Q&A: Scientific Understanding That Contradicts Talmudic Jewish Law
Scientific Understanding That Contradicts Talmudic Jewish Law
Question
Hello Rabbi,
If, hypothetically, it were discovered that absorption into utensils through cold water is more significant than absorption through hot water, would that mean we would need to be stricter about cold water just as we are about absorption through hot water, and prohibit it? Or perhaps the opposite: we would need to be more lenient about absorption through hot water, at least as much as absorption through cold water, and permit it entirely. And more generally, if according to the Talmud item A is forbidden and item B is permitted, and there is a hierarchical relationship of stringency between A and B such that A is more severe than B—if science were to discover that the relationship is actually the reverse, and in practice B is more severe than A, would we need to prohibit B or permit A?
Best regards,
Answer
I didn’t quite understand the question. You should do what I said. It has nothing to do with relative leniencies and stringencies. If the truth is that cold water causes absorption, then one should be stringent regarding cold water, regardless of what you do with hot water. Hot water too should be judged according to the factual reality.
Discussion on Answer
Obviously, absorption is not defined in a sharp, precise way. But assuming there is some particular measure of absorption that is prohibitive, one has to examine the levels of absorption in cold and hot conditions (how cold and how hot), and decide accordingly. The question of whether there is such a measure is a different question. In the Talmud, the criterion is taste (1 in 60), and therefore they established the relevant measure.
The question is how one identifies the prohibitive level of absorption that the Sages established. What is meant by taste or 1 in 60? After all, it’s clear that neither of those applies in modern utensils.
It’s not a simple question, and it lies at the basis of current discussions about absorption. In any case, it seems that here there is neither taste nor sixty, neither in cold nor in hot, and therefore, essentially, the whole issue of absorption in utensils stems mainly from the lack of knowledge of the Sages and the halakhic decisors (and also from the materials utensils were made of in their time). Pixler and Frank discussed all this at length. But I’ll say again that in any case this has nothing to do with the relationship between cold and hot.
So if I understand you correctly, basically all the laws of absorption in utensils are not valid nowadays?
That’s too sweeping. My claim is that they are subject to empirical findings. You can read Frank’s work under Pixler’s supervision and the responses.
The question is what the critical threshold is from which absorption is considered absorption. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that after cooking a certain liquid at a hot temperature, X particles of the liquid were found absorbed in the utensil, and Y particles after cold cooking. If we say that the minimum threshold that the Sages established is X, then since Y was found to be greater than X, one should be stringent with cold cooking. On the other hand, if we say that what the Sages established is that Y is negligible, and since X was found to be smaller than Y, then cooking with heat should be permitted.