Torah isn't in heaven—but science is

This write-up will show that the principle that post sinai heaven can no longer chime in on Torah only applies to inyanei horaah namely determining halacha and not matters that relate to ascertaining scientific phenomena which only indirectly affect halacha but are not halachic decisions per se and as a corollary that whereas Chazal are authoritative in the halachic realm their scientific knowledge merely reflects the scientific knowledge of their day

The following well-known gemara expresses the concept that once the Torah was given at sinai judaism became closed to celestial input to the extent that even God Himself can no longer weigh in on the halachic process and that although the Rabbis may get it wrong from an objective perspective they still get it right

עמד רבי יהושע על רגליו ואמר {דברים ל':י"ב} לא בשמים היא מאי לא בשמים היא אמר רבי ירמיה שכבר נתנה תורה מהר סיני אין אנו משגיחין בבת קול שכבר כתבת בהר סיני בתורה {שמות כ"ג:ב'} אחרי רבים להטות אשכחיה רבי נתן לאליהו א"ל מאי עביד קוב"ה בההיא שעתא א"ל קא חייך ואמר נצחוני בני נצחוני בני
(:ב"מ נ"ט)

Otoh, there are two places (that I'm aware of) in the bavli (Sotah 4b and Niddah 20b) where the gemara invokes סוד ה' ליראיו to explain how someone acquired certain halachic information seemingly contradicting the previously quoted principle?

However, upon reflection, they both pertain to determining natural phenomena that impact halacha but are not halachic data per se

That apparently seems to be fine and isn't categorized as problematic heavenly interference which is limited to deciding halachic matters per se only

The flip side of the this is that only what pertains to the halachic realm was removed from heaven and given over to Chazals purview but matters of metzius and teva were not and are not subject to Chazals scientific knowledge with the consequence that halachos that are rooted in anachronistic science can potentially be overturned and updated as the underlying science isn't a matter that Chazal have the final say on

Someone I very much admire queried this distinction from the following yerushalmi (kesubos 1:2): אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. אֶקְרָא לֵאלֹהִים עֶלְיוֹן לָאֵל גּוֹמֵר עָלַי. בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְנִמְלָכִין בֵּית דִּין לְעוֹבְרוֹ הַבְּתוּלִין חוֹזְרִין. וְאִם לָאו אֵין הַבְּתוּלִין חוֹזְרִין, which prima facie seems to fly in the face of it.

Perhaps the chiluk is that over there the halachic determination to add a month is something heaven fully empowers the chachamim to do. Thus they are the arbiters and goalkeepers of time. Teva, eg bisulin, saaros etc, in R Avin's conception, apparently takes dictation from time, however that is tallied. Now since time is reckoned according to the Rabbis, teva follows suit. In contradistinction to say the talmudic license to exterminate lice on shabbos, which was based on the belief that they are generated spontaneously ie not thru mating, with the issur to kill organisms on shabbos limited to creatures created via mating, which was subsequently disproven, over there the heter to kill them would potentially fall away (as I believe R Dr Isaac Lapronti, the baal pachad yitzchak, 1679—1756, indeed ruled) as it was based on faulty biology.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sukkos: Pesach in the fall

This piece attempts to uncover an entirely new way of looking at the significance of Sukkos in what essentially amounts to a paradigm shift about the chag Vayikra 23:42-43 בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כׇּל הָאֶזְרָח בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשְׁבוּ בַּסֻּכֹּת. לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי י"י אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. There is no other biblical record of our forefathers ever having stayed in booths, certainly not immediately after the exodus. The rishonim (ad loc) quote a disagreement (bavli sukkah 11b) between R Eliezer and R Akiva as to the identity of the pasuk's obscure referent: כי בסכות הושבתי – איזו סכות היו, ר' אליעזר אומר ענני כבוד היו, ר' עקיבא אומר, סכות ממש then saying that it works out acc to R Eliezer but acc to R Akiva what exactly are we celebrating?; see there for various solutions. The rishonim have in common an understanding that the holiday is somehow related to hitherto un
Read more

Are Jews innately unique

This write up attempts to explain why Haman planned for genocide whereas the Greeks opted for religious suppression As reflected in the differing formulations of al hanissim for Purim and Chanuka respectively, Haman was out for Jewish blood whereas Antiochus was for eradicating Jewish rites and rituals.  Practically speaking, Judaism would have been a relic of the past had either of them had their way.  That different approaches were employed may have been a function of most Jews having been religiously observant during the Purim story as opposed to during the Chanukah story when most were already hellenized—easier to annihilate a people than to get them all to change their ways as opposed to by the Chanukah where only a minority were still practicing it made more sense to just stamp out what remaining observance there was than to exterminate an already mostly hellenized nation.   Perhaps a more philosophical approach can be suggested: There's a well known divide amongst Jewish thi
Read more

Zionism done right

This piece attempts to provide some color to a comment of Chazal regarding the Bnos Tzelafchad's חיבת הארץ as well as explain away an apparent inconsistency in a specific Amora's approach to it Bamidbar 27 opens with the daughters of Tzelafchad making their case to share in the distribution of EY by inheriting their sonless father Tzelafachad's portion instead of his brothers. Chazal posit a love for the land of Israel as their motivation, explaining that the reason this narrative is juxtaposed with the previous chapter owes to it being illustrative of an inferred contrast therein that only the men died out in the midbar as only they had cast aspersions on the land (to the extent of wanting to return to Egypt) as opposed to the women that were lovers of the land and wanted to proceed apace even after the report of the spies. Namely, ibid 26:64: וּבְאֵלֶּה לֹא הָיָה אִישׁ מִפְּקוּדֵי מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר פָּקְדוּ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִדְבַּר סִינָי with Rash
Read more