Gedolim, Labels, and Idol-Worship

"My students are my products as far as lomdus is concerned. They follow my method of learning. However, somehow there is a reservation in their minds regarding my philosophical viewpoint. They consider me excellent in lomdus. However, when it comes to my philosphical experiential viewpoint, I am somehow persona non grata. My ideas are too radical for them. If they could find another one it would be alright. However, the substitutions are completely infantile. This is a tremendous problem in America. This is the main problem we have to cope with, and I do not know how. All extremism, fanaticism and obscurantism come from a lack of security. A person who is secure cannot be an extremist. He uses his heart and his mind in a normal fashion. I am not so interested in finding the cause of this problem but rather in its therapy. What is the proper therapeutic viewpoint? How can we change it? I do not know."

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, quoted in 'The Rav: The World of Joseph B. Soloveitchik' by Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff, under the section 'Religious Immaturity,' page 240


The Gedolim.

How much is expressed in those two words! There are so many different meanings for so many different people. What I want to express, however, is the view that the teachers/ principal at Templars take of the Gedolim.

The Gedolim are, to put it bluntly, gods.

We have entered a new age of idolatry. And whom do we worship? Not God. Not nature. Not even science.

But human beings, very mortal human beings, frail and privy to all the emotions and thoughts that tumble through the human mind. Granted, extremely learned human beings. Men who specialize in certain areas of religion, in, specifically, their learning. Men who understand halakha thoroughly, who can quote directly from the Gemara, who are, in that area, extremely wise.

But men all the same.

Men, flawed as all of us are, privy to the emotions that we all feel, able to feel everything from jealousy and lust to understanding and love.

Men.

The teachers at Templars do not take this view of them. A Gadol (who is almost always an old man in a black coat, with a long white beard, wearing glasses, and presented as unable to relate to the human race) is one above. He has been appointed. By whom? We do not know. Perhaps it is his lineage, a hereditary title and/or position. Saintly blood runs through his veins. We puny people cannot possibly compare ourselves to him. He understands all. He is omniscient. What he says is the law.

We do not have the knowledge or the spiritual level to compete with him.

Above all, a Gadol is separate. Separate from this world, often presented as living in austere surroundings, with the bare necessities, spending each moment immersed in the holy Torah. He is on a madreigah (spiritual level) we cannot compete with. For that matter, so is everyone and everybody who lived before us. We are not on the level of the Jews in the desert, of the prophets, of the Jews during the Judges' time who worshipped idols- no, we are simply not on the level of anyone. We stare, awed, at a Gadol, the icon, the man who is to be served.

I think if the Gadol knew this was how he is portrayed to the students he would faint.

Because it is not the Gedolim who boast of their accomplishments and meritorious deeds. It is others who pick up these tales and their words, spreading them everywhere, speaking of the greatnes that accompanies his holy actions as he eats a meal, his holy thought as he lies sleeping, his holy beard, and so on and so forth.

Why do they do this? When did this institution come about?

Leaders like Moshe I understand. Prophets I understand. Scholars I understand. Rabbis, too, I understand.

But Gedolim?

What are they? Where do they come from? Who appoints this man as a holy sage, to be revered and feared by all? Who states that all their ideas and decisions are perfect? Who is it that accords them this position of rulership?

We might be able to figure out some of this, but unfortunately The Making of a Godol was banned. Why? Oh, because it portrayed the gedolim as real men. Real human beings. It showed that one had read Pushkin, the other had loved his wife. It spoke of the challenges these men faced.

Why is the Orthodox world so concerned with the idea that the Gedolim could never have sinned? They could not have felt human emotion? It is impossible that they could have faced internal conflict?

The entire Torah describes places in which our ancestors were tempted! Was not Joseph tempted by Potiphar's wife? At one point, wasn't he going to succumb to her? But that was when he saw the image of his father, and it was that that saved him.

Or think of Moshe, Moshe who calls his nation "rebels" and strikes rather than speaks to the rock- and is not let into the Land of Israel.

What of Nadav and Avihu, who drank wine and desired to offer up the holy incense in that state? Or of their previous error, where they ascended too far on Mount Sinai and were described as "eating and drinking," (of course, many different explanations of what that means are offered.)

Or Miriam, who asked why her brother Moshe had separated from his wife, the Cushite? Who implied that his actions were wrong, that she and Aharon were also prophets, and if they did not need to separate from their spouses, why did Moshe need to do so? And of course, Miriam was stuck by tzara'as (closely translated as leprosy) for this sin.

What of Miriam's father, Amram, who separated from his wife (due to Pharoah's statement that all baby boys were to be thrown into the Nile) and was told by his daughter that we was "crueler than Pharoah, for Pharoah at least permitted the girls to live," but Amram (and the people who followed him in this separation, as he was their leader) forbade even that?

What of Korach and his assembly? Korach was not a simple criminal, a villain without knowledge! He was a brilliant scholar, and his actions are described by Rabbi Soloveitchik as the 'Common-Sense Rebellion.' He, even in his brilliance, erred, and was swallowed up by the ground.

What of David and Bath-Sheba (I know I tread on complicated ground here.) However, at least according to the literal meaning, David's deliberately placing Uriah at the front lines, where he would definitely be killed, would be considered a mistake.

What of Solomon, of whom Scripture writes that he "went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians...and he did what was evil in the eyes of God?"

The Torah gives a fair portrait of each of our ancestors, matriarchs and patriarchs. People are not wholly good. They struggle with temptation, with the desire to sin or err, and sometimes they do so. The Torah does not gloss over these errors. It relates them, and why? So that we may learn! So that we may understand! So that we may respect them even more.

For how could we respect someone who is unnaturally good, untried, untested, someone who has never erred? How could we relate to them? Such a person is not human, he is an angel, obedient to the very law of God, unable to exercise his free will!

Why is it, then, that my teachers fear to say this? That they cannot speak it? That everything that a Gadol says, even if it is about matters that don't pertain to halakha, is the law?

What is more, what if a Gadol is misquoted? What if his decision was offered in a very specific, or case-specific situation, and it is taken out of context, used elsewhere- and hence understood incorrectly, or worse yet, in a manner that is totally antithetical to his intent?

So many people are willing to speak for the Gedolim and their ideas on hearsay, on what they assume a Gadol would say. "He is a great person/ a holy man/ a good person....hence," they cry.

They try to make you feel guilty if you don't agree. They try to make you feel ashamed. They want you to feel dirty, unclean, simply wrong. They want to see you grovel. They raise their eyebrows, "You are contradicting a Gadol? You think that you are holier than a Gadol? you think you know more than a Gadol HaDor?!"

This is right about where the shouting matches, the spittle flying from the teeth of enraged teachers begin. Or, depending on the person, where the quiet desire for counseling sessions begins. Or, the attempt at reasoning.

"Chana, we're just not on that madreiga. They are on a high spiritual level, so high that we can't even imagine it. They are holy tzadikim. They are righteous. Surely you realize that we cannot reach their level; we're not on their level?"

But it does not follow.

There are three reasons this is so.

1. By worshipping them to the exclusion of personal thought, the worshipper excuses himself for his lack of achievement. For not reaching that level. For not attaining that ideal.

2. Just because you are a learned person when it comes to Talmud and Halakha does not mean that you are able to interact with society, with modernity, to understand the people and their questions. And if you cannot understand where someone is coming from, no learning in the world will help you.

3. Simply because you are a good person does not mean you are right. Your ideas have merit. Your state of being (good or evil) does not.

There is a classical Jewish source (which I cannot find at the moment, but I hope someone will provide to me) that states that every Jew has the power to be as good as Moses or as wicked as Jerobaoam.

Every Jew has that choice. We may all attain it through our use of free will. We have the power to equal Moshe or Yeravam in degrees of goodness and wickedness. We cannot attain Moshe's ability of prophecy, despite his desire that we could:

כט וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מֹשֶׁה, הַמְקַנֵּא אַתָּה לִי; וּמִי יִתֵּן כָּל-עַם יְהוָה, נְבִיאִים--כִּי-יִתֵּן יְהוָה אֶת-רוּחוֹ, עֲלֵיהֶם.
29 And Moses said unto him: 'Art thou jealous for my sake? would that all the LORD'S people were prophets, that the LORD would put His spirit upon them!'

Bamidbar 11:29

Nor can we attain Yeravam's kingship.

But we can choose to be wicked or good, and not to the mere spiritual degree that my Templars teachers are under the impression we possess. We are compared to the two diametric opposites- Moses, who desired all of the Jewish people to prophecy, and Jeraboam, who turned down the World-to-Come:

After this thing Jeroboam turned not from his evil way.40 What is meant by, after this thing? — R. Abba said: After the Holy One, blessed be He, had seized Jeroboam by his garment and urged him, 'Repent, then I, thou, and the son of Jesse [i.e.. David] will walk in the Garden of Eden.' 'And who shall be at the head?' inquired he. 'The son of Jesse shall be at the head.' 'If so,' [he replied] 'I do not desire [it].'

Sanhedrin 102b

One can turn down the World to Come or reach the pinnacle of leaders, the Prophet beyond all others.

And if you still do not believe me, look to the story of Rabbi Zusia.

"They [the Heavenly Tribunal] will say to me, 'Zusia, there was only one thing that no power of heaven or earth could have prevented you from becoming.' They will say, 'Zusia, why weren't you Zusia?'"

We have an obligation to live up to our potential. To develop our talents as well as we can, to reach the heights of our abilites, to understand our religion, to be who we were meant to be. To stand in heaven and gaze upon the lofty figure we could have become- no disappointment is greater than to realize we could have attained that and yet we did not. We could have been that one, but we saw fit, instead, to excuse ourselves of that duty, to claim that we lacked the capability, we don't "have the spiritual level," we can't "reach the level of the Gedolim."

Well? And what of it? Even if you believe that (and I do not) can you truly say that you have reached the level of yourself? That you are done, completed, that you have achieved all that is possible for you to achieve?

Can you answer that question, when you ascend before God? Can I say "I am Chana; the Chana I could have been and the Chana that I am are one and the same?"

This is my goal. This is what I wish to accomplish. I want to attain myself, attain all that I can possibly be. I am, you may say, an idealist. And what if I am? I am an idealist with an odd twist of rationalism and realism; there may be things physically beyond my power, but spiritually? Mentally? How could you cripple yourself like that? How could you excuse yourself, bow and fall before this icon you have erected, this supposed Gadol, and claim your life is to be lived in strict obedience?

Do you think that in obeying the Gadol, you will attain yourself? Do you think that in saying they are "so much higher than me," whimpering about the fact that you do not have the spiritual level of past generations, will excuse you?

My teachers at Templars shirk their duty.

They do not think, they do not strive, they begin with failure. They believe they can never reach the heights of a Gadol, as it were, and therefore they never will. They think they are limited, caught in a web beyond their making. In short, they are pessimists. They do not think it can be done, and what is more, even to try requires effort.

Most of the time, they do not want to make that effort.

Because it is so much easier to simply have someone else give you orders. You don't have to think, you don't have to question, you simply have to obey. And you don't even have to face a guilty conscience, because you have persuaded yourself that it is a mitzvah to heed the Gedolim's words, to listen unthinkingly, bow and acquiesce.

And yet, it is you who will be held accountable to God- not them. Unless they deliberately caused you to sin, which much of the time, they do not. It is you who accept their yoke. Instead of taking a yoke of Torah, you take the yoke of mankind.

If you did so thinkingly, if you truly agreed with what they said, that would be one thing.

But you do not even consider the merits of what they say. It is enough that they have uttered it. That very fact makes it holy.

This brings me to point number three.

My eleventh-grade Mishlei teacher was one such adherent to the rules and laws of Gedolim or Rabbis. We had this discussion:

Mishlei teacher: There are certain publications, magazines, that are not good, unclean; it is a sin to look at them. There are girls who read these magazines and who are influenced by them...

Different Girl: (mutters) I read Seventeen, YM, what's the problem with that?

Chana: (raises hand)

Mishlei teacher: (smiles happily) Yes?

Chana: Forgive me for asking this, but have you ever actually read these magazines?

Mishlei teacher: Me? No!

Chana: Then- and please don't misunderstand me- how could you tell us not to read them? How do you know they are bad?

Mishlei teacher: Someone I respect, a Rabbi, passed on to me that these magazines are bad.

Chana: But how can you teach us that the magazines are bad if you haven't read them? You're passing on his opinion, not yours!

Mishlei teacher: What would you suggest? (open, sweet smile)

Chana: Wouldn't it be better if we read them- skimmed through them at least- and then actually formed an opinion of them? How can you have an opinion or know if something's good or bad if you haven't actually looked at it yourself?

Mishlei teacher: (frowns) But I can't read them because they're bad.

Chana: But that's exactly my point- you don't know they're bad until you read them yourself! You might accept this Rabbi knows about this magazine, but, not meaning disrespect, why would we listen to you if you haven't read them?

Mishlei teacher: (perplexed) Because I'm a good person.

I then made use of the following argument, to no effect:

Let us suppose that a perfectly wonderful, sweet and good person tells me that the world is flat. Is the person nice? Yes. Has he ever killed a man? No. Is he what I would consider good? Yes. But is the world flat? No. To decide that the world is flat based on the fact that the person who is telling you this information is a ‘good’ person is to use a very poor line of logic. By the same token, let us suppose that someone unspeakably cruel and evil was to say that stealing is bad. Would we disbelieve him because he is a murderer? If so, it would be to our loss- for anyone can understand, on the elementary level at least, that stealing is bad. So to decide whether an idea is wrong or right based on the person who is relaying that idea to you is perfectly ludicrous. It is to accept something based on the person’s merit rather than on the merit that the actual opinion/ idea carries. But, according to my teacher, I should accept her opinion because she is a good person.

It is the idea that has value, not the person's character. While the person's character is important in terms of choosing whether or not to make them your friend, or trusting them in terms of personal matters, it is hardly the type of material you can use in order to prove your point/ teach a class.

However, people have been so confused by whether to respect the Gedolim for their knowledge or their character that they now think a person's character defines the merit of their words.

Ideas have merit. If someone tells me not to touch fire, because otherwise I will be burned, then no matter the source, it is the truth. Not so with reading magazines. That truly depends on the person. If a girl is reading a magazine, it depends on her depth of character, and how she, as a person, will be influenced by this magazine. It doesn't depend on the source.

Now, there is a certain element of trust that comes into play with Rabbis and Gedolim. Perhaps you would take this advice on trust because you do know the person's character, and do not think he/she would knowingly offer you bad advice.

But what reason do I really have to trust the Gedolim, or at least, the versions of what the Gedolim say that I have encountered at Templars? Do they know me? No. Can they relate to me? According to my Templars teachers, they live in another world, so how could they possibly relate to me? Are they learned? Yes. Are they learned in every single subject? No. How could you say that they deserve my trust, inspire my trust, etc- when they don't even know me?

I think it really depends on the matter at hand. If a great man or sage paskens on something that he truly understands, like the halakha of kashrus, that is one thing. If he extends his domain to something outside his field of knowledge, like the reasons for the tsunami/ hurricane in New Orleans/ Sharon's stroke or into a realm of modernity in which he does not invest (say, the Internet) why would I trust him?

I, too, need to know how to think. To make up my own mind. To understand what makes sense and what does not make sense. To know when to take someone's word for something, and when not to.

In other words, there is no such thing as blind obedience- even, or perhaps especially- to the Gedolei HaDor.

These people are not icons, shining with the hallowed light of another realm, saints to be worshiped. They are men, leaders, leaders who can give us guidance, but who are not gods. And hence, the attitude that states that I must obey them, may not question them, am not their equal and hence cannot disagree with them is flawed.

I do not say they are not great. Some may indeed be great.

But they are not gods.

And I think that there are many more in this world who deserve the title and the designation. Why is it that the portraits that line the halls of Templars are all of the Agudas Israel Gedolim? That no others may join them?

Why is it that Templars would not hang the portrait/ picture of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik on the wall? Of Nehama Liebowitz?

Because they do not fit the mold. These were wise people, great and learned people, but they do not wear the correct uniform, the black caftan, hat and so on and so forth.

Or is it more than that? Is it that a Gadol can only be one who safeguards a European tradition of learning? Any one who is more modern or progressive is not included in this, of course. ...Rabbi Soloveitchik's philosophy is too radical, even for his students. Nehama Liebowitz? A woman of wisdom? An impossibility!

And then there are the banned ones, such as Rabbi Natan/ Nosson Slifkin.

What is the institution of a Gadol? If we say it is a way to honor the wise among us, we lie, for there are many who are not respected as/ believed to be great ones, great sages who would deserve that title. If we say it is one we appoint over us, I question- who appoints him? Only the extremely religious? If we say he is one who is on a higher spiritual plane than ours, I ask you- and could we not attain that plane? Were they not born human? And are we not human?

I don't believe in the institution of Gedolim.

That sounds strange, doesn't it? You will ask me, "How can you decide whether or not to believe in them? They exist as point in fact; there is nothing you can do about it!"

I don't think so.

I believe there are wise people, learned people, understanding people, and simple people. There are kind people, wicked people, angry people. There are simply all kinds of people. But we are all united in the fact that we have the same potential to become greater, each as great as we can be. We need appoint no rulers over us. We need worship no one but God. We may listen to those who are knowledgeable, we may heed their words, but their word is not the ultimate law. And each one of us has something to add, each one of us has a knowledge that is uniquely our own, a talent in which we may specialize. Each of us could be labeled a Gadol, a great one, in our own right, for that particular talent.

And since I believe labels- particularly the label Gadol- simply create more strife between people, more resentment among students, and an easy justification for people not to reach their own potential- I say we do away with them.

One may be respectful, one may believe in wisdom, and one may still say that this institution is not a good thing for the Jews.

We may need guidance, rabbinical leadership- but not kings, not rulers. Not those who we blindly obey.

ה וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו, הִנֵּה אַתָּה זָקַנְתָּ, וּבָנֶיךָ, לֹא הָלְכוּ בִּדְרָכֶיךָ; עַתָּה, שִׂימָה-לָּנוּ מֶלֶךְ לְשָׁפְטֵנוּ--כְּכָל-הַגּוֹיִם
וַיֵּרַע הַדָּבָר, בְּעֵינֵי שְׁמוּאֵל, כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמְרוּ, תְּנָה-לָּנוּ מֶלֶךְ לְשָׁפְטֵנוּ; וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל שְׁמוּאֵל, אֶל-יְהוָה. {פ}
ז וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, אֶל-שְׁמוּאֵל, שְׁמַע בְּקוֹל הָעָם, לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר-יֹאמְרוּ אֵלֶיךָ: כִּי לֹא אֹתְךָ מָאָסוּ, כִּי-אֹתִי מָאֲסוּ מִמְּלֹךְ עֲלֵיהֶם.

5 And they said unto him: 'Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways; now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.'

6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said: 'Give us a king to judge us.' And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. {P}

7 And the LORD said unto Samuel: 'Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not be king over them.

Samuel I: 8; 5-8

We need leaders, guidance, people to listen to and to understand, and thatis what the Gedolim are, if they are anything.

But they are not kings, and they are not gods.

To reject God in favor of the blind adherism and fanaticism that many subscribe to in the form of "listening to Gedolim" is an unhappily frequent occurence at the moment.

Rabbi Soloveitchik wanted to find a cure for the fanaticism, obscuranticism and other close-minded ideas that ailed the Jewish people. He did not know how to go about it.

I think that one of the most integral things to be understood is that a Gadol's word on non-practical matters, on non-Halakhic matters, beyond the realm of what he truly could be said to know, is not the law.

From there, we could move forward to thinking a bit more freely. Hopefully, to open-mindedness. To the point where there would be no need to ban books like 'Making of a Godol' because we wouldn't feel threatened by them. No one would say that it would be better to buy a crucifix than to buy that book.

But one thing at a time. First, we must move away from this adulation, adoration, emulation and idol-worshipping of Gedolim. Of quoting their opinions as opposed to finding some of our own, either gained by experience, looking into the Torah, or comparing and contrasting a few different ideas (even if they be those of different Gedolim.)

The ability to think with one's own mind...

It hurts me to say this-

But at Templars, what they are trying to do, in effect, is to brainwash us.

And brainwash themselves.

And there's no reason for it. It's pointless, stupid, it serves no purpose.

But how to stop it? Yet again, I don't know how.

Unless it be to speak out. To at least try to say something. To try to show where this is leading, and how crippled and handicapped we are if we allow it to persist. The fact that the school needs to allow freedom of thought, beyond that which others say or command. That the Gedolim are not gods, and would probably be horrified by the way their names are used to support any ridiculous idea that comes into a teacher's head. "I am certain such and such Gadol would not do this/ approve of this..." the teacher says. How does she know? She assumes.

In 'Ella Enchanted' Ella entertains Prince Char by telling him how Manners Mistress stated that anyone who rapped their knuckles on the table would be scorned by the king. Prince Char amusedly asks whether his father has three different spoons out of which to eat his blueberries, raspberries and blackberries, and Ella answers, "But of course!" Char cheerfully asks, "Why wasn't I informed of this?"

Manners Mistress' assumptions about the King are irritating, but overall they are harmless.

I wish I could say the same about the Templars teachers' assumptions about Gedolim.