Ronald D. Ennis
For medieval Europeans, including Jews, religion was the source of truth about the world – how it came to be, how it functions, its early history, how to act, and what to believe. The Scientific Revolution disrupted this. Now there was another source of truth, and its methods and sources were human-made rather than revealed. Some Rishonim and Aharonim appreciated the significance of this, and their responses reverberate within traditional Jewish life until today. Herein, I will share their views, explore their differences and nuances, and place each in its context to enrich the reader’s understanding.
Rambam (1138-1204, Muslim Spain, Morocco, Israel, Egypt)
Rambam embraced scientific knowledge and incorporated it into his halakhic and philosophical thinking. For example, the Talmud Rosh Ha-Shanah 20b discusses when the moon is visible before or after its “monthly (re)birth”, the molad. Abba, father of Rav Simlai, interprets a baraita to mean that the moon cannot be visible until 6 hours after the molad. Rebbi Zeira, in the name of Rav Nahman, says the moon is not visible for 24 hours total. In Israel that is 6 hours after the molad (and 18 before), but in Bavel it is 18 hours after the molad (and 6 before). However, the Amoraic opinions are not empirically correct. Rather, the moon cannot be seen for about 24 hours both before and after the molad. Rambam incorporates this scientific knowledge without even quoting the Talmudic opinions (Mishneh Torah, Kiddush Ha-Hodesh 1:3). “A full day is needed before the moon can be seen in the beginning of the month.”
He explains his thinking in Mishneh Torah, Kiddush Ha-Hodesh 17:24:
The rationales for all these calculations, and the reasons why this number is added, and why that subtraction is made, and how all these concepts are known, and the proofs for each of these principles are [the subject] of the wisdom of astronomy and geometry, concerning which the Greeks wrote many books. These texts are presently in the hands of the sages. The texts written by the Sages of Israel in the age of the Prophets from the tribe of Yissachar have not been transmitted to us. Nevertheless, since these concepts can be proven in an unshakable manner, leaving no room for question, the identity of the author, be he a prophet or a gentile, is of no concern. For a matter whose rationale has been revealed and has proven truthful in an unshakable manner, we do not rely on [the personal authority of] the individual who made these statements or taught these concepts, but on the proofs he presented and the reasons he made known. [Translation from Sefaria.org]
He reaffirms this in Moreh Nevukhim Section 3:14:
You must, however, not expect that everything our Sages say respecting astronomical matters should agree with observation, for mathematics were not fully developed in those days: and their statements were not based on the authority of the Prophets, but on the knowledge which they either themselves possessed or derived from contemporary men of science. But I will not on that account denounce what they say correctly in accordance with real fact, as untrue or accidentally true. On the contrary, whenever the words of a person can be interpreted in such a manner that they agree with fully established facts, it is the duty of every educated and honest man to do so. (Translation Sefaria.org, Friedlander 1903 version.)
However, Rambam only supports adopting the views of science which appear to conflict with previous understandings of Torah when these are unequivocally proven as he makes clear below:
We do not reject the Eternity of the Universe, because certain passages in Scripture confirm the Creation; for such passages are not more numerous than those in which God is represented as a corporeal being; nor is it impossible or difficult to find for them a suitable interpretation. We might have explained them in the same manner as we did in respect to the Incorporeality of God. …. For two reasons, however, we have not done so and have not accepted the Eternity of the Universe. First, the Incorporeality of God has been demonstrated by proof: those passages in the Bible, which in their literal sense contain statements that can be refuted by proof, must and can be interpreted otherwise. But the Eternity of the Universe has not been proved; a mere argument in favor of a certain theory is not sufficient reason for rejecting the literal meaning of a Biblical text, and explaining it figuratively, when the opposite theory can be supported by an equally good argument. (Moreh Nevukhim 2:25, Translation Sefaria.org, Freidlander, 1903 version.)
For Rambam, a scientific finding, if proven, is fact. And if we find that fact in conflict with what we thought was true based on our understanding of Torah, we will reinterpret the Torah to fit with the science, as we have done with anthropomorphism. One could challenge this perspective, however, by asking how much certainty about a scientific “fact” is necessary to treat it as such. Aside from the basic laws of nature, few scientific advances are unequivocally facts but rather are highly likely postulates based on the experimental evidence. The certainty of these varies from extremely likely to less so, but all have some level of compelling evidence to support them. Indeed, we know that sometimes what has been considered a scientific fact is disproved by later research. This phenomenon affirms the fact that scientific knowledge is rarely absolutely true. That being said, we should be careful not to leap to the conclusion that apparent scientific facts that conflict can be simply dismissed. To do that would be intellectually dishonest when we use these scientific facts daily to make decisions of all types in our lives, including those of life and death, on personal and societal levels, and when we see these facts being used to invent new technologies and medicines. To use these facts but then dismiss them when we recognize the conflicts with our understanding of Torah is no doubt what Rambam cautions against.
Maharal (1520-1609, Prague)
Maharal discusses the issue of conflict between Torah knowledge and scientific knowledge in his Sefer Be’er Ha-Golah (Be’er 6, 7:2) where he analyzes the discussion in the Talmud Rosh Ha-Shanah (20b), discussed above. Maharal responds-
The warriors who know science…throw stones at this statement of the Talmud and say this contradicts the Talmud because the Talmud says one can see the moon 6 hours after its rebirth but this is impossible because the moon is not visible for a full day, more or less. So, the moon is invisible for about two days, a day before and a day after, which is what the Rambam writes in the Mishneh Torah, Kiddush Ha-Hodesh 1:3- “A full day is needed before the moon can be seen in the beginning of the month.” Apparently, it is also not visible a full day after it completes waning because the same applies at the end of waning as the start of waxing. And because of this, many who learned this information went to lengths to try to align the statement in the Talmud with this scientific knowledge and what the senses (i.e. vision) testify, that the moon is not seen six hours after the molad (as the Talmud had claimed), and they worked very hard. And one does not have to respond to these responses regarding whether they are true or not, because it is clear, this is not the path – because the words of Torah are alone and the words of their scholars are alone. (Translations of Maharal are my own.)
Maharal stridently and unambiguously disagrees with Rambam’s approach. For Maharal, Torah and other (scientific) knowledge are separate domains and best kept apart. A Maimonidean synthesis is misguided.
What Maharal means by “the words of Torah are alone and the words of their scholars are alone” requires explanation. Later in the same section, he elaborates:
And this is the difference between the secret of the intercalation that has been given to us from the mouth of the Holy One Blessed Be He through Moses because He gave us words that are possible from their perspective…but the words of the scientific scholars are not such, but only the measurement according to human sight [under specific conditions] and should not enter into Wisdom at all.
For Maharal, statements of the Amoraim are part of what we have been taught directly from God while the scientific knowledge challenging the Amoraim is based on human visual capabilities which are inherently limited. When these are in conflict, of course, we believe the Perfect G-d over the imperfect, limited human. Maharal seems to understand that “visible” from a human perspective may not mean something is fundamentally impossible to see, only that humans cannot see it without assistance.
Maharal also addressed the issue of conflict between scientific knowledge and Torah knowledge in his Sefer Gevurot Hashem (Hakdamah 2:39) where he discusses the miracle in which God stopped the sun from setting to facilitate the Israelites and their allies, the Givonim, continuing the battle with the Amorites (Yehoshua 10:12-14). Maharal explores whether this meant the sun stopped moving for the entire world or only locally at the battle site. He asks, rhetorically, how is the latter option possible? There is one sun, it is either moving across the horizon or it’s not?! He responds:
It is possible that the sun can move according to its normal way and for it to stop in the context of a miracle [at the same time] because these are two different perspectives (behinot), – nature on one side and miraculous on the other. And there can be no doubt that the miraculous is greater. Because they are two different levels (madreigot), the sun was miraculous in one level and natural in the other. Just like it moves naturally, it could stop cognitively (behinah sikhlit).
We should not leave this opinion of Maharal at the superficial level but should rather try to understand the position more clearly. What does the existence of different perspectives or levels mean? There is only one sun and one earth, and all humans perceive the sun-earth relationship similarly. One possibility is to assert that the miracle was a hijacking of the perceptions of those in battle to perceive that the sun was standing still even though in reality it was not. Perhaps this is Maharal’s meaning when he describes the combatants’ ability to continue to perceive the sun as behinah sikhlit, cognitive.
While saying the miracle was a hijacking of the combatants’ perception solves the conflict, the mechanism through which this happened i.e. in the words of the Maharal, the different behinot or madreigot, remains unexplained. One way to explain Maharal is to invoke ideas suggested centuries later, in the eighteenth century, by philosopher Bishop George Berkeley who proposed, in his A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, a theory he called “immaterialism” which said that the physical world which we think we perceive is actually only composed of ideas, not a physical reality. If this is true, then God’s miracle is merely the modification of the soldiers’ perceptions in the battle to perceive different things from the remainder of the world. Whether the Maharal subscribed to such a view of reality cannot be asserted from the texts above, but this does provide a framework for understanding his views.
Rambam and Maharal disagree regarding two core issues. First, they disagree whether Torah knowledge and scientific knowledge are part of the same domain, the same reality. The Rambam believes scientific discovery can be proven and, when proven, is as true as any Torah we know. Torah and science must be integrated both halakhically and philosophically. Maharal, however, believes that at a fundamental level, scientific knowledge, since it is humanly derived, is inferior to Torah which we have received from the Perfect God. Secondly, they disagree about the knowledge possessed by the Amoraim regarding planetary motion. Rambam opines that they only had the scientific knowledge of the time while Maharal believes that the understanding of the Amoraim had been given to Moses by God and unerringly passed down to them. It is worth wondering how far Maharal would extend this privileged status of statements of Hazal, if at all. Does this apply only to the topic of the workings of the universe or others which have been attributed as a “Law given to Moshe from Sinai” or would he extend this to all statements of the Amoraim or to all statements of Rishonim? Of Aahronim?
Surprisingly, at the conclusion of his discussion about the visibility of the moon in relation to the molad, Maharal asks, what if it could be proven that the inability to see the moon is not just a human limitation, but that it is scientifically impossible (even with God-like, superhuman, perception)? Based on the principles he laid out, one would expect Maharal to stand firm and reject the scientific claim of impossibility by invoking an argument of different domains? However, Maharal equivocates when considering this possibility. In Be’er Ha-Golah, Be’er 7:2 he says, “Certainly, if the Rabbis had said the moon could not be seen for two days, but the scientists could demonstrate the moon is seen at an earlier time this would be a strong question.” In this vein, we can also wonder what Maharal would think of the results of experimental science rather than just observational science. If he understood that research through experimentation can assert a fact with a high degree of certainty (e.g. lice do not spontaneously regenerate despite the Talmud’s opinion otherwise) would he accept this?
Rema (1530-1572, Krakow)
Rema also weighed in on this topic in his She’eilot and Teshuvot 7:3 where he responds to Maharshal’s criticism of a previous writing in which Rema quoted Greek wisdom. He first deflects the Mahashal’s criticism by noting this is an old debate and even Rashba, who ostensibly agrees with Maharshal, did so in a more limited scope than Maharshal:
First, I will answer that which my master (Maharshal) has turned the world against me because I brought, in my first writing, something of Greek wisdom and the head of the philosophers. This is an old argument, and the Rabbis of Provence have already answered Rashba on this. And even Rashba was only concerned with youngsters who have not learned Torah yet …. (Translations of Rema are my own.)
Second, he defends himself by aligning himself with Rambam while simultaneously dismissing the notion that Rambam did not really believe what he wrote in the Moreh Nevukhim. Notably, Rema then concedes that books articulating ideas that would draw one away from Judaism are prohibited to read:
Who do we have greater than Rambam who made the Book of Moreh [Nevukhim] which is entirely about this?! And even though Maharshal has written in his responsa that he (Rambam) only did this to answer the heretics, in truth, I say that I have two responses regarding this and both of them are true according to my limited capabilities. They (the Rabbis in general) were only afraid to learn Greek books that were cursed … and regarding these the law is like them (Maharshal and his supporters) because we are afraid that the reader may be drawn toward another belief…
He then argues for the religious benefits of understanding science:
But it is not prohibited to learn words of the wise ones and their insights in the essence of reality and nature because, the opposite, through this becomes known the greatness of the Creator may He be blessed…
He then makes his third argument in his defense, asserting that the existence of differing valid opinions within Torah is an accepted phenomenon:
And even though there are those who accept another opinion (i.e. Maharshal’s) on this topic “These and these are the words of the Living God.”
He then returns to a positive argument in support of knowledge from non-Torah sources:
And even though Wise men of other nations said these things, we have already said in Tractate Megillah (16a) “Anyone who says something wise, even from the (other) nations is called a Hakham (Wise man).” …Second, even if one claims that is it prohibited to learn from all their books because of the prohibited things that are in them, when these things are quoted by our Hakhamim (wise men) we drink from these works, specifically the great Rambam, and in this situation there is no rationale to prohibit them…
Rema then concludes with a final defense of the Rambam and himself:
And even though a minority of our Sages disagreed with him and burned his books, nevertheless his works have now spread to all the Aharonim and all of them use him to crown themselves by bringing proofs from his words as though they were “Law given to Moses from Sinai.” And therefore I also say that I am innocent from sin in this matter…The author of the Moreh (Rambam) wrote in Chapter 22 of the second part that all that Aristotle thought about the rotation of the moon is correct and he also wrote that all of Aristotle’s opinions are the same as Hazal aside from a minority of beliefs about God and His works and the rolling of the heavens for in these alone did he deviate from the truth.
In Rema’s view, there is no prohibition to study scientific material from any valid source and in fact one should believe wisdom from whatever its source with the caveat that works that will draw a person away from Judaism are prohibited. He expands the argument in support of this approach by arguing that knowing science is a good thing because “through this becomes known the greatness of The Creator may He be blessed.” However, he adds two nuances that soften Rambam’s principled approach. First, he argues, it is fine for others (e.g. Maharshal) to disagree with him (and Rambam) because “[t]hese and these are the words of the Living G-d.” Second, he accepts Maharshal’s argument in the situation in which scientific knowledge would draw people away from proper belief.
It is likely Rambam would disagree with Rema on these points and would rather assert that Maharshal’s opinion is simply wrong. Secondly, he would assess the veracity of the scientific assertion that was drawing people from Judaism and either find its weakness and dismiss it in a way that would make it no longer threatening or accept its truthfulness and rework our understanding of Torah accordingly. We do not know what Rambam would do if his arguments would not stem the tide of disaffection from Judaism.
In summary, the opinions of these three dominant rabbis span the spectrum that we see today from the broad acceptance of science from the more modern elements of the Orthodox community to rejection of any scientific fact that conflicts with any part of the perceived Mesorah on the conservative side of Orthodoxy. The continuity of these positions for 450 years is remarkable as is the fact that no broad consensus has emerged over half a millennium. At a minimum, I think we can recognize that all three were genuine in their attempt to understand Hashem and his world and we owe it to each other to approach those with whom we disagree on this topic with the knowledge that each position is supported by a giant of our tradition and as Rema quotes- “These and these are the Words of the Living God,”
Afterword:
It is worth pausing for a moment to consider why, among all the Rishonim and Aharonim, it was these three who tackled the issue. Regarding Rambam, there is no surprise since he was deeply enmeshed in understanding Aristotelian philosophy along with Torah. But what are we to make of Maharal and Rema? The first major step in the Scientific Revolution that challenged religion’s primacy in understanding the world was Copernicus’s discovery of the heliocentric nature of our solar system. Copernicus (1473-1543) was born in Krakow, where Rema would later be born, went to University in Krakow from 1491-95 and later returned a few times. He published his revolutionary “On the Revolutions of Celestial Spheres” in 1543, which led to a severe firestorm of criticism from the Church. Rema, who was 13 years old at the time of publication, undoubtedly heard about this given that he was living in Copernicus’s hometown. Given this, it is unsurprising that he was moved to consider the broader issue of the conflict between science and Torah that Copernicus’s discovery highlighted.
Johannes Kepler was a student of Copernicus. Kepler lived in Prague from 1600-12 and helped make Prague a center for astronomical sciences where he improved Copernicus’s discovery by showing the orbits of the planets were ellipses, not circles. Maharal lived in Prague during this time.Thus, similarly to Rema, it is not surprising that he would become aware of the implications of the new astronomic science and respond to them.[1]
This article is dedicated to the memory of my father, Dr. Herbert L. Ennis, Tzvi Aryeh ben Refael ve-Faiga.
[1] For more on the topics of this article, see David B. Ruderman, D.B.,. Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe (Yale University Press, 1995) and Jeremy Brown, New Heavens and a New Earth (Oxford University Press, 2013).
Site Operations and Technology by The Berman Consulting Group.