<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"><html><head><title>[Aspaqlaria] Rav
Hirsch, Rav Yisrael and Me</title><link rel="stylesheet"
href="https://www.aishdas.org/asp/wp-content/themes/my_hueman/style.css"
type="text/css" media="screen" /><meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body>Aspaqlaria has posted a new
item, '<a href="https://www.aishdas.org/asp/rsrh-mussar">Rav Hirsch, Rav
Yisrael and Me</a>'<br>
<br>
<font size=+1><br>
<div class="pf-content">
<p>I was very “into” Rav Hirsch’s worldview as a
<em>bachur</em>. The symbol system explains so much. Don’t mix meat and
milk because for an animal, the only creativity is procreativity, it’s
in who it is, the meat. But to us, creativity goes beyond milk production, and
well into creativity, not the automatic action of the flesh. A parah
<em>adumah </em>is a working animal that never worked, a symbol of untapped
potential wasted. Etc…</p>
<p>And I still have a lot of affinity for his system. For example, I started
wearing <em>tekheiles </em>shortly after R Herschel Schachter did. (Via my
father, who became a <em>talmid </em>of RHS when Rav YB Soloveitchik stopped
his Tues night Moriah <em>shiurim</em>.) I wear one string of 8 —
<em>shitas haRambam</em>. But not because the Rambam said so, but because in
Collected Writings III, Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch gives the idea such beauty!
(Later I found more <em>halachic </em>arguments as well, but that really is my
primary motivator for choosing those arguments over others, say
RHS’s.)</p>
<p> But it increasingly bothered me to depend so heavily on an explanation of
<em>mitzvos </em>that meant that for millennia — perhaps from Shimon
haTzadiq through Chakham Burnays (RSRH’s rebbe) — the masses and
likely also the greats of each generation were getting little out of
<em>mitzvos</em>. After all, the symbol system needed to unlock what the
<em>mitzvah </em>exists to teach was lost. And is still, even for us, far from
fully articulated.</p>
<hr class="wp-block-separator"/>
<h4>Sidebar on <em>Taamei haMitzvos</em></h4>
<p>There are different ways of approaching the question of <em>taamei
hamitzvos</em>.</p>
<p>The Rambam looked for the causes of <em>mitzvos</em>. And since Divine
Thought is incomprehensible, and Hashem’s decisions don’t depend
on anything but Himself, he concludes that there are elements of
<em>mitzvos</em> that have no ta’am. Why an esrog? Because otherwise
you’d ask, why a pomegranate?</p>
<p>The Chinukh also looked for causes, at least I think that is what he means
by the “roots of the <em>mitzvah</em>“. But he is content
analyzing what he knows only bits of the picture. He introduces the
explanation of the roots of each <em>mitzvah </em>with “<em>mishorshei
hamitzvah</em> — from among …”</p>
<p>A third approach is to despair of finding causes altogether. Instead look
for lessons you can take. (To my mind, this is also the most solid approach
when grappling with tragedy and difficult times.)</p>
<p>R Hirsch seems to set up a causal argument in the first section of
Collected Writings vol III. Why symbols are a good way of communicating truths
to be internalized and sharing their emotional content. And thus why Hashem
gave us <em>mitzvos </em>to teach us those truths. So, it has a “take
lesson” argument to it, but the cause of the <em>mitzvah </em>is to
relay that particular lesson.</p>
<p>So, to R Hirsch, the symbol system was part of the Sinai culture. These are
metaphors that would come naturally to people who lived in the prophetic
period. And part of the worldview we lost that cause the loss of
<em>nevu’ah</em>. These symbols are <em>miSinai</em>, the truths behind
the <em>mitzvos</em>.</p>
<p>In Judaism Reclaimed, chapter 39 (Tzav: “Rav Hirsch and Sacrificial
Symbolism; you can buy the book <a href="https://amzn.to/2JKE21v">here</a>),
R’ Shmuel Phillips explains R Hirsch’s approach But I think that
in his defense of it, RSP veers away from the assumption that the
Hashem’s point in <em>mitzvos</em> was relaying truths through teach us
to experience these specific poetic metaphors. Much less emphasis on the
causal aspect, and so I could accept the symbol system as one of many ways to
take lesson — and couldn’t Hashem have them all in
“Mind”?</p>
<p>This approach to the role of Hirschian symbols would have taken the edge of
the problem that this sidebar is providing the <em>hashkafic</em> background
for. But the book didn’t exist yet, and we’re back to just looking
at my reactions of the time. </p>
<hr class="wp-block-separator"/>
<p>That growing philosophical discomfort combined with other factors going on
in my life.</p>
<p>The death of Shlomo Carlebach led to the first wave of Carlebach minyanim.
Passaic initially had a Singing Minyan that wasn’t purely Carlebach in
song choice, but still that kind of minyan. I was active in it. The experience
made me notice the level of my own desire for “spirituality”. But
also notice that Chassidus, as well as what grew to be called
“Neo-Chassidus” in the YU/OU world, don’t speak to my
rationalism.</p>
<p>Another event of around that time was when R <a
href="https://www.facebook.com/bigdei.shesh?__cft__[0]=AZU_r76tRrGH7uAqUJlubU3UuroGAhRfwNXNOVKw6mcIxvrnA-gOv4_nq00wWjBWBYSVXpCc3XL2chbSwTg5HSBcezA0lyWnotAZW2iTJmpdW-xTN8GNyk7axqARG_KdCaofCyQMSxhSeOvJLtgtfG22APm6724QAweQF2P23tXXmg&__tn__=R]-R">Yosef
Gavriel Bechhofer</a> pointed to Rav Shimon Shkop’s introduction to
Shaarei Yosher — written by own rebbe’s rebbe! He called it the
greatest work of <em>hashkafah</em> in the past 500 years. And I studied it,
and fell in love with it. As longtime readers of the blog noticed, not to
mention writing a book, <a
href="https://www.aishdas.org/asp/widen-your-tent">Widen Your Tent</a> (on
Amazon <a href="https://amzn.to/34aO5Gj">here</a>)</p>
<p>Which led to my realization that Mussar was part of my own roots, even
though I didn’t realize at the time that was what Rav Dovid was
doing.</p>
<p>And the approaches of Mussar and Torah im Derekh Eretz have much in common.
Both Rav Hirsch and Rav Yisrael Salanter tught that Torah and mitzvos were
given as a means to refine oneself.</p>
<p>Both teach pursuing <em>ehrlachkeit </em>and becoming a
“<em>mentsch</em>“. But Rav Yisrael focuses on refining <em>middos
</em>to emulate Hashem and become a giver. The other sees <em>mentschlachkeit
</em>in being cultured and disciplined, of keeping the mind in charge of the
animal. (And I think including in charge its <em>middos</em>, had RSRH
articulated his vision in terms of <em>middos</em>.)</p>
<p>But in terms of our topic, Mussar gave me a way to come to terms with that
question of millennia of <em>mitzvah </em>performance where the underlying
symbols weren’t even known. Because it emphasizes the gap between
intellect and emotion, the role of unconscious and habit on <em>middos</em>.
We could be internalizing truths in ways we can’t even explain and
articulate. And don’t need to.</p>
<p>Without giving up on my occasional-to-frequent use of Hirschian
symbolism.</p>
</div><br>
</font><br>
<br>
You may view the latest post at<br>
<a
href="https://www.aishdas.org/asp/rsrh-mussar">https://www.aishdas.org/asp/rsrh-mussar</a><br>
<br>
You received this e-mail because you asked to be notified when new updates are
posted.<br>
Best regards,<br>
micha<br>
micha@aishdas.org</body></html>