Q&A: Questions About the Trilogy
Questions About the Trilogy
Question
Dear Rabbi, hello,
I am in the middle of the second book in your trilogy, and I wanted to ask a few questions that came up for me.
A) In the second book you write about things that were not transmitted to us through tradition, and therefore there is no problem disagreeing about them. How do you know that? Maybe they were transmitted through tradition and you just don't know it?
B) Regarding the question of God's knowledge and free choice, you argue that He cannot know the future, because then by definition there is no free will. Maybe our intellect is simply incapable of understanding the solution to the logical contradiction? After all, saying that God does not know what we will choose also raises very major difficulties, in my opinion, regarding His perfection. Bottom line: there is a limitation here that you are placing on the Creator of the world, and in my opinion that is Maimonides' intention as well. In the first book too, you prove the existence of the Creator without understanding how it is really possible, except that because it is spirit and not matter you assume that it is possible (in keeping with your approach that one should choose the more reasonable alternative).
C) One more point. In the first book you proceed from the assumption that the Creator gave us guidance for what to do in the world in order to serve Him, if there is a purpose to creation. But on the other hand, when it comes to Jewish thought, you simultaneously erase that argument. You say that even if all the great sages of Israel said otherwise, everything here will be tested by intellect and reasoning, but in my opinion there is an inconsistency here. Here too, the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us guidance so that we would know what to believe; it is not possible that He would cause us to stumble with mistaken beliefs. I want to emphasize that I do not mean issues that are disputed, but issues on which all the sages throughout the generations agreed.
With great respect,
Yair
Answer
A. Maybe. And because of that "maybe," am I required to accept them and not disagree with them? Maybe Christianity, too, was transmitted by tradition. So should I not disagree with that either?
B. I think I explain it there. You can see here on the site the series of columns on knowledge and free choice, from column 299 onward. In column 302 there is a response to your question. Regarding faith and subordination to logic, you can also read this article: https://mikyab.net/%d7%9b%d7%aa%d7%91%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%a2%d7%9c-%d7%aa%d7%95%d7%a8%d7%aa-%d7%94%d7%a7%d7%95%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%98%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%95%d7%98%d7%a2%d7%a0%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%a1%d7%aa%d7%99%d7%a8%d7%aa%d7%99
Discussion on Answer
The questioner at least read the book. Everything is explained there. You may assume that I also thought about these simple arguments.
Hello Rabbi,
A follow-up question came to me: how does the Holy One, blessed be He, say to Moses, "and he will see you and rejoice in his heart"? Aaron has free will, yet God knows with certainty what will happen with him in the future.
As for my third question, it seems to me that you did not answer it.
Thank you for the response,
Yair
C. I explained there in great detail the difference between laws and facts, and between Jewish law and the realm of Jewish thought.
Rejoicing is not the result of a choice. It is the result of meeting a brother, and therefore it can be predicted that it will indeed occur. Only our choices are something that the Holy One, blessed be He, cannot predict. Besides, this could be an assessment and not necessarily a prophecy (the Holy One, blessed be He, is saying that this is likely what will happen).
A. That comparison seems odd. There is a tradition of which you accept most of it, but on some things you get up and claim that they are not part of the tradition, as opposed to a tradition that you do not relate to at all.
Besides that, regarding (almost) every Jewish law you could also say that maybe it is not from Sinai, and also that the interpretation of "according to all that they instruct you" refers to the Sanhedrin is not from Sinai. In general, why does the Rabbi accept "formal authority" in anything and not just do whatever you think?