Sufficient in faith
The Rabbi says on various occasions that in fact all faith and knowledge is a decision in a state of doubt. And it is a mistake to think that faith is more certain than that. In short, we have different sides and we decide as seems most reasonable to us.
I will present my question this way, when I was talking about it with a friend, he told me that from now on, for every desire and doubt, you already have a doubt of Sifa. In other words, if the whole religion is nothing but the resolution of doubt, doesn't it make sense that we remain with this assumption that it is doubt, and in any case when there is more doubt on top of that, as the degree of doubt decreases, the likelihood that it will be true decreases, which is the explanation behind doubt of Sifa, etc.
As is known, there are two rules in the laws of spikkot: A. In order to be satisfied, there must be a reason. That is, the doubtful side must be reasoned (positive and not negative). Halacha (and human thinking in general) does not recognize skeptical doubt, such as "Maybe not?" or "Maybe the opposite?" as a real side in doubt, and there is much evidence for this (see the wonderful things of Rabbi Kook in his book Ein Aya on Shabbat 32). This is also the law that Melkim and Sukelin say about the holdings at the end of Kiddushin. B. Doubt must be balanced. A majority is not doubt. Now you must consider in light of these two rules: If you do indeed have a situation in which there is only one side out of four (the Rashba's method is to count sides), then you are truly in a situation of spikkot spikkot (although I do not know whether spikkot should be relaxed outside the scope of Halacha, that is, even when considering the implementation of Halacha itself). And to the essence of your words, first, lack desire here (desire is not doubt but necessity. I am only talking about the sides of doubt), and focus on spikkot. If you do have real spiciness (not just a side that can be brought up. See the two rules I gave above) then you are indeed right.
And in general, if I hadn't told you that faith is uncertain, would it have become certain? After all, it is the reality that it is uncertain. Therefore, there is no problem with me here. Our entire life is governed by principles that are uncertain, but if they are reasonable in our eyes, we act according to them. Faith is no exception to this rule.
The question is how and why this decision is given the value of certainty to the extent that we will not consider any doubt except as this decision. After all, if there really is a certain doubt, reason dictates that any decision will not be binding except to a certain degree of doubt, and where it concerns, for example, the protection of life, or even something else that we know with certainty [or with a certain decision], let's say morality and the like, the law is that doubt should be rejected because of certainty, or at least it should be said that there is a reasonable doubt here, and there is no reason for one to be rejected because of the other.
Indeed, the degree of doubt you have will determine your decisions. It is individual for each person. If you have real doubt, I assume you would not sacrifice your life. But remember that people sacrifice their lives for values that are less certain (like a soldier in the army), or pleasures (like a mountain climber). Therefore, when we talk about certainty, we mean certainty in the ordinary human sense, and not the mysticism that sometimes arises in contexts of faith. Everyone should make their decisions according to their values and according to their degree of faith.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer