Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 094

Friday, June 18 1999

• Re: R. Elazar Hakapar Berebi
• Re: Hazal, Herem and Embryology
• Hazal, Herem and Embryology
• RE: Hazal, Herem
• precision
• army service a mitzva?
• Re: army service a mitzva? plus a note...
• Being Mahmir on Hazal
• Re: precision
• Re: Being Mahmir on Hazal
• Re: Being Mahmir on Hazal
• Pesahim 94b -- Scientific Knowledge of Hazal
• Re: Being Mahmir on Hazal
• Re: Pesahim 94b -- Scientific Knowledge of Hazal
• army service a mitzva?
• Re: army service a mitzva?

In a message dated 6/16/99 1:14:19 PM EST, DGLASNER@FTC.GOV writes:

> Thanks for the explanation.  However we do find instances where 
>  "berebi" means "the son of rebi" as in R. Judah berebi Ilai.
>  
See also Seder Hadoros, under "BRBI"

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind  

In a message dated 6/16/99 12:35:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
moshe_feldman@yahoo.com writes:

<< The proposition that I expressed is that Hazal's knowledge of
 > embryology
 > was limited or, put less delicately, wrong.  I stand by that
 > position,
 > and I have yet to hear a fact-based refutation thereof.  Moreover,
 > I
 > believe that the imputation of supernatural omniscience to Hazal is
 > both
 > demonstrably wrong and theologically suspect.  Besides, Hazal
 > themselves
 > did not view themselves as infallible in these matters, as the
 > Gemara in
 > Pesahim indicates with respect to astronomy.  Although I think it
 > understandable how this myth came into being, it is still a myth.
 > 
 > Please note that I have not discussed the more complicated issue of
 > Halakhah.  I do not think that Hazal were -- halilah -- "incorrect"
 > in
 > matters of Halakhah; indeed, I believe by definition they cannot
 > be.
 > Halakhah cannot be correct or incorrect; it is the law and it is
 > binding.  There is nothing more to say.  A particular halakhah may
 > be
 > based on faulty science, but that does not change its obligatory
 > character.  [RMF may well agree with this point; I will leave it to
 > him
 > to clarify his terminology.]  
 
 I do in fact agree with REC on this point.  My statement that their
 halakhot were "incorrect" should be interpreted to mean that they
 based their halakhot on faulty science.  That does not necessarily
 detract from the binding nature of chazal's halakhot, but in some
 cases (especially l'chumrah--case of kinah) it might.
 
 Of the course this is related to why the Talmud & Shulchan Arukh are
 binding on latter-day Achronim (i.e., the issue that "gadol b'chochma
 u'vminyan" applies only to takanot/gzeirot, not reasoned psakim). 
 (See my previous posts on this issue.)
 
 > That having been said, I think that,
 > where
 > current scientific knowledge (as opposed to theory) indicates, we
 > should
 > be mahmir beyond the line of Hazal.  Thus, for example, I would
 > prohibit
 > the killing of a kinah on Shabbat.  Indeed, I consider this a much
 > more
 > firmly rooted humrah than many others that are widespread today. 
 > But,
 > as a general rule, I do not believe that one can be mekil on the
 > basis
 > of superior scientific knowledge.
 > 
 > Not coincidentally, this humra yes/kullah no approach was
 > enunciated by
 > my rebbe, R. Aharon Lichtenstein.  In this context, he too cited
 > the
 > gemara in Pesahim as evidence that Hazal did not attribute to
 > themselves
 > perfect scientific knowledge.
 > 
 
 I agree with this approach as well.  The question is whether the
 chumrah is just a chumrah or me'ikar ha'din.  I would argue the
 latter. >>


Having said all that, where would R' MF and R' EC stand on the issue of fish 
and meat being eaten simoultaneously? I ask because a series of personal 
experiences has exposed me to a wide variety of Halachic approaches to this 
admittedly ambiguous issue.   

- --- "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM> wrote:
> The proposition that I expressed is that Hazal's knowledge of
> embryology 
> was limited or, put less delicately, wrong.  I stand by that
> position,
> and I have yet to hear a fact-based refutation thereof.  Moreover,
> I
> believe that the imputation of supernatural omniscience to Hazal is
> both
> demonstrably wrong and theologically suspect.  Besides, Hazal
> themselves
> did not view themselves as infallible in these matters, as the
> Gemara in
> Pesahim indicates with respect to astronomy.  Although I think it
> understandable how this myth came into being, it is still a myth.
> ..
  [RMF may well agree with this point; I will leave it to
> him
> to clarify his terminology.]  

>>From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
I do in fact agree with REC on this point.  My statement that their
halakhot were "incorrect" should be interpreted to mean that they
based their halakhot on faulty science.  That does not necessarily
detract from the binding nature of chazal's halakhot, but in some
cases (especially l'chumrah--case of kinah) it might.<<

I tend to agree with REC and RMF on the vast majority of posts. Here I dissent 
because I think they are selling short the entire mystical realm of Chazal, and 
seeing things through an exclusively 20th century, Western, scientific, POV. 

I once heard the following comment wrt to Chasidishe maa'ses:
Anyone who believes that they are ALL true is a fool.
Anyone who believes that they could not be true is <let's call it> a  
disbeliever. 

Here is my corallary (and BEH my last words on this):
Anyone who thinks that Chazal's statements re: science, or metzius were always 
literally true is indeed a fool.
Anyone who doubts Chazal's capability to have an advanced insight into science 
is - well let's say mistaken.

Add to that: we can and should give Chazal as much credibilty as possible on 
these matters. Carte Blance? perhaps not, but a definitely a chazako IMHO.

Rich Wolpoe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clark, Eli [mailto:clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 12:15 PM
> To: avodah list
> Subject: Hazal, Herem and Embryology 
> 
> Moreover, I
> believe that the imputation of supernatural omniscience to 
> Hazal is both
> demonstrably wrong and theologically suspect.  Besides, Hazal 

How do you understand sod hashem lirei'av? Doesn't the statement and its
application in sha"s at least imply supernatural insights (granted not
omniscience) to chaza"l?

Avi Pechman

>I do in fact agree with REC on this point.  My statement that their
>halakhot were "incorrect" should be interpreted to mean that they
>based their halakhot on faulty science.  That does not necessarily
>detract from the binding nature of chazal's halakhot, but in some
>cases (especially l'chumrah--case of kinah) it might.

Moshe:

It's up to you, but i would try to be a little more careful in my
phrasing when dealing with Hazal, especially on this list, but otherwise
as well.

Kol tuv,

Eli

in this week's Deiah Vdibur, in an article about drafting bnei yeshiva the
following statement was made.  ' the idea of the national religious camp
that IDF service is a mitzva is pure ignorance'

Q-- does  the  Mafdal camp call  army service a mitzva , or just duty of
citizens?         Would everyone agree with the above statement?


the article also states that no Gadol has come out of a non 'pure' yeshiva
system [  i.e. torah plus univ/tzahal/etc. ], nor would it ever be expected
to produce one....

On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Newman,Saul Z wrote:

> in this week's Deiah Vdibur, in an article about drafting bnei yeshiva
> the following statement was made.  ' the idea of the national religious
> camp that IDF service is a mitzva is pure ignorance'
> 
> Q-- does the Mafdal camp call army service a mitzva , or just duty of
> citizens?  Would everyone agree with the above statement? 
>

I should hope that the overwhelming majority of "Charedim" (I detest that
categorization, but it is the one in vogue) would disagree with the
assestion that army service is not a mitzva.
 
> 
> the article also states that no Gadol has come out of a non 'pure'
> yeshiva system [ i.e. torah plus univ/tzahal/etc. ], nor would it ever
> be expected to produce one.... 
> 

It is a pity that such halachically incorrect and offensive material is
produced by some that are allegedly representative of Torah Judaism. That
is to assume that this publication purports to be a mouthpiece of
Torah-true Judaism, although its statements be wrong, and doubtlessly
unsourced. But praytell, who is "Ha'dei'ah v'ha"Dibbur"? Last I heard,
those were descriptors of the Chai Olamim...

P.S. As of this evening, My family will be travelling to Washington,
Montana, Idaho, Utah and Colorado over the next two weeks. E-mail access
will likely be spotty at best. Please forgive delays in response!

Thanks and KT,

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

RYGB writes:

>I am afraid RAS would still have you in Cherem, as he felt that one had no
right to be machmir over
>Chazal either.

I do not really understand this statement.  We are mahmir on Hazal all
over the place.  Briskers especially!  Could you clarify please?

R. Joel Rich writes:

>What is the rationale for the chumra yes kula no approach? If its
>"Lchatchila", do you also understand that birur eliyahu(referred to a number
>of times in the gemora I believe) will only be mvarer facts lchumra but not
>lkula?

Many moons ago, I posted my understanding of birur Eliyahu as limited to
the specific issue mentioned in the Gemara.  I explained why teku means
the issue is unresolved and does not (contrary to what we were told in
elementary school) stand for anything relating to Eliyahu.  In other
words, we are on our own and should not expect some halakhic deus ex
machina in the messianic age.

The rationale for being mahmir, but not mekil is, I think,
straightforward.  We cannot be mekil on Hazal, whether the halakhah is
based on science, astrology or anything else.  However, we should (pace
R. Ahron Soloveichik) adopt a more mahmir position in those cases where
Hazal make a statement about metzi'ut that we would revise on the basis
of current knowledge.  Whether such a humrah is only le-khathillah or
not depends on other variables.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

--- "Clark, Eli"  wrote:
> >[Moshe wrote:] I do in fact agree with REC on this point.  My
statement that
> their
> >halakhot were "incorrect" should be interpreted to mean that they
> >based their halakhot on faulty science.  That does not necessarily
> >detract from the binding nature of chazal's halakhot, but in some
> >cases (especially l'chumrah--case of kinah) it might.
> 
> Moshe:
> 
> It's up to you, but i would try to be a little more careful in my
> phrasing when dealing with Hazal, especially on this list, but
> otherwise
> as well.

I stand by original posting.  My sentence using the word "incorrect"
should not be taken out of context.  The original post I wrote
stated:

<<I agree with Eli as to Chazal's actual knowledge of science. 
Nevertheless, I still think that it is possible that where halacha is
based on science that Chazal may have had siyata d'shmaya in reaching
the correct result even where their understanding of science was
incorrect.  OTOH, I have no conceptual problem in believing that 
some halachot found in chazal are incorrect because chazal were human
and did not understand science the way we do.>>

Since I hold that in the case of kinah it is completely assur to kill
the kinah on Shabbat, it turns out that Chazal's halacha (based on
the science of their time; they were not omniscient) was incorrect. 
It does not detract from the kavod of Chazal to state that they did
not possess a futuristic understanding of science.

Eli may be protesting the fact that some posters attributed to Eli my
statements.  I urge Avodah listmembers to be careful in this regard.

Kol tuv,
Moshe


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

In a message dated 6/17/99 4:44:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< 
 >What is the rationale for the chumra yes kula no approach? If its
 >"Lchatchila", do you also understand that birur eliyahu(referred to a number
 >of times in the gemora I believe) will only be mvarer facts lchumra but not
 >lkula?
 
 Many moons ago, I posted my understanding of birur Eliyahu as limited to
 the specific issue mentioned in the Gemara.  I explained why teku means
 the issue is unresolved and does not (contrary to what we were told in
 elementary school) stand for anything relating to Eliyahu.  In other
 words, we are on our own and should not expect some halakhic deus ex
 machina in the messianic age.
 ==============================
OK but would you agree that one who understands birur eliyahu as did the 
Maharatz chayot did that Eliyahu would be able to be mvarer factual issues 
would then lean towards saying that this birur could cut both ways?
=======================================
 The rationale for being mahmir, but not mekil is, I think,
 straightforward.  We cannot be mekil on Hazal, whether the halakhah is
 based on science, astrology or anything else.  However, we should (pace
 R. Ahron Soloveichik) adopt a more mahmir position in those cases where
 Hazal make a statement about metzi'ut that we would revise on the basis
 of current knowledge.  Whether such a humrah is only le-khathillah or
 not depends on other variables.
=====================================
So if chazal had said ,"You can't eat fish and meat together because the 
doctors tell us its dangerous and you shouldn't put yourself in danger" , you 
would still say we can't be makil if doctors today disagreed?
=====================================
 Kol tuv,
 
 Eli Clark >>
======

Kol Tuv 
Joel Rich

PS Do you know where your original post on birur eliyahu resides? Micha?

In a message dated 6/17/99 3:44:51 PM EST, REC writes:

>  I do not really understand this statement.  We are mahmir on Hazal all
>  over the place.  Briskers especially!  Could you clarify please?

Please see S"O Horav O"C 63:2

>  Many moons ago, I posted my understanding of birur Eliyahu as limited to
>  the specific issue mentioned in the Gemara.  I explained why teku means
>  the issue is unresolved and does not (contrary to what we were told in
>  elementary school) stand for anything relating to Eliyahu.  In other
>  words, we are on our own and should not expect some halakhic deus ex
>  machina in the messianic age.

Much written on this issue, see Divrei Nvi'im from MaHaRaTZ Chayos, also ET 
Erech E-ly-ohu.
 
>  The rationale for being mahmir, but not mekil is, I think,
>  straightforward.  We cannot be mekil on Hazal, whether the halakhah is
>  based on science, astrology or anything else.  However, we should (pace
>  R. Ahron Soloveichik) adopt a more mahmir position in those cases where
>  Hazal make a statement about metzi'ut that we would revise on the basis
>  of current knowledge.  Whether such a humrah is only le-khathillah or
>  not depends on other variables.

There is a Pischei Tshuvoh (I believe in Y"D 116) whether one is permitted to 
be Machmir and not eat something that was Bottul B'shishim.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Regarding Pesahim 94b, RYZ writes:

>As I have mentioned many times see the Gilyon Hashas there from the Shita
>Mkubetzes.

Having seen it, I do not know how it helps our discussion.  The Gilyon
ha-Shas quotes the Shitah in the name of R. Tam that the hakhmei ummot
ha-olam bested hakhmei Yisrael in a "nitzahon ta'anot," but the truth
follows hakhmei Yisrael, as is evident from the phrase in the tefillah,
"Boke'a halonei raki'a."

I have two problems with this.  First, even if hakhmei Yisrael turned
out to be right, they themselves were willing to concede that they were
wrong.  Hence, the Gemara still supports my statement that they did not
consider themselves infallible in this area.

Second, with all due respect to R. Tam, and notwithstanding the
liturgical phraseology to which he refers, many people  will probably
find it difficult to agree with R. Tam that the hakhmei Yisrael were
correct on this issue.  For those unfamiliar with the sugya, the
position of hakhmei Yisrael is that the sun travels below the raki'a
during the day, and above the raki'a at night.  In contrast, the hakhmei
u.h. hold that the the sun travels below the karka at night.  Putting
aside the issue of geocetrism vs. heliocentrism, I know no one today who
thinks that the sun is invisible at night because it is obscured by the
raki'a.

I am also curious to know what R. Ahron S. thinks about this Gemara.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

In a message dated 6/17/99 4:15:08 PM EST, Joelirich@aol.Com writes:

> So if chazal had said ,"You can't eat fish and meat together because the 
>  doctors tell us its dangerous and you shouldn't put yourself in danger" , 
> you 
>  would still say we can't be makil if doctors today disagreed?
>  
See Mogein Avrohom 173 (1)
BTW the prohibition is not only if cooked together (as a list member 
suggested yesterday).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 6/17/99 4:30:42 PM EST, clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

>  have two problems with this.  First, even if hakhmei Yisrael turned
>  out to be right, they themselves were willing to concede that they were
>  wrong. 

According to the RT they never conceded they were "wrong" rather that they 
had not been victorius in the Svoroh.

>  Second, with all due respect to R. Tam, and notwithstanding the
>  liturgical phraseology to which he refers, many people  will probably
>  find it difficult to agree with R. Tam that the hakhmei Yisrael were
>  correct on this issue.  For those unfamiliar with the sugya, the
>  position of hakhmei Yisrael is that the sun travels below the raki'a
>  during the day, and above the raki'a at night.  In contrast, the hakhmei
>  u.h. hold that the the sun travels below the karka at night.  Putting
>  aside the issue of geocetrism vs. heliocentrism, I know no one today who
>  thinks that the sun is invisible at night because it is obscured by the
>  raki'a.

In a letter from the Ragitchover Gaon to the Rebbe Ztz"l (today being his 5th 
Yahrtzeit) he responds to the Rebbe's asking him about the Chazal's view on 
Tchunoh by saying that it is "Nokeiv Ad Hatihom Omoik Omik Mi Yimtzoenu", 
with a host of Maarei Mkomos Kdarkoi Bakodesh.

And see Rash R"H 24a D"H Kaan Biymois..

>  I am also curious to know what R. Ahron S. thinks about this Gemara.

To be fair there are others who learn it literaly, but that doesn't take away 
from this view.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

the article also states that no Gadol has come out of a non 'pure' 
yeshiva system [  i.e. torah plus univ/tzahal/etc. ], nor would it ever 
be expected to produce one....

I find it shocking that in the two days since this was posted there has 
been no response to this. Rav Soloveitchick (both JB and Aaron,) Rav A 
Lichtenstein do not qualify?
shabbat shalom

In a message dated 6/18/99 12:50:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
katzco@sprintmail.com writes:

<< he article also states that no Gadol has come out of a non 'pure' 
 yeshiva system [  i.e. torah plus univ/tzahal/etc. ], nor would it ever 
 be expected to produce one....
 
 I find it shocking that in the two days since this was posted there has 
 been no response to this. Rav Soloveitchick (both JB and Aaron,) Rav A 
 Lichtenstein do not qualify?
 shabbat shalom >>

I felt no reason to grant legitimacy to such statements by even acknowledging 
them.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]