Q&A: The Implications of the Conception of the Commandments Presented in the Trilogy
The Implications of the Conception of the Commandments Presented in the Trilogy
Question
In the book The First Existent, I was exposed to your conception of the commandments and Jewish law as a separate normative system, one that fulfills goals that we are not capable of knowing (for example, repairing upper worlds or something like that), and also to your conception of the moral system (which actually is relevant to us as human beings) as instrumental, in contrast to the halakhic system as the “final” end. I also read the first two parts of your book Walking Among the Standing Ones, and philosophically I understand the logic of this: that meaning apparently has to be derived from something external to us, and the many difficulties involved in other conceptions (the commandments as morality, etc.).
At the same time, it dawned on me that the picture that emerges from this is rather bleak. I’m not trying to provoke, only asking because of my limited understanding, but I’ll phrase it bluntly in order to make things clear. Apparently, the picture that comes out of this conception of the commandments is that the entire meaning of our existence is to be servants carrying out a goal that has absolutely nothing to do with us. Even if observing the commandments causes us suffering, we have no choice but to do it because a command exists. For a person who believes that this command really exists, failing to fulfill it makes him completely wicked. If a person does not want to realize an unclear goal that does not affect him, for example because he prefers to live a better life, then even if he is moral, that makes him wicked. This picture really does not make one feel much like observing commandments, so I assume I’m mistaken somewhere in my understanding, and I’d be glad to be corrected.
Answer
You’re not mistaken. I just don’t understand why you need to understand the goals in order to identify with the action. Trust in the Holy One, blessed be He, that this is proper and that it is beneficial is enough for me. That is the essence of the comparison the midrash makes between Israel and the nations before the giving of the Torah: they ask what is written in it, while we say, “We will do” before “we will hear.” Beyond that, learning and observance reveal in us intuitions even regarding commandments whose rationale is unclear. There is a feeling of identification with this whole framework, and with what is right and not right within it. Like the intuition that accompanies those who study the sacrificial laws, even though that area is not connected to our everyday world and I would not have expected us to have intuitions about it (not like monetary law, for example).
Discussion on Answer
Factually, that is what is written in this midrash. They asked what was written and wanted to check whether it suited them, and we did not.
Why is that praiseworthy? Who said it is praiseworthy? That is simply the fact: Israel had trust and the nations did not.
The question of selfishness is not relevant here. Even if you act for the sake of a goal that you understand, that is not selfish.
Why does the Rabbi formulate it as though the difference between the nations of the world and the gentiles was that they lacked trust—what is wrong with that? And besides, the fact that we have trust makes the action less selfish, but after all both are for our own good, aren’t they?
It seems to me more plausible to explain that the nations of the world did not nullify their will, whereas we did.