- This topic has 20 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
The Malbim in his hakdomoh says that the Rambam’s explanation on Yechezkel is based on philosophical and scientific concepts that were only accepted in his time. By now (time of Malbim-?) these principles have completely been uprooted.
Does this mean that perek ? and ? of hilchos yesodei hatorah are incorrect?
Should we still follow the Rambam’s health guides that he writes in Hilchos Deyos?
Is there a way to explain the universe using Torah together with the science of our time, like the Rambam did with Aristotle?
Looking for Maareh Mekomos.
the malbim himself in the back of the new artzos hachaim has a sefer called alei terufah where he is mepalpel to show that all the rambam’s in hilchos deos perek 4 are coming from sugyos.
Wisguy- A better question is, what does it mean it was only applicable in his time? The answer i always hear is meshana habrios. Does this translate to evolution of the species?
Depending on your hashkafa, you may find the works of R’ Noson Slifkin of interest. His books were banned a few years ago by some gedolim, but some of them indicated afterward that they had never read the books and didn’t have a good understanding of what was in them. What is more, several of the askanim responsible for the ban are now either in prison (for unrelated felonies) or otherwise disgraced. However, as R’ Slifkin has explained on his website, he actually agrees with the ban for certain communities (I think those who are very insular and unfamiliar with the findings of modern science in general).
Various kiruv-oriented books on Torah and science have been written, such as Genesis and the Big Bang (be careful — there are two books of this title, written by different authors). You may want to check them out as well.
If the Rambam were alive nowadays, I don’t think he’d hold by the science he had in his days (same with Hazal; they were going by what was available they had in their days).
??? ?’ ?????? ?????? ???????
“I don’t think he’d hold by the science he had in his days (same with Hazal; they were going by what was available they had in their days).”
Correct. In numerous places one can see Chazal’s care in observation. In at least one place (Pesachim 94) they accept that the non-Jewish explanation is better than theirs. Rambam is explicit about this in Guide to the Perplexed III, 14.
Rav Hirsch confirms this; see “The Educational Value of Judaism”, in *Collected Works, Vol. 7*.
Actually the Rambam himself makes clear that Chazal knew far more science then the scientists of their time in fact he categorizes people in three “groups’ and calls those that believe that Chazal were limited to that which was known in their time “fools” since even a cursory reading of Chazal show this to be simply false/
For further info see The Rambams Shemonah Prakim where he writes this in detail.
Interestingly Rabbi Jonathan Rietti has a fascinating tape on the Rambams diet where he brings numerous examples of medical statements made by the Rambam which were completley based on Torah Knowledge and were only discovered hundreds of years later.
The ???? I quoted earlier, ??? ?’ ?????? ?????? ???????, is quoted in several places in the ???? as a source for ??”?’s knowledge of material matters.
The author of the Genesis and the Big Bang that I believe yytz is referring to is Gerald L. Schroeder. Very good book for these sorts of questions. (Sorry that this doesn’t directly address the OP.)
On the contrary, Rambam says that Chazal went according to the scientific knowledge of their time and that this is proper so long as it is accepted scientifically (Moreh Nevuchim 3:14 at the end, Hilchot Kidush HaChodesh 1:24)although for halachic purposes it might not make a difference (Hilchot Shechita 10:12-13).
I was very bothered when I saw a tshuvah from R Shrirah Gaon saying not to follow the medicinal remedies from Chazal unless you have first researched them since Chazal were not doctors.
Later though, I saw the Ramchal in his psichah l’agodos chazal that says that Chazal would often give over a secret through a mashal. For the purpose of the mashal Chazal often used a scientific or medicinal idea that was accepted in there time. However since it was only a mashal the truth of the statement did not matter to them. ?? ???? ??? ????
Yes. R’ Sherira Gaon explicitly held that science in the time of Hazal was limited to the knowledge of that era.
Based on his approach, many things like ruach ra’ah, leaving onions and eggs out overnight, etc. wouldn’t be concerns any longer.
“I saw a tshuvah from R Shrirah Gaon saying not to follow the medicinal remedies from Chazal unless you have first researched them since Chazal were not doctors.”
Not only did he write that, but it is now a universally accepted position. If you get sick you need to go to a real doctor and not to a talmid chacham for diagnosis and treatment. Of course, before you do that you need to remember that it is HaShem who is the real healer.
LanderTalmid, you shouldn’t be too bothered. Dozens of rishonim expressed the view that Chazal erred in scientific matters. Others disagreed. A variety of views on this issue exist among Orthodox rabbonim today.
In Hilchos Schitah (perek 10)the Rambam says that even if we know scientifically that an animal will or wont live, we can’t change the list of treifos that chazal give. Is this saying that the halachah follows psak not mitzius? Does anyone have a different understanding of this?
Would you hold by the science available at the time of say, R. Moshe Feinstein and the Satmarer (the real and original) Rebbe?
What about the science from the time of the Hafets Haim, or the Vilna Gaon.
LanderTalmid,
That is only true for the “list” because they are halacha l’Moshe misinai regardless of the science (i.e. even if today’s better fed and better treated animals can survive).
Treifos which are not the list (or a safek treifa) will depend on the mitzius.
There appears to be an assumption that Aristotle was wrong in his philosophy. Although there was a point in history when Aristotle’s theories were roundly rebelled against, there are still serious philosophers today who are Aristotelians.
It would be a mistake, especially in a field as metaphysical as philosophy, to assume that whatever is in vogue today is what is correct.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.