Lecture 5: The Rav and Modern Orthdoxy I am not going to define "Modern Orthodoxy". Let us just say that it is Yeshiva University, Young Israel, Orthodox Union, Lincoln Square Synagogue, and such institutions. The Rav gave a presentation to the RCA in the early 1970's on Korach. What was the machloket (dispute) between Korach and Moshe Rabbenu? Korach went and made a tallit completely of techelet [blue], and claimed that since it was all techelet, it didn't need techelet in its tzitzit. Moshe said that it still needed tzitzit with techelet. Korach asked if a house filled with Torah scrolls still needed a mezuzah: Moshe said yes. Korach's point of view was that common sense must win out. Moshe Rabbenu taught us that the Torah functions within its own parameters, its own rules, often with little regard for what common sense might say. Here's an analogy: why do objects fall? Before Newton, people thought it was because the objects had weight. Newton worked out that objects fall because of gravitational pull, which was certainly non-intuitive. Just so, Halacha has its own approach, its own way of thinking. An example: the laws of inheritance. Where there is a son, he inherits, the daughters do not inherit. If the son died before the parent, and the son had only daughters, the granddaughters inherit the parent, not the daughters, because the granddaughters inherited the right to inherit their father. [Maybe I should draw a picture - JJB] F F |____ |____ S D D X D D |____ |____ Gd Gd Gd Gd without the living son, if the grand- daughters survive, they get their father's inheritance as if he were alive: the re- lationships stay the same. The Sadducees laughed at this kind of reasoning, but Halacha is its own system, which takes years to master. The Rav didn't talk about such issues until the 1970s, until the women's liberation / feminist movement made it relevant and necessary, when women started to ask why they couldn't become rabbis. When the witness issue was brought up, the feminists charged that the Torah was chauvinist. The Rav answered by showing that in the mishnah Sanhedrin 2:2 even a king cannot be a witness. Disqualification from being a witness then is not pejorative, rather, it reflects a different system of jurisprudence. Colleges, feminism, Conservative Judaism, etc., the modern world in general makes inroads upon tradition, and we must not surrender to it, must not innovate or change just to fit it. Common sense is the side of Korach. In any conflict between common sense and tradition, tradition must win out. In 1975, there was a great debate between R' Emanuel Rackman and the Rav, in which Soloveitchik kept Modern Orthodoxy and his students firmly in the Orthodox camp. R' Rackman spoke at the RCA convention that year (Rackman has been rabbi of Cong. Shaarei Tefillah and the Fifth Avenue Synagogue, and has been chancellor of Bar-Ilan University) (R' David Hollander represents the right end of the RCA, Rackman represents the left end). Late one night, R' Rackman was discussing halachic innovation and the issue of the agunah. The traditional agunah, discussed in the Talmud, is a woman whose husband disappears, and there is no proof that he is dead or alive. There is a new kind of agunah today, the agunah who is being held up by the husband for money; the old kind of agunah hardly exists anymore, except maybe for Ron Arad's wife. Rackman wanted to help these agunot-for-money (before pre-nuptial agreements were made mandatory two weeks ago). He suggested that we need to revamp the whole concept of marriage. There is a clal [rule], that a woman would rather grow old together with a husband than alone, no matter what. Rackman said, "Perhaps in modern times, this chazaka of Chazal is no longer true, because female students have been taking me out to dinner on their 6-figure salaries ... now they will say that 'a good marriage is better than no marriage', so this chazaka no longer applies." In the Gemara, there is a statement that "afk'inhu kidushin minei" -- that rabbis can annul marriages that took place in unethical ways, such as the bride being snatched from the chuppah. The rabbis can declare that "he gave her nothing" to annul the ring, or "this relationship is znut [harlotry]" to annul the biah [intercourse for purpose of marriage]. The rabbis have this power "kedat Moshe ve-Ysrael" as it says in the marriage ceremony [by the religion of Moses and Israel]. There is further argument in the Gemara whether or not we can use such "hefker beit din". By the time of the Rishonim, it was agreed that we could not, as it destroyed the entire institution of marriage. There would be no central authority to decide on the validity of marriages. The Chatam Sofer was firmly against hafkarat kiddushin. The Cherem of Rabbenu Gershom doesn't really mean anything any more: everyone is in the Cherem. Anyway, it ran out in 1950 and was only renewed in Israel. Rackman wanted to re-institute annulment so that we could avoid half a million extortions. Ten days later, the Rav spoke to the YU Alumni. He was expecting only a small rabbinic audience, but the place was packed. The Rav began by saying "I have an unpleasant duty to do. I have tried other approaches, I am now drowning, I need to speak." "I came from a rabbinic house, but there was a limit to Rav Chaim's kulot [leniencies]. One must surrender to the will of G- d." A story: A giyoret [female convert] brings her fiancee to Judaism. He does some research into his background, and finds hands on his grandfather's tombstone [indicating he was a Kohen]. Soloveitchik said that she must surrender, despite any great pain. The woman walked away from the marriage. In the context of the women's movement, it is logical that women should be witnesses. In the Chumash it says, "zachar u-nekevah bara hu otam" [male and female created He them]. But in mishnah Sanhedrin 2:2 it says that a king cannot be a witness. So it is not subject to common sense in valuation. So too is it with regard to inclusion in the minyan. Logic tells us that women should be able to pray with men, as Chanah taught all of us how to pray. But she herself was disqualified from the minyan. Halacha works on its own imperatives. Further, the chazakot of Chazal are permanent ontological principles, rooted in the human relationship with the Divine. The Talmud, in Kiddushin 7a, says that such principles cannot be uprooted. Bereshit 3:16 [thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee] tells us that solitude to a man can never be as bad as it is to a woman. This not a sociological principle, but an existential principle, which can never be changed. No legislation can remove this loneliness. The loneliness is a direct consequence of the Divine reaction to Chava's eating from the Etz HaDaat [tree of knowledge of good & evil]. We cannot be smarter than the Chatam Sofer, or the Noda Biyehudah. We cannot uproot the chazakot of Chazal. R' Rakeffet adds: But this is not entirely true. R' Moshe Feinstein fiddles with chazakot when dealing with the question of civil marriage. R' Rakeffet sent a xerox of Tel Talpiyot dealing with this to Rackman, Rackman sent it on to the Rav. Fortunately, the Rav didn't bite Rakeffet's head off. Rakeffet asked R' Aharon Lichtenstein why the Rav had made such a big fuss. R' Lichtenstein replied that this chazaka is ontological, it is rooted in creation. R' Rakeffet's theory about why the Rav made such a production: Soloveitchik was afraid that Modern Orthodox was caving in, in the same way he had been worried about Orthodox giving up the mechitza twenty years earlier. He saw women's minyanim, feminism, the polarization and the coming split in Conservative, and stood firm and said "Surrender!" Despite logic, we cannot give in if it's changing or bending halacha. This speech was an aberration: an attack on a specific person. But understanding of Halacha as something that could not mix with logical, rational values where there is a conflict was part of his system. Two thoughts on Modern Orthodoxy. First, from the hesped for R' Chaim Heller. Here we are on the West Side, the heart of Western Orthodoxy, which is a Judaism whose wings are clipped, which cannot take off. It lacks the emotional depth of true Torah. When the Rav would visit R' Chaim Heller, he would return to the true Torah, with all its depth and tenacity. Second, from the hesped for the Talner Rebbe. What does Modern Orthodoxy lack? My students would not be ashamed in Volozhin. But they lack the emotion, the depth. I can give them lots of good ideas on Rosh Hashanah, but how can I explain when I close my eyes and see my zeide bent over, saying the Al Chet? How can I explain the Lubavitch in Koslowice creating Rosh Hashanah as a crown for the Kadosh Baruch Hu? In America, one has to be both a king and a saint teacher, because the students lack emotion -- one must give it to them. Now I'll say something against the Rav's talmidim of the 70's and 80's. There has been lots of comment about how the Rav moved to the right, from the Jewish Observer and such sources, lots of hespedim about some character described in the Jewish Observer, not about Rav Soloveitchik. The Rav didn't move away, he was just dissatisfied with Modern Orthodoxy. He used to say "Obscurants!" about the Jewish Observer-types. In a speech to social workers, the Rav compared himself to his students: "I grew up in the ghetto, but my students are *really* narrow-minded!" The Rav stayed firmly rooted in the Western world. In the United States, everyone becomes black: conformist, looking over his shoulder to see who's going to criticize. It is not so in Israel. There are lots of Modern Orthodox who live without fear of being thought "un-frum". In 1979, the Rav said, with unbelievable wisdom: Maybe American Orthodoxy lacks confidence. There is much tension and suspicion, each looking over his shoulder, trying to be the same as his neighbor. This attitude constricts intellectual development. Rav Soloveitchik was never happy with Modern Orthodoxy. We were crossing a boundary we shouldn't be crossing by mixing in the modern world. Soloveitchik was the main stabilizing force. Feminism today is that women study Torah in the same way and at the same level as men. "Teach the girls the same as you teach the boys" -- but don't cross the boundary, as "common sense" changes. R' Rakeffet thinks that R' Rackman's position had validity. But the Rav never separated from Modern Orthodoxy. "I never force my viewpoint on others. I teach, they can make up their own minds." He never went back to being "black" -- always thought of them as "Obscurants." We'll close with a story which was also told in Rav Lichtenstein's hesped for the Rav. In the summer of 1969, shortly after Tonya died, his talmidim went to study with him so that he shouldn't be alone, including R' Menachem Genack. The Rav said, "How can I give you some emotions?" He started to teach from the Likutey Torah of the Alter Rebbe. Genack asked, what do we need from the Lubavitchers? The Rav told him a story: my great-grandfather had a chasidic relative, who asked why was he so anti-chasidic? Come to a tish, and see for yourself. The rebbe talked, and as he talked, the ground outside (in the middle of winter) bloomed as if it were spring. The Beit Halevy noticed it was getting late, and said "vu darft men davenen mincha" [we have to daven mincha]. The world collapsed back to normal. Genack, you are like my great-grandfather.