8 On History

I really believe that the most important question that should bother us when we study history, is ascertaining the truth: did something truly happen, or did it not. I am mentioning this because, too often, I find that people lose sight of  this goal, and use methodologies which, while they may be perfectly suited to other areas of enquiry, such as scientific observation, can provide rather awful results when applied to history.

One of the most common examples of that, is the approach taken where one weighs the strength of a proposed narrative, based on if the explanation provided is the most logical and reasonable possible. This is clear nonsense – even events in recent history, such as the Holocaust, the Six Day War, or the two Israeli casualties from Scud missiles in the Gulf War, hardly makes any sense. Even then, one can only make sense of these events due to the advanced abilities we currently have in recording history, such as sound and video recorders, as well as vast archives of documents. But if not for those resources, which are simply unavailable for most historical events, I do not believe that we would be able to make sense out of such events.

But I wish to give some specific examples where such reasoning has not worked out in our favor, and has led us to the wrong conclusions.

1. There is a fascinating phenomenon called Fata Morgana, a mirage that can appear on the horizon over a body of water, which was responsible, among other things for the sighting of the non-existent entities of Crocker Mountains and Crocker Land. This mirage was first scientifically verified in the 1780's, and now some people suggest that certain references made in literature from even earlier generations, may have referred to different sightings that appeared due to this strange phenomenon.

Assuming for a moment that we hadn’t yet scientifically verified the existence of the La Fatma mirage, it is not hard at all to imagine the scorn which such claims would have been met with, because this not something logically reasonable. Yet for all of our cleverness, we would be wrong.

2. For many centuries, sailors have been reporting massive waves, many tens of feet tall, which suddenly appear in the ocean, despite the relative calmness of the surrounding areas. And for centuries, such reports have been readily dismissed as tall tales. However, it happens to be true – the existence of rogue waves was first scientifically confirmed only 20 (!) years ago, and since then, we have been able to detect a number of other occurrences of rogue waves with GPS tracking. And in that case, in what way did our hubris help us, if it led us to the wrong conclusion?

Interestingly enough, the above mentioned point is related to both topics discussed earlier – the proof from miracles and the Kuzari proof – as well as the topic of evolution.

3. The general consensus of the historical community is that even if one accepts that the Baal Shem Tov was a real person who actually existed (which is in itself a matter of debate), it is a certainty that he never performed any of the miracles attributed to him. The explanation usually given, goes along the lines that the various wondrous stories told about him, were created by the simple, naïve folk that became his followers due to their great veneration of him.

I do not blame them at all for coming to this conclusion – after all, if one is of the opinion that the supernatural doesn’t exist, and if one has not encountered solid evidence that some people actually have the ability to perform miracles, it seems very unreasonable to accept that the Baal Shem Tov could have done so. At the same time, it seems clear to me that in this instance they are wrong. After all, if the Rebbe in our generation could have, and did, perform such miracles, why couldn’t the Baal Shem Tov have done so as well?

4. With regard to the Kuzari proof, I completely understand why it is subjected to so much scrutiny and critical analysis. After all, being that Judaism is a religion that often requires one to devote a great deal of time and energy to keeping the Mitzvos, as well as significant sums of money, it is only reasonable that one should be able to make sure that it is actually true, and that he is not wasting his energy on made-up beliefs. Which is why I have discussed this proof, as well as the critiques on it, at length, and to which I have linked to previously.

At the same time, I think that it is important for us not to become over-zealous in such efforts as well. If we were to assume, for the sake of the argument, that on the one hand, Mattan Torah actually took place, but at the same time, there exists a ‘hole’ that can be poked in the narrative or in the transmission of the tradition, which would then make the Kuzari proof not absolutely logically defensible, what would we gain from the promotion of such a ‘hole’, if it would lead us to the wrong conclusion? The point here is not to be clever, but to be right.

This is further compounded when one takes note of the limited abilities in those times, to record historical events. They had no cameras or sound recorders at their disposal, and limited tools to use for writing. And to be honest, our ancestors did everything they could to let us know that they witnessed Mattan Torah – they wrote it down; they transmitted this knowledge to their descendants; and they even created a religion out of it. But I think that we have to be careful not to set the bar too high, and expect that they should have done anything beyond that, as that was the extent of their history-recording capabilities at that time.

5. Finally, with regard to evolution.

One of the most interesting questions that I have come across in this subject, is how to explain the existence of the coccyx bone (the tail bone), in the human body. According to the theory of comment descent, it makes perfect sense – since we are descendants of an ancestor that had a tail, that vestige was passed down to us, although we don’t actually grow one. But according to the Torah, why in the world should humans be in possession of such a bone?

I had no idea how to answer this question. Until a few months later, when I came across a Midrash that says: ‘Why does the verse refer to Adam as Nefesh Chayah? To teach us that G-d gave him a tail, and then removed it from him.’ (Later on, I noticed that this could be read into Gemoro Berochos 61a.) So there it is, black on white.

But this answer again got me thinking along the lines above: For me, on my own, to suggest such an answer as a possible solution to this question, would be downright absurd; yet this is what the Midrash says happened. In which case, for all my cleverness and sophistication, I would be wrong.

I found that this idea repeated itself a number of times throughout my research, and I think that this puts an even stronger emphasis on the point the Rebbe made which was mentioned above. To paraphrase: if in order to reach the correct conclusion about something, I need to take into account all of the relevant details, granted that we know a great deal about what happened in the past, but from where does one get the conviction that one has access to all of the relevant details? And if one doesn’t have that assurance, for what reason should we expect , with any certainty, to reach the correct conclusions?