Struggling with Yeshayahu Leibowitz. . .

Leibowitz did not accept the status of Mount Sinai as a historical truth, but rather as a normative truth.

Leibowitz did not accept the status of Mount Sinai and he did not even know why the Torah was given.

Aaron, do you have any evidence for your words?

I am considering offering a reward of 1000 NIS to anyone who can clearly demonstrate that he was not the one who gave the Torah by God.

Leibowitz always repeated the fact that after the giving of the Torah there was the sin of the calf. Therefore, it is of no importance from a religious point of view.

Where do you get the thousand shekels?

On the eve of Shavuot, Shavuot

Here, no rabbi,

In the words of Prof. Leibowitz that you quoted, it was not said that the Mount Sinai event did not occur, but that it does not have any religious obligations, and his intention was not to establish faith, since even those who were present at the Mount Sinai event and saw or heard – abandoned faith within a short time. The fact that a person sees miracles and wonders – still does not bring him to faith, and there is still a situation where he chooses not to believe.

It is possible that the choice to believe depends, according to Leibowitz, on the mental willingness to fulfill the burden of the mitzvot committed to that faith, and it is the necessary condition for faith. Since Leibowitz was willing to fulfill the mitzvot of the Torah – it seems that he also believed in them.

And I bless you that you may celebrate the time of the giving of our Torah with a profit, even without Moses' thousand shekels 🙂

With blessings, Sh”t

Paragraph 1, line 2
… Importance of faith, …

There are things that he cannot say explicitly. But from his words it is clear as day that God did not reveal Himself to the Israelites, otherwise they would not have worshipped the calf and said, “These are your gods, O Israel.” If they had mistaken the God who revealed Himself to them for the calf, this would be proof that God did not reveal Himself to them.

The last umpire,
speculating on Leibowitz's words seems unnecessary to me. If there is a source, written or filmed, in which Leibowitz says so, I am willing to hear it, but mere interpretations and precisions seem unnecessary to me.

We need to distinguish between what he explicitly said and an interpretation. What he explicitly said and repeated things like these in several places is that a person's religious and faith-based position in Judaism does not depend at all on information about what happened at a certain time, nor on how he understands the event or events. Rather, faith is entirely a person's decision to worship God.
And then he says: Go out and see. The Torah tells us that the generation that was a witness to the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai did not believe in it and refused to accept the Torah in practice.

But in any case, he adds that all the perceptions and interpretations of the Mount Sinai position, of the Maimonides, Rashi, Rav Kook, and many more are all religiously valid “because their owners were united in faith, namely, in recognizing the obligation of observing the Torah and the commandments”

According to Leibowitz's view, the Torah is not a book of history (and what the Torah says is not what actually happened in reality (but rather as a prophecy))

The last posak,
If there is no commandment, then what exactly does the religious person obey? Or: What is “worship of God”? Just actions that I do for the sake of God? If I jump five times on one emotion for the sake of God, is that equivalent to putting on tefillin?

To Shai Zilberstein, and to Moshe:

I do not have Leibowitz's books in front of me, so I am copying quotes from Leibowitz that are cited in two articles before me, one by Daniel Statman, Observance of Mitzvot in a World Empty of Religious Meaning (highly recommended), and the other by Tal Wolfson, both of which are available online, and refer to the exact sources in Leibowitz's writings.

"God has not revealed himself either in nature or in history" (cited in Statman, p. 33).

“The faith-based meaning of verses about God is not information about God, but rather they express, in specific theological language, man's awareness of the obligation he recognizes: the service of God” (ibid. p. 35).
“The meaning of the status of Mount Sinai is the recognition of the commandment that we were commanded” (Wolfson p. 6. She expands and explains that the status of Mount Sinai, according to Leibowitz, does not indicate a fact but a normative one.

There is much more material on the subject.

I would ask the members here to make sure that Moshe transfers the 1000 shekels he promised to me.

Shai,

Regarding your last comment, that's what Statman is about. It's worth reading.

On the eve of Shavuot, make a mass of your hand's offering for yourself.

To Aaron, best regards,

It is advisable that you leave your bank account details so that Moses can transfer the "one thousand to you, Aaron." It is good that this is done close to the time of the giving of our Torah, when Moses became rich from the waste of the tablets, and he will be able to pay generously 🙂

With the blessing of receiving the Torah happily, Sh'aretz

And perhaps Isaiah was the one who believed in the status of Mount Sinai as a historical truth and at the same time as a normative truth 🙂

With regards, Dr. Schatzius von Lowenhausen

Aaron,
You wrote: “The meaning of the Mount Sinai status is the recognition of the commandment that we were commanded”. What commandment were we commanded if God did not command the Israelites anything? I do not have the leisure or urgent interest to read Statman. What is his answer in general?

In general, Statman claims that according to Leibowitz, this is a paradox, he really does not understand the matter.

He writes: “It is not for nothing that Leibowitz repeatedly evaded the question of whether the status of Mount Sinai was a historical event or not” – p’ 41.

Regarding the sentence: “The meaning of the status of Mount Sinai is the recognition of the commandment that we were commanded”, the intention is not recognition of a historical event in which you were commanded, but a demand for normative recognition: you must recognize / feel / believe that the system of commandments is commanded to you from above (and is not your voluntariness), and of course behave accordingly.

According to Leibowitz, the Written Torah has meaning only by virtue of the Oral Torah. And the religious person decided to accept the Oral Torah and from this derives the importance of the Written Torah. And not because of the status of Mount Sinai.

Lashay:

Maybe I'll add a little:

“The meaning of the Mount Sinai ceremony is the recognition of the commandment that we were commanded.”

The Mount Sinai ceremony is a story, and its subject is morality.

The purpose of reading the story is that you will feel and behave as if the story happened historically.

You need to formulate norms of recognition (a sense of obligation) and norms of behavior as if there was a revelation and transmission of a set of commandments in history.

To the last Posk (by the way, your nickname is annoying, it conveys arrogance):

Leibowitz did deal with the paradoxical relationship between the Written Torah and the Sevenfold Torah, with the Sevenfold Torah defining the boundaries of the Written Torah while drawing its authority from the Written Torah.

This still does not mean that the Mount Sinai ceremony has no meaning. Does Leibowitz Would he suggest deleting the Mount Sinai status from the Torah because it is unnecessary?

The law of Mount Sinai is not superfluous. It came to teach that there is no magic. The demand of humans for spells and magic such as God revealing Himself has no effect on the correction of man. Immediately the calf is worshiped.

On the other hand, if the Torah itself is from God, then why would the things written in it be done by humans? Is God subject to humans?

Regarding the Nick. Since the law is as I see it, none of the infidels and followers of Korach are allowed to disagree with me.

https://youtu.be/9iIGnIKn528
Minute’ 16:03.

Thanks A. By the way, you can give a link to a specific moment in the video.
Right-click and then select copy video url at current time.
Like this: https://youtu.be/9iIGnIKn528?t=963

There's no point in being snarky. Tell Moshe that he owes me 1,000 shekels.

I, like the existing God, combine contemplation with action.

Kitzer Leibowitz probably liked word games
Reminds me a bit of the Levinas case

Very sorry, but I have not seen any evidence. The statement that you simply believe in the literal description of the fireworks display at Mount Sinai does not mean that there is no reality of non-literal commands (up to the extreme interpretation of prophetic inspiration to the heart of every person from Israel who was present at the time) and after all, some have interpreted the opinion of the M”N in this way

Note that Leibowitz was not an idiot to think that there are no commands and the whole thing is about adopting a value, Judaism or chess and Statman and his ilk are doing him an injustice

Moshe, I couldn't understand what you wrote.

I suggest you and others read Statman carefully.

He is a professor of philosophy at the University of Haifa, and deals extensively with exactly this topic.

(Regarding payment, a compromise can be reached).

Moshe, did you see the video I sent?

To A.

What did you find in the above video?

And I personally thought that the nickname "the last judge" conveyed humility and lowliness of spirit, based on the statement of Chazal:

"Rabbi Zira said, Rava bar Zimona said, If we are the first sons of angels, we are the sons of men, and if we are the first sons of men, we are like donkeys."

To the last posak, I have a few points to respond to you:
First, regarding his opinion that the Mount Sinai event was a ‘total failure’ This is because his method of *conclusion* has no absolute value on man.. Rather, man must grasp his conclusion and *decide* accordingly! And the fact that people who saw God sinned not long after. (Which in their conclusion must have been ‘mercifully’) and people after many, many generations, did not see God and died sanctifying God. (This is more or less a quote of his that I remember from some interview) and this is Leibowitz’s point.. the decision! (And of course, this statement of his has nothing to do with trying to make all sorts of interpretations that he denied the Mount Sinai event, as I saw here above).
–
And a second point. The fact that Leibowitz believed that it does not matter whether a person imagines the status of Mount Sinai in one way or another... (the multitude of interpretations in the commentators) does not mean that he claims that it is a convoluted magic trick, etc.... He simply believes that the status of Mount Sinai has a content value and not a physical one, and however you calculate its fiscal picture, it is perfectly fine, as long as you accept its essential value. Which is the main one of all that status. (Which was in one physical form or another, and the essential content [which is the equal side in all these interpretations] was conveyed there)

“The final decision” This is certainly not out of humility but rather the way in which one can address everyone regarding the truth:
Those who are interested in the truth will accept my words because of the truth. (Yes, I am wrong).
And those who are captive to rules and routines will have to accept my words because of the nick, because the law is as it appears.

Shai Zilberstein
If you jump on your feet for the sake of heaven, it will certainly be the work of God. But you will not be a Jew. A Jew is one who has accepted the law as the work of God. (According to Leibowitz).

Daniel Koren
And the people feared that Moses was ashamed to come down from the mountain … and he took clay and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a molten calf and said to them, Your God, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt

If they said of a calf that this is God, this is evidence that they have never seen God and do not understand what God is at all. In other words, there was no revelation to the Israelites. Only all sorts of Hollywood effects that evoked dramatic and perhaps mystical experiences in them, as many rabbis and kabbalists do today.

Leibowitz did not deny the status of Mount Sinai. The status of Mount Sinai in the Torah came to teach that the “revelation of God” is a predetermined failure. But for you, “denial of the status of Mount Sinai” means that it is something that happened in history, in reality. But that is not heresy. It is just a historical scientific question that has no value significance according to Leibowitz.

You need to start differentiating between the Torah and history. Because it is obvious that you still think that it is the same thing. As if the Torah came to describe historical stories.

And you can bring the following argument: If the Torah came to describe historical descriptions that happened on Earth, then it is not Torah from heaven. And that is heresy. And you have to choose.

Hello to the last posak, first of all, don't push Leibowitz's ideas.. Leibowitz's had a very, very deep distinction between a conclusion and a decision.. and not every action a person does indicates his conclusion before the action.. This is a great principle with him. A person can know that the Torah was given, and yet not keep it.. and no, not because he believes that the Torah was not given, but because he does not feel like accepting the burden of commandments. To delve deeper into his method on "conclusions and decisions", you are invited to watch this video https://youtu.be/o7dntFd5UeE in which he lectures on this entire issue (not from a religious perspective. Regardless.. about this psychological phenomenon). And this is Leibowitz's method.. You can accept it, you can not accept it.. But call the lady by her name, if you believe otherwise, don't just push it into your beliefs. Regarding the sin of the calf.. Forgive me, but you are making a completely unnecessary analogy (to put it mildly). The things are clear and known in the commentators and the sages that there was a real mystical desire to worship the calf in ancient times. (And it was not for nothing that the ancient world as a whole worshipped the calf)
As far as I understand, they were in need of something real, and the calf replaced Moses for them. It is similar to a person who commits a serious sin in order to satisfy his desire, even if he knows that it is forbidden.. (The desire is real and mere knowledge is not).
It seems to me that no one can understand exactly what was going through their minds. This reinforces that man is a much more vile creature than we think. That he needs to do deep inner work in order to receive the "work of God," and that the commandment alone is not enough.

And regarding your last point, my friend. That the Torah does not describe history.. I agree with you in principle.
However, one must distinguish between the Book of Genesis and the Book of Exodus and beyond.. Regarding the Book of Exodus and beyond, there is mass evidence that this happened in history. . (The Book of Genesis does not describe history, of course, it is quite allegorical)
Even if you argue with me about what exactly happened at Mount Sinai from a physical point of view.. However, from a psychological point of view (i.e. the conscious perception of the witnesses), the entire description that appears in the verses of the event was mass evidence of this.. It really does not interest me whether there were lightning in physical reality or not.. For me, the fact that all the people daydream that there was lightning exactly as described in the verses is what is important.. (The essential content)
My point is that there was an experience of God's revelation.. Define it however you want
With greetings Daniel 🙂

Daniel. If God reveals himself to you, you will never say about a statue of a calf, “These are your gods, O Israel.”
It’s very simple. There was no revelation. At most, Moses gave the fools a few effects to scare them away. But it didn’t help. When stupidity is celebrating, nothing will help.

Most of the things I said are mine. Not Leibowitz's. But they are in Leibowitz's spirit.

If you think something has changed in humans in terms of their desire for money, you are wrong. Nothing has changed.

If this is your conclusion, you probably didn't understand Leibowitz's distinction between "conclusion and decision." I invite you to watch the lecture I sent you. (Your words are really not "in the spirit of Leibowitz.".. towards Leah.)

I am convinced that people don't work with it as they used to, meaning it has changed and changed. (Perhaps it was replaced by other things, and by many things.. This only proves that when there were no such things, the desire was very focused and extreme. And that's it.)

No’ Hello, you said B’ things.
A’- Schlibovitz did not accept the status of Mount Sinai..
B’- that he does not even know why the Torah was given.
Regarding A’ I am quite embarrassed, and apparently need to look into it (I am like Moshe [dahashta ikha spika dalma ikha liya darra dammunah {and the non-spiqa should be understood from his statement: “I *consider* offering a reward.. etc’etc’..” From this it should be concluded that he is exempt because he has not yet committed ;}] I find the claim that he accepted that there was a forceful order that has no actual reference to it..) and Tze”c in the book of Statman).
And regarding B’ He did not understand philosophically why God chose nation A of all nations, and why we received all these commandments in particular, that does not mean that he did not receive them..
Regards Daniel 🙂

I have failed to understand the connection between the difference between conclusion and decision and the question of whether there was a revelation to the Israelites.

To the judge.. Hello, if you refute the revelation (ostensibly a conclusion) by their decision (the sin of the calf). Then you have not understood the above philosophical concept; ”conclusion– decision’ legal orders. And listen carefully my friend..

Hello Daniel, I came here by chance – due to Google's search algorithm – and I read your question. Both from reading Leibowitz's materials and from a personal feeling, I can tell you that ”faith” is what Leibowitz called “value decision”. In other words, first of all, he recognizes that God is not a concept like other material concepts. Therefore, the ”impression” of God is not an impression in the same sense as an ordinary impression… But after a person (in historical Judaism at least, a Judaism that no longer exists) accepts that he exists in the presence of God, then he is left to decide whether this existence also obliges him to maintain the religious lifestyle – that is, to maintain the yoke of Torah and commandments or not. Besides: It must be understood that Yeshayahu Leibovitz was first and foremost a fierce opponent of the existing regime. In this he was quite alone in academia and in general. Hence, the opposition of most public figures in Israel to Yeshayahu Leibovitz stems first and foremost from this situation. It also follows that the debate between Leibovitz and his opponents is usually a dialogue of the deaf. In other words, the people he debated with **didn't want** to understand him. And their statements that Leibovitz is difficult for them to understand are fundamentally false. As Leibovitz sometimes joked, people make every effort to confuse themselves as long as they don't face what they don't like. The question is from two years ago, but I couldn't resist.