By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com
True, Stephen Hawking passed away in 2018. In his lifetime, had the reputation of being the smartest man in the world. Our question is – if a Torah observant Jew were to have paid him a visit before Hawking had passed away – would he have had to recite the bracha?
SOME BACKGROUND
Stephen Hawking was certainly brilliant – his pioneering accomplishments will be remembered for centuries. It was Hawking who realized the interconnection between black hole thermodynamics, entropy, and temperature. He figured out the properties of the radiation from black holes that would be called Hawking Radiation. Hawking is not without critics. Astro-physicist Ethan Seigel writes in a Forbes article about one of his books, “a Brief History of Time” that for “32 years, it’s misinformed physics students, laypersons, and even professionals alike.” But even Dr. Seigel admits of Hawking’s remarkable contributions to science.
THE GEMORAH IN BRACHOS
The Gemorah in Brachos (58a) tells us that one who sees a gentile scholar recites the blessing of Baruch Attah Hashem, elokainu Melech ha’Olam shenosson m’chachmaso l’basar v’dam – who has given of His wisdom to flesh and blood.” [This is the text that is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (OC 224:7).]
It would, at first glance, seem to be a no-brainer (forgive the pun) that the bracha should have been recited on Hawking.
In his elaboration of the halacha, the Mishna Brurah citing the Pri Magadim (in his Aishel Avrohom) explains that the gentile must be wise in [one of] the seven areas of wisdoms, as opposed to being fully fluent in the intricacies of their religion. The idea that it refers to just one of the seven areas is indicative from the handling of the contrast of being fully fluent in their religion. It is also clear from the author of the Mor uKtziyah that this is the case. [On the other hand, Rav Menashe Klein ob”m (Mishna Halachos Vol. XV Siman 74) writes that the gentile must be fluent in all seven areas of wisdom. Something that would veritably negate the blessing altogether.]
POSSIBLE CAVEATS
Rav Elazar Fleckeles (1754-1826), a student of the Noda BiYehudah and the author of the Teshuvah m’Ahava, writes (Vol. II #237) that the blessing is not recited on a gentile scholar who denies Hashem. He further adds that it may only be recited on a gentile who observes the seven Noachide laws.
The Aruch HaShulchan (224:6) writes that the parameters of what the definition of a “gentile scholar” are unclear, therefore, one should refrain from reciting the bracha.
The Mogain Avrohom writes that if their wisdom is in regard to their religion, as mentioned earlier, – then the blessing is not recited. It would seem that the implication of this Mogain Avrohom is that he rejects the second idea mentioned by the Teshuvah M’Ahava that the gentile must obey the seven Noachide laws. The denial of the Creator, however, likely falls into the category of a disqualification in wisdom – since belief in Hashem is a pre-requisite to being wise. This is the view of both the Minchas Elazar (Vol. V Siman 6) and lbc”l Rav Moshe Shternbuch shlita (Teshuvos v’Hanhagos Vol. III #74).
It is clear that Stephen Hawking, aside from some of the errors pointed out by Dr. Seigel, makes a much more profound error in his denying the Creator. The person who wished to recite the blessing on gentile scholars should, in this author’s view, not have recited it upon seeing Stephen Hawking. Each person should ask his own Rav or Posaik, however.
The author can be reached at [email protected]
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
8 Responses
In short he may have had a high iq but it didn’t help him cuz he reached the wrong conclusions. So no bracha obviously.
Let me clear up a misconceptions:
1) famous scientist is not the same as TOP scientists. Some scientists are enormously famous and influential as popularizers or culture critics or public intellectuals. In this respect, figures like Stephan Hawking, Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, or Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould are at the top. BUT they are NOT preeminence as scientists doing science. On the list of actual top scientists you will find names that are not well known to the general public names like Roger Penrose, Alain Aspect Leonard Susskind, Edward Witten, Steven Weinberg, Richard P. Feynman
2) Ethan Seigal’s beef with Stephan Hawking was not a substantive disagreement about “science” but rather a criticism of how hawking dumbed down and misrepresented how the blackhole radiation actually works in favor of making it easier for the layperson to understand, Ethan Seigel complained that Hawking needlessly dumbed it down and that it confused even some experts, again there was NO disagreement about the science, Ethan Seigel never claimed that Hawking got the science wrong. By the way Ethan Seigal is a middle tier science writer, nowhere near a top tier scientist.
3) there was a real dispute on SCIENCE between Leonard Susskind and Stephan Hawking in the late 1990’s and for your information Stephan Hawking admitted to being wrong and Leonard Susskind won that fight, so no Stephan Hawking was not the smartest person alive
4) A survey of top tier 500 scientists showed that about 6% believe in G-D
This is so blatantly obvious it is a great wonder why the author thought an article was even necessary to state such obviosity.
HaRav Avigdor Miller, zt”l once said: “Isaac Asimov was a famous atheist. Imagine the scene after Asimov died. He goes to Shomayim, and there sits HaKadosh Baruch Hu, on a high and mighty throne. Hashem looks down at Asimov and says, ‘Yitzele, still an atheist?!?'”
“Hey Stevie, still an atheist?!?”
It should be noted that Hawking was anti-Israel, and possibly antisemitic as well. In light of this, would we still have made a bracha upon seeing him?
Would the first 4 commenters have us believe that they have enough of understanding of physics to advise us who among all the physicists named are the best, and who is better than whom?
Would huju enlighten us how her comment has any relevance to be a response to the third comment?
My comment is not really applicable to the third comment, but it was easier to cite the first four comments than to pinpoint comments 1, 2 and 4. Believe it or not, I can be lazy and sloppy.
I like your last word – obviosity.