Q&A: The Existing, the Ideal, and the Torah
The Existing, the Ideal, and the Torah
Question
Hello Rabbi, I’d be happy to ask you a question, and I’ll try to break it down clearly in order to get at the point.
From what I understand, the Rabbi argues that we have nothing but Jewish law.
That the philosophy of Judaism is not uniquely Jewish, but rather part of general philosophy.
That midrashim, and in general claims about reality made by the Sages, are not Torah.
I have a few reservations and struggles about this topic.
First of all, “Torah” is a term of instruction, and it seems that it really comes to give commands and not information about reality.
As for the information that appears in the Five Books of the Torah, even though it is information about the world, I assume Rabbi Michi would not say that learning it is not Torah study. Right?
Second, regarding claims about reality that the Sages come to state—claims that deal with the spiritual side and the inner ontological structure of reality, which are also included in philosophy together with Jewish thought (which, according to his view, does not really exist as a distinct category, but is simply identical with general philosophy)—in practice all of these are simply dealing with reality and the knowledge of reality. The same would presumably apply to Kabbalah.
My question is: who says that knowledge of the inner nature of reality is not included in Torah?
When we say that the Creator created the world, that too is knowledge about the inner nature of reality, and we would still consider it Torah.
Perhaps the view really is like that of Maimonides, that any involvement in metaphysics—which is the inner nature of reality—counts as Torah?
And if we say that a person holds some view and makes some claim, in the end the very involvement itself does, on an intuitive level, involve contact with that inner dimension; there are elements that are certainly true even if the conclusions are not always correct. So how is that different from studying Jewish law and arriving at an incorrect conclusion? Even that can still be considered Torah study (like the Talmudic passage about Rabbi Akiva).
One could argue that there is no live indication, and my indication for what I’m saying here is itself mostly intuitive reasoning, but as mentioned, I see that it can be grounded in Torah claims such as the Revelation at Mount Sinai and the creation of the world, which are claims about reality and not commandments.
Thank you,
Or
Answer
Everything is explained very clearly in the second book of my trilogy.
Verses of the Written Torah are Torah in the object itself. Even those that deal with facts, although I have no idea why. The book has holiness in and of itself. That doesn’t mean it is interesting or useful to study that. You can choose another part of the Torah and study that.
Statements about spiritual reality are Torah in the person. Not because they may be incorrect, but because what is true about reality is true for all human beings and not only for Jews. In any case, even in terms of truth, these are only the Sages’ conjectures, and therefore you are not obligated to accept them.
Discussion on Answer
That’s a question of definition. As I understand it, facts in general are not Torah, and they are also universal (a true fact is true for everyone). I assume Torah is only norms, especially norms that apply only to Jews.
I missed the reply for 4 years and just found it now haha. Thanks for the response.
What kind of intention needs to be present when studying facts for it to count as Torah in the person?
After all, a person can study philosophy and then tell himself that it was for the sake of Heaven, or in order to later ground his Torah. Does it depend on intention? If so, is that a requirement? Something about this feels pretty paradoxical to me.
As a rule, I tend to think that studying facts is not Torah, neither in the person nor in the object itself. It can be study with ethical or value significance, but I wouldn’t call it Torah.
However, Maimonides did think that physics and metaphysics are included in this. I’m really not sure.
In any case, even if there is Torah in it, the second question answered the first: study with the intention of understanding the world and God’s actions. True, anyone can tell himself that and lie to himself. So what? The Holy One, blessed be He, is the only one for whom there is any practical difference, and He presumably knows.
Thank you very much, Rabbi, for the reply.
Why, if a certain piece of information is true for the whole world and not only for Jews, does it become non-Torah?