BS”D
In which he who plants his
stake
in the truths—
Curiosity, study,
honest thought—
will understand that the
truth
is rooted in reality;
this is the secret of
wisdom
and this its source
Volume Three
Please safeguard the sanctity
of this page
Second Edition
Nissan, 5759
“Rabbi Akiva said,
‘and was Moshe Rabbeynu a hunter or a bowsman? From here we have an answer
to those who say that Torah is not from the heavens’.” (Sifrei, Devarim, Parshat Re’eh, passage 49, also
Hulin 60b, about a shesu'a).
The “Chazon Ish” OBM
said: “It is one of the foundations
of faith that all that was said by Chazal, whether in Mishna or Gemara, in halacha
or aggadah, are the words revealed to us through prophetic powers, the power of
the influenced mind touching the mind in our body” (Letters of the Chazon Ish,
15).
And Rabbi Bloch, head of the Telz Yeshiva, author of the “Shiurei Daat,”
further stated, according to Rabbi
Chaim of Volozhin (about what he wrote in “Nefesh HaChaim”), that: “From the day
the Torah was given to Israel, the Torah was given to the sages to decide its
laws; according to them would be the ways of the world and the laws of
creation, etc.” (Shiurei Daat, Chapter 1, pg 25).
We have shown and
also proven, in volume 1 and volume
2, that the knowledge of Chazal was only commensurate with the knowledge of
those generations and the holy spirit and prophecy did not assist them at all,
that they erred on simple matters. Now in volume 3 we will, with G-d’s help,
examine the words of Rabbi Akiva and see what Moshe was and what he was not. We
will also see what Moshe knew and what Chazal knew.
The
words of Rabbi Akiva relate to four animals forbidden by the Torah, and they are none other than the camel and the pig,
the shafan and the arnevet,
each of whom have one sign of ritual purity. Chazal determined that they and
only they have one sign of ritual purity, and all other animals in the world
either have no signs of ritual purity at all and are forbidden or have two
signs of ritual purity and are permitted. And Chazal ask: Moshe Rabbeynu OBM,
when he wrote the Torah, how did he know this? And was he a hunter or a bowsman
who knew all the animals in the world? But the Holy One, blessed be He, who
alone knows all the animals in the world, revealed to Moshe the issue of the
four animals at the time of the Receiving of the Torah and its writing at
Sinai. And this is why Rabbi Akiva said that here is an answer to those who say
that Torah is not from the Heavens.
I will admit and I
will not be ashamed that awe and fear gripped me as I approached that which is
holy, but it is Torah and it must be
studied, and G-d’s seal is truth. And behold, two of the four animals are the shafan
and the arnevet. And this is what the holy Torah said on the matter:
“And the shafan, for it chews its cud and has no split hooves, it is
impure for you. And the arnevet, for it chews its cud and has no split
hooves, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:5).
And the words are startling and astonishing, for the
hare and hyrax do not chew their cud at all!
And this is what
Moshe Rabbeynu wrote according to G-d’s word?! A mistake, G-d forbid?! A
mistake in our holy Torah?! May the
Heavens quake and the earth shake. We will believe with complete faith that the
word of our G-d is always true. But if so, the mistake does not originate with
the Divine who dictated the Torah, but with the copyist. And he who is most
wise will be amazed.
And it is so, wise
people were amazed and sages were gripped with silence; they did not approach this difficult matter until
the most recent generations. Only when the matter became a public issue were
the sages forced to try and explain it.
Rabbi Samson Raphael
Hirsch wrote in his commentary that
the shafan and the arnevet of the Torah are a different species
than the ones known to us today. Who are and what are the “Biblical”
cud-chewing shafan and arnevet? When did they disappear and why?
How did it happen that they were switched in the tradition and in the knowledge
of the sages? About all of these Rabbi Hirsch remains silent and does not
explain.
In general, his words
are most puzzling. After all, the shafan and the arnevet are
animals found in every country in which Jews have lived from ancient times
onward (unlike the camel, which is not found in Europe, yet its identity was
kept intact) and the tradition about these animals is easy to hand from rabbi
to student. How is it that suddenly these animals were replaced in all lands in
which Jews had lived; the “cud-chewers” suddenly disappeared and new animals
came in to replace them?
It is also puzzling
that until Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch there was no doubt at all about
the identity of the shafan and the arnevet. And to strengthen
[that point] we will bring the words of the “Magid Mishneh” (Rabbi Vidal Yom
Tov Di Tolosha) in the forbidden foods, chapter 1, halacha B: “the shafan
and the arnevet are cud-chewers and do not have split hooves and it
is known that they have teeth in their upper cheek.”
From this we know that
the “Magid Mishneh,” who lived 500 years ago, had no doubt in his mind about
the identity of the shafan and the arnevet, and according to this
ruled halacha. And there is no need to say that Rashi and the Rambam, who lived
before him, knew these animals and identified them (see Rashi on Megillah 9b).
But the clearest
proof of all is from the words of the Gemara itself (Megillah 9b) in talking about the Septuagint. It
says that they wrote “young of legs” in place of “arnevet” since the
wife (in the Yerushalmi it says mother, and in manuscripts, sometimes it says
father) of Ptolmey, king of Egypt, was “Arnevet” and they feared the king’s anger. And
we well know that Ptolmey's father was named Lagus, and in Greek the hare is
called, to this very day, Lagos! And it is clear to any beginning student that
today’s hare is the arnevet of the Septuagint, of the Talmud and the
Torah.
Is it because R’ Samson
Raphael Hirsch had difficulties with the matter of chewing the cud that he
changed the transmission of tradition from generation to generation?
R’ Samson Raphael
Hirsch’s words are untenable not only to us, but also to the author of the
Responsa “Sridei Aish.”
In the Responsa “Sridei
Aish,” part 2, section 4, he brings
some answers of this sort and does not accept them. Finally, he gave this
excuse: It is true; the hare does not chew its cud “but she moves her jaw
similar to the manner of ruminants and therefore it looks as though she chews
her cud. The Torah wanted to prevent mistakes, because one could be mistaken
and think the animal kosher; it is the same with the hyrax,” end of quote.
And we stand amazed.
This is the excuse of a Torah great? “One
could be mistaken and think the animal kosher”? How? The hyrax and the hare are
forbidden according to the Torah, as they have no split hooves so how could
one make a mistake and think them kosher animals?
And not only is this a poor
excuse, but for it the “Sridei Aish” turned the plain meaning of the Torah on
its head! “It looks as though she chews her cud” means “does not chew its cud.”
According to the “Sridei Aish,” what is said in the Torah about these two
animals, that they chew their cud, is not true!
When the Torah greats
failed to explain the grave factual error in the words of the Torah, the
scholars attempted to find excuses. They did not rest until they checked the
zoology textbooks; perhaps their salvation would lie there. They did well in
going to the scientists, for there will be found the truth without fear or
favoritism, and so is worthy for anyone seeking knowledge and wisdom. The
answer to the Torah’s mistake was not found there, but they did find in those
books an odd habit of the hare—sometimes she eats her own droppings. What
connection does eating of dropping have to this? Since the ones seeking an
excuse found no other explanation for the arnevet which does not chew
its cud, they decided that eating droppings is the rumination of the hare!
And they were not
embarrassed to teach this nonsense to their students as an explanation. Not
only did they change “leaving droppings” into “chewing its cud” and made the
words a bandage, but it did not bother these scholars to thus negate the words
of the great Rishonim. For this is what the greatest of the Rishonim said about
the chewing of cud: Rashi, Leviticus chapter 11, verse 3 “Chews its
cud—regurgitates and vomits the food from its guts and returns it to its
mouth,” this exactly! And the Ibn Ezra on the same verse says: “ma'alat gera—[a word] derived from garon [throat]” and the
Rashbam, in that same place: “chews its cud—brings back its food up the
windpipe after eating it” and all the commentaries, the great ones of the
Rishonim, agree. And do the “scholars” think that the hare leaves droppings
through its throat? How dare they, for the sake of an excuse, negate all the
words of the Rishonim, G-d forbid? But the Rishonim were correct in describing
the reality of chewing the cud and were precise in their words. The hare does
not chew its cud, as it does not bring the food from its guts through its
throat to its mouth, as described by Rashi and all the Rishonim.
But even if there were
something behind the explanation for the hare, what of the hyrax? About
it, too, it is said that it chews its cud, and it never did. The hyrax doesn’t
even eat its droppings. What will be the scholar’s excuse? Perhaps they will
say that shafan [shin-fey-nun] is the letters of nefesh [nun-fey-shin],
and therefore it chews its “spiritual cud” which can not be seen by the
physical eye…how much longer will they follow such nonsense?
We
should admit the truth: Neither the hyrax nor the hare chews its cud.
What follows from all
our words is that Moshe Rabbeynu was not a hunter nor a bowsman, and also did
not understand animals and if there
is a mistake in our Holy Torah it did not, G-d forbid, come from the Holy
Spirit, because G-d will never err, but he wrote it on his own accord. And you,
the wise reader, will know if “here is an answer to those who say that the
Torah is not from the Heavens,” as Rabbi Akiva said, or whether the exact
opposite is true. And he who understands will understand.
We have
seen Moshe Rabbeynu’s understanding of animals and as is our way in holy
matters we will bring additional examples from the Gemara which reveal the span of Chazal’s knowledge in zoology.
In Bechorot page 8a the Sages detailed the gestation period of animals.
“The
wolf, lion, bear, tiger, panther, elephant, monkey, and small monkey for three
years.”
This
is not true. For almost 200 years we have been researching ways of animals and
the facts are clear and bright: the gestation period of lions is 3.5 months, of
bears up to 8 months, of tigers up to 4 months, of elephants up to 24 months,
and of the monkey up to 8 months. And should we use, here too, the method of
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch—the lion is not the same lion and the elephant not
the same elephant—every thinking person would laugh. And are these words of
Chazal “things revealed to us through prophetic powers, the power of the
influenced mind touching the mind in our body” as said the Chazon Ish above? This
sort of mistakes about matters of simple reality?
In
order to give more support to our stand we will conclude with the matter of the
snake, who has mislead us from
Creation and even managed to trick Chazal (in Bechorot 8a) into saying that the
snake’s gestational period is seven years. It is said, “Cursed are you above
all livestock and all animals,” and Chazal interpreted this [to mean] that as
the livestock (the donkey) gestates seven times longer than the animal (the
cat, and some say the dog), so the snake gestates seven times longer than the
livestock. The donkey gestates one year, and so the snake gestates seven years.
Go and see the wisdom of
Chazal, to know the gestation period of all the world’s snakes without allowing
reality to disturb them at all. Why
should they bother with examination, knowledge, observation, and conclusion?
They have Torah verses in their hands, and according to the Torah verses they
will determine the gestation period!
Woe is us who have been
broken! This never has been. Most of the snakes lay eggs, and the time from
fertilization to hatching is between two and 14 months (according to type of
snake). Viviparous snakes gestate up to one year and generally only three
months. Every third grade textbook includes these facts in detail.
Is it possible that the
Tanaim and Amoraim upon whose words the Divine Spirit rests erred? G-d forbid we say about the words of the Divine
Spirit that there is even the slightest shadow of a doubt. But if so, then
the Sages did not speak from the knowledge of the Divine Spirit when they
erred, but from their own knowledge alone!
About these sorts of
things did the mockers of the generation say that the Sages had not erred, the
snakes erred… and not only that, but
the snakes persist in their error, rebelling and refusing to extend their
gestational period for another few years…
Woe to the author of
“Shiurei Daat” and woe to his words, which we brought above, that “the Torah
was given to the sages to decide its laws and according to them would be the ways
of the world” etc. and woe, that even the snake who crawls on his belly does
not accept the Sages’ determination and acts based on simple reality and not
according to their Torah-based determinations.
We brought, in Pamphlet
no. 1, the words of the Rambam
(Moreh Nevuchim, part 3, chapter 14) that science was lacking and Chazal spoke
only with the knowledge of those generations. In Pamphlet no. 2 we
brought the words of the “Yad Yehuda” in the laws of treifot,
chapter 40, that Chazal were not full experts in some matters. We will bring
here the words of the son of the Rambam (in the introduction to the book
“Ein Yaakov”) to fulfill the verse that a matter will stand on the
testimony of two or three witnesses. And this is what Rabbi Avraham, son of the
Rambam wrote: “Know that you must know: anyone who wants to support some
opinion, to favor the one who said it and accept his judgment without scrutiny
and understanding to see if the matter is true or not—this is one of the bad
ideas and is forbidden from the ways of Torah and the ways of intellect, etc.
since we find them (Chazal) saying [things] untrue and nonexistent in the
Gemara, matters of medicine and things like the even tkuma which they
say prevents miscarriages and is untrue, etc. It has become clear to us that scholars
do not bring opinions and express them except based on their truth and their
proofs, and not based on who said them, be he who he may be,” end of his
wonderful words.
Who
is wise? Anyone who looks at things based on true reality and based on evidence
and proofs, examination and testing, assessing and demanding, through to a
conclusion. Only thus, from reality, will come deduction (theory) and not the
opposite. And the wise one will check for himself, with his own intellect, and
will decide for himself what is true.
In this pamphlet, too, we will say a bit as a side-note.
First, this pamphlet, as
its predecessors, appears in its third printing, revised and amended. For those who have requested this pamphlet and its
predecessors have multiplied. And meanwhile, the fourth and fifth pamphlets
have been published and distributed, and in them there are words of truth and
knowledge about the issues of zmanim and the motion of the sun in the
heavens and also the matter of the renewal of the moon and the secrets of ibur
(intercalation). Amazing things about additional great mistakes made by Chazal
about reality, how the great men of the Gentiles preceded them in matters of
truth and reality, and how the knowledge of idolaters became the Torah of Israel
through the commandment of the honorable Rabbi Chaim Kannevsky.
Second, we are going from strength to strength and have, at a
fortuitous hour, obtained an e-mail address and will answer all correspondents,
each according to his ways, swiftly and without revealing any identifying
detail of those who desire anonymity. As is known, none who correspond this way
need identify himself and everything is strictly and completely confidential.
And
you who thirst for words of truth, if you have thoughts and ideas or questions or
disagreements with what we have written in these pamphlets, please write to us
at the post office box which appears here or to the e-mail address, and we
promise, on our honor, to maintain the confidentiality of those who write and
what they write. We also promise to give a full and correct answer to all
correspondents, so as to be pleasing to the listener and the speaker.
We
still have a very small number of the first and second pamphlets and an
adequate supply of the fourth and fifth pamphlets, which will be willingly sent
free of charge to anyone who requests it through our post office box. First
come, first served.
POB 1019 KIRYAT TIVON 36015
e-mail: daatemet@netvision.net.il
