Q&A: Learning from the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)
Learning from the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)
Question
Hello Rabbi. Do you think it is possible to learn values from the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) when doing comparative research? That is, when comparing it to earlier sources and seeing that the Torah responds very differently from other laws that existed in the world at that time? Obviously in the end, the interpretation of the divergence can be judged according to the values of our own time (as in ordinary Bible study), but it still seems to me more focused.
Answer
That is not the study of values but the study of history (that is, the study of facts: what people thought then as opposed to what others thought). The question I deal with is whether such study can teach me values, and to that I answered in the negative. For example, suppose studying the Hebrew Bible led us to conclude that humility is a blessed trait and pride is reprehensible. That would be unlike other Ugaritic texts, which see pride as a positive trait. That is the comparison you were talking about. What does that teach me? A historical fact: the Hebrew Bible differs in its outlook from other outlooks that prevailed at that time. What does that teach me in practice? Has it taught me a new value that I did not know before? Definitely not. Even beforehand I knew (perhaps the Hebrew Bible was part of what instilled this in us, but in practice this is the situation today) that humility is blessed and pride is reprehensible. So no new value-based lesson has been added for me.
It seems to me that you are mixing together two things that many people confuse. The distinction between facts and values (between is and ought) says that there is independence between facts and values, and one cannot derive one from the other. The claim is that facts are learned by observing the world empirically, and values are not. Many therefore wonder whether values too can be learned empirically: looking at the law book shows us that it is forbidden to steal. But that is of course a mistake. Looking at the law book teaches me the fact that Israeli law forbids stealing. That fact deals with values, but it is still a fact like any other fact, and therefore it is learned by observation. The question of whether stealing is permitted or forbidden does not follow from the fact that the law forbids stealing, unless you add a normative assumption that the law is binding. But now you have to ask: where does it come from that the law is binding? And to that there is no empirical answer. You can again observe people and see that they regard the law as binding, but that too is a mistake. That observation teaches you the fact that people regard the law as binding. But that does not answer the normative question whether it really is binding (am I obligated by what everyone else does or thinks? That is a normative question, and it cannot be answered by observation).
Discussion on Answer
Let me be more precise about Maimonides. The very fact that He created nature in a certain way is meant to teach us certain values. Of course, when investigating nature it is more complicated to arrive at insights into what the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, are (although for Maimonides it seems this was somehow simple), but when we are dealing with a written text that can be compared to other writings from the same period, the inference is much simpler.
I already answered all of this. And the topic has also been discussed at length in the past. If I were to find that the Hebrew Bible advocates humility, I would adopt that. That is not what the discussion is about. You asked about the comparison to other systems, and I explained why that is irrelevant. After that I added that even if I reached a conclusion about some value, I would not adopt it if it did not fit my values. That simply does not happen. Jacob married two sisters, so should we also marry two sisters? No — that was by divine instruction. He also lied, so should we also lie? No — there were various explanations for that. Every time the conclusion contradicts our values, we explain it away. So in practice we do not learn anything from the Hebrew Bible, and there is no point in raising general principles. It does not work in any of the particulars.
In short, if you want to discuss it, bring a specific example.
How, according to the Rabbi’s approach, does he explain the fact that one can be persuaded in a value-based dispute?
Rather, sometimes it is possible to rethink your views.
If so, how is learning from the Hebrew Bible different from a value-based dispute with someone speaking to you face to face?
Here you do agree that the Hebrew Bible can teach the is; the ought is the jump that follows from your belief in the holiness of the Hebrew Bible.
I asked for an example. I’m already exhausted from endless repetition of points that have been discussed ad nauseam.
But doesn’t the very fact that God chose to write the Torah this way turn it from just a fact into a value? For example, just as Maimonides understood that in principle one can learn from nature about the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, from the very fact that He chose to create them that way.
And regarding humility, etc. — it could also be that you would find values that do not line up with your values today, and as a result you really would have to change your position. Of course, you can always wave your finger and explain that this fits your approach; the question is how honest that is with the text.