The Legacy of the Rav zt”l

Sheshet yemei ha-ma'aseh, Morenu ve-Rabbotai. I'd like to begin a little bit talking about what the Rav represented, what he stood for, and then towards the end to discuss a little bit who he was as a person. But before we begin, consider the following. Imagine the following. A group of, a diverse group, comprised of many different people, come visit a spectacular garden. Maybe it's the garden in Buckingham Palace. Queen invites them in to have a tour of the, of the garden. And in the garden, there's a dazzling array of flowers and there are beautifully sculpted trees. However, they're only given a quick glimpse of the flowers. Or maybe, maybe the group isn't even allowed entry into the garden, and they're only given a glimpse from afar, maybe with the benefit of binoculars, but maybe not even with, maybe without the benefit of binoculars. Then factor in that amongst this group, there are some people who are familiar with certain types of flowers. This one is a big expert on roses, and this one's a big expert on tulips, and this one has an affinity for violets. Some of them, perhaps, are partially color blind, totally color blind. And then, after they come out, whether they were actually in the garden, or whether they just saw the garden from afar, so then they're debriefed. And everyone asks them, Nu? So what does, what does the garden in Buckingham Palace look like? So you're gonna get a chaotic set of reports. The descriptions are gonna vary greatly, and it's gonna be very confusing and full of contradictions. In truth, the garden itself is a harmonious, beautiful, dazzling whole, but in terms of the reports of the garden that will filter down to us, they're gonna be, again, very different and divergent and outright contradictory. The Rav, zichrono livracha, his greatness was dazzling. And it was dazzling in a wide array of fields. Already in his youth, in Europe, he was recognized as a gaon hador. He possessed an incredible mastery of philosophy, of Kabbalah. He knew virtually kol chochmah sheba'olam. He drew upon his vast creative knowledge and was a tremendously original ba'al machshava, an orator who was sui generis, one of a kind in his ability to hold audiences spellbound. And in addition, of course, in addition to the shiurim, in addition to the drashos, in addition to the essays that he wrote, he was the architect of an approach to modernity. He guided his community in its encounter with all the modern challenges of the day. His guidance in piskei halacha, just like his shiurim, just like his essays in machshava, were always profound, they were always rooted in immense learning, creativity, and intuition. But most, most, had only a glimpse, and a glimpse from a distance. And again, everyone saw the Rav, not everyone, but oftentimes people saw the Rav, again, with their own bent, their own background. And it's little wonder that there's so much confusion about who he was. Sadly, one has to add to the innocent confusion and misunderstanding, the tendentious misinterpretation. The desire that some have to be תולה עצמם באילן גדול to find justification for their beliefs, for their hashkafos by associating themselves posthumously with the rav, and the result is the current state of confusion about who the rav was. I'd be thrilled if all of you walked away from the first half hour tonight, or however long it will take us, wondering, well, everything you told us was pashutum, everyone knows that. I hope that will be a complaint that everyone will register. Everyone has an inner core, an inner core. What was the rav's inner core? So the answer is that intellectually, philosophically, emotionally, the rav's inner core was he was a baal halacha, a baal halacha. And that's true even axiologically as well. I'd like to explain what I mean by that. My father zikhrono livrakha, in part of his study of Jewish intellectual history, one of the topics which fascinated him was the positions of different gedolei yisrael throughout the generations, the rishonim, the acharonim, in terms of the relationship or interrelationship between the disciplines of study of gemara, the I guess the academic term for it is Talmudism, so the relationship between the study of gemara, the study of philosophy and the study of kabbalah. That which is considered the most important discipline, the most important body of knowledge, right? The rambam famously or infamously, depending upon one's perspective, I think most thought the infamously, that the rambam thought that the highest and supreme supreme body of knowledge was philosophy, was metaphysics. That's what the rambam writes, much to many people's incredulity and consternation in perek dalet of hilkhot yesodei hatorah. And it doesn't always play out the way we would expect. In fact, many of the mekubalim do say that they think that it's chokhmat hanistar, that it's kabbalah which is the highest form of knowledge. That doesn't mean that we should all rush headlong into studying kabbalah. The mekubalim certainly caution us that a person has to be worthy of such an undertaking. It has to be מלא כרסו בשר ויין, a person first has to be a big talmid chacham in nigleh, in the exoteric parts of torah, but many many mekubalim say that the pardes which the gemara in chagigah talks about that rabbi akiva and the others entered, רבי עקיבא נכנס בשלום ויצא בשלום into that orchard is a metaphor for the for the wisdom of kabbalah and that, again, it's not necessarily a field of study that we're all eligible to enter. But again, in theory and in practice for yechidei segulah, for some worthy individuals, that's the highest form of knowledge. It doesn't always line up the way we would expect. The mechaber, for instance, rabbi yosef karo, who clearly clearly was a student and master of kabbalah, so my father zikhrono livrakha said, but if you look carefully the impression you get is that the mechaber thought that axiologically in terms of value it was halakha that reigned supreme. The fact that he knew of, that he studied, that he was a student and a master of kabbalah notwithstanding, but rabbi yosef karo felt that it was the study of halakha which was the supreme body of knowledge. I remember in the last year of my father's life, I told him I had come across a kesef mishneh in hilkhot mamrim. Very interesting kesef mishneh. The gemara in the first perek in masekhet beitzah tells us that there had been a takkanah made that mid'oraita if you have fruit of ma'aser sheni or neta reva'i. neta reva'i is the fruit which the tree produces in its fourth year, it's the first year when the fruit may be eaten. So neta reva'i and ma'aser sheni have the same halakhot, the same kedushah. if you're in Yerushalayim you can't be podeh it, but it can't be eaten outside of Yerushalayim. So the chachamim made a takkana that if you were within a day's walk of Yerushalayim, לעטר את שוקי ירושלים בפירות, that you shouldn't be podeh outside of Yerushalayim, you should bring it to Yerushalayim. Then the Gemara tells us that רבן יוחנן בן זכאי after the Churban, when you couldn't eat it there anymore, so then he was matir this, he overturned this takkana and said, no, you can be podeh it, go back to the original din d'oraisa, as long as you're outside of Yerushalayim, you can be podeh it. So the question is, how could רבן יוחנן בן זכאי overturn a takkana of an earlier Beis Din? The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim that for a later Beis Din to overturn a takkana of an earlier Beis Din, they have to be gadol b'chochma u'v'minyan. And the Gemara says of the shmonim talmidim that Hillel had, that רבן יוחנן בן זכאי was katan shebakulam. So in his own generation, רבן יוחנן בן זכאי, the great רבן יוחנן בן זכאי, in that dor de'ah, in that very special generation in which he lived, so רבן יוחנן בן זכאי was the junior of the talmidim. The gadol shebakulam was Yonasan ben Uziel and the katan shebakulam was רבן יוחנן בן זכאי. So the Kessef Mishneh asks the question. One of the two answers that the Kessef Mishneh suggests is that the others were greater than רבן יוחנן בן זכאי in the other disciplines. The Gemara lists how רבן יוחנן בן זכאי knew everything. He knew everything. He knew sichas malachei hashareis and maaseh bereishis and he knew maaseh merkavah and of course he knew all of Shas, havayos d'Abaye v'Rava. רבן יוחנן בן זכאי knew everything. So the Kessef Mishneh suggests that the others were greater than רבן יוחנן בן זכאי in the other disciplines, but when it came to halacha, so רבן יוחנן בן זכאי was greater than the others. And therefore, for purposes of this mishna in this halacha in Hilchos Mamrim that a Beis Din to overturn what an earlier Beis Din has instituted, has introduced, has to be a greater Beis Din, so רבן יוחנן בן זכאי was considered greater. So that reflected again this answer of the Kessef Mishneh that in terms of supremacy, in terms of supremacy, so it was the study of halacha which the Mechaber considered supreme. Certainly if one were to ask this question about the Rav zichrono l'vracha in terms of the relationship, what relationship did he see between the different mictzo'os of Torah, the different disciplines within Torah, Kabbalah, philosophy, halacha, so there's no question that the Rav attached supreme value to halacha. So in that sense again, axiologically, it was at the core. Biographically, he spent the majority of his life over a Gemara. That's how he spent the majority of his time. Philosophically, one of the Rav's major chiddushim, perhaps his greatest and most important chiddush in the realm of machshava is the notion of a philosophy of halacha which he devoted a lot of energy to explaining and something which is a recurrent theme within his writings, was a recurrent theme within his drashos as well, and that how an authentic, any authentic philosophy of what Jewish religious experience is has to be rooted in halacha. So even philosophically, so halacha was at the core. And emotionally, it was certainly the case. There are a couple of places where the Rav describes it. I'll read one of them to you, just a few words. He is describing Talmud Torah generically, but then he switches specifically to learning Gemara. The study of Torah has a great cathartic impact upon me. It's rooted in the wondrous experience I always have when I open up a Gemara. Somehow when I open up a Gemara either alone or when I'm in company, when I teach others, I have the impression, don't call it hallucination, I have the impression that soft footsteps of somebody invisible who comes in and sits down with me, sometimes looking over my shoulder. The idea is not a mystical idea. The Mishnah in Avos, the Gemara in Berachos says יחיד שיושב ועוסק בתורה שכינה שרויה. We all believe that the Nosein Hatorah, the one who gave us the Torah has never deserted the Torah. And he simply accompanies the Torah wherever the Torah has a rendezvous, an appointment, a date with somebody, he is there. So emotionally also again, and this was the experience again, the Rav's talking about Talmud Torah in general, but he always illustrates it with the experience he has in learning, in learning Gemara. So in terms of what was at the core of the Rav, halacha again at the core in terms of how he spent his life, the majority of his life was spent sitting over a, sitting over an open Gemara. Actually, a lot, axiologically for him it was the, the supreme discipline within, within learning. Philosophically it was at the center of machshava as well and emotionally it, it was the, the most intense experience of his life. Another principle which we need to recognize to understand who he was, to try to figure out what the garden really looked like in, in when we hear all these different reports, is that the Rav's commitment to halacha was something which was absolute and inviolate. Again, reading from the same transcript of of a famous shiur that the Rav gave in 1975, he told the story, a story of a woman, a giyores, who had been mekarev a young man whom she had met. Things evolved, they became engaged to get married. She made him into a baal teshuvah. He goes to the to the cemetery before his wedding to visit the cemetery and discovers he's a Kohen. The question came to the Rav, it was explored, there were no heteirim. So the Rav says, this is the halacha, the Kohen is assur to the giyores. We surrender to the will of the Almighty. And then further on he says, this is why the Rambam says that Talmud Torah is identical to קבלת עול מלכות שמים. Earlier, I'll just read you a few more lines so you can, you can hear his own words. I know, you don't have to tell it to me, בתוך עמי אנכי יושב. I don't live in an ivory tower or in a fool's paradise. I know that modern life is very complex. I know your problems, many of them are passed on to me. We feel and I sometimes feel like you as if we are swimming against the tide. The crowd, the great majority has deserted us and cares for nothing. We are facing an awesome challenge and I am mindful of that. However, if you think that the solution lies in the reformist philosophy or in an extraneous interpretation of halacha, you're badly mistaken. It is self-evident many problems are unsolvable, you can't help it. For instance, the problem of mamzeirim in Eretz Yisrael. You can't help it. All we have is the Jewish nachala, no one can abandon it. It's a pasuk in Chumash לא יבוא ממזר בקהל ה'. If we say to our opponents or to the dissident Jews, this is our stand, they will dislike us, they'll say that we are inflexible, we are ruthless, we are queer, but they will respect us. However, if you try to cooperate with them or if halachic schemes are introduced from without, you won't command love, you won't get their love and you will certainly lose their respect. So halacha was something which was absolute. Another principle to try to characterize the Rav's encounter with the world and by his encounter with the world I mean at least two things first of all his encounter with the world in the sense of his encounter with chochmos ha-olam whether in the form of philosophy or literature or history chochmos ha-olam and also his encounter with contemporary social realities whether it was in the earlier years the abandonment of mechitza in many shuls in later years which is the context of this shiur that I was reading from a transcript of when the question of hafka'as kiddushin of trying to revoke kiddushin was raised so there was a constant constant trait which was always manifest my father zichrono livracha he was speaking about the Rav's approach to chochma but it's equally true in terms of the challenges from social reality the Rav's philosophical and homiletical corpus has no apologetics the Rav wasn't apologetic the Rav didn't feel that he had to apologize to anything the Torah said he didn't feel that he had to try to show how the Torah conformed to any other system there's no attempt to argue and demonstrate the importance of general learning just as there is no attempt to defend or glorify Western culture there's no attempt to demonstrate that traditional Judaism is completely congruent with philosophy or any part of it this truly noteworthy feature is a result of the fact and here comes the key line rabosai that for the Rav there was nothing essentially problematic about the masorah there was nothing problematic about the masorah so he didn't feel compelled to prove that Torah and philosophy or science are compatible whatever the Rav found consistent useful helpful so he drew he drew upon and whatever he found inconsistent with Torah or antithetical to Torah so he discarded he discarded and the same was true in terms of the Rav's encounter with again the challenges of contemporary social reality there was no apologetics again in this same drasha when the Rav was discussing the proposal that had been made it still comes up every every so often to try to create some kind of mechanism whereby kiddushin can be revoked and there will be no need for a get and to pronounce retroactively that the kiddushin were really kiddushei ta'us that they that the kiddushin were consummated upon false pretenses so the suggestion was made to abandon the chazaka which Chazal say that a woman wants to get married even more than a man wants to get married טב למיתב טן דו and the halachos which are predicated in terms of how much a woman is willing to tolerate or accommodate based on that need and desire to get married so the Rav said the following about this and as you as we listen so we we hear that characterization of lack of apologetics let me add something that's very important not only the halachos but also the chazakos which chachmei Chazal have introduced are indestructible let us take for example the chazaka that I was told about the chazaka טב למיתב טן דו מלמיתב ארמלו has absolutely nothing to do with the social and political status of women in antiquity the chazaka is based not upon sociological factors but upon a verse in Bereishis

הרבה ארבה עצבונך והרנך בעצב תלדי בנים ואל אישך תשוקתך והוא ימשל בך

I will greatly multiply your pain and your travail in pain you shall bring forth children your desire shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you it is a metaphysical curse rooted in the feminine personality she suffers incomparably more than the male who is in solitude solitude to the male is not as terrible an experience as horrifying an experience as is solitude to the woman and this will never change this is not a psychological fact it is an existential fact which is due not to the inferior status of the woman but rather to the diff She was burdened by the Almighty after she violated the first law. Nothing apologetic, nothing apologetic. The Rav says that's the the Torah's stand and and the Rav articulates it. The Torah doesn't need any any outside justification, any outside validation. It doesn't have to conform to our modern sensibilities. So there was nothing nothing apologetic even either in the Rav's approach again to Chochmas Ha'Olam or to the the challenges of the day. One last, in addition to the again absolute inviolability of Halacha, the non-apologetic approach, the other the other thing which characterized the the Rav's approach is that in order to offer Torah guidance, in order to apply Torah to real-life situations, so it's critical to have a profound understanding of the question, of the reality. משל למה הדבר דומה. If if you come to a Rav with with a question about the about a drop of milk in in the chicken soup. So you come and you tell him you have this big pot of chicken soup and one little drop of milk falls in. So the Rav tells you, no problem. The chicken soup is fine. Then you come back to him the next week and you tell him it was a small pot of chicken soup and it was a cup of milk that fell in. And now the Rav tells you, it's no good. It's no good and tells you to go kasher the pot and and the so the the Rav is being inconsistent. No, the Rav's not being inconsistent, but the facts change. When the facts on the ground change, so then that will elicit a different different response. There's a a story about the the Chofetz Chaim. The Chofetz Chaim was asked, a maskil once asked the Chofetz Chaim why is it that in in Radin, in his yeshiva they don't teach dikduk. After all dikduk is is a very important discipline. The Gemara says that if a person is קורא קריאת שמע ומדקדק באותיותיה if a person reads Kriat Shema and he knows how to read it properly with all of all of the nuances of dikduk, when it's a a shva na, when it's a shva nach metzananin lo Gehennom that even if this person Rachmana litzlan has to go to Gehennom but the the temperature is is lowered considerably. metzananin lo Gehennom. So a tremendous schar for being able to read Kriat Shema properly. So the maskil says to the Chofetz Chaim, so why don't you teach dikduk? So the Chofetz Chaim says, you're right. He says, but the Gemara also says that kora velo dikdek is still yotze. If you if you don't know the difference between a shva na and a shva nach, is it uvshochbecha or uvshochbecha? Okay, so you're still yotze Kriat Shema. But dikdek velo kora, but if you if you know dikduk but you don't layn Kriat Shema, so then you're not yotze at all. So the Chofetz Chaim said that in in his day when maskilim used dikduk as as a point of entry to then spread their poison. If if the Chofetz Chaim were were alive today in תשס"ז and you asked him whether or not we should teach dikduk, I don't think the Chofetz Chaim would say the the same thing. So a person has to understand what the reality of the situation is in order to apply Torah to to that reality. And if the Chofetz Chaim said it a hundred years ago, but if we had the privilege of asking the Chofetz Chaim this question today and he would answer differently, it doesn't mean the Chofetz Chaim was changing, it doesn't mean the Chofetz Chaim was a reformist. It just means that the Chofetz Chaim in his wisdom recognized that the situation which prevailed a hundred years ago is different. And today, the study of dikduk isn't doesn't doesn't pose a threat or challenge to one's emunah. So with with these in mind let's just review very quickly and again at the outset I I hope I hope everyone walks away with a complaint that everything was devarim peshutim and and was a waste of time. I'd be very gratified with that complaint. I'd like to just review very quickly, just for a few minutes, just what the Rav's position was on some of The Rav of course is well-known that in the mid-1940s, I think it was around 1946, I'm not exactly sure about the date but I think that's when it was, affiliated himself with Mizrachi. Contrary to his prior affiliation with Agudah, so in 1946 the Rav affiliated himself with Mizrachi. The Rav describes, you can read about this in the Chamesh Drashos, this is not necessarily indicative of why he joined Mizrachi but just he said, in terms of where his ahavas Eretz Yisrael came from, he says, he says, "My ahavas Eretz Yisrael was learning with my father the sugyas of yesh kinyan l'akum or ein kinyan l'akum, whether or not if a gentile owns land in Eretz Yisrael, so does the produce that grows there, do you still have to separate trumos u'maasros? קדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה קדשה לעתיד לבוא, was the original kedusha that Yehoshua infused into Eretz Yisrael, did that linger or was that lost when we went into galus? What about the kedushas mikdash? That it was, it was the attachment to these sugyas which implanted within him a love for Eretz Yisrael. Okay, that's just one sort of background on the Rav in Eretz Yisrael in general. In terms of what the Rav's affiliation with Mizrachi represented, in general, I think this was true of any affiliation that the Rav had throughout his lifetime, there are different Gedolim have different approaches on these types of issues. There are some Gedolim who feel that if they can't identify with an organization or a movement down to every last detail, down to every last kotzo shel yud, so then they can't openly, publicly identify with it. And other Gedolim, as long as there's fundamental agreement in terms of the goals of the movement, of the institution, even if they don't agree with every single individual policy, feel that that's the best way to try to further those ends and those goals is to identify, is to affiliate. So the Rav's position was the latter one and that's true all of his affiliations didn't necessarily reflect an endorsement of every single thing Mizrachi did or every single thing that YU ever did. No, the Rav was in fundamental agreement with what the movement, the institution stood for, with what the movement, the institution was accomplishing and because of that he felt that the best way to further these critical goals was to identify, was to affiliate. The Rav didn't subscribe to any type of philosophy of das u'medina, of religion and state or any kind of comparable pairing. The Rav subscribed to Torah. The same way we wouldn't describe ourselves as people who are committed to Torah and to Shabbos. No, we're committed to Torah. Torah says we should keep Shabbos, so we keep Shabbos also. We're not, we wouldn't say that our slogan is Torah and kashrus. No, our slogan is Torah, the Torah says to keep kosher so I look for the OU before I buy it off the supermarket shelf. So the Rav didn't subscribe to some kind of philosophy of das u'medina. No, the Rav subscribed to Torah. The Rav felt, the Rav felt whether it was due to the Rambam's mitzvah of kibush Eretz Yisrael, whether it was due to the historical circumstances after the terrible Holocaust, that the Torah, the Torah endorsed the idea of a Jewish state, but it wasn't some kind of slogan of das u'medina. What about the Rav's stance on women's issues? It's well-known that the Rav unequivocally advocated Talmud Torah on a high level for women. That's certainly the case. What the genesis of that position, the background of that position, the Rav used to describe the crisis of assimilation in Europe between the two World Wars, he used to say that people have a romanticized view. of what the situation was in Europe between the wars because in America things were so terrible, so by comparison things taki were much better in Europe. But that there was an acute crisis of assimilation and the crisis was even greater amongst the the young women than it was the youngsters the young the young men. The Rav felt that the solution to that to that crisis was intensification of chinuch habanos and that's why he advocated again teaching Torah to women on a on a high level. He used to say that the Chofetz Chaim in his day said that now that women are becoming literate, so we have to we have to throw our support behind the Beis Yaakov movement. So the Rav thought, well if they're not only literate, but getting very highly advanced and sophisticated secular educations, so that Torah education has to keep pace with that. This advocacy of of the Rav for for Talmud Torah for women was long before feminism existed. Feminism wasn't on the radar screen. No one had the the the phrase orthodox feminism, it didn't exist. It didn't exist. I it was long before these ideas that the Rav was advocating before before there was even a secular feminist movement in terms of the modern, I'm not talking about the suffrage movement, but in terms of the feminine mystique and in terms of that book, so the Rav anti-dated this. It had nothing to do with feminism. It was the Rav's feeling as to what the challenges of the day, what type of approach to chinuch were required. And and that's what it was. It had nothing to do with any kind of what any kind of of of feminism. As we were reading before, he was very unapologetic and very forceful in in in rejecting any proposal to try to set up a mechanism for hafka'as kiddushin to be able to revoke kiddushin without the the benefit of a of a get. And and he's speaking to those who are thinking about it, he says Ribono Shel Olam, what are you out to destroy all of it? I want to be frank and open. Do you expect to survive as Orthodox rabbis? Do you expect to carry on the masorah under such circumstances? Similarly, he consistently and unequivocally opposed women's tefillah groups. Another one of of the major issues which the Rav addressed was was the question of interfaith dialogue. It it was a position that that he articulated in the 1960s, but it was one that he maintained the rest of his life. He was adamantly opposed to interfaith dialogue and for two reasons he explained. First of all he explained that you can't have a a discussion when when you don't agree on a basic set of of axioms. And and the point of of interfaith dialogue is to come to some kind of agreement. There's nothing to negotiate, there's nothing to nothing to barter. I remember many years ago, many years ago after giving a shiur, so there was a question and answer question and answer period. So a lady raises her hand and and she says she says to me, well this doesn't really relate too directly to the shiur, well that's the prelude to the question so you know you know you're in trouble. So this doesn't relate too directly to the shiur, but I'd like to know. The shiur was about the chukas akum. It was around January 1st or December 25th, so the shiur had been about chukas akum. Fine. She says, I want to know why is it? She says, I'm I'm a conservative Jew. She says, I'll walk into an Orthodox synagogue and and pray there. So how come Orthodox Jews won't walk into a conservative temple and and pray there? So the answer is, the answer is, let's say let's say we're we're having a din torah over a hundred dollars. Okay. Reuven and I are having a din torah over over a hundred dollars. Fine. So if I want, it's my hundred dollars, so if I want, you know I can say, you know what, I forego my claim. I'm moichel you the hundred dollars. It's my hundred dollars, if I want, lema'an hashalom or for whatever reason I want to forego the claim. Like I can do it. But let's say it's not my hundred dollars. Let's say the litigant, the one who's litigating against Reuven is Shimon, so it's not for me to be moichel the hundred dollars. Interfaith dialogue is a liberal conception. It's a liberal conception that if your beliefs are not min hashamayim, if your beliefs are not the Ribbono Shel Olam's, then you can negotiate and I'll modify my belief here and you'll modify your belief there and we'll come el emek hashaveh and then we can agree. But if the Ribbono Shel Olam says this is the truth, there's nothing to negotiate, there's nothing to barter. The Rav also was clearly, clearly concerned with the danger of shmad as a result of interfaith dialogue and it was something that he remained steadfast to, it wasn't any special set of circumstances in the 1960s which generated this stand, it was something that he maintained firmly until the end of his life. In terms of the Rav and secular education, so clearly the Rav valued chochma, there's no question about that. But he also saw that it had a very strong utilitarian and pragmatic purpose. And I think in the public pronouncements, the ones that I've read, I can't say this definitively, when he spoke about the importance of secular education again in a public forum, he emphasized more again, not his own value of the fact that he valued chochma is unquestionable, but even more important was the utilitarian and pragmatic purpose that it served. The Rav felt that you couldn't ghettoize the Jewish community. You couldn't restrict Jews and say be only electricians, be only plumbers, be only construction workers. Jews were going to become doctors, they were going to become lawyers, they were going to go to business school and you had to create a modus vivendi whereby a person could be a scientist, he could be a doctor, he could be a lawyer and at the same time be firmly rooted within Torah. And that's what he saw as the importance of secular education and if you look in the Chumash Drashos when he talks about the invaluable contribution that he sees YU making, he describes it in these terms. Okay, maybe just briefly, just for the last few minutes, just to comment on some impressions of the Rav as a person. I think looking back, I think what stands out the most in retrospect when I look back was the Rav's amazing humility. And the reason that strikes me more than anything else is that the best test for humility, for anava, is when a person is so successful, when it's so natural and so genuine that he doesn't even let you realize that one is witnessing anava. It's so natural, so natural the just the pashtus with which the person acts and the way the person just so easily, easily avoids situations which would call attention to his position or his stature. When a person's humility is so great that the humility is masked is the I think ultimate, ultimate test for anava. You know, if you were listening to the Rav say a shiur, so then you had to have some idea who he was. If you saw him in his personal life, you had no idea who he was. Shabbos after the meal, so he consistently, consistently overruled my mother, he insisted he always cleared off the table. He cleared off the table. There was every Shabbos, that was every Shabbos. So naturally, so naturally. So much so that again you could not recognize the great anava which was being which was being displayed. That's how natural it was. Whether it was a question of if the doorbell rang to go over and open the door himself, to pick up the phone himself, there was no there was no entourage, there was no trappings around him. There was such amazing amazing pashtus. And it was only when only when he would begin talking, so then then you realize that that that he was someone extraordinary. But the way he conducted himself, if he went into a store he waited in line. Even if even if people knew and he he didn't necessarily have to, there was such tremendous pashtus, such tremendous humility. Rav Chaim Volozhiner in Ruach Chaim, in the commentary on Pirkei Avos explains how there's a direct correlation between the messorah—משה קיבל תורה מסיני ומסרה ליהושע יהושע לזקנים—that each of these links in the in the chain of messorah are characterized by their by their humility, by their anava. That משה רבינו קיבל תורה מסיני because Moshe Rabbeinu was עניו מאד מכל האדם אשר על פני האדמה. And that's what you saw very much with with the Rav. Hand in hand with that was his involvement with people's lives, the chesed that he was involved in, never never too busy for the individual. The tzorkei haklal, talmud Torah, never ever—I don't know how, frankly, I'm not sure exactly how it was all compatible, how there was time for everything—but there was always time for yechidim, always time for yechidim, whether it was to talk to them, whether it was for bikur cholim, accompanying the Rav on bikur cholim and nichum aveilim, just just involved in in people's in people's lives. His relationships with his contemporary the gedolim is also something which is sorely sorely misunderstood. Undoubtedly, there were certainly differences of opinion. But the mutual respect that that existed between him, between

רב יעקב קמינצקי זכרונו לברכה, רב משה פיינשטיין זכרונו לברכה,

and all all his contemporaries amongst the the gedolim here in America with whom he had contact contact was something was something very wonderful. I remember at—just just one one memory, I think I mentioned this in a different forum here in Teaneck not that long ago—at my nephew's bris, which was in in Monsey, so at that time Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky had was living in Monsey. So Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky was at the bris, as was the Rav. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky was older but was in in better health at the time. So Rav Yaakov came came over and was standing over the Rav and and took his hand and I think with both his hands to to shake hands and to wish mazel tov and to ask and and to talk, so solicitous and so respectful and so so so concerned. And there was certainly a relationship of chiba and and re'us. I'd like to just conclude on on the same note in which we began in terms of the mashal with the garden. About the the dazzling garden, but because people only got a glimpse of the garden, so all kinds of conflicting reports come out which create a sense of confusion. The sad reality is that there's an awful lot of half-truths, inaccuracies, misunderstandings in oral history surrounding the Rav. How do you know what to believe, what not to believe? So the truth is, if if you didn't know the Rav very well, it's very hard to figure out. So unless one is dealing with an unimpeachable, impeccable source—there's a second half of the program tonight, baruch Hashem—unless one is dealing with with such sources, the truth is one is better off discounting all oral history and try to get to know the Rav from his sefarim, from his writings. Try to get the Rav, try to get to know the Rav by reading what he wrote. Try to engage the Rav directly. Try to read as much as possible of what he wrote. Try to read Ish HaHalacha, try to read Ma Dodech, try to read Halakhic Mind, try to try to read read The Lonely Man of Faith. That's in terms of machshavah. In terms of halakha, so read all the chiddushei Torah. Try to engage the Rav directly. And then you get unfiltered who the Rav was and the core emerges, the core again of of a titan of such an adam gadol again whose core again was as we described initially his preoccupation with halakha on all levels: axiological, emotional, philosophical, et cetera, and one a little bit gets to glimpse that.