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

[Micha Berger]

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 09:36:14PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: I've extended this to say that the Torah doesn't even legislate for
: chu"l at all, in the first place, except to say that it is a chiyuv in
: chu"l as a remembrance and preparation for when we are redeemed.

You're repeating your assertion without addressing my objections.

:> ...
:> 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...        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.

And restating it doesn't change that. It's not just that you're going
beyond the D4, the D4 speaks of observance being equally meaningful, but
the halakhah being more difficult to apply. Turning that into less
meaningful is simply a different idea.

To repeat: Your argument wold mean that a Jew in chu"l couldn't eat the
meat butchered from a shechted animal whle it was still quivering. The
halakhah is not so.

New point: Pesach sheini explicitly includes benei chu"l.

And why worry about YT sheini shel galiyos, if it's just a reminder atop
a reminder of a mitzvah that is really only in EY (where there is only
one day)?

The Ramban on Vayiqra 18:25 quotes the Sifri that the purpose of mitzvos
is not merely to be a reminder, but also to prepare us for the ge'ulah in
ways beyond "merely" knowing what to do. IOW, leshitaso (and presumably
this is the intent of the other rishonim who quote this Sifri), qiyum
in chu"l is to repair that faults that got us into chu"l, and qiyum in
EY goes beyond that.

WADR to "common knowledge" among the DL crowd, it's not quite peshat in
the Sifri, and thus not of the rishonim who cite it.

It would also seem leshitaso that if one believes that galus is a
spiritual state (such as galus Yavan, which was while we had bayis
sheini), why wouldn't the same be true of doing mitzvos within EY
bizman hazeh!

...
:> 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.
:> R' Micha

: But then why make a chiyuv to love your neighbor? If the fact that G-d
: created man is enough to tell you to love the gentile, then it's
: enough to tell you to love the Jew. What I'm troubled by then, is why
: there's not an explicit chiyuv on either both or neither. It's the
: disparity that troubles me.

A chiyuv that one develop a feeling of the brotherhood of Jews beyond
the general agape for all humanity. Makes sense to me.

(BTW, R' Yehudah's peshat in the pasuq is "rei'akhah" as in 7 berakhos's
"rei'im ha'ahuvim". It's a chiyuv to love your spouse! And we even follow
this lehalakhah, as it's the source of the issur against marrying someone
you never met. Even if R' Aqiva's peshat won the hearts and minds, I
have some perverse need to mention that there is another gemara pretty
much every time we discuss the pasuq.)

I also repeat my plea again: See RSS
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf>!


...
: We can even take this logic further. Imagine if a person wants to
: insist that basar v'chalav means davka a mother and her kid. I'd
: reply: if Chazal are correct, by way of kabbalah, then whatever you
: think the pasuk means is irrelevant. OTOH, if Chazal are wrong, and
: our maskil correct, then I'd simply reply that apparently...

Chazal can't be wrong. If you believe that derashos are constructive --
and amazingly include something halakhah lemaaseh even in the midbar! --
then it means their position DEFINES halakhah.

Asserting they were wrong would mean asserting that HQBH gave them the
tools to construct a law He would't have approved of. Does Hashem err?

...
: I use this logic not infrequently, which is part of why I love Rav
: Glasner and Rav Berkovits so much..

And why people keep on excusing you of being so far left as to be in the
gray area at the fringes of eilu va'eilu. You're (by your own admission)
going beyond even these sources.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?