tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post2829200272044524955..comments2023-10-30T08:40:59.016-04:00Comments on Wolfish Musings: From The Mailbag: The Fins-and-Scales ProofBrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-30191415976108617372013-05-02T11:51:53.555-04:002013-05-02T11:51:53.555-04:00Btw, I forgot the asterisks in my previous post:
...Btw, I forgot the asterisks in my previous post:<br /><br />*http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php?title=Response_to_Daat_Emet_Issue_Kislev_5760-Kislev_5761<br /><br />**http://zootorah.blogspot.com/2009/08/secret-of-stincus.html<br /><br />DavidDavidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-17700753521978549892013-05-02T07:05:27.263-04:002013-05-02T07:05:27.263-04:00Dear Wolf, it appears you said...as i followed the...Dear Wolf, it appears you said...as i followed the double astrix, that the fish thing isn't 100% true...which fish aren't in line with it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-61986129154418395762013-05-01T02:47:40.765-04:002013-05-01T02:47:40.765-04:00Allow me to add some elements to my previous post:...Allow me to add some elements to my previous post:<br /><br />-1- about the fins/scales proof:<br /><br />After all my researches, I haven't found a single animal contradicting the Gemara's assertion.<br />The Monopterus cuchia - one of the only claimed counterexample - has a dorsal fin.*<br />And the Stincus marinus, despite his name, is not an aquatic animal.**<br /><br />Check out this webpage, it summarizes very well how this knowledge of sea animals constitutes a proof of Torah min haShamayim: http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2011/12/of-kiruv-kvetches-and-straightforward.html<br /><br />I even found out that Tosefot (Chulin 66b) say so explicitly!<br /><br />שיש לו קשקשת יש לו סנפיר. וא"ת מנין היה להם זה לחכמים<br />...<br /><br /><br />-2- about the split hooves/chew cud proof:<br /><br />There too, after all my researches, I came to the conclusion that:<br />the only animal that does not chew its cud and has split hooves is the pig (and the warthog and the like)<br />and the only animal that does not have split hooves and chews its cud is the camel (and the llama and the like.)<br /><br /><br />The Shafan and the Arnevet were probably already extinct at the time of the Mishnah, which would explain why the Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael only mentionned the camel in his teaching (in Chullin 59, it would only have been logical to include the Shafan and the Arnevet in the teaching, since the pasuk also writes about them 'כי מעלה גרה הוא'.)<br />This resolves all the questions about hare and hyrax.<br /><br /><br />And the proof is strong, since it is only based upon the camel, not the Shafan and the Arnevet.<br />Indeed, these statements of the Gemara are - to this day - true:<br /><br />"The Ruler of the universe knows that there is no other beast that parts the hoof and is unclean except the swine."<br />and<br />"The Ruler of the universe knows that there is no other beast that chews the cud and is unclean except the camel."Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-71073513881759644482013-03-11T01:57:05.438-04:002013-03-11T01:57:05.438-04:00Dear Wolf,
I wrote:
"The Gemara clearly stat...Dear Wolf,<br /><br />I wrote:<br />"The Gemara clearly states that its knowledge of animals is a proof of the divine origin of the Torah”<br /><br />You answered:<br />"However, what if it was written by a person who didn't care or didn't consider the possibility of a disproving statement species coming along later? That's certainly possible. The "proof" assumes that a human writer would have been so concerned about future error. There's certainly no indication of that in the text itself."<br /><br /><br />I don't understand your answer.<br />- About fish, the Mishnah (Nida 6:9) says: "Every creature that has scales, will also have fins. But there are those which have fins, but do not have scales."<br />And the Gemara adds (Nida 51b): "If so, then why did not God write "scales" and there would be no need to mention "fins?" Rebbe Abbahu replied (and it was also taught at the school of Rebbe Yishmael): "In order to magnify the Torah and make it glorious." (Isaiah 42:21)<br /><br />Imagine the consequences if a fish had been found later on, that had scales but no fins! Rebbe Abbahu's tradition would've made no sense! Not to mention the Mishnah!<br /><br />How can you say that the writers didn't necessarily mean to be precise in this matter?<br /><br />On the contrary, this passage shows that these rabbis were absolutely certain never to be disproven, that there would be no exception to this rule – putting at risk their whole belief system, i.e. the authenticity of their tradition, since they clearly rely on it to establish a law of nature, on the subject of something as important as kosher laws (this law of nature has halakhic consequences, for example if one finds a piece of fish with scales and no fins, it’s kosher.)<br /><br />- The same goes for mammals. The Gemara in Chulin 59a is clear: "The Ruler of the universe knows that only the camel chews its cud yet is unclean." And as for the pig, it is the only split-hoofed animal that doesn’t chew its cud.<br /><br />The Gemara’s knowledge of animals (it was published about 500 CE) seems to constitute a proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”, – or at least a very strong indication – of the authenticity of the Oral Torah.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-32831079586164288002012-05-22T16:06:41.664-04:002012-05-22T16:06:41.664-04:00As others pointed out, there are many assertions m...As others pointed out, there are many assertions made in the Talmud that have been empirically disproven. Some scientific (e.g. astronomical observations), some medical (e.g. child born in 8th month will die, a treife will die in 12 months, refuos), and some physiological (e.g. human anatomy that is clearly Greek).<br /><br />The common refrain to such a discrepancy is "nishtaneh hatevah", i.e. nature has changed from the time of Chazal until now. Chazal are fully hedged, as we say. They have limited downside risk and unlimited upside potential.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-23558527324248113372012-05-21T15:39:33.482-04:002012-05-21T15:39:33.482-04:00Um, you know that there's an entire book on th...Um, you know that there's an entire book on this, right? "The Camel The Hare And The Hyrax" by Rabbi Slifkin.Fishynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-21740793253213026692012-05-17T10:29:03.818-04:002012-05-17T10:29:03.818-04:00Michael, read up on taxonomy. Apparently zoologist...Michael, read up on taxonomy. Apparently zoologists don't think so. Either way, the 4-animal proof is irrelevant for other reasons.<br /><br />Wolf, you say that you "don't think" Judaism would crumble if a Mishnah were proven wrong on some scientific fact. In fact, you are demonstrably correct. Any number of pieces of talmudic science have been proven wrong and we still keep halakha. Peoples' favorite one to talk about is spontaneous generation.<br /><br />BTW, I came across something you posted on chabad talk the other day. I was looking for the number of letters in tanach. Your link to the chart came up on the second page of google. The chart itself did not.ItcheSruliknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-2987447135327586232012-05-16T19:14:24.537-04:002012-05-16T19:14:24.537-04:00Important points are made in the comments. I just...Important points are made in the comments. I just want to add my experience.<br /><br />I spent ten months at aish ten years ago and was shocked at the Discovery seminar (which they showed me after maybe six months.)<br /><br />I instinctively felt this was trouble – that there was something fishy (excuse the pun) about these proofs. And they had more than a few proofs. All of them proved weak, incomplete, one sided, cherry picking the Talmud, etc. But because they were the frum guys, at the time we assumed they really knew things.<br /><br />I know there are fishes with scales but no fins (some kind of eel I saw a pic of once.) but it is rare. Probably in the middle east where Chazal lived it was unheard of.<br /><br />Chazal knew the science of their time, they clearly ventured into the world for answers to scientific questions. Their zoology and ichthyology are both reflective of this situation. Much of it proves wrong. <br /><br />The four animals proof actually fails badly. Ideas about treatments for disease fail too (and I suppose this is acknowledged -- who uses them today?)<br /><br />So – yes. Kiruv proofs are destructive. I believe every one of them fails. But the important point is that all of them are simply beneath Judaism to begin with. What a mess.<br /><br />TuviaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-42539258533285640092012-05-16T14:47:52.127-04:002012-05-16T14:47:52.127-04:00Also, Chazal have already been proven wrong on num...Also, Chazal have already been proven wrong on numerous other scientific issues- and Judaism continues to march on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-76778182423322293222012-05-16T14:32:21.226-04:002012-05-16T14:32:21.226-04:00David,
I read the Aish article you pointed to in ...David,<br /><br />I read the Aish article you pointed to in your previous comment. Sadly, that article is an even worse example of assuming the antecedent. It also has a bit of the fallacy of the excluded middle thrown in as well.<br /><br />The whole proof boils down to this: there are two possibilities: (a) God wrote it or (b) humans wrote it.<br /><br />If humans wrote it, they would never have dared to write it that way as they would have been afraid of being disproven at some point in the future, hence God must have written it.<br /><br />However, what if it was written by a person who didn't care or didn't consider the possibility of a disproving statement species coming along later? That's certainly possible. <br /><br />The "proof" assumes that a human writer would have been so concerned about future error. There's certainly no indication of that in the text itself. Once you realize that, you can easily posit a human writer who didn't care or consider that any other species might even exist.<br /><br />The WolfBrooklynWolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-5273206220522990682012-05-16T13:59:14.319-04:002012-05-16T13:59:14.319-04:00I assume he eats swordfish and sturgeon then?
The...I assume he eats swordfish and sturgeon then?<br /><br />There was and is fierce halachic debate about what exactly are scales. In practice this rule is not useful, if you can't use it to make actual inferences about what you may eat.S.http://onthemainline.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-10068125545097797512012-05-16T10:37:10.492-04:002012-05-16T10:37:10.492-04:00No idea about fish, but there are serious problems...No idea about fish, but there are serious problems with the "4 animals proof".<br /><br />Forget the Arnevet and Shfan, what about Lamas and Alpacas - they chew their cud but have no split feet. And to claim that they are a sub-species of Camel is a bit far-fetched.<br /><br />Aish for example make the claim that if we ever discovered another animal that had only one sign, this would dis-prove the Divine origin of the Torah.<br />So the existence of the Lama means that the "4 animals proof" is in fact a disproof of the Divine origin of the Torah (Written Torah, not Oral).<br /><br />Fortunately, the entire 4 animal proof is based on a number of false premises (e.g. that the Torah was giving a complete list, not just examples of animals that would have been familiar to the reader), so it can't be used to prove anything.Michael Sedleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02684514303911193073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-12518035780631463452012-05-16T10:10:36.506-04:002012-05-16T10:10:36.506-04:00See the Maharal on Chidushei Aggados on Chulin 60B...See the Maharal on Chidushei Aggados on Chulin 60B where he clearly states that this is not a proof.<br /><br />Also, It is quite possible that the Shafan and Arneves are not Hare/Hyrax, as the Torah says clearly that S and A chew the cud and the H/H don't. They don't even have hooves, let alone split ones!Mahral Mannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-50937045307210918102012-05-16T09:16:40.571-04:002012-05-16T09:16:40.571-04:00David,
Ah, I was led on a wild fish chase. The l...David,<br /><br />Ah, I was led on a wild fish chase. The letter writer (is that you?) focused on fish, and so I answered accordingly. The four animals topic (from which your objection is drawn) is a different (albeit related) "proof."<br /><br />I am on a bus now and cannot properly look into it at the moment. Nonetheless, I will address the issue.<br /><br />The WolfBrooklynWolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-67900074635760030562012-05-16T08:46:41.589-04:002012-05-16T08:46:41.589-04:00Dear Wolf,
You write that the Gemara's stateme...Dear Wolf,<br />You write that the Gemara's statements about animals weren't supposed to prove anything.<br />But that's a mistake!<br />The Gemara clearly states that its knowledge of animals is a proof of the divine origin of the Torah :<br />"Was Moses a hunter or an archer? This is to answer those who say that the Torah isn’t from heaven." (Chulin 60b)<br /><br />Read this: http://www.aish.com/jl/b/bb/104491254.htmlDavidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-28128224195208757042012-05-15T21:39:34.264-04:002012-05-15T21:39:34.264-04:00Eh, if he insists on this as a proof then to be in...Eh, if he insists on this as a proof then to be intellectually honest & consistent he would also have to agree that a similar assertion regarding the Pig/Camel/Hyrax/Hare would indicate that the Torah is NOT of divine origin.zachnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-57103613457620185702012-05-15T15:24:27.025-04:002012-05-15T15:24:27.025-04:00check this posting http://somehowfrum.blogspot.com...check this posting http://somehowfrum.blogspot.com/2011/04/emunah-and-proofs.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com