We learned the beth Hillel that allows killing a kina on shabbos because it does not 'preh vravah.'This is also the halacha. I saw your explaination but wanted to ask - Is it not possible that the kina that the gemorra relates to _is_ the kina that we are familiar with today but Chazal were mistaken and believed, as did science until not to long back, that living things can be spontaneouly generated from dirt etc.
Is it possible for Chazal to make a mistake like this thereby permitting that which according to what we know today would be an issur Torah?Must I try to mataretz Chazal or may I simply assume that they are also guided by the knowledge of their times? Reuven
It could be that they erred in the physical reality. The Almighty, though, knew that they were going to err, and therefore the Halachah that the Torah teaches is still true and binding. That is, even though the Sages will think that it is permissible to kill lice on Shabbos because they are spontaneously generated, the Halachah nevertheless is true (but because of a different reason -- because they are so small).
Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rav Mordecai Could you give us a m'kor in Chazal or Rishonim for the above approach. Why do you assume that Hashem does not allow Chazal to make mistakes, even in deciding Halacha? Isn't there even a korban for Beth Din when they make a mistake? Reuven
I wish to bring to your atttention an impotant piece on this subject. Please give a look in the Michtav Meliyhu by Harav Dessler zT"L Volume #4 page 355.
Yaashar Koach on the good work.
Zev Pachino
Rav Kibbutz Chafetz Chayim
Rav Aryeh Carmel writes in a footnote to Michtav M'Eliyahu, volume four, that the ruling of Chazal is based on a tradition which they had received from their teachers, and also based on day to day experience. Therefore, their ruling does not change even if the scientific definition of the fact changes. They understood that a generative process too small to be seen with the eye was evidence of spontaneous generation. Even though later scientific inquiry determined that such small creatures do indeed produce offspring, the fact that such a process is too small to see did not change, and therefore neither did the Halachah.
Rav Carmel cites the Sefer Pachad Yitzchak (Rav Yitzchak Lampronti ha'Rofeh, 1750) who writes (under "Tzeidah Asurah") that perhaps the Halachah *should* change according to the new scientific knowledge. Rav Yitzchak Hutner, zt'l (Igros u'Kesavim), comes to the same conclusion as Rav Carmel that the Halachah does not change, but he proposes a different logic. In the context of this Halachah, "Para v'Rava" does not refer to the way a creature reproduces. Rather, it refers to whether the creature lives on its own, independently. If it is not "Para v'Rava," that means that it exists only as a parasite, living off of other living things.
Be well,
-Mordecai