Letters

Dear Sir:

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein's critical reaction to my account of "Yeshiva in the Sixties" warrants a response because it illuminates what happened at Yeshiva in the interim. His tone expresses his feelings that I sought to attack or embarrass him and to coopt him to my religious-educational positions. I did not want to do that. Then and now, I consider him a leader and an avatar of Modern Orthodoxy at its best - although I differ with certain of his policy judgments, which, I think, have resulted in Modern Orthodoxy losing some ground. There also were and are substantial ideological differences between us. Still, I always felt that this was a matter of elu ve'elu. Certainly, I acknowledge he was no member of any clique of 'newcomers,' let alone 'semi-revolutionaries.' Nor did I intend to claim that we were close social friends. I actually wrote: "...we (husbands and wives) got together for 'salons' to develop our thoughts on modern Orthodox issues" (no semi-revolutions there). To the extent that I failed to distinguish clearly to the reader between what were my views of improving the Yeshiva and his differing views, I apologize. Obviously, he was offended by my unintended lumping of the two of us together, but I did not want to 'homogenize' our views. Personally, I am committed to and uphold these differences.

I believe that a primary reason that Yeshiva College had a spiritually exciting and intellectually stimulating atmosphere in the 60s was that the members of the Y.U. community did have a variety of opinions and they freely spoke, argued and debated them. There were outstanding and respectful debates between the right, left and center of Modern Orthodoxy, and the atmosphere was one of kinat sofrim tarbeh chochmah. The students benefited the most from the interchange but the outside community also was stimulated.

Nothing has so enervated the capacity of Yeshiva during the past two decades to instruct and nurture the general Jewish and Modern Orthodox communities as the shutting down of this machloket l'shem shamayim. I believe that spiritual stagnation and deadening of inquiry is the result of denying or delegitimating differences rather than clarifying and growing from them. In this atmosphere even Rabbi Lamm had to struggle to uphold his views in the Yeshiva. This delegitimation is truly the violation the Gemara describes as the cause of the plague that decimated Rabbi Akiva's students, i.e., mipnay shehlo nahagu kavod zeh lazeh (Yevamos 62b).

In my recent Commentator article, I described how in the atmosphere of the 60s a number of us - including Rav Aharon - joined and learned with Conservative and Reform rabbis over a number of years - to our mutual benefit. Although we differed substantially in our views and our tactics, we even celebrated a clal yisrael gerut together. R. Aharon's recent reaction reveals that he was much more uncomfortable and ambivalent then (more than I realized then) and that he was more distanced from that group. I missed this because I was personally transformed by encounter with the group, as were so many of the other participants. I continue to believe that there is nothing to be ashamed of in that collective behavior in that time of greater achdut in clal yisrael- even if the moment passed. Therefore in my recent Commentator article I did not think to veil the fact that once some of us from Y.U. and other orthodox institutions experimented or worked with non-Orthodox rabbis or tried to engage in tikkun olam.

Just as I was shaped by that clal yisrael encounter in the 1960s and on, so was I transformed by confrontation with the Holocaust, from then until now. The Gemara states that Jeremiah and Daniel refused to repeat the words of Moshe Rabbeynu "ha-kayl, hagadol, hagibor vehanora" (Devarim 10, 17) with meaning unchanged, because after the Churban repeating the same old words and meaning would be a 'lie.' "Hakadosh boruch hu ameetee hu, v'lo kizvu bo" (Yoma 69b). Not until the Anshei Knesset Hagedolah reinterpreted these words, i.e., reinterpreted the scope and nature of Hashem's intervention in the world, did they restore Hashem's crown and make these words central to our central prayer, the Amidah (ibid.). The desire to praise and speak truthfully to Hashem in the light of the new and greater Churban of our time is the nub of my attempt at a theology after the Shoah. R. Aharon disagrees with my theological interpretations. Unfortunately, at Yeshiva, under the more right-wing style influence of the past two decades, my views are dealt with by exclusion and suppression rather than by reasoned debate - to the detriment, I believe, of both sides. But here is not the place to expound my views on the Holocaust and halachah further.

This brings me to the current interchange between us. Summarizing our exchange in the 1966 Commentator, I wrote that I was disappointed that R. Aharon ignored my argument for Orthodoxy's self-criticism and self-questioning as well my calls for its need to be more forthcoming to clal yisrael's views in its response to the Shoah and Israel reborn. I regretted that he was silent in the face of my delegitimation and dismissed as "a nice nineteenth century notion" the argument that intellectual/spiritual space - even for errors - was needed for exploration of the challenges of modernity. I should add that I never believed that R. Aharon was recruited or joined in any cabal when he differed with me in 1966. I do not believe there was any cabal in the 1960s and truly regret using the phrase that "The opposition found the only other person at Yeshiva who had the credibility to "refute" my views." I meant to say that R. Aharon's article served the purposes of those who opposed my views because he was credible as being both fully modern and orthodox.

In his recent response, R. Aharon argues that low tolerances for religious exploration preserve Orthodoxy. I believe that when the limits are too tight, in the resultant climate of opinion, fresh new thinkers in Modern Orthodoxy are constrained and are not free to articulate approaches that effectively deal with new issues such as in theology or historical-critical studies or feminism, etc. - because they risk being delegitimated. When a variety of responses are not developed and Orthodoxy appears to be not listening or incapable of responding, we lose credibility and we lose people.

R. Aharon has every right to remain true to his own principles, but he has not yet drawn the lessons of these two decades. The failure to defend the philosophical need to explore the full range of issues and approaches has had a chilling effect on religious seeking and honest conversation about problems in the community. This encouraged a turn toward following authority and learning without asking questions. One outcome is a generation of lomdim and talmidim in which many master halachic details but are not trained to grasp religious principles. Often, they are hobbled in wrestling with the large and serious religious questions of our time. Unlike Hashem, they are often uncomfortable or unwilling to live in the midst of bnai yisrael, even "b'toch tumatam." Unable to deal fully with spiritual challenges, the community moved toward protecting its religious judgments by valorizing conformity and censorship. It grew more insular. The balance of bayn adam lamakom and bayn adam lachaveyro was lost - yet people fear to speak out. As a result, Modern Orthodoxy lost out in the open society; people slip into secularism or assimilation on the left or shift towards haredism on the right. Rav Aharon did not want these outcomes but I think that he might have checked them by defending the need for a wider range of religious thinking and debate.

This brings me to my personal experience of delegitimation. R. Aharon describes the account of my encounter with the Rav during the 1960s controversy as a "ploy...[designed to] abduct a giant" to my side. The point of that story was not about me but what it showed about the Rav and his feelings about the atmosphere growing at Yeshiva being generated by some of his talmidim. The Rav was unhappy with the trend toward (what Heschel called) pan-halachism, viz., learning and observance not suffused with ruach and ethics. Whatever his differences with my views, he refused to denounce them in public because he respected them and did not want them to be delegitimated.

R. Aharon feels that I presented myself tendentiously as a "profile in courage" and "as suffering the status of a persecuted nirdaf." I never felt that way about my place at Yeshiva in the 60s. The point of my relating that the original interview was published without my advance knowledge was to impart that although I take full responsibility for these words now, I actually stumbled into that controversy, and, far from acting nobly, reacted with confusion and uncertainty. As I wrote "I disingenuously tried to soften and minimize the implications of my words." Since then, with my work on the Shoah and pluralism, the situation has become more polarized. I will only say that as I came to grasp more firmly the enormity of the Shoah and the amazing blessing/challenge of freedom, I have managed to continue to explore without yielding or giving in to my fears of exclusion.

In general, the approach of exclusion is a mistake. Given the lessons of Jewish history in which breakthroughs (such as Hasidism, Maimonidean approaches, Mussar and Zionism, etc.) were hounded by delegitimation - plus the experience of modern culture which has shown that deeper and more powerful ideas emerge out of a freer exchange - Modern Orthodoxy should not have gone this route.

Since anger and caricature are not R. Aharon's usual style, obviously my words must have hurt him. I regret this. I also regret having to enter into this exchange because, to me, Rav Aharon remains one of our best leaders. However, on his watch at YU, the cause of Torah u-Madda went into exile in its own home. The Jewish people, which needs Torah teachings that speak credibly inside Jewry's real life situation, is the poorer for it. Now, along with many others, I have real hopes for a renaissance of Modern Orthodoxy at Yeshiva. Rav Aharon as a leader in Modern Orthodoxy and as talmid muvhak and continuer of the Rav's teachings should take the lead in undoing the recent constriction of weltanschauung and in turning with outstretched hand and spirit to all of clal yisrael.

Sincerely, (Rabbi) Irving Greenberg Riverdale, New York

Postscript: Rav Aharon writes that my reference to igniting Emil Fackenheim was "simply preposterous." Again, the true point of this reference was that open, respectful spiritual interaction between Orthodox and non-Orthodox was constructive for both. For Fackenheim, encounter with the Shoah was seminal; for me, it was the Reform theologians' emphasis on covenant that brought me to focus fruitfully on this central aspect of halachic thinking.

But since I must defend the record: until 1965, Emil Fackenheim was a leading religious existentialist thinker who believed that religion was unaffected by history or historical events. After two years in the Canadian group he was transformed in his thinking. In his first book on Holocaust theology, he wrote of the "incalculable inspiration" he received from the group.

In his opening major work in Holocaust theology, called "God's Presence in History," he acknowledged this sea change and articulated his new view that Judaism was shaped by epoch making events. The paper that I read in the group's first year was entitled "God's Acts in History"; it deals with the Shoah and reborn Israel as orienting events shaping our religious understanding much as the Exodus and the Churban did in earlier eras of Jewish tradition. In the preface of "God's Presence", Fackenheim wrote: "...I owe a fundamental debt to Irving Greenberg's concept of 'orienting experience': his stubbornly historical thinking has liberated me from some false philosophical abstractions"(ibid. p. v).

Dear Sir:

I have read Rabbi Dr. Irving Greenberg's "Yeshiva in the Sixties" (3/29/05) and Rabbi Dr. Aharon Lichtenstein's reply (4/18/05). I shall limit myself mostly to the correction of some of the factual errors in Dr. Greenberg's piece, in their order of appearance.

1. Dr. Greenberg writes regarding the fire in the library of JTS in 1966: "We organized YC students to go to 3080 Broadway and help; they saved thousands of books. The statement of friendship and areyvut crossing denominational lines was inspiring."

Neither Dr. Greenberg nor any other professor or rabbi or administrator at YU organized this effort, though many later joined in. The effort to save these books was student-initiated, specifically, by me and a friend. We methodically went to each and every dorm room, floor by floor, in each dorm, to convince fellow students to save these books. This took several hours. We convinced hundreds of students to take the subway down to JTS and to spend the night there saving the books.

This is not the forum for a complete review of this episode, which I have only summarized. Two points remain germane:

a) The one element of opposition was from a considerable minority of students who wondered whether it was right for Orthodox students to be saving books at a Conservative seminary. After a failed attempt to reach Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, my friend and I sought and received a late night appointment with Dr. Belkin, who advised us to consult Prof. Saul Lieberman and to ask him whether, in his judgment, there existed a hiyyuv for Yeshiva students to save JTS' books. This led to a midnight meeting with Prof. Lieberman at JTS. He told us yes, there is hiyyuv. He wrote a letter for Dr. Belkin, and sealed it. We went back to Dr. Belkin. He read the letter, accepted the decision, and told us it was fine to have Yeshiva boys go to the JTS to save its books. This led us back to our mimeograph machines, and to a wee-hours posting of Prof. Lieberman's decision, and of Dr. Belkin's acceptance of it, throughout the Yeshiva dorms. (Somewhere, I still have a tattered, torn copy of this one page poster.)

This led to considerable consternation among the Yeshiva administration, and to denials that Dr. Belkin had said that which, in fact, he had told us. In the middle of the night, officials at the YU public relations department were aroused from slumber by dorm officials, lest, they feared, The New York Times be informed that Dr. Belkin had accepted a psak from Prof. Lieberman of JTS. Further, as the night wore on, it became clear that the status of me and my friend at Yeshiva was in jeopardy, for, in the eyes of the administration, we had besmirched YU.

Thus, when Dr. Greenberg writes, "the statement of friendship and areyvut crossing denominational lines was inspiring," he grossly oversimplifies a complicated and delicate effort, betrays his ignorance of much of the organizing dynamic (since, after all, he not a party to it), and puts a retroactive, revisionist-history spin on a 1966 event to accord with his current, pluralistic agenda.

For the record, my friend and I believed -- and Dr. Belkin agreed -- that the books should be saved because they were holy sefarim; their loss should not be tolerated because they were owned by a Conservative institution. That may qualify as "friendship," but it is not "crossing denominational lines." If Dr. Greenberg now (or then) wishes to see it that way, that is his right; but it inaccurate to impute his perspective to me or my friend in our extensive conversations with hundreds of fellow students. We were saving sefarim, not engaging in pluralism.

b) One of the most beautiful moments of my life occurred 24 hours after the all night, book-saving session at JTS. Having come out of hiding, we went to classes. The word was out that our wee-hours poster was grounds for our ouster from YU. Rabbi Moshe Besdin called us in, looked us straight in the eye, and asked, simply, whether everything in that poster true. We said yes. He took our word at face value, sent us back to class, and preserved our right to study Torah. He was prepared to defend the word of two young unknowns against the word of his eminent superiors -- and the issue was never brought up to us again. Rabbi Besdin's integrity is a shining memory of my years at YU.

2. Dr. Greenberg writes, "In 1969, the national anti-war movement called for a demonstration in Washington, D.C. . . . we decided that Yeshiva students should join in the demonstration."

This omits the fact that anti-war demonstrations took place long before 1969. Massive demonstrations took place in Manhattan, some on Shabbos. Some yeshiva students walked miles down to attend, and walked miles back. Dr. Greenberg was not an open, early opponent of the war, when this entailed insight, courage, or a reflexive adherence to the left.

3. Dr. Greenberg writes: "In 1966, I sat in my office for hours talking with a student about my thinking on Modern Orthodox issues. I spoke unguardedly with an open heart because he was a seeker. The student never told me that he was writing up the conversation with intent to publish. Actually, the interview appeared in The Commentator without being reviewed or vetted by me. This was highly improper behavior. . . . I would have spoken more restrainedly, had I known the views were to be published. ... In my written response to the furor, I disingenuously tried to soften and minimize the implications of my words -- which convinced no one."

Dr. Greenberg now owns up to having been disingenuous about part of the episode. This calls into question his current version of the other parts of the episode; and, in fact, he should also own up to the following facts:

a. The student, the author of the interview, was me.

b. There was no single "conversation" in his "office." Rather, there were many conversations extending over many months, in his office, his home, and even in the stairwells of Yeshiva buildings, beginning shortly after I came to Yeshiva in fall, 1965. I was enamored with Dr. Greenberg's thinking, and shortly after our first out-of-class conversations, I proposed to him that I do an interview with him for The Commentator, so that his view would become more widely known. He readily agreed. From then on -- over the course of several months -- the focus of our conversations was to come up with an interview for publication.

c. Many, many times, when I submitted to him my proposed interview, he maintained that I had not gotten to the bottom of his thinking, and he rejected or revised the text. I wanted to get his thinking right; I thought it was important. So I rewrote and rewrote, after his critique of each draft. Gradually, slowly, in draft after draft, I put into form a text that he found acceptable. What was happening was this: In part, I was becoming more attuned to his thinking; in part, he was reformulating his thinking in response to my drafts. That is, often I actually had taken down his words accurately, but when he saw them the in the cold print of a draft, he realized that he did not believe, at least fully, what he own words conveyed. So he would take another stab, express a more refined version of his thinking, and I would record that. And so it went, draft after draft.

d. Before the submission of the final draft to The Commentator, he reviewed and approved it in its entirety. I agree with Rav Lichtenstein: Let interested readers go back and read the originals for themselves. They may rest assured that the original interview was seen and approved in advance by Dr. Greenberg -- in fact, was carefully crafted over a period of months, under his supervision, to get his views down accurately.

e. I did not ask Rav Lichtenstein or anyone else to respond to the interview with Dr. Greenberg.

f. Dr. Greenberg writes of Rav Lichtenstein's response: "Only highly trained, sophisticated readers (which the Yeshiva students and teachers mostly were not)..." This profoundly patronizing characterization is contradicted by Dr. Greenberg himself when he writes, "YC's glory was the quality of its students. I loved teaching such bright, hard-working, idealistic and highly absorbent students. In every class, there were a disproportionate number of brilliant students who could have been stars in the Ivy League..."

The fact is that Dr. Greenberg's interview was read, absorbed, understood, critiqued and widely rejected because one of his guiding principles in the interview was that it was possible, in thinking, to be Orthodox and non-Orthodox, and accepting of and rejecting of halakha, at the same time. Rather than straightforwardly and proudly defend what he said, or change his mind, he devised all manner of lame defenses: vigorous debate is a good thing, just not this one; or, he was tricked by the interviewer; or, he was speaking to unsophisticates; or, he was subject to a conspirational cabal that brought forth the critique of Rav Lichtenstein (which really wasn't a critique, but only a few could figure that out); or, the onus lie on his critics for not calling him first to verify his published statements because, if they were in print and controversial, the reporter certainly got it wrong; or, now, most startling of all, the reporter didn't get it wrong, but he was unguarded and then disingenuous.

(Rabbi) Hillel Goldberg, YC '69 Denver, Colorado

Rabbi Greenberg responds:

Dear Sir:

With reference to Rabbi Hillel Goldberg's letter: 1a. [using his numbers] In my piece "Yeshiva in the Sixties" I did not claim that I personally was in charge of everything done in the 1960s, or even of the selected activities mentioned. I certainly have no desire to belittle his or anyone else's role in the various activities I described. My use of the term "we" included many people in addition to myself. Along with many other students and faculty I personally promoted and participated in the JTS rescue and the Washington weekend. I wrote that the JTS sefarim rescue was a case of "friendship and areyvut crossing denominational lines," which it was. I did not use the term pluralism because I was trying to describe the situation in the 60s - not the positions I came to in the 70s and after.

3a. I did not mention Hillel Goldberg's name as the author of my interview because I was trying to avoid personal attacks. 3b. Hillel correctly reports we had many extended conversations in many settings, not only my office. As I indicated, I trusted him as a seeker and as a precious talmid at that time.

3c., d. Some or all of his transcriptions of the conversations were reviewed by me - although the details of that particular process are somewhat hazy 40 years later. What I do remember clearly is exactly what I wrote in Commentator recently: "The student never told me that he was writing the conversations with intent to publish" (italics supplied). What I do remember clearly is the sense of shock I felt when the article appeared in print, because he had not cleared publication with me. I confess that at the time, I did not impute to him any ill will in publishing without my permission but chalked it up to his inexperience and zeal.

3f. I stand by both statements because both are true. "Yeshiva had a disproportionate number of brilliant students" and "R. Lichtenstein's characteristic style [was] highly complex with subtle distinctions and abstract boundaries" so the areas of agreement between us were obscured by the criticisms.

4. I regret that I must add the following paragraph. Hillel Goldberg was a cherished student of mine as an undergraduate - especially in my classes on Rabbi Israel Salanter and the Mussar Movement. I mentored him, wrote references for him, made other efforts on his behalf, and helped this good student get into graduate school.

Unfortunately, when he was in graduate school he did something, which was an act of intellectual piracy and a betrayal of my trust. By a mere fluke, I discovered and prevented the action. I then asked him how he could have acted this way. Far from apologizing, he justified his behavior with a careerist, self-seeking rationale that further jolted me. I became disillusioned and informed him that I would have no further dealings with him. When he saw that he had gone too far, he then expressed regret. He pursued me for a while, insisting that I must change my mind. As I recall, he even went to a bet din without me to compel me to change my judgment of him - but I could not get myself to trust him again. I came to look back at his publication of my views in Commentator without informing me in a totally different light. Ever since then, Rabbi Goldberg has missed no opportunity to attack me publicly and to savage my name. I have never spoken in public about his behavior because I grieved, and it was the most painful experience I had with a student. Unfortunately, his letter to the editor leaves me no choice but to reveal this minimum.

Sincerely, (Rabbi) Irving Greenberg Riverdale, New York

Student Government

Dear Sir:

Some student leaders feel frustrated by the dearth of candidates for the recent election. The presidents-elect of SOY, YCSA, and SSSBSA all ran unopposed. Some lower positions lacked a candidate on the ballot.

A smaller student government would run more efficiently and would encourage more competitive elections. I see no reason why each class needs three elected officials. A class president and his secretary/treasurer should be able to organize an ice-skating party, a Shabbaton, or any other event.

Let the new student government amend the constitution by eliminating the position of vice president from lower student government. Only SOY and YSU, which run most of the major campus events, need vice presidents. For everyone else, the vice presidency dilutes the quality of student government and provides a lame opportunity for renegade candidates to pad their resumes.

Yale Robinson YC '07

Thank You

Dear Sir:

Now that the YUdaica section is publishing its final set of articles, we have read about virtually every category of person associated with our beloved alma mater, except for one - the editor of this YUdaica section. I have never seen a professional editor work with as much dedication, determination, passion, and energy, as your student editor, Menachem Butler. I respectfully believe that I am in a unique position to comment about his work in this capacity for 2 primary reasons: 1) I co-authored a style manual at a major publishing house, intended to guide fellow attorney editors in the art of editing, and 2) my article on Harry Fischel and Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, published in the most recent issue of YUdaica, probably benefited from more of Mr. Butler's input than any of my other articles benefited from the input of any other editor (most of whom are or were professionals with graduate and/or rabbinic degrees), including editors at a wide range of periodicals, from The National Law Journal, to TRADITION!

On the other hand, I must make an important caveat on his behalf, to wit, that it is clear to me that he did not convert my article into one in his own image or completely palatable to his personal taste; he clearly would have written it differently had he been the one to deal with the subjects I covered. At the same time, he labored with endless patience and an open mind, as I will now illustrate. I happen to be a perpetual editor of anything I write, never stopping even after a piece has been published, as will be evident in this letter if it will be published in its entirety - or even if only in its essence. After I wrote to Mr. Butler that I was completely satisfied with what we both presumably thought would be the final draft, I sent him another draft, both drafts having been finalized simultaneously. Although he berated me, with justification, for sending him another draft after I had expressed complete satisfaction with a prior draft, he nevertheless read my alternative draft and adopted many of its proposed revisions and inserts (while leaving out many of my other proposed revisions and inserts). Only an editor truly interested in producing the best that can possibly be published, subject to the limitations and idiosyncracies of the individual submitters, would have bothered to read that last proposed draft at all, let alone with an open mind.

One objective correction that inadvertently was not reflected in the final draft of the article on the late Harry Fischel and Rabbi Goldstein should please be noted for the record, whether or not you choose to publish the rest of what I wrote, above, in whole or in part. The Harry Fischel Graduate School of Higher Jewish Studies has been redesignated the Harry Fischel Summer Program of the Bernard Revel Graduate School of Higher Jewish Studies.

Thank you for giving credit where credit is due, to Mr. Butler, and for issuing the indicated correction, for the record.

Rabbi Aaron I. Reichel, Esq. YUHS '67, YC '71, BRGS '74, RIETS '75

Turn-it Away

Dear Sir:

In last issue's article entitled "Yeshiva Turns to Turnitin.com," students learned of a new weapon in the University's campaign to raise academic standards: requiring that certain papers and essays submit to an electronic detection system designed to spot plagiarism. It brings to the fore what should be an important issue for the Yeshiva student body. A new policy affecting the hard work and energy we spend creating effective writing and delivery of research is in the process of being implemented; why is it only now that this is made public? What exactly is this task force working on bringing Turnitin® to Yeshiva University and what were the grounds for their decision?

Plagiarism is an important issue and one that deserves attention and solutions. But where is the information demonstrating the need for these drastic measures at YC? I'm not claiming that this form of cheating doesn't exist, and neither am I implying that it does, but isn't this exactly the data students should be receiving?

The new plagiarism software this "Academic Integrity Force" - the black-ops branch of YC- is initiating, with the services of iParadigms LLC, raises a number of concerns for students and faculty alike. Standards for use, including when and how the software must be utilized, how decisions on "originality reports" will be reached and by whom, how grades will be protected from undeserved penalty following a review, and what recourse students have to appeal decisions must be standardized with the participation of a wider set of students and faculty than simply this secretive "force"

Apart from the above points, this proposal raises some crucial questions for the student body. Where is the transparency in the administration's decisions which affect us so intimately? Where are our "student leaders" in this whole affair? From the recent flurry of petitioning on campus one could be excused for thinking that maybe one of the many councils, boards, and senates would involve themselves in the decisions surrounding such a key innovation.

There are many methods to combat plagiarism that may be of even greater value for academic standards than this Orwellian project. Instead of utilizing a new, intricate system which is sure to have its share of kinks, equaling headaches for pressured students, faculty should focus on modern pedagogical techniques to address this concern. Basing assignments on class discussion, updating syllabi from year-to-year, requiring drafts and peer assessments are just some of the ways to fight this battle, and will include a rich payoff when students graduate with writing skills they deserve.

Marc Hans YC '07

Opening the Rav's Mailbox

Dear Sir:

One of the more interesting and simultaneously disturbing aspects of reading letters by authors in response to a book review is the claim by the author that the reviewer failed to read the book, or acknowledge the author's literary tradition, or display any knowledge of the subject matter that was under review. Unfortunately, the above referenced review contained all of the above criteria in its review of "Community, Covenant and Commitment."

In my opinion, the review suffered from a lack of complete perspective. For those of us living in the Torah communities of today or whose residence is the YU campus, the issues of the 1950s and 1960s seem like ancient history. However, as Rav Lichtenstein has pointed out, the stances taken by the Rav on these issues not only saved Orthodoxy, it gave Orthodoxy "intellectual respectability and credibility" ( See Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Man of Halacha, Man of Faith at Page 53). The reviewer complained that the contents focused on communal issues. In fact, the letters in the book addressed every major issue confronted by Rav Solveitchik during the 1950s and 1960s such as interdenominational and ecumenical issues, Jewish education in RIETS, women studying Talmud, mixed seating, Religious Zionism and aspects of Halakha and Hashkafa. It is sufficient for the purposes of this letter to state that the stances of the Rav saved all of Orthodoxy in a clear and articulate manner. The review also raises the issue that we have no formal record of responsa from the Rav. For many reasons, this claim cannot be sustained. First of all, these letters and the public statements and articles such as "Confrontation" were accepted as Psak by the talmidim of the Rav in the RCA and elsewhere. Moreover, this argument ignores the unique fact that the Rav followed the Brisk family tradition of not publishing articles.

Most significantly, the article failed to place the book in question in any context with the sefarim, articles and hespedim that have appeared since 1993. Instead, the review focussed in an irrelevant manner on the genre of sefarim written about gedolim by their Talmidim Muvhakim. While this genre of Torah literature has been in existence for many years, a review of the same in an overly cavalier manner served the reader no constructive purpose. Alas, a review of this book in comparison with the published and oral record of the Rav awaits a reviewer who will be capable of placing a book and its author in this context, instead of raising the often-stated and mistaken claim that the Talmidim Muvhakim of the Rav engaged in revisionism.

Steve Brizel YC,JSS '76, CSL '79 Flushing, New York

So That You Should Know...

Dear Sir:

On Purim morning, 5765, for its second year, Simcha Deliveries, a Yeshiva University student-run program sent 130 students to spread simchat Purim across New York City. Jewish students from colleges all over the city joined the massive YU contingent to sing, dance, and deliver 450 mishloach manot in ten major hospitals and nursing homes. By bringing Purim's festivities to others, bed-ridden and lonely residents were given reason to smile and celebrate.

The event's tremendous success is not only owed to its committed and generous student participants, but to the entire Yeshiva University family. Countless individuals from an array of departments truly went the extra mile to make possible the program.

Bradley Karasik, Assistant Dean of Students, offered both his office and his time, lending invaluable monetary and strategic assistance. His constant encouragement always came with a smile. Levi Mostofsky, of MSDCS, was also very helpful, providing us with guidance and direction.

Hedy Shulman, Peter Ferrara, and other members of the Communications department, as well as Jim Reckert and his team from Production, put aside their extremely busy schedules to help design and produce posters for the program. They were also essential in producing the poems, divrei Torah, and crossword puzzles that were inserted into each of the 450 mishloach manot bags. Most food items were provided by Food Services, whose accommodating managers also arranged a wonderful breakfast for the volunteers on Purim morning.

Jose Melendez, Robert Vallespi, and the rest of the Facilities staff prepared rooms for packaging the mishloach manot and for Purim morning davening, and Zelda Braun arranged transportation for Stern students.

Additionally, Rabbi Goldvicht offered to give one of his inspiring Divrei Torah to the volunteers for the second year in a row. Finally, YSU, SCWSC, SOY, TAC, and the Office of Student Affairs provided us with most of the financial support, without which the event would not have happened.

All of these hardworking individuals, departments, and organizations came together with the students to support us for the best of reasons. We want to convey to you a sense of our deep pride in the Yeshiva University family, in its mission, and in those who sustain it. We wish a sincere kol hakavod to those who supported us and to the students who devoted their Purim to deliver happiness to others. May we grow from strength to strength.

Tirza Bayewitz, SCW '06 Ariel Bayewitz, YC '04 Aliza Fischweicher, SCW '05 Effy Unterman, YC '05 Coordinators, Simcha Deliveries

Thank You Yeshiva

Dear Sir:

I want to thank everyone in the extended YU community for the support they've given me in the past two months. When I put up signs around school that I would be performing, I didn't know what kind of response I would get. The amount of people that showed up to the comedy club, or just came by and asked how it went, reminded me as I graduate why I chose Yeshiva College. That, and I didn't get into Harvard - wink wink. For those who I didn't thank personally, allow me to thank you generally until I see you in a more personal setting.

Zach Abramowitz YC 05