Mail-Jewish on the Rav: The Hespedim

The following are summaries of various hespedim given in honor of the Rav
zt'l, which appeared on mail-jewish.  It is important to remember that
these summaries are based on recollection and notes taken by those present
at the hespedim.  Thus, there may be mistakes, omissions, deletions, and
so on.  Any and all such mistakes represent errors on the part of the
summarizers, and do not reflect either on the Rav or on those giving the
hespedim. 

The format of this file is as follows: for each summarized hesped, the
date of each summary, the volume and issue of its mail-jewish appearance,
and the name and address of the summarizer are provided.  The summaries
have been edited from their original appearance. 

These hespedim present a variety of images of the Rav, at times
contradictory in nature.  This is part of the Rav's enigma, and it is a
legacy with which we must grapple.  A friend once described the Rav as a
halachic and hashkafic Rorschach test; in him were innumerable facets, and
those around him could only hope that a small portion of those facets
found resonances within themselves.  Perhaps R. Blau said it best: "We all
got what we could get from the Rav, and hopefully, never confused that
with the whole."

On a personal note, I would like to add that it has been my great honor to
be able to attend many of the hespedim, to provide summaries, and now to
edit this collection of hespedim.  Though I never had the z'chut to meet
or to learn from the Rav personally, his writings, as well as his
musmachim and other talmidim with whom I have interacted, have had a
profound effect on my religious and spiritual life. 

Eitan Fiorino
fiorino@aecom.yu.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------

R. Ahron Soloveitchik (given at Maimonides School in Brookline, MA on 
Sunday, April 11.)

From: GERVER@pfc.mit.edu (Mike Gerver)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993.  Vol. 7 #1.

I will try to summarize R. Aaron's hesped, although I am certainly not the
best person to do it.  I heard the hesped from pretty far back in the
Maimonides School gym, over the closed circuit TV system, and was not able
to understand some parts of it.  I hope that someone else who was there,
or who has access to a tape or transcript of it, can fill us in on these
parts. 

R. Aaron started by referring to the familiar metaphor of the Torah as
light, and expanded this metaphor to describe the different roles of the
Rav, his father R. Moshe, and his grandfather R. Chaim.  R. Chaim lived in
a world where Torah was accepted and familiar, and he only had to
_reflect_ it to the people, which is the simplest thing that can be done
with light.  In America, R. Moshe faced a more difficult problem.  He had
to convey light from the rarefied medium of the traditional Jewish world
to a denser medium, where Torah was not as well understood.  This required
_refraction_ of the light, in order to reach the people.  The Rav had an
even more difficult task, conveying Torah to a world that was not only
ignorant but hostile to it, i.e. an opaque medium.  This required
_diffraction_ of light, breaking it up into all colors of the rainbow, not
simply teaching Torah in the traditional way, but analyzing it in terms of
philosophy, etc. 

He then went on to discuss Gen. 37:4, about Joseph's brothers' resentment
of him.  The word "vayisn'u" is usually translated as "they hated" but R.
Aaron felt that "hated" or even "disliked" was too strong a word, that a
better translation would be "resented." All of the brothers, he explained,
had the potential, but only Joseph lived up to his full potential in
learning from his father Jacob the Torah that Jacob had learned in the
yeshiva of Shem and Ever.  It was for this reason that the brothers
resented Joseph.  He went on to talk about Joseph's dreams, and his
experiences living in a pagan land, and becoming an important leader
there. 

Many people criticized the Rav, R. Aaron said, because he taught
philosophy, such as the Kuzari, not just teaching Torah in a traditional
way.  They resented him because they were not able to analyze the Torah,
to break it up it into many colors (the ketonet passim, Joseph's coat of
many colors) as he was.  But this diffraction of the light of Torah was
necessary in this time and place, in order to transmit it through an
opaque medium to the Jewish people. 

The Rav was the only son of R. Moshe who was zocheh [worthy] to care for
him just before he was nifter.  On his death bed, R. Moshe asked the Rav
to wash his hands, and say brachot for him when he woke up (R. Aaron said
he did not want to favor any of the Rav's children, but wanted to point
out that his daughter and son-in-law, Atara and R. Yitzchak Twersky, were
similarly zocheh to care for the Rav in his final years.).  R. Moshe then
told the Rav a midrash about Joseph, but I could not follow this. R. Aaron
also said something about seeing R. Moshe lying on the floor in his
tallis. [I hope someone can describe this part of the hesped, which I had
a difficult time understanding.]

The Rav inherited the "genes" of Volozhin [through his father] and Pruzhin
[through his mother].  When the second Beit Hamikdash was in flames, the
pirchei kahuna [young kohanim] climbed up on the roof and threw the keys
into the flames, whereupon a hand reached out from heaven and took them. 
But, R. Aaron said, the pirchei kehuna should not have done this.  They
should have kept the keys.  If only they had kept the keys, the Beit
Hamikdash could have been rebuilt.  The communities of Brisk, of Volozhin,
of Pruzhin, and all of the learning they contained, were similarly
destroyed in flames.  R. Aaron concluded the hesped by saying, almost
shouting, "Don't throw the keys of Brisk and Volozhin into the flames!
Keep the keys, and help to rebuild!"

--------------------

From: Seth Lawrence Ness <ness@aecom.yu.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 93.  Vol. 7 #3.

First, R. Aaron actually started by saying that R. Shimeon bar Yochai and
his son lived in a cave for seven years and wrote the Zohar and that they
had one neshama (soul).  The Rav and R. Moshe (his father) also had one
neshama.  The only other pair he can think of who were like this is R.
Akiva Eiger and his son, but only the Rav and R. Moshe correspond to R.
Shimon bar Yochai and his son in terms of isolation and privacy.  One pair
lived alone for seven years and wrote a secret type of Torah and the Rav
and R. Moshe were also isolated in that like all Briskers, they didn't
publish their work.  Everybody thinks that Briskers just don't like to
publish, but this is really related to their entire philosophy of Torah.
They don't think torah can just be said and released, but it has to grow
and change and can't be put down right away (I didn't entirely understand
this).  [R. Chaim Soloveitchik also touched on the difference (for the Rav
?) between the spoken word and the written word in his hesped this past
Sunday. Mod.]

> He went on to talk about Joseph's dreams, and his experiences living in
> a pagan land, and becoming an important leader there.

He mentioned that Yosef's two dreams, one with the sheaves of wheat and
one with the sun and stars were really the two halves of Yaakov's dream of
the ladder, with one end on the ground and one end in the heavens. but I
didn't catch what the point of this was. 

> Many people criticized the Rav, R. Aaron said, because he taught
> philosophy, such as the Kuzari, not just teaching Torah in a traditional
> way.  They resented him because they were not able to analyze the Torah,
> to break it up it into many colors (the ketonet passim, Joseph's coat of
> many colors) as he was.  But this diffraction of the light of Torah was
> necessary in this time and place, in order to transmit it through an 
> opaque medium to the Jewish people. 

He mentioned that some people quoted chidushim of the Rav in the name of
R. Chaim (his grandfather) because of this resentment.  He said that if he
was in their place he might have done the same thing.  Rav Aaron has
always been upset that the Rav didn't get the respect he deserved from
certain segments of the orthodox community.  I think he was upset that no
one from these communities was really at the funeral. 

> R. Aaron also said something about seeing R. Moshe lying on the floor in
> his tallis. [I hope someone can describe this part of the hesped, which I
> had a difficult  time understanding.]

He mentioned the Rav's body lying on the floor in his tallis and the love
in his daughter's eyes when she looked at him and how wonderful such a
love was. 

> The Rav inherited the "genes" of Volozhin [through his father] and
> Pruzhin [through his mother]. When the second Beit Hamikdash was in
> flames, the pirchei kahuna [young kohanim] climbed up on the roof and
> threw the keys into the flames, whereupon a hand reached out from 
> heaven and took them. But, R. Aaron said, the pirchei kehuna should not
> have done this.  They should have kept the keys.  If only they had kept
> the keys, the Beit Hamikdash could have been rebuilt. The communities of
> Brisk, of Volozhin, of Pruzhin, and all of the learning they contained,
> were similarly destroyed in flames. R. Aaron concluded the hesped by
> saying, almost shouting, "Don't throw the keys of Brisk and Volozhin into
> the  flames! Keep the keys, and help to rebuild!"

I think he was refering to YU here, and telling it and the entire Modern
Orthodox community not to give up hope and to keep on doing what the Rav
worked so hard for.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

R. Isadore Twersky (given at Yeshiva University in NY on Sunday, April 
25.)

From: Arnold Lustiger <ALUSTIG%ERENJ.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 93.  Vol. 7 #10.

Because I haven't yet seen Prof. Twerski's hesped summarized, here is my
very brief summary.

The Rav was unique: not in the quantitative sense of his vast understanding
of Torah, but in a qualitative sense.  The sin of Miriam was in not
acknowledging this uniqueness in Moshe; "Lo chen avdi Moshe" (not so my
servant Moshe).  The Rav didn't merely surpass all others, he was
fundamentally different. 

Even the most intellectual of his works derived from a profound religious
sensitivity.  Ish Hahalakha, for example, described the religious
personality and how he gives religious categories to natural phenomena. 
"Uvikashtem misham" describes the religious experience of the Ish Hahalakha.

The Rav had no unifying theory of theology.  As a result, the search for
contradictions in his writings is a shallow exercise, since in each essay he
used a different mode of self expression.  If there are such inconsistencies,
it is because they are "shnei ktuvim hamachishim zeh et zeh" (two verses
that conflict with each other) and our lack of understanding is due to our
inability to see the "katuv hashlishi" (the third verse that reconciles the
other two).

Part of the Rav's uniqueness lies in his ability to teach: "natan belibo
lehorot".  This ability required within the Rav a monumental act of
tzimtzum (contraction), i.e. telling the audience less than what he could;
his command of the sources and his lightning mind would otherwise have
caused the audience to drown in his words.  He therefore had to slow his
explanations down to a pace that wouldn't lose his audience.  To every
lecture, one could apply the phrase "yoter mimah shekarati lifneichem
katuv kahn" (more than I have read here is herein written, stated by the
Kohen Gadol after reading the Torah portion on Yom Kippur).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

R. Hayim Soloveitchik (given at Y.U. on Sunday, April 25.)

From: Eitan Fiorino <fiorino@aecom.yu.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93.  Vol 7 #7.

R. Chaim began with general praises of the Rav zt'l, focusing on how
prepared he always was for shiur.  The Rav would always prepare anew
for a shiur, no matter how many times he had given it before.  He would
dwell over difficult issues, refusing to look at his own notes from the
previous year.  R. Chaim remembered once in shiur, a talmid offered an
explanation, to which the Rav replied "narishkeit."  The student said, "but
rebbe, you said that last year."  The Rav answered, "maybe so, but that
gives you no right to say it again now."

R. Chaim mentioned that when the Rav was growing up, all he really learned
was shas w/ Rashi & Tosafot, and Rambam.  In those days, it wasn't so easy
to obtain rishonim and acharonim.  [R. Chaim said that they first obtained
a copy of the Ramban in 1928, and the Rav became familiar with it and used
it extensively. He obtained a copy of the Rashba in 1947-1948 and used it
first learning gemara Shabbat. While he used the Rasba systematically, he
was never as comfortable with it as with "what he learned in his childhood"
(my translation/explanation of aramaic term used).  R. Chaim said the first
Ritva in the house was one he brought back with him from Israel in 1958 --
Mod.].   He rarely referred to achronim except "to extract knowledge from
them."  R. Chaim maintained that this focus on shas was a great asset to
the Rav; it meant that so much of his torah came from his mind and his
thinking and that his conception of shas  was crystal clear.

He also described what he saw as a major change in his father over his
years at YU.  He was in the 40's and 50's, in R. Chaim's words, a
"crouched lion" in shiur, waiting to pounce upon any mistake made by a
talmid.  But in the 60's and 70's, he became much more gentle.  R. Chaim
told the following story:  he had been away from YU for a the years 1963
to 1969; when he returned, he sat in on one of his father's shiurim.  There,
he heard a talmid give an explanation of a Toasafot that was, in R. Chaim's
estimation, "out of this world."  The Rav looked at the student, and simply
said, "Interesting."  Later, R. Chaim ran into R. Hershel Schachter and
said to him, "Hershel, have you noticed how many more interesting things
are said in my father's shiur these days?"  R. Chaim attributed this change
in his father's demeanor to two incidents -- the Rav's 4-year struggle with
cancer, and his wife's struggle with cancer and eventual death.  Before
these incidents, the Rav viewed not understanding as a moral defect, due
to laziness or failure of will.  R. Chaim attributed this view to the Rav's
childhood learning with his father; given the Rav's brilliance, the only
explanation for a failure to grasp something was a lack of effort.  Thus,
the  Rav internalized this view.  However, after his struggle with cancer
and his wife's death, his view changed.  As R. Chaim explained it, for the
first time, the Rav saw that the force of will alone was not always enough
to change the course of events.  From this time onward, he was less likely
to see failure as a moral weakness, but rather a limitation of an
individual's abilities.  R. Chaim clearly saw this as a profound change. 
It seemed that R. Chaim thought the "crouched lion" persona was closer to
"the Rav," but he didn't said so explicitly.

R. Chaim also discussed, early in his talk, different aspects of the Rav's
public persona.  The only other person who could capture an audience the
way the Rav did was Begin; however, Begin, as a politician, descended to the
level of the audience, while the Rav elevated the audience.  He also
possessed a "power" persona, which meant that in a small or private meeting
with the Rav, one could not help but be awed and intimidated by his presence.

R. Chaim also discussed how he has met so many people whose lives were
touched by the Rav, so many talmidim, and he wondered what is it that held
them all together, even though each saw different qualities in the Rav.  R.
Chaim offered the following -- his talmidim knew that the Rav knew he would
not be what he was without them, and his talmidim also knew that they would
not be what they were without him.

--------------------

From: Arnold Lustiger <ALUSTIG%ERENJ.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 93.  Vol 7 #10.

There is only one small point at the end of the hesped that was missed in
Eitan's summary. R. Chaim said that those in the Rav's shiur, at certain
points in their experience, felt clearly that the reality of what was
happening in the shiur was more compelling and expressed a deeper sense
of reality than what was happening outside.  Another point R. Chaim said
was that the spoken word is fundamentally different than the written word. 
To be a great darshan (lecturer) one had to express original ideas either
through the force of one's personality, or through one's oratorical skills.
In writing, however, the words stand on their own. Therefore, what the Rav
spoke wasn't meant for publication. (I believe that R. Chaim was saying
that we should not expect him to release lecture notes or tapes of the Rav.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

R. Yosef Blau (given at Y.U. on May 2.)

From: Eitan Fiorino <fiorino@aecom.yu.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 May 93.  Vol. 7 #51.

The Rav on aveilut and yom tov -- there is a conflict between simchat
haregel and aveilut.  It isn't necessarily a conflict in terms of the
manifestations of simcha and n'hugei aveilut (only an onein is forbidden to
have basar v'yayin).  The conflict is more fundamental -- between kium
she b'leiv of simchat haregel, the internal manifestation of joy on yom tov
which is defined by the Rav as standing lifnei hashem, and kium she b'leiv
of aveilut, the internal manifestations of mourning which go beyond the
n'hugei and issurei aveilut.  This is in fact a distancing from hakadosh
baruch hu.  Loosing our Rebbe -- the one who brought us closer to Hashem --
his loss is a distancing of our contact with shechina.

R. Blau made a deal once with R. Fishman zt"l -- R. Blau would tell him over
the Rav's torah on aveilut, and R. Fishman would tell over torah on
aveilut he had learned from the Brisker Rav.  R. Blau found remarkable the
similarities in approach, and the differences in conclusions.

The Rav added to the torah of R. Chaim -- he represents the Brisker
halachic intellectual analysis, but also the sensitive religious personality
who moved beyond analysis of the final halachic behavior and delved into
the inner nature of religious life -- he applied Brisker methodology to
inner life.

In the year that the Rav lost his mother, his brother, and his wife, R.
Blau was at Maimonides and he was in and out of the house during shiva.  
Once, R. Hutner and R. Teitz were there.  The Rav said to them that he
found it difficult to comprehend: he had just finished the shloshim for his
mother, who was in her late 80's, and the halacha requires aveilut for 12
months.  Now, he was an avel for his wife, who he had picked to share his
life, and it would be only shiva and shloshim.  Why when a child looses a
parent is there the halacha of yud beit chodesh, while if a parent looses a
child, there is only shiva ushloshim?  R. Hutner said, because the loss of
a parent represents another loss in the chain extending back to har sinai. 
R. Teitz said the difference is due to the din of kibud av v'eim -- kibud
av v'eim is not concluded even when parents pass on.  He also said that the
only relationship which cannot be duplicated is the one to a parent.

The Rav felt that the source of the requirement is in the fact that parents
should die before their children.  One might say that it is natural for a
parent to die, for that is an older generation.  So the halacha requires
this extra mourning, so that one will go back and analyze one's life and
understand the debt to one's parents.  When a child is lost, the halacha
doesn't need to tell us to mourn.  In this case, we need to be told when
to stop mourning, to move on and tend to the other family members.  This
story illustrates the Rav struggling so deeply with emotions, yet seeing
it in halachic terms.  An addendum to the story -- 15 years later, R. Blau
was driving the Rav to pay a shiva call on R. Shneur Kotler, who had lost a
son.  Though questionable halachically, R. Kotler stood up when the Rav
entered.  They spoke innyunei aveilut for 2 hours, although the Rav never
mentioned what he had said 15 years earlier.  During the drive back to NY,
R. Blau reminded the Rav of the story and the answer he had given.  In
typical fashion, the Rav dismissed the answer, calling it "drush."  This
time, he had said that halachically, the parents are not only the physical
parents but also teachers -- thus, there is a double aveilut, for parent
and rebbe. 

One time in shiur, the Rav explained a difficult Rambam.  One of the old-
timers pointed out that this Rambam had been the source of a dispute in
letters between the Rav and the Chazon Ish.  This time in shiur, the Rav
had explained the Rambam like the Chazon Ish had decades earlier.  The
Rav said "but now, this is how the Rambam looks to me."

The Rav did not restrict his shiurim to those masechtot traditionally
studied in litvisha yeshivot; he said shiur all over shas.  This wasn't
merely an exercise in erudition -- the Rav was making a point.  The Rav was
concerned that American Jewry, the first generation given the opportunity
to gain an intensive secular education and use it to enter the professions,
saw the world of secular knowledge as profound and the world of Torah as
customs and ceremonies.  Especially in areas not associated with lumdut
in the past.  No one who heard a shiur on Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur
davening could ever view those days as custom, and no one could view a
graduate seminar as is more intellectually serious than shiur.  And, after
leaving the Rav's shiur, one was not afraid of the intellectual criticism of
scholars.

The Rav was intolerant of unprepared talmidim -- it was laziness; they
were just coming in to watch the show.  The Rav saw his talmidim as
partners in the profound chiddushim being developed -- in reality, very
junior partners, but partners nevertheless.

Women's learning:  R. Blau and his wife went to see the Rav when she was
becoming a principle of a school, and she asked about teaching torah
sheb'al peh to women.  The Rav said that the same reasoning that justified
for the Chofetz Chaim the teaching of torah shebichtav to women exposed
to a primary Polish education applied to women exposed to a university
education.  In the same meeting, they discussed the pursuit of higher
education and career preparation in terms of its effect on traditional
family life.  The Rav said that one must prepare for both.

In general, the Rav gave us the tools, set us on our way, and trusted us
to maturely make the decisions of life.  Thus, a talmid who had also
graduated from law school went to the Rav to ask him for guidance.  He
emerged disappointed because the Rav would not tell him what to do.

The Rav's attitude towards Israel:  The Brisker Rav did not recognize the
state because there was no halachic category to fit a secular Jewish state. 
But the Rav felt that there is nothing which doesn't fit a halachic
category.  He also felt that Hakadosh baruch hu speaks through history, not
only halacha -- he transferred allegiance from the agudat yisrael to
mizrachi because he felt that through history, G-d had made a psak that
the religious zionists were correct.  He was not, however, a
proto-messianist.

After the 6 day war, an Israeli general had spoken of the lives risked to
secure Jerusalem.  The Rav said that protecting the kotel does not justify
the loss of a single additional Jewish soldier.

Kavod hatorah:  Once, R. Goldvicht of KBY came to YU, and the Rav invited
him to give a shiur and to lunch.  They walked to the cafeteria, the Rav
took 2 trays, and they walked to the back of the line.  Then, they sat at
a table with some students, not asking them to move.  The Rav never went
by the formalities of kavod hatorah.  He always held the door for others,
answered the phone himself.  Still, all were in awe of him.  One year, the
Rav asked if there were any complaints.  One person said that he wasn't
around enough.  So the Rav began to go to the beit midrash on Tuesday
night.  One such night, going over a sugya in gittin, the Rav asked about
a certain Rashi.  R. Blau knew, but no one else answered.  Finally, R. Blau
stood up to answer, but nothing came out of his mouth.  All he could do
was bring the gemara over to the Rav and point at the Rashi; the Rav said
"correct" and went on.  All shared that awe of the Rav.

Once the goal of limud hatorah was met, the next step was ethical
development.  The Rav said that the non-observant Jew would not be
impressed with shemirat shabbat or kashrut but if he saw that the
observant Jew lived on a higher ethical plane, then there was a chance in
reaching out.

R. Chaim defined a rav as one who does chassidut for the community.  R.
Chaim, and the Rav, were great baalei chesed.  When R. Blau was leaving
Brookline, when the Rav was still down about his 3 losses, the Blaus
asked him to be the sandak for their son whose brit was to be on shabbat,
and the Rav agreed.  On Thursday night, the Rav knocked on the door.  He
apologized, and said that he did not think his presence would add anything
to their simcha, and that he was going to be away for shabbat.  He then
wrote out a check for the child.  R. Blau's wife said to save the check, but
R. Blau said that wasn't what the Rav would want, he's not a chassidic
rebbe.  In the midst of his pain, the Rav took out the time to walk up to
their apartment to write them a check for their new son.

The Rav's generosity extended to those who criticized him and who were
jealous of him -- he even raised money for them.  Someone approached R.
Blau and said that he heard that a certain rosh yeshiva did not attend the
levaya or azkara, and maybe he shouldn't conduct a campaign for that
yeshiva in his shul.  R. Blau said I assure you, the Rav would want you to
conduct the campaign.

There are those who study the mishneh torah and have no idea that morei
nevuchim exists, and philosophers who study morei nevuchim and have no
idea the mishneh torah exists.  Similarly, there are those who study only
the chiddushei torah of the Rav, and other who only study his philosophy
and don't get the chiddushim.  We all got what we could get from the Rav
and hopefully, never confused that with the whole.

The Rav said the greatness of the minchat chinuch is that he asked
questions that had never been asked before.  The Rav loved the questions,
not the terutzim.

The Rav was once looking for a maariv minyan (he had a yartzeit).  One
of the boys was a JSS student, new to Yeshiva, who said "I'm sorry, my
rabbi said its too early to daven."  The Rav didn't mention who he was, he
just said "its OK, I think we can daven."  The boy said "No, its too early,
we can't daven maariv yet."  Finally, the boy agreed only on the condition
that the Rav promise to repeat kriat sh'ma.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

R. Yaakov Neuburger (given at Y.U. on Tuesday, May 4.)

From: Eitan Fiorino <fiorino@aecom.yu.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 May 93.  Vol 7 #25.

R. Neuburger first spoke of the Rav's approach to birkat hamitzvot, which
was that making a bracha matirs the performance of the mitzvah.  Thus,
we hold like the Rambam that in general, one cannot make a bracha after
the mitzvah is completed, against the Or Zarua, who holds that one can
make a bracha even after completing the mitzvah.  He said much more on
brachot, but I can't figure out my notes well enough to retell it here.

Then, he spoke of the Rav's approach to kavod shabbat.  R. Neuburger
quoted the Gra and Beit Halevi as saying that kavod shabbat is the
preparation which is done erev shabbat, while oneg shabbat consists of
those things done on shabbat.  Thus, the Netziv argues that kavod shabbat
is a hechshir mitzvah (preparation for a mitzvah).  This is against the
view  of the Rambam, who includes malava malka in the inyan of kavod
shabbat, and includes food preparation with oneg shabbat.  The Rambam
holds that kavod shabbat is not a hechshir mitzvah, but rather a mitzvah
of its own, and that this mitzvah of kavod shabbat is a command for us to
make shabbat different from the rest of the week.  The Rav held that the
mitzvah of kavod shabbat is connected with the idea of being m'kabel
shechina.  Since hakadosh baruch hu makes shabbat different from the rest
of the week by being present with am yisrael on shabbat, we must be
prepared to welcome and accept the shechina.  This explain how malava malka
is part of kavod shabbat -- just as one must be welcome the shechina, one
must escort the shechina out.  A proof for this is that there is an inyan
of ituf on shabbat, which implies the presence of the shechina.

R. Neuburger explained that the link between these two ideas is as follows
-- a person must prepare him/herself to accept kedusha.  But if hakadosh
baruch hu is always present, what does it mean to "prepare oneself to
accept kedusha;" isn't kedusha always present as well?  A major theme in
the Rav's though was that kedusha is brought by specific, limited human
actions and human yearning for kedusha.  Thus, we count towards kedusha
or in relation to kedusha (i.e., sefirat haomer = counting towards matan
Torah; days of the week numbered with respect to shabbat).  One cannot
simply "wake up and be m'kabel shechina;" rather, one must prepare to be
m'kabel shechina.  Thus, a bracha matirs the performance of a mitzvah and
is a preparation for one to do a mitzvah and thus accept kedusha.  And
similarly, one must prepare to welcome the shechina on shabbat.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

R. Moshe Tendler (given at Y.U. on Wednesday, May 5.)

From: Eitan Fiorino <fiorino@aecom.yu.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 May 93.  Vol. 7 #25.

R. Tendler said everyone got something different from the Rav's shiur -- 
some remembered all the different gemarot the Rav would bring in when
discussing a sugya; others remembered the chiddushim.

R. Tendler disagreed a bit with the statement that the Rav was 
authoritative but never authoritarian -- he said "the Rav didn't impose
his will on his talmidim like hakadosh baruch hu didn't impose his will at
har sinai."  When the Rav gave a psak din, it was binding on all his
talmidim -- for instance, the Rav held with the Rambam against the Ramban
in a dispute over the construction of eruvin (we hold like the Ramban);
thus he would not carry within an eruv.  R. Tendler holds this way to this
day. 

When you learned in the Rav's shiur, you came out feeling like you learned
pshat, and no one else had it.  R. Tendler said that when he was young
(before he became R. Moshe's son-in-law), he would go to R. Moshe's shiur
on Friday nights; afterwards, he would approach R. Moshe to discuss certain
points, as if _he_ was telling R. Moshe pshat.  Later, R. Moshe asked R.
Tendler how, growing up in America, he developed such conviction.  R.
Tendler answered, because when the Rav said it was so, it  was so.

The Rav said hakadosh baruch hu will determine "who is a Jew," but we can
determine "who is Jewish."  Conservatives are not Jewish, he said, because
they do not believe in torah min hashamayim, and moreover, they do not
believe in the halachic process.

When the Rav said "I'm a melamed," it was not anivut but rather the
statement "I can teach Torah to another generation."  At the start of shiur
one year, he told his talmidim that they were going to learn nidah again.  
The students complained that they had learned it last year, they didn't
want to learn the same thing 2 years in a row.  The Rav said forget
everything you learned last year; now I know pshat.  R. Tendler connected
this story with the Rav brushing up (with R. Tendler) on the contemporary
 biological understanding of menstruation in the interim summer.

The Rav's instructions to R. Tendler when the latter was accepting a
rabbinical post in Great Neck were that he should never buy a sermon
manual, but he should buy a Midrash Raba and he should never skip
agadata in the gemara; then, the Rav said, you'll always have what to say
to your baal habatim.

Hilchot aveilut, according to the Rav (according to R. Tendler), is a
display of the loss of social esteem.  Because all social esteem comes
from family, and when the family is torn you lose your social esteem. 
Thus, the  outward signs of mourning reflect that -- it is the social
outcast who doesn't wash and sits on a low seat and who is not invited to
any social gatherings.  But the outward signs of mourning are only one
part of aveilut; there must be inner grief as well.  When the Rav was
sitting shiva for his brother Shmuel, R. Tendler saw him learning a gemara,
so he asked him why.  The Rav said he was an istanus -- for a Brisker, not
learning is a tzar.  The issur of talmud torah during aveilut falls under
the issur of simcha, since for most people learning is a simcha, and not to
learn is the absence of simcha.  But for a Brisker, not learning isn't
simply the absence  of simcha, it is a tzar.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

R. Yehuda Parnes (given at Y.U. on Thursday, May 6.)

From: Eitan Fiorino <fiorino@aecom.yu.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 May 93.  Vol. 7 #25.

R. Parnes' discussion was first, a bit of background on R. Chaim and the
Brisker method; he gave a few examples of Brisker Torah.  He also
discussed what distinguished the Rav's methodology from R. Chaim's.  He
described the Brisker derech as "vertical rather than lateral analysis"
or "definitional rather than distinctional analysis."  It is a
"definitional nuclear analysis" which penetrates to the heart of a halacha.

The Rishonim expressed ideas in a more intuitive way, in a "soft
terminology:" they were closer to matan torah.  The Achronim engaged in
"computing and calculation" of halacha to work out inconsistencies.  R.
Chaim extracted from the rishonim their intuitive grasp by introducing a
terminology which allowed understanding of the rishonim.  The Rav then
used this definitional analysis not only in learning, but to generate a
comprehensive, genuine Jewish philosophy rooted in halacha.

Rav Chaim did not need to rely on chumrot to be sure when poskening
halacha -- his methodology and brilliance allowed him to see to the heart
of the matter.  Thus, he did not need to rely on chumrot as a form of
insurance when issuing psak; he was confident in his ability to determine
the correct din.  The Rav was the same way when he sat on the RCA
halacha committee.

There is a story that the Beit Halevi, R. Chaim's father, once told some
of R. Chaim's childhood Torah to Rav Israel Salanter, who commented that
R. Chaim's torah would save learning from the maskalim.  The Rav also felt
that the precise, rigid methodology of the Brisker derech preserved
learning in the 20th century.

Examples of the Brisker analysis:

the arba kosot on pesach night (from R. Chaim, I think):  there are 2 dinim
in the mitzvah of the 4 cups: the first is an inyan of bracha shel kos
(the 4 brachot are kiddush, sippur yetziat mitzraim, birkat hamazon, and
hallel).  The second inyan is an independent din of shtiat arba kosot,
related to the celebration of freedom.  Thus, in a case where a person has
no wine, one cannot be yotzei the din of shtiah -- that is a specific
mitzva to drink wine -- however, one can use other liquids to be yotzei a
bracha shel kos.

the din of lo tachmod:  There is a difficult Rambam on this din; he says
that even if you bothered the person so much that he gave you the coveted
item, you aren't chaiv malkut, because there is no maaseh.  This is hard
to understand, since there is clearly an action -- one person gave an item to
another.  But, it can be understood this way -- the lav of lo tachmod is like
the lav of lo titaveh--chamod is a more intense coveting than taveh.  This
coveting is so much more intense that it actually compels one to take the
object.  But the ikar of the lav is still the coveting; the taking is
merely an expression of the intensity of the coveting.  Since the issur is
really the coveting, the Rambam can say there is no maaseh even in the
case where one has actually taken the item.

The Rav on the mitzva of k'tiva sefer torah:  according to the Rambam, the
mitzvah is really only to write shira, since the mitzvah is based on the
pasuk "v'atah kitvu lachem et hashira hazot . . ." (Devarim 31:19).  But,
there is an inyan of not writing only a single parsha, so we must write a
whole sefer torah.  The Minchat Chinuch asks what is the mitzvah according
to the Rambam --  to write shira or to write a whole sefer?  According to
the Rav, the Rambam holds that both are true -- the "bottom line" mitzvah
is to write a sefer torah.  But the m'chayiv of the mitzvah of k'tiva sefer
torah is shira.  The force behind the mitzvah of k'tiva sefer torah is
k'tiva shira.

Finally, the Rambam says that sipur yetziat mitzraim is a mitzvah to be
m'saper in the time frame of leyel chamisha asar.  The Rav learned out from
the inyan of being m'kadesh shabbat that the mitzvah here is to be
_m'kadesh_ leyel chamisha asar by being m'saper yetziat mitzraim -- the
kium mitzvah is being m'kadesh, while the maaseh mitzvah is being m'saper.

R. Parnes went on to state that while Brisker torah is not infallible --
i.e., they may come up with explanations that don't work -- the process is
infallible.  He once asked the Rav how he learned differently from R.
Chaim, and the Rav said 2 things: first, that he says Torah that R. Chaim
wouldn't have said.  R. Parnes didn't really understand what he meant by
this.  Second, the Rav said that while R. Chaim only said torah on certain
things, he said on everything.  R. Parnes noted that the Rav applied the
Brisker derech not only to difficult Rambams, but to the whole blot of gemara.

He also offered an explanation why the Rav would sit over a problem in a
gemara and not look at his notes from the year before (an anecdote related
by the Rav's son in his hesped).  Because in a way, the learning process is
more important than the result.  While looking at last year's answer might
be easier, it would lock one in to that teretz and thus compromise the
whole process.

The Rav was characterized by several features: he rested on and built
upon the Torah of his illustrious ancestors; he tended towards
conceptualization, not calculation; his linguistic ability sensitized him
to a conceptual approach; and his study of logic and epistemology (by the
Rav's own admission) sharpened his thinking. (R. Parnes made the point
that this did not imply that the Rav brought secular concepts into his
learning; he was in fact very opposed to the introduction of secular
techniques into the learning process.  I assume what he meant by "secular
techniques" are things like literary/historical analysis.  This puts into
context something R. Tendler said, which was that the Rav never built a
shiur on a girsa, or a question of authorship.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Julius Berman (given on May 8.)

From: Harold Gellis <GELYC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 17 May 93.  Vol. 7 #46.

On the way here, I was considering a paradox.  Many haven't seen the Rav
or heard him for quite some years.  We knew that we would never hear
from the Rav again.  Nevertheless, with his petirah, there is a feeling of
void and emptiness.  There is a posuk in Eichah which says: "Yesomim
hoyenu ein av" - we were orphans without a father.  The Minchas Yitzchak
on Eichah asks: of course if we are orphans, we do not have a father, so
why does the posuk repeat the obvious?  But, the intent of the posuk is as
follows: Sometimes, in the lifetime of our father, we feel like orphans
(even though our father is still alive, but incapacitated). But, when our
father dies, we really feel the pain of not having our father.

I want to speak about the Rav as a human being, not as a giver of droshos,
or as a magid shiur.  I want to refer to my dialogue with the Rav over the
years in his apartment in Washington Heights, and my reflections on him.

Some years ago, the Rav, in his apartment, asked me the following question:
"Where does my name come from?"  I looked at him in puzzlement.  The answer
was obvious.  "You are named after the Beis Halevi, Rabbi Yosef Dov Halevi,
the father of Rav Chaim Halevi," I said.  "But still," persisted the Rav. 
"Where does my name come from?"  Then, the Rav answered what I thought was
an obvious question.  "When my mother gave birth to me, it wasn't like
today where you go in and out of the hospital.  My mother had to lie in bed
for many days.  While my mother was resting in bed, Rav Chaim (her
father-in-law) came in to visit her and asked how she felt.  Then Rav Chaim
continued: "You know, it is our minhag in Brisk that the mother of the baby
names the baby. But eleven years have elapsed since my father, the Beis
Halevi, passed away, and he still doesn't have a name.  So would you be
kind enough to name the baby Joseph after my father (the Beis Halevi)." 
The Rav paused.  "A  breira hot zie?" (Did my mother have a choice?)

The Rav told me that Rav Chaim was a feminist.  To prove his point, he
showed me the wedding invitation for his parents, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik,
and Pessia (Feinstein) from Pruzhan.  It was signed "Hamevakshim Chaim
Halevi and his wife's name (in brackets)," and only then, Soloveitchik. 
[On today's wedding invitations, the parents are mentioned as `haadam
verayaso'].  It was in 1982 that the Rav asked me: "What is the Israeli
newspaper 'Haolam Hazeh?'"  "Rebbe," I said, "You really don't want to
know."  The Rav then told me he wanted to sue the newspaper for libel. 
The problem was that, in the aftermath of Sabra and Shatila and Begin's
comments, "Goyim kill goyim," the paper reported that Rabbi Soloveitchik
was so upset with the judicial investigation into the Sabra and Shatila
incident that he telephoned Begin on Yom Kippur.  The Rav wanted to sue the
newpaper for libel.  "Rebbe," I said jokingly.  "In order to sustain a
libel suit, there is a requirement that the libel be false and another
requirement that it should be believable.  People might believe that you
called Begin on Yom Kippur, but would anybody believe that Begin would pick
up the phone on Yom Kippur? Impossible!"  The Rav laughed but then added,
"In Israel, it is seven hours later than here and Begin would, indeed,
answer the telephone."  The Rav always had the last word.

I was with the Rav in Boston when he received a call from another country. 
It was a former student telling the Rav that he was engaged. I heard the
Rav say on the telephone "Yeah, to whom?," and "That's wonderful!"  After
the Rav got off the phone he told me, "I knew all along that he was engaged
but I went along with the charade."  The Rav had a lot of chesed.

The Rav said that one of the reason's why Eve was created was for Adam to
manifest chesed to his wife.  The Rav used to have shamoshim (personal
assistants) who would live in his apartment in Washington Heights and help
him.  One of his shamoshim was going out on a date when the Rav noticed the
fellow was wearing white stockings.  The Rav told the boy that it didn't
look nice to wear white stockings on a date. "But, rebbe," protested the
fellow, "You, yourself wear white socks." The Rav thereupon opened up his
draw and showed the fellow that it was full of colored stockings.  "I used
to wear colored stockings," said the Rav.  "But when the Rebbetzin couldn't
wear colored stockings (for health reasons), I also only wore white
stockings."

The Rav had a custom to visit Maimonides Yeshiva in Boston on Fridays. 
One day I saw the Rav returning from his visit with a big smile.  I
asked him what happened.  "While I was in Maimonides, I saw a small boy
crying," said the Rav.  "He had been thrown out of class.  I offered to
bring the boy back to class.  But the boy said, "there's an exam in Chumash 
and I'm not prepared."  I told the boy, "I'll teach you Chumash."   The boy
looked at me in wonderment and asked, "You know Chumash?"

The Torah says: "And G-d saw that everything that he had done was good."  
There is an obvious question here: Is there anything that G-d does that is
not good?  Everything he does and makes is good.  But, the Torah wants to
teach us an important lesson.  In life, many times, we look back on what
we did, and we raise all kinds of cheshbonos - criticisms of our actions.  
But, G-d is teaching us that we should look back retrospectively on our
past and view it as being good.  The life of the Rav and his influence on
the community should also be viewed as being "tov meod" - very good.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

R. Hershel Reichman (given at Y.U. on May 10.)

From: Eitan Fiorino <fiorino@aecom.yu.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 May 93.  Vol. 7 #38.

The Rav had a soft spot for simple Jews -- he used to give the keys to
his apartment not to one of the top guys from shiur, but to a regular guy.
He had patience and tolerance for all Jews who came to him.  R. Reichman
once asked him the difference between him and the Lubavitcher rebbe -- the
Rav said the Rebbe could stay up all night talking to non-religious Jews
and he loves them, but the Rav said he preferred religious Jews.

The Rav loved his audience.  Why did non-lumdisha Jews attend his shiurim?
Even if the intellectual message was not always accessible to them, the
Rav's love of Torah and his audience was clearly felt.  Thousands would
come to his shiurim; unprecedented for a magid shiur.  What was his secret? 
He made Torah accessible; his heart overflowed with love and was empowering
to the audience.  Like a child who comes home from cheder to show a picture
he made to his parents, the Rav shared his most precious discoveries with
us, his audience.

The Rav was motivated by the unity of klal yisrael -- he predicted that
in America, there would be widespread dropping out of Judaism unless
one spoke to Jews in a language they understood -- Zionism and secular
studies.  The Rav often said that if hakadosh baruch hu didn't bless klal
yisrael with medinat yisrael after the shoah, then the number of Jews
dropping out would have been much worse.  R. Reichman attributes the
Rav's love for Jews to his childhood in a simple, poor Russian town.  The
Rav saw talmud torah as ultimately the only way to reach and unite Jews. 
Our duty as talmidim is to carry on that love; as Y'hoshua bin Nun carried
on for Moshe.

R. Reichman told a story that after he got his smicha, his father wanted
him to get his PhD.  R. Reichman just wanted to learn.  So the Rav told
him to learn for a year or 2, then to get his PhD.  2 years later, R.
Reichman was still learning, and his father called the Rav to say that R.
Reichman had reneged on the deal.  So the Rav asked R. Reichman if he spoke
any lashon hara; to which he replied "of course, rebbe."  So the Rav said
"in the time you speak lashon hara, study for a PhD."  The next semester,
R. Reichman was registered for 6 credits of graduate work.

He told a story of a guy in shiur who used to read a lot of philosophy, he
wanted very much to be like the Rav.  One day after shiur, this guy tried to
start up a conversation with the Rav about some philosopher, but the Rav
told him all the philosophy in the world doesn't help figure out pshat in a
Rabbenu Tam.

Once the Rav's wife called the shamash -- the Rav had gone into a room that
morning, and after a while, she knocked on the door -- no answer.  The door
was locked.  Time passed, the shamash  knocked, no answer.  R. Reichman
came over and tried, but still no answer.  After 15 hours, he came out --
he had been engrossed in a difficult Rambam and hadn't heard them.

Only once did R. Reichman see the Rav really angry -- his 3rd year in
shiur, they were learning Yevamot, which the Rav had never learned with
his grandfather.  They were having a difficult time of it, back and forth
over this pshat, that pshat, 18 hours/week of shiur.  So the boys in shiur
decided to ask the Rav to switch masechtot, and they made a petition.  They
gave it to him on Thursday.  On Monday, the Rav came into shiur visibly
angry, opened his gemara and started learning Yevamot.  Someone asked him
if he had read the petition, at which point he exploded and gave a 20
minute tirade about their lack of effort and motivation.

A rebbe is like an av and an eim; thus kriat b'gadim applies to
both parents and a rebbe.  There is an element of honor and fear in the
relationship.

The Rav used to say that the Torah is like mayim -- it must be poured into
a kli without cracks.  The Rav was always making students into complete
kelim.

Every shiur of the Rav was like his very first shiur.  R. Aharon
Lichtenstein used to marvel at the way the Rav would ponder over a kasha
that he had answered 5 times in previous years -- He is a master pedagogue,
R. Aharon said, to put on this display.  But R. Reichman's interpretation
is that it was no display -- the Rav was m'chadesh in every shiur, each
teretz was a new act of creation.  Whenever someone said "But Rebbe, last
year you said . . ." the Rav would say "forget it."  He wanted to figure it
out anew.

R. Reichman is sure that in the Rav's mind, present at every shiur were R.
Chaim and R. Moshe; also Rashi, the Rambam, etc. etc.  The talmidim were
really the guests at the shiur.

The Gemara relates that Rav [the Amora - Mod.] came home every Friday
night to make kiddush after he died.  The Rav said that it was absolutely
true, for 2 reasons.  The Beit Yosef wrote a book in which he discusses a
conversation with a malach, and he would not have written such a sefer if
it weren't true; and because R. Moshe had visited him twice.

The Rambam says that the Shechina never leaves the Jewish people in exile
and in tumah -- it represents the mida of loyalty.  No one was more loyal
than the Rav -- his loyalty to his wife, to Y.U., to Drs. Belkin and Lamm,
to his talmidim.  He was matir neder after shiur sometimes, with 3 talmidim
from the shiur.  Why?  Because he had said they would be done with a
certain sugya by a certain time, and the weren't done yet.  He raised money
for the Brisker Yeshiva in spite of the differences between them in
hashkafa, and in spite of those who tried to sour the relationship
between the two.

The Rav was involved in kashrut in Boston when he first arrived.  He was
framed by some in Boston and brought up on serious criminal charges. 
Another rabbi from Boston falsely testified against him.  Eventually, the
Rav was cleared entirely.  Decades later, that rabbi was brought up on tax
evasion charges, and the Rav still spoke to the judge on this other Rabbi's
behalf.  The Rav held with the Rambam against the Ramban -- one should
not even _think_ about revenge; it isn't just the maaseh which is the lav.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

R. Mordecai Willig (given at Y.U. on May 11.)

From: Eitan Fiorino <fiorino@aecom.yu.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 May 93.  Vol. 7 #38.

The Rav's shita on bein hashemashot -- it is more than a time of safek,
rather it is a "din safek," an unresolvable safek.  It is not simply a
time that we don't know if it is day or night; it is a time which possesses
characteristics of both day and night.  There is a dialectical tension
between night and day during bein hashemashot.

The Rav symbolized this "din safek" element of bein hashemashot -- he
lived in 2 worlds which seemed to contradict.  Miraculously, he was able
to bridge, to synthesize them.  R. Willig was struck by the fact that the
Rav's patira occurred during bein hashemashot, on the day of the year that
chadash becomes mutar.

To what contradiction is R. Willig referring?  The conflict of the old and
the new.  The Rav did not accept "chadash assur min haTorah" -- yet he
also believed in fundamental points which cannot move no matter what
circumstances are brought upon us.  We have already heard many
contradictions in the hespedim given -- and according to R. Willig, "eilu
v'eilu divrei elokim chaim."  Both views of the Rav -- the modern man,
and the man "who was never seen with a secular book" -- are true.

The Rambam has 3 major works:
     1.  Mishneh Torah -- the "lechem uvasar" -- the most important work,
the only one in lashon kodesh.
     2.  his perush hamishnayot -- halachic concepts, but in the vernacular
(Arabic)
     3.  the moreh nevuchim -- concepts from both Torah and foreign
sources.  The Rambam rose to the challenge of those being affected by
contemporary philosophies.  A work such as this is limited by nature -- it
was a contemporary work.  Furthermore, a work of this nature arouses
opposition: one cannot bring foreign sources into any Torah discussion
without arousing opposition.  The Rambam's books were burned -- R. Yonah
wrote the Shaarei t'shuva because he felt that the lack of respect shown
for the Rambam brought the chorban of Talmud burning to Europe.

The Rav is a modern day Rambam:
     1.  First and foremost: the Rav as an ish hahalacha -- Why is the 
mishneh torah the lechem uvasar?  Because bread fills you up, everyone 
eats it, and all bread is similar:  this is the baseline Torah learned by
every talmud chacham.  The basar is the variety, the fancy stuff --
everyone's meat is different.  The Rav's explanations and analyses and
chidushim set him apart from all others.
     2.  Rav's perush hamishnayot -- he spoke in the language of the
people, his Yiddish was poetry.  When he switched his shiur to English, it
was pure English, not Yinglish.  A kohein was a priest, and mila was
circumcision.  Giving shiur in English was a bold, courageous move.  
When the Rav first arrived, people were being torn away from Torah.  The
Rav showed how interesting, complex, and compelling Torah is.  Not only
in YU, but in Boston and in colleges.  He spoke in the language of the
people; he was an unparalleled master of drush.  He used multiple medias
to get his message across.  The Rav was always willing to use any means
available to get Torah across, but Torah was always the ikar.  Also, the
drash was second to the halacha -- R. Willig once mentioned to the Rav a
point from "Kol Dodi Dofek" which had impressed him tremendously; the Rav
said simply, "a drash" -- long term, his legacy is in halacha, not drash.
     3.  Rav's Guide to the Perplexed -- He studied in a university -- is
this a "time of need" or a lesson to dorot?  What is the "guide?"  At the
time, it  was a time of need -- a critical need.  But the message is for
dorot.  With the Rav -- Neokantian philosophy was the zeitgeist of the
20's. It swept  people away.  The Rav's mother sent him to Berlin to
university.  Why?  What we see in 1925 is the period between the wars, the
flourishing of the European Yeshivot.  Yet at the same time, the majority
of the Jewish people were being swept away by the zeitgeist.  The Rav once
said that when he was leaving Europe for the US, he stopped by the shul in
Vilna -- the number of people under age 30 in the shul was tiny.  When
the Rav  went to Berlin -- that's when the bein hashemashot began.

The impression was made on others in the 30's, 40's and 50's, when the Rav
introduced philosophy into his drashot.  R. Willig never saw him with a
secular book, but he had no need with his talmidim.  But the Rav never
hesitated to go back to those sources of his youth when the need arose.  
The Rav often said Don't think that this philosophy, Jewish or not, has
any relevance without halacha.

And just like the "guide," there was opposition to the Rav.  Those who
skipped past the lechem uvasar and went straight to the philosophy.  Others
took time away from talmud torah.  Others attacked him for many of his
positions.  The Rav never responded to these attacks, and he taught his
talmidim to respect all talmudei chachamim and roshei yeshiva.

He had a warm relationships with many of the gedolim:  When R. Moshe was
installed as the president of the agudat harabonan -- who would give the
drasha?  Of all the roshei yeshiva, the Rav was asked to speak.  R. Kotler
invited him to speak as well.  R. Kotler's son would always ask R. Willig
about the Rav upon meeting him.  The Rav knew R. Hutner from Europe.  R.
Hutner called the Rav to help him when starting Chaim Berlin.  When the Rav
was depressed after his wife died, only Rav Hutner could raise his spirits
a little.  But then, "a new king arose in Egypt who did not know Yosef."

The Rav knew how to fight:  30 years ago, he fought against eccumenicism
when religious dialogue was the zeitgeist; 40 years ago, against mixed
seating; and 50 years ago, he fought to establish the priority of halacha
upon these shores.  Now, it is forgotten who led us in these battles.  As
is forgotten the good will he extended to all Jews from all circles.

Where is the new Rav?  There is none.  50 years of active work against
anti-Torah elements -- the Rav was appropriate for his time, a generation
which needed him.  Not before, not after.  Our task is to continue his
mesorah.  His talmidim -- one is a darshan, one is a posek, one is a rav,
one is a thinker -- together, between them, they capture all the aspects of
the Rav.

30 years ago, at a mizrachi convention, the Rav spoke on a pasuk in Isaiah 
-- in the history of the Jewish people, hakadosh baruch hu is a shomeir. 
Sometimes, individuals or the people are overcome by yeirut -- where does
one find encouragement in a long and difficult night?  There are 2 kinds
of prayer -- tz'lot'ha, a prayer for the immediate problems, and baut'ha,
prayer for the long term problems of the Jewish people.  This is the
reason we say "titkabeil tz'lot'hon uvaut'hon" in the kadish after shemona
esrei.  If one focuses on one's own night, one can't escape depression.  If
one realizes one is part of the chain extending from Moshe, one knows that
one will prevail.

The Rav was makir tov to his talmidim.  People tried to prevent this
rising star from coming up and eclipsing them.  He once said at a chag
hasmicha that without his talmidim, he would need a psychiatrist (this was
just after his wife died).  And through his talmidim, he was able to grow
out of his depression.  And his hakaret hatov to YU -- he left his dying
wife's side to come to YU to say shiur.  Do we learn this lesson?  We dare
not forget the one whose battles we take for granted.

At his last yartzeit shiur -- people were literally crying because of his
disorientation (due to some medication he was taking).  Yet the Rav
continued to say shiur for 5 more years, and the students flocked to
catch the last rays of light.  Then began the long seven year bein
hashemashot . .  . 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

There was a Yom Iyun at the Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hill in Queens, NY
on May 12.  The speakers were R. Hershel Schachter, R. Philip H. Reiss, R.
Walter Wurzberger, and R. Gedalia Schwartz.  It was sponsored by the RCA
and the Rabbinic Alumni of RIETS.

R. Hershel Schachter

From: Eitan Fiorino <fiorino@aecom.yu.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 May 93.  Vol. 7 #46.

The Rav's concept of the importance of mesora was so prominent that it
was almost exaggerated.  The emphasis on mesora is a Brisker trait -- 
when the Rodziner Rav had discovered a new techeilet, many argued that it
should not be used.  He later published a book of the letters he received
over this issue, including one from the Beit Halevi -- all the scientists
in the world can figure it out, but it doesn't matter if there is no mesora.

In a debate over the question over whether the middle word in the Torah
is the 1st word of the second half, or the last word of the 1st half, the
Rav said that even counting the words to see is of no avail -- you need
a mesora, even if you can determine what the objective truth is.

The Rav's father, R. Moshe, would recite kriat sh'ma after davening in 
every Hebrew dialect (yemenite, galacian, etc.) to insure being yotzei
the mitzvah l'chatchila; the Rav did not do this because he felt that the
mesora that one received from one's parents was the appropriate dialect.

The Rav held like his father, who held like the tiferet yisrael, that
metzitza is no longer needed at a mila.  At his son's (R. Chaim's) brit,
the mohel asked if he could perform metzitza.  The Rav said "My father
wouldn't allow it, but I'm liberal."  Why did he allow it?  Because the
mohel had a mesora to do it.

When man landed on the moon, people wanted to alter the nusach of kiddush
levana.  The Rav was opposed -- he said you still can't touch the moon when
one is saying kiddush levana.

The Rav did not hold this way in the case of faulty mesora, though --
when the he first came to America, he was the rav of a shul where, when
Rosh Hashanah fell out on shabbat, the kohanim didn't want to duchen.  The
Rav berated them until they did it.  He later said, "I won the battle, but I
lost the position."  The poskim felt this was a bad minhag, so he was
opposed to it.

He also felt that it was important to attempt to preserve minhagim -- for
instance, he moved shir hamaalot (on aseret y'mei t'shuva) from after
yishtabach, where it is mafseik, to before yishtabach or nishmat.  He
didn't want to leave it out of the davening all together.

In Maimonides, he said the nusach sefard seder avoda, although the rest
of the davening is nusach ashkenaz.  He didn't say the nusach ashkenaz
seder avoda because the sefard version is more accurate.  Also in
Maimonides, he introduced a 4th bowing into the Yom Kippur davening from
the baal hatanya's machzor.  These were obviously small changes.

[A question was asked regarding the above by Josh Rapps (jr@usl.com):

     It was well known that the Rav considered Atah Konanta (the "nusach
     sefard" seder Avodah) more reliable. He felt that it was based on 
     Mishnayot and Beraytot and perhaps was written by a Kohen Gadol.  
     The fourth bowing was for the extra time that the name of Hashem was 
     mentioned in the Avodah.  Eitan mentions that "these were obviously 
     small changes". Was that his interpretation or did Rav Schachter state 
     that?  I believe that a change of this nature to the Seder Hatefilah, 
     particularly with the emphasis the Rav placed on Mesorah (tradition)
     in tefilah, would not have been considered trivial by the Rav at all.

In my notes, "These were obviously small changes" is written.  This was not
my own comment; I would not have written this unless R. Schachter said it.]

What about she'elot which change as the world changes?  The Rav said in
the name of Rav Chaim that one shouldn't repeat shemona esrei on Rosh
Chodesh if one forgot yaaleh v'yavo.  He brought proofs that one is
actually yotzei shemona esrei if one forgets yaaleh v'yavo, but isn't yotzei 
kiddush hayom.  Rav Chaim said one should repeat, as a t'fila n'dava.  Why?
There is a new tzarich -- to be m'kadesh the yom.  But on shabbat, one
can't say a t'fila n'dava -- thus, one should be yotzei kiddush hayom with
mussaf.  Later, Rav Chaim said that bizman hazeh, it is better to be
m'kadesh hayom even on weekdays with musaf because the poskim hold that we
do not say a t'fila n'dava today.

Not bathing during the 9 days: (b'sheim R. Moshe) A minhag must be based on
a kium; there can't be a minhag to stand on one's head between 3 and 4 PM
each day.  Such an act cannot be a minhag.  The origin of the not bathing
minhag is that there were those who were noheig not to bathe during all of
shloshim; since the aveilut of the 9 days is equivalent to that of
shloshim, people accepted this minhag also.  But, today many have a heter
istanus to bathe even during shiva, and everyone bathes during shloshim, so
it makes no sense to keep the minhag for the 9 days.

The Rav opposed the recitation of parts of kabbalat shabbat before Yom
Haatzmaut or Yom Yerushalaim as well as t'kiat shofar, which some had
instituted.  The Rav said that because there is no kium, these are just
ceremonies, and Judaism is not a religion of ceremonies.  Kabbalat shabbat
is part of the mitzvah of kavod shabbat, and there is no kium of kavod on
yom Haatzmaut or yom Yerushalaim.

[Moshe Goldberg (vamosh@wiscon.weizmann.ac.il) pointed out that he 
has only heard of, or seen, kabbalat shabbat and t'kiat shofar associated 
with Yom Haatzmaut, not with Yom Yerushalaim.]

Some turn off lights before hadlakot henerot.  (my notes were unclear here,
so this may not be said properly)  There is a machelochet whether hadlakot
nerot is kavod shabbat or oneg shabbat.  If the house is clean already, one
doesn't have to clean again for kavod shabbat (Rabbenu Tam).  So if candles
are part of the mitzvah of kavod shabbat, and the house is already lit,
then perhaps  one's chiuv to light would be different.  If the lights are
on, perhaps one can't make the bracha over the candles -- thus, it is
better to shut the lights before lighting.

The Rema in hilchot mila says that a non-religious doctor should not
perform mila.  What if there is no one around other than a non-religious
doctor when the time comes to do the brit?  The Rav said in the name of
R. Moshe that if the people are not so careful about keeping mitzvot,
then they should have the non-religious doctor do it.  At that time,
people were afraid to identify as Jews, and one would be afraid that if
the son didn't have the mila then that he wouldn't have it at all.  If the
people are frum people, then they should wait.

Cakes with soft batter: should one take challah or not?  Rav heard this
from his mother, in the name of R. Chaim.  There are many kulot in challah
in chutz laaretz, so one can rely on these.

The Rav instituted t'kiat shofar in the middle of silent shemona esrei (the 
most proper way) in Maimonides.  He davened a little aloud, and the k'hilah
followed and they blew shofar at the end of each bracha.  When his talmidim
asked if they should do the same in their shuls, he said if it is a small
congregation, then it is OK, but in large shuls, it is better to follow
their minhag even though it is less correct, because it would be a tzircha
to coordinate everyone's davening.

The Rambam holds that the baal korei should repeat even for a mistake in
trup; the Y'rushalmi and the m'chaber poskin otherwise.  The Rav was once
laining as a boy, with R. Simcha Zelig and R. Chaim on either side of him,
and they told him they would make him repeat every mistake.  The Rav said
that if the baal korei will get flustered if people keep interrupting him
with corrections, then don't make him repeat; otherwise, he should.

The Rambam has a t'shuva in which he says one can read from a pasul sefer
Torah, while in the mishneh torah he says one must have a kosher sefer to
do so.  The Beit Yosef resolves this steara by saying l'chatchila, one
can't read from a pasul sefer, but if one has already finished 5 aliyot,
then you don't need to repeat them.  The Mishneh B'rura says that we try to
be machmir and squeeze 7 aliyot from the remaining pasukim.  The Rav said
that if the baal habatim will stand for is, that one should really start
over from the beginning of the parsha.

R. Chaim wore t'filin on chol hamoed; R. Moshe did not.  The Rav asked his
father why.  R. Moshe said it is clear from the gemara.  R. Moshe asked --
what does issur malacha have to do with hallel?  If a day has kedushat
hayom, it has a chiuv of simcha (hallel, basar v'yayin).  If the kedushat
hayom is enough to generate an issur malacha, then one recites hallel --
Rosh Chodesh is not enough, but chol hamoed is.

What if a baal korei says "I will have kavanah to not be motzee person X?" 
It doesn't matter, because kriat hatorah is not based on shomea k'onei, it
is based on talmud torah b'rabbim.  Anyone who hears is yotzei.  Thus a
deaf boy can lain.  There was a long t'shuva from a dayan in Europe about
this question (the deaf boy laining); the Rav saw the question and said
"yes" based on the above before he read the rest of the t'shuva.  R. Moshe
said you don't need a chiuv to be motzee others in talmud torah -- thus a
katan could get an aliya (explanation of a gemara in megila).

Kohanim who are mechalel shabbat b'farhesiya cannot do the avoda.  The
mishneh b'rura says they cannot duchen either (many others had this psak
as well).  The Rav said that R. Moshe, and others, poskined differently. 
The proof is from a gemara in avoda zara, where a pasuk from Melachim is
used to show that kelim used for avoda zara cannot be used in the avoda 
(sorry, I can't figure out my notes here, so I don't know what the proof
is).  The Rav encouraged all kohanim to duchen -- once in Maimonides, he
made the shul wait a moment while he explained to a kohein who had never
seen duchening before what it was about, so that he could duchen as well.

A tosefta in shabbat lists those things that are chukot akum.  The Rav
held that chukot akum changes with the time, the essential issur is in
adopting means of worshipping hakadosh baruch hu from non-Jews.  The Rav
held that stained glass windows in shuls was chukot akum, as was mixed
seating.  That is why one cannot participate in davening in a shul with
mixed seating -- one is being oveir the issur d'oraita of chukot hagoyim.  
(It is also prohibited to have a shul with separate seating but no mechitza,
but for different reasons).

Rav Schachter said that the Rav always said what was in the Shulchan Aruch
-- he just had chiddushim in p'shat -- in contrast to R. Moshe Feinstein,
who came up with real halachic chiddushim.  For instance, early in the
Rav's career, he was the mashgiach for a slaughterhouse which was not
"glatt kosher."  He felt one was not responsible for inspecting the lungs 
today.  Why?  The Rambam holds that inspecting the lungs is essential
because over 10% have adhesions.  In America, this is not a problem -- far
less than 10% have adhesions.  However, in America, the calves frequently
eat nails in their pens, which puncture their stomachs.  This happens in
more than 10% of the animals-- thus, one is required to check the stomachs
for small holes.  The Rav's slaughterhouse rejected more treif animals than
the "glatt kosher" slaughterhouses for this reason -- yet people said that
you couldn't trust his hashgacha because it wasn't glatt.

The Rav sometimes learned halachot from statements and actions of gedolim. 
R. Chaim had told the Rav's mother when the Rav was born that if she would
name him after the Beit Halevi, R. Chaim would be the sandak (he was afraid
of blood).  The Rav was named so, but R. Chaim backed out.  But he said
that "according to minhag and halacha, the mother has the right to name the
first child" (although the Rav did not know his source).

The is a machelochet tannaim on the question of closing a sefer torah
or not before reciting birkat hatorah (if the sefer is open, the tzibbur
might think that the brachot are being read from it).  The Shulchan Aruch
says it is a mida chasidim to close the sefer.  The Rav saw gedolim in
Europe who opened the sefer, and he thought that this was preferable. 
Why?  Because p'ticha sefer torah is m'chaiv one in kriat hatorah.  On
leyl Simchat Torah in Germany, they would open the sifrei torah; they then
began to have kriat hatorah in order to fulfill the chiuv of learning
after p'ticha hasefer.  Thus, one shouldn't even let the baal korei open
the sefer (or one should close it and open it again oneself) -- one should
do the p'ticha oneself to m'chayiv oneself in kriat hatorah.

Rav Chaim held that giving away a sefer torah was like turning down an
aliya (the gemara says such a person is cursed).  But if someone asks for
it, it is OK to give it to them.  But no one would ever come up to R. Chaim
on Simchat Torah to ask him for his sefer -- thus, he used to have to hold
a sefer for all the hakafot.

The Rav said "My grandfather was a very religious man and he used tea bags"
on shabbat (not iroi kli sheini, however).

The m'chaber holds that one shouldn't wear t'filin during musaf.  The
Ashkenazim do not hold this way, but they are noheig not to wear also.  The
Taz says that if you are running late and don't have time, then you can go
ahead and daven while wearing t'filin.  The Rav held even further -- if you
don't have time to wrap up and put away your t'filin, then you shouldn't
take them off at all.  One must have kavod for t'filin, and not leave them
lying out.

The Ramchal's son wrote a sefer that begins with "I have just gotten up
from my father's shiva, and I need to write a all of the Torah I heard from 
him."  The manuscript is only 2 pages long.  Was that all of the Ramchal's 
torah?  No, something happened and he couldn't finish the sefer.  R.
Schachter said we cannot let this happen to the Rav.

--------------------

R. Walter Wurzburger

From: Eitan Fiorino <fiorino@aecom.yu.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 May 93.  Vol. 7 #40.

R. Wurzburger, who was in the Rav's first shiur, noted that the Rav did
not fully reveal himself to anyone.  It is almost that one can only talk
about the Rav in terms of negative attributes.  There were so many
different views of the Rav:

R. Wurzburger once accompanied the Rav to a gathering of professors of
philosophy and other intelligentsia, whom the Rav addressed.  Afterwards,
one said to the Rav "You shouldn't be a Rabbi, you should be a professor."

A talmid from Lakewood who was at one of the Rav's shiurim said the Rav
really has no use for philosophy or science, they are only a means of being
m'kariv people -- "he's a magid shiur, a rosh yeshiva."

When the Rav was hospitalized in Boston, R. Wurzburger saw a Catholic
doctor leaving his room saying "thank you Rabbi, thank you."  The Rav told
R. Wurzburger that the man was a Catholic who had lost his faith, but in
discussions, the Rav had convinced him he would be a better doctor if he
returned to his religion.

>From these three tales, one can see that the Rav defies categorization.
When Ed Fiske was covering religion for the NY Times (before being promoted
to education), he had interviewed the Rav.  He asked R. Wurzburger for some
background information after the interview.  R. Wurzburger asked him what
he thought of the Rav.  His reply was "I have never met anyone for whom
everything is so complicated."  This reflects the dialectical tension in
the Rav's mind -- cheftza and gavra, kium and maaseh, etc. etc.

The Rav as ish hahalacha is a misrepresentation -- the halachic man is
typology, and doesn't capture the totality of the Rav's approach.  

The Rav's presence was dazzling -- he could generate profound insights into
any subject matter -- this too is not his totality.

R. Wurzburger once spent pesach with the Rav -- the image of the Rav at the
seder, reciting nishmat -- one could see the religious passion and the
yearning for Hashem.  The Rav felt that the love of G-d should surpass the
yearning of erotic love.  But this yearning made his life difficult. 

The theme of chesed v'emet -- these are not always the same.  The Rav
went to Berlin not in search of material wealth.  There was intense agony
and inner conflict in his decision.  The Rav once said his children cannot
appreciate the difficulty of moving from Torah to a world of western
philosophy, because he had paved that road.  In his quest for emet, he
could not ignore the world.

Yiddishkeit was a constant struggle, it was not the easy way.  One
cannot be complacent when walking in the way of Hashem.

The Rav on the adoption of numerous chumrot:  wonderful, except for one
problem -- it is yiddishkeit without taking the ribono shel olam seriously.
The Rav strove to build a Jewish society in the world, to build a world
where chesed meets emet; not to retreat into the dalet amot of halacha.  

The Rav pioneered the study of gemara by women -- R. Wurzburger remembers
overhearing the Rav explaining a gemara to his daughter Atara when she was
young.

The Rav did not simply tolerate secular studies as a concession to parnasa.  
He felt it could enrich the Torah of individuals and be a part of chesed
v'emet.

Given the religious realities of America, the Rav did not feel there was
any reason for the RCA to disassociate from the Synagogue Council (an
interdenominational association, with whom many poskim forbade
association).  He felt that at that time, it would have been a disservice.

R. Wurzburger (as the editor of Tradition) had the page proofs for "Lonely
Man of Faith."  A sentence read "Another, midrashic interpretation . . ." 
R. Aharon Lichtenstein handled the galleys, and they asked R. Twersky if he 
thought they could delete the comma.  Later, R. Twersky told R. Wurzburger
that he and the Rav had had a half hour discussion about that comma.  The Rav
was a perfectionist, and when he published, he was especially afraid of there
being any flaw.

R. Wurzburger had asked the Rav to publish "Confrontation" in Tradition.  
The Rav agreed.  Weeks passed, then finally the manuscript arrived.  The
Rav said "That's it."  R. Wurzburger said, no, there's page proofs, and
galley proofs, then I unplug my phone so you can't call me to tell me
you've changed your mind.

The Rav was officiating at a wedding where one of the relatives had flown
in from Savannah, Georgia; he was a Conservative Rabbi.  The Rav asked him
to speak; R. Wurzburger asked him why.  The Rav said "the man flew all this
way, we must give him kavod."

The Rav did not let "scholarship" interfere with the process of limudei
hakodesh.  Talmud Torah, he said, begins with the analysis of ideas and
hopefully leads to an encounter with hakadosh baruch hu. 

--------------------

R. Gedalia Schwartz

From: Eitan Fiorino <fiorino@aecom.yu.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 June 93.  Did not appear in mail-jewish.

The Rav was in the tradition of the shitot haGra:

1.  The Gra's talmidim looked upon him as more than a master of Torah, but
as a sensitive person who gave p'sakim.  The Rav -- was more than just
"gevaldic in shiur" -- he was very sensitive to the sources in the Gemara
and their relation to later poskim.

2.  The approach of the Gra to halachah -- total immersion and
concentration, and the pursuit of emet.  He didn't use approaches which 
would generate excitement but not lead to emet.  The Rav in shiur tried to
understand the metziut of what was being learned.  One needed to study
anatomy to understand hilchot niddah.  The Gra held that one can't ignore
the metziut that one sees even if it contradicts something you've learned -- 
the Gra on bein hashemashot.  The Rav too emphasized that the metziut must
be understood when learning.

3.  The Gra wrote very little; the Rav too wrote very little.  The Gra was
m'katzer because of a klal in Gittin -- it is forbidden to write Torah she
b'al peh, but a heter is given.  Thus, one should always be careful about
what is written down, one should be mindful of this heter.  Perhaps this
idea came down through the Briskers.  This also explains Rashi script -- 
by changing the form of writing, one is not oveir the lav of lo k'tav.

4.  Things should be straight, not twisted -- there must be a logic.  [My 
notes are very sparse and make little sense from this point onward, but I'll
go one for the sake of completeness] -- the Gra on hilchot kriat hatorah: 
one must read 10 pasukim, or must reread.  The Rav on Rambam, hilchot
kriat hatorah -- first he gives you the history, next he must give you the
halachah.  The idea is that we need Torah she b'al peh to understand Torah
shebichtav.

5.  Pedagogy in limud hatorah.  Kedushat torah shebichtav -- the gavra is
elevated -- here Torah is an inanimate object.  Torah she b'al peh --
infused, part of the human being -- the gavra and the nefesh are elevated.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

R. Ahron Soloveitchik (given in Chicago on May 16.)

From: YOSEF_BECHHOFER@cpsnet2.cps.edu (Yosef Bechhofer)
Date: Sun, 16 May 93.  Vol. 7 #40.

This morning, Sunday 40 la'Omer, there was a Hesped for Reb Yoshe Ber
in Chicago.  Approximately 200 men and some women attended.  There were
several speakers, but of course the focal one was Reb Ahron shlit"a.  I
will attempt to summarize his Hesped (which lasted about 45 minutes) in
short, taking upon myself responsibility for possible errors, omissions,
etc.  I should note that representatives of all the major streams of
Orthodoxy in Chicago were in attendance, including Roshei Yeshiva of Telz
and HTC, and a Rosh Kollel of the Lakewood Kollel.

Reb Ahron began by noting that this was the third Hesped he would be giving
for his brother: the first, at the levaya, was necessarily an emotional
one: an onen is forbidden from Talmud Torah, and is thus limited to
emotion.  This, he noted, is in keeping with the nature of the laws of
shiva, which require behaviors on the part of the avel which are parallel
to those the Gemara identifies as signs of insanity - expressions of
emotional turmoil.  The laws of shloshim are more restrained, allowing for
a more intellectual contemplation - which would be the spirit of today's
Hesped.  There are, he stated, however, two types of intellect, that of
the mind and that of the heart.  That of the mind can be articulated, that
of the heart must be sensed.  Thus, the Rambam devotes 30 chapters to Hilchos
Shabbos, but only two halachos to Ahavas Hashem - not because the latter is
not significant, but rather because in must be sensed and understood.  This
Hesped was an attempt to give some sense of the intellect of the heart.

The Gemara states that if we regard the Rishonim as malachim, then we are
as humans; if we regard them as humans then we are as donkeys, but not as
the donkeys of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair, which would not eat d'mai.  Reb
Ahron stated that these are complementary statements - if we regard, in our
imaginations, the previous generations as angels, then in striving to
emulate them we can attain the level of human beings.  If not, at best we
will remain lower level donkeys.  Reb Ahron noted, however, that during the
lifetime of a Rebbe a talmid is not supposed to regard him with this sort
of deference, because then the phenomenon of a Rebbe learning the most from
his talmidim could not be fulfilled - they will be too afraid to ask the
questions which edify the Rebbe, rather this is what the statement that
tzaddikim are greater in their death than in their lifetime means - after
the Tzaddik's death one must use this approach in one's imagination.  [I
asked Reb Ahron after the Hesped as to how he understands the dictum
that if the Rebbe is "k'malach elokim tzevakos" only then should one learn
from him.  Reb Ahron stated that this refers to the Rebbe's approach to
teaching as an agent of Hashem - a "missionary."]

Reb Ahron noted that in the Hakdama to the Meromei Sadeh Reb Chaim Berlin
said that his father, the Netziv, held the Teshuvos of Reb Akiva Eiger as
those of a Rishon, yet he was completely disinterested in biographical
information about him, holding such pursuits a form of bittul Torah. 
Similarly, one must focus on the writings of Reb Yoshe Ber, rather than his
biography, in attempting to assess him.

The Rov's two major works, stated Reb Ahron, were "Ish HaEmuna" and "Ish
HaHalacha." The prototypical Ish HaHalacha was Reb Chaim Soloveitchik, the
prototypical Ish HaEmuna was Reb Elya Pruzhiner [their maternal
grandfather].  Many talmidim make the mistake of assuming that these two
personalities are mutually exclusive.  They are in fact similar.  The Ish
HaHalacha reaches the madrega of an Ish HaEmuna from the starting point of
halacha, and vice versa.  This is similar to the definition that the
Tzemach Tzedek gave to the difference between himself and the Kotzker: the
T"T began from the head and worked to the heart, the Kotzker began from the
heart and worked to the mind.

Reb Ahron noted that Reb Chaim Volozhiner had three Rabbeim, the Sha'agas
Aryeh who was the Ish HaHalacha (in his works you will not find a single
Zohar quoted); the Ve'Shav HaKohen, Reb Refael Hamburger, who was an Ish
HaEmuna, and the GR"A, who was both.  The Beis HaLevi was also both, but
Reb Chaim and Reb Moshe Soloveitchik were both Anshei Halacha.  Reb Moshe
had a Moreh Nevuchim at home, but never opened it [I asked Reb Ahron after
the Hesped about a line written by a certain Modern Orthodox Rabbi stating
that the Rov's understanding of Rambam was deeper than his father's because
of his acquaintance with the Moreh.  Reb Ahron was not pleased.  I have a
feeling that his brother would not have been pleased with such a definition
either].  Nonetheless, they reached the madrega of Anshei Emuna through
their Halacha.

Reb Ahron then told over several ma'asim in detail to explain his point.
For fear of being over long, I note briefly that one was the famous
ma'aseh in which Reb Chaim prevented the Rashei Kahal in Brisk from eating
Seuda Mafsekes Erev Yom Kippur in order to force them to ransom a Bundist
from a Death Sentence; and another ma'aseh in which Reb Elya told a
"chapper" that he must return a boy that he had snatched for the Tsar's
army - when the chapper threatened Reb Elya, he threw the chapper out of
his house, and the chapper died that night of a heart attack (Reb Ahron
explained this rationally, as a result of the remorse the chapper probably
felt).  Reb Ahron then told over the famous ma'aseh with Reb Moshe and the
Chassideshe Baal Tokea that is related in Ish HaHalacha.  This is a
classic, and I shall not relate it in detail , but I would like to note 
that in the version of the story as told by Reb Ahron there is a
significant  difference: At the end of the conversation Reb Moshe explains
that the  reason that he was opposed to the crying of the Baal Tokea is
because  although his great grandfather the Netziv cried so much on Yom
Kippur  that they had to place rags around the bema so no one would slip,
on Rosh  HaShana he would not cry at all, because of the halacha of
"Chedvas Hashem."

The next story he told is not well known, and therefore I relate it in
its entirety: The same Baal Tokea, Reb Avraham Radin, was a big Baal
Yisurin (suffered a great deal, having only one daughter, a widow, and one
grandson, and heart disease).  In 1937, this Reb Avraham came to Reb
Moshe and told him that the doctor said that at most he had two years to
live, probably only a few months, and that therefore he wanted to write a
tzava'a.  Reb Moshe said that the Torah only gave reshus to a doctor
to heal, not to project life span, that they should find another doctor,
and that Reb Avraham would live until Moshiach (Reb Ahron stated that Reb
Chaim held that the traditional bracha of 120 years is a klala, and the
correct version is until Bi'as HaGo'el).  Reb Avraham asked for a bracha
to this effect Reb Moshe responded that he was not a Chassideshe Rebbe, but
would give a "Birchas Hedyot" to this effect.  This Reb Avraham, then 78,
lived to 113! (Again, Reb Ahron explained rationally that Reb Avraham
received one of the first pacemakers.  As to why the bracha of until
Moshiach was not mekuyam, Reb Ahron said that as a Misnaged he could not
explain this.) Reb Ahron then read a quote from a Rabbi "X" who had called
the Rov an iconoclast.  Reb Ahron noted that one of the faults of modern
Rabbis is their tendency to use big words, but that being a modern Rabbi
himself, he understood them.  An iconoclast is someone who breaks religious
symbols.  Reb Ahron stated forcefully that the Rov did not intend to
change, nor did he change, in any way from the Mesora of his Reb Moshe and
Reb Chaim.  That Rabbi "X" went on to say that [I do not remember the exact
quote] the Rov forged new paths in Halacha, not hesitating to argue on the
Shulchan Aruch.  To this Reb Ahron thundered "Shomu Shomayim." If the Rov
did not paskin like the Mechaber it was because he paskened like the Shach
or the Taz, or like a Kabbala in the House of Brisk.  The Rov was not a
Maykel, but a Machmir, not forging new paths, but following and applying
the ways of the Sha'agas Aryeh, Reb Refael Hamburger, the GR"A, Reb Chaim
and Reb Moshe.  Reb Ahron was dan Rabbi "X" l'kaf zechus that he wanted to
impress the media, but did not accept such an excuse.  He noted that in
Hashkafa as well, although the Rov, together with Reb Leizer Silver founded
the Aguda in America, yet under the influence of Reb Meir Bar Ilan
subsequently joined the Mizrachi, he yet agreed with his uncle the Brisker
Rov, to oppose Heichal Shlomo, lest it lead to reinstituting the Sanhedrin.

Reb Ahron noted the Gemara which states that if one of the brother's
should die, all the brothers should be considered; if one of the members
of the chabura should die, all the members of the chabura should be
concerned.  Reb Ahron stated that he alone fulfills both criteria, as a
brother, and as talmid and chevrusa of his brother, and that it is
therefore he alone who can state with authority his brother's derech and
legacy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

R. Yisroel Grumer (given at Warrensville Center Synagogue in Cleveland, 
OH on May, 19.)

From: hso@po.CWRU.Edu (Howard S. Oster)
Date: Thu, 20 May 93.  Vol. 7 #51.

The speakers were Rabbi Menachem Genack of the OU and Rabbi Yisroel Grumer,
the Rosh Bet Din in Cleveland.  I did not take notes, so I will not
summarize their hespedim. I do, however, wish to relate one section of
Rabbi Grumer's hesped.  He mentioned that when the hesped for the Rav was
being planned, he asked to included as a speaker.  Many people had
subsequently asked him if he ever learned from the Rav, or had any
connection to him.  He said that he could have told them about all the
Torah he has learned from the Rav, even though he heard him directly on
only a few occasions, and that that should be sufficient. But, he has a
different answer.  In the book of Shmuel, when Avner the general of Shaul's
army died, David Hamelech [king] said to his general, Yoav, "Know that a
general and a great man (Ish sar vegadol), has fallen from among Israel
today."  It was certainly clear to Yoav, and all the rest of Am Yisrael who
Avner was, why was it necessary for David to say this?  Rabbi Grumer quoted
a Medrash about Moshe Rabeinu who was worried that the nation of Israel,
being encamped each by their own degel (flag), could become a divided
nation, especially since each tribe represents such vastly different
personalities (From the "lion" of Yehuda to the "deer" of Naphtali). God
told Moshe that they will be encamped exactly as the brothers had encircled
their father Yaacov on his death bed.  Yaacov had been worried that his
religious beliefs were not shared by his children, but all the brothers
assured him "Shema Yisrael, Hashem Elokeinu, Hashem Echad" -- that God is
one with us as He is with you.  Says Rabbi Grumer, that not only is this
their affirmation to Yaacov that God is one, but also that the children,
all of them, are one.  If the Jews had merely been encamped by their own
individual flags, they would have been divided, but because they were
encamped around the Mishkan, and unified in their belief in God, as were
their fathers, the 12 sons of Yaacov, they were truly one.  The key to
David Hamelech's hesped for Avner is that a great man fell among _Israel_. 
Although everyone knew who and what Avner was, it was important for them to
realize that the loss of a great man within the people of Israel is a loss
for all of Israel.  Rabbi Grumer went on to say that although he did not
learn in Yeshivas Reb Yizchack Elchanan, the loss of the Rav is a great
loss to all of Klal Yisrael.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 20 there was a Yom Iyun held at Heichal Shlomo in Jerusalem 
organized by the RCA.  There were 4 talks: R. Eliezer Bernstein and
R. Moshe Gorelik spoke on personal issues, R. Rabinowitz spoke on the 
Rav's Torah, and R. Aharon Lichtenstein spoke on the Rav's philosophy.

--------------------

R. Eliezer Bernstein

From: warren@itexjct.jct.ac.il (Warren Burstein) 
Date: Fri, 21 May 93.  Vol. 7 #56.

Something I heard at the Yom Iyun reminded me of the summary of Julius
Berman's hesped by Harold Gellis, which mentioned the Rav's reaction to
Haolam Hazeh's mis-reporting (or perhaps simple fabrication) of his
response to the commission of inquiry into Sabra and Shatila.

Rabbi Bernstein said that the Rav instructed him to call the leaders of
the National Religious Party in Israel, and to tell them that if they did
not support an investigation into the incident, that he (the Rav) would
resign as head of Mizrachi.

I think that previous articles which have already expired on my system
mentioned the Rav's running for Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv in the 1930's.
Rabbi Bernstein said that two reasons for the Rav's failure to get the job
were his association at the time with Agudah, and a conflict with a noted
Sefaradi Chacham (whose name I did not record), but R. Bernstein came up
with a variety of conflicting versions of the Rav's conflict with the Chacham.

--------------------

From: turkel@math.tau.ac.il (Eli Turkel)
Date: Sun, 23 May 93.  Vol. 7 #56.

[My personal comments are in brackets.]

R. Eliezer Bernstein

I am leaving out some of the haredi bashing.  In 1935 was the Rav's only
trip to Israel for the chief rabbi of Tel Aviv.  One reason he lost was
that he was opposed by his great-uncle R. Meir Berlin (Bar Ilan) because
the Rav was an Agudist [I heard that R. Meir Berlin supported the Rav's
application].  During that visit the Rav met with R. Kook shortly before
R. Kook's passing.  Later the Rav moved to Mizrachi and was offered the
position of presidency of the world Mizrachi organization.  He turned it
down partially on the advice of his mentor R. Hayim Heller.  Bernard
Bergmann became president instead!  In 1948 Mizrachi was offered the
opportunity to bring 18,000 Jews to Israel on condition that 900 Polish
gentiles also come.  Then Agudah opposed the move while the Rav backed
the Mizrachi stance of doing it.  The Rav joined Mizrachi because he
opposed the imposition of religious legislation which he felt only created
more hatred.  He only favored laws stressing education [I suspect some of
this is anachronistic].  The Rav also opposed Agudah on participation in
organizations with non-orthodox groups.  The Rav felt that Jewish unity
towards the gentile world was of great importance.  All this on condition
that the questions of Jewish faith are not discussed with these
organizations.  He met with Ben Gurion and Begin.  Under pressure he met
with some cardinal -- he had three questions for the cardinal: would the
vatican recognize Israel - yes. Would the vatican recognize Jerusalem as
the capital - a hesitant yes. Would the vatican agree to the rebuilding
of the Temple - no, and the discussion ended.  The Rav did not accept the
position of chief rabbi of Israel because he felt the position was too
politicized.  The Rav was a rationalist and opposed Messianism.  He felt
that the western wall (kotel ha-maravi) was not worth a single jewish soul.

The Rav personally called Hammer and Burg (of the Israel Mizrachi party) to
say that he would resign from the party if they voted against the
enquiry into the events in Sabra and Shatilla.

---------------

R. Moshe Gorelik

The Rav was intellectually honest and never repeated a shiur.  He once gave
a 2 hour shiur on a Milchamot (Ramban) which all the best boys in the shiur
thought was particularly brilliant.  The next day in shiur the Rav was very
upset because none of the students had found the flaw in the shiur.  The
Rav himself stayed up to 2 AM revising his logic and proceeded with a whole
new shiur on the Ramban.  The Rav insisted that in his school, Maimonides,
that there be an equal education for both boys and girls.  The Rav gave the
first talmud shiur in Stern to inaugurate their program in Talmud.  The
were several boys who volunteered to help the Rav during his stays in YU
from Boston.  The Rav once had an argument with them over who would take
out the garbage.  The boys insisted it was not right for the Rosh yeshiva
to take out garbage, but the Rav insisted it was his job.  They finally
compromised and each one held one side of the garbage bag to bring it out. 
Once the Rav went to a hospital to check out the kitchen; afterwards he
insisted on visiting every patient in the hospital both Jewish and
non-Jewish.  Though he encouraged secular studies in YU he stressed the
primacy of learning Torah.  He once spent shabbat in NY at a local host. 
The host showed off the paintings on his wall to the Rav and afterwards
said that the Rav probably couldn't understand the significance of these
paintings.  The Rav countered that in fact the host did not really
appreciate the paintings and proceeded with a discourse of the history of
art.  He opposed "modern orthodoxy" because they were not committed enough
to Torah learning.  The Rav said there are 3 levels of Jews: 1. Those with
a jewish identity; 2. those that observe mitzvot; 3. those that learn Torah.

---------------

R. Rabinowitz (Rosh Yeshiva in Maale Adumim)

Though not a student of the Rav, he gave some examples of the Rav's learning.

In Berachot 57 there is a discussion of how many people are needed for a
minyan.  Rav Huna says 9 and the Torah Ark (Aron haKodesh). The Gemara
objects that the ark is not a person.  The question is to explain the
disagreement.  The Baal Shem Tov explains that every person is like a
Torah, hence with the ark we have 9 Torahs and their ark which gives a
total of 10.  The Gemara objects because each person needs to be a Mentsch
in addition to being a sefer Torah and so the ark doesn't qualify.  The Rav
had a different explanation.  He felt that the 10 people for a minyan have
no significance by themselves.  What 10 accomplishes is that they become a
representative for all of Israel.  Rav Huna felt that this connection is
through the Torah and so the ark can be used as one of the 10.  The gemara
objects that we still need 10 people to represent the community and the ark
doesn't help.  The Rav many times talked about the connection between the
individual and the whole.

Kibbud Shabbat: The Rambam says that in preparing for shabbat one washed
oneself, wrapped oneself in tzizit, and waits, with the proper attitude
(koved rosh).  The Rav points out that similar laws are given about
prayers.  Praying means being in front of G-d and hence the essence of
Shabbat is that one is in G-d's presence.  The Rambam says that there is
kiddush and havdalah on Yom Tov because they are also called shabbat. 
The Rav explained that shabbat has two laws.  One is that they are holy
by themselves and second that the Jews instill holiness in shabbat
through kiddush and havdalah.  Yom Tov is holy only through the Jews and
so is connected with shabbat only through the second characterization of
shabbat.  In Musaf prayers we use the phrase Az Misinai (we were commanded
in Sinai).  But shabbat was given to the Jews before Sinai in Marah?  The
Rav answers that only the first law of shabbat, that it comes by itself
each 7th day, comes from marah; however, the second characterization which
makes it like Yom Tov comes from Sinai.

Altar - The Rambam says that the dimensions of the altar are exact and that
we needed 3 prophets to tell us the size, the place and its use without a
Temple.  However, later in the same chapter the Rambam says that the size
of the altar is not important (me-achev).  The Rav answers that there are 2
laws in the altar.  As an altar by itself the size is of less importance
(le-chatchila). However, the altar is also part of the Temple and in this
capacity it needs to be exact.  If it is the wrong size then it affects
everything else in the Temple.  The completeness of the Temple is more than
the sum of its parts.  So too there exists the individual, the community
and all of Israel (klal yisroel). One needs to be complete within one self
and also to be part of the larger whole.

--------------------

R. Aharon Lichtenstein

R. Lichtenstein gave a sweeping overview of the Rav's philosophy.  The
lecture overwhelmed many in the audience and I will do my best.  It lasted
about an hour and a quarter.  I got the impression that he could have
easily expanded it to a year-long course.

R. Lichtenstein pointed out that the Rav never had a system of
philosophy and he (R. Aharon) was doubtful that one existed.  The Rav was
best with particular facets rather than trying to coordinate and integrate.
His early interests were in neo-Kantism and the philosophy of science. 
He is most famous for his later works which stress human concerns and man
as a spiritual being.  Ish ha-halakhah, u-bekashtem misham and Halakhic
Mind were written in the early 1940's in the transition period and contain
elements of both approaches (though the later 2 were published only many
years later).  The later works were strictly humanistic.  The Rav's
philosophy is not a strict philosophy but rather a combination of
philosophy, derush and mussar.  Though he disagreed with the mussar
movement (based on the tradition of Volozhin), he agreed that an
unexamined life was not worth living.  He was mainly concerned with 
universal concerns and was in the Rambam's camp against Yehuda ha-levi.

The Rav's main goal was the harnessing of halakhah for hashkafa.  He
sought to explore how Judaism, through Halakhah, reflects on the human
condition, maximizes our potential and challenges us with regard to
ourselves, the community, the world and G-d.  He assumed as a given that
Halakhah enables us to deal with the world (This is connected with the
known arguments about reasons for mitzvot - taamaei hamitzvot).  The
Rav completely rejected any rationalization of mitzvot in terms of
immediate help, i.e. comfort, peace of mind, psychology, health etc.  On
the contrary, Halakhah creates difficulties and crises but in an ultimate
sense it is for our good on this earth (tov lach).  When he met with Ben
Gurion they did not discuss politics but instead the Rav explained this
to Ben Gurion.  R. Yeshayahu Lebovitz feels that Halakhah is merely
mechanical and has no inner meaning; the Rav opposed this.

The Rav dealt at length on the relationship between the individual and
the community and Knesset Israel.  However, the quintessential concern is
with the individual.  Top priority is one's own growth, with a recognition
of the dangers of egocentrism and the importance of Hessed [R. Kook
stressed the community over the individual].  Compared with R. Kook, the
Rav's philosophy was more a-historical.  Kol Dodi Dofek is not a personal
piece.  The covenental community began with Abraham's meeting with G-d. 
Interpreting the world can be viewed and integrated on a religious basis. 
The Rav did not stress the argument from design -- one sees a design in the
world because one believes in G-d, and not vice-versa.  Rather the world is
an order waiting to be imprinted by Halakhah.  Through Halakhah a new world
awaits us.  The creative enterprise is crucial both in science and in
learning.  At the time of Sputnik some Jews objected to studying and going
to outer space.  The Rav thought the objections were ridiculous.  He
abhorred superficiality in any part of life.  The world is waiting to be
formed.  Kodesh and Chol refer to continuity -- this is similar to much in
R. Kook, however the Rav was not a mystic.

The Rav appreciated the dynamics of the process, per se.  There is a
midrash he quoted about a group that was drawing water with a leaky bucket.
Someone objected that it was a waste of time.  A wise man countered that in
the meantime we have cleaned the bucket.  Halakhah is demanding and can
lead to conflicts.  However, that it limits us can be liberating and
energizing.  He stressed the importance of learning Torah for its own
sake, without applications, but at the same time recognized the importance
of the fruit.  This conflict already appears in Ish ha-halachah.  Halakhah
should not be rationalized. There is no answer to the question of good and
evil; instead we should just learn how to react to catastrophes through
halakhic norms.

Later in life there was a counterbalance to this triumphic approach,
possibly due to his surgery for cancer in 1959.  Now, the Lonely man of
Faith is mighty but humble, and there is value even in failure.  Moshe
Rabbenu erected and took apart the tabernacle (mishkan) every day during
its dedication.  Why?  To teach us that even the tabernacle is transient. 
However with each taking apart there was to be more creativity tomorrow. 
The Rav never lost his admiration for creativity. U-bekashtem Misham
(originally called godly man - Ish ha-elokim) stresses more the yearning of
man rather than the strict law of Ish ha-halakhah.  The Lonely man of Faith
(published by Doubleday) was meant for a more general audience.

Mitzvot were given by G-d to purify man.  However, once the Torah was given
the mitzvot have importance by themselves and not in how they contribute to
the world.  Why do we blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah?  Because the Torah says
so!!  If so why do many people give reasons?  The Rav answers that these
reasons describe some ultimate goal, but our observance is not dependent on
these ultimate goals.  There is no such thing as an irrelevant topic in the
Gemara.

The Rav's brother (Samuel) once commented that sometimes the Rav spoke of
the greatness of the Vilna Gaon and sometimes of the greatness of the
ordinary Jew.  Indeed, this conflict existed within the Rav.  The Rav
took pains to stress that within the soul of the cold Litvak lay a vibrant
man.  The ordinary Jew reacts emotionally rather than intellectually. 
There are differences between an Gadol and an ordinary Jew, but ultimately
they are similar.  The ordinary Jew cannot become the Ish-halakhah.  If he
takes it too personally than it can be counterproductive because it is
unreachable for most people.  Instead it should remain as a vision, as a
source of inspiration.  The Rav was always a seeker in Torah to create and
to implement.

--------------------

R. Aharon Lichtenstein

From: jr@usl.com (Josh Rapps)
Date: Tue, 25 May 93.  Vol. 7 #64.

Regarding Eli Turkel's summary of the Rav Lichtenstein's hesped:  the
Beis Halevi (Rav ZT'Ls great grandfather) has a similar notion that our
attempts at finding reasons for the mitzvot should not be taken as the
mechayev (requirement) to perform the mitzvah.  Rather, the Beis Halevi
points out in Parshat Bo, on the Passuk of Vehegadeta Levincha, that there
are those (a group of reformers as he called them) that among their
approaches to destroying Torah is to note that indeed at one point there
was a good reason to do things like the seder and korban pesach, but now
that we are sophisticated and advanced these reasons no longer apply. 
And the answer is that the Torah and its various mitzvot (including, for
example, achilat matzoh on the 15th of Nissan) pre-dated the exodus from
Egypt (Histakel beorayta uvari alma - G-d uses the torah which pre-dated
the world as the blue print for constructing the world).  As its noted in
Parshat Vayera that Avraham and Lot for that matter ate Matzot on
Pesach, before there was an obligation.  The upshot is that we do the
Mitzvot because Hashem commanded us to.  Our (often feeble) attempts
to rationalize the mitzvot must not interfere with performing the mitzvot.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

R. Isadore Twersky (given at Maimonides School on May 31.)

From: GERVER@PFC.MIT.EDU (Mike Gerver) 
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993.  Vol. 7 #72.

Before R. Twersky's hesped, there was a brief talk by Abe Levovitz, the
president of the Maimonides board, who repeated a dvar torah given by the
Rav on his mother's yahrzeit, I think in 1968.  At that time the Rav quoted
a pasuk in Eicha, which says that Jerusalem remembers all of her treasures
from days of old.  How could she possibly not remember?  Rather, this means
that only now, when they are lost, does she appreciate them; when she still
had them, she took them for granted.  It is the tragic nature of man to do
this.  Chazal said that this also applies to the death of a parent or a
teacher.  In mesechta Brachot, it tells how after the death of the amora
Rav, his students did not fully realize their loss until they had a
question about birkat ha-mazon that they could not answer, and then
realized that Rav was no longer there to ask.  This is the tragedy of
the nostalgic moment of realization of loss, which gives rise to memories
tinged with guilt about lost opportunities.  In mesechta Kiddushin, it says
that kibud av va'em [honoring one's father and mother] is equal [hishveh]
to reverence for G-d.  The Ramban replaced "hishveh" [equal to] with
"shachu" [interdependent with], which the Rav said was a profound insight. 
In a baraita, kibud [honor] is said to consist of me'ora [fear] and ahava
[love], which means personally attending to the needs of one's parent, not
hiring someone else to do it. After death, neither of these are possible,
but it is still possible to honor the person by supporting and furthering
the ideals he stood for.

R. Twersky began his hesped by quoting from Moed Katan, where it says that
a sage [chacham] should be continually honored and eulogized.  Does a sage
need so much praise?  Rather, the purpose of a hesped is to delineate the
effect he had on us, while our memory is vivid, focusing our thoughts, and
in this way to honor him.  He supported this idea with a quote from
mesechta Shabbat.  In the case of the Rav, there is no need for, or room
for, exaggeration.  The phrase "talmid of the Rav" has been tossed around a
lot, but it should be used very carefully, and honestly.  Chaim Volozhiner,
in a letter he wrote to the community, explained why he did not want to be
referred to as a talmid of the GR"A, that he thought this would be shameful
to the GR"A, although by all accounts he was the GR"A's most brilliant
student.

Most of the hesped was taken up with the theme of defining what is a
"chacham ha-mesorah" [literally, a sage of the tradition].  This is
someone who often appears at a time of despair, when the continuity of
Torah study appears threatened.  Times of crisis bring forth especially
creative sages.  Thus the Rambam, in the introduction to the Mishneh
Torah, states that, because in his days wisdom had disappeared, he
composed the Mishneh Torah which would be comprehensible to everyone.  For
similar reasons, R. Yehuda Ha-Nasi composed the Mishneh.  The Ramban said
that he stood on the crest of a great wave of learning, and had to act
decisively to keep those in front of or behind the wave from going under.

What are these periods of intense creativity?  Things not revealed to Moshe
Rabbeinu were revealed to R. Akiva, because he lived in a time of Churban. 
The light of Torah had to shine more radiantly, that was the only response
to the historical challenge.  The same theme appears in Rabbeinu Tsadok
mi-Lublin, who quoted a passage from Menachot and gave it new meaning,
saying that in a time of bitul Torah, Torah study must take a quantum leap.
 And the same thing is true of 20th century America.  The arrival of the
Rav and his father, also the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe and R. Aaron
Kotler, but mostly the Rav, was responsible for the revival of learning in
America.  The Rav not only enhanced the number of scholars, but enhanced
kibud of Torah, when others were demoralized.

R. Twersky quoted a gemara [I don't remember where] in which R. Chanina and
R. Chia are discussing what they would do if the chain of continuity of
Torah learning were in danger of being cut off.  R. Chanina says that he
would restore the Torah with his powers of reasoning.  R. Chia disagrees,
and says that he would make sure that the chain of learning were not cut
off.  He would plant flax, harvest it and weave nets to catch stags, feed
the meat of the stag to orphans, and use their skins to write scrolls.  He
would go to a town with no teacher, teach Chumash to five different
children and Mishnah to six different children.  This approach is also seen
in a ma'aseh in mesechta Menachot, in which G-d is busy adding tagin to the
letters of the Torah, before revealing it.  The angels impatiently ask "Why
are you holding it back?" G-d replies "Because I have to make this
available to Akiva ben Yosef." It is not enough for limud torah to be
accurate, it must also be appealing to people and beautiful.

The Rav embodied both the approach of R. Chanina and the approach of R.
Chia, both scientific/philosophical brilliance and Torah tradition.  He
never said or wrote a platitude.

"Lo ken avdi Moshe" [Not like this is my servant Moshe] -- The Rambam says
that the sin of Miriam was in not realizing this.  This phrase is also used
in an article on R. Chaim Brisker by R. Chaim Berlin, and in an article by
the Rav on his uncle the Brisker Rav (R. Chaim's son Velvil).  And they
also apply to the Rav himself.  It is necessary to identify his unique
features, not "gadol ha-dor" but "yachid ha-dor."  Those who write
eulogies don't have the vocabulary to describe him, so they distort his
image, reducing it to images they can understand.

A chacham ha-mesorah bases his learning on overarching principles, unifying
motifs, and systematic categories.  If he did not do this, if he were only
concerned with details, this would lead to weariness and confusion about
what to do.  This had something to do with [and I didn't quite follow this
point] why it was necessary for R. Chaim Volozhiner to found a large
yeshiva at Volozhin, rather than following the previous practice of having 
lots of smaller yeshivot with only a few people learning in each one.

In the gemara, R. Eliezer never gave an answer to a question without giving
a mesorah [tradition] for it, but he often brought out ideas which no one
had realized before that they _were_ part of the mesorah.  Once R. Eliezer
pointed them out, they became part of the mesorah.  The Rav described the
process of "chidush" [new ideas], of "nireh li" ["it seems to me..."] as
discovering old ideas that were hidden in a dark corner, that were in
galut, and rescuing them.

The Rav had a systematic and comprehensive methodology in halacha and
hashkafa, he had erudition, and he had the ability to illuminate ideas.  To
give one example, which is all there is time for, consider the contrast
between "ma'aseh ha-mitzvah" [doing a mitzvah] and "kiyum ha-mitzvah"
[realizing a mitzvah].  The first is external, for example the act
of giving a hesped, and the second is internal, for example the internal
feeling of grief resulting from the hesped.  The Rav called attention to
the pulsating inner life of one who is meticulous in his practice.  R.
Twersky recalled how the Rav once excitedly showed him a book he had found,
"Kitvei Rakiv[?]", a book of "shirei kodesh" that the Rav had enjoyed
reading in his youth.  [I think the point R. Twersky was making was that
these poems expressed this "pulsating inner life".]

Mesorah is intellectual, practical, and ethical.  One needs access to
living mesorah as well as formal written or spoken words.  Something here
about R. Yochanan ben Zakhai offering R. Elazar to teach him ma'aseh
merkavah [but I'm not sure what point he was making].  Learning is not
just cognitive.  One who is close to and sensitive to every nuance of the
chacham ha-mesorah continues to learn from him.  The chacham ha-mesorah
must relate to the whole community, male and female, learned and unlearned.
The Mishneh Torah is written in a way that appears straightforward to a
simple reader, but erudite and profound to a learned reader.  Sforno says
that G-d does this, and that the chacham imitates G-d in this respect.  The
Rav's real greatness lay not in his dazzling brilliance, but in his ability
to teach in a way that would challenge and stimulate all.  This required
tzimtzum, a holding back of his brilliance, or else everyone would drown. 
He used charm and pedagogic skill.  Moshe Rabbeinu is a paradigm for this.

R. Twersky recalled that about 30 years ago there was a man named Yossel,
who davened at the Talner beis medrash.  He didn't seem to have any family. 
He was a simple man, who didn't have much to do with the Rav except
occasionally when he would bring him a chicken with a shayla.  Yossel died
on the first day of chol ha-moed Pesach.  The Rav led tehillim , not only
attending his levaya but went to the cemetery and shoveled earth on the
grave himself. He wanted to do this, even though he as very busy and could
ill afford the time, because, he said, this was a rare case of a genuine
"meis mitzvah."  The Rav's students did not have to ask him "Lamdeinu
orchot he-chaim," [teach us the ways of life] -- he was continually doing
that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------