The morality of the Torah and the validity of its authority

Hello Rabbi Michi,
I just watched your debate with Yaron Yadan about ten months ago, and a number of questions came to mind. I apologize in advance for the length, but it is Torah and I need to learn.

• You claim that the Torah is an independent system of laws that is not related to moral values, and that each of the two systems stands on its own. A few questions about this:

1. I saw that you were already asked on the site about the verse “For it is your wisdom and your understanding…”, and the answer that I rather agree with according to the usual understanding is difficult, since our eyes that see that the Torah does not inspire admiration among the Gentiles, and furthermore, since the verse mentions laws that are commandments without meaning, you therefore suggested that the verse means that the Gentiles see in the test of results that the people of Israel are successful and wise, and hence conclude that their Torah is good and correct.

But the language of the passage is “who will hear all these laws and say, ‘Only a wise and understanding people…'”, meaning that this statement comes as a result of hearing the laws themselves, and not as a result of observing the people of Israel.
The very difficulties you raise, seemingly, are mutually exclusive. Hearing the ‘laws’, the logical and simple commandments, should not arouse special admiration in the Gentiles. This is more or less the case with them as well. It is precisely hearing the laws that are not initially understood that arouses admiration, but of course this admiration only comes when they understand what the depth and idea behind those laws are. Of course, every law in the Torah has some kind of meaning and idea (I think you yourself wrote about this here not long ago regarding the decrees of the Scripture), but one has to delve deeper and study a lot to get to the root of the matter. After understanding the depth of wisdom inherent in this, it is certainly likely to arouse admiration and appreciation for the people who observe these commandments.
I will give an example from one of the commandments that you often bring up as an example of the gap between the Torah and morality – the prohibition of a bastard coming into the congregation. At first glance, there is indeed something immoral here, a serious injury to a person who has done nothing and a denial of basic rights from him. But it is possible, for example, that the reason for this is the understanding of the Torah that a person who came into the world in a corrupt way is also very likely to have a damaged and corrupt soul (as indeed the Sages wrote in Chapter 10 of the Genealogy). This is what the Torah seems to imply by comparing the two adjacent commandments: “A bastard shall not come into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation he shall not come into the congregation of the Lord,” and immediately afterwards, “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not come into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation he shall not come into the congregation of the Lord forever.” The Torah explains that the Ammonites and Moabites will not come because they did not advance with bread and water, etc., and apparently the intention is not only a punishment but an understanding that these are nations that genetically have corrupt qualities. The Torah apparently implies that these qualities came about at the beginning of the creation of these nations, when Lot committed adultery with his daughters, and this is why it prohibited any bastard from coming into the congregation (one could go on to explain that this is the reason why a bastard of doubt would come into the congregation, because in principle there is no certainty that he is corrupt. Only when he is definitely a bastard – as was the case with Lot and his daughters, who had no other man with them in the cave – is he prohibited from coming into the congregation because the fear of corruption increases).
Of course, this explanation is not necessary, but it is certainly possible for the reader, and in my opinion it certainly shows depth and wisdom and may arouse admiration in those who understand it and observe the matter.

1. Besides the above verse about a wise and prudent people, there are other places in the Torah that teach that the commandments are intended for our benefit, “for our good all the days to live as we do today,” “for your good,” and in all of them the clear implication is that the intention is in our present life and not in the hereafter, etc. And since in your opinion (if I am not mistaken) there is really no providence or reward and punishment in this world, you must explain that the “good” that the Torah describes is simply the result of a correct and upright life, personal, social, and national. If we are talking about a religious system that has nothing to do with morality and ordinary humanity, it is difficult to imagine how it leads to a better and more complete life in relation to a nation that adheres only to moral values.
2. In addition, I think that when we see that many of the Torah’s commandments do express moral values, and even moral values ​​that are higher than the norm (interest, the Sabbath lost, gifts to the poor, and many more), it is very difficult to claim that it was just a coincidence that the Torah has so many commandments with a moral flavor. It is much more evident that the Torah does come to educate us in morality (and, as mentioned, to an even higher degree than the norm that the nations of the world are required to adhere to) along with other important values, and that the handful of commandments that seem to us to contradict morality (in my rough estimate, no more than 10 commandments, if we do not refer to the “immoral” commandments in the Torah) we will strive to understand them in depth until they settle in our hearts.

• Later in the debate, you explained your thesis regarding the source of the Torah’s authority: Since you came to the conclusion that there is a God and that He probably created us for some purpose, and it is unlikely that the purpose is the realization of moral values ​​(because He could not have created the world and then not be required to adhere to these moral values), it must be assumed that He requires us to realize a set of religious values ​​in addition to moral values, and so we must look for where this system of laws is located. At the same time, tradition tells us about the status of Mount Sinai and the Torah that we received there, and although this in itself is not necessarily binding proof, in conjunction with the previous conclusion, it is reasonable to assume that this Torah is indeed the system of laws we were looking for.

I have a few questions about this move:

1. According to this, the Gentiles who are not bound by the Torah’s system of laws were created for nothing. After all, we said that there is no reason to create humans for the sake of morality.
2. Who said that the purpose of creation is the observance of a religious system of laws? Maybe God wanted to have fun and therefore created a world with different people and nations who ensure that there will never be a dull moment on the globe? Maybe a thousand and one other reasons? Is it really reasonable in your opinion to build the entire commitment to Torah on the basis of the aforementioned unnecessary understanding of the purpose of creation? Especially since it is really not that reasonable to claim that all of creation was intended so that creatures would observe some religious system of laws – what exactly is the benefit of that to the Creator?
3. According to your system, you are supposed to be a Karaite. After all, you searched for a system of religious laws and came to the conclusion that this is the Torah we received at Sinai. So why is all the interpretation of the sages binding? Why don’t you open the book that God gave you and try to understand for yourself what He wants from you?

There are a few more points I wanted to discuss, but first I would appreciate a response to the above matters.