I'm sorry Ash, but I don't understand how you can possibly associate yourself with such טיפשים ושוטים. And to go ahead and give him enough attention to publish his words on your blog!
I think you should delete this and post a major apology.
To me this is worse than the Meshichist piece you once linked to about the Rebbe being both alive and dead and believing נמנע הנמנעות. That guy at least acknowledged the issue and recognizes that it is נמנע הנמנעות whereas this guy is living completely in fantasyland, blabbering his head off like a 4-year-old. And people actually give him attention?!
If more people would be like this guy, I may sympathize with Slifkin in his all-out war against Charedim.
What is chareidism exactly? Following in the footsteps of Chazal, all Rishonim and Acharonim, who assumed the Torah is true, yet tried to answer questions, a practice you bizarrely call "obvious apologetics"? In contrast to your vastly superior not-at-all apologetics approach that "the Torah was always understood to be a myth" (despite the fact that nobody ever said that until a few years ago, and you only latched onto it in a transparently obvious attempt to handwave away your mabul questions)? Is that all? If so, we can't ask for more solid ground!
בשבת שלאחר הפסקת הוויכוח, דרש המלך בבית הכנסת הגדול בברצלונה, רמב"ן עלה אחריו וחלק על דבריו בכבוד, לאחריו דיבר האח רמון דיפנייא פורטי וביאר את מהותו של השילוש הקדוש, רמב"ן שאלו והתקילו עד שאמר שהשילוש ”הוא דבר עמוק מאד שאין המלאכים ושרי מעלה מבינים אותו” ועל כך ענה רמב"ן, ”דבר ברור הוא שאין אדם מאמין מה שאינו יודע...”
He makes the same mistake that many such individuals make. He thinks science is rejecting the "word of Hashem," when really what it's doing is rejecting an incorrect interpretation of scripture. Whether or not scripture is the word of Hashem can be left for another time, but the point is that it can be interpreted in multiple ways. When science shows one interpretation is wrong, just go with another one.
C'mon, who are you fooling other than yourself? Your scientific-based approach tries uprooting everything from its simple meaning and dragging it down into your philosophies (as if the Torah is coming to reveal חכמות חיצוניות) while engaging in full-fledged denial to gut the Torah of any interiority.
Claiming that science or foreign philosophies should dictate how to interpret the Torah (what???) is the epitome of ignorance. It means you think the wisdom of the Torah is on the same wavelength as the nonsense of natural philosophies. In truth, the Torah transcends all the חכמות חיצוניות, so the notion of using them in interpreting the Torah is a joke. And when you want to use them against Rashi, for example, that's apikorsus.
Interpretations of the Torah can be wrong. Rabbis throughout history have offered various interpretations, leading to different understandings. Some of these interpretations have been proven wrong.
For example, in the past Rabbis interpreted verses to mean that cucumbers are poisonous, or that the earth is at the center of the universe, or even that the earth is flat. When they realized these interpretations were incorrect, they revised them.
There is a whole Gemara in Pesachim that discusses this, and at the conclusion, the Rabbis conceded that science was correct and that they had misinterpreted the Torah.
Your fear of science seems to stem from a belief that it challenges the divine word of God. However, it's important to remember that everything we think the Torah says is a product of human interpretation, and humans sometimes get things wrong. When these mistakes are discovered, as in the case of Pesachim, it is perfectly proper and valid and JEWISH to adopt a different interpretation.
Scientific evidence is based on reproducible and observable phenomena. The advancements we've made thanks to such evidence are why you made it out of childhood without succumbing to a childhood disease, why you are well-fed year-round instead of starving through the winter, and why you are able to deliver your ill-informed arguments to the masses via the internet, with an assist from satellites and the cellular network. If science didn't work, if it was as fake and fraudulent and as baseless as you keep insisting, none of that would be possible.
There's no argument in anything you say. Not a thought, no logic. You are just someone who is proud of being ignorant and thinks that accepting absurdities is a refined virtue and evidence of piety.
Fake science is fake science and is skipped over by anyone who has Emunah. You are estranged from this pass because you don't believe in chazal or anyone. So, you regard anything they say as their perceptions of reality, making it akin to natural philosophies. In other words, you try degrading the Torah to what it's not to deem it just a human interpretation and permanently revisable.
Regarding observable phenomena, the advancements you laid claim to as part of the human race ("we've made") don't have anything to do with you:
As I said before, you sound very much like someone who doesn't understand what science is but believes that railing loudly against it is a sign of piety. However, our rabbis have always told us that our Torah interpretations must yield to observable phenomena. This is why the sages in Pesachim revised their opinion about the Earth being flat. The evidence was insurmountable, so they did the right thing and modified their position.
Fake science is when "observable phenomena" clash with the truth. And "our rabbis have" never "told us that our Torah interpretations must yield to observable phenomena."
The Gemara in Pesachim you keep on quoting proves the opposite. Despite the "insurmountable evidence," they did not modify their position.
R' Akiva Eiger quotes the שיטה מקובצת:
"ואמר ר"ת ז"ל דאע"ג דנצחו חכמי אומות העולם לחכמי ישראל היינו נצחון בטענות אבל האמת הוא כחכמי ישראל והיינו דאמרינן בתפלה ובוקע חלוני רקיע."
So, רבי said, "ונראין דבריהן מדברינו", but דברינו is still חי וקיים. That's why the nussach in davening is "בוקע חלוני רקיע," which means whatever it means. (Rabbi Nachman says in LM 70 that the earth is round, and this Gemara has nothing to do with the world being flat.)
Anyway, this Gemara is a beautiful example of the truth standing strong in the face of "observable phenomena" and books of empirical evidence.
The kofrim couldn't care less about any Gemaras, but that won't stop them from plucking one passage and shrieking that this proves their position. The only problem is that it wrecks their position, but what can you expect from a blind maskil?!
And yet somehow every night when you turn the lights on they go on. Your refrigerator works. The internet works. How do you think these things work? If the laws of nature were not consistent then none of these could work. It’s amazing how someone can use modern technology which is based on science and then say is wrong. If it’s all wrong how are we posting on Substack?
Has the light ever not gone on? In the past however many years have the laws of nature not been consistent? It’s a joke to say that there is no nature and all is ratzon hashem when the result is exactly the same. The light goes on because the laws of physics are consistent.
Hashem wanted this donkey not to talk, and he wanted that donkey yes to talk - pure רצון השם. Just like there is no natural explanation for the donkey talking, so too the donkey not talking isn't because of some natural laws. The same goes for the light going on or not.
The idea of the Torah as a metaphysical blueprint is nonsense. It is at best only a poetic idea. The Torah is a history of ancient Israel, written and composed in human language, which is Hebrew. The Torah is not as old as creation.
Besides, how can the Torah be a metaphysical blueprint for creation when it contains historical references local only to earth? The Torah is a history of the times of which it speaks, and history is not revelation. You need to think, man!
Look, the Torah was written 3000 years ago in the wilderness. The Torah is written in human language, which is Hebrew. It is a book of primitive laws, narratives, and myths. Torah laws reflect bronze age thinking. There are laws about how to stone an ox for goodness sake. What does that have to do with a blueprint for creation? If it were a blueprint of creation it more mirror a science textbook.
In addition, the Torah contains historical narratives that are local only to the land of Israel. How is that a blueprint? Are you seriously arguing that King David committing adultery is a blueprint for creation? That's stupid. It is mere history, and history is not revelation.
Revelation must be universal and unalterable. Therefore, revelation must have no historical references. If it refers to a historical event, it is local to earth and it is not revelation. Solomon had seven hundred wives, and three hundred concubines, and if Samson slept in Delila’s lap, and she cut his hair off, the relation of those things is mere history that needed no revelation from heaven to tell it; neither does it need any revelation to tell us that Samson was a fool for his pains and Solomon too.
To answer your question, a blueprint to nature, if there could be one, could be nothing more or less than a transcript of the law of nature. I believe that the laws of nature existed before the universe because without them the universe doesn't exist. The laws have to be eternal or at least the laws have to be older than the universe. This makes better sense as a blueprint. Laws formulated before creation could be understood as plans for what will be created and how it should work.
Hmm, I don't think this fully takes into account the full complexity of human nature. I definitely feel that many 'rationalists' are far to reductive with regards to the spiritual world and mock anything they don't understand. Such an approach doesn't recognise that God is ultimately unknowable and doesn't adress the fact that human beings aren't robots or computers, but multi dimensional beings with vital intuitions outside pure impirecism.
Having said that for me this essay is just the flip side of the coin. It is the mystics version of extreme rationalism. It doesn't take into account that Hashem created us with a rational faculty and that he crafted the world with Chochmah that can be understood to a (albeit) limited degree.
Personally I prefer the Machshavah/Maharal's aproach that places the spiritual and scientific in to seperate realms that don't ever have to come into conflict. I also understand that there are people with different levels of tolerance or inclinations towards either mysticism or rationalism and balance their worldview accordingly.
There is something uncomfortably postmodern/pagan about this approach.
According to you if chazal said it’s true period. So how can the shulchan aruch tell us not to follow the words of chazal? Was the shulchan aruch an apikores?
The fact that you are not familiar with this says something about you as well. It’s hard to take someone seriously who doesn’t know this basic Halacha.
This is one of the most famous and basic sources regarding conflicts between Torah and science. If you haven’t even heard of it then it’s hard to see how you can have a definitive opinion on the topic.
You are completely avoiding the question. Chazal stated that it is פיקוח נפש to heat up water for the baby. The shulchan aruch, based on facts, what he saw going in the world said that this Halacha no longer applies and you can’t heat up the water on Shabbos. He didn’t say it based on ruach hakodesh, he said it based on what the doctors of his time told him.
Sure, there are הלכות that have to do with טבע and doctors' opinions, and there is טבע like I wrote later in the article. That doesn't contradict the שו"ע being written with רוח הקודש.
You are still avoiding the question. Chazal said that it’s פיקוח נפש, according to you that’s absolute truth from god. And yet the shulchan aruch based on the reality of his time disagreed with chazal. How do you explain this? Why did the shulchan aruch care about the reality? He should have simply ignored it and said chazal said it’s פיקוח נפש so it’s פיקוח נפש no matter what reality and the doctors say. Yet he DIDN’T. Chazal said A ברוח הקודש and the shulchan aruch said the opposite ברוח הקודש?
The point was that we don't need to go crazy over any questions since we know it's דבר השם and believe in it. The Gemara is דיבורים מן השמים and so it Shulchan Aruch. If you want to know why things are different or changed, that's a different discussion (check the נושאי כלים).
One more example. The Gra in his commentary on או”ח regarding when צאת הכוכבים is writes
״אבל ליתא דא"כ מע"ה עד הנץ שוה כמן השקיעה עד צאת הכוכבים ובאמת אינו כן כמ"ש לעיל והחוש מכחיש לכל רואה שמע"ה הוא שיעור גדול הרבה מאד על צה"כ אחר השקיעה"
He says החוש מכחיש, reality contradicts Rabenu Tams shita. According to you that is a completely irrelevant and silly comment and yet the Gra said it.
You said "If Hashem wants, He can make a square triangle
This is false because it violates the Law of Non-Contradiction, a fundamental principle of logic.
The Law of Non-Contradiction states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.
A triangle is defined as a three-sided polygon where the sum of its internal angles is 180 degrees.
A square is defined as a four-sided polygon with equal sides and internal angles of 90 degrees each.
To assert the existence of a "square triangle" is to assert that there is a shape that is both a triangle (three-sided) and not a triangle (four-sided) at the same time.
Thus, the concept of a "square triangle" is inherently contradictory because it requires a shape to have both three sides and four sides simultaneously, which is logically impossible.
God is omnipotent, but omnipotence does not entail the ability to perform logically contradictory actions.
"It's true because they said it. Whatever they said, that's the way it is. So who cares if nothing shtims and everything clashes? Torah is not a science book; it's the word of Hashem."
This is an argument from the authority fallacy.
"Science says what it says, and you have Hashem saying what He says, so you go with Hashem. Science can argue on Hashem?"
No, the Creator of man is the Creator of science. Whatever science says, God says.
"Hashem creates and runs the world כרצונו and not through any natural laws of the natural philosophers."
Nope, the world works according to the laws of nature.
"If Hashem wants, He can make a square triangle."
No, God cannot do the impossible. God cannot make a square triangle.
Let's go through your building of כפירות one by one:
1) Authority is a fallacy when science is the authority.
2) Fake science is fake science.
3) The world works through laws of nature, but Hashem is משגיח on the world and everything is according to his רצון, so really there are no natural laws. If you can't grasp how they can both be true, that's because it's impossible to fathom.
4) God can do the impossible, and it's a beautiful thing that God transcends your brilliant intellect.
The rambam mocks this opinion in his הקדמות. Hashem created nature and sticks to it. חוק נתן ולא יעבור. If miracles are commonplace then they lose their significance.
Nothing can be more unreasonable than to suppose that because God is infinitely powerful, that he can therefore do the impossible. Yes, it is a maxim of truth, “That with God all things are possible,” yet it should be considered, that impossibilities are not, therefore the maxim is just, “That with God all things are possible,” viz: all things in nature are possible with God; but contradictions have no positive existence.
To make a triangle a square, or to make mountains without valleys, or to give existence to a thing and not to give existence to it at the same time, are inconsistent with themselves. It derogates nothing from the power and absolute perfection of God that he cannot make both parts of a contradiction to be true.
I already heard this boring, dead philosophy stuff about God's perfection, and I believe Hashem can do the impossible (If it's unreasonable, so be it). C'mon, you think some uncharismatic philosophy is going to make a dent in a Yid's Emunah?
The more I read these denials, the more my Emunah strengthens. I want to roar, "I believe Hashem can make a square triangle!"
You are now disparaging philosophy by calling it "boring, dead philosophy stuff." God's perfects are important. Because if God is not perfect, then he is imperfect, and consequently, not a God.
I am glad I am a source of strength to your emunah. See? Science and philosophy aren't so bad. They are a source for emunah!
I'm with you on this. The entire reason why we would say a square triangle is impossible is because we DEFINE a square as different than a triangle, and we DEFINE 3 differently than 4. But anybody who knows a little modern math understands it's perfectly possible to come up with a number system where 3 and 4 are equal, and imagine a universe with such a number system. The Rambam was going with antiquated philosophical assumptions (as the גר"א says, הפלוסופיה הארורה) and was obviously unaware of modern math.
No, God cannot make a square circle. That makes no sense. Maimonides says that God can not do impossible things. God cannot create another God, or lie, or die, or disappear. If God can do anything then perhaps God could will himself to no longer exist.
Chazal didn't believe in such nonsense, they didn't apply it, even on the written Torah, much less to their collegues:
והיה כאשר ירים משה ידו וגבר ישראל וגו' (שמות יז יא). וכי ידיו של משה עושות מלחמה או שוברות מלחמה? אלא לומר לך: כל זמן שהיו ישראל מסתכלים כלפי מעלה כא ומשעבדין את לבם לאביהם שבשמים, היו מתגברים; ואם לאו, היו נופלין. כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (במדבר כא ח): עשה לך שרף ושים אתו על נס, והיה כל הנשוך וראה אתו וחי. וכי נחש ממית, או נחש מחיה? אלא, בזמן שישראל מסתכלין כלפי מעלה ומשעבדין את ליבם לאביהן שבשמים, היו מתרפאים; ואם לאו, היו נימוקים. (ראש השנה ג ח)
רבי יהודה אומר, של סיד היו, אלא שהיו משחירין פניהם מפני היין. (סוכה ד ט)
האלהים אי אמר לי יהושע בן נון משמיה לא צייתנא ליה (חולין קכד.)
"but even though there is nature, there is no nature. Take that to the bank, arrogant professors. It's impossible to comprehend how they can both be true except through faith."
It's impossible to comprehend because it's gibberish. When words mean whatever you want them to, they mean nothing at all.
“When חז"ל say something, we know it's true and aren't interested in knowing why or how. It's true because they said it. Whatever they said, that's the way it is. So who cares if nothing shtims and everything clashes? Torah is not a science book; it's the word of Hashem.”
I stopped reading after this sentence. It is too problematic.
Firstly, this is an argument from authority fallacy. Secondly, whenever you say you trust in the sages you are putting your trust in men, the sages, and not God. Thirdly, it is not the word of God. The study of science is the study of the works of God and is the true theology. But the study of the Talmud is the study of human opinions concerning God. It is not the study of God himself in the works that he has made but in the works or writings that man has made. The word of God is in the creation we behold. All we can know about God is what creation/science reveals. The Torah is entirely a human document.
No, that is not what I said. I didn't say God came down to Sinai to give us science. I would not say such an absurd and stupid thing. God does not come "down" or "up." God is everywhere.
I said that God is revealed in nature. The study of science is the study of the works of God, and of the power and wisdom of God in his works, and is the true theology.
In contrast, Torah study is the study of human opinions concerning God. It is not the study of God himself in the works that he has made, but in the works or writings that man has made.
Prayer to God is no part of a rational religion. There is no evidence that God answers prayers.
We know that God created the world because in the case of the creation of the world no one except God could have done it, but in the case of the composition of the Torah men might have had the power to compose. We know that man has the power of making books, inventing stories of God, and calling them revelation or the Word of God. Books, whether Bibles or Korans, carry no evidence of being the work of any other power than man. It is only that which man cannot do that carries the evidence of being the work of a superior power. Man could not invent and make a universe — he could not invent nature, for nature is of divine origin.
The knowledge of nature is the revelation of God. In this there can be no delusion, it is natural, and could come from none other but God.
And yet this same person uses science and natural laws every day on his life. How does he think the internet works? Based on principles of physics. How about the lights in his house? His car? His refrigerator? These things all work based on science and the understanding of the world.
This is a pagan view of the natural world, all is chaotic and nothing can be “truly” known.
I'm sorry Ash, but I don't understand how you can possibly associate yourself with such טיפשים ושוטים. And to go ahead and give him enough attention to publish his words on your blog!
I think you should delete this and post a major apology.
To me this is worse than the Meshichist piece you once linked to about the Rebbe being both alive and dead and believing נמנע הנמנעות. That guy at least acknowledged the issue and recognizes that it is נמנע הנמנעות whereas this guy is living completely in fantasyland, blabbering his head off like a 4-year-old. And people actually give him attention?!
If more people would be like this guy, I may sympathize with Slifkin in his all-out war against Charedim.
I think it is actually a more consistent and reasonable philosophy than Chareidism. I'm with Happy on this one.
What is chareidism exactly? Following in the footsteps of Chazal, all Rishonim and Acharonim, who assumed the Torah is true, yet tried to answer questions, a practice you bizarrely call "obvious apologetics"? In contrast to your vastly superior not-at-all apologetics approach that "the Torah was always understood to be a myth" (despite the fact that nobody ever said that until a few years ago, and you only latched onto it in a transparently obvious attempt to handwave away your mabul questions)? Is that all? If so, we can't ask for more solid ground!
Please explain.
What is Charedism? Is it the name of a book?
The article hits that hard?
It doesn't hit at all. I'm reminded of the Ramban's response to claims about the trinity being too deep for angels to comprehend.
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%97_%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%A6%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94#%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9D_%D7%94%D7%95%D7%95%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%97
בשבת שלאחר הפסקת הוויכוח, דרש המלך בבית הכנסת הגדול בברצלונה, רמב"ן עלה אחריו וחלק על דבריו בכבוד, לאחריו דיבר האח רמון דיפנייא פורטי וביאר את מהותו של השילוש הקדוש, רמב"ן שאלו והתקילו עד שאמר שהשילוש ”הוא דבר עמוק מאד שאין המלאכים ושרי מעלה מבינים אותו” ועל כך ענה רמב"ן, ”דבר ברור הוא שאין אדם מאמין מה שאינו יודע...”
I don't believe the Ramban said that.
The opposite is true. A person doesn't need to believe what he already understands.
Whatever. As the turkey who thought he was a prince said to the lost princess, 'gobble-gobble.'
Exactly. The first sentence says it all.
There is nothing here to hit. It's just plain nonsense from the beginning to the end.
I'm no Breslover but I like this, even if I'm not a fan of the nusach. All the critics either don't get the point or they themselves are apikorsim.
Agreed.
How can you like this post? You are far too gone. It's hopeless!
Please, explain it to me! Or give me an idea where I'm going wrong.
This makes no sense to me.
Go ahead, explain the point you think I'm not getting.
He makes the same mistake that many such individuals make. He thinks science is rejecting the "word of Hashem," when really what it's doing is rejecting an incorrect interpretation of scripture. Whether or not scripture is the word of Hashem can be left for another time, but the point is that it can be interpreted in multiple ways. When science shows one interpretation is wrong, just go with another one.
C'mon, who are you fooling other than yourself? Your scientific-based approach tries uprooting everything from its simple meaning and dragging it down into your philosophies (as if the Torah is coming to reveal חכמות חיצוניות) while engaging in full-fledged denial to gut the Torah of any interiority.
Claiming that science or foreign philosophies should dictate how to interpret the Torah (what???) is the epitome of ignorance. It means you think the wisdom of the Torah is on the same wavelength as the nonsense of natural philosophies. In truth, the Torah transcends all the חכמות חיצוניות, so the notion of using them in interpreting the Torah is a joke. And when you want to use them against Rashi, for example, that's apikorsus.
Interpretations of the Torah can be wrong. Rabbis throughout history have offered various interpretations, leading to different understandings. Some of these interpretations have been proven wrong.
For example, in the past Rabbis interpreted verses to mean that cucumbers are poisonous, or that the earth is at the center of the universe, or even that the earth is flat. When they realized these interpretations were incorrect, they revised them.
There is a whole Gemara in Pesachim that discusses this, and at the conclusion, the Rabbis conceded that science was correct and that they had misinterpreted the Torah.
Your fear of science seems to stem from a belief that it challenges the divine word of God. However, it's important to remember that everything we think the Torah says is a product of human interpretation, and humans sometimes get things wrong. When these mistakes are discovered, as in the case of Pesachim, it is perfectly proper and valid and JEWISH to adopt a different interpretation.
Scientific evidence is based on reproducible and observable phenomena. The advancements we've made thanks to such evidence are why you made it out of childhood without succumbing to a childhood disease, why you are well-fed year-round instead of starving through the winter, and why you are able to deliver your ill-informed arguments to the masses via the internet, with an assist from satellites and the cellular network. If science didn't work, if it was as fake and fraudulent and as baseless as you keep insisting, none of that would be possible.
There's no argument in anything you say. Not a thought, no logic. You are just someone who is proud of being ignorant and thinks that accepting absurdities is a refined virtue and evidence of piety.
Fake science is fake science and is skipped over by anyone who has Emunah. You are estranged from this pass because you don't believe in chazal or anyone. So, you regard anything they say as their perceptions of reality, making it akin to natural philosophies. In other words, you try degrading the Torah to what it's not to deem it just a human interpretation and permanently revisable.
Regarding observable phenomena, the advancements you laid claim to as part of the human race ("we've made") don't have anything to do with you:
וְאָמַר: שֶׁאֵלּוּ הַתַּחְבּוּלוֹת וְהַהַמְצָאוֹת שֶׁהִמְצִיאוּ הַפִילוֹסוֹפִים בְּחָכְמָתָם, כְּגוֹן כְּלֵי מִלְחָמָה נִפְלָאִים וּשְׁאָר כֵּלִים הָעֲשׂוּיִים בְּתַחְבּוּלוֹת עַל־פִּי חָכְמָה (וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה שְׁאָר עִנְיְנֵי חִדּוּשִׁים שֶׁלָּהֶם שֶׁהִמְצִיא כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵחַכְמֵיהֶם), אָמַר: שֶׁהַכֹּל מִלְמַעְלָה, כִּי לֹא הָיָה אֶפְשָׁר לָהֶם לָבוֹא עַל־זֶה רַק עַל־יְדֵי שֶׁהִתְנוֹצֵץ לָהֶם הַשֵּׂכֶל בְּזֹאת הַחָכְמָה, שֶׁבָּא לְאוֹתוֹ הֶחָכָם הִתְנוֹצְצוּת מִלְּמַעְלָה. כִּי כְּשֶׁהִגִּיעַ הָעֵת וְהַזְּמַן שֶׁיִּתְגַּלֶּה אוֹתָהּ הַחָכְמָה אוֹ הַתַּחְבּוּלָה בָּעוֹלָם עַל־כֵּן שָׁלְחוּ לָהֶם מִלְּמַעְלָה בְּשִׂכְלָם זֹאת הַתַּחְבּוּלָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְגַּלֶּה בָּעוֹלָם.
כִּי בְּוַדַּאי גַּם הַחֲכָמִים הַקַּדְמוֹנִים שֶׁהָיוּ מִקֹּדֶם חָקְרוּ גַּם עַל זֹאת, וּמִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא בָּאוּ הֵם עַל זֹאת הַתַּחְבּוּלָה וְהַהַמְצָאָה? רַק בֶּאֱמֶת הַכֹּל מִלְּמַעְלָה, וּכְשֶׁבָּא הָעֵת שֶׁיִּתְגַּלֶּה זֹאת הַדָּבָר, אֲזַי מִתְנוֹצֵץ לוֹ הַשֵּׂכֶל וְאָז בָּא אוֹתוֹ הֶחָכָם עַל אוֹתָהּ הַתַּחְבּוּלָה, כִּי נִשְׁלַח לוֹ מִלְּמַעְלָה מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לוֹ. כִּי בְּוַדַּאי אֵינָם מְקַבְּלִים דֶּרֶךְ הַקְּדֻשָּׁה רַק דֶּרֶךְ הַסִּטְרָא אַחֲרָא וְזֶה פָּשׁוּט (שיחות הר"ן ה').
What is an example of "fake science"?
As I said before, you sound very much like someone who doesn't understand what science is but believes that railing loudly against it is a sign of piety. However, our rabbis have always told us that our Torah interpretations must yield to observable phenomena. This is why the sages in Pesachim revised their opinion about the Earth being flat. The evidence was insurmountable, so they did the right thing and modified their position.
Fake science is when "observable phenomena" clash with the truth. And "our rabbis have" never "told us that our Torah interpretations must yield to observable phenomena."
The Gemara in Pesachim you keep on quoting proves the opposite. Despite the "insurmountable evidence," they did not modify their position.
R' Akiva Eiger quotes the שיטה מקובצת:
"ואמר ר"ת ז"ל דאע"ג דנצחו חכמי אומות העולם לחכמי ישראל היינו נצחון בטענות אבל האמת הוא כחכמי ישראל והיינו דאמרינן בתפלה ובוקע חלוני רקיע."
So, רבי said, "ונראין דבריהן מדברינו", but דברינו is still חי וקיים. That's why the nussach in davening is "בוקע חלוני רקיע," which means whatever it means. (Rabbi Nachman says in LM 70 that the earth is round, and this Gemara has nothing to do with the world being flat.)
Anyway, this Gemara is a beautiful example of the truth standing strong in the face of "observable phenomena" and books of empirical evidence.
The kofrim couldn't care less about any Gemaras, but that won't stop them from plucking one passage and shrieking that this proves their position. The only problem is that it wrecks their position, but what can you expect from a blind maskil?!
I'll be honest. I really dislike. There's nothing admirable about not caring for things to be consistent.
I'm a fan of humility. I can't prove it and neither can you. Neither Hashem nor science need our apologetics.
Things being inconsistent is an understatement - Torah and Teva are totally incompatible and diametrically opposed (see Likutei Moharan 234).
Also, you didn't address anything written in the post, which is too concrete to argue with.
And yet somehow every night when you turn the lights on they go on. Your refrigerator works. The internet works. How do you think these things work? If the laws of nature were not consistent then none of these could work. It’s amazing how someone can use modern technology which is based on science and then say is wrong. If it’s all wrong how are we posting on Substack?
The light goes on because that's רצון השם, not because of some natural laws. But nonetheless, there is טבע, but really there is no טבע...
Has the light ever not gone on? In the past however many years have the laws of nature not been consistent? It’s a joke to say that there is no nature and all is ratzon hashem when the result is exactly the same. The light goes on because the laws of physics are consistent.
Hashem wanted this donkey not to talk, and he wanted that donkey yes to talk - pure רצון השם. Just like there is no natural explanation for the donkey talking, so too the donkey not talking isn't because of some natural laws. The same goes for the light going on or not.
So in the past x years hashem hasn’t wanted anything to be different? How convenient?
אסתכל באורייתא וברא עלמא
See Bereishis Rabba 1:1. Quite explicitly states Torah is the blueprint of creation.
That's Hashgacha, not Teva
What's your source for that? It explicitly compares it to a king consulting an architect to build a Palace.
To be honest, I've never learned likutei Maharan. What's his explanation? I'm genuinely curious.
The idea of the Torah as a metaphysical blueprint is nonsense. It is at best only a poetic idea. The Torah is a history of ancient Israel, written and composed in human language, which is Hebrew. The Torah is not as old as creation.
Besides, how can the Torah be a metaphysical blueprint for creation when it contains historical references local only to earth? The Torah is a history of the times of which it speaks, and history is not revelation. You need to think, man!
If you were making a metaphysical blueprint for creation, what would that look like?
For sure it wouldn't look like the Torah.
Look, the Torah was written 3000 years ago in the wilderness. The Torah is written in human language, which is Hebrew. It is a book of primitive laws, narratives, and myths. Torah laws reflect bronze age thinking. There are laws about how to stone an ox for goodness sake. What does that have to do with a blueprint for creation? If it were a blueprint of creation it more mirror a science textbook.
In addition, the Torah contains historical narratives that are local only to the land of Israel. How is that a blueprint? Are you seriously arguing that King David committing adultery is a blueprint for creation? That's stupid. It is mere history, and history is not revelation.
Revelation must be universal and unalterable. Therefore, revelation must have no historical references. If it refers to a historical event, it is local to earth and it is not revelation. Solomon had seven hundred wives, and three hundred concubines, and if Samson slept in Delila’s lap, and she cut his hair off, the relation of those things is mere history that needed no revelation from heaven to tell it; neither does it need any revelation to tell us that Samson was a fool for his pains and Solomon too.
To answer your question, a blueprint to nature, if there could be one, could be nothing more or less than a transcript of the law of nature. I believe that the laws of nature existed before the universe because without them the universe doesn't exist. The laws have to be eternal or at least the laws have to be older than the universe. This makes better sense as a blueprint. Laws formulated before creation could be understood as plans for what will be created and how it should work.
I'm actually working on a response to this, but you'd need to email me ishayirashashem@gmail.com
You are being too polite.
It's pathetic.
Have you ever heard of the concept of "Last Thursdayism" or the "Five-Minute Hypothesis?" I get vibes of both from this post.
Yes
Hmm, I don't think this fully takes into account the full complexity of human nature. I definitely feel that many 'rationalists' are far to reductive with regards to the spiritual world and mock anything they don't understand. Such an approach doesn't recognise that God is ultimately unknowable and doesn't adress the fact that human beings aren't robots or computers, but multi dimensional beings with vital intuitions outside pure impirecism.
Having said that for me this essay is just the flip side of the coin. It is the mystics version of extreme rationalism. It doesn't take into account that Hashem created us with a rational faculty and that he crafted the world with Chochmah that can be understood to a (albeit) limited degree.
Personally I prefer the Machshavah/Maharal's aproach that places the spiritual and scientific in to seperate realms that don't ever have to come into conflict. I also understand that there are people with different levels of tolerance or inclinations towards either mysticism or rationalism and balance their worldview accordingly.
There is something uncomfortably postmodern/pagan about this approach.
I used to like the idea of believing that things I don't like will disappear from the world if I merely turn my back on them.
But then I turned 8.
How do you explain the change in Halacha regarding washing a baby with hot water on Shabbos after a Bris mila. The shulchan aruch writes 331:9.
בִּזְמַן חַכְמֵי הַגְּמָרָא אִם לֹא הָיוּ רוֹחֲצִים אֶת הַוָּלָד לִפְנֵי הַמִּילָה וּלְאַחַר הַמִּילָה, וּבְיוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי לַמִּילָה בְּמַיִם חַמִּין, הָיָה מְסֻכָּן; לְפִיכָךְ נִזְקְקוּ לִכְתֹּב מִשְׁפָּטוֹ כְּשֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת; וְהָאִדָּנָא לֹא נָהֲגוּ בִּרְחִיצָה כְּלָל, וְדִינוֹ לִרְחֹץ בְּשַׁבָּת, אִם רָצוּ, כְּדִין רְחִיצַת כָּל אָדָם.
According to you if chazal said it’s true period. So how can the shulchan aruch tell us not to follow the words of chazal? Was the shulchan aruch an apikores?
This is one example of many.
I'm not familiar with any of these examples, but the Shulchan Aruch itself is Torah and the word of God, so these questions aren't relevant כנ"ל
The fact that you are not familiar with this says something about you as well. It’s hard to take someone seriously who doesn’t know this basic Halacha.
This is one of the most famous and basic sources regarding conflicts between Torah and science. If you haven’t even heard of it then it’s hard to see how you can have a definitive opinion on the topic.
You are completely avoiding the question. Chazal stated that it is פיקוח נפש to heat up water for the baby. The shulchan aruch, based on facts, what he saw going in the world said that this Halacha no longer applies and you can’t heat up the water on Shabbos. He didn’t say it based on ruach hakodesh, he said it based on what the doctors of his time told him.
Sure, there are הלכות that have to do with טבע and doctors' opinions, and there is טבע like I wrote later in the article. That doesn't contradict the שו"ע being written with רוח הקודש.
You are still avoiding the question. Chazal said that it’s פיקוח נפש, according to you that’s absolute truth from god. And yet the shulchan aruch based on the reality of his time disagreed with chazal. How do you explain this? Why did the shulchan aruch care about the reality? He should have simply ignored it and said chazal said it’s פיקוח נפש so it’s פיקוח נפש no matter what reality and the doctors say. Yet he DIDN’T. Chazal said A ברוח הקודש and the shulchan aruch said the opposite ברוח הקודש?
The point was that we don't need to go crazy over any questions since we know it's דבר השם and believe in it. The Gemara is דיבורים מן השמים and so it Shulchan Aruch. If you want to know why things are different or changed, that's a different discussion (check the נושאי כלים).
In other words you have no answer.
One more example. The Gra in his commentary on או”ח regarding when צאת הכוכבים is writes
״אבל ליתא דא"כ מע"ה עד הנץ שוה כמן השקיעה עד צאת הכוכבים ובאמת אינו כן כמ"ש לעיל והחוש מכחיש לכל רואה שמע"ה הוא שיעור גדול הרבה מאד על צה"כ אחר השקיעה"
He says החוש מכחיש, reality contradicts Rabenu Tams shita. According to you that is a completely irrelevant and silly comment and yet the Gra said it.
Its sad to hear frum jews speaking this way. Unfortunately guys like him seem to make up a sizable portion of orthodoxy.
You said "If Hashem wants, He can make a square triangle
This is false because it violates the Law of Non-Contradiction, a fundamental principle of logic.
The Law of Non-Contradiction states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.
A triangle is defined as a three-sided polygon where the sum of its internal angles is 180 degrees.
A square is defined as a four-sided polygon with equal sides and internal angles of 90 degrees each.
To assert the existence of a "square triangle" is to assert that there is a shape that is both a triangle (three-sided) and not a triangle (four-sided) at the same time.
Thus, the concept of a "square triangle" is inherently contradictory because it requires a shape to have both three sides and four sides simultaneously, which is logically impossible.
God is omnipotent, but omnipotence does not entail the ability to perform logically contradictory actions.
"It's true because they said it. Whatever they said, that's the way it is. So who cares if nothing shtims and everything clashes? Torah is not a science book; it's the word of Hashem."
This is an argument from the authority fallacy.
"Science says what it says, and you have Hashem saying what He says, so you go with Hashem. Science can argue on Hashem?"
No, the Creator of man is the Creator of science. Whatever science says, God says.
"Hashem creates and runs the world כרצונו and not through any natural laws of the natural philosophers."
Nope, the world works according to the laws of nature.
"If Hashem wants, He can make a square triangle."
No, God cannot do the impossible. God cannot make a square triangle.
Thank you for quoting me.
Let's go through your building of כפירות one by one:
1) Authority is a fallacy when science is the authority.
2) Fake science is fake science.
3) The world works through laws of nature, but Hashem is משגיח on the world and everything is according to his רצון, so really there are no natural laws. If you can't grasp how they can both be true, that's because it's impossible to fathom.
4) God can do the impossible, and it's a beautiful thing that God transcends your brilliant intellect.
The rambam mocks this opinion in his הקדמות. Hashem created nature and sticks to it. חוק נתן ולא יעבור. If miracles are commonplace then they lose their significance.
מוֹדִים אֲנַֽחְנוּ לָךְ שָׁאַתָּה הוּא יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ וֵאלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵֽינוּ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד צוּר חַיֵּֽינוּ מָגֵן יִשְׁעֵֽנוּ אַתָּה הוּא לְדוֹר וָדוֹר נוֹדֶה לְּךָ וּנְסַפֵּר תְּהִלָּתֶֽךָ עַל חַיֵּֽינוּ הַמְּ֒סוּרִים בְּיָדֶֽךָ וְעַל־נִשְׁמוֹתֵֽינוּ הַפְּ֒קוּדוֹת לָךְ וְעַל־נִסֶּֽיךָ שֶׁבְּ֒כָל־יוֹם עִמָּֽנוּ וְעַל־נִפְלְ֒אוֹתֶֽיךָ וְטוֹבוֹתֶֽיךָ שֶׁבְּ֒כָל־עֵת, עֶֽרֶב וָבֹֽקֶר וְצָהֳרָֽיִם, הַטּוֹב כִּי לֹא־כָלוּ רַחֲמֶֽיךָ וְהַמְרַחֵם כִּי לֹא־תַֽמּוּ חֲסָדֶֽיךָ, כִּי מֵעוֹלָם קִוִּינוּ לָךְ:
I will reply to your last point.
Nothing can be more unreasonable than to suppose that because God is infinitely powerful, that he can therefore do the impossible. Yes, it is a maxim of truth, “That with God all things are possible,” yet it should be considered, that impossibilities are not, therefore the maxim is just, “That with God all things are possible,” viz: all things in nature are possible with God; but contradictions have no positive existence.
To make a triangle a square, or to make mountains without valleys, or to give existence to a thing and not to give existence to it at the same time, are inconsistent with themselves. It derogates nothing from the power and absolute perfection of God that he cannot make both parts of a contradiction to be true.
I already heard this boring, dead philosophy stuff about God's perfection, and I believe Hashem can do the impossible (If it's unreasonable, so be it). C'mon, you think some uncharismatic philosophy is going to make a dent in a Yid's Emunah?
The more I read these denials, the more my Emunah strengthens. I want to roar, "I believe Hashem can make a square triangle!"
You are now disparaging philosophy by calling it "boring, dead philosophy stuff." God's perfects are important. Because if God is not perfect, then he is imperfect, and consequently, not a God.
I am glad I am a source of strength to your emunah. See? Science and philosophy aren't so bad. They are a source for emunah!
I'm with you on this. The entire reason why we would say a square triangle is impossible is because we DEFINE a square as different than a triangle, and we DEFINE 3 differently than 4. But anybody who knows a little modern math understands it's perfectly possible to come up with a number system where 3 and 4 are equal, and imagine a universe with such a number system. The Rambam was going with antiquated philosophical assumptions (as the גר"א says, הפלוסופיה הארורה) and was obviously unaware of modern math.
No, God cannot make a square circle. That makes no sense. Maimonides says that God can not do impossible things. God cannot create another God, or lie, or die, or disappear. If God can do anything then perhaps God could will himself to no longer exist.
Chazal didn't believe in such nonsense, they didn't apply it, even on the written Torah, much less to their collegues:
והיה כאשר ירים משה ידו וגבר ישראל וגו' (שמות יז יא). וכי ידיו של משה עושות מלחמה או שוברות מלחמה? אלא לומר לך: כל זמן שהיו ישראל מסתכלים כלפי מעלה כא ומשעבדין את לבם לאביהם שבשמים, היו מתגברים; ואם לאו, היו נופלין. כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (במדבר כא ח): עשה לך שרף ושים אתו על נס, והיה כל הנשוך וראה אתו וחי. וכי נחש ממית, או נחש מחיה? אלא, בזמן שישראל מסתכלין כלפי מעלה ומשעבדין את ליבם לאביהן שבשמים, היו מתרפאים; ואם לאו, היו נימוקים. (ראש השנה ג ח)
רבי יהודה אומר, של סיד היו, אלא שהיו משחירין פניהם מפני היין. (סוכה ד ט)
האלהים אי אמר לי יהושע בן נון משמיה לא צייתנא ליה (חולין קכד.)
"but even though there is nature, there is no nature. Take that to the bank, arrogant professors. It's impossible to comprehend how they can both be true except through faith."
It's impossible to comprehend because it's gibberish. When words mean whatever you want them to, they mean nothing at all.
“When חז"ל say something, we know it's true and aren't interested in knowing why or how. It's true because they said it. Whatever they said, that's the way it is. So who cares if nothing shtims and everything clashes? Torah is not a science book; it's the word of Hashem.”
I stopped reading after this sentence. It is too problematic.
Firstly, this is an argument from authority fallacy. Secondly, whenever you say you trust in the sages you are putting your trust in men, the sages, and not God. Thirdly, it is not the word of God. The study of science is the study of the works of God and is the true theology. But the study of the Talmud is the study of human opinions concerning God. It is not the study of God himself in the works that he has made but in the works or writings that man has made. The word of God is in the creation we behold. All we can know about God is what creation/science reveals. The Torah is entirely a human document.
You have everything upside down. You think God came down to Har Sinai to give science, c"v, while the Torah is human opinion, c"v.
There's nothing true about science. Mother nature is mother nature, but one prayer brings it all down, nullifying all natural philosophies instantly.
No, that is not what I said. I didn't say God came down to Sinai to give us science. I would not say such an absurd and stupid thing. God does not come "down" or "up." God is everywhere.
I said that God is revealed in nature. The study of science is the study of the works of God, and of the power and wisdom of God in his works, and is the true theology.
In contrast, Torah study is the study of human opinions concerning God. It is not the study of God himself in the works that he has made, but in the works or writings that man has made.
Prayer to God is no part of a rational religion. There is no evidence that God answers prayers.
We know that God created the world because in the case of the creation of the world no one except God could have done it, but in the case of the composition of the Torah men might have had the power to compose. We know that man has the power of making books, inventing stories of God, and calling them revelation or the Word of God. Books, whether Bibles or Korans, carry no evidence of being the work of any other power than man. It is only that which man cannot do that carries the evidence of being the work of a superior power. Man could not invent and make a universe — he could not invent nature, for nature is of divine origin.
The knowledge of nature is the revelation of God. In this there can be no delusion, it is natural, and could come from none other but God.
And yet this same person uses science and natural laws every day on his life. How does he think the internet works? Based on principles of physics. How about the lights in his house? His car? His refrigerator? These things all work based on science and the understanding of the world.