- This topic has 33 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I know that the Torah says about the tachash skin, which was one of the covers of the mishkan, rashi says that the tachash is an animal that has a multi-colored code. Rashi said that it was an animal created for that purpose. This was the purpose of it’s creation that it’s skin should be used for the mishkan. After the mishkan was built, it disappeared.
There is a gemara in kedushin that says that the tachash was an animal with one horn, but it was not a horse – it was a kosher animal. The gemara brings a raayah from the fact that adam brought a korban from the tachash, and you can only bring a kosher animal as a korban (since only a kosher animal is a reiach nichoach). But what type of animal was it?
And one thing is for sure – it is not around today.How are you so sure that it isn’t around today?
it is around nowadays! I saw it in a video once!
the Gemarra says that it was around only in the time of Moshe Rabeinu and Moshe used it for the the Mishkan
A unicorn is a privately held start-up business worth over a billion. They are quite rare.
The English word “unicorn” refers to a horse with one horn and is often associated with various activities involving non-Jewish mysticism and witchcraft., so Jews should probably stay clear of them. Given the level of natural science in the middle ages, it is possible rabbanim identified them incorrectly with the tachash.
If one mutilates a horned animal, e.g. a goat, one can create a creature with one horn. Halacha prohibits us from doing so.
¨Just because you´ve never seen it, doesn´t mean it doesn´t exist¨ R’ Shaul Shimon Deutsch
A question from my first class in statistics:
you ask two people on the street whether bus N5 goes on this street. One says – yes, one says – no. What is the probability that the bus goes there: A. 50%. B > 50%. C <50%.A variation: same question about seeing a unicorn.
Like most people I assume it is not around anymore but a Cassowary is (probably) a kosher bird which has one one horn and many colors (including the skin under the feathers)
Of course I don’t think it is the Tachash. I’m mentioning it as an animal that 99.99 percent of people never would had heard of that meets some of the criteria being discussed (kosher, colorful, one horned)
Another such animal would be a Saola which a one horned deer whose current natural habitat in Vietnam and Laos . I don’t think it is the Tachash either (although it is more likely to be it that a bird)
You never know what others are out there
no chance
Rabbi Slifkin discusses Unicorns at legnth in his book “Mysterious Creatures”. He demonstrates conclusively it does not exist.
So we have a machlokes between Dr slifkin and chazal. Which one shall we follow?
>>>>Rabbi Slifkin discusses Unicorns at legnth in his book “Mysterious Creatures”. He demonstrates conclusively it does not exist
Sure and Slifkin knows everything there is to know. The Saola, the one horned deer that I mentioned was an unknown creature until the 1990s. You can’t prove an animal the size of a horse or smaller does not exist. You can only prove that it is not known to exist.
The Saola has two horns.
One horned creatures are biological impossibility.The gemora says that Adam Harishon sacrificed a unicorn, שור שהקריב אדם הראשון קרן אחת היה במצחו.
Slifkin is an open apikorus.
Forget Unicorns, Is Kokosh cake real?
What is biologically difficult about having one horn?.
And the livyasan, salamandra, man/tree, etc..are “biologically possible”? Or are they all fables, chazal just blindly accepted what goyin said cv”s… there are only two roads in this issue, of unquestionably believing in chazal as representative of Torah misinai, or not…chas veshalom, the Torah that chazal gave us is incorrect – which road do you think leads to Hashem? Or do they allegorize olam haba too? To Hashem we’re all “mesholim”…they have no humility.
Biological possibility is defined as possible according to the biology that we see in front of us. Hashem made animals that we see, and there are other creations that work differently…if doesn’t take much emunah even to accept that.
Only if one begins with the premise that “life developed” is such a suggestion illogical, because development would seemt to be uniform.
LOL. You guys really deleted my post? Laughable. Sad. Pathetic. Losers. YWN moderators.
You shouldn’t be so surprised, we deleted most of the posts from your other screen names as well.
I am usually not surprised. I expect your predictably stupid decisions about what is considered “appropriate”. This particular instance was just a little surprising, enough to make me call you out on it.
Someone asked a question. I answered the question. Joseph says something that doesn’t relate the question at all, but instead is just straight up lashon harah. My post is deleted, and his floats right through.
As I said… predictably stupid, and your double standards are appalling. You make orthodox Judaism look bad, in a public forum, visible to the world. Congratulations.
nu, what’s everyone’s opinion on dinosaurs
Yehudis – if you want to know what is considered inappropriate, you can ask yourself some simple questions:
Does this post hint at or say that the torah we received from chazal is erroneous, human/male/culture biased, or otherwise not unequivocally dvar Hashem?
Does this post disparage sentiments or values that are explicitly stated in chaz, rishonim or achronim?
Does this post attack another poster in a way that’s not constructive?
Does this post have inflammatory, yet true ideas which might result in chilul Hashem? (I’ve fallen into this one before)
Is this post a rant about why you can’t have your way in judaism?
Believe me, the mods allow A LOT of stuff that most gedolei yisroel would say is forbidden to say/write. If they’re not letting something through, I can be sure that it’s chazer treif.
Avira, are you using “Dr” as a term of disparagement or just misspelled R? I did not know that Midrash Shmuel has a PhD program. I would say if someone actually finds as unicorn, that the finder’s pedigree is not important. Otherwise, your question is good. But do all chazal stand by the unicorn? Are there ones that do not take a stand and, thus, presumably, are also in the sceptics camp? I am not a baki in unicorns, so have no position.
gebrokts treif would be a better analogy. Chazer treif gets through.
Saying that slifkin is an apikores isn’t lashon hora when the guy js practically proud of how far he can push the envelope and still, in his mind, not be considered an apikores. He thinks in his delusional perspective that he’s an heir to the rambam and “rationalist” rishonim. Of course he never bothers to explain what gives him the right to side with one supposed group of rishonim over another, especially after hisgalus hakabalah.
The gedolei yisroel said that he wrote kefirah; is there room to be dan him separately from his books? It doesn’t really concern me, because i don’t think much about him as a person, but rather the damage he has wrought with his books that are full of heresy.
He started out as hashkofically off, just saying that chazal made a mistake or two about science. That’s assur to say because we don’t pasken like rabbeinu avrohom ben horambam, but the road he went on afterwards was far, far worse; it’s a road travelled only by karaites and loopy figures in the middle ages who aside from academics, almost no one’s ever heard of.
He had a personal faith crisis because of his knowledge of zoology not meshing with chazal. He then expressed these issues for the masses to read. The gedolim called him out on it and he went more off, as the mishnah says not to debate with a jewish apikores, because all he’ll do is פקר טפי.
edited
AAQ, not necessarily disparagement, just la’afukei his misbegotten title of rabbi. He has earned a doctorate, but he is not a legitimate rabbi. I don’t know where he got his degree from, nor does it really matter.
When chazal have a machlokes, neither side is “skeptic” or “believer” – it’s a machlokes in how to darshen pesukim and how sevara works. To say that chazal were biased by their middos and that their opinions can be attributed to “skepticism” or “mysticism” would be entering into zecharya frankel territory
My apology, I did not know he has a PhD by now! His semicha is before that and is also legit.
Re: machlokes, surely each of the chazal had their own approaches, mesorah, and opinions. There are patterns in those disagreements and a lot of Gemorah is discovering and then applying those patterns in cases that we can’t resolve otherwise. When R Yochanan pointed to Resh Lakish former occupation, surely there were personality and life experiences involved …
A big part of learning would be to get rid of inappropriate biases, of course, by working out with counterparts. Resh Lakish did not keep his former attitudes, but retained knowledge of how to make a weapon.Again, as in many cases, I see you (and not just you) reacting to negative development by going into opposite direction. Yes, there are academic authors who abuse Torah by assigning everything to psychology, but rejecting them does not mean rejecting the real part of it.
@moishekapoieh I like the Tiferes Yisroel/Yachin U’Boaz’s pshat on dinosaurs mentioned in his sefer on Mishnayos Sanhedrin, “Orech Chaim”.
Chazal can say that about each other, but they are also able to argue with one another – zecharya frankel tried to attribute shitos to middos, and was rightfully put in cherem for that. Rav hirsch famously said about people like him that we must learn Torah from its own perspective, not with any other considerations.
That piece in the tiferes yisroel made a large segment of klal yisroel avoid his seforim. Why pick on a daas yochid when it comes to sensitive issues? If there’s a shaalah on shabbos, do we look high and low for a lone shitah, or do we go with the mainstream path? It is mind boggling that when it comes to hashkofa, every issue’s dayos yechidim become completely acceptable.
Avira, I am not familiar well with frankel to argue here and not planning to. You have a good point on difference between people who can argue with each other and explore their positions v. later readers. On the other hand, later readers have a benefit of seeing a full picture of opinions, while a particular person inside the argument does not. So, if someone can look at all opinions of a particular Rav and find a pattern in his opinions, then it might be a valid pattern.
but we sidetracked. To clarify my original question – do we have commentators who comment on related sugyot but do not validate unicorns? Then, maybe they are not unicorn-supporters.
- The topic ‘Unicorns – Real or not?’ is closed to new replies.