Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 147

Sunday, March 5 2006

• Chazal, science, and halacha
• RE: Adoption
• To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group
• Lashon Hara
• RE: Chazal, science, and halacha
• RE: Mabul and scientific support therof
• Chazal and science (does the Sun revolve around the Earth?)
• RE: Mabul

The moderators invited me to move a discussion on Areivim to Avodah.
Since (among other things) this is far better than a rejection of a
posting <grin>, I am pleased to comply.

The thread began with my citation to the gemara in Pesachim 94b that
there was a dispute between chachmei yisroel and chachmei umot ha-alom,
with (a) the former saying "galgal kavua" or, a bit further on, (b) the
dispute whether at night the sun travels above the sky (chachmei yisroel)
or below the earth (chachmei umot ha-alom), with Rebbe saying the latter
view makes more sense. (The gemara intimates that the chachmei umot
ha'olam were correct, based on a proof of the temperature of the lakes
and rivers in the morning (!), but Rabbeinu Chananeil (as I recall)
says this is not the case but that the chachmei yisroel were correct).

Inasmuch as none of the views endorsed in the gemara is consistent with
a rotating earth and a solar system, I asked:
"Is there anyone who now denies that the earth turns on its axis?"  
Does anyone still believe that the sun goes above the sky or below the earth?   
Has anyone posed this gemara to those who condemn other science at
variance with Talmudic statements?

(I also noted that in one of the rabbinic statements by a noted rav
about the Controversy Which Cannot be Named (lest the moderators ban
the post), the castigation of science at war with divrei chachamim
contained the statement that "all scientists agree that the earth turns
on its axis" and went on to argue (in paraphrase) "who do they think
keeps it turning if not the ribono shel olam?" Through a list member
with a close relationship with the rav in question, I questioned this
remark based not on the laws of inertia, but on the gemara in Pesachim.
I was told that "this is a problem" but still "divrei chachamim emes.")

In response to these comments, Michael Y. Kopinsky cited the Artscroll
Gemara, at the end of the 2nd Perek of Baba Basra, for the proposition
that "the point of Chazal is not to teach science, it's to teach
Torah. So although they might have known the true scientific fact,
they used whatever was common knowledge at the time as a metaphor for
the Torah lesson."

R Eli Turkel also weighed in, and as part of his comment referred to the
Michtav MeEliyahu and then wrote: While REED seems to imply that Chazal
were wrong in their science the politically correct way of phrasing is
that Chazal knew the correct science but quoted the science of their
day to explain the halacha.

Here is my response (slightly tempered) which the distinguished moderators
suggested I move to Avodah:

Can someone please explain why it is more politically correct to say
that Chazal, who were known for their integrity and intellectual honesty,
LIED and concealed the true scientific basis for their conclusions? So,
we'd rather have a dishonest Chazal than Chazal who are not infallible?
Besides, the entire notion of explaining things in terms of the science of
the day (when Chazal knew the true science) is absurd. The discussions
in the gemara were not printed in the Babylonian Times or the Pumpedisa
Journal of Medicine but discussed in the Beis Medrash. Does anyone
think that the talmidim would have rejected anything which did not square
with their contemporary science? And if they would have, does this
mean they had less emunas chachamim than we are supposed to have today?

I might also note that as a logical matter, saying that Chazal spoke in
terms of the science of the day while knowing the "truth" means that no
scientific statements by Chazal need be accepted. I did not think this
was Charedi doctrine.

R. Turkel also wrote: The original case in Michtav MeEliyahu concerns
the gemara that the claws of cats contains poison which is known not to
be true.

My comment: That is a separate issue discussed on these lists as
to whether a change in scientific understanding allows for change
in Halacha, including the views of e.g. RAS that someone who does
not kill kinim on shabbat is a mumar. The formulation of halacha
has many components and the halachic process can result in rules that
might have been decided differently today, at least absent a beis din
gadol bu-chachma u'vi'minyan. So what? We can maintain the binding
character of established halacha without needing to make infallible all
chazal pronouncements on non-halachic matters.

I've previously suggested that the current doctrine is an outgrowth of
the da'as torah doctrine, because absent infallibility, why should a
rav's views be binding under da'as torah? The effect, however, in the
Controversy Which Cannot Be Named, is to undermine respect for rabbanim
and torah. As with Chava and the snake, kol hamosif goreah.

There are many highly intelligent Chareidi members of Areivim [and
Avodah]. Is there anyone who can provide a coherent defense of the
gemara in Pesachim in light of the infallibility doctrine? Is it just
a matter of batla da'ati kelapei ha-gedolim? At what point does one
seek other gedolim to follow?

		Shalom L. Kohn
		

Something I wrote a while ago apropos to the adoption issue and MI's
post that this is not to be a chessed project:

"Rashi tells us that the Egyptian astrologers had difficulty ascertaining
whether the savior of Klal Yisroel would be an Egyptian or a Jew, and
for this reason Pharaoh, out of an abundance of caution, decreed that all
boys born, even Egyptians, be drowned on that particular day. (Shmos 1:22)

This suggests that the Egyptian astrologers were unclear or unsure of
the signs they were seeing in the stars. We do not find elsewhere that
they were aware of uncertainty about their insights - why was this one
hard for them to figure out?

Basia bas Pharaoh raised Moshe. (2:10). The gemoro (Sanhedrin 19b) says
that one who raises an orphan child is like that child's natural parent.
In fact one of the proofs the gemoro uses to support this idea is a pasuk
in Divrei Hayamim I (Ch 4) describing Basia bas Pharaoh as having given
birth to Moshe; she is so described because she raised him.

Perhaps this was the source of the astrologers' mindset. They were
not confused; they were right on target in what they perceived - Moshe
Rabbenu in fact was the product of two upbringings, one Jewish (natural)
and one Egyptian (adopted). [As an aside, it is always fascinating to
dwell upon the notion that the greatest Jewish leader was raised in a
non-Jewish home. A midrash says that, like Moshe, Moshiach will come
from the Edom culture he eventually will overturn.]

Similarly, Rashi says in Parshas Vayeshev (39:1) that the wife of Potiphar
understood astrologically that either she or her daughter was destined
to bear Yosef's children. Yet Chazal say (Maseches Sofrim 21:9) that
Potiphar's daughter (who did become Yosef's wife) was the daughter of
Dinah who was adopted by Potiphar - why would there be an astrological
reality to this girl being Potiphar's daughter, given that she was
'merely' adopted? Rather, an adopted child is like a natural child, and
not just down here on earth but even in the stars and in the essence of
the relationship."

Gedalia

RZL asked:
>Shall we then be able to say that when the Torah speaks of Hashem
>creating the heaven and the earth, it may be only referring to those
>parts of the heaven and the earth that Adam, or the people at Mattan
>Torah, were aware of? ...
>If not, why not?

Again I enter the middle of a discussion, but this called for an answer.
Bryas haolam yesh meayin is a concept that Rambam considers a basic
issue as it involves Rotzon vechefetz. Aristotles believed the world (
a better word is Metzius) was forever in conjunction with HKBH (Rambam's
interpretation of Artistotles)and was not by HKBH's choice. It is as
things are. That would negate schar veonesh and nissim. Therefore the
Toragh's view is necessary. Mabul, although it is in the Torah, could
be interpreted in many ways without impacting our concept of HKBH.

No leeser Chareidi than R. Gedalya Nadel says as following : Kvar omarnu
shemitachas hashomayim misyaches lashomayim sheal ho'oretz hazos ertetz
kidmas eden. Bishvil ho'odom hachay besvivo hazos zehu kol ho'olam.

He repeats at length this idea on Noach I just picked a short comment.

Good Shabbos
David Guttmann
If you agree that Knowing is Believing, join me in the search for Knowledge
at http://yediah.blogspot.com/ 

On 3/3/06, Samuel Svarc <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com>
wrote on Areivim, commenting on my post at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n062.shtml#08>
<snip>
> When I read your post it struck me as quite interesting that you were
> prepared to say one can safely ignore what the CC clearly paskened as
> the halacha since he writes that he is being "machmir". You didn't bring
> anyone (not even R' Wienberger) who agreed to this surprising halachic
> analysis.

Please read the Chofetz Chaim inside. In my original post, I had written
the incorrect cite. It is Chap. 2 of hil. LH, par. 2-3, and Beer Mayim
Chayim there. The CC in the main text writes the view of the Rambam,
Rashbam, Smag & She'iltos (and possibly B'HaG) that it is permitted
b'derech akra'i to mention negative information which is already public
if your intention isn't to deliberately spread it further. The CC
writes this view in the name of "yesh omrim" and does not mention any
contrary view in the main text. He also writes a severa for the Rambam;
I explained the sevara in my original post. Therefore, it is quite
clear that the CC is *not* paskening against this view.

In BMC, the CC notes that it is *possible* that according to Tosfos, Rashi
and Rabbeinu Yona, who explain the gemara as referring to a different
case, there is no support in the gemara for the din of the Rambam,
et. al., although there is also no proof to the contrary. Therefore he
concludes "ain lidchos davar zeh l'gamrei m'halacha" while noting in an
hagha to the BMC that he believes that there is still a safek de'oraisa
as to what the halacha is. What R. Weinberger clarified to me was that
the CC personally advised against reading newspapers. This advice was
not in the Shmiras HaLashon itself.

At the end of the day, it is clear that anyone who permits the reading
of newspapers is following the Rambam on this matter. This is what the
vast majority of klal yisrael does.

I also note that various talmidim of RAL have told me that RAL disagrees
with the whole approach of the CC to codify lashon hara as strict halacha.
In his opinion, apparently, this is more of a moral issue than halachic
and is therefore more flexible than strict halacha. RAL apparently
believes that people are often too concerned with hilchos LH and
not enough concerned with possible damage which may occur by their
withholding information (i.e., in a situation where the CC's "to'eles"
exceptions may not strictly apply). (Although I sit just a few rows
back from RAL, I don't like bothering him too much. If Avodah members
discuss this some more and raise some important issues, I might consider
approaching RAL for clarification.)

Shavua tov.
Moshe

On March 3, 2206, Shalom Kohn wrote:
> There are many highly intelligent Chareidi members of Areivim [and
> Avodah]. Is there anyone who can provide a coherent defense of the
> gemara in Pesachim in light of the infallibility doctrine? Is it just
> a matter of batla da'ati kelapei ha-gedolim? At what point does one
> seek other gedolim to follow?

I'll take a stab at it. However, much of the email seems somewhat
political. I will be skipping these parts.

RSK wrote:
> The thread began with my citation to the gemara in Pesachim 94b that
> there was a dispute between chachmei yisroel and chachmei umot ha-alom,
> with (a) the former saying "galgal kavua" or, a bit further on, (b) the
> dispute whether at night the sun travels above the sky (chachmei yisroel)
> or below the earth (chachmei umot ha-alom), with Rebbe saying the latter
> view makes more sense. (The gemara intimates that the chachmei umot
> ha'olam were correct, based on a proof of the temperature of the lakes
> and rivers in the morning (!), but Rabbeinu Chananeil (as I recall)
> says this is not the case but that the chachmei yisroel were correct).

> Inasmuch as none of the views endorsed in the gemara is consistent with
> a rotating earth and a solar system, I asked:
> "Is there anyone who now denies that the earth turns on its axis?"
> Does anyone still believe that the sun goes above the sky or below the earth?
> Has anyone posed this gemara to those who condemn other science at
> variance with Talmudic statements?

You seem more confident than Albert Einstein. I admit that astronomers
today maintain a heliocentric universe but AE maintained that there are
no absolute frames of reference in space and thus, although we may be
using heliocentric models to calculate the motion of the heavenly bodies,
who knows...maybe the earth is kavua?

As far as the mayim shelanu as opposed to mayim hanishavim, the halacha
can remain intact regardless. More on this shortly.

> (I also noted that in one of the rabbinic statements by a noted rav..<snip>

> In response to these comments, Michael Y. Kopinsky cited the Artscroll
> Gemara, at the end of the 2nd Perek of Baba Basra, for the proposition
> that "the point of Chazal is not to teach science, it's to teach
> Torah. So although they might have known the true scientific fact,
> they used whatever was common knowledge at the time as a metaphor for
> the Torah lesson."

I do not entirely agree with Artscroll's presentation. More to come.

> R Eli Turkel also weighed in, and as part of his comment referred to the
> Michtav MeEliyahu and then wrote: While REED seems to imply that Chazal
> were wrong in their science the politically correct way of phrasing is
> that Chazal knew the correct science but quoted the science of their
> day to explain the halacha.

Leaving aside the PC comment, RET has not presented Rav Dessler's shita
accurately (IMO). The "proper" way to present Rav Dessler's view, in
contrast to the Arstscroll way, is as follows.

Chazal had a messorah as to what the halacha should be. This is the
'infallible' part. At the same time, Chazal searched for physical reasons,
as presented in the current day scientific paradigms, to support the
halachic conclusion. They did not come to these conclusions on their own.
Rather, they borrowed them from the current scientific knowledge base
and merely *used* them to illustrate the veracity of the halachaa. If,
Rav Dessler says, it turns out that science has made new discoveries,
we are obligated to search out new approaches to support the halachic
conclusions of Chazal. One thing must remain immutable and that is
Chazal's halachic pronouncement.

> Here is my response (slightly tempered) which the distinguished moderators
> suggested I move to Avodah:

> Can someone please explain why it is more politically correct to say
> that Chazal, who were known for their integrity and intellectual honesty,
> LIED and concealed the true scientific basis for their conclusions ...

> I might also note that as a logical matter, saying that Chazal spoke in
> terms of the science of the day while knowing the "truth" means that no
> scientific statements by Chazal need be accepted. I did not think this
> was Charedi doctrine.

The previous two paragraphs encompass several good ha'aros but in view
of the "proper" approach above, your questions have now been answered.

> R. Turkel also wrote: The original case in Michtav MeEliyahu concerns
> the gemara that the claws of cats contains poison which is known not to
> be true.

Really? See Cat-scratch disease in Wikepedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat-scratch_disease>. The venom discussed
in the Gemara can very easily be interpreted as bacteria transmitted
through the claws of the animal (wolf or cat) which cause the attendant
disease. Chazal were right on the money!

Furthermore, R' Aryeh Carmel posits that due to the shape of a cat's
claw, as opposed to a dog, meat gets trapped in the sheath when the
cat whithdraws his claw after an attack. This meat eventually rots and
forms bacteria which is then subsequently deposited into the cat's next
victim. Very similar approach to the CSD one (except in the case of CSD
the bacteria is carried in the blood off the animal).

> My comment: That is a separate issue discussed on these lists as
> to whether a change in scientific understanding allows for change
> in Halacha, including the views of e.g. RAS that someone who does
> not kill kinim on shabbat is a mumar. The formulation of halacha
> has many components and the halachic process can result in rules that
> might have been decided differently today, at least absent a beis din
> gadol bu-chachma u'vi'minyan. So what? We can maintain the binding
> character of established halacha without needing to make infallible all
> chazal pronouncements on non-halachic matters.

If you are referring to Aggadic matters, and scientific pronouncements
made to illustrate them, there are many precedents in the Rishonim
and Acharonim to adopt such a shita. Rambam in his hakdama to pirush
haMishnayos says as much. Wherever Chazal made statements that were
impossible, they obviously meant it figuratively and were hiding deep
lessons in superficial raiment. Ramban says the same and more in his
commentary to the Rambam's Sefer haMitzvos. The Ran is very clear in
Drashos Haran. Anyone who studies Maharsha and Maharal is familiar with
this phenomenon. Anyone who studies Zohar and kisvei Arizal is certainly
familiar with this concept. Ramchal states exactly the same in maamar
al haHagados. There are many more sources. Perhaps you should read Rav
Dessler in the original. His letter can be found in Michtav vol. 4 pg
353. He also gives us the proper approach to understand statements made
by Rishonim such as R' Shmuel haNagid in the mevo haTalmud, and Rav
Sherira and Rav Hai Gaon in the T'shuvas haGeonim. Ditto the Maharal
in the sixth perek of Beer haGola. All of these sources were discussed
exhaustively on Avodah. I myself have quoted every single one of these
sources above and more. RMB, RDE, RZL, RJO and others have floated these
and many other sources. Run a search. Seek and ye shall find.

Incidentally, there are certain list-members/lurkers that are unhappy
with this approach and have written me to complain about me adopting such
a stance. They claim that every one of Chazal's scientific statements
must be viewed as infallible. In deference to them, I am mentioning
their macha'a. Their macha'a may have merit and it may not. I am merely
pointing out that even if it does not, we have people like the Rambam
and the Ramchal to fall back on such that the "infallibility" of Chazal
in aggadic matters remains intact and yet the science doesn't have to
be correct.

> I've previously suggested that the current doctrine is an outgrowth of
> the da'as torah doctrine, because absent infallibility, why should a
> rav's views be binding under da'as torah? The effect, however, in the
> Controversy Which Cannot Be Named, is to undermine respect for rabbanim
> and torah. As with Chava and the snake, kol hamosif goreah.

It didn't undermine *my* respect... I suspect that many of the people
who lost respect didn't possess it in full measure much before the CWCBN
ever materialized.

Simcha Coffer

On March 3, 2006, David Guttmann wrote:
> Again I enter the middle of a discussion, but this called for an answer.
> Bryas haolam yesh meayin is a concept that Rambam considers a basic
> issue as it involves Rotzon vechefetz. Aristotles believed the world (
> a better word is Metzius) was forever in conjunction with HKBH (Rambam's
> interpretation of Artistotles)and was not by HKBH's choice. It is as
> things are. That would negate schar veonesh and nissim. Therefore the
> Toragh's view is necessary. Mabul, although it is in the Torah, could
> be interpreted in many ways without impacting our concept of HKBH.

I probably sound like a broken record but have you looked at the Moreh
2:25? Other than anthropomorphism, the Rambam seldom allegorizes. All RZL
is saying is that unless you have an ironclad proof (like the ten proofs
the Rambam brings for yad Hashem not being literal) that the Mabul was
merely a local phenomenon, what right have you to be motzie the pesukim
miPashtam? As far as if the pesukim do state this, RZL brought a ra'aya
from a pasuk (I don't remember which but it convinced me). Search the
Avodah archives and I'm sure you'll find it.

Since we're on the topic, I have some 'scientific' evidence that the
Mabul must have been a global phenomenon.

Recently I was perusing a book on dinosaurs and I was reminded that
dinosaur fossils have been unearthed in places like Montana (U.S.) and
Alberta (Canada). Since it is obvious that dinosaurs did not flourish
after the flood, it is obvious that life was a global phenomenon (kietz
kol basar ba lifanay) and that it was entirely extinguished after the
flood. (Obviously, this is only a ra'aya for someone who a) believes
that the world is 5766 years old and b) believes in the extinction of
all animal life less than 4500 years ago)

In addition, I saw another interesting argument for a global flood.

An indication that ALL of the mountains of the world were inundated
during the flood is the fact that a common feature of many mountains is
that sedimentary rocks possess marine fossils near their summits. (Ditto
my bracketed comment above)

Simcha Coffer 

SL Cohn wrote (on Areivim):
>"Is there anyone who now denies that the earth turns on its axis?"
>Does anyone still believe that the sun goes above the sky or below
>the earth?
>Has anyone posed this gemara to those who condemn other science at
>variance with Talmudic statements?

The Lubavitcher Rebbe in the 1970's wrote about a Geocentric
universe, that the Sun revolves around the Earth (see here
http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article.asp?AID=73253). He wrote in
a letter:

"It is my firm belief that the sun revolves around the earth, as I
have also declared publicly on various occasions and in discussion with
professors specializing in this field of science."

He based it (in most scientists opinions erroneously) on the theory
of relativity.

In other words the Lubavitcher Rebbe held that the Sun revolves around
the Earth.

The standard Charedi answer for that Gemara is that Chazal hid deeper
meanings in statements like these describing the world. The scientific
facts make no difference, since chazal were not talking of such facts,
rather deeper metaphysical truths.

IMHO this is quite difficult for a number of reasons among them that this
gemara (the statement about the sun going oot the window) is the basis
of R' Tam's shita about when tzeitz hakochavim is so we see that the
Rishonim understood that Chazal were truly describing the physical world.

RZL asked: 
>Shall we then be able to say that when the Torah speaks of Hashem
>creating the heaven and the earth, it may be only referring to those
>parts of the heaven and the earth that Adam, or the people at Mattan
>Torah, were aware of? When Rambam calls this belief in creation of the
>universe ex nihilo an ikkar hadaas, perhaps he was only referring to the
>parts of the earth and the universe /he/ was aware of? ...

R. D. Guttman replied:
> ...Bryas haolam yesh meayin is a concept that Rambam considers a basic
> issue as it involves Rotzon vechefetz. Aristotles believed the world (
> a better word is Metzius) was forever in conjunction with HKBH (Rambam's
> interpretation of Artistotles)and was not by HKBH's choice. It is as
> things are. That would negate schar veonesh and nissim.

Continuing to play devil's advocate (Please note a BIG chas v'Shalom in
front of the following): The Rambam was only talking about the part of
the world he was aware of. And even if he was talking about all metsius,
he has no source from the Torah that Hashem created and allowed for
nissim and schar v'onesh outside the part of the world that Adam or the
people of Mattan Torah were aware of. Thus, perhaps we can say that
North America was created by other gods or was always in existence.
Can you even point to an explicit Chazal that says the entire universe
was created ex nihilo, or that free will, nissim and sc'char v'osnesh is
universal? And even if you can find one, I'll tell you that the "universe"
referred to is only the universe Chazal was aware of (excluding parts
of the earth they didn't know of, and all those far-away galaxies they
didn't specifically identify). \

Why not?--After all, n o lesser a Chareidi than R. Gedalya Nadel says :
"Kvar omarnu shemitachas hashomayim misyaches lashomayim sheal ho'oretz
hazos ertetz kidmas eden . Bishvil ho'odom hachay besvivo hazos zehu
kol ho'olam." So we need not be concerned with everyone else's opinion.

Zvi Lampel

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


[ 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         ]