2020, 5780

Rosenzweig, Buber,
Soloveitchik, and The Road

The Jewishness of every individual has squirmed on the needlepoint of a “why.”

-Franz Rosenzweig

On postcards

in the trenches of World War One

Franz Rosenzweig writes

The Star of Redemption.

So,

it seems to me,

when he speaks of paths

and pathlessness,

he must be speaking

from experience:

i.e. 

he knows what he’s talking about.

I never understood what Rosenzweig was talking about.

I didn’t understand Star of Redemption

when I read it at the Jewish Theological Seminary,

and I haven’t cracked it since.

But I recently read

his letter to Martin Buber

on Teaching and Law

(There’s no need to recount 

this dispute for the sake of heaven

between Rosenzweig and Buber.)

What interests me is

how I read 

Rosenzweig’s letter.

Rosenzweig tells us 

of paths

and pathlessness 

and “the goal”

always laying a step beyond,

in pathlessness.

“Does a path lead,”

asks Rosenzweig,

“to pathlessness?”

Rosenzweig speaks of

“that which we know”

and calls it a 

“laborious and aimless detour

through knowable Judaism.”

This laborious and aimless path,

it seems,

is the sum of whatever Jewish knowledge

we have received up to now.

And it gives us the confidence

to venture into pathlessness:

the pathlessness of 

the as yet undiscovered country

of the Torah 

which we will bring.

So,

I picture myself

backpacking across the mountains:

maybe back to my Alaska days,

maybe back to my Isle Royale days.

I know how to read a map.

I know how to use a compass.

I can identify landmarks.

I can make a fire.

I know how to stay dry.

Rosenzweig turns,

shifting under the weight 

of his own pack,

his boots caked in mud,

and says to me:

these wilderness skills

have been cultivated

along that laborious 

and aimless path,

which has brought us 

thus far.

At this point, 

I identify

our other fellow traveller

Halakhic Man.

Halakhic Man

knows how to read a map,

knows how to use a compass,

and can identify landmarks. 

He can certainly pitch a tent.

Indeed,

he can make a tent

out of dolphin skin!

Halakhic Man 

has spotted a bubbling spring,

just a little further down,

down along the path 

we have yet to tread.

“He already possesses

a fixed, a priori relationship

with this real phenomenon,”

Rav Soloveitchik whispers,

as he stops to measure 

a fruit

to determine whether

it is at least

one-third of the way

to complete ripeness.

“By that do you mean,”

I ask Rav Soloveitchik,

“that he understands

the complex of laws

regarding the halakhic construct

of a spring?

And that we,

who are so rugged
and worn 

from our wanderings,

might use yonder spring

as a mikveh?”

“Precisely so,”

responds the Rav.

“So this mikveh

must be our goal!”

I exclaim.

“Not at all,”

says Rosenzweig.

“Our immersion lies

just a step beyond,

in pathlessness.”

We can reach both the teachings and the Law only by realizing that we are still on the first lap of the way, and by taking every step upon it ourselves.

-Franz Rosenzweig

Notes:

I studied Rosenzweig’s letter “Teaching and Law: to Martin Buber”, with Chancellor Arnie Eisen, of the Jewish Theological Seminary, at the Troy, Michigan offices of the William Davidson Foundation, on the morning of Monday, October 28, 2019.

Dolphin skin — Exodus 25:5 Jewish Publication Society translates oros t’khashim ערת תחשים, as dolphin skin. In fact, it is not clear which animal is meant by takhash. Rabbinic tradition has proposed many different sorts of animals; some of them quite fantastic. 

For specific quotes from Soloveitchik, see his Halakhic Man, p. 20-21, Jewish Publication Society, paperback edition of 1991