About textual differences, I have just seen that Artscroll admits in one place that Rashi had a different text in the Chumash.
Cf. Bereishis 25:6 (וְלִבְנֵי הַפִּילַגְשִׁים), in the red translation of Rashi in 5 volumes, footnote
I think that Marc Shapiro discusses or at least quotes the Rakeffet story in his kuntras
There is a piece in Marc Shapiro's book on the Seridei Esh where he asks RSL for a reading in a Tosefta for Heter Agunos.
I heard from Talmidim of the Rav that he was unimpressed with the girsaos scholarship. I have a feeling that it is a selective issue. One has to know where it is useful in the context of the Sugya.
On another topidc I just finished reading a very intersting article by R.D.Halivni on Stamoim. I will be posting on it as soon as I have a few minutes. Would love to get feedback.
Comparing the Rav/Grash story with the R. Rakeffet story is a bit disingenuous. There is a huge difference between finding an accurate text of the Talmud or other accepted authority and basing halacha/psak on old manuscripts of unknown authorship. As has been noted before, not every sefer has persuasive halachic power. We dont accept halacha from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Now, the Rav's thought on the gemara can still be valid, even though it isn't based on an original difference.
R. Halivni has a similar story in "The Book and the Sword" where a talmid hakham drays a pilpul to harmonize conflicting texts and R. Halivni answers the same question by referring to a discrepancy in an early manuscript (or something like that...you get the idea). The talmid hakham responds something like "so where's the chochmah [in that]?"
I read the Marc Shapiro lecture on RSL and found it very unimpressive, biased and tendentious, as opposed to his bio on the SE ( which was excellent, but which left me with some unanswered questions that I think I answered on my own).
1)The lecture assumes that the CJ and MO and JTS and RIETS,etc of today actually have the same things in common that they did in the early 20th Century. That is certainly not the case.
2) The claim advanced by Dr. Shapiro that RZ Frankel and RSL were the greatest Talmudists of the 19th and 20th Century cannot be sustained under any rational basis. Tosefta Pshuta is a wonderful sefer that is held in high regard. That does not support the author's claim. Volozhin and Brisk at least produced Talmidie Chachamim and Gdolei Olam from whose Torah we all live from. The names of RCS,CI, RYBS, RSZA and RMF all strike me as some of the greatest Talmudists of that time.
3) On a communal level-who accomplished more as a leader-RSL at JTS with CJ or RYBS at RIETS for MO? RYBS saved MO and gave much needed intellectual strength to O as a whole.The lecture ignored RSL's de minimus effect, if any, on CJ as a movement.In fact, his staying at JTS provided unwarranted intellectual cover for a movement that drifted completely away from any pretenses of being a "halachic" movement.
As for the bio on the SE, I was left with the following questions which I think lead to the following answers:
1)The world of the SE in Berlin came to a screeching end in 1938. The SE, after WW2, chose to live in almost seclusion, rather take a position at RIETS or anywhere else and instead wrote letters that harp in criticism about the Charedi world.Ironically, the SE, who moved from Slablodka to Berlin and was a passionate defender of TIDE, allowed non Hirswchians such as R Y Breuer and R S Schwalb ZTL to give TIDE an intellectual decent burial.
2) The Charedi world had the benefit of many RY, lead by RAK and the CI, who rebuilt their world, despite the cost.
3)RYBS and the SE offered a more nuanced and complicated approach to Torah. Unfortunately, we now live in a world where many demand a simplistic answer rather one that demands the ability to think in a critical manner.
Doesn't Dan's story also have a parallel in the novel The Chosen? Ah, now I'm entering the territory of your earlier post on The Making of an Urban Legend. Was the fiction of The Chosen based on actual events, or was a story invented about actual people based on The Chosen? Or perhaps both stories were independent.
If the Rav had known about the textual evidence (and accepted it as being true/ correct) I rather think he would have reacted as R' Chaim did in the story about Intellectual Honesty in the same volume (Volume 1, page 182)
There the Rav recounts how R' Chaim had said an entire shiur...indeed (here are some excerpts from this):
"Had Reb Chaim finished the shiur, he would have gone down and htere would have beena spontaneous outcry of "Long live the king!" [1 Samuel 10:24] from all the audience. However, Reb Chaim suddenly interrupted the shiur. This is a true story. It is not just a hasidisher ma'aseh [story]. Because it is not a hasidisher ma'aseh, it is a true story. [Laughter.]
Reb Chaim declared: "Rabbosai [Gentlement], whatever I said si wrong. I made a mistake. The RAmbam says just the opposite!" Then he went down.
Reb Chaim remained the rosh yeshiva. He did not lose his job. This is seeking the truth of Torah. I remember as a child that my father trained me in a similar fashion. Whenever there is a mistake, admit it immediately. Do not try to defend errors. That is what Rav Aha the son of Rav Ika did. He declared that what he had said before was no good. That is exactly what Reb Chaim did."
Telling, no?
But I have a question- was it necessary to burst the student's bubble and disappoint him?
To wax philosophical, if we can bolster someone up with ideas that may not be correct, or tell them the truth at the risk of making them lose their respect for/ high opinion of a person (in this case, the Rav) what do we do?
Of course, I'm not certain the student did lose his high opinion of the Rav or would have done so...
Is it preferable to tell the truth or to say that which makes a great impression? Does it depend on age, mental or physical? Does it depend on mindset? Does it depend on whether one is a scientific rationalist or a romantic expirientialist?
What would you have wanted to have been done?
Possibly the best case scenario would have been if the student returned and questioned the Rav about the textual error...
Steve,
YOu wrote
1)The lecture assumes that the CJ and MO and JTS and RIETS,etc of today actually have the same things in common that they did in the early 20th Century. That is certainly not the case.
Nowhere in the lecture does he say this. On the contrary, the whole point of the lecture (see esp. the last paragraph) is just the opposite.
Steve,
You wrote
2) The claim advanced by Dr. Shapiro that RZ Frankel and RSL were the greatest Talmudists of the 19th and 20th Century cannot be sustained under any rational basis. Tosefta Pshuta is a wonderful sefer that is held in high regard. That does not support the author's claim. Volozhin and Brisk at least produced Talmidie Chachamim and Gdolei Olam from whose Torah we all live from. The names of RCS,CI, RYBS, RSZA and RMF all strike me as some of the greatest Talmudists of that time.
Shapiro says that Frankel was the premier talmudist of the 19th century RABBINICAL SEMINARIES -- What does this have to do with Volozhin and the other yeshivot. Do you know what a rabbinical seminary is?
Steve wrote
3) On a communal level-who accomplished more as a leader-RSL at JTS with CJ or RYBS at RIETS for MO? RYBS saved MO and gave much needed intellectual strength to O as a whole.The lecture ignored RSL's de minimus effect, if any, on CJ as a movement.In fact, his staying at JTS provided unwarranted intellectual cover for a movement that drifted completely away from any pretenses of being a "halachic" movement.
Since when is criticizing CJ of any relevance to the subject of the lecture. But if you read it you will see that he quoted SL's famous letter in which we see how upset he was at what CJ had become.
I see that Artscroll lists the commentaries on Yerushalmi Brachot at the beginning of their new translation. Conspicuously absent is Goren's Yerushalmi Hameforash which is no great loss as he apparently took most of his good stuff from Ginzberg. However, now that we read R' Gifter's letter to Ginzberg in Shapiro's book perhaps that should have been mentioned?
I bet Arscroll used both Goren and Ginzberg -- but in order to be politically correct they can't mention this.
Commenting by HaloScan
