It's interesting because Rashi (סנהדרין דל"ג א' וש"ך סי' כ"ה סק"ט) happens to sound like טעה בדבר משנה is only an actual משנה not a מציאות...
But more to the point, it's interesting to me that this was a חידוש to you. Rashi's allowed to make mistakes and be wrong just like ר' טרפון is allowed to make mistakes and be wrong.
(ר טרפון thought that taking the womb out renders the בהמה a טריפה, possibly because they didn't have sophisticated enough surgeries, but the חכמים disagreed because of תודוס הרופא's account that חזירה לא היתה יוצאת ממצרים אא"כ ניטל האם שלה and so ר טרפון was wrong and called a טועה בדבר משנה since it was undisputable (ע' ש"ך שם).)
I haven't specifically learned that sugya yet (thanks for the מראה מקומות) but if we still pasken like rashi, there must be more to it.
Basically, I really enjoyed the article (though I am unfamiliar with the topic and still have to look into it myself) but why did you insert in the previous post strange undertones that this has to do with a 'rational' world view? Unless you really don't get our side.
Hopefully, now that you are getting it more - welcome!! 😊
I'm sure you think your lefty liberal Judaism is the one true mesora however rav meiselman in Torah chazal and science rejects the possibility of chazal being wrong and mentions In his introduction that the rishonim could be wrong (quoting from the rav " the rashba had a goldene kop") this was vehemently disputed and derided by rabbi wachtfogel of the South fallsburg yeshiva " the rashba is the mesora".
Heard from a talmid who heard it directly rabbi wachtfogel.
YidPoshut, not sure if you (or Rav Wachtfogel) are aware of this, but R. Meiselman says that Rishonim are wrong far more than I do, and considering that (unlike me) he is part of the charedi world, R. Wachtfogel should be launching a campaign against him just as he did with me.
Conjecture: since he claims his rebbe was his uncle the Rav r wachtfogel considers him nonchareidi?
Also he would be a much harder battle to win than you! And while he did manage to put you and your family through the wringer( I can't imagine what it was like for you) I can't imagine he is pleased with the results as far as the community is concerned .
First of all the חתם סופר והבאים אחריו said it, not me. Second of all, is ר' טרפון being wrong 'lefty Judaism?'
I don't speak for R Vachtfogel, but I can imagine that when fighting a strong tide coming the wrong way a leader has to enforce our מסורה as for the perfection it carries (probably apologetics, and maybe I'm wrong, I don't speak for him and even if my reason is right, I probably wouldn't take that approach).
You really don't know how to listen. My position didn't change once.
You have this weird perception of us 'not being rational,' but really you just can't hear the nuance. Even ר' טרפון was able to be wrong, it's a משנה! We just would never assume it ourselves without really strong evidence. And 99.999% of the time our assumption is correct. That one or few times that Rashi got it wrong, the חתם סופר probably spent a lot of time trying to be מיישב Rashi first, but ultimately we found that one time where he was a טועה בדבר פשוט which he couldn't know about and read the Gemara according to what he did, and was wrong. The issue is that to you this is some kind of proof against 'mysticism,' against the Rishonim's extreme level of perfection - after all if the rishonim can make a mistake, they are just like us. But anyone who sits and learns Gemara with rishonim like a mentch knows that it just means that even though Rashi was the picture of human perfection, he still was human and can make mistakes. This does not affect our picture of the Rishonim AT ALL.
1) You may think that you are presenting the standard charedi/yeshivish viewpoint, but I spent many years in that world and you are wrong. They would not say that Rashi was plain wrong here.
2) I'm not sure if you realize this, but Rashi could just have checked, the same way as Ramban did. But he didn't, because (due to his cultural worldview) he did not realize the value of empirical investigation. Don't you think that malachim with a supernatural grasp of reality and a level of wisdom that we cannot even being to fathom would realize that?
The Chasam Sofer was pretty Yeshivish. As was the Ramban.
1. I would make two points.
First of all, this case is an anomaly - very, very rare. Second, for some people, especially black and white teenagers (but perhaps all the more so for those who grew up but still have a teenage picture of Judaism) the idea of a Rishon being wrong would undermine their entire view and proper respect of the Rishonim. There is absolutely no reason to teach such a thing in yeshiva, for example, before the kids develop the proper respect for what being a Rishon meant. So they teach, or at least give a strong impression, that the Rishonim were infallible, because they practically were! That's a far more important message than the nuance that they were BUT they were also human. (Do you even get how that's possible?) Most kids who are into these things early, fighting the system, never really do appreciate how unbelievably great they were. They come off with the impression that these people were JUST humans, like you and I, and they don't realize the sheer levels that a human can reach. They think that because someone is human it means they can't literally be perfect. Take a guy like @test for example, he really can't grasp my position that on the one hand they were מלאכים ממש and at the same time they were human. It's a very, very delicate thing to understand and many people, even many adults, can't handle it. (This is also partly why the Rambam isn't 'mainstream;' most people can't handle the balance which he takes regarding Chazal.)
Therefore, first of all, it's hard to know what these really yeshivishe rabbeim would say behind closed doors - and second, it may be too nuanced for even them to appreciate, so they also should correctly go and even teach the other way. This way is way closer to the truth than the outlier cases you have in this article. People like me, if I am unique (pretty sure I'm not), who can truly understand how Rashi got something wrong but was still an actual מלאך אלקים, can express these kinds of views.
2. Your second comment brings out a very, very important point. It wasn't that empirical evidence wasn't important because of some silly, primitive, unscientific world view where facts didn't matter. It was that they had another set of empirical investigation, called the Torah (or by the non-Jews, they still had access to similar levels of חכמה having to do with the mind, not for now, check out my blog). If the gemara read a certain way according to Rashi's tremendous iyun, that was actually empirical! That doesn't mean he couldn't be wrong (i.e., even scientists are often wrong about their empiricism) but it's quite a different statement when you appreciate this point. He didn't fact check his hundreds of other statements either, the ones he got right, because the gemara was clear. If he got it wrong once in a long while because he didn't check, that says nothing about a mistaken cultural worldview.
"Don't you think that malachim with a supernatural grasp of reality and a level of wisdom that we cannot even being to fathom would realize that?" if you meant that respectfully, sure. If you meant that cynically, read your words carefully in a respectful light and appreciate who you are up against.
I have been told by chassidic kids that saying that the Rebbe is wrong is like saying Hashem is wrong. The whole system reeks of avodah zoroh. But that is not surprising. Humans are hard wired to find a direct connetion to Hashem difficult. That is where AZ comes from and where all this chassidic rebbe stuff comes from.
This is the part where we need nuance. No human is perfect. Not even משה רבינו; as you said beautifully - ONLY Hashem. But there are levels and levels and levels of perfection. Those who don't know what I'm talking about have a black and white all or nothing view. But that isn't the way it is. Rashi was no where near perfect because perfect is only Hashem, but he was very, very close to Hashem, and he got as close as human being could to perfection. We call this 'perfect' in terms of human beings. חלילה that we would use the same word about Hashem (in fact, saying Hashem is perfect is itself a misnomer; we can never say anything descriptive about Hashem ever, even this). This is not עבודה זרה, as you see in the same sentence I am okay with the ח"ס saying that Rashi made a mistake. But do you realize just how perfect Rashi was? When it comes to levels of perfection, he was very, very, very, very high up. Should we be teaching kids that there are no levels and that only Hashem is perfect and no human being can perfect himself to the maximum degree tat a human being can?
People will hear what they want to hear but we are saying a very true but nuanced thing.
(Btw was saying יעקב איש תם or נח כו' תמים היה בדורותיו לשבח or משה איש אלקים also ע"ז?)
"If the gemara read a certain way according to Rashi's tremendous iyun, that was actually empirical! That doesn't mean he couldn't be wrong (i.e., even scientists are often wrong about their empiricism) but it's quite a different statement when you appreciate this point. "
Go tell the Chasam Sofer who obviously disagrees with your approach. Or you going to suggest yeshiva style 'that is what the Chasam Sofer meant'?
"1) ... I spent many years in that world.... They would not say that Rashi was plain wrong here."
Nusach 1:
I think you've got to be misremembering. When you were in Chareidi Yeshivahs you certainly thought that it's acceptable in certain settings to say that Rashi (even Chazal) made scientific errors. That's why you wrote your books for Chareidim (and others). That's why your Cherem came to you (& several thousands more) like a shock out of nowhere, like a bolt of lightning on a clear day.
Nusach 2:
If you thought your Rashi-is-always-right experience was representative of general Chareidi society, why did you write books for (also) that society? Who's looking to knowingly get into hot water?
I spent more years in it than you did, and in fact am still in it (as a ballebos), and can say confidently that YOU are wrong. The Yeshiva world would not say anything at all about this, b/c they dont focus on it. If they were forced to give an answer, they would simply shrug their shoulders and answer, again, it makes no difference. And if one was a reeeeal akshan on it, and drove guys crazy, some would say Rashi was right and some would say he was wrong. It's a question of attitude, not mathematics.
...the חתם סופר probably spent a lot of time trying to be מיישב Rashi first....
You think tosfos didn't spend many hours trying to be meyashev rashi before declaring 'he is wrong'?
I can't really deal with your long waffle. One moment yoy say he could make a mistake, the next moment something else.
Was Rashi a human being who could make mistakes , or was he a near malach superhuman type person with ruach hakodesh (in which case surely he should be aware of basic biiology or at least know to check)? Can you make your mind up?
As I wrote trying stating your position in numbered short bullet points and then be consistent. Your style 'works' for verbal chavrusoh discission where each party can besides arguing the point also argue about what they each said 5 minutes ago. It fails miserably for written text.
I say nothing about being rational or not. My belief is that EVERY HUMAN BEING WHO EVER WALKED OR WILL WALK MADE OR WILL MAKE MISTAKES.
Avrohom. Dovid. Shlomo. Yitzchok All of them. Chazal say so. It's the yeshivah world that ties itself up in knots over this because chazal tell us people like Shlomo and Dovid made mistakes (big ones) yet we are expected to believe (for all practical purposes) rishonim and acharonim and today's leaders did and do not. I also believe the rishonim and acharanim were towering intellectual figures and massive talmidei chachomim and massive tzaddikim (albeit they had less to know, we are expected to know several mehalchim from the rishonim in each sugyoh, they had the mehalech they received from their rebbes only) but they were not supernatural near melochim human type beings.
K I mainly agree with you - BUT don't project what you call a mistake onto them. Their mistakes were of a very different, and very nuanced nature. When Dovid Hamelech made a mistake, it wasn't a complete slip of fifty years of the greatest עבודת השם יתברך ever. He was so super careful not to חלילה do a single חטא and was so so so close to הקב"ה that his every breath and eyeroll was קדוש וטהור, and if he slipped up, it was on that very high מדריגא. But if you don't know what מדריגות of יראת שמים even are, this will probably sound like waffle to you too.
When we discuss 'supernatural,' we don't mean anything beyond you and me; we mean that a human being has the ability to perfect himself and get close to his נשמה instead of his גוף (how you and I normally feel) to levels and levels and more levels of קדושה וטהרה.
You can read מסילת ישרים to get a picture of these levels, but don't read the words with your biases and project your picture of life, rather read the words literally, that a person can *actually* be מטהר himself and *feel* הקב"ה's presence and actually be disgusted by the fact that he must take care of eating (although there is a higher מדריגא than even that, where the eating itself is felt (and I mean *actually felt* by the person) as עבודת השם.) They were discussing a *reality*, and to the unaware it may come off sounding fantastical but it really isn't.
ע' רבינו יונה שערי תשובה שער שלישי אות קמ"ח - כי הדבר ידוע, כי מדרכי קידוש השם יתברך, להודיע בכל מבטא שפתיים, *ובכל אשר ירמזון עיניים,* ובכל הנהגה ופועל ידיים, כי יסוד לנפש האדם וצבי עדיו, והטוב והעיקר והתועלת והיקר אשר בו, עבודת השם יתברך ויראתו ותורתו, כמו שכתוב (קהלת יב) כי זה כל האדם. ודבר זה, כבוד השם יתברך
By the way there is one opinion in the gemoroh kesuvos 9a that Dovid hamelech commited proper zenus. Rabbi Yochanan is an iboyis aima, the 'stamoim' for the academics, the 'benei yeshivah' for the yeshivish, give a different answer 'she was an ones". It is rabbi shmuel bar nachman who also says in shabbos whoever says dovid made a mistake etc. Lshitoso. But it is a machlokas.
I find it hard too.
The abarbanel and the rivon also say it was proper zenus. They argue with shas. Many pirushim on nach argue flat out with the gemmoroh all over the place.
And yet with all that, both Ramban and Chasam Sofer were MYSTICS, and, despite these (well-known) cherry picked examples, said many things contrary to what you would call RATIONAL. All of which shows that the premise of this blog - that men can be pigeon holed nicely into neat little boxes of thought - is like so many other answers suggested for complex problems: Neat, Simple, and Wrong.
I was paraphrasing a famous quote from Mencken. But there is no right or wrong way to Judaism, any more than there is to life itself. Mysticism, Rationalism, and a thousands other perspectives, are all appropriate at different times, and NO ONE can agree on when to apply which.
All those who forbid kindling a fire on שבת of course cite this verse. But look closely and you’ll notice a qualification — מֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם your dwellings. So is it correct to say that only in your home is it forbidden to light a fire? What about in a campground? That’s not your dwelling. So could all the halachists be wrong? Why not?
Yeshivaland disagrees with you there. At least chareidi yeshivaland. Only 'the mesorah' is really the right way. As defined by Happy, Dovid, Mekarker and Co.
I thought that we have several examples of Halacha which is universally accepted even though it is based on science that we know to be wrong.
For example, my understanding is that we are allowed to kill lice on Shabbat because of the mistaken belief that lice do not reproduce but are the result of spontaneous generation. Even though we know this to be false, the Halacha is still that we can kill lice on Shabbat.
By the same logic, wouldn't it be possible to argue that even though Rashi's science was wrong, the Halacha that we need a messorah for birds still stands, as that was practice for centuries.
The Gemara didn't canonize itself but it did canonize earlier rulings, like when to pasken like אביי or רבא, and that one may kill lice. Then the Geonim canonized most talmudic rulings. I am assuming that was Rabbi Slifkin's intention?
Here’s another example where Rashi’s translation is at odds with with the plain meaning of a verse in Deuteronomy 26:5 or worse, he just gets it wrong.
ארמי אבד אבי A SYRIAN DESTROYED MY FATHER — He mentions the loving kindness of the Omnipresent saying, ארמי אבד אבי, a Syrian destroyed my father, which means: “Laban wished to exterminate the whole nation” (cf. the Haggadah for Passover) when he pursued Jacob. Because he intended to do it the Omnipresent accounted it unto him as though he had actually done it (and therefore the expression אבד which refers to the past is used), for as far as the nations of the world are concerned the Holy One, blessed be He, accounts unto them intention as an actual deed (cf. Sifrei Devarim 301:3; Onkelos).
(Sefaria)
However, his grandson Rashbam, disputes Rashi’s translation of אֹבֵ֣ד , Rashbam rendering it as a noun identifying it with Avraham the wanderer or nomad. Rashi identifies it with Lavan who tried to destroy Avraham, eebayd, (Hebrew binyan peeayl)
ארמי אובד אבי - אבי אברהם ארמי היה, אובד וגולה מארץ ארם. כדכתיב: לך לך מארצך. וכדכתיב ויהי כאשר התעו אותי אלהים מבית אבי - לשון אובד ותועה אחד הם באדם הגולה, כדכתיב: תעיתי כשה אובד בקש עבדך. צאן אובדות היו עמי. רועיהם התעום, כלומר מארץ נכריה באו אבותינו לארץ הזאת ונתנה הקב"ה לנו.
ארמי אובד אבי, as if the Torah had written” my father Avraham was an Aramite, lost, and exiled from his birthplace Aram.” G’d had told him in Genesis 12,1 “go forth for yourself from your homeland, etc.” Later on, Avraham himself relates to Avimelech the king of the Philistines, (Genesis 20,13) that G’d had made him wander, away from his father’s house, etc. The meaning of the word אובד here is similar to תועה, the root Avraham used to describe wandering without specific objective, almost like walking because one is lost. The word occurs clearly in that sense in Psalms 119,176 תעיתי כשה אובד בקש עבדך, “I have strayed like a lost sheep; search for Your servant, etc.!” We also find the word in this connotation in Jeremiah 50,6 עמי רועיהם התעום, “My people were lost sheep; their shepherd led them astray.” In other words, the recital by the farmer goes back to the Jewish people’s origin, the farmer saying: ‘our forefathers came to this land from an alien country and now G’d has given it to us.
(Sefaria)
As above, Rashbam offers a number of Nach citings that attribute the Hebrew to be a noun not a verb, informing us that the word refers to Avraham not Lavan.
It’s not just a matter of interpreting an ambiguous word. It appears that Rashi is simply wrong here.
No, Rashi is quoting a drash on the words as it is used in the hagada, as opposed to the meaning based on the dikduk. Rashi does that all the time. That's not called being wrong.
I have no problem with Rashi being wrong, but you're just jumping at your first chance here.
The verse Deuteronomy 26:5 says אבד not אובד. And that’s the background issue. The Torah was written without vowels so it’s possible to mistake destroy for wanderer. But the context is everything here as Rashbam makes clear and he cites proofs that the meaning is not the infinitive לאבד ( l’abayd), to destroy.
So it’s OK to import a fanciful, but nonetheless erroneous understanding of the Hebrew, where as the actual meaning is entirely different from the drash.
Apparently, his grandson didn’t think so.
Incidentally, there are a number of these erroneous translations that misunderstand the meaning of אבד and apply it incorrectly.
Um... chazal do it all the time. Theres pshuto shel mikra, drush, agada, remez ect. Rashi says he writes either pshat or an agada that can be read with the verse, even if not the pshat.
The Rashbam sticks only to pshat in his commentary. No big deal.
I just find it hilarious you didn't even entertain this possibility before concluding Rashi was wrong.
Because Rashi doesn’t say that the drash is just a fanciful misrepresentation of the truth. He cites it as the correct meaning. As far as “it’s done all the time” that’s your problem, not mine.
I have learned a bit and I view alternative pshatim like “alternative facts”. It’s self contradictory. Which pshat/fact is right and which is wrong. How can they both be right? Was Moshe Rabbeinu 15 feet tall or was he not?
Now there could be expositors that are elucidating partial facts and others that are expressing a complimentary view. But that’s not the distinction in the Rashi/Rashbam dispute cited above.
Would need to brush up on those particular instances but let's be honest, for the most part, Rashis understanding of anatomy, biology and whatnot are usually the closest and most authentic reading of the talmudic texts which has some pretty interesting notions (especially in tractates niddah and chullin if memory serves) about the aforementioned items itself. The fact that Rambam or some other more medically knowledgable and fact based commentator favors what was then the most up to date anatomy etc doesnt make them any less anachronistic vis a vis Rashi and the Talmud he (rashi) was commenting on.
Interestingly, it's not so clear that in the case in question (niddah), the Rambam was more accurate than Rashi. Iirc, contemporary works seem to think that Rashi is closer to anatomical reality than the Rambam, surprisingly.
I'm not so sure that this is related, but Rabbi Slifkin mentioned the fact that non-kosher birds are "predatory". It's usually interpreted as a statement of the manner in which they devour their prey. But I don't think even kosher birds are purely vegetarian--it's more like they're omnivorous. There have been occasions where I have raised chickens as pets, and fed them table scraps. It's not uncommon for them to eat chicken!
In fact, I once took a few chickens home to perform kapparot (I know it doesn't go over well on this blog, but anyway). One unfortunate chicken had a sore on its back. The other chickens were pecking at the open sore!
Now this is what I come to this blog for! This is great content. Interesting, rationalist, and very well explained. Great stuff. Thank you.
Well written as usual, and fascinating topic.
It's interesting because Rashi (סנהדרין דל"ג א' וש"ך סי' כ"ה סק"ט) happens to sound like טעה בדבר משנה is only an actual משנה not a מציאות...
But more to the point, it's interesting to me that this was a חידוש to you. Rashi's allowed to make mistakes and be wrong just like ר' טרפון is allowed to make mistakes and be wrong.
(ר טרפון thought that taking the womb out renders the בהמה a טריפה, possibly because they didn't have sophisticated enough surgeries, but the חכמים disagreed because of תודוס הרופא's account that חזירה לא היתה יוצאת ממצרים אא"כ ניטל האם שלה and so ר טרפון was wrong and called a טועה בדבר משנה since it was undisputable (ע' ש"ך שם).)
I haven't specifically learned that sugya yet (thanks for the מראה מקומות) but if we still pasken like rashi, there must be more to it.
Basically, I really enjoyed the article (though I am unfamiliar with the topic and still have to look into it myself) but why did you insert in the previous post strange undertones that this has to do with a 'rational' world view? Unless you really don't get our side.
Hopefully, now that you are getting it more - welcome!! 😊
I'm sure you think your lefty liberal Judaism is the one true mesora however rav meiselman in Torah chazal and science rejects the possibility of chazal being wrong and mentions In his introduction that the rishonim could be wrong (quoting from the rav " the rashba had a goldene kop") this was vehemently disputed and derided by rabbi wachtfogel of the South fallsburg yeshiva " the rashba is the mesora".
Heard from a talmid who heard it directly rabbi wachtfogel.
YidPoshut, not sure if you (or Rav Wachtfogel) are aware of this, but R. Meiselman says that Rishonim are wrong far more than I do, and considering that (unlike me) he is part of the charedi world, R. Wachtfogel should be launching a campaign against him just as he did with me.
Conjecture: since he claims his rebbe was his uncle the Rav r wachtfogel considers him nonchareidi?
Also he would be a much harder battle to win than you! And while he did manage to put you and your family through the wringer( I can't imagine what it was like for you) I can't imagine he is pleased with the results as far as the community is concerned .
Its a debate wether a תלמיד חכם can be mistaken? Thought the answer was pretty simple.
Ironically, the Rashba had somewhat of a rationalist streak; he often interpreted aggadah figuratively, such as with Og and Har Sinai.
First of all the חתם סופר והבאים אחריו said it, not me. Second of all, is ר' טרפון being wrong 'lefty Judaism?'
I don't speak for R Vachtfogel, but I can imagine that when fighting a strong tide coming the wrong way a leader has to enforce our מסורה as for the perfection it carries (probably apologetics, and maybe I'm wrong, I don't speak for him and even if my reason is right, I probably wouldn't take that approach).
Nice. For the rest of us though, the Chasam Sofer is the mesorah, not R' Wachtfogel.
Sevara is the mesora...
reality is the messora - you shouldn´t fight reality - just that
Halevai
"....Rashi's allowed to make mistakes....".
So it looks like you have finally conceded......Yesterday you were telling me such thoughts were verboten.
You really don't know how to listen. My position didn't change once.
You have this weird perception of us 'not being rational,' but really you just can't hear the nuance. Even ר' טרפון was able to be wrong, it's a משנה! We just would never assume it ourselves without really strong evidence. And 99.999% of the time our assumption is correct. That one or few times that Rashi got it wrong, the חתם סופר probably spent a lot of time trying to be מיישב Rashi first, but ultimately we found that one time where he was a טועה בדבר פשוט which he couldn't know about and read the Gemara according to what he did, and was wrong. The issue is that to you this is some kind of proof against 'mysticism,' against the Rishonim's extreme level of perfection - after all if the rishonim can make a mistake, they are just like us. But anyone who sits and learns Gemara with rishonim like a mentch knows that it just means that even though Rashi was the picture of human perfection, he still was human and can make mistakes. This does not affect our picture of the Rishonim AT ALL.
1) You may think that you are presenting the standard charedi/yeshivish viewpoint, but I spent many years in that world and you are wrong. They would not say that Rashi was plain wrong here.
2) I'm not sure if you realize this, but Rashi could just have checked, the same way as Ramban did. But he didn't, because (due to his cultural worldview) he did not realize the value of empirical investigation. Don't you think that malachim with a supernatural grasp of reality and a level of wisdom that we cannot even being to fathom would realize that?
The Chasam Sofer was pretty Yeshivish. As was the Ramban.
1. I would make two points.
First of all, this case is an anomaly - very, very rare. Second, for some people, especially black and white teenagers (but perhaps all the more so for those who grew up but still have a teenage picture of Judaism) the idea of a Rishon being wrong would undermine their entire view and proper respect of the Rishonim. There is absolutely no reason to teach such a thing in yeshiva, for example, before the kids develop the proper respect for what being a Rishon meant. So they teach, or at least give a strong impression, that the Rishonim were infallible, because they practically were! That's a far more important message than the nuance that they were BUT they were also human. (Do you even get how that's possible?) Most kids who are into these things early, fighting the system, never really do appreciate how unbelievably great they were. They come off with the impression that these people were JUST humans, like you and I, and they don't realize the sheer levels that a human can reach. They think that because someone is human it means they can't literally be perfect. Take a guy like @test for example, he really can't grasp my position that on the one hand they were מלאכים ממש and at the same time they were human. It's a very, very delicate thing to understand and many people, even many adults, can't handle it. (This is also partly why the Rambam isn't 'mainstream;' most people can't handle the balance which he takes regarding Chazal.)
Therefore, first of all, it's hard to know what these really yeshivishe rabbeim would say behind closed doors - and second, it may be too nuanced for even them to appreciate, so they also should correctly go and even teach the other way. This way is way closer to the truth than the outlier cases you have in this article. People like me, if I am unique (pretty sure I'm not), who can truly understand how Rashi got something wrong but was still an actual מלאך אלקים, can express these kinds of views.
2. Your second comment brings out a very, very important point. It wasn't that empirical evidence wasn't important because of some silly, primitive, unscientific world view where facts didn't matter. It was that they had another set of empirical investigation, called the Torah (or by the non-Jews, they still had access to similar levels of חכמה having to do with the mind, not for now, check out my blog). If the gemara read a certain way according to Rashi's tremendous iyun, that was actually empirical! That doesn't mean he couldn't be wrong (i.e., even scientists are often wrong about their empiricism) but it's quite a different statement when you appreciate this point. He didn't fact check his hundreds of other statements either, the ones he got right, because the gemara was clear. If he got it wrong once in a long while because he didn't check, that says nothing about a mistaken cultural worldview.
"Don't you think that malachim with a supernatural grasp of reality and a level of wisdom that we cannot even being to fathom would realize that?" if you meant that respectfully, sure. If you meant that cynically, read your words carefully in a respectful light and appreciate who you are up against.
How can you say human understanding by a Rishon is "perfect? Only G-d is perfect and infallible. This smells of Avodah Zorah!
I have been told by chassidic kids that saying that the Rebbe is wrong is like saying Hashem is wrong. The whole system reeks of avodah zoroh. But that is not surprising. Humans are hard wired to find a direct connetion to Hashem difficult. That is where AZ comes from and where all this chassidic rebbe stuff comes from.
This is the part where we need nuance. No human is perfect. Not even משה רבינו; as you said beautifully - ONLY Hashem. But there are levels and levels and levels of perfection. Those who don't know what I'm talking about have a black and white all or nothing view. But that isn't the way it is. Rashi was no where near perfect because perfect is only Hashem, but he was very, very close to Hashem, and he got as close as human being could to perfection. We call this 'perfect' in terms of human beings. חלילה that we would use the same word about Hashem (in fact, saying Hashem is perfect is itself a misnomer; we can never say anything descriptive about Hashem ever, even this). This is not עבודה זרה, as you see in the same sentence I am okay with the ח"ס saying that Rashi made a mistake. But do you realize just how perfect Rashi was? When it comes to levels of perfection, he was very, very, very, very high up. Should we be teaching kids that there are no levels and that only Hashem is perfect and no human being can perfect himself to the maximum degree tat a human being can?
People will hear what they want to hear but we are saying a very true but nuanced thing.
(Btw was saying יעקב איש תם or נח כו' תמים היה בדורותיו לשבח or משה איש אלקים also ע"ז?)
The Ramban was yeshivish, was he?
Did he fress on kugel and cholunt leil shishi whilst discussing the latest reid in town?
The Chasam Sofer was pretty Yeshivish. As was the Ramban.
The Chassam Sofer hired tutors to teach his children French. I wouldn't call that 'pretty yeshivish'.
Such sillyness.
"If the gemara read a certain way according to Rashi's tremendous iyun, that was actually empirical! That doesn't mean he couldn't be wrong (i.e., even scientists are often wrong about their empiricism) but it's quite a different statement when you appreciate this point. "
Go tell the Chasam Sofer who obviously disagrees with your approach. Or you going to suggest yeshiva style 'that is what the Chasam Sofer meant'?
what? I'm literally explaining the ח"ס. That Rashi was wrong despite his עיון...
"1) ... I spent many years in that world.... They would not say that Rashi was plain wrong here."
Nusach 1:
I think you've got to be misremembering. When you were in Chareidi Yeshivahs you certainly thought that it's acceptable in certain settings to say that Rashi (even Chazal) made scientific errors. That's why you wrote your books for Chareidim (and others). That's why your Cherem came to you (& several thousands more) like a shock out of nowhere, like a bolt of lightning on a clear day.
Nusach 2:
If you thought your Rashi-is-always-right experience was representative of general Chareidi society, why did you write books for (also) that society? Who's looking to knowingly get into hot water?
I spent more years in it than you did, and in fact am still in it (as a ballebos), and can say confidently that YOU are wrong. The Yeshiva world would not say anything at all about this, b/c they dont focus on it. If they were forced to give an answer, they would simply shrug their shoulders and answer, again, it makes no difference. And if one was a reeeeal akshan on it, and drove guys crazy, some would say Rashi was right and some would say he was wrong. It's a question of attitude, not mathematics.
There is literally not a standard monolithic charedi/yeshivish take on this. Its as absurd as saying no modox people believe in Kabalah.
...the חתם סופר probably spent a lot of time trying to be מיישב Rashi first....
You think tosfos didn't spend many hours trying to be meyashev rashi before declaring 'he is wrong'?
I can't really deal with your long waffle. One moment yoy say he could make a mistake, the next moment something else.
Was Rashi a human being who could make mistakes , or was he a near malach superhuman type person with ruach hakodesh (in which case surely he should be aware of basic biiology or at least know to check)? Can you make your mind up?
As I wrote trying stating your position in numbered short bullet points and then be consistent. Your style 'works' for verbal chavrusoh discission where each party can besides arguing the point also argue about what they each said 5 minutes ago. It fails miserably for written text.
I say nothing about being rational or not. My belief is that EVERY HUMAN BEING WHO EVER WALKED OR WILL WALK MADE OR WILL MAKE MISTAKES.
Avrohom. Dovid. Shlomo. Yitzchok All of them. Chazal say so. It's the yeshivah world that ties itself up in knots over this because chazal tell us people like Shlomo and Dovid made mistakes (big ones) yet we are expected to believe (for all practical purposes) rishonim and acharonim and today's leaders did and do not. I also believe the rishonim and acharanim were towering intellectual figures and massive talmidei chachomim and massive tzaddikim (albeit they had less to know, we are expected to know several mehalchim from the rishonim in each sugyoh, they had the mehalech they received from their rebbes only) but they were not supernatural near melochim human type beings.
K I mainly agree with you - BUT don't project what you call a mistake onto them. Their mistakes were of a very different, and very nuanced nature. When Dovid Hamelech made a mistake, it wasn't a complete slip of fifty years of the greatest עבודת השם יתברך ever. He was so super careful not to חלילה do a single חטא and was so so so close to הקב"ה that his every breath and eyeroll was קדוש וטהור, and if he slipped up, it was on that very high מדריגא. But if you don't know what מדריגות of יראת שמים even are, this will probably sound like waffle to you too.
When we discuss 'supernatural,' we don't mean anything beyond you and me; we mean that a human being has the ability to perfect himself and get close to his נשמה instead of his גוף (how you and I normally feel) to levels and levels and more levels of קדושה וטהרה.
You can read מסילת ישרים to get a picture of these levels, but don't read the words with your biases and project your picture of life, rather read the words literally, that a person can *actually* be מטהר himself and *feel* הקב"ה's presence and actually be disgusted by the fact that he must take care of eating (although there is a higher מדריגא than even that, where the eating itself is felt (and I mean *actually felt* by the person) as עבודת השם.) They were discussing a *reality*, and to the unaware it may come off sounding fantastical but it really isn't.
How can an eye roll be kodosh v'tohor?
ע' רבינו יונה שערי תשובה שער שלישי אות קמ"ח - כי הדבר ידוע, כי מדרכי קידוש השם יתברך, להודיע בכל מבטא שפתיים, *ובכל אשר ירמזון עיניים,* ובכל הנהגה ופועל ידיים, כי יסוד לנפש האדם וצבי עדיו, והטוב והעיקר והתועלת והיקר אשר בו, עבודת השם יתברך ויראתו ותורתו, כמו שכתוב (קהלת יב) כי זה כל האדם. ודבר זה, כבוד השם יתברך
By the way there is one opinion in the gemoroh kesuvos 9a that Dovid hamelech commited proper zenus. Rabbi Yochanan is an iboyis aima, the 'stamoim' for the academics, the 'benei yeshivah' for the yeshivish, give a different answer 'she was an ones". It is rabbi shmuel bar nachman who also says in shabbos whoever says dovid made a mistake etc. Lshitoso. But it is a machlokas.
I find it hard too.
The abarbanel and the rivon also say it was proper zenus. They argue with shas. Many pirushim on nach argue flat out with the gemmoroh all over the place.
Oh, just having fun:
https://nypost.com/2023/07/14/miracle-new-species-mermaid-like-creature-baffles-internet-scientists/
Also, the girl with sirenomelia (mermaid syndrome): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBxN872PEc0
And yet with all that, both Ramban and Chasam Sofer were MYSTICS, and, despite these (well-known) cherry picked examples, said many things contrary to what you would call RATIONAL. All of which shows that the premise of this blog - that men can be pigeon holed nicely into neat little boxes of thought - is like so many other answers suggested for complex problems: Neat, Simple, and Wrong.
What makes these problems complex? Either they’re right or wrong.
I was paraphrasing a famous quote from Mencken. But there is no right or wrong way to Judaism, any more than there is to life itself. Mysticism, Rationalism, and a thousands other perspectives, are all appropriate at different times, and NO ONE can agree on when to apply which.
@Garvin,
If there is no right way or wrong way to Judaism then they could all be right or they could all be wrong.
Here’s an example: Exodus 35:3.
לֹא־תְבַעֲר֣וּ אֵ֔שׁ בְּכֹ֖ל מֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם בְּי֖וֹם הַשַּׁבָּֽת
All those who forbid kindling a fire on שבת of course cite this verse. But look closely and you’ll notice a qualification — מֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם your dwellings. So is it correct to say that only in your home is it forbidden to light a fire? What about in a campground? That’s not your dwelling. So could all the halachists be wrong? Why not?
Yeshivaland disagrees with you there. At least chareidi yeshivaland. Only 'the mesorah' is really the right way. As defined by Happy, Dovid, Mekarker and Co.
Of course there is a mesorah, the point is that within in it, sometimes one takes a rational approach and sometimes mystical.
I thought that we have several examples of Halacha which is universally accepted even though it is based on science that we know to be wrong.
For example, my understanding is that we are allowed to kill lice on Shabbat because of the mistaken belief that lice do not reproduce but are the result of spontaneous generation. Even though we know this to be false, the Halacha is still that we can kill lice on Shabbat.
By the same logic, wouldn't it be possible to argue that even though Rashi's science was wrong, the Halacha that we need a messorah for birds still stands, as that was practice for centuries.
No. The Gemara was canonized. Rashi wasn't canonized, and moreover, he was disputed.
As a big follower of Academia I'm surprised you agree with this historically flawed understanding of Talmudic canonization.
The Gemara didn't canonize itself but it did canonize earlier rulings, like when to pasken like אביי or רבא, and that one may kill lice. Then the Geonim canonized most talmudic rulings. I am assuming that was Rabbi Slifkin's intention?
Here’s another example where Rashi’s translation is at odds with with the plain meaning of a verse in Deuteronomy 26:5 or worse, he just gets it wrong.
ארמי אבד אבי. מַזְכִּיר חַסְדֵי הַמָּקוֹם, אֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי — לָבָן בִּקֵּשׁ לַעֲקֹר אֶת הַכֹּל כְּשֶׁרָדַף אַחַר יַעֲקֹב, וּבִשְׁבִיל שֶׁחָשַׁב לַעֲשׂוֹת חָשַׁב לוֹ הַמָּקוֹם כְּאִלּוּ עָשָׂה, שֶׁאֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם חוֹשֵׁב לָהֶם הַקָּבָּ"ה מַחֲשָׁבָה כְּמַעֲשֶׂה (עי' ספרי):
ארמי אבד אבי A SYRIAN DESTROYED MY FATHER — He mentions the loving kindness of the Omnipresent saying, ארמי אבד אבי, a Syrian destroyed my father, which means: “Laban wished to exterminate the whole nation” (cf. the Haggadah for Passover) when he pursued Jacob. Because he intended to do it the Omnipresent accounted it unto him as though he had actually done it (and therefore the expression אבד which refers to the past is used), for as far as the nations of the world are concerned the Holy One, blessed be He, accounts unto them intention as an actual deed (cf. Sifrei Devarim 301:3; Onkelos).
(Sefaria)
However, his grandson Rashbam, disputes Rashi’s translation of אֹבֵ֣ד , Rashbam rendering it as a noun identifying it with Avraham the wanderer or nomad. Rashi identifies it with Lavan who tried to destroy Avraham, eebayd, (Hebrew binyan peeayl)
ארמי אובד אבי - אבי אברהם ארמי היה, אובד וגולה מארץ ארם. כדכתיב: לך לך מארצך. וכדכתיב ויהי כאשר התעו אותי אלהים מבית אבי - לשון אובד ותועה אחד הם באדם הגולה, כדכתיב: תעיתי כשה אובד בקש עבדך. צאן אובדות היו עמי. רועיהם התעום, כלומר מארץ נכריה באו אבותינו לארץ הזאת ונתנה הקב"ה לנו.
ארמי אובד אבי, as if the Torah had written” my father Avraham was an Aramite, lost, and exiled from his birthplace Aram.” G’d had told him in Genesis 12,1 “go forth for yourself from your homeland, etc.” Later on, Avraham himself relates to Avimelech the king of the Philistines, (Genesis 20,13) that G’d had made him wander, away from his father’s house, etc. The meaning of the word אובד here is similar to תועה, the root Avraham used to describe wandering without specific objective, almost like walking because one is lost. The word occurs clearly in that sense in Psalms 119,176 תעיתי כשה אובד בקש עבדך, “I have strayed like a lost sheep; search for Your servant, etc.!” We also find the word in this connotation in Jeremiah 50,6 עמי רועיהם התעום, “My people were lost sheep; their shepherd led them astray.” In other words, the recital by the farmer goes back to the Jewish people’s origin, the farmer saying: ‘our forefathers came to this land from an alien country and now G’d has given it to us.
(Sefaria)
As above, Rashbam offers a number of Nach citings that attribute the Hebrew to be a noun not a verb, informing us that the word refers to Avraham not Lavan.
It’s not just a matter of interpreting an ambiguous word. It appears that Rashi is simply wrong here.
No, Rashi is quoting a drash on the words as it is used in the hagada, as opposed to the meaning based on the dikduk. Rashi does that all the time. That's not called being wrong.
I have no problem with Rashi being wrong, but you're just jumping at your first chance here.
It's also not wrong ע"פ דקדוק to say אובד as a verb
I didn't bother trying to fit it in with dikduk since Batsheva (Uria's wife) made a much bigger mistake and I wanted to focus on that.
The verse Deuteronomy 26:5 says אבד not אובד. And that’s the background issue. The Torah was written without vowels so it’s possible to mistake destroy for wanderer. But the context is everything here as Rashbam makes clear and he cites proofs that the meaning is not the infinitive לאבד ( l’abayd), to destroy.
So it’s OK to import a fanciful, but nonetheless erroneous understanding of the Hebrew, where as the actual meaning is entirely different from the drash.
Apparently, his grandson didn’t think so.
Incidentally, there are a number of these erroneous translations that misunderstand the meaning of אבד and apply it incorrectly.
Um... chazal do it all the time. Theres pshuto shel mikra, drush, agada, remez ect. Rashi says he writes either pshat or an agada that can be read with the verse, even if not the pshat.
The Rashbam sticks only to pshat in his commentary. No big deal.
I just find it hilarious you didn't even entertain this possibility before concluding Rashi was wrong.
Because Rashi doesn’t say that the drash is just a fanciful misrepresentation of the truth. He cites it as the correct meaning. As far as “it’s done all the time” that’s your problem, not mine.
BTW, who authored or redacted the “drash”?
Go and learn a bit. Anybody with any knowledge of alternative pshatim will know this, especially if you ever learnt an agada gemara.
I have learned a bit and I view alternative pshatim like “alternative facts”. It’s self contradictory. Which pshat/fact is right and which is wrong. How can they both be right? Was Moshe Rabbeinu 15 feet tall or was he not?
Now there could be expositors that are elucidating partial facts and others that are expressing a complimentary view. But that’s not the distinction in the Rashi/Rashbam dispute cited above.
Fascinating inyan.
Great content! Thank you!
Would need to brush up on those particular instances but let's be honest, for the most part, Rashis understanding of anatomy, biology and whatnot are usually the closest and most authentic reading of the talmudic texts which has some pretty interesting notions (especially in tractates niddah and chullin if memory serves) about the aforementioned items itself. The fact that Rambam or some other more medically knowledgable and fact based commentator favors what was then the most up to date anatomy etc doesnt make them any less anachronistic vis a vis Rashi and the Talmud he (rashi) was commenting on.
Interestingly, it's not so clear that in the case in question (niddah), the Rambam was more accurate than Rashi. Iirc, contemporary works seem to think that Rashi is closer to anatomical reality than the Rambam, surprisingly.
I'm not so sure that this is related, but Rabbi Slifkin mentioned the fact that non-kosher birds are "predatory". It's usually interpreted as a statement of the manner in which they devour their prey. But I don't think even kosher birds are purely vegetarian--it's more like they're omnivorous. There have been occasions where I have raised chickens as pets, and fed them table scraps. It's not uncommon for them to eat chicken!
In fact, I once took a few chickens home to perform kapparot (I know it doesn't go over well on this blog, but anyway). One unfortunate chicken had a sore on its back. The other chickens were pecking at the open sore!
For sure. Put a mouse in front of a chicken and watch how quickly the chicken kills it.
One of my pet chickens regularly attacks rats. She's always been an oddball, maybe a throwback
Is that permitted?