Timeline for The four elements - fire, wind, water and earth
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 11 at 20:41 | comment | added | Qwertrl | To add to @joshwaxman’s reply to @ ray—The Tanna’im didn’t make any Halachic rulings based on this metaphysical theory. It seems that they simply accepted the knowledge of their times, and tried to fit it with Torah ideas, the same way we do today. It’s never a good idea to make a Halachic ruling based on a scientific theory that hasn’t been directly and permanently proven. That was recognized by the Tanna’im. We’re allowed to accept modern scientific fact over Greek metaphysical philosophy, as empirical science logically cannot contradict the Torah. | |
| Dec 4, 2012 at 1:29 | comment | added | josh waxman | also in this instance: parsha.blogspot.com/2008/03/authenticity-of-zohar-pt-ii.html | |
| Dec 3, 2012 at 14:07 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @joshwaxman Technically you can only prove not in this instance, cf Gittin 56b | |
| Dec 3, 2012 at 11:01 | comment | added | ray | have you seen the book "shivchei arizal"? quite amazing | |
| Dec 3, 2012 at 10:42 | comment | added | josh waxman | @RaymondSebag Or perhaps, if the holy Arizal held of this, then it is evidence that he didn't have ruach hakodesh bordering on prophecy. | |
| Dec 3, 2012 at 10:39 | comment | added | josh waxman | @ba It is unclear if the Sefer Yetzira we have is the same as that referred to in the Gemara. But regardless, this is then a kabbalistic rather than talmudic work. | |
| Dec 3, 2012 at 10:35 | comment | added | josh waxman | @RaymondSebag Midrash Rabba on Bamidbar is NOT from the Tannaim. It is the last of the Midrash Rabbas. See here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_Rabbah | |
| Dec 3, 2012 at 9:47 | comment | added | ray | look, the above post said that the 4 elements do not appear in the midrash. I brought a source in the midrash. so that statement is wrong. maybe you're right that the midrash is based on the science of the time. i personally dont think so, especially since the holy arizal held of this, and he had a ruach hakodesh bordering on prohecy | |
| Dec 3, 2012 at 7:54 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @RaymondSebag I didn't know Ramban (or just about anyone after the gemara) could make biblically binding derivations from verses. See also judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/4037/… and judaism.stackexchange.com/a/17250/759 where you see that later commentators reject earlier commentaries (including the gemara!) just based on logic. | |
| Dec 3, 2012 at 7:48 | comment | added | ray | ok, but the Ramban on bereishis 1:2 actually derives it from the verse. so he learns it is biblical, ie torah view from the pasuk tohu vohu etc. not from science of the time | |
| Dec 3, 2012 at 7:37 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @RaymondSebag Can you source that all agree that it is wrong to assume that some rabbis ever have learnt things from the current science of the time? Since you can't, this answer is still a very valid Jewish viewpoint and your labeling it 'wrong' so definitively is, well, wrong. | |
| Dec 3, 2012 at 7:34 | comment | added | b a |
From the site quoted in your answer: In Sefer Yetzira (written sometime between the second and fourth centuries CE). Wasn't it supposed to have been written by Avraham Avinu?
|
|
| Dec 3, 2012 at 7:26 | comment | added | ray | if it's in the midrash it means the tannaim accepted the view. so it's torah view. to dismiss it as greek philosophy is wrong | |
| Dec 3, 2012 at 7:18 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @RaymondSebag ??? Midrash Rabba is way after the sources quoted in this answer which are from 2nd to 4th Centuries CE. Your quote from it doesn't change anything in regards to this answer (imo at least; the op can speak for himself if he differs). | |
| Dec 3, 2012 at 7:17 | comment | added | ray | it is in the midrash raba see my updated question | |
| Dec 3, 2012 at 4:55 | comment | added | josh waxman | you mean the footnote, in terms of geocentrism? yes, there are apologetics for that example (which are incorrect, btw, though here is not the place to argue it out). but there aren't in terms of, e.g. number of teeth of Jews vs. gentiles. and the point is that there are rabbis so unaware of science that there is no need for such apologetics. (thanks for the pointer.) | |
| Dec 3, 2012 at 4:16 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | judaism.stackexchange.com/a/13652/759 and comments | |
| Dec 3, 2012 at 1:24 | history | answered | josh waxman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |