Q&A: Faith Lecture – 43
Faith Lecture – 43
Question
The main question in the lecture did not address the obligation that stems from the covenant itself, which was made at Mount Sinai (beginning in this week’s Torah portion, Exodus 19:3–9, and afterward again before entering the Land of Israel, and then “they accepted it again” in the days of Ahasuerus, etc.). That is, if we have succeeded in proving the event itself, then we have also succeeded in proving the obligation. At least the obligation of the Jewish people.
And likewise, perhaps the very fact that the covenant is needed, and that God seeks the people’s consent to be obligated to Him (that, at least, is what seems to emerge from the plain meaning of the verses), teaches that it is not self-evident that a person is obligated by the divine command? (And not as was said in the lecture, that if one does not understand his obligation, then he does not understand what God is?)
And sorry, two technical questions:
– For some reason I stopped receiving the posts by email. Where do you renew the subscription? I don’t see it on the site.
– In the “Recent Questions” section on the site, questions from 5 years ago appear out of order alongside questions from a month ago, and not questions from the last few days?
Answer
The site has been a bit of a mess in recent weeks because of hackers. You may need to subscribe again. Contact Oren the editor.
As for your question, I don’t understand it. If there were no point to everything that happened at Mount Sinai, would you observe it because of the covenant? Do you really think that without the covenant there would be no obligation even though the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded it? Why did Cain or the Patriarchs have to act as the Holy One, blessed be He, instructed them? The binding of Isaac, for example? This covenant is a fiction, and even the Sages point that out in the passage about God holding the mountain over them like a barrel.