9 replies to this topic

[Chaim613]

One of my favorite (and many people's) proofs of the Torah's divine origin is the simanim on the kosher animals except for the 4 animals mentioned in Vayikra; and also that famous Gemaras about all fish with scales also have fins.

This gentleman's website, although certainly coming from a bad standpoint, brings sources that these may not be so full-proof...citing fish that have scales and no fins. I was hoping you could elaborate on his claims.

www.*******

He has many articles of a similar nature. While I know that they are wrong, I would like to know more about why.

Furthermore, are there some seforim (in English even better) that deal with specific issues that the apikorsim have raised in the past? Like a da ma shetoshiv for things which look like "bad science" on the part of chazal Pesachim 94b: “The wise men of Israel say that during the day the sun goes below the firmament and at night above the firmament, and the wise men of the Gentiles say that during the day the sun goes below the firmament and at night below the ground.” There are many examples far better than this.

thank you,
Chaim

[Rabbi Shapiro]

One of my favorite (and many people's) proofs of the Torah's divine origin is the simanim on the kosher animals except for the 4 animals mentioned in Vayikra; and also that famous Gemaras about all fish with scales also have fins.

This gentleman's website, although certainly coming from a bad standpoint, brings sources that these may not be so full-proof...citing fish that have scales and no fins. I was hoping you could elaborate on his claims.

www.*****

He has many articles of a similar nature. While I know that they are wrong, I would like to know more about why.

Furthermore, are there some seforim (in English even better) that deal with specific issues that the apikorsim have raised in the past? Like a da ma shetoshiv for things which look like "bad science" on the part of chazal Pesachim 94b: “The wise men of Israel say that during the day the sun goes below the firmament and at night above the firmament, and the wise men of the Gentiles say that during the day the sun goes below the firmament and at night below the ground.” There are many examples far better than this.

thank you,
Chaim

I took the liberty of lightly editing your post. It is not permitted to advertise sites that spew Apikorsus.

About the fish scales, Rav Yonason Eyebuschitz (Kreisi Upleisi 40) writes that Chazal say these things as general rules. It doesn't mean there are absolutely no exceptions. The vast majority of fish that have scales have fins. That's all it means.

There is also the matter of Chazal's classification of what is a "fish." Chazal don't use biological scientific classifications when they say these things. A bat, in the Torah, is considered a bird. And so, the Maadanei Yom Tov in Chulin says that a certain fish he was presented with (called a "stincus marinus"), that had scales but no fins, is perhaps not considered a fish at all but some other kind of marine animal creature, since it actually had legs. In other words, if it doesn't look like a normal fish, it may not be classified as a "fish" by Chazal. And so, this fish that your link shows in the picture, may or may not even be considered a fish technically. But it doesn't really matter because as I mentioned earlier, we accept that there are exceptions (of course, it if proper Halachic due process to try to find an answer that would not require us to make an exception of it - exceptions should be minimized, but absent such an option, an exception it can be).

But it happens to be that in this case your Apikores (not surprisingly) gave false information. It was pointed out on another site that the fish he claimed had scales and no fins actually does have a fin that falls off after a short while. He was asked about that, and while he cannot contradict that he gave false information (it is very blatant) he claims that Chazal didn't mean such a thing. Please paste the following into the address bar following the site's regualr URL (I will not give a link to that site, as I said. But I want you to see it):


MESSAGEID=795

He is of course wrong. Chazal would in fact classify this fish as one that has scales and fins. In short, the Apikores was spouting false scientific information.

As far as the disagreement between the Jewish scholars and the non-Jewish ones regarding the world, this issue has been addressed by many Meforshim - please see the Sefer HaPardes and the Divrei Yoel, among others. Rabbeinu Tam (quoted in Shita Mekubetzes Kesuvos 13b) says that the Jewish scholars were correct in their disagreement with the non-Jewish scholars, we just couldn't argue the case properly.

In general, whenever Chazal make a scientific statement, they are not talking about the observable universe but rather the "real" universe. What we - and the scientists - see is only a graphic user interface, so to speak. The real world - the real sun, real moon, real earth - is not observable by current scientific means. Chazal were talking about the real world when they spoke. I'd recommend this Shiur for a full treatment.

Therefore, the Jewish sages were talking about the "real" universe, which indeed behaves exactly as the Chachmei Yisroel described. The non-Jewish scholars were arguing with limited information, i.e. with what their scientists could see on the "outside," GUI world. We agree that on the outside, it would appear the way they say. But the Chachmei Yisroel saw deeper, they saw into the real world and there, their description is correct.

Of course, they'd never believe the source of our information, which was the Torah's insight into the world, and it is likely assur to explain it to them anyway. So we couldn't really win this argument. But we were right.

[Chaim613]

Thank you, that answer was helpful. I have 2 follow up questions:

1- If there are [even potentially] exceptions to the rule of fins and scales, why is that toted as one of the "BIG PROOFS" of the Torah's authenticity? Not that we need these things to see that the Torah is authentic, but if you're going to mention it, shouldn't it be through and through, otherwise it's really not such a big statement "Most of the fish have fins and scales"

2-I understand about Chazals look at science and the world. My question is if the Gemara is meant for the average Jew to be studying, why include information which the average Jew has no shaychus with (i.e. the "real"/ spiritual sun, earth, etc.)? What can be derived from including this information? The idea of learning the "inner workings" of the universe seems to be things of Kabbalah, which the average Jew isn't meant to be delving into--specifically because he won't know what it's talking about?

respectfully,
Chaim

[Rabbi Shapiro]

Thank you, that answer was helpful. I have 2 follow up questions:

1- If there are [even potentially] exceptions to the rule of fins and scales, why is that toted as one of the "BIG PROOFS" of the Torah's authenticity? Not that we need these things to see that the Torah is authentic, but if you're going to mention it, shouldn't it be through and through, otherwise it's really not such a big statement "Most of the fish have fins and scales"

2-I understand about Chazals look at science and the world. My question is if the Gemara is meant for the average Jew to be studying, why include information which the average Jew has no shaychus with (i.e. the "real"/ spiritual sun, earth, etc.)? What can be derived from including this information? The idea of learning the "inner workings" of the universe seems to be things of Kabbalah, which the average Jew isn't meant to be delving into--specifically because he won't know what it's talking about?

respectfully,
Chaim

1 - You mean "touted," not "toted." Touted where exactly?

2 - There are numerous things Chazal tell us based on their knowledge of the real world, one of which is the Sugya you mention in Pesachim. That affects, for example, the disagreement between Rabbeinu Tam and the Geonim as to when Shekiyah and Tzais HaKochavim take place. Please see the Seforim I cited above. Rabbeinu Tam's opinion is based on the activity of the "real" sun and stars as opposed to the physically visible sun and stars. That is just one example. There are many.

And no, it is not prohibited for the average Jew to know, for example, that the "real" sun sets 58 1/2 minutes after the physically visible version of the sun. The average Jew is not "delving into" anything here - Chazal did. The average Jew is being informed of Chazal's findings. That's not a problem. It's like for example, if I tell you that al pi Kabalah you should use both hands when you give over the cup of wine to the person who will be leading the Bentching. You are not delving into anything. You're just being notified of the information obtained by those who did the delving. Or like when Chazal told us that the Sar of the Yam Suf complained that the Jews worshiped idols and so the Yam Suf should not split for them. Obviously Chazal knew this in ways that we cannot, but them telling it to us is not a problem.

But anyway, this is not the result of Kabbalistic delving. It is simply Chazal's knowledge of the Torah that gave them the insight into the natural universe. Please listen to the Shiur I referenced above - it explains this at length. If someone were to tell you that the rock you have in your hand is not really .a solid mass but an energy soup of atomic particles travelling in different directions, and that the rock contains enough energy to blow up New York if it were unleashed, you'd think they're crazy, unless you knew the relevant science. You can't identify atomic particles with the naked eye, but with the right instruments you can. The scientists can go deeper and deeper into the nature of the universe, but the Torah goes even deeper than them. A rock may not look much like a rock when you get down to the atomic level, and the orbit of the stars may not look the way it looks to the naked eye when you get down to Chazal's level. So if they said the sun goes here in the day and there at night, the fact that your eyes see things differently shows no more "bad science" than the fact that to your eyes, a rock looks nothing like what a scientist would describe its appearance on a subatomic level.

If you had the scientists' tools you'd see your rock differently; and if you'd have Chazal's tools, you'd see the path of the sun differently.

See also this article.

[Chaim613]

I did mean "touted"...my apologies. Practically every Kiruv organization on the planet will stress the amazingly clear divine origin of the Torah because NO fish has ever been found with scales and no fins.

Along similar lines I guess, it was recently estimated that the number of stars is likely 3 times as much as the scientists had originally estimated. It was published in Nature Magazine at the end of 2010 (http://www.huffingto...e_n_790563.html)

Originally it was kind of close to the Gemara in Brachos 32b which puts the stars at around 10 the 18th power. Every Kiruv book and website proudly displayed the Talmud's number and NASA's 10 to the 21st power as dazzing proof.

1- What if the new discovery is true, and the Talmud's prediction is quite off? Is it also talking about the spiritual stars? I'm asking honestly, not in jest or in smugness, I really would like to know.

2- Why do the kiruv organizations use these things as proofs if, as you mentioned, they may not be meant to be (as in your citation of Kreisi Upleisi) ?

thank you,
Chaim

[Rabbi Shapiro]

I did mean "touted"...my apologies. Practically every Kiruv organization on the planet will stress the amazingly clear divine origin of the Torah because NO fish has ever been found with scales and no fins.

Along similar lines I guess, it was recently estimated that the number of stars is likely 3 times as much as the scientists had originally estimated. It was published in Nature Magazine at the end of 2010 (http://www.huffingto...e_n_790563.html)

Originally it was kind of close to the Gemara in Brachos 32b which puts the stars at around 10 the 18th power. Every Kiruv book and website proudly displayed the Talmud's number and NASA's 10 to the 21st power as dazzing proof.

1- What if the new discovery is true, and the Talmud's prediction is quite off? Is it also talking about the spiritual stars? I'm asking honestly, not in jest or in smugness, I really would like to know.

2- Why do the kiruv organizations use these things as proofs if, as you mentioned, they may not be meant to be (as in your citation of Kreisi Upleisi) ?

thank you,
Chaim

First, what Kiruv organizations do is not always the right thing. I am here to discuss Judaism, not the opinions or acts of random Jews. If a Godol B'Yisroel says something, you can inquire as to why he said it; if a Kiruv organization does something, the only person that is responsible for that is the organization. Kiruv organizations are not Gedolim.

After all, weren't many Kiruv organizations (and Kiruv people) teaching not long ago that the world is billions of years old and that (maybe even) we came from monkeys -- until they found out that is Kefirah?

Some Kiruv organizations and books still teach silly nonsense such as fake "miracles", in order to "prove" the existence of Hashem, and that he is G-d of the Jews. The most blatant example is also the most common: The myth, created out of nothing, that Israel's victory in the '67 war was a miracle. Anyone exposed to history or military experts' analyses knows that this is comical. And then they add that crazy story about West Point not teaching about the 6-day war - another totally made up story, easily shown to be false by anyone who has access to the internet. Or West Point's Military History books. See here.

But as it so happens, in this case, the fish-with-scales-but-no-fins proof was not made up by the Kiruv organizations. It can be found in a Sefer called Yalkut HaEmunah, printed in the back of Eretz Zvi on Moadim, by Rav Aryeh Zvi Frommer ZTL, the Kozheglover Gaon (p. 251).

Rav Yonason Eyebushitz's opinion did not deter him from stating this as a proof, and I assume that is because Rav Yonason never said that Chazal said there ARE some fish in the sea with scales but not fins; merely that they never said there can't be. When Chazal make statements such as the one in Nidah, they don't have to mean there are no possible exceptions.

Are there any exceptions in this case? So far, nobody has found one. At least as far as Rav Frommer was aware, and your Apikores's example does not qualify either. So bottom line, even if Chazal did not say there cannot be any exceptions, the fact that not a single exception has been found to what Chazal said is a general rule is still an astounding "coincidence." Also note, that other Achronim - such as the Taz and Pri Megadim, disagree with Rav Yonason Eyebuschitz and hold that Chazal meant there can be no exceptions. According to them, the proof is simply as it is presented by these organizations. But you are correct in that it is a Machlokes Achronim if we can ever find a fish with scales and no fins.

Now of course, this can never be a totally apodictic proof, nor was it ever meant to be, because the Apikorsim can always say that even though scientists have not found any such fish so far, it doesn't mean they never will. Like they say with holes in the fossil record - that some day they will find the missing fossils. If someone wants to believe such an unlikely thing - regarding the fish or the fossils - that's his business. When we say "proof" in this context we mean enough to be reasonably conclusive.

And of course, there is always the issue of how the Torah defines a fish (as was the case with stincus) - which is not be the same way the biologists do. A bat, for instance, is considered a bird in the Torah, but not by biologists.

[Rabbi Shapiro]

Along similar lines I guess, it was recently estimated that the number of stars is likely 3 times as much as the scientists had originally estimated. It was published in Nature Magazine at the end of 2010 (http://www.huffingto...e_n_790563.html)

Originally it was kind of close to the Gemara in Brachos 32b which puts the stars at around 10 the 18th power. Every Kiruv book and website proudly displayed the Talmud's number and NASA's 10 to the 21st power as dazzing proof.

What if the new discovery is true, and the Talmud's prediction is quite off? Is it also talking about the spiritual stars? I'm asking honestly, not in jest or in smugness, I really would like to know.

thank you,
Chaim

Well, first, no. It doesn't work that way. You don't keep adjusting the pshat based on what scientists say. You look into the Torah, learn it up properly, see from the Gemora and Meforshim what kind of stars Chazal are talking about - spiritual, physical, observable, star-shaped, blue, pink, or what - and then you will know whether it is possible that the scientists could be right when they say there are whatever amount of stars, or whether they will just probably change their minds again some day. We don't adjust the Torah, because of what the scientists say. (Of course b'drech pilpul its perfectly fine to use some scientific fact and fit it into the Gemora, but such Torahs are only intended to be tentative, and do not mean to say that the Gemora is really bound to the opinion of the scientists.)

In this case of the stars, there is a disagreement in Chazal. The Gemora you cited seems to say one thing, but the Medrash Rabbah (Bereishis 1:14) says another:

(ה' אלהיכם הרבה אתכם וגו' למה ברך אותם ככוכבים מה הכוכבים הללו מעלות על גבי מעלות כך הן ישראל מעלות ע"ג מעלות מה הכוכבים הללו אין להם לא חקר ולא מנין כך ישראל אין להם לא חקר ולא מנין מה הכוכבים שליטין מסוף העולם ועד סופו כך ישראל אמר לפניו רבש"ע למה לא משלת את בניך בחמה ובלבנה שהם גדולים מכוכבים אמר לו הקב"ה חייך חמה ולבנה יש להם בושה לע"ל מנין דכתיב (שם כד) חפרה הלבנה ובושה החמה וגו' אבל הכוכבים אין להם בושה לעולם מנין שכן כתיב (יואל ב) וידעתם כי בקרב

ישראל אני ואני ה' אלהיכם ואין עוד וגו':

Which seems to say there is no limit to the amount of stars. Yet we would still need to explain how this applies to Klall Yisroel - surely the amount of Jews is not infinite? Or is it? Are we talking about physical Jewish bodies or Soul-parts? After all, it does say there are only 600,000 Jews and we know there are actually millions, and that the 600,000 refers to "souls," not physical bodies. The same, then, may apply to the stars.

On the other hand, the Tosfos HaRosh on Bererishis (1:16) brings down the following Medrash:

בשעה שנזף הקב"ה בלבנה ונפלה נפלו ניצוצות ממנה על פני כל הרקיע וכבו המאורות ונקראו כוכבים על שם שכבו מאור הלבנה:

Does this mean that only these stars are called "Kochavim" but there were other stars created at the time of the Briah that are not called Kochavim? If so, there may be many more stars out there than those which Chazal call Kochavim. According to this Medrash, the sun itself could not be considered a "Kochav." If so, were there other "Meoros" such as the sun that were created that are not considered Kochavim?

So you see, there are so many possibilities regarding what is considered a Kochav, and what element of the Kochavim we are talking about here, that I don't see a way that you could ever think that because the scientists found more "stars" than the number of Kochavim listed in the Gemora in Brachos that it would impact in the slightest the meaning of the Gemora.

The rule of thumb is: When Chazal spoke about science, they very likely were not talking about the observable parts of science. The entire idea of reconciling Torah to observable science therefore was never an issue.

[JewishAttorney]

1 - You mean "touted," not "toted." Touted where exactly?

2 - There are numerous things Chazal tell us based on their knowledge of the real world, one of which is the Sugya you mention in Pesachim. That affects, for example, the disagreement between Rabbeinu Tam and the Geonim as to when Shekiyah and Tzais HaKochavim take place. Please see the Seforim I cited above. Rabbeinu Tam's opinion is based on the activity of the "real" sun and stars as opposed to the physically visible sun and stars. That is just one example. There are many.

And no, it is not prohibited for the average Jew to know, for example, that the "real" sun sets 58 1/2 minutes after the physically visible version of the sun. The average Jew is not "delving into" anything here - Chazal did. The average Jew is being informed of Chazal's findings. That's not a problem. It's like for example, if I tell you that al pi Kabalah you should use both hands when you give over the cup of wine to the person who will be leading the Bentching. You are not delving into anything. You're just being notified of the information obtained by those who did the delving. Or like when Chazal told us that the Sar of the Yam Suf complained that the Jews worshiped idols and so the Yam Suf should not split for them. Obviously Chazal knew this in ways that we cannot, but them telling it to us is not a problem.

But anyway, this is not the result of Kabbalistic delving. It is simply Chazal's knowledge of the Torah that gave them the insight into the natural universe. Please listen to the Shiur I referenced above - it explains this at length. If someone were to tell you that the rock you have in your hand is not really .a solid mass but an energy soup of atomic particles travelling in different directions, and that the rock contains enough energy to blow up New York if it were unleashed, you'd think they're crazy, unless you knew the relevant science. You can't identify atomic particles with the naked eye, but with the right instruments you can. The scientists can go deeper and deeper into the nature of the universe, but the Torah goes even deeper than them. A rock may not look much like a rock when you get down to the atomic level, and the orbit of the stars may not look the way it looks to the naked eye when you get down to Chazal's level. So if they said the sun goes here in the day and there at night, the fact that your eyes see things differently shows no more "bad science" than the fact that to your eyes, a rock looks nothing like what a scientist would describe its appearance on a subatomic level.

If you had the scientists' tools you'd see your rock differently; and if you'd have Chazal's tools, you'd see the path of the sun differently.

See also this article.

1 - You mean "touted," not "toted." Touted where exactly?

2 - There are numerous things Chazal tell us based on their knowledge of the real world, one of which is the Sugya you mention in Pesachim. That affects, for example, the disagreement between Rabbeinu Tam and the Geonim as to when Shekiyah and Tzais HaKochavim take place. Please see the Seforim I cited above. Rabbeinu Tam's opinion is based on the activity of the "real" sun and stars as opposed to the physically visible sun and stars. That is just one example. There are many.

And no, it is not prohibited for the average Jew to know, for example, that the "real" sun sets 58 1/2 minutes after the physically visible version of the sun. The average Jew is not "delving into" anything here - Chazal did. The average Jew is being informed of Chazal's findings. That's not a problem. It's like for example, if I tell you that al pi Kabalah you should use both hands when you give over the cup of wine to the person who will be leading the Bentching. You are not delving into anything. You're just being notified of the information obtained by those who did the delving. Or like when Chazal told us that the Sar of the Yam Suf complained that the Jews worshiped idols and so the Yam Suf should not split for them. Obviously Chazal knew this in ways that we cannot, but them telling it to us is not a problem.

But anyway, this is not the result of Kabbalistic delving. It is simply Chazal's knowledge of the Torah that gave them the insight into the natural universe. Please listen to the Shiur I referenced above - it explains this at length. If someone were to tell you that the rock you have in your hand is not really .a solid mass but an energy soup of atomic particles travelling in different directions, and that the rock contains enough energy to blow up New York if it were unleashed, you'd think they're crazy, unless you knew the relevant science. You can't identify atomic particles with the naked eye, but with the right instruments you can. The scientists can go deeper and deeper into the nature of the universe, but the Torah goes even deeper than them. A rock may not look much like a rock when you get down to the atomic level, and the orbit of the stars may not look the way it looks to the naked eye when you get down to Chazal's level. So if they said the sun goes here in the day and there at night, the fact that your eyes see things differently shows no more "bad science" than the fact that to your eyes, a rock looks nothing like what a scientist would describe its appearance on a subatomic level.

If you had the scientists' tools you'd see your rock differently; and if you'd have Chazal's tools, you'd see the path of the sun differently.

See also this article.

Two questions:

1. Rabbi Shapiro,

I don't have to say how awesome your explanations are. You know it and so does everyone else on the site. When it comes down to the argument "oh but Chazal just spoke about real science that only they knew due to some divine wisdom, etc" I get perplexed. If I were having a neutral, logical debate with a lost atheist Jew and said what you wrote, it would sound no different to him than a quote from some "lord of the rings" fantasy novel about how only someone wearing a magical ring can see invisible shades etc. It sounds like this: "I have no way to refute you but I know better because I know what supernaturally goes on."Point is - it does not hold up with a neutral person who is not a believer in what we understand to be supernatural perception of what real universe is.

2. In reference to Rabeinu Tam's opinion, if his opinion is the real deal, are you saying it's a clear mistake to follow the Rabonim who don't hold 72 minutes? Thanks!

[Rabbi Shapiro]

1 - On one hand, this point does not need a response. If you were to tell me there is a refutation to the argument, I would feel a need to respond. But if you tell me that if someone will not be willing to accept it even though he cannot refute it because he assumed, when he first learned the Gemora without the Achronim, that the Gemora must be speaking about observable science, well, that's his prerogative but its not an argument. And I do understand that an unlearned and biased person who is also influenced by today's society might think that this sounds to him like, as you say, a Lord of the Rings story.

Or maybe it would sound like telling someone that the rock he sees as a rock is really a soup of energy particles flying in different directions and which contains enough energy that, if released, could blow up all of New York.

But of course, he does not know that because he does not have the "magic" books that reveal those secrets.

Once upon a time, talking to a "neutral" (read: someone who does not know anything about the topic being discussed) person about the possibility of atom bombs, or even airplanes and rocket ships also sounded like science fiction.

Our goal in learning - Torah and, l'havdil anything else - is not to receive the Haskama of people who do not know anything about the topic but rather to receive the Haskama of those who know a lot. So if you tell me that someone who does not even recognize the existence of G-d and has no idea that the Torah is the blueprint of the universe, the Document based on which every subatomic particle was designed would not accept this concept ... why would that perplex you? What else would you expect from such a person? (By the way the phrase "neutral atheist" is an oxymoron.)

And if to someone Krias Yam Suf sounds like it comes from a a Charlton Heston movie, would you be perplexed as well?

In order to teach people things, you need to give them the proper background. You can't just tell people that they blew up Hiroshima with a little piece of metal and expect them to believe it if they are ignorant of the scientific background. And you cannot expect someone to believe that the Torah contains all the secrets to the universe unless they know the relevant theological background. For starters, start with the two Shiurim and the article I linked below.

That having been said, I will say two things in response:

1) This idea that Chazal was talking about of "science" that the eyes cannot see" was not invented in order to answer questions of lost atheists. If it was, you'd have a point. But it wasn't. It was communicated to us by our sages simply because that is the way it is. See for example, the first of the Drashos HaRan, where he asks on the Rambam who says that Maaseh Bereishis means science, on one hand, why it is that it may not be publicized? On the other hand, Maaseh Bereishis does in fact mean the wisdom of our physical world, i.e. science, because the wisdom of the "upper worlds" is Maaseh Merkavah.
.
דרשות הר"ן דרוש א
ועוד אם הוא כן - שמעשה בראשית הוא חכמת הטבע - היה צריך לידע הגבול שנעמוד בו ולא נפרסמהו להמון, כי אין ספק שכל מה שהוא בענין הטבע וביאורו, אין ראוי שיהיה נסתר ונעלם, אבל ראוי שיתפרסם, שהרי ידוע שחכמת הרפואה וחכמת עבודת האדמה והמרעה נמשכות מחכמת הטבע, והנה אם כן היושבים בערי הפרזות דורשים תמיד במעשה בראשית ויודעים בו. וגם כן לא נוכל לומר שמעשה בראשית לא תהיה חכמת הטבע, שהרי מעשה בראשית נוסד כלו בעולם התחתון לא בעליון, כי זה יהי' מעשה מרכבה, ואם לא יהיה מעשה בראשית ידיעת טבעיו ועניניו אם לא אפוא מהו, וזהו אם כן דבר מחדש מבוכה וצריך ביאור:
.
His answer is, that the science that is called Maaseh Bereishis that must be hidden is not observable to scientists or philosophers, and can only be known through Ruach HaKodesh.
.
והתשובה בזה, כי אין ספק כי מעשה בראשית היא חכמת הטבע, אבל לא מאותו צד שהתחכמו בו האנשים מצד מחקרם, אבל מצד מה שהידיעה נעלמת בו מצד המחקר, ולא תודע אלא בשפע אלהי, והוא: שיש לכל הנמצאים שני פעלים, פעל נמשך אחר חמרם, ופעל נמשך מצד צורתם אשר הוא עצמותם. והפעלים הנמשכים מצד חמרם, יודעו מצד החקירה ומצד השגת מקריהם אבל [הפעלים] אשר מצד צורתם, אי אפשר שיודעו בשום פנים מצד החקירה, אלא מצד מה שהוציאו הנסיון לאור. וגם כי נדע פעליהם מצד הנסיון, לא נדע [סיבת] פעליהם כלל. כי אנחנו נדע בפלפל שהוא מחמם ונדע סבת החמום להיות היסוד האשיי גובר עליו, מפני שזה נמשך אחר חומרו. אבל עם היות שנדע שהאדם צוחק ושנדע שהאבן השואבת מושכת הברזל, נדע זה מצד שהוציאו הנסיון, אבל לא נדע סבתו, מפני שהם [דברים] נמשכים אחר הצורה כי השער הזה סגור לכל דורש החכמה, במחקר אנושי לבד לא יפתח. ואין ספק כי הפעלים המתחייבים מצד חומר הדבר בערך אל [הפועלים] המתחייבים מצד עצם הדבר [הם] כמר מדלי, כי אלו יוצאים מאמתת הדבר ועצמותו ואלו נמשכים ממקריו שהם יוצאים מאמתתו, ואלו הפעלים היוצאים מצד הצורה הם נתלים מצד [טבען נותני הצורה או נותן איזה שיהיה. וזה העיון נמנע שיושג מצד החכמה האנושית, אבל יודע בה שההשגה בזה הוא מכת הנמנע:

None of this has to do with atheists or answering questioners. He is saying this is simple Pshat.

2) If the fact that something does not sound scientific bothers you, it is not Rabbeinu Tam that you should be asking about. There are places where Chazal make scientific statements that, never mind how they sound nowadays, clearly contradicted the most simple physical facts that were well known in their days as well. The Yerushami at the beginning of Kesuvos tells us about the rule of בתולים חוזרים - since the בתולים of a girl less than three years old grow back, if the witnesses who pronounced the new moon that made the girl three years old were found to be false witnesses (zomemim), the Besulim of that girl grow back because the witnesses that caused her to be declared 3 years old by Bais Din were retroactively disqualified.

Now clearly, Chazal made this statement knowing full well that according to observable science it is absurd. And clearly, they did not care. One of two things are true here: Either if someone would medically check that girl, Chazal's miraculous regrowing of the Besulim would be visible, or. more likely, it would not be visible, but visible to the naked eye did not matter to Chazal.

That is what you should tell someone who asks you about this. Tell them that we see Chazal clearly were talking about a different dimension of reality, and we see that from places like this Yerushalmi. If it sounds to them like Lord of the Rings, that's OK - it sounded no less so in those days. Obviously, to Chazal that was not a factor. Nobody forced Chazal to say this Halachah (we learn it from a Posuk) and Chazal knew it went against what people's eyes told them. Ergo: Chazal deal with a reality that is not observable. Please listen to the following teo Shiurim, and read the following article, for a full treatment of the topic:

Click here for the first Shiur.

The second Shiur:
http://www.baismedrash.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/ts1_cosmology.mp3

http://www.baismedra...rical-question/

Now the question is, how do we know when Chazal were talking about the observable world and when were they talking about the non-observable world?

The answer to that is the same way we know when Chazal were talking literally or metaphorically, or for that matter, the same way we know what the myriad ambiguous statements in Chazal really mean: It depends on context. Sometimes, as in the case of Rabbeinu Tam, there can be a disagreement between the Meforshim about this. But you need to "learn up" Chazal here the same way you do everywhere else in order to understand their true intent.

2 - Your question about following Rabbeinu Tam based on this Gemora is probably the intent of Rabi Akiva Eger in Gilyon haShas. There, he comments on the Gemora in Pesachim regarding the disagreement between the non-Jewish chachamim and the CHachmei Yisroel, that Rabbeinu Tam is quoted in the Shita Mekubetzes in Kesuvos as saying that the Chachmei Yisroel were actually correct.

It was not just a random comment. In Igros Sofrim, it says that Rabi Akiva Eger held l'Halachah like Rabbeinu Tam. "Both to be strict as well as lenient, he never veered from the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam."

Rabi Akiva Eger's gloss about נראין דבריהם מדברינו was meant as a defense of the shitas Rabbeinu Tam that he held was Halachah L'Maaseh. Like your suggestion.

But this is a Machlokes. The shitas Rabbeinu Tam is explained in the sources I quoted above according to the rule that Chazal were talking about non-observable reality. But that doesn't mean others cannot disagree. But the disagreement is not about the principle that Chazal often speak about non-observable reality. There is no basis to say they disagree about that. The disagreement is whether in this particular instance, the Halachah of Shkiyah is tied to that reality.

But you are correct that the Gemora about the Chachmei Yisroel vs. the Chachmei Umos HaOlam seems at first glance to be a proof against Rabbeinu Tam's opinion - the Maharam Alashkar asks this on him - and the answer to Rabbeinu Tam will obviously be that he holds the Chachmei Yisroel won the argument, as he says himself. The rest is subject to disagreement.

That having been said, you should follow Rabbeinu Tam, at least regarding Shabbos for another reason: the Shulchan Aruch, and according to many, the majority of Rishonim pasken like him. Even the Mishna Brura, who paskens like the GRA says it is worthwhile to follow Rabbienu Tam regarding Motzoi Shabbos. It is a question of Safek chilul Shabbos where the Shulchan Aruch and, according to many, the majority of Rishonim are strict. I tell people if they are ready to abandon one Kulah, they should stop doing Melachah before 72 on Motzoi Shabbos.

[JewishAttorney]

Wow what an awesome explanation! Thank you Rabbi Shapiro!