Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses how Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta earned the title “Researcher of Matters.” Having learned the verses in Mishle (6:6-8): “Go to the ant, you lazy one; consider her ways, and be wise; which having no chief, overseer, or ruler, provides her bread in the summer,” Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta actually went out to study ants and see if indeed they really had no king ordering them around.

Tosafos here raises an interesting question. In Bava Basra (75a) Rabbi Yochanan strongly rebuked a student who expressed doubt regarding a prophecy (Yeshaiyahu 54:12) that spoke of stones for Jerusalem thirty by thirty cubits. After a voyage at sea, encountering ministering angels working on those very stones, the student eagerly reported back to his master that his words were affirmed. But Rabbi Yochanan severely scolded and disapproved of the student for needing any verification of what is in the prophecy. Therefore, Tosafos here asks, why is it appropriate for Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta to investigate and verify this phenomenon that is recorded in the verse?

Tosafos answers that he did not doubt what was written in the verse, rather he wanted to study the ants to see how Solomon knew this.

There are a couple of nuances that come out of this Tosafos. First, let’s understand the answer. I believe the key distinction between Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta and Rabbi Yochanan’s student is that the student expressed doubt and was skeptical. He was investigating because he could not believe it was true. On the other hand, Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta did not doubt the verse. He just wanted to understand the phenomenon better.

This is an important distinction regarding Jewish philosophical studies. Any philosophical or hashkafic question with the intention of understanding the Torah better, when it does not come from a cynical or skeptical stance, is appropriate. On the other hand, if it comes from a position of disbelief, we enter into more dangerous territory. While in theory, the Torah ought to make sense and stand on its own two feet and not need to be protected by aggressively repressing questions, it would take many lifetimes to verify every aspect of the Torah. There is no system of wisdom that doesn’t have presumptions and postulates that are taken as true, and from there the system is built. So, one can have questions on the Torah, with the presumption of belief and faith and the earnest wish to understand it better but not to challenge its credibility.

As an object lesson, Immanuel Kant sought to develop a system of rational morality based on the Categorical Imperative, something along the lines that a moral rule ought to be universally and consistently applicable by everybody, and not subject to emotions or circumstances of the moment. For example, if one decides telling a lie is wrong because it deprives the other person of information and autonomy and subjects them to manipulation, then everyone at every time should be able to apply that rule equally, without exception. Because when one allows exceptions, it becomes subject to each person’s rationalization. For example, “normally I won’t lie, but I might lie to a person who cheated me to get my money back.” In theory that’s understandable. In reality, most people who lie have some kind of rationalization. Regardless, at the very least Kant made an admirable attempt to start from scratch and develop a moral system based solely on reason. In the end, it was a time-consuming exercise that philosophically inspired more ideas and development, but ultimately did not offer guidance in day-to-day life anywhere near what the Torah did and still does for civilization. It may be impossible on a practical level to create morality from reason alone with no presumptions. Revelation may well be necessary for morality and civilization.

Another interesting feature of this Tosafos is, why did it matter to Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta to find out how Solomon knew about the ants, if he already fully believed what was written in the scripture? Apparently, he considered finding Solomon’s methods of discovery as an aspect of the exegetical study of the verse. This is a new wrinkle in the value of studying science. From the Rambam’s point of view, one should study science and natural phenomena to develop an appreciation and love and awe for the creator (see Yesode HaTorah 4:12). However, if my reading is correct, this has implications for a Torah based value for studying biology and natural phenomena. To the degree that studying the natural world enhances the understanding of various verses, it would itself be considered meritorious, and possibly an aspect of Torah study. The last part is unclear. We do not know if it was simply a permitted curiosity of Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta or it was actually considered Torah study. Usually a behavior noted by a sage is not just permitted but also admirable.

One final aspect to consider is what happens if the investigation disproves what was sought? According to the scientific method, one remains neutral, and seeks evidence to prove or disprove the hypothesis. From the religious point of view, there is an obligation to maintain faith and belief, even if the research does not yield the expected result. While once in a while, a contradiction between observed phenomena and Torah beliefs could stimulate a possible reinterpretation within an acceptable window of tradition, such as discussed in the introduction to the Moreh Nevuchim, the standard orthodox approach is to assume that there is a lack of wisdom and human error clouding the perception and giving the tradition the full benefit of the doubt.

From time to time, such investigations might also lead to honest mistakes and distort beliefs. What is the Torah’s view on accidental heresy? For further discussion on accidental heresy, see Sefer HaIkkarim (Ma’amar 1:1 and 1:2), where he says that certain mistaken beliefs—when rooted in honest error—are forgivable. As a counterpoint, see the Abravanel in Rosh Amanah 12, where he argues that if a belief undermines fundamental theological doctrines, the person remains fully accountable and is classified as a true heretic.