[Avodah] more on main idea of judaism

[Simi Peters]

R' Jonathan responded to my following statements:

 It seems to me that we can talk about the main idea of Judaism in terms of two things:  (1) the message of Judaism to the world (which also includes us) and (2) the main idea of Judaism in terms of what a Jew is supposed to be and do.
 
> It seems to me that the message of Judaism in the first sense is "ein od milvado".  This isn't a purely theological statement, 

with the following:

I have trouble with that as a fundamental - it's too open to interpretation.
Is it the pshat in the verse, that there is no God but God [and Mussa is his
prophet]?  Or is it the reading of the Tikkunei haZohar (leit atar panui
mineih, etc.) and the Chasidim, that it's an expression of the Upper Unity,
that there is nothing but God as all physical finite reality is nullified
beside the Infinite?
 
I think I didn't make myself clear.  My assumption is that a message directed to the entire world has to be accessible to all kinds of people, not a complicated theological proposition that could only be understood by a philosopher.  The idea of  "ein od milvado" is that there is no God but God (nothing about "and Mussa is his prophet").  The definition of God is: the one and only omnipotent, omniscient, non-corporeal, benevolent Power harmoniously directing the world.  The practical ramifications of that message (as I pointed out in my earlier post) are that we are enjoined to be benevolent and peaceful as He is because that is what He wants from us.  This message can be conveyed in simple language to an intelligent child and were it to be taken seriously by the world at large, the world would be a much better place.

The second proposition you quoted was:

As far as the second main idea of Judaism (in terms of what a Jew is supposed to be and do), it seems to me that "Kedoshim tihiyu" is an explicit statement of that.  The Meshekh Hokhma's definition of this mitzva encapsulates its essential meaning: to dedicate everything to God--our time, our energies, our possessions, our relationships, etc. 

Your response was:

And yet this formulation is entirely God-centered in both aspects.  What about  our fellow man?  Hillel and Shimon haTzadik would disagree with an entirely
God-centered formulation, I think.  After all, the Torah is God's will for
humankind.  If that expression boils down to 'v'ahavta lereiacha kamocha' or
the negative formulation, that would seem to leave God out of the equation.

I understand how you could arrive at this conclusion based on what I wrote, so let me clarify:  The pasuk from Vayikra (19:18) quoted by Hillel is actually: Lo tikom velo titor et benei amekha, ve'ahavta le'reakha kamokha, ani Hashem.  The end of the pasuk is kind of critical here.  Our concern for fellow human beings is not a matter of how we feel about them at any given moment, but is a principled extension of our understanding that we are all created be'tzelem Elokim and that God's will as expressed in His commandments is that we be good to each other.  A love for humankind that is grounded in this kind of understanding has a much more solid base than a love for humankind that flows from a general feeling of benevolence.  It is much more likely that we will follow through on bein adam lehavero consistently (no matter how irritating our haver is) if we are acting from principle.

I'm guessing (and only guessing) that what disturbs you here is that a God-centered formulation (as you called it) of the main idea of Judaism could lead to an instrumental approach to human beings, i.e., turning people into instruments for enhancing the bein adam lamakom relationship.  Turning a person into an etrog, as they used to say.  Nobody wants to be someone else's etrog and we all feel instinctively--and quite correctly-- that any approach which treats human beings as a means to an end is inherently problematic, no matter how exalted the end.  A friend of mine put it this way:  Do we do mitzvot bein adam lehavero because of the mitzva of 've'ahavta le'reakha kamoha' or as an act of imitatio Deus (ma hu rahum af ata heye rahum...)?  My conclusion is that our approach to bein adam lehavero has to come from both perspectives.  If we don't have the mitzva, there's nothing to keep us on the straight and narrow when the going gets tough.  (Don't you just love cliches?)  But if we are only acting in conformity to the mitzva, than people become our etrog--a means to an end, and that is not how God wants us to relate to others because it is ultimately disrespectful and hence defeats the purpose of mitzvot bein adam lehavero.  So we need to strive to truly be like Hashem--to be truly rahum, hanun, gomel hasadim--to genuinely see and care for the other person as Hashem cares for us.

Did I answer your question or did I just go off on a totally pointless tangent?

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120711/7dda5daa/attachment.htm>