Q&A: Several Questions
Several Questions
Question
Hello Rabbi,
How are you?
I wanted to ask a few questions, please.
1. In your opinion, does the Torah direct us toward altruism or not? I have heard two opposing views.
2. Why are there so many Mishnah passages that discuss the Samaritans before it was discovered and declared that they were full gentiles? There seems to be no practical halakhic difference from it.
3. Why is Ruth called Ruth the Moabite if her grandfather Balak was actually Midianite?
4. I tried to find an answer to the question of why sometimes the Torah says “keves” and sometimes “kesev,” but I didn’t find any substantial answer. Do you know what the issue is?
5. Someone told me about a type of spider that gives birth to hundreds of baby spiders, and only 2 to 3 percent survive. I tried to think why God created such a mechanism, where the birth rate is so high compared to the survival rate, and I assume there are other animals like that too. What do you think about this?
6. Why is there in the Torah the rule of “a limitation after a limitation serves to include”? Why not simply write nothing and then we would know to include in the straightforward way?
7. Why, in your opinion, is there no Tur and Shulchan Arukh on the laws of slanderous speech?
8. I saw various commentators making an effort to explain why there were no miracles in the construction of the Tabernacle—for example, that the stones brought by the princes were not a miracle, but rather the clouds brought them naturally prepared stones from somewhere in the world, so the miracle was only in their arrival and not in their creation, and there are other examples. What I didn’t understand is that the tachash itself was apparently a great miracle, since it was created ex nihilo at the time of the Tabernacle, which also does not fit so well for me with “there is nothing new under the sun.” And when I asked one Torah scholar who gives lessons in aggadic literature, he told me that the tachash was not a miracle, but I couldn’t understand what he meant. So I wanted to ask whether you think there is room to say that the tachash is not in the category of a miracle, and why it is so important to some Torah commentators to explain that there was no miracle in the building of the Tabernacle and that everything was “natural”?
Thank you very much.
Answer
Hello Y’,
1. If by altruism you mean helping others, then apparently yes. It depends on how you define the concept, and sometimes the arguments are due to different definitions.
2. It has a lot of practical halakhic relevance, because the phenomenon could recur and one needs to know what to do about it. For example, the discussion of a “captured infant” is very relevant in our generation.
3. Because she was from Moab. According to the Sages, she was the daughter of Eglon, no? Why does it matter who her grandfather was?!
4. The standard explanation is found in Baal HaTurim (Leviticus 3:6), who writes that “kesev” is small and “keves” is large. Malbim writes similarly (Leviticus 3:7). See Ha’amek Davar on Leviticus 1:10 and Numbers 15:4. By the way, it is the Bible’s way to interchange letters (as Ha’amek Davar brings from Nachmanides here as well), like Shlomo and Simlah, gadol and dagul, and so on. See also Sefer HaCarmel here.
5. There is a lot of wastage in the evolutionary process—for example, animals that did not survive at all. Beyond that, we also do not really survive forever, so the question of lifespan is only a quantitative one. In any case, it is not certain that the Holy One, blessed be He, specifically intended this. It may be that He created the world in such a way that life would emerge through evolution, and the laws of evolution produced the spider this way. He has an interest in the world being run according to laws and not directly by His own hand.
6. I don’t have a good answer. It may be where there are several possibilities for inclusion, and they did not want to exclude some of them. Beyond that, it may be that the Torah does not want to say what is in the pit but what is not in it, and therefore it writes, “it was empty; there was no water in it,” but it adds “empty” to say that it had other things in it—snakes and scorpions.
7. Simply put, because these are not laws but ethics. The Chafetz Chaim turned it into a halakhic field, but I’m not sure he was right. Before him, hardly anyone saw this as a halakhic field in the detailed sense. There is a general prohibition, but the details are general parameters and should not be seen as binding Jewish law.
8. I don’t know why it was important to them. Regarding the identity of the tachash, see the disputes here.
Discussion on Answer
Hello Y’.
1. The Torah says nothing explicit about this, so it seems that it remains up to our common sense. My common sense says that there is no reason at all to erase yourself. In the passage about two people walking in the desert, we rule like Rabbi Akiva that your life takes precedence. And so too in the laws of charity and rescue.
2. It is possible that she was called a Moabite, and therefore the Hebrew Bible also refers to her that way. That does not necessarily mean that halakhically she is considered a Moabite. Although in the halakhic discussion among the Sages they rule: “a Moabite, but not a Moabite woman,” which implies that she is considered a Moabite woman. And certainly if her father was already king of Moab, he is considered Moabite. The question is whether when they say that an Ammonite or Moabite may not enter the congregation, they mean someone whose halakhic lineage is Moabite, or anyone who is considered Moabite.
3. Exactly the opposite. My claim is that there is halakhic truth, and “these and those” is an expression of tolerance, not of pluralism. See here:
And also in this article of mine:
Hello Rabbi,
I watched some of your lectures through what you sent me on YouTube, and I have a few questions, please.
1. It comes out from your words that you go in the direction of the Beit Yosef in explaining “these and those” (if I understood you correctly). It then comes out that Jewish law expresses the truth of the “democratic majority” and not the absolute truth as it is written in Heaven. So it turns out that there is no halakhic truth in the sense of absolute truth, but rather truth in the sense of what the majority of the sages of Israel think is true. Is that what you mean?
2. I have some question about the Ritva in his explanation of the Talmudic passage in Sukkah with Rav Nachman. I can explain that Rav Nachman is a true monist and not tolerant, and that is why he deliberately seated the other two Amoraim in the sukkah not according to their own opinion. He would indeed hold that from their perspective there is a violation of “do not place a stumbling block” here, but he thinks he ought to cause them to change their view because they are mistaken. They too are monists (or maybe not, since there is no proof), and they simply answer him that they are travelers and therefore exempt from the sukkah. What do you think?
3. Do you have any more proofs that Jewish law is tolerant monism?
4. I saw an interview with you and Zvi Yanai, and if I understood you correctly, you agreed with him that we and the chimpanzee have a common ancestor, and it was a bit hard for me to hear you say that, so I’d be glad if you could explain why you agree with that claim.
Hello Y’.
1. That is not what I mean. On the contrary, I argue that there is one halakhic truth, but there is legitimacy to act according to what we ourselves concluded, even if it is not the truth.
2. If he is an intolerant monist, why does the Ritva connect this to the fact that they know the reality? Seemingly he would be allowed to seat them there even without informing them of that.
3. There are quite a few proofs that there is halakhic truth—for example, every halakhic decisor worries that perhaps he made a mistake. And on the other hand, there is tolerance toward other views (“these and those,” and that they did not rule like Rabbi Meir because his colleagues could not get to the depth of his reasoning, and more), and from here the conclusion of tolerant monism follows on its own.
4. Why not? These are the best findings of science. Beyond that, my method in the discussion of evolution is to assume, at least for the sake of argument, that everything is true, and to show that even so it does not threaten faith.
Hello Rabbi,
I am trying to summarize what I understood from you; I hope it is correct, and if not please correct me.
There is one and only one halakhic truth, and that is what the Holy One, blessed be He, thinks. In every halakhic topic there is one clear truth. Even so, when God gave the Torah, He established that Jewish law would not be subject specifically to the truth, although it should aspire to it, but rather to majority decision according to their understanding, provided they are qualified for it. Therefore the meaning of “these and those” and “the law follows Beit Hillel” is that both the opinion of Beit Shammai and that of Beit Hillel are legitimate, because they were constructed by sages who tried to reach the truth, and both opinions are legitimate. Had it happened that no heavenly voice had come down and the law had been ruled like Beit Shammai, that would have been perfectly fine.
Rather, either because they were unable to reach a decision or because God wanted us to conduct ourselves according to the ultimate truth, the heavenly voice emerged and revealed that the ones who were really right were Beit Hillel—they succeeded in “hitting” God’s truth—and therefore the law follows them. But still, “these and those are the words of the living God” in the sense that even whoever did not “hit” the target, his halakhic opinions are legitimate, and from here we learn for future disputes that all the opinions of sages are legitimate, even if we decide not according to the one who is truly right. Is this the essence of what you mean?
Indeed. Exactly.
Hello Rabbi,
Thank you very much for answering the questions I sent you.
I have a few more, please.
1. Regarding what I asked in the previous letter, I’ll sharpen the question: if we say that altruism is not just giving to others but the “erasure” of the self and placing the other at the center of one’s life—and that is how I understand the definition of altruism—do you think the Torah directs us toward that? Or, as in everything, is there a need for balance, and more than that, does the Torah want me myself to be well, and מתוך that I will do good to others, מתוך the understanding that this builds me and benefits me too? (Of course this doesn’t contradict the fact that if I don’t feel like helping, sometimes I should still overcome that and help someone else—but not turn it into a whole method.)
2. Regarding Ruth the Moabite: it is known that among the gentiles, and also among the Jewish people before the giving of the Torah, lineage followed the father. Balak was Midianite, and even if we say he married a Moabite woman, his son Eglon should be considered Midianite, and so should his daughter Ruth. So why was it so important to preserve the Moabite nation so that Ruth would come from it?
3. You once wrote to me that there is no halakhic truth, because otherwise it is impossible to explain “these and those are the words of the living God.” But how can that be explained in light of the Talmudic passage “My children have defeated Me,” which implies that the halakhic truth was with Rabbi Eliezer?
4. Is free choice only between good and evil, at least by definition, or is every choice in life—like where to live, what to study, and how to conduct one’s lifestyle, etc.—also part of the system of free choice?
5. Regarding the article you once sent me on whether there are disputes in matters of reality among the Tannaim and Amoraim, I couldn’t understand the final conclusion, because apparently it really does seem that there are disputes about reality. (If you want, I can look for examples in Mishnah passages that I remember having encountered in the past.)
6. How can it be that on the one hand all the laws of prayer are learned from Hannah, and on the other hand Eli, who saw her, did not imagine that this was what she was doing and instead thought she was drunk?
7. Do you have an explanation for the whole issue that there are said to be 600,000 letters in the Torah, but in practice there are 304,805, and the count of the Jewish people was 603,550? And another thing: how is it that the Levites were not included in the count at all?
8. I have a question about Orot HaKodesh, part 2, on the essay about perfection and becoming perfected. On page 526 it says that the shattering and the aspiration for repair (beginning with “And so great is…”) imply that the vessels—the created beings—can rise above their potential. How can something rise above its own potential?
9. On that same page, in the last paragraph, it implies that the shattering of the vessels was intentional and not the result of a sin or something like that, and I was also told that it says in the Zohar, “first darkness and then light,” which also implies that it was intentional and not just after the fact. Is that how you understand it too, and do you have an explanation for why that is so?
10. There is an idea brought there; I’ll write what I understood, and you tell me if it’s correct: the shattering happened so that the created being would aspire toward its boundless place in order to unite with the divine, and in that way the created being would make itself (the light at the beginning of creation was beyond the measure of created beings) and rise above the level of being a created being. But the flow of goodness from then until today is always according to the created beings and not according to the Creator. If my understanding is correct, how is this supposed to work—that once we received something beyond us, but since then exactly according to what we are, and this is supposed to bring us to a state beyond what we are?
11. Is there a halakhic obligation for those who go down to the sea, or through the desert, or someone who was imprisoned, or someone who was sick, to bring a thanksgiving offering, or is it optional? If it is obligatory, what exactly is the nature of that obligation?
Thank you very much