Moreshet Shaul: Eretz Yisrael in Halacha and in Sanctity – part II | Various Rabbis | Beit Midrash

Beit Midrash

Sections
Chemdat Yamim
Moreshet Shaul

קטגוריה משנית

Female Lesson Parashat Hashavua Series'Library Piskei Din (Hebrew)Test Yourself

[We continue with analysis of classical Jewish philosophers and applications to contemporary times.]
Regarding the Rambam and Rihal (R. Yehuda Halevi), you claimed at length that Maskilim were overly dependent on their opinions. You should realize, though, that not everything that was "touched" by the Maskilim became unfit for use because they touched it. The main question is what conclusions one draws from it. I don’t think that someone who reads what I wrote will take on an outlook of rationalism. It is worthwhile to know that there are differences between the Rambam and Rihal, and that Rihal criticizes that which he calls "the god of Aristotle," whereas the Rambam saw in him brilliant approaches. It is important to stress this and learn it in great depth. It is also clear that the way Rihal views the concept of loving Hashem is very different from that of the Rambam. It is neither critical nor even worthwhile to blur the differences between their conceptions.
The difference in the grasp of the concept of Israel is also undeniable. The Rambam (Commentary on the Mishna) assumes fundamentally that for a person to be a complete person, he must grasp things intellectually. This connects to the Rambam’s distinction between mitzvot of contemplation and mitzvot of actions and his position that if one serves Hashem without proper thought, it is as if he worships a different god. Considering this, when the Rambam stresses that whoever is not convinced there is prophecy in the world is one whose fathers did not stand on Sinai or that Hashem will not break His covenant are only things he said to deal with times of [religious] danger. This is because the Rambam posits that a person’s service of Hashem is in his intellectual side and not in the attributes he inherited from his forebears.
In contrast, Rihal continuously talks about the innate uniqueness of Israel, which comes to them as an "inheritance from their forebears," and that this is the main thing, in contrast to intellectual achievement, which is of secondary significance. Obviously, there are differences, and I just noted that we pointed out the disagreements without deciding which opinion is to be accepted.
I wrote that the need for laborers, soldiers, and great scientists is positive, and you deduced from this that "there is no problem whatsoever for a person to not dedicate himself to Torah study." By adding on to what I said, you caused a distortion. I only said that the world is built on dividing tasks between different people, and since Hashem built on this assumption, the situation is a preferred one. Clearly, all the professions that enable people to be steeped in Torah study are critical for the world, and the fact that people enter such professions, is according to the divine plan for the world’s development. This is what the Rambam says on the question as to why the world has people who cannot reach intellectual achievement. The answer is that they are needed to provide things for those who are capable of the achievement. In other words, we are to view the world as one in which people are acting according to the set plan.
Therefore, there is no contradiction between the matter of the world and the question of the individual. It is better to be the unique intellectually achieving person than to be one of the many who are made to provide for him. Yet, for each of the people there is a positive purpose. The main difference is whether we look at simple laborers as those who are damaging the world (see Shabbat 33b) or people who deserve mutual respect (see Berachot 17a). Should Torah scholars stay secluded, concerned about themselves, and look down on others in a disapproving and haughty way? Or, should the scholars see themselves as responsible for the whole community and appreciate those who are helping provide for them. This is what I meant.