Raison d'etre of Biblical Commandments

I had a debate with my older brother last night on this topic. I already knew approximately his stance on this but I sought to define it better and put myself in his shoes trying to perceive religion the way he does. In this article I'd like to break down the purpose of Biblical commandments and injunctions according to the various schools of thought, some of which have existed for Millenia.

1) my position. My view is that biblical jurisprudence is the natural man-made outcome of historical conditions in the Ancient Near East. Some case laws in the Covenant Code (parashath mishpatim), for example, are found almost verbatim in the Hammurabi code, which was codified long before the bible, indisputably. No modern religious adherent would posit that the Hammurabi code was inspired by God; all evidence points that Hammurabi and his lieutenants invented and compiled the code for the benefit of the people; it's a thoroughly natural process. Likewise, the Bible, bearing great resemblance to the Hammurabi code as well as Egyptian laws and customs and others, is the offshoot of human endeavor.

Every single law had a 100% "rational" explanation when it was first codified. For example, in modern times, the FDA forbids the use of red # 2 (Amaranth) as food coloring as it is a suspected carcinogen based on the results of surveys or experiments. This is a "rational law" because the action it forbids can be associated with an undesirable consequence using our reasoning faculties. The law says, you must not pass a red light; another example of rational law.

Likewise, when the bible says "do not eat blood", it is because it was thought to cause bodily harm, possibly due to its attraction of bacteria and pathogens in the absence of refrigeration. When the Bible says "do eat matsah and maror on Pesach" it's because matsah is the more genteel, classy food as opposed to the vulgar, fermented hamets. Maror, also, as a vegetable only affordable by the wealthy is an appropriate item to include on the menu of a meal which celebrates liberation from slavery. Perfectly rational.

Many laws of the Torah have --over the centuries-- ceased to serve the purpose they were originally meant to serve, which created a major conundrum. Do we continue to observe them or do we modify and revise them to make them accommodating to an evolving culture? Over the years, that have been many groups within Judaism who have chosen one path or the other, conservatism or reform. Christianity is an example of a Jewish movement that chose to cross out from the text those laws that no longer seemed relevant. Jesus denigrated the Sabbath (by healing a person on it, how ironic that such an activity came to be viewed as "unsuitable for a relaxation day"), ate without washing his hand first and his disciples even had the chutspah to declare circumcision unnecessary. The Pharisees, from which Rabbinic Judaism is derived, were situated on the other end of the spectrum. They insisted that everything in the bible is 100% valid, no matter how unreasonable the laws seem to us. They, moreover, concocted intricate bylaws designed to bolster the antiquated biblical law and they then claimed that this "oral law" is just as important as the "written law".

2) Symbolism. This is my brother's opinion and is purportedly advanced by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, the German, Orthodox Rabbi of the nineteenth century. According to this school, the Torah teaches us what kind of behavior is good and what is bad. The Torah tells us what the formula of life is. We must have faith that God knows what's best for us, just like we have faith in our doctors when they prescribe medicine or advise us to "sacrifice" immediate pleasures for the sake of long-term health. We don't kill other people because God has willed that such an activity be immoral. We sit in a Sukkah on Sukkoth for the same reason: God sees this activity as symbolic of "good" and thus its observance is required for us to remain God's good, chosen people.

According to this theory, associating Biblical material directly with physical welfare is "apikorsus" (heresy). We must NOT look for rationalistic explanations because there truly are none. The benefit to society of its members not murdering each other is only secondary to the primary benefit of it being a manifestation of god's will. He views a such a society as perfect and THAT is why we don't kill each other. It's a formula that we cannot understand and must not try to understand. God reveals to us in the Torah what the formula is and it's up to us to follow it without question.

3) Kabbalistic explanations. This school, advanced, by the Zohar and Arizal, posits the existence of "olamoth" (worlds) beyond our physical perceptions that are affected by our actions. The Torah instructs us to behave in a manner that will achieve "tiqqun olam" (correction of the world).

4) We observe the Torah because god said so. Why did god say so? It does not matter! We must follow God's will and command.

This fourth school is the one adopted by most contemporary Orthodox observants. They put absolutely no thought at all into Orthodox practices. To them, it's a very simple construct: God tell us to do so and we must listen because God is almighty and all-powerful.

It's important to note the difference between the second, symbolic school and this last one. The symbolic school does not advise adherents that we do things simply because it's god's will. It acknowledges that god's will is tied to other, temporal as well atemporal events and practices. According to the symbolic school, it may be sensible to investigate the meaning of mitsvoth; however, this is done in order to discover the symbolic meaning of the commandments, in other words: how do these commandments provide a lesson or edification for us? If we don't find any edification in the mitsvoth, that's fine too, since the validity of the formula is still there. What should not be done, however, is attribute the mitsvoth to man-made codes of law designed to institute order within civilization.

The Reform movement as well as modern Christian scholars of the Old testament overwhelmingly espouse my school of thought, the first one.

Puritanical Orthodox observants espouse the second school, as per the advocacy of Rabbi Hirsch. Keep in mind that R, Hirsch is the ONLY Orthodox Jewish scholar who had thoroughly investigated the matters at hand and methodically and laboriously deflected all the missiles hurled at him from the liberal-minded elements who sought to trash orthodox observance. In other words: Rabbi Hirsch is all the Orthodox faith has to rely on, there is nothing else.

Thus, as irrational and closed-minded as the symbolic school seems to me and to many others, it's essential to comprehend it properly because ultimately it is the ONLY rational justification of continued observance of the Old Testament. It's the only conservative holdout that actually makes sense. If I had a polemic with my brother on this topic, there's no way I can defeat him using logic. The Symbolic school is logically unbreakable. There is one premise that I don't make and so I cannot draw the Orthodox conclusion: that God has created an immutable formula for "proper living". This is a very bold and pervasive claim that I find no evidence to establish (even if we premise the existence of God). Once this premise is established, though, one can logically and rationally proceed to infer the validity of modern Orthodox law.