A comparable thing—intelligent answers on the internet.

If we received a Torah that says it is meant for us, with an influence on gentiles as well (the seven Noahide commandments, etc.), isn’t there a contradiction here with other religions in the ancient world (even the very multiplicity of gods)? Seemingly, if one thing (Torah from Sinai) is true, then the other (any other religion) is not, and vice versa. So it seems right to look for the uniqueness of the Torah (that it was received at Mount Sinai, not necessarily that it introduced a day off and other such things). What does the Jewish religion that we received through a winding tradition have over, say, Hinduism, which was also received through a winding tradition?

Nowadays the only approach is: the people of Israel are chosen, and their Torah is the only one that is true.

Thank you.
On the factual level, it is clear that if there is one God, then whoever believes in several is mistaken. But on the normative level, one can say that the gentiles are obligated in their path and we in ours, and it is not necessarily true that the truth of one entails the falsehood of the other. There is no principled obstacle to thinking that we received a Torah at Sinai, and Jesus received a teaching for his own disciples and followers, and likewise Muhammad. I don’t see any logical necessity to view these as claims that negate one another. By the way, if I remember correctly, Rabbi Kook discusses this in his book To the Perplexed of the Generation.
Once the Torah was given at Sinai, even if it develops throughout history, that is interpretation of the Torah that was given at Sinai. So it has nothing to do with Hinduism, which developed on its own.

As for our influence on the world, I think it is hard to deny it. Morality and moral obligation in our world came from the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). True, after we succeeded and the world became more morally refined, we are no longer unique in this. But that itself is the success of our influence.

I don’t know what is special nowadays regarding the exclusivity of the Torah. That is how people have thought from time immemorial, but I’m not sure it is correct (as stated above). I also don’t understand why it matters. The question is whether the Torah is true and must be observed, not whether it is unique. If it is God’s will, then there is an obligation to observe it, whether it is unique or not. Hinduism is also very unique, but apparently it was not given from heaven. Just as mathematics or physics are very unique, but I see no place for competition between them and the Torah. These are two different playing fields.

The Jewish people are unique only in the cultural sense (because of their history and the mission they received). I do not believe in chosenness or some special essence in any mystical sense whatsoever. I also think that this “special essence” is a poorly defined concept and may be entirely empty of content, and I’ll write about that in my book.

According to the Rabbi’s view, the commandments of the Torah do not have a moral rationale but a religious one… The Rabbi even argued that by analyzing the details of the social commandments themselves (such as returning a lost object) one can infer this… Morality is discovered through human searching (the Torah does command it, to be sure, but in a general way: “and you shall do what is right and good”)…

1) It follows that the Torah’s great moral influence is founded on a mistaken understanding of it… is that really so?
One can argue that the morality of the Hebrew Bible is not necessarily connected to the commandments of the Torah, but then why did it develop דווקא among the people of Israel? It seems obvious that the commandments requiring care for the weak and upright conduct are what led to this… Doesn’t that indicate that this is what lies behind those laws?

2) It really is hard to ignore the fact that there is a strong correlation between the social commandments and the moral values accepted in the world (in the West at least)… the right to life and property, telling the truth, charity, etc…. (I once compared the Declaration of Human Rights with the list of interpersonal commandments, and there is a very interesting parallel.)
One can argue that the details of the commandments as they are expressed in Jewish law have a religious character, but doesn’t this parallel between the morality that developed outside Israel and the commandments indicate that there is a moral component at their foundation?
Some would argue that this happened because Western morality grew in a Judeo-Christian civilization, but if we accept the objectivity of morality, that is not enough…
(And then we would have to find some integration of the moral and religious sides—such as the claim that the commandments come to strengthen moral values, and therefore give them an absolute religious character; and even if there is some moral concession in the short term, there is long-term benefit—or other directions that have been written about)…

The Torah of Israel never heard of the dichotomous separation between religion and morality. Abraham, who calls out in the name of God, is Abraham who commands his children to keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice. Moses, who is zealous for morality both when a Hebrew is being beaten and when the Midianite women are being wronged—he is the Moses who brings Israel the 613 detailed commandments, between man and God and between man and his fellow.

The values of faith and morality in Judaism already appear in the seven Noahide commandments intended for all humanity. But the aspiration to create a society of “those who are modest, merciful, and doers of kindness,” who are required not only to do justice but also to “love kindness and walk humbly with your God,” begins with the Patriarchs and continues with the Torah from Sinai and the vision of the prophets, and the world still has a lot of work to do to get closer to that direction.

And who today talks about the tenth commandment: “You shall not covet”? After all, the entire “consumer culture” is founded on envy, desire, and the pursuit of honor.

Regards,
S. Z. Levinger

Yitzhak,
There is definitely room for the interpretation that the moral commandments have an additional religious layer, whose purpose is to show that these commandments also have a religious dimension (that is, the commandments do not come to achieve some goal other than the moral one, but to teach that this moral directive also has a religious dimension). Still, even in those commandments there is a difference in the details (the halakhic prohibition of murder does not really overlap with the moral one, for example exemption in indirect causation, and more). In my book I’ll elaborate on this.
The Torah’s moral influence stems from two planes: 1. It expects us to be moral, even if that is not through Jewish law. 2. Jewish law itself adds a religious layer to the moral commands. 3. A side effect: someone who becomes accustomed to acting according to laws will also act according to the laws of morality (Rabbi Berkovits, in his article on the reasons for the commandments, argues at length that this is the whole essence of Jewish law. I’m not sure I agree).

To S. Z. L.,
Who separated morality from religion? At most I separated it from Jewish law. On the contrary, in the fourth notebook I argued at length, against my own expectation, that there is no morality and no moral obligation without faith in God.

The link you gave to the column in the original answer doesn’t lead anywhere.