Garnel Ironheart said..."If there's no satisfactory solution, why tackle the problem?"Well, while it may not be possible to truly solve a problem, this does not mean that we can't do anything to alleviate the problem. (Thus we give tzedaka even though we know we can't eliminate poverty.)
However, I feel you are onto an important point.
I have long wondered why there is a correlation between political conservatism (antagonistic to big government) and religious conservatism. At the first glance there wouldn't appear to be any connection.
After all, why should belief in God result in opposition to the welfare state? Why should "Pro-Life" be connected to opposition to gun control? Obviously, their are relgious people on the politically liberal side as well, but we do see a broad correlation of these views in the population. (As Obama put it, "religion and guns.") Why are they connected?
I think part of the reason is the attitude towards the issue we are talking about: accepting that some problems are unsolvable.
The Western religions teach that, ultimately, God controls the world and that the primary reason for the world's troubles is God's displeasure with human sinful behavior. It follows, therefore, that the primary means of solving these problesm is spiritual.
In the meantime, however, we must deal with an imperfect world. This imperfect world is called, in Jewish terms, galus. (Christians similarly believe that humanity is in a "fallen" state. The theology is, of course, very different, but in this regard the implications are similar.) We therefore have to accept that there simply is no natural solution to many of the worlds problems (poverty, war, crime, etc.). We, of course, do the best we can, in our small human way, to alleviate the problem, but we recognize that we cannot eliminate the problem.
Secularists (and those who absorbed its world view) generally will not accept this view. Although logically it is possible to be a secularist and also accept that there are no true solutions to the world's problems, emotionally this is very difficult. Most secularists believe, emphatically, that all of the world's problems can be solved ("If only people would listen to our wisdom!").
Thus, LBJ's "War on Poverty" and the modern welfare state, the United Nations (to eliminate war), assorted liberal policies to eliminate racism (affirmative action), socialize medicine, etc. WHile most of these goals are laudable, they are, in essence, attempts to solve the unsolvable. As a result these grand plans tend to just create new problems while exacerbating the old ones.
Fundamentally, what has happened, in my opinion, is a secular substitution for the Messianic age. Religious believers tend to believe that the Messianic age can only be brought about through Divine action. Secularists, who don't believe in the Divine, have put themselves in the Messianic role. Interestingly, the U.N. has been, almost explicitly, described in Messianic terms. Thus the famous "Swords into Plowshares" statue at the U.N. based on a messianic prophecy from Yeshaya HaNavi. (Even more interesting, the statue was donated by the atheist Soviet Union!)
Religious groups that have absorbed the secularist perspective (which includes various Christian factions, such as the Methodist church that mentored Hillary Clinton, and many Jewish groups, such as Reform Judaism) and have completely adopted their agenda as their spiritual purpose.
(Incidentally, while I don't have enough background on Islam to be certain, it seems to me that a similar process has led to the modern "radical Islamists." Today's radical Islam is a modern development, which was heavily influenced by secular Arab nationalism. In radical Islam we also observe the attempt to bring about a Messianic age through direct human action.)
Well, I guess I've rambled for long enough. Sorry!
Friday, August 15, 2008
Utopian Hishtadlus inversely related to belief in G-d?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Hm...
ReplyDeleteRabbi Eidensohn,
I'm not sure if I'm happy with the title you've chosen for my comment. I think it is clear that my comment was not discussing normal hishtadlus, i.e. earning a living, going to the doctor, interceding with the government, etc., but, rather, utopian attempts to change the basic nature of human society (I should have used the term utopian, oh well).
One of the critical distinctions of utopian thinking is the unwillingness to acknowledge that every societal change has a downside. The utopian believes that, if we could simply adjust society correctly, ALL societal problems will disappear.
The reality is, of course, quite different. There is ALWAYS a negative aspect to every societal change, even if the change is, over all, for the good.
Thus, any attempt to totally eliminate poverty would inevitably produce results (dictatorship, economic stagnation, government dependency, etc.) that may (or may not) be worse than the original problem. Even if they are not worse, they are still problems, and will need their own solutions, which will then create new problems, and so on, ad infinitum.
Similarly, many of our current problems on the international scene, esp. terrorism, are arguably the result of the Western world's move away from militarism and imperialism. If the great powers were still willing to invade and conquer weaker countries, we would hear a lot less saber rattling from tin pot dictators. This doesn't necessarily mean that this change wasn't a good one, just that, like any change, it has a downside.
The goal of hishtadlus, then, is not to eliminate problems but to find the most effective way to deal with them.
This is not an issue of hishtadlus vs. belief in God. The issue is the recognition of the limitations of human power.
LazerA said...
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if I'm happy with the title you've chosen for my comment. I think it is clear that my comment was not discussing normal hishtadlus, i.e. earning a living, going to the doctor, interceding with the government, etc., but, rather, utopian attempts to change the basic nature of human society (I should have used the term utopian, oh well).
=================
I added [utopian] to the title - though I am not convinced that it was necessary or even true.
Daas Torah said...
ReplyDelete"I am not convinced that it was necessary or even true."
I am curious why you feel that way.
LazerA said...
ReplyDeleteDaas Torah said...
"I am not convinced that it was necessary or even true."
I am curious why you feel that way.
==========================
Concepts such as bitachon or hashgacha protis - create a passivism even in terms of non-utopian hashtadlus.
Daas Torah said...
ReplyDelete"Concepts such as bitachon or hashgacha protis - create a passivism even in terms of non-utopian hashtadlus."
This is true. But, fundamentally, I am not talking about passivism in the face of Divine will. I am talking about realistically assessing what humans are capable of achieving.
Utopians are, in essence, living in a fantasy world in which it is possible to achieve a perfect world. Where you can truly "have your cake and eat it too."
Such a belief is simply unjustified by any realistic assessment of the world.
Religious people find it easier to accept this unpleasant truth because they believe that ultimately God will perfect the world through super-natural intervention.
Secularists are faced with a far more difficult choice. As they deny the possibility if Divine intervention, they must either accept the unpleasant fact that mankind is doomed to suffer forever, or they must turn to utopian fantasies which give them hope for the future (while destroying the present).
However we might understand hishtadlus, I think it is clear that it should not be based on fantasy. Refusal to turn to fantasy is not passivism.
I think this presentation is a bit too dichotomous. True, the religious are correct that in many cases, we must trust in G-d. True, the seculars wrongly believe they can solve every problem without G-d.
ReplyDeleteBut many religious, I believe, are in serious error: they believe that since G-d must solve the problem, either we can sit and do nothing, or we can merely do some token hishtadlut. For example, someone is starving on the street, so you give him a few shkalim. Obviously, this is a sin - you have to give him enough money to buy himself a proper meal!
The obligation is NOT to do token hishtadlut and leave the rest to G-d. The obligation is to do the maximum we can, and only then, to leave it up to G-d. So when the man is poor, you give as much money as you possibly can, open as many soup kitchens as are feasible, create as many job-training programs as is possible, etc., and only then do you leave it up to G-d.
Similarly, when the environment is suffering, throwing one bottle into the recycling won't cut it; you have an obligation to do whatever you can to reduce vehicle exhaust, reduce deforestation, etc., and only then to leave it up to G-d.
So the secular attitude seems more correct to me in this regard - they indeed do whatever they can. Their "only" error is that they forget to leave it to G-d. The religious, on the other hand, leave it to G-d and forget to do anything. The seculars lack belief, and the religious lack deed. But we all know - Torah stressed deed over creed, and so who's more correct - the secular doers or the religious believers?
(Rabbi?) Abraham Heschel, for example, bemoaned how few religious Jews participated in civil rights, and how many of the non-Orthodox who did, didn't realize the religious basis of their actions. Being religious doesn't mean only trusting in G-d; the Torah does demand deed too, after all.
Rav Kook says that one of the reasons for atheism today, is that the religious refused to do many activistic deeds, because they saw such deeds as averot (Rav Kook is speaking specifically of Zionism, AFAIK, but the principle is a meta one IMHO). Therefore, says Rav Kook, G-d had to cause atheism, because the atheists wouldn't be deterred by faulty religious faith.
As an aside, Rav Hirsch's beautiful essays "Judaism Up to Date"/"The Jew and His Time" (same essay, but two titles) and "Religion Allied to Progress" (both in Judaism Eternal and Collected Writings) explicitly correlate social and scientific progress and activism, with Messianic fulfillment. Rav Hirsch says that the more one is Jewish, the more involved in Torah one is, then the more one will appreciate and respect the endeavors engaged in today by the Western world, the more he will appreciate their scientific and cultural advances, and the more he will join with them (TIDE). (Obviously, they have scientific and cultural errors and regressions too, and TIDE dictates to reject these.)
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan too, in many places (such as the end of Handbook of Jewish Thought), connects modern scientific advances (such as new medical and agricultural technologies) with the Messianic era.
Rabbi,
ReplyDeleteOne additional note: I'll agree that the seculars perform many erroneous efforts. But I think the problem is NOT that they do too much (due to secularism), but rather that what they do is intrinsically itself in error (due to lack of Religion).
For example: trying to reform the economy to benefit the masses is laudable, and I'd say to do nothing and trust in G-d is a sin. The problem (for the seculars) is that using tyranny to do so (USSR) is against Religion. The problem, I think, is not an issue of hishtadlut and faith versus lack thereof, but simply a question of mitzvah versus averah, in the deed itself.
So I'd say, the religious are in error when they do too little and trust too much. The seculars are in the right when they do a lot, but they in error when what they do is itself wrong. Also, they ought to trust in G-d too, after all.
To respond in detail to Michael's comments would take this discussion far afield into the area's of political ideology and social engineering.
ReplyDeleteI want to respond narrowly to Michael's attempt to link proper Torah hashkafa to liberal policies (which is what he appears to be doing).
My central premise (which, admittedly, became clearer in my later comments) is that the bulk of liberal social engineering is based on fantasy. Secularists cleave to these fantasies because they are emotionally unwilling to accept the alternative, i.e. that in a God-less world, human society will always have serious problems.
These fantasies are widespread. For example, the idea that poverty can be eliminated or even reduced by government intervention. While this fantasy was, perhaps, forgiveable, fifty years ago, by now, with the clear failure of any government-run anti-poverty program to do anything except increase poverty and its associated problems (crime, drug use, family collapse, etc.), it is simply irresponsible.
Another fantasy is the idea that warfare and international aggression can be elimated through diplomacy. (Thus the travesty of the "United" Nations.)
The general phenomenom of environmentalism is related (though not exactly the same in that, in this case, many of the problems are themselves fantasies).
The reason that religious people are less susceptible to these fantasies is that the alternative, for them, is not eternal hopelessness, but belief that, ultimately, God will intervene. Thus, in a sense, their religious belief enables them to more clearly assess and accept reality.
To claim that it is "hishtadlus" to believe secular fantasies and then work to acheive them is simply ludicrous. The idea of hishtadlus is to work to acheive what is acheivable al pi derech hateva; not to strive futilely to achieve the unacheivable.
As for some of Michoel specific statements:
For example, someone is starving on the street, so you give him a few shkalim. Obviously, this is a sin - you have to give him enough money to buy himself a proper meal!
I believe this is fundamentally wrong. Firstly, halachicly one is not obligated to give any particular poor person more than you are able to at that moment. The only restriction is that, if possible, one should not turn him away emptyhanded. If that means only a couple coins, that that is all you must give.
This idea, that you must give every poor person you encounter enough to cover his needs, and failure to do so is a sin, is simplistic and impracticeable. It is, ultimately, a condemnation of the entire premise of tzedaka.
The obligation is NOT to do token hishtadlut and leave the rest to G-d. The obligation is to do the maximum we can... you give as much money as you possibly can, open as many soup kitchens as are feasible, create as many job-training programs as is possible, etc.....
These ideas are all very fine expressions of tzedaka (not hishtadlus). They help people in a realistic manner. Government run "Wars on Poverty" are of an entirely different nature.
So the secular attitude seems more correct to me in this regard - they indeed do whatever they can. ... The seculars lack belief, and the religious lack deed. But we all know - Torah stressed deed over creed, and so who's more correct - the secular doers or the religious believers?
The idea that Torah stresses "deed over creed" is a modern one and greatly oversimplifies the reality. Judaism considers belief absolutely essential. In fact, of the three pillars of the world, Torah, Avodah, and Gemilus Chasadim - the first two are "creed" centered.
Secondly, if the actions of the secularists were actually beneficial then your point would have some weight. The reality is that their ideas and actions are, by and large, harmful. The biggest victims are those who they most want to help.
(Rabbi?) Abraham Heschel, for example, bemoaned how few religious Jews participated in civil rights,....
This is an interesting point. There may be a number of reasons:
A) The period Heschel was talking about, the heyday of civil rights activism, was the sixties. This was a period when Orthodox Jews were very much focused on their internal issues, recovering from the Holocaust and mass assimilation and building Torah communities. General civil rights would have been a distraction from their primary responsibility.
B) I suspect that, already then (as it certainly is now) it was clear to religious Jews that the "civil rights" movement was led and guided by secularists who had no love for religion. (Indeed, the Communists were heavily involved in all these activities.) As such, is it certainly understandable that religious Jews would have avoided associating with such groups.
Rav Kook says that one of the reasons for atheism today, is that the religious refused to do many activistic deeds, because they saw such deeds as averot (Rav Kook is speaking specifically of Zionism, AFAIK, but the principle is a meta one IMHO). Therefore, says Rav Kook, G-d had to cause atheism, because the atheists wouldn't be deterred by faulty religious faith.
As classical Zionism is arguably a perfect example of a fantasy ideology, this would not contradict my point. As for why R' Kook zt"l would have been susceptible to the fantasy when virtually all others were not is a difficult question.
Rav Kook's views on why Hashem brought about the rise of atheism are interesting (and more complex than your portrayal).
Regardless, from your words, fundamentally what he is saying is that Hashem wanted people to do something that religious people wouldn't do, so He created atheism. Now, being that the most fundamental misunderstanding of reality possible is atheism, what R' Kook is saying is that in order for people to do what needed to be done they had to be absolutely deluded. While this may be true, it is not an argument for joining the deluded!
As an aside, Rav Hirsch's beautiful essays ... explicitly correlate social and scientific progress and activism, with Messianic fulfillment. Rav Hirsch says that the more one is Jewish... the more he will join with them (TIDE). ...
As an admirer of R' Hirsch it pains me to admit that it was this idea which prevented me from accepting his ideology. I feel that in this regard R' Hirsch was influenced by his enviroment. He simply saw too much good in German society. His extravagant praises for Schiller and exhortation to "sacrifice even life itself when the Fatherland calls it sons to its defence" (Horeb 609) are examples of this.
In hindsight, the idea that Jews should have sacrificed their lives for the German "Fatherland" or that German society had anything meaningful to offer the Jewish people is a travesty.
If the past century, with the rise of the secular ideologies of Nazism, fascism, socialism and Communism, has taught us anything, it has demonstrated that secularism, no matter how well intentioned it appears, will always turn against the Jewish people eventually. Thus, we see that in modern Europe, the heart of secularism, anti-Semitism is again on the rise. Secular anti-Semitism is on the rise and increasingly more accepted in he American left-wing as well.
I'll agree that the seculars perform many erroneous efforts. But I think the problem is NOT that they do too much (due to secularism), but rather that what they do is intrinsically itself in error (due to lack of Religion).
Yes, well, being that has been my point, I am pleased to learn that we are in agreement. It isn't the amount of effort but the entire enterprise.
For example: trying to reform the economy to benefit the masses is laudable, and I'd say to do nothing and trust in G-d is a sin. The problem (for the seculars) is that using tyranny to do so (USSR) is against Religion.
This assumes that the entire premise, socially engineering an economy to equally benefit everyone, is possible at all. As all the evidence seems to show that it isn't, and only causes bigger problems, then the attempt is not hishtadlus, it's vandalism!
Moreover, tyranny is the inevtiable result of any attempt to engineer an economy. The ever increasing levels of regulation and taxation required to acheive the (impossible) task inevitably result in diminishing freedom and increased government control.
The problem, I think, is not an issue of hishtadlut and faith versus lack thereof, but simply a question of mitzvah versus averah, in the deed itself.
This is, in itself, a very good point. If the secularists would at least limit their means to those that are morally acceptable, then the damage that they would cause would be limited. Unfortunately, as they believe that they are literally "saving the world", when push comes to shove they always overstep the bounds.
To LazerA:
ReplyDeleteI agree that often, secular efforts go too far. Your observation that this is because they have no G-d to trust in, is an interesting and astute one. I should have pointed out, I do not disagree.
As I said, I think the discussion, however, was too dichotomous. My point was that even if the seculars do too much, and their efforts are also intrinsically wrong (regardless of amount), the fact that they "do" a lot, is largely correct, IMHO.
In other words: if the seculars do too much hishtadlut, it is just as true, IMHO, that the Orthodox sometimes do too little. The golden mean is valid here, I think.
Therefore, the Orthodox could learn that bitachon does not preclude making more than a token hishtadlut.
For example, I agree that one is not obligated to do more tzedaka than he is able. But this is precisely the point: he is forbidden to do less than he is able. If he has $100, he cannot merely give one penny to a starving man, and say "Well, I've done my token hishtadlut...". He must do whatever he can, no more and no less.
I apply this across the board - the seculars may do too much, but the religious may do too little.
--------
Your point about Heschel is well taken - the Orthodox were legitimately busy. But at least theoretically (pragmatics might be a legitimate obstacle), then, I'd say Orthodox ought to be involved in similar social activism.
Zionism is fantasy? But it worked, didn't it??!!
Rav Kook - surely he does not advocate joining the seculars! In fact, he held by Austritt, and criticized Mizrahi for joining with the seculars institutionally. Rather, Rav Kook was trying to get the Orthodox to do more, to learn from the seculars in what they were doing correctly. The fact that G-d had to get seculars to do His work, tells one that the religious are doing something wrong.
So if the seculars attempt the impossible, it doesn't mean that we should drop social activism altogether. Similarly, if Rav Hirsch was overly patriotic, it doesn't mean that his equating tikkun olam with social activism (as opposed to theurgy and Kabbalistic tikkunim) is an error; if one objects to his Germanic patriotism, so drop the German-ism and make it Jewish activism! If one objects to secular Zionism, don't drop Zionism; simply be Religious Zionist instead (with all that "religious" entails - I do NOT mean watered-out bedieved religiousity)! - In other words, don't abandon the chol, rather sanctify it (R' Kook); don't scorn the mundane, rather Toraize it (R' Hirsch).
Michael said...
ReplyDeleteIn other words: if the seculars do too much hishtadlut, it is just as true, IMHO, that the Orthodox sometimes do too little.
I can understand where you are coming from here. To what degree should Torah Jews be involved in the political and social affairs of the general world.
This is a difficult question. There are always pressing internal needs and there are also dangers inherent in being heavily involved in the affairs of the non-Jews. On the other hand, the argument can be made that, as Torah Jews, we davka should be involved in these affairs to some degree.
It clearly is a decision requiring judgement of great Torah leaders. As it stands, it appears that the dominant position of Torah leaders is to minimize such involvement. However, that does appear to be slowly changing.
...he is forbidden to do less than he is able. If he has $100, he cannot merely give one penny to a starving man, and say "Well, I've done my token hishtadlut...". He must do whatever he can, no more and no less.
Actually, the obligation to give tzedaka has no bearing on how much you must give a specific individual. And the obligation of tzedaka is quite distinct from the obligation of hishtadlut.
Your case is complicated, of course, by the fact that it is a "starving" which throws in a separate element of hatzolas nefashos.
Zionism is fantasy? But it worked, didn't it??!!
Not if you describe Zionism as a movement to acheive the goals for which it was founded, i.e. primarily the elimination of anti-semitism. This was the clear intent of the Zionist mainstream (Herzl, et al) and it clearly didn't work.
Another major Zionist fantasy goal was the establishment of Jewish socialist workers paradise (as expressed in the now defunct kibbutz movement).
Some Zionists (including the early Mizrachi, such as R' Reines) limited their aspirations to more rational goals, such as providing a refuge for European Jewry and Jews in other trouble spots. This has, in fact, come to fruition to some degree.
One of the more dramatic examples of a Zionist fantasy goal was that of the Messianic Zionists, embodied primarily in the teachings of R' Kook. This group saw the Zionist movement as a direct means towards the ultimate geulah, and saw the State, upon its founding, as "aschalta d'geulah." This goal has also failed. (The concept of "aschalta d'geulah" is not that something brings us closer to the geulah-arguably everything brings the geulah closer-but that the state was, in itself, the actual flowering of the first stage of geulah ("reishit tzemichat geulateinu"). Recent events have clearly demonstrated that the modern State of Israel is very much part of the galus.)
So, yes, I see Zionism as a fantasy ideology. I think any objective historian would agree.
Rav Kook - surely he does not advocate joining the seculars! In fact, he held by Austritt, and criticized Mizrahi for joining with the seculars institutionally.
In intersting point not generally acknowledged by those who claim to follow his teachings.
The fact that G-d had to get seculars to do His work, tells one that the religious are doing something wrong.
Every human being, even the most wicked, is doing His work.
Clearly, Hashem wanted the State of Israel to come into existence. Clearly, he also wnated the Holocaust to take place. The fact of God's will has little, if any, effect on what our obligations are.
Only if you assume that the Zionist mission was mandated by the Torah, does your argument hold up. The overwhelming majority of Torah authorities did not agree.
...if Rav Hirsch was overly patriotic, it doesn't mean that his equating tikkun olam with social activism (as opposed to theurgy and Kabbalistic tikkunim) is an error...
Three points:
A) There is a middle ground between "social activism" and "theurgy and Kabbalistic tikkunim." It is called normative Torah observance.
B) To my knowledge, R' Hirsch never presented "social activism" as an alternative to traditional "tikkun olam" (i.e. Torah and mitzvos).
C) Social activism, as the term is universally used, requires becoming heavily involved in the institutions and affairs of the general public. As I said earlier, such involvement is not without its downsides. R' Hirsch was, apparently, so enamored of German society that he felt that such involvement was worthwhile. I feel that history has demonstrated that this was not true.
don't abandon the chol, rather sanctify it (R' Kook); don't scorn the mundane, rather Toraize it (R' Hirsch).
These are universally acknowledged goals when stated generally. The difficulty lies in the application.
I think we've reached a sort of impasse/middle ground between the two of us, so I'll respond on only a few points:
ReplyDelete- Rav Kook and Austritt - it is indeed interesting, that regarding R' Shlomo Breurer's arguments against Mizrahi, Rav Kook would (AFAIK) concur completely. But ironically, even though I follow both Ravs Hirsch and Kook extensively, in this case (of Zionism and Austritt), I actually go with Rabbi Mosh Shmuel Glasner who advocates the non-Austritt position of Mizrahi.
Get seculars to do His work - Obviously, if one takes all of history as G-d Himself's direct doing, then everyone is doing His will, whether it is a mitzvah or averah. But if one takes a broader stance on free will (I'm not trying to start a discussion on this, but simply explain my own intent), this isn't so pashut. According to this (and Rav Kook AFAIK), the seculars were doing what G-d wanted done, l'hatchila, as a mitzvah. I.e., G-d wanted a state as a positive achievement, just as He wants tzedaka and chesed and mishpat, etc. But since the religious weren't going to do it, He had to recruit the seculars instead. In other words, it was something the religious were supposed to be doing as a dvar mitzvah.
Zionism - Okay, so perhaps the meta-goals of Zionism haven't panned out. (Actually, as far as the Messianic vision, Rav Kook-ians can still ask for more time; Rav Kook himself said there'd be setbacks, so it's a phenomenon that cannot be disproven, save with the absolute annihilation of the state. Not that it can be proven either. Like any non-scientific belief, it isn't subject to critical testability.) But I think that Zionism was a complete success, in that it did in fact achieve a modern state, which is no small miracle, considering 2000 years of galut. How many other nations have done this?
Middle ground btw social activism and doing Torah/mitzvot - I didn't say that social activism is an alternative to Torah u'mitzvot; I said social activism is part the mitzvot. I think this question has to do with pragmatics - even if Jews in theory ought to be socially activist, is it practical given all the internal concerns of the Jewish people. This I will grant. But my point is that Rav Hirsch, I think, saw the mitzvot themselves as being a quiet form of social activism - his entire philosophy is based not on G-d bringing world geula based on some external Divine grace, but rather, world geula is itself largely brought by sociological improvements down here on earth. When all the gentiles learn from us to give tzedaka, for example, this itself is part of the world geula. According to this, it is but a small leap, I think, to justify social activism on account of the Jews. Now, I will agree with you that pragmatically, this isn't always possible, because we have too many concerns, and also, the gentiles tend to get miffed when we interfere with their societies. But also, I thought we were discussing seculars in general, including gentiles - so maybe Jews shouldn't be socially activist, but this doesn't preclude gentiles, in any way. And we are discussing "seculars" in general, after all.
Michael said...
ReplyDelete...it is indeed interesting, that regarding R' Shlomo Breurer's arguments against Mizrahi, Rav Kook would (AFAIK) concur completely.
I think it is worth noting that, throughout his life, R' Kook a member of the Chareidi community. I believe that if R' Kook were alive today, he would still be seen as a (probably controversial) member of the Chareidi community. Although he supported the activities of the various Religious Zionist groups, he never formally joined them.
...I think that Zionism was a complete success, in that it did in fact achieve a modern state, which is no small miracle, considering 2000 years of galut. How many other nations have done this?
This is an important point, as it points us to the generally supernatural nature of Jewish survival. It raises the question of whether, in regard to general Jewish survival, we can really speak of "al pi derech hateva" at all.
...my point is that Rav Hirsch, I think, saw the mitzvot themselves as being a quiet form of social activism
Granted, but:
his entire philosophy is based not on G-d bringing world geula based on some external Divine grace, but rather, world geula is itself largely brought by sociological improvements down here on earth. When all the gentiles learn from us to give tzedaka, for example, this itself is part of the world geula.
Here, I think you are seriously misreading Rav Hirsch. R' Hirsch did see the Jewish nation's mission in exile, at least in part, to serve as a guiding light, by our example, to the nations. He does not, however, to my knowledge, describe the coming of the redemption in these terms. This process may lead up to the redemption, it is not itself the redemption.
I would point out that R' Hirsch was strongly opposed to any attempt to bring about the redemption through direct human action. "We must wait for God Himself to sound the Shofar." (Siddur p. 138) Redemption is to be acheived only through a return to Torah and mitzvos, anything else is "dangerous folly".
...I thought we were discussing seculars in general, including gentiles - so maybe Jews shouldn't be socially activist, but this doesn't preclude gentiles, in any way. And we are discussing "seculars" in general, after all.
True.
Obviously, charitable activities, as are engaged in by religious groups throughout the United States are a very good thing, by and large.
The phrase, "social action", however, is basically a code-word for active support of the broad liberal/socialist agenda. As I have already stated, this movement is overwhelmingly destructive and should not enjoy the support of anyone, especially Torah Jews.
LazerA:
ReplyDeleteYou say I am misreading Rav Hirsch, and you bring his teaching that geula will come via Torah and mitzvot, and not human deed.
But Rav Hirsch is referring to OUR geula, our return to Israel. THIS, and davka this, he says will be via Divine grace and not human action.
But when he discusses world geula, he puts it in terms of tikkun olam - when the gentiles become righteous, when they learn about their moral duties, when they come to believe in G-d, etc. etc., then they will have their geula. This, and precisely this, depends, according to Rav Hirsch, on being a practical moral influence (and social action to whatever degree is feasible, IMHO), not on Divine grace.
Now, of course Rav Hirsch believes that the gentiles' geula depends on, and will come only after, davka our geual; only after we are redeemed and have a Torah state, and "ki m'Tzion tetze Torah...", will the gentiles be redeemed themselves. Even so, their redemption is a naturalistic/practical/wordly one, not a Divine-grace-ic one.
I find it interesting that AFAIK, traditional literature tends to conflate our geula with the world's geula. Perhaps this is because previous authorities assumed the gentiles would never become righteous until Mashiach comes and redeems us, at which point they'd make sudden and dramatic teshuva. If so, then our geula and theirs occur at the same time.
If, on the other hand, the gentiles' geula comes in a natural manner, then by no means it is obvious that our geula and theirs must immediately coincide, whether in cause or in time. Their geula can have an independent cause, and may occur years after ours.
If our geula will be a natural one too (as per Rav Kook and his sources, such as Rav Kalischer, etc.), then kal vahomer it need not coincide with the gentiles' geula.
I would need a source in R' Hirsch's writings for this distinction between "our geulah" and the "world's geulah." To my knowledge, and as you appear to acknowledge, this distinction is has no precedent in Torah literature.
ReplyDelete(This is not to deny that there will be a number of stages in the development of the Messianic age. From the Rambam's description of the Messianic process it seems that the Jewish people will first repent and then fight the wars of Hashem. Presumably these wars will be fought against non-Jewish forces opposed to Hashem. So there will be a stage in which the Jewish people have returned but the nations have not. However, the geulah is not established until all the nations have accepted the truth of Hashem.)
Regarding the two geulas: AFAIK, I had not seen any explicit mention in Torah literature between the national and universal geulas. It simply seemed logical to me, that our selfish hope for a national geula, was not identical with our simultaneous hope for the geula of all mankind.
ReplyDeleteBut I just saw this distinction, explicit, in Rav Berkovits's Crisis and Faith:
On page 155, he defines galut shechina as the exile of Hashem's purpose for the world and Creation. When man does not do that which he was created to do, Hashem is in exile in history. "What do we mean by "cosmic exile?" God has His plan for the world. The entire creation is infused with a divine purpose that longs for and seeks its realization in the cosmos in general and in human history in particular. Since, however, mankind has its own goals such as passion for power, desire for dominations, for possessions and pleasures, such egotistic human drives deny the divine purpose in the creation of man. As a result, God's own purpose finds itself in Exile in the history of mankind. So long as the divine plan remains unrealized in history, the history of mankind tells the story of - what Jewish tradition calls - Galut haShekhinah, the Exile of the Divine Presence. God Himself is, as it were, a refugee in the world of men."
(See particularly, the last mishna of Avot "Kol mah she'bara Hashem b'olamo, lo bara ela lichvodo...", with Rav Hirsh's perush, for the meaning of G-d's goal in creation.)
Rav Berkovits goes on to state (p. 157):
"Our Exile, then is twofold: national and universal, the exile of the people and the exile of the Shekhina in which we share. Because of that, Jewish messianism is also twofold. The Talmud teaches that the only difference between the present world and the days of the Messiah is the freedom from alien subjugation. But Isaiah prophesied: A nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor will they learn the art of war any longer. Both are right; both redemptions are needed; national redemption for the national exile, universal redemption for Galut Shekhinah, for the exile of God in human history. Jewish history seeks redemption in a twofold drive. It drives for national redemption amongst the nations, as well as universal redemption for all the nations. For this reason, every form of national redemption can only be Athalta deGe'ula, the beginning. Only universal redemption may be acknowledged as Ge'ulah Shelemah, redemption completed and time fulfilled. No separation between the two is possible."
(We can compare this philosophy of galut haShekhina to Rav Hirsch in essay "Av I", where he says galut shechina is Hashem's exile from our national existence, meaning He no longer has a national witness to His existence. As Chazal say, if we are not His witnesses, He is not G-d. So too Rav Kook's school on Yechezkel 36 - chillul hashem is interpreted as the chillul of His "name", meaning His purpose and goal for the world. When we are exiled, there is no longer a national vehicle in the world representing Him. Thus, even without our having done teshuva, Hashem will redeem us, for the sake of His "name" - we ourselves do not deserve geula, but He wants His own geula for the world, and He cannot wait for us to deserve our personal geula.)
Thus, while earlier Jewish tradition may not have a clearly enunciated distinction between the two geulas, I think that anyone upon hearing this distinction, would take it as peshita - obviously we want the whole world to accept G-d even as we are redeemed and return to Zion!
For example, the Psalm "Shiru lashem shir hadash, shiru lashem kol ha'aretz", and other similar Psalms, explicitly use our redemptions (large and small) as means to hope for all of mankind's acknowledgment of G-d and His people, to bring about this universal geula.
Thus, I think that Jewish tradition simply conflated the two because it was assumed they'd go hand-in-hand; only in our days, when we have returned to Israel without a simultaneous return of mankind to G-d, does it dawn upon us that perhaps there will be a significant lapse between our geula (Athalta de'Ge'ula) and the world's geula (Ge'ula Shelemah).
Michael said...
ReplyDelete"Regarding the two geulas: AFAIK, I had not seen any explicit mention in Torah literature between the national and universal geulas....
But I just saw this distinction, explicit, in Rav Berkovits's Crisis and Faith:..."
So far, you appear to be claiming that there are two distinct events of redemption, one for the Jewish people and one for the world. You also stated that the geulah of the gentiles would only take place after the geulah of the Jewish people. You originally appeared to be reading this idea into R' Hirsch and I asked for your source.
Now it seems that you acknowledge that this concept appears nowhere except in your understanding of Rabbi Berkovitz (hardly a mainstream source). Yet I fail to see where you find this idea in the quotes you have provided.
Rabbi Berkowitz is simply saying that there are two aspects to the geulah ("Jewish messianism is... twofold"), not that there are two separate geulos! Rabbi Berkovitz, who was a Zionist, is simply arguing that even a Jewish national "redemption", as in the State of Israel, is not the actual geulah but only an "atchalta" - "a beginning" - of the geulah.
Rabbi Berkovitz is not speaking of two separate redemptions, he is describing two functions of the one ultimate geulah.
"Thus, while earlier Jewish tradition may not have a clearly enunciated distinction between the two geulas, I think that anyone upon hearing this distinction, would take it as peshita - obviously we want the whole world to accept G-d even as we are redeemed and return to Zion!"
Yes, of course! In fact, if we return to Zion while the world remains in rebellion to God's kingdom, then we have not been redeemed at all! That is the traditional Torah understanding.
"Thus, I think that Jewish tradition simply conflated the two because it was assumed they'd go hand-in-hand; only in our days, when we have returned to Israel without a simultaneous return of mankind to G-d, does it dawn upon us that perhaps there will be a significant lapse between our geula (Athalta de'Ge'ula) and the world's geula (Ge'ula Shelemah)."
And here I think is the root of your misconception. Your belief in the Zionist State as a form of redemption has forced you to divide the traditional concept of geulah into two.
This is similar to the division of the Messianic concept in Christianity. Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah. They believe that he brought a "spiritual" redemption. Jesus' failure to fulfill the bulk of the Messianic prophecies dealing with the material world have been explained away with the idea of a "Second Coming". This invention is justified by nothing more than their absolute conviction that Jesus was the Messiah, period.
Similarly, your absolute conviction that the State of Israel is a form of geulah, despite its clear failure to fulfill virtually any of the broader Messianic prophecies, has forced you to push those broader prophecies off onto a separate redemption of the Gentiles. This is an invention without precedent in Jewish thought.
The traditional concept of the geulah has always been universal, with the Jewish people serving a function as a priestly nation. The idea of a redemption of the Jewish nation in an unredeemed world is without any basis in traditional Judaism.
Two aspects of geula, two geulas - the distinction seems semantic. My point is simply that when we beg Hashem to redeem us from being slaughtered like sheep, and when we beg Him to redeem us "not for our sake, but for Your (Name's) sake", we are asking for **two** things - whether they are two distinct things, or two aspects of one thing, they remain, either way, as TWO.
ReplyDeleteNow, both of them in fact involve our being redeemed to our land, but one is for our own sake, and one is for G-d's (and by extension, mankind's) sake(s). But one is for our own sake, and one is for His sake. Moreover, it is usually assumed, but not necessarily the case, that the two will chronologically coincide. This is NOT to say there is not cause-and-effect - surely our being redeemed to our land will precipitate mankind's geula! - rather, my point is that the effect will not necessarily trail immediately on the cause; perhaps a day, a year, a century, etc. will intervene.
You say, "In fact, if we return to Zion while the world remains in rebellion to God's kingdom, then we have not been redeemed at all!" I fail to understand this - if we have been redeemed, and even have a Temple, etc. etc., have **WE** not in fact been **davka** redeemed? Now, geula remains incomplete, for the world remains unredeemed, but have not **WE** been redeemed? Whether there are two geulas or two aspects to one geula, has not the first one been fulfilled, the WE aspect, as opposed to the mankind aspect?
This is aside from the state we have today. The state merely serves to confirm and materialize my theory, but my theory stands even without the state. The fact is that, as I said above, we hope for two distinct things: our own material rescue from alien lands and the oppression therein, and the rescue of G-d's goal for all humanity.
Therefore, I suggest that the two were always assumed to chronologically coincide, and thus they were conflated. However, everyone (in the past) would have always conceded, I think, these two aspects, if pressed. However, only in our days, has this division become highlighted by our reality. What was previously theoretical and perhaps unappreciated/unrecognized, has become actual and appreciated/recognized.
And of course I hold by Shemot 19:5-6! I never suggested our mission was anything besides being a mamlechet kohanim v'goy kadosh in order that we be an ohr lagoyim and effect a tikkun olam b'malchut shad-ai. Could I be a Hirschian and a Kookian without, adarabba, emphasizing these??!!