tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post2613173795955616250..comments2011-11-23T06:44:17.684+02:00Natan Slifkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903561261083292772noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-18627177396969857162011-11-23T00:41:14.119+02:002011-11-23T00:41:14.119+02:00This post raises an important point that the sages of the talmud considered that scripture has all or much knowledge encoded in it. It is then considered a matter of decoding in order to arrive at such knowledge. An example of explicitly stated knowledge of the world in scripture is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle (pi). In Kings I, that ratio of the brazen reservoir in the Solomonic temple is given as 3. The gemara in Eruvin 14a treats this as an exact determination of pi, not as an approximation (see Tosafot, &quot;veha&#39;ika mashehu&quot;). That value for the ratio is carried through elsewhere in the talmud. Of course, pi is really an irrational (trancedental) number written as 3.14159..,i.e., some 4.5% larger than 3. The verse in question then merely gives approximate values for the circumference and diameter of a very large vessel (30 and 10 amot, respectively).<br /><br />The situation with regard to matters not explicitly stated in scripture can be even more problematic in that the use of derash can lead to wildly inaccurate measures of natural or historical things.<br /><br />The situation with regard to relying on book knowledge rather than observation became worse over time. The Tana&#39;im and some Amora&#39;im had occupations which lead to their using observation in addition to transmitted information. In Europe, book knowledge had virtually supplanted observation. As an example, the talmudic sages provided physical signs to detect if dough had become leavened. Such signs were disregarded by the later decisors in favor of a dough residence time that was also given (the time to walk a mil). Now, the latter is but a qualitative measure of the time for leavening which depends on the concentration of yeast organisms in the environment, temperature, and other factors. Yet, that is the only measure now used.Y. Aharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-69633737584411476522011-11-22T18:51:13.920+02:002011-11-22T18:51:13.920+02:00Yes, I to agree, this is an excellent post.<br /><br />As I see it (given all the facts) the curse was either meant to be cast only upon the serpent who actually commited the original offense or for a set amount of it&#39;s generations.<br /><br />I would also like to point out that from this event we learn that animals are as well subject to punishment for their aggressions as humans are.<br />oIsaacnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-10291237033884252992011-11-22T10:28:37.056+02:002011-11-22T10:28:37.056+02:00FWIW, I engaged my daf maggid shiur (who is a card carrying full time kollel charedi avreich) on this. He offered Rav Hirsh&#39;s approach as perfectly acceptable to adapt, even if others strenuously object to it.Yitz Waxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09626409388081098891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-31138000292237103822011-11-22T09:44:09.798+02:002011-11-22T09:44:09.798+02:00&quot; Because it is a polemic, and it is a better story if it is extremely difficult for a scientist to observe this&quot;<br /><br />Philospher... but is the snake really the most difficult of the animals to learn about? I would think ants or other underground animals would be more difficult.<br /><br />It seems to me like the story is built around the verse in question, rather than the verse being inserted into a story about being smarter than philosophers.<br /><br />Sort of like, &quot;Hmm this is a good drash, how can I tell it over in a memorable way and make it believable?&quot;Ameteurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-37696949278418638442011-11-22T08:15:55.304+02:002011-11-22T08:15:55.304+02:00Joseph, please study carefully the Hakdomah to Emunos veDeos. Sorry, I don&#39;t have a second more to elaborate.Carolnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-32171401848855212212011-11-22T07:57:41.176+02:002011-11-22T07:57:41.176+02:00<i>Towards evening, Rabban Gamliel went out and told them. [The philosopher] began to bang his head against a wall, and said, I worked and exerted myself for seven years [to discover this], and this one comes and holds it out on a cane (i.e. answers lightly). (Yalkut Shimoni, Bereishis 3, os 30)</i><br /><br />Could this be interpreted as the philosopher expressing exasperation at the fact that s/he had spent seven years devising and carrying out controlled experiments, and Rabban Gamliel comes out and completely <i>dismisses</i> his/her carefully compiled data on the basis of theological/philosophical arguments that <i>ignores</i> the best available empirical evidence?Yossinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-39237504542518414602011-11-22T00:50:03.846+02:002011-11-22T00:50:03.846+02:00http://innate-differences.blogspot.com/2011/11/zionist-attempts-at-speciescide-fails.html<br /><br />A little off topic, but certainly worthwhile for a good laugh. Honorable mention to yours truly. Seen on Lifeinisrael.blogspot.com.Painted Frognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-24277988208733816652011-11-21T23:01:21.450+02:002011-11-21T23:01:21.450+02:00Even the Talmud seems to be saying that the philosopher worked out that the gestation period of a snake is 7 years. So it&#39;s not necessarily that incredible to know that the period is 7 years (even assuming it is scientifically accurate), if others knew it too, from non-Torah sources. I agree that according to the Gemara the rabbis source does seem to be from a passuk.eliehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12800126341847374215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-77176325110091997372011-11-21T22:37:14.917+02:002011-11-21T22:37:14.917+02:00<i>After 6000 years, the world enters into shabbos mode, the 7th millenium.</i><br /><br />But not literaly &quot;6000&quot; literal &quot;years.&quot; <br /><br />Rather, 1000 denotes a complete cycle; 7 complete cycles is a cycle of cycles.Nachum Boehmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01997285528564935429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-71883284848003597072011-11-21T20:16:54.638+02:002011-11-21T20:16:54.638+02:00The snake is the yetzer hara. One year is 1000 years (from Tehillim). After 6000 years, the world enters into shabbos mode, the 7th millenium. Thus it takes 7,000 years for the snake (the yetzer hara from Gan Eden) to give birth (to a world of perfection in which the yetzer hara serves the yetzer tov).betzalelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-2363640150175280722011-11-21T19:46:43.566+02:002011-11-21T19:46:43.566+02:00I don&#39;t think that Dibra Torah Klashon Bnei Adam, even acc. to Ibn Kaspi or Rav Kook, means that there would also be Torah SheBaal Peh given at Sinai as to the exact nature of the firmament!Natan Slifkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903561261083292772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-71501359855318069112011-11-21T19:45:08.905+02:002011-11-21T19:45:08.905+02:00&quot;(Cf. the Talmudic exegeses about the nature of the firmament, which is not correct, and is thus surely not a Sinaitic tradition.) &quot;<br /><br />Surely? I thought you didn&#39;t have a problem with the Sinaitic tradition being inaccurate as far as science is concernedVaraginoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-11308194483556794712011-11-21T16:32:32.278+02:002011-11-21T16:32:32.278+02:00Ameteur:<br /><i>&quot;You are most likely correct. Given that the story never happened, what is the purpose about this drasha and the gestation of the snake?&quot;</i><br /><br />Well, since we see the derasha independent of the story, it is quite possible that the derasha itself WAS an attempt at discovering the truth. Or perhaps there is indeed a pnimiyus/allegorical meaning here, in the initial derasha. (Note, however, the relative chronology of the two attributions, with Rav later than Rabban Gamliel.)<br /><br /><i>Why did the Roman not ask about the donkey or cats or lions?</i><br />This one is readily answered, which you will like, since you agree that I am most likely correct.<br /><br />1) Because it is a polemic, and it is a better story if it is extremely difficult for a scientist to observe this. Donkeys are domestic, as are cats. They had lions for the gladiatorial combats, and the mating, pregnancy, and birth from lions are readily observable. A snake is a wild animal, where it is not easy to even check whether a snake is male or female from the outside. One needs a probe, and luck that the snake doesn&#39;t bite you! And then, you need to wait seven years (which indeed they held WAS the gestational period for a snake.) Making it really **difficult** for the naturalist (and the rabbi) to find out this information makes for a better polemic, don&#39;t you think?<br /><br />2) Because they already had the derasha in place. They are not going to make up a story about donkeys if there is no convenient derasha for donkeys to demonstrate the superiority of Torah learning over experimentation as a means of discovering facts about reality.<br /><br /><i>Once you declare that the story never happened, all sorts of questions pop up regarding the details of the story. The questions also go away if someone declares that the story is real.</i><br />True. But I don&#39;t think, at this point, that the questions rise to the level of more than mere queries; indeed, the responses even reinforce the idea of it being a polemic.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-13222075574344140562011-11-21T14:29:04.355+02:002011-11-21T14:29:04.355+02:00<i>meir says<br />since you are unlikely to put an answer from artscroll on your blog I have put it on Josh&#39;s blog.<br />Next time before you ask &#39;silly&#39; questions you should check there.</i><br /><br />No, you didn&#39;t put it on R. Josh&#39;s blog. You just wrote a comment there saying that Artscroll answers it, and you further claimed that I am &quot;unwilling&quot; to post their answer on my blog, without a shred of evidence. And why on earth would you not actually post what Artscroll says, either on R. Josh&#39;s blog or on mine?<br /><br />You&#39;re now banned from this blog. For being dishonest, and for acting like an idiot.<br /><br />(After I saw your comment, I went to a nearby Beis HaMidrash to check the Artscroll. It&#39;s a completely lame alleged diyuk in Rashi which does not remotely fit into the Gemara.)Natan Slifkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903561261083292772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-28671066408022040002011-11-21T13:28:53.659+02:002011-11-21T13:28:53.659+02:00The really fascinating aspect of this gemora for me is not the comment about the snake, but rather the comment that the curse was regarding giving birth, as well as the stated curses of eating the dirt and being an enemy of women.<br /><br />In my mind, that deviation from the Torah requires more study than snake gestation periods.<br /><br />Also of interest to me, is that being pregnant itself is seen as a curse, and not just the pain of giving birth. (If I remember correctly this aspect of the curse is stated in the gemora elsewhere by promising that woman will only be pregnant for 1 day in yimai hamashiach)Ameteurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-5258594005365364982011-11-21T13:17:01.807+02:002011-11-21T13:17:01.807+02:00meir says<br />since you are unlikely to put an answer from artscroll on your blog I have put it on Josh&#39;s blog.<br />Next time before you ask &#39;silly&#39; questions you should check there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-63367603324654277622011-11-21T11:28:22.474+02:002011-11-21T11:28:22.474+02:00Josh Waxman,<br /><br />&quot;G*3, about whether it happened:<br />my guess is that the story is fictional and a polemic.&quot;<br /><br />You are most likely correct. Given that the story never happened, what is the purpose about this drasha and the gestation of the snake?<br /><br />Why did the Roman not ask about the donkey or cats or lions?<br /><br />Once you declare that the story never happened, all sorts of questions pop up regarding the details of the story. The questions also go away if someone declares that the story is real.<br /><br /><br />&quot; a common animal wrong. &quot;<br />perhaps common, but also disliked. Chazal had nice things to say about cats, but not nice things to say about dogs.Ameteurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-27357956124111809622011-11-21T11:21:07.584+02:002011-11-21T11:21:07.584+02:00The fact that you personally cannot bring yourself to believe it does not mean that we must invoke another answer. After all, great people got the number of human teeth wrong for a long time - some even get it wrong today.<br /><br />Incidentally, nishtaneh hateva doesn&#39;t work here either - wolves, from which dogs are domesticated, have the same gestation. <br /><br />(Ah, I get it - both wolf AND dog gestation periods changed!)Natan Slifkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07903561261083292772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-43659573014288407212011-11-21T11:16:26.519+02:002011-11-21T11:16:26.519+02:00Meir says<br />I cannot believe that chazal got the cat and dog a common animal wrong. The regular answer must be given here as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-54494166837101950862009-07-20T16:55:19.636+03:002009-07-20T16:55:19.636+03:00G*3--<br />&quot;Once we try to reconcile Torah with the world we observe we run into all sorts of problems, and it is a very short step from saying Chazal were wrong in places to saying Tanach was wrong in places to dismissing the entire thing as iron-age mythology.&quot;<br /><br />If it&#39;s wrong, it&#39;s wrong, and you have to deal with it, not poke your head into the sand. And why is &quot;the obvious answer&quot; that &quot;nature has changed?&quot; It&#39;s not obvious to me. What possible scientific basis could you have for suggesting that wolves ever had a 3 year gestation period?Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15752938979399977997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-15469211845529289402009-07-15T05:02:33.346+03:002009-07-15T05:02:33.346+03:00I think the simple meaning of the yerushalmi is not metaphysical. Rather, that halachically, three years are necessary, and this follows chazal&#39;s setting of 3 years. So if it&#39;s an ibur shana, it takes place after an additional month. According to this, the gemara is describing a legal-halachic reality, not a physical-metaphysical one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-67595014942386443282009-07-05T06:11:59.037+03:002009-07-05T06:11:59.037+03:00&gt; Steve said... The 800 pound elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about is the many pesukim in nach that without creative explanations clearly contradict current knowledge in science and nature. Until this is properly addressed the cannot be any truthful dialog. Are we to say that everything is nach is infact perfectly in tune with science, while accepting that this is not the case for hazal a mere 350 years later?<br /><br />This is off-topic, but I think this is why the mainstream frum community reacts so strongly against a rationalist point of view. If everything in the Torah is mystical and metaphysical inconsistencies with what we observe can be hand waved as things we don’t understand; as mystical concepts outside the physical realm; or in the extreme cases as explicitly denying that there is such a thing as natural laws.<br /><br />Once we try to reconcile Torah with the world we observe we run into all sorts of problems, and it is a very short step from saying Chazal were wrong in places to saying Tanach was wrong in places to dismissing the entire thing as iron-age mythology.G*3http://www.blogger.com/profile/06104739087560005056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-87506481570005945882009-07-03T21:58:15.523+03:002009-07-03T21:58:15.523+03:00To Rabbi Slifkin,<br /><br />You are certainly correct in that Rabbi Tatz does not reflect the rationalist worldview; that is one of the reasons that I didn&#39;t elaborate in my post (along with constraints of time and space). I do think that it is worth noting, however, as one possible way of approaching the issue, even if it&#39;s not one that would be pursued in this forum.<br /><br />Have a Shabbat ShalomShalom, Cherry Hillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-73949573167518426242009-07-03T21:55:06.653+03:002009-07-03T21:55:06.653+03:00How about as a foil, like several other posts at your blog do?Friend of Plinynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6906205856510467947.post-36822900495686253842009-07-03T19:11:46.501+03:002009-07-03T19:11:46.501+03:00Rabbi Tatz&#39;s approach does not represent the rationalist worldview. The goal of this website is to explore the rationalist worldview.Natan Slifkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04488707201313046847noreply@blogger.com