- This topic has 33 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 3 weeks ago by .
-
Posts
-
Avira > Aaq, i am trying to be dan lekaf zchus; otherwise, it is a sobering indictment on rabbi soloveitchik.
You are sufgering from “no true Scotsman” syndrome. We seemingly agreed before that r Soloveichik is a talmid chacham, and you, as a self-professed Brisker, probably understand him better than I do. So, when encountering something from a t’ch that you possibly do not agree with, you are already interested in a possible indictment, rather than learning. If this attitude holds, it is simply self-serviing. So, let’s try to find the facts first. The source I had in mind were two letters to R Rosenfeld, first RYBS refused to answer, and then answered on May 27, 1953. They are published in a book “Community, Covenant And Commitment: Selected Letters And Communications”. There might be more in the book. Note the year, relatively early in the debate about girls school, I don’t know whether he changed his opinion later.
I see them quoted in the end of the article below. Here it is seemingly in full. I confirmed that in the google books
Dear Rabbi Rosenfeld:
Please accept my apologies for not answering your letters sooner. The delay was due to my overcrowded schedule. As to your question with regard to a curriculum in a coeducational school, I expressed my opinion to you long ago that it would be a very regrettable oversight on our part if we were to arrange separate Hebrew courses for girls. Not only is the teaching of Torah she-be-al peh to girls permissible but it is nowadays an absolute imperative. This policy of discrimination between the sexes as to subject matter and method of instruction which is still advocated by certain groups within our Orthodox community has contributed greatly to the deterioration and downfall of traditional Judaism. Boys and girls alike should be introduced to the inner halls of Torah she-be-al peh.
I hope to prepare in the near future a halakhic brief on the same problem which will exhaust the various aspects of the same. In the meantime I heartily endorse a uniform program for the entire student body.
no outside links
Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik was a professor of Talmud, and studied in the finest University study halls in Europe.
He wrote things that, as Rav Shach put it, were “such kefirah that it was dumbfounding even to see it”.
Rav Shach wrote that he repeated that heresy to show how great an extent secular wisdom causes “damage to, and a lowering of level of, daas Torah”.Rabbi J.B. Soloveichik was wrong on any number of issues.
Hakatan_Do you have a source for that quote from Rav Schach? Rav Solovetchick was help in high regard by the American gedolim of his day. This includes Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Ruderman, Rav Hutner and Rav Gifter. Even though they disagreed with him on major issues they held him in high regard.
Several gedolim in EY may have used harsher language but for pipsqueaks to say he was not from among the gedolim of the 20th century is playing with fire.
I am curious UJM, do you also speak that way about Bais Shamai?
For those who question Rav Solvetchick on this issue and on nearly every other issue in which he was a daas yaachid, take into consideration the situation at the time. Orthodoxy was in danger of extinction, Conservative and reform Judaism were seen as the future of klal Yisrael, and the secular world was taking a nose dive in morals
” on this issue and on nearly every other issue in which he was a daas yaachid”
You said it best, he was a daas yochid, hardly a godol.Rocky:
It is a fair point that Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik held the perspective (unlike Rav Aharon Kotler) where he (and others) incorrectly viewed Orthodoxy as in danger of extinction – something that is impossible, of course.That could explain why he created the current incarnation of haskalah, known as “Modern Orthodoxy” which, as Rav Schwab pointed out (even decades ago, all the more so today), is really “stale and fossilized”.
Re: the quotes – they’re in Michtavim uMaamarim, as memory serves.
While American gedolim dealt with Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik as needed, including giving him kavod and/or working with him when that was necessary, they were perfectly clear about the heretical ideas he proposed (including Zionism) being exactly that: heretical. They certainly did know and respect his talmudic knowledge, but not beyond that.
Rocky: Your information is incorrect. Here are some of the quotes you are asking for:
Rav Aharon Kotler ZTV’L, in Mishnas Rabi Aharon (Vol. 3, Hesped on the Brisker Rav) states that the essence of Modern Orthodoxy is the same as the Reform and Conservative. That is, change Judaism into something that more people will be willing to accept.
Rav Shimon Schwab wrote (Mitteilungen, Bulletin of Khal Adas Yeshurun April/May 1989): “Sometimes the Modern Orthodox halachic foolishness which is flirting with the anti-Torah establishment, may border on heresy. This is all part and parcel of the spiritual confusion of the dark ages in which we happen to live. However, in addition to the legitimate shitos we have discussed, there is yet another, more modern version in vogue called “Torah Umaada”. Apparently this is identical with Torah Im Derech Eretz, especially since both claim a belief in the priority of Torah over maada. Both seems exactly alike, but like two left gloves which cannot be worn together, they don’t fit! . . .”
(Selected Essays pp.160-162):
“Rav Hirsch ZT’L has inscribed two emblems on his banner. One is Torah Im Derech Eretz and the other is the so-called “Austritt”, which means severance, or total and non-recognition of any type of institutionalized heresy, “minus” or apikursus. This is also a resolution not to contribute, participate in, or support any cause which accords validity to the disbelief in Hashem or to the denial of the authenticity of Torah shebiksav or Torah shebaal peh. In other words, “Austritt” states that the Torah is our sovereign ruler, and it makes us independent of all those who deny its Divine origin…“To summarize, Torah im derech eretz without Austritt is considered treif l’chol hadeios! Even if you call it Torah Umaada.”
The battle against YU by the Yeshiva world is not, nor was it, a simple issue of Halachic or Hashkafic disagreement which can be dismissed as routine if accompanied with the obligatory respect for the opposing view, as per ailu v’ailu etc. Not so. Rather, YU was viewed as a deviant, dangerous, and anti-Torah entity that doesn’t deserve the respect of a legitimate Torah position, even a mistaken one. Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL once commented about Rav Soloveitchik, “He is respnsible for the majority of Tumah in America.” Also from the same Rav Aharon, “He destroyed an entire generation of Jews.” Rav Aharon Kotler ZT’L said many times that he will not enter YU because it is bad. His son, Rav Schneur ZT’L, followed suit. Rav Elchonon Wasserman ZT’L also, when he came to America in the ’30s, was invited to speak in YU, and he refused to even walk in to the place.
Mods:
Yes, really.
The ‘oh really’ was in reference to your immature conclusion behind the edit. If you knew the truth, you’d be embarrassed you said it.>>>The ‘oh really’ was in reference to your immature conclusion behind the edit. If you knew the truth, you’d be embarrassed you said it.
Now you REALLY sound like a high school kid
shkoyach, your unsolicited opinion is warmly received.
>>>Rav Aharon Kotler ZT’L said many times that he will not enter YU because it is bad. His son, Rav Schneur ZT’L, followed suit
Baloney! Rav Aharon Kotler ZT’L was in YU borrowing seforim from their library. His name and identify is clearly written on the library cards which you can find on line but this site does not allow links. I heard from a SIl of ss son, Rav Schneur ZT’L in an ANTI YU speech that his scver was in YU trying to get them to hire a certain Lakewood talmidim as a rebbeim
Slight issue – rav elchanan did visit YU, however he had very stern things to say about it. He also visited Torah Vodaas, and said that “YU is a bad yeshiva with a good name(rav yitzchak elchanan), and Torah Vodaas is a good yeshiva with a bad name(as it implies torah and something else, taken from a maskilish yeshiva that one of the board members was a student of)
It remains a clear halacha that we educate girls and boys differently. Ideally, we wouldn’t teach tanach either, but we must, and it is allowed bedieved, as per the rambam.
Rabbi yoshe ber accepted the words of the poskim as binding, as he was an Orthodox rabbi, and not a conservative clergyman. However this halacha is clear as day – far clearer than his chumros about krias hatorah; girls must not be taught gemara. They must be given different “opportunities” than boys, because they 1) will not be rabbis, even according to him, 2) don’t have a mitzvah to learn, 3) will be violating an issur if they learn gemara on their own and make divrei havai out of it
How is it עולה על הדעת that two sets of people with different obligations, responsibilities, should be taught the same way? It makes absolutely no sense.
Either he didn’t mean it seriously or he got caught in the avodaj zara of haskalah while writing that, ככפאו שד
Re, his opposition to the conservative movement – he was opposed to them and thought he could sacrifice parts of Torah in order to fight them off. In doing so, he was basically doing exactly what conservative did to fight off intermarriage, ironically enough. The only difference is that rabbi yoshe ber believed in the Torah fully and the conservatives did not.
AAQ: If Rav Ahron had sent a shliach to borrow a book from the New York Public Library that wasn’t readily available elsewhere, and you found the index card from the NYPL with his name on it, would you take that to mean he gave his haskama to the NYPL, including its indecent and obscene materials?
There have been many talmidei chachomim who have utilized the JTS library in Manhattan, which is even more comprehensive than the YU library; yet I can assure you than none of them intended their borrowing a book there to indicate that Conservative “Judaism” is not kefira.
Re:
“Mods:
Yes, really.
The ‘oh really’ was in reference to your immature conclusion behind the edit. If you knew the truth, you’d be embarrassed you said it.”I don’t recall writing anything “immature”, but I apologize if either I did so or if whatever I did write was understood as such.
It was the insinuation that me having to delete a post after weighing out every line of every post to determine what is public/substantiated, what is a quote from a gadol or what is stam a posters opinion was misconstrued as me deleting to protect the MO and probably for monetary reasons. Machul lach
I have heard the argument that teaching a girl Torah is like teaching tiflus because it teaches them to be sophisticated and crafty. Today’s girls are reading everything else, and are crafty enough. Learning Torah will only help them. Another argument is that women today are college professors and Supreme Court Justices. If you don’t teach them Torah they will learn their values elsewhere.
In a nutshell, Yes, clearly the Halacha is against teaching girls Torah. It also dictates that we never do laundry on Friday, only Thursday. (Takanas Ezra) But times have changed and the earlier takanos are recast in a way appropriate to our time.Leibidig, two things; one is that rabbi soloveitchik’s stated opinions here are that fundamentally it’s somehow unfair to girls not to be given the same education as boys, [disclaimer: that is not what he said per his quote above.] which is what this thread is about.
The beis yaakov movement understood that bedieved, torah needs to be taught now, but within the confines of halacha – i.e., tanach yes, gemara no, because that’s the halacha.
Laundry is different not because times change, but because it’s not the laundry chazal were talking about. It’s pressing buttons. Here, girls still produce tiflus with their learning, which is an affront to Torah, no matter what other problems they may have at the same time.
re comment: only commenting because you claim to be quoting as opposed to giving your own pshat
Yankel: It isn’t an “argument”; it’s a befeirush Chazal, Shulchan Aruch and Rambam. And Rashi explains it to mean that she’ll be led to engage in immorality.
As I said in another thread, Sarah Schenirer learned Gemara. Please explain that.
Da, when girls in MO schools dress, daven, study mussar, keep away from boys, movies and goyishe music, and tremble before Hashem like ike Sara Schnirer, then we’ll talk. Until then it’s just “why can’t we” feminism.
Also, Sara Schnirer was someone who could judge herself as being an exceptional woman, and allowed to do so according to some poskim, though according to the rambam it would seem there is no heter whatsoever – on that, I’d say it’s a machlokes, but i don’t think any woman alive today can say they are on that madrega.
Avira, now you’re changing your stance. Before, you claimed that it’s 100% assur. Now, you’re claiming that if girls daven, study mussar, etc. they are allowed? You also are claiming that an “exceptional” woman is now exempt from the issur?
Make up your mind please. If it’s assur, then it’s assur to all women. If it’s not assur, then it’s allowed for all women.
Which is it?Da, i was saying pshat in the rambam. It’s a chidush, but i think it’s very meduyak in his words. I agree that there are poskim who say beferush that exceptional women may learn; the drishah is very well known. Not that there’s a clear psak in the matter, however I’m sure Sara Schnirer asked a shailoh before doing so.
Who is the original source of the claim that Sara Schnirer learnt Gemora?
Joe, Sarah Schenirer wrote in her diaries that she learned Chok l’Yisrael every day. This is a daily seder which includes Chumash, Nach, Mishnah, and Gemara.
Chok has a lot more; shulchan aruch, Zohar….could be she skipped parts. Who knows?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.