Community, Covenant, and Commitment: Selected Letters and Communications of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik

Overview

"Community, Covenant and Commitment is the fourth volume in the series MeOtzar HoRav: Selected Writings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. It includes more than seventy private and public letters written by "the Rav" - as Rabbi Soloveitchik was widely known - as well as a number of detailed interviews conducted with him over the span of some forty years. These materials give us a further glimpse into the prodigious thought of this leader of American Orthodoxy in the crucial decades both prior to and following the Second World War." The volume
... See more details below
Available through our Marketplace sellers.
Other sellers (Hardcover)
  • All (1) from $65.75   
  • Used (1) from $65.75   
Close
Sort by
Page 1 of 1
Showing All
Note: Marketplace items are not eligible for any BN.com coupons and promotions
$65.75
Seller since 2010

Feedback rating:

(180)

Condition:

New — never opened or used in original packaging.

Like New — packaging may have been opened. A "Like New" item is suitable to give as a gift.

Very Good — may have minor signs of wear on packaging but item works perfectly and has no damage.

Good — item is in good condition but packaging may have signs of shelf wear/aging or torn packaging. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Acceptable — item is in working order but may show signs of wear such as scratches or torn packaging. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Used — An item that has been opened and may show signs of wear. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Refurbished — A used item that has been renewed or updated and verified to be in proper working condition. Not necessarily completed by the original manufacturer.

Good
0881258725 USED BOOK in good condition| No supplements| Normal wear to cover, edges, spine, corners, and pages | Writing / highlighting | Inventory stickers | Satisfaction ... guaranteed! Read more Show Less

Ships from: Punta Gorda, FL

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
Page 1 of 1
Showing All
Close
Sort by
Sending request ...

Overview

"Community, Covenant and Commitment is the fourth volume in the series MeOtzar HoRav: Selected Writings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. It includes more than seventy private and public letters written by "the Rav" - as Rabbi Soloveitchik was widely known - as well as a number of detailed interviews conducted with him over the span of some forty years. These materials give us a further glimpse into the prodigious thought of this leader of American Orthodoxy in the crucial decades both prior to and following the Second World War." The volume contains six sections containing letters and communications on areas of: Communal and Public Policy, Educational Issues, American Orthodoxy and the Rabbinate, Religious Zionism and the State of Israel, Inter-Religious Affair and Personal and Philosophical Reflections.
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780881258721
  • Publisher: KTAV Publishing House, Inc.
  • Publication date: 3/1/2005
  • Pages: 352
  • Product dimensions: 6.32 (w) x 9.20 (h) x 0.93 (d)

Table of Contents

1 On depiction of human images on stained glass windows in an interfaith Chapel 3
2 On directing foundlings to Jewish welfare agencies 11
3 On drafting rabbis and rabbinical students for the U.S. armed forces chaplaincy 23
4 On humane methods of handling meat for slaughter 61
5 Statement of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik to the National Advisory Committee to the Secretary Of Agriculture, July 21, 1961 69
6 Statement of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik to the national advisory committee to the secretary of agriculture, October 6, 1964 71
7 Memorandum of agreement between RIETS, Yeshiva College and the graduate-level Yeshiva in Boston opened by Rabbi Soloveitchik 77
8 Talmud study for girls in Yeshiva elementary and high schools (a) 81
9 Talmud study for girls in Yeshiva elementary and high schools (b) 83
10 On the creation of Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine 85
11 On Yeshiva University's Rabbinical school program 93
12 On orthodox participation in the Bible translation of the Jewish publication society and communal tercentenary celebrations 109
13 On communal tercentenary celebrations 115
14 On inserting memorial prayers for Holocaust victims on Passover night at the Seder 119
15 On a proposed service authored by the Mizrahi for the eve of Yom ha-Atzma'ut 123
16 On prayer in a synagogue with mixed pews (a) 125
17 On prayer in a synagogue with mixed pews (b) 129
18 On prayer in a synagogue with mixed pews (c) 133
19 On prayer in a synagogue with mixed pews (d) 137
20 On prayer in a synagogue with mixed pews (e) 139
21 On orthodoxy and non-orthodox movements 143
22 On RCA participation in the Synagogue Council of America (a) 151
23 On RCA participation in the Synagogue Council of America (b) 153
24 On RCA participation in the Synagogue Council of America (c) 155
25 On the propriety of a synagogue owning a company that is open on Shabbat 157
26 On the place of the state of Israel in Jewish thought 163
27 On the "who is a Jew?" Question (a) 167
28 On the "who is a Jew?" Question (b) 171
29 Declining the offer to submit his candidacy for the position of chief rabbi of the state of Israel (a) 173
30 On the Chief Rabbinate of Israel (b) 177
31 On the Chief Rabbinate of Israel (c) 179
32 On the Chief Rabbinate of Israel (d) 187
33 On the Chief Rabbinate of Israel (e) 191
34 On the Chief Rabbinate of Israel (f) 193
35 On the Rav's identification with the Mizrahi (a) 195
36 On the Rav's identification with the Mizrahi (b) 201
37 On the Rav's identification with the Mizrahi (c) 203
38 On the Rav's identification with the Mizrahi (d) 205
39 On Christian missionary schools in Israel 207
40 On religion and state in Israel (a) 209
41 On religion and state in Israel (b) 215
42 On religion and state in Israel (c) 219
43 On remaining in the diaspora 227
44 On Jews in the diaspora expressing views on security issues facing the state of Israel 231
45 On Israel, the diaspora and religious issues 233
46 On political and religious issues in Israel and the diaspora 241
47 On Jewish participation in the Vatican II Ecumenical Council of 1962 (a) 247
48 On Jewish participation in the Vatican II Ecumenical Council of 1962 (b) 249
49 On the calendar reform proposal and the Vatican 253
50 On relations with the Catholic hierarchy 257
51 On interfaith relationships (a) 259
52 On interfaith relationships (b) 263
53 On RCA participation in an interreligious conference 267
54 Topic for a Jewish philosophical essay 271
55 On the nature of the Halakhah 273
56 On learning the works of Maimonides 279
57 On the knowledge of God in Maimonidean thought 283
58 On the love of God in Maimonidean thought 285
59 On Hasidism 289
60 On the commandment to redeem the first-born 293
61 Comments on Maimonides' laws of repentance 303
62 On the Yiddish language 307
63 On the Teshuvah discourse of 1960 309
64 On blowing the Shofar in the silent Rosh ha-Shanah Amidah 311
65 On the Halakhic sanctity of the temple and the synagogue 315
66 On a draft of U-Vikkashtem mi-Sham 321
67 Insights into the Book Of Lamentations (a) 323
68 Insights into the Book Of Lamentations (b) 327
69 On the problem of evil 331
70 On the commandment of loving one's fellow Jew 333
71 Note on a book of Chaim Grade 335
72 On the Tuesday night public Shi'urim 337
Read More Show Less

First Chapter

Community, Covenant and Commitment

Selected Letters and Communications
By Joseph B. Soloveitchik

Ktav Publishing House, Inc.

Copyright © 2005 Toras HoRav Foundation
All right reserved.

ISBN: 0-88125-872-5


Chapter One

On Depiction of Human Images on Stained Glass Windows in an Interfaith Chapel

In 1949, Myron C. Taylor, former us representative to the Vatican and former chairman of the board of us Steel, donated $1,500,000 to his alma mater, Cornell University, for the construction of an interfaith center that would bear the name of his wife, Annabel. The various religious denominations on campus at the time participated in an umbrella group known as the Cornell United Religious Work (CURW). Dr. Milton Konvitz (1908-2003), a professor at the school of industrial relations, and son of Rabbi Joseph Konvitz (1878-1944), a respected Talmudic scholar, communal rabbi, member of Agudat ha-Rabbanim, and friend of the Rav, was the Jewish representative to CURW on behalf of the three thousand Jewish students and several hundred faculty members then at Cornell. The sketches presented to the CURW board contained depictions of human figures such as Joshua and Jeremiah and citations from the Bible. Dr. Konvitz argued against the acceptance of these depictions, but was met with differing views on this point. He approached the president, who was reluctant to intervene unless he had an authoritative and definitive ruling that Jews could not accept the current designs. Dr. Konvitz proposed to turn to the Rav and secured the president's assent that the university would abide by the Rav's ruling. In his submission to the Rav, Dr. Konvitz made it clear that he was limiting his query to the issue of the human images on the stained glass windows, as the issue of having an interfaith chapel altogether was simply a nonnegotiable item for the donor and the university. In addition, Dr. Konvitz indicated to the Rav that his reply on this matter would be read by both Cornell's president and Mr. Taylor. It is thus important to note that the letter is written in a style accesible to non-Jews not familiar with classical halakhic writing. The Rav's negative response printed below was adopted by the university and the final sketches portrayed only natural scenes such as flowers and bushes. The Annabel Taylor Hall was completed in late 1951.

December 6, 1950

Dr. Milton R. Konvitz New York State School of Industrial Relations Cornell University Ithaca, New York

Dear Dr. Konvitz:

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of November 22nd. I gave serious thought to the problem you presented to me and I fully realize its extreme urgency and grave implications.

The subject matter must be analyzed under both a formal and philosophico-historical halakhic aspect. Since the problem has arisen under unique social circumstances, halakhic formalism and syllogism will not suffice to solve it. Central historical realities with their deep-seated philosophical meaning must be taken into account.

Such an approach is not a novelty in the history of Halakhah, and many a time our rabbis preferred it to the purely abstract method of analysis. Let us discuss, now, the formal halakhic viewpoint. There are two fundamental prohibitions against the making of images. One deals with the making of possessing of idols - objects of worship - and is not limited to a specific design. Any object or any form which is considered as a representation of deity, or as endowed with a transcendental Divine quality, is included in this injunction. The second prohibition applies to the making of images even if it be not for cultic but artistic purposes. This law includes three kinds of figured subjects: (1) the human form, (2) any representation of transcendental separate intelligences such as angels, seraphim, the four figures of the "Holy Chariot," etc., (3) images of the astral world such as stars and planets which in antiquity were conceived as deities. Besides these three classes of figures it is also prohibited to create or possess any design which is usually associated with a cultic or religious motif, though the objective meaning of this work is purely artistic.

As to the prohibition against the human form, a controversy developed in the Middle Ages. One school of thought maintained that it applies to both sculpture and painting, while another school has adopted a more liberal attitude and restricted the law only to protruding three-dimensional works of art. At this same time another question came to the fore - whether the prohibition against the aforementioned three categories of artistic figures applied to possession as to manufacture. The religious practice has accepted the more liberal viewpoint in both cases. In the most traditional Jewish homes, paintings and photographs are to be found. Many do not object even to the display of sculptures if their esthetic character and universal meaning are so obvious that they exclude the possibility of association with a cultic motif.

In regard to the synagogue, we do not find in the halakhic literature (with the exception of a single passage in the Mekhilta quoted by Rashi, Exodus 20:20) a specific prohibition against paintings or any other design representing the human figure. On the contrary, our sages were more tolerant toward the display of human images in the synagogue than in the home. In the tractates Rosh ha-Shanah (24) and Avodah Zarah (43) we find that a statute of the king was displayed in a Babylonian synagogue and nevertheless, Rav, Samuel and Levi did not refrain from worshipping there, though they would have objected to the exhibition of the effigy in a private home. The reason for the distinction between synagogue and home is that while in the synagogue no one would suspect the community of having the statute for a religious purpose, such suspicion would be warranted concerning a private home. In the course of time, however, tradition has reversed its attitude. While pictures were not banned from Jewish homes as I have mentioned, the synagogue has excluded any image of man from its decorative motives. Moreover, many halakhic scholars insisted upon utmost simplicity of the synagogue, and disapproved of elaborate ornaments in general. Maimonides, for instance, objected to murals and mosaics which would confront the worshipper during his devotional meditation because they might serve as a distraction. An even stronger dislike was shown towards figured subjects such as animals. Rabbi Eliakim of Cologne ordered his congregation to remove from the synagogue a carpet which had animal designs woven in it. Likewise, we know of a controversy concerning the display of the lion of Judah above the ark that raged in the sixteenth century and in which Rabbi Moses of Trani, Rabbi Me'ir of Padua and Rabbi Joseph Karo were involved. There were many synagogues that did not tolerate panels representing animals. Yet again the practice was more liberal and all figures with the exception of the human form were introduced as architectural designs in the synagogue. As to the anthropomorphic symbols, there is almost unanimity of disapproval. (The fact that some excavations disclose such motives is irrelevant to us. The tradition as such has rejected them.)

Now the question arises why the halakhic tradition revised the Talmudic law which permitted the display of the human likeness in the synagogue. In order to find an adequate answer we must place the problem in a philosophical and historical perspective. The human figure as a decorative motif in the synagogue conflicts with the very essence of prayer. The latter expresses the creature-consciousness - i.e., the awareness of absolute dependence on and surrender to God. The feeling of centrality of man is superseded by one of helplessness, worthlessness and wretchedness. Since any anthropomorphic emblem in the synagogue conveys an anthropocentric idea - it places emphasis on the unique role that has been assigned to man - such design was ruled out. In the case of the Babylonian synagogue, the king's effigy served as a mere political symbol placed, in all probability, by a royal edict and did not constitute an aesthetic or decorative pattern designed to introduce the motif of axiological supremacy of man into the religious experience - and that is the reason why the Rabbis did not raise any objection to the display of the statue.

However, there is a more cogent reason which explains the deviation of practice from Talmudic theory, and this is to be sought in historical circumstances which necessitated such a change.

The icon in the Christian world is a typical ecclesiastical motif that suggests to us the Christological idea of God-man which is associated according to the Christian faith with the very act of worshipping, deus absconditus being too remote and transcendent to be approached through the medium of worship. Hence, the unequivocal iconoclastic attitude of Judaism toward the display of human images in houses of worship. To what our sages in a non-Christian Babylonia did not object, our forefathers in Christian countries were very susceptible. I wish to emphasize that this was not merely a medieval addendum to the law but it expresses its very spirit. As I have emphasized before, the law prohibits the representation of any figure or form which only alludes to a cultic motif, and the human figure in the synagogue, though its objective meaning be of artistic nature, comes under this category. This also explains the iconoclastic mood which was characteristic of the Jews of the Second Commonwealth to whom the human form suggested the deities of the Hellenistic world. History records that twice they violently resisted the attempts of the Roman authorities to display the likeness of the Caesars in Jerusalem or in the Temple. While their opposition during the reign of Caius was caused by the fact that the statue was to be worshipped as a deity, their opposition during the time of Tiberius to the royal image stamped on the army standards of the Roman legion is to be explained on the grounds of their dislike for the human image as such. Reading Josephus or Philo, we cannot help but be struck by the historical fact that our ancestors in Palestine objected to the exhibition of any human figure in the Holy City. The same tradition was later adopted by the medieval synagogue, for in both cases an anthropomorphic symbol suggested a religious idea and the criterion for approval or disapproval of a design was not its objective content but the subjective impression it conveys.

This premise is also valid in our particular problem. An anthropomorphic symbol which will form part of the decoration of a stained-glass window (which in itself is a purely ecclesiastical motif reminiscent of the medieval Gothic cathedrals) regardless of the universal character of the figures, will immediately, by the sheer law of association, be identified with the usual Christological motif. The chapel will certainly be fashioned in the style of church architecture rather than that of a synagogue and the human figures, made by an artist who specializes in church decoration, will most probably display some characteristic features of church paintings that will eclipse their universal meaning. The overall impression to the superficial observer will undoubtedly be one of religious nature.

Therefore, my recommendation would be not to agree to any representation of the human form in spite of its universal character.

In conclusion, I wish to take the liberty of giving expression to another aspect of the problem although I have not been consulted about it.

I strongly object to the use of an interfaith chapel. The Halakhah is unequivocally opposed to it and this prohibition is even more strict than that concerning human images. I understand, of course, what this statement implies in terms of public relations. However, I cannot help but be frank and outspoken about it. The idea of a common house of prayer is absolutely irreconcilable with the Judaic philosophy of worship. This attitude stems neither from intolerance or narrow-mindedness, nor from a feeling of superiority or dogmatic charism, but from a deep philosophical insight into the essence of worship. We identify ourselves with our Gentile neighbors in all matters of collective endeavor - social, political and cultural activities. There should be no retreat on the part of the Jew from the full participation in all phases of national life and we are committed to all American institutions. However, the worship of God is not a social or collective gesture but is a genuinely individual, most personal, intimate and tender relationship which cannot be shared with anyone else. That is why the use of a common chapel is objectionable from the Jewish viewpoint that insists upon the uniqueness and individuality of the form of service and the place in which we worship. Moreover, the Halakhah operates with the concept of the holiness of the synagogue. The main characteristics of holiness are: uniqueness, separateness, a state of being consecrated to, determined by, and directed upon a single goal - a specific mode of worship. The holiness of the synagogue, like the sanctity of the home, finds expression in our respect for its privacy and exclusiveness. To be dedicated to a plurality of cultic modes is a pure paradox. This paradox becomes more striking when we consider the discrepancy between the Jewish service and the Christian form of worship. The Christian Orthodox church sees in the act of worship a sacramental mysterious performance, which is fraught with otherworldliness and beatitude, and is rooted in the miracle of transubstantiation. The whole organization of the service and the arrangement of its surroundings, like the passive role of the audience, the soft music of the organ, the stained glass window and the Gothic style of the architecture, serve one purpose, namely the intensification of a feeling of super-naturalness, strangeness and meta-rationality. In contrast to this, the Jewish service is distinguished by its simplicity. It asserts itself in a dialogue between God and man on the level of this-worldliness and concreteness. It is conducted in an atmosphere of rationality, familiarity, and naturalness. Hence, I am unable to comprehend how it is possible to dedicate a chapel to two mutually exclusive ways of worship and how one could reconcile the Jewish service with alien architectural surroundings which symbolize the mysterium magnum of the Eucharist rite.

The halakhic law, like any other sound religious norm, insists upon worship keeping up with the original themes and motifs which reflect the living transcendental consciousness of the respective religious community. Standardization and communization of man's relationship to God, the most subjective, intimate and primordial experience, is as absurd as a similar attempt to standardize and communize human love, passion and romance would prove to be. The shibboleth of the religious act is its singularity.

Continues...


Excerpted from Community, Covenant and Commitment by Joseph B. Soloveitchik Copyright © 2005 by Toras HoRav Foundation. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(0)

4 Star

(0)

3 Star

(0)

2 Star

(0)

1 Star

(0)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

    If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
    Why is this product inappropriate?
    Comments (optional)