Two occasions when Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik considered a Chief Rabbi position are familiar to his followers but a third is virtually unknown. In 1935, R. Soloveitchik actively campaigned for the position of Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv, traveling to Israel for the only time in his life. Despite his best efforts, R. Soloveitchik lost the election to R. Moshe Avigdor Amiel.
Fourteen years later, following Chief Rabbi of Israel Yitzchak Herzog’s death in 1959, R. Soloveitchik became a leading candidate for the position. After media interviews and despite a petition begging him to compete for the job, R. Soloveitchik withdrew his name from consideration, insisting his interest was only in teaching Torah and not in political and administrative duties (see this article: link – PDF).
Another Chief Rabbi position for which R. Soloveitchik was considered was that of the British Commonwealth. However, due to the aftermath of the Jacobs Affair (link), at least according to one account, he declined the position for what essentially amount to the same reasons as his response to the position of Chief Rabbi of Israel. The following is from the biography of R. Immanuel Jakobovits, the man to whom the position was eventually awarded. Chaim Bermant, Lord Jakobovits: The Authorized Biography of the Chief Rabbi (p. 73):
At the same time they were troubled by the backwash of bitterness left by the [Jacobs] Affair and, when [Chief Rabbi Israel] Brodie retired in 1965, they began to look for a successor of such eminence as to transcend local divisions. They alighted on Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik of Boston, scion of a famous rabbinical dynasty, a scholar and philosopher of the first rank, and spiritual head of American modern Orthodoxy.
He was, however, sixty-two by then. He might normally have been tempted to accept the call, but the Jacobs Affair, and the international attention it had attracted, had made the office of Chief Rabbi too public and too controversial for his tastes, and he preferred to remain in his house of study.
This footnote to history is an interesting continuation to his flirtation with Chief Rabbi positions.
That the Rav would have been interested in this if not for the Jacobs affair seems to be pure speculation on the part of the author, and seems highly unlikely. Why would he turn down the Israeli Chief Rabbinate and then consider that of the UK?
Some additional information seems to be documented in this later biography of Chief R. Jakobovits on p.99: http://tinyurl.com/3klfskm
“MDJ on June 29, 2011 at 10:16 pm
That the Rav would have been interested in this if not for the Jacobs affair seems to be pure speculation on the part of the author, and seems highly unlikely. Why would he turn down the Israeli Chief Rabbinate and then consider that of the UK?”
Agree with MDJ-and would add the story is even more ludicrous-it is well known that the Ravs wife was very sick with cancer at the time-she died I believe in March 1967-a few weeks after the Ravs brother and a couple of months after the Ravs mother died. It is totally ludicrous to believe that the Rav would ever have considered a job as the chief Rabbi of the United Synagogue-to pretend that the Chief Rabbi had any influence in the British Commonwealth outside of the UK is ludicrous. At times they might send out suggestions to Rabbis in the Commonwealth-they had as much chance of being followed as my suggestions about medical practice be followed by the AMA.
That the Rav would ever have considered a job that is primarily ceremonial is laughable-during the period when his wife was very sick beyond belief.
Rav Soloveitchik was also considered for the position of British Chief Rabbi two decades earlier, after the passing of Rav Hertz in 1946, as Bernard Homa notes in his ‘Footsteps on the sands of time’, p. 127. However, this plan was stymied when the Chairman of the United Synagogue was informed that ‘he did not use a knife and fork properly’ (i.e. he cut up his food first and then ate it with his fork as is customary in America), at which stage they decided they weren’t interested in him any more.
Why doesn’t some shlameel write an article in Tradition about every possible position that the Rav may have been a candidate for and then speculate as to why he didn’t accept…
Sheesh…what passes for scholarship today…
I agreee with mycroft. Bermant brings no evidence. The reference from p. 99, cited by IH, just indicattes the Rav’s name was mentioned, but there is no evidence that he was even approached, much less that he would have seriously considered the offer had it been tendered.
Not one of your stronger posts, Gil.
Y’know, I’d much rather have a discussion of the ideology and methodology of the Rabbi who beat out RYBS (R. Amiel). R. Amiel had an interesting (some might say maverick) approach to Jewish history as well as the logic of halacha. I’d love to hear whether people think his Midot Lecheker Hahalacha has stood the test of time (as well as learn why the CI was so dead-set against it).
Really, there were other greats besides RYBS, and it behooves a blog with as much discussion as this one to learn more about the “non-celebrity” talmidei chachamim who may yet teach us something.
I appreciate that implication that all posts on this blog, except for this one, are of scholarly importance but I question the validity of such an assertion. The purpose of this post, as is clear from the first sentence, is to bring to readers’ attention that Rav Soloveitchik was considered in 1965 for the position of British Chief Rabbi. Two previous considerations were added for a little context. Yes, the reason for declining is speculative but plausible.
J: Thank you for completing the post with that reference.
MDJ and Mycroft: Actually, I think Rav Soloveitchik would have preferred a “ceremonial” role so he could focus on teaching rather than functioning as an administrator.
Mycroft: I’m not sure that the years are correct when discussing the deaths.
Aiwac: I know nothing about R. Amiel and was not aware that he had published a sefer that the Chazon Ish had criticized. I welcome a guest post on the subject. As to Rav Soloveitchik’s prominence on this blog, I studied under his students, was in his grandson’s shiur for five years and have well over a dozen of his books. It’s that simple.
I agree that it’s not the most strongly authenticated story, but for the five of us who enjoy playing comparison games between the Rav and R’ Samson Raphael Hirsch, this article provides a new piece (R’ Hirsch actually applied for the position of British Chief Rabbi, although he was very much a “dark horse” candidate and never had much of a chance).
Although of course, in the larger scheme of things, Rav Soloveitchik would have been able to acheive far less had he come to England (due to a smaller potential audience among other factors), it is nevertheless interesting to ponder the counterfactual. I’m not sure what impact he would have had on Anglo-Jewry as a whole, but he certainly would have assisted in the development of a rigorous modern orthodoxy, which is still rather weak here, and bolstered their claims to religious legitimacy vis a vis the charedim (who, in the UK, mostly lacked rabbinic figures of his calibre).
Regarding the Rav’s potential candidacy as Chief Rabbi of Israel, I am tempted to speculate along the lines of R. Nosson Kamenetsky regarding his father i.e. had either of them moved to Israel, Orthodoxy there would have assumed a far different character to that which it has now. Chaval al de’avdein.
The idea that the Rav would have considered going to England at that time is strange to me. His calling was teaching Torah and that was how he viewed himself. How many potential shiur attenders in were there in London (or even all of England) in the 1960′s?
AIWAC: i have a bio of R. Amiel published by MHK by geulah bat-Yehudah entitled Ish HaHegyonot.
Hirhurim: The dates Mycroft noted are easily verifiable and correct; the Rav’s wife died on taanit esther, 1967.
“The reference from p. 99, cited by IH, just indicattes the Rav’s name was mentioned, but there is no evidence that he was even approached, much less that he would have seriously considered the offer had it been tendered.”
I was being indirect. Additionally, I do not recall any reference to this in the excellent biography of Yaacov Herzog by Michael Bar-Zohar, nor do I find any reference in the index.
Gil: Please correct the numbers/dates:
“In 1935, R. Soloveitchik… Fourteen years later, following Chief Rabbi of Israel Yitzchak Herzog’s death in 1959…”
Would you all please Gil a break?! All he did was post an interesting tidbit. With comments like these he may wonder why he bothers at all.
Naftali: All I said was “Not one of your stronger posts.” Not exactly devestatng criticism.
BTW, The other candidate for the post of Chief Rabbi of Tel-Aviv who also got more votes than the Rav was Rav Herzog. The Rav, to put it coloquially, was creamed.
Rav Amiel deserves a serious scholarly study. Aside from his halakhic work Ha-Middot le-Heker ha-Halakhah, he wrote an interesting (if, in my view, a bit overly homiletlcal at times) work of hsshkafah, Le-Nevukhie ha-Tekufah, and many fine volumes of religious Zionist derush.
Prof. Kaplan,
His hashkafa has been the subject of quite a bit of scholarly inquiry and articles, mostly by liberal scholars and Hartmanites who like his pacifistic tendencies (but ignore or downplay the fact that he had very, very little good to say about secular Zionism).
I know of no thorough treatment of his Midot Lecheker Hahalacha except for an essay attached to his bio. It’s a shame, really, I would love to hear a dissection of his approach, its intellectual roots, and whether his method would be useful for actual gemara and halachic instruction today. As far as I know, he is one of very few Rabbis who tried to interpret halacha as a philosophical/logical system in a detailed manner.
Aiwac,
“Hartmanites” – ha! I love it!
aiwac: Really. I know that Rav Hayyim David Halevi is very popular with the “Hartmanites,” but I did did not know it was the case with Rav Amiel. There is a pacifist rabbi from the first half of the twentieth century, whose name escapes me just now– ehad ha-rabbanim ha-margishim– who is very popular in liberal circles. Are you sure you are not confusing the two?
R. Chaim Hirschenson?
He too. But I was thinking of Rabbi Aaron Samuel Tamarat.
Gil: But you are right. Both Rabbis Halevi and Hirschenson are very popular with “Hartmnaites.”
“Mycroft: I’m not sure that the years are correct when discussing the deaths”
Gil:
The Ravs mothers levayah and his brothers levayah were in YUs main building-RMF spoke at his mothers levayah-remember the Rav referring to his brothers great understanding of chemistry. I was there.
Besides the years being easily verifiable-they were just before the 6 day war.
“MDJ and Mycroft: Actually, I think Rav Soloveitchik would have preferred a “ceremonial” role so he could focus on teaching rather than functioning as an administrator.”
Not so sure-the Rav made fun of ceremonial Judaism.
One must put in context the Ravs referring to himself as a simple teacher, melamed etc-that language at times has been used by grandchildren of Rav Chaim Brisker to describe R Chaim-and we all know that he wasn’t a simple teacher.
The Rav was active in community work and did not limit himsel by a longshot to the Beis Medrash.
Prof. Kaplan,
R. Amiel is indeed part of that group of Rabbis (Tanrat, Hirschenzon &c) that Hartmanites adore. If you don’t believe me, you are invited to read the almost gushing, non-critical chapter Dr. Eli Holzer wrote on him in his book “Cherev Pipiyot”. When I actually read the material, I wondered whether Dr. Holzer and I read the same book…
Mycroft: Chief Rabbi Brodie retired in 1965.
I did a bit of googling (and remembering; I was in YU at that time) and Mycroft is right about the timing of the three deaths in the Rav’s family.
“Hirhurim on June 30, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Mycroft: Chief Rabbi Brodie retired in 1965″
Gil: I was aware at the time that Rabbi Brodie had a substantial British background before he became Chief Rabbi-that is a reason why my recollection is that R Jakobovitz was expected to become the British Chief Rabbi he had a Britsh and European connection before becoming CR. He had been a CR in Ireland before becoming Rabbi of the 5th Ave Synagogue. He was in America less than a decade.
To be blunt the CR did not have its glory days during R Brodies tenure.
Note that Rabbi Sacks is also British/educated in England.
“I’m not sure what impact he would have had on Anglo-Jewry as a whole, but he certainly would have assisted in the development of a rigorous modern orthodoxy,”
How much is there of a rigorous Modern Orthodoxy in the US
“which is still rather weak here, and bolstered their claims to religious legitimacy vis a vis the charedim (who, in the UK, mostly lacked rabbinic figures of his calibre).”
didn’t stop the chareidim in the US
“Regarding the Rav’s potential candidacy as Chief Rabbi of Israel, I am tempted to speculate along the lines of R. Nosson Kamenetsky regarding his father i.e. had either of them moved to Israel, Orthodoxy there would have assumed a far different character to that which it has now.”
R Nosson Kamenetsky is a loyal son to his father . RYK was a leading gadol ofthe 20th century-but how did the character of NA Jewry change because of him-did Israel change because Rav Hutner moved there. The Rav in America was the place where he had his influence.
A general comment about search committees etc for positions such as CR/Prez of Universities etc. It is very difficult to rely on written records for what really transpired. It is certaintly conceivable that a search committee would know who the final selection will be but will develop a paper trail to show that they considered others-ask Rabbis wo even saying that they are a search committee to send them copies of scholarly articles and schul material etc. Search committees will do that with people of far less stature than the Rav.
mmycroft – You have much more non-charedi rigorous orthodoxy in the the US than we have in the UK. The very fact that you have YU rabbabim who take positions on key issues that would not be approved by Rav Elyashiv is something we do not have. For example, YU poskim (and many others, such as Rav Zalmen Nechemiah Goldberg and Rav Ovadia Yosef) are supporters of prenuptial agreements. Try getting those approved by the London Beis Din, which is supposedly the halachic authority for mainstream orthodox Jewry.
I think the US did have charedi rabbinic figures who were of a similar calibre to the Rav – Rav Aharon Kotler was a tremendous gaon as were many others.
Although it is futile to speculate, I think that had people like Rav Kamenetsky and the Rav built their careers elsewhere they may have been able to influence the religious development of the communities in which they resided – imagine if R. Yaakov would have been the dominant Litvish RY in EY as opposed to Rav Shach – I venture to say that orthodoxy as a whole would be much healthier and less conflict riven.
Sorry, just to clarify – the LBD does approve certain prenuptial agreements, but they lack crucial elements of the one used by the RCA, and, as far as I am aware, this is due to Rav Elyashiv’s position.
“imagine if R. Yaakov would have been the dominant Litvish RY in EY as opposed to Rav Shach – I venture to say that orthodoxy as a whole would be much healthier and less conflict riven”
Of course, one can’t speculate but the historical record is not so clear-Rav Shach’s son was in the IDF, worked forthe Israeli government Ministry of Education. R Yaacov was certainly involved in machlokes which at the time split a major Yeshiva which I can’t even think of any ideological reasons.
What’s Ephraim Shach got to do with anything? He left his father’s path – I don’t see what this has to do with Rav Shach’s record as a manhig. And the machlokes in Torah VeDaas has nothing to do with enforcing one pure Daas Torah in the whole charedi world and eliminating all your challengers.
why are you saying that rav shach’s son left his father’s path? he attended the same mizrachi high school his father taught at, at the time, before going to ponevich. (big secret from charedim)
as for RZNG and the prenup, he only supoorts it in america (and not as enthusiastically as he originally claimed.)
2. would the rav have had the same influence in england as rav jacobowitz and rav sacks? not only not being british background, but these last two names turned the position into something even we in america appreciate, even though its only ceremonial (nominally administrative and nominally policy oriented, to the limited actual synagogues the chief rabbi has actual influence over). (mycroft 1124am next to last line.)
of course, monday morning quarterbacking.
“And the machlokes in Torah VeDaas has nothing to do with enforcing one pure Daas Torah in the whole charedi world and eliminating all your challengers.”
If one loses a battle against one chareidi challenger what makes you think he could win against all Chareidi challengers.
“machlokes in Torah VeDaas”
BTW a major incident in RYK’s life-does one see it discussed anywhere in the Art Scroll biography of him.
Just curious-Did RYBS ever speak about or voice his POV re the Jacobs Affair?
“Steve Brizel on July 4, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Just curious-Did RYBS ever speak about or voice his POV re the Jacobs Affair?”
I don’t know-but I would be surprised if he commented publicly and I likewise would be surprised if it were not discussed by him in passing with people who discussed current issues with him. It is my educated speculation but I could easily be wrong.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that when R. Hertz died the leading candidate was Rabbi Prof. Alexander Altmann. Ironically, he was not offered the job because he was German (jn the midst of WWII).