Did Chazal have scientific facts that no one else had?

R' Feldman brings this claim as one of his proofs that Chazal's science is Torah M'Sinai.

How else could we explain numerous examples where the Sages had scientific information which no scientist of their time had? How were they so precise in their calculations of the New Moon? How did they know that hemophilia is transmitted by the mother’s DNA, a fact discovered relatively recently?1 How did they know that “a drop exudes from the brain and develops into semen” 2 without having known that the pituitary gland, located at the base of the brain, emits a hormone which controls the production of semen. None of this could have been discovered by experimentation Either they had a tradition directly teaching them these facts, or they knew them by applying principles which were part of the Oral Torah regarding the inner workings of the world. Thus they knew the precise cycle of the moon; they knew that there was a relationship between the coagulation of blood and motherhood; and they knew that there was a relationship between the brain and male reproduction.

Let us examine each one of his proofs and see if they hold water.

1. How were they so precise in their calculations of the New Moon?
Were they really anymore precise then the scientists of their time? I don't think so. Ancient civilizations were able to calculate the movement of the moon quite well. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
The calendar is based on mean lunar conjunctions called "molads" spaced precisely 29 days, 12 hours, and 793 parts apart. Actual conjunctions vary from the molads by up to 7 hours in each direction due to the nonuniform velocity of the moon. This value for the interval between molads (the mean synodic month) was measured by Babylonians before 300 BCE and was adopted by the Greek astronomer Hipparchus and the Alexandrian astronomer Ptolemy. Its remarkable accuracy was achieved using records of lunar eclipses from the eighth to fifth centuries BCE.

We see clearly that the Babylonian and Greek astronomers (who lived around the same time as Chazal) were able to make the same precise calculations

Chazal (Hillel II) set up the calendar that we use. This calendar is very accurate but not 100% accurate. Again from Wikipedia:

However, the assumption that 19 years exactly equal 235 months is wrong, so the average length of a 19 year cycle is too long (compared with 19 tropical years) by about 0.088 days or just over 2 hours. Thus on average the calendar gets further out of step with the tropical year by roughly one day in 216 years. If the intention of the calendar is that Pesach should fall on the first full moon after the vernal equinox, this is still the case in most years. However, at present three times in 19 years Pesach is a month late (as in 2005). Clearly, this problem will get worse over time

If R' Feldman is right, the calendar should not lose any days after all they got this knowledge Torah M'Sinai.

2. How did they know that hemophilia is transmitted by the mother’s DNA, a fact discovered relatively recently?

The answer to this is very simple. Chazal in Niddah write

איש מזריע בו לובן שממנו גידים ועצמות ... אשא מזרעת אודם שממנו עור בשר ודם
The man provides the white from which the bones and sinews grow ... the women provides the red from which the skin, meat, and blood come

Chazal thought that the blood comes from the women and therefore it made sense that a blood disease would go through the mother. However this has nothing to do with DNA. They believed this due to a mistaken idea that the blood of a person comes from his mother. Coincidentally, this mistake about the blood coming from the mother allowed them to get things right by hemophilia.

3. How did they know that “a drop exudes from the brain and develops into semen” 2 without having known that the pituitary gland, located at the base of the brain, emits a hormone which controls the production of semen.

Their statement was actually incorrect. Nothing exudes from the brain and develops into semen. The pituitary gland release hormones which stimulate the production of semen, but the hormones from the pituitary gland do not themselves turn into semen.

In short, I believe that I have shown that none of these proofs are proofs whatsoever.

On the other hand there is a whole list of statements Chazal that do contradict science. I will mention just one here and I leave it to the reader to decide what is more compelling.

The gemara in Bava Basra 25b has a dispute between R' Eliezer and R' Yeshoshua about the movement of the sun. The gemara has a similar dispute in Pesachim 94.

R' Eliezer says that the world is like a three-walled building; the north side is not covered; The sun travels along the inside of the building during the day. When the sun reaches the northwest corner, it goes above the building (therefore we can't see it, and goes eastward overnight, and rises in the northeast in the morning).

R. Yehoshua says, the world is like a box, the north side is covered;

1. When the sun reaches the northwest corner, it goes (through a window) in back of the box.
2. "Holech El Darom v'Sovev El Tzafon" - the sun (always) travels along the south by day, and circles around the north side by night.

It is absolutely clear that the above is incorrect. We know that the world is not covered by anything and the sun doesn't go behind it. We know that there is no window that the sun goes out at night. We know that the Earth spins and this is what causes the Sun to rise and set and we know that the Earth revolves around the Sun. These are not theories, they are facts and they are undisputable.

Some will try to answer that the gemara was talking allegorically and wasn't describing reality. That is clearly not true for 2 reasons:
1. The gemara in Pesachim brings a dispute between the Chachamim and the non-Jews about where the sun goes at night. They were clearly arguing with the non-Jews about reality and not about some deep concept in kabbala.
2. The Rishonim when they discuss shitas R' Tam about Tzeis Hakochavim, all bring this gemara down and they all mention the sun going out the window. They clearly held that Chazal were describing reality.

I am still waiting for a pshat in this geamra other then Chazal were mistaken in science. So far, I haven't heard or seen a single pshat that comes close to explaining the sugya.

The above is only a drop in the bucket of the conflicts. I could easily bring at least 10 more, obvious contradictions.

To sum up, I believe that I have refuted all of R' Feldman's proofs, however, I have not yet seen anyone explain how the gemara in Pesachim and Bava Basra does not contradict the scientific facts that we know.

Not eating meat during the 9 days, how should we feel?

I have seen 2 reactions to no meat during the 9 days. One is to whine about how hard it is and the other is to say how easy it is and it is great as someone once said and best of all, there's always ice cream or cheese cake for desert.

Both of these attitudes completely miss the point of not eating meat during the 9 days. The point of not eating meat is for us to feel sad and feel the aveilus for the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash. To whine about it shows that you missed the point. You should accept it as a hardship and use the hardship to think about why you are doing this.

Those who feel that it is easy and great and they get to eat ice cream all the time, are also missing the whole point. They may be doing the minhag but by Aveilus there is supposed to be a kiyum balev, you are supposed to feel something. These people feel no aveilus because they are not eating meat, in fact they are happy. This is a perversion of the minhag. The minhagim are supposed to help you feel aveilus, if they don't you should do something else that will help you feel the aveilus as well.

I know it is very hard for us, but during the 9 days a person is supposed to feel very sad about the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, that is the main thing, the minhagim are supposed to help us reach that state.

Is there psak in hashkafa?

The Rambam writes in 3 places in the Perush Hamishnayos (Sanhedrin 10,3, Sotah 3,3, Shavuos 4,1) and in the Sefer Hamitzvos lo taaseh 133 that there is no psak on hashkafa which is not relevant to halacha. The last point is a crucial one, namely the Rambam is talking where there is no practical difference in halacha. Here is a quote from one of the Rambam's (Sotah 3,3 the language is almost the same in all of them)

וכבר אמרתי פעמים רבות כשיש מח' בין החכמים בסברת אמונה אין תכליתו מעשה מן המעשים שאין אומרים שם הלכה כפלוני

As I already wrote many times when there is a dispute between the chachamim on a matter of faith that has no relevance to action we don''t say the hakacha is like ploni

Let us now analyze the Slifkin affair in light of the Rambam.

The creation story/age of the world has absolutely no relevance to halacha, there is no difference in halacha whether we say that it was 6 days of 24 hours, 6 long days, or 6 time periods. The dispute is purely in terms of ideas (hashkafa) and therefore as the Rambam says there is no psak on such a dispute. And therefore R' Slifkin as long as he finds some source (which he has, R' Dessler) is fine.

Whether Chazal made mistakes in science would also seem to not affect halacha at all. As R' Dessler and others said, the halacha doesn't change even if the reason given is wrong in science, we assume that the halacha Chazal had a kabbala on and they made a mistake in the reason. Therefore, again the principle of the Rambam should apply, since there is no practical relevance to halacha there is no psak on such a case. Therefore, we cannot say that there is psak against the Rambam as this is not something that we pasken on.

One note, according to this Rambam there could be a psak regarding the ikkarei haemuna as that is relevant to halacha, who is a kofer. However, in any case, this is not relevant to the Slifkin affair because neither the order of the creation story/age of the world nor whether chazal made mistakes in science is one of the ikarrei haemuna and therefore they are not relevant to halacha.

R' Aryeh Kaplan on Science and Torah

R' Aryeh Kaplan has an amazing article on Torah and Science The Age of the Universe - A Torah True Perspective. He slaughters a lot of sacred cows in this article. Obviously the whole thrust of this article disagrees fundamentally with R' Feldman and R' Elyashiv's approach. Given that R' Aryeh Kaplan published and gave lectures in the US in the 1970's and no one objected, it leads one to believe that the gedolim in America at that time (R' Moshe, R' Yaakov, etc.) had no problem with his approach. Since this is being distributed for free I am going to bring some choice quotes from the article. I would truly recommend everyone to read the whole article in full.

I. Psak on Hashkafa

the Rambam says clearly that in questions of hashkafah or history, there is no p’sak. In other words, if an opinion is found in Chazal or in our accepted Torah seforim, one cannot say that we do not posken like that opinion. Thus, the Rambam often takes a daas yachid (the opinion of just one person) and builds an entire hashkafah on it. He may use this opinion because it fits into his system of logic, even though it may be a minority opinion. He can do this, since the entire concept of p’sak only applies to questions of halachah and not to questions of hashkafah.

II. A Geocentric World

If I would poll this audience vary rapidly, how many people here believe in a
geocentric universe. That is, how many frum people here believe that the Earth is the center of the universe? Not too many! But would you believe that as little as 50 years ago, seforim were published that said that the correct Torah view is that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that anyone who said otherwise was going against the Torah?3. [See Maamar Mavo HaShemesh, printed together with the Sefer HaTechunah, by Rabbi Chaim Vital.

III. Space Travel

I remember back in Torah V’Daas many, many years ago, we were discussing sending a rocket to the moon. This was long before Sputnik. And I asked one of the people there (I won’t mention his name), “What do you think about sending a rocket to the moon?” He said that it is impossible al pi Torah. It is impossible to send anything out of the Earth’s atmosphere, because above the atmosphere is the yesod ha-aish (the elemental fire), and anything that goes through that would be burned. They showed me seforim that said that. Obviously, we know that this was not the correct hashkafah. But once you paint yourself into an intellectual corner, it is very hard to get out. As Torah Jews, we cannot afford to paint ourselves into an intellectual corner, from which we will not be able to extricate ourselves.

IV. Approach to Science

Another approach is that which many Chassidim have. They say, “What do scientists know? Do they know what’s happening? Do they know what’s going on? They’re a bunch of phonies, a bunch of bluffers, a bunch of stupidniks! Do they really have a way of finding out the truth? They find a bone and they think it’s from a monkey.” But, I think to somebody who knows what science is, this is a very unsatisfactory approach. We have some idea of what is involved in paleontology. We have some idea what is involved in geology and in radioactive dating. We have some idea of what is involved in astronomy. We can casually speak about a star being a million light years away, and we do not stop to think, “Well, that’s a bit too much!” So I would say that if someone feels that science is ignorant and false, all well and good. Many people refer not to accept science as a worthy challenge. But I think that for many of us here, such an approach would be totally unsatisfying.

V. Creation and the Age of Universe

This is the meat of the essay and is too long to quote in a meaningful way. I am just going to quote what he rejects and the basics of the shita that he accepts.

One, the very simplest, is that 6000 years ago, HaShem created the universe with a history. There is a certain logic to this, and one may even find a hint of it in the Gemara. If HaShem created a tree, did the tree have rings or not? If it had rings, then it had a history.
...
The difficulty is that one could use a similar argument to say that HaShem created the universe five minutes ago. There is no question that an omnipotent G-d certainly could have created us all with our memories, with all the records, and with all our histories. It is very possible to say that the world was created five minuets ago. But this weakens the above argument. If it is possible that HaShem created the world 6000 years ago, then everything is possible.
...
It touches almost on intellectual dishonesty and sophism. It presents us with more problems than it answers. It seems to make all of Judaism depend on a glib argument. But there is an even more serious problem. In no place in Torah literature do we find that HaShem created the universe so that it should appear to be billions of years old. If not for current scientific discoveries, no one would have ever made such a statement based on Torah sources alone. Therefore, this approach is nothing more than
apologetics.
...
There is another approach that I will mention in passing. That is, that each of the “days” of creation was really thousands of years long. This approach is hinted at in Rabbeinu Bechayay, who mentions it only to refute it. He says explicitly that the world was created in six days of twelve hours each, for a total of 72 hours. Moreover, we keep Shabbos because there were six days of creation, where each day was just like one of our days. Moreover, there is no support in classic Torah literature for saying that the days of creation were more than 24 hours long. Besides this, there is the problem that plant life was created before the sun, moon, and stars, and this would not fit into any accepted scientific cosmology.
...
There is a shitah (opinion) known to mekubalim as shittas Sefer HaTemunah – the opinion of Sefer HaTemunah.
...
However, the approach of the Tiferes Yisroel is very interesting. He speaks of the idea that there were universes and people before Adam. Then he says, “See how the teachings of our Torah have been vindicated (I’m paraphrasing): In various places in the world, creatures have been found which no longer exist today. In Baltimore, they found a gigantic creature called a mammoth, which no longer exists today. In other places, they found dinosaurs over 90 feet long, and obviously no such creatures exist in the world anymore. Just look and see the emes of our Torah tradition! Even science shows that there were worlds before ours!” Such a different approach than people like today! Rather than see paleontology and geology as a challenge to Torah, the Tiferes Yisroel sees it as a vindication of an important Torah shitah.

R' Aryeh Kaplan - is there psak on hashkafa?

R' Aryeh Kaplan states clearly and unequivocally that the answer is no.

He discusses this issue in an article The Age of the Universe - A Torah True Perspective and he writes as follows

The second introduction is a principle (klal) that the Rambam makes in his Perush HaMishnayos. When one has a question of historical fact or hashkafah – there is no p’sak.
...
The Rambam makes this point in his Perush HaMishnayos on Shavuos, at the end of Makkos, and in a few other places in Shas.
...
In any case, the Rambam says clearly that in questions of hashkafah or history, there is no p’sak. In other words, if an opinion is found in Chazal or in our
accepted Torah seforim, one cannot say that we do not posken like that opinion. Thus, the Rambam often takes a daas yachid (the opinion of just one person) and builds an
entire hashkafah on it. He may use this opinion because it fits into his system of logic, even though it may be a minority opinion. He can do this, since the entire concept of p’sak only applies to questions of halachah and not to questions of hashkafah.

I am going to try to find these Rambam's in the Peirush Hamishnayos when I get home.

If R' Kaplan is right then it it completely and utterly negates the Slifkin ban.

Sefarim we now need to ban/censor

R. Feldman writes
R. Eliashiv believes that they can be rightfully categorized as heresy (apikorsus) ... I believe this is because they diminish the honor and the acceptability of the words of the Sages, which has the status of apikorsus.
...
Rav Eliashiv added, “Even if he is one of the lamed vov tzadikim, these books may not be taken into a Jewish home.”

In other words, to say that Chazal made a mistake in science is heresy in 2005. If we take this idea to it's logical conclusion, not only can R' Slifkin's books not be taken into a Jewish home, neither can the following sefarim as they also contain the same heretical ideas. We should need to censor these sefarim.

1. Teshuvos HaGeonim 394:
Our sages were not doctors and said what they did based on experience with the diseases of their time. Therefore, there is no commandment to listen to the sages [regarding medical advice] because they only spoke from their opinion based on what they saw in their day.
2. Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim 3:14:
Do not ask of me to reconcile everything that they (Chazal) stated from science with the actual reality, for the science of those days was deficient, and they did not speak out of traditions from the prophets regarding these matters
3. Rambam Hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh where the Rambam implies clearly in a number of places that Chazal made mistakes in astronomy
4. Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam, Ma'amar al Derashos Chazal:
…The great superiority of the sages of the Talmud, and their expertise in their explanations of the Torah and its details, and the truth of their sayings in the explanation of its general principles and details, nevertheless does not obligate us to defend them and uphold their views in all of their sayings in medicine, and in scientific knowledge
5. Ramban, commentary to Vayikra 12:2
"When a woman gives seed (tazria)" (Leviticus 12:2) …They said with regard to the meaning of this, "If the woman produces seed first then she will give birth to a boy..." (Talmud, Niddah 31a). And their intent was not that the child is formed from the seed of the woman, for a woman, even though she has ovaries like the testicles of a male, these either do not produce any seed, or the seed does not do anything for the fetus; but they said "produces seed" with regard to the blood of the womb that is collected at the conclusion of intercourse in the mother and attaches itself to the seed of the man, for according to their opinion the fetus is formed from the blood of the woman and from the white substance of the man, and these two together are called the "seed"… and the opinion of the doctors regarding formation is likewise. But according to the opinion of the Greek philosophers, the entire body of the fetus is formed from the woman's blood; the man contributes nothing other than the force that is known as hyuli in their language, which gives form to the substance… and if so, the word tazria is like, "[as a garden that] sprouts forth its seedlings" (Yeshayah 61:11)
The Ramban as well in Bereishis 9:12 and Vayikra 18:19.
6. Eyn Yaakov where he quotes the above letter of R' Avraham Ben HaRambam in the introduction
7. R' Hirsch
8. Pachad Yitzchak, entry “Tzeydah.”
9. Michtav M'Eliyahu p. 355 that the Sages never erred in the final halacha, although they may have erred in the reason they gave for it.
...

I am being very serious. Kefira is Kefira and according to what R' Feldman writes all of the above sefarim have kefira in them and therefore how can I keep them in my house? Did they censor these sefarm in in Ner Yisrael?

I am waiting for someone to seriously address this issue.

Is the opinion of the Rambam etc. a minority opinion?

R' Feldman writes

In countless places where the commentaries, whether Rishonim or Acharonim (Early or Later Authorties), are faced with a contradiction between the science of their times and a statement of the Sages, they commonly apply the principle, nishtanu hateva’im (“nature has changed”).1 Had they held R. Avraham’s view, they would have simply explained that the Sages erred in following whatever was the medical or scientific opinion of their times.

The premise of this proof is that saying that Chazal made a mistake in science is a simpler and more compelling answer then nishtanu hateva’im. Otherwise there is no proof, the Rishonim answered nishtanu hateva’im because it was a better answer. Therefore it must be that saying that Chazal made a mistake in science is a simpler and more compelling answer then nishtanu hateva’im.

This gives us an insight into R' Feldman's thinking. Even according to him it is more logical to say that Chazal made a mistake then nishtanu hateva’im.

Now we need to ask is his premise correct? For us living in 2005 it certainly is for the following reason. On one hand, we know that the science of Chazal's time was bogus and completely wrong, on the other hand we know that nishtanu hateva’im is difficult from a scientific perspective. therefore to us it makes much more sense to say chazal made a mistake.

However, if we look at it from the Rishonim's perspective the picture changes completely. I believe that for the Rishonim nishtanu hateva’im was a more compelling answer then saying Chazal made a mistake in science for the following reasons:

1. The science of the Rishonim was the science of Chazal. Science progressed little if at all from 300 to 1300 and in Christian countries may have regressed. Therefore, the Rishonim would have no reason to doubt the science of Chazal, they relied on the same science and they believed it was true.
2. Nishtanu hateva’im made sense from their perspective. The rishonim did not understand the world from a scientific perspective and they did not see the difficulties inherent in saying nishtanu hateva’im, in fact, it probably fit in with their world view.

Given the above, Tosafos Moed Katan 11a when faced with the statement of Chazal that rotting fish is healthy vs. the reality that it is not had 2 possible answers:
1. The science that Chazal used was wrong
2. nishtanu hateva’im

I believe that from Tosafos's perspective the second answer is more compelling. They had no reason to doubt the science of Chazal, it was their science.

R' Feldman writes they would have simply explained that the Sages erred in following whatever was the medical or scientific opinion of their times. Than answer to this is very simple, the scientific opinion of Chazal's time was by and large the same scientific opinion of the Rishonim's time.

R' Feldman projects the attitudes of someone living in 2005 who knows that the science in Chazal's time was wrong, to the Rishonim. However, the Rishonim had a completely different perspective on science. They had no reason to assume that the science that Chazal based themselves on was wrong.

I will take this 1 step further. As I pointed out, to say that Chazal's science is Torah M'Sinai on one hand and nishtanu hateva’im on the other hand is very very difficult (see Is נשתנה הטבע a viable answer for conflicts between Torah and science?). Therefore I would suggest the opposite conclusion then R' Feldman, namely, those Rishonim who hold nishtanu hateva’im hold that Chazal did not get their scientific knowledge M'Sinai and therefore they could say nishtanu hateva’im.

R' Hirsch on Chazal and Science

This quote from R' Hirsch (taken from R' Slifkin's website) is truly amazing and sums things up very nicely.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Trusting the Torah's Sages, Chapter 4

In my opinion, the first principle that every student of Chazal's statements must keep before his eyes is the following: Chazal were the sages of God's law - the receivers, transmitters and teachers of His toros, His mitzvos, and His interpersonal laws. They did not especially master the natural sciences, geometry, astronomy, or medicine - except insofar as they needed them for knowing, observing and fulfilling the Torah. We do not find that this knowledge was transmitted to them from Sinai. …We find that Chazal themselves considered the wisdom of the gentile scholars equal to their own in the natural sciences. To determine who was right in areas where the gentile sages disagreed with their own knowledge, they did not rely on their tradition but on reason. Moreover they even respected the opinion of the gentile scholars, admitting when the opinion of the latter seemed more correct than their own.
...
Imagine if a scholar such as Humboldt had lived in their times and had traveled to the ends of the world for his biological investigations. If upon his return he would report that in some distant land there is a humanoid creature growing from the ground or that he had found mice that had been generated from the soil and had in fact seen a mouse that was half earth and half flesh and his report was accepted by the world as true, wouldn't we expect Chazal to discuss the Torah aspects that apply to these instances? What laws of defilement and decontamination apply to these creatures? Or would we expect them to go on long journeys to find out whether what the world has accepted is really true? And if, as we see things today, these instances are considered fiction, can Chazal be blamed for ideas that were accepted by the naturalists of their times? And this is what really happened. These statements are to be found in the works of Pliny, who lived in Rome at the time the Second Temple was destroyed, and who collected in his books on nature all that was well known and accepted in his day.

I am absolutely amazed that anyone today, given the advances in science and the tremendous contradictions between science and Chazal, would argue on R' Hirsch's approach.

Summary: Chazal and Mistakes in Science

Updated on 7/7

I.Introduction

There has been a dispute raging about whether Chazal could make mistakes in science or not. This is not a new question, it is a dispute in the Rishonim. What is new is the attempt by some to state that the opinion that Chazal could make mistakes in Torah is rejected and to hold that way today is kefira. R' Feldman champions this position in his letter:

R. Yosef Shalom Eliashiv, a signatory to the ban, was asked: if he considers Slifkin’s approach wrong how could so many earlier authorities have held it? He answered: “They were permitted to hold this opinion; we are not.”1 In other words, they were authorities in their own right qualified to decide matters of Jewish law. We are not permitted to do so.2 We are enjoined to follow the majority opinion and our tradition as to how we are to approach Torah.

Since we are not permitted to follow Slifkin’s views, R. Eliashiv believes that they can be rightfully categorized as heresy (apikorsus) as the ban’s wording had it. I believe this is because they diminish the honor and the acceptability of the words of the Sages, which has the status of apikorsus.

R' Feldman in his letter also tried to bring proofs as to why the opinion that Chazal did not make mistakes in science is correct.

I am not not on R' Feldman's level, but תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך, and therefore I am going to write my opinion. All I ask is that the reader consider both sides of the argument and make a decision on which argument is better. I believe that his proofs and answer are not proofs and in fact raise more questions then they answer.

I have posted detailed rebuttals to all of his proofs
Is נשתנה הטבע a viable answer for conflicts between Torah and science?
Is סוד ה' ליראיו a reason to believe that Chazal didn't err in science?
Is Kabbala proof that Chazal could not make mistakes in science?

In this post I am going to summarize the main arguments so that they are all in one place.

II. The claim: Chazal did not make mistakes in science

R' Feldman writes
Either they had a tradition directly teaching them these facts, or they knew them by applying principles which were part of the Oral Torah regarding the inner workings of the world.

In other words, all of Chazal's science is Torah M'Sinai.

III. The problem with the claim

R' Feldman himself points out the problem with the above claim.

There are many places in the Talmud where statements made by the Sages seem to contradict modern science. The most common are the cures and potions which the Talmud gives for various diseases. Our great halachic authorities have noted the phenomenon that these cures, in the vast majority of cases, do not seem to cure illnesses in our times.

One note, there are many many other issues besides the cures.

IV. The answer

R' Feldman offers the following answer
The most widespread explanation offered for this is nishtanu hatevaim, “nature has changed” - cures that worked in the times of the Talmud are no longer effective.1 There are many examples of illnesses and cures, which because of environmental and nutritional differences and physical changes to the body over the years are no longer effective.

In other words, everything Chazal said was true, but some time afterwords nature changed.

V. The problems with nishtanu hatevaim

In truth, nishtanu hatevaim, raises more questions then it answers. For a more detailed rebuttal see Is נשתנה הטבע a viable answer for conflicts between Torah and science?

Here is a summary of the problems:
1. They hold that all of Chazal's science is part of Torah. This means that when Chazal said that remedy x cures sickness y, that was part of Torah, it was received at Har Sinai. Why doesn't it work today? The world changed. This makes no sense. Torah preceded the world by 2000 years (Gemara Shabbos). Hashem created the world by looking into the Torah. How can you say that things in the Torah are no longer true? For over 4000 years remedy X cured Y, suddenly after the era of Torah Shebaal Peh ended the world changed so this stopped working and the torah became untrue, why would Hashem do such a thing? It makes Torah into a joke. Why would Hashem change the world so that Torah no longer reflects the world if the world was created based on Torah.

Even more then that, this seems to contradict the Rambam's principle of the immutability of Torah. Torah has now changed. It used to be that the Torah provided a rememdy for sickness Y, now it no longer does. It used to be that the Torah explained various natural phenomena, now it doesn't. In other words the Torah changed because it no longer reflects the physical world.

2. If Chazal had a kabbala (tradition) about science you would think that they would have had a kabbala that the world is going to change and that the science would no longer be true. נשתנה הטבע should also be part of Torah. After all, if you are going to claim that all of science is in Torah then this very important fact should be there as well. Yet, Chazal never even hint that the scientific pronouncements that they are making are only temporary. They didn't say that remedy X will only work for a limited time. they made a blanket statement that remedy X cures Y. It is clear that Chazal had no idea that נשתנה הטבע was going to happen, why not? If Torah included science it should have included נשתנה הטבע as well.

3. There is not a shred of evidence that נשתנה הטבע. Remember, the Geonim who lived only a few hundred years after the time of the gemara already stated that the cures of Chazal don't work, that is a very short time. Here are some examples of things where it is quite implausible to say that נשתנה הטבע.
a. The Gemara in Bava Basra (25a) states clearly that Chazal held that the Sun revolves around the Earth and that the Earth is surrounded by a roof that the sun goes out of at night (see Chazal and Mistakes in Science for more about this). It would be preposterous to claim that in the times of Chazal the Sun revolved around the Earth and went out a window but now נשתנה הטבע and the Earth revolves around the sun etc. Everyone can understand that such a change didn't happen.
b. The gemara seems to say that lice are born from spontaneous generation. again it is not plausible to think that in the times of Chazal there was spontaneous generation but in the last 1500 years it stopped
c. The gemara states that the mother contributes the blood to the baby (based on this some poskim didn't want to accept blood tests to establish paternity). It is implausible to think that the whole nature of human development changed after the time of chazal.
...

VI. His Proofs: G-d would not have permitted falsities to have been transmitted as Torah She-be-al-peh

R' Feldman writes

As the Leshem cited above says, if even regarding matters which are not related to halacha, the Sages say, sod Hashem liyerav, “G-d reveals the secrets of nature to those who fear him,” then certainly there must have been siyata dishmaya (Divine assistance) and even ruach hakodesh (a Divine spirit) assisting the Sages in their redaction of the Oral Law. It is therefore inconceivable, to these opinions, that G-d would have permitted falsities to have been transmitted as Torah She-be-al-peh and not have revealed His secrets to those who fear Him.

In other words we have to believe that Chazal got their science from Torah because how could Hashem have hidden these things from them. Hashem would not have allowed them to transmit falsities as Torah.

However this just moves the question to the next stage. No one denies that the remedies found in Chazal don't work today. R' Feldman himself offers the following answer:

The most widespread explanation offered for this is nishtanu hatevaim, “nature has changed” - cures that worked in the times of the Talmud are no longer effective.

If we think about it we can ask exactly the same question that he asked above about nishtanu hatevaim. Is it conceivable that Hashem would reveal scientific facts in Torah and then change nature to invalidate that revealed Torah? Moreover, if he did that, would he do so without telling Chazal (after all Chazal in their scientific pronouncements never even hint that things will change)? Would Hashem put Chazal in a position where they wrote things down in the Gemara (e.g. remedies) as part of Torah Shebaal Peh that are no longer true?

Bottom line, using his logic, how could it be that hashem didn't reveal the secret that nature was going to change? How could he have allowed Chazal to put remedies and other scientific facts in the gemara that were going to change?

VII. His Proofs: Kabballa

R' Feldman writes:

One of the most powerful reasons why R. Avraham’s opinion was rejected by most opinions, is the introduction of the wisdom of Kabbalah of the Ari Zal in the sixteenth century. This cast the Sages in another dimension.

For a more detailed rebuttal see Is Kabbala proof that Chazal could not make mistakes in science?

The Ramban who was one of the greatest Rishonim, was also according to everyone, a great mekubal. And yet, the Ramban, in at least 1 place in his commentary on Chumash (Tazria 12,2) implies quite clearly that Chazal could make mistakes in science. The Ramban clearly and unequivocally records the opinion of the Greek philophers who argue on a scientific fact of Chazal even though the Ramban was one of the greatest mekubalim. We see clearly that kabbala did not teach Chazal science and that the Ramban (who was not from the rationalist/philosphical rishonim) also holds that Chazal could make mistakes in science.

VIII. Is the opinion of the Rambam etc. a minority opinion?

For a more detailed rebuttal see Is the opinion of the Rambam etc. a minority opinion?

R' Feldman writes

In countless places where the commentaries, whether Rishonim or Acharonim (Early or Later Authorties), are faced with a contradiction between the science of their times and a statement of the Sages, they commonly apply the principle, nishtanu hateva’im (“nature has changed”).1 Had they held R. Avraham’s view, they would have simply explained that the Sages erred in following whatever was the medical or scientific opinion of their times.

The premise of this proof is that saying that Chazal made a mistake in science is a simpler and more compelling answer then nishtanu hateva’im. Otherwise there is no proof, the Rishonim answered nishtanu hateva’im because it was a better answer. Therefore it must be that saying that Chazal made a mistake in science is a simpler and more compelling answer then nishtanu hateva’im.

This gives us an insight into R' Feldman's thinking. Even according to him it is more logical to say that Chazal made a mistake then nishtanu hateva’im.

Now we need to ask is his premise correct? For us living in 2005 it certainly is for the following reason. On one hand, we know that the science of Chazal's time was bogus and completely wrong, on the other hand we know that nishtanu hateva’im is difficult from a scientific perspective. therefore to us it makes much more sense to say chazal made a mistake.

However, if we look at it from th Rishonim's perspective the picture changes completely. I believe that for the Rishonim nishtanu hateva’im was a more compelling answer then saying Chazal made a mistake in science for the following reasons:

1. The science of the Rishonim was the science of Chazal. Science progressed little if at all from 300 to 1300 and in Christian countries may have regressed. Therefore, the Rishonim would have no reason to doubt the science of Chazal, they relied on the same science and they believed it was true.
2. Nishtanu hateva’im made sense from their perspective. The rishonim did not understand the world from a scientific perspective and they did not see the difficulties inherent in saying nishtanu hateva’im, in fact, it probably fit in with their world view.

Given the above, Tosafos Moed Katan 11a when faced with the statement of Chazal that rotting fish is healthy vs. the reality that it is not had 2 possible answers:
1. The science that Chazal used was wrong
2. nishtanu hateva’im

I believe that from Tosafos's perspective the second answer is more compelling. They had no reason to doubt the science of Chazal, it was their science.

R' Feldman writes they would have simply explained that the Sages erred in following whatever was the medical or scientific opinion of their times. Than answer to this is very simple, the scientific opinion of Chazal's time was by and large the same scientific opinion of the Rishonim's time.

R' Feldman projects the attitudes of someone living in 2005 who knows that the science in Chazal's time was wrong to the Rishonim. However, the Rishonim had a completley different perspective on science.

IX. Some general questions

1. How come the Science from Sinai exactly matched the Science of Chazal’s day? Isn’t that a bit strange? For example Chazal's description of the Sun revolving around the Earth and going out a window matches almost exactly the Greek view of things.
2.Did Chazal not know that G-d planned to change the Tevah? Or were they just forbidden from revealing it? If they knew, how come they didn’t mention it? If they didn’t know, how come? Didn’t G-d reveal all knowledge to Chazal?
3.If nature changed, how come no one else noticed it? Why is there absolutely no record in the non-Jewish world of any of these changes?
4. R' Feldman quotes RSZA that the shita of R' Avraham Ben Harambam should be quoted as a Yesh Omrim. We see clearly that RSZA allowed the shita to be quoted in a sefer and therefore he clearly held that it was not kefira.
5. If we take R' Feldman's argument to it's logical conclusion we should have to get rid of the Rambam, Ramban al Hatorah, Pachad Yitzchak, R' Hirsch, Michtav M'Eliyahu, etc. After all, these sefarim all have kefira written in them and we are not allowed to have kefira in our houses.

X. Conclusion

I believe that I have shown that R' Feldman's proofs are no proofs and in fact he raises more questions then he answers.

I would suggest the opposite approach to R' Feldman. We know that there is a big dispute when צאת הכוכבים is. The Geonim understood that it is approximately 18 minutes after sunset and R' Tam understood that it is much later at least 72 minutes after sunset. After R' Tam stated his opinion, the majority of Rishonim paskened like R' Tam. The Shulchan Aruch, the Rama and most of the early Acharonim paskened like R' Tam. And yet, alomg came the Gra and said החוש מכחיש, reality contradicts R' Tam and he therefore went back to the pask of the Geonim. In fact, today in Israel the Gra is the accepted opinion בין לקולא בין ךחומרא. Why did the Gra do this? Because החוש מכחיש, reality contradicted R' Tam.

IMHO, החוש מכחיש those opinions who hold that Chazal did not make mistakes in science. Science has progressed tremendously since the times of the Rishonim and the questions that we have today they did not have. Therefore even if the accepted psak was like those Rishonim who held that Chazal did not make mistakes in science (in truth, I am not convinced of that), now we need to pasken like the Rambam et al. who hold that Chazal made mistakes in science because החוש מכחיש that the other Rishonim were wrong and the Rambam et al. are right. I understand that no one today is on the level of the Gra, however, Yiftach B'Doro K'Shmuel B'Doro. This was clearly the approach of R' Hirsch and probably the approachof R' Dessler, if they were allowed to hold that way why can't we?

Is Kabbala proof that Chazal could not make mistakes in science?

IMHO the answer is no.

R' Feldman writes
One of the most powerful reasons why R. Avraham’s opinion was rejected by most opinions, is the introduction of the wisdom of Kabbalah of the Ari Zal in the sixteenth century. This cast the Sages in another dimension.

While this statement is very debatable, I would like to approach this from a different angle.

The Ramban who was one of the greatest Rishonim, was also according to everyone, a great mekubal. And yet, the Ramban, in at least 1 place in his commentary on Chumash implies quite clearly that Chazal could make mistakes in science.

The Ramban at the beginning of Parshas Tazria quotes Chazal as follows
איש מזריע בו לובן שממנו גידים ועצמות ... אשא מזרעת אודם שממנו עור בשר ודם
The man provides the white from which the bones and sinews grow ... the women provides the red from which the skin, meat, and blood come

This is clearly a scientific opinion of Chazal. The Ramban then quotes the Greek philosophers who disagree with Chazal
ועל דעת חכמי הפלוספי היונים כל גוף העובר מדם האשה אין בו לאיש אלא ... שהוא נותן צורה
And the Greek philosphers say that the all of the body of the child comes from the blood of the women the only thing that comes from the man is the tzura (whatever that means)

The Ramban clearly and unequivocally records the opinion of the Greek philosophers who argue on a scientific fact of Chazal even though the Ramban was one of the greatest mekubalim. We see clearly that kabbala did not teach Chazal science and that the Ramban (who was not from the rationalist/philosophical rishonim) also holds that Chazal could make mistakes in science.

Update

Here is another Ramban where he writes explicitly that he accepts the opinions of the Greek scientists and bases pshat in a pasuk on that.

Ramban Bereishis 9:12
"This is the sign of the covenant that I give" - It would seem from this sign that the rainbow which appears in the clouds is not part of the acts of creation, and only now did God create something new, to make a rainbow appear in the sky on a cloudy day… But we are compelled to believe the words of the Greeks, that the rainbow is a result of the sun's rays passing through moist air, for in any container of water that is placed before the sun, there can be seen something that resembles a rainbow. And when we look again at the wording of the verse, we will understand it thus. For it says, "I have set my rainbow in the cloud," and it did not say "I am setting it in the cloud," (in the present tense) as it said, "this is the sign of the covenant that I am giving." And the word "My rainbow" indicates the rainbow previously existed.

The Ramban writes that we are compelled to believe the Greeks that a rainbow is a natural phenomenon that has existed since the beginning of creation even though it contradicts the simple pshat in the pasuk.

Is סוד ה' ליראיו a reason to believe that Chazal didn't err in science?

IMHO the answer is no.

R' Feldman writes

As the Leshem cited above says, if even regarding matters which are not related to halacha, the Sages say, sod Hashem liyerav, “G-d reveals the secrets of nature to those who fear him,” then certainly there must have been siyata dishmaya (Divine assistance) and even ruach hakodesh (a Divine spirit) assisting the Sages in their redaction of the Oral Law. It is therefore inconceivable, to these opinions, that G-d would have permitted falsities to have been transmitted as Torah She-be-al-peh and not have revealed His secrets to those who fear Him.

In other words we have to believe that Chazal got their science from Torah because how could Hashem have hidden these things from them. Hashem would not have allowed them to transmit falsities as Torah.

However this just moves the question to the next stage. No one denies that the remedies found in Chazal don't work today. R' Feldman himself offers the following answer The most widespread explanation offered for this is nishtanu hatevaim, “nature has changed” - cures that worked in the times of the Talmud are no longer effective.

If we think about it we can ask exactly the same question that he asked above about nishtanu hatevaim. Is it conceivable that Hashem would reveal scientific facts in Torah and then change nature to invalidate that revealed Torah? Moreover, if he did that, would he do so without telling Chazal (after all Chazal in their scientific pronouncements never even hint that things will change)? Would Hashem put Chazal in a position where they wrote things down in the Gemara (e.g. remedies) as part of Torah Shebaal Peh that are no longer true?

The questions that I raise are in IMHO at least as inconceivable as the question R' Feldman asked. In both cases falsities end up in the Torah Shebaal Peh (bottom line, the remedies don't work nowadays). This in essence destroys his whole argument. In other words, just like he can't conceive that Hashem would let them err in science I can't conceive that Hashem would give them scientific facts and then change nature to invalidate those torah revealed scientific facts in any case, and especially without even telling Chazal.

You tell me which is more inconceivable.
1.Chazal could make a mistake in science because they relied on the science of their day
2.Hashem would reveal scientific facts (e.g. remedies) as part of Torah Shebaal Peh M'Sinai, and then change nature so that these Torah scientific facts are no longer true, all without any hint that they will change.

I for one believe that 2 is much more inconceivable.

Bottom line, using his logic, how could it be that hashem didn't reveal the secret that nature was going to change? How could he have allowed Chazal to put remedies and other scientific facts in the gemara that were going to change?

Is נשתנה הטבע a viable answer for conflicts between Torah and science?

Many of those who hold that Chazal never made mistakes in science, rather their science is part of Torah shebaal peh and was received at Har Sinai, explain seeming conflicts between torah and science by saying נשתנה הטבע, nature changed. IMHO, this is an untenable position for the following reasons.

1. They hold that all of Chazal's science is part of Torah. This means that when Chazal said that remedy x cures sickness y, that was part of Torah, it was received at Har Sinai. Why doesn't it work today? The world changed. This makes no sense. Torah preceded the world by 2000 years (Gemara Shabbos). Hashem created the world by looking into the Torah. How can you say that things in the Torah are no longer true? For over 4000 years remedy X cured Y, suddenly after the era of Torah Shebaal Peh ended the world changed so this stopped working and the torah became untrue, why would Hashem do such a thing? It makes Torah into a joke. Why would Hashem change the world so that Torah no longer reflects the world if the world was created based on Torah.

Even more then that, this seems to contradict the Rambam's principle of the immutability of Torah. Torah has now changed. It used to be that the Torah provided a rememdy for sickness Y, now it no longer does. It used to be that the Torah explained various natural phenomena, now it doesn't. In other words the Torah changed because it no longer reflects the physical world.

2. If Chazal had a kabbala (tradition) about science you would think that they would have had a kabbala that the world is going to change and that the science would no longer be true. נשתנה הטבע should also be part of Torah. After all, if you are going to claim that all of science is in Torah then this very important fact should be there as well. Yet, Chazal never even hint that the scientific pronouncements that they are making are only temporary. They didn't say that remedy X will only work for a limited time. they made a blanket statement that remedy X cures Y. It is clear that Chazal had no idea that נשתנה הטבע was going to happen, why not? If Torah included science it should have included נשתנה הטבע as well.

3. There is not a shred of evidence that נשתנה הטבע. Remember, the Geonim who lived only a few hundred years after the time of the gemara already stated that the cures of Chazal don't work, that is a very short time. Here are some examples of things where it is quite implausible to say that נשתנה הטבע.
a. The Gemara in Bava Basra (25a) states clearly that Chazal held that the Sun revolves around the Earth and that the Earth is surrounded by a roof that the sun goes out of at night (see Chazal and Mistakes in Science for more about this). It would be preposterous to claim that in the times of Chazal the Sun revolved around the Earth and went out a window but now נשתנה הטבע and the Earth revolves around the sun etc. Everyone can understand that such a change didn't happen.
b. The gemara seems to say that lice are born from spontaneous generation. again it is not plausible to think that in the times of Chazal there was spontaneous generation but in the last 1500 years it stopped
c. The gemara states that the mother contributes the blood to the baby (based on this some poskim didn't want to accept blood tests to establish paternity). It is implausible to think that the whole nature of human development changed after the time of chazal.
...
In fact, I don't see a single torah science conflict where it is plausible to say נשתנה הטבע.

Based on the above, it is clear that נשתנה הטבע does not answer any contradictions, rather it is a copout, meaning that we have no answer. The real answer would seem to be like those Rishonim and Acharonim who hold that Chazal did not have a kabbala on science and therefore could make mistakes in science.

Update
I found a fascinating site השתנות הטבעים which has a long list of things where what Chazal say doesn't fit the scientific facts of today. If you look at the list (which is only partial) you will see that it is quite large. To believe that in all of these things נשתנה הטבע is quite a stretch for anyone. Here are just some of the changes related to the human body. You would have to believe that the human body changed drastically as
a. none of the remedies of chazal work
b. the things that Chazal say are dangerous are not (e.g. eating or cooking fish and meat together), and things tht Chazal say are good for you (rotting fish) are dangerous
c. Genetics changed (it was once a good thing to marry your niece)
d. all things about birth and a baby's development changed (see 7, 8 , or 9 month pregnancies), the position of babies when born, women don't get pregnant from the first sex act, etc.
e. all things related to hilcho nidda changed - until when a woman can give birth (60 if she gets married before 20), when does a women stop menstruating when pregnant, how long does a woman not menstruate after birth, the whole idea of וסתות and הרגשה
f. various halachos related to mila such as washing the baby on the third day, metzitza bpeh (which was considered to be necessary to ensure the safety of the baby).
g. the din of פצוע דכא
h. various foods/actions that are קשה לשכחה
...

To say נשתנה הטבע on one of these maybe, on all of these (and this is just a drop in the bucket) is clearly ridiculous, there is absolutely no evidence that from the time of Chazal until the time of the Geonim/Rishonim, who pointed out many of these, (which is a few hundred years), or even modern times, there were wholescale changes in humanity such that all of these changes could have taken place.

Update 2
R' Feldman writes As the Leshem cited above says, if even regarding matters which are not related to halacha, the Sages say, sod Hashem liyerav, “G-d reveals the secrets of nature to those who fear him,” then certainly there must have been siyata dishmaya (Divine assistance) and even ruach hakodesh (a Divine spirit) assisting the Sages in their redaction of the Oral Law. It is therefore inconceivable, to these opinions, that G-d would have permitted falsities to have been transmitted as Torah She-be-al-peh and not have revealed His secrets to those who fear Him.

My response to this is that according to him it comes out Hashem transmitted information as Torah Shebaal Peh that then became untrue because Hashem changed nature. Is that any more conceivable? Is it any more conceivable that Hashem would reveal scientific facts in Torah and then change nature to invalidate that revealed Torah without telling Chazal (after all Chazal in their scientific pronouncements never even hint that things will change)?

In other words his argument falls apart because even according to him hashem did not reveal everything to chazal because bottom line, we have a gemara full of remedies that don't work. Using his logic, how could it be that hashem didn't reveal the secret that nature was going to change? How could he have allowed Chazal to put remedies and other scientific facts in the gemara that were going to change?

Puting your head in the sand about disengagement

I am very anti-disengagement on both a religious level and a practical (political and security) level. However, I am realistic and understand that the disengagement will most probably happen.

Unfortunately there are a lot of people with their heads in the sand who believe (with no basis in reality) that it won't happen. I was talking to a friend of mine who is Dati Leumi, and he told me that various prominent Rabbis made pronouncements that the disengagement won't take place. I was very disturbed. How can they make such pronouncements? A person has an obligation to be realistic, אין סומכים על הנס. We certainly need to fight and protest the disengagement and daven to hashem to stop it, but we can't rely on a נס to happen that will stop it. We need to be realistic and think about the day after as well. These rabbinic pronouncements will just make things worse if and when disengagement does take place.

Again, I am not telling anyone to stop protesting and fighting, we need to protest and fight. However, we need to be realistic that the odds are stacked against us and that we will probably lose, and we need to plan for the day after as well. To just make pronouncements that the disengagement won't take place doesn't help anyone.

Why is the Dati Leumi population not really fighting the disengagement?

I was listening to my favorite charedi radio station one night on the way home from work, and they were discussing this. The political commentator commented that the government could never do something like this to the Arab or Charedi community, they wouldn't stand for it. The commentator and the host didn't understand why the Dato Leumi population as a whole isn't coming out and protesting.

IMHO, the answer is as follows. The Dati Leumi population is mostly middle class. Middle class people don't make waves or revolutions. Based on this I will explain below the difference between the Charedi population and the Dati Leumi population.

1. The Dati leumi population has been brought up to respect the government, celebrate Yom Haatzmaut, serve in the army, believe in democracy, etc. It is very hard to rebel against all of these things. The Charedi population on the other hand, doesn't really beleive in the government, at best the government is tolerated. The government is looked upon as the enemy who is always trying to take things away. Therefore it is not hard for them to rally against the government.
2. The Dat Leumi population is part of Israeli society. They work in the government, go to public schools, universities, the army, etc. It is hard to rebel aginst a society that you have a large stake in. The Charedi population on the other hand has no stake in society. By choice, they are not part of Israeli society, rather they have their own ghettos.
3. Most people in the Dati Leumi population work and therefore have no time to protest or be arrested. If you have a job which pays your mortgage and supports your family, it is very hard to get arrested and sit in jail and lose your job. How will you feed your family? Pay your mortgage? Middle class people have a lot to lose. The Charedi population on the other hand, has a large group of people sitting and learning in yeshivos and kollelim. If the gedolim say go out and protest, the kollelim and yeshivos close down and people go. If the gedolim said to go get arrested the arrested people would not lose. They would still get their money from their kollel, they would still get their money from the government, the tax breaks etc. Even the working Charedi population is different. Most of those people who work, work in the Charedi community and therefore if they get arrested they wouldn't lose their jobs. They would be supported by a gemachim etc. In short they have much less at stake financially.

To summarize, the middle class does not create revolutions. Revolutions are created by people with a lot of time and little to lose, students and the poor. Students have a lot of time and little to lose, and the poor have a lot of time and are desperate and have little to lose. The middle class has too much to lose. This is the case of the Dati Leumi population in Israel, they have too much to lose and therefore will not really protest and fight against the disengagement.

An approach to learning

There are a number of problems with the contemporary approach to learning.

1. In Yeshivas hardly any ground is covered. This is not just my complaint, if you read R' Shach's letters he complains about how in a year in many Yeshivas they maybe learn 20 blatt.
2. There is little emphasis on review (chazara). This is especially apparent among those who work and who have a limited amount of time. For example, someone who has 1-2 hours a day to learn and spends most of it at a daf yomi shiur will have little or no time to review. This leads to in one ear out the other. I don't mean to pick on Daf Yomi, but how many people who learn Daf Yomi can tell me what is on shabbos daf 48 which was learned not long ago? I myself found this problem with Daf Yomi, the pace moves so fast that you have no time to review. This is also a problem in Yeshivas, chazara is not stressed nearly enough.

Recently, I started learning an Amud Yomi, with massive chazara and tests. You spend much more time reviewing then learning something new, yet an amud yomi is not a bad pace. I find that I actually remember the gemara and can tell you the whole shakla v'tarya of the 5 blatt that I took a test on. There is also an emphasis on who said what. I think that is very important as well, to know which Ammoraim and Tannaim said what. This is also neglected nowadays.

This approach is not foolproof, it doesn't deal with learning b'iyun. I personally, have enough time to do all the chazaras (review the day's amud at least 5 times, plus spend a half an hour reviewing previous amudim) and still be m'ayen. This approach gives me the best of both worlds. I am covering ground but on certain interesting sugyas I can go deeper into the gemara, rishonim, etc. So far, I am very happy with this approach, I feel that using this approach, I will actually retain the information.

People might think, tests? Who wants to take tests? The tests are a tremendous thing. They give you a goal, they force you to chazer (no one wants to look like an idiot), and they give you an impartial assessment of how you are doing.

I wish that I had taken this approach when I was learning in Yeshiva. If from the age of 18-25 I had done something like this, learning either an amud or a daf a day with massive chazara (2-3 hours a day total), and periodic tests, while still learning b'iyun in the mornings, I would have a mastery of most of shas on a basic pshat level.

I am not advocating not learning b'iyun in yeshiva, what I am advocating is a structured program of bekius where in a few years guys can master much of shas on a basic pshat level.

I conclude with a story.

A Hungarian godol once visited R' Chaim in Brisk. R' Chaim pointed to his 14 year old son Velvel (who became the Brisker Rav) and said proudly he knows all of shas with Rashi. The Hungarian godol asked in astonishment, I thought in Brisk you advocated iyun, chiddushim??? R' Chaim answered, certainly we do, but if someone doesn't know shas with Rashi he can't say even begin to be m'ayen and say chiddushim.

We need to get back to the basics, people need a solid grounding in gemara and Rashi so that their learning b'iyun is meaningful. I think that an amud yomi, with a lot of chazara and yes, tests, is a very good way to do it.

Working hard in learning torah

The story of the מרגלים is a troubling story. You have the leaders of the Jewish people, tzadikim, suddenly do a terrible sin, why?

One approach is as follows. The leaders made the following calculation. Things were good in the midbar. They had a spiritual life with no effort. Manna came down from heaven every morning. If they had a question they asked Moshe who asked Hashem. In short, spirituality was handed to them on a silver platter. On the other hand they realized that in Israel life would change radically. They would not live a life of nissim, manna would not fall from heaven. They would have to work hard to retain their spiritually. If they had a question in Torah they would have to figure out the answer.

Based on the above, the meraglim decided life was better in the midbar and therefore did what they did.

What was their sin? They didn't want to work hard at their spirituality. They wanted everything handed to them on a silver platter.

This message is especially relevant nowadays in the executive summary/fast food society of ours. No one has time to work hard on something, everyone wants everything to come easy. No one wants to sit and sweat over pshat in a gemara, they want it spoon fed to them. This is one of the reasons why there is such a proliferation of (kitzur)handbook sefarim, people are not willing to put in the effort to learn the sources. this is why the Artscroll gemaras have become so popular, they make learning gemara easy.

I would like to go a bit further with this. Learning torah is different then learning any other discipline. Other subjects, what is paramount is that you obtain the knowledge, how you get there is irrelevant. The bottom line is what do you know. In torah this is not true. In torah, how you get there is more important then what you know. The act of learning torah is the mitzva. If someone could magically impress on your brain all of torah, that would be nice, but you would get no mitzva for that. The Mitzva is to learn it yourself. Hashem wants us to be עמלים (work hard) in Torah. Nowadays, we have lost this. People would rather take it easy with an Artcsroll gemara then break their head to understand the sugya.

After 120 years a person will not be asked what they know, but, did you fulfill your potential. There may be a guy who knew all of Shas because he was a genius, but his potential was that he could have been another Vilna Gaon. In this world he was very respected guy he knew Shas, however his potential was so much greater. On the other hand there may be an average guy who fulfilled his potential but never even really knew shas. In this world he was basically ignored, he worked hard at learning but was not that successful. But, he fulfilled his potential. Who do you think will get the bigger reward in the next world.? This is what the gemara means when it says עולם הפוך. In torah learning effort not results is what ultimately counts.

Some people will misinterpret this to mean that I am saying a person can sit and learn all day and know nothing. Absolutely not. What I am saying is that a person is judged by his potential, every person needs to maxmize it. It is amazing to see what an average person can do if they really push themselves (more about this in upcoming posts), but the average person will not become the Godol Hador and in shamayim no one will ask him why he wasn't the godol hador.

One of the good things about my commute to work is that it gives me time to think. Many times, in the morning I learn a piece of gemara with my chavrusa and something bothers us. On the way to work for an hour I think about it, I think about the question, possible answers, etc. and many times after an hour or 2 I will either have an answer or at least a better understanding of why it is really a question. The only way to come up with a chiddush is to sit and think. Unfortunately most people never really think in learning. They run right away to look in some sefer for an answer.

The proliferation of sefarim is both a blessing and a curse. For many, it makes life too easy, they never have to think about what is a question and what is an answer, Artscroll (or some other sefer) spoon feeds it to them.

Don't get me wrong, Artscroll and other aids have their place. They have allowed many people who couldn't learn gemara without it learn. The problem is that they allow many other people who could learn gemara if they worked hard at it be lazy and not push themselves.

Every person has to evaluate their situation and balance where they are to understand how they should go about learning.

In the next few days I am going to post about more about derech halimud.

How does the Jewish calendar work today?

The first mitzva given to the Jewish people is החדש הזה לכם the mitzva of קידוש החדש. This meant that Rosh Chodesh was determined by the testimony of the witnesses in front of the בית דין and that it was their determination and pronouncement that actually made it Rosh Chodesh. At some point about 1800 years ago this stopped and since then we have been using a fixed calendar. The obvious question is how does this work?

The Rambam states both in the Sefer Hamitzvos and the Mishna Torah that there are 2 systems in halacha of determining when Rosh Chodesh is.
1.קידוש החדש
2.A הלכה למשה מסיני of חשבון (calculation, e.g. the calender).

According to the Rambam when קידוש החדש stopped about 1800 years ago, the הלכה למשה מסיני of the calendar kicked in.

The Rambam writes that nowadays what is מקדש is the ניהוג of ראש חדש by the Jews in Israel. Hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh (5,13)
זה שאנו מחשבין בזמן הזה כל אחד ואחד בעירו ואומרין שראש חודש יום פלוני, ויום טוב ביום פלוני--לא בחשבון שלנו אנו קובעין ולא עליו אנו סומכין, שאין מעברין שנים וקובעין חודשים בחוצה לארץ; ואין אנו סומכין, אלא על חשבון בני ארץ ישראל וקביעתם. וזה שאנו מחשבין, לגלות הדבר בלבד: כיון שאנו יודעין שעל חשבון זה הן סומכין, אנו מחשבין לידע יום שקבעו בו בני ארץ ישראל איזה יום הוא; ובקביעת בני ארץ ישראל אותו הוא שיהיה ראש חודש או יום טוב, לא מפני חשבון שאנו מחשבין.

RYBS explains the Rambam as follows. He has a יסוד (with many proofs, not for now) that one of the jobs of the Sanhedrin is to represent the Jewish nation (this is for example why real semicha can only be given in Israel). Based on this he explains as follows. קידוש החדש is really a mitzva on all of the Jewish nation. However, all of the Jewish people cannot do קידוש החדש, therefore the Sanhedrin does it as our representative. However, when we switch over to the הלכה למשה מסיני of חשבון, the mitzva reverts back to the Jewish nation and it is the ניהוג of the Jewish nation that is what is actually מקדש, and because the Jewish people as a nation only exists in Israel (there are many proofs to this, not for now) it is the קביעות of the Jews living in Israel which is what is actually מקדש the חדש.

This Rambam is used to answer the question of why the Rambam left out the mitzva of ישוב הארץ?

Some answer that we see from this Rambam that ישוב הארץ is not just a regular mitzva, the whole calendar depends on jews living in Israel and therefore it is a mitzva כללית and according to the Rambam's principles is not listed.

In any case, we see the tremendous emphasis the Rambam placed on living in Israel.

The Ramban disagrees with the Rambam and claims that he never heard of such a הלכה למשה מסיני, rather, he explains that the calendar is really based on the regular halacha of קידוש החדש. The chachamim at that time got together and were actually מקדש all the future ראשי חדשים, and they left us a calendar which tells us what days they were מקדש.

My (crazy) schedule

This is my weekday schedule:

5:30 - 6:30 - learn in shul with a chavrusa before davening
6:30 - 7:15 - shacharis
7:15 - 8:15 - breakfast with the kids, help get them up and out
8:15 - 8:30 - take kids to school
8:30 - 9:30 - drive to work, while driving I usually go over what I learned in the morning
9:30 - 7:00 - work
7:00 - 8:00 - drive home, while driving I either, go over what I learned in the morning again, listen to a shiur, listen to the radio (news or talk), or just think about things
8:00 - 9:00 - eat dinner, help my son with his homework, talk to my wife
9:00 - 10:30 - Night seder in the shul/beis medrash
10:30 - relax, read blogs, have a snack, get ready for bed, etc.

All in all a very busy schedule with very little free time and not enough sleep time.

My schedule is so different from everyone else's at work that many times it feels like I am from a different planet. Most people at work don't get up before 7 and spend the night watching TV, movies, sports, etc. We have little or no common ground except for work.

Update
Of course to keep such a schedule requires a wife who will allow it and even encourage it. There is no question that my schedule is very tough on my wife. I am hardly around during the week. She needs to deal with the kids in the afternoon, give them supper, put them to sleep, clean up, deal with the house, etc. with little or no help from me. This is the mark of a true אשת חיל, encouraging her husband to go out and learn Torah even when it makes her life more difficult.

Not Answering 'Amen' to the Second Bracha of Shema: Explaining the Mishna Berura

Adderabbi has an excellent post ( Mistaken Minhag - Not Answering 'Amen' to the Second Bracha of Shema: The Unabridged Version") tracing this halacha from the sources. He concludes

the Mishna Berurah INVENTS a doubt about what to do in that scenario, INVENTS a machloket between Ramah and Rambam, and then reads it back into the Shulkhan Arukh!

I would like to explain the basis for the psak of the Mishna Berura and show that it was not a mistake and that it has a solid basis. To really understand this post you should read Adderabbi's post first.

The Tur in Siman 59 brings down a Rosh. The Rosh says that his practice was to say the words of bircas krias shema with the chazan, but that it’s proper for one to finish up the bracha before the sha”tz so that he can answer ‘amen’, because it’s inappropriate to do so if he finishes along with the sha”tz (because then it would be like answering ‘amen’ to his own bracha). The Rosh furthermore doesn’t differentiate between the brachot of ‘yotzer’ and ‘ha-bocher’. The same practice should apply for both, namely finish before the chazzan and answer amen.

The Beis Yosef there is bothered by the following question. He asks how can the Rosh have answered amen to הבוחר it should be a הפסק? Remember, the Rosh was saying amen to the chazan's bracha because he finished before the chazan. Already we see that the Beis Yosef entertained the possibility that even answering amen to the chazan is a הפסק and therefore he is bothered by the question. He quotes the Rambam, Rabbeinu Yonah, and the Ramban who all say that you are not allowed to be מפסיק between הבוחר and shema.

The Beis Yosef gives 2 answers:
1. There is a fundamental dispute what is the nature of the beracha of הבוחר. The Rambam, Ramban, and Rabbeinu Yonah all hold that it is connected to shema (most probably a bircas hamitzva, the Ramban at the beginning of Berachos says this explicitly) and therefore there is a probnlem of הפסק, while the Rosh holds that it is not connected to shema and therefore there is no problem of הפסק
2. We differentiate between answering amen to your own beracha vs answering amen to the chazan's beracha. The Rambam etc. only prohibited answering amen to your own beracha, answering amen to the chazzan's beracha is not considered a הפסק.

We see explicitly that according to the first answer of the Beis Yosef answering amen to the chazan by הבוחר is a problem of הפסק according to the Rambam etc. The Biur Halacha paskens like this answer in the Beis Yosef and therefore recommends to finish with the chazzan and not answer amen.

However, there is a problem. The Beis Yosef himself seems to go with the second answer at the end when he quotes the Ramah that if you finish before the chazan you do answer amen. He says explicitly that you do answer amen to the chazzan.

If we stopped here the Mishna Berura would be in trouble. However, when we look in Shulchan Aruch we get a different picture. The Beis Yosef (there on the Tur) paskened explicitly that you say the 2 berachos of shema with the chazzan and you don't answer amen (to your own beracha) to either one of them. In Shulchan Aruch (49,4) he states
The Brachot of ‘Yotzer’ and ‘Arvit’ (i.e., the first bracha of Shema), one
should say quietly along with the Sha”tz, and he should not answer ‘amen’ at
the conclusion of “ha-bocher…” because it’s a ‘hefsek’.
If we look carefully we see that he left out the halacha of not answering amen to the first beracha of shema. He starts out talking about the first beracha (that it should be said with the chazzan) and then says you don't answer amen to the second beracha. What about the first beracha? Why didn't he say that you don't answer amen?

This seem to be the basis for the Mishna Berura. The Mishna Berura understood that if the Shulchan Aruch was just taking about the din of not answering your own beracha (as Adderabbi posits), then why single out הבוחר, the same halacha applies to the first beracha as well (which he did say on the Tur). Therefore it must be that the shulchan aruch is telling us a halacha that only applies to הבוחר, namely the din of הפסק (the din of not answering your own beracha is well known and paskened in hilchos berachos so he didn't mention it here). Once we come on to הפסק, then we are back to his first answer in the Beis Yosef where he explicitly said that the problem of הפסק applies even to the beracha of the Chazzan. Therefore the Mishna Berura paskens that according to the shulchan aruch you shouldn't answer amen to הבוחר because of הפסק.

The Gra (as Adderabbi pointed out) clearly disagrees withe the Mishna Berura because he explains the reason for the shulchan aruch as having to do with answering amen to your own beracha.

To summarize, the Mishna Berura is going with the Beis Yosef's first answer in the Tur, that there is a problem of הפסק even by the chazzan, he feels compelled to say this based on the fact that the Shulchan Aruch left out the din of not answering amen by the first beracha.

You can certainly argue on this analysis of the Mishna Berura but it clearly has a basis and is not a mistake.

Putting garbage into an empty garbage can on Shabbos

Yesterday's daf (Shabbos 43) has the din of מבטל כלי מהיכנו, which means that you take a כלי and put some מוקצה into it rendering the כלי unfit for use the rest of Shabbos. Rashi on the mishna (42b) says that the prohibition is based on בונה. Since you are causing the כלי to be fixed in place (you aren't allowed to move מוקצה) it looks like בונה. Rashi later on in Shabbos states that it is based on סותר. You are taking a כלי which is fit for use on shabbos and making it unfit for shabbos.

Based on this, we have the following problem. Most people take out the garbage before Shabbos. If the garbage can is empty on Shabbos, then when you put garbage in on Shabbos it should be a problem of מבטל כלי מהיכנו. You are taking the garbage can which is a כלי and putting מוקצה into it. Therefore, some people are machmir to make sure to put in a piece of garbage before Shabbos.

The minhag is to be מיקל, what is the basis? Many say that since the garbage can is made to put garbage into it and that is it's whole purpose it is not called מבטל כלי מהיכנו. This makes a lot of sense if the prohibition is based on סותר. Since putting garbage into the can is it's purpose in life you can't call it סותר, you aren't destroying the כלי you are using it. However, if the prohibition is based on בונה this shouldn't matter, you are making the garbage can unmovable.

The bottom line is that most poskim are מיקל.

כלי שני אינו מבשל why not?

Daf Yomi recently learned the gemara in Shabbos(40b) which states a principle that כלי שני אינו מבשל. The question is why not?

There are 2 possible approaches:
1. It is a דין. In other words the halacha states that cooking in a כלי שני is not called cooking. We find for example that בישול בחמה is permitted.
2. It is a מציאות, the gemara is telling us an empirical fact, that in general a כלי שני doesn't cook.

Many of the Rishonim state explicitly that כלי שני אינו מבשל is a מציאות. The Rashba there in Shabbos, the יראים quoted by many other rishonim and others. Tosafos there also seems to say this because they explain the difference between a כלי ראשון and a כלי שני based on מציאות, that a כלי ראשון has hot walls while a כלי שני doesn't.

The gemara about קלי הבישול seems to support this position. The simple reading of the gemara (39a and other places) is that there are certain things that are easily cooked and you are חייב if you cook them in a כלי שני. If it was a din then how wcould you be chayav by קלי הבישול?

None of the Rishonim (that I saw) say explicitly that it is a דין (however see Tosafos shabbos 42a where they discuss a hot bath and other Rishonim (Ramban, Ritva) which could be interpreted this way). However the אור שמח (hilchos shabbos perek 9) goes with this idea explicitly, and explains it as follows. He says that the gemara states that cooking in halacha is defined as by fire or the result of a fire. He says that a כלי שני is so far removed from the fire that it can't be called תולדות האש and therefore is not considered cooking in halacha. This is similar to the din that cooking in the sun is not considered cooking. He explains that קלי הבישול is a gezera because people do cook קלי הבישול in a כלי שני therefore they prohibited it m'drabbanan.

There are a number of practical differences in halacha regarding this question, I will mention 2 of them:
1. If the כלי שני is really hot. The Chayei Adam based on a Rambam in Maaser Sheni holds that if the כלי שני is boiling hot (if you touch it you will get burned) then the rule of כלי שני אינו מבשל doesn't apply. This is clearly going with the 2, that it is a מציאות, according to the אור שמח it shouldn't matter.
2. Is there a קולא of כלי שלישי? The Mishna Berura quotes a Pri megadim who is מיקל by a כלי שלישי by קלי הבישול, that you would be permitted to put them in a כלי שלישי. The Chazon Ish and others disagree. they hold that there is no difference between a כלי שני and a כלי שלישי based on Tosafos, both have cold walls and both have the same amount of heat. If you hold like 2 then the kula of כלי שלישי makes no sense. However according to the אור שמח that כלי שני אינו מבשל is a din and the humra by קלי הבישול is only a din drabbanan, then it makes sense to say that the gezera was only made on a כלי שני and not on a כלי שלישי.

Interestingly enough, the Mishna Berura quotes both of these dinim. He is machmir like the Chayei Adam which is based on מציאות and מיקל like the Pri Megadim which seems to be based on the fact that it is a din and not a מציאות.

At first glance opinion 1 (din) seems much more logical then 2. It seems very difficult to say that the gemara is telling us a מציאות without qualifying it. If the Chayei Adam is right how come the gemara didn't warn us about it. The Chayei Adam's scenario is not so uncommon and leads to an issur d'oraysa. The gemara's statement lends itself to be interpreted as a general principle in halacha not a מציאות. Therefore I was very happy to see the אור שמח expound the position of din explicitly.

Update
There is another way to understand Tosafos in Shabbos. Tosafos holds that כלי שני אינו מבשל is because it is not the normal way to cook in a כלי שני and tosafos is just explaining why, because the walls are cold and therefore people don't generally cook in such a כלי. This is very similar to the אור שמח that really it is a din not a מציאות. The difference would be if you had a כלי שני that people did cook in, or food that people normally cook in a כלי שני such as קלי הבישול then it would be an issur d'oraysa according to Tosafos while according to the אור שמח it is never an issur doraysa.

קבלת התורה of תורה שבעל פה

The gemara in Shabbos comments that Hashem held the mountain over the Jewish people's head and forced them to accept the Torah. The obvious question is that they said נעשה ונשמע. The acharonim point out that the medrash in Noach asks this question and answers that they said נעשה ונשמע on תורה שבכתב but they had to be forced to accept תורה שבעל פה because it is infinite and hard to master. It was only at the time of Purim where the Jews were mekabel תורה שבעל פה out of their own free will (קימו וקיבלו) and this is why the flowering of the תורה שבעל פה only came about in the time of the second beis hamikdash.

RYBS explained the idea of kedushas haaretz based on this. He explained that all kedusha stems from Torah, it is the only source of kedusha. If so, where does kedushas haaretz come from. He explained that when Bnei Yisrael conquered Israel they sent the Aron in front of them which actually won the battles, the Aron represents תורה שבכתב and therefore the land was niskadesh with the kedusha based on תורה שבכתב.

Based on this he explained why kedusha rishona didn't last while kedusha shniya lasts until today.

The Rambam already gives a cryptic explanation, that the first kedusha was based on כיבוש and therefore since the land was conquered from them it was destroyed while the second kedusha was based on חזקה. However, this is not easily understood why should this be so.

The Rav explained as follows. The first kedusha was based on תורה שבכתב which is finite and physical and therefore just like the תורה שבכתב can be destroyed so too the kedusha can be destroyed. The second kedusha on the other hand was kedusha b'peh, based on תורה שבעל פה which is not physical and infinite and therefore the kedusha it produces cannot be destroyed. The first kedusha had to be based on תורה שבכתב because that was all they had, they had not accepted תורה שבעל פה out of their own free will. Only at the time of the second Beis Hamikdash after they had already accepted תורה שבעל פה freely could they use it's power to be mekadesh the land.

How much different is Charedi society then Saudia Arabia II?

My previous post was not written well and therefore misinterpreted. I will restate the point I was trying to make in different terms.

There is a fundamental clash of culture between Western liberal democracy (especially the US) and fundamentalist Islam (Saudia Arabia being an example), and Orthodox (especially Charedi) Judaism.

Using the US as an example (since that is where I was born and lived most of my life) let us look at a number of the fundamental principles underlying the US:
1. All men are created equal
2. Freedom of religion
3. Freedom of speech
4. Democracy

All of these are denied by Orthodox Judaism and Fundamentalist Islam.
1. All men are created equal - non-believers are not equal, women are not equal, etc.
2. Freedom of religion - hilchos avoda zara
3. Freedom of speech - various issurim of mekallel hashem etc.
4. Democracy - this is self evident

Therefore, if you would take a halachic state and look it from an American viewpoint it would not look much different from the outside then Saudia Arabia.

There is a simple test. A Charedi Jew can live very well and prosper in the US without the government really bothering him. He/she can dress the way they want, educate their children for the most part the way they, etc. The same could not be said for a halachic state. Put the average American in a halachic state and they would have to change their way of life. They couldn't dress the same way, worship, etc. From that perspective it is not very different from Saudia Arabia.

That was really my point. I was not trying to compare the 2 any more then that.

How much different is Charedi society then Saudia Arabia?

This sounds very strange but when you think about it you realize that it is not so far-fetched. The NY Times has an interesting article Reformers in Saudi Arabia: Seeking Rights, Paying a Price. Many of the things mentioned in the article could apply in some measure to Charedi society as well. Some examples:

• The overwhelming emphasis on religious education to the detriment of secular education


• The complete segregation of the sexes (think of the Tznius patrol etc.)


• The role of women


• The intolerance of dissent (e.g. the Slifkin affair)


• The denigration of science and Western culture in general

The list goes on.

Clearly there are major differences, especially regarding respect for life, and many many other issues, but I still believe that the comparison is valid.

Today it is almost impossible to close your society off from the rest of the world as the Saudis are seeing. The Charedi leadership is attempting to do the same thing by banning internet, cell phones, etc. I am very skeptical that this will work and this approach may cause major problems when Charedim are exposed to the outside world with little or no preparation.

Putting cold food on a hotplate on Shabbos

Daf Yomi just started פרק כירה which discusses these issues.

The first mishna there has a gezera that you are not allowed to put food even on a covered fire on shabbos (even where there is no problem of bishul). The Rishonim offer 2 reasons why:
1. שמא יחתה בגחלים - maybe you will stoke the coals
2. מחזי כמבשל - it looks like you are cooking

Based on this a number of poskim (R' Moshe, R' Eider, R' Willig) hold that the issur doesn't apply to a non-adjustable hotplate because there is no שמא יחתה בגחלים because you cannot change the temperature, and it is not מחזי כמבשל because no one cooks on such a hotplate. Therefore they hold that you can heat up solid cooked foods on shabbos on a hotplate. The Shmiras Shabbos disagrees. Note, it is not so simple to just be machmir, because you are taking away from your oneg shabbos, it is clearly more oneg shabbos to have hot food.

R' Moshe has another interesting chidush (not למעשה). He says that our stove tops should never need a blech. He explains that the whole reason for a blech is to prevent שמא יחתה בגחלים, with out stove tops that is impossible, there are no coals to stoke. What about turning up the gas? That is adding fuel which the gemara was never gozer on.

Interestingly enough, R' Aharon Kotler also dealt with this point albeit differently. He said that since today the worry is that a person will turn up the gas, the blech needs to cover the knobs (maybe it doesn't even need to cover the fire) so that the person will have a reminder not to turn up the gas.

Lastly, the Chazon Ish holds that the idea of grufa uktuma in the Mishna is that it lowered the heat significantly and therefore he holds that what we call a blech is no good as it doesn't lower the heat. According to him you need a blech like an upside down pot which does lower the heat.

More about צאת הכוכבים

The Daf Yomi shiur that I go to is given by a big Talmid Chacham who is UO (he has been learning in Kollel for 12+ years). It was interesting to see how he dealt with R' Tam being against reality. Basically he threw up his hands and said the simplest answer is to say נשתנה הטבע. To me this is difficult to accept, there is absolutely zero evidence for that (certainly not since R' Tam's time which is less then 1000 years ago). I would rather say that R' Tam made a mistake in science. The fact is that one of the main acharonim who discusses this topic, the Minchas Cohen, made a clear error in science. He writes that even thought where he lived in Europe reality contradicts R' Tam, but it must be that in Israel R' Tam corresponds to reality. Of course, in fact, twilight is shorter in Israel then Europe and therefore contradicts R' Tam even more. In other words, the Minchas Cohen made a mistake in science. R' Tam lived in France and very possibly made the same error.

What amazes me more is that in America so many people are machmir for 72 minutes. Besides what I pointed out in my previous post (that 72 minutes is probably not shitas R' Tam), R' Tam's shita is against reality, it is pitch black out well before 72 minutes. I understand that this is the shita of many Rishonim and the Shulchan Aruch, but it is not a halacha l'moshe m'sinai, the Gemara gives astronomical signs which we are 100% certain come well before 72 minutes.

Am I being arrogant or anti-Torah in thinking that R' Tam made a mistake? It isn't just me, that Gra made the same point (that R' Tam contradicts reality). I can't help it, I have been brought up to think logically and shitas R' Tam just makes no sense.

Protecting Torahs from theft

New Tech Protects Ancient Torahs is an interesting article which describes 2 methods available to identify Torahs and prevent thefts.

When is צאת הכוכבים?

Yesterday's and today's daf (Shabbos 34-35) discuss this issue. Most of what I write here is based on R' Willig's piece in his sefer on berachos עם מרדכי.

There is a famous machlokes R' Tam and the Geonim. In Shabbos (34) R' Yehuda says that from suntil until צאת הכוכבים is 3/4 of a mil (we will define how long a mil is later). The gemara in Pesachim (94) states that according to R' Yehuda there are 4 mil from sunset until צאת הכוכבים. R' Tam (and many Rishonim such as the Ramban, Rashba and the Shulchan Aruch and the Rama) explain as follows. There are 2 shkia's, from sunset until 3.25 mil after sunset it is day then there is 3/4 of a mil bein hashmoshos (safek day safek night) and then night. The Geonim hold that bein hashmoshos starts right away after sunset and night is 3/4 of a mil later. The Gra popularized this shita and explained that the Gemara in pesachim is talking about when all the stars come out. The Gra's main proof against R' Tam is החוש מכחיש, R' Tam is against reality. well before 4 mil after sunset it is pitch black outside and you can see hundreds of stars.

There are 2 other related disputes.

1. How do we count the hours of the day? The halacha always divides the day into 12 equal hours, do we count from sunrise until sunset or from alos hashachar until צאת הכוכבים?
It would seem that is dependent on the machlokes R' Tam and the Geonim. According to the Geonim it makes no sense to count from alos until צאת הכוכבים the day wouldn't be balanced, and since the day ends at sunset it makes sense to count until sunset. According to R' Tam it makes little sense to count only until sunset, it is still day for another hour. In addition the Rishonim say explicitly that Plag Hamincha (10.75) is an 1.25 hours before צאת הכוכבים

2. How long is a mil? The gemara in Pesachim says that a person walks 40 mil in a day. If you divide 720 by 40 you get 18. Others hold that it is 22.5.
R' Willig brings a very strong proof that R' Tam holds 22.5 based on the fact that the Rishonim (Ramban, Rashba and others) state that Plag Hamincha is 1/6 of a mil before sunset. If you do the math the only it works out is if a mil is 22.5 minutes.

R' Moshe claims that even according to R' Tam after 50 minutes it is definately night in NY because it is pitch black. However, this is very difficult. This was exactly the Gra's question on R' Tam, that it is against reality. The fact is that R' Tam says 4 mil which is at least 72 minutes, according to R' Moshe there is no such case.

The simple understanding is that the times given are for Israel at the equinox, during the year and in other places the times will change. We see this from the fact that the gemara also gave astronomical signs, these clearly change from place to place and season to season. Therefore in any place further from the equator then Israel bein hashmeshos will be longer.

R' Willig concludes that holding 72 minutes is NY is meaningless for the following reasons:
1. R' Tam would seem to hold that a mil is 22.5 minutes (4 mil = 90 minutes)
2. Whatever the shiur of a mil is, NY is further from the equator then Israel and therefore bein hashmeshos will be longer so even if a mil is 18 minutes that is only in israel at the equinox in NY it is longer.

R' Tam's shita has always really bothered me. The Gra's question of החוש מכחיש is so powerful and obvious I don't understand how the Rishonim could have said what they said. Did they never go outside an hour after sunset and see that it was pitch black and you could see hundreds of stars?

In any case we see a very important point from this Gra, החוש מכחיש (reality contradicts) is a good question. Torah has to correspond to reality, if it doesn't we are misunderstanding the Torah.

A Big Nisayon of Working

As a followup to R' Breitowitz's article about working vs kollel I would like to bring up a related issue.

For those of us who work and are relatively successful, to what do we attribute our success? American culture tells us we should attribute it to our hard work, intelligence, etc., in other words כחי ועוצם ידי. Judaism on the other hand, states that הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים. Everything is from Hashem. If we are successful at work it is from Hashem. If we make a lot of money it is from Hashem. The gemara in Rosh Hashana states מזונות של אדם קצובין לו בראש השנה. How many of us really believe this?

For me at least, this is one of the biggest nisyonos (tests) of working. It is so easy to believe that your success comes from you and your money comes from you when you work and you are good at what you do. When you work hard on a project and at the end you get a bonus, you feel that you "earned" the money, and yet, it was already allocated to you from Rosh Hashana. It is very difficult to keep the proper perspective of where everything comes from when you earn a good living working. We are so far removed from Hashem in our parnasa these days, it really feels like it is in our hands.

This is not a reason not to work, rather it is something that those who work should think about and work on. If someone works and can come to this recognition they have indeed reached a high madrega.

Work vs. Kollel

Hirhurim linked to 2 articles by R. Yitzchak Breitowitz (Torah and Professionalism and Choosing a Profession: Torah Considerations) which compare the good and bad points of learning in kollel vs working. It is definately worth reading.

He left out some important negatives of kollel.

1. The wife has to work full time to support the husband, meaning she has to go out in the world, not kol kevuda bas melech pnima. In addition, the children end up being brought up by the babysitter.
2. It places a tremendous burden on the parents, the parents need to support the young couple while he is sitting and learning.

The ad from Hamodia

This is the best I could do with my digital camera (my scanner doesn't work). Why R' Shachter, R' Moshe Shapiro, R' Aharon Leib Shteinman, R' Wolbe etc. are called Kiruv leaders is beyond me.

How to spend the summer

With the onset of summer I started thinking about summers past that I spent in the Morasha Kollel (both high school and college). I believe that the Kollel is a great example for MO and shows the heights that MO can reach in Limud Hatorah.

For those aren't familiar with it I will describe the schedule, the atmosphere etc. Many of the younger Rabbeim at YU and other MO institutions were there in the 80's with me such as (this is a very partial list off the top of my head), R' Greenwald, R' Simon, R' Sobolofsky, R' Sheinfeld, R' Hochberg, R' Haber, R' Hirsch, R' Tarragin, etc.

The schedule was as follows:
7:30 - Shacharis
8:15 - 9:00 - Breakfast
9:00 - 12:30 - preparation for shiur (R' Willig learned halacha l'maase topics when I was there, and not necessarily Orach Chaim)
12:30 - 1:30 - Shiur
1:30 - 1:45 - Mincha
1:45 - 2:15 - Lunch
2:15 - 5:00 - free time, most people played ball (basketball, softball, tennis, swimming), some days R' Willig would play with us
5:00 - 6:30 - Bekius seder
6:30 - 7:30 - Dinner
7:30 - 8:30 - Chavrusa with a HS guy
8:30 - 10:00 - Night Seder
10:00 - 10:15 - Maariv
after night seder you were officially free, most people kept learning, I personally had a seder until 12:30.

The HS Kollel (R' Cohen) has a similar schedule.

If you add up the hours of learning it comes to about 11 hours a day. The atmosphere was amazing, you had older guys who you could talk to, the Rebbeim were there with their families and of course you could play ball for 2.5 hours a day. All the guys who went there truly grew tremendously in both learning and ruchniyos. It was an opportunity for 2 months to sit and learn with nothing else to bother you (no tests, hw, papers, etc.).

When you compare the experience to a regular MO camp, the difference is startling. In a regular MO the learning is a joke, many people regress spiritually. And yet, if you look at the numbers, about 50 people a year went to the kollel and thousands went to regular camps.

I am not advocating the schedule for everyone, it is definately a tough schedule, but it pushes the guys to greater heights. The problem is that there is nothing in between, it is either 11 hours a day or 1 hour a day.

There is another problem. many people in college have no time to just sit and learn for a summer. They have the following issues:
1. Financial - it cost money, while to be a counselor at a camp you make money
2. School - many people go to summer school to finish college faster
3. Job/Graduate school pressures - many people feel that they need to work in their field in order to get a job after they graduate or get into graduate school.

While these may be important, these summers are many people's last chance to sit and learn full time and I think that the community needs to encourage this much more.

The existence of such a program is a good thing for MO and shows that at least a small part of the MO world is machshiv torah, on the other hand we can look it as the exception that proves the rule that the majority of MO isn't machshiv torah enough.

Ad in Hamodia acknowledges R' Shachter as a Gadol

I saw an ad in this week's English Hamodia which really surprised me. The ad is for the Taryag Mitzvos Program, where people learn about the Taryag Mitzvos. They have a full page ad in Hamodia with haskamos from a whole list of gedolim. I was perusing the list and saw, R' Elyashiv, R' Chaim Kanievsky, R' Mattisyahu Solomon, and then I almost fell out of my chair "R' Hershel Shachter Rosh Hayeshiva, Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan". Right under his name comes R' Moshe Shapiro, then R' Shteinman.