Correspondence
Commencing 5721(1961) between
The Lubavitcher Rebbe Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson
and Professor Cyril Domb F.R.S.
on Torah and Science Topics
An edited version of this
correspondence will be published in B'OR HA'TORAH 18 with all Hebrew words
(both in Hebrew fonts and in English transliteration) translated into
English.
Introduction by Professor Cyril Domb, Fellow of the Royal Society,
formerly on the faculties of Oxford, Cambridge, Yeshiva University, Bar Ilan
University, and The Jerusalem College of Technology; former president of the
Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists; and editor of Challenge: Torah
Views on Science and Its Problems, and of Bekhol Derakhekha Daehu:
Journal of Torah and Scholarship
A
discipline becomes a science when it starts precise predictions which can be
tested against experiment. This was not the case with early cosmologies,
e.g., those of Einstein and of de Sitter, which were purely speculative.
The "big bang" theory of George Gamov was more precise and made the
assumption that the universe started with an enormous explosion billions of
years ago, the time and magnitude of which was fixed by astrophysical data.
Likewise, the "steady state" theory of Hoyle, Bondi and Gold; and once
these theories had been formulated with precise predictions of data which
could be compared with experiment, cosmology could accurately be described
as a science. The problem of how to obtain the data was greatly facilitated
by the emergence of Radio Astronomy in which Martin Ryle of Manchester
played a key part. The "steady state" theory postulated that matter is
created continuously out of the vacuum of empty space, and no details were
given of how this process works.
In the
1960's Ryle's efforts began to show fruit, and he suggested that it should
be possible to discriminate between the two theories, and he gradually, but
steadily began to favour the "big bang" theory. His activities and
conclusions were reported in the press, and it was generally assumed that
religious thinkers would support "big bang" and secular thinkers "steady
state". I was surprised to receive an enquiry from the Jewish Chronicle
of London as to whether this identification was correct, and if so whether I
would explain why. My reply was to say unequivocally that Torah thinking
could live with either cosmology, and I proceeded to explain the reason in
an article which attracted wide attention. This was the first time in which
I entered into a public discussion, although I had previously engaged
in discussions largely with religious groups. I was gratified and honoured
to receive a very detailed response from the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Despite the
length I am reproducing it in full because of its historical importance.
*****
By the
Grace of G-d
Rosh Chodesh
Sivan,
5721, Brooklyn,
N.Y.
Professor C. Domb
King's College, London
Sholom uBrocho:
Your article, "The
Bible and Creation," in the Jewish Chronicle of February 17, 1961, has been
brought to my attention. I take the liberty of commenting on it, and I do
so on the basis of the Rabbinic saying, "kol yisroel 'areivim ze boze,"
especially in view of the fact that we had occasion to exchange
correspondence when you wrote to me on a question connected with Chassidus.
This circumstance assumes particular significance in the light of one of the
Chassidic tenets which, on reflection, is a basic priciple of our faith,
namely, that everything is directed by Hashgocho Protis. All the more so
when two Jews come into contact with each other, for Jews enjoy Divine
Porvidence in particular, especially when such contact is utilized toward
the dissemination of the Torah and Mitzvoth, the embodiment of the Divine
Wisdom and Will.
Your article
indicates that you are aware of the difficulties and conflicts besetting the
minds of many Jews, particularly in the ranks of the younger generation,
difficulties arising from the existence - as it seems to them - of
contradictions between religious belief and science. Though not a new
problem, it has become accentuated by the belief that there are
contradictions also from the direction of the so-called "exact" sciences
which are popularly assumed to have been proven beyond a shadow of doubt.
Hence they are faced with the problem of either remaining in the religious
camp in defiance of the scientific deductions, or having to choose between
the two.
Needless to say,
the Jew whose faith has, as it should, the power of
unassailable conviction, has no problem in the first place. For to him the
Torah and all that it teaches is the Divine Truth, and he rejects a priori
anything that contradicts it. On the other hand, since all Jews are
required to uphold the Torah and its precepts regardless of the degree of
their religious convictions, it is obviously a matter of obligation to help
them dispel their doubts and conflicts.
As a matter of
fact, the whole problem is based on a popular misconception as to what
science is. Where there is a true understanding of what science really is,
there is no room for such confusion. For, as it is well known but too often
overlooked, the sciences, even the so-called "exact" sciences, are at bottom
nothing more than assumptions, work hypotheses and theories which are only
"probable", as indeed you pointed out in your article, but all too briefly.
On the other hand, religious truths are definitive and categorical. To
quote our Sages - and it is also self-evident - "bori v'shemo, bori 'odif".
In other words, science cannot, a priori, challenge religion, especially our
religion, for science can never speak in terms of absolute truth. The best
proof for this, as you also mention in passing, is that many scientific
theories of the past which had been accepted as ultimate have been swept
away "absolutely" and categorically, to the extent that science can be
"absolute". A glaring example is provided by the question of the
geocentricity (of our global earth) in the planetary system, and better
still the universe, which had been such a bone of contention between
scientists and theologians. When Copernicus' theory was accepted, many
theologians hastily began their apologetics by attempting to reinterpret
Biblical passages in the light of the new scientific "truth", but not very
convincingly so. Now, according to the theory of relativity, it is held
that from the scientific point of view either theory could be accepted.
I would like to add
that the fact that scientific laws are only probable, and are merely
statements of the most likelihood, reflects not only on future predictions,
but also on deductions relating to the past, which must remain in the realm
of probability based on observation. Where no observation/experiment is
possible, deductions are purely conjectural. Hence science can never
challenge the veracity of the Genesis account from the viewpoint of the
evolutionary theory or any other theory, and it would be just as
"scientific" to accept the account verbally [literally] as to reinterpret it
allegorically to harmonize it with any particular cosmological theory.
With regard to this
particular portion of the Torah, however, I must disagree with the
statement you made in the said article to the effect that from the Torah
viewpoint it is possible also to accept evolutionary theory, in support of
which you cite certain interpretations of this portion. This is not so, and
the test of the matter is Halachah. Where Halachah is concerned there can
be no alternatives, for the rule of Halachah is the rule of reality. So
long as the Halachah is not infringed, we are at liberty to interpret the
Biblical verses on any level of P'shat, Remez, Drash and Sod. But this
prerogative ends where Halachah has ruled - this rule must be accepted "on
top" of all interpretations. Now, according to the Halachah our world came
into being 5721 years ago, and the age of the world is reaffirmed in such
Torah legal documents as Gittin, and the like; Shabbos is the seventh day of
the week, which the Halachah connects with the six days of creation that
preceded it (T.B. Shabbos 69b), and so on. The literal acceptance of the
Genesis account does not conflict with the doctrine in Midrash, Kabbalah and
the Zohar that G-d "created worlds and destroyed them", since the latter
refers to spiritual worlds as amply explained in these disciplines,
according to the final explanation of the Ari.
The purpose of the
above fairly lengthy observations is introductory to the suggestion I wish
to make, namely, that in view of the fact that your article dealt all too
briefly with such an important topic, I make so bold as to suggest that you
should elaborate on it. In treating this subject more fully, you could
bring out more forcefully the fact that science is basically a theory of
probable phenomena, and can in no way challenge religious truths. There is
no contradiction between this correct viewpoint and human daily conduct
based on these scientific assumptions. Here is where religious beliefs and
practices have the "advantage" over science, for it is only the Torah, Toras
Chayyim, that give certitude to human deductions arrived at in
the proper way, giving them the stamp of truth not only within the rational
and sensible world, but also in a transcending way. Thus, as above, Shabbos
is evidence of the creation of the world ex nihilo as a fact, etc. etc.
I trust that as you
reflect on the above observations, and on the opportuneness of the hour,
when so many of our young people experience a religious reawakening and a
desire to return to our Torah and traditions, yet they are confused and held
back by the misconceived doubts and conflicts mentioned earlier, you will
respond to the urgent need of bringing some clarity and light into those
confused minds, a task for which your position eminently qualifies you.
At this time before
Shovuoth, the Season of our Receiving the Torah, which is called Toras
Chayyim and Torah Emes, I send you my good wishes for an
inspiring Yom Tov and, in the words of my father-in-law of saintly memory,
"to receive the Torah with joy and inwardness".
With blessing,
(signature)
*****
I felt deeply honoured that the
Rebbe had taken the initiative to write to me, and I benefited greatly from
all my subsequent correspondence with the Rebbe.
My reaction to the letter
was to think about how I would respond to the Rebbe's challenge. I replied
as follows:
Professor C. Domb
King's College,
London
W.C.2.
England
25th
Menachem Av 5721
Dear Rabbi Schneerson,
שליט"א
Thank you for your
letter of Rosh Chodesh Sivan. It is a source of great encouragement to me
that you should have felt it worthwhile to write so fully about my article
in the Jewish Chronicle. I must apologise for my delay in replying -
this is not due to lack of appreciation of the significance of your letter;
on the contrary I felt I must have some time to think clearly before
composing a suitable reply. I have been exceptionally busy in the past few
months with the "Hovevey Torah" organization of which I am Chairman, and
whose activities you may have heard of. Also I have taken an active part in
attempting to raise the standard of the "Jewish Review" to make it a vehicle
of intelligent orthodox opinion which is very badly needed in Anglo-Jewry at
the present time.
I should first
explain the background to my article in the Jewish Chronicle. The
non-Jewish press had featured prominently a controversy between two eminent
scientists, Hoyle and Ryle, on some experimental results and their
cosmological implications. Several newspapers published articles naively
assuming that religious beliefs might stand or fall with the results of such
scientific experiments. The Editor of the "Jewish Chronicle" telephoned me
on Monday morning to ask my opinion, and to invite me to suggest somebody,
or to undertake myself, to write an article presenting the Jewish point of
view. The article must be produced within two days, was limited to 1000
words, and should largely base itself on the current controversy. Hence the
reason for the terseness and lack of amplification of the arguments as you
so rightly point out. I have on other occasions used some of the further
ideas which you suggest in your letter. (I am sending under separate cover
copies of other articles which have appeared in various places.) Requests
reach me frequently to talk about "Science and Religion" and I try to vary
the approach according to the background of the audience.
I shall consider
seriously your suggestion of putting all the arguments together in more
comprehensive form. At the moment I am still very much involved in a number
of projects - including a new Daf-Hashavua adaptation of the Daf-Yomi which
we are trying to launch in Hovevey Torah - but perhaps I may be able to find
time בע"ה
on a future occasion.
Regarding the
criticism you make of my defence of "evolutionary theory", I should first
point out that I was talking of evolutionary cosmology (a creatio ex nihilo
followed by a steady evolution) and not Darwinian evolution. Generally on
all matters of Halacha I do not rely on my own knowledge, but I consult with
Rabbi E. Wiesenberg whom I consider to be a great Talmid Chacham and Yerei
Shamayim. He has told me that our date 5721 A.M. is only binding on Jewish
legal documents in conjunction with the phrase במנין שאנו מונים כאן,
and there is a responsum from Rav Hai Gaon which says that our reasons for
accepting precisely this date are not too clear. (Quoted in Sefer HaIbbur by
Rabbi Abraham bar Hiyya p. 97 השער השביעי
הוי יודע כי החשבון הזה אשר בידינו לא מאדם הראשון ירשנו אותו ואין אנו יודעין
בימי אדם הראשון איך נעשה).
In regard to the
six days of creation I have always maintained that the Torah does not give
us the key to an understanding of P'shat. How are we, for example, to
measure the passage of the day before the creation of the sun? And if we
are to accept the interpretation of a Midrash which says that soon after
creation the period of the rotation of the sun was very slow, our whole
basis of timing may have to be changed. I have therefore always taken the
attitude of the Mishnah in Hagigah אין
דורשין במעשה בראשית,i.e., the
ultimate secrets of creation are beyond normal human understanding. Any
scientific theories are only temporary structures, and as long as their
limitations are fully appreciated they may help in technical progess….
With best wishes for 5723
Yours
sincerely
C. Domb
*****
The Rebbe responded positively to
my suggestion that I should send him copies of some of my Torah and science
articles. The Rebbe replied to my letter (29 Tishrei 5722) and drew my
attention to the Gemara in Moed Kattan and urged me to follow its advice.
This generated a positive reaction in all spheres of my Torah life and I
did indeed lecture widely on topics in the area of Torah and science. Here
is the letter:
By the Grace
of G-d
29th of
Tishrei, 5722,
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Professor C. Domb
37 Green Lane
Hendon, London N.W.4/
Sholom uBrocho:
This is to acknowledge with thanks receipt of your
letter of 25th Menachem Av, in reply to my suggestion that you publish a
series of articles, or a comprehensive monograph, on the subject of
"Religion and Science". Pressure of my duties and the intervention of
Tishrei compelled me to postpone my reply to your letter.
You mention your preoccupation with other Torah
projects at this time, and express the hope that you may perhaps find time
on some future occasion to act on my suggestion.
Permit me , therefore, to observe that while the
public dissemination of Torah merits a high priority, as the first Mishnah
of Peah states, I cannot share your view that this applies to the present
instance. My authority for this view is the Gemara (Moed-kattan 9 a/b)
which rules that "A Mitzvah which cannot be performed by others takes
precedence over all else."
As I pointed out in my previous letter, and as you
well know, the present state of confusion besetting the minds of so many of
our brethren, a confusion which is not limited to theoretical issues, but
which touches upon fundamental principles and attitudes, down to the very
observance of the Mitzvoth in the daily life, urgently calls for an
authoritative clarification by a recognized authority in the field of
science. I am confident that if the cobwebs of misconception attending the
advancement of modern technology could be cleared away, numerous misguided
individuals would be induced to re-examine their position, while others
still clinging to their beliefs and traditions, yet are troubled by doubts,
would have their confidence restored.
I realize, of course, that the undertaking which I
am suggesting requires time and attention. Nevertheless, I feel that the
encroachment on other important projects would not be so drastic, and in the
longer run, perhaps, it might even turn out to be a contribution rather
than an encroachment, in the light of the Mishnah, "one Mitzvah brings
another in its train", especially a Mitzvah that cannot be performed by
others, and where there can be no fear of duplication or excess.
Now to refer to some points raised in your letter.
Regarding our date, namely the present year 5722
since Creation, you write that you were told by a Rov that this date is
somewhat arbitrary, and its use in Jewish legal documents is qualified by
the phrase - במנין שאנו מונין כאן.
I am surprised that the Rov did not mention the fact
that the very same phrase contains the unequivocal words - לבריאת העולם.
In other words, this dating is not conventional, as for example, in
the case of "Minyan Shtorot", which was adopted and ordered to a certain
convenient date in the past. Our annual dating is historic, beginning with
the Creation of the world, and its use in legal documents explicitly
substantiates its authenticity.
You cite certain Rishonim in this connection, but
since I have not at hand these sources, I must withhold comment. However
you surely know that there is general agreement among our authorities of the
essential point that this dating is based on the Creation. Whatever
reservations have been made by some authority (on account of the Flood, or
other adjustments - שנת המבול, שנת תוהו)
the whole difference in the date would not exceed 3 years. (The Machlokes
whether it was in Nissan or Tishrei that the world was created represents
only a difference of six months.) The basic fact that our dating is related
to the Creation of the world is not challenged by our authorities.
With reference to the view of "evolutionary
cosmology", i.e., an evolution preceded by creatio ex nihilo, it is
"difficult" to reconcile this view with the evolutionary theory, since it is
impossible to cram within a period of 5722 years a process of
evolution as conjectured by the evolutionists which, if it be true at all,
would require millions and billions of years.
You mention the difficulty of understanding the
account of creation literally, specifically how it is possible to define
days before the sun was created. But I do not see the difficulty at all.
The literal meaning of the words " And it was day and it was night" is
inescapable, for the very same words are used in the text before
as well as after the sun was created, i.e., in each of the six days
of Creation. It would surely be illogical to assume that the very same
expression, used in identical context and in the very same section, should
have different meanings! This still leaves the question, how is the passage
of a day to be measured before the sun was created? But this question, too,
has no basis in so far as the text is concerned. For we are told at the
outset that G-d created light, and separated between light and darkness,
that is to say, the Creator at once set the limits of the day and night. As
for the source of this light, surely no-one will claim that the sun is the
only possible source of cosmic light, especially if we accept the view of
science that light has to do with electro-magnetic waves, surely there could
be other sources of light and energy besides the sun. Whether we accept the
corpuscular theory of light, or the wave theory, or the theory combining the
two, our position is not affected thereby.
One final remark, a propos of your mentioning that
in these matters you do not rely on your own judgment but consult with
Rabbonim, etc. Unfortunately, the majority of Rabbonim stand too much in
awe of scientific theories, for they still adhere to the attitude of bygone
generations, when science was regarded as an absolute truth, as something
apart from human intelligence and speculation, in other words, that
scientific laws are not produced, but merely "discovered" by the scientist,
and are infallible and immutable. This attitude was fostered even by the
Moreh Nevuchim that where "science" appears to contradict statements in
the Torah or Talmud, the latter must be reinterpreted to conform to the
scientific "truth". So deep rooted is this attitude, having received the
sanction of such eminent authorities in the past, that even now, when
scientists themselves recognize that they are dealing not with independent
"truths" and immutable laws, but merely with theories, formulated
only for the convenience of systemization, and classification advancement,
-many a well-meaning Rov still finds it difficult to change his attitude in
regard to science.
That is why I consider it so necessary in the
present day and age to clear away these widespread misconceptions not only
from the minds of religious skeptics, but also from the minds of believers.
I trust you will take the lead in this important
task.
With blessing,
(signature)
*****
The fourth letter (Teves 4 5722)
elaborates the Rebbe's views and contains positive suggestions as to how I
should prepare myself to influence others:
By the Grace of
G-d
4th of Teveth,
5722,
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Professor C. Domb
37 Green Lane
Hendon, London N.W.4.
Greeting and Blessing:
With
further reference to my previous letter to you, to which, incidentally, I
have not received your reply as yet, I want to bring a recent episode to
your attention which has a bearing on the subject matter.
It
is related to one of our activities, whereby some of our young men visit
various communities and university campuses, where they speak on the matters
of practical interest from the point of view of traditional Yiddishkeit.
Where possible, they also speak about Chassidus. Such visits are often
arranged in response to invitations and the like. Thus, recently, in
connection with Yud Tes Kislev and Chanukah, a number of such lectures had
been arranged in various parts of the country. On the last day of Chanukah,
a similar lecture had been arranged in a certain college town, at the
invitation of communal and campus leaders, who participated, and which was
generally very well attended, including a goodly number of Jews who are not
as yet observers of the Torah and Mitzvoth in the fullest sense. But all
were equally impressed by the fact that American-born young men, including
Ph.D's, and professionals belonging to the Chabad movement, took time out to
visit them and bring them "The Word of G-d", with the emphasis on the
practical aspects of the Jewish way of life. For however highly we value
the principle that "G-d desires the heart", the important thing ultimately
is the actual deed and practice.
One
of the speakers who addressed the gathering was a person occupying a
prominent position in the field of metallurgical engineering, who, only a
few years ago, began to take an interest in Jewish life and knowledge, and
is now a very enthusiastic מקיים מצוות
and exponent of Yiddishkeit.
After this lengthy introduction, I come to the point, namely, the episode
which I want to bring to your attention. When the speaker concluded his
address, in which he also referred to his own experiences, as well as his
discussions with me, one of the leaders of the community arose and mentioned
the fact that he, too, had had an opportunity to speak with me some two
years ago, when I strongly urged him - as a start - to begin putting on
Tefillin immediately. Without committing himself one way or another, out of
respect for me, this gentleman went on to say that he, in fact, had not
accepted my suggestion. A further question by the engineer as to the reason
why he had not accepted my suggestion, elicited the reply that one of the
problems which had not been solved in his mind was the discrepancy between
the scientific point of view and that of the traditional Jewish point of
view regarding the age of the world. In fact, the gentleman quoted the
Rabbinic saying שית אלפי שנה הוה עלמא וכו',
since, at one time, he had been learning Gemoro. So much for the episode.
I
will not go into the question of how logical this gentleman was in his reply
that because of a certain problem he was unwilling to put on Tefillin. But
the episode does illustrate the fact that there are (and numerous) Jews who
still ignore the fact that their souls, too, were present at Mt. Sinai, and
a question of doubt, which can and should be dispelled, still prevents them
from, or at least provides them with the pretext or excuse to, disregard the
actual observance of the Torah and Mitzvoth.
I am
not unmindful of the fact that there may be some among them who even after
the said question will be satisfactorily answered, will find other questions
in order to justify their present disposition. But that does not invalidate
my position.
I
cited the above incident not because it is an unusual one, but on the
contrary, as I indicated in my previous letter to you, I know for a fact
that this and similar problems still confuse many Jews, and to such an
extent that a person, who is prominent in the community, and is of middle
age, finds himself impelled to voice his doubt openly in the presence of
hundreds of other Jews, among whom there wasn't one to challenge the
statement.
I
trust you will forgive me for my persistence in urging you again to consider
my suggestion and request that you take this problem to heart.
Having just observed the auspicious days or Chanukah, when we light the
Chanukah candles in increasing numbers each night of Chanukah, and in a way
that they illuminate not only the home inside but also the "outside" and
especially in the light of the interpretation of Kabbalah of
עד שתכלה רגל מן השוק, ועד
כמה וכו' עד דכליא דתרמודאי (שבת כא, ב), תרמוד אותיות "מורות", היינו
שענין נר חנוכה הוא לכלות עד "רגל" (=סוף) המרידה (בהקב"ה) יהי רצון שיהי' כן
בעגלא דידן.
With
blessing,
(signature)
B’OR
HA’TORAH is Published by SHAMIR Professor Herman Branover, Editor-in-Chief Ilana Attia, Managing Editor
Address all
correspondence for B'Or HaTorah to Ilana Attia
6 David Yellin Street
POB 5749, Jerusalem, Israel Tel. 972-2-642-7521 Fax 972-2-538-5118 info@borhatorah.org
