Elia Leibowitz on Torah and Science (Haaretz Books – 2001)

I would like to comment on Prof. Elia Leibowitz's review of Prof. Yehuda Levy's book ("Haaretz", Books 15.8).

Leibowitz opposes the apologetic approach to the contradictions between Torah statements and scientific truths, and on this point I, the little one, certainly agree with him. However, beyond that, there are several assumptions in his words, some hidden and some more overt, that are very problematic in my opinion, and I would expect him to at least put them on the table during the discussion.

1. Leibowitz claims that the monolithic attitude towards Judaism is derived from the existence of a common name for the entirety of Jewish creation. Literature and poetry, like any other field, also have a common name that characterizes the field. This is not to lead anyone to assume that poetry is a monolithic field, meaning that there is no diversity of opinions and approaches in that field. The assumption about the monolithicity of Judaism is not derived from the common name for the entirety of Jewish creation (be it 'Chazal', 'Torah', or 'Judaism'), but from the belief that things written by the Holy Spirit or by prophecy cannot be wrong.

There is no room for comparison between diversity of opinions in a particular field of thought and diversity of opinions regarding facts. It seems to me that even in Prof. Leibowitz's field, physics, differences of opinion will not be accepted as legitimate, unless the truth is not yet known. There is no room for diverse opinions regarding facts, even if some of them are wrong.

Furthermore, one can argue with the assumption that all the words of the Sages are free from error, since the Sages, unlike the prophets and the Torah itself, did not write their words in prophecy. However, this has nothing to do with the claim about the non-monolithic nature of Judaism. Leibowitz assumes that all the Holy Scriptures (written and oral) are human creations, and therefore all are prone to errors. Many, like me, believe that some of them are divine 'creations', and at least in this part there can be no errors. We, in our sins, dare to assume that God, the Almighty, must know even what Prof. Leibowitz knows. Since this is the central point on which Leibowitz disagrees with Levi (on the divinity of the Torah materials), I would expect it to be the focus of criticism, or at least to be laid on the table. This omission, which it would not be unreasonable to assume is intentional, has more than a hint of demagogy. The obvious assumption that there cannot be a divine source for the Torah is the main manifestation of positivism in Leibowitz's review. Below I will point out a few more of these.

2. Prof. Leibowitz assumes as a matter of course that the sole criterion for the value of Judaism is its contribution to Western culture (see the concluding paragraph of the review). Wow! In my opinion, the value of Western culture is to the extent that it is useful in understanding the Torah. This point is also presented by Leibowitz as a matter of course.

3. Another puzzling assumption, which I find difficult to accept and which Leibowitz himself believes, is that only scientific knowledge can be considered wisdom. Leibowitz criticizes Rabbi Ovadia Yosef for saying that one page of Gemara contains more wisdom than all the sciences and all the scientists in the world, and argues against him that there is here, in a 'not uncharacteristic' way, an 'anti-scientific' approach, or a 'rejection of the scientific method'.

I don't see why we should understand it this way. Every intelligent person understands that there are different types of wisdom. Science is one type, and in the Gemara there is another type. Rabbi Yosef's assessment is that the Torah type of wisdom is infinitely greater than scientific wisdom. There is no rejection of science here, but only a rejection of Leibowitz's blatantly positivist-pagan approach, which is also, by the way, 'not uncharacteristic', which sees science as the face of everything.

4. A similar approach appears towards the end of the review, where he states firmly that the halakhic discussion about the possibility of a wounded person being in the audience is 'anti-scientific, anti-rational and anti-cultural.' The decision, in the learned opinion of Prof. Leibowitz, 'should be left to the family doctor.'

First, he decides that the purpose of the prohibition is to prevent defects in offspring, and then he makes his aforementioned determinations. Again, science is the know-it-all. Isn't it possible that there is another reason for this prohibition, which even Professor Leibowitz, the all-knowing, does not understand?

5. His recommendation to leave the decision to the family doctor also points to a similar approach. This is similar to what is customary today to leave traffic laws, such as determining the maximum permitted speed, in the hands of traffic experts, or the decision about abortion in the hands of doctors, and so on.

This dark approach indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of the relationship between facts and values. In this regard, Leibowitz had the best teacher at his disposal, in his own home. The late Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz never stopped pointing out this fallacy, and here is 'something that that righteous man stood on, his descendants failed in.'

The decision whether a depressed wounded man gives birth to defective children is a scientific decision. However, the moral decision whether to prohibit him from procreating is not at all a matter for experts. Just as the decision whether a fetus at a given age has a certain function is a scientific decision, the moral decision whether he is a person, and the moral decision whether to abort him in this state constitutes murder, is not at all a matter for experts.

On this point too, Prof. Leibowitz continues his positivist approach, which sees science as the face of everything. It is not surprising, therefore, that Maimonides and his son, who are very close to a positivist position, receive praise from him for their rationality. I think that by now it should be clear even to the most devout believers of the Church of Western Science that positivism is nothing more than superstition. If Prof. Leibowitz had advanced a little further in the wake of the Western culture that he so admires, he too might have been aware of this.