Q&A: Questions
Questions
Question
Hello Rabbi Michael Abraham!
I’ve participated until now in the series of lectures you’ve been giving on the philosophy of Jewish law, which has just ended.
Let me begin by saying that the lectures were fascinating, enlightening, and so powerful that it’s very hard to argue with them. Honestly, it’s hard to accept some of the things simply because their implication is to be so different from the overwhelming majority of the religious world in all its varieties. But it’s not that I don’t accept them—quite the opposite, I’m trying to grapple with them and constantly compare them with other approaches.
Enough introductions. I’d be happy to ask a few questions, not really related to one another, and if the Rabbi has time I’d be glad if you could answer:
1. Some would define this as a heretical question, but I’m sure the Rabbi agrees that the way to deal with questions is not by suppressing them but by resolving them (or showing that they are impossible).
In light of the Rabbi’s rational approach, what does the Rabbi think about the Code of Hammurabi and all these findings that supposedly show there were teachings allegedly similar to the Torah we received at Mount Sinai? Common sense (and maybe in this case it’s no longer so common; I don’t know) doesn’t allow me to brush this aside in an instant and say: so what? The Torah was given at Sinai, period. It seems like a pattern found in many things in the world that went through an evolutionary process—for example, languages that began as babbling until they developed into what we now call language.
2. Regarding the lecture: I’m not sure I understood correctly. Did we reach a conclusion about what is more important: the value of life or the value of observing the commandments? As I understood it, we did not; rather, we concluded that in any case the controlling strategy is to desecrate one Sabbath and thereby gain both values to the greatest extent possible in the situation. So if that is so: why don’t we save the gentile by desecrating the Sabbath? By doing that, we admit that we decided that the value of observing the commandments is greater, no? Of course, if we decide the opposite, then we admit that the value of life is greater; and since there is no third possibility, it follows that we have resolved the conflict.
3. A completely unrelated question: does the Rabbi think there is a halakhic obligation to refer to rabbis in the third person?
It feels very strange to me, and that there’s no added respect in it at all, even though I have indeed heard that this is Jewish law.
I’ll end with an apology for the length of this message (I tried to shorten it as much as possible), and with one final question: what will the Rabbi be teaching next semester? I’d definitely be happy to participate if my schedule allows.
All the best, and many thanks for the wonderful lectures!
Answer
Thank you very much for your comments. I’m glad this provokes thought, since that is exactly my goal.
I very much prefer questions through my website (link below), and in general you’ll find there a lot of material related to the kinds of issues you’re dealing with, including the questions you asked. In the future, I’d appreciate it if you would ask through the responsa section there.
1. I completely agree. It is very important to raise and discuss heretical questions. More generally, the category of “heresy” is just demagoguery. If a person thinks something, there is no point at all in telling him that this is heresy. One must examine the claim on its merits.
As for the Code of Hammurabi, to the best of my understanding the similarity is rather weak, and there are very significant differences (which show that this is not just simple copying). The fact that the Torah resembles ancient legal systems does not mean very much. Either they took from us, or some of the laws had already been given to Noah and to Shem and Eber, or the Torah wrote laws similar to Hammurabi because whatever was suitable there was also included in the Torah. So what? It reminds me of those who argue that the flood story appears in ancient cultures (such as Gilgamesh) and see this as a refutation of the Torah’s reliability. If it appears in other places as well, that strengthens the idea that this is indeed what happened.
There are also discussions on my website about the Code of Hammurabi, and major experts in the field deal with it there (I do not work in Bible or archaeology). You should look there.
2. From the halakhic ruling regarding the life of a gentile, it indeed seems they decided that the value of life is lower than the value of the Sabbath. That is exactly what I pointed out. However, according to Meiri (and I agree with him), this was said only about ancient gentiles who did not behave morally (did not keep the Noahide commandments). You can see my article on “Is There Enlightened Idolatry?” (all my articles appear on the website).
3. All obligations of respect are a function of accepted norms. Nowadays it is not customary to use the third person, so I do not see this as an obligation. In the past this was a respectful form of speech that was practiced throughout the world, including among gentiles.
The topics for next semester appear in the course syllabus. You can see them there. By the way, all the topics of the course and others as well appear in detail in the trilogy I wrote, in which I propose a full and “thin” (minimalist) picture of Judaism, from foundation to rooftop.