Revisionism and the Rav: The Struggle for the Soul of Modern Orthodoxy

Perhaps the Rav agrees with the view of the kabbalists that even the articulated name signifies divine activity. But it appears to us that here as elsewhere the position of the Rav must primarily be understood in light of the philosophy of Hermann Cohen. It is Cohen who insists that God's oneness means first and foremost His uniqueness. More significant, Cohen argues that "God's holiness is identical with His uniqueness." [14] Man imitates God's uniqueness, then, by imitating God's holiness, i.e., by becoming holy. However, for Cohen, man's holiness as an ideal is identical with his morality. [15] In this respect, Cohen follows Maimonides (though Maimonides does not identify God's uniqueness with His holiness) who at the end of the Guide 1:54 argues that man becomes holy by being merciful and gracious. It is consequently no surprise that, as R. Schachter shows, the Ray emphasizes that man's uniqueness must be expressed in his religious and moral service of God.

Obviously, this is not the place for a full scale discussion of the Rav's understanding of the principle of imitatio. But I have tried to show two things. First, that there is a significant philosophic dimension to the Ray's thinking on this matter that R. Schachter omits entirely. And second, that many of the specific points of the Ray's teaching concerning imitatio that R. Schachter does discuss can be understood only in light of this philosophic dimension.

In the third and longest section, "Likkutei Hankagot," which occupies more than half the book and is clearly its most important part as well, R. Schachter, culling from his years of studying with and attending upon the Ray and from the recollections of other of the Rav's students and acquaintances, presents hundreds of the Rav's practical halakhic rulings on an exceptionally wide range of issues covering all four sections of the Shulhan Arukh. Particularly rich are the units on prayer, holidays, weddings, and mourning, but a host of other subjects are treated as well.

R. Schachter, however, neglects to mention one practical halakhic ruling of the Rav of enormous importance, which the Rav, moreover, maintained with remarkable consistency over the course of many decades. I refer to the Ray's view that nowadays women are to be taught Torah she-be-'al Peh, and specifically Talmud. This view found clear and public expression in the Ray's insistence that in the Maimonides school, which he founded and guided, Talmud be included in the girls' curriculum, as it was included in that of the boys, as well as in his decision to give the inaugural lecture when the Bet-Midrash program was initiated at Stem College. There can be no doubt the Rav's stance on this issue has been extraordinarily influential. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that the teaching of Talmud to women in modern Orthodox high schools and midrashot would be as prevalent today as it is, given the still controversial nature of this issue, without the precedent set by the Rav. [16] This startling omission can be accounted for only by assuming that, here as elsewhere, R. Schachter has chosen to blur or glide over an innovative or daring aspect of the Rav's teaching. [17]