“To See Life Steadily and See it Whole”: Rav and the Holistic Integrity of Religious Life

01.24.18 Thought of R. Aharon Lichtenstein Shlomo Zuckier

Matthew Arnold and Integrity

1. Matthew Arnold, “To a Friend” Who prop, thou ask'st in these bad days, my mind? He much, the old man, who, clearest-souled of men, Saw The Wide Prospect, and the Asian Fen, And Tmolus hill, and Smyrna bay, though blind. d Much he, whose friendship I not long since won, That halting slave, who in Nicopolis Taught Arrian, when Vespasian's brutal son Cleared Rome of what most shamed him. But be his d My special thanks, whose even-balanced soul, From first youth tested up to extreme old age, Business could not make dull, nor passion wild; d Who saw life steadily, and saw it whole; The mellow glory of the Attic stage, Singer of sweet Colonus, and its child.

2. “Centrist Orthodoxy: A Spiritual Accounting,” By His Light, 229-230 If I were pressed to encapsulate what I learned in graduate school, my answer would be: the complexity of experience. “The rest is commentary; go and study.” With respect to the whole range of points enumerated above, I say again that my life experience, in the States or in Eretz Yisrael, within the public or the private sphere, has only sharpened my awareness of the importance of these qualities. These elements—particularly the last—constitute, if you will, Centrist virtues. Centrism is as much a temper as an ideology, as much a mode of sensibility as a lifestyle. It is of its very essence to shy away from simplistic and one-sided approaches, of its very fabric to strive to encompass and encounter reality in its complexity and, with that encounter, to seek the unity which transcends the diversity. If confronted by the question posed in Arnold’s sonnet “To a Friend”—“Who prop, thou ask’st, in these bad days, my mind?”—I imagine none of us would give his reply: . . . But be his My special thanks, whose even-balanced soul, From first youth tested up to extreme old age, Business could not make dull, nor passion wild; Who saw life steadily, and saw it whole; The mellow glory of the Attic stage, [email protected] Thought of RAL Class #2 Singer of sweet Colonus, and its child. We do not have that kind of relationship to Sophocles. But we do, we ought, share the overriding desire to see life steadily and see it whole. And it is indeed true that, to that end, Sophocles, among others, is helpful. I am in no way intimating that that vision of life cannot be attained otherwise, or that one cannot be a yerei Shamayim or a talmid chakham without it. I am generally opposed to positing a single mold as the sole model for avodat Hashem, and I submit that, were it up to me, one could receive rabbinic ordination from Yeshivat Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan even if, like R. Akiva Eiger, he did not have a B.A.

What is Integrity?

3. “Integrity,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy What is it to be a person of integrity? Ordinary discourse about integrity involves two fundamental intuitions: first, that integrity is primarily a formal relation one has to oneself, or between parts or aspects of one's self; and second, that integrity is connected in an important way to acting morally, in other words, there are some substantive or normative constraints on what it is to act with integrity. On the self-integration view of integrity, integrity is a matter of persons integrating various parts of their personality into a harmonious, intact whole. Understood in this way, the integrity of persons is analogous to the integrity of things: integrity is primarily a matter of keeping the self intact and uncorrupted. The self-integration view of integrity makes integrity a formal relation to the self. What is a formal relation to the self? One answer is that a formal relation can be attributed to a person without evaluating the relation's components. Strength of will is probably a formal relation one has to oneself. Very roughly, we might say that a display of strength of will is a particular relation between a person's intention and corresponding action: it is a matter of acting on an intention given serious obstacles to the action. This is a formal relation to the self in the sense we are after because we don't need to evaluate the appropriateness, value, justice, practical wisdom, and so on, either of the intention or corresponding action in order to identify the whole thing as a case of strength of will. We might think that all displays of strength of will are valuable, so we might have certain pro-attitudes to an action simply because it is an attempt to fulfill an intention in the face of serious obstacles. Yet we don't need to make this evaluation in order to attribute a display of strength of will to someone. All we need to do is inspect the correspondence of intention and action given the difficulty of acting on the intention. We don't need to evaluate whether the intention is directed at anything worthwhile, for example. John Bigelow and Robert Pargetter (2007) argue that strength of will is the core of integrity (and that alternative conceptions of integrity tend to confuse integrity with authenticity). The self-integration account of integrity takes this formal characterization of integrity a step further. Self-integration is an achievement rather than a quality or disposition such as strength of will — though strength of will is likely to be an important quality in those who achieve self-integration. Self- integration still represents a formal account of integrity. In attributing self-integration to a person we are making no evaluative judgement of the states that are integrated within the person.

4. Reuven Ziegler, By His Light, Preface, vii-viii The advocacy of a theocentric life – and specifically one that, despite its focus on the single goal of serving God, nevertheless recognizes multiple paths and entails multiple demands – is a hallmark of Lichtenstein’s thought. Indeed, it characterizes Rabbi Lichtenstein’s life; anyone who knows him can attest that he is a living exemplar of the ideals set forth in this book. [email protected] Thought of RAL Class #2 Beyond the actual positions espoused, these presentations are noteworthy for their methodology: the recognition of complexity, the openness to a plurality of approaches, the eschewing of simplistic black-and- white positions, the attempt to view issues in a broad perspective (“to see life steadily and see it whole,” in a phrase much beloved of Rabbi Lichtenstein), the bringing to bear of a wide range of thought and experience on the problems addressed, and the sensitivity to nuance. The result is a treatment that, while passionate in aspiration, is nevertheless balanced and moderate in judgement.

5. “Determining Objectives in Religious Growth,” By His Light, pp. 86-7 The question of whether to strive for the achievement of a kind of Renaissance ideal, the “man for all seasons,” or to try to master a given area intensively – not only in theory, but in practice – confronts us at both a public and a private level. Perhaps part of what makes the choice sometimes difficult is the fact that the public and private interests very often diverge. If you want to regard this issue from a purely personal perspective, whereby the spiritual interest of the individual alone is to be our guide, then I suppose that our intuitive response – at least, my own – is towards the Renaissance ideal, whereby a person is not limited to working in one particular area, but is a complete oved Hashem (servant of God) – “In all your ways, know Him.” A person is thereby enriched; there is a fructifying reciprocation between various aspects of his spiritual existence. He does not live as a fragmented being. He is not only able, as Matthew Arnold said of Sophocles, “to see life steadily and see it whole,” but to live it steadily and live it whole. On the other hand, if we regard the public interest, then surely there is a great deal to be said for specialization. If a person is very much at home in a given area, then when a problem comes up within his particular area, he is able to cope with it in a way that a person who has a more general perspective and a broader field of vision cannot. The specialist obviously can do much better from a public standpoint than can the generalist. Therefore, we are often confronted by the question of the extent to which we want to emphasize the public or the private element. This is not to say that the public interest always militates for specialization, and the private one for a broader vision. Surely, on the one hand, the public interest too requires that people who deal with central and basic issues have a somewhat broader horizon and more general perspective. Public issues dealing with our civil existence must not simply be left to technocrats, who narrowly master a small area but lack the ability to relate it properly and sensitively to other areas. This consideration has been at the heart of the British tradition, whereby civil servants have been specialists, but those who make the more general decisions on the cabinet level have had broader training. The familiar comment, “War is too important to be left to generals,” is likewise important in many other areas of public life.

The Integrity of and Ethics

6. “Being Frum and Being Good: On the Relationship Between Religion and Morality,” By His Light, p. 132 Our sense of the truth and vitality of is sharpened and deepened through our recognition of its total unity. This means conceiving of the areas of bein adam la-Makom and bein adam lechavero not as different or conflicting elements, but rather as one central unity, albeit subdivided into various components. “The beginning of Your utterance is true,” and “From the end of Your utterance, it is evident that the beginning of Your utterance is true.”

[email protected] Thought of RAL Class #2 7. Does Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halakha, Leaves of Faith, volume 2 (2004), p. 52 Halakhic Judaism demands of the Jew both adherence to Halakhah and commitment to an ethical moment that, though different from Halakhah, is nevertheless of a piece with it and in its own way fully imperative.

8. “War and Morality: A Conversation,” Tehumin 4 (1983), p.185, (trans. Aryeh Klapper in Meorot 6:1, p. 2) It is most important that a person going out to war understand that he is not passing from a world possessed of one hierarchy of values to a world with a different hierarchy of values.

Integrating Torah and Other Pursuits

9. “Centrist Orthodoxy: A Spiritual Accounting,” By His Light, p. 230 Speaking for myself, however, I can emphatically state that my general education has contributed much to my personal development. I know that my understanding of Tanakh would be far shallower in every respect without it. I know that it has greatly enhanced my perception of life in Eretz Yisrael. I know that it has enriched my religious experience. I know that when my father was stricken blind, Milton’s profoundly religious sonnet “On His Blindness” and its magnificent conclusion, “They also serve who only stand and wait,” stood me in excellent stead. I also know – and this has at times been a most painful discovery – that many of these elements are sadly lacking among the contemners of culture on the Right.

10. “The Ideology of Hesder,” Tradition, 19:3, Fall 1981 Properly understood, hesder poses more of a challenge than an opportunity; and in order to perceive it at its best we need to focus upon difficulty and even tension rather than upon convenience. Optimally, hesder does not merely provide a religious cocoon for young men fearful of being contaminated by the potentially secularizing influences of general army life - although it incidentally serves this need as well. Hesder at its finest seeks to attract and develop bnei torah who are profoundly motivated by the desire to become serious talmidei hachamim but who concurrently feel morally and religiously bound to help defend their people and their country; who, given the historical exigencies of their time and place, regard this dual commitment as both a privilege and a duty; who, in comparison with their non-hesder confreres love not (to paraphrase Byron's Childe Harold) Torah less but Israel more. It provides a context within which students can focus upon enhancing their personal spiritual and intellectual growth while yet heeding the call to public service, and it thus enables them to maintain an integrated Jewish existence.

11. “Law and Spirituality: Defining the Terms,” in Jewish Spirituality and Divine Law (2005), pp. 24-25,32-33 I regard none of this as cause for discarding spirituality. It remains an indispensable component of the religious life. These are, however, reasons for nurturing and honing it carefully; and, together with the caveats against arid legalism, constitute an overriding challenge for optimal personal realization in the quest for integrated avodat Hashem. If we had to decide between pallid normative observance and non-halakhic spiritual dynamism we would, as commanded beings, unhesitatingly, albeit regretfully, opt for the former. But does anyone imagine that the Ribbono shel Olam confronts us with such a cruel choice? Our aim, duty and aspiration both, is the conjunction of spiritualized halakhah and disciplined spirituality; the fusion which enables us to realize the poetry and prose of ideal Jewish existence. We are confronted, then, with significant difficulties. The benefits of the current wave of spirituality are many and diverse; and, if such matters can be quantified, I repeat that, on balance, they outweigh the reverses even within our own Orthodox camp. However, some of its manifestations – particularly, ideological flotsam and jetsam – are truly worrisome; and with these we need to cope. This brings us, finally, back to our primary problem: How to attain optimal fusion of divine law and human spirituality, committed to both while eschewing neither. We live by the serene faith that it can be done. We refuse to believe that we are doomed to choose between arid formalism and unbridled sensibility. We reject both Leibowitz and Buber. [email protected] Thought of RAL Class #2 Torah Study as Integrated with the Real World

12. “Criticism and Kitvei haKodesh,” in Rav Shalom Banayikh, 31. … that we strive to apply literary criticism to kitvei ha-kodesh - that we master its categories, familiarize ourselves with its canons, and bring these to bear upon our reading, understanding, and appreciation of Tanakh. I suggest that… we acknowledge the significance of a range of problems we generally ignore – literary problems; and that we perceive a dimension we ordinarily overlook – a literary dimension. We should learn to recognize archetypal forms and techniques of thematic development; to discern patterns of imagery and principles of structure; to be sensitive to narrative flow and dramatic interaction; to observe rhythmic movement and verbal texture. In short, I propose, first, that we discover – or rather, rediscover – kitvei ha-kodesh as literature …

13. Yaakov Beasley, “A Question of Character: R. Aharon Lichtenstein and the Interpretation of Biblical Texts,” Tradition 47:4, 130-32 Perhaps the text that best reflects R. Lichtenstein desire to maintain the balance between the religious quest alongside the human nature of the Biblical characters is his discussion of Joseph’s reuniting with his father Jacob. The Torah states that at that dramatic meeting, “… he appeared before him and he fell upon his neck, and he wept more on his neck.” (Gen. 46:29) Rashi and Ramban dispute who cried – Rashi holds that, while Joseph was overcome with emotion to see his father, Jacob chose that moment to recite the Shema. Ramban disagreed – after all, human nature demands that it is Jacob who cries. “It is a well known phenomenon – by whom are more tears shed? By the aging father who finds his son alive after the despair and mourning, or by the young and regal son?” Given what we have written above, one would expect that R. Lichtenstein would prefer the very human explanation of Ramban to that of Rashi, who appears to advocate for the separation of the human and religious dimensions of experience. However, R. Lichtenstein espouses neither the study of people bereft of religious feelings nor of human emotions, but one who can successfully navigate between the two. In explaining Rashi’s view, he writes: We could say, “What an incredible level he attained – he has ERASED all human feeling; he has become superhuman!” There are two problems with such an explanation and its underlying assumptions. Firstly, it presents a problematic understanding of the patriarchs; secondly, its portrayal of the importance and place of emotion is skewed… There has been a recognizable trend… to sever the patriarchs not only from the world of emotion, but from the world itself, portraying them not as human beings but as angels. It is vital that we understand that the patriarchs and the matriarchs were indeed spiritual giants… However; it is specifically because they were human beings, people who experienced the regular emotions of every father and mother toward their children, that they were so extraordinary… The misunderstanding of the role of emotion – is due to a mistaken perception of feelings as something weak and unwanted… Emotion is not something inferior. It is a necessary, accepted and important part of our relationships with other people and with God… Great people are outstanding not only in terms of their intellect, but also in terms of the refinement, sensitivity and intensity of their emotion. Judaism does not demand that one quash all emotion… If we truly wish to understand Rashi in all his depth and greatness, and to appreciate the Herculean proportions of human development which Ya’akov Avinu is portrayed as having reached, we must understand him in the light of the fact that Ya’akov Avinu felt every single one of the emotions experienced by every human being… despite the very human longings for his son… Ya’akov nevertheless was able to overcome his very human feelings and concentrate and say the Shema… [email protected] Thought of RAL Class #2 14. “Torah and General Culture: Confluence and Conflict,” Judaism’s Encounter with Other Cultures, p. 226 Advocates of hagiographic parshanut, which portrays the central heroic figures of scriptural history as virtually devoid of emotion, can only regard the sharpening of psychological awareness with reference to tanakh with a jaundiced eye. But for those of us who have been steeped in midrashim, the Ramban, and the Ha’amek Davar-in a tradition, that is, which regards the patriarchal avot and their successors as very great people indeed but as people nonetheless, and which moreover sees their greatness as related to the their humanity—enhanced literary sensibility can be viewed as a significant boon.

15. Nati Helfgot, Letter, March 2007, “http://indefenseofyct.blogspot.com/2007/03/letter-from-r- natihelfgot.html” In oral comments Rav Lichtenstein made in 1984 at a melaveh malkah he was even sharper. Asked about this general topic he pithily replied: “There are two approaches to the humanity of the Avot, that of Rav Aharon Kotler and that of Hazal!” He further went on to bemoan that the Hareidi perspective ultimately turns the Avot and Imahot into “ossified figures of petrified tzidkus”.

Living an Integrated Life

16. “Of Marriage: Relationships and Relations,” Tradition 39:2 (Summer 2005), pp. 29, 31 To the extent that I am capable of candid self-awareness, I trust these questions can and should be answered in the negative. Our commitment to sexuality, properly sanctified, redeemed and redeeming, does not derive from libidinous passion but is, rather, grounded in profound spiritual instincts – upon our recognition that “God saw all that He created, and behold it was very good,” on the one hand, and our quest for meaningful interpersonal commingling, on the other. It is, for us, not merely an instrument for parallel intense enjoyment, nor a vehicle for reciprocal consumption. It is, rather, a fundamental component in a comprehensive relationship – at once, both itself an aspect of that relationship and a means toward molding its totality. This is our honed perception of “cleaving to his wife that they become one flesh” – partly carnal, in one sense, and yet powerfully existential in another. We cannot, as Shelah could not, acquiesce in the sense that so fundamental an aspect of physical and psychic reality is, by and large, merely a snare. We cannot, as the author of the Iggeret ha-Kodesh could not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of human nature is not part of the tov me’od of primordial creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. In this most sensitive area, we strive for a life which is energized rather than neutralized – not merely sterilized and sanitized, but ennobled and ennobling. We are challenged to sanctify – by integrating sexuality within total sacral existence, characterized by the systole and diastole of divinely ordained denial and realization, and by infusing the relationship itself with human and spiritual content. This is by no means the easier course. May we have the wisdom and the commitment to render it the better.

17. “Raising Children,” accessible at http://etzion.org.il/en/raising-children The historical evidence in this regard is mixed. I come, indirectly, from Brisk and from Volozhin. In Brisk, a very high value was attached to raising children, and particularly to raising them with the paramount values that epitomize this community, specifically, the analytic approach to study. In Brisk, Reb Chaim did not have a yeshiva. He started learning with his children, and people heard about it, so other people joined the group. Today, Yeshivas Brisk in Yerushalayim is an empire! Rav Avraham Yehoshua Soloveitchik has 800 students in his yeshiva, and hundreds others waiting, knocking at the door. Contrast that with his father’s whole [email protected] Thought of RAL Class #2 yeshiva, which fit into a living room, fifty or so seats, while his grandfather, Reb Velvel, had to do without getting a minyan in his home. He learned with his children. Rav Moshe Soloveitchik built the Rav into who he was, and not just a little bit here and there. During the most formative years of the Rav’s life, his father Rav Moshe learned with him for ten to twelve hours a da. When I say learned, I mean learned! If the Rav hesitated, or Rav Moshe thought he was goofing off a little bit, he let him have it. Not everybody did that. Many of the Torah giants in Eastern Europe, and not one or two, devoted themselves to their own studies, to writing their chiddushim, and let their children grow up as they might within their society. Some even grew up to be irreligious Jews; and I am not referring here to some local, isolated, unknown rav.

18. יאיר שלג, ראיון עם אסתי רוזנברג, "ילדה אחת מול 700 אוטובוסים ,"מוסף שבת "הוא גם היה נגיש בבית?" "לגמרי נגיש. אני לא חשבתי אף פעם על שיחות שלי איתו במושגים של ביטול תורה. גם היה ברור שבצד זה שהבית סובב סביב הישיבה, זה גם בית נורמלי שעושים בו ישיבות צוות ואבא שלי מכיר את כל החברים מהסניף. ידעתי שהוא רב חשוב, אבל לא הייתה תודעה שאני גדלה אצל גדול הדור, וכולנו צריכים להתכופף לפני המשימה של שירות גדול הדור. הוא גם לא היה מאוד תובעני. הייתה נעימות בבית. 18. Yair Sheleg, Interview with Esti Rosenberg, “One girl against 700 buses,” Musaf Shabbat “Was he also accessible at home?” Completely accessible. I never felt in my conversations with him that they were within the framework of “Bittul Torah.” It was also clear that, notwithstanding the fact that the home circled around the Yeshiva, it was also a normal home where we would have (youth group) staff meetings and my father recognized all my friends from our branch. I knew that he was an important Rabbi, but I did not have the sense that I was growing up by a Gedol ha-Dor, and that we all needed to bow to the mission of serving the Gedol ha-Dor. He also wasn’t really demanding. There was a pleasantness about the home.

19. Shlomo Zuckier and Shalom Carmy, “An Introductory Biographical Sketch of R. Aharon Lichtenstein,” Tradition 47:4, p. 8 R. Lichtenstein’s children, four sons and two daughters, are all involved in Jewish education. R. Lichtenstein considers his family to be his proudest achievement.

20. David Brofsky, Facebook comment He lived fully in the dati leumi world, sent his children to DL institutions (and later University), sent his sons to the army, and unlike other of his generation, he did not believe in working in one world, and raising one’s family in another.

21. “If There Is No ‘Da’at,’ How Can We Have Leadership?” (Transl. [unauthorized] by Joseph Faith), accessible at http://www.zootorah.com/RationalistJudaism/DaatTorahLichtenstein.pdf Ironically, in the era of earlier gedolei yisrael, when their ‘da’at’ really was ‘Da’at Torah,’ and their loyal flocks adhered to their views, ‘Da’at Torah’ itself had not yet become an obligatory doctrine. Moreover, in the past, as a scholar would grow in stature, he would deepen his connection with the community he presided over. This is not the case nowadays, however. In that earlier era, there were only a few gedolim, but everyone turned to them. This was in a large part due to the deep attachment that existed between the community and its leaders. The connection between them was natural. It was not infrequent to take a four year old child to that scholar so that the child would enjoy his radiant countenance, and this would be deeply [email protected] Thought of RAL Class #2 inscribed upon his soul. The great talmidei chachamim in that generation were connected both to Torah and to the society in which they lived. Even if they were not experts in psychological texts, or in literature and history, the great Torah leaders of that generation were integrated and deeply rooted in the land in which they had grown, and were not detached whatsoever. In that context, ‘Da’at Torah’ derives its strength from the direct personal and human connection that the sagacious leader has with his community. This has not been the case, however, in later generations. It is specifically in the later generations, when the concept of ‘Da’at Torah’ has become more deeply entrenched, when many gedolim have chosen a different path, which is many ways the exact opposite of that which preceded it. This is not mere coincidence, and is rather a reflection of a fundamentally different approach, both in its social and education aspects. Many of the gedolim in our day advocate a distorted educational and social approach, under the framework of which talmidei chachamim build up tall walls around themselves, doors which are bolted shut, in order that heaven forfend nothing which is occurring in the outside world should penetrate, and drip into the walls of the study hall. This is the reality in which tremendous talmidei chachamim who are totally detached from reality are raised. After decades of total detachment, he is drawn out from hiding, and becomes a ‘gadol,’ a leader and guide. Astonishingly, the field of his leadership is not limited to Torah alone, rather he is requested and required to make decisions on the very issues that he fled from in the past; that he hid from for so many years. It appears that even devotees of mysticism cannot heal this great blemish.

[email protected] Thought of RAL Class #2