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

[Michael Makovi]

>  : The argument that the unity of klal yisrael does not affect one's
>  : relationship to hashem is, to my mind, quite startling...
>  : R' Meir Shinnar

>  And not made.
>
>  Davening at home rather than hearing shofar by taking a car affects
>  one's relationship to Hashem. But there is no "eis la'asos" for someone
>  who usually attends shul to get to shofar blowing in such a scenario.
>
>  Eis la'asos requires near total loss of that relationship.
> R' Micha Berger

Or maybe, one individual missing the shofar is not enough. Maybe an
eit la'asot lashem requires the *tzibur* to miss the shofar. Maybe eit
la'asot lashem applies davka for a catastrophe involving the masses -
perhaps it is not the individual's loss of contact with Hashem that is
key, but either the tzibur's or the multitude of individuals'.

>  To state the same argument flipped around, we get an ad absurdum: If
>  one were to take REB's position as valid, the codifications we call
>  mishnah and gemara are also lamentable, and we should reconsider our
>  decision to make them binding. While REB doesn't go that far, his
>  only reason not to is pragmatic. Centuries of thought, including the
>  Rambam you mention, are out the window.

That's not ad absurdum - REB said this. He said that indeed, the very
existence of the Mishna and Gemara is lamentable. Now, he said, they
are here to stay just as the SA is. But all the same, he held that we
should try to make the halacha as flexible as possible, to keep its
original flexible and oral nature in mind, and not become "Karaites of
the Oral Law". (My point is simply that, agree or disagree with REB,
what you've said is not ad absurdum. I'm surely only hurting the case
though.)

 Mikha'el Makovi