Q&A: Rashi versus the Rabbi’s model of greatness in Torah
Rashi versus the Rabbi’s model of greatness in Torah
Question
Hello and blessings, Rabbi,
In column 682 on “What is greatness in Torah?” the Rabbi wrote:
“Literature, thought, and science are a very important component of greatness in Torah.”
We do not know of, and it does not appear from Rashi’s commentary, that he had knowledge of the literature of his time (one could argue that he did have it and chose not to incorporate it into his commentaries, but that does not seem likely). In thought as well, he does not seem to have occupied himself very much, and as for science—who even mentions it? And yet he was considered in his generation to be the leading Torah sage of the generation (see the book “Rashi: His Life and His Commentaries”), regarded as one of the greatest sages of all generations without any dispute across all observant communities.
Rabbi, don’t you think this undermines—if only a little—your model of greatness in Torah?
Answer
There are many great Torah scholars of different kinds. There is greatness consisting of mastery and understanding of Torah material proper. But greatness in the broader sense includes those things as well. And certainly the kind of greatness that is worthy of making decisions for the generation.
A moral change has taken place in the world since Rashi, and part of the way to internalize it runs through literature and general culture. Our world is not what it once was morally, when various injustices were accepted as the way of the world. True, the Jews as a whole were generally on a level above everyone else then, and proof of that is the Raavad’s gloss on Maimonides, “I have never heard of the chastisement of flogging for women” (Laws of Marriage 21:10), and the leading sages were on a higher level than the rest. But even among Jews there were moral problems, such as regressive taxes on the poor on meat consumption, and the disgrace of the Cantonist decrees, in which the strongmen of the community hired kidnappers to seize poor children, while the leading sages kept a thunderous silence. Today people speak endlessly about hostages, but back then the Haredi sages of the generation lent a hand to the kidnapping of children from their mothers and their delivery to the army of the Tsar. (A book that wrote about this directly and clearly is “Chaim Gravitzer” by Fishel Schneersohn, and the end of the book expresses precisely the transition from Hasidism and Lithuanianism to a pre-Zionist consciousness of self-sacrifice.)
The moral change the world has undergone is not only institutional, in the form of democracy, but also personal: the internalization of moral values that are idealistic, sensitive, and broadly aware. It is no coincidence that Haredi municipalities are at the bottom of the scale in terms of proper governance. The people serving there do not have an adequate general consciousness. If we look at the idealism of the Religious Zionist soldiers, who are already doing hundreds of reserve-duty days, it comes not only from external ideology but also from the moral change they themselves have undergone, and part of the reason for that is those books they read in childhood. The Kookist ideology itself internalized this change and speaks about it. The Haredi problem begins precisely with the fact that today’s Haredim, unlike the Haredim of the previous generation, no longer read good literature and at best make do with defective Haredi literature. The educational results can be seen in Haredi conduct during the current war.