Answer

There is no boundary at all. Even if there is belief in something, that itself stems from rationality. It tells me that I should place trust in this or that. Therefore, you have to weigh for yourself how much to listen to others and consult with them, and how much weight to give their words. This reminds me that students once asked me before dating for marriage whether it is better to follow the head or the heart, and I told them that decisions are made only with the mind. But the mind should consider what the heart is saying and take that into account too.
And in general, if I answer you right now on this very question, you could again ask how much trust you should place in what I am saying. You understand that in the end the decision is always yours and the responsibility is on you.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
If I critically examine the commands in the Written Torah, not all of them, to the best of my knowledge, will pass rational scrutiny; that’s where reverence in commandment observance comes in (the red heifer comes to mind at the moment). Doesn’t that diminish the service of God?
And in addition, the answer raises another question for me—
If you think differently from the approach in the Talmud and the medieval authorities, or you think the era has changed and so you act differently, doesn’t that encourage a bit of Reform? (For example, turning on a light is not prohibited labor because it is not really kindling a fire, since the whole command is against excessive labor on the Sabbath, etc.)
And if the Rabbi’s answer to this question is yes, is Reform not a dirty word?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Observing commandments whose reason you do not know is completely rational. It is like taking medicine prescribed by a doctor without knowing how it works. What is not rational is accepting an implausible interpretation without having a reason to accept it (that is, when there is no indication that this really is the correct interpretation of the Torah’s intent). And in the example of the doctor and the medicine, it is not rational to take medicine from a quack doctor or from someone who does not understand medicine, such as an alternative practitioner.
I have no problem encouraging reform even if reform is bad. If it is the truth, then it is the truth. And if it encourages something bad, then one should try to deal with that. People said the same thing after Rabin’s assassination, that religion leads to murder, and I wondered then what exactly I was supposed to do. Not be religious because it leads to murder? If the truth is that commandments should be observed, then they should be observed. And if there are fears of problematic consequences, those should be addressed in an attempt to prevent them.
Besides, Reform is absolutely not a dirty word, certainly not in the sense you are assuming (as in the example of turning on a light). Changes in Jewish law are not Reform in the essential sense. See my article on this here.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
An implausible interpretation—
Could “the fruit of a beautiful tree” be an example, taken to mean specifically an etrog? Why couldn’t it mean any citrus fruit?
And if so, what validity does the Oral Torah have at all? Is it just a recommendation? Because for every derash on a verse, one could also derive another interpretation (no less reasonable).
What weight does the Oral Torah carry?

And regarding reform: would you really do anything just because it is true and not take other considerations into account? For example, would you execute all the terrorists sitting in Israeli prisons even though such a thing could harm the security of the State of Israel?
Thank you very much for addressing this.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Which interpretation? What are you referring to? I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain. I am corresponding with many people at the same time.
If killing the terrorists is the right step to take (when part of the considerations includes our relations with the world), I would do it. Here the tactical considerations are part of the truth itself.
In any case, I say that the right thing is to kill them, and I do not do so because of our relations with the world. Likewise in Jewish law, one can say that what is right is X, but because of one concern or another I would not do it. Moreover, if one does not make that distinction in Jewish law, one violates the prohibitions of adding to or subtracting from the Torah.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
I asked the Rabbi what the boundary is for listening to rabbis, and from where I begin to think for myself.
And the Rabbi wrote to me that there is no boundary to rationality, and that I should use my own judgment all the time, even if it goes against the rabbis’ opinion. And to complete the picture, the Rabbi added that it is not advisable to listen to rabbis if the interpretation is implausible (when there is no clear indication that this is the Torah’s intent). So I am offering the Rabbi this example in order to understand whether I understood his answer correctly or not. “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree…” This would seem to imply that it could be any beautiful tree fruit and not specifically an etrog.
If this example is valid—what validity does the Oral Torah have at all? And what weight does it have in relation to my own decision-making about whether to observe it?
Have a good week, Rabbi, and thank you very much for addressing this.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I still do not understand the connection. What I said was that you have to decide what seems reasonable to you, including the consideration of whether to listen to someone. What does that have to do with “the fruit of a beautiful tree”? There is a tradition that the intention is an etrog and not any citrus fruit. If you believe it—accept it. And if not—then not.