Two Rabbis, Three Opinions Episode 19
Now on Spotify.
Does everyone need a hashkafa? Can’t my avodas Hashem focus exclusively on living according to the dictates of halacha? And if I think that I do need some sort of hashkafic framework, how do I find one or build one that is authentic?
And if you haven’t yet made up your mind about whether to vote in the WZO election, please listen to the end. And this week’s episode of Headlines, featuring Rabbi Breitowitz and myself. It should be available on Friday.
I disagree that we first look to rishonim. A hashkafah for one who engages with modernity, must deal with all aspects of modernity. Rishonim dealt with other worldviews from which we can extract some principles. But we need to translate their ideas.
Those who do not want to engage with modernity, emunah peshutah is a possible approach.
I concur with your disagreement, but in the opposite way – I was surprised that the first port of call was the Rishonim, rather than Tanach. Especially R’ Simi, as an unvarnished Hirschian, I would have expected him to echo Rav Hirsch’s call in Letter Two of the 19 Letters – “Therefore, to the Torah!” Additionally, I would have hoped for at least a mention of the approach shared by Rav Hirsch and Rav Soloveitchik extrapolating hashkafah from halachah.
Another point I think worth mentioning is the distinction between hashkafah and machshavah. Whereas hashkafah is ‘worldview’ and practically oriented towards how we are meant to live life down here (in Tanach, l’hashkif generally means looking down from above), machshavah is more closely ‘Jewish philosophy’ – less practically focused, more dealing with issues of free will/Divine foreknowledge, eschatology, theodicy, etc. While the Rishonim focus more on the latter, I think Rav Hirsch would de-emphasize that and accentuate much more the latter.
I don’t believe that we can derive lessons / machshaveh from the Torah itself. We need rabbinic interpretation to guide us.
Though the Rav ztl wanted halakha to be the basis for a Jewish philosophical/hashkafic worldview, i have never been able to gain much insight from that approach.
What makes me nervous in extrapolating from rishonim to modern times/challenges is the degree of personal biases that will enter the system. If the late Satmar Rebbe can read Ramban in support of his views on EY, then anything is possible.
Your last sentence needs fixing
(corrected)
and for those who do…
We need to distinguish between these aspects of modernity:
1. Ideas touching on religion
2. Devices and their underlying theories
Tell us what recent ideas have positive value for Torah Jews.
Reply
My impression is that modern hashkafa tries to guess what they feel Chazal and Rishonim would have believed if they had dealt with modern issues and had modern knowledge. Clearly, for example some of science known to medieval Rishonim is clearly incorrect. However, the difficult task is to try and determine based on their knowledge and our current knowledge what current solutions are likely the best.
Science as a work in progress:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMqifrqsTdE
More on the lecturer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Cahn
FWIW I’m not an expert but based on my readings both rationalist and Kabbalist thought were developed in general in response to our surroundings.
Reading academic studies of both. Probably Kabbalists more than Rationalists tend to claim their books were written way before they were by earlier greats- Sefer Yetzira and Zohar two obvious cases.
That does not mean some of the ideas might not precede the writing /compilation of those books. Thus, there is some evidence that at least some of the ideas that we only know from the Zohar were known by Egyptian Rationalist Jewry a century or so beforeRShimon Bar Yochai
It still boggles my mind that somehow Rav Dov Landau has become the spokesman for Charedi Jewry. Not to disparage his learning or greatness in other areas, few people had ever heard of him until 6 months ago, and he is literally the most extreme of the Litvish Roshei Yeshiva (that alone should marginalize him). Rant over.
Torah Im Daas: A question on your profound and deeply insightful observations: When you say “few people,” are you referring to people in the Haredi community in Israel? Rav Landau was perhaps not directly involved in public leadership, but there is no one in the Haredi yeshiva community who has not known about him for decades. But I do agree that if the people in your neighborhood had not heard of him, he should immediately be impeached as spokesman for Haredi Jewry, even if the Chazon Ish (who of course died 70 years ago) did refer to him as a Sha’agas Aryeh in Kodashim.
Which then raises the questions:
1. Is someone who is old enough to have been acknowledged by someone who died over seventy years ago a good choice for leader of a community?
2. Is mastery of Kodshim a qualification for community leadership?
By the way, the yeshivish community in Israel is greatly overshadowed by the chassidic world.
My some evidence and some ideas was an attempt to remain neutral in the dispute between someone who was at one time an illui from Radon and later a RY before becoming an administrator who was an expert on Philo who stated there are statements In Philo that we only know from the Zohar.This person was opposed by most secular Kabbalists. That RY was also an expert on 1st century and start of another religion.
It is way beyond my pay grade to say who is correct.
Thus, since neither side in the dispute are fools I took the position that there must be some dust of similarities to the Zohar whether or not exactly the same language is found in Philo and the Zohar.
Mycroft, it was R’ Samuel Belkin. I have no idea why you play around that way, but you insult his memory by not saying his name.
Of course, the Zohar could have copied things from Philo, it being later by all accounts. R’ Leiman’s discovery about St. Jerome is just the opposite.
“Thus, there is some evidence that at least some of the ideas that we only know from the Zohar were known by Egyptian Rationalist Jewry a century or so beforeRShimon Bar Yochai”
Can you give some examples please?
That would be remarkable. (It has to be a reference to Philo.)
One or two things which later appear in the Zohar appear in the writings of St. Jerome, who lived in the 400’s and was in touch with the Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael. That means that some of the Zohar predates Moshe de Leon by about 900 years, but while that’s very interesting, it’s hardly earth-shattering.
MF
The Chazon Ish may have praised Rav Landau for his mastery of Kodshim. But he himself writes in Kodshim (Chullin) that in our times we must draw the secular close with “cords of love “.
I don’t insult his memory. It is that the institution that essentially built for better or worse followed his model ignores him to the extent that I’ve even asked Belkin scholars who was Dr Belkin and they have no idea vayakam melacha chadash Asher lo Yadah et Yoseph applies there and elsewhere. A very interesting dynamic I once heard Rabbi Rakeffet talk about this situation. About how an institution can build some up whi le in charge but after gone tear him down.
Want a two lesser known trivia details about relationship between Dr Belkin and the Rav.
When Dr Belkin was in Brown as a student many times he was invited to and spent Shabbas at the home of RYBS. Although different states not tha5 far by train. Dr Belkin taught the highest level shiurim at RIETS just before RYBS came. There was a gap from ptirah of R Moshe Soloveichik and the arrival of RYBS to RIETS . When RYBS came Dr Belkin encouraged his top students to go to RYBS shiuri. Dr Belkin would be the last RY to become Prez of YU- there have been some prominent Rabbis but no RY. To be clear many have been given title RY but that goes with Prez YU if a Rabbi. Dr Belkin was the last person to be. a RY before becoming Prez.
I found it interesting—this disgust at the so-called segulah of hanging a picture of Rav Shayale. Oddly enough, few people seem to understand what they’re doing or why.
My great-great-grandfather was Reb Shlomo Engel, a devoted chassid of Rav Shayale. The story behind this segulah is one I heard from my grandfather, may he live and be well, who heard it directly from his grandfather.
Reb Shlomo lived in Tokaj, the larger town next to Kerestir. He was a wholesale grocer with a warehouse full of flour, sugar, and other goods—and, as you might expect, he had a serious mouse problem. On one of his visits to his Rebbe, he brought up the issue. Rav Shayale responded that the Gemara teaches mice come when a person doesn’t give enough tzedakah—in other words, they’re sent to take what belongs to Hashem.
Reb Shlomo immediately pulled out his account books and showed that he gave 20% of his income to tzedakah, with 10% going just to care for the visitors who came through Kerestir. Rav Shayale was satisfied. “If that’s the case,” he said, “then the mice have no halachic right to be in your warehouse.”
He instructed the local Beis Din to issue an official psak to that effect. The Beis Din was hesitant to issue a ruling… against mice. But Rav Shayale said he would sign it himself. The proclamation was made and hung on the warehouse door.
The next morning, the non-Jewish baker across the street complained that his bakery had suddenly become infested with mice.
I’ve actually been to the old warehouse. I’ve seen the bakery across the road. I’ve even heard from people old enough to have seen that proclamation. It’s a true story, beyond all doubt.
And yet, the point of the story is completely missed by those who hang Rav Shayale’s picture like a lucky charm. What did Rav Shayale tell my great-great-grandfather? “Open your books.” If you’re doing what’s right and just, then yes, the tzaddik can intercede. But the photo isn’t a shortcut. It’s not a superstition. It’s a challenge.
Even more ironic is how that photo survived in the first place—specifically because of Reb Shlomo. Rav Shayale, for kabbalistic reasons, was opposed to having his photograph taken. But after World War I, the annual journey he made to Sanz for the yahrtzeit of the Divrei Chaim required a passport. Now that the Austro-Hungarian Empire had split, travel wasn’t so simple. The chassidim negotiated a compromise with the authorities: Rav Shayale would take a photo, but with his hat on and not facing the camera directly.
Six photos were developed—two went to the passport office, and four were kept by chassidim. One went to Reb Shlomo.
After Rav Shayale passed away in 1925, his son, Rav Avramele, requested that these four return the photo—something his father had never wanted to exist. In return, he offered each a personal item of Rav Shayale’s. Reb Shlomo was given his Rebbe’s pearl-handled knife, the one he used to cut the challah.
But after a day or two, Reb Shlomo returned the knife. He asked for the photo back. His Rebbe was no longer alive—but at least, he said, he could look upon his face.
And now? That same picture Rav Shayale never wanted taken is used to cover up illegal building violations. As if it’s a magic shield. What a distortion of the message. Rav Shayale was not offering a shortcut. He offered truth. He wanted righteousness, justice, and above-and-beyond giving. The mice left because Reb Shlomo had already opened his books—and they told a story of integrity.
Rabbi Mendel Kaplan, the legendary rosh yeshivah in the Skokie and Philadelphia yeshivos, opposed the term “hashkafah,” as reported in “Reb Mendel And His Wisdom”(Mesorah Publications, p. 86):
” Rebbe once said, “The word hashkafah is misleading because it literally means ‘viewpoint,’ which implies that it’s possible to see things from a different viewpoint, and that’s not true. Whatever is Torah, be it a verse or a saying of Chazal, is the reality of the world. There is truth and falsehood, period, and no in-between. Hashkafah, someone’s outlook, does not change reality, because there is only one world based on truth, and the Torah shows us what the world is. These things are not outlooks, they’re reality! The word hashkafah is not to be found anywhere in the classic works and it creates a very wrong image of what the Torah dictates.”
I would add that despite speaking about “no in-between,” R. Mendel was a very complex person and could sometimes seem to take two or three different approaches to the same issue . R. Berel Wein notes, for example, in the preface to the above book regarding boys in his yeshiva attending Shomer HaDati Bnei Akiva in Chicago where many of the best bachurim of the yeshivah were leaders in it. The advice Rav Mendel gave one person often contradicted what he told another(p. 63).
When his Rebbetzin brought potato chips to his succah of his Brooklyn home, R. Mendel wouldn’t take any. When the students asked why, he said he didn’t like to eat them because “they make too much noise.” When an excessively “pious” and aloof student started doing the same, he took some and then passed them to the boy. When the boy asked why Reb Mendel wanted him to eat some, he said, “Because they make noise”(p.64).
One saw nuance regarding his attitude towards secular studies as well. On the one hand, R. Mendel taught in Skokie and Philadelphia, schools with strong English departments. He was familiar with the natural sciences and would frequently marvel at Hashem’s wonders. He read in private a book on nuclear physics, and was also seen reading a book on the theory of relativity left by a bachur in the shiur room during the lunch break, only stopping when he realized he was being watched. He also read a book on the chemistry of winemaking(p.194, which I presume was related to his winery in Chicago). He viewed such knowledge as the maidservant of Torah, but only if kept in perspective and confined to its proper time and place.
On the other hand, when his young son placed his school books on the table, he immediately removed them, chiding his son, “How many times do I have to tell you: English books go on the floor — sefarim go on the table!” He then placed the books in a neat pile on the floor next to the wall(p. 194). He also removed his son from secular studies at a very young age, who would learn in the Beis Midrash or just ran around there.
When challenged about this, Reb Mendel asked the Satmar Rebbe for his opinion, and the Rebbe supported him on the basis of the Maharsha(Berachos 28b) who says that it is good for a child to run around the feet of talmidei chachamim where he can pick up middos tovos at times when he is unable to learn Torah. When two truant officers came to investigate, they were so impressed by his explanation of his traditions regarding this matter that they did not bother him again(p. 192). The Maharsha referred to by the Satmar Rebbe can be found here:
https://www.sefaria.org/Chidushei_Agadot_on_Berakhot.28b.4?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
A fundamental question regarding hashkafah is concerning the presentation of multiple views. One may oppose multiple views either intrinsically — because one considers even seemingly conflicting views as fundamentally harmonious — or educationally, because teaching multiplicity might cause confusion.
In this regard, there was a very interesting post on R. Daniel Eidensohn’s blog in which he relates a dispute between R. Yaakov Weinberg of Ner Israel and R. Dessler regarding eillu v’eilu, in addition to discussing other contemporary opinions, some of which are excerpted below. See the first link at the end, excerpted below, as well as a second link containing a translation of one of the sources in the Michtav M’eliyahu (3:353) for this and a similar report there of R. Yaakov Weinberg’s dissent:
“Finally let me mention my experience with writing and publishing my sefer Daas Torah. When I first started working on it I consulted a famous rabbi connected with Artscroll. He told me point blank – “you are a danger to klall Yisroel. You are going to cause confusion and doubt by telling people that there are multiple ways of understanding fundamental hashkofa issues.”
I consulted with Rav Bulman. His response was, “You will never get away with presenting multiple views. The yeshiva world holds that there is one right answer. You are following in the approach of Rav Tzadok and Rav Kook. But I want to buy the first copy. You hear I don’t want a present I want to buy the first copy.”
I talked to Rav Yaakov Weinberg – rosh hayeshiva of Ner Israel in Baltimore. We talked for an hour and he repeatedly said. “We encourage questions from our talmidim in the yeshiva. There is nothing that you can’t ask. However regarding writing – you can write about anything except the dispute between the chassidim and the Gra.” He was also astonished when I mentioned Rav Dessler’s view of eilu v’eilu – that it is simply a manifestation of different perspectives but all competing view of our sages are fundamentally in agreement. “You can’t tell me that an intelligent person can think this way! If so words have no meaning.”
I then went to Rav Eliashiv – he told me simply that there is no problem of raising issues and presenting multiple alternatives – as long as the source material was from mainstream accepted views. He did not see a problem “as long as I did not present sources from the Cairo Geniza.” In regards to the issue of confusion – he said simply “let them ask their rebbes and rosh yeshiva.” You don’t avoid teaching Torah because it raises questions.”
https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/12/questions-i-what-vs-why-vs-silence.html
https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2013/01/eilu-v-eilu-no-disputes-in-talmud-agada.html
I voted OIC/Mizrachi because of R. Dovid Bashvkin’s idea of “hashkafically homeless, ” or more precisely, its opposite, finding a hashkafic home.
While Eretz HaKodesh and Aish Ha’am are excellent choices, I identify more closely with the robust support of IDF soldiers and of attending the Washington rally one sees in the YU world, as well as with their hashkafos on other issues(e.g. more options regarding Torah and science conflicts). Ironically, these positions used to be more accepted in the Agudah world before the Slifkin controversy. At the same time, I was educated and I live in the charedi community and respect its accomplishments.
Back in 2020, R. Adlerstein wrote a post titled “WZO Election: Vote (No Longer) Early, Vote (Not) Often, and Still Appreciate the Moetzes.” While the world has changed in unimaginable ways since its March 6 publication date — Covid and 10/7 — and the Moetzes took a different consensus position regarding voting in this year’s WZO election, I still thought of the relevancy of that previous post, namely, the part about “The Moetzes works well for the job that it has settled on.” Or as I think of it, the Moetzes still provides leadership for its community on many matters. See link:
https://cross-currents.com/2020/03/06/wzo-election-vote-no-longer-early-vote-not-often-and-still-appreciate-the-moetzes/
A correction to my above comment regarding R. Mendel Kaplan as well as an additional example of his nuanced approach:
The comment, in relevant part, should read: “R. Mendel was a very complex person and could sometimes seem to take two or three different approaches to the same issue, as R. Berel Wein notes, for example, in the preface to the above book regarding boys in his yeshiva attending Shomer HaDati Bnei Akiva in Chicago where many of the best bachurim of the yeshivah were leaders in it.”
R. Wein writes further that once during a discussion in class about Thanksgiving, R. Mendel made a joke about eating turkey on Thanksgiving. When one very serious boy asked if he meant that we shouldn’t have a Thanksgiving dinner, R. Mendel replied, “If you go home and tell that to your mother, I’ll slap you.”
R. Wein reflects that R. Mendel had wanted to temper their enthusiasm about Thanksgiving and to make them think about things they wouldn’t normally think about, but at the same time, he didn’t want to cause fights at home, and he was the true iconoclast.