tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662642025851520851.post6513628696697043638..comments2008-06-27T13:20:09.471-07:00Rabbi Jonathan Sackshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06724954433302279666sacks.yoni@gmail.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662642025851520851.post-18123071051433754842008-06-27T13:20:00.000-07:002008-06-27T13:20:00.000-07:00RW<BR/><BR/>The action of insight is seeing an idea or "law" applicable to oneself. The law is true of all people-not of me alone. It is a distinct thing, the law I apply to the person who is me. I am the cause insofar as I choose to focus on the law. But the law is sovereign and causal insofar as it determines what all people.oncluding the person who is me, will do. I choose to be a learner of Torah,but the Mitzva then determines what I will do. I have added another post that goes into this in greater detail.Rambam Systemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06724954433302279666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662642025851520851.post-88879081041097252482008-06-27T11:45:00.000-07:002008-06-27T11:45:00.000-07:00oops it didn't come through with the font change. I will have to figure that out.RWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14558155136174527485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662642025851520851.post-3054677926128318882008-06-27T11:44:00.000-07:002008-06-27T11:44:00.000-07:00Here are some questions on the first half. I have put my questions in bold pink font.<BR/><BR/><BR/>המצווה השניה <BR/>היא הציווי שנצטווינו להאמין בייחוד, והוא שנאמין שפועל הנמצא בסיבתו הראשונה הוא אחד.<BR/>והוא אמרו יתעלה: "שמע ישראל ה' אלקינו ה' אחד" (דברים ו, ד).<BR/>וברוב המדרשות תמצא שהם אומרים: <BR/>"על מנת לייחד את שמי, על מנת לייחדני". <BR/>והרבה כגון זה. כוונתם בדבר זה: שלא הוציאנו מבית עבדים ולא עשה עמנו מה שעשה בעשיית חסד והטבה, אלא בתנאי שנאמין בייחוד, לפי שאנו מחויבים בכך.<BR/>ובהרבה מקומות אומרים 'מצוות ייחוד', וקוראים למצווה זו גם 'מלכות שמים' כי אומרים:<BR/><BR/>כדי לקבל עליו על מלכות שמים, כלומר ההודאה בייחוד והאמונה בו. <BR/><BR/>I am still unclear on the relationship between “Yichud” and “Malchus”. I see the Rambam clearly equates them, but can you more clearly unify the idea?<BR/><BR/>Man's rational mind perceives the world through the principle of a universal law manifest in all parts of the universe-Malchus Shamayim. <BR/><BR/>How is this “universal law” the idea of Malchus Shamayim?<BR/><BR/>This principle is implicit in our expectation that every part of the universe, from the most small in physics and chemistry to the most large in astronomy and cosmology, be subject to laws. Yet the same rational man who expects law in every aspect of the universe, balks when it comes to his own sovereignty. Intellectually, the mind recognizes that man's excellence must be a special case of this very same universal law. The Christian's bizarre exemption of himself from the principle of universal law manifest in all parts of the universe cannot be understood in terms of intellect. <BR/>What is this reference to the “Christian”? Why are you singling out a Christian?<BR/>The difficulty for the unreflective craftsman lies in overcoming an instinctive aversion to loss of sovereignty. The human animal refuses to extend the universal laws of the universe to his sovereignty over the material world, instinctively resisting this "kabbalas ole" as a wild mustang resists the עולof a harness and as the mule resists the עול of a yoke. K'riat Shema's challenge to the craftsman is a call to summon the courage to recognize the resistance to tikkun for what it is - an animal aversion to yielding any sovereignty. <BR/>Recognizing the human mind as a b'ria, a creation subject to higher cause, is the essence of kabbalas ole malchus shamayim. <BR/>What do you mean that the mind is “subject to a higher cause?” Doesn’t man have free will? Doesn’t that mean he is the cause? I understand if you say that his animalistic part of him is being caused to behave a certain way, but if you say his mind is caused, then where does the free will reside? Furthermore, what is “causing” his mind?RWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14558155136174527485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662642025851520851.post-13672402229765301802008-06-27T04:17:00.000-07:002008-06-27T04:17:00.000-07:00RW<BR/><BR/>Why do you apologize- is eliciting questions a bad thing? There are many, many premises embedded in this piece. I don't think there is any way to go other than start working through them all as soon as your questions will guide the way.Rambam Systemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06724954433302279666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2662642025851520851.post-56370062246460486972008-06-26T18:43:00.000-07:002008-06-26T18:43:00.000-07:00RS,<BR/><BR/>I am sorry. I have read this over a few times. There are elements I understand, but I would say the majority of what you are saying just illicit so many more questions that I feel I am more perplexed than have clarity. I will try and formulate a few questions.<BR/><BR/>RWRWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14558155136174527485noreply@blogger.com