Q&A: The Morality of the Torah and the Validity of Its Authority
The Morality of the Torah and the Validity of Its Authority
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi,
I just watched your debate with Yaron Yadan from about ten months ago, and it raised a number of questions for me. I apologize in advance for the length, but it is Torah and I need to learn…
- You argue that the Torah is an independent legal system unrelated to moral values, and that each of these two systems stands on its own. On that, a few questions:
- I saw that you were already asked on the site about the verse, “For that is your wisdom and your understanding…,” and you answered that, on the contrary, according to the usual understanding this is difficult, since we plainly see that the Torah does not arouse admiration among the nations. You further objected that the verse mentions statutes, meaning commandments without an evident rationale, and so you proposed that the verse means that the nations see, from the test of results, that the Jewish people are successful and wise, and from that conclude that their Torah is good and true.
But the wording of the verse is, “who shall hear all these statutes and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people”—meaning that this statement comes in response to hearing the statutes themselves, not from observing the people of Israel.
As for the objections you raised themselves, it would seem that they answer one another. Hearing the ordinances—the logical and straightforward commandments—should not in itself arouse any special admiration among the nations. They too have these more or less. It is דווקא hearing the statutes that are not self-evident that arouses admiration, but of course that admiration comes only when they understand the depth and idea behind those statutes. Obviously every statute in the Torah has some rationale and idea behind it (I think you yourself wrote about this here not long ago regarding divine decrees), only one must delve and study deeply to get to the root of the matter. Once one understands the depth of wisdom hidden in it, this can certainly arouse admiration and appreciation toward the people who observe these commandments.
Let me give an example from one of the commandments you often cite as an example of the gap between the Torah and morality—the prohibition against a mamzer entering the congregation. At first glance this really does seem immoral: severe harm to a person who did nothing wrong, and deprivation of basic rights. But it may be, for example, that the reason is the Torah’s understanding that a person who came into the world through a corrupt process is highly likely also to have a blemished and corrupted soul (as the Sages indeed wrote in the chapter Ten Lineages). That seems to be what the Torah hints at in the comparison between the two adjacent commands: “A mamzer shall not enter the congregation of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his shall enter the congregation of the Lord,” and immediately afterward, “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter the congregation of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of theirs shall enter the congregation of the Lord forever.” The Torah explains that an Ammonite and Moabite may not enter because they did not greet you with bread and water, etc., and apparently the point is not only punishment but an understanding that these are nations whose traits are, genetically speaking, corrupted. The Torah apparently hints that these traits followed from the origin of these nations, in Lot’s incestuous relations with his daughters, and that is the reason it prohibited any mamzer from entering the congregation. (One can continue and explain that this is why a doubtful mamzer may enter the congregation, because from the outset there is no certainty that he is corrupted. Only when he is a definite mamzer—as was the case with Lot and his daughters, when there was no other man with them in the cave—is he forbidden to enter the congregation, because the concern for corruption prevails.)
Of course this explanation is not necessary, but it is certainly possible in my humble opinion, and to me it definitely shows depth and wisdom and could arouse admiration in someone who understands it and reflects on it.
- Aside from the above verse about a wise and understanding people, there are other places in the Torah that teach that the commandments are intended for our benefit: “for our good always, to keep us alive as this day,” “so that it may go well with you,” and in all of them the plain meaning is clearly that this refers to our lives in this world, not to the World to Come and the like. And since, according to your view (if I am not mistaken), there really is no providence or reward and punishment in this world, you are forced to explain that the “good” the Torah describes is simply the result of proper and sound living—personally, socially, and nationally. If this is a religious system with nothing to do with morality and ordinary human values, it is hard to see how it leads to better and fuller life compared to a non-Jew who adheres only to moral values.
- In addition, I think that when we see that many of the Torah’s commandments do in fact express moral values—and even moral values loftier than the norm—interest, returning lost property, gifts to the poor, and many others—it is very hard to claim that it just happened by chance that the Torah contains so many commands with a moral flavor. It is much more reasonable that the Torah really did come to educate us toward morality (and, as mentioned, at a level even loftier than the norm required of the nations of the world), together with other important values; and as for the handful of commandments that seem to us to contradict morality (in my rough estimate, no more than about 10 commandments, if we set aside the “a-moral” commandments in the Torah), we should labor to understand them deeply until they sit right with us.
- Later in the debate you explained your thesis regarding the source of the Torah’s authority: since you came to the conclusion that there is a God and that He presumably created us for some purpose, and it is not reasonable that the purpose is the realization of moral values (because He could simply have not created a world and then there would be no need for those moral values), it follows that we should assume He demands from us the realization of a set of religious values besides moral values, and therefore we must look for where this legal system is found. At the same time, tradition tells us about the revelation at Mount Sinai and a Torah that we received there, and although that in itself is not necessarily compelling proof, when combined with the previous conclusion it is reasonable to assume that this Torah is indeed the legal system we were looking for.
I have a few difficulties with this line of thought:
- According to this, the nations of the world, who are not obligated in the Torah’s legal system, were created for nothing. After all, we said that there is no reason to create human beings for the sake of morality.
- Who says that the purpose of creation is the observance of the religious legal system? Maybe God wanted amusement, so He created a world with different people and nations who make sure it is never boring on the globe? Maybe there are a thousand and one other reasons? Do you really think it is reasonable to build the entire obligation to the Torah on the basis of the above, non-necessary understanding of the purpose of creation? Especially since it is not really so plausible to claim that all of creation was intended so that created beings would observe some religious legal system—what exactly is the benefit of that to the Creator?
- According to your approach, you should be a Karaite. After all, you looked for a religious legal system and concluded that it is the Torah we received at Sinai. So why is the interpretation of the Sages binding? Why not just open the book that God gave you and try to understand for yourself what He wants from you?
There are a few more points I wanted to discuss, but first I would be glad for an answer on the above matters.
Answer
I have a hard time with this length. I’ll answer briefly.
- The difficulty is not difficult, and the interpretation is plainly unreasonable. They see the statutes that bring us to such excellent conduct and understand that there is something in them. And you are suggesting that they understand the depth of the idea of the commandments when none of us understands them. Does that sound reasonable to you? And certainly, when one takes into account all the evidence that there is no connection between Jewish law and morality (I have elaborated on this on the site and you can look it up in the search), there is no point in looking for another interpretation of the verses.
- Indeed, fuller spiritual lives.
- I have explained this more than once. It is not by chance. The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted there to be overlap between Jewish law and morality, and so He constructed the world. The exceptions are in those cases where overlap cannot be created. But the overlap does not mean that the purpose of Jewish law is morality; rather, the goals of Jewish law are achieved together with the goals of morality.
- The nations were not created for nothing. Humanity as a whole is an overall structure intended for spiritual purposes. These are achieved by Jews observing the Torah and the nations observing their seven commandments. Beyond that, I also do not believe in exclusivity. This is a discourse for internal purposes (I have explained this more than once).
- Maybe the purpose is something else. But if I reached the conclusion that there is a purpose, and a tradition came to me saying that this is the purpose, there is no reason at all to think the purpose is different.
- The interpretation of the Sages received reinforcement from the Torah given at Sinai (“do not deviate”).
Discussion on Answer
It seems to me that you’re just being stubborn. I explained and answered all these questions through the last one, except for the last two, which are not connected to our discussion.
So, with your pardon, I’ll end it here.
With respect, I read your previous answer several times and understood it very well, and still I was left with difficulties. What am I supposed to do?
In my view, your thesis—both regarding the morality of the Torah and regarding the source of its authority—is not plausible. I’d be glad if you would convince me otherwise, or at least refer me to a place where you wrote about these two topics in an orderly, reasoned, and complete way.
And the last two questions are definitely connected to the discussion, especially the first of them, which undermines the entire foundation of your thesis.
Thank you for the reply (a very fast one!). I’ll try to be brief.
1. The verse says that they hear the statutes and say that we are a wise and understanding people. I didn’t understand how your interpretation fits here.
You are right that today, after we abandoned the study of the reasons for the commandments, this really does sound implausible, but the Giver of the Torah presumably did want us to understand His commandments and not perform them like monkeys, and indeed in the time of the Sages, who apparently understood the reasons for the commandments, the sages of the nations valued the wisdom of the Torah, as emerges from several midrashim. If we understand the Torah and its roots and know how to explain it to ourselves, then the nations can certainly be impressed by it too.
2. I’d be glad to understand more what “fuller spiritual lives” means. It doesn’t sound like a typical Michi concept…
3. I also am not claiming that the purpose of Jewish law is morality specifically. It has several purposes: some commandments are for moral needs and some for the sake of other important values. But since God made man upright and moral, it is not reasonable that He would demand from us things opposite to that unless their moral value outweighs the opposing moral value (as in the example of the mamzer that I wrote about—the good of the nation outweighs the good of the mamzer, painful as that is). Almost the entire Torah educates a person to be upright and good, and to say that nevertheless there are a few things where one must be not upright and not good seems really unreasonable to me.
4. I didn’t understand. The seven Noahide commandments are basically foundational principles of human morality. That is not a special legal system for the sake of which it would be worthwhile to be created.
5. Where does tradition say that the purpose of creation is the observance of the Torah? I don’t know of such a thing, at least not in the Written Torah.
6. The plain meaning of the verses, and also the view of most medieval authorities, is that “do not deviate” applies only to the Great Court, not to every interpretation of a tanna or amora.