‘And you shall not be separated’

שו”ת › ‘And you shall not be separated’

asked 10 months ago

Clarification question:

In the lesson on dogmatism, you brought up Maimonides’ words on ‘and you shall not seek’ and explained the fundamental difficulty in it. Ultimately, you brought up two models: (1) A person who is truly doubtful and examines other religions out of genuine doubts – such a person does not transgress ‘and you shall not seek’, and there cannot be a prohibition against him. (2) A person who wishes to justify ‘ad hoc’ various desires and wishes, and therefore he adopts alternative theories. This is what is said about ‘and you shall not seek’, since the different positions are merely a cover, and he himself – in the depths of his mind – knows that these theories have no substance.

I would like to ask about a third case that is not as extreme as the two previous ones: (3) A person who believes, but out of intellectual curiosity and broad-mindedness is interested in other positions – what is his ruling? On the one hand, it is quite clear that there is no prohibition in this either, since the rabbinical court: If out of that he believes in this – again, then he is a rabbinic. And if he does not believe, then what is the problem with that? And after all, he does not justify any problematic desire? Is it possible to say that there is a prohibition ‘in the desire’ to deal with these issues? And perhaps it is said about this, ‘and you shall not seek’. In other words, the prohibition exists precisely when the person believes in G-d, while the offense amounts to the very fact that these issues are idolatry. If so, then it is quite clear that there is no need to reach your suggestion that the problematic is the justification of desires, since the prohibition is actually dealing with this problematic area.

Of course, this proposal is based on the assumption that there is such a prohibition (an occupation out of cultural or intellectual curiosity). Are there indeed those who explain it this way?

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 10 months ago

First, I must clarify that I do not accept either position. In my opinion, the second formulation is also unreasonable because it is not possible to forbid a person from thinking and engaging in substantive arguments even if his motivation is problematic. And what if, out of instinct, it turns out that he is really wrong? And that what I think now is necessarily the truth? Even if I am not competent, it is still unreasonable to forbid me from checking. Perhaps it is worth explaining that the prohibition is not on reading books and knowing the arguments, but only on adopting them as a matter of conscience (meaning when deep down you know that it is not true). This is already very close to the situation you describe. However, now the question does not arise because there is no prohibition on dealing with these issues, but only on drawing conclusions if in your opinion they are incorrect. So the motivations for dealing with these issues are irrelevant. Beyond that, I have already suggested in the past that this is a prohibition intended for those who accept it. Someone who accepts such a prohibition does not have autonomous thinking and therefore the prohibition is relevant to them. Someone who is endowed with autonomous thinking knows that such a prohibition has no meaning and therefore will not accept it. Note that this is very close to the wording I suggested here. In fact, there is no prohibition to engage in this, but only to formulate positions in an untrue manner. Here I am only adding that this is a prohibition intended to protect the people who are expected to formulate positions in this way. In any case, I am not addressing the question of what explanations exist in the poskim for this prohibition, since the various explainers are informed by different philosophical concepts. I am discussing this according to my opinion and not as a clarification of the various methods. Incidentally, Maimonides also wrote that there is a prohibition in this and at the same time dealt with it quite a bit.