Sunday, January 16, 2011

Response to RYGB - UPDATED

Over at R. Harry Maryles' blog, he has posted a critique of my Summary on the brain-death issue by Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhoffer (henceforth RYGB). It seems as though R. Maryles wasn't reading my posts too carefully; he describes my goal as defending R. Tendler, whereas in fact I was doing no such thing.

Basically, RYGB's criticism is the same as much of those that appeared during the ban, and reflects a point of view which is sharply different from that of many of the Rishonim - and quite a few Acharonim, too. Except that in the case of medical halachah, this sort of posturing is not only ignoring a dominant trend amongst the Rishonim, but is even ignoring common halachic practice. I quote:

We are accustomed to assume that Chazal are the final arbiters of Halachah regardless of whatever thought process under-girded their rulings.


So am I - but not in the case of medical halachah. And nor are any Poskim. We don't follow Chazal's ruling that Shabbos can only be violated for a 7 month fetus and not an 8 month fetus. We know that an 8 month fetus is more viable, not less viable. And in cases not relating to human life, I am actually more Chazal-oriented than many Poskim. I follow Rav Herzog that we should follow Chazal's ruling on lice; others, such as Rav Lampronti and Rav Nissim Karelitz, say that since this was based on mistaken beliefs that lice spontaneously generate, we should not kill lice on Shabbos (what does RYGB have to say about them?). And I am fully aware that halachah is sometimes independent of the scientific reality. But in a case where Chazal's understanding of physiology - and the medical possibilities available to them - did inform their halachah, with life-and-death consequences, virtually no Posek would ignore that.

We assume that those thought processes are those of human beings far greater than ourselves – of rishonim k'malachim – and are very reticent to second-guess them, ever.


Who's "we"? The chareidi world indeed professes to believe that; but as has been amply documented, many Rishonim and Acharonim held that in scientific matters, Chazal had no advantage. And when it comes to medical matters, few people really believe that Chazal knew more than us. Nishtaneh hateva is the euphemism employed to explain why we don't follow Chazal's suggestions for refuos - but no doctor will say that those refuos worked 1400 years ago, either. Nor were 8-month old fetuses less viable than 7-month old fetuses back then.

Rabbi Slifkin is quite bold in his assertions. He purports to know – and to tell us – when an aggadic legend intended to be understood metaphorically. And he informs us categorically that these prooftexts are (notwithstanding their Midrashic sourcing!) not metaphorical. But who designated my friend the arbiter of these matters? ...It is therefore curious that Rabbi Slifkin neglects to inform us of Rabbi Kamelhar's detailed explanation of the metaphorical meaning of the Gemara in Berachos...


RYGB is plainly unfamiliar with my monograph on the kidneys (and it is rather foolhardy of him to critique my summary without familiarizing himself with my full treatment of the topic). I am well aware that many recent rabbinic authorities interpreted the Talmudic account of the kidneys' function metaphorically; I cited several in my monograph. However, this was clearly an exercise in apologetics, motivated by the desire to maintain Chazal as being correct, rather than an honest assessment of what they really meant. As I pointed out in my monograph, the Rishonim - such as Ramban, Tashbatz, R. Yehudah HaLevi, and various talmidim of Rashba - were very clear that Chazal were speaking literally. So were many early Acharonim. There are no Rishonim (that I could find) who explain Chazal allegorically. Furthermore, the context of Chazal's statement indicates that it was intended literally, as does the fact that it is identical to the standard beliefs of their time and place. So who has more credibility - the Rishonim, or the late Acharonim who clearly just wanted to make Chazal look correct? On what basis does Rabbi Bechhoffer dismiss the Rishonim as being a less reliable (or unreliable - he doesn't even quote them) interpretation of Chazal?

At the very least, it is intellectually dishonest to not disclose that one's position is by no means definitive.


In my monograph, I discussed all the different interpretations that I found, and explained why I felt that the view of the Rishonim was far more credible. I look forward to RYGB publicly criticizing those who only cite the views that Chazal were infallible (or allegorical) and ignore all the Rishonim and Acharonim who say otherwise. Come on, RYGB: let's have a public statement about whether Gedolim such as Rav Moshe Shapiro are intellectually honest.

RYGB criticizes me for making a judgment on such a serious matter as brain death based on one particular interpretation of Chazal and not acknowledging other views. In fact, I explicitly discussed the other views, and explained my reasons for rejecting them. On the other hand, the Poskim who have ruled against brain death (and even those who accepted it) did not acknowledge the literalist interpretation of Chazal by the Rishonim and early Acharonim, and they did not explore its ramifications for this topic. I did not issue a formal ruling on brain death; I merely pointed out that those who do, must take into account the potential implications for this topic of Chazal's view of physiology and the medical options available to them, just as we do in other topics of medical halachah (and as some do even in non-medical matters). RYGB would apparently prefer instead that poskim completely ignore the potential implications of Chazal's view of physiology and the medical options available to them! RYGB's description of me is most apt for the Poskim he prefers:

To respond that one has not done the research is even more inexcusable... they have built a house of cards upon which they continue to be dan dinei nefashos.


I will finish off with a comment on RYGB's post by a friend of mine, R. Joseph Faith, which appeared on R. Maryles's blog - it is slightly edited here, but less so than there!

Sorry, but this post is logically problematic. We DO override Chazal in this very case - when we perform CPR on someone we find under a pile of rocks on Shabbos, when Chazal say that you leave such a person for dead! We override Chazal when we are mechalel Shabbos for an eight month old baby. According to this post's approach we should seemingly do neither.

Chazal's science is actually in many respects less sophisticated that the best science of their day, which was being done in the Greco-Roman world. Not only that, but the Yerushalmi shows clear evidence of (limited) familiarity with Greco-Roman scientific concepts, whilst the Bavli shows clear influence of Akkadian/Persian medical traditions. I struggle to understand R. Bechoffer's contention that this should not impact the halachic process at all - clearly halachic means have to be found in this case, but they have been found in other cases (such as the 8-month old baby).

Circulation was not generally understood until AFTER the Shulchan Aruch was published, we should remember to read the sources quoted by Rabbi Bechoffer and others in their historical contexts.


And here is a comment that I received from Rabbi Dr. RMH (Rationalist Medical Halachist):

I have said whatever I wanted to about this issue, and I have no strength right now to join this debate between R Slifkin and RYGB. However, R' Slifkin and I have been corresponding quite a bit, and I must say that I have been at least partly responsible for his taking on this matter in his blog. This is a very important issue, and I think RYGB was off the mark for many reasons.

#1 the attempt to explain the Gemara like Rav Kamelhar in HaTalmud Umadaey hatevel (HTUH) (and numerous similar attempt to explain chazal according to modern science) has been discussed so many times in this debate and reviewed so many times by RNS and the others, that I find it quite surprising that RYGB feels that this approach is ignored by RNS. The fact is, that further attempts to squash chazal into modern scientific understanding are becoming more and more untenable by the hour as science advances. A much more reasonable approach to this problem is the approach of RNS. If RYGB wants to disagree with this approach, that is his right, but to claim that RNS is disingenuous in not quoting HTUH this time relating to brain death is really kind of ignoring the volumes upon volumes of articles that RNS has already written on the subject. The same applies to the quote from the Chassam Sofer. The metaphorical vs. literal understanding of Chazal has been the subject of so much debate ad nauseum that I think RNS has said enough. He is only "guilty" of applying his consistent approach to the topic of brain death. If you want to disagree with him, fine, but to start throwing around the old stuff again about metaphorical vs literal, and did chazal know vs didn't they know yada yada? Those lines in the sand have already been drawn years ago when the RNS debacle broke loose. Now RYGB has found two more sources that he happened not to mention this time? what exactly is that going to accomplish?

RYGB writes: "Thus, it is untenable to assert – unilaterally and unequivocally! – on the basis of such questionable sources that Chazal believed in a certain medical system and that their positions are hence faulty."

I will assert just that, and I spent a month writing up those assertions in my blog. Ayein sham. Is it that "untenable" to say that chazal believed in the same medical system that everyone else did in those days, especially when repeatedly throughout shas they voice those very same beliefs? I don't believe so. If you would like to assume that Chazal knew the double helical structure of DNA and that thoughts occur in the brain, that is your right, but to claim that what they actually said is the same as what they actually believed is untenable? I'm sorry, the burden of proof lies on the one who wants to claim that they meant something else other than what they said.

RYGB also writes, "There is no definite evidence that Chazal believed that the heart and kidneys house the mind." I would refer RYGB to the seminal Teshuvah of the Chacham Tzvi #77 where he traces in page after page after page hundreds of sources in Chazal and the Rishonim and early Acharonim in excruciating detail how Chazal were of the belief that life and thought come from the heart. He also quotes in excruciating detail the medical theories of Aristotle and Galen that Chazal were based upon. The Chacham Tzvi does a much better job than I can on this matter. If that is not evidence enough, I don't think anything would ever be enough. Incidentally, the Kreisi Uplaysi dismisses the entire Chacham Tzvi by simply speaking to scientists at the University of Halle to find out the real function of the heart. With that, he slips every last word of the incredibly erudite rendition of the Chacham Tzvi under the carpet. he just says that all that stuff about the heart was just plain wrong, as proven by William Harvey (who discovered the true function of the heart and circulation in the mid 17th century). I quote the exact sources in my blog, ayen sham.

30 comments:

  1. Reading your post, and reading the post on Emet V'Emunah, I feel like the participants in the public conversation are talking past each other.

    What was all this reference about Chazal knowing medical science and keeping it a secret? I didn't see that hinted to at all in his post.

    While I agree with those who say brain death is brain death, I think your methodology of coming to that conclusion is faulty.

    Secondly, where in the response do you see that R. Bechhoffer disagrees with R. Tendler to accuse him of being the cause of people dieing?

    ReplyDelete
  2. What was all this reference about Chazal knowing medical science and keeping it a secret?

    Here: "We assume that those thought processes are those of human beings far greater than ourselves – of rishonim k'malachim." What do you think he was referring to?

    where in the response do you see that R. Bechhoffer disagrees with R. Tendler to accuse him of being the cause of people dieing?

    I didn't think that or say that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To keep everything as consolidated as possible, I will try to do all my commenting/responding on Emes Ve-Emunah.

    KT,
    YGB

    ReplyDelete
  4. I had been putting off joining HODS primarily due to inertia, but finally got around to it (received my card recently) largely due to you.
    Thanks for keeping this topic alive; all of the other "RNS controversies" pale in comparison with the importance of this one!

    ReplyDelete
  5. There's something I don't understand in all the discussion about whether these descriptions by Chazal of the biological functions of these organs are to be taken as allegorical or not.

    Although science at the time of Chazal didn't know a lot about the functions of many organs, everyone would have seen the effect of someone getting a severe blow on their head - it would have been clear that the cognitive functions of the person would become impaired. If so, if we believe that Chazal were relying on science of the day, why would they say that literally cognitive functions are in another part of the body when it is clearly not the case? It must therefore be an allegorical statement (in at least this case).

    ReplyDelete
  6. So Aristotle was speaking allegorically when he said that the heart houses the mind and the brain just cools the blood? That's funny, in 2000 years nobody has interpreted Aristotle that way.

    Michael, the fact that you have your question, does not mean that Chazal were speaking allegorically!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just received the following comment from Rabbi Dr. RMH, which I added to the post:

    "I have said whatever I wanted to about this issue, and I have no strength right now to join this debate between R Slifkin and RYGB. However, R' Slifkin and I have been corresponding quite a bit, and I must say that I have been at least partly responsible for his taking on this matter in his blog. This is a very important issue, and I think RYGB was off the mark for many reasons.

    #1 the attempt to explain the Gemara like Rav Kamelhar in HaTalmud Umadaey hatevel (HTUH) (and numerous similar attempt to explain chazal according to modern science) has been discussed so many times in this debate and reviewed so many times by RNS and the others, that I find it quite surprising that RYGB feels that this approach is ignored by RNS. The fact is, that further attempts to squash chazal into modern scientific understanding are becoming more and more untenable by the hour as science advances. A much more reasonable approach to this problem is the approach of RNS. If RYGB wants to disagree with this approach, that is his right, but to claim that RNS is disingenuous in not quoting HTUH this time relating to brain death is really kind of ignoring the volumes upon volumes of articles that RNS has already written on the subject. The same applies to the quote from the Chassam Sofer. The metaphorical vs. literal understanding of Chazal has been the subject of so much debate ad nauseum that I think RNS has said enough. He is only "guilty" of applying his consistent approach to the topic of brain death. If you want to disagree with him, fine, but to start throwing around the old stuff again about metaphorical vs literal, and did chazal know vs didn't they know yada yada? Those lines in the sand have already been drawn years ago when the RNS debacle broke loose. Now RYGB has found two more sources that he happened not to mention this time? what exactly is that going to accomplish?

    (continued in next comment)

    ReplyDelete
  8. more from Rabbi Dr. RMH:

    "RYGB writes: "Thus, it is untenable to assert – unilaterally and unequivocally! – on the basis of such questionable sources that Chazal believed in a certain medical system and that their positions are hence faulty."

    I will assert just that, and I spent a month writing up those assertions in my blog. Ayein sham. Is it that "untenable" to say that chazal believed in the same medical system that everyone else did in those days, especially when repeatedly throughout shas they voice those very same beliefs? I don't believe so. If you would like to assume that Chazal knew the double helical structure of DNA and that thoughts occur in the brain, that is your right, but to claim that what they actually said is the same as what they actually believed is untenable? I'm sorry, the burden of proof lies on the one who wants to claim that they meant something else other than what they said.

    RYGB also writes, "There is no definite evidence that Chazal believed that the heart and kidneys house the mind." I would refer RYGB to the seminal Teshuvah of the Chacham tzvi # 77 where he traces in page after page after page hundreds of sources in chazal and the rishonim and early acharonim in excruciating detail how Chazal were of the belief that life and thought come from the heart. He also quotes in excruciating detail the medical theories of Aristotle and Galen that Chazal were based upon. The Chacham Tzvi does a much better job than I can on this matter. If that is not evidence enough, I don't think anything would ever be enough. Incidentally, the Kreisi Uplaysi dismisses the entire Chacham Tzvi by simply speaking to scientists at the University of Halle to find out the real function of the heart. With that, he slips every last word of the incredibly erudite rendition of the Chacham Tzvi under the carpet. he just says that all that stuff about the heart was just plain wrong, as proven by William Harvey (who discovered the true function of the heart and circulation in the mid 17th century). I quote the exact sources in my blog, ayen sham."

    ReplyDelete
  9. With all respect due to him, RYGB's post was the most pathetic non-response I could have conceivably expected from someone allegedly "centrist." It's clear he has no CLUE about the various hashkafic and halakhic minefields he's walking through by maintaining his (frankly, quite ridiculous) position. What upsets me is that there apparently does not exist a recognizably major-league posek that has hashkafos that allow them to rule reasonably on this issue. The only people ruling reasonably - Hakham Ovadia Yosef, R. Tendler - are doing so despite their views of Hazal.

    ReplyDelete
  10. On the off chance this has not been covered, one can also approach the Chazal debate from the other direction: birth rather than death. While reading a comment on R. Harry Maryles' blog my memory was jogged regarding Sanhedrin 91b which I was learning recently:

    וא"ל אנטונינוס לרבי נשמה מאימתי ניתנה באדם משעת פקידה או משעת יצירה א"ל משעת יצירה

    and since Menachot 99b further informs us that it is at 40 days , I thought it might be instructive to do some quick online research to see when the different organs/systems being discussed develop.

    As far as I can tell, at about 40 days since fertilization, the only of the organs/systems being discussed that has undergone salient development is the brain which would have already divided into 5 vesicles including the early cerebrum.

    Perhaps the scientists reading can validate/refute the human fetus development authoritatively; and, the Talmudists can validate/refute that whatever organ or system hosts the neshama would have to exist when the fetus is 40 days old.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What I don't understand is why you are responding to RYGB? Not only doesn't he offer any substantive criticism, but suggests that you are motivated by bitter experiences. Maybe you should just move on because I think it a brocha levatola.

    ReplyDelete
  12. No seriously, what kind of discussion can you have here? Instead of dealing with substance he is dan lekaf zcus, he is simply not gores you and suggests that your opinions are due to mental distress. Just read what he writes:

    There is no definite evidence that Chazal believed that the heart and kidneys house the mind. My colleague has built a house of cards upon which he then continues to be dan dinei nefashos. Were I not to know that he is a soft-spoken and humble person, my mind (the one in my brain...) would be boggled by the the flippant regard towards Chazal implicit in his approach. I therefore am dan l'kaf zechus that erroneous per-conceived notions, traumatic experiences and harsh treatment have boxed Reb Natan into a weltanschauung and an approach from which it is hard for him to budge, regardless of its flaws.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Advocating one’s preferred approach to Torah does not de-legitimize the approach of others. That there are some who de-legitimize my Hashkafos does not give me or anyone else a right to de-legitimize theirs." Harry Maryles on 9 Jan 2011 in his blog posting “The End of Emes Ve-Emunah?” in response to the article attacking him on the matzav.com site

    ReplyDelete
  14. IH said:
    Perhaps the scientists reading can validate/refute the human fetus development authoritatively; and, the Talmudists can validate/refute that whatever organ or system hosts the neshama would have to exist when the fetus is 40 days old.

    In Sanhedrin Antoninus disagreed with Rebbe and asserted that the soul enters the body at conception. Rebbe was won over by the argument of Antoninus. What this Gemorah comes to teach us, among other things, is that a Gentile can have a better understanding even of metaphysics, and that we should be mekabel emes mimi sheomrah, and that the soul is not necessarily associated with a specific organ. Ayen shom.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I didn't think that or say that.

    I appologize, I must have been confusing this blog with another which made some comment about fundementalists sticking fingers in their ears over this issue, and confused it with this post.

    Here: "We assume that those thought processes are those of human beings far greater than ourselves – of rishonim k'malachim." What do you think he was referring to?

    I assume here that he was refering to the general practice of dismissing the words of Chazal based on our intrepetation of what we assume they mean.

    As he wrote in just the line above the quotes passage "We are accustomed to assume that Chazal are the final arbiters of Halachah regardless of whatever thought process under-girded their rulings. "

    Meaning, we assume chazal were correct in halacha, even if we don't understand the reasoning, or the reasoning given to us doesn't make sense. I don't see any implication here of "secret medical knowledge"

    R. Tendler is able to pasken brain death without changing the definition of death in halacha.

    (I am curious, btw, does the explanation given by R. Kamelhar of that aggadath match the explanation I gave at all?)

    ReplyDelete
  16. I just went back to the Emet V'emunah blog, and read the comments.
    I suggest you read YGB's comments there, and you will see that my initial understanding of his statements were correct, and you assumed too much about his position, thus attacking a straw man.

    I also suggest you apologize for implying beliefs to him which he does not hold by. If I had not gone and read the comments myself, I would have had a very different impression about the Rabbi based only on your blog post.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree with Carol that the RYGB post was more patronizing than it was substantive.

    But to also be "dan l'chaf zechut", maybe this was the most substantive response he was able to construct, due to the very limiting "weltanschauung" that a subset of the frum world has now boxed itself into - namely the pressure to characterize Chazal as demigods (near-omniscient) out of fear of being branded a heretic.

    A strange world, isn't it? Shouldn't the religious pressure be working in the other direction, i.e. that the attempt to make gods out of men should be heresy?

    Doesn't it belittle Chazal to speak of them this way, rather than emphasize their staggering knowledge of Torah, their piercing logic, their strength of character, and their great foresight to construct fences which would help Am Yisrael survive a long and arduous Galut?

    For near "gods" to accomplish this is no big deal. But for real human beings, capable real human error, to attain this level of greatness - Wow. That's something truly worthy of awe and kavod, truly heroic. Something I want my children to look up to and to strive for.

    What kind of message are we sending to our children when we paint the greats of our tradition as "superhuman", rather than super humans?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Also, a question about this 8 month fetus example... I keep reading statements such as this one:

    "3) If answer to #2 is no, how is it different than the gemara's rule about an 8 month old fetus, which we don't follow"

    And I am curious here, is it true that we don't follow the ruling? I.e., do we do brit milah before the 9 months? I thought it was common practice to wait for a pre-mature baby to be fully well for 30 days before we perform the Bris.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "I agree with Carol that the RYGB post was more patronizing than it was substantive.

    But to also be "dan l'chaf zechut", maybe this was the most substantive response he was able to construct, due to the very limiting "weltanschauung" that a subset of the frum world has now boxed itself into - namely the pressure to characterize Chazal as demigods (near-omniscient) out of fear of being branded a heretic."

    It is unfortunate that people try to insult others while claiming to be ""dan l'chaf zechut".

    If you wanted to be dan l'chaf zechut, then you would say that he dismissed the post on the face of it, and did not realize that he already had rebuttles to the points brought up.

    I suggest you read the comments on Emet V'emunah if you wish to know his true position, and perhaps you will realize that this has nothing to do with some "superhuman" chazal, but rather with the process of Halacha.

    Again, I agree that YGB's response was poor and written/posted too hastely. However, as I said in my initial comment, it seems as if the parties are talking past eachother, each unable to hear what the other is truly saying.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Carol: "[...] Antoninus [...] can have a better understanding even of metaphysics [...]"

    1. Significantly, it's not just anywhere in Sanhedrin, but part of the discussion of עולם
    הבא
    .

    2. "ר' חזקיה ר' אבהו בשם ר' לעזר אם באים הן גירי צדק לעתיד לבא אנטונינוס בא בראש כולם."

    Not a bad argument against R' S. R. Hirsch! Maybe De Anima is Jewish enough!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ameteur, according to the simple reading of the Gemara, a baby born at 8 months is not entitled to chillul Shabbat to save its life. In fact, it's considered muktzeh, and one is not allowed to lift it, even to nurse.

    Needless to say, this is not what people do nowadays.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ameteur, according to the simple reading of the Gemara, a baby born at 8 months is not entitled to chillul Shabbat to save its life.

    Which gemora? According to the simple reading of the Gemara in Shabbat, you are not allowed to do a brit milah on a baby born at 8 months because it is "like a stone", but you may do a brit milah on the 7 month old. The Gemara in Shabbat never discusses "saving its life" (That comes from other discussions outside of the gemora)

    The gemorah in Yevamos is a bit different, and the simple reading of the berieta in Yevamos is that 8 month old babies that don't have hair and fingernail growth yet, are considered inviable, but 7 month old babies which do have hair and fingernails count as a birth for the purpose of Yevamot.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Carol -- "Ayen shom". Indeed.

    I stand by my comment/idea.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hogan said:
    'Maybe De Anima is Jewish enough!'

    As I had said 'among other things', but if you have mentioned De Anima let me say a few words about it. Shadal in his 'Vicuach al Hakabala' brings this Gemorah as an argument against the Kabbalistic teaching that the Gentiles don't possess the level of the soul known as 'Neshoma'. He writes that if this were the case the Rebbe should have answered from the time one becomes a Jew!

    ReplyDelete
  25. IH said:

    'I stand by my comment/idea.'

    Based on what since neither Rebbe nor Antoninus are of this opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Carol -- I believe you have misread my comment (and the gemarot, btw), but I'm not wedded to the suggestion, nor have I given it any deep thought as the details of this topic are not high on my priority list. I signed a donor card long ago and have no doubt this is Ratzon ha'Shem irrespective of who disagrees.

    It was an idea that I thought others may find interesting. If you don't like it -- or think it is wrongheaded, that is fine with me.

    Sorry if that is not satisfying to your needs.

    ReplyDelete
  27. IH, no problem. I apparently misunderstood you. I thought that unlike RYGB you were interested in exchanging substantive ideas. In the context of this post I find your reaction ironic.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Carol,

    Thank you for pointing me to שד"ל [Mon., 18:47 IST]. His ויכוח על חכמת הקבלה [I refer to this edition] was new to me. I've read "יום ראשון" and "יום שני" so far.

    "[...] Shadal in his 'Vicuach al Hakabala' brings this Gemorah as an argument against the Kabbalistic teaching that the Gentiles don't possess the level of the soul known as 'Neshoma'. He writes that if this were the case the Rebbe should have answered from the time one becomes a Jew!"

    Re. "the level of the soul known as 'Neshoma'":
    At p.52 (line 5) שד"ל says that he considers the words 'נפש' and 'נשמה' to be synonyms. It seems to me that he interprets the Gemara you cite, as well as others in "יום שני", according to that posited synonymy.

    In the רמב"ם, including in MN I.70 which שד"ל disputes, 'נפש' and 'נשמה' are not synonymous, but the distinction is consistent with his emphasis that the soul of man is unitary. (I find the רמב"ם to be convincing with respect to experience and the phenomena.)

    Re. "... but if you have mentioned De Anima let me say a few words about it. [...]":

    Sorry; I don't see the connection to De Anima. What do you mean by this?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Sorry; I don't see the connection to De Anima. What do you mean by this?

    I simply meant the discussion about the nature of the soul as opposed to where it's located and when it enters or leaves the body. It's beyond the subject of this thread but once you mentioned De Anima I used the opportunity to share this idea.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I quote the exact sources in my blog, ayen sham.

    I didn't see Rabbi Dr. RMH quote anything more than what he just posted here in terms of exact sources. Maybe a link to the precise post he is referring to would be helpful.

    ReplyDelete

Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.