It was that time of year again. Once a year, for a single day, the legendary Buddhist guru would emerge from his solitary meditation to greet the public. Thousands of people would flock to his far-flung residence to greet him. Some came to ask questions, seeking his wisdom and advice, while others came just to lay eyes on this legendary figure.
The moment had finally come, and a hush fell over the crowd. The guru slowly emerged, and the crowd immediately swarmed toward him. Those in front began reaching out to him, and one by one, he began addressing their questions. The aura of reverence was suddenly broken by a commotion in the back of the crowd. An older woman began pushing her way through the crowd, trying to make her way to the front. Everyone began muttering, wondering why she was so desperate to meet the guru. She must have a very deep, philosophical question. Was she looking for the path toward peace and truth? Was she wondering how to find her unique mission in life? When she finally reached the front, she grabbed onto the guru’s arm:
“Moishy!” she chided him. “Enough of this foolishness! It’s time to come home and get a job!”
Very often, people believe that true depth and wisdom lies only in far-off places – in Eastern spirituality or Western philosophy. However, the deepest wisdom lies within Jewish thought, in the depths of the Torah’s inner wisdom. One must only seek, and they will find.
The Purpose of Chukim
The power and purpose of intellect is an oft misunderstood concept in the Western world, making chukim all the more important to study. A chok is commonly understood in contrast to a mishpat.
A mishpat is a rational, intuitive Torah law, such as the prohibitions against murder and stealing and the command to give charity. Such laws appeal to the human intellect and appeal to the innate moral compass present within all human beings, irrespective of religion, race, or ethnicity.
A chok, on the other hand, refers to a Torah law that seemingly defies human logic and rational explanation, such as parah adumah, kashrus (Jewish dietary laws), and shaatnez (the prohibition against mixing wool and linen).
If there is no logical explanation for these mitzvos, what is their purpose? Why would Hashem command us to do something for seemingly no justifiable reason?
One possibility is that this type of command engenders obedience and submission to Hashem’s will. A life of truth is a life aligned with a higher will, i.e., Hashem’s will (Avos 2:4). Such a life requires commitment and discipline. An effective way to discipline oneself is by obeying laws, regardless of whether one understands them. Comprehension and understanding are valuable, but chukim are necessary to create a firm structure of pure obedience to Hashem’s will.
However, it is possible that while chukim do not appear to have any rational or logical explanation, this is true only from the viewpoint of human logic and reason. In other words, there is, in fact, a reason for chukim, but these reasons transcend human logic, residing in a realm far beyond our intellectual capabilities. Within this line of thinking, it is possible that while our human intellects cannot grasp the entirety of a chok’s meaning and depth, we can access shards of its meaning. A clear expression of this is the fact that many commentators have attempted to provide explanations for chukim, despite their supposed incomprehensibility. This suggests at least a partially comprehensible aspect to chukim, despite their elusive and transcendent nature.
The Nature of Intellect
The topic of chukim and our ability to intellectually grasp them raises a more general question: What exactly is the nature and purpose of our intellect? Within Western culture, the intellect is lauded as the be-all and end-all of truth itself. Scientists, philosophers, and atheists often claim that Judaism is dogmatic and irrational, rejecting logic and reason. Is this so? What is the role of intellect within Judaism, and conversely, what is its limit? Do we reject reason, embrace it, or perhaps take a middle ground? The Vilna Gaon famously said, “Where logic and human intellect ends, Jewish wisdom begins.” It seems, therefore, that Judaism does not reject reason and logic but builds upon it. Let us explore what this means.
The Purpose and Utility of Logic
Philosophy and logic are useful, often necessary, tools for approaching spiritual truths. For example, one of the most famous methods of proving Hashem’s existence is the “proof by design” approach. The universe is so infinitely complex and vastly beautiful, with endless layers of depth and organization. Examine just a single human cell, and you will be astounded by its sophistication. Analyze the principles of chemistry, and you will be blown away by how perfectly everything fits. The only logical reaction to a universe so organized and sophisticated is to conclude that there must be a Designer who created it. Such a work of art does not simply happen by accident. This proof is a logical one, using the logical alternative of a Creator not existing to prove the existence of one.
Many famous analogies are used to describe the likelihood of such a masterpiece happening by accident. One could say that it’s as likely as a monkey splashing ink over hundreds of pages and accidentally writing a literary masterpiece. It’s as likely as throwing a bunch of metal into a pile and accidentally creating a working watch. Or, it’s as likely as a tornado passing through a junkyard filled with scraps of metal and accidentally leaving behind a brand-new automobile. The point is clear; such a complex and beautiful world must have a Creator.
Another logical approach to Hashem’s existence uses the idea of causation. Logically, the world must have a first cause. After all, where did everything come from? We might be able to scientifically explain how things evolved, but this doesn’t tell us where those original things came from. Everything in the finite world can trace itself back to a previous source. Therefore, Hashem must be the source of reality. One might ask, if everything has a source, then must not Hashem have a source as well? The fundamental answer to this important question is that once we realize Hashem is above space and time, the rules of logic, space, and time no longer apply to Him.
Intellect Provides Limited Knowledge
However, there are also flaws with human logic, and careful consideration of the previously mentioned proofs shows this clearly. One may logically conclude that Hashem exists; the world is so infinitely complex; there must be a Creator behind it. However, there is a fundamental limit to logic. Logic may enable us to know that Hashem exists, but it does not help us know anything about Him. We may know, through reasoning, that there is a Creator, but logic alone does not allow us to have a relationship with Hashem, experience Him, or deeply connect with Him. (Thus, the quality of logical knowledge is limited. It is factual, cold, and external; it lacks intimacy, experience, and deeper connection. One may factually know someone exists, but only once there is a real, deep relationship does the quality of that knowledge become an experiential form of knowledge. This is why the Torah refers to marital connection as daas, the Hebrew word for knowledge (Bereishis 4:1). Daas refers to internal, deep, and experiential knowledge.) But the limits of logic expand far beyond this example.
Immanuel Kant, the famous eighteenth-century German philosopher, revolutionized the study of philosophy by questioning the very validity of human intellect itself. (It is essential to point out that while, in the Western world, Kant is credited with this novel idea, Jewish thinkers have already been teaching this concept for thousands of years.) He proposed the following idea: The entirety of physical human experience is transmitted through our five senses. Therefore, our entire conception of the physical world is based solely on our personal, subjective experience. We don’t experience reality itself; we experience reality only as it is subjectively filtered through our own physical senses. We imagine that sounds are the way we hear them, sights are the way we see them, and tastes are the way we, personally, perceive them. However, the idea that our “translation system,” i.e., our five senses, allows us to sense things as they truly are is merely an assumption. There is no way of knowing if the world as I experience it is consistent with the objective reality of the world. Perhaps there is an infinite array of possible experiences that our five senses are simply unable to transmit to us. For example, our eyes happen to experience the world through a specific optic lens. But if our eyes were created to see at the quantum level, our perception of reality would be fundamentally different.
Similarly, there is no way of knowing if the world as I experience it is identical to the world as you experience it. We could each be living in our own subjective reality, experiencing something completely different. Say that what you experience as blue, everyone else calls green, and what you experience as green, everyone else calls blue. When you were young, you were taught to call what you experience as blue “green,” and what you experience as green “blue.” In essence, there is no way of knowing what anyone else is experiencing; we each experience our own subjective reality.
Taking this idea a step further, we can question logical reasoning and conclusions as well. If the rules of physics and logic are based on personal, limited perceptions of a physical reality, human logic is extremely limited. As such, the Western world may be using the wrong tools to understand the ultimate truth.
This is the view that the Ramban takes, articulating this point in his commentary to Sefer Vayikra (Ramban, Vayikra 16:8). The Ramban criticizes the assumption that logic is the ultimate tool for determining truth, pointing to the Greek philosophers as a paradigm of those who made this mistake. They denied anything that their intellects could not grasp, anything they could not scientifically quantify. They created a limited subjective truth, confined only to that which they could explain logically. The fault in this lies in the simple fact that rational knowledge is always limited. In our next article, we will delve deeper into this fascinating topic and try to understand it on an even deeper level.
