Q&A: Distinguishing Between Torah as an Object and Torah in the Person
Distinguishing Between Torah as an Object and Torah in the Person
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I have read in several places your approach regarding “Jewish thought.” If I understood correctly, these are ideas whose source is the sages’ own personal understanding, not something we received from Heaven (speculations, in the non-Hebrew term). So they are not an “object of Torah,” but rather like any secular matter which can indeed be studied for the sake of Heaven, yet does not have the status of Torah… Therefore one should not recite the blessings over Torah on it, one should not place it separately from secular books in a library, in principle one could study it in the bathroom (were it not for the verses, etc.)… I’m curious whether the Rabbi would also permit studying books of Jewish thought on the Ninth of Av…
But is it not correct to distinguish between plain philosophy about the world and attempts to explain the Torah… Just as human reasoning and analysis done in order to deepen and understand the laws of the Torah are themselves included in Torah (“Talmud”), so too intellectual engagement that tries to explain the foundational facts of the Torah should be considered Torah… the concept of divinity, revelation, reasons for the commandments… and even an attempt to extract the “basic conceptions” of the Hebrew Bible regarding history, etc…
And although every thinker brings the philosophy of his own era, there is still a difference between the philosophy books of a given time and a book that deals with analyzing the facts and foundational beliefs of Torah, and of course does so on the basis of the understanding of its own era… Maimonides brings in a great deal of philosophy, but he is dealing with how we are obligated to explain these matters according to the Torah (why not accept eternity of matter, how to explain anthropomorphic expressions in the Torah, etc.)…
True, everyone contributes from his own mind, but different understandings are also brought in the Talmud…
And as for their value: one can learn from them how to analyze the Torah in light of wisdom, and therefore what important principles can also be applied to philosophy in our own time. For example, Maimonides’ treatment of the Aristotelian and Platonic view of the world’s creation can teach us how to relate to the theory of evolution: one need not cling to the simple meaning of the verses, so long as there remains room for divine intervention, the explanation is possible, etc…
Answer
Hello. It is hard to generalize, but it seems to me that much of this consists of personal insights. It is not an object of Torah, but it can be Torah in the person (if it is beneficial for you, then it is Torah no less important than Torah as an object). The uniqueness of Torah as an object is not its importance, but the fact that it is an object—that is, its status is objective regardless of whether it speaks to you or not. That is not the case in the realm of thought. I think it is permitted to study this on the Ninth of Av (especially since this kind of study is in fact far from making me happy. But that is of course a personal reason). If every understanding of Torah is itself Torah, then physics studies are also Torah. It seems to me they teach us a great deal about the creation of the world, much more than the homiletic quips of Torah commentators. Intuitively that seems unreasonable to me. I should note here that one of my articles on this topic was written in response to an article by Rabbi Dror Pixeler, who argued exactly this. One can certainly learn all sorts of important things from the Guide for the Perplexed. Also from Kant and Dostoevsky. Important things do not mean an object of Torah. Otherwise you have turned all the departments and faculties of academia into yeshivas.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
But there is a difference between something that stands on its own and can be used for the sake of a commandment, etc., and something said in the course of dealing with the foundational facts of the Torah…
Just as the book Shaarei Yosher is considered an object of Torah even though it deals with logical analysis to understand Torah law, so too a philosophical analysis of the principles of Torah (divinity, revelation, etc.) should also count. That is really theology, not philosophy… A philosophical understanding that later became obsolete is like an opinion in the Talmud that was rejected… (True, this field is much broader, but that does not change the principle)…
The question is whether the “thoughts” are brought in order to understand the Torah, or whether they stand on their own… What is the difference between a logical understanding of the concept of ownership in the Torah, which is a certain law in the Torah, and a logical understanding of divinity, the way to attain it, revelation, the meaning of the commandments, their purpose, etc.? Both are analyses dealing with things whose source is revelation…
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
It does not seem right to me to distinguish based on intentions. Torah as an object does not depend on intentions. That is exactly the meaning of the term “object.” Perhaps the person studying will receive reward as one who studies Torah, but what he is studying is not an object of Torah. I understand that your reasoning is different. Perfectly fine.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Sorry for being so persistent, but I still do not understand the distinction between conceptual analyses of the laws of migo and conceptual analyses of the reasons for the commandments, revelation of God, etc…
An object of Torah is, seemingly, only what was received directly, such as Scripture, and perhaps also Jewish law… Even Jewish law as it proceeds or develops—in the end we are discussing the application of that same law in our own time…
Analytical study in the Talmud is already in the person—how a person understands the logic of that law…
That is like analytical study of what is included in that revelation… Or to put it differently, perhaps we are really analyzing the portion of Yitro (the revelation at Mount Sinai)…
And the Talmud already discusses, in the topic of the blessings over Torah, whether one recites them over Scripture, Mishnah (which is basically Jewish law), or even over Talmud… and the ruling is that one recites them over Talmud as well…
I do not mean the intention with which something is studied or written (like a physics book where every few lines it says, “How manifold are Your works, O Lord”), but rather what it deals with… Is it trying to explain the facts—whether the revelation itself or the commandments themselves, as Jewish law does—or is it just dealing in conjectures?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Conceptual analyses of the laws of migo are an interpretation of the concept of migo, which is part of the laws of evidence and of the commandment “judge your fellow with righteousness,” “do not steal,” and so on. Conceptual analyses of the reasons for the commandments or of God’s revelation are not interpretation but reflections. They are not tested by the same standards and are not said with the same seriousness. No discipline has developed there, and there is no tradition that keeps building over time. Each thinker says what arises from the reflections of his own heart. But it is hard for me to elaborate here. I have written about this in several places, which I think I have already referred you to, and I will expand further in my book.