Q&A: Intuition
Intuition
Question
To my teacher, Rabbi Michael Abraham, may he live long and well,
The Rabbi wrote in the second book of the trilogy that the sages have no control over facts, and therefore there is no such thing as “Jewish thought”; rather, there is correct thought and incorrect thought, and what the sages said—claims such as the World to Come or providence—is all intuition / reasoning.
I think it is possible to bring proof for the Rabbi’s idea as follows:
Tosafot on Bava Kamma 16a:
“And this is one who did not bow at Modim. For it is a commandment to bow, and when he straightens up, he should straighten up like a snake, as we find regarding Rav Sheshet in tractate Berakhot (12b and there). Measure for measure, he becomes a snake. This is his punishment, for it is disgraceful for him that he became a snake: gloss. And some explain it because we say in the midrash that there is a bone in a person’s spine from which he will be recreated in the future, and that bone is so strong and hard that fire cannot burn it. Now when that bone becomes a snake, he does not live in the future to come, and it does not make sense to say that the punishment should be so great for this sin, for all Israel have a share in the World to Come.”
Of course, one can debate this, but it is very possible to explain it the way the Rabbi does.
With blessings,
A.Y.A.
Answer
That is not an accurate description of what I wrote.
- What does it mean that they have no “control” over facts? My claim was that there is no formal authority regarding facts.
- But that is not the reason there is no such thing as Jewish thought.
- I did not write that everything is intuition or reasoning. I wrote that it may be so, and I am not sure that it is a tradition.
- As for the proof you brought, it is obvious that there are claims in Jewish thought that are the product of reasoning. That is not my innovation.
Discussion on Answer
You brought a quote from the trilogy and supporting evidence from the interview. But even in the interview it does not say otherwise.
4. I did not understand the question. People are not upset by the claim that there are principles in Jewish thought that are based on reasoning. It is hard for me to see who would disagree with that. The question is what about the fundamental principles, and another question is what status the sages’ reasoning has. I assume that is what they are upset about.
It says exactly what I wrote at the beginning: “The second book in the trilogy, which is devoted to the field of Jewish thought, came precisely to explain why there is no such field as ‘Jewish thought’ or ‘the thought of Israel.’ These fields deal with factual questions.”
So just as I wrote, there is no such thing as Jewish thought, and although the proof is indeed from the interview, the interview itself says that this is what is written in the second book of the trilogy.
Why get upset if the sages themselves learned that regarding extra-halakhic facts one can argue on the basis of reasoning?
Unless they hold that facts too come from Heaven.
Forget the hair-splitting; that is not what I wrote in the book or in the interview.
There is a religious model according to which sages do not make mistakes: divine inspiration, “these and those are both the words of the living God,” providence over what is accepted by the public, or whatever you like.
If that model is not justified, is the only validity that the Oral Torah has our willingness to observe the Jewish laws derived from it?
You are mixing things up. The validity of the Oral Torah is exactly like that of the Written Torah: by force of divine command. The question is who is authorized to enact ordinances and interpret the Written Torah. That authority is given to the Sanhedrin by force of “do not deviate.” Beyond them, there is only the Talmud, but not by force of “do not deviate”; rather because we accepted it upon ourselves.
That is the only validity the Talmud has even if one accepts that model. If the sages of the Talmud do not make mistakes, that gives them substantive authority, but not formal authority. As for the difference between those two, search here on the site.
1. There is no difference.
2. That is how the Rabbi defined it [an interview with Rabbi Dr. Michael Abraham (from the site “Another Angle,” which has closed), and this is what it says:
A concluding question: in one of your lectures you said that you reject the definition of yourself as a “Jewish thinker.” Why?
The second book in the trilogy, which is devoted to the field of Jewish thought, came precisely to explain why there is no such field as “Jewish thought” or “the thought of Israel.” These fields deal with factual questions—does the Holy One, blessed be He, exercise providence? Is the Jewish people unique? Does the Land of Israel have an intrinsic special quality?—these are factual questions, even if there is no scientific method for testing them. With facts, there is true and false. If these facts are true, then every non-Jew is also obligated to say they are true, though these questions may not interest that non-Jew. And if these facts are not true, then what difference does it make if Jews believe they are true? As far as I am concerned, what matters is what the correct philosophy has to say, not Jewish philosophy. What difference does it make whether it was Maimonides or Kant who made a certain claim? Maimonides may have made incorrect claims and Kant may דווקא have made correct ones, so as far as I am concerned, what Kant said is Jewish thought and what Maimonides said is nonsense. I am a Jewish thinker with a comma between the two definitions—thinker, Jewish—there is no connection between those two facts.
4. So why are people upset at the Rabbi if this is what we have accepted from our rabbis?