Q&A: Basic Assumptions and Building a Model According to the Torah
Basic Assumptions and Building a Model According to the Torah
Question
Hello, Honorable Rabbi,
Is it possible to build an original religious model? After all, the basic assumptions of the Jewish religion contradict one another. Certain factions sanctify some basic assumptions more than others, and in that way somehow reconcile the contradictions.
But even in the most basic assumptions of the Sages and the Bible, one can see contradictions and theological inconsistency.
The religious world (especially nowadays) is full of foundational beliefs and principles of faith that contradict one another.
More than once I see answers from rabbis such that, if we break them down into basic assumptions, we find contradictions from one answer to another, because the sources they rely on contradict each other.
This makes it possible to prove almost anything in Judaism, including a claim and its opposite. That means it is impossible to create a model for the system (as in any theory, if there is a contradiction in the axioms, then no model can be provided).
If in some cases certain basic assumptions can be omitted and treated as non-binding in order to create a model, how can one know who is right? Why is one basic assumption preferable to another?
How can one know that the model and the path one follows are correct and truly represent the will of God?
Answer
I find it difficult to deal with so many unsupported and/or undefined slogans all at once. I do not agree with a single word written here, and some of it is not even defined at all. Please formulate a clear question and bring a concrete example that can be discussed.
Discussion on Answer
On the theological level, I see contradictions in different approaches to Judaism (within Orthodoxy, of course).
Also regarding the reasons for the commandments, the uniqueness of the Jewish people, metaphysical reality, the question of reward and punishment, the survival of the soul and the World to Come.
The clearest example is the contradiction between the Maimonidean approach and the kabbalists (which is based on accepting different basic assumptions) regarding answers to these issues.
How can one know who is right and whom one should follow in Jewish law and in beliefs and opinions, and what the will of God is? How can one maintain one religious framework together with people who think and act differently?
As things stand now, most of the religious public (the mainstream at least) accepts both approaches simultaneously, and in effect believes in a thing and its opposite. More than once I’ve heard a certain rabbi argue one time according to approach A and a second time according to approach B, and it is obvious (outwardly, for example) that there is a gap between the two approaches. In that way, one can prove or maintain almost anything.
How, in your opinion, can one bridge or interpret between two different approaches (for example, between the Maimonidean approach and the kabbalists) in a way that is satisfactory, and build a religious model that does justice to the Torah?
And if that is not possible, then which basic assumptions can be omitted in order to build a model?
There is a logical confusion here. You are bringing a dispute between two opinions and seeing it as a contradiction within the system. A contradiction exists only if someone adopts both opinions at the same time as true (and not merely as legitimate). If you happened to hear someone holding a contradictory position, you should ask him about it.
You don’t have to go that far. There are internal contradictions within some of the approaches themselves. Quite a few books have been written about contradictions within Maimonides or within certain kabbalists, and many discussions have been held on the subject.
Maybe the contradictions are only outward, meaning that the ideas are encoded and intended for select individuals.
Maimonides in Guide of the Perplexed speaks about beliefs that the masses would find difficult to accept, and perhaps he was also afraid to express some of his views, and therefore encoded his true opinions.
Sorry that I’m writing my response in separate comments. The site won’t let me write everything in one comment.
It may be that I didn’t phrase myself clearly enough or explain myself well enough. I’d be glad to know what is unsupported and how, in your opinion, one can deal with the problems I think exist.
I see the contradictions both on the halakhic level and on the theological level.
On the halakhic level, I’ll bring the example of the question of army enlistment. One rabbi will say that this is a very important commandment, another rabbi will say that it is preferable to study Torah but someone who is not studying can enlist, and a third rabbi will say that it is absolutely forbidden to enlist. And all of them are Orthodox.