Q&A: Did Rabbi Kook Adopt Postmodernism?
Did Rabbi Kook Adopt Postmodernism?
Question
In Da’at Kohen, section 140, Rabbi Kook discusses the issue of metzitzah during circumcision and says there as follows: “But in truth it seems that in general we regard their statements only as doubtful, for even they themselves cannot treat their words as certain doctrine; for sometimes one person, or even many, lay down a foundational principle in medical science (and the same applies to all the sciences), and many determine the matter to be true, and afterward another generation comes and investigates and finds that all their words are vanity, and what one builds the other tears down. Their words are nothing but support and estimation. Therefore all their statements have the status of doubt…”
Basically, I understood from Rabbi Kook’s words that he adopts the postmodern approach regarding science. Did I understand correctly?
Answer
From the wording you quoted here, he is presenting a skeptical stance toward the findings of science. That is not postmodernism, but healthy skepticism. Pure postmodernism says there is no truth and that every opinion and its opposite are equivalent. Healthy skepticism understands that nothing is 100% certain.
Discussion on Answer
Following up on my question: of course there is no 100 percent, but as I understand it, in order to treat a body of knowledge as a halakhic doubt, we have to say it is 50-50. And I thought that even uncertain science can still be more than 50 percent correct, and therefore it all depends on the case, and sometimes I should treat it as halakhically certain. Where am I mistaken?
For the sake of the discussion: would we not extract money on the basis of scientific findings? Would we not permit an agunah or transfer an inheritance on the basis of DNA?
I wasn’t referring to the science of the Sages, and I completely agree that it is far less reliable than our science. I was referring only to the very act of casting doubt on the findings of science. But to make Rabbi Kook’s point, there is no need to assume that the science of the Sages is more reliable than ours. One only has to assume that our science is not certain enough to depart from the instructions of the Sages.
Also on this issue, I personally think that metzitzah is not a requirement of Jewish law but a medical and health guideline, and therefore there is no obstacle to changing it even on the basis of positions that are not certain.
The doubt here is not 50-50, and I don’t think Rabbi Kook meant to say that it is an evenly balanced doubt. In his view, it is simply not certain enough to depart from the instructions of the Sages.
As for extracting money, it depends on what medical ruling is involved, how certain it is, and what the legal situation is. It is impossible to answer that in general.
It’s very healthy to attribute lower credibility to the medical positions of science today than to the medical positions assumed by the Sages when they came to interpret the Torah, issue decrees, and enact ordinances. You can chop up that line of reasoning and mix it into yogurt for a nutritious and filling breakfast. To your health.