https://mida.org.il/2015/02/06/rav-goren-matters-legacy-langers/
Few embodied the idea that Jewish Law and the State of Israel can and should be one than Rabbi Shlomo Goren · What Haredi lawmakers saw the famous “Status Quo” agreement as a pragmatic arrangement, Rabbi Goren and his Religious Zionist allies saw potential for a true welding of religion and state · The result was the shambles that was the Langer case and the present impasse on personal status · A plea for true religious freedom – for everyone’s sake
Rabbi Goren’s vision was programmatic, consisting of distinct elements necessary to making it a reality. For one thing, religious Jews would have to see themselves not as a separate group but as an integral part of the whole Jewish people. When he was appointed the first chief rabbi of the Israel Defense Forces, many in the religious community and the military brass would have been perfectly content for religious soldiers to be segregated into their own “ghettoes” where their religious needs would be met. However, he insisted that the entire military become kosher, that training exercises be minimized on Shabbat, and that there be a synagogue on every base, so that religious soldiers could be fully integrated. Prime Minister Ben-Gurion, whose mamlakhti (state-centered) outlook dictated that the military be a melting pot that effaced sectoral, communal, religious, or ethnic allegiances, backed him on this, against opposition within the military. However, for Rabbi Goren, a completely kosher army was goal in itself, whereas for Ben-Gurion it was the price to pay for a “people’s army.”
Next, Halakha would have to be substantially revised in order to seamlessly integrate with the governing of the Jewish state. To that end, Rabbi Goren would offer unprecedented halakhic rulings, arguing that the Jewish state is a sui generis situation in which prior accepted rulings do not apply. For instance, though Halakha long forbade autopsies on Jewish corpses, Rabbi Goren permitted them on the grounds that:
It is inconceivable that the Jewish state would base its health system, which is vital for the nation and the state, on gentile corpses… It is inconceivable that we cannot find a halakhic way to maintain a high level of modern medicine by conducting autopsies on corpses of our own, as is done throughout the world.
Finally, in order to implement his vision, Rabbi Goren would need power—not merely the rabbinic authority accumulated by great rabbis in every generation, but the enforcing power of the state. To this end, the Chief Rabbinate was of paramount importance as a rabbinic body with state-sanctioned power. This is the body that would gradually revise and adapt Halakha to the realities of a modern state. And it was thus crucial to assess and forestall any political threat to the Chief Rabbinate’s power.
Something the Chareidi leadership never understood - you cannot run a state from behind ghetto walls. If Israel was to evolve into a Jewish state, pure halacha could not be implemented overnight. Rather, Jewish legality had to seep slowly into the Israeli legal system and that meant compromises until the ultimately goal was reached.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to condemn those who tried to reach an accommodation because in their mind there is either their way or no way and anything less than their way is treif. Even more so when their way is a system completely detached from reality (want to get away with murder? just do it in front of women and dice players) Rav Goren, zt"l, understood this and he's been condemned for it ever since.
The Charedi leadership never had delusions about being allowed by the seculars, to run the State of Israel, and never attempted to forcefully wrest away control of the State, for itself.
ReplyDeleteTheir pragmatism guided them to strive to at least be relevant enough to maintain the “status quo” regarding religious conduct, which had been established under the British Mandate.
The Charedi leadership also never saw itself as authorized to revise Halakha. The Torah is timeless, and the reality of a modern state, is inconsequential in attempting to modify the Torah. Any necessary Halachic rulings, would need to be made in the framework of accepted Halachic precedent.
As I see it, the State of Israel is unlikely ever to evolve into a Torah State. Probably, it will only happen through some type cataclysmic event, which the reader can speculate about in its own, and those powerful forces will also provide for Torah leadership for the renewed State.
However if the State of Israel does slowly evolve into a Torah State, then “pure Halacha” would not need to be implemented overnight, since the gradual broader acceptance of Torah values; would be part and parcel of the organic evolution.
Very informative and fascinating posting, as always.
ReplyDeleteThank you most kindly.
I opine, that this will not occur until Moshiach comes.
May it be today!!
The State will never accept Halacha before Moshiach. And the State will cease to exist upon Moshiach.
ReplyDeleteNever say never.
ReplyDeleteI used the word: unlikely.
Nobody knows how Jewish history will play out.
ReplyDeleteOr a pigeon keeper.
ReplyDeleteThere is also the King's Law, according to the RaN, which is not pure text book halacha.
ReplyDeleteThere is the possibility of a beit hamikdash before moshiach - which the chareidi viewpoint is likely to reject, but the DL viewpoint may embrace.
The special law of King's Law, is also within the framework of Halacha. It's called "King's Law".
ReplyDeleteIt's outside of the shulchan Aruch. Or am I mistaken?
ReplyDeleteThe Chareidi leadership has never seen beyond the needs of its sector. What economic policies do Chareidi political parties have? Give us money. What foreign affairs policies do they have? Give us American and European money. What defence policies do they have? Our kollel boys are the real soldiers. Give us money. You see the pattern?
ReplyDeleteThe point is that when you have to run a State, things get messy. It's easy to have a religion where all you have to worry about is rituals, kashrut and keeping men and women separate on buses. Having a state requires a complete application of halakha, an assessment of competing needs and compromises to maximize the good of the population.
It's a very interesting point. The Chazon ish did not separate himself from the State, visiting kibbutzim to help find halachic solutions. Whether the nation could continue if it was subservient to hareidi posqim is another question.
ReplyDeletePlus, they would shut down universities (denizens of heresy), close the army and put 18 year olds in yeshiva, that's how it was back in Europe. Back in Europe, the yeshivas didn't offer much protection from pogroms, neither will they in Israel. They won't produce doctors , new medicine etc.
ReplyDeleteI'm a nobody who says this, so it's irrelevant. But if someone learned, like Rav Goren ztl, would say it..... guess what - he's bribed! Worse than reform! No decision of his is valid!
Just because these laws were omitted from the Shulchan Aruch, doesn't mean that they aren't Halachic.
ReplyDeleteThe Shulchan Aruch, omitted to mention all the laws not pertaining to contemporary living; which is why the laws of the Temple and its sacrifices, and most laws of the order of Taharot were also not mentioned. The Shulchan Aruch also doesn’t mention the laws of capital punishment, for the same reason.
However the Rambam does list the Laws of Kings in his Yad Hachazakah, as well all other Halachos that will only be operative when Moshiach comes, since he didn’t differentiate between Halachos which are applicable today; and those that aren’t.
Right, but the concept of King's law allows the King (or ruler) to at his discretion, rule outside of the regular halacha. I don't recall offhand if Rambam writes this in his H. Melachim.
ReplyDeleteThese notes at the end of the linked article by Rav Cardozo shlita
ReplyDelete" See Derashot ha-Ran nos. 8 and 11. This differs from the view of
Rambam and some other important halachists. See, for example, Mishne
Torah, Hilchot Melachim, 4:10. For other opinions, see Don Yitzchak
Abarbanel (1437–1508), commentary on Devarim 16:18 and on 1 Shmuel 8:4–6. R. Yosef Hayyun (15th century), commentary on Pirke Avot, Mili de-Avot 3:2;
R. Yeshaya Horowitz (c. 1565–1630 – the Shelah ha-Kadosh), Shnei Luchot
ha-Brit, part 2, Torah Ohr on Parashat Shoftim. For a thorough study
and additional sources on this topic, see Aviezer Ravitzky, Religion and
State in Jewish Philosophy: Models of Unity, Division, Collision and
Subordination, trans. Rachel Yarden (Jerusalem: Israel Democracy
Institute, 2002).
Also related to this issue is the fascinating disagreement between
Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski (1863–1940), leading member of the Council
of Sages of Agudat Yisrael prior to the Holocaust, and Rabbi Yitzchak
Isaac ha-Levi Herzog (1888–1959), former Chief Rabbi of Israel,
concerning the question of whether or not to establish a halachic state
in modern Israel. Rabbi Grodzinski, who was not a Zionist, was of the
opinion that the State of Israel should adopt the approach of Ran and
allow for a secular government and legal system, while Rabbi Herzog, a
fervent Zionist, wanted to implement a fully halachic state, not based
on Ran’s position, but on Rambam’s legal theory! Remarkable is the fact
that Rabbi Grodzinski was one of the greatest halachic authorities and
had minimum interaction with secular studies, yet he was prepared to
give secular law much power in the Jewish State, while Rabbi Herzog, who
was as halachically brilliant as Rabbi Grodzinski and held several
advanced degrees including a PhD, would not hear of it! Rabbi Chaim Ozer
Grodzinski’s letter was published in Rabbi Yitzchak Isaac ha-Levi
Herzog, Techuka le-Yisrael al pi ha-Torah, ed. I. Warhaftig (Jerusalem:
Mossad HaRav Kook, 1989), 2:75. For more information about this debate,
see ibid. 65–89; Ravitzky, Religion and State in Jewish Philosophy,
11–14."
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/parashat-behaalotecha-theocracy-democracy-and-halacha/
In a Utopian Torah society, universities would be huge academies for Torah studies, and space would be at a premium, because large segments of the populace would be flocking to them; to be able to study Torah, like in the days of the great Torah academies in Babylon.
ReplyDeleteSoldiers would be picked for war based on their piety, and people who sinned, would be automatically disqualified for service.
There would also be no mingling of the sexes in the Torah army.
Battles would be fought by the righteous army, with zero casualties.
Those Jews who are not able to study Torah full time, will work at their respective trades, and support Torah scholars, by giving them their appropriate tithes. The Tribe of Zevulun will fully support the Tribe of Yissochor’s Torah study.
There will also be doctors; just like medicine was practiced by Jews in the days of the Talmud, and Maimonides also practiced medicine. Indeed, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 17b) teaches, that a Talmid Chacham is not permitted to live in a city that has no doctor. [This is also codified by the Rambam (De’os 4:23)]. However these doctors will be guided by Torah based medical Halacha, and they will not perform procedures that run counter to Halacha.
Hashem only showed it to Moses before he died.
ReplyDeleteThe Chazon Ish recognized the reality of the secular State of Israel, and felt a sense of responsibility to try to increase the observance of Torah, wherever he could. He put in great effort to do so, even at the expense of his own Torah study. That is a sign of a Torah leader.
ReplyDeleteThe Torah provided a global framework for the conduct of a Halachic society. However it can only work, if most people in the society accept the authority of the Torah. Eating pork, after being duly warned, and in the presence of two witnesses, will carry with it corporal punishment of "Malkos". Certain forms of sexual immorality will be punished by death, as will the intentional desecration of Shabbos.
These seemingly “extreme” measures, aren’t Hareidi “chumros”. These are explicit laws in the Torah, and are codified by Maimonides in his Sefer Hamitzvos, and in his work, the Yad Hachazakah, which presumably all religious people accept as authoritative.
In a Torah society, those opposing the authority of the Torah, or who are unwilling to comply with the laws of the Torah, will find themselves, either marginalized, or worse, they will be physically forced into Torah compliance. Shape up, or ship out.
The special law of King's Law, is also within the general framework of Halacha. It's called "King's Law".
ReplyDeleteThe Chareidi leaders are the Gedolei Yisrael, not the politicians who serve in the Knesset. However there’s nothing wrong with a politician to look after the interests of their constituents, and that’s how it’s done in all countries. In fact, they’re expected to do so, or else they won’t be reelected.
ReplyDeleteThe Torah provided a global framework for the conduct of a Halachic society. It worked in the time of Monarchy, and it worked in the times of the Sanhedrin.
We look forward to the return of a Torah based society, in its full glory.
I thought that was the case with our forefather, Jacob (Genesis 49:1).
ReplyDeleteOh yes....
ReplyDeleteHim as well.
Good grief!
How could I have forgotten that, for even a moment?!
Jacob even knew the precise moment when Moshiach will come, as you know.
Amain Ve'amain.
ReplyDeleteVery beautifully stated.
Those who think they can be more compassionate than Hashem, always get into hot water.
ReplyDeleteA classic example is King Saul not killing Agag the Amalekite king; yet murdering almost the entire Nov, the city of Kohanim.
Was it Rabi Akiva who said if he was head of the court, there would be no executions at all?
ReplyDeleteSo there are different interpretations of what Torah Society is. The chazon ish said that your cited laws don't apply in this age.
"Battles would be fought by the righteous army, with zero casualties."
ReplyDelete(Personally, I perceive a Utopian society with no wars.)
Unfortunately that was very few and far between, historically.
While learning the laws of forbidden speech, I learned something incredible.
Many Jews were idolworshippers during the time of King Achav.
Yet NO ONE died in battle because they did not engage in forbidden speech.
I have learned this at least twice.
Unfortunately, I cannot recall the source.
That would be awesome, if it would be done peacefully.
ReplyDeleteAre you talking about messianic utopia? Hareidi utopia?
ReplyDeleteBabylon styled utopia?
Maimonides studied science and philosophy, to a great extent.
Your idea of wars hardly ever existed - we lost wars, had casualties throughout the Tenakh period. Even with Moshe praying, when his gashmius arms got tired (a physical phenomenon) the enemy became stronger.
In Sanhedrin chazal era, we were unable to defeat the romans. Rabbi Akiva backed bar kokhba, but was a terrible war.
In bavel, not sure we had an army, but enjoy some respite from persecution, until Islam appeared.
The Chofetz Chaim in his book Shmirat Halashon teaches us that there is a connection between our victory and the adverse power of lashon harah. In the book Malachi the Prophet warns: “You have made Hashem weary with your words” (Malachi 2:17). The Chofetz Chaim based on the Gemarah Yerushalmi Pe’ah 1:1 relates that the generation of the wicked King Achav was plagued by idol worship. Yet they were victorious in war in the merit of no one speaking lashon harah and informing on one another. This is evident from the fact that no one told Achav that Ovadiah, aided by others, was sustaining 100 prophets of Hashem against the wishes of the King. Yet even in times of great kings when we followed the Torah, we failed in battle, because of the slander amongst the nation. In the time of King Shaul informers such as Doeg and Ziphites were found among the people, and our armies fell in battle (see Shmuel 1 ch. 22). The fact that there were children in Shaul’s generation who were knowledgeable in forty-nine facets of Torah was not enough to gain them victory. From this we can learn that the Torah itself will not protect us if we ourselves are split by strife and arguments.
ReplyDeleteYes - and look at what happened in 1967,the Jewish people were united, and in the year before the yom kippur war, there was bitter division between hareidi, dati leumi and secular Jews (regardless of which side one takes).
ReplyDeleteThank you most kindly, for that very thorough and thoughtful response.
ReplyDeleteIt is very much appreciated.
Devarim Rabbah (5:10)
ReplyDeleteאמר רבי שמואל בר נחמן: דורו של אחאב עובדי עבודת כוכבים היו, והיו יוצאין למלחמה ונוצחין. ולמה כן? שלא היה ביניהן דילטורין. לפיכך היו יוצאין למלחמה ונוצחין...
אבל דורו של שאול כולן היו דילטורין. תדע לך, כשהיה שאול רודף אחר דוד, היו הכל אומרים עליו לשון הרע לשאול... לפיכך היו נופלים במלחמה.
I just would add that Rav Chaim Ozer ztl was a complete gadol and towering giant - his greatness allowed him great abilities in psak.
ReplyDeleteI don't recall any sources that state that Hashem showed Moshe how Jewish history will play out, before Moshe died.
ReplyDeleteCardozo alleges that Derashot Haran is at odds with the view of the Rambam.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly are the two supposedly opposing views?
I remember vividly learning this, when Hashem had Moshe gaze on Israel.
ReplyDeleteI will endeavor to research it.
Dovid said that it is obviously not in the verses in the Torah.
He DOES recall learning it in the Midrashim a long time ago.
I just queried him.
Thank you most kindly, IR.
ReplyDeleteAs always, it is very much appreciated.
I always love reading the source in Lashon Hakodesh.
I'm presuming he was referring to this passage in Hil. Melachim 4:10 -
ReplyDeleteשֶׁאֵין מַמְלִיכִין מֶלֶךְ תְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא לַעֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט וּמִלְחָמוֹת. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמואל א ח כ) "וּשְׁפָטָנוּ מַלְכֵּנוּ וְיָצָא לְפָנֵינוּ וְנִלְחַם אֶת מִלְחֲמֹתֵנוּ":
The Ran i ssuggesting a King can have a secular system of law, or at least a functional system to deal with all sorts of national matters.
You and Cardozo cherry-picked one paragraph, from one chapter, from the Rambam (Melachim 4:10), and seemingly ignored many of the other chapters, where the laws pertaining to kings are delineated, about what a king may or may not do.
ReplyDeleteIf you’re interested in pursuing this topic, the here are some questions for you:
1. Are you suggesting that according to the Rambam, a king is powerless to deal with “all sorts of national matters”? (Please cite relevant paragraph in the Rambam).
2. What does the Ran hold about the role of the Sanhedrin vs. the king, and does the Rambam disagree? (Please cite relevant passages in the Ran and the Rambam).
3. According to both the Rambam and the Ran, is the power of the king antithetical to Torah law? (Please cite relevant passages in the Ran and the Rambam).
4. Cardozo coined a phrase, “halachic democracy”. He concedes that these two values seem almost irreconcilable. How did his seemingly magical phraseology reconcile the inherent tensions of this oxymoron? Did Cardozo redefine "Halacha", or did he redefine "democracy"? Or did he redefine both of them?
For the sake of clarity, when responding, please ALWAYS refer to the numbers that I used.
I prefer to focus on the issues involved (what exactly the Rambam and the Ran held), rather than arguments from "authority".
ReplyDeleteNice
ReplyDeleteI'm willing to learn.
ReplyDeleteThank you, but that is quite a detailed essay you require from me - will it form part of a Master's thesis?
ReplyDeleteFirstly, i did not co-write the article with RabbiCardozo, i just brought it as s secondary source.
I would have to do an analysis of the Rambam to answer your questions, and it was not my sugestion that they differ.
for your Qn 2- the Ran makes a distinction between the Judges and the King
"Therefore, I hold (and it should, indeed, be believed) that just as the statutes do not enter at all into the societal area but are exclusively confined to the investiture of the Divine Immanence — in like manner, the judgments [mishpatim] of the Torah enter, to a great extent, into this last area, so that they are divided, as it were, between effecting the investiture of the Divine Immanence among us and furthering the societal common good. And it is possible that they are more greatly oriented to the more sublime area than they are to the ordering of society, for this last function is completed by the king that we appoint over us. The function of the judges and the Sanhedrin, however, is to judge us with judgments which are true and righteous in themselves, and which cause the divine Immanence to cleave to us, whether they do or do not completely fulfill the societal objective. It is therefore possible [paradoxically] that some of the judgments and laws of the nations will be found more effective in furthering societal order than some of the laws of the Torah. We lose nothing thereby, however, for whatever is left incomplete in this regard is completed by the king, and, of course, we gain great eminence thereby, for the laws of the Torah, being righteous in themselves (as stated: "and let them judge the people a righteous judgment"), ennoble us through the investiture and cleaving of the Divine Immanence."
see https://www.sefaria.org/Darashos_HaRan.11.6?lang=bi
Drasha 11, segment 7 according to sefaria
Furthermroe, the Ran places the Judges and sanhedrin on one side, and the King on the other - where the King deals with having an orderly society, and the Judges/sanhedrin do only what is purely righteous.
your Qn.3 - at least with the RaN, but also..., depends on your defintion of antithetical?
Since the Torah itself invests the power of a King, then in one sense, a righteous King is fulfilling part of the Torah, but might have different authority and powers from the Judges and sanhedrin, (remember the Rambam in Mamrim says the Sanhedrin is the basis of oral law ).
So if you want to categorize these, there may be 3 powers - Torah Law, oral law, and King's law (lefi HaRaN).
Your Question 4- concerns r Nathan Lopes Cardozo's terminology, not mine.
What the Ran says is that paradoxically, some law of the nations (i.e. secuar law)
Let me reiterate, I said noting about the Rambam in this topic, and I made a plea of ignorance:
"Kalonymus HaQatan IsraelReader • a day ago
Right,
but the concept of King's law allows the King (or ruler) to at his
discretion, rule outside of the regular halacha. I don't recall
offhand if Rambam writes this in his H. Melachim. "
Myself included.
ReplyDeleteAlways...
I am looking into it, please Hashem.
I just want to add a quick vort - a few years ago, I asked a very interesting Rav a question about the authority of the Rabbis - and his answer was that there is a special type of Gadol b'Torah (and not necessarily everyone called as such) that has exceptional knowledge and wisdom , even beyond the geniuses of secular knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI thought about this for a a few years, and my own version of this would be that there is an exceptional degree of chesed , and Tzidkut among the greatest Rabbis, and in fact the religious Jewish population, that is not found amongst anyother group.
but that is just a vort. :)
Just an introduction to the Rambam, in Ch.1 of H Melachim, he says
ReplyDeleteHalacha 2 -
"The appointment of a king should precede the war against Amalek. This is evident from Samuel's charge to King Saul (I Samuel 15: l-3): 'God sent me to anoint you as king ... Now, go and smite Amalek.'
However, this raises a question - the Torah says that in every generation, Hashem is fighting the war against Amalek. Since the Torah says this, it must be ongoing, at least until the end of Days. But we had 2 Temples in history, and we still have nto had end of days or an end of Amalek.
So how can this halacha be valid?
2
ReplyDeleteThe appointment of a king should precede the war against Amalek. This is evident from Samuel's charge to King Saul (I Samuel 15: l-3): 'God sent me to anoint you as king ... Now, go and smite Amalek.'
Amalek's seed should be annihilated before the construction of the Temple, as II Samuel 7:1-2
states: 'And it came to pass, when the king dwelled in his palace, and
God gave him peace from all his enemies who surrounded him, the king
said to Nathan, the prophet: 'Look! I am dwelling in a house of cedar, ... but the ark of God dwells within curtains.'
More
ReplyDeleteChief rabbi yonah metzger
ReplyDeletehttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/ex-chief-rabbi-yona-metzger-leaves-prison-after-serving-22-months-for-corruption/amp/
Why is this kind of bribe acceptable to the chareidim who appointed this man?
I'm trying to understand your "vort".
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that someone's exceptional degree of chesed, make them more of a Gadol b'Torah, than the another person who actually knows more Torah than them?
Nope. but thank you for taking the time to read and ask.
ReplyDeleteI'm saying that chesed is a unique, or premiere middah of Torah and Israel. Intellectual prowess is not limited to us - although we do pretty well in this field as a people.
Chesed and tzidkut is a greater characteristic of bnei Yisrael.
There are some very nice Xtians, but this they learned from the Torah. (Or yashka taught them).
Communists, muslims, atheists, Buddhists etc don't have tzaddikim.
It is possible the real bnei Ishmael have some traditions of hospitality, they are descended from Avraham.
I'd add that I have only heard a few cases of rabbis being beaten by Jews - they were Rav Kook who was physically attacked by hareidim.
ReplyDeleteRav Goren and his driver were attacked by hareidi bochrim, .
Rabbi morgenstern (partner of rackman bd), and Rav shteinman, was attacked also by hareidi scum.
There already are academic papers written on the subject, which I’m aware of, and we don’t need to reinvent the wheel.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I asked these questions, is that before I attempt to debate a person, I need to know what the other person’s position actually is, and if/how my position is contrary to their positions. It’s futile to debate phantom positions that might not exist in reality, or are erroneous in origin.
If you copy and paste a source in the midst of a discussion, I assume that the quote is relevant to the discussion, and that you agree with the material you present. I have no reason to think that you merely quoted the material to obfuscate the issue. Perhaps I gave you too much benefit of the doubt?
You quote Cardozo who alleges that Derashot Haran is at odds with the view of the Rambam. I presumed that you agree with him. Do you agree with him, or not? If you don’t know, then don’t post material that you’re not qualified to discuss.
2. You quoted the Ran. Does the Rambam disagree? How? (Please cite relevant passages in the Rambam).
3. You’re the one who quoted Cardozo, in response to my assertion that the special law of King's Law, is also within the framework of Halacha. It's called "King's Law". How is the quote from Cardozo relevant? IF it’s not relevant (and shame on you to obfuscate the discussion), do you have any sources in the Rishonim, that disproves my assertion?
4. Since you posted a link in the midst of a discussion, I assumed that you agree with the material you linked to. Cardozo coined an oxymoron. I won’t take you task for not being able to explain it. Neither can I. In my opinion the Ran is not invoking paradox, and Cardozo misrepresented the words of the Ran, in order to make it fit with the ideology he’s peddling.
This is relevant to the discussion because...
ReplyDeleteThis discussion began with your Utopian vision of a halachic State and army. I mentioned the RaN King's Law. The Cardozo piece first that came up on my Google search, i brought it to support my RaN claim. You are correct, i have to revise the rambam, as yet i do not have a position on your question about the rambam v RaN.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that Moshiach will make his long awaited appearance on the world scene, if people aren't interested in his coming. It’s unlikely, that Hashem would not gift us something that we don't know how to appreciate and treat respectfully.
ReplyDeleteHowever the prophet Hoshea (3:5) assures us:
"Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God and David their king, and they shall come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness at the end of days."
Hashem can do anything, and we might be in for some cataclysmic events, which will shake the world by its bootstraps. The rate things are going, it's not far-fetched, and we're seeing the seeds of these kinds of events unfolding before our own eyes, today.
We look forward to the fulfillment of the verse in Hoshea, in our days, soon, and we pray for it at least once monthly (at the end of the Kiddush Levana prayer).
So we need to get our own spiritual acts together, in order that we should be personally worthy of participating in the world's greatest upcoming event.
This is relevant because...???
ReplyDelete"I doubt that Moshiach will make his long awaited appearance on the world scene, if people aren't interested in his coming."
ReplyDeleteCan you kindly elaborate and expound on this statement?
Isaiah 60:22 "...I am the Lord, in its time I will hasten it."
RASHI explains:
in its time I will hasten it: If they are worthy, I will hasten it; if they are not worthy, it will be in its time.
Moreover, the Hebrew year 6,000, is the absolute deadline, as per Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai.
If we merit Moshiach coming through our adherence to the Torah and truly wanting him to come. Indeed he would be here already.
If we don't merit his early appearance, he WILL appear, but with tremendous suffering prior to his arrival.
I know you are aware of what I wrote.
I don't know how many others do.
II got it. Despite you introducing your "vort", by mentioning how one can identify a Gadol b'Torah, nevertheless, your "vort" had nothing to do with it.
ReplyDeleteYour observation about "chessed" is not your own "chiddush", and was already noted in the Talmud (Yevamos 79a), which posits that Kllal Yisrael features three hallmarks:
ביישנים, רחמנים, גומלי חסדים
Bashfulness/embarrassment
Compassionate
They're involved in the fulfillment of "chessed"
Nope, you haven't got it -it was not about identifying a gadol, it was about the a proof for the authority of the Rabbis . (Actually the bigger picture is about a Proof for Torah, but that is beyong this discussion, interesting as it may be).
ReplyDeleteHis answer was not about identifying Gedolei Torah, but that some of these stand out in their great knowledge and wisdom, beyond what exists in the secular chochmah.
Next, the word "vort" or
Wort is both german and Yiddish for "Word" in English.
if i had a quick word with you about the theory of relativity, it in no way implies that i discovered or invented it.
BTW, in the Yevamot that you bring, it does not mention chochmah.
Technically, though, you ar right, as it is not a proof of rabbiical authority, though it is a central feature of classical Judaism.
Dovid advised me to read the Yalkut Shimoni first. He was spot on.
ReplyDeleteI also added some further information before it, that you might find interesting.
Hashem let Moshe see places where Joshua would never tread. (Sifri).
In particular, Hashem showed him sites of future danger or misfortune, causing Moshe to pray for the safety and welfare of the Jewish People. (Tzror Hamor) Moreoever, Moshe envisioned the future history of the Jewish People untl Moshiach's time; He saw Yehoshua battling the thirty one kings of Eretz Canaan; the era of the judges; the reign of David's house; and King Solomon preparing the vessels for the Bais Hamikdash. He even foresaw the pre-messianic war of God and Magog and Gog's downfall. (Yalkut Shimoni Chelek Ches, Page Tof Tof Kuf Samach Vav).Good Shabbos.
Hilchot Melachim Ch 5
ReplyDelete11
"The Sages commented: 'Whoever dwells in Eretz Yisrael will have his sins forgiven as Isaiah 33:24 states: 'The inhabitant shall not say 'I am sick.' The people who dwell there shall be forgiven their sins.'
Even one who walks four cubits there will merit the world to come and one who is buried there receives atonement as if the place in which he is buried is an altar of atonement as Deuteronomy 32:43 states: 'His land will atone for His people.' In contrast, the prophet, Amos [7:17, used the expression] 'You shall die in an impure land' as a prophecy of retribution.
There is no comparison between the merit of a person who lives in Eretz Yisrael
and ultimately, is buried there and one whose body is brought there
after his death. Nevertheless, great Sages would bring their dead there.
Take an example, from our Patriarch, Jacob, and Joseph, the righteous."
Rav Kook made a comment about secular Jews who exercise in israel, being worthy of reward. He was attacked for this, and possibly the physical attack as well.
Now, he is paraphrasing the Rambam, "Even one who walks four cubits there will merit the world to come"
If you go jogging or play football in Israel , you merit Olam Haba!
obviously, it shows the opposite of the
ReplyDeleteJewish trait of chesed.
Incredible Haskama from Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer on one of Rav Goren's first Sefarim
ReplyDeletehttps://winners-auctions.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/1-1979.jpg
So? it simply is relevant to a particular time
ReplyDeleteI an sure Acher could have received a great haskoma or even Korach
It's relevant to show the level of learning achieved at a young age. A moderately chareidi rav in a litvish yeshiva told me that rav Goren was the greatest lamdan in E'Y.
ReplyDeletenonsense!
ReplyDeleteYou can't accept that because it goes against your belief system
ReplyDeleteyou can't accept it because it goes against your belief system!
ReplyDeleteTrue, i have a haskama from the Gaon and tzaddik to support those beliefs.
ReplyDeleteNo you don't
ReplyDeleteIt was never meant as an absolute approval of everything Goren might do - it was specifically about one thing he did at one point in history,
You are basically claiming this is a certificate for infallibility - there is no such thing
It is like claiming that once a factory is certified Kosher it no longer needs to be checked
There is no infallibility, until it's your own gadol.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just one thing he did, it's also about mastery of the sources.
ReplyDeleteSo a goy or heretic or computer needs to be viewed as an authentic authority?!
ReplyDeleteWow so you are claiming your heroes to be infallible?
ReplyDeletenonsense
ReplyDeletenope, that's what I find, - everyone I have spoken to will accept that those outside their own camp are fallible, and there is usually no infallibility, except when it comes to their own Rebbe.
ReplyDeletean authority is only so if he has a following, either amongst his flock, or amongst others in his "aguda".
ReplyDeleteVery few in the Hareidi world would rely on the Tzitz Eliezer or Rav J.B. Soloveitchik. Very few on the MO/RZ world would rely on the Eidah, satmar, or Ponovezh. No one in the Eidah would accept a Rabbanut Hescher.
Misnagdim don't accept anything from Lubavitcher rebbe or Steinsaltz, and vice versa. It probably extends to other Hassidic groups too.
Even MIshnagdim have a schism now between the yerushalmi faction and Bnei Brak -
a good example of what I'm describing, in its earlier incarnation, is rav YY weinberg ztl of montreux.
ReplyDeleteAlthough hareidim recognise him as a great talmid chacham and gadol, they have effectively rejected his psak halacha. Because he was from previous generations and close to gedolim in Europe, the rejection is very polite. " He was great but we don't accept him " . Rav soloveitchik suffered much more, he was admittedly great, but totally off the derech. Rav kook the same.
But soloveitchik suffered much hatred, so hareidim descending a degree or 2 more in their cauldron of sinnah towards rav Goren is no surprise whatsoever.
what psak im have chareidim rejected? likewise for the others
ReplyDeletemice soundbites but simply not true
Mixed singing, Kol isha.
ReplyDeleteRav soloveitchik was attacked and blamed for destroying a generation. The 80s /90s was a time when he was totally rejected. In fact, Rav Cardozo used to be hareidi and taught at ohr somayach. He was employed to teach Jewish philosophy until they found him to be teaching Rav soloveitchik s thought. Rav soloveitchik didn't publish much if any psak, but he was not ever cited, and his views were generally rejected, unless he forbade hearing shofar in a conservative service.
Rav kook is well known to have been attacked by various groups.
It's true that Rav elyashiv ztl was close to both Rav kook and Rav herzog, so they have have fared better in recent decades.
Thanks for the compliment, maybe I should go into the PR business.
Try again
ReplyDeletehe posken based primarily on cultural issues - it was not a difference in pure halacha
Oh, but halacha reaches out to all parts of life, so can't delegate certain parts of halacha to "cultural " issues.
ReplyDeletenope!
ReplyDeleteYou are pontificating on your own assumptions he clearly stated in his tshuvos - which you obviously never read - that he thought that the German society needed these leniencies
ReplyDeleteand Western society today is any different?
ReplyDelete"Although
ReplyDeleteR. Weinberg
adopts an important aspect of R. Moshes ruling, the difference between these
two rabbinic titans is quite stark.
R. Moshe conveys a negative attitude to the Bat Mitzva ceremony (and to
Bar Mitzva ceremonies) and grudgingly allows such events outside the
shul. R. Weinberg encourages these
ceremonies and explains the great need for such an innovation. The difference between them does not stem
form divergent interpretations of a halakhic source but rather from different
evaluations of societal needs, as well as other hashkafic divisions. Thus, the difference between these two
teshuvot reveals the significance of social and philosophical concerns in
rabbinic decision-making.
R.
Weinberg frequently brought such factors to bear, and these
factors reveal the worldview of an important modern rabbinic thinker."
-from the Etzion article.
These are factors nonetheless. There are many such factors, eg shaas Dachak, darchei shalom, etc. That he employed some, but other poskim don't, does not mean they are not halachic factors.
Did yoyu ever read his tshuvas or just rely on other people to inform you what he meant
ReplyDeleteI've read citations in other halachic discussions
ReplyDeleteThe pattern I have describeD does represent how people are distanced from the mainstream Hareidi world. The question is how one interprets this and whether it's a good thing or not.
ReplyDeleteThere's obviously a function to it to preserve traditional parameters, or maintain the illusion of what those parameters are.
Reminds of the time Rabbi Friefeld was interviewing a new student
ReplyDeleteWhen he asked him about his Jewish education he replied "I am knowledgeable about Kabbalah and the Zohar because I have read several books by Prof Gershon Sxhulem
he put kabbalah back on the map, have to credit him for that
ReplyDelete"Reminds of the time Rabbi Friefeld was interviewing a new studen.."
ReplyDeleteActually, one of the sources I was referring to was a book by Rabbi Getsel Ellinson ztl. There he cites the responsa of many poskim, including the Sridei Eish. Rav Weinberg states he was initially shocked when he arrived in Berlin, but was told that they relied on a heter from Rav SR Hirsch and Rav Azriel Hildesheimer. He says under the circumstances, he cannot forbid what they permitted, and as a case of eis Laasot, he permitted eg mixed singing.
I note that Rav Friefeld was close with Bob Dylan...