Mystery of Black Fire, White Fire: Science, Kabbalah, and the Question of Beginnings

Copyright © 2009, 2016 Bruce Friedman.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

iUniverse

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.iuniverse.com

1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

ISBN: 978-1-4917-1206-1 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4917-1208-5 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-4917-1207-8 (e)

iUniverse rev. date: 05/16/2016

This book is dedicated to the memory of my parents

William and Doris Friedman

and to my wife

Emiko Goto Friedman

Contents

Acknowledgements

Introduction: Dialogue between Science and Judaism

Chapter 1: Appreciating the Creation

Chapter 2: Interconnections between Science and Judaism

Chapter 3: Basic Principles of Judaism

Chapter 4: Principles of Science

Chapter 5: Intersections at the Roots of Science and Judaism

Chapter 6: Change in Science and Judaism

Chapter 7: Time, Torah, and Science

Chapter 8: God’s creating

Chapter 9: The Light and the Dark

Chapter 10: Inflating the Universe

Chapter 11: The Orchard and the Pitfalls

Chapter 12: Cosmology and Kabbalah

Chapter 13: Final Thoughts

Appendix A [Chapter 7]

Appendix B [Chapter 9]

Appendix C [Chapter 10]

NOTES

Glossary

Acknowledgements

I am greatly thankful for and much appreciate the very constructive advice and criticism of Rabbi Moshe Pinchas Weisblum, PhD, spiritual leader of Congregation Kneseth Israel, Annapolis, Maryland and of Stephen M. Barr, professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware.

Introduction: Dialogue between Science and Judaism

"I n the beginning ….. These three simple words comprise an even more well-known phrase which is anything but simple. The word in can function as a preposition, an adverb, or an adjective. As a preposition it can operate as a function word, a word denoting a primarily grammatical relationship, which indicates inclusion, location, or position within some boundary. As an adverb, in can refer to a particular place or location. As an adjective, in can refer to location within something or that an entity has a position of power. The word the is a definite article, an adverb, or a preposition. As a definite article, the operates as a function word in a number of different contexts. One of these contexts is its use before the name of an enterprise or activity or ability. As an adverb, the can indicate to what or that extent, as in the phrase the (what) sooner the (that) better. Here, the has a role as marker of a time limit. The word beginning can function as a noun or an adjective. The noun beginning can mean the start or point at which something is initiated or begins, or the first part of something, or an origin or source. This noun can refer to an early period or rudimentary stage with rudimentary possibly referring to something undeveloped, incomplete, or unformed. The adjective beginning can refer to something just formed or created, something that is early or introductory, e.g., beginning flight, or something basic, e.g., beginning physics. As an adjective beginning can be used to describe a person or entity just gaining familiarity with the practice or rudiments of some activity or profession, e.g., the beginning lawyer". ¹

Religion per se existed long before the development of science. Indeed, religion in some form or other existed before the arrival of the first great monotheistic religion, Judaism. Most of the literature, debate, and discussion concerning science and religion, though, has concerned itself more specifically with science and Judaism’s offshoot, Christianity. This is logical since Christianity has been the dominant religion of Western civilization and the development of science has occurred in basically a Christian environment.

The relationship between science and religion can be categorized into four types according to the introduction by Michael Ruse of the 1997 edition of Religion and Science by Bertrand Russell. (This well-known work of Russell was originally published in 1935.) These four types are opposition (warfare), separation, dialogue, and integration.²

Proponents of opposition believe that science and religion each make statements about reality that oppose or contradict each other. There are people who believe that the story of Genesis in the Bible occurs in only six days of Creation, six days just as we experience them in everyday life. It is generally accepted in the domain of science that the universe is truly billions of our ordinary earthly years old.²

The advocates of separation argue that science and religion are inherently totally different domains that really have nothing to do with each other. Strictly speaking science deals with questions of how while religion deals with questions of why and never the twain shall meet. Stephen Jay Gould, the evolutionary biologist, referred to this situation, which was the one he advocated, by the acronym NOMA which means non-overlapping magisteria. (A magisterium is a domain of learning or expertise.)³

As an example of an improper intrusion of the magisterium of religion into the magisterium of science Gould discusses Telluris theoria sacra (The Sacred Theory of the Earth) by the Reverend Thomas Burnet published in the late seventeenth century. Burnet presented his theory of the earth following the basic guideline that there can be no logical incongruity or contradiction between the Scripture of the Judaeo-Christian belief and the knowledge obtained from the natural world or universe within which we human beings dwell. If it looks as if there is a contradiction, then further exegesis, explanation or critical interpretation of the sacred text is required. He assumed that if there is a generally accepted scientific datum and/or explanation, then it means the understanding of the Scripture has to be revised. The theory of the earth Burnet came up with is rather quaint from the perspective of modern science.⁴

In science all knowledge is ultimately tentative. Examples of antiquated ideas that have been rejected are the Ptolemaic picture of the universe and the place of our planet in it and the phlogiston theory of combustion.

Likewise, an argument can be made that our understanding of Scripture is always incomplete and that exegesis is a continuing and unending process. To the Orthodox Jew, the Bible, that portion of it known in the Christian world as the Old Testament, is deemed to be divine revelation. The revelation is fixed, but comprehending this revelation requires study and effort.

A third depiction of the relationship between science and religion is that of dialogue. A dialogue advocate while recognizing that these two domains are different fields acknowledges that there can be both interaction and overlap. In this school of thought one must try to comprehend God, His works, and His revelations through reason. Representatives of this dialogue school are Saint Augustine on the Christian side, the Mutakallemim (philosophers) on the Islamic side, and Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides) on the Jewish side. As an example of how a believer in dialogue would deal with a specific issue, Ruse presents the subject of human evolution. According to Ruse, the dialogue advocate would accept modern-day scientific thought in this area. However, the advocate would also accept the Scripture concerning God, Adam, Eve, the serpent, and the Garden of Eden.²

The fourth type of relationship between science and religion is that of integration. This integration implies that science and religion are really parts of a whole. In other words, trying to deal with science and religion as separate entities is really falsifying reality. The Catholic priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a modern-day advocate of this integration position. In The Phenomenon of Man, he proposed that the course of evolution from the simple life forms to human beings, as presented by science, fuses naturally with a particular Christian vision. This vision anticipates a future leading to what de Chardin refers to as the Omega Point which is, in some manner, connected to Christianity.²,⁵

An even more extreme position of the integration partisans is that of the physicist Frank J. Tipler. In his book, published in 1994, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead, Tipler indicates that theology could now be considered to be incorporated into physics. The likelihood of the resurrection of the dead to live forever can be calculated in the same manner as is done in solving a physics problem. Tipler is quite aware of the work of de Chardin. For Tipler, the Omega Point, the time, presumably far in the future, when the resurrection will occur, is a matter of pure physics. He deduces that this Omega Point can be identified with an eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent entity to which he assigns the name God as a technical term. He takes this technical term to have a close meaning to the name God used in monotheistic religions. This book of Tipler is a combination of hard-core theoretical physics, metaphysics, speculation, and whimsy.⁶

Science and Religion: Comrades in Inquiry

Science itself does not deal with matters of morality and ethics. To say that if an electron has up or down spin that this electron is good or evil is totally meaningless. The fission of the nuclei of a quantity of plutonium with the concomitant release of a large amount of energy, is neither evil nor good in and of itself. The question of good and evil comes to the fore when we consider the application of this energy release and the consequences which this release incurs. At this point, morality enters the picture. Morality is in the domain of religion.

The Creation: Judaism’s Unique Contribution

In dealing with the Creation, all three types of questions, how, why, and what, come into play. Why was the universe created? What is the point of it all? What was created in the beginning? How was the Creation actually performed? What were the mechanisms underlying the Creation?

Contemplation of the Creation provided the primary motivation for the writing of this book. Judaism is in a unique position, relative to the other modern monotheistic religions, to deal with the Creation in itself and with respect to the domain of science. The account of the six days of Creation in the Torah is also generally accepted by Christianity and Islam. There is more material in Judaism dealing with and related to the Creation than is found in the Written Torah (Five Books of Moses). This additional material is found in the Oral Torah, The Zohar, and the body of knowledge, known, in general, as the kabbalah, among other sources. All of these data bases, as we might call them, are primary sources for the study of the Creation in Judaism. Christianity and Islam have analogous sources.

The Creation is illustrative of the complex relationship between religion and science, especially from the point of view of Judaism. The great Jewish scholar Rashi in his Commentary on the Torah raises the question as to why the Torah commences with the Creation. To Rashi and any observant Jew, the Torah is divine revelation. Christians also share this view. When Rashi considers the question of beginning the Torah with the Creation, he is actually trying to understand the motivation of God in putting the Creation first. From the standpoint of the Jewish people, the most important event in the Torah is the Exodus from Egypt. Rashi resolves the quandary by stating that it was of utmost importance in the Torah for God to establish His omnipotence and omniscience. God establishes His absolute authority over everything through the account of the Creation. Later on in the Torah in Numbers 34 the lands which are claimed for the Jewish people are delineated. The account of the Exodus likewise follows the Creation. The establishment of the Covenant between the Almighty God and the Israelites as an unbreakable bond for all eternity is described after the Creation. Even though an individual commits an act which appears to break that ancient bond, the covenant remains valid for that person. The molding of the Israelites into a Holy People, a Chosen People, in terms of being agents of God, comes after the Creation account. All of the commandments in the Torah, including the famous Ten Commandments, are presented after the story of the Creation. Rashi concludes that the Creation comes first so that God immediately establishes His authority and the total and absolute truth of everything that follows.⁷

Time and the Rabbi

Timothy Ferris in his book on cosmology The Whole Shebang: A State-of-the-Universe(s) Report, notes another aspect of the Creation account that adds to its uniqueness. Before the development of modern science, in the days of the ancient Greek philosophers such as Hesiod, Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, the universe was deemed to be static. Many of these philosophers considered time to be an illusion, an artifact of subjective human perception. In modern terminology, Ferris says that the ancient Greeks felt that the human perception of time represents noise. This noise is secondary to the signal which is the drone of a stasis which endures forever. Time moves in a cycle which leads to events occurring in a repetitive manner, over and over again, for time unending. The cycles are so long compared to the lifetime of the ordinary mortal that the illusion of the significance of events is presented. In ancient Hindu beliefs, the span of time is expanded to incredibly large numbers wherein a single daytime period in the life of Brahma, the Hindu god of creation, is 4.32 billion of our ordinary earth years long. A complete day and night of Brahma is then 8.64 billion ordinary years. Change in the Hindu scheme of things is of no importance. The concept of evolution does not apply.⁸

Consider, in contrast to those Greeks and those who profess Hindu belief, time as it is found in the Bible, the Old Testament, and the Pentateuch that is accepted by Christians, Moslems and Jews. In the Torah, time is a real quantity with all of the events occurring in a time bound universe. Ferris compares the timing of the unfolding of the events of Genesis to the beating of a clock. Ferris is an entertaining author as well as being an excellent expounder of science. He relates a story which is a paradigm for the significance of time in Judaism. A rabbi asks a student what can be learned from the operations of a railroad. The student replies to the effect how can one learn from a railroad? The rabbi concludes that a railroad teaches you that the moment, the instant, is important.⁸

Science and Religion: Allies

Another motive for the creation of this book is the work, the concepts, ideas, and analyses, of the great American rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. In his work Halakhic Man, Rabbi Soloveitchik categorizes three types of world views: cognitive, homo religiosus, halakhic.⁹

The cognitive man can be identified with the man of science with his tool of the scientific method. The cognitive man deals with reality through the a priori and a posteriori approaches. A manifestation of the a priori approach is that of theory making while a manifestation of the empirical a posteriori approach is that of experimentation. The cognitive man approaches the universe without preconceived notions and acquires data about his perceived phenomena. Theories are formulated upon the basis of this data. Experiments are performed, more phenomenological data are acquired, and the theories, the a priori framework, are changed accordingly.⁹

The homo religiosus also perceives the phenomena of the material universe. Homo religiosus, again like the cognitive man, quests for the law and order in the universe. However, this is not sufficient for him. Beyond the law and orderliness, he finds mystery. No matter what laws and elegant theories the cognitive man may find and devise, the homo religiosus will always feel that further mysteries are to be found on a further level of existence. There is a miracle to be mined in every law of nature.⁹

Halakhic man commences his voyage upon the sea of discovery and experience with the Torah as his a priori framework. The world view of the halakhic man is closest to that of the mathematician, not of the scientist. The framework of the Torah exists before the phenomenological world is accessed. Every event or occurrence in the actual physical world is grasped in terms of the relevant halakha. The halakha are the Torah laws which create an ideal world. For each component of the physical world there is an attached halakha.⁹

While Judaism is the home of halakhic man, it also provides a haven for homo religiosus. Part of Judaism does concern itself with mysticism through kabbalah. Judaism provides a bridge to span the differences between cognitive man, homo religiosus, and halakhic man. It is the existence of this bridge that allows a relationship to exist between Judaism and science that is constructive and informative. A two-way communication between the domains of Judaism and science leads to fruitful enlightenment and comprehension within each domain. It is definitely not the case, that science will make Judaism (religion) more scientific or make science more Judaic (religious). Instead, the study of the relationship between Judaism and science allows each of these domains to more fully realize their own potentials.⁹

I acknowledge the inspiration of R’ J. B. Soloveitchik (R’ is the abbreviation for Rabbi) who stated in Halakhic Man, that religion should ally itself with the forces of clear, logical cognition. The unique realization of this cognition is the scientific method. Even though religion and cognition sometimes conflict with each other, it is preferred that religion makes this alliance instead of having a relationship with ideologies that deny objective knowledge.¹⁰

Especially, I acknowledge the aliveness and inspiration of the Jewish religion and its scholars, and, above all, of the Torah itself. To the Sages and rabbis, the Torah is far more than the Five Books of Moses. The Torah is law that existed before the Creation and was the blueprint for the Creation. God consulted the Torah when he undertook the Creation. The Sages of the old days and the physicists of today would agree that the foundations of the universe, of the cosmos, are law whatever the origins of that law may be.

To conclude this introduction I now provide a summary of the upcoming chapters of this book.

Chapter 1: Appreciating the Creation:

In Judaism, as well as in Christianity and Islam, there exists the basic tenet that everything was created by God. In Judaism, there are a number of ways to worship God. Worship is a multi-faceted task. By worship is meant expressing homage and honor to God. Part of worshipping God is the expression of the appreciation of His Creation. I expand on the meaning of the phrase appreciation of His Creation.

Chapter 2: Interconnections between Science and Judaism:

Some non-observant Jews believe that the study and/or practice of science, has all of the answers. Some very religiously observant Jews believe that the study, practice, and/or observance of Judaism, has all of the answers. That Judaism has both spiritual and material dimensions implies that the realms of Judaism and science overlap to some extent.

Chapter 3: Basic Principles of Judaism:

In order to understand the relationship of Judaism and science, it is necessary to state and to understand their core essential principles or laws. It was the great Jewish scholar Maimonides who formulated the basic tenets, one of which includes creation ex nihilo as a component, of Judaism in their modern form.

Chapter 4: Principles of Science:

Just as in the case of Judaism, science has its own basic articles of faith. The articles of faith are referred to as postulates. There is a certain amount of flexibility in choosing the phrasing and numbers of these postulates depending upon the authorities that one consults. I consider the ten postulates formulated by Carlo L. Lastrucci. Alternate prescriptions of the basic principles for Judaism and science are presented.

Chapter 5: Intersections at the Roots of Science and Judaism:

The postulates of science deal strictly with the physical universe and our interaction with it. The thirteen principles of Maimonides deal with both the physical and spiritual worlds. The common ground between the two sets of principles must then solely be anchored in the real physical universe. Examples are discussed.

Chapter 6: Change in Science and Judaism:

We examine a subject in science that demonstrates the quality of change, a quality held in common with Judaism, which is also a matter of concern to Judaism. The specific, excellent, example of the change inherent in science is the Creation of the universe, an essential concern of the Torah. In order to study how the understanding of Creation has evolved in the course of human history, theories of Creation at three periods of this history are discussed.

Chapter 7: Time, Torah, and Science:

The nature of time is an enduring object of inquiry in science. The measurement of time is a matter of practical concern in the everyday undertakings of science. Maimonides takes the Biblical account of the beginning of the Creation to include the beginning of time. The Torah and the mystical writings of Judaism do not give any significant details as to the nature of time as we know it or whatever it was that existed as time before the Creation. Presumably any primitive time that has meaning before the Creation is an attribute of God and only an attribute since God is eternal and unitary and cannot be broken up into components but can be described by attributes. I discuss basic and fundamental concepts involved in the study of time in both Judaism and science.

Chapter 8: God’s creating:

This presents a general and broad discussion of the first two Days of Genesis from both the Scriptural and scientific points of view, including the Big Bang theory. The focus on the first two days arises from the circumstance that they have nothing to do with life of any kind but deal solely with the non-living physical realm.

Chapter 9: The Light and the Dark:

I consider the light and the dark at the beginning of the universe according to the Big Bang theory and according to the Torah. The darkness of Genesis 1:2 is referred to as black fire in The Zohar. Going beyond the depiction of darkness as being an absence of light, deeming it to be a tangible entity, an active factor of the cosmos, I relate the darkness of Scripture to the dark entities of modern cosmology, dark matter and dark energy.

Chapter 10: Inflating the Universe:

Inflation is examined. I discuss the meaning of the phrase the breath of God was hovering upon the face of the waters in terms of cosmological inflation. The Hebrew words tohu, chaos, and bohu, formlessness, found in the fundamental work of the kabbalah, The Zohar, are explained in terms of inflation and its physical cosmological aspects. I introduce the extension of inflation known as eternal inflation and show that it allows an explanation for the reference in The Zohar to two hundred thousand worlds and all the worlds.

Chapter 11: The Orchard and the Pitfalls:

I present and examine the four levels of analysis (in Hebrew, pardes) used in studying the Torah. An investigation is made of some of the pitfalls and risks involved in the utilization of science for biblical exegesis. Kabbalistic modes of analysis can lead to further insights on the relationship between modern cosmology, physics, and Scripture. The particular object of this kabbalistic analysis is Genesis 1:1. A critique is made of the calculation of the duration of the six days of creation by the physicist and theologian Gerald Schroeder.

Chapter 12: Cosmology and Kabbalah:

Creation ex nihilo from the points of view of both science and Jewish thought is examined. Further inquiry is made into time and its beginning and the relationship of time to eternity. The attempt to arrive at a scientific version of creation ex nihilo is shown to lead to a seeming blurring of the lines between science and religion. The difficulty of attempting to grapple with the concept and meaning of nothing is emphasized. Kabbalistic analysis can lead to an improved comprehension of nothing. The concept of eternal inflation is shown to have implications for the cosmology of kabbalah with respect to relating kabbalah to the actual physical universe. String theory and M-theory with their additional dimensions of space are shown to be applicable to an enhanced understanding of Scripture, kabbalah, and the nature of God.

Chapter 13: Final Thoughts:

In the study and understanding of Judaism, Scripture, science, and cosmology there can be no final thoughts since there is always new data and analysis. An illustration of the uncertainties of this intellectual journey is provided by relating the atemporal frame of existence of God with the time experienced and perceived by us finite entities. I discuss the application of the ekpyrotic universe model of modern cosmology to an alternate exegesis of the Creation of Genesis. This model is an alternative to the original and modified Big Bang theories and leads to further possibilities in understanding the Creation in Scriptural and kabbalistic terms. An example from kabbalah shows that Judaism does allow for the existence of a billions of years old universe.

Chapter 1

Appreciating the Creation

Before we unveil the complex mystery of black fire and white fire - the elucidation of the enigma regarding the correlation between kabbalah and science - we need first and foremost, to comprehend the puzzle of beginning. Scripture begins with the account of the Creation. The Creation and the Creator are inextricably entwined. Scripture is replete with references to the natural physical universe. In order to appreciate the Creator we should have some understanding of the Creation.

Why would a person attempt to understand the relationship between science and Scripture?

This question is part of the general inquiry into the relationship between science and religion. It presumes that such a relationship does exist. Even if one takes the extreme view that science and religion, and Judaism, in particular, are definitely not connected to each other, on the level of reasoning and logic we are still led to conclude that there is some kind of relationship. The reality is that Scripture exists in the physical universe and is an integral part of it. In Judaism, as well as in Christianity and Islam, there exists the basic tenet that everything was created by God.

By God, we mean the one and only Supreme Being from which all else derives. For a human being to attempt to totally comprehend God leads to extreme frustration. A person is finite in his extent and influence while being a creature transient in time. God is infinite in extent and influence while being eternal, being outside of and transcending time.

Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, also known as Maimonides or the Rambam, whom many believe to be one of the greatest Jewish scholars of all time, produced what we might call a list of the characteristics of God. Two of the standard statements of Judaism found in prayer books incorporate the thoughts of Maimonides concerning God. These statements are the prayers Adon Olam (Lord of the Universe) and Yigdal (Exalted) both of which are based upon the Thirteen Principles of Faith of Maimonides. In these statements, God is stated to be the Lord of the universe who has ruled before any living thing was created and who will rule after everything comes to an end. The existence of God has neither beginning nor end. Time is not a constraint upon the existence of God. It is even stated that God is inconceivable in the sense that no language can depict him. God is a Oneness characterized by a unity which has no limits and which unity is beyond any unity in terms of its ultimateness. God has no form and no substance. One of the primary purposes of Judaism is the worship of God at different levels.¹,²

In Judaism, there are a number of ways to worship God. Worship is a multi-faceted task. By worship is meant expressing homage and honor to God. Part of worshipping God is the expression of appreciation of His Creation.

By Creation is meant the entire physical universe and all that it contains. The universe has a history and a future. In order to appreciate the Creation it must be studied and understood. The Creation cannot be ignored or dismissed as irrelevant to the attainment of true spirituality. The Creation is an aspect of God and his workings. According to Rabbi Abraham J. Heschel, we can consider creation to be a voluntary activity of God. The word Creation as it is utilized in the Bible refers to an action of manifestation. R’ Heschel states: God said: ‘Let there be,’ and it was. And creation is not an act that happened once, but a continuous process. The word ‘Yehi’, ‘Let there be’, stands forever in the universe. The existence of Yehi replaces the absence of Creation with the existence of finite actuality. The expression of the appreciation of the Creation is a definite component of the practice of Judaism in the real world.³

The substantive nature of the expression of the appreciation of the Creation is made clear if one peruses any of the great commentaries on the Torah, the Five Books of Moses, such as those of Onkelos, Rashi, Ibn Ezra (Rabbi Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra), Nachmanides and more. These commentators take the exposition of Genesis not to be a literal and straightforward matter. They probe beneath the surface of the text and seek to understand the meaning behind the statements.

Science is simply another way by which we can come to an understanding of the Creation independently of Torah study.

Science itself can be decomposed into its various fields of endeavor. Biology is the science of life, that is, living matter, with all the types, phenomena, and activities comprising this life, including its structure, growth, origin, and reproduction. Chemistry is the science that deals with the constitution of substances and their properties and reactions in terms of the elements, e.g., carbon and hydrogen, and their compounds. Geology is the science of the earth and of the rocks and minerals of which it is composed and the alterations which the earth and its rocks and minerals have undergone. Physics, the most basic of the sciences, deals with fundamental laws and processes and with the states and properties of matter and energy. Astronomy deals with objects in the space beyond the earth including the determination of their magnitudes, motions, positions, and distances.⁴

Then, of course, there are all sorts of cross-disciplinary sciences. For example, geophysics deals with the physics of the earth and its rocks and minerals using devices such as artificial satellites, magnetometers, and seismometers to probe the interior of this planet. Biophysics deals with studying biological structures and processes in terms of the underlying physics.⁴

Even the meanings and definitions of the original interdisciplinary fields get modified as time goes by and science progresses. For example, suppose a spacecraft has landed on Mars and has deployed a seismometer to study the inner constitution of that planet. We would tend to refer to this situation as being a study of geophysics instead of aresphysics, Ares being the Greek word for Mars.

R’ Abraham J. Heschel has beautifully and clearly stated the basic foundation for the belief that underlies the expression of the appreciation of the Creation through both religion and science, commencing with his belief that God is inside Creation, existing and hidden at the core of all entities. Without the existence of God, there would be no actuality. Without His hiding, there would be no manifestation. Nature is not the possessor of the song that she trills. Nature with her harmony, autonomy, splendor, and leased perfection glows with a scarcely contained fire. R’ Heschel states: Only those who do not notice that their knowledge is a pretext [excuse] for higher ignorance fail to sense the marvel of her [Nature] not being consumed; not seeing the bush, they also miss the voice. If the universe were explainable as a robot, we could assume that God is separated from it and His relation to it would be like that of a watchmaker to a clock. Yet the indescribable calls out from all entities. He notes: It is only the idea of a divine presence hidden [concealed] within the rational order of nature which is compatible with our scientific view of nature and in accord with our sense of the ineffable [indescribable].⁵

The appreciation of the Creation is an inherent aspect of both the cognitive and spiritual components of a human being. The explicit references in Scripture to the natural universe and its beginning make this apparent. This appreciation of the Creation is a necessary foundation for the unraveling of the complex mystery of black fire and white fire and the elucidation of the enigma regarding the correlation between kabbalah and science. Hence, in order to attain our goal of understanding the complicated mystery of black fire and white fire we have to continue our journey of comprehension.

Chapter 2

Interconnections between Science and Judaism

Some non-religious people believe that the study and/or practice of science has all of the answers. Some very religious people believe that the study, practice, and/or observance of Judaism has all of the answers.

Could the study and/or the practice of science be a replacement for the study, practice, and/or observance of Judaism and/or vice versa?

The realm of science is the material universe and its workings. This is generally speaking, among the broadest, most certain statements that can be made about science. The student of the history of science knows that science is continually in a state of flux. Science seeks to use a certain methodology to explore the universe. Scientific laws and theories have been postulated, rejected, restricted, and generalized. Every once in a while science and/or its disciplines undergoes a revolution in its thinking at the most basic levels. Data acquisition and digestion is a continuing and unending process.

The realm of Judaism incorporates both the spiritual universe and the material cosmos, the relationship between man and God and between man and man as ordered by God. The Talmudic Sages said that the Torah and its teaching are meant solely for humans, not for the emissaries of God (angels). Judaism is a dynamic and living entity and tool intended for the fallible human being. It is intended for real people in the real world. Judaism has its own authentic methodology, just as does science, but distinct from that of science. It can be fairly stated that for most questions in Judaism there are answers, but not just one answer for each question. If one should even casually peruse the Talmud, it is observed that when a question is posed it is followed by a discussion with no answer being designated as absolutely wrong or absolutely right.

R’ Abraham J. Heschel notes that it is usual to explain the diminution of religion in modern society as a consequence of the existence and practice of a philosophy of anti-religion and of science. R’ Heschel believes that this is not truly an appropriate explanation for the decline of religion. This minimization of religion is its own fault because religion became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, and insipid. Judaism, however, with its unique entangling of the spiritual and material dimensions contains the seeds of its own rescue from irrelevance and insipidness. That Judaism has both spiritual and material dimensions implies that the realms of Judaism and science overlap to some indeterminate extent.¹

An example of the overlap between science and Judaism, which is an example of what this book seeks to illuminate, has been somewhat prominent in New York City. Rabbi Dr. David Berger has succinctly described and analyzed the situation.²

R’ Berger states that the drinking water of New York City contains copepods. These copepods are actually tiny minute crustaceans. The copepods are not discernible, that is, not capable of being perceived by unaided sight by the ordinary observer. Copepods are in the category of animals that are not considered fit to eat according to rabbinical decisions based upon the halakha, the Jewish law, derived from the written and oral Torah. That is, more concisely, copepods are not kosher. They are not kosher independently of whether or not one can see them with the unaided eye or whether or not a person knows that they are present in the drinking water.²

The knowledge concerning the copepods was obtained with the use of the microscope. The microscope was invented several thousands of years after the establishment of Judaism.²

It is also known that the water of New York City is not that unique. Copepods have undoubtedly existed in bodies of water all over the world for all of the years of existence of Judaism. Then copepods have been imbibed over the course of these years by the most scrupulously observant Jews. In particular, R’ Berger mentions those well-known rabbis by name and those leaders of Jewish religious groups in the New York City area who must have unknowingly ingested these minuscule animals. The point is that Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik among the famed New York City rabbis and the Chassidic rebbes of, for example, the Satmar, Bobov, Lubavitch, and Skver groups in this city, drank glasses of perfectly clear water without feeling the need to investigate it further.²

Nonetheless, a rabbi, Rav Dovid Feinstein, issued a ruling, signed by two other rabbis, that it is prohibited to ingest copepods. This implies that New York City water must be either avoided by Jews or that this water must be filtered. Boiling will not obviate the situation under this ruling since the question as to whether or not an animal is kosher, has nothing to do with whether or not it is dead or alive.²

The central point that R’ Berger makes in his article is that there is something very disturbing, even offensive, about a situation existing for thousands of years that causes widespread and unavoidable violation of Torah Law as given by God. R’ Berger raises the questions as to whether these well-known New York City rabbis and Chassidic leaders should be considered as having no knowledge available concerning these biblically forbidden animals or should be considered as unintentional sinners who should have investigated in a thorough manner the water that they drank. The thought of these questions, R’ Berger believes, is very disturbing.²

There is, however, a question I raise that R’ Berger does not consider or even, apparently, contemplate that is of much importance to the subject matter of this book. This question is relevant to the relationship of Judaism and science on a basic level: Does Judaism ever seek to deny science or the results of science because of anything innate to Judaism, its content, form or structure?

R’ Berger might have attempted to resolve the quandary of the New York City drinking water by questioning the microscopic and other observations of copepods. After all, the observations leading us to cast doubt on the piety of all of those rabbis could be illusory.

Of course, R’ Berger never considers this question because it is, at its heart, ultimately a very non-Jewish question. God does not throw deluding snares in the path of humanity. The laws of the Torah, the substance of the Mishnah and the Talmud, all of the writings and oral commentaries indicate that God is not a trickster, some kind of divine confidence man. All that we, humanity, need and/or want to know is there in the natural physical world and/or the Torah for us to find and to make our own provided that we are diligent enough. The microscope is a product of the human intellect which intellect is part of our divine inheritance. Used by trained observers, the microscope delivers reliable results. For the case of the copepods observed through the instrumentality of the microscope, there exists no valid ground for the rejection of these observations. The senses, in this case, the sense of sight, are to be trusted.

In the case of the copepods, science has presented us with a halakhic question. Science, however, cannot dictate the answer to the question, but it might assist in the resolution of the question and of the ancillary questions related to it.

This copepod story illustrates the relationship between science and Judaism on the most superficial level, yet it shows that the two domains are quite comfortable with each other. For a Jew to reject or deny the validity of either science or his or her own religion would be to impoverish life.

According to a widely accepted understanding of Judaism, humanity is viewed as being a partner with God in the continuing process of creation. By process of creation is usually meant that people behaving righteously and doing good deeds uplift their minds and spiritual status. The process of creation can be taken to a different level because of the existence of science and its application to the physical world and universe by humans. The meaning of the process of creation and partnership with God can be interpreted on a very literal level and direct manner through the ability of humans to change their environment and even the life forms that are of importance to them.³,⁴,⁵,⁶

Both science and Judaism have large intellectual components. They are not for non-thinkers, not only for true believers, whatever a true believer may be, and they are not nonsense as extremists might think. Having knowledge of both science and Judaism is not a waste of time, is not guaranteed to help a person make a lot of money, and will not prevent a person from earning a living. This knowledge will lead to an enrichment of the life of a person.

The process or act of creation has both intellectual and operational components. Improving oneself through