FYI: please bear in mind that, as with much of what I write, there are plenty of sources for what I say but which I don't necessarily reference, especially while couch surfing in Havana. For this post in particular, see the Talmud
"The case of Tanur shel Achnai shows that following the majority is NOT about getting to the truth. Chasam Sofer says likewise re. Zaken mamre - that he might well be correct and know it but it makes no difference.
LIKE
REPLY (1)"
דוד™️
Writes Rationalist Judaism 2.0
2 hr ago
My comment shows how תנור של עכנאי is not against the idea of אחרי רבים getting to the truth. You can share the מראה מקום of the חתם סופר but I doubt it will be different that what I'm saying. זקן ממרא would fall under the same lines. We don't live by individuals, we live by a system. The system is really powerful and catches mistakes.
LIKE
REPLY (1)
author
Natan Slifkin
9 min ago
Author
Chasam Sofer is completely different from what you are saying. See שו"ת חתם סופר חלק ה - השמטות סימן קצא"
If you actually look in the Chasam Sofer, the Chasam Sofer does *not* say that the majority is not about getting to the truth, which is absurd, but that even if it turns out the majority is wrong, Hashem forgives. He also says ומכ"ש שיש לנו להבין שלא טעו, that we should understand that they were *not* mistaken.
Sorry but you are totally misreading it. He says that the second sevara (that they don't make mistakes) is WRONG, because they are human and humans make mistakes. And THEREFORE, he says, we will go BACK to the first sevara, that they DO make mistakes, but it's okay because Hashem is mevater. And that's why, he continues, it's not as though Hashem is just allowing them to lead everyone astray, because Hashem is mevater.
LIKE
REPLY (2)
author
Natan Slifkin
Author
(Also, the two sevaras are not the Sifri)"
Another great example of how an am ha'aretz doesn't understand what he is reading-
ושוב אומר סברא אחרת מאחר שהנחנו כנ"ל ממילא יש לנו להאמין שבודאי אומרי' על ימין ימין באמת ולא טעו אלא כיוונו כוונת נותן התורה ית"ש כיון שהקב"ה נתן התורה על דעתם והבנתם של אלו ושני הכתות כוונתם לשם שמים לכוון האמת וכשיטעו אלו הרי כל ישראל מוטעי' באונס' חזקה על הקב"ה שרגלי חסידיו ישמור ולא תצא כזאת מלפניו להטעות כל ישראל כשהם חפצים לעשות רצונו והיינו דמסיים מכ"ש שאומרי' על ימין ימין פי' שהרי אפי' כשבאמת טעו מ"מ כיונו האמת לדעתם והקב"ה מסכים לטעותם ומכ"ש שיש לנו להבין שלא טעו ומיהו בטעם זה האחרון לא סגי לומר חזקה על היושבי' לפני ה' שלא יטעו כי הקב"ה לא יניחום לטעות ז"א כיון דלפי טבע האנושי יכולים לטעות ורק מצד קדשת המקום נבוא על הזקן ממרא דהוא בכלל לא בשמים אפי' בת קול ואפי' נביא לא יכול להכריע ע"כ עיקור הסמיכה הוא על סברא ראשונה שאפי' טעו ח"ו ויתר הקב"ה טעותם וממילא לא נחשד את הקב"ה ית"ש שהניחום בטעותם
The Chasam Sofer could not be more clear that he is *not* rejecting the second sevara, just that is not the ikkar sevara. And he *is* coming to explain the Sifri. How could anybody reasonable think otherwise?
In the comments section, Natan brings the Ran as if the Ran had anything to do with the stupidity he is saying. It doesn't. The Ran says that we follow our seichel even if we know from Shamayim that the emes of the Torah (had we theoretically understood it better than we do now) was not like our current seichel- we still follow our seichel, that is what the Torah commands. This has nothing to do what Natan's ridiculous idea, that we should do the opposite of the truth even when our seichel matches the truth!
It's not only Dor Revii. It's also Rav Herzog ,and the essential idea that authoritative halachic sources could be wrong but their psak should still be followed is also clearly stated by Chasam Sofer."
The Chasam Sofer says this about a zaken mamre vs Beis Din Hagadol, so that there wouldn't be machlokes, Hashem mystically forgives the mistake. It makes no sense to apply that to a later generation's Beis Din deciding on their own not to overturn an earlier Beis Din's objectively erroneous ruling for no reason, and so is totally inapplicable to what Natan wants to use it for.
It's also amazing that the rationalist Natan relies on this mystical Chasam Sofer when he feels it suits him!
Also, he has the Rabbi Glasner and Rabbi Herzog in a letter to somebody vs all other rishonim and acharonim. Nope.
Learning benefits society because we have a mitzva of p'ru u'r'vu and the related mitzvah of teaching our children. Among an infinity of reasons why Natan is so retarded that he's "not even wrong" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).
Regarding things like spontaneous generation in lice...
After learning that the world is not like Nasa tells us, I have no doubt our understanding of this gemara, any many others is seriously deficient. By the way, an interesting aside. 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.”
Modern science posits elementary particles popping into and out of existence spontaneously. I would not be surprised if the conventional and hyper-material wisdom on matters like lice are also wrong.
Btw What do you do with the Rambams שיטה on treifot? He also mentions canonization despite innacuracy. We wouldnt have a working system otherwise. Thus makes sense in light of the fact that the Halachick system we have is quite בדיעבד as were supposed to have a Sanhedrin legislating in each generation. The reason why we dont argue on the Gemara is because they had the broadest consensus (Rambam mentiona that world Jewry was centralized in Bavel and Eretz Yisrael) which led to "canonization".
Techeiles is controversial by you but letting women sing is not?
What shita? The Rambam is very ambiguous. I certainly don't think he is saying that Chazal were wrong.
"We wouldn't have a working system otherwise"- where in the world do you get that idea from? Of course we would. There are many places where due to changes the halacha is not like what is stated in the Gemara.
It's not really such a balance, you will hardly find any Rishon ever who says "the Gemara is mistaken but we follow it anyways" unless you want interpret this Rambam that way. But as I said I think that is an incorrect interpretation, and it sounds this way from Halacha 12.
We observe a different reality than Chazal. Unless you believe in נשתנה הטבע theres no other way to slice it. He dosent seem to be saying that the science is mistaken in light of Chazal.
Only people who don't follow הלכה have any problems with it
There are legitimate מחלוקות within הלכה (e.g. recorded songs without any images, if the person who listens doesn't know how this woman looks, and doesn't have הרהורים)
Ok, silly man, I will tell you what yichud means. It could mean seclusion, which it means in many places. It never means biah. It could also mean "designation", which is obviously how the Magid Mishna means. It's amazing how a guy who allegedly spent 20 years in yeshiva doesn't know basic hebrew, but I guess that's what happens when you go to the 10:00 shacharis and hang out in the coffee room all day.
He should say 'yichud l'ishto', or more precisely 'meyached lishto'. The grammer is completely wrong. And the 'b'almoh' doesn't fit either. Yichud meaning designation would need an explainer of what the designation is for.
What a ridiculous yeshivish analogy. You clearly know nothing about the law or halochoh. I'm not even going to debate your stupid analogy. like I don't debate Dovid's.
We don't even know for sure the basics about fundemental mitzvos. The ones we learned as tiny tots. The most moving time of the year, Tell me, is the mitzvah to 'blow' or 'hear' the shofar? And whilst we are there, we don't even know for sure which set are the 'main' - and do you know which matzoh on seider night is the d'oreysoh? Everything is a dispute.
I don’t have that kulloh, but it's not outlandish at all. It fits in very well with the context, k'eish b'nerous. Why should a 100 year old croaky woman's voice be considered an ervah? That's the chiddush.
I can try to look up his psak in שיח נחום and send you. I agree its not the majority opinion but you cant say nobody has what to rely on by זמירות שבת etc when there's no חשש of seduction.
That's true. I heard a shiur on yutorah from Rabbi Arnie Wittenstein, and he mentioned that whoever thinks the murex is ודאי, or almost ודאי, the correct techeiles, has no idea how history works.
"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."
This statement is way too kind (as are the various comments on RJ saying NS is just a big am haaretz but not a kofer). Hardly an invigorating message - really? That's the best you got? Please explain why National Acceptance/Canonization is not outright kefirah. It is the underlying premise for any remnant of religious practice within Reform/Conservative/Reconstructionist Judaism and now Rationalist Judaism, (and according to NS it is normative in general Orthodox Judaism and completely uncontroversial in MO circles - LOL!) and it does so by eliminating the need for Torah M'shamayim and even G-d Himself from the equation. The only difference is that R/C/RC very quickly discarded most religious practice when it got inconvenient and explained it with typical ends justify the means rationalization since Torah is not G-d given or anything like that - and after all, why can't "national will" decide to "nationally un-accept" something. But as you've pointed out, RJ/NS is starting to do the same thing with kol isha! So it's just a matter of time...
I think these people really believe that "lo bashamyim" means "lo min hashamyim", like one of NS's groupies (mistakenly) wrote. Halacha is all up to the "national will" and for the sake of "stability". Belief in Hashem and Toras Hashem is not a requirement in this new religion. So I ask again - How can this be anything less than kefirah?
"there were many machlokes about treifos that they didn't test and have such experiences about." Please explain.
"That obviously means that it was not in the hands of the chachamim, but in our hands." So what? If you mean that halacha is determined by what was in the hands of the chachamim then the whole אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה בְּדַרְכֵי הָרְפוּאָה שֶׁבְּיָדֵינוּ is simply שיחה בטלה.
"It's clear that halacha 12 and 13 are meant to be read together." In 12 his reponse is אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּחְיֶה, whereas in 13 his response is the pasuk. What's not clear about that?
"He doesn't say anything about mistakes at all." So what was he coming to answer in 13?
"I would ask the inverse". Why are you avoiding the question? I still haven't seen any coherent pshat from you as to what the Rambam sees in the pasuk, other than some vague philosiphy about Mesora.
I actually don't think עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ has anything to do with mistakes at all.
"the Rambam doesn't mention mistakes in *any* of the places he brings that pasuk." Where alse does the Rambam discuss the issue of mistakes.
I believe the concept of עִקַּר תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. וְהֵם עַמּוּדֵי הַהוֹרָאָה is that even though one feels they are mistaken one must follow them. ימין ושמאל just teaches is us how far to take it.
"... 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."
A strong Kasha. But RDS still has a point if when he writes about “stability” he means avoiding Machlokess. Later the Gemara says
ב"מ נט: (תנור עכנאי) ואף ר''ג היה בא בספינה עמד עליו נחשול לטבעו ...עמד על רגליו ואמר רבונו של עולם גלוי וידוע לפניך שלא לכבודי עשיתי ולא לכבוד בית אבא עשיתי אלא לכבודך שלא ירבו מחלוקות בישראל
I.e., although the basis is לא בשמים היא , it is also based on שלא ירבו מחלוקות בישראל. (I leave it for others to resolve the apparent contradiction.) In which case we have your Kasha, let the stability be attained by following the Heavenly signs.
(I don't know who was the first to connect תנור עכנאי with לא תסור/זקן ממרא but there also you have the idea of, if it's the right word, stability:
סנהדרין פח: (זקן ממרא) וכשבאתי אצל חבירי שבדרום ... על זקן ממרא לא הודו לי כדי שלא ירבו מחלוקת בישראל
וכן ברמב"ן דברים יז-י, והצורך במצוה הזאת צורך גדולה מאד … וידוע הוא שלא ישוו הדעות בכל הדברים הנולדים והנה ירבו המחלוקות ...)
The point of having a Sanhedrin in the first place is stability, שלא ירבו מחלוקות בישראל. That has nothing to do with the לא בשמים היא part of the story, which is what Natan was quoting. If Hashem decided Torah should be paskened by a Navi, stability would not be compromised in any way.
"You think the point of the pasuk is to tell us that we follow the Gemara even when it paskens incorrectly?" What else can the Rambam be saying?
"I don't understand what you see from the Rambam in Mamrim." I see what the Rambam understood this pasuk is teaching us.
"who is talking about gezeiros, takanos, and minhagim. What do those have to do with treifos or the question of whether we follow the Gemara when it's wrong?" I guess this is the mekor of the Dor Revii and Rav Fisher. Or perhaps the Rambam understood that there was a drabanan factor specifically in hilchos treifos as the Dor revii is mechadesh bshitaso.
Alternatively, you can go with the peshat of הג"ר דוד ברעסלויאר שליט"א ראש כולל פאלסבארג ומשגיח ב.מ.ג, (נחלי דבש קונטרס דברי סופרים סימן י"ח) who proves from this that even a horaah regarding a metzius falls under the same category asהַתַּקָּנוֹת וְהַגְּזֵרוֹת וְהַמִּנְהָגוֹת. )
Before you ask me how else to learn the Rambam, I would ask you why you think yours is a reasonable pshat in the first place? Why is the fact that we have different cures than Chazal automatically means they were mistaken? And why does ע"פ התורה אשר יורוך mean that we must follow Chazal's mistakes? I don't think that's a reasonable pshat at all. And the Rambam never says that it means Chazal were טועה. He only says that in Hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh (2:10), about the Sanhedrin, and using a different pasuk.
My pshat is that even though a treifa is not supposed to live, and we found a way to make it live, we go with the *Mesorah* that these 70 things are treifos. That is ע"פ התורה אשר יורוך.
I don't think there is any proof from the fact that the Rambam quotes the same pasuk about a different thing in a different place in a different context. And even if there was a connection, what are you bringing from there? The Rambam in hilchos Mamrim is not talking about Chazal making mistakes.
"what are you bringing from there?And why does ע"פ התורה אשר יורוך mean that we must follow Chazal's mistakes?" If you understand like the Dor Revii then it means that there was a takana. If you understand like Harav Dovid Breslauer shlita then it means that Chazal were had the power of bais din hagodol and we can't argue on them. (As to the question what if they were a טועה בדבר משנה that is a legitimate question and it does seem that it is very hard and probably impossible for us to qualify Chaal as such as we have no hasagah as to their undersanding of Torah and how they came to conclusions. Bu we can say that the pashtus is that they simply were unknowing of the metzius.) That is how the Rambam defines this pasuk in hilchos Mamrim.
"we go with the *Mesorah* that these 70 things are treifos. That is ע"פ התורה אשר יורוך" is not how the Rambam explained the Pasuk.
I don't understand the Dor Revi'i, either in sevara, or in pshat in the Rambam, it makes no sense to me at all. And since he is against my mesorah, I see no reason to take his תמוה pshat into account.
I agree that the the Gemara may have a koach like Bais Din Hagadol, since it was Rav Ashi's Beis Din and all of Klal Yisroel accepted it, this is what the Rambam in hakdmah to Yad says. But again, the pasuk ע"פ התורה אשר יורוך is not prima facie talking about a ta'us in metzius. And there is absolutely no reason to extend this chiddush of considering the Gemara like the Beis Din Hagadol to a case where the Gemara is obviously making a mistake, and they are not around to be chozer- which is what they would obviously do if they were alive. And the Rambam doesn't say they made a ta'us in those places he brings it. And in fact, from halacha 12 in perek 10 of Shechita, he conspicuously avoids saying they erred, but says that even though it looks to us like a treifa, since they ruled it's not a treifa, there must be some cure.
Rather, when he bring that pasuk, he means that we rely on the halachos that the Talmud (which we will treat as Beis Din Hagadol) taught us, this is how he explains ע"פ התורה אשר יורוך in the first halacha in Mamrim, and in Sefer Hamitzvos.
I agree that the hakdama to Dor Revii is maskilish. I wasn't using it as a source, just as a possible explanation as to where הַתַּקָּנוֹת וְהַגְּזֵרוֹת וְהַמִּנְהָגוֹת comes in.
I first saw the sefer in B.M.G. when learning Chulin. As a typical batlan I first read the hakdama (which actually is very relevant for his aproach to Treifos), and I was shockrd that the Yeshiva had such a sefer. Then I searched Otsar Hachma and saw that Rav Elyashiv and Rav SHlomo Zalman used it. (They probably knew him personally too). I guess there was some leeway for a Talmid Chacham וכידוע התייחסות הגרייק והגרחק להגרגנ ועיין אוהב משפט להתשבץ בהקדמה פרק ט.
I see there are 2 sefarim on otsar hachachma about it (מבוא חשבון supporting him and דגל מחנה ראובן proving that he was a maskil), and the edition from Machon Harav Kook has a mevo about it. If Reb Yisroel knew that then either he felt that the sefer was just תוכו not קליפתו and תוכו אכל קליפתו זרק, or he held that these techniques are chochma not Torah. Either way, some of the mehalech is based on Benjamin Franklin, so there must have been some of that approach.
However, I still find it hard to accept that Reb Ysroel Salanter would have encouraged learning the sefer of "an actual bonafide maskil" as you put it, if he was aware.
The point is that they used the very sefer whch has this hakdama. Without getting into the debate about the mechabr of Chesbon Hanefesh (you may be right but wikipedia is certainly no proof. I believe a recent editiion of the sefer had a mavo about it), was Reb Yisrael Salanter aware of all this?
(I understand the maskilim claimed Reb Yisrael too was one of theirs.)
"Why is the fact that we have different cures than Chazal automatically means they were mistaken?"
Why did the Rambam need a pasuk if he wasn't entertaining the possibility that Chazal erred?
And now that he does bring this pasuk how are we to understand how it answers the question if not by looking how the Rambam explains it elsewhere?
Where do we find that this pasuk teaches us the concept of Mesorah? As you write, it teaches us the power of Bais Din Hagodol, and specifically regardingהַתַּקָּנוֹת וְהַגְּזֵרוֹת וְהַמִּנְהָגוֹת .
היא שצונו לשמוע לבית דין הגדול ולעשות כל מה שיצוו מאיסור והיתר ואין הבדל בזה בין הדבר שיסברוהו או דבר שיוציאוהו מן ההיקשים שהתורה נדרשת בהן או הדבר שיסכימו עליו שהוא איסור תורה או לפי ענין מן הענינים שיהיה דעתם שהוא ישר ושבו הזוק לתורה הכל אנחנו חייבין לשמוע ולעשות ולעמוד על פיהם לא נעבור ממנו. והוא אמרו יתברך על פי התורה אשר יורוך.
So I take from that that this a general pasuk for being mekabel the Torah shebaal Peh from the Beis Din Hagadol. I think that is pashut pshat. In neither of these places does he say anything about Beis Din making an obvious mistake in metzius. I think he is using it in Hilchos Shechitah also that we must be mekabel the Torah shebaal Peh from the chachamim, and not make up our own treifos or take away from them based on our own sevara. I don't think he is coming to say they made a mistake in metzius, he never mentions that, and in halacha 12 implies the opposite.
"בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם הֵם עִקַּר תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. וְהֵם עַמּוּדֵי הַהוֹרָאָה "היא שצונו לשמוע לבית דין הגדול
In neither of these places does he say anything about Beis Din making an obvious mistake in metzius. I am not clear what you're intention is. Are you still bothered by the טועה בדבר משנה problem?
How does that connect with anything else you wrote?
"in halacha 12 implies the opposite." Exactly the point. The Rambam clearly distinguished between the 2. (I believe Reb Dovid Breslauer brings this out.) According to you that the metzius today isn't relevant why didn't the Rambam write אפשר היה שתחיה? And why did the Rambam bring the pasuk only in regards to the last halacha?
They are definitely serious. They are also completely ignorant on anything pertaining to techeiles.
I've debated many of them, they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
What I wrote above is basic science. Photo-debromination, which is the process that was recently invented to artificially remove all the bromine from the murex, was not possible in ancient times. That means that the murex was previously used only for purple/violet. This has been written about extensively, I'd recommend you start reading up on the subject.
From an academic standpoint that makes the most sense. It fits with basically everything. This also fits with what is used in Assyrian documents to describe ancient takiltu.
However, from the Chazal it seems like techeiles is blue, so I'm not in a rush to do that LMAASEH.
The problem you can't avoid is that dyeing was huge industry at the time and we have extensive, basically complete knowledge of what and how they did. We know how they dyed nearly everything and we certainly know all the snimals used, if not the shades.. Techeiles must be one of those dyes as chazal make it clear it was not a trade secret. You can debate the color, but chilazon means snail, and snails were the dyeing industry and thus the chilazon must be one of those ancient snails. There's no way around it. The only one that matches almost perfectly is the murex. But you nitpick based on on the almost, logic be damned.
There is a chavos yair who says techeiles is purple because of what we see by the murex, and some say it fits with chazal that its like the sky since Rashi says that's at sunset. I still think the Pashtus is that it's blue and as long as this one is mainly purple מהיכא תיתי its not argaman.
מרכבות, I never looked too deeply into photo debromination, but from what I understand, the process consists of simply leaving the murex blood out in the sun until it changes shades. Nothing too high-tech. What is far-fetched then to speculate that they did that in the times of Chazal as well?
The short answer, because they didn't use transparent glass.
Now the long answer. It needs to be left out in the sun DURING REDUCTION. Now, reduction can only take place if the vat is covered. Otherwise, the dye would oxidize. So basically, you need to expose it to the sun, WITHOUT EXPOSING IT TO THE AIR. Which is almost impossible. What have they discovered? You can place the dye in a transparent glass, during reduction. That way, it can be exposed to the sun, while still remaining airtight.
However, transparent glass was never used in the past for dyeing. Archeologists have uncovered numerous dyeing workshops, with the vats, and there was never any glass there. Not to mention, that transparent glass probably wasn't even around during bayis rishon.
I would recommend you read Professor Zvi Koren's numerous articles on the subject, where he elaborates on this very point.
They did have transparent glass (I personally saw this at a Canaanite exhibit in the Israel museum ) but yes, was extremely rare.
I personally know someone who claims he got it to turn blue by simply cooking it slowly to a high temperature, without it exposed to sun, but can't vouch for him.
Since you like to refer to science authoritatively and discount the possibility of lost knowledge, I am curious where you stand on cosmology? Nasa or our mesorah?
They might align on this issue, but don't mistake that for science being on the same page as Chaza"l, ever. If techeiles were as critical to controlling the narrative as the earth's position in the world, or the age of the world for that matter (which was just doubled, overnight, to 28 billion years), it too would be contested and gaslit just as vigorously. It is not.
What you wrote above was editorializing and commentary and an unsubstantiated claim of genetic manipulation, not science.
I am not going to claim any sort of expertise on the subject, but I have discussed it with a friend many years ago who looked into it more than me.
What I was told is that the dye fresh out of the snail is purple. Exposure to light changes its color. So, maybe "photo-debromination" is a modern process unknown to the ancients, but exposing a dye to light in a way that does the same thing would not be.
"In order to achieve that [conversion from Tyrian Purple to Techeiles Blue], there are various ways to de-brominate the di- and mono- indigo molecules, one of which is to expose the dye solution (in a specific stage as it is prepared for dyeing wool) to sunlight."
This is exactly what my friend told me, and certainly seems well within the realm of understanding of the ancients.
FYI: please bear in mind that, as with much of what I write, there are plenty of sources for what I say but which I don't necessarily reference, especially while couch surfing in Havana. For this post in particular, see the Talmud
Thread about comments on RJ
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/halacha-science-and-birds/comment/21758719
Natan Slifkin
Author
"The case of Tanur shel Achnai shows that following the majority is NOT about getting to the truth. Chasam Sofer says likewise re. Zaken mamre - that he might well be correct and know it but it makes no difference.
LIKE
REPLY (1)"
דוד™️
Writes Rationalist Judaism 2.0
2 hr ago
My comment shows how תנור של עכנאי is not against the idea of אחרי רבים getting to the truth. You can share the מראה מקום of the חתם סופר but I doubt it will be different that what I'm saying. זקן ממרא would fall under the same lines. We don't live by individuals, we live by a system. The system is really powerful and catches mistakes.
LIKE
REPLY (1)
author
Natan Slifkin
9 min ago
Author
Chasam Sofer is completely different from what you are saying. See שו"ת חתם סופר חלק ה - השמטות סימן קצא"
If you actually look in the Chasam Sofer, the Chasam Sofer does *not* say that the majority is not about getting to the truth, which is absurd, but that even if it turns out the majority is wrong, Hashem forgives. He also says ומכ"ש שיש לנו להבין שלא טעו, that we should understand that they were *not* mistaken.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/halacha-science-and-birds/comment/21858099
"Natan Slifkin
Author
Sorry but you are totally misreading it. He says that the second sevara (that they don't make mistakes) is WRONG, because they are human and humans make mistakes. And THEREFORE, he says, we will go BACK to the first sevara, that they DO make mistakes, but it's okay because Hashem is mevater. And that's why, he continues, it's not as though Hashem is just allowing them to lead everyone astray, because Hashem is mevater.
LIKE
REPLY (2)
author
Natan Slifkin
Author
(Also, the two sevaras are not the Sifri)"
Another great example of how an am ha'aretz doesn't understand what he is reading-
ושוב אומר סברא אחרת מאחר שהנחנו כנ"ל ממילא יש לנו להאמין שבודאי אומרי' על ימין ימין באמת ולא טעו אלא כיוונו כוונת נותן התורה ית"ש כיון שהקב"ה נתן התורה על דעתם והבנתם של אלו ושני הכתות כוונתם לשם שמים לכוון האמת וכשיטעו אלו הרי כל ישראל מוטעי' באונס' חזקה על הקב"ה שרגלי חסידיו ישמור ולא תצא כזאת מלפניו להטעות כל ישראל כשהם חפצים לעשות רצונו והיינו דמסיים מכ"ש שאומרי' על ימין ימין פי' שהרי אפי' כשבאמת טעו מ"מ כיונו האמת לדעתם והקב"ה מסכים לטעותם ומכ"ש שיש לנו להבין שלא טעו ומיהו בטעם זה האחרון לא סגי לומר חזקה על היושבי' לפני ה' שלא יטעו כי הקב"ה לא יניחום לטעות ז"א כיון דלפי טבע האנושי יכולים לטעות ורק מצד קדשת המקום נבוא על הזקן ממרא דהוא בכלל לא בשמים אפי' בת קול ואפי' נביא לא יכול להכריע ע"כ עיקור הסמיכה הוא על סברא ראשונה שאפי' טעו ח"ו ויתר הקב"ה טעותם וממילא לא נחשד את הקב"ה ית"ש שהניחום בטעותם
The Chasam Sofer could not be more clear that he is *not* rejecting the second sevara, just that is not the ikkar sevara. And he *is* coming to explain the Sifri. How could anybody reasonable think otherwise?
In the comments section, Natan brings the Ran as if the Ran had anything to do with the stupidity he is saying. It doesn't. The Ran says that we follow our seichel even if we know from Shamayim that the emes of the Torah (had we theoretically understood it better than we do now) was not like our current seichel- we still follow our seichel, that is what the Torah commands. This has nothing to do what Natan's ridiculous idea, that we should do the opposite of the truth even when our seichel matches the truth!
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/halacha-science-and-birds/comment/21771286
"Natan Slifkin
2 hr ago
Author
It's not only Dor Revii. It's also Rav Herzog ,and the essential idea that authoritative halachic sources could be wrong but their psak should still be followed is also clearly stated by Chasam Sofer."
The Chasam Sofer says this about a zaken mamre vs Beis Din Hagadol, so that there wouldn't be machlokes, Hashem mystically forgives the mistake. It makes no sense to apply that to a later generation's Beis Din deciding on their own not to overturn an earlier Beis Din's objectively erroneous ruling for no reason, and so is totally inapplicable to what Natan wants to use it for.
It's also amazing that the rationalist Natan relies on this mystical Chasam Sofer when he feels it suits him!
Also, he has the Rabbi Glasner and Rabbi Herzog in a letter to somebody vs all other rishonim and acharonim. Nope.
And הגרי"א הרצוג himself wrote otherwise in his ספרים
About the דור רביעי
http://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=56261&hilit=%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A8+%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%99&sid=d246da694afb62e4b0b9de1a9362d8eb
http://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=44828&hilit=%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A8+%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%99&sid=d246da694afb62e4b0b9de1a9362d8eb#p530726
http://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=33184&hilit=%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A8+%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%99&sid=d246da694afb62e4b0b9de1a9362d8eb#p356936
Learning benefits society because we have a mitzva of p'ru u'r'vu and the related mitzvah of teaching our children. Among an infinity of reasons why Natan is so retarded that he's "not even wrong" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).
Regarding things like spontaneous generation in lice...
After learning that the world is not like Nasa tells us, I have no doubt our understanding of this gemara, any many others is seriously deficient. By the way, an interesting aside. 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.”
Modern science posits elementary particles popping into and out of existence spontaneously. I would not be surprised if the conventional and hyper-material wisdom on matters like lice are also wrong.
Techeilet is controversial by us too.
Btw What do you do with the Rambams שיטה on treifot? He also mentions canonization despite innacuracy. We wouldnt have a working system otherwise. Thus makes sense in light of the fact that the Halachick system we have is quite בדיעבד as were supposed to have a Sanhedrin legislating in each generation. The reason why we dont argue on the Gemara is because they had the broadest consensus (Rambam mentiona that world Jewry was centralized in Bavel and Eretz Yisrael) which led to "canonization".
Techeiles is controversial by you but letting women sing is not?
What shita? The Rambam is very ambiguous. I certainly don't think he is saying that Chazal were wrong.
"We wouldn't have a working system otherwise"- where in the world do you get that idea from? Of course we would. There are many places where due to changes the halacha is not like what is stated in the Gemara.
Womens singing is also controversial in many DL circles.
I can try to find you the Rambam.
Its a balance. Theres a general aproach of following Chazals shiurim and השערות.
I know where the Rambam is in hilchos Shechita 10:12-13
וְאֵין לְהוֹסִיף עַל טְרֵפוֹת אֵלּוּ כְּלָל. שֶׁכָּל שֶׁאֵרַע לִבְהֵמָה אוֹ לְחַיָּה אוֹ לְעוֹף חוּץ מֵאֵלּוּ שֶׁמָּנוּ חַכְמֵי דּוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וְהִסְכִּימוּ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּבָתֵּי דִּינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּחְיֶה. וַאֲפִלּוּ נוֹדַע לָנוּ מִדֶּרֶךְ הָרְפוּאָה שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָהּ לִחְיוֹת:
וְכֵן אֵלּוּ שֶׁמָּנוּ וְאָמְרוּ שֶׁהֵן טְרֵפָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה בְּדַרְכֵי הָרְפוּאָה שֶׁבְּיָדֵינוּ שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן אֵינָן מְמִיתִין וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּחְיֶה מֵהֶן אֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז יא) "עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ":
It's not really such a balance, you will hardly find any Rishon ever who says "the Gemara is mistaken but we follow it anyways" unless you want interpret this Rambam that way. But as I said I think that is an incorrect interpretation, and it sounds this way from Halacha 12.
Not sure how the Rambam is not entertaining the possibility of chazal being mistaken. Hoe do you read the Rambam?
He says שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה בְּדַרְכֵי הָרְפוּאָה שֶׁבְּיָדֵינוּ. How could somebody read that as "Chazal were mistaken in their psak"??
We observe a different reality than Chazal. Unless you believe in נשתנה הטבע theres no other way to slice it. He dosent seem to be saying that the science is mistaken in light of Chazal.
קול באשה ערווה is a הלכה ברורה ופסוקה
Only people who don't follow הלכה have any problems with it
There are legitimate מחלוקות within הלכה (e.g. recorded songs without any images, if the person who listens doesn't know how this woman looks, and doesn't have הרהורים)
There is no such thing as 'halochoh beruroh'. Every single halochoh has numerous parameters and machlokasim attached!
Ok, silly man, I will tell you what yichud means. It could mean seclusion, which it means in many places. It never means biah. It could also mean "designation", which is obviously how the Magid Mishna means. It's amazing how a guy who allegedly spent 20 years in yeshiva doesn't know basic hebrew, but I guess that's what happens when you go to the 10:00 shacharis and hang out in the coffee room all day.
He should say 'yichud l'ishto', or more precisely 'meyached lishto'. The grammer is completely wrong. And the 'b'almoh' doesn't fit either. Yichud meaning designation would need an explainer of what the designation is for.
No, the MM is 'teitching' the rambam's words;
מַכְנִיסָהּ לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ
Not a word about 'designation'
Nice try, though.
By that standard, there's now such thing as law either. That way lies madness.
What a ridiculous yeshivish analogy. You clearly know nothing about the law or halochoh. I'm not even going to debate your stupid analogy. like I don't debate Dovid's.
We don't even know for sure the basics about fundemental mitzvos. The ones we learned as tiny tots. The most moving time of the year, Tell me, is the mitzvah to 'blow' or 'hear' the shofar? And whilst we are there, we don't even know for sure which set are the 'main' - and do you know which matzoh on seider night is the d'oreysoh? Everything is a dispute.
PS - what is a teruah?
לאו דווקא
Yes davka. Every single one. Which word in 'kol b'isha ervoh' means 'singing'?
Rav Rabinovitch held it applies to erotic singing. Not like i follow that pesak but its a pesak which definetly exists.
That's very very very מחודש
גברא קא חזינא סברא לא קא חזינא
I don’t have that kulloh, but it's not outlandish at all. It fits in very well with the context, k'eish b'nerous. Why should a 100 year old croaky woman's voice be considered an ervah? That's the chiddush.
I can try to look up his psak in שיח נחום and send you. I agree its not the majority opinion but you cant say nobody has what to rely on by זמירות שבת etc when there's no חשש of seduction.
"Techeilet is controversial by us too."
That's true. I heard a shiur on yutorah from Rabbi Arnie Wittenstein, and he mentioned that whoever thinks the murex is ודאי, or almost ודאי, the correct techeiles, has no idea how history works.
"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."
This statement is way too kind (as are the various comments on RJ saying NS is just a big am haaretz but not a kofer). Hardly an invigorating message - really? That's the best you got? Please explain why National Acceptance/Canonization is not outright kefirah. It is the underlying premise for any remnant of religious practice within Reform/Conservative/Reconstructionist Judaism and now Rationalist Judaism, (and according to NS it is normative in general Orthodox Judaism and completely uncontroversial in MO circles - LOL!) and it does so by eliminating the need for Torah M'shamayim and even G-d Himself from the equation. The only difference is that R/C/RC very quickly discarded most religious practice when it got inconvenient and explained it with typical ends justify the means rationalization since Torah is not G-d given or anything like that - and after all, why can't "national will" decide to "nationally un-accept" something. But as you've pointed out, RJ/NS is starting to do the same thing with kol isha! So it's just a matter of time...
I think these people really believe that "lo bashamyim" means "lo min hashamyim", like one of NS's groupies (mistakenly) wrote. Halacha is all up to the "national will" and for the sake of "stability". Belief in Hashem and Toras Hashem is not a requirement in this new religion. So I ask again - How can this be anything less than kefirah?
You are correct, viewed in historical context, it is definitely kefira. Perhaps this idea deserves its own post.
"there were many machlokes about treifos that they didn't test and have such experiences about." Please explain.
"That obviously means that it was not in the hands of the chachamim, but in our hands." So what? If you mean that halacha is determined by what was in the hands of the chachamim then the whole אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה בְּדַרְכֵי הָרְפוּאָה שֶׁבְּיָדֵינוּ is simply שיחה בטלה.
"It's clear that halacha 12 and 13 are meant to be read together." In 12 his reponse is אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּחְיֶה, whereas in 13 his response is the pasuk. What's not clear about that?
"He doesn't say anything about mistakes at all." So what was he coming to answer in 13?
"I would ask the inverse". Why are you avoiding the question? I still haven't seen any coherent pshat from you as to what the Rambam sees in the pasuk, other than some vague philosiphy about Mesora.
I actually don't think עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ has anything to do with mistakes at all.
"the Rambam doesn't mention mistakes in *any* of the places he brings that pasuk." Where alse does the Rambam discuss the issue of mistakes.
I believe the concept of עִקַּר תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. וְהֵם עַמּוּדֵי הַהוֹרָאָה is that even though one feels they are mistaken one must follow them. ימין ושמאל just teaches is us how far to take it.
"... 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."
A strong Kasha. But RDS still has a point if when he writes about “stability” he means avoiding Machlokess. Later the Gemara says
ב"מ נט: (תנור עכנאי) ואף ר''ג היה בא בספינה עמד עליו נחשול לטבעו ...עמד על רגליו ואמר רבונו של עולם גלוי וידוע לפניך שלא לכבודי עשיתי ולא לכבוד בית אבא עשיתי אלא לכבודך שלא ירבו מחלוקות בישראל
I.e., although the basis is לא בשמים היא , it is also based on שלא ירבו מחלוקות בישראל. (I leave it for others to resolve the apparent contradiction.) In which case we have your Kasha, let the stability be attained by following the Heavenly signs.
(I don't know who was the first to connect תנור עכנאי with לא תסור/זקן ממרא but there also you have the idea of, if it's the right word, stability:
סנהדרין פח: (זקן ממרא) וכשבאתי אצל חבירי שבדרום ... על זקן ממרא לא הודו לי כדי שלא ירבו מחלוקת בישראל
וכן ברמב"ן דברים יז-י, והצורך במצוה הזאת צורך גדולה מאד … וידוע הוא שלא ישוו הדעות בכל הדברים הנולדים והנה ירבו המחלוקות ...)
Good Shabbos.
Cheers!
חזק!
The point of having a Sanhedrin in the first place is stability, שלא ירבו מחלוקות בישראל. That has nothing to do with the לא בשמים היא part of the story, which is what Natan was quoting. If Hashem decided Torah should be paskened by a Navi, stability would not be compromised in any way.
Maybe for when there's no longer nevuah or bas kol.
And what do you do when there is no longer a Sanhedrin? That just clearly not the idea of לא בשמים היא, and you certainly don't see that in the story.
"You think the point of the pasuk is to tell us that we follow the Gemara even when it paskens incorrectly?" What else can the Rambam be saying?
"I don't understand what you see from the Rambam in Mamrim." I see what the Rambam understood this pasuk is teaching us.
"who is talking about gezeiros, takanos, and minhagim. What do those have to do with treifos or the question of whether we follow the Gemara when it's wrong?" I guess this is the mekor of the Dor Revii and Rav Fisher. Or perhaps the Rambam understood that there was a drabanan factor specifically in hilchos treifos as the Dor revii is mechadesh bshitaso.
Alternatively, you can go with the peshat of הג"ר דוד ברעסלויאר שליט"א ראש כולל פאלסבארג ומשגיח ב.מ.ג, (נחלי דבש קונטרס דברי סופרים סימן י"ח) who proves from this that even a horaah regarding a metzius falls under the same category asהַתַּקָּנוֹת וְהַגְּזֵרוֹת וְהַמִּנְהָגוֹת. )
Before you ask me how else to learn the Rambam, I would ask you why you think yours is a reasonable pshat in the first place? Why is the fact that we have different cures than Chazal automatically means they were mistaken? And why does ע"פ התורה אשר יורוך mean that we must follow Chazal's mistakes? I don't think that's a reasonable pshat at all. And the Rambam never says that it means Chazal were טועה. He only says that in Hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh (2:10), about the Sanhedrin, and using a different pasuk.
My pshat is that even though a treifa is not supposed to live, and we found a way to make it live, we go with the *Mesorah* that these 70 things are treifos. That is ע"פ התורה אשר יורוך.
I don't think there is any proof from the fact that the Rambam quotes the same pasuk about a different thing in a different place in a different context. And even if there was a connection, what are you bringing from there? The Rambam in hilchos Mamrim is not talking about Chazal making mistakes.
"what are you bringing from there?And why does ע"פ התורה אשר יורוך mean that we must follow Chazal's mistakes?" If you understand like the Dor Revii then it means that there was a takana. If you understand like Harav Dovid Breslauer shlita then it means that Chazal were had the power of bais din hagodol and we can't argue on them. (As to the question what if they were a טועה בדבר משנה that is a legitimate question and it does seem that it is very hard and probably impossible for us to qualify Chaal as such as we have no hasagah as to their undersanding of Torah and how they came to conclusions. Bu we can say that the pashtus is that they simply were unknowing of the metzius.) That is how the Rambam defines this pasuk in hilchos Mamrim.
"we go with the *Mesorah* that these 70 things are treifos. That is ע"פ התורה אשר יורוך" is not how the Rambam explained the Pasuk.
I don't understand the Dor Revi'i, either in sevara, or in pshat in the Rambam, it makes no sense to me at all. And since he is against my mesorah, I see no reason to take his תמוה pshat into account.
I agree that the the Gemara may have a koach like Bais Din Hagadol, since it was Rav Ashi's Beis Din and all of Klal Yisroel accepted it, this is what the Rambam in hakdmah to Yad says. But again, the pasuk ע"פ התורה אשר יורוך is not prima facie talking about a ta'us in metzius. And there is absolutely no reason to extend this chiddush of considering the Gemara like the Beis Din Hagadol to a case where the Gemara is obviously making a mistake, and they are not around to be chozer- which is what they would obviously do if they were alive. And the Rambam doesn't say they made a ta'us in those places he brings it. And in fact, from halacha 12 in perek 10 of Shechita, he conspicuously avoids saying they erred, but says that even though it looks to us like a treifa, since they ruled it's not a treifa, there must be some cure.
Rather, when he bring that pasuk, he means that we rely on the halachos that the Talmud (which we will treat as Beis Din Hagadol) taught us, this is how he explains ע"פ התורה אשר יורוך in the first halacha in Mamrim, and in Sefer Hamitzvos.
I agree that the hakdama to Dor Revii is maskilish. I wasn't using it as a source, just as a possible explanation as to where הַתַּקָּנוֹת וְהַגְּזֵרוֹת וְהַמִּנְהָגוֹת comes in.
I first saw the sefer in B.M.G. when learning Chulin. As a typical batlan I first read the hakdama (which actually is very relevant for his aproach to Treifos), and I was shockrd that the Yeshiva had such a sefer. Then I searched Otsar Hachma and saw that Rav Elyashiv and Rav SHlomo Zalman used it. (They probably knew him personally too). I guess there was some leeway for a Talmid Chacham וכידוע התייחסות הגרייק והגרחק להגרגנ ועיין אוהב משפט להתשבץ בהקדמה פרק ט.
It's no worse than the sefer Cheshbon Hanefesh that was written by an actual bonafide maskil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Mendel_Lefin
I see there are 2 sefarim on otsar hachachma about it (מבוא חשבון supporting him and דגל מחנה ראובן proving that he was a maskil), and the edition from Machon Harav Kook has a mevo about it. If Reb Yisroel knew that then either he felt that the sefer was just תוכו not קליפתו and תוכו אכל קליפתו זרק, or he held that these techniques are chochma not Torah. Either way, some of the mehalech is based on Benjamin Franklin, so there must have been some of that approach.
However, I still find it hard to accept that Reb Ysroel Salanter would have encouraged learning the sefer of "an actual bonafide maskil" as you put it, if he was aware.
The point is that they used the very sefer whch has this hakdama. Without getting into the debate about the mechabr of Chesbon Hanefesh (you may be right but wikipedia is certainly no proof. I believe a recent editiion of the sefer had a mavo about it), was Reb Yisrael Salanter aware of all this?
(I understand the maskilim claimed Reb Yisrael too was one of theirs.)
"Why is the fact that we have different cures than Chazal automatically means they were mistaken?"
Why did the Rambam need a pasuk if he wasn't entertaining the possibility that Chazal erred?
And now that he does bring this pasuk how are we to understand how it answers the question if not by looking how the Rambam explains it elsewhere?
Where do we find that this pasuk teaches us the concept of Mesorah? As you write, it teaches us the power of Bais Din Hagodol, and specifically regardingהַתַּקָּנוֹת וְהַגְּזֵרוֹת וְהַמִּנְהָגוֹת .
In the first halacha in Hilchos Mamrim he says
בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם הֵם עִקַּר תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. וְהֵם עַמּוּדֵי הַהוֹרָאָה וּמֵהֶם חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט יוֹצֵא לְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל. וַעֲלֵיהֶן הִבְטִיחָה תּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז יא) "עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ" זוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה.
In sefer Hamitzvos Aseh 174
היא שצונו לשמוע לבית דין הגדול ולעשות כל מה שיצוו מאיסור והיתר ואין הבדל בזה בין הדבר שיסברוהו או דבר שיוציאוהו מן ההיקשים שהתורה נדרשת בהן או הדבר שיסכימו עליו שהוא איסור תורה או לפי ענין מן הענינים שיהיה דעתם שהוא ישר ושבו הזוק לתורה הכל אנחנו חייבין לשמוע ולעשות ולעמוד על פיהם לא נעבור ממנו. והוא אמרו יתברך על פי התורה אשר יורוך.
So I take from that that this a general pasuk for being mekabel the Torah shebaal Peh from the Beis Din Hagadol. I think that is pashut pshat. In neither of these places does he say anything about Beis Din making an obvious mistake in metzius. I think he is using it in Hilchos Shechitah also that we must be mekabel the Torah shebaal Peh from the chachamim, and not make up our own treifos or take away from them based on our own sevara. I don't think he is coming to say they made a mistake in metzius, he never mentions that, and in halacha 12 implies the opposite.
"בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם הֵם עִקַּר תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. וְהֵם עַמּוּדֵי הַהוֹרָאָה "היא שצונו לשמוע לבית דין הגדול
In neither of these places does he say anything about Beis Din making an obvious mistake in metzius. I am not clear what you're intention is. Are you still bothered by the טועה בדבר משנה problem?
How does that connect with anything else you wrote?
"in halacha 12 implies the opposite." Exactly the point. The Rambam clearly distinguished between the 2. (I believe Reb Dovid Breslauer brings this out.) According to you that the metzius today isn't relevant why didn't the Rambam write אפשר היה שתחיה? And why did the Rambam bring the pasuk only in regards to the last halacha?
There are many charedim in Israel than don tzitzis with techeiles.
More like Argaman that has been genetically modified to match the color of authentic techeiles (which we don't have nowadays).
You only know enough to gripe and nothing more. The Charedim I know are serious. You are not, whatever you are.
They are definitely serious. They are also completely ignorant on anything pertaining to techeiles.
I've debated many of them, they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
What I wrote above is basic science. Photo-debromination, which is the process that was recently invented to artificially remove all the bromine from the murex, was not possible in ancient times. That means that the murex was previously used only for purple/violet. This has been written about extensively, I'd recommend you start reading up on the subject.
What do you think about those who claim that techeiles is actually violet/purple?
From an academic standpoint that makes the most sense. It fits with basically everything. This also fits with what is used in Assyrian documents to describe ancient takiltu.
However, from the Chazal it seems like techeiles is blue, so I'm not in a rush to do that LMAASEH.
Stupid.
The problem you can't avoid is that dyeing was huge industry at the time and we have extensive, basically complete knowledge of what and how they did. We know how they dyed nearly everything and we certainly know all the snimals used, if not the shades.. Techeiles must be one of those dyes as chazal make it clear it was not a trade secret. You can debate the color, but chilazon means snail, and snails were the dyeing industry and thus the chilazon must be one of those ancient snails. There's no way around it. The only one that matches almost perfectly is the murex. But you nitpick based on on the almost, logic be damned.
http://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=60961&sid=39ad12643b01716e34ec9ff94e8c12c8
http://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=59941&sid=39ad12643b01716e34ec9ff94e8c12c8
After a few pages of the thread)
There is a chavos yair who says techeiles is purple because of what we see by the murex, and some say it fits with chazal that its like the sky since Rashi says that's at sunset. I still think the Pashtus is that it's blue and as long as this one is mainly purple מהיכא תיתי its not argaman.
מרכבות, I never looked too deeply into photo debromination, but from what I understand, the process consists of simply leaving the murex blood out in the sun until it changes shades. Nothing too high-tech. What is far-fetched then to speculate that they did that in the times of Chazal as well?
The short answer, because they didn't use transparent glass.
Now the long answer. It needs to be left out in the sun DURING REDUCTION. Now, reduction can only take place if the vat is covered. Otherwise, the dye would oxidize. So basically, you need to expose it to the sun, WITHOUT EXPOSING IT TO THE AIR. Which is almost impossible. What have they discovered? You can place the dye in a transparent glass, during reduction. That way, it can be exposed to the sun, while still remaining airtight.
However, transparent glass was never used in the past for dyeing. Archeologists have uncovered numerous dyeing workshops, with the vats, and there was never any glass there. Not to mention, that transparent glass probably wasn't even around during bayis rishon.
I would recommend you read Professor Zvi Koren's numerous articles on the subject, where he elaborates on this very point.
I hear. Good answer. So how do the pro-techeilis guys explain away this little technicality?
They did have transparent glass (I personally saw this at a Canaanite exhibit in the Israel museum ) but yes, was extremely rare.
I personally know someone who claims he got it to turn blue by simply cooking it slowly to a high temperature, without it exposed to sun, but can't vouch for him.
"Not to mention, that transparent glass probably wasn't even around during bayis rishon."
Seriously? This is what you've got? Spoken like an academic. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Since you like to refer to science authoritatively and discount the possibility of lost knowledge, I am curious where you stand on cosmology? Nasa or our mesorah?
No opinion on the matter.
But with regards to techeiles, science and Chazal are all on same page, so that's an easy one.
They might align on this issue, but don't mistake that for science being on the same page as Chaza"l, ever. If techeiles were as critical to controlling the narrative as the earth's position in the world, or the age of the world for that matter (which was just doubled, overnight, to 28 billion years), it too would be contested and gaslit just as vigorously. It is not.
What you wrote above was editorializing and commentary and an unsubstantiated claim of genetic manipulation, not science.
I am not going to claim any sort of expertise on the subject, but I have discussed it with a friend many years ago who looked into it more than me.
What I was told is that the dye fresh out of the snail is purple. Exposure to light changes its color. So, maybe "photo-debromination" is a modern process unknown to the ancients, but exposing a dye to light in a way that does the same thing would not be.
https://www.tekhelet.com/kitrossky/tekhelet.htm
https://www.tekhelet.com/ask-ptil-tekhelet/
"In order to achieve that [conversion from Tyrian Purple to Techeiles Blue], there are various ways to de-brominate the di- and mono- indigo molecules, one of which is to expose the dye solution (in a specific stage as it is prepared for dyeing wool) to sunlight."
This is exactly what my friend told me, and certainly seems well within the realm of understanding of the ancients.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/more-about-torah-science-and-torah/comment/21781062
I noted and replied to that comment to. You rest your claim on the absence of glass in ancient excavations.
Right, that's exactly Happy's point.
The Behag wasn't arguing on the gemara, rather explaining that the gemara's statements about RHR only apply if there are 600,000 people.
Wheres NoNuanceNatan (NNN) would probably explain it that the Behag is arguing on the gemara.