Recipients and Publicity wrote: concerning "R' Tropper - Kiruv vs Geirus/ RaP's analysis":
RaP had written in the above post: "But what to do when confronted with interfaith couples where the Jewish one needs kiruv and the non-Jew needs conversion? This is not an easy quandary for all concerned but at rock bottom, regardless of what the interfaith couples are told or imagine, the gentile is NOT a "tinok shenishba" and has NO neshama while the Jew has a 100% holy neshama, which the converting gentile presumably desires. While male Jew can count for a minyan as would the greatest gadol on Earth, as would a 100% Halachically Jewish mother (even if she was anti-religious) give birth to a 100% Jew, on the other hand a goy MUST be excluded from a minyan. These are facts life and Jewish Law."
R' MB: Didn't HQBH make a point of having us all come from Adam so that things like this would not be said?RaP:What micha said is really very surprising:
RaP: Yes indeed that is the classical answer and it is true, but why do you ignore the fact that Judaism holds that a non-Jew does not have THAT neshama that a Jew does have and indeed it is exactly THAT neshama that the sincere potential convert wants to have and should/does get upon immersion in the Bais Din's mikva when THAT neshama that he did NOT have enters into him/her upon immersion in the mikva of geirus. That is all I was saying and there was no need of you to move the issue into illogical non-relevant humanistic and globalistic egalitarian drive, when you could have just let the obvious Halachic reality stand without unnecessary questioning by you.
R' MB: One may argue whether the difference is qualitative or quantitative. Or whether it's inherent, or a product of our being part of a mission (whether a willing part or not).RaP: These are just nice words that have nothing to do with anything, I am afraid. Why are you panicking and why do have so much trouble when THE key difference between a Yid a Goy is pointed out? I.E.: That a Yid has a Holy Neshama and Goy does not. That is why a Yid is a Yid and Goy is Goy. What don't I get here?
R' MB: But to deny that every human being has a tzelem E-lokim... The Tanya says such things, but I can't think of anyone else who does.RaP: The "tzelem E-lokim" was not mentioned here nor was it discussed. And as you know, the use of the phrase and notion of "tzelem E-lokim" requires definition and context depending how it is to be used, but one this is for sure, the idea that somehow gentiles may have a degree of the the sublime "tzelem E-lokim" does NOT mean that they automatically can be assumed to have a neshama as well upon their desire to convert to Judaism. Far from it. Regardless of the sublime and noble Godly origin and roots of all mankind, to use the analogy of the Jewish sages, a gentile is in essence like "water" and only upon proper Halachic conversion does that gentile become "wine" when he/she finally immerses in the mikva as if it was a literal miracle of birth. Call it the ultimate BORN AGAIN phenomenon (of course the Christians stole this idea like almost all their best ideas from Judaism.)
So, sure, according to the Pantheistic and Panentheistic (Panentheism posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe) views of Tanya, which posits sparks of G-d in everything, but even Tanya teaches that while while animals have the nefesh habahamis and humans have nefesh, it is ONLY Jews who have a higher complete neshama, the "neshama Elokis sichlis" as the MAHARAL of Prague labels it most definitively, and it is precisely THAT "neshama Elokis sichlis" that a true ger tzedek receives upon the completion of a successful geirus and more specifically upon immersion in the mikva which for the ger is considered THE literal moment of BIRTH as a Jew when the "neshama Elokis sichlis" enters into hi/her just as it does when a Jewish baby is born to a 100% Halachicaly Jewish mother. And hence the expression of the Chazal: "Ger shenisgayer ketinok/kekatan shenolad dami" ("[a] convert who converts [is exactly similar to] like [a] newborn [JEWISH] infant/child") (Yevamot 48b).
Every human being has a neshamah. Proof: "vayipach be'apav nishmas chayim -- and He breated into his [Adam's] nostriles a living neshamah". Unqelus renders it a "ruach memalela -- a speaking spirit". The world is classically divided into domeim (silent; inanimate) tzomeiach (growing; plants), chai (living; animals), medaber (speaking; people). Notice that the very thing that is used to categorize who is human is that "ruach memalala" which is the neshamah!
ReplyDeleteThe neshamah /is/ the tzelem E-lokim, the human ability to speak and to be creative. That's the way we've understood things since before Unqelus.
If you would have said that non-Jews lack a second element to their neshamah, I would not have objected. (Although I find the Kuzari's position that only Jews with an unbroken matrilineal chain to the avos, with no giyoros, to have this aspect to be unpalatable. OTOH, the Kuzari considers it a potential that only the neviim amongst us make manifest. See 1:103.)
RaP mentions the Maharal saying something about a "neshamah sikhlis E-lokis". First, that expression doesn't appear in the Maharal. What one does find is "neshamah sikhlis", without mention of G-dliness, in Gevuros Hashem ch. 28. And he writes "For the act of speech is via the body, and this is impossible without a neshamah shikhlis." As I've been saying, "ru'ach memalela" -- if you can speak, you have a neshamah and can think. Jew or non-Jew. (The Maharal contrasts this to a baby who can't think, and an animal that has no neshamah. As to Koko the ASL signing gorilla, I have no idea.)
RaP asks why I jumped on it so heavily. Simple -- we see the dangers in practice in a community that doesn't know the difference between barukh Mordechai and arur Haman, between lauding the value of the Yehudi and belittling the nachri. Reflecting back to my own childhood, grade school rabbeim call human beings "beheimes" and "vilder chayes" and fill their heads with us-vs.-them "chapsem" stories (good Jewish boy saved from them nasty goyim by yelling "chapsem" and the vigilantes beat him up). And those children grow up with no sense of the importance of treating non-Jews ethically and morally. Even if they know it intellectually, there is no sense of it, no urgency when it comes to making decisions.
Why am I so upset? Because there is a direct line between the first chapter of the Tanya and the news stories that come out of Postville. (Not that it was a necessary outcome nor ch"v one the baal haTanya would have wanted.) A culture founded on a book that denies non-Jews any G-dliness or ability to be good for its own sake is bound to produce more people who have a lackadaisical attitude when it comes to addressing complaints of worker abuse going on among employees when those victims are non-Jewish. Cultural impressions don't capture subtle chaqiros.
Why am I upset? Because how are we to be "a kingdom of priests" if we don't look for the best in our "congregation"?
-micha
PS: Did I ever mention how annoying I find arguing with people who are presenting ideas they won't put their name on? People can throw any hava amina or flame-bait into the ring with no accountability. And I'm expected to spend time disputing it?
PPS: The reason for my typing "E-lokis" is combining (1) my not transliterating sheim "E-l" before finishing the word, and (2) transliterating the word the way I assume it will be mentally "heard". I realize the resulting hyphen and "k" is a little silly.
I am really surprised at quite a few things here
ReplyDeletemicha said... Every human being has a neshamah. Proof: "vayipach be'apav nishmas chayim -- and He breated into his [Adam's] nostriles a living neshamah".
RaP: Wow. Sure. But not every human being has THE nashama of ADAM KADMON of Gan Eden who was a unique Godly being. But have you not heard of "atem kruyim adam ve'ein umos ha'olam keruyim adam"? ("You [the Jews/Children of Israel] are called [the true] Adam, and not the nations of the world who are not called Adam"). And of course there is the way it was interperted in front of the gentiles to defuse the nasty antisemites, see an example of this as explained by Rav Herschel Schachter at http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2001/parsha/rsch_emor.html but bottom line, and since you cited the Tanya, here is how Lubavitchers talk of "Atem kruyim Adam..." http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/archive/index.php3/t-6863.html such as: "Adam Harishon was created in the image of Hashem. " 'Atem kruyim Adam'--Yidden are the neshoma of Adam Harishon split into 600,000 parts."
micha: Unqelus renders it a "ruach memalela -- a speaking spirit". The world is classically divided into domeim (silent; inanimate) tzomeiach (growing; plants), chai (living; animals), medaber (speaking; people). Notice that the very thing that is used to categorize who is human is that "ruach memalala" which is the neshamah!
RaP: Nice drush but, sorry, it is not emesdikke oisgehaltenne peshat!
micha: The neshamah /is/ the tzelem E-lokim, the human ability to speak and to be creative. That's the way we've understood things since before Unqelus.
RaP: Again, you are assuming that there is a straight line connecting Adam of Breishis with the goyim we see walking around us in the world today, when that is not to be assumed given the qualifications of the many chazals and various other curses that have befallen them that describe and demote (dehumanize?) them. Thus the children of Cham are cursed by the Torah (a downgrade from the lofty tzelem elokim); the people of Sodom and Gemora are destroyed as are the generation of the Flood don't forget, the Bnei Esav and the Bnei Yishmael and Amalekites, Midianites and Moabites are all cursed and downgraded over time, in the Torah yet, and they are assumed to come from the Sitra Achra and the Satan and not from Hashem, a la Lilith's seduction of Adam and the creation of other seemingly-humanoid "species" of people. Doesn't the RAMBAM say somewhere that the difference between a goy and yid is like the difference between a monkey and a human? So you are surely over-simplifying.
micha: If you would have said that non-Jews lack a second element to their neshamah, I would not have objected. (Although I find the Kuzari's position that only Jews with an unbroken matrilineal chain to the avos, with no giyoros, to have this aspect to be unpalatable. OTOH, the Kuzari considers it a potential that only the neviim amongst us make manifest. See 1:103.)
RaP: The Kuzari's view and hashkofa is the correct one. Yours is not. It does not matter what you choose to find "unpalatable" but your intellectual honesty for mentioning the truth is to be commended.
micha: RaP mentions the Maharal saying something about a "neshamah sikhlis E-lokis". First, that expression doesn't appear in the Maharal. What one does find is "neshamah sikhlis", without mention of G-dliness, in Gevuros Hashem ch. 28. And he writes "For the act of speech is via the body, and this is impossible without a neshamah shikhlis." As I've been saying, "ru'ach memalela" -- if you can speak, you have a neshamah and can think. Jew or non-Jew. (The Maharal contrasts this to a baby who can't think, and an animal that has no neshamah. As to Koko the ASL signing gorilla, I have no idea.)
RaP: I will look into it some more. The wording is there, I have to find it. What's up with you though? So now the Maharal is a Modern Orthodox rabbi too?
micha: RaP asks why I jumped on it so heavily. Simple -- we see the dangers in practice in a community that doesn't know the difference between barukh Mordechai and arur Haman, between lauding the value of the Yehudi and belittling the nachri. Reflecting back to my own childhood, grade school rabbeim call human beings "beheimes" and "vilder chayes" and fill their heads with us-vs.-them "chapsem" stories (good Jewish boy saved from them nasty goyim by yelling "chapsem" and the vigilantes beat him up). And those children grow up with no sense of the importance of treating non-Jews ethically and morally. Even if they know it intellectually, there is no sense of it, no urgency when it comes to making decisions.
RaP: Again I commend your honesty and self-disclosure but it is your childhood rebbeim who are 100% correct and you who are lost in the woods. Go back to learning Piaget's stages of educational develoipment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget#The_developmental_process that parallel the stages of chinuch in Pirkei Avos ("Ben Chamesh lemikra et) and you will realize that there is no other way than to be mechanech Yidishe kinder the way your rebbeing did AL PI TAHARAS HAKODESH, consider yourself gebentched.
micha: Why am I so upset?
RaP: Because your Modern Orthodox sensibilities have been stepped upon? I dunno!
micha: Because there is a direct line between the first chapter of the Tanya and the news stories that come out of Postville. (Not that it was a necessary outcome nor ch"v one the baal haTanya would have wanted.)
RaP: This is surely going too far. Every Jewish group has its glorious/notorious debacles and they will be seen by all and sundry in today's mass media age. Should Modern Orthodoxy and Yeshiva University be held responsible for the messes in the media Rabbis Boruch Lanner and Mordechai Tendler landed up in? Should Gerrer Hasidism be held responsible for the catastrophe of Avrohom Mandrowitz in the medai for years? Should the yeshiva world be held liable for the the fact that Shaul Liberman and Weiss haLivni went to teach at the JTS? Your response is ridiculous.
micha: A culture founded on a book that denies non-Jews any G-dliness or ability to be good for its own sake is bound to produce more people who have a lackadaisical attitude when it comes to addressing complaints of worker abuse going on among employees when those victims are non-Jewish. Cultural impressions don't capture subtle chaqiros.
RaP: Sorry, but you are starting to sound like the complaints that came from that guy Noah Feldman http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22yeshiva-t.html "Orthodox Paradox" who had to justify why he dropped out of Modern Orthodoxy and married a Korean gentile who was bright and with it. And to whom Rabbi Norman Lamm wrote a brilliant rejoinder http://www.forward.com/articles/11308/ "A Response to Noah Feldman". It's worth reading because it cuts to the chase of the fact that a Jew who marries a goy, no matter how YOU are trying to endow that goy with YOUR understnding of "neshama" remains nothing but a goy. You know, "if you want to play around with words, "neshama" can also mean "heart" or "feelings" in Hebrew and Yiddish and what you are saying is beginning to sound like it lacks a YIDDISHE heart and TORAH-DIKKE feelings. So please cut out and spare us the universalistic clap-trap please.
Micha: Why am I upset? Because how are we to be "a kingdom of priests" if we don't look for the best in our "congregation"? -micha
RaP: Well, maybe the goyim are "a kingdom of priests too" after all maybe we should respect their "high priest" in Rome with all the little local "priests" -- like the Reform, Conservative and many Modern Orthodox rabbis are already doing with interfaith egalitarian meetings and ceremonies. And you know why that is so, it's because they have taken your position that goyim too have "neshomas" so there is not that much difference between a goy and a yid, and hence that is why "conversion" to Judaism is a joke to most of them because it is a totally meaningless ceremony and ritual!
micha: PS: Did I ever mention how annoying I find arguing with people who are presenting ideas they won't put their name on?
RaP: Oh, a new complaint now. The web and the Internet and blogs etc do not obligate anyone to identify themselves if they choose not to. It is considered a right to have an anonymous ID and to give people the right to choose how they wish to be known for reasons best known to them. It's called respecting someone else privacy! Even Wikipedia accepts this standard so why are you griping now?
micha: People can throw any hava amina or flame-bait into the ring with no accountability. And I'm expected to spend time disputing it?
RaP: Nope, you can stay home and take care of your local goyishe neshomas and smile at all of them as they walk by you. Don't come here if it makes you mad.
micha: PPS: The reason for my typing "E-lokis" is combining (1) my not transliterating sheim "E-l" before finishing the word, and (2) transliterating the word the way I assume it will be mentally "heard". I realize the resulting hyphen and "k" is a little silly.
RaP: Not to worry and thanks for taking the time to answer.
Micha wrote: there is a direct line between the first chapter of the Tanya and the news stories that come out of Postville
ReplyDeleteDo you really think that if there was an opportunity to exploit the existence of cheap Jewish labour that adherents to the Tanya would say "no way, those dudes have a nefesh eloka mamash"
Does the direct line also imply there is no more a din of Ayvo or that Dina DeMalchuso is just a theory? Why then do they argue Dina DeMalchuso doesn't apply in Israel. After all, the people there do possess the nefesh eloka.
In summary, whilst I can see your logical line, I don't see compelling proof to suggest that this is the reason why (those) alleged crimes occur(ed).
It's a time old trick. All men are indeed equal. But many people walking around out there don't qualify for the title "man".
ReplyDeleteThe American declaration of independence said all men were created equal, but blacks weren't held to be men so they could be enslaved.
Later all, they said all people could vote but a woman wasn't a "person" so she couldn't.
As the French say, the more things change the more they stay the same.
RIB writes: "In summary, whilst I can see your logical line, I don't see compelling proof to suggest that this is the reason why (those) alleged crimes occur(ed)."
ReplyDeleteFew things occur for one reason. Also, in other parts of his post, Reb Isaac appears to think I was saying there was a line of reasoning involved. My intent was more to say that had the culture not been shaped by a masses learning Tanya, it would have been less likely to produce people who could run a firm that racks up an OSHA record and does nothing. There is no feel for the enormity of causing pain to low income hispanics who don't even speak English, and therefore nothing gets done. (Even if they intellectually know something should.)
RaP: Your assertion that the Kuzari is right ignores the distinction I drew between what the Kuzari says and what you think he says. I'm also curious to know if you think the Kuzari considers geirim to be soulless, because his distinction is between born Jew (martrilineal line to the imahos) and others, not Jew and non-Jew. But the Kuzari doesn't talk about who has a soul, he talks about who inherited the kind of soul that could be made capable of prophecy.
You are also pitting yourself against R' Saadia Gaon, the Rambam, R' Chesdai, Rabbeinu Bachya, and even more recent greats like the Tif'eres Yisrael, Rav Hirsch and Rav Elchanan Wasserman. Simplistic statements about the Kuzari being right and I wrong doesn't do justice to the Kuzari or the richness of the mesorah on the topic.
My alleged "derush" can not be anything but peshat, since all I did was translate words. But never mind that, it's the Maharal's shitah as I write further down. So, yes, RaP, it is certainly /a/ peshat, and since it is a straight translation of "memalela" the only possible peshat in the Unqelus.
(The wording you seem to remember from the Maharal isn't on the Bar Ilan CD, nor DBS.)
The children of Kush were cursed, but who says they were changed in essence and structure? Rather, Noach stated what is now historical fact -- Cham's children were enslaved. Canaan was stuck being the tenders of a land they wouldn't get to keep. Nu? Any metaphysical changes in those words?
Your comment on "atem qeruyim 'Adam'" (you are called "Adam" and they are not called "Adam") doesn't fit Tosafos, who distinguish between "Adam" and "haAdam". As the Tif'eres Yisrael explains, it's far simpler than that -- when speaking to an audience, it's common to say "everyone" when you mean "everyone in the audience", not every human being.
I suggest you read my blog entry on Universalism.
At least you'll see a discussion with actual sources.
And no, I'm not claiming the Maharal is Modern Orthodox. No more than I would claim R' Elchanan Wasserman (who told a talmid to risk staying in Europe rather than go to YU) is MO. I'm not even claiming I am. I'm asserting that what you're relegating to Modern Orthodoxy is actually the traditional view.
Buy some mussar story books. (Which is a better indication of who I'm trying to be than the MO label. Also, do you know whose picture that is next to my comments?) You'll see the difference between people who knew the dignity of every person and the absurdities you feel comfortable spouting anonymously from vague memory.
Here's a story from Rabbi Forsyth to get you started:
When Rabbi Aharon Kotler, founder and first Rosh Yeshiva of the great Lakewood Yeshiva, was in the car with his driver, and would come to a toll, he would tell the driver to take the car to a human toll collector instead of to a toll machine in order to practice kavod habrios (human dignity). Going to the machine would disparage the kavod of a human being. The practice of giving kavod is too important and inescapable.
My HQBH save Yahadus from such vile distortions as what RaP was sold. As I closed last time... We are a "memlekhes kahonim" who is the "congregation"? Who are we to hope will "come together in a single union to do your will"? To whom will "the Torah come forth from Tziyon"? -- If we do not believe in the essential Divine Nature of all of humanity?
-micha
In response to Micha:
ReplyDeleteMicha: My intent was more to say that had the culture not been shaped by a masses learning Tanya, it would have been less likely to produce people who could run a firm that racks up an OSHA record and does nothing. There is no feel for the enormity of causing pain to low income hispanics who don't even speak English, and therefore nothing gets done. (Even if they intellectually know something should.)
RaP: This kind of "logic" is so, well, illogical, it's like that old "argument" that claims that if Hitler's mother had an abortion instead of giving birth to him, or if Hitler would have died in infancy (as he actually almost did) then World War Two and the Holocaust would never have happened and we could all still be rejoicing with all of our relatives who perished at the hands of the Nazis y"sh.
Which brings me to the point of reality that we can only deal what happened and NOT with theories about "what ifs".
Yes, the Rubashkins and many of the Lubavitchers in Postville acted like amateurs and could not break away from their bad old habits. But then again, it's not just only the Lubavitchers in Postville who have "bad manners" and a paranoid and confrontational view of the world that many people find repugnant. This alternative post-Holocaust and Sabra-like aggressive and contemptuous often near sociopathic mind-set is UNFORTUNATELY and REGRETABLY very widespread among Hasidim and Haredim but is essentially impossible to eradicate.
They are are all rowdy, tough, irreverent and in-your-face crowds these modern day Chasidim. They are eager and willing to make a living and will UNPARDONABLY and SADLY break rules and will pay the price. BUT you have to love them all the same, because they are Yidden. Ahavas Yisroel is a mitzva at all times! Even if people are as stiff necked as an am keshei oref can get. No more nebechs to be seen nowadays it seems. And a lot of this is what laid the groundwork and got them into trouble. PLEASE do NOT blame it on Tanya, you may as well blame the Torah for giving Yidden an inflated egoistic sense of themselves.
ON THE OTHER HAND and AT THE SAME TIME, ever since the Lubavitchers started to build Postville into THE center of kosher meat production for the USA in Iowa, many envious, jealous, predatory and yes ANTISEMITIC eyes started to swoop down on them waiting for the momenet to strike. The Rubashkins finally handed the rope to their enemies with the PETA issues and employment of illegals and with that rope they were ensnared and trapped. The coalition of abti-Rubashkin forces (such as red-neck comptetitors, unions, the feds, and don't forget the hostile media) finally found a way to bring down the house of Rubashkin in Postville, and in the end, with all of the Lubavitcher's and Rubashkin's faults as presented by the e never-tiring "Failed Messiah" blogging inquistor, yet, still and all, nevertheles and af al pi kein, it took on a life of its own that looked a lot like a classical blood libel and redifa and of course, in the times of the blood libels there were plenty of Jews who ran afoul of the law (not every last Jew did what every last lord of the manor or sherrif decreed) but that in no way justifies those who pursued the blood libel, put Jews in prison and shut down their business which just so happens to be 60% (yes sixty per cent) of the supply of kosher meat to North America. That is one big jugular all the drculas and vampires were aiming at, thrust their teeth into, and now what? Are they happy they got the "nasty' Lubavitchers/Rabshkins/haredim/Hasidim/Jews?? Why don'y you cry about that micha, it's easy to be auniverslistic liberal in American in Obama's abomination America, how about you care about your fellow Yidden? Ever heard of pidyon shevuyim? Or ahavas Yisroel? Or how about al tadun es chavercha? Or Esev soneh leyaakov and Yishmael pere adam (see another "adam" for you...) yiheye? There will be what to cry about on Tisha B'Av and it will not be about what happened to goyim but what happened to Yidden and what the goyim did to them.
You know, when Hakadosh Baruch Hu ordered Nebuchadnezar to go punish the Jews he refused because he knew that even though God may be right in what he wants and that the Jews may even be fully deserving of punishment, yet no gentile nation that has attacked the Jewish people, even for the most noble of self-declared and self-created reasons, has always rued the day they did that and they were in turn punished for carrying out what had originally been God's will.
Otherwise, think of it, all a Nazi at Nurembourg had to do was point to the tochachas in the Torah and say "it was the right thing to do do, God predicted it, and they deserved it" and of course noone in their normal mind thinks like this or comes up with such distorted anti-Jewish and self-hating charges!
micha: Your assertion that the Kuzari is right ignores the distinction I drew between what the Kuzari says and what you think he says. I'm also curious to know if you think the Kuzari considers geirim to be soulless, because his distinction is between born Jew (martrilineal line to the imahos) and others, not Jew and non-Jew. But the Kuzari doesn't talk about who has a soul, he talks about who inherited the kind of soul that could be made capable of prophecy.
RaP: Have you seen what the Kuzari says about Mattan Torah that at that time the entire Bnai Yisroel received a national neshoma for the shishim ribbu just as a ger receives his neshama when he becomes a ger and changes his essence entirely from being a goy to becoming a yid?
micha: You are also pitting yourself against R' Saadia Gaon, the Rambam, R' Chesdai, Rabbeinu Bachya, and even more recent greats like the Tif'eres Yisrael, Rav Hirsch and Rav Elchanan Wasserman. Simplistic statements about the Kuzari being right and I wrong doesn't do justice to the Kuzari or the richness of the mesorah on the topic.
RaP: Ok show me where they ALL say that a goy has the EXACT same NESHAMA as a Yid and the Yidden and Goyim are FULLY equal in spiritual make-up IN ALL ASPECTS, which would make the whole process of geirus a totally point-less, hope-less, use-less and soul-less going through the motions procedure. What EXACTLY do they say is the differeence between a goy and a yid? Go on, pray tell. Do they also say that goyim should do all the mitzvos like yidden and the only reason that obliges a yid to do the mitzvas is that he is different by virtue of his neshama and it is the yid's neshama that gets kares for many transgressions. Do goyim also get kares according to your sources? Show me where they say that! How about a neshama yeseira, do goyim also get one on Shabbos (or on Friday if they are Muslims, Sundays if they are Christinas, or any other day if they worship any old avoda zora?)
How EXACTLY am I defying Torah greats if I challenge YOU? Are you the embodiment of those Torah giants you mention? Are they also humanists and egalitarians. Would they say the kind of things you say if they were around today and would see what happened in Postville? Or would they have a different take on things?
micha: My alleged "derush" can not be anything but peshat, since all I did was translate words. But never mind that, it's the Maharal's shitah as I write further down. So, yes, RaP, it is certainly /a/ peshat, and since it is a straight translation of "memalela" the only possible peshat in the Unqelus.
RaP: I know this translation, but your entire mehalech is off kilter.
micha: (The wording you seem to remember from the Maharal isn't on the Bar Ilan CD, nor DBS.)
RaP: I have the original seforim.
nicha: The children of Kush were cursed, but who says they were changed in essence and structure?
RaP: Why not? So then what does a brocha or a klala on such a scale accomplish? It's mashma that they were.
What do you make of these pesukim Genesis (1-8):
Man began to increase on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them. The sons of God saw that the daughters of man were good, and they took themselves wives from whomever they chose. God said, 'My spirit will not continue to judge man forever, since he is nothing but flesh. His days shall be 120 years.' The titans were on the earth in those days and also later. The sons of God had come to the daughters of man and had fathered them. [The titans] were the mightiest ones who ever existed, men of renown. God saw that man's wickedness on earth was increasing. Every impulse of his innermost thought was only for evil, all day long. God regretted that He had made man on earth, and He was pained to His very core. God said, 'I will obliterate humanity that I have created from the face of the earth - man, livestock, land animals, and birds of the sky. I regret that I created them.' But Noah found favor in God's eyes."
Rabbi Aryhe Kaplan notes: " 'sons of God' According to some, these were the fallen angels (Josephus 1:3:1, see note on Genesis 6:4). Others translate this as 'sons of the rulers' or 'judges' (Targum, Rashi. See note on Genesis 3:5). Still others say that the 'sons of God' are the descendants of Seth, while the 'sons of man' are the descendants of Cain (Ibn Ezra)." And " 'titans' Nefilim in Hebrew, literally 'fallen ones.' They were called this because they were the sons of the fallen angels (Targum Yonathan). See Numbers 13:33: "While we were there, we saw the titans. They were sons of the giant, who descended from the [original] titans [Nefilim in Hebrew. See Genesis 6:4]. We felt like tiny grasshoppers! That's all that we were in their eyes."
So, bottom line, it is NOT so simplistic as you say. Not all human beings are from the same source and not all are "equal" in the same way.
micha: Rather, Noach stated what is now historical fact -- Cham's children were enslaved. Canaan was stuck being the tenders of a land they wouldn't get to keep. Nu? Any metaphysical changes in those words?
RaP: So now the Torah is "history". Very (not) nice! What would your old rebbeim say to that?! Anyhow, the problem is not with the Torah's words it's more about how you run from a deeper sense of what is going on all while you cite even the mystical sources.
You know, it is great being a bibliophile and having a great memory and good data bank, but there are still deeper and more meaningful ways to take in an analyse Torah. Try less scholasticism and more soul please!
micha: Your comment on "atem qeruyim 'Adam'" (you are called "Adam" and they are not called "Adam") doesn't fit Tosafos, who distinguish between "Adam" and "haAdam".
RaP: Oh and I knew, that this, the strongest of proofs against you, would be deflected easily and quickly by you. You have to do that because otherwise the emperor has no clothes and you would be left with nothing and would need to reasses your views and think in a way that the Havdala says: "Blessed are you Hashem our God King of the universe, Who separates between holy and secular, between light and darkness, between Israel and the nations, between the seventh day and the six days of labor/creation. Blessed are You Hashem, Who separates between holy and secular." And the goyim are not just a "congregation"!
Now I bet you that the rabbis who composed that part of the Havdala were not thinking along the lines that Yidden and goyim are alike in all ways that they share the same neshama and that not very much separates them, except one is the "high priest" and the others are "congregants" how cute and silly!
micha: As the Tif'eres Yisrael explains, it's far simpler than that -- when speaking to an audience, it's common to say "everyone" when you mean "everyone in the audience", not every human being.
raP: These are nice vertlach but you are not dealing with the core issues.
micha: I suggest you read my blog entry on Universalism. At least you'll see a discussion with actual sources.
RaP: When I have time, but after I read your words here I am not sure if I could stomach what you have to say for very long. Even Catholicism has zillions of "sources" (and don't be smug, at least they start with the best one, the Tanach itself) so it means nothing to come up with such claims.
micha: And no, I'm not claiming the Maharal is Modern Orthodox.
RaP: I know you weren't, it was a rhetorical question meant to point out how you are essentially taking the scholarly and intellectual greats of the Haredi and Hasidic world and like many Modern Orthodox scholars are prone to do to justify themselves they turn the classical sources on their heads and come up with concoctions and theories, much like Rabbi Slifkin does, that fly in the face of how ACCORDING to the mesorah these sources and rabbis should be understood and comprehended and applied in the first place.
It is a waste of time when both sides have access to the same sources and each has decided that they have the moral high ground to claim to be THE correct and definitive interpreters when no such feat is possible. So I will decline getting into that mudpile with you, thank you very much. Blogging here is enough of a job as it is.
micha: No more than I would claim R' Elchanan Wasserman (who told a talmid to risk staying in Europe rather than go to YU) is MO. I'm not even claiming I am. I'm asserting that what you're relegating to Modern Orthodoxy is actually the traditional view.
RaP: This is the tiresome technique of reversing sources and (re)applying them to suit one's ends. Which reminds me of that old line from Rav Hutner: "Tell me a chazal and I will tell you one that is farkert" !
micha: Buy some mussar story books.
RaP: Can you spare a dime?
micha: (Which is a better indication of who I'm trying to be than the MO label. Also, do you know whose picture that is next to my comments?)
RaP: You are well known on the web in Torah circles and you have managed to both enlighten and confuse a lot of people. I know that you are not on the Moetzes and that neither are you an official Chasidishe Rebbe. You are a very nice man who is very well read and who also is very opinionated in a very nice way from what I can tell.
micha: You'll see the difference between people who knew the dignity of every person and the absurdities you feel comfortable spouting anonymously from vague memory.
RaP: Um, the discussion was NOT about the "dignity" of every person. Why are you being illogical and throwing out a red herring? At no point did I ever question the dignity or the humanity or the specialness of any human being. ALL I said and maintain is that Judaism holds that a Yid has a neshama and goy does not. That's all. You got all hysterical. A goy can be a very nice man and lady, yesh chochma bagoyim and they can do great things, but they are still goyim without neshamos unlike Yidden who have neshamos because they are like Avraham who was techila legerim and he got some sort of Neshama when he entered into the bris (both physical and metaphysical) with Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and later it was the Bnei Yisroel who all got neshomas at Har Sinai when they entered into national bris with Hakadush Barauch Hu and even though all the neshamos of all future Jews to be born and all the neshamos of all future geirim were there as well (as chazal teach), yet the nations of the world, meaning all gentiles and non-Jews, never had, did not, and will not get the neshama that is possessed by the Jew who gets it at birth if his mother is 100% Halachically Jewish or if a gentile becomes a ger kehalacha. The nesham is what makes the Jew kadosh and nothing else. It is like a special light that lights up his/her entire being, it is the source of his connection to Hashem, it is the pintele Yid, the celek eloka mima'al, the one and only TRUE tzelem elokim. And a goy does not have this, unless he becomes a ger tzedek. If you cannot swallow these simple truths then maybe just eat your turkey and have it in peace like the rest of the 300+ million people in America are doing today.
micha: Here's a story from Rabbi Forsyth to get you started: When Rabbi Aharon Kotler, founder and first Rosh Yeshiva of the great Lakewood Yeshiva, was in the car with his driver, and would come to a toll, he would tell the driver to take the car to a human toll collector instead of to a toll machine in order to practice kavod habrios (human dignity). Going to the machine would disparage the kavod of a human being. The practice of giving kavod is too important and inescapable.
RaP: I knew of this story, and many others like it, long before Rabbi Forsyth. And again I am shocked at your extremely poor use of logic and not to the point argumentation that is now sounding outright patronisin, not to mention tiresome.
To repeat: The subject of our discussion has not been and is not about "human dignity" or kavod habriyos (you may as well throw in issues of tza'ar baalei chaim and venishmartem es nafshosechem) which is the right of every human being that I uphold as dearly as anyone else. Rather, the subject is that a goy does not have the neshama that a Jew has and that you seem to be fighting tooth and nail to deny worthy of the best a learned Reform, Conservative or Modern Orthodox rabbis would do at full speed.
micha: My HQBH save Yahadus from such vile distortions as what RaP was sold.
RaP: Haha very funny. Let me ask you a question. Don't go through the roof: You know that issue about if a Jew may be mechalel shaboss to save the life of a sick or injured goy. The reason that the Mishnah Brurah gives is that it's not because the yid must save the goy's life per se, but if he doesn't it will lead to chilul Hashem ch"v and the goyim will then maybe seek to punish the yidden for ngelecting sick or dying goy. So nu the lucky goy gets saved on Shabbos by a yid who happens to spot him. But the important thing to remember is that what are we saving when we save a sick of injured Yid, just a body? No! Because if it was just a body then there would be no doubt that any goy must be saved as equally as any Yid on Shabbos because a goy too has a body. So it is deeper. The Yid is saved because it is deeper his essence that is being saved and his inner essence is ONLY defined by his neshama (not if he is part of a "nation of priests" or some such), because the yid's neshama is a higher chelek eloka mima'al than what the nefesh (not neshama) that the goy has. If this is too blunt or skocking for you, then I welcome you to Judaism 101 in spite of the million and one texts you have devoured and spout as it suits you according to the moment and the topic.
micha: As I closed last time... We are a "memlekhes kahonim" who is the "congregation"? Who are we to hope will "come together in a single union to do your will"? To whom will "the Torah come forth from Tziyon"? -- If we do not believe in the essential Divine Nature of all of humanity? -micha
raP: Again you are illogical and ride off into your own self-created false sunset because the discussion is NOT about the "essential Divine Nature of all humanity" as if you are the only who holds from such a view based on some old texts, since, in any case you may not know, WE ALL HOLD FROM THAT view, but you missed the point and talk of things in generalities that were not being discussed. The discussion is about the neshama that a goy gets when he/she is megayer that ONLY enters into them when they immerse in the mikva at the conclusion of their geirus process and they become full-fledged Yidden like a new born Jewish child. Prior to that they were gentiles who did not have the Jewish soul/neshama that gentiles do NOT have but that ALL Jews DO have (no matter what denomination or what they believe) who are born to 100% Halachically Jewish mother. No ifs, ands, or buts, and no need to utter futile prayers that people be "saved" from these basic views about Judaism that are so simple to understand yet seem to bedevil some of the more "enlightened" in our midst who would rather write books about monkeys and other animals, and how "wonderful" the goyim are when for over 3,300 years all the goyim have been trying to do is eat up the Jews like the proverbial seventy wolves who have been trying to gobble up the same one lamb but somehow just can't seem to do it. (Note: A wolf and a lamb are both God's creatues but they have different essences and natures. One is treif and one is kosher. One is a killer and one is peaceful, etc.)
RaP: You're changing your story from saying that non-Jews do not have a neshamah to saying they do not have the same kind of neshamah. I wouldn't have objected had that been your original claim. After all, in nother 24 hours I will have a different kind of nesahmah than I have now.
ReplyDeleteThat's different than my rabbeim (who were from Williamsburg, not L) equating them to animals, or the Tanya ch. 1, which actually denies their basic humanity.
I'm not going to bother debating you at length, as you have yet to actually cite anything to argue. Citing sources against your gut instincts is an endless enterprise. Go find that Maharal (which you clearly misremember, since the text doesn't exist), and then we'll talk.
In the meantime, compare R' Elchanan Wasserman's take on the Tanya's gemara with the Tanya's take. Qoveitz Maamarim cites geonim aand rishonim, all of whom understand the gemara without denying nachriim having a yeitzer hatov.
-micha
Micha is really opening himself for one huge knockout blow, and it is in the Maharal as clear as daylight, see below:
ReplyDeletemicha said... RaP: You're changing your story from saying that non-Jews do not have a neshamah to saying they do not have the same kind of neshamah.
RaP: Umm, I am not sure where you see this. I am not changing my mind about anything and if you re-read my comments above I say at least five times that a Jew has a neshama and a goy does not. I also say that I am not demeaning goyim, because I am not making this up since this is Judaism 101 (except to the egalitarians, universalists, fanatical humanists, and such like.)
micha: I wouldn't have objected had that been your original claim.
RaP: Can you cite the exact "claims" you are referring to that you speak of here, I think you are creating one big cloud cover for an argument that does not exist. Just more red herrings being tossed up by you, and yet again a poor example of logical argumentation.
micha: After all, in nother 24 hours I will have a different kind of nesahmah than I have now.
RaP: Very funny! Every Jew gets to have an extra neshama on Shabbos, I already mentioned that and that is not something that happens to a goy. In another 24 hours you will be hearing nothing from me because it will be Shabbos!
micha: That's different than my rabbeim (who were from Williamsburg, not L) equating them to animals, or the Tanya ch. 1, which actually denies their basic humanity.
RaP: As should be clear and as I have said I am with them and not with you. Let me repeat, I agree with what your rebbeim taught you in Williamsburg and with whatever it is that so upsets you in Tanya's depiction of gentiles vs. Jews. I am not a bleeding heart liberal who wears his artificial pain on his sleeve if you haven't noticed.
micha: I'm not going to bother debating you at length, as you have yet to actually cite anything to argue.
RaP: I have no clue why you are saying this. I cited the main point to refute you and that is that when it says "Adam" in Breishis a Talmid Chochem and Torah true Jew must and should be aware that that Adam of Breshis is talking about Yidden because of the chazal's "atam kruim adam ve'ein umos ha'olem kru'im adam" and as you will see below it is the EXACT and CLEAR view of the Maharal too.
mocha: Citing sources against your gut instincts is an endless enterprise. Go find that Maharal (which you clearly misremember, since the text doesn't exist), and then we'll talk.
RaP: Ok, I have found it and it will knock you out of your smug goy=Jew equation, see below, but first let me answer this claim you make:
micha: In the meantime, compare R' Elchanan Wasserman's take on the Tanya's gemara with the Tanya's take. Qoveitz Maamarim cites geonim aand rishonim, all of whom understand the gemara without denying nachriim having a yeitzer hatov. -micha
RaP: Point of order! Not all texts and gedolim are equal. This is such a basic blunder and misjudgment on your part that I am suprised you even make it. Are you honestly aligning Rav Elchonon with the Ba'al HaTanya who is also the mechaber of the Shulchan Oruch HaRav who lived their mature lives about 175 years apart??? See Shneur Zalman of Liadi (1745-1812) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shneur_Zalman_of_Liadi and Elchonon Wasserman (1874-1941) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elchonon_Wasserman ?
While the Baal HaTanya was a mekubal and wrote the definitive Shulchan Oruch HaRav upon which the ENTIRE oilam hachasidus is based, and upon which every posek relies if need be even if he is not chasidish, hand in hand with his Tanya which is a central pillar of ALL Chasidus. A disciple if the Magid of Mezeritch and the one who essentially wrote down the main kabbalistic notions and ideas of the Baal Shem Tov with Rav Elchonon who, while he is a truly great gaon and lamden, but he is not regarded as an authority in matters of Kabbala, nistar and while of course he like any gadol is free to venture his opinions and no doubt they have a good basis, one cannot seriously accept that anything coming from Rav Elchonon hy"d ztk"l can in any way be docheh and push aside what the heilige Ba'al HaTanya and the mechaber of the Shulchan Oruch Harav had to say on such matters.
Quoting the GRA or Rav Chaim Volozhiner or maybe something from the works of Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzato, would make more sense, but not Rav Elchonon on such inyanim!
But it is amusing nevertheless to see how you tirelessly and easily you flippantly align all texts with equal grace and ease with others as if one were to cut off the heads of thousands of bodies, jumble them up, and then randomly try to re-attach them to the nearest body, when no such feat is possible, not all bodies are equal and not all heads can belong and be attaahed to any old bodies that are conveniently nearby. Anyhow.
And here we come to the Maharal you wanted, and if you have time, take a look at what he has to say in the first two chapters of his Tiferes Yisroel. I will try to faithfully produce his argument in the context of what we have been discussing with some of his original Hebrew wording where possible:
He starts by stating that all creations that God created in his world have their specific place and functions. He says that man is different to all other life forms, (he calls him "adam" and although at the outset he does not specify who he means by adam, but by the end of the first perek it will be crystal clear what he is getting at and exactly who he means by "adam" at the outset, and he will mean by this Jews, or what in Yiddish would be called "a mentsch", as will become clear from the rest of what he has to say about gentiles and how they differ radically to Jews.)
The Maharal says that it is fitting that man/adam who does not have a "natural" life like all other creatures, should have special acts that pertain to "נפשו השכלית האלהית" his "Godly intellectual soul" which the Maharal refers to as the "nefesh" in the first two chapters. He makes it progressively clear as he goes on that the nefesh of a Jew is NOT the same as that of goy and that a goy definitely does not have the Godly nefesh of a Jew.
The Maharal stresses that it is fitting and has to be that man/adam should have his own unique "Godly actions" "פעולות אלהיות" to perform in the world that befit his "elevated Godly nefesh" "כפי מעלת נפשו האלהית" and that doing mundane work is actually beneath the dignity of this man/adam.
He goes on to elaborate on the meaning of the Gemora in Kiddushin פ"ב about animals not having to do human-type labor and that all their needs are met in nature. He concludes the second paragraph by bringing out the uniqueness of adam that are reflecetive of adam's nefesh that is a "Godly nefesh" "נפש אלהית".
So then the Maharal says we have the question what are the actions unique to adam that refelect his high level of having an "intellectual nefesh" "נפש שכלי" (note to micah: Are you now realizing that the Maharal, already in the first two paragraphs of the first chapter of the Tiferes Yisrael has already used the terms: to "נפשו השכלית האלהית" his "Godly intellectual soul"; his "elevated Godly nefesh" "כפי מעלת נפשו האלהית"; "intellectual nefesh" "נפש שכלי" to describe adam's, meaning the Jew's high levels?)
The Maharal replies in answer to his own question, and the answer makes it clear that the adam in question here is Israel, that it is the mitzvos of the Torah that befit adam/man/the mentsch/Israel according to him having a "Godly nefesh" "לפי מעלת נפשו האלהית" and the Torah and mitsvas truly befit him.
In the third paragraph the Maharal asks a profound question: Why don't the Godly actions in man which are the mitsvos come out of man naturally? He says it's not really a question, because man also has a yetzer hara that causes him to do bad/evil things, and Moshe Rabbeinu warned about this in Ha'azinu. Yet, the Maharal says, for adam whose nefesh is "Godly/Divine-Itellectual" it is fitting that he have exclusive acts to himself and these are the acts of the mitzvos that are in/of the Torah just that the yetzer hara gets in the way "ואל האדם שנפשו אלהית שכלית ראוי לו פעולות מיחדות והם פעולות המצות שבתורה"
Now the Maharal says (something that micha will not like), that it is impossible that all people, he uses the term "sons of adam/man" "בני אדם" are equal in the "levels of their souls" "אי אפשר שיהיו שוים כלם במעלת נפשם" and even though mankind is alike in its outward facial appearance and in its mechanical motions/functioning, they are not equal in that there are a portion of them that is more Godly than the others "אינם שוים במה שיש חלק מהם יותר אלהי מזולתם" like it is known that prophecy and ruach hakodesh and the shechina were only in the nation that Hashem yisbarach chose for Himself from among the other nations עכו"ם (star and idol worshippers) and you see that this preparedness was special only to the nation that Hashem chose and from this aspect you see that only the nation that Hashem chose had a greater "Godly nefesh" "כי העם הזה היה יותר נפשם אלהית"
In addition he stresses that Godliness cannot be found equally in the entire human species because if so this world would be a fully holy place but this world is the world of nature and not a different Godly/holy world. Therefore it has to be that Godliness is not found among all mankind equally but only to a portion of mankind, (meaning the Jewish people.)
The Maharal drives home the point that akum/gentiles/goyim belong to the natural world/order that is why there were 70 nations because the world of nature is created during the 7 days of Creation and the 70 nations are aligned with the 7 days of Creation, with 10 nations for every 1 day. However the ONLY nation was above nature and it is aligned with the 8 because the the 8 is above nature and that is why the Torah is befitting Yisroel because the Torah is above nature. (Note finally, the Maharal has identified who the true adam, it's Yisroel, as he will make even more explicit soon.)
The Maharal says that the Torah was created BEFORE the natural world and Yisroel were also created before the natural world was created (a fascinating and poweful chidush!) therefore says the Maharal, the essence of the Torah is encapsulated in the notion of 8 because nature is entrapped in 7 but 8 is above nature, and thus it is for the Israelite/Jewish nation (now he calls them a nation) that God chose for His portion and they are made special with Godly acts that are the Mitzvos of the Torah according to their "Godly nefesh" that gave made them fit for prophecy, ruach hakodesh and the shechina in their midst, and the gentiles according to their level God gave 7 mitzvos that are known as 7 mitvos of Bnai Noach.
In the third paragraph the Maharal cites the Gemara from Avoda Zara ב of how God tried to offer the Torah to other nations. He stresses that the mitzvos of the Torah are Godly acts that are bound to Yisroel(/Jews/adam/mentsch) by virtue of their nefesh they are pre-prepared/pre-programmed for the Godly acts meant for them.
BUT, the gentiles עכו"ם from the aspect of their DEFICIENCY and LOWLINESS are NOT fit for the Godly acts that are the mitzvos "אבל עכו'ם מצד חסרונם ופחיתותם אינם ראויים לפעולת האלהיות שהם המצות"
It goes even deeper because the gentiles actually extend toward the bad/evil and that is why the Torah says that Hashem went to ask of Seir/Esav and Paran/Yishmael if they would like to take on the Torah and they rejected the offer because their essence is in opposition to the Torah. This is based on the "blessings" they received says the Maharal (note to micha, blessings do change the essence and nature of things according to the Maharal!)
The two nations of Esav and Yishamel represent two main types of extremes of the gentiles. In the case of Esav his "blessing" is that he should live off his sword in order to murder (as we saw with Rome and later with the Nazis), and Yishmael hands are upon all with brute force and might afflicting humanity (as we see in our day with Islamic terrorism and Jihadism) and these are bad/evil characteristics that spreads from one end to the other, (the Maharal is referring to a deeper mystical concept here that he does not explain at this point.)
The Maharal says that even though the Gemara says that Seir/Esav/Paran/Yishmael did not want to accept the Torah but he is pointing out something deeper that they HAD to reject it because of who they were (murderers and violent men) and their very nature rejected the Torah.
The meaning here is that he Torah and the mitvos are Godly acts that befit Yisroel who have the Godly aspect and it is befitting that they receive and practice the Godly acts of the Torah's mitzvos. AND AT THIS POINT THE MAHARAL SAYS AND QUOTES THE GEMARA FROM YEVAMOS: YOU ARE CALLED ADAM AND NOT THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD "ִִִכי אם ישראל מצד נפשם האלהית ומפני זה ראוי להם הפעולות האלהיות והם מצות התורה ִ והוא עצמו מה שאמרו ז'ל יבמות ס'א אתם קרוים אדם ואין עכו'ם קרוים אדם"
"ביאור ענין זה שההבדל המיוחד אשר בין האדם ובין שאר בעלי חיים מה שהאדם יש לו נפש אלהית והנה אותם אשר יש להם נפש אלהים הם מוכנים לדברים אלהיםכמו הנבואה ורוח הקדש ודבר זה לא תמצא רק בעם אשר בחר בו השם יתברך לכך הם קוין אדם בפרט בשלימות במה שיש בהם כל אשר ראוי להיות לאדם שנקרא אדם בפרט מפני שיש בו מעלה אלהית ואינו טבעי ולפיכך אתם קרוים אדם ִ "
"ומפני זה המצות שהם הפעולות האלהיות מתיחסות בפרט לישראל בשלימות כאשר יתבאר עוד ִ "
The Maharal explains that what makes and distinguishes adam from other creatures is that the adam has a "Godly nefesh" and those (that is, the Israelites/Jews) who have the "Godly nefesh" they are ready for Godly things like prophecy and ruach hakodesh and he says that THIS MATTER YOU WILL ONLY FIND AMONG THE NATION THAT GOD CHOSE FOR HIMSELF THAT IS WHY THEY ARE CALLED ADAM SPECIFICALLY AND COMPLETELY BY VIRTUE THAT THEY POSSESS EVERYTHING THAT ADAM SHOULD HAVE, WHO IS SPECIFICALLY CALLED ADAM BECAUSE HE HAS THE GODLY QUALITY AND HE IS NOT OF THE NATURAL ORDER AND THEREFORE ATEM KRUIM ADAM/THE JEWS ARE ADAM AND THAT IS WHY THE MITZVOS THAT ARE GODLY ACTS ARE FOR YISROEL IN THERE ENTIRETY/PERFECTION "רק בעם אשר בחר בו השם יתברך לכך קרוין אדם ִִִשיש בהם כל אשר ראוי להיות לאדם שנקרא אדם בפרט מפני שיש בו מעלה אלהית ואינו טבעי ולפיכך אתם קרוים אדם"
(Fascinatingly and in relation to the broader discussion we have been having about conversion and converts, the Maharal says) :
Do not ask how a ger can accept the Torah if he has a bad/evil nature, it's not a question at all because since he/she has come to be megayer he has an "Israelite naure/techuna" and once he/she converts he/she is made ancillary/tafel to the Israelite nation and he then becomes like it (like the Israelites). And yet with all this, they say in Nidda מ"ג that converts are an affliction to Israel like "sapachas" a plague that afflicts healthy flesh.
The second chapter continues with more along these lines of the high levels of the adam/Yisroel.
Generally, people who speak in "knockout blows" are more interested in winning a game than obtaining truth.
ReplyDeleteThe Maharal speaks in quantitative terms -- according to the greatness of his G-dly thinking soul, different people can accomplish different things. The exact opposite of your implication that some have it, and others do not.
The Maharal's position is actually that of those you tried to deride as MO. Jews have a greater G-dly thinking soul because we have a higher calling. Look at his words with a blank slate rather than trying to prove what you were already convinced is right.
Any interpretation of Tif'eres Yisrael that would lead to the Maharal in a self-contradition, or saying that the necessary ingredients for speech only exist in Jews.
-micha
micha says: "The Maharal's position is actually that of those you tried to deride as MO."
ReplyDeleteWhich brings me to my observation that anyone who can conclude that the Maharal is some sort of Modern Orthodox rabbi" or a butress to Modern Orthodox outlooks has never had the zechus to hear how Maharal should be learned, taught and presented. Maybe the golem was MO.
And micha you are not facing up to the fact that the Maharal sepcifically uses the terms "נפשו השכלית האלהית" his "Godly intellectual soul"; his "elevated Godly nefesh" "כפי מעלת נפשו האלהית"; "intellectual nefesh" "נפש שכלי" to describe adam's, meaning the Jew's high levels that you said did not exist. It's very convenient for you to ignore your own questions when you get the right answers but which you refuse to admit to. Pity.