YU vs the Greater Yeshiva World

Probably those individuals learned under Rav Moshe Soloveitchik the Rav’s father. Another turning point might have been the famous letter against joining the Synagogue Council of America which Rav Soloveitchik didnt sign, approx 1956. Even in his own Hamesh Drashot he writes/speaks that he feeld like Joseph against his Haredi brothers in his support of Mizrahi

Hagaon Harav Elchonon Wasserman hy’d already wrote (the Ksav Yad is available), as far back as in 1940, that it is better to physically die at the hands of the Nazis ym’s rather than be saved from physical death by Yeshiva University and then be spiritually murdered by YU.

Many people are not old enough to remember that
when Rabbi Moshe Feinstein ZTL ZYA was alive,
he was universally accepted as the ultimate authority in Torah,
by the Chareidim and also the Modern Orthodox / Religious Zionists.

When he died, there was no longer any Torah leader who united
both the Chareidim and the Modern Orthodox / Religious Zionists.

when other yeshivos were started in america like tora vodaas chofetz chaim and bmg

There was a time when there was simply almost nothing else in America. So whoever was born in America, or had to flee to America (and needed a visa affidavit with a job offer) ended up there, regardless of whether they agreed with every aspect of their hashkafah. At that time, prior to Bernard Revel, RIETS was closer to being a regular Yeshiva. It would be inaccurate to say they ‘separated’ from the Yeshivish Velt, because they were לכתחילה catering to an American audience at a time when the mainstream Yeshiva world was still located in Europe. Post WWII, when thousands of survivors arrived in the US, regular Litvish Yeshivos were also rebuilt in America in a somewhat modified form, and RIETS itself remained more or less what it was beforehand. Once other options were available, parents and bochurim could choose where to go. It’s not like RIETS was once an integral part of the European Yeshiva Velt and then split off and went its own way…

Always_Ask_Questions and shebbesonian:

Unlike everywhere else, the ones in YU are potentially contaminated with the idolatry and heresy of Zionism and the heresy of TuMa of YU.
For example, Rabbi Schachter wrote already half a century ago that the Zionists had the halachic right to send Jews to die on the altar of their idol – not because of pikuach nefesh but rather – solely because a “Nation-State” is an integral part of a Nation and that losing the Nation-State would be a lethal blow to the essence of the nation and therefore sending Jews to die for that Nation-State is like a doctor needing to amputate a limb R”L L”A.

As another example, his student Rabbi Lebowitz a number of years ago tweeted that his “Mori viRabi” holds that the mourning of sefirah is suspended to the extent needed to feel the “simcha” of the day of the Zionist “Independence” Day.

(And that’s despite that even his teacher’s teacher, Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik, did not consider the Zionist “Independence” Day to be an actual holiday (which of course it is not a holiday). The Steipler held that it should really be a fast day, but that’s almost besides the point.

Oh, and once someone believes in even a drop of heresy, you cannot rely on anything he says. As well, Shulchan Aruch Y”D: “Talmid chacham haMizalzel biMitzvos…harei hu kiKal sheBaTzibbur”.

Those are all important points to consider when comparing scholars there to scholars in the frum world.

Sad.

Rav Ahron Kotler refused to enter the YU building even when one of his students levaya was inside. Instead, he stood outside.

The relationship between R’ Kotler and R’ Soloveitchik was much more complex than some of the foregoing commentary might suggest. While R’ Kotler was clearly the more “conservative” of the two on giyus banos and most other issues of the time and passionately opposed to the MO/Zionist REITS hashkafah, they were still able to cooperate on a subset of of issues (e.g. fundrasing for Chinuch Atzmai) where such cooperation was of critical importance to the more broadly defined Yeshiva velt. But even to the end, the optics seems to overtake the substance of such cooperation. When R’ JBS was niftar, BMG was not represented at the levayah in Boston. Nonetheless, for all of R Aharon’s skepticism about YU, Zionism and Mizrachi, he still greatly respected R; Soloveitchik as a great talmid chacham and individual of great personal stature.

@hakatan
I don’t understand why so many are hesitant to call out the obvious heresy of MO and its leaders, instead running to meaningless Artscroll quotes that are marketing to their misguided students.

Chazal are clear that there is no kuvod to talmidei chachamim (and certainly no concerns for lushon hureh) when kefira in the Holy Torah is on the line.

HaKatan and friends,

Can any of you give a source where R’ Aharon Kotler wrote that “Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik was ‘responsible for all the tuma in America'”?

I’ll wait, although I don’t think it will come. Chronology isn’t the strong point of anti-Zionists. Not to mention that even if given, it will be tenuous thanks to a confirmation bias to accept literally any quote that makes Zionists look bad.
Valid sources are either in writing from R’ Aharon himself (whether in a sefer, letter, etc.) or if supposedly said verbally, a recording or claim from someone who heard it firsthand. Lenni Brenner ym”s doesn’t count. והמבין יבין.

Gadol, they both were looking to address the same problem- rapid assimilation of American Jewry, they just had different ways to address it. Note that these different ways applied to different types of people. R Kotler mostly worked with unassimilated Yidden, many coming from very traditional backgrounds. R Soloveitchik taught college educated and their children. Without R Soloveitchik and Chabad, we would have lost even more Yidden to assimilation. The only “problem ” is that some of r Kotler students might be interested in the other approaches, so it became necessary to disparage opposition. We’re R Hirsh export his approach to Vilna, he would be treated the same. R Salanter says so whenhe visited Germany: were I to have women in Torah classes in Lita, I’d be denounced.

anon1m0us: YU never produced a single godol in all its history. Some godol’s may have taken a job there as a rebbi to try to be mekarev some of the students there, in the early years when that may have still been possible. But they were not products, themselves, of YU.

DaMoshe: You have a different bar for who you call a godol.

@daMoshe, a Godol is someone who’s ruling are accepted outside of the home turf so to speak, for example Rav Moshe, Reb Chaim, the Steipler ZTl were accepted by a broad spectrum, can you say the same about the above mentioned three names?

you should understand how @square_root thinks:

In his world, ladies and goyim can be Gedolim.

In his world, zionist kofrim can be Gedolim.

Any noztri who learned at YU
will be supported and lauded as a Gadol by @square_root
as greater than that of the Brisker Rav ZTL ZYA.

Any noztri who learned at YU
will be supported and lauded as a Gadol by @square_root
is greater than that of the Chofetz Chaim ZTL ZYA.

UJM,
That is where you are wrong as Das Moshe pointed out.
It’s funny though, the people who you think are gedolim, just “worked” there for the money. So I guess one could eat treif to save a dollar.

But the premise still remains, besides YU, no one produced any new gedolim. You produced Rosh Yeshivos or Rebbela, but not one gadol.

While REW ztl would not step foot in RIETS, RSS ztl, a much more important gadol actually taught there.

in the mid-50’s battle over the SCA, history shows the absolute correctness of the Rav ztl’s opinion.

And Rav Pinchos Scheinberg zt’l learnt in the Beis Medrash LeRabonim yeshiva, in New Haven, famous for being Torah-only — with zero secular studies.

I am not sure there should be an argument here. R Soloveitchik’s goals for YU was to produce a large number of minimally qualified Rabbis who can be useful to the large number of Jewish communities of minimal observance. He specifically compares this with the Litvishe yeshiva world he came from. His goal did not seem to be to raise a small number of outstanding Talmidei Chachamim. As far as I know, R Kotler was NOT looking to place his students in such environment.

As to such rabbis in remote communities, other Talmidei Chachamim valued them. For example, when Ner Yisroel was sending bochurim to such community to fundraise during chol hamoed, some asked R Ruderman whether bochurim were allowed to shave so that they do not look disheveled. He answered – if the local Rav shaves on chol hamoed, they bochurim _should_ shave so that it does not look like they are trying to be “frummer” than local Rav.