Gra - Each of us has a unique way we are required to serve G-d

Gra (Mishlei 16:4): Every individual has a unique way that he is to serve G‑d. (Berachos 58a) : Just as no two people look the same, no two people have the same way of thinking. Therefore no two people have identical natures. When there were prophets, people went to the prophets to inquire of G‑d. The prophet would respond based on his prophetic understanding concerning the way that person should conduct himself according to the source of the person's soul and the nature of his body. When prophecy ceased to exist there was still the power of ruach hakodesh that is in each person and each person could use it to determine what he should do. …However this is only useful if the person is spiritually refined and is purely directed to serve G‑d. Otherwise his spiritual intuition is totally unreliable…. Therefore now that we lack the purity of spirit, we can not rely on spiritual intution and instead we can at most focus on doing mitzvos and Torah study for the sake of G‑d to the best of our ability…

R’ Wolbe (Alei Shor 1:167): There are three different historical eras [concerning the Gra’s idea of learning about one’s true self through prophecy.] 1) Originally the prophets ascertained for every individual his unique service of G‑d according to the source of his soul. 2) the nature of everyone’s service of G‑d was established through the lower level of ruach hakodesh – but this was associated with a great danger. That is because if his spiritual state was not pure he would end up establishing his path in service of G‑d according to his biases and subjective feelings. This could lead to him to determine his actions primarily for his own pleasure and desires – but he wouldn’t be aware of his error because he would think that he had ascertained everything entirely through ruach hakodesh. 3) The third era is that of our modern era. No one even tries to establish his unique path in serving G‑d and instead we concern ourselves entirely with whether our deeds are according to G‑d will. It is important to note that the Gra is not saying that now we don’t have the ability to go in the path of greatness and wonders and that therefore the entire concern with one’s unique service of G‑d is terminated. Rather the Gra’s intent seems to be that in our generation we can no longer determine our unique service of G‑d by means of ruach hakodesh according to the source of our soul and the physical nature of our bodies. The reason why use of ruach hakodesh is no longer done is because subjective biases and errors are common today. Therefore we are only left with the option of trying the best we can to act according to G‑d’s will. This determines our program and our goals. We learn which mitzvos are easy for us to fulfill and which ones are difficult. We ascertain which attributes to eliminate and which ones are desirable to acquire. We determine which approach makes it easy for us to accept much work and which approach we are grateful when we achieve even a little. Consequently it is through our interests in how to fulfill the mitzvos and to improve our personality – we are able to determine the nature of our unique service of G‑d. [Look at the introduction to this chapter concerning the Gra]. Therefore even in our generation each person is obligated to do his unique service of G‑d. A person concerned with spiritual growth can not be satisfied by simply observing the mitzvos. He is obligated to clarify and improve and perfect himself in the area of his personality and conduct. To the degree that he is focused on his genuine uniqueness to that degree he is praiseworthy.

Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz(Sichos Musar #33):[[ Everyone is required to thoroughly examine his deeds especially before Rosh HaShanna - the Day of Judgment. This obligation is not just to discover transgressions and lapses in observance of the commands. It also includes the evaluation whether one's path in serving G‑d is the correct one for him since everyone has a unique path. The issue of Avodas HaShem is such that a person could keep all the mitzvos yet have a completely false approach to serving G?d. The problem is compounded by the fact that he might have incorrectly assumed that what he was doing would be pleasing to G‑d. Nevertheless all his efforts would have been to accomplish a mistaken goal. Consequently if he has not carefully evaluated the correctness of his plan than all his efforts and sacrifices are wasted. Furthermore he is punished according to the degree of effort he made to accomplish this wrong plan? This can be seen from the fact that Rav Yochanon ben Zakkai who was not only the leading Torah scholar of his time but also had succeeded in saving Torah for all future generations was frightened before his death. He cried before his students and said "I see before me two paths - one to Gan Eden and the other to Gehinom and I don't know where they are taking me. Shouldn't I cry?" His fear was not because of failing to keep the whole Torah. His fear was solely because he might have failed to properly have done his Avodas HaShem. There is the additional problem with Avodas HaShem - that one simply can't repent for doing it incorrectly since it is easy to be mistaken and assume that you are doing the right thing.

Mishna Berura (Shaar HaTziyun 622:6): A person many times despairs of correcting his faults and concludes that if G‑d decrees that he dies because of his failure there is nothing he can do about it. However this is a mistaken attitude because in the end, G‑d will get the correction of the soul that He wants. The soul will be reincarnated over and over again into this world until the correction is achieved. Consequently why should the soul repeatedly suffer death and the anguish of the grave and other things? Proof of this is from Yonah whom G‑d wanted to prophesize for Nineveh and he tried to escape to the sea where prophesy does not occur. We see that he sunk into sea and was swallowed by the great fish and was in its belly many days where it seems that it was impossible to fulfill G‑d’s command. Nevertheless we see that at the end G‑d’s will was fulfilled and he went and prophesized. Thus it is with everyman according to his Divinely ordained task. Therefore as it says in Avos (4:22): Don’t view the grave as a refuge—because you were born against your will, you live against your will, you die against your will and against your will you will have to justify all your actions to the Heavenly court.

The Ger Tzedek and the Gra

RaP asserted that the fact that the Gra insisted on being buried next to the Ger Tzedek shows that he had a different attitude towards geirm than the Syrian Rabbinate.

Aside from RaP's continued insistence that he "knows" that they don't like geirm and yet he can not find a single significnat rabbi [at this point not even an insignificnt rabbi] willing to state this - there is a question of the validity of the assertion that the Gra insisted on being buried next to the Ger Tzedek. I am of course not questioning that the Gra valued geirim. I am simple not convinced that it is a historical fact that the Gra insisted on being buried next to the Ger Tzedek or even whether the story of the Ger Tzedek happened as described.

The burning of the Ger Tzedek is reported to have happened in 1749 in Vilna in a public execution. However the very first explicit mention of the event was in 1822 by an apostate who claimed that have heard about it from a rabbi.There is no mention of the Ger Tzedek in the Gra's writings or in that of any of his students. R' Eliach wrote a whole chapter on this his 3 volume set of the Gra - but he doesn't have any convincing evidence prior to 1822 nor does he offer a convincing justification for why this public event is not mentioned in any sources -public or private - until 70 years later! There is a similar pattern concerning the story of the Golem which the Maharal was supposed to have made. No mention of it until the early 1800's.

Let me provide links to some of the relevant discussions:

R Eliach, Prof. Magda Teter, Prof. Leiman.

Gra's Derech in Halacha II -R' Chaim Soloveitchik's view

Rabbi Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik wrote in Rupture and Reconstruction page 111-112:

(c) The contemporary shift to text authority explains the current prevalence in yeshivah circles of the rulings of the GRA. The GRA, while far from the first to subject the corpus of Jewish practice to textual scrutiny, did it on an unprecedented scale and with unprecedented rigor. No one before him (and quite possibly, no one since) has so often and relentlessly drawn the conclusion of jettisoning practices that did not square with the canonized texts. Great as was the GRA's influence upon the mode of Talmudic study, and awesome as was his reputation generally, nevertheless, very few of his radical rulings were accepted in nineteenth century Lithuania, even in the yeshiva world. (To give a simple example: the practice in the Yeshivah of Volozhin was to stand during the havdalali service as was customary, rather than to sit as the GRA had insisted.) See also Aryeh Leib Frornkin, Sefer Toldot Eliyahu (Wilno, 19(0), pp. 70-71. Seeking there to demonstrate, to an elite Lithuanian audience at the close of the nineteenth century, the uniqueness of his distinguished father and uncle, Fromkin points out that they were numbered among the very few who followed the rulings of the GRA. Most towns in Eastern Europe had traditions going back many centuries, and even the mightiest names could alter a practice here and there, but could effect no wholesale revision of common usage. Indeed, the GRA's writ rarely ran even in Vilna (Wilno), outside of his own kloyz; [the small synagogue where he had prayed]. (I have heard this point made by former residents of Vilna, See also Mishnah. Berurah, Biur Halakhah, 551:1, and note how rare such a comment is in that work.) Mark should be made of the striking absence of the GRA from the Arukh ha-Shulhan, Orak Hayyim, written by one who was a distinguished product of the Yeshivah of Volozhin and rabbi of that bastion of Lithuanian talmudism, Navahrdok (Novogrudok). Indeed, the first major work known to me that systematically reckons with the Biur ha-Gra is the Mishnah Berurah, and understandably so, as that work is one of the first to reflect the erosion of the traditional society (see, above, text and n, 6). With the further disappearance of the traditional orah hayyim in the twentieth century, the ritual of daily life had to be constructed anew from the texts; the GRA's work exemplified this process in its most intense and uncompromising form, and with the most comprehensive mastery of those texts. It is this consonance with the contemporary religious agenda and mode of decision making [pesak[ that has led to the widespread influence of the (GRA today in the yeshivah and haredi world. (See below n, 68.) (S. Z. Leiman pointed out to me that S. Z. Havlin arrived at similar conclusions as to the delayed influence of the GRA on pesak, and further corroborated them by a computer check of the Responsa Project of Bar-llan University. He presented his findings, in a still unpublished paper, at the Harvard Conference on Jewish Thought in the Eighteenth Century, April 1992.)

(1) I emphasize that my remarks are restricted to pesak and do not refer to modes of study. In the latter field, the GRA's impact was both swift and massive. (2) In light of my remarks above, I should take care to add that though the GRA is noticeably absent as an authority in the Arukh ha-Shulhan, that work is written in the spirit of the GRA, whereas the Mishnah Berurah, for all its deference to the GRA, is penned in a spirit antithetical to the one of the Gaon, The crux of the Gaon's approach both to Torah study and pesak was its independence of precedent. A problem was to be approached in terms of the text of the Talmud as mediated by the rishonim (and in the Gaon's case even that mediation was occasionally dispensed with). 'What subsequent commentators had to say about this issue, was, with few exceptions (e.g. Magen Avraham, Shakh), irrelevant. This approach is writ large on every page of the Biur ha-Gra, further embodied in the Hayyei Adam and the Arukh ha-Shulhan, and has continued on to our day in the works of such Lithuanian posekim, as the Hazan Ish and R. Mosheh Feinstein. The Mishnah. Berurah rejects de facto this approach and returns to the world of precedent and string citation, Decisions are arrived at only after elaborate calibration of and negotiation with multiple "aharonic" positions.

Gra's derech in Halacha & Hashkofa I - not mainstream?

Recipients and Publicity wrote

Understanding the GRA in the context of Halachah and Hashkofa is a complex business.

Whilst we are at it, it is important to note that Minhag Ashkenaz is not the Minhag HaGRA because the GRA developed his own views on Halachah, most of which were not adopted in the length and breadth of the lands where Ashkenazi Jews found themselves. The exceptions are those few of his talmidim muvhakim who took on themselves his minhagim and his followers who made it to Yerushalayim where the GRA's minhag becme the so-called "Minhag Yerushalayim".

Thus the Jews of Litte (Lithuanian Jewry) while mostly rejecting Chasidus as per the GRA, did not follow his derech in tefila and Halachah but rather continued to follow in the derech of the Chayei Odom that was later reinforced by the Mishna Brura and most notably the Igros Moshe that does not go down the path of Halacha delineated by the GRA.

It was the Bais HaLevi who somehow reached back to the GRA and created that unique so-called "Brisker derech" that is machmir in so many ways and justifies itself by relying on the GRA, while at the same time, those Litvaks who reject the Briskers and their chumras, notably most of the talmidim of Slabodka and disciples the Alter of Slabodka, especially those like Rav Ruderman, Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, and Rav Leizer Yudel Finkel, and in the case of Rav Hutner he made a point of even calling himself a "talmide HaGRA" in Kabbalah but did NOT follow the GRA's piskei Halachah Lema'aseh since they all taught and held that the Mishna Brura was the posek ha'acharon and that the Igros Moshe went along such a path, neither of which paskens like the GRA. (Unlike the Briskers and Rav Moshe Shternbuch, who is a Briker after all, who still fight the GRA's wars...against Chasidim and whatever and whoever else meets their disdain.)

It is known that the GRA's son wrote that his father was not allowed to complete three things min hashamayim: making a golem; moving to Eretz Yisroel; and writing a final updated Shulchan Oruch reconciling all the dei'os and shittas once and for all. The reason for the latter not happening was that the GRA's derech was not the only universal derech, there were others and most notably the Baal HaTanya's Shulchan Oruch haRav became the definitive answer of Chasidus to the claim that they were not oisgehalten al pi Halacha, yet if the GRA would have written a "Shulchan Oruch" noone would have been able to dispute him (monopolies are never a good thing it seems, even in Halachah and Avoda !)

Thus when talking about the GRA, one MUST proceed with great caution, because there are complex layers of how he is to be understood and taken.

Tel Aviv is rapdily losing religious residents

Haaretz reports:

The inhabitants of downtown Tel Aviv who have been strolling in the Rothschild Boulevard area of late cannot help but notice the abundance of "Apartment for Rent" signs on the balconies of buildings there. Alongside the phone number to call, and the notation "No Agents," there is the caution "Not on the Sabbath," usually hand-written. Tel Aviv, which next year will celebrate its 100th anniversary, is losing its observant religious, a population concentrated in the downtown Lev Ha'ir area.

At the height of its flourishing, in the 1960s, there were 20 Hasidic groups living here. The abandonment began some years ago, when the admors (spiritual leaders) passed away or left the city to live in large ultra-Orthodox centers like Jerusalem or Bnei Brak., and their disciples followed them. Of the many Hasidic courts only a very few remain, and many synagogues and educational institutions have shut down for lack of demand.

According to Yossi Altschuler of the Nihul Nehasim real estate company, which has been active in the Lev Ha'ir area for about 20 years, this process has accelerated.

"Not in huge waves," he says, "but we are definitely witnessing a phenomenon of quite a number of religious families, mostly the elderly, who are leaving the city. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) designation of Lev Ha'ir area as a World Heritage site has made it fashionable and has contributed to the wave of price increases. In Tel Aviv there is no chance of a positive influx of ultra-Orthodox population, since they cannot afford the high prices. They prefer to buy in places like Bnei Brak or in other places that are attractive to their public." [...]

Gra's meeting with the Baal HaTanya - Tradition of HaRav Yosef Soloveitchik zt"l

Regarding the failure of the Gra to meet with the Baal HaTanya. I just heard from Rav Shurkin that Rav Soloveitchik had a family mesora that there were strong theological disagreements between them. He claimed that the Gra was afraid that if he met the Baal HaTanya he would be so overwhelmed by him that he would stop disputing him.

He also said that Rav Soloveitchik was enthralled by the Baal HaTanya's profoundity. He related that Rav Solveitchik gave a daily 5 hour shiur in the summer after his wife was niftar. At the conclusion of this he insisted on giving a shiur in Tanya. He also has extensive writings on the Tanya.

A similar assertion regarding the meeting is reported in Wikipedia:

According to Chabad tradition, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi and Rabbi Menachem Mendel Horodoker were sent to the Vilna Gaon by the Maggid of Mezeritch and the Gaon refused to meet with them. Rabbi Leibel Shapiro, the current Rosh Yeshiva of Tomchei Tmimim Miami, has said that at a Yud-Tes Kislev farbrengen in Boston, Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik described this event the way it was passed down through the Brisk dynasty (Rabbi Chaim Volozhin the scion of the Brisker dynasty was the prime student of the Vilna Gaon) and in this version, the Alter Rebbe was accompanied by Rabbi Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev. Rabbi Soloveitchik said that the Gaon's reason for not meeting with the Hassidic Rebbes was that he saw the holy features of the Alter Rebbe's face and realized that if he let him in "after two hours he would leave the room and join them in spreading chassidus".^[2]

However R' Eliach in his sefer on the Gra page 907-912 concerning the reason for not meeting with the Baal HaTanya does not mention such a view. There is also a story - which he rejects - that claims that the Gra's mother prevented her son from meeting with the Baal HaTanya. R' Eliach does cite the Brisker Rav [page 910 note 57] who stated that the Gra didn't meet with him because he thought it was a waste of time becaue they had irreconcilable views in hashkofa. There is in fact a letter from the Baal HaTanya to his chasdim in Vilna telling them to not waste time on debates because of the differences in hashkofa are irreconcilable.

It is also clear that the Gra considered them kofrim - and simply didn't want to argue with apikorsim. These views makes much more sense.

Thus this assertion that the Gra was afraid of being influenced by the Baal HaTanya is not a tradition amongst the Chassidim, is not mentioned in the letter of the Baal HaTanya dealing with the failed meeting and was not mentioned by the Brisker Rav, and is apparently unknown in the extensive literature on the subject - including R' Eliach

Smoking prohibited! status of Brain Death & Preventative Tests

Jerusalem Post reports:

Jews are not allowed to smoke, and they are required to observe a healthful way of life, said Rabbi Moshe Shaul Klein, rabbi of Bnei Brak's Ma'ayanei Hayeshuva Medical Center and representative of the halacha committee of one of the city's leading rabbinical arbiters, Rabbi Shmuel Wosner.

Klein was addressing a conference of rabbis and hospital staffers on the subject of Medical Ethics and Halacha over the weekend.

"Let's take the example of tobacco smoking. Anyone who is intelligent and offered a certain drink that just one out of 10 doctors says is poisonous would not drink it," said Klein, implying that smoking - which has incontrovertibly been proven deadly - is forbidden by Jewish law.

A handful of rabbinical arbiters had previously stated publicly that it was forbidden to smoke; many others have ruled that it was forbidden to start smoking, but have stopped short of requiring those who already smoke give up the habit, while others say this only privately.

Klein said at the hospital conference that the requirement to live a healthful life includes undergoing preventive tests for early diagnosis of disease, as survival rates are much higher when diseases are detected early.

He endorsed mammographs for women and colonoscopies for both men and women who were over 50.

Another leading rabbinical arbiter, Rabbi Yitzhak Zilberstein, took the conservative haredi view (contrary to that of national religious rabbis and some haredi rabbis abroad) that death - after which one may halachically take organs for transplant - means the cessation of heartbeat, and not lower-brain death in which the heart can continue to beat. He also attacked the phenomenon in some hospitals of demented kidney-failure patients being denied dialysis and other medical treatments. "There is no difference in giving medical treatment to a demented patient and one with a wise and acute brain," he said.

Authority of Gedolim III - Contemporary gedolim are less accepted

Garnel Ironheart said..

As for your second reply, I don't see what it has to do with my statement. I wasn't questioning Rav Moshe's various opinions and I am well aware of who he posuled. My point is that if Rav Moshe was asked a question, he answered it. Nowadays we get declarations on such things as: All "A" is forbidden. All "B" is not allowed. And there is no indication that the people making these announcements only intend it to be for their personal communities. There is a re-definition occuring that says that if you don't hold by the latest chumrah of the week, you are lacking in your Judaism

----------------------------
Perhaps we can simply agree that Rav Moshe was not perceived as imposing his will on people - while contemporary leaders are. This is possibly the result of the fact that the people don't accept the views of contemporary leaders as readily as they did Rav Moshe.

Rav Bulman once mentioned that in previous generations - post war America - the gap of knowledge between the rabbinic leaders and the average person was very great and was acknowledged as being very great. Now the average avreich is much closer in competence to the average rabbinic leader - and sometimes exceeds it - and he is fully aware of this. Hence the much greater resistance to accept something just because the leaders said it. The sheitel controversy is a clear example. The resistance to acceptance was primarily on halachic grounds.

Another way of putting it is that we don't have gedolim today - in the same way as 20 years ago. Rav Paperman once said that while Yiftach in his generation is like Shmuel in his generation - woe is the person who knew Shmuel.

I will also agree with you in that gedolim in previous generations were more careful in chosing their battles. This was partially due to greater sensitivity - but also they had less power over the community. Because compliance was largely voluntary then - they could not demand more than the people wanted to accept. In contrast today's audience is much more of a captive audience and the authorities have stronger sanctions than in the past - therefore because they can be more demanding they are more demanding.

Arsonists have same din as child molesters - psak of HaRav Moshe Sternbuch, shlita

In an earlier post I had written:

Chillul HaShem of Renegade Kanoim

The problem of renegade kanoim - is a growing plague in the chareidi world. These are lawless animals who are endangering the life and limb of others - in their self proclaimed campaign of terror - to rid the world of all they find offensive. Their actions are not in accord with the Torah - and they are a major chillul HaShem.

===================
I was told that some people mistakenly assumed that these were the words of Rav Moshe Sternbuch. They were my words not his. [In general, the views expressed on this blog are mine - unless I say otherwise.] However when I showed these words to him - he agreed with what I had said.

I also asked him this Shabbos about calling the police against these arsonists. He replied that they have the same status regarding calling the police as what he had said regarding child molesters. He told me that I could publicize this in his name.

Regardng child molesters he had said:

Bottom line: If a child is in danger of being molested - the police need to be called. If there is any uncertainty - either regarding the facts or the seriousness of the incident - an experienced rabbi or professional should be consulted. However if it is clear that children are in danger of being molested - a rabbi does not have to be consulted. Rav Sternbuch concluded, "Let the molester rot in jail."

Authority of Gedolim I – Or why RaP is wrong about the Syrian Takana

Perhaps no word is used more often in religious debates then the term “gadol” and yet I think few actually understand what it means. In fact it is used primarily as a weapon in religious debate to get the other side to concede. Gedolim are viewed as the ultimate authority.

1) Some people will try to end an argument by referring to the Gedolim. “How can we disagree with the gedolim?”

2) Some try to defend against this argument by saying – “he isn’t a real gadol.”

3) Or there are more gedolim on my side than on your side.

4) Or my gedolim are bigger than your gedolim.

5) Sometimes the debate between the Chareidi world and MO comes down to – “you don’t think for yourself – you are robot who automatically obeys the gedolim.

6) While the other side says – “of course you would say that since MO don’t have real gedolim.” MO replies, “Well of course we have gedolim – but the Chareidim don’t recognize our gedolim – they only recognize Chareidi gedolim.”

Gedolim – what are they, who are they, and what makes a person a gadol?

1) He has superior knowledge or reasoning.

On the simplest level, we assume that a gadol knows more than the rest of us. Thus his authority comes from his superior knowledge. Alternatively, he knows how to think more clearly than the rest of us and his authority comes from his superior reasoning.

2) He is infallible because he has ruach hakodesh

Sometimes we assume that they are infallible because they have ruach hakadosh.

These two assertions are refuted by simply noting that:

1) Torah is not in heaven

Rambam says that a prophet who claims his halachic understanding is correct because he has prophecy – is a false prophet and is killed.

2) Why do gedolim disagree with each other – if it were simply knowledge or logic – then all would agree.

I assert that a gadol's authority comes ultimately from the fact that he is accepted as a gadol by the rest of us. Now it is reasonable to assume that one of the major reasons why he is accepted is because of his great knowledge and intellect. However that is not enough to be a gadol.

In fact, in the 20 years since I published the Yad Moshe to the Igros Moshe – I have heard of many who strongly disagreed with Rav Moshe’s reasoning, or his sources – but nevertheless accept his psak – because he is the gadol.

Modern Orthodox by and large don’t have gedolim because they tend not to view that they exist. Thus since there is not a mass acceptance of their rabbis – it is not surprising that Chareidim do not view their rabbis as gedolim.

Perhaps a simple way of summarizing the above points is :

A gadol is someone whose authority transcends his footnotes. He is a rabbi that we accept what he says - because he said it – not because of the sources and reasoning he marshals to buttress his arguments.

All this leads to my rejections of the lengthy arguments that RaP has been making regarding the Syrian Takana. He invariably does not cite any sources – other than his own opinion. And yet he expects the rest of us to accept what he says because he says it. He is acting as if he were a gadol – but none of us accept him as such. Until he presents convincing arguments based on clear citations that the Takana is against halacha and violates the Torah obligation to love gerim – he is just spitting into the wind. As I have stated before – I have found not a single statement by a recognized gadol – that agrees with the views expressed by RaP. The burden of proof is on him – to convince us. He is not a gadol.

R' S. R. Hirsch's approach declared irrelevant today

Jewish Press reports:

Speaking at the 200th birthday celebration of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch this past Shabbos, Khal Adath Jeshurun’s Rav Yisroel Mantel declared that the philosophical credo of Rav Hirsch, Torah Im Derech Eretz, is not viable in the absence of its chief advocate.

Rav Hirsch was a 19^th century champion of Orthodoxy and the founder of Khal Adath Jeshurun’s parent community in Frankfurt, Germany.

Rav Mantel’s declaration, which angered many in the community, came at a sit-down kiddush at Dr. Raphael Moller Hall in Washington Heights after Shabbos morning services. He said that only Rav Hirsch, a great man who knew the fine boundaries between what is religiously permissible and what is prohibited, could make Torah Im Derech Eretz workable.

Our generation, he said, must follow today’s gedolei HaTorah (great Torah leaders).

After Shabbos, Dr. Eric Erlbach, KAJ president for over two decades, resigned.

The Torah Im Derech Eretz philosophy calls for the active engagement between Torah and culture and society.

Samson Bechhofer, a great-great-grandchild of Rav Hirsch, spoke first at the kiddush. The synagogue’s choir conductor and a lawyer by profession, Bechhofer lamented the educational policies of the community’s Yeshiva Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch school in recent years.

“If the goal of our kehilla and yeshiva is to have all of our sons and daughters end up in Lakewood – and I use Lakewood as a metaphor – then I submit that we are not being faithful to our founder’s philosophy or Weltanschauung, nor are we doing the future of our kehilla any great favors,” Bechhofer said.

Rav Mantel stood up and walked out of the hall at these words. He later returned and told the several hundred assembled that “grandchildren and lawyers” will not decide how to implement Torah Im Derech Eretz.

Other speakers at the 200^th celebration Shabbos included Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Meir Tzvi Bergman (the son-in-law of Rav Elazar Menachem Shach), noted columnist Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblum, and Rabbi Eliyahu Meir Klugman, Rav Hirsch’s biographer.

Among their many remarks, Rabbi Bergman praised Rav Hirsch for his Chumash commentary, which has recently been retranslated; Rabbi Rosenblum lauded Rav Hirsch’s philosophy of Judaism, from which, he said, many Jews can derive much-needed spirit and purpose; and Rabbi Klugman credited Rav Hirsch for teaching all of Orthodox Jewry how to live authentically Jewish lives in a world without ghetto walls.[...]

Speaking later at Seudah Shlishis, Rav Mantel credited Rav Hirsch for demonstrating definitively that Jews can plant the Torah in any culture.

Torah Im Derech Eretz, Rav Shimon Schwab (rabbi of KAJ from 1958-1995) once said, “means the Torah’s conquest of life and not the Torah’s flight from life. It means the Torah’s casting a light into the darkness rather than hiding from the darkness. It means applying Torah to the earth and not divorcing it from the earth.”

Dynamics of Dispute - Recipients and Publicity takes the offensive

Some of you have wondered why I am publishing this material. - after all I am clearly right and Recipients and Publicity is clearly wrong. The answer is simply that this dispute has the same DNA of the major disputes we have been discussing. The same language and modes of expression exist in our dispute with R' Tropper, or exist between the Modern Orthodox and Chareidim on many issues.

Perhaps if we can understand the parameters of what is going on - we can gain a greater understanding of why disputes between intelligent, sincere individuals and groups are not easily resolved by rational discussion but rather by raw power politics.

RaP is clearly dedicated, intelligent and sincere - and yet at some point these talents have been channeled into a path which most of us find puzzling and unproductive. He in turn views that the rest of us have betrayed our original goals and he has appointed himself the thankless task of returning us to a more honest and productive approach.

In short - this discussion is not about the Syrian Takana per se - but on meta issues and values which are so basic they are not being articulated. For those who have the patience read his very long comment on Recipients and Publicity attacks the Syrian Takana...":
=====================================

Recipients and Publicity has left a new comment on your post "Recipients and Publicity attacks the Syrian Takana...":

Mel kaminsky said:

"the problem with 'recipients and publicity's statements about the Syrian Takana seems to be that his statements have been proven to be wrong,"

RaP: Please specify what has been "proven wrong" with the Syrians when noone has done what they did.

"and yet he continues to promote falsehoods as if they are truths."

RaP: OK so you are calling me a liar, cheap shot. Show me, specifically, where I am "promoting falsehoods" instead of just saying that it is so.

"'Recipients and Publicity' continually rails against people for not loving the Convert."

RaP: Huh, no I do not. My main point is that the mitzvah of loving a ger is in the Torah, multiple times and that there cannot be an institutional block to sincere and genuine geirim, and sometimes even when circumstances are not "perfect" and "ideal" but as judged acceptable by a competent Bais Din with competent dayanim.

"Having read through the previous posts, it's clear that the ongoing debate is about who is a Ger, not about how Geirim are treated."

RaP: You read which posts? Specify please.

"In the military, we call this technique "firing chaff"."

RaP: Whatever. Judaism is not the military, and if I was firing chaff the owner of this blog wouldn't be taking me so seriously that he has given major prominence to what I have stated and written. Has any of your "chaff" made it to anything?

"Virtually his entire post seems to have the purpose of deflecting the topic of discussion away from the Halachic discourse"

RaP: Nonsense yet again. Have you read how many times Jersey girl talks about her private life, family matters and trivia that have nothing to do with Halachic discourse at all? Indeed if she is an Orthodox Jewish woman in real life, according to many Charedi rabbis, she is forbidden to engage in Halachic discourse because it's reserved only for true Torah scholars (I guess that is why she must resort to many bobba meises all the time.)

"and toward painting himself as being the righteous victim of Rabbi Eidensohn's bad personal qualities,"

RaP: This is sheer trash! I am not a victim of anything, but I do defend myself which is my right. Talk of being in the "military" do you only believe in one way surrenders? How much fun would that be to read, huh? And I have NOT said that Rabbi Eidensohn has "bad personal qualities" because I have NOT attacked him personally anywhere, our disagreements are between gentlemen and scholars and it is now you that is a liar.

"and he further tries to paint Rabbi Eidensohn as a person with silly ideas"

RaP: Nope. How on Earth do you say that? Would I bother to spend hours of my time on this Blog if I did not respect its owner? You are now stooping to worse insults than you accuse me of.

"by declaring anyone who appears to agree with him to be a small minority in the 'peanut gallery.'"

RaP: I was referring to the two main posters "Jersey girl" and "Bright Eyes" (who may even be the same person, as you may be one of them) and to noone else. It was self-understood to anyone who has spent time on this blog which you evidently have not.

"It's very strange. Thank you to Rabbi Eidensohn for providing such an interesting blog"."

RaP: What is strange is how you can spew forth lies and assume that people will not notice.

-------

Marc who says:

"It's really amazing how like every time anyone brings up any subject, recipients and publicity turns it into an attack on the Syrian Community."

RaP: If you had been following the major discussions on this blog for the last six months you would know that the topic of how the Syrian RABBIS (not the "community") enacted a takana against accepting geirim has been a central litmus test of much else that has been talked about on this blog. I have no interest in the Syrian community and I wish them well on a personal level. But the discussions here are nor "personal" but rather about how communities formulate and enact religious (Halachik) policies and how they can be used as either precedents or warnings about what works and what does not work, what to do and what not do. Nothing less and nothing more, so quit pretending that I have an axe to grind against Syrian Jews when I do not.

"Why is that? Does he have something to hide?"

RaP: Like what? If there is one thing that makes me laugh on this blog as how easily I can be aaccused of being "paranoid" and this and that insult but I live with it, 'cause so what, but that posters on this blog are sometimes freely allowed to voice their own idiotic fears (they are too babyish to be on the level of real paranoia) instead of talking about the issues.

"What, is he like a missionary or something like that?"

RaP: very funny! Back to the "missionary theories" about posters that are such a joke. That line always comes up here, and it is crazy. I know that some people in the Eidensohn family are obsessed with Christian missionaries (why is that? have some of them been won over by them, whatvere it is, it's frustrating to debate here sometimes when any disagreements come up, right away out come the missionary theories, as if it's a witchhunt or communist hunt, shame on you and grow up!) but it is so stupid to accuse me of that that I think it is just a huge joke. Be nuts, see what I care. It is no substitute for good reasoning and patient responses.

"Ok, I guess this makes 3 from the 'Peanut Gallery', lol! Thanks so much for this blog, Rabbi Edensohn :)"

RaP: When was the last time you ever commented on this blog, if ever? Don't flatter yourself, you have to be as hard-working and ever-available like Jersey girl and Bright Eyes to make it to the level of being a "peanut" let alone a "peanut gallery"!

Creative leadership - Syrian Takana and Rav Hirsch - One size doesn't fit all

R' Bartley Kulp has left a new comment on your post "Recipients and Publicity attacks the Syrian Takana...":

Recipients and publicity said...

"One thing is for sure, the present Belzer Rebbe is different to most others and he certainly does not hold that Belz should follow in the steps of the notorious "Syrian takana" banning the acceptance of any geirim (especially by marriage) into the Syrian community and that he (the Belzer Rebbe) understands the deep significance and merit of accepting true geirei tzedek bazman hazeh."

I think that the leaders of the Syrian community also understood the important mitzva of ahavat hager. However, unlike the current Belzer kehilla the Syrians were grappling with the issue of intermarriage. You might say that this is a ramification of embracing open society. Not that I am being critical of this approach. Every approach has its advantages and disadvantages. It is up to the leaders of each community to act in accordance with their own unique circumstances.

This is why Rabbi Sampson Raphael Hirsch was respected by his contemporaries in Eastern Europe. Even though Rav Hirsch advocated an embracement of modern culture (something that was anathema to them), they understood that the German kehilla was different in a social demographic kind of way. They understood that they lived in a different reality, meaning that a different approach was necessary in leadership.

Ironically it was Rav Hirsch who successfully petitioned the government to allow separate public representation for the orthodox community. This action was subsequently copied afterwards by kehillot all over Europe. There was now a situation where you had an Orthodox kehilla embracing its modern cultural surroundings while seemingly kicking its secular brethren in the butt. That does not sound very utilitarian does it?

Rav Hirsch was fighting for the spiritual life of his kehilla. Germany was the place birthplace of the reform and conservative movements. They had made deep demographic inroads in the kehilla and were threatening to make Torah extinct there. Rav Hirsch had to be mavdil bein kodesh l'chol for the sake of his followers.

Over 100 years later Rav Yoseph B. Soloveitchik (example of another Rav who embraced modernity)poskined that the Orthodox leadership in the United States should cooperate with the reform and conservatives visa-vi for public policy and government issues. He said that while we (the Orthodox) do not recognize the reform and conservative rabbis as religious leaders, they are in fact community leaders and we should cooperate with them in matters of public policy.

Does this mean that Rav Soleveitchik learned shas different from Rav Hirsch? I do not think so. Just their situations were different. I also do not think that the actions of the Belzer rebbe and the Syrian chachamim necessarily bare any insight on how they learned shas respectively.

What is appropriate in one time and place is not necessarily appropriate for different one.