Studying from the Bible
Hello Rabbi. Do you think it is possible to learn values from the Tanakh when doing comparative research? That is, when you compare its origins with precedents, and see that the Torah responds completely differently from other laws that existed in the world at that time? It is clear that in the end the interpretation of the deviation can be judged according to the values of our times (and as in simply studying the Tanakh), but it still seems to me to be a focus.
This is not a study of values but a study of history (i.e., a study of facts: what people thought back then compared to what others thought). The question I am concerned with is whether such a study can teach me values, and I answered in the negative. For example, suppose that a study of the Bible revealed that humility is a blessed virtue and pride is wrong. This is in contrast to other Ugaritic texts that see pride as a good virtue. This is the comparison you talked about. What does this teach me? A historical fact: the Bible differs in its perceptions from other perceptions that prevailed at that time. What does this actually teach me? Did it teach me a new value that I did not know? Absolutely not. I also knew before (perhaps the Bible was part of what instilled this in us, but in practice this is the situation today) that humility is blessed and pride is wrong. So I did not learn any new value lesson.
It seems to me that you are mixing up two things here that many confuse. The distinction between facts and values (between is and ought) says that there is independence between facts and values, and that one cannot be derived from the other. The claim is that facts are learned from observing the (empirical) world, and values are not. Many wonder about this, because values can also be learned empirically: looking at the law book shows us that stealing is forbidden. But this is of course a mistake. Looking at the law book teaches me the fact that Israeli law prohibits stealing. This fact deals with values, but it is a fact like any other fact, and therefore it is learned through observation. The question of whether it is permissible or forbidden to steal does not arise from the fact that the law prohibits stealing, unless you add a normative assumption that the law is binding. But now you have to ask where the law is binding? And there is no empirical answer to this. You can again observe people and see that they see the law as binding, but this is again a mistake. This observation teaches you the fact that people see the law as binding. But this does not answer the normative question of whether it is truly binding (Am I obligated to what everyone else does or thinks? This is a normative question and cannot be answered by observation).
But doesn't the very fact that God chose to write the Torah this way turn it from a mere fact into a value? For example, as the Rambam perceived that in principle one can learn from nature about the dimensions of the Kabbalah, from the very fact that He chose to create them this way.
And regarding the degree of humility, etc. You may also find values that are not in line with your values today, and indeed as a result you will have to change your position. Of course, you can always point the finger and explain that it follows your method, the question is how honest it is with the text.
Rambam is precise. The very fact that he created nature in a certain way came to teach us certain values. Of course, when studying nature, it is more complicated to arrive at insights into the dimensions of the Kabbalah (although for Rambam it seems to have been simple for some reason), but when it comes to a written text that can be compared to other writers of the same period, the inference is much simpler.
I have already answered everything. And the issue has also been discussed extensively in the past. If I found that the Bible advocates humility, I would adopt it. That is not what the discussion is about. You asked about the comparison with other systems, and I explained why it lacks relevance. Then I added that even if I came to a conclusion about some value, I would not adopt it if it did not fit my values. It simply does not happen. Jacob married two sisters, so we will also marry two sisters? No, that is according to the word. He also lied, so we will also lie? No, there were not such and such explanations. Every time the conclusion contradicts our values, we excuse it. Therefore, in practice, we learn nothing from the Bible and there is no point in raising general principles. It does not work in any of the details.
In short, if you want to discuss, give a specific example.
How does the rabbi explain in his opinion that it is possible to convince in a value dispute?
But sometimes you can re-understand your own views.
So, how is learning from the Bible different from a value dispute from someone who is speaking to you?
Here you agree that the Bible can teach the IS OUGHT. This is a leap following your belief in the sanctity of the Bible.
I asked for an example. I'm already exhausted from endless repetition of points that have already been thoroughly discussed.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
