The inner harmony of teshuvah

 

Of Perspective and Paradox: Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s Analysis of Holiness Kol Hamevaser

 In the opening of his famous essay “Sacred and Profane,”[1] Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik writes, “In the same fashion that kodesh and hol form the spiritual framework of our halakha, so do the kodesh and hol determine the dichotomy of living experience into sacred and profane… This dualism has often been misapprehended. The halakhic conception of the essence of hol and kodesh is… diametrically opposed to universally accepted formulation in the circles of religious liberalism, Jewish as well as non-Jewish.”[2] By explicitly attributing great significance to the role of kodesh in one’s religious perspective, and through provocatively claiming that the halakhic approach to kodesh conflicts with the common religious approach, Rabbi Soloveitchik beckons the reader to investigate the essential topic of the nature of kodesh and hol. In addition to the aforementioned essay,[3] the Rav analyzes the topic in other contexts, including in his major work Halakhic Man, where he uses the halakhic understanding of kedushah as a critical distinction between halakhic man and homo religiosus.[4] In order to both understand and appreciate the novelty of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s approach to holiness, it is necessary to understand both its philosophical and theological background. It is also important to examine the consequences of his opinions as expounded in his other writings and through the works of his students. This analysis will demonstrate how his understanding of holiness is both novel and very much consistent with a number of other critical elements of his broader philosophy of Judaism.

The Rav’s Approach

In Halakhic Man, the first of his book-length publications, the Rav sought to define the characteristics of a complex ideal type, the halakhic man. In order to do so, the Rav contrasts him with two other ideal types: “cognitive man” and “homo religiosus.” Cognitive man is a scientist solely focused on the physical world. Similar to the ideal type of “Adam the First” depicted in Lonely Man of Faith, cognitive man seeks to intellectually conquer and master the physical world. In contrast, the homo religiosus is otherworldly, attributing significance only to a spiritual world. He is a religious figure, engaged in the mystical and esoteric in hope of transcending the physical world. He seeks not to conquer nature but to encounter the mystery found therein. The homo religiosus is also often not emotionally...

continue

A Haredi Attack on Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik: A Battle over the Brisker Legacy from 1984 PINI DUNNER AND DAVID N. MYERS

 A Haredi Attack on Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik: A Battle over the Brisker Legacy from 1984

From the Commie Archives: Religion and the Jewish State: An Interview with Rav Aharon Lichtenstein

read

RAL: What characterized the Rav and, to some extent characterized his greatness, was not only his greatness in a particular area, but the complex, the totality of his personality. He had great sweep, great depth - he was the archetype of the fusion of the integration, at times to a degree of internal conflict, tension if you will - which he was aware of and preached - but a conflict which he felt was also very productive and fruitful in terms of trying to build a more total spiritual personality.

He sought a certain harmony - not the total harmony of which Rav Kook referred. And, in addition to his outlook, looked with some measure of favor upon some internal ‘Ratzo VaShov,’ within the context of dialectical movement, as it were.

He was indeed multifaceted, and at Yeshiva, his accomplishments and exposure unique. No one that I know comes close to carrying his mantle - the range, the depth, the level of greatness which he had.

What’s happened is that, given his status as a Gadol BaTorah and Gadol BiChochma, people naturally like to grab his coattails and go for a ride. By and large, what has happened is that many people have perceived and experienced one facet of the Rav and remained oblivious to other facets - either out of shortsightedness or because they didn’t want to be aware of them. Some people would prefer to know only the Rav of the Beit Medrash, only the Rav who was saying a Shiur - which was unquestionably his central priority, in terms of activity and values - while totally ignoring and sometimes even denying the existence of other aspects of his interests. There are others who do the reverse.

I think that it does harm to the proper appreciation of who the Rav was, and perhaps even worse, I think that it does harm to the Jewish community which could have benefited from a more integrated and organic view of the Rav, rather than the bifurcation and dissension which has been created in certain circles today.

There are people who have agendas and try to enlist the Rav in whatever crusades they want to run - whether in this or that direction. I try to shy away from it, but there may be somebody who sees how I understand the Rav and think that I’m doing the same thing - I think not, I hope not, and I try not.

RAV SOLOVEITCHIK ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL Rabbi Reuven Ziegler

The Two Covenants and the State of Israel In 1935, on his only trip to Eretz Yisrael, Rav Soloveitchik submitted his candidacy for the chief rabbinate of Tel Aviv as the representative of Agudath Israel, a non-Zionist, perhaps even anti-Zionist, political-religious organization. By 1944, he was chairman of the Central Committee of the Religious Zionists of America. He testifies that his move to Mizrachi was not an easy one, as it entailed a break with his family’s position and rejection by his rabbinic peers: I was not born into a Zionist household. My parents’ ancestors, my father’s house, my teachers and colleagues were far from the Mizrachi religious Zionists … My links with the Mizrachi grew gradually; I had my doubts about the validity of the Mizrachi approach… I built an altar upon which I sacrificed sleepless nights, doubts and reservations. Regardless, the years of the Hitlerian Holocaust, the establishment of the State of Israel, and the accomplishments of the Mizrachi in the land of Israel, convinced me of the correctness of our movement’s path. The altar still stands today, with smoke rising from the sacrifice upon it … Jews like me … are required to sacrifice on this altar their peace of mind as well as their social relationships and friendships. (Five Addresses, 34, 36)¹ A variety of factors—some related to fate and some to destiny— contributed to the Rav’s support for Mizrachi and to his personal commitment to the State of Israel.

continue 

The Rav's Prayer Experience