Amen.
Thank you very much.

Please allow me to offer my own thoughts on the matter.

Someone who does not relate to a Creator, and wants to set a purpose for his life and a direction for his actions,
will be guided by two criteria in making his choice: his desire and his ability.

The fool sees the limits of his ability as an “enemy,” except that he has no choice but to surrender to it.
That means that inside him there remains a desire for what is beyond his power.
And when he chooses a purpose for himself, desire will be the main chooser, and will only “ask permission” from ability.
That is, his ability participates in the choice only negatively.

The wise person understands that it is better to make peace with reality and unite with it.
And then his desire is shaped according to his ability. And both of them share equally in his choice.

Now then, the same applies to someone who does relate to the blessed Creator: we can find both the wise person and the fool.
The fool looks at the Creator as something that limits his desire,
and therefore, to the question of what his duty in his world is, he expects nothing but “schoolbook answers,”
since according to his view the Creator sets the same boundary for everyone.

But the wise person understands that it is preferable to “move over to the Creator’s camp,” instead of living for himself and “asking permission” about everything.
Then his desire is shaped according to the reality in which he lives. And it changes according to his level of recognition of the Creator.
(For example, when I read what the Ramchal wrote, that the purpose is “the repair of kingship,” I felt that this was his purpose, not merely his duty toward the Creator.)

That’s what I was asking: according to your view of the world and religion, what is worth investing in?
That’s one way to understand your overall outlook better.
Maybe it will speak to my heart…

Hello Israel.
I didn’t fully understand. I definitely do see the Torah as limiting me, but within those limits I choose the directions (the permitted or recommended ones) that I have talent and motivation to advance. What does that have to do with whether the Creator limits me or not?

I do not wish to trouble your honor, and I ask forgiveness.

The words “within the limits” carry the connotation of “to the extent that permission is granted.”

That is, motivation and limits do not operate equally in the choice.
Rather, at the initial stage motivation (already shaped by one’s talents) begins by aspiring without regard to the limits of religion,
and only at a later stage must it adapt itself to those limits.
(I do not mean stages in time, but stages in the construction of the choice.)

If so, the relation to religion is one of “surrender to an enemy.”

But someone who grasps what religion wants (for the sake of what purpose it “limits”),
and feels like participating in the realization of that will,
does not see it as a limiting enemy, but as a partner (or at least as a guide or advisor).
It seems to me that in this style the Zohar called the commandments of the Torah “counsels” (the Torah’s counsels).

Only, as above, I will not feel like participating in the realization of the Torah’s will
if I do not have the wisdom to understand that it is better for me to unite and participate with the reality in which I live than to quarrel with it.

Following this question, what would the answer be to the original question in the case of a person who has no special talents or inclinations toward any particular field (that is, he’s not Einstein or Spinoza, but a relatively average person)?

I’ll try to formulate your question to make sure I understood. Suppose I want to devote my life to doing X. Now I see that the Torah forbids this or limits it, and instructs me to do Y or Z. Should I force my desire and want Y or Z, or should I continue wanting X but do Y or Z? Is that the question?
If so, I return again to say that in my opinion the question is not very important, and certainly it pertains not to what you will do but to what you will want. I doubt how much a person can force his desire to change (he can and should force his practical behavior, of course). But even if it is possible, I’m not sure there is any point in it (“I may desire it and I may desire it, but what can I do?”). Though see chapter six of Maimonides’ Eight Chapters, where he discusses the relation between the virtuous person and one who conquers his impulse, and distinguishes between rational-moral commandments and decrees.

I mean, what is a person’s duty on the practical level? The desire can be different from the actions in practice.

I don’t understand the question. If you can explain it differently, in short and clear words, I’ll try to think again.

Hello.
That formulation above (with the XYZ) was my initial question.
That is, this problem—of actions done unwillingly—led me to think about changing the will.

You wrote that there is no point, and maybe it’s even impossible, to change the will.
That means the Torah does not expect a person to want what it wants,
but rather to be disciplined and obey its commands.

But I have found that there are things that influence desire (that is, we do have a way to shape it),
and also that there is great value in shaping desire (as the Sages said, “Make your will like His will”),
since a person whose desire and actions match acts with joy and vitality, and he is also far more effective.

And then my question changed form:
What does someone want who has succeeded in making his will like the will of his Creator? What purpose does he aspire to?
“What does he set his gaze and aim upon in all that he labors at all the days of his life?” (in the language of the Ramchal)

First, you need to distinguish between two levels of discussion: 1. What I want in the instinctive sense (feelings and identification). 2. What my values are. It seems to me that you are mixing them up.
Now note that when you speak of changing desire, that is an oxymoron. Suppose you now want X, and the question is whether to change your desire to Y. The moment you decide to change your desire to Y, you already want Y (after all, because you want the change, you have reached the conclusion that this is the right thing). So apparently you are talking about changing feeling and identification, not changing values (because those have already changed).
And now you ask whether to change desire and why. But as stated, this is an oxymoron. If there is something that you now want, then you already know. And if you don’t want something else, then why change?! (Because I want to?).
At most you can say: I already now want to do God’s will, and the question is what God’s will is. That is an ordinary question without getting tangled up in all these oxymorons. But in my opinion there is no answer to it. The Holy One, blessed be He, gave us Torah and commandments, and that is what He wants. Within that, do what you want and understand and are suited for. That’s all. And again, of course, we return to the same point.

You opened my eyes with your distinction between evaluation and identification.
Through that I understood that I value God’s will, and seek to identify with it.

You defined God’s will as Torah and commandments.
I always understood that God wants one thing, and that Torah and commandments are the means to attain it.
Therefore I think that if I identify with that thing that God wants,
and understand how Torah and commandments are means that lead to it,
I will thereby identify with them as well.
Because to identify directly with Torah and commandments—I’m not managing to…

Where am I going wrong here?

You also wrote that within the framework of Torah and commandments I should do what I want, understand, and am suited for.
But my desire right now is to identify with the Creator’s will (His general will, as above).
Do you have any other path than to begin by clarifying the Creator’s will,
and then to do the actions (which I still do not know what they are) that identify me with that will?

Thank you for the answers, and I wish you a peaceful Sabbath.

You are assuming things that I have no idea where you got them from, and now you are asking me in light of them. I do not assume them, and therefore I do not know what you expect from me.
I’ll say it again: Torah and commandments were imposed on us. That’s all. Within that, you can choose as you wish. By contrast, you assume that there is some hidden thing (“a general will”?) to which all these are means, and now you ask what it is. Where do you get the idea that there is such a thing?

And how do you understand the Talmudic statement, “Habakkuk came and based them all on one,”
which implies that there is one foundation for all the commandments?

If on the basis of that aggadah you want to build the whole edifice, then our situation is easy. I can offer you ten interpretations of that aggadah. There are quite a few sayings about commandments that are equivalent to the whole Torah (Rabbi Wolbe has a book about this, The Equivalent Commandments). And Rabbi Akiva said, “Love your neighbor as yourself” is the whole Torah. I would not build anything on one or another aggadic saying.
The simple plain meaning is that Habakkuk bases the whole Torah on faith (“but the righteous shall live by his faith”). Clearly faith is the basis of the whole Torah and the commandments, but as I understand it, that says nothing about a general will or anything like what you are suggesting.

Do you need Habakkuk in order to understand that someone who doesn’t believe won’t observe?
Wouldn’t it seem more reasonable that he came to reveal the overall result of the commandments?
And how would you explain the other prophets there (David, Isaiah, Micah) brought in that Talmudic passage, who “summed up” the Torah into 11, 6, and 3 things? The simple meaning there is that they were looking for the principle of the whole Torah.
So too Rabbi Akiva (and the other tanna’im there), as you mentioned.
So too the Ramchal defined in this way a principle (“the revelation of the unity”), and so did the Vilna Gaon (“He created the world for His revelation”).

All this shows that there is value in understanding this principle, and that even the great ones needed it.

If you worked for an employer who employs many workers, I assume you would want to understand what the factory you work in produces, and what your own individual work contributes to that production. Wouldn’t you?

I have not yet read your books, but from the little I’ve read here on the site, I get the impression that you have done work (wonderful work) only on the “ground floor” of Judaism—namely, establishing belief in God and our obligation toward Him.
That is the gateway to Judaism (as it says in the Zohar that “fear is the gate to enter into faith”).
That is the legacy of Abraham our father.

But I see that our Sages did not suffice with that, and opened up and bequeathed to us many insights into the essence of religion and Torah.
They apparently understood that Moses our teacher added another story to the building: he taught us to understand God and identify with His mighty project in creating the world and life, through His Torah (which is His wisdom).
As he said several times: “See, I set before you” the blessing and life and good, “for it is your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of the nations.”

I think many people would enjoy it if you wrote another five books to help delve into this topic, to establish and validate, in a rational way, the importance of the Torah for the sake of life and the world, so that it won’t be perceived merely as a duty toward the supreme Employer.
I’m not saying you have to accept everything the Sages said on the subject. I’m only inviting you to engage this topic and see whether it can be put in order, exactly as you did with the topic of faith.
I liked what one wise man said (who?): We do not seek to understand what the ancients said, but what they were searching for.

Hello Israel.
I would be happy to do such work if I believed in it. But I don’t really believe in it, and I also don’t see much meaning in the answers given by others who did deal with it.
The world reveals the Holy One, blessed be He, to us, but that is seen through engagement with the world (science and the like), not necessarily from one Torah interpretation or another.
Indeed, as with an employer, I too would be happy to know whether there is something beyond all this, but I do not see how one can clarify it. The fact that I would be happy to know does not mean I have a way to get there.
As for Habakkuk and the other statements there in the Talmud (Makkot 24), I can only send you to read the Talmud. It’s a shame to speak in the air. Instead of drawing conclusions from questions and from what you long for, just read and see what they did and what they tried to do. If you found in Habakkuk the general will whose existence you assume, why do you keep looking for it here? It’s already in your hands.

Hello to you.

Just to understand: you do not believe that God chose us to be a supreme people (“a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”)?
Or do you think He will do this in the future, and that we currently have no means to advance the matter?

I assume you believe in the miracle stories (in Egypt, at the sea, and in the wilderness) in the Torah.
Do you also see no purpose in them?
That is, here too would you say that this is simply what God decided to do (even though He could have taken us out quietly), and we do not know why?
But Scripture explicitly says: “so that you may tell…” and “so that My name may be declared…”

You “plainly demonstrated” (your phrase at the end of the appendix to your article here https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%93-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D/ ) that a person has the ability to discern the laws of nature directly when observing empirical facts.

So why would you prevent yourself from discerning the divine will reflected in the facts of history and the statements of the Torah?

He chose us to observe His commandments as written in His Torah. That is the meaning of “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” But you assume that underlying all this there is some hidden general will, and I keep wondering where you get that from. What do all the questions here have to do with that assumption?
Indeed, a person has the ability to discern the laws of nature, and perhaps he also has the ability to discern miracles (if and when they occur—although many people are mistaken and discern miracles where there is no necessity to say there were miracles. I attribute that to a lack of scientific and statistical skill). And perhaps we also have the ability to discern the hidden general divine will (if there really is such a thing), except that I do not discern it and have no indication whatsoever that it exists.

My throat is getting a little hoarse from repeating myself. You are assuming an unfounded premise (in my opinion), and so far you have not brought (in my opinion) a shred of evidence for this premise. It seems to me that unless you have something new on the matter, we should agree that we’ve exhausted it.

Indeed, I have no proof of a foundational will of God (apart from the meaning of the word “so that,” which does not rise to the level of proof).
I am trying to invite you to study the topic,
just as the scientist tries to understand what law is hidden behind the facts he encounters,
even though he has no proof that such a law exists.

This is a topic I’ve been dealing with for many years already. So far I haven’t found such a will. But I’d be happy to hear any suggestion (and any argument in favor of the existence of such a will).

Hello and blessings.
Since I too have been dealing with this topic for several years,
and I too still have not found clear answers,
I would like to propose here criteria that the conclusion of this topic ought to fit.

A. Apparently there are two layers here: Torah and the world.
That is, there is room to look for:
1) the guiding line (law/theory/will) that unites all parts of the Torah (Hebrew Bible, Jewish law, aggadic literature, Kabbalah) into one coherent whole, so that we can define what Torah is (as studied and practiced), and know the correct way in which it should continue to develop.
2) the guiding line (law/theory/will) that explains the development of the world and life in all its parts (the laws of nature, and human history and science).

It seems to me that this distinction describes quite well the difference between Torah sages (the later authorities, at any rate) and the sages of the nations of the world.

But that is not enough. After that, one must seek how it is possible (if at all) to integrate and unite these two layers.
Then we would have in hand a concise definition of what God wanted in creating His world, and in giving His Torah to the people He chose,
(which are, in essence, the two great “manifestations” of God in His world—facts that we already accept).

The parts of Torah and the world are the facts, and we are looking for a theory that unites them.
This unifying law does not need proofs beyond explaining the facts.

Is this definition acceptable to you?

I will ask you one more question: by what criterion do you determine when to demand proofs and when to believe?
For example, why do you believe in Torah from Heaven (even though we did not receive the video recording),
but not in the wisdom of the Sages to interpret the Torah’s words with true interpretation?

Definitions are always acceptable to me. What am I supposed to do with that? Do you have a proposal for what all these things have in common? If so, then you’ve got what you wanted (and I’d be happy if you shared it with me). And if not—then where have we advanced to?

The rule is this: when my intuition is clear, I do not need proofs (unless there are difficulties against the intuition).
As for Torah from Heaven and the interpretation of the Sages, I did not understand the connection between these two. On Torah from Heaven there is a tradition that seems reasonable to me. The content of that tradition is factual (that there was a revelation and that Torah was given there). If one accepts the tradition, one accepts the fact it transmits, since those who transmit the tradition are telling me something that they themselves saw/experienced. By contrast, regarding the ability of the Sages to give a true interpretation, there is nothing except a common belief that this is the case. Why should I accept that? Who ever saw that?

If the Sages’ interpretation explains the facts they came to interpret,
do you still have any reason not to accept it?
That is, why not take those same interpretations (so long as they have not been refuted) as a foundation and as guiding the continuation of the search for the full theory?

For example, what they said—that creation is essentially a “revelation of God.” I fully understand that this is not necessary, but why not continue the search in that direction, trying to find what divine revelation each part of creation constitutes?
(Of course, the concept of “revelation of divinity through creation” requires definition; but I am not here to give answers and explanations, only to suggest a way of working.)

I have no reason to accept it. Even when it is reasonable, there are many possible explanations, so why should I accept specifically this one as true?
As for possible projects, I’ve made a note of your suggestion. It seems to me we’ve completely exhausted it. All the best.

Hello.
Now I have a golden opportunity to clarify my intent better regarding what I said above—that I want to identify with the will of the Torah.
What I meant was exactly what you wrote in column 49, namely:

“Many have wondered, and still wonder, about the logic of the bag law.
After all, a cost of 10 agorot for a bag cannot really prevent their use. A one-shekel discount on some product can offset the cost of ten bags, which is the number needed for a fairly large shopping trip.

So how and why does this law actually work? What is the secret of its success? …

It seems to me that in both these cases (the bags and the wildflowers), we are dealing with an idea that was based on public identification. In fact, it was probably already there before the law was enacted, and the law merely promoted it and helped us realize what we ourselves understood was proper to do. …

The bag law works … but it seems to me that the reason for this is not the astonishingly low cost of the bags…
To the best of my understanding, what helps this law is the fact that we all understand that this way we make our world better…

It seems to me that this is the true reason why the law succeeds.
I think the same was true regarding the wildflowers.”

Is it possible to reach that same state with regard to “the laws of the Torah”?

I don’t think so. It is hard for me to see how intuitive identification could arise with redeeming a firstborn donkey or eating pork. One can of course place a priori trust in the idea that if this is a command of the Torah, then apparently it has some benefit and/or value attached to it.