Originally published 4/20/07, 3:57 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
Rabbi Ben Hecht,
Someone recently asked me the following question:
If the Torah is the guidebook for life, how could humanity have survived without this guidebook for 2000 years? In other words, why did God wait for 2,000 years before giving the Torah?
I thought it would be a good question to pose on the blog. I look forward to the ideas and the discussion.
21 comments:
Good question Rabbi! This has bothered me for some time now. It seems almost haphazard that God waited for so long to reveal himself through the Torah. Also, why would God refrain from giving His instruction book to the World (or should I more appropriately say the Israelites?) given that all who preceded the giving of the Torah could not possibly benefit from fulfilling the Mitzvot?
I know that there is a Mishna in Kiddushin and Midrashim that claim that our Avot fulfilled the entire corpus of the Torah. How can that be as well given that they often violated Torah law (Yehudah and Tamar, Yaakov marrying two sisters etc etc)?
The issue is not whether the Avot fulfilled the Torah before Har Sinai or not -- and there are many questions with that. The issue is how do we understand the absence of the moral/ethical system of Torah in the world if this system is necessary for the world. And if there was no system, i.e. no Torah, by what right did the generation of the Flood deserve punishment? And if the answer has something to do with the existence of a Noachide system prior to Sinai, what does this say about the nature of Torah? (This question has many side-questions.)
As you say Rabbi, this question is multifacted. But, my point of the Avot fulfilling the Torah is, in my opinion, related. Our Mesorah obviously had a concern that our Avos may not have been Torah observant and it therefore made a point of suggesting that they were. Why is that the case?
Ah, another week, another chance to type my fingers blue.
Okay, first of all, people make a common mistake equating the word "Torah" with the scroll sitting in the Aron Kodesh. "Torah", in its most expansive sense, is like the word "science". Just as a Grade 2 Science book is not the sum total of the discipline, the Torah scroll is not the sum total of what is truly Torah. Torah is the all-encompassing system that tells us how G-d wants the world to run by teaching us what is considered right in His eyes and what is considered wrong. When we say the Avos fulfilled the Torah, it is too simplistic to stay they took terumah or ate matzoh on Pesach because that's written in the Torah. It's on the same level as saying that the creation of the world took precisely 144 hours according to our current measurement of time. Rather, we must understand this to mean that, in their daily lives, the Avos strived to live in as much consonance with G-d as they could based on their understanding of what his Will was. Thus Yitzchak took terumah because his understanding of G-d told him that this was the proper thing to do. Avraham served milk and meat separately to the angels because he understood that there is something objectively wrong with serving the two foods together. This, however, also explains why they seemed to violate Torah law, for example when Yaakov married two sisters. Before the Torah was given, Chazal tell us it was known in the world but entirely voluntary. Hence, the famous dispute between Yosef Hatzadik and his brothers as to whether or not they were Bnei Yisrael or Bnei Noach. A Noahide can marry two sisters. Levirate marriage outside the Torah system (Yehudah and Tamar) is not limited to brothers of the deceased. Clearly our ancestors felt that they were doing G-d's will when they did those things even though it may have violated their understanding that the Torah system is G-d expression of right and wrong. And in retrospect, we must conclude they were right. Both of the incidents jadler mentioned in his first post lead to tremendous things - the birth of the 12 tribes and the birth of the progenitor of the house o' David. Had these things been wrong, surely G-d would not have allowed anything positive to come out of them.
The second point is that not all laws are written down in the Torah. The famous example is that the Torah tells us all that if I start a fire and it burns jadler's field, I have to pay him damages. Nowhere along the way does it say "Hey, dumb-ass, be careful when lighting that fire in the first place." Common sense and an appreciation for possible outcomes would demand that I notice potential dangers to my property and jadler's. This implies the existence of a "natural law" that is so obvious it goes unspoken and unwritten yet if we believe that the Torah is all-encompassing (and I checked on Wikipedia - we apparently do) this this natual law is also part of Torah. Thus the reason that the generation of the flood was punished. No, G-d never openly said "Thou shalt not create a society full of bloodsheed, murder, idolatry and theft" (someone please tell the Bronx) but natural law prohibited it and it was that which they violated, leading to their punishment. Thus the world always had natural law which is the foundation for what we call Torah law which builds on it. It was this law which previous gneerations violated and therefore, how could G-d reveal to them the higher level of Torah?
Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach? Various ethical and legal guidelines God gave at Eden and post-Deluge? Ethical tales of Adam & Eve & everyone else then?
There was enough material to occupy people at Yeshiva Shem v'Ever.
As for the idea that the Avos fulfilled the Torah, a chasidic/yoga view would be that each mitzva nourishes another of the 248 bones and 365 organs of the body. Avraham was so sensitive to his innards that he could tell which action nourished which bone or organ, and did them. Much as a yoga adept can influence his heart rate, body temperature, etc., only more so.
To fulfill the Torah requires a bigger positive individual committment, not just the "running a just society" implied by the Noachide Code. So it had to wait for us to say Naaseh VeNishma, and to found an organization named after half of that declaration in Canada that involves several friends who spent time in Toronto.
"Yoga? Hah, hah. Yoga's what you put on your meuslix." (Duckula)
Thanbo's comment is well taken. There is the basic of running a just society and then there is something more, a society dedicated to a higher purpose. The 7 Noahide laws manage the former, the Torah manages the latter but you need a group of people willing to take on the responsibility for it to be worth bringing to Earth. This would imply that until the Bnei Yisrael stood at Har Sinai, no society on Earth wanted to take that extra step. Much like nowadays, people were just content to get by. Shame, really.
Dr Mike,
Without sounding facetious and diverting the dicussion any further from the original point, what precisely do you mean by our community being dedicated to a "higher purpose"? What do you think that higher purpose is and do you think that we are fulfilling our role in that regard?
Oh jadler, sounding facetious is what I do best.
As for our purpose, it is repeated several times in the Torah for our edification. We are to be "a holy nation of priests," "holy for the Lord is holy", etc. What is holiness? The Hebrew root KDSh means "set apart". Kadosh is something holy, set apart from the profane, while a Kedeshah is a prostitute, someone set apart from regular societal morals through behaviour. In this case, we are to strive to create a community that lives through the requirements of Torah. We are to eat, speak, act and exist through its dictates thereby establishing a community on Earth of people who fulfill G-d's will and hence, create an example of what G-d wanted to be built when he created the human race. That's the real meaning of Tikun Olam like we pray in the Aleinu prayer thrice a day, to establish the presence of G-d here on Earth through the observance of his Torah.
And let us all say "amen".
Very nice Dr Mike, but you did not answer my second question. "Do you think that we are fulfilling our role in that regard"?
I ask, because i am not sure of a time and place in Jewish history where we in fact did fulfil that role. True, we introduced monotheism, but that was LONG ago. What now? Why the need for Torah versus a morailty based on natural law?
There have been some brief periods in history when we fulfilled our role as a light unto them nations, for example during the first 40 days after the giving of the Torah at Har Sinai, until the "incident" of the golden calf. There was a period under David Hamelech and Shlomo HaMelech when the ideal was reached. However, you're right. Otherwise, we haven't done a very good job of rising above our own petty selfishness to provide a better example for the world of how a Godly society is supposed to be run. That, however, is not the point. If there was no chance of our doing it, the good Lord would have allowed us to disappear from history a long time ago. Our continued persistence in the world is a testament to His intention to allow us to have further chances to fulfill the Siniatic (that's a Hecht word!) potential.
So apart from the 40 days and a few dozen years, are you then suggesting that God waited 2,000 years to give us the Torah so that we could act in a manner not so dramatically different than our non-Jewish friends? What about the continued existence of the Chinese people? Are they too perhaps God's chosen people? It does not all add up I am afraid.
drmike:
I question your citing the 40 days at Sinai as "being a light unto the nations". What other nations were there? We were off by ourselves with God in the middle of a desert. Does it matter if a lamp shines if there is nobody to appreciate its light?
As the Etz Chaim says in the beginning (about the only part I've read), God created the Universe because he desired to give, and to give, one needs a receiver. So God restricted/contracted His Light, to make a Universe which could receive the light.
Are we a light unto the nations if the nations can't see our light?
As I would expect, the discussion is going off in many directions, all under the same roof so to speak. One issue is clearly the uniqueness of Israel. One issue is also the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the Torah-613 code from the Noachide Code. Its not just an extra 606 mitzvot notwithstanding some indications that imply this. This is clear in areas where the law is different such as the case of abortion.
There are, though, two issues which I don't think have really been broached. One is the idea of revealed moral direction and natural moral direction. Yes, it could be argued that the Noachide law is the latter and the Torah is the former -- but what about the points of disagreement. In any event, there are sources that indicate that the Noachide law is not natural but revealed as well: 6 laws revealed/commanded of Adam with an additional law given to Noach. So why, according to this view, two revealed systems -- and what is the uniqueness of Sinai?
I also want to point out something else. What was happening to the people during the 2000 years before Sinai? A concept that is often overlooked is the recipient of Torah. (Perhaps google 'recipient' at the Nishma website www.nishma.org to see some articles on this subject.) Sinai was about a covenant or, less fancy a word, a contract. If so the nature of the parties becomes significant. Did the recipient of Torah have to be developed? What does this say about Torah?
>>>One is the idea of revealed moral direction and natural moral direction. Yes, it could be argued that the Noachide law is the latter and the Torah is the former -- but what about the points of disagreement.
If what you are saying is that some laws are revealed law while other laws are developed through reason, why would there be, in theory, points of agreement? Why would the Torah need to reveal certain laws that are understood through reason and developed as natural law?
Oh boy, I leave town for a couple of days and the board goes silent! Well, once again it's up to me to have the last word. It's a burden but I bear it faithfully. Not silently, and not without griping, but faithfully.
jadler wrote:
Why would the Torah need to reveal certain laws that are understood through reason and developed as natural law?
And I write back:
One reason I can think of is to give the observance of that law a level of kedushah. A few years ago, one of the columnists at jewsweek.com wrote an article on "transient Orthodoxy" in which he posited that a person could be Orthodox at any point that he his fulfilling a mitzvah and non-Orthodox when he's transgressing. For example, an ultra-Reform Jew goes to visit a friend in hospital. According to this theory, the whole time he's visiting, he's an Orthodox Jew because he's fulfilling the mitzvah of Bikur Cholim.
Of course, this shows a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of mitzvos. Mitzvos are not performed for personal benefit, or a feel-good sensation. Even the thought of personal reward is frowned up (cf. Avos 1:3). Mitzvos are done because they are the command of the Big Guy Upstairs (BGU, not to be confused with Ben Gurion University). Ultimately, it is that kavannah which makes a mitzvah into a mitzvah. When I avoid speaking gossip because "I" think it's bad, I'm not fulfilling the mitzvah of avoiding loshon horo to a full extent. But when I cast my eyes Heavenward and realize that I should avoid telling people who I saw Jean Fitzsimmons with in the park last week (that skank!) and that the reason to avoid loshon horo isn't because I am in favour or against it (I'm against it, for the record) but because the BGU is, then I'm am truly fulfilling the mitzvah.
Another example of the difference between natural and revealed law and the need to restate comes from the stuff we recite when finishing a tractate of Talmud. "We labour, and they labour, we run and they run, etc.". Yes, many of our daily labours are similar to their but the intention behind them is different. They go to the bathroom, come out (hopefully having washed their hands, ewww!)and go on with their lives. We go in, come out (always with washed hands) and recite a berachah thanking the BGU for creating orifices and high fibre cereals. Theirs is a purely physical act, ours is a reminder of the glory of creation. Similarly, the halachah teaches that even if a gentile society you live in has a set of laws which are identical to halachah, it is forbidden for two Jews to go to settle their affairs in gentile court. Why not? If the laws are the safe, what's the difference? The answer is that Beis Din reaches a decision based on what the BGU presumably thinks is best.
Now, in answer to an earlier question, no I don't think we're being a great light to the nations. And I don't think we have been for much of our history. But the difference is that deep within us is still the Jewish spark (according to the Sfas Emes) and that this potential is what the BGU chose us for.
Dr Mike,
We missed you and your keen sense of humour. I was thinking that I was talking to the wind...
You state that there may be "duplication" (i.e., Torah and naturalistic laws) because the Torah laws are infused with kedushah. "Mitzvos are done because they are the command of the Big Guy Upstairs..."
I know the drill, I have heard this line for as long as I can remember. But why would God care whether your rationale is to abide by certain laws due to one reason or another. Is He that petty?
In any event, God could have easily said in one bold statement that all naturalistic/rational laws are "incorporated herein by reference" and should be kept because "I, God, commanded you to do so". Instead, there seems to be an aweful waste of words, for a book which concerns itself with the number count. Would that not then remind us of the glory of creation?
Here is another related question posed by a friend of mine (who cannot successfully get registered):
"If the Torah's laws are indeed superior, why is it that most of humanity strives to live in a democracy, with a constitution that protects the rights of all human beings, regardless of caste, color, disability or gender, as opposed to the Torah that prescribes incomprehensible punishments, for example, chopping the hands of a woman if she disturbs a fight between two men by grabbing his privates?"
From a simple question of what happened for 2000 years, we have entered into discussions about the uniqueness of Israel, ie. Chosen People, the need for Revelation and the motivation of moral behaviour. Simply, again referring to one of my favourite words, we constantly encounter the dialectic. So often we find within Torah two principles, often in somewhat of an opposition, that we are to embrace at the same time.
The question of revealed versus natural morality is a good example of this. Why are we to give tzedakah? Because it is a mitzvah, may be the response of DrMike -- with clear support for that assertion. The very concept of mitzvot tzricha kavana, the mitzvot demand the intention to meet the Divine Will supports this contention. Does this mean we are not to have the natural moral motivation of empathy for the poor person? And if we do, does this detract from the motivation of the Divine Will? This question is what makes the chok, the incomprehensible law, in certain ways easier to follow. The answer in regard to the natural moral law that is also a Divine law is not to reject the natural moral imperative but somehow deal with it within the Divine structure. Throw in the fact that there are rishonim is further contend that if a law would be recognized from natural reason, there would be no need for the Divine command, we have greater confusion. For example, the Rav building of Rav Saadiah Gaom basically states that the Torah prohibition of murder was stated only because of the areas in question (for example, abortion and euthanasia) but the simple case of murder did not need the command.
In the end, I think that it ultimately is all about process. The only way to deal with this question and many others is to recognize that the Divine Intent was not simply to give the answers, even the directions. It was about developing the thought process, the beings that could deal with all these issues and thereby grow. The way I understand the famous statement of the gemara gadol halimud haba lidei ma'aseh is that the greatest effect on the person arises from learning thst is tied to practical issues. It is not just learning, It is not just action. It is in the contemplation, through the study of Torah, of life that has the greatest effect. Why was Torah given 2000 years later? To develop the structure of life with all its parts -- intiate the process -- and then ignite the process even further through the presentationof Torah at Sinai. As long as someone thinks that God is just giving the answers and we simply have to follow a simple presentation of Torah, that person has missed the boat of Torah. When one wonders what is going on, why there seem to be two systems of moral direction -- one internal and one external -- why a particular nation is distinguished by the One universal God -- and many more questions -- that's when God's intent for Man is meant. Not as much in the answer, which only brings a new question, but in the process of thought that emerges in this encounter with the question.
RBH
Just another note in regard to jadler's last post. Of course, according to the Oral Law, the woman is not punished in this manner, but the essence of this question emerges in numerous other instances. Is the Torah advocating for slavery in not forbidding it, for example? Or are we to yearn for a return to animal sacrifices with the building of the Third Beis HaMikdash? Have you ever noticed that there are times in halacha where there is a clear motivation to move away from the prima facie statement of the law --for example in the case of agunah -- to try and find a statement of law that is more in line with a desired moral position, while at other times we challenge such motivations and movements for not recognizing the inherent superior value of the Divine law?
The answer, again, is in the process.
RBH
First of all, when you talk to the wind, you risk getting smacked back by the whirlwind. Don't do it. Bad idea. Don't ask how I know.
Secondly, I'm a learn by spoonfeeding kind of guy. Yes, some may say that the Torah encourages us to ask questions but to them I say "Phooyah. When G-d wants something done, he tells Moshe Rabeinu exactly how to do it. None of this 'Well what do you think the law should be?' stuff."
Now seriously, jadler wrote:
Instead, there seems to be an aweful waste of words, for a book which concerns itself with the number count. Would that not then remind us of the glory of creation?
And I says:
If you're worried about a waste of words, what about Terumah, Tetzaveh, half of Ki Sisa, Vayakhel and Pekudeh? I mean, four and a half parshiyos to detail the building of a structure meant to last 11 days (until those damn meraglim came along, they were probably members of Meretz, come to think of it)? That's a real waste until you realize that every word in the Torah carries additional deeper meanings that aren't always evident on superficial reading. Yes, the BGU could have said "By the way, Moe, keep those Israelites doing all those civil laws they've been used to until now" but consider: We take it as given that the BGU gave us an evil inclination so that we could overcome its urgings and achieve a reward. We are also told that the person who is commanded to do a mitzvah is rewarded more than the person who does it optionally. Why should this be so? If I'm commanded, I'm just doing my duty but if I take it on as an option, I'm elevating myself above the call of duty, yes?
On the contrary: if I'm commanded to do it, my evil inclination will try to prevent me from performing the mitzvah. Therefore, if I do success in doing it, it's because I've overcome my inclination not to. When the mitzvah is optional, there is no such roadblock, hence the lower reward.
Thus by repeated all the obvious natural laws and making them specific Torah laws, the BGU introduces the evil inclination to them. Now, by fulfilling these mitzvos, I also overcome my evil inclination. Why does that matter? Because, as the Ramchal notes on the very first page of Derech Hashem, the BGU is good and desires to do good to His creation, therefore he arranges things to maximize the opportunities to provide reward. Hence, the natural laws becoming Torah laws.
Then nishma wrote:
Is the Torah advocating for slavery in not forbidding it, for example? Or are we to yearn for a return to animal sacrifices with the building of the Third Beis HaMikdash?
Well the Torah technically allows slavery, yes, but once the Oral Laws gets done with it, who in their right mind would want a slave? Same thing with cutting the woman's hand off. By the time the Oral Law is finished explaining it all, it makes perfect sense. And of course we yearn for sacrifices in the Beis Hamikdash. What's the big deal about that? We eat meat, just in our sanitized society we're separated ourselves from the process of making it so the thought of watching it on a Jumbotron outside the Old City makes some people queasy. Bottom line: if you like steak, you shouldn't have a problem with korbanos. The shelamim sacrifice provide you with a chance to worship and chow down.
For recent discussion and sources about ethics/judgement pre-Torah/external to Torah, I would see R. Yitzhak Blau's essay, "Brother's Karamazov Revisited";
http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/%2FTU11%5FBlau%2Epdf
And the ensuing reponses;
http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/TUJ%2012%20Letters12%20245%2D262%2Epdf
Post a Comment