Limit of a laboratory in disproving spontaneous generation; ‘uncertainty principle’ in modern science; comparing Torah Sages' certainty to scientists.
By the Grace of G-d
Erev Rosh Chodesh Nissan, 5740
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Dr. . . .
Greeting and Blessing:
...To illustrate further the unreliability of laboratory tests in many instances, consider the matter of “spontaneous generation,” cited in Sifra (Vayyikra, Shemini) and elsewhere, including Responsa. Some years ago I was asked how is this possible in the face of the contrary view of science which appears to categorically disprove it? Now, this subject was more familiar territory to me, since I lived for some years in France, where the science of bacteriology was given much attention under the influence of Pasteur, and I was interested in the subject of spontaneous generation also from the Halachic viewpoint. What emerged from scientific experiments was that in some cases of apparent spontaneous generation it was possible to discover, with the aid of a microscope, the existence of an egg or female which were invisible to the naked eye. Hence, it was concluded that there was no such thing as spontaneous generation. But needless to say, the fact that no evidence of spontaneous generation was found does not prove conclusively that such a possibility does not exist, and is certainly no argument to deny the specific case cited by our Sages. The principle of our Sages that “‘We have not seen’ is not proof” is also incontrovertible scientifically, certainly in modern science ever since the “principle of uncertainty” has been universally accepted.
But we can rely on the evidence of our Sages who were רבדב םינקסע and whose honesty and sense of responsibility are beyond question, since they dedicated all their lives to the study of G-d’s Torah, Toras Emes, and gave their very life for it. Thus, they would not make a statement, especially in a matter of halachah, unless they were absolutely sure of its truth. I doubt if even the most honest and responsible scientist can have a stronger sense of responsibility than that of our Torah authorities, lehavdil.
I have expanded on the subject, not because our G-d-given Torah, Toras Emes, needs any defense; nor do our Sages who expounded the Torah shebe’al Peh require support. The Rambam has clearly ruled that one who rejects any point in Torah shebe’al Peh as coming from Sinai (min hashomayim), even though willing to accept it as the truth, is—in his words—,רפוכ רקיעב that is to say, has no part in the Torah altogether.
However, I trust that this lengthy discussion may be helpful to those who do not yet fully realize that the Torah is “our life,” and “it is your wisdom and understanding before the eyes of all the nation” (Deut. 4:6f), or those who are still under the impression that science in some aspects contradicts the Torah and consequently feel a need for reconciling the two. Hence if this discussion can help dispel such doubts or distractions and thus strengthen their commitment to Torah and mitzvos “one while sooner,” it is worth all the trouble, even if it helps one Jew fulfill one more mitzvah. Certainly in light of the Rambam’s ruling to the effect that every person should at all times consider his record of good and not good actions, as well as the record of humanity at large as equi-balanced, and by doing just one more mitzvah one tips the scale in favor of merit, both for oneself and for the world as a whole. (Code, Hil. Teshuvah 3:4).
With blessing,
References
Published: The Letter and the Spirit, Vol 2, p. 310. See note to letter 2. For the beginning of this letter, regarding the mutations caused by Yaakov Avinu’s colored sticks, see Rebbe Responsa, issue 28).
Eduyos 2:2.
Mishneh Torah Hilchos Teshuvah 3:8.
For more on the subject of spontaneous generation see Emuna uMada pp. 130 ff.; A. Gotfryd (ed.), Mind Over Matter: The Lubavitcher Rebbe on Science, Technology and Medicine (F.R.E.E. Publishing House, 2015) pp. 53 ff; Igros Kodesh, vol. 19, letter 7,242*.
