A moral value that overrides Torah law
The Hebrew word for “Shabbat” is “B”: (in expansion, Blessings 19-20) “Great is the honor of the people who reject what is not done in the Torah.” The main point of the halputah in the Hebrew text is regarding an old man and it is not according to his honor.
Does the Rabbi have a clear definition of this law, and why don’t we learn from this for all the Torah’s laws, for example, if the dignity of human beings has changed, in things that once did not have the dignity of human beings, at least to the level that exists today, is this a reason for rejecting the Torah’s laws in favor of the value of human dignity, and if not, what is the definition?
I didn’t understand the question. The dignity of human beings is rejected by the Torah in the Shostakovich or the Rabbis. It is clear that the dignity of human beings is determined by the situation and norms of today, not in the time of the Sages.
Why only in the verse "Do not do"? After all, a deed is rejected even if it is done in the past, and if the value of human dignity is important, why should it not also be rejected in the past, (and especially in the context of "Do not do" there is no "Do not do").
Isn't it said that the value of "Do what is right and good" is the one that rejects even if it is done, even if there is an action in it?
The dignity of others is not a duty but a moral and human value. Usually it is about the dignity of others (like an old man and not according to his dignity). It is not a duty to maintain my own dignity.
It is true that it did not do, but the idea behind justice, at least according to the method (it seems to me to be true), is that in place of doing, there is no doing, because that is the will of God in such a conflict, and yet it is not said so even in the respect of human beings that the conflict leads to a situation in which there is no doing at all, and even when the respect of human beings is said towards the person himself, "Sous Mai Deshani Alech", etc.
Because R”G said this about a doer. According to his view, in place of a doer there is no non-doer. But who told you that in place of the honor of beings there is no non-doer? What is the connection? Why don't you say that in place of non-doer there is no doer? Because the Torah teaches us that the rule is the opposite. The Torah does not teach that in place of the honor of beings there is no non-doer, so it is difficult to assume this. The explanation is also very logical in my opinion, as I explained.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
