Co u n t e r p o i n t A dialogue between authors and reviewers Books reviewed in Jewish Action, Summer 5760/2000

The Heroic Struggle the Communist party, to observant In Chapter 19, entitled “Leningrad Judaism. Alpert is cavalier and frag- Conference,” he relates that the This letter is a response to Schneur mentary, merely stating that there Leningrad Council consisted of 13 Zalman Alpert’s review of my book, should have been more information. non-observant Jews and 10 observant The Heroic Struggle. Alpert is a highly Indeed, the interested scholar can Jews. It was discovered that the intent gifted librarian and member of the tal- peruse various sources, among them of the conference was to introduce an ented Yeshiva University Library staff. Dr. Zvi Git t e l m a n ’s highly documented educational program to undermine His articles are usually informative and wo r k Jewish Nationality and Sovi e t traditional Judaism for children, to enriched oft times by knowledge not Pol i t i c s (P rinceton, 1972), who provi d e s create a revisionist seminary “in har- normally accessible to others. His an abundance of information reg a rd i n g mony with the spirit of the times,” article on Rabbi Shimon Rom, a rosh the ideological convolutions of this and to found houses of prayer with hayeshivah, printed in the weekly anti-religious organization. However, revised prayer books. The traditional Algemeiner Journal, was a three-dimen- the primary task of this work was to members, upon discovering this, sional depiction worthy of inclusion in project to the foreground of the read- immediately broke off from the any history of RIETS, the yeshivah of er’s consciousness the rare heroism of a council and generated large public Yeshiva University. And his observa- spiritual personality moving through outcry in defiance of this intention. tions have probably disconcerted the dark valley of adversity and From a person of dual loyalty, it was many complacent authors. However, emerging triumphant. Any extraneous learned that a meeting was convened his recent article was not up to his information would have detracted by the non-observant chairman of the usual standard. from this purpose. Leningrad council, and plans were The opening paragraph asserting a The book is pervaded by the made to covertly use every means “be-all, end-all” status to the Russian Lubavitcher Rebbe’s multifaceted available in this struggle against the Jewish community would probably spiritual and educational leadership. Lubavitcher Rebbe. This is seen as one provoke vociferous protest from Torah Indeed, his tormentors during interro- si g n i fi cant factor in the Reb b e ’s arres t . heirs of the Polish, Hungarian, Gal i c i a n , gation, in enumerating his many activ- This work also relates that rabbis from and German-Jewish communities. His ities, commenced by saying, “We are many cities were interrogated by the simple citation of Rabbi Chaim of well aware you have used your influ- G.P.U., whether they favored or Volozhin would have been enhanced ence to create a network of chadarim, opposed the convening of this confer- by stressing his conciliatory uniqueness yeshivosand other religious institutions ence. The Lubavitcher Rebbe finally in desisting from the ban against throughout the USSR.” His involve- wrote an outspoken letter opposing Chassidism, his acceptance of ment with the Joint agency was to this gathering and disclaiming any Chassidism in the yes h i v ah of Vol o z h i n , obtain funding for many religious insti- connection with this effort. The text and his possession of many Chassidic tutions in Russia. Included among the was on his desk when he was arrested works in his library. This matter has photographs there is a document listing by the G.P.U. Hun d r eds of copies wer e been frequently stressed in written and many chadarim and their budgets made of this letter and distributed oral form by Rabbi Dr. Norman under his auspices. Alpert’s statement throughout Russia to create public Lamm, president of Yeshiva University. that the reason for the arrest is not clamor against this plan, and in this The task of scholarship requires apparent is difficult to understand. way the conference was pushed off. rigorous self-discipline, entailing both Alpert mentions the Leningrad Indeed, during the prisoner interroga- inclusion and exclusion. Over-inun- Jewish Communal Council’s attempted tion he was explicitly asked the reason dation of information can be prover- conference and the Rebbe’s opposition for his opposing the conference, and bially like the overabundance of oil to this attempt. He expresses his he replied that only rabbinic authori- “extinguishing the flame of the wick.” skepticism to this having linkage with ties can deal with such matters. A The late Dr. Brickman, an eminent the Rebbe’s arrest. Rabbi Sholom Ber paradigm of altruism and mesiras academician, in his detailed introduc- Levin, in his work Toldos Chabad nefesh(self-sacrifice), he demanded the tion, clearly and effectively depicted BeRusia HaSovietis 1918-1940, same of his followers. A Chassid asked the virulent and intensive antagonism provides us with much important if his son should have a bris, since the of the Yevsektzia, the Jewish section of information on this era in general. father would be consequently exiled to

JEWISH ACTION Winter 5761/2000 Siberia. The Rebbe replied, “Fur the course of the prayers and the Rabbi Levin’s work collects many gesundeheit– travel in good health.” removal of the Sefer Torah, the cantor’s letters and memoirs from Lubavitcher Alpert mentions a painful American recitation of the Aramaic Berich Shmai Chassidimin Communist Russia from court trial related to the Chabad stirred my curiosity. Whenever he 1918-1940, yet offers no analysis of library. The Chofetz Chaim ethic would recite the word “Keshot- truth,” these primary sources. Levin’s book is would have precluded citing this in the phrase “God is keshot, His clearly tendentious (as it presents only oc c u r r ence. He then, with euphemistic Torah is keshot,His Prophets are Chabad sources) and in a phone con- innuendo, uses the word “blacklisting” keshot,” etc. he recited with a throttled versation with me several years ago, regarding 3 people. In actuality, gag, barely forcing the words from his Levin stated that his work was to collect Chana Schneersohn is mentioned mouth. Ever conscious of surveillance, and pres e r ve the sources for the future twice, and Chaim Lieberman is men- I exchanged very brief Sabbath historian to draw upon and write the tioned 6 times. The Heroic Struggle greetings after the prayers with this historical account. Most importa n t l y , was originally published in the individual. Unable to control the Rabbi Metzger fails to rea l i z e that since Uforazto Journalin 1980, five years impulse, I uttered the word keshot.He the fall of Communism, the Russian before the book trial, and included the very briefly murmured, “One person archives have been opened to Western arrest incident. The approach to the understood.” Unable to express the scholars. Thus numerous archival crib of Barry Gurary was not men- anguish and rage against harsh reli- collections relating to the Communist tioned in the original version, and gious repression, he cried out to God, struggle against Judaism and the obviously is thus unrelated to the book with the emphasis on the word keshot Lubavitcher Rebbe have been made trial. In this context, a public state- from the innermost essence of his available to Israeli, Russian and ment to the Chabad community made personality. This to my mind is the American scholars. Young scholars by the famed Supreme Court lawyer essence of The Heroic Struggle. such as Efim Melamed, Leonid Nat Lewin after the trial’s conclusion Repeatedly, many individuals have Smilovitsky, Avraham Greenbaum and is noteworthy. He stated that a highly spoken of the profound, evocative Michael Beizer, amongst others, have critical juncture in the book trial was a effect that this work has had upon published important articles using statement of the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s them, awakening within them the Soviet archival material concerning the wife, Chaya Mushka Schneerson. spark of Jewish identity, which Jewish fate of Judaism in Stalin’s Russia. The When asked about ownership of the mysticism and Chassidism assert can- material in my review was drawn from books, she answered, “The books not be dimmed or extinguished under Bei ze r ’s important article, The Leningrad belong to the Chassidim. My father any circumstances. It is to be hoped Jewish Religious Community —r Fom belonged to the Chassidim.” Indeed, at that with the broader distribution of NEP Through its Liquidationthat a later time, Chaim Lieberman made a this work, many other lives will be appeared in Jews In Eastern Europe conciliatory gesture through an inter- inspired and illuminated by the keshot (No. 28, Winter 1995). Even a casual mediary to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, heroism of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, glance at the notes accompanying the and it was accepted. The first Chabad culminating in the collective Messianic article will show the reader the wealth leader, Rabbi Schneur Zalman, in his redemption of the entire Jewish people. of archival material used in its prepara- classic work Likkutei Amarim Tanya, Rabbi Dr. Alter B. Metzger tion. Amongst these collections is a chapter 25, states that every mitzvah Brooklyn, NY small, but important, police file on the (action) endures eternally; the 3 indi- arrest of Reb Chaim Lieberman, the viduals obviously have an undeniable Zalman Alpert responds: Lubavitcher Rebbe’s personal secretary. place in the history of Chabad. I thank Rabbi Metzger for his kind Clearly, neither Levin nor Brickman In the winter of 1985, I went with and generous words concerning my had access to this material. I find it Rabbi Menachem M. Sasonkin, now work, and for his interesting response. somewhat surprising that a scholar of the Chabad rabbi of Akron Ohio, as Permit me to reply to several of his Dr. Metzger’s caliber is not aware of an emissary of Ezras Achim to Russia. points. In challenging the historical cu r r ent scholarship in this field. Oth e r This pioneering Russian aid organiza- basis of my review, Dr. Metzger refers Chabad scholars such as Yehoshua tion was in essence a derivative of the to two works, namely Dr. William Mundshine, Baruch Oberlander and work of the Lubavitcher Rebbe more Brickman’s Jewish Nationality And Saul Shimon Deutsch have availed than half a century before. We gave Soviet Politics(Princeton:1972) and th e m s e l v es of these new primary source s Torah classes in Moscow, Mintz and Rabbi Sholom Ber Levin’s Hebrew for their Chabad historical work. Leningrad, and also brought mitzvah monograph Toldos Chabad BeRusia Rabbi Metzger states, “ The Chofetz supplies: tefillin, mezuzos, religious HaSovietis 1918-1940. Brickman’s Chaim ethic would have precluded books, etc. One Shabbos morning, I book draws on the author’s personal citing this occurrence” referring to the walked in sub-zero weather with a visits to Russia, and his extensive co u r t battle over ownership of the library mercifully mild wind chill factor, to research in periodical literature relating of Rabbi Joseph Isaac Schneersohn. It the Arch i p o va sh u l in Mos c o w. Dur i n g to the Communist war against Jud a i s m . was none other than the 7th Lub a v i t c h e r

JEWISH ACTION Winter 5761/2000 Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel death. As much as Rabbi Metzger, I I would like to briefly respond to Schneerson who proclaimed the 5th too appreciate the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s two excellent, specific points raised by day of Teves (the day Federal Judge work in Soviet Russia. Rabbi Eisen: 1) Regarding the term Charles Sifton ruled that the books “vehamaskilim yavinu” — “And the belonged to Agudath Chasedei Chabad) The Kuzari intelligent will understand” at the very as an official Chabad holiday (known beginning of The Kuzari: Rabbi Eisen I was delighted to read a review of as “Didan Notzach”) to be celebrated understands this to mean that HaLevi my translation of The Kuzari in Jewish annually with dance, farbrengensand is alluding to the fact that the whole Action, and even more delighted that it joy. This day was to mark the victory story of the Khazar King’s dream of was written by such an expert as Rabbi of Chabad over Barry Gouray in the being visited by an angel is a metaphor Chaim Eisen, who has been lecturing Federal courts concerning Rabbi Jos e p h to HaLevi’s approach to Judaism — Schneersohn’s library. So it is hardly I on The Kuzari for the past 18 years. that it should be approached experien- who raised the library issue; rather, Admittedly I am a neophyte to The tially instead of rationally — and that eve r y year this issue and the subsequent Kuzari by comparison, and I therefore the intelligent reader will realize this Chabad court victory is celebrated by humbly submit to his authority on metaphor. I enjoy this pshat, and Chabad communities the world over this text. would agree that it may altogether be with special commemorations. I read the rev i e w mostly with my head what HaLevi had in mind when he Furt h e r m o r e I am happy to hear that nodding in agreement. In my appendix wrote those words, speculative as that Rabbi Metzger rec o g n i z es the status of on Greek philosophy at the end of the may be. But I would also point out people like Rebbetzin Chanah Gou r a r y, book, I concur with many of Rabbi that several other approaches have Barry Gourary and Reb Chaim Eisen’s conclusions about HaLevi’s atti- been suggested for these words, none Lieberman in Chabad history, yet that tude toward rational Judaism and his of which seems in my mind to be less is not the attitude of the official embrace of a more experiential Jud a i s m . acceptable than Rabbi Eisen’s. Rabbi Chabad establishment. In Yemei I hope to quote from his interpret a t i o n s Yehuda Moscato, in his commentary Chabad (historic Days in Chabad), in future lectures . Kol Yehuda (published in 1594), offers published by the official Chabad Rabbi Eisen touches on a funda- three possible explanations, each dif- publishing house (Kehot: 1993), we mental issue which divides the acade- ferent from Rabbi Eisen’s. And Rabbi read of the birthdays and yahrzeits of mic community and the general public. Yisrael HaLevi Zamushitz, in his com- Rebbetzin Chaya Mushka Schneerson Academic purists are loathe to accept mentary Otzar Nechmad(published in and Mrs. Shayna Horenstein, but the anything short of the “genuine article,” 1795), translates this phrase to mean 270 page book has no mention of replete with multiple versions and that the arguments between the Rabbi their older sister, Rebbetzin Channa extensive footnotes referencing the and the King will be “beneficial to Gou r a r y. We learn much about var i o u s original language. They will go to those of understanding to ensconce Schneerson family members who wer e gr eat lengths to pres e r ve the most literal these concepts in their hearts.” not reb b e s , but there is no mention of translation possible, even at the expense Rabbi Eisen suggests that my trans- the sole surviving male descendent of of rea d a b i l i t y . Unf o rt u n a t e l y , such lation, “Perceptive readers will gain the mainline Schneerson family, Barry wo r ks tend to be somewhat tedious and much understanding from them [these Gourary. Needless to say, Reb Chaim of less appeal to the general public for arguments],” is too non-literal because Lieberman is not mentioned; so much that very reason. A good example of “one wonders to what extent Rabbi for “their undeniable place in the this is the recent JPS translation of Korobkin’s more approachable adapta- history of Chabad.” Ralbag’s Wars of the Lord, which, while tion preserves the author’s intent.” Finally, on a personal note, Rabbi a brilliant technical translation, makes This is only true if the author’s intent Metzger seems to be implying in his for very difficult reading. My personal is Rabbi Eisen’s understanding of the letter that I fail to appreciate the sig- feeling is that anyone who would dedi- phrase. But other interpretations exist nificance of the work of Rabbi Joseph cate himself to the laborious chore of which are perfectly consistent with my Isaac Schneersohn in Communist wo r king through such a technical trans- translation. While I fully accept the Russia. Nothing could be further lation should also be scholar enough to fact that the translation is non-literal from the truth. My own uncle, Rabbi study the text in its original language. and based on commentary, I don’t think Schneur Zalman Alperowitz (affection- Nevertheless, I would be delighted if it should be criticized because it doesn’t ately known as Zalman Kurnitzer) was my work prompts those in the academic conform to Rabbi Eis e n ’s personal inter- the roshyeshivah of the central community, who may be dismayed by pretation of HaLevi’s words. And as Lubavitcher yeshivah in Nevel, Russia. my “insubordinate” translation, to ren- Rabbi Eisen himself acknowledged, a After the closing of that yeshivah he der a truly technical translation from translator must sometimes take liber- continued his underground work in the original Arabic. I would certainly ties with literalness in order to provide spreading Torah in Russia and was a welcome such a work and proudly add a more fluid text. This, I believe, is close associate of the Rebbe, until his it to my arsenal of teaching tools. especially true when I rely on the two

JEWISH ACTION Winter 5761/2000 “edim ne’e m a n i m ” – the widely accepted aliyah. In my appendix, “On Living my original position [that living in commentaries of Kol Yehuda and Otzar in Israel,” I did not spell this out Israel is only a mitzvah kiyumit], and Nechmadfor my translation. explicitly because it was clearly stated even though I believe the author has 2) Regarding HaLevi’s view of the in the text. Based on Rabbi Eisen’s overstated his case, it is nevertheless mitzvah of living in Eretz Israel: I am comments, however, I hope to worthwhile to print and read this very grateful to Rabbi Eisen for point- emphasize this point more clearly in book, to increase Torah study and to ing out my mistranslation of the word future editions. beautify it through deliberations over chova (obligation), based upon my Rabbi Eisen also called into question these matters.” usage of the Warsaw edition of The my inclusion in the appendix of Rav Many of the questions that Glatt Kuzari for that particular phrase. The Moshe Feinstein’s novel responsum poses to Rav Moshe based on word was read and explained as chibat (Even HaEzer 1:102), which states that Ramban’s and Rambam’s language can (affection) by Otzar Nechmad(not Kol the mitzvah of living in Israel is a be similarly leveled at him based on Yehuda, as Rabbi Eisen states based on “mitzvah kiyumit” (a non-obligatory HaLevi’s language in The Kuzari. another misprint from the old edition!) mitzvah) and not a “mitzvah chiyuvit” Accordingly, we can only speculate While I did regularly cross-reference (an obligatory mitzvah). My intention what Rav Moshe would have said other texts for accuracy, this phrase in including this responsum was not, about HaLevi’s position regarding the apparently got by without my notice. as Rabbi Eisen assumes, to align Rav kiyumit/chiyuvitissue. Regardless, I welcome such corrections from other Moshe with Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi’s neither The Kuzari nor my translation readers, so that all such errors in trans- position. It was rather to assuage the of The Kuzari offers any definitive lation, as well as typographical errors, curiosity and genuine concern of the “practical halachic implications of this will be corrected in future editions. Diaspora reader (for whom this Eng l i s h position for Diaspora Jewry” for the (Please send all such corrections to edition was primarily meant) over the following reason: If, after noting the [email protected]) seeming hypocrisy of scores of Torah very strong and explicit language of However, I would disagree with leaders who insist on living in galut Ramban (an analysis of which is Rabbi Eisen when he states that this instead of making aliyah. This seem- beyond the scope of this letter), Rav mistranslation has “crucial halachic ing hypocrisy is only heightened after Moshe could still conclude that the consequences.” Whether one trans- reading The Kuzari, and I therefore mitzvah is only a mitzvah kiyumit, he lates the passage as “The obligation of felt the responsibility to at least offer could certainly argue that The Kuzari’s your Torah” or “affection of your some level of reconciliation to the de fi nition of a mi t z va h is also a mi t z va h Torah” one cannot derive from that Diaspora Jew. kiyumit— even with the correct trans- phrase alone what HaLevi’s stance is Readers may be interested to note lation of the word chovat. Rabbi Eisen on the mitzvah to live in Eretz Yisrael. that Rav Moshe’s teshuvah has fallen will also note that in halachic discussions This paragraph is said by the Khazar under heavy attack by many religious of the mitzvah of aliyah, such as in King, and not the Rabbi; it can there- Zionist scholars, because Rav Moshe Gla t t ’s book, HaLevi is not prom i n e n t l y fore not be considered an authoritative states that he is following the psak of cited, simply because The Kuz a r i , while statement of Torah doctrine, as HaLevi Ramban, who, at face value, seems to cited as a foundation for religious portrays the King as a newcomer to clearly state (in his addenda to Rambam’s Zionist ha s h k a f a h , is not considered or Judaism and subject to error over basic Sefer HaMitzvot, 4) that it is a mitzvah used as a ha l a c h i c tr eatise. The simple concepts. (See, for example, 3:50, chiyuvit. A very interesting and bottom line is that there is a plethora of where the King erroneously states that exhaustive discussion can be found in rishonimwho say the same thing as the institution of eruv is a violation MeAfar Kumiby Tzvi Glatt HaLevi in more precise halachic lan- of a mitzvah d’orayta,not to carry on (1981:Keren Tzvi Menachem), a young guage, albeit not as passionately or the Sabbath.) yeshivah student who was murdered al poetically as HaLevi. This is why any Irrespective of this one phrase, kiddush Hashemin Chevron several “halachic” derivations which can or however, HaLevi’s position on the years ago. In chapter 5 of the halachic cannot be made from one word in Th e mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisraelis section of his book, Glatt vigorously Kuz a r i ar e, in my opinion, over b l ow n . indisputable, as Rabbi Eisen himself argues that both Ramban and Rambam Once again, I thank Rabbi Eisen for points out, from the response of the maintain the mitzvah of aliyah to be a lending his time and expertise to rev i e w Rabbi in the following paragraph and mi t z va h ch i y u v i t , and theref o r e contests my translation. I hope that Rabbi from other places, especially at the end Rav Moshe’s psak. When the book Eisen’s article will stimulate further of the final essay. It becomes clear that was being published posthumously, discussion and study of The Kuzari, HaLevi’s position is that it is most Rav Moshe was asked to give his and I look forward to learning more definitely a mitzvah to live in Eretz approbation to this sefer. In his char- about The Kuzari from him in person Yisrael, and that Diaspora Jews are acteristic humility he agreed, but in some time in the future. hypocrites for bowing toward Israel the approbation he wrote: “Even though Rabbi N. Daniel Korobkin while not making any effort toward from a halachic standpoint I maintain Allentown, Pennsylvania

JEWISH ACTION Winter 5761/2000 Rabbi Eisen responds: Concerning the second point — an appendix dedicated to the subject, First, I thank Rabbi Kor obkin for his Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi’s usage of the “it seems inappropriate, particularly in co n s t ru c t i v e comments on my rev i e w. I term “obligations of your Torah” in an edition of Sefer HaKuzari, to ignore am, of course, gratified that he concurs describing the mandate to live in Eretz Rabbi Yehudah HaL e v i ’s (earlier) rul i n g , with many of my conclusions. I, too, Yisrael — Rabbi Korobkin rightly which explicitly differs.” look forwa r d to our meeting one another comments that “one cannot derive Fin a l l y , I must take exception to in person to discuss Sefer HaKu z a r i at from that phrase alone what HaLevi’s Rabbi Koro b k i n ’s implication that we much greater length. Sim u l t a n e o u s l y , stance is on the mitzvah to live in should sever the bonds between Jewi s h ho weve r , I feel obliged to clarify the two Eretz Yisrael. This paragraph is said by law and Jewish thought and reg a r d Sef e r sp e c i fi c points reg a r ding which Rabbi the Khazar King and not the Rabbi; it HaKu z a r i as rel e v ant only to the latter. Kor obkin commented. can therefore not be considered an As Rabbi Shelomoh Yosef Zevin writes, Concerning the first point, as Rabbi authoritative statement of Torah in his essay “HaK uzari BaHa l a c h a h ” Korobkin notes, I touched upon the doctrine.” However, whenever Rabbi (published in his “LeOr HaHalachah” issue of literalism in translations in Yehudah HaLevi uses the King to pre- [Yerushalayim:Beit Hillel, 1957], pp. general in my review. I certainly sent an erroneous impression or con- 281-301), no such dichotomy exists in endeavored to present a balanced per- clusion regarding Judaism, the Jewish the Talmud (or the Bible). Besides list- spective on the considerations militat- sage swiftly rebuts it. Here, as I noted, ing myriad references to halachotin Sefer HaKuzari, Rabbi Zevin notes a ing both for and against attempts at “The sage’s reply, unconditionally number of major halachic issues that literal, scholarly precision, which admitting his (and our) ‘sin’ and con- Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi analyzes with inevitably, to some extent, compromise ceding the resultant hypocrisy of our great precision, which are cited — readability. As I noted, “The compari- liturgical references to ‘Tzion’ (2:24), with referral to Sefer HaKuzari — by son between the styles of the ibn certainly leaves no room for doubt regarding Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi’s major halachic authorities. (Apart Tibbon and al-Charizi renditions [of from the mitzvah of dwelling in Eretz Moreh HaNevochim] aptly illustrates position.… Aliyah is an ‘obligation of your Torah,’ not merely an option.” Yisrael, Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi’s the predicament of the translator who As for Rabbi Moshe Feinstein’s detailed discussion of the halachic date strives to be bothreadable and right.” responsum, I humbly join Rabbi line [2:20], cited by Rabbi Avraham In particular, regarding the expres- Korobkin in referring the reader to Yeshayahu Karelitz [Chazon Ish], sion “vehamaskilim yavinu” (Daniel both the original responsum in Iggerot deserves special mention.) In light of 12:10) in Sefer HaKuzari’s preface, I Mosheand the comments of Tzvi Glatt these references and others, we should stated, “Rabbi Korobkin evidently in MeAfar Kumi. I must observe, reaffirm that serious study of Sefer grappled with these words, rendering however, that it is explicitly from HaKuzari — like that of all the great them, ‘Hopefully, perceptive readers Rambam’s ruling alone (in Mishneh classics of Jewish thought — demands will gain much understanding from Tora h , Hilchot Mel a c h i m 5:9) that Rabbi diligent consideration of not only its [the rabbi’s arguments]’ (p. 2). The Feinstein derives that the mitzvah of conceptual ramifications but its practical dilemma of the translator as interpret e r , dw elling in Eretz Yi s ra e l “is not manda- implications as well. outlined above, is clearly manifest. On to r y; rather, when one dwells there, one Again, I thank Rabbi Korobkin for the one hand, a literal rendition (‘but fu l fi lls a mi t z va h .” (Of course, I should his constructive comments. I certainly the intelligent will understand’) sounds add that any truly religious Jew seeks appreciate the opportunity to “discuss” rel a t i v ely recondite. On the other hand, op p o r tunities to fulfill God ’s manifestly these issues with him in the pages of while it is surely a vast improvement ex p r essed will — indisputably confirm e d Jewish Action, and I look forward to over the 1905 edition’s glaring omission, reg a r ding the mi t z va h of dwelling in continuing the dialogue between us in one wonders to what extent Rabbi Eretz Yi s ra e l — even without a quantifi- the future. JA Korobkin’s more approachable adapta- able mandate.) In any case, while Tzv i tion preserves the author’s intent.” It Glatt disputes even this interpret a t i o n Correction was explicitly not my object to advo- of Rambam’s ruling, it is surely unten- The review of The Rav: TheW orld of cate a translation that supports my — able to imagine any analogous interpre- Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchikwhich or anyone else’s — interpretation. I tation of Rabbi Yehudah HaL e v i ’s appeared in the Fall issue erroneously merely noted that, by opting for an emphatically unambiguous language. I stated that both the book and the interpretive adaptation rather than a must also note that, contrary to Rabbi tape (both by Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet- mo r e faithful rendering, Rabbi Koro b k i n Korobkin’s claim, I never “called into Rothkoff) referred to the Rav’s has guided the reader to only onepar- qu e s t i o n ” his inclusion of Rabbi height as 6'2". In fact, only the tape ticular interpretation that may or may Fei n s t e i n ’s responsum, nor did I assume contains that information, which not retain the author’s intentions and that its incorporation was intended “to was correctly stated in the reviewer’s the profound, multifaceted complexity al i g n ” it with Rabbi Yehudah HaL e v i ’s original text. of his work. position. Rather, my point was that, in

JEWISH ACTION Winter 5761/2000