The Source of Jewish Morality and P'sak Halacha (Jewish Law)
The source of all morality is the Torah. The source of all Jewish law and practice is the Torah. Any morality or law not based on the Torah is not Jewish.
The attitude of the Torah is the distillation of the written Torah and the oral explanations handed down to us as codified in the Talmud. The Rambam (Maimonides, born 1138 in Spain died 1204 in Egypt) in his introducion to the Mishneh Torah wrote that all the Jews everywhere are obligated to follow the halachic decisions and the takkanoth and g'zeiroth (Rabbinical prohibitions) of the Talmud, but as regards commentaries, decisions, proclamations, bans, customs and prohibitions which were made after the writing of the Talmud, these are not binding on the entire Jewish people. In matters of Jewish law, we are to follow the decisions of the Talmud, but in cases where these are not clear, we do not pay attention to who is in the majority and who in the minority, nor who is earlier and who is later but rather to that which makes more sense. This means that if you correctly understand the Talmud, then you correctly understand the practical halacha (Jewish Law).
There may be those who disagree with the Rambam in this regard, but one is not (at least according to the Rambam) obligated to listen to them. This method of determining Jewish Law based on the Talmud directly, as opposed to being bound by later authorities was the method used by the Vilna Gaon and the Brisker rabbonim who flowed from him.
It is often argued that we are obligated to follow the Shulchan Aruch and may not posken (definitively decide) questions of Jewish law based on the Talmud. Those who make this argument are either ignorant or disingenuous. The Shulchan Aruch was written by Rav Yoseph Karo in 1565. He was a Sephardi, and in most cases followed the majority between the Rambam, the Riph and the Rosh. Rav Moshe Isserles wrote the Mapah (which is published in conjunction with the Shulchan Aruch) which disagreed with the Shulchan Aruch in many places, bringing it in line with Ashkenazi practice. After these were published together, many Acharonim wrote commentaries on them. Many of these are published together with the Shulchan Aruch. These commentaries sometimes explain the words of Rav Yoseph Karo or Rav Moshe Isserles, and they sometimes disagree with them.
This clearly shows that there is no universal binding quality of the Shulchan Aruch the way that there is with the Talmud.
Local Rabbonim always had the authority to make local bans and prohibitions. The authority of these local prohibitions depends on the people accepting them. if the people do not accept a takkanah or a g'zeirah, it does not come into force.
On the other hand, once it was accepted, it is binding on the community that accepted it, but on no other. If it is binding only temporarily or forever depends on many factors, including how it was originally promulgated. (For instance a ban or takkanah which was originally promulgated with an expiration date does not automatically renew itself, it must be promulgated again and accepted again.)
The attitude of the Torah is the distillation of the written Torah and the oral explanations handed down to us as codified in the Talmud. The Rambam (Maimonides, born 1138 in Spain died 1204 in Egypt) in his introducion to the Mishneh Torah wrote that all the Jews everywhere are obligated to follow the halachic decisions and the takkanoth and g'zeiroth (Rabbinical prohibitions) of the Talmud, but as regards commentaries, decisions, proclamations, bans, customs and prohibitions which were made after the writing of the Talmud, these are not binding on the entire Jewish people. In matters of Jewish law, we are to follow the decisions of the Talmud, but in cases where these are not clear, we do not pay attention to who is in the majority and who in the minority, nor who is earlier and who is later but rather to that which makes more sense. This means that if you correctly understand the Talmud, then you correctly understand the practical halacha (Jewish Law).
There may be those who disagree with the Rambam in this regard, but one is not (at least according to the Rambam) obligated to listen to them. This method of determining Jewish Law based on the Talmud directly, as opposed to being bound by later authorities was the method used by the Vilna Gaon and the Brisker rabbonim who flowed from him.
It is often argued that we are obligated to follow the Shulchan Aruch and may not posken (definitively decide) questions of Jewish law based on the Talmud. Those who make this argument are either ignorant or disingenuous. The Shulchan Aruch was written by Rav Yoseph Karo in 1565. He was a Sephardi, and in most cases followed the majority between the Rambam, the Riph and the Rosh. Rav Moshe Isserles wrote the Mapah (which is published in conjunction with the Shulchan Aruch) which disagreed with the Shulchan Aruch in many places, bringing it in line with Ashkenazi practice. After these were published together, many Acharonim wrote commentaries on them. Many of these are published together with the Shulchan Aruch. These commentaries sometimes explain the words of Rav Yoseph Karo or Rav Moshe Isserles, and they sometimes disagree with them.
This clearly shows that there is no universal binding quality of the Shulchan Aruch the way that there is with the Talmud.
Local Rabbonim always had the authority to make local bans and prohibitions. The authority of these local prohibitions depends on the people accepting them. if the people do not accept a takkanah or a g'zeirah, it does not come into force.
On the other hand, once it was accepted, it is binding on the community that accepted it, but on no other. If it is binding only temporarily or forever depends on many factors, including how it was originally promulgated. (For instance a ban or takkanah which was originally promulgated with an expiration date does not automatically renew itself, it must be promulgated again and accepted again.)
In addition, a takkanah made in one place is not binding in another place. Usually it is not binding even on the people of the original place if they moved to a different community permanently.
In conclusion, to prove that something is immoral, you must prove that it against the Torah as explained by the Talmud. To prove that something is allowed or is forbidden by the Torah or by a rabbinical proclamation binding on all jews, you must prove it from the talmud.
To prove that something is forbidden by a later enactment, you must determine exactly what the enactment was, whether it was accepted, by whom it was accepted and whether it expired.
posted by emeslyaakov | 1:27 PM
8 Comments:
"The source of all morality is the Torah.
The source of all Jewish law and practice is the Torah.
Any morality or law not based on the Torah is not Jewish."
Rabbi,
While I agree with the last two statements, I take issue with your first statement. While much of today's morality may come from the torah, I do not believe that the torah is the source of all morality. For example, I believe that genocide is immoral, but I could not find a source for this in the torah. In fact if I believed that everything in the torah is moral, I would be led to believe that genocide can be a moral behaviour.
On a more fundamental level, I do not view the torah as a book of morality; it is a book of religous spirituality. The nafka mina is that one could be moral while rejecting religious spirituality, (i.e. an atheist can certainly embrace morality) and unfortunately we see many examples of those who embrace religious spirituality but act in an immoral fashion.
In at least the case of Amalek, the Jews were commanded to kill every single one, men, women and children as well as their animals.
Hashem punished Shaul because he kept the animals alive - the kingship was taken from Shaul's family and given to David Hamelech.
Because Shaul kept Agag alive one extra day, he fathered a child and was the ancestor of Haman.
So if you say that all genocide is immoral, then you say that the Torah is immoral. If you say that the Torah is immoral, you are either saying that G-d is immoral, or that the Torah is (at least in part) not from G-d (rachmana litslan).
If so, then we don't subscribe to the same religious beliefs.
I do not say that I can prove to you that Torah comes from G-d, or even that G-d exists. Not that there aren't such proofs, but I don't particularly concern myself with them. I accept them as postulates. If you do not accept those postulates, then we don't need to debate them, we are from different religions, even if they both call themselves the same name.
The nonorthodox people that I know generally set themselves as the main moral arbiter.
For instance, if there is no law and no Lawgiver, there may be practical reasons not to murder someone, but how can there be moral reasons? What makes it immoral?
I maintain that homosexual intercourse is immoral and a capital crime, whereas polygyny is perfectly moral. I take this position because this is the position of the Torah. In both the united States and in Israel, polygamy is punished by prison or worse, but at least in the United States, the supreme court has aserted that homosexual intercourse is a constitutional right.
If i discriminate against someone because he is a homosexual, this is moral according to the Torah, and immoral according to liberal American thought and law.
In many gentile slaughterhouses a captive bolt is shot into the head of the cow, which is then skinned and cut up while it may still have motion in it. Very few Americans view this as a moral issue when they buy their steaks, but they may well be culpable for a capital offense for gentiles.
In order for there to be a system of morality that is more than a person's or a people's private opinion, there must be an objective standard of morality. For believing Jews, that standard is the Torah.
In a case where the Torah tells me to return an article that I found on the street, it is a highly moral thing to return it to the owner. In other cases the Torah tells me not to return it, in which case it is immoral to return it.
An orthodox looking Jew who steals, beats his wife, fondles little boys, or eats at McDonalds is what we call "an otherwise orthodox Jew". In some particular he has failed, but overall, he is patterning his life based on an objective morality system. Some people are part of the orthodox community, live there, socialize there, dress orthodox, but don't believe in the Torah. They may act very immorally, but perhaps because of their upbringing, they are most comfortable living an outwardly orthodox life. they are not orthodox. The atheist is just doing what makes himself feel good. Sometimes it makes him feel good to feel that he is the one who knows what is moral and what is not.
Rabbi Emes,
You make a few interesting points which I would like to comment on when I have the proper time, so please keep on checking back to see when I post my comments.
Thank You.
Rabbi Emes,
Allow me to address a few of the points you made:
"So if you say that all genocide is immoral, then you say that the Torah is immoral."
As I said in my post, I believe that the torah is not a moral guide, but a spiritual guide. The purpose of our religion is not to be moral, it is to be holy by following the laws set forth by HKB'H in His torah.
So, even though I believe that all genocide is immoral, if HKB'H commanded us to do genocide, it is our responsibility as His people to follow His commandments.
"...if there is no law and no Lawgiver, there may be practical reasons not to murder someone, but how can there be moral reasons? What makes it immoral?"
Even an atheist can decide that to murder another human being is wrong conduct. Even an atheist can have a code of morality. If it were proven to me that there is no supreme being, I would like to think that I would not all of a sudden think that murder is ok. There would still be morality in the world, even without a supreme being and His laws.
"I maintain that homosexual intercourse is immoral and a capital crime, whereas polygamy is perfectly moral. I take this position because this is the position of the Torah."
So independent of the torah, you do not see homosexuality as wrong? I believe your answer would be:no, but the torah must be what we base our thoughts on. (or something along those lines.) Well, in reality there are those who do not feel the need to base their thoughts on the torah. Of those, some independently think that Homosexuality is immoral, while there are those who do not see homosexuality as immoral. There are also religious people who do not see homosexuality as wrong conduct. I personally can accept the fact that there are people who consider themselves moral and who do not see homosexuality as wrong conduct. But no one can say that homosexual acts do not go against the will of HKB'H.
" If i discriminate against someone because he is a homosexual, this is moral according to the Torah,..."
I disagree. Our religion teaches that we should hate the sin, and not the sinner. I am sure you are aware of the gemara (Berachot??) where we learn that the last line of the Barchee Nafshi psalm is: Yitamoo "chatoim", and not "Chot'im". Meaning we pray for the sins to be destroyed, not the sinners.
I do not agree that the torah is an objective standard b/c there are too many machlokisim from the time of the talmud throughout history to our time today to say that there is not (a high level of) subjectivity in our standards of behaviour. Besides, like I said before, the torah is not there to teach us moral behaviour, it is there to teach us spiritual behaviour.
"The atheist is just doing what makes himself feel good. Sometimes it makes him feel good to feel that he is the one who knows what is moral and what is not."
Doesn't following the lifestyle you have chosen make you also feel good? Doesn't it make you feel good to be someone who knows what is moral and what is not moral? You see, in that regard you are no different than the atheist.
If, as you say, polygamy is "moral" according to the torah, then how can a rabbi prohibit it? Is he not going against the will of HKB'H??
There are differing standards of dress and modesty among frum jews. This shows me that it can not be an objective standard, but there exists a SUBJECTIVE standard of morality when it comes to modest dress. And it is based on people's opinions. There is no "objective" standard from the torah.
A lot of this is merely a semantic issue. You differentiate between what one is supposed to do and what is moral. You said:
The purpose of our religion is not to be moral, it is to be holy by following the laws set forth by HKB'H in His torah.
You say: "So, even though I believe that all genocide is immoral, if HKB'H commanded us to do genocide, it is our responsibility as His people to follow His commandments."
The online Websters Dictionary defines moral as follows:
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL (moral judgments) b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior (a moral poem) c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment (a moral obligation) e : capable of right and wrong action (a moral agent)
You admit that the Torah tells us what right behavior is. I am saying, and the Webster is saying that what is right behavior is moral.
You say:
"Even an atheist can decide that to murder another human being is wrong conduct. Even an atheist can have a code of morality. If it were proven to me that there is no supreme being, I would like to think that I would not all of a sudden think that murder is ok. There would still be morality in the world, even without a supreme being and His laws."
This is my point. Each atheist decides for himself what is moral and what is not. The Torah represents an external source of morality. You say that it is not objective because there are macholos about its interpretation. To some extent this is true, but there is a great core on which everyone agrees.
I see homosexuality as wrong because the Torah views it as wrong. I also find it repulsive. The first statement is based on an external value system, the second on my feelings. Because the Torah is an independent value system, not based on an individual’s feelings, I can say that homosexuality is immoral no matter what any person or group of people may feel about it. In fact there are people who claim that homosexuality is not against the will of HKB”H. We just say that they are wrong.
There are religious people who feel that avodah zara is ok. The Torah disagrees.
You quote and comment:
" 'If i discriminate against someone because he is a homosexual, this is moral according to the Torah,...'I disagree. Our religion teaches that we should hate the sin, and not the sinner. I am sure you are aware of the gemara (Berachot??) where we learn that the last line of the Barchee Nafshi psalm is: Yitamoo "chatoim", and not "Chot'im". Meaning we pray for the sins to be destroyed, not the sinners."
This is not entirely true. When I said discriminate, I am talking about not renting an apartment because I don’t want to be around or I don’t want my children to be around sinners. Or hiring the person as a teacher or a scout leader. This kind of discrimination is certainly illegal in California, and many people there would have you believe that this kind of discrimination is a horrible moral crime.
As far as hating the sin and not the sinner, if the Sanhedrin were sitting in Lishkath Hagazith, the practicing homosexuals would be put on trial. Those who do not act on their feelings, are not criminals, they are people fighting their yetser hara.
You say "I do not agree that the torah is an objective standard b/c there are too many machlokisim from the time of the talmud throughout history to our time today to say that there is not (a high level of) subjectivity in our standards of behaviour. Besides, like I said before, the torah is not there to teach us moral behaviour, it is there to teach us spiritual behaviour."
The fact that there are disagreements does not mean that the standard is not objective, it means that it is not always clear what that standard is.
Certainly there is room for different levels of conduct. The gemorra says that a man who is 18 should get married, and by 20 he must get married. But a man who gets married by 16 or 14 is praised. There are cases where a person can not be forced to pay money by the Beth din, but it is proper for him to do so.
You quote and comment:"'The atheist is just doing what makes himself feel good. Sometimes it makes him feel good to feel that he is the one who knows what is moral and what is not.'
Doesn't following the lifestyle you have chosen make you also feel good? Doesn't it make you feel good to be someone who knows what is moral and what is not moral? You see, in that regard you are no different than the atheist."
I certainly feel good that I have chosen my path, but I didn’t choose it to feel good. I gave up the opportunity to be a partner in a CPA firm where the minimum partner got $250,000 per year in the 1980’s because I wouldn’t trim my beard. I am glad that I made that choice (which wasn’t strictly required by halacha), but I wouldn’t mind having the money.
You say: "If, as you say, polygamy is "moral" according to the torah, then how can a rabbi prohibit it? Is he not going against the will of HKB'H??"
Rabbeinu Gershom banned polygamy because he was afraid of pogroms against the Jews. He did not chas v’shalom go against the will of HKB”H, he saved the Jews. But he was not banning something that was intrinsically wrong. Now the ban has expired according to many important early authorities, and even according to those authorities that it didn’t automatically expire, it is time to rescind the ban.
You say: "There are differing standards of dress and modesty among frum jews. This shows me that it can not be an objective standard, but there exists a SUBJECTIVE standard of morality when it comes to modest dress. And it is based on people's opinions. There is no "objective" standard from the torah."
There are objective minimum standards, and the midah of tsniuth is praised, so a woman who is more modest than the minimum standard is praiseworthy. This does not detract from the fact that there is a minimum standard.
Rabbi,
I am going away for a few days, would be very interested in continuing this discussion when I return.
Kol Tuv.
Rabbi Emes,
A few comments if I may:
Your point about the definition of moral is well taken. If HKB'H says to do it, it is right. If it is right, then it is moral. Therefore, genocide can be moral, if HKB'H says it is right in a limited sense.
My response to that is that I guess it is a contradiction I must live with that genocide is IMHO immoral, yet we are commanded to do it. This is part of the conflict of being a thinking person (genocide is immoral) and at the same time subjugating my entire being including my intellect to the will of HKB'H.(genocide is a commandment)
But to say "The source of all morality is the torah" I still believe is wrong. If you were to modify it and say "For (frum) jews, the source of all morality is the torah"-That I can agree with. My point is that people can have a source for their own morality from sources other than the torah.
"The Torah represents an external source of morality. You say that it is not objective because there are macholos about its interpretation. To some extent this is true, but there is a great core on which everyone agrees."
By saying the torah represents an external source, you are in effect saying ( I think) that the burden of thinking is lifted from us. I believe that we all must still (and do) think about what is right and wrong, albeit in the context of religious teachings. But each frum jew comes to a different conclusion of what is right and wrong. We are all individuals.
"The fact that there are disagreements does not mean that the standard is not objective, it means that it is not always clear what that standard is.
Certainly there is room for different levels of conduct."
IMHO this is just another way of saying that the standard is not objective. It is a matter of semantics.
Question:
Would it have been so terrible for you to trim your beard for the sake of the job? While I admire your dedication to your ideal, I believe that your ideal is based on a false premise. Our religion demands so much of us. If I may be a little sharp in my criticism, I think that you engaged in a bit of "Ba'al Toseph". Not in a literal sense, but in a figurative sense. You would have been the same tzaddik with and without a trimmed beard. You could have had more "tools" with which you could have done much good for yourself and others. Just my opinion.
Question: What are the "minimum OBJECTIVE standards of tzniut" that you mentioned?
OOooooooo...These people are slightly messed up. First of all.....they've forgotten that NO rabbi in the talmudic era was polygamous. And polygamy even though admitted was frowned down on.
In addition to this: The prohibition made by Rabbi Gershom was available 1000 yrs. but STILL the rabbonoim say that a man must have a petition signed by 100 rabbis in 30 different countries BEFORE he takes on just a second wife.
And these dudes are wrong again: The School of Hillel says that a man can take only 4 wives and the School of Shammai says however he wants. The law set by the School of Hillel was usually the view adapted by the beth din.
And lets go even a little further....in the Tractate Jebamoth, it is said that a man is OBLIGATED to give a get to a woman if a woman disapproves of a man taking on new women.
How many women accept at 100% that their husband would take on another wife? Also, in tractate Kethuboth, it is written that a man must be able to support his wife...how many millionaire polygamists are there????
Post a Comment
<< Home