- This topic has 102 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
LMA-
It’s quiet obvious that people are born with natural moral tendencies to love other people.
From a very simplistic way of looking at things, yes. But that can easily be explained away as a person’s natural aversion to being alone, or a desire to be liked, or cared for etc. Meaning there may be an urge to be nice to others, but you haven’t shown that it is at all altruistic.
Yitayningwut: Sorry, we are not connecting. Why does a person love his friend or spouse; isn’t that love genuine?
Lomed Mkol Adam-
Why does a person love his friend or spouse; isn’t that love genuine?
Love has two meanings. Both are verbs, but one is a state of being and one is an action. If you are familiar with dikduk terminology the first would be a ???? ???? and the second a ???? ????. The first is an emotion, the second, while it may be caused by the first, is not.
So, to reiterate my position, as I understand it I see no reason to think people are born with any inherent good intentions or bad ones either for that matter.
*If anyone has just judged me as being chauvinistic you obviously have not read my entire post, in context.
Giving to a person whom you love is also an emotion; it causes you to feel appreciated and loved. When we act upon our instinct to love and we give/care to/for our friend/spouse, we are in essence creating a deeper dimension to our primary instinct feelings of love. So even the most selfless person is actually driven by his inner desire for love.
Lomed Mkol Adam-
It causes you to feel appreciated and loved.
Which would certainly not make it selfless.
When we act upon our instinct to love and we give/care to/for our friend/spouse, we are in essence creating a deeper dimension to our primary instinct feelings of love.
So to get very technical, the feeling is not selfless, only the acting is, as I said.
Giving to a person whom you love is also an emotion.
How is giving an emotion? One might commit to give because of the value he holds for his emotions, but giving is not an emotion, and emotions are not selfless.
So even the most selfless person is actually driven by his inner desire for love.
No argument here.
I also think that everyone also has built-in emotions and characteristics, such as love, grief, concern, fear, desire, and many more. All can be used positively, but all can also be used negatively. It is up to us to choose to use them positively. G-d gave us the Torah and the mitzvos as a “guide” for us that shows how to use all of our emotions and characteristics in a positive way.
POSTED 11 HOURS AGO #
MP- I could not have summed it up better than you did! good job!
Yitayninwut: The motivation/desire for giving and the feelings of satisfaction after giving are all emotions. Without feelings/emotions one would not desire/accomplish anything. So Hashem created us with these feelings in order for us to act upon them and do good deeds; therefore the essence of these feelings are also considered “Tov”/Good since these feelings make someone a kind hearted person who does good deeds for others. It’s irrelevant that the actual physcological essence of these feelings are self serving.
It’s irrelevant that the actual physcological essence of these feelings are self serving.
Of course it’s relevant. It is precisely this that implies that these feelings are not inherently/naturally good. Because, since they are self serving, one whose values are not in line with the Torah’s or who’s reasoning isn’t up to par will not just be naturally a selfless giver.
MP-
I think yitayningwut is doing a good job here.
Nice thread. Thank you for starting it.
tomim tihye-
Hey, thanx!
MiddlePath
I am fairly certain that love is one of our strongest emotions.
I think what you really mean is that we are most obsessive about the things we are obsessed with.
Yitayningwut: “Because, since they are self serving, one whose values are not in line with the Torah’s or who’s reasoning isn’t up to par will not just be naturally a selfless giver.”
I don’t see your proof here. If the Torah dictates in certain circumstances an act which runs contrary to these natural feelings, how does this prove that the Torah delegitimizes these feelings and does not consider them “tov”/good; maybe the Torah is commanding us to do otherwise because of other considerations which fall under the category of bain adam l’makom, whether we understand the reasoning or not.
When Hashem commanded Avrohom Avinu to sacrifice Yitzchok does that demonstrate delegitimizing Avrohom Avinu’s natural feelings towards his son, or does it just demonstrate that our obligation of bain adam l’makom sould take precedence to our natural tendences towards bain adam l’chaveiro?
Lomed Mkol Adam-
I apologize, I didn’t explain myself properly. My point is that love – the emotion, is as I interpreted MP, emotional obsession. It means to like something or someone to the point of obsession. This emotion does not have to lead to something good, it can lead to something bad too. Therefore I am simply trying to say that you cannot call love something which is by nature, good. It is neutral, like all emotions, and purely self-serving.
There is a love which is selfless as I noted previously, but that is love – the action; the commitment to give selflessly. Although a person’s obsession of another might spark that commitment, the commitment isn’t the obsession, it is one possible natural outgrowth of that obsession.
We started with a disagreement on whether there are inborn feelings in a person which are by nature good. You cited love as something which is by nature good. I have merely been trying to challenge that assertion.
If the Torah dictates in certain circumstances an act which runs contrary to these natural feelings, how does this prove that the Torah delegitimizes these feelings and does not consider them “tov”/good?
It does not show that they are bad, but it shows that they are not absolutely good. The most simple approach to take is that they are neutral, and can be acted upon in healthy and unhealthy ways.
Either way, I have already cited examples where the pesukim explicitly refer to a person’s love in situations that were completely illicit. This should be sufficient proof that the emotion of ???? does not refer to something any more “good” than any other emotion.
MiddlePath-
My pleasure. I enjoy this type of discussion, so thank you for opening the thread!
Middlepath, OK, i’m here to answer you. I didn’t read all the posts though, because this is a long thread.
The idea that one is taught to do mitzvos just to have Olam Habah is too strict and confining. It is very sad. I was brought up on the premise that we were put on this earth to “serve” Hashem. What would we not do for the one who gave us life, our creator, and who gave us all these wonderful and amazing things to enjoy? And look at these amazing mitzvos he is teaching us? How to treat our parents who gave us life? How to help other people, even animals? Hashem teaches us to be compassionate and passionate people. He teaches us to care and to give and look what happens when we care and give? We have “emotions”, we learn to love. How amazing is that?
When we serve Hashem appropriately we gain so much. Yes of course Hashem tests us, but that is only to make us stronger and make our relationship with him stronger and we know that Hashem knows everything and sees everything so we don’t have to keep score our mitzvos are always banked. We might not see our rewards immediately for our work and our efforts, sometimes Hashem rewards us visibly in the present, but sometimes he saves the big rewards for Olam Habah.
As I told you earlier I don’t charge for my work, I only do it for chessed and for people Hashem sends my way. When the Bernie Madoff scandal hit the news and people were hit very hard it didn’t effect me at all because my bank account with Hashem was not affected at all. I didn’t invest with Bernie, I invested with Hashem and I didn’t lose a penny. So for all those who made fun of me that I put in hours and hours (and money as well) into my clients without compensation, I had the last laugh. My investment was safe and never at risk, and my compensation and dividends grew and grew with every chasunah, child that was born to a client, accomplishment and success that they had.
So if you understand the difference of serving Hashem versus serving your own purposes of gaining Olam Habah, which is a result of serving Hashem appropriately, then you will realize there really isn’t any conflict at all. We are NOT a self-centered people. We are Hashem’s people and we were put here to serve him and to value, respect and appreciate all of his creations.
Yitayningwut: Of course lust is not good; I was discussing emotions. Emotions, even those which originate from lust, are by nature good/”tov”. When the Torah prohibits feeling certain emotions/acting upon them in specific circumstances, this is because of other considerations [usually bain adam l’makom reasons, but sometimes bain adam l’chaveiro reasons]. But even when the Torah prohibits these feelings, the Torah is still not illegitimating the inherently good nature of these actual feelings.
Middlepath, exactly, we each have a tafkid on this earth and we don’t know what it is. So we have to serve Hashem with joy and simcha to the best of our ability. That in itself brings joy to Hashem, the fact that we understand our purpose and that we follow his Torah and mitzvos. Thanks for your support MP.
great thread
MP, your point is EXACTLY what is being taught in Pirkei Avos 1:3 Check the pshat and great miforshim.
Lomed Mkol Adam-
Don’t you see the contradiction in your words? How can something be inherently good in nature and yet be a source of something bad? Good and bad are opposites. The thing in question is therefore obviously not inherently good. That doesn’t mean it is bad, we can assume it is neutral.
And by the way, why are you calling it lust? The Torah says the word ????, not ????.
Yitayningwut: I don’t see the contradiction in my words. If the essence of these [emotional love] feelings is neutral as you claim, then how can it possibly become converted to either good or bad depending on the circumstances? Obviously these feelings are really in essence classified as “good”, but when the Torah dictates a prohibition on these feelings, these emotions become an ‘aveira’ even though they are in essence “good”. The Gemara says one should feel a desire/lust to eat a ‘chazzir’/hog’ and withhold himself solely because the Torah prohibits it; meaning that the actual desire/lust for a chazzir is not “bad” even though the act of eating will be an ‘aveira’.
Btw, I’m a vegetarian. I believe that sympathetic feelings for animals are actually “good” feelings, even though the Torah permits one to eat them.
Lomed Mkol Adam-
If the essence of these [emotional love] feelings is neutral as you claim, then how can it possibly become converted to either good or bad depending on the circumstances?
It doesn’t become “converted.” By neutral I do not mean it is not good and not bad but a third, middle stage. I mean it is undefined, and good and bad are not relevant to it. It can be “used” in a good way or a bad way precisely because it is not something good or bad.
And you are correct that the desire for eating something which tastes good is not bad in nature. That does not make it good either. It too, like love, is neither good nor bad.
Btw, I’m a vegetarian. I believe that sympathetic feelings for animals are actually “good” feelings, even though the Torah permits one to eat them.
So I will ask you the same question the Gemara asks R’ Meir (Chullin 11b-12a):
??”? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???, ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????
Yitayningwut: You can’t claim the feelings of emotional love is neither classified as “good” or “bad”, since you do agree that when used for good, these feelings are actually what makes the person be defined as someone “good” in nature; so then obviuosly the essence of these feelings are actually “good”.
Additionally, your comparison of emotional love to one’s desire to eat is not a fair comparison, since the desire to eat is never classified as “good” even when the act of eating is a “mitzvah”; however, emotional love is clasified as “good” when it brings about acts of kindness for others.
Lastly, how do you see from the Gemara you quoted that sympathetic feelings for animals is not genuine “good” feelings; of course I agree when there is a ‘mitzvah’ to eat “busar” we must eat for bain adam l’makom reasons?
Lomed Mkol Adam-
To your first point: It doesn’t say anywhere that the emotion of love is inherently good. A hammer can be used to build a shul and it can be used to build a church. The hammer is not inherently defined as something good or bad. What makes you say love is any different? It is not defined, it is inherently neither good nor bad, it is simply a part of the makeup of human nature that can “do” good or bad things.
you do agree that when used for good, these feelings are actually what makes the person be defined as someone “good” in nature
I do not. The actions are what make the person called a good person, not the feelings that brought them about. The feelings are undefined, as they could have easily brought about other actions as well.
To your second point: Why in the world would the Torah give us a mitzva to eat animals if killing an animal presents any kind of moral issue? That would not make sense to me. It would be as if the Torah said, in certain cases, shecht a person and eat him.
Yitayningwut: 1) The Mishna is Pirkei Avos explains that the characteristic traits of a person [not his actions]
2)The Torah does not say it is a Mitzvah in general to eat animals; rather the Torah says one is “permitted” to eat animals. Only for specific purposes it is a ‘mitzvah’ to shecht animals. Would you say that killing a child is not a moral issue since the Torah commanded Avrohom Avinu to shecht Yitzchok? A specific Mitzvah Bain Adam L’makom does not contradict the validity of our general feelings of Bain Adam L’chaveiro. Also, the Midrash says that Hashem choose Moshe Rabeinu to lead Klal Yisroel precisely because he showed compassion towards the sheep he shepherded.
Lomed Mkol Adam-
1) Lev tov and ayin tov aren’t good by definition. They just make doing good a whole lot easier.
2) But in some cases it is a mitzva, which is why I cited those specific cases.
I do not believe any issue is a moral issue. You see, I will call your bluff. You can bring up the most unthinkable crime and I will still say it isn’t a moral issue. That is, it isn’t immoral based on the fact that our feelings tell us so. Something is immoral because God says so. Without that it is all relative. That is the point I was trying to make in the first place.
One should certainly be compassionate to animals. And shecht them in a way that causes them hardly any pain.
Yitayningwut: Lev Tov and Ayin Tov are good by definition; this what the Mishna in Pirkei Avos means to imply.
We get an extra mitzvah/reward when refraining from doing an immoral act, since we are listening/connecting to God in the process [besides listening to our own feelings].
Shechting an animal definitely causes it significant pain.
Lomed Mkol Adam-
Lev Tov and Ayin Tov are good by definition; this what the Mishna in Pirkei Avos means to imply.
I disagree.
Shechting an animal definitely causes it significant pain.
I am sorry to hear that.
However, since the Torah allows one to eat meat and it is even a mitzva sometimes, I do not believe that this pain caused to the animal is morally wrong.
Unless you will tell me ???? ???? ???? ??? ???, in which case I will not have a response. The only thing is, from my understanding of the concept of morals, which is basically moral relativism from a natural, human standpoint, I do not need to accept any such docheik with regard to why we may eat animals, and therefore I will continue to assume that there is absolutely nothing wrong with killing animals in order to eat them.
Yitayningwut: I don’t see how else you can explain the Mishnah in Pirkei Avos. The Mishna is discussing pure character; not behavior or actions.
There are many things which the Torah permits, but it is nevertheless proper to try to refrain from doing; like Gezel Achu”m (midoraysa), capital punishment (for Beth Din), Bi’ah Shelo Kidarka, Go’el Hadam etc. So, even though the Torah permits Shechita on a regular basis it still may be considered proper to refrain from eating animals [at least during weekdays when it’s not a mitzvah at all].
Lomed Mkol Adam-
1) Yes, but in no place does the mishna say that these things are inherently good, only that they are a path worthy of going along – because more often then not they lead to good. Besides, there is no indication that the mishna is discussing what you call emotional love. In fact there is indication to the contrary, as at the end it says about lev tov: ????? ?????, ?????? ????? ??? ???????? ????????? ???? ?????? ?????????????, ??????????? ????????? ???????????. Now, one of the “paths” mentioned was ????? ?? ?????. Pray tell, without getting involved in complex hermeneutics, how emotional love includes this. If you look in the meforshim there are many explanations other than yours.
2) There are many things which the Torah permits but are worth refraining from anyway because overindulgence is not good. There is nothing that the Torah permits that is in any way immoral by its very nature, and certainly not something which the Torah commands in certain instances. It should be obvious to any thinking person who believes that the Torah is from God that it is absurd to say that something permitted by the Torah runs contrary to what is moral. What you are saying is that killing an animal in order to eat it is wrong. It is not possible to say that, because that would mean the Torah allowed something which is wrong.
Yitayningwut:
1) There is a concept in Chaza”l of a “Tzaddik” by nature and a “Rasha” by nature. This is what the Baalei Mussar refer to as someone with “Middos Tovos” or “Middos Ra’os”. True, the Torah Sh’Biksav only discusses laws and not character; but Chaza”l in Pirkei Avos discusses character. The Mishna I quoted above is clearly discussing how Avrohom Avinu was defined as a “Tzaddik/Good” in character. Ayin Tov/good eye is a character trait; so is Ruach Nimucha/humble spirit and Nefesh Shefeila. Also the Chaza”l which says “Ma Hu Rachum Af Atu Rachum” is discussing the character trait of compassion. A good hearted/compassionate/loving person is a “Tzaddik” by nature; he may be “Rasha” bain adam l’makom who commits immoral acts, but he is nevertheless a “Tzaddik” bain adam l’chaveiro.
2)I mentioned a few examples in my above post of actions which are permitted by the Torah, but it is nevertheless praiseworthy to refrain from doing on account of our moral feelings. Gezel Ach”um, Capital punishment, Bi’ah Shelo Kidarkah, Goel Hadam are all permitted but Chaza”l say (at least the middle ones) one should try to refrain from doing because of one’s moral feelings. I believe that the Torah is from God, but it doesn’t seem contradictory to me that the Torah halachically permits certain acts even though they run contrary to our moral feelings. On the other hand, we see the Torah constantly commends one for acting kind and compassionate to all the creations of the world, as I quoted above from the Midrash which says that Hashem choose the Avos Hakidoshim and Moshe Rabeinu because of the compassion they showed towards the sheep they shepherded; also the possuk in Tehilim says “V’Rachamuv Al Kol Ma’asuv”- animals included.
Lomed Mkol Adam-
1) Again, none of these attributes are inherently good. They are paths which generally lead people to good.
2) Gezel Ach”um, Capital punishment, Bi’ah Shelo Kidarkah, Goel Hadam are all permitted but Chaza”l say (at least the middle ones) one should try to refrain from doing because of one’s moral feelings.
You are mistaken and your statement is unfounded. To my knowledge, nowhere do Chazal say that because of one’s moral feelings one should be machmir on what the Torah allows. Bring me even one source to the contrary, and we’ll talk.
Your point about kindness to animals is not relevant, because I agree that one should be kind to animals. The point where we differ is whether or not my desire for a steak supersedes that obligation.
Allow me to digress for a moment. There seems to be a trend in your way of thinking which I take issue with. You seem to have everything figured out. You have p’shat in people, p’shat in feelings, p’shat in different segments of society, p’shat in statements of chazal, and so on. I am not knocking you, but I do not share your veneration of explanations. Skepticism is healthy. If you’ll notice, each time we debate an issue, you are defending an explanation of something, which you brought to the table, and I am saying prove it. It’s not that I disagree with all of your explanations, and some of them I may have even thought of myself in my own speculative wanderings. It’s that I am skeptical of things which people say are definitive, true, unalterable, inalienable, etc. etc. and I do not believe in the ??? ??? answer. In a word, I can accept that there are questions I cannot answer, but I cannot accept that there are answers I may not question. Therefore if you choose to debate me on a subject, you must know that I will keep doing this, I will only accept explanations which satisfactorily and simply explain all of the facts. And I have a fairly decent background in Torah literature to back me up. Therefore, anything which you know can easily be explained differently, don’t bother suggesting an alternate explanation in a definitive manner; as a possibility, yes, but definitively, no. As Rav used to tell his students – ?? ???? ??? ???? (Kesubus 48b).
That being said, you seem quite intelligent yourself, and I do enjoy these discussions very much.
Yitayningwut:
1) The possuk says “V’Uhavta L’Reiacha Komocha”. The simple/pashtus meaning of this possuk is that the actual feelings of love are a purpose and end to itself. God wants us to have these actual feelings, regardless as to whether these feelings lead to actions or not. The same way the Torah commands us to love Hashem (V’Uhavta Es Hashem Elokecha), since through the actual feelings of love we bind/connect with Hashem; so too the Torah obligates us to love our fellow, since through the actual feelings of love/connection we are doing something which is inherently good.
2) The obvious reason why the Gemara states a negative comment on a Beth Din which gave Missa/capital punishment once in seventy years, is because of our moral feelings not to deliver such severe punishment on a person. So too, it’s understood that proper moral behavior would not commit Bi’ah Shelo Kidarkah even though it is permitted (I’m sure none of the sages in the Gemara had done it). Do you think any of the sages in the Gemara who might have been a Goel Hadam would have killed an accidental murderer? Why did Rabbi Yochanon Ben Zachai greet nicely every Gentile he met in the street; wasn’t it because of his natural moral feelings? Also, Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai who returned lost objects to a gentile even though halachically it’s permitted to keep “Aveidas Nuchri”; wasn’t it because of his moral feelings?
Lomed Mkol Adam-
1) The possuk says “V’Uhavta L’Reiacha Komocha”.
through the actual feelings of love/connection we are doing something which is inherently good.
2) The obvious reason why the Gemara states a negative comment on a Beth Din which gave Missa/capital punishment once in seventy years, is because of our moral feelings not to deliver such severe punishment on a person.
it’s understood that proper moral behavior would not commit Bi’ah Shelo Kidarkah even though it is permitted
Do you think any of the sages in the Gemara who might have been a Goel Hadam would have killed an accidental murderer?
Why did Rabbi Yochanon Ben Zachai greet nicely every Gentile he met in the street; wasn’t it because of his natural moral feelings? Also, Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai who returned lost objects to a gentile even though halachically it’s permitted to keep “Aveidas Nuchri”; wasn’t it because of his moral feelings?
The proper place to look for answers to these questions is in the rishonim. There are multiple mehalchim offered that are plain and simple.
Lomed Mkol Adam-
By the way, I am noting through your arguments that you believe the tana’im and amora’im to have had heightened senses of “morality.” In that case, according to your own reasoning, why were they not vegetarians?
Yitayningwut,
1) I was proving from the possuk “V’Uhavta L’Reiacha Komocha” that a natural emotional feeling can be considered “good” even though the essence of emotions is self serving. If the Torah considers natural feelings of love towards another Jew a “Mitzvah”, then kal v’chomer it can be classified in general as “good”. And definitely the pashtus of the possuk means to infer to the actual feelings unrelated to any actions.
Additionally the Derasha of Chaza”l on the possuk “V’Hulachta B’Druchuv”-“Ma Hu Rachum Af Atu Rachum” pashtus means to infer to the actual characteristic trait of “compassion” unrelated to deeds. So the Torah considers the actual characteristic trait of “compassion” not only “good” and a “mitzvah” but even a following of the ways of God.
Yitayningwut: In the Zohar it says that many animals/fish carry ‘gilgulim’ of lost nishomos which need a tikkun; and the way they get a tikkun is through a Tzaddik shechting and eating them. This is how I understand why the Tana’im ate animal meat. Nevertheless we see in the Gemara that Rabbeinu Hakodosh was reprimanded for not showing sufficient compassion for the animal which was being led for slaughter.
Lomed Mkol Adam-
1) I was proving from the possuk “V’Uhavta L’Reiacha Komocha” that a natural emotional feeling can be considered “good” even though the essence of emotions is self serving.
Again, even if as you say the Torah is referring to the emotion, it is the circumstance which makes it good. A different circumstance would render that same emotion not good and unhealthy. Ergo, the emotion is not inherently good.
If the Torah considers natural feelings of love towards another Jew a “Mitzvah”, then kal v’chomer it can be classified in general as “good”.
Additionally the Derasha of Chaza”l on the possuk “V’Hulachta B’Druchuv”-“Ma Hu Rachum Af Atu Rachum” pashtus means to infer to the actual characteristic trait of “compassion” unrelated to deeds. So the Torah considers the actual characteristic trait of “compassion” not only “good” and a “mitzvah” but even a following of the ways of God.
No, that is not the pashtus. The pashtus is that we cannot attribute any emotion to Hashem, and if he is called merciful it is because he acts that way. Similarly, a person should act that way. Furthermore, of course there are times when to be merciful is wrong as well. Which again shows that it is not inherently a good trait.
Any rule which has even one exception is not absolute. Saying something is inherently good is the same as saying it is absolutely good. If an emotion, even in only one case, is not good, you cannot say it is inherently good. That is all I am saying.
2) a) the obvious reason why Beth Din should try hard to find fault in the evidence, is because of compassion for the guilty person; the same way Avrohom Avinu plead with Hashem to withhold punishment from Sidom even though they were deserving of the punishment.
If you were correct, then legal arguments should not be necessary to let the guy off the hook. There should be no reason to have to claim ??? ????? ??? ???. You should just be able to argue the morality clause and get him off the hook. Clearly the halacha does not recognize these feelings.
b) This would seem to infer that the Tanna did not approve the behavior and would obviously not do so himself.
d) it’s obvious that my explanation of these two separate stories is the simplest explanation which explains both stories the same way.
???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ????.
What is the context of this statement? Well, just beforehand the Gemara says:
????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????, ???? ??, ???? ???, ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??????, ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????…
Next-
Here are the words of the Rambam:
????? ???”? ????? ????? “????? ????” ???????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????. ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???, ??? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?????. ?????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????? – ???? ???? ????.
Also, the Meiri is known for his position that ????? ???”? does not apply to civilized non-Jews, but that is a different story.
In the Zohar it says that many animals/fish carry ‘gilgulim’ of lost nishomos which need a tikkun; and the way they get a tikkun is through a Tzaddik shechting and eating them. This is how I understand why the Tana’im ate animal meat.
Nevertheless we see in the Gemara that Rabbeinu Hakodosh was reprimanded for not showing sufficient compassion for the animal which was being led for slaughter.
Yes, but he was not reprimanded for allowing it to be slaughtered. Moral of the story? Have as much compassion as you can have without it infringing on you enjoying your steak.
Yitayningwut:
1) You didn’t understand my post. I wrote that the commandment of “V’Uhavta L’Reiacha Komocha” is a pure emotional mitzvah, not connected to any circumstances. [This is the literal translation of these words in the Torah. Also, the Gemara says one should not have marital relations with his wife during the day, because he might dislike something and then transgress this commandment; so clearly we see that the actual thought of disliking a Jew is a transgression even though it didn’t lead to any action/circumstance.] So, if an emotion of love [not connected to any circumstance] can be considered a ‘mitzvah’ when felt towards another Jew, then obviously your logic which you stated, that an emotion can’t be considered “good” since it’s in essence self serving, is incorrect. Furthermore, we can also say that ’emotional love’ is generally classified as “good” even though it’s only a ‘mitzvah’ when felt towards another Jew.
The p’shat in Chaza”l “Ma Hu Rachum” definitely refers to an actual characteristic trait, as per its literal translation. Also “Derech” refers to a trait not behavior. The characteristic trait of compassion is an absolute/inherently “good” trait. Even when we are restricted from feeling compassion, like for “Achzarim”/Amaleikim, this does not translate to turning our compassionate emotions into “bad” feelings; but rather it means we are restricted from feeling these “good” emotions of compassion towards an “achzur/cruel person, as I explained in previous posts.
? The simple understanding of the Parsha is that compassion/”Midas Harachamim” does not punish altogether for sins, and the merit of the ten Tzaddikim coupled with Avrohom’s Tefilla can cause a strengthening of “Midas Harachamim” over “Midas Hadin”.
b) The Tanna used the words “Biti, Mu E’es’e”/my daughter, what can I do? In other words, he made a helpless expression, saying that although his sympathy/emotions are with the woman, he’s nevertheless helpless as far as reprimanding her husband since the Torah states a “heter” for this. This is pashut p’shat.
c) I didn’t say it’s wrong c”v; I said I highly doubt any Tanna had actually gone ahead and killed a murderer of his relative. I guess I can’t bring actual prove/source to my logical assumption.
d) “Darchei Sholom” is a moral feeling; sholom/peace is a natural moral feeling. The possuk says “Dover Emes B’Livuvo” which refers to a Jew and Non Jew alike (Geneivas Daas of a Non Jew is Assur Mid’oraysa), so do you honestly think Rabbi Yochanon Ben Zachai and Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai greeted a gentile or returned an ‘aveida’ for the sole purpose of Kiddush Hashem (or your understanding of Darchei Sholom), and have the gentile think that the object was returned out of sincere feelings of the Rabbi? This would constitute ‘Geneivas Daas’ and would be a violation of “V’Dover Emes B’Livuvo”. The meaning of the Gemara obviously is that Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai returned the object out of sincere feelings of morality, coupled with an intention of making a Kiddush Hashem. The Ramba”m is going with the shitta that it’s ‘assur’ to return an ‘aveida’ to a gentile; so only for the purpose of Kiddush Hashem, one should return an ‘aveida’ and not solely on account of his moral feelings.
Lastly, the punishment was given to Rabbeinu Hakodosh for not saving the animal [who pleaded him to have mercy] from being slaughtered.
Lomed Mkol Adam-
1) I understood you very well. You are missing my point. Even if you say that the emotion of love is good when directed properly, that does not make it inherently good. Inherently good means absolutely good. Absolutely good means no exceptions.
Hashem does not have character traits. Brush up on your Rambam if you want to know why this is so. We are commanded to be like Hashem, just as his actions are those of mercy, so should ours.
2) a) I disagree.
b) Yes, he was sorry that he couldn’t help her, but not because it was a moral issue, rather because it was something that was causing her agmas nefesh.
c) Exactly.
d) Again, I disagree. And according to you, the Rambam had a skewed sense of morality.
Lastly, again, I disagree, and I believe it is as I explained.
Our disagreements stem from a fundamental disagreement of whether there are good feelings/ideals inborn in a person. You believe there are; I don’t. Therefore to you, “pashut pshat” in many statements of Chazal will be very different from what “pashut pshat” is to me.
Yitayningwut: “Inherently good means absolutely good. Absolutely good means no exceptions.”
I explained that there are in fact no exceptions. When we are commanded to not feel pity on Amaleik/Achzar, this means that we are restricted from feeling the “feelings of pity” on these people, not that the feelings are actually “bad”; the same way we are restricted from feeling emotional love towards a woman other than our wifes. How do you see/prove otherwise?
Hashem is Kaviyochol defined with “Midas Harachamim” which is in essence complete and thoroughly “compassion” as per its translation.
I said the Ramba”m holds that it’s assur to support a gentile who is ‘oveid avoda zara’ through returning his lost object, just like it’s assur to give them a “matnas chinim”. This is similar to the halacha of “Moridin V’ein Ma’alin” which has to with indirectly supporting ‘avoda zara’ in the world, which of course overrides our morality obligations.
So far you haven’t brought even one proof to your warped way of thinking in this matter, claiming the natural goodhearted feelings which Hashem created us with, are in fact “not good”. So, I guess according to you evil/cruel feelings within us are in fact “not bad” either only “neutral” and depending on circumstances? So there is no essence of “tov” or “rah” within us at all?
How do you see/prove otherwise?
I think that if the Torah says not to have pity, it is telling us that the feeling of pity is bad in this situation. Which leads me to believe that the goodness of this feeling is not absolute/inherent. Same with love. I think this is “pashut pshat.”
Hashem is Kaviyochol defined with “Midas Harachamim”…
The Rambam says it the way I said it. (Guide 1:58)
So, I guess according to you evil/cruel feelings within us are in fact “not bad” either only “neutral” and depending on circumstances? So there is no essence of “tov” or “rah” within us at all?
Exactly. You start off with with a blank slate and have the capacity to define yourself through your actions as either good or bad.
I don’t believe I must provide proof for my way of thinking. Any philosophical/theological inquiry should start with nothing, or at least only with the indisputable dogmas. Saying that man is born with a blank slate is assuming less then saying that God endowed him with some kind of prophecy; that his emotions are inherently good. You are the only one saying a chiddush here.
Yitaynigwut: It’s a ridiculous statment to say that the Torah deosn’t believe in the inherently good nature of “ahava”love over “sinah”/hatred, and “rachamim”/compassion over “achzarious”/cruelty. The Torah in numerous places commands us to love others and not feel any hatred; “Lo Sisna”, “Lo Sachmod”, “Lo Sitor”, “B’tzedek Tishpot”, “Lo Si’ametz Es L’vuvcha”; so to claim that all these commandments don’t infer to our naural understanding that love is inherently “good” and hatred is inherently “evil, is actually absurd.
The Ramban in Chumash explains the reason why Sidom was punished for “Gezel” even though they havn’t received the Torah, is because mitzvos bain adam l’chaveiro are “Mitzvos Sichliyos”/logical mitzvos; so even w/o the Torah a person understands good from evil. This also proves my understanding that the underlying reasoning and purpose of the Torah mitzvos of bain adam l’chaveiro is identical to our natural understanding that love/compassion is good and hatred/cruelty is evil.
Additionally, it is not possible for a human being to be both good hearted and evil hearted; it’s either one or the other. So, since the Torah wants us to be goodhearted in order to fulfill all mitzvos bain adam l’chaveiro, then obviously when the Torah commands in specific circumstances to act cruely, the intention of the Torah is that we should merely “act” cruely but not “feel” cruelty; since if we were to “feel” cruely, than obviously that would mean that we “are” cruelhearted, and then it would be impossible for us to fulfill the mitzvos bain adam l’chaveiro.
Hammer al kan tzipor vchulo
Chacham: The Mishna means that the Mitzvos in the Torah have an additional mystical meaning which we do not understand, but the Mishna does not mean to negate c”v the simple meaning of the mitzvos as we know “Ein Mikra Yotzei Midei Pshuto”, and the simple meaning is that we should be compassionate people. We can’t misinterpret these sayings of Chaza”l, and use them as an excuse to let ourselves feel cruelty towards other people.
Lomed Mkol Adam-
Additionally, it is not possible for a human being to be both good hearted and evil hearted; it’s either one or the other.
Chacham-
Yes, I agree. As the Rambam writes on the spot: ???? ???? ??, ????? ??? ???? ??????, ?? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???, ??? ??? ????? ??????, ??? ?? ???.
Yitayningwut:
1)Your comparison to the mitzvah of Lulav is way off. Lulav is a mitzvah bain adam l’makom, and we’re discussing bain adam l’chaveiro mitzvos. Rabbi Akiva in the end of Mesechta Yuma clearly separates the essence of bain adam l’chaveiro mitzvos from the essence of bain adam l’makom mitzvos.
2)The reason why they are mitzvos “sichliyos” is because they are mitzvos “hargoshiyos”. Our natural instincts/feelings guide our logical thinking.
3) I will reiterate again, it is not possible to fulfill properly the mitzvos bain adam l’chaveiro of the Torah if we are not good hearted in nature.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.