0

Nissan Dovid Dubov, in The Eternal Nature of the Torah, says:

The Talmud teaches that mitzvahs will be nullified in the Messianic age. How do we reconcile this with Judaism’s cardinal principal that Torah is eternal and mitzvahs don’t change?

However, the website HaDavar argues that the mitzvot are not eternal.

I actually saw a verse in Torah saying that Torah is eternal. That is, all the 613 commandments must be done. I forget the verse.

Can anyone please just point the verse because I couldn't find it.

2

That depends. To whom do you ask?

The Rambam holds that the Torah will never change, not even a single part of it. He even includes that as one of his 13 principles. His claim is based in the fact that the Torah is the absolute truth, and truth doesn't change.

The Sefer Haikarim, however, says that while the truth doesn't change, the torah is meant to be a way for humans towards that truth, and humans Do change, with the circumstances of space and time. And that kind of change has already happened, for example, Adam was given only 7 commandments, and couldn't eat meat, then that was allowed to Noach, while adding a mitzvah of עבר מן החי. Needless to say, this kind of changes can only be given by god himself, and in Matan Torah, he defined what it is a divine command-giving event like. So unless something like Matan Torah (everybody reaching a level of prophecy) happens again, we wont accept any change on the Torah

  • 1
    Do you have the exact cite for Sefer Haikarim? My understanding is that he agrees that in actuality it won't change, he just disputes the idea that the unchanging is inherent to what Torah and Judaism are. – Yishai Jul 3 '15 at 17:03
  • @Yishai It is in pt.3 chapter 13. And not, the issue discussed there is not only if its an inherent Ikar, Its if the Torah could actually change, of course, just in theory, 'cause we don't know if god will do it – Emilios1995 Jul 3 '15 at 17:40
  • I don't know, seems more ambiguous to me than that. Yes, in theory it could change, statements are in the Torah that says that it won't are themselves subject to retraction, so it is circular to argue that it can't change (that is his argument as I understand it). – Yishai Jul 3 '15 at 18:09
  • @Yishai Basically, I Agree. But it seems 'less ambiguous' to me because 1- he has a positive (not just that the verses are subject to retraction) logical argument of why the torah could change. And 2- brings real examples of changes that happened in the 'Torot' through the ages – Emilios1995 Jul 3 '15 at 18:31
  • 1
    "His claim is based in the fact that the Torah is the absolute truth, and truth doesn't change." Where does he say this? – mevaqesh Jul 3 '15 at 19:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .