Avram in MD

Patur Aval Assur,

(This is assuming it has value to us. If not then there is no reason to do it.)

Nope, I reject this parenthetical, because it contradicts what you were willing to accept above (that you don’t know what the value is).

So you are agreeing that the reason to do something is that it is valuable, as opposed to simply because it is the ???.

What is the ??? if not the ultimate value of an act?

So do you also agree to the point that follows from that, namely that someone who saves someone is no better than someone who kills someone, since they are both simply pursuing value?

No, because one value can be better or worse than another.

Patur Aval Assur,

You are saying either that there is value, or that even though there is no value one should still refrain from killing (I’m not sure which one you are saying).

I’m saying there is value – although there is no guarantee that a human can see or understand that value.

or else carefully delineate what the value is, which I feel you have not done as of yet.

This is an unreasonable constraint, and is why I previously said that your conundrum was artificial.

I agree with you that both human beings and animals would only want to do things that are valuable. The difference between them is that animals are capable of seeing an action as valuable only if they understand what the value is for them (your demand). This is why I keep relating your arguments to the animal perspective. Humans, on the other hand, do not have this constraint. Hashem can tell us that an act has value, and we can believe Him and do it, even if we have no understanding of what the value is.

Patur Aval Assur,

I am reframing it because if it is not personal then there is no reason to do it.

Yes indeed, that is the axis of our disagreement.

Any number of reasons. E.g. you like money so you want to steal. Or you are jealous of someone so you want to kill him. Etc. Etc.

I would argue that the vast majority of people who do stuff like that do not A) Discover what their purpose in life is, and B) Consciously reject it.

Note that my point is not so much that there should be nothing stopping you from killing or stealing inasmuch as it is that you shouldn’t think that you’re a good person for giving up the stealing and killing, since you are only giving it up because you are getting something even better.

That’s balderdash (feel free to quote me on your report cards thread – emoticon).

A person who’s anger flares up, but refrains from killing because he thinks it’s wrong through reciprocal “golden rule” reasoning is better than a person who refrains simply because he’s afraid of getting jailed or executed, even though both are refraining in order to “get something better.” Why? Because once the police are removed from the equation, the former person would kill, while the latter would continue to refrain. We could probably derive some circumstance which would remove the inhibition from the latter guy too. The point that our sages are trying to make is that the ideal for us is to elevate our reasoning to the point where nothing can remove the inhibition to sin. With an animal this is impossible, but Judaism posits that this is possible for human beings.

At the end of the day, you are absolutely right in your reasoning … from the point of view of an animal. Animals are motivated purely by their perception of what is beneficial to them. Most humans are too, but we have the potential to elevate ourselves beyond this reasoning, because we were created b’tzelem Elokim, Who created the universe even though there was no “benefit” to Him. But it’s a waste of breath to try and explain this to an animal, because how could you describe colors to someone who was born completely blind? It would make no sense.

Patur Aval Assur,

So then you will have to say that God can command whatever he wants, even if it is against inherent morality. And then DaasYochid might tell you that you just said kefira.

Absolutely G-d can command whatever He wants. The universe and morality are not independent of G-d, however, so to say that G-d goes against inherent morality makes no sense.

Patur Aval Assur,

So you are saying that Avraham did it for a benefit. Which means you are agreeing with me.

Not exactly. Avraham Aveinu saw no benefits to the akeida. He was already promised everything he wanted, and Hashem now was asking him to give up the vehicle of that promise. And this wasn’t something like sacrificing Yitzchak to save someone else, or stop an asteroid from hitting the Earth, or even to make a public kiddush Hashem (they were alone on the mountain) or anything else where a benefit could be derived, either for himself or anyone else. All Avraham knew was that Hashem had asked him to do this. Avraham trusted in Hashem – that he wasn’t capricious.

How is that the same as doing something for a benefit?

That even within your system where the ultimate benefit is the good feeling of fulfilling your purpose, a good person is no better off than a terrorist.

I think you do not understand my “system”.

Hashem created a dynamic universe that is affected by action. He created two categories to describe the effects of any action: good and bad. He created human beings who have the power to consciously choose what actions to take. He also created for humans a two-category system that parallels his good and bad categories: truth and falsehood. He created within human beings an innate sense of responsibility to seek the truth and reject falsehood – that is why Adam and Chava were accountable for their choice in the garden. Adam and Chava ate from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, and therefore ingested their own system of good and bad that is fundamentally independent from the system of truth and falsehood and Hashem’s good and bad. This muddied our ability to discern truth and falsehood, because we can confuse it with our own sense of good and bad. So our good feelings have nothing to do with whether an act is beneficial (true) or not. Whether we align our feelings with truth and falsehood is up to us, but it doesn’t change our responsibility.

So why would/should we do what Hashem wants simply because it is the truth? Because that is how we were created. It shouldn’t even be a question, and only is because of the disalignment between our human sense of good and bad and Hashem’s.

Health,

That’s why I said it needs to be done on a personal level. I used to teach Fire & Safety including CPR courses.

So you are saying that there are resources out there to help a person develop personalized family action plans?

Btw, what do you do if your smoke detector went off at 3 am???

That’s actually happened to me – very scary to wake up to. The alarm went off in a room that we were not climate controlling at the time. I flew out of bed to the room (probably not the best idea), while my wife went to wake the kids. I felt the door, it was cool to the touch, and I went in. No fire. Whew! I think that high concentrations of water droplets (it was foggy outside) may have disrupted the ionized current enough to trip the alarm.

Patur Aval Assur,

In your first paragraph, what is the benefit if not the pleasure?

A person may not know what the benefit of his action is.

In your second paragraph, you don’t explain what the benefit of following the command was.

That’s right! There was no apparent benefit to him whatsoever. Hashem had already promised everything to Avraham that he could have possibly wanted, specifically through Yitzchak, but then Hashem requested him (??? ???) to bring Yizchak as an offering. Avraham did it simply because Hashem asked him to, because he believed that if Hashem asked it, there was benefit to it.

My point from the terrorist is that as long as you think you are fulfilling your purpose, you have the same “good feeling” regardless of whether you fulfilled your actual purpose. (This is based on your assumption that the terrorist feels good.)

So, what’s the question?

Health,

Are we really helping ourselves? E/O is offering Fire Safety courses. If it’s not done on a personal level, it’s only for show! Why do we – when something like this happens, put on a show? We should make real change, not just superficial change.

I don’t think people are intentionally putting on a show. Aside from tidbits like installing smoke detectors, safe usage practices with electronics, matches, and other flammable household items, and the things you learn in elementary school such as stop/drop/roll, feeling doors for heat before opening them, staying low in smoke and covering your face, etc. I think many (myself included) are at a loss about how to do more.

I want to develop a family fire plan and practice it through routine family fire drills, but in a real fire, conditions and actions needed to escape could vary widely based on where the fire is, what started it, etc. How do I obtain the knowledge necessary to put together the best possible fire plan based on this complexity?

Patur Aval Assur,

What is the value of aligning motivation with ??? if not the good feeling?

This is the fundamental question of humanity, the one that Chava grappled with right after her encounter with the snake.

Assuming we care about our lives, a basic reason to seek deeper purpose is longer term benefit. We have bigger brains, so we can predict further into the future than animals can. Getting a vaccine hurts, which is not a good short term feeling, and small children have to be held down to get a shot, but we adults understand it may protect us from diseases down the road, and most of us would willingly go to the doctor for the shot. For Chava, her conundrum was that eating from the tree would sure taste good and give her a lot of knowledge, but then she’d die (or maybe not, said her rationalizations).

As human beings, while we find avoiding death to be more desirable than ephemeral pleasure, I don’t think we’d be satisfied with just that. We’re not here to just eat and avoid getting eaten for as long as we can. So we seek greater purpose. I am Jewish so I believe that we have a Creator Who has an intended purpose for us and directs us to it via the Torah. What we learn about our purpose, however, may conflict with our existing notions of what makes us feel good, and we then arrive at that same primeval question Chava faced once again.

So it seems that the good feeling is based on the person’s own understanding of his purpose. The terrorist thinks his purpose is to kill people and he feels good; the good samaritan thinks his purpose is to help people and he feels good. At the end of the day what is the difference between them?

Now we’re hitting a fundamental question of humanity post tree. Once upon a time we could clearly see our purpose. Now our desire to feel good beats so loudly within us that we can follow it instead of our true purpose, making up false purposes along the way and convincing ourselves that they’re right in order to shush our existential discontent. Instead of the driver leading the horse, the horse goes where it wants and the driver convinces himself that that is where he’s supposed to be.

So I guess Patur Aval Assur’s question could be asked about my example of children sharing in this manner:

If both lead to sharing at the end, why is the wise child who does it because it is his purpose any better than the child who does it because his mommy will praise him?

I can think of two possible answers:

1. Reaching the point where we are doing things because it’s our purpose is itself part of our purpose. So even if we’re doing things that we are purposed to do but we have different reasons for doing so, we’re not 100% fulfilling our purpose.

2. Chazal were concerned that fulfilling our purpose for any other reason presented a risk of being led astray. It allows for our yetzer haras to begin rationalizing away at our reasons. Therefore, the reason for ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? is one of safety.

A toddler sees no benefit in sharing a toy whatsoever, because he wants to have the toy and by sharing, he doesn’t have the toy.

An older child begins to see that sharing is valued by his parent. He’ll share his toy because he’ll get praised or rewarded by his parent. This is doing something for the sake of a reward. Some people’s religiosity is in this mode.

The older child may also begin to see the benefit in sharing because it opens the possibilities of trade: if I share my toy that he wants, he’ll share his toy that I want. This is also doing something for the sake of reward, and is the underpinnings of secular “morality”.

An even older child begins to develop empathy: I will share my toy because it will make him feel good (bein adam l’chaveiro), or it will bring closeness with my parent who values sharing (bein adam l’Makom), and that makes me feel good too. I think this begins to transcend doing something for the sake of reward, but I can understand your argument that it does not. Fine.

A wise child realizes that he wasn’t put on Earth to have toys. He was put on Earth to fulfill a purpose. He learns about his purpose, and sees that sharing is part of this purpose. He shares to fulfill his purpose. I think this is a pure form of not doing for the sake of a reward at all, because even if the child ultimately feels good because of acting in this way, it is only because he aligned his feelings with his purpose.

Patur Aval Assur,

I’ll try to take another stab at this discussion without tying myself up in rhetorical knots like last time.

Would you do something if you received no benefit whatsoever?

I don’t think this is possible. The definition of an action (doing) is something that causes a change – and any change is either beneficial, harmful, or both.

Benefit includes physical reward, getting a good feeling, earning schar, etc.

I think there is an error in this premise that is at fault for creating what may be an artificial conundrum. You seem to assume that ??? encompasses all benefit, and that actions for the sake of ??? are separate from actions for benefit. I do not think Chazal intended those definitions.

I think ??? is a benefit that is not ???. Why is ??? a benefit? Because it reveals our purpose. Why does our purpose have value? Because we are hardwired to desire our purpose.

DaasYochid,

Thank you for your kind words.

So all we’re left with is discussion and debate, and that can lead to misunderstanding and hard feelings.

I think this is a great point. The opportunity to discuss and debate issues I care about is a big part of what motivates me to read and post here, but there is a big downside to be aware of.

ubiquitin,

Sort of, though this case (as I understood it) was about a guy who wears a srugi not being allowed to daven for the amud period. Even with a hat or at by day with a Talis. Perhaps I misunderstood

That’s the thing, nobody truly knows what the shul (or perhaps just the gabbai’s) policy was. We’ve had four speculations on this thread by my count: no srugis because they’re not good enough (DaMoshe), no srugis because it’s assumed they won’t have a hat/jacket (me), no srugis because of perceived hashkafic differences (DaasYochid), no srugis because they pronounce Hebrew differently (HaKatan). There’s been some interesting discussion about whether these such policies are reasonable or not, but in reality with regard to the actual event, we don’t know the policy or its rationale.

Syag Lchochma,

“before declaring an entire shul or community to be lacking in ahavas Yisroel based on hearsay.”

another example.

I agree with you that what I wrote was not a direct quotation of DaMoshe per se, but I did feel that it was an accurate summation of the body of his posts in this thread. DaMoshe didn’t refute or object to the take either. Upon rereading his posts carefully, it is possible that he was intending to limit his polemic to the gabbaim themselves and not include the larger shul or Lakewood community. It wasn’t clear, however, particularly after he prefaced a response to Joseph with “If you’re going to tell me that in Lakewood, they think that…”. There could be other interpretations of that response too. I think other posts such as Sam2’s bringing wife beating as an example to support his point further charged the debate.

My question is just about a tendency to make a posters comments more extreme, and then respond to him based on the “updated version”

I thought a lot about this, and I think there are several different things that go on, with different elements at play depending on the thread.

1. Sometimes when a poster identifying with one “group” makes a statement about others in a different “group” (e.g., DaMoshe’s story in this thread, or if a Yeshivish person opened a thread to discuss some problem or other he witnessed with individuals in a MO setting – certainly has happened in the CR before!), other posters may interpret this as a blanket statement about that other group. Sometimes this arises from unclear wording by the OP, sometimes it arises from posters taking personal offense. I think DaasYochid alluded to this issue earlier in this thread; such posts usually do not engender positive responses.

2. In most threads as posts get added, the debate evolves into two camps, even though individual posters have a wide range of views. In this thread, for example, several posters have put me, DaasYochid, and Joseph into one “camp” and responded to us as one, even though our statements and positions have differences. Similarly, it’s possible that interpretations of DaMoshe’s posts by those arguing with him have been influenced by Sam2’s and ubiquitin’s posts, for example. I think once this two-sided evolution happens, people start responding to the “camp” rather than the poster, and it’s much easier to misinterpret individual posters based on perceptions of what the greater “camp” holds. I agree with you that posters should be very careful to remember that we are responding to unique individuals, not a camp.

Syag Lchochma,

Interestingly, you wrote this come see Teaneck as an example of a lack of ahavas Yisroel! as your parallel to DaMoshe’s statement. Do you believe that that is what he wrote?

I appreciate your feedback on my posts, especially since you consistently work to see the various perspectives in a thread. I am concerned that I remain as respectful and honest as possible in a debate, without misrepresenting anyone’s position. I don’t always succeed with this, and sometimes I’m not as aware of how my words are read by others as I should be.

When I wrote the sentence you quoted above, I was intending to parallel DaMoshe’s representation: …the fact that there isn’t enough achdus and ahavas Yisrael with Lakewood as an example. I did spin off of the thread title a bit to make it a bit more cheeky. I wasn’t intending to embellish or magnify his position at all, so if that’s how my post came across (maybe it was the exclamation point?), it’s good for me to clarify myself.

ubiquitin,

I’m curious what you would say if say in Teaneck there was a rule that a person wearing a shtreimel cant daven for the amud?

If a streimel wearing Jew came to the CR and said, “come see Teaneck as an example of a lack of ahavas Yisroel! I visited a friend there once, and he told me that he asked the gabbai if I could daven for the amud, and the gabbai said never because I wear a streimel”, I would say the exact same thing I’ve been saying here. That sounds like rechilus and should not be believed – and there may be a shul policy that’s being misunderstood by someone in the chain.

DaMoshe,

he said it to me while walking to shul for Friday night davening. The fact is they said no to any time because of the kippah I wear.

I feel uncomfortable with this, because based on your story, you learned this via rechilus, and I think it’s forbidden to believe what you heard from your cousin (although you can take precautions to protect yourself based on the information). You may well have been hearing a misinterpretation of a misinterpretation of the shul policy.

My issue is their assuming that someone with a kippah srugah is at a level that isn’t good enough for them.

This seems to be an extrapolation beyond even what you heard. At worst it is only a reflection of the gabbai’s own prejudices. Were you ill treated at the shul beyond not being offered the amud?

I’m not so obtuse that I believe that there are no people out there who look down on others because of what kippa they wear, or what shul they go to, etc. I cannot confirm or deny whether this was the case with this particular gabbai. What I’m addressing with my responses is a) that you accepted/believed this potential rechilus and b) that you’re using it to cast aspersions on an entire shul/community.

Syag Lchochma,

i agree. That was why I said ‘blog’, not ‘thread’. Maybe I misused the word.

Ok, that makes sense. The misunderstanding was on my end, not yours. Fortunately, it’s been my experience that most “real world” interactions among Jews have little acrimony. I think some of what goes on in the CR is a function of anonymity and Internet culture and the fact that this forum is geared towards debating.

I asked why DaMoshe received abrasive-ish responses to his story, which was very nice.

I agree that his story was nice, but I felt somewhat pained by his takeaway. I also didn’t detect any abrasiveness in the responses, just disagreement about the nature of relationships among Jews.

Syag Lchochma,

DaMoshe is saying we are usually apart but we come together at times. Your comment implies we are usually together but come apart at times. You can’t possibly believe that is true. Even among this one blog it isn’t true.

Can you provide your working definition of achdus so I understand where you are coming from? I’m not weighing in on the debate between DaMoshe and Gamanit at this point, but I am surprised that you perceive the discussion above as proof of a lack of achdus. Both sides stated their points respectfully as far as I can see, and I believe there is a difference between achdus and lockstep agreement on all issues.

I thought it was a really nice story and Im a bit confused about why it brought him abrasive-ish responses

What was abrasive?

You forgot to write lol at the bottom of your post.

This did seem a bit abrasive to me.

gavra_at_work,

There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension skills. If you feel that I have missed your point by a mile, then it’s highly likely that your point can be more articulately stated.

gavra_at_work,

Hate to do this, but Chazal say that Aniyus is a necessary quality for Kinyan HaTorah (I don’t think anyone is at the point where they are beyond eating only bread, salt & water, and sleeping on the floor of the Bais Medrash).

Two points:

1. Do you think poverty can or should be defined in this way for a non-agrarian society? Are you asserting that there is no food or housing insecurity among Chareidim in Eretz Yisroel?

2. You are quick to mention what the gemara says about the sacrifices that should be made for Torah, but what does the gemara say about supporting limud Torah? Does the concept of tzedaka end once you think that everyone has some bread, salt, and water and there are enough batei midrash to provide sufficient floor space for all to sleep?

If the end goal is to learn as much as possible, you (and other Charaidim) should embrace Aniyus.

While this may be proper for someone to hold this for himself, I do not think it is proper to say it to someone else.

Lior,

“old man” also vouched for the letter’s bonafides.

He did not; he stated that the letter satisfied his opinion of the Israeli Chareidi mindset. Your googling suggestion was much more helpful.

Most of the dangers mentioned by the RY are equally applicable in the U.S.

You and I are in basic agreement here. I’m not disputing the portion of the letter discussing college education. The dangers discussed are real. What raised red flags for me was the dichotomy between the first portion of the letter, which alluded to food insecurity, and the latter portion, which implied that kollel families made ostentatious purchases. Old man is right, I am not inside the Israeli Chareidi world, but among all the kollel families I know in my area, I don’t see any luxurious wasteful spending.

The RY may have been concerned about the perception you mention (i.e. ivory towers) due to the illegitimate external criticism made on these topics which inevitably filters back into our communities.

This is possible, and perhaps the R”Y would have a very different response to an individual than what he wrote in this letter which was targeted to a community as a whole. I guess I read it from the perspective of an individual.

“Rabbi, we don’t have enough money for food. Can I go to Kefira State University to get a degree in computer science?”

“No, for X, Y, and Z, reasons.”

“OK Rabbi, but what should I do about feeding my family?”

“Stop spending 4 bucks on Starbucks every weekday, that’ll save you $1252 a year.”

“But I don’t buy Starbucks…”

About the Borsalino thing, maybe there’s some kind of mishegas going around the more well-to-do families in EY about frequently getting a new hat. Who knows; there are certainly far worse bad habits in the secular world.

Maybe.

Lior: What do you think about an expansion of distance (e.g., online, or even through correspondence) courses and accelerated degree programs that allow people to attain a degree without having to go to a campus or take unrelated liberal arts coursework?

DaasYochid,

I don’t know if this letter exists or not, nor can I comment on the status of the various educational institutions being referred to. However, I think most who have commented here have missed the point.

The letter isn’t saying that because Hashem provides, we therefore do not need to do hishtadlus. It is saying that a certain type of hishtadlus is unacceptable, and as a result, we must avoid it, and use other means of hishtadlus, and even if it seems difficult, we must trust in Hashem to provide.

I got the overall point of the letter, and I agree with its descriptions of the dangers. I think the issue may be even more pronounced in Israel, because whereas in the U.S. most college instructors are non-Jewish and generally ignorant of and supportive of Orthodox Judaism, that is not the case in Israel.

What bothers me is that this letter, which was introduced by a poster whose OP is the sole post on the account, and then “confirmed” by the second post ever made by another user (can anyone else confirm it, btw?), are two things:

1. The writer goes out of his way to try and dispel a notion that rabbis are locked in ivory towers and unconcerned about the plight of kollel families. No, they are in the trenches with these families and feel their pain. My question: why would he assume that kollel families felt this way about their rabbis? I don’t think that they by-and-large do. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the letter is not directed at kollel families, but that’s the way it reads to me.

2. Then, as an almost perfect foil for this earlier point, the writer’s sole example supporting the notion that the primary cause of the sense of poverty among kollel families is that they are living overindulgent lives is a claim that families must buy a new borsalino hat for each son at the start of every zman! Is that really a thing in Bnei Brak?? I don’t think so.

Get another shul or sue them under the ADA. In secular court.

lol, a trollish response to a trollish thread.