Personification, Torah Variation, and Providence

Hello.
I’m glad my book made you think.
1. The descriptions of God in the Torah are humanized, that is, they are formulated in human terms. The Torah is addressed to humans and it tries to explain God to humans (usually in the terms of the time in which the Torah was given). It is like a father telling his son that he is angry with him and his purpose is to educate and not necessarily to express true emotion. You have to remember that the Torah was given in a time when pagan concepts prevailed (in ancient mythologies the gods act as humans and are perceived in human forms).
2. A significant part of the halakha was shaped in ancient times, and one must be careful of an anachronistic approach (an interpretation that is fed by our world). For example, in halakha, the father is almost the owner of his daughter, which seems problematic today (even to me). But one must remember that in ancient times there was no place for a daughter or a wife alone, and she was under the responsibility of the husband or father. The Torah imposes responsibility on them for her and therefore also gives them the authority that comes with responsibility. This does not mean that in our time it will be realized as described there. Just as the slave issue will not necessarily be realized as described there. At that time, this was the correct approach. The sages of the generations shaped the halakha according to the needs and values ​​of the generation in many aspects. Some see it as if they were doing what they want, but in my understanding this is not correct. This is a role that the Torah itself imposes on them, because it understands that things require shaping according to place and time (there cannot be a universal law that will be true in every place and time). These changes are applications of the same conceptual framework in changing circumstances. I am attaching an article ( Enlightened Idolatry ) in which I describe a schema for such a way of thinking.
Now this should also be applied to homosexuality. In the kind of world that once existed, it might have been more problematic than it is today (and not just seems more problematic. The problematicness depends on society and environment), and when there is an accredited halakhic institution, I assume that the attitude towards it will change (I have suggestions but I am not entirely sure).
3. This is about personification. It is indeed common to think that God does not need this praise. Humans need to understand and internalize that there is something beyond them, wiser and stronger than them, that can give meaning and a framework to their lives and thoughts. To internalize this, it is necessary to turn to Him in a way that expresses such a perception and internalizes it. Only then is there any point in turning to Him. I will illustrate this through a story that the Gemara tells about a sage who was asked a question and answered the questioner that he would first serve him (=serve him) and only then would he answer him. One of the great Talmud commentators (in my opinion) wrote that if the questioner is willing to serve the questioner, then he builds within himself an appreciation for him and then it is likely that he will give credit to the answer he receives from him. There is no point in giving an answer to a person who does not give credit to what I tell him. After all, if someone does not give me credit, when I tell him X, if he agrees with what he hears then he will accept, but it has not changed anything for him (he agreed anyway). And if he does not agree, he will not think about it again and change his mind because he does not appreciate me. I can only learn from someone I respect. This doesn’t mean I’ll accept everything he says, but if I don’t understand him, I’ll think and consider it over and over again until I reach a conclusion. That way, there’s a chance I’ll learn something new. By the way, I always told my students that an argument in which I learned something is just an argument in which I lost. An argument in which I won is an argument in which I came out the same way I came into it (my opinions haven’t changed), so what did I gain from it?!

I would be happy to talk about whatever you find appropriate. By phone (052-3320543), by email, or to arrange a meeting. Don’t hesitate, I do this quite a bit.
——
Asks:
First of all, thank you very much for the quick and detailed response, I appreciate it.

You wrote about the fact that things were written according to the time in which they were written, and that makes sense to me. That’s exactly what I was thinking – how can you interpret all these things, after all, they were written in times when the world of values ​​was completely different, and over time moral norms evolved.
The thing is, I was educated that the entire Torah, both oral and written, was given entirely from the mouth of God to Moses at Mount Sinai. So were those prohibitions written by God only in accordance with the time? Isn’t the Torah eternal?
The truth is, I wandered around your site a bit, and in one of the posts on the topic of faith, you wrote that you don’t think so… that different parts were written at different times?
I would be happy if you could explain that. Because if it is really like that, and everything was written according to the social environment of the people who wrote the Torah… then what significance does anything from there have for our reality today? Do you believe that the Bible has historical significance? Or maybe just conceptual?

Another question I wanted to ask…
It’s a little complicated to explain, but I’ll try. How do you perceive God? Does he oversee? Does he intervene in creation?
Does prayer have any meaning at all?
——
Rabbi:
Hello X.
I was educated on this too, but I don’t accept everything I was educated on (and as I understood from your words, you don’t either). Things must be put through the crucible of criticism and a worldview must be formed regarding them. Chazal already taught “Eye for Eye of Mammon” and other sermons, and they saw themselves free to interpret and change the Torah they received. As I said, the Torah is raw material, not a finished product. Its refinement is the kneading of the raw material through friction with the environment and changing circumstances.
This change does not mean that the Torah in our hands is not the Torah that God gave. See the article I sent you, where I explain that tradition is dynamic (=raw material), and sometimes redesigning is actually the right continuation of what was, and precisely simplistic preservation of what was is taking things out of their intended purpose. Therefore, the Torah itself gives the sages of each generation a role to adapt and interpret the Torah throughout all generations. It itself sees itself as raw material and not as a finished product.
This is exactly the difference from fundamentalist religious concepts (Judaism also has fundamentalism in this sense) that think that what we have is what was given by God to Moses at Sinai. This is nonsense that does not stand up to any factual test (it is clear that most of what we have is a later development, certainly a Toshbap). And yet the Torah, written in the language of its time and place, has eternal significance. I believe that this is the right raw material whose refinement (and not its simplistic application) will lead us to the right way of life and certainly to the fulfillment of God’s will even in our own day. For example, slave laws are relevant to a world where slavery exists. In such a world, halakhic slavery is a magnificent institution, and there is much to learn from it for today. Not to apply slave laws simplistically, but to understand that criminals must be rehabilitated, how subordinates are treated, and a few other basic concepts in property law, and so on. In contrast, the American Constitution was also written in a different period and its applications today are different from what they were, and it is still an important and foundational document. For me, the Torah is not what was given to Moses at Sinai, but the form that this raw material has taken throughout history until I am here.

As far as I understand, God does not intervene in creation, except perhaps in very exceptional cases (which I do not notice). In any case, I do not count on it. Our eyes see that things proceed according to the laws of nature and I am unable to notice any deviations from these laws that depend on our commandments or transgressions or our prayers. Of course, one can always say that there is and I do not see, but I have no indication to think so.
Regarding prayer, requests for God to intervene may be meaningful in extreme cases where there is no way to handle the matter naturally. And even then, I wouldn’t count on an answer. But prayer has additional dimensions, standing before God, soul-searching, praise and thanksgiving for the world He created for us, and more. All of these are as relevant today as ever.

I am currently in the middle of writing a comprehensive treatise (3 volumes) that presents a comprehensive and up-to-date Jewish theology (and mainly “lean,” meaning without all the unnecessary and incorrect additions that have been introduced in various forms into our theology and on which we were educated), in which I try to address all these questions systematically. The matter requires considerable length.

All the best,
Michi