One of Professor Domb's closest friends, Harry Shimmel, eulogized him perceptively by

saying that a person's character can be assessed by his heroes.

Professor Domb believed that the most influential Torah leaders were those
trailblazers who did not hesitate to chart innovative paths and directions to
maintain and promote the Torah's values in their own generations. These people
had to withstand criticism of their more conservative colleagues and also to imbue
their followers with their idealism in order to make a permanent influence on the
society around them. In this article Professor Domb tries to define what exemplifies
a Torah revolutionary.
In many ways Professor Domb himself was a Torah revolutionary, establishing a
yardstick for himself of excellence both in the scientific world he inhabited and the
Torah environment where he felt most comfortable. He soughtand succeeded
to make his mark on both worlds.

Torah and The Revolutionary Spirit

1. Introduction
Can there be such a concept as a Torah revolution? Is the Torah not eternal, and
hence opposed in principle to the concept of revolution? I would like to suggest
that Rabbi Yisrael Ba'al Shem Tov, the founder of Chasidism, Rabbi Yisrael
Salanter, the founder of the Mussar movement, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch
who is so intimately associated with the philosophy of Torah Im Derech Eretz
and Sarah Schnirer, the founder of Bet Yaakov, are all examples of Torah
revolutionaries. I was gratified to find support for this view from Dr. Isaac
Breuer, who in an essay published in the Leo Jung collection Jewish Leaders 1
describes Rabbi S. R. Hirsch as the "Legitimate Revolutionary of the Word of Gd."

But, as we have mentioned above, surely the Torah is unchanging? "Yes" answers
Rabbi Breuer, "the Torah does not change, but external circumstances do change,
and it is the task of the Torah revolutionary to show how to apply the eternal
Torah principles to the new situation." Such a revolution is completely different
from that of movements which deviate from Judaism, like Karaite or Reform
movements, which can be accurately described as revolutions against tradition,
not within tradition.
I first talked publicly about Torah revolutionaries at the AOJS convention in New
York in 1968, which marked the twentieth anniversary of the establishment of
the Association. I have returned to the topic from time to time and have
1

Leo Jung, ed. Jewish Leaders (New York: Bloch, 1953), p. 163

benefited considerably from the questions and discussions following public

lectures. The opportunity of putting the ideas in writing in coherent form is very
welcome.
I would like to suggest that there are in general five characteristic stages in the
development of the Torah revolutionary:

1) He recognizes that a new situation has arisen.

2) He has an original idea about the application of Torah principle to the new
situation.
3) He and his followers must be prepared for serious opposition. There is a healthy
conservatism in Torah society which opposes innovations until they have proved
that they do not lead away from Judaism.
4) He and his followers must possess the courage, energy, patience and devotion to
stand up to and ultimately overcome the opposition.
5) He can finally aspire to be accepted as part of the genuine Torah tradition and to
find that the novelty and revolutionary aspect of his ideas no longer attract
attention.

Let me illustrate these ideas by reference to R. Yisrael Ba'al Shem Tov (The
Besht) and the emergence of the Chasidic movement. The history is well known,
so I will content myself with very brief references.

1) A new situation arose following the debacle of Shabbetai Zevi, the false Messiah.
A wave of depression had engulfed the masses of Eastern Europe. The Torah
leadership concentrated on intellectual elitism, and became more and more
estranged from the Jew in the street and the countryside.
2) The teaching of the Besht aimed to correct these defects; to counter depression
by emphasizing the importance of joy and happiness in one's fulfillment of
mitzvot; to instill in the heart of the ordinary Jew a sense of dignity and personal
significance; to emphasize that scholarship on its own

It is interesting and important that there was nothing radically new in the
teachings of the Besht. A basis could be found for every one of them in ancient
literature. But there was an enormous freshness of approach and of emphasis.

3) The movement soon came up against the strongest opposition in the Torah
world, that of the Vilna Gaon and his colleagues, and Chasidim had to struggle
against an official Cherem which had been proclaimed against them by the
mitnagdim, which forbade other Jews from eating of their shechitah, doing
business with them, intermarrying with them (or even giving them hospitality)
or assisting at their burial.

It has been pointed out to me by Rabbi Ephraim Gastwirth that the bitter
opposition which the Chasidic movement encountered may have been the key to

its survival. In its initial development there were trends which could have led it
astray. The process of critical self-examination which it was forced to undergo
ensured that any alien tendencies were purged and there was a sound Torah
basis for every one of its activities. Rabbi Gastwirth suggests that in this way one
can understand the Rabbinic maxim (Avot 5:17), "Any controversy that is in the
name of Heaven will have a permanent effect."

4) An outstanding example of mesirut nefesh in an attempt to overcome the

opposition was provided by the effort of R. Menahem Mendel of Vitebsk and R.
Shneur Zalman, the Alter Rebbe of Lubavitch to see the Vilna Gaon personally.
The imprisonment of the Rebbe by the Russian authorities as a result of slander
by fellow Jews is a testimony to the vehemence of the opposition. His faith in the
justice of his cause enabled him to withstand the hardships of Russian
imprisonment, to fight back and secure his freedom. There are many other
examples of courage and devotion among Chasidic leaders.
5) Finally, after decades of struggle, the Chasidic movement was accepted. At the
beginning of this century the Chafetz Chaim, the outstanding mitnaged, could
combine forces on the same Torah platform with the Gerrer Rebbe at the Knessia
Gedolah of Agudat Yisrael. There is even a special mashal of the Chafetz Chaim
dealing with the relations between mitnagdim and Chasidim. Nowadays, the best
mitnagdic families have Chasidim in their ranks and vice versa. The
revolutionary element has completely disappeared.
2. Samson Raphael Hirsch: Historical Torah

In my opening remarks I referred to Rabbi S.R. Hirsch and the Torah Im Derech
Eretz movement of the last century. Let us analyze more precisely the nature of
this Torah revolution. The guiding principle of Torah Im Derech Eretz is part of
the Talmudic tradition and is enumerated in the Mishnah Avot 2:2. "Rabban
Gamliel the son of Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi says `It is well to combine Torah study
with a worldly occupation for the labor demanded by both causes sin to be
forgotten; all Torah study which is not accompanied by work must end in futility
and become the cause of sin."
The term derech eretz has here been translated "a worldly occupation", following
the interpretation of the standard commentaries. Prof. Leo Levi has argued
convincingly in his recent book 'Sha'arei Talmud Torah 2 that the principle
permeated the whole philosophic outlook of Chazal.
Rabbi Hirsch's innovation was to recognize that derech eretz required in the
society of his day had changed from that in the time of Chazal, and needed to
2

Leo Levi, Shaarei Talmud Torah (Jerusalem, Feldheim, 1981), Sect. 6

include education in the current scientific and literary disciplines. When he

began his rabbinic career, the Reform movement in Germany had made
enormous inroads into the whole of Jewish society, and had captured the
leadership of the major Jewish organizations. The challenge of Reform had to be
met at the highest intellectual level, and it was essential to demonstrate that
complete commitment to Torah in practice and outlook could be synthesized
with a profound knowledge of all other areas of learning.

When he moved to Frankfurt, Rabbi Hirsch took the daring step of seceding from
the official community and forming his own "Independent Orthodoxy"
(Austrittsgemeinde). In the current situation of German Jewry he felt that this
was the only practical course to take, but his move was subjected to serious
criticism by other Orthodox leaders, most notably the Wurtzburger Rav, R.
Seligman Baer Bamberger. The correctness of his vision is testified to by the
enormous contribution to Torah life made by his own community and their
children and grandchildren. The late Dayan Grunfeld in his book Three
Generations 3 has provided a documented account of the many remarkable
figures in the generations following Hirsch: doctors, lawyers, scientists,
engineers and businessmen, whose lives were conducted in accordance with
Hirsch's teaching. A special type of personality had been created who was
conversant with contemporary culture and learning, but also completely
committed to the Shulchan Aruch. The German refugees who escaped from
Europe before World War II made immense contributions to the building up of
Torah institutions in Israel, the U.S.A. and the U.K., and other countries in which
they settled. Their children found their way to the yeshivot which were
beginning to grow up in new surroundings.
No one interested in the spread of Torah Judaism could fail to be impressed by
the record of positive achievement of German Orthodoxy. Hence we find that,
after an initial period of trial, Rabbi Hirsch was treated with respect and even
admiration in the Torah centers of Eastern Europe. But the philosophy of Torah
im Derech Eretz as interpreted by Hirsch was always regarded as relevant only to
Germany, since the large Jewish masses of Eastern Europe had not been
significantly affected by European culture.

In the post-war era in England and America, the Torah im Derech Eretz
movement began to take root again, kehillot were established following the
pattern of the original Hirschian Frankfurt community, and movements like the
Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists attempted to find a synthesis between
Torah and general knowledge of the mid-twentieth century. But, presumably
because of the wider challenge of Hirschian philosophy to the Torah world, we
now find attempts to "reinterpret" history, to suggest that the path which Rabbi
3

I. Grunfeld, Three Generations, (London: Jewish Post Publications, 1958)

Hirsch had chosen was a hora'at sha'ah (temporary ruling), a teaching whose
validity was limited to the conditions of life prevailing in his own time.

We shall find that such rewriting of history, in accordance with what later
generations would like to think, is a feature in the later development of Torah
revolutions. To assess the truth one must get as close as possible to a
contemporary account; and in our case we are fortunate in having available the
evidence of Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer, the distinguished grandson of Rabbi Hirsch,
who founded the model community, K'hal Adath Yeshurun, in Washington
Heights, New York, and who more than any other person was responsible for
introducing reliable kashrut supervision in the U.S.A. Rabbi Breuer published an
article in Mitteilungen (Aug/Sept 1965), the organ of his community, on this
subject. The following is an extract :
Anyone who has but a fleeting insight into the life and work of Rabbi Hirsch will
realize that his Torah im Derech Eretz formula was never intended by him to be
a hora'at sha'ah. "Our schools must be governed by the spirit of Torah im Derech
Eretz; at no time and circumstance may it give up these principles (of Torah im
Derech Eretz education)"; thus he states firmly in a draft of by-laws for his
kehillah. Or shall we listen to Rabbi Hirsch in his famed polemical essay against
the Breslau Seminary (Coll. Writings, vol. VI, p. 392-3): "Ever since we have
begun to make our modest contribution to the Jewish cause by speech, pen and
deed, it was and is our wholehearted endeavor to present and advocate the most
intimate union between Judaismtotal, unadulterated Judaismand the spirit
of all true science and knowledge... we maintain that our whole future, with all
ideological and social problems, the solution of which is eagerly awaited by
mankind, belongs to Judaism, full, unabridged Judaism.... Because we can view
the welfare and future of Judaism only in the framework of the most intimate
union with the spirit of true science and knowledge of every age, we are the most
outspoken foes of false science and knowledge, foes of every attempt, in the guise
of science, to lay the axe to the roots of our Jewish sanctuary... for if there were
no alternative and we had only the choice between Judaism and science, then
there simply would be no choice and every Jew would unhesitatingly make his
decision... rather to be a Jew without science than science without Judaism. But,
thank God, this is not the case "....

Does this Hirschian demand for Torah im Derech Eretz bear the slightest
resemblance to a hora'at sha'ah? Far more insidious than this suggestion is the
attempt to doctor the actual writings of Hirsch to fit in with a particular later
Torah philosophy. By judicious selection, by leaving out a word here and there,
and by other minor changes, it is possible to change the whole emphasis and
message of an article. A detailed analysis of one such "doctored" version of Rabbi
Hirsch's writings has been provided by Prof. Mordechai Breuer (HaMa'ayan,
Tishrei 5727).

The attempts to discredit the Torah im Derech Eretz philosophy may well stem
from a disillusionment with European culture as a result of the Holocaust. If a
nation as steeped in culture as Germany could descend to such barbarism,
perhaps it is better to immerse oneself totally in Torah and avoid any alien
cultural contamination. In fact, one of the most inspiring features of Jewish life in
the post-World War II era has been the rebirth and regeneration of all the major
yeshivot of Eastern Europe, and the establishment of substantial numbers of new
yeshivot. This has been achieved largely as a result of the tremendous mesirut
nefesh and single-mindedness of a few Rashei Yeshivah who survived the
Holocaust and proceeded to carry out the rabbinic dictum of training many
disciples. The vital problem of ensuring adequate Torah leadership for the new
generation has been effectively tackled.

However, a Torah society also needs doctors, scientists, engineers, technologists,

statesmen, diplomats, businessmen, lawyers, psychologists, teachers, artists and
writers, who are totally committed to Torah values, but also maintain the highest
professional standards. These will be forthcoming if we can succeed in
establishing the current-day analogue of the Hirschian synthesis, and for this
purpose much can be learned from a study of the true history of Hirsch's Torah
revolution .

3.

Bet Yaakov and Sarah Schnirer

We take Sarah Schnirer as our next example since the success of her Bet Yaakov
movement was intimately associated with the Torah im Derech Eretz philosophy.
To gain appreciation of the conditions of initial growth of the movement it is
again important to go to first-hand sources. Fortunately, there is an excellent
essay on Sarah Schnirer by Dr. Judith Rosenbaum-Grunfeld 4 in the collection
Jewish Leaders, edited by Rabbi Leo Jung. I have also benefited greatly from
personal discussions with Dr. Grunfeld. Dr. Grunfeld was one of Sarah Schnirer's
personal assistants for several of the crucial early years of the movement. There
are other accounts by people who knew Sarah Schnirer personally in the
memorial Hebrew volume Em beYisrael edited by Yechezkel Rotenberg and
published by Netzach in 1960.
Traditionally, Jewish girls did not receive a formal Jewish education; in
accordance with the guidance given in Psalms 45:14, "The glory of the princess is
within [the palace]," the principles and practice of Judaism were assimilated in
the home. However, the advent of emancipation and of widespread general
schooling provided a new challenge.
The situation of Jewish girls in Poland at the time of World War I is described in
detail by Dr. Grunfeld (the accuracy of her account was attested to me by my
4

Note 1, p. 407

mother, z"l, who also came from Poland). The older generation of women were
withdrawn into a spiritual world of their own, while the younger generation
longed to be "modern"; they remained untutored in Torah, but picked up a
superficial polish of modern "science". In the Polish gymnasium (high school) it
was widely felt that Judaism was merely a useless retainer, a shell that must
burst to let in the light. Novels and secular literature were widely read.

The young men of the family went to yeshivah, from which they drew intellectual
stimulus and religious strength. But they rarely entered into religious discussion
with their sisters. In many families there were casualties; a daughter left home to
get married without chuppah and kiddushin; her sisters who remained at home
would have liked to follow her example, but refrained from doing so only out of
love for the poor brokenhearted mother.
When the Ellul days arrived and the Yamim Noraim approached, towns and
villages became denuded of their menfolk, who filled the trains on the way to
Ger, Belz, Bobov and other townlets which housed Chasidic Rebbes. It was a
widespread custom for Chasidim to spend these solemn days with their Rebbe,
and as a result, hundreds of deserted womenfolk in the villages might gather
together on Rosh Hashanah to hear kiddush from one underprivileged male who
had been unable to get away.

The initiative to remedy this situation came from a Cracow dress-maker, who
incidentally was a divorcee. It was she who saw clearly that a new situation had
arisen, and that a new mechanism was required to impart to Jewish girls a
proper appreciation of their Torah heritage. In 1915, at the age of 32, Sarah
Schnirer came as a refugee from Cracow to Vienna. There, one Shabbat morning,
she attended the shul of a certain Rabbi Flesch, a former pupil of Rabbi Salomon
Breuer of Frankfurt, and an enthusiastic disciple of Hirsch. It was Shabbat
Chanukah, and she listened spellbound to his exposition of the war of the
Maccabees, their strength and determination and how they had remained
steadfast in their loyalty to God. The depths of his thought and the clarity of his
exposition were a revelation to her; here was what she had been seeking, the
beauty and glory of Jewish history laid out before the listener in a manner that
could not fail to attract interest. She attended regularly every evening at Rabbi
Flesch's lectures, and wrote down with painstaking loyalty everything she heard
from him. This material, she felt, was what was needed to inspire the girls back
in Cracow.
In 1917 she returned home, and for five years she struggled in vain to find a way
of attracting the young ladies of Cracow permanently. She assembled them, but
failed to hold them. Then she turned to the children with much greater success.
She turned her dressmaker's workshop into a schoolroom; of course she had no
normal school facilities, no blackboard, no desks etc., but her single-minded aim

to impart knowledge and love of Torah broke through, and the number of
children attending increased rapidly. It became impossible for a single person to
carry the load, and in 1923, on her own initiative and with her own meager
resources, she started to train teachers.
Twenty-five young girls, none older than sixteen, lived in her two-room flat and
were under her guidance every hour of the day for several months. They all
copied her Vienna notes and a guidebook for teachers which had been compiled.
When their training was completed, she would travel with them one at a time to
a Jewish population center, organize a public meeting of all the women, start a
class, and leave her pupil behind to manage it.
But as the movement grew, she became aware that something more
sophisticated would be needed. At this time a curious incident occurred which
had very positive consequences. She had planned to travel for a few days to
Hamburg in North Germany, for which she needed to change at Breslau. But she
made a wrong connection and got on the train to Frankfurt in South Germany.
The inspector pointed out her error when he came along the train to check her
ticket, and suggested that she change at the next station. But she decided that the
error was min haShamayim and that she should carry on to Frankfurt where she
had a number of contacts. She spent ten days in Frankfurt looking at girls'
schools and other edu-cational institutions.
Sarah Schnirer then realized that her task was to transfer to Poland the system of
Jewish girls' education which had been so well developed by the Torah im Derech
Eretz movement in Germany. She persuaded a number of young German teachers
to come to Poland and help in her work. Eventually, Dr. Leo Deutschlaender, a
Hirschian educationist, helped her to establish a proper teachers' training
seminary. We shall quote from an essay written by Dr. Deutschlaender in
memory of Sarah Schnirer to testify to the influence of Hirsch's writings upon
her:

Time and time again Sarah Schnirer stated both by word of mouth and in writing
that in those days in Vienna the thoughts and teachings of Samson Rafael Hirsch
came to her as a revelation, and that from then onwards she was simply
possessed by the idea of passing the spiritual heritage of Hirsch to the women of
her native country, where she was sure it would fall on fertile ground. There is
no need to speak here again of the single-mindedness and the spirit of sacrifice
with which Sarah Schnirer carried out her task; for all this is amply proved by
the hundreds of Bet Yaakov schools that exist today and the tens of thousands of
Sarah Schnirer's pupils. But it needs to be stressed that no spiritual and
intellectual force had an influence on the self-education and the inner
development of the personality of Sarah Schnirer comparable to the writings of
Samson Rafael Hirsch. Hundreds of essays from the collected writings of Hirsch

were copied again and again and distributed in stencil form among the Bet
Yaakov girls; and no other books in the Bet Yaakov library were so much used,
and showed the signs of wear and tear to such a degree, as Hirsch's
Commentaries on the Chumash, the Psalms and the Prayer Book, and the
volumes of his "Gesammelte Schriften". Up to the very last month of her life she
lectured to her students on Hirsch's Nineteen Letters of Ben Uziel, which was her
favorite book, and which she loved to study again and again together with her
pupils.
Dr. Isaac Breuer has reported a conversation with Sarah Schnirer in which she
told him that it was Hirsch's Horeb, dedicated to the sons and daughters of Israel,
which influenced her to start Bet Yaakov.

But Bet Yaakov did not just copy German Jewish schools. Sarah Schnirer was
sensitive to the differences between Poland and Germany and adapted
appropriately. She tried wherever possible to make Yiddish the language of
instruction and discussions so as to maintain linguistic contact with the major
centers of Torah learning in Poland. She herself spoke excellent Polish and
German and was much less fluent in Yiddish. But in addressing public meetings
she felt it better to use faulty Yiddish than perfect Polish.

The most remarkable feature of the development of Bet Yaakov was, that with so
many great and worthy Rabbanim available in Poland, it was a Cracow
dressmaker who took the initiative on this vital issue. Two suggestions can be
made in this connection: (a) there can be important matters on which laymen are
better informed than Rabbanim, (b) in such matters it is often more practical for
laymen to take an initiative.

The Bet Yaakov movement could never have achieved permanent success
without wide Rabbinical support. I have it on good authority that at the outset
Sarah Schnirer obtained a blessing from the Belzer Rebbe for her activities. But
she met with opposition and ridicule in the early days, in the standard pattern
we have suggested for Torah revolutionaries. Recognition came later when it
was clear to all that she was making an enormous positive contribution to the
spread of Torah culture.
4.

. R. Yisrael Salanter and the Mussar Movement

One of the most surprising aspects about R. Yisrael Salanter is that his earliest
activities took place in Vilna. This citadel of Torah, the Jerusalem of Lithuania,
creates an image of great Torah scholars, of fine batei midrash filled with welleducated laymen, and of the strictest adherence to tradition. But R. Yisrael was
not satisfied with the superficial image, and investigating more deeply he came
to the conclusion that, whilst the ritual of mitzvot was strictly observed, the
ethical content was often ignored; that great attention was paid to mitzvot

between man and the Almighty, but those between man and his fellow men were
treated less seriously. The butcher who would be scrupulously careful about any
question relating to kashrut would be less worried about charging exorbitant
prices for his meat. The leading communal figures who prided them-selves on
their hachnasat orchim (hospitality) showed little consideration for the welfare
of their Jewish servants upon whom fell the burden of the work involved in
entertaining their guests. The underprivileged members of the society, the poor,
the widows and the orphans, were low on the communal priority list. Hence the
Torah of this great city was one-sided, and did not reflect the true Sinaitic
tradition.

R. Yisrael Salanter's ideas on the study of Mussar have now been accepted as part
of the philosophy of Lithuanian yeshivot. It is difficult to get an appreciation of
the great struggle in which he had to engage without going to sources as close as
possible to R. Yisrael himself. Fortunately, we do have such sources. R. Yechiel
Weinberg had close personal acquaintance with the disciples of R. Yisrael, and
has recorded his memories in an essay 5 translated into English in another Leo
Jung volume, Men of the Spirit. Rav Dov Katz has several inspiring chapters on R.
Yisrael Salanter, in vol. 1 of his series Tenuat Hamussar, which contains personal
reminiscences of aged Jerusalem scholars. 6
R. Yisrael Salanter clearly falls into the category of Torah revolutionary, and we
shall endeavor to trace the five stages of development referred to in the
Introduction. We have already described the new situation in the Torah world
which R. Yisrael recognized. He was an out-standing Talmudic scholaran illuy
(genius)and he decided to make use of the prestige which he acquired as a
result of his scholarship to put over his very challenging ideas about Torah
ethics. He never occupied an official post. Both in Vilna and in Kovno he started
yeshivot which attracted pupils of character and ability, and it was they who
spread his ideas. In addition, during the Vilna period he served as a maggid,
preaching in batei midrash and attracting large audiences, whom he was able to
influence in the direction of true Torah ethics. Most of all it was the personal
example which he and his disciples set which led to the spread of his teachings.

There are hundreds of personal anecdotes which illustrate R. Yisrael's return to

first principles in his thought, and his refusal to abide by conventional practice.
When his talmidim asked him to recommend specific points of detail which they
might observe in baking matzot on erev Pesach, he told them that the point
requiring most detailed attention was to place no undue burdens on the widow
who was in charge of the baking. When on a visit to a neighboring community
they noted that he used only the minimum shiur of water for netilat yadayim
(washing hands before the meal). He was asked whether there was not a
5

Leo Jung, "Men of the Spirit", (New York, Kymson, 1964), p.213
Dov Katz, Tenuat Hamussar (Jerusalem 1972)

recommendation in the Shulchan Aruch to be liberal with water for this mitzvah.
"Yes" he replied, "it is a hiddur [a more appropriate fulfillment] of the mitzvah to
use water liberally; but I noticed that all the water has to be brought up manually
by the servant girl, and it is not appropriate to perform a hiddur on her
shoulders." When visiting a neighboring community, he was invited for a Shabbat
meal by a local wealthy businessman. He refused at first, but after much
persuasion agreed to come on condition that there should be no divrei Torah or
zemirot until after the meal. The reason for this strange request became apparent
only later, when the lady responsible for serving the meal in the household and
clearing away afterwards, reported to a friend that she never remembered an
occasion when she had been able to eat her own Shabbat meal with her family so
early.

Although he held no public office in the community, R. Yisrael did not shirk
communal responsibility when the need arose. On the historic occasion when
there was a cholera epidemic in Vilna, R. Yisrael took the decision on his own
that there must be no fasting on Yom Kippur. He arranged for posters to this
effect to be exhibited throughout the city, and made kiddush publicly on the
bimah after the service. His decision was challenged by some Vilna dayanim, and
R. Yisrael asked them to meet him on the following day for a discussion. He
delivered an address which did not touch at all on the subject of pikuach nefesh,
but which was so brilliant that none of the participants felt able to say anything
further.
In the field of Torah learning the major innovation of R. Yisrael was the regular
study of Mussar and ethical texts. It was not enough to be familiar with their
content. Regular repetition aloud of the textual material combined with
meditation and emotional involvement would, he hoped, influence the
subconscious forces towards ethical behavior. His three major talmidim, R.
Simchah Zissel Ziv, R. Yitzchak Blazer, and R. Naftali Amsterdam, followed in
their master's footsteps, generally shunning public office, and concentrating on
spreading his teaching to their talmidim with particular emphasis on personal
example. R. Naftali Amsterdam, served for some years as Rav of the community
of Helsinki, but this was during a period of special need. As soon as the need
passed he moved back to his teacher in Kovno. Eventually, late in his life, he
moved to Jerusalem, where he introduced himself to R. Yaakov Moshe Charlap: "I
was a baker at first. Later I became a Rabbi, but I was dismissed when it became
evident that I was unfit for such a position. I did however gain the merit of
serving communities in which great people resided."
R. Yitzchak Blazer, an outstanding halachic authority, trained as a house-painter
so as not to use Torah for his sustenance. At his master's request he served as
Rav of St. Petersburg, then the capital of Russia, but he resigned after sixteen

years when he was still quite a young man, and moved back to Kovno where he
lived privately.

There is no difficulty in finding evidence of great mesirut nefesh on the part of R.

Yisrael and his talmidim. Rabbi Yisrael himself travelled widely, and was
particularly concerned to make contact with estranged Jews in the West whose
observance of mitzvot was weak. He would try to befriend them, and to persuade
them to improve their observance of mitzvot even by a small amount, so as to set
them in the right direction.

From the perspective of the present day, it is difficult to understand why the
activities of the Mussar movement should have generated such opposition. There
was nothing comparable to the differences of halachic opinion over the
emergence of the Chasidic movement. But there was significant innovation, and
we have pointed out in our opening remarks that any innovation automatically
engenders opposition. For example, R. Chaim of Brisk refused to allow any
regular study of Mussar in his yeshiva. "Mussar" he said, "is for sick people. Our
yeshiva bachurim are brought up to be healthy on a diet of Gemara study, and
need nothing extraneous."
R. Dov Katz devoted a whole volume, Pulmus Hamussar, to the controversy which
raged around the Mussar movement during the latter half of the nineteenth
century. Many of the critics were secularists of the Haskalah, a movement which
had tried to draw R. Yisrael Salanter into its wings. But R. Yisrael saw that the
movement was leading away from Torah, and he refused to associate with them.
In fact, his departure from Vilna in 1849 was due to pressure from the Russian
government (motivated by the Haskalah) to accept the directorship of a
Haskalah school. But other critics were Rabbanim of distinction playing the
standard conservative role.

The Mussar movement overcame all of its critics and its ideas were eventually
adopted by all of the major yeshivot in Lithuania. Unfortunately, its ethical ideas
did not penetrate as widely as desirable in the wider Jewish community. The
disparity in the Torah-observant community between "devarim bein adam
lechavero" and "devarim bein adam lamakom" is still with us. There remains
much to be learned in our own day from the teachings and writings of R. Yisrael
Salanter and his disciples .
5.

R. Meir Shapira

During the past fifty years a revolution has taken place in the yeshivah world. It
has become an accepted tradition that yeshivot are accommodated in wellappointed buildings with comfortable and carefully planned facilities for
learning, eating and sleeping; there are many such examples, Ponevez in B'nei
B'rak, Hebron in Jerusalem, Gateshead in England, Lakewood in the U.S.A. In

previous generations, yeshivot had been housed in primitive accommodations

with no effort made to provide physical comfort or aesthetic surroundings, in
accordance with the well-known dictum in Pirkei Avot: "This is the way of Torah,
eat bread and salt; drink water in measured quantity, sleep on the ground and
live a life of austerity."
The Torah personality responsible for this revolution was R. Meir Shapira, a
Gaon of highest originality, who was also the innovator of the daf yomi, in which
one particular page of Gemara is studied each day by Torah Jews all over the
world. R. Meir realized that in the present era when yeshivot faced competition
from other educational institutions it was of great importance to enhance the
prestige of the yeshivah bachur. The current situation in Poland in which they
were obliged to eat meals with different families each day, and were poorly
clothed and housed, had a markedly negative influence on the attitude of the
average Torah-observant Jew towards yeshivot and their students.

R. Meir Shapira decided to establish a yeshivah in Lublin which, in his own

words, would compete with the best universities in splendor of design. "In my
day," he proclaimed, "yeshivah students will not live in shacks and eat like
beggars; I will build a palace for them."

Obviously, R. Meir knew of the aforementioned passage in Pirkei Avot and was
challenged with it wherever he went to put over his idea. I personally have heard
at least three different interpretations which he gave in reply, but there must
have been many more; that the passage addresses itself to ba'alei batim and not
to yeshivah bachurim; that it should be interpreted as a question, "Is this really
the way of Torah?"; that it should be read with an interposed "nebich", "This
(nebich) is the way of the Torah," but was not an ideal. Many of these are clearly
meant to silence critics, but do not constitute an authentic interpretation. R. Meir
may have decided that there were other sayings of Chazal which were more
appropriate to the current situation, perhaps those which talk about a person's
outlook being broadened by living in a beautiful house with beautiful furniture;
or he may have considered that the passage was appropriate to circumstances in
which the prestige of Torah was high.

In any case he struggled to convince Torah Jews all over the world of the
significance of his project. He was an outstanding orator, and travelled far and
wide in his efforts to raise funds for Yeshivat Chachmei Lublin. The late 1920s
was a period of extreme economic difficulty in the Western world where he
planned to raise much of his capital. Nevertheless, he went ahead with his plans,
although he was driven to borrow large sums of money in order to get the
project off the ground. The building of the yeshivah took seven years .
R. Meir Shapira succeeded in putting up an edifice which captured the
imagination of all who were privileged to see it. It was full of innovative ideas in

designthe entrance hall contained a model of the Bet Hamikdash, the impact of
the bet hamedrash was breathtakingand young men from all over Poland
streamed to apply for admission. R. Meir was able to set high standards of entry,
and those who were eventually accepted considered themselves very fortunate.
Alas, R. Meir Shapira lived on for only a short period after the establishment of
the yeshivah. The unusual circumstances of his death at the early age of forty-six
were poignantly described by one of his select talmidim, Dayan Meir Steinberg of
the London Beth Din. 7 Faced with the crushing burden of loan payments, R. Meir
had taken out an insurance policy on his own life for the total sum owed. When
he passed away suddenly and unexpectedly, the capital debts were wiped out,
and the yeshivah could continue with only the problem of current budgeting to
be faced.
The example of R. Meir Shapira was emulated by many Torah personalities when
they undertook the massive task of rebuilding Torah education after the
Holocaust. Few would deny that it is one of the factors which has led to the
greater reverence for yeshivot and their students in our own generation .
6.

R. Gershon Henoch Leiner: The Thread of Blue in Tzitzit

When we read the third verse of Shema every day relating to tzitzit, we
encounter the command, "and they shall put on the fringe of each corner a thread
of blue." This is a mitzvah which has not been performed for hundreds of years.
The Gemara tells us that the dye to be used for the blue thread must be taken
from a particular marine creature, chilazon, found on the Mediterranean shores;
the tradition regarding the identity of this creature was lost hundreds of years
ago, and has not been recovered since.

It was a Chasidic Rebbe, the Radziner, who felt impelled to make a supreme
effort to re-establish the mitzvah in our time. R. Gershon Henoch Leiner
established a reputation as an outstanding Talmudic scholar quite early in life.
He also revealed a gift for innovation in his Sidrei Tohorot, in which he
constructed a "gemara" on the extremely difficult and complex Mishnah tractates
of Kelim and Oholot, on which there is neither Babylonian nor Jerusalem Talmud.
This was a remarkable tour de force, and clearly required intimate knowledge of
the whole of Shas.

R. Leiner felt that with the increase of travel facilities and the growth of scientific
knowledge it should now be possible to identify the chilazon. He first searched
through all the traditional literature collecting refer-ences of relevance to the
chilazonthese were published as a sefer en-titled Sefunei Temunei Chol, the
phrase in the blessing of Moshe Rabbenu to the tribe of Zevulun which is
traditionally taken to refer to this creature. Although R. Leiner had no secular or
7

Hovevey Torah (Commemorative Brochure at Siyum of 9th Chalukat Hamishna), 1959

scientific training he set off for Naples in the year 5647 (1887) and visited
various places on the Mediter-ranean coast including the Aquarium at Naples.
After a patient process of elimination, he suggested that the marine creature
Sepia Officinalis seemed to have all the characteristics of the chilazon, and local
artists had been using it for many years for their blue paint. He went into action
and manufactured twelve thousand sets of tzitzit with the "petil techelet", the
blue thread.

Now began the struggle to try to convince the Torah world of the correctness of
his finding. R. Leiner was prepared for a battle. He had coined the phrase from
the daily service, oseh chadashot ba'al milchamot, with a novel interpretation:
"One who innovates must be a master of the art of warfare." He published his
findings and arguments in another sefer, Petil Techelet, which stirred up a
considerable controversy in the Torah world. He succeeded in convincing one
leading Torah authority, R. Shalom Mordecai Shwadron, of the correctness of his
case. But his at-tempts to influence R. Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, and other
authorities were unsuccessful. He argued forcefully against his critics in a third
book ,Ein Techelet, but without practical effect. Even if his identification of
chilazon is incorrect (and it has been strongly challenged), his basic thesis that an
effort must be made to re-establish the mitzvah seems convincing.
The Radziner Rebbe passed away soon afterwards in 5651 (1891), having
succeeded only with his own and Braslaver chasidim, who continue to wear the
thread of blue on their tzitzit to the present day. His interest in re-establishing
the original mitzvah had been heightened by Kabbalistic associations with the
Messianic era, and with the need to use the chilazon for the Holy Garments in the
Bet Hamikdash. His failure to win over the major poskim may have been due
partly to the feeling (based perhaps on mystical considerations) that the time
was not yet ripe for the re-introduction of the chilazon. But with God's help,
when the time does come for this happy event, a major share of the credit will
undoubtedly be due to R. Gershon Henoch Leiner .
7.

Early Torah Revolutionaries

All of the examples so far have been drawn from recent history. But I should like
to suggest that the Torah revolutionary is a characteristic of all periods in Jewish
history. Naturally, it is much more difficult to obtain detailed evidence about the
distant past and any identification must be much more tentative. I should like to
suggest that perhaps the greatest Torah revolutionary in Jewish history was
Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. Living in one of the most difficult periods in Jewish
history, the era of the destruction of the Second Temple, he realized that it was
necessary to move the center of the Torah world away from Jerusalem and
showed in many ways how to reorganize Torah life in the absence of the Holy
Temple. The story of his interview with the Roman Emperor, and his successful

plea that Yavneh be spared, are related graphically in the Gemara in Gittin 56b.
But we can glean some information on his personality from other references to
him in the Talmud Bavli. In Sukkah 28a, we have an interesting and informative
description of his background. "Hillel the Elder had eighty disciples... the greatest
[gadol] of them was Yonatan ben Uziel, the least [katan] of them was Rab-ban
Yochanan ben Zakkai." (From the subsequent description of the Gemara it is
fairly clear that katan does not mean youngest but rather smallest in spirituality
and knowledge).
The Gemara goes on to list how much knowledge this "least" of the disciples of
Hillel had acquired: "It was said of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai that he did not
leave [unstudied] Scrip-ture, Mishnah, Gemara, Halachah, Aggadah, details
[dikdukei] of Torah, details of Soferim [rabbinical laws], kalim vachamurim,
gezerot shavot [hermeneutics], calendar computations, gematriot, utterances of
the ministering angels, conversation of spirits, language of palm trees, parables
of launderers, parables of foxes, 'great matters' and 'small matters'. 'Great
matters' mean ma'aseh merkavah [the description of the Divine chariot], whereas
'small matters' mean the discussions of Abaye and Rava." Thus he had achieved
mastery of Torah in all its ramifications.

The Gemara continues: "If the smallest of them was so great, how much more so
was the greatest? They said of Yonatan ben Uziel that when he used to sit and
occupy himself with the study of Torah, any bird that flew near him was
immediately burnt."

We can now ask ourselves who made a more significant contribution to Jewish
history, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai or Yonatan ben Uziel (or the other
seventy-eight unnamed disciples)? Elsewhere the Talmud ac-cords high praise to
the Aramaic translation and commentary which Yonatan ben Uziel made on the
prophetic books of the Bible. But impor-tant as this was, it cannot compare with
the contribution of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, whose efforts ensured the
survival of the Jewish people during the long exile following the destruction of
the Temple.

Rabbi Meir Cohen of Philadelphia provided me with encouraging support for the
above interpretation. In Pirkei Avot, where the chain of historical tradition is
traced, the only disciple listed as having received the tradition of Hillel and
Shammai is R. Yochanan ben Zakkai, not Yonatan ben Uziel nor any of the other
disciples .
Two important conclusions can be drawn from this Gemara:

(a) It is not necessarily the leader with the greatest knowledge or kedushah who
makes the most significant contribution to Jewish history.

(b) Not every Jew in the street can lead a Torah revolution. Substantial Torah
and halachic knowledge is required; ideally a mastery of the whole of traditional
Torah learning.

Another revealing discussion is reported in the Gemara Berachot 28b. When

Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai became seriously ill (before his death) his disciples
came to visit him. When he saw them he began to weep. His disciples said to him
"Lamp of Israel, right-hand pillar, powerful hammer, why are you weeping?" He
replied "If I were being taken before a human king who is here today and
tomorrow in the grave, whose anger, if he is angry with me, does not last forever,
and who if he puts me to death does not put me to everlasting death, and whom I
can persuade with words and bribe with money, even so I would weep. Now that
I am being taken before the supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He,
who lives and endures forever and ever, whose anger, if He is angry with me,
lasts forever, who if He imprisons me imprisons me forever, who, if He puts me
to death, puts me to death forever, whom I cannot persuade with words nor
bribe with money, and even more, there are two ways before me, one leading to
Gan Eden and the other to Gehinnom, and I do not know along which I shall be
takenshould I not weep?"
Is this not very puzzling? Who could have done more for Torah Judaism than
Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, and what cause should he have to be worried
about Gehinnom? From this we may learn that any Torah revolutionary must
have feelings of trepidation, since any innovation in Judaism carries the seeds of
deviation from a true path. Only future history can determine finally whether it is
a genuine Torah revolution.

This may help us to understand the sequel in the Gemara: "At the time of his
passing away he said 'Remove the vessels so that they shall not become unclean,
and prepare a throne for Chizkiyahu the King of Judah who is coming.' " R.
Yaakov Emden comments that at this stage he was no longer weeping. Why King
Chizkiyahu in particular, and how had Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai been
reassured? Let us remember that Chizkiyahu had also been a Torah
revolutionary, and he had made daring innovations. He had the courage
(Melachim 18:4) to destroy the brass snake which had been made by Moshe
Rabbenu, which had been instrumental in effecting a miraculous cure to those
bitten by snakes in the wilderness (Bamidbar 21:9). It was an object enjoying
great prestige and had come to be treated with the veneration associated with
idol worship. He had hidden away the traditional Book of Medical Remedies
because he felt that it was not serving a constructive purpose (Pesachim 56a
Rashi). One can well imagine the strong opposition which these moves
engendered among his contemporaries, but his initiative was justified by
subsequent generations, and he has come to be regarded as one of the great

figures of Jewish history. We can therefore see how appropriate it was that he
should meet and reassure an innovator of a later period .