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

Because R. Meiselman misunderstands the Rav's position regarding universalism and singularism, he also misunderstands and misrepresents the Rav's stance on interfaith dialogue. R. Meiselman, referring to the Rav's essay "Confrontation," claims that "When Pope John XXIII opened dialogue with the Jews, the Rav viewed this as a serious danger to Judaism, and declared that no such dialogue pursued.... Despite the opposition of a few Orthodox rabbis the Rav's position carried the day and almost without exception no dialogues have been conducted between Orthodox rabbis and the Catholic Church." [32] But, as is well known, the Rav, with his delicate balance between universalism and singularism, never opposed interfaith dialogue. What he opposed, as he states in "Confrontation," was interfaith theological dialogue. [33] He always, however, approved of interfaith dialogue about matters of general ethical and social concern. Again, this position comes out with particular force and clarity in the Rav's position paper, "On Interfaith Relationships:" "We are...opposed to any public debate, dialogue or symposium concerning the doctrinal, dogmatic or ritual aspects of our faith vis-a-vis 'similar' aspects of another faith community.... When, however, we move from the private world of faith to the public world of humanitarian and cultural endeavors, communication among the various faith communities is desirable and even essential. We are ready to enter into dialogue on such topics as War and Peace, Poverty, Freedom, Man's Moral Values... Civil Rights, etc., which revolve about the religious spiritual aspects of our civilization. Discussion within these areas will, of course, be within the framework of our religious outlooks and terminology" (emphases added). [34]

In this connection, it is worth citing another "insider" view. The past president of the Rabbinical Council of America, Rabbi Bernard Rosensweig, who worked closely with the Rav on matters of communal policy, writes in his article "The Rav as Communal Leader": "The RCA remained loyal to the guidelines which the Rav had set down [concerning interfaith dialogue] and distinguished between theological discussions and ethical-secular concerns, which have universal validity. Every program involving either Catholic or Protestant churches in which we participated was carefully scrutinized.... Every topic which had possible theological nuances or implications was vetoed, and only when the Ray pronounced it to be satisfactory did we proceed to the dialogue." [35]

So much for R. Meiselman's claim that, in accordance with the Ray's position, "almost... no dialogues have been conducted between Orthodox rabbis and the Catholic Church."

Religious Zionism. Here R Meiselman's misrepresentations of the Ray's position are, if possible, even more serious than his misrepresentations of the Ray's position on the issue of singularism and universalism. R Meiselman writes:

In his eulogy for his uncle, Ray Yitshak Ze'ev Soloveitchik (the Brisker Ray), published subsequently under the title of Ma dodekh midod, the Ray said that whereas a secular Jewish government in Israel does not fit into any halakhic categories, it is religiously irrelevant. This was not just a formulation of his uncle's position, but was his as well. This is the essential theme of his essay Kol Dodi Dofek, in which he states clearly that the importance of the State of Israel has to be evaluated in exclusively pragmatic terms. In [that essay] he lists the reasons that the achievements of the State are religiously positive and therefore outweigh whatever negative aspects may be present. Certain things have intrinsic value. Others have pragmatic value and have to be looked at in strictly pragmatic terms. There is no intrinsic value to that which does not have halakhic meaning. [36]