Hello, Michael the Moderator speaking. I think we had a pretty solid first week, some quality posts. Here's the summary of the positions taken so far:
YOSEF allows his ethical compass to operate and criticize, and judge halacha. For example, he criticizes the prohibition against homosexuality under its current interpretation as immoral, citing the loneliness it causes and the innocuous of the homosexual act, as far as morality is concerned.
DOV thinks that the Torah, being the word of God, may not be immoral. Therefore, the approach he takes is to understand why a prohibition against homosexuality is not immoral, and he tries to provide arguments for that position.
I wanted to take a moment and talk about why I think that the argument about the relationship between ethics and halacha matters. Because many people that I've talked to about these sorts of issues dismiss them are merely semantic exercises. And in a way this is true: no one, on either side of the debate, thinks that the vast vast majority of what we intuitively claim to be required or forbidden by morality is required or forbidden for a Jew. The only question is whether there is an external moral impetus that creates obligations, or whether those ethical obligations have somehow been imported into halacha (through a prohibition like "kedoshim t'hiu" or a concept such as "lifnim meshurat hadin").
However, there is a big difference between how you look at the world between these two views. The difference is whether you're allowing your ethical compass to guide you in life, or whether you're allowing your ethical will to be under the submission of the law.
Say that I don't know the law at all. I don't know halacha. The question is whether I am operating on my own instincts, or if I'm submitting many of my life decisions to legal deciders, poskim. So the position that there is no ethics outside of halacha fits well with communities that are centered around a rebbe or a rav. And I see this all the time-a lot of things are asked as shailos in more right-wing communities that many on the left would consider matters of ethics.
There is more to say, always. But this is a wonderful debate which is not only a lot of fun, but is of foundational concern for the religious experience of a Jew. So let's enjoy more fun posts from Yosef and Dov next week!
Friday, August 22, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Naval b'rshut haTorah
Dov wrote in his post that "while there might be ethical requirements beyond the requirements of halacha (like the famous Ramban a"ht which describes how one can be a moral failure while still keeping all of halacha), the Torah can never be immoral".
Your citation of the Ramban is interesting. Here's how Chavel translates the passage at the very beginning of Parshat Kedoshim:
So really what the Ramban is saying is that were it not for this commandment of "be holy" then it would have been the case that one could be a naval b'rshut haTorah. As it turns out, though, the Torah forbade such behavior, and thus it is impossible to be naval b'rshut haTorah because those loopholes have been closed off by this general law. Just to restate: one can't be a naval b'rshut haTorah after "be holy" because one is no longer acting "b'rshut haTorah."
So I'm not sure that the Ramban is a good case of someone who would say that there are ethical requirements outside of halacha.
Your citation of the Ramban is interesting. Here's how Chavel translates the passage at the very beginning of Parshat Kedoshim:
The meaning thereof is as follows: The Torah has admonished us against immorality and forbidden foods, but permitted sexual intercourse between man and his wife, and the eating of [certain] meat and wine. If so, a man of desire could consider this to be a permission to be passionately addicted to sexual intercourse with his wife or many wives and be 'among winebibbers among gluttonous eaters of flesh' (Mishlei 23:20) and speak freely all profanities since this prohibition has not been [expressly] mentioned in the Torah and thus he will become a sordid person within the permissible realm of the Torah (naval b'rshut haTorah)!
So really what the Ramban is saying is that were it not for this commandment of "be holy" then it would have been the case that one could be a naval b'rshut haTorah. As it turns out, though, the Torah forbade such behavior, and thus it is impossible to be naval b'rshut haTorah because those loopholes have been closed off by this general law. Just to restate: one can't be a naval b'rshut haTorah after "be holy" because one is no longer acting "b'rshut haTorah."
So I'm not sure that the Ramban is a good case of someone who would say that there are ethical requirements outside of halacha.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Homosexuality, Ethics and Halacha
Yosef, with your post you brought us into a very difficult project. What you REALLY want to talk about are foundational issues in ethics and halacha, to discuss that relationship. However you want to use the instance of homosexuality to frame this discussion. OK--I accept your framing device, but in the future (for the sake of clarity and organization) I'm going to try to limit my posts to specific points and limited theses. I'll let Michael (the moderator) take care of sorting this mess out.
So, Yosef, you asked me if I am "troubled by what the Torah says about homosexuality?" Troubled? We need to narrow that down a bit. When I see war and death and hunger and famine and death and war and death, I'm troubled theologically. How could a good God allow human suffering? In the Torah we sometimes have mitzvot that cause human suffering, and the prohibition against homosexuality is one of these. So, yeah in that sense it troubles me. That's an expression of my capacity for empathy, though.
But I'm not troubled by a conflict between my personal morality and the Torah/halacha. Now, Yosef, you know that I'm not as philosophically sophisticated as you are (and that's just fine, because you have no idea how to run a gel or model gene fixation). However, I don't really see how you can have a moral objection to the Torah while still sustaining a belief in the Torah's divinity. I'll admit that I'm starting with the divinity of the Torah and moving from there; I have reasons for my belief that halacha represents the will of God. So I think that there can not possibly be anything in the Torah that is immoral.
And I think that one can make a good case that a prohibition against homosexuality is not immoral. First of all, everybody has temptations, and the prohibition is only against action. Action is up to you. And if you have strong desires, and you succumb to your temptations, then God will judge you--man should withhold judgment. But I fail to see how homosexuality is a bigger problem than kleptomania, from an Orthodox Jewish perspective. Second, is it really so clear to you that homosexuals are unable to have meaningful heterosexual relationships? I'll look into this some more, but I thought that the research was mixed.
But since, Yosef, you mostly want this to be a way to get to the issues of ethics and halacha more generally, I'll stake out the following position: while there might be ethical requirements beyond the requirements of halacha (like the famous Ramban a"ht which describes how one can be a moral failure while still keeping all of halacha), the Torah can never be immoral. Hence, the Torah's prohibition on homosexuality must be moral, and we can even think of non-halachic arguments to defend that position.
So, Yosef, you asked me if I am "troubled by what the Torah says about homosexuality?" Troubled? We need to narrow that down a bit. When I see war and death and hunger and famine and death and war and death, I'm troubled theologically. How could a good God allow human suffering? In the Torah we sometimes have mitzvot that cause human suffering, and the prohibition against homosexuality is one of these. So, yeah in that sense it troubles me. That's an expression of my capacity for empathy, though.
But I'm not troubled by a conflict between my personal morality and the Torah/halacha. Now, Yosef, you know that I'm not as philosophically sophisticated as you are (and that's just fine, because you have no idea how to run a gel or model gene fixation). However, I don't really see how you can have a moral objection to the Torah while still sustaining a belief in the Torah's divinity. I'll admit that I'm starting with the divinity of the Torah and moving from there; I have reasons for my belief that halacha represents the will of God. So I think that there can not possibly be anything in the Torah that is immoral.
And I think that one can make a good case that a prohibition against homosexuality is not immoral. First of all, everybody has temptations, and the prohibition is only against action. Action is up to you. And if you have strong desires, and you succumb to your temptations, then God will judge you--man should withhold judgment. But I fail to see how homosexuality is a bigger problem than kleptomania, from an Orthodox Jewish perspective. Second, is it really so clear to you that homosexuals are unable to have meaningful heterosexual relationships? I'll look into this some more, but I thought that the research was mixed.
But since, Yosef, you mostly want this to be a way to get to the issues of ethics and halacha more generally, I'll stake out the following position: while there might be ethical requirements beyond the requirements of halacha (like the famous Ramban a"ht which describes how one can be a moral failure while still keeping all of halacha), the Torah can never be immoral. Hence, the Torah's prohibition on homosexuality must be moral, and we can even think of non-halachic arguments to defend that position.
Homosexuality--Kick Off Post!
OK, thanks for the introduction Michael. I'm excited about this, so let's jump right in.
I am an Orthodox Jew. By that, all I mean is that I live in an Orthodox Jewish community where it's expected that I believe certain things and act a certain way. In this community, we rely on our tradition of interpretation of the Torah to provide us with direction in our lives.
So, the Torah (Vayikra 18:22) says that a homosexual relationship is an abomination, and instructs whoever feels that the Torah is authoritative to not dare lie with a man as one would with a woman.
However, it is my distinct moral sense that it is immoral to forbid those who are born with homosexual desires from fulfilling those desires. First such an issur dooms gay people to live a life of loneliness if they obey it (at least, it would seem to me that this would be a result). Second, there doesn't seem to me to be any non-Torah reason for homosexuality to be deemed immoral, that would counteract any loneliness or angst or depression. Though this moral view of mine could potentially change, at this moment I hold this as a firm moral value.
The question then is, how do I relate to what the Torah says? Let's lay out a few possibilities here, and then call it a day and give Dov a chance to respond:
THE TORAH IS RIGHT
Now, there are a couple different ways that the Torah could be right. First, you can think that the Torah is making a moral judgement on homosexuality. I might think that the Torah (including whatever interpretation our tradition has given things) is making a moral judgement for today, and that since the Torah (thusly interpreted) is clearly the word of God, my moral opinion is simply wrong. Even though I can't understand why my moral view is wrong, it simply is. Then my course is clear: I need to change my views, however I can.
But the Torah could be right in a different sense. Maybe the Torah's prohibition is not a moral judgement, but rather because of...well, something else. Most Jews wouldn't say that driving on Shabbos is immoral, the same way theft is. Rather, there are ritual commandments and moral commandments (at least, so the story goes). The ritual commandments are for other reasons--sometimes we understand the reasons, other times we simply don't understand the reasons. I wonder if this could be a possible direction that I could go in? Probably not, simply because the Torah lists this as a 'toevah', which certainly sounds disgusting and immoral. But maybe this would be helpful? There's still a problem of "How can God demand obedience to a law that will have immoral side-effects?", but at least it's not a conflict between my moral sense and the actual moral judgement of the document that came from God.
THE TORAH IS WRONG
Finally, it could be that I think that the law is wrong, that homosexuality is not an abomination. In that case, I need to figure out how the Torah can be wrong.
Anyway, that's the frame that I'm going to be starting out with. So, Dov, tell me: are you troubled by what the Torah says about homosexuality? If so, what do you propose?
I am an Orthodox Jew. By that, all I mean is that I live in an Orthodox Jewish community where it's expected that I believe certain things and act a certain way. In this community, we rely on our tradition of interpretation of the Torah to provide us with direction in our lives.
So, the Torah (Vayikra 18:22) says that a homosexual relationship is an abomination, and instructs whoever feels that the Torah is authoritative to not dare lie with a man as one would with a woman.
However, it is my distinct moral sense that it is immoral to forbid those who are born with homosexual desires from fulfilling those desires. First such an issur dooms gay people to live a life of loneliness if they obey it (at least, it would seem to me that this would be a result). Second, there doesn't seem to me to be any non-Torah reason for homosexuality to be deemed immoral, that would counteract any loneliness or angst or depression. Though this moral view of mine could potentially change, at this moment I hold this as a firm moral value.
The question then is, how do I relate to what the Torah says? Let's lay out a few possibilities here, and then call it a day and give Dov a chance to respond:
THE TORAH IS RIGHT
Now, there are a couple different ways that the Torah could be right. First, you can think that the Torah is making a moral judgement on homosexuality. I might think that the Torah (including whatever interpretation our tradition has given things) is making a moral judgement for today, and that since the Torah (thusly interpreted) is clearly the word of God, my moral opinion is simply wrong. Even though I can't understand why my moral view is wrong, it simply is. Then my course is clear: I need to change my views, however I can.
But the Torah could be right in a different sense. Maybe the Torah's prohibition is not a moral judgement, but rather because of...well, something else. Most Jews wouldn't say that driving on Shabbos is immoral, the same way theft is. Rather, there are ritual commandments and moral commandments (at least, so the story goes). The ritual commandments are for other reasons--sometimes we understand the reasons, other times we simply don't understand the reasons. I wonder if this could be a possible direction that I could go in? Probably not, simply because the Torah lists this as a 'toevah', which certainly sounds disgusting and immoral. But maybe this would be helpful? There's still a problem of "How can God demand obedience to a law that will have immoral side-effects?", but at least it's not a conflict between my moral sense and the actual moral judgement of the document that came from God.
THE TORAH IS WRONG
Finally, it could be that I think that the law is wrong, that homosexuality is not an abomination. In that case, I need to figure out how the Torah can be wrong.
Anyway, that's the frame that I'm going to be starting out with. So, Dov, tell me: are you troubled by what the Torah says about homosexuality? If so, what do you propose?
Structure of this Blog
Here's some quick background and rules for this blog. My name is Michael, and I'm finishing up a Jewish Studies major at Yeshiva University. Recently, me and two of my friends, both in secular universities, were hanging around my house. Now, since high school the three of us have always debated Jewish topics with each other--sometimes politely, most often...well, sometimes politely. Anyway, so we were all home for the summer and we broke into another debate, and we had a fun idea: what if we were to publish these debates online? With the hopes that this would civilize the three of us, we decided to get to work. So now allow me to introduce us:
Me (Michael) Like I said, I'm finishing up my Jewish Studies major at Yeshiva University. My role will be as the moderator of these debates, usually taking a secondary role, showing up in the comment board and occasionally steering or summarizing the discussion.
Dov Dov is enrolled in University of Maryland. He studies Biology and is hoping to go to med school following his undergraduate studies. Not to pigeon-hole anyone, but Dov usually ends up taking more conservative positions in these debates.
Yosef Finally, Yosef is enrolled in Brandeis, studying philosophy. He's a big fan of Hilary Putnam, analytic philosopher extraordinaire, and usually finds himself slightly to the left of Dov.
So, let the debates begin! I believe that Yosef is leading off with a post on Ethics and Halacha. May it be Hashem's will that this blog not die a quick and painless death. Yes, if this blog does die a quick death, we'd prefer for it to be as painful as possible.
Me (Michael) Like I said, I'm finishing up my Jewish Studies major at Yeshiva University. My role will be as the moderator of these debates, usually taking a secondary role, showing up in the comment board and occasionally steering or summarizing the discussion.
Dov Dov is enrolled in University of Maryland. He studies Biology and is hoping to go to med school following his undergraduate studies. Not to pigeon-hole anyone, but Dov usually ends up taking more conservative positions in these debates.
Yosef Finally, Yosef is enrolled in Brandeis, studying philosophy. He's a big fan of Hilary Putnam, analytic philosopher extraordinaire, and usually finds himself slightly to the left of Dov.
So, let the debates begin! I believe that Yosef is leading off with a post on Ethics and Halacha. May it be Hashem's will that this blog not die a quick and painless death. Yes, if this blog does die a quick death, we'd prefer for it to be as painful as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)