Also: Divin, Drogichin, Khomsk, Malech, Telechany
This is the 3rd in the series of 14 articles published in Hatzfira from From 2 December 1889 through 19 March 1880). The subject: Jewish Scholarship: disputes in the Talmud among the Sages. These he grouped into seven categories:
• disputes about the Biblical sources, argumentation about the meaning of the written scripture.
• disputes among Sages concerning broader issues in the practical, natural world
We have ample knowledge of Rabbi Feinstein's knowledge of scripture and Torah. Of interest to us: How deep was Rabbi Feinstein's knowledge in the sciences? How broad?
His opening words:
There are disputes between Tana’im and Amora’im connected to knowledge of the World and Nature. Most of them were educated in science and its branches – so testified Jewish Scholars in the Diaspora…
Tana’im and Amora’im were among the ancient Sages. Rabbi Feinstein observed that modern observers in the Jewish world credited the ancient Sages with broad knowledge of the natural sciences and he agreed with this view.
Most of the knowledge on the world and nature were examined by the Wise Ones. Some facts were irrefutable at their time and others were not clarified as yet. Even in the methods by which they examined scientific material, they differed.
These are sensible observations, and it is important to consider that the scientific method itself was not well-developed in the time of the Sages.
Rabbi Feinstein sets out to tell us about many disputes in the Talmud, e.g. concerning laws of kashrut, menstruation, fetal status, breast feeding... that are connected with natural science – physics, chemistry, medicine.
Even today there are disputes between the best and well-educated doctors who studied in great Yeshivas… so we should not wonder that in the past there were many disputes when science was not so well-developed and facts had not been confirmed by experiments and [accumulation over] time.
Rabbi Feinstein clearly is familiar with the Tractate Zeraim, dealing with farming practices:
The Sages did very well, despite the fact that the sciences of Agriculture and Botany were not well-developed at their time.
Similarly, with respect to cosmology:
They did not have telescopes and held to the belief that the world was level, not round. The Jewish Wise Ones, as well as the wise of the nations, argued about the movements of the moon, stars, and the sun, etc. For all of those in those times: astronomy was not at its best.
Rabbi Feinstein cites a very specific issue of great importance to Jewish communities.
As a result, there was a dispute between [two wise scholars identified only by obscure acronyms] about when the new month starts
It was vital that the correct prayers be said at the correct time.
With respect to formal methodology:
The Sages depended on many suppositions (hypotheses) without the ability to test them.
By contrast, in the time of the Sages, the methods mathematics were well-established. Their path was much smoother.
However, in pure Mathematics – such as geometry and trigonometry – with respect to inferences, they did not have any disputes, being very knowledgeable in these fields. If it happened that some sages were mistaken in such scientific matters, their arguments were totally dismissed in the Talmud.
At more abstract levels, there was less agreement.
In matters above nature (metaphysics) there were many disputes.
As an example, Rabbi Feinstein discusses a dispute about the role of fate in determining men’s schemes and behavior – a view broadly described as fatalism. He says that in another of his article he explained the issue in a new way – allegorically. He goes on to discuss how the Sages understood dreams.
transition/placement We conclude from this article that Rabbi Feinstein had a very broad knowledge of science, sufficient to discuss how the sages took the science of their day into account in their deliberations. This article is not fully sufficient for us to understand the depth of his scientific knowledge.