Medieval Theory of Vision

This post may have relevance to a book I am working on, so if anyone has any ideas or comments or explanations I would very much welcome them.

The ancient Greeks were basically divided into two camps of how vision works. One camp held with the theory of Emission (or extramission) in which visual perception comes from light beams which come out of the eyes. This view was held by Socrates, Plato and many others.

The opposing view held that miniature replicas of objects entered into the eye. This is the intromission theory and was an opinion held by Aristotle, Galen and others. These miniature replicas were called eidola and somehow represented the 'spirit' of the object being viewed.

(In fact there are another couple of theories which are kind of sub-categories of these, but I'm not knowledgable enough to explain the distinctions fully. Here are a couple of interesting articles that I found.

It seems to me that there are several examples in the Gemara which appear to side with the first opinion, that sight comes from light emmitted by the eyes.

For example:
The verse referring to Elisha states (II Melachim 2:24)

וַיִּפֶן אַחֲרָיו וַיִּרְאֵם, וַיְקַלְלֵם בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה; וַתֵּצֶאנָה שְׁתַּיִם דֻּבִּים, מִן-הַיַּעַר, וַתְּבַקַּעְנָה מֵהֶם, אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁנֵי יְלָדִים.

And he looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tore forty and two children of them

The Gemara explains this in Sotah (46a), stating:

מה ראה אמר רב ראה ממש כדתניא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר כל מקום שנתנו חכמים עיניהם או מיתה או עוני

And he looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. What did he see? — Rab said: He actually looked upon them, as it has been taught: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Wherever the Sages set their eyes there is either death or calamity

In other words, it seems that sight has power to cause damage. This source is not conclusive, but how about the story of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai when he and his son came out of the cave (Shabbat 33b):

נפקו חזו אינשי דקא כרבי וזרעי אמר מניחין חיי עולם ועוסקין בחיי שעה כל מקום שנותנין עיניהן מיד נשרף

So they emerged. Seeing a man ploughing and sowing, they exclaimed, 'They forsake life eternal and engage in life temporal!' Whatever they cast their eyes upon was immediately burnt up.

Similarly, when Rabbi Shimon saw Yehuda ben Gerim, who was the one who informed the Romans of his words the Gemara says (ibid. 34a)

נפק לשוקא חזייה ליהודה בן גרים אמר עדיין יש לזה בעולם נתן בו עיניו ועשהו גל של עצמות:

Then he went out into the street and saw Judah, the son of proselytes: 'That man is still in the world!' he exclaimed. He cast his eyes upon him and he became8 a heap of bones.

It seems that according to Chazal there is a fire that comes out of the eyes, which is normally weak, but when coupled with strong spiritual force it can become an actual fire and burn things up.

The truth is that I understand that the concept of ayin hara is also based on this worldview. I know that nowadays we tend to explain it as based on jealousy of others, but if so, why is there no concept of 'ozen hara'? It seems that actually looking at something has power to cause damage. Conversely there is a saying that:

וא"ר יצחק אין הברכה מצוייה אלא בדבר הסמוי מן העין

R. Isaac also said: A blessing is found only in what is hidden from the eye, for it is written, The Lord shall command the blessing upon thee in thy hidden things. The School of R. Ishmael taught: A blessing comes only to that over which the eye has no power, for it is said, The Lord shall command the blessing upon thee in thy hidden things.

All of these sources imply (to me) that the eye emits some force which can cause physical damage if not channeled properly.

(I know that Superman had similar powers - where do you think he got the idea from?)

Rashi in Chumash is explicit that this is how sight works. In parshat Haazinu (Devarim 32:10) the verse states:

יִמְצָאֵהוּ בְּאֶרֶץ מִדְבָּר וּבְתֹהוּ יְלֵל יְשִׁמֹן יְסֹבְבֶנְהוּ יְבוֹנְנֵהוּ יִצְּרֶנְהוּ כְּאִישׁוֹן עֵינוֹ

He found them in a desert land, and in a desolate, howling wasteland. He encompassed them and bestowed understanding upon them; He protected them as the pupil of His eye.

Rashi explains:

"כאישון עינו" - הוא השחור שבעין שהמאור יוצא הימנו"

as the pupil of his eye: This refers to the black part of the eye, from which the light comes outward.

I haven't yet found the source of Rashi's statement in Chazal. Perhaps one of you knows whether Rashi took this explanation from an earlier source, or it is his own chidush. Also I have looked, but not yet found, whether any of the commentaries on Rashi manage to explain this in accordance with modern theories of sight (i.e. that light comes from a light-source, is reflected off objects, and then enters the eye).

And what is also interesting is that both Rabbeinu Bachye (on the verse) and Meiri (in his commentary on Tehillim 17) seem to side with the other theory of sight, and say that the word ishun means pupil because of the 'little man' (ish) that can be seen within it. This seems to be the theory of eidola, that reflections leave the object and enter the eye. Again, I cannot find a source in Chazal for their commentary, but I would be glad if someone could find one for me.

It apears that the modern theory of sight first developed in the end of the 10th century and beginning of the 11th by Abu Ali Mohammed Ibn Al Hasn Ibn Al Haytham, whom we know today as Alhazen. However, since he lived mainly in Cairo, and wrote in Arabic, his works would have been unknown to Rashi, Rabbeinu Bachya or Meiri. But they should have been known to those who came not much later. Which is why I would expect later commentaries on Rashi (particularly) to explain him according to the 'modern theory.'

Biblical Kangaroos

This post is inspired by the scientific writings of Dr Isaac Betech (pediatrician).

The statement by YSO that Kangaroos were known by both the Torah and by Chazal confused me at first, because it seemed to pose a difficulty to the mishna. But Baruch Hashem, using scientific methodology we have been able to clearly resolve all difficulties and show that Hashem is the Boreh Olam!

The mishna in Bikurim (2:7) states that:

דם מהלכי שתיים--שווה לדם בהמה, להכשיר את הזרעים; ודם השרץ, אין חייבין עליו.

The blood of those who go on 2 [legs] is equivalent to the blood of those who go on four [legs] to prepare plants [to enable them to beoome ritually impure]. And the blood of a sheretz [creepy crawly] - one is not liable for.

The strange phrase of 'go on two' is usually understood as referring to humans. However, kangaroos (and wallabies) also hop on two legs, thereby creating what at first seems an insurmountable difficulty.



We see from this video that kangaroos certainly 'go on two' [legs]. So one may have been misled to think that their blood is the same as human blood.

However, Baruch Hashem, a study of the meforshim (who all question why the mishna didn't simply use the word "man" rather than the less specific term "go on two") shows that they, know through their ruach hakodesh, of kangaroos.

Rishon le-Tziyon points out that from this wording one may have been confused and thought that it also included ofot. The word ofot is not clearly defined in Hebrew. It may refer to chicken (or turkey if you are American) or to birds in general.

However, I consulted with my Hebrew expert, who confirmed my suspicions, that the word עוף can also be read as "UP". This then, is clearly a reference to kangaroos who jump "up" when they move (unlike birds, for example, who simply fly). Therefore the mishna is precise in its terminology of saying 'go on two' to exclude kangaroos (and wallabies) who go 'up'.

R. Slifkin (R. stands for Natan) challenged that kangaroos were unknown to the audience of the Torah and the mishna. Which is not only irrelevant, but also false. Since the Torah and mishna were written with Divine Inspiration it makes no difference where they lived. Furthermore, only a small fraction of the land of Eretz Yisroel has been excavated for fossils, so it is entirely reasonable to assume that they will eventually discover kangaroo (and wallaby) fossils in Israel. Furthermore, I wrote a letter to the author of the book on kangaroos of the biblical era, and questioned his/her methodology. Since I heard no further response I assume that they agree with me that one cannot disprove the existence of kangaroos in the ancient Middle East.

In addition, anyone who goes to the Jerusalem zoo will see that there are both wallabies and kangaroos there. So it is false to say that there are no kangaroos in Israel!

Perhaps you will ask "What about gorillas? - They also walk on 2 legs". To which I answer that there is not a shred of evidence that gorillas walk on two legs.



Just two further points about Dr Betech:

1. He admits that he was involved in the ban on (Rabbi) Slifkins books.

The Chofetz Chaim (Hilchot Lashon HaRa 5:3) writes that one who says about a Rav that he does not know Torah and thereby causes his status to be diminished (and potentially causes him loss of livelihood) denigrates Torah and causes laxity in observance of mitzvot.

2. In his book, Betech fails to mention Rabbi Slifkin's book on the subject at all, even though he has certainly read it and is very familiar with it (and seems to have taken some of his sources from it). Furthermore, when a Rabbi says something that Betech does not agree with he either excludes it completely (like the opinon of Rabbi Tendler) or instead attributes Rabbi Lubin's opinionto a random parsha sheet (North Hendon Adath) to avoid presenting a difficulty to his theory.

Nodeh Be'Yehuda (Tanina: Orech Chaim 20) writes that one who fails to attribute a source (b'shem omro) is considered a thief and transgresses a Biblical command.
(disclosure: I found this reference in she'arim metzuyanim be'halacha siman 27, along with many other sources who state the same thing).

So in summary, one who denigrates a Rabbi and claims that he is not intelligent denigrates the Torah and causes people to be lax in their mitzva observance. Furthermore one who does not attribute their source transgresses a Biblical prohibition.


I'll end with a quote from Rebecca Driver:

Kangaroos are ingenious examples of God’s craftsmanship, designed by a Creator who knew perfectly what He was doing. To Him all praise, glory, and honour is forever due.

I came across this spoof letter today, purportedly addressed to Richard Dawkins:

Dear Dawkins,
Sorry I haven't written for a while. I have been working on a theory that we are descended from pandas, rather than great apes. The evidence is pretty thin, to be honest, but next year I shall travel to China to view the pandas in their natural surroundings, and publish my findings.

According to my theory, the big evolutionary leap happened when we stopped eating bamboo and began making chairs out of it, leading to the development of furniture at around the same time that our panda ancestors discovered fire. This in turn led to the invention of offices, leading eventually to thepaperless office. But as I say, the evidence is crummy. 

I am not, sir, a zoologist by profession, but a tennis instructor, so any advice you could give me about pandas would be welcome. Did not gunpowder originate in China? This would be consistent with our warlike panda forefathers trying to gain the upper hand over rival species, such as chimpanzees. Both species are now on the verge of extinction, of course. 

Do you play tennis at all, Dawkins? If you do and there is any particular area of your game you would like to work on, do not hesitate to get in touch.

Best wishes,


Harry Hutton, tennis instructor

 Reminds me a bit about a discussion going on about rabbits in ancient Israel that's been going on elsewhere.

Last week was Albert Einstein's birthday. He was a very smart man. One of the interesting things that I saw posted in honour of his birthday was
this letter that he wrote regarding scientists and religion

The Riverside Church

January 19, 1936

My dear Dr. Einstein,

We have brought up the question: Do scientists pray? in our Sunday school class. It began by asking whether we could believe in both science and religion. We are writing to scientists and other important men, to try and have our own question answered.

We will feel greatly honored if you will answer our question: Do scientists pray, and what do they pray for?

We are in the sixth grade, Miss Ellis's class.

Respectfully yours,

Phyllis

----------------------

January 24, 1936

Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,

your A. Einstein

Even though we clearly do not decide matters of hashkafa based on Einstein, I think he makes a very valid point, which is often forgotten. Someone who approaches Judaism (or probably any religion) in a more rational, scientific way, will have a very different concept of G-d than someone who approaches in a more traditionalist way. I think that each approach has its advantages and disadvantages, and I think that either can be supported by views in Rishonim (though of course, none of the Rishonim knew Einstein's special theory of relativity).

Someone who believes in G-d through tradition and with a temimut (Einstein calls it naivety) will probably have a more personal relationship with G-d, and possibly see the 'hand of G-d' more directly in their life (though not necessarily). However, their conception of G-d will be parochial and limited.

A person who bases their relationship and belief on science will have a much grander, bigger, view of G-d. Their sense of awe and wonder will be enhanced at the beauty and splenour of creation. But it is harder to feel a direct personal connection to such an awesome G-d. All of the Biblical miracles (and certainly the stories of hashgacha pratit) seem petty when compared to the awesome miracle of a single cell, or the wonders of the universe.

I would not suggest that one approach is better or more 'Jewish' than the other. However, I do think that a firm adherent of one approach will have a very difficult time trying to understand someone who holds the other approach. To each other one seems almost an atheist, while the other seems almost an idolator.

Thank you Albert, and happy birthday.

Of Onions and Wine Barrels

Over at MentalFloss there is an overview of historical methods of testing for pregnancy. It seems that the ancient Egyptians were not wrong in their test, and a lot of rabbits had to die in the early part of the 20th century (whether they were pregnant or not). But it is clear that there is only one pregnancy test which fits with Chazal, and therefore I call upon all frum people (and their wives) to use only this one, to show that Chazal never erred in their scientific knowledge. And that is "The Onion Test"

2. THE ONION TEST

While the Ancient Egyptians were on to something with the wheat and barley test, they and the Ancient Greeks seem to have had a fuzzy understanding of anatomy. Both Egyptian medical papyri and Hippocrates, lauded as the father of medicine, suggested that a woman who suspected she might be pregnant insert an onion or other strong-smelling bulbous vegetable into her vag*** overnight. If her breath smelled of onions the next morning, she wasn’t pregnant; this was based on the idea that her womb was open, and wafting the oniony scent up to her mouth like a wind tunnel. If she were pregnant, then the womb would be closed, so no wind tunnel.

This seems identical (or very similar) to our Sages understanding of women's biology, as the Talmud in Ketuvot 10b says as follows:

Someone came before Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi [and] said to him, 'My master, I have had intercourse [with my newly-wedded wife] and I have not found any blood.' She [the wife] said to him, 'My master, I am still a virgin.' He [then] said to them: Bring me two handmaids, one [who is] a virgin and one who had intercourse with a man. They brought to him [two such handmaids], and he placed them upon a cask of wine. [In the case of] the one who was no more a virgin its smell went through, [in the case of] the virgin the smell did not go through. He [then] placed this one [the young wife] also [on a cask of wine]. and its smell did not go through. He11 [then] said to him: Go, be happy with thy bargain. — But he should have examined her from the very beginning! — He had heard a tradition, but he had not seen it done in practice. and he thought. The matter might not be certain and it would not be proper18 to deal lightly with daughters of Israel.

Therefore, it would be a denial of the scientific knowledge of Chazal to use any other method of detecting pregnancy. Bring Back the Onions! (and save the rabbits)

Is this Torah-true Judaism?

I was looking at Rabbi Zamir Cohen's book The Coming Revolution
today. In it he claims that Louis Pasteur developed his cure for rabies after first reading a French translation of the Talmud. Cohen writes:

While living in Paris, Rabbi Dr Rabinowitz began translating the Talmud into French When his friend, Louis Pasteur, saw a copy of "Seder Mo'ed" - the tractates dealing primarily with the Jewish holiday cycle - it rouse his curiosity. To his amazement he read there the following statement:
"If someone is bitten by a mad dog [affected with rabies], he should be fed the lobe of that dog's liver."
The doctor was amazed at this healing method, which used part of the infected animal itself. He concluded that the Sages knew that an infected body produces antibodies, which attack an invading infection. Moreover, it seems that the antibodies, which concentrate in the liver, could actually help heal a person who was bitten by a rabid dog. Do. Pasteur immediately began a series of experiments that eventually resulted in the saving of millions of human lives.

It really bothers me when people use falsehoods to try and make other people religious. To me, this seems like a complete distortion of both history (and science) and - more importantly - of Torah. Let's have a look at the facts:

About Rabinowitz I only know what google tells me. Apparently Dr. Israel Mikhl Rabinowitz was originally from Grodno, and eventually came to Paris where he qualified as a doctor. But he gave up medicine to devote himself to translating the Talmud into French (the international language of the time). According to this website

Between 1871 and 1880... he published excerpts of the sequence: זרעים, מועד, נשׁים, נזיקין, קדשׁים, טהרות [six books of Mishna: Seeds, Holidays, Women, Damages, Sanctity, Purification] accompanied by forwards and comments.

It is perhaps conceivable that he knew Louis Pasteur. But Pasteur had begun work on vaccination in the mid 1860s. While his vaccine for rabies was first used only in 1885, the concept of vaccines went back to Jenner's work in 1796. Furthermore, Pasteur did not use livers to obtain his vaccine, but saliva from rabid dogs. It is possible that the story Cohen tells is true, but to my mind extremely unlikely that reading the Talmud led to his discovery of the vaccine.

Now let us look at the Talmud:

The Mishna (Yoma chapter 8 number 6) tells us that the idea of eating the lobe of the liver of the diseased dog was actually forbidden by the majority of the Rabbis. Only Matia ben Cheresh permitted it. Soncino translates thus (Yoma 82b):

IF ONE WAS BIT BY A MAD DOG, HE MAY NOT GIVE HIM TO EAT THE LOBE OF ITS LIVER, BUT R. MATTHIA B. HERESH PERMITS IT

As Rabbi Dr. Fred Rosner points out, he lived in Rome, and was thus acquainted with the wisdom of the ancient physicians such as Dioscorides, Galen and others. In other words, not only is the 'cure' not agreed to by the Rabbis, its source is not actually Jewish, but from the Greeks. In fact, "Vegetius Renatus (3rd century) recommended that cattle bitten by a rabid dog could be protected by making them swallow the boiled liver of the dog." Perhaps he learnt this from Rav Matia ben Cheresh, but it seems to me equally possible that Rav Matia learnt it from him. It is possible that Matia lived earlier (2nd century) which means that we should credit him with the cure. But I am not convinced that his cure was discovered from his knowledge of Torah, but rather from the medicine that was being discovered in Rome at that time.

If we look at the Talmud (84a) that follows this Mishna, we see that the Rabbis' ideas of cures were very different from those of modern medicine.

‘One whom it bites, dies’. What is the remedy? — Abaye said: Let him take the skin of a male hyena and write upon it: I, So-and-so, the son of that-and-that woman, write upon the skin of a male Hyena: Hami, kanti, kloros. God, God, Lord of Hosts, Amen, Amen, Selah, Then let him strip off his clothes, and bury then, in a grave [at cross-roads], for twelve months of a year. Then he should take them out and burn them in an oven, and scatter the ashes. During these twelve months, if he drinks water, he shall not drink it but out of a copper tube, lest he see the shadow of the demon and be endangered. Thus the mother of Abba b. Martha, who is Abba b. Minyumi, made for him a tube of gold [for drinking purposes].

According to Zamir Cohen, the Rabbis of the Talmud knew all of modern medicine, and should be thanked for inventing vaccines and saving lives. Do you think that even he would go to a doctor who prescribed this kind of treatment? The Rabbis of the Talmud thought that rabies was caused by either witchcraft or an evil spirit:

Where does it come from? — Rab said: Witches are having their fun with it. Samuel said: An evil spirit rests upon it

Is it not dishonest to claim that the Rabbis understood that "infected body produces antibodies, which attack an invading infection." Would Pasteur really have been impressed by this scientific knowledge?

Why does any of this make a difference? Apart from the fact that I think it is a perversion and distortion of Torah (which bothers me a LOT), it has major implications for halacha. The next sugya in the Talmud there is about the definition of death. Do we check the nose (for respiration) or the heart (from cardiac activity)? If the Rabbis of the Talmud knew all of modern medicine, and received their knowledge from the Torah, then there is no possibility that modern medicine knows better than they about things like deep brain stem death. If, on the other hand, the Rabbis were telling us the wisdom of their time, then perhaps we can update Jewish views on medicine to take into account modern medicine and techniques.

Actually, just to finish the thought and remove any doubt, I am sure that the medicinal knowledge of the Rabbis came from their contemporaries. Because it says so on the same page of Talmud! Look at the following story and cures:

R. Johanan suffered from scurvy. He went to a [non-Jewish] matron, who prepared something for him on Thursday and Friday. He said to her: How shall I do iton the Sabbath? She answered him,: Then you will not need it [any more]. He said: But if I should need it, what then,? She replied: ‘Swear unto me by the God of Israel that you will not reveal it’ [to others]; whereupon he swore: ‘To the God of Israel I shall not reveal it’. She revealed it to him, and he went forth and expounded it in his lecture. But he had sworn to her? — [He swore]: ‘To the God of Israel I shall not reveal it’ [which implies] but to His people I shall reveal it! But this is a profanation of the Name? — It was so that he had explained it [the meaning of his oath] to her from the very beginning. What did she give to him? R. Aha, the son of R. Ammi said: The water of leaven, olive oil and salt. R. Yemar said: Leaven itself, olive oil and salt. R. Ashi said: The fat of a goose-wing. Abaye said: l tried everything without achieving a cure for myself, until an Arab recommended: ‘Take the stones of olives which have not become ripe one third, burn them in fire upon a new rake, and stick them into the inside of the gums’. I did so and was cured.

Apart from the problematic issue of Rabbi Yochanan cheating his doctor, it is clear that their treatment of scurvy was taken from the local non-Jewish wise people. Not the Torah. Also, I am not convinced that the Talmud is really talking about scurvy (it is Soncino's translation, and may be correct, because the symptoms sound like scurvy, but perhaps it is not). If it is talking about scurvy, then we know that both the Talmud's idea of the cause, and their cures are wrong.

Whence does [scurvy] come? — From [eating] very hot wheat [-en bread], and from the [overnight] remnants of a pie of fish-hash and flour. What is its symptom? — If he puts anything between his teeth, his gums will bleed.

Scurvy is actually caused by a Vitamin C diffiency, and Captain James Cook is credited as being a pioneer in feeding his sailors foods with Vitamin C to prevent the disease. He was the first to circumnavigate the globe without losing a single man to scurvy.

If G-d's signet ring is 'Truth' should we not at least try to be honest when we present Judaism to others?

Science and Chazal - three approaches

No chidushim in this post, but just another interesting example of different approaches to aggadata.

I was learning Ein Yaakov with my daughter on Shabbat, and we came to the passage in Yoma 20b that speaks about the noise that the sun makes as it travels across the sky during the day:

ת"ר אלמלא גלגל חמה נשמע קול המונה של רומי ואלמלא קול המונה של רומי נשמע קול גלגל חמה

Our Rabbis taught: Were it not for the sound of the revolution of the sun, the sound of the tumult of Rome would be heard; and were it not for the sound of the tumult of Rome, the sound of the revolution of the sun would be heard.

The footnote in Soncino sends me to Otzar HaGeonim which understands this literally:

ת״ר שלש קולות הולכין מסוף העולם ועד סופו וכו׳ וי״א אף רידייא. בשלשה שקולן הולך וכול׳ אף רידיא. ועכשיו יש בבבל קול שנשמע מתוך אגמים וחר יצים שלמים וקול קשה הוא ואומר י ן זה קול ר י ד יא. ואף הישמעאלים כך קו ר י ן אותו ר י ד יא, ואין נשמע אלא מחדש איאר ולהלן כל ימי קציר.

‘There is a voice heard now in Babylon, sounding from pools, and connected trenches, a harsh voice, which is ascribed to Ridya. Thus also do the Ishmaelites (Muslim Arabs) call it. It sounds from the month of Iyar through the harvest’.

Clearly the Geonim thought that this sound was an actual sound and could be heard. It was not a metaphor or a simile, but a scientific, empirical fact.

On the other hand, Maharal (Be'er HaGolah p. 115) understands it metaphorically (or perhaps allegorically). I'm not going to translate all of it (because I don't have time now), but you can read the Hebrew at the end of this post. Basically he says that the 'sound' refers to the dominion of the sun in the heavens, and the 'sound' of Rome refers to their dominion on earth. He ends with the following words:

ולמי שלא ידע דברינו אלו אשר אמרגו בכאן בקול גלגל המה וקול המונה של מלכות, מסתפק בדבריהם אשר אמרגו, אבל מי שידע מוצא דברי הכמים ומקור שלהם ומאחה מקום מגה יצאו דברים אלו אין ספק אליו באמתת דברים:

Someone who does not know these words of ours that we have said regarding the sound of the revolution of the sun and the sound of the tumult of Rome will be in doubt about the things we have said. But for someone who knows the meaning of the words of the Sages and their source, and from where they derived their opinions, there is no doubt as to the truth of these words.

It seems that Maharal understood that the science of his time did not match up with the statement of Chazal. therefore he claims that anyone who does not understand it allegorically will think that Chazal erred. This is a mistake (in his opinion) because Chazal are citing from an (unnamed) source which is reliable and true.

And on the third hand (if such a thing exists) there is the opinion of Rambam (Guide for the Perplexed II:8). He accepts that Chazal meant it literally, and claims that this was the prevalent scientific theory of the time. However, because Aristotle rejects the theory of noisy spheres, Rambam rejects the statement of Chazal:

מן הדעות העתיקות הנפוצות אצל הפילוסופים וההדיוטות, שלתנועת הגלגלים קולות גדולים ומפחידים מאוד. הראיה שלהם לזאת היתה שכאשר הגופים הקטנים אשר אצלנו נעים תנועה מהירה, הם משמיעים רעש גדול וצלצול מחריד. קל וחומר גרמי השמש, הירח והכוכבים בכל גודלם ומהירותם. סיעת פיתגורס כולה מאמינה שלהם קולות מהנים הרמוניים, למרות גודלם, כשם שמנגינות המוסיקה הרמוניות. יש להם טעמים מדוע אין שומעים קולות מפחידים וגדולים אלה.
דעה זאת נפוצה בעדתנו גם כן. האינך רואה שהחכמים מתארים את עוצמת קולו של השמש בנועו כל יום בגלגל. וכן מתחייב לגבי הכול.
אך אריסטו מסרב לקבל זאת, והוא מבהיר שאין להם קול. אתה תמצא זאת בספרו "על השמים". משם תבין זאת ולא תחשוב למגונה שדעת אריסטו חולקת על דעת החכמים ז"ל בעניין זה, כי דעה זאת, כלומר שיש להם קולות, נובעת מן האמונה כי גלגל קבוע ומזלות חוזרים5. והרי יודע אתה שהם העדיפו את דעת חכמי אומות העולם על דעתם הם בעניינים אסטרונומיים אלה. זהו שאמרו במפורש: ונצחו חכמי אומות העולם. וזה נכון, כי כל מי שדן בעניינים עיוניים אלה דן בהם על-פי מה שהעיון הביא אליו, ולכן מאמין במה שהוכחתו המופתית נכונה.

(I know that the Freidlander translation is not very good. The Pines edition
is a much better English translation, but I can't be bothered typing it out, and this one is freely available on the internet.

IT is one of the ancient beliefs, both among the philosophers and other people, that the motions of the spheres produced mighty and fearful sounds. They observed how little objects produced by rapid motion a loud, shrilling, and terrifying noise, and concluded that this must to a far higher degree be the case with the bodies of the sun, the moon and the stars, considering their greatness and their velocity. The Pythagoreans believed that the sounds were pleasant, and, though loud, had the same proportions to each other as the musical notes. They also explained why these mighty and tremendous sounds are not heard by us. This belief is also widespread in our nation. Thus our Sages describe the greatness of the sound produced by the sun in the daily circuit in its orbit. The same description could be given of all heavenly bodies. Aristotle, however, rejects this, and holds that they produce no sounds. You will find his opinion in the book The Heavens and the World (De Cœlo). You must not find it strange that Aristotle differs here from the opinion of our Sages. The theory of the music of the spheres is connected with the theory of the motion of the stars in a fixed sphere, and our Sages have, in this astronomical question, abandoned their own theory in favour of the theory of others. Thus, it is distinctly stated, "The wise men of other nations have defeated the wise men of Israel." It is quite right that our Sages have abandoned their own theory: for speculative matters every one treats according to the results of his own study, and every one accepts that which appears to him established by proof.

These are three 'traditional Jewish' approaches to the conflict of Torah and science. Decide for yourself (or ask your local Godol) which is the 'correct' one for you for today.

Here is the Maharal in its entirety:

ואומדים כי דעת חכמים שהחמה קורע הרקיע שחוא גלגל חמה, והתר הרקיע לחחחבר, ולמחר חתר לגסר אותו. וגם זה כמו שאר דברים שאומרים עליה ואילו היה דעתם כך, היו אומרים החמה מנסר בגלגל. אבל כבר אמרנו לך למעלה, כי אין שם הרקיע נופל רק על התחלת העולם המבדיל בין עליונים ותחתונים. ומה שאמר כאן בי החמה מנסר ברקיע, דע כי באו להודיע בזה עניין החמה ומהותה, כי היא מיוחדת מושלת בתחתונים. ומפני זה אמרו שהחמה מנסר ברקיע, כי דבר שהוא מושל על דבר פועל בדבר ומבטל אותו כי אין להם חבור ביחד. וכבר אמרנו לך, כי הרקיע הזה הוא התחלת התחתונים ואין הרקיע הזה הוא הגלגל, ומפני כי הרקיע הזה מבדיל בין עליונים ותהתונים, ועל זה אמר כי תנועת החמה מנסר ברקיע, שכל מנסר מבטל ומסלק הדבר שחוא מנסר בו. ולכך אמר חגרא דיומא לא שמי ר״ל שמנסר החמה ופועלת ברקיע, עד שיש כאן בהינה מה ברקיע שהוא ללא לגמרי במקום שהחמה מנסר. ואין דומה לשאר מנסר אשר איש מנסר הדבר לגמרי ומבטל אותו, אבל זה מבטל אוחו לגמרי ולכך נקראו הנסורת לא. ומביא ראיה דכתיב וכל דיירי ארעא כלא השיבין, אבל הב״ף מורה שיש דבר שהוא לא, ודבר זה מה שהחמה פועלת ברקיע, דבר זח נחשב לא כמו שהתבאר. ולפי גודל הפעל שהיא פועלת בעולם ובזה אין בעולם השקט והנהה מכח חמה שהיא פועלת, ולכך בשביל זה אין קולו של אדם נשמע מפני הוזמה שמנסרת ברקיע, ר״ל גודל הפעולה שהחמה פועלת בעולם על ידי תנועת החמה. והמבין יבין, שכל הדברים הנאמרים כאן הם ברורים בכל הדברים האלו באין ספק כלל, ויורה זה המאמר שאחריו:

תנו רבנן אלמלא קול גלגל חמה היה נשמע קול המונה של מלכות רביעית ואלמלא קול של מלכות רביעית נשמע קול גלגל המה. וגם דברים אלו נראים זרים ורחוקים מאוד. ובאור עניין זה, כי החמה יש לה ממשלה ומלכיה בעולם התחתון, ותנועתה ברקיע השמים הוא יציאת כח שלה אל הפועל, והוא קול החמה כמו שהתבאר לי׳וי זה, לא קול ממש שהרי כתיב בלי נשמע קולם, רק כי הקול שנאמר בא; ר״ל כח פעל של החמה כמו שהתבאר לפני זד- ומלכות רביעית גם כן יש לה ממשלה והתגברות המלכות בעולם, וזד גם כן קול מלכות רביעית. ואומר קול המונה של מלכות רביעית, כי רבוי הממשלה שלהם זהו תוקפם וכהם ויתבאר זה אח״כ, הרי כי שניהם יש להם ענין אהד משותפים הוא הממשלה בעולם. ולפיכך אמר אילו לא היה קול תוקף מלכות רביעית, הי׳ נמצא בפעל לגמרי תוקף ההמה יותר ממה שנמצא עתה, והמונע הזה הוא כה מלכות רביעית, שכל דבר שיש לו משתתף עמו, כי החמה ג״כ יש לה כת מלכות וממשלה ותוקף בעולם וימצא משתתף עמו הוא ממשלת מלטת רביעית, ובשביל כך לא נמצא כח אחד בפעל לגמרי בשביל הדבר המשתתף עמו, כי שניהם הם מושלים בעולם ואין שגי מלכים משתמשים בכתר אחד, לכך אין אחד מהם נמצא בפעל לגמרי והשני מבטל כחו עד שאין כחו בפעל לגמרי. וזה שאמר אלמלא קול המונה של מלכות רביעית היה נשמע קול גלגל חמד- פי׳ אם לא היה כה פועל של מלכות רביעית שנתן אל מלכות רביעית כח פעל, היה נמצא בפעל כה ממשלת החמה בתהתונים. וזה נקרא קול גלגל חמד- כי הקול הוא כאשר הדבר יוצא אל הפעל כי הקול יוצא אל הפעל, ועתה שיש כאן דבר משתתף הוא מונע ומבטל כה השני שלא יצא אל הפעל כהו. לכך כה ותוקף מלכות רביעית בעולם, חוא שמונע שלא ימצא כח ותוקף החמה בפעל לגמרי. וכן אם לא היה קול גלגל חמה שיש לו כח יוצא אל הפועל, היה נשמע קול של מלכות רביעית שהיה כח ותוקף של מלכות רביעית נמצא בפעל לגמרי, עד שלא היה אפשר לבריות לקבל חכח הגדול אשר יש לוע ואתה אל תטעה לומר, מה שאמרו כאן אלמלא קול המונה של מלכות רביעית שהכוונה הוא על האומה, שא׳׳כ היה ראוי להיות נשמע קול גלגל חמה קודם שעמדה מלכות רביעית. אבל הכוונה על כח מלכות רביעית והכנה שלה שהיה מעולם, כי כח של אומה זאת כח ההכנה שלה היה מיום שנבוא העולם, וזה ממעט כח ילגל חמה. ,כן כח גלגל חמה ממעט מכח הכנה של מלבות רביעית כי שניהם יש להם כח מלכות, ומפני כי שניהם יש להם כח מלכות והם משתתפים בכח אחד ממעטים זה מזה. והרי מזה תבין כי מה שאמרו חכמים בענין הקול במקום הזה, כי אינו קול מוחש, אבל קול הזה הוא הכח שיוצא אל הפעל והוא עניץ קול הזד- ולמי שלא ידע דברינו אלו אשר אמרגו בכאן בקול גלגל המה וקול המונה של מלכות, מסתפק בדבריהם אשר אמרגו, אבל מי שידע מוצא דברי הכמים ומקור שלהם ומאחה מקום מגה יצאו דברים אלו אין ספק אליו באמתת דברים:

Vilna Gaon and the Eye Doctor

There is a story about the Vilna Gaon which I have heard many times about when he met an eye doctor. I'll quote from the Artscroll book "The Vilna Gaon: The Life and Teachings of Rabbi Eliyahu the Gaon of Vilna
" (p. 155):

Another area in which the Gaon excelled was in his knowledge of anatomy. He once asked an eye doctor if he knew how many blood vessels and nerves go to the eye. The Gaon told him that one who does not konw the anatomy of the eye is unqualified to treat eye disease. Later the Gaon revealed tha thte eye has seventy blood vessles, equal to the numerical value fo the letter ayin, which means eye. [Rabbi Yechezkel Sarna, the late Rosh Yeshiva of Chevron Yeshiva, told this story to a famous professor of ophthalmology, adn the man expressed amazemnet that the Gaon could have known teh number of blood vesslels since it was only confirmed by doctors more than a century later].

This story has always bothered me, because it seems to support the myth that Rabbis know medicine better than doctors. Furthermore, I am not a doctor, but I am highly sceptical that this is even correct medically (why mention an un-named professor - simply quote the page reference in Grey's Anatomy if it is actually true). A quick search on google tells me that "Each eye has a different ammount of vessels, even to iddentical twins."

This website explains that depending on how you count there are two main sources of blood, four main blood vessels, and hundreds of capillaries in the human eye.

So it is not medically correct (nor is it particularly medically relevant). Yet this story is used to show that the Torah and Rabbis know more than science.

Yesterday, however, I found something even more interesting. I was looking at one of Rambam's letters, (p. 8 in this pdf - paragraph beginning with the words 've-hizaher she-lo te'ayen...') where he mentions al-Razi. I checked on wikipedia to find out more about him, and found this story:

During that time he was approached by a physician offering an ointment to cure his blindness. Al-Razi then asked him how many layers does the eye contain and when he was unable to answer he refused his services and the ointment stating "my eyes will not be treated by one who does not know the basics of its anatomy"

The reference here links to a book in Arabic which I cannot read. I am not convinced that it is necessarily a true story, but it makes much more sense when it is told about the foremost doctor of his age who ultimately died of eye disease!

Al-Razi really was a doctor - his books were translated into Latin and became the standard textbooks on medicine.

Al-Razi was "the first of the (physicians of medieval Islam) to treat medicine in a comprehensive and encyclopedic manner, surpassing probably in voluminousness Galen himself

This story seems to me to be too similar to the story of the Gra to be coincidental. Bear in mind that Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi lived from 865 – 925. That is almost 1000 years before the Gra. And his works were known to Rambam, as well as the rest of the medieval world. So whoever first attributed the story to the Vilna Gaon most likely knew of the story from earlier sources.

So the message of the real story of the Gain and the eye doctor is not that all medicine is contained in Torah, or that through Torah a Rabbi can know more than a doctor. Rather it is a story about al-Razi's studies and documentation of medicinal knowledge to try to further scientific understanding.

I wonder why the professor of ophthalmology didn't simply mention al-Razi to Rav Sarna!

Is there such a thing as rational Judaism?

Can religion really work with rationalism? There are many good books which try to bridge the gap between them (the 'first and best' of which was Challenge: Torah Views on Science and Its Problems, and of course there are the books of Rabbi Slifkin including The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution

But at the end of the day must we come to a point where we give up on the rational? Are there things which we cannot accept rationally but have to accept on faith? And if so, how do we know where to draw the line?

New research seems to suggest that the more rational a person is, the less likely he or she is to be religious. I have no idea whether this actually means anything or not, but I am very sceptical about the methodology used (though I haven't been able to access the full paper, so perhaps it is the summary that is misleading, rather than the research.

For example, one of the ways they decided who is rational and who is intuitive was through the following question:

For example, students were asked this question: "A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?" The intuitive answer — 10 cents — would be wrong. A little math on the fly reveals that the correct answer would be 5 cents.

After answering three of these questions, the students were asked to rate a series of statements on belief, including, "In my life I feel the presence of the Divine," and "I just don't understand religion." Students who answered the three questions correctly — and presumably did a better job of engaging their analytical skills — were more likely to score lower on the belief scales.

So based on three questions like that, and vague answers to questions about "I feel the presence of the Divine..." they make a generalisation that intuitive people are more religious, but intellectual people are less religious. I'm not convinced (I know that was only a small part of the study, but to my mind that is completely meaningless, and doesn't make sense in a study like this at all).

On the other hand, (and quite ironically), intuitively it seems to me that someone who is less rational is more likely to be religious. On the other hand, rationally, it doesn't really make sense to me.

Were Rambam, Saadiah, Ralbag or Yitzchak Yisraeli not religious? When Rambam rejects the philosophy of Kalam because it contradicts Aristotle, is that not purely rational?

But looking at the world today, it does seem to me that Kiruv has got rid of most of the intellectual, rational potential baalei teshuva. It seems that today faith has to be based on dodgy fake science and cholent. No rational person will accept that for very long.

Signs of Life

I recently saw a book (which I believe has just been published) which has beautiful illustrations showing what makes animals kosher and what makes them non-kosher. It is called "Signs of Life" The pictures are beautiful. However, as many of you know, there has been much controversy in the past few years about how to deal with the issue of hyrax and rabbit in terms of whether they chew the cud or not. I was curious how this book dealt with the issue. He spends almost half a page on both animals, and this is what he writes:

The Rock Badger and the Rabbit
Scientists throughout the generations have had the audacity to argue that the rock badger (shafan) and rabbit (arneves) do not chew their cud, in direct contradiction of that which is stated in the Torah. On the contrary, anyone can see with their own eyes that these animals chew their food long after it was ingested. (See Torah Sheleimah, Parshas Shemini (p. 293, quoted in Sefer Sichas Chullin p. 410) for further explanation of why these animals are considered to chew their cud

I am not all that impressed with his scholarship - he apparently didn't actually look in Torah Sheleimah, but relied on the citation from Sichas Chullin (which is honest of him). I'm not sure how many rock badgers or rabbits he has looked at - personally I have never looked at them for long enough to see them chew their food after it was ingested, but I'm skeptical!

But I am completely impressed with his total faith in the Torah (though his reliance on 'that which is stated in the Torah' disregarding the disagreements of Chazal and Rishonim is perhaps a but too much like the Saducees for my linking). And the audacity of those scientists throughout the ages! (Not sure how many studies of rock badgers have been done before the 20th century, but I'll believe him). Wouldn't it be great if scientists would always only stick to the simple text of Chumash and never have the audacity to argue with it!http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif We wouldn't have to worry about pesky issues such as the age of the universe, the heliocentric solar system, or the Southern Hemisphere. We would never investigate photosynthesis, because we would know that plants can live without a sun. We would never look for medical cures for illnesses, because we know that they come from G-d, who is the only true Healer.

Wouldn't life be simple (if short) if we restricted scientists from investigating things which make them seem audacious.

PS I just found an article in HaModia about the book which includes the following line:

Signs of Life, is the only modern comprehensive work that deals with the mitzvah of recognizing the kosher signs of animals, providing an in-depth analysis of the issue with beautiful full-color photos and diagrams. It has been widely acclaimed by the Torah leaders of this generation.

I didn't know that it was the only book on the topic! And I'm slightly disappointed that he didn't go into the issue in more details once he realised that it is a Torah mitzvah!