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
His point with the keilim is that according to Amitai, there is no reason to even *investigate* anything, because Chazal were just relying on outdated science, so why should their halacha be binding at all? Why not just throw out most of Yoreh Deah? The same way you wouldn't take Galen's medical texts seriously, except for historical purposes. Whereas if you assume Chazal knew what they were talking about, there is what to discuss.
Thanks! Read through the link. Very well presented. But again, I found nothing controversial in that link. Where does he say anything like slifkin? Did I miss a different maareh makom?
I did. He states blandly that he has read the science of that time and it is not umos ha'olam. And he is wrong. Some very much is. And clearly that is not the answer he is referring to as 'he is not saying' because he does say it.
He cites plenty of sources in his book and other articles. He is right. 99.9% of the stuff Chazal say does not correlate with the non-jewish science of the time.
"Beware though- his opinions are not necessarily strictly “yeshivish”- if that matters to you"
I checked it out a bit, he seems to say the things Slifkin was saying 20 years ago, which originally got him in trouble. I'm assuming that's what you're referring to.
Do you know why he hasn't been banned? Are the Gedolim nowadays more "open-minded" than 20 years ago?
Really? I see alot more nuance there. In any case, Slifkin wasn't just banned for this controversial opinion or that, but for a bunch of different reasons, including politics and including his own stupid sense of pride.
He quotes lots of people and books he doesn't agree with or doesn't agree with fully, including Christians and atheists. He brings essays from Berman and and other such people on his site, but sometimes pops into the comments to disagree.
No one who could read Slifkin's book comes close to him, both in his massive bekius in Shas Uposkim and extensive shimush by the Gedolei Talmidei Chachamim מחוג החזו"א.
Check out his sefarim, kunteisim and maamrim on אוצה"ח. The sefer Happy referenced is also on אוצה"ח if you have מכון הרב קוק. Two of his sefarim are not on אוצה"ח but are in the BMG otsar.
Gedolim are wary of banning these days. This book, and author has not been banned, even though he writes 'outrageous' things about those that follow rishonim and acharomin who don't use degrees and refuse to accept that degrees of the sun below horizon is the only way to keep zemanim properly) and ignore modern scientific developments in astronomy. He lays into Rabbeinu Tam big time, saying RT was just plain out wrong. Maybe he has good connections with the Lakewood ayatollahs (or maybe he just old fashioned rich and supports mosdos widely), there is no other credible explanation as to why he is not banned. He writes following outdated science is the way of fundamentalism Muslims today, and the true torah path, the torah and rishonim have always been open to new scientific developments.
You realize that Slifkin had a post about that book a few months ago, right? And was completely demolished in the comments section. That book was not only not banned, it was given haskamos by Rav Shlomo Miller and Rav Reisman (who himself is a big proponent of RT).
As I said before, Slifkin was not just banned for his controversial opinions, there were books that came before and after him that had a controversial opinions. There were a bunch of factors that led to Slifkin's ban which included politics, his chutzpah, and his stupid pride that didn't let himself back down.
My question is why it was not banned. The way he writes about talmidei chachomim who ignore modern developments in astronomy when calculating zemanim is far worse than anything Slifkin wrote. Slifkin just touched the surface in that post.
I don't think it's worse. You have to take the overall context into account. Serious posek writing a serious halachic opinion vs. young hothead writing that there is no doubt that Bereishis is a fairy tale. But as I said, it's more than just the actual controversial opinions.
"vs .young hothead writing that there is no doubt that Bereishis is a fairy tale"
Don't think Slifkin wrote that originally, at the time he was banned.
"politics, his chutzpah, and his stupid pride"
That's not a reason to ban someone. There are plenty of mechutzafim out there. He was banned, or rather his books were banned, because of their content.
What I meant is that the ban didn't *only* happen because of the controversial opinions in his books. It took a lot of other steps for him to get banned, including him stubbornly refusing to back down because he knew better. And I believe it was politics that led to people being interested in getting him banned in the first place (even assuming he totally deserved it).
I believe also that although many other books before and after him may have included similar controversial opinions here and there, he was a "collector" of controversial opinions in his publications, showing he wasn't taking Torah seriously.
So I can infer that you have never heard or saw the many ספרים written by Charedi רבנים about this topic over the last few decades, many of whom say the exact same thing?
Here's one, where he brings an interview from Berman. I've also seen other similar things.
But like Happy mentioned, he doesn't necessarily agree to him. (Although he can also quote Slifkin for the same price).
Edit: I see now that he explicitly disagrees with Berman
בנוגע לדרך לימוד התורה, הוא נכתב מנקודת מבט ליברלית, שאינה מותאמת לתפיסה האמונית התמימה, רוב הפערים הם פערים של סגנון וניסוח, שאותם יש לתלות ברקעו השונה של המחבר. אך ישנם מספר פערים שקשה לגשר עליהם, ועל המאמין התמים לוותר ולדלג על ההצעות של ברמן
It's just a guess, based on the fact that the site links to many of his kuntresim and that he authored many מאמרים על הדף on that site. But now I see there are also many other authors of different מאמרים so it is possible he is just one prolific contributor.
Clearly the Chasam Sofer never read the memo, when he called out Rashi's explaination in niddoh on 'moshlo moshol, three chambers' as rashi being completely wrong.
There are three main 'yeshivish answers' all others are variations on the below.
1) Nishtanu hatevah. That's a blind faith take it or leave it answer, which doesn't work too well for talmudic and rishonic statements, which are relatively recent in the existence of humanity. We have zero evidence that bodies changed.
2) The world was created old, that works for somethings, not for others, and again is a take it or leave it answer.
3) The Maharal that its all metaphysical. Again, that simply does not work when the talmud derives or links halochoh to the statements.
If you have any other answers that are not variations on the above, do share.
Let's narrow it down. How do you explain to your talmudim how the bizarre talmudic remedies for illness ever worked? How do you explain the chazal about yackov and eisov's bechora issue with stones in a tube or whatever, when we know that is not how twins 'work'? Nishtanu hatevah?
Do you know that 200 years ago nobody had a clue what blood actually does? Hence blood letting. For some reason, your local doctor no longer believes in blood letting. Chazal did. So, Nishtanu hatevah? Did chazal have an independent mesorah from Sinai about blood letting, what to do/not do to, eat/not eat before/after or did they follow the recommendations of the local blood letting association of Pumbedisah? What do you honestly think? Do you believe we should still practice blood letting and today's doctors are just wrong? It's not a difficult or dangeroud procedure, anybody that gives blood goes through it regularly.
How do you know the "bizarre remedies" and bloodletting doesn't work? You made it up on the spot. Thank God we have people more serious and competent than you. The reason we don't do bloodletting is because we have much better remedies.
No, you don't know from modern science. You haven't shown any knowledge of science, not that it matters, because modern science doesn't discuss the "bizarre remedies" of the Talmud or bloodletting.
And why do you think modern science doesn't discuss bloodletting? You think the medical profession randomly dropped it as a cure, in a collective bout of amnesia, some time in the 19th century or therabouts?
Bloodletting is not even marketed to naïve chareidim as a quack remedy, like many other things like gemstones, silver rings and blessed coins. And that's saying something.
Ah, so you admit that you know nothing about science, and that science doesn't demonstrate that bloodletting doesn't work?
Ok, now your new argument is "Why doesn't modern science discuss bloodletting?" For some reason you think that demonstrates something. Along those lines, an infinitely stronger argument is "Why was bloodletting so prevalent in the ancient world if it was completely useless?"
There is a categorical difference between saying that Chazal were wrong (which is what you seem to be saying), and suggesting that the science mentioned in a rishon is incorrect.
The Chasam Sofer does NOT say that the gemara is wrong. He merely says that the explanation of Rashi and Tosfos does not fit with what we see in front of our eyes. When a rishon explains a gemara using science that ha since been discarded, we offer new explanations in the gemara, we do not reject the entire gemara!!
That Chasam Sofer that you cite, prefers the Rambam's explanation, as he thinks it fits better with what we see. The Rambam's explanation is also difficult to fit entirely with a picture from a modern medical text book. It is possible to reconcile much of Tosfos's explanation with a picture from a modern textbook. There still remains some parts which require further study.
Yes, that is what we say when we see a gemara that we can not explain, that the matter requires further study. We do not grant ourselves the right to ignore a gemara that we do not understand.
As an aside, there is some truth in each of your 3 'answers'. If you have ever learned Hilchos Nudah in depth you will know that there is something there that is a significant change in modern women.
The world was not crated to look old to trick people. It takes years for starlight to reach us, yet the first men saw starlight. They did not have to wait decades or more for the starlight to appear.
Yes, at times the gemara does speak about metaphysical or mystical topics garbed in scientific sounding words. I don't know why you are surprised at this, or why you reject it out of hand.
Yes I have. A large section of that book is discussing the impact of changes on halochoh. That is not what we are discussing here. I am aware Tosfos states SHEMA nishtanu hatveah (he's not sure) with regard to talmudic medical cures. But you have to remember also Tosfos (and his society) back then did not know very much at all about the human body and disease (is it apikorsus to say that?). He wouldn't know enough on medicine and biology to say that it is highly unlikely, touching on impossible, that human body and disease has changed so substantially in a relatively low number of years.
A. I hope that you know that תוספות is not one ראשון but many many ראשונים. It's not a דעת יחיד.
B. תוספות say נשתנה הטבע about other סוגיות as well, e.g. the minimal age of a cow when giving birth. That's something that חז"ל knew from first-hand knowledge, and so did תוספות. Yet the ages are different. Answer: נשתנה הטבע.
I agree that several ba'alei tosfos are given the collective name 'tosfos'
But each 'tosfos' in shas is one ba'al tosfos unless the same 'tosfos' brings more than one 'ba'al tosfos ' within. I hope you know that.
And it's SHEMA nishtanu hatevah, by the way. And everybody agrees that 8mth gestation babies now survive and similar. Change in environmental external factors is very different.
A. No. Many תוספות have no names, only וא"ת וי"ל ועוד י"ל, and yet contain a קושיא from one בעל תוספות and an answer or two (or more) from other בעלי תוספות. As can be shown from קבצי תוספות מקבילים and other ספרי ראשונים
You also don't have enough knowledge to say that it is highly unlikely, touching on impossible, that human body and disease has changed so substantially in a relatively low number of years. You just made that up on the spot without providing a single piece of evidence. And since I asked you this before, I know you don't have any. So why would we reject this answer of Tosafos simply because of your unsupported opinion?
You have no idea what I know and what I don’t know. But yes, if you want to go down the line of all scientists, researchers, medical historians are bunch of kofrom that make things up, fine. But be consistent and avood all medicines, hospitals etc on the basis that they are run by a bunch of kofrim who don’t know anything and make stuff up. We sought that inconsistency during COVID when the same folk who said doxtors don’t know what they are doing happily ran around to the same doctors for everything else. But consistency and behaving logically is not a strong chareidi point.
True I am not a navi, but I can see what knowledge you display, which is very little. Maybe you are just that good at hiding it.
We don't have to call anybody kofrim, when you have not produced a shred of evidence for your assertion. But very good yeshivish deflection to hospitals and Covid. 10 points for that. Unfortunately this is not the coffee room where such deflectionary tactics work. Bye bye, have a good night and freiliche Chanuka.
The other approach would be on a case by case basis, either reinterpreting Chazal, or explaining why the science of their time was sufficient. For example, lice that you can't see the eggs without a microscope, you are allowed to kill on shabbos.
For another example, see The Camel, the Hare, and the Hyrax, written by our dear friend, director of the Biblical Museum and the Rationalist Circus.
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
Rabbi Inbal has a nuanced position, see here https://rationalbelief.org.il/%D7%9B%D7%98-%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2/
His point with the keilim is that according to Amitai, there is no reason to even *investigate* anything, because Chazal were just relying on outdated science, so why should their halacha be binding at all? Why not just throw out most of Yoreh Deah? The same way you wouldn't take Galen's medical texts seriously, except for historical purposes. Whereas if you assume Chazal knew what they were talking about, there is what to discuss.
Thanks! Read through the link. Very well presented. But again, I found nothing controversial in that link. Where does he say anything like slifkin? Did I miss a different maareh makom?
I think you got confused (or maybe I wrote confusingly). It is Amitai who said like Slifkin, not Rabbi Inbal.
Ah!! K thanks
So what's "not yeshivish?"
"....Rabbi Inbal tackles the claim......"
יש להשיב על כך, אבל לא אשיב
I hardly call that 'tackling the claim"!!!!
Lol you didn't even bother reading the rest of the paragraph
I did. He states blandly that he has read the science of that time and it is not umos ha'olam. And he is wrong. Some very much is. And clearly that is not the answer he is referring to as 'he is not saying' because he does say it.
He brings zero citations.
He cites plenty of sources in his book and other articles. He is right. 99.9% of the stuff Chazal say does not correlate with the non-jewish science of the time.
Read his book, thar's were he deals with issue seriously and with sources.
where he deals
"Beware though- his opinions are not necessarily strictly “yeshivish”- if that matters to you"
I checked it out a bit, he seems to say the things Slifkin was saying 20 years ago, which originally got him in trouble. I'm assuming that's what you're referring to.
Do you know why he hasn't been banned? Are the Gedolim nowadays more "open-minded" than 20 years ago?
Really? I see alot more nuance there. In any case, Slifkin wasn't just banned for this controversial opinion or that, but for a bunch of different reasons, including politics and including his own stupid sense of pride.
You would know better than me, I haven't read any in great detail.
He quotes Dr. Joshua Berman's book, Ani Maamin, for example. Is his approach much different than Slifkin's Science in Torah? (Serious question).
He quotes lots of people and books he doesn't agree with or doesn't agree with fully, including Christians and atheists. He brings essays from Berman and and other such people on his site, but sometimes pops into the comments to disagree.
Ban Rav Inbal?!
No one who could read Slifkin's book comes close to him, both in his massive bekius in Shas Uposkim and extensive shimush by the Gedolei Talmidei Chachamim מחוג החזו"א.
Check out his sefarim, kunteisim and maamrim on אוצה"ח. The sefer Happy referenced is also on אוצה"ח if you have מכון הרב קוק. Two of his sefarim are not on אוצה"ח but are in the BMG otsar.
Also, seee here https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?t=21720&start=240 a fascinating debate about his sefer where the mechaber sticks up for himself. It gives a nice picture of his personality.
Gedolim are wary of banning these days. This book, and author has not been banned, even though he writes 'outrageous' things about those that follow rishonim and acharomin who don't use degrees and refuse to accept that degrees of the sun below horizon is the only way to keep zemanim properly) and ignore modern scientific developments in astronomy. He lays into Rabbeinu Tam big time, saying RT was just plain out wrong. Maybe he has good connections with the Lakewood ayatollahs (or maybe he just old fashioned rich and supports mosdos widely), there is no other credible explanation as to why he is not banned. He writes following outdated science is the way of fundamentalism Muslims today, and the true torah path, the torah and rishonim have always been open to new scientific developments.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Zmanim-Debate-History-Science/dp/1957579129
You realize that Slifkin had a post about that book a few months ago, right? And was completely demolished in the comments section. That book was not only not banned, it was given haskamos by Rav Shlomo Miller and Rav Reisman (who himself is a big proponent of RT).
As I said before, Slifkin was not just banned for his controversial opinions, there were books that came before and after him that had a controversial opinions. There were a bunch of factors that led to Slifkin's ban which included politics, his chutzpah, and his stupid pride that didn't let himself back down.
My question is why it was not banned. The way he writes about talmidei chachomim who ignore modern developments in astronomy when calculating zemanim is far worse than anything Slifkin wrote. Slifkin just touched the surface in that post.
I don't think it's worse. You have to take the overall context into account. Serious posek writing a serious halachic opinion vs. young hothead writing that there is no doubt that Bereishis is a fairy tale. But as I said, it's more than just the actual controversial opinions.
"vs .young hothead writing that there is no doubt that Bereishis is a fairy tale"
Don't think Slifkin wrote that originally, at the time he was banned.
"politics, his chutzpah, and his stupid pride"
That's not a reason to ban someone. There are plenty of mechutzafim out there. He was banned, or rather his books were banned, because of their content.
What I meant is that the ban didn't *only* happen because of the controversial opinions in his books. It took a lot of other steps for him to get banned, including him stubbornly refusing to back down because he knew better. And I believe it was politics that led to people being interested in getting him banned in the first place (even assuming he totally deserved it).
I believe also that although many other books before and after him may have included similar controversial opinions here and there, he was a "collector" of controversial opinions in his publications, showing he wasn't taking Torah seriously.
So I can infer that you have never heard or saw the many ספרים written by Charedi רבנים about this topic over the last few decades, many of whom say the exact same thing?
None were banned
I have. None of them wrote remotely like that book writes. The others are all just a likut of shittos, basically.
I din't see the new book yet. If and when I'll read it, then I will be able to say if you're right.
Can you provide me the link where he says slifkin kinda stuff?
https://rationalbelief.org.il/%d7%a4%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%a4-%d7%99%d7%94%d7%95%d7%a9%d7%a2-%d7%91%d7%a8%d7%9e%d7%9f-%d7%90%d7%a0%d7%99-%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%9f/
Here's one, where he brings an interview from Berman. I've also seen other similar things.
But like Happy mentioned, he doesn't necessarily agree to him. (Although he can also quote Slifkin for the same price).
Edit: I see now that he explicitly disagrees with Berman
בנוגע לדרך לימוד התורה, הוא נכתב מנקודת מבט ליברלית, שאינה מותאמת לתפיסה האמונית התמימה, רוב הפערים הם פערים של סגנון וניסוח, שאותם יש לתלות ברקעו השונה של המחבר. אך ישנם מספר פערים שקשה לגשר עליהם, ועל המאמין התמים לוותר ולדלג על ההצעות של ברמן
רציו ערכים is one of my favorite sites.
When I first read אביגדור אמיתי quite a few years ago I thought that maybe it's an alias of DNS.
However, אביגדור אמיתי has a much better Hebrew.
לגופם של דברים, I used his writings a few times, when בחורים came to me with תורה ומדע questions.
I showed them that there are many more questions, and then we discussed the answers- מהר"ל, רמח"ל וכו'
That אביגדור אמיתי did not even try to understand.
He may very well have used a ghostwriter or professional editor...
hey mecharker, we miss you...
Avigdor Amitai appears to know a lot more than NS (that he didn't try to understand). I believe he is heavily involved with https://daf-yomi.com/
If you say saw, you are probably correct (he is indeed very בקי, with not much understanding)
Why do you think that he is involved with that site?
It's just a guess, based on the fact that the site links to many of his kuntresim and that he authored many מאמרים על הדף on that site. But now I see there are also many other authors of different מאמרים so it is possible he is just one prolific contributor.
Thank you!
Clearly the Chasam Sofer never read the memo, when he called out Rashi's explaination in niddoh on 'moshlo moshol, three chambers' as rashi being completely wrong.
There are three main 'yeshivish answers' all others are variations on the below.
1) Nishtanu hatevah. That's a blind faith take it or leave it answer, which doesn't work too well for talmudic and rishonic statements, which are relatively recent in the existence of humanity. We have zero evidence that bodies changed.
2) The world was created old, that works for somethings, not for others, and again is a take it or leave it answer.
3) The Maharal that its all metaphysical. Again, that simply does not work when the talmud derives or links halochoh to the statements.
If you have any other answers that are not variations on the above, do share.
Let's narrow it down. How do you explain to your talmudim how the bizarre talmudic remedies for illness ever worked? How do you explain the chazal about yackov and eisov's bechora issue with stones in a tube or whatever, when we know that is not how twins 'work'? Nishtanu hatevah?
Do you know that 200 years ago nobody had a clue what blood actually does? Hence blood letting. For some reason, your local doctor no longer believes in blood letting. Chazal did. So, Nishtanu hatevah? Did chazal have an independent mesorah from Sinai about blood letting, what to do/not do to, eat/not eat before/after or did they follow the recommendations of the local blood letting association of Pumbedisah? What do you honestly think? Do you believe we should still practice blood letting and today's doctors are just wrong? It's not a difficult or dangeroud procedure, anybody that gives blood goes through it regularly.
Sorry, you are so unknowledgeable on this topic, it's not worth discussing with you. Read some of Rabbi Inbal's articles, it might help you.
How do you know the "bizarre remedies" and bloodletting doesn't work? You made it up on the spot. Thank God we have people more serious and competent than you. The reason we don't do bloodletting is because we have much better remedies.
I know from modern science. You seem to be deliberately missing the point here.
No, you don't know from modern science. You haven't shown any knowledge of science, not that it matters, because modern science doesn't discuss the "bizarre remedies" of the Talmud or bloodletting.
And why do you think modern science doesn't discuss bloodletting? You think the medical profession randomly dropped it as a cure, in a collective bout of amnesia, some time in the 19th century or therabouts?
Bloodletting is not even marketed to naïve chareidim as a quack remedy, like many other things like gemstones, silver rings and blessed coins. And that's saying something.
Ah, so you admit that you know nothing about science, and that science doesn't demonstrate that bloodletting doesn't work?
Ok, now your new argument is "Why doesn't modern science discuss bloodletting?" For some reason you think that demonstrates something. Along those lines, an infinitely stronger argument is "Why was bloodletting so prevalent in the ancient world if it was completely useless?"
There is a categorical difference between saying that Chazal were wrong (which is what you seem to be saying), and suggesting that the science mentioned in a rishon is incorrect.
The Chasam Sofer does NOT say that the gemara is wrong. He merely says that the explanation of Rashi and Tosfos does not fit with what we see in front of our eyes. When a rishon explains a gemara using science that ha since been discarded, we offer new explanations in the gemara, we do not reject the entire gemara!!
That Chasam Sofer that you cite, prefers the Rambam's explanation, as he thinks it fits better with what we see. The Rambam's explanation is also difficult to fit entirely with a picture from a modern medical text book. It is possible to reconcile much of Tosfos's explanation with a picture from a modern textbook. There still remains some parts which require further study.
Yes, that is what we say when we see a gemara that we can not explain, that the matter requires further study. We do not grant ourselves the right to ignore a gemara that we do not understand.
As an aside, there is some truth in each of your 3 'answers'. If you have ever learned Hilchos Nudah in depth you will know that there is something there that is a significant change in modern women.
The world was not crated to look old to trick people. It takes years for starlight to reach us, yet the first men saw starlight. They did not have to wait decades or more for the starlight to appear.
Yes, at times the gemara does speak about metaphysical or mystical topics garbed in scientific sounding words. I don't know why you are surprised at this, or why you reject it out of hand.
So I can infer that you never saw the ספר who discusses all of these issues and questions- השתנות הטבעים בהלכה?
Yes I have. A large section of that book is discussing the impact of changes on halochoh. That is not what we are discussing here. I am aware Tosfos states SHEMA nishtanu hatveah (he's not sure) with regard to talmudic medical cures. But you have to remember also Tosfos (and his society) back then did not know very much at all about the human body and disease (is it apikorsus to say that?). He wouldn't know enough on medicine and biology to say that it is highly unlikely, touching on impossible, that human body and disease has changed so substantially in a relatively low number of years.
A. I hope that you know that תוספות is not one ראשון but many many ראשונים. It's not a דעת יחיד.
B. תוספות say נשתנה הטבע about other סוגיות as well, e.g. the minimal age of a cow when giving birth. That's something that חז"ל knew from first-hand knowledge, and so did תוספות. Yet the ages are different. Answer: נשתנה הטבע.
I agree that several ba'alei tosfos are given the collective name 'tosfos'
But each 'tosfos' in shas is one ba'al tosfos unless the same 'tosfos' brings more than one 'ba'al tosfos ' within. I hope you know that.
And it's SHEMA nishtanu hatevah, by the way. And everybody agrees that 8mth gestation babies now survive and similar. Change in environmental external factors is very different.
A. No. Many תוספות have no names, only וא"ת וי"ל ועוד י"ל, and yet contain a קושיא from one בעל תוספות and an answer or two (or more) from other בעלי תוספות. As can be shown from קבצי תוספות מקבילים and other ספרי ראשונים
B. They sometimes say שמא, and sometimes not.
You also don't have enough knowledge to say that it is highly unlikely, touching on impossible, that human body and disease has changed so substantially in a relatively low number of years. You just made that up on the spot without providing a single piece of evidence. And since I asked you this before, I know you don't have any. So why would we reject this answer of Tosafos simply because of your unsupported opinion?
You have no idea what I know and what I don’t know. But yes, if you want to go down the line of all scientists, researchers, medical historians are bunch of kofrom that make things up, fine. But be consistent and avood all medicines, hospitals etc on the basis that they are run by a bunch of kofrim who don’t know anything and make stuff up. We sought that inconsistency during COVID when the same folk who said doxtors don’t know what they are doing happily ran around to the same doctors for everything else. But consistency and behaving logically is not a strong chareidi point.
True I am not a navi, but I can see what knowledge you display, which is very little. Maybe you are just that good at hiding it.
We don't have to call anybody kofrim, when you have not produced a shred of evidence for your assertion. But very good yeshivish deflection to hospitals and Covid. 10 points for that. Unfortunately this is not the coffee room where such deflectionary tactics work. Bye bye, have a good night and freiliche Chanuka.
The other approach would be on a case by case basis, either reinterpreting Chazal, or explaining why the science of their time was sufficient. For example, lice that you can't see the eggs without a microscope, you are allowed to kill on shabbos.
For another example, see The Camel, the Hare, and the Hyrax, written by our dear friend, director of the Biblical Museum and the Rationalist Circus.
Great non-answer. Don't waste my time. Teach yourself to say "I don't know".
Did blood letting ever work, and if so, what changed?
Huh.
My sincerest apologies for taking your question seriously.