About: How the Torah is perceived by us.
Peace and blessings,
The prevailing perception among observant Jews is that our Torah is actually the 313 commandments and they are the essence of the Torah. And apparently this is made difficult for me:
A. What is the need for the stories of the entire Torah, expanding and deepening matters (stories of the patriarchs, stories of the building of the Tabernacle, the journeys of the Children of Israel, etc.).
on. Things have a nefkmn – people tend to evaluate actions only because they belong categorically to certain mitzvot. For example: If I do such and such an act, I will thereby fulfill such and such a mitzvah. Although from the stories of the Torah we see that this is not the case, the patriarchs did actions even though they were not mitzvot because they saw them as valuable actions: Abraham qualifies many with faith in God (apparently not because there is a mitzvot of faith), Abraham also does charity, etc., and other actions of the patriarchs that do not need to be detailed.
third. Does the Rabbi generally agree that the Torah itself is essentially 313 commandments?
I wanted to know what the rabbi thought on the matter. Does the rabbi agree with the things or disagree?
I would love to hear.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A. Indeed, I also agree with your view. And see the question of Rabbi Yitzchak the First Rashi on the Torah, which assumes the same thing and complicates your question. The rest of the things are to teach other matters, but their status is secondary. In the words of Rabbi Volosiner in chapter 4, it is the word of God versus the will of God. And indeed, I do not see much value in studying the rest of the Torah (except perhaps some specific value. But it does not teach much).
B. I don’t think that what is outside the mitzvot has no value. It has value, but I didn’t follow it. See Rambam, Soph. 10:11.
See a bit in column 15 here on the site.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Shalom and blessings to the Rabbi,
A. It is difficult to believe that G-d gave the Torah and detailed and expanded on certain subjects even when there is no direct reference to the laws. Entire stories of the deeds of the patriarchs and the building of the Tabernacle and the journeys of the Israelites in the desert are completely incompatible with the approach of the Rabbi who sees the Torah scroll as nothing more than commandments.
B. “There are joys in the commandments” I did not understand these words. Nor did I understand the reference to the Rambam.
Thank you.
A. I also find it hard to believe. So explain to me why it was written and what we learn from it.
B. What is outside the commandments. Maimonides explains there that performing a commandment from the heart has human and moral value (from the wise men of the nations) but not religious value (not from their followers). This is an example of the distinction I made here.
I am not at all sure that the Torah is meant to teach us how to fulfill the commandments.
After all, the Torah is formulated as a book that tells the history of Israel only.
It tells us, “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Speak to the children of Israel,’ etc.
It seems that the Bible book we have in our hands was not written by Moses, for it says, “And Moses wrote this Torah and put it in the ark;” “And Moses died;” etc.
This means that there was another book that was lost to us, and that Moses wrote it.
No?
This is not just in the Torah. The Book of Ecclesiastes speaks of Ecclesiastes in the third person. The Book of Esther speaks of Esther (who is said to have written this Purim letter..) in the third person. All the prophets speak of themselves in the third person.
Ecclesiastes sometimes does speak in the first person; this could indicate that the rest of his book does too and that it is simply a writing style that was accepted.
It's a bit difficult that you bring evidence from a present Amina when the conclusion apparently rejects the former Amina.
If we formulate the question formally, the Hava Amina assumes two assumptions:
A. Torah from the word instruction.
B. The first part of the Torah lacks instructions.
Conclusion: The first part is not Torah.
Rejection: The Torah is not a book of instructions but a revelation of the Divine Presence that justifies the special policy of Jews.
For some reason, the Rabbi accepts the first assumption and ignores its rejection with an excuse.
14, read again. I argued following R. of Volozhin that it is secondary and not that it is not Torah. It is the conclusion and not the Ho. But as in many cases, the understanding of the Ho sharpens this.
In short, you presented my words incorrectly: correct the wording of the conclusion and everything will fall into place peacefully.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
