there is an issue of how to relate to gedolim who have done something problematic
Adam was a heretic
Avraham questioned G-d's judgment as did Avraham and Moshe
Yitzchok was not a good father or husband
Korach lead a rebellion against Moshe
The spies made an incorrect report
Miriam spoke lashon harah
Dovid was suspected of adultery
Rabbi Akiva supported a false messiah
Elisha ben Aubya was a heretic
Shabtzai Tzvi was a false messiah
Baal Shem Tov was viewed as a heretic
Rav Eybshuetz was considered by many to follow Shabtzai Tzvi
Rav Soloveitchik supported YU
Lubavitcher Rebbe was attacked for his messianic ideas
Rav Kook was too sympathetic to Zionism
Rabbi Goren had the Langer case
There are many more examples. The question is do you ignore the shortcomings?
It seems that happens sometimes while other cases the person is considered persona non grata.
they are not all equal, and you could add Moshe tapped the rock; David + Bathsheva, Shlomo + wives + sacrifices.
ReplyDeleteIn modern times, according to some comments, there was opposition to famous psakim, eg the height of mechitza; A.I. donors for married women;
Some are partisan - RZ hold Satmar et al as a joke, as lunatics;
Hareidim hold Rav Goren as a joke, and honor the Satmar rebbe.
To some degree, MO holds Rav Soloveitchik as the gadol hador, and laugh at Rav Schach as an erratic latecomer - whilst Ponovezh hold the reverse.
Many followers of Lubavitch were in denial about the Messianism - Chief Rabbi Sacks kept quiet for 2 years , then said that the rebbe was one of the greatest leaders of all time.
Also, if you look at the 2nd half of the list, it actually describes what challenges Judaism has faced in the last few centuries:
ReplyDeleteRav Eybeschutz was a victim of sabbateanism, which was the heresy of the day. he either go mixed up in it or just wrote too many kemaiot, and becasme suspect.
The Besht started a new movement, which resembled Sabbateanism, but was still frum. The misnagdim picked on a few minor changes in halacha, and saw this as proof of it being neo-sabbatianism.
As sabbateanism disappeared, Torah + modern secular studies was the new challenge. Rav Hirsch was too great a Tzaddik for anyone to question, and so were hsi contemporaries. YU was a revolutionary place, and again suspicion of the new movement.
Rav Kook was on the wave of yet another new movement, Zionism, which despite him being a major Tzadik and gadol, he still had enemies, who could not accept Zionism, which they saw as a secular form of Sababteanism, and a false geula which was not connected to Moshiach.
Lubavitcher rebbe actually opened up the old schism of Hassidim, which was previously seen as heretical, and false messianism - all over again - sadly they even went into Jesus mode, that he was still alive, and even deified him.
Rav Goren was almost a combination of all the above - a messianic/zionistic, modern/secular + halachic change all combined in one, somebody who entered the site of the beit Hamikdash during the 67 war (in wartime it is permitted, so he said). if he had stayed out of the army and completed his work on the Yerushalmi, he would be considered one of the Gedolei hador - but he translated this scholarship into liberating the Yerushalyim shel matah. He actually achieved more than bar Kochba's aborted attempt.
“Blemished Gedolim” Better: Torah thought on בהר private property rights
ReplyDeleteProperty rights have developed over ancient and modern history, from Abrahamic law to todays Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 17. Property rights can be understood as constructs in economics for determining how a resource or economic good is used and owned. Resources can be owned by (and hence be the property of) individuals, associations, collectives, or governments. Property rights can be viewed as an attribute of an economic good. This attribute has three broad components and is often referred to as a bundle of rights in the United States:
the right to use the good
the right to earn income from the good
the right to transfer the good to others, alter it, abandon it, or destroy it (the right to ownership cessation)
My theory on the blasphemer in parshat אמור is that he’s a radical progressive left Marxist that denies private property rights. With no private property rights the blasphemer’s father had every right to sneak into the bed of Shelomith daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan, when her husband is out. With no private property rights Arabs can sneak into Israel and claim Israel is theirs.
This week’s parsha בהר
“When you sell property to your neighbor (i.e. fellow Israelite), or buy from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another.” (Leviticus 25:14).
“But the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, for the land is Mine; you are but strangers resident with Me.” (Levitucs 25:23).
“I the Lord am your God, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your God.” (Leviticus 25:38)
ויקרא פרשת בהר פרק כה
פרשת בהר
(יד) וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ אַל תּוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו:
(כג) וְהָאָרֶץ לֹא תִמָּכֵר לִצְמִתֻת כִּי לִי הָאָרֶץ כִּי גֵרִים וְתוֹשָׁבִים אַתֶּם עִמָּדִי:
(לח) אֲנִי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם לָתֵת לָכֶם אֶת אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן לִהְיוֹת לָכֶם לֵאלֹקִים:
Beautiful. The Left progressive Marxist today attack Zionists with ax and ugly words. The haftorah בהר: “Here are the siege mounds, raised against the city to storm it; and the city, because of sword and famine and pestilence, is at the mercy the Chaldeans who are attacking it. What You threatened has come to pass---as You see. Yet You Lord God said to me: Buy the land for money and call in witnesses---when the city is at the mercy of the Chaldeans. Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: Behold I am the Lord, the God of all flesh, is there anything too wondrous for Me?” (Jeremiah 32:24-27).
KA IsraelReader, I don't like your posts.
did you read my posts on this thread/?
ReplyDeleteThe feeling is mutual.
ReplyDeleteThread Hijacking is generally considered rude; and bad internet etiquette.
Hijacking comment threads, with your "vorts" on the Parsha or Daf HaYomi, or your latest episode in the ongoing saga of your legal issues, is a lack of courtesy to the rest of the readers here.
Everybody has had some shortcoming/s at some point in their life.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the yardstick of how to perceive these people, or how history will perceive them, is dependent if they regretted and repented their actions. If they did genuine Teshuva, their shortcomings will generally be ignored. If they did not repent, then in most cases, that person will be considered persona non grata.
oh, so even vorts are bad manners and and rude...
ReplyDeleteperhaps some people come her and are inspired by some of his vorts or daf hayomis?
Howsabout you don't build an impossible pedestal and then look in shock when the guy falls off of it?
ReplyDeletethe above post starts with Torah figures, as "blemished Gedolim". Yet, you do nto protest at this description, whereas you did protest elsewhere where HaRav Cardozo shlita suggested that Avraham may have "failed" a test on some level, on the Akeidah. You mentioned that there's a mishnah which states he passed all his tests - so why are you not protesting this post that suggests otherwise?
ReplyDelete"Vorts" are fine for the appropriate time and venue, and I don’t think that hijacking comment threads, to spread your Torah, are considered appropriate.
ReplyDeleteThis is intended as a forum, to create dialogue regarding very specific topics, and is not as a general Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park, where people preach and inform the world on whatever issue they so desire.
Uninvited, I would not pontificate my Torah thoughts in your lounge or sitting room, and you would probably throw me out of your house if I did so. I respect your space, and I expect others to respect our space here, too.
My comment was intended to give a yardstick to the general question of how to relate to gedolim who have done something problematic; based on the examples provided in the question, all of who are no longer in this world with us, today.
ReplyDeleteAnswering the question, does not in any way imply that I agree with the examples listed in the OP, nor did I did intend to address the alleged blemishes of the particular figures listed therein.
I don't know where you get this stuff. I'll take only one stastement to illustrate how off some of the rest is.
ReplyDeleteIn every generation there is a man who potentially can be the Melech HaMashiach. That is, there is a man who is a direct male line descendant of King David (with some other lineage conditions) who can, at least in theory, fulfill the role of gathering in the Exile, fighting wars as necessary and/or use persuasion to bring peace, rebuild the Bais HaMikdash, and reconstitute the Sanhedrin.
Rabbi Akiva ruled that Bar Kochba was that man in that generation. The fact that Bar Kochba did not in fact realize his potential doesn't detract from Rabbi Akiva recognizing it.
Bravo Joseph Orlow “I don't know where you get this stuff.” I noticed a quote from Joel in today’s morning prayer service: Oh, spare Your people, Lord! Let not Your possession become a mockery, to be ruled by nations! Let not the peoples say: Where is their God?
ReplyDelete“Blow a horn in Zion. Solemnize a fast. Proclaim an assembly! Gather the people. Bid the congregation to purify themselves. Bring together the old. Gather the babes and sucklings at the breast. Let the bridegroom come out from his chamber; the bride from her canopied couch. Between the portico and the altar, let the priests, the Lord’s ministers, weep and say: Oh, spare Your people, Lord! Let not Your possession become a mockery, to be ruled by nations! Let not the peoples say: Where is their God?” (Joel 2:15-17).
יואל פרק ב פסוק יז
בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ יִבְכּוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים מְשָׁרְתֵי יְקֹוָק וְיֹאמְרוּ חוּסָה יְקֹוָק עַל עַמֶּךָ וְאַל תִּתֵּן נַחֲלָתְךָ לְחֶרְפָּה לִמְשָׁל בָּם גּוֹיִם לָמָּה יֹאמְרוּ בָעַמִּים אַיֵּה אֱלֹקֵיהֶם:
רש"י יואל פרק ב פסוק יז
לחרפה - לגדופין:
למשל בם גוים - לשון משל ושנינה:
מלבי"ם יואל פרק ב פסוק יז
בין האולם. באשר תחלה אמר שהכהנים הם יאספו את העם ופה זכר שהעם יתאספו מעצמם כנ"ל ולא זכר מה יעשו הכהנים, אמר שהם ימצאו בין האולם ולמזבח ויבכו ויתפללו, ויאמרו בתפלתם חוסה ה' על עמך, ר"ל, א) תחוס עליהם מצד שהם עמך ואתה מלך עליהם, ב) מצד שהארץ היא נחלתך, ששם נחלה מורה על הקדושה שיש בה, ועל ששכינתך שורה עליה מצד קדושתה אל תתן אותה לחרפה מצד זה, ומפרש מצד שהם עמך אל תתן אותם למשל בם גוים כי אתה המלך והמושל עליהם, ומצד שהארץ נחלתך אל תתן אותה לחרפה כי למה יאמרו בעמים איה אלהיהם, וזה חרפה מצד שהיא נחלתך ושכינתך שרויה שם ואתה אלקיהם:
Malbim says here:
And they will say in their prayers, Oh, spare Your people, Lord!, that is to say: a) spare them from the side that they are Your people and You are king of them, b) from the side that the earth is Your inheritance, for Divine Presence and holiness rests there. Do not give her (Israel) a disgrace on this side. Interpretation on this side that they are Your people. Don’t allow gentiles to rule over them because You are the King and the Governor of them. Why allow the disgrace that peoples should say where is their God? This is an embarrassment from the side that they are Your inheritance and Your Divine presence rests on them and You are their God.
Beautiful. Today, sad to say, Israel is ruled by Arabs, Muslims, and atheists. O God, Spare Your people. Your people is ruled by nations.
His colleagues, i.e. the other rabbanim, at one time did agree with him, but then withdrew their support.
ReplyDeleteWho agreed with him?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Rambam (Melachim 11:3), all the Sages in Bar Kochva's day, thought that he was the Melech HaMashiach.
ReplyDeleteרבי עקיבא חכם גדול מחכמי משנה היה. והוא היה נושא כליו של בן כוזיבא המלך. והוא היה אומר עליו שהוא המלך המשיח. ודימה הוא וכל חכמי דורו שהוא המלך המשיח.
At what point, do you think Rabbi Akiva's colleagues decided to actively withdraw their support of Bar Kochva?
ReplyDeleteRambam (Melachim 11:3), in his discussion of Bar Kochva, makes no mention of such an alleged "fact". He merely states, that once Bar Kochva was killed, they all then knew that he was not the Melech HaMashiach.
not clear what Ranbam meant
ReplyDeleteרבינו אל יעלה בדעתך וכו' עד שנהרג בעונות וכו'. וכתב הראב״ד א״א והלא בן כוזיבא היה אומר וכו'. ודברי הראב״ד אמת והכי איתא בפרק חלק (סנהדרין דף צ״ג:) אבל באיכה רבתי בפסוק בלע ה' ולא חמל אומר שנהרג על ידי א״ה וסובר רבינו דהא דאמרו פרק חלק אתיא דלא כשמואל דאמר אין בין העוה״ז לימות המשיח אלא שעבוד מלכיות ורבינו סובר כשמואל וכמבואר בפרק שאחר זה ולכן כתב סברת המדרש. ומ״מ מה שכתב שר״ע היה נושא כליו צ״ע היכא מייתי לה:
Ravad clearly disagrees with your view
ReplyDeleteאל יעלה על דעתך וכו'. א''א והלא בן כוזיבא היה אומר אנא הוא מלכא משיחא ושלחו חכמים לבדקו אי מורח ודאין או לא וכיון דלא עביד הכי קטלוהו:
Migdal Oz
ReplyDeleteאל יעלה על דעתך שמלך המשיח צריך לעשות אותות ומופתים
ולחדש דברים בעולם או להחיות מתים וכיוצא בדברים אלו אין הדבר כך שהרי ר' עקיבא חכם גדול היה ומחכמי המשנה היה והוא היה נושא כליו של בן כוזיבא המלך והוא היה אומר עליו שהיה מלך המשיח ולא שאלו ממנו חכמים לא אות ולא מופת: כתב הראב"ד ז"ל והלא בן כוזיבא היה אומר וכו': ואני אומר מה מקום להשגה זאת והלא כבר כתב ר"מ ז"ל עצמו בזה הפרק שגם החכמים ז"ל היו חלוקים בענינו והוא האמת כי מה שכתב הראב"ד ז"ל הוא בסנהדרין פרק חלק ואנו מפרשים דלאו אינהו קטלוהו כי למה יומת מה עשה ומ"ש ר"מ ז"ל מר' עקיבא הוא באיכה רבתי ובמקומות מהמדרשות וכולם כוונתם לברר ולא נתברר כי אם ע"י ההצלחה כמו שכתב ר"מ ז"ל והוא האמת:
True. But that doesn't make the Rambam's position disappear.
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying Rambam disagreed with the clearly stated view of Chazal?
ReplyDeleteI just remember a sicha of the Rebbe addressing the issue - that intially all the Sages followed R' Akiva, but then withdrew support. But I also heard by another Rav that Chazal never considered him to be Moshaihc, and they referred to him as bar Kuzeiva, a deceiver .
ReplyDeleteBased on the answer by the Kessef Mishneh and the Lechem Mishneh; the Rambam held that there was no consensus of Chazal as to what happened to Bar Kochva. Rather it was a matter of debate amongst Chazal, if or not Bar Kochva was killed by the Sages, and the Rambam favored the position of Chazal that Bar Kochva was not killed by the Sages.
ReplyDeleteThe Migdal Oz concurs with the Rambam, that the Sages did not kill him, since there was no Halachic basis for capital punishment for Bar Kochva.
"ואנו מפרשים דלאו אינהו קטלוהו כי למה יומת מה עשה"
See also Radvaz (ad loc.) who interprets the Gemara cited by the Ra’avad, that it does not mean that the Sages literally killed him; just that they did not protect him, and as a result, he was killed by the non-Jews. Alternatively, he says, that this is a case of differing Aggadic statements, and the Rambam adopted the position of the Aggadic statement that Bar Kochva was not killed by the Sages.
Anyway you dice it your original assertion is wrong
ReplyDeleteAll I stated, was that according to the Rambam (Melachim 11:3), ALL the Sages in Bar Kochva's day, thought that he was the Melech HaMashiach.
ReplyDeleteWhat is incorrect about that reading of the Rambam?
As I stated if that is taken literally he contradicts Chazal as the Ravad and others have noted
ReplyDeleteI demonstrated, that many commentators defend the Rambam; and that he has sources in Chazal that support his position.
ReplyDeleteI think the Rebbe addresses this problem in his sicha , which i saw 30 years ago, so i don't remember it verbatim. he says at one stage they did support him, then asked for signs,and deserted him.
ReplyDeleteSounds like very poor and unreliable evidence
ReplyDeleteyou need to find the Sicha
ReplyDeletehttps://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2713668/jewish/Bar-Kokhba-Revolt.htm
ReplyDeleteChabad disagrees
this is footnote 14 on the sicho:
ReplyDeleteHilchos Melachim 11:3.
Significantly, the Raavad also takes issue with the Rambam on this matter. Basing himself on Sanhedrin 93b, he maintains that after the Sages heard of Bar Kochba’s pretensions to be the Mashiach, they investigated whether or not he had miraculous power. When he failed to demonstrate such powers, they had him killed.
The Rambam (see also Hilchos Taanis 5:3) favors the view stated in Eichah Rabbah commenting on verse 2:2 and in the Jerusalem Talmud, Taanis 4:5, that Bar Kochba was killed by gentiles.
(Despite the differences between the Rambam and the Raavad,
it is possible to reconcile the sources on which these two opinions are
based. It was in fact the Romans who actually killed Bar Kochba, as is
stated in the latter two sources. Nevertheless, they were able to defeat
and kill him only because the Sages withdrew their support of him
see: https://www.sie.org/templates/sie/article_cdo/aid/2328345/jewish/Two-Periods-Within-The-Era-Of-The-Redemption.htm#footnoteRef15a2328345
There must have been support for them to withdraw it!
I am not saying it is reliable
ReplyDeletejust that that's how i understood it when being taught about it in Chabad.
Anyway, posted the sicho now
https://www.sie.org/templates/sie/article_cdo/aid/2328345/jewish/Two-Periods-Within-The-Era-Of-The-Redemption.htm#footnoteRef15a2328345
they can disagree with themselves
ReplyDeletehttps://www.sie.org/templates/sie/article_cdo/aid/2328345/jewish/Two-Periods-Within-The-Era-Of-The-Redemption.htm#footnoteRef15a2328345
That is not what he said!
ReplyDeletethat is not dealing with the issue under discussion
ReplyDeletenot relevant
ReplyDeleteYou say it is not clear what the Rambam meant by citing the Raavad?
ReplyDeleteIt is very clear what Rambam is saying.
You mean the sicho, notes of which are attributed to the rebbe, is false? The text of the Rambam says they saw B.K was not really the Messiah after he was killed.
ReplyDeleteThe sicha claims he was only killed because Chazal withdrew their support.
Is The Rambam contradicted by the Gemara we have available today? Perhaps he had sources that we no longer have.
Torah thought daf hayomi Yevamot 65a
ReplyDelete“ Our Rabbis taught: A woman who had been married to one husband and had no children and to a second husband and again had no children, may marry a third man only if he has children. If she married one who has had no children she must be divorced without receiving her kethubah. The question was raised: Where she married a third husband and bore no children, may her first two husbands reclaim [the respective amounts of her kethubah]?5 Can they plead, It has now been proved that you were the cause,6 or can she retort, It is only now that I have deteriorated? It stands to reason that she may plead, It is only now that I have deteriorated. The question was raised: If she married a fourth husband and gave birth to children, may she claim her kethubah from her third husband? We advise her: Your silence is better than your speech; for7 he8 could tell her, I would not have divorced you in such circumstances.9 R. Papa demurred: Even if she keeps silence, should we remain silent? The divorce, surely, is annulled, and her children are bastards! In truth,12 the fact is,13 that it is assumed that she has now been restored to health.14 If the husband15 pleads, The fault is hers16 and the wife pleads, The fault is his,17 R. Ammi ruled: In private matrimonial affairs18 the wife is believed. And what is the reason? She is in a position to know whether emission is forceful,19 but he is not in a position to know it. If the husband states that he intends taking another wife to test his potency.20 R. Ammi ruled: He must in this case also divorce [his present wife] and pay her the amount of her kethubah; for I maintain that whosoever takes in addition to his present wife another one must divorce the former and pay her the amount of her kethubah. Raba said: A man may marry wives in addition to his first wife; provided only that he possesses the means to maintain them.”
My theory. Beautiful. Women want so badly to have children, even one baby if God grants.
The progressive left in America make protests at Kavanaugh’s home. Biden/Harris also are angry at Kavanaugh and the other 4 judges that want to annul Roe-Wade. Didn’t the Tamar in the K-H bogus heter have one baby from her husband Aaron? Yet after having that baby she claims mistaken marriage! We thank God for every baby.
Horrors: the progressive left in America wants to pack the court to cancel Kavanaugh and the other 4 judges that want to annul Roe-Wade.