[Avodah] . Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)

[Michael Makovi]

>  >  REB...I fail to see how this is an
>  >  eis la'asos, as no one's relationship to Hashem is saved through it,
>  >  "just" unity would.
>  > R' Micha Berger

>  [T]he above paragraph summarizes a major problem and difference in perspective.
>
>  The argument that the unity of klal yisrael does not affect one's
>  relationship to hashem is, to my mind, quite startling - although,
>  perhaps, reflective on an approach emphasizing the individual rather
>  than communal perfection.  However, for many of us, the notion of
>  unity is an integral part of our avodat hashem - and yes, there is a
>  tremendous eys la'asos.  The fact that this is not viewed as part of
>  our relationship to hashem means that our relationship to hashem is
>  flawed.
> R' Meir Shinnar

Some time ago, we had a thread on to what extent Jewish identity is
communal/national versus individual. I chose to place the individual
lower than many others did, but I think everyone can agree, however,
that national identity is a very important component, regardless of
where it lies on the gradient.

Hashem created us as davka not a nation, not a mass of individuals -
"am zu yatzarti li". Any individual can be a holy tzadik. But to
create an entire nation that as one united whole that is tzodek, that
is an entirely different matter. And even if one does not want to go
with Rav Kook and REB on the nation, one can just as well go with Rav
Hirsch on the kehilla - either way, unity has the same tremendous
importance. And the mitzvah of lo titgodedu, and the fact that we were
exiled due to sinat chinam, shows that unity is no small value.

To serve G-d individually is deficient. The King's glory is in the
multitude, and so only as a unity can accomplish our mission as Jews,
whether that unity is a kehilla or a medina (I prefer the second, but
regardless). Why would bamot be problematic, if the the individual's
relationship were primary? Why daven and say Kaddish in a minyan? Why
send mishloach manot? Why have a nation altogether? - just scatter a
few prophets throughout the world and let that be that!

And in any case, why must an eit la'asot lashem be confined to saving
an individual's relationship to G-d? Was writing the Talmud really
intended to help individual? I always thought it was intended to save
the Torah that was the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov...

>  I would add that there is a tshuva by rav shlomo goren zt"l, who asks
>  about a ger who fully accepts ol malchut shamayim and the mitzvot, but
>  does not accept the national identity - and says that such a ger is
>  not valid gerut. National identity and the future of am yisrael are
>  very much part of our avodat hashem - and therefore, yes it is an et
>  la'asot

The Lubavitcher Rebbe said a person who loves G-d but not the Jewish
people, his love will not last. But one who loves the Jewish people
but not G-d - nurture his love for his people and it will grow to
encompass G-d too.

And of course, with Rut, "your people will be my people" came before
"your G-d will be my G-d". Even if one says that "your G-d will be my
G-d" is synonymous with "your mitzvot will be my mitzvot", the fact
remains that identification with the am is considered more important
than identification with G-d and mitzvot, even if the latter are
necessary too. And so one can conceive of a conversion involving
identification with the am but not G-d/mitzvot, but I cannot conceive
of a conversion of someone who accepts G-d and mitzvot but not the am.

Mikha'el Makovi