To suggest a framework, within a narrative of textual commentary, for understanding (a) on what basis a de novo commentary could be written; (b) how this is seen within the 1st/10th commandments, and to do so, explain how Torah framing can, without internal contradiction (within this write-up) accommodate the universal uniqueness (which includes, e.g. “enemies of the faith according to any lineage presuming itself to own any preferential qualities”). This will be done by describing the first Aliya in terms of an Ein Sof emanating itself into a mundane reality benevolently (e.g. non-destroying of its creations’ legitimacy) as the allegory of (1) the world as tent, (2) Avraham/God as each being “allowed, by religious dogma, to consider their own story allowed to be itself” (centre of the world), (3) and yet the distinctiveness of “Israel” insofar as the washing of the feet, which is understood not as a difference of heart/head, but rather of past.
The first problem facing my acquiescence to these flow of words, is coherency of legitimacy according to its own methodology. (Requiring explanation at length – but in summary, everything that follows is due to failure, and yet once born becomes endowed with its own moral claims, that force themselves upon the practitioner, etc).
The world is a mirror welcoming its own reflection. It is only due to the ordinal nature of the procession of existence (let’s say, “it’s only because it looks like things happen one before the next”) that the world would need to appear to be bringing itself out of its already-existing. This can occur because the nature of a mirror world is that it does not reject its subjects, and thus does not reject the non-contradiction that the other can also be infinite, despite the fact that it is precisely infinite (creation) that is being sought.
The Torah says that it can reveal each other as infinite, but only if you allow it first to say that it has seemingly counter-productive conditions (viz. specifically, its demanding that even when the other says, “look, I’ll be equally accepting in a way that will reveal our already accepting each other” it can reject that effort, whilst remaining true to its mission).
The universal mission is hospitality to the other (helping the other be themselves on their own mission), not unification/assimilation. This is given the assumption that each journey can be a mirror, and that we only have to be true mirrors (true to ourselה, which spills out like lightning). The things we do that overlap with helping others (in the sense of above), are, according to this narrative, a point of overlap across all metaphors of existence, as meaning “good for getting us to perfection”.
Dear diary note: Re. appreciation of the other, cf. the bread that soothes the heart (btw. is not prepared for the angels due to etc).
Reference:
http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/379746/jewish/Spreading-the-Light.htm
http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/379749/jewish/Abrahams-Hospitality.htm
