Thursday, February 11, 2010

thoughts on the Rav, Rav Kook

I was asked my opinion of the quote from Rav Aviner claiming that Rav Soloveitchik addressed the religious individual but not broader communal issues, unlike Rav Kook who provided a "complete method of understanding." It's a thought provoking quote, no? As for my opinion, first a few caveats: I am not a talmid of RYBS, so I am probably the wrong person to comment. My exposure to the Rav is limited to what has been printed. Secondly, I have not read enough of Rav Kook's torah to consider myself well informed about his views. Thirdly, my views on issues like this change all the time, so don't hold me to anything : ) This is just some off the cuff thinking aloud:

My first reaction was that addresses like "Kol Dodi Dofeik" do speak to the larger import of historical events and their impact the community. Yet, the more I thought about the quote, the more my mind kept coming back to the fact that the Rav's philosophical magnum opus is "Halakhic Man" -- not halakhic community. And it's not just "Halakhic Man", but in other essays the Rav uses typologies like "Ish Rosh Chodesh," the singular individual and his/her experience as a paradigm. Might the "Lonely Man of Faith" find comfort if he recognized a "community of faith?"

Isn't it odd that Rabbis Saul Berman and Avi Weiss have written essays in which they try to set out clear "gedarim" of what modern orthodoxy is, yet the Rav, from whom they drew their inspiration, never made an attempt to articulate a similar vision? How much clearer many of the issues under debate in the MO world would be had he done so! I think it's this lack of a larger all-incompasing statement which motivated Rav Aviner's comment. I am reminded of the Rav's hesped for his uncle, the Brisker Rav, in which he explains the B.R.'s approach to Zionism. The Rav explained that his uncle was not anti-Zionist -- he simply had no opinion. Eretz Yisrael is to be discussed in context of a sugya in Hil. Terumos, a Rambam about kedushas ha'aretz, but there is no "din" of nationalism and therefore it simply did not exist on his map of reality. For "Halakhic Man" there is no larger philosophical framework (e.g. a philosophy of modern orthodoxy) in which halacha exists -- to the contrary, halacha is the framework into which all else must fit or be discarded. Secular studies, Zionism, etc. stand out as appendages stuck onto Halakhic Man, but not part of his essence, his core. But for many of us these are core issues, and we struggle integrating these ideas into the larger whole.

I am only an amateur dabbler in Rav Kook's writings, but from what I have read he stands at the opposite extreme -- his writings flow in a stream-of-consciousness type way, speaking in universal ideals, philosophical broad strokes, and vision. I have never found in Rav Kook the precise gedaim which I so enjoy in Brisker lomdus and the Rav's typologies. As opposed to the Brisker tendency to split what appears to be one into tzvey dinim, Rav Kook takes the alma d'piruda and shows how on a higher level kodesh and chol, chiloni and dati, it all comes from one holy source and all is united. There are no appendages -- everything ultimately is one, oraysa, Kudsha Brich Hu, Am Yisrael, Eretz Yisrael. I think talmidei talmidim like Rav Aviner and other dati-leumi Roshei Yeshiva share a common perspective to a larger degree than the many talmidim of the Rav do precisely because Rav Kook articulated a more powerful complete vision, a vision that exceeds the confines of 4 amos of halacha and took in the universe as a whole.

It tool me two days to figure out how to put these thoughts into words and I don't think I did such a good job of capturing what I wanted to say, but this is only a blog and I feel free to take the liberty of playing around without crafting a polished essay. This is a topic worth spending more time on and revisiting at a later date.

11 comments:

  1. Thanks -- this is a very good starting point for thinking about it. I was also thinking along the same lines (about kol dodi dofeik but is that a yotzei min haklal versus RKook's approach). I have the same caveat as being neither a baki in any sense in RKook's works, nor a talmid of RYBS (though I, like you I believe, would be from the talmidei talmidim of RYBS). In any event, thanks very much for your thoughts. For an not-polished essay (to borrow your term), this is very good.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Glad you liked it and were thinking along the same lines. The other "community" direction type essay that stood out in my mind was the one of the realtionship btwn ya'akov eisav and the issue of ecumenicalism originally published (I think) in Gesher magazine (?). For some reason I could not remember the name of the essay.

    I wanted to add (but then didn't, so I'll hide it here in a comment) that I never got a philosphical "derech" from any of the RY at YU that I would call a reflection of RYBS unique shita. I wonder if others have the same feeling. Can you imagine going to Slabodka and never listening to a shmooz on "madreigas ha'adam", or being in Telz and not hearing "shiurei da'as"? Where is the broader philosphical vision of what MO means supposed to come from? I think the assumption is you just absorb it by osmosis, but that crteates a muddled impression instead of a sharp toolbox of ideas. OK, so nani'ach YCT is wrong -- but what are you, YU, offering in its place? Torah u'mada (whatever that means) is not a philosophy of life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good post, my personal preference is towards more inclusive ideologies, which we surely need more of.

    Slightly off topic, my major gripe with Briskers and Mizrachim (and Chassidim) is that they only ever quote their strand's leader, and I actually hate it. Briskers won't quote anyone who came after the Brisk era, Chassidim will only quote their Rebbe, and Mizrachim will only quote Rav Kook.

    It is perverse that the Torah becomes divisive... If I wrote opinion pieces on my blog I'd write about this first.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I touched on your point last week
    http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2010/02/our-poskim-vs-their-poskim.html
    but I am not sure I agree 100%. Briskers would quote R' Leib Malin (just as an example)? Mizrachiim won't quote Maharal? Or in a lomdishe shiur they won't quote the Brisker Rav? The world hasn't gotten that bad! There is understandable pride in one's own derech, and also, when you are a hammer all you see is nails -- you work with the tools in your toolbox. We all have to work on expanding our toolbox to see things in different ways. Have you seen my BIL's essay on derech halimud? One of his all time best:
    http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/derachim.htm

    ReplyDelete
  5. Daas Yochid9:14 PM

    >As opposed to the Brisker tendency to split what appears to be one into tzvey dinim, Rav Kook takes the alma d'piruda and shows how on a higher level kodesh and chol, chiloni and dati, it all comes from one holy source and all is united.

    This seems to be a recurrent theme in Reb Tzadok, Chabad etc. Do you think this is a chadisher/kabalistic influence, as apposed to the pure "misnagdish" halocha only approach of the Briskers?

    ReplyDelete
  6. anon19:55 AM

    Chaim,

    re: "I wanted to add (but then didn't, so I'll hide it here in a comment) that I never got a philosphical "derech" from any of the RY at YU that I would call a reflection of RYBS unique shita. I wonder if others have the same feeling. Can you imagine going to Slabodka and never listening to a shmooz on "madreigas ha'adam", or being in Telz and not hearing "shiurei da'as"? Where is the broader philosphical vision of what MO means supposed to come from? I think the assumption is you just absorb it by osmosis, but that crteates a muddled impression instead of a sharp toolbox of ideas. OK, so nani'ach YCT is wrong -- but what are you, YU, offering in its place? Torah u'mada (whatever that means) is not a life philosophy."

    I think you are making two points --
    1. That none of the YU roshei yeshiva present the unique point of view/thinking of the Rav.
    2. That there is no other philosophy put forward.

    Re #1, I agree and disagree. I agree becuase the Rav was so unique (and yes everyone is unique but some are sufficiently different, original and innovative that they are hard to even imitate let alone replicate). So it is hard to expect that the RY will be present some replication of the Rav. A number of people have noted that the Rav's various talmidim (without getting into the question of who is beyond the fold, but simply in style and focus -- RALichtenstein as opposed to RHS) shows his breadth -- not that one got it right and others didn't. The Rav was interested in all of it and was able to synthesize, something other can't do it.

    Still that doesn't mean that you didnt get any of the Rav's philosophy (in a broad sense - not literal his philisophical works), it just wasnt as neatly presented.

    Re #2, I was in RMTwersky's shiur my entire time in YU and I did feel that he presented and shared on a regular basis a consistent philosophy of life, nuanced and though out. Sometimes as stand alone shmoozes, sometimes as his thoughts in response to current events (his perspectives after Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir come to mind), very often incorporating the Rav's thinking but very much his own as well. I can't say what goes on in other shiurim -- though I think you do have an opportunity to hear other RY's perspectives on things just by being around.

    Finally, and with this I will end my rambling -- I agree that perhaps the covneying of a life philosophy/hashkafa is perhaps somewhat disjointed and expected to occur by osmosis in YU -- but I do think on some level it is part of the broader picture that encourages independent thought (in a good way) and the need to understand how to follow an example without everything being explicitly spelled out. Because in life (both personally and communally) things are not explicitly spelled out and a lot of challenge in figuring it out yourself.

    I know this wasn't very organized -- my apologies. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  7. >>>Do you think this is a chadisher/kabalistic influence

    Hard to say.

    Re #1 -- Rav kook was unique as well, and his talmidim have a range of viewpoints, but I have an easier time seeing the common denominator.

    #2 would take another rambling post to respond to!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rav Kook and the Rav were very different.

    Rav Kook was interested in two things:
    1) showing how all things, from the material up to the spiritual, can be imbued with holiness and allow the light of God hidden within them to shine through, and that the greatest light was when such unity existed.
    2) he was also about a quantum shift in Judaism. When the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed (and may it be speedily rebuilt after Shabbos) Torah Judaism shifted from a Temple and nation-state based religion to a shul and beis medrash based faith. We ceased to see Judaism as the basis for a country and instead saw it as a religion.
    With his view that the redemption was slowly starting to unfold, Rav Kook understood that the time had come to shift Judaism back into what it had been. In other words, his form of Zionism was not an innovation but a desire to restore the previous method of operating Judaism as the basis of a nation-state instead of a dispersed religious group. This is essentially what Orot is about.
    2) The Rav, zt"l is similar to the Vilna Gaon, ztk"l is some ways. Like the Gaon, he left no specific set of writings about his philosophy behind. There was no Tanya for the misnagdish movement and none for Modern Orthodoxy. Instead, he left behind various essays, statements and students who understood his method and practice and who are trying to reproduce it in today's age. The Rav wasn't about a specific set of rules or beliefs but a method and this, in our "I paskened from the Artscroll sefer" and "Where is it written" times is something MO hasn't quite grasped.

    ReplyDelete
  9. >>>There was no Tanya for the misnagdish movement

    Nefesh haChaim.

    And RYBS did attempt to define a philosophy of halacha -- Halakhic Man.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nefesh HaChayim? Okay, I can see why you would say that but I can think of two rejoinders:
    1) It wasn't written by the Gaon but by the Volozhiner.
    2) It doesn't have the same influence within the Misnagdish world that Tanya has with Chabad. I mean, every Chabadnik has to memorize Tanya to maintain their membership status and I've even seen one or two them think you can stack a Tanya on top of a Chumash. Nefesh HaChayim is not treated that way by misnagdim.

    As for Halachic Man, yes that's a philosophy of halacha but that's my point. It's about the method, the approach, not practical "thou shalt" and "this is what we are" guidelines.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rav Kook is stream of consciousness type writing done in broad strokes. Orot Kodesh has no "thou shalt"s. Either does Orot. So I would not call that a difference.

    Your first point is about Misnagdim vs. Chassidim, but I don't see how it fits with R' Kook vs. RYBS.

    RYBS's essays are in some way similar to R' Elchanan's "Ikvesa d'Meshicha" and Ma'amarim -- topic specific addresses that develop certain yesodos, but not an all encompassing philosophical system.

    ReplyDelete