We explained that in the period after the destruction of the Temple, the Rabbis understood that individualism has become an important religious motive and that in the new era Judaism needed to be founded on the needs of the individual as well as those of the community.
Rabbi Judah HaNassi would say: Which is the right path for man to choose for himself? That which is beautiful for anyone who does it and the one that is (integrally) from within the person.
However, a question arises. ..
When we look around us there are so many different paths and each one claims large numbers of adherents. If we say that any path that appeals to one's inner desires and feels right is the correct path, have we given up on any objective criteria? Granted that a person cannot forge a competely individual path, but is the alternative choosing an established path solely on the grounds of its appeal? The Sages were fully aware of the many false reasons why a certain path might feel "right", reasons that the seeker discovers with time to be founded on unconscious and immature psychological needs or plain error. What then might be an objective criterion with which to evaluate a spiritual path?
A seeker sees around him a varied and multifaceted religious scene - liberal Orthodoxy, synthesis, Modern Orthodoxy, Chardal, Mussarnik and non-Mussar yeshivish, and Chassidic groups according to their kinds. Each one says: "I am true and only one - come hither". So which are ligitimate and how can one know?
Rebbi says: "Mitzva observance!". Seek out and understand what a group considers a primary religious value. If it is keeping Hashem's Torah and commandments, then it is a legitimate path and you will not lose by adopting it. If not, remember that Judaism is at the most basic and essential level about keeping the mitzvos.
Be as careful with a minor mitzvah as with a major one, for you do not know the rewards of the mitzvot.
In other words, whatever path you choose, do not forget the mitzvos.
Does this mean that Mitva observance is the only value? No, not at all. It is indispensable but it need not be the only element of a derech.
Now, Rebbi says something which partially contradicts his prior statement.
Consider the cost of a mitzvah against its rewards, and the rewards of a transgression against its cost.
How can one consider the reward of a mitsva when he just told us that that "you do not know the rewards of the mitzvos"?
This question leads commentaries into a variety of approaches. Rambam, for example, says that even though we do not know what the exact reward is of each commandment, we can often approximately estimate it by looking at the related or opposite sin. One is ommanded to remove chometz on Pesach and we do not know what the reward of this positive commandment might be. However, when we look at the sin of keeping chometz in the house or the severe punishment of eating it on Pesach, we can gain some insight into the relative "value" of the positive commendment of "biur chometz".
I like the comments of Tiferes Yisroel, who explains that we do not, of course, know the actual reward for any particular commandment. However, as individuals we do know what each mitzva does to uplift, elevate and develop us, and this may work differently for different people. In this fashion, the individual orientation returns.
Yes, the different religious paths stress different approaches and different mitzvos. We should join the group whose spirit speaks to our hearts but that does not de-emphasize mitzva observance. With that in mind, it is also legitimate for us to seek out paths or philosophies that stress those mitzvos that uplift us as particular indviduals and lead us in the path that is "beautiful" and rewarding specifically to us.
Comments