Q&A: What does the Rabbi think about contradictions between science and Jewish law?
What does the Rabbi think about contradictions between science and Jewish law?
Question
I am attaching for you a responsum from Rabbi Asher Weiss, author of Minchat Asher. Do you agree with Rabbi Weiss’s conclusion, or do you disagree with it?
Best regards
A letter from Rabbi Asher Weiss
To my esteemed friend, a sage and man of letters
Rabbi Moshe Yitzhak Bloy, may he live a good long life
You asked my opinion regarding what a certain rabbi wrote in the journal Etz Chaim, where he challenged the validity of ink made from galls. He wrote that the earlier authorities mistakenly thought that galls were a kind of fruit, and therefore something that comes from a tree and is valid for ink. But modern research has determined that galls are not the fruit of a tree; rather, they are the result of secretions of creeping creatures into the trunk of the tree, and as a result of that secretion a kind of growth develops in the tree, and those growths are the galls.
Therefore that rabbi wrote that ink made from galls is invalid for writing Torah scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot, since it comes from something impure. He thus disagreed with the rulings of Maimonides (chapter 1 of the laws of Torah scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot, law 4), the Shulchan Arukh, and the Rema (section 32, paragraph 3), who ruled that gall ink is valid for a Torah scroll and tefillin. In truth, the Tannaim already disagreed about this in Eruvin 13a, and according to him even the Tannaim did not know what galls are.
That rabbi claimed that since the Sages and the great scholars of the generations erred in understanding the matter of galls and thought they were a kind of fruit, their words are null and the Jewish law does not follow them. And indeed Rashi wrote in Gittin 19a: “water in which a fruit, something like galls, is soaked.” See also the words of the Rema in Yoreh De’ah 276:6 that one writes only with ink that comes from a tree. So they understood that vitriol ink, that is, gall ink, comes from a tree. According to that rabbi, since today it has become clear that galls are formed only through the secretion of creeping creatures, gall ink should be invalidated.
To support his approach, he cited Maimonides in Guide for the Perplexed, that when the Sages spoke about matters of nature and science they were not speaking through prophecy and it is possible that they erred.
Woe to the ears that hear such a thing, and whoever hears it, both his ears should ring. This has nothing at all to do with the words of Maimonides, for one or two reasons, as I will explain.
1. In both places where Maimonides discusses this (Guide for the Perplexed part 2, chapter 8, and part 3, chapter 14), he refers only to matters of nature that have no practical halakhic relevance at all—namely the dispute in Pesachim 94b between the sages of Israel and the sages of the nations regarding the constellations and the path of the sun by day and by night. In those matters they were not dealing with Jewish law at all, but with science and nature in themselves.
2. Furthermore, regarding the path of the sun, our holy Rabbi already said there: “Their words appear more correct than ours.” Apparently Maimonides had a version according to which the Sages said there in the Talmud: “The sages of the nations defeated the sages of Israel” (see Torat HaOlah by the Rema, part 2, chapter 2, and Sefer HaBrit, part 1, essay 2, chapter 10, and this is not the place to elaborate).
Accordingly, not only does Maimonides not contradict the words of the Sages, but he is in fact relying on them and basing himself on them, for they themselves said, “The sages of the nations defeated the sages of Israel,” etc., and they themselves said, “Their words appear more correct.” Nothing at all can be learned from his words to permit us to question the truth of the words of the Sages where they themselves did not question them. In truth, it seems to me that when the Talmud says that the sages of Israel disputed with the sages of the nations, it is not necessarily referring to the Torah sages, holy men of the Most High; it may refer to Jewish scholars of astronomy, and that is why our holy Rabbi determined that their words appear more correct than ours. But in any event, nothing at all can be learned from that passage to justify belittling the words of the Sages that were stated as Jewish law with trembling reverence by the great Tannaim and Amoraim and the halakhic decisors of the generations, with their holy spirit, in holiness and purity.
But my main grievance with that rabbi’s words is that in all matters of Jewish law and practical ruling, Heaven forbid that we should question even a single letter of the transmitted Jewish law, even if all the sages in the world were to say that the assumption on which that law is based is not correct. Anyone who does this cuts down the plantings and uproots the entire Torah. For in this way we would destroy all accepted principles.
We would erase from the Shulchan Arukh what is written in Orach Chayim 316:9, that it is permitted to kill lice on the Sabbath because they are generated from decay; and we would erase from the Shulchan Arukh what is explained in Yoreh De’ah 84, that worms found in the flesh of a fish are permitted because they develop from the fish itself—since natural scientists say that worms are not generated in fish flesh and lice are not born from decay.
We would also erase from the Shulchan Arukh what is explained in Yoreh De’ah 189 regarding a monthly menstrual cycle, because all natural scientists would testify that it is impossible even to imagine that menstruation depends on the days of the month. And so too we would uproot many other laws in the laws of niddah from their root.
And in such a matter there is no distinction at all between leniency and stringency. This approach undermines the foundations of religion and must be rejected with the greatest force and with revulsion. About such a thing the Peleti wrote in the laws of niddah (section 195): “Do not add, lest you subtract.”
By nature and by the traits of my soul I refrain from sharp expressions, and I am very careful with human dignity and certainly with the honor of the Torah. But let his honor believe me that my heart burns within me, and I fear that if we do not reject these words in all severity, we will one day be held accountable.
And although on such simple matters it might be preferable not to enter into any pilpul, debate, or giving of reasons, nevertheless I said I would explain the root of the matter.
I know that many good people have written at length trying to “reconcile” the contradictions between the words of the Sages, who shine like the radiance of the firmament and illuminate like the sun and moon, and what has been clarified by scientists. Much ink has been spilled on all kinds of forced explanations that neither help nor save.
But the truth points the way: there is no contradiction at all between the perspective of Jewish law and the perspective of science. They are two different worlds and one does not approach the other. Therefore there is no point in reconciling them when there is no question at all. For the foundations of Jewish law are not based in any way on “scientific truth.” Divine wisdom decreed that the secrets of nature would never be fully revealed, and as science develops, the hidden remains greater than the revealed. Scientists stand astonished at the divine wisdom, which has no measure and no end. In every generation scientists invalidate the assumptions of their predecessors, and in every generation they are convinced that now, at last, they have discovered the secrets of the universe and arrived at the truth—until another generation of researchers comes and overturns everything. Such is the way of the world: one builds and another demolishes.
And clearly divine wisdom decreed that the secrets of creation should remain forever without limit and without end.
But the sages of the Talmud, in those two thousand years of Torah, upon whom the Torah placed this task, and from whom the Creator of the world demanded the determination of Torah law for all generations until the end of time—they examined nature in their own time and ruled according to what they saw. For so they determined, with their holy spirit and depth of understanding, that the laws of the Torah are fixed according to what a human being sees with the naked eye, and what they established, they established, and their words were engraved in black fire upon white fire for all eternity. The perception of the Sages, according to what was revealed to them, is the truth of Jewish law, and the laws of the Torah do not depend at all on scientific truth, but on halakhic perception descending from the world of emanation. To them was given the birthright of judgment, to determine the Torah’s laws according to what they saw in their own time.
And since, according to what they saw and according to what any person sees, lice are generated from decay, there is no taking of life in killing them. And since, according to what they saw, the fish worms develop from the fish itself, there is no prohibition of worms in them. And since, according to their determination, a woman’s cycle depends on the month—and thus they interpreted the verse “God who completes for me” (see Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 23b, cited in the Shakh on Yoreh De’ah 189:13)—we are concerned for a monthly cycle.
And even if all the sages of the nations in the world gathered together to overturn the assumptions on which these laws were built, not one letter of the Torah would be nullified, because the laws of the Torah do not depend at all on scientific truth but on the halakhic perception handed over to the Sages in those two thousand years of Torah.
This is the secret written by our master Nachmanides, in the depth of his understanding and the sweetness of his language (Deuteronomy 17:11): “Do not turn aside from all that they tell you, right or left. Even if he tells you that your right is left or your left is right—this is the language of Rashi. And its meaning is: even if you think in your heart that they are mistaken, and the matter is as clear to you as the distinction between your right and your left, you shall do according to their command. Do not say: How can I eat this forbidden fat, or kill this innocent man? Rather say: Thus has the Master who commanded the commandments commanded me, that in all His commandments I should act according to all that those standing before Him in the place He chooses instruct me. According to the meaning of their understanding He gave me the Torah, even if they err. And this is like the case of Rabbi Yehoshua with Rabban Gamliel on the Day of Atonement that fell according to his calculation (Rosh Hashanah 25a)… for according to their understanding He gives them the Torah, even if in your eyes they seem to exchange right and left. And all the more so should you think that they are saying right is right, for the spirit of God is upon the servants of His sanctuary, and He will not forsake His pious ones; they are forever guarded from error and stumbling. And the language of the Sifrei (Shoftim 154) is: even if in your eyes they show that right is left and left is right, listen to them.”
So we see that we are forbidden even to be stringent against their words, even if it seems clear to us that they erred, because the Torah was given according to their understanding even if they err. But in truth you should understand and believe that they did not err at all, because when they said so, so it stands. For halakhic reality does not depend at all on scientific reality, as explained above.
Reflect on these matters, for they are very deep and also utterly simple.
And since the Sages validated vitriol ink, which is gall ink, because when they examined the galls it appeared to them that these galls were the fruit of the tree, anyone who challenges the words of the Sages and the settled law of Maimonides and the Shulchan Arukh has excluded himself from the community, and his words are emptiness and a striving after wind.
Signed in pain, with love and compassion,
Asher Weiss
Answer
Obviously I do not agree with his words at all.
In my opinion, any halakhic determination that is based on an incorrect scientific/factual understanding is completely void.
It is true that there are errors in science too, but a judge has only what his eyes see. And certainly in the science of the Sages there are no fewer errors, so that argument is worthless.
But aside from that, I do not agree at all that there is any need to reconcile the words of the Sages with science, even if it is possible. The reason is that there is no basis to assume they had correct information that was unavailable in their time, and therefore even if they happened to be right in some statement that fits modern science, that is merely coincidence.
There is no sanctity in the factual determinations of sages. And as for what he writes about Maimonides—that he was not speaking about factual determinations that form the basis of laws—the halakhic rulings of Maimonides concerning mystical laws (evil spirit, evil eye, demons) prove that he says this even when it does affect Jewish law.
The claim that Jewish law is determined by the view of the ordinary person rather than that of scientists is indeed a common opinion among halakhic decisors, and I too tend to accept it in many cases. But it is irrelevant here, because the words of the Sages are not the perspective of the ordinary person; they are the perspective of the ancient person who did not know reality, and that is simply an error. I am willing to accept such reasoning when discussing indirect-action mechanisms on the Sabbath, for example, where the ordinary person today sees it as a normal device even though inside it contains indirect mechanisms visible only to experts. In such a case I tend to be stringent in accordance with the ordinary person’s perception, and I would also be lenient accordingly in other cases. That is “the ordinary person” as opposed to the expert. But he uses “the ordinary person” to mean the ancient person as opposed to the modern one. There is no sanctity at all in the ancient and mistaken perception of the era of the Sages, contrary to the well-known words of the Hazon Ish about “two thousand years of Torah,” which are an absurd apologetic invention very similar to what Rabbi A. Weiss is doing here.
I think there is a hint within his words to his motivation, namely the fear of nullifying significant parts of Jewish law, which looks like reform. That fear is legitimate, even though there is not a trace of reform in this, as I have explained in many places, but the apologetics he constructs in order to escape that fear are absurd. Even if you are afraid of something, the fear does not change the truth. At most, you can honestly argue that because of the fear one should not act in accordance with the truth, a kind of decree. But you cannot say that it is not true. Such a statement is false. See my discussion of this in column 275.
Discussion on Answer
Why do I need to interpret anything there? Do you see an argument there? Obviously it is talking about what appears to be a halakhic error, not incorrect facts. He of course chooses to ignore the other formulation (Sifrei versus Jerusalem Talmud): that right is right. There are no arguments in his words that require a response. There is apologetics there, and I explained where it comes from.
Thank you, Rabbi.
Following up on my question, I’d be interested to know whether the Rabbi’s view has supporters among clearly recognized halakhic decisors from the later authorities—for example Rabbi Ovadia, Rabbi Wosner, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, Rabbi Waldenberg, Minchat Yitzhak—because it seems to me that the Rabbi’s position on this issue is in a serious minority.
Indeed.
Maybe a minority, but a significant minority. There are quite a few halakhic decisors who are stringent regarding lice on the Sabbath and so on.
There is another assumption too: authority to interpret Jewish law. Just as in textual exegesis we accept their conclusions, so too in their principled determinations. Seemingly there is a source for this in the words of Maimonides in the laws of tereifot, where the straightforward explanation is that the Sanhedrin determined what would count as tereifah, and that is the binding interpretation, even though it was based on their own perception.
Thank you for the answer.
How does the Rabbi interpret the words of the Sages, “Do not turn aside from all that they tell you, right or left—even if they tell you that right is left or left is right,” as Rabbi Weiss explains from the words of Nachmanides?
By the way, he does not claim that there is no contradiction. On the contrary, he thinks there is no need to answer a scientific contradiction, because what determines things is the Sages’ ruling, not the facts on the basis of which they ruled.