Navonim - The Ramblings of Garnel Ironheart

Navonim - The Ramblings of Garnel Ironheart

Tuesday, 11 November 2008

Gedolim Who Matter Part 3 - The Rav

From his Wikipedia entry:
Early years, education, and immigration
Rabbi Soloveitchik was educated in the traditional manner at a Talmud Torah, an elementary yeshiva, and by private tutors, as his parents realized his great mental powers. According to a curriculum vitae written and signed in his own hand,[1] in 1922 he graduated from the liberal arts `Gymnasium' in Dubno. Thereafter he entered in 1924 the Free Polish University in Warsaw where he spent three terms, studying political science. In 1926 he came to Berlin, Germany and entered the Friedrich Wilhelm University. He passed the examination for supplementary subjects at the German Institute for Studies by Foreigners and was then given full matriculation at the University. He took up studies in philosophy, economics and Hebrew subjects, simultaneously maintaining a rigorous schedule of intensive Talmud study.
According to the CV, among his "highly honored" teachers in university, "Geheimrat", were Professor Dr. Heinrich Maier and Professor Dr. Max Dessoir, along with Professor Dr. Eugen Mittwoch and Professor Dr. Ludwig Bernhard. He studied the work of European philosophers, and was a lifelong student of neo-Kantian thought.
He wrote his Ph.D. thesis on the epistemology and metaphysics of the German philosopher Hermann Cohen. Contrary to most biographies, which erroneously state that in 1931 he received his degree, he actually passed his oral doctor's examination on July 24, 1930, but graduated with a doctorate only on December 19, 1932. Documents exist to support this assertion, possessed and publicized by the late Manfred Lehmann.[2]
In 1931 he married Tonya Lewitt (1904-1967), who had earned a Ph.D. in education from Jena University.
During his years in Berlin, Rabbi Soloveitchik became a close disciple of Rabbi Hayyim Heller, who had established an institute for advanced Jewish Studies from an Orthodox perspective in the city. He also made the acquaintance of other young scholars pursuing a similar path to his own. One such figure was Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner who would become the rosh yeshiva of the Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin also in Brooklyn, New York. Both of them developed a system of thought that bridged the Eastern European way of traditional scholarship with the new forces of modernity in the Western World. Among the other personalities with whom he came into contact were Professor Alexander Altmann, Rabbi Dr.Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg, Rector of the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary, and Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz.

The neutrality of this section is disputed.Please see the discussion on the talk page. (March 2008)Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
Relations with Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson
Rabbi Sholem Kowalsky,[3];[4] Rabbi Julius Berman; Rabbi Menachem Genack; and Rabbi Fabian Schoenfeld[5] (all students of Soloveitchik) have asserted that Rabbi Menachem Schneerson and Rabbi Soloveitchik met for the first time while they both studied in Berlin. They met many times at the home of Hayyim Heller. Rabbi Soloveitchik told Rabbi Sholem Kowalsky he "was a great admirer of the Rebbe."[6]
Rabbi Zvi Kaplan states that Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner recalled sitting with Rabbi Schneerson and Rabbi Soloveitchik at a lecture on Maimonides at the University and when the speaker asked R' Schneerson for his opinion on something, R' Schneerson deferred to R' Soloveitchik. R' Soloveitchik's daughter Dr. Atarah Twersky recalls R' Soloveitchik saying that R' Schneerson visited her father in his apartment and the former asked the latter why he was studying in Berlin if his father-in-law was opposed to it. According to R' Soloveitchik's son Rabbi Dr. Haym Soloveitchik, Rabbi Soloveitchik only saw R' Schneerson pass by in Berlin.[7] The two would become more acquainted in New York.
Rabbi Herschel Schacter, who studied with Rav Soloveitchik's father, accompanied him to the Lubavitcher Rebbe's farbrengen on Yud Shevat 5740/1980. R' Schachter described that occasion in an interview.[8]
Soloveitchik would refer to himself as "The Soloveitchik of Boston". He pioneered the Maimonides School, one of the first Hebrew day schools in Boston in 1937. [9] When the school's high school was founded in the late forties, he instituted a number of innovations in the curriculum, including teaching Talmud to boys and girls studying in classes together. He involved himself in all manner of religious issues in the Boston area. He was at times both a rabbinical supervisor of kosher slaughtering – shechita – and gladly accepting invitations to lecture in Jewish and religious philosophy at prestigious New England colleges and universities. His son-in-law, Rabbi Professor Isadore Twersky was an internationally known expert on the writings of Maimonides and succeeded Professor Harry Austryn Wolfson to the Nathan Littauer chair of Jewish History and Literature at Harvard University.
New York
Joseph Soloveitchik succeeded his father, Rabbi Moses (Moshe) Soloveichik, as the head of the RIETS rabbinical school at Yeshiva University in 1941.
Soloveitchik advocated more intensive textual Torah study for Jewish women at the Stern College for Women, giving the first class in Talmud inaugurated at Stern College. With his enlightened outlook, he attracted and inspired many young men and women to become spiritual leaders and educators in Jewish communities worldwide. They in turn went out with the education of Yeshiva University to head synagogues, schools and communities, where they continue to influence many Jews to remain committed to Orthodoxy and observance.

Philosophy and major works
Torah Umadda synthesis
During his tenure at Yeshiva University in addition to his Talmudic lectures, Soloveitchik deepened the system of "synthesis" whereby the best of religious Torah scholarship would be combined with the best secular scholarship in Western civilization. This has become known as the Torah Umadda - "Torah and Science" the motto of Yeshiva University. Through public lectures, writings, and his policy decisions for the Modern Orthodox world, he strengthened the intellectual and ideological framework of Modern Orthodoxy.
In his major non–Talmudic publications, which altered the landscape of Jewish theology, Soloveitchik stresses the normative and intellectual centrality of the halakhic corpus. He authored a number of essays and books offering a unique synthesis of Kantian existentialism and Jewish theology, the most well-known being The Lonely Man of Faith which deals with issues such as the willingness to stand alone in the face of monumental challenges, and Halakhic Man.[1][2] A less known essay, though not less important is "The Halakhic Mind - An essay on Jewish tradition and modern thought" written in 1944 and published only 40 years later, without any change as the Author himself stresses. [published by Seth Press, distributed by Free Press - ISBN 0-68-486372]
The Lonely Man of Faith
In The Lonely Man of Faith Soloveitchik reads the first two chapters of Genesis as a contrast in the nature of the human being and identifies two human types: Adam I, or "majestic man", who employs his creative faculties in order to master his environment; and Adam II, or "covenantal man", who surrenders himself in submission to his Master. Soloveitchik describes how the man of faith integrates both of these aspects.
In the first chapter, Adam I is created together with Eve and they are given the mandate to subdue nature, master the cosmos, and transform the world "into a domain for their power and sovereignty." Adam I is majestic man who approaches the world and relationships--even with the divine--in functional, pragmatic terms. Adam I, created in the image of God, fulfills this apparently "secular" mandate by conquering the universe, imposing his knowledge, technology, and cultural institutions upon the world. The human community depicted in Genesis 1 is a utilitarian one, where man and woman join together, like the male and female of other animals, to further the ends of their species.
In chapter two of Genesis, Adam II, on the other hand represents the lonely man of faith - bringing a "redemptive interpretation to the meaning of existence". Adam II does not subdue the garden, but rather tills it and preserves it. This type of human being is introduced by the words, "It is not good for man to be alone" - and through his sacrifice (of a metaphoric rib) he gains companionship and the relief of his existential loneliness - this covenantal community requires the participation of the Divine.
Halakhic Man
In Halakhic Man Soloveitchik propounds the centrality of halakha in Jewish thought. His theological outlook is distinguished by a consistent focus on halakha, i.e., the fulfillment and study of the divine law. He presents the halakha as the a priori basis for religious practice and for the theological foundation for Jewish thought. Soloveitchik emphasizes halakha's "this-worldly, here-and-now grounding", as opposed to religious approaches that focus on the nature of the transcendent realm. This work argues that Jewish piety does not, therefore, fit familiar models of Western religiosity, and presents a phenomenology of this religious type. Here, "Halakhic man", as a result of his study of Torah and his observance of the commandments, develops a set of coherent attitudes towards intellectual activity, asceticism, death, esotericism, mysticism, creativity, repentance, and providence. He also underscores the necessity for individual self-creation as the divinely assigned task of the human being.
Halakhic Mind
Halakhic Mind is a four part analysis on the correlation between science and philosophy historically. Only in its fourth and last part the Author introduces the consequences on the Halakha of the analysis performed in the previous three parts.
Other views and controversy
Soloveitchik became a "lightning rod" of criticism from two directions. From the religious left, he was viewed as being too connected to the Old World of Europe, while for those on the religious right, he was seen as legitimizing those wanting to lower their religious standards in the attempt to modernize and Americanize. Despite this criticism, Soloveitchik remained steadfast in his beliefs and positions throughout the years of his leadership.
Departure from the traditional Brisker view of Zionism
Soloveitchik was proud of his connections to the Soloveitchik rabbinic dynasty, speaking fondly of his "uncles" and chiding them from time to time in public. To his relatives and namesakes who now lived in Jerusalem where they had established their own branch of the anti-Zionist Brisk Yeshiva, he was respected for his genius in Talmudic scholarship which few could challenge or disparage. However, Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik (the "Brisker Rov") and his followers still viewed him as their wayward cousin who had departed from the family Haredi tradition. At the same time, recent research published by Shlomo Pick has indicated that his father, Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik maintained a close relationship with Religious Zionist (Mizrahi) circles in Warsaw, prior to the father's departure for Yeshiva University and the son's departure for the University of Berlin in 1923.
Modern Orthodox View of
The most left-wing Modern Orthodox figures feel that Rabbi Soloveitchik was a prototype for an ideal type of Jew, but are against what they define as "The Soloveitchik Line,"[10] and wish to establish more dynamism in Orthodoxy. These include Rabbis David Hartman, Irving Greenberg, and Michael Wyschograd. Leading right-wing figures at Modern Orthodox institutions wish to keep Modern Orthodoxy within the boundaries which were established by Rabbi Soloveitchik. This includes much of Yeshiva University's leadership, such as Rabbi Hershel Reichman, Rabbi Mayer Twersky, and Rabbi Hershel Schachter.
The Agudah's View of
After Rabbi Soloveitchik left Agudath Israel, the organization's leadership was mostly quiet when it came to public statements involving Rabbi Soloveitchik. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who was Rabbi Soloveitchik's cousin, maintained very warm and profoundly respectful relations with him. They corresponded and spoke (at least) on the eve of every Jewish holiday. Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner referred to him as a gadol hador.[11] Rabbi Aaron Kotler, whose public policy in relation to American Jewry was far more right-wing than Rabbi Soloveitchik's, was introduced by Rabbi Soloveitchik at a Chinuch Atzmai dinner[12] and this later became famous as an instance of unity among the Orthodox leadership. Agudath Israel's mouthpiece, the "Jewish Observer" also mentioned Rabbi Soloveitchik as one of the greatest rabbis of the generation when detailing a cable which was sent by various gedolim to former Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol requesting the government to put a stop to Christian missionary activity in Israel. In May 1993, Rabbi Nisson Wolpin penned an obituary for Rabbi Soloveitchik in the "Jewish Observer."[13] The article was criticized for being titled "Zecher L'bracha" ("May his memory be a blessing") as opposed to the usual "Zecher Tzaddik L'bracha" (May his righteous memory be a blessing), for being a mere page long as instead of the Jewish Observer's usually comparatively long obituaries, for the obituary not being mentioned in the table of contents, and portraying Rabbi Soloveitchik as not clarifying his views enough. Rabbi Moshe David Tendler wrote a scathing attack on Wolpin's piece, which was published both in The Community Synagogue of Monsey's newsletter and the Algemeiner Journal.[14]. Rabbi Soloveitchik did not sign Rabbi Moshe Feinstein's proposed ban on interfaith dialogue, instead he published a pathbreaking essay expounding his views on the subject, entitled "Confrontation." He also did not sign the ban by America's foremost rabbis against participating in the Synagogue Council of America, albeit it has been debated whether it was because he believed in participating in the SCA or because he was not happy with the way the ban was instituted.
It is important to note that, despite the Agudah's comparative silence on Rabbi Soloveitchik and his stances, the Jewish Observer has often criticized the Rabbinical Council of America in which he served and his more modern students, including Rabbi Norman Lamm,[15] Rabbi Shlomo Riskin[16] and Rabbi Lawrence Kaplan.[17]
Debate over world view
Many of Soloveitchik's students became leaders in the Modern Orthodox community. These students tend to espouse very distinct world views, often attributing their own views to Rabbi Soloveitchik himself. Those furthest on the left include David Hartman and Irving Greenberg, whose espousals of pluralism have earned them serious delegitimization. The institutions they founded, the Shalom Hartman Institute and the CLAL respectively, are considered to be outside the fold of acceptable Orthodox thought. Rabbis Avi Weiss and Saul Berman, who represent liberal Modern Orthodox institutions such as Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and Edah, are somewhat further to the right of Greenberg and Hartman[citation needed], but still very liberal in comparison to most Orthodox thinkers (Rabbi Weiss has classified this approach as "Open Orthodoxy"). Many students of Rabbi Soloveitchik represent a centrist approach to Modern Orthodoxy (which Rabbi Norman Lamm has coined "Centrist Orthodoxy") such as Rabbis Aharon Lichtenstein, Shlomo Riskin, Lawrence Kaplan, and Norman Lamm. This is the mainstream approach to Rabbi Soloveitchik's thought; the Torah UMadda Journal, Tradition magazine, the Rabbinical Council of America, Efrat, Teaneck, Yeshiva University, Bnei Akiva, the Orthodox Union, and various post-high school yeshivot and seminaries in Israel (i.e. Yeshivat Har Etzion) are largely, if not mostly (but almost never monolithically) populated by "Centrist Orthodox" Jews. Further to the right in the spectrum of Orthodoxy lie Rabbis Yehuda Parnes and Abba Bronspiegel, both of whom resigned from teaching positions in Yeshiva University to join right-wing alternative Lander College. Some of Rabbi Soloveitchik's students even identify themselves and Rabbi Soloveitchik's teachings with the Haredi world, such as Rabbi Moshe Meiselman, Rabbi Soloveitchik's nephew and Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Toras Moshe in Jerusalem; Rabbi Mosheh Twersky, The Rav's grandson and a teacher at Toras Moshe; Rabbi Michel Shurkin, also a teacher at Toras Moshe; and Rabbi Chaim Ilson, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Derech Hatalmud in Jerusalem.
Top Students
Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff believes that Rabbis Chaim Ilson, Hershel Schachter, Aaron Lichtenstein, and Zvi Kanotopsky were each Soloveitchik's top student in their decade.[18] Additionally, Rabbi Yosef Granofsky--Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Ohr David--has noted that many considered Rabbi Hershel Reichman to be the top rabbinical student while the former attended YU. While Lichtenstein leans more towards centrist Orthodoxy, most of the rest tend to be right-leaning forces at Modern Orthodox institutions or completely Haredi.
Integration with secular society
Since his death, interpretations of Soloveitchik's beliefs have become a matter of ongoing debate, somewhat analogous to the long-standing debate about Samson Raphael Hirsch. Some Haredim and some on the right wing of Modern Orthodoxy believe that Hirsch only wanted Jews to combine an observant Jewish lifestyle with learning the surrounding gentile society's language, history, and science, so that a religious Jew could earn a living in the surrounding secular society. It should be noted, however, that this is not by any means a universally held opinion among right-wing Orthodox Jews (see, for example, the writings of Rabbi Shimon Schwab and the biography of Rabbi Hirsch by Rabbi Victor Klugman). There exists a fringe position among scholars of Soloveitchik's philosophy that states that a similar pragmatic approach was adopted by Soloveitchik as well. On this view, Soloveitchik did not approve of Jews learning secular philosophy, music, art, literature or ethics, unless it was for either the purpose of obtaining a livelihood or outreach.
In contrast, most scholars believe that this understanding of Soloveitchik's philosophy is misguided. This issue has been discussed in many articles in Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Thought, published by the Rabbinical Council of America[citation needed]. In this view, both Hirsch and Soloveitchik believed that it was permissible for Jews to learn secular philosophy, music, art, literature and ethics for their own sake and even encouraged this[citation needed].
His son-in-law, Professor Isadore Twersky pointed out in a eulogy published in the journal Tradition in 1995 that Rabbi Soloveitchik's philosophy could be paraphrased as follows: "When you know your [Jewish] Way--your point of departure and goals--then use philosophy, science and the humanities to illumine your exposition, sharpen your categories, probe the profundities and subtleties of the masorah and reveal its charm and majesty; in so doing you should be able to command respect from the alienated and communicate with some who might otherwise be hostile or indifferent to your teaching as well as to increase the sensitivity and spirituality of the committed." Rabbi Moshe Meiselman, on the other hand, believes that Rabbi Soloveitchik's sole purpose of allowing secular study was for purposes of outreach.
Own criticism of his students
Soloveitchik stated that although he felt that he successfully transmitted the facts and laws of Judaism to his students, he felt that he failed in transmitting the experience of living an authentic Jewish life. He stated that many of his students "act like children and experience religion like children. This is why they accept all types of fanaticism and superstition. Sometimes they are even ready to do things that border on the immoral. They lack the experiential component of religion, and simply substitute obscurantism for it....After all, I come from the ghetto. Yet I have never seen so much naïve and uncritical commitment to people and to ideas as I see in America....All extremism, fanaticism and obscurantism come from a lack of security. A person who is secure cannot be an extremist." (A Reader's Companion to Ish Ha-Halakhah: Introductory Section, David Shatz, Yeshiva University, Joseph B. Soloveitchik Institute).
Shortly after Soloveitchik's passing, Rabbi Norman Lamm, President of Yeshiva University, in a eulogy for the Rav delivered on April 25, 1993, urged his auditors to "guard...against any revisionism, any attempts to misinterpret the Rav's work in both worlds [the world of Torah and the world of Madda(Science)]. The Rav was not a lamdan who happened to have and use a smattering of general culture, and he was certainly not a philosopher who happened to be a talmid hakham, a Torah scholar.... We must accept him on his terms, as a highly complicated, profound, and broad-minded personality.... Certain burgeoning revisionisms may well attempt to disguise and distort the Rav's uniqueness by trivializing one or the other aspect of his rich personality and work, but they must be confronted at once." (Lawrence Kaplan Revisionism and the Rav: The Struggle for the Soul of Modern Orthodoxy, Judaism, Summer, 1999).
Relations with non-Orthodox Judaism
Soloveitchik did not approve of a number of practices of Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism. He believed that where these denominations differed from Orthodox Judaism, the non-Orthodox groups were in significant error. He compared religious dialogue with Reform and Conservative leaders to dialogue between Pharisees and Karaites, considering it ridiculous. One of the major differences was in regard to the use of a mechitza in the synagogue, a divider between the men's and women's sections. Consistent with the traditional rabbinic understanding of this issue, Soloveitchik ruled that it was forbidden to pray in a synagogue without a separation between the sexes. This effect of this was to prohibit prayer in any Reform synagogue and in many Conservative synagogues. His responsum on this question was also directed at the small number of Orthodox synagogues that were adopting mixed-sex seating. He was vociferous on this issue. Soloveitchik believed that Reform and Conservative rabbis did not have proper training in halakha and Jewish theology, and that due to their decisions and actions they could not be considered rabbis as Orthodox Jews traditionally understood the term. He was a lifelong critic of all forms of non-Orthodox Judaism. On the other hand, in practice he often granted non-Orthodox rabbis some level of validity (see examples below).
Soloveitchik developed the idea that Jews have historically been linked together by two distinct covenants. One is the brit yi'ud, "covenant of destiny", which is the covenant by which Jews are bound together through their adherence to halakha. The second is the brit goral, "covenant of fate", the desire and willingness to be part of a people chosen by God to live a sacred mission in the world, and the fact that all those who live in this covenant share the same fate of persecution and oppression, even if they do not live by halakha. Soloveitchik held that non-Orthodox Jews were in violation of the covenant of destiny, yet they are still bound together with Orthodox Jews in the covenant of fate.
In 1954 Soloveitchik issued a responsum on working with non-Orthodox Jews, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews in the United States: Second article in a series on Responsa of Orthodox Judaism in the United States. The responsum recognized the leadership of non-Orthodox Jews in Jewish communal institutions (but not their rabbis in the Orthodox sense of the term), and concluded that participation with non-Orthodox Jews for political or welfare purposes is not only permissible, but obligatory.
The Haredi Council of Torah Sages of Agudath Yisroel countered with a ruling that such cooperation with non-Orthodox Jews was equivalent to endorsement of non-Orthodox Judaism, and thus was forbidden. In 1956 many Yeshiva leaders, including two rabbis from his own Yeshiva University, signed and issued a proclamation forbidding any rabbinical alumni of their yeshivot from joining with Reform or Conservative rabbis in professional organizations.
Soloveitchik declined to sign the proclamation, maintaining that there were areas, particularly those relating to problems that threatened all of Judaism, that required co-operation regardless of affiliation. His refusal emboldened other Modern Orthodox rabbis, and the Rabbinical Council of America and Union of Orthodox Congregations then joined the Synagogue Council of America, a group in which Orthodox, Reform and Conservative denominations worked together on common issues. (The Synagogue Council of America ceased operating in 1994.)
In the 1950s Soloveitchik and other members of the Rabbinical Council of America engaged in a series of private negotiations with the leaders of Conservative Judaism's Rabbinical Assembly, especially with Rabbi Saul Lieberman; their objective was to found a joint Orthodox-Conservative beth din that would be a national rabbinic court for all Jews in America; it would supervise communal standards of marriage and divorce. It was to be modeled after the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, with only Orthodox judges, but with the expectation that it would be accepted by the larger Conservative movement as legitimate. Conservative rabbis in the Rabbinical Assembly formed a Joint Conference on Jewish Law and devoted a year to the effort.
For a number of reasons, the project did not succeed. According to Orthodox Rabbi Bernstein, the major reason for its failure was that the Orthodox rabbis insisted that the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly expel Conservative rabbis for actions they took before the new Beit Din was formed, and the RA refused to do so (Bernstein, 1977). According to Orthodox Rabbi Emanuel Rackman, former president of the RCA, the major reason for its failure was pressure from right-wing Orthodox rabbis, who held that any cooperation between Orthodoxy and Conservatism was forbidden. In an account prepared in 1956, Rabbi Harry Halpern of the Rabbinical Assembly's Joint Conference wrote that negotiations between the Orthodox and Conservative were completed and agreed upon, but then a new requirement was demanded by the RCA: that the RA "impose severe sanctions" upon Conservative rabbis for actions they took before the new beth din was formed. The RA "could not assent to rigorously disciplining our members at the behest of an outside group." Per Halpern, subsequent efforts were made to cooperate with the Orthodox, but a letter from eleven Rosh Yeshivas was circulated declaring that Orthodox rabbis were forbidden to cooperate with Conservative rabbis (Proceedings of the CJLS of the Conservative Movement 1927-1970 Vol. II, pp.850-852).
Until the 1950s, Jews of all denominations were generally allowed to use the same communal mikvaot (ritual baths) for the purposes of converting to Judaism, observing the rules of niddah in regard to laws of marital purity, kashering dishes, etc. However the Orthodox movement increasingly denied the use of mikvaot to non-Orthodox rabbis for use in conversions. According to Rabbi Walter Wurzburger, Rav Soloveitchik counselled Orthodox rabbis against this practice, insisting that non-Orthodox have the option to use mikvaot (Wurzburger, 1994).
Soloveitchik was accepted as the pre-eminent leader of politically conscious pro-Zionist modern Orthodox Judaism; out of respect for this, many leaders and politicians from Israel sought his advice and blessings in state affairs. He was reputedly offered the position of Chief Rabbi of Israel, such as by Prime Minister Menachem Begin, but he quietly and consistently refused this offer. Despite his open and ardent support for the modern State of Israel, he only visited Israel -- then called Palestine -- once, in 1935, before the state was established. Rabbi Yosef Blau has pointed out that Rabbi Soloveitchik's non-messianic Zionism was philosophically similar to that of Rabbi Yitzchak Yaacov Reines (see Tradition 33.2, Communications). Rabbi Moshe Meiselman believes that Rabbi Soloveitchik joined Mizrachi as part of a plan to help Zionistic Jews become more observant. As against that "pragmatic" interpretation, it should be pointed out that, in an essay entitled Kol Dodi Dofek (the voice of my beloved knocking), Soloveitchik argued that the Zionist project was a precursor of redemption.
Affiliated organizations
In his early career in America Soloveitchik joined with the traditional movements such as Agudath Israel of America and the Agudat Harabanim - the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of North America. In fact, Soloveitchik was on the first Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah of America[19]. However, he later removed himself from the former organizations, and instead joined with the Mizrachi Religious Zionists of America (RZA) and became Chairman of the centrist Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America's (RCA) Halakhah Commission (the other two members are the time were Rabbis Hayyim Heller and Samuel Belkin).
Family and last years
During the 1950s and 1960s, until his wife's death, Soloveitchik and some of his students would spend summers near Cape Cod in Onset, Massachusets, where they would pray at Congregation Beth Israel.[20]
Soloveitchik's children married prominent academics and Talmudic scholars: his daughter Tovah married Rabbi Dr. Aharon Lichtenstein, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion in Israel (with a PhD from Harvard University); his daughter Atarah married the late Rabbi Dr. Isadore Twersky, former head of the Jewish Studies department at Harvard University (who also served as the Talner Rebbe in Boston). His son Rabbi Dr. Haym Soloveitchik is a University Professor of Jewish History at Yeshiva University. His siblings included Dr. Samuel Soloveitchik (1909-1967), Rabbi Ahron Soloveichik (1917-2001), Mrs. Shulamith Meiselman (b. 1912), and Mrs. Anne Gerber (b. 1915). His grandchildren have maintained his heritage and also hold distinguished scholarly positions.
As he got older he suffered several bouts of serious illness (Alzheimer's Disease). Family members cared for his every need. He passed away on Hol HaMoed Pesach (18 Nisan, in 1993, at the age of ninety. He was interred next to his beloved wife, Tonya, in Beth El Cemetery in the Baker Street Jewish Cemeteries, West Roxbury, Massachusetts.
Soloveitchik unfailingly captured the adoration of his students. Known by all as "The Rav", he became arguably the greatest leader of Modern Orthodoxy in the twentieth century, often espousing innovative positions on educational, political, and social issues within the Orthodox world. His ordination of over 2,000 Orthodox rabbis at Yeshiva University, during forty years at its helm, attests to his power and efficacy as well as his consistency and determination.
Why he inspires me:
All movements need a founder, a man with a vision of what the movement should be and who is the living embodiment of those values. Within the community of Modern Orthodoxy, the Rav fills that role. His preternatural genius, combined with his ability to appreciate and combine the finest of Western intellectualism with the holiness of Torah knowledge created a temple for Modern Orthodoxy to use in its growth and development.
In short, the Rav represented the idea that one could be a deep talmid chacham capable of impeccable religious practice and embrace elements of the Modern world at the same time, in opposition to the reigning Chareidi doctrine of secular rejection.
If Modern Orthodoxy has stumbled as a philosophy and not reached its potential, it is because the Rav's example has not been followed. There is also the matter of how some of his students could so twist his legacy as to use it to justify innovations that have removed them from mainstream Orthodox practice. But then, the Reformers think that the Rambam wrote his Moreh Nevuchim just for them. Perhaps this is a consequence of the Rav's greatness and the inability of some to realize his true depth and direction.
But even more than that was the Rav's unfaltering commitment to intellectual honesty in his religious observance. His weltehschau... (can't spell the damned word to save my life!) could not be contained by the ideology of the Agudah and rather than compromise to fit in, he chose to stand alone. Despite the loss of honour that resulted in certain circles, this decision only added to his greatness and ability to teach the next generation of American observant leaders.


Baruch said...

Back when I used to be a Wikieditor, I had a lot to do with this article. I'm sure if you look, you'll see traces of my editorship in here...

The Jewish sections of the Wiki as I recall it are pretty frum, somewhat biased towards the chareidim on some things in fact. I didn't realize the extent of my own chareidi bias back then, so I too had something to do with it.

For example:
Those on Orthodoxy's right wing hold that Hirsch himself only approved of secular studies as a "Horaas Sha'ah", or temporary dispensation, in order to save Orthodox Jewry of the 1800s from the threat posed by assimilation. While a yeshiva student in Eastern Europe, Rabbi Shimon Schwab obtained the opinion's of various Poskim (authorities in Jewish law) to this effect (see Selected Writings "These and Those" where Schwab himself disagrees).

To the other extreme, some Modern Orthodox Jews understand Hirsch in the sense of Torah Umadda, meaning a synthesis of Torah knowledge and secular knowledge - each for its own sake (this view is propagated in several articles in Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Thought, published by the Rabbinical Council of America). In this view, Hirsch thought that it was permissible, and even productive, for Jews to learn gentile philosophy, music, art, literature and ethics for their own sake.

In contrast, a third middle opinion held by Hirsch's descendants (his son-in-law and successor Rabbi Solomon Breuer, his grandson Rabbi Joseph Breuer and the latter's successor Rabbi Shimon Schwab), Rabbi Joseph Elias in his commentary to the Nineteen Letters (Feldheim 1995) and some Jewish historians, says that both of these understandings of Hirsch's philosophy are misguided; they refer to these readings of Hirsch as improper historical revisionism. In response to the "temporary dispensation" theory, they point to Hirsch in Collected Writings as continually stressing the philosophical and religious imperative of Torah im Derech Eretz for all times (Note that Hirsch himself addressed this contention: "Torah im Derech Eretz ... is not part of troubled, time bound notions; it represents the ancient, traditional wisdom of our sages that has stood the test everywhere and at all times." (Gesammelte Schriften vi p.221); see further Rabbi Shimon Schwab in Selected Writings- "These and Those"). In response to the "Torah Umadda" theory they say that Hirschian philosophy demands the domination of Torah over secular knowledge, not a separate synthesis. On this basis, many adherents of Hirsch's philosophy have preferred the natural sciences over the humanities as a subject of secular study, seemingly because they are easier to judge through the prism of Torah thought than the more abstract humanities.

Baruch said...

Clarification: I didn't write any of that, but it's a good example of chareidi bias on the Wiki.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mighty Garnel Ironheart said...

I was actually wondering about that paragraph on Rav Hirsch. It seemed out of place considering the bio is on Rav Soloveitchik.

At any rate, one takes one's chances with Wikipedia. There was a recent controversy because pro-Arab editors are going through entries that counter the usual Arab historical claims and editing them out.

But it's cheap and easy. What can I say?

Anonymous said...

[url=]mexitil discount[/url]