yes, i think that's right.
It seems that Dr. Haym Soloveitchik had a close relationship with Prof. Lieberman. He is a frequent source in the recent biography of Prof. Lieberman.
Shapiro (the one you mentioned two posts ago) is coming out with a book on Lieberman and the Orthodox. I hear it should be out very soon.
Really? That ought to be interesting.
S., this reminded me of the exchange you got into with an Anonymous commenter a while back about Ben Sorer U' Moreh, and the execution of the harlot. As I recall you were arguing the side against RYBS in that exchange.
I kind of see how it relates. I guess I was arguing the other side in that case.
I think RYBS' comments in this exchange are important and brings a sense of proportion badly needed in this type of study, which is why I posted it.
At one point the wiki article on RYBS has a section describing his working with Lieberman on aguna issues and his initial agreement with the Lieberman clause, but it was later taken out after commenters cast doubt on the story. Anyone with insight on this controversy?
Clearly a scrap of parchment, and perhaps even a New Testament account of misas beis din has no validity in the eyes of RYBS. I wonder what he would say about descriptions in Josephus about Jewish practice. (not that I know of any stiras off-hand)
What I mean, is, what would it take to convince a Torah-True person that a given piece of archeological evidence indicates a machlokes amongst Torah-True streams in Jewish tradition that have not been recorded in the Mishna or Talmud ? Assuming such a thing is ever found.
> Really? That ought to be interesting.
;)
>Clearly a scrap of parchment, and perhaps even a New Testament account of misas beis din has no validity in the eyes of RYBS. I wonder what he would say about descriptions in Josephus about Jewish practice. (not that I know of any stiras off-hand)
Well the truth is I was actually over-extending myself on that one. It has occurred to me that the crowd may have been Samaritans, for example. But I doubt RYBS would quarell with the idea that things historically happened kinegged halakhah. Chazal asserted what the halakhah was, but they certainly didn't claim that halakhah was always followed. In fact, as RYBS said: there are ignoramuses today, there were ignoramuses then.
Where I think RYBS would differ is in how he would describe the signifigance of the differences in theory and practice. Josephus, for example, says there were 6000 Pharisees and that they were most popular among the people. Some (most?) scholars perhaps take that to mean that there were only 6000 Pharisaic Jews in the sense of that what we would like to assert were Jews who practiced the real, normative, halakhic, masoretic Judaism. I don't know if that's the correct interpretation. It seems to me that he may have meant the rabbis and their students with the word Pharisees.
And of course its well known that the 1st century was marked by religious schism. Far more problematic would be the assertion that women could be legitimately stoned without due process as Chazal defines it hundreds of years earlier. There's no evidence one way or another, I think. Some people might be skeptical that in, say, 700 BCE Jewish courts *really* required hasraah, kabbalah etc. Others , such as RYBS, wouldn't entertain otherwise--certainly without evidence.
There is the new biography out of R. Lieberman which is available on the JTS website.
I have it on good authority that RYBS had R. Lieberman teach his kids talmud for a while.
The Rav pulled out of the plan to have a beit din for gittin with Lieberman and another frum Conservative rabbi (whose name I can't recall) when he realized that they could not commit to having all C onservative rabbis in the field adhere to its decisions.
(This is what a recall from a Rakeffet lecture)
I don't think anyone would consider JTS to be anything but a distortionof the mesorah. How did RSL rationalize teaching there?
>I don't think anyone would consider >JTS to be anything but a >distortionof the mesorah. How did >RSL rationalize teaching there?
>emes lamito | 09.19.05 - 11:34 am |
You're right about the present JTS.
I don't know what R. Lieberman took into account.
However, various factors were different in the 40's and perhaps the atmosphere there would have been a bit more congenial to an observant Jew. JTS at the time had a more or less "halachic" right wing and an apikorsut (agnostic) left-wing lead by Mordechai Kaplan. (After its then chancellor pushed through the ordination of women in 1983 over the protests of the Talmud faculty who comprised the right-wing, most of those faculties members resigned and JTS was left without a more traditional right-wing.)The C movement then (pre-1948 ?) as a matter of official policy (but not actual practice) followed normative halacha. Louis Ginzberg was the head of its Committee on Jewish Law who until his retirement insisted on following normative halacha. The C shul rabbis on the whole were extremely dissatisfied with the latter and on his retirement from that role they quickly changed matters (e.g. the 1952 ruling "allowing" the use of cars to go to synagogue).
To be invited to join the JTS faculty was an extremely tempting offer for a poorly paid scholar in the 40's. Excellent salary, research assistants etc. At the same time many boys from traditional and orthodox homes studied at JTS as they considered the C movement as a ticket to social advancement. An Orthodox teacher might help those boys and others.(Many orthodox girls from poor families also attended its (now defunct) Teachers Institute at night. It had good facilities and was an attractive route to obtaining the necessary qualifications to teach in a Jewish day school.)It should be mentioned that R. Lieberman also became the Rabbi of the JTS shul and it was conducted ke-halacha
A prominent posek (now deceased) related that he had been approached by JTS during the 50's (?) and offered a teaching position at JTS. He declined.He said that just as he would not have wanted a son of his to attend that institution he would not wish to encourage others' children to attend. I heard similarly about another talmid chacham of even greater stature who was extremely tempted to accept such a position but was prevailed upon by other renouned tamidei chachamim to decline.
I friend just gave me a copy of the new book on R. Lieberman and it is fascinating reading, not just about R. Lieberman, but the state of Yiddishkeit in the time. It addresses many of the points made in the comments.
Bottom line: R. Lieberman considered himself an orthodox Jew, and JTS at the time considered itself a traditional institution, aligned with the orthodox against the reform. The JTS of R.'s Lieberman, Ginsburg, and Finklestein was a far cry from what it is now. In fact, the three candidates for the Chair at JTS that Lieberman eventually occupied were: R. Lieberman, RYBS and a certain R. Belkin.
I really want to read it. Is it only available through the JTS store?
A friend of mine who was a close talmid of R Ruderman, told me a story about how when they were in Slabodka R Lieberman was already considered to be "controversial"(politietly stated)
the above issue is also covered in the book. R. Lieberman went to (gasp) movies, and read books.
As far as I know, it is only available through the JTS website. Amazon didnt have it when I looked
"A prominent posek (now deceased) related that he had been approached by JTS during the 50's (?) and offered a teaching position at JTS. He declined.He said that just as he would not have wanted a son of his to attend that institution he would not wish to encourage others' children to attend. I heard similarly about another talmid chacham of even greater stature who was extremely tempted to accept such a position but was prevailed upon by other renouned tamidei chachamim to decline."
Funny -- I heard the same story about R' Yaakov being offered a position at YU and declining.
Commenting by HaloScan
