Q&A: Regarding Your Theory of Halakhic Change and Maimonides' View on Changes in Treifot
Regarding Your Theory of Halakhic Change and Maimonides' View on Changes in Treifot
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Maimonides writes as follows in the Laws of Slaughter:
12. One must not add to these treifot at all. For anything that may occur to a domesticated animal, a wild animal, or a bird beyond those enumerated by the sages of the early generations, and upon which the religious courts of Israel agreed—it is possible that it may live. Even if we know from medical knowledge that it will not survive. [13] And likewise, those that they enumerated and said are treifah—even though it appears from the medical knowledge available to us that some of them are not fatal, and it is possible to survive them: you have only what the sages enumerated, as it says, "According to the Torah that they shall instruct you" (Deuteronomy 17:11).
How does this fit with your theory of halakhic change that you presented in the recent lecture series on innovation, conservatism, and tradition? Or perhaps in your view Maimonides was a straightforward conservative?
Best regards,
Answer
Many have already noted this (Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, Rabbi Rabinovitch, and others). Some understood his words to mean that the tradition says the criterion that a treifah does not live is not the reason but the sign. Without the tradition, I really would not have accepted this. By the way, regarding human treifot Maimonides writes the opposite, and that too has already been noted. In any case, from human treifot you can see that he is indeed a midrashic conservative, and therefore regarding animal treifot this is apparently a tradition (a sign and not a reason).
Discussion on Answer
Apparently there is such a tradition, but I am very doubtful about it. To me it sounds more like implausible apologetics (like the Hazon Ish's theory of the two thousand years of Torah). Admittedly, if this is apologetics, then I would have expected Maimonides to adopt such an approach regarding human treifot as well, and seemingly the fact that he does not do so is evidence that this is really what he thinks and not apologetics. But one should remember that in the case of human treifot this is not all that practical, and it is not as threatening as changing the laws of treifot in kashrut. I do not know what the situation was in Maimonides' time, and whether there was such a threat then or not. In any case, I have not seen good evidence for the thesis that these are signs and not reasons.
Following up on this question, I remember you saying in the lectures on innovation, conservatism, and tradition that the laws of treifot should change in accordance with up-to-date medical science. That is, do you hold, against Maimonides, that this is a reason and not a sign? And if so, why?
Best regards,