Is it logical?

[Hrvatski Noahid]

https://hesedyahu.wordpress.com/2019/08/29/is-it-logical/

Being part of the Noahide subreddit means I get a potential in-flow of stuff to do with the seven laws to think about and process. And you may know, I enjoy processing God’s law, or at least the words of those that do their best to share it.

So here’s the next Daily Dose from the Divine Code for me to chew on. Thank you, HRV, for the doses and both DoB and HRV for the whole subreddit thing.

It is clear that this only applies to the Noahide commandments that need to be taught (since they are not dictated by logic), such as details of the prohibition against worshiping idols and eating flesh that was taken from a living animal. But for the logical prohibitions such as stealing and murder, it is obvious that a community is obligated to learn and know them, and individuals have no excuse for ignorance of the main points of these precepts (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 50, shared at https://www.reddit.com/r/Noachide/comments/cwq85q/the_divine_code_daily_dose_part_423/)

This is a follow-on from rabbi Weiner teaching that those in a Torah-illiterate community are not liable or punishable. He’s qualifying that statement by saying that such is true for only some of the commandments that he says are not dictated by logic or reasoning. Those that are dictated by logic, Gentiles have no excuse for ignorance because any community should know and learn the main parts of these laws. Rabbi Weiner teaches that this is obvious.

There are seven laws. Which ones are dictated by reasoning in the Divine Code? Rabbi Weiner states that prohibitions against murder and stealing are logical, but that details of the prohibition against idolatry and eating meat taken from a living animal is not.

I would also conclude that, according to the commentary of Nachmanides – I think it was on Bereshis (Genesis) chapter 6 – rabbi Weiner and others would say that aspects of the law of Justice are logical as well. When I’m back home, if I think there’s a point, I’ll find which part and possibly quote it.

So some of the laws are logical and some are not, according to the Divine Code.

What does Maimonides say about what is logical? I’m quoting Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, chapter 9, law 1 from the versions at chabad.org and sefaria.org. I’ll emphasise the relevant phrase.

Adam, the first man, was commanded with six commandments: 1) idolatry, 2) “blessing” (euphemistically) the Name (of G-d), 3) murder, 4) illicit sexual relations, 5) thievery and, 6) establishing a system of justice. Even though all of these have been received as a Tradition from Moses our Teacher and we can understand the rationale for them, nevertheless, from (verses in) the Torah (we learn that) it was these that they were commanded. A seventh commandment forbidding the eating of a limb torn from a live animal was added for Noah, as it says, “Even flesh, life is in the blood, do not eat of it” (Genesis 9:4). (sefaria.org version)

Six precepts were commanded to Adam:

a the prohibition against worship of false gods;

b the prohibition against cursing God;

c the prohibition against murder;

d the prohibition against incest and adultery;

e the prohibition against theft;

f the command to establish laws and courts of justice.

Even though we have received all of these commands from Moses and, furthermore, they are concepts which intellect itself tends to accept, it appears from the Torah’s words that Adam was commanded concerning them. (chabad.org version)

I thank God that I can read some Hebrew so I can see what the words say in the “original?” And I have resources to check the meaning of each word. I know that there may be no such thing as an exact, literal translation. But – and I think ex-christians will understand this analogy/metaphor – both versions of this text translates it more in the style of the New International Version than the King James Version. To put it in more open terms, both translations are trying to explain the teaching around the words rather than simply trying to find English words to match the Hebrew. How can I explain this? What about this? All translations are commentaries, but some translations aim more to be a commentary than a translation.

Not helping?

Let me show you what I mean. Remember I’m talking about the part of each version that I highlighted. So I’ll quote each version here and then try to reflect the seeming simplicity of the Hebrew the best way I can.

Even though we have received all of these commands from Moses,

Chabad: and they are concepts which intellect itself tends to accept …

Sefaria: and we can understand the rationale for them …

David Simple Direct: and the mind inclines to them …

The Chabad version adds “they are concepts which” and “itself”. Sefaria just rewrites it adding concepts of “we” which I believe many people would conclude are the Jews. Sefaria adds understanding when the verb in the Hebrew just refers to bending or inclining. Both are just attempts to explain for the reader what the statement means rather than transferring it into English for the reader to work out or be taught by their teacher.

As far as I understand it, Maimonides is teaching that the seven laws, all of them, are logical and reasonable: the mind inclines to them.

But, David, you’re just making this up; it’s just your own private interpretation.

I knew you were gonna say that.

What Noahides are bidden to uphold, is a simple code of the most basic moral elements to human existence. According to RaMBaM, these can even be arrived at naturally through human logic. (Laws of Kings and Wars 9:2[1]) (from the chapter “The Price Of Freedom: Understanding The Inflexibility of the Noahide Laws” in Part I of the book “Guide for the Noahide” by rabbi Michael Shelomoh bar-Ron)

The Noahide laws are logical. (page 4, Noahide Commandments, by Rabbi Yoel Schwartz, Translated by Yitzhak A. Oked Sechter)

So it’s not just David on his own coming up with this.

I could also add that Maimonides taught that a person can fulfil the seven laws for non-theistic reasons (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, chapter 8, law 11).

So you may see why I bring this up. Rabbi Weiner says or strongly implies that only some of the seven laws are logical or dictated by logic and some are not. Maimonides doesn’t seem to agree.

Let me take, for example, the prohibition against idolatry. Is the rejection of idolatry not based on logic or agreeable to it? Isn’t the story of Abraham begun, at least in Jewish tradition, with his rational realisation that idols are fake.

That Nature reveals God is illustrated by the tradition that Abraham discovered His existence by reasoning back to a First Cause. Two different versions of his discovery are given. According to one story, when he revolted against idolatry, his father took him before King Nimrod, who demanded that since he would not worship images he should worship fire. The following argument ensued. ‘Abraham replied to him: “We should rather worship water which extinguishes fire.” Nimrod said to him: “Then worship water.” Abraham retorted: “If so, we should worship the cloud which carries water!” Nimrod said: “Then worship the cloud.” Abraham retorted: “If so, we should worship the wind which disperses the cloud!” Nimrod said: “Then worship the wind.” Abraham retorted: “Rather should we worship the human being who carries the wind!”‘ 1 (Gen. R. xxxv111. 13). Such a line of reasoning leads to the hypothesis of an ultimate Creator. (pages 1-2, section 1, Existence, of Chapter I, The Doctrine of God, from the book “Everyman’s Talmud” by Dr A. Cohen)

The rest of the section of that book show rabbis giving logical or rational arguments about the existence of God or against idolatry. In fact, if you read the quote, you’ll see there are two parts of Abraham’s rational discovery, that a supreme power exists and the rejection of or “revolt against” idolatry, and it’s that last part, the rejection of idolatry, which is part of the seven laws. It would be inconsistent for there to be a tradition about Abraham rejecting idolatry through rational investigation, for rabbis to be offering logical and reasoned proofs for the supremacy or unique nature of God, this would be inconsistent if idolatry and the rejection of it wasn’t logical.

I believe there is sufficient evidence to posit the position that the seven laws, all of them, are logical and reasonable.

I’ll leave it there.