Thanks.

Doron, it’s worth updating on a new method developed by Dr. Joshua Berman, a Bible scholar at Bar-Ilan University, who relies on Ancient Near Eastern culture and writing style.
He brings sources, evidence, and proofs that in antiquity people wrote with contradictions from the outset, and that the Torah is written in the language of the Ancient Near East, so it can’t be understood the way we understand a modern book today: https://rationalbelief.org.il/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A4-%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%A2-%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%9F-%D7%A1%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%90-%D7%9C/

In my opinion this is the most correct approach, without all the cheap speculation and dime-store philosophy!

I read it, and it’s definitely interesting. I’d only note that it’s not very different from Rabbi Breuer. Rabbi Breuer’s different “aspects” are reflected in Berman as periods that required different solutions or a different perspective. However, his remarks deal with contradictions between the four books of the Torah and the book of Deuteronomy, not between the different sources themselves (which according to tradition were given to Moses at Sinai). So I don’t know how Berman resolves contradictions of that kind within the Torah itself.

Which contradictions is the Rabbi talking about?
The stylistic difference between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
I think that here one can accept Rabbi Breuer’s method, because it sounds much more reasonable.
But in my humble opinion, regarding halakhic contradictions between Deuteronomy itself and the other books of the Torah, it seems less plausible to see this as two “aspects,” since these are actual laws.

I don’t see a difference. Both between Deuteronomy and Exodus and in halakhic contradictions, one can certainly follow the Aspect Method. See for example David Henshke’s series of articles in HaMa’ayan 5737-8.

With God’s help, 27 Av 5778

To Kehat — greetings,

There are examples in the Torah of “speaking in two voices.” For example, when going out to war, the priest sounds the resolute voice: “Do not fear them,” while the officer sounds the softer voice, taking human weakness into account, recognizing that there may be a person who is “fearful and fainthearted” and allowing him to return home.

And so the author of Or HaChaim explains that in the portion of Mishpatim the Torah establishes the ideal situation — that a Hebrew maidservant should not “go out as the male slaves go out,” who are supposed to serve six years, because the entire purpose of a Hebrew maidservant is designation for marriage. And if the master decides not to designate her for himself or for his son, efforts should be made to redeem her as soon as possible.

In the ideal situation, where a young girl is given over as a maidservant as a marriage candidate, there is almost no possibility of selling a maidservant for six years, since naturally the girl is given for a trial period of only a few years before maturity. In the book of Deuteronomy there is a supplement dealing with the exceptional case where a girl was sold as a maidservant more than six years before reaching adulthood, and with regard to this unusual case it is necessary to explain that even a maidservant goes free in the sixth year.

There are commandments that are given gradually, such as the Sabbatical year and tithes, which involve substantial financial loss. The Torah hints at this at first in the stories of the patriarchs, who gave a tithe to God. In the story of Joseph, who instituted in Egypt that they give a fifth of the produce to Pharaoh as “owner of the land,” the Torah begins to prepare the people psychologically for the obligation of two tithes.

The commandment to give the tithe to the Levites is explained by the Torah in the book of Numbers, clarifying that this tithe is given to them because they will not receive an inheritance in the land, so that they may devote themselves to God’s service. Only at the end of the forty years, when they stand on the threshold of the land, are Israel ready to accept an additional tithe meant to enable them to stay for several weeks a year in “the place that the Lord will choose” and also devote themselves to spiritual elevation in the service of God.

In Deuteronomy, which is said after a period of preparation and ripening for entry into the land, new dimensions are added: the obligation of giving is intensified — as the second tithe, another second tithe, and the release of debts in the Sabbatical year. For the first time in the Torah there is mention of the commandment to serve God with love and joy (and not only with fear, as in the earlier books), and of the obligation to teach one’s children faith and the values of the Torah and its commandments.

The Torah was not given to the people as a dry law book, but as a series of lessons delivered over forty years, and like a master educator, the Giver of the Torah instills the legal messages gradually and interwoven with words of faith and morality and historical descriptions, so that the consciousness of the reader/listener is formed gradually, layer upon layer.

Best regards,
S. Z. Levinger

Genesis 2 as well adds a purpose for man as another layer on top of the purpose in Genesis 1. Chapter 1 tells the story of natural vegetation growing without human intervention. The role of human beings is only to rule over the animal world.

By contrast, in chapter 2, where the creation of man is told in detail, an additional purpose appears. Man is not only ruler over the animal world, but also God’s partner in the work of creation. Here begins the story of the garden and the cultivated field, where man was placed “to work it and to guard it.”

The basic problem, as I understand it, with the Aspect Method is that it insists on holding together two positions that do not fit one another: the Torah is divine, yet appears to us as a document full of contradictions (like any human document).
The question that in my opinion Breuer has no answer to is: how does the proponent of the Aspect Method know from the outset that the Torah is a divine document? What is he relying on? According to his own view, he can’t rely on the Torah because of its contradictions, and on the other hand reliance on a non-divine source (historical evidence, etc.) is unreliable and perhaps not even logically valid.

Where does the assumption come from that a divine document must not contain contradictions?
The proponent of the Aspect Method presumably knows that the Torah is divine because that is his basic premise, or because there is tradition and testimony about it, or because he experienced some sort of revelation.

To Yehuda — greetings,

Balaam already explained in his blessing to the people of Israel: “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should relent.” There cannot be contradictions that express changes in the divine will, which is eternal, as Samuel said as well: “And also the Glory of Israel does not lie and does not relent.”

In a divine Torah there are no contradictions, but there is reference to the complexity of reality, when different situations require different treatment and different emphases in accordance with eternal foundational principles.

So, for example, those who left Egypt, who had become accustomed to sexual immorality and idolatry and the other forty-nine gates of impurity, needed severe warnings of “he shall surely be put to death” at every turn. On the other hand, the generation about to enter the land, where judges would stand in every place, needed to be warned not to rush into issuing death sentences without inquiry and investigation and without two or three witnesses.

These two statements present the two sides of one coin. The repeated “he shall surely be put to death” impresses upon the people the severity of those sins, and to balance this come the almost impossible evidentiary rules, so that human life should not become cheap.

In short: there cannot be contradiction in a divine Torah, but there can and should be in a divine Torah a complex, balanced, and balancing view.

Best regards,
S. Z. Levinger

Yehuda, a divine document may perhaps contain contradictions, but I’m not sure that’s a good starting point if it is supposed to persuade us that it really is such a document.
In your words, its divinity (I heard Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun say that there’s no need at all to flaunt the title “divinity”; “from God” is enough for us).
If the proponent of the Aspect Method assumes an arbitrary premise from the start, then this is circular.
If he says he had a revelation in which it was conveyed to him that the Torah is divine, how am I supposed to be persuaded by that?
And if, finally (the third option you suggested), there is historical testimony for this (“the witness argument”), then in my opinion that too is very problematic (as I discussed at length here under “Thought Q&A”).

You’re mixing up two different questions:
1. Is there a problem with the Aspect Method?
2. How can *you* be convinced of the truth of the Torah?

The proponent of the Aspect Method is not trying to convince you, or even himself, but only to clarify that there is no obstacle to accepting the divinity of the Torah despite the findings of biblical criticism.

The second question, as I understand it, is unrelated to accepting or rejecting the Aspect Method. Either way, you can say that you don’t believe other people’s revelations and that one cannot believe tradition (historical testimony) for reasons that are not clear to me.

I don’t understand you, or maybe I do understand but don’t accept it. Breuer comes to solve a fundamental philosophical problem: how to reconcile the existence of a body of knowledge full of apparent contradictions with its divine status. The two things seem to clash. In his opinion, the solution he proposes can reconcile the contradiction and thereby “gain” both the scholarly intellectual honesty characteristic of modern biblical criticism and continued belief in the divine origin of the Torah. The two questions (1. the strengths of the Aspect Method and 2. the truth of the Torah) are linked in one move.
It’s no coincidence that I classified my question under “Science and Faith Q&A.” The Aspect Method is an attempt by its author to integrate scientific thinking with a philosophical, theological, and metaphysical question.
It implies a very specific approach in the philosophy of science (and perhaps also in faith).
I think there’s something problematic about it.

That’s what I meant. Obviously, assuming one accepts biblical criticism, question 1 (the possibility of the Aspect Method) is a necessary condition for question 2 (the truth of the Torah). I only noted that the proponent of the Aspect Method is not trying to prove faith to you, but only to show that it does not contradict biblical criticism.

What is the very specific approach in the philosophy of science of the proponent of the Aspect Method? (As for the approach in faith, I assume you mean the approach that says God uses different styles in His revelation. Not a big deal.)

When I wrote “a very specific approach in the philosophy of science,” I probably went a bit too far. What I meant was that Breuer seems to me to be one of those who tried to enlist the legacy of modern philosophical and scientific thought — which distances itself from metaphysical discussion (distances itself from “simplicity” and sweeping generalizations) — דווקא in favor of “metaphysics.” A kind of dialectical move. He is almost trying to tell us: precisely the apparent problematic feature in the Torah — its being full of seeming contradictions — is evidence of its divinity. Don’t quote me on this, but if I remember correctly I read statements of his where he sees the complexity in the text as evidence that behind it there is a higher directing hand. A kind of reversal. In my assessment, this move cannot succeed: it saves science but undermines the credibility of the Torah.

The biblical critics’ argument starts from the assumption that the Bible is a human composition and from the assumption that primitive man is incapable of complex thought, so that a complex message must be a composite of sources. Two dubious assumptions…

Best regards,
S. Z. Levinger

Levinger, it seems to me that I agree with most of what you said.

Except that in my view science in its modern sense (and for our purposes biblical criticism is part of the modern humanities) must, by definition, adopt a relational methodology — that is, one that shakes off philosophy (including theological questions). If science does not do this, not only will it fail to advance, it will also undermine its own status.

The point is that after the scientific work is finished — but not one moment before — the philosophical interpretation of the findings must come.

A “proper” philosophical interpretation of science is supposed to combine a priori conceptualization (fitting the findings into abstract logical frameworks) applied as concretely as possible to the empirical data.

As I understand it, Breuer’s move tried to make exactly this combination (and that is to his credit).

Where he failed — so thinks an intellectual dwarf like me — is that in his philosophical interpretation he gave too much power to the empirical side. That is: in his opinion, the testimony of tradition about the revelation of the Torah is a sufficiently important consideration to interpret the phenomena that biblical criticism presents to us in a different light from that of “secular” science. In any case, such a tendency does indeed undermine both science and Torah alike.

By the way, it seems to me that he also relied on Jewish mysticism in order to ground his belief in the authenticity of the Torah. On the face of it, such a move takes him even further from achieving his goal.

If Breuer argued that (that the Aspect Method proves the tradition), I definitely disagree with him.
In your view he failed because he believed tradition “too much” (and did not rely on biblical criticism to refute it, but chose to offer explanations — the Aspect Method). I don’t understand why that is a failure. Maybe you disagree with him in your assessment (in your opinion the tradition is incorrect because of biblical criticism), but that is not a failure.

As I understand it, that is what he argued.
I also think there is a tendency (mistaken at its core) for modern science to “make do” with its narrow methods in order to draw sweeping conclusions from them that are not at all required by the limited scientific theory. On the other hand, the reason I see a “weakness” in the credibility of the Torah is not because of what biblical criticism says (which of course is important in its own right). I would almost say the opposite. The problem with the credibility of the Torah is, in my opinion, a priori, and therefore modern science per se has no business answering it. In that respect I agree with Breuer. The problem with Breuer is that his (justified) turn to an a priori explanation is only declarative. In practice, contrary to his own intent, he relies on an “empirical” tradition.

What is the problem with relying on an “empirical” tradition? I don’t think Breuer is turning to an “a priori” explanation (I didn’t understand exactly what that means, but never mind) specifically. He has empirical data: contradictions in the Torah, and a tradition that it was given by God. The conclusion of modern science is that the tradition should be rejected. Breuer’s conclusion is that the contradictions in the Torah are intentional.

Our basic theological problem begins with the question of the status of the Torah. Is the Torah heavenly truth, or not? But even if we accept, for the sake of discussion, that the Torah is indeed “from Heaven,” that still does not solve the main problem. The main theological problem, which precedes the Torah’s seemingly transcendent status, is the problem of the relation of finite, limited man to the unlimited God. For God could have created some other medium between Himself and us, and therefore even if He chose the medium of Torah, that does not mean it is the most correct medium at all times. (One can imagine a possible world in which God “communicates” with us through tools better than the Torah, tools I am sure He can create by virtue of His talents.)
In somewhat more philosophical language, I would say that the model of mediation the Torah offers us is based on the existence of a shared linguistic substrate between God and man — a text (the Torah).
In my view this is a great model, but it has a very great limitation. It does not meet the most stringent philosophical requirement (as is required in theological discussion, in my opinion), namely that it have a purely a priori character (if such purity can be attained).
A text (or language in general) is by nature not sufficiently a priori, since it is discursive: we are condemned to read it linearly again and again and thus advance in understanding it. In fact, long before the institutionalization of the rabbinic interpretive tradition, already at the very giving of the Torah, this principle was established. The medium God gave us is “infinite” (it requires endless repeated interpretation). Thus God placed in our hands a medium that is too “strong,” and as such it detracts from the status of God Himself.
There is a Hasidic image of the Torah as God’s garment. In my opinion, this “garment” took over its owner and almost “expelled” Him from within it.

Breuer’s solution tries — in an original and interesting way — to restore the a priori status of the Torah while accepting the “empirical” research (biblical criticism) and placing it within the traditional Jewish context — “Torah from Heaven.”
In my opinion, what Breuer does not see is that the traditional Jewish argument shares much more with modern science than first meets the eye. The Jewish model (which asks us to accept the idea of “Torah from Heaven”) is itself not sufficiently a priori. And all this because the model of mediation that it places between us and God is a text. A medium that is too successful and too domineering.

Why must a model for mediation with God be a priori (and what does a priori even mean)?
By the way, the Torah gives us another way to communicate with God, and that is prophecy.

Breuer is simply showing that the empirical findings do not contradict the principle of Torah from Heaven. What does that have to do with a priori status (again, what is that??) and so on?

I understood what a priori means. I still don’t understand why you think a medium for connection with God has to be like that?

What in the Aspect Method causes the Torah to be more a priori?

The Torah does not detract from the status of God, because if He gave it to us He knew we would have to interpret it again and again, and therefore that was presumably His will from the outset.

Yehuda, I’m not sure what in your remarks to respond to. I’ll only clarify that for me Breuer’s strategy is a test case for dealing with perhaps the most important question in Judaism — the question of its philosophical-theological validity.
In my opinion, behind Breuer’s move there is an attempt to save God from the clutches of the Torah (to be a bit provocative). In any case, I can’t see how such a rescue can be carried out within Judaism at all — neither in his proposal nor in others.
Apparently God will have to deal with the problem on His own (I’d bet He’ll manage).

Breuer is trying to save God from the Torah? How did you get to that?

Yes, I think that is (also) what Breuer is trying to do. Though indirectly, and although it is certainly possible that he himself would not define his aim that way at all.
It seems to me that we both agree that in Breuer’s eyes (and probably in yours and mine too), biblical criticism starts from a non-believing point of departure. We probably also agree that the criticism interprets the research findings in too scientific and too narrow a way, and therefore arrives at the wrong philosophical conclusion (that the Torah was written by human beings and as such is limited, expresses their relative world, etc.).
But if that is what biblical criticism says, then it is claiming that the Torah’s testimony about the One who gave it is distorted. According to this view, the Torah testifies to the existence of God who gave it, but this testimony is not correct (hence the scholarly effort to expose the concrete ways and reasons why flesh-and-blood human beings fabricated the Torah).
From this (mistaken) point of view, the Torah, if decoded properly — “scientifically,” of course — is revealed as a “secular” creation, that is, a creation indifferent to God and perhaps even contradicting His existence.
Up to here I believe you agree with me.
But my claim goes further: I think there is a certain parallel between the failed philosophy of modern science that I described (which leads to naturalism, materialism, etc.) and Judaism, at whose center stands the Torah. The Torah’s choice to offer itself as the primary medium between man and God turns the medium into the whole show. The text that speaks about God is more important than God Himself.
To my mind this is structurally similar, in logical terms, to the interpretation (or philosophy) of modern science (the one Bickel and Michi attack, rightly). Modern science too — insofar as it is interpreted as “actualist” or “analytic” — likes to deal with method rather than with the essence distinct from it to which it is directed.
In my view Breuer rightly criticizes modern science, and therefore he should also have applied his criticism to Orthodox Judaism at this point. Of course, he did not do so.

I think there is a big difference between Judaism with Torah at the center and biblical criticism. Biblical criticism starts from a mistaken premise and draws incorrect conclusions. Judaism does not place the Torah at the center (the Torah itself already says that prophets will come and convey God’s word to us), and even if it does — in the end this is God’s decision and presumably He knows what He is doing. It is logical nonsense to claim that God created something that rose up against its creator. If that happened, it means that this was His plan from the outset (because He is infinite), and this is the fulfillment of His true will, so the “golem” is doing exactly what its creator wanted from it.

First, your claim that Judaism does not place the Torah at the center seems very strange to me. Are the prophecies of the prophets more important in Judaism than what was revealed and given at Mount Sinai? Is there even one Orthodox Jew who believes that? Are you claiming that there is some input from some prophet that pushes the Torah aside in favor of his own words?
Besides, the idea that something might “rise up against its creator” (or at least resist him) is an idea that Judaism itself encourages — “It is not in heaven”… “My children have defeated Me,” etc.
But the most important point is this: God did not “get confused” when He gave the Torah (which supposedly turns against Him). That is part of His theological and historical plan. The only thing is: it has to be interpreted in a different light from the way Jewish Orthodoxy interprets it. For example, according to the Christian model (and I already explained here why I think that model is better, at least philosophically).
According to the basic Christian model (of course there are countless official doctrines that refine it), the giving of the Torah at Sinai was actually the creation of an initial medium between man and God. The medium was the Torah. After that, a new medium was given (the Son of God). In this sense Christianity is saying, as it were, that the Torah did not rise up against its creator, but that the Torah was “truth for its time,” whose purpose was to prepare hearts until God would send a more authentic mediating agent.
There is no “logical nonsense” here at all.

Well, all that remains is to turn to the verses in the Torah that require us not to replace it and to kill prophets (the Son of God) who seek to abolish it.

If the Torah is as I understand it (“threatening” God), then it is not surprising at all that it secures this status for itself in advance. It is very logical that it should demand that no change be made to it. Fortunately (and perhaps also unfortunately), when God created the world He equipped us with intellect so that we could cope with the complex reality created for us by the giving of the Torah. Thanks to our intellect (and perhaps something more), we remember that the Torah is not the main thing (it is only an instrument), but God Himself.

What do you mean, “secures” its status? I thought you were claiming that God gave the Torah and intended afterward to give other channels of communication. I said that when He gave the Torah He wrote in it itself not to listen to other channels, so God Himself secured the status of the Torah and ruled out the Christian conception.

Here is an analogy that might explain to you in what sense I claim that God secured the Torah.
When I was little, my father told me, “Never cross the road running, because it’s dangerous.”
It is clear to both of us that the most important thing for my father was to keep me from danger, not to prevent me from running on roads.
My father certainly meant that in the future, when I became mature and exercised rational judgment, I would know when to cross a road running and when not to (when it is dangerous and when not).
For example, my father could certainly have imagined that a murderer was chasing me and that in order to save myself I was fleeing and, in the process, crossing the road while running.
When God gave the Torah (for the sake of our discussion I am assuming that He did), He tried very hard to make us take it very seriously. But it is reasonable to assume, at least in my eyes, that from His perspective the Torah is still only a means, not an end. Presumably He said to Himself something like: the Torah is a ladder that will help those guys down there advance. After they advance, they will no longer need this ladder (on the contrary, if they insist on walking around with ladders on their backs in a world that no longer needs ladders, they will miss the main thing).

If so, what is the “main thing” where ladders are no longer needed? (By the way, this way you can empty any commandment of content. I can also spit in the Son of God’s face and explain to him that he is only a ladder and I am already at the next stage. If God expects us not to keep the Torah, He should have explained what yes. It makes no sense that in a document of tens of thousands of words He details for us the “rules of behavior on the road,” and expects us to figure out the “driver’s license” — the next stage — on our own. How do you know that the Torah is the rules for running across the road and not the final stage? You assume that the infinite God does not mean what He says and you get into His head. A bit presumptuous, in my opinion.)

I already explained what the main thing is: it is the belief that the medium bridging between us and God was created by Him, and as such it is less important than He is.
All your other objections, in my opinion, serve only a skeptical philosophical strategy (a strategy that in my eyes is not rational): one can always cast doubt on the mediating factor (whether it is the Torah, the Son of God, or God’s fan…); one can always say something like: “Yes, but it doesn’t make sense to believe in the Torah because it says such-and-such,” or say: “It doesn’t make sense to believe in Jesus because he said such-and-such.”
All counterarguments of this type directed at the Torah / the Son of God / Muhammad / Buddha / you name it are, in my view, invalid because they are aimed at the margins and not at the center.
The main valid philosophical aim (in my opinion) is always to examine the nature of the central medium that some religious conception places before us.
The Jewish religious conception places before us a linguistic medium (the Torah), and I have already explained what the a priori defects of such a medium are.

That is exactly what I’m saying: you can’t attack a religion because of the medium it uses to communicate with God. If Judaism claims that God places before us a linguistic medium for communicating with Him, that does not damage it in any way. True, with a text it is easier to depart from the author’s intention (God’s), but because the author of the text is God — if He gave a text, He was aware of its limitations and that was His will from the outset, so it is impossible to “depart from His intention.” If we (in good faith) do not interpret the text in the ideal way — there is no problem at all, because that is God’s will.

What do you mean, “you can’t attack a religion because of the medium it uses to communicate with God”?
Then what are we even talking about here? The ice-cream eating habits of believers? Whether they sleep between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m.? I don’t understand you.
I am claiming that our intellect demands the existence of a priori conditions for the existence of a medium between God and man. Without these conditions, stories of revelation will not seem reasonable to us (even if we believe they did indeed occur, something there will still seem wrong).
One can ignore the demand of reason (and there will always be someone who does), but then our discussion is not philosophical-rational…

For the sake of discussion we both accept the fact that the Torah is from God. I come and claim that there is a contradiction (or at least a logical problem) between the fact that this medium is linguistic and my reason. My reason tells me that a linguistic medium, by its nature, “interposes” itself between man and God and in fact leads to an attempt to abolish God in favor of that medium. What do we do in light of that? You, as I understand you, do not see that there is a problem, and so you propose preserving the status quo and being satisfied with faith that the Torah is indeed of heavenly origin. I, by contrast, am not satisfied with that faith. I want to preserve it but also solve the logical problem. That is what our discussion is about, and not anything else.

I understand, and that is exactly what I answered: you are begging the question. You assume that the Torah does not reflect God’s will and then raise a difficulty, instead of simply explaining that God’s will is that we interpret the Torah according to our understanding.

All right, I understand that I don’t understand you. With your permission, let’s close the discussion at this point.