Q&A: Is There Any Truth at All Anymore??
Is There Any Truth at All Anymore??
Question
There’s something that’s really, really bothering me.
It started when I began studying Ethics of the Fathers and saw that the Bartenura says that it is divine ethics / morality (transmitted from Moses at Sinai down to them), and therefore it is true morality.
The problem is that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of commentaries on Ethics of the Fathers, and one is not like another. So which of them is aimed at the truth?
That really got me wondering, not only about the ethics of Ethics of the Fathers, but about all of Judaism: what can actually be called correct? After all, if I study, say, Jewish law, those laws are ultimately people’s interpretations of the verses (the Tannaim and Amoraim).
After all, a verse can be interpreted in several different ways, at least some of them. The reason they explained it in a certain way is because there is a set of human rules (the thirteen hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is interpreted) that forced that reading onto the verse.
And in general, what am I supposed to live by? For example, I serve in the army, and there are people who interpret the Torah with certainty as saying that it is forbidden to serve in the army (and they bring you all the supporting sources), and likewise the opposite—that many say it is a commandment, and many others say it is an obligation but not a commandment, etc.
The point isn’t the army specifically. The question is: according to what am I supposed to conduct my life so that it will count as Torah-based? If I conduct it according to how I understood things, or according to how other people understood them, there is always a dispute! How can I do God’s true will? How do I know that what I’m doing is God’s will? And what obligates me to accept people’s explanations of the Torah or of ethical traits? How can I listen to Ethics of the Fathers if it has dozens of commentaries?
Thanks in advance
Answer
🙂
Rest easy. The Holy One, blessed be He, does not make unreasonable demands of His creatures. He gave us the Torah on the understanding that we would interpret it. We are to do what emerges from our interpretation, and from His perspective that is presumably fine (because if not, there is no point to His whole enterprise). That is with regard to Jewish law. Ethics of the Fathers and the rest of the matters of ethics and thought are not connected to the Torah or to Mount Sinai in any way. Our conscience is the supreme decisor, and it too was implanted in us by the Holy One, blessed be He. Therefore, in the realm of ethics you do not need to listen to any of the commentaries, only to the command of your conscience. The sages have no authority in the realm of ethics, except for what entered into Jewish law (such as the trait of Sodom).
The statements that all this was given at Sinai are one of two things: either a holy fiction (for the readers’ benefit), or a normative rather than historical statement (that is, it is binding as if it was given at Sinai, not that historically it was given there). That is also how one should relate to sayings like, “Everything that an experienced student is destined to innovate was shown by the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses at Sinai,” and the like.
Discussion on Answer
In a certain sense, I think the deterministic question is also lying here. After all, it makes sense to say that every halakhic ruling and the like is deterministic based on the person who issued it, no?
So basically everything we practice (including in Jewish law) is only because this person got there through his own experience.
But another person’s experience was probably different, no?
If so, again, why should I prefer this over that?
If you’ve gotten to determinism, then you’ve really gone too far. I definitely don’t agree. A halakhic decisor is influenced by his environment and upbringing, like any person. So what? A person is the totality of what is within him, and this is his interpretation of Jewish law. You are supposed to decide for yourself even in Jewish law, but there, if you are not capable enough, choose a rabbi for yourself and follow his approach. In matters of thought, there is no point at all in making a rabbi for yourself.
The question of enlistment into the IDF is not Jewish law.
Of course, if you are talking about a certain source, then you probably don’t live in our world. There is certainty in nothing, and that should not bother anyone. People make decisions under conditions of uncertainty, just as in all areas of our lives. One should aim to understand the word of God, and whatever emerges for you is the word of God as it applies to you. That is what is required of you.
Again, thank you very much, just to finish up:
A. So what benefit can one get from studying tractate Avot, for example?
B. If I find ethical teachings that speak to me in passages of the Talmud, what then can I think about that?
C. If I want to broaden my horizons on this topic, where can I do that?
Thank you very much!
Rabbi Michi, is studying Ethics of the Fathers considered Torah study at all? Does the mishnah “It is not upon you to finish the work, but neither are you free to desist from it” require the blessings over Torah study?
Aharon,
I maintain that anything that is not Torah-level Jewish law (and not Scripture) is not Torah study, and one does not recite a blessing over it. See my columns 582-3.
Ori,
A. In my opinion, not much. I don’t deal with it. If anything, I use mishnayot and commentators on Avot to reinforce my own reasoning, but I don’t study them in order to understand them. In my eyes that has no value.
B. Whatever you want.
C. There’s nowhere to broaden to. Your horizons are already broad enough. That’s all I have to say about this ant-narrow topic, and I don’t see any need for anything more. 🙂
First of all, thank you for the detailed answer!
But still, what about completely different halakhic rulings, like the issue of enlistment into the IDF? Isn’t that conclusive proof that real truth has no certain source?
I mean, why should I listen to the halakhic ruling of one over another?
Why should I listen to what one says (like again, the enlistment issue) over his colleague?
And again, thank you 🙂