[Avodah] Dogma and kavana vs the objective deed

[Michael Makovi]

>From [Areivim] heresy-hunting and "poetry"

>  > Whatever happened to a statement like, "Judaism is short on dogma and long
>  > on doing the right thing." Was it never true?
>  > R' YL

>  Actually, yes, it was never true.
> MYG
> All subsequent quotes from MYG

I'd beg to differ, and guess what, no one will accuse me of heresy for
disagreeing! ;)

> Hmm... The Aseres Hadibros: The first two
>  - dogma! The Ani Maamins: dogma! The Sheish Mitzvos Temidios: the first
>  three - dogma! Shema twice each day: dogma! (Yes, I know there's an overlap
>  - my point is that even those "doing the right thing[s]" are still long on
>  dogma.)

But Sefer haIkkarim requires only 3, not the 13. The 13 may be
universally accepted, but if someone held by R' Albo, could we really
call him a heretic?

In any case, notice how many issues are NOT included in this list of
yours. The thread on Avodah about G-d's attributes, where I claimed
that He actually does feel anger etc. - I violated no issurim by going
against the status quo, because belief in certain dogmas is not so
important as deed.

Similarly, anyone can agree or disagree with Chazalic aggadot as he
sees fit, as too many Rishonim say. Rav Hirsch to Avimelech cites a
long midrash, and then selectively chooses which parts to select and
reject. On Avraham coming from Beer Sheba to Hebron for Sarah's
burial, he rejects Chazal that Sarah was sent to Hebron before the
Akeida and died immediately after the Akeida.

Oh, and in reply to the popular notion that aggadot are m'Sinai, Rav
Hirsch says that this is an incredibly dangerous idea and will do
untold damage to students. Is Rav Hirsch a heretic for disagreeing
with Ramchal, or vice versa?

True, Judaism has dogmas. But compared to almost everything except
Hinduism, it has far far far far fewer dogmas than anyone else,
especially Christianity. In (classical) Christianity, one dogma is the
ENTIRE religion. In Judaism, a few dogmas are the foundations of the
religion, not their core and body.

> In fact, every "doing the right thing" in the Torah stems from these
>  dogmaticisms (did I just make that up, R'n TK?). If you help someone mow his
>  lawn because you want to do the right thing, you have not fulfilled the
>  Torah's dictates (according to many). Of course, it's a nice thing to do,
>  but not a Mitzvah.

I think you mean, "because you want to do the NICE thing" or "because
you want to be NICE" - i.e., because according to some nebulous
undefined standard of morality, it's good, stam. But to do the RIGHT
thing (which is what you said) means to do what G-d said, because
that's what makes it right!

I> f you do the same thing because Hashem said "V'ahavta
>  L'reiacha Kamocha" - boom! You got a Mitzvah. Why do you love your neighbor?
>  Because Hashem is, and because He gave us the Torah, and because the Torah
>  is true, and because the Torah says to. So the reason for doing it is not
>  because it is the right thing, but because of good ol' Jewish dogma. Or, to
>  put it a bit more palatably, the reason why it is the right thing is because
>  of good ol' Jewish dogma.

First, I wouldn't call this dogma - this isn't something someone has
to believe in or else be damned; rather, it's simply a necessary
condition for the mitzvah, for the deed. Similarly, on Shabbat, to be
chayav, I don't have to "believe in" melechet machshevet; rather, I
have to DO with melechet machshevet.

In any case though, one could argue against this notion that one needs
active kavana to be yotze. Rambam and those like him say that while
you should do chukim solely because He said so, rational mitzvot
should eventually become part of your character, and you should do
them lishma. If I help my neighbor enough times, even though I hate
him or even though I'm lazy, eventually I'll come to love helping him.
If I give tzedaka, I'll eventually become charitable.

Chazal said that you should abstain from pork not because you hate it,
but only because G-d said so. But can you imagine Chazal saying, "Do
not say, 'I love to murder, steal, rape, pillage, but what can I do,
for Avinu she'ba'shamayim has forbade it?'" I don't know about you,
but I won't want to be on the shul committee with this guy!

Rather, a person will start out with this position (he loves to, say,
speak lashon hara, but abstains only because G-d said so), but
eventually he'll realize how evil the vice is and how good the mitzvah
is, and it will achieve its own independent drive within him.

Now, b'vadai, because G-d said so will still be a motive. I do not
mean to suggest otherwise. For example, yirat shamayim will ensure the
mitzvah even when the ta'am seems to not apply (for example, certain
kinds of lashon hara that we all know wouldn't seem to be so harmful)
or when no one is looking, etc.

But even if because G-d said so is a necessary precondition, I'd say
that you shouldn't need to have active thought of it at the time.
Chofetz Chaim says that if you pay a taxi driver without the active,
conscious, explicit kavana of paying a worker on time, you've done no
mitzvah. But I'd rejoin, what if you asked the guy, "Why did you just
pay him on time?"
He'd reply, "Because it's the right thing".
"Why is it the right thing?"
"Because G-d said so".
In other words, even lacking an active conscious kavana, you always
have a subconscious kavana. Similarly, if I wash and eat in one place,
but intend to bentsch somewhere else, I need to have this kavana while
I wash. But what if my mind suddenly goes blank during washing, and I
forget to have this kavana? Answer: I'm still okay, because we assume
that had someone asked me during washing, "Where are you bentsching?",
I'd answer, "In such-and-such a place, not where I'm eating". The
kavana was subconscious all along, and so it is still yotze.

And guess what: For disagreeing with the Chofetz Chaim, I don't think
anyone will brand me a heretic. ;)

Mikha'el Makovi


P. S. On this topic, Rabbi Benjamin Blech (Talmud at YU) has a
FANTASTIC book, "Understanding Judaism: The Basis of Deed and Creed"
(or maybe it was "Basics"?). It is not a scholarly book, but it is
very captivating, and a wonderful basic primer on Judaism: besides his
basic thesis that Judaism focuses on deed not creed, he touches on
numerous other aspects of Judaism, including the best synthesis of the
agricultural and historical meanings of the regalim that I've seen
yet. It recently won an award for best popular book on Judaism.