Q&A: Trust in the Words of the Sages — Jewish Law vs. Theology
Trust in the Words of the Sages — Jewish Law vs. Theology
Question
I am familiar with your distinction regarding formal authority.
If I trust the Sages in things they said on a topic like the separation of meat and milk, even without any source showing that they had a tradition about it, why should I not also trust them in completely different matters such as the resurrection of the dead or what the World to Come looks like?
If they are truthful on matters of Jewish law and did not merely invent laws out of thin air, then presumably their non-halakhic statements are also legitimate and should be trusted.
And conversely—if I do not trust what they say about a topic like the resurrection of the dead or the structure of the World to Come, why should I not think that they simply made things up out of their own hearts (Heaven forbid, of course) in matters of Jewish law as well, where they have formal authority? And then what difference does it make whether they have formal authority or not, if I do not trust them?
Answer
You wrote that you are familiar with what I have said, but your question shows that you are not. If they have formal authority, then it is not conditional on your trusting them.
Laws that are based on mistaken factual assumptions are void. There is no authority with respect to facts. You only need to make sure that this is indeed the case.
Thank you for the reply.
I cannot verify laws that were transmitted by tradition. Take, for example, the height of a sukkah or the color of tefillin. These are not laws based on facts that can be checked. So how can I know that this really came through tradition?
I can’t.
From that it follows that I trust the tradition reported by the Sages. And from that I also trust their conceptions in matters of theology, which are likewise based on facts that I cannot really check, and which surely also came through tradition.