[Avodah] Cave or desert island

[Michael Makovi]

>> I said (all >> = me)
>> The Sifra says this on the Tochacha (I think) - when you go into
>> galut, keep doing mitzvot, AS A REMINDER. Our doing mitzvot in
>> chutz
>> la'aretz is only a reminder so that we remember how to keep them in
>> haAretz. It is davka in haAretz where we will be a mamlechet kohanim
>> v'goy kodash, and thus an ohr lagoyim.

> R' Micha said (all > = R' Micha)
> And the Radaq, and the Ramban. However, this simply can't be peshat,
> as then Hillel and Shammai had no justification for staying in Bavel
> while their rebbe was alive. In Bavel, you would argue, they have no
> real mitzvah of talmud Torah. It would be assur to die al qiddush
> Hashem in chu"l, since suicide is 7 mitzvos, and qiddush Hashem is
> not.

Why would there be no mitzvah of talmud torah and chiddush hashem in
chutz? All 613 are completely 100% obligatory in chutz. It's just that
they're not intended to do what they were meant to do originally at
Sinai. It's practice for the real thing, in EY.

And we seem to havea machloket between Bavli and Yerushalmi. The Bavli
for example has Rabbi Zeira's three oaths and such. And yet Midrash
Rabbba has Reish Lakish castigate Rabbi Zeira, and Rabbi Zeira
recants. (However, the Bavli also tells us to prefer an EY city of
idolaters to a Jewish city in chutz. So the machloket might not be
large.) So for any Amoraim who stayed in Bavel, we can say...
a) ...the conditions in EY were simply too difficult, what with the
persecutions and all. But ideally, they'd have made aliyah.
b) ...what Reish Lakish said.

> And what about the person lost in the Negev a little north of Qadeish
> Barnei'a? He lives in EY, thus he would be chayav to wear tefillin no
> less than someone living in the Rova in Y-m. But does nothing toward
> advancing the rest of Kelal Yisrael, or even a minyan of us. How is he
> helping the nation fulfill a covenant?

Sometimes, a halacha has to be made binding even in situations where
logically, it doesn't strictly apply. Rabbi Aryeh Carmel in
Masterplan, for example, uses this to explain yichud and negia;
obviously, there are many people who would successfully withstand the
temptation, but the prohibition is a blanket one nonetheless, even for
those for whom it does not logically apply.

> And what about the Rav Saadia, Ramchal or Nefesh haChaim, who speak of
> mitzvos in terms of sheleimus ha'adam? The Rambam writing about an
> individual's yedi'as haBorei? Or Chassidishe sefarim who speak of the
> individual achieving deveiqus? Aren't the overwhelming majority of
> hashkafic sources written from the assumption that mitzvos exist for
> the purpose of ennobling the self? RMM cites RSRH quite often -- the
> whole notion of TIDE is that both are necessary to ennoble *the self*!

And RSRH speaks of the lessons of mitzvot in terms of mankind. In any
case, I cannot comprehend the idea of tzedaka to the poor only
applying for Jews, i.e. a gentile shouldn't help the poor. It seems to
me that the Noachide laws are a minimum standard, but there's nothing
to say that it isn't good if they go further. Rambam in fact in Hil
Melachim says a gentile can do any mitzvah for reward.

Therefore, mitzvot do have shleimut ha'adam, but this isn't specific to Jews.

> I stick to the theory that both berisim exist -- between HQBH and BY
> and between HQBH and each ben Yisrael. Thus, on a national level, it
> only serves as practice. But on a personal level, there is still a
> tachlis to being more than a ben Noach.
>
> It is true that each Jew is part of Kelal Yisrael. The Rambam is very
> careful in seifer hamitzvos to describe mitzvos BALC as being between
> parts of a whole. But it is also true the Kelal Yisrael is the sum of
> individual Jews.

I see it that a Jew is individually special, insofar as he is an
ambassador for his special nation. The nation is what is special, and
the specialness of the individual flows therefrom. But as an
individual, by himself, he isn't so different from a gentile. I might
be having a fusion of RSRH and Rav Kook here.

>> AL KEN n'kaveh...AL KEN. The reason He chose us, the ENTIRE
>> reason, the entire reason for the entire first paragraph of Aleinu,
is for >> us to bring the whole world to worship Him....

> Where is "entire reason"?
> In fact, it's not reason, "al kein" spells purpose. Why assume there
> is only one purpose?

Okay, add "mamlechet kohanim v'goy kadosh" and "ohr lagoyim" here. We
are a holy nation and a light to nations - the nation seems to be
emphasized. Yes, we are all individually kohanim, but I would see this
as meaning we are representatives of that nation, and therefrom flows
any individual specialness.

>> I'd agree with this, as above. A Jew in galut logically ought to
>> become a Noachide.

> You just disproved your case. Ravina and Rav Ashi concluded otherwise.

They concluded otherwise how? By writing the Gemara in chutz? This
doesn't disprove me. I said logically, in that save the fact that
we'll return and become am echad ba'aretz again, it'd be logical to
stop being Jewish. Only if we know we'll have geula and national
return, does it make sense to continue being Jewish in chutz. But
logically speaking, it would make sense to stop being Jewish in galut.


>> Likewise, we don't serve for Olam Haba. See Rav Hirsch towards the
>> end
>> of Bereshit perek tet. There, Rav Hirsch says that Judaism exists for
>> this world, and that is why the Torah doesn't speak of olam haba -
>> because it's really not very important. In fact, I'd say that Olam
>> haBa is almost meaningless, because after all, we're just going to be
>> resurrected and live on the physical world again....
>
> Tangent: Machloqes:
> Rambam, Ikkarim -- eternity is spent in Olam haBa, after techiyas
> hameisim and a second death
>
> Ramban -- eternity is spent on some perfected physical plane after
> techiyas hameisim -- but that plane is Olam haBa (not the post-death
> non-physical existence)
>
> R' Kook -- a fusion of the two: The wall between this world and the
> non-physical one a person enters after death is an illusion. At some
> point, the world will reach a level where the illusion is broken, and
> people will thus be both in a post-death reality and in a refined
> version of our physical world.
>
> End-tangent.

Ahh!!!!

I knew about Rambam and Ramban, but I never saw Rav Kook's! This
explains Rabbi Isidore Epstein in Faith of Judaism and The Jewish Way
of Life - he waxes for awhile about the value Judaism places on the
physical world, and he says that therefore Judaism places its ideal
world in the temporal world. But then he immediately turns around and
says that the ideal world will be spiritual, but unlike other
religions, Judaism sees no intrinsic distinction between kodesh and
chol, and so this is no problem. I could never figure out whether
Rabbi Epstein was following Rambam or Ramban! So now I see, he was
following Rav Kook!

In any case, all these ideas of techiyat hameitim seem too
philosophical and far from the p'shat. What's the problem with saying
we'll be resurrected into the temporal present physical world? It
makes beautiful sense: the Messianic Era comes, and all the dead are
resurrected to live therein for all eternity. Simple and elegant. See
Rabbi Berkovits towards end of G-d Man and History.

> The Ramchal says we do serve Hashem so that we can give Him the
> opportunity to share his Ultimate Tov with us in olam haba. The
> ultimar Tov must include tzelem E-lokim, and thus must have an element
> of being self-made. You can't just dismiss this part of the Rambam's
> thought as being an Aristotilianism, as that doesn't describe the
> Ramchal.

Tzelem elokim is not the ultimate tov itself, but rather the way to
achieve it, according to my understanding, and Ramchal's too I think.
Tzelem elokim = free will = allows us to do good and avoid evil and
thus win the ultimate tov through our own effort and not as a gift.

I see nothing Rambam-ist here. Rambam said that knowledge is the
ultimate tov, as per Aristotle. I don't see Ramchal saying any such
thing. But then again, I'm not an expert in Derech Hashem.

> Second, for sechar va'onesh to have any meaning, I would think it's
> correlated to the meaningfulness of the action. And thus, even just
> diagnostically -- the individual must be doing something qua
> individual if the reward is qua individual.

Tov. The person is doing Hashem's will. Hashem does want everyone to
be righteous and caring towards his fellow, etc. Far be it from me to
dispute this!

Rather, I'm saying that it is not the individual by himself that
matters ultimately. In order to be good, I have to have a neighbor to
be good to. Taking this to the logical conclusion, it means that
society is intrinsically necessary for the Torah to be carried out.

This I believe is one of the axioms of TIDE; a life of seclusion and
self-perfection is meaningless. One must involve himself in society
and the world.

It's like how sewing one stitch is not a melacha. Normally, hetzi
shiur is assur, but here's it mutar. Why? Because sewing one stitch,
you haven't done anything! It takes two stitches to sew anything.
Likewise, writing one letter means nothing, because there's no word in
Hebrew with only one leter.

In order for any of your bein adam l'chavero mitzvot to accomplish
anything, you have to have a society of at least two people. And the
glory of the King is in the masses, or something like that. As for
bein adam l'makom, obviously this is important too. But it seems to me
that Hashem favors the l'chavero - if He wants l'makom, he has the
angels for that. Furthermore, Rabbi Telushkin b'shem Dennis Prager
points out that just as a parent would prefer his children love each
other and hate him to love him and hate each other, so too Hashem.