Q&A: Logical
Logical
Question
1) In your opinion, is it possible / should one / does one need to find a rationale in the prohibitive-religious part of Jewish law (as opposed to its legal part)?
For example, if someone comes to you and says that he found the logic / reason why kiddush takes effect only in the place of the meal, would you listen to see whether he really found it, or would you dismiss it in principle — meaning that there is simply a conceptual mistake here, and whatever his logic is, it will fail?
2) How can one find a reason for any given law, when for every reason you can ask about it itself, “but why”? Basically, you can keep asking why forever, can’t you?
Answer
1. I don’t know whether one should, but I very much doubt whether it’s possible. Of course, if someone proposes a logical suggestion, it is certainly worth examining. There is no reason to reject such a suggestion out of hand.
2. That is a question about the very concept of explanation in general, with no connection to Jewish law. An explanation is based on principles that themselves do not require explanation (axioms), because they are self-evident.
Discussion on Answer
I already wrote that yes.
So by definition, the prohibitive part of Jewish law is not irrational, right? That is, this part is not based only on scriptural decrees (let’s say that scriptural decrees = commands of the Holy One, blessed be He, whose reason is not accessible to us, etc.), but can also be based on things that we definitely do understand. If I were to give you some very, very logical reason for the prohibition against eating pork, would you be willing to accept it, for example?