Theological Conundrum (read at your own risk)

Good question. I can’t say for certain what the Rambam meant by ??? but if it’s just another value (albeit the best value) then there is no reason why it should be considered “better” to pursue this value over any other value.

Working with your argument, that Emes is a motivation because of its value – surely one can distinguish between two values. If a hungry person has a choice of eating a steak or leaving it for somebody else and chooses to leave it, simply because he wants to be nice to the other person, you would call him a better person. And the value of eating the steak is more than the value of leaving it, yet the decision to prioritize the ‘noble’ value over the more-valuable selfish one is Good. Would you not agree with that?

Somebody famously said that a true Yorei Shomayim is one who if HKB”H would say that you would get ??? for doing Aveiros, and ???? for doing Mitzvos, would still be doing Mitzvos and not doing Aveiros.

According to PAA, of course, this dictum carries no water.

PAA – It cannot hold water within your view; such a person would only be doing it because the benefit of doing mitzvos outweighed the oinesh, not because he understood the inherent value. And therefore is no better a person than the one who keeps mitzvos and gets schar, and by extension, not better than someone who does aveiros, like you tained before.

Patur Aval Assur,

Not necessarily. I am rejecting the way you are explaining altruism, because according to you, altruism is just the best benefit. Hence altruism is really benefitism.

It seems to me that you are rejecting your own definition of the way I explain things, not mine. I hold that benefit has value even if it is not personal. You reject this.

Not in terms of good and bad.

What are your arbitrary definitions of good and bad for the purposes of this debate? Because it would seem that according to your rules, good and bad shouldn’t exist at all.

You have a closed set of assumptions in this discussion that preclude any explanations for established human behaviors, and by your own admission they do not reflect the reality of the world. So what is the purpose of this debate?

A couple of months ago, I was discussing this with somebody, who told me that in the book “Permission to Believe”, the author discusses exactly this issue. I haven’t read the book, I don’t know the author, I don’t know any details about the religious standing of the book, but a Mareh Mokom it is!

Patur Aval Assur,

All I’m saying is that no one has demonstrated that good and bad do exist.

So what are your criteria for a demonstration?

Patur Aval Assur: I did not read the entire thread, but I would like to answer your original question. I believe this may be correct answer, so please read carefully.

Your question is based on the assumption that all humans only do things that are motivated by a pleasure that they will derive from that action. Your question follows that “why” should we serve Hashem for any reason other than reward (which the Mishna expects us to do). You cleverly pointed out that reasons like feeling good are really only other forms of reward which should not be considered different than doing it for the Olam Haba type of reward.

When you ask “why” should we do it, you want an answer that will contain some sort of pleasure based motivation that will explain the action, and then you refute it by saying that it’s reward.

But your assumption is wrong. The question why should or why would a person do something does not necessarily make sense. Think about it. How do you know that people only do things for a reason? Does a plant decide that it’s a wise idea to start growing in the spring? How do you know that people are different? Observation? I am not arguing with you that it certainly seems that people behave that way, but how do you know it’s an inherent rule of nature? There is no known scientific law that explains why people (or animals) must do things only for a personal gain.

Now, I am not suggesting that there are people out there who bang pots on their knees every morning for no reason at all. But as a Terutz to explain the Mishna, I would like to suggest the following. There is a Madrega that can be reached at which point a person is serving the Ribono Shel Olam not for the purpose of getting a reward. Which includes all reward. “Why” is he doing it? Because he reached that level of Avodas Hashem where his body follows the Torah even if his bodily desires contradict it. His body no longer follows the rules of regular bodies that only do things for the purpose of pleasure.

I don’t think there is a logical argument that can be made against the possibility of such a thing existing. It might still bother you that “how” can he be doing something with no reward type of motivation. I will answer that perhaps if we continue to serve Hashem non stop in the most extreme way possible for us, maybe one day we will experience the true Avodah of Shelo Al M’nas Lekabel Pras and we will see for ourselves exactly how it is possible.

I don’t think that pasuk is relevant because it is working within the Torah’s system.

I don’t understand you – if it’s in the Torah(‘s system), how can it not be relevant?

Yekke2: It is a conscious desicion, but it is not coming from a pleasure based motivation. We all have this instictive idea that every conscious decision is made for the purpose of personal pleasure, but I am challenging you to show me logically why that must be so.

PAA: Nothing to do with getting used to. You are still talking within the parameters of the yet to be proven true assumption. We don’t need a personal reason for him to do it. His reason is because God commanded him to. Just like a plant grows when God commands it to, a Tzaddik serves hashem when he commands him to. That is why it is the highest Madrega. He is doing it purely for Hashem and not for himself.

Everyone: The idea of serving Hashem for the sake of serving hashem and not for ourselves is understood by children. We delved into it deeper and questioned it, but after we cleared it up, we are back to the simple understanding. We are ultimately supposed to serve Hashem Shelo Al Menas Lekabel Pras.

??? ??? ?????? ???. If it’s in the Torah, it is true. Any ideas which can only exist outside of the Torah are false.

????? ???????? ???? ????. The Torah doesn’t exist outside of inherent truth; it is inherent truth.

??? is ??? and ?? is ??. If the ???? says there is something called ??? and something called ??, that means there is ??? ???.

I don’t know why this is up for debate.

You still do not understand my first post. You keep asking why he would do it. You want an answer that will be some sort of gain for him. I am telling you that he is doing it for the gain of hashem, not for his own gain. Why isn’t that enough of a reason for him to do it? You have this idea that every thing people do is for their good. I am waiting for you to tell me how you know it must be that way.

Yes, but the Torah doesn’t call it that, it calls it good and bad.

Patur Aval Assur,

In your quotation below, the text in bold are my clarifications based on how I understand you.

In short, the criteria are that it has to be something that has a non-benefit related reason to follow it but doesn’t have a benefit related reason to follow it.

So to shorten your question, you are asking us to provide a reason for doing anything that is unrelated to benefit.

The best answer I can come up with is this:

We humans are ephemeral and limited, therefore it is possible for us to receive benefit that makes us longer lasting and stronger. It makes sense, therefore, for human beings to act for their benefit, and we call this sense “reasons” for acting.

Since G-d is eternal and omnipotent, it is nonsensical to state that He can receive benefit. Yet, we know that He does things, so He must have reasons that are unrelated to benefit. We are incapable of knowing these reasons due to our own limitations.

So why would a human being do something if not for benefit? It doesn’t really make sense to us, and your conundrum would stand, except for one thing: human beings were created b’tzelem Elokim. Therefore, there is a spark from Hashem inside each one of us. So even though we cannot articulate it with the earthly definition of “reasons” that you seek, if all “benefit” reasons for an act are stripped away, we are still left with the reason that Hashem does things. What is that reason? Ask Hashem. But it’s within us, whether we can articulate it or not.

I would add that this non benifit/pleasure reason to do something has to do with dveikus with hakadosh baruch hu. He is connected to hashem so much that he does things for the good of hashem not only for the good of himself.

Patur Aval Assur,

we can also do things for the same non-benefit reason Hashem does things for, even if we don’t know what it is.

I would go a bit further than that and say that we are driven to do things for the same non-benefit reason Hashem does things for, even if we don’t know what it is. Not just that we can do things for those reasons.

My response to that is that it might be true that there are reasons that transcend benefit, but you haven’t given a reason why someone should do something for such a reason.

Your question is a non sequitur. You are asking me to describe a non-benefit reason in terms of a benefit reason. If, however, we are motivated to act because we are created b’tzelem Elokim, then “why” is irrelevant anyway. The relevant question becomes, “why would you not”?

Patur Aval Assur,

It seems we have now circled back to the beginning.

Wheeeeeee!

my contention, though, is that it doesn’t make it more lofty.

Nope. You just wrote,

it might be true that there are reasons that transcend benefit

And if a person acts because of a natural drive that transcends benefit, that is more “lofty” than if a person acts because of a natural drive for benefit.

Patur Aval Assur,

You are, after all, asserting the existence of something beyond human comprehension which pretty much makes it undiscussable. What you are essentially saying is that it is because it is and you just have to accept it even though it can’t be explained.

Yes, I think this is a good summary of my position, although I do think that there are “projections” of the incomprehensible into the comprehensible (i.e., the Torah, Beis Hamikdash, prophets), which makes it possible to believe yet still be rational. Our ability to see these “projections” has been greatly reduced due to golus, however.

So would you agree with this summary:

Patur Aval Assur: There is a conundrum etc. etc.

Avram in MD: There is an answer.

I think that is a good summary.

In fact I commend you for actually putting thought into, and composing lengthy responses

Thank you, that is very kind. And thank you for engaging patiently in this debate; I find/found it quite interesting.