R Yosef Dov Soloveichik [RYDS] aka Reb Yoshe Ber aka Reb JB, was known as a fierce rebbe in his Talmud class. He demanded very sharp preparation, and I learned at his shloshim hazakara, that he himself prepared 5-6 hours for every Talmud Lesson @ YU-RIETS.
His son described him like a "crouched tiger", waiting to pounce on a student for a mis-step with the sources or with the Svara.
My former rabbi, Rabbi Kanarfogel [RDEK], also described him this way - as a a Talmud Rebbe. Yet as a Professor in Graduate School, he was the model, the paradigm of urbane civility. When students brought up points, he would often be graciously accommodating, openly receptive to various points of view.
The difference? Was this a "Jekyll and Hyde" personality? Not at all. As RDEK goes on to explain, RYDS was fiery when it came to getting the Torah transmitted properly. Even a nuance of deviation might undermine or compromise a Talmudic principle. With Torah, the transmission had to be precise, to the point of unforgiving. The plus was that students HAD to sharpen their minds, and few were offended personally by RYDS "not suffering fools graciously"
OTOH, in the realm of philosophy, diversity was tolerated, if not outright welcomed. Any reasonable analysis was treated cordially.
Q: What did Torah studies possess that secular studies lacked?
A: Qedushah
I'm always a bit surprised when "BT's" expect a rebbe to be highly indulgent of all kind of "reasonable" approaches. I guess that there lies a degree of "assimilation" of secular learning.
Torah learning is more complex. A reasonable sounding Svara in place X can make serious problems in area Y. Torah is so tightly enmeshed that a great deal of mastery is needed before validating the novel, the innovative, and the radical. And the wiggle room for the casual, the sloppy, the half-baked is so much less.
And even when Torah has an elu v'elu concept in general, almost no rebbe would lechatchila teach in a way that would allow for 2 diverse schools to sprout forth from a given lecture or monograph. The concept of rebbe-talmid transmission almost demands greater conformity to the specific points of the rebbe, and not the loose ramblings of the talmid.
So if Marxism can be understood quite differently by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin And Mao is one thing. But to understanding R Chayyim Brisker 4 ways would be another matter entirely
GT
RRW
1 comment:
While Rabbi Wolpoe's point is well taken, it is intereting to note that the Rav still actually promoted individual thought and decision making in his talmidim as evidenced by the wide specturm of viewpoints expressed by his talmidim across the board. This may reflect the concept of shivim panim l'Torah and the distinction between this concept and general secular / intellectual tolerance. Within the secular world, the toleance is a reflection of our acceptance of differing views or perceptions of individuals -- what YOU think is okay. In Torah, it is reflective of the reality that the Torah itself contains divergent perspectives and the diversity is built into the system. Thus, in learning, for example, we have to understand both Rashi and Tosfot in their expression of divergence -- but we have to make sure we get the distintion correct.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Post a Comment