Update: Making of a Godol (Page xx)… a report by R' Velvel Kercerg that Rebbitzen Feigel Zaks, the
Chafetz-Chaim's youngest daughter, told him, "Eighty percent of what they
tell about [my father] is not true." I cannot help but assume that in
order to bring out bluntly the idea that not everything told about R'
Yisrael-Meir Kagan, author of Chafetz Chaim, is true, his daughter exaggerated
the percentage of untruths.)
Making of a Gadol (Page 409): Furthermore, R' Shlomo Lorincz repeated in the name of R' Simhah Wasserman (son of one of the Chafetz Chaim's major disciples, R' Elchonon Wasserman) that the Chafetz-Chaim was somewhat critical of the Netziv. He disapproved of what the Netziv wrote in his commentary on Humash, HaEmek Davar in the introduction to Sefer Bereishis that the Second Temple was destroyed because "the tzaddiqim and hasidim and those who toiled in Torah study ... were not straight (yeshorim) in their general conduct. Therefore, due to the baseless hatred (sinas chinom) in their hearts, they suspected whomever they saw acting not according to their view in Fear of G-d to be a Sadducee and an epikoros. It was understood that the Netziv intended with his words about the Second Temple to find fault with the bnei Torah of his own generation for delegitimizing the religious maskilim and the Lovers of Zion faithful whose outlook on the needs of the Jewish nation did not conform to their own. Despite his criticism, the Chafetz Chaim asked the Netziv for his haskamah on his sepher Ahavas Chesed which was published eight years later than HaEmek Davar.
It is perhaps ironic that the Netziv - who was after all the Rosh yeshiva of Volozhin - explained what led up to the Hurban Bayit Sheini; his Hareidi contemporaries (who were perhaps not as great as him) denied this lesson, and continued very much in the path that the Netziv had sharply criticised. And within a few years another Hurban took place in the same locale as where the hareidi centres were.
ReplyDeleteThis is an example of selective memory and selective approval of gedolim. When the Gedolim say something that criticizes Hareidim - then they are wrong.
It is also ironic that the movements that the netziv was defending - eg the Hovevei Zion - who had a non-sinnas Hinnam outlook, were also the ones who were activists in moving to Zion - a very good example is Rav Kook, and how he brought many people to israel, eg the Leshem - whose offspring were spared certain death in Europe.
Maybe I'm just assuming that what's happening nowadays was happening back then but whenever I read something along the lines of "And so-and-so reported that so-and-so said in the name of so-and-so..." I ignore it. After all, if people have no problem making up stuff "Gedolim" said nowadays why shouldn't I assume it's been like that for a long time?
ReplyDeleteMoral of the story: Just because someone is a great person does not make him beyond criticism. Conversely, it is possible to disagree with or criticize someone and still hold of him to be a great person. This is something that needs to be understood clearly, especially regarding the leaders in our generation.
ReplyDeleteWasn't that book put in Cherem by the Posek HaDor in Eretz Yisroel?
ReplyDeleteConfused. What are you confused about? Yes it was put in Cherem, so?
DeleteThe Netziv was the leader of his generation. Up until that point, the Aguda/hareidi ideology had not yet been fulyl manufactured. Just like the Neviim were mocked by the lesser people of that time, so the Netziv's holy words went unheeded, and led to the Churban.
ReplyDeleteEddie why is it all right for you to use this type of argument but when chareidi rabbis do it you get very upset?
DeleteSorry, Eddie. If you know anything, you would know that the Chofetz Chaim was basically accepted as the leader of the generation. Not to say that the Netziv was not a Gadol. But the Chofetz Chaim was not a "hareidi contemporary who was not as great as the Netziv."
Delete@DT
DeleteIt depends if the Haredi arguments are consistent or not. And maybe i learned this type of argument from the Rabbis, and not just hareidim.
It also depends on whether one accepts the Netziv or not.
One of the Tisha B'Av kinnot is about the attacks on the French communities and the burning of the Talmud. There was a kind of admission by the French Rabbis and they sought forgiveness for having themselves burned the books of the Rambam a century earlier. They themselves saw it as a punishment for their own sin of burning the Rambam's books.
So, if hareidim blame the reform movement for the Holocaust, there may well be some basis to this claim, but it is not very logical since the Reform were least affected , they all managed to leave Germany, whilst sadly many strictly orthodox were caught and murdered. So of course reform was a terrible spiritual tragedy - but in the Flood and Sodom and Gemorroah, we know the G-d did not punish the innocent and let the wicked go free. Khalilah, as Avraham said.
Now going back to the Netziv - he made the kind of argument you are talking about. If the comments were really made by the CC - then he was disagreeing with the Rosh Yeshiva of Volozhin. If the Netziv was right, then the same results can occur if the same sin is done.
There is also a great illogic in the thought of Rav Elchanan regarding the Shoah. And clearly R' Kotler voted with his feet, and opposed the actions of R' Wasserman, in both escaping and trying to save as many as he could.
The issue you are raising is not one of Hareidi vis non -hareidi arguments, it is a disagreement within major hachamim who are accepted by Hareidim.
Also, history supports my side of the argument.
nat, I don't have to support your team just because you do. In any case, the CC was a generation younger than the Netziv. But the CC being a great and being the leader in his generation does not negate anything the Netziv said.
DeleteIt's an interesting story, but what's the big deal? They had a legitimate disagreement over a difficult and controversial issue, and they handled it just fine.
DeleteI guess you don't bother following what goes on in the world. Yes they handled it just fine. The point is that those who came afterwards have not and there doesn't seem to be awareness of what the Netziv's Introduction really means.
Delete"Sorry, Eddie. If you know anything, you would know that the Chofetz Chaim was basically accepted as the leader of the generation."
DeleteThe Netziv wrote the Haskama for אבהת חסד in 1888, which means העמק דבר was published in 1880. The חפץ חיים was born in 1838, and was in his early 40s at the time, whereas the Netziv was already in his 60s and Rosh Yeshiva of Volozhin. I think you are engaging in anachronisms.
That being the case, how many people read introductions?
I would speculate that at the time, people knew who the Netziv was criticizing. I somehow doubt that the Netziv was making a general call for tolerance, but was speaking about contemporary controversies. (See for example his "ימין ושמאל" later published in his ש"ות as סימן 44.) If that's the case, the Netziv was implicitly criticizing contemporary rabbanim, and it may have been that criticism that the חפץ חיים was upset about. It's just my speculation though...
It would seem from Rav Chaim Ozer's hesped that the Chofetz Chaim was universally revered as a tzadik perhaps the Tzadik HaDor. He noted that his tzidkus concealed his gadlus in Torah. He was not viewed as a godol in psak or godol hador in the sense of Rav Schach, Rav S.Z. Auerbach or Rav Ovadiya Yosef as THE leader of clall Yisroel. The Mishna Berura did not become authoritative until after WWII. When I was in yeshiva my rebbe told me that I was only bound by the Mishna Berura if I accepted to do everything according to the Mishna Berura.
DeleteActually, the Netziv was what we call a tziyoni today (and then, to an extent.) Though the Netziv did object to bringing this (and other political / other non Torah issues) into the yezhiva
ReplyDeleteActually the Chofetz Chaim's son Aryeh was a tziyoni. The Chofetz Chaim was told bluntly by various rabbis that he needed to curb his son.
Deletesource. ? although I did hear that he was critical of the way he was mechanech his children and he had 2 communist daughters, shoshi and gitti who were in eretz yisroel for a time. one of whom said "why do you sit in the darkness" to her grandfather
DeleteInteresting. It is aid that the CC refused to put electricity in the yeshiva. Presumably, he had no problem with shabbat electri ity.
DeleteRav Eidensohn, I was always taught that there is no such thing as a Posek HaDor. However, many if not most Chareidim accept the concept of Posek HaDor, as does your brother Rav Dovid. According to them it would be assur to quote from a book that the Posek HaDor put in Cherem. Do you accept the concept of Pokek HaDor, and if you do, how do you publicly quote from a book that was put in Cherem?
ReplyDeleteRav Eliashiv never put Making of a Gadol in cherem. Rav Sternbuch likes it alot. When there were posters all over Jersualem banning the book - Rav Nosson Kaminetsky's son-in-law Rabbi Triebitz asked Rav Sternbuch if he could tear down the posters in Har Nof. Rav Sternbuch told him that there was no halachic problem since the ban was not done according to halacha.
DeleteRav Nosson had an agreement with Rav Eliashiv when he published the book that if there was anything that displeased him that he should be notified and he would correct it and that Rav Eliashiv would not ban the book without advance warning and a chance to amend it. When the posters went up in Jersusalem banning the book, Rav Nosson went to Rav Eliashiv and asked him what happened to the agreement. Rav Eliashiv replied that the posters went up without his authorization but now there were up there was nothing he could do.
All of this is described in Rav Nosson's book Making of a Ban. Plus there are recordings on the internet describing the disgraceful events.
Rav Nosson told me that at least when Rav Schach banned Rabbi Dr. Leo Levi's book that had Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky's haskomo - Rav Schach first called showed him the nusach of the ban and asked him to read it carefully to make sure that it contained nothing that would seem as an attack on Rav Yaakov.
Bottom line the book is not in cherem and it is a valuable resource. The term posek hador means simply that he is one of the most important poskim of the generation but it doesn't mean that everything he said must be accepted. Review the events of the sheitel disaster. Rav Yisroel Belsky was quoted in the NY Times as saying that since Rav Eliashiv banned the hair it was prohibited until he had a chance to review the issue and decide whether it was really prohibited.
To use a modern academic terminology for the title of this book, it could be called "The Social Construction of a Gadol".
DeleteEliashiv replied that the posters went up without his authorization but now there were up there was nothing he could do.
DeleteExcuse me... WHAT?!?!?!?! So we are saying that whenever zealots said something in Rav Elyashiv's name, even if it meant that he broke a promise to another yid, that was it, he went along with it?
I get that Rav Elyashiv never wanted to be a public figure, and even once he was one, he disdained it greatly, but that is just insane talk. Since when does any Rav give in to the wants and desires of the street?
@DT "Rav Eliashiv never put Making of a Gadol in cherem"
DeleteThis is a bit of a reconstruction of history. he did put the book in Cherem, but when he was confronted by RNK about this, he said that RNK refused to come to a diyun on the matter - a lie that had been told to RYSE by his askanim. He then said that he cannot retract the ban.
http://haemtza.blogspot.co.uk/2006/03/lies-and-deception-making-of-ban.html
This is what RNk said in his lecture on the story, which says the same thing. It even quotes RYSE as saying that his askanim had chutzpah for lying to him!
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/731293/Rabbi_Nathan_Kamenetsky/Making_of_a_Ban-_A_Look_At_the_Banning_of_Making_of_A_Godol
DeleteChief Rabbi on Conflict resolution - at the controversial Limmud programme
Deletehttp://www.chiefrabbi.org/torah-guide-conflict-resolution-limmud-24dec13/
Eddie you are correct that Rav Eliashiv put the book in cherem but the story is more complicated than you indicate. Listen to the tape from about 38 minutes till 52 minutes.
DeleteOriginally there was a letter that Rav Eliashiv signed against the book because of the lie that he was told that Rav Nosson refused to meet with him to defend the book. When Rav Nosson heard about this letter while he was in America he sent a letter of protest to Rav Eliashiv that the letter should not become a ban by being published in the Yated. He wanted the halachic right to defend himself before Rav Eliashiv.
Despite this agreement, posters of the letter went up all over Yerushalayim without authorization from Rav Eliashiv together with signatures of gedolim. Rav Eliashiv was furious at the unauthorized use of his letter but it still wasn't a ban.
At this point Rav Eliashiv said that if he would stop selling it until it could be clarified he would not ban it by placing notice in the Yated. However 3 weeks later the ban was published in the Yated. Rav Eliashiv told Rav Nosson later that he had been told that the book was still being sold and that is why he banned it. Rav Nosson said that it was a lie. In fact the book had sold out already and there were no books to be sold.
In short, halacha was not followed, Rav Eliashiv was lied to and accepted the lies as true without bothering to contact Rav Nosson.
In short, halacha was not followed, Rav Eliashiv was lied to and accepted the lies as true without bothering to contact Rav Nosson.
DeleteI just want to be clear. You are saying that Rav Elyashiv did not follow halakha first in how the ban came together, as he relied on others and never heard from the person he was acting against.
Then when the truth came to light Rav Elyashiv went further against halakha by not attempting to rectify the situation.
You have to admit, even under the complicated formulation of this, Rav Elyashiv does not come across as seeming to be the most competent Posek.
He definitely was a competent posek - but was totally dependent on others for his information. Same thing happened in the sheitel disaster.
DeleteThe rabbonim generally don't seem to handle things well when it comes to banning and it tends to produce a chilul hashem - especially when it is clear that the halacha is not being followed but it is a political agenda.
One major seforim store owner told me seriously that I should try and get my books banned so I would sell a lot of copies
Given that
Delete"The rabbonim generally don't seem to handle things well when it comes to banning ..."
why should anyone bother to abide by any ban signed on to by these great Rabbonim? After all, it seems they are unwilling (unable? incapable? I'm not sure which applies here) of doing the necessary research and groundwork into the facts before making their declarations? Or, put more bluntly, why take any bans seriously at all? They appear to be quite meaningless given the lack of diligence to both facts and due process.
Jeff, you are right, but I think there has been a yeridat hadoros in the past few generations. Rav Shach was perhaps more politically savvy than RYSE, and hence placed bans on the "other", like YU, Steinsaltz and Chabad, and was therefore a bit more acceptable in Yeshivish circles, but still created resentment. RYSE made some strategic blunders, because he stated attacking his own group, eg sheitels, shabbal elevators and books by Hareidi rabbis. But he still had an air of authority but was also deeply resented by his own group, not the outsiders.
DeleteToday, the situation is even worse. Nobody is accepted as the single gadol hador as in previous generations. And the atatcks between contenders are even worse than say the battles between R' shach and Lubavitch. So there is no real authority today, and a ban is meaningless. It is like hechsher, there are so many of them, that no single one has total coverage.
I have often wondered the same thing.
DeleteSince Rav Eliashev never banned the book, and it was unauthorized third parties that put up untruthful posters claiming Rav Eliashev banned it even though he did not, Rav Eliashev is 100% correct that he can't or won't do anything. Rav Eliashev wasn't responsible for other people posting untruthful claims about him. The complaint is against the people posting the untruthful posters claiming Rav Eliashev said something he never actually said. Rav Eliashev is not at fault at all.
DeleteHistory has shown us who was right and who wasn't, kind of. Satmar today is the forefront of Haredi Judaism. Their platform has been hostile to the zionists, and history has proven them for the most part correct. They have persevered following Halacha, even if some have criticized their tactics.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand the mizrachi have for the most part stopped following Halacha, and have transformed their religion into some type of secular Zionism. Religious Zionists who follow Halacha are but a small minority.
None of us know the reason for churban Europe. To make believe that it came about because of rabbis who spoke correctly against the real dangers of Zionism is beyond twisted and repulsive. The ahavas Yisroel of the Netziv and Rav Kook is commendable, yet they were not the enemies of the Gedolim who spoke out against Zionism. Nor were the Gedolim their enemies. It was just a difference of opinion of how to reach the goal they were looking for. Kinda like the argument between Hagra"l Shteinman, and Hagra"sh Auerbach
None of us know the reason for churban Europa, true, but we do know the reason so many Jews who could have escaped didn't and who told them to stay put and say tehillim really hard and that nothing would happen to them.
Delete@Asher P " Satmar today is the forefront of Haredi Judaism."
DeleteThat would be the greatest insult to Hareidu Judaism.
How does history show that Satmar were right?
The State of israel has become the centre of the Jewish people, and Jerusalem has returned to its rightful owners for the first time since 2000 years ago.
On the other hand, satmar and its Nk satellites have stooped very low. even the satmar rebbe who promised his follwoers that they would be saved by oppsoing Zionism , and also opposing America and hatzala - something totally agasint Torah, erred so badly. Not only did he err, but he made a false promise which can be considered as a Nevua sheker.
Today, satmar has lost the war and has turned upon itself - divided, in arkaot, and using street gangs to help them in their turf war. most of the Gedolim in Israel are oppsoed to their antic and their Hillul Hashem , and the yeshiva leaders avoid their embarrassing protests in front of the goyim.
The Netziv was the total opposite of Satmar in every conceivable way - from his broad Orthodoxy, his focus on Unity and Ahavas yisroel, and his love for Zion and settlement of Eretz haKodesh.
I would agree only with your point that none of us know the reason for Churban Europa. I am just astonished at how the claim of the Netziv about Churban Bayit Sheini was made a short time before the shoah (which BTW is not a modern word but is found in the Tenach and in the additional lines after the Aleinu prayer).
the netziv was also a kanai sometimes. read My Uncle the Netziv. As we all know, he also retracted his support of chovevai tzion when it morphed into a nationalistic movement.
Deletein any event israel as a state has clearly been a disastrous failure and is the leading cause of anti-semitism and danger to Jews today. if you care about being embarrased in front of the goyim you wouldn't be a fan of Israel. (or perhaps you've never been on a college campus)
The Netziv's retraction of support for Hovovei Tzion was perfectly rational. he said clearly that we should agitate the Ottomans, as it might hamper the settlement process, but we should keep our beliefs of geula in our hearts.
DeleteRemember, the ottomans were a brutal lot, they murdered 2million Armenians in the first genocide of the 20th C. So it was certainly a wise choice not to antagonise them.
As far as goyim are concerned, i think they respect jews who stand up for their State. Even a senior "leader" of Al Qaeda said he respects the fact that Jews defend their state and base it on Torah. What they don't respect are traitors like Satmar and NK, who publicly go against Jewish statehood.
Again, for those who claim the State is the cause of ani-semitism, you forget what the Torah says about Amalek. They have always been agasint us, and use any politically expedient excuse to chase us. If there was not state, they would use other arguments, eg the jewish domination of capital markets, media, kashrut food industry etc etc.
@Asher Pihem -
Delete"Satmar today is the forefront of Haredi Judaism"
This is utter nonsense. There are many rational, learned Haredim who utterly despise Satmar's sinas chinam, corruption, violence, and distortion of Torah Judaism. They learn the sefer Eim haBanim Semeichah and they know full well that the Satmar Rav's fanatical anti-halachic, anti-aliyah ideology caused a disaster for the Hungarian Jews. They won't speak out publicly because they're afraid of Satmar's hooligans.
"the mizrachi have for the most part stopped following Halacha" - And Satmar is following halacha? They are in no position to criticize Mizrachi (I am not Mizrachi).
Go to http://scholar.google.com and search NY courts for congregation Teitelbaum.
I have spoken with both anti-aliyah Satmars and MO ORA feminists. They are mirror images of each other in their fanatical ignorance of Torah.
http://www.tsel.org/torah/emhabanim-eng/index.html
@Asher Pihem, sorry to have to say this, but elements of your Satmar group appear to have lost their sanity. Why are you obsessed with Mizrachi when your Satmar ship is sinking?
Delete"our great Grand Rabbi opposed any travel to the State of Israel because of the spiritual influence and impression that a visit to the State would create...Rabbi Chasekel Teitelbaum states that it is clear that "an impressionable child being raised as Ultra-Orthodox Satmar should not be traveling to the State of Israel""
See
Katz v. Katz
2013 NY Slip Op 50041 - NY: Supreme Court, 2013 - Google Scholar
http://scholar.google.com/
Your criticism should not be directed at "elements of your Satmar group." Honestly, this is just the natural progression, only one small step further than the issur in Al Hageula Veal Hatemura (I think it says it's yehareg veal yaavor) of going to the Kosel.
Delete" and history has proven them for the most part correct. They have persevered following Halacha, even if some have criticized their tactics.
DeleteOn the other hand the mizrachi have for the most part stopped following Halacha, and have transformed their religion into some type of secular Zionism. Religious Zionists who follow Halacha are but a small minority. "
This reflects nothing more than your ignorance of other communities. Because what you claim about their community isn't true in the slightest. Religious zionists following halacha is NOT a small minority in the religious zionist camp. From where did you derive this "fact?"
I remember around 20 years ago, when the Oslo war was taking place , there was a major prayer gathering at the Kotel, with many Roshei yeshivas and Talmidim there, and people from across the religious spectrum. Rav Elyashiv was leading the prayers.
DeleteClearly mainstream orthodoxy, and hareidi Orthodoxy has not taken Satmar's views seriously. Even Brisk, who are staunchly anti-Zionist, do not forbid going to Israel - they forbid leaving it!
Satmar is irrelevant to any rational discussion of anti-Zionism as Al haGeulah veAl haTemura contains some very nasty things- such as the claim that the only miracle in the Six Day War was that Satan seduced all the gedolim (the Satmar Rebbe seems to be the only exception) into believing that there were miracles, and that any Zionist who was inspired by the victory and became a בעל תשובה was in fact a faker and didn't do real תשובה.
DeleteThe Chafetz Chaim was never acknowledged as the Godol Hador (of Litvish jewry) in his lifetime. They all looked up to Reb Chaim Ozer.
ReplyDeletewrong.
DeleteEmes... The eim ha banim AGREES with the satmar that the 3 oaths are halacha lameseh. ( eim 3:21 page 176). A famous zionist rabbi called me a liar and slammed the phone when i told him this.
ReplyDelete@obZerver - The Eim HaBanim Semeichah recognized the 3 oaths, but he also indicated that they do not apply when Jews cannot live peacefully in exile, and when the goyim allow the Jews to return to EY. In any case the oaths were never violated, the UN General Assembly voted to allow a Jewish state.
Deletehttp://www.tsel.org/torah/emhabanim-eng/264.html#link
http://www.tsel.org/torah/emhabanim-eng/267.html#link
obZerver - maybe he did accept the 3 oaths, but the Ohr sameach , and in fact the Arizal/Chaim Vital said they are no longer valid. In any case, R' Teichtal live prior to the declaration of Independence.
DeleteI accept that it is not a good thing to reject someone's claim before checking the source. Many surprising and counter-intuitive things have been written. The netziv's statement being one of them.
ELY, thanks for that EHS reference - it disproves the claims of those who say R' Teichtal agreed with Satmar on the 3 oaths.
DeleteIncidentally, Herzl, who is for Satmar the anti-christ, made precisely the same Cheshbon, albeit at the 49th level of Tumah. he was originally of the view that assimilation would be the solution to anti-semitism, ie that Jews could live in peace with the goyim. After the Dreyfuss trial he realised that the Ahavat Yonatan, so to speak, applied, and that there is a calling to return to Israel. As discussed on the post about Herzl a few months ago , he lived in a parallel universe, but he was perhaps unconsciously doing some kind of teshuva.
The EHS brings also the Ramban's "promise" on the Tochecha - where he says we will live peacefully in the Galuth.
Deletehttp://www.tsel.org/torah/emhabanim-eng/260.html#link
It is ironic that Ramban himself had to learn the bitter truth about the exile through his disputation, and the subsequent Spanish inquisition. And Ramban can be said to be the father of modern Zionism - with his return to Israel, and his establishment of a shul there, gradually the Jews have returned to their land.
obZerver,
DeleteThe oaths are not halacha l'masseh according to most authorities. What I mean by that, is that are inapplicable. It would be sort of like saying בן סורר ומורה is not הלכה למעשה. Most authorities understand שלא יעלה בחומה to require a mass armed invasion of Eretz Yisrael by the majority of the nation. There are some variations of the idea, but the overwhelming majority permit legal piecemeal peaceful immigration. The Satmar Rebbe holds that the legal peaceful immigration of any large (whatever that means) group would be a violation. This would be the case even if they were ordered by their government and the local Arabs to immigrate on the pain of death! Obviously, this is a major חידוש that necessarily requires the overturning the traditional understanding of the gemara.
If הלכה למעשה means "applicable in practice", then the oaths are not הלכה למעשה. If you mean "applicable in theory", then many Zionists would agree that it is הלכה למעשה.
Not sure if I understand the point. With all respect to the great tzaddik Chafetz Chayim, So what if he did disagree with that statement of the Netziv? Am I supposed to think everyone always had the same opinion and agreed on every point? Maybe I find one argument more compelling than the other. Maybe you think Chafetz Hayim was right. Maybe you don't. So what?
ReplyDeletePerhaps your point was to show that there are different views. Or at least at one point in our history there were different views and that was considered ok. They weren't hostile to each other and didn't separate into different "camps" over this. Unlike today where a different view is called reform, treife, zaken mamre, etc. Is this your point?
eddie... The arizal and or samech were dicussed here not long ago
ReplyDeleteyes - and it is clear that they considered he oaths to not be valid anymore.
DeleteEddie, I am unsure about the Or Sameach. I am not sure if he understand the Balfour Declaration to mean an independent Jewish state
Deleteben dov
Ben, when he said there is no fear of the oaths once the san remo and balfour declarations had taken place, do you think he meant that Jews can now read the newspapers? The oaths were not about newspapers or bubble gum.
DeleteEmes... Maybe i was hard on you... Bring the exact qoute where the oaths don't apply
ReplyDeleteThese are the pages that ELY cited on the oaths:
Deletehttp://www.tsel.org/torah/emhabanim-eng/264.html#link
http://www.tsel.org/torah/emhabanim-eng/267.html#link
Not sure what the toeles is of this post. Is there too little invalidation of Orthodox Jews that we need to promote more of that? Yes, I denounce fringe groups like YCT, but in general invalidation is not an agenda I share. We ignore Netziv's comments at great cost.
ReplyDeleteben dov
1honestlyfrum.blogspot.com
Regarding any (ban) it only applied to the first edition, which was a limited run for indiders only (originally). If you have a printed copy of that dition it is worth $omething. (If you have a pdf copy, make sure to send him a royalty check.
ReplyDeleteThe second edition (i think it eas published by tuvia's) never was banned, thus the real stuff is in what it leaves out.
Speaking of royalties and the CC, nobody pays the royalties the CC wrote in the original edition. In fact, the royalty notice is not even published in later editions indicating the printer isnt paying.
The royalty -- 20% of the print run to yeshivot.
This is incorrect. There was a second ban on the second "Improved Edition". (Full disclosure, I own the Improved Edition and I love it. But it was banned too. It is virtually equivalent to the first edition, aside from a few sentences here and there.)
Deletei refer to the mishna berura royalties. sorry for not being specific.
Deleteregarding a ban on the second / improved edition, perhaps its a vestige of the original ban, by "kanaim".
Even Meir Kahane considered The Three Oaths halacha lameseh in theory. He considered them binding only with reciprocation by the gentiles of the world. The EHS considered it ridiculous to invoke this once the geula was already in motion. To a certain extant we are not suppose to incite the nations until the time has come, but once the time has come it would a sin to ignore it.
ReplyDeleteEven Meir Kahane considered The Three Oaths halacha lameseh in theory. He considered them binding only with reciprocation by the gentiles of the world. The EHS considered it ridiculous to invoke this once the geula was already in motion. To a certain extant we are not suppose to incite the nations until the time has come, but once the time has come it would a sin to ignore it.
ReplyDeleteLet's move from the theoretical to the practical for a moment.
ReplyDeleteWhere can I get a copy of "The Making of a Godol"/
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/9659037929/ref=tmm_hrd_new_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=new&sr=&qid=
Delete$300
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=productsearch&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CD0Q2SkwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Frover.ebay.com%2Frover%2F1%2F711-67261-24966-0%2F2%3Fmtid%3D691%26kwid%3D1%26crlp%3D1_263602%26itemid%3D300802356900%26mpre%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.ebay.com%252Fitm%252Flike%252F300802356900%253Flpid%253D82&ei=Bu7vUtjABoqu7AbwooDQCg&usg=AFQjCNE3qQxtKuPqtXV_dT5m0fn91OGN-w&sig2=Jv-kQ5wlep3o-NBLVYaYHQ&bvm=bv.60444564,d.ZGU
ebay $123
The price dropped considerably.
DeleteIn any event, there is a PDF that can be downloaded of the original Making of a Godol book.