Q&A: The Claim That the Torah Protects the Jewish People
The Claim That the Torah Protects the Jewish People
Question
Lately we’ve been hearing more and more the statement that the Torah is what protects the Jewish people, and therefore yeshiva students must not be drafted. And I ask: how can it be that on the holiday of the Torah itself—namely Simchat Torah—the terrible massacre of October 7 happened? Surely that is actually proof of the opposite of what they are saying.
Like the statement said by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, “It is good to rely on Rabbi Shimon in a time of pressing need,” and in the end, on his festival of Lag BaOmer, 45 Jews died because of crowding when they came to his gravesite.
Does the Rabbi have an explanation for this?
Answer
You’ll have to ask that of whoever makes that claim. But I can guess what answer you’d get: that it protected us so that something even more terrible would not happen. Alternatively, there were other causes of the disaster that even the Torah was not enough to save us from.
Your claim about Rabbi Shimon is simply bizarre. You do not understand at all the meaning of the saying you quoted. “In a time of pressing need” does not mean when there is physical crowding of people. It means that when you are in distress, there is room to be lenient in Jewish law in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Forgive me, but if you want to discuss something, you first need to acquire a minimal understanding of the material.
But there is no point continuing to discuss claims that I do not accept. You need to discuss it with the person making them.
Discussion on Answer
In your opinion, the Torah does not protect and defend the Jewish people?
Or does it mean that if people keep the Torah, then it itself is preserved, because it is passed from generation to generation, but there is no protection in the actual study of it?
And regarding Rabbi Shimon, it’s clear to me that the “pressing need” he mentioned is not physical crowding of people, like what happened in the disaster, but rather a time of uncertainty. And what I meant was that he protects and guards, and here, on his day, he did not manage to protect the people who came to him, and his merit did not stand by them for protection and rescue.
In my opinion, the Torah does not protect, because the Torah does not do anything. The Torah is a book. The Holy One, blessed be He, is supposed to protect. But in my view He is usually not involved, and therefore usually does not protect either. Also, nobody can know what protects and what does not, so statements in this area seem baseless to me.
But clearly the survival of the Jewish people depends on the Torah—not because it protects, or because the Holy One, blessed be He, protects, but because this is the culture we carry. A shared culture and shared values preserve a group.
No—the meaning is definitely not that he protects and guards, but that he is a Torah scholar, and therefore one who relies on him, even if the Jewish law does not follow his opinion, is not making too great a mistake.
Thank you very much to the Rabbi for the answers; they are enlightening and give real clarity and understanding of these things.
If anything, the question from Simchat Torah proves the opposite: nothing happened to the synagogues and communities that keep the Sabbath, and only at the party and in other places that do not keep the Sabbath and have nothing to do with Simchat Torah. Maybe that shows that the Torah took revenge on those who do not study it and do not rejoice in its celebration, as someone said: “On Simchat Torah nothing happened; on the seventh of October it happened.”
Yoni, you’re also wrong on the facts.
Religious people, and even Haredim, were also killed on Simchat Torah—truly righteous people too.
Of course, religious kibbutzim were also attacked and people were killed there, and in Ofakim as well.
And more.
In short, just nonsense and bluff.
As a person who tries to honestly respect what rabbis say – and tries to give them the benefit of some doubt that they are not trying to mislead – I have a question: if someone says Torah protects, and then something (G-d forbid) very bad happens to a Torah observant community — what do you feel about the person who claims “the Torah protects”? Are they in some way misleading? Some would say the claim itself, “the Torah protects” is unfalsifiable – cannot be veried or disproven as it is stated – and is therefore a logical fallacy – and a persuasion trick, not a real argument. Designed to psychologically manipulate (cause an error in thinking) not demonstrate any verifiable point. If I say Love Heals All it’s similar — how do i verify such a claim? Do I make it specifically because i KNOW it cannot be tested? That it works to persuade without being in any way testable? Am I trying to manipulate you? If I say “love will heal that cut in your leg. Using a directed feeling of love, I can get it to heal in five minutes, fully.” now that is testable. and if you are right, we will both know. and if you are not, we will both reject the argument as not demonstrated. is that why spiritual claims are NEVER put in a way that they can be tested? We are being manipulated? They are using persuasion tricks? What do you think?
here is what the rabbi’s notebooklm would answer you:
Your question touches on the root of the problem with theological claims in the public sphere. I will address the points you raised one by one.
First, regarding the motivation of those who make this claim — are they deliberately trying to manipulate us or using persuasion tricks? I tend to judge them favorably. In my view, in most cases these are people who genuinely and sincerely believe it, and they are not lying or consciously engaging in manipulation. What happens in practice is a statistical fallacy — what I call “the law of small numbers”: once they have reached the conclusion that a certain spiritual remedy works, they will see it being fulfilled everywhere. When there is success, they will credit it to the Torah; when there is failure, they will find excuses. Of course, there are also conscious and cynical liars, but in my estimation they are a minority.
Second, regarding your claim that this assertion is unfalsifiable — you are absolutely right. Every such statement comes in advance with a “perfect package of excuses” explaining why its fulfillment cannot be observed in reality. In this way, the theory remains “perfect” and impossible to refute. I have written in the past that, in my opinion, this is an “agreed-upon lie” that people repeat only because no one has the courage to admit — even to himself — that it simply does not work in reality. The desperate attempt to defend this thesis is what gives rise to all the distortions of thought that you describe.
That said, it is important to be philosophically precise: the fact that a claim cannot be falsified in a laboratory does not necessarily mean that it is false or that it is a logical fallacy; it only means that it is not a scientific claim. Anyone who makes theological claims — and this includes the atheist as well — is making claims that cannot be falsified. However, the assertion that “Torah protects and saves” in practice from physical harm is indeed a factual claim. In my view, since there is no empirical way to measure it, the Sages also had no way of knowing whether it was actually true or not. Therefore, their statements on this matter are not binding upon us, and the assumption that Torah study exempts one from military service is simply a foolish invention.
As for your question of why spiritual claims are never formulated in a way that allows them to be tested — that is not always true. There is one place where the Torah itself invites us to conduct a falsification test: “Test Me, now, in this” regarding the giving of tithes — the promise that if you give tithes, you will become wealthy. But does anyone actually do this and test it empirically? No one does, because deep down people know that it will not really work, or at the very least that there is no way to see that it works, and therefore they avoid putting it to the test.
In summary, personally I try not to enter into people’s psychological motives, and not to judge whether or not they are manipulating others. Going “below the belt” and analyzing psychology instead of arguments is, in my view, beside the point. The argument itself must be discussed on its own merits. And in the present case, the argument is untenable in itself, because it has no factual basis in reality and it exempts no one from his obligations in this world.
But we are left with the real issue of rabbis, some kiruv, some speaking to crowds of true believers who have never been exposed to outside voices. Is the kiruv rabbi – who likely is able to detect real problems with Torah proofs – but uses them anyway to “wow” the crowd – is he a man of real integrity? I watch a lot of news and youtube commentators – and even though I am totally at peace with Right Wing views and approaches – and generally support them – I immediately dismiss commentators who over dramatize developments on the Left. Who seek to “scare” me with their predictions – these are appeal to fear. They are logical fallacies. I am equally baffled when those on the Left hear things like “Trump is Hitler” and actually become emotional and think it has merit. I just find myself discounting most humans. The arguers are using appeals to emotion, to guilt, shame, tradition, authority – and those listening are putting feelings well over facts. How can someone with an adult brain show so little maturity, I ask myself. Why are grown people so quick to try to scare others, and why are others so quick to be scared? Am I supposed to respect any of this?
Are we supposed to shut up and just nod and smile when rabbis talk, be they kiruv, or orthodox rabbis? Even the other day, I was reading a liberal rabbi discuss homosexuality in Judaism. “My G-d thinks everyone should be able to partner with whoever they wish,” was the sentiment. But her G-d (a female rabbi) also wrote that homosexuals who lie together should die by stoning. Maybe he didn’t mean it, but then why did he write it? Maybe G-d did not write the Torah – but then what are we doing here grappling with the enormity of what some ancient scribe wrote down that got copied, again and again?
I feel like I identify things: she is rationalizing. She is changing the subject. She is veering in and out of a “G-d wrote the Torah” approach. It’s what I call “pretzel logic,” and it indicates we are all playing games. And in orthodox religion, we are acutely aware of this feeling – and avoid it by excluding outside voices, permitting persuasion tricks and logical fallacies, and generally not arguing with what we hear, when it comes to the ikkurim. It tells me we are a kind of intellectual hot mess. And it scares the heck out of me. Years ago it got me from G-d is real, to: there is no G-d. And it was being born a Jew who thought we would never stoop to bizarre arguments (that was for other religions) and never make any claims (again, too real for that) and therefore our “weakness” was our strength: we never pretend, we deal with the real, we never try to manipulate minds like cult leaders or hucksters. But, after Aish, I though: oy, we do.! All these smart rabbis I met – all lying to me. Maybe lying to themselves, but certainly, to me. And I’m not all that smart – it just was sort of obvious with even a bit of thought. It felt wrong, how they argued – and in time I learned the problem of non-falsifiable claims, and logical fallacies – and here these arguments were, openly embraced by smart smart rabbis – who were either deluding themselves that this stuff was persuasive, or deluding me, or both. What a day it was when I realized I could not be a part of that. That maybe G-d was truly the fever dream of men who struggled with such massive needs for G-d and Judaism – that they would manufacture bad arguments to fortify their desperate need to believe. I had to take a VERY long time away from Judaism to deal with it. I started to read IB Singer.
rabbi’s notebooklm reply to your comment:
The sources strongly resonate with your frustration regarding intellectual dishonesty, logical fallacies, and emotional manipulation across both religious and political spectrums.
On Kiruv and “Holy Lies”
The sources heavily criticize the use of manipulative tactics, logical fallacies, and scientifically or philosophically flawed proofs by some kiruv (outreach) organizations and religious leaders. The practice of using bad arguments or hiding the truth to protect or promote faith is termed a “holy lie” (שקר קדוש), which the sources argue is both intellectually dishonest and practically disastrous.
As you personally experienced, when intellectually honest individuals realize that the arguments they were fed are baseless or manipulative, it often leads to a complete crisis of faith. People end up abandoning religion entirely because they mistakenly equate God and Judaism with the flawed, intellectually bankrupt apologetics of their teachers. The sources assert that truth must always be prioritized over what is deemed “useful” for keeping people religious, and that an honest person should never be expected to accept bad logic.
On Liberal “Pretzel Logic”
The sources share your bewilderment regarding liberal religious thinkers who try to force the Torah to align perfectly with modern Western values. Attempting to claim that universal humanistic values are the inherent meaning of Judaism—while ignoring or twisting explicit verses that say the opposite—is described in the sources as an intellectually dishonest approach. Instead of this “pretzel logic,” the sources propose acknowledging that there are sometimes real conflicts between Halacha (religious law) and universal morality. One can hold dual commitments to both systems and navigate the clashes honestly, rather than rewriting the Torah to make it politically correct.
On Political Emotionalism and Echo Chambers
Your critique of political commentators relying on fear and emotion rather than facts is also supported by the sources. The sources observe that in contemporary discourse, both the political Left and the Right frequently operate from the “gut” (emotion) rather than the “head” (intellect). Instead of engaging with substantive arguments, people often rely on emotional extortion and demonize their opponents as either foolish or wicked. This creates echo chambers where critical thinking is abandoned in favor of dogma, and rational debate becomes impossible.
Moving Forward
The sources encourage precisely the kind of critical thinking you are striving for. You are not supposed to “shut up and nod” when confronted with bad logic, whether from Orthodox rabbis, Kiruv professionals, or liberal theologians.
However, the sources emphasize that rejecting the bad arguments of kiruv rabbis does not logically necessitate rejecting God. The fact that many religious people defend their faith poorly does not mean the faith itself is false. Instead of abandoning belief entirely, the sources advocate for adopting a “lean theology” (תיאולוגיה רזה) that strips away the dogmatic “holy lies” and relies on sound, rational philosophical arguments.