Talk:Joseph B. Soloveitchik

Early relationship with Menachem Mendel Shneerson

The article currently appears to have a great deal of focus on a conversation Soloveitchik and Shneerson had in Berlin in the early 20th century. There's no evidence that this brief conversation had anywhere near the significance on Soloveithchik's development that seems to be being made of it. It doesn't deserve more than a few sentences in a biography. If more is desired, suggest a separate article on Relationship between Joseph B. Solveitchik and Menachem Mendel Schneerson which can give complete attention to these issues without having to address the issue of undue weight in the context of an overall biography. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Several Ips have recently attempted to completely remove the entire section. While I disagree with trying to provide what seems to be almost a transcript of the conversation recovered from various people's memories and think mention of the whole incident needs to be boiled down to a couple of sentences sourced to reliable sources, disagree with completely removing all mention of it without discussion since it is a topic of later interest and note. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This section is copied verbatim from a Lubavitch propaganda tape of the kind commonly seen in Deli Kasbah. This is far from serious history; it is hagiography, an account of one encounter and finally, according to some, even counterfactual. For instance, Soloveitchik's son claims that his father had a falling out with Schneersohn over the messianism issue. This was not a relationship characterized only by soft cuddly hugs! It is impossible for me to understand the kind of fixation that causes someone to write such a section in the first place; would you go graffiti "endorsed the Rebbe" on the Rav's kever? Why not just note in the article that there was an important encounter betwen MMS and JBS if its so necessary to emphasize one visit the man made in his life to one synagogue? How is this possibly in someone's wildest fantasy a SECTION of the Rav's biography and not a minor footnote?

~~Josh~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the transcript, which is out of place in a wikipedia article, and the honorifics attached to the various attributer's names - which clogs up the piece and makes it difficult to read (not to mention that the only significant part is that they were students of the Rav). I also changed some of the non-neutral language ("momentous" among other things). The section should ideally be shortened to a paragraph at the most, as no compelling argument for significance has been forwarded. All this said: The piece needs to be cleaned up further - significantly all jargon needs to be removed. Lubbarlubab (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted this paragraph: According to Laufer, "Whenever he [R' Soloveitchik] had a question about an academic or religious text, he would stop over at R' Schneerson's house and consult with him." In a hagiographic biography, Laufer, citing a Rabbi who heard from R' Soloveichik himself and a Kfar Chabad Rabbi who heard it from associates of R' Soloveichik, says that "even though R' Schneerson did not spend much time at his studies, his marks were always higher than R' Soloveichik's".

It is nothing but Lubavitch propaganda. As noted by Deutsch and Menachem Friedman, RMMS was never a matriculating student in Berlin. Hence he would never have received grades. The idea that RJBS would need to run to RMMS with a question about academic or religious texts is ridiculous. In Berlin he was close with Rav YY Weinberg and R. Haim Heller. He corresponded constantly with his uncle, R. Menachem Krakowsky, not to mentio his father. Why would he run to a fellow student? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.129.235 (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether accurate or not, this relationship wasn't a major feature of RYBS's life. Portraying it as though it were distorts his life story. I an simply deleting this section regardless of its truth because its presence creates a false impression. micha (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the information arbitrarily deleted by Michab and would caution against removing reliably sourced information from a page without WP:CONSENSUS. The LR and RYBS were both highly WP:NOTABLE figures throughout their lives and by way of their impact on the world Jewish community. That they shared such obviously mutual respect while remaining so radically different in their philosophy and approach makes their interactions highly relevant to the article.--Winchester2313 (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Views on "Halakhic Man"

Here is the full reference for a recent addition: RK (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Heschel, Hasidism and Halakha" Samuel H. Dresner, page 102, Fordham University Press

When J. B. Soloveitchik's essay Halakhic Man (Ish Ha-halakhah) appeared, it was the same subject for a seminar session with Heschel. After each of us had our say, Heschel spoke. Most of his thoughts were later refined in print in various publications, but the freshness of the spoken word has its own merit. Here are his comments as I recorded him:

"Ish Ha-halakhah? {Halakhic man}? Lo haya velo nivra ela mashal haya {There never was such a Jew}! Soloveitchik's study, though brilliant, is based on the false notion that Judaism is a cold, logical affair with no room for piety. After all, the Torah does say 'Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul and might'. No, there never was such a typology in Judaism as the halakhic man. There was - and is - an Ish Torah {a Torah man} who combines halakhah and aggadah, but that is another matter altogether. When I came to Berlin I was shocked to hear my fellow students talking about the problem of halakha as a central issue. In Poland it had been a foreign expression to me. Halakhah is not an all-inclusive term, and to use it as such is to restrict Judaism. 'Torah' is the more comprehensive word. But the Orthodox often speak of halakha, instead of Torah. Halakha has very little to do with theology; in fact some of them think that we have no need for theology at all. In the words of one Orthodox figure, 'shor shenagah es haporoh' is our theology. (That is to say, the study of Talmud, even such dry, legal portions as this - 'assessing the damages done by an ox that gored a cow' - is all the theology needed.) 29

"We are living in one of the periods of Jewish history where aggada has been devaluated. For when you say halakha, you exclude aggada. But they are inseperable. The Maharsha (R. Samuel Edels, d. 1631), whose greatness has not been sufficiently appreciated, composed two separate Talmud commentaries, one to the halakha and one to the aggada. But, after completing them, in the introduction to the former he confesses to having erred 'for one must not separate, but join them as sisters....for the halakhot and aggadot comprise one Torah for us.' In such a person as the Ish Ha-halakhah {Halakhic Man} there is little room for the spontaneous, for rahamanut {compassion}. The Jews in Alexandria mistakenly translated Torah as nomos, law. But the Aramaic targum translates it orayta or rahmanut. True, without halakha there can be no Judaism, but is halakha everything?

um excuse me, are you even close to aware of the fact that ish halakha was coupled with u'vekashtem mesham? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.19.180 (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Joshua Heschel said this after Halakhic Man came out. u'vekashtem mesham was drafted, lost, drafted, drafted again and finally published in 1979. Heschel didn't have the benefit of hindsight unlike us! (95.147.190.104 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC))

I am wondering if anything can be done about Dresner's loose translation in that quote of "Lo haya velo nivra ela mashal haya". Maybe it's good enough for most, but "There never was such a Jew" is inaccurate on a couple of points. But I'm not asking whether this is an important distinction; what I'm wondering about is whether the text of the quote can be edited -- not within quotes, obviously. --Arabicas.Filerons (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Slur against Buber

The slur against Buber (Buber writes about Nachman of Breslev for example without noting ideas Rav Nachman had taken from the Misnagdim, because Buber shows absolutely no knowledge of the מחלקס in his community of secular Jews in Germany is marked with a "needs citation" flag. I do not know when this was added (no date shown). I am sure Rabbi Soloveitchik would not approve of this slur of a great scholar whom he often quotes approvingly, and the line should be erased from the entry. (In any case, the poster used an incorrectly spelled Hebrew word (מחלקס (sic)) in an English article.) --PloniAlmoni (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, come on now, let's not jump to any hasty, judgmental conclusions about ״מחלקס״ being a misspelling. It is probably just a קרי וכתיב .   :^}

108.226.79.31 (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Agudah and Rav Aaron Kotler

About:

   Rabbi Aaron Kotler, whose public policy in relation to American Jewry
   was far more right-wing than Soloveitchik's, was introduced by
   Soloveitchik at a Chinuch Atzmai dinner[14] and this later became
   famous as an instance of unity among the Orthodox leadership.

A site of many personal remembrances of Rav Aaron Kotler by his students can be found at http://www.shemayisrael.com/ravaharon.

At http://www.shemayisrael.com/ravaharon/rhirsch.htm we read:

   The Relationship with Dr. Soloveitchik

       Another thing that came up at that time was with the RCA and
       Dr. Soloveitchik. The Rosh Yeshiva said on him: “He doesn’t know
       what he is, but the whole sitra achra, the whole tuma rests on him.”
       
       It was known that he said that, and somebody went and told it over
       to Reb Dovid Soloveitchik. He was “very pleased” [MH5] with that
       succinct way of saying it.

Is it at all possible to take this at face value? Can anyone elaborate on this? 108.226.79.31 (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Given the extreme nature of the purported quote, it would be quite helpful if someone, somewhere could offer further insights to put it all in perspective. 12.193.180.141 (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Still no takers, eh? Perhaps the readers' thinking is that this is the kind of thing that simply "should not be dignified by a response"? 108.226.79.31 (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

An entire year has now passed, and still no one cares to take up the cause of defending Rabbi Soloveichik's honor? Is no one, then, concerned that qui tacet consentire videtur? (The Talmudic equivalent is too well-known to require quoting here.) 107.19.124.32 (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, so much time has passed since my original post (August 2014), and there are *still* no takers. I am not quite sure what to make of that. Toddcs (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Joseph B. Soloveitchik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206143001/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_3_51/ai_97722706 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_3_51/ai_97722706
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007085030/http://media.www.yucommentator.com/media/storage/paper652/news/2005/05/16/Yudaica/Looking.Before.And.After-951249.shtml to http://media.www.yucommentator.com/media/storage/paper652/news/2005/05/16/Yudaica/Looking.Before.And.After-951249.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081119154056/http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/center/conferences/soloveitchik/Cunningham_23Nov03.htm to http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/center/conferences/soloveitchik/Cunningham_23Nov03.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090827032240/http://torahlectures.com/s-Rabbi-Joseph-B.-Soloveitchik.aspx to http://torahlectures.com/s-Rabbi-Joseph-B.-Soloveitchik.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051215191827/http://vbm-torah.org/ravbooks.htm to http://www.vbm-torah.org/ravbooks.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030602065316/http://www.613.org/rav/notes1.html to http://www.613.org/rav/notes1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051224202049/http://www.torahweb.org/ravSet.html to http://www.torahweb.org/ravSet.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC) ......…………………………………………….... ZIONISM. Wikipedia articles should be for people who know almost nothing about the topic (as well as other people). Numerous concepts are introduced which are not explained or defined, such as "politically conscious pro-Zionist modern Orthodox Judaism" and "non-messianic Zionism." What are the political positions of the former? How is the latter distinguished from "messianic Zionism"? I'd much rather hear about that than the extensive discussion of how many people greatly admired him. This is an encyclopedia, not hagiography. Overall, I think this is a very poorly written article that needs to be completely rewritten. It contains ridiculous expressions which sound like 1920's English such as "clarion call," and has many other serious defects.184.180.87.188 (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Kahane?

Why is it significant that “Meir Kahane was highly influenced by his lectures”? Many American Orthodox Jews were highly influenced by his lectures. If there's something particularly significant about the ideological biography of these two people that connects them, it should be stated specifically. What kind of influence? How highly? Why is this ‘influencee‘ different from all others? 70.163.96.155 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)