Many times the Sages describe natural phenomena with which they could not possibly have had a personal acquaintance. The Talmud explains their amazing knowledge with this verse, ‘The secret of Hashem is for [i.e. revealed to] those who fear Him.’ (R. Avrohom Chaim Feuer, Tehillim (ArtScroll/Mesorah 1977) vol. I p. 313)
In my various writings, I have extensively explored the view that the Sages's knowledge of the natural world was based simply on common beliefs rather than supernatural sources. But what about the concept of Sod Hashem Liyreyav, which is used by the Gemara to mean that the Sages possessed supernatural knowledge of the natural world?
I am pleased to announce the publication of a new monograph which analyzes the usage of this principle in the Talmud, and its subsequent interpretation and employment by the Rishonim, Acharonim, and contemporary Orthodox figures. The results are extremely illuminating for anyone interested in the decline of rationalism, and especially for anyone seeking to understand the stance of the Charedi Gedolim regarding Chazal's knowledge of science.
The monograph can be downloaded after making a donation via PayPal. The recommended donation for readers of this website is $5, but if you have gained much from the Rationalist Judaism enterprise and would you would like to take this opportunity to express your appreciation with a larger donation, it would be gratefully appreciated.
You can make a donation via PayPal or credit card by clicking on the following icon. After the payment, it will automatically take you to a download link for the document.
As always, feedback is appreciated, and those who purchased the monograph will be notified via e-mail if a substantial update is released.
14 comments:
How many pages is it?
Just want to figure out the PPD (page per dollar) price before deciding to invest.
"But what about the concept of Sod Hashem Liyreyav, which is used by the Gemara to mean that the Sages possessed supernatural knowledge of the natural world?"
I look forward to reading the manuscript , but there is another issue, namely, the mystical and miraculous examples, such as Chazal being machaye meisim, etc. Do these mean that Chazal also understood the natural world? Are they all to be understood literally? On the other hand, why did they have to study sheep, for example, b'derech hateva?
The Charedi world seems to take the examples of miracles of not only an example of the kedushah of Chazal, but also against any type of academic approach. For example, R Shach zt'l in a 1989 letter against the Shtenzolz gemeara makes reference to the smallest of Chazal being able to be mechaye meisim, and that Chazal were like malachei Hashem[this part all agree to], and therefore aspects of the Shtenzolz gemeara are problematic.
Other issues where Ruach Hakodesh come in are regarding giving Torah status to opinions, as well as being a source of supporting belief in Mesorah(the Stiepler in Chayei Olam lists all places where Chazal did miracles, IIRC, as a means of increasing faith).
In summary, I think rationalists should bring examples from the likes of R Ezriel Hildsheimer and others in his Beis Midrash(in the literal and figurative sense) to understand how they interpret the greatness of Chazal and miraculous statements in a way which allows them to err in science.
Chaim - it's 5000 words, that's ten words for a cent!
Shades - I have another paper on the topic of Chazal being mechaye meisim etc., which I plan to e-publish within the next few months. If you have Rav Schach's letter, can you send it to me?
Re: R Shach's letter:
Below is a link where I saw it online this past November(in Michtavim Umamorim I recall that there is also a letter about the Steinsaltz Gemara, although I'm not sure if its the same one that I linked)
http://www.yoel-ab.com/katava.asp?id=115
can you clarify what you mean regarding the third example from nidda? Why would he praise his expertise by saying sod hashem leraov? It seems it little bit of a forced pshat. Otoh the fact that he smelled it indicates that he was not relying on any divine inspiration.
Also, check Rav CK's sefer Orchos Yosher ch.26 for additional sources on ruach hakodesh in chazzal's time and future times.
---Chaim - it's 5000 words, that's ten words for a cent!
I thought you'd say:
אין הקב"ה מונה דפים אלא שעות.
but hey, I am not God.
http://www.vosizneias.com/76964/2011/02/23/israel-rabbi-arab-unrest-signals-moshiachs-coming
just skimmmed the monograph so I may have missed it but the factual vs. halachic distinction is also made vis-a-vis what eliyahu can "clarify"
When I learned through this issue a number of years ago it occurred to me that perhaps it's actually a minority opinion that there can be a sod hashem revelation and that's why there are either alternatives or the scholar himself does not state that this was the method.
KT
Joel Rich
I was very surprised how radically opposite the Leshem's opinion is to Rambam's. Actually, it doesn't really make sense according to the very little that I know about the Leshem on various other issues, where he often supports the Gra, and even the Rambam. Rabbi Slifkin, can you clarify?
I was astounded by it. All I can say is that the desire to make Chazal infallible is very, very powerful.
Ok, on further reflection - there _must_ be another explanation for what the Leshem means. Does the Leshem anywhere interpret the principles of "eilu v'eilu...", and "rishonim k'malachim". If he does, would it / does it have bearing on "sod Hashem"? Please help clarify, I can't believe it's just a case of the Leshem had a big yetzer hara to make Chazal infallible.
Also interesting fyi - http://www.aishdas.org/articles/rhsEilu.pdf
I think that he would consider it a yetzer tov, not a yetzer hara. Rishonim k'malachim and all that.
The question then becomes "Do they actually possess this knowledge?" When it comes to physical phenomena this is generally a straightforward matter.
Do lice and mice spontaneously generate? We can test that hypothesis.
Is the world flat and the sky surmounted by a rigid dome which the sun travels behind every night? We can predict what we should observe if these are true.
If the statements of Chazal do not correspond to the observed facts and are not predictive we must reject the contention that they are consistent recipients of Divine revelation. If they are predictive and better than any other model or theory we can provisionally accept it until such time as they fall short.
The keys here are the honesty to acknowledge inconvenient facts and the courage to say so in the face of threats and defamation. E pur si muove! said Galileo. "And still it moves." It may be uncomfortable. But who wants to go through life as a cowardly liar?
I dont understand the fuss about the Leshem. If you think that the Gra or the Leshem were rationalists you are very very very mistaken. Their entire world view was based on kabalah and mysticism.
Post a Comment