Attitude to the metaphysical assertions of the Sages

שו”ת › Category: philosophy › Attitude to the metaphysical assertions of the Sages

asked 9 years ago

Hello, I have heard rabbis and preachers use the concept of ‘all Israel is guarantors of one another’ to explain why troubles befall the people of Israel; Reuben was killed in a car accident, Shimon fell off a horse and broke his spine, Levi lost all his possessions and Judah cannot find his partner, all because Dan has an iPhone. Dan himself, happy and kind-hearted, downloads another app from one clerk to another, while people are being kidnapped around him on the right and left, some in cars and some on horses – for his own sin. My question is, is there really room for such an understanding? I am not asking on the basis of the verse ‘God is faith and there is no injustice’, for if it turns out that this is how God leads, then it is a sign that it is not injustice and I am at a disadvantage in not understanding it. The question is whether the Sages actually said such a thing, and if so, what led them to understand it this way. They specifically said, “A sin is a sin, and a sin is a sin.” That is, a person is not supposed to suffer for the sin of his neighbor. Regarding the quote I gave at the beginning of my remarks, they specifically said (Shavuot 39:11) that it is precisely when they have the power to protest and do not protest. On the other hand, we nevertheless found (Shabbat 33:33) a long list of calamities that are expected to come upon the world for various sins. And it does not appear there that the sinner is necessarily the one who is abducted. What is the Rabbi’s opinion on this? thanks

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 9 years ago

Hello Joel. I have never liked these interpretations, and not only because of the moral problem, but because I have no evidence that God, the Blessed One, actually works this way. This is the kind of mystical analysis that seems to me to be baseless speculation. I suspect that they were invented to rabbis to make us do mitzvot (if I relax the laws of Shabbat, the rabbis, the baker’s apprentice in Paris, will be practicing idolatry, as is quoted in the name of Rabbi Chaim of Brisk). And even if Chazal said this, it is no guarantee that it is true. They were wrong quite a bit, and thought according to what was accepted in their time. Just like us, of course. The same goes for the quote you brought from Tractate Shavuot (which of course seems more morally reasonable). And the same goes for Shabbat 33-35. Israel, Arab in each other’s eyes, can also be interpreted on a factual level, that your actions have consequences that may/may affect your other person. This is certainly true (depending on the level of closeness). I don’t think there is a need to interpret this as an active action by God punishing Zigud for Tobia’s sin. —————————————————————————————— Asks: Thanks for the answer. I didn’t really understand your words about the Sages being quite wrong. I understand that when it comes to the natural sciences we can state that they were wrong, but how can we claim the same regarding their words regarding the way God leads His world? Will we receive some kind of update from heaven after the Talmud was signed? —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Did the sages have some heavenly update before signing the Talmud? They used common sense and their interpretive tools, and we can and should do the same. If updates from heaven are needed, then they need them too, and if not, then we don’t need them either. Just use logic. —————————————————————————————— Asks: This means that if Chazal said that Reuben was afflicted by Shimon’s sin, and to me this idea seems delusional, is it kosher and honest for me to determine that they were wrong? —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: It is right and proper for you to be suspicious and think twice before you formulate a position. And indeed, it is also legitimate to come to the conclusion that they were wrong. What is the problem with that? And weren’t the sages human? —————————————————————————————— Asks: Of course there were people and they could certainly make mistakes. The problem is that if in the natural sciences I have a solid anchor to lean on to understand why I believe they were wrong, while I know the truth – since they did not have the tools of testing and measuring that were renewed after them, in understanding the ways of God’s guidance, on what basis can I claim to be different from them? I cannot think that I am equal to them, neither in wisdom nor in closeness to God. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: In my sins, I understand the authority of the Talmud differently than you do. It does not stem from the fact that its authors were more powerful sages than all of us (or possessed of the Holy Spirit), but from our acceptance of it as a binding text. In fact, it is the law, and therefore it must be obeyed (see the opinion of the Rabbis of the Old Testament, Memariam). In state law, it is also binding, not because members of the Knesset are the greatest sages, but because we have accepted it as such. Therefore, I see no reason to think that mistakes have been made there. I am not even sure to what extent the burden of proof is on me, that is, how convinced I must be if I deviate from the path of the sages of the Talmud. When sages say something from their own judgment, there is no reason for me to exercise my own judgment. If they pass on a tradition to me, that is something else. It has already been said: if it is accepted, we accept it, and if there is a law, there is a response. —————————————————————————————— Asks: If the authority of the Talmud does not derive from the wisdom of its authors, do you disagree with these words of the Gemara: Rabbi Yochanan said: The son of the first is like the entrance of a hall, and of the last is like the entrance of a temple – and we are like the hole of a needle filled with a siddique. The first – Rabbi Akiva, the last – Rabbi Elazar ben Shemu’a. Here I say: The first – Rabbi Elazar ben Shemu’a, the last – Rabbi Oshaya in my rabbi. And we are like the hole of a needle filled with a siddique. Abaye said: And we are because you have reached the point of the Guda to the Gemara. Rava said: And we are because you have reached the point of the Guda to the Gemara. Rav Ashi said: And we are because you have reached the point of the Guda to the Gemara. [Or do you believe this is part of some imperialist connection?] —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Yoel Shalom. First, if in principle I am willing to disagree with the Talmudic sages, why should I not disagree with this statement of theirs? Second, even if there is someone great, I do not usually accept his words just because he said it. See on this in Rosh Sanhedrin, p. 4, 6, in Oroch. And third, there are Talmudic statements that are not intended to convey information but to establish a correct attitude. Thus, statements that everything we have was transmitted to Moses at Sinai are intended not to make a historical claim but to establish the correct attitude towards innovations that are renewed at all times, which should be seen as if they were given to Moses at Sinai. Perhaps this is the case here too, that the first ones should be treated as if they were a hundred degrees above us and adhere to their words, but there is not necessarily a factual statement here. And fourth, I do not know whether the intention is for intellectual principles or for halakhic beliefs. My words were not about halakhic (and I do not accept it literally regarding it either. See my previous comment). So it’s true, this is indeed an imperialist plot.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.