Q&A: War Without an Enemy
War Without an Enemy
Question
Hello Rabbi,
As I understood your view, it doesn’t matter to you whether the source of commandments like tefillin or Sabbath observance in its practical form (the thirty-nine categories of labor), etc., goes back to the time of Moses or developed a month later. What matters is the tradition (an assumption backed by sources) that was transmitted, and that is the source and authority we have.
And regarding whether there needs to be a reason for doing the commandments, you bring up the moral issue, where the answer is simply “that’s how it is” because there is a general understanding of the matter.
If I’m misunderstanding you, I’d be happy for you to correct me.
I just don’t understand how, if you aspire to do something real and meaningful, and if there is a commandment that clearly came for a certain reason—whether it relates to the spirit of the time, in the obligation of commandments as something that came in opposition to some “Western” conception of that period, or as an ideological resistance to it (like sacrifices, which are a reasonable struggle against idolatry rather than a total cancellation of the ritual itself)—then if that struggle has already passed from the world, what reason is there to keep doing it? It’s not like morality, whose idea is timeless.
Most commandments really are temporary and connected to the period in which they were given. If the Torah were given today, the commandments would probably be different; they are not eternal. There is a reason, there is a struggle, it is not static and timeless.
And I can’t understand why one should keep the same commandments when the struggle they came for is no longer relevant.
And if you reject what I’m saying, then just one question: if there were a commandment that came in response to a specific struggle against an ancient Western idea, would you observe it today? I’d be happy if you could elaborate.
And if you can, please also refer me to articles you’ve written on this topic.
Answer
I didn’t understand the entire description above.
But in my view, the commandments are not temporary. They were stated in language suited to their time. Beyond that, even if circumstances have changed, and even if the commandments really were suited to their time, there is value in preserving them in and of itself, if only as obedience to the command of the Holy One, blessed be He.
There are laws (not necessarily commandments) for which the relevant reality really has changed, and they indeed are no longer in force. The eradication of Amalek. The destruction of idolatry in a certain sense. “Do not form separate factions” (two synagogues in one city), and the like.
There is no point in discussing such a general question. If you want to discuss it, you can raise one example commandment and discuss that.
Discussion on Answer
In two respects: 1. There is value in obedience itself, even if the command itself has no benefit. This can be countered by saying that if the circumstances have changed, then this is no longer the correct divine command. 2. There is value in the stability of the system. That is true in any legal system as well. This was already noted in the homilies of Ran, who says that one should obey the Sanhedrin even if you are certain they are mistaken, and the damage caused by the mistake is offset by the benefit of obedience (alternatively: the damage from non-obedience outweighs the damage from obedience).
When is there a distinction between relevant obedience and irrelevant obedience?
If one clearly sees that the command was given in accordance with the period and came in opposition to idolatry, why can’t it be removed?
And most of the time, when we speak of obedience, we’re talking about rabbinic enactments and temporary ordinances, not direct speech or even a derivative of it—for example ritual hand-washing, which came in the wake of temples of idol worshipers in Jerusalem.
“Purity and Community in Antiquity: The Traditions of Jewish law between Second Temple Judaism and the Mishnah”
A recommended book regarding the issue of purity laws, and it explains ritual hand-washing there.
You are assuming many broad assumptions and mixing together different halakhic categories. That’s why I asked for one example to discuss.
I just bought your trilogy; I’ll read it and see whether afterward I still have questions, because I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable about the assumptions I’m working from in order to discuss them (I thought I was).
In any case, thank you very much!
You wrote: “And even if the commandments really were suited to their time, there is value in preserving them in and of itself, if only as obedience to the command of the Holy One, blessed be He.”
Why? After all, He did not intend to apply them to such a reality.