Perforated and non-perforated flowerpot
The laws of a named and unnamed plant are based on the question of whether the plant is suckering from the ground, as is the law of planting outdoors, etc. Usually, a potted plant that is not named is also forbidden by the rabbis, but there may be exceptions (such as what is considered permissible in the seventh year for a potted plant that is not named under a roof). In light of today’s scientific knowledge, should the legal boundaries regarding what is suckering and what is not suckering be updated? Because in reality, we are left to deal with the boundaries established by the Gemara, and the interpretation of the Rishonim (the distinction between wood and clay, planting outdoors, etc.)
If there is indeed a difference, then clearly there is. This is a rule that is based on error and is automatically null and void. But I don’t know if this is really the scientific situation. Keep in mind that there is no rule about the amount of sucking that determines this matter, and therefore it is difficult for me to see how science could decide anything here. This is in contrast to mixtures of prohibition, permission, and swallowing, where there are quantities (sixty, most, etc.), and therefore it is possible to test this scientifically.
As the rabbi points out, this is not necessarily a “mistake,” for the sages were basing their conclusions on their agronomic experience, but it is certainly a law that was determined based on much more limited information than ours, which is why only a few parameters were taken into account, and today we can compare and delve into many subtleties. This is similar to the rules of mixtures (a second tool, a matter that is discussed above). The question is whether only the law that has been proven to contain a scientific error should be annulled, or whether even when there is no error, we should refine its boundaries according to the information that is being renewed. Why should we accept the boundaries that the sages established? (Some have argued to me that since halakha is determined according to human and not scientific reality, there is an advantage to the determinations of the sages, which were determined in light of human experience and not according to scientific discoveries. Today, it is difficult for us to define what is human knowledge and what is scientific knowledge, but I am not convinced of this, because even the sages determined according to the information that emerged from their experience.)
My argument is simpler. The Talmud has the same authority as the Sanhedrin. In order to change a Talmudic law without a Sanhedrin, one must be certain that it is wrong, otherwise we have entered into the issue of something that one minyan must allow by another minyan. When the degree of suckling is not measurable and it is not clear what the determining measure is for the matter of prohibition, you cannot clearly determine that the Talmudic law is wrong and therefore you cannot repeal it. It is clear that if we were to determine the law today, it is possible that it would be determined differently. But this is not the case.
So, what is the minyan in our power to overturn laws that turn out to be incorrect? After all, that's how the Sanhedrin interpreted them and we have no power to change them? I can understand that if they were wrong about something that could have been known at the time, then it's a mistake and their decision is invalid. But if it was probably a correct statement in light of the knowledge of their time, because it was the reasonable person's view of the world, their decision is valid and we need a minyan to overturn it.
I don't see a difference whether this knowledge was there at the time or not. As long as it is clear that it is a mistake, it is a decision made in error and is void. That's all.
In the cancellation of a transaction or a kiddushin, some divide between a transaction made in error, which is based on a lack of information that already existed at the time of the transaction, and cancellation by virtue of an estimate, which is based on information created in the future (if I had known that would be the case, I would not have consented). But in our case, we are talking about knowledge that was correct at the time of the ”transaction”, but people did not know it.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
