How the Bible solved Darwin’s “Mystery of Mysteries” and the new scientific paradigm it implies

New genetic research confirms the Bible was right: species don’t mix!

The mule is a problem for Darwin and the Bible

A deep mystery haunts both Charles Darwin and the Torah—a riddle embodied in one humble creature: the mule. It’s a hybrid, born of the mating of a horse and a donkey, but unable to have offspring of its own. It’s sterile. For Darwin, this was not just a barnyard curiosity. It was the “mystery of mysteries,” that rocked the foundation of his otherwise beautiful evolutionary theory.

If new species arise by gradual change and interbreeding and evolution is a continuum, why are hybrids like the mule sterile? Why do the boundaries between species seem so stubborn, so absolute? If hybrids are sterile, how can new species ever arise?

The mule's inability to have offspring poses a deep mystery for Darwin and the Bible.
Why are mules sterile? Biology and the Bible have the same answer.

This wasn’t just a technical glitch in his theory; it was a fundamental paradox. Darwin wrestled with it in On the Origin of Species (1859), devoting an entire chapter to hybrids and their sterility. For decades, scientists shrugged off these limits as quirks of genetics or chance. This “mule paradox” remained a central problem in evolutionary biology until just a decade ago.

For the Torah, the mule is also a problem. The Torah’s strictly prohibits the crossbreeding of species, the mixing of seeds, and even the weaving of wool and linen together, the laws of kilayim[1]. The Talmud singles out Anah, the first breeder of mules.[2] Anah was himself the bastard offspring of incest between his father and grandmother.[3] For Torah, the mule is a living symbol of disorder—a breach in the divinely ordered tapestry of life. If God created each species “according to its kind,” what does it mean when humans force a breach in those kinds?

Jewish tradition says there are mystical reasons to reinforce the boundaries between species. Mixing them is called “kilayim” and the Torah strictly forbids it and the Jewish tradition elaborates all sorts of examples of this abomination.

Science says, “God Don’t Make No Junk!”

Astonishingly, in the last two decades has genetics shown that the Bible was right. Science discovered vast stretches of DNA that didn’t code for anything, it thought. It labelled this useless DNA “junk.” However, new research has discovered that among many other functions, this junk actually is crucial in enforcing reproductive boundaries between species. The ENCODE project (2003–2012)[4] and subsequent research pinpointed the chromosomes and genes that act as barriers to successful hybridization in several species.[4][5] In other words, Darwin was right to fret about mules. There are no hybrids because deeply embedded genetic mechanisms prevent it.[5] Non-coding DNA is not junk at all, but a sophisticated regulatory network. As the t-shirt says, “God don’t make no junk!”

The “Hard Stop”: What the Numbers Show

Based on the latest studies of our own part of the evolutionary tree, the number of times primates from different species hybridize to produce living offspring is very, very tiny. This is true whether hybrid attempts occur in nature or if a modern day Anah in a lab tried to force interbreeding. Even using sophisticated genetic manipulation, hybridizing has never led to viable multicellular organisms. In other words, the genetic “hard stop” of species interbreeding is the rule. Any interspeciation is a short-lived freak of nature. Even in the event such mating does produce offspring, the number of times those offspring themselves are fertile to produce other offspring – so there can be progress or novelty in evolution – is also tiny.  The chances of a new, stable, fertile lineage is infinitesimally small. Fewer than 1 in 100,000,000. Functionally zero.

The Hebrew when translated properly reveals the secret

Then, as if the Biblical text is signaling that it knows a deeper truth, there’s the puzzle of the Hebrew word itself – kilayim. One English translation is “…Do not cross-breed your cattle with different species (“kilayim”) “[Lev. 19:19] But the Hebrew “kilayim” is more mysterious. Scholars believe it alludes to “restraints” or “holding back.” When the Bible revisits the prohibition, it tells us the consequence of breaking the rule of mixing two species. The best Hebrew translation is “the fullness of the produce will be rejected.” Taken together, the Hebrew now appears as prophetic. Individuals from different species may want to breed together, or humans may want to experiment and force them together, but their efforts will be fruitless. Something’s holding them back, a mysterious force whose mechanism we would find out three thousand years later is in the DNA of virtually every animal. And their offspring will be fruitless.

Kabbalah, Kilayim, and the Deep Structure of Speciation

For Darwin, the mule was a mystery that threatened the very logic of his theory of evolution. For the Torah, the mule is a violation of cosmic order. Today, genetics reveals that of the two, Torah was right.  Nature is structured by boundaries between species.

The Torah’s paradigm—each kind according to its kind—is not just a religious belief or superstition. It is a radical insight into the architecture of life, one that modern science is only now beginning to appreciate. But Torah’s insight, unless it was a lucky coincidence, comes with other implications about nature that science cannot ignore.

Kabbalah says kilayim is part of the spiritual architecture of creation itself. Each species, each “kind,” is seen as a vessel for a unique divine energy or “power.” To mix species is, in the kabbalistic view, to uproot these powers from their proper place, disrupting the harmony and order of creation. So the nature “holds it back,” restrains it from the disorder it would create. Ramban said cross-breeding species was arrogant. It was as if Anah was saying the Almighty did a poor job, and he wanted to finish the task. Cross breeding undermines Creation itself.[6]  Maybe that’s why the Talmud considers the idea that God created Anah’s mule on the last evening of Creation. On the one hand, it was a true miraculous innovation, like fire which was created that evening, but on the other hand it was too transgressive. [7] The prohibition of kilayim is a cosmic principle: the world’s diversity is not arbitrary, but a manifestation of distinct channels. When we respect these boundaries, we align ourselves with the inner order of the universe. When we violate them—whether by breeding mules or mixing wool and linen—we risk spiritual and ecological disorder.

But although the Bible beat science to the punch by three thousand years, its bigger view of nature is still dismissed by science. Science will not accept its assumption that the universe and everything in it was created by an intentional deity for a purpose. This is a profound axiom that separates the ways science and Torah think about how the cosmos works.As the t-shirt says, “God don’t make no junk!” Even though science was massively wrong about junk DNA, and wrong about species being kept separate, it is unlikely to change.

Science’s Maginot Line

Before it had the DNA evidence, evolutionary science was committed to an article of faith even when there was almost zero evidence for their belief: hybridization must occur. Now it has legitimate rationales for new beliefs: genetics enforces boundaries between species because it has evolutionary advantages. Of course hybridizing leads to sterility. It is too expensive. A donkey and a horse consume energy, grow, mate, carry a fetus to birth, etc.. and it is futile. The “hard stop” on hybridization is not a failure of evolution’s model, but a feature—a mechanical safeguard in DNA that maintains the resilience of a species. Evolutionary biology calls it “reinforcement of species boundaries.”

To me this sounds like a bit of circular reasoning (the fancy word is “tautology”):

Species don’t successfully hybridize because when they do they are unsuccessful.  

Either way, the hard stop reframes Darwin’s and our entire scientific conception of how evolution works. Think of the 150 years science would have saved itself if it began with the assumption that species did have a self-conserving mechanism!

It invites us to imagine an alternate history of science.  What if science had not split from religion in its two-century march from Francis Bacon to Darwin? What if it preserved as an alternate starting place Torah’s view of nature? The architecture of the universe has intricate integrity, unity, and a purpose. The whole structure depends on boundaries like kilayim. These boundaries have metaphysical origins but we may find they also have mechanical explanations, as with the DNA that enforces a species’ integrity. The two are not exclusive: We can explain the “hard stop”mechanically, but it also logically implies a purposeful vector –  a teleology – in evolution. As Nobel Prize winners Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russel, Erwin Schrodinger, Ilya Prigogine and Roger Penrose have suggested,

There is no logically necessary contradiction between the fundamental beliefs of science – its a prioris – and the idea that the universe has a teleology, a purpose.[8]

This is not a call to abandon the methods of science. Knowledge still must be grounded in sensory or measurable data. Claims must be testable. We should still explain phenomena only by what chain of causes we know produced them, not why God wants it a certain way. Most modern scientists have the habit of deliberately excluding teleology. Not because it’s logically incoherent, but because it’s methodologically extraneous. Distracting.

This a deep historical and methodological tradition in science that for some is an article of faith. But it’s expensive and may be wrong. It’s like the Maginot Line which France built after WWI to prevent another German invasion. It cost billions of francs and dozens of years. It was largely useless once war came.

A New Paradigm for Science

We can imagine a new paradigm for science that completely overturns our approach to the universe by “turning the sock inside out.” What if science began with the goal of defining a vector – a purpose – for all things, instead of just trying to define its mechanics, a result of stuff, energy and coincidences? This view of nature sees it as dynamic and bounded. A boulder bounces wildly down a mountain. It looks like a chaos of tumbling but it really is following a glide path. There are places that it can go and places it cannot go and it has a certain destination.

Genes we once thought were junk have a “hard stop” that shows every individual of a species is in a feedback loop with the whole species to preserve its integrity. The baboon can’t mate successfully with a chimp because it costs the troop. Its DNA includes a mechanism to preserve the integrity of the whole species. Life is not just an endless blur of things bumping into each other, hoping that luck will produce a good outcome. The universe isn’t a Las Vegas casino. It’s a cruise ship heading somewhere. Boundaries and directions define a phenomenon as much its blind mechanics.

Let’s extend this model to see how it would work with two other of science’s enduring mysteries: life itself and consciousness.

Science offers no satisfactory explanation for how life began or how consciousness arises. What if we begin by assuming that both are “hard stops”? Instead of trying to punch through the barrier, we assume that the barrier is there for a reason. So what if it’s metaphysical? So is the assumption that everything is coincidental. Instead, science would look for the mechanisms of and reasons for the barrier. Nature just won’t let us build life from scratch or grow consciousness from the ground of brute supercomputation. We can specify the purpose of those boundaries once we discover the mechanistic explanations, just like with the hybrid problem, but we’d get there quicker. And if it confirms an old religious conviction – like kilayim – we might have to consider that there is a mystical unity and purpose in the natural world and everything in it.

In this new paradigm, scientists still don’t have to accept that these are boundaries created by a transcendent entity for a reason, but they may eventually come to the conclusion that that’s the most logical and efficient explanation.

David Porush


Endnotes


[1] “You shall observe My statutes: You shall not let your cattle [“kilayim“] mate with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff.” Leviticus 19:19, Deuteronomy 22:9–11

[2] Genesis 36:24

[3] Bereshit Rabbah 82:15

[4] The ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) Project was launched by the US National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in September 2003 as a follow-up to the Human Genome Project, with the aim of identifying all functional elements in the human genome. The ENCODE’s results, published in Nature and other journals in 2012, revealed that the vast majority of the human genome is absolutely not “junk” but has at least one specific purpose. This included specifying genes that enforce genetic boundaries. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3439153/; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE ; https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3438920/

[5] In house mice (Mus musculus) hybrid sterility is triggered by incompatibilities involving as few as two or three small chromosomes. These incompatibilities activate a genetic checkpoint during meiosis, preventing proper chromosome pairing and resulting in sterility, especially in hybrid males, enforcing the “hard stop”  barrier. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11518865/   In fruit flies (Drosophila), decades of research have revealed that hybrid males often suffer sterility due to X-autosome incompatibilities. These findings have been extended to other animals, where chromosomal rearrangements and specific gene incompatibilities act as robust “hard stops” to gene flow between diverging species. https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article%3Fid=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004088  

[6] Ramban on Leviticus 19:19

[7] Pesachim 54a

[8] See also Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (1958), Alfred North Whitehead Principia Mathematica (with Bertrand Russel, 1910-13), Thomas Nagel Mind and Cosmos (2012), Roger Penrose The Emperor’s New Mind (1989).

A couple of small questions about science and religion: Is a Cosmic Consciousness Involved Every Time an Egg is Fertilized? Can science and religion fertilize each other?

“A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton,” – Charles Darwin on God
 “We should not immediately refute any idea which comes to contradict anything in the Torah, but rather we should build the palace of Torah above it.” – Rav Avraham Yitzchok Kook, the first chief Ashkenazi rabbi of Palestine

Moment of fertilazation
“Moment of fertilization,” from 123rf.com

The fertilization tango

When does human life begin? Are there divine implications in the process? Before you make up your mind, how much do you know about what really happens when an egg is fertilized? It’s almost beyond belief in its complexity and mystery. When we delve it, right down to the part that gets mysterious, it invokes a metaphysical explanation.

Continue reading “A couple of small questions about science and religion: Is a Cosmic Consciousness Involved Every Time an Egg is Fertilized? Can science and religion fertilize each other?”

Are Jews a race, religion, nation, ethnicity, tribe, or … what?

This week, President Trump extended Title VI protections to Jews, alongside other students of race, color or national origin on campuses that receive federal funding. This kicked off what the media called “a firestorm.”  It was actually two controversies. First, do Title VI rules restrict freedom of speech (which only came up as a protest when Trump protected Jews, even though it’s a 1964 ruling. No comment). And second, are Jews like the other protected classes? What are Jews, exactly?

This is a debate even among Jews: Are we a race, a nation, an ethnic group, an extended family, a religion, or just a bunch of folks who like bagels and lox? All of these fit some Jews, but none of these fit all Jews, so what is going on? The question is particularly poignant because whatever Jews are, they keep popping up on the stage of history for over 3500 years.

There is a document that defines the essence of Jewish identity, a charter for membership in the gang we call Jews, if you will. It’s called the Torah, and it insists it originates in a divine ideal of what people and the world can be. Jews call this concept “holiness,” but the word is too loaded. Whether you believe it is literally true or not, the proposition that this document originates from God explains the transcendent power and persistence of Jewish identity, even among Jews who reject it. Something mystical seems to be going on that preserves the Jews against all odds. The fact that this essence doesn’t fit any of the usual categories may also explain why Jews are also so persistently reviled and persecuted among other nations. Continue reading “Are Jews a race, religion, nation, ethnicity, tribe, or … what?”

The Two Floods, Double Rainbows, and the Cosmic Limitations of Engineering

On double rainbows in Noah

A few years ago, my daughter showed me a viral video of a stoned guy blissing out on a double rainbow in Yosemite. “It’s … it’s a double rainbow!” He moans. “Oh my G-d, oh my G-d,” he repeats over and over, “It’s so bright.  Ohhhh, it’s so beautiful!” He breaks down in full-on sobbing, crying in a seizure of ecstasy. “What does it mean?” he asks, his mind blown.

I’m not sure, dude. But one thing you missed in your rapture is a curious phenomenon: look carefully and you can see that the colors of the second rainbow invert the usual order: VIBGYOR.

Double Rainbow
“Double Rainbow” by SlimJones123

As early as 1520 or so, the Jewish sage Sforno[i] noted that even by his time, the double rainbow was already a cliché.

“Scientists have already tired of trying to explain why the various colors of the second rainbow appear in the opposite order of the colors in the original rainbow.”[ii]

Nonetheless, he uses it to explain the rainbow following Noah’s flood. Since the ordinary rainbow already existed at the time of Creation, Sforno reasons, the actual rainbow displayed after the Flood must be this second rainbow, a much rarer and more startling sight (as our ecstatic friend saw in Yosemite). The reverse order of the colors are a warning:

 “When this rainbow appears it is high time to call people to order and to warn them of impending natural calamities unless they change their ways.”[iii]

Sforno’s insight made me think of another secret duality in Noah: there’s really not one but two floods in this weekly reading. I believe they’re connected. Continue reading “The Two Floods, Double Rainbows, and the Cosmic Limitations of Engineering”

 The Mystery of Mysteries” Part 2: The Bible’s Darwinian Experiment


NOTE: This is Part 2 of a three-part series about the mule, the hybrid problem in science, and ways in which Darwinism and the Jewish Bible illuminate each other. You can find the other parts here:

“God is the source not only of order but also novelty.” – John Haught, God after Darwin (Boulder: Westview, 2000) p. 182

The Five Books of Moses often shows surprising literary coherence that is so subtle, it belies the notion that it was written across a millenium by many different authors. 

Some connections across the whole text are so well-hidden it seems improbable that an author deliberately placed them there for later discovery, although we could always argue they are the result of gazing at the text too long and over-interpreting it like obsessive graduate students. The traditional approach by Jews to reading the Bible even promotes it. Assume nothing is there by accident because its author is Divine and utterly intentional. Every word, every letter, the cuts between words, the rhymes and puns and cross-allusions, even the decorative marks on individual letters, carry meaning. Also the Torah is frugal. If something seems weird or extraneous, it’s up to us to figure out why. So when we discover hidden meanings and parade them as proof of a divine Author, a skeptic would argue it’s tautological: of course you did because you assumed they’re there.

However, there are some allusions and connections that are provably impossible. They couldn’t have been intentional because their meaning only become clear when we make new discoveries about the world much later than even the latest possible composition of the Bible. Some of these are archeological, like Merenptah’s Stelae describing the plundering of Canaan and of Israel that wasn’t discovered until the late 19th century. [1]

One of these is hidden in an apparently extraneous comment about a breeder of mules, tucked into an otherwise boilerplate genealogy at the end of a later chapter of Genesis, Vayishlach. As we understand it through modern evolutionary theory, it actually ripples out to embrace a theme that plays throughout the Bible. Continue reading ” The Mystery of Mysteries” Part 2: The Bible’s Darwinian Experiment”

“The Mystery of Mysteries” Part 1: The stubbornness of the mule problem in Darwinian science and Jewish cosmology.

This is Part 1 of a three-part series about the mule, the hybrid problem in science, and ways in which Darwinism and the Jewish Bible illuminate each other. You can find the other parts here:

“Evolutionary theory coincides with the lofty doctrines of Kabbalah more than any other philosophical doctrine.” – R. Avraham I. Kook (1921)1
“[We may bring proof] from natural scientists for it is permissible to learn from them, for God’s spirit speaks through them. ” – R. Israel Lifschitz (1842)2
” [Man cannot] search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both.” – Francis Bacon, Advancement of Learning, (1605) quoted as an epigraph to Darwin’s Origin of the Species
““The modern synthesis is remarkably good at modeling the survival of the fittest, but not good at modeling the arrival of the fittest.”3

Torah and Darwin share a mule problem. Continue reading ““The Mystery of Mysteries” Part 1: The stubbornness of the mule problem in Darwinian science and Jewish cosmology.”

Torah as Song

“Now therefore write down for yourselves this song [shirah], and teach it to the people of Israel; put it in their mouths, that this song may be my witness … for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed”  Deutoronomy 31:19-21

“Sing every day, sing every day,” – Rabbi Akiva quoted in Sanhedrin (99a)

The first letters of the Torah when rearranged say שיר תאו  [‘shir ta’ev’] “A song of desire.” – Attributed to R. Isaac Luria

 

When great poems get canonized in anthologies for college courses, they usually come thick with stuff that is supposed to help the student: short introductions, footnotes, annotations, guides, accent marks. They disambiguate inscrutable lines, point out cross-references and themes within the poem, and note the allusions to other texts and events that make the poem otherwise impenetrable. But the very density of these aids may have the opposite effect on the poor student. It also says, There’s even more of this out there. You gotta be a pro to really get it. Maybe that’s why most people can go very merrily through their whole lives without reading another poem after graduating high school.

The Torah is also like this. The newbie coming on the scene of the Jewish interpretive tradition stares down 73 volumes of the Schottenstein Talmud and millions of pages of other commentaries. Where do you begin? How can any human scale the mountain of interpretation?

But what if we approach the Torah, that densest of texts, like music? What if we treat it not first and foremost as a history of the birth of a nation or as a collection of dos and don’ts, or not even an elaborate assemblage of narratives, myths, and laws in prose, but rather as one very long song? And what if it even tells us so itself, I’m a song. Write me down and sing me through all your generations? Our assignment, to achieve enlightenment, becomes easier, less discouraging, and even joyful. Continue reading “Torah as Song”

The Quantum Theology of Cheese


Abrtaham + 3 Angels eeckhout 1656
Abraham and the Three Angels”  Gerbrand van den Eeckhout (1656)

“[Abraham] then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.”
– Genesis 18:8

Consider the miracle and mystery of cheese. You take milk. You combine it with the sloughed-off lining of the stomach of a calf called rennet. Store it away and in a few days or weeks and voila! We got cheese!

Neolithic tribes worshiped cheese. Since then, cheese has been intimately entwined with civilization. But for Jews, cheese poses a special problem. The Torah forbids Jews to cook the meat of the kid with the milk of the mother, possibly because of its intrinsic cruelty. In the mystical tradition, milk represents mother’s nurturing and it comes from sheep and cows and goats, animals we domesticate and nurture. Meat requires spilling blood. It is predatory and reminds us of our bestial natures. Milk, then, needs to be protected from meat. They should never touch, and when they have to interact, Jews erect barriers in time and space to separate them. Over the centuries, this has evolved into an elaborate system of kosher rules separating all meat foods from anything that has touched milk. So while serving our body’s need for sustenance by eating milk and meat, kosher laws remind us of the sources of our food. We discipline our cognizance and actions in eating them at separate times off of separate dishes and cooking them in separate pots. Kosher eating is mindful eating.

With all this invested in the barrier between the two realms, then how is it possible that cheese, made with lining from a cow’s stomach, somehow gets an exemption?  The sages of the Talmud give us what seems like a technical reason, but as Aeschylus said, “Wrong should not get by on a technicality.” If we look closely though, we’ll see that the technicality anticipates discoveries only recently made by science. The details of their apparent foreknowledge suggests that the Torah is a channel for knowing things that are only slowly revealed over the millenia by science. To put it more simply, though as a rational modern I resist this conclusion, it seems science is catching up to wisdom revealed thousands of years ago to the Jews. To see that this is more than just a coincidence and the Talmud’s technicalities reveal a true understanding of the science of cheese, we’ll have to dip into we’ve learned more recently about the science behind the magic of cheese. Continue reading “The Quantum Theology of Cheese”

The Quantum Theology of Matzah: Science delves the spiritual mysteries of yeast

Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread; on the very first day you shall remove leaven from your houses, for whoever eats leavened bread from the first day to the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. (Ex 12:15)

What’s the difference between bread and matzah?

Screen Shot 2017-04-18 at 11.16.48 PMThe youngest child at the Passover seder asks, “Why on other nights do we eat bread or matzah but on this night only matzah?”  The Torah says that the matzah didn’t have time to rise before the slaves had to flee Egypt, so Jews focus on this inflation and all its many symbolisms: inflation of self, of ego, of pride, of valuing material achievements, Pharaoh’s  tyrannical sense of himself as a deity, and so on.

But this answer skips over a more fundamental question: Isn’t matzah really, after all, just bread? Both matzah and bread are just flour, and water, so aren’t they just versions of the same thing?  If they’re different, what’s the difference? What makes bread bread and matzah matzah? Why do we say an extra prayer over matzah?

The simplest answer is yeast. But what does yeast do? Yeast makes flour and water into bread. Yeast makes bread rise. It also makes grapes into wine. Grape juice is just a soft drink, but wine is literally a spirit. A cracker is a good delivery platform for dip, but bread is the staff of life itself. Wine leavens our spirit. Bread sates. It’s no wonder humans worshiped bread and wine for thousands of years and even now many religions still sanctify them and use them to sanctify us. And it’s no wonder the Passover haggadah calls matzah “the bread of affliction.” Matzah is dead bread. Yeast adds life to inert foodstuffs, transforming them magically into something spiritual. By ingesting wine and bread, we take some of that magic into us.

Humans recognized and harnessed the magical properties of yeast millenia before they learned to write 5000 years ago, but we are now just discovering the truly mysterious – even mystical – properties of  yeast, and these new scientific discoveries seem to answer our questions about matzah. In other words, science gives us a window into the spiritual mysteries of yeast.

The quantum biology of yeast and enzymes: gateway between life and death

Yeast is a single-celled living creature. When we let these creatures feed on their favorite food – sugar or carbohydrates – they digest it into sugar’s components: energy, alcohol, carbon dioxide, and some residue molecules that add flavors. Even pre-literate cultures were in awe of the way yeast brought bread and wine to life and worshiped it as divine. Now, modern biology is coming to grips with this ancient wisdom: yeast is the gateway between the living and the inert. But how, precisely, does it perform this trick? After tens of thousands of years, the new science of quantum biology has finally given us a glimpse of how yeast performs its magic.

The process the ancients observed as a result of yeast’s action is bubbling, rising fermentation – chemists call it catalysis. In the cooler processing of wine, the alcohol is retained in the liquid for our pleasure. Carbon dioxide is partly released when wine is moved in barrels. Some winemakers leave some of this carbon dioxide in the wine, and wine with lots of it is nicknamed “bubbly- like champagne – but most wine is “degassed.” When we bake bread, we don’t get drunk on it because the higher heat of baking evaporates the alcohol, but like it does in wine, the carbon dioxide gas creates bubbles. These expand and burst in the sticky dough, giving bread its texture.

High school chemistry labs often use yeast as an example of enzymatic activity. But what they didn’t teach us, because chemistry isn’t etymology, is that enzyme is just the Greek for “in yeast.”

Enzymes are present in all living things. They are incorporated into every living cell on Earth and are essential in every process that sustains life: digestion, neural action, making new cells and repairing old ones (growth and healing), reproduction, and so on. They’re not organisms, but no organism or living process survives without them. In short, they’re a good battleground for the eternal philosophical war between materialists and vitalists. Materialists believe the universe and everything in it, including humans and human consciousness, is a vast machine. It is made up only of physical things and the physical processes or forces between them. Vitalists argue that there is a meta-physical force in the universe that animates all life, a force that cannot be reduced to mechanical explanations. Human consciousness illustrates the problem and limitation of materialism: how does our experience of having a mind arise from mere stuff? Fundamentalist materialists argue that everything can be explained ultimately, by self-consistent systems of reason, like logic or mathematics. Religious vitalists argue that the metaphysical force is divine. And although there’s plenty of fake news and overheated press that periodically announces it, no one has ever created life from non-living stuff. No frankensteins, though the dream and nightmare of achieving godlike powers haunts humanity.

Yeast is so powerful a stage for this contest between mechanism and vitalism because although it is a living thing, science until recently seemed confident it was purely a chemical machine. True, how yeast and other enzymes brought life to non-living stuff so efficiently was still mysterious, but in the debate, yeast offered the best proof for the materialist view of life. It seemed to explain how life is introduced into inert matter without resort to purely non-mechanistic explanations. Until now.

It turns out that enzymes require quantum effects to do their work, and quantum mechanics defy a strictly materialist view of the cosmos. Quantum physics defies logic, though we’ve learned to use it in MRIs and computer chips, and most scientists and engineers simply put aside the way quantum mechanics rattles the foundations of science. In the majority version of quantum theory, every quantum process requires an aware being, an observer, to watch it work in order for it to become real. This has mind-boggling implications, not least of which is it hints at the essence we invoke when we say the extra prayer over matzah. In order for me to explain, I first need to review the craziness of the quantum world.

Five weird things about quantum mechanics

To most, even sophisticated scientists, quantum mechanics seems just weird. There’s no way to explain quantum processes without over-simplifying or resorting to analogies which only dimly picture its actual, full-on weirdness. But here are a few of the facts that you will need to know as we continue with our discussion of matzah. I leave it to you to decide how, or even if, you want to grapple any of it yourself:

  1. Sub-atomic entities behave like both waves of energy and particles at the same time.
  2. A sub-atomic entity isn’t in any one specific place until you observe it. Then it seems to settle on one. (Called “the Uncertainty Principle”)
  3. A single sub-atomic particle can be in two places at once. But if you affect one, its other self will react, even if they are separated by millions of miles. (Called “Superposition”)
  4. They can pass through otherwise impassible-seeming barriers and travel faster than the speed of light, and both backwards and forwards in time. (Called “Quantum Tunneling”)
  5. A subatomic particle holds multiple possible logically exclusive properties at the same time. When it is observed or measured, it “collapses” from its various possible quantum states into one state. I.e,. it stops behaving quantumly and starts behaving classically. (Called “Measurement”)

Quantum tunneling in yeast

To understand the quantum theology of matzah, the last is the most important. Until now, biologists have been content to leave the weirdness of the quantum world to physicists, because they thought they were immune to it. Biologists assumed there was an unbreachable barrier between the sub-atomic world of quantum weirdness and the macroscopic world of biology, which conveniently remained obedient to classical laws of physics. Thankfully (they believed) subatomic monkey business disappears when it pokes its head up into an organism, because the complexity of the organism automatically “measures” (observes) it, though no one specified how. They now seem to be really wrong. It’s awkward.

Resurrected by water, living yeast seems to make the inert come alive. Yeast explodes the flat mound of dough and makes it rise as little bubbles of alcohol explode inside. It adds tastes by creating new molecules. But what was once thought to be a classical, if incompletely understood, mechanical process, we now know requires quantum tunneling (see above, #4).

If you’d rather nap, this is a good time

Here’s the technical explanation: an enzyme in yeast takes a positively charged sub-atomic particle, the proton from the alcohol it has created, and transfers it to another molecule. This new molecule, with the addition of its extra proton, now has a positive charge. Like a magnet, it now attracts molecules carrying a negatively charged particle, the electron. So the new molecule that the yeast created (called nicotinamide alcohol dehydrase or NADH) becomes a very effective carrier and releasor of electrons. With NADH, the ingredients can now perform their actions very quickly, hundreds of times more efficiently. It’s like the brew now has an electric current running through it, with electrons able to hitch a ride and jump off when a chemical reaction needs an extra jolt of energy to make it happen.

So far so good. This is all safe, mechanical chemistry.

As it turns out, though, the speed at which electrons get transferred from alcohol to NAD+ to make NADH cannot be explained by classical chemistry. Quantum tunneling, number three on our list of weird quantum effects above, can. Again, at the risk of over-simplifying, a subatomic particle like an electron can travel across barriers instantaneously by using its superpower of quantum tunneling. As this effect occurs among millions of molecules in the dough, it speeds up the process enough for biologists to conclude it must be involved.[1] Since quantum tunneling have been confirmed in the activities of other enzymes, this is more than a guess.

This neat explanation of the quantum role in enzymatic action leaves one huge mystery, though: In order for the transport of the electron to occur, it can’t be just a probability, and in order for it to be more than a probability, it has to be observed or measured. The quantum Uncertainty – the electron can be here or there and therefore nowhere at all, really – has to become classical behavior: I see it now. Until now, biologists, scientists and other materialists have maintained that the sheer bulk and realism of the organism in which the quantum action occurs somehow collapses any quantum craziness, that the fact of the organism as a macroscopic entity itself performs the “observing.” But that argument no longer holds water and even seems like a tautology, fabulous circular reasoning, because enzymes drag quantum action and weirdness into the scene of the organism at every level. Enzymes, and the quantum, is ubiquitous in every process of every cell in an organism.

Wake up

In short, enzymes seem to be the essence of life itself.

“Enzymes have made and unmade every living cell that lives or has ever lived. Enzymes are as close as anything to the vital factors of life. …. [T]he discovery that enzymes work by promoting the dematerialization of particles from one point in space and their instantaneous materialization in another provides us with a novel insight into the mystery of life.”

– Johnjoe McFadden, Jim Al-Khalili, Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology  (Broadway Books, Jul 26, 2016) p. 97

There’s simply too much quantum funny business going on everywhere in a living being to say one part of the organism is classical and collapses the other part that is quantum just by dint of being a big thing like a fish or a bird.

Another way materialists banish the quantum: the Many Worlds Hypothesis

Scientists have resolved the measurement problem another way. When the wave of quantum possibilities collapses into an actuality, the information contained in those probabilities has to go somewhere. Information, like energy, has its own law of conservation in the universe. Some quantum physicists suggest that instead of collapsing the quantum into the classical through observation, every time a quantum event collapses into a classical one, other universes are spawned. All the other probabilities that didn’t occur here do occur there, in these new universes. This is the Many Worlds Hypothesis, although I personally think the adjective “many” doesn’t do justice to its hyperbolic claim. The Many Worlds Hypothesis is mathematically satisfying and sidesteps any suggestion of metaphysics. But let’s look at how radical it really is.

There are a virtually infinite set of quantum events occurring everywhere at every instant everywhere in an organism, let alone the whole universe. Each of them would create an incalculable set of alternate universes. Now imagine all the quantum processes going on all over the universe every instant, each one spawning an alternative universe of its own, presumably where the same laws of physics apply so they are spawning and infinity of multiverses, too. When I do the dizzying visualization of this scenario, it leads me to ask: Which is the more ridiculous vision of the cosmos, the one where there are unlimited infinities of universes or there is a Single Entity observing everything? In my opinion, the Multiverse Hypothesis creates a vision of the cosmos that is at least as crazy as imagining an unprovable Big Guy in the Sky watching everything.

But who knows? That’s what they said about quantum theory in the twentieth century. And that’s what most well-educated, postmodern, rational, sophisticated people say about God.

Quantum theology of matzah: Where is He?

Quantum theology is a term used by a few but growing number of theologians and mystics. On one side of this philosophical tug of war are enthusiasts eager to seize on quantum theory to prove the existence of God. Many of their essays and speculations are plagued by vagueness, weak understanding of science, and an over-heated, optimistic leap into the irrational analogies between quantum science and the mystical. Their “proofs” often require taking analogous-sounding mysteries as literal equivalents. Quantum theology is largely the provenance of well-educated but reductionist fundamentalists.

On the other is a simple but rigorous contention

The case of yeast is different. In this dance between the material and the vital, between science and faith, science leads us to conclude something strange is happening in bread that doesn’t occur in matzah. The new science of quantum biology shows quite specifically how the process of life itself depends on quantum action. In every possible process where life is created or sustained, enzymatic action is involved. And with quantum action comes the requirement that someone or something is observing the process. The nose of the quantum camel, and the problem of a conscious observer, has entered the tent of biology, but they were summoned by the biology. In fact, the tent is the camel. Something or someone has to be observing quantum events in enzymes to make them operative in life. Someone or something has to be operating life. Omnisciently.

Sermon on Matzah

Put biophysics together with the metaphysics of matzah and you get many powerful sermons. Matzah is bread without human attention (shmurah matzah notwithstanding) and without the attention of a Cosmic Consciousness. It represents enslavement to inert material. It is both literally the bread of affliction, the food of slaves, and symbolically life without redemption from our inner Egypt, the body without a soul. Matzah invokes a God who redeemed the Children of Israel from slavery more than three thousand years ago and Who continues to operate the universe today by attending to its every quantum event. He is an incomprehensibly vast God Who observes every infinitesimal event, all the infinite infinitesimal events that occur every instant to sustain each living cell of each living organism. This is a God that watches everything actively. This God expands and unfolds His Cognizance as vastly, but more comprehensibly, than the universes imagined by the Many Worlds Hypothesis, where every quantum event creates disconnected alternatives. This God gives the universe an elegant unity. His watchfulness also makes life possible. It’s hard not to like this God and this idea of Him. Unless of course you find the very idea of anything not mechanical offensive to reason.

So one of the sermons on matzah is a kabbalistic one. Isaac Luria, the 16th century mystic of Safed, explains that the three matzahs on the seder plate represent Knowledge, Understanding, and Wisdom. Matzah invites us to stretch our scientific wisdom to its fullest extent beyond enslavement to our preconceptions, confirmation of our biases. It suggests the liberation of science from its prejudices. Is it really harder to believe in God than in the Multiverse Hypothesis? I don’t think so. The benefits of embracing both the intrinsic beauty of the metaphysical explanation and the elegance of its logic make a pretty persuasive case against scientific atheism. From the outside looking in, all the attempts to exclude a Universal Observer from the quantum situation look like contortions by science to avoid the obvious, the result of a fundamentalist-like commitment to a belief that there must not be a God in the universe.

This message in the matzah makes it the twin of Elijah’s cup, its secret sharer and, perhaps, the answer to the question it poses. One seder decades ago, when my children saw Elijah’s cup standing at the end of the seder, they asked, “Where is he?”

The matzah asks the same question about God: “Where is He?” and answers, “Not in this poor, dead bread that we eat because we are slaves. But yes, in everything that lives.”


[1] Prof. Judith Klinman of UC Berkeley first suggested that quantum processes were involved in the enzymatic action in 1987. She has more recently found experimental evidence for it. See, for instance, Judith P. Klinman and Amnon Kohen, “Hydrogen Tunneling Links Protein Dynamics to Enzyme Catalysis,” Annual Rev Biochem. 2013; 82: 471-496.

[2] Chasidus, which channeled Kabbalistic thought for common Jews, saysemphasizes the symbolism of the miraculous in matzah. By commemorating our redemption from Egypt in something so ordinary, we also rehearse the transformation of Hebrew destiny from the fantastic, demonstrably miraculous to the miraculousness of ordinary life, what we call reality.  “The symbolic acts that we, ‎the descendants of the generation of Israelites leaving Egypt at ‎that time, perform on the anniversary of that event, all reflect ‎the suddenness and haste in which the redemption literally ‎overtook them. These acts mirror the impact that G’d’s miracles ‎had on the Jews at that time. In contrast to this, when the same ‎people arrived in the desert of Sinai, prior to receiving the Torah, ‎seven weeks later, they had time to prepare themselves for that ‎event for three days, i.e. the miracles that occurred in connection ‎with that event did not take them by surprise. By that time they ‎had come to realize that G’d’s performing miracles was something ‎‎“natural,” not supernatural, seeing that the source of these ‎‎“miracles” was the same Creator Who had performed the greatest ‎miracles by creating the universe. When they reflected that out ‎of all the phenomena in the universe that they were aware of it ‎was only G’d Who could have created them by merely uttering ‎the necessary words, they no longer needed “miracles” to ‎persuade them that there was such a power, [even though ‎it remained invisible. Ed.] To reflect their new found ‎insights, the offerings presented on the festival of Shavuot did ‎not require matzah as a symbol of the Israelites’ recognition ‎that their redemption had been a miracle, in the sense of ‎something supernatural performed by G’d.‎” Kedushat Levi, Exodus, Pekudei 4

Perpetual Chanukah in the West – or – Why the Pythagorean Theorem is More Than Just Math

’כהיומ הזה’ – “…even like today” – Chanukah prayer
This is dedicated to my son, Avraham Benyamin (Ben) Porush, whose birthday is the first day of Chanukah and bris the last.

Why does the Talmud warn against teaching Greek to Jewish children?

Pythagoras traveled through the Middle East for twelve years, imbibing Egyptian & Jewish philosophy.

The last pages of the Talmud volume Sotah portrays the decline of Jewish spirit after the destruction of the Temple. It marches through a long, dispiriting list of the horrible things that happen as Jews have to abandon customs that could only be kept alive when there was a spiritual center in Jerusalem and they lived as a nation inside their own borders.

In the middle of this lamentation (called Yeridas HaDoros – “decline of the generations”), the Talmud warns somewhat mysteriously that fathers shouldn’t teach Greek to their sons.What did the Sages have in mind? They can’t have meant Greek language, because the Rabbis were conversant with Greek and spoke it in the streets of Jerusalem. By the first century CE, and almost certainly earlier, it had displaced Hebrew as the lingua franca. And in various places in the Talmud, Greek is praised as the only language into which the Torah can be elegantly translated. Indeed, Sotah itself recounts a lament of Shimon ben Gamliel, the great Sage (50 CE) that shows how much the rabbis thought of Greek:

Continue reading “Perpetual Chanukah in the West – or – Why the Pythagorean Theorem is More Than Just Math”