[Avodah] Jewish Action 2000 review of RYBS book

[Rich, Joel via Avodah]

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.

[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?"

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


[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?"

[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.
_______________________________________________
I remember reading the original review and being very surprised.
[1]&[2]&[3] My general impression is that most of the lack of clarity and misunderstandings are on issues that have  little to do with the style issue. I don't think many  get  concerned about whether Adam I and II ever resolve their dialectic .  The main cause of misunderstandings imho  can be generously stated as being caused by The Rav's being so sui generis that students could not assimilate the whole of his teachings. The less generous approach would be that some want to be toleh on an ilan gadol and project their own priorities and approaches on him.  Could anyone who looked at his life as a whole have any doubt that he valued secular studies?  That he was a non-messianic RZ lover of eretz Yisrael seems pretty clear.
[4]Or how about the world is complex and our desire (btw very reflective of our host society) is to boil everything down to a sound bite goes against the educational need to understand how to look at complex issues 
[6]explaining [5] seems to me like the classic blaming the victim for "asking for it".  I can only assume the fact that other roshei yeshiva didn't publically call for tolerance was that they did think he, and MO, was krum or they had higher priorities or didn't think their talmidim would listen to them.
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.