Igros Moshe (O.C. 01:109): This that you apologize for disagreeing with me in a halachic issue – this is totally unnecessary. That is because this is the way of Torah that it is necessary to establish the truth. Chas v’shalom to silence one who disagrees with you – whether he is being more lenient or more strict. [While there is a discussion about disagreeing in a formal court session Sanhedrin 36 where the court is deciding on the guilt or innocence…] it is not a problem to disagree with the gadol (greatest scholar) when he is saying something in the course of teaching the material or even if he is making a practical halachic ruling but he is not part of a formal court. We see this in many places in the gemora where students question their teacher’s view. … It is obvious in these cases the rulings were not part of a formal court session. Furthermore it is apparent that there is no one today who has the status of gadol for this law that no one can disagree with him… Therefore even if you consider me to be a gadol – it is permitted to disagree with me and consequently it is required that you express your opinion and there is no need to apologize. Nevertheless regarding the halachic question that was raised, my view -that I wrote that it is prohibited - is the correct one.
Igros Moshe (Y.D. 01:101): .... There is no question that we have the right even to disagree with Achronim and also on occasion with certain Rishonim when there are proper proofs and more important with proper reasoning. Concerning this and similar matters the gemora says that a judge can only make a decision based upon what he sees (Bava Basra 131, Rashbam). This is true as long as the ruling doesn’t go against the well-known poskim such as the Shulchan Aruch which has been accepted in all countries. This is what is meant by the saying that there was a place left to make a fence. And this is in fact what the majority of teshuvos of the Achronim do – they decide many practical issues on the basis of innovations. However it is important not to be arrogant in making rulings. Thus one should avoid using innovations when possible except in situations of great need and surely in situations involving aguna such as the case under discussion. Thus we are obligated to make a ruling if it appears to us that there is a basis for a heter. It is prohibited for us to show false modesty and cause a Jewish woman to be trapped as an aguna or to cause a stumbling block with prohibitions or even to cause loss of money. Look at Gittin (56) where it condemns the humility of R Zechariah for causing the destruction of the Temple! The obvious question is what does humility have to do with the destruction? Look at Maharetz Chajes who gives a proper explanation. This is exactly what we are concerned about. Thus we must make halachic rulings according to what appears correct with proper proofs and understanding – and in particular in cases of aguna like this – to save from this difficult situation.
Very good - when did he write this?
ReplyDeleteSome time later on , it seems that this view disappeared. Maybe in the time of rav shach, or when rav goren did precisely what rav moshe is saying here, and disagreed with rav elyashiv.
Somebody asked rav Brovender the same question - he said that for example all belz chassidim disagree with rav Elyashiv. Brisk disagree with everyone else.
The Ritva says that if you don't sit with a majority or BD, there is no obligation to follow them.
this view did not disappear
ReplyDeleteRav Goren was rejected because of what he claimed not because he was a minority
ReplyDeleteFalse dilemma - a minority is rejected because the majority differ with their view. Rav Moshe then campaigned to get everybody to unanimously reject Rav Goren , he said it is important that we all unite against him. Contrast this with what he said about agunot here.
ReplyDeleteRav Moshe was close to Rav Avraham shapira at mercaz harav. He said shapira was qualified to rule on all areas of Torah in Israel.
When this controversy took place, Rav tzvi yehudah kook asked Rav Shapira to look at Goren's psak, and comment on whether it is written as a proper psak (as opposed to fake). He said it was proper.
This is just one example. This teshuva of Rav Moshe is uncharacteristic of the last 50 years of Halacha. Perhaps this is how people thought 200 or 500 years ago - which is better than today.
Rav Goren was rejected because he was 100% the opposite of his hareidi peers.
ReplyDeleteHis unique qualifications for this honor were:
A) he went to university
B) he served in the army professionally.
C) he was pivotal in the liberation of Jerusalem after 1900 years , through " non Jewish" (military) means.
D) it was him who blew the shofar at the kotel (as opposed to moshiach)
E) he had a minyan on Har habayit for the first few months after liberation.
It has nothing to do with halacha, mamzerus, giur etc.
It has everything to do with the chareidi world view and eschatology.
> Nevertheless regarding the halachic question that was raised, my view -that I wrote that it is prohibited - is the correct one.
ReplyDeleteThis line would seem to undermine the entire premise. Sure you can disagree with me. I don't have a problem with it. Just know that you're wrong, that's all.
It reminds me of a story about the Chasam Sofer who got into a debate with another posek and ended it by saying "He might have better proofs but I know I'm right". It undermines the whole concept of halakhic debate.
All the anecdotes about Rav Shach are very different from his public image and attacks on various institutions.
ReplyDeleteSomeone at kerem b'yavne wrote a very nice piece about him, claiming that he was an ish emet, and that he spoke the truth in every single sentence he said.
Problems with this kind of claim:
1. Mr kby is not the judge of truth to make such a ridiculous claim. Can a taxi driver comment on whether Einstein, Feynman, Hawking were absolutely correct in their theoretical physics?
2. He is known to publicly attack an institution, then privately support it. So in which case was he telling the truth, and in which a falsehood?
3. Rambam in hilchot Deot says one should always speak the truth, and not say one thing and think another.
The climate in bnei barak is directly related to the shapers of that society. Chazon ish could lift heavy weights, and so could Rav Shach. But nobody else can lift these weights - and that is why they resort to street violence, even inside the yeshiva.
Nope!
ReplyDeleteyou can twist the facts but that is not a good defense
Please provide the source for your claim
ReplyDeleteThe more common reaction was Rav Goren's ruling could be used for toilet paper
Please provide example of anyone disagreeing with Rav Moshe on this issue which should be easy since you claim that it is uncharacteristic of the last 50 years of Halacha
http://www.ravaviner.com/2011/11/conversion-performed-by-ha-rav-shlomo.html?m=1
ReplyDeleteSource, told by Rav aviner.
Rav Shach said he hadn't read it himself, but someone else told him xyz.
"Toilet paper" comments are ridiculous, but typical of the hareeidi street.
There are a few responses in public domain - including Rav betzalel Zolty's.
I can add sources when I'm back at my desktop computer.
All of the above are facts .
ReplyDeleteEach person usually has 1 of them to be disqualified.
Why was Rav Lichtenstein disqualified?
Rav kook was disqualified by half the hareidi world without any of these qualifications.
Do you think that hareidi roshe yeshivas cannot have bias?
Rav Shach's son eschewed his father's path - served in the army, and became a university professor.
The reaction - a displacement reaction - was to delegitimize someone unrelated.
Rav eliashiv disagreed with Rav Moshe on this. He did not accept or recognize any rabbanut people who did not follow his line. That is why he installed a known criminal as Ashkenazi chief rabbi - someone not even qualified as a Dayan.
ReplyDeleteIs he supposed to believe his own view is incorrect? That makes no sense.
ReplyDeletepure political screed
ReplyDeletewhat is political? The People involved are Rav Avienr, rav Shapira, and Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand you are claiming that peopel can disagree with "Gedolim". When I point out this isn't widely accepted, you ask me for evidence.
i cite 3 well known big Rabbis, one of whom was praised by Rav Moshe himself.
what is your mental block in not being able to understand the cotnradiction in your own position?
it is like a no true Scotsman fallacy. "That is not disagreeing with gedolim, it is a Politcal screed!"
This is proof in itself of my contention.
nope
ReplyDeletethe issue has been discussed for years
I don't see evidence that will change any minds.
Ra Goren was clearly a brilliant Talmid Chachom but he was also a politician and was interested in power
citing supporters of Rav Goren doesn't change the facts or conclusions
ReplyDeletehttps://cross-currents.com/2007/06/26/responding-to-some-critics/
ReplyDeleteRav Kook went to the army university?! You are making a lot of claims without any basis
ReplyDeletePlease tell me that Rav Shapira agreed with the psak
ReplyDeletethat is totally irrelevant to Rav Moshe's view.
ReplyDeleteNope - I said the opposite _ he didn't do any of these , but was still rejected by many.
ReplyDeleteyour reference to the above rabbis is unrelated to Rav Moshe's statement
ReplyDeleteNope, that was not the point. R tzvi yehuda asked him if it was a properly constructed teshuva, not whether he agreed with it or not.
ReplyDeleteThe allegation, as you eloquently put it, was that it was fake and garbage.
https://mida.org.il/2015/02/06/rav-goren-matters-legacy-langers/
ReplyDeletethat is the point
ReplyDeletea properly constructed teshuva based on false evidence is not meaningful
Do you consider that the heter forTamar to marry without a Get was properly constructed
Totally relevant. You asked for an example of someone disagreeing with rmf view. This is a clear example.
ReplyDeleteThere are many claims, and points.
ReplyDeleteIn Israel, they said it is playing with Halacha.
In America they said he was bribed by the government.
These are quite different allegations. And hence require different responses.
Is there sight of a written heter for Tamara?
ReplyDeleteThe letter I posted from the Flatbush journal shows the argumentation of the brother and sister case.
Many of the points were not mentioned by its critics:
Married in a church.
No evidence of a conversion
Not able to complete "shema Yisrael...."
No evidence of a conversion.
Signing a letter as. avraham haGer (apostate)
Signing a letter that he admitted to lapsing into Christianity ( agudah tried to walk this back by saying he didn't know or was helping his kids)
Forced conversion by chava's parents.
The joke being, of course, that today nobody would accept such a person as a ger.
Evidence _ the teshuva of Rav Moshe states that a Rav can only make a decision based on what is in front of him.
ReplyDeleteThere was no clear evidence, and he could not provide evidence he converted or the name of the bd who converted him .
The power /bribery argument is false - even though it was made by Rav Moshe and Lubavitcher rebbe in New York. For the following reasons:
ReplyDelete1) In 1964, Rabbis Goren and Unterman had already fought an election for the Rav HaRashi position, with no suggestion of bribery. The difference in votes was about 2 or 3. This was when R' Unterman was still young enough to continue, and R Goren had not yet liberated Jerusalem. he then became Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv - which is what happens before becoming Rav HaRashi of Israel. Again no question of bribery. So in 1972/3, R' Unterman was already too old for a further 10 year stint, and Rav Goren's picture was everywhere in the Israeli mind, and hence it is not reasonable to believe that he needed to do a favour to Golda Meir in order to get elected. To claim that it was a bribe, you need to provide evidence that the committeewould have voted for Unterman, unless brown paper envelopes with cash were passed around etc. Lubavitcher Rebbe never set foot in Israel so he is guilty of telling a lie, and motzei shem ra. Similarly, Rav Moshe had no credible information that such an occurence took place. So these claims are false, and they never even pretended to have evidence for such claims.
2) The proposal for the heter was actually written when he was Chief Rabbi of tel Aviv - so even if he remained in Tel Aviv , the opinion was still there on paper. If you are implying that this was his
"bribe" to the government - it goes against his history as a Rabbi. he wrote many teshuvot in the army, which were revolutionary - he had to deal with problems whihc simply didn't exist for 2000 years, and do not appear in the talmud or poskim. the Hashmonaim were Kohanim and could ask Hashem directly for answers to their questions. But this was not available to R Goren in the army. Some of hsi decisions were revolutionary or questionable . So this decision again was in the same tenor, independent and fearless of anyone else. Incidentally, Moshe Dayan sent Goren to military jail a couple of times for insubordination - once when Dayan wanted to remove E-l from Kel Male Rachamim. So the proposition that he would suddenly do a deal with his secular, one time enemy and jailer, to pervert halacha, is not convincing.
Minds will not change - until we have a post-Hareidi reality. That is already beginning to happen in some areas - some Hareidim are supporting the State of Israel, so much so that the satmar rebbe is complaining about his hassidim becoming zionists. Several others persona non grata have been rehabilitated - including Rav Soloveitchik. The throwaway "hesped" in the "Jewish" Observer 30 years ago was a joke - but today many in the Hareidi world accept that he was an immense Gadol b'Torah. Rav Moshe's ploy to unite against him, failed - since there are enough Modern and DL rabbis who accept him.
"The more common reaction was Rav Goren's ruling could be used for toilet paper"
ReplyDeleteI have said this before ,and unfortuantely I have to say it again:
The validity of Hareidi opinion can be assessed by certain tests that one can apply. I called these "Acid Hareidim"
In the period of the Holocaust, visas were made available to Hareidi yeshivas in europe to escape - some to Israel, some to America. I would call this "funny" if it wasn't so sad - however, these so -called gedolim called these papers (visas) "asher yatzar papers", and flatly rejected them.
So when Acid Hareidim use the language of the toilet, it actually represents their essential thought - their behaviour, and their distance from, and contempt towards the Torah , where Rambam says that in a case of persecution, it is chiyyuv to escape from the persecution.
What if you disagree with this teshuva about the parameters of disagreeing with a Gadol?
ReplyDeletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/11/tamar-epstein-heter-r-greenblatt-said.html
ReplyDeleteReb Nota Greenblatt states that he responded to Shalom K. that if the circumstances are the same as in the case in Igrot Moshe, then the marriage can be rescinded in certain cases.
I have no information on whehter there were medical reports for friedman. The Case of the Brother and sister had nothing to do with alleged mental illness.
Also, there is no written teshuva for the Tamar case.
To compare them is reckless irresponsibility.
jpost.com/israel/rabbi-avraham-shapira-dies-at-94/amp
ReplyDeleteNo. But he accepted ethiopian falasha as jews, and permitted heart transplants
Ponovezh Yeshivah
ReplyDelete“After the victory in the Six-Day War, they recited Hallel in the yeshivah for two years on the day Jerusalem was liberated. Following the Six-Day War, there was an eruption of Religious Zionist sentiment in the Ponevezh Yeshiva. In its wake, students sought to transfer to Mercaz HaRav, and there were those who wished to be drafted into the army.”
Rabbi Gavriel Botbol, a student in the Ponevezh Yeshivah in 1967, ibid.
https://jewishaction.com/religion/shabbat-holidays/yom-yerushalayim/jerusalem-reunited-50-years/
This had caused a lot of damage to the polovich yeshiva so they had to devise a way to contain the damage and to close themselves off from religious Zionism.
Again I cite the tshuva of the rema, where he permitted s making a false accusation against the righteous man in order to achieve internal peace.
It's certainly a more intellectually mature than "How dare you disagree with me!" but functionally remains the same. Bring all the proofs you want. Point out all the flaws in my position you want. I'm right and you're wrong.
ReplyDeleteThis is from the review from Rav Bleich in Tradition jourbnal. It is important even more so for questions of Geirut today. The Hareidi pendulum has swung , where today they are finding the most strict approach to conversion, whereas 50 years ago it was the other way around:
ReplyDeleteTRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
1. Rabbi Goren argues that there
is no evidence that a conversion
ceremony did in fact take place.
Rabbi ZoIti counters that if a person identifies himself as
a Jew,
conducts himself as a Jew and is
accepted as such no further evidence is required. It is an
established halakhic principle that the
general conduct and deportment of
an individual is suffcient presumptive evidence with regard
to determination of matters of personal
status. Thus, for example, deportment manifesting maternal
solicitude and filial response between a
woman and an infant is suffcient
to establish that a mother-child relationship exists between
the two.
With regard to conversion, Rambam, lssurei Bi'ah 13: 9,
declares
". . . similarly a proselyte who comports himself
according to the ways
of Israel
. . . and performs all the
commandments is assumed to be
(bechezkat) a righteous convert."
Rabbi Goren cites numerous authorities in an effort to
establish
that conduct and deportment are
insuffcient to establish presumption
of conversion, particularly when the
individual concerned is unable to
identify the rabbis who performed
the conversion. On the other hand,
Chazon Ish, Yareh De'ah 158:6-9,
unequivocally asserts that deport.
ment as a Jew extending over a
period of thirty days is suffcient in
and of itself to establish identity
as a Jew and requires no further
evidence or declaration on the part
of the convert. Rabbi Zolti demonstrates that this is the
position of
Teshuvat R. Akiva Eger, no. 121,
as well. It is noteworthy that Rabbi
A. i. Kook, Ezrat Kohen, no. 13,
expresses an identical view
I'm pretty sure this was written in his younger days, e.g. the 1950s.
ReplyDeleteThe reason being, that once a Gadol or posek is chosen to be the leader of the entire Orthodox world, the Gadol and posek hador, they can no longer be creative , but have to take on a new role with new responsibilities. They have to be seen as being frummer than everyone else, and stricter.
This was also the case with rav Elyashiv - and his transformation - from creative posek when Rav Herzog brought him into his BD, till his being recruited by the hareidi world and becoming their leader.
but Rav Dovid Feinstein disagreed. This was not simply an ignoring of the facts but a misunderstanding of the Igros Moshe. Does that mean it was proper? there was a written tshuva from Rav Shalom Kaminetsky that I published that had his father's approval
ReplyDeletethere were 4 beis dins that examined the evidence and concluded Rav Goren was wrong
ReplyDeleteContrary to your attempt at apologetics there was heated debate over Rav Goren in Mercaz HaRav itself.It was not simply Chareidim against Rav Goren
no it is a rather poor and irrelevant example
ReplyDeleteThe Igros Moshe teshuva above enjoins people to make hiddushim for freeing agunot, and not be afraid - the comparison is made to Zechariah ben Avkulos.
ReplyDeleteSo when has that been adhered to? Anyone who has tried to make a chiddush has been castigated. Every BD set up to deal with these problems has been maligned. You can't say on the one hand to make a chiddush, and then ban all chiddushim - it simply doesn't make sense.
Rav Shapira was also attacked when he was Chief Rabbi for his conversions of olim.
That is interesting - what was the conclusion of the debate in Mercaz?
ReplyDeletewhen did I support Rav Shalom?
ReplyDeleteI may have generally supported Rav Shmuel, but I am not taking any particular line in the Tamar case.
Has anyone said that Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky is now a nobody, and his psak on everything is worthless?
i have not seen this in the mainstream world, perhaps in brisk or R Gestetner world - but none of the Moetzes Gedolei Torah have said this, and he is stil in the moetzes.
You see, it is black privelege. If you are hareidi, or married to the right family, then whatever you do, you
are OK.
R' Dov Kook , married to R' Elyashiv's g-daughter, was making up mickey mouse gittin and allowing women still married to remarry. but because of his illustrious connections, nothing was said against him, and is now a magical tzaddik.
here is Rav Shmuel on the Agudas Yisroel website - https://agudah.org/a-message-from-rav-shmuel-kamenetsky/
ReplyDeletehe is clearly still a prominent figure and leader, whose opinions are sought and accepted. So a few people disagreed with him about an agunah, big deal? Why should this controversy be any different to the one 50 years ago?
the reasons are socio-psychological - as i already stated : Ponovezh was losing students, and influence after the Miracles of 1967 - and the key religious figure through whom these miracles occured was Cheif rabbi only 5 years later.
Rabbi Rakeffet says that he asked Rav Lichtenstein why there was such an attack on goren, since the teshuva was valid and the method was follwoing that of the Talmud (this is an audio shiur of Rakkeffet). Lichtenstein's answer was that R Goren was like a runaway train , and had to be stopped. ther eis some truth to that, but Rav Lichtenstein was no runaway train, nor was Rab Soloveitchik, but they both had excommunications from R' Shach.
Rav Shmuel's smiling face is still on the Moetzes Gedolei Torah
ReplyDeletehttps://agudah.org/moetzes-gedolei-hatorah/
You have yet to explain why someone would present an argument that they don't believe is correct.
ReplyDelete"Here are all my proofs as to why I rule X" -- Adding "which is an incorrect position" to this makes it nonsensical.
If he thought it incorrect, he would not consider those proofs valid, he would not present them, and he would not rule X. Everyone's mind is different and what he considers compelling evidence may or may not convince you as it does him, but that is not a reason for him to think HE is wrong!
do you mean the previous 4 BD? Or were 4 convened after the heter?
ReplyDeleteif I personally was a rabbi, i would find it very hard to rely upon myself to make such a psak. but im not.
Rakefet is not reliable
ReplyDeleteA chidush has to be accepted or it is worthless. Not everyone can make a chidush of significance.
ReplyDeleteRav Goren was widely rejected just as is your attempt to rewrite history
It was decided to stick to gemora and steer away from politics
ReplyDeleteIn the absence of Eliayhu HaNavi showing up and telling us the right answer, all we have is the methods we have. A posek would certainly believe he's correct based on his understanding of the sources, precedents and relevant laws. Another posek might understand those sources differently or be aware of other sources the first one wasn't or give them more weight.
ReplyDeleteFalse -
ReplyDeleteA. Rav Moshe encourages chiddush in the teshuva you cite.
B. When rmf ruled that secular marriages don't require a get, posek hador Rav henkin said privately that this creates thousands of mamzerim. So it wasn't accepted universally.
C. You have tried to equate Tamar heterr to langer heter. Rsk is still widely accepted as a gadol/ moetzet, whereas Goren was rejected. So the reason for this bias has to be explained - which you have failed to do. Yet you call my explanation rewriting of history.
Nothing wrong with discussion and debate
ReplyDeleteYou. mean. Nobody is reliable who disputes your received wisdoms...
ReplyDeleteThat was actually a cliffhanger - but it not really significant - they had debate in Mercaz about the heter.. OK big deal. Did anyone write a pashkevil against him in the RZ world?
ReplyDeleteToday, everyone in the RZ world accepts and follows R'Goren, and cite him all the time.
The difference , on a practical level, is the approach to solving problems, and the validity of certain institutions.
I read Yonason Rosenblum's piece in the Jewish Observer, where he attacks the Rabbanut - pointing out that Rav Sonnenfeld fasted when the chief rabbanut was created.
On the other hand, Rav Elefant's memoirs reveal some very interesting stories, e.g. Rav Herzog was close to Rav Aharon Kotler. Elsewhere Rav Kotler was reported to have wanted to say a hesped for R' Herzog , but faced heavy opposition from the Acid hareidim.
There are many stories,a nd also perspectives.
One reason why I mentioned R' Goren's secular qualifications is that this in some way influences approach to the world, and problem solving.
Incidentally, he wrote that the Temple can be rebuilt before the Moshiach (based on the Yerushalmi which he was an expert in). today Rav David bar Hayyim has a similar way of thinking.
Has "way of thinking" traditionally excluded Talmidei chachamim from being fully accepted?
The example I keep repeating is the way of thinking of Acid hareidim , who on the one hand refused exit visas from Europe, and on the other blame the Zionists for not doing enough , and not convincing the british to give 10,000 trucks to the nazis, yemach shemam.
heter needs to find wide acceptance. Rav Henkin against Rav Moshe was not significant.Rsk is not accepted widely as a posek.
ReplyDeleteRav henkin himself was significant, his opposition was not politicized -
ReplyDeleteOr weaponized.
Rsk is still one of the group of gedolim. His offence was no less than Goren, perhaps worse.
Mamzer is a lav, whereas adultery is dinei nefashot.
The issue is not so much about X or y being wrong or right. It is about bias and extreme reaction to X, but more mild reaction to y.
Rsk not being a posek - do you mean he has no psak to be disregarded?
https://mishpacha.com/where-life-comes-from/
ReplyDeleteHere is a rosh yeshiva who everyone goes to with questions.
Whether he's written shu't , I don't know.
The chatam sofer - depends on the case, the proofs, and the opponent.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Rav Moshe brought a teshuva which said smoking is not assur. I'm sure Rav Moshe Feinstein had much more halachic sources than I can muster, but my teshuva on the matter says it's assur, and I know I'm right.
You live at a different time. When that teshuva was written there were still those who viewed it as safe. Rav Moshe said not to start smoking. He was only defending those who were already smoking and addicted.
ReplyDeleteYou really believe Pr pieces?!
ReplyDeleteHe was significant but not when compared to Rav Moshe.
ReplyDeleteAs I have said there is a written tshuva and there is Rav Dovid's rejection as well as that of almost every moderen posek.
Even Rav Kaminetsky has rejected it. He just claims now he didn't pasken on the issue and that Rav Greenblatt can be relied on
RSK is too big to be discredited publicly but it didn't help his standing in the world.
nope!
ReplyDeleteRSK is too big to be discredited publicly but it didn't help his standing in the world....
ReplyDeleteOK , thank you very much. You confirmed it.
True, but plenty of time to update his teshuva after the psak of the surgeon general. Perhaps he would have saved a few lives.
ReplyDeleteThat is not how the tshuvas are done
ReplyDeletecould have been a Kol Koreh or extraordinary meeting of sages. This "error" was transmitted for decades, and only now is being brushed aside.
ReplyDeleteHe did update his teshuva. Many years later he wrote that, while he wasn't forbidding smoking outright, he felt that no one should start and those who smoked should seek help quitting. It's actually a huge statement on his humility and intellectual honesty.
ReplyDeleteRav Goren's ruling was strong and used many snifs, or branches of argument. The problem, from my historical perspective ( i never knew or met him) was that a) he moved too quickly to imlpement his solution, whihc allowed his opponents to make accusations he was bribed or working to appease the government,
ReplyDeleteb) more fundamentally, he stated that Halacha should be able to find solutions to problems of both the individual and State. I don't know enough to even guess whether this is right or not - but presumably a lot of people disagree, and would totally reject this general claim.
This is pure brilliance of Rav Moshe:
ReplyDelete"It is prohibited for us to show false modesty and cause a Jewish woman to be trapped as an aguna or to cause a stumbling block with prohibitions or even to cause loss of money. "
Loss of money caused by endless prohibitions, eg against secular studies.
Zechariah ben avkulos _ acid hareidi
ReplyDeletehttps://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/20785
The story suggests that halacha must find solutions to problems
the story says there are limits to what is acceptable as a solution
ReplyDeletehttps://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/20785
ReplyDeletethere are 2 problems -
1 is not to humiliate people - and that is something that is often done by rabbis , even the frum ones.
2. Is the alternatives to Avkulos' inaction. He said neither option was acceptable. So are you holding that his course of action was the correct one?
https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/900480/rabbi-mordechai-torczyner/celebrating-70-topic-2b-the-langer-affair/
ReplyDeletethe facts are not clear - and were fabricated by R' Goren's opponents - eg in 1974, they coached the ger to say who had converted him in Poland (he couldn't remember for the past 25 years).
source?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/918928/rabbi-steven-pruzansky/great-rabbis-of-the-20th-century-part-14-rav-shlomo-goren/
ReplyDeletethis lecture tells the story, and in the end it mentions that Mr Borokovsky attended an Aguda conference in 1974, and stated the name of the Rav that covnerted him. memory of convenience? It is obvious he was coached.
Rav Kook was once about to give a shiur at Etz Chaim Yeshiva, and Mr Amram blau started to atatck him, shouting "rasha". Blau was arrested by the British Police , and Rav Kook, being the Tzaddik that he was, said he cannot give the shiur until Amram Blau was released. nothing like this has ever existed in the anti-zionist world, no middos, no derech eretz, no tzidkut, no ahavas yisrael.
ReplyDeletesorry y, its another lecture by rav Pruzhansky. I will try to find it bli neder
ReplyDeletehttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Yehuda_Unterman_and_Shlomo_Goren_1964.jpg
ReplyDeleteWow, DT, you really believe that a "properly constructed teshuva BASED ON FALSE EVIDENCE" would be called a proper psak by Rav Shapira? That's really twisting the meaning of his classification as such. Whether agreeing to the conclusions & arguments or not (and apparently he did not agree) it could not be called "proper" if based on falsehood! Maybe you disagree with Rav Shapira's determination, however. If so, you should just state that.
ReplyDeleteRav Rakeffet tells a very interesting shiur on how this split developed, and continues to do so
ReplyDeletehttps://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/709558/rabbi-dr-aaron-rakeffet-rothkoff/2000-11-12-r-moshe-sternbuch-bnai-yisrael-november-12-2000/
no clear evidence has been produced as to what Rav Shapira said or was asked to say.
ReplyDeleteI am simply questioning what has been presented so far
Some stories are simply retold by rabbonim.
ReplyDeleteRav tzvi yehuda kook , was R'Y of Marcaz harav, was supportive of the psak.
Then , as now , it was a controversial psak, a very difficult problem, a clash of personalities, and of communities.
Each side panned the evidence of the other. The ger signed a letter admitting he lapsed into Christianity. Agudah. tried to claim he didn't know what he was signing.
It reminds me of the 3 oaths , the people of the eidah claim to follow the Gra, who instructed his community to go up to Israel en masse, and still they come
Did you notice that the aguda world do not always agree with the brisker Rav - sometimes oppose him.
ReplyDeleteEven he moved up to Israel with his sons - convenience, when it suits them..
Rav Kanievsky also disagrees with them, regarding the draft.
It's only rare occasions that they unite,
Rakefett backed rsk, but not Emanuel rackman..
Nobody is right 100% of the time - unless you believe in a rebbe.
ReplyDeleteRav kotler rebuffed the brisker Rav by asking to give a hesped for Rav herzog, . Rav elyashiv worked at hechal Shlomo.
Rav Moshe said Rav Shapira was fit to rule on all areas of Halacha. Rav hutner rejected Rav Shach's land for peace opinion. Rav Shach opposed Lubavitcher rebbe and Goren attempt to restrict law of return. Rsz and R Goren disagreed with chazon ish on electricity.
All are valid and honest opinions, but no single view prevails all the time.
Even ideological positions are not possible 100% of the time.
Rav Goren stopped prayer for the state after Oslo - his good friend from yeshiva, Rav Shach took a Zionist position at that time. One of the satmar rebbes mourned for the korbanot at mercaz harav after the terror attack.
also Dayan Rabbi Shlomo Yaloz, of Tehran supported Rav Goren - and this is important, since hewas a Sephardic Gadol
ReplyDeletesource?
ReplyDeleteThis issue has been examined and rehashed
ReplyDeleteYou are not going to end the dispute
absolutely correct - it is now canonical
ReplyDeletehere is the heter for the slander against R' Goren (hat tip to DT)
Rema (#11): Concerning
the matter of justifying slander in order to obtain peace in the
community. Yevamos (65b): “R’ Eliezer said that it is permitted to cause
a misunderstanding (lie) for the sake of peace… R’ Nosson said that it
is a mitzva… The School of R’ Yishmael said that peace is so important
that even G d created a misunderstanding (lied) for the sake of peace.”
…We learn from these sources that it is permitted to lie for the sake of
peace and it is permitted to violate the prohibition of saying lies
(Shemos 23:7). It is even permitted to transgress the prohibition of
erasing G d’s name (Devarim 12:4) [for the sake of making peace between
husband and wife in the case of sotah.] as is stated in the Sifre… It
follows from this that one can also violate the prohibition of slander.
In other words it is permitted to violate the prohibition of slander if
his motivation is for the sake of heaven and it serves a good purpose in
making peace. This is learned from Nazir (23b) Greater is a sin done
for the sake of heaven than a mitzva which is done for ulterior
motivation as we learned from the incident with Yael [in which she had
sexual relations with the enemy general Sisra in order to kill him].
This is learned logically from the case of Sotah where the Torah says to
transgress the prohibition of erasing G d’s name in order to bring
about peace between a man and his wife. So surely it is permitted to
transgress the prohibition of slander in order to bring about peace
amongst Jews who are widely scattered and only a small minority are
observant of Torah and mitzvos. Thus it is a case of “ais la’aso” (a
time to do for G d even to go so far as nullifying the Torah) (Tehilim
119:126) – in order to bring about peace amongst Jews and to eliminate
disputes and disunity and to remove the stumbling block from our people.
Consequently if transgressing a Torah prohibition is permitted to make
peace between man and wife it is surely permitted to make it between
family members and within the community. […] So it is with the case
before us. Even though you might say that it is better that the
condition of the country deteriorate rather than subjecting an innocent
person to ridicule and degradation by slandering him for something he
didn’t do and surely this particular individual who is more
distinguished than 100 community leaders…, nevertheless it seems to me
that even so we should not deviate at all from this approach. That is
because we must distinguish this case from the case of handing an
innocent person to the enemy to be killed or violated in order to save
the community which is prohibited. But subjecting him to slander is not
so serious and it is permitted… We have thus proven that it is permitted
to slander an innocent person for the sake of making community peace…
It is also important to note that I have never seen a worse community
situation than the present case…
this was stated in the lecture by Rav Pruzhansky - who did not take sides and criticised in measure, both R goren and the Hareidi reaction.
ReplyDeleteDon't get your point
ReplyDeleteThe Rema is irrelevant - where is the peace?
Peace between satmar, rav moshe. Brisk and rav shach. Rav elyashiv and Eidah , now that he has converted to hareidism. Even Lubavitch and misnsgdim for a while. Rav zholty, had previously gone to give a shiur in Mattersdorf, people shouted apikorus! Now he can make peace with his tormentors. Stockholm syndrome.
ReplyDeleteThere was a staunch Eidah commentor on here until recently, and he was attacking Rav Elyashiv, and claiming at how he "whistled" at the Brisker Rav's"issur" for going to the Idolatrous Chief rabbanut . he said that some people in Brisk never forgave him.
ReplyDeleteIn spdyom - Intelligence circles, when a spy defects from one side to another, they have to determine if he is really doing it lishma, or is he/she still working for his own side, and acting as a double agent. They will often put him through an ordeal - nisayon to prove he has changed side for real, e.g. to betray or even kill one of his former colleagues.
the same kind of process occurred with Rav Elyashiv, and almost Rav goren himself. Whereas Rav Goren, was appraoched by Rav Shach in 1960 to set up a yeshiva together (he declined) - source: Rabbi Shlomo Goren: Torah Sage and General - Shalom Freedman 2006-,
Rav Elyashiv had also been approached and pressured to change sides (source - oral communication Aryeh Newman Anglo-Israeli writer).
So there is a lot of business going on behind the scenes.
The truth is, we don't really knwo the personalities of the people themselves - what do we know about Shlomo goren, the tough general? Was he a tzaddik as well as a Gaon? What do we know about Rav Elyashiv ,of course he was a Gaon, but what was his personality like in the 1950s , and then 50 years later? How did someone who ws so creative and flexible in his early career turn out to be so strict and hardened in the 2nd half of his life?
What was the impact of the miracles of 1967 on the anti-zionist mindset? it is clear that satmar were in deep cognitive dissonance - they resorted to complete fantasy , and theological dualism, bringing in some Sam---l bad angel running the show, instead of the monotheism of Judaism for the previous 4000 years.
Brisk the same - what kind of stance is it that forbids going to the Kotel for example, but West Jerusalem is permitted? Is it becasue they are not allowed to leave Eretz Yisrael, and they don't recognise the new borders? Why would it be OK in 1920 to go there but not in 1970?
How much of a kick in the guts was it to Rav Shach, and friends, to see the young Ilui Shlomo Goronchik blowing the shofar, at the Kotel, first time since before the Roman hurban? And then get mutiny in Ponovezh, where a large sector take up religious zionism and ask to be transferred to Merkaz harav?
All these psychological transactions are like "bribes" and nogea b'davar - and as such cannot be excluded from the motives and discussion of this rift.
According to Rav pruzansky - the chazon ish held it is a mitzva to live in E YISRAEL even lefi harambam.
ReplyDeleteHence logically, no possible validity to the oaths, even if he (CI) held them to be valid.
Cannot make an oath against the Torah!
"Look at Maharetz Chajes who gives a proper explanation."
ReplyDeleteWhen I was going to a hareidi yeshiva in London, I mentioned Maharetz Chajes, and he was shunned (as was I) by the people there... just sayin.