[Avodah] Abiogenesis

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 02:53:59AM +0200, Michael Makovi wrote:
: I disagree. Yes, we say that only God can create ex nihilo. But if you
: believe in spontaneous generation...

Spontaneous generation is yeish miyeish. Life is generated, but
non-living yeish is converted into living yeish.

In response to a quote of my understanding of RDLifshitz's shitaL
:> Rav Dovid taught that the halachic ruling is still applicable, because
:> the microscopic eggs and maggot larvae are not visible, and therefore
:> ... lack mamashus. The only cause for the current presence
:> of maggots that we can see is the meat. Viewing the question in terms of
:> human experience, the meat is the only source of the maggots....

: I've never seen this argument as viable. It makes sense to say that if the
: creature cannot be seen, it is mutar - thus bacteria are kosher.

: But since when should the creature be mutar because its reproduction cannot
: be seen? I see absolutely no logic in saying that since we cannot see it
: reproduce (but we davka can see the adult), we pretend it spontaneously
: generates....

You're thinking ontologically, determining wht actually exists, and
deciding halakhah accordingly.

I argued that halakhah's notion of metzi'us is not ontological but
existential. Halakhah deals with how we experience reality, regardless
of what actually exists. The microscopic mite in your water is kosher
because it is outside the realm of experience. Not because halakhah said
such things are okay, but because halakhah doesn't bother addressing
them altogether.

In earlier incarnations of this discussion, I pointed out that the very
words used to describe the realia about which we pasqen hint at that
existential bias. Looking very literally, "mamashus" means tangible,
and "metzi'us" is that which could be found. Neither word refers to the
world beyond direct human experience.

And so, if halakhah doesn't address the world outside our ability to
experience, then it doesn't address the louse eggs.

To put it another way: Aristotle's notion of abiogenesis was bad biology,
but an accurate description of how things look to the unaided human. And
it's only the latter that matters. Halakhah is more about psychology
and how to improve the self than a scientific determination of the
outside world.

: because I'm going to assume that no one in Chazal's time saw a whale give
: birth - ditto for sharks...

That's a difference between that which was experienced, and that which
could be experienced. That which could be experienced but wasn't falls
to the laws of birur -- which I would also argue show signs of having
existential, not ontological, basis. Eg the kashrus of meat whose
origin is in doubt has to do with how we relate to that doubt, not the
ontological reality of the meat. But that enlarges the conversation
beyond all maintainability.

...
: Besides, if all the scientists of the day believed in spontaneous
: generation, how much sense does it make to say that Chazal say almost the
: same exact thing but mean something totally different? ...

Rather, Chazal weren't discussing the biological question altogether.
They were speaking of the experience, which happened to match the
then-contemporary biological theory.

: I'll strengthen this: Rabbi Slifkin asks, what sense does it make to have an
: expression "eggs of lice" if they aren't really eggs of lice? Answer:
: according to Greek science (Aristotle I think), lice DID lay eggs, but they
: believed no lice hatched from them! ...

Simpler answer: Different bugs are born different ways. Even if they are
similar enough to share a name. (Which I don't think is true here,
anyway beitzei kinim vs tola'im).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
micha at aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter