Q&A: Values
Values
Question
Let us assume, just for the sake of example, that there is no formal prohibition on aborting a fetus.
Can I, as a person of the 21st century, come and say that even though there is no formal prohibition (= a halakhic rule) against it, since we find that the Torah is very strict about the value of life (saving a life overrides almost everything, etc.), one can, with that kind of value-based interpretation, say that at any rate aborting a fetus is against God’s will (as opposed to the word of God explicitly stated in the Torah—the terminology follows the beginning of the book Standing in the Sea of Moving Paths)? In other words, can one come and innovate that aborting a fetus does not violate any halakhic rule, but does violate a Torah principle (so that there would be punishment for it, etc.)?
Answer
Not only is that possible, it is certainly correct. Either the spirit of Jewish law or morality. I have addressed here more than once the relationship between Jewish law and morality regarding abortions.
Discussion on Answer
One could also argue that the spirit of the Torah is not to ask value-based questions and not to decide that way, just as “we do not expound the reasons for the verse.” You can claim almost anything from the Torah. And people do in fact derive different things from it. If it were possible to understand what its purpose is, everyone would reach the same conclusion.
Also, even if there is some correspondence in certain matters, you still cannot know that the inference that this is the Torah’s purpose is correct. After all, it may be aiming at something else, or something hidden, that only partially overlaps with it.
In practice, the Talmud in Berakhot explicitly says that from the day the Temple was destroyed, what matters is only the four cubits of Jewish law.
God’s will is either what morality says, or what you can understand from the Torah to be His will. See my article on separating dough and terumah.
That was a specific question meant to bring us to a more general one, a methodological question: where exactly does the boundary/line of God’s will operate? Can I say that about any issue—”well, there’s no prohibition here, but it’s still against God’s will”?
In short:
– When should one say this (“okay, it’s not prohibited, but believe me, it’s still against God’s will”), and when not?
– What considerations justify saying it? Just my own personal reasoning? Or in other words, how can I really know what God’s will is, so that I can say that X is against His will?