Can you believe this? No matter how much Torah is learned how many mitzvos are done, it is all worthless if you don't have the pure Torah outlook. Of course the big question is who decides what the pure Torah outlook is? In the book Harav Mibrisk Volume 3, there is a discussion of the Aguda convention before WWII where the question of the partition of Palestine was discussed and in fact the majority opinion was in favor. The book describes how R' Elchonon got up at the convention and expressed the pure Torah view against Zionism, partition etc. and that this was the Brisker Rav's position as well. What is amazing is that the author describes R' Elchonon's position as the pure Torah position and dismisses all of the other Gedolim's opinions as non-pure Torah positions. Based on what? Why was R' Elchonon's position more pure Torah then the other Gedolim who were at the convention? How do we decide? In fact a bigger question is whether there is such a thing as the 1 pure Torah outlook? Was R' Akiva not propounding a pure Torah outlook when he declared that Bar Kochva was Moshiach? Was R' Saadya Gaon not expressing a pure Torah outlook when he dismissive the idea of gilgulim? I could go on with any number of example, the fact is that on just about every major theological issue there is a fundamental machlokes starting with who does hashgacha pratis apply to, to the source of machlokes. Is 1 side not expressing a pure Torah outlook?
IMHO this is the biggest problem in the Charedi world today. The inability to admit that there may be more then 1 path, that everything is not black and white. As R' Elyashiv was quoted as saying "They could say it we can not". Since the end of the Sanhedrin there have always been multiple opinions in Judaism, the Charedi world's attempt to deny this is simply revisionist history.
