[Avodah] Rosh Hashanah 32b There's Hope For Everyone

[Micha Berger]

<331485a50805070440w42c5588ege8bb71871090f3bf at mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, 7 May 2008 14:40:21 +0300 "Michael Makovi"
<mikewinddale at gmail.com> wrote:
: a) The Torah was given to be kept in davka Eretz Yisrael; to keep it
: in chutz is simply practice for the real thing in EY. Therefore, it
: would make sense if the Torah's legislation is truly concerned with EY
: only, both hashkafically and in terms of halachic feasibility. (Rabbi
: Moshe Shmuel Glasner in haTzionut b'Ohr haEmuna, and Rabbi Eliezer
: Berkovits in one of his writings, both say that the Torah is not
: concerned with Shabbat observance being feasible in chutz; it is a
: chiyuv, but it is your own problem, not God's or the Torah's, if it
: isn't feasible.) Perhaps then, the Torah legislated ahava only for the
: Jewish neighbor and for the gentile ger toshav neighbor; where in EY
: is there a non-ger-toshav gentile neighbor? ...

1- I thought I got you to shave some off this position. Not so much
mitzvah vs practice, but that there is only one component which is
missing.

My argument was that otherwise, Hashem would ahve had no reason for
mitzvos specific to beris Sinai to override issurim that are part of
beris Noach when the Jew is in chu"l.

As proof, look at your own sources: There is a chiyuv, keeping it is your
own problem. Saying they weren't designed for chu"l, or more correctly
(in keeping with the direction of cause-and-effect of histakeil beOraisa
ubarei alma) that chu"l wasn't as designed to fit observance, is very
different than saying that observance has no real role there (short of
keeping the memory alive). The Dor 4 is simply saying that nothing is
in there to make chu"l specific loopholes. Which actually presumes that
the Torah is concerned with Shabbas in chu"l bifnei atzma.

2- But to draw the parallel, the chiyuv in EY and chu"l of ve'ahavaa
lerei'akha would be identical, just that in chu"l feasibility is your
problem, not G-d's or the Torah.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

Truth is, universal love with no differentiation is the same as
non-love. Picture this marriage proposal:
    Tom: Cindy, will you marry me?
    Cindy: But Tom, do you love me?
    Tom: Of course, I love everyone!

I REALLY REALLY beg you take the time to read RSShkop's haqdamah to
Shaarei Yosher. Literally words to live by; at least, I'm trying to.
See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf> for the original
(starting from the last page and going backward) and my translation. The
layout makes sense if printed and stapled -- the Hebrew would start from
the Hebrew 1st pg, and the English from the English. He speaks about
kamokha, and ever increasing distance from one's etzem self. His words on
"Im ein ani li" is well known and classic -- and based on this pasuq.

Also, how could we not be expected to love every tzelem E-lokim? Would
it be possible to have full ahavas Hashem and not love that which is
similar to Him? AFAIK, that's not how love works. It's just that this
love happens not to be /this/ chiyuv.

: b) The Gemara says v'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha = Jewish neighbor, but
: perhaps this is a drash and not a kabbalah. [Citations of tertiary
: halachically non-authoritative courses deleted. -mi] ...          If
: we follow Drashot haRan, Sefer haChinuch, Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner,
: etc., that a drash from Chazal doesn't mean the drash is objectively
: correct, then we can suppose, hypothetically and with no effect on
: halacha l'maaseh, that we are to love gentiles too...

First "not objectively correct" is different than "not subjectively
correct".

But in any case, we're supposed to follow the pesaq. That's Judaism.
If there is no halakhah lemaaseh to your hypothetical, it isn't. You're
just saying that there could have been a fulfillment of beris Sinai in
which... I'm not sure I would agree, since (as you note) we have no idea
if this was a constructive derashah or a derashah mequbeles. But even
without agreement over the possibility of such a version of fulfilling
the beris, it's not Judaism as the mesorah evolved it.

Your speculation doesn't make *Judaism* any more universalist.

(This ties in to my imaginary Isaacarism... the fulfillment of beris
Sinai had the Torah of sheivet Yissachar survived the Bavliim. Think how
much of halakhah evolved after their disappearance. What if somewhere
in some corner the internet hasn't yet reached, they were still out
there, with their batei din making their own pesaqim and derashos. The
differences would make Ashk vs Teiman look infantesimal by comparison --
we all share Chazal, moreso, we all share AKhG! And yet, they would be
following the same process, just taking a very divergant path.

(A topic for a good frum sci fi author.)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 19th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         withdrawal and submission?