Dr. Belkin, Honored Guests, Fellow Graduates, Friends: It is customary for the valedictorian to stress the idea that the class' four year stay at the college has been but preparation for later accomplishments; that the college has given the tools, but the actual forging ahead must come, as a result of individual efforts, in the years following, I find myself forced to adhere to this stereotype. Yeshiva, in the final analysis, is bound only to give us the raw materials necessary for that now-famous synthesis of Western civilization and Traditional Judaism which is the epitome of the ideals of this school. It is our duty to effect within ourselves this conciliation or harmony between the two cultures. It is generally conceded that one of the primary characteristics of Western civilization is science; that science, and especially technology, is the foundation upon which is built the edifice of modern Western civilization. Therefore, it becomes our interest to consider the juxtaposition of science and Judaism. However, I do not believe it proper to rehash, here, the ancient topic of science and religion. Much — very much — has been said, but little indeed has been done. Perhaps we should begin to emphasize the "doing” rather than the "saying”. The essence of Traditional Judaism, as we know it and as we would like to know it, is the Halacha. מיום שחרב בית המקדש אין לו להקב"ה בעולמו אלא ד' אמות של הלכה בלבד. "Since the day the Holy Temple was destroyed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, has in His world only the four cubits of Halacha”. And what is the Halacha if not the application of divinely revealed Biblical and Talmudic principles to empirical facts, to what William James called "the irreducible and stubborn facts" of Nature. As such, the understanding and correct practice of Halacha is necessarily dependent upon the development and success of scientific endeavor. Since the codification of Halacha, and particularly in the past on e hundred years, men have discovered more…

In attempting to introduce some semblance of order, from the critical point of view of modern technology, into the current Polemics in the world of Halacha concerning the use of the incandescent bulb on the Shabbat, we must bear in mind, at the very outset, one important fact: that, at the present stage of the game we can come to no definitive conclusion. The entire problem is exceptionally delicate, because of the great stress laid in the Halacha on the laws of Shabbat and particularly on the laws concerning fire, and we must not forget that we are, figuratively as well as literally, playing with fire. Let no one be "moreh heter"—act lightly, because of the conclusions of one Rabbi or one authority. Let me briefly review for you the fundamentals of the laws of Shabbat as delineated by the Sages of the Mishna and the Talmud. The מלאכות שבת, the types of "work" which are forbidden on Shabbat (and the term "work" is used here in a technical sense, not in the layman's sense, just as the term "work" has a special technical meaning for the physicist) are derived from the types of work needed for the building of the Mishkan, since both passages—relating to Shabbat and Mishkan—are סמוכות, next to each other. The number of such categories of work is 39, the ל״ט מלאכות שבת. These 39 major categories are known as אדות, and each אד is subdivided into minor categories known as תולדות, the requirement being that each Toladah be similar to its Av in some certain specified manner. Let us now single out four of these Avot which will be of special interest to us. We have הדערה, making a fire, and extinguishing a fire. On הדערה the Torah issued a special prohibition, aside from the general sentence. "Thou shalt not make a fire in any of thy dwelling places on the day of the Shabbat!" Another Av Melachah is __________, which literally means "cooking", but, as we shall see later, has certain other and more inclusive connotations. The fourth Av Melachah I wish to mention is __________,…

The success of my talk to you this evening is based on two things: the length of my mmemory and the shortness of yours. You see, after I had already notified your chairman that the topic of my talk would be, "Science and Judaism," or something of the sort, I remembered that about two years ago I addressed your Collegiate Group on this very topic, and by this time it was already too late to speak about something else since it usually takes me more than two weeks to prepare a good impromptu speech. However, I know very well that those of you who heard me then have conveniently forgotten the bill of goods I was peddling and, besides, I believe that I really have something new to tell you. Since then many of thetheories I expounded have materialised into practical affairs.The border between Sc and Re has been pictured as a very tight one, and an adventure in the understanding of their relations to each other is as bad as walking on a tight rope; you take the risk of falling, on one side, into the biting witticisms of cynical scientists and, on the other side, into the pious rebukes hurled at you by self-proclaimed indignant Protectors of the Faith.So, if for no other reason than that of a risky adventure, we should find it interesting to know something of what is going on in this twin-planet of Sc & Re.True, we may be getting into hot water, but I believe in occasionally gettinginto’ hot water - it keeps you clean.^8^‘**^5*1 5^^י^■ ^^hi*־M — י-'I- The Speculative Conflicts. Copernicus, Galileo opposed by ChurchA Darwin and j[,־w . ^ a^ fo(u»1« ^*di^j ^^ ^״ajxvu • -4»111ץgeology by Jews too^ Long history polemics. Neither side clear in details whichis most important. In fundamentals, can be no conflict. Reply from religiousside ranges from stubborn denial to move one inch, though giving more figurativeinterpretation to certain parts Bible not against Judaism - Maimonides, others.Others marked by complete submission to utterance of any scientist regardless reliabilit…

The problem was approached solely from the point of view of an איסור דאורייתא, a Biblical interdiction, since even if it can be shown that there is no איסור דאורייתא, the lighting of the incandescent bulb on Shabbat is most certainly forbidden by Rabbinic interdiction. The act of lighting the bulb on Shabbat can be assigned to one or more of three אבות מלאכה (major categories of "work"): a) הבערה and כבוי ("burning" and "extinguishing") b) מכה בפטיש ("striking with a hammer", i.e., completion

In considering Judaism and science, past relationships show that religion’s attitude towards science was mostly friendly in Judaism, unlike the often negative and oppressive stance of the Catholic Church in conflicts such as those over Copernicus and Darwin. The Talmud says “Ki hi chochmatchem u’vinatchem le’einei ha’goyim – tekufot u’mazalot,” Rav (Abba Arikha) studied animal anatomy for 13 years, Shmuel (Yarchinai) studied astronomy, medicine, and performed autopsies, Maimonides pursued medicine, mathematics, astronomy, and physics, Yehuda HaLevi practiced medicine, and the Vilna Gaon studied mathematics. In the 19th century, science’s attitude towards religion was often foolishly anti-religious, rooted in a mechanistic philosophy, but with the maturity of science most great scientists became devout religionists; Bertrand Russell was the last of the great scientific atheists, and even he now writes differently. Conflicts are usually aggravated by people who know little about science and less about religion, though three major fields of irritation are geology (earth millions of years old versus Jewish tradition’s 5713 years), evolution (common descent versus separate creation), and determinism (predictability versus free will). Some say religion and science have nothing to do with each other – religion deals with spirit and the supernatural, science with matter and the natural – but Judaism cannot accept this since it is this-worldly and halakhah addresses man’s relation to his natural environment (e.g., kiddush ha’chodesh, kashrut). Others claim religion and science are in mortal conflict and one must choose – equally un-Jewish, since Jews have always believed in harmony between reason and revelation, fact and faith, as in Maimonides’ harmony between natural science and the Bible. The acceptable approach is that religion and science have different functions but overlap – scientific advancement affects man’s welfare and spiritual status, discoveries testify to an…

Introduction. Our attempt, this week, to resolve specific conflicts between Religion and Science is predicated on our opinion, explained last Friday Night, that both have separate functions in life, althoughthey overlap. In this area of overlapping there are certain conflicts. Whether or not we can resolve them, now or ever, the fact remains that both Religion and Science entail inherent and eternal truths, and neither will stand or fall by these conflicts. It is in this spirit, and in the knowledge that Torah is true and that all it maintains is true, that we proceed to the factual discussion!Evolution vs Creation.a: The Bible and Creation. The Universe was created by G-d, at His command, and was created ex nihilo. G-d created living as well as inorganic matter. Vegetable, animal life and human beings were created in fixed species ("le’mineihu").b: Biology and Evolution. There is no one theory of evolution. There are many, but fall mainly into three classes: Lamarckian, Darwinian, and Mutation theory. Will explain in more detail later.Essentially, almost all theories of Evolution maintain these principles:1) Living forms as they now exist in their many species were not always thus.2) Life is constantly evolving, and the direction is from simpler to more complex and higher forms.3) Species, as we know them, are not fixed. ALL forms of life that we know have a common origin (the "Origin of Species"). Life began on this world with a unicellular germ. Then, by one way or another, and over millions of years, several lines of descent gave rise to our present species, including Man. The method of evolution is, according to one school (Lamarck), by the organism adapting itself to its environment, thus gaining new skills and new physical features while losing some others (give giraffe example), and insists upon the inheritance of acquired characteristics. According to a second school (Darwin), there is always a "struugle for survival", and there results a "survival of the …

Perhaps the clearest and most concise way to illustrate the extent to which modern science agrees in its tendencies and conclusions with the ancient – yet ever-young – ideals of Judaism is to draw a sharp distinction between the science of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and that of today. The difference is tremendous – they represent two completely different states of mind. It is a startling and gratifying change – though many who think themselves “up-to-date” are, in fact, still 50 years behind the times.What the 19th-Century State of Mind WasIt was characterized by a near-religious belief in optimism and progress – the idea that science’s accomplishments would be unlimited, and that, given enough time and patience, man would force nature to reveal all her secrets. Science evolved from policy to creed, from method to faith. It was no longer science – it was scientism. Consider five features of this scientism:A. Science as a Way of Life Science, like religion, was expected to guide every aspect of human life – ethics, morals, behavior, and even thought. It monopolized every waking moment. In becoming so all-encompassing, it ceased to be science and became a faith – scientism. (See the parody “A Modern Version of the 23rd Psalm.”)B. The Promise of Redemption Science claimed it would solve not only disease and discomfort, but also psychological and spiritual ills. A “Science of Man” emerged, promising to condition future generations into moral and democratic beings – all through science. This was clearly a religious claim.C. A Priesthood The scientist became a priest – cold, rational, and infallible – the sole possessor of truth. The public invested scientists with a quasi-divine authority, making them the priestly class of modernity.D. Certainty There was no room for doubt. Once science declared a principle, it became dogma – matter could be destroyed, the sun was the center, atoms contained three particles. These were no longer theories – they were certain…

The challenge posed by the changing world scene to traditional Judaism in its philosophical aspects has been discussed by previous lecturers. The advent of modern science brought with it a new conception of the universe and of man’s place within it, and Judaism was required to respond. This philosophical dialogue is of great significance. But ultimately, Judaism’s survival depends on Halakhah. If Halakhah is not preserved, then no matter how successful the philosophical adjustments, Judaism will not endure. Conversely, if Halakhah can be preserved within the changing world, then philosophers may struggle – but they will have something of enduring value to reflect on.Just as the philosophies nourished by modern science conflicted with Jewish philosophy, so too the practical discoveries and inventions of natural science presented great challenges to the halakhist. And just as in natural science the science itself is primary and philosophy flows from it, so too in Judaism – Halakhah is the given, the primary datum, the raw material. Philosophy must grow out of Halakhah, not the reverse.Indeed, the modern age of science has posed mighty challenges to Halakhah:Artificial insemination (late 19th century – reproduction without copulation) Electricity, radio, television – including ethical questions of communication Halakhah had three options in response to modern science and technology:A) Succumb – argue that Halakhah and science occupy different worlds and Halakhah is therefore obsolete; permit anything new by default B) Ignore – retreat into the ghetto, declare all innovation forbidden C) Creative Response – treat the challenge of modernity as a catalyst for internal growthIt is a testimony to the inner vitality of Halakhah that it chose the third path.As one editorial in Science put it, “dither” – kinetic friction is better than static inertia. Halakhah has always existed “in a dither” – from the days of Moses until today – and it is precisely this tension that has kep…

לפני זמן מה הופיע בעיתונות מאמר אשר עורר תגובה ציבורית נרחבת ומידה רבה של פולמוס. מאמר זה היווה דו"ח על הרצאה של הביולוג האנגלי הנודע סיר יוליאן האקסלי באוניברסיטת שיקגו, בכינוס לציון יובל המאה ל"מוצא המינים" של דרווין. במיוחד מעוררת עניין עמדתו של האקסלי כלפי הדת והאבולוציה – בה טען כי העולם זקוק לאידיאולוגיה חדשה שמרכזה האבולוציה. את המאמר אזכיר לא כי מדובר באירוע בודד אלא משום שהוא אופייני לרוח המדעית הרווחת, במיוחד בקרב סטודנטים אשר הכרתם את המדע טרם התאזנה. ה"ניו־יורק טיימס" תיאר את האקסלי כצורר־דת וכיוצר־דת – מצד אחד כותב הספד לדת המסורתית, ומצד שני כמנסח דת חדשה. נתמקד בשני ההיבטים – בקטרוגו על הדת ובסנגורו על דת אבולוציונית – כדי להציע תגובה יהודית. ראשית, במידת־מה אנו מסכימים לביקורתו של האקסלי על דת המשמשת קרדום לרודנות. אכן, רדיפת כופרים ואפליה בשם הדת הם תופעות מוכרות – כיהודים, אנו נושאים צלקות חסידות נוצרית. אך מדען אחראי כמותו היה חייב לבחון את כלל הנתונים. פרופ' גורדון אלפורט הראה כי רבים מלוחמי החירות והסובלנות – ממשה רבנו ועד מייסדי אמריקה – היו דתיים. האקסלי שוגה כאשר הוא מכליל על הדת תוך התעלמות מהמדענים הנאצים שדגלו באי־אמונה והובילו לאסונות מוסריים. שנית, הטענה כי האבולוציה והדת נוגדות זו את זו – וכי הראשונה "ניצחה" את השנייה – שגויה. ספר בראשית איננו עוסק בטכניקה של בריאה אלא בעובדת היות אלוקים בורא, והטכניקה הוסתרה ("מעשה בראשית"). כבר חז"ל והוגים כמו הרמב"ם והרב קוק ראו בהתפתחות תהליך אלוקי. לפיכך, אין מניעה תאולוגית לראות באבולוציה את הדרך בה פעל הבורא. יתרה מזו, האבולוציה אינה עובדה מוכחת – כפי שציין ז'אן־פול ארון, מדובר ברעיון ולא בעובדה מדעית. תחומים היסטוריים במדעי הטבע אינם ניתנים להוכחה ניסויית, ויש להתייחס אליהם בספקנות. כאשר האקסלי טוען כי הדת היא "מפלט" – אנו עונים כי טענה זו ניתנת להיפוך. כמו שיש המוצאים בדת דמות־אב מנחמת, יש גם הכופרים בה מתוך מרד באביהם. אין מקום להעביר ויכוח ענייני לפסים פסיכולוגיסטיים. כשהאקסלי עובר מ"שובר דת" ל"בונה דת", הוא נכשל. דת שמטרתה "למלא צורך" – אפילו אם צורך זה הוא הצלת העולם – איננה דת, אלא פרימיטיביזם דתי. הדת איננה אמצעי לרווח אישי, בריאותי או פוליטי – אלא מחויבות לאמת נשגבת. דתו של האקסלי – המ…

(1) Rav Avraham Isaac Hacohen (1865-1935): basic biography; significance; early works; major works (2) poetry; literature; mystic; nationalism (3) "man by nature a mystic." Also: התפילה המשמדת של המשנה; opt. (4) assume mystic life (hence all life) ineffable, with basic rationed principles.