The Lonely Man of Faith

Lonely Man of Faith sets out contrasts between those disparate creation accounts of Adam, from Genesis opening chapters. The author describes the differences between Adam I, created male and female, given dominion as a form of majesty or gravitas, and the second account, Adam II, created alone, brought to name the animals. The second creation account finds Adam II 'alone', not as an indictment addressed to Adam, but as a contextual observation of God about Adam. As the author expresses, that statement "it is not good for the man to be alone" may be better served from the Hebrew original as "being lonely."His analysis, a good seven chapters deals with plausible reasoning about the social and psychological status of Adam I and Adam II, explaining how the first Adam pursues the goal of meeting his needs, to structure his communities for his best interests and productivity. Adam II however, is invested by his creator with the need to interact in the covenantal Prophetic/Prayer community with the creator. Only in the second community is the association with Eve extended to the level of relationship, it entails awareness of and interaction with the participation of the third person, as with the participation of God.Through many footnotes sourcing Talmudic discussion of Hebrew commentary, this treatise presents a bird's eye view of Judaistic eschatology from the stand point of it's Orthodox Jewish author. Rav Soloveitchik argues that the narrative titles of God, called Elohim for the "majestic" Adam, versus being called YAWEH for the "covenantal" (man of faith) Adam, are illustrative (metaphorical names) of different aspects of God encountered by each. The one observes God through the mechanism of the cosmos, in his surrounding environment (Elohim), while the title "YAWEH" identifies a symbolism perpetuated down through the patriarchs, of God who calls covenantal Adam to draw near, of God who presents Eve in relationship with Adam and with himself, as co-equal in covenant rather than merely as co-worker.Within the covenantal community, Adam and Eve participate in an existential experience of being together, not merely working together. The change from a technical-utilitarian relationship to a covenantal-existential one occurs (in the Rav's view) "...when God joins the community...Deus absconditus emerges suddenly as Deus revelatus... (while) homo absconditus sheds his mask...(now) homo revelatus."One demonstrative illustration is the Rabbi's observation of how the Biblical text doesn't provide us any interpersonal intercourse/discourse between in-depth personalities of Eve and Adam. "Ontologically, they do not belong to each other; each is provided with an 'I' awareness and knows nothing of a 'We' awareness...the communication lines are open between two surface personalities engaged in work, dedicated to success, and speaking in cliche's and stereotypes, and not between two souls bound together in an indissoluble relation..."The other base to cover is the significance of the stories to an understanding of covenantal theology. Any covenant assumes distinctive definitions and terms of equality between the contractual partners. This understanding often finds a void space among teachers and students of the Bible. The non-Talmud student (like me) may be approaching the literature irrespective to the parties it's addressed to. (i.e. the Levites to whom the Leviticus is addressed to.) As a Christian I'm persuaded that the ignorance of covenantal theology plays a role in substantial misappropriations of Jewish scriptures.Rav Soloveitchik, I believe handles this topic with his best velvet gloves. While his treatise is addressed principally to the Jewish community, it is laced intermittently with precise Latin terms coined by the Christian theology community. In that respect, he also speaks to the theologically alert Christian who may be interested to understand the different goals of Jewish eschatology, including it's own ecumenical aspects. To put this into a perspective potentially accessible to my fellow Christians, there's a proverb near my door where a stray glance cannot easily escape."He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be an abomination." (Proverbs 28:5, ASV)It is incumbent upon a hearer to recognize, or pay attention to whom the directive is applicable; namely to whom are the terms of the covenant applicable? Also, what are the roles of the participants which the covenant defines? Preaching becomes quite strange, when assuming the assertion from the Christian epistles, that all those things which were written were given for 'our' edification, for 'our' instruction, where the preacher fails to acknowledge the covenant provisions/restrictions actually belong to Judaism. For example:[Only] "The covenant draws God into the society of men of faith."[As]-- the leader of the community-- the teacher of his pupils-- the shepherd of the flock."The prime purpose of revelation in the opinion of the Halakhah is related to the giving of the Law.""The prophetic pilgrimage to God pursues a practical goal in whose realization the whole covenantal community shares." [...] "which is mainly a community of action."Because Judaism doesn't have a Hell connected to the concept of "salvation", redemption isn't reduced to a Great Escape. It's more of a progression down the path of repentance, "Teshuva", as it's called. "Cathartic redemptiveness--when objectified--expresses itself in the feeling of axiological security [i.e. being anchored in halachic life.] attained through man's exercise of control over himself." "[Which]...is experienced in the privacy of one's in-depth personality, [and] cuts below the relationship between the 'I' and the 'thou'."Abraham's story introduces the basics of covenantal community. "Both parties entering a covenantal relationship possess inalienable rights which may only be surrendered by mutual consent. The paradoxical experience of freedom, reciprocity, and 'equality' in one's personal confrontation with God is basic for the understanding of the covenantal faith community."Without any epic myth of the fall into sin, his Orthodox comment on Tanakh originality has this to say: "The Biblical account of the original sin is the story of man of faith who realizes suddenly that faith can be utilized for the acquisition of majesty and glory and who instead of fostering a covenantal community, prefers to organize a political utilitarian community exploiting the sincerity and unqualified commitment of the crowd for non covenantal, worldly purposes." "The history of organized religion is replete with instances of desecration of the covenant."

Rabbi Soloveitchik, known as the Rav, presents interesting ideas concerning the dual nature of humans and the status of this nature in modernity. That status, says the Rav, is bleak because the practical self, recognized and valued in today’s world, is alienated from its spiritual self with little apparent utility.Where the Rav does best is a reinterpretation of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Their different order of creation separated by barely a page stymies the modern fact-checker like me. But the Rav’s view is richer. Ignoring details of creation sequence, he claims they’re both true. Referencing biblical text, the Adam of chapter 1 gets his marching orders to “harness and dominate the elemental natural forces and put them at his disposal,” writes Soloveitchik. Seeking how things work, Adam 1 strives “to vanquish disease, conquer space, forge political structures…” Adam 1 is victor over nature. (Recall, ancient Hebrews lived in a desert that will kill the unprepared. No wonder nature was a hostile).But Adam of chapter 2 is instead overpowered to the point of unconscious, when he must sacrifice a part of his own body for something greater than himself and his achievements—Eve—the answer to his loneliness. Something Adam 1 is too busy to consider. Adam 2 asks not how the universe is the way it is, but why? Adam 2 “is aware of an endless past which rolled on without him,” writes the Rav. “He is aware also of an endless future which will rush on with no less force long after he will cease to exist. The link between the ‘before’ in which he was not involved and the ‘after’ from which he will be excluded is the present moment, which vanishes before it is experienced. In fact, the whole accidental character of his being is tied up with this frightening time-consciousness.” Beautiful. And so nice to know I’m not the only one seized by this realization.For the Rav, this was the intension of God, to create this seemingly impossible gap, forcing humans to manage a way to live in both worlds. With a secular view, aware of how the Bible was collated, I wonder, did the ancients intend just what Soloveitchik claims? To enunciate our competing nature in the very first two pages? His argument is so convincing, I’m inclined to think so.This book raised another question as I read it. Was the Levantine’s full departure from nature religions—elements of them still part of surrounding cultures at the time—what created the seemingly impossible gap? Not the disconnect between Adam 1 and 2, but that 2 no longer had concrete access with a spiritual world as 1 had with his practical materialism. Once God was exiled from nature, God was no longer directly reachable in the outer world by Adam 2, but rather through the abstract inner world of prayer. By Louis Dumont’s "Essays on Individualism" this inward turn was part and parcel of all Axial Age movements, including Judaism.Soloveitchik’s book left me with remarkable impressions: other ways to view human nature, our modern conundrum, and writings of the ancients.

This review is just to advise against the Random House -- Doubleday -- Three Leaves Press edition.Instead, I'd advise getting the OU Press -- Maggid edition.See images above comparing these editions with respect to a passage using Hebrew.The Three Leaves edition has a final mem instead of a samekh in מספרים.Also, the Three Leaves edition seems to cut off the Hebrew phrase. In the Three Leaves edition, the phrase ends with the (abbreviated?) word וגו׳ (vav-gimel-vav-geresh).It seems like the Three leaves edition was subjected to some kind of OCR without spell checking or other human proofreading.

I am certainly blessed that this essay was recommended to me and that I read it. While the author analyzed the scripture and reached some conclusions I found unpersuasive, so what? It gave me much to ponder and use to understand more about the nature of humanity in the context of our Creator.

The author examines the two Biblical stories of creation in Genesis, and he develops from those a unique hypothesis about human personality. His comparisons of the two stories result in a compelling analysis that I have found extremely helpful. I highly recommend this book to anyone who desires a deeper insight into human actions and interactions. In its broadest sense, the differences between introversion and extraversion are given Biblical explanations; more narrowly, the book examines how personality differences affect an individual's relationship to his God, his religion, and his world in general.

Rav Soloveitchik, was among the leading halakhic figures of the last century. In addition to his work in this field he was also an improtant philosophic thinker. He had not only been trained in the classical texts of Judaism but also philosophy in Berlin.This book is based a seris of lectures given at Yeshiva University. Perhaps because this book is based on a sersis of public lectures it is a very accessable. Dispite the fact that it is higly accessable it is a profound work. Rav Soloveitchik uses the first two chapters of Genesis (which tell two similar but different accounts of the creation of the world and of Adam). Rav Soloveitchik encourprates insighties from philosophy from the likes of kant and Kierkegaard as well as Pyscology.The basic argument of the book is that there are two Adams and therefore two types of characteristics within each of us (both commanded by God and in that sense both nature and necessary) one the out going individualistic Adam of Genesis One who if he does construct communities does so in a utilitrian way and the other Lonely (if not alone) Adam of Genesis two, who needs to construct a (faith)-community in order to draw closer to God. It is this lonely Man of Faith who gives the book its name.Probably this book will be of most interest to people with some philosophical background and an interest in Judaism. However, it is accessable to almost any reader and i think that anyone will find much of interest in it.The Lonely Man of Faith was first published in the magazine Tradition in 1965, however it is still as revelent to a postmodernist society as it was to the morderist one it was written for. It is short book, some ten shortish chapters nevertheless it is a profound work that is worth reading and then re-reading.

This book is aimed primarily at a devout orthodox jewish readership. It is also aimed at the highly educated. That stated the premise of the two Adams a n d the intrinsic contradictions between both aspects of human nature is clearly true. Shmuley Boteach is much easier to engage with, is clearly influenced by soloveitchik, and is more easily digestible. This book reflects its author, time and context. It is very good though, even if it's hard work to read.

Extremely well written and a work of philosophical art. I am a song writer and I am writing about desires in a modern society and this work has fuelled a large amount of thought and lyrical production.I would recommend for anyone who is interested in the way desires work or anyone maybe looking for advice as to how to balance desires with spirituality etc.

Excellent. One of the most personal expressions ever voiced by a modern Talmudic authority on the power of Jewish faith. Purchased as recommended by Rabbi Lord Sacks.

EXCELLENT transaction.Thank you!