[Avodah] kimu v'kiblu, purim,

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 12:38:23PM +0000, kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
: > 1. Why is the Torah binding if given to us by force? ... ...

: and 

: > 2. Is an agreement forced upon or given to, or made by a soul
: > binding upon a body, or even a body associated (whole or in
: > part) to a given soul at a later date? ...

: To answer these and similar questions, we first need to understand
: what we mean by the concept of "obligation" to begin with...

Perhaps, although I think my answers work without this.

In any case, I agree with this thesis:
: This is not an "obligation" in a legal and technical sense, but in a
: natural sense. Or you can call it "natural law" if you like...

See the first essay in my Yamim Noraim reader
<http://www.aishdas.org/10YemeiTeshuvah.pdf>, where I cite a number of
sources giving two basic approaches that link sechar va'onesh causally
to the mitzvah or cheit.

This allows a total reversal of the causality: An onesh is not meted
out in response to an aveirah, but rather an aveirah is something HQBH
warns us to avoid because it is self-injurious and will cause pain (onesh).

Mitzvos as "Doctor's Orders" rather than "General's Orders". And onesh
is more like the child who gets burned touching the stove than the one
whose hand is slapped before they reach it.

OTOH, in a later essay, "The Gift of Justice", I argued that the two
perspectives are actually both simplified models describing the same
thing:

    ...
    Hashem is the both the One Who created the system of supernatural
    law that would cause any automatic sechar va'onesh, as well as the
    One Who would be imposing it personally. When he set up the law,
    Hashem did it cognizant of every outcome of it. The law would include
    knowledge of each instance, no less than if Hashem intervened at each
    instance. The difference is merely when the decision was made. And
    since Hashem has no time, no "when", do they really differ?

    The same resolution that would explain how miracles can exist while
    the rules don't need second-guessing would explain who personal
    reward and punishment can exist even while being automatic. Each
    option is a simplification of the Divine Truth whittled down to fit
    into the human mind. It seems possible to get a glimpse of how they
    could be describing the same reality.

    The duality is one central to our perception of Hashem: The imminence
    of the personal Giver verses the transcendence of the One Who set
    up perfect rules of justice.

    This, in turn, is the product of a basic paradox in the human
    condition....

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
micha at aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507