You should study the relevant passage of the Talmud inside the text itself (as opposed to shopping a quote from second-hand sources and translations) before making determinations as to what the Sages of the Talmud knew or didn't know. For if you did, you would see that the Tosafos commentary on the page addresses your very question and, quite tellingly, does not jump to your dismissive conclusion that the Sages simply did not know what they were talking about, but rather provides a different answer. One reason for this lack of dismissiveness on the part of Tosafos might be that it is quite simple to observe an apple tree and requires no great feat of technological innovation or rocket science to ascertain the manner in which it develops. As such, to simply dismiss this statement from the Sages as being just ignorant of easily-observable facts implies that the Sages were really just intellectually careless people who didn't bother with the most basic research to support their statements, an assumption that contradicts your own admission that they were, indeed, very wise people.
1. Hi-we've never met. I'm sorry that you thought this was a kind way of introducing yourself. So, who are you?
2. I, in fact, have studied the texts!
3. I find it interesting the implications you're drawing about my opinions about חז״ל, but I will leave that processing to your own internal work. After all, it is Elul, a good time to try to think about why you wrote what you wrote, and more importantly, how you wrote it.
4. Last but not least, I looked at the Tosafot. A couple interesting things about it:
A. They say the gemara really means an Etrog which is, very graciously, a stretch.
B. Tosafot then say the gemara incorrectly used a prooftext! I imagine if they had an email inbox, you'd send them an admonishment asking them how dare they speak like that about the gemara?
C. Once again, even if we take R'T at his word, I am sad to share with you that a Citron tree ALSO doesn't grow fruit before its leaves.
Alas, wishing you lots of luck with your cheshbon ha'nefesh this year and sending wishes for a sweet year ahead for you.
My apologies for the fact that you felt that this was my way of introducing myself; it was merely a comment on what I felt was a presumptuous statement about Chazal, when it seemed clear from your writing that you lacked basic comprehension of the texts, something I feel was proven more correct in your latest response. If you felt that it was overly brash, my apologies.
So let me begin with the introductions, and then I will address your response to my comment. My name is Ezzy Marcus, and while researching the topic of the apple for Rosh Hashanah in preparation for a class I am to give, I came across your otherwise very nice piece. I very much appreciate the fact that you took the time to examine my comment and respond to it, and I will now try to do the same for yours.
If I may go out on a limb here, Adir, I would say that you seem offended by my comment on your article, something which I find puzzling, as it was just addressing your point on an intellectual level, without casting any aspersions on you personally, although it does seem that you are quite confident in your assertions about Chazal's lack of knowledge, something which struck me as rather presumptuous. (Hence, the tone of my comment.) I wonder why the response couldn't simply have sufficed with addressing my points without resorting to not-so-subtle, cynical implications about my character. Unfortunately, it seems that quite the opposite happened; in your zeal in focusing on my cheshbon hanefesh, you failed to address my main point. Nevertheless, here are my comments on your email: (I will reiterate, my comments are only being made on the intellectual level, not on a personal one, as I don't even know you.)
1.) You write that you studied the texts, yet you seemed to have missed both the commentaries of Rashi and Tosafos, which are printed right next to the Gemara. How is that possible? Which text are you studying from, and why would you not consult with the most basic commentaries before writing your comment? I mention Rashi, as well, because if you read Rashi carefully, you will see that he is also addressing your question (as many commentators have pointed out) but proffering a different answer than Tosafos. In fact, this question on the Gemara has been addressed by numerous commentaries on the Gemara over the centuries, and none have offered your simple explanation that Chazal were wrong! I wonder why? Perhaps, generations of scholars had a greater depth of understanding than you care to acknowledge, as that would pose uncomfortable questions for you and your worldview. Regardless, I feel that your approach to this topic was intellectually shoddy, with you jumping to conclusions without having first done basic research.
2.) You write that you find interesting the implications that I am drawing as to your views on Chazal. No, these are not implications - you said it explicitly (and, it seems, rather flippantly, as well) that Chazal got something so easily observable wrong, a conclusion that can only mean that they were intellectually careless.
3.) Your comments on Tosafos's interpretation, which you deemed, 'very graciously, a stretch', are another example of you superficially analyzing the words of the Gemara and its commentaries from the Rishonim with your pre-conceived notions as to how things should be, and based on your assertions, deciding whether they were right or wrong without ever wondering that maybe it's your own assumptions that need revising. With this in mind, I ask you, how do you know that the translation of 'tapuach' is apple, and thus R"T's explanation is a stretch? Because in Modern Hebrew, Ben Yehuda decided to go with that interpretation? What sources do you have in Biblical Hebrew that tapuach refers specifically to an apple? R"T himself brought a source from the Targum on Shir Hashirim, which is from at least Talmudic times, which translates tapuach as an esrog. So why are you so confident that it must mean an apple? Granted, many opinions maintain such, but that in it of itself is not a refutation of R"T's interpretation.
4.) It seems that you lack familiarity with the study of Tosafos and their style of writing, which is what led you to think that Tosafos is roundly rejecting the Gemara's source. That is incorrect. Tosafos will very often ask an open-ended question that they leave unresolved, and that is all they are doing here. (In many places, actually, Tosafos will leave a question unanswered in one place and then answer it in a different masechta.) Tosafos is asking (Teimah in Aramaic means 'wonder') that there seems to be a much better source for this idea, for the reasons they mentioned. And, here as well, there are numerous answers offered by the later commentaries. Would it be so hard for you to study the question a little more carefully, rather than simply dismissing it?
5.) I must say, your refutation of R"T's explanation that citron trees also bear leaves before fruit, left me truly confused and bewildered. Again, I ask, did you not read the words of Tosafos? R"T himself addressed this question. If you have a difficulty with his explanation, fine, let's hear it; but don't make it sound like that R"T didn't think of this obvious issue. Here again, it seems that some humility would be in order when addressing the issues.
Lastly, I would just mention that you have not addressed my main point, which was how it is that you refer to Chazal as such wise people, yet believe they made such an elementary error that no amateur would make. As a corollary to that, I wonder how you explain 1500 years of Jewish scholars who did not offer your seemingly simple explanation.
Again, much appreciation for engaging in this interesting dialogue. I look forward to your response. You should be blessed with a coming year of only good things. (No need to extend Rosh Hashanah wishes with an expression of 'alas'...)
Wasn’t the apple the beginning of our troubles?!?! Maybe mixing it with honey, was someone’s idea to make life a little sweeter! Just sayin’!!! Enjoy your family, and wishing you all a sweet year!
You should study the relevant passage of the Talmud inside the text itself (as opposed to shopping a quote from second-hand sources and translations) before making determinations as to what the Sages of the Talmud knew or didn't know. For if you did, you would see that the Tosafos commentary on the page addresses your very question and, quite tellingly, does not jump to your dismissive conclusion that the Sages simply did not know what they were talking about, but rather provides a different answer. One reason for this lack of dismissiveness on the part of Tosafos might be that it is quite simple to observe an apple tree and requires no great feat of technological innovation or rocket science to ascertain the manner in which it develops. As such, to simply dismiss this statement from the Sages as being just ignorant of easily-observable facts implies that the Sages were really just intellectually careless people who didn't bother with the most basic research to support their statements, an assumption that contradicts your own admission that they were, indeed, very wise people.
1. Hi-we've never met. I'm sorry that you thought this was a kind way of introducing yourself. So, who are you?
2. I, in fact, have studied the texts!
3. I find it interesting the implications you're drawing about my opinions about חז״ל, but I will leave that processing to your own internal work. After all, it is Elul, a good time to try to think about why you wrote what you wrote, and more importantly, how you wrote it.
4. Last but not least, I looked at the Tosafot. A couple interesting things about it:
A. They say the gemara really means an Etrog which is, very graciously, a stretch.
B. Tosafot then say the gemara incorrectly used a prooftext! I imagine if they had an email inbox, you'd send them an admonishment asking them how dare they speak like that about the gemara?
C. Once again, even if we take R'T at his word, I am sad to share with you that a Citron tree ALSO doesn't grow fruit before its leaves.
Alas, wishing you lots of luck with your cheshbon ha'nefesh this year and sending wishes for a sweet year ahead for you.
Hi Adir,
My apologies for the fact that you felt that this was my way of introducing myself; it was merely a comment on what I felt was a presumptuous statement about Chazal, when it seemed clear from your writing that you lacked basic comprehension of the texts, something I feel was proven more correct in your latest response. If you felt that it was overly brash, my apologies.
So let me begin with the introductions, and then I will address your response to my comment. My name is Ezzy Marcus, and while researching the topic of the apple for Rosh Hashanah in preparation for a class I am to give, I came across your otherwise very nice piece. I very much appreciate the fact that you took the time to examine my comment and respond to it, and I will now try to do the same for yours.
If I may go out on a limb here, Adir, I would say that you seem offended by my comment on your article, something which I find puzzling, as it was just addressing your point on an intellectual level, without casting any aspersions on you personally, although it does seem that you are quite confident in your assertions about Chazal's lack of knowledge, something which struck me as rather presumptuous. (Hence, the tone of my comment.) I wonder why the response couldn't simply have sufficed with addressing my points without resorting to not-so-subtle, cynical implications about my character. Unfortunately, it seems that quite the opposite happened; in your zeal in focusing on my cheshbon hanefesh, you failed to address my main point. Nevertheless, here are my comments on your email: (I will reiterate, my comments are only being made on the intellectual level, not on a personal one, as I don't even know you.)
1.) You write that you studied the texts, yet you seemed to have missed both the commentaries of Rashi and Tosafos, which are printed right next to the Gemara. How is that possible? Which text are you studying from, and why would you not consult with the most basic commentaries before writing your comment? I mention Rashi, as well, because if you read Rashi carefully, you will see that he is also addressing your question (as many commentators have pointed out) but proffering a different answer than Tosafos. In fact, this question on the Gemara has been addressed by numerous commentaries on the Gemara over the centuries, and none have offered your simple explanation that Chazal were wrong! I wonder why? Perhaps, generations of scholars had a greater depth of understanding than you care to acknowledge, as that would pose uncomfortable questions for you and your worldview. Regardless, I feel that your approach to this topic was intellectually shoddy, with you jumping to conclusions without having first done basic research.
2.) You write that you find interesting the implications that I am drawing as to your views on Chazal. No, these are not implications - you said it explicitly (and, it seems, rather flippantly, as well) that Chazal got something so easily observable wrong, a conclusion that can only mean that they were intellectually careless.
3.) Your comments on Tosafos's interpretation, which you deemed, 'very graciously, a stretch', are another example of you superficially analyzing the words of the Gemara and its commentaries from the Rishonim with your pre-conceived notions as to how things should be, and based on your assertions, deciding whether they were right or wrong without ever wondering that maybe it's your own assumptions that need revising. With this in mind, I ask you, how do you know that the translation of 'tapuach' is apple, and thus R"T's explanation is a stretch? Because in Modern Hebrew, Ben Yehuda decided to go with that interpretation? What sources do you have in Biblical Hebrew that tapuach refers specifically to an apple? R"T himself brought a source from the Targum on Shir Hashirim, which is from at least Talmudic times, which translates tapuach as an esrog. So why are you so confident that it must mean an apple? Granted, many opinions maintain such, but that in it of itself is not a refutation of R"T's interpretation.
4.) It seems that you lack familiarity with the study of Tosafos and their style of writing, which is what led you to think that Tosafos is roundly rejecting the Gemara's source. That is incorrect. Tosafos will very often ask an open-ended question that they leave unresolved, and that is all they are doing here. (In many places, actually, Tosafos will leave a question unanswered in one place and then answer it in a different masechta.) Tosafos is asking (Teimah in Aramaic means 'wonder') that there seems to be a much better source for this idea, for the reasons they mentioned. And, here as well, there are numerous answers offered by the later commentaries. Would it be so hard for you to study the question a little more carefully, rather than simply dismissing it?
5.) I must say, your refutation of R"T's explanation that citron trees also bear leaves before fruit, left me truly confused and bewildered. Again, I ask, did you not read the words of Tosafos? R"T himself addressed this question. If you have a difficulty with his explanation, fine, let's hear it; but don't make it sound like that R"T didn't think of this obvious issue. Here again, it seems that some humility would be in order when addressing the issues.
Lastly, I would just mention that you have not addressed my main point, which was how it is that you refer to Chazal as such wise people, yet believe they made such an elementary error that no amateur would make. As a corollary to that, I wonder how you explain 1500 years of Jewish scholars who did not offer your seemingly simple explanation.
Again, much appreciation for engaging in this interesting dialogue. I look forward to your response. You should be blessed with a coming year of only good things. (No need to extend Rosh Hashanah wishes with an expression of 'alas'...)
Sincerely,
Ezzy
Wasn’t the apple the beginning of our troubles?!?! Maybe mixing it with honey, was someone’s idea to make life a little sweeter! Just sayin’!!! Enjoy your family, and wishing you all a sweet year!
🍎🍯✡️Hugs and 💕 Zeta