search
Simcha Feuerman
Psychology, Torah and the Daf Yomi

Starstruck: When Science and Scripture Collide And More Sanhedrin 35-40

35

Judgment Beyond the Written Word: The Heart’s Role in Torah Deliberation

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses why we do not judge capital cases on Erev Shabbos:

“And if we say: We should judge him on Shabbos eve, conclude his verdict on Shabbos, and kill him on Sunday, you are found to have caused a delay in his verdict, as the accused will have to wait overnight knowing he is condemned to death.

And if we say: We should judge him on Shabbos eve and conclude his verdict on Sunday, the judges will forget their reasons for their positions in the interim.

And even though two judges’ scribes are standing before them, and they write the statements of those who acquit the accused and the statements of those who find him liable, and they write that which emerged from the mouths of the judges, i.e., their tentative verdict, the hearts of people [enashei] are forgetful [inshei], and they will forget the reasons. Therefore, it is not possible to begin deliberations in cases of capital law on a Shabbos eve or a Festival eve.”

The Gemara makes a distinction between what is written down and what is understood internally, in the heart. This is a fascinating idea: even when the court’s transcribers faithfully record the arguments and proceedings, we believe the nuanced reasoning behind the arguments is not sufficiently memorialized. Therefore, we are concerned that if the verdict is delayed by a day, one of the judges may not fully recall the details of the argument in favor of acquittal, potentially leading to a conviction prevailing.

Resisei Layla (12) explains that there are two parts to Torah: Chochma and Bina, which we can translate as knowledge and insight. Chochma refers to the bare facts that can be recorded, while Bina represents an understanding or wisdom that deduces broader purposes, implications, and underpinnings. This allows the sage to extrapolate and apply principles of the law to novel situations and cases.

As an interesting linguistic side note, Pri Tzaddik (Nasso) quotes the Ishbitzer’s observation that the Talmudic phrase for “opinion according to…” is “aliba de-mar”, which literally translates to “on the heart of the master.” The idiom uses the heart rather than the brain, because the deeper understanding of the Torah principles by which the opinion is formulated remains a matter of the heart.

There is a vast literature regarding how scientists and researchers intuit ideas or hypotheses before testing and evaluating them. We can define intuition as the ability to deduce a pattern without full data. The Rambam, in the Guide for the Perplexed (II:36), understands the imaginative faculty as an important tool of the mind to grasp matters in their totality and to translate them into symbolic terms and patterns. For him, intellectual comprehension and insight are part of a continuum leading to prophecy, which utilizes imagination to piece together an experience that cannot be fully understood by our rational faculties initially, and must be decoded broadly via our imagination, and then applied by the intellect. The Noda BeYehuda (EH II:62) also speaks of the imagination’s function in grasping and perceiving something, which is then processed by the intellect. However, imagination is necessary first because it processes the larger sphere and intuitively identifies what is important, avoiding extraneous data.

Michael Polanyi, in The Tacit Dimension (1966), argues that scientific knowledge often involves tacit knowledge—knowledge that cannot be fully articulated but is essential for scientific discovery. This tacit knowledge often manifests as intuition or a “hunch” that guides scientists toward new insights. Robert S. Root-Bernstein, in Discovering: Inventing and Solving Problems at the Frontiers of Scientific Knowledge (1989), discusses the role of aesthetic intuition and imaginative processes in scientific innovation, illustrating how many major scientific breakthroughs were preceded by a non-verbal, intuitive understanding of the problem.

Based on this, it emerges that when we use the term Oral Torah (Torah Shebaal Peh), it encompasses two aspects. The usual understanding of the Oral Torah refers to the accompanying laws and traditions that explain and modify the Torah, such as details in the laws of Succah or kashrus. However, Rav Tzaddok (the author of both Pri Tzaddik and Resisei Layla quoted above) explains Bina as an aspect of the Torah that is not quantifiable in words but develops internally, creating an understanding generalizable to other situations not explicitly stated in the law. When our Gemara suggests that transcribers may not record arguments sufficiently well to recreate them later, it speaks to the non-verbal aspect that is ever-present in Torah thought. This is what we might also call Das Torah—the idea that a great Torah sage, through submission to God and immersion in Torah over years, has a deep instinct about Torah morality and expectations, allowing him to apply principles to life situations beyond the letter of the law.

39

Starstruck: When Science and Scripture Collide

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph recounts an intriguing polemic between Rabban Gamliel and a Roman emperor:

The emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: It is written in praise of the Lord: “He counts the number of the stars; He gives them all their names” (Psalms 147:4). What is His greatness? I can also count the stars. Rabban Gamliel brought quinces, placed them in a sieve, and spun them. He said to the emperor: Count them. The emperor said: Stand them still so that I can count them. Rabban Gamliel responded: The firmament also revolves like this; therefore, you cannot count the stars in it.

In another version of the exchange, the emperor claimed: I have counted the stars. Rabban Gamliel challenged him: Tell me how many teeth and incisors you have. As the emperor began counting by placing his hand in his mouth, Rabban Gamliel remarked: You do not know what is in your mouth, yet you claim to know what is in the firmament?

This debate about the number of stars illustrates the tension between scientific knowledge, scriptural statements, and the perception of science in different eras. Historically, scientists have oscillated between believing they had cataloged all the stars and acknowledging the vastness beyond their comprehension. In modern times, a shift from a closed universe model to an expanding one was prompted by the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, evidence of the so-called “Big Bang”, or what religious people would characterize as the moment of creation.

The Ralbag (Gersonides), a prominent Torah scholar, philosopher, and renowned astronomer, faced a dilemma: how could prophecies like Abraham’s vision suggest the stars are innumerable when they were believed to be catalogued according to the science of his time which he embraced? In his commentary on Iyov (ch. 40), he proposed that prophets receive divine messages which are then framed by their own beliefs and translated into various symbolic images and words. Thus, if Abraham believed the stars were countless, the message he received was that his descendants would be as innumerable as the stars appeared to him. Similarly, the Ralbag addressed verses in Yechezkel, which describe celestial music from the heavenly spheres, aligning with the science of Yechezkel’s time but later seemingly inaccurate to the current science.

The Ralbag’s approach can be better. Understood if we acknowledge the subjective nature of all perception, and that we are constantly interpreting reality, according to our frame of reference. We don’t “see” colors; we perceive light wavelengths interpreted by our retinas as colors. Actually, when you think about it, every color is really all other colors on the spectrum except for that color. That is because the material that has this so-called color is actually absorbing all the Colors of the spectrum and reflecting back only that particular color which activates receptors in our retina. Similarly, we don’t “hear” sounds; vibrations in the air are interpreted by our eardrums. Thus, the riddle, “If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?” is answered: No, it only produces soundwaves. Sound exists only when perceived.

Ironically, the Ralbag’s confidence in the scientific knowledge of his era was misplaced. There are far more stars than he or his contemporaries could have counted, and possibly new stars continue to form. His theological approach remains valuable for reconciling apparent contradictions between science and traditional texts. However, his reliance on the science of his time serves as a cautionary tale about the limits of human knowledge and the humility required in the face of the unknown.

40

Too Good to Be True: When Perfect Testimony Raises Red Flags

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the process of cross-examining witnesses to assess their consistency and credibility:

The mishna continues: And afterward, after the court examines the first witness, they bring in the second witness and examine him. If the statements of the witnesses are found to be congruent, the court begins to deliberate the matter.

Sefer Daf al Daf recounts an incident where a respected community member was accused of severe misconduct by two witnesses. Though the testimony appeared valid and consistent, it was difficult to believe that the individual of such stature could have committed the alleged acts. The GRA (Vilna Gaon) requested to interview the witnesses. After hearing their testimony, he harshly accused them of lying. Under his intense scrutiny, the witnesses confessed and recanted their testimony. When asked how he knew they were lying, the GRA explained that a normal degree of variance is expected in truthful accounts. The witnesses’ stories were too consistent, a clear indication of rehearsed and coordinated testimony.

The GRA pointed out that this idea is hinted at in our Gemara. The Mishna states, “If the testimony was found to be congruent.” The phrase “found to be” suggests that the testimony should not be identical but similar in essential details. Absolute congruence may signal deceit.

The belief in one’s ability to detect lies is fraught with misconceptions. Many authority figures—principals, law enforcement agents, and parents—overestimate their lie-detection skills. This overconfidence stems from the accurate perception of emotions but misattribution of thoughts. We are adept at reading emotions like anxiety, happiness, anger, or guilt, but often wrongly assign thoughts to these emotions. For instance, a nervous or ashamed demeanor might be misinterpreted as guilt or dishonesty. However, innocent individuals often display nervousness under scrutiny. Similarly, someone exhibiting anxiety through shifty eyes may not be lying. Ironically, excessive eye contact could indicate a conscious effort to appear honest, much like the GRA’s insight into overly consistent testimony.

About the Author
Rabbi, Psychotherapist with 30 years experience specializing in high conflict couples and families.
Related Topics
Related Posts