The Words of the Rav and the Words of His Students

A sure sign that a topic is reaching the upper limits of discussion is that it's actually become a cliché to say that said topic is cliché. Such is the state of the ongoing (some would say long exhausted) Torah v. Madda/Yeshiva v. University/Modern v. Orthodox debate. Though I thought fear of redundancy would keep me from commenting on this and other oft-grumbled matters - overpricing at the cafeteria (or, as I've come to call it, "The Golden Caf"), as one example - the recent appearance in print of certain statements by a prominent member of our faculty awakened me to revisit and clarify some important issues.

 Much of the contemporary Torah uMadda question centers around figuring out - and sometimes shaping - the multi-faceted legacy of the Rav (itself the name of an article on this topic), Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik. A simple glance at the ever-expanding Tupac-esque posthumous Rav library will show that the Rav is just as unique and influential in death as he was in life. In light of, and probably due to, this singularity, the Rav has been the subject of what R' Norman Lamm once called "burgeoning revisionisms" attempting to "disguise and distort the Rav's uniqueness by trivializing one or the other aspect of his rich personality and work."

These revisionisms of the Rav (almost the title of yet another article on this topic) take many forms, from strange inferences to outright lies. Some have disingenuously claimed shetika kehodaa (silence implies agreement): the Rav never spoke about or advocated Torah uMadda, so he must not agree with it. The simplest refutation of this argument is the citation of another Talmudic principle: lo tehe shemia gedolah mereiya (actions speak louder than words). The Rav incontrovertibly went to college, chose to come to Yeshiva University, and personally advised many of his students to continue their secular educations. Certain details have been called into question, but these are beside the point. He didn't have to publicly espouse Torah uMadda because he wrote, spoke, and breathed it.

Other students of the Rav have claimed that the Rav in public was very different from the Rav in private conversation, quietly lamenting the sorry state of American Orthodoxy and admitting that his espousal of modernist views was a necessary concession for the times. While I have no way of knowing if this is true or not, and though the Talmud (Bava Batra 32a) allows the testimony of single witnesses to trump rumors, I find this argument both untenable and insulting. To claim that the Rav's entire lifestyle and Weltanschauung (you knew that word was going to show up in this article sooner or later) were a lie is simply unacceptable and frightening, if only for the brazenness of accusing the Rav of leading a life of deception.

The legacy of the Rav was one of the many topics treated in the thoughtful and inspiring interview with Rabbi Dr. Hershel Reichman which appeared in the most recent installment of Kol Hamevaser. To his credit, R' Reichman does not begin with any of this spurious re-writing of the biography of the Rav (another article title. Last time, I promise). He readily admits that the Rav went to college and supported secular studies, specifically sending R' Reichman to get his PhD in operations research. That said, R' Reichman claims that our life choices shouldn't emulate those of his revered teacher:

"The Rav...was a man who was able to teach and to live with paradoxes...What does that mean for someone who wants to say, 'I want to follow the Rav.' Well, the Rav is teaching a paradox. You must learn Torah on such a level that you're completely immersed in it every moment of your waking hours. You have to think about it when you walk, when you eat - even when you're talking to someone, part of your mind is still thinking about the Torah. But he then says that secular knowledge is great, it's all from God, and you can get inspiration there. For normal, everyday people, that's going to take time and mind. You can't do two things at the same time. So the Rav teaches you a paradox...I knew the Rav a little bit, and I can say that from what I saw, his mind could work two tracks at the same time - no doubt about it. Maybe Rav Aharon Lichtenstein has that kind of head and he can do it, too. I, myself, am very limited. I'm a small fry, and I only work one track at a time."

R' Reichman's argument here echoes that of Sarah Rindner, and is strengthened by that of William Kolbrener, both of whom achieved mild celebrity status (at least amongst me and a few of my friends) for challenging R' Lichtenstein's overly idealistic conception of the interplay between Torah and outside values. Rindner wrote a soul-searching piece on these very Commentator pages, detailing how the values and ideas gleaned from her English classes failed to jive with the Torah values she was taught to embrace. Kolbrener, an Orthodox Jew with a PhD in English from Columbia to match R' Lichtenstein's from Harvard, cogently argues that since R' Lichtenstein's days in the university, nishtaneh hateva (things have changed). In the "postmodern academy," the search for the "best that has been thought and said in the world" has been replaced by the "votaries of objectivity" with "the hermeneutics of superstition." These objections, as well as other serious questions, must continue to be raised and dealt with, and I am impressed with R' Reichman's honesty and humility.

 But as R' Reichman continues, the tone of his argument changes and he falls into the same trap as so many of his rabbinic colleagues:

"When the Rav was young, the irreligious Jews were claiming that in order to have a parnasah and be successful, you had to throw away your Judaism. So in those years, when the Rav went to college, there was a huge cultural, social, and intellectual challenge to show that a person could be in university, learn everything they had to offer, and still stay frum. And that's what the Rav did. He went to show that a huge talmid hakham can study everything they have - Hegel, Aristotle, Plato, Neitzche - and still remain a big talmid hakham."

 As such, R' Reichman calls liberal arts education "crazy" and "no longer relevant," labeling its practitioners "dilletantes." As this revisionism burgeoned in front of my eyes, I couldn't help but notice the striking parallels between these words and those of critical academic Talmudists, who likewise attribute the deeds and laws of our Sages not to their wisdom, but their limiting social circumstance. Closer to home, R' Reichman's words mirror the statements of the Be'er Sheva (Rabbi Yissachar Dov ben Yisrael Lezer Parnass Eilenburg, ca. 1550-1623) apologizing for another Torah uMadda great, Maimonides.

R' Eilenburg, bothered by the contradiction between the Talmud's proscription against the study of "outside books" and Maimonides's heavy involvement with such works, writes in his commentary on the Talmud (Sanhedrin 100b) that Maimonides only allowed himself to study these works in order to "know how to respond to heretics." Thus the Be'er Sheva concludes, "he who guards his soul should distance himself [from such works]...for we cannot compare ourselves to Maimonides, who was a great Rabbi and learned the entire Torah."

Many have found these statements problematic, as Maimonides himself explicitly advocates "outside" philosophy, even to the extent of codifying certain philosophical endeavors as halakhic mandates. And just as even the most basic familiarity with the oeuvre and philosophy of Maimonides will show that R' Eilenburg's assumptions ring false, so too my own meager knowledge of the Rav's and R' Lichtenstein's respective worldviews informs me that R' Reichman's evaluation of their Torah uMadda is both misleading and incorrect. They did (and R' Lichtenstein continues to) endorse a Torah uMadda lekhathila, for the many (albeit not everybody) prepared for greater spiritual depth.

In the end of the day, it comes down to yet another simple Talmudic principle: divrei harav vedivrei hatalmid - divrei mi shomin (when confronted by the words of the student and the teacher, isn't it obvious that we follow the teacher)? Do we follow the path laid down by the Rav, or do we follow the hagahot (emendations) of his students? I'd also like to note that this latter approach significantly detracts from the Rav himself: by claiming that the Rav was out of touch and didn't truly understand most people, aren't we also discrediting and calling into question much else of what the Rav said? What other areas did he not truly understand? What other tenets of his worldview can be brushed aside as external masks or b'dieved compromises? You can't simultaneously maintain Rav-infallibility and claim that you know better.

Before I conclude, I'd like to stress that this is in no way an attempt to assassinate R' Reichman's character. Anyone who has read his Reshimot Shiurim can attest that he is a scholar of the first class, and anyone who has experienced his prayer services can attest that he is a hasid in the true meaning of the word. The point I'm trying to make is twofold:

1. Chachamim hizaharu bileshonkhem (wise men, be careful with your words). Why those who disagree with what YU stands for yet nonetheless continue here, thus giving it their tacit imprimatur, is a question that must be taken up with them. But while R' Reichman and his colleagues remain at this institution and not another, more compatible one (R' Reichman himself admits that he "personally, go[es] for the Torah and leave[s] the General Studies for parnasah."), please - I implore - do not destroy it from the inside out. By telling students to only care about their Madda to the extent of landing a good parnasah, the experience is ruined for the rest of us. Gone is an atmosphere of growth and learning; in comes an atmosphere of grade-grubbing and easy-way-out-ism.

2. Nesiim hizaharu bivehiratkhem (presidents, be careful with your selections). I can't complain about the yeshiva faculty's level of Torah scholarship, but that is not the only measure of a Rosh Yeshiva. If when hiring (or firing) a secular professor, personal philosophy sometimes plays a role, how much more should this be true of those to whom so many of our students look for spiritual guidance? While not every Rosh Yeshiva can be or should be R' Aharon Lichtenstein, sympathy towards what YU represents should be an absolute requirement when considering candidates. Otherwise, the paradoxes that R' Reichman eschews will only continue to grow worse. As it is, due to a combination of humrot (hadash, halav yisrael, pat yisrael, beit shehita, and milk from treifot) most of our Rashei Yeshiva will not eat in our cafeteria, even as their students are forced to. Let's make sure they won't boycott in our classrooms as well.

Not that this necessarily indicates anything, but it's been many years since a Rosh Yeshiva with a doctorate in a field outside of Jewish Studies has been appointed. And who was this most recent Torah uMadda addition? Ironically enough, none other than R' Dr. Hershel Reichman.

Julian Horowitz (YC/BRGS '10) is opinions editor for The Commentator