Q&A: On Jewish Law and Morality
On Jewish Law and Morality
Question
Dear Rabbi Michi, hello. Last week I watched your sixth YouTube lesson on Jewish law and morality.
I have a two-part question (and maybe a fundamental distinction) that needs clarification, and I don’t understand it.
If morality is contingent and changes from generation to generation… A) then how can one say that its source is God? (as that dear Jew asked there on Zoom) And B) even if we say that it is from God—how can we rule that it has any competition with Torah law at all? (the latter is primary, of course)
Let me explain. For example, in the pre-Sinai period it was morally appropriate to worship idols (I understand that morality very well. [By the way, it would be a mistake to say that in the 21st century we alone have the truth and none besides us. If we value the power of human morality, that applies equally to all periods since the dawn of humanity.] The morality in this is the search for a tangible connection with the divine. It is fairly pagan, but the root of that worship is very religious in essence.)
Then the revelation at Mount Sinai came, and God ruled: A) I am the Lord your God. B) You shall have no other gods before Me.
Seemingly, we see that Jewish law (which is from God in any case, meaning Torah-level law) has the power to contradict morality (of course this appears in many commandments of the Torah; I just brought idolatry as an example).
From here, the reverse analogy as well: modern morality has no power to contradict Jewish law. (One can propose many suggestions on the matter. Perhaps because it is not from God (A). And even if it is from God, it is not found on the higher planes of metaphysics but on the lower ones [I hope I’m being clear])
What does the Rabbi say? Maybe this point actually strengthens Leibowitz’s approach to morality and Jewish law? and not yours, Rabbi… (and all the more so not Rabbi Kook of blessed memory [if I understood his view correctly])
That morality is atheistic (contingent) in essence. And if Jewish law and morality clash, priority goes to Jewish law (of course Torah-level law, and not necessarily rabbinic law) without thinking twice.
Answer
I didn’t understand the question.
- Idolatry is not connected to morality in any way that I can discern. At Sinai it simply became clear that idol worshippers had been living in error. That is not a moral wrong but a mistake.
- The fact that morality changes over the generations, to my mind, indicates improvement—just as scientific knowledge improves over the years. Does that mean there is no single science or that it is not objective? The Holy One, blessed be He, expects us to behave morally, but He did not spoon-feed us what morality is (at least not fully). That is something we gradually discover over time.
Discussion on Answer
I mean, seemingly, failing to discover a moral prohibition is more “serious” than failing to discover a commandment like putting on tefillin. Because here many human beings are harmed. Through no wrongdoing on the part of the ones causing the harm.
God revealed to you that you must stone a Sabbath desecrator. For some reason it was too hard for Him to create them with slightly improved natures so that it wouldn’t come to stoning. What’s interesting is that to this day His will remains—to stone.
It is forbidden to harm people. That was always known. The conceptions changed regarding the nature of the harm and the identity of those harmed. And indeed humanity improves. There is evolution in the realm of values too.
If that is the only problem you see in the governance of the Holy One, blessed be He (everything else you understand), fortunate are you.
In any case, these questions do not relate in any way to what I said. Morality is from God because without that there is no morality (and if it is atheistic, then there is also idolatry in partnership). Beyond that, the Holy One, blessed be He, wrote in the Torah that He expects us to behave morally. So this is not my innovation. From that point on, all the questions are good questions, but they are not connected to me.
There is morality without God. There are moral atheists and immoral religious people. You do not need God in order to sustain life, because without morality there is damage—or there is no life. Does the fact that there is a God obligate me to anything? Beyond all that, the Holy One, blessed be He, wrote that He expects moral conduct in certain verses—but He Himself is not moral.
1) It may be that I was mistaken in my diagnosis. Seemingly, in my opinion morality is an act that a person feels is the right act (according to this, idolatry in the moral sense).
In any case, maybe that really is not a good example, because the main point is that it is a mistake.
But there are countless other examples. For instance, male homosexual intercourse: if according to the more developed morality of our time (and perhaps also in ancient times) it is not immoral (morally reasonable), and then the Torah comes and forbids it, then it is saying something. There are 2 options:
(*) Either Torah and morality are one, and the Torah is saying that this is immoral.
(*) Or Torah and morality are 2 different categories, but Torah law overrides morality.
2) On the contrary, Rabbi—if we have no ability to grasp metaphysical morality fully (rather it is built over the years and gradually), how can we compare it to Jewish law? Who guarantees us that the morality we have in hand is not only a drop in the ocean of complete morality? And if so, how can we rule by means of that drop of morality against certainly divine law?
After all, Aristotelian physics did not include so much of the knowledge known to us today—not quantum theory, etc. Who guarantees us that the “level of morality” we have today [relative to the totality of morality] surpasses the “scientific level” [relative to the totality of science] that Aristotle had in his time? It seems to me the analogy and the point are clear.
And another important point, in my opinion, Rabbi Michi: you say that giving power to a moral category as such, without connection to God, is idolatry.
Why? The whole essence of idolatry is that I deify something and say that it is spiritual and exalted, even though it is a pathetic thumb.
Whereas with morality, I argue that it has no divine validity whatsoever, only contingency pure and simple. (And I choose of my own accord to behave in this moral way.)
I don’t see any connection here to idolatry. On the contrary, it shows that man is in the category of “in our image, after our likeness,” that he has the ability to create from himself things that seem good in his eyes, even though they are not divine commandments.
To dear A., hello brother. I prefer not to get involved in the discussion between you and the Rabbi. But there is still one point that I, the small one, want to call attention to.
When God says to stone someone who publicly desecrates the Sabbath, you say—and rightly so—that this seems immoral.
But it seems to me that a fine distinction should be made here.
Morality matters to the Holy One, blessed be He, in and of itself. (It is a value that exists essentially, and is revealed to us little by little.)
But Jewish law is a higher layer in the metaphysical world. If so, then seemingly God does indeed expect us to act morally (as appears in quite a few verses), but not at the expense of Torah law, because if morality is y and Jewish law is x, the perfected value of y (for example 3) is lower than that of x (for example 5). So when the Merciful One wrote to stone a Sabbath desecrator, this is not a simple step; however, in the overall calculation, the halakhic deficiency outweighs the moral deficiency. (I hope I explained this clearly.)
And it should further be sharpened that, to the best of my memory, Maimonides writes in Guide for the Perplexed that the Torah’s punishments are intended for the sake of the welfare of the collective. (So that the people will see and fear.)
That is, through a one-time immoral act (deficiency 3), repeated non-halakhic acts (deficiency 5) will be reduced. And according to Maimonides, that is the purpose of the Torah’s punishments. (At least incidentally, without getting into the point that stoning, from a broader perspective, is atonement for the grave sin in the World to Come, and according to that it is in fact moral indeed—but we won’t get into that.)
Add to that, of course, in doubled and redoubled measure, all the commandments in the Torah that command us to “save life” in judgment, and all the exemptions and “workarounds” (seemingly), and you will find that the Torah’s purpose is to minimize the immoral act as much as possible—even for the sake of exalted Jewish law. (And the Talmudic saying is well known that a religious court that executed one person in 70 years was called a “destructive court”!)
Daniel Koren, big like for “whereas with morality, I argue that it has no divine validity whatsoever, only contingency pure and simple”; by the same token, eating also is not included in idolatry…
By the way, what is immoral about “stoning”?
Benjamin Gurlin, hello. Appreciate the like, bro 😉
You’re asking too basic a question haha.
In my humble opinion, if it is in the category of “so you shall remove the evil from your midst,” there is no problem with it (assuming it helps remove it). I was speaking according to A.’s view, that there is a problem with it… (Even though I too think there is a partial problem with it. Any act of violence whatsoever corrupts one’s character, whether it is a commandment or not.
If So-and-so punches Levi in the face, God forbid, that same person after the punch will be more corrupted than he was before he hit. Violence erodes your emotional intuition toward the pain and suffering of the other. And it turns you into a less moral person than you were prior to the violence. [This includes, of course, blotting out Amalek and all the wars of God in Scripture.] That is even before entering into the [many] considerations of the suffering of the one attacked or murdered.
However, there is a greater benefit here of “so you shall remove the evil from your midst,” and therefore in my opinion even in the total picture the gain outweighs the loss. That’s my view, brother.)
Regards, Daniel 🙂
First of all, I’m A-dot. My discussion is with everyone. Indeed, God, the epitome of perfection, commanded stoning like the last of primitive savages, and there is no contradiction in that at all. This God in question is so moral that He created man with certain natures suited to being stoned with rocks. Or arranged conditions that fit that—same thing. It is so important to that epitome of perfection that the Sabbath be kept because of His megalomania, so that people know He created heaven and earth and all their hosts, to the point of stoning among His creatures. According to Michi’s explanation [elsewhere] that we are animals in relation to Him, this works out.
A., hello. It feels to me that you are begging the question, brother. First you posit what objective morality is (???), and then you posit what God ought to be (??..). And then you challenge God from within the assumptions of your premises…
A little humility would not hurt in the issue of divinity.
If you do not believe in God, then the discussion is empty from the outset. My previous reply, fairly reasoned, was addressed to a person who accepts the premises of God’s binding authority, the giving of the Torah, etc.
If not, then of course there is no point in discussing it, since everyone has different assumptions, which will lead him… A., hello. It feels to me that you are begging the question, brother. First you posit what morality is (???), and then you posit what God ought to be (??..). And then you challenge God from within the assumptions of your premises…
A little humility would not hurt in the issue of divinity.
If you do not believe in God, then the discussion is empty from the outset. My previous reply, fairly reasoned, was addressed to a person who accepts the premises of God’s binding authority, the giving of the Torah, etc.
If not… then of course there is no point in discussing the details of the Torah, since everyone has different assumptions, which will lead him to different conclusions. (It takes two to tango.)
Sorry, brother, it got sent twice by mistake. (This is the original message; I’d be happy if Rabbi Michi would delete my previous comment, it just creates a mess.)
A., hello. It feels to me that you are begging the question, brother. First you posit what objective morality is (???), and then you posit what God ought to be (??..). And then you challenge God from within the assumptions of your premises…
A little humility would not hurt in the issue of divinity.
If you do not believe in God, then the discussion is empty from the outset. My previous reply, fairly reasoned, was addressed to a person who accepts the premises of God’s binding authority, the giving of the Torah, etc.
If not, then of course there is no point in discussing, since everyone has different assumptions, which will lead him to different conclusions. (It takes two to tango.)
As for morality, it is a simple matter that there is no point arguing about for anyone with a head on his shoulders. As for the nature of divinity—I don’t know how you personally define it, but Judaism defines it as perfect. It doesn’t matter whether I personally believe or not; one has to address what is being said.
There’s nothing to argue about regarding morality? Things you hold today with total certainty, in another 300 years people will demand the opposite with total certainty; things people demanded 1,000 years ago with total certainty, 200 years ago they demanded the exact opposite, and then it changed again… This is not like that, and that is not like this—what is common to them? That none of them has legs in infinity! From here you want to challenge metaphysics?
As for the nature of divinity… it seems to me you didn’t delve into what I wrote in my first message to you—see there.
As for your saying that the issue of faith does not matter for this topic—it matters very much. There is a level of those who are inside. Someone outside cannot challenge them. (Because he does not see/believe as they do, the path as a whole.)
“Any act of violence whatsoever corrupts one’s character, whether it is a commandment or not” — what are you basing that on?
By the way, after extensive viewing of various ISIS videos, I didn’t feel any corruption of character at all… maybe one should distinguish between doing the act and watching it?
To Benjamin Gurlin, hello. In simple terms, I’m basing it on my intuition, and also on a conversation with a good friend from the field of psychology.
First, in my humble opinion, one certainly has to make a big distinction. When you hit someone, the cruel Homo sapiens in you hits him, and that affects the image of God in you as well, of course. (At least temporarily, until you cool off to the other side.)
Second, I personally think that the same principle applies to watching as well, only more on the micro level. A person who is not used to seeing someone bleeding (because he identifies with his suffering) is, in my view, more moral in this issue than a person for whom seeing someone bleeding is like drinking a glass of water. (The latter does not identify with the other’s suffering, and does not fulfill “love your neighbor as yourself” [in the spiritual sense ;]).
By the way—I wanted to note and forgot that in my opinion verbal violence is also included in this, of course. (And perhaps even verbal violence in talkback comments.) Though on the micro level, still.
What is there to argue about in the present case? Even 10,000 years ago you would understand that murder is evil. So stoning all the more so, no? As for the nature of divinity—what is there to delve into here? Is He perfect or not perfect?
There is no “level.” You can discuss anything and everything.
There is a problem with taking hold of two ends of the rope: on one hand putting belief in God in this world at the center of the front, and on the other hand ignoring belief in the World to Come. (Or data in the equation that are not before our eyes.)
Either you accept that there is a World to Come or you don’t.
The whole essence of the punishment is in this world, and the received tradition’s outlook is that it is “atonement” for the soul.
You can accept that or not.
But don’t insert your own personal interpretation and pretend it is objective. (And then of course ask your challenge.)
I remain with my view that you did not grasp what I wrote to you in my first comment in the thread. But no matter; at the time I thought your mode of thought was a bit different from what is now emerging to me.
As for divinity—the perfection of God is an ancient philosophical interpretation.
It is intended either for believers (who interpret the texts wisely) or for philosophers.
If you are speaking about the biblical God, where do we really find that He has a problem punishing with death in this world? (If He is perfect, then that would be a deficiency. So there are 2 options: either He is not perfect, or it is not a deficiency.)
There is no need to be so emotional; by the term “level” I mean those who hold within a certain topic. Someone who accepts the assumptions can advance; someone who doesn’t—where will he advance? That is what I mean by level. If you do not accept God’s binding authority and the revelation at Sinai, what is the argument about? You claim that God must be moral according to your lights (that is, not allow stoning), and I will claim that God’s morality is pure reason. (That is, there are many more variables in the equation that are not before our eyes, and with Him everything is perfected.
As for the issue of stoning [and morality in general], I wrote at length at the beginning of the thread to you, and it’s a shame for nothing.)
And what ants like us can grasp is not necessarily the whole story… that is a pretty simple thought, both in science and all fields, and in theology too.
What does the World to Come have to do with anything? The World to Come doesn’t justify evil in this world. And what does “either you accept the World to Come or you don’t” mean? How can I accept something that has no unequivocal proof? If you really think stoning is atonement, your thinking is distorted.
Stoning and burning are pure reason? What other variables are there here that I missed? We are absolutely not an ant. Our brain is the most complex thing in the universe. With this brain you logically understand all the possibilities, and in the present case this is not one of the big questions. It is written explicitly in the Torah.
Hahaha wow, what a collection of emotional outbursts…
If you think I’m some values-missionary with the power to bring the “already convinced” to repentance, you’re mistaken. I’m simply conducting an intelligent religious conversation (or not).
You’re only confirming what I said: without the premises, you have no point at all in discussing this, because you won’t understand anything, because you won’t agree with anything. To understand multiplication you need to understand addition, the previous stage in the chain of the topic. Same here: in order to understand what the Torah says and why, you have to accept that the Torah was given, because otherwise everything is superficial.
You said many things that led me to the realization that I have no interest in replying to you… (You’re welcome to look at “The First Existent” by the owner of this site, may he live long, or in the notebooks on the site.)
Just one point I couldn’t resist (because it’s not begging the question, unlike the rest of the…).
Our brain is the most complex thing in the universe, and yet we have been mistaken since the dawn of history, and will continue to err constantly… Didn’t Aristotle, with all his brilliant mind, make mistakes? Newton? There is hidden data; not everything can be predicted algorithmically. We really are an ant (next to God, yes?!? Important that you remember the ant context).
Good night and blessings. Regards, Daniel 🙂
From the start of the discussion there hasn’t been even the tiniest fraction of an “emotional outburst” here. The fact that you imagine it that way doesn’t make it true. No “premise” is relevant here—because I addressed everything you wrote very well. And I’m still discussing it with you now, so how exactly do I “have no point in discussing this”? And you are the one who keeps reading things I write and not understanding them, so how am I the one who “understands nothing”? I don’t need to accept the Torah from Sinai in order to read clear Hebrew. I won’t look at anything; leave that to yourself. And if anything, you should take a good hard look at my words. You’re the one promoting stoning here, my friend, not me. You’re the one promoting cruelty that the mind cannot tolerate—not me. And regarding the ant? I already explained myself and I won’t repeat it again.
And let us say amen 😉
From this point on—you are either a fool or wicked.
2. How is that logical? הרי morality is God’s will, so is it not an injustice that we commit against our fellow man through no fault of our own just because God did not reveal it?