[Avodah] The Main Idea of Judaism

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 01:27:09PM -0400, Gidon Rothstein wrote:
: 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....

And for everything I've written already, on this I feel the book
succeeds. IOW, R/D GR does succeed in showing that awareness of Hashem's
presence and our being ovedei H' must be part of hatavah, or (more
obviously) deveiqus, or... It is the one thing consistent in all the
usual formulations of a Mission Statement.

Which segues to...

On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 01:41:05PM +0300, Simi Peters wrote:
: 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.

RSRiskin repeatedly spoke to us in HS about how Judaism is Divine
Anthropology not Humans' Theology. IOW, we live among religions that try
to explain higher realities and more centrally, G-d. However, Yahadus
is HQBH describing man. (RNWeinberg would often refer to the Torah as
a User Manual, I thought of this idea as being along the same lines.)

I guess somewhere along the way picked up a perspective that led me
to instinictively identify Judaism's Main Point with something the Jew
(or Noachide) could turn into a Mission Statement. Perhaps the previous
paragraph explains some of the roots of why. (Since it's "instinctive",
I'm not asserting I know exactly where my attitude came from, or even
that I am right. Just that I feel convinced.)

There is a third possible contender for what one means by "Main Point",
central truth. This I believe is incomprehensible. Not because of any
pegagogic limitation on HQBH's part, but because at some point you get
too close to theology for humans to comprehend the answer. (For that
matter, this is the Maharal's approach to machloqes in general, but
that's a whole nother thread.)

So, at my current point in thinking about the topic, I would say:

1- There is a central message to Yahadus, and we should be able to figure
out what it is from the Torah. Presumably this is about including Hashem
in our plans, actions, and perspective on what happens to us.

So, can we say is there some small, managable list of ideas that clearly
and incontravertibly are Hashem's Central Message in the Torah? I believe
so, because:

a- A message must be comprehensible by the resipient to be a
message. Speaking of our limitations in comparison to Hashem's Thought
wouldn't apply to messeges.

a- Human beings respond well to such things. It's hard to be an idealist
when the ideal is a list of 10s of thousands of dinim with no unifying
forest for the trees.

I feel R/D GR's book succeeds in deriving it.

2- The central truth of Judaism is at least as subject to machloqes as
anything else. Because whatever it really is as per Hashem's Thought,
all humans can have are human-sized slices of the whole.

A metaphor I like using for explaining the plurality on this level.
(I think it explains things in a way that the famous Five Blind Men and
the Elephant [which I presume you know already] does not.)

If you shine a light on the face of a cube, you get a square shadow.

If you shine it on the corner, the shadow is hexagonal.

Hashem's "Machashavah" is to 3D as our havanah is to 2D. And so, Beis
Hillel insists that the halakhah is "square", Beis Shammai insists it's
"hexagon", and both are actually describing the same Divine "Thought".

This is the Maharal's approach to eilu va'eilu altogether, but that's
a very different (and oft repeated) thread.

3- There are probably as many possible Mission Statements as people. Not
just in terms of a person's situational role -- how the grand scheme
dictatate my actions and role in history because of where and when I
live, how I meet, etc.. But also in terms of how the diversity of ways
of descriving the Central Truth combined with individual inclinations
will generate a multiplicity of ways to describe the categorical
(non-situational) mission. Chassidus might emphasize deveiqus, or bitul
as the way to acheive deveiqus. Slabodka meanwhile is talking gadlu
ha'adam. TiDE...

Here I would use a different mashal to explain the plurality. "Mi yaaleh
behar Hashem..." Someone standing at the foothills on the east of the
mountain will head west. Someone to the mountain's north will head
south. All are going for the same goal -- upward, as close to the peak
as they are capable of.

People have different talents, different challenges and different
interests. If they are too different, that is likely to push them to
prefer different models of the Central Truth as well. But even if they
do share the same model of the ultimate Grand Unified Theory of Torah,
will still end up with different Mission Statements. Simply because they
are standing at different places in relation to the goal.


R' Rothstein's book addresses issue #1 (the message). I (for reasons I
tried to psychoanalyze above) have been more focused on #2 (the truth)
and more so -- since I consider the truth something we can only model,
not understand -- #3 (the mission). Or as I put it to him, I would have
written two different books, rather than the goal he set for himself.



On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 10:35:04AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> RLL:
>> It's not a form of avodat Hashem?  I think it can be.  If it isn't,
>> maybe that's something to work on.

> You have rephrased what RAM and I are arguing about.  I advocate
> "multiple hierarchies", i.e., that human life does not have a single
> goal, towards which all actions are aimed...

Do believe HQBH intended things to be that way?

If so, then perhaps we can just create a new parent ideal which combines
those hierarchies into one. Starting with something like: Hashem made
us to be autonomous creative beings who...

If you believe Hashem made us so that we should value other pursuits
as ends in themselves (and I'm not asserting that, just paraphrasing
my understanding of your point), then that too is part of the ideal of
being what He made me to be.

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 06:54:42PM -0400, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: Rn Simi Peters:

:> 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,

: I have trouble with that

(I must confess that it was so clear to me from years of prior discussions
on this and other e-fora that this concept is one RJB has been gnawing
on and trying to work through, I was expecting a reply from him as soon
as I saw RnRP's post.)

:                          as a fundamental - it's too open to interpretation.
...

Is that a problem? Can't we have a fundamental concept, but one that
we can't get a complete handle on and so different people understand
different ways? And that the essence isn't in the details of this
understanding or the other, but what they all perforce will have in
common.

:> 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.

: And yet this formulation is entirely God-centered in both aspects.

True. But my same set of questions apply.

E.g. as I already quoted from my translation of RSSkop, he sees avodas
Hashem as being meitiv others as He would. That this is what it is we
are to commit to when we speak of qedushah as "dedicat[ing] everything".

: What about our fellow man? Hillel and Shimon haTzadik would disagree
: with an entirely
: God-centered formulation, I think....

Hillel may or may not. Rashi offers two possibilities as to whether Hille
refers to "chaverkha" or "Chaverkha" with a capital Ches.

: I think it's fruitless to argue that God is more important than Man (self
: and/or other) in Judaism, or that Man is more important than God - that
: way lies the distinction between ethical and ritual mitzvot, and the
: possibility of discarding one or the other depending on one's predi-
: lections.

Well, the main point could be that there are three primary values -- our
relationship with HQBH, with other people, and self-refinement. Which is
how the Maharal explains Torah, Avodah and Gemillus Chassadim, but in a
different order. Something similar is the Maharsha's take on the pasuq in
Mikhah (in his commentary on the quote from R' Simlai), and possibly Dr
Birnbaum (and AishDas's) Da'as, Rachamim, Tife'res.

DRT was certainly Dr Birnbaum's attempt to phrase the Mission Statement.
See my recent blog post
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2012/07/daas-rachamim-tiferes.shtml>.

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:25:30PM +0000, Akiva Miller wrote:
: Of course, this has been done before, as RJB quoted Hillel (Gemara
: Shabbos 31a). But, notably, it's only a partial quote. The tag line is
: critical: "Go and learn." And I suspect that's what led him to conclude,
: incorrectly, that it leaves G-d out of the equation.

More than that... I'm saying that after reading R/D Gidon Rothstein's
book, I realize that the majority of Torah is about keeping in mind that
it's not only good as Hashem defines it that we should share with others,
but good because it's His. As D' Birnbaum put it (quoting my translation
in above link):

    The stream of Love that flows from under the Throne of Glory works not
    only in a direct manner, but also in an indirect way; in particular
    Hashem yisbarakh made man to rule with his physical love. The love of
    G-d readies man and adapts him to sacrifice all the urges of his heart
    for the sake of lofty things and moving ideals, and all his senses
    and feelings are pulled and drawn after what is high and uplifted,
    pure and holy...

Not "simply" to have an empathetic instinct, to be a conduit of His Love.

: But the contradiction is an illusion, created by putting too much
: emphasis on the sound bite, and a failure to Go And Learn.

As I wrote above, I think people need slogans and soundbites for
motivational reasons. I think that was R' Simlai's whole point, and
R' Aqiva and Ben Azzai's. Below I'll outline a half-baked idea I'm
mulling over related to this problem.

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:48:53PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: Your theoretical construct is a pastiche.  We have a principle (mitzva -
: aveirah) which classifies acts as hiyuvim, issurum, and neutral.  We
: have a second principle (for God's sake) which classifies acts as
: virtuous or not.

Which is necessary for defining cases which aren't themselves classifiable
as categorically wrong or right, but may be part of an individual's
fulfillment of "qedoshim tihyu" or "ve'asisa hayashar vehatov" which
require having a definition of the virtues of qedushah, yashrus, and tov.

: But why two principles? Each one by itself fully classifies all acts.
: As far as I can tell your only excuse is that you don't approve of the
: concept of a neutral act, but can't jettison the first principle  (the
: Hovoth HaLevavoth expresses a view similar to yours, but one which does
: not suffer from this particular problem).

Issur and chiyuv are categorical. If they covered every possibility, there
would be no variety, no human component to avodas Hashem after the poseiq
does his job.

...
: Your argument, unlike RAM's RMB's and RLL's, is independent of motive.
: So lets try a reductio ad absurdum.  Could one not argue similarly that
: since, according to the Rambam, all non-religious action is fated
: (that's how he construes "hakol biydei shamayim hutz miyiras shamayim"),
: any neutral act I perform counts as a virtuous act?

Tangent: Where does the Rambam say this? He is one of the rishonim who
do not believe that everything a person experiences is HP how could he
then say that every thought from the kind of person who isn't in the
middle of meriting HP /is/ biydei Shamayim?

: RMB:
:> That's why I replied with RSSkop's comment about being able to
:> sanctify recreation, if the recreation is truly and honestly -- without
:> fooling oneself -- in order to be more fit at one's tafqid.

: I think RMB's attitude is closer to the mark, but I'll critique it
: anyway.  The Ba'alei Mussar like to advise people to specialize in one
: particular mitzvah (cf. Avos 4:11), and do that particularly assiduously
: and meticulously.  Of course its impossible for one person to do that
: with all mitzvos, since they compete for resources and attention.  RSS
: himself says that he is describing how to implement the mitzva of
: kedoshim tihyu particularly meticulously. But what of the person who
: chooses to specialize in a different mitzva which takes less time?

Actually, RSS says qedoshim tihyu is *it*, not just /a/ mitzvah. Which can
make sense, "qedhshah" isn't as specific as "akhilas matzah", after all.
Here's the relevent quote, right after discussing the Toras Kohanim and
the Ramban on "Qedoshim Tihyu":
    And so, it appears to my limited thought that this mitzvah includes
    the entire foundation and root of the purpose of our lives. All of
    our work and effort should constantly be sanctified to doing good for
    the community. We should not use any act, movement, or get benefit or
    enjoyment that doesn't have in it some element of helping another. And
    as understood, all holiness is being set apart for an honorable
    purpose which is that a person straightens his path and strives
    constantly to make his lifestyle dedicated to the community. Then,
    anything he does even for himself, for the health of his body and
    soul he also associates to the mitzvah of being holy, for through
    this he can also do good for the masses. Through the good he does
    for himself he can do good for the many who rely on him. But if he
    derives benefit from some kind of permissible thing that isn't needed
    for the health of his body and soul, that benefit is in opposition
    to holiness. For in this he is benefiting himself (for that moment
    as it seems to him), but to no one else does it have any value.



When I worked at Bank of America, they started an initiative to raise
the quality of process in the firm. This meant complying to standards for
processes like Six-Sigma (firmwide) and CMM level 3 (in technology). As
an off-topic observation: a development process that is both 6 Sigma
and CMM level 3 compliant is onerous, takes over a manager's life,
makes him miserable in that his day has nothing to do with technology,
the business it supports, or even helping the team reach landmarks. The
process becomes an end in itself and his entire day. Until finally it
pushes him to quit. Anyway...

One Six Sigma idea I did like was that BofA took on a Hoshin Plan. I'm
not going to go into the full thing of what a Hoshin Plan is, just one
of its concepts I think could be of value in Avodas Hashem.

In a Hoshin Plan, upper management comes up with measurable goals for
the firm. Each division head takes those goals that his division could
help reach, and translates its items into smaller goals for his division.
His group heads to the same to his goals, team heads... etc...

This way, the individual programmer knows that he is developing an XYZ
because it fits the team's goal of A, which fits the group's goal of B,
and so on all the way up to the firm's goals which must reflect its
Mission Statement.

Picture if one Elul (or maybe even on a Hebrew birthday -- vedai
lachakima beramiza <grin>) we did this for our Avodas Hashem... Picture
being able to tie why you're going to the store to what it is you plan on
accomplishing in your life's avodah. I think it would be very powerful in
making all of life, even recreation or side interests, holy -- however
it is you define holiness.

Of course, this requires belief that everything is supposed to be part
of the avodah, in the ideal, but I think I wallpapered over that problem
already.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
micha at aishdas.org        "I am thought about, therefore I am -
http://www.aishdas.org   my existence depends upon the thought of a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch