Expanding Horizons

By: Jonathan Seidel

Lamm's Rebbe

Rabbi Lamm is an underrated figure in American Orthodoxy. Under his leadership and guidance over the last half century, he has helped bring in the next generation. Helped lead them forward through the crazy adventures and experience of the past 50 years. He became the president in the late seventies post-67 at the end of Vietnam, through the Cold War. He started while the Lebanon war was breaking out through Oslo into the Intifadas. He reigned during much of the shift in American culture as well as the sexual revolution and the further decline of religion. At the same time witnessing its rebirth to some extent in the late nineties. To pinpoint who is responsible for this shift is not to lay it all on his shoulders, because it wasn't just Rabbi Lamm. Rabbi Soloveitchik’s presence, his works, his aura, his teachings passed on to the next generation who have filled the Yeshiva halls for the past 20 years.

Schools in the tri-state area have been established in record number. Yeshivas and seminaries in Israel have blossomed racking in new students in each year. The quantity of students only growing with each passing year. These Judaic institutions whether in America or abroad profess Rav Soloveitchik’s philosophy. His ideas are meshed into the orthodox mindset and yet this isn’t the whole truth. The orthodox philosophy as it is taught in school is most reflected in Rabbi Lamm’s hashkafa than the Rav. Yeshiva University has pressed Torah-Umadda since even before Rabbi Lamm’s tenure but he was the one who documented it. He spearheaded the ideals into the school and into Jewish education beyond. Throughout his tenure institutions sprung up in the dozens and it was under his leadership at the centre of Modern Orthodoxy to push the ideas forward on the masses.

There isn't a brisker rigour nor there such intellectual depth. It's more nuanced, more plain. People go to work and study science. It is a dual life but one unified in the observant’s mind. In recent years there's been excessive engagement in Gamara and obviously there's brisker components that are ingrained in our study. The influence of Brisk and Rav Soloveitchik have entrapped the rabbinic model. While no one may be learning or lecturing on his level, the analytical methodology has sowed it seeds. It is the lomdus that is prioritised over the emotional philosophical expertise. There is such a worldview absent any philosophical longing. An orthodoxy that has stretched more the Bnei Akiva slogan of Torah ve-avoda than madda. It is this avoda that departs favourably from the Rav’s aspirations. Rabbi Lamm may deride the loss of madda but if that avoda was learning the science lishma even for a profession it would count.    

Looking at Rabbi Lamm’s philosophy derived from his works an interesting pattern emerges. Rabbi Sacks's afterward added in the republished Torah Umadda makes an astute observation. Observing that except for a few references Rabbi Soloveitchik is nearly absent from the book entirely. Despite Rabbi Lamm's intimate connection with the Rav he omits him from his grand work. Rabbi Sacks brings some historical factors to account for this but it is way beyond such diachronic aspects. A synchronic look at Rabbi Lamm’s works would expose the dire truth that Rabbi Lamm was a "bad student" of the Rav. Not that he condemned the Rav but that he looked past the Rav. The Rav provided him with a foundation and he carried the torch further in his own lane. What is unveiled from Rabbi Lamm’s writings (with the exception of his books Torah Lishma and Shema since I was unable to read) Rabbi Soloveitchik is a pastime for Rabbi Lamm. He always acknowledged the Rav’s impact on his life and learning but his writing morphed into a vibrant pluralistic philosophy combining all aspects of Jewish thought.

Rabbi Lamm began the orthodox journal Tradition which has continued to educate orthodox thought sixty years later. Of his seventeen articles he made a passing reference to the Rav in an early submission and wrote a eulogy for him. Rabbi Lamm never forgot the Rav’s impact. In his introduction to his halakhic sefer Halachot ve-halichot he thanks the Rav for teaching him. He is the only person to receive semicha and a doctorate from the Rav. A special honour and one he acknowledged. Yet this gratitude did not necessitate he opine by the Rav’s philosophy. Instead he took a different route. In the other fifteen articles he omits Rav Soloveitchik’s name entirely or his ideas. It wasn’t so much to make a name for himself but to replace the Rav with a new rebbe HaRav better know as Rav Kook. He based his Tradition essays on Rav Kook’s mystical philosophy incorporating spiritual notions into his articles. His book Faith and Doubt mentions the Rav frequently in footnotes while Rav Kook makes a more central position (In the Seventy Faces volumes the Rav does make more of an appearance—it is not a perfect pattern but one that is noticeable throughout his works). 

Even his halakhic work where he acknowledges Rav Soloveitchik in the first chapter. Usually acknowledgments are in the introduction but it seems (though this is mere conjecture) that the first chapter devoted to his grandfather and the Rav prior to discussing the sugyot was to demonstrate to the reader the importance of these figures instead of skipping it classically (though it does sound interesting, it reminds of the claim that the reason the Bavli doesn’t have daf aleph is since daf aleph is to meet your chavruta but the Yerushalmi has a daf aleph which concludes that printing began on the second page just as one’s average novella may begin on page three). While he dedicates the volume to his rebbes with no mention of Rav Kook, his analysis of the sugyot is anything but brisker. He brings chasidic masters and not the lomdush ones. For Rabbi Lamm, the inclusion of these chasidic ideas are integral to the halakhic derivation. Analysis combined the traditional halakhic scholars with the aggadic motifs found in hashkafic sectors. A novel unification that combined the brisker world of canonical halakhic writings with non-halakhic canonical orientation.   

Rabbi Lamm was chosen as the successor to Dr. Belkin as a member of the Rav’s school. While he was a student of the Rav he embraced his complexity. Unlike other  contemporaries, he was able to step out of the Rav’s shadow. This is not to say his other contemporaries lacked the will power to exit the genius of the Rav but even when they disembarked and/or the Rav passed away his influence loomed large in their philosophies. The two most obvious figures are Rabbi Wurzburger and Rav Lichtenstein. Both were students of the Rav with the latter his son in law. Both were very close to the Rav and preached his philosophy with their added nuance. In their own right, they were incredible thinkers with great admiration for their mentor. Both continued to quote him to their deaths. Rabbi Wurzburger who alongside Rabbi Lamb headed Tradition wrote numerous articles with the Rav’s philosophy in mind. In Rabbi Lamm’s article Unity he takes the side of Rav Kook and Rabbi Wurzburger bolsters a defence behind Rav Soloveitchik’s ideas in Pluralistic. Rabbi Lamm responded to Rabbi Wurzburger's arguments by doubling down on his Kookian theme in Faith and Doubt.

Rabbi Wurzburger wrote several more articles quoting Rav Soloveitchik and write a couple about him. Rav Lichtenstein like Rabbi Wurzburger found his footing outside of the Rav’s philosophy but adhered to his father in law’s ideas. They both innovated. Just take a quick read of R Wurzburger’s books or Rav Lichtenstein’s chiddushim. It is actually beautiful to recognise the acknowledgement of the Rav’s thought and then adding nuance. Rav Lichtenstein probably is most regarded as the the Rav’s successor. He defended philosophical discourse and preached conceptual learning. Yet while his ideas reflected the Rav, his internalisation and analysis varied. Rav Lichtenstein is the prime receiver of the Rav’s Torah and he did not disappoint. There are aspects that Rav Lichtenstein diverged (my knowledge of him is insufficient to layout but his writing alone clearly differs). The Rav’s ideas in their ideal have remained strong by his prime students even if others have moved away from his love for philosophy and intellectualism. 

In contrast, Rabbi Lamm’s philosophy moulded into the Kookian synthesis. A factor prevalent in the Rav’s early writings but subsided into a dual characterisation. A dialectic without resolution. From Hegel to Kierkegaard. Perpetually oscillation between two types never finding a balanced middle. Rav Kook sought that synthesis. Rabbi Lamm coined his works as antithesis: Faith and Doubt, Torah Umadda and Halachot ve-halichot. Two separate ideas and functions to be unified in one balanced individual. A dialectical character that the Rav preached and other students portrayed but then concluded them to be separate spheres. The two Adams, Majesty and Humility. For Rabbi Lamm, the two ideas could be combined. The dialectic could be salvaged. His philosophical thought could be synthesised, his pragmatic thought could be synthesised and his halakhic thought could be synthesised. Rabbi Lamm took an old idea in orthodoxy and reclaimed the Rav of the mid-century era. The Rav of balance and synthesis. The ish halakha and ish elokim. Whether this was his intent, it was the mystical prowess that reaffirmed the potential middle ground.

I recently came across Zev Eleff’s counter history if Rav Lichtenstein stayed in America. He notes that Rabbi Rackman and Rabbi Lamm would’ve switched places with Rav Amital as his assistant. Wherever Rabbi Lamm could’ve have been, there is no question his philosophy would be even more infected by Rav Kook. Today nearly seventy years since his passing and Rav Kook is still the most influential religious thinker. His books are found on every student’s bookshelf. At Bar Ilan or wherever, he would’ve consumed more Rav Kook and may have enlarged his already laced mystically induced religious thought. Eleff places Rav Aharon at centerstage but this what if for Rabbi Lamm is as intriguing. For someone so influenced by Rav Kook from the American perspective entrenched in Solovietchikian ideas. Even the former president Dr. Belkin argued as the Rav that philosophy is derived from halakha. This was not solely a Solovietchik theme but may represent an orthodox philosophical perspective that morphed from Europe to America. As philosophy was incorporated into the mainstream the halakha became the foundation of religious thought. 

This was not the case of mystics who found religious philosophy in other areas including Kabbalah. Rabbi Lamm diverted from an atmosphere of halakhic philosophy (the Rav may have written the only systemic philosophical treatise but that doesn’t negate others thinking the same way). Rabbi Lamm was not rebelling against the Rav. He respected the Rav dearly but sought a new path with new insights. To paraphrase the famous line from Genesis “A man leaves his yeshiva and clings to his rebbe and they are linked”. Rabbi Lamm gained all he could from the Rav and found a new interest in mysticism. Clearly diverting from the brisker message, he dotted on mystical notions to help fill the void that orthodox members felt. While he was too busy with logistical efforts to continue his philosophical insights, what we do have is truly magnificent and reminiscent of a free thinker who grabbed from everyone around him.    

Rabbi Lamm is a forgotten thinker amongst the greats of our generation. His passing has been recent and his logistical lead steers away from his incredible messages imprinted in his books. Had he been a rebbe or even a rosh yeshiva which he could seemingly hold given his vast knowledge and erudition. His ideas would been written by students passed around the community and adorned in the halls of orthodox greatness. He exemplified Maimonides’ dictum of he who is wise learns from everyone. Harking back to his halakhic work shows this best. Chilukim chiddushim and then adding chasidic matters only adds to the legend. A sage with the ability to bring from everyone. Rav Kook would be proud. A brisker but yet a hasid. A feat that not even the great chasidic lamdanim attained. A brisker reaching out to the chasidim. Rav Moshe Ha-Levi was the Rav’s halakhic man but Rabbi Lamm was the epitome of talmudic man.