Q&A: The Difference Between Judaism and Other Religions
The Difference Between Judaism and Other Religions
Question
Hello Rabbi. In the past I believed that the event at Mount Sinai was a revelation of God before the eyes of the entire people, but the more I looked into it, the more I understood that even from the verses in the Torah that does not seem to be the case, and that only Moses heard His voice. For example, it says, “Face to face He spoke, etc.,” and then in the next verse, “I was standing between the Lord and you at that time to tell you the word of the Lord.” From the descriptions in the Bible it seems that Moses is convincing the people that God is speaking with them. So too in the portion of Yitro: “You speak with us and we will hear, but let not God speak with us lest we die.” At the time of the Ten Commandments, this is what the Torah seems to imply: that God spoke through Moses and not in a direct voice.
Moreover, the description of the event at Mount Sinai looks like a fairly precise description of a terrible volcanic eruption, but not of something supernatural. It is also known that in the area of Jabal Musa there are remains of volcanic activity.
What prevents us from saying, essentially, that the people and Moses were mistaken because of natural phenomena? How does the Bible imply that they experienced a revelation? I assume that even I, if I did not know technology, might think that gods were revealing themselves to me from stones (telephones) or from boxes (projectors, for example).
Thank you
Answer
First of all, why do you accept the description in the Torah? Because of the tradition. And the tradition says that there was a revelation. Beyond that, the Sages already distinguish between the first two commandments, which we heard from the Holy One, blessed be He, and the rest, which came through Moses. The Torah itself says that the people ask Moses that the Holy One, blessed be He, speak to us through him.
You also decided that Mount Sinai is Jabal Musa. On what basis? The description is also not an exact description of a volcanic eruption. The resemblance is far from complete. So your speculation is no better grounded.
And finally, in my book The First Existent, I explained that on a priori grounds I assume that a revelation is to be expected, and therefore this tradition seems plausible to me, and the burden of proof is on the one who rejects it.
I didn’t understand what technology you are talking about. Do you think they were unfamiliar with the technology of volcanoes?
Discussion on Answer
What I am actually trying to argue is not that there was no event that left an impression, but that they did not interpret it correctly. According to that view, it could even be that Moses was a true prophet, except that in that case Judaism is no different from Islam.
What exactly is the role of the Bible in describing the event if in any case it describes reality in a distorted way? For according to the Bible’s own presentation, in the book of Exodus—and one can understand the book of Deuteronomy this way as well—it can be understood that God did not speak with Israel at all, contrary to the tradition. And by the way, tradition can certainly become corrupted and distorted, and can even be invented. The Book of the Zohar, for example—most people believe that Rashbi wrote it, even though the truth is that if anything, his students wrote it, not to mention the glaring anachronism in it.
You do not believe the Sages, but rather the tradition that accompanies the Torah and their words. The details described in the Sages are really not essential to the issue. The fact that everyone agrees on and that is transmitted through tradition is that there was a revelation. That is all.
The dispute over the Oral Torah is another matter that is unrelated here. How is that different from any other dispute, even within the Pharisees themselves? I do not see the connection.
Let’s leave aside the technology and the strange explanations you brought in relation to it, because apparently you said something irrelevant and there is no point arguing about it.
You did not understand the last question about the role of the Bible. I think it is hard to learn anything from the Bible, even aside from the event at Mount Sinai. There is a living tradition, and that is what passes the matter on to us, not the verses.
So basically it is all a matter of trust?
That is exactly my question: why should I believe specifically my own tradition, while about Muhammad and the prophets of Baal I would claim that they had a faulty grasp of reality? It is hard for me to believe that they saw absolutely nothing; otherwise, why would Muhammad suddenly decide to bring about a revolution in the Arab world?
You need to examine why and whether you believe. There is no point asking me. I have reasons why I believe, because in my opinion our tradition is the most reliable and was also the earliest.
As I understand it, the tradition says that the words of the Torah scroll are true and are explained / completed by the Oral Torah. The point is that even in the Oral Torah it is not clear what happened at Mount Sinai, and the Sages bring different versions and opinions in many areas, so why should I believe them דווקא here? For example, there are several opinions about how the tablets were written. I do not know on what basis those opinions rest, but the point is that the rabbinic tradition too may be corrupted; it is just that in the absence of something more serious, I follow the Sages so as not to lose even the kernels of truth that are supposed to exist in Judaism. Besides, there are those who reject the Oral Torah altogether, and in the past they were a not insignificant group, unlike all the other streams within Judaism, which specifically find the Torah scroll to be sacred and binding—the Karaites, Samaritans, Pharisees of course, and even the Sadducees and Boethusians, as far as I know.
So are you basically saying that the content of the Torah is unnecessary and that one should relate only to the words of the Sages?
As for Jabal Musa: I brought that only as an example, but it is not impossible that they saw the phenomenon elsewhere. Nobody knows where the geographical point was at which the event took place.
The volcanic-eruption speculation is not just a random thought; it is reflected in the biblical description. Sounds, lightning, a heavy cloud, “and its smoke rose like the smoke of a furnace,” fire—these are descriptions of a volcanic eruption. I did not mention the sound of the shofar, because I do not know whether there is a similar noise in an eruption.
The technology I was talking about is modern technology. What I meant was that if I were a person from 3,000 years ago, I would most likely attribute the activity of electrical devices to magic. On the contrary, the reason they were so frightened was because they had never seen volcanoes before.