Volume 7 Number 40
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
R. Walter Wurzburger on the Rav
[Anthony Fiorino]
Reb Ahron's Hesped in Chicago
[Yosef Bechhofer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anthony Fiorino <fiorino@...>
Date: Wed, 12 May 93 23:50:22 -0400
Subject: R. Walter Wurzburger on the Rav
There was a yom iyun in memory of the Rav at the Young Israel of Kew
Garden Hills today, sponsored by the Rabbinic Alumni of RIETS and the RCA.
I will try to summarize the speakers as best as possible, with all the
same caveats as the summaries of the sheloshim shiurim at YU. Today, R.
Wurzburger.
R. Wurzburger, who was in the Rav's first shiur, noted that the Rav did
not fully reveal himself to anyone. It is almost that one can only talk
about the Rav in terms of negative attributes. There were so many
different views of the Rav:
R. Wurzburger once accompanied the Rav to a gathering of professors of
philosophy and other intelligensia, whom the Rav addressed. Afterwards,
one said to the Rav "You shouldn't be a Rabbi, you should be a professor"
A talmid from Lakewood who was at one of the Rav's shiurim said the Rav
really has no use for philosophy or science, they are only a means of
being m'kariv people -- "he's a magid shiur, a rosh yeshiva."
When the Rav was hospitalized in Boston, R. Wurzburger saw a Catholic
doctor leaving his room saying "thank you Rabbi, thank you." The Rav told
R. Wurzburger that the man was a Catholic who had lost his faith, but in
discussions, the Rav had convinced him he would be a better doctor if he
returned to his religion.
From these three tales, one can see that the Rav defies catagorization.
When Ed Fiske was covering religion for the NY Times (before being
promoted to education), he had interviewed the Rav. He asked R.
Wurzburger for some background information after the interview. R.
Wurzburger asked him what he thought of the Rav. His reply was "I have
never met anyone for whom everything is so complicated." This reflects
the dialectical tension in the Rav's mind -- cheftza and gavra, kium and
maaseh, etc. etc.
The Rav as ish hahalacha is a misrepresentation -- the halachic man is
typology, and doesn't capture the totality of the Rav's approach.
The Rav's presence was dazzling -- he could generate profound insights
into any subject matter -- this too is not his totality.
The image of the Rav at the seder, reciting nishmat -- one could see the
religious passion and the yearning for Hashem. The Rav felt that the love
of G-d should surpass the yearning of erotic love. But this yearning made
his life difficult.
The theme of chesed v'emes -- these are not always the same. The Rav went
to Berlin not in search of material wealth. There was intense agony and
inner conflict in his decision. The Rav once said his children cannot
appreciate the difficulty of moving from Torah to a world of western
philosophy, because he had paved that road. In his quest for emes, he
could not ignore the world.
Yiddishkeit was a constant struggle, it was not the easy way. One cannot
be complacent when walking in the way of Hashem.
The Rav on the adoption of numerous chumrot: wonderful, except for one
problem -- it is yiddishkeit without taking the ribono shel olam
seriously. The Rav strove to build a Jewish society in the world, to
build a world where chesed meets emes; not to retreat into the dalet amos of
halacha.
The Rav pioneered the study of gemara by women -- R. Wurzburger remembers
overhearing the Rav explaining a gemara to his daughter Atara when she was
young.
The Rav did not simply tolerate secular studies as a concession to
parnasa. He fekt it could enrich the Torah of individuals and be a part
of chesed v'emes.
Given the religious realities of America, the Rav did not feel there was
any reason for the RCA to disassociate from the Synagogue Council (an
interdenominational association, with whom many poskim forbade association).
He felt that at that time, it would have been a disservice.
R. Wurzburger (as the editor of Tradition) had the page proofs for "Lonely
man of Faith." A sentence read "Another, midrashic interpretation . . ."
R. Aharon Lichtenstein handled the galleys, and they asked R. Twersky if he
thought they could delete the comma. R. Twersky told R. Wurzburger that
they had had a half hour discussion about that comma. The Rav was a
perfectionist, and when he published, he was especially afraid of there
being any flaw.
R. Wurzburger had asked the Rav to publish "Confrontation" in Tradition.
The Rav agreed. Weeks passed, then finally the manuscritp arrived. The
Rav said "That's it." R. Wurzburger said, no, there's page proofs, and
galley proofs, then I unplug my phone so you can't call me to tell me
you've changed your mind.
The Rav was officiating at a wedding where one of the relatives had flown
in from Savanah, Georgia; he was a Conservative Rabbi. The Rav asked him to
speak; R. Wurzburger asked him why. The Rav said "the man flew all this
way, we must give him kavod."
The Rav did not let "scholarship" interfere with the process of limudei
hakodesh. Talmud Torah, he said, begins with the analysis of ideas and
hopefully leads to an encounter with hakadosh baruch hu.
Eitan Fiorino
<fiorino@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <YOSEF_BECHHOFER@...> (Yosef Bechhofer)
Date: Sun, 16 May 93 20:04:55 -0400
Subject: Reb Ahron's Hesped in Chicago
Hesped for Reb Yoshe Ber zt"l in Chicago
This morning, Sunday 40 la'Omer, there was a Hesped for Reb Yoshe
Ber in Chicago. Approximately 200 men and some women attended.
There were several speakers, but of course the focal one was Reb
Ahron shlit"a. I will attempt to summarize his Hesped (which lasted
about 45 minutes) in short, taking upon myself responsibility for
possible errors, omissions, etc. I should note that representatives
of all the major streams of Orthodoxy in Chicago were in
attendance, including Roshei Yeshiva of Telz and HTC, and a Rosh
Kollel of the Lakewood Kollel.
Reb Ahron began by noting that this was the third Hesped he would
be giving for his brother: the first, at the levaya, was
necessarily an emotional one: an onen is forbidden from Talmud
Torah, and is thus limited to emotion. This, he noted, is in
keeping with the nature of the laws of shiva, which require
behaviors on the part of the avel which are parallel to those the
Gemara identifies as signs of insanity - expressions of emotional
turmoil. The laws of shloshim are more restrained, allowing for a
more intellectual contemplation - which would be the spirit of
today's Hesped. There are, he stated, however, two types of
intellect, that of the mind and that of the heart. That of the mind
can be articulated, that of the heart must be sensed. Thus, the
Rambam devotes 30 chapters to Hilchos Shabbos, but only two
halachos to Ahavas Hashem - not because the latter is not
significant, but rather because in must be sensed and understood.
This Hesped was an attempt to give some sense of the intellect of
the heart.
The Gemara states that if we regard the Rishonim as malachim,
then we are as humans; if we regard them as humans then we are as
donkeys, but not as the donkeys of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair, which
would not eat d'mai. Reb Ahron stated that these are complementary
statements - if we regard, in our imaginations, the previous
generations as angels, then in striving to emulate them we can
attain the level of human beings. If not, at best we will remain
lower level donkeys. Reb Ahron noted, however, that during the
lifetime of a Rebbe a talmid is not supposed to regard him with
this sort of deference, because then the phenomenon of a Rebbe
learning the most from his talmidim could not be fulfilled - they
will be too afraid to ask the questions which edify the Rebbe,
rather this is what the statement that tzaddikim are greater in
their death than in their lifetime means - after the Tzaddik's
death one must use this approach in one's imagination. [I asked Reb
Ahron after the Hesped as to how he understands the dictum that if
the Rebbe is "k'malach elokim tzevakos" only then should one learn
from him. Reb Ahron stated that this refers to the Rebbe's approach
to teaching as an agent of Hashem - a "missionary."]
Reb Ahron noted that in the Hakdama to the Meromei Sadeh Reb
Chaim Berlin said that his father, the Netziv, held the Teshuvos of
Reb Akiva Eiger as those of a Rishon, yet he was completely
disinterested in biographical information about him, holding such
pursuits a form of bittul Torah. Similarly, one must focus on the
writings of Reb Yoshe Ber, rather than his biography, in attempting
to assess him.
The Rov's two major works, stated Reb Ahron , were "Ish HaEmuna"
and "Ish HaHalacha." The prototypical Ish HaHalacha was Reb Chaim
Soloveitchik, the prototypical Ish HaEmuna was Reb Elya Pruzhiner
[their maternal grandfather]. Many talmidim make the mistake of
assuming that these two personalities are mutually exclusive. They
are in fact similar. The Ish HaHalacha reaches the madrega of an
Ish HaEmuna from the starting point of halacha, and vice versa.
This is similar to the definition that the Tzemach Tzedek gave to
the difference between himself and the Kotzker: the T"T began from
the head and worked to the heart, the Kotzker began from the heart
and worked to the mind.
Reb Ahron noted that Reb Chaim Volozhiner had three Rabbeim, the
Sha'agas Aryeh who was the Ish HaHalacha (in his works you will not
find a single Zohar quoted); the Ve'Shav HaKohen, Reb Refael
Hamburger, who was an Ish HaEmuna, and the GR"A, who was both. The
Beis HaLeiv was also both, but Reb Chaim and Reb Moshe Soloveitchik
were both Anshei Halacha. Reb Moshe had a Moreh Nevuchim at home,
but never opened it [I asked Reb Ahron after the Hesped about a
line written by a certain Modern Orthodox Rabbi stating that the
Rov's understanding of Rambam was deeper than his father's because
of his acquaintance with the Moreh. Reb Ahron was not pleased. I
have a feeling that his brother would not have been pleased with
such a definition either]. Nonetheless, they reached the madrega of
Anshei Emuna through their Halacha.
Reb Ahron then told over several ma'asim in detail to explain his
point. For fear of being over long, I note briefly that one was the
famous ma'aseh in which Reb Chaim prevented the Rashei Kahal in
Brisk from eating Seuda Mafsekes Erev Yom Kippur in order to force
them to ransom a Bundist from a Death Sentence; and another ma'aseh
in which Reb Elya told a "chapper" that he must return a boy that
he had snatched for the Tsar's army - when the chapper threatened
Reb Elya, he threw the chapper out of his house, and the chapper
died that night of a heart attack (Reb Ahron explained this
rationally, as a result of the remorse the chapper probably felt).
Reb Ahron then told over the famous ma'aseh with Reb Moshe and the
Chassideshe Baal Tokea that is related in Ish HaHalacha. This is a
classic, and I shall not relate it in detail , but I would like to
note that in the version of the story as told by Reb Ahron there is
a significant difference: At the end of the conversation Reb Moshe
explains that the reason that he was opposed to the crying of the
Baal Tokea is because although his great grandfather the Netziv
cried so much on Yom Kippur that they had to place rags around the
bema so no one would slip, on Rosh HaShana he would not cry at all,
because of the halacha of "Chedvas Hashem."
The next story he told is not well known, and therefore I relate
it in its entirety: The same Baal Tokea, Reb Avraham Radin, was a
big Baal Yisurin (suffered a great deal, having only one daughter,
a widow, and one grandson, and heart disease). In 1937, this Reb
Avraham came to Reb Moshe and told him that the doctor said that at
most he had two years to live, probably only a few months, and that
therefore he wanted to write a tzava'a. Reb Moshe said that the
Torah only gave reshus to a doctor to heal, not to project life
span, that they should find another doctor, and that Reb Avraham
would live until Moshiach (Reb Ahron stated that Reb Chaim held
that the traditional bracha of 120 years is a klala, and the
correct version is until Bi'as HaGo'el). Reb Avraham asked for a
bracha to this effect Reb Moshe responded that he was not a
Chassideshe Rebbe, but would give a "Birchas Hedyot" to this
effect. This Reb Avraham, then 78, lived to 113! (Again, Reb Ahron
explained rationally that Reb Avraham received one of the first
pacemakers. As to why the bracha of until Moshiach was not mekuyam,
Reb Ahron said that as a Misnaged he could not explain this.)
Reb Ahron then read a quote from a Rabbi "X" who had called the
Rov an iconoclast. Reb Ahron noted that one of the faults of modern
Rabbis is their tendency to use big words, but that being a modern
Rabbi himself, he understood them. An iconoclast is someone who
breaks religious symbols. Reb Ahron stated forcefully that the Rov
did not intend to change, nor did he change, in any way from the
Mesora of his Reb Moshe and Reb Chaim. That Rabbi "X" went on to
say that [I do not remember the exact quote] the Rov forged new
paths in Halacha, not hesitating to argue on the Shulchan Aruch. To
this Reb Ahron thundered "Shomu Shomayim." If the Rov did not
paskin like the Mechaber it was because he paskened like the Shach
or the Taz, or like a Kabbala in the House of Brisk. The Rov was
not a Maykel, but a Machmir, not forging new paths, but following
and applying the ways of the Sha'agas Aryeh, Reb Refael Hamburger,
the GR"A, Reb Chaim and Reb Moshe. Reb Ahron was dan Rabbi "X"
l'kaf zechus that he wanted to impress the media, but did not
accept such an excuse. He noted that in Hashkafa as well, although
the Rov, together with Reb Leizer Silver founded the Aguda in
America, yet under the influence of Reb Meir Bar Ilan subsequently
joined the Mizrachi, he yet agreed with his uncle the Brisker Rov,
to oppose Heichal Shlomo, lest it lead to reinstituting the
Sanhedrin.
Reb Ahron noted the Gemara which states that if one of the
brother's should die, all the brothers should be considered; if one
of the members of the chabura should die, all the members of the
chabura should be concerned. Reb Ahron stated that he alone
fulfills both criteria, as a brother, and as talmid and chevrusa of
his brother, and that it is therefore he alone who can state with
authority his brother's derech and legacy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 7 Issue 40