Appreciating the Legacy of Rav Lichtenstein zt"l

Rav Turetsky

While I was not privileged to learn directly from Rav Lichtenstein, I feel very much influenced by his writings and thought. Following the news of his passing, I delivered a brief shiur focused on those passages of his works I have found to be particularly meaningful and influential. While obviously not comprehensive, these were sources I perceive as helpful towards appreciating Rav Lichtenstein's impact and legacy. 

Note: In the context of the shiur, I also spoke about his personal piety and the critical role of morality and character development within his thought, though I did not include sources on this topic.

Appreciating the Legacy of הג"ר אהרן ליכטנשטיין זצ"ל

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, “On the Assasination of Prime Minister Rabin Z”L

I spoke last week in Teaneck, referring to the funeral of Sara in this week's parsha, Chayei Sara. Avraham spoke of "hesped " and of "bekhi " - of eulogy and weeping. Hesped relates to the past, to an assessment of the individual, his personality and his achievements; bekhi to the sorrow and the pain of the present. There, I tried to do both. Here, for people who are far more familiar with the facts, and where there are others, like Rav Amital, who knew the Prime Minister better, I will leave out the hesped and go straight to the bekhi.

Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, “Statement on the Passing of Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein z”l”

We have lost the finest exponent of Torah ve-chokhmah, Torah and wisdom, in our generation. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, of blessed memory, was a man of giant intellect, equally at home in the literature of the sages and of the world, a master talmudist, a profound exponent of Jewish thought, a deep and subtle thinker who loved English literature and whose spiritual horizons were vast. No less impressive was his stature as a human being, caring and sensitive in all his relationships, one who honoured his fellows even when he disagreed with them, a living role model of Jewish ethics at its best. Through his teaching and personal example he had an immense impact on several generations of students, who became more thoughtful and moral people through their interactions with him. His life was a Kiddush ha-Shem, and in his absence we are an orphaned generation.

Talmud Torah: מסורה vs. חידוש

מבוא לשיעורי הרב אהרן ליכטנשטיין על בבא קמא - דינא דגרמי

את התוכן יראה הלומד וישפוט, ובמידת הצורך, יתקן. ברם, ברצוני להציע, כפתח דבר, כמה מלים אודות הסגנון. בעולם הישיבות, כיום - ובמידה מסויימת, בעולם התורה בכלל - מקובל לכתוב ולפרסם חידושי תורה בניב המכונה "לישנא דרבנן" (בלעז - Rabbinic Hebrew). ניב זה אינו תואם שפה המדוברת באיזה בית מדרש בן-זמננו, בארץ או בגולה...

הספר הזה, כשני קודמיו, נכתב ברוב רובו, בסגנון אחר. הוא נכתב על ידי שומעי השיעורים בשפה הקרובה למדי לזו בה הם נאמרו בעל פה - בשפה הרווחת (lingua franca) של התרבות הישראלית: העברית המודרנית. יתרון שפה זו בכך שהיא מחוברת למרחב החיים של השומעים/קוראים - לה הם חשופים בסביבתם הקרובה והרחוקה, בה הם מכלכלים את ענייניהם, בה הם משוחחים וחולמים, לומדים בחברותא ומשננים, מתקשרים או מתקוטטים עם עמיתים או יריבים. בתור שכזו, מתובלת בה פחות ארמית אך שזורים לא מעט ביטויים השאובים משפות מודרניות זרות, אשר קנו שביתה, למורת רוחם של רבים, ולשביעות רצונם של אחרים, בשפת התרבות הישראלית, ואשר מדללים את מרכיב לשון הקודש אך לא פעם מעלים את מפלס הדיוק...

אני כשלעצמי גדלתי על ברכי "לישנא דרבנן", ואף חונכתי לשימורה. זכורני כיצד שח לי מו"ר ר' יצחק הוטנר זצ"ל, אשר חונן ברף רגישות גבוה ביותר לנימי סגנון, אודות מקרי דרדקי בלובלין אשר סילק אותו ה"חוזה" מפני שהפסיק לשנן עם זאטוטיו "ואני בבואי מפדן וכו' " לפי הניגון המסורתי. עם זאת, בתוך עמי אנכי יושב ואני ער להתפתחויות מסויימות שניתן אולי להאט אך שלא כל כך ניתן, ואולי אף לא כל כך רצוי, לבלום לחלוטין. בעולם התורה - בעולם האקדמי, אשר המרחק הקיומי וחוסר המחוייבות המשודרים על ידי רבים מכותביו וכתביו ודאי לא מקובלים עלי, אינני דן כאן - התחוללה תזוזה מסויימת על ידי הרב ש.י. זוין זצ"ל, עוד בראשית קום המדינה, הן בספריו והן על ידי הכיוון שקבע ל"אנציקלופדיה התלמודית". שניהם היו מיועדים לציבור הרחב ("המועדים בהלכה" הינו אסופת מאמרים שלראשונה ראו אור בעיתונות, ובכרך הראשון של האנציקלופדיה, אשר על כתיבתו ועריכתו פיקד הרב זוין אישית נכתבו מאמרים קצרים, עבור "בעלי-בתים"), וזה ודאי השפיע על צביונם. אך תהיה העילה מה שלא תהיה, ברור שמשם ואילך התופעה התרחבה, ואף תפסה תאוצה בשנים האחרונות בשטף הספרים המונוגרפיים, הבאים להציג בפני הציבור תחום פלוני או אלמוני ב"הלכה". ואם באתי להתייחס לדוגמה הקרובה לבית, כל המעיין בחידושי תורה שפירסם מו"ח הרב זצ"ל בראשית דרכו יעמוד על השוני הסגנוני שבינם לבין כרכי "שיעורים לזכר אבא מארי ז"ל", למרות העובדה שללא ספק הניב הבסיסי, והוא הקפיד על כך, היה "לישנא דרבנן"...

ובכן, אשר לגבי, אני אמנם נוהג להציע חידושי תורה - בכתב, אם כי לא כל כך בשיעורים בעל פה - המיועדים לציבור בני תורה (צביון קהל היעד והתקשורת עמו הינה, כמובן, קריטית) בלשון המסורתית. עם זאת, אני מודע לכך כי משתרבבים בדברי מרכיבי צורה ומינוח, היונקים מן ההווי המודרני, אשר מן הסתם אינם ערבים לכל אוזן; אלא שכאמור, התשתית וחוט השידרה הינם הניב הרווח מקדמת דנא...

אף על פי כן, משיזמו כמה תלמידים, אשר נדבה רוחם אותם, להוציא חלק משיעורי לאור, לא מצאתי לנכון לכפות עליהם כתיבה שמבחינתם אינה תמה, שאינם שלמים עימה ואינם שוחים בה בטבעיות. ראשית, מפני שלנגיסה במיטב הניב המסורתי יש אמנם מחיר אך גם תמורה - בחדות, בבהירות, ובדיוק; ברם, בעיקר, שנית, מפני שמעבר להגינות המתבקשת כלפי המתנדבים לשאת בעול המלאכה, יש יתרון עצום לכתיבה בשפה שאדם שולט בה, לעומק ובהיקף.

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, “The Dilemma of Shemitta Today”

It appears that the dilemma of which we have spoken has no remedy that puts our minds completely at ease.  From one perspective, looking through a halakhic lens, relying on the heter mekhira clearly raises serious issues.  Moreover, we are called upon to lend support to the sale of portions of Eretz Yisrael to the gentiles. Clearly, those who most vehemently battle on behalf of the heter would be the first to climb over barricades and declare a holy war were the sale to be actually effected.  Yet, the overwhelming majority of Am Yisrael relies on the heter, and its rejection could lead to a sense of alienation and superiority.  In effect, every shemitta I feel myself standing between hammer and anvil, and it is clear to me that the final decision must be a complex one, incorporating balances in both directions.  Personally, I cannot rely on the heter because of the halakhic and fundamental problems it raises.  Yet, at the same time, I carefully avoid a sense of superiority over those who do rely on the heter; quite simply, in my own judgment I do not see a way to rely on it.

The decision at the institutional level is far easier: we cannot possibly allow the yeshiva’s kitchen to rely on the heter, thereby creating a situation where some of the students and faculty cannot eat in our dining room.  True, we could have suggested separating those who rely on the heter and those who do not, but partisanship in the yeshiva is unacceptable and would be a grave error; one that could potentially lead to a social and moral catastrophe.  We therefore have no choice but to avoid relying on the heter altogether.  We will, however, make every effort to rely on it whenever possible [i.e., in cases where there is no option other than heter mechira or imported produce, and there is no issur sefichin involved]…

At very least, however, we must sense the pain, just as Hillel felt the pain in his day.  With no alternative, we will use the various heterim and means of circumvention, and we will bow our heads in humble submission to reality.  But let us not resign ourselves to it.  Let us admit to our failure and feel genuine distress, hoping that the Almighty will make good our loss.

Eretz Yisrael

     Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, “Diaspora Religious Zionism: Some Current Reflections”

In the course of my initial visit to Israel, during the summer of 1962, I went to visit mori verabbi, Rav Y. Hutner zt”l, who, prior to his aliya, often spent the summer at Pension Reich in Jerusalem. After reproaching me gently for having left my wife in the United States אזא כתובה האסטו געשריבען?) ), he began to question me regarding my impressions – particularly, about what had struck my notice especially.

As, at that stage, I had focused upon the Torah world in Israel, I noted a number of phenomena which had struck me favorably, as compared to the American scene: widespread popular talmud Torah, the interaction of the Torah and general communities in the implementation of Hoshen Mishpat etc. Every reply was rebutted with the comment that its subject could have been found in Eastern Europe as well, and so was neither endemic nor unique to Eretz Israel. When he sensed that I had exhausted my material, he pressed on, inquiring as to what indeed was special about my visit, and, when it became clear that I could, at best, only respond feebly, the Rosh Yeshiva opened with a volley of sources and dicta – the description of Eretz Israel as ארץ אשר ה' א־להיך דרש אתה (a land that Hashem your God cares for), or as that to which Moshe and Aharon had been barred access, which was now open to us – ( – דוכתא דמשה ואהרן לא זכו לה (כתובות קיב all trumpeting forth the sacral, metaphysical, and historical unique- ness of the land and all causing me to realize, in a flash, that I had missed the boat entirely. As he railed on, as perhaps only he could, against tourists he had met on the plane, acting and talking as if they were en route to vacation in California, the sense of failure cut deeper and deeper. I walked out into the Beit Hakerem evening air like a beaten dog. But I knew I had been beaten justly; and today, almost forty-five years later, I remain deeply grateful to the Rosh Yeshiva for opening my eyes and for opening my heart.

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, “The Ideology of Hesder”

Properly understood, hesder poses more of a challenge than an opportunity; and in order to perceive it at its best we need to focus upon difficulty and even tension rather than upon convenience.  Optimally, hesder does not merely provide a religious cocoon for young men fearful of being contaminated by the potentially secularizing influences of general army life - although it incidentally serves this need as well.  Hesder at its finest seeks to attract and develop bnei torah who are profoundly motivated by the desire to become serious talmidei hachamim but who concurrently feel morally and religiously bound to help defend their people and their country; who, given the historical exigencies of their time and place, regard this dual commitment as both a privilege and a duty; who, in comparison with their non-hesder confreres love not (to paraphrase Byron's Childe Harold) Torah less but Israel more.  It provides a context within which students can focus upon enhancing their personal spiritual and intellectual growth while yet heeding the call to public service, and it thus enables them to maintain an integrated Jewish existence

Ambitious Modern Orthodoxy

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, “Centrist Orthodoxy: A Spiritual Accounting” By His Light 

It is precisely here, I am afraid, that our cheshbon ha-nefesh begins. How much of our Centrism indeed derives from dialectical tension, and how much from tepid indifference? Is our commitment to talmud Torah truly as deep as that of the Right, but only modified in practice by the need to pursue other values? Do our students devote as much time and effort to talmud Torah, minus only that needed to acquire culture or build a state? Comparisons aside, let us deal with specific educational issues: What has all the time wasted on television, the inordinate vacations, a system of religious public schools in Israel which shuts down at one or two in the afternoon, to do with culture or Zionism?

Cannot one acquire both, in schools geared to the hilt for maximal Torah achievement? On the contrary, success in talmud Torah on the part of those who maintain a multiple vision requires greater tenacity, more devotion and more diligence, than among devotees of the monochromatic, who speak, in a phrase much beloved by the Right, of producing only shemen zayit zakh, the purest olive oil. But does that exist?

The children in Centrist summer camps today do not waste away their summers because they are busy mastering Bach or Euclid. They generally abstain from Torah study because their parents, or the community out of which they spring, do not consider talmud Torah, perhaps Judaism in general, as that important. So long as this is the case, we are indeed in serious trouble. The challenge which confronts us is how to build a community which is passionately committed to Torah, but understands the need for gereira. So far, this has proven to be a difficult and elusive task.

In part, it is the fault of the community; it is less committed, less involved, less engaged. But, we are here at a moment of cheshbon ha-nefesh: Is it only that? Are the community’s leaders and educators blameless? A man who is a near and dear friend of mine, a maggid shiur in a certain yeshiva, once asked me: “How can a student in my yeshiva have any respect for the rosh yeshiva, how can he have any commitment to Torah, if every time he walks into the rosh yeshiva’s office, he finds him not bent over a Gemara, but reading The New York Times?”

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein. “Mitzva: A Life of Command,” By His Light

Now, to live the existence of a metzuveh, of one who is called and commanded, involves to some extent the subjugation of one’s inclinations and desires.  A metzuveh leads a theocentric rather than an anthropocentric life.  He is guided by God’s will, not by his own likes and preferences.  Even within the realm of avodat Hashem proper, one needs to beware of imposing his own inclinations excessively.  If you are commanded, you do not pick and choose among commands - that would be an anthropocentric life, placing yourself in the center and building everything around yourself.  “Va-yetzav Hashem Elokim al ha-adam” means, first and foremost, that God’s will is at the center; your will may be factored in, but only secondarily.