[Avodah] The Superbowl Maariv

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:02:48PM -0500, T613K at aol.com wrote:
: I would like to suggest that anyone who is not actually RYBS should refrain 
: from trying to sound like him.  It is better to use plain everyday  prose. 

Too wordy. Instead of saying "dialectic", we would need a phrase. That's
the whole reason why RYBS used the jargon himself. We would end up getting
lost in the miles of explanation and never grasp the thesis.

But to translate:
:> The dialectic tension between homo-religiousus and cognitive man  is
:> nothing more than the process by which one arrives at the state  of
:> Halachic man.

The human condition is characterized by conflicting truths, each of which
is correct in its own way, but still they conflict. A common example -- the
values of Truth and Peace, which creates issues like "tact". Another example
from RYBS's eovre:
A community is a collection of people that get together to have their needs
met. Thus, the community exists to serve the people.
vs.
A person's highest calling is to serve the community.

Similarly:
Man is a being who cannot redeem himself, and must turn to G-d for help. Thus,
the religious man who appeals "Mah anu, mah chayeinu...?"
vs.
Man is a creative, thinking, being capable of accomplishing almost anything.

Both are true, and trying to make decisions in cases where the two
provide conflicting priorities is a kind of tension.

Halakhah drives one toward a synthesis, a creative religion. The notion
of covenant lays out a partnership with G-d so that man is both redeeming
himself and relying on Him. It also creates a religious law, a means for
doing so, that is both fully from G-d and yet in which man has a voice.

: I also think it highly unlikely that RYBS would have approved of a shul  
: changing its regular davening time to accommodate the Super Bowl.  

I think he would approve of a shul doing so. He would be saddened by the
membership needing the shul to make that decision.

: As long as they can get ten men to come at the regular time, that should be 
:  the time of davening in the shul.  The other fifty men can arrange their  
: own ad hoc minyanim if they like, even in the shul building if the rabbi 
: doesn't  mind, but the shul should not officially recognize that the Super Bowl 
: is  docheh Maariv.

We don't know what RYBS would say, as he isn't here to ask. But that
doesn't sound like the founder of Maimonides to me. He writes the
co-education was the only way to get as many children into the school
as possible, and not an ideal he himself believed in.

But none of this is the tension between homoreligiosis and cognitive man.
It's not like the self-image of being fully dependent on G-d is on the
"go daven" side, and the self-image of being a powerful Tzelem E-lokim
is on the side of watching the game.

I don't think the entire concept of halachic man as synthesis applies to
the hamon am. We obey halakhah rather than create it. Even the typical LOR
rarely plays the cognitive man side of the synthesis in his relationship
to halakhah. Thus, halachic man isn't a synthesis that /can/ exist in
the lives of most people.

And, as RHM writes, the synthetic halachic man is an archetype to
reach for, not someone who ever entirely exists in the real world.
Halakhah is described as the means of *navigating* the unresolvable
dialectic.

Jumping back to RHM's original post on Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 07:37am -0800:
: The Super Bowl Maariv works quite handily with Halakhic Man. This is very
: much the way I see living as Jew. The idea that we do not ask why... but
: the what.
...
: The classic Brisker Derech HaLimud tells you that that the Ikkar is how to
: do the Mitzvah properly...

Which then imbues the moment with meaning. As per:
: That's why RYBS uses the example of Neilah as seen thru the eyes of
: Halachic Man. he does not see Bein Hashmashos Of YK to have any other
: meaning than its relvance to being the last moment the gates of heaven
: are open to Teshuva.

Actually, he quotes his father as saying that the sunset of ne'ilah is
prettier than others. RMS isn't described as lacking an aesthetic sense
beyond the beauty of halakhah. But that's a quibble on your wording of
"any other meaning".

Yes, Brisk sees halakhah as standing on its own, divorced from prior
or even derived theories about its purpose. But this is then itself
is considered a value. Ne'ilah isn't just a moment of kaparah, it is
beautiful *because* it's a moment of kaparah.

(BTW, RYBS himself doesn't hew this line. He speaks of halachic
hermeneutics from which he derives lessons one can take from halakhah
that add meaning. Halakhic Man itself is an example, as are any of
his other philosophical works or speeches that draw from halakhah.
He is being basically Brisk, in that hermeneutical lessons are far
from finding the meaning. But in terms of RHM's point, RYBS does see
relevencies that his own Halakhic Man would not.)

Being yotzei-zein a mitzvah isn't the same as real qiyum even within
Brisk. Brisk doesn't mean mechanistic observance; it means thinking
about halakhah and its processes to the near-exclusion of hashkafic
meanings and purpose. But there is still a kavanah. There is a beauty
of halakhah that halachic man is supposed to be drawing from. Something
hard to obtain when fitting your davening into the halftime show.

And this is doubly true when dealing with tefillah, avodah shebeleiv,
for which there is no machloqes about mitzvos tzerikhos kavanah. Meaning
is itself part of the halakhah of davening!

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
micha at aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l