[Avodah] The Main Idea of Judaism

[Gidon Rothstein]

Dear All,

I'm not sure R. Berger wanted a response from me when he CC'd me on this
email (although I thank him for including me), and I'm obviously coming
into the middle of a discussion, but let me point out that the first half
of my book deals with two questions related to the discussion in R.
Berger's email:

1) What is the indispensable core of Judaism (Yiddishkeit)? and
2) How can we identify that core in ways that anyone committed to Orthodoxy
would have to agree must be part of the center? That second discussion
shows why I would be leery of using any one statement in the Gemara (or any
one central idea, such as *hatavah*) as the essence of the religion.  I try
to show there that if we approach the question with a multitude of
strategies, they all come to a fairly central core set of ideas, which I
could only summarize briefly by doing an injustice to those ideas. One
place to look, though, might be Makkot 24a, where the Gemara sees Habakuk
as having summarized all of Judaism by saying *tsaddik be-emunato yihyeh*.
For more, feel free to buy my book (from me or online!) Thanks again for
including me, Rabbi Berger! Gidon Rothstein

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 10:37:24PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> >> For example, why mashiach more than "Rabbi Chizqiyah beshem Rav: Asid
> >> adam litein din vecheshbon al kol shera'as einav velo akhal"? (Closing
> >> of Y-mi Qiddushin.)
>
> > I don't understand the question.  How does the fact that a person will
> > have to account for something turn it into a goal, let alone a "main
> > idea of Judaism"?
>
> You're repeating my question: I asked the chevrah how they decide what's
> a main goal, and what isn't.
>
> If R/D Gidon Rothstein (CC-ed) is correct in the need for a sefer titled
> "We're Missing the Point: What's Wrong with the Orthodox Jewish Community
> and How to Fix It" <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1602802025/aishdas>,
> how would you find "the point"?
>
> To be more loyal to my earlier phrasings.... I am assuming that deep down,
> all authentic descriptions of the main idea of Judaism are describing
> the same thing, but focusing on different aspects. That perforce, any
> Divine Idea will be only represented as simplified models, "2D shadows"
> of something too complex for human intellect. And therefore different
> people, given their neti'os, will find different aspects. Two people
> standing at the foot of a mountain but at different sides will end up
> heading in different directions to reach the same peak. But they are
> all answering "mi yaaleh beHar H'?"
>
> > "Lehavi liymos hamashiach" is in a sense the ultimate goal of everything
> > we do, because that is what the world was created for....
>
> Unless the world were created for something enabled or made much easier by
> the mashiach's arrival.
>
> Classically, chassidus defined the main idea of Judaism in terms of
> deveiqus. Perhaps RCM's answer of "shevisi H' lenegdi tamid" is meant
> in this sense. RBW cited ("(?)" noted) the Sefar Emes that the main
> idea is "to batel himself to Hashem or to the Am or to the Torah." But
> I have always thought of that in terms of Anokhius getting in the way
> of deveiqus. A derived value, even if it's the hard part of the job.
>
> Litvaks and Yekkes talk in terms of sheleimus. Sheleimus only half
> answers the question. The point is to refine one's tzelem E-lokim,
> to ever reach for the ideal. So then, what's the ideal? What does
> a shaleim, a tamim, look like?
>
> RSRH's "sheleimus" is ennoblement, in term of human creativity and
> mastery of his world -- Yefetic high culture fused with Semitic calling.
>
> Novhardok, which taught bitachon and dependency did so through the route
> of becoming a nidvaq -- a definition of sheleimus. Which is why N fit
> within the Mussar Movement.
>
> Many suggested the "main idea" is to be meitiv others. RCM writes:
> > I guess for for another try I will go back to basic notions from the
> > sefer Derech H' So, the purpose of the bria is so HKB'H can be maitiv
> > lezuloso....
>
> And:
> > It just occurs to me to add...
> > that if the central theme is do Tikun Olom so hatava from HKB'H
> > can flow to you, the central theme of tikun olam is to emulate HKB'H
> > (ma hu rachum af ata rachum etc).
>
> Which turns hatavah into sheleimus terms, in the sense of "af ata". IOW,
> the work isn't only DOING good but BECOMING a meitiv.
>
> >                                  The tikun olam is not just a means to
> > "earn" ones keep, but it is also the mechanism that enables the hatava to
> > flow. The emulation creates a sheychus and allows the relationship to H'
> > (the flow of hatava) to exist, the greater the emulation (the more G-D
> > like), the greater the relationship, the greater the hatava.
>
> And this aspect is in deveiqus terms.
>
> Which may just mean the classic East European fork in the hashkafic road
> shouldn't be overemphasized.
>
> My own derekh, at least the past several years, has also been
> hatavah-based. Repeatedly presenting RSSkop's haqdamah, and repeating
> looking for new ways to approach it, has convinced me of the centrality
> of this idea. In this perspective, the main thrust of MBALM is to make
> sure one is providing hatavah as the Manufacturer defines it, and that
> one maximizes the ability to do so. As per a snippet by R Dr Nathan
> Birnbaum that I'm working on translating, in which Daas, Rachamim,
> Tif'eres becomes: Knowledge of G-d, being the stream of ahavah from the
> Creator to Whom you're connected to others, and refining one's entirety
> of being into a harmonious conduit of that good.
>
> I enjoyed RDB's non-answer:
> > I'm still not 100% sure I understand what you are getting at, since what
> > Hashem wants from people, broadly, is to transform their will to His
> Will.
> > He has many things He wants us to accomplish, and the goal is for us to
> > want to accomplish them all.
>
> > If you want something more specific, I would go with Rav Wolbe's concept
> of
> > Sulamos - ladders of growth, and whatever stands at the pinnacle of the
> > ladder constitutes what Hashem wants of you.
>
> It is presumptuous to think there is a main theme to begin with --
> at least not something someone can some up. RAM voices a similar
> objection. Doesn't dissuade me, but I appreciated the invite to rethink
> my assumptions.
>
> I think the gemara that introduces the whole notion of 613 mitzvos does
> just that -- tries to then sum them up with a Mission Statement for Life.
> People find Mission Statements useful, and I think one's avodas H'
> suffers if they can't contemplate a mental image of the forest rather
> than focusing
>
> RDB, continued:
> > The thing is, though, that as you say, there are many valid answers to
> > that question. Many different sources have different ladders...
>
> Does each person have many ladders, or each approach given a few
> fundamental ladders for different kinds of people? Or both? I
> would agree with the ladder.
>
> > And, thus, the GRA there circles back to this: "Nowadays we should not go
> > with grand and phenomenal ideas (Gedolos Veniflaos). We must only
> > ascertain  that our actions should be unto Hashem, meaning, in accordance
> > with His Will... and via fulfillment of those actions themselves, i.e.
> > fulfilling Mitzvos Asei and avoiding Lo Saaseis, *they* will make your
> > thoughts in consonance (with the truth), for  "Kol Po'al Hashem
> > Lema'anehu," meaning, the primary Will of Hashem is the Torah and the
> > Mitzvos."
>
> I am not sure he is against Mission Statements, such as the central
> themes of his talmid's Nefesh haChaim. He could be arguing that halakhah
> comes first, and one's definition of "the forest" must fit that data,
> rather than the other way around.
>
> > In other words, in theory, the place to look for the answer to that
> > question is *within oneself.* [Which, by the way, is where one needs to
> > look to properly understand Aggadeta.]
>
> Well, other than the text you're trying to understand. Aggadita comes
> from man's *encounter* with the Torah. Which is the idea I tried to
> capture above with the metaphor of different people standing on
> different sides -- but of the same mountain.
>
> RMYG:
> > I like the Ramchal's formulation (in Mesillas Yesharim 1): "l'kayem
> > mitzvos, v'laavod, v'laamod b'nisayon."
>
> I was more enchanted with his exposition in the haqdamah on the
> pasuq RAM cited, "ki im
>         - leyir'ah es H' E-lokekha
>         - lalekhes bekhol derakhah
>         - ule'avah Oso
>         - velaavod es H"E bekhol levovkha uvkhol nafshekha
>         - lishmor es mitzvos H' ve'es chukosav..."
>
> Al ta'am vareiach...
>
> RnTK:
> > Ta'amu ure'u ki tov Hashem
>
> To tease out more detail... How does that get reflected in a Mission
> Statement, as a vision of the forest comprised of halachic "trees"?
>
>
>
>
> The following is slightly off topic, but I emailed it to someone recently,
> wanted to share it, and it relates to what I said earlier about Mussar's
> explicit pursuit sheleimus and its similarity (in some forms of Mussar)
> to TiDE's puruit of ennoblement.
>
> In the 1990s (including the period in which AishDas was founded),
> I identified more with RSRH's derekh. It is quite likely that if Dr
> Alan Morinis didn't have me repeatedly preparing Mussar material, I
> would have ended up back there. Instead, I ended up studying R' Shimon
> Shkop's and R' Dovid Lifshitz's (links no.s 127 and 128 in the chain from
> rebbe to talmid from MRAH to myself) perspectives, Mussar in general,
> and convinced myself -- not just his talmidim. The level of success
> AishDas has had with ve'adim shouldn't be underplayed as a factor
> either. (My point being to emphasize the non-ideological issues that
> end up shaping such fundamental decisions.)
>
> My problem with RSRH's derekh which is what I was following before Mussar
> is explified by his dependence on symbology. I can't believe the essential
> point of a mitzvah is something you need to be in on the secrets to get
> value from. If basar bechalav (eg) is a symbol to teach about separating
> animal productivity from human creativity, then how did the vast majority
> of Jews gain by avoiding it?
>
> Mussar is only a short stone's throw away, looking at the unconscious
> influence of actions rather than the educational-symbolic lessons
> imparted. Notice that both TiDE and Slabodka focus on refinement and
> ennoblement of man. Mussar makes it about middos and pschospirituality. As
> I wrote above, TiDE makes it about human creativity and mastery of his
> world -- Yaft E-lokim leYefes, veyishkon be'ohalei Sheim.
>
> :-)BBii!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
> micha at aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
> http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
> Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120706/bf3bd378/attachment-0002.htm>