Q&A: Debate with Yaron Yadan
Debate with Yaron Yadan.
Question
Hello Rabbi.
First of all, more power to you for the debate.
Second, several things are not sufficiently clear.
1. The same calculation — “the assumption that if a world was created, then apparently there is a purpose intended by the one who created it, and he is supposed to inform us of it in some way” — could also be made by a non-Jew, except that he would run into a dead end, because he has no such tradition. a0 a0
2. The fact that there is a book that obligates the Jewish man, and that it contains things that are not moral, is not resolved by dividing things into two binding systems, the halakhic one and the moral one. Unless it is established with certainty that the halakhic system was definitely given from Heaven. As long as that has not been proven, even if it is reasonable to conduct oneself according to this book [following the meeting point between the tradition and the assumption that there ought to be instructions], still, how can anti-moral halakhic instructions override the moral imperative?
3. The division into two separate systems is contradicted by the words of Maimonides in Guide for the Perplexed, Part III. And more… This claim was raised during the debate. Aside from the answer that there is no pretension to represent their views, I did not hear a fitting response. It seems that Maimonides’ words on such a foundational issue deserve attention.
More power to you.
Answer
1. The non-Jew was also supposed to receive a tradition about the revelation at Mount Sinai, his seven commandments, and our commandments. The monotheists at least did receive this.
2. I think I answered that (maybe it was with Rogel Alpher). This obviously depends on your level of confidence, the halakhic severity, and the moral cost. You cannot determine categorically that one side always overrides the other.
3. Then address it. I am presenting my position. When I work for you, I’ll be happy to provide the service you ask for.
Discussion on Answer
Everyone was supposed to receive it. Some of them messed up and didn’t pass it on. Any person can investigate and discover this.
Regarding question 2, you do in fact state categorically that Jewish law overrides morality; you’re just saying, I’m not sure that this is the Jewish law, but if it is clear to me that this is the Jewish law, then it will override.
That is only one aspect of the relationship between Jewish law and morality. In certain situations, even if I am confident that this is the Jewish law, morality will override it. As in a transgression for the sake of Heaven. In the case of a direct divine command that inherently conflicts with a moral value (not accidentally), it will depend only on my level of confidence.
Thank you very much for the answer.
1. What would the answer be regarding those that are not monotheistic? In light of the Rabbi’s words, every human being is supposed to be exposed to instructions for how to conduct himself in the world. And given that factually this is not so, perhaps the assumption is mistaken. Likewise regarding monotheism: the fact that in Judaism there is a clear preference for the God of Abraham and the Torah of Israel seemingly casts doubt on the assumption that the expectation of that “Torah of Israel” for our belief is because, de facto, the Torah reached us. Because that applies to every tradition.
2. Understood.
3. It wasn’t a demand. It came from the impression that the Rabbi does not ignore foundational positions within Judaism. I was mistaken.