-2

Is one allowed to trust his own views regarding reality if they conflict with the view of chazal? Where does one draw the line on this?

I am not asking on things which are 100% proven such as that the earth is round or that it revolves around the sun. But rather on things not 100% clear cut.

for example, chazal say everything in the universe was created for man's sake (Midrash Kohelet 7:13). Is one allowed to follow his own personal views (ex.dark matter whose function is not 100% known) thus rejecting the words of chazal due to his own "free thinking" opinion?

As another example, Chazal tell us design proves the existence of a designer (midrash of Rabbi Akiva and the garment in Temurah 3) and that this is the reality.

Is one allowed to deny this claim based on his own views and trusting the speculation of scientists. Can we assume just like Chazal were seemingly wrong about the sun revolving around the earth then we don't need to assume any other claims they make about reality?

should one assume chazal were right unless proven 100% to the contrary. Or can one go after his own views even on things not proven to the contrary?

please source

ray
  • 21,206
  • 2
  • 45
  • 103
  • 2
    A distinction very relevant. Chazal are chazal concerning Tora. Nobody believe that they were aware of future science discoveries. – kouty Sep 26 '16 at 21:01
  • @kouty well that midrash brings a conversation between God and Adam. – ray Sep 26 '16 at 21:18
  • Ralbag explained: G-d said to Avraham somewhat with comparison with the stars which are in infinite number. Ralbag did believe following his time that they were a finite number. Bu explained that G-d user the conceptual and erroneus knowledge of Abraham – kouty Sep 26 '16 at 21:27
  • @kouty Ralbag i think was speaking there on his own not from what he received from the Tradition – ray Sep 26 '16 at 21:33
  • "chazal say everything in the universe was created for man's sake" I wouldn't say it's not clear they meant "everything" to include even dark matter. – Double AA Sep 26 '16 at 22:02
  • 2
    First, the Rambam's position is in disagreement with Midrash Qoheles. From Moreh Nevuchim 3:13: "the Universe does not exist for man's sake, but that each being exists for its own sake, and not because of some other thing. Thus we believe in the Creation, and yet need not inquire what purpose is served by each species of the existing things, because we assume that God created all parts of the Universe by His will; some for their own sake, and some for the sake of other beings, that include their own purpose in themselves..." – Micha Berger Sep 27 '16 at 02:09
  • But your example is flawed. You decided that Dark Matter has no role in human life, and therefore question the Medrash. Perhaps you should accept the Medrash, and ask how Dark Matter serves a role in human life. Since we're made of the stuff produced in stars and novae, and stars apparently only cluster close enough for heavier elements to drift from those other stars and yet not crowd each other, it is plausible that Dark Matter is critical to our existence. – Micha Berger Sep 27 '16 at 02:11
  • It is one thing to reject something Chazal said outside their core topic because it doesn't fit the evidence. But your example is deciding on a position in contradiction to theirs without any compelling evidence. – Micha Berger Sep 27 '16 at 02:13
  • @MichaBerger maybe not the best example. I am asking should we assume chazal were right unless proven 100% otherwise or can one go after his own views regarding the nature of reality – ray Sep 27 '16 at 10:33
  • 2
    Are you asking about a formal obligation to believe the opinion of Hazal, or are you just asking what the best methodology is to achieve truth? From your second paragraph you seem to acknowledge that Hazal were fallible human beings and that there is no universal obligation to believe them. So are you asking if in limited cases there is an obligation to believe them, or are you just asking if it makes sense to presume they are correct? – mevaqesh Sep 27 '16 at 14:27
  • 2
    This question seems mostly focused on Midrashic statements, assuming that they reflect "the view of chazal". However, this is a very dubious assumption since so many Geonim and Rishonim teach that Midrashim reflect personal ideas of individuals; not consensus views of the hakhamim zikhronam livrakha (Hazal). – mevaqesh Sep 27 '16 at 14:30
  • 2
    Can we assume just like Chazal were seemingly wrong about the earth being flat Why do you assume that Hazal believed the Earth was flat? Although one may find statements indicated that individuals believed the world was flat, do you have any evidence that Hazal as a collective body believed this? – mevaqesh Sep 27 '16 at 14:39
  • Actually, there are indications that chazal knew that the world was round from the beginning. For example, the comment that an avodas zarah holding a ball means "the world" and the pictures Rav Gamliel used to check the witnesses to the new moon. – sabbahillel Sep 27 '16 at 14:59
  • @sabbahillel which is why i wrote "seemingly". I heard from a mekubal that shlomo knew all that the scientists know and more but he didnt want to reveal it. due to the destructive effects it has (cant say yes or not but i wouldnt be surprised if it were true). can u imagine if man had the nuclear bomb for the past 3k years – ray Sep 27 '16 at 15:45
  • As another example, Chazal tell us design proves the existence of a designer (midrash of Rabbi Akiva and the garment in Temurah 3) and that this is the reality. I don't see anything about Hazal telling us anything in the link. All I see is a single figure. Interestingly, Midrash Temurah is thought to be a 13th century work based on Ibn Ezra (among others). Thus, not a good measure of what any members of Hazal thought. – mevaqesh Sep 27 '16 at 18:30
  • 1
    The question remains unclear. It confuses the issue of what one must and may believe Is one allowed to trust... Is one allowed to deny..., and the issue of what is or is not correct should one assume chazal were right – mevaqesh Sep 27 '16 at 18:34
  • @mevaqesh would like to ask you mechila. was out of line yesterday. sorry – ray Sep 28 '16 at 05:15
  • @ray Given my nature, I will answer with a Rambam :) (Hil. Teshuvah 2:14) לפי שאסור לאדם שיהיה אכזרי ולא יתפייס, אלא יהיה נוח לרצות וקשה לכעוס, ובשעה שמבקש ממנו החוטא למחול, מוחל בלבב שלם ובנפש חפצה; ואפילו הצר לו הרבה וחטא לו הרבה, לא ייקום וייטור. וזה הוא דרכם של זרע ישראל, וליבם הנכון. Or in the traditional formula מחול לך מחול לך מחול לך. Thanks for the apology, and may we all have a positive Elul, a כתיבה וחתימה טובה, and a good year. – mevaqesh Sep 28 '16 at 15:21

1 Answers1

2

To start, a belief in the infallibility of Chazal is not one of the Rambam's thirteen principles of faith, nor is it part of any other system of fundamental beliefs (as far as I know). So you are safe from charges of heresy.

However, you may not be safe in the next world. The question here is where does free thinking cross the line of "mevazeh divrei chachamim", belittling the wisdom of the sages? And the converse is (and this is your question) - does respecting the wisdom of the sages mean we are not allowed to think?

It should be pretty obvious that we are allowed to think (sorry, I guess that's not obvious...) and that as soon as we start thinking about the world we are bound to entertain ideas which conflict with a straight reading of the word of Chazal. Free thinking requires an ability to think hold in mind two conflicting ideas or statements until you can resolve them.

To take your example, you see a conflict between dark matter in the universe and Chazal's statement that everything was created for man's sake. If you reject Chazal based on your understanding of dark matter I would say that that is belittling the wisdom of Chazal. It also means you are not gaining any insight from Chazal, and that might be worse. So let's move along by putting the words of Chazal "on the side" - we do not know how to interpret them, but without rejecting them. Now you can say "I know of dark matter, I believe it has nothing to do with man, and I leave open the question of what Chazal meant by saying that all was created for man's sake." Now you have free-thought, but without rejecting or belittling the words of Chazal.

Before continuing, I will point out that I think your example was needlessly dismissive of Chazal, and also that it should not really be called free-thinking. Both problems, and the fact that you find a challenge here in free-thinking, come from an unduly bland reading of both Chazal, and of the reality of dark matter. I know nothing about dark matter, and, unless you are a astrophysicist, you also know almost nothing about dark matter, because almost nothing is known about it. Therefore, there is no way, based on the reality of dark matter, to say if it does or does not affect humanity, and no way to form an opinion if it was necessary or not for mankind. On the other hand, there is nothing in the statement "all was made for man's sake" which tells us that everything in the universe is to be directly utilized by man, and obviously there is much which does not directly serve us, and Chazal were well aware of that.

Now we can go back and ask what Chazal meant when they said "all was created for man's sake", and it is clear that it cannot mean that we are meant to utilize everything in the world. It is easiest to interpret it along the lines that everything in the world, one way or another, had to be there, so that humanity could arise and flourish as it did. This includes a massive galaxy that can serve as a host to our star which can then host our planet. This includes earthly phenomena which do not directly serve us, but are necessary results of the laws of physics which give us the world we know.

Chazal are not teaching science with this statement. They are giving us a perspective on the world, and teaching us how to look at the entire creation from a human-centric perspective. Understood like this, there is no conflict at all between this statement and science. We can now bring back the statement of Chazal which we "put on the side" before, with a better understanding, and now turn back to dark matter. We do know enough about dark matter to say that the universe as we know it would unravel without it, and then there would be no galaxy and no solar system and no earth and no humanity, and therefore God created dark matter for the emergence of the world and for the sake of man.

So to answer your question, the limit of free thinking is the limit of your ability to consider your idea without rejecting conflicting statements. As long as we can respect the words of Chazal even without understanding them, we may try to understand the world as well as we can, and to try to understand the words of Chazal and how they fit with the world we see, and also to learn from their statement -- even before we fully understand them -- to guide us in our own effort to understand the world.

DanielEvalUlay
  • 532
  • 2
  • 8