His books dealt with the subject of reconciling Torah with
science. The two main issues in his books considered heresy were: 1) Saying the universe is
older than 6000 years and 2) Saying the sages (Chazal) were sometimes mistaken in
matters of science.
These views were not considered heresy in the past. Rabbi Slifkin’s books actually had the approbation of Charedi rabbinic leaders. Nonetheless most of them retratced their approbations immediately after Rav Elyashiv’s Psak.
These views were not considered heresy in the past. Rabbi Slifkin’s books actually had the approbation of Charedi rabbinic leaders. Nonetheless most of them retratced their approbations immediately after Rav Elyashiv’s Psak.
If there was one event that has divided the Orthodox community it is this controversy. Rabbis on the
right went on a virtual rampage of criticism towards Rabbi Slifkin for trying
to defend his views. The very same views that until that point had their approbation.
One such individual was Rav Aharon Feldman, Rosh HaYeshiva of Ner Yisroel.
After he had verified what Rav Elyashiv said he tore into Rabbi Slifkin. Others
like Rabbi Dovid Orlovsky had excoriated him for daring to try and defend himself
– calling it Chutzpah of the highest order to question Rav Elyashiv’s Psak!
Although the controversy has died down the rift has remained
in place.
I am told by various members of the right that the bigger of
the two complaints was his statement questioning the scientific knowledge of
Chazal. The feeling now is that if one questions Chazal on a matter of science
by pointing to contradictions with current scientific knowledge, then one may
as well question their Halachic knowledge, too. That would of course destroy
Torah Judaism as we know it.
Rabbi Slifkin’s defense, which he was prevented from presenting
to Rav Elyashiv by his (Rav Elyashiv's) rabbinic ‘advisors’ - considering it chutzpah for him to
do so, was nevertheless pretty convincing. I have always personally believed
the same thing about Chazal. Which is as follows.
In matters of science many of these great men had the best
scientific knowledge of the day. They knew Mada. But that knowledge does not
always match the reality we know today. Chazal did not have the technological advantages
we have to better see and understand the reality of nature.
This does not mean that their Torah knowledge was any less
deficient. That was transmitted directly from Sinai through Moshe Rabbenu to Yehoshua; then to the Z’kenim… all the way
down to Chazal themselves. But nature needed to be studied independently to be
understood. The very nature of science is based on the scientific method that
tests hypothsies derived of observations. Sometimes long held truths are
discarded when new information comes along shedding additional light on nature
thus creating better and more accurate perceptions of it.
This kind of thinking was perfectly acceptable until the Slifkin
controversy.
There is another way to look at discrepancies between what
we know as facts of nature today and what was known by Chazal then. We are
directed to believe that we simply do not understand what they were saying…
that sometimes they wrote in cryptic or mystical fashion for reasons unknown to
us. This view holds that if it was put into the Mishna and Talmud by Chazal,
even in matters of science, that too was a direct transmission from Sinai and
therefore the absolute truth of nature despite the seeming contradictions with
what we see and understand today.
Until the Slifkin controversy - both alternatives were acceptable.
Typically those who believed the former tended to be college educated. Those
who believed the latter tended to be more Charedi. Elu V’Elu. The fact that
there were Rishonim who explicitly stated that Chazal erred in matters of
science bolstered the view that this is a legitimate Torah perspective. But once
Rav Elayshiv declared this view to be heresy, it no longer is.
Rabbi Feldman explained this apparent contradiction in the
following way. Rishonim could believe that and not considered heretical. We no
longer could. For them it was fine. For us it is heresy. How did he justify
such a statement? By pointing to Chazal themselves. There was a legitimate opinion
expressed in the Gemarah that did not believe that there would be an actual
Moshiach but only be a messianic era. Today that view is considered heresy as
defined in the Rambam’s 13 principles of faith. His point was that what was a
legitimate belief in one era may not be a legitimate belief in another. So
before Rav Elyashiv said such beliefs were heretical it was fine. Now it is heresy.
I have a problem with this kind of thinking. One cannot
change a person’s belief by proclamation. Belief does not develop that way. You
are asking people to reject their own logic based beliefs developed over time
after much thought and analysis that were perfectly acceptable a moment ago.
I am not going to go into the evidence presented in the
Gemarah that shows the kinds of scientific errors that are in conflict with
nature. Been there and done that – as have many others. Not the least of whom
is Rabbi Slifkin himself. But just to cite one recent example from Daf Yomi, the
Gemarah in Niddah (17b) describes the physical nature of a uterus in way that does
not exist in nature.
The question remains – did Chazal know the science of their
day? Did the fully understand nature? A later section of the Gemerah in Niddah (20a)
tells us that the great Amora Rava and others actually admitted that they were
not familiar with natural science. And he refused to Paskin a Shalia because of
that… a lesson for today’s Poskim. How does one reconcile this clear admission
with the belief that Chazal knew natural science better than we do today? Some
didn’t even know the science of their own day!
What about the Psak that we may not believe that Chazal’s
knowledge of natural science was deficient? What if one could show that a great
rabbinic figure in relatively recent history that is widely accepted actually believed
the same thing? Read on.
Feldheim is an Orthodox publishing house that had at one
time published Rabbi Slifkin’s books. But they withdrew them from the market
when the controversy exploded - succumbing to the pressure from the right to do
so. They now seem to have done a 180. They have published the newly discovered letters of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch that had never
been published before. From the 5 Towns Jewish Times:
Although not available until June 22nd, Feldheim has just published the latest volume of Rav Hirsch's writings - and they are not without controversy. In it are some controversial letters about the limited knowledge of the Rabbis in the natural sciences.
Sounds like this Gemarah. In what to me seems like an outrageous attempt
to defend the prohibition to believe such things, Rabbi Moshe Shapiro - a
prominent Rav in Israel, an adherent of Rav Elyashiv, and a vehement opponent of
Rabbi Slifkin - has declared these
letters to be forgeries! Members of Rav Hirsch’s family had a good laugh at
that. They say that those letters are authentic.
I think the ball has just been thrown into the other court. It
behooves those who say that such views are heresy to explain why that is still
the case. To simply declare all evidence that disputes their claims to be
forgeries is a very poor argument. Unless they have proof to back that up it
makes their claims about Chazal’s infallibility in matters of science look pretty
tenuous at best.
This does not mean to say that alternative views are not
acceptable. But it does seem to say – at least to me – that believing that
Chazal (through no fault of their own) did not have all of their scientific facts
straight by today’s standards is a perfectly acceptable view - which does not
make anyone a heretic.
