Rav Soloveitchik's lectures III - Commensurability

Rav Meir Triebitz writes:

We have already hinted that the Rav views halacha as the central basis for a philosophy of Judaism. This theme appears over and over again in the Rav’s writings, and in particular in lecture XII where he declares:

Whether an idea is typically Jewish can best be judged by the halacha – not the Aggadah – to understand any work as the authority meant to convey and you must have lived in the same social environment and cultural forces as the author. Mankind is changeable in its cognitive adventures, and to say that I understand Aristotle means in the tradition of Aristotle, which, of course, has been subject to change. In halacha there is a masoret, a tradition as to method, but if I give an interpretation to Maimonides, it does not necessarily mean that Maimonides meant just that. If measured by halachic standards it is correct. That suffices. But as to Aggadah, there is no tradition, nor in philosophy do we have a tradition. In halacha there is a certain kabballah without any missing links, while in Aggada and certainly philosophy there are many such missing links.

It appears to me that the Rav’s remarks concerning evolution are an attempt to achieve what I would call ‘halachic commensurability’ and not, merely, ‘scientific commensurability’. While Judaism views man as the “bearer of a divine image” and therefore endowed with the capacity for transcendence, this transcendence, in the Rav’s words, “was always seen against the background of naturalness. The canvas was man’s immanence; transcendence was just projected on it as a display of colors” (Emergence of Ethical Man p. 9). The Rav is clearly speaking from the standpoint of the halachah. In contradistinction, “Christianity succeeded in isolating them and reducing the element of naturalness to a state of corruption” (ibid.). This has to be seen as a consequence of Christianity’s rejection of the halacha.