R. Walter Wurzburger, “Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik as Posek of Post-Modern Orthodoxy” in Tradition (1994:1), p. 7 (link):
The Rav’s objection to the employment of modern historic and textual scholarship to ascertain the meaning of halakha reflects not naive traditionalism but highly sophisticated post-modern critical thought. He insists that halakha operate with its own unique canons of interpretation. According to R. Soloveitchik, scientific methods are appropriate only for the explanation of natural phenomena but have no place in the quest for the understanding of the normative and cognitive concepts of halakha, which imposes its own a priori categories, which differ from those appropriate in the realm of science. It is for this reason that the Rav completely ignores Bible criticism and eschews the “positive historical” approach of the “Science of Judaism.”
But what about using those methods for purely theoretical purposes, such as the establishment of historical layers?
(Repost from seven years ago)
IIRc, R. Isaiah Wohlgemuth, who taught the course in tefillah at Maimonides, relates that the Rav recommended he read Elbogen on Prayer and was familiar with the work.
I have now finished the 40 page Sokol/Singer article from Modern Judaism to which R. Wurzburger refers (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1396137). It could have been written yesterday and is a positive and respectful, yet penetrating, analysis of the Rav’s oeuvre. Highly recommended.
There was a whole (small) book written as a response to the Sokol/Singer article, called “ne’echaz ba-svach” (no, not the David Assaf book on Hasidism with the same title)
Jon Baker: Are you sure you are not thinkin of R. Yuval Sherlow’s book Ve-hayu le-ahadim be-Yadekha?
Or both: http://www.traditiononline.org/news/article.cfm?id=105407. But, neither sounds like it is a response.
>Rav Soloveitchik was also very close with R. Chaim Heller
This probably proves the opposite point – since R’ Heller was not well respected in Wissenschaft circles. See, for example, RYYW’s attitude towards R’ Heller which is cited in Marc Shapiro’s book.
professsor kampla
I beleive the book Jon Baker is referring to is by R. Chaim Navon
Also the post should be titled “post-modern Objections to Modernist Academic JEwish studies” obviously a post modernist would have no problem with post modern jewish studies like Boyarin.
The should of course be “Professor Kaplan”
“This probably proves the opposite point – since R’ Heller was not well respected in Wissenschaft circles. See, for example, RYYW’s attitude towards R’ Heller which is cited in Marc Shapiro’s book.”
I disagree that it proves the opposite point. Whether or not he was respected – and R. Weinberg’s attitude only proves that he didn’t respect him – there can be little doubt that R. Chaim Heller was very Wissenschaft-y.
However, I don’t know that Rav Soloveitchik and Rav Chaim Heller bonded over the Peshitta. I’ve never seen evidence of that, to say the least.
S:
” I don’t know that Rav Soloveitchik and Rav Chaim Heller bonded over the Peshitta. I’ve never seen evidence of that, to say the least.”
what about over his critical edition of sefer ha-mitvos?
(there was a copy of his peshitta work in the old brooklyn college library. i still remember the shelf.)
(as an aside on the suject of r. heller, has anyone used his masoret hatorah (or whatever it’s called) fruitfully?)
The Rav in Ish ha-Halakhah (IIRC, note 12, but don’t hold me to it) refers to Rav Hayyim Heller’s note in his edition on the meaning of “itaqad” in positive commandment 1 .
I believe that mori v’rabbi R. Chaim Brovender, a close talmid of the Rav, wrote his doctorate on the Peshitta. He would probably have something interesting to say on the Rav, Rav Heller and the Peshitta if asked.
The reference to Rav Hayyim Heller’s edition of Sefer ha-Mitzvot is in Halakhic Man, note 13, not note 12. But, as I tell my students when referring to the chapter numbers in the Guide, “you have to let me be off by one.”
I know its slightly off-topic, but since the article by R’ Wurzburger is the source of this post, and Dr. Kaplan’s latest essay (quoting R’ Wurzburger) has been cited in the comments, I thought this quote should be noted:
“The Rav shared with Yitzchak Breuer the conviction that the time had arrived when Torah ideals (especially those relating to Adam I) could best be realized by building a Jewish society in Eretz Yisrael. As opposed to Breuer, who developed and transformed the Hirschian doctrine of Torah im Derekh Eretz into that of Torah im Derekh Eretz Yisrael, the Rav’s approach to the building of a Jewish state was completely devoid of Messianic overtones but focused upon the material and spiritual needs of the Jewish people and the obligation to do whatever is in one’s power to ameliorate their conditions.15 Similarly, the absence of Messianic motifs prevented the Rav from subscribing to the Gush Emunim philosophy, which of late has made such inroads into Mizrachi circles.
This realistic approach to the State of Israel was responsible for his reluctance to authorize the recital of Hallel on Yom Ha ‘atzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim. If the chapters of Tehillim which comprised Hallel were to be recited, he recommended saying them some time after Kaddish Titkabel and not immediately following the Shemone Esre as is customary on Yom Tov or Rosh Hodesh.”
I will also cite footnote 15 which corresponds exactly with Rav Meiselman’s reading of the Rav’s published texts – contra Dr. Kaplan’s.
15 See R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Hamesh Derashot, translated by David Telzner, Jerusalem, Tal Orot, 1974 and “Kol Dodi Dofek,” in Besod Hayahid Vehayahad, ed. Pinchas H. Peli (Jerusalem: Orot, 1976), pp. 333-400.