Great passage from Rabbi Prustzasnky's latest post:"Moreover, because of our poor public relations (a problem that did not begin with the Israelis), no credit is given to the Talmudic sages for their scientific discoveries – probably because they are unknown to the world at large. Thus, the Tosefta (Shabbat, Chapter 7) notes that an iron bar may be placed on a roof to attract lightning – long before old Ben Franklin discovered electricity. Chazal in several places (e.g., Sanhedrin 106b) refer to the laws pertaining to “a tower that flies in the air”, recognizing that airplane flight was a physical possibility, if then a practical impossibility. Rabban Gamliel used a telescope that could distinguish objects a kilometer away (Eruvin 43b). Rav Yehoshua knew of Halley’s comet – “a star that shoots across the sky once every 70 years” (Horayot 10a) – fifteen centuries before Edmond Halley (1656-1742) was a gleam in his mother’s eye. And it is clear from even a superficial understanding of the Talmud that most of our Sages assumed the earth was a round sphere (not flat) and revolved around the sun – 1300 years before Nic Copernicus claimed the credit and won the fame associated with these “discoveries”.
Awesome!
So is any of this even remotely true? Well a little research on Wikipedia shows that while ancient astronomers knew of Haley's comet, they didn't necessarily recognize that it came back every 70 years or so. The first record of that may in fact be the Talmud. As for electricity, static electricity and properties of materials that conduct (presumably with lightening too) were known in the ancient world, so I don't think the iron bar thing is so unique. As for the flying tower, not quite an airplane but still interesting. And what about the round earth? Sorry, the Greeks beat Chazal by several hundred years. But then, we know that the Greeks got all their chochmah from the Neviim, so we are the champions after all.
Posts
22 comments:
The truth is, more credit is given to chazal if what they knew is NOT due to them receiving it from divine guidance. They were open to the science of their day. They were willing to work hard and learn.It's not without reason we have a saying "a rabbi is preferable to a Navi"
Claiming that the Sanhedrin reference of "a tower that flies in the air" relates to airplanes is wishful thinking on his part.
For every so-called scientific discovery supposedly made by Chazal, I can point out a dozen bogus scientific claims. And the great Jewish scientists that he and Aish like to point out when they tout Jewish accomplishment? Almost all of 'em were secular Jews.
Pruzansky is a joke - he sees what he wants to see and is blind to everything else.
Name-calling? Isn't that a little juvenile?
For every so-called scientific discovery supposedly made by Chazal, I can point out a dozen bogus scientific claims.
Yes, it's the sharpshooter's fallacy or a variety thereon.
^^^
Should be,"or a variety thereof."
>Pruzansky is a joke - he sees what he wants to see and is blind to everything else.<
I totally agree. I've met him and spoken to him. In my opinion, one of the most closed-minded and downright nasty rabbis I've ever met. He has a law degree. A shame to waste all that education on a biased, blind mentality.
Rabbi Slifkin could pound ignoramuses like this into the ground in 5 minutes.
Pruzansky is simply ignorant on this topic, and not interested in the reality. Just more rabbinic propaganda. Perhaps this b/s works well from the bully pulpit.
What's weird is that for all his education, he doesn't seem to understand what science is. If you accept the understanding that "flying towers" mean that Chazal thought heavier than air flight was possible, that still doesn't suggest they had the slightest idea how that might be, let alone that they deduced this fact through observation. It typifies his approach in general, which is using educated-sounding words (people he disagrees with are sophists or engaged in polemics) incorrectly to advance a philosophy somewhere between chareidism and gibberish.
IIRC, the Talmud mentions magic flying carpets. The kind you see in cartoons. They, too, are heavier than air. But the clown Pruzansky won't mention them because they are too unlike vehicles used in modern air travel.
But a "tower?" No problem. Just zap on a few wings and you've got an airplane, or add a nose-cone and a rocket propulsion system, and you've got a space shuttle.
What an idiot.
...that still doesn't suggest they had the slightest idea how that might be
Fair enough. But its still somewhat impressive to think they "may" have suggested an airplane.
Ok, but in real theology there are only two possibilities here:
1. Chazal benefited from divine knowledge, could have built an airplane, but either lacked the materials, lacked the desire, or knew they shouldn't. (This is the Chareidi view)
2. Chazal did not have such knowledge.
What he's suggesting seems to be that Chazal figured this out on their own, and chose to mention it offhandedly, without referencing any of the underlying physics they also would have needed to know.
If it turns out Doc Brown was right, and time travel is possible, that doesn't make Robert Zemeckis the greatest scientist of our time.
If Sholomo Hamelech dove an automobile (Artscroll Gitten Vol 2 page 68-1, last footnote), I don't see why Chazal couldn't have invented an airplane
or a third option
3) Chazal were "linked" in the the divine source that knew such things would exist and can exist. Divine inspiration being at times vague, they received only a glimmer of such a possibility.
3 is effectively a weaker form of 1, and still not science if the word has any meaning whatsoever. And if that's the case, the reason Jews don't credit for our discoveries isn't because we have bad pr, it's because we intentionally sit on our mystical knowledge.
I don't know if its weaker than 1. I think its what most average minded charedim believe. You are right that with that, it means we simply sit on our mystical knowledge and even with number 3, it still does not help the Rabbi because it still doesn't contribute anything to furthering science.
> If it turns out Doc Brown was right, and time travel is possible, that doesn't make Robert Zemeckis the greatest scientist of our time.
That’s a great analogy. SciFi authors write about technology that doesn’t exist all the time. Sometimes they’re right, but they’re just as often wrong and it’s really all just speculation. Same thing with the Chazal.
"If it turns out Doc Brown was right, and time travel is possible, that doesn't make Robert Zemeckis the greatest scientist of our time."
I am using this line as often as possible from now on.
To me what's more amazing is that he is basically touting the turn away from Judaism among Western European Jews 200 years ago as something Jewish.
Furthermore, the notion that "Education in Eastern Europe was almost universal on some level" is misleading. Yes, he's careful to write "on some level," but that obscures what that level actually was.
1) Firstly, obviously women were almost entirely excluded.
2) Secondly, it completely ended for well over 90% of males between the ages of 10 and 13, and the reason why it ended for most of them is because they had barely learned anything over the prior 7 to 10 years.
3) Thirdly, it was so rudimentary that it did not even include teaching how to write for most. The writings of Shaul Stampfer are illuminating on this point. Prior to the invention of printing, writing was taught in the traditional Ashkenazi cheder. It had to be, since kids had to copy texts in order to have texts. This stopped once printed books became widely available. If a parent wanted a child to learn how to write, he would hire a tutor called a schreiber, and of course most people had no money for that.
4) Most graduates of the cheder never even learned to understand Hebrew, let alone the ability to write in it.
5) Most people did not learn basic arithmetic, which was not taught in the cheder. Yes, some people acquired it in a rudimentary fashion.
Ultimately the idea that Jews respected book learning, originally religious and eventually secular, is true. But is this really something Pruzansky admires? Maybe in some Platonic way, but in the way it actually went down in history? Highly doubt it.
To address the point of this post, imagination is great, but it should not be equated with science.
I hate to be so fussy, but could the author please get the rabbi's name right? It's spelled Pruzansky, as you can see from his own blog.
"Education in Eastern Europe was almost universal on some level"
Given the almost complete exclusion of women from Jewish formal education two centuries ago, I'm tempted to ask Rabbi Pruzansky, "What are we, chopped liver?"
R' Pruzansky doesn't think women should learn Torah in the first place. Remember his rant against women rabbis (and anything he associates with them) from a year or two ago, where he said that women learning Torah is sketchy and that's why Yoatzot are treif... in other words, he wants all the women to be bringing their dirty underwear to him, and not to a menschlich scholarly woman to address their nida issues.
The Steipler says regarding Heavenly decrees, that once He makes the decree, all of a person's efforts to avoid it are for naught. His efforts may even contribute to it! Hashem decrees everything on Rosh HaShana. Even if it appears to us that we take actions that may lead to a certain desired result, it is only because that result happens to coincide with Hashem's plan, and would have been achieved in any case.
From the Haggadah of the Roshei Yeshiva, vol. 1, pp144-145
Has Nate actually become a spambot? I can't figure out another explanation for this comment.
Post a Comment