Religious commandments are special and have no moral value in relation to peoples.
Hello, Your Honor! I would appreciate it if you could help me, please.
The rabbi noted in the fifth notebook a number of characteristics that distinguish the people, one of which is the acceptance of the many commandments that have no connection to a moral explanation, and therefore it is not clear why they would accept it.
Are there no other peoples who have a system of commandments that are purely religious in nature? I will explain:
If there is : Did the Rabbi mean that when it comes to a group that takes all of this upon itself – then it is not clear why? And what if claims about the revelation itself, such as the claim that perhaps the people were “drugged” by the Ten Commandments and from then on Moses was faithful to their observance, and even more commandments without a moral character – here there is no difference between this and a pagan religious leader who is allowed to impose such laws based on an existing belief? (Just for example).
If we claim that what makes the people unique is that they all (and therefore it is also unclear) have taken upon themselves the commandments, then are there all sorts of excuses that dilute this uniqueness?
Thank you very much.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hello, Your Honor.
1. It is not expected that a people would take on such a set of commandments, but as I asked, is it more expected that a people would follow a prophet who would command them such commandments?
2. Such a set of commandments is an anomaly in the landscape of all faiths, but is it not expected to happen, from an idea that continues and challenges more than other faiths? Because after all, the whole general idea is to please God?
1. I don't understand.
2. No. Why keep such strange and at the same time demanding commandments?
Because a people who already believe in God and His messenger, the prophet (like many religions), will also carry out what the prophet commands them to do, and even such commandments (question 1), or will they perhaps not accept the prophet's command?
But this is not a prophet who brings things in the name of God, but a tradition about a revelation made to everyone.
How do we know that the Mount Sinai stand was not an impressive natural experience (even a drug) that the prophet staged, and the people believed in the Creator from that?
Or maybe a narrative that spread and the faith was really in the prophet?
How do you know that what you see is not a hallucination under the influence of drugs? How could the prophet have hypnotized the masses like that? Are you willing to believe in that? So why not in G-d?
There is tradition and there is history, and this whole thing inspires me with confidence. If not in you – then no.
Although, if I understood correctly, the rabbi wrote elsewhere that it is not necessary that we are talking about masses, in terms of narratives that spread. But even if there are no masses, it is still not possible.
There is no single overwhelming argument. Only the combination of all considerations can decide. A narrative that is not among the masses is a weaker argument. The larger the public, the less likely it is. Especially a public in real time (because after the narrative is absorbed, it can spread among many)
And even though it's a weak argument, it's still defined as unique - right?
I don't understand these repeated questions. I think I've explained everything (including in the parallel threads).
Shalom, Honorable Rabbi.
Can these commandments be said to contain a moral idea? Like in kashrut, for example, by abstaining from foods, a person learns to guard his instincts and thus transcends morally?
It is true that in the combination of the claims - it is not clear why such strict commandments should be observed - but when this phenomenon is indeed expected, by a narrative for example, then this phenomenon must be unique in itself in order to be united in all the claims, which is why I am making this clarification.
You can say anything, but in my opinion it is not reasonable. See column 15 where I explain that at the foundation of religious commandments are religious values, not moral ones. It is true that there may be values on the side, such as controlling one's impulses.
I couldn't find column 15 in the posts…
???
https://mikyab.net/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A1-%D7%91%D7%A9%D7%A2%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A8-%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A8-15/
I did not understand the Rabbi's reference to the difference between Halacha and Musar -
After all, the Rabbi gives moral explanations for immoral commandments, such as:
A captive Gentile - the matter is immoral but there is no Halacha prohibition - and there the Rabbi gave an explanation and wrote that in extreme cases the matter is permitted in order to tip the scales in our favor - and this is a moral explanation.
And also in the case of a priest's wife who was raped - the Halacha is not moral, and the Rabbi writes that the reason is to preserve the priesthood - and this is a logical and moral reason for the benefit of the people.
So I did not understand exactly the Rabbi's position in general?
With me, preserving the sanctity of the priesthood is not a moral reason. What is the connection between morality and the priests being set apart from everyone else?
For the benefit of the people, because that way the priesthood remains and there is work in the Temple that only they can do.
I repeat, you are right.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
