Joseph Soloveitchik: Encyclopedia II - Joseph Soloveitchik - Other views and controversy

Joseph Soloveitchik - Other views and controversy

He thus became a "lightning rod" of criticism from two directions: From the religious left he was viewed as being too connected to the Old World of Europe, while for those on the religious right, he was seen as legitimizing those wanting to lower their religious standards in the attempt to modernize and Americanize.

Joseph Soloveitchik - Departure from Brisker view of Zionism

Soloveitchik was proud of his connections to the Soloveitchik rabbinic dynasty, speaking fondly of his "uncles" and chiding them from time to time in public. To his relatives and namesakes who now lived in Jerusalem where they had established their own branch of the anti-Zionist Brisk Yeshiva, he was respected for his genius in Talmudic scholarship which few could challenge, yet they saw him as their wayward cousin who had departed from the family Haredi tradition.

Joseph Soloveitchik - Debate over integration with secular society

Soloveitchik accepted Samson Rapahel Hirch's philosophy of Torah im Derech Eretz, the philosophical basis of Modern Orthodox Judaism. Since his death, interpretations of Soloveitchik's beliefs have become an ongoing debate. Haredim (ultra-Orthodox Jews) and those on Modern Orthodox's right wing hold that Hirsch only wanted Jews to combine observant Jewish lifestyle with learning the surrounding gentile society's language, history, and science, so that a religious Jew could earn a living in the surrounding gentile society; they also hold that this is true of Soloveitchik. In this view, neither Hirsch or Soloveitchik wanted or approved of Jews learning gentile philosophy, music, art, literature or ethics. In this view, their philosophy existed solely to allow Jews to obtain a job.

In contrast, many historians of Judaism and most Modern Orthodox Jews say that this understanding of Soloveitchik's philosophy is misguided. This issue has been discussed in many articles in Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Thought, published by the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA). In this view, both Hirsch and Soloveitchik approved of more than just the study of the surrounding gentile society's language, history, science. They also thought that it was permissible, and even productive, for Jews to learn gentile philosophy, music, art, literature and ethics for its own sake. Both Hirsch and Soloveitchik studied gentile philosophy, ethics and literature.

Soloveitchik was by no means on the religious left-wing of Orthodox Judaism; those outside of Orthodoxy saw him as more stringent than Orthodoxy's left-wing, and more theologically liberal than those in the right-wing. From the 1960s onward, Orthodoxy strengthened in numbers and in the commitment of its members. There a move towards greater insularity from the non-Orthodox Jewish world, from the surrounding gentile culture. This "turn to the right" involved ever stricter interpretations of Jewish law and custom, a tendency to limit Jewish principles of faith to a narrow set of permissible options.

Soloveitchik stated that although he felt that successfully transmitted the facts and laws of Judaism to his students, he felt that he failed in transmitting the experience of living an authentic Jewish life. He stated that many of his students "act like children and experience religion like children. This is why they accept all types of fanaticism and superstition. Sometimes they are even ready to do things that border on the immoral. They lack the experiential component of religion, and simply substitute obscurantism for it....After all, I come from the ghetto. Yet I have never seen so much naïve and uncritical commitment to people and to ideas as I see in America....All extremism, fanaticism and obscurantism come from a lack of security. A person who is secure cannot be an extremist." (A Reader's Companion to Ish Ha-Halakhah: Introductory Section, David Shatz, Yeshiva University, Joseph B. Soloveitchik Institute)

Lawrence Kaplan, a historian of Orthodox Judaism writes that there is a tendency for some to rewrite Soloveitchik as not being modern Orthodox, but rather as being Haredi. For example

Joseph Soloveitchik - Relations with non-Orthodox Jews

Soloveitchik did not approve of many of the beliefs and practice of Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism. He held that where these groups differed from Orthodox Judaism, the non-Orthodox groups were in significant error. One of the major differences debated was the existence of a mechitza in the synagogue, a divider between the men's and women's section of a synagogue. In line with the traditional rabbinic understanding of this issue, Soloveitchik ruled that it was forbidden to pray in a synagogue without a separation between the sexes. As such, he effectively forbade people from praying in all Reform synagogues and in many (today, most) Conservative synagogues. (His responsa on this issue was also aimed at the small number of Orthodox synagogues that were adopting mixed-sex seating.)

Soloveitchik believed that Reform and Conservative rabbis did not have proper training in halakha and Jewish theology, and that due to their decisions and actions could not be considered rabbis as Orthodox Jews normally understood the term. He was a lifelong critic of all forms of non-Orthodox Judaism. On the other hand, in practice he often granted non-Orthodox rabbis some level of validity (see the examples below.)

Soloveitchik's philosophy allowed him to work with religious Zionists (whose views are frawned upon by some Haredi Jews) and with non-Orthodox Jews. Soloveitchik developed the idea that Jews have historically been linked together by two distinct covenants. One is the brit yiud, "covenant of destiny", which is the covenant by which Jews are bound together through their adherence to halakha. The second is the brit goral, "covenant of fate", the desire and willingness to be part of a people chosen by God to live a sacred mission in the world, and the fact that all those who live in this covenant share the same fate of persecution and oppression, even if they do not live by halakha. Soloveitchik held that non-Orthodox Jews were in violation of the covenant of destiny, yet they are still bound together with Orthodox Jews in the covenant of fate.

In 1954 he wrote a 1954 responsa on working with non-Orthodox Jews, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews in the United States: Second article in a series on Responsa of Orthodox Judaism in the United States. In this responsa he recognized the leadership of non-Orthodox Judaism as Jewish communal leaders (but not as rabbis in the Orthodox sense of the term), and concluded that participation with non-Orthodox Jews for political or welfare puposes is not only permissible, but obligatory.

The Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Council of Torah Sages of Agudath Yisroel countered with a ruling that such cooperation with non-Orthodox Jews was equivalent to endorsing non-Orthodox Judaism, and thus was forbidden. In 1956 many Yeshiva leaders, and two Modern Orthodox rabbis from his own Yeshiva University signed and issued a proclamation forbidding any rabbinical alumni of their yeshivot from joining with Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism rabbis in professional organizations.

Soloveitchik refused to sign it outright, maintaining that there were areas, particularly relating to problems that threaten all of Judaism, that required co-operation regardless of affiliation. His refusal emboldened other Modern Orthodox rabbis, and the Rabbinical Council of America and Union of Orthodox Congregations then joined the Synagogue Council of America, a group in which Orthodox, Reform and Conservative denominations worked together on common issues. (The Synagogue Council of America ceased operating in 1994.) No Haredi Orthodox groups ever joined the SCA.

In the 1950s Soloveitchik and other members of the RCA engaged in a series of private negotiations with the leaders of Conservative Judaism's Rabbinical Assembly, especially with Rabbi Saul Lieberman; their goal was to create a joint Orthodox-Conservative Beth din (rabbinic court) which would be a national beth din for all Jews in America; it would create communal standards of marriage and divorce. For a number of reasons, the project did not succeed. (Bernstein, 1977)

Until the 1950s Jews of all denominations were generally allowed to use the same communal mikvaot (ritual baths) for the purposes of converting to Judaism, following the rules of niddah in regard to the Jewish laws of family purity, kashering dishes, etc. However a growing trend in Orthodoxy was to deny the use of mikvaot to non-Orthodox rabbis for use in conversions. Soloveitchik counselled Orthodox rabbis against this practice, insisting that non-Orthodox have the option to use mikvaot. (Wurzburger, 1994)

Joseph Soloveitchik - Zionism

Since he was accepted as the pre-eminent leader of politically conscious pro-Zionist modern Orthodox Judaism, out of respect for this, many leaders and politicians from Israel sought his advice and blessings in state affairs. He was reputedly offered the position of Chief Rabbi of Israel, such as by Prime Minister Menachem Begin, but he quietly and consistently refused this offer. Ironically, despite his open and passionate love for the modern State of Israel, he never visited the State. (He did visit Israel in the 1930's, before the state was established.)

Joseph Soloveitchik - Affiliated organizations

In his early career in America he joined with the traditional movements such as Agudath Israel of America and the Agudat Harabanim - the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of North America. However as he became entrenched in the Modern Orthodox outlook, he removed himself from the former organizations, and instead joined with the Mizrachi Religious Zionists of America (RZA) and the centrist Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), where many of his students were to be found in leadership positions. Whilst he was bound scholastically and through family connections to the more Haredi Agudath Israel group, his world-view had placed itself at the center of Modern Orthodox Judaism, with its stress on excellence in secular studies, the professions, and active Zionism.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Other views and controversy", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki