Q&A: The Rabbinic World to Come Leads to Doubts About Torah from Heaven
The Rabbinic World to Come Leads to Doubts About Torah from Heaven
Question
Hello Rabbi!
I have read the fifth booklet in The First Existent, From Deism to Theism, several times. Let us assume that there really is a Creator who takes an interest in His creatures, and that His purpose is man, and that He wants to explain to them the purpose of the universe. There are two possibilities: either He has indeed already revealed Himself, or that still has not happened; we do not know. The Rabbi wrote in his book several points that strengthen the possibility that the Torah of Israel is indeed the true Torah. But even if we bring possible supports for this claim (such as the witness argument, the uniqueness of the theology, the uniqueness of the people of Israel), that is still not enough. We need to examine whether this Torah meets the criterion of being written by the all-powerful Creator of the world. When we approach this issue, we encounter a rather problematic contradiction. The Torah promises, in very many places, reward for keeping the commandments, and in all of them it speaks of material reward: “your rains in their season,” “so that your days may be lengthened upon the land,” and so on and so forth. It turns out that the Torah—that book of the all-powerful Creator of the world, who made astonishingly sophisticated things—promises us material reward for the commandments. In practice, that is not what happens. Already Elisha ben Avuya (“Acher”) saw this and lost his faith, and even today—it is obvious that the economic situation of heretical Tel Aviv is far better than that of believing Bnei Brak. In short: the criterion the Torah gives us for testing it—whether it is indeed the living word of God—does not stand up to reality.
Following this, the sages came and explained that this refers to the World to Come, and that reward and punishment are not in this world at all. Today, after we have learned about the Zoroastrian religion that ruled in Persia, we know that it is no coincidence that throughout the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) there is no hint of this, while in the sages it is a simple and basic view (“All Israel have a share in the World to Come”). Persia is what brought the idea of the World to Come, as well as resurrection of the dead and the messiah, and much more. See the book The Good, the Bad, and the World: A Journey to Pre-Islamic Iran. Therefore, the excuse that “the reward is in the World to Come” does not hold up, because that is not what the Torah meant—or at least one can say that this is by far the most reasonable conclusion.
What emerges from this is that one can assume with fairly high confidence that the Torah is not from Heaven, because it makes promises and does not keep them. And that is not what I would expect from the all-powerful Creator of the world, who knows how to build a singular point that will expand precisely into human beings who are reading this text right now, and who can cause the sea to split in two.
By the way, this recurring motif also appears in the section of the suspected adulteress. The Torah offers us a way to test it: to have the suspected adulteress drink the bitter, curse-bringing waters, and if she indeed strayed, she will die. I remember that when I studied tractate Sotah, I was shocked at how the sages simply uprooted the whole miracle. “Merit suspends it,” and all kinds of other strained excuses. Based on this, one can understand why. The sages, in the Second Temple period, were stunned that this thing did not work. So they came up with very strained explanations for how to account for it.
These are the only two places I can think of where God seemingly invites us to test whether this really is the book He wrote. In both cases it does not work, and in both cases the sages completely distort any way of checking it. From here one can reach the conclusion that even if God does want to reveal Himself, He has not yet done so, or at least not in Judaism, because we see that the most basic thing I would expect from a book by the all-powerful Creator of the world—to keep His promises—simply does not happen here.
I would be glad to know what you think, and more generally whether you believe in the World to Come and why.
Thanks in advance!
Answer
I do not agree with your logic or your methodology. I do not think testing the Torah carries such great weight. If I have reached the conclusion that there is a God and that it is reasonable that He would command, and then a tradition arrives saying that He did command, then that is already a strong argument. Now, if I do not understand something in the Torah, then I remain with a difficulty that requires further study, but that is not necessarily a critical matter.
As for the rewards the Torah promises, I explained that the policy changed over the generations. See, for example, here: https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=f18e4f052adde49eb&q=https://mikyab.net/%25D7%259B%25D7%25AA%25D7%2591%25D7%2599%25D7%259D/%25D7%259E%25D7%2590%25D7%259E%25D7%2590%25D7%25A8%25D7%2599%25D7%259D/%25D7%2597%25D7%2599%25D7%25A4%25D7%2595%25D7%25A9-%25D7%2590%25D7%2597%25D7%25A8-%25D7%2590%25D7%259C%25D7%2595%25D7%2594%25D7%2599%25D7%259D-%25D7%2591%25D7%2595%25D7%25A2%25D7%2595%25D7%259C%25D7%259D/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwio_aeoge-EAxWp_AIHHRLPBmoQFnoECAAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1BTIxD4pSSeoItfvFfqcnm
As for Acher’s loss of faith, it can be explained in several other ways. The Torah promises various things, but there are additional considerations involved. Something like what Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura wrote about one who recites Havdalah over a cup of wine: he will have male children. But we have seen many who recited Havdalah and did not have sons. The explanation is that although they did recite Havdalah over a cup, there are other considerations regarding children as well (for example, because of the sin of vows, a person’s children may die). So in practice you will not always see the result. One case in which it is not fulfilled proves nothing. It is like a medicine that does not work.
However, it is reasonable that if a systematic scientific test were performed—with a sample group and a control group—it really should show a statistical difference, meaning that those who recite Havdalah over a cup would have more sons. But such a test has not been done. And exactly the same applies to Acher’s long life issue. See at length in my article on the forced reinterpretations.
As for the question whether, because of this, the World to Come was invented—here again there is a failure in your reasoning. You assume that correlation is necessarily causation, but that is of course a mistake that statisticians have long joked about. True, there may be a difficulty here (though not really a serious one, as above), and true, only the sages speak about the World to Come and not the Torah, but from here you conclude that the sages invented it in order to answer the difficulty. That is a very hasty conclusion. Correlation is not causation. The same applies to the historical correlation with Zoroastrianism. And likewise regarding your explanation of the suspected adulteress and the words of the sages there.
It is possible that this is an oral tradition that was passed down, like other halakhic and other traditions.
You asked what my opinion is on the matter. I wrote in the second book of my trilogy and in other places that I do not know. It may be that you are right and this is an invention, and it may be that it is not, and that it is an oral tradition from Sinai.
Discussion on Answer
In addition, in general, a medicine really can sometimes work and sometimes not. But from the all-powerful God—I would expect Him to be able to fulfill His promise every time. So the comparison between medicine and the promise of long life for sending away the mother bird and honoring parents is not correct in my opinion, and therefore even from the single case of Acher one can reach the conclusion that it was not necessarily the all-powerful Creator of the world who wrote the Torah.
Now I understand what you meant about the correlation. True, one does not have to say that the sages used the World to Come as a substitute for reward in this world, but in my opinion it is quite reasonable that that is how it was used. At least I can say that certain rabbis use it that way today. And even if not—then the question only becomes stronger. What are we left with? The really bad answer of “Be silent; thus it arose in My thought”?! Come on—that basically means I am not letting the Torah offer me a parameter by which to test it, even though that is explicitly what it does.
Thanks in advance for the long answer!
You are just being stubborn. Rain for the righteous is a full-fledged miracle exactly like a talking donkey.
As for Tel Aviv and Bnei Brak, I already answered you. If people do not go to work, there is no money even if they keep the commandments. What you need to check is whether among people who work the same amount and support the same size family there is an economic difference. It is very hard to test such a thing.
You would expect Him to keep His promises, but that expectation is mistaken. It is not lack of ability but lack of desire. See also column 280 and 298. There too you can see the mistake in talking about a miracle within nature (rain for the righteous versus the donkey).
I am not “just being stubborn.” If the fine-tuning Creator writes that He will give long life to those who keep the commandment of sending away the mother bird and honoring parents, the most obvious expectation is that He should actually do it. And if that does not happen, the most reasonable conclusion is that this is not a command from the all-powerful Creator of the world. In my humble opinion, the empty stubbornness is to claim that this stems from a “lack of desire.”
I will try to explain why this is so significant. Because there is no crushing proof for the Torah and Judaism, contrary to what many people I know think. Instead, there is a collection of data that raises the probability that this divine revelation happened to us. But when I see that this Torah does not keep its promises, I can infer from that that the probability is that it was not written with divine inspiration. No matter what is said about it—if it does not keep its promises, that raises more than reasonable suspicion that it is not true.
I join the question,
There is no clear answer here to the problem of reward in the Torah.
If the Torah says that if you do X you will get Y, and in reality if you did X and did not get Y, and you are not totally wicked, that is not a small difficulty…
And if not, then what was Acher’s initial assumption?!
There definitely is. I explained it above in detail. The question what Acher’s initial assumption was is a classic pilpul. Once you understand the answer, you still ask what the initial assumption was. His initial assumption was like yours. A mistake. He did not understand the explanation I offered here, or his evil inclination caused him not to understand.
The dodge you gave is only that no sufficiently significant statistical study was done to test the reward.
But if we assume that in fact no reward exists and there is no statistical significance either way,
then what is the explanation? That God’s operating procedures changed in His world?! Does that sound reasonable to you?!
The Torah is eternal; it says in black and white, “And it shall be, if you do not listen…” “And it shall be, if you do listen…”
“so that they may increase.”
And if these procedures were never realized, why are they written? Already in the First Temple period it says, “I saw a violent wicked man, spreading himself like a flourishing native tree,” “for there are no pangs in their death.”
And if I may add, the question of “the righteous who suffers and the wicked who prospers” is one of the great questions in Judaism. Many pens have been broken over it, a great deal of it within the framework of Judaism itself. But what troubles me is that, following the realization that the most reasonable thing is that the World to Come does not exist, I cannot think of any especially good excuse for this question. Therefore, in my opinion, since Judaism itself is built on probability and not on unequivocal proof, treating this issue as a secondary question, and as a difficulty that at most will remain “requiring further study,” is invalid. We have to factor it into the total data regarding the probability of Judaism itself. When one does that, the right conclusion is to reject Judaism, because it does not meet its own most basic criterion—to fulfill what it claims is a divine command written by the all-powerful Creator of the world and the best intelligent designer ever. To say “Heaven has its calculations” is running away from the only parameter by which the Torah calls on us to test it.
And in general—the insistence on statistics is completely unnecessary. Unlike medicine, which really works statistically, if the Creator of the world makes a private promise—“so that it may go well with you and you may lengthen your days”—He can make every individual who does His commandment live long. He is all-powerful. He fine-tuned the world from a lone singular point so that it would be exactly as it is now, according to the Rabbi. It follows that He should not operate statistically but absolutely, because He can do that, and that is what He is claimed to have promised.
“However, it is reasonable that if a systematic scientific test were performed (with a sample group and a control group) it really should show a statistical difference, meaning that those who recite Havdalah over a cup would have more sons. But such a test has not been done.”
Well, according to data from the Central Bureau of Statistics, Christians in Israel do in fact have fewer males relative to their population than Jews do. But Muslims in Israel have more males than we do. Among Christians, the number of males is 91 percent of the number of females. Among Jews, the number of males is 98.4 percent of the number of females. But among Muslims, the number of males is 92 percent. So reciting Havdalah over wine does not help that much, does it? (The data are from 2019. https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/publications/doclib/2020/2.shnatonpopulation/st02_03.pdf. Page 3)
Sorry—among Muslims it is 102 percent. Typing error
I thought this was clear, but apparently I need to explain more of what I wrote. I am using Havdalah over a cup as a parable. I have written here more than once that I have no confidence at all in these kinds of aggadic statements of the sages, certainly not as factual claims (maybe this too is some kind of parable). I only wanted to illustrate the logic and the need for an orderly statistical test of such claims. But my discussion is about the Torah, not about an aggadic saying of the sages. And I have not even yet gotten into the fact that among Jews, those who recite Havdalah over a cup are quite a small minority, so this statistic does not say much. There are so many other parameters here that you would have to neutralize in order to draw a significant conclusion that this is simply foolish.
But the discussion really is unnecessary. I am done.
“There are so many other parameters here that you would have to neutralize in order to draw a significant conclusion” — one who wants to lie distances his witnesses, whereas the Torah is supposed to be “the testimony of the Lord is sure” (this was originally brought by medieval authorities as an advantage Judaism has over Christianity).
I do think testing the Torah carries a lot of weight, maybe even a great deal of weight. Again, the all-powerful Creator of the world gives us two ways to test the Torah, at least that I found, and in both of them the Torah fails the test. To my mind, the significance of that is decisive, and it greatly raises the probability that the Torah is unreliable. If a person I trust very, very much comes to me and tells me to do such-and-such, and promises that I will be rewarded for doing it, and I am not rewarded, then I will no longer trust that person, or at least I will not do that action anymore. All the more so if I did not know whether that person really said it or not—in that case, the test of actual results would have far-reaching implications for whether to attribute the command to the person I trust so much.
As for the correlation—you are right, it is not necessary. But in terms of probability, I absolutely see it as the most reasonable explanation. Throughout the Torah not a word is mentioned, and then suddenly after contact with Persian culture we see many Persian features among the sages. The correlation is not necessary, but in my opinion any sensible person will put two and two together.
As for a statistical experiment regarding wine, what the Rabbi says is interesting. Maybe I will do that in the future and refute this argument (or maybe it will actually turn out to be true, and that really would be interesting). In any case, I proposed a different experiment. According to the Torah, one who serves God with all his heart merits rain and blessing in the land—we say this every day in the passage “And it shall come to pass, if you surely listen.” But in reality, statistically, there is a close connection between level of faith and economic condition. Tel Aviv is richer than Bnei Brak, and most of the wealth today is in the hands of the heretics. So yes, even by the test of statistics this does not hold up.
I am still trying to understand what you brought in the article. As for faith based on miracles—natural reward is an option that is not miraculous. More physical rain for the righteous and less for the wicked is not a miracle. A talking donkey is a miracle. So God can still reward us without this being tied to childish faith in miracles. Beyond that—not miracles are needed, but if the all-powerful Creator of the world promised reward that is somewhat miraculous, and did not write that it would stop, then a rational person should assume that it would not stop, and not begin thinking about decline of the generations and all sorts of other things not written in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). He should understand that the Torah is probably not from the living God. God sees us as more mature and does not want there to be dependence? Too bad He did not write that in the Torah, because that is already an invention of people today.