Alternatives To R' Avigdor Miller's Approach

My fellow Bais Yaakov and Yeshiva students, I have something I wish to say to you. It has to do with R' Avigdor Miller and his works. It is probable that you have been told to read his books or listen to his lectures. And the truth is that his words and pieces can contain much beauty and inspiration. I particularly enjoy his work Praise, My Soul. The problem arises when one reads his works and automatically assumes that everything he says is straight-up Torah without any personal beliefs or philosophy thrown in. To the contrary, many times there are alternatives to R' Avigdor Miller's approach. It is my wish to demonstrate some of these alternatives to you. I shall work with some excerpts from Awake My Glory.

1. Paragraph 575. These two trends are dependent on each other. In the degree that Jews harmonise with each other and do kindness to each other, in that same degree does the Shechinah approach and come closer to them. (By Jews is meant observant orthodox Jews; reform or conservative or any other kind of irreligious Jew is not a Jew. An observant convert to orthodox Judaism, be he black or brown, is a Jew.) - page 168

Let's consider what R' Avigdor Miller wrote here. "By Jews is meant observant orthodox Jews; reform or conservative or any other kind of irreligious Jew is not a Jew." Can that truly be the Torah approach? Does that make logical sense to you? A Jew who is not observant can be anyone from a tinok she'nishba to a Jew who has sinned. But he is still a Jew, something which we see throughout Tanakh and the Gemara. We have Jews who are totally non-observant, consider R' Elazar ben Dordea (Avoda Zara 17a)! And they are always considered Jews who perhaps have sinned, not suddenly written off as not a Jew as all.

For an alternative approach, see what Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (The Rav) states in The Rav: The World of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik by Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff, Volume 2, page 20. Here is the excerpt:

12.09 Jewish Peoplehood

Related by the Rav to his Talmud class at Yeshiva University on Israel Independence Day, April 23, 1969.

Being part of the Jewish nation means participating in one destiny and experiencing the solidarity of the Jewish people. The American Jew is exposed to the danger of total assimilation on both the religious level and also in losing his feeling for Jewish peoplehood.

There is the danger in the United States that even if the American Jew remains observant, he still will not feel that he is part and parcel of the Jewish people. I saw this in Germany. I knew Jews in Germany who were observant to the last iota. One Orthodox rabbi in Germany told me about his relationship with Polish Jewry. At least with the religious Poplish Jew he felt that he still had something in common. However, with the nonobservant Polish Jew there was little in common. The rabbi named a German politican and claimed that he had more in common with him than with the nonobservant Polish Jew. He and the German politician shared the same German culture and German national aspirations. This German politican later supported the Nazi party! The rabbi declared that vis-a-vis Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski [1863=1940; the last Rabbi of Vilna]: "I still feel a relationship and have something in common; but with the nonobservant Polish Jew, what do I have in common?"

The feeling of being part of the Jewish nation and the awareness of the togetherness of all Jews was lacking. This man was a leading German rabbi, and I can testify that his observance of the Torah was meticulous. Nevertheless, these were his words, and I am apprehensive that a similar viewpoint will evolve in the United States.

~

The Rav states that to be a Jew is to feel that one is part of the Jewish nation, which includes all Jews, observant or non-observant. His approach is the total opposite of R' Avigdor Miller's. Indeed, the Rav sees it as a failing and a flaw to feel as R' Avigdor Miller did.

Let us move on to some excerpts regarding R' Avigdor Miller's approach to women (in Judaism and in marriage):

2. Paragraph 1095- (There cannot be two kings. The marriage-relationship is twofold. 1) The wife is submissive. This is not only Jewish but natural. There can be no harmony when there are two commanders. Without this indispensable condition the home is disordered. "Arrogance is unbecoming to a woman" - Megillah 14B. For a man it is not an ornament, but for a woman it is as if she wore a mustache. 2) The second, but equally essential foundation: a man must always demonstrate respect for his wife. This is "the way of Jewish men that...honor and support their wives in truth" as stated in the Jewish marriage contract. "He honors her more than his own body" - Yevamos 62B, and "A man must always be careful with his wife's honor"- Bava Metzia 59A. He is the captain, but she is the First Mate whose counsel is respected. She cannot be made a doormat, she need not beg for money, she deserves some assistance in the house chores, and the husband sides with her against his kin. He must express frequent appreciation and give words of encouragement, and he should remember his wife from time to time with gifts, big or little. Husband and wife should always say "Please" and "Thank you" and never forget to be always polite to one another.) - pages 339-340

Paragraph 1105. Before marriage it is imperative to ascertain the young woman's attitude toward feminism and "women's rights" and careerism. It is out of the question to build a Jewish home, or any home whatsoever, if the prospective wife has been tainted with these anti-natural and anti-social preachings. The woman's career and happiness are in her home: absolutely and entirely. Her husband, her children and her home are the expressions of her personality and her Free Will, and they are her chief forms of serving G-d. The modern orthodox "Rebbetzin" with a college degree and a job in secular professions is a misfit even in a non-Jewish home. The ideas of revolt against a husband's authority and the unrealistic dream of equal leadership in the family, lead only to unhappiness and failure, and very frequently to divorce. A Beth Jacob girl should be wed soon after or before graduation. Every day after she leaves the Beth Jacob marks another step away from idealism, for the street and the office and the secular school have an unfailing effect which increases from day to day. It is never a simple matter to achieve harmony in the home; effort and wisdom and fear of G-d are required. But with the additional burden of feminism, all problems become aggravated; and like all the unnatural and anti-social affectations of the libertarians (342) this leads only to failure and unhappiness.

Under no circumstance should any member of the family be subjected to the influence of a non-observant psychiatrist or psychologist or counselor. - pages 344-345

~

To challenge this idea that a woman is utterly submissive to her husband and by rights must be ruled by him one need look no further than the love between the Rav and Dr. Tonya Soloveitchik, his wife, to whom he dedicated his masterworks and whom he consulted regarding everything he produced. It is clear that this was not a relationship between a man and a woman whom he ruled and commanded, but rather between equals, intellectually and emotionally so. The Rav wrote gorgeous pieces regarding the love he felt for his wife; one which particularly resonates with me is in his work On Repentance where he speaks of how he woke up one night due to a thunderstorm outside and remembered the window was open downstairs. Horrified, since a draft could make his wife sicker than she already was, he ran to close it. Only then did he remember that his wife was dead. He compares the thunderstorm to the kol ha'shofar and otherwise elaborates upon this, but the point of the story is that this marriage was a relationship between equals and the wife was certainly not submissive. She critiqued her husband and helped crystallize his thoughts; nobody 'ruled' over the other.

Recall that the husband ruling over his wife is a curse that God punished Eve with- see Genesis 3: 16-

טז אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה אָמַר, הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ וְהֵרֹנֵךְ--בְּעֶצֶב, תֵּלְדִי בָנִים; וְאֶל-אִישֵׁךְ, תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ, וְהוּא, יִמְשָׁל-בָּךְ. {ס} 16 Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

Surely one would not immortalize a curse by turning it into a positive trait? In the same way that ideally one would wish for a world in which man does not earn bread only by the sweat of his brow, and during which the ground only produces thorns and thistles, so one does not ideally wish for a husband to rule over his wife- these were punishments from God, not the ideal. This is the reason that there was rejoicing when Cain was born; the curse was lessened slightly for he was able to produce from the ground (something other than thorns and thistles.) How much the more so ought we to attempt to reach a state where the man and wife mutually respect one another and see one another as equals instead of acting out a curse.