[Avodah] Tiqun Olam

[Michael Makovi]

> [RSRH criticized the] Hellenic philosopher's [i.e. Rambam's] priority of knowledge rather than morality
>
> R' Micha

And like R' Levine, I believe the Kuzari and Ramhal are similar to the
Rambam here. They replace knowledge with spiritual holiness, but the
two are not really not so different. The mechanism and means are
different, but the upshot is the same; whether one achieves knowledge
of G-d via speculation or spiritual holy closeness to G-d via
korbanot, the final upshot is that morality in and of itself is given
less value. Rambam and Kuzari/Maharal both believe that life's purpose
is holiness and closeness to G-d, and that morality is a means to this
end. And I believe Rav Hirsch disagrees. True, the Kuzari and Ramhal
are less cerebral, but they still devalue morality, and I believe the
Kuzari's apothecary parable is targeted by Rav Hirsch's criticism of
theurgy. (And Derech haShem has an entire section of several chapters
on theurgy!)

For Rabbi Hirsch, ikkar shechina b'tachtonim. Closeness to G-d is
achieved primarily via closeness to His children. As Dr. Nachum
Klafter once noted, for someone like Rav Hirsch, giving tzedaka to a
poor person IS a spiritual moment of closeness to G-d.

You draw a hiluq between practicing morality and the mission of
mankind, and becoming the sort of person who has internalized and had
inculcated in him morality and that mission. I don't see this
distinction as being very meaningful. The person who internalizes will
practice, and the person who practices does so because he has
internalized. (Or if not yet, he will soon internalize; the heart
follows the deeds.) They're one kit and kaboodle.

Regarding Kabbalah, I follow the interpretation of Rabbi Danziger, in
his dialogue with Rabbi Elias at
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/Danziger.pdf and
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/RS%20Hirsch%20R'Elias%20vs%20R%20Danziger%20JAction.pdf
Yes, Rav Hirsch studied the Zohar, studied Maharal, and used a siddur
with Kabbalistic notes. But as Dr. Nachum Klafter agreed with me, Rav
Hirsch read the Zohar like we read Midrash Rabbah. Every time Rav
Hirsch brings a Kabbalistic teaching, he rationalizes it, and removes
all theosophy and theurgy. And indeed, in Nineteen Letters, he
vigorously criticizes theosophy and theurgy; as far as I can tell,
he's not criticizing overmuch reliance on theosophy and theurgy in
Kabbalah, but rather, he's criticizing any belief in theosophy and
theurgy at all.

As for R' Faur: yes, I agree with him. The Torah isn't concerned
whether unicorns exist, and neither is it concerned whether other gods
exist. And just as the sun surely exists despite the prohibition of
worshipping it, other gods might exist too, even if we are prohibited
from worshipping them. Of course, as R' Faur says, if other gods do
exist, they exist only because Hashem created them, along with the sun
and unicorns. What's beautiful is that by the end of this, the other
gods are basically angels or demons or fairies or whatevers, only
under a different name; I don't believe demons exist, but even if they
do exist, this does not threaten monotheism.

Michael Makovi