you say lo nitnu ha'mitzvos elah l'tzareif es ha'beriyos. okay. but surely you know that often this just doesnt seem to be the case -- theory simply does not match reality.
basically, in your view the satmarer was a flawed man. why cant you just accept it as such? is this the first time you have come across a gadol ba-torah who was flawed? why do you see this as a fatal flaw? have you seen what the minchas eluzar has written, or are you writing him off as well? are you going to stop teaching r. elchanan, since he has written in the same vein about rayk as the satmarer? [see the uncensored work, not the book published by his son.]
and we wont even go into emden/eybeshutz. Vechulhu.
basically, in your view the satmarer was a flawed man. why cant you just accept it as such? is this the first time you have come across a gadol ba-torah who was flawed? why do you see this as a fatal flaw? have you seen what the minchas eluzar has written, or are you writing him off as well? are you going to stop teaching r. elchanan, since he has written in the same vein about rayk as the satmarer? [see the uncensored work, not the book published by his son.]
and we wont even go into emden/eybeshutz. Vechulhu.
okay.
ReplyDeleteso the sr was a flawed man who was also a gadol. or a gadol who was flawed. either way, i wont quibble.
but then we enter a hornets nest. what is a mistake, what is beyond the pale, and who decides?
i mean, do you really want to look at the vitriol rabbis directed against other rabbis? if you look into this you will be in for a shocker...
the sr clearly recognized the 'flawed gadol' concept, as he sat with r aharon kotler -- a member of the agudah, lo aleinu -- to decide major religious policy issues.
and you really need to look into the historicity of the rew story of his martyrdom. i dont think too many people who know their stuff about the holocaust, the kovno ghetto, etc. buy it [ask leiman...].
re em-eyb. in a way it is very relevant. the sr saw zionism as heresy, and so sought to fight rayk 'ardently and stridently.'
can you explain/elaborate on your last line?
There is a story told about the Satmar that he presented his VaYoel Moshe to some friend in the US (Rav Hutner maybe?) and announced "My position is the only correct halacha because no one has tried to refute my position!"
ReplyDeleteAfter he left one of the talmidim asked the rav "But you yourself said that VaYoel Moshe is full of mistakes. Why didn't you tell him that there is a refutation?"
"What, and have him scream and shout at me that I'm a heretic?"
That is the fatal flaw of the Satmar: he tried to rule Judaism by fiat like a petty dictator thus showing contempt to the Torah he supposedly held so dear.
Current events makes the seifa of the post pressing for me. We often look toward the left with a red line in mind -- the range of valid opinions (of eilu va'eilu) stops here. However, as the news from Bet Shemesh makes clear, there is also a point so far to the right that their lack of humanism is also beyond my "red line". Since I don't think about that limit much, I have a much blurrier notion of what that is.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's a problem, because it goes hand-in-hand with defining Orthodoxy in terms centered on rite, on mitzvos that are both bein adam laMaqom (as opposed to "don't cheat in business") and have well defined steps and shiurim (as opposed to "es Hashem E-lokekha tira"). If we saw Orthodoxy at least equally in terms of interpersonal relations, the line on the right would be more obvious.
Rav Micha, I've written about exactly that in the past. I think there is an urgent need to define the right side of Orthodoxy, if only so we can't point out to our children the people they should definitely not be emulating!
ReplyDeleteAfter all, it should mean something that while, when Chareidim go bad they riot, burn things and spit on young children, the worst the "bad" MO's seem to get is letting a woman lead Kabbalas Shabbos and calling her "Rabba".
WADR, Garnel (still can't seem to bring myself to give a title to a pseudonym), I think your comparison is unfair.
ReplyDeleteYou're comparing the worst chareidi loonies do against what communal structures are doing. One is doing wrong, the other is redefining right.
If we looked at MO criminals and judged MO by that standard, the result wouldn't be anything to cheer either. "Price tag" anyone?
the brisker rav disagreed with you, take a look in uvdos vehanhagos lebeis brisk vol. 4, and see how the brisker rav respected and praised the sr. But who is the brisker rav to disagree with an unflawed guy like yourself. you indeed have chutzpah!
ReplyDelete1. I don't believe the SR and RAK sat down together to decide anything concerning religious policy issues. On what did they see eye to eye, if anything? The SR co-opted RAK at the latter's levaya with the famous hesped - that was a brilliant move.
ReplyDelete2. If the story about REW's speech is untrue, I am crestfallen!
3. RYE/RYE was about Sabbatean avoda zara. Zionism - especially Rav Kook's very mild version thereof - does not count as avoda zara. A pity the SR never took the time to visit Merkaz HaRav and see yereim u'shleimim ovdim Hashem b'emes "Mizrachnikim."
4. I have problems with the Brisker Rav as well. That Brisk ended up dominating the yeshiva world is one of our great national tragedies.
I happened to chance upon your blog, and I thought you have derech eretz for men like the brisker rav. But seemingly you don't , so I really am not interseted in your opinion. You are following the attitudes of the frum maskilim who could quote chazals to prove a point but knocked the world renowned tzadikim. You indeed have chutzpah!
ReplyDeleteTzvi,
ReplyDeleteIs there such a thing as an unflawed person? Even Moshe Rabbeinu couldn't claim such a title.
That means that every gadol is flawed. One can then discuss whether the manner in which he opposed other dei'os was part of his greatness or part of his flaw.
Does a person need to be perfect in order to be praiseworthy?
Tzvi, Tzvi, there is a difference between respect, and even admiration, on the one hand; and submission and emulation on the other.
ReplyDeleteThere is much to respect and admire in both the SR zt"l and the BR zt"l. Yet in this life we must choose derachim. I argue that the derech of the SR (and the BR, to a lesser extent) should not be one to which we submit, and certainly not one we should seek to emulate.
I suspect you even agree with me...
I am glad you clarified yourself.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletesr and rak sat down together to reconcile zmanei shabbos. a major policy issue, no?
ReplyDeletethey differed on the issue of zmanim [standard chassid/litvak thing], but they both saw that they needed to work out a system that would be mutually acceptable to both kehillos
sr saw zionism as a particularly pernicious form of avodah zarah.
oy. there were any number of vitriolic exchanges among the gedolim. hence, vechulhu.
and could you clarify/expand your final sentence in the post?
The orginal blog post was titled "Why I cannot respect the Satmer Rebbe z"l," yet now I see your commment which says "There is much to respect and admire in both the SR zt"l and the BR zt"l."
ReplyDeleteA clarification of your view would help.
Where can the SR's hesped for RAK be found?
ReplyDeleteYour whole post is really disgraceful. Has anyone even of your community ever spoken about SR like you. Do you know that he neither ate nor slept much. And although he had a very busy schedule still found time to learn and write tshuvos.
ReplyDeleteAt the hesped he said that RAK did not change meaning he did not allow limudai chol in his yeshivo.
The belzer rebbe who also spoke like you 30 years ago is now doing tshuva. How long will it take you to do tshuva.
i would add, so far no person with 'a name' has come up saying that the SR told him to stay in Europe. If you can find me one I would be very grateful. Till then I dont think you should keep telling this lie over and over again. Just because its told so often doesnt make it become true. Now with the net your aveiros of demeaning a godol, so you can get your blog mentioned elsewhere and drive up custom, is no different to mischabed biklon chavairo. I dont know who you are but have you ever written any torah in your life. Who are you to decide what a godol should say. The SR held that religious zionists were wrong and according to him it was a mitsva to do anything to stop them. If you saw someone eating traifo or mechallel shabbos even though he had some heter you would also have to do the same to stop anyone relying on it. See how the ktsos and nesivos talk about each other although they were very good friends. The rambam was also put in cherem at some time. This language is nothing new at all.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to the spirited denunciation of the terrible Rogochover:
ReplyDeleteג"ה עש"ק י"א שבט תרפ"ז דווינסק
קבלתי ג' מכתביך ע"ד הבור השוטה המכונה בשם אשר רש"י ז"ל סותר עצמו : עי" חולין דף ס"ג ע"א (אר"י קאת זו הקוק) ודף קל"ח ע"ב ודף ק"מ ע"ב אם הוא מין טמא או טהור ובאמת לפי הנראה היא מגדר המין דחולין דף ס"ב ע"ב ונדה דף ג" ע"ב ע"ש בתוס' תרנגלא דאגמא דהזכר טמא והנקבה טהור גדר עמוני שהם נפנו על ס"ת יבמות דף ט"ז ע"ב ולמסקנא כולם טמאים. וצא טמא יקרא לו ואסור להתוכח עמו כמבואר בסנהדרין דף ל"ח ע"ב כ"ש דפקר טפי. ועי' מכילתא פ' בשלח מלחמה לד' בעמלק מדור דור דורו של משיח והרי הוא כופר בהשגחה עליונה . ועי' מ"ש רבנו בספר המורה ח"א פ"ט וכמ"ש בקדושין דף ל"ג ע"ב, כי על עון מדות בא עמלק ע"ש בתוספות, וכמ"ש ה"ה ז"ל בה' גנבה ספ"ז ע"ש בזה ומאן רשעי גנבי סוף סנהדרין כופר בהשגחה ב"ק דף ע"ט ע"ב ותוס' סוטה דף מ"א ע"ב ע"ש והדין תורא מחבל כרמיא ור"ש פ"ז דפאה ושאיה יוכת שער מנגח כתורא ב"ק דף כ"א. אך תל"י אנן קי"ל כמ"ד המקיים קוצים בכרם לא קידש כרם ד' וכו' ויבא בעל הכרם ויכלה את קוציו ב"מ דף כ"ג ע"ב ומעשרות פ"ג בירושלמי בעל הגינה וד' ית' ישלח לנו גואל צדק ואז אי"ה חפו חשוכא להני אינשי סנהדרין דף צ"ט ע"א.
כ"ד יוסף ראזין רב דפה הנ"ל
can you explain/elaborate on your last line?
ReplyDeleteIt had a typo - "me" should have been "be" - I corrected it.
sr and rak sat down together to reconcile zmanei shabbos. a major policy issue, no?
ReplyDeleteNo, I wouldn't call that a major policy issue, but I am fascinated by the idea of the meeting. Can you provide more details?
The orginal blog post was titled "Why I cannot respect the Satmer Rebbe z"l," yet now I see your commment which says "There is much to respect and admire in both the SR zt"l and the BR zt"l."
ReplyDeleteA clarification of your view would help.
There are elements of every person that we can find to respect. There are many elements of the SR's "gestalt" that I can respect. It is the gestalt that I cannot respect, because the negative of such writing about a person who, at the very least, was a talmid chochom who was trying to serve Hashem outweighs any limud zechus I can possibly construe.
i would add, so far no person with 'a name' has come up saying that the SR told him to stay in Europe.
ReplyDeleteI did not assert anything of the sort.
The SR held that religious zionists were wrong and according to him it was a mitsva to do anything to stop them. If you saw someone eating traifo or mechallel shabbos even though he had some heter you would also have to do the same to stop anyone relying on it.
I definitely would not. It would be counterproductive. בשלום ובמישור הלך עמי - ורבים השיב מעון.
Looking forward to the spirited denunciation of the terrible Rogochover:
ReplyDeleteI am not aware that I spiritedly denounced the SR. So I will have to disappoint you vis-a-vis the Rogotchover as well!
Can you no longer respect the Rogochover? Can you no more imagine him correct on anything? Can we know the shock you went into upon seeing this missive? Does it contradict everything you know about Torah authority and Torah's influence in a person?
ReplyDeleteI guess the answer would be yes.
Post-cynical:
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think I was not aware of the Rogatchover's writings? I have a definite de'ah vis-a-vis the Rogatchover - whose lomdus I love - but you'll have to ask me about it privately if you want to know what it is.
think the shabbos thing was with r yonason shteif & satmar (re: being mekabel shabbos by rabbeinu tam)...
ReplyDeletethink the shabbos thing was with r yonason shteif & satmar (re: being mekabel shabbos by rabbeinu tam)...
ReplyDeleteThat it was RYS who dealt with the SR on the issue seems much more likely. Is there anything b'ksav?
but you'll have to ask me about it privately if you want to know what it is.
ReplyDeleteYou dont seem to be scared of putting your views on SR in print.
Why is the rogatchover different.
Is it because you dont yet have a bandwagon to latch on to.
The conservatives held that one can drive to shul on shabbos. Does one denounce them or not.
It also says 'ain sholom l'rshoim'.
You can put any posuk out of context. Doing 'chanufa' for the r'shoim wont grant you a place in gan eden. I assure you the SR has one, I am not so sure about you though.
The Rogatchover is different for specific reasons.
ReplyDeleteReligious Zionists are not Conservatives. Have you ever stepped foot in Merkaz HaRav? That you can even make such a comparison is the underlying problem which undermines any respect one might possibly have for your position.
I am glad you know the cheshbonos of the Borei in terms of Gan Eden. It is about time that nevu'ah returned to Am Yisroel!
There are elements of every person that we can find to respect. There are many elements of the SR's "gestalt" that I can respect. It is the gestalt that I cannot respect...
ReplyDeleteCan't this be said about every Rav? A person will find something to agree about in almost anyone, while something to disagree about in almost everyone, too.
Is it just a difference of extent or quantity in this case?
The SR held that sitting in the knesset is 'yahoreg val yaavor' much worse than chiullul shabbos.
ReplyDeleteSo according to his shittah the aguda is worse than the conservatives who are 'just' mechallel shabbos.
While he was alive they the aguda were scared of him and didnt join the government.
Your colleague RHM has understood that since he says 'tsar voyev' he automatically means 'haman'. If I say someone is bad or very bad does that already mean i equate the two. Just calling two people 'bad' doesnt mean they are equal. Unless he called him 'haman' by name he didnt mean it. RHM whose grandson needs a big yeshua should also be sending ten rabbonim to his kever.
So should the skverer to the kever of Breslov.
He still met up with the agudists in Israel like the gerrer rebbe.
One rebbe answered him that in heaven they have said the zionists are right. He replies in heaven 'fleein unz glaich'. Im heaven we both are flying equally. We have to go by the torah not what we dream goes on in heaven.
The gemoro says nvuah was given to shotim. Nvuah for your information is not what goes on after 120 years as you seem to imply. It is what goes on in this world. One doesnt need n'vuah to know that a person who was an oved hashem like the SR gets gan eden. Even if he was wrong.
ReplyDeleteBecause of his opinions and his derech has anyone at all stopped being frum. One cant say this about the MO who have taken many away from the real orthodox by explaining one can have an 'alternative' Jewishness which usually ends up with none at all.
The argument between him and the agudist rabbis was not if he was wrong. They all agreed to him that he was right to be against making a medina. The problem is only now that its here what should be done. The SR never spoke against agudist rabbis for this reason.
Are you familiar with the letter Rav Kook Zatzal wrote in support of Rav Glazner of Klausenburg. IT is pretty definite that the Satmar Rav was a primary focus of that letter. Certainly he was a major mover in the anti Glazner movement. If so it is pretty obvioyus why the SR had such a violent reactioon to Rav Kook he could dish it out but he couldn't take it.
ReplyDeleteThe letter is at:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tzemachdovid.org/gedolim/ravkook.pdf
1. Can't this be said about every Rav? A person will find something to agree about in almost anyone, while something to disagree about in almost everyone, too.
ReplyDeleteIs it just a difference of extent or quantity in this case?
Weighted quantity.
Monday, January 23, 2012 3:49:00 AM
2. The SR held that sitting in the knesset is 'yahoreg val yaavor' much worse than chiullul shabbos.
So according to his shittah the aguda is worse than the conservatives who are 'just' mechallel shabbos.
While he was alive they the aguda were scared of him and didnt join the government.
Dr. Isaac Breuer zt"l formulated the austritt policy followed by the Agudah - and they still don't join the government as a result. It has nothing to do with the SR.
Your colleague RHM has understood that since he says 'tsar voyev' he automatically means 'haman'. If I say someone is bad or very bad does that already mean i equate the two. Just calling two people 'bad' doesnt mean they are equal. Unless he called him 'haman' by name he didnt mean it.
I agree. There are far, far worse things stated about RAYHK in that letter. Such as what it says right after his name.
The gemoro says nvuah was given to shotim. Nvuah for your information is not what goes on after 120 years as you seem to imply. It is what goes on in this world. One doesnt need n'vuah to know that a person who was an oved hashem like the SR gets gan eden. Even if he was wrong.
I was actually referring to your statement concerning myself. In any event, it was tongue-in-cheek. It fell flat. Sorry.
Because of his opinions and his derech has anyone at all stopped being frum.
Yes. Rabbim chalalim hipila.
One cant say this about the MO who have taken many away from the real orthodox by explaining one can have an 'alternative' Jewishness which usually ends up with none at all.
Just as Charedism is not monolithic, neither is MO.
The argument between him and the agudist rabbis was not if he was wrong. They all agreed to him that he was right to be against making a medina. The problem is only now that its here what should be done. The SR never spoke against agudist rabbis for this reason.
Maybe yes and maybe no. But that's irrelevant to this discussion.
The aguda at the moment has ministers and deputy ministers. That is called joining the government. They are more interested in getting their share of the cake than the chillul shabbos of el al or anything else. It is only to get the votes that they claim they are their for 'yidishkeit'. The SR knew this in advance. It may also have to do with CI more than with the SR. The Torah says why werent you scared to talk against moshe my servant. This was said to his siblings. How is it that you a rabbi are not scared to talk against the SR. And not just talk but put it on a blog and get others to copy and distribute it with even worse undertones like RHM. There is a cherem about talking about 'dead' people as well. I suppose you never met him either. Has any other 'decent' rabbi who knew him and most did, ever spoken about him like that. Your YU mentors did they ever. What great rabbis speak about each other is not our concern and how dare we mix in. We can perhaps choose whom we like to follow but not join in their mudslinging. This is all done because their followers are far from Torah and this is the only language they understand. At least its for a purpose to make sure their psak is kept. Your post has absolutely no purpose apart from speaking ill of the dead.
ReplyDeletehe aguda at the moment has ministers and deputy ministers. That is called joining the government. They are more interested in getting their share of the cake than the chillul shabbos of el al or anything else. It is only to get the votes that they claim they are their for 'yidishkeit'.
ReplyDeleteThey only have deputy ministers. Check it out. Litzman, for example, is deputy Health Minister, with the office of Minister vacant. The final split between AI and PAI was when Binyamin Mintz took the portfolio of Minister of the Post Office.
BTW, I agree that religious parties should be abolished.
The SR knew this in advance. It may also have to do with CI more than with the SR.
Maybe yes, maybe no. In any event, it is irrelevant.
The Torah says why werent you scared to talk against moshe my servant. This was said to his siblings. How is it that you a rabbi are not scared to talk against the SR.
All I did was cite material he himself published in Divrei Yoel. I am sure the SR stood by what he wrote. I explained that this is a style of address that for *me* is the tipping point.
And not just talk but put it on a blog and get others to copy and distribute it with even worse undertones like RHM. There is a cherem about talking about 'dead' people as well. I suppose you never met him either. Has any other 'decent' rabbi who knew him and most did, ever spoken about him like that.
Like what? I wrote zt"l on him. That was the only way in which I referred to his essence.
Your YU mentors did they ever.
I did not attend YU.
What great rabbis speak about each other is not our concern and how dare we mix in. We can perhaps choose whom we like to follow but not join in their mudslinging.
I believe that is exactly what I did. I did not mix in, I used the mode of address and regard as a determining factor in whom to or not to follow.
This is all done because their followers are far from Torah and this is the only language they understand. At least its for a purpose to make sure their psak is kept.
You mean Satmer chassidim could not have understood Rav Kook was wrong unless the SR said about him: הוא הגבר אשר החזיק והרחיב בארה"ק גבול הטומאה and יצא לכפור בתורה שבכתב ובע"פ ובעיקרי האמונה?
Your post has absolutely no purpose apart from speaking ill of the dead.
Actually, it has quite other purposes.
Of course I see differences, but I still find it ironic, because beyond the parameters of the particulars of the case on point of the SR’s words on RK, the "taama di'kra" of your post is suggested by your further comments, such as your statement בשלום ובמישור הלך עמי - ורבים השיב מעון regarding how you disagreed with SR reaction to Zionism. Or your statements that “The way I was educated, derech eretz kadma la'Torah. Moreover, lo nitnu ha'mitzvos elah l'tzareif es ha'beriyos. “ and “Whether RAYHK was right or wrong is besides the point, which is the manner in which the war was waged.” Yet I do not think indiscriminately accusing Har Habayit ascenders or defenders about not caring about “old ladies being stabbed in Rishon” fits. That is where I feel you similarly crossed the line of "the manner in which the war is waged." (There may or may not be other examples. That one sticks out in my mind).
ReplyDeleteWould you say that line to the following supporters of going up to har habayit? Or to paraphrase you in a different context posting on the SR and RK, have you spoken in them in learning on this topic, in their beit midrash or bet Knesset?
To just glibly toss them all out as “biased” ulterior motive nationalist, lo zo ha-derech. That "may" be true for some of them, but to blanketly just toss them all out . . . It certainly is not true of the non-"Hardalim" posted below, and quite a number of those posted below are not "Hardal"
Rabbi Shlomo Goren z’l, former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbis of Israel
Rabbi Chaim David Halevi z’l, former Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv
Rabbi Yisrael Yaakov Fischer z’l , former head of the Edah Charedit
Rabbi Yosef Kapach z’l
Rabbi Yechiel Michel Tukuchinsky z’l
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein z’lin a teshuva seems to indicate that some parts of
the Temple Mount are permitted to enter
Rabbi Moshe Tendler
Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe
Rabbi Dov Lior, Rabbi of Kiryat Arba
Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, Rav of Tzfat
Rabbi Ben-Zion Mutzafi, Rosh Yeshivat Bnei Tzion
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, Rosh Yeshivat Har Beracha
Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, Rav of Machon Hamikdash
Rabbi She'ar Yashuv Cohen, Chief Rabbi of Haifa;
Rabbi Yuval Sherlo, Rosh Yeshiva of the hesder yeshiva of Petah Tikva
Rabbi Yaacov Meidan, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion
Rabbi Yitzchak Shilat, Maaleh Adumim
Rabbi Re’em HaCohen, Rosh Yeshivat Otniel
Rabbi Zefania Derori, Rosh Yeshivat Kiryat Shemoneh
Rabbi Chaim Druckman, Rav of Yeshivot Bnei Akivah
Rabbi Yisrael Rozen, Machon Zomet
Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Rimon, Rav Alon Shvut
Rabbi Nachum Rabbinovitz, Rosh Yeshivat Bircat Moshe, Ma’alei Adumim
(The list is from http://www.rabbimanning.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Going-Up-To-Har-Habayit-Nov-2014-long-form.pdf See there for more details and sources, note that he puts Rav Mordechai Eliyahu as against, but Rav Mordechai Eliyahu’s opposition was not blanket. He did not want Aliya l har habayit for the masses, but wanted an allowance for a minyan of trustworthy talmidei chachamim. Also, Rav Avraham Shapira was personally against, but privately told individuals it was not assur, as noted there)-
Whether it is permitted or forbidden to go up on the HhB is not relevant to the issue, so we need not get into it now.
DeleteWhat is relevant is the proper quality of a mecho'o, especially when it is in "real-time."
I am not casting aspersions on the ascent to the HhB per se - even though I am strongly and adamantly opposed to it. Yerei'im u'sheleimim (but nevertheless, to'im) are among those who go up to HhB, v'Hu rachum yechaper if there is an avon.
But without casting aspersions on their theology, philosophy or derech avodah - and certainly their tzidkus - under normal circumstances - this is a time of piku'ach nefesh mamash, here and now. There is no heter for someone who feels that this is a form of redifah to not stress the danger involved. If one must strive to save a nirdaf by violence to the rodef, al achas kamma v'kamma by strenuous mecho'oh.
Again, this is not a personal attack on anyone, and not casting aspersions on their personal stature. That is what the SR did to RAYHK. He attacked the gavra, not the ma'aseh. I am protesting the ma'aseh, not the gavra. The chilluk is pashut. No irony.