<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19272">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>R' Jonathan responded to my following
statements:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> 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.<BR> <BR>> It seems to me that the message of Judaism in
the first sense is "ein od milvado". This isn't a purely theological
statement, <BR><BR><FONT size=2 face=Arial>with the following:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>I have trouble with that as a fundamental - it's too open to
interpretation.<BR>Is it the pshat in the verse, that there is no God but God
[and Mussa is his<BR>prophet]? Or is it the reading of the Tikkunei
haZohar (leit atar panui<BR>mineih, etc.) and the Chasidim, that it's an
expression of the Upper Unity,<BR>that there is nothing but God as all physical
finite reality is nullified<BR>beside the Infinite?<BR> <BR><FONT size=2
face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The second proposition you quoted was:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Your response was:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>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<BR>God-centered formulation, I think. After all, the
Torah is God's will for<BR>humankind. If that expression boils down to
'v'ahavta lereiacha kamocha' or<BR>the negative formulation, that would seem to
leave God out of the equation.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Did I answer your question or did I just go off on
a totally pointless tangent?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Kol tuv,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Simi Peters</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>