"I've explained NUMEROUS times how he misrepresents my positions. I'm not going through it all again. I'll just give you one example because it's very short and simple. He hyperlinks me as saying "Tosafos thought centipedes had asymmetric legs because Aristotle thought men have more teeth." I said nothing of the sort. Tosafos SAYS that centipedes have asymmetric legs, and I did not give a reason for this error, but I noted that even great people held mistaken beliefs which were not empirically checked, such as Aristotle."
This is laughable. If anything, this is an example of Natan misrepresenting what he himself said. Here is the passage in question:
"But someone once wrote to me to ask me about another intriguing reference in rabbinic literature. Tosafot (Eruvin 8b), describing alleyways that stem asymetrically from a major alley, compares them to the legs of a centipede. My questioner asked that surely their body is based on bilateral symmetry - each leg has another leg directly opposite. So why did the Tosafist say that they are asymmetrical? In contrast to elephants, there are plenty of centipedes in Europe to observe. How did Tosafot get it wrong?
The answer is that centuries ago, people just didn't have a mindset of checking to see if their assumptions and common beliefs were actually correct. Even the great Aristotle said things that were not only incorrect, but easily observable to be incorrect, such as that men have more teeth than women - and nobody thought to check. Modern science, which is based on empirical observation and testing, is an innovation."
He said "I did not give a reason for this error", but he actually did. He wrote in that post "The answer is that centuries ago, people just didn't have a mindset of checking to see if their assumptions and common beliefs were actually correct." This is a dumb statement that makes no sense (to the extent that people make mistakes about things that were in front of their nose, the same can be said for modern people), but what's even dumber is that he brings evidence from a mistake from Aristotle, who live over 1000 years earlier in a completely different culture than Tosafos. Anybody can see I didn't misrepresent him at all.
"I am guessing here, but I think that RNS is pointing out that HAPPY said “Tosafos thought centipedes had asymmetric legs because Aristotle thought men have more teeth.” With the operative word in that quote being “BECAUSE.”
Of course, RNS did NOT say that. I think RNS did say that it’s not surprising that Tosafos made the mistake regarding thinking centipedes have asymmetrical legs; lots of other people, including Aristotle, made similar mistakes before empirical testing became popular."
Ironically, Jeffrey is unintentionally misrepresenting Natan. Natan said (in a way that does not display great intelligence on his part) "people just didn't have a mindset of checking to see if their assumptions and common beliefs were actually correct." Meaning people just made stuff up on the spot without checking things that they literally saw on an everyday basis (like centipedes, or teeth). This has nothing to do with empirical testing (which is also completely wrong, people did test things when it was practical). And either way, the comparison of a mistake from Aristotle to prove a point about a different person in a completely different culture 1400 years later is absurd. My characterization of what Natan wrote is accurate.
“Ironically, Jeffrey is unintentionally misrepresenting Natan.” Certainly possible, but at least I wrote: “ I think RNS did say …” The “I think” indicates that I realize in advance that I may be wrong - interpreting someone else’s words is very difficult; we do the best we can but do not always succeed. Too often we are too quick to point out the errors in what others do and say (even though it’s also very likely based at least partially on our own misinterpretation of what they are saying) and at the same time we are way too often so self assured, that whatever we say or whatever we believe must be correct. The only way.
I think politicians and bloggers are among the most guilty of this trait. RNS, Happy (more than just a contributor), and many others - and myself when I get carried away. The relative anonymity of the blogosphere has done little good for civility in dialogue. I guess to get subscribers y’all need to communicate in absolutes. The “i think” and “you make a good point” and other equivocations don’t bring the readers in.
Well, I’m not buying what you’re selling. Yes, I probably to one extent or another completely misunderstand everything I hear from everyone. (Including, or maybe especially, from my wife) but I try to remind myself to be open minded.
“This has nothing to do with empirical testing” maybe, maybe not. Observations and empiricism are not too far off for each other.
“Meaning people just made stuff up on the spot without checking things that they literally saw on an everyday basis”. Not necessarily. We try to explain things, we have old wives tales and folk lore and all sorts of things which are based in empirical reality.
“My characterization of what Natan wrote is accurate.” I simply don’t see how anything you wrote anywhere shows that RNS said Tosafos thought centipedes had asymmetric legs because Aristotle thought men have more teeth.” With the operative word in that quote being “BECAUSE.” Might be my small mind, and I don’t expect you to hold my hand and show me, but I’m just not seeing it.
“Also, it's very ironic that neither Natan nor Jeffrey checked Aristotle inside”. I don’t know why it’s ironic that I didn’t check Aristotle. All I did was quote RNS, Happy, and Obeirchochom. For all I care, RNS could have been talking about Confucius instead of Aristotle. All I tried to do was point out RNS didn’t write what Happy said he did. And didn’t care what Aristotle said or why, nor do I care now - that’s not relevant to me. I know from other sources that the scientific method and empirical testing is quite a rather modern development.
"Might be my small mind, and I don’t expect you to hold my hand and show me, but I’m just not seeing it."-You don't have a small mind, but, c'mon, this one is pretty obvious! He thought Tosafos didn't check because (he thinks) Aristotle didn't check!
"Not necessarily"- Not sure what you mean, this is literally what he is saying about centipedes and teeth. He's not, like, talking about the curvature of the earth
"Observations and empiricism are not too far off for each other."- Sure, but it's really dumb to think that people noticing or failing to notice what was in front of their noses has anything to do with the scientific revolution.
" I know from other sources that the scientific method and empirical testing is quite a rather modern development."- Then you didn't check all the sources (rather ironic isn't it?) The Greeks did plenty of empirical testing. If you mean it was more difficult to test certain things due to lack of technology and communication, that would be more accurate.
“ He thought Tosafos didn't check because (he thinks) Aristotle didn't check!”. Maybe you’re right, you’re much better at interpreting other people than I am. I understood the reference to “Aristotle” to be just an example of millions of people he could have chosen who didn’t/ don’t check.
“ ‘Not necessarily’- Not sure what you mean…He's not, like, talking about the curvature of the earth”. Then you didn’t understand my reference to old wives tales, folklore
Etc. humans like to explain and classify and give reasons for things. Sometime a we’re right, and sometimes not. But “fake news” travels far - even before Trump was elected.
“Sure, but it's really dumb to think that people noticing or failing to notice what was in front of their noses has anything to do with the scientific revolution” spoken like someone on this side of the revolution; and that’s one thing adds difficulty to our attempt to understand our ancestors.
“Then you didn't check all the sources (rather ironic isn't it?) The Greeks did plenty of empirical testing. If you mean it was more difficult to test certain things due to lack of technology and communication, that would be more accurate.“
You got me on that one. I actually meant neither - yes certain things that they thought was important certain people did empirically test and study. There were just many more things that most people either didn’t think or care to study. Today we still have folklore and old wives tales and the like, we (as a collective society) just *also* use science and empirical testing with regard to many more areas.
"Then you didn’t understand my reference to old wives tales, folklore Etc. humans like to explain and classify and give reasons for things. Sometime a we’re right, and sometimes not...spoken like someone on this side of the revolution; and that’s one thing adds difficulty to our attempt to understand our ancestors. "
Right, so you can make up whatever myths you want about our ancestors. You can say that they didn't know rain makes you wet, or that mosquito bites are from mosquitoes, or that flatulence smells. But you are doing exactly what you attribute to our ancestors -making up old wives tales with no basis in reality -*after* the scientific revolution! And Natan bringing "evidence" from an alleged mistake of Aristotle is dumber than dumb.
"There were just many more things that most people either didn’t think or care to study."
- More old wives tales. I just find it so funny that here you are doing the exact thing that you attribute to the "pre-scientific revolution " ancestors!
I understand if Natan does this, but I expect better from you!
You can continue to be as contrarian as you like. This is, after all, your blog.
You can make fun. You can stake out extreme positions and give extreme silly analogies like “they didn't know rain makes you wet”. But that doesn’t change the fact that there was a scientific revolution after hundreds of years of dark ages.
It doesn’t change the fact that Aristotle’s faith in philosophy predominated over the more modern scientific method which includes hypothesis and test and revision of hypothesis etc.
It doesn’t change the fact that centipedes may appear from a distance like their legs are asymmetrical, but in reality are essentially symmetrical. (At least to the extent that any of us are truly symmetrical, which is really not fully accurate either).
On the other hand, It certainly doesn’t mean that their are no modern day philosophers as well as scientific “experts” making predictions whether by interpolation or extrapolation and deducing potential eventualities (and historical events) which have yet to be proven to the best standards that modern science can achieve - and that those standards are moving also.
But yeh, keep making fun and growing your subscriber base. Your choir is big enough to keep preaching to.
Jeffrey, the "because" was not explicit but unquestionably implied by the logical construction Natan assembled. It is not misquoting or inaccurately stating that in any way.
He resorted to Aristotle to justify his completely boneheaded (but all too typical for those who imbibe too much from 100% false secular wisdom) ideas on how the world works and people think.
Clearly, science according to the common understanding today was done in ancient times. The Babylonians in particular were obsessive observers and recorders of the motions of the heavens (their data is utilized to this day to predict eclipses, as one example of their influence and impact). So much so that chaza"l wrongly deferred to their conclusions based on their science.
Thus proving the point of Happy's accurate phrasing of Natan's stance. Aristotle, the example he used, did engage in observation.
The assumption that empiricism and observation were not done in those days is flat out wrong. Rationalists don't make exceptions and are incapable of nuance. Then again, today many things are measured that have no business being measured. It's just a form of science porn.
I honestly don’t know how you get from “certain things that they thought was important certain people did empirically test and study.” Or “Aristotle, the example he used, did engage in observation.”
To therefore “Happy accurately phrased Nathan’s stance” when he said “Tosafos thought centipedes had asymmetric legs because Aristotle thought men have more teeth.” With the operative word in that quote being “BECAUSE.””
Parenthetically, that last sentence was mine, not Happy’s; it’s another nasty example of how unintentional or even deliberately deceptive misquotes can easily happen.
Correct. But Aristotle is not THE reason. It’s just an example of the reason. There are many other examples one could choose from, from either the medieval period or even modern. (There further one goes back in scientific history the greater the number of misconceptions.)
Secondly if you did say that I.e. “because” then you admit now that it’s a misrepresentation?
It's not an exact quote, but expresses exactly what Natan was expressing, and is not a misrepresentation at all.
You are right that there are many modern examples of people saying or writing things carelessly, without checking. That is true. One prominent example is when Natan wrote that, he didn't bother checking Aristotle inside, to see that Aristotle mentioned that the fact was actually based on observation.
I do wonder what you think about the misrepresentation of people misrepresenting who they are, hmmmm?
I don’t think it is actually representing what Natan said.
Natan said that people often say things based on a misconception.
He used Aristotle as an example of that. He was not using Aristotle as a proof that Tosfot can have a misconception. It was simply an example. He takes it as a given that people, e.g me, you, Tosfot, Aristotle, Einstein, Rabbi X can occasionally say things based on misconception without needing a ‘proof’ per se from Aristotle. If he hadn’t brought the Aristotle example his point would still stand.
However all of this seems like you were making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill and seems very pedantic.
Is your issue that Tosfot possibly had a misconception about centipedes? Or is it that someone stated that someone as great as (a Baal) Tosfot most likely had a misconception? Or is it that Natan said it?
This is a misrepresentation of what Natan said. He did not just say "even smart people sometimes make dumb mistakes". Rather, he said "centuries ago, people just didn't have a mindset of checking to see if their assumptions and common beliefs were actually correct." He made a very specific (and stupid) historical statement distinguishing between the mindset of people living now and living centuries ago. And then he brought evidence from Aristotle to Tosafos, because they both lived "centuries ago". So it is extremely dumb, he should have just retracted and admitted he said something dumb, but no, he can't do that. I have never seen a single retraction from him that was not "I realized I was more right than I ever thought" or "I made this tiny mistake, but my larger point stands more than ever".
Can you at least admit he is a buffoon and a fool?
Secondly, even without his historical assessment which was just off-the-charts stupid, an intelligent person should give it a little more thought rather than just saying Tosafos made a dumb mistake.
I think you are misunderstanding Happy's usage of the word "because". Obviously neither Natan nor Happy said that TOSFOS'S reason to think that centipedes have asymmetrical legs was *because* Aristotle made scientific claims which were not based on empirical evidence. But NATAN'S reason to think that in Tosfos's time people made stuff up without checking if it was true was *because* Aristotle, who lived over one thousand years prior, in a different time and era, did so (besides the fact that as HGL pointed out, it's clear that Aristotle did base that statement on observation, even if the observation may have been faulty).
So yes, Happy's quote of Natan is entirely accurate, and Natan is running scared looking for excuses to censor Happy because he does not like to repeatedly be made to look like a fool. Can't exactly blame him, can you.
I don’t think Natan is saying that people just made stuff up. He was saying there was a prior misconception and people make statements based on the misconception. Tosfot was not making any categorical statements about centipedes. He was stating how something would look based on how he understood Centipede anatomy. If he was making a categorical statement then yes, one would expect Tosfot and most others to check their facts prior to making the statement, but Tosfot wasn’t doing that.
“He was not using Aristotle as a proof that Tosfot can have a misconception.”
He was using the example to demonstrate that that was how science operated at the time. That they didn’t bother to “count the horses teeth”. So yes, that is an attempt to prove the concept he’s trying to claim to *explain* tosfos.
You are totally misrepresenting him, gotta watch what you say so he doesn’t ban you.
I have to examine the chasam sofer to formulate an opinion on this but I'm here to comment how much I like the photo that came along with this article.
I imagine he saw the Derashos Haran used to explain how it is that Chazal based their pesakim on the metzius of their times and he forgot that the Ran doesn't explain the concept of continuing to follow them today. That's how amhaaratzus operates.
Good Erev Shabbos. I spent some time on the subject and now I understand the CS neither like you nor like RDS. But my understanding is too radical to share with the public here. The CS is so maarich from ושוב אומר סברה אחרת until זה פי' הברור בספרי & what does he want...?
Notably, Der Heiligeh Rashi either didn't have our ספרי or wasn't concerned to quote it verbatim. Each Chumash & Sifri I'm looking at has a word or so different than the other. For example is it וכ"ש שאומרים or וכ"ש כשאומרים? Is Rashi also adding on the Sifri...?
Technically, RDS is correct when he says that the two sevaras are not the Sifri. I wonder what good that does him in the long run.
It would be too much for now. And I admit that it has certain holes that we would end up parsing back and forth, only IMHO it's still correct. You can consider that a cop out, or if time allows, thoroughly review that part of the CS in honor of this week's Parsha.
I commented about this in a previous post, but adding it here due to relevance. Here is a case where Chaza"l said they were wrong and the goyim were right, and later a goy said they were wrong to concede! If they were never in the wrong here, in a case where all they had to rely on was our mesorah on the matter versus the Babylonians with their diligent and obsessive empirical observations over centuries, how much more so on matters that Slifkin, an intellectual lightweight, likes to think he comprehends.
Tycho Brahe was familiar with the machlokes in the Gemara regarding the chachamim and the gentile scholars about the motions of the spheres and stars. And he, one of the foremost scientific minds of history, certainly of his day, said the Jews were right and chaza"l should never have conceded anything.
In Chapter 25 of Nahmad v’Ne’eman by David Gans:
“Tycho Brahe said to me that the [Jewish] sages did not do well to incorrectly admit defeat before the Gentile sages.
For in fact the truth is like the position of the Jewish sages, who stated that the stars move in their own orbits, without being forced to do so by the motion of the spheres.
They move independently, like a bird in flight, and [Tycho] added many proofs to this opinion.”
I've heard several stories told over numerous times by Rabbi Yaron Reuven (compared in some way to Hitler by Natan) and Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi, that I think are instructive how Hashem relates to Chaza"l and the Gedolim, not just in our generation, but in every generation, and "mistakes" (yes, in scare quotes) they might theoretically or actually make.
These are my recollections of what I heard, not direct quotes. I don't know the exact stories, but I have no doubt about their general accuracy.
Reb Moshe was once confronted by a woman who claimed he gave her a herter to remarry, presenting a document from his beis din with his signature, and mah pitom!, her supposedly dead husband showed up one day, and she accused him of making a mistake, and her predicament was his fault.
He stood firm in the face of her accusations, until she relented and admitted to fabricating the entire story. After, his talmidim asked how he could be so certain in his denial when faced with a seemingly authentic document. He replied that, it is one thing for he as private individual to make a mistake, but in his guise as the Gadol Hador and posek, it was inconceivable that Hashem would allow him to err so egregiously and with such consequences (she had children by her new husband) for the tzibbur he is moser nefesh for. So, no way her claim had credence.
Another, more interesting case was that of a woman who got, under false pretenses, a similar heter from Rav Yosef. She was a left wing reporter who wanted to scandalize him. As soon as she got the heter, ready to boast to the world about the fallibility of the gedolim, her husband died in a car accident or something, as she spoke to him on the phone about her "victory". This was apparently big news in Israel when it happened.
Hashem protects his agents even when a psak is obtained by false testimony that is accepted as valid. Then, and now.
The reason the Mamzerus story is untrue is because the sources tell us that it is possible for the psak of היתר נישואין to be disproven. It was never supposed to prove the husband's death with a 100% certainty. If the husband indeed returned from the dead, it would not disprove the psak.
There is a story with Reb Yitzchok Elchanan about this, that he was unperturbed when a husband returned.
The second story is meaningful., if true. But nothing to do with psak Halacha. לעולם לא יוציא אדם דבר מגונה מפיו.
The basic idea is, our religion does not need such stories to exist, and basing kiruv on them cheapens our Torah.
I am not a big fan of Reuven or Mizrachi, for these reasons. They are basing a kiruv on wonders and miracles, on anger and hate, on nihilism and cynicism - none of them being positive. Just teach Torah, from Bereishis till Vezos Haberacha, with Rashi. Mishnayos, Gemara, Medrash. Not 'hashkafah' and fire and brimstone. It brings out the worst in people and does not have a long-term effect.
There is a teshuva in the bach where he describes how he gave a heter for a woman to remarry and her husband ended up being alive. Rav Eliyah)u Klatzkin is bothered by it in the intro to one of his seforim.
(It should be noted that it does not say she actually went ahead and got remarried.)
I've listened to them enough. Their kiruv is not based on anything like you say.
Apprising their listeners that evil acts result in evil consequences is not negative, especially when there are many rabbis who dress like them who say that they can continue on the derech they are on without worry. There are people who are mechalel Shabbos their entire lives, even while attending an Orthodox shul, because no rabbi ever told them there was a problem with their behavior. That they do so sounds jarring to people like you. People like you are wrong.
Decades ago, that kind of positivist kiruv worked. I didn't need "fire and brimstone" for example. But those were times when degeneracy was still in the closet, where it belonged. Today, when it is in your face, when evil is called good, and good evil, a stronger approach resonates more and is more appropriate.
For the traditional sefardi community this may be true. Nowadays with the internet his messagr is read by many who will be instantly turned off to Torah. IF they were the Rabbis i took seriously i wouldnt be frum. Would you?
Yes, because I don't have my head stuck somewhere it doesn't belong. Many people are incapable of accepting tochacha. I have, and acted on it, multiple times. My interest has always been in the emes, not my conception of it.
“Many people are incapable of accepting tochacha.”
Too true. Then again, many people don’t know how to give tochacha either. As we learn, we should push away with the weaker left hand and draw closer with the stronger right hand (Sota 47).
“My interest has always been in the emes, not my conception of it.”
If only more people in the world (including me) really tried to find actual emet.
Dont you want to hear an intelligient message? Why go for the simplistic fluff on youtube? Id accept tochacha from my Rabanim bec they are actually people i look up to. Otherwise i wouldnt want to hear a word of what theyd have to say.
You assume much from little. My friends and rabbi and wife of 30 years provide the tochacha, not some rabbis I enjoy listening to on Youtube. They are not my rabbis, but I have learned things from them. Rabbi Reuven's series on Jewish Intimacy in particular is amazing and well worth listening to. It is hardly fluff. You don't sound like a retard. Don't act like one.
Being involved in Kiruv myself for over a decade, I can say for Ashkenazim that you are dead wrong, although I agree it works for Sephardim, as Rabbis Reuven and Mizrachi mainly deal with.
My best friend was a popular and effective rabbi at one of the preeminent Charedi kiruv organizations in the world for decades. I was mekarev in the late 80s and he in the early 90s.
We spoke for years about this kind of stuff. You are right and wrong. I am hardly dead wrong. The state of Ashkenazim today is such that they are practically catatonic and unresponsive to kiruv. This is not like the salad days of the 70s, 80s, and even 90s, when the lighter touch kiruv you advocate produced spectacular results. The Ashkenazi youth today, assuming they are Jewish, even when they come to hear shirium and feel inspired by what they hear, are addicted to porn, struggle with all sorts of sexual perversion, are festooned with tattoos and piercings, and barely move at all towards mitzvah observance. I personally think a stronger approach would be worth trying. It may turn away some, but yet attract others.
How successful are you, really, in your "over a decade" of kiruv work?
I probably shouldn't have used that strong expression, but you are right that Ashkenazim are not doing well because of the problems you mention. טמטום הלב is a real thing, alas. But my mentors in Kiruv who did work in the 80's were actually stronger then than now, and not because they mellowed. I have seen many people get turned off by things being too hard-core, like by hearing a shiur online about zera livatala. I don't sugar up the truth and I still think they respect it when they hear it, but not by talking about Hell and כף הקלע. Maybe you just mean to be assertive and apathetic to their lifestyle and showing them how it sucks, in which case I agree with you. (I was not taught with the Aish school of thought.)
If you want to know my success, I am not the director of the program I work for so I am not closing the deals but I have seen much more success in the program I work for than others, and the percentage is relatively high, but I definitely can take responsibility for sending quite a few people to Yeshiva.
Kol hakavod to you for ANY successes! Online is hardly an effective means of kiruv. It can reach many people, but kiruv really has a strong one on one element.
Yes, in general I mean a more assertive approach. People today are so passive and consumed by their desires and smartphones that even when they desire to change they are incapable of it. Every group and person responds differently, so different approaches are needed. But in general, I think apathy must be responded to assertively.
I didn't need anyone to harangue me at the time about zera livatala. I don't think I ever heard a single rabbi ever discuss it openly 30 years ago. There wasn't such a desperate need for such then like there is today. I understood on my own, that if I wanted to be serious I had to make a choice, which I did B"H. Today, that choice needs to be spelled out clearly and repeatedly, even for those who desire to change, because the indoctrination into degeneracy is from infancy now. It's all taught as acceptable and even praiseworthy today. It doesn't have to be fire and brimstone, which the Sephardim do respond more readily to (and thus is appropriate for them), but it should be chazak, or they don't know there's a problem, or they don't know how serious it is, even if they know they should stop.
Rabbi Reuven has said multiple times that the Shulchan Aruch says spilling seed is the worst sin in the Torah. If so, that's a good way to frame the issue and its importance without getting into the more ethereal aspects of sin which is beyond people steeped in this world.
I agree. However, the Gemara does say that a hidden mamzer will not last more than 3 generations, which is Divinely orchestrated in order not to pollute the yichus of klal Yisroel. So this is another place where we find the concept of Divine Orchestration in halacha observance.
Once we're on the topic, I recall a story with R' Elyashiv, that some Rabbonim in Eretz Yisroel had some suspicions about a ger from Italy brought the ger with his legitimate-looking te'udas geirus from the bais din in Italy to R' Elyashiv. To the surprise of those present, R' Elyashiv took one look at the certificate and declared the person to be a fraud. Later, when asked about his decision, R' Elyashiv explained, "Didn't you see, the word "Jew" on the certificate was written in red!" The Rabbonim were shocked, the entire document was printed in black ink...
And once we're on the topic of R' Elyashiv, there is a story from around 20 years ago where he came out very strongly against a young yungerman who wrote a book that seemed innocent enough. Some things were a little novel, but the genre definitely had precedent in Jewish theology. Well, it's 20 years later and that yungerman is now a complete heretic!
Rabbi Yaron Reuven has told over a story several times he experienced personally about a "hidden mamzer" and indeed the third generation was cut off. He said he wouldn't have believed the story himself if he didn't hear it firsthand.
Some years ago, one of his listeners revealed unknowingly (because of the extreme ignorance of our generation) to him that he was a mamzer. He had a fairly normal life, married a Jew, had a son, and that son married a Jew, and also had a son.
One day that man called him completely crazed and distraught, to tell the rabbi that in front of his eyes, his son and grandson got in their car, and it exploded in front of him, killing them both instantly.
I know that. I don't remember. And it doesn't matter either way. A mamzer's line was wiped out completely. Hashem permitted the first generation to live out his life.
You could contact Rabbi Reuven and ask him yourself. He heard it firsthand from the mamzer. I've communicated with him multiple times. He responds to polite inquiries. Can you be polite? Will you contact him?
"He said he wouldn't have believed the story himself if he didn't hear it firsthand."
Same. I don't believe it either. When I meet the hidden mamzer with a blown out car and dead progeny I'll change my mind. Till then, I assume it's bunk.
Says more about you than Rabbi Reuven. You're pathetic. I had a far more incredible story happen to me personally two years ago. But there's no point in repeating it to you or anyone like you.
Why? You said that the story is so incredible, that Rabbi Reuven would have been justified had he not heard it first-hand. Shaul did not hear it from the protagonist, so according to Reuven himself, he is justified in not believing it.
I am not a fan of proving anything from stories, but since you brought up such a story I'll bring a simmilar one. Rav Yaacov Emden writes in Migilas Sefer that his grandmother lost track of her husband during a pogrom, and the Shaar Ephraim permitted her to remarry based on testimony that he was dead. However, the husband showed up a few weeks later, as he was lying among dead bodies but he himself was not actually dead. Although she did not yet remarry, the shaar Ephraim never again got involved in Agunos.
If he doesn't write it anywhere else, then you cannot trust it.
It's very likely that the maskilim who published megilas sefer added many of these type of stories. The manuscript has never been seen by anyone, unlike all his other seforim.
You are copy-pasting that straight from מגילת פלסטר, a delusional work to discredit the autobiography. The facts are that you can see the manuscript, it is just not published but you can go to Cambridge or Oxford where it is held and go see it. I know people who have seen it, namely Dr. J.J. Shachter who wrote his dissertation on the Yaavetz. The fact is that although it was published by Maskilim it was actually CENSORED by them, and I have the fill ins from someone who went down there and copied it, which doesn't make the autobiography any frummer than it did before (for example 3 lines of curses directed to Rav Yonasan Eibshitz). Another thing is that I've read a Rebuttal from Bambach, a baki in Yaavetz, and affirmed that this is indeed his writing. Additionally, a lot of the "funny things" mentioned there are mentioned in other places, like the hakdama to מור וקציעה. The above story is not something too unbelievable to discredit either.
Yes, was based on megillas plaster, (together with the fact that certain things I saw there didn't match his other seforim). I thought he made a good point, that if there's no manuscript, we have no reason to assume everything is true. I was unaware that the manuscript exists. Can you give me a link to somewhere it says that?
I apologize, the original is lost, but the first-hand copy remains in Oxford and was public by 1810, 80 years before the maskilim published it. This is in the introduction to the Bambach edition to the sefer, and is also on Hebrew Wikipedia.
I wasn't criticizing, I was stating a fact that he says this and it is not the regular thing to curse anyone for 3 lines straight. I am aware of this controversy as well as the evidence you just posted and this can go on forever, but I am not a fan of people taking positions on this 200 years later. The fact is Rav Yonasan Admitted to being taught by someone else in writing these amulets and were not easily detectable unless you already were looking for it. The Pinei Yehoshua Retracted when he realized this, and many, many Gedolim took this side, to the point of majority. If you prefer Mesora as opposed to academia when is comes to astronomy, this should be no different.
Who's proving anything from stories? I said they were "instructive," not proof. They help make the abstract concrete.
I could understand why a mistake like that, even without any lo aleinu consequences, would cause a man to distance himself from such decisions in the future. Many rabbis understandably shy away from such issues, but how would we be as a people if NO rabbis rose to the occasion when needed?
Agreed, I wasn't proving anything from my story either.
I believe that when a Rav Refrains from paskening after he made a mistake, if not from trauma, it would be that he sees that he lacked סיעתא דשמיא even though אין הקב"ה מביא תקלה על ידו in the end.
Yes, that what something I wanted to add to. It was perhaps a "light" message (being free of horrific consequences) from Hashem that these kind of shailos were not for him to respond to.
Sure. I can point you to shiurim where I heard them. But that's obviously not what you have in mind. The story about Rav Yosef sounds like it received some notoriety. Do your own research.
Not that I care anyway, since you claim fairy tale status for much of our mesorah IIRC.
I've heard multiple shiurm by multiple rabbis. A recollection is not a quote or misquote. Do you or do you not consider various stories in our mesorah fairy tales?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Consider searching in Hebrew. It happened in Israel, after all. Try contacting Rabbi Mizrachi for clarification. Or would you rather besmirch him? I would think he would respond favorably to an honest truth-seeker.
I don't have a problem with such a story. I've had my own miraculous experience that RJ-types belittled when I described it on an RJ post some time back about miracles.
I didn't accuse you of such, just provided an opportunity. Glad you didn't. You're not the one who compared his compatriot to Hitler (or whatever Natan said about him).
By way of this idea that I have raised for you, my son — through it, will I explain to you a certain homelitical teaching, which is in the end of the chapter [entitled] HaZahav in Bava Metzia 59b, regarding the story of Rabbi Eliezer the Great and the “oven of Achnai,” which bewilders all who hear it. They said there, “Rabbi Natan met Eliyahu, etc. He said to him, ‘What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do in that hour?’ He said to him, ‘He smiled and said, “My sons have vanquished Me...”’” — meaning that the Holy One, blessed be He, was happy that His sons were walking in the way of the Torah and its commandment, to incline towards the many. And that which He said, “My sons have vanquished Me,” God forbid that there is any victory before Him, blessed be He. Rather, the explanation about this idea is that in the debate of Rabbi Eliezer with his colleagues, the truth was with Rabbi Eliezer; and like the words of the heavenly voice (bat kol) that decided like him. But even though the truth was with him about this — because of his greater analysis over his colleagues — they could not completely fathom his opinion. And [so] they did not want to concede to him even after the heavenly voice; and they brought a proof from the law set in the Torah that commanded us to always go after the many — whether they say the truth or whether they are mistaken. And about this was the response of the Creator, blessed be He, “My sons have vanquished Me.” Meaning, SINCE THEY TURNED AWAY FROM THE TRUE PATH — for Rabbi Eliezer had surmised the truth about this — and they came upon him from the power of the Torah commandment that I commanded them to always listen to the majority; if so, one must nonetheless concede to them this time — like their words — that the truth be absent. And behold, it is as if the Master of truth was defeated.
He says the Rabbonon were wrong, and R Eliezer was correct, but nonetheless we pasken like the wrong party because that is the system. Something that caused great angst over at RJ.
Exactly the same at the zoken mamrei principle according to the CS.
Yes, אמת means the objective truth in שמים, but if they came to a consensus otherwise it was not out of being mistaken. It was that this was their limit of שכל אנושי and that remains the Halacha. That is not called a mistake. A mistake can humanly be avoided or fixed. You can disprove spontaneous generation to the human mind by showing a microscope, but you can't make someone understand things differently with a בת קול simply stating who's right.
My point is thar all those who called that opinion heretical are foolish. And it is perfectly acceptable to accept the CS says the same thing without your kvetching and conveniently ignoring the phrase 'zeh eino'.
The Chasam Sofer says לא סגי, not enough. You have to be exceptionally stupid to think that when he says ז"א, it means something different. You can't even read it in the context of the sentence it is in.
The Chinuch doesn't talk about why they themselves didn't change their mind. The Ran does.
I'm not going to get into a kvetching argument with you.
I know as well as you do that if it would suit you, you would happily argue that "lo sagi" means not enough and therefore the explanation fails. You would happily argue if it suits you that when the gemoroh says 'lo sagi' it means the answer is rejected as being insufficient. And you would continue that that explanation it consistent with "zeh eino" which is a clear and unambiguous rejection. You would happily say that anybody who says 'zeh eino' is not an outright rejection is completely stupid.
But like I said to Natan, Yeshivahland is often about who can kvetch their explanation better into the words. Rather than seeking the truth.
test
33 min ago
The chinuch doesn't say anything about 'following their seichel'. The chinuch says they were flat out wrong.
There is a point to be made by not translating it.
All of us grew up in English or Yiddish. We all had the hurdle of learning to translate Hebrew/Aramaic. If someone is unwilling to invest the time and effort to understand the source material in their original language, or the language in which the Mesora accepted it, he is treating important issues with kalus rosh - lightheadedness. He refuses to treat Torah as important enough to invest time and effort, yet wishes to have his opinions treated with seriousness?!
If someone wishes to know the Torah's theology, let him learn the source material. If someone wishes to win a debate, or explain away his hedonistic lifestyle, let him read the dustcover. He can listen to inspiring pap from pulpit Rabbis, but he will never actually know the sugyos. Don't let him fool himself or others.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/pity-the-zealots/comment/22002761
Natan Slifkin
Author
"I've explained NUMEROUS times how he misrepresents my positions. I'm not going through it all again. I'll just give you one example because it's very short and simple. He hyperlinks me as saying "Tosafos thought centipedes had asymmetric legs because Aristotle thought men have more teeth." I said nothing of the sort. Tosafos SAYS that centipedes have asymmetric legs, and I did not give a reason for this error, but I noted that even great people held mistaken beliefs which were not empirically checked, such as Aristotle."
This is laughable. If anything, this is an example of Natan misrepresenting what he himself said. Here is the passage in question:
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/lots-of-legs
"But someone once wrote to me to ask me about another intriguing reference in rabbinic literature. Tosafot (Eruvin 8b), describing alleyways that stem asymetrically from a major alley, compares them to the legs of a centipede. My questioner asked that surely their body is based on bilateral symmetry - each leg has another leg directly opposite. So why did the Tosafist say that they are asymmetrical? In contrast to elephants, there are plenty of centipedes in Europe to observe. How did Tosafot get it wrong?
The answer is that centuries ago, people just didn't have a mindset of checking to see if their assumptions and common beliefs were actually correct. Even the great Aristotle said things that were not only incorrect, but easily observable to be incorrect, such as that men have more teeth than women - and nobody thought to check. Modern science, which is based on empirical observation and testing, is an innovation."
He said "I did not give a reason for this error", but he actually did. He wrote in that post "The answer is that centuries ago, people just didn't have a mindset of checking to see if their assumptions and common beliefs were actually correct." This is a dumb statement that makes no sense (to the extent that people make mistakes about things that were in front of their nose, the same can be said for modern people), but what's even dumber is that he brings evidence from a mistake from Aristotle, who live over 1000 years earlier in a completely different culture than Tosafos. Anybody can see I didn't misrepresent him at all.
Response to commenter Jeffrey
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/pity-the-zealots/comment/22020819
"I am guessing here, but I think that RNS is pointing out that HAPPY said “Tosafos thought centipedes had asymmetric legs because Aristotle thought men have more teeth.” With the operative word in that quote being “BECAUSE.”
Of course, RNS did NOT say that. I think RNS did say that it’s not surprising that Tosafos made the mistake regarding thinking centipedes have asymmetrical legs; lots of other people, including Aristotle, made similar mistakes before empirical testing became popular."
Ironically, Jeffrey is unintentionally misrepresenting Natan. Natan said (in a way that does not display great intelligence on his part) "people just didn't have a mindset of checking to see if their assumptions and common beliefs were actually correct." Meaning people just made stuff up on the spot without checking things that they literally saw on an everyday basis (like centipedes, or teeth). This has nothing to do with empirical testing (which is also completely wrong, people did test things when it was practical). And either way, the comparison of a mistake from Aristotle to prove a point about a different person in a completely different culture 1400 years later is absurd. My characterization of what Natan wrote is accurate.
Also, it's very ironic that neither Natan nor Jeffrey checked Aristotle inside, where he said the thing about teeth was based on observation. See here: https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/torah-chazal-geonim-rishonim-acharonim#footnote-1-126443193
I guess this proves that people in the 21st century don't check things. And we already know Natan just makes stuff up on the spot!
“Ironically, Jeffrey is unintentionally misrepresenting Natan.” Certainly possible, but at least I wrote: “ I think RNS did say …” The “I think” indicates that I realize in advance that I may be wrong - interpreting someone else’s words is very difficult; we do the best we can but do not always succeed. Too often we are too quick to point out the errors in what others do and say (even though it’s also very likely based at least partially on our own misinterpretation of what they are saying) and at the same time we are way too often so self assured, that whatever we say or whatever we believe must be correct. The only way.
I think politicians and bloggers are among the most guilty of this trait. RNS, Happy (more than just a contributor), and many others - and myself when I get carried away. The relative anonymity of the blogosphere has done little good for civility in dialogue. I guess to get subscribers y’all need to communicate in absolutes. The “i think” and “you make a good point” and other equivocations don’t bring the readers in.
Well, I’m not buying what you’re selling. Yes, I probably to one extent or another completely misunderstand everything I hear from everyone. (Including, or maybe especially, from my wife) but I try to remind myself to be open minded.
“This has nothing to do with empirical testing” maybe, maybe not. Observations and empiricism are not too far off for each other.
“Meaning people just made stuff up on the spot without checking things that they literally saw on an everyday basis”. Not necessarily. We try to explain things, we have old wives tales and folk lore and all sorts of things which are based in empirical reality.
“My characterization of what Natan wrote is accurate.” I simply don’t see how anything you wrote anywhere shows that RNS said Tosafos thought centipedes had asymmetric legs because Aristotle thought men have more teeth.” With the operative word in that quote being “BECAUSE.” Might be my small mind, and I don’t expect you to hold my hand and show me, but I’m just not seeing it.
“Also, it's very ironic that neither Natan nor Jeffrey checked Aristotle inside”. I don’t know why it’s ironic that I didn’t check Aristotle. All I did was quote RNS, Happy, and Obeirchochom. For all I care, RNS could have been talking about Confucius instead of Aristotle. All I tried to do was point out RNS didn’t write what Happy said he did. And didn’t care what Aristotle said or why, nor do I care now - that’s not relevant to me. I know from other sources that the scientific method and empirical testing is quite a rather modern development.
"Might be my small mind, and I don’t expect you to hold my hand and show me, but I’m just not seeing it."-You don't have a small mind, but, c'mon, this one is pretty obvious! He thought Tosafos didn't check because (he thinks) Aristotle didn't check!
"Not necessarily"- Not sure what you mean, this is literally what he is saying about centipedes and teeth. He's not, like, talking about the curvature of the earth
"Observations and empiricism are not too far off for each other."- Sure, but it's really dumb to think that people noticing or failing to notice what was in front of their noses has anything to do with the scientific revolution.
" I know from other sources that the scientific method and empirical testing is quite a rather modern development."- Then you didn't check all the sources (rather ironic isn't it?) The Greeks did plenty of empirical testing. If you mean it was more difficult to test certain things due to lack of technology and communication, that would be more accurate.
“ He thought Tosafos didn't check because (he thinks) Aristotle didn't check!”. Maybe you’re right, you’re much better at interpreting other people than I am. I understood the reference to “Aristotle” to be just an example of millions of people he could have chosen who didn’t/ don’t check.
“ ‘Not necessarily’- Not sure what you mean…He's not, like, talking about the curvature of the earth”. Then you didn’t understand my reference to old wives tales, folklore
Etc. humans like to explain and classify and give reasons for things. Sometime a we’re right, and sometimes not. But “fake news” travels far - even before Trump was elected.
“Sure, but it's really dumb to think that people noticing or failing to notice what was in front of their noses has anything to do with the scientific revolution” spoken like someone on this side of the revolution; and that’s one thing adds difficulty to our attempt to understand our ancestors.
“Then you didn't check all the sources (rather ironic isn't it?) The Greeks did plenty of empirical testing. If you mean it was more difficult to test certain things due to lack of technology and communication, that would be more accurate.“
You got me on that one. I actually meant neither - yes certain things that they thought was important certain people did empirically test and study. There were just many more things that most people either didn’t think or care to study. Today we still have folklore and old wives tales and the like, we (as a collective society) just *also* use science and empirical testing with regard to many more areas.
"Then you didn’t understand my reference to old wives tales, folklore Etc. humans like to explain and classify and give reasons for things. Sometime a we’re right, and sometimes not...spoken like someone on this side of the revolution; and that’s one thing adds difficulty to our attempt to understand our ancestors. "
Right, so you can make up whatever myths you want about our ancestors. You can say that they didn't know rain makes you wet, or that mosquito bites are from mosquitoes, or that flatulence smells. But you are doing exactly what you attribute to our ancestors -making up old wives tales with no basis in reality -*after* the scientific revolution! And Natan bringing "evidence" from an alleged mistake of Aristotle is dumber than dumb.
"There were just many more things that most people either didn’t think or care to study."
- More old wives tales. I just find it so funny that here you are doing the exact thing that you attribute to the "pre-scientific revolution " ancestors!
I understand if Natan does this, but I expect better from you!
You can continue to be as contrarian as you like. This is, after all, your blog.
You can make fun. You can stake out extreme positions and give extreme silly analogies like “they didn't know rain makes you wet”. But that doesn’t change the fact that there was a scientific revolution after hundreds of years of dark ages.
It doesn’t change the fact that Aristotle’s faith in philosophy predominated over the more modern scientific method which includes hypothesis and test and revision of hypothesis etc.
It doesn’t change the fact that centipedes may appear from a distance like their legs are asymmetrical, but in reality are essentially symmetrical. (At least to the extent that any of us are truly symmetrical, which is really not fully accurate either).
On the other hand, It certainly doesn’t mean that their are no modern day philosophers as well as scientific “experts” making predictions whether by interpolation or extrapolation and deducing potential eventualities (and historical events) which have yet to be proven to the best standards that modern science can achieve - and that those standards are moving also.
But yeh, keep making fun and growing your subscriber base. Your choir is big enough to keep preaching to.
Jeffrey, the "because" was not explicit but unquestionably implied by the logical construction Natan assembled. It is not misquoting or inaccurately stating that in any way.
He resorted to Aristotle to justify his completely boneheaded (but all too typical for those who imbibe too much from 100% false secular wisdom) ideas on how the world works and people think.
Clearly, science according to the common understanding today was done in ancient times. The Babylonians in particular were obsessive observers and recorders of the motions of the heavens (their data is utilized to this day to predict eclipses, as one example of their influence and impact). So much so that chaza"l wrongly deferred to their conclusions based on their science.
“Babylonians in particular were obsessive observers and recorders of the motions of the heavens.”
Right, hence I wrote 12 hours ago - “certain things that they thought was important certain people did empirically test and study.”
Thanks for chiming in.
Thus proving the point of Happy's accurate phrasing of Natan's stance. Aristotle, the example he used, did engage in observation.
The assumption that empiricism and observation were not done in those days is flat out wrong. Rationalists don't make exceptions and are incapable of nuance. Then again, today many things are measured that have no business being measured. It's just a form of science porn.
I honestly don’t know how you get from “certain things that they thought was important certain people did empirically test and study.” Or “Aristotle, the example he used, did engage in observation.”
To therefore “Happy accurately phrased Nathan’s stance” when he said “Tosafos thought centipedes had asymmetric legs because Aristotle thought men have more teeth.” With the operative word in that quote being “BECAUSE.””
Parenthetically, that last sentence was mine, not Happy’s; it’s another nasty example of how unintentional or even deliberately deceptive misquotes can easily happen.
“I did not give a reason for this error” - should be read as: “I did not give Aristotle as a reason for this error”
I guess he was writing in a hurry and I guess you were reading in a hurry…
He gave Aristotle as an example of his (very dumb) explanation for the error.
Correct. But Aristotle is not THE reason. It’s just an example of the reason. There are many other examples one could choose from, from either the medieval period or even modern. (There further one goes back in scientific history the greater the number of misconceptions.)
Secondly if you did say that I.e. “because” then you admit now that it’s a misrepresentation?
It's not an exact quote, but expresses exactly what Natan was expressing, and is not a misrepresentation at all.
You are right that there are many modern examples of people saying or writing things carelessly, without checking. That is true. One prominent example is when Natan wrote that, he didn't bother checking Aristotle inside, to see that Aristotle mentioned that the fact was actually based on observation.
I do wonder what you think about the misrepresentation of people misrepresenting who they are, hmmmm?
I don’t think it is actually representing what Natan said.
Natan said that people often say things based on a misconception.
He used Aristotle as an example of that. He was not using Aristotle as a proof that Tosfot can have a misconception. It was simply an example. He takes it as a given that people, e.g me, you, Tosfot, Aristotle, Einstein, Rabbi X can occasionally say things based on misconception without needing a ‘proof’ per se from Aristotle. If he hadn’t brought the Aristotle example his point would still stand.
However all of this seems like you were making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill and seems very pedantic.
Is your issue that Tosfot possibly had a misconception about centipedes? Or is it that someone stated that someone as great as (a Baal) Tosfot most likely had a misconception? Or is it that Natan said it?
This is a misrepresentation of what Natan said. He did not just say "even smart people sometimes make dumb mistakes". Rather, he said "centuries ago, people just didn't have a mindset of checking to see if their assumptions and common beliefs were actually correct." He made a very specific (and stupid) historical statement distinguishing between the mindset of people living now and living centuries ago. And then he brought evidence from Aristotle to Tosafos, because they both lived "centuries ago". So it is extremely dumb, he should have just retracted and admitted he said something dumb, but no, he can't do that. I have never seen a single retraction from him that was not "I realized I was more right than I ever thought" or "I made this tiny mistake, but my larger point stands more than ever".
Can you at least admit he is a buffoon and a fool?
Secondly, even without his historical assessment which was just off-the-charts stupid, an intelligent person should give it a little more thought rather than just saying Tosafos made a dumb mistake.
I think you are misunderstanding Happy's usage of the word "because". Obviously neither Natan nor Happy said that TOSFOS'S reason to think that centipedes have asymmetrical legs was *because* Aristotle made scientific claims which were not based on empirical evidence. But NATAN'S reason to think that in Tosfos's time people made stuff up without checking if it was true was *because* Aristotle, who lived over one thousand years prior, in a different time and era, did so (besides the fact that as HGL pointed out, it's clear that Aristotle did base that statement on observation, even if the observation may have been faulty).
So yes, Happy's quote of Natan is entirely accurate, and Natan is running scared looking for excuses to censor Happy because he does not like to repeatedly be made to look like a fool. Can't exactly blame him, can you.
I don’t think Natan is saying that people just made stuff up. He was saying there was a prior misconception and people make statements based on the misconception. Tosfot was not making any categorical statements about centipedes. He was stating how something would look based on how he understood Centipede anatomy. If he was making a categorical statement then yes, one would expect Tosfot and most others to check their facts prior to making the statement, but Tosfot wasn’t doing that.
“He was not using Aristotle as a proof that Tosfot can have a misconception.”
He was using the example to demonstrate that that was how science operated at the time. That they didn’t bother to “count the horses teeth”. So yes, that is an attempt to prove the concept he’s trying to claim to *explain* tosfos.
You are totally misrepresenting him, gotta watch what you say so he doesn’t ban you.
Don't worry Happy, no one is unbanning you.
Gotta love how Natan came swinging hard on this. Boy is the hole that he’s digging getting deep.
I have to examine the chasam sofer to formulate an opinion on this but I'm here to comment how much I like the photo that came along with this article.
It's even funnier when you know where I got it from https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/why-judaism
In particular the multiple fingers
I imagine he saw the Derashos Haran used to explain how it is that Chazal based their pesakim on the metzius of their times and he forgot that the Ran doesn't explain the concept of continuing to follow them today. That's how amhaaratzus operates.
Good Erev Shabbos. I spent some time on the subject and now I understand the CS neither like you nor like RDS. But my understanding is too radical to share with the public here. The CS is so maarich from ושוב אומר סברה אחרת until זה פי' הברור בספרי & what does he want...?
Notably, Der Heiligeh Rashi either didn't have our ספרי or wasn't concerned to quote it verbatim. Each Chumash & Sifri I'm looking at has a word or so different than the other. For example is it וכ"ש שאומרים or וכ"ש כשאומרים? Is Rashi also adding on the Sifri...?
Technically, RDS is correct when he says that the two sevaras are not the Sifri. I wonder what good that does him in the long run.
You might find interest in my comments to Micha https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/halacha-science-and-birds/comment/21933119.
חזק ואמץ!
You speak in riddles. If you have a different pshat in the CS, I would be interested. You can email me if it is too radical to share with the public.
It would be too much for now. And I admit that it has certain holes that we would end up parsing back and forth, only IMHO it's still correct. You can consider that a cop out, or if time allows, thoroughly review that part of the CS in honor of this week's Parsha.
Talmidei chachamim literally means, students of the wise. There's a humility.
Thanks to Rabbi Micha Berger for having his chabura, where I learned about Drashos Haran. I will be posting on this topic within the next few days
I commented about this in a previous post, but adding it here due to relevance. Here is a case where Chaza"l said they were wrong and the goyim were right, and later a goy said they were wrong to concede! If they were never in the wrong here, in a case where all they had to rely on was our mesorah on the matter versus the Babylonians with their diligent and obsessive empirical observations over centuries, how much more so on matters that Slifkin, an intellectual lightweight, likes to think he comprehends.
Tycho Brahe was familiar with the machlokes in the Gemara regarding the chachamim and the gentile scholars about the motions of the spheres and stars. And he, one of the foremost scientific minds of history, certainly of his day, said the Jews were right and chaza"l should never have conceded anything.
In Chapter 25 of Nahmad v’Ne’eman by David Gans:
“Tycho Brahe said to me that the [Jewish] sages did not do well to incorrectly admit defeat before the Gentile sages.
For in fact the truth is like the position of the Jewish sages, who stated that the stars move in their own orbits, without being forced to do so by the motion of the spheres.
They move independently, like a bird in flight, and [Tycho] added many proofs to this opinion.”
I've heard several stories told over numerous times by Rabbi Yaron Reuven (compared in some way to Hitler by Natan) and Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi, that I think are instructive how Hashem relates to Chaza"l and the Gedolim, not just in our generation, but in every generation, and "mistakes" (yes, in scare quotes) they might theoretically or actually make.
These are my recollections of what I heard, not direct quotes. I don't know the exact stories, but I have no doubt about their general accuracy.
Reb Moshe was once confronted by a woman who claimed he gave her a herter to remarry, presenting a document from his beis din with his signature, and mah pitom!, her supposedly dead husband showed up one day, and she accused him of making a mistake, and her predicament was his fault.
He stood firm in the face of her accusations, until she relented and admitted to fabricating the entire story. After, his talmidim asked how he could be so certain in his denial when faced with a seemingly authentic document. He replied that, it is one thing for he as private individual to make a mistake, but in his guise as the Gadol Hador and posek, it was inconceivable that Hashem would allow him to err so egregiously and with such consequences (she had children by her new husband) for the tzibbur he is moser nefesh for. So, no way her claim had credence.
Another, more interesting case was that of a woman who got, under false pretenses, a similar heter from Rav Yosef. She was a left wing reporter who wanted to scandalize him. As soon as she got the heter, ready to boast to the world about the fallibility of the gedolim, her husband died in a car accident or something, as she spoke to him on the phone about her "victory". This was apparently big news in Israel when it happened.
Hashem protects his agents even when a psak is obtained by false testimony that is accepted as valid. Then, and now.
The reason the Mamzerus story is untrue is because the sources tell us that it is possible for the psak of היתר נישואין to be disproven. It was never supposed to prove the husband's death with a 100% certainty. If the husband indeed returned from the dead, it would not disprove the psak.
There is a story with Reb Yitzchok Elchanan about this, that he was unperturbed when a husband returned.
The second story is meaningful., if true. But nothing to do with psak Halacha. לעולם לא יוציא אדם דבר מגונה מפיו.
The basic idea is, our religion does not need such stories to exist, and basing kiruv on them cheapens our Torah.
I am not a big fan of Reuven or Mizrachi, for these reasons. They are basing a kiruv on wonders and miracles, on anger and hate, on nihilism and cynicism - none of them being positive. Just teach Torah, from Bereishis till Vezos Haberacha, with Rashi. Mishnayos, Gemara, Medrash. Not 'hashkafah' and fire and brimstone. It brings out the worst in people and does not have a long-term effect.
There is a teshuva in the bach where he describes how he gave a heter for a woman to remarry and her husband ended up being alive. Rav Eliyah)u Klatzkin is bothered by it in the intro to one of his seforim.
(It should be noted that it does not say she actually went ahead and got remarried.)
Blah blah blah blah unrelated maasahs blah blah blah.
I've listened to them enough. Their kiruv is not based on anything like you say.
Apprising their listeners that evil acts result in evil consequences is not negative, especially when there are many rabbis who dress like them who say that they can continue on the derech they are on without worry. There are people who are mechalel Shabbos their entire lives, even while attending an Orthodox shul, because no rabbi ever told them there was a problem with their behavior. That they do so sounds jarring to people like you. People like you are wrong.
Decades ago, that kind of positivist kiruv worked. I didn't need "fire and brimstone" for example. But those were times when degeneracy was still in the closet, where it belonged. Today, when it is in your face, when evil is called good, and good evil, a stronger approach resonates more and is more appropriate.
For the traditional sefardi community this may be true. Nowadays with the internet his messagr is read by many who will be instantly turned off to Torah. IF they were the Rabbis i took seriously i wouldnt be frum. Would you?
Yes, because I don't have my head stuck somewhere it doesn't belong. Many people are incapable of accepting tochacha. I have, and acted on it, multiple times. My interest has always been in the emes, not my conception of it.
“Many people are incapable of accepting tochacha.”
Too true. Then again, many people don’t know how to give tochacha either. As we learn, we should push away with the weaker left hand and draw closer with the stronger right hand (Sota 47).
“My interest has always been in the emes, not my conception of it.”
If only more people in the world (including me) really tried to find actual emet.
Excellent comment!
Dont you want to hear an intelligient message? Why go for the simplistic fluff on youtube? Id accept tochacha from my Rabanim bec they are actually people i look up to. Otherwise i wouldnt want to hear a word of what theyd have to say.
You assume much from little. My friends and rabbi and wife of 30 years provide the tochacha, not some rabbis I enjoy listening to on Youtube. They are not my rabbis, but I have learned things from them. Rabbi Reuven's series on Jewish Intimacy in particular is amazing and well worth listening to. It is hardly fluff. You don't sound like a retard. Don't act like one.
Being involved in Kiruv myself for over a decade, I can say for Ashkenazim that you are dead wrong, although I agree it works for Sephardim, as Rabbis Reuven and Mizrachi mainly deal with.
My best friend was a popular and effective rabbi at one of the preeminent Charedi kiruv organizations in the world for decades. I was mekarev in the late 80s and he in the early 90s.
We spoke for years about this kind of stuff. You are right and wrong. I am hardly dead wrong. The state of Ashkenazim today is such that they are practically catatonic and unresponsive to kiruv. This is not like the salad days of the 70s, 80s, and even 90s, when the lighter touch kiruv you advocate produced spectacular results. The Ashkenazi youth today, assuming they are Jewish, even when they come to hear shirium and feel inspired by what they hear, are addicted to porn, struggle with all sorts of sexual perversion, are festooned with tattoos and piercings, and barely move at all towards mitzvah observance. I personally think a stronger approach would be worth trying. It may turn away some, but yet attract others.
How successful are you, really, in your "over a decade" of kiruv work?
I probably shouldn't have used that strong expression, but you are right that Ashkenazim are not doing well because of the problems you mention. טמטום הלב is a real thing, alas. But my mentors in Kiruv who did work in the 80's were actually stronger then than now, and not because they mellowed. I have seen many people get turned off by things being too hard-core, like by hearing a shiur online about zera livatala. I don't sugar up the truth and I still think they respect it when they hear it, but not by talking about Hell and כף הקלע. Maybe you just mean to be assertive and apathetic to their lifestyle and showing them how it sucks, in which case I agree with you. (I was not taught with the Aish school of thought.)
If you want to know my success, I am not the director of the program I work for so I am not closing the deals but I have seen much more success in the program I work for than others, and the percentage is relatively high, but I definitely can take responsibility for sending quite a few people to Yeshiva.
Kol hakavod to you for ANY successes! Online is hardly an effective means of kiruv. It can reach many people, but kiruv really has a strong one on one element.
Yes, in general I mean a more assertive approach. People today are so passive and consumed by their desires and smartphones that even when they desire to change they are incapable of it. Every group and person responds differently, so different approaches are needed. But in general, I think apathy must be responded to assertively.
I didn't need anyone to harangue me at the time about zera livatala. I don't think I ever heard a single rabbi ever discuss it openly 30 years ago. There wasn't such a desperate need for such then like there is today. I understood on my own, that if I wanted to be serious I had to make a choice, which I did B"H. Today, that choice needs to be spelled out clearly and repeatedly, even for those who desire to change, because the indoctrination into degeneracy is from infancy now. It's all taught as acceptable and even praiseworthy today. It doesn't have to be fire and brimstone, which the Sephardim do respond more readily to (and thus is appropriate for them), but it should be chazak, or they don't know there's a problem, or they don't know how serious it is, even if they know they should stop.
Rabbi Reuven has said multiple times that the Shulchan Aruch says spilling seed is the worst sin in the Torah. If so, that's a good way to frame the issue and its importance without getting into the more ethereal aspects of sin which is beyond people steeped in this world.
I agree. However, the Gemara does say that a hidden mamzer will not last more than 3 generations, which is Divinely orchestrated in order not to pollute the yichus of klal Yisroel. So this is another place where we find the concept of Divine Orchestration in halacha observance.
Once we're on the topic, I recall a story with R' Elyashiv, that some Rabbonim in Eretz Yisroel had some suspicions about a ger from Italy brought the ger with his legitimate-looking te'udas geirus from the bais din in Italy to R' Elyashiv. To the surprise of those present, R' Elyashiv took one look at the certificate and declared the person to be a fraud. Later, when asked about his decision, R' Elyashiv explained, "Didn't you see, the word "Jew" on the certificate was written in red!" The Rabbonim were shocked, the entire document was printed in black ink...
And once we're on the topic of R' Elyashiv, there is a story from around 20 years ago where he came out very strongly against a young yungerman who wrote a book that seemed innocent enough. Some things were a little novel, but the genre definitely had precedent in Jewish theology. Well, it's 20 years later and that yungerman is now a complete heretic!
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/qanon-natan
Rabbi Yaron Reuven has told over a story several times he experienced personally about a "hidden mamzer" and indeed the third generation was cut off. He said he wouldn't have believed the story himself if he didn't hear it firsthand.
Some years ago, one of his listeners revealed unknowingly (because of the extreme ignorance of our generation) to him that he was a mamzer. He had a fairly normal life, married a Jew, had a son, and that son married a Jew, and also had a son.
One day that man called him completely crazed and distraught, to tell the rabbi that in front of his eyes, his son and grandson got in their car, and it exploded in front of him, killing them both instantly.
Cars don't just explode, you know. Or was there a bomb involved?
I know that. I don't remember. And it doesn't matter either way. A mamzer's line was wiped out completely. Hashem permitted the first generation to live out his life.
You could contact Rabbi Reuven and ask him yourself. He heard it firsthand from the mamzer. I've communicated with him multiple times. He responds to polite inquiries. Can you be polite? Will you contact him?
Of course it matters. Details matter. If that bit is wrong, maybe other bits are wrong to.
"He said he wouldn't have believed the story himself if he didn't hear it firsthand."
Same. I don't believe it either. When I meet the hidden mamzer with a blown out car and dead progeny I'll change my mind. Till then, I assume it's bunk.
Says more about you than Rabbi Reuven. You're pathetic. I had a far more incredible story happen to me personally two years ago. But there's no point in repeating it to you or anyone like you.
"I had a far more incredible story happen to me personally two years ago."
I'm guessing it it involves Vox Day's wondrous prophetic abilities.
Why? You said that the story is so incredible, that Rabbi Reuven would have been justified had he not heard it first-hand. Shaul did not hear it from the protagonist, so according to Reuven himself, he is justified in not believing it.
I am not a fan of proving anything from stories, but since you brought up such a story I'll bring a simmilar one. Rav Yaacov Emden writes in Migilas Sefer that his grandmother lost track of her husband during a pogrom, and the Shaar Ephraim permitted her to remarry based on testimony that he was dead. However, the husband showed up a few weeks later, as he was lying among dead bodies but he himself was not actually dead. Although she did not yet remarry, the shaar Ephraim never again got involved in Agunos.
If he doesn't write it anywhere else, then you cannot trust it.
It's very likely that the maskilim who published megilas sefer added many of these type of stories. The manuscript has never been seen by anyone, unlike all his other seforim.
You are copy-pasting that straight from מגילת פלסטר, a delusional work to discredit the autobiography. The facts are that you can see the manuscript, it is just not published but you can go to Cambridge or Oxford where it is held and go see it. I know people who have seen it, namely Dr. J.J. Shachter who wrote his dissertation on the Yaavetz. The fact is that although it was published by Maskilim it was actually CENSORED by them, and I have the fill ins from someone who went down there and copied it, which doesn't make the autobiography any frummer than it did before (for example 3 lines of curses directed to Rav Yonasan Eibshitz). Another thing is that I've read a Rebuttal from Bambach, a baki in Yaavetz, and affirmed that this is indeed his writing. Additionally, a lot of the "funny things" mentioned there are mentioned in other places, like the hakdama to מור וקציעה. The above story is not something too unbelievable to discredit either.
Yes, was based on megillas plaster, (together with the fact that certain things I saw there didn't match his other seforim). I thought he made a good point, that if there's no manuscript, we have no reason to assume everything is true. I was unaware that the manuscript exists. Can you give me a link to somewhere it says that?
I apologize, the original is lost, but the first-hand copy remains in Oxford and was public by 1810, 80 years before the maskilim published it. This is in the introduction to the Bambach edition to the sefer, and is also on Hebrew Wikipedia.
I tend to trust JJ shachter on this, but just to point out, the maskilim published it long before that, in המאסף
You shouldn't criticize what you don't understand. Those curses were well-earned.
https://www.kotzkblog.com/2020/04/272-discovery-of-notarized-amulets-of-r.html
I wasn't criticizing, I was stating a fact that he says this and it is not the regular thing to curse anyone for 3 lines straight. I am aware of this controversy as well as the evidence you just posted and this can go on forever, but I am not a fan of people taking positions on this 200 years later. The fact is Rav Yonasan Admitted to being taught by someone else in writing these amulets and were not easily detectable unless you already were looking for it. The Pinei Yehoshua Retracted when he realized this, and many, many Gedolim took this side, to the point of majority. If you prefer Mesora as opposed to academia when is comes to astronomy, this should be no different.
"The Pinei Yehoshua Retracted when he realized this"
What is your source?
Thank you. No interest in going on. I hear it sounds excessive.
Who's proving anything from stories? I said they were "instructive," not proof. They help make the abstract concrete.
I could understand why a mistake like that, even without any lo aleinu consequences, would cause a man to distance himself from such decisions in the future. Many rabbis understandably shy away from such issues, but how would we be as a people if NO rabbis rose to the occasion when needed?
Agreed, I wasn't proving anything from my story either.
I believe that when a Rav Refrains from paskening after he made a mistake, if not from trauma, it would be that he sees that he lacked סיעתא דשמיא even though אין הקב"ה מביא תקלה על ידו in the end.
Yes, that what something I wanted to add to. It was perhaps a "light" message (being free of horrific consequences) from Hashem that these kind of shailos were not for him to respond to.
Oh dear, nothing like fairy tales to prove a point.
Question, do you have any evidence either of these two stories actually happened?
Sure. I can point you to shiurim where I heard them. But that's obviously not what you have in mind. The story about Rav Yosef sounds like it received some notoriety. Do your own research.
Not that I care anyway, since you claim fairy tale status for much of our mesorah IIRC.
Exactly you heard it in a shiur.
And please don't misquote me about our mesorah.
I've heard multiple shiurm by multiple rabbis. A recollection is not a quote or misquote. Do you or do you not consider various stories in our mesorah fairy tales?
"Do you or do you not consider various stories in our mesorah fairy tales?"
I don't get my mesora from Yaron Reuven or Yosef Mizrachi.
You are answering a question I didn't ask. And you weren't the intended recipient.
In any case, neither Yaron Reuven nor Yosef Mizrachi are the mesorah, but they are bearers of it.
https://www.motl.org/novominsker-rebbe-condemns-in-strongest-possible-terms-rabbi-mizrachis-outrageous-holocaust-comments/
Yes. Various stories are fairy tales. Context is missing. Detail is missing. Corruption creeps in. Bias creeps in. Etc etc.
Got any evidence or specific examples of this?
Shimshon, paraphrasing the Ramabam, a bubbe meiser is still a bubbe meiser no matter how many times it's repeated.
Meaning what? You do consider stories as related in our mesorah fairy tales? Did I understand you correctly?
"The story about Rav Yosef sounds like it received some notoriety. Do your own research."
I googled around a bit. Checked his wiki page. Doesn't seem to have happened.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Consider searching in Hebrew. It happened in Israel, after all. Try contacting Rabbi Mizrachi for clarification. Or would you rather besmirch him? I would think he would respond favorably to an honest truth-seeker.
I don't have a problem with such a story. I've had my own miraculous experience that RJ-types belittled when I described it on an RJ post some time back about miracles.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
It depends what's missing. If something supposedly created a stir, there should be evidence of it. This isn't ancient history.
"Consider searching in Hebrew. It happened in Israel, after all."
I did the search in Hebrew. I checked the Hebrew wiki page too.
https://www.google.co.il/search?q=%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%91%D7%93%D7%99%D7%94+%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A3++%D7%92%D7%98+%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%94+%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%AA+%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%AA&safe=strict&hl=iw&ei=mu3PZKDeN5ul5NoP_I63oA0&ved=0ahUKEwigk8Ta28iAAxWbElkFHXzHDdQQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%91%D7%93%D7%99%D7%94+%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A3++%D7%92%D7%98+%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%94+%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%AA+%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%AA&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiPNei15XXkdeT15nXlCDXmdeV16HXoyAg15LXmCDXnteo157XlCDXm9eq15HXqiDXqdee15DXnNeg15nXqjIIEAAYogQYsAMyCBAAGKIEGLADSIwHUABYAHABeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQDiAwQYASBBiAYBkAYC&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
"Try contacting Rabbi Mizrachi for clarification. Or would you rather besmirch him?"
I have no interest in contacting Mizrachi. And I didn't besmirch him.
"I don't have a problem with such a story."
I don't have a problem with it either. That's why I looked for evidence. There wasn't any. Which means it likely never happened.
I didn't accuse you of such, just provided an opportunity. Glad you didn't. You're not the one who compared his compatriot to Hitler (or whatever Natan said about him).
Can you kvetch the chinuch too.... (PS that does not mean cherry pick the odd sentance, a bad habit of yours).
וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ עִנְיָן זֶה שֶׁעוֹרַרְתִּיךָ בְּנִי עָלָיו, אֲפָרֵשׁ לְךָ אַגָּדָה אַחַת שֶׁהִיא בְּבָבָא מְצִיעָא בְּסוֹף פֶּרֶק הַזָּהָב (בבא מציעא נט, ב) גַּבֵּי הַהוּא מַעֲשֶׂה דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הַגָּדוֹל בְּתַנּוּרוֹ שֶׁל עַכְנַאי, הַמַּתְמַהַת כָּל שׁוֹמְעָהּ. אָמְרוּ שָׁם אַשְׁכְּחֵהּ רַבִּי נָתָן לְאֵלִיָּהוּ וְכוּ' אֲמַר לֵהּ מַאי עָבֵד קֻדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא בְּהַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא? אָמַר לָהּ חָיֵךְ וְאָמַר נִצְּחוּנִי בָּנַי, כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁהָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שָׂמֵחַ עַל שֶׁהָיוּ בָּנָיו הוֹלְכִים בְּדֶרֶךְ הַתּוֹרָה וּבְמִצְוָתָהּ לְהַטּוֹת אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים. וּמָה שֶׁאָמַר נִצְּחוּנִי בָּנַי, חָלִילָה לִהְיוֹת נִצָּחוֹן לְפָנָיו בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אֲבָל פֵּרוּשׁ הַדָּבָר הוּא עַל עִנְיָן זֶה, שֶׁבַּמַּחְלֹקֶת הַזֶּה שֶׁהָיְתָה לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר עִם חֲבֵרָיו הָאֱמֶת הָיְתָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וּכְדִבְרֵי הַבַּת קוֹל שֶׁהִכְרִיעָה כְּמוֹתוֹ, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה הָאֱמֶת אִתּוֹ בָּזֶה, בְּיִתְרוֹן פִּלְפּוּלוֹ עַל חֲבֵרָיו לֹא יָרְדוּ לְסוֹף דַּעְתּוֹ, וְלֹא רָצוּ לְהוֹדוֹת לִדְבָרָיו אֲפִלּוּ אַחַר בַּת קוֹל, וְהֵבִיאוּ רְאָיָה מִן הַדִּין הַקָּבוּעַ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁצִּוַּתְנוּ לָלֶכֶת אַחֲרֵי הָרַבִּים לְעוֹלָם, בֵּין יֹאמְרוּ אֱמֶת אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ טוֹעִים, וְעַל זֶה הֵשִׁיב הַבּוֹרֵא בָּרוּךְ הוּא נִצְּחוּנִי בָּנַי, כְּלוֹמַר, אַחַר שֶׁהֵם נוֹטִים מִדֶּרֶךְ הָאֱמֶת, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הוּא הָיָה מְכַוֵּן בָּזֶה אֶת הָאֱמֶת, וְהֵם בָּאִים עָלָיו מִכֹּחַ מִצְוַת הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁצִּוִּיתִים לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶל הָרֹב לְעוֹלָם, אִם כֵּן עַל כָּל פָּנִים יֵשׁ לְהוֹדוֹת לָהֶם בַּפַּעַם הַזֹּאת כְּדִבְרֵיהֶם שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הָאֱמֶת נֶעְדֶּרֶת, וַהֲרֵי זֶה כְּאִלּוּ בַּעַל הָאֱמֶת נָצוּחַ.
By way of this idea that I have raised for you, my son — through it, will I explain to you a certain homelitical teaching, which is in the end of the chapter [entitled] HaZahav in Bava Metzia 59b, regarding the story of Rabbi Eliezer the Great and the “oven of Achnai,” which bewilders all who hear it. They said there, “Rabbi Natan met Eliyahu, etc. He said to him, ‘What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do in that hour?’ He said to him, ‘He smiled and said, “My sons have vanquished Me...”’” — meaning that the Holy One, blessed be He, was happy that His sons were walking in the way of the Torah and its commandment, to incline towards the many. And that which He said, “My sons have vanquished Me,” God forbid that there is any victory before Him, blessed be He. Rather, the explanation about this idea is that in the debate of Rabbi Eliezer with his colleagues, the truth was with Rabbi Eliezer; and like the words of the heavenly voice (bat kol) that decided like him. But even though the truth was with him about this — because of his greater analysis over his colleagues — they could not completely fathom his opinion. And [so] they did not want to concede to him even after the heavenly voice; and they brought a proof from the law set in the Torah that commanded us to always go after the many — whether they say the truth or whether they are mistaken. And about this was the response of the Creator, blessed be He, “My sons have vanquished Me.” Meaning, SINCE THEY TURNED AWAY FROM THE TRUE PATH — for Rabbi Eliezer had surmised the truth about this — and they came upon him from the power of the Torah commandment that I commanded them to always listen to the majority; if so, one must nonetheless concede to them this time — like their words — that the truth be absent. And behold, it is as if the Master of truth was defeated.
Nothing to kvetch, I have not problem with the Chinuch. What do you see there that has anything to do with this?
He says the Rabbonon were wrong, and R Eliezer was correct, but nonetheless we pasken like the wrong party because that is the system. Something that caused great angst over at RJ.
Exactly the same at the zoken mamrei principle according to the CS.
The Ran says that also, what's your point?
The chinuch doesn't say anything about 'following their seichel'. The chinuch says they were flat out wrong.
Where does the Ran say they were mistaken? only the Chinuch says that.
The Ran says אף על פי שהיו יודעים שהיו מסכימים הפך מן האמת. Sounds like the same thing to me.
Yes, אמת means the objective truth in שמים, but if they came to a consensus otherwise it was not out of being mistaken. It was that this was their limit of שכל אנושי and that remains the Halacha. That is not called a mistake. A mistake can humanly be avoided or fixed. You can disprove spontaneous generation to the human mind by showing a microscope, but you can't make someone understand things differently with a בת קול simply stating who's right.
My point is thar all those who called that opinion heretical are foolish. And it is perfectly acceptable to accept the CS says the same thing without your kvetching and conveniently ignoring the phrase 'zeh eino'.
The Chasam Sofer says לא סגי, not enough. You have to be exceptionally stupid to think that when he says ז"א, it means something different. You can't even read it in the context of the sentence it is in.
The Chinuch doesn't talk about why they themselves didn't change their mind. The Ran does.
I'm not going to get into a kvetching argument with you.
I know as well as you do that if it would suit you, you would happily argue that "lo sagi" means not enough and therefore the explanation fails. You would happily argue if it suits you that when the gemoroh says 'lo sagi' it means the answer is rejected as being insufficient. And you would continue that that explanation it consistent with "zeh eino" which is a clear and unambiguous rejection. You would happily say that anybody who says 'zeh eino' is not an outright rejection is completely stupid.
But like I said to Natan, Yeshivahland is often about who can kvetch their explanation better into the words. Rather than seeking the truth.
test
33 min ago
The chinuch doesn't say anything about 'following their seichel'. The chinuch says they were flat out wrong.
Great angst at RJ is not angst by Chaza"l nor by those who cling to them. He doesn't sound agitated in his explanation.
Good point. It is tedious but may well be worth it.
There is a point to be made by not translating it.
All of us grew up in English or Yiddish. We all had the hurdle of learning to translate Hebrew/Aramaic. If someone is unwilling to invest the time and effort to understand the source material in their original language, or the language in which the Mesora accepted it, he is treating important issues with kalus rosh - lightheadedness. He refuses to treat Torah as important enough to invest time and effort, yet wishes to have his opinions treated with seriousness?!
If someone wishes to know the Torah's theology, let him learn the source material. If someone wishes to win a debate, or explain away his hedonistic lifestyle, let him read the dustcover. He can listen to inspiring pap from pulpit Rabbis, but he will never actually know the sugyos. Don't let him fool himself or others.
This is also a good point.
I agree. You gotta do translations.