Overview: A summary of the interaction between the evolving morals of society and the changes to biblical and rabbinic law as a result. Serves as a synopsis to the other articles in the “Morality and God” section.
This article serves as summary and clarification of the articles discussing the sensitive and vast subjects of morality. Due to the complexity of this subject, I find it important to summarize the approach to God and morality presented in the articles here. The main purpose of this discussion is a response to those who attack or question Torah from a moral stand-point. They question various biblical laws mandated by God, in light of our moral conscience.
Let it be noted that this article will only discuss the moral questions of these Mitzvot. It assumes that the only objection to these Mitzvot are a moral one. But in reality, there are more pressing issues, like questioning whether or not God actually mandated these laws. Subjects of that nature can be found here. In order to stick to one theme at a time, here we will assume – for argument’s sake – that God mandated these laws and how a religious Jew can respond to these moral dilemmas.
So first, we have explained how there’s no real concept of “morality”; there’s no objective value in some “moral system.” There’s merely a preference we have and an innate subjective feeling we get from our DNA and society to value a moral system created by society itself. It teaches us not to steal and not to murder. The purpose is of course in order for humanity in its present form to survive. But we are ingrained with this feeling that it is objectively “wrong” to kill and steal, although in reality there’s no such concept as objectively “wrong.”
Enter God into the picture. He Himself is of course not bound by the morals society set in place. Now, we have this Creator who created us and infused us with life. He set rules in place and commanded us to follow them. But some of these rules are counter the morals we are taught in the society we grow up in. We are now struck with the choice of choosing between the morals of God and the morals of society. But after realizing that there is essentially no such concept as real morals, the question only becomes do you want to serve God. We have discussed the incentives to serving God here. Arguably, God’s “morals” that He commands us to keep are superior (in some sense) than society’s morals.[1] Either way, it becomes foolish to question God and His Torah based on societal norms that are considered moral.
But as we have discussed here, God commanded us morals that for the most part parallel society’s image of “morality.” The reason being, as discussed, that just like humanity, God as well has interest in humanity’s survival and enhancement. God desires the survival of humanity from the very fact that He created humanity. Also, He has a sacred mission for mankind to fulfill and in order for that to be achievable it is vital for society to have structure, law and order. The innate version of law and order is called morality.
However, there may be some apparent exceptions and we try to explain those in light of the fact that God desires a peaceful and just society in order to be able to achieve mankind’s sacred mission of serving God and making this world a better place. We have discussed the permission to own slaves, the sacrificial system, the rabbinic treatment of non-Jews, the treatment of women, the annihilation of Amalek and other nations, religious tolerance, and the death penalty.
But there are two main factors that play a role in explaining most of these questions. These factors explain the moral mindset of Torah and its evolution over time by the sages. These two points are: (1) Society’s morals are all about survival, whereas Torah’s morals are about survival for the sake of a greater purpose and sacred mission. (2) Torah’s practical advice to a nation living in the second-millennium BCE in the Ancient Near East.
- Secular morals are all about everyone living with their “rights” and everyone given the ability to choose their own religion or set of beliefs. From a secular point of view, that is the healthiest way for society to exist. However, while Torah does embrace that to some degree or another, it doesn’t entirely. It recognizes that the world has a spiritual mission and the entire purpose of humanities survival is to ensure that spiritual mission is achieved. So if granting these “rights” is counterintuitive to the sacred mission, then Torah would forgo those rights and enforce a specific religious implementation. This is why, for example, the heretic who preaches paganism to other Jews is liable to the death penalty. In modern society, we have “freedom of speech” but the Torah forgoes that “right” in this case since this individual is being destructive to the general spiritual mission of God for the Jewish people and is therefore to be executed for the sake of the general public’s spiritual wellbeing. See “Does Torah Oppose Freedom of Religion” for a discussion on this.
- Torah isn’t just a book of ideals. It’s a practical live-by book that was first written for a semi-barbaric nation who lived in the Ancient Near East. The Ancient Near East looked very different than we know the world today. There were different social settings, different definitions for morality and different civil law.
The Torah was revolutionary for its time. For example, it taught the one single monotheistic God while the rest of the world was serving gods of wood and stone. The Israelites were barely clinging to this (see the Book of Judges and Kings) because it was so different than the surrounding cultures. Torah had this vision for a just and moral world. However, had the Torah pushed its agenda even a little more than it did, there’s zero indication to assume that it would have survived to this day. The Israelites would have likely abandoned it for the other more contemporary cultures that were perhaps more appealing in that time and era.
Just like a child is taught and disciplined differently than an adult, so too the Israelites were tenderly treated with the revolutionary changes in Torah. Only later, as society and the Jewish people have progressed, has the Oral Torah directed by the sages of each generation, raise the moral standards and demand more from the later generations.
An example for this would be slavery discussed here. Had the Torah prohibited slavery outright, the Israelites were surely to have rejected it. It was their economic dependency and it was the social norm of the time. It is for this reason that Torah permitted slavery. However, in sync with its goal to slowly change the world for a better place, the Torah restricted slavery and implemented rules to make the act more humane and moral. Other examples include the Rebellious Child[2], death penalty[3] an eye for an eye,[4] the law of Levirate Marriage (yibum)[5]
The Torah could have been idealistic but that would have not been practical for the people at that time and era. Instead, it was practical and as a result was able to over the years establish a nation whose moral superiority is seen throughout the generations. With Torah’s vision of a just and moral world, the rabbis were able to constantly raise the bar of the morals of the Jewish community. When it came time to abolish the law of the Rebellious Child they weighed in and abolished it. When it came time to change the death penalty, they did it. When it came time to emend the law of “an eye for an eye” – they did their job and emended it. Each done at its proper time, the Torah was able to be highly effective and even transform the world as a whole, in addition to the Jewish people.
However, it is important to note that a fine distinction must be made between civil laws and ritual laws and taboos. Sure, the sages have changed various civil laws over the generations. This is because to begin with, these civil laws were rational and made sense in the specific social settings they were said in. So when those settings, or circumstances, changed – the sages felt the need to emend those civil laws. However, the same cannot be said about ritual law or taboos. When something is prohibited in the Torah or is mandated, it is beyond our ability to change those elements if they are not connected to civil law. These laws to begin with likely have a spiritual back-element that is the reason why A is forbidden and B is mandated. It’s not a logical law but rather a spiritual one. These cannot be changed even as society and its culture changes.
Why contemporary rabbis are reluctant to change Halacha
It is important to note the reasons why current rabbis are reluctant to make any changes to the Law, even though they have the authority to do so. The reasons are threefold, the first two make sense while the third seems to be just a misunderstanding. The first reason they opt to keep the status quo is a counter measure to the Enlightenment culture which advocates erasing “primitive” tradition. The Reform movement in Judaism took this approach as well and began to “reform” Judaism, ultimately reforming the irreformable (i.e. biblical laws that apply for eternity). As a counter measure, the Orthodox leaders began stressing the importance of keeping tradition as a hallmark of Halacha.
The second reason to keep the status quo is the geographical considerations of the Jews now. In ancient Israel, the High Court in Jerusalem had the sole banner of authority and all Jews would, at least in theory, subject themselves to the central authority in Jerusalem. With such legal power, the Sanhedrin was able to make sweeping changes as they found necessary. Nowadays, however, there is no central authority and changes made by one local rabbi may be rejected by the rabbi of another province. As a result, if every rabbi were to make changes to the accepted Law, the Law would be different for each locale. This, in fact, is the very reason why the Shulchan Aruch was written. In his introduction to the beis Yosef commentary of his, the Mechaber (the author of the Shulchan Aruch) writes his agenda in writing the legendary work of his. He says that Torah has become into a thousand Torahs, with each community adapting their own laws and customs. He therefore will codify the Law into a single work so that all Jews can once again follow one unified Law. With the great stature that he possessed, his endeavor was successful and his work became the Code of Jewish Law. If each rabbi were to veer from accepted laws and customs, the Law would be different for each Jewish community and there would less of a united Torah.
The third reason is a because many rabbis are scared to change what their “superior” predecessors have established. Indeed, this notion that previous sages and rabbis were superior to contemporary ones is rooted in the idea of yeridas hadoros, a concept that we a have debunked here.
___________________
[1] It can be argued that this as well is considered “subjective” and “relative.” True from God’s perspective it is wrong since He doesn’t want it; but from John’s perspective, there’s nothing wrong with murder. This brings us to a whole new discussion on the definition of “objective,” a discussion we will avoid. But be as it may, all agree that with a God in the picture, murder becomes at least more of an objective moral issue. And even if it weren’t a more absolute moral issue, it would at least be a more convincing relative morality than society’s relative morality (granted that you care about God’s rules).
[2] See end of article linked in text.
[3] See end of the article linked in text.
[4] See end of the section titled “an eye for an eye” in the article linked in the text.
[5] See Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and Berachot 13a
