It reminds me that there was once a dispute in Jewish law over whether halakhic sages determine reality through their rulings or not—that is, whether when they rule, for example, that there are demons, then there are demons, and if they rule that there are not, then the demons stop existing. And there was a dispute about this, and it was decided that the sages’ rulings do not have the power to change reality, and ever since then the sages’ rulings no longer change reality.

The problem is that this can be tested empirically. Say the sages determine that a certain law of nature will not hold or will change, and that one is obligated to believe this, and then we check whether it changes.
For example, they could determine that gravitational acceleration on Earth is only 5 meters per second squared, and test it empirically.
Or determine that relativity is incorrect and that it is heresy to believe in it, and then check whether it still holds.

They could also frustrate enemy attacks this way by changing the laws of nature on which their weapons are based. Or determine that anyone whose name is Ali, Muhammad, or Hussein will die immediately, and that one is obligated to believe this. The Holy One, blessed be He, would immediately kill at least half the Iranians.

Nice!!! 🙂
Well known are the words of the Shakh in the name of the Jerusalem Talmud about a three-year-old girl whose virginity is restored: when the religious court intercalates the month, her virginity returns. Absurd. It is pretty clear to me that the original intention is that this is how they conduct themselves in court, because the line is formal. But even if not, it מסתבר that nothing in nature actually changes.

You know perfectly well that the way the Jerusalem Talmud is treated by the decisors is not really like that. See, for example, the Shakh, Yoreh De'ah (I don’t remember where, I’m sure you know), who indeed explained the words of the decisors regarding a monthly cycle tied to the month, that there is no reason for it except that the religious court sanctifies the month—see there. So in your view, all the laws of menstrual cycles are mistaken? Fine, you can also maintain that it’s absurd; I don’t object. But as for what is “pretty clear” to you—with all due respect—on that they relied on the verse “to God Most High, to God who fulfills for me”? That is really forced. (And see also Mahari Mintz 10 regarding a thirteen-year-old in a leap year.) In any case, of course, the question raised here is difficult; it is hard even to define it as stupid—it is simply detached from reality. (Even for a benighted fanatic like me there are limits… By the way, it is said in the name of the Kotzker Rebbe, of blessed memory, that when Maimonides wrote that there are no demons, they were annulled… In a study I wrote on Maimonides’ position regarding demons, I remarked on this: “Perhaps according to this, when Maimonides wrote the size of the sun, even though it is incorrect (and I discussed this elsewhere), it was ruled in accordance with him and the sun shrank. Except that it still requires inquiry when it later grew again.” Seriously, I am not mocking the Kotzker, of blessed memory; I am mocking those who take such things literally. It reminds me of the well-known saying from the Maggid of Kozhnitz, of blessed memory, that when Maimonides ruled that anyone who believes the Creator has a body etc., and the Raavad objects that many great people believed this, as is well known—then, when Maimonides wrote his words, all those great people were thrown straight into… Gehenna, and when the Raavad objected, they were taken out! And these things are contradicted by Maimonides’ own “ruling” that one does not issue rulings in such matters; see his commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin, chapter Helek! Again, my remarks are not directed at the Maggid, of blessed memory, but at those who interpret him literally and keep repeating this nonsense from time to time.)

I didn’t say the laws of menstrual cycles are mistaken. You should improve your reading comprehension. You cite the Shakh in a message after I myself already cited him. Do you even bother to read?

Okay, accepted. (After I wrote it, I noticed that you had already cited the Shakh yourself, and my apologies; I really was hasty.) Now a new question: what actually is the reason in the laws of menstrual cycles? After all, the Shakh explains them based on the words of the Jerusalem Talmud. According to your view, that the explanation in the Jerusalem Talmud is only some kind of formality that does not apply to menstrual cycles, then what is the reason? Therefore, with my meager reading comprehension (after all, I am like a child captured among the gentiles and don’t know how to think correctly), I understood from your words that it follows that this view—that one counts the cycle by the day of the month and not from the new moon—is mistaken. If that is not correct, please enlighten me. Happy holiday.

There is a concern there that the woman may see blood on those dates. What does that have to do with the question we are discussing here? The formalism I suggested in the Jerusalem Talmud is not with respect to menstrual cycles, but with respect to the girl’s age at which her virginity returns. Surely you understand that it does not really begin exactly on the day she turns three. For each girl it is at a different time, and on average it is around age three. Therefore, if the court intercalated the year, they still move the formal line to age three. What is the problem? Simple as an egg.

By the way, a child captured among the gentiles usually does not have a thinking problem. He has a bias problem, and from that also a reading-comprehension problem. He was captured among the gentiles, and therefore his mind has been washed and does not allow him to think logically about the issues. He does not bother to weigh the matters on their merits and rushes to criticize. It seems to me that your conduct here shows this again and again. The haste, the bias, and the unwillingness to read and consider what I am writing to you are very evident. I am not saying this sarcastically or to put you down, but in complete seriousness.

Hello! (I delayed my response so as not to be accused of rashness… but mainly because of the holiday, and we also had the second diaspora festival day.)
I really do not like sparring over trifles with someone like you. Nor do I need to have the last word—I’ll give you that—and in general I have no chance! (And also… truthfully, I have to surrender and admit: your description of me is really astonishingly accurate! I stand amazed—there are people I’ve been around for many years who have not begun to recognize me and my bias, and you, from 10 comments, already have a completely clear picture…) Nevertheless, specifically here it seems to me that you evaded the issue and shifted the discussion (very successfully…) in an ad hominem direction, by delegitimizing my words, and therefore I am attaching here a detailed response in which I set out—from my point of view—the entire thread. And with this I will finish. The point here is not to remain right, only to show that I actually did carefully examine all your words.
And in any case, I have great appreciation for you. After all, in your opinion I just write rashly and without bothering to read, and nevertheless you answer every time. (And one tiny personal question: why do you really do that? When I meet people like that, I usually don’t get into arguments with them. Rash people who aren’t interested in hearing my side—why is it worth the effort to explain anything to them?)
Happy holiday.

With God’s help, 18 Tishrei 5785.
The screen name “From the Rabbi’s listeners” raised an argument that perhaps there is formal authority in matters of belief, in that when we rule such-and-such we are actually dictating to the Holy One, blessed be He, what to do (“the righteous decrees and the Holy One, blessed be He, fulfills”)? Of course the question is very stupid and detached from straight thinking (forgive me, that screen name), so Michi, may he live long, splendidly fulfilled “answer a fool according to his folly” with his cynical reply.1
The screen name “A” did well to point out the absurdity of this (by the way, what he brings about demons is known from the Kotzker, of blessed memory), and then wrote another response whose depth I did not exactly understand, and Michi responded with “Nice!!!” and my friend the emoji.2 Again he brought the Shakh in the name of the Jerusalem Talmud, that when the religious court intercalates the month her virginity returns, and he concluded: absurd. And he qualified it: it is pretty clear to me that the original intention is that this is how they conduct themselves in court, because the line is formal. But even if not (= if the intention of the Jerusalem Talmud is indeed that the court’s decision dictates the physical change), it seems that nothing in nature changes. (= I do not accept the words of the Jerusalem Talmud.)
This is the language of the Jerusalem Talmud (Ketubot chapter 1, end of halakhah 2):3 “Rabbi Avin said: ‘I call to God Most High, to God who fulfills for me’—if a girl is three years and one day old, and the court decides to intercalate the year, her virginity returns; and if not, her virginity does not return.”
Regarding menstrual cycles (= the Sages established that a woman who has a fixed cycle and sees blood on a certain day of the month must be concerned about that day and is forbidden to have sexual relations,4 along with various other laws), the medieval authorities disputed from what point one counts the day of the month. The view of the Ra’ah (in his book Bedek HaBayit, House 7, Gate 3) is: the whole logic of the cycle laws is that we fear she will see on that day, because since there is a phenomenon that repeats itself again and again, there is some property in that day that causes her to see blood. But since the month is fixed according to the sanctification of the court, and this is not consistent—sometimes they sanctify on day 30 and sometimes on day 31, depending on whether witnesses came or not—then how can one say that this day is causative? Therefore his opinion is that one counts from the molad, the lunar conjunction (= for example, we assume that day 13 from the molad causes her cycle). However, the Rashba’s view (Mishmeret HaBayit on Bedek HaBayit there) is that one counts from the sanctification of the month, and this is his language: “The writer said: The honor of the sages shall inherit glory, but this objection of theirs is no objection. Certainly the shofar blast causes it, for whatever the earthly court does, the heavenly court agrees with them, as it is written: ‘which you shall proclaim them’—which you shall proclaim, at their appointed times. And we rely in the fixing of months and intercalation of years in matters carrying karet, such as leaven on Passover, the slaughtering of the Passover offering, and the affliction of the Day of Atonement; also in the intercourse of minors, where they said: if a girl is three years and one day old and one of those forbidden relations had intercourse with her, she is exempt and they are not executed on her account; less than that, both are exempt. And similarly with a boy of nine years and one day, after that or less than that, we do not count days for them, but years built on full and deficient months and on leap and ordinary years according to the court’s arrangements. And so too with bodily changes, as they expounded on ‘to God who fulfills for me’: a little girl of three years and one day who was violated—her virginity does not return; if the court assembled and intercalated the year, her virginity returns. This is ‘to God who fulfills for me.’” And the Shakh ruled likewise (Yoreh De’ah 189:3) and brought additional sources on this matter.
And in the Talmud, Niddah 38a (cited by the Shakh there): “the shofar blast causes it,” and the intention is to the shofar blown in court; see Tosafot.
And the halakhic decisors used this principle extensively to explain various matters in Jewish law.5
The simple understanding is that, as it were, the Holy One, blessed be He, takes the court’s decision into account and determines matters of nature according to its rulings. Therefore, even though in the Jerusalem Talmud it says her virginity returns—that is, a reality already determined changes—this only points to the magnitude of the novelty, but even without that, something astonishing is written here: that the court’s decision determines matters of nature.6 Therefore there is certainly some similarity between that Jerusalem Talmud and the discussion here, and that was Michi’s intention, and it is a wonderful similarity.
Now Mr. Michi wrote that it is clear to him that the intention is that the line is formal. I understood him to mean that they fixed the age as three years and do not care about the leap year. He then explained his words further: after all, there is no fixed boundary of exactly three years; rather, that is an average boundary, so there is no difficulty at all with a leap year (just as we find “all the measures of the sages are like this—forty se’ah,” etc.), so the whole question of the Jerusalem Talmud is not understood.
I emphasize: his question is excellent, and I have no answer to it.
However, this is clearly not the intention of the Jerusalem Talmud, and as I wrote in my response, if Michi’s words are correct, what exactly does Rabbi Avin find in the verse “to God who fulfills for me”? So one can certainly ask the Jerusalem Talmud why it needed this, but clearly one cannot redirect the words of the Jerusalem Talmud to mean what he says. And there is decisive proof of this, because the citation “to God who fulfills for me” appears once again in the Jerusalem Talmud,7 and there the meaning is clearly that the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed with David (= David proposed that they be passed before the altar, and whoever would be caught by the Ark—miraculously—would be killed), and likewise in various midrashim it appears in many places, each time in such a context.8
B. It is clear from all the words of the decisors who brought the words of the Jerusalem Talmud in various contexts that they did not understand as Mr. Michi does, since there his interpretation cannot be said. For example, the Rashba’s words: according to Michi’s interpretation there is no reason at all to be concerned about a certain day of the month, because there is no logic that that day of the month should cause blood to come, as per the Ra’ah’s claim. And since the Rashba’s answer is invalid (= because the idea that the court’s decision would have an effect is absurd in his view), then there is no reason at all to be concerned for the cycle day, as is ruled and accepted that one counts by the day of the month.
Now I had one failing: when I saw Michi’s words, I did not catch and did not notice that he had cited this in the name of the Shakh, and I thought he had brought the Jerusalem Talmud from its original source. (And also, when I brought Mahari Mintz as cited in the Shakh there, I marked section 10 instead of section 9.) I have already admitted this, and one who admits and abandons is shown mercy.
And after you read my words and follow the whole thread, go out and check for yourselves: who suffered from poor reading comprehension? And who replied with irrelevant things?
Happy holiday.
P.S. Of course, regarding the main argument I absolutely think the question is absurd, and in my first response I attached a passage I wrote on this matter concerning the words of the Kotzker and also from the Maggid of Kozhnitz—see there.9

1 At the same time, a famous contradiction was resolved for me: one verse says “do not answer a fool according to his folly,” and one verse says “answer a fool according to his folly”; see Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 30b. Apparently, one can answer him with a reply that does not address the substance of the matter, and still refute his words.
2 (I don’t know whether this was on the first response or the second—perhaps this too belongs to the verse, and it requires further inquiry whether this argument also applies retroactively.)
3 And in two other places as well: Nedarim 8 and Sanhedrin 1:2.
4 In the Talmud there is a dispute whether this is of Torah origin or rabbinic, but that does not matter for our purposes.
5 Mahari Mintz 9 (in the Shakh there) regarding a thirteen-year-old who becomes legally competent—what about the leap month?—and many other matters that it is clear to me Michi does not care about, since he knows what they wrote; therefore I will not trouble myself to look.
6 See, for example, the language of Hagahot Mordekhai (Yevamot, chapter HaCholetz, no. 116): “Meaning: He fulfills and agrees with the earthly court regarding their intercalation, and if they intercalated the year, her virginity returns, and also the signs are delayed from appearing if they intercalated the year.”
7 Kiddushin 4:1; Sanhedrin 6:7.
8 See Shemot Rabbah, parashat Bo (15:20): “What they decree, the Holy One, blessed be He, agrees with them, as it is said: ‘I call to God Most High, to God who fulfills for me.’ Praised be the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, that the creatures decree and He agrees.” And there are many more. Searching in the responsa database (“to God who fulfills for me,” and not including Bible and commentaries in the search) you can find them and all the decisors who discussed this. (I am not a Torah scholar at all, and Torah is not my main occupation, so my knowledge is limited. Yes, yes, there are Haredim who do not suck the public’s blood, and support themselves, and are even—sometimes—well-off people.)
9 And parenthetically, there is a Hasidic community, relatively small, called Skver, concentrated mainly in New Square in New York, but also dispersed throughout the Diaspora all over New York and a bit in Israel. There they follow, for the time of reciting Shema, three equal hours—that is, three equal hours before noon—but not according to actual solar noon, rather according to average noon, meaning 12:00. This too is hard to accept: why should we calculate according to the average? But there is another problem: average noon according to New York local time (UTC-5) is 12:56 and not 1:00, and it makes no sense at all that we should calculate according to the time-zone clock; does the fact that they decided to arrange the clock that way mean the times themselves change? So one rabbi wrote an article in a Torah journal where he explains their custom by saying that since the time-zone clock was established, we calculate according to that time… And perhaps this can be explained according to the words of the Jerusalem Talmud: since the State Senate or someone else determines that the time zone changes, the matter of the three hours and the time when kings rise also changes…