A Lecture Series by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik

Lecture 8: Delivered February 26, 1959

Jewish loneliness should be transformed into the kind of prophetic solitude that embraces the uniqueness of Jewish destiny. Jewish uniqueness is expressed by the covenant. Just as the prophets felt compelled to relay their message despite the burden involved, even to the degree that they would be harmed for doing so, we too must accept our covenant on that level of commitment, as something we are compelled to do and cannot cast off. What is the content of this covenant? God established two covenants. At the Exodus from Egypt, He calls the people an am, implying the togetherness and unity of peoplehood. At Sinai, with the giving of the Torah, He calls them a goy, referring to a political nation. These are the two covenants, but the focus of this lecture is the Egyptian covenant. Am refers to an existential community. Because it involves God, it commits the numinous side of man, compelling Man to draw himself out from his seclusion to join other people, even people he doesn’t like, in this community of I, thou, and He, i.e., God. In practical terms, the covenant of Egypt creates a community of shared history, but also of shared experiences on three levels: 1. shared interests, 2. shared feelings or emotions, and 3. shared responsibilities. 1. Shared interests mean that all Jews share the same fate and no one can escape it, and even assimilation does not help. 2. Shared emotional involvement means that we must feel compassion and co-suffering with others of the community, as well as joy with others of the community. 3. Shared responsibilities mean, first, that we are morally accountable to one another. We must answer for the conduct of our brother to a degree that no other nation must.  We share collective liability in the eyes of non-Jewish society, and also in the eyes of the Torah. The mitzvah of sanctifying God’s name and the prohibition of profaning God’s name are based on this community of collective responsibility and liability. So is the prohibition of squealing. Secondly, besides moral accountability for one another, shared responsibilities refer to a unique sense of justice, according to which we are accountable by law to support one another. This is the mitzvah and halakhah of tzedakah, which, unlike charity, can be compelled by authority. Tzedakah is not a moral but a juridic requirement. Tzedakah is the halakhic expression of the existential community of am.

Jump to:

00:01:17 Prophecy and prophetic solitude as a burden

00:15:35 The two covenants, at the Exodus and at Sinai

00:25:15 The existential community

00:40:12 Community of shared interests

01:01:41 Community of shared emotional involvement

01:03:20 Community of shared responsibilities

01:30:37 Tzedakah as justice

Access lecture summaries and course materials at www.TraditionOnline.org/JPM

The post A Jewish Philosophy of Man (E8): The Content of the Covenant of Egypt – The Jewish Existential Community first appeared on Tradition Online.

A Lecture Series by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik

Lecture 7: Delivered February 12, 1959

Different people experience loneliness and aloneness differently. Some people are so preoccupied with how they impress others, with their public persona, that they lack rootedness in their own, private world. When society loses interest in such people, the resulting loneliness becomes a kind of torture, infused with despair and defeat. On the other hand, there are other people who never forget their own, private, numinous world, even as they remain committed to and even sacrifice for the outside world. If rejected by the crowd, this person remains secure in his or her unique self, confident in the special, singular message that only he or she can bring to the world. This is not loneliness but the great experience of aloneness, or what may be called prophetic loneliness. Abraham, Moses, Elijah, and all prophets experienced this aloneness, when the crowd was unwilling to receive their unique message. While loneliness for the first kind of person is paralyzing, prophetic solitude drives creativity. The prophet does not withdraw from society, but all while engaging with and giving to society he paradoxically distances himself from society, remaining in a world for himself. This dichotomy is reflected in Abraham’s description of himself as a resident and a stranger. The two kinds of people, the lonely and the alone, are manifested in two aspects of our lives, fate and destiny. When man confronts a world unsympathetic to his quest for meaningfulness and accepts defeat, that is fate. When man, in the face of such adversity, refuses to yield and asserts his own creative vision, that is destiny. We all inevitably oscillate dialectically between the two. When one measures self-esteem by accomplishment and conquest, that is majesty, but if, facing defeat, one returns to live within oneself, then majesty turns into dignity. The solution to the problem of Jewish loneliness, of the alienation of the Jew from society, is to make this transition from loneliness to prophetic solitude. The modern Jewish State is not the solution to our loneliness. In fact, it increased the loneliness of the Jew. If the Jew would cultivate dignity instead of majesty, would stop craving praise and acceptance from others and embrace his own unique destiny, many of his problems would be solved. This means changing from ivri to Yisrael, from fate to destiny. How is this Jewish uniqueness characterized? We are a covenantal community, a community of the committed, bound by obligations taken on at the dawn of our history.

Jump to:

00:01:16 Different kinds of people experiencing loneliness and aloneness differently

00:17:39 Prophetic loneliness

00:37:59 Fate and destiny

01:02:40 Majesty and dignity

01:12:18 The problem and solution of the alienation of the Jew from society

Access lecture summaries and course materials at www.TraditionOnline.org/JPM

The post A Jewish Philosophy of Man (e7): Prophetic Loneliness as the Solution to the Problem of Jewish Loneliness first appeared on Tradition Online.

Ta’anit Esther marks the 40th Yahrzeit of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l. Those old enough to remember his passing no doubt recall the feeling of colossal loss for the Gadol and Posek HaDor. But, now, four decades on, we must also consider his enduring legacy for Jewish life and law. To help us out with that our editor, Jeffrey Saks, catches up with R. Moshe Kurtz — the rabbi of Cong. Sons of Israel in Allentown, PA, and the author of Meoros Moshe, which anthologized R Feinstein’s teachings on Pirkei Avot. Our readers also know him as the author of our “Unpacking the Iggerot” column at TraditionOnline.org.

The post Rav Moshe’s Legacy first appeared on Tradition Online.

A Lecture Series by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik

Lecture 6: Delivered February 5, 1959

Continuing with the idea of Judaism’s glorification of the anonymous person, the Talmud says that the participants in the annual “kallah” Torah lectures receive divine reward not according to their intellectual achievements, but according to the amount of discomfort they put themselves through in order to participate. Thus, the diligent ignoramus could receive more reward than the accomplished scholar. Judaism stresses axiological democracy, the equal worth of the great scholar and the little person. Modern Man has yet to live up to this ideal of axiological democracy, and the biggest challenge of today’s State of Israel is to live up to this ideal. The Talmud captures this axiological democracy in its dictum, “How do you know that your blood is redder than the blood of your neighbor?” Although Judaism’s moral code recognizes the common right to dignity, such that we may not judge or embarrass anyone, it places special emphasis on the dignity on the humble and lowly person, with special injunctions against harming the deaf, blind, orphan, widow, and stranger. Rabban Gamliel the Prince, under the order of execution by the Romans, considered that perhaps he deserved his fate due to once making a widow feel unimportant. This sense of tenderness towards the downtrodden reflects God’s own behavior and attitude towards the poor and oppressed, as described in Scripture. Peretz’s story “Bontzye Shweig” illustrates this idea as well. This analysis leads to the problem of Jewish loneliness, which requires distinguishing between two different feelings, loneliness and aloneness. Loneliness comes from others inevitably rejecting one’s message, one’s kerygma. Aloneness comes from the numinous uniqueness inherent in each person. Loneliness brings with it destructive emotions, whereas aloneness is a creative and motivating force. Every person must suffer the loneliness of rejection at some point in life. Next lecture will discuss how Judaism tries to solve the problem of loneliness. Topics triggered by audience questions include the Rosenberg trial, historical controversies among Jews, establishment of a Sanhedrin in Israel, and standardized text for prayer.

Jump to:

00:01:15 The Talmudic dictum that reward is granted according to effort

00:08:17 Axiological democracy in Judaism, modern society, and the State of Israel

00:26:24 The human right to dignity and the prohibition to embarrass people

00:44:27 Judaism’s concern with the socially anonymous person

00:59:30 Imitatio Dei, imitating God, and the story of the death of “Bontzye Shweig”

01:26:29 Introduction to the problem of Jewish loneliness

Access lecture summaries and course materials at www.TraditionOnline.org/JPM

The post A Jewish Philosophy of Man (E6): Judaism’s Glorification of the Anonymous Person first appeared on Tradition Online.

A Lecture Series by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik

Lecture 5: Delivered January 15, 1959

The two Creation accounts reflect not a split in the text but a split in Man. Judaism has a dialectical view of Man, accepting mutually exclusive positions. Man was created alone as a unique and solitary being, but he was also created in a relationship with the Thou, in a communal existence. Man craves both, opposite modes of existence, oscillating like a pendulum between surging towards relationships with others and withdrawing into oneself. Judaism, unlike Catholicism, allows divorce, because only the kerygmatic side of Man can commit to another person, not the numinous side. We are limited in our ability to connect with other personalities due to the numinous aspect of Man. For numinous Man, the question “who am I” is unanswerable, since the I is an eternal mystery beyond rationalization, like a tune I can feel but that cannot be sung. Judaism insists that the worth of the individual is to be judged not by kerygmatic contributions to the community, but by the very fact that the person exists. The dignity of Man comes from the image of God which is found in numinous, not kerygmatic, Man. Judaism revolutionized social philosophy with this idea, upsetting the Classical view of Man. A series of halakhic laws demonstrates Judaism’s “doctrine of idealization of anonymity,” meaning, the chosen-ness of the unknown, forlorn individual. One such law states that if a band of heathens demands the surrender of one person, or else the whole city will be destroyed, we do not turn over the one person, even if that person is a criminal. Another example of such a law is the obligation on whomever finds it to bury an anonymous dead body, even if the High Priest would consequently have to cancel the Yom Kipur atonement service. The uniqueness of each person is the foundation of Judaic ethics. However, the dialectical approach says that although we treat others according to their intrinsic, numinous worth, I myself must not rely on my intrinsic worth but am obligated to contribute to the community. Discussions prompted by audience questions include Holocaust decisions to save only a part of the community by handing over another part, Judaism’s attitudes towards war, towards parochialism vs. universalism, towards body and soul, and towards religion and ethics.

00:01:15 Dialectical interpretation of the Creation story in Genesis

00:23:25 Inability of institutions like marriage to commit one’s numinous side

00:51:16 Judging the worth of the personality not by kerygma but by numinous existence

01:03:44 Halakhah prohibiting the handing over of one person to save the city

01:07:54 Questions from audience and responses about war and Holocaust situations

01:18:55 Halakhah of finding an anonymous corpse

01:29:45 Questions from audience and responses about radical individualism and other topics

Access lecture summaries and course materials at www.TraditionOnline.org/JPM

The post A Jewish Philosophy of Man (E5): The Dialectical Approach to the Individual and the Community first appeared on Tradition Online.

This episode of the Tradition Podcast opens with the voice of Rabbi Joseph B. Solovetichik, recorded in 1958, the very year our Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought was founded. The Rav was speaking as part of a series of lectures which TRADITION has recently presented in digitally remastered form as “A Jewish Philosophy of Man.” In this course R. Soloveitchik asks: What is the unique contribution of Judaism towards our understanding of the most enigmatic figure in all of creation, man? How is this understanding reflected in the halakha? What does this unique perspective teach us about the relationship between Jews and the modern world? We are grateful to Rabbi Dr. Mark Smilowitz — who joins us on the podcast to discuss his work in assembling this resource and its enduring importance for Jewish thought and life.

At TraditionOnline.org/JPM you too can “enroll” in this course and learn directly, as it were, from the Rav. Our website curates the recordings along with transcripts of the lectures, and summaries which help situate this material within the framework of the Rav’s other teachings and writings (very many of which appeared in the pages of TRADITION). A special digital 262-page companion volume containing all that accompanying written material is available for download online or as a print book at Amazon.com.

Mark Smilowitz is a veteran educator in the United States and in Israel and earned his doctorate from the Hebrew University for work explaining Rabbi Soloveitchik’s approach to the relationship between halakha and philosophy. Read his “The Lonely Man of Faith as Halakhic Philosophy” (TRADITION, Spring 2023).

The post Understanding a Jewish Philosophy of Man first appeared on Tradition Online.

A Lecture Series by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik

Lecture 4: Delivered December 18, 1958

Judaism rejects the Classical view of Man as a universal, as a mere representative of the whole, but it also rejects the modern individualistic view. The Jewish view should be reconstructed from halakhic sources, from rules and laws which are uniquely Jewish, and not from medieval Jewish philosophical sources which too often fell under the influence of Aristotle and do not reflect a genuinely Jewish view. Judaism claims that Man is a lonely, solitary, singular being. This is not the same as the modern individualistic view which, although it prioritizes the individual over the community, sees all individuals as identical, interchangeable, and replaceable. This experience of separateness and estrangement, says the Jewish view, divides Man both from the rest of Creation in general and also from fellow individuals. This loneliness, though it remains a source of distress, is not a destructive emotion but rather an ennobling experience, a source of Man’s greatness and dignity. This singularity of Man is the meaning of Man’s being created in God’s image, for it reflects God’s singularity and loneliness. This loneliness is the heart of Jewish prayer, which emphasizes the petition over the hymn, distress over comfort. Judaism opposes the family pew in order to make prayer a solitary experience. Too much emphasis on peace of mind, comfort and success shuts out God. The essence of human loneliness is an inwardness that cannot be observed by the outsider, and cannot be fully communicated in words. Man has a depth existence, not just a surface existence. All other objects in the world have only a surface existence. There is more to Man than his works and his surface accomplishments. But Man also has a surface existence. These two sides of Man are reflected in contradictions between the first two chapters of Genesis regarding the Creation story. The incommunicable side of Man is called numinous Adam, and the relatable side is called kerygmatic Adam.

Jump to:

00:01:15 Two modern theories of man’s relationship to the community

00:13:38 Reconstructing a genuinely Jewish view from the Halakhah

00:16:46 Man as a lonely being

00:23:23 Man’s loneliness and uniqueness reflecting God’s loneliness and uniqueness

00:44:48 Loneliness and Jewish prayer

01:10:35 Audience questions and responses

01:17:46 The definition of loneliness as having a depth-existence

01:50:26 Man’s dualism derived from the first two chapters of Genesis

Access lecture summaries and course materials at www.TraditionOnline.org/JPM

The post A Jewish Philosophy of Man (E4): Judaism’s View of Man as a Lonely Being first appeared on Tradition Online.

For much of the modern era, Jewish life rested, quietly but decisively, on an implicit promise. Power would be constrained by law. The State would bind itself to rules not solely invented for its own advantage. The weak would be protected not by benevolence but by structure. Jews, long practiced in the arts of minority survival, understood and benefited from this promise.

Chaim Strauchler’s recent essay “New/Old American-Jewish Realities” at TraditionOnline.org asks what happens when those norms and rules begin to fray. He suggests that antisemitism is not a bug but a feature of unrestrained power. Reassessing R. Moshe Feinstein’s vision of America as a “nation of hesed,” he contends that Judaism has always prepared for moral loneliness—surviving not through kindness of strangers, but through internal discipline, law, and covenantal courage.

Chaim Strauchler, an associate editor of TRADITION, is rabbi of Cong. Rinat Yisrael in Teaneck. He joined our journal’s editor Jeffrey Saks to discuss the essay and some of the response it’s been garnering.

The post New/Old American-Jewish Realities first appeared on Tradition Online.

A Lecture Series by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik

Lecture 3: Delivered December 4, 1958

Modern philosophy knows of three approaches to the question, what is Man: the Biblical, the Classical Greek, and the modern scientific views. The Classical Greek and Biblical anthropologies agree that man is unique and incongruous with the natural order, while the modern scientific view considers man as just a more skilled animal. The Classical and Biblical views also agree that the uniqueness of man is not granted to him as a gift but as a task to be achieved. The two also agree that the intellect is the greatest tool available to man to develop his uniqueness. They disagree, however, as to whether the development of the intellect is the final goal or just a tool to achieve a greater goal. The highest form of human engagement for Judaism is something beyond intellectual achievement, something to be identified and discussed not now but in a future lecture, but for now we can say that Judaism is not logocentric as the Greeks were. Judaism also differed from the Classical Greek view of Man in that the Classical view concerned itself with Man as a universal, anonymous being, with Mankind, with the community, and not with the individual, lonely person. They saw the individual as a meon, which in Greek means a non-existence or semi-existence, while the general species is an ontos on, a true existence. Individual Divine Providence, in this view, depends on the degree to which the single person contributes to society. This Greek “class absolutism” measures the worth and dignity of an individual by his usefulness to society. Greek democracy is based on political equality, not axiological (value) equality. Axiological equality measures the worth of a person based not on his contribution to society but on his intrinsic value. This question of class absolutism vs. axiological democracy has tremendous practical implications on how and why to allocate social services. The Classical view yields a theory of social services based on pragmatic, not moral, concerns that would favor those who have the most to contribute to society. Children would be prioritized over the elderly and gifted children over the mediocre. Education would serve not what is best for the child but what would best serve society. Judaism has a different view, which will be discussed in a future lecture.

Jump to:

00:02:46 Three anthropologies regarding the essence of Man

00:06:17 Whether Man is unique or just a more skilled animal

00:14:29 The uniqueness of Man as a task and challenge, not a gift

00:38:49 Human intellect as the final goal, or just a tool to a achieve a greater goal

00:59:40 Classical Greek thought on the priority of society over the individual

01:24:03 Practical implications of Greek “class absolutism” on social services

Access lecture summaries and course materials at www.TraditionOnline.org/JPM

The post A Jewish Philosophy of Man (E3): Three Approaches to Man first appeared on Tradition Online.

A Lecture Series by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik

Lecture 2: Delivered November 20, 1958

The unique Jewish viewpoint should be placed in the context of Occidental (Western) thought and religion. However, we must avoid the danger of applying the categories and the question-set of the scientific world view, which is fundamentally pragmatic and utilitarian, to the paradoxical religious experience. We are not interested in a psychology of religion or anthropology of religion, but in a religious psychology and religious anthropology. That is to say, we don’t want to know what psychology or anthropology have to say about religion, but what religion has to say about psychology and anthropology. The task of formulating a Jewish anthropology is further hindered by the fact that Judaism, unfortunately, never formulated an original philosophy, but has been mostly apologetic, due to the shyness of our leaders about publicly expressing details about our most intimate relationship with God. Instead, Jews express religiosity through laws that correlate to that inner experience. The Halakhah holds an untold story about the Jewish religious experience that is difficult to unravel, but that is the task of Jewish anthropology. Like science, Jewish anthropology operates with a system of dynamic, a priori postulates, but while scientific postulates are inductive, relying on experimentation and observation, Judaism’s postulates are deductive, like mathematics. Judaism therefore provides a metaphysic of man, certain presupposed axioms about the nature of Man, although it remains open to adjusting some of its postulates in the face of newly encountered religious realities. It also allows multiple axioms about Man that contradict one another. On the other hand, Judaism also felt the need to transpose this metaphysic into a practical, functional, living creed through the Halakhah. It translates speculative metaphysics into concrete action by way of man’s emotional life.

Jump to:

00:01:18 Placing Jewish religious philosophy in the context of Western thought

00:03:15 First problem: error of describing religion in scientific terms

00:29:19 Second problem: Jewish shyness about expressing the private religious experience

00:58:05 Comparing Judaism’s a priori postulate system with that of science

01:04:04 Translating the Jewish metaphysic of man into concrete action through Halakhah

01:07:25 The role of creativity and metaphysical postulation in science

01:17:19 Judaism’s attention to man’s emotional life, and the logic and duties of the heart

01:38:45 Audience questions and responses, and reading assignment for next lecture

Access lecture summaries and course materials at www.TraditionOnline.org/JPM

The post A Jewish Philosophy of Man (E2): Methodology for a Jewish Religious Anthropology, from Metaphysical to Practical first appeared on Tradition Online.