[Avodah] Must we agree with the Torah?

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 10:38:58PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> Yes.  I don't think the mitzvos are arbitrary.  Hashem *could* have  
>> given us meaningless commandments, and we would have obeyed them  
>> willingly anyway, but He chose not to do that.  This isn't muchrach,  
>> but I think it's been the consensus view in pretty much every set of  
>> sources you care to look at.

> I didn't say "meaningless".  That's a false dichotomy.  There may have  
> been a utilitarian reason that carries no judgment of "bad" with it.

To phrase this idea differently, at least I /think/ it's the same idea
in a different framework:

It could be a hypothetical imperative rather than a categorical one. IOW,
X is bad for someone trying to... rather than X is bad. In this case,
ribis is bad between people in a nation that has a clan/family identity,
but not bad when dealing outside that community. It's morally bad,
but only in one context but not the other.

Similarly, there are things that are destructive for a priest caste
("mamlekhes kohanim") to do because our being priests means the actions
will be received differently. Or because they get in the way of our
ministry and the world needs us as priests.


Getting back to the original topic...

Asei Retzono retzonkha means that we should want to do something simply
because Hashem "wants" it. Regardless of whether or not we know why He
"wants" it, or even whether we can know all that much about the why.

That's a different discussion than belief that no mitzvah is arbitrary.

(Side-point: When we speak of the mitzvos being arbitrary, we mean
they serve no function in the universe(s) as created. However, if
histakeil beOraisa uvarei alma, then the question isn't whether the
mitzvos serve a function in the universe, but whether our souls and
the universe were made such that the proper effects happen from the
mitzvos. And the mitzvos could well have been arbitrary. But really,
IMHO, the mitzvah-creation unit is a single decision -- after all,
He is Absolutely One -- and arbitrariness would only be in relation
to the pair, not the mitzvos given the universe nor the universe given
the mitzvos. Just Creation given His Unknowable Essence.)

There are different reasons why our desires could be aligned with His,
and ahavas Hashem or yir'as haRomemus are only one/two of them. Two other
possibilities are (1) the one Zev and Lisa are discussing: agreeing with
His decision on the topic, and (2) simply aesthetic.

R' Elazar ben Azarya (Sifra Qedoshim 10:22, Weiss ed. Bar Ilan web)
asks where we learn that a person should not say, "Ee ifshi lilvosh
sha'atnez", "... le'ekhol besar chazir", or "... lavo al ha'erva". That
a person should instead say, "Ifshi. Mah a'aseh, vaAvi shebashamayim
gazar alai kakh?"

Then he give his source, "Va'avil eskhem mikol ha'amim, lihyos Li...".
Therefore, he concludes that a person should separate from aveirah and
accept malkhus Shamayim.

The choice REBA presents is between "i ifshi" (wrong) and "gazar" or
"malkhus Shamayim" (right).

REBA is clearly ruling out the aesthetic -- "i ifshi" refers to not
being able to bring myself to do something. Pork is just gross, I would
never touch that! But it's unclear to me that malkhus Shamayim necessarily
means a blind "ana avda deQBH" or if it also includes agreeing with what
we understand of His Reasons for making that gezeira.

Last, "naaseh venishma" could mean that we should expect that that
understanding of elements of His Reasons is a consequence of, not
a cause for, performing mitzvos. So it could be a position somewhere
between "because He said so" and "because it makes sense" -- "because
I trust that whatever He says does make sense."

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
micha at aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH