In many ways, the American Modern Orthodox community lives in
the shadow of Rav Soleveitchik, the Rav. Most frequently, with his direct
students, he is often cited to buttress their arguments. Often, two Rabbaim
will cite him to prove conflicting viewpoints. This has come to the forefront
in the debates over the past couple of months. A common argument,
used by Rav Shachter regarding women wearing Tefillin and Rabbi Avi Weiss
regarding partnership minyanim has been: “The Rav would have agreed with me if
he were alive today.(1)” As I discuss my thoughts on these matters, I will be
speaking through what I have read from the Rav. However, I am not looking for
what the Rav would have said. Rather, I am looking for framing, a way to look
at the world that resonates with my Orthodox lifestyle and modern milieu.
In Majesty and
Humility, the Rav discusses the dialectic that exists in man. On one level,
he is meant to be majestic, creative in his endeavors. He is meant to be king
and revel in his victory. At the same time man must be humble. He
must know how to accept defeat and withdraw. The Rav believed this dichotomy
permeates all of human endeavor. He begins the article:
“Man is a dialectical being; an inner schism runs through
his personality at every level. Man is a great and creative being because he is
torn by conflict and is always in a state of ontological tenseness and
perplexity” (Majesty and Humility,
p.25).
The conflict between being majestic and being humble is not
limited to any one discipline. Constantly we are put in a struggle between
wanting to accomplish, but also knowing when to stop and withdraw.
While vastly different in character, a broadly similar
dialectic is made in Lonely Man of
Faith. The Rav discusses the two Adam stories at the Beginning of
Bereshit showing how they are the two parts of man. Rabbi Zeigler summarizes
these two Adams:
Adam I's creation "in the image of God" refers to
his capacity and desire to imitate God by becoming a creator, particularly in
response to God's mandate to him to "subdue the earth." This is
expressed by man's practical intellect, i.e. his scientific ability to
comprehend the forces of nature and his technological ability to bend them to
his will. Adam II, on the other hand, does not have such a grandiose
self-image; he is humble, realizing that he was created from the dust of the
earth. He allows himself to be overpowered and defeated by God. While Adam I maintains
some distance from God, relating merely to the divine endowment of creativity,
Adam II has a "genuine living experience" of God and is preoccupied
with Him, as evidenced by the metaphor of God breathing life into his nostrils.
(2)
In similar fashion to Majesty and Humility, man is a dialectic between the creative and the subduer of worlds, and a humble religious person deemed the homo-religiosus.
I would like to discuss how this can apply to
Halakha. One would have thought that the practice of Halakha is one for Adam II
and humble man. It is for those that make themselves subservient to G-d.
However at the beginning of the second part of Halakhik Man, the Rav paints a
very different picture.
"Halakhik
man is a man who longs to create, to bring into being something new, something
original. The study of Torah, by definition, means gleaning new, creative
insights from the Torah (hiddushim). The notion ofhiddush, of creative
interpretation, is not limited solely to the theoretical domain but extends as
well to the practical domain, into the real world. The most fervent desire of
Halakhik man is to behold the replenishment of the deficiency in creation, when
the real world will conform to the ideal world and the most exalted and
glorious of creations, the ideal Halakha, will be actualized in its midst. The
dream of creation is the central idea in the Halakhik consciousness – the idea
of the importance of man as a partner of the Almighty in the act of creation,
man as a creator of worlds” (Halakhik Man, page
99).
Halakha is for Adam I, just as it is for Adam II. It is for the majestic part of man, just as it is for the humble part of man.
Halakha is for Adam I, just as it is for Adam II. It is for the majestic part of man, just as it is for the humble part of man.
It is with all this in mind that I have been thinking about
the problems of our day, specifically regarding the conversations about the
role of women and the role of the community Rabbi.
Those that are trying to make changes in Halakha, in my mind,
have good intentions. They are trying to be majestic, and replenish a
“deficiency in creation”. There is a lack of meaning in some women’s
relationship to their Judaism and the attempt is to be majestic and find a
creative interpretation that allows for a newfound meaning. Those that seek
change fear that the Rabbis of today are too focused on humility. This focus
can stunt creativity and the ability to tackle problems head on. Instead those
that seek change are told to be humble, to only let gedolim solve their problems,
which in turn magnifies the fears.
On the other side, those that have been against changes have
maintained this mindset of humbleness. The notion of being a homo-religiosus is
a strong one, as we live in a long train of tradition that has lasted centuries.
They fear the full on creative and majestic nature of what they are seeing, and
want those that are proponents of change to be humble. Don’t think any Rabbi
can decide for themselves whatever they want. Creativity needs to be tampered
by humbleness.
It is the great nature of the Rav
that enabled him to be both of these two opposing ideas at the same time. Now,
it is up to us to try. We need to be humble, be the homo-religiosus that learns
how the system works and how we can use it. At the same time it is up to us to
push for more creative understanding of what women’s roles truly are and how
they can work with the needs of a modern woman. We need a positive view of what
women’s roles are, without trying to create a new one that fulfills us without
compromising our tradition (3). The time is dire. Majesty and humility should
not be divided. They need to come together to form the dialectical nature of
man.
(1) For some fun, see this clip and replace the Rav with Martin Luther King Jr. h/t Boris Tuman
(2) http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/rav/rav16.htm
(3) I am trying to come up with one for myself to understand. I think I am close, but need to discuss it with those that have far greater insight than I. I would be happy to discuss it, however.
