Q&A: Morality
Morality
Question
Hi,
If morality was binding even before the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, why shouldn’t we say: the same mouth that prohibited it (morally) is the mouth that permitted it (religiously), and therefore the right thing is to fulfill the commandment and set morality aside unless the Sages explicitly ruled otherwise, as in the case of saving a life overriding the Sabbath.
You once wrote about a legal principle that says a certain law should be set aside in order to uphold a law for a specific case, but I forgot its name and I can’t find it on the site. Sorry for the bother.
Answer
I’m not sure I understood the question. Are you proposing 1. that morality was nullified בעקבות the giving of the Torah, or claiming 2. that morality is always overridden by Jewish law? I have argued both claims, and I don’t know which of the two your words are addressing. I’ll answer both.
1. There is a rationale that obligates us to be moral. And that is true today as well. Now along comes a conflicting religious-halakhic command. We have two possibilities: a. it comes to cancel the moral principle. b. it comes to add another dimension to it without canceling it. The principle of lex specialis that you mentioned at the end leads to my interpretation, not yours: the moral principle remains in force, and the halakhic principle is added to it rather than canceling it. That is my answer to the first question.
2. As for the second question, I’ve explained more than once that it depends on whether the clash is built-in (inherent) or incidental. If it is built-in—then indeed morality overrides Jewish law (except in very exceptional cases). If it is incidental, lex specialis is irrelevant, and there the matter is open to our judgment.
Discussion on Answer
It can involve violating a prohibition or neglecting a positive commandment. That’s not always what one does, but it is a possibility.
In an incidental clash, does that also mean violating a prohibition, or only neglecting a positive commandment?