Q&A: Halakhic Logic and Common Sense
Halakhic Logic and Common Sense
Question
I recently read Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s article “This Is Sinai”. One of his claims is that Jewish law has a logic of its own, not the scholarly/scientific kind of logic, and therefore only someone who comes from within the beit midrash has the authority to formulate conceptual arguments and so on. He also says that we should not get worked up over a lack of fit between Jewish law and social reality, for example the status of the modern woman, in his words.
Another claim is that the presumptions of the Sages, for example “better to dwell as two than to dwell alone,” are eternal ontological realities, and therefore it is irrelevant to discuss their changing under different social circumstances.
In another article about Korah he argued similarly, that Korah made logical claims based on straightforward human common sense (a house full of books should not require a mezuzah, and so on), but the Torah and Jewish law deal with a unique kind of reason and logic.
I was almost shocked. On second thought I told myself that this does in fact lead to what he says in The Lonely Man of Faith…
What do you think?
Answer
I think the issue needs to be sharpened more precisely.
His claim that the presumptions were given at Sinai and are therefore eternal is, of course, nonsense. I assume he himself did not believe that, and wrote it as an answer to the heretics.
It is true that there is a fairly unique halakhic mode of thinking, just as there is in other fields as well (like law and the like).
It is not true that someone outside the field has no authority to say anything about it. They definitely do. These modes of thought were developed by human beings, and therefore can also be changed by them.
Claims about reality are, of course, claims about reality, and if they do not fit reality then we are dealing with an error (whether in our reading of reality, or in our interpretation of the source, or in the halakhic source itself). That is all.
Discussion on Answer
Indeed, anything could have been true. But as a matter of fact, the presumptions were not given at Sinai; they were established by the Sages on the basis of their understanding of reality.
I think so too. But in general, you are willing to believe in many more things having been given at Sinai than I am. If you are willing to accept that a core of Kabbalah came from Sinai, and that the hermeneutical principles were given at Sinai—which seem bizarre to me—then why not accept that regarding presumptions as well?
I assume you are not expecting me to answer that astounding question (I am writing with extreme understatement, of course). All the medieval authorities wrote that the interpretive principles are a law given to Moses at Sinai, and that I tend to accept. There is not even a single cat who wrote that the presumptions were given at Sinai before the age of apologetics. As for Kabbalah, I said that I am willing to believe there is a core that came from Sinai (because these are things that are hard to come up with on your own), and maybe not. What does that have to do with simple factual determinations like presumptions? Why invent that they were given at Sinai?
Why should I care whether it was the medieval authorities who invented it or Rabbi Soloveitchik?
If cats knew how to write, maybe they would write that. Maybe armed snakes too. Who knows. In any case, I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that Saadia Gaon wrote something like that, just as he wrote that the Hanukkah lamp and the calendar are from Sinai.
I of course agree that this is apologetics. That is exactly what “a law given to Moses at Sinai” means…
All right then. So the Torah too is apologetics, and maybe Julius Caesar as well, and really the Holy One, blessed be He, too. If so, then there really is no point in the discussion. I thought you meant an actual question.
Come on now. The question of whether the Torah was given at Sinai is a good and worthy question, and as far as I know today, you also admit that. When I ask what the indication is that something written in the Written Torah was given there, there are answers, and one can argue about how good they are. In your view, not all of the Written Torah was given there, contrary to what was accepted more or less by almost everyone whose opinion we have heard on the matter over the past two thousand years; maybe not cats. But what indication is there that the hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is expounded were given there? That was said only in order to justify them thousands of years after the giving. Did the medieval authorities have a tradition about it? Maybe. But that same maybe applies to Rabbi Soloveitchik too.
Fine, I’ll write one more time, because this really isn’t worth a response. As for the Torah, others also wrote that not all of it was given there, and not only scholars. But that really is not important, because there there are considerations both ways. As for the interpretive principles, for some reason you decided that they were not given there despite the fact that there is a well-established tradition about this, at least over the past two thousand years. One can of course cast doubt on that, but what does that have to do with the question of presumptions? Here there are no such considerations at all, and not the slightest reason to think so. It is a ridiculous delusion. All right, I’ve exhausted the topic.
Why shouldn’t presumptions have been given at Sinai? If you think they say something about reality, then of course you can’t claim that they were given at Sinai and are unchangeable. But if you hold that they are part of the halakhic world, which in any case is a kind of incomprehensible game of God (and has no purpose that we can understand or see how it is realized), then the presumptions too could be part of that.