Challenging Giants

By: Jonathan Seidel

The Rav’s greatest critic: a young Rabbi Sacks “an agenda of future Jewish thought” and what could’ve been

I read an article by R Yuter bemoaning the lack of critical analysis of the Rav. Some of this is true but not always. R Lamm diverted from his rebbe but there was no one more openly critical of the Rav than a young R Sacks.

R Sacks’ first book Tradition in an Untraditional Age spends a quarter of the book chastising the Rav. In four separate essays published previously he takes the Rav to task. His two articles from Tradition: “Alienation and Faith” and “Early Epistemology” as well as two articles from L’Eyla concerning “Sacred and profane” and Halakhic Man. R Sacks insistently challenged the Rav’s philosophy. Arguing the Rav’s view of halakhic man and lonely man of faith were both incorrect. His criticism is sharp and harsh. He did not pull any punches. R Sacks was committed to bringing Jewish thought to the next stage and did not hold back because it was the Rav. Granted, all these essays and even the published book were written while the Rav was still alive. The biggest critic in the Jewish world was a young Orthodox Jew who only became acquainted with his yiddishkeit in his early twenties. A man unafraid to challenge and debate. Maggid’s republishing of this work is significant to demonstrate not only young R Sacks’ thought but his agenda for Jewish thought. 

R Sacks never ceased challenging the Rav on his positions. While he dialled down his targeted criticism over the years, in his Jewishly focused works he referred to the Rav and diverted to his point. His perspective on the power of generalised religion and Jewish aid helped in portraying a different model than the Rav but nothing comes close to the depth and disdain in his early works. Once R Sacks became chief rabbi he moved away from criticising his predecessor and his role model. Into his tenure he has shifted to his philosophy. First focusing on the power of Jewish ethics to generalised religion in general to Jewish insights. The Rav was not absent from his world but he did play a lesser role. R Sacks' interfaith dialogue and biblical theology exceptionally diverted from the Rav. Yet for R Sacks the promise of global discussion was more important. He had some small changes like his covenant of faith rather than covenant of destiny but this was far from his earlier works. This is not to say he mellowed out but instead looked to build elsewhere. Speaking to a global audience didn’t need to bring in the Rav’s points as much. They weren’t as relevant. Even in his discussion to Jews, the Rav’s influence more than his words was important.

R Sacks’ British nationality may have permitted his insolence to the Rav. He did not idolise the Rav though learned much from him. Instead his teacher was the esteemed R Rabinovitch the late Rosh Yeshiva of Ma’aleh Adumim. A genius in his own right but less philosophical though he was well versed. A renown posek and maimonidean commentator. Unlike the Rav, R Sacks was not of a distinguished family and worked as a pulpit rabbi. There were talks of the Rav becoming the chief rabbi of Israel to which he did not win. Had he been victorious we may looking at a different world. R Berkovits may have been the undisputed leader of modern orthodoxy and R Rackman the Rosh Yeshiva of YU. R Sacks from beyond the pond with his teacher’s readiness to battle with contemporary scholars may have affected him deeply. Alternatively, his responses to the Rav were in part from his English environment. America and England were different religiously with America being much stronger. Whether it was his nature or his nurture, he repeatedly engaged and elaborated on the Rav’s work. 

R Sacks recognised the greatness of the Rav and even coined him the greatest thinker of the generation but did not believe that merited dissidence. In his first essay challenging the Rav on The Lonely Man of Faith, R Sacks begins by insinuating he bringing an alternative view not a contradicting one yet it ended up being a disagreement. Through his analysis he begins to challenge the core idea of the Rav’s persona. Ironically, the philosopher brings a mystic—Alter Rebbe’s Tanya—to discuss the community of faith. Drawing on chassidus to explain a more loving cleaving engagement. R Sacks uses the entire biblical narrative to alter the paradigm. The man of faith need not be lonely. Loneliness is a condition that can be overcome with cleaving to God. Faith and loneliness are an oxymoron. It is through faith that loneliness dissipates. He accused the Rav of binging Kierkegaard in Torah rather than letting the Torah speak for itself. Discounting the Rav’s work as despairing. 

In his second tradition article, R Sacks critiqued the Rav’s Halakhic Mind. A challenging text being with, R Sacks too on the obstacle with full force. He acknowledges its dated aspect—though the Rav’s decision not to revise the 1944 edition upon publication in 1986 is interesting may have much to do with his ailing health more than his stubborn belief yet we cannot know for certain. Nevertheless, R Sacks is amused by its content though still skeptical. The Rav’s use of cognition for Judaism doesn’t remain for just Judaism as he hoped. There is also an uncertainty of the goal of the halakhic mind. The Rav sought to make a mark about condition and place Judaism as the supreme order—quite similar to Hegel’s place of sublime and Christianity at the top. The idealism slips into his work while failing to account for the contemporary culture. It is incredible crafty and readily enjoyable but for R Sacks there is a significant division between the Rav’s intent and its product. 

Halakhic Man didn’t pass R Sacks either. Though his critique is not unique and follows others before him. The Rav’s portrait of halakhic man is theoretical and thus inapplicable to the real world. It is not a code of law which many saw Berkovits’ Not In Heaven attempt to do. The Rav’s construction of the theoretical is great but R Sacks notes this has little to do with the community. How halakha impacts the Jewish people and how it cultivates their lifestyle. This is not the halakha of the premodern Jew. R Sacks accords it with Pascal but it seems more in line with the halakha of the Beis Midrash. R Sacks criticism is followed from Heschel and Borowitz’s critique. He sees a lot of modern existentialist themes present in the work rather than its credible religious sources. The theoretical is way too modernist for premodern capability. 

R Sacks periodically critiqued in his later works as chief rabbi and his biblical work. Yet it is mainly in his earlier work where the jabs are quite noticeable. Yet are these critiques, valid. Beginning from the bottom up. Halakhic Man has always had this criticism. While it is fair in many regards, the briskerism cannot be denied nor can the poetry be subverted. It is a masterful work fascinating the law even if one doesn’t agree with every aspect. Halakhic Mind is more of a grey area due to its complexity. While the questions concerning the philosophical history is beyond my own knowledge, yet the inquiries about the halakha are fair given he wasn’t the only one who believed this (Belkin and Leibowitz). Lonely Man of Faith, by far the harshest critique. R Sacks did not like the idea of loneliness. Yet is this unfair. The typology isn’t wrongheaded nor is the fact that the entire essay is covered in rabbinic sources. The lonely man of faith does in fact exist with Jeremiah and Elijah even Job. I do not think this necessary a product of time but rather a product of isolation and obscurity.

Instead, R Sacks’ harsh critique of Lonely Man of Faith seems to bother R Sacks because it conflicts with his own outlook. R Sacks is a communitarian. The lonely figure doesn’t exist since the redemption of man is a faithful community. Drawing on optimistic mystical sources for faith endowment. Yet faith is a challenge. It is hard to connect. Using feeling or a leap of faith to the unknown. The sensual is itself a Kierkegaardian theme. The Rav’ novella is riddled with rabbinic sources whereas R Sacks’ with biblical sources. The individualist is a modern notion against the grain of premodern communitarianism. There are valid critiques by R Sacks but there are aspects of the ugly world that the Rav acknowledged through faith. Though Adam II is what R Sacks seeks just maybe without the oscillation. He wants the Hegelian synthesis. The Rav’s loneliness may stem from his prestige as R Lamm noted by it doesn’t take away from the prophetic struggle elucidated in the individualistic obstacle. 

R Sacks was harsh criticiser of the Rav. A man who stepped out of he shadow that much of ago-Jewry has yet to escape. His writings on the Rav are being republished to review these intense polemics in hope of construing a new philosophy of Judaism. His chief rabbinate expanded his thought but at the same time redirected his perspective away from Jewishly motivated too globally insistent.