Very nice post! And (as always) very well written. Great message.
We can amicably quibble about small details, such as your sweeping statements about the oven of Achnai which is far more nuanced than presented, or your understanding of when and how certain things are accepted להלכה which is a big giant sugya with a whole range of opinions and pretty definite outcomes, see Rosh in Sanhedrin 4:6 for starters.
Do you have a source for your understanding of the achnai gemara? That's not how the concept of lo bashamayim was explained to me, but I definitely don't claim a comprehensive familiarity with the topic.
I don't understand your approach though. If the bas kol represents the absolute objective truth, why indeed didn't the majority change their position accordingly? Why would they argue on an objective truth?
That doesn't by itself solve anything. The machlokes by tannur shel achnai was about what the rules are for when something ceases to be mekabel tumah. It's an inherently legalistic debate. The question is what the status of the dirt (which acts as a sort of glue) is with regard to earthenware pieces. That's clearly not amenable, even in theory, to objective factual resolution- in a way in which questions about e.g. how lice come into being are. It follows that it's possible to have a binding vote on how to apply rules of tumah ve'tahara- which is what happened by tannur shel achnai. But it's obviously absurd to 'vote' on how lice come into being.
Getting back to the the tannur shel achnai, the principle of lo ba'shamayim hi only comes in at the end of the debate, when R Eliezer appealed to all sorts of supernatural phenomena. R Yehoshua's response was that the bas kol is irrelevant. G-d gave us the Torah already. Included in that were the rules for deciding disputes, and that's what we're bound by. (As the gemara there says explicitly, מאי לא בשמים היא אמר רבי ירמיה שכבר נתנה תורה מהר סיני אין אנו משגיחין בבת קול שכבר כתבת בהר סיני בתורה (שמות כג, ב) אחרי רבים להטות) Miraculous phenomena are irrelevant to the matter. But if hypothetically it turned out that the oven which they thought was made out of dirt was actually pure earthenware, obviously the majority vote would be irrelevant, just any vote which was based on a ta'us be'dvar mishna is not relevant or binding in any way.
Indeed, lice is a Metzius while Tanur Shel Achnai is only a Sevara. But we have a difficult Psak by lice and the Pachad Yitzchak refuses to back down under the force of the Metzius. The way to resolve him is to extend Tanur Shel Achnai to lice. I think that Paskening with a Sevara repudiated by a Bas Kol (with the understanding that it is the only objective {if that's the right word} and sacred divine truth) is just as horrid, as it were, as Paskening with something repudiated by Metzius.
(And once you do that you can help earn a Baal Teshuva—a whole world—or two. Gevald in der velt!)
Fair enough. Let me try. (I might have to go away from the computer soon and will only be able to continue later.)
Encyclopedia/Sefer Pachad Yitzchok (Lampronti) Erech Tzeida says that lice are asur for us to kill on shabbos even though there is a scientific Kasha on that. He gives no 'reason' other than that we must stick to the ruling of the Talmud. He doesn't say the Metzius changed. He doesn't say that the eggs are too small. If Lo Bashamayim works in a different context can we use it in this context too?
IOW, you have a good chiluk between the cases, but I'm claiming a hechrach not to be mechalek.
And I add that by TSA we did something 'terrible' when we paskened against the divine Sevara (a legality). They say, א סברה איז א מציאות. Certainly א הימלישע סברה. So it wouldn't be much more 'terrible' to go against a literal Metzius (a fact).
Whether I'm right or not, I hope I was clearer this time.
"Encyclopedia/Sefer Pachad Yitzchok (Lampronti) Erech Tzeida says that lice are asur for us to kill on shabbos even though there is a scientific Kasha on that. He gives no 'reason' other than that we must stick to the ruling of the Talmud."
I agree. Of course you answered the question. That’s the whole (well if not “whole” at least “prime”) lesson of the Gemara - lo bashamayim he. Shkoyach
The chachamim were presented with objective proof from G-d himself that they were wrong, but they said hey we're the majority so for the stability of halacha we'll ignore objective proof.
Hmmm, why didn't they just say "y'know, let's just not argue on objective proof, and then we'll be the majority AND right at the same time, and halacha will still be stable"? Guess they didn't think of that idea.
I have an idea for you clowns: why don't you try to learn the sugya the way the meforshim from the past fifteen hundred years did, and not fall for the idiot who writes this blog?
(Pro tip to get you started - his Chasam Sofer does not learn achnai the way he does. Surprise. Cuz it's a stupid pshat, and Chaasam Sofer has a running policy of not saying stupid things.)
The chachamim were presented with objective proof from G-d himself that they were wrong, but they said hey we're the majority so for the stability of halacha we'll ignore objective proof.
Hmmm, why didn't they just say "y'know, let's just not argue on objective proof, and then we'll be the majority AND right at the same time, and halacha will still be stable"? Guess they didn't think of that idea.
I have an idea for you clowns: why don't you try to learn the sugya the way the meforshim from the past fifteen hundred years did, and not fall for the idiot who writes this blog?
(Pro tip to get you started - his Chasam Sofer does not learn achnai the way he does. Surprise. Cuz it's a stupid pshat, and Chaasam Sofer has a running policy of not saying stupid things.)
That’s one of the sweetest insults hurled by those who claim stand up for the kavod haTorah on this blog yet who hurl insults left and right.
I am of course presuming you mean to say that we “clowns” are all destined for Olam HaBah per Eliyahu HaNavi in his discussion with R. Berokah (Taanit 22).
“Hmmm, why didn't they just say "y'know, let's just not argue on objective proof, and then we'll be the majority AND right at the same time, and halacha will still be stable"? Guess they didn't think of that idea.”
Well, if you want the reasons why those particular Chachamim behaved a certain way, you’d need to ask rabbi Yehoshua or Rabban Gamliel, or any of the other rabbis present wouldn’t you? (They may each have had their own reasons).
But the main reason why the Gemara presents the story is to teach “lo bashamayim he”
Exactly. Many rishonim learn differently, such as that the bas kol was בכבודו של רבי אליעזר. Also, Hashem put rules in the Torah such as אחרי רבים להטות amongst others and Hashem would never contradict Himself. This topic is very broad (most of why we would never accept Christianity is based on this).
The reason for אחרי רבים, from what we understand through the Gemara and Rishonim is actually partly because that is the best way to get to the truth (think 50 doctors saying one way and one saying the other, usually the fifty are right, unless there are ראיות ברורות, in which the other 50 will probably be convinced)
The case of Tanur shel Achnai shows that following the majority is NOT about getting to the truth. Chasam Sofer says likewise re. Zaken mamre - that he might well be correct and know it but it makes no difference.
Do you have a source for your understanding of the gemara?
I don't see how you've addressed my question. If they viewed the bas kol as objective truth, why would they continue to maintain something that contradicts objective truth? The bas kol was revealed to the actual ba'alei plugta during the machlokes, not to some other people at a later time. Acharei rabbam l'hatos doesn't explain why the rabbim themselves would insist on a halacha that has been demonstrated to be objectively wrong.
Again, I don't consider myself an expert in the sugya, im kabbala hi mikabel. Do you have a source?
The point is that (sorry no Hebrew on my laptop keyboard) Ein LeDayan Ela Mah Sheinav Ro'os, along with Lo BaShamayim Hi. The Chachamim had to rule according to how they understood the halacha. And Hashem approved, even though they were wrong.
Shaul my friend, maybe I can help you out. What this fellow means when he says "fyi everything I say has a source" and therefore calling his interpretation of achnai ridiculous is calling Chasam Sofer ridiculous has to be understood within the context of his own imagination.
Please don't get too confused about this - your hanacha rishona was correct. His pshat in achnai is indeed unbelievably ridiculous - he's essentially saying that the bas kol constitutes a revelation of objective truth and that R' Yehoshua v'chaveirav were demonstrated TO THEIR FACES to be wrong, and yet did not retract in face of this revelation of objective truth because they decided that their own opinion WHICH THEY WERE IN MIDDLE OF DEBATING was a majority opinion so they shouldn't go against it.
This is par for the course stuff for this blog; don't spend too much brain power trying to grasp.
And no, he does not have a source for this interpretation of the gemara (the Chasam Sofer absolutely does not say this is pshat in the sugya of achnai) - for a very good reason, because it's objectively stupid and incoherent. Which is why despite your repeated attempts to dig one out of him he keeps deflecting. But never mind - "fyi he has a source for everything he says" so be a good boy and just close your mind and accept.
Actually in Drashod 7 the Ran is even more explicit in saying exactly which the "Rational Traditionalist" called "unbelievably ridiculous":
וזהו ענין רבי אליעזר הגדול ומחלוקתו, כדאמרינן שם במציעא (דף נט:) עמד ר' יהושע על רגליו ואמר "לא בשמים היא" (דברים ל, יב) כבר ניתנה למשה על הר סיני וכתוב בה "אחרי רבים להטות" . הנה ראו כולם שר' אליעזר מסכים אל האמת יותר מהם, וכי אותותיו כולם אמיתיים צודקים, והכריעו מן השמים כדבריו, ואף על פי כן עשו מעשה כהסכמתם. שאחר ששכלם נוטה לטמא, אף על פי שהיו יודעים שהיו מסכימים הפך מן האמת, לא רצו לטהר. והיו עוברים על דברי תורה אם היו מטהרים, כיון ששכלם נוטה לטמא. שההכרעה נמסרה לחכמי הדורות, ואשר יסכימו הם הוא אשר צוהו ה'.
Shaul, look at Drashas HaRan 11, who explains the Gemara exactly as I said. Ignore that "Rationalist Traditionalist" considers the view of Ran to be ridiculous simply because he doesn't understand it.
My comment shows how תנור של עכנאי is not against the idea of אחרי רבים getting to the truth. You can share the מראה מקום of the חתם סופר but I doubt it will be different that what I'm saying. זקן ממרא would fall under the same lines. We don't live by individuals, we live by a system. The system is really powerful and catches mistakes.
Ha ha. I'm not sure what's stupider, that you blithely passed off your own ridiculous misunderstanding of the achnai sugya as if this is voss shteit durtan, or the fact that your interpretation makes absolutely zero objective internal sense.
Either way, don't worry - I'm sure David Ohisi or whatever his name is and your other three admirers will eat it up.
As for the rest of the post - congratulations. You've discovered the concept of mesoras hahalacha and mehalech hapsak. Took you long enough.
וצוה אליהם שיתנהגו בדבר ההוא ע"פ מה שיבררו ב"ד הגדול כאמרו כי יפלא ממך דבר וגו' על פי התורה וגו', ובא בקבלה ז"ל אפי' אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל וכו', כלו' אפי' ברור לך שאין האמת כדברי הוראת הסנהדרין אעפ"כ שמע אליהם, כי כן צוה ה' ית' שננהוג בדברי תורה ומצותיה כפי מה שיכריעו הם, יסכימו לאמת או לא יסכימו... וגם כן נאמין שאם הסכימו הפך האמת ונדע זה על ידי בת קול או נביא אין ראוי שנסור מהסכמת החכמים. וזה הוא ענין ר' אליעזר הגדול עם החכמים כמוזכר בפרק הזהב (בבא מציעא דף מח) שאע"פ שנתן אותות גדולים וחזקים שהאמת כדבריו ויצתה בת קול מן השמים ואמרה מה לכם אצל ר' אליעזר שהלכה כמותו בכל מקום אעפ"כ כשלא רצה להסכים לדבריהם נמנו עליו וברכוהו. לפי שלא מסר הש"י הכרעת ספקות התורה לנביא ולא לבת קול אלא לחכמי הדור, וזה שעמד ר' יהושע על רגליו ואמר לא בשמים היא:
Frankie, I forgot to add the Ran (Drashos HaRan 11), who explains the sugya exactly as I said. This is someone else to add to the list of authorities that you insulted.
You're welcome to disagree with Chasam Sofer, R. Shlomo Fisher and (yibadel lechaim) R. Asher Weiss, but please don't refer to their views as "ridiculous," it's disrespectful towards Talmidei Chachamim (no wonder you don't use your real name here).
Ha ha. The hilarious thing is I believe you are serious, and that you don't grasp how senseless your pshat is. And how irrelevant the Chasam Sofer is as basis for that pshat in achnai, which makes no sense whatsoever.
I'm sorry if I'm getting confused. The whole thread thing is convoluted. Did you say somewhere that these three gedolim explain achnai like you? Can I trouble you for the chapter verse? (Again, sorry if you provided it already somewhere)
To say the Gemara was "canonized" goes too far, bc it really wasn't. We are not Catholics, with a body empowered to canonize anything. And there are countless areas where the halacha *doesn't* follow the Gemara, such as in the laws of Avelus or Krias HaTorah and myriad other things, up to and including a mitzvah tantz. The word "canonization" may sound scientific (or "rational", if one prefers), but it implies the Gemara took on a de jure status of authority, when it was really only de facto, over time. Thus, where local custom refused to budge, that custom remains the law, regardless of Talmudic opinion to the contrary.
That is one view but Rav Shlomo Fisher and others say differently. The Amoraim did not argue with the Tannaim and it's not that there was a sudden drop in knowledge.
Just to clarify - because there was a drop in knowledge, and though it happened gradually, there needs to be a cut off point... (You're not saying different (I assume), but it can be unclear for those unfamiliar)
The issue of knowledge progression v knowledge regression is an old one, and opinion usually breaks down along the familiar divide, what you call (but I dont) rationalists v mystics. Do we know more than they did, or less? As usual, both views can be found in the Gemara, the dominant view is the "frummer" view, and probably the truth is that both views are correct in different situations, the definitions of which are debatable.
Don - best summary is by Dr. Leiman in his introduction to the article Dwarfs on the Shoulders of Giants, in the venerable Tradition magazine. Should be easily available online.
In case its not, a few citations just from my own notes and files would include, and sorry from the format, I am c and p'ing from a PDF doc: יומא מט. א"ר חנינא בא וראה שאלת הראשונים – פרש"י, "בא וראה שהדור האחרון זוכה
There is a maritz chayes who says an amora can argue with a tanah but it was accepted not to pasken that way. (can't find it now in כל כתבי but Reb David cites it to argue on him:)
הוא מחלוקת הגר"א וואססערמאן בדברי סופרים וגליונות חזון איש שם, נדפסו ב"קובץ ביאורים" שהוציא לאור הרב דרורי מבני ברק, וחלק מגליונות החזון איש הועתקו בקובץ אגרות ח"א חלק א' (אין הספר אצלי ושכחתי את הסימן, אולי סימן כ"ה)
"it implies the Gemara took on a de jure status of authority, when it was really only de facto, over time. Thus, where local custom refused to budge, that custom remains the law, regardless of Talmudic opinion to the contrary."
Or to put it another way, it is canonized and accepted except when it's not. Rabbinic Jews might not "argue on the Gemara" but we are very good at drawing distinctions and limiting talmudic statements to very specific situations such that don't apply any more (even though there's no hint in the Gemara itself regarding that.
As you mentioned laws such as Aveilus - nobody I know flips their bed over (Moed Katan 15), or how (relevant to Tisha B'av last week) we often have music/song during simachot or other meals (such as fundraising dinners) where wine and meat are present (Sotah 48, Gittin 7); or maybe I just live in a Reform town.
so it seems we follow the Talmud (which was canonized) except when we don't (in which circumstances it wasn't?).
It is correct to say we follow the Gemara except in certain cases where custom dictates otherwise. Certainly in all cases where there is no prevailing custom - which includes most post 5th century developments - we follow the Gemara.
Every court that was established after the conclusion of the Talmud, regardless of the country in which it was established, issued decrees, enacted ordinances, and established customs for the people of that country - or those of several countries. These practices, however, were not accepted throughout the Jewish people, because of the distance between [their different] settlements and the disruption of communication [between them]. Since each of these courts were considered to be individuals - and the High Court of 71 judges had been defunct for many years before the composition of the Talmud -
people in one country could not be compelled to follow the practices of another country, nor is one court required to sanction decrees which another court had declared in its locale. Similarly, if one of the Geonim interpreted the path of judgment in a certain way, while the court which arose afterward interpreted the proper approach to the matter in a different way, the [opinion of the] first [need] not be adhered to [absolutely]. Rather, whichever [position] appears to be correct - whether the first or the last - is accepted.
These [principles apply regarding] the judgments, decrees, ordinances, and customs which were established after the conclusion of the Talmud. However, all the matters mentioned by the Babylonian Talmud are incumbent on the entire Jewish people to follow. We must compel each and every city and each country to accept all the customs that were put into practice by the Sages of the Talmud, to pass decrees parallelling their decrees, and to observe their ordinances, since all the matters in the Babylonian Talmud were accepted by the entire Jewish people.
If one looks in the ספרי כללים, there are rules for every exception and exceptions for every rule. That's why I say it is very difficult to say anything with certainty, other than that we generally follow the Gemara except in those cases we don't, and nearly always in cases where is no custom.
A good read, but I must ask, are you having a mid life crisis? This post is very uncharacteristic for you, one might have expected it of one of the writers on cross currents !
I don't share your perception of DNS; I've seen things like this from him many times (such as that he eats the 'yeshivishe' shiur of Matzah on Pesach, amongst many, many other examples of respect for the Mesorah).
I don't eat the "yeshivishe" shiur (and it's certainly not the "mesorah.") I said that I eat more than an olive, because who eats the absolute minimum amount of anything?!
I can't locate the exact quote, but the context was specifically about that you want to make sure to stick to the mesorah somewhat as so not to fly off the handle, since a lot of your ideas are "rebellious"...
I cannot say for certain, but you may be referring to:
“I already rock the boat quite a lot. It is quite likely that at some point wearing techeles will become mainstream, and then I'll be glad to join the crowd. But in the meanwhile, I think that it is wise for me to be as conservative as possible in the area of practice.
From “Why People Don't Wear Techeles” RNS 1/8/2014.
FYI: please bear in mind that, as with much of what I write, there are plenty of sources for what I say but which I don't necessarily reference (especially when I am traveling). For this post in particular, see Sacred Monsters for sources.
"Being an Orthodox Jew means upholding the authority of the canonized Talmud."
This is your version of Orthodox Judaism. Don't put words in everyone else's mouth. Your view on canonization of Halachah is chidush (to say the least) that many people (myself included) think is straight out Reform/Conservative Judaism. As R JD Bleich put it:
"On a superficial reading, the notion that Hazal were wrong on the facts but that Halakhah predicated upon those facts nevertheless remains in force because those rulings were canonized by the Sages of the Talmud and that such canonization is nothing more than a “nationwide accep¬tance of their authority” sounds very much like a Reconstructionist read¬ing of the Oral law; absent the saving grace of an ethical purpose. Such a definition of canonization of factually baseless Halakhah is nothing more than a description of tenacious adherence to quaint folk practices pre¬served, at best, in order to promote some ethnic or social purpose."
You and R. Bleich are welcome to disagree with Chasam Sofer, R. Shlomo Fisher, and R. Asher Weiss, but I think it's rather strange to describe them as Reform/Conservative. And R . Bleich's article on this is astonishingly intellectually dishonest. See https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/acknowledging-dissenting-views
And you are welcome to believe whatever you want but I think it's rather strange to describe it as Orthodox Judaism. Dor Revii is a daas yachid. The other sources have all been disproven (I don't know what the R Asher Weiss reference is). And it's the height of hubris to claim that "being an Orthodox Jew means upholding the authority of the canonized Talmud" - passing this off as not just mainstream Orthodoxy, but as a defining characteristic of it. It is neither! Take a survey - how many Orthodox rabbis (and by that I mean qualified to answer halachic questions) would agree to this sentence - "Hazal were wrong on the facts but that Halakhah predicated upon those facts nevertheless remains in force because those rulings were canonized by the Sages of the Talmud and that such canonization is nothing more than a “nationwide acceptance of their authority."? I think not many.
It's not only Dor Revii. It's also Rav Herzog ,and the essential idea that authoritative halachic sources could be wrong but their psak should still be followed is also clearly stated by Chasam Sofer.
RJDB is absolutely right that R Herzog is not a proof and neither is R Fisher. As far as CS and R Asher Weiss, you have to explain exactly what you mean rather than just make some vague references and tell us to go read Sacred Monsters.
Not sure what you mean about R. Herzog not being a "proof." It's a viewpoint of his, not a proof. RJDB thinks it's kefirah so obviously he is very against admiting that any great person held such a view. That's why he makes up spurious explanations for Rav Herzog and Rav Kappach instead of reasonable ones that are consistent with their views. And that's why he refuses to acknowledge that Dor Revii even exists.
"And that's why he refuses to acknowledge that Dor Revii even exists."
You're making this too easy. It's one thing to say that you think his explanation is silly or dishonest or whatever, but it's black on white that he addresses it. ?הֵיאָךְ יָכוֹל הַחַי לְהַכְחִישׁ אֶת הַחַי
"Rabbi Glasner’s comments are similarly not apropos. Rabbi Glasner
addresses the same problem that was earlier noted by Kesef Mishneh but
resolves the matter in an entirely different and highly imaginative manner.
In the preface to his Dor Revi’i, Rabbi Glasner states that the division of
the Torah into the Written Law and the Oral Law was divinely designed
in order to enable varying Oral Law interpretations. The prohibition
against committing the Oral Law to writing was designed by God to prevent the Oral Law from becoming cast in stone and hence no longer
subject to ongoing interpretation. Most striking is Dor Revi’i’s statement
that the very act of committing the Oral Law to writing, as was done by
the Sages of the Talmud, transmuted the status of the Oral Law to that of
the Written Law and hence rendered it no longer open to reinterpretation. The effect of that thesis is even more far-reaching than the position
formulated by Reb Elchanan. The decrees of a Bet Din ha-Gadol may be
rescinded by a later Bet Din ha-Gadol; the Written Law, however, is immutable. Rejecting any notion of reliance upon communal acceptance,
Dor Revi’i asserts that reducing the Talmud to writing makes it impossible for any future Bet Din ha-Gadol to modify any of its rulings.
According to Rabbi Glasner, if the Written Law were to state that the
moon is made of green cheese, the halakhic implications would no doubt
be irreversible. Once the Oral Law is committed to writing, such an Oral
Law statement, according to Dor Revi’i, would also become immutable.
That is why, according to Rabbi Glasner, neither the Written Law nor the
Oral Law could possibly contain such a statement. Of course, Rabbi
Glasner does not employ the hypothetical example of an assertion that
the moon is composed of green cheese. But he does present a remarkable
insight into another statement of Hazal that establishes the same point.
The Gemara, Avodah Zarah 2b, states that, before revealing Himself
at Sinai, God approached each of the nations of the world separately and
offered the Torah to each of those peoples. Each, in turn, demurred. Esau
found “Thou shalt not kill” to be beyond his nation’s moral capacity. Ammon and Mo’av found the prohibition against sexual licentiousness too
onerous; Ishma’el declined to abjure theft, etc. Only Israel failed to decline. Yet we pronounce a blessing thanking God for having chosen us
over all other nations in giving us His Torah! According to the Gemara, God
did not choose us at all; he peddled the Torah to all and sundry but His
offer was rejected. Only Israel was willing to accept the Torah as proffered.
Dor Revi’i states that rejection of the Torah by each of the gentile
nations was a rejection on behalf of the respective nations by the wise men
of each those nations that was born of intellectual honesty. The Tanna,
Rabbi Meir, constructed one hundred and fi fty arguments to purify the
sherez but did not verbalize even a single one of them. Presented with a
Torah that incorporates an Oral Law, asserts Rabbi Glasner, Esau would
have produced superfi cially convincing arguments rendering the prohibition against homicide nugatory. Ammon and Mo’av would have interpreted licentiousness out of existence and Ishma’el would have found
ways and means of circumventing the prohibition against theft. Of course,
those endeavors would have been specious, but “where there is an opportunistic will there is a spurious halakhic way.” The wise men of those
nations knew their various constituencies and recognized that their compatriots, if given the opportunity, would distort the Torah by means of
sophistry without even being cognizant of the fact that their misinterpretations were perversions born of self-interest. Israel was chosen by God
and endowed with the moral and intellectual qualities necessary to preserve the Torah and protect it from “derashot shel dofi—fallacious
interpretations.”16 I believe it is fair to say that Rabbi Glasner would claim
that God bestowed upon the people of Israel the intelligence necessary to
ensure that, in expounding the Oral Law and committing it to writing,
they would not rely upon specious reasoning.
Rabbi Glasner, in the introduction to his Dor Revi’i, s.v. u-temiha,
does concede that, were present-day scientifi c information available to
the Sages, they would not have permitted the killing of kinim on Shabbat,
nor would they have permitted consumption of worm-infested cheese.
Following the clearly implied ruling of Rambam, Hilkhot Mamrim 2:1,17
he further affirms that a bet din is not bound by a ruling of a previous bet din it believes to be erroneous even if the earlier bet din was greater “in
wisdom and number.” However, that possibility, he contends, existed
only so long as “the tradition and the law were not written and sealed
with an iron pen and the nail of the shamir. But since strong necessity
brought about that the Oral Law be endowed with permanence for posterity we have no authority to change even a jot of their conclusion and
decision . . . .” Dor Revi’i certainly asserts that the entire corpus of the
canonized Oral Law, including provisions based upon erroneous presumptions, is immutable but makes no attempt to advance a theory upon
which that assertion is based. He certainly does not base it upon ascription of legislative authority to vox populi.
The unformulated thesis may be that canonization of the Oral
Law was divinely directed and hence its codifi ed provisions are unalterable because, regardless of the veracity of whatever premises may have
been announced, the promulgated rules and regulations refl ect divine
will. Halakhah is expressive of the will of God and, in permitting codifi cation by man, God confi rms that the canonized corpus expresses His will.
Thus, codifi cation is self-validating. In effect, in the process of codifi cation, empirical error receives a divine imprimatur as halakhic truth. Hazon Ish, of course, differs in asserting that there has been no error but that nature has changed. Nor am I aware of a theory similar to that of Dor Revi’i presented in the writings of any halakhic authority. The thesis earlier presented positing that the mesorah was designed to codify and preserve perceived reality rather than actuality fi lls the lacuna left by Dor
Chasam Sofer says that in the case of Zaken Mamre, he may well be correct, but the ruling of the majority must be followed due to the importance of upholding the system of authority and preventing anarchy.
The message of Aknai is clear to me: forget God and absolute truth. Rather, listen to what your rabbis instruct u. Whatever a bat-kol REALLY is, it is still a communication from God. The rabbi-written oven midrash is an absurd tale to increase the power of the rabbis who, duh, wrote the midrash.
On the subway, there is a sign on the door: "do not exit thru this door, unless instructed to do so by a police officer." That qualifier makes full sense and is redundant. OF COURSE, if there is, c"v, a fire, the cop WILL tell u to exit this door, and u must listen.
The rabbis say the opposite: "do what WE decide, even if God himself tells u otherwise!" The rabbis r MORE arrogant: "our rules r in force EVEN IF God tells u we r wrong!"
"(It is very telling that Natan Slifkin never directly responds to any of Rabbi Bleich's more careful reading of these sources. His sole response is to posit that, from an academic perspective, it is implausible to accept Rabbi Bleich's readings in light of the personal history of the authorities in question...)"
RJDB does not have "careful" reading of these sources. He is desperate to avoid having them take a position that he considers kefirah, so he shoehorns them into a nishtaneh hateva approach, even though we know perfectly well that they took the general position that Chazal's knowledge of science was limited.
He does no such thing. And he doesn't claim that chazal were infallible either.
"Assuming, arguendo, that the dictum “even if they tell you etc.” is global and all – encompassing, its application to the issue of spontaneous generation would require that if (a) the notion of spontaneous generation as described by Hazal is to be understood literally and (b) one is also convinced that science has demonstrated that such a phenomenon does not exist and has never existed, one would be required to suspend intellectual judgment regarding the nature of empirical reality in accepting the dicta of the Sages. It does not mandate a contradictory Tertullian-like affirmation of both scientific wisdom and halakhic infallibility. It is precisely because the doctrine enunciated by Sifri does not encompass incontrovertible factual error that some authorities felt compelled to ascribe scientific inerrancy to Hazal. Otherwise, they would have declared that Hazal were wrong but that their error is inconsequential. In formulating an applicable doctrine, scientific inerrancy and factual inconsequentiality are mutually exclusive. "
His point is that sticking with a practice which was, in fact, *based* on a *mistaken factual belief* is nonsensical. You haven't replied to that in any way, other than to wave around words like canonization. Which you don't even fully seem to believe yourself. Personally, I'm not the least bit shocked that when the rubber hits the road, your canonized halacha goes right out the window. http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2010/12/excerpts-indicating-rabbi-slifkin-has.html Why shouldn't it? To paraphrase one of your favorite talking points, you may believe that you believe that your canonized Halacha is binding, but you don't *actually* believe it.
I would add that as FKM noted here, http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2012/03/aha-moment.html?q=bleich it seems your outrage at R Bleich stemmed from the fact that unlike the charedi Gedolim who banned your books, it was impossible for you to claim that R Bleich 'wasn't aware of of your sources.' (The man has a PHD in the thought of Ralbag, for Crescas' sake.) So you went all out with juvenile level ridicule of him, to the point where even R Adlerstein was disgusted. (Personally, that was when I stopped believing that you had the moral high ground. I was and am sympathetic to some of your early responses to what was in many ways a deeply cynical attempt to destroy you. Your early responses were admirably restrained and generally quite substantive. At some point, you decided to go on the attack, and now we've reached late stage Slifkin-ism where everything from the words of Yeshayahu Hanavi to Yehuda Meshi Zahav to rat poisoning in Bnei Brak is trotted out as evidence of chareidi malevolence. Chaval.)
R. Bleich brought ridicule upon himself. Here is someone who is genuinely learned in both Torah and secular sources, and yet still insists that spontaneous generation has not been disproven, and simultaneously also argues that Chazal didn't actually believe in it (which also requires him insisting that he knows how to understand Chazal better than all the Rishonim and Acharonim).
No I meant, 'uh oh, here we go again' into a rerun of an old argument that personally I had enough of. Not that he had the final word. By all means, fight it out again.
The profound difference is that the dispute about the Tanuro shel Achnai was not one of fact, but of law. And there are many different valid (perhaps one might say "true") legal interpretations. As the gemara says (Chagiga 3b):
"ת"ל "נטועים" - מה נטיעה זו פרה ורבה אף דברי תורה פרין ורבין בעלי אסופות אלו תלמידי חכמים שיושבין אסופות אסופות ועוסקין בתורה הללו מטמאין והללו מטהרין הללו אוסרין והללו מתירין הללו פוסלין והללו מכשירין שמא יאמר אדם היאך אני למד תורה מעתה תלמוד לומר כולם נתנו מרועה אחד אל אחד נתנן פרנס אחד אמרן מפי אדון כל המעשים ברוך הוא דכתיב (שמות כ:א) "וידבר אלקים את כל הדברים האלה""
Or from the medrash, ""רבי יוסי ממלחיא ורבי יהושע דסכנין בשם רבי לוי אמרו: מצינו תינוקות בימי דוד, עד שלא טעמו טעם חטא - היו יודעין לדרוש את התורה מ"ט פנים טמא ומ"ט פנים טהור, והוה דוד מצלי עליהון ."
The halachic process exists to choose between "truths". It;'s not that one opinion was true, and one not. As the gemara says "both were given from one Shepherd."
That doesn't show that rulings should stand indepedent of facts, where indeed someone is saying something contrary to what that Shepherd, wearing His Grand Architect "hat", proclaimed.
One could argue that the halakhah stands even if the case is proven a hypothetical that never can come up, like the dirt-mouse. One could argue that halachic explanations are often post-facto, so the ruling doesn't rest on the merits of the explanation. R Kook argued that there are more reasons for a halakhah that what is published, and so scientifically disproving grounds for stringency cannot remove the stringency -- other grounds likely exist. But when it comes to leniency, all it takes is one reason to fail to no longer justify leniency.
Or, one could argue that halakhah does not need to deal with objective science, but the world as we directly experience it. (E.g. R Gedaliah Nedel, http://www.hebrewbooks_org_37016.pdf#page31 BeTorato shel Rav Gedalia, pg 53-53, in particular fn. 3):
“One time after a class in which the rav mentioned this principle, for he repeated it many times in his ideas, they asked him: Is this because of Kant? (Emanuel Kant, who is thought to be one of the great modern philosophers, called by the nickname “meaningful philosophers” by the Malbim in his commentary on Vayiqra 19:18. He innovated recognizing that a person doesn’t recognize the essence in-and-of-itself, just its appearances. And the essence of this position is brought by the Malbim in his commentary to Iyov 11:6.) The rav answered me: Even without Kant. He explained that since the mitzvos were established work on the soul of a person, and to inform his Mussar image, therefore, what defines a halachic limit is the impact on a person of the thing, and not the thing in itself.”
הקב"ה נתן התורה על דעתם והבנתם [של סנהדרין] … וכשיטעו ... הרי כל ישרא' מוטעים באונס, חזקה על הקב"ה שרגלי חסידיו ישמור ולא תצא כשאת מלפניו להטעות כל ישרא' כשהם חפצים לעשות רצונו
It's apparently unbearable that all Israel should sin, despite that it was באונס. This should be true of all kinds of טעותים של סנהדרין, whether in logic or fact. But generations, a millenium plus (gasp!), killed lice on Shabbos; where was the רגלי חסידיו ישמור?!
"One could argue that halachic explanations are often post-facto, so the ruling doesn't rest on the merits of the explanation. R Kook argued that there are more reasons for a halakhah that what is published, and so scientifically disproving grounds for stringency cannot remove the stringency -- other grounds likely exist"
R Dessler said the same to R Carmel as recorded in MME V3. But I wonder how to square that with Rashi Brachos 5a SV
זה גמרא. סברת טעמי המשניות שממנו יוצאה הוראה. אבל המורים הוראה מן המשנה נקראו מבלי העולם במס׳ סוטה
and elsewhere. I.e., the reasons are there for purpose of extrapolation. But if there are other reasons, all extrapolations are suspect. You're back to being מורה מן המשנה!
(Indeed, the Gra forbade מים מגולים for this reason. A small difference between his case and these is that the Gemara's reason [snake poison] has no problem but the Gra extended the Halacha to lands that don't have snakes, while in these cases [such as cats having venom in their claws] the reason apparently wasn't ever correct.)
As an aside, when I registered (as opposed to subscribed) for this blog, I entered the wrong email address. Had I entered the correct address I would receive people's comments to me not only here where I have to come back to see if anyone responded, but also to my email where I'd become aware of those comments. Do you (or anyone) know how to correct that?
I once took a philosophy course in the history of science, and I am aware of the metaphysical shortcomings of modern science. That said, the scientific method (SM) has proved valuable and mostly consistent for the past 300 years. It is used in the social, as well as the natural, sciences. Of course the SM has its unproven axioms, but, I believe, they r much fewer than most religions' attempt to explain our observable earth, though maybe less good in explaining at the universe.
Eastern and Persian philosophy and religions at least have duality to fall back on. In Jewish thought, however, aside from creating the entire universe and life, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. On top of all that, he is deeply invested in man's daily behavior, including "service" in meticulous detail, occupying many hours of the day. Now, THOSE axioms r a very heavy nut to tote.
@HS, I shan't be overly specific, but the upcoming Parsha tells that a miracle will occur as a confirmation for you to sin. It's to test you. Remember to ignore the miracle, even though G-d is behind it. Same idea with Bas Kol.
You apparently believe in Bas Kol.
Where in Shmos 21 and separately in Vayikra 22 does a literal reading of the Psukim give the rabbis power yet the rabbis explained the Psukim as not giving them power?
Which is primary, the written Torah or the oral Torah, and why? How is the Torah different lehavdil, from Joseph Smith's plates?
The rabbi-written oven Gemara doesn't increase the power of the rabbis. Rabbis in the minority next time lose. It increases the power of the majority. There is to be a united law and the minority may not remain independent. It forbids rabbinic independence. This is only if the minority rabbis were given a chance to explain themselves to the majority in an attempt to win them over to their view. If not then the minority rabbis are indeed independent and this entire Gemara is irrelevant, provided that certain conditions are met.
As quoted by someone else, the Gemara there says explicitly, מאי לא בשמים היא אמר רבי ירמיה שכבר נתנה תורה מהר סיני אין אנו משגיחין בבת קול שכבר כתבת בהר סיני בתורה (שמות כג, ב) אחרי רבים להטות.
1st of all, the oven midrash was never intended to be taken factually. Why? Because if God (or his emissary, the BK) diverted rivers, tilted walls, and ultimately spoke to the rabbis, those rabbis would quake in their boots! Those intense miracles would be all over the gemara and repeated for centuries.
No, this confection was conkokted by the rabbis to their own benefit. It is almost inconsequential whether the majority (of rabbis) always rules, but much more importantly, their lesson is that the rabbinical body is the ultimate guide for man, even where God (and fact) disagrees. The kicker: even God himself backs up the rabbis, not himself.
2nd, I am tired of the catch-all excuse that God throws us unspeakable horrors (e.g., the holocaust) in order to TEST us! He already knows where we stand, but we still must endure squid-game like "tests," where the failers, and some of the passers too, must be tortured and die. To find out what? Who deeply loves and truly loves him?
I "believe" in BK, but only to play along with the midrash on rabbinical terms.
What will we ever do if Messiah comes, and a slim majority of the rabbis do not believe he is legit? It could happen, perhaps for political reasons, and the rabbis send him back packing.
Sir, Kofer, etc. don't you know that R Yehoshua told the walls not to fall down so they didn't? Read the Gemara. So R Yehoshua wasn't afraid. Though could be the Shita brings those who say the story wasn't literal. But not for your reason. Someone's getting rusty.
How many miracles are in the Gemara that you want this one to stand out?
Since you're tired of tests when it comes to horrors, whether your own of that of the 6m, you're tired period. Even though this week's Parsha mentions it; the "excuse" was built into the system from the start.
Ok. If you're ever interested again, realize that this time you didn't express your paradigm adequately, and would need to put it on the table and prove it before engaging in its ramifications.
Like many of us, you got fed up with all the debating and almost swear we won't EVER do it again! But after the cool-off period, we're back at it again.
I'll include a nice quote about paradigms, which strikes in both directions:
"He went on to explain that “the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which—it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law—but I think that in honesty . . we should recognize . . [This science] has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion . . akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions which, at some levels, cannot be proven empirically [factually].” "
It is very true - since writing the previous comment I have talked to people involved in one of the kosher butcher and they told me that they are preparing kosher Turkey for the next months.
So I am not certain that the matter up to today was halachik stringency.
But Sao Paulo is a different city - the rabbis here try to adopt every possible chumra
Another interesting case in the same vein is oats. Some modern authorities have shown fairly convincingly that modern oats are not the biblical שיבולת שועל. (R Slifkin, I can't recall if you've addressed this). But does that mean that using oat matza isn't acceptable at the Seder? Or that the Abadi family's bizarre heter of oats on Pesach is ok, upending centuries of normative halacha?
Thanks. I would be really interested to read what you think about the issue of halakha based on mistaken facts in regards to the issue of Kilayim, primarily regarding kilei zeraim. I wrote about the issue of Kilayim in my rabbinical school final teshuva, and I'm still unsure how to address the issue when asked. There is a great deal of suspicion concerning genetically modified organisms in general and specifically regarding genetic manipulation in agriculture. In spite of the general heter (given, as I understand it, because the genes have no kiyum of their own outside the cells they can be placed in), many people are uncomfortable with the idea of eating strawberries with fish genes, for example.
For those requesting a source, Maharal In Be’er Hagola, Be’er Dalet, Mishnah Dalet discusses a similar concept, although with different nuance. He states that although R Eliezer was wiser and had a more intellectually accurate understanding of halacha, the actual halacha is like the majority because the Torah is sourced in a unified, elevated understanding that sits at a higher plane than individualized understanding, and is more directly reflected in Israel’s collective halachic values.
Not quite exactly the same as the point in the post, and not exactly ‘rationalist’, but still close enough.
Very nice post! And (as always) very well written. Great message.
We can amicably quibble about small details, such as your sweeping statements about the oven of Achnai which is far more nuanced than presented, or your understanding of when and how certain things are accepted להלכה which is a big giant sugya with a whole range of opinions and pretty definite outcomes, see Rosh in Sanhedrin 4:6 for starters.
But the gist was very nice. Shkoyach!
Enjoy the feast!
Do you have a source for your understanding of the achnai gemara? That's not how the concept of lo bashamayim was explained to me, but I definitely don't claim a comprehensive familiarity with the topic.
I don't understand your approach though. If the bas kol represents the absolute objective truth, why indeed didn't the majority change their position accordingly? Why would they argue on an objective truth?
See here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/more-about-torah-science-and-torah
Because Torah lo bashmayim - that's the whole lesson if the gemara.
That doesn't by itself solve anything. The machlokes by tannur shel achnai was about what the rules are for when something ceases to be mekabel tumah. It's an inherently legalistic debate. The question is what the status of the dirt (which acts as a sort of glue) is with regard to earthenware pieces. That's clearly not amenable, even in theory, to objective factual resolution- in a way in which questions about e.g. how lice come into being are. It follows that it's possible to have a binding vote on how to apply rules of tumah ve'tahara- which is what happened by tannur shel achnai. But it's obviously absurd to 'vote' on how lice come into being.
Getting back to the the tannur shel achnai, the principle of lo ba'shamayim hi only comes in at the end of the debate, when R Eliezer appealed to all sorts of supernatural phenomena. R Yehoshua's response was that the bas kol is irrelevant. G-d gave us the Torah already. Included in that were the rules for deciding disputes, and that's what we're bound by. (As the gemara there says explicitly, מאי לא בשמים היא אמר רבי ירמיה שכבר נתנה תורה מהר סיני אין אנו משגיחין בבת קול שכבר כתבת בהר סיני בתורה (שמות כג, ב) אחרי רבים להטות) Miraculous phenomena are irrelevant to the matter. But if hypothetically it turned out that the oven which they thought was made out of dirt was actually pure earthenware, obviously the majority vote would be irrelevant, just any vote which was based on a ta'us be'dvar mishna is not relevant or binding in any way.
Just discovered that R Micha Berger made the same point.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/halacha-science-and-birds/comment/21933119
Indeed, lice is a Metzius while Tanur Shel Achnai is only a Sevara. But we have a difficult Psak by lice and the Pachad Yitzchak refuses to back down under the force of the Metzius. The way to resolve him is to extend Tanur Shel Achnai to lice. I think that Paskening with a Sevara repudiated by a Bas Kol (with the understanding that it is the only objective {if that's the right word} and sacred divine truth) is just as horrid, as it were, as Paskening with something repudiated by Metzius.
(And once you do that you can help earn a Baal Teshuva—a whole world—or two. Gevald in der velt!)
I've read your comment twice, and can't make heads or tails of it. Not trying to be snarky. Maybe rephrase in more straightforward terms.
Fair enough. Let me try. (I might have to go away from the computer soon and will only be able to continue later.)
Encyclopedia/Sefer Pachad Yitzchok (Lampronti) Erech Tzeida says that lice are asur for us to kill on shabbos even though there is a scientific Kasha on that. He gives no 'reason' other than that we must stick to the ruling of the Talmud. He doesn't say the Metzius changed. He doesn't say that the eggs are too small. If Lo Bashamayim works in a different context can we use it in this context too?
IOW, you have a good chiluk between the cases, but I'm claiming a hechrach not to be mechalek.
And I add that by TSA we did something 'terrible' when we paskened against the divine Sevara (a legality). They say, א סברה איז א מציאות. Certainly א הימלישע סברה. So it wouldn't be much more 'terrible' to go against a literal Metzius (a fact).
Whether I'm right or not, I hope I was clearer this time.
Thanks for clarifying.
"Encyclopedia/Sefer Pachad Yitzchok (Lampronti) Erech Tzeida says that lice are asur for us to kill on shabbos even though there is a scientific Kasha on that. He gives no 'reason' other than that we must stick to the ruling of the Talmud."
No. The gemara says it's *muttar.* The pachad Yitzchak himself wanted to be machmir because he said metzius compels it. His rebbi said you rejected that because chazal had a meosrah. He replied that it's not clear that they had a mesorah. https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20342&hilite=d05d2644-2679-4f75-b40e-6ca3fb93e4d9&st=%d7%a6%d7%99%d7%93%d7%94&pgnum=45 But *neither* suggested that chazal based their halacha on a mistake but we follow it anyhow. See quote from rabbi bleich here: https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/halacha-science-and-birds/comment/21809214
That itself is the subject of a Machlokes.
A Bas Kol decided the Halacha like Beis Hillel, effectively disagreeing with that Gemara
Do you believe you have answered the question?
Yes.
I agree. Of course you answered the question. That’s the whole (well if not “whole” at least “prime”) lesson of the Gemara - lo bashamayim he. Shkoyach
Shkoyach indeed. Brilliant pshat in the gemara.
The chachamim were presented with objective proof from G-d himself that they were wrong, but they said hey we're the majority so for the stability of halacha we'll ignore objective proof.
Hmmm, why didn't they just say "y'know, let's just not argue on objective proof, and then we'll be the majority AND right at the same time, and halacha will still be stable"? Guess they didn't think of that idea.
I have an idea for you clowns: why don't you try to learn the sugya the way the meforshim from the past fifteen hundred years did, and not fall for the idiot who writes this blog?
(Pro tip to get you started - his Chasam Sofer does not learn achnai the way he does. Surprise. Cuz it's a stupid pshat, and Chaasam Sofer has a running policy of not saying stupid things.)
"the meforshim from the past fifteen hundred years..."
Who and where are they? Thank you.
Shkoyach indeed. Brilliant pshat in the gemara.
The chachamim were presented with objective proof from G-d himself that they were wrong, but they said hey we're the majority so for the stability of halacha we'll ignore objective proof.
Hmmm, why didn't they just say "y'know, let's just not argue on objective proof, and then we'll be the majority AND right at the same time, and halacha will still be stable"? Guess they didn't think of that idea.
I have an idea for you clowns: why don't you try to learn the sugya the way the meforshim from the past fifteen hundred years did, and not fall for the idiot who writes this blog?
(Pro tip to get you started - his Chasam Sofer does not learn achnai the way he does. Surprise. Cuz it's a stupid pshat, and Chaasam Sofer has a running policy of not saying stupid things.)
"Rational Traditionalist," why don't you go check out the Ran, who explains the Gemara exactly as I said, and whom you just insulted.
“I have an idea for you clowns”
That’s one of the sweetest insults hurled by those who claim stand up for the kavod haTorah on this blog yet who hurl insults left and right.
I am of course presuming you mean to say that we “clowns” are all destined for Olam HaBah per Eliyahu HaNavi in his discussion with R. Berokah (Taanit 22).
Thanks!
“Hmmm, why didn't they just say "y'know, let's just not argue on objective proof, and then we'll be the majority AND right at the same time, and halacha will still be stable"? Guess they didn't think of that idea.”
Well, if you want the reasons why those particular Chachamim behaved a certain way, you’d need to ask rabbi Yehoshua or Rabban Gamliel, or any of the other rabbis present wouldn’t you? (They may each have had their own reasons).
But the main reason why the Gemara presents the story is to teach “lo bashamayim he”
Whether there was really a bat lol or not the instruction is the that the halachah is decided by us.
Exactly. Many rishonim learn differently, such as that the bas kol was בכבודו של רבי אליעזר. Also, Hashem put rules in the Torah such as אחרי רבים להטות amongst others and Hashem would never contradict Himself. This topic is very broad (most of why we would never accept Christianity is based on this).
The reason for אחרי רבים, from what we understand through the Gemara and Rishonim is actually partly because that is the best way to get to the truth (think 50 doctors saying one way and one saying the other, usually the fifty are right, unless there are ראיות ברורות, in which the other 50 will probably be convinced)
The case of Tanur shel Achnai shows that following the majority is NOT about getting to the truth. Chasam Sofer says likewise re. Zaken mamre - that he might well be correct and know it but it makes no difference.
Do you have a source for your understanding of the gemara?
I don't see how you've addressed my question. If they viewed the bas kol as objective truth, why would they continue to maintain something that contradicts objective truth? The bas kol was revealed to the actual ba'alei plugta during the machlokes, not to some other people at a later time. Acharei rabbam l'hatos doesn't explain why the rabbim themselves would insist on a halacha that has been demonstrated to be objectively wrong.
Again, I don't consider myself an expert in the sugya, im kabbala hi mikabel. Do you have a source?
The point is that (sorry no Hebrew on my laptop keyboard) Ein LeDayan Ela Mah Sheinav Ro'os, along with Lo BaShamayim Hi. The Chachamim had to rule according to how they understood the halacha. And Hashem approved, even though they were wrong.
Shaul my friend, maybe I can help you out. What this fellow means when he says "fyi everything I say has a source" and therefore calling his interpretation of achnai ridiculous is calling Chasam Sofer ridiculous has to be understood within the context of his own imagination.
Please don't get too confused about this - your hanacha rishona was correct. His pshat in achnai is indeed unbelievably ridiculous - he's essentially saying that the bas kol constitutes a revelation of objective truth and that R' Yehoshua v'chaveirav were demonstrated TO THEIR FACES to be wrong, and yet did not retract in face of this revelation of objective truth because they decided that their own opinion WHICH THEY WERE IN MIDDLE OF DEBATING was a majority opinion so they shouldn't go against it.
This is par for the course stuff for this blog; don't spend too much brain power trying to grasp.
And no, he does not have a source for this interpretation of the gemara (the Chasam Sofer absolutely does not say this is pshat in the sugya of achnai) - for a very good reason, because it's objectively stupid and incoherent. Which is why despite your repeated attempts to dig one out of him he keeps deflecting. But never mind - "fyi he has a source for everything he says" so be a good boy and just close your mind and accept.
Actually in Drashod 7 the Ran is even more explicit in saying exactly which the "Rational Traditionalist" called "unbelievably ridiculous":
וזהו ענין רבי אליעזר הגדול ומחלוקתו, כדאמרינן שם במציעא (דף נט:) עמד ר' יהושע על רגליו ואמר "לא בשמים היא" (דברים ל, יב) כבר ניתנה למשה על הר סיני וכתוב בה "אחרי רבים להטות" . הנה ראו כולם שר' אליעזר מסכים אל האמת יותר מהם, וכי אותותיו כולם אמיתיים צודקים, והכריעו מן השמים כדבריו, ואף על פי כן עשו מעשה כהסכמתם. שאחר ששכלם נוטה לטמא, אף על פי שהיו יודעים שהיו מסכימים הפך מן האמת, לא רצו לטהר. והיו עוברים על דברי תורה אם היו מטהרים, כיון ששכלם נוטה לטמא. שההכרעה נמסרה לחכמי הדורות, ואשר יסכימו הם הוא אשר צוהו ה'.
Shaul, look at Drashas HaRan 11, who explains the Gemara exactly as I said. Ignore that "Rationalist Traditionalist" considers the view of Ran to be ridiculous simply because he doesn't understand it.
שו"ת ח"ס השמטות חו"מ סימן קצא
https://hebrewbooks.org/14666
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14666&st=&pgnum=143&hilite=
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14666&st=&pgnum=144&hilite=
My comment shows how תנור של עכנאי is not against the idea of אחרי רבים getting to the truth. You can share the מראה מקום of the חתם סופר but I doubt it will be different that what I'm saying. זקן ממרא would fall under the same lines. We don't live by individuals, we live by a system. The system is really powerful and catches mistakes.
Chasam Sofer is completely different from what you are saying. See שו"ת חתם סופר חלק ה - השמטות סימן קצא
I see, thanks.
But he seems clear afterwards that it's because there really *is* more than one actual valid viewpoint in Torah, as I've been discussing with @test...
No, he makes it very clear that the majority view could well be objectively wrong.
Where does he say that?
Ha ha. I'm not sure what's stupider, that you blithely passed off your own ridiculous misunderstanding of the achnai sugya as if this is voss shteit durtan, or the fact that your interpretation makes absolutely zero objective internal sense.
Either way, don't worry - I'm sure David Ohisi or whatever his name is and your other three admirers will eat it up.
As for the rest of the post - congratulations. You've discovered the concept of mesoras hahalacha and mehalech hapsak. Took you long enough.
Here is the Ran's "ridiculous" explanation:
וצוה אליהם שיתנהגו בדבר ההוא ע"פ מה שיבררו ב"ד הגדול כאמרו כי יפלא ממך דבר וגו' על פי התורה וגו', ובא בקבלה ז"ל אפי' אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל וכו', כלו' אפי' ברור לך שאין האמת כדברי הוראת הסנהדרין אעפ"כ שמע אליהם, כי כן צוה ה' ית' שננהוג בדברי תורה ומצותיה כפי מה שיכריעו הם, יסכימו לאמת או לא יסכימו... וגם כן נאמין שאם הסכימו הפך האמת ונדע זה על ידי בת קול או נביא אין ראוי שנסור מהסכמת החכמים. וזה הוא ענין ר' אליעזר הגדול עם החכמים כמוזכר בפרק הזהב (בבא מציעא דף מח) שאע"פ שנתן אותות גדולים וחזקים שהאמת כדבריו ויצתה בת קול מן השמים ואמרה מה לכם אצל ר' אליעזר שהלכה כמותו בכל מקום אעפ"כ כשלא רצה להסכים לדבריהם נמנו עליו וברכוהו. לפי שלא מסר הש"י הכרעת ספקות התורה לנביא ולא לבת קול אלא לחכמי הדור, וזה שעמד ר' יהושע על רגליו ואמר לא בשמים היא:
Frankie, I forgot to add the Ran (Drashos HaRan 11), who explains the sugya exactly as I said. This is someone else to add to the list of authorities that you insulted.
What list?
And please don't add Ran to any list till you learn how to read and think straight.
See RT's explanation above as to why this is meaningless for you. Couldn't have said it better myself.
You're welcome to disagree with Chasam Sofer, R. Shlomo Fisher and (yibadel lechaim) R. Asher Weiss, but please don't refer to their views as "ridiculous," it's disrespectful towards Talmidei Chachamim (no wonder you don't use your real name here).
Incidentally, the source in Chasam Sofer is שו"ת חתם סופר חלק ה - השמטות סימן קצא
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/halacha-science-and-birds/comment/21791478
Here: https://wiki.jewishbooks.org.il/mediawiki/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%95%22%D7%AA_%D7%97%D7%AA%D7%9D_%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%A8/%D7%94/%D7%A7%D7%A6%D7%90
This is about achnai? Or about zakein mamre?
Chasam Sofer is primarily about Zaken Mamre but makes reference to Lo BaShamayim hi.
Ha ha. The hilarious thing is I believe you are serious, and that you don't grasp how senseless your pshat is. And how irrelevant the Chasam Sofer is as basis for that pshat in achnai, which makes no sense whatsoever.
I'm sorry if I'm getting confused. The whole thread thing is convoluted. Did you say somewhere that these three gedolim explain achnai like you? Can I trouble you for the chapter verse? (Again, sorry if you provided it already somewhere)
They don't follow 'the mesorah' in this, so they can be ignored.
To say the Gemara was "canonized" goes too far, bc it really wasn't. We are not Catholics, with a body empowered to canonize anything. And there are countless areas where the halacha *doesn't* follow the Gemara, such as in the laws of Avelus or Krias HaTorah and myriad other things, up to and including a mitzvah tantz. The word "canonization" may sound scientific (or "rational", if one prefers), but it implies the Gemara took on a de jure status of authority, when it was really only de facto, over time. Thus, where local custom refused to budge, that custom remains the law, regardless of Talmudic opinion to the contrary.
Well said. We accept חז"ל because the knew better. And of course it wasn't any individual, it was the entire body of חכמינו at the time.
That is one view but Rav Shlomo Fisher and others say differently. The Amoraim did not argue with the Tannaim and it's not that there was a sudden drop in knowledge.
I believe the Kesef Mishna says that the Amoraim voluntarily agreed to stop arguing with Tannaim, because eat some point you have to have a cut off.
Just to clarify - because there was a drop in knowledge, and though it happened gradually, there needs to be a cut off point... (You're not saying different (I assume), but it can be unclear for those unfamiliar)
Why does there NEED to be a cut off point?
Well you, for example, shouldn't argue with Rashi.
The issue of knowledge progression v knowledge regression is an old one, and opinion usually breaks down along the familiar divide, what you call (but I dont) rationalists v mystics. Do we know more than they did, or less? As usual, both views can be found in the Gemara, the dominant view is the "frummer" view, and probably the truth is that both views are correct in different situations, the definitions of which are debatable.
See that? שלום על ישראל. That's Tu B'Av for you.
"As usual, both views can be found in the Gemara..."
Where please?
Don - best summary is by Dr. Leiman in his introduction to the article Dwarfs on the Shoulders of Giants, in the venerable Tradition magazine. Should be easily available online.
In case its not, a few citations just from my own notes and files would include, and sorry from the format, I am c and p'ing from a PDF doc: יומא מט. א"ר חנינא בא וראה שאלת הראשונים – פרש"י, "בא וראה שהדור האחרון זוכה
להתחכם כדורות הראשונים
גיטין ה. "לא אמרו אלא
בדורות הראשונים שאין בקיאין לשמה אבל
בדורות האחרונים דבקיאין לשמה
ערובין (סד:) "אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי
שמעון בן יוחאי לא שנו [דין מסויים] אלא
בדורות הראשונים שאין בנות ישראל פרוצות
בכשפים, אבל בדורות האחרונים שבנות
ישראל פרוצות בכשפים מעבירין
There WAS a drop in knowledge from the תנאים to the אמוראים. That is the view that I will strongly defend, along with the חזון איש.
You can try to defend it. But be aware that R. Shlomo Fisher and others disagree. And they have powerful arguments. See Drashos Beis Yishai.
I'll take a look bl'n, thanks
How will you defend it? Where you there?
Guess what, it's a machlokas like everything else! You try and apply eilu v'eily to it. All 30 explanations.
One proof the Chazon Ish brings a proof from רב תנא ופליג. There are other proofs as well
There is a maritz chayes who says an amora can argue with a tanah but it was accepted not to pasken that way. (can't find it now in כל כתבי but Reb David cites it to argue on him:)
On the contrary, that shows the boundaries were blurred and not sudden.
הוא מחלוקת הגר"א וואססערמאן בדברי סופרים וגליונות חזון איש שם, נדפסו ב"קובץ ביאורים" שהוציא לאור הרב דרורי מבני ברק, וחלק מגליונות החזון איש הועתקו בקובץ אגרות ח"א חלק א' (אין הספר אצלי ושכחתי את הסימן, אולי סימן כ"ה)
"it implies the Gemara took on a de jure status of authority, when it was really only de facto, over time. Thus, where local custom refused to budge, that custom remains the law, regardless of Talmudic opinion to the contrary."
Or to put it another way, it is canonized and accepted except when it's not. Rabbinic Jews might not "argue on the Gemara" but we are very good at drawing distinctions and limiting talmudic statements to very specific situations such that don't apply any more (even though there's no hint in the Gemara itself regarding that.
As you mentioned laws such as Aveilus - nobody I know flips their bed over (Moed Katan 15), or how (relevant to Tisha B'av last week) we often have music/song during simachot or other meals (such as fundraising dinners) where wine and meat are present (Sotah 48, Gittin 7); or maybe I just live in a Reform town.
so it seems we follow the Talmud (which was canonized) except when we don't (in which circumstances it wasn't?).
It is correct to say we follow the Gemara except in certain cases where custom dictates otherwise. Certainly in all cases where there is no prevailing custom - which includes most post 5th century developments - we follow the Gemara.
As always, there are exceptions to every rule.
"Thus, where local custom refused to budge, that custom remains the law, regardless of Talmudic opinion to the contrary."
Only in cases of Talmudic *custom* not *law*.
sefaria הקדמת הר"מ למ"ת (with any mistakes)
וְכָל בֵּית דִּין שֶׁעָמַד אַחַר הַתַּלְמוּד בְּכָל מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה וְגָזַר אוֹ הִתְקִין אוֹ הִנְהִיג לִבְנֵי מְדִינָתוֹ, אוֹ לִבְנֵי מְדִינוֹת – לֹא פָשְׁטוּ מַעֲשָׂיו בְּכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל: מִפְּנֵי רֹחַק מוֹשְׁבוֹתֵיהֶם, וְשִׁבּוּשׁ הַדְּרָכִים; וֶהֱיוֹת בֵּית דִּין שֶׁלְּאוֹתָהּ הַמְּדִינָה יְחִידִים, וּבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁלְּשִׁבְעִים בָּטַל מִכַּמָּה שָׁנִים קֹדֶם חִבּוּר הַתַּלְמוּד.
Every court that was established after the conclusion of the Talmud, regardless of the country in which it was established, issued decrees, enacted ordinances, and established customs for the people of that country - or those of several countries. These practices, however, were not accepted throughout the Jewish people, because of the distance between [their different] settlements and the disruption of communication [between them]. Since each of these courts were considered to be individuals - and the High Court of 71 judges had been defunct for many years before the composition of the Talmud -
לְפִיכָּךְ אֵין כּוֹפִין אַנְשֵׁי מְדִינָה זוֹ לִנְהֹג בְּמִנְהַג מְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת, וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין לְבֵית דִּין זֶה לִגְזֹר גְּזֵרָה שֶׁגְּזָרָהּ בֵּית דִּין אַחֵר בִּמְדִינָתוֹ. וְכֵן אִם לִמַּד אֶחָד מִן הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ הַמִּשְׁפָּט כָּךְ הוּא, וְנִתְבָּאַר לְבֵית דִּין אַחֵר שֶׁעָמַד אַחֲרָיו שְׁאֵין זֶה דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּשְׁפָּט הַכָּתוּב בַּתַּלְמוּד – אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָרִאשׁוֹן, אֵלָא לְמִי שֶׁהַדַּעַת נוֹטָה לִדְבָרָיו, בֵּין רִאשׁוֹן, בֵּין אַחֲרוֹן.
people in one country could not be compelled to follow the practices of another country, nor is one court required to sanction decrees which another court had declared in its locale. Similarly, if one of the Geonim interpreted the path of judgment in a certain way, while the court which arose afterward interpreted the proper approach to the matter in a different way, the [opinion of the] first [need] not be adhered to [absolutely]. Rather, whichever [position] appears to be correct - whether the first or the last - is accepted.
וּדְבָרִים הַלָּלוּ, בְּדִינִים וּגְזֵרוֹת וְתַקָּנוֹת וּמִנְהָגוֹת שֶׁנִּתְחַדְּשׁוּ אַחַר חִבּוּר הַתַּלְמוּד. אֲבָל כָּל הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁבַּתַּלְמוּד הַבַּבְלִי, חַיָּבִין כָּל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל לָלֶכֶת בָּהֶם; וְכוֹפִין כָּל עִיר וְעִיר וְכָל מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה לִנְהֹג בְּכָל הַמִּנְהָגוֹת שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁבַּתַּלְמוּד, וְלִגְזֹר גְּזֵרוֹתָם וְלָלֶכֶת בְּתַקָּנוֹתָם.
These [principles apply regarding] the judgments, decrees, ordinances, and customs which were established after the conclusion of the Talmud. However, all the matters mentioned by the Babylonian Talmud are incumbent on the entire Jewish people to follow. We must compel each and every city and each country to accept all the customs that were put into practice by the Sages of the Talmud, to pass decrees parallelling their decrees, and to observe their ordinances, since all the matters in the Babylonian Talmud were accepted by the entire Jewish people.
If one looks in the ספרי כללים, there are rules for every exception and exceptions for every rule. That's why I say it is very difficult to say anything with certainty, other than that we generally follow the Gemara except in those cases we don't, and nearly always in cases where is no custom.
A good read, but I must ask, are you having a mid life crisis? This post is very uncharacteristic for you, one might have expected it of one of the writers on cross currents !
I don't share your perception of DNS; I've seen things like this from him many times (such as that he eats the 'yeshivishe' shiur of Matzah on Pesach, amongst many, many other examples of respect for the Mesorah).
I don't eat the "yeshivishe" shiur (and it's certainly not the "mesorah.") I said that I eat more than an olive, because who eats the absolute minimum amount of anything?!
But yes, I do believe that mesorah is very important, which is why I personally do not wear techelet (though I don't object to others who do).
Mesorah is just peer pressure from the dead 😎
You love word games
Says the guy who studies Talmud all day 🤣🤣🤣
This murex techeiles has only been around for around 25 years. How can there be a mesorah not to use it?
Yeah, but you know you should, you just dont want to be called a hypocrite! ;-D
I have never understood why those who follow every chumrah in the book, don't go for techeiles. What could be the harm even if not?
The answer is of course it was found by the modox/DL.
100%
I can't locate the exact quote, but the context was specifically about that you want to make sure to stick to the mesorah somewhat as so not to fly off the handle, since a lot of your ideas are "rebellious"...
I cannot say for certain, but you may be referring to:
“I already rock the boat quite a lot. It is quite likely that at some point wearing techeles will become mainstream, and then I'll be glad to join the crowd. But in the meanwhile, I think that it is wise for me to be as conservative as possible in the area of practice.
From “Why People Don't Wear Techeles” RNS 1/8/2014.
I remember a quote specifically about the kezayis discussion (and I could be misremembering), but that works perfectly, thanks!
FYI: please bear in mind that, as with much of what I write, there are plenty of sources for what I say but which I don't necessarily reference (especially when I am traveling). For this post in particular, see Sacred Monsters for sources.
Same. Everything I write has many, many sources, some of which even exist.
Can you tell me the source for your understanding of achnai? I don't have access to the book now. Thanks!
"Being an Orthodox Jew means upholding the authority of the canonized Talmud."
This is your version of Orthodox Judaism. Don't put words in everyone else's mouth. Your view on canonization of Halachah is chidush (to say the least) that many people (myself included) think is straight out Reform/Conservative Judaism. As R JD Bleich put it:
"On a superficial reading, the notion that Hazal were wrong on the facts but that Halakhah predicated upon those facts nevertheless remains in force because those rulings were canonized by the Sages of the Talmud and that such canonization is nothing more than a “nationwide accep¬tance of their authority” sounds very much like a Reconstructionist read¬ing of the Oral law; absent the saving grace of an ethical purpose. Such a definition of canonization of factually baseless Halakhah is nothing more than a description of tenacious adherence to quaint folk practices pre¬served, at best, in order to promote some ethnic or social purpose."
You and R. Bleich are welcome to disagree with Chasam Sofer, R. Shlomo Fisher, and R. Asher Weiss, but I think it's rather strange to describe them as Reform/Conservative. And R . Bleich's article on this is astonishingly intellectually dishonest. See https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/acknowledging-dissenting-views
And you are welcome to believe whatever you want but I think it's rather strange to describe it as Orthodox Judaism. Dor Revii is a daas yachid. The other sources have all been disproven (I don't know what the R Asher Weiss reference is). And it's the height of hubris to claim that "being an Orthodox Jew means upholding the authority of the canonized Talmud" - passing this off as not just mainstream Orthodoxy, but as a defining characteristic of it. It is neither! Take a survey - how many Orthodox rabbis (and by that I mean qualified to answer halachic questions) would agree to this sentence - "Hazal were wrong on the facts but that Halakhah predicated upon those facts nevertheless remains in force because those rulings were canonized by the Sages of the Talmud and that such canonization is nothing more than a “nationwide acceptance of their authority."? I think not many.
It's not only Dor Revii. It's also Rav Herzog ,and the essential idea that authoritative halachic sources could be wrong but their psak should still be followed is also clearly stated by Chasam Sofer.
RJDB is absolutely right that R Herzog is not a proof and neither is R Fisher. As far as CS and R Asher Weiss, you have to explain exactly what you mean rather than just make some vague references and tell us to go read Sacred Monsters.
Not sure what you mean about R. Herzog not being a "proof." It's a viewpoint of his, not a proof. RJDB thinks it's kefirah so obviously he is very against admiting that any great person held such a view. That's why he makes up spurious explanations for Rav Herzog and Rav Kappach instead of reasonable ones that are consistent with their views. And that's why he refuses to acknowledge that Dor Revii even exists.
"And that's why he refuses to acknowledge that Dor Revii even exists."
You're making this too easy. It's one thing to say that you think his explanation is silly or dishonest or whatever, but it's black on white that he addresses it. ?הֵיאָךְ יָכוֹל הַחַי לְהַכְחִישׁ אֶת הַחַי
Pages 69-71
https://traditiononline.org/survey-of-recent-halakhic-periodical-literature-spontaneous-generation-and-halakhic-inerrancy-by-j-david-bleich/
"Rabbi Glasner’s comments are similarly not apropos. Rabbi Glasner
addresses the same problem that was earlier noted by Kesef Mishneh but
resolves the matter in an entirely different and highly imaginative manner.
In the preface to his Dor Revi’i, Rabbi Glasner states that the division of
the Torah into the Written Law and the Oral Law was divinely designed
in order to enable varying Oral Law interpretations. The prohibition
against committing the Oral Law to writing was designed by God to prevent the Oral Law from becoming cast in stone and hence no longer
subject to ongoing interpretation. Most striking is Dor Revi’i’s statement
that the very act of committing the Oral Law to writing, as was done by
the Sages of the Talmud, transmuted the status of the Oral Law to that of
the Written Law and hence rendered it no longer open to reinterpretation. The effect of that thesis is even more far-reaching than the position
formulated by Reb Elchanan. The decrees of a Bet Din ha-Gadol may be
rescinded by a later Bet Din ha-Gadol; the Written Law, however, is immutable. Rejecting any notion of reliance upon communal acceptance,
Dor Revi’i asserts that reducing the Talmud to writing makes it impossible for any future Bet Din ha-Gadol to modify any of its rulings.
According to Rabbi Glasner, if the Written Law were to state that the
moon is made of green cheese, the halakhic implications would no doubt
be irreversible. Once the Oral Law is committed to writing, such an Oral
Law statement, according to Dor Revi’i, would also become immutable.
That is why, according to Rabbi Glasner, neither the Written Law nor the
Oral Law could possibly contain such a statement. Of course, Rabbi
Glasner does not employ the hypothetical example of an assertion that
the moon is composed of green cheese. But he does present a remarkable
insight into another statement of Hazal that establishes the same point.
The Gemara, Avodah Zarah 2b, states that, before revealing Himself
at Sinai, God approached each of the nations of the world separately and
offered the Torah to each of those peoples. Each, in turn, demurred. Esau
found “Thou shalt not kill” to be beyond his nation’s moral capacity. Ammon and Mo’av found the prohibition against sexual licentiousness too
onerous; Ishma’el declined to abjure theft, etc. Only Israel failed to decline. Yet we pronounce a blessing thanking God for having chosen us
over all other nations in giving us His Torah! According to the Gemara, God
did not choose us at all; he peddled the Torah to all and sundry but His
offer was rejected. Only Israel was willing to accept the Torah as proffered.
Dor Revi’i states that rejection of the Torah by each of the gentile
nations was a rejection on behalf of the respective nations by the wise men
of each those nations that was born of intellectual honesty. The Tanna,
Rabbi Meir, constructed one hundred and fi fty arguments to purify the
sherez but did not verbalize even a single one of them. Presented with a
Torah that incorporates an Oral Law, asserts Rabbi Glasner, Esau would
have produced superfi cially convincing arguments rendering the prohibition against homicide nugatory. Ammon and Mo’av would have interpreted licentiousness out of existence and Ishma’el would have found
ways and means of circumventing the prohibition against theft. Of course,
those endeavors would have been specious, but “where there is an opportunistic will there is a spurious halakhic way.” The wise men of those
nations knew their various constituencies and recognized that their compatriots, if given the opportunity, would distort the Torah by means of
sophistry without even being cognizant of the fact that their misinterpretations were perversions born of self-interest. Israel was chosen by God
and endowed with the moral and intellectual qualities necessary to preserve the Torah and protect it from “derashot shel dofi—fallacious
interpretations.”16 I believe it is fair to say that Rabbi Glasner would claim
that God bestowed upon the people of Israel the intelligence necessary to
ensure that, in expounding the Oral Law and committing it to writing,
they would not rely upon specious reasoning.
Rabbi Glasner, in the introduction to his Dor Revi’i, s.v. u-temiha,
does concede that, were present-day scientifi c information available to
the Sages, they would not have permitted the killing of kinim on Shabbat,
nor would they have permitted consumption of worm-infested cheese.
Following the clearly implied ruling of Rambam, Hilkhot Mamrim 2:1,17
he further affirms that a bet din is not bound by a ruling of a previous bet din it believes to be erroneous even if the earlier bet din was greater “in
wisdom and number.” However, that possibility, he contends, existed
only so long as “the tradition and the law were not written and sealed
with an iron pen and the nail of the shamir. But since strong necessity
brought about that the Oral Law be endowed with permanence for posterity we have no authority to change even a jot of their conclusion and
decision . . . .” Dor Revi’i certainly asserts that the entire corpus of the
canonized Oral Law, including provisions based upon erroneous presumptions, is immutable but makes no attempt to advance a theory upon
which that assertion is based. He certainly does not base it upon ascription of legislative authority to vox populi.
The unformulated thesis may be that canonization of the Oral
Law was divinely directed and hence its codifi ed provisions are unalterable because, regardless of the veracity of whatever premises may have
been announced, the promulgated rules and regulations refl ect divine
will. Halakhah is expressive of the will of God and, in permitting codifi cation by man, God confi rms that the canonized corpus expresses His will.
Thus, codifi cation is self-validating. In effect, in the process of codifi cation, empirical error receives a divine imprimatur as halakhic truth. Hazon Ish, of course, differs in asserting that there has been no error but that nature has changed. Nor am I aware of a theory similar to that of Dor Revi’i presented in the writings of any halakhic authority. The thesis earlier presented positing that the mesorah was designed to codify and preserve perceived reality rather than actuality fi lls the lacuna left by Dor
Revi’i.
Chasam Sofer says that in the case of Zaken Mamre, he may well be correct, but the ruling of the majority must be followed due to the importance of upholding the system of authority and preventing anarchy.
The message of Aknai is clear to me: forget God and absolute truth. Rather, listen to what your rabbis instruct u. Whatever a bat-kol REALLY is, it is still a communication from God. The rabbi-written oven midrash is an absurd tale to increase the power of the rabbis who, duh, wrote the midrash.
On the subway, there is a sign on the door: "do not exit thru this door, unless instructed to do so by a police officer." That qualifier makes full sense and is redundant. OF COURSE, if there is, c"v, a fire, the cop WILL tell u to exit this door, and u must listen.
The rabbis say the opposite: "do what WE decide, even if God himself tells u otherwise!" The rabbis r MORE arrogant: "our rules r in force EVEN IF God tells u we r wrong!"
WADR & forgive me, that's utter ignorance.
Says u. Do u believe that the rabbis received a verbal message from God, and declared "Ignore that man behind the curtain! We r right anyway"?
http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2012/03/aha-moment.html
"(It is very telling that Natan Slifkin never directly responds to any of Rabbi Bleich's more careful reading of these sources. His sole response is to posit that, from an academic perspective, it is implausible to accept Rabbi Bleich's readings in light of the personal history of the authorities in question...)"
More here:
http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/search/label/R'%20Bleich%20vs.%20Slifkin%20posts
RJDB does not have "careful" reading of these sources. He is desperate to avoid having them take a position that he considers kefirah, so he shoehorns them into a nishtaneh hateva approach, even though we know perfectly well that they took the general position that Chazal's knowledge of science was limited.
He does no such thing. And he doesn't claim that chazal were infallible either.
"Assuming, arguendo, that the dictum “even if they tell you etc.” is global and all – encompassing, its application to the issue of spontaneous generation would require that if (a) the notion of spontaneous generation as described by Hazal is to be understood literally and (b) one is also convinced that science has demonstrated that such a phenomenon does not exist and has never existed, one would be required to suspend intellectual judgment regarding the nature of empirical reality in accepting the dicta of the Sages. It does not mandate a contradictory Tertullian-like affirmation of both scientific wisdom and halakhic infallibility. It is precisely because the doctrine enunciated by Sifri does not encompass incontrovertible factual error that some authorities felt compelled to ascribe scientific inerrancy to Hazal. Otherwise, they would have declared that Hazal were wrong but that their error is inconsequential. In formulating an applicable doctrine, scientific inerrancy and factual inconsequentiality are mutually exclusive. "
His point is that sticking with a practice which was, in fact, *based* on a *mistaken factual belief* is nonsensical. You haven't replied to that in any way, other than to wave around words like canonization. Which you don't even fully seem to believe yourself. Personally, I'm not the least bit shocked that when the rubber hits the road, your canonized halacha goes right out the window. http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2010/12/excerpts-indicating-rabbi-slifkin-has.html Why shouldn't it? To paraphrase one of your favorite talking points, you may believe that you believe that your canonized Halacha is binding, but you don't *actually* believe it.
I would add that as FKM noted here, http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2012/03/aha-moment.html?q=bleich it seems your outrage at R Bleich stemmed from the fact that unlike the charedi Gedolim who banned your books, it was impossible for you to claim that R Bleich 'wasn't aware of of your sources.' (The man has a PHD in the thought of Ralbag, for Crescas' sake.) So you went all out with juvenile level ridicule of him, to the point where even R Adlerstein was disgusted. (Personally, that was when I stopped believing that you had the moral high ground. I was and am sympathetic to some of your early responses to what was in many ways a deeply cynical attempt to destroy you. Your early responses were admirably restrained and generally quite substantive. At some point, you decided to go on the attack, and now we've reached late stage Slifkin-ism where everything from the words of Yeshayahu Hanavi to Yehuda Meshi Zahav to rat poisoning in Bnei Brak is trotted out as evidence of chareidi malevolence. Chaval.)
R. Bleich brought ridicule upon himself. Here is someone who is genuinely learned in both Torah and secular sources, and yet still insists that spontaneous generation has not been disproven, and simultaneously also argues that Chazal didn't actually believe in it (which also requires him insisting that he knows how to understand Chazal better than all the Rishonim and Acharonim).
https://traditiononline.org/survey-of-recent-halakhic-periodical-literature-spontaneous-generation-and-halakhic-inerrancy-by-j-david-bleich/
Uh oh. RDS reviewed that one ages ago.
So what? The quote above still applies.
No I meant, 'uh oh, here we go again' into a rerun of an old argument that personally I had enough of. Not that he had the final word. By all means, fight it out again.
The profound difference is that the dispute about the Tanuro shel Achnai was not one of fact, but of law. And there are many different valid (perhaps one might say "true") legal interpretations. As the gemara says (Chagiga 3b):
"ת"ל "נטועים" - מה נטיעה זו פרה ורבה אף דברי תורה פרין ורבין בעלי אסופות אלו תלמידי חכמים שיושבין אסופות אסופות ועוסקין בתורה הללו מטמאין והללו מטהרין הללו אוסרין והללו מתירין הללו פוסלין והללו מכשירין שמא יאמר אדם היאך אני למד תורה מעתה תלמוד לומר כולם נתנו מרועה אחד אל אחד נתנן פרנס אחד אמרן מפי אדון כל המעשים ברוך הוא דכתיב (שמות כ:א) "וידבר אלקים את כל הדברים האלה""
Or from the medrash, ""רבי יוסי ממלחיא ורבי יהושע דסכנין בשם רבי לוי אמרו: מצינו תינוקות בימי דוד, עד שלא טעמו טעם חטא - היו יודעין לדרוש את התורה מ"ט פנים טמא ומ"ט פנים טהור, והוה דוד מצלי עליהון ."
The halachic process exists to choose between "truths". It;'s not that one opinion was true, and one not. As the gemara says "both were given from one Shepherd."
That doesn't show that rulings should stand indepedent of facts, where indeed someone is saying something contrary to what that Shepherd, wearing His Grand Architect "hat", proclaimed.
One could argue that the halakhah stands even if the case is proven a hypothetical that never can come up, like the dirt-mouse. One could argue that halachic explanations are often post-facto, so the ruling doesn't rest on the merits of the explanation. R Kook argued that there are more reasons for a halakhah that what is published, and so scientifically disproving grounds for stringency cannot remove the stringency -- other grounds likely exist. But when it comes to leniency, all it takes is one reason to fail to no longer justify leniency.
Or, one could argue that halakhah does not need to deal with objective science, but the world as we directly experience it. (E.g. R Gedaliah Nedel, http://www.hebrewbooks_org_37016.pdf#page31 BeTorato shel Rav Gedalia, pg 53-53, in particular fn. 3):
“One time after a class in which the rav mentioned this principle, for he repeated it many times in his ideas, they asked him: Is this because of Kant? (Emanuel Kant, who is thought to be one of the great modern philosophers, called by the nickname “meaningful philosophers” by the Malbim in his commentary on Vayiqra 19:18. He innovated recognizing that a person doesn’t recognize the essence in-and-of-itself, just its appearances. And the essence of this position is brought by the Malbim in his commentary to Iyov 11:6.) The rav answered me: Even without Kant. He explained that since the mitzvos were established work on the soul of a person, and to inform his Mussar image, therefore, what defines a halachic limit is the impact on a person of the thing, and not the thing in itself.”
An authority being cited on this subject wrote:
הקב"ה נתן התורה על דעתם והבנתם [של סנהדרין] … וכשיטעו ... הרי כל ישרא' מוטעים באונס, חזקה על הקב"ה שרגלי חסידיו ישמור ולא תצא כשאת מלפניו להטעות כל ישרא' כשהם חפצים לעשות רצונו
It's apparently unbearable that all Israel should sin, despite that it was באונס. This should be true of all kinds of טעותים של סנהדרין, whether in logic or fact. But generations, a millenium plus (gasp!), killed lice on Shabbos; where was the רגלי חסידיו ישמור?!
The "One Shepherd" idea is closely related to "Eilu V'eilu".
Is Eilu V'eilu true in a Machlokess Bi'mitzius?
Such as, was the Mizbeiach in the desert 3 Amos tall or 10 Amos tall...?
Both...?
"One could argue that halachic explanations are often post-facto, so the ruling doesn't rest on the merits of the explanation. R Kook argued that there are more reasons for a halakhah that what is published, and so scientifically disproving grounds for stringency cannot remove the stringency -- other grounds likely exist"
R Dessler said the same to R Carmel as recorded in MME V3. But I wonder how to square that with Rashi Brachos 5a SV
זה גמרא. סברת טעמי המשניות שממנו יוצאה הוראה. אבל המורים הוראה מן המשנה נקראו מבלי העולם במס׳ סוטה
and elsewhere. I.e., the reasons are there for purpose of extrapolation. But if there are other reasons, all extrapolations are suspect. You're back to being מורה מן המשנה!
(Indeed, the Gra forbade מים מגולים for this reason. A small difference between his case and these is that the Gemara's reason [snake poison] has no problem but the Gra extended the Halacha to lands that don't have snakes, while in these cases [such as cats having venom in their claws] the reason apparently wasn't ever correct.)
"...Malbim in his commentary on Vayiqra 19:18 ... Malbim in his commentary to Iyov 11:6"
I found those words in TSRG but not in either Malbim....
The hebrewbooks link isn't working (probably removed under protest), but it's available here:
http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/nadel.pdf
Baruch shekivanti. https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/halacha-science-and-birds/comment/21820335 Maybe *you* can get through to Dr Slifkin and co what I've been banging my spoon on my high chair about.
A good erev shabbos. Are you game to dive in now? :)
Sorry for the delay. Happy to discuss.
I also delayed. I would be gratified if you could comment on some of my comments to Micha https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/halacha-science-and-birds/comment/21933119.
As an aside, when I registered (as opposed to subscribed) for this blog, I entered the wrong email address. Had I entered the correct address I would receive people's comments to me not only here where I have to come back to see if anyone responded, but also to my email where I'd become aware of those comments. Do you (or anyone) know how to correct that?
Good Shabbos.
"there is something that may come a a particular surprise."
** as
I once took a philosophy course in the history of science, and I am aware of the metaphysical shortcomings of modern science. That said, the scientific method (SM) has proved valuable and mostly consistent for the past 300 years. It is used in the social, as well as the natural, sciences. Of course the SM has its unproven axioms, but, I believe, they r much fewer than most religions' attempt to explain our observable earth, though maybe less good in explaining at the universe.
Eastern and Persian philosophy and religions at least have duality to fall back on. In Jewish thought, however, aside from creating the entire universe and life, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. On top of all that, he is deeply invested in man's daily behavior, including "service" in meticulous detail, occupying many hours of the day. Now, THOSE axioms r a very heavy nut to tote.
@HS, I shan't be overly specific, but the upcoming Parsha tells that a miracle will occur as a confirmation for you to sin. It's to test you. Remember to ignore the miracle, even though G-d is behind it. Same idea with Bas Kol.
You apparently believe in Bas Kol.
Where in Shmos 21 and separately in Vayikra 22 does a literal reading of the Psukim give the rabbis power yet the rabbis explained the Psukim as not giving them power?
Which is primary, the written Torah or the oral Torah, and why? How is the Torah different lehavdil, from Joseph Smith's plates?
The rabbi-written oven Gemara doesn't increase the power of the rabbis. Rabbis in the minority next time lose. It increases the power of the majority. There is to be a united law and the minority may not remain independent. It forbids rabbinic independence. This is only if the minority rabbis were given a chance to explain themselves to the majority in an attempt to win them over to their view. If not then the minority rabbis are indeed independent and this entire Gemara is irrelevant, provided that certain conditions are met.
As quoted by someone else, the Gemara there says explicitly, מאי לא בשמים היא אמר רבי ירמיה שכבר נתנה תורה מהר סיני אין אנו משגיחין בבת קול שכבר כתבת בהר סיני בתורה (שמות כג, ב) אחרי רבים להטות.
1st of all, the oven midrash was never intended to be taken factually. Why? Because if God (or his emissary, the BK) diverted rivers, tilted walls, and ultimately spoke to the rabbis, those rabbis would quake in their boots! Those intense miracles would be all over the gemara and repeated for centuries.
No, this confection was conkokted by the rabbis to their own benefit. It is almost inconsequential whether the majority (of rabbis) always rules, but much more importantly, their lesson is that the rabbinical body is the ultimate guide for man, even where God (and fact) disagrees. The kicker: even God himself backs up the rabbis, not himself.
2nd, I am tired of the catch-all excuse that God throws us unspeakable horrors (e.g., the holocaust) in order to TEST us! He already knows where we stand, but we still must endure squid-game like "tests," where the failers, and some of the passers too, must be tortured and die. To find out what? Who deeply loves and truly loves him?
I "believe" in BK, but only to play along with the midrash on rabbinical terms.
What will we ever do if Messiah comes, and a slim majority of the rabbis do not believe he is legit? It could happen, perhaps for political reasons, and the rabbis send him back packing.
Sir, Kofer, etc. don't you know that R Yehoshua told the walls not to fall down so they didn't? Read the Gemara. So R Yehoshua wasn't afraid. Though could be the Shita brings those who say the story wasn't literal. But not for your reason. Someone's getting rusty.
How many miracles are in the Gemara that you want this one to stand out?
Since you're tired of tests when it comes to horrors, whether your own of that of the 6m, you're tired period. Even though this week's Parsha mentions it; the "excuse" was built into the system from the start.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sefaria+torah+for+the+lord+your+god+is+testing+you&safe=strict&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=AB5stBhOvkS7KaSUNTxvCyxgpiV3JTI8ZQ%3A1691456499360&ei=85PRZN7AFfzi5NoP8-uuiAg&oq=sefaria+for+the+lord+your+god+is+testing+you&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiLHNlZmFyaWEgZm9yIHRoZSBsb3JkIHlvdXIgZ29kIGlzIHRlc3RpbmcgeW91KgIIADIIECEYoAEYwwRI4FRQuQRY5BlwAXgBkAEAmAH2AqAB5QmqAQcwLjYuMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICBRAAGKIEwgIKECEYoAEYwwQYCuIDBBgAIEGIBgGQBgg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
I don't think you're completely serious about your Messiah Comment, but if you were, it's indicative again of your being out of touch.
I wish you well. You've helped many people in the last half century.
I guess u and I r too far apart to try to understand the others' opinion. Dayeni.
Ok. If you're ever interested again, realize that this time you didn't express your paradigm adequately, and would need to put it on the table and prove it before engaging in its ramifications.
Yes, Sir! Thank u, Sir!
Like many of us, you got fed up with all the debating and almost swear we won't EVER do it again! But after the cool-off period, we're back at it again.
I'll include a nice quote about paradigms, which strikes in both directions:
"He went on to explain that “the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which—it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law—but I think that in honesty . . we should recognize . . [This science] has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion . . akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions which, at some levels, cannot be proven empirically [factually].” "
Best.
It is very true - since writing the previous comment I have talked to people involved in one of the kosher butcher and they told me that they are preparing kosher Turkey for the next months.
So I am not certain that the matter up to today was halachik stringency.
But Sao Paulo is a different city - the rabbis here try to adopt every possible chumra
Another interesting case in the same vein is oats. Some modern authorities have shown fairly convincingly that modern oats are not the biblical שיבולת שועל. (R Slifkin, I can't recall if you've addressed this). But does that mean that using oat matza isn't acceptable at the Seder? Or that the Abadi family's bizarre heter of oats on Pesach is ok, upending centuries of normative halacha?
A small thing: AFAIK, שיבולת שועל is Mishnaic as opposed to biblical.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjx6PHRtNqAAxUHkokEHe2rAkAQFnoECBAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fhe.wikisource.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D7%259E%25D7%25A9%25D7%25A0%25D7%2594_%25D7%2597%25D7%259C%25D7%2594_%25D7%2590_%25D7%2590&usg=AOvVaw2WnxNQboa4PrDxnDGL8Xrf&opi=89978449
Uh-oh Natan, recently published statistics don't fit your narrative.......
https://vinnews.com/2023/08/03/employment-rate-of-israeli-charedi-males-reaches-55-8-an-all-time-high/
Thanks. I would be really interested to read what you think about the issue of halakha based on mistaken facts in regards to the issue of Kilayim, primarily regarding kilei zeraim. I wrote about the issue of Kilayim in my rabbinical school final teshuva, and I'm still unsure how to address the issue when asked. There is a great deal of suspicion concerning genetically modified organisms in general and specifically regarding genetic manipulation in agriculture. In spite of the general heter (given, as I understand it, because the genes have no kiyum of their own outside the cells they can be placed in), many people are uncomfortable with the idea of eating strawberries with fish genes, for example.
For those requesting a source, Maharal In Be’er Hagola, Be’er Dalet, Mishnah Dalet discusses a similar concept, although with different nuance. He states that although R Eliezer was wiser and had a more intellectually accurate understanding of halacha, the actual halacha is like the majority because the Torah is sourced in a unified, elevated understanding that sits at a higher plane than individualized understanding, and is more directly reflected in Israel’s collective halachic values.
Not quite exactly the same as the point in the post, and not exactly ‘rationalist’, but still close enough.
https://www.sefaria.org/Be'er_HaGolah%2C_Well_4.4?