Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 008

Wednesday, March 28 2001

• Matzah mehl Rolls on Erev Pesach - Partial Retraction!
• RE: Matzah mehl Rolls on Erev Pesach
• RE: Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza for Ashkenazic Gebrokts Eaters
• EPSBEFAGE, was:Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza for Ashkenazic Gebrokts Eaters
• Re: Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza for Ashkenazic Gebrokts Eaters
• RE: Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza for Ashkenazic Gebrokts Eaters
• RE: Gebrochts
• RE: Gebrochts
• EPSBEFAGE
• Re: Erev Pesach she' chal b'Shabbos Eitza for Ashkenazic Gebrokts Eaters
• Eating matza Erev Pessach
• RE: vehigdta l'vinkha
• Re: bein hashemoshot
• Re: water on Pesach
• Re: water on Pesach
• Shower in Lieu of Tevilas Ezra?
• shower for tevilat Ezra
• Is'arusa d'l'Eila; Is'arusa d'l'Tatta
• IdE, IdT and Neshomo Yeseiro
• Seudah Sh'lishish (was: EPSBEFAGE, was:Erev Pesach she' chal b'Sh abbos Eitza for Ashkenazic Gebrokts Eaters)
• Fwd: RAV -14: Catharsis of the Intellect

Ummm...
Rabbosai...

The Shemiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa vol. 2 chap. 56 note 50 cites my eitza, 
claims the MB *would* - with enough mei peiros - endorse it - and ends:

"U'ktzas Tzorich Iyun lamah ha'Acharonim ein mevi'im eitza zu v'yotzei 
yedei chovaso l'kil ha'dei'os."

Tzarich iyun indeed!

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
> Correct. I do not understand why, but the  MB does say in 471:19 that one 
> may not eat Matzo Meal products rebaked, even with wine and oil, on Erev 
> Pesach (he seems not to  cite any source for this chumrah). 
> Oh well, so much for my proposal.

Don't be so quick to surrender.  IMHO, the MB in 471:19 was talking about
the case where the matzah was in big enough pieces such that there is still
toar lechem.  Proof: the Magen Avraham there (s"k 8) says exactly like the
MB and adds: ayain MA on 168:10 and on 461:4.  In 168:10, the S"A is dealing
with when bread loses its toar lechem and you therefore make mezonos on it.
The S"A distinguishes there between bishul and no bishul.  But I assume that
it's clear to everyone that one makes a mezonos on matzah meal cakes, even
though they are baked and not cooked.  See also MB 461:20.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il]
> Why a "short while"? I would think that if you only walk away for a
> minute or two, you run the risk of bracha she'aina tzricha. The last
> time this happened, I can remember going for a walk around the block
> between the meals, and even then my shver thought it was bracha she'aina
> tzricha. This time I'm shooting for enough time to have fifteen minutes
> or so between meals.

And why does a 15 minute wait not cause a bracha she'einah tzricha?  Aren't
you deliberately putting yourself in a situation which requires a new bracha
where you otherwise didn't need to make one.  It would be different if you,
for example, went to a shiur in shul in between--there is a reason to that.
Here you are leaving your house solely to cause yourself to require a new
bracha.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

That subject line is getting out of hand;  time to haul out the RT.

From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> Eventhough this doesn't fulfill the requirements that some Poskim 
> have of eating Shaleshedos after the sixth hour, prefferebly after 
> Davening Mincha

IS there any preference of after Mincha, or is it a function of not
eating before Mincha, so that me'ikar hadin it would be mutar in the
zman mincha gedola? Or was it confused with the achar chatzos preference?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

"Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote in Avodah V7 #4:
>"Challah" Rolls mae from Matzo Meal and water plus some egg flavoring. Can
>be eaten after Chatzos, lichora, as well - good for Se'udah Shelishis (you
>can wash if you are kovei'ah se'udah, like egg chometz challos).

I have been informed that while a *cooked* matza sheruya product does not 
have the dean of matza (and all that follows from this with regard to 
eating matza on erev Pesah), a *baked* matza sheruya product does indeed 
have the dean of matza.

Any comments?

Next question:  Are you certain that Ashkenazi gebrokts non-eaters would 
even refrain from such on erev Pesah?  Especially since they do not refrain 
from eating such on Shemini shel Pesah.

And, rearding se'uda 3, to the best of my knowledge, the very most lenient 
opinion would approve even of matza `ashira only up to samukh leminha 
qetana (while other opinions prohibit from `alot hashahar or from 
mid-day).  (No problem for Ashkenazi children [or old folk?], of course.)

Any comments?

                 IRA L. JACOBSON
                 mailto:laser@ieee.org

On 28 Mar 01, at 13:58, Feldman, Mark wrote:
>> Why a "short while"? I would think that if you only walk away for a
>> minute or two, you run the risk of bracha she'aina tzricha...
>>          This time I'm shooting for enough time to have 
>> fifteen minutes or so between meals.

> And why does a 15 minute wait not cause a bracha she'einah tzricha?  Aren't
> you deliberately putting yourself in a situation which requires a new bracha
> where you otherwise didn't need to make one. 

I think that if you go away for long enough, regardless of your
motivation, you will need another bracha. I don't know that 15 minutes
is enough.

-- Carl
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

From: gil.student@citicorp.com [mailto:gil.student@citicorp.com]
> I think I was unclear in my post. The Rashbash forbade food made from
> matzah meal because of a gezeirah atu chametz [as the annotator to the
> new edition of his teshuvos points out, the gemara he quotes as proof
> does not appear that way in our editions]. It could be argued that this
> is the reasoning behind not eating gebrokts as well, in which case we
> have a rishon forbidding gebrokts.

I always understood that the reason not to eat gebrokts is the fear that the
matzah wasn't baked sufficiently and may turn to chometz if exposed to
liquid.  If the fear was a g'zeirah that it looks like chometz, then why
didn't they differentiate, as did the Rashbash, between larger pieces of
matzah and matzah which was ground into tiny pieces?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Moshe Feldman wrote:
> I always understood that the reason not to eat gebrokts is the fear that the 
> matzah wasn't baked sufficiently and may turn to chometz if exposed to liquid.

I was offering an alternate explanation, one that is based on rishonim.

> If the fear was a g'zeirah that it looks like chometz, then why didn't they 
> differentiate, as did the Rashbash, between larger pieces of matzah and matzah
> which was ground into tiny pieces?
     
Ein hachi nami.  There are plenty of gezeirahs that don't fit exactly into their
stated reason because of log plug rabbanan.

Gil Student

>> The Gra did not eat Shaleshudes under these conditions.
>  At all? Is this in Maaseh Rav somewhere?

        The explanation was that the chachamim were not mechayav sholosh
seudos bemokom delo efshar.  Don't know if it's in the MR.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 28 Mar 01, at 20:14, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2001, at 20:25, Harry Maryles wrote:
> > The Gra did not eat Shaleshudes under these conditions.

> At all? Is this in Maaseh Rav somewhere? 

I looked in Maaseh Rav and did not find it. Do you have a source for 
this. 

-- Carl

>I see no one indicates that the source of NOT eating matza erev pessach
>is in a Yerushalmi Pessachim 68b which equates eating matza erev Pessach
>with *ha'bah al arusato b'veit chamav* ! The Bavli Pessachim 49a which
>deals Erev Pessach she'chal b'Shabbat happens to mention a case of
>"v'le'echol seudat eirusin b'veit chamav". Was the lashon of the
>Yerushalmi an aggadic rather than an halachic proscription ??

I was at shiur this past Sunday where the Rov explained this connection.
B'kiztur that we aspire to live lives of kedusha, the ba al arusaso
b'bais chamav is someone with no self control - he cannot wait until
(birchas) nisuin. Similarly one who eats matzah on EP and won't wait
until he can eat it as a mitzvah...

kol tuv
Sender Baruch

From: Carl and Adina Sherer [mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il]
>> R' -mi, you are assuming that mah nishtana was always said at the
>> beginning of the seder and not after the meal.  It ain't necessarily so.

Are you referring to the time of the Bais Hamikdash, when there were a
number of shifts eating the korban Pesach.  Did the first shift eat and then
talk later?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 09:30:27PM -0500, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
: Micah seems to have misunderstood my intentions in asking for observations
: on sky changes starting at sunset. I have no intention of correcting
: observations for specific atmospheric corrections. Small differences
: between observers at similar lattitudes (and similar altitudes) can
: be lumped under observational uncertainty...

I think I did understand, but we disagree over this latter point. The
change in refraction index of the air is a major input for weather
prediction. (Which is how farmers noted a connection between the color
of the sky at sunset and the next day's weather.) The error isn't
small. In Maine, we're talking about as much as 20 minutes just off
whether conditions (a cold humid day vs a dry summery one -- obviously
would never happen overnight), and altitude can give a 24 min variation
between sea level and Denver.

I think the errors are great enough to: a- make us question the use of
tables; b- rule out your proposal. The error is great enough to blur
the difference between shitos.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On 28 Mar 01, at 10:04, Eli Turkel wrote:
> Sorry, but I don't understand the difference between someone using bread
> as a bait in the kinneret and someone cooking fresh bread in a bakery
> and the odor and particles go into the air (if you prefer some liquid
> chametz that evaporates into the air)

One you can see and the other you can't. Like with bugs in
vegetables. You're only mechuyav to check with your eyes; not with
a microscope.

-- Carl

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 12:35:05AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: One you can see and the other you can't. Like with bugs in
: vegetables. You're only mechuyav to check with your eyes; not with
: a microscope.

I think RET's problem is that after the bread ends up in the water system,
it too isn't nir'eh la'ayin.

-mi

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> I know someone who heard the same thing from R' Tzuriel, and 
> subsequently showers before Yamim Nora'im rather than go to a mikvah.

Tisha kavin is a bedi'avad if no mikva is available. Why make it into
a lachatchila?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Rema Orach Chayim 606:4 from Maharam B'B.

> (BTW, it wasn't only the mekubalim who meditated. See in Michtav
> mei'Eliyahu I, REED's instructions for how to learn a mussar
> concept. Repeating the same sentence or pasuk for 20 minutes or more
> is meditative.)

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan in his book on the subject sees meditation everywhere
in classical sources. Ayen sham for a most interesting discussion.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Responding elsewhere to a query:
> Let's start a discussion here about why no besamim in hadalah on Motzei
> Shabbos/ Yom Tov as per the machloikes between Toisfois and Rashbam in
> Gemarah Pesachim (102b): The argument seems to be quite extreme insofar
> as it would seem at first glance that Toisfois maintans that we do not
> in fact have a neshama yesairah on Yom Tov, whereas Rashbam (like Zohar
> etc.) insists that we do.

> It would be interesting to know what the mokor of the Rashbam is (al pi
> nigleh) when the Gemarah (Baitza 16a) suggests this idea of a neshama
> yesairah based on the possuk in Ki Sissa which relates in specific
> to Shabbos.

Your e-mail got me thinking, somewhat tangentially:

We all say, colloquially, that on Shabbos we get *a* neshomo yeseira.

This is probably an error.

On Shabbos, as part of the IdE, we receive Or Makkif in addition to our
general Or Penimi - but this is not an *extra* neshomo, but, rather,
an additional portion of our existing neshomo as a mattono (Beitza there)

Yom Tov, as an IdT (actually, as my wife pointed out, this should be
IdS (Is'arusa d'l'Satah), is at time to reach out, via simchas Yom Tov,
for additional illumination - but it is not bestowed upon us.

That is probably why R' Eliezer holds that one can celebrate YT by
Kullo la'Hashem.

I know this is not al pi nigleh, but it does suggest that the machlokes
may be based on whether we "mourn" specifically the departure of Shabbos's
additional kedusha that is a mattana or the possibility of our achieving
greater kedusha via our own efforts - Yom Tov. You can probably convert
that to a nigleh machlokes if you try :-) .


At 10:31 PM 3/24/01 -0600, micha@aishdas.org wrote:
>> The Arizal in the Tikkunei Shabbos ("Askinu Se'udoso") identifies Shabbos
>> night as Chakal Tapuchin Kaddishin - the aspect of our Avodas Hashem
>> consecrating Shabbos - much as our work creates a crop in an orchard...

>I don't understand the identification with the avos. Look at how the avos
>describe Mori'ah. Avraham sees it as a har, as the chol rising up toward
>HKBH. Yitzchak finds a sadeh, a place where he can radiate kedushah to the
>surrounding environment as my greatgrandfather put it (Divrei Yisrael I,
>Vayeitzei; see http://www.aishdas.org/asp/vayeitzei.html>). Yaakov dwells
>there in Beis E-lokim, a tziruf.

Ah, the problem with RSRH.

Mir ken zoggen punkt fahkert!

Har is above us, and the aura emanates from above down - IdE

Sadeh is something I work at and raise the crop therein up - IdT

Bayi, we can agrre on - Ze'eir Anpin.

>RYGB later writes:
>> R' Shlomo Fisher notes that Shabbos is, overwhelmingly, a manifestation of
>> IdE, as opposed to Yom Tov, which is IdT - except for Pesach, where the
>> Ge'ulah was an IdE - without Am Yisroel's merit, or even great longing ...

>Then why do we set the date for Pesach, as we do for Succos? One would
>think that Shabbos, which is primarily IdE, is of course a schedule
>set by HKBH, and that yamim tovim depend on beis din's kiddush hachodesh
>just because it sets dates for IdT. In which case, how does Pesach
>jibe?

Good question! Nu, zog a teirutz...


At 05:03 AM 3/28/01 +0200, Mrs. Gila Atwood wrote:
>How about different parts of Tefilla?  Tachnun definitely IDT but Amidah
>itself is an enabling of IDE after all the preceding preparation?

>So preparation during the sefirah is IDT and Shavuos is IDE it would seem.

Makes sense.

>It seems in many things,   IdT *leads to IdE*.  hishtadlut/tefila/zchus  to
>syata dishmaya in a broad sense.
>Ani ledodi vedodi li- in a sense:  I reach out to my love, (THEN) my love
>will reach out to me-  reciprocal relationship.
>On a penimiyus level relates to ahavat olamim IdT  leading to ahava raba.
>IdE in the Tanya.

Ditto.

>       you might think the opposite:  human effort is required to bring the
>flour and water together but fermentation is inevitable process over time.
>However, matza represents minimal hishtadlus, zerizus, simplicity, no delay
>and thus a higher level of bitachon whereas bread is regular bitachon.
>mon was also associated with tal- IdT.

Ah - but it was *layered* in the Tal - v'duk.

>RSF goes further. Fermentation is the breakdown of enzymes.

>I'm sure you mean the breakdown of starch by enzymes.

>[As far as I know, it's the breakdown of starches and sugars by microbes.
>The original point remains, though. -mi]

Granted.

A kushya I have had since my first introduction to Kabbalistic systems in 
ninth grade is, in the IdT scheme of Sefirah, why do we start from Chesed 
and descend to Malchus - should it not be the opposite.

V'yesh l'yashev, but I will let others try their hand first.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

From: Gershon Dubin [mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com]
> IS there any preference of after Mincha, or is it a function of not
> eating before Mincha, so that me'ikar hadin it would be mutar in the
> zman mincha gedola? Or was it confused with the achar chatzos 
> preference?

Since Mincha may davened only after 6.5 hours, and chatzos is at 6 hours, it
can't be that it was confused with the achar chatzos preference.  Especially
since many have a minyan kavuah where they daven Mincha on Shabbos, so there
isn't a k'peidah not to eat before Mincha.

IIRC there is a diyuk in the Rambam to eat seudah sh'lishis after Mincha.  

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Another section of this series.
                Steve Brizel
                  Zeliglaw@aol.com


			      YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
		  ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
	       INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF RAV SOLOVEITCHIK
			     by Rav Ronnie Ziegler

    LECTURE #14: Catharsis of the Intellect and of the Religious Experience


Rav Soloveitchik's discussion of the critical concept of catharsis --
the purification of man's personality and existence -- relates to four
areas of human experience: the aesthetic-physical, emotional, intellectual,
and moral- religious. In the past several lectures, we examined the first
two of these, as well as related issues which they engendered. This week,
we will close our discussion of the theme of catharsis with an examination
of the last two of these categories: the purification of the intellectual
and the religious realms.

REDEEMING THE INTELLECTUAL EXPERIENCE

    "Judaism has insisted upon the redeeming of the logos and maintained
    that there is an unredeemed cognitive gesture just as there is an
    unredeemed carnal drive." (p. 50)

The Rav does not mean by this that we should reject knowledge or withdraw
from certain fields of inquiry. On the contrary, we must fearlessly seek
the truth and must pursue this task in as precise a manner as possible.
Rather, "the catharsis of knowledge refers to something which takes place
not within the formal logical realm, but within the experiential" (ibid.).

Here we again encounter an important theme in the Rav's writing: the
experience of knowing. (See lecture #12 regarding the experiential aspect
of Torah study.) Clearly, this is a powerful feeling for Rav Soloveitchik:

    "Knowing is not an impersonal performance which can be computerized,
    emptied of its rich, colorful, experiential content. It is, instead,
    an integral part of the knower as a living person... Next to the
    religious experience, knowledge is perhaps the most vibrant and
    resonant personal experience. It sweeps the whole of the personality,
    sometimes like a gentle wave infusing the knower with a sense of
    tranquillity and serenity; at other times like a mighty onrushing
    tide, arousing the soul to its depth and raising it to a pitch of
    ecstasy." (ibid.)

If man feels that he can master everything through his intellect,
then his cognitive gesture is arrogant and unredeemed. Although his
information may be accurate, his experience of knowledge is defective,
misleading and even damaging.

In the scientific realm, cognitive catharsis implies recognizing the
ultimate mystery of being. This has two expressions. To begin with,
we must recognize that every problem we solve engenders a more complex
and inclusive problem than the first. (This situation, while true of
all scientific systems, takes on added significance in light of the
indeterminacy principle, chaos theory, etc. While in university, Rav
Soloveitchik studied physics and mathematics [in addition to philosophy]
and was well- versed in early quantum theory, as is evident to anyone
who reads "The Halakhic Mind." Throughout his life, he tried to keep
abreast of developments in physics.)

Furthermore, once a certain phenomenon has been assigned a scientific
explanation, this does not imply that there is nothing more to be said
about it. According to a theory of science subscribed to by the Rav,
modern science merely creates an abstract mathematical world which
parallels the functioning of nature. This quantitative correlate is useful
as far as technology is concerned, but it operates on a wholly different
plane than the qualitative world experienced by us. We experience not
a world of abstract quantities, but rather one of living qualities,
of impressions and sensations. An equation describing the flight of
a bird or the wavelength of a red flower cannot elucidate the great
mystery of qualitative being, in which we live our lives and to which
we react with awe and wonder. [We will explore this theory of science
further when studying "Ma Dodekh Mi-dod," where the Rav invokes it to
describe the activity of the halakhist.]

The second admission that catharsis requires of the scientist (or the
philosopher) is that "the moral law can never be legislated in ultimate
terms by the human mind" (p. 52). We have already encountered this
theme in "Majesty and Humility" (see lecture #6). Modern man, in his
unredeemed majesty, is engaged in such an attempt, "which demonstrates
pride and arrogance, and is doomed to failure." Although the Rav probably
had in mind Marxism and similar pseudo-scientific systems of ethics,
his stricture applies equally to any system which intends to supplant
(rather than elaborate) the Divine law.

Thus, similar to the dichotomy of gadlut ha-mochin and katnut ha-mochin
(intellectual greatness and humble simplicity) in man's relation to Torah
(see lecture #10), the quest for knowledge in general must be marked
by both daring advance and humble submission. By acknowledging his
limitations, man introduces a measure of humility into his intellectual
experience and thereby redeems it.

MULTIPLE DEMANDS

Before moving to the final form of catharsis, it is important to note
a common feature of the previous three types of catharsis (those of the
aesthetic, emotional, and intellectual realms). Since Rav Soloveitchik's
discussion focuses on the need for retreat, it is easy to overlook
the fact that the Divine demand for withdrawal appears against the
background of a Divine mandate to advance. The latter is no less novel
than the former. Judaism does not discourage involvement in the "real"
world, but, instead, promotes bodily existence, emotional engagement,
intellectual endeavor, etc. The Halakha is not otherworldly, apathetic,
or obscurantist; rather, it demands that one employ all the powers at his
disposal within an overall framework of avodat Hashem (service of G-d)
-- and this is expressed both in advance and in retreat. G-d wants man to
be fully human, not angelic; but in order to attain his human potential,
to realize his destiny, he must live his life as a servant of G-d. With
this awareness, his worldly involvement will avoid becoming self-serving
and egocentric. One's "advance," and not just his "retreat," will thereby
express devotion to G-d.

Dialectic, complexity, plurality of demands -- these are the fundamental
difficulties in studying and teaching the Rav; but they are also his
greatness. People are often looking for simple, monochromatic answers
to the great questions of life. In his unflinching honesty, the Rav
cannot provide these, for he does not believe they exist. In his eyes,
man contains conflicting tendencies, G-d sets forth multiple demands,
and the world must be perceived under differing aspects.

The complexity of Rav Soloveitchik's views leads to differing emphases in
his various writings and addresses. To an audience at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (where "Catharsis" was originally delivered as a
lecture), the Rav emphasized the importance of retreat and the heroism
of withdrawal; to a more insular and traditionalist audience, he would
have stressed the religious requirement of engagement in the cultural
and technological arenas. Therefore, the need for a balanced reading of
the Rav's writings is paramount. Problems arise when people undertake
the opposite process: through a selective reading of the Rav, they pick
out those themes congenial to them, and ignore the rest. Although such
selective readings frequently result from someone's personal or communal
agenda, they can also be innocent and unintentional. Part of the Rav's
greatness is that he touches a chord in the hearts of many readers;
while grasping an insight which resonates deep within us, we must not
allow it to blind us to other strains in the Rav's oeuvre.

REDEEMED AND UNREDEEMED RELIGIOSITY - THE ULTIMATE CATHARSIS

In   our   day,  the  religious  Jewish   community
concentrates  most of its energies simply on the  struggle
to  maintain  observance.  But by focusing mainly  on  the
QUANTITY  of  observance  (the largest  number  of  people
keeping  the largest number of mitzvot), we lose sight  of
the  QUALITY of observance.  The Rav opens our eyes  to  a
crucial   dimension  of  religious  life:  the  need   for
humility, especially concerning the religious gesture.

    "There is an unredeemed moral and religious experience, just as
    there is an unredeemed body and an unredeemed logos. Let us be
    candid: if one has not redeemed his religious life, he may become
    self- righteous, insensitive, or even destructive. The story of the
    Crusades, the Inquisition and other outbursts of religious fanaticism
    bear out this thesis." (p. 52)

Of course, there are less dramatic expressions of unredeemed religiosity
than the Crusades. In our own lives, we must cultivate a sense of our
own imperfection in order to avoid the pitfalls of religious arrogance.

    "Perfect man has never been created. If a man is not conscious of
    the contradiction inherent in the very core of his personality, he
    lives in a world of illusion and leads an unredeemed existence. It
    matters not what we call such a complacent state of mind --
    self-righteousness, pride, haughtiness, stupidity -- it is all a
    manifestation of a brutish and raw state of mind." (p. 54)

Because of man's limitations and weaknesses, his religious life takes
a zig-zag course, marked by ascent and descent, closeness to G-d and
distance from Him. (This forward-backward movement, which is so central to
religious life, is the theme of what is perhaps the Rav's most significant
philosophical work, "U-vikkashtem Mi- sham.") Anyone who imagines
that he experiences no falls is only fooling himself and impeding his
personal development. (He will also quite often be insufferable and even
dangerous to other people.) In fact, the descent frequently enables one
to ascend even higher than before. In our context, this cathartic descent
is identical with an awareness of sin and of G-d's distance. Thus, in a
striking turn, the Rav identifies teshuva (repentance) as true catharsis,
and viddui (confession of sins to G-d) as the ultimate cathartic act.

We can say that, for the Rav, everyone must be a ba'al teshuva
(penitent). "Great is not the man who has never faltered but the man who
tripped, fell and rose again to greater heights" (p. 54). The Rav explains
the dynamics of this process in his teshuva discourses (see For Further
Reference, #4). One type of teshuva is attained by a person erasing
his sinful past and returning to his starting point. However, an even
greater form of teshuva can be attained by utilizing the negative energy
of the past and converting it to a positive direction (as the Rav puts it,
"changing the vectorial force of sin, its direction and destination").

The power of the latter form of teshuva is based upon two factors.

A) The dynamism of sin: Because of the powerful drives which lead one
to sin, a person may discover while sinning that he possesses reserves
of energy and stubbornness previously unknown to him. In the process of
teshuva, this newfound energy can be used to propel him to even greater
heights than before.

B) The intensity of longing: When a person realizes how low sin has
led him to sink, it awakens in him a painful longing for a past state of
relative wholeness and closeness to G-d. While experiencing G-d's nearness
and a sense of personal wholeness, a person can become complacent and
cease to aspire to further ascent. However, when one loses this sense,
when he feels distant, forlorn and tarnished, he begins to appreciate the
value of what he has lost. (In a similar vein, the Rav would often say in
eulogies that we can appreciate what a person meant to us only when he
is no longer present.) This sense of contrast can become a springboard
for spiritual ascent, thereby turning a sin into a powerful source of
religious growth.

In an early memorial lecture for his father (1945, later printed as
"Sacred and Profane"), Rav Soloveitchik connected these two forms of
teshuva to the ideas of acquittal and purification (kappara and tahara).
Acquittal means that, although G-d "owes" one a punishment for his
sin, G-d is willing to erase the "debt" due to the sinner's sincere
remorse. However, despite the fact that punishment no longer hangs over
one's head, the spiritual pollution of sin has not been cleansed. This is
attained by means of purification, which is not a supernatural process of
forgiveness but rather a psychological remaking of one's personality. It
entails not just regretting a sin, but leaving the entire "path of sin;"
it necessitates soul-searching and redirection of energies. Acquittal
parallels the teshuva of erasing sin; purification parallels the teshuva
of elevating sin.

[In later discourses, included in "On Repentance," the Rav expanded
upon these two sets of ideas and treated them separately. The key to
linking them is found in the earlier essay. I urge readers to see these
penetrating and inspiring teshuva discourses in full, as I cannot possibly
do justice to them in a few paragraphs.]

The idea of the repentance of purification (tahara) brings us full
circle, for what is catharsis if not purification? One offers up to
G-d his mundane existence, his daily activities and self-awareness,
and then receives these back in a purified and sanctified form. In the
religious realm, a person's awareness of his own fallibility cleanses
him of self-righteous intolerance; moreover, his recognition of his own
sinfulness and distance from G-d brings him rushing back into G-d's arms.
By performing an accurate and exacting self-assessment, he allows himself
to grow in new directions. Although in other realms the Rav talks about
how defeat is built into the structure of victory (since there is no
full victory for finite man), in the religious realm we can say that
victory is built into the structure of defeat. The recognition of defeat,
of one's sinfulness, is itself a victory that brings one closer to G-d.

In truth, however, the statement that defeat is built into the structure
of victory requires modification. The idea that the servant of G-d
can never completely attain his own desires, that total commitment
to G-d necessarily entails defeat of one's personal wishes,
is true only at lower levels of the religious consciousness. At
the very highest level of religious development, man overcomes the
dichotomy between externally-imposed divine law and human freedom and
creativity. "U-vikkashtem Mi-sham" describes the long path to this goal;
we will examine it in future shiurim.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

1. The Role of the Intellect: "U-vikkashtem Mi-sham," pp.

--

2. Ethics in the Rav's Thought: see Rav Shalom Carmy, "Pluralism and the
Category of the Ethical," Tradition 30:4 (Summer 1996), pp. 145-163; Rav
Walter Wurzburger, "The Maimonidean Matrix of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik's
Two- Tiered Ethics," in Through the Sound of Many Voices, ed. J. Plaut
(Toronto, 1982), pp. 172-183.

3. The Danger of Unredeemed Religiosity: "Sacred and Profane," in Shiurei
Harav, esp. p. 8.

4. Using Sin in the Process of Teshuva: On Repentance (essays entitled
"Acquittal and Purification" and "Blotting Out Sin or Elevating It");
"Sacred and Profane," esp. pp. 25-31. See also Rav Yitzchak Blau,
"Creative Repentance," Tradition 28:2 (1993), pp. 11-18.

5. Religious Tolerance: see the Netziv's classic introduction to Sefer
Bereishit at the beginning of his Torah commentary "Ha'amek Davar."

*******************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]