Q&A: These and Those Are the Words of the Living God
These and Those Are the Words of the Living God
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In discussions among friends about Jewish law, Torah outlook, and the like, in order to arrive at a clear conclusion—not from a realistic or probabilistic standpoint, but rather what the Torah and the Sages actually hold—I find myself somewhat perplexed.
When each side supports its position with some statement of the Sages, and the other person cites a different view of the Sages,
my question is this: why is it that regarding the word of God—this is Jewish law—the matter was stated specifically in a way that can be understood in two different ways, unlike any other law code, which is written clearly and does not leave room to evade it or interpret it in two or more ways at the same time?
And in general, how can one reasonably explain the saying of the Sages, “These and those are the words of the living God”?
Best regards,
and a happy new year.
Answer
This would require a longer discussion, but there’s no room for that here.
Briefly, Jewish law was not meant to set things in stone. Otherwise, the Talmud would not have been edited in the way it was; instead they would have written something like Maimonides or the Shulchan Arukh. Even the Mishnah, which is written in a more decisive style, brings several opinions and does not always decide between them. And Maimonides, who did do that, was sharply criticized and strongly opposed by quite a number of medieval authorities (Rishonim).
The conclusion is that Jewish law is a way of looking at things, not just a bottom line. Therefore, by its very nature, there are disputes, and “these and those…” means that within that same mode of thinking, one can arrive at different conclusions and different opinions.
The Sages themselves were not a single unified body, and there were differing views among them. So why shouldn’t that be true for us as well? What’s wrong with that?
Discussion on Answer
A law code is meant to ensure behavior; it is not meant to educate or provide a worldview and a way of looking at things. The legislator is not authorized to educate anyone. The Torah, by contrast, comes to teach us to look at things properly.
Just to sharpen the point: I’m not talking at all about what is more beautiful or deeper. The question is what the goal is. A law code is meant to ensure behavior, whereas Jewish law is meant to ensure a proper way of seeing things. Therefore, the legislator does not demand intention or belief from a person, only actual performance. The Torah demands intentions and beliefs that accompany the fulfillment of the commandment. From its perspective, not only the bottom line matters. Go and see that the stubborn and rebellious son never existed and never will exist, and yet we study that passage—and that is Torah study. We see that the purpose of study is not to ensure correct action. The same applies to studying topics that are not practiced nowadays, or topics that are not practically applicable—for example, the laws of bailees or monetary law in general, when people follow local custom and state law.
When you say that complex and non-univocal perspectives create difficulty in understanding, that too is a mistake. You are assuming that there is one correct understanding, and therefore presenting several sides makes it harder to attain. But that is not true. All of the sides are Torah, and correct understanding means understanding all of the sides.
Thank you,
“He kisses the lips who gives a right answer.”
Thank you for the response,
but so that I can fully understand, let me add:
In a law code as well—for example, traffic laws—would it also be preferable for things to be presented as a matter of outlook, so that each person would draw his own conclusions and have what to rely on?
I definitely understand that a different mode of thinking has beauty and depth,
but when different ways of thinking can be applied to every matter, it creates a bit of difficulty in reaching complete understanding.
Best regards.