Q&A: Obligation to Observe the Commandments
Obligation to Observe the Commandments
Question
Good evening, Rabbi,
Recently I read the fifth notebook, and the obligation to observe the commandments is still not sufficiently clear to me. The claim that the very bringing of a person into existence is like a parent who creates a child and therefore has a claim on the body of the person created is problematic, and it raised several questions for me.
- Does it follow from this that the essence of the obligation is only subjective?
True, a person has duties or a certain kind of belonging toward his parents, but only up to a point. The Rabbi gave the example of biological parents whose child was not in contact with them, but that example is problematic because the nature of that relationship is relatively weak. A person is not commanded to orient himself—and some would say bound himself—to an elaborate system of laws touching every moment of his life. And furthermore, if the child felt that there was not only a rupture but that the parent had a negative influence on the child—for example, abusive parents—I am doubtful whether the child would still be obligated to the parents.
2) The Rabbi argued elsewhere that nowadays there is no providence visible to the eye, or at least that it is reserved for rare cases. If there is no providence, then the reason for observing the commandments amounts to a loose one-way relationship, one that some would even say abandons a person to the winds of the world. How is such a relationship supposed to obligate a person in so total a way?
Answer
- I did not understand what you mean by “subjective.” Perhaps you mean weak? The degree of ontological gratitude is proportional to the degree of dependence. The Holy One, blessed be He, is the source of everything, including me, and therefore the obligation toward Him is more total than the obligation toward parents.
2. First, the relationship exists through the laws of nature, which He created. Second, who said there has to be an ongoing relationship in order to feel ontological gratitude?
Discussion on Answer
1. Absolutely not. What you feel is irrelevant. The question is what is true. Even if you feel gratitude only weakly—you would be mistaken. In practice, of course, you would observe less, but by mistake. It is like someone who does not feel a moral obligation and therefore will not behave morally. Does that mean morality is subjective?
2. The core of my claim in the article is that ontological gratitude is not a moral motive. In any case, if you do not believe it, then do not observe them (but of course you are mistaken; see section 1). What is the question?
You are asking questions about reward and benefit when my whole point was to explain that these are not the reasons to observe the commandments. The moment you want reasons, you are no longer obligated, and this is no longer service of God. See also at the end of the article in the discussion of “for its own sake” (if I remember correctly, this also appears in the notebook):
1) I meant that each person goes according to how strongly he feels the obligation.
2) Gratitude is a moral motive, and morality is something dependent on time and place, so why should it obligate me? Suppose I do not believe that the need for gratitude is so great that I should be obligated to obey laws extending from my way of thinking (to love and fear) all the way to tying my shoelaces.
Moreover, in practice, because of the lack of providence, my actions will have no personal effect on me. And considering that the concepts of the World to Come and the Garden of Eden appear only in texts later than the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), and the probability that they are later additions is not negligibly low, I do not see grounds for such a strong obligation.
I would be glad if the Rabbi could give more reasons why one should keep the 613 commandments, or strengthen the claim about ontological gratitude.