[Avodah] Yeast isn't chameitz

[Michael Makovi]

I don't understand how anyone could discount the science in this area.

Now, I understand the question of when the Gemara's p'sak is contrary
to our present science. For example, regarding killing lice, the
various answers are:
1) Following Rambam regarding treifot, we say that Hazal derived the
halakhah from the scientific knowledge they had, based on general
halakhic guidelines. For example, Sinai said a damaged vital organ in
general is treif, and Hazal figured out exactly how much of an
animal's liver it needs. If they erred, we only have what they said;
the Talmud was generated by human knowledge, but it is sealed.
2) Following Rashba regarding treifot: science is wrong, stick with mesorah.
3) Rabbi Aryeh Carmel and Rabbi Dessler (I think...?) - Hazal paskened
based on a received masorah, and the scientific explanation was
post-facto.
4) Sometimes, we can in fact update the halakhah to fit the science,
whether because the new halakhah is l'humra (no more killing lice), or
because it involves human health that we'd never allow to be violated
(premature infants that the Talmud tells us not to violate Shabbat
for), or other assorted reasons.

But in our present question, it is different. It is not a question of
the Gemara paskening A, and science today paskening B. That (viz.
contrary A and B possibilities) is what I summarized just above, and
it is a serious question.

Our present question is rather a question of the Gemara saying X, and
we're using science to figure out what X means. Therefore, we're not
using science to possibly go *against* the Talmud, which is a serious
question. Rather, we're trying to determine the Gemara's own
intentions via science. Thus, if the science is correct, there's
absolutely no chance whatsoever of violating the Talmud's intentions,
or going against Hazal, or any other such danger.

How could anyone object to using modern linguistics, textual analysis,
etc., to determine what the Gemara originally said? Would anyone
seriously (besides a few unfathomable individuals) object to our using
modern collections of manuscripts to determine the correct reading, as
the rishonim did all the time? Would anyone object to our consulting
experts of the Aramaic and Greek languages? Experts of Middle Eastern
realia?

I do not understand the objection. Let us examine whether Rashi or
Rambam is correct in the historical definition of shibbolet shual. Is
not the Gemara important enough to ask what it itself actually
originally meant here?

Michael Makovi

-- 
Michael Makovi
מיכאל מאקאווי
mikewinddale at gmail.com
http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com