Gentile attitude

But if I know for certain that there is a certain priority for the life of a Jew, then it is no longer appropriate to state the reason for the Gemara that "Who would dare to say that a Jew blushes, if he

Anonymous, this is actually a question that appeared here once, why was a flush-to-the-face consideration needed when there are territorial considerations. I don't remember what and whether there was an answer to that.

It's Gopama who thought who would dare say. Then we could kill an old man to save a young man, a sick man to save a healthy man, and so on.
By the way, I don't know either, and certainly not with certainty that a Gentile's life is worth less. You won't murder the explanation for your gender and the punishment can also be tied to another matter.

Is the username "Miki" the Rabbi?

Miki is the rabbi from the phone.
And above I meant to refer here: https://mikyab.net/posts/66018#comment-32594. And look.

Yes, sir.

they!

The rabbi is essentially retracting his assertion that there is a certain priority for the life of a Jew.

No. I wrote that there is a priority in terms of prohibition and punishment, but that is not necessarily a moral difference.

Doesn't the priority in terms of prohibition and punishment stem from the moral difference? And if so, where does it stem from?

Indeed, one must distinguish between law and morality as you do.
But contrary to what seems to come out of your words (and correct me if I am wrong), the correct morality was established by Moses in the Torah.

And regarding the matter itself. The Torah does not say, “You shall not murder your brother,” but rather, it says, “You shall not murder.”
And these things are already explained in Noah: “And I will require your blood for your souls; from the hand of every living creature I will require it; and from the hand of man, from the hand of a man’s brother I will require it, the soul of man.” And whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

This is not about Jews, but about all human beings.

Even when it is said, "You shall not stand for the blood of your neighbor," the meaning is not a Jew, but your actual neighbor, even if he is a Gentile (and the same commandment applies to "Love your neighbor as yourself," even to a Gentile who is your neighbor).

This is from the Torah, that is, Jewish morality. But it was not ruled out by law because of the circumstances.

And her love for your neighbor as yourself is it clear that it concerns all people? It is not clear at all. It is very likely that your neighbor in the Torah refers to your fellow man. And your neighbor who is your neighbor - in his obligations to fulfill the covenant made with God.
There were already some of the commentators of the Italian Renaissance rabbis who supposedly tried to say this - that all the mutual commandments in the Torah relate to all people and that it is an interpretive distortion to say otherwise.
We have already said that everyone draws from the Bible what he wants?

Your neighbor is someone you know or who is close to you in some way. As opposed to a stranger. And it doesn't matter if he is a Jew or a Gentile.
The prohibition "You shall not covet" also originally applies to those you know. There is corruption and treachery in this. And it doesn't matter if he is a Jew or a Gentile. It is you who is corrupt if you covet your neighbor's wife.

You shall not take revenge or bear a grudge against the children of your people, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself:

The first part is about your people, do not take revenge on them under any circumstances.
And the second part says in other words, do not treat your neighbor as if he were your slave or something like that. Love him as yourself.
When the Torah wants to distinguish between a Jew and a Gentile, it does so. As in usury. You shall not murder is general. Any other claim is contrary to the Torah.
But the circumstances led the law to rule what it ruled.

Anonymous, in my opinion there is no connection between Halacha and morality. I have explained this here in the past, and even more in a series of lessons (under video lessons) on Halacha and morality.
I don't know why there is a difference in punishment and prohibition, but it could come from several places. For example, there is an interest in strengthening our relationship with our fellow men, and not necessarily because our blood is redder.

Posk, Moses did not establish almost anything in the Torah on a moral level. Morality is left to our conscience and ethical understanding.

So if I understand the rabbi correctly, it is impossible to deduce from halacha any indications regarding the worldview of Judaism?

I think there is no such thing as a "Jewish worldview".

Let's put things in order for all those who are confused here. Morality is not halakha. Morality belongs to the way of the land that preceded the Torah (to common sense) and is included in it. Even for Gentiles, the way of the land and morality precede their ”Torah” to the Seven Commandments of the Children of Noah. Therefore, it is possible that from the perspective of the Torah, the value of a Jew's life will be greater than that of a Gentile, even though from the perspective of morality (common sense) it will not be so. Also from the perspective of common sense, although according to the law there is no real equality between humans (I think it is not defined. There are things in which humans are equal and there are things in which they are not), but it seems that there is indeed equality in the value of human lives (it is forbidden to kill another's life to save your own).

The reasoning of “Who would dare to kill a friend, etc.’ ” For example, despite its clear logic, it belongs to the Torah and not to morality (it is a reason for Torah law and therefore it is also supposed to be (as part of the axiomatic approach to Torah) Torah itself), that is, although the Gemara calls it “reasoning” (as opposed to “reading”) it actually belongs to the internal logic of the Torah which surprisingly (and strangely) very often (always?) converges with our common sense, but this is really the case with all the commandments of man to his fellow man, which are really not “moral” commandments but “religious” commandments (i.e. they are really commandments of man to place. Which is often expressed in the details of these commandments that are not necessarily understandable to our common sense.

Doesn't the rabbi think that Pirkei Avot is the "worldview of Judaism"? At least the Pharisee-Orthodox one.

By the way, I am not a judge, but apparently according to the Torah, the law of "shall be killed and shall not pass over" applies to Gentiles (although there will be exemption from punishment, because this is also the case with Jews according to Maimonides) because of the Torah principle that there is nothing that was forbidden to us when we were Gentiles (before the giving of the Torah) and permitted to us when we became Jews (after the giving of the Torah). Also a principle that stems from an explanation. It seems to me that this principle has an aspect that the Gentiles will not say that they came from severe holiness to light holiness.

Does this mean that the Torah can command us to perform commandments even though they clearly and clearly contradict morality, and that one should not try to show the moral side of commandments that are perceived as immoral (if I understand the rabbi's words correctly)?

Moses determined what is the right morality! It is clear that different people have different consciences and different morals. But for Jews, the right morality is what Moses determined. This is what it means to be a Jew. For Gentiles, there is Kant or other moral quacks. For us, the Torah determines what is morally right.
If a person's conscience instructs him to do the opposite of the Torah, then either the scripture was misunderstood, or he has an unhealthy conscience and has no choice but to act according to the Torah (to correct his ways).
Regarding the sages who in several places instructed the opposite of the Torah, it is usually because of the need of the hour. And not because, as some ignorant people think (like an ant) that morality evolved.

Emmanuel “Derech Eretz preceded Torah”. Derech Eretz is not morality, but the manners and conduct accepted in that place.

For the Jew, the one and only morality, that is, the one that distinguishes between the wicked and the righteous, is the Torah. Anyone who believes in this is by definition an infidel in the Torah and in Moses our Lord.

To Anonymous

I believe that there really is no (and cannot be) contradiction. And if there is a contradiction, then you have to think. If you don't find a solution, then you are left with two texts that deny each other and are waiting for the third text to decide between them. This has happened to me quite a bit and I have found very good solutions. Usually what happens in such a case is one of three things: 1. Either what you thought was a commandment is not really such
2. Or the Torah did not command what you think it commanded.
3. Or both of the previous possibilities together.

To the Posk

What statements. Fire and lightning. I really can't stand you. Even God is amazed. Wait until I get up. In any case, Derech Eretz includes a lot of things. (Even manners and conduct). For example, "the one who behaves in them is a man of Derech Eretz" in Tractate Berakhot. It is work or livelihood or craft. In the Ketubah, "Come to me according to the way of all the earth" is a marital relationship. And also Tractate Derech Eretz from the Shas. And also the Torah taught Derech Eretz that there should be no man, etc. (which is a bit of a paradox) and the generalization is all the things that common sense and human normality dictate. When Chazal demanded "to keep this way, the way of the earth, the way of life, this is Torah", it does not seem to me that they intended something so insignificant as manners and conduct (derech Eretz at a meal).

Just as there is no such thing as determining correct morality. Morality is a matter of fact (that is, to say what is moral and what is not (what is good and what is bad) is an observational and not a normative matter. ). It's like Moses being the final arbiter in matters of reality (physics) and telling me what my eyes see or don't see. That doesn't belong. Moses can say what is wrong in the eyes of Moses or God. Then I'll have to think about how that fits in with what is wrong (immoral) in my eyes (which is also what is wrong in the eyes of God. He also doesn't want me to do what is wrong (immoral) in my eyes. Although it is on a lower level than Moses)

In general, if you are the final arbiter, no one can come after you and disagree with you (end of teaching)

Easy correction: The sermon is of course: “Keep the path - this is the path of the land, the tree of life - this is Torah”

To Anonymous

By the way, your question to the Rabbi, in my opinion, there really is no such thing and it is also a detractor – ” Anyone who says, "Your mercy will reach even to a bird's nest," establishes that his commandments are not mercy but decrees. That is, finding morality in the commandments of the Torah detracts from their holiness and supreme wisdom. As if God, the Holy One, needs to receive approval or praise or justification from us. But yes, there is an interest in finding solutions to contradictions to morality on the part of the one who has an interest in understanding. That is, if it does not contradict, one must understand how. That is, there is also an interest in not condemning God, the Holy One.

No lightning and no thunder. He who disbelieves in the Torah as the source of authority is a disbeliever in the Torah. He who thinks he is more moral than Moses our Lord is simply an evil disbeliever.

And you forgot that the way of life in Germany, Kant's homeland, was initially to spit on Jews and as a result of the development and wisdom of the Germans, because the great morality and customs practiced in Germany developed in a very short time, as is known to the great moralists among us.

This is the well-known cry of ”Khuyper!!!!!!!” (I hope you are not a troll). You must feel really righteous. Blessed are you, righteous. What is the source of authority? There is a part of the Torah that is authority, as we know (obligation, commandment, authority). This is exactly the discussion. Where is the authority of the Torah and where is it not? What is included in the 33 commandments and what is not. What is the source of the masks to believe in the presence of Mount Sinai for those who were there? Not his eyes? Maybe it is forbidden to believe in the Torah until God tells us to believe in it. And it is forbidden to believe in God until God tells us to believe in Him, and turtles all the way down…..

You probably do not understand what a way of life is. Even the Germs did not think it was okay to spit in a person's face. They sinned and if they did, then it is their way of development. Their problem was that they did not have a God and I also believe that there is no morality without God (as with Abraham and Abimelech). But there is morality without Torah. God is also part of the Derech Eretz. Besides, the Germans were truly more developed (also morally) than the other Eastern European nations that were barbaric and savage (and if they had intelligence like the Germans, they would have caused us greater harm than them. It is only because they were less developed that they had less intelligence). And many Torah-observing Jews do not have a Derech Eretz (and therefore they do not have Torah either. Oh, here is another Derech Eretz – “If there is no Derech Eretz there is no Torah” (and there it was in the sense of livelihood, but then it is not clear what the meaning is if there is no flour there is no Torah)). In other words, they are savage and barbaric. So you see that the Torah cannot, on its own, bring about Derech Eretz. Although according to the testimony of the Mishnah, a Jew without one of these two levels, and if he lacks one of them, he also lacks the other. Perhaps even to a Gentile in relation to his "Torah."

To the judge

By the way, it seems to me that Moses our Lord would have preferred me with my questions about his morality (which I don't have. I said that I believe that deep down there is no contradiction) than you with your flattery towards him. Moses was a true man and loves true men like him. And a true man does not deny his inner feelings even if he believes in people greater than him and even in God. Believing in your feelings is believing in yourself. And believing in yourself comes before believing in anything else - even believing in God, and not in Moses our Lord. He will try and strive to find the solution until he arrives, and if he does not arrive, he will not reject one truth for another and remain in need of study. Your attitude is not faith in Moses our Lord. It is righteousness (conservative righteousness. As opposed to liberal righteousness, which really talks a lot about morality). You love the feeling of a fighter for justice for the sake of the Torah, but believe me, you are doing it a disservice.

Emmanuel,
A. You wrote that there is no contradiction between Torah and morality (an error in understanding the Torah inclusive light, an error in understanding morality). What do you think about the well-known classics of a priest's wife who was raped, the seed of Amalek, the war of the state, the exemption from harm in the gram, the damage that is not noticeable, the permission to kill in the city for any need, the city that abandoned women and children, the tribe of Korah, Sodom and Gomorrah.
B. There is no morality without God Do you mean that in a theoretical, principled, abstract way on paper there is nothing that claims morality as a commitment that is not God (as Rabbi Michael believes), or the practical claim that people who are consciously atheists, even when they behave de facto in accordance with the moral commandment, are not entitled to have the name of the moralist and the name of his ancestors Abraham and Isaac called upon them? Or something else?

Yishai,
Pirkei Avot contains a collection of universal insights, and whatever you don't like from there, you won't accept. I don't see anything Jewish there.

Anonymous,
Indeed. It's worth listening to my series on Halacha and Morality (and a more concise summary at the beginning of the third book). And briefly in column 15.

Emmanuel,
As for your claim that explanations reduce the status of the mitzvot, this is what the Maimonides in the book of 1935-20 rejects outright.

To the sheep

A. I wrote. In relation to these. Waiting to write the third one that will decide between them. But the truth is that these are not difficult questions. A priest's wife being raped is a tragedy only in relation to us. From their perspective, it is not the relationship to us. In their world, the concept of holiness (and in our case, the holiness of the priesthood) occupied a place that it does not occupy in ours. I believe that in their time, both the priest and the woman would take it easily (she would marry another and he too and they would not make too big a deal out of it)

In relation to wars, it was a cruel world (and I know that today in the East it is like this too and in the West it is like this internally and therefore today it is less terrible. However, externalities have significance but this is not the place for discussions). From the perspective of the ancient world, what you call cruelty was actually justice. If God had not acted this way, they would have thought He was a sucker – Like the Arabs of our time who interpret morality weakly (and there is a hint of truth in this)). In relation to the Taf of the Korach tribe, it has to do with the fact that in the ancient world the organic units were families and nations and they were punished for their sins and not for the sins of others. (This is not the place to explain how Taf sins but Taf is not righteous)
So basically all that needs to be solved is only the morality of the West today with the eternity of the Torah and it is not a serious problem because the world in its interior today is still cruel and wild but merciful. In short, the principle is that morality is built on reciprocity. It is immoral to behave immorally with someone who would not behave with you in the same way. This solves almost all the things you brought. I will not address the other things here either (and these are small details of a legal system that are easy in general) because I just wanted to demonstrate

B. I believe like Rabbi Michai but not exactly like Rabbi Michai. For me, belief in God in the context of morality is belief in a universal reward and punishment mechanism of reality for sins against morality. That is, that crime does not pay. For my part, let them call it karma. The main thing is that they fear Jesus. Even if they are atheists, then they still have the fear of God, but they do not have the fear of the Torah (God gives the Torah). But whoever does not believe in reward and punishment for morality, even if he claims to be moral, I think he is immoral, and if he is moral (according to his actions and behavior), then I claim that deep down he does believe in God. He has an “Abrahamic point” (on the scale of a Jewish point) but not a “Moshe rabbinical” point.

To the Rabbi

First of all, if Maimonides believes so, then what does it matter. This is my observation (which has been put into a lot of thought). Secondly, I do not claim that explanations reduce the status of the commandments, but rather that explanations that are outside the Torah (i.e., not from its internal logic) - taken from the world of human experience - psychology, history, law and sociology - reduce the status of the commandments. After all, I wrote that there is wisdom in the commandments, so that means they have an explanation, only that it must be sought within the world of the internal logic of the Torah. This is the essence of the Briskian study (which actually deals with both the why and the why, even though it is busy claiming that it deals with the what. After all, a definition is also needed for understanding (which is the why) and also distills the why. In other words, in order to define something, one must also understand a little of the why of the law being defined. In other words, what is its reason. Only there is a limitation that the reasons are taken from the existing halakhic system of concepts. Just as one proves a theorem in mathematics from other theorems and does not seek proofs from something outside of mathematics). Outside of Torah, it also includes human morality. And I haven't even talked about the teachings of Kabbalah at all.

Correction: In the first section: From their perspective, it wasn't that big of a deal. In their world, there was the concept of holiness (and in our case, the holiness of the priesthood) and it occupied a place that we don't have (After studying the Bible for many years, I realized that people today don't really understand this concept. This concept has disappeared from Western culture and we don't perceive it from birth the way they did. Only after much study did I begin to understand all sorts of laws and events in the Bible, only because I realized that there was something here that I didn't understand and that the people of the ancient world considered very carefully and that doesn't exist in our world at all).

Emmanuel, it seems that this has slipped a bit into the interpretations of the Mishnah.
The point is that for the Jew, the Torah is the source of correct morality. “And you walked in his ways”
And the law ruled otherwise because of the necessity of the circumstances.

What does this mean for the Jew? Is there an objective, "correct" morality that is different between a Jew and a Gentile?

Every person has a different morality than his fellow man. This is expressed in a different conscience that awakens differently about different things (and the difference arises as a result of different genetics, different upbringing, and different circumstances).

The correctness is in the sense that one follows it. Why? A hat.
And this is not because there is something objectively true here, but because the Jews believe in Moses our Lord.
In contrast to this blind approach, there are those who adopt moral teachings that suit their morality and follow them.

Rabbi Michai, what does it matter if you accept or I accept Pirkei Avot? It contains the basis of Jewish thought. A person who fears God can think things that are outside of Jewish thought, and a Gentile can think things that are within Jewish thought. Why does it matter if I don't accept part of Pirkei Avot?

Another correction: It may be clear, but the intention was that: “It is not immoral to behave immorally with someone who would not behave in the same way with you”. In other words, morality does not apply to someone who is immoral. Someone who is immoral is like an animal. And morality does not apply to animals (also from the principle of reciprocity. This is a somewhat circular argument, but the rationale is that animals do what their impulses tell them. And someone who chooses evil also does what his impulses tell him (choosing good is transcending impulses, an action based on discretion and not on impulse) and it is not appropriate to blame someone who harms an animal because of his impulses when animals also behave this way. And they are not yet aware of it)

The discussion is, of course, about someone who is clear to you or you suspect that your person is immoral. If there is any doubt, then my tendency is to say that one should act harshly (in favor of kindness).

To the judge

Well, you're probably new here, but my observation (and that of many others) is that morality is objective and talking about Jewish morality is like talking about Jewish clothing and food. It's culture and not something serious. All this talk about us being Jews, etc. is childish talk. No national identity will obligate me to anything. It's just conservative modeling. Like the Indian mentality. What obligates are only objective things. The Torah obligates us not because we are Jews but because it is true (but only Jews were obligated to it). And morality obligates because it is true. Therefore, it obligates every human being. Cultural relativism in relation to morality is only in the shell of this concept. At its core, there is agreement on it, otherwise there would be no point in conceptualizing the concept at all and for everyone to call it whatever name they want.

Yishai,
So, we've moved on to semantics. Call it Jewish thought, or what's written in any other book. For health. It's not binding and not acceptable to Jews, and it doesn't have to be acceptable to them. Every Jew or Gentile who accepts it accepts it and whoever doesn't doesn't.
Personally, I see no point in calling it Jewish thought, since in the vast majority of cases these are universal insights that didn't come out of the Torah and most of them are not even related to the Torah. Only the person who said them was a Torah scholar. This is also true of Maimonides' medical books, where there are also universal principles that were said by people whose mother was Jewish.
If this is, in your opinion, Jewish thought - for health. There's no point in arguing about the definition of a concept.