Q&A: Do Not Stray
Do Not Stray
Question
Hello Rabbi.
I saw that you argue that there is apparently a prohibition of "do not stray" in the case of a person who does not really have doubts, but whose inclination is inciting him to cast doubt.
I don’t think I have doubts, meaning I would like to know more about the world and engage in thought and reflection and philosophy, but I don’t have some doubt that keeps me up at night, and even if one sometimes arises, it doesn’t stay for very long (at least not consciously). I don’t have logical proofs or some particular value-choice, but I believe in God and also keep certain commandments, sometimes even meticulously and exactly according to Jewish law. Apparently it’s an intuition. Even so, the consciousness of being a “servant of God” and the idea that I am not living for myself but that my entire being belongs to God, and that even the basic things in my life like my relationship with my wife and bringing children into the world—all of them, every last one, are supposed to have religious value, to be for the sake of Heaven and a commandment, and “for that is the whole of man.” I’ll tell you: I find this idea very difficult. I encounter this idea in every thinker from every period; it really is the very heart of Jewish life.
In short, in your opinion can I investigate faith and engage in philosophy for the following reasons—curiosity, providing a satisfactory explanation of why one should and why it is good to live with this consciousness (doing everything for the sake of Heaven out of love), that is, does this not fall under the category of “his heart incites him to sin because he is uncomfortable with the commandments,” and a desire for a better understanding of the world.
Thank you, Rabbi.
Answer
A desire to know and curiosity are not doubt. Even a desire to examine faith in the absence of doubts is not forbidden. As long as you are carrying out a real examination and not merely looking for an unfounded escape route. And certainly, if some kind of religious consciousness does not sit well with you, then of course it is permitted and appropriate for you to examine it.
As a rule, even if various thinkers write something, that does not mean it is correct. There are different paths in the service of God, and each person chooses his own path. I assume that if someone lives with the consciousness that every detail of what he does is part of his service of God, that is an admirable quality. But there is no obligation here. The verse “In all your ways know Him” is not a commandment, and it can also be interpreted in a more restrictive way, like “when you lie down and when you rise.” Regarding the commandment of Torah study, the halakhic decisors write that in principle one must study all day and all the time, but there are quite a few permitted activities that a person may engage in, and this is not considered neglect of Torah study. In my opinion, any normal activity is of that kind (including recreation and leisure in reasonable measure). Clearly there is an advantage to one who does as much as possible, but the boundary is left to each individual. It may be that the same applies to “In all your ways know Him.”
By the way, for this kind of clarification you do not need philosophy, and I do not see how this is connected to “do not stray.” This is a Torah clarification that could even be considered part of the commandment of Torah study, and it is certainly not a prohibition of “do not stray.”
Discussion on Answer
In my opinion this is another example of what I’ve written here more than once: that the Shulchan Arukh is not careful to distinguish between a recommendation and binding law.
Thank you, Rabbi, for the answer. I saw this as connected to philosophy because longing for God is a motif that recurs in religious philosophy, and so is its meaning together with worship, etc. As for “In all your ways know Him,” if I’m not mistaken the Shulchan Arukh or the Rema (or both) brings it as Jewish law, but even if there is room to act as you noted, the consciousness that a person does not live for himself but that there is still some factor external to him remains in place, and I would be glad to reflect more deeply on its nature. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, in his commentary on Genesis chapter 1 (s.v. “Adam”), makes a beautiful move explaining this based on the etymology of the word “Adam.”