חדש באתר: NotebookLM עם כל תכני הרב מיכאל אברהם. דומה למיכי בוט.

The Hereafter, the Hazla'i, leads to wonder about the Torah from heaven

שו"תThe Hereafter, the Hazla'i, leads to wonder about the Torah from heaven
שאל לפני 2 שנים

Hello Rabbi!
 
I have read the fifth notebook in the first commandment, From Deism to Theism, several times. Let us assume that there is indeed a Creator who is interested in His creatures, with His purpose being man and to whom He wants to explain the purpose of the universe. There are two possibilities – either He has already been revealed, or it has not happened yet, we do not know. The rabbi wrote in his book a number of data that strengthen the possibility that the Torah of Israel is indeed the Torah of truth. However, even if we bring possible support (such as the argument of the witness, the uniqueness of theology, the uniqueness of the people of Israel), this is still not sufficient. We must examine whether the Torah in question meets the criterion of being written by the Almighty Creator. When we approach this issue, we encounter a rather problematic contradiction. The Torah promises in many places a reward for keeping the commandments, and in all of them it is about material reward. Your material rains in their season, so that your days on earth may be prolonged, and so on and so forth. It turns out that the Torah, that book of the Almighty Creator, who did incredibly sophisticated things, promises us a material reward for keeping the commandments. In practice, this is not the case. 'Others' have already seen this and have been amazed, and even today – it is clear that the economic situation in heretical Tel Aviv is much higher than that of believing Bnei Brak. In short – the criterion by which the Torah lets us examine it, whether it is indeed the words of the living God, does not stand the test of reality.
 
Following this, the sages came and explained that it is about the next world, and that reward and punishment are not in this world at all. Today, after we learn about the Zoroastrian religion that dominated Persia, we know that it is no coincidence that throughout the Bible there is no hint of this, but in the sages this is a simple concept (all Israel has a part in the next world). The Persians are the ones who brought the idea of ​​the next world, such as the resurrection of the dead and the Messiah, and so on and so forth. And see the book "Good, Evil and the World: A Journey to Pre-Islamic Iran". Therefore, the excuse of 'the reward is in the next world' does not hold, because that is not what the Torah intended, or at least it can be said that it is the most plausible.
 
It follows from this that we can assume with some certainty that the Torah is not from heaven, because it makes promises and does not fulfill them, and that is not what I would expect from an omnipotent Creator, who knows how to construct a singular point that will expand precisely to the people reading this text now, and who can cause the sea to split in two.
 
By the way, this recurring motif also appears in the Sota parsha. The Torah offers us a way to test her, to give the Sota a drink of the bitter, cursed water, and if she deviated – she will die. I remember how when I studied Tractate Sota, I was shocked by how the Sages simply uprooted the entire miracle. 'The right hangs on her,' and all sorts of other lame excuses. According to this, it is possible to understand why. The Sages, during the second verse, are shocked at how this thing doesn't work. Therefore, they make very lame excuses to explain it.
 
These are the only two places I can think of where God supposedly invites us to check whether this is indeed the book He wrote, in both cases it doesn't work, and in both cases the Sages completely distort every way to check this. From this we can reach the conclusion that even if God does indeed want to reveal Himself, He has not yet done so, or at least He has not done so in Judaism, because we see that the most basic thing I would expect from a book by the Almighty Creator of the universe – to keep His promises – simply does not exist here.
 
I would love to know what you think, and in general whether you believe in the afterlife and why.
 
Thanks in advance!


לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

השאר תגובה

0 Answers
מיכי צוות ענה לפני 2 שנים
I disagree with your logic and methodology. I don't think examining the Torah carries that much weight. If I have come to the conclusion that there is a God and that it is likely that He will command, and there is a tradition that He commanded, then that is a strong argument. Now if I don't understand something in the Torah then I will remain in the B'A'K, but that is not necessarily a critical issue. Regarding the rewards that the Torah promises, I explained that the policy has changed over the generations. See for example here: https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=f18e4f052adde49eb&q=https://mikyab.net/%25D7%259B%25D7%25AA%25D7%2591%25D7%2599%25D7%259D/%25D7%259E%25D7%2590%25D7%259E%25D7%25A8%25D7%2599%25D7%259D/%25D7%2597%25D7%2599%25D7%25A4%25D7 %2595%25D7%25A9-%25D7%2590%25D7%2597%25D7%25A8-%25D7%2590%25D 7%259C%25D7%2595%25D7%2594%25D7%2599%25D7%259D-%25D7%2591%25D 7%25A2%25D7%2595%25D7%259C%25D7%259D/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwio_aeoge-EAxWp_AIHHRLPBmoQFnoECAAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1BTIxD4pSSeoItfvFfqcnm Regarding the debauchery of another, it can be explained in several other ways. The Torah promises all sorts of things, but there are additional considerations involved in the matter. Like what the Rabbis wrote regarding the one who separated on the cup, he was given male children. And we have seen many who separated and did not receive children. And in explanation of the matter, it is true that they separated on the cup, but there are other considerations regarding the children (for example, in the sin of vows, a person's children die). Therefore, in practice, you will not always see the result. One case where it does not come true does not mean anything. It is like a medicine that does not work. It is likely that if a systematic, scientific test were conducted (with a sample and control group), it would yield a statistical difference, meaning that those who distinguish between the two will have more sons. But such a test has not been conducted. And the same is true for the longevity of another person. See my article on validity at length. The question of whether this is why Awva was invented, here again there is a fallacy. You assume that correlation is necessarily causation, but this is of course a mistake that statisticians have often made fun of. It is true that there may be a difficulty (although not really difficult, and so on), and it is true that only the Sages speak of Awva and not in the Torah, but you conclude from this that the Sages invented it to address the difficulty. This is a very rash conclusion. Correlation is not causation. The same is true regarding the historical correlation to Zarathustra. And the same is true regarding your explanation of the heretic and the words of the Sages there. There is a possibility that this is a tradition that was passed down orally, like other halachic and other traditions. You asked what my opinion was on the matter. I wrote in the second book of my trilogy and in other places I don't know. You may be right and it's an invention and you may not be and it's an oral tradition from Sinai.

לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

השאר תגובה

Back to top button