Jump to content

Talk:Joseph B. Soloveitchik/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Title of the entry

The title of this entry should be as it is, and not include his middle name (Ber), because most people know him simply as "Joseph Soloveitchik". A quick check on the popular search engine Google confirms this; Only 58 hits were found for the name "Joseph Ber Soloveitchik", but well over 500 were found for "Joseph Soloveitchik". RK

Revisionism and the Rav

The following are excerpts from Revisionism and the Rav: The Struggle for the Soul of Modern Orthodoxy, published in Judaism, Summer, 1999, by Lawrence Kaplan.

There is a major struggle currently taking place within the modern Orthodox community, a struggle over the correct understanding of the person and teachings of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik, ztz"l, better known simply as the Rav. The Rav, one of the towering rabbinic scholars and thinkers of our era, was, as is well known, the teacher, guide, and, above all, the supreme halakhic and hashkafic authority of the modern Orthodox community for over fifty years. The struggle, then, is not just scholarly, but ideological as well. Indeed, in the deepest sense, it is a struggle over the direction and future course of the modern Orthodox community, a struggle over its very soul.
This type of struggle is not new to the modern Orthodox community. If we look at other rabbinic heroes of modern Orthodoxy, for example, Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888), founder of enlightened German neo-Orthodoxy, rabbinic scholar, Biblical commentator, and communal leader, or Rav Abraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935), the first Chief Rabbi of mandatory Palestine, talmudist, kabbalist, poet, communal leader, and Orthodox herald of the Jewish national renewal, we find that their persons and teachings as well have been and, indeed, still are the subjects of intense, often heated debate. Nor should this be surprising. Rav Hirsch, Rav Kook, and the Rav were, in different ways, very rich, complex figures: major rabbinic scholars who at the same time seriously engaged modernity intellectually; individuals whose teachings and persons blended together, in striking ways, conservatism and innovation, strict traditionalism and intellectual daring. It is intrinsically difficult to paint nuanced intellectual portraits that will do justice to the richness of their religious legacies. Moreover, different elements of the modern Orthodox community focus on those aspects in the teachings of these figures that they find intellectually or religiously congenial and gloss over those aspects they find uncongenial. Thus, the more modern, "left wing" elements of the modern Orthodox community tend to focus on the more innovative, humanistic, and universalist aspects of the legacies of these three giants, and minimize the more conservative, authoritarian, and particularist aspects of their legacies, while that community's more traditional, "right wing" elements simply reverse the order of priority.

The author of this article notes that some prominent rabbis warn that there is a tendency for those on the right-wing of Orthodox to rewrite Soloveitchik's views. In the attempted revisionism, he is presented as being less modern Orthodox and more Haredi. For example

Shortly after the Rav's passing, Rabbi Norman Lamm, President of Yeshiva University, in a eulogy for the Rav delivered on April 25, 1993, urged his auditors to "guard...against any revisionism, any attempts to misinterpret the Rav's work in both worlds [the world of Torah and the world of Madda]. The Rav was not a lamdan who happened to have and use a smattering of general culture, and he was certainly not a philosopher who happened to be a talmid hakham, a Torah scholar.... We must accept him on his terms, as a highly complicated, profound, and broad-minded personality.... Certain burgeoning revisionisms may well attempt to disguise and distort the Rav's uniqueness by trivializing one or the other aspect of his rich personality and work, but they must be confronted at once." [3]
(3.) Norman Lamm, "A Eulogy for the Rav," Tradition 28.1 (1993): 13. R. Lamm's reference to those who seek to "trivializ[e]] one or the other aspect of [the Rav's] rich personality" implies that "burgeoning revisionisms" can come from either the "left" or the "right" In fact, however, by far the most significant revisionism has come from the right, certainly in print, and it is this form of revisionism, particularly in its latest and most extreme manifestation, that deserves our scrutiny. At the same time, there have also been attempts at revisionism from the left, though these attempts have been made orally and, to the best of my knowledge, are not to be found in writing; I will therefore also examine a revealing example of this brand of revisionism.

It is fair to say that any intellectually honest person would agree that the best way to understand Rabbi Soloveitchik would be to study his own words - in his writings and recorded lectures - rather than to blindly trust secondary sources. Rabbi Soloveitchik has published approximately 13 volumes of hashkafic/philosophical works (the majority were published in his lifetime, although four of those volumes have been published by his estate) and 5 volumes of halachik/legal works. The reader who is interested in Rabbi Soloveitchik's thoughts is advised to avail himself of those works.

Secondary literature can be misleading. Some would argue, for example, that Kaplan's presentation, cited above, about revisionism is itself revisionist and has a left-wing tilt.

Another example of revisionism is the Lubavitcher rehabilitation of RYBS into a militant supporter of their seventh rebbe. Soloveitchik acknowledged his own lack of intelligence and knowledge relative to that deceased technical school graduate. This large "section" of the Rav's biography is culled from a tape describing ONE encounter between the Rav and Schneersohn. By contrast there is no section on the yahrzeit shuirim. ~~Josh~~

Soloveitchik and the Lieberman clause

I have removed the following section (which I happened to have written.)

In a separate effort, Soloveitchik reportedly accepted the ideas of Saul Liberman on ways to free agunah, women whose husbands were refusing to give them a get, a Jewish divorce. In Jewish law it is the man who has to present the woman with a bill of divorce, called a 'get'. Without a get, the couple is still married in the eyes of Jewish law, whether or not a civil divorce is obtained or not. Without a get, a Jewish women is forbidden to remarry and is therefore called an agunah (an anchored woman). Lieberman developed an addition to the ketubah (Jewish wedding contract) that would, in such cases, allow the rabbis to unilaterally annul the marriage, thus freeing chained women; this addition became known as the "Lieberman clause." According to a number of Modern Orthodox and Conservative sources who were working with him on this effort (see references), Soloveitchik accepted that the Lieberman clause was valid. A small number of other Orthodox rabbis at the time held similar views. However, no writings by him on this subject are extant. Many Orthodox rabbis today deny that Soloveitchik could possibly have had such a view; a scarcity of written documentation exists on this issue.

Although I have two sources for this, the sources provide no details or documentation. In contrast, this position seems to be explicitly denied in The Emergence of the English Speaking Orthodox Rabbinate, a detailed and well-sourced history of the Rabbinical Council of America, by Rabbi Louis Bernstein. Until I can find information and sources which may put the situation into fuller perspective, I think it best to remove the claim that Soloveitchik accepted the validity of the Lieberman clause. RK 20:18, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

What has been the impact of his philosophy?

The article states that Soloveitchik "authored a number of essays and books offering a unqiue synthesis of Kantian existentialism an Jewish theology, the most well-known being The Lonely Man of Faith which deals with issues such as the the willingness to stand alone in the face of monumental challenges, and Halakhic Man."

Adherents of the Rav quote these books and essays with nothing less than reverence. They are studied even in Conservative Judaism's Jewish Theological Seminary. However, outside of Yeshiva University I wonder how widely they are accepted in Orthodoxy? His view of "Halakhic Man", according to Abraham Joshual Heschel, is greatly at odds with what he learned in Europe as a Hasid, and found it foreign to Jewish thought. That doesn't mean that it is "wrong". I just am wondering what its impact has been. Certainly, out of the hundreds of books on Jewish philosophy, these two works by Soloveitchik are two of the few that has been studied with seriousness, and which have had a major effect on the life of its readers. I don't want to minimize the significance of Soloveitchik's impact - I just don't want to overstate it either. RK 02:36, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

I think we should note the upsurge in interest in the Rav's halakhic and philosophic writings in Israel. Woolfj 14:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bogus Article?

Is it really. Setting up the source as if it were from a blog is not correct. I have looked into this matter - and I must try to ensure that Wiki does not simply parrot Lubavitcher mythology. Solovetchik's son did deny that his father ever knew Schneerson in Berlin. Seeing as this is the only not-Lubavitcher source on this matter this must at least be noted.

The link to to a pdf on the blog which is a transcription of an HaAretz article in 1998. Bogus? I have seen it with my own eyes in the microfiche when I was at Givat Ram. Contact HaAretz. Are you claiming the Friedman didn't write that.

You can do it your own way if you like (you are a great editor, but perhaps a little too close to the subject here) but under NPOV you must note this major dissenting opinion. Feel free to rephrase it if you like - but the dispute needs to be noted. I will revert it, and leave it up to you to change it around. jucifer 15:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I had a talk about this to people who knew Rabbi J. D. Soloveitchik, they said his son denial might not mean anything as he isn't in normal mental health. This not to say they accually met as there is no source for that, besides some Lubavitch myth.

"His son [sic] denial might not mean anything as he isn't in normal mental health." Content of this Talk Page is about as reliable as the article itself. While Haym Soloveitchik may have his problems, he is probably sane under most meanings of the word. The more serious problems with this article are not even so much accuracy or even NPOV, but that it is--as are many WK articles--nothing other than hagiography, masquerading as information. I studied briefly under Soloveitchik, and articles such as this do him no service. 66.108.4.183 07:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If MMS and JDS met more info

I was Googling and landed on, this. Might be able to get more infomation from him. Ems2 20:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Fix a NPOV Issue

I LOVE this article and a big yasher koach to those who have worked on it! In fact, this article was somewhat responsible for mckarving me. Here's a problem though: in the section, "Debate over integration with secular society", the POV of the author seems to definately lean with those on Modern Orthodoxy's left-wing by citing that The Rav did study philosophy. That's all well and good, but can we get the right-wing's refutation of said point? In other words, how can the right-wing hold that The Rav didn't want people to study philosophy if he did himself? --Yodamace1 16:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

World View

I made the heading somewhat more b'kavodig. Also, I actually learned in Rabbi Meiselman's yeshiva years ago, and know people who have learned there, or taught with Rabbi Meiselman in MIT, and he is not above saying what you have attributed. Then again, I would not put that much credence his particular view either, per se. I am very close to people who spent 10 years or more in the shiur, even though they were not officialy part of YU, and while I claim no first-hand knowledge, I do know that there are more people who feel that Rabbi Soloveitchik's weltanschauung have been distorted, by people from both sides of the spectrum, to further their views, so care in accurate portrayal and prevention of WP:NPOV is triply required here. -- Avi 18:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with the way the paragraph stands currently, except the original research tag. Which part of this is OR? I recently tagged the quote from Rav Meiselman with {{fact}} (citation needed), and as long as the quote is accurate then it contributes to the NPOV of the paragraph. There are no original interpretations of the subject, only presentations of objective information, as is proper. --DLandTALK 19:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand if Avi is addressing me or DLand. Along with DLand, I don't see any problems here. --Yodamace1 11:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I was addressing DLand, but I think the paragraph is better, and after looking it over, the {{fact}} tag should be sufficient. -- Avi 12:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Visit to Israel

At least one visit to the modern State of Israel is reported by the surviving wife of a former student of his, Yosef Itzhaki from Kibbutz Afikim, who met him at the Bar-Ilan University around 1970. No other source exists for this claim, and it is commonly accepted that he visited only that one time in 1935.

There is no proof for the above claim and it is contradicted by every biography. It should be left out until documented.--Jayrav 16:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Poster

The educational poster of the yeshviva world is sweet but does not belong on an already long wiki entry. There are 100's of JPg's more relevant than the poster is to SOloveitchik.--Jayrav 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

I propose a move to Joseph B. Soloveitchik. A Google test shows that "Joseph B. Soloveitchik" gets over 20,000 more hits than the current title. This should be a no-brainer. --DLandTALK 04:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. The middle initial is appropriate when more people recognize the name with it. John F. Kennedy not John Kennedy. Rutherford B. Hayes not Rutherford Hayes, Ulysses S. Grant not Ulysses Grant Warren G. Harding not Warren Harding (I'm sure there are other that weren't US presidents). As Joseph B. Soloveitchik is the name on most of his books, I support the move. Jon513 12:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is true. No contradiction here. What's being argued here is that the name with the middle initial IS the Rav's common name. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think that we should move it to Jospeh B. Soloveitchik. It is the name on his books and in library searchs. --Jayrav 21:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Enough time has gone by, and despite there not being much contribution to this discussion, I think there is enough consensus to proceed with the move. --DLandTALK 05:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Shuks, I'm disappointed you just didn't plain move it to JB as he was even better known by his initials. Maybe next time... IZAK 10:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'm not trying to start a fight. Other users have agreed with the move, anyway. Plus, if he was actually most commonly known as "JB" then, yes, in hachi nami, the article would be named that way (I guess a question could arise about lack of kavod, but that's another story). The fact is that the Rav was and is most commonly known in the world as Joseph B. Soloveitchik, just like JFK was most commonly known as John F. Kennedy, as Jon pointed out.--DLandTALK 10:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Joseph B. Soloveitchik/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Too much information uncited. -- Avi 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Category

BS"D

B'Kovod R' Yoshe Ber ZT"L, He would be included in two categories. The Rov was already giving over his peirushim before 1950, the end of the achronim, and continued from then to his petirah, Therby alloting him a contemporary spot

any input welcome. --Shuliavrumi 14:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahem

somebody apparently stole my username and edited out The Rav's profile... --Yodamace1 02:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Soloveitchik a great admirer of Schneerson?

The only sources we have for the claim that Soloveitchik was a "great admirer of Schneerson" are Lubavitch ones, which are hardly neutral, and prone to claiming all sorts of thing about Schneerson that cannot be verified by any independent sources. Please provide outside sources that confirm this claim. Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The sources are prominent students of Soloveitchik who are very prominent, and who are not lubavitchers. You see a video of them speaking in the sources shown. This should be as verifiable as it gets. There is also Kowalsky, Sholem B. From My Zaidy's House. Israel Book Shop, 2003 (ISBN 097023600X) page 274 which is referenced in the Menachem Mendel Schneerson article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
O.K., thanks for clarifying. Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
R" Hershel Shachter SHLIT"A says it. --Shuliavrumi 14:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The speakers on the video are most emphatically NOT students of Rabbi Soloveitchik, nor were they close associates. At most, Rabbi Herschel Schacter (NOT to be confused with the RY who was a disciple of RYBS) studied with the Rav's father, Reb Moshe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.129.166 (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"Left-wing" Orthodoxy?

There are serious - and unproven - allegations in this article that one of the major 20th and 21st century interpreters of Soloveitchik's thought - Rabbi Prof. David Hartman - and the Shalom Hartman Institute he has founded are, as the article claims without sourcing that Hartman's views are "considered to be outside the fold of acceptable Orthodox thought." I do not see any sources cited to support this assertion. Rabbi Hartman has a strong following among Orthodox, Conservative and Reform laypeople and rabbis as evidenced by the well-attended lectures and summertime programs at the Shalom Hartman Institute (evidence of this is available in text, video and audio form on the Hartman Institute website - [1].

Other unsourced allegations: "Many of Soloveitchik's students became leaders in the Modern Orthodox community. These students tend to espouse very distinct world views, often attributing their own views to Rabbi Soloveitchik himself.

Those furthest on the left include David Hartman, whose espousals of pluralism have earned him serious delegitimization. The institutions he founded, the Shalom Hartman Institute, is considered to be outside the fold of acceptable Orthodox thought.

Aabbey (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Alan Abbey

Early relationship with Menachem Mendel Shneerson

The article currently appears to have a great deal of focus on a conversation Soloveitchik and Shneerson had in Berlin in the early 20th century. There's no evidence that this brief conversation had anywhere near the significance on Soloveithchik's development that seems to be being made of it. It doesn't deserve more than a few sentences in a biography. If more is desired, suggest a separate article on Relationship between Joseph B. Solveitchik and Menachem Mendel Schneerson which can give complete attention to these issues without having to address the issue of undue weight in the context of an overall biography. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Several Ips have recently attempted to completely remove the entire section. While I disagree with trying to provide what seems to be almost a transcript of the conversation recovered from various people's memories and think mention of the whole incident needs to be boiled down to a couple of sentences sourced to reliable sources, disagree with completely removing all mention of it without discussion since it is a topic of later interest and note. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This section is copied verbatim from a Lubavitch propaganda tape of the kind commonly seen in Deli Kasbah. This is far from serious history; it is hagiography, an account of one encounter and finally, according to some, even counterfactual. For instance, Soloveitchik's son claims that his father had a falling out with Schneersohn over the messianism issue. This was not a relationship characterized only by soft cuddly hugs! It is impossible for me to understand the kind of fixation that causes someone to write such a section in the first place; would you go graffiti "endorsed the Rebbe" on the Rav's kever? Why not just note in the article that there was an important encounter betwen MMS and JBS if its so necessary to emphasize one visit the man made in his life to one synagogue? How is this possibly in someone's wildest fantasy a SECTION of the Rav's biography and not a minor footnote?

~~Josh~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the transcript, which is out of place in a wikipedia article, and the honorifics attached to the various attributer's names - which clogs up the piece and makes it difficult to read (not to mention that the only significant part is that they were students of the Rav). I also changed some of the non-neutral language ("momentous" among other things). The section should ideally be shortened to a paragraph at the most, as no compelling argument for significance has been forwarded. All this said: The piece needs to be cleaned up further - significantly all jargon needs to be removed. Lubbarlubab (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted this paragraph: According to Laufer, "Whenever he [R' Soloveitchik] had a question about an academic or religious text, he would stop over at R' Schneerson's house and consult with him." In a hagiographic biography, Laufer, citing a Rabbi who heard from R' Soloveichik himself and a Kfar Chabad Rabbi who heard it from associates of R' Soloveichik, says that "even though R' Schneerson did not spend much time at his studies, his marks were always higher than R' Soloveichik's".

It is nothing but Lubavitch propaganda. As noted by Deutsch and Menachem Friedman, RMMS was never a matriculating student in Berlin. Hence he would never have received grades. The idea that RJBS would need to run to RMMS with a question about academic or religious texts is ridiculous. In Berlin he was close with Rav YY Weinberg and R. Haim Heller. He corresponded constantly with his uncle, R. Menachem Krakowsky, not to mentio his father. Why would he run to a fellow student? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.129.235 (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether accurate or not, this relationship wasn't a major feature of RYBS's life. Portraying it as though it were distorts his life story. I an simply deleting this section regardless of its truth because its presence creates a false impression. micha (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the information arbitrarily deleted by Michab and would caution against removing reliably sourced information from a page without WP:CONSENSUS. The LR and RYBS were both highly WP:NOTABLE figures throughout their lives and by way of their impact on the world Jewish community. That they shared such obviously mutual respect while remaining so radically different in their philosophy and approach makes their interactions highly relevant to the article.--Winchester2313 (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_B._Soloveitchik/Archive_1&oldid=1247472799"