EE & R, 3_2: Between the Torah and the Prophets: Embracing Contradictions in Torah Learning
EE & R, 3_2: Between the Torah and the Prophets: Embracing Contradictions in Torah Learning
(For the previous installment of "Exodus, Exile and Redemption," click here. For ToC, click here.)
We have presented a profound conflict between the divine books regarding how Hashem is to be worshipped: The teaching of the Torah is to worship Him with sacrifices, whereas the teaching of the Prophets is to worship Him through knowledge alone. Before we resolve the contradiction and bring the various words of Hashem into their necessary congruence, we might first savor and enjoy the contradiction, allowing it to stimulate our minds. In fact, appreciating the depth of contradictory facts and their seeming incongruity is often the best path to comprehending the deeper truth to which they both lead.
When confronted with a contradiction between two conflicting notions both held to be true, especially one involving texts or teachings we consider sacred, we tend to feel an uncomfortable pressure, as if the two opposing notions exert a force upon us, pushing us toward a compromise that eases the discomfort induced within by the contradiction. Instinctively allowing each notion to attenuate the other, we find reconciliation and relief in a murky middle ground.
While this might seem like a pragmatic and reasonable approach, it usually results in a compromise lacking the strength and clarity of the original ideas. Each notion is diluted, and the resulting amalgam satisfies neither notion fully and often fails to capture the true essence of either. A more profound way to resolve such conflicts, characteristic of deep thinkers, involves allowing the contradiction not to propel the conflicting notions to their shared, middle ground, but to repel the notions so far from each other that they no longer conflict.
The repelling power of each idea toward the other allows each notion to crystallize into what it is uniquely and thus reveal its true nature. The tension between the opposing notions pushes them to their extremes, where their meanings and implications become clear, the contradiction leading to the answer not by forcing a compromise, but by highlighting the distinctiveness of each notion. In a certain sense, the more two notions contradict, the less they pose a problem, since the notions that contradict most are the most different from each other – so different that they operate in completely different planes.
In this case, too, rather than seeking a quick resolution, we will explore each word of Hashem independently and systematically, and we shall find that the conflict between the Torah and the Prophets melts away when their respective realms are defined. The contradiction doesn’t truly create conflict between the two divine collections, but rather, on the contrary, defines and delineates their respective domains which treat of fundamentally disparate worlds.
The contradiction regarding sacrifices is well-known. On the prophetic message denying that Israel was commanded to sacrifice at the time of the Exodus from Egypt, Maimonides commented: “This dictum has been regarded as difficult by everyone whose words I have seen or heard.”1 In addition to Maimonides, many other Torah scholars have dealt with this problem.2 My own treatment, forthcoming in the following chapters, sharpens and deepens ideas developed by great thinkers who have preceded me. Nevertheless, a fresh approach to this ancient problem will yield new insight and prove to be illuminating, even seminal to a deep understanding of both the project of Judaism and the history of its development.
If I may, I'd like to rephrase a bit of what you wrote and see whether or not we are saying the same thing.
I think in general, when posed with an interesting and/or difficult question we seek immediate resolution. We do not like (as you noted) the discomfort of the contradiction or the unsettled or unanswered question. And we seek to solve that discomfort by finding an answer that is "good enough" or sounds plausible.
In this case, it is not truth or insight that we are after, but rather a resolution of our internal feelings of unease or discomfort.
Now, what form that takes may differ from person to person. In the case of a (seeming) contradiction, one may settle on some sort of "compromise" (as you put it), but I imagine that there are other ways that people take to resolve such "conflicts".
The key point is not the particular type of quasi-resolution that one takes, but rather the method one uses or does not use to address the problem.
The first step is to simply appreciate the question, issue or contradiction. To fully comprehend it and relate to it as it is. And to not be bothered by whether or not one is able to answer the question or resolve the contradiction.
The question and/or contradiction are beautiful in and of themselves. Let's appreciate them before we attempt to address them.
Then, once we have fully appreciated their beauty, we can then develop the art and science of how to approach and deal with these questions and contradictions. How one does that may very well depend on the subject or issue. Sometimes the answer may be grammatical, other-times philosophical or halachic. It may involve introspection and/or self-awareness.
There is, in my mind, no one-size fits all method - but rather a spectrum of methods and means that one develops the more one learns and thinks about Torah.
In terms of the particular contradiction that you mentioned, I would offer the following as a means of addressing them.
1) Look at the context in which the Prophets spoke as opposed to the nature of the Torah. That is to say, the Torah is the world of the ideal, the fundamental Divine principles and directives that G-d gave us. The Prophets, on the other hand, are living in a particular time and place and are dealing with particular people and issues. They are living in a world of implementation. They are helping people figure out how to implement those principles based on who those particular people are and what they are doing.
2) Clearly define what it means to "know" G-d. I assume that the word used in all of the quotes in your previous article is the Hebrew word Daas (דעת). This word has a long and rich history in the Torah -- starting with (but certainly not ending with) the Tree of Daas of G-d and Evil. A richer, deeper understanding of what it means to know G-d, that is to have daas of G-d MAY help resolve or better understand the conflict.
3) Knowing G-d sounds like an end. Sacrifices sound like a means. It could be that the issue that the Prophets are addressing is one of confusing means for ends.
And I am sure there are other approaches. The key here is to work on developing a set of approaches to these types of questions and then dedicating oneself to using them to gain deeper and broader insights into the Torah.
With that said, I look forward to seeing how you resolve the issue in your next post.