A tzadik is born because of a clothes line - and other false stories

[See updates below] [ See Couple has baby after 25 years]
Where does Jewish hashkofa come from? It is interesting to note that the Chovas HaLevavos says that the Sanhedrin did not deal with hashkofa questions because they can be known through seichel. In fact many hashkofa principles are learned from the proper study of medrashism and agada. However perhaps the most influential source of hashkofa are not seforim written by gedolim but rather stories about gedolim. Unfortunately as the Satmar Rebbe and others have pointed out - there is a problem of stories about gedolim actually being made up to teach hashkofa. The consequences of this is that not only did the events not happen as reported - but often the hashkofa being taught is distorted or is incorrect. But who can argue with frum "reality?"

I recently observed a heated debate between a couple regarding the necessity of being m'vatar ( of not pressing ones legitimate complaints but instead responding passively). The wife (ironically) insisted that it was obvious that one should not be aggressive in demanding one's rights from the following often told story - whose truth has been attested by many. She said triumphantly said, "It is clear from this story that the highest level of response is to be m'vatar. One should not strongly protest and defend one's rights - but simply grin and bear it - and G-d will reward you. If it hadn't been for this attitude of being m'vatar then not only would this woman not have a child - but the Jewish people would have been deprived of the tremendous zechus of having the gadol hador - Rav Eliashiv!"

This story is discussed in great detail in the biography of Rav Eliashiv and the author proves the story is inaccurate in describing the facts of Rav Eliashiv's life - who was not born in Jerusalem. [deletion]. Nonetheless it still is being taught in Beis Yaakovs and repeated by preachers of all types to prove a point. [see Yated editorial for a more detailed version]

Torah.org There's a well-known story of a Yerushalmi woman who'd spent hours washing sheets, stringing up lines, and hanging out her family's wash. A short time later, her upstairs neighbor came home and was annoyed at the lines that had been temporarily strung. Angrily, she cut them down, and the clean laundry fell onto the muddy ground. When the first woman later went to take in her wash, she was dismayed to discover a disaster -- all the clothes were dirty and would have to be rewashed. It was obvious to her exactly what had happened.

However, she said nothing; she took the muddy sheets back into her house and began the whole laborious washing process once again.

When her husband returned home, she made no mention of the afternoon's aggravation. But late that night, there was a frantic knocking at their door. There stood the upstairs neighbor, in tears. Her child had a sudden high fever, and she was asking forgiveness for the laundry incident. The husband, who had answered the door, was surprised to hear about the event. His wife immediately and wholeheartedly forgave the woman and wished her child a full and speedy recovery.

About a year later, this righteous woman gave birth to a special son -- Rabby Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, who today is the leading rabbi in Jerusalem.

 =====================================

Update September 9, 2013: First of I agree with some of the comments that the problem with the story is not its historical inaccuracy. 1) It must have happened in Lithuania and not Jerusalem. 2) The claim that his mother was childless for 17 years is problematic because that means that his father got married when he was 13 years. 3) Some versions say that as a result of this incident her great kabbalist father – the Leshem – gave her a beracha. But it only worked because of she restrained her upset. Other versions don't mention any beracha.

Of greater concern is that fact that Rav Eliashiv didn't seem interested in talking about the obvious greatness of his mother expressed in the story – but he just noted that the story wrongly claimed that he was born in Jerusalem! [Contrary what I had originally posted – he didn't claim the story was false.]

However there is something else that bothers me greatly about this story - something which has touched upon in some other comments. My concern is the great weight to miraculous events - or even positive events -  that are brought as proofs that a certain hashkofa or halacha is correct because of some observed differential consequences. 

It is clear that the story is told to prove the desirability of not responding when someone provokes. The "proof" for this assertion is that a woman whose wash was ruined but she didn't react or even comment – was rewarded with a child after 17 years. Not just any child but the gadol hador!

But does it in fact prove such a view? Obviously not. There are many factors that have been responsible for providing the merit of having a child. We simply aren't prophets.  

But doesn't it at least clarify what the ideal response is? The answer again is no!

The Yated's version: With much emotion, she related the story. She explained that the cruel actions of her neighbor had been too much for her to handle in her already fragile state and she couldn’t calm down. But rather than react with angry words to her neighbor, she went inside her home to express her pain in private. She told him how she then went and redid the laundry, without making a machlokes or telling anyone. “The fact that you didn’t respond to her and prevented this from becoming a fight,” said the father, “will be the merit you need to be helped. Your great deed will grant you a child who will be great.”

In fact if a person is hurt or suffers material loss because of the intentional acts of another – it is important to give tochacha. A Torah command. Such incorrect behavior needs to corrected – in a responsible manner. Repressing anger and hurt causes a transgression of "hatred in your heart" which we are told is worse than if we had hit the aggressor. Being m'vatair obviously has its place – especially when there is no constructive response possible e.g., if it causes greater aggression and anger. But acting as if nothing has happened is often not the appropriate response. If we accept  the "lesson" of the story then parent's whose child has been abused should just accept it and go on with life. This story incorrectly teaches that turning the other cheek is the ideal. [see Yoma 23a and Rambam in the comments section]

Another example of this "evidence" based Judaism would be a person who claims that her son's cancer went into remission because she stopped wearing a sheitel. Or a husband's bipolar disorder improved because his wife became a Taliban lady. 

Bottom line is we don't posken based on "simonim" as implied in Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 179). This is explicitly stated in Bava Metzia (59b) which rejects the validity of proofs from the miracles that R' Eliezer brought to prove that the halacha was according to his view.

Update Sept 10, 2013 There is a flip side to this approach "evidence" based approach concerning negative experiences. I remember one morning going to a auto parts store in Far Rockaway and hearing the owner lament the fact that he had just become frum that week. "I was never robbed before I became religious."

A more direct statement of my concern for "evidence" based Judaism is a story I heard regarding Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky from his son-in-law - Rabbi Diskind.

1948 was believed to be a special time for Mosiach coming according to Kabbalistic sources. In Toronto there was a campaign of certain chassidim to get as many Jews to be Shomer Shabbos before Moshiach came. Rav Yaakov was consulted regarding a storekeeper who found the promises very tantalizing and was about to become Shomer Shabbos because of the chance that they might be true. Rav Yaakov's response was that they should stop pressuring the storekeeper to become observant. "Right now he is not observant but at least he is not an apikorus. When the year passes and Moshiach doesn't come he will not only stop being observant but will deliberately reject belief in Moshiach."