[Avodah] Abiogenesis

[Michael Makovi]

>>> 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.

I would agree that halakha deals only with what we can see - thus
bacteria are kosher.

My point is that I don't see why our ability to see the animal's
reproduction makes a difference. If lice were invisible, then it'd
make sense to say they are kosher. But lice are completely visible -
it is only their reproduction that is invisible. And I see no logical
reason why invisible reproduction should translate into
as-if-spontaneous gneeration.

Plus, as I said, if Chazal saw lice eggs, then it means the eggs are
NOT invisible. And if Chazal did not see the eggs, then probably
Chazal honestly thought there were no eggs, and that spontaneous
generation does in fact happen. Either way, the invisibility argument
fails, and we are left with mamash true spontaneous generation.


>> 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

Simpler? How? To assume they meant two different things, even though
they both said the same thing, is simpler? The Greek scientists held
that lice lay eggs but nevertheless spontaneously generate. Chazal
said that there are "eggs of lice", but lice don't hatch from them.
(Not seeing them makes no sense, because then what are these "eggs of
lice" is we can't see them and thus ignore them as if they don't
exist?) Chazal and the Greeks clearly say the same thing. Why bend
logic and p'shat all out of shape? Just say that both believed in
spontaneous generation (= the science of the day), and all
difficulties disappear. And as Rabbi Slifkin has shown, what Chazal
says fits VERY VERY well with the science of the day.

And again, if Chazal saw the eggs, they weren't invisible (and so we
have to answer mamash spontaneous generation), and if they didn't see
the eggs, they would have believe in mamash true spontaneous
generation, not as-if.

Mikha'el Makovi