Does that mean that we create the objective truth? Because if it exists and we cannot reach it since we operate subjectively, then what is the meaning of truth?

You can’t create objective truth, because then it isn’t truth. There is only one truth. Because if you think there is objective truth, then you’ll justify the thief who stole because he had nothing to eat, and the murderer who murdered because he felt like punishing the victim, who in his view had sinned and slept with his sister. Truth is not from the standpoint of the speaker, but from its own standpoint.

Advocating objective truth is actually a distortion of rational truth. Check it.

Who said we create the objective truth? You are too skeptical about our abilities and too demanding about what is required of us.
We do have the ability to reach the truth, but it is true that there is no certainty and no guarantee that we always reach it. On the other hand, we are not required to attain objective truth, but rather to do what appears to us to be the truth (that is, the intention of the Torah).
The mythic system I spoke about helps us reach the truth and does not necessarily interfere. But the truth is formulated and colored in the shades of that a priori system. Just as an electromagnetic wave is perceived by us in terms of light and color. That is not an error, but a formulation or coloring of the phenomenon in the colors of our cognition. A being with a different cognition would perceive the same electromagnetic wave in a different language or form (like a vocal symphony, or some other medium altogether).

Rabbi, it seems to me that we’re stuck when it comes to reaching the truth, which is the intention of the Torah. In the past I gave unusual cases where you said that a religious court greater and wiser would be needed in order to change Jewish laws established by an earlier court. But on the other hand, we have no possibility of establishing such a court, so this is like mocking the poor. Because on the one hand you say we are not required to reach objective truth, and on the other hand to do what seems to us to be the truth (the intention of the Torah), and that’s not really so. So to keep saying “The Torah of God is truth” when in practice it can’t be implemented—this is a kind of lie. In other words, I have to bring back that example from before: we read in the Torah every time—two weeks ago in Parashat Pinchas we read—“And in the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work; it shall be a day of blasting for you.” And in reality, for 2,000 years we’ve been celebrating the holiday for two days. It’s true that you can’t change words in the Written Torah, but there is a mismatch here with existing reality. To read one thing and act according to something else…? By your illustration, the Torah is one symphony and Jewish law is another symphony, so the notes need to be changed… or the new Jewish law should be adjusted to the old notes. There was some king who postponed Passover according to Jewish law, but he didn’t make it an absolute law without conditions that the Passover offering must always be postponed. Only when the conditions are met is it permitted to postpone Passover, and that had nothing to do with the Sanhedrin or a religious court at all. So why did the Jewish law to sanctify two days of Rosh Hashanah become fixed until our own day… what justifies it? Convince me.

When it comes to truth, you have to go all the way and not halfway. You can’t mix truth with untrue things, because a half-truth is considered a lie.

The fact that we do not have a Sanhedrin is indeed regrettable. Though there are sometimes ways to change things even without a Sanhedrin.
In any case, the Torah is true in the sense that it is proper and right to observe it as it obligates us (even if that does not hit the original will of the Holy One, blessed be He. That is probably what He wants us to do).
The example of the two days is really marginal and insignificant. It is true that observing two days in our time is absurd, but the deviation from the language of the Torah is really not significant. We do it because of the laws of doubt, and it is not written in the Torah that one may not be stringent out of doubt. By your approach, whenever the Sages enact something, that is always an addition to the Torah (and I already answered you about that a few days ago).

In my view, if something is out of place, it needs to be dealt with.

And if the Sages enacted something that is no longer relevant, then as far as I’m concerned it should be abolished.

I don’t know what doubt you mean, and who said that nowadays it’s impossible to get out of that doubt one hundred percent?

In my opinion there is no equivalence in saying and thinking that God wants us to do what the Torah obligates even if it doesn’t match His will. In my opinion, that is probably what He does not want us to do. Rather, His will is that we do what He told us, as He told us, and not as we understand it… without trying to whitewash the forbidden or make legal evasions and workaround methods…

Moshe, among other things God told us to listen to the Sanhedrin (which established celebrating Rosh Hashanah for two days). So suddenly that’s what you don’t feel like listening to? God gave us Jewish law, so trust Him to know what He’s doing.

Rabbi, I don’t understand what it means that “God wants us to observe the Torah as it obligates, even if it doesn’t match His will.” That’s complete nonsense. Does God have a split personality? A “deep” will and a practical will? Didn’t He plan in advance that there would be deviations from the plan, and now He’s hesitating and prefers that we act this way?

David, I already addressed this, more than once and also on another blog. If you had read analytically, you would have found that nothing justifies a false “doubt,” especially one that has continued for 2,000 years.

David, when we talk about the will of God, it has to be the pure will of God (see what Yitzhak wrote and maybe you’ll understand). I’ll try to explain the nonsense Yitzhak spoke about in the message above me. The fact that we assumed we must listen to the Sanhedrin—fine. But when does the problem begin? When we know clearly that they instituted two days of Rosh Hashanah in order to get out of doubt. I have no more valid reasons to justify this distortion in our day. Why is it a distortion? Because as I already said, nowadays you can get out of that doubt very easily and with one hundred percent certainty. Understand? Believe it?

Please address Yitzhak’s words in your reply as well, considering that I’ll make it even clearer: God wants us to observe the Torah (the Torah is exclusive, eternal truth), whereas the laws change; they are temporary truth. One cannot say, God forbid, about the Written Torah that it is not true, or uproot its words in an unacceptable or incorrect way—that is forbidden! Should I prove it? Is that acceptable to you? Do you agree?

And one also cannot say that the Oral Torah is not true—there’s no such thing. Why? Because it is alive and breathing in the present moment. Jewish law, by its very meaning, goes along with life situations, refining itself and the Torah to the true will of God at every moment and in every given circumstance…

Now please, don’t tell me that I just don’t feel like listening to the Sanhedrin. That’s false.

The Sanhedrin decided what it decided when it decided it. It is impossible that their decision on this matter should remain valid all the way to our own day—no, no, no—there’s no such thing. You know what? Convince me….

Moshe, actually I agree with David, and I’ll clarify what I mean.
It is clear to me that right now God wants us to observe Rosh Hashanah for two days. Why? Because He commanded us to listen to the Sanhedrin. Right now the Sanhedrin decided on two days of Rosh Hashanah, and Jewish law/the Torah (I don’t understand why you insist on separating them) tells me that one religious court is not entitled to nullify the words of another religious court unless it is greater than it in wisdom and number. So at present the Sanhedrin’s ruling is two days of Rosh Hashanah. You can think that’s good or not, but that is the ruling, and when a Sanhedrin is reestablished, we’ll change it.
The nonsense is to say that God has a “true” will and another will that says we should act according to the current Jewish law and that He wants that. I argue that He has only one will, and that is that we observe Jewish law, and I think the Rabbi will agree.

It cannot be that if there is no Sanhedrin for some reason, we just won’t get up and do something.

What is this like? Listen carefully.

A father took his sons to a safe shore and told them not to move from there until he himself came to get them. A year passed, two years passed, 10 years passed, 30 years passed, a hundred years passed, 300 years passed, 1,000 years passed, 2,000 years passed, and the great-grandchildren are still there waiting for father to come… as he promised them… from generation to generation… Do you understand the parable?

Anyone with sense—real sense—wouldn’t wait more than a week.
Let’s think it through: what was the father’s intention? To save his sons from the enemies. Once the danger has passed, and that can be determined, there is no reason to stay stuck there.

The real will is not that they remain stuck there, but that they stay on the safe shore until the danger passes, even if he truly doesn’t come to get them after they discover that the danger is over.

Do you know how long and how many Jews were stuck in their hiding places because they didn’t know the war with the Nazis had ended?

Moshe, the difference is that God is not a father and He knows what He is doing. A father may die or forget and so on, but God does not.
You’re proposing that we “think it through” and get inside God’s head. That is much worse than deriving reasons for a biblical verse. (“For My thoughts are not your thoughts.”)

When the Rabbi says this is similar to colors, I don’t understand, because with colors, to begin with they have no color, and color is in our perception, so “more correct” doesn’t really apply there, because there is no more correct! But with respect to truth, there is some truth that is ultimately the correct one; not everyone is right. So I still haven’t managed to understand where I stand in relation to truth.

Yitzhak, you disappointed me. There’s no point in talking to you because this has already gone beyond the minimum boundary I set for a level that would drag me down. I’m sorry… At the beginning you showed understanding and agreement, and afterward you started clashing hard just to stay with the existing conclusions. In my opinion you’ll pay dearly for that. Your last message is null and void just from reading all my previous messages.

It is similar to colors because many times the objective truth is abstract, and its application is formulated in the colors of the person who thinks it and the society that practices it. A clear example of this is modesty. There are abstract standards of modesty that are always correct, but their practical implementation depends very much on the circumstances and on the person. But this is just a particularly clear example; there are many others.

Yitzhak, I compared the Sanhedrin to the “father” because they gave the instruction to observe two days. And the “sons” are us, the Jewish people. And if they do that, they have to explain why; it’s not enough that they are very wise, period. Or because we are not capable of entering their thoughts—for that is the purpose of Torah study, my brother: not to be a person who doesn’t understand what he is doing because someone wiser than him told him to. Never think that if you do something that in your opinion is right, but not justified or not true—don’t think you are right. One must be more zealous for God than for the Sages and the Sanhedrin. Learn from Pinchas the priest. And one must always find the way back to the original word of God. “Do not forsake My Torah.” “And you shall serve the Lord your God”—what exactly is that service? To listen to His voice more than to listen to the Sages, especially when there is no doubt and no justified reason. The fact that God commanded us to listen to the Sanhedrin does not mean in any way that we should perform commandments falsely. He commanded us one day and not two. And don’t say “tomorrow”… because for every matter God will bring you to judgment. And that is why I said: fear Him, because if not, then you will pay for it and regret it. Even the Sages must be careful when they uproot the Torah—what do you think? And if all the generations were naive because they waited for a new Sanhedrin without doing anything, then there is no need to wait in hiding; you have to come out—and that is the parable….. So what is your answer? To live in falsehood. Well done to you…

Moshe, as usual you slander (in your second-to-last response) even though you are very badly mistaken.
Of course one should be more zealous for God than for the Sanhedrin. The problem is that God commanded us to go to the Sanhedrin with every question we have and gave them the power to decide. We perform commandments in “falsehood” because God commanded one day of Rosh Hashanah (1 Tishrei). The Sanhedrin determined that there is also a festival on 2 Tishrei and the same things are done on it, and that is the Sanhedrin’s right to do. I actually do know the reason. The reason is that they were concerned about doubts and therefore established it. Today, since there are no doubts, I definitely agree that when there is a Sanhedrin greater in wisdom and number, we should seriously consider abolishing the second day. Look, all the time you speak in God’s name, get into His head, and determine for Him what He wants and why He commanded the Sanhedrin and when in His opinion one should not listen to them. Very impressive. You could just as easily have decided that God wants all the commandments abolished starting in 2010, and that would also solve the “problem” of Rosh Hashanah.
God commanded me to observe Rosh Hashanah for one day, and also to listen to the Sanhedrin, who added a festival on 2 Tishrei, and that is what I do. You can choose to forgo a commandment of God (listening to the Sanhedrin) if you want; I do not want to.

I still can’t understand how this is connected to color, because even with modesty, in the end the Platonic idea is supposed to be implemented in some specific way. So I’m inclined to think that God does not regard all human understandings as equally legitimate, or more precisely, that it is supposed to be expressed in one particular way.

And I am inclined to think not. Apparently we remain in disagreement.