One difficulty I see with the idea of rabbinic infallibility has nothing to do with science.
The Gemara itself distinguishes between קשיא and תיובתא. When it says קשיא, the often cited understanding is that there is an answer, but the Gemara does not provide it. By contrast, when it concludes with תיובתא, it means that the opinion has been refuted.
In other words, the Gemara explicitly acknowledges that an Amora can be mistaken, even on a matter of Torah interpretation or halachic reasoning. If the Gemara recognized that an Amora could err in a purely Torah-based discussion, then it should not be considered a stretch to say that they could also make mistakes in non-Torah matters, such as science or other areas of general knowledge.
One difficulty I see with the idea of rabbinic infallibility has nothing to do with science.
ReplyDeleteThe Gemara itself distinguishes between קשיא and תיובתא. When it says קשיא, the often cited understanding is that there is an answer, but the Gemara does not provide it. By contrast, when it concludes with תיובתא, it means that the opinion has been refuted.
In other words, the Gemara explicitly acknowledges that an Amora can be mistaken, even on a matter of Torah interpretation or halachic reasoning. If the Gemara recognized that an Amora could err in a purely Torah-based discussion, then it should not be considered a stretch to say that they could also make mistakes in non-Torah matters, such as science or other areas of general knowledge.
👍
Delete