|
The
Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash
Yeshivat Har Etzion
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF RAV SOLOVEITCHIK
by Rav Ronnie Ziegler
LECTURE #4: The Community
Part 2 of 2
ALONENESS AND TOGETHERNESS
After depicting several poignant examples of the inescapable reality
of loneliness even within the closest human relationships (the sick spouse;
the alienation of the young mother overwhelmed in the middle of the night
by a crying child and a sleeping husband), the Rav explains the necessity
of creating man as both a solitary and a social being. There are two reasons
why lonely man had to be created:
"1. The originality and creativity in man are rooted in his loneliness-experience,
not in his social awareness ... Social man is superficial: he imitates,
he emulates. Lonely man is profound: he creates, he is original.
"2. Lonely man is free; social man is bound by many rules and ordinances.
God willed man to be free. Man is required, from time to time, to defy
the world ... Only lonely man is capable of casting off the harness of
bondage to society... The 'levado'-awareness (the awareness of standing
alone) is the root of heroic defiance. Heroism is the central category
in practical Judaism. The Torah wanted the Jew to live heroically, to rebuke,
reproach, condemn, whenever society is wrong and unfair. The 'levado' gives
the Jew the heroic arrogance which makes it possible for him to be different...
Lonely man is a courageous man; he is a protester; he fears nobody; whereas
social man is a compromiser, a peacemaker, and at times a coward. At first
man had to be created 'levado,' alone; for otherwise he would have lacked
the courage or the heroic quality to stand up and to protest, to act like
Abraham, who took the axe and shattered the idols which his own father
had manufactured." (pp. 13-14)
However, God also willed that man become a social being. Why?
"Man is not only a protester; he is an affirmer too. He is not
only an iconoclast, but a builder, as well. If man always felt remote from
everybody and everything, then the very purpose of creation could not be
achieved." (p. 14)
To the Rav, Moshe Rabbeinu is the epitome of one who combined both aspects
of human identity. On the one hand, he was "the greatest loner, who
pitched his tent 'far outside the camp.'" On the other hand, he was
"the great leader, father and teacher to whom the community clung."
This example is problematic. Moshe lived alone outside the camp, separated
himself from his wife, and covered his face with a veil! He was INVOLVED
with the community as their leader, but was he really PART of the community?
On the other hand, recall that he was the "faithful shepherd"
who identified with the community to such an extent that he wished to be
destroyed along with them if God would not forgive their sin. We will once
again encounter this paradox of being part of the community while being
outside it in "The Lonely Man of Faith," where the Rav describes
God Himself as being a member of the "covenantal faith community,"
albeit the senior member.
[If we look to history, it would seem that the Rambam, for example,
viewed himself somewhat along the lines of Moshe Rabbeinu, communing solitarily
with God and at the same time guiding the community as a teacher and leader.
Perhaps we can speculate that the Rav also saw himself in this light, identifying
strongly with the community while also feeling separate from it in his
singularity and uniqueness.]
FORMING A COMMUNITY: RECOGNITION OF THE OTHER
At this point, the Rav focuses on how the community is formed. The first
step is the recognition of the other, the thou. By realizing that he is
not the only significant being in the universe, solitary man "contracts"
his "infinite" existence and makes room for the other. In this,
man emulates God's primordial act of "tzimtzum" (contraction),
whereby He "made room" for an existence other than His own, i.e.
the universe. (We shall explore the concept of tzimtzum in the next lecture.
Note merely at this point that the Rav raises the issue of imitatio Dei,
emulation of God, which, as we shall see, is central to his thought.) Thus,
Rav Soloveitchik comes up with the equation: "creation [of a community
or of the world] = recognition = withdrawal = an act of sacrifice"
(p. 15).
This insight is reflected in many aspects of the Halakha. For example,
the Halakha assigns great significance to greetings exchanged between people,
because recognition implies affirmation of the other person's value, and
draws the two people together into a community. Thus, we are commanded
to return greetings and sometimes to extend them even when reciting the
Shema; recognition of one's fellow, relieving him of his loneliness, does
not contradict the act of kabbalat ol malkhut shamayim (acceptance of the
yoke of Heaven). Similarly, the Halakha is exceedingly strict in prohibiting
one from causing even the slightest distress to a widow or orphan, since
these individuals are extremely sensitive and prone to losing their sense
of dignity and worth. (Note the striking aggadic passage [Semachot 8:4]
quoted by the Rav, which attributes Rav Shimon ben Gamliel's death to inadvertently
causing slight distress to a poor widow.) Although it is not always clear
whether the Rav is deriving his philosophical ideas from the Halakha or
whether he is explaining the Halakha by means of his ideas, such insights
are common in his writings, giving his thought firm grounding in Jewish
sources.
MUTUAL COMMITMENT
By recognizing the thou and forming a community with him, one automatically
assumes responsibility for him; recognition = commitment. This, again,
is emulation of God, who not only created the world but also continually
provides for it. On a human level, this leads to the formation of the prayer
community, which is explained thus by the Rav:
"It means a community of common pain, of common suffering. The
Halakha has taught the individual to include his fellow man in his prayer...
Halakha has [thus] formulated prayer in the plural...
"The individual prayer usually revolves about physical pain, mental
anguish, or suffering which man cannot bear anymore. At the level of individual
prayer, prayer does not represent the singularly human need. Even the mute
creature in the field reacts to physical pain with a shriek or outcry...
However, prayer in the plural is a unique human performance... I am aware,
not only of my pain, but of the pain of the many, because I share in the
suffering of the many. Again, it is not psychological; it is rather existential
awareness of pain." (pp. 19, 21)
Due to this awareness, the prayer community must also be a charity community.
And indeed, the Jews have, over the generations, developed a trait of sensitivity
to pain and compulsive kindness (rachmanut), as well as a glorious tradition
of charity.
THE TEACHING COMMUNITY
However, according to the Rav, the highest form of interpersonal communion
is attained through the teaching community. The true teacher must merge
his total experience with that of the student, and they thereby attain
a closeness which exceeds the sympathy and mutual aid of the prayer/charity
community. A teacher not only trains the mind, but fashions the personality
of the student; he shares not only information, but experiences, visions,
dreams - in short, his very essence. As the Rav explains in "U-vikkashtem
Mi-sham" (pp. 228-229), the personality of the master teacher, like
that of the prophet, spontaneously overflows toward the student in an act
of self-revelation. This leaves an indelible impression upon the student's
soul and binds the two together intimately.
In fact, the entire enterprise of the Massora (passing on the tradition)
is based on the unity of teacher and disciple:
"In this principle [i.e. unity of teacher and student] is enfolded
the secret of the Torah She-be'al Peh (Oral Law), which by its very nature
has never been objectified, even after being committed to writing. The
meaof Torah She-be'al Peh is: a Torah which merges with one's personal
uniqueness and turns into an inseparable part of him. When it is passed
on, part of one's essence is transmitted along with it."
("U-vikkashtem Mi-sham," p. 229)
[A word of explanation about the previous quote: Unlike the Written
Torah, which is crystallized in a clearly defined text, the Oral Torah
is by its very nature amorphous. It is borne not by parchment, but by the
human being, who both shapes it with his own unique contribution and understanding,
and who is in turn shaped by it. The Rav elaborated on this theme on several
occasions, among them in a Memorial lecture for his wife in 1971, which
is summarized as "Torah and Humility" on our website (see the
address at the end of this lecture):
"Can the Oral Torah pass on kedusha (holiness) ... in the sense
that the Written Torah sanctifies tefillin, mezuza, the Torah parchment,
etc.? ... It would be folly to conclude that the Oral Torah is inferior
in this respect. The answer is that the Oral Torah operates in a more subtle
manner, transmitting sanctity through study and its relation to the mind
of the student... The parchment of talmud Torah is the human mind, the
human heart and personality... The old halakhic equation that every Jew
is a sefer Torah (Torah scroll) is, in this light, fully understandable.
The living Jew is the sefer Torah of the Torah she-be'al peh."]
By bringing the student into the living chain of tradition, the teacher
inducts him into a community which transcends the bounds of uni-directional
time, uniting both the glorious past and the eschatological future with
the present into one great experience. Events from the past, far from being
dead, are constantly re-experienced (e.g. the exodus, the revelation at
Sinai, the destruction of the Temple); teachers and heroes of the past
are living presences who address their words to us and whom we even can
engage in dialogue (through Torah study). At the other extreme, we eagerly
anticipate the future redemption of the world and actively attempt to bring
some of its perfection into the present. Our experience transcends clock
time, giving us a sense of eternity within the temporal, and sensitizing
us to the opportunities and challenges of the present.
In our essay, the Rav portrays the community in both horizontal and
vertical terms: horizontal communion with one's contemporaries via prayer
and charity, and, superior even to this, vertical communion with generations
past and future via the medium of talmud Torah. The same progression can
be found in the Rav's discussions of community in "U-vikkashtem Mi-sham"
and "On Repentance." In the latter, as mentioned previously,
Rav Soloveitchik details the need to link up to Knesset Yisrael in order
to participate in the atonement granted on a communal level. (This does
not detract from the need to attain personal atonement for one's individual
sins.) How does one connect to Knesset Yisrael? By having faith in it.
How is this faith expressed? In the twofold manner we have just discussed:
"The Jew who believes in Knesset Israel is the Jew who lives as
part of it wherever it is and is willing to give his life for it, feels
its pain, rejoices with it, fights in its wars, groans at its defeats and
celebrates its victories. The Jew who believes in Knesset Israel is a Jew
who binds himself with inseverable bonds not only to the People of Israel
of his own generation, but to the community of Israel throughout the ages.
How so? Through the Torah, which embodies the spirit and the destiny of
Israel from generation to generation unto eternity." (On Repentance,
p. 137)
As noted before, what is implicit in the above quote from "On Repentance"
is explicit in "The Community:" the highest form of community
is that which unites you with the community of all generations, not just
with that of your own. In a sense, connection to one's source and destiny
has greater axiological value than connection to one's fellow. This is
not to minimize the importance of bonding with one's contemporaries; the
Rav repeatedly emphasizes throughout his writings the necessity of both
dimensions of community. In "Kol Dodi Dofek," he has very harsh
words for those who forsake the "covenant of fate" (which unites
us with fellow Jews in suffering and sympathy) while adhering to the "covenant
of destiny" (whereby we pursue our spiritual goals of becoming a kingdom
of priests and a holy nation). Both aspects are crucial, and one's Judaism
is deficient if he maintains only one aspect.
What the Rav does mean to say is that, in terms of ultimate values,
the eternal is of greater significance than the temporal; spiritual goals,
coming closer to God and spreading His word, have greater axiological value
than sympathy between finite individuals. We must surely be compassionate;
but our mission, perhaps the very reason we were created, is to bring holiness
into the world, a piece of the infinite into finite being, a sense of the
eternal into temporal existence. In order to realize this goal, which means
realizing our true selves and maximizing ourselves as individuals, we must
join a covenantal community, as described in this essay. Thus, the Rav
concludes on a note stressing the timeless:
"It is a privilege and a pleasure to belong to such a prayerful,
charitable, teaching community, which feels the breath of eternity."
(p. 24)
FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:
1. Prayer: see "Redemption, Prayer, Talmud Torah" (Tradition
1978), which we will study later in the year (along with several other
essays dealing with prayer).
2. The unity of teacher and student: see "U-vikkashtem Mi-sham,"
chapter 19.
3. The merging of past, present and future: see "Sacred and Profane"
[reprinted in "Shiurei Harav"] and "On Repentance."
This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual
Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah
and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.
Make Jewish learning
part of your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual
Beit Midrash
(c) Yeshivat Har Etzion1997 All rights reserved to Yeshivat
Har Etzion
Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il
|