Transcript

I had originally hoped to use this time to try to distill into an hour a sense of who the Rav was. But when I began trying to organize my thoughts, I realized that even superficially, even schematically, it was obviously impossible, even just giving roshei perakim to try to accomplish that. So as a result, I'd like to try to focus on two or three isolated points and fully aware and as I'm sure all of you are that it won't add up to any kind of comprehensive portrait. Any discussion of the Rav has to begin with the defining characteristic, his defining characteristic, and that is that he was a גדול שבגדולים בתורה. Now I'd like to try to explain a little bit what that term means, at least as applied to him. You know, it's a term which is used and bandied about rather freely, but I'd like to try to again a little bit explain what that means when we describe the Rav as such as having been an ענק שבענקים בתורה. And it's very difficult to do in this generation. Because someone, people your age, the age of the talmidim who didn't know the Rav, not only don't such individuals exist today, I'm not even sure that the hasagos, I'm not even sure that the conceptions of that magnitude of gadlus exist anymore today. So it's very difficult to try to communicate. But nevertheless, let's try a little bit. Let's begin first by trying to explode a myth. There is a myth, again one can't talk about the Rav without also talking about his roots, without talking somewhat about Brisk, about Volozhin. So there is a mistaken notion that Brisk neglected or rachmana litzlan was even mezalzel in bekius. There is such a prevalent notion. And this is absolutely untrue. What is true, and one sort of heard this in between the lines of different comments which the Rav would make, is that Brisk took bekius, bekius familiarity with, knowledge of kol hatorah kulah on its most basic level for granted. It wasn't that Brisk was mezalzel in bekius. It's that that wasn't the definition of gadlus, that was a precondition to one's aspiration to gadlus. But the bekius was taken for granted. For instance, the story is told, it's quoted as well, that Reb Chaim once pointed to Reb Velvele when he was a young boy and said with clear pride that he knows shas with Rashi. Knows shas with Rashi. Similarly, I forget where I saw this, that Reb Chaim used to learn two seder a day and in each seder again he would cover twenty, thirty blatt. So it wasn't a question of being mezalzel in bekius. Reb Elchanan I think in Kiddushin quotes from Reb Chaim the gemara in Kiddushin on daf yud talks about that someone who's a בקי בכל התורה כולה can be דן א קל וחומר. So דן א קל וחומר seems to be something which is restricted to a rather narrow context. So what does it require a baki To know whether or not this sevara is correct, whether or not this sevara can withstand scrutiny, so that requires the bekius in kol hatorah kulo. And Brisk didn't stress bekius, it didn't talk about bekius, it didn't display bekius, but not out of any sense of zilzul or neglect, because it was just taken for granted, it was taken for granted. Another aspect or element of the approach of Brisk, and this had its source in Volozhin already, in its attitude towards Talmud Torah was that the ultimate in Talmud Torah, the apex in Talmud Torah was chiddushei Torah. Now to understand the significance of that, if you contrast that with the approach of other gedolim, say someone like the Chazon Ish, so it's quite clear in various places that the Chazon Ish sees as the ultimate birur halacha, halacha l'maiseh, and he quotes gemaras which he feels corroborate that position. And in Brisk, but again I think it basically has its source in Volozhin, that's what Reb Chaim Volozhiner writes in Nefesh Hachayim, just for instance in Shaar Daled, Perek Yud Beis:

וכל שכן חידושים אמיתיים דאורייתא המתחדשים על ידי האדם, אין ערוך לגודל נוראות נפלאות עניינם ופעולתם למעלה, שכל מילה ומילה פרטית המתחדשת מפי האדם, קודשא בריך הוא נשיק לה ומעטר לה, ונבנה ממנה עולם חדש בפני עצמו, והן הן השמיים החדשים והארץ החדשה שאמר הכתוב.

And Reb Chaim Volozhiner continues. That's why for instance the Rav used to write down chiddushei Torah. He didn't, he didn't make a habit of writing down his teshuvos and his piskei halacha. There are a few, there are a handful of teshuvos which he had to write out fully for purposes of dissemination but in terms of his own, his own records, his own ksavim, so his own ksavim were chiddushei Torah, not, not, not the teshuvos which he gave, the psakim which he rendered. Now this is not to say that the Rav didn't invest and devote a lot of time to answering shailos. He certainly did. He spent endless, endless and countless hours hearing shailos, thinking about them, weighing them bekoved rosh and paskening. None of this is to imply that he wasn't involved, and that as the Rav himself using the phrase which the Gemara attributes to Dovid Hamelech as he said autobiographically that ידיים מלוכלכות בדם שפיר ושליא, that his hands were dirty with the practical nitty-gritty of dealing with shailos and halacha l'maiseh. But he did so again out of a sense of service to the klal, out of a sense of responsibility to provide leadership for the klal, not so much as the ultimate fulfillment of Talmud Torah. But he did, and this needs to be emphasized as well, but he did see it as a sacred obligation to pasken shailos, to pasken shailos. He was very makpid on the hefkeirus which he saw in America in the area of paskening shailos and he used to say that in America you would say in Yiddish: so יעדער איינער פסקנ'ט פאר זיך, that everyone paskens for himself, that balabatim pasken for themselves and rabbonim who are not necessarily of the caliber to be paskening the types of shailos which they are, that everyone paskens for himself. And he said it very plaintively, very painfully, that there was a hefkeirus, there was a lack of koved rosh in the area of psak halacha in America. It's certainly not... True, the contention that the Rav used to encourage everyone that they should pasken for themselves and that they should, it's certainly not true. Perhaps one of the sources for the misunderstanding is that there were occasions when the Rav wouldn't pasken. For instance, it would happen from time to time that the Rav would get a shayla from someone from whom he had never had a shayla before. And it wasn't someone who was a talmid of his, it wasn't someone who had any any connection to him. And it was clear to the Rav, he had he had this uncanny sixth sense to know whether people were coming to him because it was an especially difficult shayla, which needed his psak, or they were coming to him because they had an idea of what psak they may get from him which they wouldn't have gotten elsewhere. And on those occasions so then the Rav refused to take up the shayla. He refused to pasken. So he would ask very often he would ask, who's your Rosh Yeshiva? And then say well you should be asking him this shayla. Once someone from a certain Chasidic group, the shayla in question was about adoption, whether or not there are issurei yichud between adoptive parents and children. So they called the Rav, the Rav had never heard from this person before despite the fact that the person had had many occasions to ask shaylas of the Rav. The Rav had never heard from him before and it was quite clear that the person was shopping for a certain psak which he thought he was going to get a kula from the Rav which he wouldn't have gotten elsewhere. And the Rav told him, no you have to take this shayla to whomever you generally ask your shaylas. So there were occasions where he deferred shaylas, but that was for a totally different consideration because one has to be consistent in how and of whom one asks shaylas and when the Rav detected that there was an inconsistency so then he would not get involved. Another element of the Brisk tradition which the Rav imbibed and subsequently personified is one which has become so fundamental that I think we don't even we can't even appreciate the profound influence which Rav Chaim exerted here. And that is I remember once the Rav he was asked to a little bit to explain about derech halimmud. So he said that his father used to say that you have to learn with the following assumption and that this is what underlies the derech halimmud and said something which seems so simple and so obvious and so self-evident to be that it's almost meaningless. That his father used to say א ראשון קען לערנען. That the rishonim knew how to learn. Rashi knew how to learn well. And the Baalei HaTosafot knew how to learn well. And the Rambam knew how to learn well and the Raavad knew how to learn well. Okay so that's a that's a derech halimmud that's that's an even partial explanation of a derech halimmud? So we know. We know that the that Rashi and the Baalei HaTosafot and all the rishonim are all in good standing with us. But the truth is if you step back for a minute, so what the Rav's father was saying was something very profound. If you look even in the generations the Gedolei Lita right before Rav Chaim, I'm not talking about going way back, but the Gedolei Lita right before Rav Chaim. You look at the Mishkenot Yaakov, you look at the Sha'agas Aryeh, you look both at their teshuvos as well as their chiddushim. So if you look in the Mishkenot Yaakov, so Mishkenot Yaakov deals with the classical questions. They're not new contemporary questions. He's dealing with classical questions on which on most of these questions, just like the Sha'agas Aryeh in his sefer, he's he's not breaking new ground in terms of the questions he's dealing with. He's dealing with with old questions, questions which were already taken up by the rishonim. And usually what happens in these teshuvos of the Mishkenot Yaakov, of the Sha'agas Aryeh is that they end up being machria. They say there's a Gemara here which certainly proves that Rashi is right in this machlokes and therefore halacha k'vaso. And in this machlokes so there's a raya from a Gemara here like the Rambam against the Rosh and therefore we pas... But in terms of the approach, the approach is that they're machria by basically being doche one side in the machlokes rishonim. And that was prevalent. And Rav Chaim, as we all know, and again this has become so fundamental and so basic to the way we learn that we don't even realize the tremendous influence which Rav Chaim exerted here. But when Rav Chaim came and said, "No, they're both right." Rav Chaim said, "No, it's not that there's a gemara which is like the Rambam which is against the Ra'avad. That there's a gemara which is like Rashi and which is against Tosafos," right? That was one of the most basic, basic axioms within Rav Chaim's approach was that both rishonim have a consistent, internally consistent approach which works through all the relevant gemaras. That's what the Rav's father was saying when he said that again in terms of the derech halimmud that it's based on this assumption as a rishon can learn. So it's not so pashut to say, "Well, the gemara in Megilla here about kedushas Beis Medrash proves that the Rambam is right that tefilla is de-oraisa and against the Ramban that tefilla is only de-rabbanan." Along the same lines there's another comment from Rav Chaim which should be understood in this respect as well. And here too again when placed in context it represents something new and not at all trivial. I think Rav Elchonon quotes a comment from Rav Chaim that we're not mechaddesh. Right, not the comment one would expect from Rav Chaim. That the rishonim were mechaddesh but we, so our job is only to say peshat to understand what the rishonim were mechaddesh. So what does that mean and again what was Rav Chaim conveying in saying that? So again if you look in the Sha'agas Aryeh's seforim on Shas, Gevuros Ari, and his other, his other seforim. So the Sha'agas Aryeh, and again not only the Sha'agas Aryeh, many many of the gedolei acharonim, so they often they'll have a kushya on Rashi and Tosafos and then they'll say a new peshat, a new mahalach in the gemara. Not Rashi, not Tosafos. So in Rav Chaim kimmat you don't find it. You kimmat don't find that Rav Chaim says a peshat directly in the gemara. And that's what Rav Chaim insisted upon that part of our tradition is, part of the tradition is that we see the gemara through the lens of the rishonim. And that's what Rav Chaim had in mind by this comment recorded by Rav Elchonon that we don't say chiddushim, we only try to say peshat in the chiddushim of the rishonim. The rishonim were mechaddesh. The Rambam could come along and be mechaddesh and say, "No, this is the peshat in the gemara." The Ramban could do that. Our task is to see it through the lens provided to us by the rishonim. Now this approach to learning has implications in psak halacha as well. And that is given this derech halimmud of the emphasizing that אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים as true amongst the rishonim as well, not just amongst the Tanna'im and Amora'im, but amongst the rishonim as well. So then one it becomes much more natural, again what's associated with Brisk but it has its roots in this derech halimmud, the notion of being machmir for both shittos, the notion of yotzei le-chol ha-de'os. So again it's not stam, stam to be machmir, but rather it has ultimately it has its roots, part of it is a trepidation of hora'ah. But in addition it also ties in with the derech halimmud again of if the derech halimmud is אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים it becomes much more natural to be machmir for both opinions in a machlokes. And one is much more hesitant, much more reticent about being machria like one or the other. But this notwithstanding, that tendency was much more pronounced in the Beis HaRav by their own personal hanhagos than it was. was in terms of psak larabbim. For instance, I remember the Rav once commenting critically about about someone who paskened that everyone has to be machmir for the zman of Rabbeinu Tam for the zman of Rabbeinu Tam and on motzei Shabbos not to do melacha until the zman of Rabbeinu Tam. And the Rav said that his memory from his father's house was not like that. He said of course his father was very makpid on the Rabbeinu Tam's zman and he was as well, that was his kabbala, but it wasn't something that was paskened for others. So even though again this tendency was a direct outgrowth of the derech halimmud of Reb Chaim, but it was primarily primarily one which was accepted for themselves but not necessarily the psak which was given to the rabbim. So coming back, coming back to our original description of the Rav as a gadol batorah, as a gadol shebegdolim. So when one says that about the Rav, so you don't mean that he was a baki in Shas, in Rambam, in Shulchan Aruch, that he had a כח לאסוקי שמעתתא אליבא דהלכתא because all that, all that was taken for granted, all that were the conditions, the preconditions for gadlus, that wasn't what the gadlus consisted of, those were rather the tools that provided the platform from which one tried to achieve and attain gadlus. So what then was the gadlus? So the gadlus, and again for the moment we're speaking narrowly just in the tchum of nigleh, so the Rav once said about Reb Chaim that Reb Chaim brought forth the neshama of Torah. That when Reb Chaim learned, when Reb Chaim explained, so he exposed, he penetrated to the neshama of Torah. What does that mean? So let's discuss a little bit again Reb Chaim's derech, because the Rav obviously even within the tradition in which he stood obviously was unique just as every adam gadol is. But nevertheless one can't begin to speak of the Rav without talking about that tradition. So let's talk a little bit about Reb Chaim's derech halimmud. So it's well known that what Reb Chaim did, what we stumblingly try to do as well, is that Reb Chaim was able to make that transition. He was able to make that leap from the concrete halacha, right, from what you saw on the surface, what you saw phenomenologically, to the underlying idea, to the underlying concept, right, hence the description of conceptualization or abstraction. And that Reb Chaim's geonus, his gadlus, and the Rav like him in the famous letter of the Dvar Avraham, so the Dvar Avraham describes that which the Dvar Avraham wrote in advance of the Rav coming to America, so the famous description the Dvar Avraham gave was נחה עליו רוח זקנו, that the spirit of Reb Chaim rests upon his grandson. So Reb Chaim's geonus, his gadlus, the Rav's as well, was in being able to make this leap. When you learned with the Rav you had the sense it was like a golden touch. That sometimes, so we learn a Gemara and Rachmana litzlan it seems to us, right, seems to me, it can seem to me, right, lefi mi'ut sichli, lefi sichli hadal, right, it seems boring Rachmana litzlan, right, we don't say it but honestly we do think it sometimes, right? It seems boring. With the Rav there was no such thing as a boring line in the Gemara. Everything, the words were dancing. He had this amazing koach, this amazing koach, and again it was the koach to go from what was on the surface, right, what just seemed to be a dry halacha on the surface and as he said of Reb Chaim to penetrate to the neshama, to the idea, to what was lurking, to what was underlying. But the gadlus and the gaonus was not only in making that leap. The gadlus or gaonus was also in the ability to notice things on the surface, and I think that is often not sufficiently emphasized. Lemayseh, how did Reb Chaim learn? How did the Rav learn? So sometimes, and maybe, maybe this misunderstanding is created in part by how things are presented biksav in Reb Chaim's sefer, but too often we have the association with, well, chakira, right? So that sort of captures or encapsulates the way Reb Chaim learned, that everything with Reb Chaim was a chakira: is it cheftza, is it gavra, is it this, is it that? But that's not at all the case. That's not at all the case. Reb Chaim didn't, the Rav didn't have any set questions which they asked when they approached the blatt Gemara. There was no, there was no, there was no, you know, when when an uman comes to do his job, so he has his toolkit. So the toolkit, there were no set questions in in the toolkit: is it this or is it that? Rather you learned, you learned, you opened the Gemara, you started learning. There were no chakiros. There were no chakiros. The gadlus was, again, so sometimes the difficulty, the catalyst, what stimulates you to probe too deep is obvious. Tosfos points out Rashi's against the Gemara elsewhere. Okay, so that's a blatant difficulty. The only gadlus, the only gaonus you need is in resolving it. But the, again, what stimulates, the catalyst is obvious. But again, the gadlus, the gaonus in Brisk was that even when others didn't detect any difficulty, others saw a smooth, smoothly paved road in front of them, so Reb Chaim, Reb Chaim sensed the bumps. And when there was a bump in the road, when when the blatt Gemara wasn't smooth, so that's what prompted the rethinking and the reexamination of: what are our assumptions, right? What are our assumptions that makes this difficult and what does this point to in terms of revising our assumptions? So sort of after the fact you can summarize that in the form of a chakira, but in terms of the process, the creative process, it's not a chakira at all, right? It's rather being stimulated by something in the words of the Gemara, in the Rambam. Something, there's an extra word it might be and sometimes and sometimes, again, it was a it was such a keen sense that others didn't even notice it. But it was always a response to some to something which stimulated it. And that's what brought about the rethinking, the reexamination. It wasn't: is it this, is it that? Sometimes you'll end up at the same finishing point. Sometimes you can begin either way and sometimes you'll end up at the same finishing point, but but often often they will diverge. And that's also when the Rav would sit down. That's how also he learned. There were no questions. The Rav was very conscious of training talmidim, very conscious again of not just saying a shiur, not just saying a shtickel Torah, but he was very conscious of the responsibility to train, right? In one of the Yahrtzeit shiurim, the Rav said, I think it's printed in the second volume, in terms of the definition of rebbe muvhak. So there are some who say that bizman hazeh that תורה שבעל פה is written down, so you don't have a rebbe muvhak anymore because most of what we learn, we learn on our own. And the Rav said, the Rav said that he didn't agree with that position. And he said it's true that if I would count the number of blatt Gemara which I learned with my father as opposed to the number of blatt Gemara I learned on our own, so it's certainly true that I've learned more blatt Gemara on my own than I learned with my father. However, my father is the one who gave me the tools. My father is the one who equipped me to understand how to learn, how to understand. Every blatt Gemara which I learned on my own was due to the formative influence. even though the definition Chazal give for that is rov chochmoso heimenu and it can't be measured by how many blatt did he sit and read with his father, but again rather having given him the tools, having given him the derech halimmud. And because of that he was very conscious of again not just not just conveying the content of Torah, but also trying to train talmidim, train the next generation, two generations in knowing how to learn as well. And clearly saw that as one particular comment which resonates now, but it wasn't intended to be repeated in public so I can't, but he clearly saw that as again a primary task of a baal masorah, again not just to convey the content of Torah but also the derech halimmud as well. But despite that fact, the way that was done was by sort of inviting people into the inner sanctum and letting them see the creative process unfold. It wasn't that there was any formalized methodology which you could again capture in certain key questions, because ultimately what the derech halimmud represented is a certain sense, a certain sense that there's more to this than meets the eye, that there's something deeper underlying this, and it's that sense again which is developed by exposure to someone who has it and then by more and more learning. So when we say that the Rav was a gadol b'Torah, it means a gadol b'Torah in this sense, a gadol b'Torah in in the ability to understand again, not only the familiarity with the with the phenomena of Torah, with the halachos, no that was the bekius which was a precondition to gadlus b'Torah. But the gadlus b'Torah was that ability to elicit the neshamah of Torah, and to do so from Berachos through Uktzin b'chol chadrei haTorah. Here it's worth digressing for a minute. You know someone with the Rav's prodigious abilities, you know the Rav used to tell the story about how he knew when he was in Berlin someone who had been a talmid of Reb Chaim and then subsequently had gone he had studied math and science and then he worked as an assistant to Einstein. And he used to like to talk to the used to like to talk to the Rav. And the Rav said that he was fond of comparing the two, right, lehavdil, giants under whom he had studied. And that he used to say that if you want to rank them intellectually, in terms of the the intellectual prowess of the two, so it's a fair question, clearly Reb Chaim was the great of the two, clearly, but it's a fair question. It's okay to raise the question. He said but when it came to chessed, when it came to chessed, so even though Einstein, right, was reputed to be a great humanitarian, so he said that Einstein wasn't rauy, he wasn't worthy to shine Reb Chaim's shoes, wasn't worthy to shine Reb Chaim's shoes. The Rav also had very very prodigious abilities. Now one would imagine that with those prodigious abilities, one would easily rise to the top without necessarily having to engage in that amalah shel Torah of ממית עצמו בעולה של תורה. And yet and yet I once asked one of my great aunts, she should be well, what her memories were of her older brother. So there was there was Actually this one not even born. But she said she remembers she never saw him for a moment not learning as a youngster, as a teenager, when her first memories, she couldn't ever remember searching back in the memory bank, always learning, always either learning himself or learning with his father. There was never a moment when he wasn't learning. So haga atzmecha. Again, the need for amala shel Torah doesn't depend upon one's abilities. The need for amala shel Torah is to make the most of one's abilities. And aderaba, the Rav apparently felt that the greater the abilities with which Hakadosh Baruch Hu blesses one, so then the greater the obligation and the more sacred the obligation to learn. And this continued throughout his life. It continues to times that I can remember as well. The same total preoccupation with learning, the same amala shel Torah. The Rav used to like to say margela b'fumei, I don't like to plagiarize myself. So most of us try not to plagiarize others. The Rav used to say I don't like to plagiarize myself. What he meant was, well he wouldn't have said it, but again, he was always always if מים שאין להם סוף, so what that one has חידושים על גבי חידושים in a particular sugya? No, that's what the Rav used to say. I don't like to plagiarize myself. Every time there was more and more to be discovered and every time again, no matter how many years, no matter how many decades, there was the same amala shel Torah to bring forth even more and more chiddushei Torah. Not to plagiarize himself. Another perspective which it's important to have on the Rav, you know gedolei Yisrael throughout the generations, this is something my father zichrono l'vracha studied and wrote about quite extensively, rubam k'kulam were preoccupied not only with Shas u'Poskim but also with what my father used to call meta-halakhic disciplines, which for some like the Rambam meant philosophy and for others meant Kabbalah. And this was the tzura of again most gedolei Yisrael throughout the generations. And certainly the Rav very much stood in that tradition of gedolei Yisrael again whose range in Torah exceeded just the tchum of nigla, the tchum of Shas u'Poskim again but in that very fundamental way, in the level of the neshama of Torah the Rav had but also simply put there was nothing that the Rav didn't know. You couldn't catch him on a Zohar that he didn't know. You couldn't catch him on a passage in the Moreh Nevukhim or the Kuzari or Likkutei Torah or anything. It was absolutely awesome. Really, the word is used, is overused today, the word is stale, it was literally awesome. There was nothing he didn't know. And often, you know Chazal say v'aleyhu lo yibol that אפילו שיחת חולין של תלמידי חכמים צריכה תלמוד, sometimes even more than when talking and learning about a particular sugya when you really got a glimpse of the grandeur of his greatness was in conversation. Because if you weren't limited to a particular sugya but the conversation was sort of wide-ranging, so it was incredible in the course of one conversation and again this was it wasn't throwing around names, it was whenever it was, whenever it was relevant to the point, everything, everything, every branch of Torah, again whether it was whether it was Chassidus, whether it was Mussar, whatever it is, Kabbalah, the Chachmei haMechkar, the Rambam, Yehuda haLevi, Rabbeinu Bachya, everyone, it was absolutely absolutely awesome. Now these Gedolei Yisrael who again throughout the generations, and again rubam kekulam, this is true of rubam kekulam again that they were gedolim not only in in the Yam haTalmud, not only in chochmas haTalmud, but also again in the other disciplines. For some it was philosophy, the Rambam, for some it was Kabbalah and and for some in the case of the Rav it was it was both. So then the question arose, which again the Gedolei Yisrael throughout the generations dealt with is the relationship between these. The relationship between one's involvement again with with call it the study of Halacha, Yam haTalmud, with be it Kabbalah, be it be it philosophy. And much of this debate centered on how you learn pshat in the Gemara at the end of the second perek in Sukkah where the Gemara is describing the greatness of רבן יוחנן בן זכאי. And the Gemara describes how also רבן יוחנן בן זכאי he knew everything. And then the Gemara says and he knew davar gadol and he knew davar katon. He knew all the devarim gedolim, he knew all the devarim ktanim. So the Gemara says what's davar gadol, what's davar katon? What do those terms refer to? So the Gemara says that davar gadol is Ma'aseh Merkavah. The vision which Yechezkel beheld, which is recorded in perek aleph of Yechezkel that's the haftarah of Shavuos. And then davar katon the Gemara says is הויות דאביי ורבא. הויות דאביי ורבא. So the Rambam, the Rambam says that what that means is that axiologically that Ma'aseh Merkavah is more important than הויות דאביי ורבא which represent basically the Halacha part of Shas. That's what the Rambam says. And some others say that as well, the Vilna Gaon in the Biur haGra in Yoreh Deah says it as well but he takes the Rambam to task for identifying and understanding Ma'aseh Breishis and Ma'aseh Merkavah in terms of philosophy and says that is a terrible mistake which he thinks the Rambam made, that really it means Kabbalah. It means chochmas haNistar. But others rejected that pshat entirely and they say no, that's not what the Gemara is saying. If you look for instance in the Ridvaz in Sukkah, the Kessef Mishneh in Hilchos Yesodei haTorah quotes this Ridvaz as well and he also quotes Mizrachi who says something similar and they say that's not at all the case. הויות דאביי ורבא is treated as a davar katon, what it means is in those places where where a tradition was forgotten, where somehow or other there was some there were all kinds of sfekos, so that is referred to as davar katon. But Shas as a whole, chochmas haTalmud is the greatest chochma that exists. And the Gemara in Sukkah is is again is referring again to those areas where we're unsure, where our vision is clouded, where it's skewed. That's a davar katon. But in terms of chochmas haTalmud as a whole, that's a davar gadol. So for them again, Nistar notwithstanding, Nigla remains the ultimate in terms of Talmud Torah and the most important. Even according to the other school of thought, just it's very important to clarify, even according to the other school of thought, so it's certainly the case the Rambam says that one has no right to progress to Ma'aseh Breishis and Ma'aseh Merkavah unless one first is מילא כריסו בשר ויין unless one has first become a gadol b'Torah. So in terms of sequentially there's no machlokes but axiologically there is. And again this is something which throughout the generations different Gedolei Yisrael had different opinions on. Again some saw again Kabbalah, chochmas haNistar as being the ultimate chochmas haTorah. Again one had to be one has to be ra'uy to study it and and part of the qualifications is gadlus in Nigla, but again in theory that the one such example the Kessef Mishneh in Perek Bais of Hilchos Mamrim talks about how the Gemara says in the first perek of Beitzah that רבן יוחנן בן זכאי was matir an earlier gezeirah with regard to peros neta revai that even though min HaTorah the fruit of the fourth year, right, the fruit which is produced by a tree in the fourth year which has the status of revai which is the same as Ma'aser Sheni so really if you're outside of Yerushalayim you're allowed to redeem it and then bring the money and spend the money in Yerushalayim. So a takana had been made לעטר שוקי ירושלים בפירות that if you lived within a day's journey of Yerushalayim you shouldn't be podeh your revai and but you should bring it to Yerushalayim. And then רבן יוחנן בן זכאי subsequently after the Churban was matir this. So the Kessef Mishneh asks a kasha and says but the Rambam here explains that in order to overturn a gezeirah of an earlier Beis Din you have to be gadol bechachmah uvemonyan. You have to be greater than the earlier Beis Din in order to overturn the gezeirah. So how was it possible that רבן יוחנן בן זכאי who amongst the talmidim of Hillel was the katan shebekulam? רבן יוחנן בן זכאי, he was considered the katan shebekulam seemingly the lowest ranking amongst all the talmidim, so how could he have been gadol bechachmah uvemonyan than the chachamim of an earlier generation when even in his own generation seemingly the Gemara doesn't rank him first? So the Kessef Mishneh has two answers. One of them is

תדע דהכי קאמר התם שלא הניח ממשלות כובסים משלות שועלים שיחת שדים ושיחת מלאכי השרת ומעשה מרכבה ובאותן חכמות אפשר שהיו גדולים ממנו אבל לא בחכמת התורה.

So the Kessef Mishneh says that maybe when the Gemara says that רבן יוחנן בן זכאי was katan shebekulam, he means he was katan shebekulam, he didn't have the same, his gadlus was a tiny bit less than their gadlus in things like Ma'aseh Merkavah, but in Chachmas HaTorah, so then רבן יוחנן בן זכאי was preeminent not only in his generation but even klapei vis-a-vis earlier generations as well. So it's very interesting. Again, this Kessef Mishneh also seems to have implications for this question. The Kessef Mishneh seems to be saying that ultimately the status of gadol bechachmah uvemonyan depends upon the Chachmas HaTalmud. It certainly would seem to have, not absolute incontrovertible proof, but it certainly does seem to have implications for what we're talking about in terms of again axiological supremacy again of Kabbalah versus vis-a-vis Shas vis-a-vis nigleh. So where did the Rav stand on all this? So I think one can fairly say, and again and this is especially meaningful given the fact that he mamash knew everything, again that the Rav again was certainly of the opinion that Chachmas HaTalmud was the ikar. The Chachmas HaTalmud was the ikar. He certainly aligned himself with that group of Gedolim throughout the generations. Now here I'd like to now move on to the second point but very quickly, very briefly and try to give the roshei perakim of the roshei perakim. If one were to ask, let's say if one were to ask about Reb Chaim, what effect did he have on the world in terms of what, so clearly one would say that his derech halimud, he revolutionized the world with his derech halimud, right? It wasn't only let's say we're now learning the second perek of Kesuvos, it wasn't only the chiddushei Torah about Shtaros but the whole derech halimud, the whole derech halimud. Now obviously that derech halimud then generates lots of individual chiddushim. But in terms of on the macrocosmic scale, so certainly one associates with Rav Chaim the derech halimud. One of the same questions is raised about the Rav. What chidushim did he reveal to us within the mesorah? Again chidush is something from within, not from without, but what chidushim did he reveal to us within the mesorah? Again clearly the derech halimud was Rav Chaim's. Two answers to the question, and I don't mean to suggest that these answers are comprehensive or exhaustive. They're certainly not. But just two answers, just as food for thought to think about. One of the things which the Rav said about Rav Chaim in the hesped for Rav Velvel, where he has the whole long description of Rav Chaim's derech halimud, is that Rav Chaim revolutionized certain areas of Shas. That before Rav Chaim, okay, so it was known that there was a lot of lomdus, that there was depth, there was profundity, there was what to say in Nashim, in Nezikin. But Rav Chaim took certain topics which beforehand the Rav used to say that Yoreh Deah before Rav Chaim was all pots and pans. And then Rav Chaim came along and all of a sudden Yoreh Deah was just as deep and just as profound as Nashim, as Nashim and Nezikin. And one of the examples which the Rav there gives, taki, is Shtaros. He says that before, before Rav Chaim, so you didn't have the lomdus in Shtaros, and Rav Chaim revolutionized that inyan. Certainly, certainly in inyanei Orach Chaim, especially tefillah and the like, there's no question that the Rav revolutionized more so than Rav Chaim. It's truer, much truer of him than it is of Rav Chaim in these areas. Revolutionized inyanim in Orach Chaim in terms of revealing, again, the Rav said it about Rav Chaim, that Rav Chaim brought lomdus to the siddur. But it was even truer of himself than it was of Rav Chaim. In terms of tefillah, tefillah needing a mattir, and just so much חידושים על גבי חידושים which just totally transformed these chelkei Torah. And again, that's more than just an individual chidush. It's a total, a total transformation. It's not just a chidush in a sugya, but a total transformation. The other, the other answer, again, by no means these being the only answers, but the other answer is that the Rav had a tremendous, tremendous revolutionary effect in machshavah. How so? And I'd like to very, very briefly try to describe it and maybe give one or two illustrations. You know, in his essay, Halakhic Mind, so the Rav writes the following: To this end, there is only a single source from which a Jewish philosophical Weltanschauung, hashkafah, could emerge: the objective order, the Halakhah. Problems of freedom, I skipped a few lines, causality, God-man relationship, creation and nihility would be illuminated by Halakhic principles. A new light could be shed on our apprehension of reality. The Halakhic compass would also guide us through the lanes of medieval philosophy. And then the Rav concludes with one of the most tantalizing lines ever written by one of Gedolei Yisrael: Out of the sources of Halakhah, a new world view awaits formulation. Now basically what the Rav said, and I'm not sure if we sufficiently appreciate to what degree he, he made good on this promise, is that the hashkafah of Torah, the hashkafah of Yahadus... The ultimate and most definitive sources for hashkafa, it's not we generally, right, if we're asked, so how do you hashkafa? Okay, so in Shas there's halacha and aggada, right? So we all know, those are the two chelkei haShas. So you want to know mutar v'assur, tamei v'tahor, so you study halacha. You want to know hashkafa, so then you study the chelkei haAggada. And what the Rav, again, I think more than anyone, without exception, certainly in terms of what we have written, in terms of sefarim which we have as part of our mesora, what the Rav showed more than anyone else is that the hashkafa of Yahadus is latent in the halacha. Now, give an example. And this is to be elicited, and this can't be overemphasized. It's to be elicited not by philosophizing about halacha, but by learning halacha, again, the way you learn yesh dichei about the nireh nireh v'nidcheh or dichei mei'ikara, the same way you learn that sugya, so you learn consistently like that. And again, the philosophy of Yahadus is to be extracted from halacha. Give you one example of where the Rav himself, again, without waving the red flag, so sometimes we miss it, did it. In the second volume of the Yortzeit Shiurim, there's a wonderful, wonderful shiur about mechikas Hashem. And in that shiur about mechikas Hashem, so the Rav talks about the gemara in Shevuos, the machlokes tannaim about osios hanitpalos la-Shem. What happens if you have prefixes or suffixes? Again, right, which in Lashon ha-Kodesh, right, unlike English for the most part, where often the preposition is a separate word, so in Lashon ha-Kodesh, so the preposition is a prefix. It's la, it's mem. So what happens if you have a prefix or a suffix attached to the shem Hashem? L'Elokim or Elokeichem? So whether or not these osios hanitpalos la-Shem have kedushas Hashem and therefore there's an issur mechika or not. So one view in the Tannaim, which is how we pasken, distinguishes between the prefix and the suffix. That nitpalos la-Shem mil'fanav doesn't have kedushas Hashem, but nitpalos la-Shem mil'acharav does have a kedushas Hashem. Does have a kedushas Hashem. So that's halacha, right? Halacha, straight, straight and simple. No aggada. The Rav explains so beautifully, you have to take a look at it. So beautifully he explains that when Hakadosh Baruch Hu appears to Avraham Avinu and says והייתי לך ולזרעך אחריך לאלהים. So Hakadosh Baruch Hu said that even though I, Hakadosh Baruch Hu, am absolute, right? Absolute in that my existence is absolute, I'm totally independent, but nevertheless, I am going to allow myself to be defined in terms of you and your children. And that will become, right, kavyachol, I'll be identified that way. And it's because of that revolution of Hakadosh Baruch Hu's relationship with Klal Yisrael that that's why the אותיות הנטפלות לשם מלאחריו, Elokeichem, Elokei, have kedushas Hashem. The prefix which you put in front, that doesn't reflect Hakadosh Baruch Hu's relationship with us. However, the suffix, right, what's the suffix? Elokeichem, Elokeinu, right? Those are the suffixes which express the relationship of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, Hakadosh Baruch Hu to us. So that has a kedushas Hashem. Why? Because v'hayisi lachem l'Elokim. And that's the Elokei ha-aretz that Hakadosh Baruch Hu, again, that's the ultimate, the ultimate chesed which Hakadosh Baruch Hu bestowed, that I, Hakadosh Baruch Hu, again, whose existence is absolute, is independent, so I am making myself known as Elokeichem. And that's why that has a kedushas Hashem. I can guarantee you that when the Rav wrote this line about how from the sources of halacha, problems of God-man relationship, so he certainly had in mind this Torah about mechikas Hashem. And in that respect, again, this was an absolutely revolutionary contribution to machshava. This notion, this notion, and again, it's with all the rigor and the normal method of learning halacha. It's not taking... liberties, it's not philosophizing about halacha. It's with the same, again, rigor, the same derech halimud as the yachaveh daas, but again, when applied to certain sugyot, it reveals again a hashkafat olam, a hashkafat olam. And kahena vekahena in the Rav's chidushim, so many of them, again, actually, at least in part, deliver on this promise of revealing, again, philosophy of a hashkafat olam from within sources of halacha. I'd like to finally, if you'll just, with your permission, just touch on, again, and just to repeat for those who weren't here at the beginning, it was impossible, even with someone whose organizational skills are better than mine and someone who would speak at a faster clip, it's impossible to give any kind of comprehensive portrait of the Rav in an hour. So these are just isolated, again, maybe even fragmented points. But the last point which I would like to discuss is the Rav's relationship to what's called modern Orthodoxy. So first of all, for the most part, the term almost didn't exist in his lexicon. When the Rav would talk about what the Torah's position on something was, what his understanding of the Torah's position was, so he didn't even talk about Orthodoxy, על אחת כמה וכמה he didn't talk about Orthodoxy with an adjective in front of it. He would talk about halacha, that was his favorite, most common term that he used. Sometimes he would talk about, he would say Yahadus, he would say Yiddishkeit. This notion of self-definition apart from the Torah community as a whole, he didn't, that wasn't the way he spoke, that wasn't his vernacular in terms of self-identification. In terms of what conventionally, what colloquially is referred to as modern Orthodoxy, so it's very important to understand what the Rav's so-called modernity consisted of. This is something which for whatever reasons, and there are different reasons in different contexts, is often misunderstood and misrepresented. I think the way my father zichrono livracha once described it was that the Rav engaged modernity on his own terms. What does that mean? And if you look at the Chamesh Derashot, recently republished in English translation, they were originally Yiddish derashot. The Rav talks a lot about these things. The Rav believed very strongly, very passionately, that Torah could and would overcome every challenge and that to try to retreat ultimately was doomed to failure. And the Rav felt that if people were told that you have to make a choice between remaining true to Torah and between being able to integrate economically into modern society, he thought that too many Jews would be lost. If you told them that you can't remain a ma'amin, you can't remain a ben Torah and also get the education which is going to let you be a lawyer, let you be a scientist, let you be a businessman with an MBA, so the Rav felt that there were going to be too few Jews inside this insular area and too many Jews who'd be left outside. And that's what the Rav used to say about the 14th Ani Ma'amin. He didn't mean it literally, obviously, because really what he was saying is included in the Ani Ma'amin of זאת התורה לא תהא. is that Torah can be lived, studied, fulfilled, followed בכל מקום ובכל זמן in the laboratories, in the boardrooms, everywhere. And that was his vision. But that wasn't the vision of compromise. It was a vision of doing it on our own terms, that one could again be steeped enough in Torah and one could sift and one could meet the challenges of being a lawyer, of being in the boardroom with 100 percent, 100 percent loyalty to Halacha without compromising on a kutzo shel yud, a kutzo shel yud. So if modernity meant not, not sticking your head in the sand, if it meant confronting modernity, even engaging it, but on one's own terms, so if that's what to be modern means, so then he certainly was modern. If modern means that somehow or other you reshape things, that you reinterpret things, so that wasn't the case, that wasn't the case at all. The one, the one place which I'm familiar where the Rav uses the term modern Orthodoxy, so he uses it very critically in the, in his hesped for Rav Chaim Heller. When the Rav describes how he would go visit Rav Chaim Heller who lived on the West Side, so he said he would feel like he was going from one world to another world. That he left one, he would leave one universe when he would leave the West Side and go into that enclave which was Rav Chaim Heller's apartment, so he felt that he was going out of one reshus into another reshus. And he said he felt like he was leaving the

אורתודוכסיה המודרנית קצוצת הכנפיים לרום עוף ונטולת השורשים לחדור לעומק החוויה הדתית

that he was leaving behind the modern Orthodoxy literally whose wings have been clipped so that it can't soar and it doesn't have the roots to penetrate to the depth of religious experience. The Rav was very critical of the excessive materialism and superficiality that exists in our community. And the Rav certainly believed very much and devoted countless time to this in the indispensability of Torah leadership. He devoted much, much time to the RCA, which in his lifetime was a very powerful force precisely because of his involvement, because of his leadership. The Rav's encouragement of individuality wasn't at the expense of recognizing that Klal Yisrael is supposed to be led by Gedolei Torah. His understanding of individuality, here's, here's a true story which is typical of that. Someone once called the Rav that his son told him he wants to leave yeshiva and that he was interested in a certain blue-collar profession. Honest, but not my son the doctor, not, not even a white-collar profession, af kol shekein not rabbanus or chinuch. So the Rav, and, and the father wanted to resist and wanted to force him. So the Rav knew, knew this person and knew that he wasn't cut out for rabbanus. He knew that it would be a disaster and that if anything it would have potential to turn him off. That if he did what ma shelibo chafetz he would be a frum balabos who is koveia itim la-Torah, and if he was forced into a mold where he didn't fit, so then rachmana litzlan he, it could have, it could have alienated him. So he told this person, you know what, tell him to do it, but tell him he has to get the proper training so that he can succeed. And the father remains indebted to the Rav ad hayom hazeh. So that's what the Rav's, the Rav's understanding for individuality was, but it's not at all the case that the Rav thought that everyone should be deciding what's right, what's wrong even in those areas again, kayaduah, where the Rav said on military matters that you have to But it was the prerogative of the Rav to make that judgment, that this is something which requires the medical expertise of the doctor, that this is something which required the military expertise of generals, of military experts. It wasn't, it wasn't a retreat, a withdrawal, an abandonment, it was rather saying no, that there are halachos where a Rav, where a Rav has to take the expert opinion of people in the field. Again, be it in medical matters, be it in military matters, but that was also, that was the psak. That was the psak. So it's very important to understand the Rav's again, his affinity with what we call modern Orthodoxy, which should be the self-perception and the self-definition was an unwavering support for Medinat Yisrael, recognition of Medinat Yisrael as a tremendous nes and chesed of the Ribbono Shel Olam. It was the recognition again of not forcing everyone into a single mold. And that's what when the Rav would talk about talmidim, so many talmidim, yeah they had their individual identities. If this talmid was destined to be a Rav, to be a mechanech, so be it. If the other one didn't have the kishronos, didn't have the temperament, so don't force him into the same mold. But it wasn't this sense of whatever you want, this sense of relativism and subjectivism which is sometimes portrayed. That's not at all the case and that's not what his again encounter with modernity was about. And ultimately, ultimately, I think it's fair to say and it's something which is worth thought on all our part and deep thought, that the future of the community which looked to the Rav as its moreh derech, as its gadol, will depend, and whether or not it remains again not only whether it can thrive, but whether it even remains viable will depend to what extent, to what extent again, the Torah leadership of the Rav is not available, is not available anywhere, it's not to be had today, it's not to be had today, but יפתח בדורו כשמואל בדורו. So the Rav was a Shmuel b'doro. So I don't know whether we'll ever see the likes of that again. I certainly, I would like to, but I don't anticipate seeing it in my lifetime. But nevertheless, in order for that community to continue again, not only to thrive, but even to be viable, it still has to have again the Torah leadership which the Rav again provided and steered. I know that there was someone who used to teach, Rabbi Lewis Bernstein alav hashalom, so he wrote a very interesting book, he wrote a history of the RCA. It's a very interesting book, Mission and Challenge, Challenge and Mission, something like that. And you look, just look in the index for where the Rav's name appears and read those pages in the book. And it's fascinating, it's fascinating to see where again Orthodoxy would have been and where it ended up because of the Rav, you really get a sense from that book of how again the leadership which he exercised and the influence which he had, how it kept the community on its course and the future of that community depends again upon maintaining that type of influence and leadership.