Re: My Weekly Drash - Vayera
- From: moshes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:42:14 +0000 (UTC)
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@xxxxxxx> writes:
> <moshes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> > With a tip of the kippah to Moshe for our exchange on my comments
>> > last week.
>>
>> My pleasure. It's nice to post and know that _somebody_ is listening.
snip
>> > However it brought to mind a recent discussion with an Orthodox
>> > friend as to how we are to relate to God's commands. He said his
>> > primary concern is simple obedience,
>>
>> Well stated. "primary" concern not "only" concern.
>
> I'm glad. I only have a paragraph to work with and I didn't want
> to do you an injustice.
Thanks.
>> > while I said I prefer to know the purpose of a law.
>>
>> Is that ever fully possible? G-d's Torah is One with Him. Just
>> as He is unknowable" so, in the final analysis, is the Torah.
>
> Fully? Perhaps not. But if there are additional reasons for not
> putting a stumbling block before the blind other than that it's
> cruel to the person and it coarsens the society, I don't think we
> really need to know in order to obey.
How about selling food to a person where the tithes were not removed?
It's not cruel, it does not coarsen society and the buyer has the
option of removing tithes himself.
>> > Here, though, I have to admit that Lot's wife should have just obeyed.
>>
>> You left out the <drily>. :-)
>>
>> > Note that two verses later, on the next morning, Abraham is able to
>> > survey the damage without harm. There are times where we have to do
>> > as we're told whether or not we immediately understand why or,
>> > indeed, ever find out.
>>
>> Bingo.
>>
>> > There are other times when questioning authority and requiring an
>> > explanation may be the right response.
>>
>> Example?
>
> I suppose one of the classic examples is the stoning of the recalcitrant
> son. I seem to recall the rabbis coming up with all sorts of
> interpretations to make it impossible to enforce (like the mother and father
> literally speaking in one voice) and concluding that the law had never been
> enforced. Now I understand that there are some who would argue that this
> law was a challenge in just that fashion (i.e., the rabbi's response in
> effectively nullfying it was the correct one) and I can't say I understand
> the reasoning behind *that*. Nonetheless, questioning this law was the
> appropriate thing to do.
But they didn't "question" the law (no matter what spin you may have
heard). There is no mention of "Hey, this law should be abrogated".
>> > Knowing the difference is important. As Lot's wife found
>> > out, the consequence of choosing wrong may be fatal.
>>
>> Umm if choosing wrong could be fatal, wouldn't simple prudence make
>> one be _extremely_ careful?
>
> Absolutely. As I tell my students when it comes to writing, rules
> are made to be broken, but if you can't come up with a real good
> reason for breaking it you ought to follow it since it's there for
> a reason. (Not a perfect analogy since I'm not arguing that halacha
> is meant to be violated, but I hope you get the point.)
LOL. Glad you qualified. That may be another difference between our
viewpoints. I see the rules as G-d-given so there is benefit in
observance without a glimmer of comprehension. You see them as
man-given (if I'm wrong, please accept my abject apologies) and thus
feel you can *also* voice an opinion, question, and perhaps not obey.
> If there is a time element or a sense of irrevocability, the
> inclination might be to obey first and question, if at all, later.
> If one has the time to question, though, I don't see what's wrong
> with that. In the case of Lot's wife, the price of disobedience was
> immediate
But did she know that?
Maybe we should also discuss what we mean by "question" the mitzvah?
If you say it means "Why should I do it?" then I disagree, totally.
If it means "What lesson can I learn from the mitzvah?" that's fine
and even laudable. I suspect though, that you mean the former.
>> On a related note, part of the serpent's seduction of Eve was to
>> impart a (false) reson to G-d's command.
>
> But if Noah's neighbors had questioned why he was building an ark, they
> might have been driven to repent. If Cain had questioned why his offering
> was rejected, he might have sought to improve rather than take out his anger
> on Abel. You're correct that a false or even incomplete answer might lead
> to bad results, but that's not a reason to avoid questioning.
Excellent! I was waiting for such "examples". But the neighbors were
not _commanded_ to build the Ark, Noah was. And indeed the reason he
was given 120 years to do it was specifiaclly that the neighbors
should ask him what he is doing and he would thus warn them of their
impending doom. Cain was not _commanded_ to bring an offering.
The example of Avraham Avinu is even more striking. When G-d
_informs_ him about Sodom's immenent destruction he questions,
challenges, pleads, and begs to save them. When he is commanded to
bring Yitzchok as a sacrifice, he arises early in the morning! No
questions asked! Yet he had a _tremendous_ question to ask, as Rashi
explains at the end of the story. "G-d, yesterday You told me 'for in
Yitzchak will your seed be called' and today you tell me "offer him
as a sacrifice"????? Yet Avraham didn't ask the obvious, glaring
question. Why not? Because when the command _to him_ is to do
something, simple obedience is required, _not_ "questioning".
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: My Weekly Drash - Vayera
- From: Dan Kimmel
- Re: My Weekly Drash - Vayera
- Prev by Date: Qaddafi a Jew?
- Next by Date: Re: Looks like Josh was right
- Previous by thread: Re: My Weekly Drash - Vayera
- Next by thread: Re: My Weekly Drash - Vayera
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
