Self-evident Belief vs. Reasonable Belief

LazerA's comment to "Chabad - With defenders like these...?

Garnel Ironheart said...

"One of the problems with Chabad and much of Chareidi philosophy nowadays is that at the core their view is the "right" view and must be defended with passion and aggressiveness."

While I also agree that the problem exists in the Chareidi world as well (though not as pervasively), I do not think the essence of the problem is that they consider their view "right" (which is really to be expected) but that they believe their view is obviously and self-evidently correct. Thus, those who disagree are not simply wrong or misguided, but hateful and arrogant (as we see from the accusations that have been made).

Interestingly, a similar phenomon existed during the Middle Ages when Christians accused the Jews of ritual murder, host desecration, and of being of a demonic/Satanic nature. This was premised on the Christian belief that Jesus' status as Moshiach/prophet/Divine was clearly self-evident to all who knew him. As the Jews knew Jesus best, their denial of his status as Moshiach/prophet/Divine could only be explained by their wilfully evil/demonic nature.

As I noted this tendency also exists in some circles of the Chareidi world, and can cause a good bit of trouble.

Firstly, those who have such an attitude are less likely to consider the impression their actions make on outsiders. (After all, in their hearts, the secular Jews know we're right!)

Secondly, this is one of the reasons kiruv workers sometimes get in trouble. Although they (usually) believe exactly the same things, they are sometimes seen as weaker in their beliefs because they will acknoweldge that these beliefs are not obvious.

This attitude appears to be far more common in Israeli chareidi circles than in American.

Big Brother in Beit Shemesh

Jerusalem Report just published this cover story. It is not the highest quality journalism but of the "he said this and she said that" type. However it is useful when read with a critical but open mind

[...]
Today's religious battles are being waged between different Orthodox factions in the suburban neighborhoods south of the city center known as Ramat Beit Shemesh (Beit Shemesh Heights). In the early 90s ultra-Orthodox haredi families, forced out of Jerusalem by the tight real estate market, settled there.

Some of them are adherents of the Eida Haredit, a small group of anti-Zionist extremists. An unusual coalition of modern-Orthodox religious Zionists and moderate, mainstream ultra-Orthodox residents complain that for the past year, a small group (60 families, it is estimated) of these zealots (kanaim in Hebrew) have engaged in acts of religious coercion and intimidation in order to impose their lifestyle on the majority. For now, the zealots are most vocal about women's modesty in dress and observance of Sabbath laws, although some anti-state activity has also taken place such as flag desecrations on Independence Day. There have also been reports in recent years of attacks on young people who stroll in co-ed groups together on Friday night; and of burning oil and gasoline thrown into a pizzeria where men and women sat together.

An unofficial zealot spokesman, Eli Tombeck, married and in his thirties, defends the attitude of his group. He tells The Jerusalem Report in an interview by telephone, We are merely trying to preserve our way of life." He denies belonging to the Eida Haredit, which is thought to have only 15,000 adherents across the nation, saying he's of Litvak orientation (i.e. more mainstream) and serves as a beadle at a large, normative ultra-Orthodox Beit Shemesh synagogue known as Kehillat Yaakov, led by Rabbi Mordechai Goldstein. Tombeck charges that it is the modern Orthodox who are escalating the war by holding demonstrations, using political muscle and speaking to the media. Moderates admit that they retaliate against the kanaim by waving Israeli flags from rooftops and terraces, hoping to irk the anti-state zealots.

Modern Orthodox residents paint a very different picture. "Rocks, dirty diapers and tomatoes have been pelted at and damaged our hospital van," says Judy Lev, an emergency room nurse, who works at the Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem and is required to work on Saturdays. The zealots' loud screeching at cars traveling on Shabbat near religious precincts is offensive to the moderates, although they too would prefer cars to stay away from their neighborhoods on the day of rest.

Sharon Ra'anan, an ex-Californian married with three children and a resident of bucolic Nofei Aviv, a modern Orthodox neighborhood of single family homes, reports that even "on a Tuesday" a friend's car was stoned as she drove through an adjoining zealot's neighborhood, Ramat Beit Shemesh Bet. A burning baby carriage was placed in the road, says Ra'anan. When her friend stopped her car to remove it, a brick was thrown into her back window narrowly missing her son. Ra'anan says it is unclear exactly why the woman was accosted, but the incident, she says, underscores the kind of hostile atmosphere, which has erupted in the town. She also knows of a doctor whose arm was broken "by hooligans" but could not elaborate on specific details and another modern Orthodox man who was roughed up by zealots. She also cites the case of a woman who had been harassed after she chose to sit in the forward "men's section" seating area of a neighborhood bus. Ra'anan, 43, who works as a technical writer in Jerusalem, immigrated 10 years ago. She says she was brought up as a "serious Conservative." She does not wear a head covering and she co-founded a women's payer group in Beit Shemesh after she moved in.

Post Zionism - Chief Rabbinate really necessary?

Anonymous' comment to "Conversion - Rav Druckman/Halachic debate?":

Bartley Kulp makes a number of excellent points that are easy to agree with.

If there is a separation of "shul and State" in Israel, then how can we call Israel the "Jewish State?"

What would be any more Jewish about Israel than for example, Brooklyn or Queens? (The demographics would be about the same, Jews, Russians, Arabs, Chinese).

If Israel is not a "Jewish State", but a State where Jews live, then what would be the basis of a Jewish claim to govern ANY Middle Eastern land as Jews comprise less than 1% of the population?

The basis for Jews to govern a non Jewish state in the Middle East boils down to a UN referendum and surely not a Biblical prescription.

The UN referendum granted war reparations to the Jewish people from Germany.

In other words, Germany committed a horrific genocide against the Jewish people. The UN passed a referendum to repay the Jewish people in allowing the Zionists to drive nearly a million Arabs from their homes and confiscate their lands and cities.

Today we risk the life of every 18 year old Israeli Jew to protect that UN entity that could just as easily be dissolved by referendum as it was formed.

I think that Bartley Kulp presents an excellent argument in support of "Post Zionistic" ideology.

Bartley Kulp responded...

anonymous said...

"I think that Bartley Kulp presents an excellent argument in support of "Post Zionistic" ideology."

This does not a support for post zionist ideology per say. I will admit though that on the surface it would seem to support their agenda though. Enough of post Zionism for now. I will touch on your other points. I am also not advocating a complete divorce between church and state in the American sense of the word.

First of all you are asking an existential question that without the bible what is our our excuse for dispossessing the Palestinians and being a center trigger for so much conflict? The truth is that there is no justification for it. This is why Ben Gurion sent a message through Aba Ebben to the U.N. on the eve of the vote over partition, that the justification for our presence in the holy land is the bible. Keeping in mind that Ben Gurion was himself an athiest, he was not just trying spin on a potentialy religious audience. The matter was and still is very simple without bringing in divinity. Besides being a book of laws the bible represents the oldest deed of land ownership known to mankind.

Again this was Ben Gurion who brought up this point before the U.N. and not Chief Rabbi Herzog z'l. In fact all of these things that you are bringing up such as German war reparations, the fact that we could be dissolved by refurendum (although I am not so sure that that is so simplistic) are irregardless of the fact on whether or not our country is a theocracy of any kind. Certainly the U.N. delegates who voted on these issues did not have frum interpretation of halacha or the rabbinate in mind while voting.

Nor do I think that soldiers when they risk there lives on the battlefield do they declare "G-d save the chief rabbi of Israel."

The thing is that I think you are mixing up Torah and nationalism. The law of return is essentially a nationalistic law, not a torah one. It is not that much different to the laws that exist in such countries like Germany, Hungary and China. The rabbinate does not have much of a part in the enforcement or carrying out this law. The jewish Agency and the ministry of the interior do. In fact they do so in spite of the rabbinate. Under the law of return individuals of Jewish patrilineage decent and non Jewish spouses can become citizens here. Thus the seeds of todays problem that Rav Druckman was desperately trying to deal with. This is hardly a torah based law and it is unlikely that much will change without a rabbinate.

You are also forgetting that the most powerful body that can facilitate Jewish identity through education and religious ordinances is not the Rabbinate but the Knesset. In this building the religious parties have a lot of clout.

Even with all of this said, the heart of the matter is that the ends do not justify the means. It is degrading to the torah to have beiti dinim that are not autonymous and are subject to government pressure. This is in spite of the problems that we are now existentially facing because of the 300,000 non Jewish Russian olim.

Also consider this, perhaps half of these people will not consider converting anyways. So why are we prostituting ourselves?

Chabad - With defenders like these...?

yankel's comment to "Chabad - Chasidim - not just Litvaks - are upset":

Rabbi Eidensohn
I respectfully ask that you forcefully repudiate the poster Hirshel Tzigs words against you.On his blog he has called you a 'hater' and other things that had he been a gentile he would have been accused of anti-semitism!

I imagine that you don't take it personally, but a stand has to be taken against this type of practice, accusing anybody who respectfully challenges some Chabad notions.

Most people I know would have a problem with some of the Lubavitcher practices and teachings that you discuss. For example I don't know of any non Lubavitcher who thinks that the Rebbe had the halachik classification of a Novi in the very literal sense of the word (if he did we'd have a major problem, since he said that Moshiach is coming 'ot ot' sixteen years ago! and a real novi who says prophecy on a good tiding ,it has to happen! according to the Ramba'm and if not he is a novi sheker. So, I think Lubavitch is better off saying that the Rebbe was saying it as a prayer to Hashem)Nobody I know is comfortable with the 'atzmus umahus shenislabesh beguf' So although things can be explained raising questions does not make one a hater.

N.B I also happen to know this fellow and he has no right accusing you of these things, especially since you are not hiding behind a cloak of anonymity and he is

========================================
The simple answer is that there are two ways of proving a group has a serious problems. One is to give learned discourses and analyses based on subtle clues. The other is just to let everyone observe their behavior and thought patterns.

While there is obviously a universally recognized valid core to Chabad views - the problem is and has always been what results from them. The same goes for Breslav. Regarding the latter I have heard from a number of Breslavers that their problems stem from the fact that Rebbe Nachman's derech is too demanding for the average person and thus it warps. The strongest opposition to Lubavitcher has historically been from other chasidim who think the teachings of the Tanya are not appropriate for the average Jew - not that they are wrong.

An additional problem occurs in any mass movement with a charismatic leader. A talmid chachom told me yesterday that there is no question that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was a genius in Torah as well as being a genius in understanding people. He said simply that the Rebbe created a strong spiritual excitement with his campaign regarding Moshiach - but then he periodically had to change and strengthen it to keep the momentum going. At some point he lost his perspective. Potential and theoretical understanding's became reality. Thus he went from being a possible or a presumed candidate to Moshaich himself.

It is hard for us peons to understand the pressures that exist on a brilliant and senstive person to loose his perspective when surrounded by thousands of admirers who hang on to your every word.

This is also what happened to Dovid and Shlomo.This is actually Rav Tzadok's explanation of why two high level talmidei chachomim - Yoshka and Shabtsai Tzvi went off the derech. I AM NOT SAYING THE REBBE WENT OFF THE DERECH. But spiritual boldness does carry a danger as we see with the Ramchal who was put in cherem by the gedolei hador of his time.

At this point there is not much intelligent discussion between the various factions. I have hoped that this blog would provide one of the rare venues for communication - even though obviously each side has a hermetically sealed core of beliefs.

The problem you are raising is when petty people want to build up their self esteem by acting as zealots. When these midgets get an ego surge with their self-righteousness. When they get a rush of adrenaline about torching the enemy. I simply feel sorry for Hirshel Tzig and his ilk who are not only not convincing anybody of the justness of their cause but as Rabbi Kahn has put it - they are disgracing the name of their great rebbe and making a laughing stock of his legacy. So perhaps one of the strongest proofs of the dangers of Chabad is to let these "zealots" display their thought processes and midos. They are more an embarrassment and debasement to the legacy of the Baal HaTanya than any criticism I might present. With defenders like these, the opponents don't have to work very hard.

Chabad II - The Rebbe had the status of a prophet?

LazerA's comment to "Chabad - The Rebbe had the status of a prophet?":

Anonymous said...
"The sicha about prophesy... can be viewed at in the 'hisvadius' section.

Thanks! The website isn't the most user friendly but I was finally able to print out the sicha.

"In the Sicha the Rebbe refers to his father-in-law, the previous Rebbe who passed away some 40 years earlier, as prophesising that "Le'alter Le'Geulah" which roughly translates as "directly to redemption".Obviously this not to be taken literally...."

Having reviewed the relevant passages again in the Hebrew version, I'm afraid I have to agree with Rabbi Oliver, that the LLR intended his words in the full halachic sense.

This is indicated, firstly, as Rabbi Oliver points out, by his use of halachic sources and terminology. His language is pretty emphatic. He applies the full halachic status of a prophet to his father-in-law and himself. To quote from the English translation:

"He has to be obeyed immediately "even before he performs a sign." "It is forbidden to disparage or criticize his prophecy saying that it is perhaps not true.""

Secondly, the LLR presumably knew his audience well enough to know that if he made such statements in such strong terms, they would be interpreted in a literal fashion (as Rabbi Oliver has done). The fact that he then did so strongly indicates that that was his intention.

Unfortunately, none of this has changed my original assessment. In my opinion, it is clear that the LLR intended to declare himself a prophet, despite the lack of any valid halachic justification.

Chabad - Rebbe & Chazon Ish & Tanya/Misunderstood

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver's comment to "Chabad - Rav Schach/Disputing attack on him":

"R' Moshe saw the good in every Jew and Jewish path. The Rebbe HATED anyone who was did not learn Tanya. And this we know from what he wrote about the Chazon Ish even when the Rebbe was a relative kid."

Of all the distortions in this post, this one is the most objectionable. Referring to such a great ohev Yisroel as lacking in ahavas Yisroel is the most despicable chutzpah. To set the record straight and show with what ignorance you write, the Rebbe didn't write it, he said it. He said it when he was well into his 50's, not a "relative kid". And the Rebbe simply supported the statement of a Chosid that someone who hadn't learnt Tanya would feel that he missed out when reaching Gan Eden. That's all. Nothing about hate, ch"v, but rather love: revealing to us that even one very learned in halacha will feel that he missed out if he doesn't learn pnimiyus haTorah, and so we shouldn't neglect this study. Along these lines, the Ramak and R' Chaim Vital speak very sharply about those who neglect this study, although they were great Tzadikim and ohavei Yisroel.

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver 's comment to "Chabad - Chasidim - not just Litvaks - are upset":

Also, to show how much anon. assumes about that which s/he is clearly ignorant, the Rebbe refers to Chidushei Rabeinu Chaim in Likutei Sichos vol. 29, p. 392, and vol. 26, p. 69.

Chabad - The Rebbe & Sukkah is misunderstood

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver's comment on to "Chabad - Respects non-Chabad gedolim?":

"He, obviously, was not tolerant of the approach of others."

A total lie. The Rebbe was tolerant of the approach of others, and always encouraged them in their derech, saying nahara, nahara upashtei.

"If you have not yet seen the video of him yelling at Rav Kahana, z"l, about those bnei Torah who could not fathom the Rebbe's dismissal of the chiyuv to sleep in a sukka (or eat shalosh seudas) you would see a level of hostility and wrath for their refusal to accept Chabad minhagim."

What totally twisted nonsense. Actually, the Rebbe had full respect for the custom of other groups to sleep in sukkah, and never ever dismissed it, ch"v. He always said about all other groups' minhogim: "nahara, nahara upashtei." On that occasion the Rebbe was upset at those who sought (and still seek) to DISCREDIT the Rebbeim of Chabad for following the minhag not to sleep in sukkah, as if they are violating Shulchan Aruch ch"v, when they have their halachic reasons for this custom. The Rebbe pointed out then that Litvishe gedolim throughout the generations had peaceful, friendly interactions with the Rebbeim of Chabad, and certainly never spoke against them in this way, and that those who promote this question are simply introducing flames of machlokes for no reason!

Conversion - Rav Druckman/Halachic debate?

Bartley Kulp's comment to "Conversion - Rav Druckman/"They are Jews"":

To Isaac Balbin, Rav Druckman still has to prove himself on this issue as fa as I understand it. While I might agree with you that calling him an aprikoris is just a tad bit out of reality, he himself admitted that he was relying on minority opinions. Something that is rarely done without a damn good reason. The truth is he is not even a halachic authority. Nor is he recognized as such within the dati leumi world. Moreover he is running a conversion policy in a manner that has never been done before so the onus is with him to prove his point. Outside of the reform and conservative movements nobody is nor have they ever advocated conversions for the sake of combating assimilation.

The only reason that he is getting such support from members of the dati leumi camp is that they feel that rabbi Sherman has attacked all of them. They have not responded with any substantial remarks exept for a lot of cliches. I do not beleive for one second that rav Lichtenstein would marry his children to such converts.I mean the ones who were never shomrei mitzvot. My bet is if such converts became more observant 10 years later he would make them reconvert perhaps l'chumra before he would allow his children to marry these people.

I will take this a step further that if it were rav Lichtenstein who was the head of this conversion committee, he would never opt for this route.

Forget about Rav Lichtenstein for a second, let the question be put to other rabbanim in the daati leumi camp. The question being if one converts without subsequently observing the mitzvot like Shabbos etc.. do we treat them Jewishly or not. I would be surprised if anybody would support Rav Druckman without hesitation. It would also be interesting to pole the RCA, Rav Marc Shapiro, Rav Lichtenstein, Rav Azrieli, etc... if they think that even in light of the current demographic situation should we l'chatchila or otherwise set up special beitei dinim in order to combat assimulation. None of them speak about this.

Rav druckman was handpicked by Ariel Sharon who wanted to get the conversion process sped up. His interests had no regard for halacha whatsoever. He also knew that he could not just push rabbanim around. What he did know was that Rav Druckman would be his man to get the job done the way he wanted it to be. Do you get that? Clergy hand picked by the prime minister. This is not Judaism! This is the Church of England where the Arch Bishops are selected by a committee from the prime minister's office called the Crown Nomination Committee. The whole idea of having a chief rabbi is an English Colonial concept. The Church of England is a government run institution. In essence so is the rabbinate. You might ask what about the descending opinions within the rabbinate. This is irrelevant. At the end of the day the supreme court can be brought in to decide any dispute. This is what is happening now with the conversion issue.

This is why I say that it is time to dissolve the rabbinate. There are those who say that the rabbinate and the status quo are essential for maintaining the Jewish character of the state. However in marrying our religious institutions with the state, we are getting state run Judaism. Now if you think that this is an exaggeration, after all it is anybodies choice whether or not they want to rely on rabbinute hechsherim. Obviously the cheif rabbi cannot tell anybody what shitta to rely on regarding shabbos. Consider this, in the state of Israel rabbinute controls who gets married and by where they get buried. Also they define who is a Jew. I cannot think of more critical areas of Jewish life and the government run rabbinate controls these things. Not community leaders. In the end it will be the Israeli supreme court that is going to decide who is a Jew in Israel, not torah leaders. This is the biggest michshel and the ultimate chillul Hashem.

Are we going to go the way of England? In England successive politically correct governments have appointed a whole generation of egalitarian politically correct clergy. Now the Anglican Church has compromised its previous doctrines and is embracing homosexuality as legitimate. In the race for a Jewish state we have inherited state run Judaism. Good luck to us all!

Descendants of Marranos (Anusim) III - A personal story

Nancy's comment to "Descendants of Marranos (Anusim) II - should they ...":

My name is Nancy and I am a Marrano living in Israel. I read with interest the comments and would like to address a comment by one of the bloggers, "How on earth could there still be Marranos/Anusim/Conversos four hundred years....".

As for my own family, we migrated from Mayorca, Canary Islands and some went to Holland. One of my ancestors migrated from Holland to Curacao where the first synagogue was built in the Americas. He was a merchant surnamed Levy and he sold his wares in a port village in Puerto Rico called Cabo Rojo. He moved to Puerto Rico with his wife a Marrano surnamed Quinones de la Torre to a town in the jungle covered mountains called Lares. Lares is so remote, often it cannot even be found on the map. This little village was a refuge for Marrano families for Puerto Rico had a Office of the Inquisition up into the 1850's.

Our families only married other Marrano Jewish families. We never intermarried. Marriages were normally arranged by parents and often we married cousins. I have 8 generations of my Jewish mothers documents. All of our names are on the Inquisition List, which is really just a list of the census of the Church of Spain which names all their Jews. We have always known that we are Jews. My great and grandmothers always touched the door upon entering or leaving and said a prayer. This is not a Catholic practice. My mother escaped baptism. My grandparents never once stepped into a Catholic Church. They never had a cross or religious image in their home. My mother would not allow crosses in our home either. My mother always wore a Star of David. My mother remembers that her mother lit candles and she saw the bottle of wine on the table. My mother always took me with her and another Puerto Rican woman to immerse in the ocean. We really did not know any Halacha whatsoever. All we know is that we cannot mix our blood.

The reason we are called Marrano Jews....which means "pig" Jew, is because we would not eat pig. I carry that title with pride.

I am the one in my family who could not accept being a Jew, even though I was told when I was young, I just couldn't believe it for I knew nothing of the history of the Jews.
I thought I was a "pedigree Spaniard" for that is what my father used to tell me. I have blond hair and blue eyes so I believed him.

I was about as shocked as you are to find for certain that all this is true. As this blogger whom I quoted above showed us his prejudice towards Hispanics and Marranos....I kind of felt the same way! I was born into a prejudice because I was raised to think that I was different than the others...I just didn't know it was because we are Jews!!

Prophet - not a true prophet - but like a true prophet

Concerning the issue of saying someone is a prophet - even though he hasn't been certified as such. There are perhaps two alternative understandings. 1) It was suggested to me that a person can be "like" a prophet. Thus he has certain features in common but is not a halachic prophet. Thus if he tells the future or provides guidance - features found in true prophets. 2) It can be referring to the prophecy of chochma. This understand is expressed in Bava Basra (12a). The Chasam Sofer has the following to say about this gemora.

Chasam Sofer(Orech Chaim 1:208): Bava Basra (12a) even though prophecy was taken from the prophets but not from the sages. However, your understanding of this gemora to be that wisdom was not taken from the sages is incorrect. Rather it is that prophecy was not taken from the sages. In other words, that type of prophecy which is attainable through the wisdom of one who studies Torah for pure motivation merits many things [Avos 6:1] with his intellect and his wisdom even though he doesn’t have the natural ability for it. The gemora wants to prove this from the common fact that a talmid chachom comprehends something on his own which in fact is according to the understanding of Rabbi Akiva. We know that this person’s level is not up to Rabbi Akiva’s heels. This proves that it happened by the prophetic ability we mentioned. Moreover, we also find that he says things which in fact are Halacha L’Moshe m’Sinai. The gemora questions this proof by saying that perhaps this occurs by chance like a blind person groping through a window. However, the gemora concludes that it is not by chance since he gives justifications for his views and thus it is like a prophetic form of wisdom.

Conversion - Rav Druckman/"They are Jews"

Jewish Press of August 6, 2008: RaP forwarded

"Rabbi Druckman: 'They Are Jews'

Much uncertainty remains in the wake of Israel's High Rabbinical Court ruling in May that voided all conversions performed by Rabbi Chaim Druckman since 1999.

Sephardic Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar promises the decision will not stand, while the RCA calls the ruling "entirely beyond the pale of acceptable halachic practice." Dozens of major Israeli religious Zionist rabbis also support Rabbi Druckman.

The case now stands in Israel's Supreme Court.

Rabbi Druckman is the chairman of Bnei Akiva in Israel, rosh yeshiva of Or Etzion, a former Knesset member, and outgoing head of the Conversion Authority.

The Jewish Press recently spoke to Rabbi Druckman about the conversion controversy, the philosophy of Bnei Akiva, and where he thinks Israel is heading.

What is the current status of the converts in question?

They are Jews. Nobody can take their Jewishness away from them. This is the truth. But still, the psak din harms those who converted. There will definitely be different rabbinates that will not register them for weddings.

That's a problem.

Yes. Practically we can help them go to those rabbinates that will register them, but still it's no good.

Are we talking about hundreds of converts? Thousands?

Believe me, I don't know the number. But it doesn't matter because each and every one is a human being, not a number, so it doesn't matter how many there are.

What was the main issue of contention between you and the beit din that opposed you?

I think the difference is that we think we have a responsibility for Am Yisrael. Those immigrants who came from Russia suffered for being Jewish. For about 70 years, the Russians took away from Jews everything which belonged to their being Jewish; they punished Jews and Jews suffered. Non-Jews who married Jews also suffered because the Russians considered them Jewish.

Therefore, when [these Russian non-Jews] come here, I think it's a great mitzvah if they want to become Jewish to do everything to help them become an integral part of Am Yisrael. [...]

Chabad V - Messianic/Everyone is?/Rabbi Yoel Kahn

Shturem.net published a translation of an important interview

In an unprecedented scathing attack in this week's issue of Kfar Chabad magazine against the "shita" (the line of reasoning) of writing on the Rebbe "Shlitah," Rabbi Yoel Kahn, the Rebbe's chozer, said that this is going against the Torah and defames the Rebbe's name. Reb Yoel stresses that he is not dealing with the "people" that have created this "shitah" but is condemning the "shitah" itself.

Reb Yoel: "When the Rebbe assumed leadership Yud Shvat 1951," he stated clearly that the task of our generation is to complete the process of drawing down the Shechina in this world. This is done, the Rebbe said, through the dissemination of Torah, especially "Pnimiyus Hatorah."

"For us chassidim, the real dissemination of Pnimiyus Hatorah is as expounded by the Rabbeim. The Rebbe asks in one of his sichos why did G-d have to tell Abaraham that "I will make your name great?" Abraham was known to have been imbued with the greatest degree of humility how can one even think that he desired greatness?

The Rebbe answers that the meaning of "I will make your name great" was that through his name the Name of G-d Almighty will be sanctified. Everyone will see, even a non Jew, that Abraham's name reflects G-d's Name. In other words, every Jew and non-Jew will see that the Rebbe is an extraordinary elevated person, a true Shepherd of the Jewish People who cared about his people in general and about every individual in particular.

I believe that when one writes "Shlitah" now after the histalkus next to the Rebbe's name not only does he not bring greatness and admiration to the Rebbe but just the opposite, it defames and makes a mockery of the Rebbe's name.

"On Rosh Chodesh Kislev they printed a picture of a man walking in 770 with a caption that this was a picture taken on the 25th of Cheshvan this year as the Rebbe was walking towards his place through the "shvil" (pathway) that was made for him when he would come down to Mincha."

"Making the shvil itself is the biggest joke that could be but they add insult to injury by saying that the man they saw was the Rebbe. The joke is not on this or that chosid but on the Rebbe himself because they say they are making the "shvil" for the Rebbe. They added further disgrace by saying that the man that passed was the Rebbe.

"That wasn't enough either and in their weekly pamhplet "Sichas Hageula" (Woe unto us that this is called "Geula, which only makes a joke of such a great man) they write: "The revelation began on the 25th of Marcheshvan" and they boast that hundreds of thousands of people all over the world were able to view it." That wasn't enough either, they later printed this joke in articles in the pamphlets that they published for Parshat Vayetze and Vayishlach.

"I want to reiterate that I am not speaking about the "person" who wrote the article (it's not my job to speak about a person's intentions what's inside his head) I am talking about the object - the system - the printing of such pictures and articles which could be no greater diversion of the Rebbe.

"Everything the "maskilim" and communists tried to do in order to defame the honor of our Rabbeim is absolutely nothing compared to the defamation caused by the "meshichistin" because of two reasons: 1) the substance of the defamation: it never even occurred to the communists to degrade the Rebbe in such a manner. 2) when this defamation is done by Chabad chassidim the mockery and shame is even greater. Not only is this "shitah" a joke, it is against the Torah and is the complete opposite of what our function and shlichus is.[...]

Kfar Chabad: OK, this shitah goes against common sense but why do you say it goes against Torah?

Reb Yoel: If their eccentric behavior would express itself only in making a "shvil" and things like that it would also be shameful but unfortunately, what they are doing goes against the Torah.

They urge people to do things that are against the "halacha" as a result of their new faith that there was no histalkus. And when they preach not to observe the customs and Halochos pertaining to an histalkus (including the customs that the Rebbe instructed to observe pertaining to Yud Shvat) this borders on going against the Torah.

"Such a shitah can bring to worse things. There are some who are saying that we're living in the period that Moshiach has already arrived. Pretty soon you'll have a "lamdan" proving to you that we're in the period of Tehiyas Hameisim and if someone will ask but we see that that no one has arisen from the dead, they'll answer you: according to the sicha it's definite that they have arisen - you're just imagining that they have not. Just like their saying "shlitah" that he is alive "begashmiyus."

"I know what I am saying are very harsh words but there is no choice once and for all the truth must be stated. Again, I am not talking about the "people" who invented this "shitah" but about the shitah itself 1) it is futile, vanity and folly. 2) It is not related in any way to Lubavitch nor to Torah. Torah is the ultimate truth and not nonesense and fantasies. 3) This shitah leads to the doing away with laws of Torah. [...]

Rav Shach - Dialectics and understanding Gedolim

Shloime just posted a long list of harsh comments by Rav Shach - "to let him speak for himself" So let me present some counter balancing stories. which create a more 3 dimensional understanding. In essence I will take the approach presented by Anonymous [I would really like some more creativity expressed - why does everyone chose the moniker "anonymous"?]. A leader is not the simple sum of a sample of stories told about him.

1) My son learned in Ponevich in Rav Schach's time and related the following story which circulated the Yeshiva when Rav Shach was niftar.

Rav Shach once asked a close friend of his to promise to attend his funeral. When the astonished friend questioned the necessity of such a strange promise, Rav Shach replied, "As a leader I know I have made many enemies over the years. I am afraid that there will not be a minyan at my levaya."

This is intimately connected with another story.

2) When the news of Rav Shach's petira broke, there was a massive movement of hundred's of thousands of Jews to Bnei Brak. The buses leaving Har Nof were packed. While I was standing by the bus stop wondering how to get to Bnei Berak a car pulled up and offered me a ride. I did a double take when I saw who the driver was. An acquaintance who is the most dyed in the wool fanatic religious Zionist I have ever met. As I gratefully settled in my seat, I asked him why he was going to honor a man who was such a strong opponent for everything he stood for. He replied, "I have much reason to be upset with Rav Shach - both in terms of what he said and what he did to us. But there was no question that G-d chose him to be one of the major Torah leaders of our generation. How can I not show kavod to him by going to his levayah."

3) Regarding his attitude to secular learning. As is well know there is a unique institution guided by Rav Zev Leff - Maarava - in which an elite student body learn both Torah secular studies on a very high level. Something which is obviously not done in the chareidi world. It is also well known that Rav Shach periodically denounced the school in very strong terms. As those who know Rav Leff will attest, he is a very loyal member of the chareidi establishment. Before he accepted the position at Maarava, he of course had consulted with Daas Torah i.e., Rav Shach as to whether to accept the job. When he heard Rav Shach's strong denunciations and read the many wall posters attacking the school - he hurried to consult with Rav Shach. Rav Shach replied, "I already told you that you should take the job with the school. Just as it is your obligation to provide guidance for the school it is my obligation to denounce it so that the cream of our yeshivos understand it is not a l'chatchila choice for them. But for those who need such a school it is important that you guide it."

4) The Bostoner Rebbe told me the following when I was trying to find a school in Yerushalayim for my kids that was comparable to Chaim Berlin where they had learned. He said, "It is obvious that Americans need a different type of education than Israelis and it is obvious that many American's don't make aliyah or go back to America because their kids don't fit it the Israeli yeshiva system. I once went to Rav Shach to explain to him the need for a different yeshiva for Americans. When I presented my views he told me, 'If you American's don't like the way we run things here go back to America.' "

At the time I thought it was incredibly insensitive. However as I have gotten older, I realize that not every problem is to be approached with American rachamim - sometimes Israeli din is needed also. American's fail because they are overly sensitive about somebody saying boo at them or saying, " I don't like you." If they want to live and thrive in Israel they need to be as tough as the natives.

5) This was once expressed to me very bluntly by Rabbi Eliyahu Essas - one of the heroes of the Russian refusenik era. I mentioned to him that I had a set of mishnayos translated into Russian -my grandmother got it as an engagement present. I told him perhaps he would be interested in reprinting it to aid the Russian baalei teshuva. He replied with an irritated tone. You Americans are always looking for the easy way to do things. Russians know that the only way to be a scholar is to master Hebrew and learn the original. American's rely too much on crutches and don't learn to walk on their own."

6) One final story. Rabbi Steinzaltz is one of the modern heroes of the Jewish people. But he has no mesora i.e., he never was part of a yeshiva. [The Chofetz Chaim had a similar criticism of the Meshech Chochma]. There are many Russian Jews whose tie to Yiddishkeit was almost entirely through the Steinzaltz gemora. There are many baalei teshuva who first learned gemora with the Steinzaltz. Over time his influence and accomplishments increased mightily. He was even described as the "Rashi of Our Era" by Time magazine. Nobody criticised him until he acquired superstar status. It was when people starting describe him a gadol - as someone to guide and make the meta decision for the Jewish people that he was attacked. [Similar to R' Slifkin] He produced a book describing how our Biblical ancestors were human beings with psychological issues and typical petty motivation. It was then that Rav Shach attacked.

Hopefully this answers Shloime's question - if not - perhaps it will be enlightening to another reader of this blog.

Devarim II - Moshe said it on his own

This is the beginning of the presentation of sources regarding who wrote Devarim. The most important text is the following gemora in Megilla which makes a halachic distinction between Devarim and Vayikra. The Malbim cited offers a solution as to how the whole Torah is Divine i Moshe wrote part of it.

Megila(31b): On fast days the portion of blessings and curses is read and there must not be any break in the reading of the curses. What is source of this rule? R’ Chiya ben Gamda said in the name of R’ Assi said that it is because it says “My son, don’t despise G‑d’s chastisement” – so don’t act as if you don’t want to continue with the reading. Reish Lakish said it is because the beracha on the Torah should not be said on misfortune. So what is the Torah reader to do? A Tanna taught that when the reader starts he should begin the reading with a verse before the curses and when he finishes he should end with a verse after the curses. Abaye said that this rule of not interrupting the reading of the curses only applies to the curses found in Vayikra. However it is permitted to interrupt the reading of the curses found in Devarim. What is the reason for this distinction? Concerning the curses in Vayikra, the Jewish people are addressed in the plural form and Moshe said them at G‑d’s command. In contrast the curses said in Devarim are expressed in the singular form and Moshe said them on his own initiative. Levi bar Buti was once reading the curses in Devarim in a hesitating manner in the presence of R’ Huna. Rav Huna said to him that he could interrupt if he wanted. He explained that the prohibition of interrupting the reading only applied to the curses in Vayikra while it is permitted to interrupt for the curses in Devarim.

Malbim(Devarim 1:3): And it was in the fortieth year – In other words these are matters which Moshe spoke on his own initiative on various occasions in the manner of a preacher who gives chastisement. However he did not have permission to write these words in a sefer and even if he had written them in a sefer they would not have had the sanctity of a Torah scroll. Rather they would be simply considered a collection of his sermons that he said based on his human understanding or as words spoke by a man with ruach hakodesh. However after 40 years G‑d commanded that they be said again to the Jewish people as specific command from G‑d. That is why the verse say, G‑d commanded Moshe to speak to the Jewish people saying.” Similarly G‑d commanded him to writes these words in a sefer at the command of G‑d. Furthermore G‑d said that they should be said and written in a different order than they were originally said in the 11 places but rather in the order that G‑d commanded…. Thus all of Moshe’s words were written by G‑d’s command and he didn’t write them on his own initiative even the point of the smallest letter. Consequently since all the words in Devarim were written at G‑d’s command they have the same halachic status as the rest of the Torah which was written from G‑d’s mouth…