Thursday, July 10, 2008

Gra's Derech in Halacha II -R' Chaim Soloveitchik's view

Rabbi Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik wrote in Rupture and Reconstruction page 111-112:


(c) The contemporary shift to text authority explains the current prevalence in yeshivah circles of the rulings of the GRA. The GRA, while far from the first to subject the corpus of Jewish practice to textual scrutiny, did it on an unprecedented scale and with unprecedented rigor. No one before him (and quite possibly, no one since) has so often and relentlessly drawn the conclusion of jettisoning practices that did not square with the canonized texts. Great as was the GRA's influence upon the mode of Talmudic study, and awesome as was his reputation generally, nevertheless, very few of his radical rulings were accepted in nineteenth century Lithuania, even in the yeshiva world. (To give a simple example: the practice in the Yeshivah of Volozhin was to stand during the havdalali service as was customary, rather than to sit as the GRA had insisted.) See also Aryeh Leib Frornkin, Sefer Toldot Eliyahu (Wilno, 19(0), pp. 70-71. Seeking there to demonstrate, to an elite Lithuanian audience at the close of the nineteenth century, the uniqueness of his distinguished father and uncle, Fromkin points out that they were numbered among the very few who followed the rulings of the GRA. Most towns in Eastern Europe had traditions going back many centuries, and even the mightiest names could alter a practice here and there, but could effect no wholesale revision of common usage. Indeed, the GRA's writ rarely ran even in Vilna (Wilno), outside of his own kloyz; [the small synagogue where he had prayed]. (I have heard this point made by former residents of Vilna, See also Mishnah. Berurah, Biur Halakhah, 551:1, and note how rare such a comment is in that work.) Mark should be made of the striking absence of the GRA from the Arukh ha-Shulhan, Orak Hayyim, written by one who was a distinguished product of the Yeshivah of Volozhin and rabbi of that bastion of Lithuanian talmudism, Navahrdok (Novogrudok). Indeed, the first major work known to me that systematically reckons with the Biur ha-Gra is the Mishnah Berurah, and understandably so, as that work is one of the first to reflect the erosion of the traditional society (see, above, text and n, 6). With the further disappearance of the traditional orah hayyim in the twentieth century, the ritual of daily life had to be constructed anew from the texts; the GRA's work exemplified this process in its most intense and uncompromising form, and with the most comprehensive mastery of those texts. It is this consonance with the contemporary religious agenda and mode of decision making [pesak[ that has led to the widespread influence of the (GRA today in the yeshivah and haredi world. (See below n, 68.) (S. Z. Leiman pointed out to me that S. Z. Havlin arrived at similar conclusions as to the delayed influence of the GRA on pesak, and further corroborated them by a computer check of the Responsa Project of Bar-llan University. He presented his findings, in a still unpublished paper, at the Harvard Conference on Jewish Thought in the Eighteenth Century, April 1992.)

(1) I emphasize that my remarks are restricted to pesak and do not refer to modes of study. In the latter field, the GRA's impact was both swift and massive. (2) In light of my remarks above, I should take care to add that though the GRA is noticeably absent as an authority in the Arukh ha-Shulhan, that work is written in the spirit of the GRA, whereas the Mishnah Berurah, for all its deference to the GRA, is penned in a spirit antithetical to the one of the Gaon, The crux of the Gaon's approach both to Torah study and pesak was its independence of precedent. A problem was to be approached in terms of the text of the Talmud as mediated by the rishonim (and in the Gaon's case even that mediation was occasionally dispensed with). 'What subsequent commentators had to say about this issue, was, with few exceptions (e.g. Magen Avraham, Shakh), irrelevant. This approach is writ large on every page of the Biur ha-Gra, further embodied in the Hayyei Adam and the Arukh ha-Shulhan, and has continued on to our day in the works of such Lithuanian posekim, as the Hazan Ish and R. Mosheh Feinstein. The Mishnah. Berurah rejects de facto this approach and returns to the world of precedent and string citation, Decisions are arrived at only after elaborate calibration of and negotiation with multiple "aharonic" positions.

7 comments:

  1. Recipients and Publicity has left a new comment on your post "Gra's Derech in Halacha II -R' Chaim Soloveitchik'...":

    Tell us more about Rabbi Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik, please.

    This is what Wikipedia has to say about him so far (obviously refelcting the editors who have put it together that way) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haym_Soloveitchik :
    =========================
    "Rabbi Dr. Haym Soloveitchik (b. September 19, 1937) is the only son of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. He never married. A graduate of the Maimonides School, Soloveitchik received his B.A. from Harvard College in 1958, with a major in History. After two years of post-graduate study at Harvard, he moved to Israel and began his studies toward an M.A. and PhD at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, under the world-famous historian Professor Jacob Katz. He wrote his Master's thesis on the laws of gentile wine in medieval Germany. His doctorate, which he received in 1972, concentrated on laws of pawnbroking and usury.

    Teaching

    Soloveitchik taught at Hebrew University until 1984, and reached the rank of full Professor. During that period, he also taught at and served as Dean of the Bernard Revel Graduate School of Yeshiva University and served as a Rosh Yeshiva at its affiliate the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary. In the early 1980's, he left Hebrew University and began teaching at Yeshiva University on a full-time basis, serving as University Professor. He taught there until 2006, when he was appointed University Research Professor.

    Known as a very demanding teacher, Soloveitchik has had relatively few personal students. The scholars who have been seen as among his leading students are Rabbi Michael Rosensweig, a Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshiva University, and Edward Fram, who teaches in the History Department at Ben Gurion University.


    Scholarship

    Haym Soloveitchik is acknowledged as a leading contemporary historian of Halakha. Much of his work focuses on the interaction of Halakha with changing economic realities. Specifically, he has produced major studies of usury and pawnbroking and the multiple ramifications of Jewish involvement in the manufacture and sale of wine. A major theme of his writing is the positing of an essential integrity to the Jewish Legal process in its interaction with contemporary challenges.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The GR'A sent his Talmidim to Eretz Yisrael to build the Yishuv.

    How immeasurably far from the Derech of the GR"A strayed HaRav Elyashiv when he enabled and supported Sharon's perpetrating the Gerush of the Jews from Gush Katif.

    ReplyDelete
  3. משה לרמן said...

    The GR'A sent his Talmidim to Eretz Yisrael to build the Yishuv.

    How immeasurably far from the Derech of the GR"A strayed HaRav Elyashiv when he enabled and supported Sharon's perpetrating the Gerush of the Jews from Gush Katif.
    ==================
    Your statment is nonsense and insulting. If you can't make intelligent and respectful comments - please stop commenting here.
    If you want to assert that the Gra believed that today - one is prohibited to give up any land and that one need to die for such a principel - please provide a source. Your assumption that you understand how the Gra would act in the present situation - is a bit too much.

    It is a wild leap from saying that the Gra supported the settling of Israel to saying that he and his genuine students would not allow giving up land in effort to obtain peace. Of course you are also assuming that Gaza is part of Israel.

    Please cut out these uninformed generalizations. I do appreciate your sincererity - but that doesn't justify these types of remarks.

    Similarly your comments about the Gra's attitude to science are also uniformed about the complexity of the issue.

    In sum, cut out the slogans and unsupported generalizations. If you want to raise these issues as questions - they clearly have validity and are welcome. If you insist on teaching us your "deep" understanding of these matters - it is not appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Talmidim of the GR"A took enormous risks and many paid with their lives.

    You systematically ask for sources regarding things that are completely obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  5. משה לרמן said...

    The Talmidim of the GR"A took enormous risks and many paid with their lives.

    You systematically ask for sources regarding things that are completely obvious.
    ======================
    What does that have to do with your criticism of Rav Eliashiv. I am asking for sources that justify that the Gra would have acted differently from Rav Eliashiv. You act as you understand the Gra's concept of yishuv haaretz so well that know - without any doubt - what he would have done. Therefore that knowledge gives you the right to criticize those who you imagine don't have your understanding or don't have the courage to act on their knowledge.

    I am simply asking you to explicate the basis of your high opinion of yourself - especially in being able to criticize someone such as Rav Eliashiv. Saying it is poshut is not a meaningful answer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The GR"A obviously did not think that Pikuach Nefesh is the overriding consideration when it comes to settling the Land. But Rav Elyashiv does think so. Having studied Reb Moshe's psakim, you are no doubt aware that also he thought that Pikuach Nefesh is the only consideration. He arguably influenced Rav Ovadia Yosef in this respect. And that brought us the Oslo agreements and the death of 1500 Jews. I am writing this with very great pain. I learned very much from Reb Moshe. However, the GR"A used to say that in matters of truth there is not personal regard. If the truth cannot be said, there can be no repair and no progress.

    ReplyDelete
  7. משה לרמן said...

    "The GR"A obviously did not think that Pikuach Nefesh is the overriding consideration when it comes to settling the Land."
    --------------------------
    Do you have a single reference that the Gra was not concerned with pikuach nefesh because yishuv haaretz was more important?
    Without such a source your assertion that the Gra differed from Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Eliashiv - is just wild conjecture on your part.
    ===========================
    ML wrote
    "However, the GR"A used to say that in matters of truth there is not personal regard. If the truth cannot be said, there can be no repair and no progress."
    ----------------------------
    You haven't given a source and context for this statement. I can't believe the way you read a statement - assuming this is a direct quote. In addition what does yishuv haaretz have to do with truth?

    Bottom lines you are making wild assertions which are simply not supported by anything you have stated and I doubt there is anything in the literature of the Gra which would support your assertions.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.