Q&A: Terefot
Terefot
Question
Hello,
In my course of study I’m nearing the end of the laws of terefot in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch. I’m interested in your views on this topic:
A. Many of the discussions in the laws of terefot are based on the assumption that a tereifah cannot live longer, and sometimes that assumption is even used to decide whether a certain defect renders an animal a tereifah or not. But today it is clear that a tereifah can be alive and kicking, and can even give birth and thrive. This view is actually mentioned in Hullin 57b, where it even says, “The law is that it gives birth and thrives.” True, Maimonides writes that terefot do not depend on whether the animal lives or dies, but are a law given to Moses at Sinai, yet many discussions among the halakhic decisors go in that direction. In your opinion, should these discussions be rejected, in the sense that there is no value in engaging in them and that the Jewish law does not follow them? It should be noted that this law also leads to leniency, since in a case of doubt about a tereifah that survived twelve months, it is deemed kosher.
B. Regarding the specific law of a mauled animal: the Talmudic discussions are partly based on “it injected its poison” or “it did not inject its poison,” which most halakhic decisors explain as venom found in the claws of the mauling animal. But today it is known that such venom never existed at all, not even as a metaphor, and various explanations offered instead, such as infections or bacteria, cannot account for the details of the laws: why does a wolf count but not a dog? Why a cat, and specifically only with the front paw, and specifically only when it acts intentionally, etc.? How should all this be viewed? Must we remain faithful to the Jewish law we have received even though its basis seems to be mistaken scientific knowledge, be lenient across the board because there is no venom, or on the contrary be stringent regarding every mauling by any animal, or perhaps determine some other criterion by reasoning, such as the size and force of the blow?
Answer
I haven’t checked all the facts in these contexts, but in general, in my opinion any Jewish law that is based on a scientific error is void, without any need to resort to the Great Court. This is not like an enactment whose reason has lapsed, as discussed at the beginning of chapter 2 of Hilkhot Mamrim. As you noted, Maimonides holds that in the case of animals this is a law given to Moses at Sinai, and then it does not depend on the scientific facts.
As I recall, Rabbi N. A. Rabinovitch has an article dealing with the relationship between Jewish law and scientific facts, and he discusses the issue of terefot in detail.