![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
more talmud study
We often see comments of the form "one who does such-and-such is worthy of a place in the world to come", or, conversely, "one who does such-and-such forfeits his place". But we don't hold that a single action either guarantees your spot or dooms you forever, so what gives?
One common approach is to view oneself -- and, perhaps, the entire world -- as teetering on a balance point at all times. A single mitzvah tips the balance for good; a single aveira (sin) tips the balance for bad. If you were to be judged at that time, that single action would have determined your fate. So each time you commit a sin you're betting on getting a chance to compensate for it. (My rabbi explained the basic argument; the conclusions are mine, so don't blame him for them.)
I saw another approach today. Tractate B'rachot (4b, page 4b4 in Shottenstein) says that one who recites Ashrei three times a day earns a place in the world to come. Why? Because, as it's explained in the gemara and later works, one who does this will surely come to understand its deep significance, and given that understanding will act accordingly, and thus will by his actions earn a place in the world to come.
I find the style of reasoning suspect. Why not just say that one who truly understands these words and acts accordingly earns a place in the world to come? Wouldn't that be more direct and more accurate?
We have a couple references to chase that might shed light on this, but we ran out of time. Next time, then.
At the end of the session he told me he enjoys studying with me, which makes me happy. I really enjoy studying with him, and would hate for it to be too one-sided. I'm looking forward to Thursday night's tikkun, too. We don't go all night, but we'll probably go until about 2am. A few years ago I went to another tikkun afterwards with the goal of going all night, but the style wasn't to my taste and going to it broke the mood that we'd achieved, so I don't do that any more. When my rabbi's done, I go home.
no subject
accordingly earns a place in the world to come? Wouldn't
that be more direct and more accurate?
It could be argued that by framing it in terms of a specific, difficult (but open to most people) path to understanding, it leaves you less room to kid yourself about whether you've actually done the work to "understand its deep significance."
The ultimate example's still the twenty-something gentile who's read a couple of books from the New Age section of Barnes and Noble and believes that, yeah, he has a full "understanding of the deep significance" of Kabbala. But even those of us who can point at that sort of thing and chuckle with a superior air tend to make less-pronounced versions of the same mistake. After all, I'm sure I have a complete understanding of the principle of "relax and sink" from tai chi - can't do it, beyond a stricly superficial level, to save me life yet, but I can tell you approximately what it means, a few reasons why it would be good if I could do it, and several really cool Chinese quotes about it :-)
no subject
I guess the question is whether there is exactly one path to understanding, or this is just the most promising of several, or there are several equally-promising paths and this is the one the author of this gemara likes. :-)
But yes, point taken -- especially about the tendency to delude oneself. I could easily see the argument that you should assume that the given approach, whatever it is, is in fact the one path for you until you're competent to argue otherwise (citing sources, of course).