I find the idea that Chazal "used the science of their times", although it may be true in some technical sense, is misleading and doesn't do justice to the scientific questions on Chazal, or to Chazal themselves. I will explain why shortly. Beforehand however, I want to comment on how Natan Slifkin takes this concept to absurd lengths. For example, to explain why Chazal thought the Salamander is generated spontaneously in fire, he asserted that this
I would humbly add the Rashi toward the end of second perek in Succah, on the Gemara that describes the massive scope of R' Yochanan ben Zakai's knowledge. One of the things mentioned there are 'dikdukei sofrim' which Rsahi explains along the lines of having the knowledge of human nature that the sages did which they used to evaluate when to make gezeiros and takanos.
I would also add the gemara in first perek of kesubos where an amora held some kind of empirical test to see if the woman was a besulah, but first tested it out on two maidservants one who was known to be a besulah and one who wasn't. The gemara specifically asks why he bothered - ai, he heard from his rebbe that such a test works, and answers that yeah but you still gotta make sure you're doing it right.
I checked some of his other posts. That guy is really a first-rate idiot, he makes Natan look like a genius. He says אמר רַבָּה, דְּאָמְרִי: בְּתוּלָה הַנִּשֵּׂאת בְּיוֹם הָרְבִיעִי תִּיבָּעֵל לַהֶגְמוֹן תְּחִלָּה was a made up legend, based on the fact that a sociologist showed it didn't exist in MEDIEVAL FRANCE.
And of course, he is a kofer (but you already knew that), quoting this in a discussion about Sotah "Sotah stands out in its description of particularly extreme and violent gestures, intentional defacement of the female body; its exposure before an audience; and finally its mutilation to the point of death. These gestures have no trace in the biblical ritual or in sources from the Second Temple period, and they appear to be an innovation of Tannaitic discourse. Furthermore, rabbnic literature itself hardly contains parallels of these gestures, which in fact contravene this literatures’s ethos of punishment and modesty, according to which the body, especially the female body, should be protected from physical damage or the public gaze as much as possible. Thus, in any scholarly analysis of rabbininic attitudes towards questions of modesty, punishment and gender, Tractate Sotah is an anomaly that doesn’t quite fit into the overall picture."
Lol, such dumb objections. He needs a whole introduction about Russel's teapot. I'm sorry to all you women reading this. The test was grotesque. It wasn't double blinded. It was unethical. Some police officers weren't good at smelling things so Rabban Gamliel couldn't be either. Maybe the wines were stronger in those days, but maybe they weren't. And my favorite, he found some Greeks that had a similar belief, so that somehow make Rabban Gamliel's test less plausible. This is why Chazal were concerned about translating the Torah, for people like him- אני מביא ראיה מן רבן גמליאל ואתה מביא ראיה מן השוטים.
" It turns out that the belief in smells and fragrances easily passing in and out of a woman’s body was also one that was held by the Ancient Greeks."
You are aware that that statement is kefira to those that frequent these parts. They believe every single medical remedy (from cat foetuses to dead chickens) or 'scientific' fact in the talmud is part of torah sh'pal peh. Even though we have historic evidence that indeed, many of them were shared by the Greeks, Babylonians or whoever.
The questions of Science vs Torah are funny in a way because it is sort of like asking a question on a presentation before the presentation is over. I do not claim to posses full knowledge of what the Torah is saying, nor do I claim to posses full knowledge of the actual physical reality. So, how can I ask a question from one to the other? Has scientific inquiry concluded? Has our knowledge of Torah reached perfection? If the answer to either of those two questions is no (which any rational person would admit to) then the pomposity behind the Science vs Torah discussion is gravely misplaced. Take women breastfeeding and its relationship to menstruations for example. The Gemara in Nidda was brought above that made the claim דם נעכר ונעשה חלב. What exactly does this mean? That ruined blood turns into milk? Outside of making a wild guess not in line with their observations of old milk, how would Chazal know the relationship between Mensturations and Nursing outside of the observed result that women do not bleed as often while nursing? I would venture to guess that this Gemara did not make sense to a whole lot of people outside of Chazal. But, lo and behold, along comes science close to 2000 years later and discovers the hormone Prolactin which is responsible for both Period bleeding and, you guessed it, production of Mommy Milk. To quote the Australian Gov Health Website (Not real name) "If you are breastfeeding your baby, your periods may not return for several months after childbirth. This is because the hormone that causes you to make milk, prolactin, also stops you from ovulating and having your period. If you are breastfeeding day and night, it can be up to a year before your period returns" https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/breastfeeding-and-periods.
Is this perhaps what Chazal meant? Maybe yes, and maybe no. See, the story is not over yet. I still am not sure what Chazal meant, nor the ultimate physical reality of how a woman's body works. When the story is finally over, and all the facts are in front of us, I have no doubt we will be able to work out all the contradictions. The likes of Reb Chaim of Brisk, Reb Elchonon Wasserman and countless of others managed to reconcile far more difficult questions and contradictions, I am sure they are more than up to the task on this one. But until then. let us let the presenter of facts, Hashem, finish his presentation to mankind.
Good luck with that mehalech. Maybe one day we'll see exactly how dirt can create mice and how the scientific evidence is how the world is really 6000 years old.
(And btw, no, thats of course not what chazal meant.)
Boy , you really did not understand anything about that age of the universe discussion did you?
About the mice.
Maybe, or maybe we will understand what Chazal meant about mice Gemara.
I understand you have a prior bias to assuming Chazal were incorrect. I am not coming to reengineer that bias, I am coming to explain to an open-minded audience (or perhaps even a Yeshivesh audience) why we are not bothered by seeming contradictions between Chazal's statements and physical reality.
Also, just curious. Do you think its intellectually enlightened to ask about a random case example to challenge an overall approach? Like what did you think was going to happen by bringing up a new case? It would force us to open a brand new discussion about that particular and when that does not end well for you, you can just jump to a new particular. You, Test, Shaul Shapiro all seem to love doing that and as a PSA to you guys, it really does show a lack of intellectual coherence.
I think there is one important point to add, and that is, that there is a categorical difference between rishonim and chazal. We understand that the halachos delineated by chazal were not based on mistakes. Halachah is not based on simple scientific errors, and the takanos of chazal are based on a deep understanding of human nature.
We do find that Rishonim explain chazal based on the science that was available in their days. At times modern science disagrees, but it is important to note, that we new scientific findings can not supersede chazal, but we do find at times that it can supersede the words of rishonim. The rishonim did their best to explain chazal with whatever was the science of their times. If science advances, we do not say that chazal were wrong. We respectfully explain the chazal in a different manner than that of the rishonim. The Chasal Sofer in Nidah says this about Rashi and Tosfos. Occasionally we find this in other areas as well.
The reason for this difference is that we view the rishonim and chazal differently. Chazal were explaining the Torah sheBaal Peh. This was faithfully handed down from generation to generation going all the way back to Moshe Rabaynu. It is absurd to think that Hashem gave Moshe wrong information! When we find chazal discussing different topics of Torah, they are discussing the Torah that was given to Moshe and passed down to them. It does not have mistakes in it!!
The Rishonim are on a different level. We understand that their Torah knowledge is much greater than ours can ever be, and we submit to their greater understanding. If we find a difficulty with their explanation of a particular topic, we admit that the difficulty lies in our inferior understanding, not with them. When it comes to their understanding of science, we know that scientific knowledge has advanced greatly since then, and we do acknowledge this. At times our explanation of a subject will differ than that of the rishonim. We are not arguing on chazal, and we are not really arguing on the rishon. The rishonim and us, are both doing our best to understand chazal based on the latest findings that are available.
Do you know the difference between d'rabbonons and d'oreysohs?
Most of the machlokasim in shas is about d'rabbonons. That is not from way back to moshe. Mayim shelonu is a d'rabbonon. The scientific discussion there has nothing to do with torah sh'pal peh. Chazal rarely argue about actual dinei d'oreysoh.
There are MANY examples where there is a machlokes in the mishna or gemara regarding details that are Torah based.
Did you actually go through all of shas and count up the arguments? How many are on derabanans and how many are on de'oraysahs? If you claim to know what most of the machloksim are about, you should be able to back up that claim with numbers!
Many details in torah mitzvos are in fact d'rabbonons. And it's not obvious from the sugyah. That's why you need rishonim and acharonim. Even something like sof zeman krias shema shel yom, the magid mishnah writes is d'rabonnon and midoreysoh its all day. Paralel to night, when its all night.
You would be surprised how many times the rishonim and acharonim say, even when the tanoim and amaroim bring pesukim, that they are asmachtos.
But look, if your entire torah knowledge is limited to a few daf noshim nezikin like most of yeshivaland you wouldn't know this.
You did not address my point. I asked if you actually went through all of shas to determine if most of the arguments are about details of Torah or of Rabbinic Law. You were quick to insult, but slow to address the point raised.
Why do I need to go through shas with numbers? I was in yeshivah/kollel for 20 years. I know what I am talking about. You won't find in the text that, as a random example, osi rabim u'mavetel mechitos, brings it down from a d'oreysoh to a d'rabbonon - the implication is that it is a posul d'oreysoh. But that is not what many rishonim/acharonim say.
You claimed that most of the arguments in shas are on the Rabbinic laws, not on Torah laws. I asked if you can back up that claim. Either you yourself went through the whole shas and you can say that I personally went over every single machlokes, and I can say that there are this many arguments about Torah law, and this many arguments about Rabbinic Law, or you can cite someone else who did. If you can't do either, then your claim is unsubstantiated.
Either way, this is not really relevant to my main point, and that is that there is a categorical difference between the rishonim and between chazal.
All of your examples in footnote #3 of talmudic rabbis supposedly doing empirical science, are in fact _tests_. And those tests are mostly clearly false, from the perspective of modern science. For example, testing a woman's virginity by having her sit on a barrel of wine, and seeing if you can smell wine from her mouth, clearly doesn't work. The only exception is the example of the story from Cleopatra, which is a) likely not a true story, from a historical perspective; b) explicitly not the rabbis, but Cleopatra
I never said they did modern science, lol. I said they did empirical investigation. Tests = empirical investigation. None of those tests are false. How do you know the virginity test is false? You just made that up on the spot.
The rest of the post doesn't say anything new. Despite all the bashing of R' Slifkin's approach, you're not actually saying anything different from him, you just have a more reverential tone
It sounds like you either didn't read the post or suffer from lack of reading comprehension. There is a vast difference between me and Slifkin, in that Slifkin says that the words of the Sages are false and they didn't know what they were talking about, while I say the opposite. I made the difference exceedingly clear throughout the entire essay. And he is not a "Rav", any more than a reform rabbi.
"Before one asks oneself if Chazal were right about the scientific reality, one should ask if he understands what they were saying in the first place. Chazal derived the halacha of killing on Shabbos from the rams, which were slaughtered to build the Mishkan. Just like the rams procreated, so too, to be liable on Shabbos, one must kill a creature that procreates. Let’s pause here. Do you understand this step? Why did they decide that the determinative characteristic of the ram is that it procreates? Maybe it should be that it has hair, or that it has four legs, or that it's bigger than a tefach? Why this arbitrary category of procreation?"
1) The melacha of Shochait involves netilas neshama. You can't do netilas neshama on a 4 legged chair, a hair-mop, or some random tefach+ sized thing.
2) Parin ve'rabin doesn't mean that it procreates. It means that it's a form of life which is *produced through procreation.* A sterile mule would qualify too.
Not sure if I understand your #1 objection, but if you don't like the way I said it, then say anything that walks on four legs, or grows hair, or grows to be at least a tefach tall.
My point is that there's nothing especially arbitrary about the distinction. The definition of melacha is that it's similar to what was done in the midbar. Now obviously, it doesn't need to be identical. It just needs to share the same underlying characteristics. So it comes down to defining what those are. In the case of shochait, Chazal provided a definition, namely that it needs to be a living animal which comes into existence via sexual reproduction, which excludes things which generate spontaneously, via parthenogenesis, or from lice. That doesn't seem to be especially arbitrary. Could it have been different? I suppose. But that's inherent in any definition. You could always ask why not some other alternative.
By contrast, having 4 legs or hair isn't relevant to defining whether something is or isn't alive in any sense.
I didn't say it's arbitrary. Obviously the חכמים understood the reason to choose this definition as opposed to another. If all we care about is something that has נטילת נשמה, then that's Rav Eliezer's opinion that it is any בעל חיים. The Rabbis are saying it has to be similar to the rams in more ways than that. And I haven't ever heard a good pshat in why coming to existence via sexual reproduction is a more valid underlying characteristic that is similar to rams than walking on four legs, or growing hair.
Obviously it would have to have life. But, why is life created through procreation the definition of life in relationship to being Chayiv for Netillas Neshama? Why could it not have been only animals with four legs. Or, only mammals. Or, only land animals. Not agreeing with his point as I feel the intuitive difference, just helping you find his point.
Well put. "כל מדות חכמים — כן הוא" and "אם כן נותנין דבריו לשיעורים" are the key points. Law does not have to correlate to reality. It is an assumption assumed to apply in all cases, even if there may be exceptions. I don't see a problem assuming Chazal may have erred in an assumption or two, but that will be for a Sanhedrin to decide.
I am happy that you concede the obvious truth - certainly scientific realia in the Gemara are errors , which does not affect the end halacha. I think your mehalach why is probably correct.
I didn't concede that, I said it is possible, but there is no reason to say so in the vast majority of cases even when it sounds that way. Please don't misunderstand me. And I also didn't say law doesn't have to corelate to reality. It does, otherwise it's a joke. It just doesn't have to correlate as tightly as science would expect.
The time of Krias Shema is based on Chazal's understanding of the typical time when kings arise in the morning. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE
The details of berachos on food are based on what Chazal determined provides sustenance, in which amounts they do so, and what is considered sitting down for a meal. ALSO NOT SCIENCE.
The laws of muktzeh are based on Chazal's understanding of those objects people set aside and that which they will use. ALSO NOT SCIENCE
The quantities to be liable for carrying on Shabbos are determined based on what Chazal understood are significant or useful for each material or object. ALSO NOT SCIENCE
The laws of chametz are based on what Chazal considered to be the chemical process of leavening. NO THEY ARE NOT. ALL CHAZAL DETERMINE IS THE TIMING OF THE PROECESS, AT WHAT POINT IT IS CHOMETZ/
The laws of Yom Tov include concepts such as which foods would taste sufficiently better fresh. NOT SCIENCE
The many details of conditional marriage or divorce are determined by Chazal’s understanding of people's mindsets regarding these issues. The same is with oaths, vows, and sacrifices, and the same is with Choshen Mishpat, interpersonal monetary matters. NOT SCIENCE
The many laws about valid and invalid witnesses in certain situations based which parties Chazal considered to be more or less trustworthy NOT SCIENCE
All the halachos about salting meat, about meat and milk mixtures, about food and dishes absorbing prohibited taste is based on Chazal's understanding of how blood, fat, and taste is transferred CHAZAL SAY TASTE IS TRANSFERRED THROUGH HEAT, POSSIBLY ACIDIC OR SALTY SUBSTANCES. SO WHAT? WHAT IS YOUR POINT.
All the halachos of Niddah are based on Chazal’s understanding of women's menstrual cycles. ALL? SAYS IT ALL REALLY? THE CHASAM SOFER ALREADY WRITES THAT RASHI GOT IT ALL WRONG IN HIS PESHAT IN 'MOSHLO MOSHOL'.
In other words, you clearly don't know what science is. Or you are being completely disengenous as usual.
The times that kings get up in the morning has nothing to do with science as we understand the meaning of science. Such nonsense can be used as a binyan av to the rest of your post. Good day.
Thanks, those are good sources. Of those sources you quoted, looks like only Gregory mentions that it was produced in fire, like the Gemara. I searched on that site and found several more about salamanders, but they don't mention that.
Incredible stuff.
I would humbly add the Rashi toward the end of second perek in Succah, on the Gemara that describes the massive scope of R' Yochanan ben Zakai's knowledge. One of the things mentioned there are 'dikdukei sofrim' which Rsahi explains along the lines of having the knowledge of human nature that the sages did which they used to evaluate when to make gezeiros and takanos.
I would also add the gemara in first perek of kesubos where an amora held some kind of empirical test to see if the woman was a besulah, but first tested it out on two maidservants one who was known to be a besulah and one who wasn't. The gemara specifically asks why he bothered - ai, he heard from his rebbe that such a test works, and answers that yeah but you still gotta make sure you're doing it right.
Chazak v'amatz.
(My apologies if you actually mentioned either of these two sources and I missed it).
https://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2022/4/29/yevamot-60b-wine-virgins-and-teapot
I checked some of his other posts. That guy is really a first-rate idiot, he makes Natan look like a genius. He says אמר רַבָּה, דְּאָמְרִי: בְּתוּלָה הַנִּשֵּׂאת בְּיוֹם הָרְבִיעִי תִּיבָּעֵל לַהֶגְמוֹן תְּחִלָּה was a made up legend, based on the fact that a sociologist showed it didn't exist in MEDIEVAL FRANCE.
https://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2015/2/2/ketuvot-3-the-hegmon-and-the-myth-of-the-law-of-the-first-night-5xcym
He says אָמַר רַבָּה: נָפַל מִן הַגָּג וְנִתְקַע — חַיָּיב בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים, וּבִיבִמְתּוֹ לֹא קָנָה. בְּנֵזֶק, בְּצַעַר, בְּשֶׁבֶת, בְּרִפּוּי. אֲבָל בּוֹשֶׁת לָא מִיחַיַּיב, דְּאָמַר מָר: אֵין חַיָּיב עַל הַבּוֹשֶׁת עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוֵּון
is "entirely impossible", because it would cause an injury.
https://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2022/4/25/yevamot-54-bizzarre-talmudic-scenarios
And of course, he is a kofer (but you already knew that), quoting this in a discussion about Sotah "Sotah stands out in its description of particularly extreme and violent gestures, intentional defacement of the female body; its exposure before an audience; and finally its mutilation to the point of death. These gestures have no trace in the biblical ritual or in sources from the Second Temple period, and they appear to be an innovation of Tannaitic discourse. Furthermore, rabbnic literature itself hardly contains parallels of these gestures, which in fact contravene this literatures’s ethos of punishment and modesty, according to which the body, especially the female body, should be protected from physical damage or the public gaze as much as possible. Thus, in any scholarly analysis of rabbininic attitudes towards questions of modesty, punishment and gender, Tractate Sotah is an anomaly that doesn’t quite fit into the overall picture."
https://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2015/9/30/sotah-2-infidelity-rndg2
Lol, such dumb objections. He needs a whole introduction about Russel's teapot. I'm sorry to all you women reading this. The test was grotesque. It wasn't double blinded. It was unethical. Some police officers weren't good at smelling things so Rabban Gamliel couldn't be either. Maybe the wines were stronger in those days, but maybe they weren't. And my favorite, he found some Greeks that had a similar belief, so that somehow make Rabban Gamliel's test less plausible. This is why Chazal were concerned about translating the Torah, for people like him- אני מביא ראיה מן רבן גמליאל ואתה מביא ראיה מן השוטים.
I would like to send you an email to try to respond point by point to your post, is that possible ?
Sure, happygoluckypersonage@gmail.com
thanks, just sent it
Any chance you could post it here?
" It turns out that the belief in smells and fragrances easily passing in and out of a woman’s body was also one that was held by the Ancient Greeks."
You are aware that that statement is kefira to those that frequent these parts. They believe every single medical remedy (from cat foetuses to dead chickens) or 'scientific' fact in the talmud is part of torah sh'pal peh. Even though we have historic evidence that indeed, many of them were shared by the Greeks, Babylonians or whoever.
Shittos Lakewood, if you like.
Really. I haven't seen that from ANYONE here. I haven't been called a kofer by anyone, (except Jewish Thoughtflow, and he doesn't count).
The questions of Science vs Torah are funny in a way because it is sort of like asking a question on a presentation before the presentation is over. I do not claim to posses full knowledge of what the Torah is saying, nor do I claim to posses full knowledge of the actual physical reality. So, how can I ask a question from one to the other? Has scientific inquiry concluded? Has our knowledge of Torah reached perfection? If the answer to either of those two questions is no (which any rational person would admit to) then the pomposity behind the Science vs Torah discussion is gravely misplaced. Take women breastfeeding and its relationship to menstruations for example. The Gemara in Nidda was brought above that made the claim דם נעכר ונעשה חלב. What exactly does this mean? That ruined blood turns into milk? Outside of making a wild guess not in line with their observations of old milk, how would Chazal know the relationship between Mensturations and Nursing outside of the observed result that women do not bleed as often while nursing? I would venture to guess that this Gemara did not make sense to a whole lot of people outside of Chazal. But, lo and behold, along comes science close to 2000 years later and discovers the hormone Prolactin which is responsible for both Period bleeding and, you guessed it, production of Mommy Milk. To quote the Australian Gov Health Website (Not real name) "If you are breastfeeding your baby, your periods may not return for several months after childbirth. This is because the hormone that causes you to make milk, prolactin, also stops you from ovulating and having your period. If you are breastfeeding day and night, it can be up to a year before your period returns" https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/breastfeeding-and-periods.
Is this perhaps what Chazal meant? Maybe yes, and maybe no. See, the story is not over yet. I still am not sure what Chazal meant, nor the ultimate physical reality of how a woman's body works. When the story is finally over, and all the facts are in front of us, I have no doubt we will be able to work out all the contradictions. The likes of Reb Chaim of Brisk, Reb Elchonon Wasserman and countless of others managed to reconcile far more difficult questions and contradictions, I am sure they are more than up to the task on this one. But until then. let us let the presenter of facts, Hashem, finish his presentation to mankind.
Good luck with that mehalech. Maybe one day we'll see exactly how dirt can create mice and how the scientific evidence is how the world is really 6000 years old.
(And btw, no, thats of course not what chazal meant.)
Boy , you really did not understand anything about that age of the universe discussion did you?
About the mice.
Maybe, or maybe we will understand what Chazal meant about mice Gemara.
I understand you have a prior bias to assuming Chazal were incorrect. I am not coming to reengineer that bias, I am coming to explain to an open-minded audience (or perhaps even a Yeshivesh audience) why we are not bothered by seeming contradictions between Chazal's statements and physical reality.
Also, just curious. Do you think its intellectually enlightened to ask about a random case example to challenge an overall approach? Like what did you think was going to happen by bringing up a new case? It would force us to open a brand new discussion about that particular and when that does not end well for you, you can just jump to a new particular. You, Test, Shaul Shapiro all seem to love doing that and as a PSA to you guys, it really does show a lack of intellectual coherence.
Great article. May I humbly add that I cited קבל את האמת ממי שאמרו in my eulogy for my grandfather. https://ishayirashashem.substack.com/p/notes-from-a-granddaughter
I think there is one important point to add, and that is, that there is a categorical difference between rishonim and chazal. We understand that the halachos delineated by chazal were not based on mistakes. Halachah is not based on simple scientific errors, and the takanos of chazal are based on a deep understanding of human nature.
We do find that Rishonim explain chazal based on the science that was available in their days. At times modern science disagrees, but it is important to note, that we new scientific findings can not supersede chazal, but we do find at times that it can supersede the words of rishonim. The rishonim did their best to explain chazal with whatever was the science of their times. If science advances, we do not say that chazal were wrong. We respectfully explain the chazal in a different manner than that of the rishonim. The Chasal Sofer in Nidah says this about Rashi and Tosfos. Occasionally we find this in other areas as well.
The reason for this difference is that we view the rishonim and chazal differently. Chazal were explaining the Torah sheBaal Peh. This was faithfully handed down from generation to generation going all the way back to Moshe Rabaynu. It is absurd to think that Hashem gave Moshe wrong information! When we find chazal discussing different topics of Torah, they are discussing the Torah that was given to Moshe and passed down to them. It does not have mistakes in it!!
The Rishonim are on a different level. We understand that their Torah knowledge is much greater than ours can ever be, and we submit to their greater understanding. If we find a difficulty with their explanation of a particular topic, we admit that the difficulty lies in our inferior understanding, not with them. When it comes to their understanding of science, we know that scientific knowledge has advanced greatly since then, and we do acknowledge this. At times our explanation of a subject will differ than that of the rishonim. We are not arguing on chazal, and we are not really arguing on the rishon. The rishonim and us, are both doing our best to understand chazal based on the latest findings that are available.
Do you know the difference between d'rabbonons and d'oreysohs?
Most of the machlokasim in shas is about d'rabbonons. That is not from way back to moshe. Mayim shelonu is a d'rabbonon. The scientific discussion there has nothing to do with torah sh'pal peh. Chazal rarely argue about actual dinei d'oreysoh.
There are MANY examples where there is a machlokes in the mishna or gemara regarding details that are Torah based.
Did you actually go through all of shas and count up the arguments? How many are on derabanans and how many are on de'oraysahs? If you claim to know what most of the machloksim are about, you should be able to back up that claim with numbers!
Many details in torah mitzvos are in fact d'rabbonons. And it's not obvious from the sugyah. That's why you need rishonim and acharonim. Even something like sof zeman krias shema shel yom, the magid mishnah writes is d'rabonnon and midoreysoh its all day. Paralel to night, when its all night.
You would be surprised how many times the rishonim and acharonim say, even when the tanoim and amaroim bring pesukim, that they are asmachtos.
But look, if your entire torah knowledge is limited to a few daf noshim nezikin like most of yeshivaland you wouldn't know this.
You did not address my point. I asked if you actually went through all of shas to determine if most of the arguments are about details of Torah or of Rabbinic Law. You were quick to insult, but slow to address the point raised.
Why do I need to go through shas with numbers? I was in yeshivah/kollel for 20 years. I know what I am talking about. You won't find in the text that, as a random example, osi rabim u'mavetel mechitos, brings it down from a d'oreysoh to a d'rabbonon - the implication is that it is a posul d'oreysoh. But that is not what many rishonim/acharonim say.
You don't agree - fine. That is your prerogative.
You claimed that most of the arguments in shas are on the Rabbinic laws, not on Torah laws. I asked if you can back up that claim. Either you yourself went through the whole shas and you can say that I personally went over every single machlokes, and I can say that there are this many arguments about Torah law, and this many arguments about Rabbinic Law, or you can cite someone else who did. If you can't do either, then your claim is unsubstantiated.
Either way, this is not really relevant to my main point, and that is that there is a categorical difference between the rishonim and between chazal.
All of your examples in footnote #3 of talmudic rabbis supposedly doing empirical science, are in fact _tests_. And those tests are mostly clearly false, from the perspective of modern science. For example, testing a woman's virginity by having her sit on a barrel of wine, and seeing if you can smell wine from her mouth, clearly doesn't work. The only exception is the example of the story from Cleopatra, which is a) likely not a true story, from a historical perspective; b) explicitly not the rabbis, but Cleopatra
I never said they did modern science, lol. I said they did empirical investigation. Tests = empirical investigation. None of those tests are false. How do you know the virginity test is false? You just made that up on the spot.
The rest of the post doesn't say anything new. Despite all the bashing of R' Slifkin's approach, you're not actually saying anything different from him, you just have a more reverential tone
It sounds like you either didn't read the post or suffer from lack of reading comprehension. There is a vast difference between me and Slifkin, in that Slifkin says that the words of the Sages are false and they didn't know what they were talking about, while I say the opposite. I made the difference exceedingly clear throughout the entire essay. And he is not a "Rav", any more than a reform rabbi.
"Before one asks oneself if Chazal were right about the scientific reality, one should ask if he understands what they were saying in the first place. Chazal derived the halacha of killing on Shabbos from the rams, which were slaughtered to build the Mishkan. Just like the rams procreated, so too, to be liable on Shabbos, one must kill a creature that procreates. Let’s pause here. Do you understand this step? Why did they decide that the determinative characteristic of the ram is that it procreates? Maybe it should be that it has hair, or that it has four legs, or that it's bigger than a tefach? Why this arbitrary category of procreation?"
1) The melacha of Shochait involves netilas neshama. You can't do netilas neshama on a 4 legged chair, a hair-mop, or some random tefach+ sized thing.
2) Parin ve'rabin doesn't mean that it procreates. It means that it's a form of life which is *produced through procreation.* A sterile mule would qualify too.
Not sure if I understand your #1 objection, but if you don't like the way I said it, then say anything that walks on four legs, or grows hair, or grows to be at least a tefach tall.
My point is that there's nothing especially arbitrary about the distinction. The definition of melacha is that it's similar to what was done in the midbar. Now obviously, it doesn't need to be identical. It just needs to share the same underlying characteristics. So it comes down to defining what those are. In the case of shochait, Chazal provided a definition, namely that it needs to be a living animal which comes into existence via sexual reproduction, which excludes things which generate spontaneously, via parthenogenesis, or from lice. That doesn't seem to be especially arbitrary. Could it have been different? I suppose. But that's inherent in any definition. You could always ask why not some other alternative.
By contrast, having 4 legs or hair isn't relevant to defining whether something is or isn't alive in any sense.
I didn't say it's arbitrary. Obviously the חכמים understood the reason to choose this definition as opposed to another. If all we care about is something that has נטילת נשמה, then that's Rav Eliezer's opinion that it is any בעל חיים. The Rabbis are saying it has to be similar to the rams in more ways than that. And I haven't ever heard a good pshat in why coming to existence via sexual reproduction is a more valid underlying characteristic that is similar to rams than walking on four legs, or growing hair.
Does anyone know what the halacha would be with regards to killing a large animal that was not created via sexual reproduction (i.e. sefer yetzirah)?
Obviously it would have to have life. But, why is life created through procreation the definition of life in relationship to being Chayiv for Netillas Neshama? Why could it not have been only animals with four legs. Or, only mammals. Or, only land animals. Not agreeing with his point as I feel the intuitive difference, just helping you find his point.
Well put. "כל מדות חכמים — כן הוא" and "אם כן נותנין דבריו לשיעורים" are the key points. Law does not have to correlate to reality. It is an assumption assumed to apply in all cases, even if there may be exceptions. I don't see a problem assuming Chazal may have erred in an assumption or two, but that will be for a Sanhedrin to decide.
I am happy that you concede the obvious truth - certainly scientific realia in the Gemara are errors , which does not affect the end halacha. I think your mehalach why is probably correct.
I didn't concede that, I said it is possible, but there is no reason to say so in the vast majority of cases even when it sounds that way. Please don't misunderstand me. And I also didn't say law doesn't have to corelate to reality. It does, otherwise it's a joke. It just doesn't have to correlate as tightly as science would expect.
Of course Law is based on reality. It's just not a 100% correlation.
I guess you could put it that way...
The time of Krias Shema is based on Chazal's understanding of the typical time when kings arise in the morning. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE
The details of berachos on food are based on what Chazal determined provides sustenance, in which amounts they do so, and what is considered sitting down for a meal. ALSO NOT SCIENCE.
The laws of muktzeh are based on Chazal's understanding of those objects people set aside and that which they will use. ALSO NOT SCIENCE
The quantities to be liable for carrying on Shabbos are determined based on what Chazal understood are significant or useful for each material or object. ALSO NOT SCIENCE
The laws of chametz are based on what Chazal considered to be the chemical process of leavening. NO THEY ARE NOT. ALL CHAZAL DETERMINE IS THE TIMING OF THE PROECESS, AT WHAT POINT IT IS CHOMETZ/
The laws of Yom Tov include concepts such as which foods would taste sufficiently better fresh. NOT SCIENCE
The many details of conditional marriage or divorce are determined by Chazal’s understanding of people's mindsets regarding these issues. The same is with oaths, vows, and sacrifices, and the same is with Choshen Mishpat, interpersonal monetary matters. NOT SCIENCE
The many laws about valid and invalid witnesses in certain situations based which parties Chazal considered to be more or less trustworthy NOT SCIENCE
All the halachos about salting meat, about meat and milk mixtures, about food and dishes absorbing prohibited taste is based on Chazal's understanding of how blood, fat, and taste is transferred CHAZAL SAY TASTE IS TRANSFERRED THROUGH HEAT, POSSIBLY ACIDIC OR SALTY SUBSTANCES. SO WHAT? WHAT IS YOUR POINT.
All the halachos of Niddah are based on Chazal’s understanding of women's menstrual cycles. ALL? SAYS IT ALL REALLY? THE CHASAM SOFER ALREADY WRITES THAT RASHI GOT IT ALL WRONG IN HIS PESHAT IN 'MOSHLO MOSHOL'.
In other words, you clearly don't know what science is. Or you are being completely disengenous as usual.
These are all empirical things that can be demonstrated to be true and false, and are subject to science.
Lol, I can tell you have 4-year old understanding of science from Sunday morning cartoons, you think science is just beakers and test tubes.
The times that kings get up in the morning has nothing to do with science as we understand the meaning of science. Such nonsense can be used as a binyan av to the rest of your post. Good day.
Uh speak for yourself. You clearly understand nothing about science.
Guys. Read this assuming he is yelling at his computer every time it is in CAPITAL LETTERS. Becomes hilarious.
Thanks, those are good sources. Of those sources you quoted, looks like only Gregory mentions that it was produced in fire, like the Gemara. I searched on that site and found several more about salamanders, but they don't mention that.