tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post3435335992007143206..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Should Modern Orthodox Jews say Birchat HaChammah? Or is it a bracha levatalah?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-4776624089511393232009-04-08T00:11:00.000-04:002009-04-08T00:11:00.000-04:00"Are there are examples..."I'm not sure this metho..."Are there are examples..."<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure this methodological question applies to just Modern Orthodox. (In fact, I just chose modern orthodox in this case because of the possibility of applying all three arguments.) Is the Shulchan Aruch and Rema (and Mishnah Brurah) always determinative of final psak? And what if most poskim follow one line, while among others there is a dispute in which there is one posek who holds X regardless while a whole bunch of others argue. What should be the course there? It is a good question.<BR/><BR/>I am not sure, BTW, that Rambam was interpreting or framing the gemaras at all. We don't know this was not mechanical application of kelalei horaah, without a place for his input. Though that, too, would be somewhat meaningful.<BR/><BR/>kt,<BR/>joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-91094417349676232152009-04-08T00:05:00.000-04:002009-04-08T00:05:00.000-04:00perhaps after yom tov. thanks for the explanation ...perhaps after yom tov. thanks for the explanation of the Rambam. <BR/><BR/>Rambam btw need not hold anything about the literalness of the days, since he does not advance Rashi's explanation. but then since he does not explain himself, I am not sure I should advance any explanation.<BR/><BR/>in the meantime, in terms of shem umalchus, IIRC this is a consistent shitta in a whole bunch of brachot in masechet brachot, whether the gemara intended them with shem umalchus or not. I think this manifests itself by hakazat dam, with the Shach vs. the Taz, but this is entirely from memory and way to late at night.<BR/><BR/>As for the rest, hopefully I will get a chance to think about it over Yom Tov, and elaborate afterward.<BR/><BR/>kol tuv,<BR/>joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-57739623792917250112009-04-08T00:04:00.000-04:002009-04-08T00:04:00.000-04:00"Although lo tehdar pnei gadol, and all that, such..."Although lo tehdar pnei gadol, and all that, such that if we think that such a framing is misguided, perhaps... This is all off the cuff."<BR/><BR/>Are there are examples where you would say that MO do or should ignore SA and accepted practice when it follows a rishon who was aware of the same issues the MO are grappling with??earlieranonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-30843924025867812932009-04-07T23:57:00.000-04:002009-04-07T23:57:00.000-04:00what do you think the rambam thought abaye meant? ...what do you think the rambam thought abaye meant? or the gemara meant? <BR/><BR/>"(I *thought*, based on bad recollection, that it was that he would be *willing* to consider it such if so compelled by scientific evidence)"<BR/><BR/>sounds like you are remembering what he says about kadmus haolam, a different issue. I wouldn't think this is a machlokes between yad and moreh. I think it's identical to his knowing that the calculation is off even w/o the days of breishis issue. Also in moreh rambam implies that Chazal thought the days were nonliteral and he cites a chazal saying that they mean what he says! Which the meforshim take to mean non-literal days. (Yes this is not nec. all chazl and just this memre.) I would think he assumes they purposefully took an imprecise calculation for birkas hachama (My assumption). You argue if I understand you that he decided the halacha is like this even though abaye etc didn't know the calculation is off but we should make the bracha anyway?<BR/><BR/>the shem umalchus point is interesting though i confess it sounds a little unlikely to me. <BR/><BR/>would be interesting to continue after yom tov if you wish. kol tuvearlieranonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-32686123014487619722009-04-07T22:58:00.000-04:002009-04-07T22:58:00.000-04:00perhaps I'll have opportunity to continue this aft...perhaps I'll have opportunity to continue this after, or during Pesach.<BR/><BR/>I do think Rambam is a much better point than Abaye. And that certainly there have been multiple perspectives on this practice throughout different generations. (Including Geonim and some Rishonim against, and Rambam and others in favor.) Rambam certainly does not have to agree with me, and as someone MO look up to as a Rishon, Rabbi, rationalist and scholar, he certainly would seem to provide good precedent. Although lo tehdar pnei gadol, and all that, such that if we think that such a framing is misguided, perhaps... This is all off the cuff.<BR/><BR/>Rambam is difficult because he does not often explicitly cite his sources and explain his rationale. It is unclear, e.g., if he considered the silence of the Yerushalmi to amount to an active machloket; or what, if any theory behind this restatement of the gemara he had. In terms of Moreh Nevuchim, I don't know the specifics there (I *thought*, based on bad recollection, that it was that he would be *willing* to consider it such if so compelled by scientific evidence), but my impression was also that this is not the first place we find a divergence between the Moreh and the Yad.<BR/><BR/>In terms of bracha levatala, contrast with the wording he uses for keshet, in the seif above, and hakazat dam, below. Are you certain that he intended shem umalchut in this blessing?<BR/><BR/>kol tuv, and have a great pesach.<BR/>joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-20682902758463262192009-04-07T20:07:00.000-04:002009-04-07T20:07:00.000-04:00also as I mentioned earlier, the meforshim on the ...also as I mentioned earlier, the meforshim on the moreh understand Rambam to take the days of creation non-literally. And we see this too was not an issue for Rambam wrt to birkas hachama.earlieranonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-71370243233835896252009-04-07T19:59:00.000-04:002009-04-07T19:59:00.000-04:00above is earlieranonabove is earlieranonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-48455769249358428402009-04-07T19:54:00.000-04:002009-04-07T19:54:00.000-04:00"in terms of rishonim, i would like to see the pre..."in terms of rishonim, i would like to see the precise statements they make that take symbolism over accuracy in identifying the sun in its tekufah, rather than attributing this to them as well. otherwise, it seems like people nowadays are rationalizing what they think *has to be* the practice, and inventing excuses, rather than engaging the sources on their own terms and determining what the practice should be."<BR/><BR/>A little time before the bedika and I wanted to address this because I think rishonim is where your arguments fall apart. Rambam defintitely knew precise calculations and that this was off and still codifies birkas hachama every 28 years lehalacha. I see you acknowledge this in your latest posts and agree on this point. So even if you say abaye did not realize how imprecise the calculation is etc or he did, but instituted the bracha only for his time. and the redactors of the gemara, you argue even if they realized, they may just have recorded abaye's opinion and not wanted to argue on it. Yet with rishonim, we see some paskening differently, maybe b/c they thought this calculation is not the one we use and too imprecise. But rambam does use this calculation. So I see two possibilites. One that rambam thought like you (which as you see I think is not correct), that abaye uses the imprecise calculation not knowing or agreeing that his is off or not meaning it ledorot - but still rambam does not think it's a bracha levatala! Alternatively,rambam thought we calculate roughly for birkas hachama b/c otherwise it is too rare an event, or we use easier calculations for such a bracha even if it's not the correct calculation - or whatever. I don't know why else he may have thought to pasken we make the bracha every 28 years, but clearly he thought - knowing the calculation is off - that we do and did not think it a bracha levatala! So we see rishonim aware of the issue, and we follow those who say to make the bracha and obviously the issue of the imprecise calculation was known to rambam. Rambam does sometimes pasken like yerushalmi in cases of dispute in bavli, and he also sometimes omits things brought in gemara, so that would seem strong evidence that at least he thought it's still OK to follow abaye for this bracha. <BR/><BR/>Wrt interolating reasons - what else might the rambam have thought? I see these explanations as realistic and good reasons for him paskening as he did, but maybe there is another reason he did so. <BR/><BR/>"this is one of several possibilies -- and to justify it, they did not know all braytot either. other possibilities include that he knew of it but regarded it as a dispute; or knew of it but did not realize that the rounding errors would produce such a dramatic effect; or that he knew of it, but was only speaking for his time, for which it *was* accurate enough."<BR/><BR/>but rambam did know, so how do you explain him?<BR/><BR/>Wishing you all the best, and may the next 28 years be full of good things for all of us and continuation to grow in torah and avodas hashem until the next birkas hachama where hopefully moshiach will be here and we'll have our answers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-74500822255580781622009-04-07T18:27:00.000-04:002009-04-07T18:27:00.000-04:00thanks.kt,joshthanks.<BR/>kt,<BR/>joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-67475260127002440732009-04-07T18:04:00.000-04:002009-04-07T18:04:00.000-04:00See hereSee p.12 from the משאת בנימין.See p.16 fro...See <A HREF="http://www.scribd.com/doc/6391895/birkashachama" REL="nofollow">here</A><BR/><BR/>See p.12 from the משאת בנימין.<BR/><BR/>See p.16 from יחוה דעת where it says "והמקום" until the end.yaakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08179304707239865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-18297491956432816832009-04-07T13:27:00.000-04:002009-04-07T13:27:00.000-04:00Rav Yatz Rimon from Alon Shevut has a really nice ...Rav Yatz Rimon from Alon Shevut has a really nice shiur on torah.libsyn.com where he addresses all these issues as well. It seems that from the constellation of evidence -- they knew Rav Adda was right, and in any case, we don't Poskin that B'Nissan Nivra Ha'Olam -- Hayom Harat Olam?! we are combining two rejected Shittos to get to this Bracha -- it's inconceivable that Rambam, et al. overlooked it; it's clear that something else is going on here. (I think the Ba'al HaMa'or/5769 issue can be "answered up" -- Rabbi Moshe Sokolow has a derech in which he asserts that the 165 years were deliberately omitted to even out extra years introduced in Tekufat HaShoftim to reach the thematically significant 480. The old earth issue is harder). Maybe the point is rather the symbolism of the sun, V'Zarach HaShemesh U'Ba Hashemesh -- the Kohelet analogy to generations; thus it makes a great deal of sense to purposefully schedule this on every fourth Hakhel year, after just having seen the entire people last Sukkos-time and realize that there are a lot of new faces, and missing faces since the last one.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16030918481954784617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-66226352206119630322009-04-06T16:57:00.000-04:002009-04-06T16:57:00.000-04:00"I don't know why you assume this [only] revolves ..."I don't know why you assume this [only] revolves around what abaye himself thought"<BR/>it certainly revolves *a lot* about what Abaye thought. and this is what people (nowadays) are attributing to him.<BR/><BR/>in terms of rishonim, i would like to see the precise statements they make that take symbolism over accuracy in identifying the sun in its tekufah, rather than attributing this to them as well. otherwise, it seems like people nowadays are rationalizing what they think *has to be* the practice, and inventing excuses, rather than engaging the sources on their own terms and determining what the practice should be.<BR/><BR/>"i think it's weird to say that abaye did not know of the more precise calculation."<BR/>this is one of several possibilies -- and to justify it, they did not know all braytot either. other possibilities include that he knew of it but regarded it as a dispute; or knew of it but did not realize that the rounding errors would produce such a dramatic effect; or that he knew of it, but was only speaking for his time, for which it *was* accurate enough.<BR/><BR/>kol tuv,<BR/>joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-5480115867598158512009-04-06T16:32:00.000-04:002009-04-06T16:32:00.000-04:00Monday, April 06, 2009 4:16:00 PM should be only r...Monday, April 06, 2009 4:16:00 PM should be only revolvesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-46245654848028517932009-04-06T16:27:00.000-04:002009-04-06T16:27:00.000-04:00"we disregard the straightforward meaning, as per ..."we disregard the straightforward meaning, as per Rashi, that he believes it actually is coming to the same position as maaseh bereishit"<BR/><BR/>we're not disregarding this. we're disregarding precise calculations to get there or more accurately assuming precise calculations were disregarded to get there. i think it's weird to say that abaye did not know of the more precise calculation. that's harder to say than to infer he did not mean that the caluclation here was precise. <BR/><BR/>I'm out of time here before pesach so this will have to be the end on my side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-59133205136341564332009-04-06T16:16:00.000-04:002009-04-06T16:16:00.000-04:00"and we claim from elsewhere that he must know tha..."and we claim from elsewhere that he must know that there is something more accurate"<BR/><BR/>I don't know why you assume this revolves around what abaye himself thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-6227060156879116902009-04-06T16:13:00.000-04:002009-04-06T16:13:00.000-04:00"since much of Torah sheBaal Peh is written down n..."since much of Torah sheBaal Peh is written down nowadays, am I to assume that every great rabbi is aware of *every* source in midrash, halacha, hashkafa?"<BR/><BR/>I don't get these parallels to contemporary rabbonim. when you see say the commentaries on midrash, some only two hundred years ago or even less, you realize some of them did know just about every midrash as they cross reference all the parallels w/o any technological aid. they know what they are working on with remarkable bekiut - maybe the fact that we today rely more on technology in general makes us limit our study and memory skills since such bekiut today is obviously so much rarer if it even exists! similarly the saboraim surely knew what was in the gemara. and no this does not mean any given one cant miss something but as a group over time to posit such lacuna is very strange IMO. i think great rishonim had tremendous command of just about everything available to them (not everything was available to them of course) the comparison to contemporary rabbonim is telling as our system does not emphasize bekiut whereas in poland two hundred years ago there were fantastic bekiim - kal vachomer to those who came earlier and the less material there is to command the greater the bekiut in primary sources also. <BR/><BR/>"even if they did know, who says it was there place to comment, or chas veshalom, to filter out Abaye's statement?"<BR/><BR/>but this is very different than what precedes in the paragraph. yes, i assume they did understand the difference and of course knew one was more accurate than the other, even how much more accurate. not every last person has to do the calculation either.<BR/><BR/>"those earlier authorities who note the difference would *seem* to be attributing error in this calculation to Abaye, who appears to have instituted this. There are likely other ways of interpreting this, of course."<BR/><BR/>and others who noted the difference and decided that earlier authorities said we can follow abaye anyway for the symbolism. as i wrote, that these authorities noted this is not evidence for your side that microsoft excel makes the difference. <BR/><BR/>we aren't going to agree... kol tuv and thanks for taking this in good spirit.earlieranonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-44154409444758095712009-04-06T15:55:00.000-04:002009-04-06T15:55:00.000-04:00"relates"also, the above relates to the gemara in ..."relates"<BR/>also, the above relates to the gemara in this case, since we are effectively claiming that since the calculations of Abaye do not accord to reality, and we claim from elsewhere that he must know that there is something more accurate, we disregard the straightforward meaning, as per Rashi, that he believes it actually is coming to the same position as maaseh bereishit and are instead (falsely IMHO) attributing to him other motivations -- he does not want it so often, but does want it to be regular and easy to count, and want to inspire us with reason X. And therefore, he knowingly is establishing a "false" time in which the sun is not in its tekufah for hidden, inspirational reasons that we ourselves get to provide. It seems to me to be the same thing.<BR/><BR/>kt,<BR/>joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-66405265825338355072009-04-06T15:51:00.000-04:002009-04-06T15:51:00.000-04:00"the first is different than the second. they had ..."the first is different than the second. they had it in front of them so they knew!"<BR/><BR/>since much of Torah sheBaal Peh is written down nowadays, am I to assume that every great rabbi is aware of *every* source in midrash, halacha, hashkafa? Anyway, What I mean by "knew the divergence" is that they knew and appreciated how significant the divergence would be, such that every 128 or so years it would shift a day? or that r' adda's, while different, was more accurate, and accorded that much closer to the actual solar behavior. and anyway, even if they did know, who says it was there place to comment, or chas veshalom, to filter out Abaye's statement?<BR/><BR/>those earlier authorities who note the difference would *seem* to be attributing error in this calculation to Abaye, who appears to have instituted this. There are likely other ways of interpreting this, of course.<BR/><BR/>kt and have a great pesach,<BR/>joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-52343956176826281282009-04-06T15:40:00.000-04:002009-04-06T15:40:00.000-04:00"one possibility seems a lot more plausible to me ..."one possibility seems a lot more plausible to me than the other."<BR/><BR/>sure, don't see how this relates<BR/><BR/>"It is a good question. I would assume not."<BR/>I dont assume all chazal agree <BR/><BR/>"Who says that those particular savoraim redacting the Talmud in this place knew the divergence, or even if so, saw it their place to argue on what an Amora said?"<BR/><BR/>the first is different than the second. they had it in front of them so they knew!<BR/><BR/>"indeed, apparently some Rishonim did reject Abaye's position and instead held that it meant the Sun after 3 days of clouds."<BR/><BR/>but this is very different than not knowing the difference. we pasken differently but the assumption that that's b/c earlier figures didn't know what was going on is not proven by citing early authorities who note the difference! <BR/><BR/>Btw i apologize for repeatedly not remembering to take a pseudonym. be well and a good pesachearlieranonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-20009021183009153822009-04-06T14:20:00.000-04:002009-04-06T14:20:00.000-04:00"Wouldn't it be sad if just on this mitzva MO spli..."Wouldn't it be sad if just on this mitzva MO split off and decided it's not for them and only for the haredim?"<BR/><BR/>indeed. yeranen yaakov made a similar point above about Agudot Agudot, but not with such contrast as you offered.<BR/><BR/>kt,<BR/>joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-44642050741555542182009-04-06T14:17:00.000-04:002009-04-06T14:17:00.000-04:00not everything in my response has to be "relevant....not everything in my response has to be "relevant." my purpose is not to convince you, which I know i will not do, but to reiterate my position spelled out above.<BR/><BR/>the harmonization and possibility for dispute does seem relevant though. i had a similar discussion elsewhere, in multiple places. do we assume apparent mess-ups are deliberate, and read against the plain meaning of what rabbinic sources say?<BR/><BR/>for example, the mathematics in Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer to calculate an 84 year cycle is all messed up, by ignoring chalakim and conflating the lengths of lunar and solar years. One answer is that the author of PDE messed up. The other is that, despite the fact that a 84 year cycle was the known and established cycle by Romans and Christians, the author of PDE is *deliberately* messing up, because he intends a secret mystical message. one possibility seems a lot more plausible to me than the other.<BR/><BR/>or a demonstration that a gemara in Yerushalmi shows knowledge that the earth is a sphere. Do I then conclude that *all* of Chazal believed the earth was round, even where the straightforward reading of other gemaras is otherwise? It is a good question. I would assume not.<BR/><BR/>I don't want to discuss midrashim here because it is too far afield. perhaps next time I address something midrashic?<BR/><BR/>Back to kiddush hachama, knowledge is not universal. Amoraim, e.g., could be counted on to know every Mishna, but not every brayta. Who says that those particular savoraim redacting the Talmud in this place knew the divergence, or even if so, saw it their place to argue on what an Amora said? As I wrote earlier, things are encoded in the gemara only to be rejected by Rishonim. See all the times the gemara's apparent conclusion, with an Amora's statement, <A HREF="http://alfasi.blogspot.com/search?q=%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%99%D7%90" REL="nofollow">is called a shinuya by the Rif</A> and rejected.<BR/><BR/>http://alfasi.blogspot.com/search?q=%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%99%D7%90<BR/><BR/>indeed, apparently some Rishonim did reject Abaye's position and instead held that it meant the Sun after 3 days of clouds. See my <A HREF="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/04/birchas-hachama-after-three-days-of.html" REL="nofollow">more recent</A> post. And read the Chabad article about it.<BR/><BR/>So this idea of going against this statement of Abaye is actually not my own innovation...<BR/><BR/>kt,<BR/>joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-36270066274932346912009-04-06T14:15:00.000-04:002009-04-06T14:15:00.000-04:00I just want to articulate two other points Regard...I just want to articulate two other points Regarding shul rabbis today - the ones who allegedly are not aware of the problem and haven't read artscroll, I think they wouldn't even know there are two systems of calculations. The redactors of the gemara did know this. Are we to think they thought using one calculation there and the other here is just happenstance? That one is more precise, but not figuring how much more precise? To me obviously this is not plausible, but regardless there is a big difference between not knowing of how the calculations are made and of different systems and knowing. <BR/><BR/>Also an irony regarding the practical aspect of MO not making the bracha. Here we have one Artscroll book written by a YU rosh yeshiva, used by haredim and MO alike. One mitzva in which Artscroll has allowed us to get together in unity so that many on the left and right are reading the same material to appreciate the mitzva. Wouldn't it be sad if just on this mitzva MO split off and decided it's not for them and only for the haredim? This introduces disunity in a rare moment of unity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-42981286724345459182009-04-06T14:04:00.000-04:002009-04-06T14:04:00.000-04:00but i do appreciate that you are not taking this p...but i do appreciate that you are not taking this personally! a chag kasher vesameachAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-72401972180233180222009-04-06T14:01:00.000-04:002009-04-06T14:01:00.000-04:00I don't see how you're addressing my response. "i...I don't see how you're addressing my response. <BR/><BR/>"i do indeed believe that Chazal were not monolithic in scientific or mathematical beliefs. Just as there were severe disputes between non-Jewish scientists."<BR/>that's not relevant. <BR/><BR/>"If one source seems to directly contradict another, the answer is not, IMHO, to say "they did not mean it; they meant is figuratively." That is harmonization, and sometimes the harmonization is true. But often it is a kvetch in the wrong direction, based on the assumption that both must simultaneously be write, and all of Chazal are in agreement on these matters."<BR/><BR/>not relevant either<BR/><BR/>"However, not everyone has the same approach to midrashim, and that includes rishonim, and that includes Acharonim, some of whom design whole systems of midrashic methodology to explain what is going on. And there is focusing on the pasuk in different ways."<BR/><BR/>also not relevant. you're claiming they didn't know a,b,c over which there is no one disputing. Your shul rabbis don't look up the original midrash, if htey do they daven it. seeing what in posuk the respond to is a universal that anyone who is paying attention grasps, it's an elementary reading skill. <BR/><BR/>"They may have had both calculations, but did they regard this as a *machlokes*, or as one being accurate and one inaccurate? Having both calculations, did every person along the way calculate exactly how far off it would be in each instance?"<BR/><BR/>the first question is not related to the second. The second does not have to be every person along the way, and raising that is a red herring. <BR/><BR/>"You are certainly entitled to your opinion, your feelings and your tone. It doesn't bother me."<BR/><BR/>Let's agree to disagree. I think you are not differentiating between different forms of knowledge and skills with the effect of attributing sheer am haaratzus to the greats, especially on midrashim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-56575853855745184492009-04-06T08:45:00.000-04:002009-04-06T08:45:00.000-04:00if you see the methods (in the text) they had to u...if you see the methods (in the text) they had to use to multiply, divide, etc., you would see how much more difficult it is than what we are doing today. and not everyone was an astronomer and mathematician.<BR/><BR/>i do indeed believe that Chazal were not monolithic in scientific or mathematical beliefs. Just as there were severe disputes between non-Jewish scientists. <BR/><BR/>If one source seems to directly contradict another, the answer is not, IMHO, to say "they did not mean it; they meant is figuratively." That is harmonization, and <B>sometimes</B> the harmonization is true. But often it is a kvetch in the wrong direction, based on the assumption that both must simultaneously be write, and all of Chazal are in agreement on these matters.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I do believe that they, like us, were limited in their knowledge, in different ways. Addressing approaches to midrash is way too off topic here. I am glad you know how to read a midrash. However, not everyone has the same approach to midrashim, and that includes rishonim, and that includes Acharonim, some of whom design whole systems of midrashic methodology to explain what is going on. And there is focusing on the pasuk in different ways.<BR/><BR/>They may have had both calculations, but did they regard this as a *machlokes*, or as one being accurate and one inaccurate? Having both calculations, did every person along the way calculate exactly how far off it would be in each instance?<BR/><BR/>You are certainly entitled to your opinion, your feelings and your tone. It doesn't bother me.<BR/><BR/>Kol Tuv,<BR/>Joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.com