Rav Meir Triebitz writes:
The Rav’s position on commensurability can be gleaned from two statements of his, one from these lectures and one from the aforementioned essay u-Bikashtem Misham. The Rav opens his second lecture by stating:
The essence of revelation for the Rav is therefore not ontological but ethical. Ontology demands commensurability with scientific facts. Not only is ethics not in need of such commensurability, ethics is often more safely anchored in previous ontologies which science has long discarded. We discussed above that Kant’s revolution in Western thought was to restore a ‘Copernican’ like view of the world. While not claiming a Ptolemaic description of scientific reality, the Rav’s whole philosophy of ethics rests upon an anti-Copernican conception. The halachic process, he writes, “cannot free itself from its subjugation to the initial a priori assumptions. It begins with those and concludes with them.” (u-Bikashtem Misham p. 206) This is in contradistinction to science which can free itself of previous assumptions and create new paradigms. On the other hand, “Halachic thought which is rooted in revelation cannot command absolute authority over its axioms.” (ibid.)
The halacha must combine both revelation and reason in a dialectic process in order to remain bound to both tradition and continuity. The dialectic of revelation and reason, which is rejected by the scientific method, is the basis of the incommensurability of the two systems of thought. [...]
“The Torah is not interested in disclosing any scientific data to man. Revelation was only the revealing of the will of God… Therefore if the Bible employed the Ptolemaic description of the cosmos, it was only to present to the people of its time and not to present the true scientific view…” (Lecture II).
The essence of revelation for the Rav is therefore not ontological but ethical. Ontology demands commensurability with scientific facts. Not only is ethics not in need of such commensurability, ethics is often more safely anchored in previous ontologies which science has long discarded. We discussed above that Kant’s revolution in Western thought was to restore a ‘Copernican’ like view of the world. While not claiming a Ptolemaic description of scientific reality, the Rav’s whole philosophy of ethics rests upon an anti-Copernican conception. The halachic process, he writes, “cannot free itself from its subjugation to the initial a priori assumptions. It begins with those and concludes with them.” (u-Bikashtem Misham p. 206) This is in contradistinction to science which can free itself of previous assumptions and create new paradigms. On the other hand, “Halachic thought which is rooted in revelation cannot command absolute authority over its axioms.” (ibid.)
The halacha must combine both revelation and reason in a dialectic process in order to remain bound to both tradition and continuity. The dialectic of revelation and reason, which is rejected by the scientific method, is the basis of the incommensurability of the two systems of thought. [...]
This idea is revolutionary, but needs much further exposition. Epistemological pluralism clearly has limitations when it comes to history - either an event took place, or it didn't. If I understand this brief quote correctly, however, Biblical history need not be "accurate" historically - it is rather a device to provide a historical context to legislation of ethical behavior. A 5 billion year old universe with random evolution does not speak to us ethically. A 6,000 year old universe with man at its center does. "Truth" exists within both ideas - hence epistemological pluralism can indeed apply to history.
ReplyDeleteIs this interpretation correct?
I doubt Rav Soloveitchik accepted the modern scientific description of creation. Bereishis may not be a technical scientific description of creation, but that doesn't mean that it isn't describing real factual events from some kind of perspective.
ReplyDeleteAnother lecture by
Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik to Rabbinic Alumni of Yeshiva University October 20th 1971, regarding evolution and creation says as follows:
It is ex nihilo, yesh me'ayin. You see here we are at loggerheads … from antiquity, with Greek philosophy, Greek science.
We are still at loggerheads with modern science. There is no way to somehow, to try to eliminate that conflict, or to try to reconcile it. There is no reconciliation and I will tell you quite frankly that I'm not worried and not concerned that there is no reconciliation.
Because, science absolutely has no right to make a certain statement about briyah.
…We had a lot of trouble with Greek philosophy …
We were confronted many times with those who try to deny briyah yesh me'ayin. We are in the same situation and the same condition nowadays too. No matter, whatever, it's completely irrelevant what theory of evolution science accepts – whether it is the big bang theory, or the instantaneous birth of the universe, or it is the slow piece-meal emergence of the universe, whether it is the emergence or the instantaneous so-called birth of the universe.
But science will always say, as far as matter is concerned, particles of course. Science has no right to say anything, because it is not a scientific problem. It is a metaphysical problem. And in my opinion, it is just as good as the opinion of Einstein about our …
But again we are still at loggerheads. We are actually still. We have something which the goyishe world has not understood.
Here the entire lecture in context here:
http://download.bcbm.org/Media/RavSoloveitchik/Parsha/Bereishis_Spiritual_Msg_1971.mp3
The purpose of Torah is, as Dr. Lustiger said, to teach ethical lessons, not history or archeology. While all the basic facts of Torah are true, how they are to be interpreted in terms of historical accuracy given the current historical and archeological state of knowledge is obviously something best left for unbiased scholars.
ReplyDeleteThus there is no real conflict. Someone who shouts "The Torah is false because the Flood just didn't happen 'cause there's no proof!" is wasting his breath. I'm not learning Torah to find out what happened when but what God wants from me.
By the way, Dr. Lustiger, I have a bunch of your books on the Rav. Kol hakavod and keep up the superior work.
Garnel.
ReplyDeleteWow!!!
Are you suggesting that the flood did not happen? In other words, the story is a myth to teach us ethical behavior. I find this apikursis. How about retracting this.
Maybe, you should say I do not care what what historians say. The Torah says it happened it did and lets move on.
I would say that the Rov's lectures are being misunderstood.
Can someone explain the statement
ReplyDelete"While not claiming a Ptolemaic description .. the Rov's whole philosophy of ethics .. cannot free itsself from the initial.."
I am sure that this for all science vs Torah problems. They did not science and halachos that needed science used theirs.
Is he saying that if we know that there are errors a halacha is based on we act as if it is true. For example, spontaneous generation is debunked. Many a halacha is based on it. Are we allowed to kill a louse on the Shabaat even though it is a life by pretending it is not?
I have no answer to this question or many like it. But, what is the Rov saying. Can someone give it a shot.
Reb Moshe has a teshuvah where he discusses the removale of a testicle. He paskens that he is not a kerus shofcho because he can procreate. He calls it hishtanus hatevoim. maybe it did not change and we need to keep it because it was based on a faulty medicine. etc. etc. etc. Is Reb Moshe a historian.
Is he saying that if we know that there are errors a halacha is based on we act as if it is true. For example, spontaneous generation is debunked. Many a halacha is based on it. Are we allowed to kill a louse on the Shabaat even though it is a life by pretending it is not?
ReplyDeleteI have no answer to this question or many like it. But, what is the Rov saying. Can someone give it a shot.
================
The issue of the relationship between reality and halacha has been discussed fully in a number of places.
You might want to look at page 132 of my Daas Torah where I cite
Rav Dessler (4:355), the Klaussenberger Rebbe and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach on this subject.
There is also the discussion regarding treifos by the Rashba and the Chazon Ish.
There is also the view that nature has changed - and thus the halacha changes.
I know that there are many views. I am interested in what the Rov is saying.
ReplyDeleteYou misunderstood my question as to waht the Rav means. I equate ethics with halacha. He says that it is entrenched in the system of science that was accepted at the time of matan Torah. Thus, he may be saying something different. Even though the halacha is based on errors it reamins forever. We are not talking about hishtanis here. We are talking about outright error. For example, Rabenu tam's bein hashmosos is based on a non circular earth. He has a semi globe-flat world. (Moshe may have thought the world is flat) What happens when we have outright error according to the Rav's statement. I infer in the case of spontaneous generation he is saying we have to use it. I hope this clarifies my question. Please reread the passage I am refering to once more.
ReplyDeletequestion said...
ReplyDeleteYou misunderstood my question as to waht the Rav means.
======================
No I didn't misunderstand. I gave a number of alternative approaches when faced with a conflict between science and the Torah basis for a halacha.
Rav Solveitchik could have used any of these.
1) Halacha can be independent of the reasoning given (Rav Dessler & Klausenberger & R SZ Auebach)
2) Halacha could be fixed at a time when the reality was different - Chazon Ish
3) Halacha changes because there was no error but reality has changed - Rabbeinu Taam and others.
In sum, it is not obvious what Rav Soloveitchik would do with a certified conflict between science and the traditional explanation for a halacha - such 8 month babies not dying.
You did misunderstand. The Rov is not rehashing what others have said. He was an original thinker and has a new approach which I am suggesting we discover. You can look to classify him with the others (which we all know) or you can look for what I am. What is he saying that others have not?
ReplyDeleteThe Rov talks about ethics. This is another word for halacha. He says that the science was wrong but G-d used it because the goal was to give halacha only. Now that we know differently and realize the science is in error halachot that are dependent on it still must use the wrong reasons to explain them. This is how I read it. To me this is new. For example, since G-d said you may kill a louse because it is not a life even though it is a life we still may because the halacha was given with that understanding. I see this as "new" - chidush. You think he is saying what ssome others have said. i do not.
So, stop using this blog to overpower others and listen. You might learn something. You have made many mistakes.
I recall your discussion with R. berger and Publicity on the Tanya's pejoritive remark about gentiles. I am not sure anymore who said what. You all want teh last word. Indeed. This passage was used by the Alter Rebbie's enemies to hurt him. Read the 19 questions that were posed to him. But, again. you just want teh last word. I have no time to fight. It is your turn to try and hear another for a change.
Question said: So, stop using this blog to overpower others and listen. You might learn something. You have made many mistakes.
ReplyDelete========================
You are apparently not familiar with the sources that I cited and yet you strongly criticize me for my understanding as "wanting to have the last word"
If you want to have a dialogue it helps if you were more familiar with what has already been discussed and it would be helpful that instead of resorting to ad hominem arguments -that you were explicit in what is bothering you.
I am familiar with all your references and have debated them with others years before you wrote your book.
ReplyDeleteI am suggesting that the Rov has a new approach. It might be close to R. Dessler. The Rov is saying that the halachot are based on the science of the time He also adds that because it is immutable we cannot undo those chains and are bound by the science. It is not because as R. Dessler says that the law is independendent of a specific reason but to the contrary it is because of the faulty sicence.
I apologize if you feel I was personal. but, you refuse to digest that there is something NEW in the Rov's writings. And, i like it.
He went to berlin and got a culture shock (to quote him) He heard all the yeke toros and I think he has his own ideas. R. Slifkin can add a new chapter.
Let us start again. Tell me how you see what i am suggesting. Trust me. I am as familiar with what you quote as you are. I wrote that comment on R. Klein and so you can figure out I can read the black and white.
BTW You use the term "reality being diffeent" in a previous post. What does mean? Is it hishtanus or what we know now?
ReplyDeletePlease be clear. I am asking because when you clarify we will then see that those sages except for R. Dessler do not say what you think.
For example, the Chazon Ish in Hilchos Toloim is strict because he says that they did not come from the water but from a male and female. So, tolim even from a bor are teref. What you read in Terefos has to only with terefos. You have extrapolated. It is a common mistake.
Let me also add that the Chazon Ish says the following regarding the vas deference (male organs). According to medical science this is one of the parts of the body that may have moved. So, he has a hihtanus hametzius. One needs to read all of ones writings before concluding.
ReplyDeleteI may be wrong regarding the Rov. We need to read more. But, I sense what I say as a possibility.
Let me quote the Rov in this post.
ReplyDelete"The halachic process cannot free itself from its subjugation to its initial a priori assumptions".
What I think is being said is the following. These assumptions which are based on scientific error are to be used as the basis in the continuing discussion of halacha. Thus, even an extrapolation will build on it.
Tell me if I have made sense?
Also, Rabenu Tam (from shitah in kesuvos) believed in the reality which was false. "Boke chalone rokiah" - brought by R. A. Eiger in 19th century. This initial "fact" is responsible for halochot-say "mayim shelonu" that depends on this. It is our reality for halacha.
Maybe, Rabenu tam is saying this also.
Question said...
ReplyDeleteI am suggesting that the Rov has a new approach. It might be close to R. Dessler. The Rov is saying that the halachot are based on the science of the time He also adds that because it is immutable we cannot undo those chains and are bound by the science. It is not because as R. Dessler says that the law is independendent of a specific reason but to the contrary it is because of the faulty sicence.
===============
I don't see any answer in Rav Soloveitchik's lectures to the practical questions raised when halacha is based on an assumption of scientific reality and then we find that reality is wrong.
I don't think it would have been difficult for Rav soloveitchik, or the Chazon Ish or Rav Dessler to formulate a simple didactic statement regarding these issues. It doesn't seem to exist.
Why don't you formulate a cogent articulation of your point of view and I will show it to Rav Triebitz.
Of course, Rav Soloveitchick is vague. These are general lectures. He had just become Rosh yeshivah and wanted to leave the students with important ideas. When they leave the yeshivah and doubts arise they will remember his shiurim. However, the statement implies that we must continue to use the old science when we study. All teh halachos are couched in it. "We cannot change our axioms. Some halachot are governed by nishtanu hatevoim. Tosfos in Chulin applies it to the varda and the breeding age for steer. Even chazal had it for when humans can breed. It is possible that the 8 month case is that kind of case. R. S. Auerbach writes that the point that a woman cannot conceive the 1st time is also history. Nishtanu hatevoim.
ReplyDeleteThe Chazon Ish is the one who said that the prostate operation does not leave a person a kerus shofcho even though he cannot procreate. This is because chazal did not consider (know) about it. Reb Moshe has a cintradiction between this heter and the testicle sheeloh. He is matir the 2nd because the underlying principle of kerus shofcho depends on procreation. So, how can he allow the prostrate operation. "Kevar horo chochom" is a way out. But, it is not an explanation.
The Chazon Ish in Nidah talks about the imaginary "bein hashinayim". The Chasam Sofer tried to read into teh rambam our anatomy and stated that tosfos was wrong. Alas, all the acaharonim including the Chazon Ish disagree. So, even though the anatomy is false our halachos are built on it. Hishtanus hatevoim has (by some) been used to change the laws of cycles while nursing and the onset of pregnency. I doubt if anyone can change a single halacha because of the anatomical error.
My shitah (personal) has been that chazal had a science and we live with it in all halachot where we cannot say nishtanu hatevoim. I would be mekil on killing a louse just as the Mishne Berurah and Oruch hashulchan say (and they knew teh pachad yotzchok)
On teh other hand, I challenge you to show me a single halacha that has change because of scientific knowledge (except for spontaneous generation) where we can be machmir.
I could go on but the blog is not the place. It takes time to write and I need to present this in a cogent form. I need to summarize this and will use Email. Send me your Email address.
let me (for now) challenge you to show me a single halacha that changed because of science except for spontaneous generation.
ReplyDeleteThe Chazon Ish was machmir by tolim in a bor and I would say it is not a stretch to be machmir on lice. He argues (as I think he does) that spontaneous generation exists but our tolim do not qualify. In other words, it is an empty set. The chazon ish cretaes two classes. So, even here he did not do away with the science.
I am not aware of a posek who uses science without hishtanus hatevoim to change a single halacha. The Minchat Yitzchok considers the 8 month case today as always. But, others use hishtanus hatevoim.
As I said, even the Chasam Sofer tried to pin our antomy on the Rambam. But, if we cannot twist it into the rambam we are done. I saw others try to use a "new" Rabenu Chananel found in Baba Basra that had a new description for the Mishne in Nidah - by Rov and Korov. But, this I call apologetics. We cannot use this lehalacha.
So, accept my challenge. As I said, the ideas I described above are mine. And, whether you and R. Treibiz agree will not change much for me. I am not looking for validation.
One last note and I am done. The Rov said
ReplyDelete"Halachic thought which is rooted in revelation cannot command absolute authority over its axioms".
This means that halacha cannot touch those axioms and make new paradigms.
I believe he says what i have. How else do you read him.
On a personal note let me relate what i heard him once say. we all know about the music of the spheres. The Rambam put life into the celestual bodies. He was so excited when he read that the scientists think they discovered music in the heavens.
He went to Berlin but came out untouched. Science was there. but, when it came to choose we know who won. Halacha of course.
I could go on but the blog is not the place. It takes time to write and I need to present this in a cogent form. I need to summarize this and will use Email. Send me your Email address.
ReplyDelete====================
yadmoshe@yahoo.com
If you want I'll post your views once you have them in cogent form