Gems from Rav Herzog’s Archive (Part 1 of 2):
Giyus, Professor Lieberman and More
By Yaacov Sasson
A tremendous resource that will be of great interest to Seforim Blog’s readers has been made available to the public. The entire archive of the great Rav Yitzchak Eizik Halevi Herzog, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel, has been scanned and is now available online.[1] The archive contains hundreds of files on a wide range of topics, including Rav Herzog’s Piskei Halacha and Torah novellae, extensive correspondence on Israeli politics, Rav Herzog’s efforts to save Jews of Europe, and much more. Each file is dedicated to a specific topic, and many of these files contain upwards of a hundred pages of material. In short, the archive is a veritable treasure trove, and will be of great interest to those who are students of Torah, Halacha and Jewish history. Much of Rav Herzog’s Torah has been published in his numerous seforim; however, there is a significant amount of unpublished material in the archive. The purpose of this article is to make readers aware of some of the gems found in the archive, in particular the significant unpublished material. I have only begun to look through the vast amount of material that is available, and I am certain that there is much more to be found. The following are a select number of documents and files that I think will be of interest to the Seforim blog’s readers.
I Giyus Bnai Yeshivot
The archive contains an entire file dedicated to the always controversial issue of giyus bnai yeshivot, whether yeshiva students ought to be drafted to the army or exempted from the draft.[2] Within this file, there is an approximately 50-page kuntres written by Rav Herzog in 1948, dedicated to a halachic analysis of the topic. To the best of my knowledge, this very significant kuntres was never published, and it does not appear in any of Rav Herzog’s seforim.[3]
Rav Herzog addresses the issue in an extremely thorough manner, and deals with a wide variety of relevant sources and issues, such as the definition of milchemet mitzvah, and the words of the Rambam at the end of Hilchot Shemita VeYovel, among other issues. For example, on page 27, he discusses the possibility of milchemet mitzvah in the absence of a king, and concludes that milchemet mitzvah is still possible if the community of Jews living in Eretz Yisrael approves of the war. On page 12, Rav Herzog suggests, based on a diyuk, that the Rambam’s words at the end of Hilchot Shemita VeYovel exempting talmidei chachamim from waging war do not apply to a war of ezrat yisrael miyad tzar. (A similar reading of the Rambam was suggested by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, in “The Ideology of Hesder” (Tradition Fall 1981), and was reprinted in Leaves of Faith Volume 1.) Rav Herzog also makes a fascinating contention (on page 2), that the British were the current-day manifestation of Esav, putting forward their split hoof and hypocritically claiming to seek justice, while quietly attempting to undermine the Jewish cause by supporting their enemies. It is obviously not feasible to summarize a 50 page kuntres in a single blog post; I will simply present Rav Herzog’s main conclusion. Rav Herzog suggests (pages 12 and 34) that yeshiva students should not be subject to giyus malei, full conscription, even during wartime. Rather, they should be subject to giyus chelki, partial conscription of a few hours a week, doing what Rav Herzog terms “hishtatfut” in the war effort, such as local shemira and the like.
While this was Rav Herzog’s halachic conclusion in the kuntres, when the issue of forced conscription became a potential reality ten years later, Rav Herzog sent a heartfelt letter to Ben-Gurion, pleading for the exemption of bnai yeshivot, since they are already conscripted to the security of Torah and the heritage of Am Yisrael, and their Torah learning is a shield for Am Yisrael. This letter, which is found in the file of Rav Herzog’s correspondence with Ben-Gurion[4], appears below:
Another noteworthy document in the file on giyus bnai yeshivot is a 1948 telegram from the Roshei Yeshiva of the American yeshivot, expressing their shock at the possibility of giyus bnai yeshivot, and urging Rav Herzog and Rav Uziel to make sure that bnai yeshivot remain exempt from army service. The telegram appears below, as well as my transcription of the telegram into Hebrew:
נבהלנו מאד לשמוע שאומרים לבטל השחרור של בני ישיבות ולקחתם לצבא. הדבר נוגע לנפש ורוח חיי אומתנו ויגרום חילול השם בין הגויים המשחררים בני ישיבות מעבודת הצבא אפילו בשעת מלחמה. השתדלו בכל תוקף להעביר רוע הגזירה, ואין מעצר להש[ם] להושיע. בשם כל הישיבות,
Kotler Gordon Grosowski Zaks Joffen Levenstein Kalmanowitz Kamenetzki Bloch Belkin Shatz[k]es Soloveitchik Feinstein Ehrenfeld Hutner Lifshitz Leibowitz Korb Ruderman Rothenberg[5]
The telegram is especially noteworthy because of the appearance of the names of the Charedi Roshei Yeshiva, such as Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Reuven Grozovsky, Rav Moshe Feinstein etc. together with the names of the more modern Roshei Yeshiva of RIETS: the Rav, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik, and Dr. Samuel Belkin. Such collaboration would seem to be almost impossible in later years.
II Professor Saul Lieberman on Rav Herzog’s Torat Ha-Ohel
Rav Herzog maintained a close relationship with Professor Saul Lieberman, as Dr. Marc Shapiro has mentioned previously on the Seforim blog[6], and noted in his “Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox”, page 22.[7] It should therefore come as no surprise that Rav Herzog’s archive contains correspondence between him and Lieberman. The letter that appears below was sent by Lieberman to Rav Herzog, and contains Lieberman’s haarot on Rav Herzog’s Torat Ha-Ohel, his sefer on the Rambam’s Hilchot Sanhedrin.[8] In this letter, Lieberman first discusses the proper girsaot in the relevant Rambam and the gemara in Makot regarding minuy dayanim. He then addresses Rav Herzog’s question of how it could be possible that bnai noach have a more extensive obligation of dinim than do Yisrael,[9] and Lieberman offers an elegant yeshiva-style distinction between dinei yisrael and dinei bnai noach to answer the problem. (A similar distinction was offered by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, in Beit Yitzchak 8, page 89, and reprinted in his Minchat Aviv.) He offhandedly mentions that Rav Menachem Kasher had recently “acquired” some of his material, and then bemoans the fact that RY”D is too involved in the ol ha-tzibur and is not dedicating himself sufficiently to his Torah study, although he has the potential to become the Gaon Ha-Dor.
Lieberman’s letter appears below, and a transcription appears in Appendix A.
It is most likely that the RY”D to whom Lieberman referred was Rav Yaakov David Herzog, Rav Herzog’s son, as the context within the letter is dealing with Rav Herzog’s family. Rav Yaakov David had already published a scientific/critical edition of Mishnayot Brachot/Peah/Demai in 1945, at the young age of 24, and Lieberman wrote a Foreword to the volume.[10] Rav Yaakov David Herzog was eventually selected as Chief Rabbi of Great Britain in the 1960s, but declined the post due to his ill health.[11]
I also entertained the possibility that the RY”D to whom Lieberman referred is the Rav, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik. While this seems unlikely, it would fit nicely with the comments made by Rabbi Jacob Radin, as quoted by Rav Aaron Rakeffet[12], contrasting the Rav and Lieberman:
You know that I have attended classes in both the Seminary and the Yeshiva. I have studied with Professor Lieberman and the Rav. The Professor lectures a few times a week. He hurriedly finishes and rushes back to his research. Outside of his formal lectures, he is barely available to the students. On the other hand, the Rav is never alone. He has never finished a lecture on time. He always goes overtime. He remains in the classroom afterwards to carry on the Talmudic give and take with the students who cannot part from him. Even when he rises to leave, his disciples surround him and the discussion continues…This is the basic manifest difference between these two prodigious scholars.[13]
On Lieberman’s mention of Rav Kasher, this is the page that Lieberman referenced from Tosefet Rishonim:
And the page from Rav Kasher’s article in Sinai, Volume 18:
A number of the rather obscure sources in Rav Kasher’s lengthy footnote 2 appear to be taken from Lieberman’s Tosefet Rishonim.
III The Lieberman Ketuba
As is well-known, Lieberman introduced a new clause into the ketuba in the early 1950s in order to alleviate the aguna problem. The clause stipulated that the couple recognizes the authority of the beit din of the Rabbinical Assembly, and that upon dissolution of the marriage, the beit din would be empowered to administer penalties as it sees fit. The aim of these penalties would be to pressure the husband to give a get. In a number of letters from the 1950s (in a file regarding Even HaEzer issues[14]), Rav Herzog mentions that he himself came up with such an idea many years earlier when he was still Chief Rabbi of Ireland. He envisioned a separate document which would empower the beit din of London to administer financial penalties on a husband withholding a get. He mentions that he is unsure of Professor Lieberman came up with this idea himself, or if Lieberman actually got the idea from Rav Herzog.
Rabbi Emanuel Rackman wrote that it was widely believed that the Lieberman clause was examined by Rav Herzog, and that he had no objections.[15] This belief is certainly false, as Rav Herzog penned a strong protest to the proposed addition to the ketuba.[16] Rav Herzog’s main protest was due to the authority granted to the Conservative beit din. It is possible that the root of this misconception (that Rav Herzog approved of the Lieberman clause) is the fact that Rav Herzog independently envisioned a similar document or agreement, and that he entertained the possibility that Lieberman actually got the idea from him.
IV The Epstein Proposal
Another fascinating exchange between Rav Herzog and Lieberman is found in Rav Herzog’s file dedicated to Reform[[17] and Conservative Jewry[18], and relates to the Rabbinical Assembly’s 1957 attempt to resuscitate the Epstein proposal. Rabbi Louis Epstein had proposed, in his 1930 book Hatzaa Lemaan Takanat Agunot, that every husband, at the time of marriage, ought to designate his wife as a shliach to deliver her own get, in order to eliminate the aguna problem in the case of a missing husband or a get-refuser. The proposal was never implemented, in large part due to Orthodox opposition. In May of 1957, the Rabbinical Assembly attempted to resuscitate the Epstein Proposal at their Annual Convention at the Concord Hotel in Kiamesha Lake, New York. However, this attempt to revive the Epstein proposal must be viewed in light of the politics within the Conservative movement at that time. The following is an excerpt from the Presidential Report of Rabbi Aaron Blumenthal at the Rabbinical Assembly Convention[19]:
Note in particular Rabbi Blumenthal’s comments that the Seminary is an Orthodox institution, that its synagogue has separate seating and does not use the Rabbinical Assembly siddur, and that practically every faculty member added to the Talmud faculty in the last 15 to 20 years thinks of himself as an Orthodox Jew and has little regard for the Conservative movement. Given that Lieberman was the de-facto Rabbi of this synagogue, and that Lieberman ensured that the synagogue did not use the Rabbinical Assembly siddur, and that the synagogue maintained separate seating until Lieberman’s death[20], it would seem that Rabbi Blumenthal’s words were directed primarily at Lieberman, who arrived at the Seminary some 17 years prior.
It is against this backdrop that the Rabbinical Assembly passed a Resolution that the Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards review the Epstein proposal and submit a plan for its implementation.
The report below from the National Jewish Post and Opinion makes clear that the left wing of Conservative Judaism felt that the Lieberman ketuba did not go far enough in addressing the aguna problem and therefore sought to institute the Epstein proposal. On the other hand, the more traditional wing of Conservative Judaism, led by Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, Chancellor of JTS, wanted the proposal referred to a joint committee made up of JTS faculty and RA members. Rabbi Blumenthal’s complaint about the Orthodox character of the Seminary faculty was not just an observation, but also a charge to the RA regarding the Epstein proposal, that they not allow the Seminary faculty to torpedo the proposal. Rabbi Finkelstein’s group lost the vote 92-88, in what was, in a sense, a repudiation of Lieberman’s Orthodox influence, and a rejection of his ketuba as too Orthodox and not impactful enough.[21] The majority of the RA membership was prepared to head in a more liberal direction.
After the passage of the Rabbinical Assembly resolution, the Agudat HaRabbanim turned to Rav Herzog in the letter below, asking him to intervene and prevent this breach of kedushat hamishpacha beyisrael.[22] (It is not clear to me why they termed the Epstein proposal nisuin al tnay, or conditional marriage, which is a different attempted mechanism to prevent aguna situations.)
In response to the request of Agudat HaRabbanim, Rav Herzog turned to Lieberman in the letter below, asking him to intervene and prevent the implementation of the proposed nisuin al tnay.[23] (Rav Herzog apparently understood the proposal to be literally one of conditional marriage, and thus referred Lieberman to the book Ain Tnay Benisuin, rather than the book LeDor Acharon, mentioned in the Agudat HaRabbanim letter, which deals with the Epstein proposal.)
In response to Rav Herzog’s letter, Lieberman sent Rav Herzog the very fascinating letter below. (A transcription of this letter appears in Appendix B.) Lieberman tells Rav Herzog that the Orthodox Rabbis are simply looking for excuses to make machloket, that Rabbi Finkelstein strongly protested the re-introduction of the Epstein proposal (as we noted was reported in the National Jewish Post), and that the President of the Assembly (Rabbi Blumenthal) also denied the claim of the Agudat HaRabbanim. He then says that the entire purpose of his revised ketuba was to bury the possibility of the Epstein proposal! He also mentions that some Orthodox Rabbis have claimed that any wedding which uses the new ketuba is invalid, and the kiddushin are not tofsin. (I have been unable to find any documented source of a Rabbi who made such a claim. I would be indebted to any of the readers who could provide such a source.) Lieberman concludes by assuring Rav Herzog that he would be the first to protest the implementation of the Epstein proposal, and that such a nevala could never happen while he is at the Seminary.
Rabbi Blumenthal’s denial was in fact reported by the JTA.[24] He said that the Assembly only authorized a committee to re-study the problem.
Some points remain unclear to me, as Rabbi Finkelstein’s group did indeed lose the vote, and the RA did pass a resolution that the Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards submit a plan for the implementation of the Epstein proposal. I find it hard to understand Rabbi Blumenthal’s denial, or how Lieberman could claim that the Orthodox Rabbis were simply seeking machloket, when the RA passed a resolution for implementation (even documented in the RA Proceedings), with the left-wing defeating the traditional wing.
(to be continued)
Appendix A
Letter from Lieberman to Rav Herzog about Torat Ha-Ohel
בע"ה אור ליום ד' פרש' לך תש"ט
לידידי הגאון הגדול האמתי מרן רי"א הלוי הירצוג, לב"ב ולכל הנלוים עליו שלום רב.
היום קבלתי את יקרת כ"ג ואעשה כמובן כבקשתו. והנה נזכרתי שאני חייב התנצלות לכ"ג על שתיקתי הממושכה. היו כמה סיבות וטעמים לדבר. את ספרו היקר קבלתי בזמנו ונהניתי מאד מחידושיו הנפלאים ובקיאותו המפליאה. לא רציתי להטריד אותו בהערותי שמא יראה נחיצות נמוסית להשיב, והרי מכיר אני את טרדותיו המרובות, ולמה להעמיס עליו עוד משא? כדי שלא יהי' מכתבי כשטר הדיוטות ארשום לו כמה דברים קלים שאינם צריכים עיון ומו"מ. דברי הר"מ בפ"א מהל' סנהדרין ה"ב קשה להגיה, וכנראה שלדעת הר"מ אין כלל מצוה למנות דיינים בחו"ל, כפי שהבין בו הרמב"ן בפרש' שופטים, וכן משמע מלשונו של הר"מ בסה"מ עשין קע"ו ומקורו הוא הבבלי במכות ספ"א[25] לפי גירסת המאירי שם: "אבל בחו"ל אי אתה מושיב בכל פלך ופלך ובכל עיר ועיר." והוא מביא שם את גירסת התלמוד שלנו בשם "ויש גורסים" ומסיים: ולא נראה כן. ואשר לפסק הר"מ בספ"ט מה' מלכים נראה שהוא חלק בין ב"נ ובין ישראל. שהרי ישראל מצווים למנות שופטים כמ"ע של שופטים ושוטרים תתן לך, ואפילו יצוייר שנהיה בטוחים שישראל לא יעברו על שום עברה ג"כ מצוה למנות שופטים. ברם ב"נ מחוייב למנות שופטים רק מפני שהוא מצווה על הדינין, כלומר שישגיח שלא יעברו על מצות ב"נ. ואם לא מנה שופטים בפלך ועבר אחד מהם עברה ולא דנו אותו כלם חייבים מיתה (שהרי כל אחד ראוי לדון יחידי), אבל כ"ז שלא עברו עברה אינם חייבים מיתה על מינוי דיינים אפילו לשיטת הר"מ.[26] ועיין ביד רמה נו ע"ב וברש"י ד"ה כך נצטוו, ומלשונו של הרמ"ה משמע שכן היה לפניו מפורש בגמרא שבני נח הוזהרו מחמת "ושפטו."
בענין גר העמלקי (דף נ"ו) עיין מ"ש החיד"א ביעיר אוזן, עין זוכר מערכת ג' אות א' דברים מחוכמים מאד.
[בעני]ן מכת מרדות (צ"ט) עיין בשו"ת [הר]שב"ש סי' תר"י וציינתי לו בתוספת ראשונים ח"ב צד 170 (עכשיו ראיתי שידידנו הרב כשר קנה במשיכה מספרי שם את כל החומר ופרסמם בסיני.)
כפי שאמרתי לא ארבה בדברים שצריכים לינה בעומקה של הלכה, ואני מקוה שנוכל לדבר ע"ז אי"ה פה אל פה.
על כמה דברים שנתחדשו אצל כ"ג באופן פרטי שמענו מאורחים וידידים היורדים מהתם להכא ושמחנו מאד לשמוע שכלתו הכבודה ב"ה נתרפאה לגמרי. מצטער אני מאד שרי"ד[27] שלנו נושא בעול הצבור ואינו מתפנה לגמרי לעולה של תורה. הרי עדיין הוא צעיר ויכול להיות לגאון הדור. ומדי דברי בו נזכרתי ששאל אותי מקום הירושלמי: התלמיד תוך ד' אמות ברם הרב אפילו חוץ לד' אמות והשבתי לו שירושלמי כזה אין לפנינו. ואעפ"י שכן הוא האמת בכ"ז שכחתי באותה שעה שכן מביא הריטב"א בסוכה כ"ח בשם הירושלמי.
אצלנו אין כל חדש. אנו יושבים ומצפים לגאולה שלמה, ייתי ונחמיניה.
בפ"ש מבית לבית
הנני מעריצו ומוקירו וידידו הנאמן
שאול ליברמן
הייתי מכיר טובה מאד לרבנית שתחי' אם תודיע לנו בפרוטרוט על חיימקה שיחי' ומשפחתו ועל רי"ד אהובנו.[28]
Appendix B
Letter from Lieberman to Rav Herzog about the Epstein Proposal
בעה"י יום ה' פרש' מטות תשי"ז
לכבוד ידידינו הגאון הגדול האמיתי מרן הרי"א הלוי הירצוג הרב הראשי לא"י ברכה ושלום רב.
יקרת כ"ג מי' תמוז הועברה אלי לכרם מרתה[29], ומאד מאד התפלאתי שכ"ג האמין לדיבת הרבנים כאן. אמנם בכנסיית הרבנים השמרנים דברו על עיון מחדש בשאלת תנאי בקידושין, אבל ד"ר פינקלשטיין יצא בכל תוקף נגד חידוש העיון. ונשיא הכנסיה הנ"ל הכחיש בעצמו את דיבת הרבנים. אבל הללו מחפשים רק אמתלאות למחלוקת. כל עניין הכתובה היה כדי לקבור לגמרי את שאלת התנאי. הסברתי להם שאם ליחיד אפשר פעם לחשוב ע"ז הרי לרבים אין הדבר בא כלל בחשבון שהתנאי יעשה ע"פ דין, וישתקע הדבר ולא יעלה שוב על הפרק. וכולם הסכימו ל[י]. עכשיו יש מהם שבאים בטענות ואומרים: הרי הרבנים הארתודוכסים טוענין שאף הכתובה נעשתה שלא כדין, ויש מהם (כלומר מהרבנים הארתודוקסים) שאמרו שהמתחתן בכתובה החדשה אין הקידושין תופסין, והאשה מותרת בלי גט (ממש לא יאומן כי יסופר! אבל לצערי נאמרו הדברים), א"כ הרי מוטב לעשות תנאי בקידושין, ולהפטר מכל שאלת העגונה בבת אחת. והנני מבטיח את כב"ג שאין לשמועה שום יסוד, אחרת הייתי אני בין הראשונים למחות, וכל זמן שאני בסמינר לא יתכן שיעשו נבלה כזו.
בפ"ש ובברכה לכל המשפ[חה]
בהערצה ובידידות
שאול [ליברמן]
[1] See here.
[2] See here.
[3] A short one-page summary of the kuntres appears in R’ Zorach Warhaftig’s Chuka Leyisrael, page 236. However, R’ Warhaftig neglects to mention that Rav Herzog advocated only giyus chelki.
[4] See here.
[5] Every name on the telegram is relatively well known, except for Rothenberg. I assume this is Rav Moshe Rothenberg, founder of Yeshivat Chachmei Lublin of Detroit. See Toldot Anshei Shem page 126, here.
[6] See here.
[7] For the following sections related to Lieberman, I made extensive use of Dr. Shapiro’s “Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox.”
[8] See here.
[9] Here in Yeriot Ha-Ohel 1.
[10] See here. Interestingly, Lieberman signed the Foreword as “Saul Lieberman, Dean, Harry Fischel Institute, Jerusalem”, even though Lieberman had been teaching in JTS for five years already. (In the Foreword, he notes that the publication of the volume coincided with Harry Fischel’s 80th birthday, in 1945.) In fact, Lieberman’s name appeared atop the Harry Fischel Institute’s stationery as late as 1949 (can be seen in Rav Herzog’s file on Machon Harry Fischel.) It would appear that Lieberman continued to serve in some capacity as Dean of the Harry Fischel Institute even after he left Israel to come to America. Incredibly, he held one foot in each world simultaneously, as Dean of the Harry Fischel Institute and Professor in JTS, a fact that has heretofore eluded his biographers. My good friend Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin reports in the name of Mr. Carmi Schwartz, Executive Vice President of the Council of Jewish Federations, that Lieberman willed most of his considerable life savings to the Harry Fischel Institute after his death, and not to JTS.
[11] See here.
[12] Mentor of Generations, page 119.
[13] For more on the Rav and Lieberman, see Rav Rakeffet’s “A Note on R. Saul Lieberman and the Rav”, in Tradition, Winter 2007. Also noteworthy is the following story that appears in Rav Hershel Schachter’s Mipninei Ha-rav:
The head of the Seminary who gave the shiur with which the Rav disagreed so vehemently is none other than Lieberman. Warren’s visit to the Seminary was covered on the front page of the New York Times (September 14, 1957.) (For a humorous account of how Lieberman sipped tea through a sugar cube that weekend in the presence of former president Harry Truman, see “The Rabbi as Symbolic Exemplar” by Jack Bloom, page 37.) Here is the New York Times’ account of Lieberman’s shiur:
A similar account of the shiur appears in the Sentinel (September 26, 1957)
Regarding Lieberman’s suggestion that the principle of Ain Adam Meisim Atzmo Rasha is predicated on the presumption of teshuva, there appears to be another difficulty, in addition to that raised by the Rav. The gemara in Makot 13b states:
חייבי מיתות ב"ד אינו בכלל מלקות ארבעים שאם עשו תשובה אין ב"ד של מטה מוחלין להן
The gemara states explicitly that teshuva is not efficacious in absolving a sinner of capital punishment, which would seem to contradict Professor Lieberman’s thesis. My good friend Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin has offered the following original suggestion to resolve the problem. Professor Lieberman might have believed that the gemara in Makot which states that teshuva does not absolve capital punishment is referring to after gmar din, when the sinner has already been tried and sentenced. At that point, teshuva is no longer effectual. However, the principle of Ain Adam Meisim Atzmo Rasha applies before trial and sentencing, and teshuva would absolve a sinner before sentencing. This reading of the gemara in Makot is certainly plausible, although it does run contrary to the reading of the Noda B’Yehuda (Orach Chaim 34, s.v. ela), who assumes that the gemara is referring to before gmar din as well. Additionally, it would seem difficult to assume that a confession is indicative of teshuva if a sinner is aware that he can absolve himself of punishment by simply admitting his guilt in beit din. However, this approach would explain why the Rav raised a difficulty based on the words of the Raavad, and not the gemara in Makot, as the gemara in Makot is not a conclusive proof.
[14] See here.
[15] “Conflict and Consensus in Jewish Political Life”, page 120, also cited in “Saul Lieberman: the Man and his Work”, page 45. My thanks to my good friend Dr. Josh Lovinger for bringing this to my attention.
[16] Techuka leYisrael al pi Torah, volume 3 page 210.
[17] The correspondence in that file also shows the effort that Rav Herzog expended in an attempt to prevent the Reform movement from gaining any foothold whatsoever in Israel.
[18] See here.
[19] Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly of America 21, 57th Annual Convention (1957), pages 41-42.
[20] See here.
[21] National Jewish Post and Opinion, June 14, 1957.
[22] See also Hapardes, Tamuz, 1957 for details of the protest arranged by Agudat HaRabbanim.
[23] This letter also appears in “Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox”, Hebrew section, page 6.
[24] See here.
[25] Makot 7a
[26] This would also answer the (similar) question of the Gvurot Ari in Makot 7a, s.v. UveChu”l.
[27] As mentioned, I believe that this refers to Rav Yaakov David Herzog.
[28] Future president of Israel, Chaim Herzog, and Rav Yaakov David Herzog.
[29] Martha’s Vineyard.