[Avodah] Jewish Action 2000 review of RYBS book

[Toby Katz via Avodah]

I recently came across the issue of Jewish Action (the OU's quarterly
magazine) of Fall 2000 and in that issue there was a remarkable article.
It was a review of a two-volume book called *The Rav: The World of
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik* by Rabbi Dr. Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff.
The review article was written by R' Philip Weinberger.

It was a very laudatory review, written by someone who admired and
respected RYBS and who thought the book was excellent. It's important
to note that he respected RYBS and admired the book, because when you
see what I am going to quote from the review, you might think otherwise.
But if you read the whole review you will clearly see that what looks
like a negative to me is clearly seen as a positive by R' Weinberger.

http://ou.org.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/ja/5761fall/BOOKS.PDF

OK here goes -- the most interesting parts of the review (I have mostly  
dispensed with ellipses, which are distracting):

--quote--

[The book] focused my attention on a paradox that confronts me every time
a new book or article appears about the saintly Rabbi Soloveitchik, zt"l.
In the latter part of the twentieth century, the Rav was one of the most
outstanding rabbinic titans, teaching and leading the Jewish people. A
master of communication, orally and in print, he left behind multitudes
of devoted students and admirers who still hang on his every word. Yet
the Rav seems to have left a legacy that is unclear and misunderstood,
despite his gifted powers of communication.

Among the numerous questions, debated passionately by those who
represent themselves as knowing the Rav's authentic thinking, are:
What was the Rav's view toward secular education; Torah u'Madda; new
religious practices by women; reciting Hallel on Yom HaAtzma'ut; and
Religious Zionism?

There is a raging battle among his followers as to who may legitimately
and authentically present the Rav's opinions, thoughts, ideas and
teachings.

How could so careful a teacher, who could literally spend hours at a time
in shiurim defining with precision the meaning of a particular word or
phrase, be misunderstood on so many basic and critical issues?

The Rav himself, despite his best efforts, was misunderstood and misquoted
in his lifetime by able people who presumably had the best of intentions.

The Rav illustrates that he was misunderstood by journalists because
of their lack of familiarity with the Rav's precise use of language
and terminology, and because the Rav's thoughts, ideas and speech were
extraordinarily nuanced, delicate, subtle and sophisticated.

However, the book falls short, even on its own terms, in its failure to
more deeply explore the complexity and nuances of the Rav's thoughts
and insights that were influenced by the religious, existential, and
personal tensions that the Rav experienced and talked about. Similarly,
the book does not treat much of the controversy that sometimes surrounded
the Rav in a meaningful way.

There is no acknowledgment of how the Rav was inappropriately treated
and often marginalized in the yeshivah universe because of his embracing
secular studies and Religious Zionism (albeit in a disciplined and highly
nuanced manner)...

in a letter to Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Shragai, the Rav writes : "If I were
to judge this matter (which party to associate with) based on pragmatic
or political considerations, I would join the zealots who ask nothing
of their members (not diligence in Torah study, not pure fear of Heaven,
nor spending money on tzedakah, nor excessive care with regard to mitzvot)
except to besmirch our movement. I could clothe myself with the mantle
of a tzaddik and 'fighter of the Lord's battles.' "

This and other letters to Rabbi Shragai show clearly what a man of
principle the Rav was.

...Scholars and laymen alike are indebted to Rabbi Rakeffet for his
vital work.

--end quote--

Well, you can see why this review would interest me.

Let's take a few points:

[1] "The Rav seems to have left a legacy that is unclear and
misunderstood, despite his gifted powers of communication." I would
suggest that the end of the sentence is contradicted by the beginning
of the sentence.

The main thing that the Rav generally managed to communicate was that
one could be a great Torah scholar and also be a brilliant intellectual
in secular terms. This was not the text but the ur-text of much of what
he wrote. I will add that he did this not for his own honor but for the
honor of the Torah, which was often treated with contempt by mid-twentieth
century Jews who were rapidly abandoning the Torah.

But his opaque Germanic philosophical style of speaking and writing was
by its very nature open to multiple interpretations, and could neither
be summarized nor re-written in plain American English.

[2] "Among the numerous questions, debated passionately by those who
represent themselves as knowing the Rav's authentic thinking, are:
What was the Rav's view toward secular education; Torah u'Madda; new
religious practices by women; reciting Hallel on Yom HaAtzma'ut; and
Religious Zionism?"

I would have to say that this is a highly unusual thing to say of any
gadol. Of which other gadol could it be said that after he taught and
wrote for decades, no one could be sure what his position was on the
most important issues of his day?

[2A] "What was the Rav's view toward Religious Zionism?" and "his
embracing Religious Zionism (albeit in a disciplined and highly nuanced
manner)..."

Those of us who have claimed (based admittedly, at times, on anecdotal
evidence and oral reports) that RYBS was not really a Zionist have often
been vilified. Yet here a great admirer of RYBS admits that his views
were far from obvious, and subject to much disagreement even among his
followers. That RYBS was a great lover of Eretz Yisrael -- of that there
can be no doubt. That he really believed in the whole aschalta de'geulah
ideology of RZ -- highly doubtful. The rest can be left for another time,
or another book.

[3] "How could so careful a teacher, who could literally spend hours at
a time in shiurim defining with precision the meaning of a particular
word or phrase, be misunderstood on so many basic and critical issues?"

It may be that in a Gemara shiur, trying to define a word with great
precision may lead to greater understanding, but out here in the larger
world, such precise definitions tend to leave most people scratching their
heads. Common everyday words lose their accepted, common meanings, and
the many sentences used to define those words lead to greater obscurity
rather than clarity. "When I use a word, it means precisely what I want
it to mean." But his listeners or readers are often left in the dark.

[4] "The Rav was misunderstood...because his thoughts, ideas and speech
were extraordinarily nuanced, delicate, subtle and sophisticated." The
impression left by all that subtlety and nuance is that he was trying to
avoid saying anything controversial that could be quoted in a sound bite.

[5] "There is no acknowledgment of how the Rav was inappropriately
treated and often marginalized in the yeshivah universe"

[6] "...the zealots who ask nothing of their members (not diligence in
Torah study, not pure fear of Heaven, nor spending money on tzedakah, nor
excessive care with regard to mitzvot) except to besmirch our movement. I
could clothe myself with the mantle of a tzaddik and 'fighter of the
Lord's battles...' "

Maybe [6] at least partially explains [5].  Maybe the  way he felt about 
them was reflected in the way they felt about him.

--Toby Katz
t613k at aol.com