Q&A: Attitude toward the Metaphysical Determinations of the Sages
Attitude toward the Metaphysical Determinations of the Sages
Question
Hello Rabbi, I’ve heard rabbis and preachers making use of the concept that “all Israel are responsible for one another” in order to explain why troubles come upon the Jewish people: Reuven is killed in a car accident, Shimon falls off a horse and breaks his spine, Levi loses all his property, and Yehudah cannot find his match—and all this because Dan keeps an iPhone in his possession. Dan himself, cheerful and happy-hearted, keeps downloading one more app after another, while all around him people are getting hit right and left, some in cars and some on horses—because of his sin. My question is: is there really any room for such an understanding? I am not asking on the basis of the verse “a God of faithfulness and without injustice,” because if it turns out that this really is how God runs the world, that itself would be proof that it is not an injustice, and the deficiency would be in me for not understanding it. The question is whether the Sages really said such a thing, and if so, what led them to understand matters that way. They explicitly said, “Tuvia sinned, and Zigud gets flogged?”—that is, a person is not supposed to be punished for his fellow’s sin. And regarding the quotation I brought at the beginning of my remarks, they explicitly said (Shevuot 39a) that it applies specifically when they are in a position to protest and do not protest. On the other hand, we nevertheless find (Shabbat 32b, 33a) a long list of calamities poised to come upon the world because of various sins. And there it does not seem that the sinner is necessarily the one who gets hit. What is the Rabbi’s opinion on this? Thank you
Answer
Yoel, hello.
I have never liked these interpretations, and not only because of the moral difficulty, but because I have no evidence that the Holy One, blessed be He, actually operates this way. This is the kind of mystical analysis that seems to me baseless speculation. I suspect it was invented in order to prod us into doing commandments (if I am lenient regarding rabbinic Sabbath laws, the baker’s apprentice in Paris will go worship idols, as they quote in the name of Rabbi Chaim of Brisk).
And even if the Sages said this, that is no guarantee that it is true. They were mistaken quite a bit, and thought in accordance with what was accepted in their time. Exactly like us, of course. So too regarding the quote you brought from tractate Shevuot (which of course seems more morally reasonable). And likewise regarding Shabbat 32b–33a.
“Israel are responsible for one another” can also be interpreted on the factual level: that your actions have consequences that may/can affect others. That is certainly true (depending on the level of closeness). I do not think there is any necessity to interpret this as an active intervention by the Holy One, blessed be He, punishing Zigud for Tuvia’s sin.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Thank you for the answer.
I didn’t really understand your remarks about the Sages having been mistaken quite a bit. I understand that with regard to the natural sciences we can determine that they were mistaken, but from where do we get the basis to make such a claim about their statements regarding how God governs His world? Did some kind of update from Heaven arrive after the sealing of the Talmud?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Did the Sages have some heavenly update before the sealing of the Talmud? They used common sense and their interpretive tools, and we too can and should do that. If heavenly updates are needed, then they would need them too; and if not, then we do not need them either. One simply has to use reason.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Meaning that if the Sages said that Reuven suffers for Shimon’s sin, and in my eyes this idea seems absurd, it is proper and upright for me to conclude that they were mistaken?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
It is proper and upright that you be suspicious and think twice before forming a position. And yes, it is legitimate even to reach the conclusion that they were mistaken. What is the problem with that? Were the Sages not human beings?
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Of course they were human beings, and of course they could make mistakes. The problem is that in the natural sciences I have a stable anchor to rely on in order to understand why I think they were mistaken and I know the truth—since they did not have the tools of testing and measurement that were developed after them. But in understanding the ways the Holy One, blessed be He, governs the world, on what basis can I claim otherwise than they did? I cannot think that I compare to them, neither in wisdom nor in closeness to God.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
To my sorrow, I understand the authority of the Talmud differently from you. It does not stem from the fact that its authors were vastly greater sages than all of us (or possessed divine inspiration), but from our acceptance of it as a binding text. Essentially, that is the law, and therefore it must be obeyed (see Kesef Mishneh, chapter 2 of the laws of Rebels). The same is true of state law: it is binding not because the members of parliament are the greatest sages, but because that is what we accepted upon ourselves. Therefore I see no obstacle to thinking that mistakes occurred there. I am not even sure to what extent the burden of proof is on me—that is, how convinced I need to be if I depart from the path of the sages of the Talmud. When sages say something based on their own judgment, there is no reason I too should not use my own judgment. If they are transmitting a tradition to me, that is something else. About that it was already said: if it is tradition, we accept it; but if it is a legal inference, there is an answer to it.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Be that as it may, even if the authority of the Talmud does not stem from the wisdom of its authors, do you disagree with these words of the Talmud:
Rabbi Yohanan said: The hearts of the earlier ones were like the entrance of the Ulam, and those of the later ones like the entrance of the Sanctuary—and we are like the eye of a fine needle. The earlier ones—Rabbi Akiva; the later ones—Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua. Some say: the earlier ones—Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua; the later ones—Rabbi Oshaya son of Rabbi. And we are like the eye of a fine needle. Abaye said: And we are like a peg in the wall with regard to Talmudic learning. Rava said: And we are like a finger in wax with regard to reasoning. Rav Ashi said: We are like a finger in a pit with regard to forgetfulness. (Eruvin 53a).
[Or do you think this is part of some sort of imperialist conspiracy?]
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Yoel, hello. First, if in principle I am prepared to disagree with the sages of the Talmud, why should I not disagree with this determination of theirs? Second, even if someone is great, I do not make a practice of accepting what he says merely because he said it. See the Rosh on Sanhedrin, chapter 4, no. 6, at length on this. Third, there are Talmudic statements that are not meant to convey information but to establish a proper attitude. Thus statements to the effect that everything in our hands was transmitted to Moses at Sinai are not meant to make a historical claim, but to establish the correct attitude toward innovations that arise at every moment—that they should be viewed as though they were given to Moses at Sinai. Perhaps here too that is the case: one should relate to the earlier authorities as though they were a hundred levels above us and adhere to their words, but there is not necessarily a factual determination here. And fourth, I do not know whether the intent is to principles of thought or to legal reasoning in Jewish law. My remarks were not about Jewish law (and even regarding that, I do not accept this literally. See my previous remark). So yes, it really is an imperialist scheme.