[Avodah] Societal Needs vs.Self-Perfectin was re: Religion and Falsifiability

[Micha Berger]

On Sat, November 3, 2007 8:00 pm, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: This is imho putting the cart before the horse.  Vayichan shows the
: need for
: communal unity for receiving the Torah [ayein sham Rashi Parshas
: Yisro]
...
: The point is obvious!. Torah was and is alwasy a covenant with a
: community.

Beris Noach has one national mitzvah, and 6 personal ones. However,
you seem to be speaking specifically of Jewishness, even though
someone who is observant of the 7MBN can end up getting the same
sechar as one of us...

Well, beris Avraham isn't. Veharaayah, the os beris is very personal.
His-haleikh lefanai veheyei tamim is not AFAIK taken to be about the
community's deveiqus and temimus. And, for that matter, olam haba (in
the Rambam's sense of the word) has no place for national grouping.

For that matter, despite "vayichan", the first beris Sinai shows no
sign of being national. Non of the diberos used to summate it are
national duties. Even the 7MBN has one of those.

It's not until the 2nd beris at the end of the 40 years that we get to
national tokhakhah, mitzvos teluyos ba'aretz, and other national
concepts.

: Man doesn't SERVE the community. He fills his destiny by performing
: his
: role. Yonah didn't SERVE Ninenveh by warning them he did his mission.
: Yirmiyahu did no SERVE his era,. he fulfilled the role that was his
: destiny
: [beterm etzorcha bebetten yedaticha]...

I fail to see the distinction. Yirmiyahu's hischayvus was to the
tzibbur, not particular members thereof. Yonah is a poor example, as
his famous message was to someone else's community. We don't know much
about his failed mission to Y-m, do we?

...
: David may have been a beter Eved Hashme as a warrior than Shlomoh was
: as a
: peace-maker. But Shlomoh got to build the Mikdash. As a warriro,
: David's role was not as a builder.

Both were kings, and thus tied to serving the community. As is a nasi,
the members of Sanhedrin, and for that matter, sarei alafim vesarei
mei'os... Even an LOR has to at times place the needs of the tzibbur
as a corporate entity ahead of the more immediate needs of any of its
members.

I'm arguing that this is only because the members will be better off
altogether being constituents of a healthy tzibbur.

But how does a comparison of melakhim say anything about the primacy
of tzibbur? And how is war vs building a difference in individual vs
tzibbur?

: Torah  was NEVER given to individuals and the righteous deeds of shem
: v'ever are really never mentioned in Mikra at all! ...

Except for one, by Sheim and Yefes. (Or should I say "Yafes" even when
ending an English sentence?)

For that matter, the overwhelming majority of MRAH's deeds aren't
either. I fail to see the raayah. All it means is that HQBH chose
other incidents as role models or warnings. What does this have to do
with the primacy of tzibbur?

: Moshe was appointed the receiver - according to Hirsch - davka because
: of
: his flaws [ a flawed public speaker]. Had he taken a Dale Carnegie
: Course
: first he would  have been rejected for the role to being with!

How is this relevant either?

: The Community is not a shell to serve the individual, the inidividual
: is a
: cog in the greater hole. The stories are even aback by ba'alei msusar
: who
: tell rich people to stop fasting and do THIER tasks of doing charity.

No, what that means is that different people have different personal
goals, and the fact that he fell to the role of local gevir is because
his goal lies more with tzedaqah than taanis.

He serves the community, whether or not he is defined as part of the
whole, someone who chose to build a collection, or both. I'm arguing
"both", but that the choosing to build the collection is causally
first.

For that matter, I have argued that Shem's view of the world is as a
set of relationships that define individuals, rather than Yafes's
individuality. For me it was a hazy notion until RMLevin had posted
something similar. My version evolved into
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/12/semitic-perspective.shtml

I even developed the idea to explore the difference between ownership
in the western legal sense and ba'alus as captured in halakhah. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/03/qinyan-and-baalus.shtml>. (In
short, baalus is a person's ability to control the object -- a
relationship. Ownership is a property of the object -- reductionism.)

But do I exist to perfect the community, or to be as close to G-d and
as whole (to paraphrase Bereishis) as possible, which is enabled by
pooling effort?

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha at aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv