I haven't looked at it for a number of years. Boy, when you look at it again, it hits you in the face like a brick. As much as anything else, the sheer dishonesty is alarming. They portray him as a Jewish studies professor. The man was a giant in that thing which the people of the Jewish Observer admired most -- or shall we say the only thing they admired -- Gemara lomdus. The article makes it seem that the most important thing in the Rav's life was secular philosophy, when in reality that was minor. A college professor once asked a student of the Rav if he often spoke out the ideas of Lonely Man of Faith in his class. No, said the student, it was a Gemara class. He didn't mention philosophy there. In other words, he put that book together on the side. It was a minor thing. Not that LMOF is a book of secular philosophy. It's religious philosophy. It's Torah. When did the Rav discuss secular philosophy? Hardly ever. In fact, given how religious a man he was, I'd say he never discussed secular philosophy. Everything was religion to him. But he mentioned gentile philosophers in Halachic Mind. That's nice. The Chovos HaLevavos also references gentile philosophers. He says so in his introduction.
If you are going to question the Rav -- let's say you didn't care for his derech -- admit who you are dealing with, a Torah giant of the first order. But don't rewrite history, don't lie. The article is full of lies and deception and framing. It's disgusting. It's written by a person who obviously knew nothing about Rabbi Soloveitchik. Yeshiva guys often have this problem. They talk as if they were experts on whatever they are talking about, even if they know nothing about the subject. The Yeshiva world is rife with lashon hara about Rav Soloveitchik. They pass around myths from one guy to the next.
The entire purpose of the JO article on the Rav was to insult him, was to minimize and marginalize him. That's why it was written. There was no concept that maybe he had a different perspective. It is the old my way or the high way.
No comments:
Post a Comment