Back Row Of The 'Beis: Rethinking Volozhin

February 23, 2005

Rethinking Volozhin

I was, in the end, very happy that I chose to attend Gil Perl's lecture on yeshivish intellectual open-mindedness in the early 19th century. He spoke passionately, convincingly, and was fun and interesting to listen to -- if his students don't realize how lucky they are, well, it's their loss. Without going through all of the details, here's a quick rundown of his major points:

The early 19th century is characterized by many Rabbinical leader types -- many of them within a few degrees of seperation from the GRA -- who expressed an interest in midrash. In fact, most of the guys on the side of the standard Midrash Rabba were from this period. Perl introduced them to us, which was nice because, like most of you, I had no idea who they were beforehand. It also explains why so many commentaries on the Haggadah were written in this time period -- it's basically all midrash.
The Yeshivot that we think of when we think about Lithuanian Jewry -- Volozhin, Mir, etc. -- did not achieve their dominance until the latter half of the 19th century. Instead, we have this era of midrashic interest.
These midrash people were, for the most part, remarkably open-minded. Perl showed us some examples of commentaries using contemporary geography, scientific journals, English sources, and more. Many of the commentators were not past referencing Mendelssohn's philosophic writings (Perl showed how one such reference was neatly deleted in a later printing in Pressburg).
According to Perl, the Netziv himself was part of this circle. He consistently quoted Azarya de 'Rossi's Me'or Anayim, which was put in cherem by such luminaries as the Maharal. Netziv quotes him often when talking about Chazal and Science, how to read midrashim, and more -- despite the fact that these are the very topics that got the book put in cherem in the first place! In one place, he quotes de Rossi on a topic where such 'kosher' sources as the Rambam say the same thing in eminently quotable language. He also quotes Mendelssohn and other famous maskilim.
As the haskalah caught on, religious Jews seem to have become more defensive, hiding behind gemara/halakha on one hand and behind rabbinic infallibility and a complete rejection of outside sources on the other.
The Netziv never published his commentary on Sifra/Sifrei (where the controversial stuff is, for the most part) in his lifetime. Indeed, many maskilim made their way to Volozhin only to be disappointed in his complete avoidance of these sorts of topics and issues.
Some of the Netziv's students, such as R. Reines and R. Kook, seem to be a bit of the legacy of this older, open-minded school. In fact, we might even trace back The Rav (TM) to this movement.

Posted by Avraham at February 23, 2005 08:34 PM

Comments

Could you please supply some Maareh Mekomos where the Netziv quotes De Rossi, Mendelssohn, or other famous maskilim? Thanx.

Posted by: at February 23, 2005 10:49 PM

Gil Perl is amazing.

Posted by: at February 24, 2005 02:12 AM

His students really do admire him (I'm speaking from my own personal experince here). One could easily see this, as a good 20-30 people in the audience were students of his from either this semester or semesters past.

Posted by: J at February 24, 2005 02:39 AM

I'll post some of the 'juicy' sources sometime tonight or tomorrow, when I can get ahold of my notes and the source packet.

Posted by: Avraham Bronstein at February 24, 2005 09:54 AM

Hey, I don't mean to be difficult here, but this is the first time I ever even hear of Gil Pearl. but (1) What, really, is the point of such a lecture? (2) I don't believe for a second that the Netziv read the works of Mendelsohn and other maskilim, and that Torah Jews "hid" behing learning, so to speak, to avoid any contentious debates. That's baloney. The Netziv is known to have said he learned 16 hours a day, every day, for 25 years. He was a kadosh and a tahor. He did not read kefira. And It is a major chutzpa to deem Torah learning as some kind of "hiding" technique. Torah is the ikkar. There can only be one ikkar. IT IS NOT A MATTER OF HIDING!!!
It does not make any sense to say that maskilim wanted to go to Volozhin, period. They did not care about Torah.
Finally, I have the Netziv's pirush on the Sifra, it is published. I have yet to find anything he wrote that quoted kofrim.
But to return to the first point, what on Earth is the point of these "issues?" It seems so frivolous. I understand if you want to explain pshat in a Gemara, but to view history so as to shtup one's perspective unto Judaism is downright silly. Those individuals who were a just degrees away from the GRA (I don't even know what that MEANS!!! Even R' Akiva Eiger and R' Chaim Volozhiner considered themselves whole worlds away) quoted from journals. Yay. So what? They still devoted themselves to learning Torah, understanding it, and fulfilled every prat of halacha. They were awesome, awesome talmidei chachamim--isn't that the most important thing? Even if they did read journals--and I really don't believe the vast majority did--this should be of no consequence to those who are not absolute bekim in Shas. The Rav was a baki. He could view things according to the Torah. But to grow, it is essential that we do what is important, an ordinary yutz should stick with Torah.

Posted by: Dovid at February 24, 2005 10:46 AM

RHS once mentione that none other than the Chafetz Chaim was not enamored with some of the Netziv's comments on Chumash because they smacked of psychological interpretations. For a classic instance,look at how the Netziv describes the initial meeting between Yitzhak and Rivka, which the Netziv claims was the bais for a communications gap that caused Rivkah to tell Yaakov do everything , etc. Look also at the Orwellian analysis of the Tower of Bable- enforced intellectual conformity. OTOH, one of the most neglected and seminally important understanding of TSBP is in the Netziv's Kidmas HaEmek to HaEmek Shailta.

Posted by: Steve Brizel at February 24, 2005 06:07 PM

Also, I've heard (and Prof. Perl mentioned this as well) that some contemporary yeshivas don't like Ha'ameq Davar since there's "no mesorah" for some of what he says...

Posted by: Avraham Bronstein at February 24, 2005 07:05 PM

Thanx for the sources.

Is De Rossi mentioned in Haamek DAVAR at all?

Posted by: yitzi777@ at February 24, 2005 07:30 PM

Is the lecture and the Mareh Mkomos the same as the article in the latest TuM Journal?

Posted by: Steve Brizel at February 25, 2005 10:40 AM

>>In fact, most of the guys on the side of the standard Midrash Rabba were from this period.

Umm -- "GUYS"?? A little kavod HaTorah please.

Posted by: at February 25, 2005 11:57 AM