Rabbi Steinsaltz and his works

Eitan.
This has nothing to do with the worldview of Rabbi Schach/Elyashiv, it has to do with the simple practice of continuing the transmission of tradition, making the Talmud accessible to the Ninth is a blessed thing, according to Schottenshtey and Co., and especially for homemakers who would not otherwise study Gemara. One just has to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Once a commentary is included in the Gemara without Rashi and without the form of the page, over time the student will not be left with any impression of the Gemara beyond just another book, so that finally with the evolution of accessibility we will get a cute soft-cover prose book that is on the toilet, the place where you stand in front of a Gemara page and are able to study it with great care for a long period of time is because you attribute importance to it as if it were another holy book. What to do, it was accepted that way and apparently after it was accepted that way, it only works.
Regarding his treatment of the great and giants of the world as flesh like us, we can delete almost half of the legends that illogically explain behaviors while Steinsaltz's teaching is much simpler and saves countless apologetic explanations. We will explain any behavior that seems inappropriate to us. They had passion and desire and they were divided. It is clear that if the truth is like this, no one in the past would have wasted their time investing in studying the Gemara. In its superficial structure, we do not see any excessive genius in it. Only after you have accepted that the Gemara is the mouthpiece of the Kabbalah through its beloved do you invest and study it and discover the infinite depth that lies within it.
To say that those who opposed sought a monopoly on the Torah is a lie and a falsehood, since they gave their consent to other explanations, according to Steinsaltz.

In the 22nd of Av 5771

It is worth noting that in Rabbi Steinsaltz's editions of the Talmud, the commentaries of Rashi and Tosafot were presented on the other side of the Talmud in square letters and with the punctuation –, so that his edition contributed not only to the accessibility of the Talmud, but also to the accessibility of Rashi and the Tosafot.

Following the criticism, Rabbi Steinsaltz's new editions of the Talmud reproduced the original leaf from the Vilna printing press on one page, and on a parallel page the punctuated Gemara with Rabbi Steinsaltz's commentary. They had to give up on the ease of studying Rashi and the Tosafot by means of the square letter and the punctuation –.

In any accessible commentary, there is a danger that the learner will get used to the convenient interpretation, and will have difficulty moving on to the next stage, studying the books of the commentators and the poskim from their originals in Rashi script and without punctuation. Even in the Schottenstein edition, with its clear interpretation and insightful notes, there is a risk that the learner will be satisfied with this and forgo studying the original.

I believe that, at the end of the day, the easy accessibility of the first study allows for a reduction in the time devoted to "familiarity," while increasing the time devoted to theoretical study, where, naturally, the primary sources must be opened.

Best regards, Sh.

I was referring to what Ramada wrote, who replaced the commentary with Rashi.

Paragraph 3, line 1
… The danger that the learner will practice…