Moderators: I apologize for the length of the post, but it is probably only a tenth of the length of Joseph’s post in the Modern Orthodoxy thread.
(Disclaimer: Please do not impute any negativity into my tone. The nature of the written word is such that in a debate the tone may seem strident even when it is not. I am not trying to be mean or sarcastic or disrespectful to anyone, including Joseph, R’ Wolbe, R’ Cohen, and R’ Kaplan; I am just making a few points.)
1) Here is a contrast:
Joseph said:
[but]
R’ Soloveitchik said:
The bolded parts are the parts you left out (except for “of” which was simply that you wrote “for” instead which was probably an honest mistake). As you can see, and it is even more clear from the rest of the context which would take too long to type up, R’ Soloveitchik was contrasting life in Canaan with life outside of Canaan, and applying it to contemporary times. Thus, it is of the utmost importance that the quote that you emphasized appears between dashes, as an explanation of Canaan. What R’ Soloveitchik was saying was that IN CANAAN we could be separate and as long as we can remain in the era of being in Canaan, where it is feasible to remain separate, so much the better. But once we are forced out of that era, which R’ Soloveitchik applies to us in modern times, it is no longer feasible to remain separate.
2) I truly do not understand how you are interpreting R’ Lamm’s speech. First of all, when he mentioned the “real world” he had not yet even brought up YU or other yeshivos. He was simply making a point based on the Gemara, explaining what he thinks is the proper approach to life. When he brings up YU, he says that it is an enclave as opposed to a cave, but that the “cave experience” is necessary to a certain extent and that’s why they advocate taking off time to study Torah uninhibited in Israel. The only point where he brings in other yeshivos is when he says:
Our commitment to and celebration of Torah lishmah is no less than that of any other advanced yeshiva; but unlike others, our confrontation with modernity is more nuanced, more subtle, and more balanced. We neither accept it uncritically nor reject it unthinkingly. We believe, as the Rav taught us, that Torah can be lived and implemented in every time and circumstance, and that includes modernity and post-modernity. We stand firmly in the world of Halakha, but we shall not turn our backs on the world of Madda – of culture and science. We shall ever heed the Voice that bids us “leave the cave!” That dialectic between the Cave and the World is the source of our glory – as well as of our dilemmas, our tensions, and our perplexing inconsistencies. Our commitment is to Torah, to this community of Modern/Centrist Orthodox Jews, and to this ideology. And it is a commitment, not a compromise or concession.
There is nothing remotely insulting there. All he says is that YU’s mission statement is to engage the world and that he understands this to be what the Gemara is advocating. The “cave” is clearly not derogatory; it is just not the ideal in R’ Lamm’s view. This is obvious from the fact that he says that YU believes in utilizing the cave for a certain amount of time, and moreover, as I pointed out already, you may as well accuse him of insulting R’ Shimon Bar Yochai if you understand the cave to be derogatory – better yet, you should accuse the Gemara of insulting R’ Shimon Bar Yochai. I really think that the only way to impute nefarious intentions into this speech is if that is your goal from the outset.
3) I’m not sure why you are bringing in the media. You can watch the video yourself and see what he said. I transcribed the beginning of it:
???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?-? ????? ??’ ?????. ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????. ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????. ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???. ?? ????. ??? ???? ???? ???? ?-?-?: ??? ???? ?????
(There was an unclear, one-word-sentence between “?????” and “??”, and perhaps I was off by a letter here and there, but nothing that affected the thrust of the paragraph.)
As you can see, he clearly stated that God’s throne will not be complete while Amalek still exists. He then directly equated kippa seruga with Amalek and said that God’s throne will not be complete until there are no longer kippot serugot. I’m not sure how you expect people to interpret that. Keep in mind what you said about R’ Lamm:
He well knew beforehand that making the comparison in one speaking would give the impression it gave.
Now apply it to R’ Cohen. Whereas by R’ Lamm, you go out of your way to read malice into his words based on context and juxtaposition (which I anyway showed to be flawed), by R’ Cohen where he explicitly said the derogatory comments outright, you have no problem. Now if you think that it’s okay because R’ Cohen’s position was correct and R’ Lamm’s was incorrect, I am fine with that. But then you can’t complain when the other side, thinking they are correct, engage in the same behavior (which they in fact didn’t).
Also, you didn’t even respond to the case of R’ Nissan Kaplan’s remarks.
4) If that’s what R’ Wolbe meant then there was no need to take him away from his learning to say it. You could quote Patur Aval Assur as saying the same thing. In effect what the quote means is that if one person spends years and years learning Torah for the entire day and someone else spends a couple of years learning Torah for part of the day, the first person will generally know more Torah. A davar pashut and completely irrelevant to this thread.