1 Introduction

1. Dear Rabbi

Many years have passed since we studied Torah together. Since then you went on to become a prominent scholar and I continued with my business endeavors. Thank G-d, my business is doing well and I am able to devote part of my time to Torah studies. My wife and children are well and at least outwardly my family seems well integrated in the community where we live.

Inwardly, however, the last few years have been quite trying for me. I seem to have lost the calm and confidence I used to have in observing Yiddishkeit, in following the path which gave my life overall meaning, definite and absolute goals that I should strive to achieve. My belief that the Torah and only the Torah is the absolute Divine truth has been seriously challenged and I find myself at a loss to respond.

As you know, just about all religions in the world and many non-religious ideologies proudly state that the meaning they give to human life is the ultimate true meaning. Every religion claims that it contains the genuine Divine revelation and all the others hopelessly miss the true meaning of life. So how, objectively, do I know that Judaism's claims to the truth are correct? Because I believe so? But then I cannot speak of the Divine plan for my life, only of my own invention, something I created in my own image, according to my personal considerations, hopes, and the inclinations of my heart. What I was taught to consider absolute becomes relative, and if that is so, I see no difference between me and an adherent of any other religion or ideology, G-d forbid.

I am looking for arguments to strengthen the rational basis of my faith. I am searching for answers to an assortment of problems so as to restore my confidence in the truth of our tradition. It is important to point out: I am not looking for absolute "mathematical" proofs, but rather for common sense plausibility, for an intellectually honest approach which would lead to a reasonable conclusion that the Torah is really from Heaven and that our Halachic tradition, which determines the practical behavior of a contemporary Jew, really has Divine authority.

Dear Naftali,

Although I am not your rabbi, and, truth be told, not even a rabbi, as I am still before semicha, I will attempt to answer the questions you bring up in your letter, mainly because I have not yet seen others do so, in a comprehensive fashion.

Let me preface by saying that I do not view myself as an ideologue. My goal here is to provide answers that I believe represent the truth, and if you believe that I have somehow miscalculated, I would greatly appreciate if you would let me know.

Before I address the various questions in your letter, I first want to lay out, at some length, the reasons why I believe. That will include two proofs: A proof from the fact that Tzaddikim (righteous men) can perform miracles, and my thoughts on the well-known “Kuzari Proof”, which is discussed by most Rishonim.

But even before that, I want to discuss some basic observations about human enquiry, which I believe will help to lay out the correct methodology to reaching the right conclusions in our quest for truth.

One of the fundamental flaws of human reasoning is that with almost every idea or ideal, there are at least two ways of viewing it, if one is lucky. Most often, in addition to the two extremes in how to address the subject, there is often a whole range of conclusions in between that can be reached. Furthermore, our minds can be clever enough that they can convincingly explain the correctness of each conclusion.

To give some examples, how should one educate a child? Does one ‘spare the rod, and ruin the child’, or should one be completely permissive and unrestricting? Or something in between?

How about capital punishment? Or questions of morality? Or the correct approach to various political issues? There are so many positions one can take, all based on sharp logical reasoning.

Now, generally speaking, only one conclusion is actually correct. The problem is that our minds can convincingly argue the righteousness of each approach, making it difficult to find the correct conclusion.

A further flaw with human logic, pertains more to facts and information – that when one learns even a bit more information about a certain situation, that sometimes has the potential to lead one to a very different conclusion than what was reached originally, sometimes even the exact opposite of one’s first conclusion.

A famous example of this idea is of someone who encounters the emergency room of a hospital for the first time, without any prior knowledge about the existence of surgical procedures. Imagine the scene that meets his eyes: someone is lying on a bed, apparently asleep; he is surrounded by three people, all wearing masks on their faces, one of whom has a knife in his hand, clearly preparing to make use of it. It can be expected that our hypothetical spectator will come to the conclusion that he is about to witness a murder, and if he would be courageous enough, he would try to do everything in his power to prevent that from happening.

But if, before he manages to intervene, someone pulls aside our spectator and explains to him that, in truth, the patient lying in bed is suffering from a life-threatening disease, and the people around him are doctors, and that they are about to perform surgery on him in an attempt remove the affected organ – then that would bring our spectator to the opposite conclusion: that instead of murder, the doctors are attempting to save the patient’s life. In which case, our spectator would most probably approach the doctors and try to assist them in any way possible.

One has to be so careful when trying to formulate logical conclusions, as there is always the possibility that there exists more information that can drastically change, or even uproot, one’s original conclusion.

I think that this very letter is a very good example of that. Your letter was written around ten years ago, and I assume that until now, a comprehensive answer to your questions was not presented to you. A decade later, someone comes along and (hopefully) provides satisfactory answers to almost all of it.

That is the problem with logic.

I’m not suggesting that people should resign themselves to be in a perpetual state of limbo, and remain undecided about everything – it’s just not realistic to live life that way. But one has to be extremely cautious when reaching conclusions that have such a profound impact on one’s life, and the lives of those around them, as we must always remember that there remains the possibility that we have inadvertently miscalculated.

Because of these abovementioned flaws, I will suggest adopting the following methodology:

1. One must always base his conclusions on reality, and not base reality on his conclusions.

Once we accept reality for what, and how, it is, and only then try to build a logical reasoning to explain it, that firstly, aids us tremendously in evaluating which factors we should be taking into account and which ones we should ignore, and secondly, we also know that this conclusion is the correct one, as this is what actually works in our reality.

2. One must be very cautious when reaching conclusions, and one should always allow themselves to re-examine the conclusion that they reached, whenever they encounter new evidence on the subject.

3. One should never set a time limit for finding the truth, as that will only encourage self-deception in one’s haste to arrive at a decision.

Now, after clarifying the methodology, I will move on to the proofs for my belief in Yiddishkeit.