To understand this cartoon, see Natan’s post that I link
I find the idea that Chazal “used the science of their times”, although it may be true in some technical sense, is misleading and doesn’t do justice to the scientific questions on Chazal, or to Chazal themselves. I will explain why shortly.
Beforehand, however, I want to comment on how Natan Slifkin takes this concept to absurd lengths. For example, to explain why Chazal thought the Salamander is generated spontaneously in fire, he asserted that this was a universal belief in antiquity. He provided zero evidence for this assertion. When a commenter challenged him, Natan admitted his assertion was hyperbole (if you follow him, you should already know that you can’t take anything he says seriously), but still claimed it was a widespread belief, which alas, he still had no evidence for. Last week, Natan declared that the Baal Tosafos in Eruvin believed centipedes have asymmetric legs, because… back in those days, people just made stuff up without checking. His evidence that this was the epistemology of Tosafos was from Aristotle (who lived 1,500 years earlier in a completely different place and culture, but never mind all that) who wrote that men have more teeth than women. Just like Aristotle made up stuff on the spot or listened to nonsense without checking, so too Tosafos. He really thought this was a reasonable explanation of Tosafos. The problem is that Aristotle wrote that this conclusion was based on actual observations. 1 Whoops. Oh well. I guess Natan should have checked what Aristotle actually said, rather than engaging in typical Natan behavior which is… to make up stuff on the spot without checking.
Phew. Never thought I would end up having to defend Aristotle. Now I see Natan is not interested in science anymore, and has been engaging in some very important scholarship regarding letters to the editor in The Lakewood Voice, so enough of him for now.
Rather, when I talk about “the science of their times” I am referring to the normal sense in which this statement is used by our slightly less chareidi-identifying friends and sometimes by us, the idea that Chazal relied on the outdated science of their time, and so could be mistaken in their conclusions. Rabbi Meiselman already wrote a fairly comprehensive book on this topic, which I have read more than once (and I don’t understand many parts of it, ה’ יאיר עיני, but let’s save that for a different time), but I still feel that I have what to add in terms of perspective.
The problem
The reason why “they followed the science of their times” is problematic is that we are not just dealing with a few isolated halachos here and there, or a few a aggados where the actual science wouldn’t necessarily make a difference- there are hundreds if not thousands of halachos that are based on Chazal’s understanding of reality. In fact, their understanding probably has a bearing on most sugyos in Shas.
For example,
The time of Krias Shema is based on Chazal’s understanding of the typical time when kings arise in the morning.
The details of berachos on food are based on what Chazal determined provides sustenance, in which amounts they do so, and what is considered sitting down for a meal.
The laws of muktzeh are based on Chazal’s understanding of those objects people set aside and that which they will use.
The quantities to be liable for carrying on Shabbos are determined based on what Chazal understood are significant or useful for each material or object.
The laws of chametz are based on what Chazal considered to be the chemical process of leavening.
The laws of Yom Tov include concepts such as which foods would taste sufficiently better fresh.
The many details of conditional marriage or divorce are determined by Chazal’s understanding of people’s mindsets regarding these issues. The same is with oaths, vows, and sacrifices, and the same is with Choshen Mishpat, interpersonal monetary matters.
The many laws about valid and invalid witnesses in certain situations based which parties Chazal considered to be more or less trustworthy
All the halachos about salting meat, about meat and milk mixtures, about food and dishes absorbing prohibited taste is based on Chazal’s understanding of how blood, fat, and taste is transferred
All the halachos of Niddah are based on Chazal’s understanding of women’s menstrual cycles.
And these halachos, which are just a sample of many, are not some side points that can be stepped around. They are the stuff the Torah sheBaal Peh is made of. Therefore, to assert that Chazal really had no idea what they were talking about, and just followed other people who likewise had no idea what they were talking about, the blind leading the blind, is to completely undermine the foundations of the Torah sheBaal Peh. I don’t think people who blithely give this “answer” fully appreciate how little it answers, and how many more problems it creates.
There are some people seem to be aware of this issue and maintain that, yes, the halacha was based on a mistaken reality, but we still adhere to the halacha because it was “canonized”. They imagine that with this disclaimer, the integrity of the Torah sheBaal Peh is preserved. However, they are mistaken for two reasons.
1. It turns the Torah sheBaal Peh into a joke. It makes it something that was founded on falsehood, but we still must follow, because the rabbis said so. This reminds me of the orthoprax Modern Orthodox who believe in Biblical Criticism, that our Torah was written by many different authors over centuries rather than being given at Sinai, but they still follow it, or pretend to follow it, for cultural reasons. Obviously, such a path will go nowhere.
2. More importantly, it is a false approach that is overwhelmingly against the Mesorah. The overwhelming attitude of Rishonim, Acharonim, and Poskim in the vast majority of cases has been to assume that Chazal were correct, and not only must we follow their halachic conclusions, but we must also rule halachically based on their reasoning. A random example would be in the Rambam, when trying to determine upon what grounds a man can demonstrate that his new bride is not a virgin, and there are two criteria and a dispute among the Geonim regarding them, instead of investigating empirically, the very rationalist Rambam rules based on preponderance of manuscripts (Ishus 11:13)
Wow, look at the very rationalist Rambam, the one who said קבל האמת ממי שאמרו, the one who said סוף דבר אני האיש אשר כשיציקהו העניין ויצר לו הדרך ולא ימצא תחבולה ללמד האמת שבא עליו מופת אלא בשיאות לאחד מעולה ולא יאות לעשרת אלפים סכלים, אני בוחר לאמרו לעצמו, the one who saidואל תבקשני לתאם כל מה שאמרו מעניני התכונה עם המצב כפי שהוא, לפי שהמדעים באותו הזמן היו חסרים, ולא דברו בכך משום שיש להם מסורת באותם הדברים מן הנביאים, אלא מצד שהם ידעני אותם הדורות באותם המקצועות. Look how this giant turns into humble acolyte when faced with the awesome words of Chazal, taking it utterly for granted that they were correct. This is representative of the standard halachic process, which is to rule based on the sugya and by trying to determine what Chazal meant, with a presumption that their statements about reality were correct. To assert that the process is all based on falsehood, but it’s ok, we’ll still be nice and follow halacha, is to utterly discard the entire Mesorah for 2000+ years. It would have been easier for our grandparents just to convert to Christianity and not deal with the fantasies of the rabbis.
Not long ago one of our local schools hosted a Giveaway day in its library, making many of the older seforim in its considerable collection free to a good home. As expected, the local citizenry plundered and pillaged, carrying off large numbers of books, many still in quite good condition. I was only able to attend towards the end, “after the last of the gleaners had gone.”[1] Only a few scattered Siddurim and Chumashim were left, when I spotted a box in a corner of the room, filled with small red volumes. Close inspection revealed that the books were none other than the Soncino Talmud, a complete set. My heart sank a little to see this classic work, neglected and abandoned. I felt, in a small way, as though I had seen the tongue of Chutzpith the Translator lying in the dust.[2]
The Soncino Press sees no press at all these days, it seems. Its groundbreaking complete English translation of the Talmud has almost entirely been supplanted by Artscroll’s Schottenstein edition. Indeed, studying with the latter presents a very much different type of engagement with the Gemara, and Artscroll has undoubtedly done a master job of it. Yet for all of its depth and analysis, Soncino to this day brings to the table things that Artscroll does not. What follows, then, is not an attempt to sing the praises of one at the expense of the other, but only to point out some of the unique features of the now-neglected Soncino, and to suggest some of its alleged flaws may have been greatly exaggerated.[3]
To begin with, the canard so many of us heard in our yeshiva days – that Soncino was edited by less than fully-religious Jews – is a terrible misimpression that, to the best of my knowledge, seems to be based purely on the evidence that it was edited by a man named Isidore. Yet Rabbi Yechezkel Epstein (as he is in fact identified, in Hebrew, on the opposite front-page of most volumes) was very much an observant Jew, who attended the Pressburg Yeshivah founded by the Chasam Sofer, and was said to know Shas by heart. The project began with Seder Nezikin in 1935 with a heartfelt prayer to Almighty God, capped with the traditional phrase יה”ר מלפני ה’ כשם שעזרתני לסיים סדר נזיקין, כן תעזרני להתחיל סדרים אחרים ולסיימם. It concluded in 1948, as printed in Seder Kodshim, with a heartfelt תם ונשלם שבח לבורא עולם, and the traditional Hadran written out nearly in full. We can certainly say of Soncino, if we may modify R. Yosi’s summation of Kelim, “Happy art thou, Soncino – thou began in purity, and finished in purity.”[4]
Moreover, a review of the individual contributors to each volume – a list that, to my knowledge, has never before been assembled – reveals that each and every one of them were strictly orthodox, and not identified with any other stream of Judaism.[5]
From Rabbi Yehoshua Berman’s Shalom Bayis Newsletter:
Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky and Rav Shnuer Kotler were once about to walk into a large banquet hall for a major event. Rav Shnuer said to Rav Yaakov, “Let’s use the side entrance so as to minimize the number of people that will stand up for us and the amount of time that they will be standing because of us.”
Rav Yaakov, though, said that, no, they should specifically use the front entrance so that everyone in the hall will stand up for them for the entire time that it will take for them to reach their dais table.
At first, Rav Shneur was awfully surprised, but Rav Yaakov immediately explained himself.
“Our wives are here. Throughout the year, they sacrifice tremendously for the sake of our learning and klal work. So much of our time, that could be otherwise spent with them, is taken by talmidim, petitioners, and askanim. For them to see the great honor that everyone will accord us makes it easier for them. It gives them a great feeling of satisfaction.”
Ok, I wouldn’t call that “showing off”, per se, but it is in a way. Rav Yaakov insisted that they specifically use the main door so as to “show off” to their wives how greatly respected and honored they are. It wasn’t showing off for the sake of “tooting their own horns”, but to give their wives the nachas.
There is a similar story about Rav Yechezkel Abramsky.
One time, Rav Moshe Aharon Stern went to speak with him about something. When Rav Stern arrived at the Abramsky home, the Rebbetzin told him he could take a seat and wait, for the Rav would be home any minute. Sure enough, Rav Abramsky soon walked in.
But he did not attend to his guest.
He first sat with his wife and told her about his morning. “I had to walk up such and such street which is a steep hill, but, baruch Hashem, I managed it alright. Then I met with Rav Yechezkel Sarna about trying to increase the ranks of the moetzes. Rav Sarna showed me great kavod…”
After he was finished speaking with his wife, Rav Abramsky attended to Rav Stern.
“My apologies for making you wait, but at least this way you got a lesson in how to properly treat one’s wife. You see, my wife is home by herself all day while I am out either learning or dealing with klal matters. Perhaps my talk with her may have sounded mundane and petty, but that is what happened with me today. And me telling her about it is how she feels part of what I do.”
In addition to the obvious points about first attending to your spouse and sharing your day with him/her, the part of this story that struck me the most is that Rav Abramsky included the detail about how the Rosh Yeshiva of Chevron, Rav Yechezkel Sarna, showed him great honor. Generally, that type of talk would be frowned upon, to say the least, as self-aggrandizing. Gaivah is not exactly a middah that we encourage in Yiddishkeit. Clearly, though, Rav Abramsky felt that it was important to share that point with his wife.
Think about it this way (for the men). As an example, imagine that you never ever got an aliyah in shul. It would be terrible, right? Well, then, make a point to share it with your wife when you do get an aliyah! After all, if she never hears about it, it may be, on a certain level, like you never getting an aliyah!
And it’s not as though this idea only applies from husband to wife.
Both spouses, if they have a healthy relationship, take great nachas in the acheivements and esteem of their spouse. After all, they are as one, aren’t they?
So if your neighbor asked you for your cholent recipe, or your students really enjoyed a class you gave, or your boss praised you for a job well done, or even it was your own mother expressing how appreciative she is of something you did or just who you are, go ahead and share that with your husband.
Because showing off is not always bad. Actually, sometimes it can be very good.
The good news is it’s not a mental issue. I am sorry to inform you Rabbi Weiss has an extremely rare, hereditary anomalous tritanomaly trichromacy colorblindness.
This diagnosis is based upon a halachic responsa Rabbi Weiss wrote, קונטרס שבועי פרשת שלח תשע”ג, and I quote:
ועוד חוכך אני בזה, הלא אמרו חז”ל תכלת דומה לים וים דומה לרקיע. וצבע התכלת המופק מן הפורפורא בעצם סגול הוא, ושמו עליו ד”פורפורא” ביונית-רומית פירושו סגול וחלזון זה קרוי בעברית מודרנית “ארגמון” על שם צבעו ארגמן. אלא שלאחרונה גילו דכאשר חושפים את הצבע לאור נהפך הוא לכחול, אבל כחול עמוק הוא ואינו דומה כלל לתכול הים ובודאי לא לצבע הרקיע. וידעתי שאף בזה י”ל דלא בעינן ממש דומה לים ולרקיע, אלא דמיון רחוק הוא להסביר שע”י התבוננות בציצית התכלת יבא האדם ע”י הפעלת כח הדמיון להזכר בכסא הכבוד. אך מה מאלץ אותנו להדחק, ולמה לא נאמר בפשטות דכיון שאין צבעו דומה לים ולרקיע ע”כ שאין זה תכלת, הלא זה כאלף שנה חיכו אבותינו עד שתתגלה התכלת, ואף אנו נחכה כמותם עד שיעלה רצון לפניו ית”ש.
…
וגם מה שתמה כבו’ אם יש חלזון שניתן להפיק מדמו צבע הדומה לתכלת למה חששו חכמים שיחליפו תכלת בקלא אילן, ולמה לא חששו שיחליפו תכלת בצבע הפורפורא, יש לדחות בפשטות, דבאמת הצבע המופק מהפורפורא באמת לא דומה לצבע התכלת, שהרי באמת אין צבעו דומה כלל לא לים ולא לרקיע. ולעומת זאת כנראה שצבע הקלא אילן היה דומה יותר לצבע התכלת.
ומה שכתב שקלא אילן הוא האינדיגו ואכן צבעו דומה לצבע המופק מן הפורפורא. תמה אני, וכי גושפנקא דמר בר רב אשי חתום על הקלא אילן – אינדיגו, וכי איך יש בידנו לדעת שהקלא אילן שלפני אלפיים שנה זהה לחלוטין לצבע כלשהו שבידנו.
Remain positive. Your dear relative needs you now more than ever!
Remember: life is not all about eyesight, learning to think straight (about, er, Techeiles or, um, vaccine safety, for example) is important, too.
(Would he notice hyperlinks (colored blue by default)…?)
As you know, the rabbi serves as the posek for Shaarei Tzedek Medical Center so this is personal for all of us; feel free to contact me to hear more about this.
Speak to my secretary about Anomalous Trichromats support groups in Israel.
Please file this letter to show anyone attempting to discuss the issue of Techeiles with Rabbi Weiss. Colorblindness may also affect the rabbi’s response to women’s questions.
