[Avodah] Modern Orthodoxy

[Michael Makovi]

> Why did Jews stop recording history in any real way after churban?
> Perhaps we became cyclical and lost our historical/prophetic voice -
> Rabbis  Hirsch, Kook and  Soloveitchik all were moving back to
> covenantal/prophetic approach which hadn't been seen in millennia
>
> R' Rich Joel

(I'll note I haven't yet listened to the recording yet.)

Indeed, due to the vagaries of history, we see the shift from
prophetic geula IN history to apocalyptic geula DESPITE history, with
but a few exceptions (Yerushalmi Berachot 1:1 - The geula is like the
rising sun, kim'a kim'a). Similarly, Professor Epharim Urbach notes
the general similarity in conception of geula between the apocalypses
and Hazalic aggadah, and he says that the historical prophetic model
was but rarely upheld any longer. I'm not learned in Rav Soloveitchik,
but we see Rav Hirsch and the Zionists both restored the sense of
Judaism and Torah winning man, over time, sociologically and
pedagogically, over time, in a practical and mundane and temporal
manner; "ikkar b'tachtonim" (R' Kook was a semi-Habadnik, after all,
and R' Hirsch quotes this aphorism only 10,000 times in his writings),
if one wishes to phrase it this way.

Of course, Jews were perhaps never much into history to begin with.
While the Greeks were concerned with the technical details of history,
Hazalic aggadah seems to have been more concerned with the lesson that
could be gained from history, with the moral lesson taking priority
over historical felicity. Dr. Eliezer Berkovits and Professor G. F.
Moore alike note that Hazal would aggadically interpret passages
contrary to their plain meaning (the "sword" is allegorical for the
Torah, the "warrior" is the Talmudic scholar, etc.), because they were
theologians and not critical Bible scholars; they sought the ethos of
Scripture, not its actual plain meaning (in aggadah). (Hazal knew what
the plain meaning was; it's not that they were ignorant, but rather,
the plain meaning did not impress them. Scripture meant only what one
could creatively take out of it for moral or spiritual edification;
critical textual studies were irrelevant, even if accurate. It was not
until the Rishonim that such studies were pursued.) Rev. Abraham Cohen
notes that when discussing historical institutions (the Sanhedrin,
etc.), the Talmud will anachronistically assume that what is true in
the present was always true in the past as well. Similarly, Abraham
was said to keep the whole Torah, etc.

The very historical Tanach is a problem to this thesis of mine, but
somehow one nevertheles gains the general impression that Hazal were
not so interested in history for its own sake. Indeed, compare what is
said in I Maccabees to what is said in Mesechet Shabbat, regarding
Hanuka. Of course, one might argue that I Maccabees was essentially a
prophetic book, albeit too late to be included in the Tanach. (Really,
how much separates Maccabees from Megillat Esther?)

Perhaps someone can refine my thesis a bit? This is all a bit inchoate
in my mind, and I admit I haven't really been able to think this over
much.

Michael Makovi