Counterpoint a Dialogue Between Authors and Reviewers
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Counterpoint A dialogue between authors and reviewers IIn the Fall [5761/2000] issue of Jewish [Maimonides’ Code] was regarded as the own right, of the twentieth century, Action Rabbi Berel Berkovits published a most important commentary on the Hiddushe R. Hayyim ha-Levi, Or Sameah, negative review of my book, Between the Talmud, and major conceptual analyses and Tzofnat Paneah.”2 If any more evi- Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy: The often used Maimonides’ formulations as dence is necessary, let me cite Rabbi Life and Works of Rabbi Jehiel Jacob their starting point.”1 That Berkovits Joseph B. Soloveitchik: “My father often Weinberg, 1884-1966. Although I have no would choose to quibble here is quite sur- spoke about the Rambam and this is what doubt that those who have read the book prising, since everything I have written is he would do. He would open the will be able to judge how off-base this absolutely correct. As anyone who has Gemara, learn the sugya, and afterwards he review is, for the benefit of those who spent time in a yeshiva knows, the would say as follows: ‘This is the interpre- haven’t read the book it is necessary for me Mishneh Torah is not used as a practical tation of the Ri and the Tosafists, now let’s to reply. I will divide my response into halachic work. After learning a sugya, one look at the Rambam and see how he two parts. First, I will point out the errors examines the Rambam to see how he explained it.’”3 of Rabbi Berkovits, which I believe show understands the Gemara. Maimonides’ 3. “There are also fanciful speculations careless reading or are an attempt to find understanding is contrasted with that of as to possible ‘influences’ upon Rabbi fault where there is none. I will then take Rashi or the Tosafists. One wouldn’t Weinberg.” In his note he writes “For up Rabbi Berkovits’ two major criticisms. dream of learning a sugya of Talmud with- example, G. K. Chesterton, pp. 74-75; I must first say that I appreciate that out seeing how Maimonides understands 207.” As the reader can ascertain for him- Rabbi Berkovits begins by calling the book it, and this has nothing to do with practi- self, only on pp. 74-75 do I speak of the “fascinating” and “an impressive book, cal, and often not even with theoretical, possible influence of Chesterton on reflecting meticulous study and careful halachah. It is about how to properly Weinberg. research.” At first, I thought Rabbi understand a sugya. Not surprisingly, so 4. “Somewhat disturbingly, Professor Berkovits would join others whose very many rebbeim (including my own) have Shapiro seems very ready to cast doubt positive reviews have also recently impressed on their students that the best upon the accuracy of biographical infor- appeared. However, when I read on I saw commentaries on a sugya are Rashi and mation given by Rabbi Weinberg himself.” that the praise was short-lived. the Rambam. Let me give one example: If we know that Let us now examine a number of Rabbi Weinberg was born in his criticisms. Ciechanowiec, Poland and we also find 1. “[The book] depicts an alleged early A ll this is basic stuff, which inci- that he often gave Pilwishki, Lithuania, as flirtation with Haskalah and modern dentally, had long interested my late his birthplace, obviously he wasn’t telling Hebrew literature.” By inserting the word teacher, Professor Isadore Twersky. In one the truth. You don’t need me to “cast “alleged” Rabbi Berkovits wants the unsus- conversation, he even asked me to expand doubt,” since the facts speak for them- pecting reader to believe that there is no my discussion of the Mishneh Torah as a selves. In this case, I suggested (p. 3 note real proof for this. However, in addition to talmudic commentary. Professor Twersky 13) that his lack of candor was presumably Weinberg’s two friends who wrote about also pointed out that this phenomenon due to the German government’s attitude Weinberg and Haskalah, we also have has a long history and is even attested to towards Polish Jews. Weinberg’s own letter in which he wrote by Meiri, who wrote about how the 5. “Likewise he gratuitously attributes of his attempt to engage the assistance Mishneh Torah would cause him to revise personal motives to some of Rabbi of Shemaryahu Levin. Weinberg’s later his understanding of the Talmud Weinberg’s negative assessments of others’ essays on Modern Hebrew Literature attest (Introduction to Beit Ha-Behirah, p. 28). scholarship…” Were Rabbi Chaim Heller, to the fact that at one time in his life he Professor Twersky himself wrote, with ref- Rabbi Ezekiel Abramsky, Alexander was an avid reader of this literature. erence to modern commentaries on the Sperber, etc. plagiarizers? I don’t think any Finally, there are other letters from Mishneh Torah: “Special mention should, fair-minded reader of their work would Weinberg’s youth which shed light on of course, be made of those commenta- conclude this. In general, Rabbi Weinberg these turbulent years. I did not quote tors, particularly in modern times, who was a fair-minded reader, so why then them in the book because the owner of have no axe to grind and whose concern is does he conclude that these men were these letters has not given permission for purely theoretical: to understand and guilty of plagiarism? I believe that there them to be made public. explicate the Maimonidean view as well as were other, undoubtedly subconscious, 2. “Maimonides’ Code (even as studied that of his critics, to show how a Talmudic factors at work here. If that is gratuitous, in the Lithuanian yeshivot) is not a ‘com- passage lends itself to multiple then so be it. mentary on the Talmud’”. What I wrote interpretations. Suffice it to refer to the 6. Rabbi Berkovits says that I adduced is that “in the Analytic circle, three great works, already classics in their scant evidence for the “somewhat unworthy” JEWISH ACTION Spring 5761/2001 1 suggestion that the reason Rabbi Weinberg history, which, I realize, is exactly the type sis in his maturity, and indeed throughout didn’t go to Israel was because he didn’t of “biography” some people want to see. his entire life, into old age.” He claims want to have to choose between the acade- Writing Weinberg’s biography using only that there is no evidence to suggest, “that mic world and the yeshiva world. Rabbi published material would be no different he continued to agonize over his identity.” Berkovits suggests that it is plausible that than writing a history of a president using Yet I never say he did. In fact, I say the financial reasons were at the heart of this only his public statements and the daily exact opposite and interestingly enough, refusal. However, as I state in the book, in briefings of his press secretary. most people who have criticized my book addition to receiving many offers to go to Rabbi Berkovits then suggests that to have pointed to exactly this point in order Israel, he also received a large financial set- write about gedolei Yisrael one must him- to dispute with me. The standard view of tlement from the German government. self have been “totally immersed” in the Weinberg is that he was precisely such a This meant that he no longer had financial world of Torah learning. One who does man, pulled continuously in different worries. In fact, he died with quite a large not reach that undefined level is ipso facto directions without ever finding inner bank account. Thus, financial reasons do disqualified (and once again, Professor peace. My revisionist interpretation is that not explain why he refused to go. As for Twersky would have had to close his pro- “while it is true that in his early life there my “unworthy suggestion,” this is what gram). In other words, a book is judged was much tension in his personality, no Weinberg himself wrote: “I am afraid to based upon who wrote it. In contempo- such lack of harmony can be detected in go to the Land of Israel. There are differ- rary times the only people who operate the post war years. In fact, from as early ent worlds there, which reject and hate this way are the politically correct and the as the 1920s until his death, Weinberg’s one another. I am part of two worlds, and religious obscurantists. The rest of the Weltanschauung was not subject to any sig- which one should I choose when I go world has a simple standard: A book nificant vacillations or transformations.” there? In the end I will have to remain in should be judged based on its content. It (p. 179 note 31.) solitude. Therefore it is better for me to be should be judged as if it didn’t have a title Rabbi Berkovits is thus beating a alone in an empty desert than in a noisy page and the author and publisher were straw man! and raucous atmosphere.” All this sounds unknown. What is important is the quali- Rabbi Berkovits’ other major objection pretty clear to me. ty of the evidence and the arguments pre- is that he believes I radically misrepresent So much for specific criticisms. The sented. So while the politically correct, the halachic process and “perhaps even more fruitful room for debate revolves the religious obscurantists, and Rabbi defame” Rabbi Weinberg. Taken out around Rabbi Berkovits’ general reserva- Berkovits are able to disqualify a book on of context, Rabbi Berkovits quotes the tions.