Dear Editor, In the last issue of Commentator, Mr. Earl Klein decries the attempts of the administration to emulate the European Yeshivoth in the development of Yeshiva University, rather than comparing it with American universities. He bemoans the fact that while Yeshiva is “a far improvement” over the European Yeshivoth, it “still differs from the American college or university.” It is understood that such notions are directly contradictory to the ideals of this institution as set down by its founder and by its present President. And when such remarks are printed in the official organ of the student body, they warrant immediate refutation. The public must know that Mr. Klein’s views are not necessarily shared by the student body of Yeshiva. Mr. Klein’s proposed system of extra-curricular activities, including varsity shows, would necessitate the elimination of that little but sorely needed “extra time” put into the Talmud studies at night and other free time. Mr. Klein evidently disregards lamdanus as a prerequisite to ordination as a rabbi. I vigorously oppose Mr. Klein’s ideas because I sense the imminent danger in his attempts to reduce the status of Yeshiva to that of an advanced “Talmud Torah,” with the Yeshiva department becoming a neglected second to the College. This plea for the extirpation of the Yeshiva spirit and the institution – in its stead, the institution of the spirit of the typical American college – is both harmful and contrary to the basic precepts of Torah-true Judaism in general, and the guiding spirit of this institution in particular. It attacks the foundation of Yeshiva University because it upsets the equilibrium necessary to effect the synthesis upon which is built the spiritual structure of Yeshiva. One in the position of Mr. Klein should know that the leaders of a religion and nation cannot be built by a heterogeneous mixture of Latin, basketball, and varsity shows, with a dash, here and there, of the teachings of the basic doctrine…

מוצא בילקוט שזכות בידי בני קרח, שבשעה שהיו יושבין אצל קורח אביהם רואין את משה וכובשין פניהן בקרקע, אמרו אב נעמוד בפני מ״ר נוהגין בציון באבינו וכבר נצטוינו על כיבוד או״א, ואם לא נעמד כבר כתיב מפני שיבה תקום, מותר שנעמד מפני משה רבינו אע״פ שאנו נוהגין בציון באבינו. ע״כ, ולכאורה לפי״ז צריך תלמיד זה להזניח מרות הוריו וללמד כאוות נפשו. אבל באמת רק בבני קרח כן בשם הדין נותן לקום בפני משה כי כבוד או״א הוא רק בעושה מעשה עמיו, כמבואר בכמה מקומות בבש״ס, וכאשר

A theoretical discourse on educational motivation in Judaism and Jewish literature must be understood not as a pedagogic problem for children but as a serious issue for adults. It revolves around the concept of Torah lishmah (T"L) – Torah study for its own sake. To such a distinguished assembly, I need not elaborate on the virtue of T"L. The sixth chapter of Pirkei Avot is a poetic tribute to it, and countless sources throughout our Talmudic, ethical, and devotional literature extol its greatness. Yet while its significance is beyond dispute, its definition remains contested – and that definition is crucial to this conference's theme, “Beyond the Four Walls.” Motivation lies beyond school or home, deep within soul and psyche. The Talmud says of Torah, “it is not across the sea,” but also “not in heaven.” There was never unanimity on the meaning of T"L – indeed, it was a key point of contention between the early Hasidim and Mitnagdim. Interestingly, definitions of T"L fall into three categories corresponding to Saadia Gaon’s classic division of personality – will, emotion, and intellect – which echoes Plato’s triadic soul structure and reappears in thinkers like Paul Tillich. First is the pragmatic view, expressed by the Tosafists and others, including R. Elijah de Vidas, that Torah should be studied to improve one’s behavior. Second is the devotional view, rooted in Lurianic Kabbalah and Hasidism, that Torah is a means to cleave to God – Torah as religious experience. Third is the intellectual view, advanced by R. Hayyim of Volozhin in Nefesh HaHayyim, that the motivation should be the pursuit of knowledge itself. We shall not adjudicate between these views; all are authentically Jewish. The challenge is that all three are largely irrelevant in our cultural context. America may be pragmatic, but not in the sense of na’aseh ve-nishma – a desire to behave like a Jew cannot be taken for granted. The devotional path is rarer still, limited to esoteric existentialists w…

ח"כ נכבד, עם גמר הסוגיה הראשונה בלימוד השיעור בתלמוד לחברי הכנסת שהתחלנו לפג למעלה מחודש ימים, הננו רואים רשות לפנות אליכם שנית במכתב זה. בשיעור הדיין ע"י שבעה חברי כנסת מסיעות שונות משתתפים בקביעות, ולא פחות מעשרים חברי כנסת נרשמו בו. השיעור הוא נסיון חינוכי ותרבותי ראשון מסוגו — ניסיון להכרה מחודשת של התלמוד, היצירה הגדולה המשוקעת ביסוד־החיים של העם העברי ודרכיו, ובן להתעמקות־יתר ביסודות המחשבה היהודית. הננו פונים אליכם ובאים להוסיף לכם הזמנה שלישית, שעדיין אינכם משתתפים עמנו בשיעור זה — ייחסתם לסיעה זו או אחרת. התורה והיצירה "קבעת עתים לתורה" אינה נחלת הסקטור הדתי בלבד — היא נחלת העם כולו.השיעור מתקיים בכל יום ד' בשעה 8 בבוקר (בדיוק!) בחדר מס' 44 שבבנין הכנסת.להתראות ליד הגמרא!---ביהמ"ד מוקד הרב קוק, ירושליםP.O.B. 642 ת.ד.טלפונים: 24709טלגרפיה: 26522

רבי לם היקר, זה מזמן שאני חייב לך תשובה למכתבך, בימים קשים למחזה ולי – אתה, אדוני, עמדת לצדי, הבטחתי לך כי ביום המחזה יכניס רווחים אני אקדיש חלק מהם למטרה שתצביע עליה. אך המחזה הפסיד. אני באופן אישי, הפסדתי, בחשבון סופי הפסדתי אלפיים. אני מבקש ממך להאמין לי כי ברגע אין ביכלתי למלא את בקשתך. זה עלול להשתנות. אני מקווה כי זה יהיה בקרוב. אני מכין משהו חדש אשר עלול ליצור מצב חדש. רק קצת סבלנות. עוד משהו: גיסי לשעבר, רבי פיליפ טץ (הוא התגרש מאחותי, הנמצאת ב

The modern age has witnessed a twofold change in the direction of the sevara. However, it appears that this developement, fundamental as it is, has, as its predecessors, bypassed the path of pessak. This is evident in the works of two of the contemporary giants of halachah, R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinski and the Chazon Ish. Though R. Chaim Ozer's work evidences traces of the influence of Volohzin and R. Chaim Brisker, and he was thoroughly adept in the new derech of R. Chaim, his Responsa, Achiexer, avoid its use in practical decision. Rabbi Zevin (1) surmises in fact that the reason R. Chaim, founder of the new learning, avoided hora'ah, was due to his innovative method of study. In discussing this he says, "In practical - hora'ah one cannot burst the bounds. In this field traditional methods of study are fundamental". The sole exception to this "practical guide" seems to have been the Rogotzover, R. Joseph Rosen, who ignored completely halaohic literature after the Rishonim and found all the precedents required for contemporary problems in the Talmud and Rishonim alone. It is a common trait of both R. Chaim and of the Rogotzover that they avoid discussion with acharonim and hardly mention them. Though their systems are similar and both lead away from the mainstream of traditional forms of exposition, the Rogotzover remained in the field of pessak and is one of the most prolific respondents ever. This, in spite of his ignoring the traditional links in the chain of pessak development. There is a kinship between the Rogotzover and the Biur Hagra in that both sought to base the halachah, and even custom, upon the words of Ghazal alone. Neither argue with contemporaries, both seek, each in his own way the basic primary sources alone. Whilst the Rogotzover virtually ignored the Shulchan Aruch, the Gaon showed how, far from being a source of diversion from the Talmudim and Rishonim every one of its statements is contained in Ghazal. The Gaon thus succeeded in preserving the o…

I wish to express profound gratitude to Dr. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Chairman of the Committee, who guided me in the selection of the topic of this dissertation, and whose counsel and criticism are reflected throughout the essay; and to the members of the Sponsoring Committee, whose assistance and encouragement proved invaluable: Dr. Gershon Churgin, Dr. Arthur Hyman, and Dr. Samuel K. Mirsky. Mr. Jacob I. Dienstag was unstinting in offering me direction in the location of many of the sources. I gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the Copenhagen Communal Library which made available to me photostats of unpublished manuscript material used in this dissertation.

The study of Torah has always been accorded high significance in Judaism. The clearest formulation of this principle is given in the Mishnah: The study of Torah is equal to all the other precepts. Even more than merely "an integral part of Jewish piety," Talmud Torah was considered an act performed by God Himself: "The Holy One, blessed be He, The King of Kings of Kings...one third of the day He studies Bible and Mishnah.: Whether Talmud (study) is superior to Maaseh (deed, action) or to prayer,

Before R. Hayyim proceeds to elaborate his own definition of lishmah, he presents a brief criticism of the devotional interpretation of the Hasidim. The popularity of the Hasidic view equating lishmah with their version of devekut can be gauged by R. Hayyim's casual remark that this theory is held by "most of the world." The first evidence R. Hayyim offers in disputing the Hasidic thesis is a passage in Midrash Tehillim on the verse, "let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Thy sight, O. Lord."

Dear Rabbi Lamm, I assume you still remember me somewhat. Both of us have acquired new addresses since I was a member of your philosophy classes of 1960-61 and 1961-2. I have a new residential address; you a somewhat new working address. The T.I. has come to be known as Erna Michael College on E.M.C. I hope the new setup proves an aid to you in your endeavors there. As for me, I graduated T.I. in September, 1963, with the degree of B.H.L., attending Revel between then and May 1964. I was none too successful there; my previous course of study has not really prepared me for most of the courses offered on a graduate level, and I was subjected to pressures from the Selective Service and at home which depleted me of the energy needed to do decent work. Fortunately, I got out of the draft as a I-Y; thank G-d I've been out until now, and am past 26. I only pray that I remain lucky in this regard. As for the rest, I got into trouble at home in October, 1964, and with the resultant suspension of tuition payments, I became a נע ונד בארץ. Between February and August, 1965, I sat in Dr. Leon Stitstein's class in "Personalism." I wrote two papers there, which, had I been a student, would have netted me a grade of B plus and A respectively in the two halves of the course. It was sitting there in Dr. Stitstein's class that I got the idea of dabbling in theology. Theology is the main topic of this writing.During the summer of 1966, "Commentary" magazine featured a symposium on the state of Jewish belief. The contents of said symposium appear in the August issue of said magazine. You were one of those who participated in said symposium as was your college, Rabbi Emanauel Rackman. The following is quoted from Dr. Rackman's article: "The most definitive record of G-d's encounters with man is contained in the Pentateuch. Much of it may have been written by people in different times, but at one point in history G-d not only made the people of Israel aware of His immediacy, but caused M…