https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/304703
The riots inside the Ponevezh Yeshiva Hall in Bnei Brak have resumed, with students from the 'Jerusalem Faction' beat one of the teachers today. One of the students also spat on him.
Rabbi Aryeh Kahaneman, the son of Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Eliezer Kahaneman, was the victim of the attack. He was taken to Tel Hashomer hospital.
The quarrel was part of a longstanding dispute between the two factions over control of the yeshiva and the division of its territory. The supporters of Rabbi Shmuel Markovitz on the one hand, nicknamed the "haters," and Rabbi Eliezer Kahaneman's rival camp, called the "terrorists" have long been at loggerheads and tensions frequently lead to violence.
Who is teaching these youths violence?
ReplyDeleteHow can either side claim to be true heirs of rav shach, who said all violence is forbidden?
Why is there sin if G-d prohibited it?
ReplyDeletePrecisely because G-d prohibited it.
ReplyDeleteSo that would mean you hold them to be true students because they do the opposite of what they were taught?!
ReplyDeletehow do you arrive at such a contorted and twisted rendition of what I said?
ReplyDeleteThere is a video of Rav Shach saying that all violence is assur. So are you saying it is d'oraita or only d'rabbanan?
And either way, if they claim to be folowing Rav Shach, they would be following his derech, which forbids violence?
Are you supporting the IBD and their annulments? Didn't you say you are?
"Precisely because G-d prohibited it."
ReplyDeleteIt is a precise and accurate conclusion from your words
You are not making sense.
ReplyDeleteIf they are being taught to get the bus to tel Aviv and eat lobsters in the many treif restaurants, that's a departure from Rav Shach through to Rav soloveitchik teachings.
Violence was also forbidden, so how do derive your claim?
So they have time for this but when the army comes calling, they're too busy learning Torah?
ReplyDeleteor, their Girsa is "it is our learning that keeps the army successful, so we must stay and learn. [and throw cream pies, shtendlers, and punches at our fellow learners and rebbeim]"
ReplyDeleteThe main stream did not start this so why are you getting all worked up and try to turn it into an ideal
ReplyDeletewas the rebellion of R' Shmuel A. an extension of the original split in Ponovezh? or have they just grouped together now, to against the mainstream?
ReplyDeleteif the mainstream cannot stop it, then the behemos are quite a significant sector.
ReplyDeleteAnd therefore?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&url=%68%74%74%70%3A%2F%2F%78%6E%2D%2D%30%32%2D%70%6D%63%61%33%64%2E%78%6E%2D%2D%70%31%61%69&usg=AOvVaw2k4ZbxjkLwOppVDJWj_wD9#0gfakyzLczJ
ReplyDeleteThere is a bigger picture. Not sure who is backing the milchamah. The roshei yeshiva? The financiers of the yeshiva?
ReplyDeleteThe mainstream?
ReplyDeleteIt's time to stop ignoring this: violence in Chareidi communities isn't a glitch, it's a feature of that society.
It used to be attacking modern orthodox and Zionist orthodox.
ReplyDeleteThat was when there were greater gedolim than today.
I watched a few of the Jerusalem faction riots on YouTube. It is a case of a leader leading his flock off a cliff, like lemmings. How much power one person has over the minds of the faithful. Sit in front of cars on the road!
really - what society do you live in? The violence that exists is not ignored!
ReplyDeleteThis is what someone with whom you will hardly ever agree wrote in 1988..
ReplyDelete"Last but not least, the ultra_orthodox camp is not at all monolithic. They are divided into many groups who differ in physical appearance and religious observance and are at least as hostile to each other as religionists and secularists are. The hostility has led to physical violence. And the formal pronouncements about each other are the saddest examples of verbal violence that Israel has yet beheld. Realistically, speaking, they will not even unite to fight the "centrist" Orthodox and the non orthodox"
And the perpetrators? Are they ostracized by their community or sheltered and hidden by it when the police come looking?
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing new. Read the stories of the violence between Chasidim and Misnagdim that went on for literally centuries and only really ended because the war exterminated most of them. Violence has always been an unwelcome and unspoken element of UO society.
Wow so the Proud boys and BLM are probably Jewish. The capitol was taken over by Ponovitch
ReplyDeleteThink of it this way - in every community you have a range of people. In the secular world, you have the philosophers, doctors and PhD's at the top and the white trash and ghetto crowd at the bottom. So it is with the UO community - real tzaddikim and masmidim at the top but the shababnikim and other trash at the bottom.
ReplyDeleteHere's the difference - white trash admits that it's white trash. UO trash pretends it's holy and above the rules of others.
https://lnkd.in/drcRyNx?XzX5XeJ6H
ReplyDeleteHow is that relevant? Yes, Gentile society is defined by violence in lots (maybe most) cases. Gentile society doesn't rally around "Our ways are ways of peace!" slogan like we do.
ReplyDelete(Well the Muslims do but everyone knows they're lying)
"His first job was as principal of the Hasidic Beis Yaakov girls' school in Jerusalem. He became active in politics under the guidance of the then-Gerrer Rebbe, Rabbi Simcha Binem Alter. Over time, Litzman became known as the rebbe's right-hand man, a role he continues under the present Gerrer Rebbe, Rabbi Yaakov Arye Alter. In 1999, the present rebbe asked Litzman to join the Agudat Yisrael faction of the United Torah Judaism list for the Knesset elections that year. He was subsequently elected, and became Chairman of the Finance Committee. He headed the UTJ list for the 2003 elections,[4] and was re-elected, again becoming the Chair of the Finance Committee. He has since served as the leader of the UTJ and Agudat Yisrael faction in the Knesset, in which he consults the Gerrer Rebbe on a daily basis."
ReplyDeleteCalm down, please. And read more slowly.
ReplyDeleteDT's "Why is there..." question might have been more accurately phrased, "How can sin occur, if God already prohibited it [and man would claim to follow God]?"
And he's asking it rhetorically, as a recasting of the thrust of your qasha that essentially asked how some can wear their mantles so hypocritically. His implicit answer: because there's hypocrisy in the world, and it's as old as man, Tanakh cataloguing millennia of examples.
Thank you my friend from Passaic, NJ.
ReplyDeleteAre you able to unscramble what he meant by the following cryptic statement?
"So that would mean you hold them to be true students because they do the opposite of what they were taught?!"
Wait... let me get this straight....
ReplyDeleteYou come to understand that you & he have forked off into misunderstanding, and... instead of going back and replying to the question you misunderstood so as to bring things back on track, you choose to spend your energy untangling things you two said to each other after that point -- i.e., while under reciprocal misconception as to what you were each replying to?!!
Listen, even while "live" that seems awfully vain. But in a textmsg- kind of medium, such as this is, it could only be positively fraught.
...And you don't even have the benefit of tone to be clear as to which questions were rhetorical, where the sarcasm is, etc. Boxing enthusiasts critique actual sparring, not shadowboxing. Stick to where you get each other. There's plenty of gap there already.
I asked for clarification, it was not forthcoming.
ReplyDeleteOK - so here is one possible area of misunderstanding:
ReplyDeleteDT: Why is there sin if G-d prohibited it?
Kalonymus HaQatan Daas Torah
12 days ago
Precisely because G-d prohibited it."
I understood his question to be ontological - ie why is something sinful.?
So my response is because G-d said it is assur.
Is his question really asking, "why do people sin, despite G-d proscribing it?".
So it's about human nature.
But I don't follow the quip about true students.
Unless he thinks I'm saying that doing the opposite of what G-d commands is the true way! Which is absurd. But he thought I was replying to his version of his question, not the way I understood it.!
Thank you Passaic, that has helped clear things up!
😁
LOL. Quite funny, this.
ReplyDeleteYes, what you "translate" is how I did above. It's important to note that your initial read of DT's retort didn't make sense as a retort at all; why would he out of the blue ask you a philosophical question on the nature of man & creation? Am surprised you went with that misconception, given how poorly it fits context; it could never be a reply to your question. (While on many an occasion I've found reason to disagree with DT, he has a talent for pertinence, and I've never known him to be off point, as you quickly assumed him to be.) Blogs regrettably train us to overreact. I would be wary of this... if I may be permitted the boldness of advice.
Anyway, he was thereby dismissing your initial qasha, and everything afterward was you two not seeing that you had misunderstood him, so I would clean your eye & your "inner RAM" (mind) of all the noisy junk after that point....
Incidentally -- and only because I know you to be fond of logic, as you've attested before when I've cited fallacies -- I'll mention -- I hope, informatively -- that the above criticism identifies a fallacy in 'dialectic', whereas most that we are familiar with are usually fallacies in 'analytic'. The former is treated of by Aristotle in his Topics, and basically means "the logic of question/answer". (Note that "dialog-" & "dialec-" are the same root. Dialectic is logic that relates to the sequential coherence of a dialogue, whereas "analysis" (Greek for "break-down") to the simultaneous coherence of constituent parts with the whole they make up.) Rambam himself codifies the distinction of these two modes of argument, analytic & dialectic, in his early logical primer Millos haHigayon as הקשות\נצחות, and throughout the Moreh references the distinction dozens of times. The good news: Gemara learning makes us sensitive to dialectics. In fact, not until Brisk did analytics take such a central place.
The fallacy of dialectic - meaning criticism of a point not intended by the other party? Happens quite often, especially in these blog type discussions.
ReplyDeleteThere is also dialect - americans speak or write a different language from Brits.
Very interesting, thank you very much for your input _ as always.
"DT's retort didn't make sense as a retort at all; why would he out of the blue ask you a philosophical question on the nature of man & creation? Am surprised you went with that"
ReplyDeleteI would add that the correct phrasing for conveying his assumed true question would be "why do people sin"?
To ask "why is there sin " is a metaphysical question, similar to "why is there evil in the world".
That's what threw me, but if was more familiar with the author's voice and way of speaking it would help.
Be well, and thanks for your great ideas.
Oh, for sure! Political discussion -- or ideological talk generally -- is just rife with demonization & straw men & all kinds of fallacious maneuvers snuck into our drinking water as norms for thoughtful discourse, when they're anything but that. In fact, some academics are in the habit of claiming that there is no momentum to a movement until it identifies an enemy that may guide its central narrative.
ReplyDeleteAs for "dialect", well, "lecture", "lectern", etc. also share the same root, which refers to speech. Hence "dia-logue" (and, derivatively, "dia-lectic") on the one hand, and "dia-lect" & "lect-ure" et al., on the other.
Incidentally, when the Gemara objects "Peshita!", that would translate into a dialectical qasha -- a fairly strong, substantive one. Less clean, and easier to manipulate, is the tu quoque attack -- i.e., you, sir, are not the one to make that argument; or, that problem you point out is still a problem under your proposed solution, so how can you cite it to pick at mine? Note that, in all such cases, there is no actual contradiction present in the analytically precise sense of that term. Rather, the reasoning is the less cogent for reasons other than straight up contradiction -- "dialectical" reasons.
Anyway, yes interesting stuff. Enough on that....
They've always united to fight the non-Orthodox.
ReplyDeleteA "riot" by them is burning garbage cans.
ReplyDeleteA disagreement isn't a rebellion.
ReplyDeleteViolence is so few and rare in the Ultra-Orthodox community. It is man bites dog. When it does happen it is big news. And made to sound routine despite its rarity.
ReplyDeleteAnd even when it does happen, the level of violence is significantly less than in other communities.
Right, ponovezh, rosh yeshiva taken to hospital after getting a beating...
ReplyDeleteIt's been going on for 20 years. A whole generation of bochrim have moved on , these could be their sons.
I disagree.
ReplyDeleteWrong.
ReplyDeleteLubavitcher rebbe and chief rabbi Goren wanted to change law of return, against reform converts. Rav shach opposed them, with his MK supporting recognition of reform converts.
Or throwing rocks , attacking soldiers.
ReplyDeletesource?
ReplyDeleteAre you claiming that Rav Shach wanted to accept Reform conversion?
ReplyDeleteHe didn't unite with the Rebbe on opposing the law of return.
ReplyDeleteThe net result was that reform conversions were recognized by the State. What his considerations were , I don't know. Perhaps he felt it right to distance himself from any initiative by the Rebbe, and by chief rabbi Goren at the time.
That is not an acceptable response to your claim!
ReplyDeletehttps://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/62fa3a6e435f6a52cd01eb927260656375068f3870d21e9e09bdd77039d0c0fb.jpg
ReplyDeletehttps://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0ef0322aca4622092e929d727ce3737171140b09e4c968766d9e7e67e77e0069.jpg
ReplyDeleteGinsburg wrote:
ReplyDelete"They've always united to fight the non-Orthodox."
there was a fight against the law of return in the 70s, lub. Rebbe and r shlomo goren.
my claim is that rav shach did not unite with them, refuting what moe says.
i have posted some copies of rav Goren_s article.
Ok - im reading different responses .
ReplyDeleterav shach certainly did not accept reform. one of the mks who was part of the hareidi party was opposed to rav Goren's initiative and ended up accepting reform conversion under israeli Law.
the point is there was no unity.
So what that isn't anything new!
ReplyDeleteWhat was the fight about?
ReplyDeletewhat you should have said say is that there are differences in how to fight the non Orthodox
ReplyDeleteThe Israeli authorities apaprently wanted to allow reform converts to be able to come as "Jews" - the fight was both from Chabad in USA and R' Goren and some Dati parties in Israel - who all opposed it.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps Moe should not have made the false claim that he made.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, I'm noticing a pattern of some kind http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/02/violent-clash-in-ponevezh-monday-morning.html
ReplyDeleteThat's factually untrue.
ReplyDeletedo you think Aguda united with Lubavitch in the 70s on this dispute?
ReplyDeletehttps://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/07/kaminetsky-greenblatt-heter-rav-tzadok.html?m=1
ReplyDeleteIt must be a forgery
Your claim about Rav Shach and the MKs supporting Reform conversions is a canard.
ReplyDeleteI gather you are ignorant about chassidic material
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Yosef_Leiner
ReplyDeleteRabbi Leiner is best known for his work Mei Hashiloach, a compilation of his teachings by his grandson, in which he expressed the doctrine that all events, including human actions, are absolutely under God's control, or as Rabbinic discourse would phrase it, by "hashgacha pratis." Thus, if everything is determined by God, then even sin is done in accordance with God's will. He presents defenses of various Biblical sins, such as Korach's rebellion, Zimri during the Heresy of Peor, and Judah's incident with Tamar.
Is it "accepted"?
ReplyDeleteRabbi Cardozo seems to like this stuff.
no it is not mainstream !
ReplyDeleteInteresting, but borders on non-orthodoxy
ReplyDeleteChassidim tend to discuss only their own or allied teachings.
ReplyDeleteChabad teach only their own chassidus, ignoring others. Breslov the same. Satmar only teach their own stuff (which isnt chassudus).
There are no rav Tzaddok hassidim today, except amongst enlightened misnagdim and avant garde MO.
It is a favorite source for Artscroll
ReplyDelete