Vayeira: Vox Intellectus Vox Dei (The Voice of the Intellect is the Voice of God)
Avimelech clearly sinned against Avraham and Sarah, but in what sense did he sin against God? Radak's answer expresses what it truly means to be a "rationalist."
This week’s Torah content has been sponsored by Yael Weiss. I forgot to ask her for a dedication message in advance, but in the meantime, I’ll dedicate this Torah content to the entire Weiss family: Rabbi and Sara, Yael and Esti, Eli and Benji, with a special shout-out to Rabbi Weiss Sr. Thank you for supporting what I do and for being part of my learning life, each in your own way!
Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article.
Vayeira: Vox Intellectus Vox Dei (The Voice of the Intellect is the Voice of God)
After Avimelech, king of Gerar, abducts Sarah, God appears to him in a dream, saying, “You are about to die because of the woman you took, for she is married to a man” (Bereishis 20:3). Avimelech defends himself, protesting, “Did he not say to me, 'she is my sister'? And she herself said, 'he is my brother.' I did this with an innocent heart and clean hands!” (ibid. 20:5). God replies, “I too know that you did this with an innocent heart, and I also restrained you from sinning against Me. Therefore, I did not allow you to touch her” (ibid. 20:6).
The question arises: Why does Hashem frame Avimelech’s abduction of Sarah as a sin against Him? On the surface, this offense was against Avraham and Sarah, as seen when Hashem urges Avimelech to appease Avraham. In fact, Chazal (Mishnah Bava Kama 8:4; Talmud Bavli 92a) derive from this episode the halachic requirement to appease the victim of an interpersonal wrongdoing, even after making monetary reparations.
Radak (ibid.) answers this question with a radical idea about how God communicates with man:
from sinning against Me – for the sin would have been against God if he (Avimelech) had violated His command, for God commanded Noach’s descendants regarding [the prohibition against relations with] a married woman, as we have written. Even if He had not explicitly commanded this, the intellect dictates [this prohibition]; by endowing man with intellect, it is as if God commanded everything that the intellect dictates, for the intellect is God’s shaliach (messenger), warning a person about every harmful act. Any violence one commits against another person defies [the dictates of the] intellect, disrupting the order and stability of civilization. If robbing a person of property is wrong, how much more so violating another’s body …
On a narrative level, Radak explains that Avimelech’s attempted adultery was a sin against God in two ways: (1) Hashem issued a commandment prohibiting adultery, and (2) even without an explicit command, reason itself prohibits adultery, which is tantamount to being prohibited by God.
This type of violation sealed the fate of the Dor ha’Mabul (Generation of the Flood). Although they engaged in avodah zarah (idolatry), gilui arayos (sexual immorality), and chamas (violent robbery, including kidnapping), their fate was ultimately sealed by chamas. Ramban (ibid. 6:18) elaborates on this in a manner consistent with Radak:
[God] informed Noach [that the Flood was decreed because “the earth was filled with] chamas.” He did not mention “the corruption of the way” [noted earlier] because chamas is a sin that is well-known and publicized. Our Sages (Sanhedrin 108a) say that their verdict was sealed because of chamas. The reason for this is because [the prohibition against chamas] is a mitzvah dictated by reason, needing no prophetic warning. Moreover, it is a wrongdoing toward both heaven and humanity. Thus, He informed Noach that this is the sin for which the end has come.
Radak’s response reveals a fundamental insight into Judaism’s view of intellect and its relationship with the Divine will: that the voice of the intellect is the voice of God. I dislike the term “rationalist,” even though it’s likely what I’d select from a list of philosophical orientations. The problem with this term is that it treats reason as something imposed externally upon Torah, rather than as something intrinsic to Torah itself. It’s like speaking of “evidence-based science”; the term “evidence-based” should be redundant, since evidence is integral to what science is.
If one insists on using the term “rationalist,” then Radak’s comments capture what that label should mean: recognizing intellect as God’s gift, the defining feature of our species, and listening to it as heeding “the messenger of God” that conveys His will. Of course, this doesn’t mean the human intellect is infallible. Our knowledge is limited, and our emotions and imagination can cloud our reasoning. But Radak’s core insight is that the directives of a mitzvah and the dictates of reason are of the same nature: both come from God and convey His will.
I’m genuinely curious about your thoughts on the Radak’s strongly worded statements about the relationship between the intellect and God. Let me know what you think in the comments!
Like what you read? Give this article a “like” and share it with someone who might appreciate it!
Want access to my paid content without actually paying? If you successfully refer enough friends, you can get access to the paid tier for free!
Interested in reading more? Become a free subscriber, or upgrade to a paid subscription for the upcoming exclusive content!
If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.
If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.
-----
Substack: rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/
Patreon: patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss
YouTube: youtube.com/rabbischneeweiss
Instagram: instagram.com/rabbischneeweiss/
"The Stoic Jew" Podcast: thestoicjew.buzzsprout.com
"Machshavah Lab" Podcast: machshavahlab.buzzsprout.com
"The Mishlei Podcast": mishlei.buzzsprout.com
"Rambam Bekius" Podcast: rambambekius.buzzsprout.com
"The Tefilah Podcast": tefilah.buzzsprout.com
Old Blog: kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/
WhatsApp Content Hub (where I post all my content and announce my public classes): https://chat.whatsapp.com/GEB1EPIAarsELfHWuI2k0H
Amazon Wishlist: amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/Y72CSP86S24W?ref_=wl_sharel
This idea sounds similar to God speaking to us through our conscience, perhaps two sides of the same coin, with one more intuitive than the other, what do you think?
Btw, cf., e.g., ר' בחיי בראשית י"ח:כ'
ואע"פ שלא נתנה תורה עדיין, הנה הצדקה מן המצות המושכלות, ודבר מתועב הוא שיראה אדם את מינו מוטל ברעב והוא עשיר ושבע מכל טוב ואינו מרחם עליו להשיב את נפשו, על אחת כמה וכמה על מי שהוא מאומתו ודר עמו בעיר אחת, ועל כן אבדן הש"י לאנשי סדום שהיו מונעים אותה ולקח נקמת העניים.