Rav Soloveitchik speaks to Mental Health Professionals 1978

Posted on January 15, 2012 by Alan Brill | 4 Comments

We owe Rabbi David Etengoff a thank you for recently placing many of the public lectures of Rav Soloveitchik online in cleaned-up mp3 format.

On the list was one public discourse that I had not heard or read called “5122 KNESSETH TISROEL – DIALOGUE 04/25/78.” It was a real winner. It was a discussion with Orthodox mental health professionals and it discussed several hot topics including the meaning of Lonely Man of Faith, Israeli politics, abortion, homosexuality, Chabad, BT’s, and the role of the social worker.

More importantly, it shows how people related to Rav Soloveitchik and his replies to inquiries. Especially in the last 15 minutes of the tape one can see (1) how Rav Soloveitchik gave his students great latitude to solve problems themselves, (2) how he trusted professionals, (3) how did not think that everything needed halakhic or rabbinic answers (4) and how he took his answers to be his own personal formulation, not some binding or definitive understanding. The tape also show Rav Soloveitchik in several moods from impatient to jovial and it especially showed how Rav Soloveitchik dealt with ideas and not with the bottom line.

If you have never heard a full shiur from Rav Soloveitchik or have not heard one in many years or even if you have forgotten why people where once upset about the current revisionism of the Rav, then please listen to this lecture (or at least the last 15 minutes). It has good audio quality. This lecture will remind you why people were attracted to Rav Soloveitchik. I do not intend to mediate your direct encounter with his shiur, and that is why this one is such a good choice.

The setting is 1978, Annie is the wholesome smash hit on Broadway and Billy Joel’s The Stranger is on the pop radio stations. Picture the younger professionals wearing big tortoise-shell eyeglass frames and long side-burns. Deeply colored sweaters and sports jackets were in style that year, colors like wine, cranberry, and olive- on the tape you will hear people referred to by their clothes color. The Rav himself tended to wear light colored sports jackets to events like this.

It was a decade after his Lonely Man of Faith lecture done originally as a mental health lecture and less than a year after a follow-up lecture in Boston 1977 covering much of the same material. The setting this time is NY and the gathering is of Orthodox mental health professionals, mainly MSW’s and psychologists including Paul Kahn, Rivka Danzig, Lester Kaufman, Carmi Schwartz, and Rabbi Avrach, the Director of Community Services Division. In the 1970’s, psychology, therapy, and existential therapy reigned supreme. The Yeshivish answer was still to ban majoring in psychology. It also produced books like Avraham Amsel’s Rational Irational Man – Torah Psychology (1976), which denigrated psychology as not the Torah’s way since the emotions need to be suppressed into a rational and volitional life. Several people in the room whom I did not mention, were graduates of Chaim Berlin or Torah ve Daas who a few years earlier switched from suits to turtlenecks and under the influence of the early 1970’s discovered the humanistic path of psychology based on not repressing emotions; gestalt, transaction, and existential therapies replaced repression. People were reading Erik Erikson, Irwin Yalom, R. D. Laing, and Fritz Perls. The Bob Newhart show about therapy had just ended its six year run that month. In the 1960’s and 1970’s the seeming only Rosh Yeshiva to field the new questions was Rav Soloveitchik. At the same time notice how philosophic and abstract were his answers.

A mere decade later Rabbi Twerski will make the liberalism of self-esteem humanistic psychology and twelve step as a seminal start of the new Yeshivish self-help books and in contrast some of YU’s graduates will start reading the more conservative works by authors like Dobson. There is a switch to asking what causes the individual to be deviant, rather than creating a role for the individual.Now, thirty years later every Rosh Yeshiva and pulpit rabbi is an expert on psychology and social work without the need for professional trained guidance. But in 1978, the burning question is how do we balance the individualism and lack of repression in therapy with commitment to the group, the halakhah community. In the discussion, notice the lack of a role for evil inclination, or any mussar advice to restrain or repress oneself.

When you listen to the tape notice how often Rav Soloveitchik says “ I created” “personal experience” and “my formulation.” Also notice his joke that he took tranquilizers and they didn’t help him as much as Talmud study helped him.

He discusses the Jewish commitment to the Israel. His politics is old time Likkud. We did indeed dislocate the Arabs but that does not matter. We were the ones who started the trouble in Hebron- why did we did it? Because Israel and our connection to it is our insanity. We are willing to go against the whole world. We are willing to defy common sense because of our connection. Defiance and redemptive go together.

In this discussion, he uses the word mesorah to refer to the continuity of the Jewish people and to the chain of scholars of the mesorah. He does not use it as a body of knowledge or a specific teaching. The Mesorah community extends from Avraham to messiah and offers a sense of calming sense of eternity that transcends the individual. Being part of the mesorah offers a deeper reality that unites past and future. We are joined as part of a covenantal community of every Jew who was in the past and those who have yet to appear. Respect for the elders and our antecendents and a commitment for educating future generations.(similar to LMF)

The Rav says that only when his parents died did he find the malakh hamaves confronting him “My Cartesian awareness included a sense of my parents.”

Can we help a homosexual alleviate guilt? “I am not a social worker.” But the goal is not to tell him “sin and be happy.” People have freedom and people can change. There is no need to reject any case. We believe people have the ability to do teshuvah. Don’t encourage sin but there is always hope. But, you may not encourage homosexual practices. (Notice what the discussion looked like before the culture wars- neither condemnation not acceptance, just what is the social worker’s responsibility? Notice how Rav Soloveithcik is mainly concerned with what the observant therapist should do and does not make big statements about society or public policy.)

Can one go against respecting one’s parents kibud av ve am as part of the process of therapy. He answers that the goal is to follow the right way but process may be far from it. So temporary violation is OK as part of a bigger process.

What about college women who are sexually active but not using birth control, therapist cannot pasken birth control questions but it may lead to an abortion? Answer- You are not responsible for events in the future.

What about people having an abortion- it is forbidden but what you should do? Answer- Abortion is completely prohibited as murder, we just do not consider it libel for punishment… What to do? I don’t know.

How do we apply these guidelines when the social worker is orthodox and client is not religious.

Rav Soloveitchik- “It is up to the social worker – I cannot advice – it is hard.” This is the Rav Soloveitchik that many remember who left applications in the hands of professionals.

He praises Chabad and its success because they temporarily display tolerance. They show understanding and lend a helping hand.

One cannot condemn client right away. And to earn respect means professional respect as a skilled and understanding professional. (not respect for sticking to one’s opinions.)

He tells the story of certain girl who became a BT but was not ready for taryag mizvot, all the mizvot. First she went to a known gadol –rosh yeshiva, who said it was an all or nothing package either keep Shabbos or else. She wet to another rabbi who said accept one mizvah with the complete letter of the law. She did and eventually became completely observant. (What lesson do you think his listeners drew from the story?)

In the last five minutes, the Rav was asked “is that [the Rav’s approach in LMF] the only method or the [definitive] halakhic method? Is this the necessary approach toward Keneset Yisrael or is there another method?

The Rav answers that his loneliness is his creative experience and his binding himself to the group cures his loneliness. Being part of the group of keneset yisrael is not his creative time. Rather, his individual loneliness which is an “Awareness of self- not mere introversion or introspection.” But, “Community man is not creative. We have a dialectic back and forth. (Notice he did not consider his approach definitive.)

Certain times I don’t want to give or teach. They say I am a good teacher. A good teacher forms a community in his class. Not technical teaching but to discuss and debate problems – and sometimes they are right and I admit it. One needs to be sincere and consistent. Sometimes the students know as much as I do and I have nothing to teach so I retreat. The need to give is called hesed- to teach is a very volatile activity. (Notice that he defines his teaching an shiur not as offering fixed answers but as discussion and debate. Also notice how impatient Rav Solovetichik was in giving over his prepared précis of LMF, and how relaxed he is in fielding questions.)

Final words on being a social worker. “There is no difference between a social worker or a rabbi concerning their duties as a Jew In fact, a social worker can accomplish more. A social worker is perceived as neutral and objective- and can be more effective.

As a closing comment, the moderator said “Rav Soloveitchik does fancy footwork- he wants idea and we want to drag him down.” (Notice they did not see the Rav as practical guidance or halakhah, rather as ideas and big guidelines. This led to each listener interpreting it for themselves. Unless someone violated the guideline in a major way, they were not reigned in).

[I only listened to the tape once, so if I made any mistakes they were inadvertent, and I will be glad to change what I wrote.] If you cannot find time to listen to the entire tape then just listen to the last 15 minutes to get a taste of his personality.

https://kavvanah.blog/2012/01/15/rav-soloveitchik-speaks-to-mental-health-professionals-1978/

Yarzheit of the Rav, Nissan 18, Tues-Wed

 

We take this time to express our gratitude to HaKadosh Baruch Hu for guiding the life's work of our Rebbe HaGaon HaRav Joseph Soloveitchik zt'l and our love and admiration to the Rav for his holiness, truthfulness, righteousness, and courage.

"…the religious person is given not only a duty to follow the halakha but also a value and vision. The person performing the duty seeks to realize this ideal or vision. Kant felt that the duty of consciousness expresses only a "must" without a value. He demanded a routine form of compliance, an "ought" without aiming at a value. As a soldier carries out his duty to the commanding officer, one may appreciate his service or just obey through discipline and orders. Kant's ethics are a "formal ethics", the goal is not important.   For us it would be impossible to behave this way. An intelligent person must find comfort, warmth, and a sense of fulfillment in the law. We deal with ethical values, not ethical formalisms. A sense of pleasure must be gained by fulfilling a norm. The ethical act must have an end and purpose. We must become holy." (Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Mesorat HaRav Siddur, p. 112-3)

Great Opportunities: Ten Conversations with Rav Soloveitchik by Rabbi Chaim Jachter

 

 https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/great-opportunities-ten-conversations-with-rav-soloveitchik-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter

Volume 19, Halachah

(2010/5770)

Hashem presents us with a variety of incredible opportunities.  Our challenge is to seize these moments and not let them slip by.  Fortunately, I recognized the fabulous opportunity Hashem presented to me during 1983-1985, when I served as an assistant to Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, the last two and a half years that he taught at Yeshiva University.  I planned well for the time I would spend with the Rav carefully considering which issues I should discuss with him.  Following the times I spent with the Rav, I recorded in a notebook his thoughts as thoroughly as possible.  Although many of the conversations are not appropriate to share in this forum, the following ten selections are appropriate fare for a broader audience.  May this presentation serve as an honor to the Rav’s Neshamah on the occasion of his forthcoming seventeenth Yahrtzeit on the eighteenth of Nissan. 

Tallit before Marriage

By the time I served as an assistant to Rav Soloveitchik, many of his Halachic rulings were well-known among his circle of students.  One such example is the Rav’s opinion that a young man should begin to wear a Tallit beginning from the time he becomes Bar Mitzvah and not wait until he marries, contrary to the common custom of Jews from Eastern Europe.  Indeed, I saw two of Rav Soloveitchik grandsons, Rav Meir Lichtenstein and Rav Moshe Lichtenstein, wearing a Tallit before they married. 

Although my father (a Jew from Poland) a”h told me that he did not wear a Tallit until his wedding, the Rav’s opinion and the Mishnah Berurah’s hearty concurrence with the Rav’s approach caused me to wonder as to whether I should continue my family tradition.  When I asked Rav Soloveitchik as to whether I should follow his opinion or my family practice, his response was immediate and resolute:  One should honor his family Minhag (custom) regarding this matter. 

This taught me the great importance of honoring family Minhagim, especially since the basis for refraining from wearing Tallit until the wedding is not particularly compelling, as noted by the Mishnah Berurah (17:10, who argues “why should one refrain from the Mitzvah of Tzitzit until marriage?”).  Rav Soloveitchik made a similar comment at a conference of the Rabbinical Council of America, that he honors his family custom to refrain from wearing Tefillin on Chol HaMoed even though he believes the more compelling approach would be to wear the Tefillin but not recite the Berachah (since it is an unresolved dispute among the Rishonim). 

We should clarify that the Rav did not always endorse following debatable family Minhagim.  One example in his view was the practice of some men to wear a “double daled” knot on their Tefillin Shel Rosh (cited in Rav Hershel Schachter’s Nefesh HaRav pp.105-106; see, though, Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 9:9 who presents a defense of this practice).  Rabbinical guidance is often necessary to evaluate as to whether one should maintain a controversial family custom. 

A Question from a Giyoret (female convert) – the Moral Infrastructure of Judaism

People who heard that I was serving as one of Rav Soloveitchik’s assistants would ask me to present their questions to the Rav.  A young female convert requested that I ask the Rav as to how she should relate to her biological parents (who did not convert).  Her concern stems from the Gemara (Yevamot 62a) that compares a convert to a newborn and thus all prior biological relationships are severed. 

Rav Soloveitchik responded that even though technically speaking the Halacha of Kibbud Av VaEim (honoring parents) does not apply to her parents, nonetheless there is an ethical obligation to honor her parents. The Rav explained that just as Hashem shows kindness to all human beings so too we must be kind to all of humanity, basing his position on Rambam (Hilchot Melachim 10:12) which states that the obligation to support poor Nochrim emerges from Tehillim’s (145:9) description of Hashem as “having pity on all of His creations.”  Similarly, though noting that there are those who disagree, he felt that a convert maintain an appropriate relationship with his/her parents as an expression of our obligation to imitate Hashem (Shabbat 130b) and show kindness to all.  I should clarify, however, that this matter is often quite delicate and complicated.  Hence, competent and sensitive rabbinic guidance is needed to help navigate this potentially challenging issue. 

Teaching Youngsters who Attend Conservative Synagogues

In 1985 I began teaching at a Sunday Torah learning high school program together with an entirely Orthodox staff.  The program was housed in a Conservative temple in Morris County, New Jersey and almost all the students were members of Conservative congregations located in the surrounding area.  An older relative of mine criticized my teaching at that school, arguing that I was preparing the next generation of leaders for the Conservative movement.

I sought Rav Soloveitchik’s guidance regarding this matter.  The Rav’s reply was immediate and resolute – one must teach Torah to all Jews.  Once again, I must clarify that teaching in such an institution often is fraught with Halachic complications and proper advice from appropriate Rabbanim must be sought. 

Purchasing a German-made Automobile

A relative of mine was fond of German-made cars and asked me to seek the guidance of the Rav regarding the propriety of such a purchase.  The Rav told me that he was conflicted about this issue.  On the one hand, he noted that the Torah commands us to destroy Amalek and its property (Devarim 25:19 and Rashi ad. loc.); he famously considers the Nazis as Amalek, due to their baseless hatred of the Jewish People.  Rav Shalom Carmy even told me that the Rav instructed American soldiers stationed in Europe after World War II to avoid patronizing German stores on the basis of this Pasuk.  On the other hand, Rav Soloveitchik observed that the Torah states (Devarim 24:16) that children should not be punished due to the sins of their parents. In practice, the Rav believed that since the matter is unclear, the decision is left to each individual depending “on his moral sensitivities.” 

A Kohein Attending Medical School

A seventeen year old young man requested that I ask the Rav if his being a Kohein precluded his enrolling in medical school.  The Rav very sternly forbade it, and was even very annoyed at me for merely asking this question.  The young man heeded the Rav’s ruling and went on to be quite successful in business. 

Knowing a Rav’s Limits – Responding to a Question from Eretz Yisrael

The Rav received large numbers of letters of inquiry to which his assistants helped him write responses.  In one case, a sensitive question was submitted by a resident of Eretz Yisrael.  Rav Soloveitchik refused to answer the question, emphatically noting that it is appropriate that the question should be directed instead to Rabbanim who live in Eretz Yisrael.  I surmise that the reason for this approach is that one cannot rule from afar as one is unaware of the environment, practices, and concerns of that area, all of which impact the decision rendered by the Posek (Halachic decisor).  Interestingly, a few years later I posed a highly sensitive question to the Rav’s disciple and son-in-law, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein (who lives in Israel), and he told me that only a Rav who actually lives in the United States is capable of rendering an appropriate decision on that issue. 

Teaching Torah to a Nochri

A Nochri professor at Yeshiva University blessed with an exceptionally fine ethical personality and very positive disposition to Torah and the Jewish People asked me to sit next to him during a public lecture on a matter of Torah Hashkafah (worldview) delivered by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein and translate the Torah terminology he employed.  I asked Rav Soloveitchik if it was permissible for me to do so in light of the prohibition to teach Torah to a Nochri. 

The Rav responded that I was permitted to facilitate the professor’s understanding of Rav Lichtenstein’s presentation since “it enhanced the prestige of the Jewish People.”  The Rav understood that this is a rabbinic prohibition instituted in an attempt to prevent Torah falling into the hands of those who would use the information to defame our People.  Interestingly, Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg adopts a somewhat similar approach in his Teshuvot Seridei Eish (2:90).  Rav Soloveitchik told me on a separate occasion of his affinity for Rav Weinberg’s rulings.  Rav Carmy informed me later that the Rav and Rav Weinberg developed a close relationship during the years Rav Soloveitchik studied in Berlin, where Rav Weinberg headed the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary.  As we noted regarding other issues, the prohibition to teach Torah to Nochrim is a highly sensitive area which often requires proper guidance from a Rav. 

Responding to another’s Greetings

The Gemara (Berachot 6b) condemns those who do not respond to another’s greetings as a Gazlan (brazen thief).  I asked the Rav why the Gemara employed such harsh language.  He explained that every individual is owed respect, although the quality of the greeting obviously varies depending on the depth one’s relationship with that individual.  When one withholds a proper response to another’s greeting, he is guilty of withholding something that he owes that person. 

Nusach Acheed

Rav Shlomo Goren during his service as the chief rabbi of the Israel Defense Forces introduced a singular prayer text that would combine Ashkenazic and Sephardic practices (Nusach Acheed) so that the soldiers of the varying communities would be able to pray together using one liturgy.  Rav Goren thought this would serve to unify the various segments of the Jewish community.  Rav Soloveitchik told me that he strongly objects to this effort since “the beauty of Tefillah lies in its versatility” and that each community expresses themselves in a different manner to the Ribbono Shel Olam (see Teshuvot Yechave Da’at 3:6, where Rav Ovadia Yosef also objects to Nusach Acheed).  

Encouragement to Enter the Field of Torah Education

Those who are considering entering the Rabbinate and/or Torah education often deliberate as to whether the field is right for them.  I shared my career plans with the Rav and he told me that I should enter the field because “you are [intellectually] curious and have a sense of involvement”.  These words should serve as a guiding light to those contemplating entering this holy life’s work.

Conclusion

How privileged are those who had the opportunity to engage in conversation with the Rav and benefit from his great wisdom, piety, and spirituality.  Although the window of this opportunity has sadly closed, the Jewish community is blessed with many of the Rav’s students who reflect their Rebbe’s teachings as the moon reflects the light of the sun (see Bava Batra 75a).  Moreover, the Rav has left a legacy of numerous manuscripts, so many of which have been published since his departure from this world and allow us to continue to learn from a role model of Torah greatness whose words remain astonishingly fresh, decades after he wrote them.  Our challenge is to seize the opportunity to study these works and grow in our relationship with Hashem, our ethics, dedication to the Jewish People, and the Torah’s commands and values. 

More Comments from Dr. Haym Soloveitchik

"My father never wrote about secular education," which he says is unfortunate, because as he says the Modern Orthodox world lacks a stated ideology. Criticizing the Modern Orthodox world for this he said, "But if you don't feel it's an essential necessity for the shaping of your personality it's difficult to be passionate about it." 1:33:02 He said that the German Orthodox didn't know Torah, but they had a plan for being a Torah Jew.

His father joined the Agudah at the request of his friend Rabbi Elizer Silver, yet "He subsequently found that the Agudah is not an answer to anything. They were opposed. That's not a position."  1:28:17

"My father was a firm believer, and others try to change it, in secular education. There's no question about that. They may try to say my father didn't really believe in it. One professor in Yale, a chemist, asked me "What about his escapade in Berlin?" I said, "Sammy, Berlin was not an escapade. If you think it's an escapade, then you are as stupid in these matters as you are smart in matters of Chemistry." 1:26:48

"Haym Soloveitchik: How Modernity Changed Our Relationship to God," 18Forty

YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8G8JtPOEF0

The Complexity of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik and the Problem of Fundamentalism

 

My father was not a Zionist

"One thing, my father was not a Zionist despite what the Mizrachi may say. They have The Rav Speaks, c'v'yochel, which is a story in itself. If you are talking about Cultural Zionism, he thought it was ridiculous. The Torah was given in Chutzeh l'Aretz, the Babli was in Chutzeh l'Aretz, all the Rishonim were in Chutzeh l'Aretz. What are you talking about? If you are talking about the political framework, which existed in a shtetl, being a minority, in an alien society, obviously had to change. And you needed a state.  Jews needed a state. That's a political statement. From the point of view of the need of a state that will always be open to Jews (that) was perfectly clear to him. But in terms of cultural Zionism, he thought it was beneath contempt. I can only say I was not brought up in a Zionist home.  Ahavas Ha'Aretz is one thing. Zionism is something else." 

Dr. Haym Soloveitchik, "Haym Soloveitchik: How Modernity Changed Our Relationship to God," 18Forty, 1:09:43-1:10:37

Youtube; 1:28:25-1:29:41