Discussion about this post

User's avatar
shulman's avatar

just to make sure i'm understanding this correctly: is rabbi inbal's position that we assume they knew the metzius and that we suspect different possible answers, whether we know what they are or not, and as such we can still assume the halachos to still be true despite the contradiction in metzius? (as opposed to assuming they were obviously just going with the science of the time and therefore certain halachos are wrong)

meaning it's possible that there are a whole lot of ideas which need to be discussed before assuming them to just be wrong, such as in the case of bliyos, that perhaps our keilim are stronger (in that case the halacha would be different), but does that even matter since maybe they made a steadfast rule for all keilim, and besides, maybe they were focusing on different ideas than what the experiments are focusing on?

basically, is the idea that every time we examine a chazal-science (seeming) contradiction, we have to think of all of the possible things we didn't consider but assume the halacha to still be binding?

i have no problem with that, but what is controversial? i think i missed something

Expand full comment
test's avatar

"....Rabbi Inbal tackles the claim......"

יש להשיב על כך, אבל לא אשיב

I hardly call that 'tackling the claim"!!!!

Expand full comment
121 more comments...

No posts