By the Grace of G‑d
25 Sivan, 5712 [June 18, 1952]
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Greeting and Blessing:
... From your letter I surmise that you are an engineer, though it is unclear to me whether your work involves the construction of buildings or is in the field of measuring distances or areas or the like. In any case, fundamental to all of the above is the science of geometry. And what is one of the things that the nature of this science can teach us?
Geometry has the characteristics of an exact science as well as of an applied science. The same is true of our holy Torah (lehavdil ad infinitum). For though the Torah is the wisdom of G-d--the ultimate in truth and exactitude--and "no man can know its worth... and it is hidden from the eyes of all living,"1 nevertheless, as its name, Torah (from the word hora'ah, "instruction"), implies, its purpose is to instruct our daily lives in this physical and material world. Thus, the difference between these two disciplines (Torah and geometry) can enlighten us as to the fundamental and infinite difference between the Torah, of which it is said "for it is your wisdom and understanding before all nations,"2 and the wisdom and understanding of the nations and also of the intellect of the "animal soul"3 of the Jew.4
All human sciences, including the "exact sciences," are founded upon axioms that are wholly unscientific. For science, especially exact science, accepts only proven facts, while the axioms of all sciences, mathematics and geometry included, are not proven in any way, so that a person is free to accept them or reject them. This is most apparent in the science of geometry, which has three different systems, each of which is founded upon a number of axioms, and the axioms of one system are contradictory to the axioms of the others.
In other words, no science can present to a person anything definite, only a series of contingencies. It can only say: if you accept a number of axioms as true, and you accept a particular method of deduction from them, the results will be such and such.
There are two points here: a) It is the person's prerogative whether to accept the axioms or not. b) Also in the case that he does accept them, there is nothing to compel him to act in a manner that is consistent with the results of the particular method. For all the method says is, "If you act this way, the result will be such and such." But if the person is willing to accept the adverse consequences, there is nothing that compels him not to act in any way he desires. In other words, science does not instruct life, but only narrates--as a sort of fortune-teller--a sequence of events, maintaining that according to past experience, and based upon certain axioms which we fancy to accept as true, things will unfold in such and such a manner.
Utterly different is our holy Torah. As the wisdom of the Absolute Existence--the Almighty--it is absolute. Its axioms, as well as the rules that dictate the manner in which laws are to be derived from these axioms, are utterly true. And since this is the wisdom of the Creator of the entire world, man included, it is self-understood that these laws obligate a person to act in concurrence with them, and in no other way.
This is one of the points that you, as a scientist, ought to engrave in your mind: there can be no refutation of Torah by science, since the Torah is absolute truth, while science itself attests that it is not absolute, but dependent upon the person's willful acceptance of certain givens; that the science has full license to establish several contradictory systems, all legitimized by the person's choice to accept their axioms, as is the case with the three systems in geometry--the Euclidean, Lobachevskian and Riemannian....
(A freely-translated excerpt from a letter)5
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Job 28:13, 21. |
| 2. | Deuteronomy 4:6; cf. Midrash Rabbah, Eicha 2:17: "If a person says to you, 'There is wisdom among the nations,' believe it; 'There is Torah among the nations,' do not believe it." |
| 3. | See Tanya, ch. 1, 6-8. |
| 4. | The best way to demonstrate the difference between two things is to compare them at the points at which they are most similar. So the science of geometry, which resembles the Torah in that it is both an exact and applied science, can best serve as the model that demonstrates the difference between Torah and human wisdom. |
| 5. | Igrot Kodesh, vol. VI, pp. 145-146. See also Reshimot #3, pp. 48-49; Likkutei Sichot, vol. II, p. 561. |
I know the Halacha isnt "relative" - it is decided upon by the sages and fixed for all locations i.e someone living near the poles or a sattelite will consult a Rabbi and based on the oral tradition use the nearest location with a reasonable day/night cycle eg for shabbat.
However the Torah does make practical sense for an Earth dweller - someone on a Sattelite or moon base makes the Torah somewhat incomprehensible in the absolute sense i.e its relative to our location here on Earth.
I find this topic somewhat amazing - so please email me if you have time for a more comprehensive answer.
As for popper - there are limits to his interpretation of the philosophy of science although his is a very important contribution.
I know that it is fashionable to "prove" Torah and the existence of a caring G-d rationally, however, every rational proven is contingent upon axioms that must be accepted on faith. Furthermore, the "proof" is of necessity a matter of probability as well as being subjective. My point is that it is foolish to accept Torah on rational grounds alone--just as foolish as marrying a wife on rational grounds alone. Rather, after determining that Torah is at least a reasonable, not absurd belief (far more reasonable than most beliefs most people hold nowadays, such as "all scientists tell the truth"), we then accept Torah as a matter of conviction--that which we call "emunah."
Concerning the halachos that you claim are relative, unfortunately, the space allowed here does not suffice for discussion. However, this is not the sort of relativity of which we are speaking.
Also I can give plenty of examples that some of the Torah comments/statements are relative just like mathematics might be relative in terms of Euclids geometry 4th principle that it true within a specific a"2D" area but not 4D space-time. (or newtons equations at non extreme conditions eg approaching the speed of light or ultra small/large)
eg in Bereshit the "sun and moon" to "reign" over the day and night - that is relative to living on Earth - it applies to nowhere else including a sattelite orbiting earth. Or that pesach is to be in the spring - again relative to living in Israel. Infact living in the arctic/antartic plays havoc with some of the most basic premises of the Torah system. No the HALACHIC solution is simple - dont live there or use some local towns calendar that still has proper day
London
As for proof of Torah--yes, we cite evidence of mass tradition, etc., but at the end of the day, we believe not because of any proof or evidence. We believe 100%--and there is never 100% proof, especially in matters of history. Emunah is an essential part of Torah. It's the conviction and commitment that comes post rational investigation--something like the commitment to marriage or to follow through on a business deal. Yes, you start with reason, but in the end, you commit to pure faith.
The degree of radical skepticism which this article invokes a person to have is utterly astonishing - essentialy this article is asking us to doubt mathematics and pretty much all of reason and observation - and in the same breath that the Torah cannot be questioned due to absolute status.
The irony is that the evidence for the Torah often used is via mathematics, observations and reason - the very tools the article is asking us to be radically skeptical about - i.e the article is self refuting.
Eg: The Torah seeks to prove itself via fulfilment of prophecy - but to evaluate a prophecy I need reason and observation - otherwise "anything goes" - therefore according to this article I have to "radically doubt human reason and observation" - therefore doubt any "prophetic evidence" and therefore doubt any possible valid eveidence for the Torah - obviously not the intention of the article !!!
Punta del Este, Uruguay
Eucild;s 5th postulate is the classic case.
Cleveland, USA
So the question is not whether it is an axiom or not but rather is that a man-made axiom or Divine axiom?
Montevideo, Uruguay
Cleveland, OH