This post originally appeared in my blog on January 15, 2007. I was looking for it for an upcoming Shavuos shiur and found it badly formatted. This is a do-over.
Avodah V4 #239
Some remarks on a letter of Rabbi E. E. Dessler William Z. Low ABSTRACT: IN A LETTER written in B'nei B'rak a few years before his death Rabbi Dessler discusses the relative merits of the Torah im Derech Eretz and Lithuanian yeshivah systems of education. William Low investigates the points Rabbi Dessler makes, and considers the fundamental question of how Gedolei Torah are nurtured. Bio: WILLIAM Z. LOW (or Ze'ev Lev as he is called in Ivrit) has been Professor of Experimental Physics at the Hebrew University since 1961, having joined the staff when he emigrated to Israel in 1950. He has had a distinguished research career, having been awarded the Israel Prize in Science in 1956, when he was only thirty-four years old, for his work on paramagnetic resonance, and the Rothschild Prize for Exact Sciences in 1963. But he is best known in Torah circles for his part in establishing the Jerusalem College of Technology (popularly known as Machon Lev) which enables young men to combine Torah study with a career in technology. For ten years he served both as Rector and President while the College increased in strength and numbers. In addition to his numerous scientific publications, Professor Low has published halachic articles of importance, particularly relating to halachah and modern technology. He is the author of a book in this area, Beirur Musagim Koach Kocho V'koach Sheni B'halachah, published by Mossad Harav Kook. 1. Introduction I HAD THE privilege of knowing the late revered Rabbi Dessler during the period when he lived in Israel, and I often attended his mussar talks given to professionals, and in particular to physicians, in private homes in Jerusalem. Many of those invited were of German-Jewish or Anglo-Jewish background, or had studied Torah in Lithuanian Yeshivot, and had later studied in academic institutions. In addition, I had many private conversations with Rabbi Dessler in Jerusalem and in B'nei B'rak, and he mentioned to me during the later years of his life when he was living in B'nei B'rak that he had changed some of the ideas that he had formed in England. When one studies Rabbi Dessler's writings, one should be careful to note during which period of his life the discourse referred to was delivered. It is possible that this change in his ideas was due partly to repercussions of the Holocaust, and partly to the effect of life in B'nei B'rak. The letter to which I wish to refer was written in 5711 in B'nei B'rak a few years before his death (in 5714), and is reproduced in vol. 3 of Michtav Me-Eliyahu (p. 356). In it Rabbi Dessler discusses the relative advantages and disadvantages of the religious educational systems of Frankfurt, commonly referred to as Torah im Derech Eretz, and that of the yeshivot in Lithuania and Poland. His argument can be summarized as follows: The Frankfurt school supported an educational system in which the students were exposed to the study of secular subjects and later went on to Universities. At the same time it paid attention to the strict observance of all the mitzvot. The advantage of the system was that the vast majority of its adherents stayed Orthodox and carefully observed the ordinances of the Shulchan Aruch, despite the fact that they were exposed to a general non-Jewish intellectual environment. The price paid for this was that few, if any, Gedolei Torah emerged from such an educational system. In addition, exposure to non-Torah ideas affected to some extent the purity of their faith in the absolute truth of Torah, resulting in strange compromises. The Lithuanian Rashei Yeshivah, on the other hand, set as their main objective to educate Gedolei Torah, discouraging all contact with the intellectual world outside the yeshivah. The price they paidalbeit willinglywas also heavy, since many of the yeshivah students strayed from such an austere and difficult path, and became irreligious in their encounter with the Haskalah and other revolutionary movements. Those who left the yeshivah world were advised to take simple non-professional jobs, for example as small businessmen, rather than study for an academic career. Those yeshivah students who did go on to study at University were therefore disregarded. The connection between Rashei Yeshivah and these Orthodox university students was severed in order to prevent their exercising a detrimental influence on the the rest of the yeshivah students. The heavy price, the sacrifice of many for the sake of a few potential Gedolei Torah, was based possibly on a midrash in Vayikra Rabbah 2:1, One thousand students enter to study Mikra [Bible]...and only one emerges to hora'ah [halachic decision-making]. The question discussed by Rabbi Dessler is of great interest to all who are concerned with Torah education. There will be general agreement that it is of paramount importance to create the conditions that enable the Gedolei Chachmei Yisrael (great Sages of Israel) to develop and flourish. This elite is the backbone of the Jewish people in each generation, and any deterioration in the level of Torah learning, or any significant decrease in the number of this elite group, has serious repercussions for that particular generation, and probably even for future generations. We have used the term Gedolei Chachmei Yisrael following Rambam (Hilchot Lulav 8:14), who clearly differentiates between Gedolei Chachmei Yisrael and Rashei Yeshivah or members of the Sanhedrin. The first category is the top of the elite structure and takes priority over all other categories. In his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, Rambam lists the names of Rabbis in successive generations until Rav Ashi and calls them Gedolei Chachmei Yisrael. Thousands of others, according to Rambam, studied in the yeshivot during that period. The emergence of a genius is a matter of chance, but it is possible to create conditions which enable him to flourish. It is obligatory in each generation to foster an atmosphere in which such a genius, should he emerge, can develop his full potentiality. In a sense any assistance which can be given to such personalities should be classified as pikuach nefesh ruchani, spiritual salvation of the Jewish people. Over thirty years have elapsed since Rabbi Dessler wrote this letter. We now have more information available about the two systems of education so clearly outlined by Rabbi Dessler, and their results, and we can suggest a number of pertinent questions which need objective examination. Is it true that the Lithuanian yeshivot constituted the main cradle of outstanding Gedolei Torah? What are the precise conditions needed to foster and nurture such personalities? Is there a correlation between the decline of Torah scholarship and the methodology of Torah im Derech Eretz? What is the influence of general surroundings on yeshivah students? Do yeshivah students also harbor two sets of cultural attitudes? What lessons can be learned from the experience of the systems of education which can serve as a guide to the current situation in the Torah world? An exhaustive treatment of these questions is clearly beyond the scope of a short article. But I do hope to make a number of points which may stimulate others to think more deeply about these vital matters. 2. Factual Analysis of the Emergence of Gedolei Torah in Different Jewish Centers of Population Although no detailed analysis has ever been undertaken of the conditions needed for Gedolei Torah to develop to their full capacity, some tentative conclusions can be drawn from a careful study of Jewish history. The Almighty has in His wisdom looked after the spiritual welfare of our nation. In several periods of our history, when there was a decline in the level of Torah study and its deeper understanding in some existing major centers, new powerful centers emerged in other locations. For example, at the end of the Geonic period in Babylonia, the yeshivot there were in considerable disarray. New centers of Torah leadership emerged in North Africa, Spain and Italycountries that had no previous tradition of yeshivot or Torah centers. (The story of the four captives who were redeemed, each of whom established a new Torah center, is well known.) When the Jewish centers of learning in Southern Germany and Northern France were destroyed during the Crusades, Torah scholarship began to decline. A single person, R. Yaakov Polak (together with his son-in-law R. Shalom Shachna), established a new center in Lublin. Poland at that time (the early sixteenth century) had a population of amei ha'aretz (people ignorant of Torah) and no yeshivah. Within two generations, Poland had become the main center of Jewish learning, producing giants of the caliber of Rabbi Shlomo Luria (the Maharshal) and Rabbi Moshe Isserles (the Rama). Torah study spread from this center to all Eastern Europe, where it remained until the twentieth century. Recently, when all centers of Torah study were annihilated during the Holocaust, and there was a danger that serious Torah study would cease within a short time, new centers emerged in the U.S.A. and Israel. The growth of yeshivah students in Israel during the past twenty years is quite remarkable. If we take all types of yeshivot and kollelim into account, the number of full-time yeshivah students in Israel is about four or five times that in the U.S.A. The Jewish population in Israel is only half that of the U.S.A., and the relative standard of living is much lower. On the other hand, the number of shomrei Shabbat in Israel is about twenty-five percent of the population or over 800,000 as compared with a few percent in the U.S.A. and Canada. These facts should be borne in mind when assessing the current Torah situation. It is of particular importance in our generation and the next generation to strengthen these centers which are so vital to the future of our people. Let us focus attention on Western Europe. Rabbi Dessler is undoubtedly correct in stating that for several generations it had not produced any Geonim (Torah geniuses) of the stature of R. Aryeh Leib ben Asher (the Sha'agat Aryeh), R. Aryeh Leib HaCohen (the Ketzot), R. Yitzchak Babad (the Minchat Chinnuch), R. Meir Simchah (the Ohr Sameach) or R. Yosef Rosen (the Rogatchover). However, to conclude that Torah im Derech Eretz was the main factor contributing to this decline may well be simplistic. For many generations before R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, Western Europe had to import Gedolei Torah from Eastern Europe. Examples are R. Yaakov Yehoshua Horowitz (the P'nei Yehoshua), Rabbi of Frankfurt, who came from Galicia; R. Aryeh Leib (the Sha'agat Aryeh), Rabbi of Metz, who came from Russia; R. Yechezkel Landau (the Noda BiYehudah), Rabbi of Prague, who came from Galicia. The number of Geonim in Western Europe has decreased steadily during the past 400-500 years. The decrease was accelerated after the French Revolution by the breakdown of ghettos and the impact of Emancipation. Religious society was ill-prepared to cope with the confrontation with Western civilization. It was only much later, with the advent of R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, that this trend of assimilation was partially halted. The impact of Torah im Derech Eretz was not limited to his Austrittsgemeinde (independent Orthodox community), but had an important influence on Orthodox and non-Orthodox society within the general Jewish communities. These included many of the Eastern European immigrants to Western Europe before and after World War I, including many Chasidic adherents who could not, and probably did not wish to, be integrated in the Austrittsgemeinde. Such communities, while not adhering to the philosophy of Torah im Derech Eretz, practiced it pragmatically as businessmen or semi-professionals. Hence, although it is factually correct to say that the educational methods of the Frankfurt school in its German-Jewish setting did not produce Gedolei Torah, there is no proof that it might not be more successful in another setting. One can infer that the method was not successful in the framework of Western Europe where the vast majority of Jews had become assimilated. In Western Europe before World War I, there were no advanced centers of Torah study of the quality of Lithuanian yeshivot, and in the time span of one hundred years no exceptional Gedolei Torah appeared. Although some Gedolim moved to Western Europe, their influence was not very significant. An exception seems to have been R. Yechiel Weinberg, who taught at the Rabbiner-Seminar in Berlin. Rabbi Weinberg's influence on Orthodox Jewry in Germany was profound, and possibly in time a much higher level of rabbi might have emerged from this seminary. Rabbi Weinberg himself was favorably disposed to the method of Torah im Derech Eretz, and even had a high respect for German culture. Also German yeshivah students who went to study at the Mir Yeshivah might have changed the pattern of the Frankfurt school considerably. But the Holocaust put an end to such possibilities. There was one experiment in Lithuania involving the establishment of a yeshivah high school which included secular studies, and which nevertheless produced Gedolei Torah. R. Simchah Zissel Ziv (Broide) of Kelm, the leading disciple of R. Yisrael Salanter, established this school, and although the idea was attacked by a number of contemporary rabbis, the school lasted for twenty years, and was an outstanding educational success (for details see R. Dov Katz, Tenuat Hamussar, vol. 2, p. 68, 192). Among its pupils were leading Rashei Yeshivah of the last generation including the father of Rabbi E. E. Dessler, R. Natan Zvi Finkel (the Alter of Slabodka), R. Moshe Mordechai Epstein (of Slabodka and later Hevron), R. Naftali Tropp and others. The inference by some people that, since R. Yisrael Salanter did not visit the school, he disapproved of it, can be discounted. It is inconceiv-able that R. Simchah Zissel, who adhered to all the teachings of his mentor, would establish something of which his rebbe disapproved. In any case R. Dov Katz quotes the personal evidence of Rabbi E. E. Dessler in the name of his father that when the possibility arose that the school might have to close, R. Simchah Zissel sent to ask advice of R. Yisrael Salanter and was told that its closure would represent a type of churban Bet Hamikdash. There is evidence that R. Yisrael himself, after his visit to Germany, was not averse to some aspects of Torah im Derech Eretz (see R. Yechiel Weinberg, Seridei Esh, vol. 4, p. 294). The reasons for the eventual closure of the school were not educational but personal and individual, and are described in detail by R. Dov Katz. We can infer from this experiment and another abortive experiment by R. Yaakov Reines in Lida that some Rashei Yeshivah and rabbanim in Lithuania were sympathetic to educational programmes that included secular subjects. It is clear that Torah im Derech Eretz was helpful in stopping the inroads of assimilation in Western Europe. On the other hand, the effect of general assimilation, the impact of socialism, the Bund, secular Zionists, in addition to the mass exodus to the U.S.A, were beginning to have a disastrous effect on Jewry in Eastern Europe despite the existence of Gedolei Torah. Despite the growth of yeshivot in Lithuania, religious society on the whole in Eastern Europe was ill-prepared to cope with the onslaught of Western culture and civilization. In the long run it is doubtful whether even these yeshivot would have stood their ground and attracted the elite element from which Gedolim can emerge. The Holocaust in Europe stopped this development. The discussion of Gedolei Torah and their origin at the beginning of this section inevitably leads to the confirmation of the thesis implicit in Rabbi Dessler's remarks (that Gedolei Torah were concentrated in places where Torah study abounded). The majority of Rashei Yeshivah did originate in Lithuania, and to a smaller extent in Russia and Poland. As a result of this, the Lithuanian method of study has conquered the majority of yeshivot both in Israel and the U.S.A. 3. Does the Yeshivah System Produce Gedolei Torah? This question has never been raised previously, to the best of my knowledge. Rabbi Dessler takes it as axiomatic that there is a direct relationship between Gedolei Torah and yeshivot. There is indeed a definite correlation; in the communities that had many talmidei chachamim who had studied in yeshivot one would be likely to find Gedolei Torah. However, a deeper analysis shows that the majority of real Geonim had not received their important training in yeshivot. If we look at the outstanding scholars of the last generation, we see that the Chazon Ish, R. Yitzchak Halevy Herzog, the Rogatchover, R. Meir Simchah, R. Yosef Engel, R. Chaim Brisker, and the majority of Gedolim of Galicia and Poland, had spent little time studying in educational institutions like Lithuanian yeshivot. I have discussed this fact with many Rashei Yeshivah of the last generation, and the general consensus was that yeshivot served the good and very good student, but not the brilliant student. The brilliant students went their own way. This was best clarified for me by the late R. Chazkel Sarna, Rosh Yeshivah of Yeshivat Hevron in Jerusalem. His policy was not to limit the exceptional students in any way. He let them study anywhere they wished, in any bet midrash (not necessarily the yeshivah's), at their own pace, according to their own timetable, and with anyone they wanted, having to report to him only once a week. He felt that even Yeshivat Hevron would hinder their progress. A genius is usually restricted by a structured atmosphere. R. Dessler does not actually state that the yeshivot produce Gedolei Torah, but says that it is their stated goal to do so. The inference that the yeshivot actually produce Gedolim does not seem to be borne out by the facts. Yeshivot produce, at best, Rashei Yeshivah of the same pattern as the yeshivot in which they studied. However, it is possible that in order to produce Gedolim a total environment is required that puts great value on our elite system, and this environment is undoubtedly produced by yeshivot. The graduates who are talmidei chachamim appreciate and revere a Gadol baTorah and hence encourage a latent genius to achieve his potentiality. One can therefore perhaps interpret the midrash that a thousand enter Mikra, a hundred Mishnah, ten Talmud, and only one emerges to be a Ba'al Hora'ah as saying that statistics show that only one out of a thousand has the potentiality for genius, and the atmosphere of the many is needed to nurture the one. However, to base on this midrash an ideology that it may be necessary to sacrifice hundreds if not thousands of students for the sake of one, is far-fetched and dangerous, and probably not in accord with Chazal and halachah. Rabbinical and lay leadership have to be as watchful over the thousands as over the one genius, and should be held responsible for failure to do so. We can also learn a good deal from the growth of Torah learning in the U.S.A. during the present century. The Lithuanian rabbis, graduates of Slabodka and Telshe, who emigrated to the U.S.A. before World War II, were not very successful. They established hardly any yeshivot, and the communities which they established assimilated rapidly to the American way of life. Even after World War II, the main organized Jewish communities in the U.S.A. were the German Jewish community in Washington Heights, New York, and the various Hungarian communities. These communities established the main framework of Jewish communal life, kosher products, mikvaot, etc. The greatest architect and builder of Torah learning was a Hungarian Rabbi, Mr. Shraga Mendlovitz. He founded Yeshivat Torah Vodaath and took on Lithuanian Rashei Yeshivot to head his institution, even though he may have disagreed with some of their philosophies. It is doubtful whether the growth of Lithuanian-type yeshivot and kollelim would have been possible without the background of strong integrated Orthodox communities. It seems reasonable to conclude that it has yet to be proven that the present yeshivah system produces Gedolei Torah. What does seem to be true is that the yeshivah system produces many new competent Rashei Yeshivah, and an environment that can support a Gadol baTorah, should one emerge. 4. The Influence of Non-Jewish Culture on Torah Study and Observance of Mitzvot Rabbi Dessler states, It is true that they [the Frankfurt School] benefited in that the number of defectors from mitzvah observance was small. On the other hand, their weltanschauung was somewhat imperfect as far as complete acceptance of the Torah point of view is concerned. Whenever there was a conflict between sciences (Wissenschaften) and Torah, they resorted to a strange combination of the two, as if the two systems can be combined as a unity (free translation). Rabbi Dessler essentially states that German Orthodox Jewry lived in two worlds of culture. On the one hand they strictly observed the mitzvot, and in that sense the ethical principles underlying them, and on the other hand they culturally assimilated to their surroundings. The conflicts were compartmentalized. Even nowadays, there is more than a grain of truth in this statement. It is probably valid for many Orthodox Jewish scientists, and even more so for Jewish sociologists, psychologists, economists and lawyers. (It has been difficult for me to understand how an Orthodox Jew can become a lawyer or a judge; he practices law according to a system based on a non-Jewish philosophy of justice, and I am doubtful whether this is permitted by halachah.) Only a few religious scientists have created a viable synthesis. Many thinking professionals who were formerly yeshivah students find themselves struggling with problems at different times. Their doubts and questions have not been resolved even after discussions with their Rashei Yeshivah, who often do not appreciate the depths of the problems. In my view there is nothing wrong with this as long as these people stay within the Orthodox fold and maintain the basic tenets of our faith. No one dies from honest questions and the search for solutions to real problems, as long as his basic faith in the eternal validity of Torah remains unshaken. It is only the naive, the ignorant, or the person who consciously closes his eyes and ears to his surroundings who has not at some stage of his life experienced problems with belief. It is only when a person stops believing in Torah min haShamayim that questioning becomes biased and skeptical, and even though he may still observe mitzvot technically, his attachment to the Torah community has been severed. It should also be noted that the above criticism by R. Dessler may apply to many yeshivah students today. It is virtually impossible even for a cloistered person not to be aware of the multicultural surroundings in the State of Israel or the Western World. The secular radio, the newspapers, even contact and conversation with people who are not religious or do not have a yeshivah background, must exercise an influence. This can easily be seen, for example, in an American yeshivah student when he is put in a different setting, say in a yeshivah in Israel. His cultural attitudes from eating to reading are American, and his homeland in a deep sense is the U.S.A. He feels at home there, whether because of baseball or business, food or newspapers or politics. In a sense he is an American who is an Orthodox Jew and a budding talmid chacham, and is not basically different from the prewar German Orthodox Jew, except (and this is important) that he is far more of a yeshivah student and has far more desire to increase his Torah learning. However, deep inside, he does not consider the U.S.A. as galut, and in this sense he is strongly culturally assimilated. Although studying in a yeshivah, he combines two different sets of values. Some of the consequences can be seen today in the advent of the women's liberation movement in Orthodox circles, and the rapid increase in the divorce rate even among yeshivah graduates. Because of the permeating influence of the outside world, educational methods which were applicable in the yeshivot of Lithuania and Poland may not be sufficient for the second or third generation of American or Israeli yeshivah students and graduates. However, there is one significant difference between the modern yeshivah student and the Frankfurt schoolthe latter carried a banner, an ideology. The present generation of yeshivah students in the galut disavows this ideology in theory (much more than R. Dessler does), while in practice they themselves behave along similar lines. There are at present several different attitudes towards fundamental questions when modern science seems to contradict some of our beliefs. One group, as mentioned above, strives to grapple with the problems. A second tries to compartmentalize; the deep belief in Torah min haShamayim gives one the strength to feel that the difficulties will be resolved, if not immediately perhaps later, possibly during the next generation. A third group does not wish to be aware of such problems, and a sub-category of this group pushes unresolved issues into the sub-conscious. In a sense they become technocrats in learning and may be exposing themselves to a serious danger. A member of this sub-category who is exposed to tension, as in an environment which cannot support his beliefs and behaviors, may have such problems that he drifts away from the Orthodox Jewish way of life. A story may help illustrate this last point. A well-known rabbi in Jerusalema former student of R. Shimon Shkopasked me once whether I really believed that the astronauts had reached the moon and set foot on its surface. When I answered affirmatively he said that he did not believe it; he considered that it was all propaganda since the Rambam states that the moon is a spiritual object. (Incidentally, this is a complete misunderstanding of Rambam's position.) I asked him what he would do if two deeply religious Jews would come to him and declare under oath that they had walked on the moon. He answered that this would, in his opinion, throw doubt on all the sayings of the Rambam, and this would have serious consequences for his personal religious commitments and beliefs. He would not entertain the possibility that Rambam projected the knowledge of science in his time, and that if he had lived today he might have made a revision of the first four chapters of Yad Hachazakah. It seems to me therefore, that one cannot avoid tackling such fundamental problems even in the yeshivah or in the kollel. Indeed, if one wants to preserve the purity of derech haTorah (the Torah way), if a person wants to strive to be a perfect Jew, he has only two possibilities; either to be unaware of problems and to be a tamim (a person of simple faith), something very difficult to maintain in our society, or to strengthen his belief in Torah min haShamayim so much that he can grapple with the many different problems that society imposes on us. The implication is that the Rosh Yeshivah or Mashgiach in our generation has to combine deep emunah and yirat Shamayim (faith and reverence) with an awareness of the problems and ability to resolve them from a Torah standpoint. [In his own approach to conflicts presented to him by his students, Rabbi Dessler was never satisfied with superficial reconciliation. By in-depth analysis both of the contemporary challenges and basic Torah principles, he showed how the challenge disappeared when viewed from a proper Torah perspective. Many examples of this approach may be found in the pages of Michtav Me-Eliyahu. A.C.] NOTES: 1- Rabbi Dessler uses the word mada. However he did not mean Science but rather the equivalent of the term Wissenschaften. The majority of German Orthodox academicians studied humanities, such as philosophy or law. Study of fundamental science was at the time considered problematic. All of this changed after World War II in the U.S. with the emergence of Orthodox Jewish scientists. 2- Many Lithuanian yeshivah students took an active part in the Russian revolution. Some had already become irreligious before the revolution, others during and after the revolution. 3- A different attitude was taken by the venerable Rabbi Y. M. Gordon, Rosh Yeshivah of Lomza, and later of Petach Tikvah. He once told me that I was fortunate to be a salaried person and not a businessman. A modern businessman, according to him, has to transgress many sins mentioned in Choshen Mishpat nearly every day. 4- There were exceptions to this rule, but on the whole Rashei Yeshivah followed this trend during the fifty years before World War II. However, should a former yeshivah man be very successful and stay a talmid chacham he would then be considered as von unsere meaning he is one of ours. 5- Those emerging to Hora'ah should not be identified with talmidei chachamim. It refers to a ba'al Hora'ah, to a person who is a posek, whose decisions are accepted by the majority of the population. Another citation in the letter is from the introduction to Moreh Nevuchim which says, Let a thousand fools die and let only one wise man benefit. However the present writer thinks that this reference refers to the philosophical problems of the Rambam and has no relevance to the present discussion. (This quotation is not actually from Rambam but from the commentary of Rabbi Shemtov.EDS.) 6- An exception is R. Moshe Sofer (the Chatam Sofer) who came from Frankfurt in Germany to Pressburg in Hungary. However it is doubtful if Pressburg would have accepted him as Rabbi if not for his predecessor, R. Meshulam Igra, who had come from Galicia, and prepared the ground for the Chatam Sofer. Incidentally, the latter was not opposed to the ideas of pragmatic Torah im Derech Eretz and proposed the establishment of a Jewish Medical University and Hospital. 7- The interplay between Eastern European congregations in Western Europe and the older established congregations is worthy of study. The interchange of ideas and the dissonances between the two groups are of particular interest. Regarding halachic aspects of the creation of the Austrittsgemeinde, in particular the differences between Rabbi S. R. Hirsch and Rabbi S. B. Bamberger, see the letter of R. Chaim Ozer Grodzienski regarding permission to transfer from the general community to the Austrittsgemeinde (Sefer Hazikaron for R. Yechiel Weinberg, p. 10). 8- We exclude Hungarian yeshivot from this discussion since their system was very different from those of Lithuania. 9- R. Yisrael Salanter seems to have foreseen this situation developing. Initially he directed the Mussar movement towards the general Jewish population rather than to yeshivot. When he saw that he was not successful in stemming the influence of Western culture, he hoped that he could combat its influence better from outside Russia, and moved to Memel. But again, he was unsuccessful. (See Tenuat Hamussar, vol. 1.) 10- One should not conclude from this that a mashgiach has to create doubts in the minds of his yeshivah students. However, many students do have problems which are normally submerged and surface only in times of crisis. 11- I have found, incidentally, that among full-time adult kollel students, the Holocaust poses a severe religious problem, and often lurks as a major challenge to their beliefs which they are reluctant to discuss with the Rosh Kollel. 12- The conversation continued as follows: I asked him whether he believed all that is written in Rambam, and he answered yes. I asked him then whether he goes to a doctor or follows the medical advice of Rambam. He countered that he goes to a doctor because he does not understand these portions of Rambam. I pointed out that he has another portion of Rambam regarding the moon which he does not understand.
When did Professor Low first write this? Neither the blog post nor the original Avodah mailing list post (Micha Berger be-sheim Akiva Atwood) carry a date.ReplyDelete
I can't tell you for sure, but about 40 years ago.Delete