<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body dir="ltr" bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-top: 0pt;"><br>
<br>
Micha Berger wrote:<br>
</p>
<blockquote cite="mid20070204032705.GB32196@aishdas.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> :> the term in 1965's The Lonely Man of Faith, Soloveitchik insists that
:> tzelem 'signifies man's awareness of himself as a biological being and
:> the state of being informed of his natural drives' (75-76).
: Fascinating take on "Tzelem Elokim." One wonders what the zayde (in this
: case, R' Chaim *Volozhiner* would have had to say about this. Is there
: any precedent in earlier Jewish sources for this definition?
I understand TLMF as saying that tzelem E-lokim is self awareness. And of
what is one self aware? What exists at a plane "below" that awareness? His
biology and its drives.
Self awareness is the flipside of bechirah. One can only consciously
choose if one is conscious of the process of choosing. And so, RYBS's
position as I understood it isn't that far from the Meshekh Chokhmah
(although not the same), who identifies tzelem E-lokim with bechirah.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Do we know that dolphins are not aware of themselves, their biology and
their drives?<br>
<blockquote cite="mid20070204032705.GB32196@aishdas.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">: "Natural law" sounds to me like Rousseau. Is RYBS suggesting that human
: beings are "naturally" ethical?
I believe so... That HQBH created us with a yeitzer hatov.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Yes, but he says: "Firstly, in order to experience the ethical norm,
external divine intervention is necessary. Only through the divine
command can man transcend his natural biological self and experience
the ethical...." etc.<br>
<br>
I don't see a YhT as distinct from kiyum mitzvos here.<br>
<br>
YGB<br>
</body>
</html>