Except that in the case of R Jonathan Sacks, he never studied under Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. R Sacks calls him an influence, alongside the last Lubavitcher Rebbe. We only know them meeting once, when R Sacks was in Cambridge and took a trip to the US to meet a number of famous rabbis.
Being influenced by R Soloveitchik's thought does not creat the rebbe-talmid relationship that is assumed when discussing how the student embraced and how he diverged from the mentor.
EDIT:
I just found a eulogy R Sacks wrote, in which he calls that his first meeting with R Soloveitchik. So there much have been others. But he also outright says he wasn't a student.
Yes indeed! I believe there are only two recorded meetings between the Rav and Rabbi Sacks. Not only that, but Rabbi Sacks uses the term "the Rav" often in his drashos - but in reference to Rav Nachum Rabinovitch, NOT to Rav Soloveitchik! I explore this in the Hakirah review.
The Rav was generally a tolerant man (ok, not so much sometimes in shiur!😀) when dealing with עמך. He was also a shul Rabbi. Not a shul within a yeshiva, but a shul with some very impressively brilliant ba’alei batim (think MIT and Harvard). Those very experiences are what made him tolerant (although that was to be seen outside the classroom).
On a separate note, I would love to see an in depth analysis of the Rav’s relationships with Emanuel Rackmam זצ״ל and Bernard Lander זצ״ל years…….
Truthfully, I don't have much background with either figure. I'm always happy to learn more and reflect on it, but I would need some recommendations or what to read on that front.
I’m a bit too young for that - it was the 60’s - and it might have had to do with quite the dust up on עגונה/גירושין issues.i remember my father zt”l mentioning that Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l had a person this as well.
I am unclear on all of this and need to be educated on this as well.
It is well known that R Rackman ZL lost any chance to be president of YU after RYBS gave a famous shiur on Gerus and that R Rackman ZL publicly stated that he was a Talmid but not completely so and that RD Lander ZL built a school that challenged YU to open a business school and marketed itself to Bnei and Bnos Torah who thought that YU was too modern in hashkafa for their perspective and attracted many potential Kollel wives who wanted a college education without what they perceived as the constant hashkafic discussions of what was the essence of YU
Although some Charedi RY thought Touro was treife the potential Kollel wives of the future who would not have gone to Stern overwhelming voted with their feet and carpools to the contrary
R D Goodman seemed to be aiming at denying that many of the most prominent RY of RIETS were Talmudim Muvhakim and Neemanim of RYBS when in fact they certainly are and transit that Mesorah on daily basis
To his credit, he does maintain that the students listed are still disciples of the Rav - he just only considers them "talmudic-halakhic" disciples rather than "philosophical" disciples. I wrote at length in the Hakirah review about how such a distinction is unwarranted and even misleading, but I think he tries (with an emphasis on "tries") to be careful not to write anyone out of discipleship. His intention seems to have been establishing Rabbis Sacks, Greenberg, and Hartman as legitimate talmidim rather than questioning anyone else's status. The way he does that is by splitting the Rav's disciples into these two categories. I still think his project fails, but its important to properly acknowledge what that project is.
Your calculation of how R Hartman detached himself from being a Talmid Neeman of RYBS in both terms of Halacha and Hashkafa clearly is historically accurate and as depicted in the writings of R D Hartman I don’t think R Y Greenberg ever was a Talmid in RYBS’s shiur and CR Sacks ZL was far more loyal to RYBS’s views of Halacha and Hashkafa than either R Hartman or RGreenberg
Correct. R Greenberg attended some of the Rav's shiurim in the Boston area and worked at YU while he was there, but he was never a student in the traditional sense. Neither, for that matter, was Rabbi Sacks. As R. Berger mentioned above and I write in detail in the Hakirah review, Rabbi Sacks only met the Rav twice in his entire life.
Except that in the case of R Jonathan Sacks, he never studied under Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. R Sacks calls him an influence, alongside the last Lubavitcher Rebbe. We only know them meeting once, when R Sacks was in Cambridge and took a trip to the US to meet a number of famous rabbis.
Being influenced by R Soloveitchik's thought does not creat the rebbe-talmid relationship that is assumed when discussing how the student embraced and how he diverged from the mentor.
EDIT:
I just found a eulogy R Sacks wrote, in which he calls that his first meeting with R Soloveitchik. So there much have been others. But he also outright says he wasn't a student.
https://media.rabbisacks.org/20211010200426/Issue-36-Sept-1993-Hesped-in-honour-of-Rav-Yosef-Soloveitchik.pdf
Yes indeed! I believe there are only two recorded meetings between the Rav and Rabbi Sacks. Not only that, but Rabbi Sacks uses the term "the Rav" often in his drashos - but in reference to Rav Nachum Rabinovitch, NOT to Rav Soloveitchik! I explore this in the Hakirah review.
Well written.
The Rav was generally a tolerant man (ok, not so much sometimes in shiur!😀) when dealing with עמך. He was also a shul Rabbi. Not a shul within a yeshiva, but a shul with some very impressively brilliant ba’alei batim (think MIT and Harvard). Those very experiences are what made him tolerant (although that was to be seen outside the classroom).
On a separate note, I would love to see an in depth analysis of the Rav’s relationships with Emanuel Rackmam זצ״ל and Bernard Lander זצ״ל years…….
Truthfully, I don't have much background with either figure. I'm always happy to learn more and reflect on it, but I would need some recommendations or what to read on that front.
I’m a bit too young for that - it was the 60’s - and it might have had to do with quite the dust up on עגונה/גירושין issues.i remember my father zt”l mentioning that Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l had a person this as well.
I am unclear on all of this and need to be educated on this as well.
Thanks again!
Of course! I'll do some digging but can't promise getting to it particularly quickly, unfortunately.
It is well known that R Rackman ZL lost any chance to be president of YU after RYBS gave a famous shiur on Gerus and that R Rackman ZL publicly stated that he was a Talmid but not completely so and that RD Lander ZL built a school that challenged YU to open a business school and marketed itself to Bnei and Bnos Torah who thought that YU was too modern in hashkafa for their perspective and attracted many potential Kollel wives who wanted a college education without what they perceived as the constant hashkafic discussions of what was the essence of YU
Although some Charedi RY thought Touro was treife the potential Kollel wives of the future who would not have gone to Stern overwhelming voted with their feet and carpools to the contrary
I have always had the ‘vibe’ that Touro was somewhat like חפץ חיים but with college courses optional from the get-go.
Yet Touro’s yeshivos have had and still have many RIETS musmachim as RY and rebbes including a grandson of RAS ZL
Aware, Rav Danny was my classmate and a wonderful (impressive ) guy.
Sort of ‘hush’ acceptance among the more Charedi sectors.
Could even wind up with some at NYMC, who knows?
True
R D Goodman seemed to be aiming at denying that many of the most prominent RY of RIETS were Talmudim Muvhakim and Neemanim of RYBS when in fact they certainly are and transit that Mesorah on daily basis
To his credit, he does maintain that the students listed are still disciples of the Rav - he just only considers them "talmudic-halakhic" disciples rather than "philosophical" disciples. I wrote at length in the Hakirah review about how such a distinction is unwarranted and even misleading, but I think he tries (with an emphasis on "tries") to be careful not to write anyone out of discipleship. His intention seems to have been establishing Rabbis Sacks, Greenberg, and Hartman as legitimate talmidim rather than questioning anyone else's status. The way he does that is by splitting the Rav's disciples into these two categories. I still think his project fails, but its important to properly acknowledge what that project is.
Your calculation of how R Hartman detached himself from being a Talmid Neeman of RYBS in both terms of Halacha and Hashkafa clearly is historically accurate and as depicted in the writings of R D Hartman I don’t think R Y Greenberg ever was a Talmid in RYBS’s shiur and CR Sacks ZL was far more loyal to RYBS’s views of Halacha and Hashkafa than either R Hartman or RGreenberg
Correct. R Greenberg attended some of the Rav's shiurim in the Boston area and worked at YU while he was there, but he was never a student in the traditional sense. Neither, for that matter, was Rabbi Sacks. As R. Berger mentioned above and I write in detail in the Hakirah review, Rabbi Sacks only met the Rav twice in his entire life.