one opinion [as opposed to accepting it conclusively]. If it had been decisively proven to him that the sphere rotates and the constellations are fixed [on it], he would have decided definitively in their favour, as other sages did regarding other matters, saying, "The gentile sages defeated the sages of Israel."

Truly is this master referred to as "our holy rabbi," for when a man throws off falsehood, retains truth, decides in its favour and retracts from his initial opinon when its opposite is proven to him, there can be no doubt that he is holy.

Thus is is clarified to us that our sages considered different views by examining their correctness and the proofs in their favour, not based on their exponents, whoever they might be.

[translation partially from The Stone Edition Tanach, Rabbi Nosson Scherman, ed., New York: Mesorah, 1996; partially from www.zootorah.com/controversy/sources.html on Rabbi Natan Slifkin's website; but largely my own]

Note: A prominent Israeli rabbi has challenged the authenticity of this work. Rabbi Natan Slifkin, on his website, notes the following:

The treatise was translated into Hebrew in the 16th century, long before the maskilim came into existence. Fragments of the original Arabic, dating probably from the 14th century, were discovered in the Cairo Geniza. The treatise has been printed in the Ein Yaakov for a long time [over 100 years], without anyone challenging it as being heretical.

I would add that in all that time, no one, or virtually no one, challenged its authenticity. In addition, Rabbi David Sinzheim, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (see below, this section, for both), and Rabbi Shaul Israeli (Perakim Bemachshevet Yisrael, Chap. 21 (Pardes Chana, Israel: Midrashit Noam, 1973/74)) explicitly assumed it to be authentic. See also the post by Rabbi Gil Student at http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2006/07/afikei-mayim-vi_04.html for a detailed discussion of the passage's authenticity.

ii. Milchemot Hashem, p. 72: In describing the solar system, R. Avraham cites from Pesachim 94b the view of the gentile sages regarding the path of the sun at night, and Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi’s approbation of it, although it is presented there (in the Gemara) in contrast to the opinion of Chazal (belongs to III-B-2).

רבינו אברהם בן הרמב"ם, מלחמות השם (ירושלים: מוסד הרב קוק, תשי"ג), עמוד עב; ז"ל

ואיני יודע דעתם בשמים מה היא, אם הם סוברים שהשמים גבוה על הארץ כתקרה שעל הבית, הנה אנחנו רואים בעינינו השמים סובבים בעיגול, ובפירוש כתוב בברייתא בגמ' דפסחים (צד, ב) שחכמי אומות העולם אומרים שהשמש מהלכה ביום למעלה מן הארץ ובלילה למטה מן הארץ, ואמר [רבי] נראין דבריהן שביום מעינות צוננין ובלילה רותחין. עכ"ל

I do not know what their [ignorant people—DES] understanding of the heaven is. Do they think that the heaven is above the earth like a ceiling covering a house? But, we see with our own eyes that the heaven is a circular dome. It is also clearly stated in the Baraita in the Gemara in Pesachim (94b) that the Sages of the nations of the world maintain that the sun travels above the earth by day and below the earth at night, to which Rabbi said: their view is preferable, for the wells are cool by day but hot at night.

[Translation by Fred Rosner in The Wars of the Lord, p. 127.]

(Reference from R. Natan Slifkin, “Response to Rav Moshe Shapiro and Critique of Afikei Mayim,” version 1.11, II, Example #1.)

Ralbag

2006-04-28T17:00:00.000-04:00

(Rabbi Levi ben Gershom; 1288-1344; Provence):

i. Genesis 15:4 (Beiur Divrei Hasipur):

רלב"ג, פירושי התורה, ביאור דברי הספור, בראשית טו, ד (ירושלים: מוסד הרב קוק, תשנ"ב); ז"ל

והנה דבר ה' אליו לאמר שכבר יתן לו זרע שירשנו. והוציא אותו החוצה במראה הנבואה להביט בשמים. ואמר אליו שכמו שלא יוכל לספור הכוכבים לרבוים, כן זרעו יהיה באופן מהרבוי שלא יספרו מרוב. והנה מספר מכוכבים לא היה נודע בימי אברהם ולזה הראהו המדמה בעת הנבואה ענין רבוי הכוכבים, למשל רבוי המופלג, אשר יעד אותו השם ית' שיהיה בזרעו. ובזה תמצא שראה יחזקאל (ג, יג) בעת הנבואה, שיהיה לגלגלים קולות, מצד מה שהיה מאמין מזה הענין, כמו שזכר הרב המורה (מורה נבוכים חלק ג סוף פרק יד). כי לא יחויב שיהיו לנביא כל הדעות האמתיות בענין סודות המציאות. עכ"ל

God, in a prophetic vision, brought Abraham outside to look at the sky, and told him that just as [Abraham] could not count the stars, because of their great number, so would his descendants be of an innumerable order of magnitude. Now the number of stars [in existence] was not known in Abraham's day, and in the prophecy, therefore, God presented him a vision of the multitude of stars as a metaphor for an exceedingly great number, which God promised Abraham would be [the number of] his descendants. Along similar lines you will find that in a prophetic vision, Ezekiel (3:13) saw the spheres making sounds – which was based on his beliefs on the subject [i.e., his belief that the spheres make sounds], as the [Rambam] mentioned in The Guide for the Perplexed (3:14). For a prophet does not necessarily know all of the true facts about the hidden aspects of existence. [translation by HWMNBN]

Note: Ralbag here discusses an incorrect scientific belief found not in a Talmudic passage, but in the book of Ezekiel. I have assumed that if he is willing to say that unchallenged scientific assertions made in Tanach (the Bible) are incorrect, he would consider it legitimate to say the same of the Talmud.

(Reference from Y. Shapiro.)

ii. Job 38:18-20 (Beiurei Divrei Hama'aneh):

רלב"ג, פירוש לספר איוב, ביאורי דברי המענה לפרק לח, פסוקים יח-כ (נמצא בספר איוב, מקראות גדולות, ירושלים: פלדהיים, תשנ"ח); ז"ל

האם התבוננתה מנתיבות השמש שתדע מה שיקרה במקומות אשר רחבם גדול מהארץ מאד הגד אם ידעת כל הארץ אי זה מקום מהארץ ישכון האור שם זמן ארוך וחשך אי זה מקומו בעת היותו שם האור כי נתבאר בראיות ברורות כי מס"ו מעלות וכ"ה דקים רוחב עד צ' מעלות ימצאו מקומות יהיה בהם יום אין בו לילה גם חדש או חדשים עד שיכלה הענין בסוף אל מקום יהיה בו ששה חדשים יום וששה חדשים לילה, האם ידעת זה הענין מהשמש איך הוא כי תנהיגהו אל גבולו וכי תבין נתיבות ביתו עד שתדע מה שיתחייב מתנועותיו ממקום מקום מהארץ או ידעת זה מצד אורך ימיך שהתאמת לך זה מן החוש ואולם ספר זה עם ספורו שאר הדברים הנעלמים להיות זה נעלם לאיוב כי בנבואה יבואו כמו אלו העניינים לפי המקבל כאמרו באברהם וספור הככבים להיות זה דבר העלם לאברהם ואם כבר ידעוהו הבאים אחריו עד שכבר מנו מספר כל הכוכבים הנראים וקראום בשמות, ויותר זר מזה שכבר יגיע לנביא דבר כוזב בעת הנבואה במה שאין לו מצד שהוא נביא מצד הדעות אשר לו בעניינים ההם כמו הענין ביחזקאל שהגיע לו בנבואה כאילו הגלגלים מחדשים קולות נפלאים בתנועתם מפני שהיה מאמין שהגלגלים יחדשו קולות בתנועותיהם כמו שזכר הרב המורה.... עכ"ל

[The book] mentions [the sun's path] as being unknown to Job, along with the other unknown things, for in prophecy, these things come according to the recipient [i.e., God communicates with the prophet using the frame of reference of the prophet's prior knowledge, be it correct or incorrect], as with God's statement to Abraham in which the number of stars in existence in understood to be unknown to Abraham – though it was known to those after him, so much so that they counted all the stars and gave them names. Stranger than this is that a prophet may also receive false information, corresponding to his own beliefs, as part of his prophecy, regarding facts which are not being communicated to him on account of his being a prophet – like Ezekiel, whose impression from his prophecy was that the spheres make incredible noises as they move, because he believed that the spheres make noises as they move, as [Rambam] mentioned in Moreh Nevuchim. [translation by HWMNBN]

Note: Ralbag here discusses an incorrect scientific belief found not in a Talmudic passage, but in the book of Ezekiel. I have assumed that if he is willing to say that unchallenged scientific assertions made in Tanach (the Bible) are incorrect, he would consider it legitimate to say the same of the Talmud.

(Reference from the footnotes of the Mossad Harav Kook edition of Ralbag, Peirushei Hatorah, Genesis (15:4).)

Rabbi Shem Tov ben Yosef ben Shem Tov

2006-04-28T16:45:00.000-04:00

(c. 1461-1489; Spain), Shem Tov commentary to The Guide for the Perplexed 2:8:2:

ר' שם טוב בן יוסף בן שם טוב, פירוש שם טוב למורה נבוכים ב, ח, ב (ירושלים, תש"כ); ז"ל

וזהו דעת המפורסם באומתנו, ר"ל שיחזקאל היה מזה הדעת באמרו ואשמע את כנפיהם כקול מים רבים כקול ש[ק]י וכו', ולזה הובא בזה, כי זה הדעת היות להם קולות אמנם הוא נמשך אחר האמנת גלגל קבוע ומזלות חוזרים, וכבר ידעת הכרעתם דעת חכמי אומות העולם על דעתם בעניני התכונה האלו ואמרם בפירוש ונצחו חכמי אומות העולם את חכמי ישראל, וזה האמת כי הענינים העיוניים אשר בם החכמים חכמים אמנם דבר בהם כל מי שדבר בו כפי מה שהביא אליו העיון ואין הנבואה למעלה ממנו כי החכם עדיף מנביא ולא יועיל אצל החכמים אלא מה שנתאמת מופתו על זולתו, ודע כי זה המאמר הוא יקר מכל כלי חמדה יתבארו ממנו דברים רבים למי שרצה ליכנס בפרדס: עכ"ל

"And this view [that the heavenly spheres make sounds] is famous among our nation" – meaning that Ezekiel was of this opinion when he said (1:24), "I heard their wings, like the sound of great waters, like the sound of God, etc." ... This view, that the spheres make sounds, is a corollary of the view that the sphere is fixed and the stars move, but you know that [the Jewish sages ultimately] decided against their own view in favour of the gentile sages' [view that the spheres move and the stars are fixed thereon] in this astronomical matter, as they explicitly said, "The gentile sages triumphed over the Jewish sages" [cf. Pesachim 94b]. It is quite right that our Sages have abandoned their own theory; for speculative matters every one treats according to the results of his own study, and prophecy is not superior to it, for "a scholar is greater than a prophet," and sages have regard for only that which can be supported to the exclusion of alternatives. Know that this statement is more valuable than all precious vessels; many things can be explained based on it, to the person wishing [to explore its ramifications]. [Translation by HWMNBN, except for the words "It is quite right ... the results of his own study," which is taken from M. Friedländer's translation of The Guide for the Perplexed, Second Ed., New York: Dover, 1956, p. 163.]

Note that while much of this paragraph can be construed as merely a paraphrase of Rambam's own words, the crucial last sentence unquestionably expresses Rabbi Shem Tov's own view, and simultaneously endorses all that precedes it. Note also that Shem Tov here discusses an incorrect scientific belief found not only in a Talmudic passage, but also in the book of Ezekiel. I have assumed that if he is willing to say that unchallenged scientific assertions made in Tanach (the Bible) are incorrect, he would consider it legitimate to say the same of the Talmud.