From comments I wrote on Avodah in 1999
I think a rather inaccurate and naive black and white picture
is being presented of the nature of information transfer in
the Orthodox world. There are those who feel that if we only
have Artscroll biographies - then future talmidei chachomim
will inevitably repeat the errors of their predecessors. This
is contrasted with the narrow minded rosy view of the right
wing that halacha requires focusing only on the positive and
perhaps even lying c.v..
I once asked one of my sons who was learning at Ponevitch about
this issue. He replied, "the rosy stories are presented for the
masses. The fact is that anyone who is going somewhere in the
Torah world has full access to the stories - but it is kept as
Torah Shebaal Peh. It is simply a question of to'eles. For
someone who is an outsider and is not immersed in learning -
the raw stories are harmful because they will be misunderstood.
For the insiders - those who come in contact with the big
people - the stories are understood in context."
Thus for those historians (and baalei batim) who rely primarily
on written material - there is a great disparity of what is
learned compared to one who has close relationships to gedolei
Torah - who pass down information concerning these issues. It
is rather naive to think that someone who has studied world
history, Jewish history and American History and regularly
reads the New York Times, Jewish Press as well as participating in internet
discussion is more sophisticated in understanding the dynamics
of Torah and Torah politics than the elite who devote their
lives to study at the main yeshivos whether it is Lakewood or
Yeshiva University.
This filtering of information relates to the problem of the
letters published by the Tora UMaddah Journal. Aside from the
halachic question of publishing these letters is the question
of what information Rav Weinberg wanted publicized. There is no
question that the harsh condemnations stated in the letters are
stated nowhere else in his large numbers of published letters
and tshuvos. Did he not publish them elsewhere because he
simply felt that they would not be properly understood in
written form or did he conceal them because he was legitimately
afraid that he would be condemned for these views? Did he
strongly exaggerate his views to Prof. Atlas as a way of
empathizing with his correspondent's views or were these in
fact his actual personal views that he expressed to anyone he
felt he could trust?
The bottom line is that the publication of the letters severely
damaged his reputation in the Orthodox world where he has been
acknowledged as one of the major talmidei chachomim of the 20th
century.
If the views are accurate then he and his halachic opinions
will be discounted or ignored - if they are not accurate then
his name has simply been besmirched. So what was gained? Did
someone think that there would be a movement of talmidei
chachomim to legitimize the harsh statements found in the
letters? Did someone fantasize that Rav Weinbergs standing is
so absolute that it would influence and bend the whole world in
his direction?!
I am sorry for the upset that my last posting caused but it *is* an accurate
statement of the Litvak point of view. (I believe that there is a totally
different dynamic in the chassidic world.) Let me mention two solid sources
expressing the elitist litvak view. The first is Rav Dessler's famous essay
(vol 3 page 355) stating that there should be only two options - full time
learning or a low status job. The second is Rav Moshe's (Igros Moshes Y.D. IV
36.15 page 233) adamant refusal to give a baal habayis the status of a ben
Torah. Thus in the litvische yeshiva world - those who are not major league
talmidei chachomim or on their way to being such are outsiders and
deliberately so. This puts tremendous pressure on people to learn - swim or
sink. But even someone learning full time in kollel - but not regarded as
going somewhere is also an outsider.
In contrast I was told (by one of the Bostoner Rebbe's sons) that in the
chassidic world being a chasid is itself adequate status. "As long as you
cling to the Rebbe it compensates for the fact that you are not a tzadik or
talmid chachom". He further stated that the chasid is more likely to learn in
a gentlemanly way while the litvak's concern is to defeat his opponent - the
result being that the litvak takes his learning much more seriously and
personally. [I am aware that there are chasidim who learn like litvaks - but
as a generalization it seems to be true]
Bottom line. There are insiders and outsiders in the Torah world. (Something
which I had thought was obvious to all.) The insiders have access to
information which not available to the outsiders. This is related also to the
issue of midgets and giants.
No comments :
Post a Comment
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.