Experience: The Basis Of Our Faith

We stressed that the Revelation at Sinai was never questioned by those who lived through it, and the Law, Written and Oral were never challenged at the time of its granting. Had they been a forgery, surely there would have been an outcry from at least a segment of that over three and a half million people who, reputedly, were there and who supposedly witnessed and experienced that majestic moment, and who were concurrently given that document describing the purported epoch. After looking at it they would have screamed: "It's a lie. We never experienced what is written in it!..." and it would never have been able to survive a transmission down the generations.

Why didn't they scream, why didn't they protest? The didn't scream nor protest because there was no need to. What happened was true, and both the written and Oral Laws were part of that drama and traditions that emanated from the Revelation at Sinai.

There were responses to these ideas like... "This is the classical traditional argument. For a non-Orthodox Jew to dispute this is folly.”

Another said: “I do not accept the proof of the proofs you use. That people did not object to things that were written down? Maybe they did and lost the shouting match. Furthermore if you were to be shown evidence that there was objection, would that cause you to change your mind? I hope not."

“......what we are doing here is discussing the actual meaning of the word proof in this context. I am sure that you realize that the fact that my father can repeat that his father.. does not constitute proof although the things described are proofs of a sort. I think that if I had actually seen the Yam Suf being parted then I probably would not be forced to believe and could say 'I know'.The Rambam uses what we call evidence as 'proof'. Without for a second calling his conclusions into doubt I know that to modern thinking these are not proofs and require a certain amount of background information.”

What we need to do is to define our terms so that we can intelligently examine the information we have before us and determine whether we have a basis in that body of knowledge to establish the faith in of our history.

What is evidence? What is proof?

Let me illustrate:

We are searching for the missing piece to complete the picture, but there are several pieces that may fit in place. Things that don't fit because of shape are easily rejected. But there are pieces that have the same shape as the vacant space. Does that prove to be the missing link in the picture? Not necessarily. It may not be the same size. We insert the piece and voila! it fits. Does that prove to be the true piece? Again, not necessarily... because it may not be part of the same surroundings of the picture... different color, scheme, setting. It may belong to another part of the puzzle having the same shape.

What constitues proof?

The above illustration, while defining terms also has its limitations in that unless we can experience the event itself, there is always a doubt as to its veracity. If we personally were to insert the missing piece in the puzzle and found it to meet all the criteria that proved it correct, we would have no doubts about the proof. This is what the writer meant when he said "I think that if I had actually seen the Yam Suf being parted then I probably would not be forced to believe and could say 'I know.'“ There are also those who seek to limit the definiton of proof to mathematical precison. The fallacy in that argument is that mathematical proofs are merely models. They are the constructs of the mind, a mental picture of the way we conceive of how things operate. Their limitations become quite obvious when we see failed models of economic, social, psychological and scientific theory consigned to the waste basket. Nothing in nature approaches the certainty of the mental construct of a mathematical model.

But to ignore the evidence of human behavior, and the appreciation of the logic that compels people to act in certain ways, and the understanding of the potency of innate emotional forces that become the engines of human activity and reactions... is to blind oneself from an awareness of how life proceeds. We know our past, we know of George Washington because the knowledge of him is so universally pervasive in time and space, because of the existence of corroborating artifacts, and that there was never any protest to the statement that George Washington actually existed. And yet there is no one alive today who ever experienced him first hand, in the flesh! While the evidence can never be equated with a mathematical proof, for none such proof exists in the real world, the evidence for its truth is so compelling that no sane person would have any reasonable doubt about its veracity. We can safely say that it is a statistical certainty.

All of the above, and more, are true regarding the basis of our faith in our past... Sinai, Revelation, Torah, Written and Oral.

When the writer objects with the argument: “I do not accept the proof of the proofs you use. That people did not object to things that were written down? Maybe they did and lost the shouting match”, he ignores such fundamental operations of society upon which our lives proceed.

Now if one has any doubts as to the efficacy of such type of evidence as the basis for our faith...based on a collective national experience...then let me note that our legal system here in the United States and presumably in many countries functions on these laws of evidence, recognizes their validity and accepts them as evidence in courts of law. The force of these testimonies can even affect life and death.

Under the New Jersey Rules of Evidence, as in most jurisdictions, I presume, hearsay is not admissable in court as evidence. Hearsay is defined as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." This means that if I were to testify in court that Sam told me that Joe borrowed $100 from Dave, my statement may be acceptable in court as evidence, but not Sam's, which was made out of court.

This concept impacts on the question of the basis of our emunah, too. The statement of our fathers who told us something that they heard from their fathers would fall into the category of hearsay.

But there are notable are notable exceptions to the rules of hearsay:

If a charge is made against me and I am aware of the contents of that charge, and have demonstrated by action or by silence that I accept that charge... such a charge is admissable as testimony against me. The rationale lies in basic human nature... that no sane man will remain silent when charged with a lie. He will protest! Therein lies the basis of the halachik principle of "machaa" -- protest. The chapter of Cheszkas Habatim, in Messecshes Bava Basra, dealing with real estate is predicated on the principle of protest against squatters.

The power of protest is innate in human nature and serves as a foundation of law.

2. Family records. "Statements of fact concerning a personal or family history contained in family Bibles, geneologies, charts, engravings or rings, inscriptions on family portraits, engravings on urns, crypts, or tombstones, or the like.”

What more potent family history record is there than a Torah that remained intact with every group of Jews throughout every corner of the world, even among Yemenite Jews whose contact with the mainstream of the Jewish body was severed for over 2500 years? We and they have the same text of the "family record," the Torah. We and they both know the Laws of Schita, the laws of Succa and the definition of what is an Esrog, which are strictly the Oral Law.

This type of evidence is acceptable in our contemporary courts of law because the evidence is based on universally accepted records. So, too, no Jews ever denied that the events described in the Torah occurred; Christians never denied them. Muslems have never denied them; they claim their origin from Abraham. To deny the value of such evidence is to ignore the nature of man.

3."Statements in ancient documents. Statements in a document in existence 30 years or more whose authenticity is established."

It is reasonable to believe, and accepted by the courts that a person will not be motivated 30 years back to act with an intent to affect an event 30 years into the future. It is assumed then, that the statements in the documents were made without prejudice to the future. How much truer is that for statements in documents thousands of years old!

4."Marriage, baptismal, and similar certificates... statements of fact contained in a certificate that the maker performed a marriage or other ceremony... made by a clergyman, public official or other person authorized by the rules or practices of a religious organization... and purported to have been issued AT THE TIME OF THE ACT OR WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME THEREAFTER."

Again we rely on the authenticity and the renown of the performer of the deed. The religious order exists, the performer of the marriage was widely known... and the deed, the record was issued at the time of the event. This testimony is valid for acceptance in a court of law.

The exodus from Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea, the voice of Hashem at Sinai, the granting of the Decalogue, the miraculous trek through the desert... all described in the document of the Torah, and given by the accepted leader Moses... are authentic evidences of their occurrences.

They are so, because built into human nature is the propensity to PROTEST if it were a lie... or a myth! This document would not have survived a generation of transmittal. It would have died an early death like Homer's Oddessy.

Its universal acceptance by at least 3 million people at the time of its occurrence without protest... its survival from generation to generation intact, and the continued survival and renaissance of the subject of that record, we Jews, is adequate valid testimony for the basis of our emunah.

I think those who reject this approach to the basis of our emunah are boxing themselves into a corner in their thinking. Their mindsets are focused on philosophical approaches to faith. That's ok for any other group whose origins never included a national experience. Ours did, and the Torah constantly reminds us to remember those experiences and to base our allegiance to Hashem on what He did for us.

I think they are too fretful about a possible new proof that may arise to contradict our understanding of our past. If a dozen of our original ancestors and 6500 different versions of a Torah were the sources of those events, we could give credence to their premise. But that isn't the case. Moses took every precaution for the widest dissemination of the knowledge of that event... He insisted that each tribe have a copy of the Torah that he wrote, and one copy remain in the Ark. He commanded that at least once in seven years ALL Israel gather to hear its public reading... and that it be read every Sabbath, so that the knowledge of Torah become the common property of all Israel. What an insurance policy for accuracy!

No other people have done that! We have adequate "proof" in our national experience as the basis of our faith.