Q&A: Morality and Jewish Law
Morality and Jewish Law
Question
Hello Rabbi!
As Rabbi Yehuda Halevi writes in the Kuzari, Rabbi Kook in Orot HaTorah, and others, the Torah is made up of an objective part and a subjective part (the human being), which means that it is suited to the human being.
And therefore a person, who is composed of different components (as Maimonides explains in the Eight Chapters), can contain it.
If we look at the following parts: a human being = intellect + emotion, we can define this for our purposes as basic morality, such as “do not murder”). There should not be a contradiction between these parts and Jewish law, only a directing toward the “middle point.”
Now we come to the question: when I observe the laws of selecting on the Sabbath and I can’t move the waste on a plate, or I knock over a pile of books (having no choice) in order to take the book underneath without sorting… I feel that it wrinkles my soul, it’s abuse… my basic morality refuses to accept that this is God’s will.
In the past I received an answer like: this indeed is God’s will; how do you know that God does not want you to feel this way? One could say that Jewish law as it is structured today is also part of the punishment (for all the sins of our past and of our forefathers…) and that today this is what the repair looks like.
The current question:
There is a paradox here: a person = intellect + emotion (basic morality)
I, as a baal teshuva who did not receive a continuous tradition and after 2,000 years of exile, need to examine whether the Torah is true.
The tools: intellect + morality
Basic assumption — the Holy One, blessed be He, gave me suitable tools that can clarify the truth.
Results:
Intellect — the Torah is true. Morality — the Torah is not moral (which in sharper language leads to: the Torah is corrupted) — hidden here is another basic assumption, that God does not want our harm.
At this point Rabbi Cherki would say that we are receiving punishment because of everything our forefathers did… or because of things we did in previous reincarnations…. and therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, is still moral (in the language of the question, of course).
It should be noted that this answer erases morality from being a tool… and it is illegitimate… because they are asking me to stop being a human being, which contradicts my essence… and therefore I cannot clarify the truth, and so I am under compulsion. That is, the moment they give this answer, the basic assumption with which I begin the inquiry no longer exists, as a proper tool for clarification.
And if you say that intellect must overcome basic morality, then this is a Torah that is not suited to human beings, especially according to Maimonides in the Eight Chapters.
Another example of this: the law of “they coerced him and he sold.” (And a number of other laws in the laws of damages.)
Awaiting your answer eagerly!
Thank you very much,
Answer
Hello Y.,
In the future I’d appreciate it if you asked through the website. It’s much more convenient for me.
I don’t really understand the difficulty, and certainly not the paradox. What is the problem with the prohibition of selecting? Clearly it has no moral purpose, so what? Most prohibitions in the Torah do not have a moral purpose. I don’t know what the purposes are, but if I have reached the conclusion that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us the Torah and commanded us regarding this, then I am obligated even if I do not understand it.
My decision to be committed does not go through a case-by-case examination of each halakha, whether it seems right to me or not. I do not understand most of them. The examination goes through the question of whether the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded it or not. An analogy for this is the midrash that the Holy One, blessed be He, went around to the nations and asked whether they wanted the Torah, and they asked what was written in it. They wanted to evaluate the commandments themselves, whether they seemed acceptable to them or not. But Israel said, “We will do and we will hear,” because if the Holy One, blessed be He, says so, then apparently that is the right thing even if we do not understand.
Even when a doctor prescribes you medicine, you take it, even though you do not understand how it works. Why? Because you trust him and his knowledge. So I trust the Holy One, blessed be He, and His knowledge.
By the way, I also didn’t understand how all this is connected to intellect versus emotion.
Discussion on Answer
Well, I don’t agree with even a word of what you wrote. In my opinion this is really a collection of baseless assumptions. I don’t think there is any point to a discussion like this here.
I can’t clarify by email what morality is, what emotion and intellect are, what Torah is, and why to keep the commandments. These are topics for a book (and on most, if not all, of them I have written on the site).
If you want to clarify these assumptions one by one, you are welcome to contact me through the site. But each time only one assumption, otherwise the discussion will get bogged down.
All the best
Thank you for your quick reply,
I would be happy, for now, if we could continue the correspondence by email.
I understand why my question is not clear, because we do not agree on a number of basic assumptions. I will respond to your statements:
A. “Most prohibitions in the Torah do not have a moral purpose” — I do not agree, for the following reasons: a person is a complex creature, not only with intellect that forces him to accept commands, but also with a soul (as brought in Maimonides’ Eight Chapters), and therefore there is a part called morality, which is not connected at all to the operation of the intellect but to accumulated wisdom (Maimonides, Millot HaHigayon), as well as wisdom acquired from the Torah (Orot HaKodesh, part 3). In the Torah there is an objective part and a subjective part (Orot HaTorah, chapter 1). The adaptation to the subjective part includes the point of morality within it, and therefore if there is a fundamental clash between the commandment and natural morality, there are two options:
1. To broaden natural morality through the intellect. 2. To remain with the difficulty — as with the red heifer. (Maimonides did this work in the Guide, in the third part.)
There cannot be a fundamental contradiction between the morality built into a person and the Torah that is given to him, because then it is not suited to the human being (a basis for this can also be seen in Rabbi Kook’s Letters, letter 91).
Therefore I do not accept your answer about observance without understanding in cases where the contradiction is at the point of natural morality.
B. “My decision to be committed does not go through a case-by-case examination of each halakha, whether it seems right to me or not. I do not understand most of them” — that is true only on condition that you have proven the truth of the Torah, but before it has been proven, one case is enough to overturn the whole proof. A mismatch with natural morality is definitely such a case, like a formula for induction in which one case does not reflect the result, and then the formula is incorrect.
C. The case of “We will do and we will hear” — as the Rabbi presents it, it is open to interpretation, for after all the Holy One, blessed be He, held the mountain over them like a barrel, as brought in tractate Shabbat. The Jewish people were very, very critical before agreeing to receive the Torah, including a detailed examination of the commandments, as brought in the Kuzari, article two, if I remember correctly.
D. “Even when a doctor prescribes you medicine, you take it, even though you do not understand how it works. Why? Because you trust him and his knowledge” — this claim is brought by Duties of the Hearts, but as criticism… not as praise. Your answer comes from the fact that you have accepted the Torah in all its details and parts, but before that acceptance this answer cannot be given.
E. Intellect versus emotion — the intellect can arrive at dry conclusions (a logical tool), but the spiritual part is not necessarily satisfied with those conclusions… for example: “Jerusalem was destroyed only because they based their rulings strictly on the letter of the law.”
In order to simplify the question, let us focus it on the law of “they coerced him and he sold”… where morality cries out against the law.
Sorry for the hasty reply and the general references; I hope I managed to explain my intention,
Awaiting your answer,
Thank you.