Morals and Halacha
Rabbi, for some reason I did not receive a notification on the link where I asked my previous question regarding your method, in that there is a separation between morality and halacha and there is no connection between them except “in times of need,” when morality must be involved in halacha, when the interpretation is sound. I would like to ask a few things about this method:
A. If you claim that these are two different categories – and your only reference for moral interpretation within the world of religious values is Rabbi Shimon and the Time of Need – isn’t this need and standing on chicken legs? Is this the only Torah source in your opinion? The Rabbi’s interpretation is neither a simplification of Rabbi Shimon’s words to the point of being a single source
B. You claimed that interpretation can only enter when it is an interpretation between two equal interpretations and this is intellectually decisive for the moral interpretation – it seems to me that there are no such cases where there are two equal interpretations, and it also sounds to me that your words are saying that there is no place for morality at all, but only for interpretation. If morality arranges the more correct interpretation – great, but that does not mean that morality is being taken into account.
I would appreciate clarification on this matter.
A. This is not my only reference. I rely first and foremost on logic. If you are in doubt, there is no reason to choose the version that is more appropriate for morality. It is no different from considerations of time of stress and distress. The comparison to Rabbi Shimon is in this (they see a decision based on considerations of time of stress and not on interpretation. So a moral flaw is a time of stress) and not that this is the interpretation of his words. Beyond that, Rabbi Shimon is one example among thousands, and is absolutely not my main basis. Poskim constantly decide based on moral considerations. Already in the Gemara and after it.
B. When there are two interpretations that you cannot decide between, it means that they are equivalent. We do not have a quantitative measure of the logic of each interpretation. Therefore, it is not true that it is rare. It is very common. In many cases, there are equivalent interpretations. Think about every study class you have heard and you will see that explains the disagreement between the Rabbis and the Rashba or Rashi and Tos’ by saying that one believes X and the other believes Y. How do you decide? Usually, there is no one way that is better. Beyond that, when there is one interpretation that is slightly better, it is still possible that the moral distress will justify relying on the less reasonable interpretation. Just like in a time of need.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
