Q&A: How does the Rabbi know that the Bible we have in our hands was written by Moses?
How does the Rabbi know that the Bible we have in our hands was written by Moses?
Question
Hello Rabbi (or philosopher?),
There is a tradition among the Jewish people about God's revelation to them and about God's command to do certain acts and think certain thoughts. I am compelled to accept that tradition and to observe the commandments (lovingly, of course…).
I also accept the Jewish nation's commitment to implementing the Talmud (which is an interpretation of the Bible).
But how do you know that the Bible we have in our hands, and which the sages of the Talmud had, was indeed written by Moses—that same Moses about whom there is a tradition that he taught God's teachings?
Thank you
Answer
Why are you compelled? I don't understand.
I trust our tradition that the Bible we have is some version of what was given at Sinai. To what extent, and what was added, I do not know. But that does not affect the question of obligation. If something was given at Sinai, then God's assumption was apparently that the development of the Torah would be with His approval, and it was on that basis that we accepted the Torah. You can see my general approach in the fifth booklet on the site.
Discussion on Answer
Because that's how our masters, the "Prince of Torah," and the "Rosh Yeshiva" (the new one), ruled.
He does not obligate you to accept the Talmud, but to accept the Torah. The Talmud is the interpretation of the Torah that was accepted as binding by the public and the sages. The public's acceptance carries binding weight, just like the public's acceptance of the Torah. See Beit Yishai, Homilies, siman 15.
Sorry, but I didn't find the book Beit Yishai online, and I'm also not a Torah scholar, so it would be hard for me to study a book written in Talmudic style.
I don't understand why acceptance by the public is binding like acceptance of the commandments at Mount Sinai.
Why should acceptance by the public obligate me? For example, I obey the laws of the state because I want there to be order. They don't really obligate me (if there were a bad law and there were no chance I'd be punished, I wouldn't obey it).
I am bound by the Sinai event not because the public accepted it upon themselves, but because God commanded it.
A.H.,
God commanded the public, not you personally. You were not present at God's revelation and were not obligated to anything; the Jewish people undertook the commitment.
You are part of the public, and when the public obligated itself, that included you. How can a people obligate itself if every individual can decide not to comply? Then what is the meaning of that commitment? It's like the Palestinians signing an agreement with us and then Hamas claiming that it was only Fatah and they aren't bound. The same is true regarding the law: it makes no difference at all whether you want there to be order or not. If you don't obey the law, you will be punished, because you are bound by it whether or not you declare that you aren't interested. That is the nature of any legal system.
It seems to me that these things are binding by their very nature (because God commanded them and because they are correct). The fact that you committed yourself only means that you have no claim for leniency in punishment if you failed to observe them. That is not what creates the obligation itself.
Shai, God also commanded "those who are not here with us today," and me in particular. You can argue that He commanded everyone and by virtue of that I too am obligated, but that is different from saying that "the public" (who is that?) decided to accept a certain collection of laws. Rabbi, Hamas actually can repudiate the other Palestinians. What's the problem? It's their right, and I definitely understand them. As for the law, I didn't say that only someone who wants order is obligated. No one is obligated; rather, the police use force to impose the laws on everyone (in this case, to my satisfaction).
Hamas cannot repudiate it if the agreement was made with everyone. If they say in advance that they are not partners, then there is no problem (aside from the fact that I would not enter into such an agreement).
The police do not use force arbitrarily for no reason. That is a Darwinian view. In the moral view, the police/society has the right to use force because there is an obligation to obey the law. For example, several authors write this way (such as Haim Cohen in his book The Law), that in Israeli law there is no prohibition against stealing, since the wording of the law is: "One who steals, his punishment is such-and-such." But that is nonsense, because there is justification for imposing a punishment only if there really is a prohibition against stealing (there is no punishment unless there was prior warning). Moreover, he too apparently assumes that there is no prohibition because the law does not prohibit it, implying that if it did prohibit it then there would be a prohibition. In other words, there is no principled obstacle to imposing a prohibition on the citizen.
Okay, I've made a bit of progress,
A continuation of the question:
I accept the following assumptions:
A. There was a revelation of God and a command of some sort of national constitution.
B. The content of the Bible found in my home is the closest thing to the lawbook in which Moses wrote God's commands and gave them to the leaders of the people at the time of the giving of the Torah (I would like to assume that the text of the Torah scroll we have was written in Moses' time and by him, but I don't really have evidence for that).
Question:
How do I know that God obligates me—Shai Zilberstein from Bnei Brak—personally to accept the Talmud because it was accepted by the nation at the beginning of the Middle Ages?