The Jewish Observer article can also be found here: https://agudathisrael.org/wp-content/uploads/1973/01/JO1973-V8-N10.pdf
I seem to remember that the person who wrote the article as "Ezriel Toshavi" [Ezriel Toshavi observes the Israeli scene for readers of J.O.] was actually Rabbi Nisson Wolpin z"l, the editor of the JO, who used that name as his nom de plume (pen name).
I have a copy of this, and the follow up, and it is a junk article, and the writer reveals the bias and hatred which pre-exists , and confirms that it is a political set-up rather than anything rational. Let us look at a few examples:
1) The final paragraph tells how Rav Sonnenfeld allegedly fasted when Rav Kook was designated as Chief Rabbi! This alone undermines the whole argument made by the Jewish Obscuranter –and by others on this blog.
It is attacking Rav Kook, who had a pre-state position of chief Rabbi. Now the same article which is praising Rav Elyashiv, Rav Auerbach, rav Feinstein forgets that these rabbonim were great admirers of Rav Kook – with Rav Elyashiv himself serving the successor , Rav Herzog, serving himself as Chief Rabbi of Ramle, and earning a salary (and pension) form the same government that the article is slamming. So according to this article, these rabbis are also tainted, and the decisions in all the previous Government batei din are as worthless as it alleged this one was, since they all had government salaries (bribes) That includes also, Rav Yosef, who became chief rabbi, but was also a dayan in this case.
2) the article makes good mention of the 1967 victory in Jerusalem where Rav Goren blew the shofar. The author is who exactly? He is a nobody, and ignoramus. Rav Goren, lehavdil, was a Gaon, who wrote an entire book on the subject of Har habayit from a halachic perspective as well as a geographic one. The same rav Goren wrote many halachos on war, something that has not been done in great detail for thousands of years. However, the fact of 1967 being mentioned shows that we are dealing with a Satmar-Neturei karta influenced piece. The satmar dog is wagging the Agudah tail.
(Neturei Karta being the ones who denied the holocaust in the Tehran denial conference).
So the article is written by Neturei-karta friendly kapos, who were Arafat’s minister of Judaism for his proposed shoah rule.
All along I have said that 1967 was a great embarrassment to hareidim in general, but I didn’t have satmar in mind.
3) The suggestion of political influence - interesting that they mention Moshe Dayan – a man who persecuted Goren in the army, and jailed him a number of times. On one occasion, Dayan wanted to remove any mention of Hashem in K-l Male Rachamim, memorial prayer, and Goren opposed him, and was thrown in jail by Dayan. On this occasion, he threatened to do away with only religious marriages and bring the option of secular marriages, which again Goren opposed. So Goren was not taking orders from Dayan, he was fighting him all along!
The article claims that Dayan Abramsky was head of the London Beth din in 1972, however, Wikipedia says he “ headed the London Beth Din rabbinical court for 17 years, before retiring to Jerusalem in 1951” (Incidentally, Dayan Abramsky was famous in England for banning conversion for marriage, and was machmir on these cases.)
The article also implies that Rav Ovadia Yosef was threatened by the Ashkenazim for offering his hand of friendship to Rav Goren! Ovadia Yosef produced more Teshuvot probably than any other person mentioned. Yet he was threatened , and would have shared the same fate had he or anyone else been more supportive.
So the evidence from this article supports the thesis that it was a political opposition, to maintain the Aguda’s power base, against the independence of the Rabbanut, and against any real authority that the Rabbanut should have on the general Israeli population.
The follow up article also scores some own goals, most notably it reveals that Borkovsky had signed a letter admitting he had lapsed into Christianity.
Amazing interview with rabbi Ovadia Yosef when newly elected as Rishon leTzion - initially he sided with R Goren to review the evidence and make a new psak:
"Reasons for leniency
What is your honor's opinion regarding the issue of bastards and those disqualified for marriage?
"(Intensely): At the time, I offered Rabbi Nissim who was serving as
head of the appellate court to convene all of the justices to rethink
the issue in light of the new research conducted by Rabbi Goren.
"(With slight anger): But Rabbi Nissim refused my request, despite
the support of the rest of the justices. My offer still stands, and I am
ready to sit with my counterpart Rabbi Goren, study the matter and
publish a ruling."
What are the chances?
"(With cautious optimism): It is possible there is a way to release
them (of their problematic status). If we will find a Talmudic basis, we
would be more than happy to release them and there is no doubt in my
mind that those who have barred them (from marriage) would move towards
leniency if they were to examine the evidence cited by Rabbi Goren.""
really? The counter offer was for both of them to remove themselves from the case, and allow a new board of judges to sit - that was the offer that Goren refused.
But, we can go back and forth with these claims and counter claims, nobody will change their perception.
The article makes a number of false statements - "without consultation with those who have previously judged ..total disregard for the opinion of ... R Ovadia Yosef"
Rav Elyashiv had resigned, and had nothing furhter to do with R Goren. Rav Yisraeli had also left - (I understand they still maintained contact in later years). Now, Rav Yosef is the key figure, since he was the remaning member of the BD that previously judged. In an interview I posted, just immediately after the election, he said he would sit on a BD with RSG. Later on, he changed and withdrew. So the statement made by JO is false - there ws consutlation, and in fact RSG begged ROY to sit with him - but he bacttracked.
In any case there was a previous aproach toRav Nissim, and for this election, R Goren had actually backed R Nissim to be Chief Sephardi Rishon L'Zion. Rav Nissim was the incumbent Chief Rav.
Regarding bartering of promises, there is nothing explicit. Lehavdil, in the Tropper case, there are tapes, there are videos of him saying and doing the most perverted tings, that would make even a secular goy blush.
Most of the "evidence" is comments by others , secular politicians that they have confidence in RSG. what he said was his philosophy that a Halachic State was possible, and that halacha has the flexibility to solve all problems. That may be an opinion that people can disagree with, but it is not a bribe or perversion. Some people believe in eruvim, whilst others don't. Some people believe in pilegesh but otehrs don't, whilst Some (including Rav Goren) want to end the heter mechirah, but others don't. A Rabbi could say he has a heter for shemitta, and be accepted for a position, but how is that a bribery?
2 of the pashkevils reproduced in this article, do not actually name any specific person, nor do they mention what grave sin has been committed.
other points - the JO was unhappy with the means by which R Goren was elected, but the JTA in a search shows that in early 1972, the NRP suggested R goren should be Chief Rabbi, and he initially refrained from standing.
They also point out their displeasure of R Goren blowing the shofar on Temple mount, because it is a forbidden area. Here is an actual admission of the jealousy and anger of the Hareidim towards:
Towards Israel and the IDF for liberating Jerusalem. Towards R Goren for being part of that apparatus, and moreover for him saying that this was part of the Geulah. Here is the problem - if they take the Satmar position, which they largely did, it is a denial of G-d's hashgacha. It leaves them with little wiggle room to have a coherent view of Hashem's appearance in world history. So this whole attack on Rav Goren is just shooting the messenger - Rav Goren was the one who spoke the message that the Hareidim are unwilling to accept - that there is a God in Israel!
The Jewish Observer article can also be found here:
ReplyDeletehttps://agudathisrael.org/wp-content/uploads/1973/01/JO1973-V8-N10.pdf
I seem to remember that the person who wrote the article as "Ezriel Toshavi" [Ezriel Toshavi observes the Israeli scene for readers of J.O.] was actually Rabbi Nisson Wolpin z"l, the editor of the JO, who used that name as his nom de plume (pen name).
Can anybody confirm that?
I have a copy of this, and the follow up, and it is a junk
ReplyDeletearticle, and the writer reveals the bias
and hatred which pre-exists , and
confirms that it is a political set-up rather than anything rational. Let us look at a few examples:
1) The final paragraph tells how Rav Sonnenfeld allegedly
fasted when Rav Kook was designated as Chief Rabbi! This alone undermines the whole argument
made by the Jewish Obscuranter –and by others on this blog.
It is attacking Rav Kook, who had a pre-state position of
chief Rabbi. Now the same article which
is praising Rav Elyashiv, Rav Auerbach, rav Feinstein forgets that these
rabbonim were great admirers of Rav Kook – with Rav Elyashiv himself serving
the successor , Rav Herzog, serving himself as Chief Rabbi of Ramle, and
earning a salary (and pension) form the same government that the article is
slamming. So according to this article,
these rabbis are also tainted, and the decisions in all the previous Government
batei din are as worthless as it alleged this one was, since they all had
government salaries (bribes) That includes also, Rav Yosef, who became chief
rabbi, but was also a dayan in this case.
2) the article makes good mention of the 1967 victory in Jerusalem where Rav Goren
blew the shofar. The author is who
exactly? He is a nobody, and ignoramus. Rav Goren, lehavdil, was a Gaon, who
wrote an entire book on the subject of Har habayit from a halachic perspective
as well as a geographic one. The same rav
Goren wrote many halachos on war, something that has not been done in great
detail for thousands of years. However,
the fact of 1967 being mentioned shows that
we are dealing with a Satmar-Neturei karta influenced piece. The satmar dog is wagging the Agudah
tail.
(Neturei Karta being the ones who denied the holocaust in
the Tehran
denial conference).
So the article is written by Neturei-karta friendly kapos,
who were Arafat’s minister of Judaism for his proposed shoah rule.
All along I have said that 1967 was a great embarrassment to
hareidim in general, but I didn’t have satmar in mind.
3) The suggestion of political influence - interesting that they mention Moshe Dayan – a
man who persecuted Goren in the army, and jailed him a number of times. On one
occasion, Dayan wanted to remove any mention of Hashem in K-l Male Rachamim, memorial
prayer, and Goren opposed him, and was thrown in jail by Dayan. On this occasion, he threatened to do away
with only religious marriages and bring the option of secular marriages, which again Goren opposed. So Goren was not taking orders from Dayan, he
was fighting him all along!
The article claims that Dayan Abramsky was head of the
London Beth din in 1972, however, Wikipedia says he “ headed the London Beth Din rabbinical court
for 17 years, before retiring to Jerusalem in 1951” (Incidentally, Dayan Abramsky was famous in England
for banning conversion for marriage, and was machmir on these cases.)
The article also implies that Rav Ovadia Yosef was
threatened by the Ashkenazim for offering his hand of friendship to Rav
Goren! Ovadia Yosef produced more Teshuvot probably
than any other person mentioned. Yet he
was threatened , and would have shared the same fate had he or anyone else been
more supportive.
So the evidence from this article supports the thesis that
it was a political opposition, to maintain the Aguda’s power base, against the
independence of the Rabbanut, and against any real authority that the Rabbanut
should have on the general Israeli population.
The follow up article also scores some own goals, most
notably it reveals that Borkovsky had signed a letter admitting he had lapsed
into Christianity.
he is the rasha that wrote a denigrating article on rav Soloveitchik' passing, and then later admitted it was a "mistake".
ReplyDeleteAmazing interview with rabbi Ovadia Yosef when newly elected as Rishon leTzion - initially he sided with R Goren to review the evidence and make a new psak:
ReplyDelete"Reasons for leniency
What is your honor's opinion regarding the issue of bastards and those disqualified for marriage?
"(Intensely): At the time, I offered Rabbi Nissim who was serving as
head of the appellate court to convene all of the justices to rethink
the issue in light of the new research conducted by Rabbi Goren.
"(With slight anger): But Rabbi Nissim refused my request, despite
the support of the rest of the justices. My offer still stands, and I am
ready to sit with my counterpart Rabbi Goren, study the matter and
publish a ruling."
What are the chances?
"(With cautious optimism): It is possible there is a way to release
them (of their problematic status). If we will find a Talmudic basis, we
would be more than happy to release them and there is no doubt in my
mind that those who have barred them (from marriage) would move towards
leniency if they were to examine the evidence cited by Rabbi Goren.""
source: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4438174,00.html
He later withdrew this offer (due to pressure perhaps?)
Goren never accepted the offer (pressure perhaps?)
ReplyDeletereally? The counter offer was for both of them to remove themselves from the case, and allow a new board of judges to sit - that was the offer that Goren refused.
ReplyDeleteBut, we can go back and forth with these claims and counter claims, nobody will change their perception.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7c6284c31a3034bb281f6931b6380dad6c4a8ce64dc1dc874bdb81a32b793587.jpg
ReplyDeleteI love how it "Rav Ploni" for everyone else but suddenly it's just "Goren"
ReplyDeleteRav nissim standing, immediately to his right , sitting is Rav elyashiv, and at the end of the table (his left, our right) is Rav Obadiah yosef.
ReplyDeleteI usually write Rav, but when I'm writing someone's name 100 times a day, sometimes I skip titles.
ReplyDeleteThe article makes a number of false statements -
ReplyDelete"without consultation with those who have previously judged ..total disregard for the opinion of ... R Ovadia Yosef"
Rav Elyashiv had resigned, and had nothing furhter to do with R Goren. Rav Yisraeli had also left - (I understand they still maintained contact in later years).
Now, Rav Yosef is the key figure, since he was the remaning member of the BD that previously judged. In an interview I posted, just immediately after the election, he said he would sit on a BD with RSG. Later on, he changed and withdrew. So the statement made by JO is false - there ws consutlation, and in fact RSG begged ROY to sit with him - but he bacttracked.
In any case there was a previous aproach toRav Nissim, and for this election, R Goren had actually backed R Nissim to be Chief Sephardi Rishon L'Zion. Rav Nissim was the incumbent Chief Rav.
Regarding bartering of promises, there is nothing explicit. Lehavdil, in the Tropper case, there are tapes, there are videos of him saying and doing the most perverted tings, that would make even a secular goy blush.
Most of the "evidence" is comments by others , secular politicians that they have confidence in RSG. what he said was his philosophy that a Halachic State was possible, and that halacha has the flexibility to solve all problems. That may be an opinion that people can disagree with, but it is not a bribe or perversion. Some people believe in eruvim, whilst others don't. Some people believe in pilegesh but otehrs don't, whilst Some (including Rav Goren) want to end the heter mechirah, but others don't. A Rabbi could say he has a heter for shemitta, and be accepted for a position, but how is that a bribery?
2 of the pashkevils reproduced in this article, do not actually name any specific person, nor do they mention what grave sin has been committed.
ReplyDeleteother points - the JO was unhappy with the means by which R Goren was elected, but the JTA in a search shows that in early 1972, the NRP suggested R goren should be Chief Rabbi, and he initially refrained from standing.
They also point out their displeasure of R Goren blowing the shofar on Temple mount, because it is a forbidden area. Here is an actual admission of the jealousy and anger of the Hareidim towards:
Towards Israel and the IDF for liberating Jerusalem.
Towards R Goren for being part of that apparatus, and moreover for him saying that this was part of the Geulah.
Here is the problem - if they take the Satmar position, which they largely did, it is a denial of G-d's hashgacha. It leaves them with little wiggle room to have a coherent view of Hashem's appearance in world history. So this whole attack on Rav Goren is just shooting the messenger - Rav Goren was the one who spoke the message that the Hareidim are unwilling to accept - that there is a God in Israel!
nonsense!
ReplyDeleteIt was / is very difficult to get any hakaras hatov from the Hareidi world - they have been controlled by Satmar theology.
ReplyDelete