Q&A: Evidence from the Sages
Evidence from the Sages
Question
The Talmud in the chapter HaRo’eh discusses a futile prayer and asks: how can prayer help determine the sex of the fetus as male up to forty days into the pregnancy? After all, if the man emits seed first she gives birth to a female, and if the woman emits seed first she gives birth to a male, as it is stated: “If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male.” The Talmud answers that they emitted simultaneously. Seemingly, it comes out that the Talmud understands that when there is a clear law of nature, there is no point in praying, because the law always overrides the prayer. Only when they emitted simultaneously—where the Talmud understands that in such a case there is no fixed law—does prayer help. (Something like this can also be seen with demons and other harmful forces, which cause harm without law or judge, because that is the nature of the demon / harmful force.)
Nowadays, when the laws have been discovered, there is no point in praying for change. Is there proof from here for the Rabbi’s view?
Answer
I brought proof from that passage there. True, not exactly this one, but from the very prohibition against praying about the sex of the fetus even though it is unknown to everyone. This distinction indeed sharpens and strengthens the proof.
Discussion on Answer
Hello Rabbi.
The Talmud in Pesachim 4b, where Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, “A person should always enter when it is good and leave when it is good”—the words of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav also appear in Ta’anit and in Bava Kamma. The rule is derived from different verses about light. And the Talmud’s explanation, both in the simple sense and as the medieval authorities explain, is that daylight is a good time for travel so as not to be harmed by harmful forces and because of bandits, etc. In short, for completely practical reasons. Again we see that when the Sages knew how to give a realistic explanation, they always chose that… They only went into mysticism when there was no explanation. Isn’t that so?
First, this is not really a law. It is a recommendation. Clearly, when there is a practical explanation there is no reason to drift into mysticism. This hardly needs to be said. And indeed, the medieval authorities generally tended more toward practical explanations than in our time (see Maimonides on the reasons for the commandments, and more).
Even when there is a practical explanation, some of them tended toward mysticism when the Talmud leaned in that direction.
.
For example—food found under a bed. Maimonides gives a practical explanation: “Likewise, a person should not place a piece of bread under his armpit, lest his hand have touched a leper or some harmful substance, since hands are busy. And one should not place cooked food under the bed, even while engaged in the meal, lest something harmful fall into it and he not see it.”
And the Raavad objects to him: “Likewise, a person should not place a piece of bread etc. Under the armpit—this is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud: it is forbidden to place a piece under the armpit, and they explain it as a piece of meat or bread because of sweat.
And one should not place cooked food etc.—this too is in the Jerusalem Talmud, and they explain it because of an evil spirit.”
That is, even though the Raavad was given a practical explanation, he went with mysticism.
The Raavad disagreed only on the basis of the Jerusalem Talmud. The practical explanation was not given to the Jerusalem Talmud.
And one could distinguish between a natural law that has not yet been realized in reality, and something that has already been done and completed in reality, like the fetus in its mother’s womb, whose sex already exists from the moment of conception.