Q&A: Accepting the Words of the Sages
Accepting the Words of the Sages
Question
Hello honorable Rabbi, I wanted to ask two questions. I know this is a bit long, but I would really be happy to know the Rabbi’s opinion. Thank you. 1. I heard in several lectures that the Rabbi gave that when studying the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), there is no moral addition that human reason would not understand even without studying the Hebrew Bible, and therefore there is no point in studying it. I wanted to understand this, because certainly there is no moral lesson that can be derived from the Hebrew Bible that I did not already know beforehand, but who said that this is the role of the Hebrew Bible? Also, how do we know that in ancient times before the giving of the Torah they did not learn at least some moral ideas from the Hebrew Bible—not things like murder and theft, but things like hospitality, which we learn from Abraham, that welcoming guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence, and so on. Maybe in their time this trait was not widespread. And if the Rabbi is right that there is no point in studying the Hebrew Bible because there is nothing to learn from it, then why did very many medieval authorities write works on the Hebrew Bible? Did they waste their time? It seems clear to me that studying the Hebrew Bible is not only about morality, and the fact that today it does not teach us anything new is [perhaps] because the Torah and its moral teachings have already spread through the world and we were born into that reality.
Question 2. The Rabbi said that there is no proof at all that there is a World to Come, and I wanted to understand: if so, when we see in the Talmud in Kiddushin 39b that there is no reward in this world, is that just to motivate the people to perform commandments and nothing more? Also, Elijah ascended bodily to heaven—is that a midrashic exposition? And similarly we find that they told such stories about some of our other sages who merited this as well. Is that exposition or exaggeration? Why is it that in a halakhic passage I would not completely remove statements from their context, whereas here I do? It seems as though everything that is hard for us to understand is called exposition and secrets that only a few know, if anyone at all. Maybe it is just nonsense, and if it is nonsense, why should I attribute importance to people who tell nonsense? And if so, then why should I accept the Jewish laws that those same Tannaim and Amoraim tell us? [And I am not denying that certainly there are things that are clearly exposition.]
Answer
1. I have explained this more than once. It is certainly possible that in the past people learned morality from the Hebrew Bible. That even seems very plausible to me. But today there is nothing to learn from it. I am talking about studying the Hebrew Bible for a person nowadays. The question why the medieval authorities dealt with it is a good question. It is possible that they were mistaken, just as people nowadays who deal with it are mistaken. Or they saw value in the very act of engaging in it, even if one does not really derive anything new from it.
2. When I said that there is no proof, I did not mean from the words of the Sages. The question is where they themselves learned it from. A factual or evaluative claim of the Sages that is based on their own reasoning has no binding force. If you want—you can accept it; if not—not. The question is whether they invented it based on reason or whether they received it through tradition. I do not know, and therefore I have no position. These are not nonsense but their own lines of reasoning, yet with all due respect I am not obligated to accept them. Beyond that, I deal with their halakhic statements because that is what is binding, but in their aggadic statements I truly do not see much value.
Discussion on Answer
I do not accept their Jewish law statements; rather, I accept their authority even if they are mistaken. Regarding facts, there is no authority. I have explained this more than once.
As for Elijah, there is nothing to answer. These are merely stories. Maimonides already wrote that one who interprets all these aggadic passages literally belongs to the class of fools.
P.S. Where does Maimonides say that?
In his introduction to the Mishnah, as I recall (or the introduction to the chapter Helek). The three groups in interpreting aggadah.
Helek.
A follow-up question touching on the authority of aggadah as opposed to the authority of Jewish law.
Do you know of halakhic discussions, or even actual rulings, in which the halakhic conclusion is shaped in light of aggadic statements? That is, there is a dispute over how to understand a certain law, and then an authorized discussant comes and shows that the correct understanding is such-and-such from the perspective of the aggadic statements on that subject.
And the question can be broadened beyond that: in your estimation, were the halakhic discussions of the Sages influenced to some extent by aggadah? After all, they themselves wrote it.
It is very likely that there was influence between the fields. Not necessarily that aggadah influenced Jewish law; rather, the conceptions of the sage or sages shaped both, and therefore there is a connection between them. But this is not a direct and conscious influence.
As for direct influences, there are examples of that. There are halakhic discussions that bring proof from an aggadic passage (I myself explained my position regarding copyright through the aggadah about Rabbi Eliezer, that he did not leave out anything from his teachers, even like a dog licking from the sea). There is also a column here on the site about “His fire is because of his arrows,” no. 214.
Many thanks.
Hello Rabbi, regarding the second answer, I asked why the halakhic words of the Sages should have validity and not the other things, even though in truth there is no practical difference whether there is a World to Come. In any case, to say that I am willing to accept part of the words of the Sages and part not seems strange to me. Also, I really do not think they said this based on reasoning, since it seems accepted and obvious. And the Rabbi did not answer me regarding Elijah, since that is already the word of a prophet. Thank you very much.