Q&A: The Eternity of the Torah
The Eternity of the Torah
Question
To Rabbi Michael Abraham, greetings,
I am the “Someone” who asked here about the eternity of the Torah. I think that here by email I’ll be able to explain myself better. My main purpose is to expand on my question, and I would be very grateful if the Rabbi could share his opinion, because this issue has been bothering me a lot lately. Although the Rabbi answered me on the site, my mind still isn’t at ease about it. And admittedly my remarks are a bit long, and it’s unpleasant to trouble the Rabbi to read all of them, but if the Rabbi would be willing to devote some of his time to this—my gratitude would be endless. I apologize that some of this repeats what I already wrote on the site, but for the sake of completeness I’ll repeat it here (I think here it is explained better).
My question is divided into three parts:
A. The fit between the Torah’s commandments and the culture of the ancient world. Especially according to Maimonides, who says that the commandments were meant to move human beings from idolatry to monotheism, how can one even imagine that they were meant to last forever and ever? After all, their purpose has already been achieved. But not only according to Maimonides—even Nachmanides, who got angry with him (regarding sacrifices, and did not notice that Maimonides elsewhere speaks about all the commandments as a whole, in Guide for the Perplexed III:29), would have to admit that there are commandments that have no place in the modern age. Tefillin seem to be a direct continuation of ancient culture, as Moshe Weinfeld brings here (near note 27): “There is a range of literary and iconographic evidence from the ancient Near East that teaches us that people used to carry on their arms and foreheads objects containing written text, thereby signifying their trust in a protecting deity.” The mezuzah seems to continue the ancient-world practice of writing the names of gods ליד the door, as he brought here on p. 2 near note 5. (And sacrifices too, which are a major part of the Torah’s commandments—it is clear that they are an inseparable part of ancient-world culture, where this was an accepted thing.) These examples seemingly prove Maimonides’ point, that the commandments were meant to take the Israelites, who were immersed in that culture, and cause them to move from idolatry to monotheism. And as Maimonides writes, this could not be done all at once, so the Holy One, blessed be He, did it gradually, and did not command them to completely abandon their rituals, but rather to redirect them toward monotheistic divinity. The enormous difficulty—and this frustrates me terribly—is that Maimonides forgot that a stage is only a stage, and if the goal has been reached then one should keep climbing and abandon the commandments.
B. The problem of immoral commandments. If we say that the Torah was intended only for the ancient world, then seemingly we have solved the problem of the relation between it and morality (which the Rabbi has discussed at length), because relative to the morality of the ancient world the Torah is definitely moral.
C. The covenant in the Torah. In the Torah we do not find dry commands, but rather a covenant between the Holy One, blessed be He, and Israel—a clear reciprocal relationship in which Israel keeps the commandments and the Holy One, blessed be He, rewards them ("and I will give your rains in their season," etc.); Israel commits transgressions and the Holy One, blessed be He, punishes them ("and if you will not listen to Me," etc.). If we see that at a certain stage the covenant stopped operating (for the Holy One, blessed be He, no longer fulfills His side), then apparently He intended the Torah to be temporary and designated only for the period of divine involvement in creation.
I want to emphasize: I can accept that the Holy One, blessed be He, would command us to put on tefillin forever and ever because this was once a widespread practice and He decided that we should preserve this ancient custom; and I am prepared to accept that the Torah would command us to do immoral things, as the Rabbi explains in Tutu"d, that these are two different planes; and I am prepared to accept that the Holy One, blessed be He, would command us to keep the commandments even though He Himself does nothing on His side for us. I am only claiming that since these three issues fit exactly what existed in ancient times (the symbolic and ritual ceremonies, morality, the covenant), and in the absence of proof from the Torah itself that it is eternal, why not simply understand that the Torah was intended only for a certain period of time. That also seems very reasonable: that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to advance the world and bring it out of paganism, and therefore gave a certain people these commandments which, in Maimonides’ words, were intended to bring humanity gradually out of idolatrous paganism. And indeed the goal was achieved, and through Judaism—mainly by means of its daughters Christianity and Islam—the world abandoned idolatry.
The Rabbi wrote to me on the site that the tradition says the Torah is eternal. But the Rabbi taught us that tradition has only formal authority, not substantive authority. And here the question is a factual one: did the Holy One, blessed be He, intend at all for the Torah to last forever and ever, or did He intend it to last until its purpose was achieved?
I would be very grateful if the Rabbi could answer me.
With thanks (and additional thanks for all the special books and articles)
Answer
Greetings.
A. Regarding the fit: finding weak evidence of a fit for two or three commandments seems very dubious to me. The fact that people used to hang various things on their bodies—even if true—does that necessarily mean this is the source of the commandment of tefillin? Is that serious? Even today people wear all kinds of things on their bodies, so does the order to hang a dog tag around the neck in the army come from civilian fashion customs? This is an association that wouldn’t even suit a little quip at a wedding celebration. The variety of translations of the word “totafot” that he cites all point to the same meaning, even though the author decided to see in them a variety of different translations. Interpretations by historians and archaeologists have never inspired much confidence in me, and I wouldn’t build too tall a tower on them.
And in general, archaeologists and historians find correspondences for everything under the sun, especially with a pinch of creative interpretation. But even if such a fit existed for all the commandments, it would prove nothing. It would only mean that things practiced then were taken and directed toward the worship of God. That does not at all mean that this was intended to remove people from idolatry. Maimonides’ remarks always seemed very dubious to me. As you wrote, even Maimonides himself did not write that one should abandon the commandments, and in general the status of reasons for the commandments in his view is very unclear (whether he himself took it seriously). In the period of the Sages and the Second Temple there was already no significant idolatry, and it was clear to them that everything remained in force. A considerable portion of the commandments are not connected in any way to idolatry or to fighting it.
B. Here I offered my solution, and the two correspondences you found do not solve a general problem.
C. I already wrote that I do not agree. There is no reciprocity in the Torah, meaning no exemption from the commandments when the Holy One, blessed be He, is not involved.
In summary, I do not agree with any of the three components, and therefore not with the conclusion that follows from all three.
As for tradition, the situation is exactly the opposite. In my view, tradition has substantive authority, not formal authority. When something comes to me through tradition, I assume it is true (at least if its source is Sinai). Tradition in itself does not obligate me in any way. Why should I care what so-and-so or someone else said or thought? A tradition that comes to us and says that the commandments are eternal is either a tradition from Sinai or an invention. If it is an invention, then it has no authority at all. And if it is from Sinai, then it is substantive—it tells me the fact that this is what the Holy One, blessed be He, wants—and therefore it is also binding.
Discussion on Answer
First, there is no such fit for all the commandments. Second, even for the commandments where there is a fit, it is highly dubious. So what is the point of all this hair-splitting? Maybe if there were a full and convincing fit for all the commandments, there would be room for discussion. But there isn’t.
It may be that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not desire the ritual commandments, and He is doing that through the destruction of the Temple. In the future, as is known, opinions are divided (Rabbi Kook in The Vision of Vegetarianism). Therefore even if you are right, that still does not mean there is a principle that when commandments are no longer relevant they are automatically void for that reason.
I answered how we know: tradition.
It has always been accepted that Jewish law is eternal. That also emerges from the Torah itself, which expects us to continue acting this way in the future without any time limit. I see no reason to think otherwise.
Rabbi A.,
Perhaps this is what is meant by “the commandments will be nullified in the future to come”… because the purpose of the commandments is to know the great Name, and when we reach our goal (and we still have not reached it), and “the earth shall be filled with knowledge of the Lord,” something will change in this context.
And one can say regarding many commandments that stand in opposition to Egyptian culture, Canaanite culture, etc., that we preserve them in order to remember constantly, until the final redemption is complete, the Exodus from Egypt and its purpose—knowledge of God and the abandonment of Egyptian idolatry and the rest of the debased cultures that were widespread in the ancient Near East, including those of the peoples of Canaan.
And the Torah wrote regarding tefillin: “And it shall be as a sign upon your hand and as frontlets between your eyes, for with a mighty hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt.”
That is, so what if tefillin and many commandments use elements that were common in the period when the Torah was given, in order to fight idolatry. That is our way of preserving the experience of uniqueness and separateness, the memory—specifically through the commandments, where in many of them everyone can see the struggle against those cultures.
And against the backdrop of the world’s development in the knowledge of God, also through the appearance of monotheistic religions, we should rejoice and give thanks. The Torah itself wants to advance toward such a place, and the commandments are our way of remembering the Torah’s direction throughout the generations.
Thank you for the detailed response.
Regarding A, the Rabbi wrote: “But even if such a fit existed for all the commandments, it would prove nothing. It would only mean that things practiced then were taken and directed toward the worship of God. That does not at all mean that this was intended to remove people from idolatry.” I agree that it does not prove it, but if דווקא these things were chosen because they were practiced then, doesn’t it follow naturally that this would be relevant only as long as those practices existed?
And why not add to this the fact that in principle (a priori) it does not seem likely that the Holy One, blessed be He, would desire crude ritualistic ceremonies and symbols (especially sacrifices, which are not two or three commandments but many dozens, and in practice this is almost the main form of worship of God under normal conditions). Of course it is hard to apply “what seems likely” to the Holy One, blessed be He, but doesn’t this at least deserve to be taken into account?
Regarding C, perhaps I did not make myself clear enough. I am not claiming that the Torah explicitly says there is an exemption from commandments when the Holy One, blessed be He, is not involved. Rather, the Torah describes only a situation in which the Holy One, blessed be He, is involved; if so, how do we know it is also speaking about a situation in which the Holy One, blessed be He, is not involved?
As for tradition, then perhaps this tradition too (about the eternity of the Torah) is really an invention and has no authority at all? How do we know it is from Sinai?