Yaakov said...

Rabbi,

Does todays discussion contradict what we mentioned last time about the Mitzvah of the 4 Minim? We mentioned that the reason there is a particular action of the Mitzvah is because the farmer has an attraction towards making a thanksgiving. The torah takes that joy and redirects it through the Mitzvah system, particularly Mitzvas Lulav. The Torah could not just tell us that our happiness must be tied to the Shem Hashem since that would not be real to our experience. If so the lack of being farmers, even with a great education system will not make the Mitzvah instruments useful for human development since when Sukkos comes we aren't in the state of happiness which leads us to desire a thanksgiving holiday.

Thanks!
~Yaakov

Yaakov said...

Aren't Mitzvot different then stories in that Mitzvot are meant to be experiences in the personal as opposed to relating to experiences of others. We do not say "Chayav adam liros es atzmo k'ilu hu beatzmo natal lulav" Therefore while it is true that Mitzvot are essentially particular expressions of Devarim they also exist as specific instruments which guide one to the fundamentals 'Ledoros'.

November 15, 2008 6:55 PM

Yaakov said...

This morning it sounded like you were just repeating the same point from last time, let me try phrasing my question a different way.

For us non-farmers is there a difference between talmud torah of the mitzvah culminating in actually performing the mitzvah vs. only being involved in the talmud torah?

November 16, 2008 6:59 PM

Yakov,

You ask if there a difference, in performing the Mitzva of Lulav, rather than only being involved in Talmud Torah about Lulav. Your question is based upon a proper undestanding of the challenge in relating to Shem Hashem. One must see the principles as embedded in concrete examples that are real to me in experience, not just in abstract.

the reason there is a particular action of the Mitzvah is because the farmer has an attraction towards making a thanksgiving. The torah takes that joy and redirects it through the Mitzvah system, particularly Mitzvas Lulav. The Torah could not just tell us that our happiness must be tied to the Shem Hashem since that would not be real to our experience.

You further distinguish beween Talmud Torah and actual doing of the Mitzva. In Talmud Torah you accept that there could be a use of others experience to make a principal real if not personal to me. In the act of Mitzva though you find this difficult. What is there to differentiate talmud torah, from doing the mitzva if not the actual reflection upon myself in time and space particulary experiencing the mitzva as an experimental phenomenon? What is this phenomenon we should be reflecting upon as we do as opposed to theorize about Lulav. Is it not the phenomenon of psychological distortion of seeing a self desiring a thanksgiving being guided to see birkas hashem that is being remedied by Lulav?

If so the lack of being farmers, even with a great education system will not make the Mitzvah instruments useful for human development since when Sukkos comes we aren't in the state of happiness which leads us to desire a thanksgiving holiday

The key here lies in understanding the nature of the knowledge to be gotten from reflection upon the principles as embedded in experience. Let us consider Lulav. The davar that is involved here is "tzedaka" - the supply of tov to man. In this the principle is the same as Beracha. Specifically Lulav deals with the tov as it is seen in the case of harvest in Eretz Yisrael. This is because we need to learn to see the principle of tov, not in abstract alone, but as it actually appears to us in the phenomenon of our environment. Harvestime is a very distinct phenomenon, and as such needs its own derech of education. This phenomenon of tov as it appears to us in our environment has two expressions however.

Talmud torah seeks real experience through torah shebichtav, it is real about anyman, or at least anyman as I know them. In talmud torah I see what Lulav is as an exploration of how the davar of tov is seen in the special case of harvest, as it applies to man in all times ideal and not through a sort of "case study" of the simcha of a farmer in his harvest. This "case study" should be real, but not necessarily personal. I see the universal mitzva, understand its applications in all times, its full application in times of geula and its limitation in time of galut. This is still not seeing the principle in the world of my own life though.

It is only in doing the mitzva that I reflect upon the principle of tzedaka at harvestime, not as it applies in a "case study" that is real to me but in seeing the principle in the actual real world I myself occupy- a true self application. Though I may even explore the phenomenon of difficulty of everyman doing Lulav in a time of galut, there is still another experience. It is in the self application that I see only in the reality of myself doing the mitzva as part of preserving a system of appreciating the tov of harvestime in my world of October 2008 USA, so remote from its true place in agricultural Israel. The exploration of how the davar of tov of harvestime applies to me in my particular time, in whatever way it does apply,that is the distinct developmental experience of doing of mitzva of lulav.