Q&A: Human Dignity Versus a Command
Human Dignity Versus a Command
Question
Good evening.
The conclusion of the Talmud is that human dignity overrides a commandment only in a passive way.
My question is: after all, the distinction between active and passive is only with respect to the manner of carrying out the commandment, but with respect to violating the command itself, what significance does that have?
Answer
See our article on the sixth root; at the end there is a discussion of this. The medieval authorities (Rishonim) and later authorities (Acharonim) disagreed whether this is a distinction between a prohibition and a positive commandment, or between violating through positive action and violating through passive omission.
Discussion on Answer
I didnt understand the question. According to your approach, in every dispute, even one that does not deal with facts, studying the incorrect opinion is not Torah study. Unless, in your view, in a non-factual dispute there is no truthbut here I disagree with you. Studying an incorrect opinion is Torah study, so long as it is done with the tools and within the framework of Torah. About this the Sages said: “Everything that a veteran/young student will one day innovate was said to Moses at Sinai.”
As for the question itself, in my opinion there is halakhic truth both in a factual dispute and in a halakhic dispute. And even so, studying the other opinion is Torah. True, once I have already reached a conclusion, there is no point in studying the other opinion, especially in a factual context.
In a halakhic dispute, even the side that is not the halakhic ruling is still Torah, because it contains an aspect of truth; only the side that is the actual ruling is the truer truth. Its not that the side that is not the ruling is an error. But in a factual dispute, its a question of yes or no, so my question is whether and how “these and those” applies there. And whether and why that counts as Torah study.
More generally, one has to understand why the study of facts is Torah study. Or perhaps only the norms derived from the facts, if there are any, count as Torah study?
In my opinion, regardless of the dispute question, facts are not Torah. I discussed this at length in the second book of the trilogy (in the chapter on Torah study). With regard to facts there is also no authority (see there).
But even if facts were Torah, there would still be room to study them despite the dispute. Delving into historical topics is historical research, even if one side is right and the other is mistaken. Beyond that, there are almost no facts without interpretation, and there a dispute is certainly possible.
In factual disputes, does the rule of “these and those” also apply? If not, then when I study the incorrect opinion I am not fulfilling the commandment of Torah study.