Q&A: "Fifth Notebook – Additional Considerations in Conclusion"
"Fifth Notebook – Additional Considerations in Conclusion"
Question
With God's help,
Hello Rabbi,
You mentioned in the notebook, after discussing the reliability of the tradition, additional reasons why it is implausible to claim that this is a myth.
One of those arguments is:
"If this is in fact a conspiracy and not a natural process, then I would not expect there to be biblical statements that are open to empirical refutation, such as the blessing in the sixth year before the Sabbatical year (Leviticus 25:21), or the promise that when we go up for the pilgrimage festival no one will covet our land (Exodus 34:24), and the like.[1]
[1] The question whether these prophecies were actually fulfilled is a different question, which I will not go into here.
I דווקא wanted to get into that question here (I didn't see that you addressed it elsewhere…):
Punishments and rewards for other commandments besides the blessing in the sixth year are mentioned many times. For example, in some places it says, "so that your days may be lengthened," etc. And we hold that Acher saw that someone who was occupied with those commandments nevertheless died, Heaven forbid.
So does the Rabbi not see a case where, if the Torah writes X and not only does it not happen, but even Y happens instead (which is the opposite of X), that this is specifically proof against the tradition!.
Answer
Absolutely yes. That is why I wrote that I am not dealing with the fulfillment of the prophecies, but with the boldness of the Torah's author in writing them. As for the fulfillment, there are explanations, and so perhaps they should not be seen as difficulties, but clearly one cannot bring proof for the reliability of the Torah from the fulfillment of the prophecies, because on the face of it, it is not clear that they were fulfilled (where is that person's long life?! In the World to Come.)
Therefore I focused on the boldness of writing the prophecies, which is a better argument than their fulfillment. True, one could object that if every such prophecy can be explained away, then there is no boldness here. To that, the answer is twofold: 1. People are prepared to accept explanations if there is basic trust. The boldness and the fulfillment of some of the prophecies create that basic trust. 2. Even if none of this is fulfilled, I still would not write it and rely on the creativity of the learners. It is better not to take the risk and not write it at all.
Discussion on Answer
I didn't say that. I said that it is difficult to discuss fulfillment because it is open to interpretation.
In any case, I think I also raised the possibility that there are verses that were added, and mistakes fell into them.
Perhaps, along the lines of how Michi explained the logic of the forced contextual readings in the Talmud, one can view the Torah's promises as an abstract presentation of the laws of divine governance, whose concrete realization depends on the fulfillment of side conditions (perhaps when the people are in their land, or when all of them observe Torah and commandments…).
Such an approach is already found among the Sages regarding the sotah waters, about which the Torah "promises": "and her belly shall swell and her thigh shall fall," etc., which the Sages qualified by saying that merit suspends it.
[Possibly things like this have already been written here on the site, and I don't know / remember where.]
Still, even if fulfillment is open to interpretation, as far as "your days may be lengthened," etc., there are things that are very clearly included in when this does apply and when it does not. For example, a child falling from a tree is apparently certainly not included in "your days may be lengthened." I assume you can agree with me.
Moreover,
there is a difference between the addition of a few isolated verses here and there in which a subtle scribal error happened accidentally and not deliberately, and whole passages and sections. That completely undermines everything written in Scripture.
So do you accept that unfortunate "mistakes" fell into dozens of verses and more?
I do not accept that. [And besides, the mistakes, even if they exist, do not make me "sad." :)]
For example, a child who falls from a tree can fit "so that your days may be lengthened," as Israel explained, in brief.
Okay, I understand — the point of what you're saying is the boldness of the author.
If so, in any case, according to the Rabbi's view it seems that indeed they were not fulfilled.
And the standard answers used to explain why this does not happen — like "there is no reward for commandments in this world" and "so that your days may be lengthened — in a world that is entirely long," and the like — seem very forced in light of the verses. Certainly in the sections of curses and blessings.
If so, why does the Rabbi not see this as a factor weighing specifically against the Torah? Especially according to the Rabbi's view that the tradition developed and this point apparently was not transmitted as a law given to Moses at Sinai.