Ash, I would like to thank here for restacking the posts from Autism Examined.
I am not interested in increasing traffic on his blog and I have already despaired of debating people who can't agree with the me on the basic axioms. I hope you don't mind my posting some comments here.
However, out of respect for Shimon I will inform him about this comments so he may respond if he is so inclined. Chances are I won't respond (unless I feel that something I wrote needs further clarification) as I explained above. However, if Ash (or anyone similar) is interested in chiming in I would love to hear from him.
>Theists generally focus on the philosophical justification, while atheists point to the psychological reality.
I don't know what echo chamber Shimon frequents, but as a yeshivish Lakewood guy (who has never seen any debate between atheists and theists other than the blogs which Ash referenced) we see stay far away from any philosophy. I never even read שער היחוד in חובות הלבבות, nor very much of the philosophy in מורה נבוכים. As far as I can tell it is the psychological part that concerns us. Which leads to the next point.
>I will not be addressing the issue from a psychological standpoint since that is empirically false, as demonstrated by the vast numbers of atheists whose lives are meaningful to them.
I think there are many indicators to the contrary. Everything I read from intelligent secular people makes it clear to me that they struggle very hard to find some meaning in life. (That they sometimes do manage to find meaning in life is perhaps testimony that they still have some subconscious acknowledgement that humanity and life has a *real* purpose.)
To me the strongest indicator is the fact that mainstream developed society is essentially suicidal. We are heading fast to a situation where each generation in the developed world will be half the size of the previous generation. If a suicidal society is not an indicator of a lack of meaning what is?
While it may be true that there are those who struggle for meaning, the mere fact that many find meaning shows that it is coherent from a pshychological perspective. Additionally, there is much research that might suggest that secularism per se isnt the cause for the 'crisis of meaning', rather a combination of modernity, technology, crumbling family values, focus on facts as opposed to meaning, high pressured and fast paced societies, etc. which cause this crisis.
I'm not sure what kind of secular people you are referring to. If they are struggling from a philosophical perspective than it is irrelevant to a discussion of psychology so long they find meaning from their family/career/hobbies/friends/activism etc. If they are struggling personally, I don't know why that would be reflected in their writings unless they are writing about their own lives, and in that case I would ask if you have the same insight to the inner lives of similiar kinds of people that are religious to compare it to.
The decline in having children doesn't mean people don't find their own lives meaningful,, and also I would be very careful before I attribute that to secularism as opposed to modernity or lack of community etc (lack of community is a problem which has a strong link to secularism in western countries).
I have been following your debate with Simon with interest, wondering if you 2 will manage to talk to each other. Simon is quite verbose, constantly making 2 dinim out of everything and using that to somehow determine that neither apply.
It seems that the real problem here is that you are both extrapolating from one phenomenon to another that is fundamentally different.
Your claim is that all design (and purpose) emerges from a conscious being. To which Simon responds that all consciousness that we know of is an emergent property of advanced evolved life and based on the progress of science it can be expected that consciousness will be discovered to be a mechanical process, therefore one cannot extrapolate from there to the source of life (and the universe) itself.
Simon is extrapolating from the fact that the cosmos and biology now appear to be entirely mechanistic (contrary to what was thought to be obvious prior to Newton, Laplace and Darwin) to determine that everything is fundamentally mechanistic. To which you respond that the fact that the world operates mechanically in no way tells us that the fundamental source of these mechanics are themselves mechanistic. To the contrary, understanding the mechanics of how the world operates has only revealed to us more clearly than ever that the fundamental source of all this must be something of a completely different dimension which designed humanity, life and the universe with a clear and apparent design and purpose.
Am I getting it right?
(Also, you didn't answer Simon's question whether the appearance of design is only abiogenesis and the fine-tuning of the universe. I would respond that (a) the fine-tuning of the universe is just a generic term which includes many phenomena which coincide to produce a functioning universe, (b) Simon has to explain for himself why he thinks that Darwin accomplished so much in making the world appear mechanistic; after all, until one can explain abiogenesis, evolution is just pushing the question backwards, and in fact makes the appearance of the world much closer to the classic Jewish approach than the Greek approach of a static universe.)
I think you expressed the issue clearer than the way I was thinking about it, and probably different than the way Simon was thinking about it (although I'm not sure about that). Thank you.
I didn't want to limit specifically what appearance of design is, to avoid trapping myself into a "gap", heheh. I prefer to go with what our kadmonim say (Chovos Halevavos Shaar Hayichud 6)
Now obviously with modern science it would be a bit different, and I'm not sure if the Rambam would agree with this exact formulation, but I think it's still completely valid without the need to get into specifics. Also, I am extremely skeptical about Darwinian evolution (guided evolution is a different matter). I don't think it makes sense. But even if you believed in Darwinian evolution, that just opens up new doors into design and the ultimate Designer. Maybe we are saying the same thing
I would like to engage in a fruitful discussion with you, but I have a hard time doing that when you don't grant basic mutual respect for the purpose of the conversation. Please join the conversation like a regular person, or I'm sorry I am not interested in lowering myself to your times for the sake of defending my position.
There's a running thread on the post in question discussing this, and you've refused to accord that basic recognition, along with in general approaching with a highly condescending attitude (while I was highly selective and only responded to the substance with substance).
That's even worse than my focus and intuition instead of actual proof?
How can you debate someone like Simon without being specific?
Being skeptical about random Darwinian evolution is really just another way of saying that Darwin and his successors have not provided a functioning mechanism for the fundamentals of evolution, they just speculate that perhaps life in itself contains such a mechanism and perhaps life itself can be formed randomly.
2 more points.
1. I forgot to mention that the evolution of understanding the cosmos too, from Newton to Laplace until the BIg Bang also brought us closer to a more classic Jewish view of the world, and demolished the Greek view of a static universe.
2. It would seem that the foundation of Simon's induction is that one would imagine that a God-created world would not appear so mechanistic and predictable.
However, if anything I think the Jewish view (especially the Kabbala view) always was that the world that God created appears mechanistic. As I once explained in a comment on IM the very definition of creation is creating a duality in which each dimension may seem completely separate and disattached from the other This is why the Torah begins with a ב and ברך is the flow of blessing, essentially the flow of duality, as all existence in this world is fundamentally an existence of duality.
Basically, science today has shown that the world today appears to be monistic, but that is in no way a contradiction to classic Jewish theology. To the contrary, it is a confirmation of monotheism. At the same time science cannot escape (and perhaps leads to) the conclusion that humanity (consciousness and conscience), life and the universe are fundamentally defined by a sense of purpose.
I can talk about specific points, like the origin of life, but then he'll say that's just a singular "gap" that we don't know the answer to yet. My idea is that it's not a question of specific gaps in our knowledge, but the totality of the universe that seems designed, just like you say in your last line.
I don't see how you are gaining by not being specific.
I thought your point was that the specific 'gaps' are not random gaps but rather the fundamental of everything, so that all of science is essentially just pushing the question backwards to the points of creation (the עשרה מאמרות perhaps?).
This should only serve to prove the veracity of Judaism, of monotheism.
Why would being vague help your case? It seems to only bolster Simon's case. which is primari;y that the arguments for Judaism are arguments from ignorance.
I don't fully understand your response. I can only say that it is clear to me (though I never before heard of the term 'meaning crisis') from everything I read and see that secular society struggles with this whereas those who understand and heed Yiddishkeit tend to find meaning in everything.
Re fertility I guess we can agree to disagree.
Not as a proof but merely as an interesting anecdote I am posting a link to a conversation I had with an atheist non-Jew who wrote that she has an affinity for religious people as she sees the need for a sense of meaning and purpose which is missing in non-religious society.
I get that mentality, but keep in mind that your are looking at the whole outside world as one big mush without differentiating between religious communities vs. secular and strong families vs. not and strong communities vs. not. (And there's plenty of issues in the frum world as well, particularly with young people, and part of the reason why frum people are so fulfilled is due to successful families, and not because of their belief in god.)
I guess we can agree to disagree on the first part.
As with the issues in the frum world, I agree and I put much effort into effecting change in that. (Should I forward you my emails on those issues?)
However, I have never encountered an issue which is due to Yiddishkeit. To the contrary, I find that they are generally from a lack of understanding of Yiddishkeit or a lack of confidence in its beauty.
And I feel that when people claim that Yiddishkeit itself is the problem it only backfires and greatly exaggerates any existing problem.
If you feel that Yiddishkeit is not for you (or at least the Emunah parts) at least don't project your feelings onto the entire community. I think those in the community who understand Yiddishkeit are doing great and you are a doing a tremendous disservice by claiming otherwise.
I want to begin with a major thanks to Shimon. I have been wondering for a while now about the יצר הרע of the Rationalist Movement. I couldn't shake the feeling that perhaps there is something there that I am missing.ב"ה this new blog clearly things up for me. It now seems clear to me that this is simply about a bunch of autistic fellows who insist that religion must be empirically proven using Bayesian reasoning.
Let me make this clear.
Religion is the intuition that morality is real and the sense of purpose is real, therefore humanity (and life and the universe) exists for a purpose.
Perhaps this intuition itself is enough to justify belief in Judaism (as it is intuitive that it has been revealed to us what that purpose is, and most of the religious world essentially recognizes that it has been revealed to the Jews).
However, there is one more principle upon which Judaism (certainly Haredism) is established. This is the conviction that the exemplar role models of morality throughout the generations were the חכמי התורה.
This principle too may be sufficient on its own. Even if one suffers from a lack of intuition of moral realism, they must acknowledge that the moral leaders of Judaism universally shared such an intuition and based their system of morality on it. The value system of our community and nation is that of the חכמי התורה בכל הדורות.
Certainly, we may be subject to ridicule for making an intuition the foundation of our lives. However, 99.9% of non-autistic Haredim will just laugh off this ridicule.
For this reason too Haredim will laugh off any attempts to paint Chazal as merely the leaders of a sectarian cult (or to twist the פסוקים in a way that will strip Chazal from having any authority). We know that Chazal succeeded in fashioning the most resilient, beautiful and moral meme and that is sufficient to convince us that their words are authoritative.
My point here is not to debate Shimon, but merely to point out that he has not addressed at all the reasons that Haredim choose Yiddishkeit.
If the reasons relevant are emotional as opposed to rational, that is simply not the purpose of my blog as outlined in my first post https://simonfurst.substack.com/p/introduction. If you mean to argue that emotions are reliable and are therefore rational as well (as in reliable truth indicators), that is indeed a common argument worth discussing, I simply haven't gotten around to it yet. (I did have a discussion about some points relevant to this in the comments of one of my posts [https://simonfurst.substack.com/p/chazal-halakha-and-science/comments}).
Whether or not orthodoxy is a useful tool for survival is irrelevant to whether it is true, which is why I don't address such kinds of questions as outlined in my introduction.
How many of the חכמי התורה which I respect as the greatest people, were skeptical? Why should I be any different than them?
Personally, I feel that "the Truth" is elusive (especially after reading your blog). Is there any harm served by placing my intuitions and the intuitions of the חכמי התורה (that 'purpose' is a fundamental property of humanity, life and the universe') as the foundation of my life?
And if I consider the words of Chazal to be a fountain of wisdom and the foundation of the best culture why would I second-guess them and think that perhaps they were merely a sectarian cult?
I don't know how any of this translates to you philosophically.
>Depends how important truth vs. pragmatic reasons to be happy.
>How many of the חכמי התורה which I respect as the greatest people, were skeptical? Why should I be any different than them?
You do you, but it doesn't translate into that being a good way to get to the actual truth..
Personally, I feel that "the Truth" is elusive (especially after reading your blog). Is there any harm served by placing my intuitions and the intuitions of the חכמי התורה (that 'purpose' is a fundamental property of humanity, life and the universe') as the foundation of my life?
>I find that it is less elusive than made out to be if you begin with no predetermined conclusions, but if you feel otherwise, great! You do what's best for you.
>And if I consider the words of Chazal to be a fountain of wisdom and the foundation of the best culture why would I second-guess them and think that perhaps they were merely a sectarian cult?
Are you asking me about my respect for chazal? (Which I do greatly without necesseraly trusting many of their claims) Or are you just reiterating that it's satisfying to you personally because you trust them?
If you would only be narrating your own journey and your mission to share the Truth I would be fine. However, you seem to be on a mission to tell the world how unintelligent your birth community (and even your own grandmother) is.
Please, write what you want. I find it very interesting and I appreciate that you still respect Chazal greatly. But please only talk about your own journey. Leave out your projections of why others do things. Perhaps you were only exposed to unintelligent frum people but there are many intelligent ones out there.
>Are you asking me about my respect for chazal?
No. I am not asking about you. I was just explaining my own position.
>Which I do greatly without necesseraly trusting many of their claims
I am fine with not trusting many of their claims. However to be skeptical about the foundation of their edifice is to me like someone who is skeptical about the foudation of a building far larger and more magnificent than the Empire State Building, which lasted for thousands of years despite constant tornado gales (מים רבים לא יוכלו לכבות את האהבה ונהרות לא ישטפוה) declaring that perhaps it was built on quicksand. In fact one can even string together a list of relevant facts coherently. After all maybe השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההים is only a כהן or לוי and maybe the צדוקים were the ones who actually had that tradition and authority. They may have even come from the prestigious בני צדוק!
Nevertheless, within halachic literature the attitude has always been that chazal's rulings even when they are based on scientific positions are always correct, and there has never been much of an issue raised in cases when they don't seem to align.
He goes on to cite examples.
>For instance, the famous tshuva of the Rashba about treifos (seriously?! was this Rashba not challenged? All the recent poskim say (including the Chazon Ish and Reb Moshe) that the Rashba was proven wrong-a rarity in today's age) and the famous tshuva of the Tosfos Yom Tov regarding fish with scales but no fins (unclear to me what we he sees there) are unyielding in their affirmation that chazal were necessarily correct. We also never and much of a movement to update halachos which are based on faulty science, from shkiya of rabbeinu tam (huh?! Have you been living under a rock for 250 years? And how is this relevant to this essay which is supposedly about Chazal?), to bliyos (bliyos is not faulty science, it is a fact that has change. Additionally the Rishonim are clear that there was a לא פלוג to always require shishim. And yet there is plenty of literature on using this as Happy mentioned), to the sakana of fish and meat (How about the Magen Avraham who is matir it? Rav Inbal mentions in a few places that he feels the Mishna Berurah (and the Shulchan Aruch Harav) holds this is the basic halacha. However, old traditions die hard, especially as one can't prove a negative and we are 200 years into the חדש אסור מן התורה movement) or leaving nails around (similar to fish and meat) to numerous אומדנות throughout halachic literature, to the scientic underpinnings of much of hilchos niddah, hilchos treifah, and much more (again, very vague accusations).
>However, this assumes that the ontological nature of halacha is that of a mere legal system. If we were to assume that the current form of torah sh'baal peh was developed during the rabbinic period and not a direct tradition going back to Sinai, this assumption would be justified. However, the traditional position in classical sources is that it is not a sociological construct, rather a very real intepretation of the torah which was given directly to moshe at sinai, either as a whole (the position of the sifra, ran, ritva, rashi and others) or at least the method (rambam).
This paragraph turns classical thinking on its head. The general assumption among the poskim is that if the halachos are sinaitic then they need not be reevaluated even if the facts have changed. One can assume that the Torah was given according to the science of its times and any further ts to developments in science fall under the rubric of לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת. If one wants to get philosophical and assume that " In such a system, halacha would seem to be an innate metaphysical property of the world, as it defines the absolute will of god and therefore can be described as a complete ontological description of reality" (I am not too philosophical so these things are a bit over my head (Kabbalah is certainly out of my league but I highly doubt Shimon's Kabbalic claim here-at the very least it seems to me that Kabbalah is very expansive as to how to define adhering to מציאות), but I wouldn't ch"v want to contradict R Konreich's understanding of an article's understanding of Rabbi Soloveitchik) that too fits perfectly, as Dovid explained very nicely here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-acceptance-of-torah that the science of ancient times is that which the Torah addresses.)
However, I fail to understand how this fits with the first part of his post. Is the "traditional position in classical sources" that the science in Chazal is Sinaitic or that it is based on the science of the times?
The truth is that the traditional approach is not that it is Sinaitic. I have never heard a frum person suggest so, and for good reason. Every Gemara which discusses science and science-related is clear testimony that this is not the case. The one place where the Gemara states תורה מן השמים is regarding a statement in תורה שבכתב. On this the Gemara asks וכי משה קניגי היה and responds מכאן תורה מן השמים.
From this Gemara we see 2 things (a) that only regarding a statement in תורה שבכתב does the Gemara make this statement. (b) that it was obvious to the Gemara that משה רבינו did not know zoology (וכי משה קניגי היה?).
So the beginning of the essay is correct. Chazal clearly adopted the science of their times.
So why aren't the פוסקים busy updating the science of Chazal?
Happy and Ash already began the job explaining the answer. However, Shimon made it appear as if they were saying something novel when in fact what they were saying is obvious to anyone who is at all familiar with how Chazal defined science-related halachos. was useful to use often and it somewhat loosely relates to these phenomena.
First of all, as Happy pointed out, the way Chazal defined these halachos is very clearly only loosely related to the actual science. I don't see how Shimon missed this. *Surely* Chazal saw a boiling hot כלי שני? Clearly they felt that they still have the right to define as a כלי שני as not a place for בישול.
There are many cases where Chazal are very explicit about the halachic criteria being more definitive than the facts on the ground, e.g., the halacha of מקצת היום ככולו for halachos based on science (e.g., שכבת זרע). Others are less clear but should be obvious. For instance, the common use of ג' טפחים (or other common measurements) for many unrelated halachos. Though Chazal often gave reasons for this is it actually coincidental that כדי שיזדקר הגדי and כדי חפישת כלב (and other phenomena) have the same shiur? I think not. Rather, this was a shiur which Chazal felt was useful to use often and it somewhat loosely relates to these phenomena. Additionally, Chazal in the context of defining halacha Chazal often compare seemingly unrelated halachos which would suggest that they were not searching for exactness but rather for definitions that are recognized in halacha ((והאריך בזה רב ענבל, וע' ראב"ד המובא להלן
More generally, it is clear that חז"ל felt that many of these halachos were in the category ofמסרו הכתוב לחכמים. I find it perplexing that Shimon mentioned a term from pop culture התורה קובעת המציאות וכו' (I did a search in the most recent version of the Bnei Torah Otsar Hachachma and found only one source for this, in a recent sefer) and not the terminology מסרו הכתוב לחכמים, מדות חכמים כך, שלא ליתן תורת כל א' בידו, (I found about 10,000 sources in the Bnei Torah version of Otsar Hachachma, and I am sure there are more in similar terms e.g. חכמים הם שנתנו, ע' ירושלמי ריש פאה ובפירוש הגר"א).
Rav Inbal (definitely not an academic) demonstrates that the original measurements were more natural. In the later stages of the Mishna it was felt necessary to set more fixed measurements.
ומזה נסתר מה שהקשה מבית דין שטעו בהוראה, ע' באחרונים (גבורת ארי, שפת אמת, רש"ש וקהלות יעקב סי' כ'-מובאים במידות ושיעורי תורה לרב בניש פרק א' הערה 6) יומא פ בביאור דברי ר' הושעיא שם שאין זה נחשב טעות בהוראה שכך נמסר לחכמים ומפורסם דברי החזו"א באריכות בזה בקונטרס השיעורים ועוד מקומות, ע' מה שהובא בחזו"א החדש על המסכתות יומא פ
(ובענינא דיומא בלמדי קצת מענייני ד' מינים ע' בר"ן ורא"ש שכ' שדיני הדר הם בכלל מסרן הכתוב לחכמים והריטב"א כט,ב כ' שיש דין כל מדות חכמים כך הוא בהדר (ומשו"ה משהו פוסל אף שלא מתמעט הדרו וע' רמב"ן בהשגותיו להלכות לולב להראב"ד שכ' כמעט מילה במילה כדברי 'אש' " צריכין אנו לחזר אחר בתי דינין שידונו בשיעורין הללו וירבו בהן מחלוקות בישראל " ומזה הוכיח שע"כ "אלא מסתברא דשיעורן בשני כשיעורן בראשון ", והראב"ד הרחיק ללכת בזה וכ' "אם היינו מוצאין זמן קצוב ליבשות ותכלית הליחה כמה היה טוב שלא נצטרך לשקול הדעת וראית העין והכרעת במאזני שכלו וזה ישקול במאזני שכלו, ופעמים שלא יגמר להם הדעת כי אם במחלוקות ולא תשוה להם ההכרעה, ועל כן אם נמצא זמן שנתנו חכמים ליבשות וכליון הלחות כמה היה הדבר נכון ללמוד וללמד ממנו לכולם בדרך אחד וזמן אחד ", הרי שמפני הצורך למעט מחלוקת אנו מחוייבים למצוא מקור בחז"ל לאיזה הגדרה אף שהדמיון לשם הוא דמיון רחוק- וכל אלו הסברות אין להם מקור בגמ' -שלא הוזכר בגמ' כלל ענין מסרן הכתוב לחכמים או מידות חכמים כך בנושא זה- אלא הראשונים הוציאו אותם מסברא עפ"י הבנת דרכי חז"ל)
In fact, Shimon somewhat acknowledged this regarding treifos and quoted a Rambam to this effect in Hilchos Treifos yet he qualifies it by stating that "treifah is a halachic category defined by chazal, and is not directly dependent on the science". Again, no source quoted for this distinction between Treifos and other science related halachos, and no explanation given, merely his own feelings. The Rambam does not indicate that Treifa is any different than other halachos that are dependent on the science. For all halachos dependent on science we say ועשית ככל אשר יורוך. Since halachic definitions are only loosely related to the science, and we know that לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת it stands to reason that in the absence of the ability to create a consensus among current חכמי ישראל we can continue to use the definition established for us by Chazal.
>This paragraph turns classical thinking on its head. The general assumption among the poskim is that if the halachos are sinaitic then they need not be reevaluated even if the facts have changed.
Very few would argue that the specific scenarios in chazal were given at Sinai, rather the principles were given and chazal applied them based on reality. Even if you will assume that yes, I would argue that Hashem would be able to give the halachos in line with the actual reality and not give mistaken halachos.
> Surely* Chazal saw a boiling hot כלי שני? Clearly they felt that they still have the right to define as a כלי שני as not a place for בישול.
Hot does't equal cooking. Cooking is a specific chemical process in the food, and chazal understood that it is dependent on it's relation to the fire, while modern science claims its directly dependent on heat (and the makeup of the molecules around it).
>There are many cases where Chazal are very explicit about the halachic criteria being more definitive than the facts on the ground, e.g., the halacha of מקצת היום ככולו for halachos based on science (e.g., שכבת זרע). Others are less clear but should be obvious. For instance, the common use of ג' טפחים (or other common measurements) for many unrelated halachos. Though Chazal often gave reasons for this is it actually coincidental that כדי שיזדקר הגדי and כדי חפישת כלב (and other phenomena) have the same shiur? I think not. Rather, this was a shiur which Chazal felt was useful to use often and it somewhat loosely relates to these phenomena.
Agreed for the most part, and I was not referring to such cases.
>More generally, it is clear that חז"ל felt that many of these halachos were in the category ofמסרו הכתוב לחכמים.
Agreed, but only when it doesn't directly depend on reality (rather it is the power of chazal that they are doing based on reality, like I argued by טריפה or what would be for קידוש החודש.)
>Rav Inbal (definitely not an academic) demonstrates that the original measurements were more natural. In the later stages of the Mishna it was felt necessary to set more fixed measurements.
Great, but I don't think that position would be universally accepted in the Chareidi world, but I'm sure many do not have a problem with it.
>(ובענינא דיומא בלמדי קצת מענייני ד' מינים ע' בר"ן ורא"ש שכ' שדיני הדר הם בכלל מסרן הכתוב לחכמים והריטב"א כט,ב כ' שיש דין כל מדות חכמים כך הוא בהדר (ומשו"ה משהו פוסל אף שלא מתמעט הדרו וע' רמב"ן בהשגותיו להלכות לולב להראב"ד שכ' כמעט מילה במילה כדברי 'אש' " צריכין אנו לחזר אחר בתי דינין שידונו בשיעורין הללו וירבו בהן מחלוקות בישראל " ומזה הוכיח שע"כ "אלא מסתברא דשיעורן בשני כשיעורן בראשון ", והראב"ד הרחיק ללכת בזה וכ' "אם היינו מוצאין זמן קצוב ליבשות ותכלית הליחה כמה היה טוב שלא נצטרך לשקול הדעת וראית העין והכרעת במאזני שכלו וזה ישקול במאזני שכלו, ופעמים שלא יגמר להם הדעת כי אם במחלוקות ולא תשוה להם ההכרעה, ועל כן אם נמצא זמן שנתנו חכמים ליבשות וכליון הלחות כמה היה הדבר נכון ללמוד וללמד ממנו לכולם בדרך אחד וזמן אחד ", הרי שמפני הצורך למעט מחלוקת אנו מחוייבים למצוא מקור בחז"ל לאיזה הגדרה אף שהדמיון לשם הוא דמיון רחוק- וכל אלו הסברות אין להם מקור בגמ' -שלא הוזכר בגמ' כלל ענין מסרן הכתוב לחכמים או מידות חכמים כך בנושא זה- אלא הראשונים הוציאו אותם מסברא עפ"י הבנת דרכי חז"ל)
A sheine vort, but I believe this all fits into the category not being directly dependent on the metzius.
>In fact, Shimon somewhat acknowledged this regarding treifos and quoted a Rambam to this effect in Hilchos Treifos yet he qualifies it by stating that "treifah is a halachic category defined by chazal, and is not directly dependent on the science". Again, no source quoted for this distinction between Treifos and other science related halachos, and no explanation given, merely his own feelings. The Rambam does not indicate that Treifa is any different than other halachos that are dependent on the science. For all halachos dependent on science we say ועשית ככל אשר יורוך. Since halachic definitions are only loosely related to the science, and we know that לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת it stands to reason that in the absence of the ability to create a consensus among current חכמי ישראל we can continue to use the definition established for us by Chazal.
I think it's a חילוק מוכרח if you understand the way I explained the rambam. Since treifah is not 'an animal that's gonna die within the year', rather it is a category of defective animals, for which chazal used that criteria to choose what to include in that category, and this power is because of מסרו הכתוב לחכמים, therefore I don't care if they were right or wrong. However, a question of bliyos is a simple question if there is טעם איסור, a question in וסת is dependent on biology, and a question about reproduction in lice (seems to) directly influences its status as a full baal chai.
>Very few would argue that the specific scenarios in chazal were given at Sinai
I was mainly referring to those (the Netziv and Reb Moshe) who try to understand the Rambam re Treifos along this line. (However, I find this attitude is common)
>rather the principles were given and chazal applied them based on reality.
I am not sure what you mean by 'the principles'.
I would say that there were probably very general principles given as to how to apply הכתוב מסרן לחכמים, דעתו של רואה ולא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת.
>Even if you will assume that yes, I would argue that Hashem would be able to give the halachos in line with the actual reality and not give mistaken halachos.
The Torah is not a science book. It was given to people according to their perspective, as I explained.
>Cooking is a specific chemical process in the food, and chazal understood that it is dependent on it's relation to the fire, while modern science claims its directly dependent on heat
Ok. A least now I understand where you were coming from.
Do you have a source for this understanding of כלי שני?
I believe the classic approach in Rishonim (based on a Yerushalmi?) is that a כלי שני cools off quicker (דפנות מקררות) and cooking takes time so a כלי שני is not very fit for cooking.
(Perhaps I should add my two cents, that you seem to be very focused on the exact science (or philosophy-Greek style science) behind things (e.g., דם נעכר ונעשה חלב). I don't think that was Chazal's focus.
>Since treifah is not 'an animal that's gonna die within the year', rather it is a category of defective animals
So that's what you meant!
Again, the Rambam does not seem to be suggesting this shtickel Torah. And how does it fit with טריפה אינה חיה?
I reiterate that in my opinion all science-related halachos are not tied down to science as לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת-התורה ניתנה לבני אדם (ולגבי שיעורים לפי דעתו של רואה וכמו שהאריך החזו"א וגיסו). Rather they are given to the Horaah of the Chachmei Hatorah which are accepted by Yisroel ומסרה הכתוב לחכמים.
Even a maximalist will say that the dinim were given, not the cases, for example the criteria of נותן טעם or פרה ורבה and chazal judged each case if they fit with the criteria (similiar to how a modern day posek applied the same halachos to new scenarios).
>The Torah is not a science book. It was given to people according to their perspective, as I explained.
That's a good answer why the torah doesnt explain quantum mechanics, but not a good reason to give an inaccurate psak. The torah is a accurate halacha book, and asmuch as it depends on the science, it should incorporate that. (For example would you accept that the torah itself incorporates mistakes for example re: chewing it's cud?)
>Do you have a source for this understanding of כלי שני?
I think the yerushalmi is effectively that approach that it's not directly dependent on temperature, or at least that they thought temperature is dependent on the keli.
>(Perhaps I should add my two cents, that you seem to be very focused on the exact science (or philosophy-Greek style science) behind things (e.g., דם נעכר ונעשה חלב). I don't think that was Chazal's focus.
Well I think the examples of science in chazal seem to suggest that they were using the best contemporary science which was greek-style for the most part.
> And how does it fit with טריפה אינה חיה?
Because chazal actually thought that it would die, just we don't care if they're wrong per rambam.
>I reiterate that in my opinion all science-related halachos are not tied down to science as לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת-התורה ניתנה לבני אדם (ולגבי שיעורים לפי דעתו של רואה וכמו שהאריך החזו"א וגיסו). Rather they are given to the Horaah of the Chachmei Hatorah which are accepted by Yisroel ומסרה הכתוב לחכמים.
I understand that, and I hope I was clear why I don't fully accept that. Furthermore, that doesn't seem to be a good reason to keep doing that if our knowledge improved.
I think we have clearly reached the point where there is little to gain from further discussion. I think I have made myself perfectly clear to any third party observer. (If anyone disagrees, please inform me.)
We could argue forever about these cases and countless other cases in Shas but my point was clearly made and I provided many sources. I think anyone who studies the relevant sugyos will immediately realize that I am right (לדוגמא בעלמא בעניין כלי שני ע' רשב"א שבת מב,א בדיני כלי שני). And on the general topic I mentioned that the phrases (and similar ones e.g. כל שיעורי חכמים כך) I provided should bring up many thousands of references on אוצר החכמה for anyone interested in further research.
Perhaps I should note however that I really don't understand how your first paragraph here fits with the paragraph that my original comment was critiquing.
Having said all this, I must admit that there is a point to his conclusion "As we entered the Enlightenment and confronted these issues en masse, we began to develop theologies either to the effect that chazal were inerrant or that halacha is not restricted to the actual science".
Certainly the ideology of חדש אסור מן התורה, combined with a change in derech halimud (especially the brisker derech) and perhaps an influence of kabbalistic thought ungrounded in traditional halachic sources did have this effect. This culminated in the incredible embarrassment of the books of Schmeltzer and R Meiselman (and the silliness of even creating theologies to defend recent innovations, e.gh. a set 72 minutes or large shiurim).
And in Halacha too, these 2 influences had a very strong effect, fossilizing the entire halachic process and halachic debate. What is ironic about this entire discussion is that we are quite far from reevaluating the estimations of Chazal as even when Chazal left things to our own estimation we are often told אין אנו בקיאים. I just saw a Charedi Rov quoting a debate he had with another Rov whether we should say אין אנו בקיאים regarding the differentiation between a סמיכה שאם ינטל יפול to a סמיכה שאם ינטל לא יפול. If this is how bad we have 'lost our senses' do we have any hope of reevaluating the words of Chazal?!
While I agree this is a sad reality which did not exist in this manner historically, I was arguing that there were major elements of disconnect from reality which did exist historically.
I don't understand many of your complaints in this comment. Of the ones I do, bliyos didn't change unless you understand it to be referring to certain kinds of keilim, in which case they should be muttar nowadays, which virtually all poskim reject (with the possible exception of R Belsky). Fish and meat is largely considered to still be binding, lone authorities such as Rav Inbal notwithstanding. And yes, I do address in a footnote that there was a period where halacha was commonly updated, but I don't feel that it is generally considered a strong imperative as would be implied by halachic realism.
I don't think Rav Belsky is such an outlier re using this for a snif. מגילת ספר (סוף הלכות בשר בחלב) brings the same from Reb Shlomo Zalman and his son.
The pushback on this is along the lines of what I wrote; that Chazal established set guidelines according to the science of their times.
יעו"ש במגילת ספר ובשאר מקורות שהובאו בדור המלקטים איסור והיתר עמ' 2015-2018 ובפרט מאמרו של הרב יעקב אריאל המעין נג-ב
>Fish and meat is largely considered to still be binding
Yes. The response to the Enlightenment has largely been חדש אסור מן התורה (perhaps for good reason). And I guess people feel that a negative can't be proven.
>I don't feel that it is generally considered a strong imperative as would be implied by halachic realism.
And I am claiming that halachic realism is not that important.
To the best of my knowledge no hechsher toay relies on that, which shows that it is an outlier opinion.
Your next two points are 1. you concede that the mehalech is has this issue at least since the enlightenment, and 2. you don't think that its such an problem anyways to avoid halachic realism.
So all we are arguing about is if just the modern day approach to not update halacha is wrong, or if even the ancient system is wrong. You yourself conceded that realism should preclude the idea chadash assur min hatorah, yet you draw an arbitrary line between the rishonim being loyal to chazal and now. I just don't see it.
About the last paragraph, it's not about an arbitrary line for rishonim rather about whether the idea of following the psakim of chazal is fundametally wrong or whether it is fundamentally right but exxagerated due to the idea of chadash assur min hatorah.
And I think everyone recognizes that chadash assur min hatorah is in itself a novel idea, at least to some extent.
I was debating with myself whether or not to respond to your comments, and I have decided to only respond to the content and not the tone, ad hominems, or rhetoric, and I am not trying to say your perspective doesn't make sense, I'm just going to try to defend my own POV
ולסיים בדברי תורה, I will address the post re Chazal, Halacha and science.
First re his debate with Ash about the halacha of yichud with 2 men.
I don't know what Ash responded about the halacha of yichud with 2 men. However, I think the answer is obvious. (Yes, by obvious I mean that I realized this as soon as I saw his question. The heter of yichud with 2 men is only with אנשים כשרים. Even Rav considered himself a parutz. We pasken that this hanhaga of Rav was a מידת חסידות, but I believe it says a lot about what a כשר means.
On a more general level I think Pew studies are fairly recent and are based on modern society which I view as an aberration from human nature (which will fizzle out over the next 200 years due to vanishing fertility). If faced with a binary choice I would probably choose to go with Chazal, whose memes have been tried and tested and proven to be produce the most resilient and beautiful society. However, I don't think the choice is so binary. I think Judaism (even Charedi Judaism) exhibits a lot more flexibility than it may seem to an outsider, though the fight against Enlightenment and the concept of חדש אסור מן התורה has certainly weighed us down. As Ash wrote, for this we await the establishment of a future Sanhedrin.
While I hear your position, I still maintain that empirical studies are more accurate than ancient evaluations. Furthermore, if you have a methodological issue with certain studies, why don't you design your own or only use the studies that you think are accurate (and the process of figuring this out will be a part of halachic decision making)?
>While I hear your position, I still maintain that empirical studies are more accurate than ancient evaluations.
I am highly skeptical.
And I believe that one's value system is hard to escape even when conducting studies, so much input from חכמי התורה is neccessary.
>Furthermore, if you have a methodological issue with certain studies, why don't you design your own or only use the studies that you think are accurate (and the process of figuring this out will be a part of halachic decision making)?
Haha.
Hopefully we'll get there one day but he have a lot of hurdles to overcome first.
First you say you are skeptical then you say hopefully we'll get there. Which is it? And I don't see what the 'chachmei hatorah' add to the empirical discussions, other that choosing whether to use the findings for a halachic purpose.
I thought you were saying that even the current Pew research is better than following Chazal. To which I responded that I am skeptical.
>I don't see what the 'chachmei hatorah' add to the empirical discussions
If it is truly empirical you are right, but my impression is that in the social sciences it is hard to escape biases based on one's values. However, I am not a major expert in this so perhaps I am wrong.
Perhaps I should add one point that was implied in my original comment, which is that I think modern society is in constant flux and it is hard to nail down the facts. However, I think Chazal's estimates were in the more natural state of humanity, and I believe that core of humanity still persists.
My question was if you're skeptical about our ability to perform accurate surveys then why do you hope that one day we'll get there (unless you meant one day will figure out how to make accurate surveys, in which case it's not a question.)
I agree that empirical studies on social sciences are not fully accurate, but I just don't trust chazals armchair evaluations. And I think the fact that it was made for a different society should be a minus not a plus. I mean, if אין אדם פורע חובו תוך זמנו or תפוס לשון ראשון was true then, what does that have to do with now?
I fully agree that our culture and tradition are keeping us alive today, in a very similar way they have throughout the ages. However, secular jews remain as far as their identity is important enough to them to ward off assimilation in whatever coutries they are (obv israel it's less of an issue than the US.)
The alternative to this is Charedim getting drunk on nationalist militarism and losing the plot, e.g. major Agudist Rabbis saying 'Every blatt gemoro is a missile, every Tosefos is a rocket, every kapitel tehilim is a bomb'. You have to pick your poison, and this is the least bad one.
Ash, what are you, some out-of-town Harry? You know as well as I do that the higher-ups in Lakewood have different ways of signaling where they stand on issues for various audiences. So far, they have not shown in any way that they want really want their talmidim to go. The Kol Koreh hanging around Lakewood is a complete joke to any Lakewood insider - very Chassidish language and layout, the word "Lakewood" is even misspelled the way the Chassidim usually misspell it. They probably were pressured into supporting it by the Chassidim organizing it.
I'm not saying that the reason they don't support going is your above rationale, but you cannot infer that they intend for Lakewood to attend from the aforementioned Kol Koreh
He personally would not need to be pressured, but he alone cannot make the decision, even if he felt that Lakewood should go. Regardless, it is not a Yeshiva campaign. Yeshiva did not put out any signs or Kol Korehs encouraging people to go. Obviously, at this point, Lakewood Roshei Yeshiva do not feel that Yeshiva should travel in for the rally, unless something changes between now and Sunday
This seems to be like conscientious objectors from the infamous anti-war days of Viet Nam. Who believes in the objection or who is just standing on principle? Did they claim religious objection for the poisonous Covid jabs and was the objection disallowed? How can somebody claim to be religious and against fighting or war when the Torah tells us how and when to practice self defense? Can the ultra religious serve in non-combatant roles? How can somebody ask for protection when they aren't willing to self protect? Aren't all Jews living under the same Bible and religious dictates? At the least, isn't there some hypocrisy on this issue?
A bit off topic, but you seem to be guy who frequents BMG.
Just curious, how many BMG guys do you think contemplate or are even aware of the stuff you write about?
Ash, I would like to thank here for restacking the posts from Autism Examined.
I am not interested in increasing traffic on his blog and I have already despaired of debating people who can't agree with the me on the basic axioms. I hope you don't mind my posting some comments here.
However, out of respect for Shimon I will inform him about this comments so he may respond if he is so inclined. Chances are I won't respond (unless I feel that something I wrote needs further clarification) as I explained above. However, if Ash (or anyone similar) is interested in chiming in I would love to hear from him.
From the post on existential nihilism.
>Theists generally focus on the philosophical justification, while atheists point to the psychological reality.
I don't know what echo chamber Shimon frequents, but as a yeshivish Lakewood guy (who has never seen any debate between atheists and theists other than the blogs which Ash referenced) we see stay far away from any philosophy. I never even read שער היחוד in חובות הלבבות, nor very much of the philosophy in מורה נבוכים. As far as I can tell it is the psychological part that concerns us. Which leads to the next point.
>I will not be addressing the issue from a psychological standpoint since that is empirically false, as demonstrated by the vast numbers of atheists whose lives are meaningful to them.
I think there are many indicators to the contrary. Everything I read from intelligent secular people makes it clear to me that they struggle very hard to find some meaning in life. (That they sometimes do manage to find meaning in life is perhaps testimony that they still have some subconscious acknowledgement that humanity and life has a *real* purpose.)
To me the strongest indicator is the fact that mainstream developed society is essentially suicidal. We are heading fast to a situation where each generation in the developed world will be half the size of the previous generation. If a suicidal society is not an indicator of a lack of meaning what is?
While it may be true that there are those who struggle for meaning, the mere fact that many find meaning shows that it is coherent from a pshychological perspective. Additionally, there is much research that might suggest that secularism per se isnt the cause for the 'crisis of meaning', rather a combination of modernity, technology, crumbling family values, focus on facts as opposed to meaning, high pressured and fast paced societies, etc. which cause this crisis.
I'm not sure what kind of secular people you are referring to. If they are struggling from a philosophical perspective than it is irrelevant to a discussion of psychology so long they find meaning from their family/career/hobbies/friends/activism etc. If they are struggling personally, I don't know why that would be reflected in their writings unless they are writing about their own lives, and in that case I would ask if you have the same insight to the inner lives of similiar kinds of people that are religious to compare it to.
The decline in having children doesn't mean people don't find their own lives meaningful,, and also I would be very careful before I attribute that to secularism as opposed to modernity or lack of community etc (lack of community is a problem which has a strong link to secularism in western countries).
I have been following your debate with Simon with interest, wondering if you 2 will manage to talk to each other. Simon is quite verbose, constantly making 2 dinim out of everything and using that to somehow determine that neither apply.
It seems that the real problem here is that you are both extrapolating from one phenomenon to another that is fundamentally different.
Your claim is that all design (and purpose) emerges from a conscious being. To which Simon responds that all consciousness that we know of is an emergent property of advanced evolved life and based on the progress of science it can be expected that consciousness will be discovered to be a mechanical process, therefore one cannot extrapolate from there to the source of life (and the universe) itself.
Simon is extrapolating from the fact that the cosmos and biology now appear to be entirely mechanistic (contrary to what was thought to be obvious prior to Newton, Laplace and Darwin) to determine that everything is fundamentally mechanistic. To which you respond that the fact that the world operates mechanically in no way tells us that the fundamental source of these mechanics are themselves mechanistic. To the contrary, understanding the mechanics of how the world operates has only revealed to us more clearly than ever that the fundamental source of all this must be something of a completely different dimension which designed humanity, life and the universe with a clear and apparent design and purpose.
Am I getting it right?
(Also, you didn't answer Simon's question whether the appearance of design is only abiogenesis and the fine-tuning of the universe. I would respond that (a) the fine-tuning of the universe is just a generic term which includes many phenomena which coincide to produce a functioning universe, (b) Simon has to explain for himself why he thinks that Darwin accomplished so much in making the world appear mechanistic; after all, until one can explain abiogenesis, evolution is just pushing the question backwards, and in fact makes the appearance of the world much closer to the classic Jewish approach than the Greek approach of a static universe.)
Happy responded:
I think you expressed the issue clearer than the way I was thinking about it, and probably different than the way Simon was thinking about it (although I'm not sure about that). Thank you.
I didn't want to limit specifically what appearance of design is, to avoid trapping myself into a "gap", heheh. I prefer to go with what our kadmonim say (Chovos Halevavos Shaar Hayichud 6)
כַּאֲשֶׁר נִשְׂתַּכֵּל בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה נִמְצָאֵהוּ מְחֻבָּר וּמֻרְכָּב אֵין חֵלֶק מֵחֲלָקָיו מִבְּלִי חִבּוּר וְסִדּוּר כִּי אֲנַחְנוּ רוֹאִים אוֹתוֹ בְּהַרְגָּשׁוֹתֵינוּ וְשִׂכְלֵנוּ כַּבַּיִת הַבָּנוּי אֲשֶׁר זֻמַּן בּוֹ כָּל הַצָּרִיךְ לוֹ. הַשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל כְּתִקְרָה וְהָאָרֶץ מִתַּחַת (ס״א מתוחה) כְּמַצָּע וְהַכּוֹכָבִים מְסֻדָּרִים כְּנֵרוֹת וְכָל הַגּוּפוֹת צְבוּרוֹת בּוֹ כְּמִכְמַנִּים כָּל דָּבָר לְמָה שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לוֹ וְהָאָדָם כְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּכָל אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ....
Now obviously with modern science it would be a bit different, and I'm not sure if the Rambam would agree with this exact formulation, but I think it's still completely valid without the need to get into specifics. Also, I am extremely skeptical about Darwinian evolution (guided evolution is a different matter). I don't think it makes sense. But even if you believed in Darwinian evolution, that just opens up new doors into design and the ultimate Designer. Maybe we are saying the same thing
With Happy's permission I am copying here an email exchange that I had with him regarding the debate which he is carrying on at you site (here https://simonfurst.substack.com/p/the-gaps-debate-science-design-and/comment/72696716).
For context, keep in mind that this exchange happened in the 'gap between Happy's comment on October 28 (here https://simonfurst.substack.com/p/the-gaps-debate-science-design-and/comment/74491585) and all subsequent comments.
I would like to engage in a fruitful discussion with you, but I have a hard time doing that when you don't grant basic mutual respect for the purpose of the conversation. Please join the conversation like a regular person, or I'm sorry I am not interested in lowering myself to your times for the sake of defending my position.
Please give me your terms and I am very willing.
Are you referring to something I wrote today or to our previous conversation?
There's a running thread on the post in question discussing this, and you've refused to accord that basic recognition, along with in general approaching with a highly condescending attitude (while I was highly selective and only responded to the substance with substance).
I responded:
You believe vagueness is better specificity?
That's even worse than my focus and intuition instead of actual proof?
How can you debate someone like Simon without being specific?
Being skeptical about random Darwinian evolution is really just another way of saying that Darwin and his successors have not provided a functioning mechanism for the fundamentals of evolution, they just speculate that perhaps life in itself contains such a mechanism and perhaps life itself can be formed randomly.
2 more points.
1. I forgot to mention that the evolution of understanding the cosmos too, from Newton to Laplace until the BIg Bang also brought us closer to a more classic Jewish view of the world, and demolished the Greek view of a static universe.
2. It would seem that the foundation of Simon's induction is that one would imagine that a God-created world would not appear so mechanistic and predictable.
However, if anything I think the Jewish view (especially the Kabbala view) always was that the world that God created appears mechanistic. As I once explained in a comment on IM the very definition of creation is creating a duality in which each dimension may seem completely separate and disattached from the other This is why the Torah begins with a ב and ברך is the flow of blessing, essentially the flow of duality, as all existence in this world is fundamentally an existence of duality.
Basically, science today has shown that the world today appears to be monistic, but that is in no way a contradiction to classic Jewish theology. To the contrary, it is a confirmation of monotheism. At the same time science cannot escape (and perhaps leads to) the conclusion that humanity (consciousness and conscience), life and the universe are fundamentally defined by a sense of purpose.
Happy responded:
I can talk about specific points, like the origin of life, but then he'll say that's just a singular "gap" that we don't know the answer to yet. My idea is that it's not a question of specific gaps in our knowledge, but the totality of the universe that seems designed, just like you say in your last line.
I don't see how you are gaining by not being specific.
I thought your point was that the specific 'gaps' are not random gaps but rather the fundamental of everything, so that all of science is essentially just pushing the question backwards to the points of creation (the עשרה מאמרות perhaps?).
This should only serve to prove the veracity of Judaism, of monotheism.
Why would being vague help your case? It seems to only bolster Simon's case. which is primari;y that the arguments for Judaism are arguments from ignorance.
I don't fully understand your response. I can only say that it is clear to me (though I never before heard of the term 'meaning crisis') from everything I read and see that secular society struggles with this whereas those who understand and heed Yiddishkeit tend to find meaning in everything.
Re fertility I guess we can agree to disagree.
Not as a proof but merely as an interesting anecdote I am posting a link to a conversation I had with an atheist non-Jew who wrote that she has an affinity for religious people as she sees the need for a sense of meaning and purpose which is missing in non-religious society.
https://woodfromeden.substack.com/p/girls-dont-want-to-have-fun/comment/71259046
(At the end)
I get that mentality, but keep in mind that your are looking at the whole outside world as one big mush without differentiating between religious communities vs. secular and strong families vs. not and strong communities vs. not. (And there's plenty of issues in the frum world as well, particularly with young people, and part of the reason why frum people are so fulfilled is due to successful families, and not because of their belief in god.)
I guess we can agree to disagree on the first part.
As with the issues in the frum world, I agree and I put much effort into effecting change in that. (Should I forward you my emails on those issues?)
However, I have never encountered an issue which is due to Yiddishkeit. To the contrary, I find that they are generally from a lack of understanding of Yiddishkeit or a lack of confidence in its beauty.
And I feel that when people claim that Yiddishkeit itself is the problem it only backfires and greatly exaggerates any existing problem.
If you feel that Yiddishkeit is not for you (or at least the Emunah parts) at least don't project your feelings onto the entire community. I think those in the community who understand Yiddishkeit are doing great and you are a doing a tremendous disservice by claiming otherwise.
I want to begin with a major thanks to Shimon. I have been wondering for a while now about the יצר הרע of the Rationalist Movement. I couldn't shake the feeling that perhaps there is something there that I am missing.ב"ה this new blog clearly things up for me. It now seems clear to me that this is simply about a bunch of autistic fellows who insist that religion must be empirically proven using Bayesian reasoning.
Let me make this clear.
Religion is the intuition that morality is real and the sense of purpose is real, therefore humanity (and life and the universe) exists for a purpose.
Perhaps this intuition itself is enough to justify belief in Judaism (as it is intuitive that it has been revealed to us what that purpose is, and most of the religious world essentially recognizes that it has been revealed to the Jews).
However, there is one more principle upon which Judaism (certainly Haredism) is established. This is the conviction that the exemplar role models of morality throughout the generations were the חכמי התורה.
This principle too may be sufficient on its own. Even if one suffers from a lack of intuition of moral realism, they must acknowledge that the moral leaders of Judaism universally shared such an intuition and based their system of morality on it. The value system of our community and nation is that of the חכמי התורה בכל הדורות.
Certainly, we may be subject to ridicule for making an intuition the foundation of our lives. However, 99.9% of non-autistic Haredim will just laugh off this ridicule.
For this reason too Haredim will laugh off any attempts to paint Chazal as merely the leaders of a sectarian cult (or to twist the פסוקים in a way that will strip Chazal from having any authority). We know that Chazal succeeded in fashioning the most resilient, beautiful and moral meme and that is sufficient to convince us that their words are authoritative.
My point here is not to debate Shimon, but merely to point out that he has not addressed at all the reasons that Haredim choose Yiddishkeit.
You can feel free to reject the community of your birth and its values. However, be forewarned that it can be empirically shown that the chances of your genes surviving another few generations dramatically decreשse if you become secular and your children remain secular. (After I wrote this text SA wrote an interesting post in which we succinctly expressed the fact that without Orthodox Judaism there is no future to Judaism or Jewry https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/against-the-cultural-christianity?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=89120&post_id=149528908&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=2gnvj6&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=emaily 6th paragraph.)
If the reasons relevant are emotional as opposed to rational, that is simply not the purpose of my blog as outlined in my first post https://simonfurst.substack.com/p/introduction. If you mean to argue that emotions are reliable and are therefore rational as well (as in reliable truth indicators), that is indeed a common argument worth discussing, I simply haven't gotten around to it yet. (I did have a discussion about some points relevant to this in the comments of one of my posts [https://simonfurst.substack.com/p/chazal-halakha-and-science/comments}).
Whether or not orthodoxy is a useful tool for survival is irrelevant to whether it is true, which is why I don't address such kinds of questions as outlined in my introduction.
My question is on your introduction. I feel it itself needs an introduction.
Why should one want to be skeptical?
I was especially bothered by this comment https://simonfurst.substack.com/p/postscript-to-an-eternal-nation/comment/70215814
How many of the חכמי התורה which I respect as the greatest people, were skeptical? Why should I be any different than them?
Personally, I feel that "the Truth" is elusive (especially after reading your blog). Is there any harm served by placing my intuitions and the intuitions of the חכמי התורה (that 'purpose' is a fundamental property of humanity, life and the universe') as the foundation of my life?
And if I consider the words of Chazal to be a fountain of wisdom and the foundation of the best culture why would I second-guess them and think that perhaps they were merely a sectarian cult?
I don't know how any of this translates to you philosophically.
Why should one want to be skeptical?
>Depends how important truth vs. pragmatic reasons to be happy.
>How many of the חכמי התורה which I respect as the greatest people, were skeptical? Why should I be any different than them?
You do you, but it doesn't translate into that being a good way to get to the actual truth..
Personally, I feel that "the Truth" is elusive (especially after reading your blog). Is there any harm served by placing my intuitions and the intuitions of the חכמי התורה (that 'purpose' is a fundamental property of humanity, life and the universe') as the foundation of my life?
>I find that it is less elusive than made out to be if you begin with no predetermined conclusions, but if you feel otherwise, great! You do what's best for you.
>And if I consider the words of Chazal to be a fountain of wisdom and the foundation of the best culture why would I second-guess them and think that perhaps they were merely a sectarian cult?
Are you asking me about my respect for chazal? (Which I do greatly without necesseraly trusting many of their claims) Or are you just reiterating that it's satisfying to you personally because you trust them?
>You do you
>You do what's best for you.
If you would only be narrating your own journey and your mission to share the Truth I would be fine. However, you seem to be on a mission to tell the world how unintelligent your birth community (and even your own grandmother) is.
Please, write what you want. I find it very interesting and I appreciate that you still respect Chazal greatly. But please only talk about your own journey. Leave out your projections of why others do things. Perhaps you were only exposed to unintelligent frum people but there are many intelligent ones out there.
>Are you asking me about my respect for chazal?
No. I am not asking about you. I was just explaining my own position.
>Which I do greatly without necesseraly trusting many of their claims
I am fine with not trusting many of their claims. However to be skeptical about the foundation of their edifice is to me like someone who is skeptical about the foudation of a building far larger and more magnificent than the Empire State Building, which lasted for thousands of years despite constant tornado gales (מים רבים לא יוכלו לכבות את האהבה ונהרות לא ישטפוה) declaring that perhaps it was built on quicksand. In fact one can even string together a list of relevant facts coherently. After all maybe השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההים is only a כהן or לוי and maybe the צדוקים were the ones who actually had that tradition and authority. They may have even come from the prestigious בני צדוק!
From the post itself Chazal, Halacha, Science.
Nevertheless, within halachic literature the attitude has always been that chazal's rulings even when they are based on scientific positions are always correct, and there has never been much of an issue raised in cases when they don't seem to align.
He goes on to cite examples.
>For instance, the famous tshuva of the Rashba about treifos (seriously?! was this Rashba not challenged? All the recent poskim say (including the Chazon Ish and Reb Moshe) that the Rashba was proven wrong-a rarity in today's age) and the famous tshuva of the Tosfos Yom Tov regarding fish with scales but no fins (unclear to me what we he sees there) are unyielding in their affirmation that chazal were necessarily correct. We also never and much of a movement to update halachos which are based on faulty science, from shkiya of rabbeinu tam (huh?! Have you been living under a rock for 250 years? And how is this relevant to this essay which is supposedly about Chazal?), to bliyos (bliyos is not faulty science, it is a fact that has change. Additionally the Rishonim are clear that there was a לא פלוג to always require shishim. And yet there is plenty of literature on using this as Happy mentioned), to the sakana of fish and meat (How about the Magen Avraham who is matir it? Rav Inbal mentions in a few places that he feels the Mishna Berurah (and the Shulchan Aruch Harav) holds this is the basic halacha. However, old traditions die hard, especially as one can't prove a negative and we are 200 years into the חדש אסור מן התורה movement) or leaving nails around (similar to fish and meat) to numerous אומדנות throughout halachic literature, to the scientic underpinnings of much of hilchos niddah, hilchos treifah, and much more (again, very vague accusations).
>However, this assumes that the ontological nature of halacha is that of a mere legal system. If we were to assume that the current form of torah sh'baal peh was developed during the rabbinic period and not a direct tradition going back to Sinai, this assumption would be justified. However, the traditional position in classical sources is that it is not a sociological construct, rather a very real intepretation of the torah which was given directly to moshe at sinai, either as a whole (the position of the sifra, ran, ritva, rashi and others) or at least the method (rambam).
This paragraph turns classical thinking on its head. The general assumption among the poskim is that if the halachos are sinaitic then they need not be reevaluated even if the facts have changed. One can assume that the Torah was given according to the science of its times and any further ts to developments in science fall under the rubric of לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת. If one wants to get philosophical and assume that " In such a system, halacha would seem to be an innate metaphysical property of the world, as it defines the absolute will of god and therefore can be described as a complete ontological description of reality" (I am not too philosophical so these things are a bit over my head (Kabbalah is certainly out of my league but I highly doubt Shimon's Kabbalic claim here-at the very least it seems to me that Kabbalah is very expansive as to how to define adhering to מציאות), but I wouldn't ch"v want to contradict R Konreich's understanding of an article's understanding of Rabbi Soloveitchik) that too fits perfectly, as Dovid explained very nicely here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-acceptance-of-torah that the science of ancient times is that which the Torah addresses.)
However, I fail to understand how this fits with the first part of his post. Is the "traditional position in classical sources" that the science in Chazal is Sinaitic or that it is based on the science of the times?
The truth is that the traditional approach is not that it is Sinaitic. I have never heard a frum person suggest so, and for good reason. Every Gemara which discusses science and science-related is clear testimony that this is not the case. The one place where the Gemara states תורה מן השמים is regarding a statement in תורה שבכתב. On this the Gemara asks וכי משה קניגי היה and responds מכאן תורה מן השמים.
From this Gemara we see 2 things (a) that only regarding a statement in תורה שבכתב does the Gemara make this statement. (b) that it was obvious to the Gemara that משה רבינו did not know zoology (וכי משה קניגי היה?).
So the beginning of the essay is correct. Chazal clearly adopted the science of their times.
So why aren't the פוסקים busy updating the science of Chazal?
Happy and Ash already began the job explaining the answer. However, Shimon made it appear as if they were saying something novel when in fact what they were saying is obvious to anyone who is at all familiar with how Chazal defined science-related halachos. was useful to use often and it somewhat loosely relates to these phenomena.
First of all, as Happy pointed out, the way Chazal defined these halachos is very clearly only loosely related to the actual science. I don't see how Shimon missed this. *Surely* Chazal saw a boiling hot כלי שני? Clearly they felt that they still have the right to define as a כלי שני as not a place for בישול.
There are many cases where Chazal are very explicit about the halachic criteria being more definitive than the facts on the ground, e.g., the halacha of מקצת היום ככולו for halachos based on science (e.g., שכבת זרע). Others are less clear but should be obvious. For instance, the common use of ג' טפחים (or other common measurements) for many unrelated halachos. Though Chazal often gave reasons for this is it actually coincidental that כדי שיזדקר הגדי and כדי חפישת כלב (and other phenomena) have the same shiur? I think not. Rather, this was a shiur which Chazal felt was useful to use often and it somewhat loosely relates to these phenomena. Additionally, Chazal in the context of defining halacha Chazal often compare seemingly unrelated halachos which would suggest that they were not searching for exactness but rather for definitions that are recognized in halacha ((והאריך בזה רב ענבל, וע' ראב"ד המובא להלן
More generally, it is clear that חז"ל felt that many of these halachos were in the category ofמסרו הכתוב לחכמים. I find it perplexing that Shimon mentioned a term from pop culture התורה קובעת המציאות וכו' (I did a search in the most recent version of the Bnei Torah Otsar Hachachma and found only one source for this, in a recent sefer) and not the terminology מסרו הכתוב לחכמים, מדות חכמים כך, שלא ליתן תורת כל א' בידו, (I found about 10,000 sources in the Bnei Torah version of Otsar Hachachma, and I am sure there are more in similar terms e.g. חכמים הם שנתנו, ע' ירושלמי ריש פאה ובפירוש הגר"א).
Rav Inbal (definitely not an academic) demonstrates that the original measurements were more natural. In the later stages of the Mishna it was felt necessary to set more fixed measurements.
ומזה נסתר מה שהקשה מבית דין שטעו בהוראה, ע' באחרונים (גבורת ארי, שפת אמת, רש"ש וקהלות יעקב סי' כ'-מובאים במידות ושיעורי תורה לרב בניש פרק א' הערה 6) יומא פ בביאור דברי ר' הושעיא שם שאין זה נחשב טעות בהוראה שכך נמסר לחכמים ומפורסם דברי החזו"א באריכות בזה בקונטרס השיעורים ועוד מקומות, ע' מה שהובא בחזו"א החדש על המסכתות יומא פ
(ובענינא דיומא בלמדי קצת מענייני ד' מינים ע' בר"ן ורא"ש שכ' שדיני הדר הם בכלל מסרן הכתוב לחכמים והריטב"א כט,ב כ' שיש דין כל מדות חכמים כך הוא בהדר (ומשו"ה משהו פוסל אף שלא מתמעט הדרו וע' רמב"ן בהשגותיו להלכות לולב להראב"ד שכ' כמעט מילה במילה כדברי 'אש' " צריכין אנו לחזר אחר בתי דינין שידונו בשיעורין הללו וירבו בהן מחלוקות בישראל " ומזה הוכיח שע"כ "אלא מסתברא דשיעורן בשני כשיעורן בראשון ", והראב"ד הרחיק ללכת בזה וכ' "אם היינו מוצאין זמן קצוב ליבשות ותכלית הליחה כמה היה טוב שלא נצטרך לשקול הדעת וראית העין והכרעת במאזני שכלו וזה ישקול במאזני שכלו, ופעמים שלא יגמר להם הדעת כי אם במחלוקות ולא תשוה להם ההכרעה, ועל כן אם נמצא זמן שנתנו חכמים ליבשות וכליון הלחות כמה היה הדבר נכון ללמוד וללמד ממנו לכולם בדרך אחד וזמן אחד ", הרי שמפני הצורך למעט מחלוקת אנו מחוייבים למצוא מקור בחז"ל לאיזה הגדרה אף שהדמיון לשם הוא דמיון רחוק- וכל אלו הסברות אין להם מקור בגמ' -שלא הוזכר בגמ' כלל ענין מסרן הכתוב לחכמים או מידות חכמים כך בנושא זה- אלא הראשונים הוציאו אותם מסברא עפ"י הבנת דרכי חז"ל)
In fact, Shimon somewhat acknowledged this regarding treifos and quoted a Rambam to this effect in Hilchos Treifos yet he qualifies it by stating that "treifah is a halachic category defined by chazal, and is not directly dependent on the science". Again, no source quoted for this distinction between Treifos and other science related halachos, and no explanation given, merely his own feelings. The Rambam does not indicate that Treifa is any different than other halachos that are dependent on the science. For all halachos dependent on science we say ועשית ככל אשר יורוך. Since halachic definitions are only loosely related to the science, and we know that לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת it stands to reason that in the absence of the ability to create a consensus among current חכמי ישראל we can continue to use the definition established for us by Chazal.
>This paragraph turns classical thinking on its head. The general assumption among the poskim is that if the halachos are sinaitic then they need not be reevaluated even if the facts have changed.
Very few would argue that the specific scenarios in chazal were given at Sinai, rather the principles were given and chazal applied them based on reality. Even if you will assume that yes, I would argue that Hashem would be able to give the halachos in line with the actual reality and not give mistaken halachos.
> Surely* Chazal saw a boiling hot כלי שני? Clearly they felt that they still have the right to define as a כלי שני as not a place for בישול.
Hot does't equal cooking. Cooking is a specific chemical process in the food, and chazal understood that it is dependent on it's relation to the fire, while modern science claims its directly dependent on heat (and the makeup of the molecules around it).
>There are many cases where Chazal are very explicit about the halachic criteria being more definitive than the facts on the ground, e.g., the halacha of מקצת היום ככולו for halachos based on science (e.g., שכבת זרע). Others are less clear but should be obvious. For instance, the common use of ג' טפחים (or other common measurements) for many unrelated halachos. Though Chazal often gave reasons for this is it actually coincidental that כדי שיזדקר הגדי and כדי חפישת כלב (and other phenomena) have the same shiur? I think not. Rather, this was a shiur which Chazal felt was useful to use often and it somewhat loosely relates to these phenomena.
Agreed for the most part, and I was not referring to such cases.
>More generally, it is clear that חז"ל felt that many of these halachos were in the category ofמסרו הכתוב לחכמים.
Agreed, but only when it doesn't directly depend on reality (rather it is the power of chazal that they are doing based on reality, like I argued by טריפה or what would be for קידוש החודש.)
>Rav Inbal (definitely not an academic) demonstrates that the original measurements were more natural. In the later stages of the Mishna it was felt necessary to set more fixed measurements.
Great, but I don't think that position would be universally accepted in the Chareidi world, but I'm sure many do not have a problem with it.
>(ובענינא דיומא בלמדי קצת מענייני ד' מינים ע' בר"ן ורא"ש שכ' שדיני הדר הם בכלל מסרן הכתוב לחכמים והריטב"א כט,ב כ' שיש דין כל מדות חכמים כך הוא בהדר (ומשו"ה משהו פוסל אף שלא מתמעט הדרו וע' רמב"ן בהשגותיו להלכות לולב להראב"ד שכ' כמעט מילה במילה כדברי 'אש' " צריכין אנו לחזר אחר בתי דינין שידונו בשיעורין הללו וירבו בהן מחלוקות בישראל " ומזה הוכיח שע"כ "אלא מסתברא דשיעורן בשני כשיעורן בראשון ", והראב"ד הרחיק ללכת בזה וכ' "אם היינו מוצאין זמן קצוב ליבשות ותכלית הליחה כמה היה טוב שלא נצטרך לשקול הדעת וראית העין והכרעת במאזני שכלו וזה ישקול במאזני שכלו, ופעמים שלא יגמר להם הדעת כי אם במחלוקות ולא תשוה להם ההכרעה, ועל כן אם נמצא זמן שנתנו חכמים ליבשות וכליון הלחות כמה היה הדבר נכון ללמוד וללמד ממנו לכולם בדרך אחד וזמן אחד ", הרי שמפני הצורך למעט מחלוקת אנו מחוייבים למצוא מקור בחז"ל לאיזה הגדרה אף שהדמיון לשם הוא דמיון רחוק- וכל אלו הסברות אין להם מקור בגמ' -שלא הוזכר בגמ' כלל ענין מסרן הכתוב לחכמים או מידות חכמים כך בנושא זה- אלא הראשונים הוציאו אותם מסברא עפ"י הבנת דרכי חז"ל)
A sheine vort, but I believe this all fits into the category not being directly dependent on the metzius.
>In fact, Shimon somewhat acknowledged this regarding treifos and quoted a Rambam to this effect in Hilchos Treifos yet he qualifies it by stating that "treifah is a halachic category defined by chazal, and is not directly dependent on the science". Again, no source quoted for this distinction between Treifos and other science related halachos, and no explanation given, merely his own feelings. The Rambam does not indicate that Treifa is any different than other halachos that are dependent on the science. For all halachos dependent on science we say ועשית ככל אשר יורוך. Since halachic definitions are only loosely related to the science, and we know that לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת it stands to reason that in the absence of the ability to create a consensus among current חכמי ישראל we can continue to use the definition established for us by Chazal.
I think it's a חילוק מוכרח if you understand the way I explained the rambam. Since treifah is not 'an animal that's gonna die within the year', rather it is a category of defective animals, for which chazal used that criteria to choose what to include in that category, and this power is because of מסרו הכתוב לחכמים, therefore I don't care if they were right or wrong. However, a question of bliyos is a simple question if there is טעם איסור, a question in וסת is dependent on biology, and a question about reproduction in lice (seems to) directly influences its status as a full baal chai.
>Very few would argue that the specific scenarios in chazal were given at Sinai
I was mainly referring to those (the Netziv and Reb Moshe) who try to understand the Rambam re Treifos along this line. (However, I find this attitude is common)
>rather the principles were given and chazal applied them based on reality.
I am not sure what you mean by 'the principles'.
I would say that there were probably very general principles given as to how to apply הכתוב מסרן לחכמים, דעתו של רואה ולא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת.
>Even if you will assume that yes, I would argue that Hashem would be able to give the halachos in line with the actual reality and not give mistaken halachos.
The Torah is not a science book. It was given to people according to their perspective, as I explained.
>Cooking is a specific chemical process in the food, and chazal understood that it is dependent on it's relation to the fire, while modern science claims its directly dependent on heat
Ok. A least now I understand where you were coming from.
Do you have a source for this understanding of כלי שני?
I believe the classic approach in Rishonim (based on a Yerushalmi?) is that a כלי שני cools off quicker (דפנות מקררות) and cooking takes time so a כלי שני is not very fit for cooking.
(Perhaps I should add my two cents, that you seem to be very focused on the exact science (or philosophy-Greek style science) behind things (e.g., דם נעכר ונעשה חלב). I don't think that was Chazal's focus.
>Since treifah is not 'an animal that's gonna die within the year', rather it is a category of defective animals
So that's what you meant!
Again, the Rambam does not seem to be suggesting this shtickel Torah. And how does it fit with טריפה אינה חיה?
I reiterate that in my opinion all science-related halachos are not tied down to science as לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת-התורה ניתנה לבני אדם (ולגבי שיעורים לפי דעתו של רואה וכמו שהאריך החזו"א וגיסו). Rather they are given to the Horaah of the Chachmei Hatorah which are accepted by Yisroel ומסרה הכתוב לחכמים.
>I am not sure what you mean by 'the principles'.
Even a maximalist will say that the dinim were given, not the cases, for example the criteria of נותן טעם or פרה ורבה and chazal judged each case if they fit with the criteria (similiar to how a modern day posek applied the same halachos to new scenarios).
>The Torah is not a science book. It was given to people according to their perspective, as I explained.
That's a good answer why the torah doesnt explain quantum mechanics, but not a good reason to give an inaccurate psak. The torah is a accurate halacha book, and asmuch as it depends on the science, it should incorporate that. (For example would you accept that the torah itself incorporates mistakes for example re: chewing it's cud?)
>Do you have a source for this understanding of כלי שני?
I think the yerushalmi is effectively that approach that it's not directly dependent on temperature, or at least that they thought temperature is dependent on the keli.
>(Perhaps I should add my two cents, that you seem to be very focused on the exact science (or philosophy-Greek style science) behind things (e.g., דם נעכר ונעשה חלב). I don't think that was Chazal's focus.
Well I think the examples of science in chazal seem to suggest that they were using the best contemporary science which was greek-style for the most part.
> And how does it fit with טריפה אינה חיה?
Because chazal actually thought that it would die, just we don't care if they're wrong per rambam.
>I reiterate that in my opinion all science-related halachos are not tied down to science as לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת-התורה ניתנה לבני אדם (ולגבי שיעורים לפי דעתו של רואה וכמו שהאריך החזו"א וגיסו). Rather they are given to the Horaah of the Chachmei Hatorah which are accepted by Yisroel ומסרה הכתוב לחכמים.
I understand that, and I hope I was clear why I don't fully accept that. Furthermore, that doesn't seem to be a good reason to keep doing that if our knowledge improved.
I think we have clearly reached the point where there is little to gain from further discussion. I think I have made myself perfectly clear to any third party observer. (If anyone disagrees, please inform me.)
We could argue forever about these cases and countless other cases in Shas but my point was clearly made and I provided many sources. I think anyone who studies the relevant sugyos will immediately realize that I am right (לדוגמא בעלמא בעניין כלי שני ע' רשב"א שבת מב,א בדיני כלי שני). And on the general topic I mentioned that the phrases (and similar ones e.g. כל שיעורי חכמים כך) I provided should bring up many thousands of references on אוצר החכמה for anyone interested in further research.
Perhaps I should note however that I really don't understand how your first paragraph here fits with the paragraph that my original comment was critiquing.
Having said all this, I must admit that there is a point to his conclusion "As we entered the Enlightenment and confronted these issues en masse, we began to develop theologies either to the effect that chazal were inerrant or that halacha is not restricted to the actual science".
Certainly the ideology of חדש אסור מן התורה, combined with a change in derech halimud (especially the brisker derech) and perhaps an influence of kabbalistic thought ungrounded in traditional halachic sources did have this effect. This culminated in the incredible embarrassment of the books of Schmeltzer and R Meiselman (and the silliness of even creating theologies to defend recent innovations, e.gh. a set 72 minutes or large shiurim).
And in Halacha too, these 2 influences had a very strong effect, fossilizing the entire halachic process and halachic debate. What is ironic about this entire discussion is that we are quite far from reevaluating the estimations of Chazal as even when Chazal left things to our own estimation we are often told אין אנו בקיאים. I just saw a Charedi Rov quoting a debate he had with another Rov whether we should say אין אנו בקיאים regarding the differentiation between a סמיכה שאם ינטל יפול to a סמיכה שאם ינטל לא יפול. If this is how bad we have 'lost our senses' do we have any hope of reevaluating the words of Chazal?!
While I agree this is a sad reality which did not exist in this manner historically, I was arguing that there were major elements of disconnect from reality which did exist historically.
I don't understand many of your complaints in this comment. Of the ones I do, bliyos didn't change unless you understand it to be referring to certain kinds of keilim, in which case they should be muttar nowadays, which virtually all poskim reject (with the possible exception of R Belsky). Fish and meat is largely considered to still be binding, lone authorities such as Rav Inbal notwithstanding. And yes, I do address in a footnote that there was a period where halacha was commonly updated, but I don't feel that it is generally considered a strong imperative as would be implied by halachic realism.
I don't think Rav Belsky is such an outlier re using this for a snif. מגילת ספר (סוף הלכות בשר בחלב) brings the same from Reb Shlomo Zalman and his son.
The pushback on this is along the lines of what I wrote; that Chazal established set guidelines according to the science of their times.
יעו"ש במגילת ספר ובשאר מקורות שהובאו בדור המלקטים איסור והיתר עמ' 2015-2018 ובפרט מאמרו של הרב יעקב אריאל המעין נג-ב
>Fish and meat is largely considered to still be binding
Yes. The response to the Enlightenment has largely been חדש אסור מן התורה (perhaps for good reason). And I guess people feel that a negative can't be proven.
>I don't feel that it is generally considered a strong imperative as would be implied by halachic realism.
And I am claiming that halachic realism is not that important.
To the best of my knowledge no hechsher toay relies on that, which shows that it is an outlier opinion.
Your next two points are 1. you concede that the mehalech is has this issue at least since the enlightenment, and 2. you don't think that its such an problem anyways to avoid halachic realism.
So all we are arguing about is if just the modern day approach to not update halacha is wrong, or if even the ancient system is wrong. You yourself conceded that realism should preclude the idea chadash assur min hatorah, yet you draw an arbitrary line between the rishonim being loyal to chazal and now. I just don't see it.
You skipped one point, which was my main point.
About the last paragraph, it's not about an arbitrary line for rishonim rather about whether the idea of following the psakim of chazal is fundametally wrong or whether it is fundamentally right but exxagerated due to the idea of chadash assur min hatorah.
And I think everyone recognizes that chadash assur min hatorah is in itself a novel idea, at least to some extent.
Which point, the point about chazal establishing guidelines? I think I addressed that in my other responses (that it only applies in limited cases).
Ash: I would love to hear your take on any of this.
I like a lot of what you wrote. Can you email me a Word document of all of this and I'll publish as a guest post? ashssubtacks@gmail.com
I was debating with myself whether or not to respond to your comments, and I have decided to only respond to the content and not the tone, ad hominems, or rhetoric, and I am not trying to say your perspective doesn't make sense, I'm just going to try to defend my own POV
ולסיים בדברי תורה, I will address the post re Chazal, Halacha and science.
First re his debate with Ash about the halacha of yichud with 2 men.
I don't know what Ash responded about the halacha of yichud with 2 men. However, I think the answer is obvious. (Yes, by obvious I mean that I realized this as soon as I saw his question. The heter of yichud with 2 men is only with אנשים כשרים. Even Rav considered himself a parutz. We pasken that this hanhaga of Rav was a מידת חסידות, but I believe it says a lot about what a כשר means.
So essentially the difference between men and women is in about who sets the tone of societies' norm and cultures and who follows. See an interesting essay about this here https://woodfromeden.substack.com/p/oppression-of-males-is-the-gender.
I think this is a good example of why it is far from simple to just use Pew studies. It is hard to establish that they are addressing the same things that Chazal were. Besides, do they even study our community? (See this article https://www.commentary.org/articles/moshe-krakowski/new-york-times-slander-hasidim/)
On a more general level I think Pew studies are fairly recent and are based on modern society which I view as an aberration from human nature (which will fizzle out over the next 200 years due to vanishing fertility). If faced with a binary choice I would probably choose to go with Chazal, whose memes have been tried and tested and proven to be produce the most resilient and beautiful society. However, I don't think the choice is so binary. I think Judaism (even Charedi Judaism) exhibits a lot more flexibility than it may seem to an outsider, though the fight against Enlightenment and the concept of חדש אסור מן התורה has certainly weighed us down. As Ash wrote, for this we await the establishment of a future Sanhedrin.
While I hear your position, I still maintain that empirical studies are more accurate than ancient evaluations. Furthermore, if you have a methodological issue with certain studies, why don't you design your own or only use the studies that you think are accurate (and the process of figuring this out will be a part of halachic decision making)?
>While I hear your position, I still maintain that empirical studies are more accurate than ancient evaluations.
I am highly skeptical.
And I believe that one's value system is hard to escape even when conducting studies, so much input from חכמי התורה is neccessary.
>Furthermore, if you have a methodological issue with certain studies, why don't you design your own or only use the studies that you think are accurate (and the process of figuring this out will be a part of halachic decision making)?
Haha.
Hopefully we'll get there one day but he have a lot of hurdles to overcome first.
First you say you are skeptical then you say hopefully we'll get there. Which is it? And I don't see what the 'chachmei hatorah' add to the empirical discussions, other that choosing whether to use the findings for a halachic purpose.
I don't understand your question.
I thought you were saying that even the current Pew research is better than following Chazal. To which I responded that I am skeptical.
>I don't see what the 'chachmei hatorah' add to the empirical discussions
If it is truly empirical you are right, but my impression is that in the social sciences it is hard to escape biases based on one's values. However, I am not a major expert in this so perhaps I am wrong.
Perhaps I should add one point that was implied in my original comment, which is that I think modern society is in constant flux and it is hard to nail down the facts. However, I think Chazal's estimates were in the more natural state of humanity, and I believe that core of humanity still persists.
My question was if you're skeptical about our ability to perform accurate surveys then why do you hope that one day we'll get there (unless you meant one day will figure out how to make accurate surveys, in which case it's not a question.)
I agree that empirical studies on social sciences are not fully accurate, but I just don't trust chazals armchair evaluations. And I think the fact that it was made for a different society should be a minus not a plus. I mean, if אין אדם פורע חובו תוך זמנו or תפוס לשון ראשון was true then, what does that have to do with now?
The primary objection I have with the post (#1) about Jewish survival is that אין אומתנו אומה אלא בתורתה applies even today.
The reasons the secular in Israel are not dying out is only because:
(a) Due to influence from the Haredim they have fertility about replacement level. See the post linked here (# https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-september-2024), and one from a Swedish גוי here https://woodfromeden.substack.com/p/the-curious-case-of-israeli-fertility.
(b) Attrition from the other non-secular (but non-Haredi, as Haredim have basically zero attrition to the secular). See this study https://chotam.org.il/media/37347/demography-of-religiosity.pdf.
(c) Their inability to assimilate among the local non-Jewish population, as most of them hate Jews.
(d) Immigration from other countries.
I fully agree that our culture and tradition are keeping us alive today, in a very similar way they have throughout the ages. However, secular jews remain as far as their identity is important enough to them to ward off assimilation in whatever coutries they are (obv israel it's less of an issue than the US.)
Are the עיקרי האמונה part of that culture and tradition?
Well, yes, just doesn't mean they always were, or even if they were that they are true.
I think this is a false dichotomy. You can both really believe something and only have been pursuaded by the arguments because of negios.
The alternative to this is Charedim getting drunk on nationalist militarism and losing the plot, e.g. major Agudist Rabbis saying 'Every blatt gemoro is a missile, every Tosefos is a rocket, every kapitel tehilim is a bomb'. You have to pick your poison, and this is the least bad one.
Let's see how many people actually attend before any motive is imputed.
I suspect the majority will just learn, not because it protects, but because it is more important.
All four BMG RY signed the kol koreh. No mainstream Agudah did. We'll see what happens.
I don't think that makes the slightest bit of difference.
They have signed to go to other protests, and almost one bus went.
I hope you are right. Still unhappy they signed though.
Ash, what are you, some out-of-town Harry? You know as well as I do that the higher-ups in Lakewood have different ways of signaling where they stand on issues for various audiences. So far, they have not shown in any way that they want really want their talmidim to go. The Kol Koreh hanging around Lakewood is a complete joke to any Lakewood insider - very Chassidish language and layout, the word "Lakewood" is even misspelled the way the Chassidim usually misspell it. They probably were pressured into supporting it by the Chassidim organizing it.
I'm not saying that the reason they don't support going is your above rationale, but you cannot infer that they intend for Lakewood to attend from the aforementioned Kol Koreh
As I said, this is to signal they hold like Satmar.
Why would R' Malkiel need to be pressured?
Rosh Yeshiva list are Peleg people, just as he is.
Whether talmidim will go is another matter, but somewhat irrelevant in terms of showing where Lakewood leadership is right now.
He personally would not need to be pressured, but he alone cannot make the decision, even if he felt that Lakewood should go. Regardless, it is not a Yeshiva campaign. Yeshiva did not put out any signs or Kol Korehs encouraging people to go. Obviously, at this point, Lakewood Roshei Yeshiva do not feel that Yeshiva should travel in for the rally, unless something changes between now and Sunday
Where can I see a copy of the kol korei?
https://hefkervelt.blogspot.com/2024/09/kol-kore-from-us-gedolei-roshei-yeshiva.html
thnx
https://www.shtetl.org/article/rally-against-israeli-military-draft-postponed-after-permit-denial
Looks like they wanted it, but didn't know how to pull it off.
That seems to show that askanim who WOULD know how to pull this off wanted nothing to do with this.
Very confused
This seems to be like conscientious objectors from the infamous anti-war days of Viet Nam. Who believes in the objection or who is just standing on principle? Did they claim religious objection for the poisonous Covid jabs and was the objection disallowed? How can somebody claim to be religious and against fighting or war when the Torah tells us how and when to practice self defense? Can the ultra religious serve in non-combatant roles? How can somebody ask for protection when they aren't willing to self protect? Aren't all Jews living under the same Bible and religious dictates? At the least, isn't there some hypocrisy on this issue?