Question
Thank you so much for your thoughtful response. As I understand it, you believe that good and evil are objective concepts that are essentially absolute. You suggest that we fall into error when we adopt a non-judgmental culture of tolerance and pluralism that leads to an indiscriminate acceptance of all belief systems as equally valid when they are not, and when we follow false messiahs. Objective inquiry and investigation of the evidence, you believe, are the first steps toward enlightenment. And finally you say that it is inappropriate to believe that anyone speaks for God unless there is evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that he or she does indeed speak for God.
I confess that I know little of the precepts of Judaism, my own religion. But is there some way to conduct an objective inquiry or investigation of evidence to learn why it is wrong to eat an animal that does not both chew its cud and have cloven hooves, but right to eat one that does; why it is wrong to wear a garment that combines linen and wool? The torah speaks of how one is to trea bondsmen. Does that mean objectively that it is not evil to hold another as a slave so long as one treats him or her according to torah precepts and that the idea that slavery is evil is the tainted product of our modern society?
I fear that there are many of our co-religionists who would reject the notion of finding good and evil through objective inquiry and investigation of evidence. They would much prefer to receive the guidance of the learned. Is there a member of the Lubavitcher community, for example, who would reject the idea that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the late Rebbe Schneerson was a prophet who spoke God’s words? And that brings me full circle to my original question. What are we to make of the killing of the Midianite children? Was that evil, or does it simply appear so through the relativistic prism of modern culture? You argue against accepting a non-judgmental culture. What, then, is the judgment on the killing of the Midianite children? Again, thank you for your response.
Answer
Well, first of all, I’m not saying it’s bad to cultivate tolerance and pluralism as a political stance, for tolerance is required for each of us to be open to each other’s perspectives. The only way I can arrive at the truth in any question is if I consider multiple perspectives. Furthermore, political tolerance is vital to a peaceful society, which is the only climate in which Truth can prevail. But my political tolerance does mean that I accept in my heart all perspectives as equally valid.
The answer to your question on the objective inquiry into Judaism is yes. Regarding slavery, I think the answer is more nuanced than a simple “yes” or “no”. Some kind of human relationship that we call “slavery” is evidently not-evil in principle, however, one would have to do a little more research to find out what the parameters of that are. Does it resemble in any way our stereotypes of slavery? Does Torah slavery even apply in this day and age, or does it require social or political conditions that no longer exist?
Regarding those who follow a rebbe. The reason they do is the same reason you and I follow a doctor. Not because we have rejected objective inquiry, rather because we recognize the limits of our own ability to investigate the science of medicine and therefore choose to rely on the certified expertise of someone who has taken the time to do so. We are in effect, appointing an agent for our objective inquiry.
I do not think that thinking Lubavitchers would call their deceased rebbe a prophet of God, especially given that true prophecy has been absent from the world for about 1300 years and a person has to pass a strict test before being certified as a prophet (according to Maimonides) – to my knowledge, R. Schneerson was a great scholar and pious man but never certified as a prophet. Therefore, his statements might be taken very seriously but not as God’s words.
Moses, in contrast, was a certified prophet of God. How do we know that? Good question: in fact, central question. But for now, know that all of Judaism without exception starts with this axiom, that everything Moses wrote in the Torah was dictated letter by letter by the Almighty.
Sometimes, the Midrash explains that what really happened was the opposite of what is written in the 5 Books (for instance, it says that Reuven was intimate with one of his father’s wives, and the Midrash says in fact all he did was move his father’s bed from one tent to another). In such a case, our question must be: why does the Torah tell that episode in that inaccurate way? (i.e., what are we to learn from the way the story is told as opposed to what really happened?)
Chumash: “Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth”
Talmud: the value of an eye for an eye…
Chumash: “…he shall surely die…”
Talmud: by the hand of Heaven (and not a human court)
etc.
Now, if after all this investigation it turns out that the Torah advocates something that I had thought was evil, by definition my thoughts were wrong. However, if I begin your investigation with a mind that is closed; i.e., if I state a priori, that I refuse to accept any expression of _____ as valid (fill in the blank: servitude, killing, etc) then there is no point in the investigation. I have to be willing to admit that my entire belief system, or any part of it, may be false, if I am to succeed at a rational, objective investigation. In my humble opinion, a philosophical inquiry into the Torah requires nothing less than that. Some rabbis may disagree with me, but I prefer to put every idea under full scrutiny and to take nothing for granted, as long as the commitment to Truth is real and complete.
It is late at night as I type this and I hope that what I’ve written is clear and helpful, and apologize if any parts of it are not.
