Torah and morality
Good week Rabbi, I wanted to ask about the well-known story about the immigrant who wanted to convert so that Hillel could learn the entire Torah on one foot, and Hillel converted and told him that what is hateful to you, you shall not do to your neighbor, and you are a complete disgrace. On the surface, Hillel’s view seems to be that the Torah is a moral system whose sole axiom at its core is “what is hateful to you, you shall not do to your neighbor” (and from which the rest of the commandments are derived). It is true that in order to arrive at the prohibition against eating pork, a non-trivial process of derivation is required. But still, on the surface, it seems that this is Hillel’s view. I wanted to ask how this fits in with your view that the Torah contains values that are not moral.
Best regards,
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.
If this is just a question of checking seriousness and intentions, then Shammai could have done that too, and yet he really pushed the building. To explain the disagreement between Hillel and Shammai on this matter, we must say that this is an attempt at a concise formulation of the Torah.
It is difficult to determine Torah thought and understanding on the basis of a legend
Because like an allegorical interpretation, it is given as material in the hands of the creator
In the hands of the Torah commentator who stretches and shortens according to his prior view
For example, it is possible to explain that the Creator's intention must have been to command us moral behavior as a basis for observing the Torah's commands
As a kind of path from the ancient land, and ’Forever there will be a man’ and then ‘Fear God’
And so on, the land of the preacher is wider than the sea…
Determine your worldview and find support for it in legends and proverbs
Shammai was not willing to settle for a seriousness test and wanted the whole pot. Hillel was willing to go with him after he was convinced that there was potential.
But Moishe’la is right that it is difficult to determine a worldview based on legends.
I agree that one should not base a worldview on a legend, but apparently there is evidence here that contradicts the notion that there are extra-moral values in the Torah. I am trying to reconcile this, and also to understand whether there is any need to reconcile it at all. For example, if we assume for the sake of discussion that Hillel would have explicitly told a Gentile that there are no extra-moral values in the Torah. Would this be evidence to contradict it? Or at most, one can say that this is Hillel's opinion, and one can also think differently? Or is this perhaps a matter of dispute between Shammai and Hillel?
As I wrote, in my opinion there is no evidence here. Beyond that, it is doubtful how much such a legend is sufficient to build a general understanding of the Torah upon (either because there is another parasha, or because there are those who disagree with Hillel on this, and so on).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
