Reconciling
Torah with Science
Speak to Bnai Yisrael saying: If a woman conceives
and gives birth to a male, she shall be unclean for seven days; as [in] the
days of her menstrual flow, she shall be unclean. (VaYikra 12:2)
This pasuk
explains that after giving birth a woman is ritually unclean for seven
days. There is a fascinating teaching
from our Sages relating to the pasuk. They explain that the pasuk alludes to the factors influencing the gender of the
child. The Sages maintained that the
process of conception requires that seed from the female be joined with seed
from the male. This pasuk describes the birth of a male
child. The translation above is not
perfectly literal. A more literal
rendering of the passage is that “When a woman gives forth seed and gives birth
to a male child….” In this more
literal translation, the birth of a male child is associated with the seed of
the woman entering the womb prior to the seed of the husband. Commenting on this pasuk, our Sages
explained that if the seed from the female enters the womb first, the child is
destined to be male. If the husband’s
seed is present first, a baby girl will be born.
This theory does not correspond with today’s
understanding of the reproduction process.
How should we regard such teachings?
Are we to reject modern science?
Are we to deny the validity of our Sages’ theories?
Torah Temimah helps respond to this
dilemma. He explains that the Sages
based their theory upon the scientific knowledge of the times. The intention of the Sages was not to
indicate that our pasuk is the source
of their conclusion. They based their
conclusion upon the scientific views of their times. Instead, they saw in a pasuk,
an allusion to the theory of gender determination that was then the accepted
scientific position.
Torah Temimah provides an interesting
proof to his claim. The Talmud offers
an alternative for its theory of gender determination. In listing the children of Yaakov, the
Chumash refers to Dinah as Yaakov’s daughter rather than as Leyah’s child. The Sages explain that the male children are
attributed to Leyah. This is because
they resulted from her seed preceding that of Yaakov. Dinah is referred to as Yaakov’s daughter based upon the same
reasoning. This female child was a
result of Yaakov’s seed entering the womb first.
Torah Temimah points out that this source
certainly cannot be a derivation of the Sages’ theory of gender
determination. He bases this
observation upon another teaching of the Sages. The Sages suggest that Dinah was conceived as a male child. Leyah prayed that the sex of the child be
reversed. Her prayers were answered and
Dinah – a female child – was born. If
the pasuk attributing Dinah to Yaakov
is a derivation, it suggests a theory of gender determination completely
contrary to the theory of our Sages.
The father contributed the first seed and a male child was
conceived! Only through miraculous
intervention was the gender reversed and a female baby born.
This suggests that the intention of our Sages is not
to derive a biological principle from either source. The principle is based upon scientific knowledge. The sources are merely regarded as possible
allusions to the idea.[1]
Tzara’at Is Only Cured through
Repentance
And the Kohen shall see. And
the tzara’at has covered all of his skin, then he shall declare the afflicted
person clean. As long as he has turned
completely white, he is clean. (VaYikra
13:13)
This pasuk
discusses the affliction of tzara’at. Tzara’at
can afflict various parts of the body.
This passage deals with tzara’at
appearing upon the skin. Tzara’at is described as a white
discoloration. The affliction is not
regarded as a disease of physical origin.
It is the result of spiritual impurity.
It can only be identified by the kohen. If the kohen
declares the ailment to be tzara’at,
the person becomes a metzora and is
unclean.
A person whose skin is generally healthy but a small
portion is afflicted with tzara’at is
unclean. However, a person completely
covered by the affliction is considered clean.
This seems somewhat odd. A small
blotch of tzara’at is adequate to
render a generally healthy person unclean.
Yet, a person covered with the affliction from head to toe is clean!
This paradox can be explained through an analysis of
the definition of tzara’at. Tzara’at
is an affliction of the skin. It must
exist in contrast to healthy skin. This
contrast is essential to the definition of tzara’at. Without the contrast, tzara’at does not exist.
Therefore, a person completely covered with the affliction is not deemed
unclean. There is no contrast; an
essential criterion for tzara’at has
not been met.
The issues can also be viewed at a deeper
level. Let us begin by considering
another issue. A person afflicted with
the discoloration of tzara’at is
immediately brought to the kohen. After examination, the kohen must determine the status of the individual. This decision has various ramifications that
are discussed in the parasha. It is sufficient to note that advanced tzara’at is far more serious than the
preliminary form of the affliction.
Tzara’at of the skin is evaluated on
the basis of three symptoms. Any one of
these symptoms indicates that the tzara’at
is advanced. One of the symptoms is a
discoloration of the hair in the affected area. This discoloration is a change from the natural color to
white. The presence of this white hair
is an indication of advanced tzara’at.
Imagine a person finds a white blotch upon the
skin. The person sees that white hair
is present. May the person remove the
white hair before consulting the kohen? This is prohibited.[2] Nonetheless, if the law is violated and the hair is removed, the
intervention is effective. The kohen must evaluate the person as he or
she appears.[3] At the time the person appears before the kohen, the white hair is not present.
This might seem a little odd. The Torah is creating a tremendous
temptation. The metzora has the opportunity to remove the hair before appearing
before the kohen. The intervention is effective. Yet, the metzora
is expected to refrain from taking this step!
In order to respond to these issues, we need to
understand the function of this affliction.
Tzara’at is a divine
punishment. It is a consequence of lashon hara – tale bearing and gossip.[4] The affliction is a warning designed to encourage
repentance. The tzara’at cannot be effectively treated medically. Only spiritual improvement cures the
disease.
The affliction cannot be relieved until the person
is declared unclean and begins the process of repentance and spiritual
cleansing. This is adequate motivation
to prevent a person from removing the signs of tzara’at. Little will be
gained through the intervention. Much
will be lost. True, the intervention
will influence the declaration of the kohen.
However, the affliction will continue unabated. The healing process can only begin after the declaration of the kohen.
In other words, one must first accept the status of being unclean. Then one may begin the process of
purification.
This provides a deeper understanding of the law
governing the person completely covered with the affliction. The person is not declared unclean. This is not leniency; until the person is
declared unclean, the process of purification cannot begin. The affliction will continue. Only after a healthy portion of skin
appears, can the person be identified as a metzora. With this declaration, the process of
repentance and purification can begin.
Segregating the Metzora
All the days that he is afflicted with the disease he shall be
unclean. He is unclean. He shall dwell alone. Outside of the camp shall be his
dwelling. (VaYikra 13:46)
A person declared to be a metzora is segregated from the community. Rashi explains the reason for this law. Tzara’at is a divine
punishment for lashon hara – speaking negatively about others. This
activity creates division and strife within the community. The segregation of the metzora is a fitting punishment.
He has caused division within the community. It is appropriate that his punishment should include exclusion
from the community.[5]
Daat Zekaynim offers another explanation for this
law. The affliction of tzara’at is a divine punishment. However, the disease is a physical ailment
and contagious. The metzora is quarantined in order to
prevent the spread of the disease.[6]
The explanation of Daat Zekaynim presents an
interesting problem. The disease of tzara’at can be communicated through
contact with the metzora. Yet, halachah
treats the metzora as guilty of a
crime. This treatment implies that the
ailment was not contracted by natural means!
This contradicts Daat Zekaynim’s contentions that the disorder can be
conventionally transmitted.
Maimonides explains that the laws of the Torah are
designed to encourage physical, as well as spiritual, well-being. In discussing the laws regulating our
eating, he elaborates on this theme. He
explains that the foods prohibited by the Torah are generally unhealthy.[7] It must be noted that Maimonides is not asserting that the reason
for these laws is simply to ensure good health. He explains that the Torah regulates our behavior in order to
encourage temperance and moderation.[8] However, the Torah did not arbitrarily prohibit certain foods
and behaviors in order to encourage temperance. Instead, food and behaviors were forbidden that are potentially
unhealthy. In this manner, the Torah
achieved a secondary goal of encouraging good health.
Modern medical science may differ with some of
Maimonides’ theories regarding proper diet.
Yet, his basic assumption is reasonable. The Torah is a guide for the proper life. It is appropriate to assume that the various
laws encourage physical well-being.
Rabbaynu Yitzchak Karo answers our question based
upon Maimonides’ thesis. He explains
that it is possible for tzara’at to
be transmitted naturally. However,
confronted with an individual suffering from the disease, we do not assume that
a natural transmission took place. We
assume that the ailment represents a divine punishment. What is the basis for this assumption? The Torah regulates our consumption and
hygiene. For this reason the metzora
is quarantined. Through these
regulations, the physical causes for the disease are controlled. Therefore, halachah assumes that the contraction of the disease is not a
result of natural transmission.[9]
Rabbaynu Yitzchak Karo explains another mystery
regarding tzara’at based upon this
same approach. The Torah outlines
various forms of tzara’at. If tzara’at
is a divine punishment, why are all of these forms needed? He explains that although the disease is a
spiritual punishment, it is also a natural phenomenon. In other words, Hashem causes the person to
contract a natural ailment. A physical
ailment will take slightly different forms in various people. A single disease has different symptoms in
different people. Therefore, tzara’at will appear in varying forms.[10]
Torah Laws and Health Concerns
Speak to Bnai Yisrael saying: If a woman conceives and
gives birth to a male, she shall be unclean for seven days; as [in] the days of
her menstrual flow, she shall be unclean.
(VaYikra
12:2)
The parshiyot of
Tazria and Metzorah deal with various forms of spiritual impurity. In general, there a two means through which
a person can acquire spiritual impurity: 1) Through contact with an impure
object, 2) Through specific bodily functions or disease. Our parshiyot primarily deal with
impurity acquired though bodily functions or disease. It should be noted that in this context “disease” does not refer
to conventional disorders. This term
refers to a skin affliction – tzara’at – that is contracted as a
punishment for sinful behavior.
Most of the bodily functions
that cause impurity are unique to women.
These functions include menstruation and childbirth. The impurity that results from these events
has two expressions. First, the woman
is forbidden from entering the Mishcan or making contact with certain
sacred items. Second, the woman and her
husband may not be sexually intimate.
There is a variety of
opinions regarding the reasons for associating these bodily functions with
impurity. Many Sages contend that these
instances of impurity reflect health considerations. In other words, these Sages contend that intimate relations
during menstruation or immediately after childbirth carry health risks. Of course, these views are based on the
medical knowledge and perspective of their times. We should not assume that if these Sages had access to modern
science they would come to the same conclusions.
Many students may be tempted
to dismiss consideration of these opinions.
They reason that because these authorities base their interpretation of
these mitzvot on outdated and
discarded theories, there is no need to consider their opinions. This is a mistake. It is true that these Sages base their interpretation of these mitzvot on discredited theories. However, it is important to note and
acknowledge that these Sages believed that it is completely plausible for mitzvot to reflect health considerations
– not moral or spiritual issues.
In order to fully appreciate
the implications of this perspective, some additional discussion is
helpful. Most mitzvot are clearly associated with moral or spiritual concerns: We are commanded to serve Hashem; observe
Shabbat; accept Hashem’s unity; to pray only to Him; to eat matzah; and
to dwell in the succah. All of
these commandments, and many others, address spiritual issues. Other commandments deal with moral or ethical
issues: we are not permitted to steal
or deal dishonestly with others; we must be return lost property; and build
appropriate barriers around any dangerous area of our property. These are all examples of commandments that
reflect ethical concerns. We think of
Torah as a system for spiritual and moral advancement. We do not typically view the Torah as a
system that also promotes physical health.
Yet, these Sages accept that among the Torah’s objectives is the
promotion of physical well-being.
Not all Sages accepted this
perspective. Akeydat Yitzchak objects
to the contention that the Torah contains mitzvot
that address medical concerns. This
discussion takes place in reference to last week’s parasha. The Torah permits the consumption of certain
species and prohibits others. For
example, we are permitted to eat the flesh of animals that have split hooves
and chew their cud. A set of mitzvot
in last week’s parasha outlines those species that are permitted and
those that are prohibited. Many Sages
explain that these mitzvot reflect
health concerns. Consumption of those
species that are prohibited is unhealthy.
However, Akeydat Yitzchak disagrees with this approach. Akeydat Yitzchak argues that it is inappropriate to explain
that these species are prohibited because of health concerns. He offers a number of arguments:
·
The Torah’s
objective is to provide us with spiritual and moral guidance. The Torah should not be reduced to a medical work.
·
If the
prohibited species present a health threat, this concern could be countered
through proper preparation.
·
There are
many other foods that, if prepared improperly, are harmful. Yet, these foods are not prohibited by the Torah.
·
Our own
observations confirm that the non-Jews who do not observe these prohibitions
are healthy. If consumption of
these prohibited species is unhealthy, then those who consume these species should experience health consequences.[11]
Sefer HaChinuch is one of the
authorities who suggests that the some of the commandments in our parshiyot
regarding defilement are based on health concerns. In his comments, he responds to Akeydat Yitzchak’s objection to
assuming that that Torah addresses health issues. He comments that the body is the receptacle of the soul.[12] In order for the soul to function, the body
must be healthy.
This response requires
careful consideration. Sefer HaChinuch
accepts Akeydat Yitzchak’s assertion that the Torah’s objective is to provide
spiritual and ethical instruction.
However, he argues that this objective does not preclude the inclusion
of mitzvot that address health
issues. Spiritual and ethical
perfection cannot be separated from health. Our moods, energy, and attitudes
are affected by our health. In turn,
these factors influence our views and intellectual perceptions; a person who is
depressed sees the world differently than a person who has a positive
outlook. Different outlooks impact the
manner in which individuals understand experiences – and even the manner in
which they interpret information. In
short, health is a valuable asset in the effort to advance oneself spiritually
and ethically. Illness and poor health
are obstacles in this endeavor.
Sefer HaChinuch’s message is
more important than his specific interpretation of the commandments in our parasha. His interpretation of some of these
commandments is based upon discredited medical theories. However, his basic assumption remains true
and tested. Today, we have even more
evidence of the close association between one’s health and one’s outlook,
cognition, and perceptions. Sefer
HaChinuch suggests that because this association is so important, the Torah
actually legislates measures designed
to assure health. Certainly, Sefer
HaChinuch would insist that we give appropriate attention to our health and
would admonish us against neglecting our health or engaging in habits that
endanger our health[13].
Sefer HaChinuch acknowledges
that these mitzvot have other
objectives in addition to the health benefits he identifies. He explains that the mitzvot prohibiting intimate relations with a niddah (a
menstruating woman) and with a yoledet (a woman who has recently given
birth) also foster closer ties between husband and wife. Let us focus on his comments regarding the
prohibition of having relations with a niddah.
In order to fully understand
his position an introduction is required.
Conventional Western religions sometimes seem to adopt a prudish
attitude towards sexual intimacy. In these
religions, sexual intimacy is viewed as something that is, at best, a shameful
necessity. Preferably, it should be
avoided and should certainly not be
cultivated. Sefer HaChinuch maintains
that sexual intimacy is an essential element of marriage. A healthy attitude towards intimacy fosters
a stronger marriage. Based on the
assumption that sexually intimacy is an essential and natural part of a
wholesome marriage, it follows that enhancing this intimacy is a worthy
objective for a mitzvah.
However, before we can appreciate the Torah’s contribution to fostering
strong marriages, we must recognize one of the most common obstacles faced by
couples.
We tend to disdain – or at
least take for granted – things that are readily and constantly available. We have all had the experience of deeply
desiring some object. After finally
securing the object of our desire, we become accustomed to it. Soon, we take it for granted. In time, we may discard the previously
cherished possession and search for a replacement. This pattern is an expression of basic human nature. Marriages are intended to extend over
decades. How can we prevent the members
of this union from becoming bored with one other, taking the other for granted,
and even eventually discarding his or her spouse?
The Torah prohibits intimate
relations with a niddah. The
result of this prohibition is that intimacy is regulated. During part of every month, relations are
permitted and prohibited another part of the month. Husband and wife experience a period of separation each month and
the excitement of reunion. Sefer
HaChinuch suggests that a couple sharing this monthly experience has a greater
appreciation of intimacy and of each other.
The members of this union are less likely to become bored with one
another.[14]
In short, Sefer HaChinuch, in
his interpretation of the mitzvot in our parasha, suggests that
some mitzvot of the Torah reflect health concerns. Some mitzvot are also designed to
strengthen marriage and to specifically enhance intimacy. Both of these objectives are noteworthy and
reflect enlightened perspective.
Furthermore, this perspective is sometimes sadly absent from today’s
conventional views on the nature of piety and religiosity.
[1] Rav Baruch HaLeyve Epstein, Torah Temimah on Sefer VaYikra 12:2.
[2] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Tumat Tzara’at 10:1.
[3] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Tumat Tzara’at, 10:2.
[4] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon
(Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah,
Hilchot Tumat Tzara’at, 16:10.
[5] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer VaYikra 13:46.
[6] Daat Zekaynim Commentary on Sefer VaYikra 13:46.
[7] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Moreh Nevuchim, Volume 3, Chapter 48.
[8] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Commentary on the Mishne, Introduction to Avot, Chapter 5.
[9] Rabbaynu Yitzchak Karo, Toldot Yitzchak, Commentary on Sefer VaYikra 12:2-5.
[10] Rabbaynu Yitzchak Karo, Toldot Yitzchak, Commentary on Sefer VaYikra, 13:9-13.
[11] Rav Yitzchak Arama, Akeydat Yitzchak on Sefer VaYikra, Parshat Shemini.
[12] Rav Aharon HaLeyve, Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah
166.
[13] It seems this view is not universally accepted in our era. It is notable that some individuals who are otherwise scrupulous in their observance of the Torah seem to feel that a healthy diet and regular exercise are unimportant. Some individuals seem to even express distain for these concerns – apparently regarding these issues as unworthy distractions from more important spiritual endeavors. However, this does not correspond with the position of Sefer HaChinuch and many other Sages.
[14] Rav Aharon HaLeyve, Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah
166.