https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/285242
In 1983, on the 7th of Iyar, the renowned Gaon Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l gave a letter of approval, known as a haskama, to the Gemorah, naming Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz. But, if one carefully looked at the text of Rav Feinstein’s letter, it seems possible that he did not review all aspects of the Steinsaltz Gemorah. Some of the explanations went against traditional understandings of the text in order to explain it. For example, the Talmud tells us that a woman cannot conceive immediately subsequent to the first instance of intimacy. Medical opinion today says otherwise and Rabbi Steinsaltz comes up with a psychological explanation which solves the problem. That is one example. There are many more.
In the haredi world, Rav Shach’s animadversions expressed in 1989,were concerned with maintaining a different type of order. He felt that Rabbi Steinsaltz’s writings represented a danger to the system of the traditional Lithuanian style Yeshivah, in general, and to the traditional method of learning – specifically. It all began with a book published by Rabbi Steinsaltz entitled “Dmuyot Min HaMikrah – Biblical Images” (1980),which Rabbi Steinsaltz had intended to use as a kiruv tool – to bring the masses of Israeli society back to a respect for and deeper understanding of the biblical personalities who appear in Tanach.
The Litvish model long go embraced "If 1000 come in and 999 leave and go OTD and have their lives ruined, we don't care because that 1 who stayed and became a 'Gadol' made it all worth it."
ReplyDeleteAnd Rav Steinsaltz, zt"l, looked at those 999 and asked "How can I bring them back?" For that he was denounced as a heretic. Didn't he know they had to be sacrifices for the one guy who made it?
It's also the aristocratic snobbishness of the Litvish showing here. Rav Steinsaltz wrote dozens of books on Jewish subjects to make Torah accessible to the masses. Did any of them? He wrote comprehensive commentaries on Tanach, Talmud and Mishnah Torah. How about them? Yet they dared to stand in judgement of him because he was a "threat" to the Litvish exclusionary style of learning.
Garnel, again you are shooting from the hip. Please investigate exactly why Rav Shach complained about Rav Steinsaltz and then talk. You pick up a wisp in the wind and pontificate as if you know what is going on.
ReplyDeleteLol
DeleteThe litvish model he mentions is based on the seminal Michtav M'eliyahu - R Dessler's collection which was ironically called "strive for truth" in English.
As I have made known before, Aryeh Kaplan's books are far worse and more dangerous than anything Steinsaltz might have said. But for some reason, Kaplan was left untouched. Possibly because he wrote in English and people were so in awe of him,
that nobody was malshin him to the Israeli Gedolim, and the American gedolim thought he was the best thing since sliced bread.
Here's my question though. If the chareidim are against innovation, new movements, changes in the mesorah or adjustments to "this is how we've always done it!" then how do they exist? After all, the Litvish model was invented by Rav Chaim Volozhiner, zt"l. It didn't exist before. Chasidus as we understand it was invented by the Mezeritcher Magid, zt"l. It didn't exist before. So other than lying and pretending that it has always existed, how do Chareidim justify their existence?
DeleteI recall very well wha the controversy was about. Rav Schach, z"l, wasn't happy (to be fair, he never seemed to be happy) about some things that Rav Steinsaltz, zt"l, had written on Tanach because it wasn't what the Litvish approach accepted. He also wasn't happy that Rav Steinsaltz was translating the Talmud into modern Hebrew so that any Israeli who might be interested in learning could pick up a book and understand it. Why, he might get the wrong understanding in his head! (ie. any understanding different than Rav Schach's)
ReplyDeleteSo he used the Tanach book as the excuse to "ban" Rav Steinsaltz and at the same time his people pushed Artscroll to start putting out the Schottenstein in English to prevent the English Steinsaltz from becoming a standard in the non-Hebrew speaking world.
The IsraelNationalNews article cited here, which is pro-Steinsaltz, says that Rav Steinsaltz agreed that Rav Shach was right regarding Rav Steinsaltz's depictions of Biblical and Talmudic figures. What do you have besides rumor to back your claim that Rav Shach was behind Schottenstein. And if he was, look at the Rav Feldman article in tradition cited here on Daas Torah that the Steinsaltz Talmud is very flawed. I have been looking at it lately and find reason to agree.
ReplyDeleteIt must be noted that there is a response to Rav Feldman's criticism's in a letter to Tradition by the English Steinsalt's research editor, which resolves almost all of Rav Feldman's objections.
ReplyDeleteAbraham
DeleteHow are you doing?
Good to see you posting in your own name
please provide link to his response I could not find it
Delete