A commentator with the blogname of bluke has asked an interesting question based on my previous blog entry:
"How do you explain the various statements of Chazal that contradict science"?
In a later comment he cites a Gemarah which speaks of a wine/breath test which seems to be based on faulty science, yet as bluke points out: “ This story is brought down l'halacha in Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer Siman 68) and is discussed by the early Acharonim.”
The test may be accurate as a kabalistic enterprise and not a scientific one. But your larger question deserves a treatment of its own.
I have always had a great difficulty with the Gemarah on lice. In order for one to violate the Issur Melacha of Netilas Neshama (killing a living organism) on Shabbos, it has to be a sexually reproductive being. The Gemarah says therefore that there is no Issur Netilas Neshama with lice since they reproduce a-sexually ...or spontaneously. This is Halacha LeMaysah.
But of course today we now know that lice do indeed reproduce sexually. Yet... the Halacha does not change. Why? Becuase we are bound by the Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai redacted in the Mishna as explained by the Talmud. ( Rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik told me of an Acahron who forbade killing lice on Shabbos because of this newly discovered information. He said that if this Acahron were alive today, he would be put in Cherem... excommunicated.)
There are various possible ways to understand this Gemarah. One is to say that Chazal were knowledgeable about scientific matters based on the science of their era. They had no microscopes and could, therefore, not see the microscopic reproduction that takes place in lice. So, in reality they were mistaken. Yet God for His own reasons wished Chazal to Paskin that killing lice does not violate Shabbos. This is my view.
Another interpretation might be that we do not know that the Kinim (lice) in that Gemarah are the Kinim we now call lice. Perhaps the Kinim of that Gemarah was an entity that did not reproduce sexually and “our” Kinim are in fact Assur to kill on Shabbos. This would of course challenge Rabbi Soloveichik’s view.
Yet another view is that is based on the principle in Psak Halacha that we Paskin based on what the eye can see and not what is microscopic. Since the sexual reproduction of lice is microscopic, we LOOK AT IT AS THOUGH it was spontaneous rather than sexual in nature vis-a-vis the Issur Melacha of Netilas Neshama.
As I said, my own view is that Chazal could have been mistaken in matters of science. I do not see this as undermining Chazal's infallibility in Halacha. The very fact that there is Machlokes even in Psak shows that Chazal were human and subject to error due in part to the vagaries of time. In other words the Machlokes’n were caused by the massive amounts of Halacha that accumulated over time, the spreading out beyond the borders of Eretz Yisroel, the transmission of an ever increasing body of Halacha over the successive generations since Sinai, and the incapacity of the human mind to remember every single detail of Halacha.
My view is that when it comes to science, Chazal did not know everything there is to know about science. They had the best knowledge of their era. This is also the position of the Rishon Avraham Ben HaRambam.
The mainstream view is that if it is recorded in the Gemarah it is a scientific fact. If there is no Machlokes then the science quoted in the Gemarah cannot be contradicted. Difficult Gemaros like the Refuos (various strange formulae all over Shas spelling out cures for various ailments) that do not work today is attributed to Nishtaneh HaTvi'im... that nature itself has changed. I find this a bit curious because it seems to corroborate the theory of evolution which is so anathematic to these Poskim... at least that it is ongoing, if not the origin of the species.
This in fact was the main objection to Nosson Slifkin's books. Those who banned them said his lack of deference to Chazal even more so than his saying the universe is ancient was what did him in. It was further claimed that just because one could find Rishonim to corroborate a non-mainstream view does not mean we are permitted to view it that way ourselves. Not only that, but it was stated by Major Poskim like R. Moshe Sternbuch, that such beliefs are now considered heresy!
I find this view exceedingly difficult. It seems to me that when a clear proof of science contradicts a clearly stated scientific fact as stated by Chazal, the most rational conclusion is to say that they were mistaken about it. The Rambam himself seemed to have a similar view even about literal interpretations of the Torah itself.
The following is a quote from an upcoming article by Rabbi Avi Shafran of Agudath Israel of America to be published in the next issue of the Jewish Observer:
“The Rambam does write (Moreh Nevuchim, 2: 25) that even some seemingly fundamental philosophical convictions need not be considered inherently sacrosanct to Jewish belief. Should incontrovertible physical evidence to the contrary be discovered, he explains, then p’sukim seeming to indicate otherwise would simply have to be understood figuratively, like p’sukim that refer to Hashem, chalilah, as having physical form.”
I therefore stand by my views.
