lol, are you seriously trying to suggest that a few misinformed sages theorizing a flat earth in 500 CE are the force behind the contemporary Flat Earth movement? Please.
There are some rabbinical sources that support a flat earth, though they are few.
Whether or not some sages believed in the geocentric view - the sun revolving around the earth or the heliocentric view - the reverse, we still describe our evenings as “sunset”. Our perspectives are based on our assertions which is decided by looking to the horizon.
It has been noted that since antiquity, the Greeks recognized the heliocentric and not the geocentric view, which was the consensus at the time. However, since the antiquity of its history, the Church knew it was round and the size of its circumference. While most Talmudic rabbis endorsed the heliocentric view, there were some who engaged in the geocentric. Of course, the sun’s position is relative to each standing perceptive.
In Ri of Barcelona’s commentary on Sefer Yetzirah (p. 254a), he quotes Rav Saadia Gaon supporting the theory that the earth is flat. This was a minority (miktzat) opinion. Another was Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi who said the underground streams were cold because the sun traveled beneath the earth at night and that this theory seemed more correct. Some Jews believed the sun traveled above, indicating a more flat earth theory. The Lubavitcher, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of Chabad wrote in a correspondence to a friend of the nonsensical notion that the sun and earth change positions based on the merits or sins of the Jews. Obviously, this nonsensical notion is ridiculed. Magic, demons, and ghost do not exist. They have never been proven and thus belong to the fabrication of the wild imagination of the mystics to support their emotional needs. Maimonides said that some ancient rabbis were little experts in the realms of science and did not always fully understood how the laws of nature worked (Guide to the Perplexed, III:14). For the rationalist, Gersonides (Ragbag), Maimonides (Rambam), and Ibn Ezra were convinced that the sun did not stand still for Joshua nor did the sun’s shadow move ten degrees backward on Hezekiah’s deathbed.
In summary, a few rabbis in the Talmud believed it was flat and some were unsure. In spite of that, the majority knew it had to be round, which was proven by modern science today.
They weren't theorizing, they seemed to firmly believe it. Indeed the flat idea seems to be held by most of the talmud rabbis. It's the more fanciful stuff, the demons and pillars and changing in movement of sun according to sin, that seems to be in doubt by the later ones.
The Talmud has a strong influence on people even today, as does Kaballah, despite being archaic and failings in logic, reason and decency etc. Even in complex ways that are not immediately obvious. For example, Louis Pasteur may not have "discovered" his "principals of vaccination" had he, though not a Jew, not been introduced to the Talmud; wherein the rabbis recommend, to prevent onset of illness if a person is bitten by a rabid dog, to kill the dog and cut it open and cut off the tip of it's liver and feed it to that person. This set him off on the idea that injecting a person with a small amount of what he believed would make them sick, would make them immune to that particular sickness. Follow the science!
People can get very attached to the ideas of those old rabbis, or mystic ideas of Kaballah. Are you aware of the red string bracelet worn by students of Kaballah? You might be surprised at some of the people who have been photographed wearing one. If the parties attached to these ideas are people in positions of power, the ideas can filter down into society, naturally or by force, to such a degree that even reason can't seem to shift them.
Of course they were theorizing; they were uneducated "mystics" with no concrete understanding of astronomy. As I'm sure a scholar such as yourself must know, the Talmud is a series of written debates and disagreements with many different opinions entangled.
The entire world and those upon it, spin round in a circle like a ball,' both those at the bottom of the ball and those at the top. All God's creatures, wherever they live on the different parts of the ball, look different (in color, in their features) because the air is different in each place, but they stand erect as all other human beings.
Therefore there are places in the world where, when some have light, others have darkness; when some have day, others have night. There is a place in the world where the day is long and night is but a short time...
So, to suggest that this idea was held by "most of the Talmudic rabbis" is both false and irrelevant. Scientific matters recorded in the Talmud are not necessarily concrete religious traditions meant to be upheld by future generations, but merely a reflection of the contemporary beliefs of the time. Additionally, like all religious texts, much of the language is couched in metaphor, which leaves it open to a deeper, poetic intepretation.
As for your other irrelevant insinuations, I'm not particularly interested in following those superstitions down into some discursive wormhole.
The Zohar was first publicized by Moses de León (c. 1240 – 1305 CE), who claimed it was a Tannaitic work recording the teachings of Simeon ben Yochai[b] (c. 100 CE). This claim is universally rejected by modern scholars, most of whom believe de León, also an infamous forger of Geonic material, wrote the book himself between 1280 and 1286.
My mistake, got my religious texts mixed up. My point still stands and this site provides a clear and interesting breakdown of the differing opinions of the time.
lol, are you seriously trying to suggest that a few misinformed sages theorizing a flat earth in 500 CE are the force behind the contemporary Flat Earth movement? Please.
They weren't theorizing, they seemed to firmly believe it. Indeed the flat idea seems to be held by most of the talmud rabbis. It's the more fanciful stuff, the demons and pillars and changing in movement of sun according to sin, that seems to be in doubt by the later ones.
The Talmud has a strong influence on people even today, as does Kaballah, despite being archaic and failings in logic, reason and decency etc. Even in complex ways that are not immediately obvious. For example, Louis Pasteur may not have "discovered" his "principals of vaccination" had he, though not a Jew, not been introduced to the Talmud; wherein the rabbis recommend, to prevent onset of illness if a person is bitten by a rabid dog, to kill the dog and cut it open and cut off the tip of it's liver and feed it to that person. This set him off on the idea that injecting a person with a small amount of what he believed would make them sick, would make them immune to that particular sickness. Follow the science!
People can get very attached to the ideas of those old rabbis, or mystic ideas of Kaballah. Are you aware of the red string bracelet worn by students of Kaballah? You might be surprised at some of the people who have been photographed wearing one. If the parties attached to these ideas are people in positions of power, the ideas can filter down into society, naturally or by force, to such a degree that even reason can't seem to shift them.
Of course they were theorizing; they were uneducated "mystics" with no concrete understanding of astronomy. As I'm sure a scholar such as yourself must know, the Talmud is a series of written debates and disagreements with many different opinions entangled.
Zohar Vayikra 10a unambiguously states that:
So, to suggest that this idea was held by "most of the Talmudic rabbis" is both false and irrelevant. Scientific matters recorded in the Talmud are not necessarily concrete religious traditions meant to be upheld by future generations, but merely a reflection of the contemporary beliefs of the time. Additionally, like all religious texts, much of the language is couched in metaphor, which leaves it open to a deeper, poetic intepretation.
As for your other irrelevant insinuations, I'm not particularly interested in following those superstitions down into some discursive wormhole.
The quote you found is from The Zohar, not the Talmud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar
My mistake, got my religious texts mixed up. My point still stands and this site provides a clear and interesting breakdown of the differing opinions of the time.