The current, the appropriate, and the Torah
Hello Rabbi, I would be happy to ask His Honor a question and I will try to break it down into its components clearly to get to the point.
From what I understand, the rabbi claims that we have nothing but halakha.
That the philosophy of Judaism is not Jewish but part of general philosophy.
That the midrashim, and in general claims about reality and the sages, are not Torah.
I have some misunderstandings and concerns about this.
First of all, “Torah” is a language of instruction, and it seems that it really comes to give a command and not information about reality.
Regarding the information contained in the Torah, even though it is information about the world, I assume that Rabbi Michi would not say that it is not Torah study. Right?
Secondly, regarding claims about reality, as Chazal does not say, claims that concern the spirit and the ontological interiority of reality, which are also included in philosophy along with Jewish thought (which, according to him, does not exist but is an identical part of general philosophy), which in fact all simply discuss reality and the knowledge of reality. The same is apparently true of Kabbalah.
My question is, who said that knowledge about the inner workings of reality is not Torah at all?
The fact that we say that the Creator created the world is also a violation of the inner nature of reality, and we will still consider it to be Torah.
Maybe the opinion is really like that of Maimonides, that all preoccupation with metaphysics, which is the internality of reality, is a matter of Torah?
And if we say that the person believes something and claims, after all, the very act of engaging in it, on an intuitive level, does involve contact with the inner self, does involve elements that are certainly correct even if the conclusions are not always correct, and how is this different from studying Halacha, which also reaches an incorrect conclusion? Even if it is considered Torah (like the Gemara on Rabbi Akiva).
One could argue that there is no such thing as an indication, and my indication of what I am saying here is largely an intuitive explanation, but as mentioned, I see that it can be based on Torah claims such as the status of Mount Sinai and the creation of the world, which are claims about reality and not about a command.
thanks
light
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.
Thank you very much Rabbi for the response.
Why does if certain information is true about the whole world and not just Jews, does it become un-Torah?
It's a question of definition. As I understand it, facts in general are not Torah and are also universal (a true fact is true for everyone). I assume that Torah is just norms, and in particular norms that belong only to Jews.
I missed the response by 4 years and found it now haha. Thanks for the response.
What intention should there be in learning facts for Torah to be considered a virtue?
After all, a person can study philosophy and then tell himself that it was for the sake of heaven or to establish his Torah later, does it depend on intention? If so, is it a condition? Something smells quite paradoxical to me
In general, I tend to think that studying facts is not Torah, neither in terms of virtue nor in terms of desire. It could be a study with a value, but I wouldn’t call it Torah.
Although Maimonides thought that physics and metaphysics are included in this. I’m really not sure.
In any case, even if there is Torah in this, the second question was answered for the first time: study with the intention of understanding the world and the actions of God. It’s true that anyone can tell themselves and lie to themselves. So what? God is the only one who has a sense of this, and He probably knows.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
