Fact of the Day

There are certain facts that stick in your memory, and a trillion times that amount that do not. Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything is such a well-written book that I will practically forget everything he writes. If a book is too easy to read, then the content will be enjoyable but there is nothing to make it stick in your brain- “as is the effort, so is the reward”. There is definitely one fact that, thanks to Bill, will stay lodged in memory because he provided such a good analogy.

Basically, it’s all about the structure of atoms that had, at one point, thought to be a dense and solid object and shaped like a cube or a currant bun. In fact, an atom is now conceived to be mainly empty space. The neutrons which account for the majority of its mass, as well as the protons, are in a nucleus that constitute a millionth of a billionth of the atom, whilst the electrons spin round the outside. This fact, as stated so far, is one that I was probably taught when I was 15 at school and just like I forgot it then, I’d forget it now. I mean, what the hell does a ‘millionth of a billionth’ mean? However, a good image is all it takes…

Imagine that the atom was the size of a cathedral. If so, the nucleus would only be the size of a fly- but a fly that is many thousands of times heavier than the cathedral.

Leeches Suck and ECT is Shocking

New Scientist had an intriguing article about Leeches and their use in modern medicine. Apparently, they are very helpful in preventing problems when limbs are reattached. They help remove excess blood that could be life-threatening, and also inject a chemical that prevent blood-clotting. Who would have thunk it?

These poor leeches, however, have a very disreputable reputation, and probably through no fault of their own. It is not as if leeches deliberately prey on human beings, hide in your cornflakes or wait on street corners for an unsuspecting vein to walk past. Who can blame a leech for not looking a gift horse in the mouth and gorging itself on blood until it is six or seven times its normal size? After all, humans in our decadent West gorge themselves on cupcakes until they are six or seven times their normal size!

Yet, one cannot blame someone who would be weary of the use of leeches as part of their medical treatment. For almost 2000 years they were used as a catch-all treatment by ‘doctors’ who may have killed more patients than they cured. This is nicely summed up from a scene from Blackadder:

Edmund: Never had anything you doctors didn't try to cure with leeches. A leech on my ear for ear ache, a leech on my bottom for constipation.
Doctor: They're marvellous, aren't they?
Edmund: Well, the bottom one wasn't. I just sat there and squashed it.
Doctor: You know the leech comes to us on the highest authority?
Edmund: Yes. I know that. Dr. Hoffmann of Stuttgart, isn't it?
Doctor: That's right, the great Hoffmann.
Edmund: Owner of the largest leech farm of Europe.
Doctor: Yes. Well, I cannot spend all day gossiping. I'm a busy man. As far as this case is concerned I have now had time to think it over and I can strongly recommend a [in chorus] course of leeches.
Edmund: Yes. I'll pop a couple down my codpiece before I go to bed ?

For much of the time, this proliferate use of leeches was based on the belief that our body was composed of four basic substances or humours (blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile) that corresponded to the four Greek elements (fire, earth, air and water). Disease was caused by an imbalance of these humours and significant blood-letting could redress the balance.

Now that, post 19th Century, we do not believe in this theory, how come we still have leeches being used in medicine? Sure, it is not done on the basis of a discredited theory and it would be wrong to discard something just because of a chequered past, but is anachronistic nonetheless. After all, surgeons have great trouble preventing the leeches from straying and there is no guarantee that they will latch on and suck. Equally, if they know the combination of chemicals that stop blood-clotting why don’t they administer it in a different way? And if they don’t, why are we comfortable administering something we don’t have an understanding of?

The same goes for ECT (Electro-convulsive therapy), a commonly used technique in the 1940s and 50s, that passes an electric current through a patient and produces a seizure in the patient. It was used to ‘cure’ a large range of mental illnesses, often without the consent of the patient and sometimes was administered as a form of abuse. Yet, this is still in use today!

There are far more controls to its use, is limited to fewer illnesses, and is more monitored. Interestingly enough, in my psychology course, I learnt that the research shows that ECT is (slightly) more effective in treating schizophrenia than any of drugs currently available. Schizophrenia has a mainly biological rather than psychological cause, and passing current through the brain ‘does something’ to temporarily reset the brain. However, the ‘does something’ is not very well understood. Are we really happy to administer this when we don’t really understand it or its long-term effects just because it seems to work? Couldn’t scientific and medical funding be better directed elsewhere?

This is where the chequered past of a medical method comes in. After all, which modern scientist would a priori think of leeches or electricity as a great way to solve illness based on what we know? We only use it because of a direct link to a past where medicine was more barbaric. After all, the farm that breeds the leeches has been in operation from 1845, when the theory of humours was still believed. Given that it is the only licensed farm, Blackadder’s criticism of Dr. Hoffman of Stuttgart is prescient.

Of course, it’d be all worth it if we could make it up to leeches as a reparation for a history where we have abused their talents! Their life starts well being fed on sheep blood served in a sheep-gut condom. Yum! Alas, as soon as they are used, the surgeon drops the leech into a tub of alcohol and thrown into “Medical Waste”. Neither the leeches or the humans are being given the chance they properly deserve!

Were our sages wrong about science? Yes! Get over it!

If there is one thing to make the top rabbis of our generation look an ickle bit silly (okay, a lot silly) is their very late-in-the-day and Christian-fundamentalist-like attitude towards science and particularly evolution. Late-in-the-day because rabbis of hundred years ago didn't seem to be having the problems contemporary rabbis have suddenlt discovered; and Christian-fundamentalist-like because of an ill-conceived battle that has little to do with religion or science. If you are one of those who think people in 'high places' should not be subject to legitimate criticism, you should probably stop reading. Please note that this is not a question of their integrity, moral standing or general intelligence. It's just about how an encounter with secular culture has led them to make pronouncements about the limits of Judaism which are not only 'not the only possible view' but just plain incorrect. That is surely grounds for just complaint.

Of course, the problem isn't their ignorance about science, per se. Who cares about that? Of course, whoever is making halakhic decisions, should know about the intricacies of the area they are dealing with. However, in terms weltanschauung/ hashkafa/ belief, the positive results of science have very little bearing. Or at least that's my opinion. Obviously our gedolim disagree, and think that science is so fundamentally relevant and antithetical to our beliefs that they will fight tooth and nail against it. As far as I'm concerned, the fundamental and eternal paramaters of Jewish faith in relation to science remain the same as they always have been. Science, under whatever theory, sees us as natural beings differing from other organic creatures only in degree and not in kind. Religion, under whatever interpretation, sees us as somehow 'transcendent', as unique, as made in the image of G-d. That, and only that, is the issue [Now the Jewish answer, as I will explain another time, is to accept both horns of the dilemma. We are both 'dust of the earth' and 'the breath of life']

No... their ignorance has got nothing to with their lack of knowledge of evolution or science. It is their (seeming) ignorance of vast swathes of Jewish philosophy and theology as passed down through millenia of our tradition. In relation to the very simple and obvious fact that the sages have made mistakes about science; it has never been a fundamental part of our belief system that they haven't. What the implications are of this is for another time; but that this is a view cannot be stated more clearly. As can be seen from the list below comple by R' Nosson Slifkin, the view that sages were wrong about certain aspects of science is not only legitimate but could be considered the majority opinion. Why the all the book-bannings can take place against those who are quite ready to accept evolution, on the basis that this is disrespectful to our sages or because it undermines the 'truth' of the Torah is quite beyond me. There may be other grounds, but those grounds just show a lack of knowledge of the mesorah.

Now whilst the main aim of yeshivot is 'Talmud Torah' and mastery of the halakhic literature, and indeed this should be their main focus; it is still a bewilderment that they don't the hashkafic underpinnings of that from tanach, midrash, philosophy, mysticism et al. But again... an actual discussion of the issues is for another time as to what a Jewish 'hashkafa' is, and not that I can state to know much. This post isn't about any attempted integration between evolution and science (which I am none too keen on), or to debate what it is to be 'in the image of G-d' or why the Torah talks 'in the language of man' or about the use of drash, stories and mythology, or why the Torah is none too interested (or concerned either way) in the results of disciplines like science or history but instead focuses on action. No.. this is just about a point of detail. It's just a point of detail that I simply can't believe some of our current gedolim can read and still maintain their positions. That is all. Nothing profound. Just simple undeniable detail.

Read and weep.....

1. Rav Sherira Gaon states that some of the Sages’ medical advice may be wrong and even harmful (Otzar HaGeonim, Gittin 68, #376).
2. Rabbi Yehudah ben Barzilai states that Rav Yochanan made a mathematical error (Sefer Ha-Itim #113).
3. Rabbi Eliezer of Metz states that Chazal erred in stating that the sun travels behind the firmament at night (Sefer Yere’im #52). This is with regard to the discussion in Pesachim 94b where Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi concludes that the opinion of the non-Jewish scholars, that the sun travels behind the earth at night, was correct. While Maharal interprets this metaphorically, Rabbi Eliezer of Metz and countless other authorities take the Gemara at face value and explain that Chazal were mistaken; even Rabbeinu Tam, who claims that the Jewish scholars were actually correct and that the sun travels behind the sky at night, disputes the Maharal and takes the Gemara at face value.
4. Rambam states that the Sages knowledge of astronomy was not based on tradition and was sometimes errant (Guide for the Perplexed 2:8 and 3:14).
5. Tosefos Rid states that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night (Tosefos Rid, Shabbos 34b, s.v. Eizehu) and expresses surprise that Rabbi Yochanan and the judges of Caesarea erred in a simple mathematical matter (but by implication it is not impossible to err in other scientific matters) (Commentary to Eruvin 76b).
6. Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam states that the statements of the Sages in medicine, science and astronomy were based on their own investigations and were sometimes incorrect. (I know that Rabbi Moshe Shapiro has repeatedly claimed that this is a fraudulent work that was falsely attributed to Rabbeinu Avraham by the maskilim. However the manuscript experts that I consulted dismissed this theory. Fragments of the
   original Arabic, dating probably from the 14th century, were discovered in the Cairo Geniza. The treatise has been printed in the Ein Yaakov for over 100 years without anyone challenging it as being heretical, and Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach accepted it as an authentic view.)
7. Ramban presents the opinion of the Greek philosophers regarding conception as an alternative to that of the Sages (Commentary to Leviticus 12:2). He also suggests that the dispute between the Sages concerning terefos may be based on a scientific dispute – where one side would be correct and one incorrect (Chullin 42a).
8. Tosafos states that Rabbi Yochanan and the Gemara in Sukkah erred in a simple mathematical matter (Eruvin 76b). (The Vilna Gaon is appalled at the idea that they could have erred in such a simple matter; but he does not deny that Tosafos is of this opinion.)
9. Rashba states that Rabbi Yochanan and the judges of Caesarea erred in a mathematical matter (Commentary to Eruvin 76b).
10. Rosh states that Rabbi Yochanan and the judges of Caesarea erred in a mathematical matter (Tosefos HaRosh, Eruvin 76b and Sukkah 8b). He also endorses the view of Rabbi
    Eliezer of Metz that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night (Pesachim 2:30; She’eilos U’Teshuvos HaRosh, Kelal 14, #2).
11. Sefer Mitzvos HaGadol endorses the view of Rabbi Eliezer of Metz that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night (Lo Ta’aseh #79).
12. Rabbeinu Manoach states that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night (Commentary to Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Chametz U-Matzah 5:11, s.v. Ela bemayim
    shelanu).
13. Meiri indicates that the Sages’ knowledge of human anatomy was inaccurate (Commentary to Niddah 17b).
14. Ritva indicates that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night (Commentary on the Haggadah, s.v. Matzah zo she’anu ochlim).
15. Rabbeinu Bechaya ben Asher presents the opinion of scientists regarding conception as a legitimate alternative to that of the Sages (Commentary to Leviticus 12:2).
16. Rabbeinu Yerucham ben Meshullam endorses the view of Rabbi Eliezer of Metz that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night (Toldos Adam VeChavah, Nesiv V, Part 3).
17. Ralbag states that Ezekiel received a mistaken scientific fact in one of his prophecies (Genesis 15:4, Beiur Divrei Hasipur, and Job 38:18-20, Beiurei Divrei Hama’aneh).
18. Ran expresses surprise that Rabbi Yochanan erred in a simple mathematical matter
    (Eruvin 76b).
19. Rabbi Yitzchak Arama states that the Sages erred concerning the motion of the stars (Akeidas Yitzchak, Parashas Bo 37).
20. Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi states that the Sages had a scientific dispute with the non-Jews concerning where the sun goes at night and that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi decided in favor of the gentile scholars (Responsum #57).
21. Maharam Alashkar states that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night
    (Responsum #96).
22. Rabbi Shem Tov ben Yosef endorses Rambam’s view that the Sages erred in matters of
    astronomy (Shem Tov commentary to The Guide for the Perplexed 2:8:2)
23. Radvaz states that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night (She’eilos Uteshuvos Radvaz, Part IV, #282).
24. Lechem Mishneh states that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night (Lechem Mishneh to Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Shabbos 5:4).
25. Maharsha states that the Sages had a dispute concerning rainfall which is to be understood literally as a scientific dispute (and hence one side is wrong) (Ta’anis 9b).
26. Minchas Kohen states that the Sages erred concerning where the sun goes at night (Sefer Mevo Hashemesh 10).
27. Rabbi Yosef Shlomo Delmedigo states that the Sages erred in various matters of astronomy (Elim, Ma’ayan Chastum #67).
28. Rabbi Binyamin Mussafia states that the Sages erred regarding their belief in the salamander being generated in fire and living in it (Mussaf Ha-Aruch, erech Salamandra).
29. Chavos Ya’ir states that the Sages erred in various matters of astronomy and endorses Rambam’s view on this matter (She’eilos UTeshuvos Chavos Ya’ir #210).
30. Pri Chadash states that Rabbi Dosa, whose view was adopted in the Shulchan Aruch, erred in a zoological matter concerning whether a non-kosher animal can have horns (Pri
    Chadash, Yoreh De’ah 80:2).
31. Rabbi Yitzchak Lampronti suggests that the Sages may have been mistaken about lice spontaneously generating, just as they were mistaken about where the sun goes at night (Pachad Yitzchak, erech tzeidah). (Note that even his teacher Rav Brill, who disagrees with him, admits that the Sages themselves thought themselves mistaken in their dispute with
    the non-Jewish scholars.)
32. Rabbi Aviad Sar-Shalom Basilea states that “one does not compromise his faith in the least by disagreeing with a given statement of Chazal as long as it is clear that Chazal based that statement not on received tradition but on their own reasoning” (Sefer Emunas Chachamim, Chap. 5) – he adds that if Chazal were unanimous on something then they must have been correct due to their superior intellect, which would presumably not apply
    to scientific data that was received from the empirical investigations of others.
33. Korban Nesanel states that Rabbi Yochanan and the judges of Caesarea erred in a mathematical matter (Eruvin 76b).
34. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch states that the Sages relied on the scientific knowledge of their era which was sometimes mistaken (Letter to Rabbi Hile Wechsler). (I know that Rav Moshe Shapiro shlita has repeatedly claimed that this letter is not from Rav Hirsch, and his disciple’s work Afikei Mayim claims that it is merely a collection of Azariyah de Rossi’s ideas, but there is irrefutable evidence that it is from Rav Hirsch – we have Rabbi Wechsler’s original letters to Rav Hirsch containing his questions and reactions to the letters.)
35. Maharam Schick states that certain matters in the Talmud were not part of the Sinaitic
    tradition but rather were assessments that are potentially errant (Responsum #7).
36. Rabbi Dovid Friedmann (Karliner) states that the Sages’ knowledge of many scientific things did not stem from Sinaitic tradition but rather from their own knowledge and things that they learned from non-Jews (letter quoted in Rabbi Moshe Pirutinsky, Sefer Habris 264:7:11).
37. Rabbi Yitzchak Herzog states that he adopts the position of Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam that the Sages were not infallible in their pronouncements about science (Judaism: Law & Ethics, p. 152).
38. Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler states that the Sages sometimes gave mistaken explanations of halachos that were based on the scientific knowledge of their time (Michtav Me-Eliyahu IV p. 355).