Simcha Krauss
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Books Community, Covenant and Selected Letters and Communications, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik The Rav was so complex a figure that different individuals perceived him in different ways. We therefore thought it appropriate to publish two reviews of the book on the Rav’s letters so as to better capture the richness of his thought and personality. Ed. Reviewed by Simcha Krauss t is common knowledge that the Yet even as the Rav’s influence grew, rabbi of Kovno, with a request that he be Brisker method of Talmud study is as he gained recognition as Orthodoxy’s sent a telegram with a yes or no response, difficult and complex. The terms “two dominant Torah and intellectual figure, without the theoretical pilpul on which I and as studies of the Rav’s teachings mul- the decision was based. The implication dinim,” “gavra and cheftza,” “ma’ase and kinyan,” all freely used by adherents of tiplied, his role as communal leader was was that either Rav Chaim was afraid of this school of thought, show that seem- questioned. Amidst the accolades heaped deciding, or that, as Rav Zevin suggests, on the Rav—such as that “people will be he was always able to see another possibil- ingly simple concepts of Jewish law can 1 3 be examined and explained dialectically, reading him in a thousand years” —some ity of argumentation. Hence, the percep- that is, in multi-faceted and, at times, wondered whether he was really a posek, tion of Brisk’s inability to decide and its contradictory ways. an authoritative decision maker, for consequent inability to lead. One of the prime expositors of the Community, Covenant and Brisker method in our time was maran The Rav led fearlessly even Commitment offers a radically different Harav Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik, when he saw dangers or risks understanding of the Rav. The volume z”l. For close to half a century, he taught, in taking particular positions. contains over seventy letters, responsa and inculcated and popularized the Torah of memoranda written by the Rav, dealing Brisk to thousands of students. The Rav, Orthodoxy. The argument went that he with issues of halachah, minhag and pub- however, also broadened and applied this had difficulty making decisions, that he lic policy, as well as chiddushei Torah. method of analysis far beyond the con- was too conflicted, and therefore not real- These writings reflect the gamut of issues fines of “pure” halachah to the whole ly a leader. For example, Hillel Goldberg that touched the lives of American Jews range of aggadic and philosophical texts. accepts the following description of the in the 1950s and ‘60s and ended up on Although comprehensive study of this Rav: the Rav’s desk. In his responses, the Rav phenomenon is beyond the scope of this In its very broad outlines, [Rabbi characteristically cites all sources, analyzes article, the Rav’s creative use of such now Soloveitchik’s] philosophy ... finds great reso- all possibilities and presents a whole array familiar terms as the “two Adams,” “the nance among the modern Orthodox.... But of possible options for resolving the prob- two sides of Elisha ben Abuya” and “the when Rabbi Soloveitchik attempts to apply lems. The mastery of text and theory dis- two covenants” illustrates the point. this philosophy of life to reality, his position played is awesome. But these questions is often indecisive, vacillating, and quite demanded answers, and the Rav provides contrary to expectations. It is the Orthodox the latter with confidence and certitude. Rabbi Krauss was the spiritual leader of Youth who made of Rabbi Soloveitchik a charis- The responses are precise, authoritative, Israel of Hillcrest, in New York, and the imme- matic leader; he disdains this role for him- definitive and often courageous. 2 diate past president of the Religious Zionists of self. The following illustrates the Rav’s America. The author expresses his appreciation In fact, this sort of criticism is not brilliance as a decision maker: In 1950, a to his wife, Esther, and Rabbi Zalman Alpert, new to the history of Brisk. Rav Shlomo supporter of Cornell University left a reference librarian at Yeshiva University’s Yosef Zevin reports that when Rav Chaim bequest for the building of an interfaith Mendel Gottesman Library of Soloveitchik, the Rav’s grandfather, was chapel. Part of the design was for stained Hebraica/Judaica, for their help in preparation confronted by a difficult she’eilah (ques- glass windows depicting human figures, of this article. Rabbi Krauss and his wife tion of Jewish law), he would turn to Rav albeit without any Christological motifs. recently made aliyah and live in Yerusha-layim. Yitzchak Elchanan Spector, the great When some Jewish faculty members 88 JEWISH ACTION Fall 5766/2005 (continued on page 90) (continued from page 88) objected, the university responded that it of the Rabbinical Council of America With full cognizance of the implica- would respect their wishes if a rabbinic turns to the Rav about an invitation the tions of such a halakhic decision, I would authority backed them up. They turned RCA received to cooperate with a group still advise every Orthodox Jew to forego to the Rav, limiting their question to the of non-Orthodox and secular Jewish tefilah be-tzibbur even on Rosh Hashana permissibility of depicting human figures. scholars in the preparation of a new and Yom Kippur rather than enter a syna- 6 The Rav’s response traces the English translation of the Bible. The Rav gogue with mixed pews. halachah and history of the second of the rejects the idea, explaining: This was, of course, strong medi- Ten Commandments, and concludes that I am afraid that the purpose of this cine. But the Rav believed that only such any representation of the human form in undertaking is not to infuse the spirit of a self-confident Orthodoxy would sur- the context of worship, no matter how Torah she-be-al peh into the new English vive. He felt he had to inculcate universal its character, is halachically version but … to satisfy the so-called mod- Orthodox circles with dignity—kevod objectionable. But the Rav does not stop ern “scientific” demands for a more exact HaTorah. When shown a responsum by a there. Acknowledging that he fully under- rendition … in full accord with, or at least non-Orthodox scholar, he reacted stood the implications “in terms of public influenced by, higher Biblical criticism, as follows: relations,” he forcefully attacks the very and I cannot see how we, representatives of ... I have not read the responsum you notion of sharing an interfaith chapel: Torah she-be-al peh, can lend our name to sent me on the question of grafting human 5 The idea of a common house of such an undertaking. bone tissue. I tore it up immediately. I prayer is absolutely irreconcilable with the The Rav realized that his pesak refuse to deal with any halakhic essay, Jewish philosophy of worship ... the worship would be interpreted as a sign of Ortho- regardless of its scholastic merits or fallacies, of God is not a social or collective gesture doxy isolating itself from the rest of the prepared by a representative of a group but is a genuinely individual, most person- Jewish community. In fact, he anticipated whose philosophy is diametrically opposed to al, intimate ... relationship which cannot this critique: Torah and tradition and which does not 4 be shared.… I noticed in your letter that you are a accept the authority of Halakhah as a When this question arose, the bit disturbed about the probability of being Divine and transcendental guide for the Jewish community in America was weak, left out. Let me tell you that this attitude of individual and the community. I am and the Orthodox community weaker shocked at the nonsensical attitude of our still. For American Jews, the priority was The Rav had no hesitation, representatives in tolerating such a pitiful to belong, to homogenize into the larger when the occasion called state of affairs and surrendering the most society, not to stand apart. In some quar- sacred prerogative of the traditional rab- ters, identification with Israel was inter- for it, in appearing harsh, binate, hora’ah [halakhic decision making], to an apostle of a non-halakhic brand of preted as dual loyalty. Jewish day school blunt and inflexible. 7 was widely considered “parochial” and Judaism. “ghettoizing.” Sociologists echoed many fear is responsible for many commissions The Rav would not brook ideologi- ordinary Americans in suggesting that all and omissions, compromises and fallacies on cal or theological syncretism. But he was religions share a common message, so our part which have contributed greatly to not only a naysayer; the Rav opposed the there was no need to identify with a par- the prevailing confusion within the Jewish idea that the survival of Orthodoxy ticular creed. In the Jewish community, community and to the loss of our self- depended on isolation and exclusivity. He Orthodox rabbis were up against inter- esteem, our experience of ourselves as inde- had a positive agenda to bring Torah lir- faith services, brotherhood Sabbaths and pendent entities committed to a unique chovah shel ir (to the broad plaza of the Sundays and joint Thanksgiving services; philosophy and way of life. Of course, socia- city) by teaching Torah that was broad, opposition smacked of un-Americanism. bility is a basic virtue and we all hate lone- deep, all-inclusive and all encompassing. In such a cultural environment, it liness and dread the experience of being left The Rav himself was the marbitz took considerable courage for the Rav to alone.