Morals and Law
Hello Rabbi!
As Rabbi Bekhuzari, Rabbi Kook, and others cite in his book “The Lights of the Torah,” the Torah consists of an objective and subjective part (the person), meaning that it is adapted to the person.
Therefore, a person who is composed of various components (as Maimonides states in eight chapters) can contain it.
If we look at the following parts: Man = intellect + emotion, we will define it for our purposes as a basic morality, such as “Thou shalt not murder.” There will be no contradiction between these parts and the halakha, but only a direction toward the “middle point.”
Now we come to the question: When I observe the laws of the Boreh on Shabbat and cannot move the waste on a plate, or I drop a stack of books (with no choice) in order to pick up the book underneath without sorting… I feel that it crumples my soul, it is abuse… My basic morality refuses to accept that this is the will of God.
In the past, I received an answer like: This is indeed the will of God. How do you know that God doesn’t want you to feel this way? We could say that the halacha as it is structured today is also part of the punishment (for all the sins of our past and those of our ancestors…) and today this is what correction looks like.
The latest question:
There is a paradox here: Man = reason + emotion (morality – basic)
As a Baal Teshuvah who did not receive a continuous tradition and after a 2000-year exile, I need to check whether the Torah is true?
The tools: reason + morality
Basic premise – God Almighty gave me appropriate tools that can clarify the truth.
Results:
That the Torah is true. Morality is immoral. (Which, in more severe terms, leads to the Torah being corrupted.) Here lies another basic assumption that Hashem does not want our harm.
Rabbi Sharki Bankz would say that we receive punishment because of everything our ancestors did… or us in previous incarnations… and therefore God is still moral (in the language of the question, of course).
It should be noted that this answer erases morality from being a tool… and is illegal… because they are asking me to cease being a human being, which contradicts my essence… and therefore I cannot ascertain the truth and in any case I am forced. In other words, the moment this answer is given, the basic premise with which I begin the investigation no longer exists, as a tool worthy of clarification.
And if you say that reason should prevail over basic morality, then this is a Torah that is not adapted to humans, especially according to Maimonides in eight chapters.
Another example of this: the law of Talihu and Zabin. (A number of other laws in tort law)
Looking forward to your reply!
Thank you very much,
Hello Y.
In the future, I would be happy if you asked through the website. It’s much more convenient for me.
I don’t really understand the difficulty, and certainly not a paradox. What’s the problem with the Borer prohibition? It’s clear that it has no moral purpose, so what? Most prohibitions in the Torah have no moral purpose. I don’t know what the purposes are, but if I’ve come to the conclusion that God gave us the Torah and commanded us to do so, then I’m obligated even if I don’t understand it.
My decision to be committed does not go through a detailed examination of each law to see if it seems right to me or not. I do not understand most of them. The examination is through asking whether God commanded it or not. An example of this is the Midrash in which God courted the nations and asked if they wanted the Torah and asked what was written in it. They wanted to examine the commandments in their entirety to see if they seemed right to them or not. But Israel said, “We will do and be heard,” because if God says it, it is probably the right thing even if we do not understand it.
You also take a doctor who prescribes you medicine, even if you don’t understand how it works. Why? Because you have trust in him and his knowledge. So I have trust in God Almighty and his knowledge.
By the way, I didn’t understand how all this relates to intellect versus emotion either.
Thank you for your quick response,
I would be happy for now if we could continue the correspondence by email.
I understand why my question is not understood because we do not agree on a number of basic assumptions, I will address your statements:
A. Most of the prohibitions in the Torah do not have a moral purpose - I do not agree for the following reasons: Man is a creature composed not only of intellect that will force him to accept commandments but also of soul (as stated in 8 chapters of the Rambam) and therefore there is a part called morality, which is not related at all to the operation of the intellect but to the accumulated wisdom (the Rambam in the words of logic) as well as to the wisdom acquired from the Torah (Orot Hakodesh Part 3), in the Torah there is an objective part and a subjective part (Orot HaTorah Chapter 1), the correspondence to the subjective part contains within it the point Morality, and therefore if there is a fundamental conflict between the commandment and natural morality, there are two options:
1. Expand natural morality through reason. 2. Remain in the dilemma - like the red cow. (This work was done by Maimonides in the third part of the lesson).
There can be no fundamental contradiction between the morality built into a person and the Torah given to him, because then it is not suitable for a person (the basis for this can also be seen in the letters of Rav Kook, the letter of Tza').
Therefore, I do not accept your answer regarding existence without understanding in cases where the contradiction is the bank of natural morality.
B. My decision to be obligated does not go through a detailed examination of each law, whether it seems to me or not. I don't understand most of them - this is only true on the condition that you have proven the truth of the Torah, but before that is proven, one case is enough to justify the entire proof, incompatibility with natural morality is definitely such a case, such as a formula for induction in which one case does not reflect the result, then the formula is incorrect.
C. The case of Ne'esh and Shema - as the Rabbi presents it, subject to interpretation, since God forced upon them a mountain like a tub, as mentioned in Tractate Shabbat, the people of Israel were very, very critical before agreeing to accept the Torah, including a detailed examination of the commandments, as mentioned in Kozari, article two, as I think.
D. You also take a doctor who prescribes you medicine, even though you don't understand how it works. Why? Because you have trust in him and his knowledge. – This claim brings the duty of the hearts but to reproach….not to praise. Your answer is based on the fact that you have accepted the Torah in all its details and parts, but before this acceptance, this answer cannot be answered.
E. Reason versus emotion - the mind can reach dry conclusions (a logical tool), but the soul part is not necessarily satisfied with these conclusions… For example: Jerusalem was not destroyed except because they based their words on the quality of the law.
In order to simplify the question, we will focus it on the law of hanging and Zabin… where morality cries out against the law.
Sorry for the hasty answer and the general sources, I hope I was able to explain my intention,
Looking forward to your answer,
Thank you.
Well, I don't agree with a word of everything you wrote. In my opinion, this is a collection of completely unfounded assumptions. In my opinion, there is no point in such a discussion here.
I can't find out by email what morality is, what emotion and reason are, what Torah is, and why we should keep the commandments. These are topics for a book (and I have written about most of them on the website).
If you would like to clarify these assumptions one by one, you are welcome to contact us through the website. But one assumption at a time, otherwise the discussion will become absurd.
All the best
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
