tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post3052731970238656214..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Is Rav Kanievsky now a heliocentrist?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-70990862047290387032013-02-12T16:38:13.161-05:002013-02-12T16:38:13.161-05:00About the Lubavitcher Rebbe's position: I thin...About the Lubavitcher Rebbe's position: I think the second option that Rabbi Waxman presented, "that...chazal / torah are justified in using the Ptolemaic model" seems consonant with the Rebbe's approach elsewhere. For example, regarding the Rambam's statement in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, that the Sun's diameter is 170 times that of the Earth: This doesn't agree with the modern-day figure, but the Rebbe answered that by saying that the sun's diameter undergoes fluctuations.<br /><br />In short, I think the Rebbe was very reluctant to ever label something in the Torah as blatantly "wrong".Yehudah P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07106486936359817772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-17597172648043808532010-04-22T06:54:33.623-04:002010-04-22T06:54:33.623-04:00In a brief conversation with Rabbi Kanievski (abou...In a brief conversation with Rabbi Kanievski (about 4-5 years ago)regarding his sefer shekel hakodesh, and his ptolemaic diagram of the epi-cycle of the moon. I asked him that today people say that once can use the helocentic model and one would not need any epi-cycle.<br /><br />He said that he knows that but he was going with the shitas harambam<br />[who follows the ptolemaic model]<br /><br />I then asked him. so which is correct, the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa.?<br /><br />he said that when moishiach comes, he will decide that. <br /><br />this seems to be in accordance with what wikijew says.<br /><br /><br />dovidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-30896676141323217772009-08-20T08:52:14.368-04:002009-08-20T08:52:14.368-04:00The Rebbe presented the Scientific facts incorrect...The Rebbe presented the Scientific facts incorrectly, claiming that in view of relativity theory the daily rotation of the Earth around its axis is a relative fact, and one can just as well say that the Earth is not rotating and the stars circle the Earth every day. The philosopher Mach first proposed the equivalence posed by the Rebbe. In physics, it is not true. Indeed, the Coriolis force is a case in point.madaralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12464817724312275528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-17604510780799611702009-08-19T10:09:21.623-04:002009-08-19T10:09:21.623-04:00yes, that is indeed an important position, though ...yes, that is indeed an important position, though i have my suspicions that he only maintained that to win a bet. (records of the bet are well-known.)<br /><br />i've heard this presented in three ways: that therefore geocentrism is the true description of the world, and there is no scientific evidence that copernicus was right; that therefore chazal / torah are justified in using the Ptolemaic model; and that one can therefore be a heliocentrist without being a kofer. these can be significant overlap between some of these three positions, but there does not need to be.<br /><br />there are significant objections to this assertion, imho. i am no expert in the Rebbe's thought or in astronomy, and others can correct me, but perhaps i will present it in a later post. in shorthand: stellar parallax, the coriolus effect, the motion of pendulums, the fact that all *other* planets still would be rotating on their axis, so why not earth, and the need to resort to epicycles in the ptolmaic model to account for the apparent retrograde motion of the planets. of course you can describe motions from any vantage point using any coordinate system, but the heliocentric model explains it much more simply and accounts for all these phenomena.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-18384167216686827582009-08-19T08:16:19.214-04:002009-08-19T08:16:19.214-04:00It's worth noting the Lubavitcher Rebbe specif...It's worth noting the Lubavitcher Rebbe specifically wrote about thsi as well. He brought an interesting scientific argument to support the geocentric position, namely that being science does not claim any location as the center of anything - rather astronomically everything is relative to each other, that scientifically a geocentric argument is just as valid as a heliocentric argument.Akivahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13042484533217272945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-79330326751820606752009-08-19T07:17:36.133-04:002009-08-19T07:17:36.133-04:00little cart:
thanks! here this was what i thought ...little cart:<br />thanks! here this was what i thought i was doing.<br /><br />wikijew:<br />thanks; that certainly qualifies matters. i have egg on my face. you should put this note in the discussion section, because as it stands, the simple opposition of quotes (without stating it was from the same source, and one was without the comma, etc.), it is easy to conclude that different quotes may have come from different times.<br /><br />in terms of personal view, i agree (and agreed) that he doesn't hold it kefirah. but is this just when one maintains Rav Nadel's view, that it was just Chazal's way of talking?<br /><br />(i'd love to have images of this correspondence. i don't require it, though; what you say makes sense and i already believe you. if you want to send me the images, my address is joshwaxman, and it is a yahoo address.)<br /><br />kol tuv and thanks!<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-29038867903120287962009-08-18T22:22:13.496-04:002009-08-18T22:22:13.496-04:00As the one who edited that Wikipedia paragraph, pl...As the one who edited that Wikipedia paragraph, please allow me to clarify what's going on here.<br /><br />To my knowledge, the <i>only</i> source which has Rav Chaim saying that heliocentrism is kefirah is the Seforim blog's quote of Rav Genut's Bircas HaChamah Betekufasah (note correct spelling). However, this is apparently a misquote; what the sefer actually says is exactly the opposite! The actual wording is as follows (I don't have the sefer, but this is pretty close to the exact loshon):<br /><br />ר' חיים קניבסקי שולל את הדעה כי המחזיק בשיטת קופרניקוס הוא כופר.<br /><br />The original quoter (whoever that was) mistakenly read this sentence with a comma before the word כי, meaning that Rav Chaim negated the view of heliocentrism, because one who accepts this view is a kofer. However, from the wording of the actual statement as well as from its context there, it clearly means that R' Chaim negated the view <i>of Sefer Habris etc.</i> (cited earlier in the sefer) that heliocentrism is kefirah. So there never was any stirah to begin with! Both Rav Chaim and Rav Genut are completely consistent.<br /><br />A friend of mine, who was not aware of this misreading, wrote a detailed question to Rav Chaim asking him to reconcile the seemingly conflicting quotes. Rav Chaim answered:<br />בספר הברית כתב שהוא כפירה, אבל ר' גדלי' ז"ל אמר שאין מוכרח שדברה תורה כלשון בנ"א וכפי הנראה<br /><br />(I can email you images of this correspondence if you wish.)<br /><br />Rav Chaim apparently didn't bother dealing with what was quoted in his name (maybe since "everything they say in my name is false" anyway...). He also doesn't mention his personal view. But one thing is for sure - he wouldn't answer this way if he held it was definitely kefirah.<br /><br />Moral of the story: Always check your sources!wikijewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-12195672350341730782009-08-18T18:11:11.156-04:002009-08-18T18:11:11.156-04:00One reason why I appreciate your blog is for the s...One reason why I appreciate your blog is for the sophisticated deference that you show towards those whom you know are Giants. <br />I did not lose out by reading this specific post, as it reported what is, to me, new and interesting information. But I sensed here a lapse of effort in your desire for the truth. I point it out only to encourage you to dissect this a little bit more, in your thoughts. <br /><br />Haphoch Ba Ve'Haphoch Ba, DeKulah Ba! While your allegiance to rationalism is necessary (and in common with me), your awareness of the depths latent in Torah should be a part of your rational process. <br />That is to say- let's slow down, and let's include in our analysis of Rav Kanievsky's ambiguous remarks, the fact that he is a genuinely esteemed Rav who spends his days and nights in untenured study. And most crucially- let's include the fact that the Torah which you so enjoy to continuously uncover (an enjoyment that you afford to others as well) might eventually lead you to the discovery that the world has yet to discover itself.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01233165535343669173noreply@blogger.com