4414 —מדע, בריאה, וגיל העולם

B"H, 4th of Sivan, 5716.

Brooklyn, NY.

Shalom u'Vrachah!

Thank you to your honor for your telegram in response to my telegram regarding the painful matter of the Synagogue Council and the New York Board of Rabbis. Additionally, I received a personal message through Rabbi Hollander upon his return from his visit to Eretz HaKodesh, with further details. The damage prevented by your action in retracting your letter is immeasurable.

As I wrote in my telegram, in my opinion this directly affects the incursion of Conservative and Reform movements into Eretz HaKodesh as well—though for obvious reasons I did not specify this in my telegram and simply wrote "it concerns generations and lands." If we merit to utilize this opportunity for Judaism in America, it could mark a fundamental turning point in how Jews from all circles relate to the Conservative and Reform movements, in accordance with our holy Torah.

This is especially necessary in our generation—a bereft generation—as indicated by our Sages: if a breach is found—in any matter or mitzvah—not only can it not be repaired by compromise; on the contrary, one must add safeguards and boundaries.

I will conclude my letter following the teaching of Mishnah: one must speak in the language of one's teacher—my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe—to bless and be blessed with receiving the Torah with joy and inwardness.

With esteem, honor, and blessing. On this occasion I am attaching what came to mind regarding issues raised in your last letter.

Regarding the apparent contradiction between researchers' opinions about the time required "for the emergence of writing and development of languages and cultures generally," versus the straightforward interpretation accepted by our people for generations about counting from creation—that this is year 5716 since creation (as per legal documents)—which is "the fundamental question at this stage of current research": In my view there cannot be a contradiction here because one cannot contradict a mere hypothesis.

My intention is as follows:

(a) In general regarding all scientific conclusions—it is well known (the principle called after Heisenberg) that all "laws" in science are only hypotheses—the most likely assumptions. That is: regarding the future one cannot know anything absolutely—only by estimation. One hypothesis is that as events increase so does their conformity to these so-called "laws"—relative to those that do not conform. Even this itself is only possible—not certain. For example—there is no contradiction to science if a stone were seen flying upward instead of downward; it would only contradict what is usual—not scientific conclusions. This applies to all "laws of nature," without exception. All the more so regarding evolutionary laws—where even among scientists themselves there are many conflicting theories.

(b) Furthermore: even if there were now an actual law (not just a hypothesis) and a fixed order of development—it would still be impossible to deduce from it about periods thousands of years ago. When discussing ancient development one must rely on numerous assumptions without experimental basis. Scientists themselves admit that natural conditions then were entirely different than now: air temperature, pressure, presence of radioactive elements at much higher levels than today, relationships between living things and plants etc. It is astonishing how scientists use current developmental data as a basis for their assumptions about distant past—as if nothing changed—and draw conclusions (though no scientist has ever tested these assumptions under those ancient conditions), accepting them without doubt as laws. If until recently there was some semblance of truth here—in our era—a time of crisis even in science—even that semblance has vanished. For example: it has been found that even tiny amounts of catalyst or radioactive element can dramatically change phenomena—their speed or nature—in surprising ways. This discovery rules out any possibility for scientific proof about plant or animal development processes under conditions where radioactive elements existed at much higher levels than today. And this is only part of many other major changes—for example air composition and density—which crucially affect sunlight and cosmic rays penetrating earth.

(c) Additionally: all evolutionary theories (and thus all related questions) are based on assuming that originally there was simple matter—and at some point for unknown reasons development began through combining parts more complexly until after some period it reached plant level then animal etc. As for where original matter came from—the answer given is that it's not science's job to answer; if asked a believing scientist will say it was created ex nihilo by G‑d. Similarly regarding what caused these processes to begin at that time—not before or after—is also unanswered.

It makes no sense scientifically whether G‑d created billions of atoms embedding certain laws so they developed stepwise—or as Genesis plainly says—that Hashem created heaven on day one etc., man on day six already intelligent and developed. In fact—from today's scientific perspective—it is far more inconceivable for something to be created ex nihilo—even a simple single-celled organism—than for an advanced being to develop quickly from simple matter. The greatest supposed contradiction between science and faith concerns creation ex nihilo—for science means explaining things seen at least once before; creation ex nihilo cannot be "proven" like that. In fact recent research concludes destruction back into nothingness or its opposite—creation ex nihilo—is impossible naturally; yet someone who believes in creation ex nihilo despite such "conclusions" will find it easy to believe man was created fully formed—as were animals etc., as our Sages said: all acts of creation were made at full stature—there's no logic limiting G‑d's ability only to creating ex nihilo; whoever can create something from nothing can certainly create man fully formed from earth! Thus all hypotheses about required periods for development fall away—for there's no scientific logic or proof against full-formed creation—even if later new species developed from earlier ones.

(d) Some ask: why would G‑d create separate categories—mineral, plant, animal, human—instead of just simple matter left to develop according to natural laws? Clearly there's no scientific basis for such a question—and it's self-contradictory—for there's no reason scientifically why something should be created ex nihilo nor why natural laws should exist as we see them; so there's no place asking why we should posit an incomprehensible phenomenon when another could have occurred instead—since both are equally beyond human understanding! In fact—the second phenomenon (creation ex nihilo) is far more inconceivable scientifically than creating man directly from earth without intermediate stages.

(e) Incidentally—regarding those who now wish to interpret our Sages' statement "He builds worlds and destroys them," or what appears in Zohar/Kabbalah about Adam Kadmon literally—that there were physical humans/worlds destroyed before ours which is now 5716 years old—as cited by early Kabbalists (see Torah Sheleimah Bereshit 1:5 s.k. 522ff): In Kabbalah as elsewhere in Torah—there's room for differing views until halachic ruling per Torah principles—but once ruled only that view counts practically. So too here: until Arizal there was debate—but after Arizal—the final authority accepted by all Israel both Ashkenazim (including Rabbeinu HaZaken & Vilna Gaon) & Sephardim—who ruled clearly that these statements do not refer to physical worlds like ours except during this Shemitah alone (see also Torah Or & Torat Chaim)—one must interpret such matters accordingly.

Summary

The Rebbe teaches that scientific theories are based on changing hypotheses while Torah tradition remains constant; true contradictions cannot arise between mere speculation and revealed truth about creation ex nihilo as taught by our sages.