Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
(Hebrew) Nefesh HaRav, by Rabbi Hershel Schachter, Reishis Yerushalayim, Jerusalem, 5754.
"At the conclusion of a year after the petira of Maran HaRav Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik zt"l: A collection of statements; Descriptions of Ma'asim; Words of Appreciation."
(Hebrew) Beit Yosef Shaul, edited by Rabbi Elchanan A. Adler, Yeshiva University, New York, 5754.
"Insights and Explanations in Teachings of Maran HaGaon Rabbi Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik zt"l on Matters of Sifrei Torah, Tefillin and Mezuzos."
(English) Shiurei HaRav, edited by Rabbi Joseph Epstein, originally published in 1974, revised and expanded edition, Ktav, Hoboken, NJ, 1994.
"A Conspectus of the Public Lectures of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik."
"Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: One does not build [nefashos] monuments for Tzaddikim. Their words commemorate them." (Yerushalmi Shekalim, end of the second perek; Nefesh HaRav, p. 1).
The deaths of HaRav Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik zt"l, the Lubavitcher Rebbe zt"l, and the Klausenberger Rebbe zt"l, have brought a period of twilight to its dark end. This period began with the loss of the Satmar Rebbe zt"l and HaRav Yitzchok Hutner zt"l, and continued with the deaths of HaRav Moshe Feinstein zt"l, HaRav Yaakov Kaminetzky zt"l, and HaRav Yaakov Ruderman zt"l. The sun of American Gedolei Torah of epic stature educated in the great mesoros of Europe has set. We have entered a period of diminished Torah knowledge and prowess. Precisely because we have lost the living link to the past, it has become crucial to maintain and expand the written link. Hashem's Hashgacha is clearly manifest in enhanced archiving technologies developed over the last half century. These technological advances allow detailed records of the greatness of the vanished Torah Giants to continue to inspire, motivate and instruct us. Histories do not provide the best means of inspiration, motivation and instruction. Teachings and records of the personal conduct of Gedolei Torah create far more powerful impressions. The three seforim reviewed here are of this latter nature. These Seforim are not historical biographies of Rabbi Soloveitchik, known to his talmidim as "The Rov" (for the origin of the title, see Nefesh HaRav p. 70 note 18). They are Torah biographies: works that reflect Rabbi Soloveitchik's unique Torah approach to Halacha, Agada, Ahavas Torah, and Yiras Shomayim. As Rabbi Soloveitchik himself put it (Nefesh HaRav p. 280):
"[Hashem says] I will teach people My conduct through the Gedolei Yisroel. Through them the Shechina is revealed. Not just in what they say explicitly in the name of Hashem, but from their lives, from their biographies, because the Shechina is reflected in the Gedolim."
Rabbi Hershel Schachter, one of Rabbi Soloveitchik's greatest talmidim, attempts to convey his Rebbe's essence via statements of and stories about Rabbi Soloveitchik. Rabbi Schachter's extraordinary memory and scholarship allow him to enhance his portrayal with his own rich analysis. From Rabbi Schachter we learn that Rabbi Soloveitchik always attempted to apply the approaches of his Rabbeim - his grandfather, Reb Chaim zt"l, his father Reb Moshe zt"l, and his uncle Reb Velvel (the Griz) zt"l - to his own learning, personal concerns and public issues (Nefesh HaRav p. 8. Page numbers in this section are from Nefesh HaRav). Although positions Rabbi Soloveitchik took in areas such as the importance of secular studies led to charges that he had departed from his predecessors' pathways, his response to such challenges was that apparent departures only occured when unprecedented circumstances required new approaches (p. 24).
A good example of such attempts is Rabbi Soloveitchik's approach to Eretz Yisroel (he generally insisted on using either the classic Eretz Yisroel or, when referring specifically to the State, Medinas Yisroel, rather than "Israel" - p. 93). He held the establishment of the State to be a positive and lofty development (p. 85), and identified with the Mizrachi, a chiddush in the House of Brisk. Rabbi Soloveitchik, however, devoted significant thought to the intellectual reconciliation of his position with that of his illustrious, anti-Zionist uncle (p. 86). Readers familiar with Reb Velvel's views will be skeptical of such efforts. Revealed in this attitude, however, is Rabbi Soloveitchik's self-imposed imperative to integrate what others regarded as his own chiddushim with the heritage of Beis Brisk.
We also learn, however, that Rabbi Soloveitchik held that the central mitzva in Judaism is VeHalachta BiDerachav, to emulate Hashem's attributes and conduct. Therefore, just as Hashem is unique, each individual must strive to develop the unique potential with which Hashem endowed his neshama (p. 60). Perhaps the drive for uniqueness underlies Rabbi Soloveitchik's infusion of Machashava - Jewish Thought - in the Brisker derech. Examples include the connection of the future to the present and of our generation to those yet to come (Rabbi Soloveitchik opposed the lyrics of a popular song: "He'Avar ayin ve'he'atid adayin ve'hahoveh k'heref ayin" as antithetical to this Torah perspective - pp. 51, 300). These ideas are remarkably similar to those expressed by contemporary Ba'alei Machashava. One perceives a strong resemblance in style between Rabbi Soloveitchik and other Ba'alei Machashava. An expressive warmth that typifies Machashava, prevalent in Rabbi Soloveitchik's works, is not manifest in writings of others, such as Reb Velvel, from Beis Brisk. In his youth Rabbi Soloveitchik had a Lubavitcher Melamed who taught him Chassidus (pp. 39, 72). The similar ways in which Rabbi Soloveitchik and other Ba'alei Machashava express their ideas suggests that this early training struck a chord in Rabbi Soloveitchik's soul.
Rabbi Soloveitchik held that our religion frowns on "ceremonies." We do not engage in behavior for its "esthetic" value. Such conduct "vulgarizes" Judaism. All behavior must be grounded in pure Halacha (p. 95). Rabbi Soloveitchik spent much effort proving that various minhagim were what he called "kiyumim," expressions and fulfillments of Halachic norms (p. 74).The most interesting section of Nefesh HaRav is therefore its Likutei Hanhagos, stories and sayings arranged in the order of the Shulchan Aruch. Rabbi Soloveitchik warned not to accept statements that Ba'alei Battim would relate in his name (p. 47). It is therefore welcome that a Talmid Chochom of Rabbi Schachter's stature vouches for this collection. Precious gems abound. While Rabbi Soloveitchik did not intend that others necessarily follow his personal hanhagos, all the hanhagos are enlightening. Some are also sure to generate controversy. For example:
Nefesh HaRav concludes with a collection of Rabbi Soloveitchik's peshatim and derashos on the parshi'os (including an uncharacteristic Kabbalistic explanation of why Friday night we cut the bottom challa and Shabbos morning the top one - p. 282). Rabbi Schachter does not address his Rebbe's involvement with secular philosophy and zeitgeists. Rabbi Schachter's work adheres, in this respect, to the perspective expressed by Rabbi Soloveitchik himself regarding details of the personal lives of Gedolei Yisroel: "Matters like the relationship of a Gadol with his father-in-law etc., are of no significance, and are just 'history,' from which we can derive no lessons for our lives" (p. 280). Indeed, Nefesh HaRav also contains little material on Rabbi Soloveitchik's personal life. Nefesh HaRav is not historical biography, it is Torah biography.
Beit Yosef Shaul, a Torah journal, contains essays by Roshei Yeshiva and Roshei Kollel of YU's Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchonon and members of its Gruss Kollel Elyon. Most of the essays are based on Rabbi Soloveitchik's insights into matters of Sifrei Torah, Tefillin and Mezuzos. Although of great significance to Lamdonim, these essays will probably not interest laymen. Beit Yosef Shaul, however, also contains the entire Aggadic portion of Rabbi Soloveitchik's 1959 yohrzeit shiur: "A Yid is Geglichen tzu a Sefer Torah" ("A Jew may be Compared to a Sefer Torah"). The essay appears in the original Yiddish, as transcribed at the time by Dr. Hillel Seidman. Rabbi Soloveitchik himself checked, corrected and encouraged publication of this transcript. A full translation into Hebrew by Rabbi Shalom Carmy follows. Anyone with at least some knowledge of Yiddish, however, should read the original, and refer to the Hebrew to fill the gaps. The translation is accurate and readable, but only the Yiddish preserves the dramatic majesty of the original oration. The sweep and splendor of the shiur, the way it intertwines Halacha, Machashava and Derush, is brilliant.
Rabbi Soloveitchik develops the idea that the Jewish neshama in the spiritual realm and the Sefer Torah in the physical world are parallel entities. He notes that no time (except Shabbos), place or object can become sacred unless a person does a deed to sanctify it. One cannot instill that which one does not possess. All "concrete" kedushos - such as that of a Sefer Torah - must therefore be external manifestations of the internal kedusha of a Jewish neshama. There are two steps in the production of a Sefer Torah: 1) Ibbud, the preparation of the parchment; 2) Kesiva, the writing of the letters. In the development of a person there are two stages: 1) Chinuch, when the parents prepare the child's character and personality to accept Torah and Mitzvos; 2) Talmud Torah, when the parents inculcate their child with actual Torah and Mitzvos. In the history of our nation there were also two stages: 1) The period of the Avos, which prepared our national character and personality; 2) The period of Mattan Torah, when Hashem inculcated us with the Torah itself.
Mezuzos are written on duchsustus, parchment from the layer of the animal's hide closest to the flesh. Tefillin are written on klaf, the layer closest to the hair. A Sefer Torah is written on gvil, parchment of both layers. Mezuzos rectify sins associated with man's flesh; Tefillin rectify sins associated with man's hair. We allude to the two types of sinners in Aleynu when we say: "And all sons of flesh [bnei basar] will call unto Your Name; To turn toward you all evildoers in the land [rish'ei aretz]." Aveiros of the flesh are those of the Dor HaMabbul, sensual lust and desire (Ba'alei Machashava link this type of sin with Yishmael). Judaism demands Ibbud of this sensual aspect of an individual. The Ibbud of sensuality is Tzenius. The essence of Tzenius is found in Yitzchak, who allowed himself to be restrained atop an altar. Tzenius is restraining our lusts - mesirus nefesh to Hashem. A Mezuza affixes the words of mesirus nefesh: Bikol levavecha u'bikol nafshecha u'bikol meodecha, to the places where we engage in our most sensual activities.
Aveiros of the hair are those we associate with Esav Ä the "Man of Hair." Esav's primary sins were those of interpersonal strife, culminating in murder. Hair symbolizes chatzitza - separation, strife, and the resulting degradation of others. Those were the sins of the Dor Haflaga, who cried when bricks fell from their scaffolds and broke, but were unmoved when a worker fell to his death (Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer). Rabbi Soloveitchik notes that their unity resembled the unity of Communism Ä a unity born of disregard of individual value, leading to interpersonal cruelty and atrocity. Such negative traits are broken with Avraham's trait - diligent pursuit of chesed and love. Tefillin straps restrain the hand that is all too often stretched out in rejection ("semol docheh"), its parshios written on klaf to rectify sins of hair.
Moshe Rabbeinu rectified both types of sin. Even the most instinctual basar ambition, that his children continue his work after his death, was denied him. A great leader cannot focus on his own basar. He belongs to Am Yisroel. On the other hand, Moshe Rabbeinu at the Burning Bush covered his face lest he see "Elokim." Some mystery, some unknown, had to remain in his understanding of Hashem's ways. One who knows the rationale of all Hashem's ways, why there are pain and poverty, sickness and suffering, can no longer feel sympathy and mercy. He understands that all is truly good! When Moshe did ask "Hareini nah es kevodecha" ("Please show me your glory"), Chazal tell us that Hashem showed him the knot of the Tefillin. To ensure that a great leader will empathize with the plight of his people, he must understand the message of Tefillin. Moshe's perfection allowed him to be the great Sofer. He had sanctified both layers of parchment Ä gvil. Moshe thus became a suitable conduit through which to convey the letters of Torah - the Sefer Torah - to the Jewish people.
There are many points of convergence between Rabbi Soloveitchik and other Ba'alei Machashava here. Noteworthy, however, is the divergence. Reb Tzadok HaKohen of Lublin zt"l writes that the Dor Haflaga's unity was not the essence of their sin. The sin was an intent to use that unity for illicit purposes (Kedushas Shabbos 28b). Rabbi Soloveitchik, however, clearly views the unity itself as a sin, because its purpose was to devalue individuals (a kin'a sin). It is tempting to speculate that a Chassid can see no inherent negative in unity. In Chassidus, the Klal is everything. A Litvak, however, stresses personal development, and sees the loss of individual identity as a great tragedy. The pursuit of such a goal is a sin.
In a dictionary "conspectus" is: "1. A general survey of a subject. 2. a synopsis." On the one hand, one can taste here from a broad smorgasbord of Rabbi Soloveitchik's thoughts. On the other hand, neither Nefesh HaRav's flavor of personal recollection nor the Beit Yosef Shaul's taste of Rabbi Soloveitchik's own words are in this volume.
Emotion does come through. Readers may be moved by Rabbi Soloveitchik's beautiful interpretation of "HaKatan." This description was first given to the great Tanna Shmuel HaKatan. Rabbi Soloveitchik notes that many Gedolei Yisroel were like Rabbi Soloveitchik's grandfather, Reb Chaim: "...the man of iron discipline in the intellectual sphere, who captured the richness of halakha in acute, exact, logical molds, was swept without reservation in a bold stream of simplicity, innocence, sensitivity, perplexity, childish confusion, but also immeasurable confidence: R. Hayyim ha-Katan! What was my father z"l? A genius and a child!" (p. 63. Page numbers in this section are from Shiurei HaRav). One senses Rabbi Soloveitchik's nostalgia for the innocence of a bygone era, prior to contemporary complexities.
We also find Rabbi Soloveitchik's mystical bent here. Examples include the relative nature of qualitative time discussed in "Sacred and Profane." "It is the ideal of Ketz [Redemption] to conquer time . . . A qualitative time experience enables a nation to span a distance of hundreds and thousands of years in but a few moments" (p. 21). Rabbi Soloveitchik employs this idea to explain the early Exodus (before the planned four hundred years) from Egypt. This idea is very similar to that expressed by the Michtav Me'Eliyahu (vol. 1 p. 309) in explaining phenomena such as kefitzas haderech. The experience of time as long or short is relative to the intensity of the events and the spiritual level of the people experiencing those events. Great people and epic events manipulate and telescope time.
Another example is Rabbi Soloveitchik's analysis of the dialectic of chesed/hispashtus and gevurah/tzimtzum in "The Seder Meal." Rabbi Soloveitchik's abstracts the outward, expansive movement of chesed and the inward, contractive movement of gevurah (p. 164). His discussion parallels Rabbi Hutner's similar dialectic of ahava and yirah (Pachad Yitzchok Shabbos Ma'amar 2). More revealing, however, is an off hand comment at the beginning of the essay (emphasis mine): "As a child, I vividly sensed the presence of G-d on two different occasions . . . "
We also glimpse here idealism reminiscent of Slabodker Mussar: "William James saw happiness as the goal of religion. Judaism sees greatness as the goal. Not the greatness of business or political or military success but the greatness of heroism of the spirit . . . Judaism is not concerned with what is not heroic" (p. 133).
Rabbi Soloveitchik was a highly complex, sometimes controversial individual. His complexity was heightened by his brilliance, and compounded by his tendency toward the isolation that he glorified: "...g'vura implies a human flight from society (it is the flight of the lonely one to the Lonely One)... G-d wanted the Jews to present to the world a movement of g'vura..." (p. 165). The argument could be made that Rabbi Soloveitchik himself idealized and romanticized the "tragic" figure of the "Lonely Man of Faith," misunderstood, improperly appreciated by his generation, yet true to his own personality and goals (see Nefesh HaRav p. 65). That he was successful in cultivating this isolation, yet was also one of the greatest public Marbitzei Torah of his time is truly remarkable.
Reading these works, however, one senses that in mind and spirit Rabbi Soloveitchik was anything but lonely. Rabbi Soloveitchik believed that part of the uniqueness inherent in VeHalachta BiDerachav was his selection of specific Ma'amarei Chazal to reflect his particular perspectives (Nefesh HaRav p. 72). One of his favorite ma'amarim was the Gemara in Sota 36b. It is related there that Yosef did not sin with Pothiphar's wife because his father's image appeared before his eyes, refocusing his perspective on Jewish sanctity. "I cannot explain the dmus diyukno shel aviv, the spiritual picture of father that hovers near me tonight as in a yesteryear of physical existence" (Shiurei HaRav p. 25). To paraphrase Rabbi Soloveitchik himself (Shiurei HaRav p. 81, in his hesped for the Talner Rebbe), he was never alone. He always walked with company: The Rambam, of course, before him - pointing the way towards Hashem, Reb Chaim on his right, Reb Moshe on his left, the Ba'al HaTanya closely behind, followed at a distance by secular philosophers.
These three works do not attempt to deal with Rabbi Soloveitchik's complexity. These works, rather, primarily reflect the influence of his grandfather, father, and the Ba'al HaTanya on Rabbi Soloveitchik. Rabbi Soloveitchik himself, of course, wrote scholarly philosophical books and essays. Much analysis of Rabbi Soloveitchik's integration of Torah and secular philosophy is sure to come, as will historical biographies. It is likely, however, that works such as these three seforim will have a greater impact on Am Yisroel. It is in these works that convey little historical or philosophical yet much Torah biography that the Shechina reflected in the lives of Gedolei Yisroel shines brightest.