Commitment: Edited by Nathaniel Helfgot Ktav Publishing House/The Toras HoRav Foundation New Jersey, 2005 352 pages Reviewed by Moshe Meiselman his book comprises many letters him into the leadership of the Modern community to engage in theological dia- that span the course of the Rav’s Orthodox rabbinate that was mostly logue. The Rav felt that not only was public life. Many pictures of the comprised of his talmidim. In addition, such dialogue with the Catholic Church T wrong, but he also felt that its ultimate Rav emerge from these letters. For those he entered the public arena because he who are historically unaware, the Rav’s either perceived a serious threat to the goal was shmad (apostasy). Post- domination of communal life during the Jewish people or to traditional Jewish Holocaust Christian theological tri- post-war period emerges with great clari- life. Although the Rav was very often umphalism always weighed heavily in his ty. The editor indicates that the Rav’s flexible to the point of frustration for mind. This was also evident in his dis- daughters and son-in-law chose the let- those who wanted a more dogmatic cussion of Zionism. The establishment ters included in this volume. He also approach, when he perceived that the of the State of Israel was not only a refu- provides a brief background to various specific issue at hand created a danger, tation of this triumphalism but also of letters both in his introduction and in he could be inflexible and totally all of Christian theology. In Kol Dodi the preface to the letters themselves. It dogmatic. Dofek, he made explicit reference to this. would have been more enlightening to When the first suggestion was For him there was a very real threat of have someone with a more intimate made in Congress for humane legislation shmad. Nor did he feel that the knowledge of the Rav write such an that would impact on shechitah, the Rav Orthodox Jewish community was introduction, especially some of the his- reacted strongly. The memories of pre- exempt from this threat. While he never torical background. war Europe where legislation limiting wavered from his initial response, it was To his credit the editor does not shechitah preceded other anti-Semitic a few years until he formulated his well use his position to editorialize about his activity were never far from his mind. worked through intellectual position in interpretation of the Rav and his life. Furthermore, the Rav always wanted the Confrontation. This is a welcome relief from others who Orthodox rabbinate to present a digni- The Catholic Church exerted try to introduce their narrow agendas fied and educated position to the outside much pressure upon the Rav. Its ulti- into the broad sweep of the Rav’s per- world. He felt that the ultimate spread mate goal was not dialogue with sonality and intellectual interests. of Torah to the non-observant Jewish Conservative or Reform leadership; it In evaluating such a book that world depended upon this perception of wanted dialogue with the Orthodox rab- mostly concerns the Rav’s public life in the rabbinate. The Rav’s participation in binate. This never occurred, because of the 1950s and 1960s, we first must the Congressional committees that dealt the Rav’s stubborn and unyielding posi- understand that the Rav was essentially with this legislation was a major kiddush tion. Many Orthodox rabbis, who desired such contact, tried futilely to a shy and very private person. His pub- Hashem. The surrounding publicity of change his mind. I remember when one lic life was consequent to the fact that his participation created a very positive leading member of the Orthodox rab- his chosen life of teaching propelled public perception of Orthodox Judaism binate questioned his fear of shmad, the at a time when such perceptions were Rav replied, “I am afraid of your being Rabbi Meiselman is rosh yeshivah at few and far between. influenced as well. I am afraid of your Yeshivas Toras Moshe in Jerusalem. He is A similar situation motivated the shmad.” a nephew and a former close talmid of Rav in his dealing with the approach of Harav Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik. the Catholic Church to the Orthodox (continued on page 92) Fall 5766/2005 JEWISH ACTION 89 Yisrael lo yeshaker (The Eternal One of Israel does not lie). This clarity and certi- tude, so strongly reflected in these letters, affected thousands of his pupils. We, generations later, and our descendants even “a thousand years” from now, are the beneficiaries of this confidence and certitude. JA Notes 1. Arnold Wolf, Shma, 19 September 1975: 295. 2. Between Berlin and Slobodka: Jewish Transition Figures From Eastern Europe (New Jersey, 1985), 197. 3. Ishim Veshitot (Tel Aviv, 1966), 64. 4. 1, pp. 3-10. 5. 12, pp. 110-113. 6. 20, p. 140. In another letter (18, pp. 133-136), the Rav writes, “It would Moshe Meiselman be better not to hear the shofar than to enter a synagogue whose sanctity has (continued from page 89) been profaned.” The few letters in the volume munity that would result from the lack 7. 14, p. 119. regarding the issue of the Synagogue of a compromise. There were two other 8. 11, pp. 93-105. Council are but a tip of the iceberg of individuals whose political interests were 9. 9, p. 83. one of the major issues in Orthodox served by a lack of compromise. These 10. 10, p. 91. This verse from Jewish life of the fifties. Unfortunately, individuals published the earlier text, Isaiah 60:5 was also used by Rav the time has not yet come when the thereby aborting the dialogue about a Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook in his background and details of this contro- compromise text. The Rav never forgave speech at the opening ceremony of The versy can all come to the fore. In 1956, a these two individuals for creating the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1924. letter was signed by eleven of the leading unfortunate tensions and acrimony that 11. 10, p. 91. roshei yeshivah of the United States for- resulted from the lack of a compromise 12. 38, p. 206. bidding participation in rabbinic or syn- text. One can debate whether the 13. 37, pp. 203-204. agogue groups together with members of Orthodox community gained anything 14. 36, p. 202. the Conservative and Reform move- from the participation of the RCA in the ments. This would have meant that Synagogue Council. However, the isola- members of the Rabbinical Council of tion of the Rav from the rest of the America (RCA) could no longer be yeshivah world as a result of this contro- members of the Board of Rabbis—a versy was certainly a tragedy that greatly mixed group—and that the Orthodox limited his participation in, and impact To advertise in Union would no longer be able to con- on, the general yeshivah world. the Winter issue of tinue its longstanding affiliation with the This review is certainly not the Synagogue Council of America. The let- venue for a total discussion of the Rav’s ters of the Rav in this volume reflect that position on Zionism. However, whereas the publication of the issur (prohibition) one quarter of the book revolves around Jewish Action of the eleven roshei yeshivah came as a this, one must draw some conclusions surprise to the Rav. In the time immedi- from a few of the letters. The Rav was Contact: In the US ately preceding the publication of the firmly opposed to all changes in the sid- Deborah Lieber issur there was an intense dialogue dur. The letters discuss this both in 212-613-8135 between the Rav and Rav Aharon Kotler response to the Holocaust and to the [email protected] on reaching a compromise text, to which State of Israel. There were two reasons the Rav could be a signatory. Both of for this opposition. First, as he points these gedolim were interested in avoiding out (p. 120) prayer is speaking to God, the divisions within the Orthodox com- and much of the current liturgical 92 JEWISH ACTION Fall 5766/2005 changes are statements addressed to ourselves or to an audi- Anyone who spoke to him heard this as a recurring theme of ence, but they are not proper prayers addressed to God. all of his conversations. He often said that we have to bring Second, the text of prayers reflects takkanot of the Anshei Torah from the reshut hayachid to the reshut harabim (from the Knesset Hagedolah or of the Rishonim and cannot be trifled private to the public domain). with. When, after the Six-Day War, there were suggestions to The letter about Albert Einstein College of Medicine is a eliminate Nacheim from the Minchah service of Tishah B’Av, case in point. The Rav asserted that he was dealing with a the Rav reacted strongly. Rebuilding the Old City of bedieved situation but went on to describe what positive results Jerusalem, he said, cannot rectify the destruction—the chur- could emerge from such a school under the auspices of Yeshiva ban—described therein. The destruction detailed in Nacheim University. He identified two such consequences. One, that it is the destruction of the sanctity of Jerusalem and Har Habayit will enable Orthodox Jewish young men to enter the medical that will persist until the rebuilding of the Beit Hamikdash. I profession without compromising their principles. Two, it will asked him, how can we recite the phrase “vayeval’uhoh ligionot produce the visible educated Orthodox Jewish laity that the (Jerusalem is swallowed up by legions of a foreign army)?” In Rav so longed for.