[Avodah] No Supernatural of Incomprehensible Secrets

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 02:51:06PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Lo nephlas he mimcha: [The Torah] does not deal with secrets that are
> supernatural and incomprehensible to the human mind.

This, including RSRH's translation of "choq" (those commandments that
demand showing justice toward plants, animals and our own selves),
as well as similar comments in "Ben Uzziel's" letter #11 (of the 19
Letters), is daas yachid territory.

This does relate to something I wrote in reply to a blog entry on
Hirhurim this morning.

    Rational and Mystical Desire
    September 2, 2010
    http://torahmusings.com/2010/09/rational-and-mystical-desire.html
    ...
    R. Yisrael Salanter, in his Letter on Repentance (Or Yisrael,
    no. 32), provides two approaches to understanding the yetzer ha-ra,
    the evil inclination. Rationalists see it as man's physical desires,
    his biological needs pulling his mind, body asserting itself over
    soul. Mystics, however, consider it to be a spiritual force enticing
    man to violate the Torah's laws. R. Salanter accepts both approaches,
    and we can readily see the duality. Most desires are of a physical
    nature -- food, rest, relations. Some are more psychological but can
    still be connected to physical success -- power, praise, money. Yet
    the "forbidden waters" example fails to fit into this definition. The
    occasional desire that is contrary to physical pleasures remains
    unexplicable without the Mystical approach.
    ...

(The ellided part of the post relates to the week's parashah and Rashi
on Dev 29:15-17.)

I disagreed with this characterization of RYS's hashkafah:
    ... RYS rationalizes the mystical. It's the essence of his
    derekh. E.g. we're in this world to refine the soul, but refining
    the soul is in fully rationalistic, character-based, terms.

    Similarly here -- that negative "spiritual force" and the "body
    asserting itself" are not, leshitaso, a duality. They are different
    descriptions of one thing!

But saying that observance can be understood without invoking those
secrets is a more limited claim than saying "does not deal" altogether,
not even as a second, deeper, level of explaining the same laws.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
micha at aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507