[Avodah] National vs Individual

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 02:18:18PM +0200, Michael Makovi wrote:
: 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.

My position was actually that both are true. I repeated RYBS's thesis
in "Community" that there is a basic dialectic: Community exists to
insure that the individuals within it have their needs met. However,
it is equally true that the individual's highest calling is to serve
the community.

It is equally true that a community is a set of individuals, and that an
individual could be viewed as part of a community. It's a question of
which is viewed as primary and which is derived. And both perspectives
are true. I used the buzzwords of "mamlekhes kohanim -- a kingdom of
individual priests" and "goy qadosh - a nation that is holy as a unit".

I suggested that this was the difference between the beris at Har Sinai,
which was between HQBH and a set of individuals determined to work for a
common cause, and the beris at Arvos Moav, between Hashem and the nation
as a corporate entity, obligating the people to serve their parts in
the greater whole.

: 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...

And yet, as I just posted, RSRH's kehillah was a group of individuals
who worked to ennoble themselves. The kehillah was defined as the
derived value.

: 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"...

For that matter, the doxology of Shema isn't "H' E-lokeinu H' echad"
but "_Shema_Yisrael_ HEH"E".

But the question isn't A vs B but which is the primary value and which
is the derived one -- or perhaps both.

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 10:45pm EDT, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Psycho-thearapy was supposed to help people be more socialyl functional
: human beings. At times it emphasizees a narcisstic self-reflection
: 
: Mussar -or at least basd mussar - falls preyto the same problem

Bad anything can fall pray to a problem. The quesstion is whether it is
a pitfall inherent in the system.

Pyschothrapy doesn't start with a predefined ideal; rather, it aspires
to enable people to reach their own desired ends.

Mussar, however, aims people at a particular perspective on the Torah's
ideal. One informed by RYS stories that tell you not to daven on YK to
the exclusion of helping the davener next to you. That attending to a
baby left with an overly young babysitter outranks Kol Nidrei, even if
everyone is safe. That one's own safety is of no matter if others have
cholera and need nursing. That one does not wash with more than the
minimum of water if the water has to be brought uphill by a servant
girl, or to eat a slow and leisurly meal if a woman has to wait for
you to finish before going home for her Shabbos meal. That one of the
central chumros in matzah is care for the almanos who have to make them.
Not to cheat the gov't out of its postal fees, etc...

IOW, Mussar is about tiqun hamidos, but the person who is shaleim is
one with true yir'as Hashem and places the gashmiyus of anothers in a
central role in his own ruchnius.

It is thus less prone to such ills than some other derakhim.

: The Torah was given to effect  a mamleches kohanim and Goy Kaddosh by HKBH's
: own words and I am locked into an argument that Torah is about
: self-prefection, an attidue probably first seriously considered by  RY
: Salnter or his followers.

I vehemently disagree. Moshe asks "Mah tov umah H' doreish mimekha". His
answer is not to part of of a national whole. Nor is Mikhah's answer to
the same question. And Chavaquq came and established it all on "vetzadiq
be'emunaso yichyeh" -- speaking quite eloquently to the lonely man
of faith.

According to the Rambam, mitzvos exist to provide da'as of HQBH. RSG in
Emunos veDei'os and Rihal in the Kuzari write that mitzvos were given as a
means to refine the soul. Similar to Rabbeinu Yonah, who describe them as
the means to spiritual health. The the Ran and the Ikarrim (his talmid),
speak about mitzvos enabling the soul to connect to the Divine Good.
The Besh"t's model of deveiqus is pretty much the same, but in more
modern Qabbalistic terms. The Ramchal defines mitzvos as preparing on
ereev Shabbos so that one is capable of receiving the Divine Good --
in olam hava. R' Chaim Volozhiner also signs onto the "perfect the soul"
model, to the extent that the avos were able to deduce all the mitzvos by
feeling the imperfections in their own souls and deducing what was needed.
RSRH speaks in nearly mussar terms, however his ish shaleim is phrased
in terms of TIDE, not the language of middos.

I actually can't think of anyone who defines mitzvos other than in terms
of some form of self perfection. I think that's sufficient to dispute the
claim that it's some invention of RYS's. But moreso, I can't think of a
maqor for defining the function of mitzvos in national terms.

Even leshonos that play down the value of mitzvos outside EY... First,
they speak in terms of EY, not nationhood. They do not speak of Bavel at
a time when most Jews were there; and they do speak of a person who lived
in the middle of nowhere in EY at a time when few people did. But more to
the point, they aren't necessarily saying the role is about nationhood;
avira de'aretz machkim is but one quote supporting the notion that EY
is of value on an individual level.

:                                                    The klal is a ubiquitous
: theme in Yekke hashkafa in genral and in Hirsch in Particualr [see 19
: letters!] but since it is not "politically correct" in America and in the
: mussar movement to consider the peoplehood over the individual so it gets
: white-washed

RSRH's kelal is a derived value. In Horeb, mitzvos teach truths that
allow a person to develop his godliness. TIDE ennobles *the self*.

You write as though the mussar movement is alive and well and has any
serious impact on contemporary thought. Halevai! However, I would agree
that the US's stress on autonomy and the self-made man will play down
concepts of nationalism.

I recently had a Russian Jewish co worker who explained that this is why
baseball is such an American sport. It gives each player his turn in the
spotlight and a chance to succeed as an individual. (He then continued
with an analysis of football and US history; the line of scrimmage and
the westward move of the national border throughout the 19th cent...)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
micha at aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
micha at aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507