More About Torah, Science, and Torah Study

UPDATES: See comment thread regarding comments on RJ

Better late than never

In his latest post, Natan (who as I mentioned on many occasions, cannot be taken seriously on any Torah matters- for many obvious reasons) makes some ridiculous assertions regarding halacha. He starts off by claiming that in a case where the Gemara’s halachic conclusion is absolutely mistaken, we must follow it anyways because it was “canonized”. Maybe there are some people who hold like this (his main source is the Dor Revi’i, a borderline maskil who writes many other radical ideas in his hakdamah), but the overwhelming assumption is the opposite, that we defer to Chazal’s reasoning, based on their , even when their words are very difficult for us. Regarding “canonization” being a solution to our “problem”, a great person wrote in a letter:

This is a terrible position. It implies that the Torah-as we have it- is really a terribly mistaken set of laws, but the good Lord put into place a clumsy bureaucracy which we are stuck with. Hardly an invigorating message.

However, it is Natan’s absurd explanation of the sugya of Tanur shel Achnai that really takes the cake.

The reason is that the halachic authority of the Gemara was canonized; we follow it even though in rare cases it may be based on mistaken beliefs. This is similar to the celebrated case of the oven of Achnai, where the objectively correct view - as attested by none other than God Himself - was overruled in favor of the majority. And the reason for this in turn is that stability is a crucial component of halachic authority. Such stability comes in some cases from following the majority, and it also comes from canonizing certain authorities and texts.

This totally ignores the fact the actual Gemara of Tanur shel Achnai says nothing about stability, and in fact, quite the opposite-stability doesn’t even make sense in that story, where there was an ongoing dispute between R’ Eliezer and the Chachamim. If anything, the Heavenly signs would have stabilized things by settling the dispute. Rather the point of the Gemara is לא בשמים היא, the Torah is not in the Heavens, the halacha is not paskened with Nevuah or Heavenly signs, but by rabbis based on the tools the Torah gave us. This itself is a cause of instability and can lead to dispute, which is why we need a Sanhedrin to settle matters.

Meanwhile, Natan, who claims to value stability (to the point of not wearing Murex techeiles, despite the fact that it is absolutely uncontroversial in the DL community, and “stability” is a completely unconvincing excuse in that case), has no problem overturning the accepted halacha of kol isha based on some convoluted wrangling of very Modox “poskim”, and writes many posts about how “the times are a-changin” when it comes to halacha. It is also ironic that he constantly brings the Dor Revi’i, whose whole (very radical and maskilish) point in his hakdamah is that the Torah shebaal Peh is not meant to be stable. If only stability was actually important to him!

Natan also says:

The only exception is for cases where human life is at stake; thus, we do not follow the Gemara’s position that an eight-month fetus is less viable than a seven-month fetus, or that one may not clear away rubble on Shabbos to rescue someone who is not breathing.

Uh, maybe he doesn’t follow the Gemara’s position, which wouldn’t be surprising as he doesn’t follow the Gemara’s position on a great deal of issues. However, he fails to realize that we Shomer Torah Jews do follow the Gemara’s position, but we have something called “poskim” who explain to us when it applies and when it doesn’t. Nowadays with improvements in medicine, the poskim tell us that the cases he mentioned are inapplicable, as it is easily possible to have a healthy eight-month fetus and save somebody who is not breathing.

However, if you go with Natan’s bizzare definition of “not following the Gemara’s position”, then this is definitely not limited to cases where human life is at stake. We also “don’t follow the Gemara’s position” in regards to-

• Making an eruv and carrying in a “public domain”. The Gemara never says that we are allowed to carry in our sub-600,000 population areas, this is from later poskim who “overruled” the Talmud.

• Requiring a shochet to show his knife to a chacham, which we do not generally require nowadays, despite the psak of the Talmud.

• Allowing a kesubah to be collected from movable objects, despite the Talmud ruling it can only be collected from real estate.

• The Rashba says we can buy eggs from non-Jews nowadays (in his region), despite the Talmud’s ruling that we cannot. This is because in his region non-kosher eggs were rarely sold. Thus he “overruled” the Gemara.

• Most poskim allow us to drink uncovered liquids, in contravention to the Talmud’s ruling.

-and countless other issues that are affected by changes in the reality.

The value of Torah study

I also want to mention another discussion in this post, where Natan claims

Learning Torah (by which they actually mean learning Gemara) is not automatically a service to either the state or the nation. It is a service to oneself, not to society.

Of course, this is completely false, it is clear from countless places that learning Torah is a service to the entire nation. Somebody in the comments pointed out that the Gemara (Sanhedrin 99b) characterizes Natan as an apikores for his false statement (needless to say, there are many other reasons he can be characterized as such):

בשלמא למ"ד המבזה תלמיד חכם עצמו מגלה פנים בתורה הוי מבזה חבירו בפני ת"ח אפיקורוס הוי אלא למ"ד מבזה חבירו בפני תלמיד חכם מגלה פנים בתורה הוי אפיקורוס כגון מאן אמר רב יוסף כגון הני דאמרי מאי אהנו לן רבנן לדידהו קרו לדידהו תנו

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that one who treats a Torah scholar himself with contempt is the one mentioned in the baraita who interprets the Torah inappropriately, one who treats another with contempt before a Torah scholar is characterized as the epikoros mentioned in the mishna. But according to the one who says that one who treats another with contempt before a Torah scholar is the one mentioned in the baraita who interprets the Torah inappropriately, how would he characterize the epikoros mentioned in the mishna? Like whom does he conduct himself? Rav Yosef says: It is referring to one who conducts himself like those who say: In what manner have the Sages benefited us with all their Torah study? They read the Bible for their own benefit and they study the Mishna for their own benefit.

אמר ליה אביי האי מגלה פנים בתורה נמי הוא דכתיב (ירמיהו לג, כה) אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מהכא נמי שמע מינה שנאמר (בראשית יח, כו) ונשאתי לכל המקום בעבורם

Abaye said to him: That person who questions the benefit provided by Sages is also in the category of one who interprets the Torah inappropriately, since with that statement he repudiates the Torah itself, as it is written: “If not for My covenant, I would not have appointed day and night, the laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). The eternal covenant of the Torah is responsible for maintaining the existence of the entire world. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: From here too conclude the same concept from it, as it is stated: “If I find in Sodom fifty just men within the city, then I will spare the entire place for their sakes” (Genesis 18:26). The righteous protect the place where they reside.

Natan responded that a regular kollel man learning is not considered “rabanan”.

Somebody then pointed out that the Rabbeinu Yonah says that the Gemara means any Torah learners, this is found in Sha’arei Teshuva 3:145.

ופירוש המגלה פנים בתורה - האיש אשר העיז פניו לדבר על התורה דברים אשר לא כן. ואומר חנם נכתבו בתורה אלה מהפסוקים וספירות הענינים האלה. ומגאוותו וגאונו אומר בלבו. כי אחר שאין ידו משגת לבוא עד תכונת טעם הדברים. כי אין סתר למו. ונאמר (דברים לב) כי לא דבר ריק הוא מכם. ואמרו רבותינו זכרונם לברכה אם רק הוא, מכם. שאינכם יודעים לפרש טעם הדבר. וכן כל העוזב דבר אחד מדברי התורה ולא יודה עליו הנה זה מגלה פנים בתורה. כגון האומר מה הועילו אצלנו לומדי התורה. אם חכמו חכמו לנפשם ולא נחלה לנו בשכרם. והנה כחשו במה שכתוב בתורה (בראשית י״ח:כ״ו) ונשאתי לכל המקום בעבורם:

Natan denied that the Rabbeinu Yonah says this, but also responded

Again: The Gemara says Rabbanan. The fact that some scholars may interpret it differently does not remove the straightforward meaning.

This is really funny. The arrogance is absolutely breathtaking. We have Natan’s “straightforward reading” versus the Rabbeinu Yonah, which he call “some scholars”. Does such a statement deserve a refutation?

Natan also says

Aside from the fact that the word used is Rabbanan, it does not make sense to interpret the Gemara otherwise. How does someone who just learns benefit society? The only way to explain it is to invoke mystical benefits. But the Rishonim all describe the goals and benefits of Torah study in terms of its instructional and educational value. They make no mention of mystical energies created by Torah study. And the Gemara brings a proof based on the idea of these people having personal merit, not based on mystical energies.

Completely false. All the Rishonim talk about how the main goal of the Torah is to bring us closer to Hashem, something that Natan dismisses as “fluffy spirituality” (see the comments to that post) the same way he dismisses “mystical energies”. His response that “Gemara brings a proof based on the idea of these people having personal merit, not based on mystical energies” is utterly incoherent, the Gemara’s whole point is that Torah learners have personal merit that would be enough to “mystically” protect even people like him.

Let us thank Hashem who gave us the privilege of so much Torah study in this generation. The benefits are numerous, but one of them is that we don’t have to rely on the clueless pronouncements of a museum curator.