Do scientific paradigm shifts impact Halachic realities?
On Dec 25, 2007 7:04 AM, Richard Wolberg cantorwolberg@cox.net
wrote on the Avodah List:
wrote on the Avodah List:
What I find most interesting is that the Gemara believed in spontaneous generation which has been scientifically disproven as the world was proven not to be flat. What I find to be ironic and paradoxical is that only God can create something from nothing. You would think this would have occurred to the great minds of the Talmud. True, their argument could conceivably have been that God put that law into motion, but it still could have raised a red flag. The following came from a link given in a previous discussion by Reb Micha [Avodah's Moderator]:
See http://www.aishdas.org/book/bookA.pdf
--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
2 comments:
The Chazon Ish was asked about killing lice on Shabbos. The gemara allows it because they were believed to be generated from sweat, not sexual reproduction. Nowadays we know this is not true but the Chazon Ish said that, even so, the law does not change. The law is that one can kill lice on Shabbos. Chazal, according to their understanding of the science of the time, deduced that asexual reproduction was the reason. Clearly it's not and we just don't know the real reaosn, just as we don't know the true meaning of the mitzvos.
There is, however, no halachah that one must believe the world is flat or that the first chapter of Bereshis is completely literal.
As we do not know the exact nature of Torah She'b'al Peh as it was presented at Sinai, we are lacking the ability to determine what is the exact statement of God and what aspects of Torah she'b'al Peh were derived from Chazal's analysis. In this case, did God say it was okay to kill lice on Shabbat or did Chazal make the determination based upon their understanding of the science of the day and the revealed principles Of Halacha? The difficulty with the latter view is that it allows for greater flexiility within the Halachic system. The problem, though, is how can we be sure with our analysis. The power of the Chazon Ish's view is that he was even willing to go with a kullah to maintain the acceptance of Chazal's word thereby not challenging the whole Halachic system. The fact is that the gemara is full of these type of issues every time we see a statement that the Halacha only applies in a specific case, thereby effectively stating that the principle from Sinai should not be understood as the simole Halachic statement. The prolem is still how do we know. There are people who contend that Chazal knew what was the originating thought of Sinai and what was the result of derasha -- but we do not. That is why there is the cutoff of Halachic bebate with previous generations at the gemara. Some argue that this was already an issue between the tannaim and amoraim and that is why the mishna was a cutoff point as well. The fact is that our literature is actually filled with this debate and it is paramount in understanding movement within Halacha. While the view of the Chazon Ish in regard to lice was a lenient position, the standpoint that we should not guess what the actual statement at Sinai usually leads to rigidity in chumra, especially with people who are not willing to take a lenient statement at face value and state that given our circumstances today, the law should be more stringent kneged what the Chason Ish said in regard to lice.
The point is that we do not know so we must proceed with caution but that is not a license to not proceed.
Post a Comment