Q&A: Sinai
Sinai
Question
1. I did not reach the conclusion that there is a God who revealed Himself at Sinai. I reached the conclusion that there was a dramatic event there. I trust the ability of the people who were there to know that they experienced a dramatic event, but I do not trust the ability of the people who were there to distinguish between a dramatic event and a “divine revelation.” Note that my doubt is not about the reliability of the chain of reports—if tomorrow morning there were a newspaper report that a hundred thousand uneducated villagers/nomads living a primitive tribal lifestyle in central Africa/Indonesia were excitedly saying that God revealed Himself to them directly last week, collectively, that would not be very convincing to me, because in my opinion there is serious reason to doubt that they have the skill to understand what they saw. Without question they saw *something*, and it was probably very dramatic, but there is no reason to think they interpreted it correctly.
As for the suggestion, first of all, as I understand it, at Qumran they found the biblical text itself, and in particular most of the book of Deuteronomy. That is what I meant.
As for whether the prophecy is indeed concrete or vague—for my purposes, it is very clear, and I honestly do not think I am “forcing” the text or begging the question. For me it really is concrete and unique.
The main question is whether, and in what way, this becomes a successful and precise basis for religious commitment. I am not sure it takes me directly back to Sinai, because on the plain meaning this is a prophecy given by Moses—it is not part of what the people heard in the revelation itself. The speaker is Moses. The tradition claims that this is Moses.
I agree that this strengthens the overall reliability of the entire tradition, but I am not sure that directly it points specifically and mainly to Sinai.
Suppose for a moment that I think there was no Sinai, and that this is a text first written at the end of the First Temple period by certain sages who acted under inspiration. Does that necessarily mean that it is not a basis for religious commitment, but at most a therapeutic method?
That is, from my point of view this is an open miracle. The very existence of this prophecy is a miracle. Even if it is not connected to Sinai, I see a miracle here. From that arises an aesthetic aspiration that gives birth to commitment. The interpretation is not about meaning for my life, but about the perfection of reality. The feeling, for the sake of discussion, is that the world would be more complete if I keep the commandments, regardless of whether that provides me with meaning or not. I have a commitment that the world should be beautiful and complete, and to the best of my judgment it is an objective truth that the world will be more complete when a prophecy that I recognize as true prophecy continues to be fulfilled.
Is that religious or therapeutic?
Answer
1. You reached the conclusion that there was a dramatic event there, and you do not know what it was. What does that mean?
2. I am not expert in the Qumran findings, but the biblical text does not need Qumran; it existed beforehand.
3. As I wrote to you, if in your opinion the prophecies are meaningful, then that is a good basis. I just do not understand why you insist that the Torah was not given at Sinai. You reached the conclusion that there was a dramatic event, convincing prophecies reach you, and you are told that their source is there. So you decide that these are convincing prophecies, but their source is not there. I do not understand the logic.
4. If nevertheless for some reason you reached the conclusion that the text is late, but it contains meaningful prophecies and instructs you what to do, then you can be committed to those instructions as a basis for a good life (because the text, after all, knows everything). But why assume that this is binding? Did someone command you to do it? Living correctly and being obligated are two different things. The aesthetic issue is not clear to me, and it seems to me at most like a consideration that this is the right way to live. But religious commitment is based on obligation, not only on the fact that it is correct.
5. Maimonides writes at the end of chapter 8 of the Laws of Kings that one who keeps commandments because of rational decision and not because of commitment to the command at Sinai—his actions are not commandments. He is speaking about someone who keeps them because it is the right thing. In essence, that is therapeutic.
Discussion on Answer
All right, now we have moved into a language I do not understand at all. OCD belongs to psychology, and I have already written my opinion about it and about the relation between it and obligation. This “argument” explains why you have an urge to keep commandments, not why you are obligated. I could also say that I took an LSD pill and therefore I feel an urge to complete the experience by keeping commandments.
We are repeating ourselves.
That was a metaphor. Honoring parents is also a psychological thing. It does not matter—it is only a metaphor. If it is not helpful, that is not important.
Would it be possible to ask to set another time with you to discuss these things orally? It is clear that I am not managing to describe it well in writing.
Maybe after I finish reading The Science of Freedom, which is the “homework” from the previous conversation?
If that is possible
Honoring parents can be interpreted on two levels: 1. the tendency/urge to honor parents. 2. the obligation to honor them. The first is psychological and therefore has no ethical or religious value whatsoever. The second is philosophical.
Exactly as in morality there is an urge or inclination to behave morally, and there is moral obligation. The first is psychological and therefore valueless, and the second is philosophical.
What you are describing is also a kind of experience that arouses in you a psychological urge to act. But that is not a justification for philosophical obligation.
I do not see anything here beyond that, but
we can talk if you want. By phone or in person?
Coordinate with me on WhatsApp.
Good afternoon.
Thank you very much for the meeting at your home. It was very helpful, and beyond that it was also a great honor to meet you in person.
I wanted to ask to direct a halakhic question to you.
Can the commandment of honoring parents generate a “Beit Hillel”-style interpretation regarding prohibitions connected to same-sex relationships?
Suppose there is a parent whose entire dream and aspiration is to see his son in a loving relationship. Could that in some way validate, or some variation of, two homosexual partners living together, or their having a relationship in one way or another?
Leaving aside the explicit act, which is forbidden. I am not talking about sexual practice but about the relationship itself, which as I understand it is forbidden because of “the practices of the land of Egypt.”
In a sharper formulation—if very heavy distress would be caused to a parent by the fact that his child will not experience romantic love, is there room to consider being lenient on the issue, even if not to permit it?
I am not aware of any prohibition on living together. There is a prohibition on sexual relations, and it is a Torah-level prohibition. One could talk about a prohibition of seclusion that exists in living together. There is an article about this in Tzohar M (see quotations here on the “Kamocha” site. Do you know it?).
As for anything beyond Jewish law, Jewish law has nothing to say. Regarding your question: if it is forbidden, then it should not be done even for the parents. And if there is no prohibition, then there is no halakhic question. In terms of personal guidance, each person will make his own decisions.
Thank you.
1. It does not mean anything.
2. Qumran creates a very strong certain upper bound on the latest hypothetical date at which the Torah could have been composed. It is possible that this text is earlier, the traditions are convincing, and in all likelihood it is probably significantly earlier. But with probability 1 (modulo a mega-conspiracy) it was written no later than the period of the Judean Desert sect. This does not negate any other argument; it only creates an especially solid certain foundation, one that does not depend on any other argument that is only probabilistically true.
3. As stated, I am not insisting that the Torah was not given at Sinai. I accept that the probability is, say, 70%, that it was given at Sinai. That is something to work with. But if I have a stronger argument that does not rest on that fact and is independent of it, that is a very nice addition.
4. I am trying to suggest a subtle nuance here: what obligates me is not the fact that they provide a basis for a good life, as the text promises. What seemingly obligates me is, in a metaphor that may help, a very strong urge “to complete the puzzle”: the first part of the passage is, in my view, a concrete, canonical, and unique prophecy that was fulfilled in an exceptional way against any reasonable expectation. I have certainty very close to 1 that it is canonical and unique (for example, because it describes the course of my life), I have certainty very close to 1 that its fulfillment is an exceptional event (because with certainty 1 it is *at least* two thousand years old, and that time span makes such a prediction highly exceptional), and I have certainty 1 that it indeed was fulfilled (from personal experience). I have an urge to place the missing piece into the “puzzle.”
This collection of strong certainties, all of which are for me more certain than the giving of the Torah at Sinai, leads me to think that there is a divine hand here. My expectation of receiving a personal revelation strengthens the claim, because I do in fact verify the fulfillment of the prophecy through personal experience. It is very easy for me to accept that this really is a “revelation” or a “miracle” that I am exposed to every day, and therefore the sense of aesthetic wonder is enormous and unprecedented for me.
Is there anything more aesthetic than an open divine miracle?
The problem is that this miracle, dramatic as it is, is still not complete. The text anticipates that there will be a continuation. If the continuation is also fulfilled, the miracle will be even more aesthetic.
My aspiration for beauty, and for aesthetics, creates a sense of obligation and an intense desire for that to happen—for the continuation of the prophecy to be fulfilled. It is not important at all what the content of the text is. It does not matter that later on it promises me a good life. If it promised me something else, then that is what I would want. Because what matters is increasing the beautiful miracle. Enhancing the beauty of this astonishing phenomenon—an open divine miracle.
This is not a moral obligation. There is no moral value that obligates me to increase beauty. This is not a personal-utilitarian obligation; what is fun and pleasant is not always what is beautiful, and vice versa.
What there is here is amazement in the face of an aesthetic wonder, in the face of a magnificent mosaic—which despite everything is still incomplete. There are stones there that have not been placed in position, metaphorically. By analogy, maybe a kind of OCD—a commitment to complete the mosaic and bring about the continuation of the prophecy.
As it happens, what is written there is that what is supposed to happen is that I will keep commandments. As I understand it, those commandments refer to that same Jewish tradition which is, with 70% probability, derived from Sinai. But even contrary to what seems likely, if Sinai never happened at all—that perhaps does not matter, because this is the tradition that reached me, and to which, in my understanding, the prophecy refers.
Have you read “Xenocide,” one of the sequels to “Ender’s Game,” by Orson Scott Card? If so, that gives me an exaggerated but nice analogy—the “godspoken,” who feel an obsession to perform various rituals.