[Avodah] Heseibah, Halachah and Science

[Micha Berger]

[Replies to RSSimon and RAMiller's emails included, discussing very
different aspects of the topic.]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 08:41:13AM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote:
: His teshuva seems to fit a meta-halachic theory I've heard from a teacher
: that many times Chazal knew the mesorah/law/torah she'bal'peh, but didn't
: necessarily know the reason and they (to put it bluntly) guessed at the
: reason.  I've heard the kashrus status of bee honey described in that way
: -- i.e., nobody disputed that bee honey was kosher, but they were incorrect
: when they ascribed a scientific reason for it.

The kashrus of bee honey is also derived from "*MI*kol sheretz ha'of"
and "eretz zavas chalav udevash" (Bekhoros 7b). "Devash" in that 2nd
pasuq probably means date nectar, as it does in the similar berakhah
about EY's 7 minim. But if any kind of devash weren't kosher, the word
wouldn't be used in a berakhah without a disambiguating qualifier. (Or,
as the gemara says, unless the non-kosher devash was always named with
a modifier, like wasp honey.)

: How might that apply to other situations?  (Killing lice on shabbos?).  It
: is a general meta-halachic rule?  If not, when is it applied and when not?
: Or is this a post-hoc justification?  I have no idea...

We discussed this a few times.

The Gra and R Kook both hold that for every reason given for a halakhah
there are usually many others not spelled out for us. So, if the reason
for a heter is found to be scientifically wrong, we would need to be
machmir (killing lice). But, if a reason for a chumerah were disproven,
we have to assume there are other reasons still around sufficient to
justify sticking with the chumera. So, they only change the halakhah to
add chumeros.

I heard RDLifshitz give shiur on maggots found in meat. Leshitaso, the
maggots would be kosher. We have maggots in the meat because (1) there
were microscopic maggot eggs laid in the meat, and (2) once the maggot
hatched, it ate meat until it grew to visible size. But #1 doesn't count,
not being microscopic. It's the meat that made the problem halachic --
allowing the maggot to grow from micro- to visible size. And thus,
it still is born from the meat" in a halachic sense".

And I would think parallel reason would permit killing lice on
Shabbos. Assuming a bree of lice with invisibly small eggs.

I got the impression that RDL would assume that this kind of reasoning
could be found in every example.

>From which I generalized way out there to the principle that halakhah
doesn't deal with scientific reality, but reality as experienced. And
there are a lot fewer exceptions to Greek science that way.


On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 08:29:58AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: Similarly, I am not aware of any rigorous double-blind study on whether
: pregnant women miscarry after stepping on discarded fingernails.
...
: R' Josh Backon did post some research here (for example, at
: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n035.shtml#11 and
: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n151.shtml#09) to show that it is
: dangerous to eat fish with meat. But even there, I am not aware that there
: were any actual tests done to *prove* his conclusions.
: 
: My personal interest has been on the other side of this coin: Why don't
: these "dangers" count a forbidden superstitions?

First find the line between supersition and dicarded scientific theory.

To the Ibn Ezra, astrology was part of natural philosphy. Basically,
science. To the Rambam -- superstition. In Aristo's physics and
metaphysics, the IE's position is quite reasonable.

...
: This leads me to two possible conclusions: (1) Perhaps Chazal never saw a
: case where a woman did step on fingernails, and successfully delivered her
: baby. If every single test case resulted in miscarriage, then their
: conclusions are reasonable. But how can they have been so carefully
: observant of every single case? (2) The other possibility is that the
: belief in this danger is not the result of anything they observed, but was
: Received Revelation. This seems much more likely to me, because it is a
: simple entryway into halacha. Without a Revelation from Shamayim, wouldn't
: a belief in these dangers be a forbidden superstition?

Maybe R/Dr JB is right and mixing fish and meat does pose a danger. The
effect would have to be minimal, since we don't find anyone else noticing
it and turning it into a medical recommendation. Not much different than
there being no medical effect at all. Why would G-d be telling us such
things and not about much riskier foods?

And the Rambam omitted any ban on meat-and-milk from his book. It seemed
to R' Avraham ben haRambam that this was because he considered Chazal's
ban to be based on discredited science.


Why did the amoraim of Bavel spend so much time talking about sheidim,
while the Y-mi does not? Was it that they fought into Babylonian
superstition ch"v? Or was it that in the Bavli worldview, demonology
was accepted science. OR was it just coincidence that only the amoraim
living in a culture that paid much much attention to demons are the ones
concerned about sheidim?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 10th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  judgment bring balance and harmony?