[Avodah] Tiqun Olam

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:03:32PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: I just read Kuzari 2:47-48, where I realized that according to Rav
: Hirsch, the Kuzari (i.e. the king) is correct and the Haver is
: incorrect. Rav Hirsch's criticism's against the Rambam (19 Letters)
: fully and completely apply to the Haver as well, and the Kuzar King's
: remarks are in marked line with Rav Hirsch's own beliefs.

I DO NOT SEE THIS IN THE LEAST!

R' Hirsch's complaint against the Rambam reads (letter 18):
    The age gave birth to a man [R' Drachman's footnote: Maimonides], a
    mind, who, the product of uncomprehended Judaism and Arabic science,
    was obliged to reconcile the strife which raged in his own breast
    in his own manner, and who, by proclaiming it to the world, became
    the guide of all in whom the same conflict existed.

    This great manm to whom, and to whom alone, we owe the preservation
    of practical Judaism to our time, is responsible because he sought
    to reconcile Judaism with the difficulties which confronted it
    from without instead of developing it creatively from within, for
    all the good and the evil which bless and afflict the heritage of
    the father. His peculiar mental tendency was Arabic-Greek, and his
    conception of the purpose of life the same. He entered into Judaism
    from without, bringing with him opinions of whose truth he had
    convinced himself from extraneous sources and he reconciled. For him,
    too, self-perfecting through the knowledge of truth was the highest
    aim, the practical he deemed subordinate. For him knowledge of God was
    the end, not the means; hence he devoted his intellectual powers to
    speculations upon the essence of Deity, and sought to bind Judaism
    to the results of his speculative investigations as to postulates
    of science or faith. The Mizvoth became for him merely ladders,
    necessary only to conduct to knowledge or to protect against
    error, this latter often only the temporary and limited error of
    polytheism. Mishpatim became only rules of prudence, Mitzvoth as well;
    Chukkim rules of health, teaching right feeling, defending against the
    transitory errors of the time; Edoth ordinances, designed to promote
    philosophical concepts; all this having no foundation in the eternal
    essence of things, not resulting from their eternal demand on me,
    or from my eternal purpose and task, no eternal symbolizing of an
    unchangeable idea, and not inclusive enough to form a basis for the
    totality of the commandments.

    He, the great systematic orderer of the practical results of the
    Talmud, gives expression in the last part of his philosophic work
    to opinions concerning tlie meaning and purpose of the commandments
    which, taking the very practical results codified by himself as the
    contents of the commandments, are utterly untenable cast no real
    light upon them and cannot go hand in hand with them in practice,
    in life, and in science...

What then is RSRH's complaint? That the Rambam was too Aristotilian,
and it led him to study Judaism from the outside, casting upon it the
Hellenic philosopher's priority of knowledge rather than morality, and
as proof -- the Rambam couldn't use his philosophy to build a meaningful
system of taamei hamitzvos.

it is in error on this point as well. Neither the Kuzari nor the Ramchal
make life's mission to be the intellectual comprehension of G-d. Neither
speak the philosopher's language and try to fit a Torah hashkafah into
those categories.

...
: As Levine notes, "It is through their [the mizvot] effect upon both
: nature and history that, according to Hirsch, they enable Israel to
: fulfill its mission to humanity." Additionally, Rav Hirsch, in a few
: places, explicitly says that the duty and purpose of man and life is
: tzeded u-mishpat; see for example his comment on G-d's musings over
: Sodom and Amorah, about Avraham teaching his children tzedek
: u-mishpat.

Horeb's system is about inculcating values. Not only fulfilling a mission
to humanity, but more becoming the vessels capable of doing so. Not
ethics and justice, but becoming an ethical and just person. Otherwise,
RSRH would have no room for Chuqim, Eidos, and perhaps Mitzvos (the
category) neither.

It is actually quite similar to Mussar, as I noted in a recent
dialog with RRW, which he blogged at
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2009/06/reflections-upon-nishma-intellectual.html
My thesis:
    Look how similar TIDE and Slabodka are in terms of objective. The
    ideal Herr Rabbiner Doctor is cultured, refined, pays attention to his
    dress and the impression he creates. An emphasis on human dignity as
    part of Jewish expression. The Mensch-Israel. Ands what would I have
    to change of that to describe Slabodka's ideal alumnus? Less value
    assigned to cultural development -- although they valued personal
    creativity in poetry and music, secular education was relegated to
    satifying curiosity on the side. It was expected that you were well
    read; but nothing like a PhD.

    There is a fundamental difference in how they define refinement. R'
    Hirsch speaks in terms of culture. Slabodka, unsurprisingly, in
    terms of middos.
    ...
    RSRH makes it about internalizing messages. And therefore when the
    message is unclear, he invokes symbology. Symbols do present
    messages in a manner where they can be better internalized. Thus the
    power of poetry over prose....
    Mussar looks to mitzvos to behaviorally change the person....

The Ramchal's path is actually less cerebral, and thus less similar to
the Rambam's, than RSRH's.

...
: Regarding Kabbalah, Levine rightly notes, "It need be stressed that
: though Hirsch's sharpest criticisms are directed against practical
: mysticism and its performances, the logic of his position requires his
: opposition to the very basis of the Kabbalah: a belief in
: supra-mundane worlds and the effects of the religious act in spheres
: not directly related to man and his world."

And yet Dayan Grunfeld, in the introduction to Horeb, points out how
the symbology of RSRH's system /is/ qabbalah. His analysis of 6, 7 and
8 is the Maharal's. R Joseph Breuer, describes the prepatory notes
of Horeb containing much use of the Zohar. See also Hamaayan v4n4,
1965 pp 50-51, where R' Yonah Emanuel shows the roots in the Zohar for
RSRH's description in Vayiqra of the role of qorbanos. R' Munk ("Rabbiner
Hirsch als Rationalist der Kabbalah") is quoted by Dayan Grunfeld about
other mitzvos. His own siddur was rife with marginal notes of statements
of qabbalah. He received a Zohar from his grandfather as a teen, and
said it had much influsence on him (Shemesh Merapei p 276.) (Much of the
above evidence collected by R' Elias.)

He had no problem with qabbalah, he had a problem with people making
religion about higher worlds and making effects on the universe *as
opposed to effects on the doer*.

See DG's intro to Horeb, footnote on pg cxx.

In short, I disagree on three points:

1- That RSRH saw the role of mitzvos as being about doing the right and
the just rather than developing oneself into the kind of person who does
the right and the just.

2- That his complaint against the Rambam revolved around his description
of mitzvos on impacting on the self, rather than his use of Aristo to
define the wrong kind of impact.

3- RSRH had no problem with qabbalah, he had problems with how many
people related to it, and therefore taught it accordingly.


On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:15:38PM +0300, Michael Makovi added:
:                                               . The Kuzari, in 2:48,
: agrees, only he replaces speculation with performance of ritual
: mitzvot. In Kuzari 2:44, the Haver says that all mankind and creation
: exists for those who cleave to the Inyan haEloki, and Rambam in his
: Introduction to the Mishnah agrees, only he replaces Inyan haEloki
: with the Active Intellect, and he limits perfection to Jews (Rambam
: would seem to include non-Jews in the capability of perfection).

Actually, 44 says that hashgachah is a product of shemiras hamitzvos,
not the point. 48 also discusses hashgachah, and in particular the
relationship between natural morality, "being the basis and preamble
of the divine law" and the rest of mitzvos. They earn us our extra
hashgachah.

I don't know how you can assert this is a discussion of the purpose of
mitzvos. I would instead look to 1:79 and 2:26. The latter is where he
calls them spiritual medicine.

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:34:47PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: On the other hand, the Kuzari's treatment of the Golden Calf was
: simply brilliant. It turns out that Rabbi Jose Faur's "The Biblical
: Idea of Idolatry"
: (http://faur.derushapublishing.com/_The_Biblical_Idea_of_Idolatry_by_Jose_Faur.pdf)
: is taken almost whole-cloth from the Kuzari, even though he cites the
: Kuzari only once or twice. The only thing Rabbi Faur adds is a
: brilliant refutation of academic claims that the Biblical Jews
: believed in henotheism. Actually, he doesn't so much disprove
: henotheism, as much as he proves that henotheism is a kosher Torah
: belief for a frum Jew. (I don't believe the Kuzari would ever dare say
: such a thing, and a few people have accused me of heresy for relying
: on Rabbi Faur here, but I believe his arguments are true. See there.)

And black is white. Did you actually buy into an argument that polytheism
is a permissable belief as long as a person only worships one of them???

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha at aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore