Q&A: A Question About Belief in God and the Torah
A Question About Belief in God and the Torah
Question
Hello Rabbi!
The path to faith, starting from the existence of God and leading to obligation in the commandments, may be reasonable. The problem is with the outcome of this path, which carries within it a number of questions,
such as the fact that many of the commandments (commandments connected to the field, slaves, sacrifices, the treatment of rape—together dozens and dozens of commandments) are so irrelevant. I saw that the Rabbi was asked about this, and his answer was that not all commandments have to be relevant all the time. But I would like to press the point: the movement is only in one direction—that is, commandments that were relevant to an old world and are not relevant to our world today. I do not know of commandments that were not relevant to the old world and are relevant today. One would expect an entity that can foresee the future, and that places in our hands a book that is supposed to be eternal, to uphold the principle of relevance.
And also, ironically, one of the proofs for the existence of God is absolute morality, whereas in the Torah a man who rapes a young woman is required to pay a sum of money. Even if that is not presented as a punishment, there is no discussion of the punishment he deserves for such a grave act. This very omission raises questions. (And in addition, it points to a norm that was accepted then regarding the status of women. Once again, this reflects that the Torah is subordinate to the reality in which it was written, instead of, as an eternal divine book, shaping reality rather than being shaped by it.)
The fact that we are commanded to pray, yet we do not know of any effects that prayer has—and on the contrary, we see through empirical examination that it does not help. At most, the requests are heard and perhaps even “recorded,” but nothing beyond that. What is troubling here is not only the disregard, but mainly the creation of a puzzling mechanism that obligates prayer every day at least twice (if not three times), takes a considerable amount of time, and requires intention of the heart, yet on the listening side there is nothing at all (including the gates of tears, which have also been locked).
Of course, this is only some of the problems. One can point to countless puzzling things that run against common sense. I know that every question can be resolved in one way or another. Some of them are also not all that strong. What I want to point out is the accumulation of questions, which in my opinion already carries weight. The structure that emerges, even if it is based on pure logical reasoning—if the result is strange, then one has to rethink things. If the structure produced a clear fact, then there would be nothing to say. But nothing is certain, and when that is the state of affairs, one must examine the structure even after it has been built, and not declare: that’s it, this is the situation. And no less importantly, one has to examine the alternative: is it not more reasonable to get stuck on the question of how the world was created and remain there, or even to decide positively on the existence of God and get stuck on the question of why He did this, rather than, as stated, standing before this strange structure????
Let me clarify that I do not mean to argue, and certainly I do not presume to persuade. On the contrary, I want to be persuaded, and for my questions to be thoroughly refuted. I want to be a believing person. (True, that is not a rational statement, since if it is true then it is true, and if not then not.) It would be enough for me if the probability of belief in the truth of God and the Torah were at least equal to the other side. Unfortunately, I have almost no questions about the other side.
I would appreciate an answer, please!!!!
Answer
I’ll answer briefly, because these are questions that require a lengthy discussion, and I have written about them in the past.
I do not see why this phenomenon presents any difficulty. The world advances, and as it advances, fewer commandments remain relevant. The Sages already said that the commandments will be nullified in the future to come. The sacrifices may perhaps return with the rebuilding of the Temple, and perhaps not (there too, the world has progressed).
I have already explained in several places that there is no connection whatsoever between Jewish law and morality. A halakhic statement in the Torah says nothing at all about morality. See, for example, briefly in Column 15, and in more detail at the beginning of my book Movements Between the Standing Ones.
Regarding prayers, I have also addressed this several times: indeed, with the progress of the generations, divine involvement in the world declines, and accordingly so does the response to requests. You can search here on the site, and at length in my book No Man Rules the Spirit.
Indeed, there is an accumulation of questions, but if the answers are good, then the accumulation does not matter. Beyond that, the question is whether you accept the arguments regarding the existence of God and His revelation. If so, then these questions are not decisive. If not—then even without these questions there is no reason to believe and to be committed to the Torah.
Discussion on Answer
I agree, but when there are reasonable answers, that is enough if you accept the framework of the believing picture.
I dealt with the cessation of intervention here: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A9-%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9D
The indication of involvement in the past is the testimony of the Torah and the tradition.
There is no problem at all with such a clash, as I explained in the sources I referred you to.
In my opinion, the proofs of His existence are very strong. See my book The First Existent.
Sorry for butting in…
But questions about commandments cannot in any way undermine God’s existence, His revelation, or His Torah. Do laws that seem unfair or unjust to the observer prove, compel, or even raise a question about the existence of the lawgiver? Certainly not. There are many laws in the law book of the State of Israel that contain no logic or any justification—and still I do not think there is any serious person in the State of Israel who believes there was no lawgiver (whoever he may be).
What’s more, it is not at all clear what fault you found with the law of rape, for example. On the contrary, דווקא the moral side of the Torah fits the modern outlook astonishingly well (and Rabbi Michi has already explained many times the difference between Jewish law and morality—a difference that exists in the Torah itself, and the Sages spoke about it extensively in their explanations, for example “And you shall do what is right and good,” meaning that there is what is good and what is right). It really does not fit the outlook of the time in which the Torah was given—whether we accept the traditional dating, that is about 3,336 years ago, or the dating of “biblical criticism,” the fourth century BCE. So the Torah creates reality, and did not at all fit its own time, whereas דווקא in relation to our time, from a modern perspective, it fits very well. Notice the following verse in the laws of the rape of a betrothed young woman (Parashat Ki Tetzei, 22:26): “But to the young woman you shall do nothing; the young woman has committed no sin deserving death. For just as when a man rises against his fellow and murders him, so is this matter.” Notice: the Torah treats this exactly like murder. Where in the ancient world did the rape of a woman receive such treatment?
What’s more, if we are dealing with sexual prohibitions, then this man is liable with his life (and please remember the law of one who pursues a woman for forbidden sexual relations: if she cannot be saved by injuring one of his limbs, she is saved by taking the pursuer’s life—and we are talking about a man intending to rape a woman). Does death for rape seem lenient to you? Nowadays, in the worst case he will receive life imprisonment [one or several—unless it is an Arab who raped a Jewish girl in her home in the middle of the night, in which case an enlightened, educated secular female judge, opposed to the judicial overhaul, will rule that it is not all that serious… truly enlightenment at its peak—that is what awaits you on the other side, and with that you challenge the morality of the Torah?] along with financial compensation (why is financial compensation moral today, but back then it was not?). Therefore, better spare yourself the nonsense about the “status of women,” because it really exhausts any somewhat thoughtful person and has long since worn itself out. The “feminist” women have caused women more harm than benefit—and I write this as a child who grew up with a feminist woman.
Second disclosure: I myself, when I was young, saved a young woman from rape when I had stayed late at a Torah class which, remarkably, was on tractate Ketubot, and that very lesson was specifically about these laws… I called it a blessed coincidence at the time.
And if we are talking about slaves—perhaps it would be worthwhile to study the laws of slaves in Maimonides and understand the meaning of the term “slave” (it is really not as the modern understanding imagines).
And regarding sacrifices, here too I do not know what great evil you found in sacrifices. If we believe the Sages, Adam offered a sacrifice. And if we believe the Torah, Cain and Abel, and also Noah and his sons after the flood, offered sacrifices. So sacrifices are a very great thing, as the Mishnah says: “The world stands on three things: on the service…” Perhaps they are unpleasant to look at (not every person today is as unfazed by such sights as people were then), but there is no moral problem in them any more than there is in the very need to eat and to “kill” vegetables and fruits (picking a fruit or vegetable is biologically equivalent to murder) without a Temple. One may ask why there is a need for this ritual—that, yes. But morality is not related, just as the very need to eat is not related to the moral question of murdering vegetables and fruits.
I won’t get into all these issues here, but if in your opinion there are no contradictions between Jewish law and morality, then you are apparently talking about a different Jewish law, not the one I know. But if you assume that the lawgiver is moral, then when the laws are not moral that seemingly creates a problem. I offered a solution to this, but one cannot say there is no problem.
Thank you very much for the reply. The Rabbi wrote, “The question is whether you accept the arguments regarding the existence of God and His revelation. If so, then these questions are not decisive. If not—then even without these questions there is no reason to believe and to be committed to the Torah.” But that is precisely what I am trying to say: when there are questions, and especially a critical mass of questions, that itself causes one to wonder about the structure that has been formed and to go backward. And likewise, even after I have decided the question of God’s existence and revelation—if the resulting structure is strange, it is logical and called for to draw conclusions from that about the foundational questions and to retreat from those decisions I made. It is hard for me to understand how these questions are independent of the question of God’s existence and revelation???
Indeed, I understand and agree (who am I to agree, but still…) that good answers (even if only to some of the issues) solve the problem. So I would like to continue asking: is there an explanation for the cessation of divine intervention? Is there any indication of such involvement (apart from the very belief in God’s revelation, which itself is being tested)? Is there no problem in the fact that a halakhic statement in the Torah clashes with morality (and not merely that it does not express morality)? Is it reasonable to demand commandment-observance from a person in such a highly ambiguous situation? Can one give even one reason for observing the commandments? True, if God exists and was revealed then there is no need for a reason (His existence itself is the reason), but if there is no such visible reason, that itself constitutes a question and a doubt about His very existence and revelation. I am repeating the same claim, namely: if the resulting structure is crooked, that undermines those same foundational assumptions. In my opinion, one cannot keep saying all the time, “This is the reality, let’s move on from here,” because His existence and revelation are not necessary conclusions, and if assuming His existence—and especially His revelation—creates so many questions, then one should reject the conception that He comes with some demand or another upon us; and then in one stroke many questions disappear!