Q&A: Does qualified belief in Judaism also entail qualified observance of the commandments?
Does qualified belief in Judaism also entail qualified observance of the commandments?
Question
Hi Rabbi Michi,
A person who does not believe in a fully absolute way (not meaning that it isn’t 100%, because everything is like that, but significantly less than that) — is it reasonable that as a result he would choose to be lenient in disputes, and generally rule leniently (something that an ordinary person is not allowed to do, unless he independently thinks that is the truth; and one who always follows the lenient view is called wicked)? Since when you factor in the possibility that there may be nothing substantial to Judaism, it would seem reasonable to be lenient — do you accept this reasoning?
Thanks,
Tintin.
Answer
Absolutely. I also wrote this in the trilogy, and not long ago in a responsum here on the site as well. I wrote even more than that: there are commandments whose price is very high (such as killing an Amalekite infant) that I doubt I would carry out because of that doubt.
Discussion on Answer
If your belief in God is weaker, then clearly your moral obligation will also be weaker. But that doesn’t mean you’ll murder. Atheists too do not murder; rather, in their view that obligation stands on its own (without God). They are mistaken and it isn’t consistent, but that is the situation.
As for the dilemma between Jewish law and morality, what you wrote is not necessary at all. My confidence in morality and in the God of morality may be different from my confidence in the God of the Torah. I can be convinced that there is a God who commands morality and still doubt His Torah commandments.
If the source of morality is God, then does qualified belief in God also entail qualified moral action?
Suppose on the one hand you wouldn’t come to kill an Amalekite child because of uncertainty, but on the other hand that same uncertainty would also mean that the moral prohibition against murder is only binding in a qualified way, and therefore you actually could kill him—or am I missing something here?