That means that any perceived negative trait, event, or
behavior about the subject of such a biography is completely omitted. And worse
sometimes the positive imagery is exaggerated to the point of being
so ridiculous that they actually make that subject look bad.
For starters critics of this type of censorship (like me) have
noted that censorship of this type is highly subjective. How – for instance - does
one define positive versus negative imagery?
Case in point, in a biography on
Rav Aharon Kotler, the fact that he had read a classic piece of secular literature
was omitted because the author felt that this was unflattering information
about a Gadol who is supposed to be immersed only in Torah endeavors and who
supposedly eschewed literature like that. On the other hand for those of us who
value classic secular literature - that information would have inspired us.
I would go a step further. The value of the truths of
history should encourage all information about such an individual be revealed. Even if some of it
were negative by objective standrads. That they were both great men and
human by dint of some personal flaw or behavior at some point in their lives is
what makes them inspiring.
It shows that the flawed nature of a human being is
not an impediment to becoming a great person. If flaws and behavior are always eliminated
these great rabbinic figures will be seen as superhuman – and ultimately
uninspiring! Who after all can ever hope
to be on a level of Malachei HaShareis – angels in heaven in direct service to
God? Certainly no mere mortal!
Eliminating the truths of history is therefore a non starter
for someone like me. As was the case for
R’ Nosson Kaminetsky who paid a very high price for revealing biographical truths
in his book, Making of a Gadol. At the
behest of certain community activists who complained about it, Rav Elyashiv
banned the book.
But everything is not rosy in the world of flattering
biographies. What if such portrayals are so exaggerated that they have the
exact opposite effect?
Marty Bluke has given me permission to post the following statement
he made on a private online e-mail list:
Mishpacha Magazine (in Hebrew) had a whole section this past weekend devoted to R' Elyashiv. One article dealt with R' Elyashiv's unbelievable hasmada in learning and had some stories which demonstrated his unbelievable hasmada.
Here are 2 stories from the article:
1. "When R' Chaim Kanievsky was a young Avrech, his wife, Batsheva Kanievsky [R' Elyashiv's oldest daughter], complained to him that he didn't learn the same way that she saw in her [father's] house. There is no need to say that the Grach even then was one of the biggest masmidim of his generation and learned day and night. Even so, the Rabbanit said "You recognize the children and can identify each child by name. By us, when we were little children it was patently clear to everyone in the house that father [R' Elyashiv] due to his tremendous diligence in learning didn't recognize us and didn't know our names"
2. "R Yosef Shalom was not involved at all in the running of the house. He didn't receive a salary from anywhere he didn't preside over the Shabbos table and he had no idea where the money came from.
The lack [of material goods, money] was so terrible that it literally became life threatening, one of the daughters was hospitalized because of malnutrition and almost died."
Mishpacha is obviously a very Charedi magazine. They most
certainly adhere to the formula of pure flattery in their biographical descriptions
of great rabbinic figures. They obviously
must feel that the behavior described about Rav Elyashiv is something to emulate…
something we should all aspire to. The role model for Hasmada now becomes
someone who ignored his family to such an extent that it almost caused the
death of one of his children! Not to mention that he had so little to do with
raising them that he did not know their names or even recognize them!
Now - I do not believe these stories. I am convinced that these
are exaggerations to highlight his devotion to Torah study. What is important
to note about this is that Mishpacha
felt this was something positive and
thereby something to emulate!
This is what happens when truth is sacrificed for some sort
of perceived ideal.
Just to be absolutely clear - I do not question the value of
Hasmada Rabbah – great devotion and diligence
to Torah study. Obvioulsy that is a positive trait that we should all aspire
to. But to take a positive value like Hasmada to the extent they ascribe to Rav
Elyashiv is to belittle both him and the very concept of Hasmada.
I can assure everyone that ignoring your children to the
point of endangering their lives is absolutely not a Torah value. It is against
the very Torah itself! The people to blame here are not the Gedolei Torah like
Rav Elyashiv who had much more Hasmada that most people. It is the editors of
Mishpacha and like minded individuals who feel that only positive stories may
told in biographies and may be exaggerated to make them even “more inspiring”.
How ironic it is that it is Rav Elyashiv that has now fallen victim to this
kind of “truth”. If there was ever a reason to stick to the truth – this is it!
