S/O Derache’ha Darchei No’am

Aylat

Sun, May 17 2020, 5:48 am

daagahminayin wrote:

The word “morality” comes from the Latin “mores” meaning customs or proper behavior in society. By definition, morals change with time and place.

I think it’s possible to say that the commandment to kill all of Amalek was moral/not immoral for the time and place it was commanded but not for now. Then, it would have been in accordance with the Jewish people’s innate sense of right and wrong, justice, and practical safety and survival considerations. Now, it would not.

I don't agree with this. I think relative morality is a very dicey stance to adopt.

However if you mean:
Killing is wrong
BUT killing in self-defence is acceptable.

Or: lying is wrong
BUT lying to protect someone's feelings is acceptable and lying to save a life is obligatory.

Then I agree. I am not a deolontologist (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/) But the statements above apply in Africa 500BCE, 13th century Russia, and 21st century America.

The parallel for Amalek would be:
1) Genocide is wrong. I know this because of my innate sense of morality.
2) I am a limited human being and God knows better than I do.
3) Therefore receiving a direct prophetic command to kill Amalek overrides 1).
Hence Shaul should have destroyed Amalek and we are currently not supposed to. It is possible that when nevua returns, we will be in Shaul's position again.

Aylat

Sun, May 17 2020, 5:56 am

chicco wrote:

The 9 times table is unique in that the numbers in it's factors can always be calculated to arrive at 9. Additionally, it clearly demonstrates how even one change affects all of the other numbers in the set to still achieve the same result. If the 1 changes to 2, the 8 changes to a 7..

I'm lost again. Do you mean digits instead of factors?

2 × 9 = 18 and 8 + 1 = 9
3 × 9 = 27 and 2 + 7 = 9
4 × 9 = 36 and 3 + 6 = 9

chicco wrote:

Again with the puzzle mashal. If I want to transfer a 500 piece puzzle to a 5000 piece puzzle, each and every individual piece will change, but in the end, the picture will be exactly the same.

This I understand and agree with.

dancingqueen

Sun, May 17 2020, 6:19 am

malki2 wrote:

The point here is that the Torah commands the physical wiping out of Amalek which is definitely defined as genocide of a nation. Can we all agree that to say that this is immoral is apikorsus? Even the poster who has gone off the rails has agreed to this. Afterwards we can discuss the question of whether this applies nowadays or in what context this will apply when Moshiach comes. But let’s not let the issue get clouded here. If someone says that genocide of Amalek is immoral, then she is saying that Hashem is immoral (Afra Lapumah) because He commanded it.

My point is that the fact that our chachamim largely qualified that commandment as not being an everlasting jihad-type commandment, points to their discomfort with the mitzvah being outright genocide, at least in non ancient times. For example, rambam urges making peace first, agrees amalek can convert, actual war is only applicable under very specific circumstances. In addition, they used the sancheirev principle for both amalek and cnaan.

daagahminayin

Sun, May 17 2020, 7:07 am

Aylat wrote:

The model of absolute morality is an acceptable way to look at it. The model that makes more sense to me is as follows:

Morality really does change with the times and place. The overriding principles stay the same, but the practical applications change to fit our changing innate sensibilities. This is why the mitzvos in the Torah are the same but the practical applications are not.

Mitzvos written in the Torah that would have felt perfectly moral and just to the Jews living in ancient times now cause us deep moral anguish and cognitive dissonance. We don’t understand them, we label them as “choks” when to the original audience they made perfect sense because of the time and place they were living in.

In response, we see how the rabbis interpreted the laws differently over time to meet the new senses of morality we experience.

You might say this is wishy-washy and bending the Torah to fit our will. But it’s not changing the mitzvos according to whim. Halachic development is slow, tentative, and propelled by only the greatest sages of the generations. It’s a very careful process and any suggested development that is too ahead of its time for the generation is rejected by the community, although may be accepted by a later generation.

Furthermore, it is suggested by Rav Kook that our changing moral sensitivities are part of Hashem’s will leading us to Geulah.

Aylat

Sun, May 17 2020, 8:18 am

chicco wrote:

Digits of the factors. Not just in the simple examples you gave, but every factor.

9×34= 306
306 = 3 + 0 + 6= 9

9×87=783
783= 7 + 8 + 3= 18 = 1 + 8 = 9

9×2001= 18,009
18,009= 1 + 8 + 0 + 0 + 9 = 18 = 1+ 8 = 9

And on and on.

Now I understand the mashal. (You're talking about digits of the multiples, not the factors. It is a cool property of the 9×.tables)
But I'm still not sure what the nimshal is.
Except that the deeper you delve into Torah the cooler it all is Wink

and it all fits together

Aylat

Sun, May 17 2020, 8:37 am

daagahminayin wrote:

What does that mean?

daagahminayin wrote:

Mitzvos written in the Torah that would have felt perfectly moral and just to the Jews living in ancient times now cause us deep moral anguish and cognitive dissonance. We don’t understand them, we label them as “choks” when to the original audience they made perfect sense because of the time and place they were living in. .

AUIU the definition of chukim vs mishpatim does not change. Shaatnez, kashrut, and arayot were and are chukim. Murder, theft etc are and were mishpatim. Shabbat and chagim are (I think) edot עדות. I don’t know where to check what מחיית עמלק is.

daagahminayin wrote:

Furthermore, it is suggested by Rav Kook that our changing moral sensitivities are part of Hashem’s will leading us to Geulah.

I have learned this as well. But I understand it to mean that our sensitivity changes to become closer to the true morality, not that morality has changed.

chicco

Sun, May 17 2020, 9:17 am

Aylat wrote:

and it all fits together

The point is for example, that rashi can say it was a father, and the Ramban can say it was a mother and her sister, and they can both be true.

Rashi is starting with 1 and getting to 9, and the Ramban is at 3 getting to 9. When they finish, the whole picture will have the same conclusion/significance.

And in the mean time, you can't take 1 number out of context and compare it to another 1 out of context. The whole "truth" of truth, is that you cannot effectively isolate one aspect. Everything works in tandem at every moment to express the whole truth.

Aylat

Sun, May 17 2020, 10:05 am

chicco wrote:

I've finally understood! Thank you for your patience with me Smile

Yes, I agree with your point. (Is your example real or made up? Racking my brains for a context.) I was thinking about this in relation to yesterday's daf, I'll post on that thread.

amother

Dodgerblue

Sun, May 17 2020, 10:52 am

In line with the OPs original discussion on cognitive dissonance and Torah, I mean, leave aside Amalek for a minute and look at the parsha we just read.

If you want to give your value as a gift to God, here’s a list of number. Young people are more valuable than old, men are more valuable than women. There’s all kinds of explanations, like it’s to show us that no one is more important than another (rich or poor, this is your worth), but.... didn’t it actually prove it? Young people are more important than old? Men than women? I read that it’s because women had less money, so it was a sliding scale so that they could pay, but....

The whole thing was strange. I don’t have a huge issue with it in general, but wouldn’t it have been so cool if the message was that across the board, we are all worth 50 shekel to Hashem? Men, women, young, old, we all have potential and worth?

chicco

Sun, May 17 2020, 11:33 am

amother [ Dodgerblue ] wrote:

Assigning monetary value is simply one way to assign value. Even if someone is "worth" more money, that doesn't make them more important in contexts outside of money. In last week's parsha, people were valued in the context of what kind of slaves they would make, not who would accomplish more in his or her life, who is more lovable, or more kind, etc.

Aylat

Sun, May 17 2020, 12:21 pm

amother [ Dodgerblue ] wrote:

Great example.

I don't know if I have cognitive dissonance for this at the moment because I feel like I don't really know what it's about. What's the context, when is it relevant etc. Why would someone make such a נדר, why not just say I'm going to give X shekel to the מקדש? Does the cash amount of the person reflect their value?

I just looked it up very briefly and there's a lot to learn. 1 brief snippet from the רמב"ם ספר המצוות that provides food for thought.

ומה שאמרו גם כן (דף ב.) שאין חילוק בערכין בין יפה או כעור או חולה או סומא או גידם, אלא הכל נערכין לפי השנים

So why is it according to age? I don't know? Why gender? Ditto. I need to learn more.

PinkFridge

Sun, May 17 2020, 12:24 pm

amother [ Dodgerblue ] wrote:

There's a lovely general vort about erchin (personal value). It comes right after the tochacha, because we would feel hopeless and like nothing. But then the Torah tells us that we all have some essential value, by virtue of being human.

Rav Hirsch has an interesting piece on the numbers behind what everyone is actually worth.

chicco

Sun, May 17 2020, 12:35 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

Aren't we all equal in that G-d saw it fit to create us? Doesn't that give us all inherent value? Obviously in different contexts some of us will have more value than others. Like in our ability to win an eating contest, or riding a bull? The only common denominator any of us have is the value of Hashem creating us. In that regard we are all deserving us mutual respect and value. In every other regard there will never be a fair comparison.