Q&A: Does the Lack of Choice for Secular Jews Relate to Us?
Does the Lack of Choice for Secular Jews Relate to Us?
Question
Hello,
I assume that secular Jews (disconnected ones) do not really have the choice to observe Torah and commandments.
Doesn’t that show that it isn’t reasonable for such a choice to be given? (To us as well.)
In other words, how is it possible that a large part of those who are supposedly meant to have the choice (a Jew) to keep the Torah—do not have that choice?
Answer
Why not? Of course they have choice. What you mean is that the likelihood that they will make use of it is small. That is probably true.
But I didn’t understand what you conclude from that. That it isn’t reasonable for such a choice to be given? Why not?
As for your last question, the situation in which most of the public is disconnected from Torah and commandments, and therefore the chance that they will choose them is small, is a result of our previous choices and those of our ancestors. So there is no point asking the Holy One, blessed be He, why He did this. He didn’t do it—we did.
Discussion on Answer
I explained. Jews are supposed to observe Torah and commandments. Through their own fault or their parents’ fault, they do not get there. So what is the claim? Do you want the Holy One, blessed be He, to intervene and neutralize our bad choices? That is the whole idea of free choice: that our fate is in our hands, not His. He does not intervene.
It’s like asking: since there is no person who does not sin, why doesn’t the Holy One, blessed be He, intervene and prevent him from sinning? That is the meaning of free choice.
Yes, but I’m trying to go in the opposite direction.
From the fact that today most of those “meant for choice” have no choice at all, I’m wondering about this whole choice.
Does it make sense that the Creator would give the purpose of existence to a certain group, when most of that group are not even aware of it?
So I guess the question is: how can free choice also affect future generations, and doesn’t this situation contradict the claim that a Jew’s purpose is the observance of Torah and commandments?
I don’t see what is opposite here. I already answered that.
A Jew’s purpose is to observe Torah and commandments out of a decision that this is his obligation. Observance without choice has no value. And once there is choice, it follows that people may end up not fulfilling their obligation.
*** Deleted due to obsessive trolling ****
M.A.
Sorry if I’m repeating myself.
You wrote: “…out of a decision that this is his obligation,” but I’m raising this question as something that interferes with deciding that this should be the obligation—that’s what I meant by going the other way.
If it doesn’t make sense to me that the ability to choose whether to fulfill the purpose would not be given to all those with choice (all Jews), then maybe that cannot be the purpose?
I agree that if there are no consequences to choice then it isn’t really choice, but when the consequences also affect future generations, what is the significance of the individual? (From this perspective of choosing to observe Torah and commandments.)
When the consequences of the parents’ choices are part of the system of influences on a person—for example, more or less modern parents—then maybe that can be understood. But when it takes the person outside the game entirely, as with disconnected secular Jews, what is the explanation for that?
And if Reuven chooses to murder Shimon and succeeds, does that make more sense to you? Is Shimon’s purpose to die?
No. But I think that is different.
In my case, lots of people without choice are created (the next generations), and if the meaning (observance of Torah and commandments) applies to each individual, then how does that make sense?
Doesn’t the fact that there are many individuals who cannot choose the purpose show that it is not logical for that to be the purpose?
Has the question been answered? Because I still don’t understand. How does a situation arise in which there are Jews who have no choice?
And the answer that this is a carry-over choice from the parents can’t help, because the obligation (observance of Torah and commandments) is on the individual—not on the whole chain..
With God’s help, the 27th of Shevat, 5784
In my humble opinion, this can be understood based on Rabbi Dessler’s words in the “Essay on Choice” (in Michtav MeEliyahu): that every person has a limited point of choice, to take a small step toward something better, or Heaven forbid to retreat a little. And every small choice in the positive direction raises that “point of choice” upward.
And thus Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook foresaw that the generation that had distanced itself from Torah would advance little by little—from “respect for religion” as the heritage of the nation, from there to “fondness for religion,” and from there, sometimes out of intellectual curiosity or cultural interest, to “knowledge of religion,” and from there the way is paved to “religious observance,” whether as tradition or out of full faith.
I attended a memorial gathering yesterday for a Jew who had distanced himself from religion in his youth, and many years later came closer through the conversion process his wife underwent; and in the course of her Jewish studies, he too was sparked and became an enthusiastic believing Jew who observes the commandments.
Choice is not always made in one leap, but one step at a time.
Best regards, Fish”l
As stated, everyone has choice, but it is hard for them to exercise it because of their starting point. For that starting point, their parents are usually to blame. And indeed, parents’ actions do have consequences for their children. The task of observing Torah and commandments is also collective and not only personal—and the proof is that there are commandments that are incumbent on the community and not on individuals.
Thank you for the response.
To Fish”l: therefore, if faith included only doing good, this would be true, because that is universal, and everyone could have such a choice (even if limited).
To HA—hello,
It is true that right now, someone who grew up only on “universal” values may find the realm of religious faith beyond his horizon. But for example, as I explained, he still has the choice to take an interest in Judaism as tradition, as cultural heritage, or as a challenging system of thought.
When he begins to take an interest, and discovers for example that religious values are also universal, and through comparison discovers that Judaism is the source of the beliefs of billions in the cultural world, and perhaps a source even more “successful” than its offshoots—then the broadening of his intellectual horizons will also begin to bring about a broadening of his horizons in faith and religion.
The horizon of choice is dynamic!
Best regards, Fish”l
If the chance is small and it is the result of previous choices, then what meaning do those choices have here?
I’m trying to explain that reality doesn’t match the idea.
If a large portion of Jews have almost no choice about observing Torah and commandments, how can that be the meaning of things for them?
And if there are many Jews who were born not for the sake of fulfilling the Torah, doesn’t that contradict the idea that a Jew’s purpose is to choose to observe Torah and commandments?