Q&A: The Torah Is Amoral. Really?
The Torah Is Amoral. Really?
Question
Hello,
You explained that the Torah is a–moral. These commandments have no religious purpose, including those that appear moral. If so, why does the Talmud ask, “Why do I need a verse? It is logical reasoning”? It could have answered “We need a verse in order to tell us that there is a religious purpose to this commandment”!
Answer
If you examine the cases where this comes up, you’ll see that none of them fits what you wrote. The Talmud does not ask “Why do I need a verse? It is logical reasoning” regarding the prohibition of murder. Why not? After all, there the logic is obvious—and the proof is the claim made against Cain for murdering Abel, before any commandments were given. That is the strongest possible reasoning, and yet they do not ask it there. The reason is, of course, that there is no room for such a question with regard to a commandment or prohibition. There is room for it with regard to some detail in the laws of evidence (“the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted”) or in the laws of claimant and defendant (“the burden of proof rests on the one seeking to extract from another”). There, the reasoning is sufficient and the verse adds nothing. So your argument is not only not a refutation; it is actually the best proof for my position.
Discussion on Answer
What about them?
How did they derive from reasoning that there is an obligation to recite a blessing over food?
I didn’t understand the question. Look in the Talmudic text and you’ll see the reasoning: anyone who benefits from this world without a blessing is considered as if he committed misuse of sacred property.
He meant that this is not a detail within a commandment, but a commandment in its own right (one of the seven rabbinic commandments).
And therefore?
And what about blessings over enjoyment, which were derived by reasoning?