In general, doctoral
dissertations are not so meticulously edited as published books, neither are
they written as well. Nevertheless, dissertations make a very interesting and
may sometimes have enlightening details not included in the book. The sloppy
editing applied to the dissertation can sometimes give us gleanings that would
otherwise not pass a meticulous editing.
The following is an example of such. Dr.
Benjamin Brown’s groundbreaking book on R. Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz, a.k.a.
the Hazon Ish (1878-1953) “The Hazon Ish: Halakhist, Believer and Leaser of the
Haredi Revolution” (Jerusalem 2011) is a must-read. And while I read the book cover to cover, the
dissertation still made for a very fascinating read. And as a bonus, the sloppy
editing provided me with a few interesting tidbits. Here’s one example.
Dr. Benjamin Brown |
This is an excerpt of an
interview Dr. Brown had with Dr. Zvi Aryeh Yehudah who in his youth learned
with the Hazon Ish. While in the text itself Dr. Brown censored out - upon Dr.
Yehudah’s request - two of the rabbis the Hazon Ish didn’t like or hated, we
have their names outright in the header: R. Shlomo Goren (1917-1994) and R. Menachem Mendel Kasher (1895-1983) Actually there’s reason to believe that this is an intentional mistake
on Dr. Brown’s part. I say so, because in the book (p. 579 n. 45) the following
passage appears:
החזון איש לא אהב
את הרב גורן (ראה ... בראון, דוקטורט, נספח ב, עמ' 16).
But if you’ll look at that page
in the doctoral dissertation you won’t see anything on R. Goren besides for the
header. It is actually not such a big secret that the Hazon Ish didn’t like R.
Goren. In Pe’er hador (vol. 4 Bnei Berak 1973, p. 250 n. 41) the following
story is recorded:
As the story goes, more than 30
years prior to 1973 (when Pe’er Hador was published) R. Goren - then Gorenchik
- visited the Hazon Ish, and had a discussion with him about halakhic topics. After Goren
left, the Hazon Ish commented to his student R. Shraga Feivel Steinbereg that Gorenchik doesn't know how to learn well, and in the future he will cause suffering (for the Haredim, presumably). This, says Pe’er Hador, came true many years later in 1972, when R.
Goren famously gave out his “brother and sister” ruling which brought upon him
the wrath of the Haredi rabbinical establishment who strongly condemned him, some of them going so far as saying that his halakhic rulings have no value and it’s
prohibited to rely on them.
There’s a very interesting letter
written by R. Goren to R. Saul Lieberman in the period after the condemnations
were issued in which he expresses his newfound freedom now that he doesn’t have
to abide politically with the Haredim. The letter was printed by Dr. Marc
Shapiro in his “Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox” (Scranton 2006), Hebrew section,
pp. 9-10:
Returning to Goren’s visit, I
believe that part of the Torah discussion R. Goren had with the Hazon Ish is
recorded in R. Goren’s Nezer Hakodesh (Jerusalem 5695) which R. Goren published
when he was a mere 17 years old (not 18 as R. Kook writes in his haskamah):
Pe’er Hador also mentions a line
out of the Hazon Ish‘s rebuttal of an halakhic essay R. Goren wrote in which R.
Goren argued that electricity on Shabbat is prohibited only miderabbanan (a
rabbinical prohibiton, not a biblical one). The Hazon Ish wrote a rebuttal of
this opinion, but apparently he never published it. It was eventually printed
in Kovetz Iggerot (collection of the Hazon Ish’s letters) (Kovetz Iggerot
II:78) but severely censored (the two dashes at the beginning and end of the
letter are indications of the censored parts):
-- ואמנם אין הדבר נוגע
למעשה כלל, כי אין לנו מזבח להביא חטאת, ולא הסנהדרין לד"נ (=לדיני נפשות),
ועלינו רק לדעת המותר ואת האסור, והבא להכריז בין המון העם כי חכמים גזרו עלינו
דברים שהתורה לא אסרתן כונתו ידועה...
והתוצאות ידועות... ואמנם, לקושטא דמילתא יש כאן מלאכה דאוריתא - -
Dr. Brown can hardly swallow the
Hazon Ish’s words. In his book (ibid.) he writes as follows:
אלו דברים קשים ביותר, והקורא עומד
ותמה: האם לא קדמו לרב גורן בעלי הלכה רבים שסברו שאיסור החשמל הוא רק מדרבנן?
ויותר מכך, האם בכל ויכוח הלכתי שבו טוען אחד מן הצדדים שאיסור זה או אחר הוא
איסור מדדרבנן - וכאלה ישנם למאות ולאלפים בתולדות ההלכה - יטען החזון איש כי 'כוונתו
ידועה [...] והתוצאות ידועות'?!
In
Dr. Brown’s interview with Dr. Yehudah he mentions an interesting discussion he
had with the Hazon Ish regarding R. Goren’s article and the Hazon Ish’s
reaction to it (this also appears in Brown’s book, p. 580):
In a future post
I hope to return to the Hazon Ish’s issues with R. Moshe Avigdor Amiel, R.
Menachem Mendel Kasher and R. Michel Tikunchisky.
I have never seen the essay of R. Goren. Hypothetically though, if one were to announce to the המון one's belief that the חכמים manufactured halakhot יש מאין, in that tone and lacking all sense of tact, one would be seriously undermining the חכמים in the eyes of the המון, to the extent that the statement כוונתו ידועה והתוצאות ידועות would be quite apt. I would guess that it was something along these lines, and not merely the fact that R. Goren challenged the Hazon Ish's halakhic approach, which caused the Hazon Ish to react this way.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, by the way.
I can't believe I forgot to link to R. Goren's article. It should be available on Hebrewbooks.org, in הפרדס כג‚ י"ב אלול תש"ט, סימן ע"א. When I have a chance I'll upload the article to google docs and link to it in the article.
ReplyDeleteI didn't study the article in depth, but I don't think R. Goren claims that Hakhamim "manufacture" halakhot יש מאין. The truth is probably that it depeneds on the point of view. If Dr. Yehudah is correct, the Hazon Ish's PoV was that even telling the המון that electricity is not a דאוריתא is undermining the חכמים.
Friends,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the interesting discussion. Regarding the "sloppy editing": The truth is that it's not altogether an accident. After I interviewed Dr. Yehudah (a fascinating experience!). I promised him that before I print the interview I would let him revise it, and so I did. He deleted the names in the text, but probably forgot to delete them in the title, and so I could have the actual information left - and reference to it in the book. You may say I was a naval bi-reshut haTorah, but the readers got the info!
All the best,
Benny Brown
Can the thesis be found online anywhere? I have bought the book, but would like to compare it to the thesis (as Brown describes the differences in the introduction)
ReplyDeleteRabbi Sedley, please email YoavPearlman AT gmail DOT com.
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be very interesting. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the last piece (in Hebrew and not translated,) I do not believe, and I do not have to believe, what Dr. Yehuda quotes from memory the Chazon Ish having said to him.
Took a peek at the haskamos. Didn't notice R Kook referencing his age at all. R Isser Zalman does but writes כבר ח"י—about 18, so he clearly knew how old he was . .
ReplyDeleteRegarding what you wrote, "returning to Goren’s visit, I believe that part of the Torah discussion R. Goren had with the Hazon Ish is recorded in R. Goren’s Nezer Hakodesh", R' Goren actually visited the Chazon Ish numerous times throughout his life to consult regarding Halachic decisions, and so the discussion could have occured on any one of those visits. He outlines a bunch of these in his posthumously published 'memoir', where he discusses his relationship with the Chazon Ish, including saying that "I always had the greatest respect for him... his halachic rulings were highly authoritative and no one dared declare a ruling that opposed his decision." (High praise from a man as iconoclastic as R' Goren, and a sentiment, it seems, that was not mutual.) Regarding the Chazon Ish and Nezer HaKodesh, he says: "We had first met when I showed him my book Nezer HaKodesh and he had written a few comments on the manuscript".
ReplyDeleteThroughout the memoir, Rav Goren repeatedly refers to the Chazon Ish with uncharacteristic respect and details numerous positive encounters with him. I assume that, from the Chazon Ish's perspective, these encounters were less positive. The editor of the memoir, Avi Rath, goes as far as to say in his preface that "two rabbinic figures had a particular influence on him. One was Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaCohen Kook, Israel's first chief rabbi. The second was Rabbi Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz, known as the Chazon Ish, whom Rabbi Goren held in high regard, and whom he consulted on important halachik issues".