Now before I go on I was to be ABSOLUTELY clear: I am commenting on the euology, not the man, may his memory be for a blessing. I don't want anyone thinking that my criticisms are directed at him, chas v'shalom. Having cleared that up I will commence.
The eulogy is quite disturbing if one reads it through and considers a few things. Some of them are expected. We must realize that it is an ikkar emunah in the Chareidi community to despite the State of Israel that supports, protects and finances them. Comments in the eulogy assuring us that Rav Twersky hated the State of Israel and saw its true "evil" aren't so much a sign of delusion but an attempt by the eulogizer to shore up the Rav's status as a good Chareidi. Recall that during the summer skirmish in 'Aza the Agudah also found time to express solidarity with Jews in Israel and thank the American army for providing the Iron Dome but deliberately avoided any show of gratitude to the Israeli army.
Similarly, the attack on Rav Natan Slifkin's book is also not so much meant to be personal but a reassurance that Rav Twersky never had "wrong thoughts" or wavered from a Puritan's view of how the Torah is to be literally understood. Finally the eulogizer's claim that Rav Twersky saw full-time learning as the only real occupation of a frum Yid is along the same lines. It's like a checklist is being completed. Anti-Zionist? Check! Anti-non-Chareidi hashkafah? Check! Learn, don't earn? Check! He was a real tzadik.
Now that's not the entire eulogy, of course, just the parts highlighted by Rav Slifkin for their negative content. There is plenty in there about Rav Twersky's dveikus, his commitment to learning and mitzvos, his overal zrizus for a Torah lifestyle and all that is certainly inspiration and laudable.
But what's missing? What about the man in his society? Was he a nice guy? Did he give tzedakah with a smile? Did he greet passersby on the street, religious or not, with a sever panim yafos? Did he wawit in line patiently? Did he treat chilonim with respect when he had to interact with them? We simply don't know.
Again, I'm not saying he didn't do all those things. For all I know he was a genuinely friendly guy who worked hard to present a positive image in public and was respectful and considerate of all. But I don't know that from this eulogy. It's not in there. Why?
I would suggest that this is because, unlike the three characteristics noted above, all these things hold far less importance in official Chareidism. Given the choice between a rude lout who's a determined learner and a polite fellow who might work all day and learn in the evening when he can, Chareidism far outvalues the former over the latter. That Rav Twersky might have held the door open for the elderly guy coming into shul behind him is far less important than how early he arrived at shul to start praying.
How did this happen? I blame the emphasis on mystical Judaism that has gripped the frum world over the last few decades. Once upon a time the kabbalah, the neurosurgery of Judaism, was restricted to genuine mekubals, the brain surgeons of our nation. With the expansion of the influence of Chasidus along with the spread of mystical books in modern Hebrew and English the mystical has become far more accessible and to the detriment of the nation.
Consider the following: a rationalist performs a mitzvah because that's what the Shulchan Aruch says he has to do. The action is the fulfilling of the will of God as understood by our Sages. For the mystic, however, it's an entirely different aspect. The performance of the mitzvah with the proper kavannah involves the manipulation of spiritual forces and an outpouring of Divine bounty as its result.
What's the nafka mina? For the mystical approach it means a diminishment of the importance of bein adam l'chaveiro. If I'm giving tzedakah to someone from a rational perspective then it's important for me to know how to give it properly so that the recipience benefits from it without hurt feelings or other negative outcomes. If I'm giving charity in order to bring down some shefa from the Upper Worlds then the recipient's part in the mitzvah becomes far less important. He's no longer a fellow human being I'm trying to raise up and support but a tool in my mitzvah performance. He loses a chunk of his humanity.
Now real mekubalim are far smarter and more sensitive that that. They don't lose sight of humanity around them but the amateurs? If all reality is an illusion as some Lubavitchers claim then who cares about the feelings of the guy next door? He doesn't really exist. The idea of common decency disappears since it doesn't have any connection to the Upper Worlds in the absence of a specific mitzvah performance.
That's why the eulogy shows such a lack of interest in Rav Twersky as a man on the street. For official Chareidim there is man and his relationship to God, nothing else is important. That's why Rav Yonasan Rosenblum's piece on Rav Twersky contained this money line:
One of my sons asks his Rosh Yeshiva at the levaya whether a communal or individual tikkun is needed. He replies that there is so much in need of tikkun communally he would not know where to begin. But each of knows in his heart where he or she has failed and what is required to repair the breach between him and Hashem.One could rightfully ask: Given that the Chareidi community has repeatedly vicsciously attacked the secular and Religious Zionist communities over that last couple of years with all manners of unacceptable insults, given the Chareidi community's protest a few months back at which the Shfos chamascha verses, usually reserved for the worst enemies of our nation, were shouted against the Israeli government, given the completely lack of gratitude the Chareidi community has shown for the State's nurturing and financing of what was once a dying kehillah, is it so absurd to believe that the effort on tikun should first be repairing the breach between the Chareidim and the rest of klal Yisrael?
For a community that doesn't see itself as a functioning part of that klal it might be too much to ask. But that's what is the most concerning part of the eulogy for me.