For the sake of the innocent reader, I’ll note that this was probably said jokingly 🙂

The Sages also made many scientific mistakes, like the matter of lice supposedly not reproducing like other living creatures, and many more. A lot of things appear in the Zohar, and naturally some of them will turn out to be scientifically correct and some won’t. By the way, the Zohar is not necessarily from the Sages.

Besides, there were views that the earth is round long before the Sages, and even in the Sages there are several sources indicating that the globe is not spherical. I assumed this was a joke or a troll, and so I responded as I did.

The Rabbi even responds to jokes and trolls… so why should my name be left out from among them??

I’m really trying to understand. Does the Rabbi not believe in divine inspiration at all?

Pseudonym,
Maybe it would be worth clarifying: what is divine inspiration?

Shai Zilberstein, my dear fellow, see Nachmanides’ commentary on Bava Batra 11a.

“I assumed this was a joke or a troll, and so I responded as I did.”

I think it would be worthwhile for the honorable Rabbi to get updated: there are a lot of Jews who think that the Sages had vast, advanced scientific knowledge. By the way, in my humble opinion this isn’t only among people who grew up in Haredi education.

I also don’t think the Sages had advanced scientific knowledge grounded in research, but on the other hand it seems to me that certain ideas in the Sages’ writings (and in Kabbalah), ones connected to scientific topics, really were ahead of their time.

For example, I once read something showing that the Zohar describes something that somewhat resembles the principles of the Big Bang.
So I don’t know whether that’s “divine inspiration” or “deep contemplation of creation,” but there’s no doubt that whoever wrote that knowledge had a very interesting insight, which perhaps really does resemble what science knows today.

Ehud, did you know that the Zohar also contradicts itself?

The holy Torah also contradicts itself. I assume you’ve read at some point about the differences between chapters 1 and 2 in the book of Genesis (that’s just one example).
Every contradiction has a solution or an explanation.

Your contempt and arrogance are repulsive, Michi.
He asked a question and expected to receive an answer.
The Zohar not only knew about the earth’s roundness, but about other details too, and it’s puzzling how it knew them.

Ehud, the need many people feel to find a solution and explanation for scientific contradictions in the Torah stems from their mistaken attitude toward what is written in it. The Torah is not an “encyclopedia” and does not deal with science; up to this point, things are simple and clear.
As for what is written in the Zohar, surely it’s clear to you that most of it (almost all of it) has nothing whatsoever to do with Rashbi, and therefore there is no reason to explain away the mistakes of Moses de Leon, just as there is no need at all to explain away the scientific mistakes of the Hatam Sofer…

On the contrary, there is more reason to explain away the mistakes of the later Moses de Leon than those of Rashbi, who preceded him by about a thousand years.

Benjamin, I wasn’t talking about finding a solution regarding scientific contradictions.
There are contradictions between the content of chapter 1 and the content of chapter 2 in the book of Genesis, and that’s what I meant.
All this has nothing to do with the fact that the whole creation story, in its plain meaning, doesn’t fit with what science knows today.

The question regarding the Book of the Zohar is whether the contradictions are vis-à-vis the scientific knowledge known to us today. If so, that can be explained by saying that this still doesn’t mean Kabbalah is not “divine.” Just like people say that the Talmud contradicts the scientific knowledge we have today, and still one can say about it that it is “divine” or “the words of the living God.”

On the other hand, if there is a direct contradiction between direct sources in the Zohar (I haven’t studied Kabbalah, so I don’t know whether there is such a thing), then that has to be resolved and examined—why is it so?

It’s like in the Talmud there is the topic of “one who cries out over the past” — it is forbidden to pray over things that have already happened.
On the other hand, there is a passage that says a farmer should count his produce again (I don’t remember exactly where in the Talmud; maybe there’s a Torah scholar here who knows the answer).

So you have to check how those two passages fit together, because there is a direct logical contradiction between them.
The same applies to the Zohar—again, a contradiction between today’s scientific knowledge and something “scientific” written in the Zohar doesn’t bother me. By contrast, if there is a direct contradiction between two sources in the Zohar—that needs resolution.

Ehud, did you mean this? —
“Our Rabbis taught: One who enters to measure his grain heap says, ‘May it be Your will, Lord our God, that You send blessing upon the work of our hands.’ If he began measuring, he says, ‘Blessed is He who sends blessing upon this heap.’ If he measured and afterward blessed, this is a vain prayer, because blessing is found neither in something weighed, nor in something measured, nor in something counted, but only in something hidden from the eye” — Ta’anit 8b.

A., I object to what you wrote. A little respect for a Torah scholar.

Your objection has been noted.

A., I can’t believe you actually just told someone else that he’s arrogant and contemptuous…

“Else,” in the sense of “Return, backsliding children—except for Acher”?

Actually, I changed the wording, and from lack of attention it came out confused. It should read:

A., I can’t believe you actually just told someone else that he’s arrogant and contemptuous…

Then believe it, because I did.

To A.: If you’re sick of Michi, you don’t have to go onto his site. Or you can make him look small with arguments. What does “small” mean? When he starts rambling and answering beside the point. He’ll always answer. The question is whether the answer is smart or stupid.
By the way, to all the nice commenters we have here, let’s remember that science is something that can change. Science today is practical, not necessarily true. The very foundations of physics are actually built on contradictions, and people still treat science like a sacred cow. Don’t do half the job. If you reject contradictory things, then reject the statements of holy science too.

aaaaaaaaaa, a??

a, I don’t exactly remember asking you what to do.
Knowledge like the fact that the earth is round is a fact, not a theory.
And I don’t recall the Sages talking about physics.