The yeshiva student Rabbi Shlomo Hoffman of Bnei Brak sent me six pages of pamphlets, without an author cited, which dared call itself "True Knowledge," and asked my opinion. I gave him an answer. The Yated Neeman newspaper responded to the words of the first pamphlet and determined that it was heretical. The anonymous writer, in response, published a second pamphlet in which he responded to the words of Yated Neeman and claimed that the newspaper treated his arguments as heretical without discussing the arguments themselves, which he claimed are the absolute truth. Even the journalist Shaul Schiff dedicated a section of his article (HaTzofe, December 4, 1998) to "The Lies of Daat Emet." He also added: "Now they are preparing answers for that apostate in a pamphlet to be titled 'This Torah shall not be replaced,' which will be published shortly." I do not know if the pamphlet has been published by now, but because this issue is so important, I have decided to respond to the words of the pamphlet in a most comprehensive way.
The anonymous author, who was too afraid to list his name on his "creation," started with a supposition that "the words of science in the Talmud were handed down, one person to the next, from Sinai (Tractate Rosh HaShana 21b), for it is said that 50 gates of wisdom were created for the world, and all were given to Moses our teacher OBM aside from one…" He adds to his words those of Nachmanides, that these gates of wisdom included knowledge of the grasses, plants, trees, animals, birds, reptiles, and more. Details about flora and fauna included in the Talmud were those accepted in the "scientific world" for thousands of years, based on the wise men of Greece. In general their words do not match what we know now, and he says that this points to a lack of truth in their words, the words they received from Sinai. The anonymous author continues to ask "And what of the Oral Torah?" While in the first pamphlet he felt it sufficient to point out the supposed lack of truth in the words of Chazal, in the second he found his direction and from his words it is quite clear that, in his opinion, what is written in the Torah also does not match reality. He calls all these claims of his the "absolute truth."
The Gemara mentions a certain impure bird called the ayah or the re'eh. It is called thus because it "stands in Babylon and sees carcasses in the land of Israel" (Chullin 63b). This is not idle speculation about a bird; it sees actual carcasses, so what is wrong with its vision? This impure bird has two things wrong with it: a) it sees only carcasses in the land of Israel, as though that were the gist of the land b) are there no carcasses in Babylon and in other places? The bird prefers to see carcasses only in the land of Israel.
*
And now to the point. Belief in abiogenesis that does not occur, which the anonymous person used as a launching pad for his attack against the words of Chazal, was common in the entire scientific world until some 250 years ago. Most Jewish sages thought that it did happen. Maimonides has already stated that the source for the Jewish sages' knowledge about nature is not Jewish tradition and is not part of the veracity of the Torah. Its source is the sciences as they were known at that time; undoubtedly they were only partial, as Maimonides writes (Guide to the Perplexed part III, chapter 14 -- the Ramchal and many others also speak of this). What is amazing is that there were amongst the Jewish sages, albeit only a few, those who ruled and determined in contradiction to what was accepted amongst the gentile scholars. Thus, for example, Rabbi Eliezer the Great ruled that "One who kills a louse on the Sabbath is as one who kills a camel," for it is not formed from mold or sweat or anything like that, as the others thought (Sabbath 12a). Until the seventeenth century (some 1500 years after R' Eliezer the Great) there were "scientists" who registered "patents" on creating a bee swarm from a young bull. (In "Evolution and Judaism," in the chapter "Origins of Life," I listed the names of the "scientists," along with sources.)
Nachmanides, who thought that the "gates of wisdom" are the in-depth and correct knowledge of grasses, animals, and other laws of nature, and that they were given to Moses at Sinai, never said that this was the Oral Torah and never stated that Moses our teacher passed this knowledge on to the sages who came after him. Nachmanides supposed that Moses our teacher knew not only all the secrets of the Torah, he also possessed general knowledge in all fields, but the rest of the world was not ready for that level of knowledge. The teachings of the Jewish people are not a scientific text nor a history book. It is just what it claims to be, teachings of a way of life. The sages of Israel did not hesitate to make rulings, but if you have a question on Halacha you should ask a Tanna (a sage), and if you have a question on history, you should ask an author (of histories) (Avodah Zarah 9b, end).
When I read the pamphlet pages written by that person I recalled the words of Onkeles, who noted the different significance of the various "synonyms" for incitement. The Torah uses four separate words for influencing others to do something negative: l'hasiya, l'fatot, l'hadiach, and l'haseat. It is difficult to understand the subtle differences between these words. Onkeles, an artist in precision, clarifies the difference between the first three verbs and the last. For example, "The snake incited me and I ate" (Genesis 3:13), "Lest your hearts incite you (Deuteronomy 11:16), "For he wished to incite you" (Deuteronomy 13:11). In all these cases he noted that the inciter lied and wished to lead others astray. They try to convince others with untrue rationalizations, speaking in such a way that the listener does not notice the lies. This is not how he translates the expression "If your brother should entice you" (Deuteronomy 13:7). Through his translation he shows his opinion that even the Torah rejects a person who uses rationalizations which on the face of it are true and who does not mean harm to the person he entices, for in the enticer's mind the action to which he entices others is the right thing to do in particular circumstances.
It is not for naught that the Torah mentions, in talking about enticement to idolatry, "your brother, your son..." What difference does it make who entices you towards idolatry? With this language the Torah sought to emphasize that even if the enticer, the inciter, to idolatry is your son or your brother and means only your good, like urging surrender to assimilationist edicts or acting in a negative fashion to ease one's life, even in such a case the Torah warns us not only not to listen to them, but also "Do not have mercy...and do not have pity, and do not shelter him. You shall kill him..."
*
Indeed, each fact that the anonymous writer noted, taken by itself (no abiogenesis, the windpipe not splitting into three pipes leading to the heart, liver, and lungs, etc.), is true. As a side-note, we will mention that these things were not said in the Gemara. In the Gemara it merely states that in an animal's body "has three major tubes. One emanating from the heart, one emanating from the lungs, and one emanating from the liver" (Chullin 45b). These three tubes do indeed have a single major tube, but there is no reason to interpret the Gemara's words as meaning that the windpipe divides into three, as Rabbi Yehuda Leibish Landau noted in his book "Yad Yehuda," Laws of Treifot, 5652, introduction to section 40, for this interpretation does not match reality. No one stopped the anonymous writer or us from understanding the words in their simple meaning, that these organs have tubes, as opposed to other organs which do not have tubes. Rabbi Landa himself noted this, but the anonymous writer only cited the first few words, that "the meaning (as though there were only one) does not match reality." Maimonides rejected those people who only mention "half the truth," for there is no greater lie. From half a verse one could get the impression that one must worship idols, as it is written, "And worship other gods." Is this how one may form "true knowledge," as the anonymous writer pretends?
We not infrequently find, in the reality of our lives and of nature, that details in themselves are true and right, but when combined into a unified whole they lead to negative consequences. The materials from which we create explosives are each, individually, not only not harmful, they can be used to great purpose. But when they are combined they create a destructive compound meant to kill and destroy. The salt which we use, necessary for the existence of animal life including man, is comprised of two basic elements, one of them a dangerous poison when taken alone. Combining this poisonous element with another basic ingredient makes it lose its poisonous nature and forms salt, which is needed for the proper functioning of the body. The Creator of the world "engineered" our bodies in such a way that it cannot break salt down into its components, and thus cannot be harmed by them.
As in natural reality, we find a similar process in Halachic reality. Meat, milk, wool, linen, the sowing of wheat and of grape seed -- each individually is necessary and a positive step for the existence of the world and is perfectly proper; this is the utter truth. But combining these "truths," mixing meat and milk, wool and linen, an admixture of wheat and grape seeds, creates a negative Halachic reality.
Thus, pointing to factual evidence about this or that detail, without placing it in context, is misleading and incitement (as Onkeles explained with precision), for one can distort reality by pointing to true details. Therefore, if this anonymous person claims "I have spoken the absolute truth," he may be right, but that is not enough to deny that his words about the veracity of the Oral Torah are "poisonous, heretical words" as they have been called by Yated Neeman, or "lies and apostasy" as Shaul Schiff called them.
*
It would be appropriate to explain and emphasize that only the holy One, blessed be He, is the absolute truth. All other truths are only relative. There is room to debate every detail which the anonymous writer mentions, and if it becomes clear that this scholar or that exegete erred in what he stated, the topic ought to be corrected and brought into line with reality. The Jewish sages did not even hesitate to say that Moses our teacher erred in three places (Sifrei on Matot 31:21; see also Vayikra Rabbah 13:1). The difference between Moses our teacher and others is that he erred on three out of thousands or hundreds of thousands of issues while other err on all, most, or many issues.
Without a doubt we must admit to the truth and when we find a mistaken statement we must say so and correct it. It is absolutely forbidden to say that something which, over the course of years, has been found to be in error is truth, even if the statement issued from the mouth of a great Jewish sage. The Jewish sages had no choice but make use of the knowledge of their times in light of Halacha and Judaism. When they ruled a halacha about a creature which seemed to have been created from sweat, the halacha is correct -- had the being actually been created from sweat. If it became clear that the creature was not created from sweat, the creature should then be treated like a being created through earlier processes of biology.
The Halachic rule that was made about that creature may be applied to artificial beings, if scientists ever succeed in manufacturing such an entity, as they hope to. Once it became known that there is no being created from sweat, there was nowhere to apply the rule, though it is theoretically correct.
The fact that there are statements in the books of Chazal and the interpreters which do not match reality does not have an impact on the holiness of the Torah, including the Oral Torah. The anonymous writer who asked "What about the Oral Torah?" does not know what the Oral Torah is. There is no debate about the Oral Torah which was given at Sinai. Without the Oral Torah we would not know how to circumcise and whom to circumcise. There has never been a sage who could extrapolate, from the verse "and they shall be a sign upon your eyes," tefillin. Similarly, one would not know how to make them. The same holds true for other commandments. This is the Oral Torah which was given at Sinai.
Rabbeynu Nissim Gaon, in his index (enclosed in tractate Berachot in the Vilna Shas) says that the practical application of the commandments is known even to (non-Jewish) servant girls, for they have seen how the commandments are observed from generation to generation. There is no doubt that at an earlier time each person put the tefillin parchments on as they saw fit. There were no tefillin factories, as there are in our days. Almost everyone made their own parchment and wrote their own tefillin, in their own order. It is a fact that tefillin from the Tanaaic period were discovered and included parchments in accord with Rabbeynu Tam's approach. After it was ruled that the order must be in keeping with Rashi's approach, the ruling became obligatory for us. But the manner of donning tefillin is not the main point of tefillin, and on this question debates have arisen.
*
Just as one is forbidden to make common the holy, so is one forbidden to make holy that which is common, but there is a difference between the two. It is like a living infant, whom it is impossible, or at least very difficult, to raise without changing a diaper. We hold the baby lovingly, including anything that might be in his diaper. At the same time, we may not treat the diapers as though they were the baby. Those who mock the Oral Torah and, indirectly the whole Torah, based on statements which do not match reality throw out the baby because of his diaper. Is that how a reasonable person acts?
One who tries to "forcibly" turn the common holy indirectly causes others to turn the holy common, and that is a very heavy responsibility. Truth is the dominant and most powerful force both in the real sciences and in the Jewish teachings, as is written in Malachi: "Teachings of truth were in his mouth" (2:6), for "teachings of truth did He give to His people, through His loyal prophet" (the Yigdal prayer). This is the blessing we make over the Torah, "Who gave us teachings of truth." We are forbidden to ignore the truth.
As I finished writing this article I was brought the anonymous author's third pamphlet, in which he lets the cat out of the bag and is not merely content, as he was in the first two pamphlets, to mock the Oral Torah. This time he attempts to present Moses our teacher and his teachings as he has previously presented the sages of Israel and their oral teachings. But because I've gone on so long I will have to devote a separate article to that.
From HaTzofe 5 Shevat 5759, January 22, 1999