Q&A: Your Doctrine, and Leibowitz and His Doctrine
Your Doctrine, and Leibowitz and His Doctrine
Question
Hello Rabbi Michael,
1. Rabbi Michael, how did you claim in one of your articles that on matters of faith and belief in Judaism there is no absolute statement, and that Maimonides, etc., do not have statements that cannot be refuted, and even if they could be, we would live by them even though we know they are mistaken? (If I am presenting your position incorrectly, I would be glad to be corrected.) Still, there are several things in Judaism in the realm of belief that no major Jewish thinkers disputed, such as Torah from Heaven, the existence of God, etc.—so how does that fit with your position?
2. How does Leibowitz deal with the view that God hears prayer? After all, we also pray for this and that, and it is part of the liturgy. I also do not know of a major Jewish thinker such as Maimonides, etc., who claimed that God does not really hear prayer and that it is not a "pharmacy."
3. Independently of the previous question: how did Leibowitz say that there is no holiness in the Tabernacle, etc., when the verses explicitly say that God dwells there?
I would appreciate it if you would tell me your opinion about the following things that Rabbi Sherlo wrote in one of the responsa about Leibowitz:
4. Professor Leibowitz’s position in the area of “pure for-its-own-sake” is incorrect for two main reasons. First, the entire Torah, and even the words of the Sages, are full of references to the delight of the commandments, to studying their reasons (and it is hard to understand how he sees himself as a Maimonidean at all), and the like. The Sages instructed that one should not fulfill the commandments in order to receive a reward, but they did not strip them of the positive consequences, “for our good all our days.” The second reason is that he himself did not solve the problem he posed with respect to “for its own sake”: according to his approach, a person fulfills the commandments only because of the will of God, yet the very fact that a person wants to do the things that are God’s will, and does what he wants to do, already constitutes “not for its own sake” according to Professor Leibowitz’s own doctrine. This paradox teaches that we must redefine “not for its own sake.” Years ago, my teacher Rabbi Lichtenstein raised a similar question in the area of marriage: must a person fall in love with the ugliest, most wicked, and stupidest girl in order for his love to be love for its own sake? This question serves as a model for redefining the concept of for-its-own-sake and for rejecting Professor Leibowitz’s idea as the sole constitutive factor. Of course, the very foundation that Judaism contains dimensions of the binding of Isaac is correct, and I too have written not a little about this. But the totality is not correct.
5. Leibowitz’s position in the area of history contradicts the entire Hebrew Bible. Unlike the previous position, which is a basis for debate, this is not a legitimate position.
6. As for the principles of these areas—there is room to discuss them, and Rabbi Kook also addressed this question in his article “The Principles.” However, Professor Leibowitz blurred the distinction between the question of whether this is a “principle” and the question of whether it is true. As for the truth of belief in the coming of the Messiah, I can only refer once again to Maimonides.
Thank you in advance!
Answer
Hello,
The matters you raise here have been discussed to exhaustion here on the site. I suggest you search here. I’ll answer briefly.
1. Your presentation of my position is too concise, so I cannot correct or confirm it. But the fact that there was no one who disagreed is not really important to my argument. If my conclusion is X, then even if everyone disagrees with it, that is still what I think. So you have the option of persuading me or not. Defining me as a heretic will not change that, nor will a statement that Judaism says otherwise. As long as that is my conclusion, then from my perspective Judaism does not say otherwise. By the way, even in issues where there is agreement, it is not always genuine agreement, since the concepts are subject to different interpretations.
2. See the previous section.
3. He interprets the concept of holiness differently. It is not holiness in the object itself (in objective reality).
4. In the introduction to Eglei Tal, similar things were written about Torah study: that although the motivation should be for its own sake, that does not mean it is forbidden to enjoy and rejoice in the learning. I do not deal with interpreting Leibowitz’s or Maimonides’ method, and certainly not with the fit between them. That is not really interesting to me.
5. I wrote here that apparently there was a change in the Holy One’s policy and His involvement in history. See, for example, here: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A9-%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9D/
You can find countless discussions about this here on the site. As for the legitimacy of any given position, see what I wrote above. There is no such thing as an illegitimate position.