Q&A: Observance of Commandments
Observance of Commandments
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Almost all the commandments I observe are out of habit, and not מתוך a real understanding of the commandment. If I act with inner honesty, I can’t keep continuing to observe those same commandments that I don’t understand until I clarify their meaning. But clarifying all these small details is a matter of years, and it’s not even certain that it’s possible, so I’m basically at a point where I need to choose whether to continue observing certain commandments out of habit, or to observe only what I understand. Either way, this is a significant decision, and as time goes by I can’t remain without making a choice.
Now obviously, as a rabbi, you’re not going to write to me that I shouldn’t observe commandments, but I need a real and deep clarification about observing the commandments (maybe a book you could recommend?). I should emphasize that I believe in God and in the Torah, and all the direct commands from the Holy One, blessed be He, I strive to observe. The issue is with the commandments that were written by human beings.
Thank you very much in advance!
Answer
I don’t know what is expected of me as a rabbi. I tell people that if they do not believe, they should not observe. A person should act in accordance with his or her conclusions and positions. Of course, one may ultimately be held accountable if one is mistaken.
But regarding your question, I do not agree that one must understand the details, or even identify with the commandment as a whole, in order to observe it. Why should that be so? If you trust the giver of the Torah, then you understand that you should keep His words, and apparently they are beneficial as well. So why not observe them? Don’t you take medicine prescribed by your doctor even if you don’t understand how it works? And does the law not obligate you if you don’t understand it or agree with it?
Discussion on Answer
If you don’t have trust, then what is the question? Someone who has no trust should not observe. I only noted that, contrary to what people think, trust does not depend on authenticity. Even if the sages did not hit upon the intention of the Holy One, blessed be He, at the time the Torah was given, they still have authority to interpret the Torah, and therefore their interpretation is binding. That is written in the Torah itself in “do not turn aside.” Therefore the question of whether to obey them does not depend on whether they were right or wrong. One must understand that without interpretation, the Torah is raw material empty of content. Anyone can interpret it however he wants. Therefore it is reasonable that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the Torah on the assumption that people would interpret it.
But you hold the view that, generally speaking, the sages in their reasoning did in fact hit upon God’s will (which presumably was also His will at the time the Torah was given), and only for that reason is Torah study of essential importance. In other words, for learning, trust really is critical. If so, it cannot be that the Torah is raw material empty of content like a telephone book. https://mikyab.net/posts/85100/#comment-79910
And from here a question: in your opinion, is it correct that a person who does not believe in authenticity at all—that is, who thinks the sages were wrong in all their statements and interpretations—must indeed obey all the halakhot they derived from the Torah, but according to his own view there is no point at all in studying the Oral Torah when it is not practical Jewish law.
With God’s help, Lag BaOmer 5784
After all, God commanded in His Torah, “And you shall act according to all the Torah that they instruct you,” and by this He handed over His Torah to the interpretation of the sages.
With blessings,
Shatzal
And Hillel already showed the convert, who claimed that he accepted only what is explicit in the Torah, that even in order to read the Torah he needs a tradition teaching him that aleph is aleph and bet is bet—and all the more so, the text of the Torah requires confidence in those who transmitted it.
Tirgitz, that is a difficult question. It seems to me that in such a situation there is an obligation to observe because of “do not turn aside,” but Torah study becomes empty. Because there is no point in learning things merely because they are binding. One studies in order to understand the truth. The learning becomes a preparatory means for the commandment of observing the commandments.
Regarding Mr. Tirgitz’s question—
In the book Maggid Mesharim by the Beit Yosef, it is told that once the Beit Yosef came up with some novel Torah insight, and afterward the Maggid came to him and told him that the insight was not true. The Beit Yosef asked him whether he should erase the insight, and the Maggid answered him that heaven forbid he should erase it, because the Holy One, blessed be He, delights in Torah dialectics even when it is not true. It seems to me that this answers your questions here and in the comments on the above columns, because unlike practical Jewish law, where one has to completely refine the truth that God intended, Torah study is a commandment regardless.
Yechiel, if this is not Torah at all, then why should there be a commandment of Torah study in it? Not only would the essential value of Torah study (devekut, cleaving to God) not be there, even an ordinary commandment should not be there—like someone who takes a lemon thinking it is an etrog. And that is how I understood Rabbi Michi’s answer: that it is only a preparatory means for a commandment. [And it does not make sense that after one is commanded to observe, there would also be an independent commandment to study what one is commanded to observe, just as there is no commandment to study one’s father’s words in order to know how to honor him.] The wording “delights” does not prove that there is a commandment in it, and in general proofs from maggids’ words (and kabbalistic statements) do not count for much.
I don’t trust the Oral Torah… human beings wrote it, and they absolutely can make mistakes in their conclusions.