Chazal could not have known the sibah of life
In those few words (assuming RNS agrees with them), "Meir" captures the quintessence of the objectionableness of this approach.
How do you "know" that Chazal could not have known the "sibah of life"?!
Perhaps they has a mesorah from Har Sinai?
Perhaps Eliyahu HaNavi revealed it to them?
Perhaps the Malach HaMaves himself revealed it to them?
Perhaps R' Yishmael Kohen Gadol in an aliyas neshama discovered it?
Perhaps when R' Yochanan resurrected R' Kahana the latter informed them of it?
Perhaps not.
Perhaps they only knew it "scientifically".
But how do you know?...
ואידך פירושא, זיל גמור
In those few words (assuming RNS agrees with them), "Meir" captures the quintessence of the objectionableness of this approach.
How do you "know" that Chazal could not have known the "sibah of life"?!
Perhaps they has a mesorah from Har Sinai?
Perhaps Eliyahu HaNavi revealed it to them?
Perhaps the Malach HaMaves himself revealed it to them?
Perhaps R' Yishmael Kohen Gadol in an aliyas neshama discovered it?
Perhaps when R' Yochanan resurrected R' Kahana the latter informed them of it?
Perhaps not.
Perhaps they only knew it "scientifically".
But how do you know?...
ואידך פירושא, זיל גמור
Excellent example of the application of a "straw man". You can do better...
ReplyDelete> Perhaps they has a mesorah from Har Sinai?
ReplyDeleteSo why not tell us?
> Perhaps Eliyahu HaNavi revealed it to them?
Lo bashamayim hi.
> Perhaps the Malach HaMaves himself revealed it to them?
And you'd trust him?
> Perhaps R' Yishmael Kohen Gadol in an aliyas neshama discovered it?
So why not tell us?
> Perhaps when R' Yochanan resurrected R' Kahana the latter informed them of it?
So why not tell us!?
> Perhaps they has a mesorah from Har Sinai?
ReplyDeleteSo why not tell us?
Why should they?
> Perhaps Eliyahu HaNavi revealed it to them?
Lo bashamayim hi.
Eliyahu HaNavi does not have a din of "BaShamayim". There's a Brisker Rav somewhere who explains that this is why he restores the mesorah and semichah l'asid la'vo, and how we came to take "teyku" as referring to Tishbi.
> Perhaps the Malach HaMaves himself revealed it to them?
And you'd trust him?
Of course. He is a Malach Hashem Tzevakos!
> Perhaps R' Yishmael Kohen Gadol in an aliyas neshama discovered it?
So why not tell us?
Why should he?
> Perhaps when R' Yochanan resurrected R' Kahana the latter informed them of it?
So why not tell us!?
Why should he?
> Perhaps they has a mesorah from Har Sinai?
ReplyDeleteSo why not tell us?
Why should they?
So that we'd know to take it more seriously and definitively than all their statements which were based on ordinary, human assessments.
This is the statement RNS made before banning me from his blog:
ReplyDeleteRYGB, with the kidney discussion, I started to wonder if you lack reading comprehension, and now I'm convinced of it. And by the way, your earlier acknowledgment about how you don't take these debates too seriously leave me wondering if I should even allow you to comment here. This is a serious forum; it's not for people who don't bother being careful with their reading of sources and their usage of words.
R'YGB,
ReplyDeleteYou are being thoroughly disingenuous and mendacious about what R'Slifkin was refering to. Hirshian quoted R SR Hirsch
"They did not especially master the natural sciences, geometry, astronomy, or medicine – except insofar as they needed them for knowing, observing, and fulfilling the Torah. We do not find that this knowledge was transmitted to them from Sinai… We find that Chazal themselves considered the wisdom of the gentile scholars equal to their own in the natural sciences."
With the Bolded emphasis added. You quoted back the Hirsch quote, bolding instead "They did not especially master the natural sciences, geometry, astronomy, or medicine – except insofar as they needed them for knowing, observing, and fulfilling the Torah." and tried to imply that the quote now meant that Chazal did know all they needed to know based on revelation. R' Slifkin was simply commenting that the change in emphasis does not change the meaning of the paragraph, i.e. that Chazal knew what the Greek philosophers of their day taught them, i.e. that their knowledge and judgment was limited by what they knew at the time.
That you could so thoroughly misrepresent what occurred (in all likelihood, deliberately) explains R'Slifkins response.
I'm in a bit of a rush, so I cannot respond fully, but see RSRH teshuva in Shemesh Marpei #55 (p. 71). Very un-Slifkinesque.
ReplyDelete1) If RNS is running a serious forum, why does he allow my comments there?
ReplyDelete2) The attitude "We're so smart we know everything but we don't have to explain anything to you because you're too dumb to understand" might work for Arab dictatorships but not for Judaism.
3) Moshe Rabeinu received the halacha from Sinai. Science, math, etc are not halacha.
As I've said repeatedly, you've been nothing but attack R' Slifkin personally and in a condescending way. Your arguments are usually sophomoric, at best.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I don't think he should ban you as your statements do as much to bolster his side of the argument as his own.
You've certainly helped to push me in that direction!
For the record, I did not yet decide to ban you. I only didn't post the last comments because they did not meet the blog policy for comments - that they be substantive.
ReplyDeletesee RSRH teshuva in Shemesh Marpei #55 (p. 71). Very un-Slifkinesque.
ReplyDeleteOy vey. Rav Hirsch is not saying that Chazal had supernatural/ mesorah based knowledge that metzizah is healthy. He davka says the opposite - that the Jewish People have, over their long history, been able to conduct more empirical investigation than the modern doctors!
The amazing thing is how unfazed you are by the fact that in every recent comment thread that I checked, people have repeatedly demonstrated your reading of sources to be in error, but you ignore them and keep blithely continuing with the misreading of sources!
You can't remove Rabbi Bechhofer's comments from your blog and then comment over here. That's really unfair and childish.
ReplyDelete> That's really unfair and childish.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the blogosphere!
OF course RSRH is not saying that Chazal had a supernatural/mesorah basesd knowledge! He actually is stating a far greater chiddush - viz., that the empirical investigations that culminate in the rulings of Chazal trump modern medicine!
ReplyDeleteThat's not all. He continues to suggest - a la the issue of which you accuese Rabbi Kamelhar, an acharon, of bucking centuries of assumption - a pshat in Chazal that no one before him thought of - viz., that the danger in the absence of metzitzah is not imminent but in some vague long-term.
And then he goes even further, addressing the complaint that the medicines prescribed by Chazal are no longer practiced today. Were RSRH to be RNS, he would have said: They didn't know medicine, we do. But he does not. He is medayek in the Rambam's "kayotzei bo" the right to deviate in this specific area.
Finally, to put things in perspective, while I am a great fan of RSRH and TIDE, we all know that there are other approaches...
I am not fazed by RNS and Michael.
ReplyDeleteWhat I want to do is make people laugh so they'll see things seriously
-William K. Zinsser
Not sure how that quote is supposed to apply to your recent behavior. You're not being funny and your condescension is causing many davka NOT to take your rantings seriously.
ReplyDeleteSB, the comments on Rabbi Slifkin's blog are moderated based on set guidelines Rabbi Bechoffer's are not. Thus there is nothing "unfair" nor "childish" about each operating within his own rule set.
I tend to agree that you're arguing via strawmen and ad hominem, rather than actually finding much that actually disproves his positions.
ReplyDeleteRe the RSRH teshuvah - how is that a chiddush, that Chazal can override medicine? The Gemara in the last perek of Yoma talks about cases where the *individual in hir subjective judgment* decides they need to eat on Yom Kippur, even if all the doctors say they don't have to. If halacha can even go that far, surely our mohalim, in their empirical judgment, can override the doctors?
But of course, it's not really relevant to the brain-death case, because it's an eseh vs pikuach nefesh, rather than murder vs. pikuach nefesh, and our mohalim *are* medical professionals, within their narrow sphere, so their empirical observation has to be worth at least as much as secular doctors' opinions.
I must say, though, that given what our Mutual Friend has told me offline, I have a lot less patience for RNS. OTOH, that your personal sniping gets you personal sniping back, isn't that just par for the course of rabbinic communication?
RNS Wrote:The amazing thing is how unfazed you are by the fact that in every recent comment thread that I checked, people have repeatedly demonstrated your reading of sources to be in error, but you ignore them and keep blithely continuing with the misreading of sources!
ReplyDeleteWhat amazes me is how you don't see that your cavalier attitude to Chazal is both counterproductive to your cause, and is very dangerous.
A friend of mine told me that reading your blog has caused his Chashivus for Chazal to be weakened. He told me your article on what Chazal knew about the Kidneys and consequently what they knew about when the neshomah leaves the body caused him to start to doubt what Chazal knew about other things. And this is from someone who was on your side throughout the ban. All this because you jumped to take the most radical position (Chazal didn't know where the neshomah resided)- when you yourself admit that there was no reason to do so! Perhaps if you would not be so quick to take positions on such sensitive topics and consider the consequences of your posts, you wouldn't engender enmity from those (like RYGB) who were previously your defenders.
Chachomim Hizharu B'deveichim.
>A friend of mine told me that reading your blog has caused his Chashivus for Chazal to be weakened.
ReplyDeleteIt can happen when your rabbeim and mechanchim feed you a steady diet of fantasy. If they didn't teach the Superman Hashkafah then your friend's equilibrium would be just fine. Countless rabbonim took no responsibility for the questionable foundations of what they believe and teach.
Chachomim Hizharu B'deveichim indeed.
It may have something to do with the diet of fantasy. But I think it has far more to do with the leitzanus on the other side...
ReplyDeleteMaybe. Or maybe that's an easy answer which obviates the need for a real cheshbon hanefesh on chinuch.
ReplyDeleteאַשְׁרֵי הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָלַךְ בַּעֲצַת רְשָׁעִים וּבְדֶרֶךְ חַטָּאִים לֹא עָמָד וּבְמוֹשַׁב לֵצִים לֹא יָשָׁב
>It can happen when your rabbeim and mechanchim feed you a steady diet of fantasy. If they didn't teach the Superman Hashkafah then your friend's equilibrium would be just fine. Countless rabbonim took no responsibility for the questionable foundations of what they believe and teach.
ReplyDeleteAh, yes, the familiar "It's all the Rebbeim's fault" excuse. A perfect defense for all types of insolence toward Chazal.
Look, you can speculate all you want about the causes of my friend's reaction, but I can tell you that he was not a product of extreme right wing yeshivos,and is quite familiar and comfortable with R Avrohom ben Harambam's view.
(And who was a big defender of RNS during then ban, to boot.)
There is a world of difference between saying that Chazal got their scientific knowledge from the science of their day, and saying that they paskined incorrectly due to a mistaken knowledge of where the neshomah resides and when a person is considered dead.
All this from someone who now admits that there was no need to say anything about what Chazal knew about the neshomah. He is way too quick to jump to an extreme position and to me (and to many others who were defenders of him during the height of the ban), doesn't show enough deference to Chazal.
You speak as if it is the charedi educational system which is at fault in this regard. I challenge you S. to find me one prominent Orthodox personage, from the Rambam, to RSRH, R Hertzog, RYBS, RAS, RAL, RSZA to whomever who did not believe that Chazal were "super men" even if they were not "Supermen" (i.e. infallible figures).
If you don't realize that the whole halachick process is based upon the careful parsing of every word of Chazal and treating them with the utmost respect and deference, then it is your education that is at fault, not my friend's.
>Ah, yes, the familiar "It's all the Rebbeim's fault" excuse. A perfect defense for all types of insolence toward Chazal.
ReplyDeleteThis is the familiar "you believe things that don't stand up to scrutiny, don't be shocked and don't be surprised if the bubble bursts when that belief is - yes - subjected to scrutiny."
First of all, this position does not mean they were not "super men" - even in the sense you mean it. Secondly, it's not about finding an authority to tell you what you want them to tell you. That's Conservative Judaism.
And your story, which could be fake, is the familiar "it's all Slifkin's fault" excuse; a perfect defense for all types of attempts at suppression of discussion.
>There is a world of difference between saying that Chazal got their scientific knowledge from the science of their day, and saying that they paskined incorrectly due to a mistaken knowledge of where the neshomah resides and when a person is considered dead.
They also didn't know when shabbos starts to the minute. According to Chabad.org's handy calculator, shabbos will begin 18 minutes after 4:59 tomorrow evening. I'm sure 1600 years ago they lit at 4:59. Of course that's really our problem, applying precision to things which maybe aren't meant to be precise. But since we do it, it's fair to play the same game with death, isn't it?
>If you don't realize that the whole halachick process is based upon the careful parsing of every word of Chazal and treating them with the utmost respect and deference, then it is your education that is at fault, not my friend's.
Believe me, my education led me down many roads that did not work, and it was probably a lot like yours. That I nevertheless repaired myself afterwards is a testament to things other than a ruinous hashkafa that collapses upon exposure to Slifkin.
The halachic process is based on a lot of things, including the careful parsing of every word of Chazal and treating them with the utmost respect and deference.
*coughanisakiscough* Why didn't your friend, who may or may not be a metaphor, lose his chashivus for poskim over fish worms? What do Chazal know about salmon anyway?
You say Slifkin is insolent - I say that your hashkafa is as weak as an egg's membrane. Why isn't the Slifkinesque point of view endangered by exposure to ?? I don't even know what endangers it.
There is a world of difference between saying that Chazal got their scientific knowledge from the science of their day, and saying that they paskined incorrectly due to a mistaken knowledge of where the neshomah resides and when a person is considered dead. All this from someone who now admits that there was no need to say anything about what Chazal knew about the neshomah.
ReplyDeleteYou have entirely misunderstood my position in several significant ways. I never said that Chazal paskened incorrectly in this area. And I maintain that they mistakenly believed that a person's mind resides in the heart rather than the brain.
>And your story, which could be fake, is the familiar "it's all Slifkin's fault" excuse; a perfect defense for all types of attempts at suppression of discussion.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I never said (or implied) that "it's all Slifkin's fault", whatever that is supposed to mean, I said that his words had a detrimental effect on my friend's respect for Chazal. This is true.
You can choose if you wish, to believe that I invented the story in order to "get" RNS or for whatever other reason, but I assure you that it is a true account. If I didn't think that my friend values his anonymity at least as much as you or I, I would happily ask him if I could email you his name and phone number.
>Why didn't your friend, who may or may not be a metaphor, lose his chashivus for poskim over fish worms? What do Chazal know about salmon anyway?
I don't know. I'd have to ask him. Myself, I don't see why the fish worms have anything to do with this.
There are plenty of ways to frame the worm question in a way that will not dampen anyone's chashivus Chazal- nishtaneh hatevah, R Belsky's approach that Chazal meant these worms are mutar, etc.- Not everyone gravitates to the position that Chazal were wrong, S- it's a common fallacy to assume that everyone thinks as you do.
Besides, knowing about worms are one thing, knowing about where the soul resides and when it leaves the body is a whole other matter.
>You say Slifkin is insolent - I say that your hashkafa is as weak as an egg's membrane. Why isn't the Slifkinesque point of view endangered by exposure to ?? I don't even know what endangers it.
Say what you will. The fact that a 'Slifkinesque' viewpoint may not endangered by exposure to other view points (though a certain blogger *coughGHcough* would tend to be a big challenge to that view) means nothing.
You have decided that there are no limits to what anyone can say about Chazal and to blame the victim if he develops doubts and to chalk it up to the fact that he doesn't have a think enough hashkafa.
This flies in the face of Chazal own attitude toward this as well as every single Rav and posek throughout the ages (including the 'rationalist ones').