I had the great privilege of attending a meeting at the Five Towns Jewish Times offices with Rabbi Moshe Meiselman, rosh yeshiva of Yeshiva Toras Moshe, and some community leaders. The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss the upcoming publication of a new English sefer about Torah and science.
The very topic of Torah and science is taboo in some circles because many talmidei chachamim are uncomfortable in dealing with a topic that they are not familiar with. At the other end of the spectrum there are individuals who use their knowledge of science to deride the Torah.
Rabbi Moshe Meiselman is the perfect Torah scholar to tackle this subject. He attended Harvard College and also received a doctorate in mathematics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At the same time, he also studied privately with his uncle, Rabbi Yosef Ber Soloveitchik, affectionately known as “the Rav.” He took advantage of this opportunity for 12 years. (These study sessions took place in Rabbi Soloveitchik’s home in the city of Boston. The Rav commuted to New York to deliver his shiurim.) He developed a close relationship with the Rav and became one of his foremost talmidim. Rabbi Meiselman is now widely recognized as an accomplished scholar and talmid chacham.
Rabbi Meiselman explained that the specific impetus to publish the sefer was in response to certain claims made over the past few years. Some individuals, who claim to be well versed in Torah and the sciences, have given themselves license to declare entire sections of the Torah mere allegory. Furthermore, they declare that parts of the Torah and much of Chazal are simply mistaken. The general response of the Torah world has been to distance themselves from such claims. However, no specific and thorough rebuttal of the claims has been presented. It was time that the followers of authentic Torah Judaism were presented with a clarification of the statements of the Chazal and Rishonim that were either misquoted or taken out of context.
Rabbi Meiselman posits that no Rishon ever understood the details of the Creation given in the Torah to be anything but literal. It is true that with our knowledge of science, our understanding of the Creation may deepen or change. However, no changes can be made to the clear pesukim of the Torah. There may be many ways to understand the six days of Creation. The concept of time during this period may have been different than our concept of time. Our way of measuring time began with the Shabbos on the seventh day. However, this in no way changes the literal reading of the Torah that the Creation lasted six days. 
Further, the Great Flood was understood by all Geonim and Rishonim to be a literal description and record of events that occurred thousands of years ago. The world was indeed flooded. It is interesting to note that in this very section of Torah that some advance as being allegorical and not scientific, we find lasting physical knowledge.
The Midrash tells us the following about Noah’s ark:
“The length of the teivah should be 300 amos, 50 amos should be its width, and 30 its height. The Torah has taught us the ways of the world. If one makes a boat to stand belomin, he should make its width one sixth of its length and its height one tenth of its length.” The accuracy of the Midrash has been confirmed many times, even in contemporary maritime engineering laboratories.
A hundred years ago an experimental vessel was built in Denmark to the same proportions as the teivah—but very much smaller—and of the same constructional style. The Copenhagen newspaper, Dagbladet, of August 31, 1904, reported, in part: “The Royal Shipbuilding yard has recently completed the construction of a remarkable vessel . . . It is a new Noah’s Ark, constructed after the design of Mr. Vogt, the engineer . . . The remarkable thing about the Bible measurements is that after thousands of years’ experience in the art of shipbuilding they must be confessed to be still the ideal proportions for the construction of a big ship. The Ark was not intended to sail, but to lie still on the water, and to give the best and quietest condition for the comfort of its inhabitants. This is ensured by means of the triangular shape. In a storm, the motion of the Ark would be reduced to a minimum. If the greatest living engineer in the world was given such a commission as this, to construct as large and strong a vessel as to lie still upon the sea, and as simply constructed as the Ark, he could not make a better vessel.”
Most recently, Korean naval architects have confirmed that a barge with the teivah’s dimensions would have optimal stability. They concluded that even if the wood were only 30 centimeters thick, it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30 meters.
Rabbi Meiselman concluded, “I am not a naval architect and make no claims as to the competence of all the reports. However, in reviewing the literature I have noticed that the statement of Chazal seems to be unchallenged.”
Those present at the meeting were all participants in the daf yomi. We recently had learned about the halachic status of a mouse while it is being formed from dirt. Rabbi Meiselman was challenged to explain that passage. He stated that any definitive statement made by Chazal, whether halachic or scientific in nature, is absolutely authoritative and has the stamp of Torah sheba’al peh. However, Chazal never stated unequivocally that such a creature exists. There were reports of such a creature, and Chazal discussed the halachic ramifications of its theoretical existence. They did not see the necessity of embarking upon an expedition to either validate or repudiate the reports.
However, when a statement is mentioned in the Gemara as a fact, it must be accepted. The Rambam, when confronted with a contradiction between what Chazal said was possible and what contemporary medical knowledge of his time said was impossible, opted for Chazal. For almost all interpreters of the Rambam, this is implicit in his statements about treifos. Not one of the classic interpretations of the Rambam says that he was of the opinion that Chazal made a mistake. This is not an available option.
Similarly, the Rashba stated that all statements of Chazal regarding science are absolutely true. If anyone were to suggest that they were less than authoritative, that would classify him as a melagleg al divrei chachamim and subject him to serious penalty. However, he viewed the natural remedies of Chazal as practical advice that reflected the medical opinion of their times and not a part of Torah sheba’al peh.
The Rashba’s opinion on medical advice is limited to the actual remedy presented. Still, many halachic statements made by Chazal based on their understanding of the underlying medical situation are authoritative.
Rabbi Meiselman’s son Naftali Yehudah was born late Sunday evening, June 16, 1974. The b’ris should have been scheduled for Monday, June 24. After a few days, he was still seriously jaundiced. On Sunday morning, June 23, the bilirubin count dropped dramatically and the hospital released him. The head neonatologist of Evanston Hospital said that there was absolutely no reason not to have the b’ris on the following day. Furthermore, he added that there would have been no reason to postpone the b’ris, even if he were still jaundiced. In his opinion, the jaundice did not present any danger for a b’ris milah. Rabbi Soloveitchik, Rabbi Meiselman’s rebbe, said to delay the b’ris for seven days from Sunday morning, when the dangerous jaundice disappeared. Rabbi Meiselman argued that the doctor had said that there was currently no danger and that even previously there had not been a danger for a b’ris milah. Rabbi Soloveitchik was adamant. “Chazal said that a b’ris milah on a jaundiced baby is a danger and therefore we have to wait seven days after the illness disappears, as we do with any other illness.”
We do find knowledge of medicine in the Gemara that was far ahead of its time. For example, the first mention of hemophilia A in medical literature was in the Gemara. The Gemara tells us that it is hereditary from the mother and that if a woman has sons who are hemophiliac then one does not give a b’ris milah to her sister’s sons. This medical fact was not recorded in general medical literature until the 19th century.
In hilchos treifos, there are many issues where the medicine of any specific period was at loggerheads with our traditions and statements of Chazal. Many of these have been resolved with more advanced and sophisticated medical knowledge. Some remain to be resolved.
The regenerative powers of the liver are part of hilchos treifos. This was unknown in the ancient world. The extent of this was not known medically until very recently. Similarly, the Gemara states that an animal without kidneys is not a treifah. This implies that it can survive more than 12 months. This was once thought impossible. There were those who attributed this to the fact that Chazal were ignorant of the function of kidneys. This hypothesis is very strange, as the Gemara says clearly that a human being cannot live without kidneys. Apparently, Chazal understood the necessary function of kidneys in human beings. Furthermore, this obviously denies the validity of the statement that treifos are halachah l’Moshe miSinai. Rabbi I.M. Levinger, in Maor LeMasechet Chullin advances a new explanation of this halachah. He claims that recent studies have shown that cud-chewing animals can filter the substances normally filtered by the kidneys via the inner stomach and that they can live without kidneys. Levinger writes, “There is evidence today that proves that ruminants have an excretory system that excretes into the rumen. Hence, in fact, these animals can survive if their kidneys are removed.”
Our discussion with Rabbi Meiselman then moved on to the topic of Midrashim and Aggados. Some stories mentioned in Chazal seem quite implausible. Are we to take every Midrash at face value? Rabbi Meiseleman quoted the Rashba in his introduction to his commentary on Aggados. “Most are meant to be taken at face value, but many are just allegorical.” I asked him if the stones under Yaakov Avinu’s head really argued and became one. He said that he simply didn’t know. Perhaps that was one of the midrashim that are meant to be allegorical.
I asked further if the mountains really argued with each other before the giving of the Torah. In reply, he referenced a Tosfos in Chullin (7a). The Gemara states that Rebbe Pinchas ben Yair had a conversation with a river. Tosfos is bothered by the obvious questions that rivers don’t talk. Tosfos suggests two answers. One is the Gemara was just relating Rebbe Pinchas ben Yair’s thought process. The alternative is Rebbe Pinchas ben Yair was in fact talking to an angel—a sar, who was the spiritual counterpart to the physical river. Chazal frequently said that everything in our physical world corresponds to objects and processes in a metaphysical spiritual world.
The same theories that Tosfos used to explain the passage in Chullin can be used to explain the story with the mountains. It may be allegorical or it may be that the various angels were arguing in the Heavens. I further pressed Rabbi Meiselman, “How do you teach the story to children?” He responded, “The story should be taught as is. When the children get older they will learn to understand the deeper meaning of Chazal.”
To sum up, there is no portion of the Torah that is allegorical. Further, statements of fact, whether in halacha or science, are not allegorical. Any midrash may or may not be allegorical. Our discussion then moved on to the Rishonim. The Gemara discusses the proper technique used to perform a kinyan—a method of acquisition—on an elephant. Hagba’ah, the simple lifting of the elephant is not an option.
R’ Zeira offered two solutions. R’ Zeira’s second technique is somewhat ambiguous. He states simply that an elephant can be acquired with bundles of vines. How so? Tosfos suggest that the vines are elephant food. The purchaser of the elephant can stand on a high place and hold the food above the elephant’s head. The elephant would jump to get the food and this would be considered hagba’ah. (Although the animal jumped on its own accord, an animal’s movement in response to a human action is considered a kinyan.)
This contradicts the accepted scientific fact that elephants can’t jump. Rabbi Meiselman conceded that perhaps Tosfos had never seen an elephant and was under the impression that they could jump.
Rabbi Meiselman was then asked if the statements of Chazal are authoritative Torah shelba’al peh and the statements of Rishonim are not necessarily; where is the line drawn? He replied, “Chasimas haTalmud.” Any statement made by a scholar after the sealing of the Talmud does not carry the same authoritative weight as statements made earlier.
There are those who argue that perhaps we should teach that the Torah is allegorical for the purposes of kiruv. Wouldn’t a non-affiliated Jew be more receptive to the Torah if he didn’t have to believe in a worldwide flood? This is not a new approach, and Rabbi Meiselman felt that this was the wrong approach.
This same argument was made in the past when Torah was confronted by a challenge from a different culture and/or discipline. Some felt that Torah is in an intellectually inferior position when confronting modern intellectual theories and discussion. Hence, these people developed a need to reinterpret Torah concepts to fit an intellectual worldview to which they accorded respect and veneration. This is being done today to accommodate modern academia.
For years, people looked the other way when kiruv workers and others expounded theories about Torah and science that were unacceptable to the world of talmidei chachamim. Some looked away because they did not want to interfere with otherwise important work. Some were not sufficiently sophisticated in the various disciplines to navigate properly and give the proper Torah response. However, this silence should not be interpreted as acquiescence or agreement to these positions. Some talmidei chachamim who had not sufficiently understood these areas and were expert elsewhere may even have consented. What changed recently is the attempt by some contemporary authors to make these accommodating theories mainstream. While in the past some have looked the other way, this can now no longer be continued. Torah can defend itself. The most potent kiruv tool is to expose the uninitiated to the depth and sweep of authentic Torah.