Extra Tactics: Part 4--conclusion
By: Jonathan Seidel
This concludes my essay on aggada. We first navigated the allegory crisis then to its link to the halakha in talmudic sugiyot then to its prophetic connection and finally to its ideal construction. Aggada is to be side by side with halakha as an agent of Jewish discourse and philosophy culminating in 'Talmudic Man'.
Fraternal Twins
The final arc is the synthesis of the two systems. They have distinct roles but complement one another. As mentioned earlier, the narrative precedes and succeeds law. It encompasses our ritualisation, the pondering of the concretised law. It exists abstractly in the mind. Prof. Zahavy has distinguished between halakha man and talmud man1. The former opinionated the latter open-minded, conformist vs individual, monistic vs pluralistic. R’ Soloveitchik’s halakhic man is a character who mitigates between the world and religion2. Attempting to balance the two. Halakhic man brings his Torah with him to reality. It precedes reality. It has a-priori norms embedded in it (this point is quite controversial when paralleled to ancient Near East customs). Talmudic man is diverse and recognises changes in reality (eye for an eye). This Talmudic style is more than simply responding to social changes. Although many medieval sages were not necessarily allegorical types they were involved in exegetical and philosophical works: Rabbenu Gershom who authored the bans on polygamy and divorcing forcibly3 wrote seliha 42 and other exegetical works4, Nahamanides wrote Iggeret HaMussar5, Maimonides wrote the guide6. Maimonides also famously prompted science over halakha7. This has not been accepted by most of the orthodox movement. Maimonides seems to be the maverick position. As others assumed the legal means was the method to strive toward divine servitude and closeness. Legality is a requirement that should invoke a desire to comprehend God better8. It should not be simply a hope for periodic sublime salvation but a drive for sensation. We may not regularly feel the divine presence but we should attempt to. Legality is not too dry. It has its underpinnings that empower its affluence and beauty. The allegory shines a spotlight on these underpinnings. It exposes them to provide motivation to complete legal obedience.
Today there are many allegorical derivatives such as hasidic and esoteric texts9 as well as philosophy10 and ethics. Yet we must not separate them. There are not two distinct modes of thought. They are not separate as providing a light to Godly will. Law will always remain superior in servitude11. Yet without allegorical aid it is futile12. It becomes robotic. I am not implying everyone must learn one of the categories mentioned but the desire to learn those alternatives derives from the same core. It is a spiritual sensation to study God. Whether rationally or mystically both seek to reason divine purpose. It is a mentality weaving law and allegory into one. Copying the Talmudic method of combining both ideas to produce the implemented law. The unity attains a larger source of acknowledgment for the full richness of the divine will. It is not simply action or thought. Faith becomes concretised into active participation. Once it has been concretised it does not lose its root. We still recall its initial stage13. We produce laws that resemble an authentic representation of divine will.
In contrast to prophetic legality, Talmudic legality best articulates R’ Cherlow’s view. He does not wish to return to ancient standards. He desires a new avenue. He opts for a vision similar to R’ Goren and many modern leaders. Teachers like R’ Lichtenstein14, R’ Rabinovitch15, R’ HaCohen16, R’ Lau17 and others. R’ Amital in his disagreement (also the opinion of the Glasner18) to R’ Lichtenstein stated that eating pig over a corpse is preferable as the latter is too abhorrent and repulsive despite the difference in punishment status19. R’ Amital believed that certain meta-legal tactics overshadowed the basic law. R’ Amital built his views on rabbinic and hassidic thinkers20. R’ Lichtenstein in some ways lived as a halakhic man21. This is not entirely true as his approach to evolving legality and worldly knowledge were strong22.
These two co-teachers and leaders revolutionised the orthodox community in Israel. Their diverse views ushered in a change of scenery to modernity23. R’ Lichtenstein a philosopher and Amital a hassid. Both giants and influential dealt differently with views. Their coexistence is Talmudic man24. Talmudic man does not dwell alone. He is part of a continual communal movement. He ascribes a vision of growth and passion. According to Prof. Zahavy’s qualifications they were both individuals, interacted with the world, and were argumentative. In adding some additional attributes: open and diverse. They were Talmudic men for their simultaneous unity and diversity. They worked beautifully together yet dissented on major issues. Their approaches were built not monistically but pluralistically25. They sought to educate the divine will. The foundation was filled with vast jewels to inspire the incoming generation. Most of all they were unafraid to be controversial and honest of their views. It is not only about actions taken whether promoting philosophical study or novel legal changes but the integrity of character.
It is a genuine individual who acts for the sake of the people. He lives for the continuity of the Jewish people. Such a leader is not possessed by his own ideas rather by the development of the masses. R’ Soloveitchik’s halakhic man is problematic as presented but based on his private memoirs and statements by his students, R’ Lichtenstein and R’ Wurzburger, he was more talmudic than he leads on26. He wrote a monistic vision but such a character is foreign to modern epistemology. R’ Lau’s27 foresight is an empowering future with accept personalities of R’ Goren and R’ Elyashiv together28 as well as R’ Riskin and R’ Schachter debating together. R’ Yuter has asked those who dissent29 from female clergy to discuss with its advocates30. Talmudic men are not only creative but amenable. In contrast to Prof. Zahavy who marks an individual this must become a communal movement with a directed ideology. The Talmudic method intertwining allegorical philosophy with legal postulates, proves for a brighter future.
R’ Soloveitchik critiqued R’ Heschel on his book The Sabbath for poetically relating to it instead of providing legal coverage31. R’ Heschel alternatively criticised Halakhic Man claiming there has never been32. One was a halakhic man the other an aggadic man. This is not to say that they were fully on one side but they did favour one side. I do dare compare them to such archetypes as their writings embellished these tendencies. R’ Soloveitchik correctly acknowledged the poetry but as R’ Amital mentioned there is more than just law.33 R’ Heschel’s writings seem to drift in pampering allegory but it is entirely plausible his obsession was due to its disappearance. He believed there was a synthesis, each did their part like a quartet34. The spirit needed to be revived. Today there is much study in the spiritual area along with hardcore legal study. The Vilna Goan feared hassidic deviation from normative legalism. This mindset evolved strictly. We have both the rav and the rebbe, A Moses and an Aharon35. The goal is to have a figure who accumulates both norms equally. It is not to evolve into a character such as Maimonides preaching law and philosophy but to interweave both areas. The extra-legal aspects of allegory develop philosophically independently of legal measures but also contribute to its formulation. Recognising the spiritual prowess of allegory and its legal aid.
Endnotes
1. A Battle of Theologies Halakhah Man vs Talmud Man.↩
2. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man trans. Lawrence Kaplan. JPS, 1983 and Majesty and Humility explains in depth Soloveitchik’s position. See: Rueven Ziegler, Majesty and Humility: The Thought of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik Urim Publications, 2017.↩
3. Halakhic Decisions on Family Matters in Medieval Jewish Society.↩
6. Moses Maimonides, Shlomo Pines, and Leo Strauss. The Guide of the Perplexed. 1963.↩
7. Halbertal, People of the Book See: Thoroughly Modern Maimonides?. The Guide 3:52. It has long been a scholarly debate. R’ Soloveitchik believed modern historians were misguided and assumed otherwise: Lawrence Kaplan, Maimonides — Between Philosophy and Halakhah: Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik on the Guide of the Perplexed, Jerusalem: Urim, 2016. For a flushed out Q&A see: Tagged with maimonides as well as Heshey Zelcer, “Review Essay: Rabbi Soloveitchik’s Lectures on the Guide” Hakirah 22 pg. 42.↩
8. Joseph B Soloveitchik, The Halakhic Mind. An Essay on Jewish Tradition and Modern Thought (New York: Free Press; London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1986) pg. 99. In contrast to Maimonides. Soloveitchik believed the law supremely enhanced the ability to elevate towards God refining relationships.↩
9. There has been an academic push in the esoteric realm starting with Scholem and today with Moshe Idel but many others have written religiously regarding the topic beginning with R’ Aryeh Kaplan’s Inner Space.↩
10. This topic is weaning in orthodox circles as it is considered dangerous or irrelevant. There are still a handful who believe in the concept yet tend to reside in academic circles: Dr. Tamar Ross, Dr. David Shatz, Dr. Daniel Rynhold, Dr.Menachem Kellner. R’ Jonathan Sacks and the late R’ Aharon Lichtenstein were some in the public spotlight who studied and taught with grace. Dr. Rynhold told me that many of his undergrad students are uninterested wishing to be elsewhere. His graduate students alternatively vigorously engage the class. For most average orthodox individuals it is the impassiveness not an actual threat.↩
11. Alan Brill, “Worlds Destroyed, Worlds Rebuilt: The Religious Thought of Rabbi Yehudah Amital” Edah 5:2 pp. 4-5. R’ Amital empathised with the spiritual struggling speakers but felt commitment preceded their qualms. Excessive individual search is dangerous. Develop self yet remain a part of the people. Metaphorically this can be akin to pursuing a golden ladder to reach God, instead of the silver rope everyone is using. The silver rope will provide a path to God even if it is longer it is safer, inclusive, and diverse. It is not always about the result but the journey along the way.↩
12. Alan Brill, “Aggadic Man: The Poetry and Rabbinic Thought of Abraham Joshua Heschel”. Edah 6:1 pg. 5.↩
13. Certain commentators such as the Vilna Goan revisited the Talmudic text to decide legal opinions instead of following the tradition passed down. He believed in returning to the root for solutions instead of playing “follow the leader”.↩
14. Aharon Lichtenstein, “Legitimization of Modernity: Classical and Contemporary” Engaging Modernity: Rabbinic Leaders and the Challenge of the Twentieth Century ed. Moshe Sokol, Jason Aaroson, 1997. As mentioned earlier R’ Lichtenstein was more theocentric but he did acknowledge the potential changes and accepted social development. Liechtenstein, “The Human and Social Factor in Halakha” and Yoel Finkelman “Canon and Complexity” Tradition 47:4.↩
15. Nachum Rabinovitch, The Way of Torah, Me’aliyot: Jerusalem, 1999. [Hebrew].↩
16. R’ HaCohen’s messages were transmitted in public sermons. See: Re’em HaCohen, The Hidden and the Revealed, Giloy, 2016.↩
17. Benjamin Lau, “The Challenge of Halakhic Innovation” Meorot 8 pp. 12-13.↩
18. Dor Revi'i - דור רביעי. See also: David Glasner, “Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner ,The Dor Revi'i”, Tradition 32.1. R’ Shmuel Glasner famously wrote in his introduction to Hullin just because something is not legally forbidden does not mean it is permitted. Seemingly ethics exist outside the legal framework. A mentor told me in the case of David’s sin with Bathsheba (Shmuel II 12 7-13) the Talmudic debate exonerating him of the charges (Shabbat 55b-56b) is demonstrating that acquittal does not mean moral. Hurting others inside the legal borders is still wrong. The allegorical aspect aids in recognising the meta-legal responsibilities to avoid any misconduct and misrepresentation. See: Truth, Compromise, and Meta-Halakhah and Decision-Making on Matters of Halakhic Public Policy or Meta-Halakhic Issues: Some Tentative Thoughts. Walter S. Wurzburger in “Meta-halakhic Propositions,” The Leo Jung Jubilee 32 Tradition Volume (1962), 211-221 and Carmi Horowitz’s “Halakha and History, Intellectualism and Spirituality: Professor Isadore (Yitzhak) Twersky’s Academic-Religious Profile” Torah and Western Thought Intellectual Portraits of Orthodoxy and Modernity eds. Meir Y. Soloveichik, Stuart W. Halpern, Shlomo Zuckier Maggid: Jerusalem, 2015. Both demonstrate the power of extra-legal tactics that are philosophically or esoterically based to the development of Jewish identity. ↩
19. Yehuda Amital, Jewish Values in a Changing World ed. Amnon Bazak trans. David Strauss. Ktav Publishing House, 2005 pp. 156-157.↩
20. Brill, “Worlds Destroyed, Worlds Rebuilt" pg. 6.↩
21. Brill, “An Ideal Rosh Yeshiva”. Yet the stories that R’ Soloveitchik quotes and the manner he describes such a person seems tough to even place himself in such a vein even more so R’ Lichtenstein.↩
22. Alan Jotkowitz, “I am in the Middle: Rav Aharon Lichtenstein’s Vision of Centrist Orthodoxy”, Hakirah 22. Lichtenstein, “The Human and Social Factor in Halakha” expands the legal borders to social acknowledgement.↩
23. Etzion Update. The essay is in memory of R’ Lichtenstein. The section follows with former students and colleagues discussing the impact of Lichtenstein’s teachings and character. The same goes for Amital, Rav Amital Stories.↩.
24. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, And From There You Shall Seek, trans. Naomi Goldblum. KTAV, 1978. In the closing chapter The Rav describes sitting around his table learning with our past leaders. Reading their words and arguing with them as if they are present. A talmudic man is he who engages with others unafraid to express his disagreement and further a counterargument. This honesty and passion to be part of the historical narrative is fundamental to aligning with the eternality of peoplehood.↩
25. They complimented each other because they respected one another. I did not study in Gush. I studied in Orayta that ironically staffed many former Gush students. Orayta prided itself on diversity of thought. The most obvious is Rabbi Yitzchak Blau’s dati leumi rationalism and Rabbi David Aaron’s hardal mysticism. Despite the ideological and religious divides they recognise the plurality of approaches and success. They coexist favourably because they revere the other side even if they do not ascribe to the viewpoint.↩
26. Wurzburger, “Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik as Posek of Post-Modern Orthodoxy” Tradition 29.1 pp. 148-149 and Lichtenstein, “The Human and Social Factor in Halakha” Tradition 30.4 pg. 15.↩
27. Lau, “The Challenge of Halakhic Innovation” pp. 14-15.↩
28. Yuval Cherlow, “Following Prophetic Halakhah, Additional Perspectives in Halakhah” ed. Amihai Berholtz, The Quest For Halakhah, (Tel-Aviv: Yediot Aharonot and Beit Morashah, 2003) pg. 123. Shlomo Goren, Response to War: Q&A Regarding Army, War, and Security, “Hadira Rabba” Jerusalem, 1982, 9:117 [Hebrew]. See: פיקוח נפש במלחמה / אברהם וינרוט.↩
29. Regarding opposition to female clergy: Orthodox Union to enforce ban on women rabbis, See: Herschel Schacter “Women Rabbis?” Hakirah 11 and Michael J. Broyde and Shlomo Brody, “Orthodox Women Rabbis? Tentative Thoughts that Distinguish Between the Timely and the Timeless” Hakirah 33. Concerning objections to agunah methodology see: Jeremy Weider, “Hafka'at Kiddushin: A Rebuttal” Tradition 36:4 and then his “Hafka'at Kiddushin: Rejoinder” in the following issue. R’ Aharon Lichtenstein did question the decision down the road in “Formulating Responses in an Egalitarian Age: An Overview,” Varieties of Jewish Experience (Ktav, 2011). He claims that he is in the middle, dialectically enthusiastic for change but also resistant during his conversations with Chaim Sabbato, In Quest of Your Presence—Conversations with Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein (Tel-Aviv: Yedioth Ahronoth and Chemed Book, 2011). It seems he is not diametrically opposed. His position, though somewhat vague in this context, is positive. He wishes to see change grow organically. ↩
30. An Open Letter Of A Modern Orthodox Rabbi To The Ou’s Ban On Orthodox Women Rabbis. See: Shlomo Riskin, WOMEN AS SPIRITUAL LEADERS AND HALAKHIC DECISORS – A POSITION PAPER.To what extent may we look to Women.↩
31. Jonathan Sacks, “A Hesped in Honor of Rav Yosef Soloveitchik,” Memories of a Giant: Eulogies in Memory of Rabbi Dr. Joseph B. Soloveitchik zt”l, Michael A. Bierman, ed. (Jerusalem/New York: Urim Publications, 2003), pp. 286–287.↩
32. Samuel H. Dresner, “Heschel and Halakhah: The Vital Center” Conservative Judaism 43:4, pp. 18-31.↩
33. Amital, “Not Everything is Law” Alon Shvut Bogrim 13. See: Aharon Lichtenstein, “Does Jewish Tradition Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakha?” in Marvin Fox, ed., Modern Jewish Ethics: Theory and Practice (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1975). See also: Aharon Lichtenstein, Happy is the Man who Finds Refuge in You ed. Chaim Navon Yeshivat Har Etzion, 2018 [Hebrew].↩
34. Abraham Joshua Heschel, Between Man and God: An Interpretation of Judaism Harper Press, 1959 pg. 33. ↩
35. Abraham R. Besdin, Reflections of the Rav: Lessons in Jewish Thought Adapted from the Lectures of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik Ktav, 1979 pg. 78.↩
Comments
Post a Comment