Dinosaur bones are so scary to a creationist but if there is really strong background first, it's just a strong question. With weak background it becomes a pircha. So first we must build the strong background. See just how much chazal really knew. How amazingly kadosh and genius they were. Years down the line, I think most people know about these questions and may not even have perfect answers but they are the ones with the answers. They are the ones way closer to the truth. Not those who walk around espousing that the gemara and rishonim keep getting things wrong
It literally doesn't. The questions from science are hard ones. But If they undermine our appreciation for chazal and rishonim one bit because they didn't know a truth of the outer shell of the world, there's a deeper issue which means we are not ready for these questions yet. It's super dangerous for those not so strong in their beliefs
Being kadosh and genius had to do with getting to know the spiritual essence, the sod Hashem lyereiav
Being Kadosh and genius has to do with putting the work into really understanding and getting to the bottom of things. People who have watched Talmidei Chachamim as they work through a Sugya, as they sweat to understand the seemingly small details, as they review again and again to see if they are mistaken about something, as they search for the slightest deviation in a Sugya, do not care for the armchair experts and their opinions. When we know that Chazal were far more responsible about their opinions than anyone we know, as we see from the stories in the Gemara, we know that even if theoretically they could have been mistaken, the chances of the casual Gemara peruser of catching it are negligible.
It is akin to the Monsey housewife 'figuring out' how all of the medical professionals missed the point regarding vaccines. Just a משל לשבר את האוזן, the distance is much greater.
And this is why Kollel Yungeleit are assisting society, even if they don't hold paid jobs in the community. By their very presence, they render the bloggers of the world pointless. When someone sees their incredible efforts in a Sugya and then reads posts like this, he sees למי החותמת ולמי הפתילים.
And yet they still believed that the sun doubles back on itself and goes behind the sky at night. (To name but one example.) Which shows that being kadosh and genius and trying to understand things still does not equate to knowing facts about the natural world.
Or maybe you didn't understand the Gemara. But that's impossible, because you spent some years in a Yeshiva, and that makes you the expert.
Or maybe you misunderstood the facts. But that's impossible, because...........................
Precisely my point. If I have a choice whom to trust, I will trust the person who cares to be right, not the armchair expert. Trusting you on any zoological matter against Chazal is like trusting the anti-vaxxer about MMR vaccines. But you did your research, and you know. Sure, so did Mrs. Weisberger.
Yes. It's possible that all the Rishonim didn't understand the Gemara. It's possible that the sun really does double back behind the sky at night. It's also possible that Chazal were mistaken, as virtually all the Rishonim and many Acharonim explain. And you really think that the last of those three is more problematic and unreasonable than the first two?
Meanwhile, I appreciate your speaking up. There's still some charedi apologists claiming that charedim don't have a problem with Chazal being mistaken here.
Tell your talmidim the truth. Great and righteous tzadikim striving with all of their hearts and souls , every ounce of strength in their being, to find God's word. Completely human. As human as you and I. Prone to the same mistakes as the leading experts in any field. Relying on the best information available at their time. Seeking out errors like an antisemitic irs auditor examining a yeshivas books. We haven't seen their level of Talmud scholarship since ( partially due to the loss of tradition as the great yeshivas fell apart(my understanding of the rambam)). Of course there are mistakes, the biggest team of experts in any field messes up. They're the best we've got.
If this was taught as the default most "big questions " would dissappear. Also, I believe it to be true . Funny how the truth can be the best solution.
If instead we teach , "noble lie" style, ( necessary belief) that they were infallible as far as we can imagine , and even extend this to rishonim , the list of statements of chazal and the rishonim that falsify this position is enough to show the absurdity of this belief. As the Rambam said (paraphrase) " be careful not to mix in good arguments with bad ones since when the bad ones are demonstrated to be false people assume the good ones are as well. "
EDIT: you also wouldn't have to be so sensitive to "mares ayin" of disrespect because your belief doesn't rely on their perfection.
I basically agree with you, but if kids are told this at a very young age they might never appreciate what Chazal have to say since they are not mature enough to differentiate between human like them and human like Chazal. I've never seen a 10 year old from the "closeminded" school system say "The Gemara is wrong about הוצאה on Shabbos". I have heard that from the "open minded".
As far as not lying, don't try to bring up the contradictions until they actually can handle the answer. We don't say כלה כמות שהיא either.
We don't teach kids about gehinom being spiritual until later. We tell them its a fire and hope they grow up.
The Rambam beginning of Chelek discusses this. I wouldn't call it a noble lie; I would call it the truth on their level, but you can use the words you'd like, point still stands.
Judaism is mature and we wear new tzitzis as we grow bigger (Reb Yaakov Kaminetzky's analogy supposedly)
"Dinosaur bones are so scary to a creationist but if there is really strong background first, it's just a strong question."
Likewise, assuming that Chazal were scientifically fallible, and at the same time assuming that they weren't speaking Pnimiyus but plain old science/nature, is so scary to a Frum Jew, but if there is really strong background first, it's just a strong question.
And then if one thinks into it deeply, he can arrive at an answer to the question.
How can you state with certainty that someone living long ago where elephants did not live never saw an elephant?
How do you know that a circus never came to town, or that the individual never travelled to a distant place or that he never saw an accurate sketch or painting of the animal?
Using words like "probably" and likely" help with honesty and also not coming across as a pompous know-it-all.
Meir's excellent point is not to prove anything, but a plea for basic accuracy and decency.
A definitive statement such as "x never saw an elephant" is valid only with actual knowledge of said fact. You can say "it is unlikely that x saw an elephant" because you are deducing not knowing.
It's not about proving or disproving the point, but one of basic decency. What compels you to write something as fact which can not be proven us such, even where it does not undermine the general point?
It is wrong to write that way, plain and simple. It's also childish.
My point from the last post still stands. Why is it so important to point out that this tosafos is wrong? This causes people to question and even go off the derech Rl. More important would be too learn the thousands of other tosafos and see, after learning with intense iyun that they really knew what they were talking about. After that this question won't be so bothersome because we weigh evidence in context of all of our experiences. The fact that you are so hung up on the mistakes to bring out some point misses the big picture
Sep 7, 2023·edited Sep 7, 2023Liked by Natan Slifkin
People will only go off the derech if they have this understanding that the rishonim are supernatural beings. Once you understand the rishonim are all normal people, albeit massive talmideic chachomim, living through terrible persecution and poverty, nobody would go off the derech by noting that, like of all us, they make mistakes on occaccion on something unconnected with their core knowlege.
When Rabbeiny Tam dismisses rasho as 'not correct', period, does anybody go off the derech? Was RT concerned about his 'not correct' leading to anybody going off the derech?
athe nefesh hachaim says about the grah that he wouldnt come close to a amoirahin the gemarah. Now if you believe the nefesh hachaim its strange to say chazal made such basic mistakes. Also factor in that the gra consistently recived direct messeges from heaven- getting aressted befor birchas cohanim was enacted. So I think that if you respect the Nefesh hachaims view you are forced to look at the gemarah in a totally different light to how we usually percieve them.
But maybe the nefesh hacahim made a mistake. We don't have infallible popes in our religion. Why don't you get it? Shas is full of amaroim getting things wrong! Ever heard of a 'chuvta' 'chuvta'. Every human being on this earth gets things wrong. Period.
So your saying I have two options of who to believe...Some random gisa with asterisks in his name or a world renowned tzadik whos works still influence the entire litvisher world! errrrrmmmm I think i'll go for.....
May I suggest to you that they treated science and medicine just like we all do....
How do you learn physics? From a physicist. Medicine? From a doctor. Math? From the math teacher. Or, some things from personal experience.
The Rishonim did the same. It's just that their scientists and doctors had different, outdated, beliefs and practices.
The Mishna and Gemara were like that too. There were many scientific theories in Roman times, about the path of the sun, and other topics. The Chachamim themselves espoused the views of their time. Aristotle and Seneca debated this with other schools of thought.
And yet, even after the Zohar, there were many great rabbinic authorities who followed the Rishonim and said that this Gemara is just talking about astronomy.
I get that, I really do. But after much investigation, I found it hard to accept that when some early astronomers suggested that the sky is an opaque dome, we take it at face value. But when the same exact view is repeated by the contemporary Gemara, it carries a mysterious spiritual meaning to it. More probable is that they were influenced by the views and debates of their time. Which is nothing to be ashamed of, BTW. I heard that a famous posek reads data published by NASA
to make halachic decisions.
If NASA erred and RosCosmos got it right, would that take away your respect for a Rabbi?
Do you expect him to send his own satellite into space?
"I found it hard to accept that when some early astronomers suggested that the sky is an opaque dome, we take it at face value. But when the same exact view is repeated by the contemporary Gemara, it carries a mysterious spiritual meaning to it."
this is addressed by Ramchal in Maamar Al Ha'agados. IIRC, that Chazal were looking to teach Kabalah, but used a contemporary scientific model even if it wasn't accurate, to clothe it.
We follow metzius to a large extent. The issue here is when people constantly show how we know better than Chazal. Be honest, you don't respect a flat earther. Many people hear things about chazal being 'flat earthers' and if their not ready, it reaches to the core of their emunah and they question a lot more than just that.
If there is a pnimius, as the Zohar followers show that there is, which is very deep and beyond any gashmius, instead of losing respect, we see how every word was perfect and explains our relationship with God more and more perfectly, which is what we'd expect chazal to be busy doing, not worrying about this world which is meaningless other than to bring out God's glory in ways far superior to what science could do, such as through learning the absolute genius of the ways God acts through what we call the sefiros.
They probably thought the sky was an opaque dome because that's what it looks like and the human perspective is the one that matters. I don't know all the answers but to say they were following the science of the time when we see things in the mekubalim that is way beyond that, I'd suggest too delve into the words of the mekubalim if you are ready and see the depths of chazal's words and it won't be so strange anymore...
'אמת' is more important than almost anything else except for PEACE. But when you let go of truth for the sake of peace, in this case to protect the image of great Rabbanim, you risk losing both arguments.
This is not a particularly important truth. It's a much more important truth to learn through this Tosafos and thousands of others and try to understand why he said what he said.
Perhaps an important truth would be- if Tosafos was wrong about elephant jumping, and Rashi's pshat is also wrong, then what did the Gemara mean? Maybe Tosafos was right about pshat in the Gemara, and it was Chazal who were mistaken about the elephant jumping? In which case there is no way to make a kinyan hagbaha on the elephant? But probably not, we should assume for sure that Chazal were right, and therefore try to understand what they meant.
This would be a meaningful halachic discussion to engage in. Not the simple idea that you found a mistake in Tosafos, which is only significant if your goal is undermining the Torah sh'bal Peh.
I don't think Slifkin was the first one to discover that elephants don't jump.
It undermines quite a lot if you make your quest for truth one of finding the mistakes in Chazal and the Rabbis, yes. There were plenty of people who found (or claimed to have found) mistakes in the earlier rabbis while engaging in serious halachic analysis and we are fine with them. An example would be Rabbi Beinish and the kezayis. Or Rabbi Notis's book. We are not fine with Slifkin though.
Here's a possible explanation of the Gemara, using the pshat of Tosafos in חבילי זמורות (as most Rishonim do), without reference to if Tosafos meant this or if he was familiar with elephants. The Gemara means like R' Meshulam says, that you use vines to attract the elephant, but הכא במאי עסקינן? It is standing on top of a place where the ground is elevated 3 tefachim, and as it tries to get the vines, it falls onto the lower part, such that for a split-second it was off the ground.
"It undermines quite a lot if you make your quest for truth one of finding the mistakes in Chazal and the Rabbis, yes. "
I started with this topic because several students wrote to me to ask me if Tosafos was correct about elephants jumping. Are you saying that I should have lied to them?
And come to think of it, what's wrong with saying the elephant is in water? It may not be what Tosafos meant, but it's a perfectly fine אוקימתא in the Gemara that preserves R' Meshulam's pshat (which most Rishonim seem to like).
Even though your name is now in Hebrew I still don't get it, but at least now I suspect I at least get the Hebrew part, although I would've used ששון or שמחה
First of all, the reason Slifkin is interested in pointing out when the Gemara or Rishonim used outdated science, is because he believes he is promoting the truth. I hope I answered your original question.
Secondly, if you think it isn't the truth, explain. Can elephants jump? Are you saying that we have a mesora that elephants can jump? And can you verify this by experiment? I don't know, I'm asking.
To your last point, you yourself said that people might be lead astray if they lose respect for the Rabbanim. It was cited by you as a reason not to point out their mistakes. Sounds to me like you agree there were some mistakes, but you want to hide them. That would be trading in the truth for the sake of another goal.
The issue is that there are two true things which many, many, many people confuse. On the one hand chazal and the rishonim are our everything, מפיהם אנו חיים and the fact they that they were millions of times greater than us in Torah and yiraas shamayim is what we base our entire belief system on.
And then there's another truth that they didn't know science and may have even got things wrong.
If the first truth is solid already, we can introduce the second point without issue.
But for so so many, the first truth is really not all that clear. To them, the second truth actually negates the first and with that the whole mesorah crumbles. I was a victim to that for a while.
So to the point, while the truth is important, someone with a bigger picture view, like an emeseh gadol, understand that we should not be promoting "truth" for people who can't handle it's ramifications. Same way we don't teach kids how they were born too early and so on.
That's my take. It's not the honor of the gedolim per se I care about; it's what they stand for: our mesorah.
I would trust Natan that elephants can't jump and that tosafos are wrong. But to me it's all small question not a life mission. A proper life mission in my books is to show how crazy unbelievable the rishonim were and that will find options a better sense of Truth
Fair enough. We should be made aware of both truths. But conciously hiding one side, for any amount of time, can potentially detract from our own credibility on the other.
Let us resolve this by finding a way to present the full picture.
I don't believe that most 30+ year olds in Lakewood are unaware of the truth that chazal didn't know science. People have a choice to make, they can follow chazal or they can not. Those that struggle with gemara learning (usually not a brains issues but a forced monotonous day in day out grind issue) often find these weaknesses very compelling. But those who know the greatness of chazal and spend years learning their Godly wisdom understand the question and know the basic answers. Either chazal went with the science of their day or they were describing a pnimius etc. But half the question does away in proper context. It's works for anyone who can accept the idea of a pnimius which comes along with a dose of yiraas shamayim. Why should we teach different, wrong and confusing answers? Those who have real questions can go to their Rebbe who will be able to personally assess their honesty (because it's often psychology and yetzer hara against learning really at play) and respond accordingly. There's little reason why this has to be a public matter.
Now in the internet age there may need to be a better response but at the end of the day, those who are looking to ask will have what to ask and those who are comfortable following people like the gr'a will do that...
I speak from experience. I was an atheist for a long long while and for years I thought these questions were bombshells. But really my attitude was the bombshell. A little humility towards chazal takes you a long way, further than the "I know better" takes you the other way
I think the gedolim feel that our approach is adequate for anyone anyways serious
I like what @leib-shachar said from reb shalom kaminetzky...
But what do you suggest?
I think the best way is to continue teaching how great chazal were
I'm a big talker because it was detrimental for me for years. I'm ashamed of the things I did because I thought I knew better but at the end of the day it's all about the ethos and that's what we must teach. Those who don't wanna hear won't hear anyways
Give me a minute to gather my notes for you that I wrote offline and now started searching for where your comments were, to attach them and send them there. Maybe I'll just send them here....
Shulman, I find your openness to others' thoughts to be like a breath of fresh air. Don't be so quick to dismiss the “two camp” theory. Check with Rabbi Menachem Nusel? student of Rav Moshe Shapiro, if he asked a Godol Hador about these things and was told that there are two camps. (But I see that this might be a semantics issue, as somewhere you wrote that even though there are no two camps there are two [somethings].)
Regarding the Cherem, the written word is what people base their opinions on. When you write a Cherem, you're going to influence people's thoughts and you do it with precision. How many people will hear of your (own) interpretations of what you wrote and know that you meant something else? Do you know of other Cherems with this kind of interpretations?
An Adam Gadol used to learn with his Chavrusa on regular schedule even if he went straight to give a Derasha. Except once. He told the Chavrusa, I'm going to speak to Chasidim (he himself was a Litvak) by their Rebeh's Shloshim? Hakamas Matzeiva? how the Chassidus should continue and they will be Medayek every word I say. For this I (a famed Ilui) need extra time. I am broken that this wasn't done 19 years MINUS 2 weeks ago.
At any rate, you do not appear to be familiar with what happened and what the issues were. Check the actual sources and be wary of revisionism.
I wonder if it's beneficial to try to force you to concede that the Cherem wasn't justified. If I succeeded, would you be left in a good place? Maybe the best thing is to leave you in your bliss?
I hope it was really clear that I thought the ban was silly. I detest what happened. But what it brought out was an very very important point. Pay attention to when people like @test say that there was nothing particularly special about the rishonim. Slifkin gave that a like. I wish he would write again about the Zohar and why he doesn't believe in it. He clearly thinks there are two camps and we can choose to be a part of the "non Zohar camp" . As in I don't believe in these stuff. And all these others who do, we label them as a "they", a camp of mystics who we are not part of and we can blissfully continue in our rational ways. That attitude is wrong. It denies the essence of Judaism. That is all huge huge problem because in truth, is we're being honest, why Judaism at all?
I have no problem if someone says we need to discuss pshat because kabbala is not for us but to flat or deny it, and mind you those who deny repeatedly show that they have absolutely no clue what it's about, such an attitude can undermine everything. The Arizal, the beis yosef, the gr'a, and even the Ramban and raavad.
This side of Judaism shows is how great they were more than any other aspect of Judaism.
Instead of searching where to leave the following comment, I'm putting it here. R Schmeltzer worked for both REBW & RMS. The 2 of them only agreed against RDS. With each other they didn't agree. This put him in a funny position that he has both views in his Sefer. RMS is of course coming from Maharal. REBW might be coming from Maharsha at the end of Agada D'Raba BB Chana, but actually that is in a different context.
Schmeltzer had to worry about a lot more than two views of RMS and REBW. He had to bury the Rambam, Chovos Halvavos, and Kuzari and make beleive they also think that Emuna isn't logical, sometimes quoting half their sentences, sometimes switching the order of their paragraphs. However, that doesn't mean anyone disagreeing with Schmeltzer is now a full-blown rationalist. I don't subscribe to the "Two Camp Theory" either.
Rav Schachter explicitly endorsed this idea, that Tosafot in France and Germany hadn't seen an elephant, so their explanation of the gemara is not correct. Even though on a halachic level, the principles they are suggesting are correct.
And had they actually seen one does that make them an expert in it? Do you think most people would know if they can jump or not by seeing them once? Do you think a camel could jump? I bet you saw a camel before. It was a creative answer on best assumptions.
Sometimes this blog gets stuck in its own thinking.
RNS מזל טוב. It appears that your efforts to raise questions about the role of scientific knowledge in the understanding of Torah and Halachah and your suggestions as to the approach to take to solve conflicts with accepted viewpoints have taken root. Even more so, some of your suggested answers to apparent conflicts to some religious positions have been subtly accepted.
I don't think it is Slifin's credit. I think Schmeltzer's scare tactics are finally wearing off. It's a pity Slifkin already moved on to real kefira i.e Kellner.
Ephraim. You are not a lamdan so don't tell a true lamdan he's wrong. Yes you can offer your opinion but don't make a fool out of yourself showing your ignorance in learning. The bottom line is that it is feasible and fact that different rishonim and achronim use rabbinic Hebrew terminology differently. The main thing in lamdus is to understand the theory of what they are talking about instead of trying to be medayek in dictionary definitions.
Neither citing a toddler, nor Webster's, nor ad hominems will change the meaning of קפץ.
" it is feasible "
Feasible? That's a low standard.
"and fact that different rishonim and achronim use rabbinic Hebrew terminology differently"
You're over-extrapolating by taking a little lexiographical flexibility in one place and turn it into a free-for-all redefining a term elsewhere.
" The main thing in lamdus "
Before you get to lomdus, you must be able to read and understand words first. Main thing? How about prerequisite?
" instead of trying to be medayek in dictionary definitions."
What does this mean? That you can ignore words if you don't like them? And it was you cited dictionary definitions! And it was you was medayak קפץ to mean a very different concept.
…The Gemara asks, but then how do you buy an elephant? And it cryptically answers, “with a bundle of vines.” What does this mean? Tosafos explains it to mean that you have them hanging in the air and make the elephant jump to get them. But can elephants jump?…
Well, if I were to try to reasonably decipher that cryptic riposte, I might respond that the purchaser might be paying for the elephant with grape vines or perhaps an entire orchard. And the elephant seeing those luscious grapes simply jumped for joy. Mine is as good an interpretation as Tosafos’.
BTW, who was the Tosafost that concocted that conjecture. What was his name, and some info regarding some of his biographical details. After all, if someone is going to favor us with a really strange mechanism for purchasing an elephant, I would want to know his qualifications and competence for doing so.
Gosh. I know I'm late on commenting here but you totally missed the boat. The idea is to acquire something by showing you are the owner. So by lifting something up you show you are in charge. What if it is too heavy? You make it jump. Valid halachic explanation. It can work for acquiring another heavy animal that does jump, like a bison (according to my tour guide in Yellowstone). You explanation is not nearly as good as tosfos, since an animal getting excited does nothing to show ownership.
What are your qualifications for learning Gemara? You don't present yourself well here either.
Natan, something really crucial you're missing, is that even for people that do occasionally see elephants, that doesn't mean they actually ~know~ if they can jump or not. I bet many would be mistaken when asked.
Tosfos (like Talmud) use dialectic to iron out inconsistencies using logic. Don't see the big deal if they misunderstood a mitzyas.
Noson has in there a paragraph stating that when Rabbenu Meshulam suggested that by suspending the vines high up to make the elephant "jump" for them, that the jump must be off the ground, he is utterly WRONG. It means that as a result of suspending the vines high up the man is causing the elephant to rear up to reach the vines and this creates the kinyan.
Of course it is true that when a person does hagba'a for a kinyan it must be raised 3 tefachim off the surface it was placed on, and this would include acquisition of a small animal someone could lift. But, m'heichi teisi, that this rule applies to acquire an animal that is impossible to lift? All these types of kinyanim were defined by Chazal, once an item is kanooy, it belongs to the owner for all inyanim d'oraysa. Rabbenu Meshulam is just defining in the case of acquiring an elephant, this method works according to chazal, which is making the elephant "jump" meaning rear up on its hind legs to reach the food.
As for the definition of "jump": let's say you tell a young child to "jump" and he squats a little and then pushes himself up but does not actually leave the ground. He "jumped" but didn't leave the ground. Similarly, if the vines were suspended so high that the elephant can't quite reach them not matter how high it extends itself and its trunk, the effort falls in the category of "kefitza".
I gave this explanation back when Noson came out with his original article.
You also seem to lack knowledge of how halacha works. When the elephant surges up to get the food even if it can't become airborne that's the best it can do and will constitute kinyan hagbaa. Even according to Rashi the modality of hagbaa here doesn't require it to be raised from a surface. The point is the buyer does an act that causes the massive animal to be elevated up. Rabbenu Meshulam understands that to qualify as kinyan hagbaa
The entire animal must be raised up. Period. If part of it is on solid ground, it is no longer Hagbaha; it may be a different kinyan, but not Hagbaha. I suggest you check with a real lamdan; don't just rely on me!
I happen to be a lamdan and you certainly are not. So your understanding is very limited because you think you know and understand everything. A person making a kinyan on something he can pickup must raise it up. But in the case of an elephant NOBODY is physically raising it up at all, so it lav davka follows the exact same rules. Kinyan is "gemiras daas" a particular act of the Koneh demonstrates the gemiras daas to be Koneh. According to Rabbenu Meshulam (I'm not saying this is how we pasken), the Koneh causing the elephant to elevate itself by surging up to reach the food is suficient hagbaa to be koneh.
Your lomdus is clearly flawed. I agreed that a kinyan is done by an act which displays gemiras daas. That was never the issue.
The question is WHICH kinyan is it? Is it Hagbaha or some other new kinyan. I have NOT heard of anyone saying doing the best you can qualifies for kinyan HAGBAHA.
But as I said, get another opinion. Your own opinion...well...doesn't count for this even if you are a lamdan, because the key is to check if you overlooked anything.
You are no lomdon and are a total mechutzaf to say my lomdus is "clearly flawed" when you admit that you know nothing. I don't have the patients to write a four page piece on this as I have in my sefer.
לע"ד זה דחוק דהנה אמר שם לעיל "מתקיף לה ר' יוסף ולא קאמר "בעי ר' יוסף ..פיל לר"ש במה יקנה, והנה על קושיית ר' יוסף למה לא השיב שאין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר ואה"נ היכא דלא אפשר א"צ הגבהה וסגי בקנין אחר או משיכה או מסירה או חליפין, ולכאו' ע"כ מדסתם ר"ש ואמר הגבהה משמע דכן הוא בכ"ע וע"כ דהוא אפשר, וקמתמה ר"י היאך אפשר, ולדברי מע"כ שא"צ הגבהה אמיתית שהחפץ מסולק לגמרי מהקרקע הואיל וא"א, נימא דנעביד משיכה אמיתית או מסירה אמיתית דמהנו בעלמא ולא הגבהה מפוקפקת הלז אם הגבהה אמיתית א"א, ואולי אעפ"כ מדבעי ר"ש הגבהה, עדיפא הגבהה מפוקפקת ממשיכה ומסירה אמיתיות.
אמנם הא נמי אין נראה, דהא שם לעיל מוקים לה דמייתי ד' כלים בסימטא וכו' ע"ש, והוא קנין לכתחילה, ומה מוסיף אי נמי בחבילי זמורות, הא מאחר שמצאנו עצה לכתחילה לקנות בד' כלים, מה מדחיק לנו להמציא קנין שלא מהני בעלמא ולומר שכאן מהני, ואדרבה כשם שלא מהני בעלמא לא תהני כאן.
"when Rabbenu Meshulam suggested that by suspending the vines high up to make the elephant "jump" for them, that the jump must be off the ground, he is utterly WRONG."
To justify this statement you should show that the word קופץ is unambiguously used elsewhere as having the sense of stretching/reaching instead of springing. It would also be useful to show that the word קופץ is more fitting than other terms. And your example of the toddler is not useful. Even if this fabricated vocabulary challenged toddler were to exist, he wouldn't be the lexicographical authority that תוספות would rely upon for a choice of words. You'd better come up with a more convincing example.
And therein lies the problem. For you have offered a decent explanation which while deviating from the actual words of תוספות and like minded colleagues, nevertheless provides an alternative explanation in consonance with their dissatisfaction with the פשט provided by רש"י :
"It means that as a result of suspending the vines high up the man is causing the elephant to rear up to reach the vines and this creates the kinyan."
And indeed other ראשונים, like the מאירי seem to provide this very explanation:
ויש מפרשין שיעמוד הוא במקום גבוה ויביא זמורות לחות בידו והבהמה מגבהת עצמה ליטול מאותן הזמורות ואחר שהוא סבב את הגבהתה הרי הוא כהגביהה ממש על הדרך שאמרו במשיכה שכל שהלכה מחמת קולו קונה:
Contrast with the תוספות:
והוא קופץ ומגביה את עצמו מן הארץ
And yet the מאירי doesn't mention the word קופץ. Why not? He also omits the words "מן הארץ." Why? If the ראשונים didn't mean a real jump, why couldn't they phrase their explanation like the מאירי?
You offer a good explanation, but you haven't showed that it's what תוספות meant.
Thank you, Ephraim for elaborating on my explanation. As for having to prove that kofetz doesn't always mean "jumping up off the ground, I gave one example, kfitzas haderech. Also "jump" is used to jump down not just up. Kofatz can mean "skip" a verb in English meaning to move or proceed with leaps and bounds or with a skip, lav davka both feet leaving the ground simultaneously. Furthermore although definition "a" of Webster's dictionary means off the ground, b and c do not.
a
: to spring into the air : LEAP especially : to spring free from the ground or other base by the muscular action of feet and legs
b
: to move suddenly or involuntarily : START
c
: to move energetically : HUSTLE
Hebrew likfotz can also tolerate those definitions.
Noson, himself in the past has correctly noted that terminology used by Chazal and later rabbonon is not always meduyak. Of course if the mefaresh spells out exactly what he means then... that's exactly what he means. If Rabbenu Meshulam said kofetz ma'al ha'aretz that would have been clear. But he added והוא קופץ ומגביה את עצמו מן הארץ . The elephant raised himself from the ground, meaning he leaped his body upright (an unnatural position) to reach the food due to the buyer suspending the food above him. This is the kinyan for an elephant, since a man cannot lift him with his body.
"Hebrew likfotz can also tolerate those definitions."
Examples?
In any case, none of those definitions fit your reading of תוספות. And neither does קפיצת הדרך help you. What you doing is finding a definition of קפץ that doesn't literally mean jump (though retaining some connotation of "skipping") and using it as a "proof" for any meaning you want to impose into the word. It doesn't fit. And given the alternative formulation of the מאירי, it's even less justified.
Yep. Typical yeshivish. Just twist the words of tosfos to resolve a problem. Kefitzah in the Hebrew language means jump leaving the ground. Some of us know that words mean what they say.
Tosfos had plenty of Hebrew at his disposal had he wanted to give your explanation.
The young child did NOT jump in your moshol. Not a single observer with knowledge of the English language will say he "jumped'. Such nonsense.
You are a total ignoramus of Limud Hatorah. Your foolishness does not deserve a response. However... kefitza in Hebrew does not have to mean, "jump off the ground" although that is one common usage. E.g. Kefitzas Haderech, which means, skipping space, has nothing to do with being levitated in the air. GROW UP.
You are part of a world where a thousand times a day one chavrusoh will say to the other "rashi/tosfos/maharshoh/shach/whoever must be lav davka' shrug their shoulders and move on.
This is the world of bo ha'cohen shov ha'cohen. Where 'kefitzah' can mean rearing up on hind legs' when necessary. The meaning of words varies when convenient. As Humpty Dumpty says in Alice in Wonderland. But you wrote a sefer so you must be correct.
Been there done that. Suffice it to say I have never seen 'lav davkas' in the seforim from the gedolei acharonim. It's modern yeshivish.
"Also why does Tosfos need to say קפץ ומגביה עצמו מן הארץ? is that not redundant? "
I'm addressing this point only because it brings out an important point in debating skills and logic that seems to be lost on many that believe 'they can learn'.
Yes it is redundant. But that doesn't autmatically make sender's kvetching correct, does it?
Kofetz v'nishbah is clearly not been used in the physical sense, so it is not proof for anything. Ditto 'jumping the gun', although it's odd you would use an English expression as some sort of proof anyway.
I am not sure if you took what I was saying to be fully conclusive (I couldn't care less if Tosfos meant it literally) but I won't bother clarifying as I am not a big fan of people who join an argument to drop their two cense and quit the conversation so they automatically have the last word. Speaking of debating skills. "I am closing the conversation now".
Just because you found one use of the term קופץ that deviates somewhat from its common use doesn't give you the authority to freely impose any meaning that fits your agenda. A second closely related definition doesn't mean that you can invent a third unrelated definition.
I don't think that קפיצת הדרך is a good example. The concept is miraculous and it's difficult (impossible?) to actually describe physically what's happening to the individual and landscape. All we know is that the person gets to his destination very quickly. Thus the term evokes something analogous to skipping/jumping, without imposing a physical jumping. So either the word קופץ should be used for literal jumping or at least something analogous to jumping. The use of the term by תוספות as explained by you does neither.
You are talking to the world where a thousand times a day one chavrusoh will say to the other "rashi/tosfos/maharshoh/shach/whoever must be lav davka' shrug their shoulders and move on.
This is the world of bo ha'cohen shov ha'cohen. The precise meaning of words varies when convenient.
Classic. "Kefitzas Haderech" is not "Kefitzah". And yes, when a person 'skips' he leaves the ground. He doesn't "rear up on his legs". And when he 'skips space', through kefitzas haderech, he doesn't leave his legs in the place he departed from.
Actually there are discussions of this sort among the later מפרשים. Was יעקב "transported" to his destination quickly? Or was his the destination "transported" to him? Or perhaps both (e.g. he was sprung to חרן, but הר הבית was brought to him)?
It doesn't matter. The use of קפיצה in this particular context doesn't remove the word from all connotation that allows such a free interpretation of the תוספות.
Please source this . Specifically bring a source who understands the "jumping " to refer to the man and not the ground he is on.(saying "this city or that city/area came to greet him " should mean the ground moved as would " him moving to city/place" i.e. the ground under his feet moved. The translation provided is accurate and is unrelated to the question of which land moved.
You probably addressed this, but couldn't Tosafos just mean an elephant rearing up on its hind legs? That could reasonably be described as "jumping up".
See here at the 13 minute mark. Unless all four are up at the same time, it's not hagbahah. So you can't acquire a shtender with hagbahah by tilting it.
The Talmud discusses how to acquire a female slave . It shares some of the jumping elephant laws and depends on preferences . Talmud has a lot of extreme cases .
Yes, usually to prove a conceptual point. Acquiring a large animal by lifting it up is pretty silly to say the least. Forget an elephant, the average bull weighs one ton!
That's the entire question. If lifting animals is the only way to acquire one, how do you acquire something too heavy to pick up, because you obviously can buy elephants.
Or cows, bulls, mules, camels, hippos, rhinos, giraffes, etc. It's a strange opinion, and needless to say, that's not large animals were ever purchased.
The gemara does not say that lifting it is the only way to acquire a large animal. It says that lifting is for light animals like sheep and goats and for large animals it is causing it to come to you or pulling it. Or bringing it into your yard. Or with a chlipin kinyan. But then Rabbi Shimon opines that the best way is to lift it. The Gemara then questions this saying how can you lift say an elephant? R. Zeira says it can be done with having the elephant stand with it's four legs on four vessels owned by the buyer *or with a bundle of vines*.
Rashi, wondering what the Gemara intended to be done with the vines says that they be placed on the ground such that when the elephant steps onto them, he is lifted up. This is when Tosfasos suggests that such a bundle on the ground will not raise the elephant the required 3 tefachim. He suggests that since in another place in the gemara we learn that vines are elephant food, he suggests that we dangle them up in the air and the elephant will "kofetz" to get at them and thus will be elevated the correct height. It is clear that "kofetz" here means to jump.
Understood. My point is only that I would be very surprised if anyone was ever koneh large animals with hagbaah like Rabbi Shimon because of the extreme impracticality of it. Not to mention it's a little strange in sevara.
Dinosaur bones are so scary to a creationist but if there is really strong background first, it's just a strong question. With weak background it becomes a pircha. So first we must build the strong background. See just how much chazal really knew. How amazingly kadosh and genius they were. Years down the line, I think most people know about these questions and may not even have perfect answers but they are the ones with the answers. They are the ones way closer to the truth. Not those who walk around espousing that the gemara and rishonim keep getting things wrong
What does kadosh and genius have to do with knowing the natural sciences?
It literally doesn't. The questions from science are hard ones. But If they undermine our appreciation for chazal and rishonim one bit because they didn't know a truth of the outer shell of the world, there's a deeper issue which means we are not ready for these questions yet. It's super dangerous for those not so strong in their beliefs
Being kadosh and genius had to do with getting to know the spiritual essence, the sod Hashem lyereiav
Being Kadosh and genius has to do with putting the work into really understanding and getting to the bottom of things. People who have watched Talmidei Chachamim as they work through a Sugya, as they sweat to understand the seemingly small details, as they review again and again to see if they are mistaken about something, as they search for the slightest deviation in a Sugya, do not care for the armchair experts and their opinions. When we know that Chazal were far more responsible about their opinions than anyone we know, as we see from the stories in the Gemara, we know that even if theoretically they could have been mistaken, the chances of the casual Gemara peruser of catching it are negligible.
It is akin to the Monsey housewife 'figuring out' how all of the medical professionals missed the point regarding vaccines. Just a משל לשבר את האוזן, the distance is much greater.
And this is why Kollel Yungeleit are assisting society, even if they don't hold paid jobs in the community. By their very presence, they render the bloggers of the world pointless. When someone sees their incredible efforts in a Sugya and then reads posts like this, he sees למי החותמת ולמי הפתילים.
And yet they still believed that the sun doubles back on itself and goes behind the sky at night. (To name but one example.) Which shows that being kadosh and genius and trying to understand things still does not equate to knowing facts about the natural world.
Or maybe you didn't understand the Gemara. But that's impossible, because you spent some years in a Yeshiva, and that makes you the expert.
Or maybe you misunderstood the facts. But that's impossible, because...........................
Precisely my point. If I have a choice whom to trust, I will trust the person who cares to be right, not the armchair expert. Trusting you on any zoological matter against Chazal is like trusting the anti-vaxxer about MMR vaccines. But you did your research, and you know. Sure, so did Mrs. Weisberger.
Yes. It's possible that all the Rishonim didn't understand the Gemara. It's possible that the sun really does double back behind the sky at night. It's also possible that Chazal were mistaken, as virtually all the Rishonim and many Acharonim explain. And you really think that the last of those three is more problematic and unreasonable than the first two?
Meanwhile, I appreciate your speaking up. There's still some charedi apologists claiming that charedim don't have a problem with Chazal being mistaken here.
Well said!! They never said anything carelessly
Doesn't excuse them from not serving on Tzahal.
Who? Chazal?
One builds an idol. Bows and teaches his children that this idol is the greatest warrior god. The idol gets smashed the kids go off the derech.
Guy two builds an idol and teaches his kids that the idol isn't the god but it represents the god. The idol gets smashed they build a new one.
Please explain clearly lest I guess wrong.
Tell your talmidim the truth. Great and righteous tzadikim striving with all of their hearts and souls , every ounce of strength in their being, to find God's word. Completely human. As human as you and I. Prone to the same mistakes as the leading experts in any field. Relying on the best information available at their time. Seeking out errors like an antisemitic irs auditor examining a yeshivas books. We haven't seen their level of Talmud scholarship since ( partially due to the loss of tradition as the great yeshivas fell apart(my understanding of the rambam)). Of course there are mistakes, the biggest team of experts in any field messes up. They're the best we've got.
If this was taught as the default most "big questions " would dissappear. Also, I believe it to be true . Funny how the truth can be the best solution.
If instead we teach , "noble lie" style, ( necessary belief) that they were infallible as far as we can imagine , and even extend this to rishonim , the list of statements of chazal and the rishonim that falsify this position is enough to show the absurdity of this belief. As the Rambam said (paraphrase) " be careful not to mix in good arguments with bad ones since when the bad ones are demonstrated to be false people assume the good ones are as well. "
EDIT: you also wouldn't have to be so sensitive to "mares ayin" of disrespect because your belief doesn't rely on their perfection.
I basically agree with you, but if kids are told this at a very young age they might never appreciate what Chazal have to say since they are not mature enough to differentiate between human like them and human like Chazal. I've never seen a 10 year old from the "closeminded" school system say "The Gemara is wrong about הוצאה on Shabbos". I have heard that from the "open minded".
As far as not lying, don't try to bring up the contradictions until they actually can handle the answer. We don't say כלה כמות שהיא either.
What Leib said.
We don't teach kids about gehinom being spiritual until later. We tell them its a fire and hope they grow up.
The Rambam beginning of Chelek discusses this. I wouldn't call it a noble lie; I would call it the truth on their level, but you can use the words you'd like, point still stands.
Judaism is mature and we wear new tzitzis as we grow bigger (Reb Yaakov Kaminetzky's analogy supposedly)
"Dinosaur bones are so scary to a creationist but if there is really strong background first, it's just a strong question."
Likewise, assuming that Chazal were scientifically fallible, and at the same time assuming that they weren't speaking Pnimiyus but plain old science/nature, is so scary to a Frum Jew, but if there is really strong background first, it's just a strong question.
And then if one thinks into it deeply, he can arrive at an answer to the question.
How can you state with certainty that someone living long ago where elephants did not live never saw an elephant?
How do you know that a circus never came to town, or that the individual never travelled to a distant place or that he never saw an accurate sketch or painting of the animal?
Using words like "probably" and likely" help with honesty and also not coming across as a pompous know-it-all.
Not sure what you're trying to get at here. Are you trying to say that maybe he did see an elephant and therefore his mistake is less excusable?
Meir's excellent point is not to prove anything, but a plea for basic accuracy and decency.
A definitive statement such as "x never saw an elephant" is valid only with actual knowledge of said fact. You can say "it is unlikely that x saw an elephant" because you are deducing not knowing.
It's not about proving or disproving the point, but one of basic decency. What compels you to write something as fact which can not be proven us such, even where it does not undermine the general point?
It is wrong to write that way, plain and simple. It's also childish.
My point from the last post still stands. Why is it so important to point out that this tosafos is wrong? This causes people to question and even go off the derech Rl. More important would be too learn the thousands of other tosafos and see, after learning with intense iyun that they really knew what they were talking about. After that this question won't be so bothersome because we weigh evidence in context of all of our experiences. The fact that you are so hung up on the mistakes to bring out some point misses the big picture
People will only go off the derech if they have this understanding that the rishonim are supernatural beings. Once you understand the rishonim are all normal people, albeit massive talmideic chachomim, living through terrible persecution and poverty, nobody would go off the derech by noting that, like of all us, they make mistakes on occaccion on something unconnected with their core knowlege.
When Rabbeiny Tam dismisses rasho as 'not correct', period, does anybody go off the derech? Was RT concerned about his 'not correct' leading to anybody going off the derech?
athe nefesh hachaim says about the grah that he wouldnt come close to a amoirahin the gemarah. Now if you believe the nefesh hachaim its strange to say chazal made such basic mistakes. Also factor in that the gra consistently recived direct messeges from heaven- getting aressted befor birchas cohanim was enacted. So I think that if you respect the Nefesh hachaims view you are forced to look at the gemarah in a totally different light to how we usually percieve them.
But maybe the nefesh hacahim made a mistake. We don't have infallible popes in our religion. Why don't you get it? Shas is full of amaroim getting things wrong! Ever heard of a 'chuvta' 'chuvta'. Every human being on this earth gets things wrong. Period.
So your saying I have two options of who to believe...Some random gisa with asterisks in his name or a world renowned tzadik whos works still influence the entire litvisher world! errrrrmmmm I think i'll go for.....
If they were regular people, many people would have a hard time trusting their view of the world over the scientific one
May I suggest to you that they treated science and medicine just like we all do....
How do you learn physics? From a physicist. Medicine? From a doctor. Math? From the math teacher. Or, some things from personal experience.
The Rishonim did the same. It's just that their scientists and doctors had different, outdated, beliefs and practices.
The Mishna and Gemara were like that too. There were many scientific theories in Roman times, about the path of the sun, and other topics. The Chachamim themselves espoused the views of their time. Aristotle and Seneca debated this with other schools of thought.
Once you look into it, you will see.
That could work and that's what many rishonim thought. But with the Zohar approach we learn that every word of chazal had a major pnimius.
And yet, even after the Zohar, there were many great rabbinic authorities who followed the Rishonim and said that this Gemara is just talking about astronomy.
Who were claiming to go beyond pshat? Who?
I get that, I really do. But after much investigation, I found it hard to accept that when some early astronomers suggested that the sky is an opaque dome, we take it at face value. But when the same exact view is repeated by the contemporary Gemara, it carries a mysterious spiritual meaning to it. More probable is that they were influenced by the views and debates of their time. Which is nothing to be ashamed of, BTW. I heard that a famous posek reads data published by NASA
to make halachic decisions.
If NASA erred and RosCosmos got it right, would that take away your respect for a Rabbi?
Do you expect him to send his own satellite into space?
Certainly not.
Basically, I agree with you. However regarding,
"I found it hard to accept that when some early astronomers suggested that the sky is an opaque dome, we take it at face value. But when the same exact view is repeated by the contemporary Gemara, it carries a mysterious spiritual meaning to it."
this is addressed by Ramchal in Maamar Al Ha'agados. IIRC, that Chazal were looking to teach Kabalah, but used a contemporary scientific model even if it wasn't accurate, to clothe it.
We follow metzius to a large extent. The issue here is when people constantly show how we know better than Chazal. Be honest, you don't respect a flat earther. Many people hear things about chazal being 'flat earthers' and if their not ready, it reaches to the core of their emunah and they question a lot more than just that.
If there is a pnimius, as the Zohar followers show that there is, which is very deep and beyond any gashmius, instead of losing respect, we see how every word was perfect and explains our relationship with God more and more perfectly, which is what we'd expect chazal to be busy doing, not worrying about this world which is meaningless other than to bring out God's glory in ways far superior to what science could do, such as through learning the absolute genius of the ways God acts through what we call the sefiros.
They probably thought the sky was an opaque dome because that's what it looks like and the human perspective is the one that matters. I don't know all the answers but to say they were following the science of the time when we see things in the mekubalim that is way beyond that, I'd suggest too delve into the words of the mekubalim if you are ready and see the depths of chazal's words and it won't be so strange anymore...
The answer is simple: TRUTH.
'אמת' is more important than almost anything else except for PEACE. But when you let go of truth for the sake of peace, in this case to protect the image of great Rabbanim, you risk losing both arguments.
This is not a particularly important truth. It's a much more important truth to learn through this Tosafos and thousands of others and try to understand why he said what he said.
Perhaps an important truth would be- if Tosafos was wrong about elephant jumping, and Rashi's pshat is also wrong, then what did the Gemara mean? Maybe Tosafos was right about pshat in the Gemara, and it was Chazal who were mistaken about the elephant jumping? In which case there is no way to make a kinyan hagbaha on the elephant? But probably not, we should assume for sure that Chazal were right, and therefore try to understand what they meant.
This would be a meaningful halachic discussion to engage in. Not the simple idea that you found a mistake in Tosafos, which is only significant if your goal is undermining the Torah sh'bal Peh.
Pardon me. Did you just say elephants can't jump? Slifkin told you that.
Your whole query only "gets off of the ground" (pun intended) with the admission about the physical facts. So it is quite important.
BTW it doesn't undermine anything. Tosfos would have been thrilled to hear. It would go something like:
"והר' נתן המכונה סליפקין אומר שזה אי אפשר כי עינינו רואות שהפיל אינו קופץ. "
I don't think Slifkin was the first one to discover that elephants don't jump.
It undermines quite a lot if you make your quest for truth one of finding the mistakes in Chazal and the Rabbis, yes. There were plenty of people who found (or claimed to have found) mistakes in the earlier rabbis while engaging in serious halachic analysis and we are fine with them. An example would be Rabbi Beinish and the kezayis. Or Rabbi Notis's book. We are not fine with Slifkin though.
Here's a possible explanation of the Gemara, using the pshat of Tosafos in חבילי זמורות (as most Rishonim do), without reference to if Tosafos meant this or if he was familiar with elephants. The Gemara means like R' Meshulam says, that you use vines to attract the elephant, but הכא במאי עסקינן? It is standing on top of a place where the ground is elevated 3 tefachim, and as it tries to get the vines, it falls onto the lower part, such that for a split-second it was off the ground.
"It undermines quite a lot if you make your quest for truth one of finding the mistakes in Chazal and the Rabbis, yes. "
I started with this topic because several students wrote to me to ask me if Tosafos was correct about elephants jumping. Are you saying that I should have lied to them?
No, c"v, I never said that.
that is not what tosfos means if you read his word carefully
I said it's not what he means
And come to think of it, what's wrong with saying the elephant is in water? It may not be what Tosafos meant, but it's a perfectly fine אוקימתא in the Gemara that preserves R' Meshulam's pshat (which most Rishonim seem to like).
That would completely intellectually dishonest, but I guess you could say that . . .
Don't you think it only works when the item is 3 Tefachim above the surface of the water? Not sure.
But it's an interesting idea.
That's extra credit. The Gemara itself can be resolved otherwise. R Meshulam.. you aren't answering. You're making a new Pshat. Good.
Can you do an experiment?
I suspect either one of two outcomes:
#1) The front legs will touch down before the hind legs are airborne.
#2) The elephant won't budge for the vine, as he will be aware of the danger. For an elephant, even a little fall is utterly disastrous.
Maybe Slifkin can volunteer to do such an experiment! I would be interested!
Thanks for explaining the name. To be clear, as in Ice-age, stone-age, Osoba-age?
Even though your name is now in Hebrew I still don't get it, but at least now I suspect I at least get the Hebrew part, although I would've used ששון or שמחה
It's not truth and we are not protecting rabanim. We are protecting the truth which is our mesorah
First of all, the reason Slifkin is interested in pointing out when the Gemara or Rishonim used outdated science, is because he believes he is promoting the truth. I hope I answered your original question.
Secondly, if you think it isn't the truth, explain. Can elephants jump? Are you saying that we have a mesora that elephants can jump? And can you verify this by experiment? I don't know, I'm asking.
To your last point, you yourself said that people might be lead astray if they lose respect for the Rabbanim. It was cited by you as a reason not to point out their mistakes. Sounds to me like you agree there were some mistakes, but you want to hide them. That would be trading in the truth for the sake of another goal.
The issue is that there are two true things which many, many, many people confuse. On the one hand chazal and the rishonim are our everything, מפיהם אנו חיים and the fact they that they were millions of times greater than us in Torah and yiraas shamayim is what we base our entire belief system on.
And then there's another truth that they didn't know science and may have even got things wrong.
If the first truth is solid already, we can introduce the second point without issue.
But for so so many, the first truth is really not all that clear. To them, the second truth actually negates the first and with that the whole mesorah crumbles. I was a victim to that for a while.
So to the point, while the truth is important, someone with a bigger picture view, like an emeseh gadol, understand that we should not be promoting "truth" for people who can't handle it's ramifications. Same way we don't teach kids how they were born too early and so on.
That's my take. It's not the honor of the gedolim per se I care about; it's what they stand for: our mesorah.
I would trust Natan that elephants can't jump and that tosafos are wrong. But to me it's all small question not a life mission. A proper life mission in my books is to show how crazy unbelievable the rishonim were and that will find options a better sense of Truth
Fair enough. We should be made aware of both truths. But conciously hiding one side, for any amount of time, can potentially detract from our own credibility on the other.
Let us resolve this by finding a way to present the full picture.
I don't believe that most 30+ year olds in Lakewood are unaware of the truth that chazal didn't know science. People have a choice to make, they can follow chazal or they can not. Those that struggle with gemara learning (usually not a brains issues but a forced monotonous day in day out grind issue) often find these weaknesses very compelling. But those who know the greatness of chazal and spend years learning their Godly wisdom understand the question and know the basic answers. Either chazal went with the science of their day or they were describing a pnimius etc. But half the question does away in proper context. It's works for anyone who can accept the idea of a pnimius which comes along with a dose of yiraas shamayim. Why should we teach different, wrong and confusing answers? Those who have real questions can go to their Rebbe who will be able to personally assess their honesty (because it's often psychology and yetzer hara against learning really at play) and respond accordingly. There's little reason why this has to be a public matter.
Now in the internet age there may need to be a better response but at the end of the day, those who are looking to ask will have what to ask and those who are comfortable following people like the gr'a will do that...
I speak from experience. I was an atheist for a long long while and for years I thought these questions were bombshells. But really my attitude was the bombshell. A little humility towards chazal takes you a long way, further than the "I know better" takes you the other way
I think the gedolim feel that our approach is adequate for anyone anyways serious
But R Hirsch writes that insisting the other way, that Chazal always got the science right, will make people go off.
I like what @leib-shachar said from reb shalom kaminetzky...
But what do you suggest?
I think the best way is to continue teaching how great chazal were
I'm a big talker because it was detrimental for me for years. I'm ashamed of the things I did because I thought I knew better but at the end of the day it's all about the ethos and that's what we must teach. Those who don't wanna hear won't hear anyways
Wow, a "just now" comment!
Give me a minute to gather my notes for you that I wrote offline and now started searching for where your comments were, to attach them and send them there. Maybe I'll just send them here....
Shulman, I find your openness to others' thoughts to be like a breath of fresh air. Don't be so quick to dismiss the “two camp” theory. Check with Rabbi Menachem Nusel? student of Rav Moshe Shapiro, if he asked a Godol Hador about these things and was told that there are two camps. (But I see that this might be a semantics issue, as somewhere you wrote that even though there are no two camps there are two [somethings].)
Regarding the Cherem, the written word is what people base their opinions on. When you write a Cherem, you're going to influence people's thoughts and you do it with precision. How many people will hear of your (own) interpretations of what you wrote and know that you meant something else? Do you know of other Cherems with this kind of interpretations?
An Adam Gadol used to learn with his Chavrusa on regular schedule even if he went straight to give a Derasha. Except once. He told the Chavrusa, I'm going to speak to Chasidim (he himself was a Litvak) by their Rebeh's Shloshim? Hakamas Matzeiva? how the Chassidus should continue and they will be Medayek every word I say. For this I (a famed Ilui) need extra time. I am broken that this wasn't done 19 years MINUS 2 weeks ago.
At any rate, you do not appear to be familiar with what happened and what the issues were. Check the actual sources and be wary of revisionism.
I wonder if it's beneficial to try to force you to concede that the Cherem wasn't justified. If I succeeded, would you be left in a good place? Maybe the best thing is to leave you in your bliss?
Very interesting.
I hope it was really clear that I thought the ban was silly. I detest what happened. But what it brought out was an very very important point. Pay attention to when people like @test say that there was nothing particularly special about the rishonim. Slifkin gave that a like. I wish he would write again about the Zohar and why he doesn't believe in it. He clearly thinks there are two camps and we can choose to be a part of the "non Zohar camp" . As in I don't believe in these stuff. And all these others who do, we label them as a "they", a camp of mystics who we are not part of and we can blissfully continue in our rational ways. That attitude is wrong. It denies the essence of Judaism. That is all huge huge problem because in truth, is we're being honest, why Judaism at all?
I have no problem if someone says we need to discuss pshat because kabbala is not for us but to flat or deny it, and mind you those who deny repeatedly show that they have absolutely no clue what it's about, such an attitude can undermine everything. The Arizal, the beis yosef, the gr'a, and even the Ramban and raavad.
This side of Judaism shows is how great they were more than any other aspect of Judaism.
Instead of searching where to leave the following comment, I'm putting it here. R Schmeltzer worked for both REBW & RMS. The 2 of them only agreed against RDS. With each other they didn't agree. This put him in a funny position that he has both views in his Sefer. RMS is of course coming from Maharal. REBW might be coming from Maharsha at the end of Agada D'Raba BB Chana, but actually that is in a different context.
Schmeltzer had to worry about a lot more than two views of RMS and REBW. He had to bury the Rambam, Chovos Halvavos, and Kuzari and make beleive they also think that Emuna isn't logical, sometimes quoting half their sentences, sometimes switching the order of their paragraphs. However, that doesn't mean anyone disagreeing with Schmeltzer is now a full-blown rationalist. I don't subscribe to the "Two Camp Theory" either.
lol I was responding to your other comment when I saw this and just responded immediately
Rav Schachter explicitly endorsed this idea, that Tosafot in France and Germany hadn't seen an elephant, so their explanation of the gemara is not correct. Even though on a halachic level, the principles they are suggesting are correct.
I posted the audio snippet here: https://scribalerror.substack.com/p/no-today-is-jumping-elephant-day
And had they actually seen one does that make them an expert in it? Do you think most people would know if they can jump or not by seeing them once? Do you think a camel could jump? I bet you saw a camel before. It was a creative answer on best assumptions.
Sometimes this blog gets stuck in its own thinking.
I don't think another ban is coming for three reasons:
1) It will make the book too popular.
2) You taught them about valid opinions that they didn't hear before. Now it is becoming commonplace.
3) They realised that your whole approach is more correct. There is actually a need for people like you.
RNS מזל טוב. It appears that your efforts to raise questions about the role of scientific knowledge in the understanding of Torah and Halachah and your suggestions as to the approach to take to solve conflicts with accepted viewpoints have taken root. Even more so, some of your suggested answers to apparent conflicts to some religious positions have been subtly accepted.
I don't think it is Slifin's credit. I think Schmeltzer's scare tactics are finally wearing off. It's a pity Slifkin already moved on to real kefira i.e Kellner.
Lets love chazal!
https://open.substack.com/pub/doniel/p/whats-special-about-my-esrog?r=2842py&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Ephraim. You are not a lamdan so don't tell a true lamdan he's wrong. Yes you can offer your opinion but don't make a fool out of yourself showing your ignorance in learning. The bottom line is that it is feasible and fact that different rishonim and achronim use rabbinic Hebrew terminology differently. The main thing in lamdus is to understand the theory of what they are talking about instead of trying to be medayek in dictionary definitions.
Neither citing a toddler, nor Webster's, nor ad hominems will change the meaning of קפץ.
" it is feasible "
Feasible? That's a low standard.
"and fact that different rishonim and achronim use rabbinic Hebrew terminology differently"
You're over-extrapolating by taking a little lexiographical flexibility in one place and turn it into a free-for-all redefining a term elsewhere.
" The main thing in lamdus "
Before you get to lomdus, you must be able to read and understand words first. Main thing? How about prerequisite?
" instead of trying to be medayek in dictionary definitions."
What does this mean? That you can ignore words if you don't like them? And it was you cited dictionary definitions! And it was you was medayak קפץ to mean a very different concept.
…The Gemara asks, but then how do you buy an elephant? And it cryptically answers, “with a bundle of vines.” What does this mean? Tosafos explains it to mean that you have them hanging in the air and make the elephant jump to get them. But can elephants jump?…
Well, if I were to try to reasonably decipher that cryptic riposte, I might respond that the purchaser might be paying for the elephant with grape vines or perhaps an entire orchard. And the elephant seeing those luscious grapes simply jumped for joy. Mine is as good an interpretation as Tosafos’.
BTW, who was the Tosafost that concocted that conjecture. What was his name, and some info regarding some of his biographical details. After all, if someone is going to favor us with a really strange mechanism for purchasing an elephant, I would want to know his qualifications and competence for doing so.
Gosh. I know I'm late on commenting here but you totally missed the boat. The idea is to acquire something by showing you are the owner. So by lifting something up you show you are in charge. What if it is too heavy? You make it jump. Valid halachic explanation. It can work for acquiring another heavy animal that does jump, like a bison (according to my tour guide in Yellowstone). You explanation is not nearly as good as tosfos, since an animal getting excited does nothing to show ownership.
What are your qualifications for learning Gemara? You don't present yourself well here either.
Natan, something really crucial you're missing, is that even for people that do occasionally see elephants, that doesn't mean they actually ~know~ if they can jump or not. I bet many would be mistaken when asked.
Tosfos (like Talmud) use dialectic to iron out inconsistencies using logic. Don't see the big deal if they misunderstood a mitzyas.
Is it possible that the p’shat in that gemara is that you use the bundle of vines to, say, hoist the elephant up?
See my reply below
That is how rashi learns.
Tosfos is bothered that if so, why vines? why not stones and wood?
Noson has in there a paragraph stating that when Rabbenu Meshulam suggested that by suspending the vines high up to make the elephant "jump" for them, that the jump must be off the ground, he is utterly WRONG. It means that as a result of suspending the vines high up the man is causing the elephant to rear up to reach the vines and this creates the kinyan.
Of course it is true that when a person does hagba'a for a kinyan it must be raised 3 tefachim off the surface it was placed on, and this would include acquisition of a small animal someone could lift. But, m'heichi teisi, that this rule applies to acquire an animal that is impossible to lift? All these types of kinyanim were defined by Chazal, once an item is kanooy, it belongs to the owner for all inyanim d'oraysa. Rabbenu Meshulam is just defining in the case of acquiring an elephant, this method works according to chazal, which is making the elephant "jump" meaning rear up on its hind legs to reach the food.
As for the definition of "jump": let's say you tell a young child to "jump" and he squats a little and then pushes himself up but does not actually leave the ground. He "jumped" but didn't leave the ground. Similarly, if the vines were suspended so high that the elephant can't quite reach them not matter how high it extends itself and its trunk, the effort falls in the category of "kefitza".
I gave this explanation back when Noson came out with his original article.
Your explanation requires the knowledge that there is no way to get the elephant to completely leave the ground. Hagbaha is just that.
The kinyan you are suggesting would fall into another category called manhig, which is related to mesira; and may not even qualify.
You also seem to lack knowledge of how halacha works. When the elephant surges up to get the food even if it can't become airborne that's the best it can do and will constitute kinyan hagbaa. Even according to Rashi the modality of hagbaa here doesn't require it to be raised from a surface. The point is the buyer does an act that causes the massive animal to be elevated up. Rabbenu Meshulam understands that to qualify as kinyan hagbaa
The entire animal must be raised up. Period. If part of it is on solid ground, it is no longer Hagbaha; it may be a different kinyan, but not Hagbaha. I suggest you check with a real lamdan; don't just rely on me!
I will look into it more carefully, though.
I happen to be a lamdan and you certainly are not. So your understanding is very limited because you think you know and understand everything. A person making a kinyan on something he can pickup must raise it up. But in the case of an elephant NOBODY is physically raising it up at all, so it lav davka follows the exact same rules. Kinyan is "gemiras daas" a particular act of the Koneh demonstrates the gemiras daas to be Koneh. According to Rabbenu Meshulam (I'm not saying this is how we pasken), the Koneh causing the elephant to elevate itself by surging up to reach the food is suficient hagbaa to be koneh.
Your lomdus is clearly flawed. I agreed that a kinyan is done by an act which displays gemiras daas. That was never the issue.
The question is WHICH kinyan is it? Is it Hagbaha or some other new kinyan. I have NOT heard of anyone saying doing the best you can qualifies for kinyan HAGBAHA.
But as I said, get another opinion. Your own opinion...well...doesn't count for this even if you are a lamdan, because the key is to check if you overlooked anything.
You are no lomdon and are a total mechutzaf to say my lomdus is "clearly flawed" when you admit that you know nothing. I don't have the patients to write a four page piece on this as I have in my sefer.
If you can forgive the Hebrew,
לע"ד זה דחוק דהנה אמר שם לעיל "מתקיף לה ר' יוסף ולא קאמר "בעי ר' יוסף ..פיל לר"ש במה יקנה, והנה על קושיית ר' יוסף למה לא השיב שאין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר ואה"נ היכא דלא אפשר א"צ הגבהה וסגי בקנין אחר או משיכה או מסירה או חליפין, ולכאו' ע"כ מדסתם ר"ש ואמר הגבהה משמע דכן הוא בכ"ע וע"כ דהוא אפשר, וקמתמה ר"י היאך אפשר, ולדברי מע"כ שא"צ הגבהה אמיתית שהחפץ מסולק לגמרי מהקרקע הואיל וא"א, נימא דנעביד משיכה אמיתית או מסירה אמיתית דמהנו בעלמא ולא הגבהה מפוקפקת הלז אם הגבהה אמיתית א"א, ואולי אעפ"כ מדבעי ר"ש הגבהה, עדיפא הגבהה מפוקפקת ממשיכה ומסירה אמיתיות.
אמנם הא נמי אין נראה, דהא שם לעיל מוקים לה דמייתי ד' כלים בסימטא וכו' ע"ש, והוא קנין לכתחילה, ומה מוסיף אי נמי בחבילי זמורות, הא מאחר שמצאנו עצה לכתחילה לקנות בד' כלים, מה מדחיק לנו להמציא קנין שלא מהני בעלמא ולומר שכאן מהני, ואדרבה כשם שלא מהני בעלמא לא תהני כאן.
א"ו דמיירינן בהגבהה גמורה, כנלע"ד. ועחו"מ סרס"ט סעי"ה.
וצל"ע איך א"כ מהני לרש"י כשמוליכו על הח"ז, וכמו שהעיר מע"כ. ואולי מדעכ"פ מגביהו לדבר חדש.
"when Rabbenu Meshulam suggested that by suspending the vines high up to make the elephant "jump" for them, that the jump must be off the ground, he is utterly WRONG."
To justify this statement you should show that the word קופץ is unambiguously used elsewhere as having the sense of stretching/reaching instead of springing. It would also be useful to show that the word קופץ is more fitting than other terms. And your example of the toddler is not useful. Even if this fabricated vocabulary challenged toddler were to exist, he wouldn't be the lexicographical authority that תוספות would rely upon for a choice of words. You'd better come up with a more convincing example.
And therein lies the problem. For you have offered a decent explanation which while deviating from the actual words of תוספות and like minded colleagues, nevertheless provides an alternative explanation in consonance with their dissatisfaction with the פשט provided by רש"י :
"It means that as a result of suspending the vines high up the man is causing the elephant to rear up to reach the vines and this creates the kinyan."
And indeed other ראשונים, like the מאירי seem to provide this very explanation:
ויש מפרשין שיעמוד הוא במקום גבוה ויביא זמורות לחות בידו והבהמה מגבהת עצמה ליטול מאותן הזמורות ואחר שהוא סבב את הגבהתה הרי הוא כהגביהה ממש על הדרך שאמרו במשיכה שכל שהלכה מחמת קולו קונה:
Contrast with the תוספות:
והוא קופץ ומגביה את עצמו מן הארץ
And yet the מאירי doesn't mention the word קופץ. Why not? He also omits the words "מן הארץ." Why? If the ראשונים didn't mean a real jump, why couldn't they phrase their explanation like the מאירי?
You offer a good explanation, but you haven't showed that it's what תוספות meant.
Thank you, Ephraim for elaborating on my explanation. As for having to prove that kofetz doesn't always mean "jumping up off the ground, I gave one example, kfitzas haderech. Also "jump" is used to jump down not just up. Kofatz can mean "skip" a verb in English meaning to move or proceed with leaps and bounds or with a skip, lav davka both feet leaving the ground simultaneously. Furthermore although definition "a" of Webster's dictionary means off the ground, b and c do not.
a
: to spring into the air : LEAP especially : to spring free from the ground or other base by the muscular action of feet and legs
b
: to move suddenly or involuntarily : START
c
: to move energetically : HUSTLE
Hebrew likfotz can also tolerate those definitions.
Noson, himself in the past has correctly noted that terminology used by Chazal and later rabbonon is not always meduyak. Of course if the mefaresh spells out exactly what he means then... that's exactly what he means. If Rabbenu Meshulam said kofetz ma'al ha'aretz that would have been clear. But he added והוא קופץ ומגביה את עצמו מן הארץ . The elephant raised himself from the ground, meaning he leaped his body upright (an unnatural position) to reach the food due to the buyer suspending the food above him. This is the kinyan for an elephant, since a man cannot lift him with his body.
"Hebrew likfotz can also tolerate those definitions."
Examples?
In any case, none of those definitions fit your reading of תוספות. And neither does קפיצת הדרך help you. What you doing is finding a definition of קפץ that doesn't literally mean jump (though retaining some connotation of "skipping") and using it as a "proof" for any meaning you want to impose into the word. It doesn't fit. And given the alternative formulation of the מאירי, it's even less justified.
Yep. Typical yeshivish. Just twist the words of tosfos to resolve a problem. Kefitzah in the Hebrew language means jump leaving the ground. Some of us know that words mean what they say.
Tosfos had plenty of Hebrew at his disposal had he wanted to give your explanation.
The young child did NOT jump in your moshol. Not a single observer with knowledge of the English language will say he "jumped'. Such nonsense.
You are a total ignoramus of Limud Hatorah. Your foolishness does not deserve a response. However... kefitza in Hebrew does not have to mean, "jump off the ground" although that is one common usage. E.g. Kefitzas Haderech, which means, skipping space, has nothing to do with being levitated in the air. GROW UP.
You are part of a world where a thousand times a day one chavrusoh will say to the other "rashi/tosfos/maharshoh/shach/whoever must be lav davka' shrug their shoulders and move on.
This is the world of bo ha'cohen shov ha'cohen. Where 'kefitzah' can mean rearing up on hind legs' when necessary. The meaning of words varies when convenient. As Humpty Dumpty says in Alice in Wonderland. But you wrote a sefer so you must be correct.
Been there done that. Suffice it to say I have never seen 'lav davkas' in the seforim from the gedolei acharonim. It's modern yeshivish.
So when a Guy Jumps the Gun in a race it doesn't mean that he started running before the race started.
When someone is קפץ ונשבע בבית דין does he need to jump for it to count?
Also why does Tosfos need to say קפץ ומגביה עצמו מן הארץ? is that not redundant?
"Also why does Tosfos need to say קפץ ומגביה עצמו מן הארץ? is that not redundant? "
I'm addressing this point only because it brings out an important point in debating skills and logic that seems to be lost on many that believe 'they can learn'.
Yes it is redundant. But that doesn't autmatically make sender's kvetching correct, does it?
Kofetz v'nishbah is clearly not been used in the physical sense, so it is not proof for anything. Ditto 'jumping the gun', although it's odd you would use an English expression as some sort of proof anyway.
I am closing this conversation now.
I am not sure if you took what I was saying to be fully conclusive (I couldn't care less if Tosfos meant it literally) but I won't bother clarifying as I am not a big fan of people who join an argument to drop their two cense and quit the conversation so they automatically have the last word. Speaking of debating skills. "I am closing the conversation now".
"Kefitzas Haderech, which means, skipping space, has nothing to do with being levitated in the air."
See https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=42691&pgnum=280 where he offers an unusual explanation that does invoke levitation of sorts. But it's besides the point, since you're free to reject his explanation.
Just because you found one use of the term קופץ that deviates somewhat from its common use doesn't give you the authority to freely impose any meaning that fits your agenda. A second closely related definition doesn't mean that you can invent a third unrelated definition.
I don't think that קפיצת הדרך is a good example. The concept is miraculous and it's difficult (impossible?) to actually describe physically what's happening to the individual and landscape. All we know is that the person gets to his destination very quickly. Thus the term evokes something analogous to skipping/jumping, without imposing a physical jumping. So either the word קופץ should be used for literal jumping or at least something analogous to jumping. The use of the term by תוספות as explained by you does neither.
You are talking to the world where a thousand times a day one chavrusoh will say to the other "rashi/tosfos/maharshoh/shach/whoever must be lav davka' shrug their shoulders and move on.
This is the world of bo ha'cohen shov ha'cohen. The precise meaning of words varies when convenient.
Efraim accepts v'shov ha'cohen uva ha'cohen.
Classic. "Kefitzas Haderech" is not "Kefitzah". And yes, when a person 'skips' he leaves the ground. He doesn't "rear up on his legs". And when he 'skips space', through kefitzas haderech, he doesn't leave his legs in the place he departed from.
Kefitzas haderech means the "jumping of the way", it is the ground jumping.
'Koftza lo haaretz'
And Koftza is feminine as is Aretz, while Lo is masculine.
Actually there are discussions of this sort among the later מפרשים. Was יעקב "transported" to his destination quickly? Or was his the destination "transported" to him? Or perhaps both (e.g. he was sprung to חרן, but הר הבית was brought to him)?
It doesn't matter. The use of קפיצה in this particular context doesn't remove the word from all connotation that allows such a free interpretation of the תוספות.
Please source this . Specifically bring a source who understands the "jumping " to refer to the man and not the ground he is on.(saying "this city or that city/area came to greet him " should mean the ground moved as would " him moving to city/place" i.e. the ground under his feet moved. The translation provided is accurate and is unrelated to the question of which land moved.
I know, but I didn't want to confuse him further. Anyway, he's written a sefer so he must be right.
You probably addressed this, but couldn't Tosafos just mean an elephant rearing up on its hind legs? That could reasonably be described as "jumping up".
No it can't. Unless you also redefine the meaning of the word 'reasonable' to suit your purposes.
Bully.
(As a matter of pshat however, need to agree)
See here at the 13 minute mark. Unless all four are up at the same time, it's not hagbahah. So you can't acquire a shtender with hagbahah by tilting it.
https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/855094/Kidushin-Daf-26Kinyanei-Karka
The Talmud discusses how to acquire a female slave . It shares some of the jumping elephant laws and depends on preferences . Talmud has a lot of extreme cases .
Yes, usually to prove a conceptual point. Acquiring a large animal by lifting it up is pretty silly to say the least. Forget an elephant, the average bull weighs one ton!
That's the entire question. If lifting animals is the only way to acquire one, how do you acquire something too heavy to pick up, because you obviously can buy elephants.
Or cows, bulls, mules, camels, hippos, rhinos, giraffes, etc. It's a strange opinion, and needless to say, that's not large animals were ever purchased.
See my reply above
The gemara does not say that lifting it is the only way to acquire a large animal. It says that lifting is for light animals like sheep and goats and for large animals it is causing it to come to you or pulling it. Or bringing it into your yard. Or with a chlipin kinyan. But then Rabbi Shimon opines that the best way is to lift it. The Gemara then questions this saying how can you lift say an elephant? R. Zeira says it can be done with having the elephant stand with it's four legs on four vessels owned by the buyer *or with a bundle of vines*.
Rashi, wondering what the Gemara intended to be done with the vines says that they be placed on the ground such that when the elephant steps onto them, he is lifted up. This is when Tosfasos suggests that such a bundle on the ground will not raise the elephant the required 3 tefachim. He suggests that since in another place in the gemara we learn that vines are elephant food, he suggests that we dangle them up in the air and the elephant will "kofetz" to get at them and thus will be elevated the correct height. It is clear that "kofetz" here means to jump.
Understood. My point is only that I would be very surprised if anyone was ever koneh large animals with hagbaah like Rabbi Shimon because of the extreme impracticality of it. Not to mention it's a little strange in sevara.
“Rabbi Shimon opines that the best way is to lift it.”
More correctly, Rabbi Shimon opines that the ONLY way is to lift it.
I agree with your read, which is why I said only.