A question about faith in God and the Torah
Hello Rabbi!
The path to faith that begins with the existence of God and ends with a commitment to the commandments may be reasonable. The problem lies in the product of this path, which carries within it a number of questions.
Like the fact that many of the commandments (the commandment of the field, slaves, the treatment of rape victims together is many dozens of commandments) are so irrelevant. I saw that the rabbi was asked about this and his answer was that not all commandments need to be relevant all the time, but I would like to make it difficult: there is movement only in one direction, that is, commandments that were relevant to the old world and are not relevant to our world today. I do not know of any commandments that were not relevant to the old world and are today. We should expect from a being who knows how to foresee the future, who entrusts us with a book that is supposed to be eternal, that it will uphold the principle of relevance.
And ironically, one of the proofs of God’s existence is absolute morality. While in the Torah, a rape of a girl is required to pay a sum of money, even if it is not a punishment, in the Torah there is no reference to the punishment he deserves for such a serious act. This disregard in itself is provocative (and in addition, it points to a norm that was accepted at the time in everything related to the status of women. This again reflects that the Torah is subject to the reality in which it was written, instead of being an eternal divine book that will construct reality and not the other way around, that is, it will be constructed from it).
The fact that we are commanded to pray but we do not know about any effects that prayer has and on the contrary we see (through empirical testing) that they do not help. At most, the requests are heard and perhaps even “registered” but not beyond that. What is disturbing here is not only the ignoring but mainly the creation of a puzzling mechanism, which requires prayer every day at least twice (if not three). The lesson is a long time that requires the intention of the heart, but on the listener’s side there is nothing (including the gates of tears, which have also been closed).
Of course, these are just some of the problems that exist. You can point out countless puzzling things that go against common sense. I know that every question that can be solved this way is different. Some of them are not so strong either. What I want to point out is the accumulation of questions, which in my opinion already have weight. The structure that was created, although it was based on pure logical thinking, but if the result is strange, you have to think. If the structure had created a clear fact, then there would be nothing to say, but nothing is certain, and when this is the state of affairs, the structure must be examined even after it has been created and not declared that this is the situation. And no less important, you must examine what the alternative is. Isn’t it more reasonable to get stuck on the question of how the world was created and stay there, or to decide positively on the existence of God and get stuck on the question of why he did this than, as mentioned, to stand in front of this strange structure????
I will clarify that I do not intend to argue and I certainly do not pretend to convince. On the contrary, I am interested in being convinced and having my questions refuted to the core. I seek to be a person of faith (it is true that this is not a rational statement, for if it is true, then it is not). It is enough for me that the reasonableness of belief in the truth of God and the Torah be equal to the other side. Unfortunately, I have almost no questions about the other side.
Thank you for your answer please!!!!
I will answer briefly because these are questions that require length and I have written about them in the past.
I don’t see why there is a difficulty in this phenomenon. The world is advancing, and as it progresses there are fewer relevant commandments. Chazal already say that commandments are null and void for the future. Sacrifices may return with the construction of the Temple, or they may not (the world has advanced there too).
I have already explained in several places that there is no connection between Halacha and morality. A Halacha statement in the Torah says nothing about morality. See, for example, briefly in column 15, and in more detail at the beginning of the books of Mahalachim Bin Ha’O’Dim.
Regarding prayers, I have also mentioned several times that, indeed, as the generations progress, divine involvement in the world decreases, and so does the responsiveness to requests. You can search here on the site, and at length in my book No Man Has Control over the Spirit.
There is indeed a backlog of questions, but if the answers are good then the backlog doesn’t matter. Beyond that, the question is whether you accept the arguments regarding the existence of God and His revelation. If so, then these questions are not decisive. If not – then even without these questions there is no reason to believe and be committed to the Torah.
Thank you very much for the response. The Rabbi wrote “The question is do you accept the arguments regarding the existence of God and His revelation. If so, then these questions are not decisive. If not – then even without these questions there is no reason to believe and be committed to the Torah” But precisely on this I would like to say that when there are questions and especially a critical mass of questions, this itself causes one to wonder about the structure that has been created and to go back. And so even after I have decided on the question of the existence and revelation of God, if the structure that has been created is strange, logical and requires one to conclude from this about the basic questions and to go back from the same decisions that I made, it is difficult for me to understand how these questions are independent of the question of the existence of God and His revelation???
Indeed I understand and agree (who am I to agree but in any case…) good answers (even if only on some of the things) solve the problem. Therefore, I would like to continue asking: Is there an explanation for the meaning of the cessation of divine intervention? Is there any indication of such involvement (apart from the very belief in the revelation of God (which itself is subject to testing)? Is there no problem with a halakhic statement in the Torah conflicting with morality (and not just not expressing morality)? Is it reasonable to demand that a person observe a commandment in such an ambiguous situation? Is it possible to give one reason for performing the commandments? True, if God exists and has revealed himself, then there is no need for a reason (his reality is the reason in itself), but if there is no such apparent reason, this itself constitutes a question and doubt about his very existence and revelation (I repeat the same argument, which is: if the structure created is crooked, it undermines the same basic assumptions, such as constantly saying (in my opinion) this is the reality, let's move on from here, because his very existence and revelation are not necessary, and if assuming his existence and in particular his revelation creates so many questions, we must eliminate the perception that he comes with one demand or another from us, and then in one fell swoop many questions Disappear!
I agree, but when there are reasonable answers, they are enough if you accept the framework of the faith picture.
I dealt with the cessation of intervention here: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A9-%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9D
The indication of past involvement is the testimony of the Torah and tradition.
There is no problem with such a collision, as I explained in the sources I referred to.
In my opinion the evidence for its reality is very strong. See my first published book.
Sorry to be pushy…
But questions about commandments can in no way challenge the existence of God, His revelation or His teachings – Do laws that are unfair or unjust in the eyes of the observer prove or force or raise a question about the existence of the legislator? Of course not. There are many laws in the law book of the State of Israel that have no logic or any reasoning – and yet I don't think there is a serious person in the State of Israel who believes that there was no legislator (whoever that may be).
Moreover, it is not at all clear what evil you found in the commandment of rape, for example. On the contrary, the moral part of the Torah is remarkably consistent with the modern view (and Rabbi Michai has already explained many times the difference between halakha and musar. A difference that exists in the Torah itself and the Sages spoke about it a lot in their commentaries, for example, "And you did what is right and what is good," and that there is good and there is what is right), absolutely not with the view in which the Torah was given (whether we accept the time of tradition, i.e. approximately 3336 years ago, or whether we accept the time of "criticism," the fourth century BC), so that the Torah creates reality and is not at all consistent with its time, while it is precisely to our time, from the perspective of the modern, that it is very consistent; pay attention to the following verse in the law of rape of an engaged girl (Parashat Ki Titze, 22:26); “And you shall not do anything that is not worthy of death, for if a man rises up against his neighbor and kills a person in this matter” Note, the Torah attributes this to actual murder. Where in the ancient world did the rape of a woman receive such a reference?
What is more, if it is a matter of indecency, then this person is liable with his life (and please remember the law of a pursuer of indecency, which if it is impossible to save it with one of his limbs, saves the life of the pursuer, and after all, this is a person who wants to rape a woman) – Is killing for rape easy in your eyes? Nowadays, in the most serious case, he will receive a life sentence [one or more – unless it is an Arab who raped a Jewish girl in her home in the middle of the night, and then an enlightened and educated secular judge (!) who opposes the coup d'état will rule that it is not so serious… truly enlightenment at its peak – this is what awaits you on the other side and with that you make it difficult for the morals of the Torah?] with financial compensation (why is financial compensation moral these days and then not?) – Therefore, it is better to save yourself the nonsense ‘the status of women’ because it really exhausts any person who thinks a little and has pretty much exhausted himself – the women ‘feminists’ have done women more harm than good, and I write this as a child who grew up with a feminist woman.
Second full disclosure; I myself saved a young girl from rape in my youth when I lingered over a Torah lesson which, surprisingly, was in Tractate Ketuvot and this lesson was exactly around these laws… by a blessed coincidence I named it at the time.
And if we talk about slaves – perhaps to learn the laws of slaves in the Rambam” to understand the meaning of the concept of slave (not at all according to the modern understanding).
And as for sacrifices, I also did not know what evil you found in sacrifices, whether if we believe the sage Adam the first offered a sacrifice. If we believe the Torah Cain and Abel and Noah and his sons after the flood offered sacrifices – so sacrifices are a very big thing as the Mishnah says “On three things the world stands on labor…”. They may not be pleasant to look at (not everyone finds such sights easy today as they did then), but they pose no more moral problem than the mere necessity of eating and ”murdering” vegetables and fruits (picking fruit and vegetables is biologically equivalent to murder) without a temple. It can be difficult to explain why there is a need for this - it is. But morality is not related, just as the mere necessity of eating is not a tie to the question of the morality of murdering vegetables and fruits.
I won't go into all these issues here, but if you think there are no contradictions between halakha and morality, you are probably talking about a different halakha, not the one I know. But if you assume that the legislator is moral, then when the laws are immoral, it seemingly creates a problem. I suggested a solution to this, but it is impossible to say that there is no problem.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
