I find the idea that Chazal “used the science of their times”, although it may be true in some technical sense, is misleading and doesn’t do justice to the scientific questions on Chazal, or to Chazal themselves. I will explain why shortly.
Beforehand, however, I want to comment on how Natan Slifkin takes this concept to absurd lengths. For example, to explain why Chazal thought the Salamander is generated spontaneously in fire, he asserted that this was a universal belief in antiquity. He provided zero evidence for this assertion. When a commenter challenged him, Natan admitted his assertion was hyperbole (if you follow him, you should already know that you can’t take anything he says seriously), but still claimed it was a widespread belief, which alas, he still had no evidence for. Last week, Natan declared that the Baal Tosafos in Eruvin believed centipedes have asymmetric legs, because… back in those days, people just made stuff up without checking. His evidence that this was the epistemology of Tosafos was from Aristotle (who lived 1,500 years earlier in a completely different place and culture, but never mind all that) who wrote that men have more teeth than women. Just like Aristotle made up stuff on the spot or listened to nonsense without checking, so too Tosafos. He really thought this was a reasonable explanation of Tosafos. The problem is that Aristotle wrote that this conclusion was based on actual observations. 1 Whoops. Oh well. I guess Natan should have checked what Aristotle actually said, rather than engaging in typical Natan behavior which is… to make up stuff on the spot without checking.
Rather, when I talk about “the science of their times” I am referring to the normal sense in which this statement is used by our slightly less chareidi-identifying friends and sometimes by us, the idea that Chazal relied on the outdated science of their time, and so could be mistaken in their conclusions. Rabbi Meiselman already wrote a fairly comprehensive book on this topic, which I have read more than once (and I don’t understand many parts of it, ה’ יאיר עיני, but let’s save that for a different time), but I still feel that I have what to add in terms of perspective.
The problem
The reason why “they followed the science of their times” is problematic is that we are not just dealing with a few isolated halachos here and there, or a few a aggados where the actual science wouldn’t necessarily make a difference- there are hundreds if not thousands of halachos that are based on Chazal’s understanding of reality. In fact, their understanding probably has a bearing on most sugyos in Shas.
For example,
- The time of Krias Shema is based on Chazal’s understanding of the typical time when kings arise in the morning.
- The details of berachos on food are based on what Chazal determined provides sustenance, in which amounts they do so, and what is considered sitting down for a meal.
- The laws of muktzeh are based on Chazal’s understanding of those objects people set aside and that which they will use.
- The quantities to be liable for carrying on Shabbos are determined based on what Chazal understood are significant or useful for each material or object.
- The laws of chametz are based on what Chazal considered to be the chemical process of leavening.
- The laws of Yom Tov include concepts such as which foods would taste sufficiently better fresh.
- The many details of conditional marriage or divorce are determined by Chazal’s understanding of people’s mindsets regarding these issues. The same is with oaths, vows, and sacrifices, and the same is with Choshen Mishpat, interpersonal monetary matters.
- The many laws about valid and invalid witnesses in certain situations based which parties Chazal considered to be more or less trustworthy
- All the halachos about salting meat, about meat and milk mixtures, about food and dishes absorbing prohibited taste is based on Chazal’s understanding of how blood, fat, and taste is transferred
- All the halachos of Niddah are based on Chazal’s understanding of women’s menstrual cycles.
And these halachos, which are just a sample of many, are not some side points that can be stepped around. They are the stuff the Torah sheBaal Peh is made of. Therefore, to assert that Chazal really had no idea what they were talking about, and just followed other people who likewise had no idea what they were talking about, the blind leading the blind, is to completely undermine the foundations of the Torah sheBaal Peh. I don’t think people who blithely give this “answer” fully appreciate how little it answers, and how many more problems it creates.
There are some people seem to be aware of this issue and maintain that, yes, the halacha was based on a mistaken reality, but we still adhere to the halacha because it was “canonized”. They imagine that with this disclaimer, the integrity of the Torah sheBaal Peh is preserved. However, they are mistaken for two reasons.
1. It turns the Torah sheBaal Peh into a joke. It makes it something that was founded on falsehood, but we still must follow, because the rabbis said so. This reminds me of the orthoprax Modern Orthodox who believe in Biblical Criticism, that our Torah was written by many different authors over centuries rather than being given at Sinai, but they still follow it, or pretend to follow it, for cultural reasons. Obviously, such a path will go nowhere.
2. More importantly, it is a false approach that is overwhelmingly against the Mesorah. The overwhelming attitude of Rishonim, Acharonim, and Poskim in the vast majority of cases has been to assume that Chazal were correct, and not only must we follow their halachic conclusions, but we must also rule halachically based on their reasoning. A random example would be in the Rambam, when trying to determine upon what grounds a man can demonstrate that his new bride is not a virgin, and there are two criteria and a dispute among the Geonim regarding them, instead of investigating empirically, the very rationalist Rambam rules based on preponderance of manuscripts (Ishus 11:13)
יֵשׁ גְּאוֹנִים שֶׁהוֹרוּ שֶׁהַבּוֹגֶרֶת אֵין לָהּ טַעֲנַת דָּמִים וְיֵשׁ לָהּ טַעֲנַת פֶּתַח פָּתוּחַ. וְאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַגְּמָרָא מַרְאָה דָּבָר זֶה וְטָעוּת הָיָה בַּנֻּסְחָאוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם. וּכְבָר בָּדַקְתִּי עַל סְפָרִים רַבִּים וְקַדְמוֹנִים וּמָצָאתִי שֶׁהַדָּבָר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁאֵין לְבוֹגֶרֶת אֶלָּא טַעֲנַת דָּמִים בִּלְבַד
Wow, look at the very rationalist Rambam, the one who said קבל האמת ממי שאמרו, the one who said סוף דבר אני האיש אשר כשיציקהו העניין ויצר לו הדרך ולא ימצא תחבולה ללמד האמת שבא עליו מופת אלא בשיאות לאחד מעולה ולא יאות לעשרת אלפים סכלים, אני בוחר לאמרו לעצמו, the one who saidואל תבקשני לתאם כל מה שאמרו מעניני התכונה עם המצב כפי שהוא, לפי שהמדעים באותו הזמן היו חסרים, ולא דברו בכך משום שיש להם מסורת באותם הדברים מן הנביאים, אלא מצד שהם ידעני אותם הדורות באותם המקצועות. Look how this giant turns into humble acolyte when faced with the awesome words of Chazal, taking it utterly for granted that they were correct. This is representative of the standard halachic process, which is to rule based on the sugya and by trying to determine what Chazal meant, with a presumption that their statements about reality were correct. To assert that the process is all based on falsehood, but it’s ok, we’ll still be nice and follow halacha, is to utterly discard the entire Mesorah for 2000+ years. It would have been easier for our grandparents just to convert to Christianity and not deal with the fantasies of the rabbis.
From Irrationalist Modoxism, here.