Double Dipping & Mixed Messages: the Pesach Paradox

Double Dipping & Mixed Messages: The Pesach Paradox

Rabbi Yosef Weinstock Shabbat Hagadol Drasha 5779 ח' ניסן תשע''ט

Mishna Pesachim 114a הביאו לפניו מטבל בחזרת עד שמגיע לפרפרת הפת. הביאו לפניו מצה וחזרת וחרוסת ושני תבשילין, אף על פי שאין חרוסת מצוה. רבי אליעזר [ברבי] צדוק אומר: מצוה The attendants brought vegetables before the leader of the seder prior to the meal, if there were no other vegetables on the table. He dips the ḥazeret into water or vinegar, to taste some food before he reaches the dessert of the bread, i.e., the bitter herbs, which were eaten after the matza. They brought before him matza and ḥazeret and ḥaroset, and at least two cooked dishes in honor of the Festival. The tanna comments that this was the practice, although eating ḥaroset is not a mitzva but merely a custom. Rabbi Eliezer ben Tzadok says: Actually, it is a mitzva to eat ḥaroset.

Karpas

Pesachim 114b ודקאמרת תרי טיבולי למה לי - כי היכי דליהוי היכירא לתינוקות And that which you said, why do I need two dippings, perhaps the reason is so that there should be a conspicuous distinction for the children, which will cause them to inquire into the difference between this night and all others.

Bach OC 473:3 ויש סמך (ברוקח) [בלוקח] כרפס אותיות ס' פרך ששעבדו מצרים ששים ריבוא בפרך There is a hint in the word “Karpas” to “Samach Perach” ie 600,000 Jews who were subjected to back-breaking labor.

Bach 473:8 התשובה לתינוקות הוא דהטיבול שקודם הסעודה הוא דרך חירות כדרך בני חורין שמטבילין קודם סעודה להמשיך תאות המאכל כן כתבו קצת מפרשים. The answer to the child’s question (concerning two dippings) is that the first dip is an expression of freedom; for it is the way of free people to dip vegetables prior to the meal to work up an appetite.

ולי נראה דהתשובה היא לפי שעדיין לא הגיע זמן הסעודה דבעינן למימר תחלה אגדתא והלילא על כן אנו מטבילין עכשיו לטעימה בעלמא לפני הסעודה שלא לשהות כל אותו :הזמן בלי אכילה כל עיקר It appears to me that the answer (for why we dip at Karpas) is because the meal is far off, as we still have to recite the Haggadah. So we dip now as a snack- so that we don’t go so long without eating

Ritva’s Hagadah קשיא לרש"י וכי אין אנו אוכלין בלילה הזה שאר ירקות, ופירש הוא ז"ל דהכי פירושו כי כל מה שאנו אוכלין בלילה הזה אפילו ירקות מתוקים חשובים מרור לנו זכר לוימררו את חייהם בעבודה קשה, ומה שאנו אוכלין בשאר לילות אפילו מרור הוא מתוק, ואינו נכון, אלא כך פירושו שבכל הלילות אנו אוכלים בתחילת סעודתינו שאר ירקות מתוקים .שמכשירים האדם לאכילה, והלילה הזה אנו עושים תחילת סעודתינו מרור But don’t we eat other vegetables at the Seder (besides maror)? According to Rashi the child’s question is as follows: Tonight, even sweet vegetables taste bitter as we recall how the Egyptians ”embittered their lives with hard work.” On all other nights, even the maror can taste sweet. But this explanation is not correct. Rather the question is: On all other night’s we begin the meal with sweet vegetables that prepare us for the meal, but tonight we begin with bitterness.

Salt Water Rashi Pesachim 114a .מטבל בחזרת - כלומר: אם אין שם ירק אחר - מטבל החזרת בחרוסת ואוכל If there is no other vegetable (for karpas), then you dip the romaine into charoset.

Rashbam ibid והאי טיבול לאו בחרוסת הוא כדקתני לקמן הביאו לפניו מצה וחזרת וחרוסת מכלל דעדיין :לא הביאו. והך חזרת לאו דוקא אלא אם (כן) אין שם ירק אחר מטבל בחזרת ואוכל This dipping (by karpas) is not in charoset, for only later do we bring, matzah, maror and charoset to the table….

Tosfot Ibid ומיהו היכא שהטיבול ראשון הוי בשאר ירקות אין צריך לטבול בחרוסת אלא או בחומץ או במים ומלח כמו שהיה נוהג ר"ת When you use a vegetable other than maror for Karpas there is no need to dip in charoset; rather dip in water or salt water as Rabbeinu Tam did.

Beit Yosef OC 472: 6 ואיני יודע מה ראו לתפוס כדברי הר"מ כיון דכי מטבל בחומץ לכולי עלמא שפיר דמי ובטיבול דחרוסת חלוקים כמה גדולים טיבול דחומץ עדיף וכך נוהגים המדקדקים לעשות טיבול זה בחומץ וכ"כ המרדכי (לח.) דטיבול זה לא יהא בחרוסת אלא בחומץ או ביין ומצאתי כתוב שיש עושין אותו במי מלח Dipping in vinegar is good according to everyone, while dipping in charoset is a dispute- so it’s better to dip in vinegar….and I have seen it written that some dip in salt water

Leket Yosher pg 89:1 ומ"מ אין מצוה במים ובמלח טפי מבחומץ, ואדרבה יראה דלדידן בזמנינו בארצינו דלא רגילנו כל השנה בטיבול מים ומלח, ורוב טיבול שלנו ע"י חומץ שפיר טפי בחומץ אפילו כשחל בחול. וא"ת דניעבר /דניעבד/ שנוי טפי כדי להתמיה התינוק', אין לנו לעשות אלא .שינוי שהזכירו חכמים, וחכמים לא הזכירו אלא טיבול, ומסתמא רצו לומר טיבול הרגיל

Rut 2:14 ַו יּ ֹא מֶ ר לָה ב ֹעַ ז לְעֵת הָ א ֹכֶ ל גּ ֹשִׁ י הֲ�ם וְאָכַלְתְּ מִ ן הַלֶּחֶם וְ טָ בַ לְ תְּ פִּ תֵּ � בַּ ח ֹמֶ ץ וַ תֵּ שֶׁ ב מִ צַּ ד הַקּוֹצְרִ ים וַיִּצְבָּט לָהּ קָ לִ י וַתֹּאכַל וַתִּ שְׂ בַּ ע ַו תּ ֹתַ ר And Boaz said to her at mealtime, "Come here and partake of the bread, and dip your morsel in the vinegar."…

Haseder Ha’Aruch Chapter 121

Yisa Bracha commentary in Ishei Yisrael Hagadah

Charoset Pesachim 116a אף על פי שאין חרוסת מצוה. ואי לא מצוה - משום מאי מייתי לה? - אמר רבי אמי: משום .קפא Then if it is not a religious requirement, on what account does he bring it? — Said R. Ammi: On account of the kappa.

רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק אומר מצוה וכו'. מאי מצוה? רבי לוי אומר: זכר לתפוח. ורבי יוחנן אומר: זכר לטיט, אמר אביי: הלכך צריך לקהוייה, וצריך לסמוכיה. לקהוייה - זכר לתפוח, וצריך לסמוכיה - זכר לטיט. תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן: תבלין זכר לתבן, חרוסת זכר לטיט. אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק: כך היו אומרים תגרי חרך שבירושלים: בואו וטלו לכם .תבלין למצוה What is the nature of this mitzva? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Levi says: It is in remembrance of the apple, as apple is one of the ingredients in ḥaroset. The verse states: “Who is this who comes up from the wilderness, reclining upon her beloved? Under the apple tree I awakened you” (Song of Songs 8:5), which is an allusion to the Jewish people leaving Egypt. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The ḥaroset is in remembrance of the mortar used by the Jews for their slave labor in Egypt. Abaye said: Therefore, to fulfill both opinions, one must prepare it tart and one must prepare it thick. One must prepare it tart in remembrance of the apple, and one must prepare it thick in remembrance of the mortar.

Sotah 11b ,דרש רב עוירא: בשכר נשים צדקניות שהיו באותו הדור - נגאלו ישראל ממצרים וכיון שמגיע זמן מולדיהן, הולכות ויולדות בשדה תחת התפוח, שנאמר: תחת התפוח 'עוררתיך וגו Rav Avira taught: In the merit of the righteous women that were in that generation, the Jewish people were redeemed from Egypt… And when these women would become pregnant, they would come back to their homes, and when the time for them to give birth would arrive they would go and give birth in the field under the apple tree, as it is stated: “Under the apple tree I awakened you

Rokeiach 283 ירושלמי ר' לוי אומר צריכה שתהא עבה זכר לטיט. אית דאמרי צריכה שתהא רכה זכר .לדם Charoset must be thick like mortar. Some say it must be thin like blood.

Tosfot Pesachim 116a צריך לסמוכיה וצריך לקהוייה - ובירושלמי אמר אית דעבדי זכר לדם ומשום הכי קרי ליה טיבולו במשקה וכן עמא דבר לסמוכי ובשעת אכילה מקלשין אותו ביין וחומץ ובתשובת הגאונים מפרש לעשות חרוסת בפירות שנדמה לכנסת ישראל בשיר השירים תחת התפוח עוררתיך כפלח הרמון התאנה חנטה אמרתי אעלה בתמר אגוז אל גנת אגוז .ושקדים על שם ששקד הקב"ה על הקץ At first charoset is prepared thick, and then it is thinned out with wine or vinegar before it is served

Yerushalmi Pesachim 10:3 ר' יהושע בן לוי אמר צריכא שתהא עבה. מילתיה אמר זכר לטיט. אית תניי תני צבריה שתהא רבה. מילתיה אמר זכר לדם

Pnei Moshe on Yerushalmi ואית תנא תני צבריה שתהא רכה. צוברה ביין ומשקין שתהא רכה א"נ צבעה גריס :וממילתיה שמעינן שהיא זכר לדם מכה הראשונה שבאה עליהם במידה כנגד מידה Charoset should be thin to commemorate the blood- of the first plague in Egypt.

Korban Ha’Eida on Yerushalmi :טעמו אמר דלכך צריכה שתהא רכה זכר לדם שהיה שוקעין בטיט על הילדים הקטנים Charoset is thin to commemorate the blood of the Jewish babies who were murdered by mixing them into the mortar.

Rama OC 473:5 חרוסת יעשה עב, זכר לטיט, ואח"כ נותנין בו מעט חומץ או יין אדום זכר לדם, (טור). ועושין החרוסת מפירות שנמשלו בהם ישראל (תוספות פ' ע"פ) (מט) יב'] כגון, תפוחים, תאנים, אגוזים, רימונים, שקדים; ונותנין עליו תבלין, כגון קנמון וזנגביל הדומים לתבן שהיו מגבלין בו הטיט First make charoset thick, and then add vinegar or some red wine, to commemorate the blood.

Shulchan Aruch OC 472:11 מצוה לחזור אחר יין יג אדום, (אם אין הלבן משובח ממנו) (טור It’s appropriate to use red wine (if the white wine is not better)

Taz Ibid אחר יין אדום. דכתיב אל תרא יין כי יתאדם ש"מ שהאדמדומי' הוא מעלה והקפיד הטו' כאן בד' כוסות בזה ולא בקידוש בסי' ער"ב דיש עוד רמז לאדום זכר לדם שהי' פרעה :שוחט בני ישראל והאידנא נמנעו מליקח יין אדום מפני עלילות שקרים בעו"ה Nowadays we refrain from using red wine due to the blood libels

Matzah Parshat Reeh 16:3 �ֽ א ־ ת ֹא כַ ֤ ל עָלָיו֙ חָ מֵ֔ ץ שִׁ ְ ב עַ ֥ ת י ָמִ ֛ י ם תֹּֽאכַל־עָלָ֥יו מַ ֖צּוֹת לֶ ֣ חֶ ם ֑ע ֹנִי כִּ ֣ י בְחִפָּז֗ וֹן י ָצָ֨ א תָ ֙ ֵ מ אֶ ֣ רֶ ץ מִ ְצ רַ֔ יִ ם : ְ ל מַ ֣ ַע ן ִ תּ זְ ֹ֗ כּ ר אֶ ֤ת־יוֹם צֵ ֽ א תְ ֙� ֵ מ אֶ ֣ רֶ ץ ִ מ ְצ רַ֔ יִ ם ֖כֹּל י ְ מֵ ֥ י חַ יֶּ ֽי � You shall not eat leaven with it; for seven days you shall eat with it matzoth, the bread of affliction, for in haste you went out of the land of Egypt, so that you shall remember the day when you went out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life.

Pesach Haggadah הָא לַ חְ מָ א עַנְיָא דִּ י אֲ כָ לוּ אַבְהָתָ נָא בְאַרְ עָא דְ מִ צְרָ י ִם This is the bread of affliction that our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt.

מַ צָּ ה זוֹ שֶׁ אָנוֹ אוֹכְלִים, עַל שׁוּם מַ ה? עַל שׁוּם שֶׁ �א הִסְ פִּיק בְּצֵקָ ם שֶׁ ל אֲבוֹתֵינוּ לְהַחֲמִ יץ עַד שֶׁ נִּגְלָ ה עֲלֵיהֶם מֶ לֶ � מַ לְכֵי הַ מְּ לָכִים, הַ קָּ דוֹשׁ בָּרוּ� הוּא, וּגְאָלָם

This matza that we are eating, for the sake of what [is it]? For the sake [to commemorate] that our ancestors' dough was not yet able to rise, before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed [Himself] to them and redeemed them.

Maror Haggadah ,מָ רוֹר זֶה שֶׁ אָנוּ אוֹכְלִים, עַל שׁוּם מַ ה? עַל שׁוּם ֶ שׁ ֵ מּ רְ ר וּ ַה ִ מּ ְצ רִ י ם אֶ ת־חַ יּ ֵי אֲ בוֹתֵ ינוּ ְבּ מִ ְצ רַ יִ ם This marror [bitter greens] that we are eating, for the sake of what [is it]? For the sake [to commemorate] that the Egyptians embittered the lives of our ancestors in Egypt.

Or Hachayim on Shemot 12:8 ומצות על מרורים. לפי פשט הכתוב לפי מה שראינו שאמר ה' שצריך צלי אש ושיהיה שלם כו' זה יגיד שדעת עליון הוא להראות בחינה הגדולה והחירות ואין רשות אחרים עליהם, ולפי זה גם המרורים שיצו ה' הוא לצד כי כן דרך אוכלי צלי לאכול עמו דבר חד כי בזה יערב לחיך האוכל ויאכל בכל אות נפשו. גם בזה יוכר גודל העריבות כשיקדים .לפיו מרורים. גם מה שהזכיר המצות הוא פרט אשר יכונן חיך אוכל יטעם לו הצלי The plain meaning of the verse seems to be that the roasting of the lamb whole is a symbol of freedom. Freedom means wholeness. The requirement to eat bitter herbs with it is natural; Egyptians used to eat roast meat with something pungent as this enhanced the taste of the meat and enabled the person who ate it to thoroughly enjoy his meal. Letting the bitter herbs precede the meat in his mouth made one more conscious of the contrast and of how something which by itself had tasted bitter would suddenly transform the whole meal into an enjoyable experience. The unleavened bread also contributed to that feeling. We therefore find that there were three components which combined to make the meal enjoyable.

Beit Yosef OC 475 מה שכתב ויאכלנו בלא הסיבה. שם (קח.) מרור אין צריך הסיבה ופירש רש"י מפני שהוא :זכר לעבדות. ונראה לי שאם רצה לאכלו בהסיבה רשאי

One need not recline while eating maror (Rashi: because maror commemorates the slavery). However I believe that one is allowed to lean while eating maror.

Sefer Hamanhig pg 490 נפלאתי על זה שכתבו לטבל המצה בחרוסת ולא ראיתי ולא שמעתי מנהג זה לעולם, וכי אפשר לומ' כן, והלא המצה צריכה הסיבה זכר לחירות, והחרוס' זכר לטיט ולשעבוד היא, .והיאך יתחברו החרות והשעבוד זה עם זה שזה סותר זה Concerning the minhag to dip matzah in charoset: I am amazed and do not understand such a custom. Matzah commemorates freedom, while charoset commemorates the slavery. How can we possibly comingle the freedom and the bondage together- they contradict each other!

Bach OC 475 ומה שהקשה בעל המנהיג שמצה היא זכר לחירות וחרוסת זכר לטיט וכו'. אפשר לומר דכוונתינו להורות בטיבול זה שהוציאנו מעבדות שהוא מטיט שהחרוסת זכר לו לחירות שהמצה זכר לו. וכשמטבילין בו את המרור כוונתינו בענין אחר להורות דהמרירות :שמיררו אותנו היינו בעבודת הטיט To answer the question: dipping – and then removing- matzah from charoset symbolizes how we were redeemed from the slavery. Dipping maror into charoset symbolizes how the the bitterness was during and a result of the slavery.

Heseiba Mishnah Pesachim 99b אפילו עני שבישראל לא יאכל עד שיסב Even a poor person must recline at the Seder

Rashi ibid ואפילו עני שבישראל לא יאכל - בלילי פסחים, עד שיסב כדרך בני חורין, זכר לחירות, .במטה ועל השלחן Reclining at the Seder is a demonstration of freedom

Beshalach 13:18 : יּ ַסֵּ֨ ב אֱ � הִ ֧ ם | אֶ ת ־ ָ ה עָ ֛ ם דֶּ ֥ רֶ � ַ ה מִּ דְ בָּ ֖ ר ֑יַם־סוּף וַ ֽ ֲ ח ֻ מ שִׁ ֛ י ם ֥עָלוּ ְ ב ֵ נ ֽי ־ י ִ ְ שׂ רָ אֵ ֖ ל ֵ מ אֶ ֥ רֶ ץ ִ מ ְצ רָ ֽ יִ ם So God led the people around [by] way of the desert [to] the Red Sea, and the children of Israel were armed when they went up out of Egypt

Rashi ibid :ויסב: הסיבם מן הדרך הפשוטה לדרך העקומה Hashem rerouted Bnai Yisrael and took them on a circuitous route

Shemot Rabbah 20: 18 ד"א ויסב אלהם את העם מכאן אמרו רבותינו אפי' עני שבישראל לא יאכל עד שיסב שכך .עשה להם הקב"ה שנאמר ויסב אלהם “God led the Jews on a circuitous route”- from here the Rabbis learn that we all must recline at the Seder

“Freedom is only part of the story”

Victor Frankl Man’s Search for Meaning pg. 209-210 Freedom, however, is not the last word. Freedom is only part of the story and half of the truth. Freedom is but the negative aspect of the whole phenomenon whose positive aspect is responsibleness. In fact, freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness. That is why I recommend that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast.

The Paradaox of (Korban) Pesach Pesachim 66a They did not know whether the Passover overrides the Sabbath or not. Said they, ‘Is there any man who knows whether the Passover overrides the Sabbath or not?’ They were told, ‘There is a certain man who has come up from Babylonia, Hillel the Babylonian by name, who served7 the two greatest men of the time, and he knows whether the Passover

12 overrides the Sabbath or not [Thereupon] they summoned him [and] said to him, ‘Do you know whether the Passover overrides the Sabbath or not?’ ‘Have we then [only] one Passover during the year which overrides the Sabbath?’ replied he to them, ‘Surely we have many more than two hundred Passovers during the year which override the Sabbath! Said they to him, ‘How do you know it?’ He answered them, ‘In its appointed time’ is stated in connection with the Passover, and ‘In its appointed time’ is stated in connection with the tamid; just as ‘Its appointed time’ which is said in connection with the tamid overrides the Sabbath, so ‘Its appointed time’ which is said in connection with the Passover overrides the Sabbath. Moreover, it follows a minori, if the tamid, [the omission of] which is not punished by kareth, overrides the Sabbath, then the Passover,[neglect of] which is punished by kareth, is it not logical that it overrides the Sabbath! They immediately set him at their head and appointed him Nasi [Patriarch] over them.

------

Paradox in the thought of Rav Soloveitchik Kedusha (sanctity) is not a paradise but a paradox" - Sacred and Profane p.8

It would be presumptuous of me to attempt to convert the passional, antinomic faith-experience into a eudaemonic, harmonious one, while the Biblical knights of faith lived heroically with this very tragic and paradoxical experience. - Lonely Man of Faith

However, while theoretical oppositions and dichotomies have never tormented my thoughts, I could not shake off the disquieting feeling that the practical role of the man of faith within modern society is a very difficult, indeed, a paradoxical one…. - Lonely Man of Faith

Our approach to the outside world has always been of an ambivalent character. We cooperate with members of other faiths in all fields of human endeavor but, simultaneously, we seek to preserve our distinct integrity which inevitably involves aspects of separateness. This is a paradoxical situation. Yet, paraphrasing the words of our first ancestor, Abraham we are very much residents in general human society while, at the same time, strangers and outsiders in our persistent endeavor to preserve our historic religious identity. - Reflections of the Rav

The beauty of God is experienced as holiness, as the mysterium magnum, ineffable and unattainable, awesome and holy (nora ve- kadosh), as something that transcends everything comprehensible and speakable, which makes one tremble and experience bliss. Beauty and paradox merge—He is both remote and so near; awesome and lovely, fascinating and daunting, majestic and tender, comforting and frightening, familiar and alien, the beyond of creation and its very essence. . . . - Worship of the Heart pg 66

Time Magazine, October 8, 1984 pg 86 U.S. Judaism's Man of Paradox The dominant force in Orthodoxy is a revered Boston rabbi

Although Joseph B. Soloveitchik is U.S. Orthodox Judaism's most illustrious philosopher, only a small scattering of his thousands of lectures have ever been published. He is a leading Zionist who has baffled his closest followers by never once visiting the state of Israel. In the U.S., he created the progressive, or "Modern," wing of Orthodoxy by synthesizing tradition and contemporary culture; but paradoxically for Soloveitchik, now that Orthodoxy is well established in the U.S.,* it tends increasingly to reject his outlook and retreat behind sectarian walls.

Soloveitchik, 81, is known to his devotees as "the Rav," a Hebrew term of honor that means he is "the Rabbi." (Less reverential Jews on the right wing of Orthodoxy use just his initials "J.B.") As professor of Talmud since 1941 at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary in New York City, Soloveitchik has 14 prepared nearly 1,500 men for ordination. By some estimates, this is the largest number of rabbis trained by any sage of the past millennium. The group makes up the majority of the North American Orthodox rabbis now serving in synagogues. Neither the Conservative nor the Reform branches of U.S. Judaism can boast an equivalently pre-eminent scholar.

Soloveitchik has rarely granted interviews and, as a perfectionist who is constantly rethinking his ideas, has always hesitated to commit his formulations to print. But now two new publications have made this master of Halakha (traditional law) accessible to a broad U.S. audience. The first: Halakhic Man (Jewish Publication Society), a translation of a major manifesto published in Hebrew in 1944. The second, just issued for the High Holy Days, is Soloveitchik on Repentance (Paulist Press). Compiled by an Israeli disciple of Soloveitchik's, Pinchas Peli, Repentance is based on transcriptions of Yom Kippur discourses that the Rav delivered in New York City over twelve years. Reviewing the earlier Hebrew edition of Repentance, Chicago's Reform rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf declared that Soloveitchik is "more and more obviously the teacher of the time. If I am not mistaken, people will still be reading him in a thousand years."

Halakhic Man, a sweeping defense of the validity and excitement of pursuing the religiously observant life in the modern world, makes much of humanity's God-given creativity. According to Soloveitchik, "God left an area of evil and chaos in the world so that man might make it good," purposely flawing the perfection of his own material creation to leave room for the improvements that could be made by his obedient creature……..

The Repentance book comes not from a Jewish house but a Roman Catholic one, evidence of the Rav's universality. Says Father Lawrence Boadt, an editor for Paulist Press: "We thought this would be a very effective book for Christians. Soloveitchik is one of the greatest mystical thinkers in the United States." Catholic enthusiasm for the book is also significant because in 1964, during the Second Vatican Council, Soloveitchik announced his opposition to theological discussions between Jews and Christians. Interfaith talks, he wrote in one of his rare essays, must be limited to secular topics. Though his policy encourages some contact with Christians, it still limits theological dialogues.

A similar dispute involves demands by right-wing Orthodoxy to end cooperation with Conservative and Reform Jews in such organizations as the Synagogue

Council of America and the New York Board of Rabbis. The Rabbinical Council of America, which represents the Modern Orthodox movement, years ago referred the matter to its reigning authority, Soloveitchik. He never ruled that such cooperation was permissible, but he did not condemn it either. As a result, concourse still takes place. Says Orthodox Rabbi Walter Wurzburger, former Synagogue Council president: "I dread to think of the future of Orthodoxy without him."

In his life as well as his thought, Soloveitchik bridges the ancient ghettos and modern urban culture. The scion of an eminent line of East European rabbis, he was trained at home in Russia by his father and received no formal schooling until he entered the University of Berlin. There he earned a Ph.D. in philosophy, becoming as conversant with Kant as with Moses. In 1932 he moved to Boston as chief Orthodox rabbi and founder of a pioneering day school. He later began commuting to teach in New York. A widower, he has two daughters and one son, who is a scholar of Jewish history.

When Soloveitchik arrived on the American scene, the Orthodox Jews were isolated from mainstream society and seemed doomed to extinction in the U.S. Soloveitchik helped foster the growth of the movement by insisting that a Jew could remain both an observer of tradition and a full participant in Western culture. For him it has never been a pragmatic calculation but a belief that this was the very will of God.

His philosophy, reflected in the two newly published books, took on a more complex aspect in a different work, the powerful 1965 essay "The Lonely Man of Faith." ……. The essay, existential in tone, is one of the most personal expressions ever voiced by a modern Talmudic authority on the elemental power of religious faith and the ways in which the joy of life often comes mixed with longing, torment and despair.

It also says much about Soloveitchik's own demons: for all of his confidence in the intellectual and psychological validity of his tradition, there seems little doubt that he worries about, and perhaps even fears, the cultural forces that relentlessly threaten to subvert it. —By Richard N. Ostling. Reported by Martin Levin/Jerusalem