Home › Forums › Controversial Topics › Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread › Reply To: Continuation of Discussion on R' Slifkin and Weiss from Manchester Eiruv Thread
Ben Levi:
I wrote a rather lengthy response to you several hours ago which didn’t get put up. I’ll assume because it was too long, so I broke it up into several smaller posts.
The following are quotes from YOU in this thread:
“However that is not because Chazal were limited only to the knowledge that science had in thier day” “Actualy the opinion of many is not that Chazal did not write down many things based on the science of their time, rather it is whether they knew that was wrong and merely intended to use it to encrypt “Pardes”.” “An Ex. is Slifkin using RSRH letter on Aggadita to justify stating Chazal only knew the science of their times” “Slifkin disputes it, The Rambam that I qouted you from Chelek states that anyone who thinks Chazal were limited to the knowledge of their day is a fool” “You are entitled to “beleive” what you wish, however Slifkin has made clear that in his opinion Chazal knew no more then contemporary scientists when it came to scientific matters and in one of the books I read from him he theorizes that they derived their knowledge from Pliny the Elder” “And the relevance to Slifkin is quite simple a core principle of Slifkin’s philosophy (there are several, this is one of them) is that we in fact no more then Chazal” “He feels he has a better understanding of science then Chazal and they were simply wrong in many of thier statements, in fact if I recall correctly the position he takes in one of his books is that Chazal derived thier knowledge from Pliny the Elder.” “he states quite clearly that in his view Chazal got their knowledge from Pliny” “And I would add that I have studied these matters and I can pretty confidently state that there is virtually no source that adopts the approach he takes” “There is virtually no one who endorses his approach or his conclusions.”