Chumash Mesoras Harav – Bamidbar

You may also like...

13 Responses

  1. mycroft says:

    “Dr. Lustiger’s success as a YU-outsider in publishing so much of R. Soloveitchik points to another important phenomenon: with the passage of time, R. Soloveitchik’s influence has spread to parts of the community that by and large ignored him during his lifetime. His chidushei Torah have found there way into more and more of the haredi yeshivos”

    What has happened in North America that the Ravs hashkafic influence has decreased and thus it is easier for people to recognize his undisputed gadlus in Torah even while rejecting his hashkafa. A reason why IMO a JO would not have published today the obituary that they did for the Ravs ptirah. When the Rav was niftar his ideas had substantial following in North America and thus a threat,and needed to be fought against.Today he has been limited to his undisputed role as a leading mechanech and gadol .btorah.

    Of course  in halacha lemaaseh he was always tacitly accepted such as his redesign of the pens that are used in schechita in early 60s. There were animal rights objections and the Rav redesigned the pens.

    • joel rich says:

      What has happened in North America that the Ravs hashkafic influence has decreased and thus it is easier for people to recognize his undisputed gadlus in Torah even while rejecting his hashkafa.

       

      ========================

      Sadly I must agree that this seems anecdotally accurate as far as the masses are concerned

      kt

      • Mycroft says:

        JoelI might argue that the statement is even more likely to be true among elite, eg those receiving smicha, RY, yeshiva students, than it is among the masses.

      • dr. bill says:

        Were it only the masses!  I have little insight into how the masses felt or now feel about the Rav ztl.  Sadly, many leaders on the right have recast the Rav in their image.  Many on the left have argued that were the Rav still with us, given our current situation, he would certainly have taken such and such a position, positions they embrace with an annoying certainty that the Rav often eschewed.
        My own suspicion, is that we live in an era where the Rav’s insightful/brilliant but short derashot have replaced his more philosophical but lengthy essays as the texts that define his legacy.  What he delivered to talmidim in the yeshiva, unadulterated brisker conceptual analysis, and his deeply philosophic writings published largely prior to his death, have been superseded by volumes of material delivered, but rarely in writing, to a variety of less trained audiences to whom he spoke.  Even in shiur, given his desire to teach not just present torah, he forbade recording for obvious reasons.
         
        In one regard, I agree with Joel’s comment.  Except for his published drashot on the state of Israel – five derashot and kol dodi dofek – his other drashot, especially his shorter comments on the chumash and other texts, were entirely uncontroversial, hashkafically.  Given that these shorter comments form the basis of much that has been written, I could easily see how they will attract a wider audience to his Torah.

        • mycroft says:

          “My own suspicion, is that we live in an era where the Rav’s insightful/brilliant but short derashot have replaced his more philosophical but lengthy essays as the texts that define his legacy.  What he delivered to talmidim in the yeshiva, unadulterated brisker conceptual analysis, and his deeply philosophic writings published largely prior to his death, have been superseded by volumes of material delivered, but rarely in writing, to a variety of less trained audiences to whom he spoke. ”

          Generally agree. IMO it would be as if someone would define the Torah of Rav Moshe from  an               analysis of Rav Moshes divrei Torah while ignoring Igr es Moshe, or  the Chafetz Chaim by solely focusing on Mishna Berura while ignoring  Shmiras  Halashon.

          I wonder  and have a different hunch as to  why an analysis of the Ravs positions often relies on his speeches/comments rather than decisions he made during his lifetime.

    • Steve Brizel says:

      How is this comment relevant at all.to the Sefer that is under dis mission as opposed to your often stated and disputed claims about RYBS and reliance upon documents that you studiously refuse to identify for those interested?

  2. joel rich says:

    I urge anyone who has the time to listen to the original recording (transcripts are available but imho they don’t hold a candle to listening)
    Behaaloscha – Shlach – Farewell to Rabbi Klavan – RCA Convention –

    Speaker:
    Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik

     

    http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/767710/rabbi-joseph-b-soloveitchik/behaaloscha-shlach-farewell-to-rabbi-klavan-rca-convention-/

     

    The first time I heard it I realized I had come into contact with an intellect and a soul in a different league.

    KT
    Joel Rich

  3. dr. bill says:

    Rabbi Adlerstein, you capture the nature of Dr. Lustiger’s work accurately and succinctly.  One minor question.  what do you mean by “translator of R. Chaim into the lingua franca of America”??   Clearly his embrace of secular knowledge and the significance of the State of Israel were departures from the traditions of Brisk that he thought a changing world required.  And clearly he extended the scope of brisker methodology into many new areas of jewish thought.  But I could not sense any difference between his shiurim which (by my day) were given in the linqua franca of america to his yartzeit and teshuvah drashot given in yiddish.  If you mean he was primarily a perpetrator of the brisker tradition versus a trailblazer, then i would only say, he unlike many who dispute his legacy would not acknowledge the dichotomy.  

     

    • mycroft says:

      “Clearly his embrace of secular knowledge and the significance of the State of Israel were departures from the traditions of Brisk that he thought a changing world required.  And clearly he extended the scope of brisker methodology into many new areas of jewish thought. ”

      AGREED!!!!

      “But I could not sense any difference between his shiurim which (by my day) were given in the linqua franca of america to his yartzeit and teshuvah drashot given in yiddish.”

      Since I     dont know Yiddish can’t comment,but I have heard similarly.

      ” If you mean he was primarily a perpetrator of the brisker tradition versus a trailblazer, then i would only say, he unlike many who dispute his legacy would not acknowledge the dichotomy. ”

      He was both a perpetrator of brisker tradition and a trailblazer. Believed in both. I believe to the extent that anyone denies either aspect of the Rav they are engaging in revisionism. The Rav was very much aware of how he differed from Rav Chaim. Of course, IMO one can make the argument that the differences  in dealing with Rav Chaims legacy started a generation earlier with major differences in attitude between Rav Moshe and Rav Velvel.

  4. Steve Brizel says:

    Great article! I agree wholeheartedly with R Adlerstein’s assessment of the Sefer and more particularly Dr Lustiger.

  5. Raymond says:

    I do not understand why the Chareidi world apparently does not stress Jewish theology in their places of higher Torah learning.  Also of continued puzzlement to me, is why the yeshivot of all Orthodox varieties stress the study of the Talmud so much more than our Tanakh.  It seems obvious to me that the Tanakh, especially our Chumash, represents the very core, the most indispensable part of our religion and way of life.   And as for Jewish theology, I can think of very few Orthodox Jewish theologians who have been alive in my lifetime.  The only two names that come immediately to my mind are Rav Soloveitchik, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, and Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.

    I recently purchased Rabbi Lustiger’s compilation of commentaries on BaMidbar by Rav Soloveitchik, and I own the first three books as well.  I am extremely eager to tackle all of those books, and anything else written by the great Rav, but have only delayed doing so because I am still immersed in the works of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, whose complete mastery of the English language coupled with his brilliant theological insights and vast knowledge, makes reading his works simply irresistible.

Pin It on Pinterest