Feel free to disagree, even vehemently. But please do so without insulting people.
Gil | Homepage | 06.09.06 - 3:34 pm | #

Are we stating over?
cazzie | 06.09.06 - 3:39 pm | #

It seems that the Ran, Rav Chisdai Crescas and the Sefer Hachinuch disagree with what Rav Schachter is (apparently) saying, according to http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/200...frumteens.html:

"Earlier, the Ran (p. 86) writes that one must follow Hazal even when they are wrong (cf. n. 98 in the name of R. Hisdai Crescas that we must follow Hazal's ruling even though it is not the Torah's intent - Im she-lo hayah ken kavanas ha-Torah). He actually writes in derush 7 (p. 112) that in the dispute between R. Eliezer and the Sages, the Sages reached a conclusion that is "the opposite of the truth" (hefekh ha-emes) but we must still follow the view of the Sages. (See here for more on this). The Sefer Ha-Hinukh (no. 496) writes similarly:

"'The views of people are different and it is impossible to get many opinions to agree on matters. The Master Of All, blessed be He, knows that if the intent of the written Torah was given to each person to determine according to his judgement, everyone would explain the words of the Torah as they see fit and the disagreements in Israel about the commandments would be numerous. The Torah would be made into many different Torahs... Therefore, G-d, who is the Master of all wisdoms, completed our Torah - the true Torah - with this commandment: that we are obligated to follow the true explanation that was transmitted to our early Sages, of blessed memory... Even if they say that the right is left and the left is right, we cannot depart from their rulings. Meaning, even if they err in an issue we should not dispute them but follow their error. It is better to withstand one mistake with everyone relying on one authority than to have each person follow his own halachic opinion because this would disrupt the religion, cause disunity of the people, and destroy the nation entirely.'"
He Who Must Not Be Named | Homepage | 06.09.06 - 3:40 pm | #

Darn, should have copied the thread.
Godol Hador | 06.09.06 - 4:00 pm | #

We believe that G-d protects His Torah from errors. Any mistakes made over the years by poskim, will ultimately be corrected. The psak of the rabbis is binding because we have the right to assume that G-d has behind the scenes “revealed His secrets to those who fear him.”

Dont understand. This seems to conflict. Hashem would give the wrong pesak? Or the posek isn't getting the revealed secrets for one reason or other? Do we then throw out his other teshuvas when we learn that he didnt have a revelation of secrets?
cazzie | 06.09.06 - 4:01 pm | #

Cazzie, was that a pun, or a typo? Because if it was a pun, it was clever.
He Who Must Not Be Named | Homepage | 06.09.06 - 4:02 pm | #

Cazzie, I was referring to your first comment - "stating over".
He Who Must Not Be Named | Homepage | 06.09.06 - 4:03 pm | #

There was once an old Jew that was found in a supermarket comparing the Hechshers of the same item that was manufactured by two different companies. The nature of the ingredients and processing of the product suggested, that the Rabbi that certified the product, must have relied on numerous lenience’s. After a few minuets, he returned one of the items to the shelf and placed the second one on the counter. The store owner ask him “what made you decide on this one?” the old man responded that that the one he put away had only one Hecher and the one he selected had two hechshers. The store owner ask “and one hechser is not enough?”. Yes replied the old man however “Oz ich esh shon, zolen tzvay Rabonim brenen” - indeed one is enough, however if I’m already going to eat it, let Two rabbi’s burn on my account!
Think | 06.09.06 - 4:09 pm | #

if it was a pun, it was clever.
Unfortunately I am not clever
cazzie | 06.09.06 - 4:14 pm | #

Gil,

I don’t know why you deleted all the comments, some of them were not involved with all the bickering. Yet again Oy L’roshe Oy L’shchano
Think | 06.09.06 - 4:14 pm | #

Also,

If you feel that the psak R. Hershel Schachter is in err you are not permitted to follow it.
Think | 06.09.06 - 4:16 pm | #

Also,

If you feel that the psak of R. Hershel Schachter is in err, you are not permitted to follow it.
Think | 06.09.06 - 4:17 pm | #

It seems to me that in effect, RHS is saying that the Rabbis, both of the talmud and of later generations, are infallible.
reuvain | 06.09.06 - 4:25 pm | #

Gil,

It amazes me that you don't seem to get what happened here.

You took the comments of a Rabbi and applied them as bittul of talmudic criticism.

This offended people who take that field very seriously.

Their reaction was of disgust.
They wondered who does that rabbi think he is being mivateil a discipline which I take so seriously and he knows little of, etc.

This to me is exactly what happened in the science vs. chazal scenario.

Those who take science very seriously were horrified that rabbis would comment it a belittling manner on a discipline which they may not have studied too carefully.

That's when the attacks and degrating comments began.

It's all the same.

Degrade something which others taker seriously and you get them mad.

You set up RHS here just as the zealots set up their leaders in the n. slifkin case.

The difference is that you strove to protect the honor of RHS - b/c he's your leader.

You showed no such respect or care when the zealots' leaders were besmirched.

Gil, you come accross looking very transparent.
davis | 06.09.06 - 5:22 pm | #

Gil,

Will you let that comment remain?

Will you explain yourself?
davis | 06.09.06 - 5:24 pm | #

Well, that wouldn't have been how I dealt with it.

Shabbat Shalom.
HAGTBG | 06.09.06 - 5:39 pm | #

Davis,

Good comment.
Gil | Homepage | 06.09.06 - 5:54 pm | #

I'd just point out that there are differences between

(a) not tolerating ad hominem insults and verbal abuse, on the one hand, and not tolerating disagreement, opposition, skepticism or questioning, on the other.
Anonymous | Homepage | 06.09.06 - 6:13 pm | #

I'd just point out that there is a difference between

(a) not tolerating ad hominem insults and verbal abuse, and

(b) not tolerating disagreement, opposition, skepticism or questioning.

I'm not taking sides, but I think this is worth considering.
He Who Must Not Be Named | Homepage | 06.09.06 - 6:18 pm | #

Gil,

What does "good comment" mean?

How do you explain why you acted in this way only in regards to RHS and not to the other RW rabbis who have been degraded many times in comments on this site?
davis | 06.09.06 - 6:28 pm | #

I'm out of the loop here in Yehupitz, so I'm missing the context. Was RHS understood as referring to specific people or a specific school?
yehupitz | 06.09.06 - 6:56 pm | #

just a small fixable error:

FYI - in my firefox browser, the hirhurim blog's homepage banner/sidebar ratio isn't complimentary - the banner drops (along with all the entries) down quite a bit and leaves a large blank spot at the top of the blog. You might want to tweak it a bit. What works in firefox doesn't necessarily work in IE and vice versa. I learned that the hard way, as one little item I had in my blog's sidebar was too big for it (in IE but not in firefox) and dropped my sidebar in IE like your banner is doing in my firefox browser. If you adjust the banner dimensions to make it a wee bit smaller, it'll probably fix the problem. That's what I had to do with the item I had in my sidebar. After I resized it, the whole design worked fine in both firefox and IE.
liorah | Homepage | 06.09.06 - 6:56 pm | #

I have no idea why the original comments were deleted.
To some extent-and I never would have thought so decades ago-RHS has become a controversial leader. He is undoubtedly a leading RIETS RY-Certainly in the top 3 with RMR and RMT.
He is one who has his agenda-like many. He is worthwhile to hear-I hope to hear him very soon.
I wish I knew as much in classical Talmud and Nosei Keilim on the Daf as RHS knows in his fingernail.
But he is not the Gadol Hador and for some reason many of his Chassidim treat him as another RAK, RIH,RYBS etc.-he isn't. They get more upset than talmidim of the others do when RHS gets attacked for probably thoughts that are neither well thought out properly or just haven't been vetted for all nuances.
mycroft | 06.09.06 - 6:59 pm | #

You can't win here, can you. You delete the offending comments, so that generates debates on whether the comments were called for, which necessitates dancing close to Bizui TC, which will then cross the line, which then gets condemned, deleted, justified, vitriolic, condemned...
Bari | Homepage | 06.09.06 - 7:33 pm | #

Tal, I've asked a she'eilah and was told that it is mutar to put up a post like this. If not, every Torah-oriented newspaper (and tzedakah brochure) would be assur.
Gil | Homepage | 06.09.06 - 12:54 pm | #

Who did you ask? When did you ask? What did you ask? What was the answer?
friendly guy | 06.09.06 - 7:52 pm | #

B"H
Gil , I bet you'd get fewer complaints had you added the footnote #2 relating to the part of the article you quoted :

"[2] It goes without saying that when evaluating a psak, one must factor in any discrepancy between his own knowledge and qualifications vs. those of the posek espousing the psak in question, and what such a discrepancy may indicate regarding which person is the one who is in error
"
Ariel Sokolovsky | 06.09.06 - 9:23 pm | #

B"H
My previous post is posted on the west coast in Portland Oregon at 6:23 pm not after Shabbos as the time stamp seems to show.
Have a Gut Shabbos .
Ariel Sokolovsky | 06.09.06 - 9:47 pm | #

As the author of one of the reomved comments, I agree that it was out of line. However, this was in part of a a result of Gil's making RHR's word's look like an attack on Talmud criticism.

Other posts however, were better done and certainly not worthy of deletion.

I am begining to become concerned that Gil is does not want this site to become a forum for open debate about academic Jewish studies and Orthodoxy. The would be a shame.

Moshe
moshe | 06.10.06 - 4:14 pm | #

Gil, why did you delete my post concerning what Rav Akiva Eiger said viz. the Magen Avraham?
Anonymous | 06.10.06 - 6:31 pm | #

And also why my post concerning why you didn't include the footnote was deleted and why you haven't added the footnote to the main post. I'd imagine Rav S shlit"a wouldn't want his words distorted because they say very different things with and without the footnote.
Anonymous | 06.10.06 - 6:33 pm | #

...and let's face it -- i'd imagine that most people don't read all the comments
Anonymous | 06.10.06 - 6:33 pm | #

I was VERY busy on Friday and did not have the time to carefully edit the comments section. Sorry. I normally have much more time.

Plus, the personal comments against RHS were much, much worse than anyone else.

And to whomever suggested that the only people who read this blog are RW MO, that just isn't true. Not that I really care. Enough people who are learning in RW yeshivos tell me that they are regular readers that I have begun to believe it.
Gil | Homepage | 06.10.06 - 10:17 pm | #

I added the footnote. There was no thought involved in omitting it.
Gil | Homepage | 06.10.06 - 10:19 pm | #

In all seriousness, kudos for cutting out all of the comments from Friday.
Steve Brizel | 06.10.06 - 11:15 pm | #

...top 3 with RMR and RMT.

I have my own opinion about this, but I'm not sure what the popular perception is. Who is RMT? (I assume RMR is Rabbi Rosenzweig.)
He Who Must Not Be Named | Homepage | 06.10.06 - 11:19 pm | #

If one is really convinced that a certain psak is really in error, he is not permitted to follow it.[2]

[2] It goes without saying that when evaluating a psak, one must factor in any discrepancy between his own knowledge and qualifications vs. those of the posek espousing the psak in question, and what such a discrepancy may indicate regarding which person is the one who is in error.

So that would be expressed as follows:

If [(k+q)*evaluator]-[(k+q)*posek]>0
then psak=error

Okay, now it makes sense.
friendly guy | 06.10.06 - 11:30 pm | #

"top 3 with RMR and RMT.

I have my own opinion about this, but I'm not sure what the popular perception is. Who is RMT? (I assume RMR is Rabbi Rosenzweig.)
He Who Must Not Be Named "

You are correct about RMR. RMT fpr this purpose is Rav Meir Twersky-not his brother who cetainly is not in YU Rav Moshe Twersky.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 12:04 am | #

Would he rather have those scholars re-phrase it from "amoraim misunderstood the tannaim (etc.)" to "amoraim understood the tannaim differently than they, themselves, meant"? Otherwise....
Drew Kaplan | Homepage | 06.11.06 - 12:07 am | #

RMT= Rav Mei Twersky
Anonymous | 06.11.06 - 12:08 am | #

Rem"a to Choshen Mishpat 25:2
מיהו י"א דאם נראה לדיין ולבני דורו מכח ראיות מוכרחות שאין הדין כמו שהוזכר בפוסקים יכול לחלוק עליו

Some of you seem to be interpreting RHS's statements to mean that Orthodox Jews must believe that Chazal, the Rishonim, and the Acharonim are infallible. I do not believe that this is what he is saying at all.

It seems to me that RHS is saying that what makes the peole he is describing heterodox is not that they think that rishonim or acharonim have made errors. The problematic issues is that they are observing pesak which they do not believe in. Our halakhic practice must be a manifestation of devar Hashem, or of the takkanos of the chachamim. It cannot simply be something we follow by convention despite the fact we think it is in error.

The footnote clarifies this even further. If a person's limud of the sugya leads to a different maskana, then he should realize the limitations of his personal abilities and qualifications as compaired with the expertise in halakha of the poskim. Therefore, despite coming to a different independent conclusion, such a person will assume that he, himself, is the on in error and that the Mechaber, the Rosh, the Rif, the Rambam, etc. are correct. Such a person is certainly Orthodox.

However, if a person truly believes that an accepted pesak is in error, there are rules regarding this. For issues which are not clearly resolved in the gemara itself, if a qualified posek believes that the normative practice is based on an erroneous pesak by a rishon or acharon, then he must share his proofs with the chachamim of his generation and, if they agree he is correct, then he must pasken the halakha according to what he thinks is correct.

There is a separate issue regarding the mishna and the gemara. We are bound by the halakhic conclusions of the gemara and believe that they are the authoritative understanding and elaboration of the halakhos in the mishna. It is certainly not possible to be cholek on an amora. However, this has nothing to do with what Rabbi Schechter is talking about here.
nachum klafter | 06.11.06 - 12:08 am | #

"One of the thirteen principles of our faith is that the Torah laws can not change."

Generally true-but Torah laws can be for a limited time- eglaws applicable to Pesach Mitzraim, laws applying to manna. laws only when Bnei Israel have sovereignty over the land and even according to Rav Albo "Hachodesh hazeh lachem" doesn't apply after our return from Bavel.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 12:11 am | #

a number of years ago in YU there were a few guys who were not happy with any of the shiurim and were interested in a much more academic style to the learning. They would frequently visit JTS and were making a lot of noise around YU. I believe he started saying this around that time. Rav Schachter never told me this, but I suspect that he was worried about the path that these few had chosen gaining steam in mainstream YU thereby effectively killing any credibility YU may have as a real yeshiva.
The idea that completely revolutionizing the way that talmud scholars should approach a given topic, ignoring what the amoraim intuitively sensed (that we are better off trying to understand the tanaim rather than arguing with them because most of the time the fault will be found in our own understanding and not in the tannaim themselves) is not a good idea, hardly makes Rav Schachter out to be some sort of horrible right wing villian.
talmid | 06.11.06 - 12:11 am | #

", but also that the Torah as we observe it today is min hashomayim."

Does RHS really believe that the the Takanot and Gezeirot and Minhaggim that we observe are min hashomayim. How does he deal with the aggadata of Moshe sitting in the back of the Beis Medash and not understanding what the halacha moshe misinai is about-or the famous tanur story eg kotlei beis medrash and bas kol-lobashamayim hi.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 12:20 am | #

I think we really need to dispense with the roshei teivos for Y.U. rebbeim.

e.g.: "RMT"
R. Moshe Tendler?
R. Mordechai Tendler?
R. Meir Twerski?
R. Moshe Twerski?
nachum klafter | 06.11.06 - 12:22 am | #

it is difficult to fathom that somebody can be so condescending to Rav Shchachter based on "how does he deal with the agadata of..."
can you really say that you have a good explanation for every agadata that does not fit into your worldview? Also, do you think it would be very difficult to come up with some pshat that expalins that agadata in some way other than the simple peshat (which is almost never teh correct way to learn an aggadata gemara anytway)?
talmid | 06.11.06 - 12:23 am | #

"And therefore I feel that the laws of the Shulchan Aruch are all binding, even though I think everything is in error.” This is not the Orthodox position"
Not my position but what is wrong. We accept Shulchan Aruch not because Rav Karo and RAv Isserles were necessarily great talmidei chachamim-but becasue Klal Israel-except fro Yeminites-accepted the Shulchan Aruch as representing what KlalI Israel must follow. The reason for a lot of our practices is not theoretical corectness andwhether or not one couild argue the Gemarah differently-the reason is Klal Israel have accepted the Halacha for generations-end of story. One cannot attack the Mesorah. Thus Rav Chaim Volozhin did not take the Vilan Gaons shitot on shiurim for his family or Yeshiva-theMesorah in his mind beat the impeccable logic of the Gra.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 12:28 am | #

"it is difficult to fathom that somebody can be so condescending to Rav Shchachter based on "how does he deal with the agadata of...""

As I have written before Rav Schachter is a great person who helps fill a need. BTW I heard Rav Schachter a few times over Shabbos-I go out of my way to hear him-as I have for decades. I wish that he can servd Klal Israel at least to the age of his father. RHS quoted his father and referred to the fact that his father is in his mid 90's. I hope he has those genes.
He may not be a RYBS, a RAK, etc-but he is worth listening to-not that he needs my haskama.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 12:35 am | #

mycroft - not to play Jewish geography on a blog but I guess that means you live in lawrence and daven at sharay - maybe you even sit next to me in shul. small blogosphere.
talmid | 06.11.06 - 12:37 am | #

RHS is a gadol and anyone posting
a comment here should do so with
utmost respect.
mavin | 06.11.06 - 12:39 am | #

"can you really say that you have a good explanation for every agadata that does not fit into your worldview? "
Of course not.


Also, do you think it would be very difficult to come up with some pshat that expalins that agadata in some way other than the simple peshat

-no-although I believe the aggadot that I mentioned were being brought for the message of the aggadata.

(which is almost never teh correct way to learn an aggadata gemara anytway)? Agreed.
I would not in passing every drasha-which includes the one by RHS that we are discussing uses selective use of aggada.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 12:40 am | #

Nachum Klafter Said:

"...However, if a person truly believes that an accepted pesak is in error, there are rules regarding this...lf a qualified posek believes that the normative practice is based on an erroneous pesak,... then he must share his proofs with the chachamim of his generation and, if they agree he is correct, then he must pasken the halakha according to what he thinks is correct."

Nachum,

You make it sound as if there is a real functioning system in place. Can you give any examples where this system you described actually functioned?
Anonymous | 06.11.06 - 12:43 am | #

I think we really need to dispense with the roshei teivos for Y.U. rebbeim.

e.g.: "RMT"
R. Moshe Tendler?
R. Mordechai Tendler?
R. Meir Twerski?
R. Moshe Twerski?
nachum klafter | 06.11.06 - 12:22 am | #

-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Nachum:
Interesting point-of course neither Rabbis Mordechai Tendler or Moshe Twersky are YU Roshe Yeshiva. -the only comparison between the above two is that they are not YU Roshei Yeshiva.
Rav Moshe Tendler is not primarily known for being a YU RoshYeshiva-although he has been one for about half a century-if not more.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 12:49 am | #

"...However, if a person truly believes that an accepted pesak is in error, there are rules regarding this...lf a qualified posek believes that the normative practice is based on an erroneous pesak,... then he must share his proofs with the chachamim of his generation and, if they agree he is correct, then he must pasken the halakha according to what he thinks is correct."

Nachum that may be practical advice-but why is that obligatory?
One must do the correct thing-that may be correct even if wrong in a cosmic sense: because Sanhedrin said so, it is the response to a sheila that YOU asked, it is the answer accepted by Klal Israel eg Shulchan Aruch etc-

But where is theoretical limitation of being a posek to being required to do the right thing-everyone is required to do the right thing.
Yachul I should listen listen to Chazal on yemin shesmol and smol sheyemin Talmud lomar-lo tasur min hadavar asher yomru lecha yemin usmol -al yemin sheyemin vsmol shesmol
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 12:57 am | #

"RHS is a gadol "

Who is a gadol?What does a gadol have to know?
How many Gdolim are there? What does it mean to be a Gadol?
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 1:00 am | #

"a number of years ago in YU there were a few guys who were not happy with any of the shiurim and were interested in a much more academic style to the learning. They would frequently visit JTS and were making a lot of noise around YU. I believe he started saying this around that time. Rav Schachter never told me this, but I suspect that he was worried about the path that these few had chosen gaining steam in mainstream YU thereby effectively killing any credibility YU may have as a real yeshiva."

The problem with JTS is not the academic style of learning-I doubt most students even have the ability to learn like most Yeshiva HS students can-in classical learning-the problem is that most don't believe that Torah is BINDING.

Of course, we could learn from them as to teaching our Rabbonim how to relate to people, deal with people-they in general are much more professional at it.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 1:08 am | #

Read my post again. My point is this: Rabbi Hershel Schechter is saying that an Orthodox Jew must believe that the halakhic practice he is following is, ultimately, an expression of devar HaShem or the takkanos of Chazal. If he believes that it is based on erroneous pesak, a faulty mesorah, but accepts it only because it is the convention then he is a Reconstructionist, but not an Orthodox Jew.

As far as your other points:
"Al yemin she-hu semuol..." has many possible interpretations. Rabbi Hershel Schechter is saying that your interpretation is unacceptable--namely, that we do not follow a pesak if we truly believe that it is FALSE. Related to this context, "al yemin she-hu semol" might mean that we have conidence in the words of chazal be correct even though our independent judment, on occasion, might lead us to doubt them. But again, there are a great many interpretations of this pisgam.

It is obligitory for a posek to do what I have described because he, as a posek, is evaluating and determining what the halakha IS in his best judgment. If his best judgment is that a normative practice is based on an error, then he has an obligation to correct everyone. I suppose the source of this obligation would ultimately be "Lo sisna es achicha bilvavecha, hochiach tochiach es amisecha."
nachum klafter | 06.11.06 - 1:09 am | #

nachum:

can you give any examples when this has ever happened?
Anonymous | 06.11.06 - 1:14 am | #

'that the only people who read this blog are RW MO'

I'm probably more LW MO, but I have tremendous respect for RHS and would never question his halachic knowledge. I read his essay over Shavuot and found it profound, as I have with most of what I have read of his.

'[2] It goes without saying that when evaluating a psak, one must factor in any discrepancy between his own knowledge and qualifications vs. those of the posek espousing the psak in question, and what such a discrepancy may indicate regarding which person is the one who is in error.'

This is more than just a halachic point. It is a great mussar point. Humility is a great virtue.
charliehall | 06.11.06 - 1:27 am | #

I don't know all the details, but my impression is that Rabbeinu Tam's opinion re. bein hashemashot was much more widely accepted before the Gra came down on the side of the Geonim, against Rabbeinu Tam. Most of the Rishonim, as I understand it, had sided with Rabbeinu Tam. Now most people follow the Gra (bein lechumra, bein lekula). Maybe that's an example of what Dr. Klafter's suggesting, albeit an imperfect one.
He Who Must Not Be Named | Homepage | 06.11.06 - 1:27 am | #

The introduction of the Zohar and what we now call Kaballah into the process of halachic deliberation might also be an example for Dr. Klafter (albeit, again, an imperfect one).
He Who Must Not Be Named | Homepage | 06.11.06 - 1:31 am | #

For the record, it's taken as common wisdom among RHS's talmidim that that quote is a specific polemic against a particular YU-affiliated professor's derech (who I shall not name in this post) and not as anything broader. Sort of a ha'maven yavin thing.

That being said, RHS says often the following principles:

1) That psak past the amoraim needs to be based on reasoning and not just authority

2) and that consequently, one who is qualified to do so may reject any psak post chazal if he feels the reasoning is incorrect.

The reason for making the pre/post Chazal distinction is the subject of a shiur given about once a year. Among the sources he brings are the Chazon Ish, who bases himself on an aggadita about the period of 2000-4000 being the years of "Torah" with before that being the years of creation and after the years of moshiach. It's a difficuly aggadita certainly. He also does a complicated explanation based on the end of semicha. But basically it comes down to klal yisrael accepted the Gemara as binding in a way that no other sefer, even the shulchan aruch, has ever been accepted.

The qualifications for being allowed to revise a psak are also something he discusses for a long time. Note, though, that he feels that of all the Amoraim, Rav alone personally felt qualified to revise the Tannaim's psak (which is how he explains Rav Tanna Hu Upalig), and that in later generations very few are qualified to argue with the major rishonim, if anyone is.

This entire debate is about the theoretical underpinnings of psak (as coming from authority or requiring explanation) and not about practice, since these 2 caveats more or less make his opinion conform to normative practice. Those arguing that RHS promotes naively picking your own psak based on your own logic are completely unaware of his actual positions.
lamedzayin | Homepage | 06.11.06 - 1:43 am | #

A "gadol" is really a sociological term. It could be defined as an individual who, because of his expertise in Torah scholarship, his character, and his excellent judgment, is turned to be a large number of Jews as their spiritual leader, halakhic authority, teacher, mentor, or advisor. Gedolim are turned to for guidance not only by students and congregants, but also by other rabbonim and teachers, and therefore Gedolim have great influence on large numbers of Jews indrectly who have never even met them personally. They lead other leaders. Rabbi Hershel Schechter is a certainly a godol. Because of his attributes as a lamdan, rebbe, and ba'al middos, he is soughtout for guidance by many invidual talmidim, many rabbonim, and many teachers. He has emerged as one of the leaders of a segment of klal yisroel.

Gedolim are not univerally accepted, as we all know. Nevertheless, reasonable people can agree who the gedolim of other communities are despite the fact that they would not wish to put their trust in such leaders. Rabbi Elyashiv is not my leader and I am not directing any questions to him or looking to him as my personal role model, but he now obviously been one of the most important halakhic authorities in the world for many years now, and he is definitely a great godol of our generation. It would be poshut nonsense for someone to say that he is NOT a godol.

It is simply implausible to contend that that Rabbi Hershel Schechter is NOT a Godol. He is turned to by many, many rabbonim throughout North America for guidance. If you personally feel he is "too modern" or whatever your problem is with him, then that is your prerogative. But the fact that he is now turned to for guidance by many rabbonim, teachers, and individuals cannot be disputed.

Similarly, it is unreasonable and deeply offensive to many when someone asserts that Rabbi Soleveitchick was NOT a godol, that Rav Kook was NOT a godol, or that Rav Herzog was NOT a godol, etc. The inability of certain right wingers to gores anyone who does not conform to their perticular ideological platform reveals a troubling and problematic aspects of the Haredi programme. The narrowing scope of "acceptable" seforim in that world is one of the primary means that certain individuals and shittos are edited out of Jewish History.
nachum klafter | 06.11.06 - 1:43 am | #

The Gra personally and for his own kehillah adopted numerous practices that were abnormal for Eastern Europe (even for Vilna) but that he believed were correct. Example: nesiat kapayim every day.
He Who Must Not Be Named | Homepage | 06.11.06 - 1:44 am | #

nachum:
can you give any examples when this has ever happened?
Anonymous | 06.11.06 - 1:14 am | #

It is obviously not a common occurence, but over the course of the histor of halakha there have been many examples of this. The first one which comes to mind is somewhat mundane: the Gr"a on maleches shabbos. He poskins le-kula and ke-neged the shulchan aruch regarding benefiting from food which was accidentally cooked on shabbos. I believe it is brought by the mishna berura at the beginning of OH 318.
nachum klafter | 06.11.06 - 2:05 am | #

For other examples of later authorities arguing against rishonim, look in the Yad Moshe to Iggros Moshe. Under פסק: חולק על ראשונים, there are several entries. the language of some of these is striking. For example in חלק חו"מ ב סימן נב he writes teh following:
ופירוש הריטב"א והרשב"ד אינם נכונים כלל, אך שיש מקום לפרש כהמאירי אף שהוא דוחק

Here is another gem: In T א"ח א סימן מג:ב Reb Moshe says צריך לעשות כדהוריתי רלא כהמ"ב ("Do as I have instructed you to do, and not like the Mishna Berura.")

There are several other examples of this in Igros Moshe.
nachum klafter | 06.11.06 - 3:02 am | #

>>That being said, RHS says often the following principles:

>>1) That psak past the amoraim needs to be based on reasoning and not just authority

>>2) and that consequently, one who is qualified to do so may reject any psak post chazal if he feels the reasoning is incorrect.

So the subject of RHS's criticism is "frummer" than him - he treats the Shulchan Aruch with the level of deference that RHS reserves for Chazal.
nit picker | 06.11.06 - 3:14 am | #

Anyone in Judaism can argue against anyone else in Judaism (except for Amoraim on those who came bafore and Tanaim on those who came before). HOWEVER, it is (to use the Chazon Ish's words ... I believe this is a quote from him), "unreasonable" to argue on Rishonim. We certainly can't. It take a Gadol -- and not just any Gadol -- but a huge one.

And furthermore, I've heard many Charedim say that Rav Kook zt"l and Rav Soloveitchik zt"l were gedolim (in fact, my charedi gemerra rebbe at my chareidi yeshiva quoted something about Rav Soloveitchik zt"l today). They were certainly Gedolim. Perhaps not as accepted by klal Yisrael by other Gedolim, but accepted enough to be considered Gedolim. HaRav Shachter shlit"a is a posek however I don't know if he is accepted by enough of klal Israel to be called a Gadol or even a "gadol who we don't go like."

The general mehalach is that it isn't for us to decide what we know. For one of us to think we can simply reject a Rishon because logic compells us is preposterous. The Gedolei Hador have the power to say things that would be heresy for us (i.e. had I said what the Chazon Ish said about killing people on site, or not doing so, I'd be a heretic).
Anonymous | 06.11.06 - 7:26 am | #

"treats the Shulchan Aruch with the level of deference"
The Shulchan Aruch is more likely to reflect our practice than the Talmud. Klal Israel accepted -except for Yeminites-the Shulchan Aruch. There are times when we don't pasken like the Bavli-0we follow the Shulchan Aruch. The legitimate debate is beyod the Shulchan Aruch who or anything is binding. For example has the Mishna Brurah become binding for Klkal Israel or not. But the shulchan Aruch-with Rama for Ashkenazic Jews is binding-it was acceptance of KlalIsrael.
Anonymous | 06.11.06 - 8:49 am | #

Rav Halivni?
%%% | 06.11.06 - 9:07 am | #

RHS is not a gadol because he lacks the insight into public policy needed to be a gadol.

Specifically, RYBS rebuffed RHS and disapproved of halakhic grounds of the teshuvah of RHS regarding women's prayer groups.

"R. Soloveitchik declined to sign his name to the ... responsum of the five RIETS Rashei Yeshiva opposing women's tefilla groups despite numerous attempts to get the Rav to do so."
friendly guy | 06.11.06 - 9:09 am | #

849AM post is mine. I guess-if I click publish before I put in my name "anonymous" prints.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 10:01 am | #

The question of what is a gadol and what requirements there are to be a manhig Israel are at the heart ofthe debate of the posts about RHS.
No one disputes that RHS has an almost encyclopediac knowledge of sources. Although to be fair even in bekiyot he is not on the level of RYBS. Others are also great bekiyim even greater eg RCS but are not generally considered manhigei Yisrael.RHS clearly could almost take the place of a good Bar Illan disk. Rav Schachter is clearly a person who on a personal level can be very polite-and is certainly one who we would probably all wish were our neighbor. He is certainly one that I wouldn't mind going to a nightly lecture by.
"RHS is not a gadol because he lacks the insight into public policy needed to be a gadol"
Friendly guy raises an interesting question-it is not sufficient to have a laymans understanding-greater than bloggers is not enough-one must have a "chush" to have such insight at the gadol level and it is at least questinnable if RHS has it. RHS is a great talmid chacham-I reread much of Nefesh Harav over Shabbos-between hearing RHS- but IMHO he sometimes can be a little too flippant and lacks the insight of a gadol. I would like to have anywhere near his insight-but I don't have to reach the level required to be a "gadol bIsrael"
Friendly guy is also alluding to the 64$K question how much RHS has been loyal to RYBS on hashkafic matters and not distorting him-it is certainly an open question.
I should to paraphrase Moshe Rabbeinu "I wish all klal Israel could be RHS's." -but of course not everyone is a gadol and manhig Israel-no matter how much they can recite Tshuvas etc without written notes.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 10:19 am | #

'has the Mishna Brurah become binding for Klkal Israel or not'

If it had been, then every Jewish physician in the US would have had to stop practicing medicine because of its prohibition on melachah to save the life of a non-Jew on Shabat. However, we hold by RMF contrary to the Mishnah Berurah.
charliehall | 06.11.06 - 11:03 am | #

This morning I received the following fragment in an e-mail concerning something entirely different something not related to this blog.

"As to HS ..., that's par for the course...the only thing qualifying him as a gadol is his encyclopedic knowledge. That's where it begins and ends... "

HS -of the writer a musmach -is RHS.

I have heard other musmachim challenge RHS's recollections of what RYBS said on certain times.
RHS may or may not be a gadol-but is certainly a world class talmid chacham.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 11:19 am | #

", then every Jewish physician in the US would have had to stop practicing medicine "
I could limit Charlie Hall to this fragment-because a physician is only allowed to accept Schar battala-how many could earn a fraction of what they are earning someplace else besides being a physician.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 11:20 am | #

"it is not sufficient to have a laymans understanding-greater than bloggers is not enough-one must have a "chush" to have such insight at the gadol level and it is at least questinnable if RHS has it."

"IMHO he sometimes can be a little too flippant and lacks the insight of a gadol"

"RHS is not a gadol because he lacks the insight into public policy needed to be a gadol."

I suppose that other disqulifications would include the following:
1. He has not signed his name to embarrassing book bans and excommunications which imply that Hazal knew the special and general theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, and the dual wave-particle theory of electromanetic radiation.
2. He does not make publich statements reported in newspapers implying he knows why the Holocaust occurred.
3. He does not sign haskamot to books and then claim he didn't read them.
4. He was not one of the architects of an educational system where people, lechatchila, plan to be unemployed, accept tzedaka, accept government monies, etc.
5. He does not advocate that people remain ignorant of english, rhetoric, mathematics, history, psychology, and the sciences.
6. He does not make pronouncements based on nevuah that it is impossible for the Israeli military to withdraw from Gush Katif.
7. He does allow his talmidim to publish his teachings in a manner that he will avoid responsibility for any errors or distortions, but similarly take all credit for anything worthwhile.
8. He has not achieved a yiddish accent despite growing up in the greater NY area.
9. He communicates in reasonable English.
10. He does not allow side issues (medinas yisrael, attending college, women's tefillah, metzitza be-peh, owning a television, access to the internet) to become central defining issues in one's avodas HaShem.
11. He does not give out brochos and kameyos, and does attract the kind of following who like to lavish their leaders with tales about miracles, superhuman qualities, and near deification.
12. He does not issue with a preamble declaring them to be "daas Torah".
13. While mycroft finds him to be "too flippant", he fails to rise to the level of a godol and call younger Orthodox rabbis "kofrim" and "minim".
14. He does not have gangs of violent thugs who beat up his rivals followers.

Mycroft, you completely miss the point. If you don't want him to be your godol, go find someone better for yourself. It accomplishes nothing to try to come up with your own criteria (e.g., publich policy insights) and then apply your own personal subjective critique, and then rationalize your rejection of him as meeting the "godol" standard that you have constructed in the first place.

By way of comparison, I am personally not inspired by Rav Elyashiv's "public policy" insights or sensitivities. But my personal opion is not significant. Rav Elyashiv remains a preeminent posek, a Torah leader who has devoted his entire life to Torah and Klal yisroel, and is a great godol. Your desire to demote Rabbi Schachter does not change reality.

Notice that the great majority of people here in Hirhurim who strongly object to the notion that the Lubavitcher Rebbe z"l is still alive or can be the Moshiach have never, in our refutations of this nonsensical belief, said anything which would devalue the Rebbe's greatness in Torah, kiruv, tzidkus, etc. (Yes, there are a few nasty individuals who have said inappropriate things, but they are mostly deleted by Gil, and most of them are not Modern Orth.)

The Haredi leaders have pulled off an interesting feat. They have ignored and written off the great majority of Jews and their rabbonim from klal yisroel, and they address only their narrow sectarian following. It is now basically impossible for any person who takes the findings of science seriously to turn for guidance to any of the signatories of the Slifkin ban unless they are simply mevatel their common sense and rationality, yet these Jews will not say that those signatories are not gedolim. They simply aren't OUR LEADERS. The modern and more normative Orthodox world, because it is much more balanced and reasonable, has the intellectual honesty to acknowledge the extistence and stature of individuals (Rabbi Steinman, Kanievsky, Shach z"l, Elyashiv, Schneerson z"l, Teitelbaum z"l, etc. etc.) despite the fact that these individuals represent approaches that we reject. With this kind of non-reciprocal posture, it is easy to say that Rabbi Steinman is "more accepted in klal yisroel" than Rabbi Hershel Schachter. This is a distortion, however, simply reflects the intolerance, narrow-mindendness, and nastiness which characterizes so much of Haredi world now.
nachum klafter | 06.11.06 - 11:29 am | #

"I could limit Charlie Hall to this fragment-because a physician is only allowed to accept Schar battala-how many could earn a fraction of what they are earning someplace else besides being a physician."
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 11:20 am | #

Mycroft, I do not see any response to Charlihall's point, and it is not clear to me if you understood it. If we followed the MB, a physician would have no right to charge fee for service above the rate of sekhar beteila. Reb Moshe published a teshuva which states that the rigorous training and licensure requirements that our society imposes on physicians has created a new situation where the society has granted to physicians the right to become wealthy from their work. Otherwise no one would become a physician. This would have already applied in pre WWII Europe, where medical school and licensure was already formalized and was already a difficult undertaking. Therefore, Reb Moshe is cholek on the Mishna Berura's in this issue. See my comment above at "3:02am", where I pointed out that in א"ח א מג:ב Reb Moshe says צריך לעשות כדהוריתי ולא כהמ"ב

The notion that we are all "bound" by the Mishna Berura is simply not true. What would be much more accurate is that the Mishna Berura happens to be the most widely accepted and utlized compendium of updated piskei halakha for Ashkenazim in our times. IN fact, Reb Moshe felt that the Aruch HaShulchan, and not the Mishna Berura, was the 'posek acharon', and there are many other gedolim who have expressed similar sentiments about this. My Rebbe in yeshiva for halakha was a talmid of Rav Gustman, z"l, and he had countless tales about Rav Gustman which revealed his stance toward the authority of Gedolim, precedent in halakha, and similar issues relating to the independence latitude enjoyed by poskim in our generation. My impression is that, while Rav Gustman held the Chofetz Hayim in great esteem, he did not feel bound by his pesak at all.
nachum klafter | 06.11.06 - 11:47 am | #

Nachum Klafter - Bravo! I was thinking of writing something along those lines, but you just knocked the ball out of the park. People attack their opponents for the slightest flaw while ignoring the terrible errors consistently made by their allies. Let those who so readily dismiss RHS find someone alive today who both knows more than him and doesn't have have even greater flaws. They don't have to accept him, but considering the glass house they are living in they shouldn't attack those who do.
UnAnonymous | 06.11.06 - 11:55 am | #

IN fact, Reb Moshe felt that the Aruch HaShulchan, and not the Mishna Berura, was the 'posek acharon',

I've seen someone else state that before, and, at least based on his Teshuvos, I don't see the basis for that assertion. He will disagree with both of them if he feels he is correct. OTOH, he does make use of the term "Kvar Horah Zaken" regarding the Aruch HaShulchan, but, similarly, he calls the Mishnah Berurah "Rabban Shel Kol Yisrael BeInyanei Orach Chaim" or something like that, in allowing the questioner to rely on a Kulla of the MB against RMF's preferred stringent position.
Bari | Homepage | 06.11.06 - 12:30 pm | #

More on the topic of devaluing our gedolim, I wanted to post this in delayed response to the debate over whether Rav YB Soleveitchick z"l was or was not a posek.

From Rabbi Mayer Twerski's 10th yartzeit shiur on Rav Soleveitchick. (excperts, mostly verbatim, but it was hard for me to keep up with the recording, from http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur...? shiurID=704365 )

"Any discussion of the Rav has to begin with his defining characteristic, and that is that he was a godol she-be-gedolim ba-Torah. And I liked to define what that is, and it's a term that is often used nowadays and bandied about rather freely... It's very difficult to do in this generation, because someone, people your age, the age of the talmidim who didn't know the rav, not only don't such individuals exist today, but I'm not even sure if the hasagos--if the conceptions of that magnitude even exist today.

"Let's try to start by exploding a myth... There is a mistkan notion about Brisk, about Volozhin. There is a mistaken notion the the derech of Brisk was to be mezalzel in bekiyus. This is absolutely untrue. Brisk took bekiyus--familiarity with kol ha-Torah Kulah, for granted. It's not that Brisk was mezalzel in bekiyus. It's that bekiyus itself was not enough for godlus. It was a pre-requisite for it, and it was therefore taken for granted... [Describes that Reb Chayim spent two sedarim a day on bekiyus with Rashi. And that to be able to don a kal va-chomer requires knowledge of kol ha sha"as and kol ha-Torah kula.] Brisk didn't stress bekiyus and didn't display bekiyus, but not out of zilzul or a lack of respect for it, but because it was taken for granted.

"Another aspect of Brisk... The ultimate in Talmud Torah, was chiddushei Torah. To contrast this with someone like the Chazon Ish--who is someone who felt the ultimate was biur halakha, and halakha le-maaseh... [Quotes Nefesh HaChayim at length on the significance in ruchniyus of chidushei Torah.]

"This is why the Rov was accustomed to write down his chiddushei Torah. He didn't bother to write down his teshuvos and piskei halakha. This is not to say that the Rav did not invest and devote endless and countless hours to hearing shayos, considering them, weighing them with koved rosh, and poskinning.... "His hands were dirty with the nitty gritty of answering halakhhos le-maaseh." [note: I think was a paraphrase of David HaMelekh on Berachos 3b]. It needs to be emphasized that he spent a [huge of amount of time and effort, devote a tremendous amount of energy, and placed tremndous importance on] poskinning shaylos. He often criticized the hefkeirus in America by saying [in yiddish] "Everyone in America poskins for himself. Baalei batteim, rabbnonim who are not of the caliber to poskin...." And he said this very painfully. It is certainly NOT TRUE, this false contention, that the Rav wouldn't posking and told people to poskin for themselves.

"One of the sources of this misconception about the Rav was that there were a few occasions when he would get a question from someone who had never asked him a shaylog before. He had an uncanny sense of knowing when it was a truly difficult shayloh that required his input to ask, or when it was someone who had a preconceived answer that he wanted and he hoped he'd get this answer from the Rav. In those cases he would say, "Who is your rosh yeshiva," and tell them, "You should go back and ask him." There was one maaseh I remember of individuals who came from a certain Hassidic sect who wanted to adopt a child and they asked the Rav about shaylose of yichud, etc. He refused to get involved because he felt that it is necessary to be consistent with the what pesak you receive and from whom you receive it...."

"Another thing that needs to be emphasized was the influence of Reb Chayim on the Rav. [The rav described his approach to limud Ha-Torah as coming from his father and from his grandfather, reb chayim.] He quoted his father as saying, "Our derekh in limud is as follows: The Rishonim knew how to learn, The Raavad, Rashi, the Rambam, etc., they knew how to learn." Now, how is this a derekh in learning? This is what it means, the gedolim leading up to Reb Chayim would learn in the following manner. They would look at the different shittos of the Rishonim, and then they would find gemaras that would allow them to be machri'ah which rishon was correct. E.g., the Shaagas Aryeh would find a gemara in Megillah and it would show that Rashi was right and another rishon's words were less convincing, and he'd be machri'ah. Reb Chayim did something totally different. He held that "all the rishonim can learn" and therefore they were all correct and each one had a different way to understand the gemara, but not that we can be machri'ah which one is right. It's hard to fathom what a huge impact Reb Chayim had in changing the derekh ha-limud for Brisk. ...And this is what creates the tendency in Brisk to be machmir, it's to be machmir for kol ha-de'os becasue we hold elu ve-elu divrei Elokim Chayim, and it has implications for pesak because we are much more hesitant to be machriya. This tendency in Brisk was much more pronounced in the Beis HaRav that it was in pesak for the Rabim. For example, the Rav once heard someone say that in Brisk they hld that everyone has to be machmir for the zeman of Rabbeinu Tam. The Rav said this is not his understanding. He was personally machmiar because he was in Beis Ha-Rav, but it was not a pesak for the Rabbim, and therefore he did not agree that the shita in Brisk was for everyone to be machmir for the zeman of Rabbeinu Tam....

"So, coming back to what makes a godol a godol, all of these aspects of the Rav's Torah, this is not what made him a godol. There were just the tools of becoming a godol. What made a godol a godol, in the Rav's approach, was that [the followers of Reb Chayim be-Brisk] was able to penetrate right to the sould of the Torah. He could make that leap from the concrete superficial phenomenology of the Torah right to the deep conceptions that underly everything...

"The Devar Avraham wrote about the Rav and his ga'onus and godlus in a famous letter in advance of the Rav before he came America that "The spirit of his Grandfather rests upon him." The Rav's godlus was also his ability to make this leap. It was like a golden touch. When we learn a gemara, rachmana latzlan, lefi mi'ut sichi, it can seem boring sometimes. We'd never say it, but we do think it sometimes with certain dry halakhos [that are apparently so straightforward]. With the Rav there was never a boring line in the gemara. What seemed to be a dry halakha if you were in the Rav's shiur, he had this amazing koach, to go from what seems like a dry halakha on the surface, just like Reb Chayim, to penetrate, and every line of the gemara was alive and was so exciting. But the godlus and the ga'onus of the Rav was not just the ability to penetrate, it was the ability to notice things on the surface. That is often not sufficiently emphasized. Le-maaseh, how did the Rav and Reb Chayim learn? The way things are presented in writing in REb Chayim's sefer is that it was chakiros. Is it cheftza is it gavra? But that is not at all the case. REb Chayim and the Rav did not have any set questions they asked when they approached the gemara. They were not like an uman who comes with a tool kit. They didn't have a toolkit with preset questions. [I think that this is an implied distinction from other heirs to Reb Chayim.] ...Where others say a smooth road in the gemara paved in front of them, Reb Chayim and the Rav could sense these bumps in the road. After the fact they could formulate it according to a chakira, but that was only after the fact. The real ga'onus was the ability to sense an extra phrase, an extra word, a missing word in the Rambam. It was "Is it this, or is it that?" Every chakira was in response to one of these nuances that he could perceive...."
nachum klafter | 06.11.06 - 1:02 pm | #

I'll also add my approval to Nachum's post and his 14 point laundry list for disapproving of the actions of certain talmidei chachamim. I would further note that the title of "godol" has little meaning for me if I don't admire the person or his opinions. If Rav Schachter is not a godol according to some, I don't know anyone now who is. You can pick any name and find detractors. Let's not play that game.

Y. Aharon
Y. Aharon | 06.11.06 - 1:13 pm | #

Bari:

I can't give you a written source. I have heard many individuals state this in the name of Reb Moshe, z"l. If you have access to any of his close talmidim or the children or Reb Moshe then you could check this with them. I have heard it so many times and from so many different people that I'm sure his children or close talmidim have heard this as well, and they will know whether it is true or a distortion. The individuals I heard it from were reliable and knowledgable people. One of the reaons that it rings true for me from Reb Moshe's teshuvos is not only the "kevar hora zaken" (which is indexed with under "Pesak" in the Yad Moshe). It is because Reb Moshe's approach to pesak very much resembles the Aruch HaShulchan's derekh of going back to the sugya and following the sevara of the rishonim in order to determine whether the contemporary case in question is applicable to the case in Shulchan Aruch or not. The Mishna Berura seems to be much more of a tendency to assume that the contemporary shaylos are the same cases as the open halakhos in the Shulchan Aruch, and he has more of a tendency to survey the Acharonim. I am hardly an expert in Igros Moshe, the Aruch HaShulchan, or the Mishna Berura, but my limited experience with both seems to be vey consistent with these general characterizations.
nachum klafter | 06.11.06 - 1:16 pm | #

1-12 and 14 I agree with Nachum. RHS can be flippant eg at a shloshim for RYBS he stated about the Rav-that everyone knows the Rav was not a baki. Besides being incorrect-it is not the place at a shloshim of anyone and certainly not the place of a shloshim of ones Rebbe. RHS can dd the extra scarcastic comments-cute get laughs butI don't think it is appropriate behavior for a Gadol . I do think that he is of great net positive value-just not perfect.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 1:19 pm | #

A typo was just pointed out to me. In my post of "11:29 am" disqualification # 7 should say "He does NOT allow...."
nachum klafter | 06.11.06 - 1:21 pm | #

"If you don't want him to be your godol, go find someone better for yourself."
Who said you need a gadol-you need a Rav to ask sheilot of.
Certainly in this generation-one need not follow any individual-one follows who they wish to. BTW a Rav should ask another RAv his sheilas-even if the other person know less than he does-because of being nogeia badavar.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 1:22 pm | #

"The modern and more normative Orthodox world, because it is much more balanced and reasonable, has the intellectual honesty to acknowledge the extistence and stature of individuals (Rabbi Steinman, Kanievsky, Shach z"l, Elyashiv, Schneerson z"l, Teitelbaum z"l, etc. etc.) despite the fact that these individuals represent approaches that we reject. With this kind of non-reciprocal posture, it is easy to say that Rabbi Steinman is "more accepted in klal yisroel" than Rabbi Hershel Schachter. This is a distortion, however, simply reflects the intolerance, narrow-mindendness, and nastiness which characterizes so much of Haredi world now."

Your post would have been at least as accurate 30-60 years ago-substituting RYBS for RHS and the then Chareidi gdolim for the names listed.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 1:26 pm | #

just to echo the point - I would like to know a single gadol living in America today if Rab Schachter is not a gadol. He is a talmid chacham and a mentsch in the class of Rav Shmuel kaminetsky, Rav Yisrael Belsky, and the Novominsker Rebbe. Unfortunately for him, he is not chareidi so his constituents will not only judge him as a human being (a good thing seeing how he is a human being and all...) but will also point out his "flaws" in comparing him to people of a previous generation. Was the Rav not a gadol because he wasn't as great as Rav Chaim or the Beis Halevi? Was Rav Moshe not a gadol because he was not as great as Rabi Akiva Eiger? Give me a break. Find me people in America who are living today אין לנו אלא חכמינן שבדורינן who you would rather call a gadol. If you can't think of anybody to refer to by that title, either your criteria is very flawed or American orthodoxy has failed miserably in producing leaders.
talmid | 06.11.06 - 1:30 pm | #

"Your desire to demote Rabbi Schachter does not change reality. "
I have had the pleasure of hearing RHS-many times over the decades and have always found the time spent worthwhile.
I don't think there is really that much dispute about RHS-it is a dispute of what the requirementws of a Gadol are. Chassidim of RHS generally agree with my specific critiques on factual matters-but they accept it and don't care. I think that it is a problem as far as being a mnahig of klal Israel. Great marbitz Torah-but there is more to being a gadol than encyclopediac mind and being a marbeitz
Torah and a personal mentsch,
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 1:32 pm | #

"- I would like to know a single gadol living in America today if Rab Schachter is not a gadol. He is a talmid chacham and a mentsch in the class of Rav Shmuel kaminetsky, Rav Yisrael Belsky, and the Novominsker Rebbe"

I agree-I don't know of single gadol of the likes of those of RYBS, RAK, RMF, RIH, RYK, etc in America today. There may be reasons for it. I am not attacking RHS-for some reason RHS true Chasssidim can't take any criticism of him.
I agree RHS is certainly at least comparable to Rav Shmuel kaminetsky, Rav Yisrael Belsky, and the Novominsker Rebbe.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 1:36 pm | #

" Brisk took bekiyus--familiarity with kol ha-Torah Kulah, for granted. It's not that Brisk was mezalzel in bekiyus. It's that bekiyus itself was not enough for godlus. It was a pre-requisite for it, and it was therefore taken for granted."

Agree with RMT-I heard his yahrzeit lecture a few times YU had it on the web. It makes RHS scarcastic shloshim comments even more inappropriate.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 1:39 pm | #

" American orthodoxy has failed miserably in producing leaders."
It has-the question is why. BTW RYBS used to muse about this problem.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 1:41 pm | #

"RHS can [a]dd the extra scarcastic comments-cute get laughs butI don't think it is appropriate behavior for a Gadol."

If you read the exchanges between the Baal Ha-Ma'or and the Ra'avad in "Divrei Ribbos", or if you investigate the maaselach about how the Rogachover Ga'on z"l made fun of am ha-aratzim, ba'alei ga'ava, and misnagedim, or if you hear about the quips and comebacks of Rabbi Eliezer Silver z"l, etc. etc., you will see that Gedolei Yisroel are not angels. Gedolim are human beings, and they struggle with aggression, anger, jealousy, ga'avah, etc. And we know from Hazal that the greater the person, the greater his yetzer harah. What makes them gedolim is how they achieve godlus with all of their human frailties. It is not that they have no human frailties.

I really think the Hassidim have won. Scout told me that at his childrens' school, which is supposedly founded based on the Yekkish ideal of Torah Im Derekh Eretz, his daughter came home with an assignment to work on her middos, and to say a "Le-shem yichud" before she spent some time contemplating her flaws in her middos.

The frum velt has accepted the archetypal, angelic image of the Tzadik, and has transferred it onto their roshei yeshiva. They tell miracle stories about them, ascribe clairvoyance to them, etc. On shavuos this year, I heard a self-proclaimed "litvak" say that "we are not impressed by miracles." But then he went on to describe the most inane and outlandish, silly miracle stories about the Beis HaLevi. I guess he considers himself a "litvak" because he is more impressed with the Beis HaLevi's learning than his mofsim, but he definitely had the need to claim that the Beis HaLevi was just as capable of mofsim as any chassidishe tzadik. These all crazy and false stories he told could have been taken out of a reverential hagaiaography about Joseph Smith or lehavdil the Shivchei Besh"t.

Where have all the Litvaks gone?
Long time passing.
Where have all the Litvaks gone?
Long time ago.
Where have all the Litvaks gone?
The benei yeshiva cannonized every one.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
(Inspired by someone who is Not The Godol HaDor)
nachum klafter | 06.11.06 - 1:44 pm | #

"Was the Rav not a gadol because he wasn't as great as Rav Chaim or the Beis Halevi?"

The Ravs gadlos was not merley his being a great talmid chacham. As I believe RAL stated around the ptirah of the RAv-look Rav Chaim was clearly a greater classical gadol than the RAv-the Ravs gadlus besides being a world class gadol was the other things that probably were not found in any gadol since the time of the Rambam. RHS may notreally be interested in those other things and thus his mild revisionism-certainly mild compared to RMMeiselman's-but the Rav was.Remember he taughtJewish Philo atYU BEFORE he was a Rosh Yeshiva.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 1:45 pm | #

"you will see that Gedolei Yisroel are not angels. Gedolim are human beings, and they struggle with aggression, anger, jealousy, ga'avah, etc. And we know from Hazal that the greater the person, the greater his yetzer harah. What makes them gedolim is how they achieve godlus with all of their human frailties. It is not that they have no human frailties."

Nachum-generally agree-but what is required in your mind to be a gadol besides encyclopediac knowledge of Shas and poskim?
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 1:48 pm | #

Where have all the benei yeshiva gone?
Long time passing.
Where have all the benei yeshiva gone?
Long time ago.
Where have all the benei yeshiva gone?
They've become chasidim every one.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?


As I have to remind R' Harry M every so often - linear projections of current trends are always wrong, including this one.
KT
joel rich | 06.11.06 - 1:58 pm | #

Nachum-generally agree-but what is required in your mind to be a gadol besides encyclopediac knowledge of Shas and poskim?
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 1:48 pm | #

I already told you in my posts above of 1:43 am and 11:29 am, and other posts.

It is a sociological term. It is defined by Jewish religious sociology. A godol is a great leader of a segment of the Torah community. A godol she-be gedolim is a godol who the gedolim look up to. It is inappropriate to invent our own definitions of a godol and then decide who is or who is not a godol.

I have my own criteria for who I admire, and more narrow criteria for who I would turn to for guidance, and even more narrow criteria for who I think we should seek out to define the priorities for klal yisroel. There are many, many people who are called gedolim whom I personally would never turn to for guidance, and whose opinions about important questions in hashkafa I'd never be interested in. Some of these people seem to be experience poskim and have good technical knolwedge of certain areas of halakha, but I don't consider them to have broad enough knowledge of Torah in general or even rudimentary knowledge of worldly wisdom, and therefore I am not all that intersted in what they have to say. However, that is my own personal shtick. I have not doubt that they are gedolei ha-dor. That they are not as great as the previous gedolim (Reb Moshe, Rav Herzog, Rav Kook, Rav Shlomo Zalman. Rav Ahron Kotler, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, the Satmar Rebbe, Rav Henkin, etc.) is similarly irrelevant to me.

Final point--modern orthodox Jews are more skeptical and, in my opinion, often more sophisticated and nuanced. They are less likely to ascribe supernatural knowledge to a human being. They don't believe that their rebbes are accessing magical powers or Daas Torah to give them answers to questions. Therefore, the cultivate relationships with rabbis who know them well. Therefore, if a Rav would make provactive pronouncements on deep theological issues about burning sociological issues of the day--the medina, the Shoah, secular studies vs. Torah only, the role of women, science and Hazal, etc., modern orthodox jews are not likely to swallow the entire thing hook line and sinker. They will read it with interest, but will respond to a fax which pronounces Daas Torah on such and such an issue with a mixture of curiosity and amusement. Therefore, our leaders are not so presumptuous to make such pronouncements on these issues. Haredi leaders will do so because their flock will accept it. Modern Orth. leaders are not less qualified to make these pronouncements. They disagree with the notion that experience in Sha"s will entitle someone to know whether or not the Israeli Army should withdraw from certain territory, or to know whether a bochur one has never met should learn a trade or stay in kollel.

Therefore, I think that you are looking for and measuring qualities (ruach ha-kodesh, siyata de-shamaya) in leaders that the modern orthodox community looks for in theory but realizes can't be measured or quantified, and therefore cannot be applied as a job description for their leaders. This, combined, with the fact that Haredi leaders show little or no respect for our leaders, and publish revisionistic accounts of the biographies of Torah leaders, creaetes an impression that all the great leaders of klal yisroel hav been Lithuanian Roshei Yeshiva.

In my opinion, the outlandish stories of miracles and prophetic like knowledge reveal a deep insecurity in the Haredi world. They know that they have endowed their leaders with abilities that are very hard to believe in, and they prop them up with such stories. Really, it is a chillul HaShem in my opinion to fabricate miracle stories. It means that we don't feel the true events of a great rabbis real life show any godlus, and we therefore need to fabricate "inspiring" stories that endow them with supernatural powers so we can revere them. Would any of us be pleased if our students and grandchildren made up phony stories about us so that they could admire us, but that our real personalities and achievements didn't inspire them?
nachum klafter | 06.11.06 - 2:11 pm | #

I would recommend that the bloggers read Professor Fred Sommers description of the Rav's shiurim in the volume about Yeshiva College edited by Menaham Butler, to get some idea of his genius, creativity, and originality. Of particular interest is the contrast Prof. Sommers draws between the Rav's shiurim and those of Rav Yitzhak Hutner. Even if the Rav did not have the type of encyclopediac bekiut that RHS possesses, when it comes genius, originality, and creativity they are not in the same ballpark, as, I believe, RHS would be the first to admit, and all unnbiased observers would agree. This is not to mention the Rav's greatness in philosophy, hashkafah, and derush.

To return to the main issue: Instead of RHS criticizing in a vague fashion some unkown talmudic critics why doesn't he focus on some specific examples, say the works of Profs. Shmma Friedman, or Steven Wald or Zvi Steinfeld.

The controversy in YU was about the articles in Bet Yithak some years ago by 1) Eli Stern and Meir Katz; and 2) Barry Wimpheimer which used critical methods on sugyot in Bava Kamma. RHS was reported to be very disturbed by the articles. Why doesn't he write a critique of one of them? Otherwise there is the danger that he is creating strawmen.
lawrence kaplan | 06.11.06 - 2:23 pm | #

why doesn't he focus on some specific examples, say the works of Profs. Shmma Friedman, or Steven Wald or Zvi Steinfeld
umm, coz that would require his having to have read them previously.
mivami | 06.11.06 - 2:42 pm | #

Prof. Kaplan - why must we compare Rav Schachter to the Rav? Everybody knows that they are not in the same ballpark, just as the Rav is not in the same ballpark as his grandfather, and his grandfather was not in the smae ballpark as the Rambam. Everybody agrees to all of these things (even the biggest Rav Schachter chassidim - which I guess I am one of). The issue here is that we as a people have to look up to our current leadership, our greatest minds and torah authorities as if they were the בית דינו של שמואל הנביא. We don't have a choice. This is who we have. Now, can you think of bigger gedolim in America than Rav Shcachter who are ALIVE TODAY?
talmid | 06.11.06 - 2:48 pm | #

Rav Yaakov Weinberg is known to have said "RHS is the Gadol in America".
This drew the wrath of Aguda. But, with the exception of Rav Belsky there's really nobody in America in his league!
mavin | 06.11.06 - 3:23 pm | #

RHS does not read those books b/c:

1) he has no time
2) their assumptions are "outside the
goalposts(as he would put it) of
accepted principles.
mavin | 06.11.06 - 3:30 pm | #

Then he's hardly in a position to critize it based upon hearsay.
Anonymous | 06.11.06 - 3:49 pm | #

I have no objection with RHS not reading the works I listed if he feels they are outside the "goalposts." But then his criticism of talmudic criticism lacks authority. The Rav was very critical of biblical criticism but was also clearly very familiar with the subject.
lawrence kaplan | 06.11.06 - 3:51 pm | #

The comments here are mainly impressionistic, general and arbitrary.

RHS "has written more than 100 articles, in Hebrew and English, for such scholarly publications as HaPardes, Hadarom, Beth Yitzchak, and Or Hamizrach. Seforim written include Eretz HaTzvi, B'ikvei HaTzon and Nefesh HaRav and MiPninei HaRav."

Has anyone in this discussion read his books or articles -- aside from the one item linked here? If so why are you not citing them, chapter and verse, to prove your points? Better yet why are you not citing other seforim that rely on RHS for his insight or authority?

The way to prove he is or is not a gadol would be to see how his work stands up to scrutiny and how he is regarded by his peers.

While I'm certain that you talmidim are learned and well-meaning, your opinions carry little or no weight in determining RHS' stature. That can only be determined by the consensus of his colleagues.
friendly guy | 06.11.06 - 4:11 pm | #

The Rav was very critical of biblical criticism but was also clearly very familiar with the subject.
Dr Kaplan, to what extent is this true? Did he read every issue of JBL, or other journals, or current books in the field? I have seen no evidence that this is true. Perhaps his was an impression he had since his Berlin days? But 30-40 year old impressions is hardly being familiar
with the subject. Sure, Adam I-II provide an alternative way of looking at Genesis but it sidesteps, rather than deals head on, with the challenge. That is hardly a characteristic of someone "familiar" enough to be properly critical of the field.
mivami | 06.11.06 - 4:33 pm | #

Nachum:Thanks for your 211 post.

Prof Kaplan wrote:

"Even if the Rav did not have the type of encyclopediac bekiut that RHS possesses, when it comes genius, originality, and creativity they are not in the same ballpark, as, I believe, RHS would be the first to admit, and all unnbiased observers would agree. This is not to mention the Rav's greatness in philosophy, hashkafah, and derush."

I would prefer to add one phrase to Prof. Kaplans sentence -to read as following: Even assuming arguendo that the Rav did not have the type of encyclopediac bekiut that RHS possesses,
I believe that the Ravs bekiut has been downplayed because of everything else that he was unique in.
On the basis of a conversations with people far more knowledgeable than I am-who knew both-they agreed that the Rav had more bekiut-which was not what the Rav was famous for. Of course, Prof.Kaplan would be able to talk about the Ravs Bekiut among other things better than we can-he clearly was a good talmid of the Rav-lived in the Boston area for awhile, taught in Maimonides,translated IshHalacha bchayuv-and clealy had some dealings with the Rav.
for example were there cases where talmidim knew something that the Rav didn't-not talkingabout analysis about just bekiut.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 4:43 pm | #

why must we compare Rav Schachter to the Rav? Everybody knows that they are not in the same ballpark, -

If I felt that was accepted universally-I would be happy-I see too many talmidei hayeshiva who refer to them in the same breath.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 4:45 pm | #

As i've mentioned somewhere in the blogosphere in the past, Dr S Schneider of YU provided a very good reason why RHS is not considered a gadol in certain circles. That is bec he doesnt publish tshuvah seforim like other classical gdolim. Rather he publishes a piece here or there in journals. For certain circles, a gadol is a gadol by virtue of his tshuvah seforim. A sefer of hidushim here or there, certainly an article in a journal (a very modern invention), does not qualify one. Now, all this means is that the definition of gadol varies by community. In the MO community, in which RHS lives and identifies, he does qualify. And sure, there are differences in style and knowledge (not sure why this is even disputed; it seems pretty clear) bet RHS and RYBS, and sure there are other ingredients even in the MO recipe for a gadol, but to think one was a gadol and the other not is to confuse nostalgia for definition, stature and function.
mivami | 06.11.06 - 4:58 pm | #

On Monday in 45 minutes, RHS would say over the Rav's six to nine hours of shiurim from the previous week. His presentations were dry and he always seemed to be in a rush. Quite the opposite of the Rav.

The Cliff Notes are not to be confused with the masterpiece of literature.
friendly guy | 06.11.06 - 5:01 pm | #

were there cases where talmidim knew something that the Rav didn't-not talkingabout analysis about just bekiut
yes! and RHS has talked about this. RAL has confirmed as well.
Even Dr H Soloveitchik's hesped at the shloshim spoke about seforim that the Rav just didnt have, not merely did not know.
mivami | 06.11.06 - 5:02 pm | #

Even a parrot can be taught bekius. That does not mean he understands anything.
friendly guy | 06.11.06 - 5:07 pm | #

and RHS has talked about this. RAL has confirmed as well.
Even Dr H Soloveitchik's hesped at the shloshim spoke about seforim that the Rav just didnt have, not merely did not know.

I once spoke to a Talmid of the Rav-who had spoken to RHS many times. The person told me that in all the years that he had spoken to the Rav he had never discussed something that the Rav never knew-on rare occasions it had happened that RHS was not familiar with the source. The person did not mean to say he knew anywhere near whatRHS knew-was just passing on his limited experiences of bkiut.

"yes! and RHS has talked about this"most famously at a shloshim when RHS said the Rav didn't know Shabbos-ridiculous not true but at a shloshim by a Gadol.
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 5:27 pm | #

yes! and RHS has talked about this. RAL has confirmed as well.
i should just qualify what i said...others have claimed that those instances that RHS and RAL talked about were just examples of the Rav's sense of humor and humility, not that he didnt actually not know. But certainly RHS didnt think that.
Even a parrot can be taught bekius. That does not mean he understands anything
cant tell if ur being serious or funny. either way, it is no way for someone who calls himself "friendly guy" to talk about a talmid chacham. u dont win any ppl to ur way of thinking by knocking down a great person to show how great another great person is.
and im not even sure how did this get to comparing the two? all that was up for discussion was whether the one was deserving of the same "status" as the other. no one doubts that there was a qualitative difference between them.
mivami | 06.11.06 - 5:28 pm | #

Mivami is correct. RAL and others spoke about the Rav's bekiut in the sense that if you raised pretty much any sugya to him he was familiar with it and more he could immediately zero in on its key conceptual issues. But RAL himself stated that the Rav did not possess the type of encyclopediac bekiut possessed by say (these are my examples) RHS or Rav Pinhas Hirschprung. That is precisely why I used the adjective "encyclopediac."

Mivami is more or less correct about the Rav and biblical criticism. I do not imagine the Rav kept up with the latest developments in biblical criticsm, just as I know that by the 1960s he did not keep up with the latest devlopments in Maimonidean schoharship. (I once chanced to mention to him in private conversation Pines' Intro to his translation of the Guide and the Rav was not familiar with it.) But two points: 1) the Rav in his manscript, The Emergence of Ethical Man, written circa 1950, refers frequently and appears to have closely read Martin Buber's Moses -despite the fact that it was clearly outside his "goalposts;" and 2) the Rav never gave extended lectures taking issue with biblical criticism, as RHS has done with reference to talmudic criticism.
lawrence kaplan | 06.11.06 - 5:28 pm | #

[deleted]

Edited By Siteowner
mycroft | 06.11.06 - 5:28 pm | #

>The Gedolei Hador have the power to say things that would be heresy for us (i.e. had I said what the Chazon Ish said about killing people on site, or not doing so, I'd be a heretic).

This is emes? Maybe in 1984.
Y | 06.11.06 - 6:41 pm | #

I subscribe fully to the posts of both Lamedzain and D N Klafter ( welcome back after a too long hiatus!).
Steve Brizel | 06.11.06 - 7:23 pm | #

Mivami-WADR,since when did Sifrei ShuT define one's status as a Gadol?One could argue that Lomdus in pre war Lita was multi-defined at least between Chiddushim and Psak. Did RCS , R Velvel or RMS write sifrei ShuT? For that matter, how many RY who were talmidim of RCS or the Alter write Sifei ShuT? We see some sefarim of Chiddushei Torah edited and published in their lives or posthumuously.Other Litvishe Gdolim specialized in psak and published ShuT such as R Yitzchak Elchanon, R Chaim Ozer and the Kovner Rov Zicronam Livracha pre war and RMF post war. Can you identify any Sifre sHuT from any of the talmidim of the Alter of Slabodka except for ShuT Sredie Aish? Obviously, the Aruch HaShulcan and the Neztiv dealt with psak and the role of the CCm via the MB and other sefarim, cannot be minimized, despite the fact that the CC lived in Radin.

OTOh, we know that many Hungarian and Galitizaner Gdolim and Poskim did write Sifre ShuT-CS, Maharam Shik, Avnei Nezer, etc. are just a few cases in point.
Steve Brizel | 06.11.06 - 7:37 pm | #

Thanks Mycroft for picking up the allusion.

Going back to the beginning, this RHS quote has nothing to do with the academic study of talmud. I don't know how Gil thought it did.
friendly guy | 06.11.06 - 8:20 pm | #

"i should just qualify what i said...others have claimed that those instances that RHS and RAL talked about were just examples of the Rav's sense of humor and humility, not that he didnt actually not know. But certainly RHS didnt think that"

"just examples of the Rav's sense of humor and humility" or frankly scarcasm-he could be scarcastic against those who would try and trip him up-as opposed to always polite to those who were not talmidei chachamim.
Frankly-the story I quoted from the RHS shloshim of the Rav near where I live-others immediately at the time recognized the scarcasm of what the Rav said. It was clear that RHS believed the Rav was not being scarcastic-which of course raises a lot of questions about ones ability to understand Kehilla issues in general-if one does not understand ones own Rabbe. Of course, even if it were true a shloshim is not the place to give a critical study of ones Rebbe.
mycroft | 06.12.06 - 12:24 am | #

I've never understood the problem, alluded to way back, that some have with the aggadata which indicates that Moshe Rabbenu had difficulties understanding Rabbi Akiva's shiur.

It seems clear from the aggadata itself that Hashem is still (kavyachol) putting the finishing touches on the Torah (the tagin), and that Moshe is standing by waiting for Him to finish.

Hashem has therefore not yet taught Moshe the Torah so Moshe cannot yet understand RA's shiur. Moshe's initial upset at his inability to follow that 'sophisticated'
discussion is reversed and he is consoled when the answer given by RA --'this halacha is from Moshe at Sinai--makes him realize that he (MR) is about to be the one who will convey Hashem's mesorah to BY,a process that will survive generations.

This says nothing about how 'old'
Misnaic or Talmudic halachic statements might be--only that the aggadata does not contradict the possibility that even 'Talmudic' halachot are ancient mesorah, and not
'contemporary' halachic novellae.
barry | 06.12.06 - 12:48 am | #

Lawrence Kaplan- when does RHS ever give "extended lectures" about academic talmud study?? This was a throw away article he wrote up for a website. Also, his objection is to the general attitude of the academics, not the specific methodology neccessarily.
Gladwell | 06.12.06 - 10:34 am | #

IIRC, R Gil mentioned that RHS has given numerous shiurim, all of which are recorded on TSBP and its development. They may not meet the "academic criteria" but they definitely explore the ins and outs of halachic development.
Steve Brizel | 06.12.06 - 1:01 pm | #

[deleted]

As for a dog, see Mishlei 26:11. Gil, you might want to check out that one too.

Edited By Siteowner
Tal Benschar | 06.12.06 - 1:08 pm | #

>if you hear about the quips and comebacks of Rabbi Eliezer Silver z"l, you will see that Gedolei Yisroel are not angels.

Actually, it is because of his quips and comebacks and attitudes etc. that anybody who really knows about R Eliezer Silver knows that he in fact was not one of the Gedolei Yisroel,despite his desperate desire to be.
yehupitz | 06.12.06 - 1:19 pm | #

Lawrence Kaplan- when does RHS ever give "extended lectures" about academic talmud study?? This was a throw away article he wrote up for a website. Also, his objection is to the general attitude of the academics, not the specific methodology neccessarily.
Gladwell | 06.12.06 - 10:34 am | #

Is not everything a gadol says part of his gadlus? Since when does a gadol publish throwaways on the Internet?
anon academic | 06.12.06 - 1:30 pm | #

Steve, u ask a good question (seems like we're on opposite sides of what each of us argued a few months ago when you commented about the non-publication of a certain yeshiva :) but thats good, maybe next we can each argue for 50 ways an insect is pure or impure :) ) but the question is really directed at Dr Schneider or even those circles that do consider gadlus that way. again, it comes down to definition and function. what does it mean to A if B is a "gadol"? does A ask B all his shaylos? simply respect him in theory, but follow none of his psakim or agree with any of his chidushim? we who know Rabbi X intimately may know of his gadlus, yenem who dont, have no way to judge his gadlus. sifrei shut would help in that regard. of course, ppl writing to ask him questions already assumes his gadlus, but maybe thats just a small coterie in the begining and his fame spreads with each new volume? now, some are considered gedolim without having published shut (or without publishing period) but maybe thats a small minority? only posthumously? dependent on certain cultural or geographical considerations? i dont know. i was reporting only what seemed like a reasonable suggestion for the modern world by a YU faculty member.
mivami | 06.12.06 - 2:32 pm | #

I am surprised by so many of you, who continue to impose your own personal fantasies about what you look for in a leader on other people's gedolim, and then proclaim that "since he didn't do x, y, or z, he is only a talmid chacham but not a godol."

BTW, many people considered Rabbi Eliezer Silver to be THE godol ha-dor prior to and during WWII, and not simply A godol of that generation. He was the most outspoken and active leader of Orthodox Jewry on behalf of the Jewss of Europe during the Shoah and is credited more than any other individual with creating the Vaad Hatzola. He was turned to by misnaggedim and Hassidim for assistance, and provided it. It may be difficult for many of us now to consider how difficult it was to be outspoken at a time in American Jewish history when the Jews were primarily motivated by not making waves and not arousing their own antisemitism. His vaad hatzala assisted tens of thousands of people and saved the lives of thousands. He was also an iluy she-be iluyim and a masmid. Because of living in Cincinnati, I have been privileged to hear many stories about his hasmada, bekiyus, and iyun. We just honored one of his talmidim (perhaps his talmid muvhak?) Rabbi Shlomo Wahrman, who also described his hasmada, his Torah, his devotion to his talmidim, and his generosity.

The idea that his quips are what made him NOT a godol is simply preposterous. I listed some above. There are many gedolei yisroel throughout history who had acerbic wits, made hostile jokes, were very competitive and aggresstive, had problems with gaavah and anger. You have read too many Artscroll biographies.

Gedolm need not be Tzadikim, and many tzadikim are not gedolim. The qualifications for sainthood are very different than the qualifications for political and ideological leadership. Our Moshiach will also need to be a military leader, and I fear that this august body of Hirhurim correspondants will reject him because he occasionally gets angry.

Dr. Kaplan--you are a seasoned academic and Judaic scholar. There are many people who look to you as a leader and as an inspiration, including myself (though you have never met me in person). Might it be possible for you to just concede that Rabbi Hershel Schechter represents a different approach for Modern Orthodox than the approach of Eidah, and that therefore he is simply not your leader? Rav Elyashiv is not your leader either, but would you deny that he is a godol?
nachum klafter | 06.12.06 - 2:43 pm | #

In the same way that David HaMelekh was not fit to build the Beis HaMikdash because of the bloodshed he was forced to be involved in for the sake of Klal Yisroel, Gedolei Yisroel, as political and ideologcal leaders, must cultivate certain attributes and skills that create nisynonos for them in other arenas of life and spirituality. This does not detract from their godlus. In many cases it is a consequence of their godlus.
nachum klafter | 06.12.06 - 2:46 pm | #

>>The idea that his quips are what made him NOT a godol is simply preposterous. I listed some above. There are many gedolei yisroel throughout history who had acerbic wits, made hostile jokes, were very competitive and aggresstive, had problems with gaavah and anger. You have read too many Artscroll biographies.

As the case may be, I wonder why yehupitz didn't see fit to make this determination about the Rogatchaver, also mentioned above.

The bottom line, not every גדול in history was "nice" or איידל, if the implication that a Godol may not have been nice is to scary. And this would be in consonance with what we normally think of when we mean greatness. Some great people are more איידל than others.
S. | Homepage | 06.12.06 - 2:54 pm | #

Mivami-WADR to Dr S Schneider, he is a nice professor of Hebrew literature, but not a person that IMO is equipped either to evaluate whether anyone is a Gadol. FWIW, I heard him speak recently about the future of Religious Zionism at a forum at the YIKGH and I was not overly impressed with his knowledge on the interplay of Gdolim and Zionism pre WW1 or even post WW1.FWIW, if we were to use the publication of ShuT as a standard mark for determining who is a Gadol, very few Litvishe Gdolim would pass that test.
Steve Brizel | 06.12.06 - 4:39 pm | #

I agree with S. I disagree with Rav Shechter (on many issues, and also here). I remember the Rambam arguing nothing was forgotten from halakha l'Moshe Missinai-he seemed to be reacting to other positions in rishonim (and I think I once learned Sa'adia thought some things were forgotten.) I find it hard to believe that if one could conclusively prove the amoraim misunderstood a mishna (or a rishon was mistaken) it would make any difference.
Male Repellant | 06.12.06 - 4:40 pm | #

Mycoft-I keep coming back to this Tosfos but Niddah 20b-you can pasken your own shailos provided you know the material obviously. And of course this is true-when one paskens for a community, he paskens for himself. This idea that you can't pasken for yourself goes against every psak.
Male Repellant | 06.12.06 - 4:43 pm | #

if we were to use the publication of ShuT as a standard mark for determining who is a Gadol
we are not using that as a mark, it is those circles that do not consider RHS a gadol (if such circles indeed exist)that are.
Dr S was not evaluating anyone either, he was remarking on why some may not evaluate....
and i think someone with a keen sense of literature has a sense of what is considered de rigeur in acceptance of a particular literature. and he was talking of a single indivudual in these modern times, not situations in the past.
but u r free to disagree.
mivami | 06.12.06 - 4:55 pm | #

MR-IIRC there are concepts of Mesorah, Shimush Talmidie Chachamim and being Raui Lhoraah that would mitigate against and preclude one for paskening for oneself, especially if one knew all of the relevant material solely from written sources. RYBS was very scornful of those who knew the material, solely from a book, as opposed to a rebbe whose voice, tone and expressions were equally if not more helpful in letting a talmid know which POVs were acceptable and which were unacceptable. That's why the Talmud required all talmidie chachamim to acquire the equivalent of a teacher's license before proceeding to teach Torah.

FWIW, Rambam does disagree rather vociferously with RS Gaon on whether halachos were forgotten. RSRH relied on RSG's opinion in dealing with the views of Graetz. Yet, RHS pointed out that we do not assume that machlokes arose because we forgot dinin, rather because machlokes represents the development of TSBP and Chiddushei Torah, whether lkulah or lchumrah.
Steve Brizel | 06.12.06 - 5:03 pm | #

Gedolm (sic) need not be Tzadikim,

And then people wonder why Talmidei Chachamim who get crowned by the MOs as Gedolim are suspect in the eyes of the RW.

It's obvious - the person in question can be an average Joe in Avodas Hashem who isn't too much of a Medakdek in Halachah...
Bari | Homepage | 06.12.06 - 5:21 pm | #

"you can pasken your own shailos provided you know the material obviously. And of course this is true-when one paskens for a community, he paskens for himself"

Halachah lemaaseh I know of Rabbonim who would ask others a personal shailah or one involving their family etc-even if they would answer the identical sheilah for someone else. Reason-you can't be objective when you are a nogeah badavar.
mycroft | 06.12.06 - 5:46 pm | #

Bari-I have a hunch who you are referring to but IMO. we would all benefit if you would lease clarify what you meant ( i.e. who) in your last post as to which "Talmidie Chachamim who get crowned by the MOs as Gdlim are suspect in the eyes of the RW."
Steve Brizel | 06.12.06 - 5:50 pm | #

"credited more than any other individual with creating the Vaad Hatzola"
Yo understand the Vaad hatzola-one must read E. Zuroff's book.

Rabbi Silver ZT"L was a manhig-read Rothkpf-RAkefet on Silver.
Rabbi Silver would not eat at anyone elses home-he brought his own food. Famous story he was visiting Rav Ruderman-and Rav Silver brings out his own food-so Rav Ruderman's Rebettzen-tells Rav Silver-who says your food is OK for my dishes.
Rav Silver was a "character" eg if crossing the border RYBS would simply show his identification-nothing special. Rav E. Silver once when asked for ID said you don't know who I am-the Chief Rabbi of US.
But certainly the Silvers were major manhiggim in Ohio and Pennsylvania-in Pennsylvania for close to probaly 70 years or so there was a Silver as Rav inharrisburg.
mycroft | 06.12.06 - 5:54 pm | #

And then people wonder why Talmidei Chachamim who get crowned by the MOs as Gedolim are suspect in the eyes of the RW.


and who said Gdolim crowned by the RW are Zadikkim.
mycroft | 06.12.06 - 5:55 pm | #

Might it be possible for you to just concede that Rabbi Hershel Schechter represents a different approach for Modern Orthodox than the approach of Eidah, and that therefore he is simply not your leader

Dr. Kaplan has spoken for Edah-but I am not aware that he has identified himself one way or the other with them. BTW-many people have spoken for them. Speakingata place need not mean that one accepts their leadership. The Rav spoke at a Catholic Seminary in Brighton Mass!-it doesn't mean that he looked to them for leadership.
mycroft | 06.12.06 - 5:59 pm | #

Mycroft, exactly!
nachum klafter, md | 06.12.06 - 6:00 pm | #

we would all benefit if you would lease clarify what you meant ( i.e. who) in your last post as to which "Talmidie Chachamim who get crowned by the MOs as Gdlim are suspect in the eyes of the RW."

No.

I will say that there has never been and never will be an articulated Shittah by the RW that a Gadol need not be a Tzaddik.
Bari | Homepage | 06.12.06 - 6:15 pm | #

And yet some very well known examples of gedolim who weren't (or aren't).
lamedzayin | Homepage | 06.12.06 - 6:25 pm | #

Bari-You raised this issue. You hinted that such Talmidie Chachamim exist. It is indeed sad that you now are content to hide the cloud of anonymity on this issue. FWIW, MOAG is loaded with many instances of behavior by Gdolim which fails to meet the usual definition of Tzidus. The stories involving RCS, R Meir Simcha , R Chaim Ozer and the Rogatchover Zicronam Livraca all illustrate that one can certainly be a Gadol, albeit not a Tzadik , especially in the give and take of a conversation about a Torah or communal subject.
Steve Brizel | 06.12.06 - 6:37 pm | #

You hinted that such Talmidie Chachamim exist.

No I didn't. I said that it is easy to understand why the RW are reluctant to buy into such coronations.

I had no one in particular in mind.

And I believe you were just Motzee Shem Ra on R' Meir Simcha, R' Chaim Ozer, and the Rogatchover as not being Tzaddikim. Do you write zt"l after their names, or do you feel that that is unwarranted Chanufah? You can't have it both ways here. Either be makpid to write z"l, or concede that they were Tzaddikim.
Bari | Homepage | 06.12.06 - 7:14 pm | #

Gil:

You may be too young to appreciate this, but I'll give it one more try:

DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!!!!!!
Tal Benschar | 06.12.06 - 8:03 pm | #

I loved that show.
Scout | 06.12.06 - 9:35 pm | #

Nachum: Thank you for your compliment. FTR,I have NEVER spoken for Edah. The draft of my article "Revisionism and the Rav" was distributed at the first Edah conference. In that preliminary form, it focussed only on revisionism from the "right" and not from the "left," and therefore -- IN THAT FORM -- was correctly criticized by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein for its imbalance. But in my final version, as published in Judaism magazine, I criticized revisionism about the Rav from both the right and from the left. Also my article "An Introduction to Maimonides' Eight Chapters" (IMHO or not so HO the most important article I have ever written) was published in the Edah Journal. All this, as Mycroft correctly notes, should not be take to indicate that I identify with the Edah philosophy, assuming there is one Edah philosophy.

My point in my previous post was simply to contrast RHS and the Rav not to claim that RHS is not a gadol. If I have my doubts about his being a gadol it is certainly not because I don't agree with his hakhkafah, but because it seems to me that despite his great erudition and his outstanding powers of synthesis, he lacks the depth, creativity, and originality that, again so it seems to me, is a prerequiste for being a gadol. But perhaps in this generation my standards are too high. In any event, my public critiques of RHS's portrait of the Rav should not, as I tried to make clear in those very critiques, be taken as detracting in any way from my great respect for his learning.
lawrence kaplan | 06.12.06 - 9:36 pm | #

Bari-reread my post. I see no need to wrote ZTL after the name of a Gadol if I am listing a series of Gdolim, in which case Zicronam Livraca is the proper grammatical reference-unless you are saying that I should use Zicronam Tzadikim Livracha, which AFAIK, not even the JO uses.It was solely a matter of grammatical convenience, as opposed to any claim Chas ve Shalom that the Gdolim were not Tzadikim. The stories that MOAG quoted showed that even though they were Gdolim and Tzadikim-they clearly had a human side that showed up in conversations on a range of subjects including Torah and communal affairs. Please advise what you meant by that last post. Unless you "don't gores" MOAG, no Motzie Shenm Ra was intended.
Steve Brizel | 06.12.06 - 10:18 pm | #

they were Gdolim and Tzadikim

Thank you.
Bari | Homepage | 06.12.06 - 10:29 pm | #

Bari what is the basis to say that Gedolim MUST be tzadikim? We all know of Gedolei Torah who had reputations for being difficult, stubborn, obstinate, rude, hot-headed, and arrogant. Nevertheless, they were great individuals who were leaders of klal yisroel and insured the transmission of Torah to the next generation.

I heard it put this way by an Adam Godol:

Gedolei Umos Ha-Olam have problems with zenus, shochad, ka'as, and ga'avah. Our gedolim have problems only with ka'as and ga'avah. This pithy generalization would seem to be mostly true in my estimation, notwithstanding certain gedolim that were also tzadikim.

Bari: Why do you believe that all gedolim are tzadikim? Do you really know for certain that Rav Ovdia Yosef, shlit"a is a tzadik? Was the Malbi"m a tzaddik? The Rogatchover Ga'on? The Ra'avad? This would sound like a Hassidic/Artscroll revisionism which has infiltrated the "yeshivish" world. My sense is that the people who knew the gedolim of the previous generation did NOT believe that all the gedolim were tzadikim.

Steve Breizel: The MOAG showed that they were great individuals despite the fact that they were not tzadikim. Does anyone have access to Rabbi Nosson Kamenetsky? If so, ask him his opinion as to whether all the gedolim were tzadikim.

And again, I stand by my statements that MOST tzadikim are NOT gedolim, and that godlus can interfere with tzidkus.

Nachum
nachum klafter | 06.12.06 - 10:58 pm | #

>And I believe you were just Motzee Shem Ra on R' Meir Simcha, R' Chaim Ozer, and the Rogatchover as not being Tzaddikim.

Basically, you shoot the arrow and paint a target around it. It is as clear as day that there is a difference in the way a Chafetz Chaim conducted himself and [no need to mention a name to contrast]. Merely saying that everyone who is part of a canon was a tzaddik doesn't make them so, particularly if we are discussing patterns of behavior that we wouldn't tolerate as decent norms for each other. A tzaddik is more sensitive to others, less abrasive and yes, nicer, than average people--never less so.

Nachum named some names, so I don't need to.
S. | Homepage | 06.12.06 - 11:18 pm | #

There are all kinds of tzidkus, I bet some of you would think pinchus had a problem with gaava and kaas. The idea that a tzaddik is a laid-back person who doesn't have strong opinions and never hurts anyone in the process is based on elevation of some virtues over others. Perhaps some people who are thought of as tzaddikim are being called to account for their need to always be pleasant and general passivity.
Anonymous | 06.12.06 - 11:24 pm | #

>There are all kinds of tzidkus

You're right. Obviously being a tzaddik doesn't consist exclusivley of being a tepid dishrag, but the fact is that there are a number of gedolim, past and present, who were not particularly brimming with tzidkus of either sort. That someone is part of a canon doesn't make them also a tzaddik.
S. | Homepage | 06.12.06 - 11:35 pm | #

The Chief Rabbi of the US story is just the tip of the iceberg. V'ka'heina rabbos! [edited]

I don't know which definition you're using, but it always seemed obvious beyond obvious that a Godol has to be a Tzaddik. I'm not talking a Tanya Tzaddik, but in addition to being a world class Talmid Chochom he's got to have what passes for very good middos and not have what passes for midos ra'os. Anger l'sheim shomayim is one thing. Other middos are another.

As far as the [deleted] goes, the fact is that historically speaking he was not one of the Gedolim qua Manhigim of Orthodox Klal Yisrael.

Edited By Siteowner
yehupitz | 06.12.06 - 11:35 pm | #

At least you're consistent--but you qualify it in a strange way. Why won't you say the same as you say about R. Silver?
S. | Homepage | 06.12.06 - 11:39 pm | #

"This would sound like a Hassidic/Artscroll revisionism which has infiltrated the "yeshivish" world. My sense is that the people who knew the gedolim of the previous generation did NOT believe that all the gedolim were tzadikim."

I think the exact opposite is the case. What's infiltrated is a very narrow ("Hassidic*/Artscroll revisionist") definition of tzidkus - as R Chaim is alleged to have said, tuh nisht ohn deyn kleine kapote oyf yaakov avinu.

*The chasidiche don't as a rule define tzidkus as sensitive and even-tempered, LOL. The munkatcher was a tzaddik in your definition of the word? the chassidiche don't limit their definition of tzidkus to those who are "less abrasive"

Artscroll books edited out the rough edges -- and you've bought into it, by saying that those rough edges indeed needed to be edited out for anyone to view these figures as tzadikim. That's just as bad IMO as the original editing.

Now maybe some of them were not tzadikim, or not as great tzadikim as others, but this very pareve idea of what constitutes a tzadik is a reflection of the ideology it purports to criticize.
Anonymous | 06.12.06 - 11:39 pm | #

This would sound like a Hassidic/Artscroll revisionism which has infiltrated the "yeshivish" world.

Actually, I think that this characterization of the Raavad and the Rogatchover etc. is based on pseudo-ArtScrollian fancy-pants definitions of Tzidkus.

The Alters of Novardok and of Kelm, and the Satmar Rebbe for that matter, could be pretty darned harsh.

Do you think that the Rogatchover or the Raavad were less sensitive to the plight of an Almanah than the average Yossi of Cedarhurst?
Bari | Homepage | 06.12.06 - 11:41 pm | #

"You're right. Obviously being a tzaddik doesn't consist exclusivley of being a tepid dishrag, but the fact is that there are a number of gedolim, past and present, who were not particularly brimming with tzidkus of either sort. That someone is part of a canon doesn't make them also a tzaddik."

Ein hachi nami, but some of the figures listed as not being tzadikim were tzadikim. And generally, weighing in on whether the raavad was a tzadik is a bit over the top IMO.
Anonymous | 06.12.06 - 11:41 pm | #

Woohoo! I was Mechaven to a Befeirusha Anonymous!
Bari | Homepage | 06.12.06 - 11:43 pm | #

>Ein hachi nami, but some of the figures listed as not being tzadikim were tzadikim.

Obviously there's going to be some disagreement in a somewhat subjective discussion like this.

>And generally, weighing in on whether the raavad was a tzadik is a bit over the top IMO.

I didn't name names. But my stance is clear--being great and being saintly aren't synonymous. And if for some reason you'd think they are, that doesn't make a great person who just wasn't such a tzaddik one.
S. | Homepage | 06.12.06 - 11:54 pm | #

I was going to make a bari shekivanti.
Anonymous | 06.12.06 - 11:56 pm | #

I agree with that much, S, I just think being saintly has as much to do with being preoccupied with God and torah as with the character traits listed.
Anonymous | 06.12.06 - 11:57 pm | #

"Gedolei Umos Ha-Olam have problems with zenus, shochad, ka'as, and ga'avah. Our gedolim have problems only with ka'as and ga'avah"

I wish we all could believe that our Gdolim only have problems with Kaas and gaavah.
mycroft | 06.13.06 - 12:02 am | #

>I agree with that much, S, I just think being saintly has as much to do with being preoccupied with God and torah as with the character traits listed.

I think so too. But there is obviously an overlap, given that being preoccupied with God and Torah also means being preoccupied with the plight of almanos and yesomim etc. What to do with an actual גדול who just wasn't that saintly, in both senses of the term? Should we just say, "Well, they were" even when all available evidence suggests that they weren't?

We certainly shouldn't be dragging names through the gutter, that I agree.
S. | Homepage | 06.13.06 - 12:04 am | #

The point re the raavad is that judgements about rishonim, based on the limited evidence available, because they happened to disagree sharply with other rishonim, are OTT.
Anonymous | 06.13.06 - 12:05 am | #

"I don't know which definition you're using, but it always seemed obvious beyond obvious that a Godol has to be a Tzaddik. I'm not talking a Tanya Tzaddik, but in addition to being a world class Talmid Chochom he's got to have what passes for very good middos and not have what passes for midos ra'os. Anger l'sheim shomayim is one thing. Other middos are another."
A manhig must be an ethical person-it is not sufficient to be a baki in shas etc.-query how much bkiut is required to be a bki-especially today when it is easy to look up info-is it merely enough to understand the corpus of Jewish law and thought-with the ability to discusss issues with appropriate research.
mycroft | 06.13.06 - 12:07 am | #

S - not being a tzadik, I would love to keep arguing with you, but I am not sure if we are disagreeing or where, are you?:)
Anonymous | 06.13.06 - 12:24 am | #

"I have NEVER spoken for Edah"

I may be mistaken-but someone I know a few years back-I believe told me that you were a discussant,on a panel about hte Rav-I thought it was Edah-but I must havve been mistaken. It was not the Van Leer Conference on the Rav-a few years before that. A day ago I would have guessed it was a n Edah panel-but I guess I am wrong.
Anyway-writing for a Journal or speaking need not necessarily mean agreement with the Organization underwriting the function. many have spoken for Edah-who would not belong there.
mycroft | 06.13.06 - 12:34 am | #

>Anyway-writing for a Journal or speaking need not necessarily mean agreement with the Organization

Absolutely. After all, the Seridei Esh co-authored an article with Paul Kahle which appeared in Hebrew Union College Annual 10 (1935).
Anonymous | 06.13.06 - 1:27 am | #

Bari-Tzidkus and Gadlus does not mean that psak always followed a Gadol who was possesed with Tzidkus, Gadlus, but whose derech was never viewed as mainstream in the area of psak, as opposed to chiddushim.

Isn't it a fact that noone ever paskened on any issue either like the Rogatchover or R Itzele Peterburger, Zicronam Livracha? They might have been Gdolim and Tzadikim, but not exactly the final address for psak on any issue in the same manner as R Chaim Ozer ZTL . In fact, RCS or R M Simcha, Zicronam Livracha, were quoted in MOAG as stating that the Rogatchover could be counted in any discussion to have some proofs that supported his POV, some which were contrary to to his POV and some which were utterly irrelevant.
Steve Brizel | 06.13.06 - 10:37 am | #

SB-That's R Shechter-but I don't see it supported by the sources, especially when we are referring to halakha leMoshe Missinai. Obviously the Rambam agrees it was not forgotten-but the point is this was a normative view in rishonim. I don't think this threatens our religion either.
Male Repellant | 06.13.06 - 11:54 am | #

Also-I was not talking about paskening based only on reading-I was just responding to this "nogea baddavar" hiddush. The idea that no one can ever pasken for himself seems untenable for the reasons I stated. When Rabbenu Tam paskens, of course he also paskens for himself.
Male Repellant | 06.13.06 - 11:58 am | #

Bari-
"And then people wonder why Talmidei Chachamim who get crowned by the MOs as Gedolim are suspect in the eyes of the RW."

Really? You think that's why the RW are suspect of MO gedolim. So you're saying that the RW is suspicious of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein because he is not enough of a tzaddik?!!
Let's call a spade a spade; much more likely, they are just too small-minded to grasp his greatness.
kikhol | 06.13.06 - 12:23 pm | #

Also-this statement that gedole umos ha'olam have problems with zenus and shohad (and we never do)-both halves are wrong. There really are ethical goyim. They even keep yihud (as Billy Graham has testified). There are some who are upheld by their communities as the communities insist on ignoring the rabbis' sins. I wish this were not true (the part about our leaders-I am glad there are ethical goyim).
Male Repellant | 06.13.06 - 12:47 pm | #

Steve--
you made a slight error-- R. Meir Simcha said the Rogachover brought some raayos that were unassailable,some that one could argue on, and some that were irrelevant. He never said that the rogochaver brought raayos that proved the opposite.
shamas | 06.13.06 - 1:07 pm | #

1. R. Hershel Schachter never wrote anything about Talmud Criticism. He described a position and declared it to be out of bounds. I'm the one who labeled it as Talmud Criticism. However, I assume that he read Prof. Halivni's article in Tradition in the late 80s in which the professor wrote about Amoraim making a mistake in understanding Tannaim.

2. I am bewildered by the suggestion that publishing responsa is -- today -- a definition of the status of a Gadol. There are too many examples from the past 50 years to even list them.

3. R. Shalom Carmy relates how when he would discuss issues of biblical criticism with RYBS, the latter would have sources on his fingertips.

4. Mycroft, you don't have to think RHS is a Gadol. No one can or should force you to. But please try to be nice. And why in the world would you argue with Dr. Kaplan over whether he's spoken at an Edah event?

5. I think the argument that "Gedolim need not be tzadikim" was really "Gedolim need not be perfect in every way". I agree. However, a Gadol Ba-Torah in terms of knowledge who is not a seriously mentschlich and punctilious person is not a Gadol and is probably a Chillul Hashem. [Anyone who responds that "This means that X was a Chillul Hashem" is violating an issur de-oraisa.]
Gil | Homepage | 06.13.06 - 3:15 pm | #

What about mitzvah lefarsem es hahanefim? I'd guess this would not apply to someone who is only a little lacking in mentchlikhkeit-but at some point it is true.
Male Repellant | 06.13.06 - 4:19 pm | #

I am bewildered by the suggestion that publishing responsa is -- today -- a definition of the status of a Gadol
nevertheless, do you really think it is impossible for certain circles to believe this? tell me how to evaluate rabbi X's gadlus without recourse to his shiurim or tshuvos but merely on the basis of testimony of his "chasidim". why would or should i (theoretically speaking here) be convinced the man is a gadol?
mivami | 06.13.06 - 4:43 pm | #

Rav Elyashiv has, technically, published some responsa. But they aren't well known at all. He built his reputation in other ways.
Anonymous | 06.13.06 - 5:13 pm | #

Mivami-Evidently, you should re-read my prior post on ShuT and Gdolim.Gadlus BaTorah and writing ShuT are two very different sets of skills.
Steve Brizel | 06.13.06 - 5:32 pm | #

i just heard now that the definition of a gadol sometimes includes the idea of one who is older than 70 yrs old (i kid u not)! So thats why RHS who has not yet reached seiva may not be considered by some to be a godol. There, now THAT'S the explanation! :)
mivami | 06.13.06 - 5:36 pm | #

"As far as the Rogatchover goes, the fact is that historically speaking he was not one of the Gedolim qua Manhigim of Orthodox Klal Yisrael."

This is poshut nonsense. The Rogatchover gaon was absolutely one of the gedolei ha-dor. He was a godol she-be-gedolim. Some considered him to be THE godol ha-dor. Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky (in The Making of a Godol) stated that he was one of the four preeminent gedolim of pre WWII Europe in the early 20th century. Rabbi SY Zevin (himself a godol) wrote a biographical essay describing his greatness in Torah, which is reprinted in the book, Mefaneach Tzefunos by MM Kasher (another godol), which is entirely devoted to analyzing the Rogatchover’s originality and conceptual approach to Torah.

This ludicrous disavowal of the Rogatchover as a godol reveals the circular reasoning of many contributors to this thread: Since all gedolim must be tzadikim [which is an false assumption], and since X Godol’s behavior seems to be less than desirable, it must follow that X is really not a godol after all. This sort of tautology is a flawed argument, and I see no reason for us to believe it is true.

"Anger l'sheim shomayim is one thing. Other middos are another."
No, I am not talking about anger le-sehm shamayim. Read Divrei Ribos, which contains the acerbic exchanges between the Raavad and the Baal HaMaor. Notice how insulting the Raavad was to him, and how unnecessary his ad hominem invective was. He accused the Baal HaMaor of being unable to be makir emes. The Baal HaMaor was so personally offended, has he indicates in he responses, that he published their letters in Divrei Ribos with the intention of showing he world how unreasonable he felt the Raavad was behaving. But is there anyone in the world who would deny that the Raavad and the Baal HaMaor were gedolim she-be-gedolei Torah?

"I think the argument that "Gedolim need not be tzadikim" was really "Gedolim need not be perfect in every way"

Yes. I am operating under the following definition of "tzadik"--a person who has achieved shleimus in very area of his avodas HaShem. It means that he is serving HaShem according to his full potential and capabilities in every area--tikun ha-middos, emuna ve-bitachon, avoiding loshon hora, limud ha-Torah, mesiras nefesh, ahavas yisroel, yiras ve-ahavas Ha-Shem, etc. Such people are serving G-d on the highest possible level insofar as they are capable. Is it really mandator that this be achieved before someone is a godol ba-Torah? I have never heard such a requirement before.

This thread turned to the topic of tzidkus vs. godlus because I suggested that being “too flippant” should not disqualify someone’s stature as a godol in Torah. There are a great many examples of gedolei ha-dor who have been much more than “too flippant”—they have been angry, arrogant, sarcastic, insulting hostile, hyper-sensitive, rodef kavod, etc. Nevertheless, they were gedolim. There were great men who dvoted their entire lives to Torah, and achieved greatness in Torah.

"I'm not talking a Tanya Tzaddik,..."
Actually, I AM talking about a Tzaddik as defined in Tanya. Maybe this is one of the sources of our disagreement.

We cannot measure who is a tzaddik. Tzidkus is determined by internal factors. We don't know another person's potential, and we therefore don't know whether they are living up to it. Indeed, most of us don't even know our own potential in most areas of our avodas HaShem!

Therefore I was not suggesting that I KNOW that individuals were not tzaddikim. I was simply stating that the notion that a Godol must have absolutely perfect middos seems to be a false assumption because there are so many examples to the contrary. I do not know why anyone thinks that all gedolim were tzaddikim. I again submit my thesis that many people have been unduly influenced by Hassidus and equate Torah leadership with tzidkus. It was the Hassidim that declared their leaders to be tzaddikim. Prior to this, there was no requirement that we pretend all of our leaders are tzaddikim. Some of them are tzaddikim, and some of them are not. I think it is complicated to enter "Hillul HaShem" into this discussion. The Rambam defines the gedarim of this type of hillul HaShem in Sefer Mada. The quirks and imperfections of our gedolim are not a hillul HaShem. When a Torah manhig acts like a RASHA, then I agree that this is a Hillul HaShem, but flippancy, sarcasm, occasional ka'as, and ga'ava (which is a pervasive human frailty that all of us save real tzadikim suffer from) is not an instance of being a RASHA, and is not a Hillul HaShem.


"The Chief Rabbi of the US story is just the tip of the iceberg. V'ka'heina rabbos! [edited]"

The story about “Chief Rabbi of America” is not being related accurately. The story goes like this (as related to me by Rabbi Zelig Sharfstein, shlita, who was Rabbi Eliezer Silver’s right hand man for many years in Cincinnati, and was his successor as mora de-asra of the city upon Rabbi Silver’s demise). Rabbi Silver’s car was pulled over on the highway by a State Trooper. His driver said, “I was speeding because we are on our way to a very important meeting. In the back seat of this car is the Chief Rabbi of America.” To which Rabbi Silver added, “And Candada!” He made a similar statement in court, and the judge said to Rabbi Silver, “I thought that a Rabbi is supposed to be humble.” To which Rabbi Silver responded, “Yes, your honor, but this is a court of law and I can’t commit perjury.” By the way, these ma’asim are examples where Rabbi Silver made arrogant statements in the form of a joke, and in themselves these do not imply that he was a ba’al ga’avah. In the same trial, the opposing counsel attempted to mock Rabbi Silver for his belief in Torah. He asked him, “Do you believe that Bilaam’s ass spoke?” To which Rabbi Silver responded, after looking at him for 10 seconds silently, “Now I do!” In any case, these stories are instances of Rabbi Silver making a jokes, and should not be take so seriously as an indication of a deep problem with ga'avah. (I am not declaring whether or not he had a problem with ga'avah--I am just saying that these stories do not illustrate one.)



Dr. Kaplan raised an issue: are depth and creativity necessary for one to be considered a Godol ba-Torah? I would respond as follows—if we set Rav YB Soleveitchick as the standard for depth and creativity then there were no gedolim besides him in his generation and it is questionable whether an when there can be another. If a person can analyze any practical or theoretical situation, on the spot with no preparation, through the lens of his full command of sha’s, rishonim, shu”t, and acharonim, I think we must acknowledge that this is a remarkable achievement that precious few have accomplished. This, combined with devoting one’s entire professional life to preparing rabbonim and talmidei chachamim, suffices to establish someone as a Godol ba-Torah in my eyes.
nachum klafter | 06.13.06 - 5:55 pm | #

"What about mitzvah lefarsem es hahanefim? I'd guess this would not apply to someone who is only a little lacking in mentchlikhkeit-but at some point it is true."

Read Rashi on that statement. It clearly refers to people who are frauds. They act as though they are tzadikim but privately commit terrible averahs. It is a mitzvah to root them out (my interpretation--because they are dangerous and will lead their congregants or talmidim down a wrong path, and are abusing their power which they have achieved in order to exert power or influence over their talmidim and congregants for self-serving purposes).

This definitely does not apply to authentic, great talmidei chachamim who are manhigei yisroel, and have devoted their lives to Torah, who are making no attempt to deceive anyone about their frumkeit or ehrlichkeit, but who happen to on rare occasions lose control of their tempers, or exercise poor judgment because they are overtaken by personal insult, etc. It is unfair to call them chanofim.
nachum klafter | 06.13.06 - 6:09 pm | #

"Therefore I was not suggesting that I KNOW that individuals were not tzaddikim. "

You just said that the raavad nd rogatchover weren't tzadikim. For the raavad, you personally decided that his anger wasn't lshem shomayim, because you think his ad homimenem wasn't necessary. Well, maybe he thought it was necessary. Imposing your sensibilities on the raavad is ridiculous, esp for an event that you can't judge at this distance of time and without knowing just what was going on in Provence.

"I again submit my thesis that many people have been unduly influenced by Hassidus and equate Torah leadership with tzidkus. It was the Hassidim that declared their leaders to be tzaddikim. Prior to this, there was no requirement that we pretend all of our leaders are tzaddikim."

You are confusing the concept of tzadikism with the naive, superficial notion of tzidkus that exists in Artscroll (and that seems to be your personal definition of tzidkus). An awful lot of chassidiche rebbes were hot tempered. Find me the chassidim who don't think the kotzker was a tzaddik, or the minchas elazar.
Anonymous | 06.13.06 - 6:45 pm | #

"e made a similar statement in court, and the judge said to Rabbi Silver, “I thought that a Rabbi is supposed to be humble.” To which Rabbi Silver responded, “Yes, your honor, but this is a court of law and I can’t commit perjury.”"

The court testimony is an event that happened with R Abramsky.
Anonymous | 06.13.06 - 6:46 pm | #

OK, my definition of godlus:

There are many individuals who are absolutely brilliant, and when they prepare for a shiur, their are extremely impressive. They may write very inspiring essays or books, or deliver an electrifying lecture. But this display of their abilities is not representative of their knowledge of the Torah in general. These individuals are first class talmidei chachamim with a special gift for speaking/writing, and special expertise in a specific area, but they are not experts in kol ha-Torah kulah.

A godol is an expert in kol ha-Torah Kulah. A godol is in full possession of a type of well organized and systematic Torah knowledge and persepctive at every moment. It is not possible to detect the difference based on casual encounters with great talmidei chachamim. Repeated exposure to gedolim, hearing them answer shaylos all day long, observing give eitzah, watching how they use their Torah perspective to cope with changes and dilemmas, attending their shiurim--this is how gedolim become recognized as such. Their peers and talmidim, who have witnessed their greatness in Torah, continue to call upon them for guidance over the years. They develop a track record of giving excellent eitzah, and being able to answer in the best interests of the sho'el, and are not blinded by their own self-intersts or biases. Their reputations spread basically by word of mouth. They emerge, in this sponteneous fashion, as gedolei Torah. There are a few individuals that I believe this is happening with currently and in another 10-20 years I think they will be considered gedolei ha-Dor. I will not publish their names because I know it will provoke detractors. (But hint: one of them is in Baltimore. I am not judging this from personal experience, but from hearing countless talmidei chachamim all over the world identify him as someone in whom they have such firm confidence.) It is not self-evident, however, that all such individuals are necessarily tzaddikim (though the individual I have in mind is definitely a ba'al middos, ohev yisroel, and eved HaShem).

Rav Goren, z"l, who was absolutely a godol ba-Torah was once in France on rabbinical business. He was invited to visit a Rosh Yeshiva at the Habad Yeshiva in Brunoy (spelling?). He was asked to give shiur to the shiur. A rabbi, who was a bochur in yeshiva at the time told me that, with no preparation, Rav Goren gave the most remarkable, well organized, intricate, inspiring shiur he had ever attended despite the fact that he learned by brilliant talmidei chachamim for many years (and he himself is an impressive talmid chacham). He wondered if by chance or hashgacha, the sugyah they were learning in yeshiva happenned to be a special interest of Rav Goren's, or if he had just given shiur on it in Eretz Yisroel. He investigated the matter and verified, to his satisfaction, that Rav Goren had this type of mastery of the entire Sha"s. This, combined with his years as a poseq, servant of Klal Yisroel, heroic actions on behalf of the Medina, inspiration to so many talmidim who became rabbonim and talmidei chachamim in their own right, etc. etc., is what in my view makes him indisputably a great godol ba-Torah. I must note that RW Haredim are unable to identify him as such. Why is there no Rav Goren Torah card, for example. Does anyone believe that this is anything other than politically and ideologically motivated? (He may well have been a tzaddik also--I have no idea as I know nothing about Rav Goren's middos or personal life.)
nachum klafter | 06.13.06 - 6:48 pm | #

"if we set Rav YB Soleveitchick as the standard for depth and creativity then there were no gedolim besides him in his generation"

how amazingly provincial.
Anonymous | 06.13.06 - 6:49 pm | #

"The story about “Chief Rabbi of America” is not being related accurately"

Nachum there may be more than 1 story.My story which I heard directly from a witness years ago-involved Rabbi Silver stating the answer of Chief Rabbi to a immigration/customs official. Assume Rabbi Silver acted consistently leshitato.
mycroft | 06.13.06 - 7:16 pm | #

" the idea of one who is older than 70 yrs old (i kid u not)! So "
Did they say that about RAK who didn't live to 70-or I believe Rav Chaim Brisker et al.
mycroft | 06.13.06 - 7:19 pm | #

"4. Mycroft, you don't have to think RHS is a Gadol. No one can or should force you to."

Whats the difference I have written many times that ienjoy going to his shiurim and have gone to lectures by him-maybe even before you were born Gil. I wish there were many RHS's.The dispute may be about nothing-those of us who tend not to call him a gadol compare him to RYBS-others say a Gadol can be much lower.
People can comment about anyone else with impunity-the moment one refers to any weakness of RHS one gets attacked. Weaknesses of R. E. Silver, RYBS, RAK are all discussed freely on the blog-the moment RHS is mentioned-one gets attacked-why?
mycroft | 06.13.06 - 7:25 pm | #

" And why in the world would you argue with Dr. Kaplan over whether he's spoken at an Edah event?"
I didn't mean to argue with Dr. Kaplan-it is possible that he stated he never spoke at an Edah event-to mean he never was a listed speaker-giving a paper etc.
I was referring to a second hand recollection that he might have been a panelist at an Edah conference-not giving a speech. If Dr. Kaplan states he never was at an Edah conference I accept that. My intent Gil was for clarification of what he meant.
Even if he were there so what-there are many mainstream Orthodox thinkers-who you have quoted positively on your blog-who have spoken at their conferences without necessarily accepting Edah ideology-whatever that is.
mycroft | 06.13.06 - 7:32 pm | #

There are a great many examples of gedolei ha-dor who have been much more than “too flippant”—they have been angry, arrogant, sarcastic, insulting hostile, hyper-sensitive, rodef kavod, etc. Nevertheless, they were gedolim. There were great men who dvoted their entire lives to Torah, and achieved greatness in Torah.

Why not have 2 levels of gadol then? One would be the gedolim who behaved like gedolim.

The second would be the gedolim who behaved like children.
friendly guy | 06.13.06 - 8:49 pm | #

"Why not have 2 levels of gadol then? One would be the gedolim who behaved like gedolim.

The second would be the gedolim who behaved like children."

And we'll have children decide which are on which level!
Anonymous | 06.13.06 - 8:54 pm | #

And if we are awarding Gadol Oscars how about a few more categories.

Best Zionist Gadol.
Best Gadol in an anti-Zionist role.

Or how about by weight or height class?
Best Gadol over 300 pounds.
Best Gadol under 5 feet (that is a little pun).
friendly guy | 06.13.06 - 8:54 pm | #

Oh yes. Best anti-feminist Gadol. The competition is tought but you-know-who wins.
friendly guy | 06.13.06 - 8:59 pm | #

Why is there no Rav Goren Torah card, for example. Does anyone believe that this is anything other than politically and ideologically motivated?

C'mon, you're not that in the dark about why Rav Goren was maligned by the Right Wing, are you?

It is the height of parochialism to assume for a minute that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (who didn't have a political Negiah bone in his body, as proven again and again and again) tore Keriah in public over someone if there was any Sfeik Sfeika of a Hava Amina that he was innocent of a shameful "Hetter" Leshem political position.

As if the Steipler had nothing better to do with his completely-accounted-for time than to write up a whole apocryphal story making a complete Leitzanus out of him.

It is the simple inability by the MO/RZ to admit that a great RZ scholar simply messed up in a major way, to his eternal disgrace, that any discussion of Rav Goren as deserving of honor even takes place.
Bari | Homepage | 06.13.06 - 10:51 pm | #

It appears that since Rav Shlomo Zalman z"l, there is no one who is revered by all of klal yisroel.
Nachum Klafter | 06.13.06 - 11:17 pm | #

Never heard of the guy
friendly guy | 06.13.06 - 11:22 pm | #

The second would be the gedolim who behaved like children
i'd like to think R Shlomo's story of Schvartze Wolf applies here (if u think he's ugly, maybe its a reflection on you rather than him)?....
mivami | 06.14.06 - 12:08 pm | #

don't have a clue as to what you are trying to say?
friendly guy | 06.14.06 - 7:55 pm | #

As has been said, it really makes no difference whether I once spoke for an Edah conference or participated in a panel discussion or not, but FTR I never did either. I have the feeling that what Mycroft's informant may have remembered is that at the first Edah conference, which I attended, there was a session on the Rav, and in the question period I got up and made a rather lengthy comment about some of the presentations.

As for Nahum's comment on what it takes to make one a gadol: I conceded that perhaps my standard is too demanding for contemporary talmideir hakhamim. Bur certainly I for one don't think that the Rav had a monopoly on creativity and originality in the previous generation. Can one deny these adjectives to, say, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Aharon Kotler, and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach? Athmeha!
lawrence kaplan | 06.15.06 - 8:43 pm | #

"I have the feeling that what Mycroft's informant may have remembered is that at the first Edah conference, which I attended, there was a session on the Rav, and in the question period I got up and made a rather lengthy comment about some of the presentations."

I thank Prof. Kaplan for the clarification-my memory is not primarily that the discussion was at EDAH-I believe at the Grand Hyatt" @42nd st-but more importantly I believe R.M.Meiselman's opinion came up-and the informant related Prof.Kaplan quoting chapter and verse from the Ravs writimgs where contradictions to Meiselmans viiewpopints were.Apparently Prof. Kaplan wasn't the only one pointing out Meiselman's distortions-but the informant was impressed how Prof.Kaplan rattled off from articles and footnotes proving Meiselmanlmsn
distorted the Rav. Thus, my primary memory was that-not the Edah-Grand Hyatt ? connection
mycroft | 06.16.06 - 3:59 am | #