Between formal and substantive authority
Hello Rabbi Michael,
From what I understand, you believe that the Sages (Talmud, etc.) have only formal authority and only over the halakha itself. This is in contrast to matters of thought and viewpoint, where they have no substantive authority at all (if authority even exists in this area), and one can listen to their words and accept or not accept them.
But it is impossible to deny that there are laws that are based on a certain view.
Let’s take the resurrection of the dead, for example. And there was a man who thought with himself and came to the conclusion that there could be no resurrection of the dead, no matter what. And because the Sages have no substantial authority over what he thinks is right or wrong – he continues to deny the resurrection of the dead, but accepts all the other tenets of Judaism as a whole – what will he do when he reaches the eighteen words ‘And you are faithful to raise the dead’? Because of the formal authority, he is obligated: 1. To pray three times a day. 2. Obliged to this text specifically. 3. Obliged to mean the words (otherwise he would not have fulfilled his obligation).
So what can such a person do? He cannot change the law (because of formal authority). But what can he do? He is convinced that there can be no resurrection of the dead.
What courses of action do you see here? I see two here: 1. Either he will change the text/say without intending to, etc., because he accepts the sages only where they do not contradict his view. 2. Accept the halacha, say the prayer as it is written, but be humble and understand that he does not know everything even when he feels he is sufficiently convinced.
I would love to hear your comments (of course, the resurrection of the dead and the eighteen-day prayer are just examples, it’s not critical if I wasn’t accurate in them).
A halakha that is based on a false factual assumption is invalid. If you do not believe in something, you cannot pray it. Even if you utter the words, you have done nothing because you did not think about what you are saying. You obviously need to examine two things: 1. Is this halakha actually based on the factual assumption in question? 2. Are you truly convinced that this assumption is false.
Regarding the resurrection of the dead, if you are convinced that there will not be (I don’t know how one can be convinced of this) don’t say it. This is exactly what the Gemara describes in Yoma 7b. Indeed, you will not fulfill the regulation of the prayer text, but you cannot fulfill it.
Thank you very much for the answer, two questions following this:
1. Would you define that person as a coercive person?
2. Would you actually instruct a person to behave this way? After all, people can change their minds at any moment and be convinced this way and that time… so one day he will pray eighteen prayers (or observe another halakha) and one day he will not? How is it possible to behave like that?
1. Yes. I wrote it.
2. That's what it is.
Good question. I have a follow-up: Does the rabbi say the requests in prayer 18? The rabbi doesn't think there will be a providence. Thank you!
I've answered that countless times. If I were sure there was no involvement, I wouldn't say it. That's not the case.
Wow, a wonderful question in my opinion!
From the Rabbi's answer, we learned that the Sages had formal authority by default over everything that we have no way of checking and knowing, such as the Creator's intervention in the world and future things such as the resurrection of the dead, the Messiah, Heaven and Hell, the remains of the soul, and other things for which we did not find a source before the Sages.
And we found that as long as we cannot prove the negative and are not sure that this is not the case, we are obligated to believe in all these things, pray according to their rules, etc.
We need to digest this.
At first glance, in my opinion, this only leads to the fact that their formal authority is not absolute and that their authority is weak anyway.
This wonderful question has been discussed here more than once. And it is not true that they had authority over factual claims because there is no authority on these issues. Even conceptually, this cannot exist. I am not obligated to believe anything, but if I do not have evidence, I will not change a law that has been established in an authoritative manner.
That is, the commandment/halacha to believe can also be by virtue of their authority and since it is not possible to prove the negative, I am obligated to believe because that is what the halah has ruled?
Sounds quite paradoxical.
I fail to understand what is not understood here. Clearly there can be no mitzvah to believe in God, nor any mitzvah to believe in anything. If I don't believe then I don't believe and no mitzvah will help. In prayer I can mean the side that is involved as long as I think there may be.
Unlike belief in God, which is, as the Rabbi always says, a claim of fact, beliefs like the Messiah, the resurrection of the dead, and the immortality of the soul cannot be proven. Nevertheless, they are included as part of the tenets of faith. That's what I meant.
Regarding what the Rabbi wrote about prayer, isn't this a kind of Pascal's Wager?
Nothing to do with frequency. There is no way to command facts.
A bit like Pascal's Wager. And so?
It is true that there is no commandment on facts, but these are still the principles of faith (according to Maimonides and others). Maimonides, at the end of the list of principles, writes that anyone who does not believe in all of these is an apostate and is commanded to hate him. In other words, there is a commandment for Reuven to hate Shimon who does not believe in the coming of the Messiah, even though Shimon has no obligation to believe in it. Believing (more precisely, believing) in something that cannot be commanded satisfies other commandments.
And in the context of betting on prayer, this is ostensibly different from betting on the fulfillment of a mitzvah. If I fulfill a mitzvah that satisfies (say, wearing a lulav and tefillin) because I am willing to bet on the benefit, it makes sense that the mitzvah has been fulfilled. But praying out of doubt is flawed, and what is its value? After all, it is like a voice calling in the wilderness.
I've exhausted everything. Everything has been explained.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
