And you won’t turn
Hello Rabbi.
As you say, the prohibition against blasphemy is for a person without philosophical skill/created by him, which motivates him to commit transgressions, and therefore he recites heretical words in order to escape.
Let’s say there is a person who wants to study philosophy, thought, and religion in order to establish his life and become more balanced, grounded, wise, and not act out of inertia in life. He believes in the Torah, but inside he has a small desire (“desire”?) that Judaism is not true because then he would be “exempt” from the burden of the commandments. Of course, if he comes to the conclusion that Judaism is true, then Judaism is true, and of course it is possible that in his investigation he will discover that Judaism is sublime and the best and most worthy thing is to serve God with all his limbs, and he will even be disgusted if he loses his faith in it. Is he allowed to embark on a (very comprehensive) investigation that includes heretical statements (arguments against religion and more)?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you. To the best of my memory, I saw that you wrote that if a certain person does not have philosophical skills, then the prohibition may apply to him because it is a recipe for complications, which is why I added it here.
To the best of my recollection, I never wrote anything like that.
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%91%D7%99-%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94/
Rabbi, what do you think is considered a propensity for forbidding a person like that to investigate?
Is confronting Judaism with difficulties because you want to explore a more attractive alternative to your life considered a bad inclination for heresy in your opinion?
It doesn't say here that if there is a desire, it is forbidden to investigate. It says that maybe(!) if your sufficiency is not real but just a desire, meaning that your goal is not clarification but finding a scale for desires, then there is a place to prohibit investigation. That's a completely different statement.
And your question is just trolling. Testing a more attractive alternative is not a desire. It's motivation for testing.
I won't respond to such trolling anymore.
Rabbi, I sent the link to show that you wrote about philosophical skill.
And I didn't write to troll, I really struggle with the subject and have great (great) respect for you and the site and your work.
I apologize.
I understood, but as I noted, that's not what it says there. It has nothing to do with either philosophical skill or instincts. I wrote there that the prohibition in itself is not acceptable to me at all. And if it can be understood at all, it is only perhaps a prohibition on a person who does not want to investigate and test at all but believes completely, but wants to use these books and arguments to follow his instinct and sin. In other words, he does not really test and reach conclusions but uses it as an excuse. Anyone who wants to test, regardless of whether or not he has an instinct and regardless of whether or not he has skill, there is and cannot be any prohibition in this. Therefore, there is no point in asking me what is included in the instinct and what is not. And testing alternatives is certainly not an instinct at all. This is precisely the motivation why we go to test, and so it is appropriate.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
