Q&A: Questions About the Notebooks and More
Questions About the Notebooks and More
Question
Hello Rabbi. I wanted to ask a few questions that came up for me from reading some of the notebooks and other things you wrote:
- Throughout the notebooks (and in other places too), you repeated several times that every proof for the existence of God assumes a different definition of Him. I also understand that it makes sense to assume they all really prove the same entity, because of Ockham’s razor, for example. My question is: why assume that that same abstract theistic God is also the deistic God who reveals Himself at Mount Sinai? That is, about a God who reveals Himself at Mount Sinai we actually know nothing except that He is some non-human entity with the power to do wondrous things. What does that have to do with the First Cause, or with a perfect being?
- After we have proven that God did indeed reveal Himself at Mount Sinai and gave the Torah, the question arises: so what? Who says God’s command is binding?
I seem to recall that in the past you wrote that just as we have an inner understanding regarding morality (that one ought to listen to the inner moral command), so too regarding God’s command. I admit that while this inner understanding exists for me and seems simple regarding morality, I don’t see it as nearly so simple regarding God. - Recently I’ve been very occupied with questions of faith. Many things that seemed simple to me in the past seem less simple today. In general, I suddenly felt that there is an enormous distance from Mount Sinai to the morning schedule of in-depth study in Bava Metzia, or to a piece of cloth on one’s head in general. That is, to continue the line of thought in the notebooks, you have to go through the path: deism>theism>Judaism>Orthodoxy>a specific stream>a specific understanding of a specific commandment>and so on. On this matter I wanted to ask you 2 questions:
a) Could you recommend books I could start with? I’m looking for an intellectual, systematic, and in-depth clarification (unfortunately I feel there aren’t many such books. That’s one of the reasons I’m so drawn to your writings, sometimes even too much. You simply have no alternative.)
b) These thoughts always lead me to wonder about the religious world. How is it that not everyone does this? A person doesn’t wake up in the morning and say: “Wow, there is a God! Now let’s discuss miggo.” Tradition cannot justify everything all at once. The question is especially painful to me in light of the fact that I study in a framework considered serious and even relatively open, and it seems to me that all the focus there is on in-depth learning and Jewish law, and on “faith” studies that are a combination of justifying what everyone apparently believes anyway, and airy spirituality that says nothing.
Thanks in advance
Answer
- The God who revealed Himself at Sinai said that He is the one who created the world. So why assume He is lying and there is someone else? It reminds me of the joke that the person who wrote Macbeth wasn’t Shakespeare but his cousin, who is also named Shakespeare.
- Then no.
- a) Unfortunately, I have no recommendation. b) I can’t speak for others. But the idea that tradition justifies everything together is דווקא actually reasonable. If you trust the system, you accept what it says. What is unreasonable about that?
Discussion on Answer
What is there to explain? If you don’t think one must fulfill the Creator’s command, then no. I think one must. What would you elaborate to someone who doesn’t think one should behave morally? If he thinks not — then not.
You have to decide which interpretation, in your view, better fits or more correctly continues the tradition. What do you want me to tell you? In my opinion, the Reform interpretation (to the extent that there even is one) doesn’t continue anything. The Conservative interpretation is similar to Orthodoxy except for small details, and that doesn’t seem very significant to me. Do what you think in each matter on its own merits. Other interpretations within the Orthodox sphere (Haredi, Hasidic, modern, Zionist, Reconstructionist, etc.) — do what you think.
“Reconstructionist.” Glad to hear about such a stream. Where did you find it?
I assume you’ll find it online. Rabbi Kaplan and his gang.
I’d be glad if you could explain a bit more about #2.
Regarding 3b), it seems to me that tradition is a reliable source for convincing me of a fact — that God gave the Torah at Sinai — but not necessarily of its interpretations. At the very least, it is not enough to decide between different streams within Orthodox Judaism.