Q&A: Question
Question
Question
Hello and blessings.
First, I would like to thank the Rabbi for the trilogy and the lectures he is giving these days. I am both enjoying them and learning a great deal.
Second, the Rabbi has raised several times (among other places, in the latest lecture on Jewish law and reality) the claim that a person who has no contact or immediate experience with a certain layer/reality cannot challenge, decide about, or criticize it. For example, in issuing a halakhic ruling, the decisor needs to know the reality. Likewise, in the case of Mary’s room, she does not really know colors. And likewise regarding the question of how Abraham our forefather responded to the command to sacrifice his son—we do not know what prophecy is, and therefore it is not relevant to criticize. And similarly in the parable of the blind man who disputes what the sighted person sees.
My question is why this principle cannot serve us in problems that arise in Jewish thought. For example, divine foreknowledge and free choice. We do not know / understand what God’s knowledge is, and therefore it would seem irrelevant to present it as contradicting our free choice (perhaps this is Maimonides’ intent, though my point is not dependent on him). I am aware of the logical paradox, which is nonsense in this topic, as you explain, but my main question is: why, here, does the principle of “we cannot decide about and criticize a reality/layer that we do not know” not enter the picture? The moment we use this principle, the assumption that His knowledge conflicts with our choice falls away, since this is not a kind of knowledge that we understand.
Another question is in the area of Jewish law. How can I distinguish between laws that are no longer relevant and no longer need to be observed (such as meat and fish according to your view, and other laws that are not necessarily based on an error but addressed a different reality, etc.), and laws that despite their lack of relevance we continue to observe by force of authority / decree / enactment / ancestral custom, etc.? What is the touchstone?
Thank you very much, and have a good week.
Answer
First, one can criticize anything (and perhaps be mistaken); one just cannot issue a ruling. But the discussion you are talking about is not about what the Holy One, blessed be He, knows, but about what we believe regarding His knowledge. If, from my perspective, His prior knowledge contradicts my free will, then I have to choose one or the other. If I do not know what His knowledge means, then I should not speak about it and should not believe in it. So either way, from my perspective He does not know in advance. And this is what I wrote about Maimonides’ statement, “His knowledge is not like our knowledge”—the knowledge that we have, He does not have. So why should I care that He has something else that is also called knowledge?
And more generally, I would say that there is a difference between a difficulty and a contradiction. When there is a logical contradiction, there is no need to know any reality in order to reject the claim.