I like (or rather dislike) the ending - 'His passing leaves a vacuum in the specific role that he in effect created'.
In other words, Klal Yisrael hasn't lost a Godol and there's no huge vacuum.
At the time, a lot of people were of the opinion that they should have written nothing rather than this.
It's not all that terrible. I read the last part as saying that he had a truly valuable unique role that nobody can fill.
It's a hatchet piece. First, it is written in a way that does not reveal that thousands upon thousands of Jews revered him as a godol ba-torah. The omission of "tzaddik" was not accidental, and the JO dispenses zatzals like candy. Second, in more than one place in the piece it tries to establish that he didn't produce real talmidim. Third, his secular education is emphasized all out of proportion to his Torah education and learning (which isn't meant as a compliment).
And as for the last paragraph, it doesn't say or imply that he had a valuable role, only that he was, in effect, one who created a niche which he filled.
The article nettles because it is written in a detached reportorial voice, rather than the worshipful tone that the JO uses for one of "their" gedolim. There's no indication that the writer feels any personal sense of loss at Rav Soloveitchik's death.
Having said that, there's no doubt that the piece contains many acute observations, of which the final paragraph is only one.
You're pretty much right. Apart from the mischaracterization of his role as a rebbe, a big reason why this annoyed so many people is because the JO showed itself capable of writing an obituary, rather than breast-beating hysterics. But that is something they'll only do for someone who is not a Godol®.
Just two examples of why this is a hatchet piece: (1) note the contrast between "talmidim" who remembered the shiurim and "exponents of Torah U'Mada" who remember the philosophy, as if one cannot be both. I don't know where the "admitted departure from the Torah world" comes from or why being a master of multiple disciplines indicates "inner conflict" rather than a synthesis of knowledge. (2) "frequently quoted in conflicting manner", "never imposing his views" etc. in the next paragraph makes it sound like he allowed his words to be twisted and his students to run amok in his name. The Rav addressed issues such as Jewish-Christian dialogue, our relationship with the State, our response to the Holocaust, etc. publicly, yet he is described as one who "rarely spoke out on major issues".
Did the Rav create his own role, as the article says, or was there an acute need for a personality who could show how gadlus b'Torah could be synthesized with modern values and life, which the Rav filled in a way no other gadol could have or since has?
Why be concerned with the JO anyway? Anyone who knows anything who has heard or read the Rav's shiurim knows what the score is.
This is part of the same phenomenon playing out right now (and every few weeks) on Hirhurim.
Yes, it would be nice if people would see beyond their own narrow view of the world but it doesn't look like that's going to happen soon. On any 'side'. But it's about time we all realize that that is the reality and stop expecting the Jewish Observer, Pirchai or a biography of RAK written by a lifelong Lakewooder to break that pattern.
It's not so much that people expect the pattern to be broken, as that people want it to be stated, for the record, that one certain particular derekh that posits itself as THE path and THE mesorah is in fact making that position up, and that fact is not going unnoticed.
This particular piece in the JO proved embarassing. There was fallout, there was blowback. But now it is online, archived and searchable. It happened, it can be researched, it can be read and judged. And even though they will not change their attitude today, people from that machaneh do sometimes change their outlook.
I just posted on Hirhurim about this issue, but at least the JO printed something. Just remember Rav Gifter, Rav Avigdor Miller, and Rav Chaim Dov Keller all attend YU.
While its true that if the JO hadn't printed anything at all they would have been roundly criticized, its questionable whether they did themselves any favor by printing this instead of nothing at all.
Fred,
Good work, putting this out there. The JO paper trail always makes for interesting reading, much like Pravda did in its day.
Twenty years or so before I became interested in religiosity, I had a janitorial job at an Agudah institution (I don't think it was official, but Agudah publications were all over the place, and on the bulletin board was stuff from the local Agudah chapter with big shots from my employer listed in the margin as officers and board members). (I didn't get the job because I was Jewish, because I didn't tell them at the time.) I sometimes looked at the J"O, and I was pretty disgusted by it. Articles lauded reckless and antisocial behavior because it was true to a machmir (a word I didn't know at the time) version of Orthodoxy. When I started on this goofy lifestyle and told a friend about the job, he asked what kind of idiot I was, becoming interested in frumkeit after all that.
I also wish that the article had been a bit warmer and hadn't contained the subtle digs that Chaim B. points out. However, the observation that the Rav's "passing leaves a vacuum in the specific role that he in effect created" is both elegantly phrased and absolutely correct. Certainly, the succeeding years have borne out that the Rav was sui generis and irreplacable.
I think that what bothers some MOs about the piece is that an OU writer could have understood their leader--both his strengths and weaknesses--better than they did. This shouldn't be surprising--sometimes it takes an outsider to see what insiders cannot see.
I have cancelled my subscrition to JO and my memebership in the Agudah after the big demonstration for Israel that they refused to partake in. JO has been galling me for years. The arrogance ( he created and led without him the creation has no kiyum hashem Yerachem) of these people is unbearable when all most of them are just plain drones who follow a non existent philosophy that was developed as hora'as sho'o 60 years ago. The rav, and i am not a talmid, was the Gaon hador and put to shame all the others because his Torah was integrated with hashkafah. Show one other Gaon who had that ability and if he did dared present it in a clear and cogent fashion. It is a bunch of fleas bothering a giant.
this is a hatchet job, all right. the students who 'passed through' his shiurim? attended by 'hundreds of laymen'?
i rembember when this came out. my uncle, who was a Chaim Berliner, was outraged. He summarized the JO 'hesped'- "he was a nice guy. he didn't beat his wife, and he didn't piss in the mikveh."
R. Moshe Tendler wrote a scathing response to this hesped that appeared in the Algmeiner Journal.
A certain someone complained to R. Aron Soloveichik that Tendler's article was "too sharf"
Rav Aron responded that, no, it was fitting.
Can anyone dig up that response?
"I have cancelled my subscrition to JO and my memebership in the Agudah after the big demonstration for Israel that they refused to partake in."
I don't know if that is fair. The Moetzes got into a very heated debate over this, which is why the Agudah did not take any position. But I'm pretty sure that R. Shimshi Sherer's shul had busses go to the rally!
Nisson Wolpin spent a Shabbos at NIRC the year after that hesped appeared. I walked up to him as he was standing next to one of the RaMim and asked him about the hesped. He replied, "The views expressed are not regretted. The hurt feelings are regretted." I wanted to pursue the conversation but the rebbe then said, "On that note, have a gut Shabbos" and wisked him away, wishing to avoid a confrontation. (It wouldn't have gotten ugly. I barely knew anything about RYBS at the time.)
BTW, one of the things the JO fixed was their use of the 'Zatzal' moniker, which was added to their header over the hesped of the Lubavitcher rebbe the following year. I know they were doing teshuva because the Aguda's view of Chabad was far more negative than their view of RYBS.
>"The views expressed are not regretted. The hurt feelings are regretted."
That's certainly interesting--and fair. People are entitled to their point of view, just as people are entitled to criticize it.
You've got to publish R. Moshe Tendler's attack on the JO. It has got to be seen to be believed.
You might also want to publish the Allgemeiner article by some rabbi explaining why the haredim boycotted the funeral (and defending the boycott) and R. Ahron Soloveitchik's strong response to this rabbi.
I've got his response, I can publish it. I might.
To tell you the trueh, this story shouldn't become about R. Tendler given how he is hated and attacked these days. The words here speak for themselves.
I don't have the Allgemeiner article or R. Aharon Soloveitchik's response.
Sometimes it is just better to say NOTHING.
I have R' Ahron's response. It's two full pages in tiny print, dwelling especially on Maskilim and secular Hebrew poets.
This obit also led many people attacking the Rav to assume that division of personality of The Lonely Man of Faith was somehow religious/secular, completely missing the point.
Lakewood Guy, they can admit it, instead of claiming to be the sole voice of Orthodoxy. Shalom al Yisrael.
>I don't know if that is fair. The Moetzes got into a very heated debate over this, which is why the Agudah did not take any position. But I'm pretty sure that R. Shimshi Sherer's shul had busses go to the rally!
If the Moetzes needed to argue about it I don't want to have anything to do with them. This was jusr the straw that broke the camel's back. Everytime i read it I felt angry with frum Jews so why keep on getting it. In my mind it is close to Sifrei Minim.
Re Rabbii Sherer you are right i know Mispalelim came I even think he was there although I am not sure as we went with the kingsway bus.
>>However, the observation that the Rav's "passing leaves a vacuum in the specific role that he in effect created" is both elegantly phrased and absolutely correct. Certainly, the succeeding years have borne out that the Rav was sui generis and irreplacable.
It is true that the Rav was irreplaceable, but the JO sentence is false. Society created the role, the Rav didn’t. The Rav could very well have opened a small yeshiva somewhere and taught to the best and brightest (e.g. look at Brisk, Yerushalayim) dedicated full time to limud haTorah. Instead, he showed that the college educated young man of the 50s, 60s, and 70s, could also be a yeshiva bachur without sacrificing his professional and secular interests. I believe in one of R’ Rakkefet’s books he records the Rav remarking how before he came to Boston there was a minority of people who had even heard of Abaye and Rava, and now there are young men learning Ktzos and R’ Chaim. The reader is given no appreciation of the transformative role the Rav played.
>The reader is given no appreciation of the transformative role the Rav played.
Well said. That's because in the JO worldview the opposite is the case: young men learn Ktzos in American because of leaders like R. Aharon Kotler. If young men don't know who Abbaye and Rava are its because of the world which RYBS ministered and tolerated.
Perhaps JO/Agudah saw RJBS as someone who turned his back on them (he began as an Agudah member).
The final sentence of the obit was one of its worst, actually.
What specific role? There is no mention of this role, or its merits or detractions in the article.
It is a totally meaningless, emotionless, conclusion.
can someone link to rav tendlers letter?
Dp, here is the letter:
http://s62.yousendit.com/d.aspx?
...5S0INFXWPYYGN34
This Tendler guy writes like a maniac.
That reaction is exactly why this post didn't include his letter.
I posted the NY Times obit for R YBS. See for yourself who did the better job.
This Tendler guy writes like a maniac.
tzvee | Homepage | 05.09.06 - 5:38 pm |
That Should be RABBI Tendler wrote an incisive and unambiguus defence of the honour of the RAV.
I doubt the Rav would have been insulted by the JO obit. He was not a Brooklyn Agudah Gadol, nor would he think that appelation was a compliment. In fact I think he would have rejected the title. [I can imagine him saying something like, "Am I a gadol? Every rosh yeshivah in Brooklyn is a gadol these days."]
Except for the omission of "Dr." the JO obit seems accurate enough to me. A litvish gaon does not want gushing boilerplate praise a la Artscroll. I don't know what got into Tendler. He was way off the deep end on this one.
BTW a friend asked me today what I thought would have been the difference if the Rav had gone to Israel to become chief rabbi in the 30s instead of coming to the US?
Now, working that thought question out is a good way to assess his impact on American Orthodoxy.
Rabbi Tendler, son-in-law of Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT"L, write a sharp critic of Wolpin's insulting obituary of Rav Solovitchik ZT"L. While his langauge is sharp and strident, he uses terminology that his intended target will hear loud and clear. There is nothing manic about it
And the maniac publishes this meshuggenah message in the newspaper?
This is not a Torah tone, nor is it a valiant defense. The letter is filled with uncouth accusations such as calling the obit an:
"Irremediable sin of major magnitude"
"degradation of Torah"
"snide remark"
"The evil in Wolpin's heart"
"unconscionable, perverted interpretation"
"How cheap can you get?"
"the truncated perversion that others have substituted"
And why stir this up now to begin with?
I find it astounding that an event that is over 10 years old can generate the passion and reactions it did. FWIW plenty of mainstream Agudanicks such as myself were mortified at the lack of derech eretz demonstrated in the hesped.
Tzvee,
Those comments are contexual, and right on the mark. RABBI Tendler was, somewhat stridently, highlighting that JO obituary of the Rav was noteably and tellingly an insult on the Kavod and memory of Rav Solivitchik. Further that Wolpin had commited a grevious chet in writing this piece. He was absolutly using langauge that the JO, Agudah and Wolpin would hear and understand. Hyperbaly, yes, but hyperbaly they speak and understand.
IMHO opinion, I don't see what the big deal is here - with the egregious exception of the missing 'Tzadik'. Are we expecting an Agudah organ to view RYBS as we do? Let's be realistic in our criticisms and lets give up on our little fantasy that one day the Aguda world is going to 'make nice' to the MO world and embrace 'Eilu v'Eilu'. When it happens, Moshiach will be here.
p.s. The Washington rally and Aguda's 'no opinion' was my back breaking straw as well in my relationship with the RW Yeshiva world. But I still can't get myself to cancel my Aguda membership, so I still have membership in all the groups: Aguda, OU, RZA. I have trouble cutting off my nose to spite my face, no matter how nasty my face acts up, v'hameivin yavin :)
thanks!
did RMT sit in the Rav's shiur?
IF so, how many years?
ID love to see RAS response also...
do we have it?
Reading Rabbi Tendler's letter after all these years, and after the above discussion: It was spot on. He hammered the JO, and well. I disagree with Tzvee above. Nothing manic about it; just some hard-hitting talk. Too "sharf"? Wasn't sharf enough.
why not write a obit for wolpin
>I find it astounding that an event that is over 10 years old can generate the passion and reactions it did.
The reaction is not about the piece per se, but also about what it represents. As such, the piece is merely symbolic.
>why not write a obit for wolpin
Now, now. Behave.
Some rosters are missing the "elegant" but subtle point made in the last paragraph. It is not merely that RYBS was sui generis, but that the derech he propounded can only be led by a person with the ability to possess the dichotomy that he was able to embody.
To this date, there is not one of his Talmidim in the United Statates who can even come close to being called a Godol in both Torah and Madda.
Is that a criticism on his philosophy as a whole? Perhaps.
Lakewooder
Tzvee is absolutely correct. I am very impressed with his intelligence and impartiality.
Well said. That's because in the JO worldview the opposite is the case: young men learn Ktzos in American because of leaders like R. Aharon Kotler. If young men don't know who Abbaye and Rava are its because of the world which RYBS ministered and tolerated.
. . .And, S, they are more right than wrong.
>. . .And, S, they are more right than wrong.
That's your opinion. I disagree.
The "obit"/"hesped" was a hatchet job. After it appeared in the JO, I called R Wolpin and asked him about the circumstances and authorship of this article was clearly a "shtuch" of a Gadol HaDor. He advised me that the article was written by committee. Since the article had to pass the muster of the MOetzes, I have to believe that the article was approved by the most vocally anti YU/RIETS abd RYBS members of the Moetzes and their apparatchiks at Agudah and the JO. Take a guess whose these people were. After this article appeared, I let my subscription expire. I have noticed some improvement in the issues tackled by the JO and I will buy those issues at a seforim store, but it still is too way reflexively and triumphalistically charedi for my taste and still acting as if Agudah is responsible for all Torah extant in the USA. I don't see myself re-subscribing in the near future for those reasons, especially when I can voice my displeasure with articles to R A Shafran.
R Tendler's article was mild compared to that of R M Genack and RAS. Both of their letters condemned a certain article in the Algemeiner Journal in no uncertain terms and that was written with no appreciation of the Gadlus of RYBS.
Someone mentioned that none of RYBS's talmidim combined TuM. RYBS himself never insisted that his talmidim muvhakim embody TuM. More fundamentally, noone could have embodied all of RYBS's full Mesorah because that is the difference between a rebbe and a talmid-the rebbe never passes on his complete Mesorah. In the case of RYBS, different people picked up different aspects-RAL, RHS and R M Genack received the Torah. R D D Shatz and R D D Berger recieved the hashkafa and intellectual honesty.
Steve, is there any way we can get a copy or scan or link to RAS or Rabbi Genack's letters?
thanks,
RYBS was the leader of the US Mizrachi. You REALLY expect the offical voice of the Agudah to write about him like they would about one of their own Agudist gedolim??
Had RYBS not been an einikel of Ren Chaim Brisker, they would probably not have eulogised him at all.
yea! fred- any way to track down R' Genacks letter?
Only if someone sends it to me.
Can you provide a working link to the R. Tendler letter?
Thanks.
David,
http://masliah.googlepages.com/R....com/
RYBSJO.bmp
Thanks.
I'm having trouble reading it.
Any suggestions?
Also, any links to any of the other responses to the article?
Thanks.
You can't make the image larger? Are you viewing it in a web browser?
Sorry, that's the only thing I've got.
Problem is that it's too large.
When I print it, I can only get the first paragraph.
Whatever it's worth, "zikhrono livrakhah" means the same thing as "zeikher tzadiq livrakhah". The pasuq doesn't talk about anyone else's memory being a blessing. No, I don't think their intent was the same, as the tenor of the whole eulogy didn't have the hagiographic feel of what they right when it's one of their own rabbanim.
The content itself is a respectful retelling of his accomplishments, including admitting that there was once a day when MO and Agudah were the same camp (despite the usual rewriting of history by their friends at ArtScroll). Respectful, but not claiming to be a follower.
So what's the problem, that they show respect to their own rebbeim that they don't show someone else's?
The only insult there was in people's need to go over it with a fine tooth comb looking for how the "right wing rejects us once again".
-mi
Limaiseh, nobody expects any better from an Agudah publication. But they shouldn't have written anything at all, rather than have written this. Yofeh shtikah, etc.
I would say it's all in the past, but in the Jewish world we never forget anything.
>>I just posted on Hirhurim about this issue, but at least the JO printed something. Just remember Rav Gifter, Rav Avigdor Miller, and Rav Chaim Dov Keller all attend YU.
ANd they let EVERYONE know what they think of the Yeshiva. Second, they were there before Torah u'Madah took over.
Well said. That's because in the JO worldview the opposite is the case: young men learn Ktzos in American because of leaders like R. Aharon Kotler. If young men don't know who Abbaye and Rava are its because of the world which RYBS ministered and tolerated.
>> And they are one thousand percent correct. Every honest YU boy know that. Real learners leave YU.
>>The "obit"/"hesped" was a hatchet job. After it appeared in the JO, I called R Wolpin and asked him about the circumstances and authorship of this article was clearly a "shtuch" of a Gadol HaDor.
He was not a Gadol HaDor. He was the Gadol for modern Jews, many of which pervert his views to justify their unJewish existence. As a learner, though, yes--he was up there with the very biggest lamdonim, no doubt about it. But as a mashpia? To whom? for what? I know this is probably very offensive to you, but think about it, you don't consider Charedim gedolim to be YOUR gedolim, why should Rav Wolpni, shlit"a be any different? Because he hurt your feelings by stating his opinion?
One last thing: Rabbi Tendler is wrong on several levels. Aside from the fact that he writes like a lunatic, I doubt he is correct about being the greatest marbitz torah of the dor. His contemporaries, including Rabbi Chaim Shmuelevitz and Rabbi Shmuel Rozovsky, had more talmidim both b'peh and b'ksav. And I don't think the best learners were in YU> As someone who was once there and then moved on to a more Charedi lifestyle, I can attest, there is a world of a difference.
Open the R Tendler letter in MS picture viewer. You can scroll around then.
There was a better hesped in the Yated Neeman on both R. Y.B. Solovetichik and the Lubavitcher Rebbe. The hespedim were generous with their praises while pointing out the differences in their hashkafas with the Chareidim.
The Yated may be harsh on the living but at least shows respect for those that have passed on.
>>The rav, and i am not a talmid, was the Gaon hador and put to shame all the others because his Torah was integrated with hashkafah. Show one other Gaon who had that ability and if he did dared present it in a clear and cogent fashion. It is a bunch of fleas bothering a giant.
You obviously know nothing about his contemporaries. You bought into the MO kool aid.
I ate in Rabbi Wolpin's house the Shabbos after the CrownHights riots and I was flabbergasted by the lack of empathy that I could feel and hear from many of those at the the table.
It was indeed a shameful moment.
As far as the generous treatment about the lubavitcher rebbe, I always find it funny that he is for some reason regarded as a gaon on the caliber of RYBS. He created many rifts in klal yisroel, was not the greatest scholar in chabad, and had nothing to do with the rest of charedi jewry.
Commenting by HaloScan
