Published several weeks ago, Rabbi Hillel Goldberg, Executive Editor of both the Intermountain Jewish News and of Tradition, has written a 'Review Essay' ("Discontinuities: The Case of Saul Lieberman," reviewing Elijah J. Schochet and Solomon Spiro's Saul Lieberman: The Man and His Work), in Tradition 40:3 (Fall 2007): 69-75. A PDF of this article is only available to subscribers to TraditionOnline and/or members of the Rabbinical Council of America.
While the aim of a "Review Essay" is usually focused on broadening the perspective of a particular topic with the author making use of the most recent contributions from within the extant scholarly literature, "Discontinuities: The Case of Saul Lieberman" lacks any such focus.
For additional sources about Prof. Saul Lieberman that would likely have enriched Rabbi Goldberg's perspective on Prof. Lieberman, the interested reader is pointed towards Marc B. Shapiro's Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox (University of Scranton, 2006) -- cited in three of the five footnotes, though not included as part of Rabbi Goldberg's 'Review Essay' -- as well as Rabbi Goldberg's previously published discussions about the JTS fire, which recently appeared in a letter responding to Rabbi Irving "Yitz" Greenberg in The Commentator (5/16/05) [link], as well as in Rabbi Goldberg's subsequent article-length perspective, "The Library Fire at JTS," published in The Commentator (8/31/05) [link]. Citations to both of these articles are surprisingly missing from Rabbi Goldberg's "Discontinuities: The Case of Saul Lieberman."
Lastly, following the publication of Rabbi Goldberg's earlier articles in The Commentator (see here and here), one scholar emailed me with his following thoughts:
While the aim of a "Review Essay" is usually focused on broadening the perspective of a particular topic with the author making use of the most recent contributions from within the extant scholarly literature, "Discontinuities: The Case of Saul Lieberman" lacks any such focus.
For additional sources about Prof. Saul Lieberman that would likely have enriched Rabbi Goldberg's perspective on Prof. Lieberman, the interested reader is pointed towards Marc B. Shapiro's Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox (University of Scranton, 2006) -- cited in three of the five footnotes, though not included as part of Rabbi Goldberg's 'Review Essay' -- as well as Rabbi Goldberg's previously published discussions about the JTS fire, which recently appeared in a letter responding to Rabbi Irving "Yitz" Greenberg in The Commentator (5/16/05) [link], as well as in Rabbi Goldberg's subsequent article-length perspective, "The Library Fire at JTS," published in The Commentator (8/31/05) [link]. Citations to both of these articles are surprisingly missing from Rabbi Goldberg's "Discontinuities: The Case of Saul Lieberman."
Lastly, following the publication of Rabbi Goldberg's earlier articles in The Commentator (see here and here), one scholar emailed me with his following thoughts:
I have but one question (in several stages): What was the Halakhic question? What possible issur is there in saving Judaica, especially sifrei kodesh? Why did R. Aharon Lichtenstein have to ask the Rav? Why did Dr. Belkin have to ask Prof. Lieberman? I am missing something but, to me, it would be an obvious mitzva to save the books.
The questions remain unanswered.
12 comments:
Not only that- didn't anyone think about how Prof. Lieberman would feel being asked such a question? "The institution at which you teach is so sketchy we're not even sure we shoudl save seforim at it. So that's what we think of you. Now let's have a p'sak."
I don't think that Prof. Lieberman would talk that way...
>Not only that- didn't anyone think about how Prof. Lieberman would feel being asked such a question?
From what I understand
- RSL was not the sensitive type
- He knew exactly what Orthodox people felt about JTS
I had the same thought as Nachum. And even if he was not sensitive and knew what the frum said about him, as Fred notes, it still comes across as crass. Perhaps they phrased the question at the time in delicate words, I don't know.
DF
What I didn't understand is why Lieberman's psak would have made a difference. If the books are sifrei minim - the only kind of sifrei kodesh that you should let burn - then Lieberman would presumable be a min as well, and his psak worthless. If not, then why ask at all.
I also think Lieberman had a dandy time telling this story to friends and relations, since it makes everyone involved look quite idiotic (current respect towards the people notwithstanding).
Also, responding to the article, I have to ask why the number of students of a certain person is the sole yardstick by which a movement is judged.
While the MO had serious crises following the death of RJBS, some of them resulting in splits and splinters not healed to this day, and the Religious Zionists in Israel still have to invoke Rav Kook to get anything done, its interesting to see that the death of the great leaders of Conservative Judaism is a mere footnote in their history. Could it be because that movement is bigger than the sum total of its leaders, and has a life of its own?
biqoret, are you even aware of the thousands of books and manuscripts [i.e. kisvei yad] that were destroyed in the JTS fire? Many of which are far from sifrei minim; and if not, then you should have the seforim in your personal library examined, as many of the authors likely spent some time researching their works from within the halls of the the JTS library.
Menachem, as a student in the talmud department of the Hebrew University, and an employee of JTSs Lieberman Institute, I had no intention of seriously suggesting anything there was worthy of burning. Indeed, I am an owner of several genuine sifrei minim (such as the new testament, which is also "גליונים" in the mishnah, שם שם).
I was just pointing out the absurdity of the situation: [Rav] Aharon Lichtenstein asking Professor Lieberman for a psak? on whether you should save burning seforim? while the seforim are actively being burned?
On a personal note, I was supposed to work at the JTS library cataloging fire/water damaged books in the summer of 2005 - and I asked permission from R. Lichtenstein to go. He declined permission, saying that the JTS library would not be going anywhere.
bigoret - I believe that we met at the SOY Seforim Sale in New York.
Menachem - I believe we have not, having never been on the YU campus, nor at the SOY sale. Sorry. :)
What I never understood about this issue is that leaving aside what you thought of RSL in general, this is particular seems like a ridiculous question to ask him. Because he himself had devoted decades of his life to a leadership position in that very institution. What is the liklihood that he would then turn around and rule that the institution was so treif-possul that you couldn't even save its seforim? It sounds like a completely meaningless and irrelevant shaila. If you intended to rely of RSL's psak, you might as well just go ahead without any psak at all. After all, there was a fire burning - no time to waste on silliness.
Thinking about it, and looking at Marc Shapiro's treatment in his book, the fuller context was that Goldberg organized hundreds of students to save the books--but a few objected, or were at least doubtful. It is because of them that he asked Dr Belkin. Dr Belkin's answer to me suggests that he regarded it as a big klutz sheyla. After all, those who objected would never have dreamed of asking RSL a sheyla in the first place.
If we replace RSL with, I don't know, Gerson Cohen, then it's obvious. Dr Belkin told them to ask someone they never would have asked and only then could they know if they should do something that of course they should do. This is not meant to imply that Dr Belkin did not consider RSL actually worthy of answering a sheyla, only that he thought the question was dumb and told them to ask the JTS, so to speak, if the JTS thinks they are permitted to help save seforim.
Just my $.02.
Post a Comment