- This topic has 149 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I think my best guess would be to say that it’s like asking what would R’ Akiva would hold if he were R’ Meir, regarding “chosh’shin l’miut’a” (or any two members of Chaza’l, on any issue in Sha’s).
The obvious difference being Mesorah vs. life experiences. A more correct dimyon (IMHO) would be supporting Am Haretzim and Rebbe (during the hunger), in which Rebbe concluded from his life experiences that taxes come from Am Haratzim.
Otherwise I think your answer is a good one.
Everyone is influenced by their location and time, whether you like it or not. The rambam greatly respected Aristotle and wrote in Arabic. The Amoraim got all of their science ideas from the goyim- they weren’t scientists themselves obviously.
Keep your primer avos. I guess you’ll also keep the idea of a flat earth, mistaken astronomy, demons, superstition, and women learning Torah is tiflus, and use Talmudic medicine.
Crying apikorsus is just low and unintelligent in an argument. Classic move by shotim
Rational,
There is a big difference between science and values. Torah is not about science but it is about values. Chazal consciously used the science of their time because the Torah is not a source of science (for the most part) but Chazal did not consciously use the values of their time.
I assume you mean, that although they didn’t consciously use the values of their time, they might have been influenced by the values of their time and, chas v’shalom, misinterpreted the Torah. It is true that they might have been so influenced, nobody is perfect, but there is no way to know. And given that we can’t know one way or another, there is no reason to assume regarding any given issue that there was such influence. Therefore the point is has no practical ramifications.
rationalfrummie: You still haven’t brought an example.
Crying apikorsus is just low and unintelligent in an argument.
As opposed to that comment?
I’m not merely saying it’s apikorsus, I’m explaining why. If you think you win the argument by calling me (or my opinions) unintelligent and a shoteh, then so be it.
I think saying Chaza’l were wrong about science is simplistic and wrong. The Gemara in a couple of places suggests “Sod Hashem li’yreov” as the source of Chazal’s statements regarding science. I hope you don’t think the scientists know more than Hashem.
But I don’t think it’s apikorsus. I try not to throw around the term lightly. But saying that their values are primitive, outdated and stolen from the goyim, and that Pirkei Avos is “a primer”, I wil say it the way it is. It’s apkrsus (or kefirah, take your pick of terminology).
The pirkei avos thing was auto correct. Regarding everything else, its clear you misunderstood my point, and by calling me an apikores I assumed you were trying o hide your lack of understanding with insults, which is never okay.
The fact is, chazal were people, and certainly weren’t scientists for the most part. Therefore, its inconceivable that everything they said about science is correct. Does that make them less great? No, it just means I don’t rely on the Talmud for science or medical advice, but moral instruction and explanation of Halacha. I hope you don’t think chazal were infallible and cannot possibly be wrong about science.
Chazal’s values aren’t primitive and I never said that chas v’sholom. All I said is that CERTAIN (I have to capitalize for you people) ideals they believed were influenced by non Jewish ideals and thinkers (see rambam learning from Aristotle for a prime example). Just like chazal learned science from goyim and chochmas yevanis, so too certain ideas they held are sociologically based and stem from the ideas of whatever society they lived in. Most of Halacha isn’t like this, but here its obvious it is, because of the similarities in thought.
but here its obvious it is
Once again, where is here?
crational- chazal saw malachim, heard them speak, and regularly met with Eliyahu hanavi. you are an ameoba compared to them, morally, ethically, in terms of scientific undrstanding, and closeness to Hashem. to talk about and critique them is tipshus.stop being a tipaish.
I assumed you were trying o hide your lack of understanding with insults
No, I was stating my halachic opinion (about your arguments; I was careful to use the term apikorsus, and not the term “apikores”). But you were using insults to bolster your argument.
I hope you don’t think chazal were infallible and cannot possibly be wrong about science.
Sorry to dash your hopes. The Gemara strongly implies that their “scientific knowledge” was Divinely inspired. Do I know the answers to all of the answers to the “contradictions” between Chaza’l and science? No, although I’ve heard some which sound reasonable. For the rest, I’ll take it on emunah (as is my mesorah to do so).
Chazal’s values aren’t primitive and I never said that chas v’sholom.
All I said is that CERTAIN (I have to capitalize for you people) ideals they believed were influenced by non Jewish ideals and thinkers
Those two statements are contradictory. If Chazal’s ideals were able to be influenced by outside forces, then all of their ideals are subject to be questioned, and might as well all be primitive. We can’t call the source for their values anything but Divinely inspired and still not subject any of their teachings to our own feeble opinions.
see rambam learning from Aristotle for a prime example
1) Ramba’m was not Chaza’l.
2) Those who would defend Ramba’m would say that he only quoted and agreed to Aristotelian philosophy where he felt that it was in accordance with his already formed Torah opinions.
3) The Gr”a was not among those, and famously rejected his philosophy, and any halachic conclusions which he felt were a product of his philosophy.
Popa, could you explain a little more fully?
Rational,
It is a logical fallacy to assume that because A is similar to B, therefore A is derived from B.
There are at least 3 other equally likely possibilities (absent additional evidence of course). It could be that B is derived from A; it could be that the similarity is a coincidence/superficial; or it could be that both are derived from the same source.
Ben: what are you saying? I honestly don’t understand what logical fallacy you’re referring to, or what its relevance is. Please explain, I generally think you make very good points.
Toi- sorry but that’s just wrong. Chazal’s greatness in Torah and Halacha does not exempt them from being susceptible to making scientific mistakes, just like everyone else in the world at that time! If chazal knew all science, then why didn’t they invent telescopes or know the earth is round? You’re the amoeba. Your emunah is so weak, it has to be bolstered by insisting chazal were incredible science geniuses ahead of their times when that’s not the case.
DY: how could the Gra argue on the rambam? And rambam was a Chacham and he was niftar 800 years ago- ergo chazal.
Toi- sorry but that’s just wrong. Chazal’s greatness in Torah and Halacha does not exempt them from being susceptible to making scientific mistakes, just like everyone else in the world at that time! If chazal knew all science, then why didn’t they invent telescopes or know the earth is round? You’re the amoeba. Your emunah is so weak, it has to be bolstered by insisting chazal were incredible science geniuses ahead of their times when that’s not the case.
DY: how could the Gra argue on the rambam? And rambam was a Chacham and he was niftar 800 years ago- ergo chazal.
Rational: Read Yaakov Elman’s works. Then realize that you’re saying just like him. And realize that he has almost definitely crossed the border into Apikorsus.
It is not an Ikkar Emunah to say that Chazal knew all of science. It is, however, an Ikkar Emunah that all Dinim remain the same L’olam Va’ed (until we have a Sanhedrin that can argue on Chazal). Because, among other things, you just pragmatically no longer have a Halachic system when anything or even everything can be disregarded as “no longer relevant”.
Rational,
You wrote: “All I said is that CERTAIN (I have to capitalize for you people) ideals they believed were influenced by non Jewish ideals and thinkers . . . Most of Halacha isn’t like this, but here its obvious it is, because of the similarities in thought.”
Now, I am not sure what you are specifically referring to by “here” but as a logical matter, just because things are “similar” doesn’t mean that one influenced the other and even if there was influence, it doesn’t tell you which one did the influencing.
I am not denying that influence is possible. Chazal were human after all. I am maintaining however, that we cannot know where the influence, if any, lies and we certainly can’t know that we, in our assessment of Chazal are not succumbing to the same sort of outside influences. And therefore it is foolish to make any practical changes based on suspicions of influence.
This is not like empirical fact.
(As an aside, I don’t think Chazal believed the world was flat. The Greeks knew the world was round and, according to the Yerushalmi, Alexander the Great proved the world was round. Chazal had extensive contact with Greek science and would have been aware of this.)
Ben: we can know what influenced chazal, because there are many historians running around with thousands of artifacts, and lots of data from different periods/areas that chazal lived in. And regarding the earth debate, it is a machlokes in a gemara, there are different opinions. But the fact is there are Amoraim who hold it wae flat.
Sam2: all I know is be teaches at YU (in Jewish studies I believe). That aside, certain dinim are objective and should be in place forever- like Shabbos, kashrus, Talmud Torah, tznius, taharas hamishpachah, etc. however, there are other areas that are more flexible. Such as being maikil on cholov yisroel, shaking a woman’s hand, leaening secular studies, etc.
These are all areas where obviously innovation has occurred within the halachic system. L’olam va’ed certainly doesn’t apply to say, cholov yisroel! So explain that to me Sam. What’s the big heker? I’m ssking this seriously, since I respect you as someone that cares about Halacha and knowing mekoros well.
“we can know what influenced chazal, because there are many historians running around with thousands of artifacts, and lots of data from different periods/areas that chazal lived in.”
I would need to see a specific argument to comment in detail. Maybe the have found a way around the logical problems I outlined above.
I will say however that I have read various such arguments in the past and frankly they would not hold water in a court of law (without the Daubert rules). Historians and archeologists are not great on causation v. correlation, they jump to conclusions on weak evidence, fail to consider alternatives that don’t fit their paradigms and, most of all, confuse change in idiom and terminology with change in ideas.
Sof davar: when dealing with the soft sciences don’t just read their conclusions, read the data and the argument and think critically.
DY: how could the Gra argue on the rambam? And rambam was a Chacham and he was niftar 800 years ago- ergo chazal.
The term Chaza’l is used for chachomim until chasimas hagemora, i.e. Tannaim and Amoraim. The reason the Gr’a argues on the Ramba’m, even though it’s quite unusual for an acharon to argue on a rishon, is probably because he felt that writings of the Ramba’m which were influenced by outside sources have no special reason to be accepted.
L’olam va’ed certainly doesn’t apply to say, cholov yisroel
Can you please explain? I have a feeling that you might be misunderstanding the reason for those who are matir.
“The reason the Gr’a argues on the Ramba’m”
He doesn’t just argue on the Rambam, he argues on the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema as well.
“It is, however, an Ikkar Emunah that all Dinim remain the same L’olam Va’ed “
Not only is it not an ikkar emunah, it is a false statement. Do you use toilet paper? Did you recite the shema on your wedding night? When was the last time you heard of a bechor animal being identified for a mum? When do you think the texts of selichot or tachanun were standardized? Can you divorce your wife without her consent?
MOST dinim don’t change. But a few have.
“Read Yaakov Elman’s works. Then realize that you’re saying just like him. And realize that he has almost definitely crossed the border into Apikorsus.”
Accusing a talmid chacham who knows more than you do of being an apikorus is a pretty strong statement. You need to either back it up, or withdraw and apologize.
“use Talmudic medicine”
It has been asur to use talmudic medicine since the gaonic period. (That is another halachah that has changed since Ravina and Rav Ashi.)
“I think saying Chaza’l were wrong about science is simplistic and wrong. “
It is simplistic. I take issue with the word “wrong” though. It is clear that we have a better understanding of HaShem’s creation than anyone did at the time of Chazal. Chazal consistently used the best non-Jewish methodologies available at the time and it is entirely inappropriate to criticize them for that. Were they living in our times they would use the best methodologies available today and would reach appropriate conclusions. Nevertheless it is also inappropriate to treat the talmud as a science text, and indeed that has been asur for a thousand years regarding medical science.
Rational: It’s funny you mention Taharas Hamishpachah. Dr. Elman holds that most of the Minhagim of Niddah are taken from the Zeroastrians. (He may not be wrong on that entirely and it’s hinted in the Gemara, but he takes his opinion way, way too far.)
Charlie: I have spoken to Dr. Elman personally on several occasions and have an extreme respect for his Torah knowledge. That is the only reason I don’t speak against him in sharper terms than “he probably crosses the line”. If anyone less knowledgeable than him would say the same things as he does I would call them an Apikores and walk away, no questions asked.
it is entirely inappropriate to criticize them for that
Chas V’shalom! I’m just saying that they also used better methods than that.
From R’ Aharon Feldman:
Leshem Shevo Ve-achlama writes:
The main thing is: everyone who is called a Jew is obligated to
believe with complete faith that everything found in the words of the Sages whether in halachos or agados of the Talmud or in the
[the Sage] [that he knew this because]
Again, I’m not saying someone who doesn’t holds like this is a kofer; there were some minority opinions who held that Chazal’s science was only based on the current available information (although that doesn’t explain how Chaza’l knew scientific information which wasn’t known to scientists until hundreds of years later).
But there’s no reason for me to accept that minority view.
DY: I don’t think that’s the minority view. I think that, to some extent (especially where it’s not relevant L’ma’aseh) it’s a majority view, and certainly by Refuos where everyone holds like R’ Avraham Ben HaRambam quoting his father.
“The reason the Gr’a argues on the Ramba’m”
He doesn’t just argue on the Rambam, he argues on the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema as well.
My point was twofold:
Rishonim are not Chaza’l. The concept of ??? ?’ ?????? was never aplied to Rishonim, AFAIK. There was a chasimas hashas, at which point later authorities will not overrule earlier ones, they will only interpret and choose an opinion to follow from those offered by the Amoraim. After that, for example from the works of the Rishonim, one can argue.
Nevertheless, it’s uncommon to find an Acharon disputing a Rishon, because it was generally accepted that the Rishonim were superior.
In one particular case, Y’D 179:6, the Gr’a takes issue with the Rambam’s rationalist approach, stating that it was influenced by philosophy, and that his approach was already rejected by many after him.
I wasn’t addressing the fact that there are halachic disagreements between the Vilna Gaon and the Mechaber or R’ma.
Sam2,
Again, quoting R’ Feldman:
(I know there’s another viewpoint regarding this as well.)
Re- Rationalfrummie
FYI
Tosfos in Avodah Zara (41a) quotes the Yerushalmi that the earth is round
Rationalfrummie: You still have not brought a single example whare Halacha was determined by Chazal due to “goyish systems”.
Until then you are all arguing a hypothetical that may not exist.
DY: I think contemporary people (especially Chassidim) apply Sod Hashem Lireiav to Gedolim today. But that’s not relevant. I think you need to prove that Sod Hashem Lireiav means they know everything. As far as I know, the Gemara only brings it up in applications where it’s relevant Halachah L’ma’aseh. In those cases they knew advanced sciences. And even then we still sometimes have to say Nishtaneh Hateva. Once again, it’s arrogant and idiotic to search out places or try to attempt to prove Chazal wrong. But I don’t think there’s any harm in acknowledging that at times they listened to the scientists of their day, who could be wrong (see the Machloksim between the Chachamim and the scientists in Pesachim 93ish, I think).
Derech Agav, I had a Rebbe in 8th grade who said it’s Apikorsus to say that Rishonim made a mistake. He did not remain my Rebbe very long after I forced him to admit that he held that the Earth was flat in the times of Rashi, round when the Ba’al Hama’or said it’s round, and flat again in the times of the Rashba.
Also, I have always thought that the Machlokes in the Gemara Megillah 7a, as to whether Hodu and Kush were on opposite ends of the earth or next to each other was a Machlokes as to whether the earth is flat or round.
I think contemporary people (especially Chassidim) apply Sod Hashem Lireiav to Gedolim today.
That’s not muchrach, though. Applying it to Chaza’l is, though.
I think you need to prove that Sod Hashem Lireiav means they know everything.
I never claimed such a thing. It means they knew what Hashem chose to reveal to them, which may very well be only things which are halachah l’maaseh, but it would be mistaver to say it applies to all things recorded in the Mishnayos and Gemara.
I had a Rebbe in 8th grade who said it’s Apikorsus to say that Rishonim made a mistake.
I agree that the term is used too loosely. Technically, the word apikorsus actually means, I think, “hefkerus”, which it may be. I know some people who, if they don’t understand a Rishon in a sugya, will simply say he was wrong. That is indeed hefkerus. It’s not kefirah, though (which is how the term is used), it’s just stupid.
I had a Rebbe in 8th grade who said it’s Apikorsus to say that Rishonim made a mistake.
Unfortunately, that is Apikorsus. 🙂
DY: I don’t remember if he used the word “Apikorsus” or “Kefirah”. He did hold that saying a Rishon could be wrong, about anything, was actual “Kefirah”. Needless to say, he was quite wrong. That was meant to be an amusing anecdote, not to prove any point.
The Rishonim, upon their own admission, listened to the scientists of their day. Therefore we don’t have to accept their science, although we try very hard to do so. And we learn the Torah thoroughly and try to adapt it to updated science.
Although we know that they didn’t know the science that we know today, their Sefarim were written with Ruach Hakodesh, which doesn’t mean they were ‘told’ what to write. But it does mean that their words are Emes and have great Kedusha.
The Amoraim, on the other hand, always quote earlier Amoraim or Braysos for facts of the world. They never quote a doctor, philosopher or scientist. They did consult doctors for Halachos at that time, but Halacha was never based on a doctor (besides Shmuel).
The Gemara in Pesachim that says that the non-Jewish Chachamim seem correct (in a topic with little relevance today) shows us that the Chachamim did not get their Chachma from them. When the Gemara suggests that our Chachamim seem correct on the second issue, the Gemara rebuffs the proof to explain how the Chachmei Umos Ha’olam can be correct (also based on a premise disregarded today).
The first issue was if the sun goes over the Rakia or under the earth. This would mean that they never bothered to watch Shkia! It therefore seems most likely that it wasn’t quite a scientific argument in the first place, and as the Maharal explains it.
Anyhow, the Gemara never implies that they knew everything there is to know, but it is pretty clear that the Braysos are true and the Tanaaim didn’t just pass on their speculations. Rebbe Yochanan, who compared his understanding to a pinhole relative to a few generations before him whose undertanding was as wide as the Ulam, insisted that nothing be said until it is extremely clear.
In one day, Rebbe Eliezer Hagadol showed Rebbe Akiva 300 Halachos in Koshir Kishuin. That means 300 details about this phenomenon. This was his Kabala. We don’t know how many details he was Mekabel on Shatnez, Bechoros, or Arla because, as he said, his Talmidim weren’t Meshamesh enough to get all that he knew from him.
Rav Papa constantly makes Diyukim from Braysos and Mishnayos about facts of science. He didn’t know these facts, but he accepted and didn’t say that perhaps they only said what they heard from some doctor. Either the Tanaim had this Mikabala or they learned it from a Pasuk or they derived it from another Memra of earlier Tanaim. Either way, it is true. A Drasha from a Pasuk was not off the top of the head, like it reads to us. Darshening a Pasuk for a Tanna was as clear as being Medayek (a real Diyuk) from a Rishon.
The remedies mentioned in certain Sugyos are often quoted from a Taya, a traveling Arab. Therefore, Rav Shrira Gaon says that we don’t follow them. We see in the Gemara itself that an Amora tried the remedies and it didn’t work, until another Arab advised him differently.
rational-you said” You’re the amoeba. Your emunah is so weak, it has to be bolstered by…”
nu uh, you are.
Your emunah is so weak, it has to be bolstered by insisting chazal were incredible science geniuses ahead of their times
Why the personal insults again? That’s also an odd way of looking at things, that someone who doesn’t feel the need to conform to “rational” thinking is weak in emunah.
Logically, it can’t be kefira to say a rishon is incorrect about something. The rishonim disagreed among themselves anyway, so someone has to be wrong.
Neither it is kefira to say Chazal weren’t 100% correct about everything. If that were true, then the dozens of rishonim who held that Chazal erred in scientific matters were kofrim, c”v’s.
Similarly, it’s not true that every drash on a pasuk in the Gemara is necessarily authoritative. See these two sources:
“Rav Hai Gaon was asked what is the difference between those Agada and medrashim which are written in the Talmud and those that are not? He replied that whatever is found in the Talmud is
more valid that what is not found in the Talmud. Nevertheless, even those Agada and Medrash which are found in the Talmud if they make no sense or are erroneous are not to be relied upon. That is because in general we dont treat Agada as being authoritative. However that which is found in the Talmud, we should correct their errors if possible. That is because if they didn’t have validity they would not have been included in the Talmud. Those that we cannot figure out how to correct should be viewed like that which is not the Halacha. In contrast that which is not in the Talmud, we have no need to attempt to correct them and make sense out of them. We merely should examine them as to whether they are correct and nice. If they are, we teach them. If they are not, we pay no attention to them.” (Sefer HaEshkol)
“I have always thought that the Machlokes in the Gemara Megillah 7a, as to whether Hodu and Kush were on opposite ends of the earth or next to each other was a Machlokes as to whether the earth is flat or round.”
Much simpler explanation: Hodu is clearly India. Kush can mean Ethiopia, which was pretty much at the opposite end of the known world. But there is also a Hindu Kush mountain range in Asia that is not far from India.
” Dr. Elman holds that most of the Minhagim of Niddah are taken from the Zeroastrians. (He may not be wrong on that entirely and it’s hinted in the Gemara, but he takes his opinion way, way too far.)”
And why would that be a problem? It is clear from anyone who has completed masechta niddah that the practices became much more stringent over time. And he has documented Persian practices in this area. Chazal had the authority to institute halachic stringencies for whatever reasons they wished, and some such examples are documented in their own writings. Beyond the pale would be to say that these changes were no longer binding today.
“everything found in the words of the Sages whether in halachos or agados of the Talmud or in the
Midrashim, are all the words of the Living God”
That is not the same as saying that everything in the words of the sages needs to be taken literally. Rambam, Ramban, and Rabbi Avraham ben HaRambam explicitly said that was not necessary.
“Chaza’l knew scientific information which wasn’t known to scientists until hundreds of years later”
Examples?
charlie- off the top of my head, the exact length of time it takes for the moon to circle earth. im sure there are more but i havent read any of the science-proves-the-truth-of-torah books for some time.
popa – the idea that identifying one orthodox body to the left to you and one to the right makes you centrist is absurd. by your logic, shawn bradley is of “centrist” height (lol) because of manut bol. you’re right, dude, just own it and put up your dukes.
Brony- its a lot easier to quantify and put height “in order” than it is religious beliefs.
the exact length of time it takes for the moon to circle earth.
You mean the Metonic cycle?
Rational Frummie- Reflective of you posts you seem to be both A)Smart and B)Searching for greater Emunah.
People especially a smart person is constantly looking for empirical proofs in life. In this case it is a struggle whether to go for or against changes in Halachacha or Hashkafa and what can and cannot be acceptable.(especiallY in a religion with an all encompassing G-d that we cannot see) You seem to have a tremendous knowledge base. I want to try to show in a calm non-screaming post how given your smarts and knowledge you show your struggle as otherwise you would never post such things. The answers to your posts are simple without quoting any seforim or Gemara
1)”that YCT is centrist is just as… Who can judge what are the extremes in frumkeit, and who is really in the “center?”
a) When most Talmidie Chachomim across the spectrum say that YCT is on the extreme then I think it is fair to say that they are not in the center every nation has laws Rabbanim are our arbiters.
2)”At least YCT seems to care about most of Halacha, there are many talmidei chachamim in their ranks,’
A)I am sure you will agree caring about most of Halacha is a form of intellectual Judaism.Using the words caring about most of Halacha and being a talmid chacham in the same sentence does not really make sense.
3)”Once most rebbeim at YCT renounce torah mi-sinai and tell their students they can drive on shabbos I’ll agree with you.”
t.
1)Quoted from the incoming Chovevi Rosh Yeshiva. You cannot say reform theology contributes to Torah in any way.
2)This is a total belittlement of all Halacha sefarim and poskim out there as well as an interdenominational approach that the vast majority including Rav Soloviechick ZTL disagreed with.
4)”Look at bava Basra 25 and pesachim 94 to see that the Amoraim believed the earth was flat, the universe was geocentric, and that the sun literally travels through the sky. They also believed that you could see demons by burning a black cat and putting its ashes in one’s eyes.”
A) I could tell you about a split sea, hail mixed with fire etc… this was actually the post that bothered me and got me to write as I understood the first part as you trying to bolster your argument for modern day science. But using the part about the black cat and then using it again versus another poster was indicative of an emotional more then intellectual struggle
5) “In Just like science, when these ideas are abandoned or rejected, we have to rethink if those still apply today. This is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from objective halachic conceptsa similar vein, some of the information chazal used in establishing Halacha regarding women is based on goyish systems.”
A)Sorry nothing based on goyish systems. Sometimes semantics mean nothing and sometimes they mean alot. Chazal was definitely influenced by the world around them but nothing was goyish based.Influenced a little yes.To say something in the Torah is goyish based is reflective of todays society where we must try to rationalize everything.
6)”Its a lot easier to quantify and put height “in order” than it is religious beliefs.”
a) :)agreed!
Many people I know (all FFBs) have gone to AISH, Gateways Hineni or similar seminars,and from time to time all of us I.E. myself have similar queries. Dozens of Seforim are devoted to this topic. In a million years,I would never from your posts call you an apikores or your thought process heretical . Your posts reflect your struggles with Emunah, and the ability to correlate modern knowledge with Halacha.(totally normal)
Just go get the answers you need
Good Shabbos
GAW- youre hysterical. alright, i wasnt clear.
“YCT are accusing Chaza’l of considering women unequal not because of an actual Torah truth, but because they were men, and did so to inflate their egos.”
I have never heard any YCT rabbi say anything like that.
That is a false statement. R’Avraham’s essay on how to interpret midrash/aggadata is printed as the introduction to every edition of the Ein Yaakov collection of aggadata!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.