R. Lopiansky’s Ben Yeshiva: A Moderate Haredi Approach

R. Ahron Lopiansky, Rosh Yeshiva of the Yeshiva of Greater Washington and a representative of the moderate wing of American Haredim, recently came out with a second quality English volume. After previously publishing a guide for b’aal habatim, (Orchos Chayim: Ben Torah for Life) R. Lopiansky has now penned a volume for yeshiva students, Ben Yeshiva: Pathway of Aliyah. It is full of sound advice, interesting source material, and reminds us not to immediately associate the Haredi rabbinate with extremist viewpoints.

Let us begin with the good advice. R. Lopiansky understands that students need to take breaks, and that giving a successful dvar Torah depends on several factors including real preparation and avoiding yeshivish jargon. Rather than referring every issue to rabbis, he advises potential smokers to speak with their local doctor in the hope that medical professionals will dissuade them from this destructive habit. He appreciates the reality that people have limitations and not all can become great scholars given sufficient diligence. Rambam carefully wrote that anyone can become “righteous like Moshe Rabbenu” but not that all can become Moshe Rabbenu (Hilkhot Teshuva 5:2). Righteousness is a function of what a person does with the tools they were bequeathed but it does not enable catching up to another starting with far greater abilities and opportunities. His approach serves as a counterbalance to potentially misleading stories about weaker students becoming gedolim through constant effort.

R. Lopiansky exhibits keen educational insight including affirming the value of tests and the importance of learning how to write. In terms of the latter, he cites a clever bon mot from Hazon Ish that rereads the first word in “u’keneh lekha haver” as referring to a kaneh, a quill or pen as your friend. While acknowledging that the average student will not become a great sage, our author does expect him to grow knowledgeable enough to discern who the outstanding scholars are. This last point entails that the choice of a rebbe ultimately depends upon each individual’s judgment.

He quotes a powerful line from the well-known mashgiah, R. Shlomo Wolbe. After R. Wolbe gave a talk about the value of truth, one listener complained that he did not offer concrete examples of how to manifest that value. R. Wolbe responded that had he done so, this listener would have thought that the examples were the only take away. The desire to reduce every speech to calling for very specific action fails to understand the importance of larger ideals.

Our author is a serious talmid hakham who cites significant and varied source material. Malbim on Iyyov (42:7) suggests that Iyyov’s friends were not faulted for their positions but for their lack of sincerity; they did not truly believe the ideas they were saying. Their hearts were full of doubts even as they put up a pious veneer when debating Iyyov. Maharal (Netiv haAvoda 5) explains the midrashic statement (Devarim Rabba 7:2) that a person should enter through a doorway within a doorway before praying as conveying that the first entrance represents leaving the outside world behind while the second one symbolizes entering God’s domain. Mishlei 12:18 states: “The words of the reckless pierce like swords but the tongue of the wise brings healing.”  According to Gra’s interpretation, this verse contrast two approaches to those who err. The first approach just castigates without any constructive ideas while the second softly explains steps to take towards improved behavior.

I would like to conclude with a few matters of disagreement. There is a famous story in which the Vilna Gaon did not have time for more than a brief conversation with his visiting sister who he had not seen in years because he could not distract himself from Torah study. Not wanting to set this up as a model but unwilling to doubt the tale or criticize the Gaon, R. Lopiansky says this kind of behavior is only for someone like the Gaon. I posit that we should not see such a story as admirable for anybody. R. Lopiansky tells a story R. Elya Svei related about R. Ahron Kotler in which R. Ahron showed R. Elya a three hundred dollar donation but then added that the check was truly from Hashem and not from the baal habatim “who actually despise me”. I do not know the story of that particular donation but the sentiment certainly seems lacking in gratitude and should not be the regular response.

Finally, R. Lopiansky endorses the standard yeshiva curriculum dominated by Gemara with brief time daily allotted to Halakha and Mussar. He recommends studying Humash with mefarshim on Friday or Shabbat and he conveys the yeshiva world’s ambivalence about devoting time to learning mahshava luminaries such as R. Hutner or R. Dessler.

Different yeshivos have different approaches to this genre of sefarim. Some frown on them, in line with Chazal’s admonition of “minu beneichem min hahigayon, discourage your children from engaging in philosophical pondering.” Some yeshivos encourage learning machshava, while many yeshivos don’t have any particular attitude about these sefarim, as long as they do not interfere with regular sedarim. (p. 92).

Strikingly, R. Lopiansky agrees that various students will be drawn to different subjects but he restricts the range to the world of Talmud. Some prefer the classic Nashim or Nezikin tractates, others like Kodashim, while a third group is interested in more practically oriented topics (49-50). Those more drawn to Ramban al haTorah or R. Zadok’s works make no appearance on the list of possibilities.

I believe this to be a mistake. Students with an admirable desire to make Talmud Torah meaningful or with great intellectual curiosity may be the ones asking for more mahshava and their needs should be met. Furthermore, even those content with a steady diet of Talmud may be losing out on developing a more sophisticated Jewish outlook. Someone who has read R. Dessler on free will can now develop a much richer understanding of how this crucial concept works. Every student will benefit from reading R. Hutner on the distinction between a “broad life” and a “double life.” In fact, R. Lopiansky’s volume itself is an argument for a broader yeshiva curriculum. Throughout the work, his points are bolstered by citations of Maharal, Tanya, Ramban on the Torah, Gra on Mishlei and other such sefarim. In contrast, hakirot about migo and sefek sefeika play no role. If yeshiva students just studied Gemara all day, they would not produce any R. Lopianskys capable of writing such a valuable work.

Criticisms aside, we are grateful for R. Lopiansky’s educational insights. If Modern Orthodox Jews affirm that they can learn insight from other groups, then they can certainly glean wisdom from the intelligent and moderate voice of R. Ahron Lopiansky.