Q&A: What New Discovery Would Convince You That Observing Jewish Law Has No Value?
What New Discovery Would Convince You That Observing Jewish Law Has No Value?
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I read your work "The First Existent," and enjoyed it מאוד.
I wanted to ask: it seems to me that your words imply that every rational theory must be falsifiable; we must not beg the question. So now I am wondering what kind of scientific test could convince you that there is no value at all to observing Jewish law.
If we were to discover, for example, that the Exodus from Egypt described in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) never actually happened, or that there was never any supernatural miracle in the settlement of the Jewish people, would the Rabbi in such a case be willing to abandon his theory?
Why does the Rabbi assign so little importance to archaeological findings?
What exactly does the Rabbi mean when he claims that there is metaphysical benefit to observing commandments? If the matter has no practical implication in our empirical world, haven’t we created an "invisible dragon that cannot be touched, felt, or heard"?
Answer
That absolutely does not follow from what I wrote. I have written the exact opposite many times. Falsifiability is a criterion for being scientific, not for acceptability or rationality.
I assign little importance to archaeology because it is saturated with assumptions that are often disproved, and the conclusions are hasty and not especially reliable.
If I were to discover that the Torah was not given at Sinai—that is, that God did not reveal Himself there—that would change my position.
I don’t know what "the empirical world" means. The material world? Why should the benefit specifically be material? What is there in the material world that makes it more important than the spiritual world?
Discussion on Answer
If the Jewish people are living in a delusion, that’s their problem and not mine. Does every whim of the public obligate me?
Rabbi, I’d be glad to continue with a follow-up question. You write in many places that the binding force of Jewish law comes from the acceptance of the people. Let’s say the Talmud was accepted by the whole people, and therefore it obligates all believers even if theoretically it contains errors and mistakes in understanding God’s will. (The Oven of Akhnai, you know…)
That would mean that the Torah itself is indeed binding, since it was received at Sinai from God to Moses, etc. But details in the Oral Torah that were not given there—what makes them binding? The question becomes a bit sharper, I think, after the Talmud, with the Shulchan Arukh and the like. Forgive me that the question is not well phrased, but this is something I’ve never really understood what you mean about, and I’d be glad to understand—or if you could point me to places where you addressed it. After all, here you wrote that a whim of the people does not obligate me, so in Jewish law can’t one say the same thing?
As stated, not every whim of the public obligates me. When the Torah was given, it was given to the public and with the public’s consent. So there the public’s acceptance is binding. That is what happens when you act and make decisions within the system. But regarding the very acceptance of the system, obviously if you do not believe in the giving of the Torah, in revelation, and in Jewish law, the fact that a majority of the public does believe does not obligate you in the slightest. See also Rabbi Nachman of Breslov’s story of the mad wheat.
I do not understand why, if God did not reveal Himself at Sinai, that would change your position. After all, the Jewish people accepted these commandments upon themselves, and that is enough to make them binding. ???