Q&A: Morality versus Jewish Law
Morality versus Jewish Law
Question
In an interview with Yaron London you said that morality and Jewish law are two norms, and that in a case where there is a contradiction between them, you would not always go with Jewish law but sometimes with morality.
I think this is the greatest heresy of yours that I’ve seen so far.
Are you alone in this view? To the best of my judgment, there is not a single rabbinic figure who thinks this way.
Answer
Go rely on heretics. Even if I say there are others who hold this view, I’m suspected of lying, no? 🙂
In my understanding, I’m really not alone in this. The topic of “a transgression for its own sake” speaks about this matter. And so do rulings by various halakhic decisors who prefer fifth-part-of-the-Code-of-Jewish-Law considerations over dry halakhic reasoning (for example, the author of the Akedat Yitzchak on institutionalizing prostitution, and also coercion regarding the trait of Sodom, and more).
But surely you understand that a heretic like me isn’t troubled by such questions. Even if I were alone, that would not necessarily matter to me.
Discussion on Answer
Absolutely right. I’m just not sure he would accept that either. My impression was that from his perspective, that too is heresy. Of course, in an interview of a few minutes you can’t make everything clear.
[Not that it’s so important, but for the sake of completeness I’ll note that almost every halakhic decisor familiar with the field assumes this, even if implicitly.
The fifth part of the Code of Jewish Law, natural morality, being a decent human being, and all those kinds of expressions point to this view.
Michi of course expanded on it, clarified it, and analyzed it. But it seems to me that in the end this is an accepted outlook.]
So why did you present it like that? It’s really throwing sand in the viewers’ eyes. The way you presented it there, you were talking about the concept of morality as it is understood in the secular Western world (you were being interviewed by someone who presents himself as an atheist). But here you’re talking about the concept of Torah morality (the trait of Sodom, a transgression for its own sake), which, even if it resembles the general concept of morality here and there, is still a different concept. And in such cases this is basically a purely halakhic discussion, and you are not preferring morality over Jewish law; rather, you are weighing all the halakhic components.
Dear Master of Morality. I am speaking about exactly the same morality that the secular person believes in. There is no other morality. I’ve explained this here several times. And if you don’t read what I explained here at length, then perhaps you can understand why it’s impossible to explain all the nuances in a one-minute sentence on a television program.
I suggest you watch the interview from the side and check whether this is only my personal misunderstanding, or whether these are two completely different arguments.
To me as an outside viewer, things are clear. You’re speaking there with an atheist who recognizes only morality and not religion, and you tell him that indeed morality is one norm, but on the other hand there is an additional norm of religiosity, and on top of that you add that you have no intention of reconciling the two norms, because indeed there are contradictions between them and sometimes this one will prevail and sometimes that one will prevail.
By contrast, here you claim that morality, like religion, is made up of two norms that Jewish law dictates, and therefore in places where there is a contradiction between them you will try to see what the position of Jewish law is in the topic under discussion, which halakhic consideration prevails. Don’t you see that these are worlds apart?
I don’t accept the claim that it was just a one-minute interview. How long does it take to add that in your view morality too is a halakhic norm, and that therefore it must be taken into account in halakhic deliberation?
You even had enough time to explain to Mr. London your claim that an atheist cannot be moral. For some reason this interview has been bothering me to no end. Forgive me.
It’s difficult and pointless to talk with someone who doesn’t understand what is being said to him. So I’ll leave you to grumble for your own enjoyment. Good luck.
I understood very well what you said, and I’m drawing your attention to the fact that there is a large gap between how you present your position now and how it comes across to someone watching the interview. (On the contrary, I suggest you show the interview to a neutral person and see what he understands from it.)
Apparently, out of ratings considerations or political correctness, you preferred not to present the position you are presenting now — that morality too is a halakhic norm and therefore should be weighed exactly as any halakhic component must be — because in truth it doesn’t really require an especially long explanation to say that (unlike perhaps your position that a moral atheist cannot exist, which in my understanding also doesn’t require more than a few minutes to explain, but I’ll leave that aside).
I saw the interview in question https://youtu.be/Mn2YHtG1KnI and I agree with Master of Morality that the statements are not well formulated, because they imply that there are two categories whose source is in different sources, and one simply has to decide which one to follow.
I’ll note that a different point in the interview bothered me. You say there, in the undershirts-in-the-desert parable, that anyone who relies on interpretation is inside the game. Do you also mean the Conservatives and the Reform? After all, both of those groups in their various forms have reasons and interpretations for their whole path, including, for example, not seeing intermarriage as a problem. By the way, an average secular person can also have interpretations, such as that what suited earlier times doesn’t suit today, and so on and so on (not to mention Christianity, which according to your approach could also present all its claims through interpretive acrobatics into the tradition without even ignoring the tradition).
There are a few other things there that were not clarified in the interview, and they really aren’t important to the main point. But it’s a waste of our time.
As for your question: indeed, anyone who offers an interpretation — not an artificial one, but one he genuinely believes in — is inside the game. Even a Christian. If someone wants to present acrobatics, good luck to him.
To me, this interview looked more like your childish, provocative side just couldn’t resist slaughtering a few sacred cows in front of the supposedly intelligent atheist persona Yaron London, even at the price of deliberate inaccuracies. (Morality is preferable to Jewish law, the Reform and Conservatives are inside the game, and so on.)
It would have been better if this slick interview had never taken place.
Master of Morality, I think you didn’t understand correctly (and the truth is that in the interview it indeed wasn’t clear).
The point is not that there are two categories, one being the Holy One, blessed be He, and one being morality. That really would be a kind of associationism.
The point is that there are two categories within the will of the Holy One, blessed be He. One is Jewish law and one is morality. The moral category is written in the Torah (“and you shall do what is right”), and therefore both this and that are the will of the Holy One, blessed be He. It’s like when there is a contradiction within the halakhic system itself; so too there can be a contradiction between two systems that came from the Creator.
Rabbi, correct me if I’m wrong.