I would like to give an example of tzelem and toar, as I see them in nature. A while back my parents brought a video to my house, "Dogs that changed the world". While there is much to be enjoyed in the movie, what most interested me, was the discussion about the relation of dogs to wolves.
It seems that dogs are genetically almost identical to wolves, they can breed with wolves, though clearly they are very different in terms of their ability to be domesticated and participate in human society. These two properties, DNA and ability to breed on the one hand, and socialization are key toarim of an animal. They are material features that point to the underlying nature or tzelem of a thing.
The ability to breed with another, while clearly a significant result, is not the underlying nature, the life principle, of animality expressed in a dog, cat or fish. It is a material character recognizable to us- a toar or characteristic that points to tzelem, it is not tzelem.
So too socializing. The ability of a creature to pursue its needs, emotional and physical in a herd with another also, while clearly a significant result, is not the underlying nature, the life principle, of animality expressed in a dog, cat or fish. It also is a material character, a toar or characteristic.
These two toars point in two different directions. Is a dog a tzelem of wolf, with the detail of quantitatively heightened tameness as ability of interbreeding points to?
Or is dog a new tzelem, as evidenced by its unique social character?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
You're setting up quite the sorites Rabbi - when exactly did a wolf become a dog? It is clear that the Rambam is saying that "tzelem" refers to the natural form, but isn't this discussion distracting from the steps?
I picked "model" because it fits nicely from a literary perspective into the p'sukim and it is very close in meaning to "form". I think we have a lot of intuitions about the word "model" that will lead in the right direction. My second choice would have been "form", but that word already has meaning to me as an Aristotelian "term". I feel that "model" will lead more smoothly to an exemplar. It's also the translation I came to after limiting myself to about 5 minutes of thinking - anymore than that seems to defeat the whole purpose of the steps.
I do find the dog issue interesting. This from wikipedia:
The domestic dog was originally classified as Canis familiaris and Canis familiarus domesticus by Carolus Linnaeus in 1758,[16][17] and was reclassified in 1993 as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the gray wolf Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists. Overwhelming evidence from behavior, vocalizations, morphology, and molecular biology led to the contemporary scientific understanding that a single species, the gray wolf, is the common ancestor for all breeds of domestic dogs;[5][18] however, the timeframe and mechanisms by which dogs diverged are controversial.[5]
Yehuda
I am not sure the dog isnt a wolf right now! I didn't mean to discuss, rather to exemplify tzelem/ natural form/ principle as I observe it in objects.
Go right ahead and give examples of model as you see it. Lets see where it goes. We don't all need to move in the exact same direction, the issue will clarify as we all develop our own approaches.
At this point, following Rambam, I am trying to grasp the notion or subject pointed to by the pasuk. I am not ready to give an translation.
An interesting article on dog's intelligence:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-08-08-how-dogs-think_N.htm
"the mental abilities of dogs are close to those of a human child between 2 and 2½ years old."
Did anyone ever consider the dog's soul to be more like a child's soul in miniature?
Rabbi, I am a little lost right now. Can you please explain where we're at and what we are supposed to be thinking about. Thanks.
Just giving examples of tzelem as we understand it Dan. How about an example of essence?
Oddly enough, the first thing I think about when I think the word "essence" are those cheesy commercials for fragrances. Some attractive man or woman is moving in slow motion with emphasis either on their femininity or masculinity. Long flowing hair for the woman or a scruffy face for the man. With a soft voice in the back round saying "the essence of man/woman". There have been several commercials like this I believe. I think the idea behind these commercials is that there is an ultimate idea of masculinity/femininity and the makers of this fragrance have captured it. But they are not saying that the ultimate masculinity is this person in the commercial or even the smell of the fragrance. They are saying that there is an essence of man and they have captured it with this fragrance.
So the essence in this example is an idea...their ultimate idea of man.
Post a Comment