Tuesday, August 22, 2023

Shmuel in his generation is like Yiftach in his generation

audio link


I am going to discuss who Yiftach was - as understood by Chazal  -and why this provides us with a lesson in how to properly understand rabbinic leadership through history. In particular I would like to discuss how this helps us to understand how it is possible that R Shmuel Kaminetsky - despite being a gadol - has made some very serious mistakes in seeking to obtain an improper heter for a married woman to remarry without a Get. This has resulted in a couple presently committing adultery - and he is making no effort to correct this or the injustice he committed against Aharon Friedman her first husband.

It is typically understood that the message of Yiftach b'doro k'Shmuel b'doro (Rosh Hashanna 25b) is that even though Yiftach was not as great as Shmuel he still was the leader of the generation, a great talmid chachom and tzadik and a member of the Sanhedrin. It is believed that the leaders of every generation have ruach hakodesh and their views are Daas Torah and needed to be followed (Divrei Chaim, Mishneh Halachos). In short, it is understood to mean that the gedolim in each generation are great men - even though they might not be as great as previous generations - but what they say and do reflects G-d's will and they are basically infallible. 

All of the above is founded on an mistaken understanding of who Yiftach was - and consequently the comparison to Shmuel is incorrect. He is presented in various seforim (Machzor Vitri) as a major talmid chachom, leader of the Sanhedrin, a tzadik and pious man. Unfortunately that view is contrary to the view of Chazal (Taanis 4a) and is found primarily in some of the Rishonim. In fact what  Chazal say the expression of Yiftach b'doro means is that one is to treat the major rabbinic figures with kavod (Rashi Devarim 19:17) - even they are not as great as previous generations - and even though they are not great scholars. 

As a starting point, I want to present an important statement by Rav Dessler which explains why there are disparities between the explicit statement of Chazal and explanations of the same issue by Rishonim.
Michtav M'Eliahyu (4:355). It is important however to distinguish between those explanations which are basically interpretations of the verses and those of Chazal which are the actual meaning of the verses. Given this clear distinction it is puzzling why many Rishonim strive to follow a different understanding than the true explanation given by our Sages? We find such tendencies in the commentary of the Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and other Rishonim. What is the purpose of offering explanations which differ from the definitive true ones? I think the answer is that they offer these alternative explanations for the sake of confused people (i.e., they are apologetics). In other words these Rishonim want to show that there are many different aspects even in the simple understanding of the verses and that it is permissible for a person to create new interpretations according to what makes sense to him. (Of course, any alternative explanations which contradict foundation principles of faith are prohibited)... Such an approach is similar to that of the Rambam who wrote so much for the confused. We see this from the fact that many difficulties that exist in what he wrote could have been explained in a much clearer fashion. However, since he was addressing confused people he provided alternative explanations which they could accept - as long as it didn't contradict the Halacha).
In sum, Chazal's statements are true. Contrary statements are not the full truth but are the best that some readers will be able to accept. The Rishonim felt it was better to give a partially true or relatively true statement that would be believed - than to make statements that would be rejected. A similar statement is found in the Rambam about saying less than the full truth in order to maximize the understanding of ignorant people.
Moreh Nevuchim (Introduction). The seventh reason why an author seems to contradict himself occurs when discussing very deep and profound issues. It is necessary to conceal some aspects of the information and to reveal some. In order to accomplish this concealment it might be necessary in one place to utilize one set of principles and in another context it might be necessary to utilize a different set of fundamental principles - though the principles contradict each other. Obviously, the author should write in such a way that the ignorant masses are totally unaware of the internal contradiction. . 
Our Sages are conveying an important message about our relationship with religious and community leaders in their discussions about the major events in the life of Yiftach - who is one of the Judges. Starting from the beginning, his mother was a prostitute. As a result he was unjustly driven away by his father's other sons to prevent him from having his rightful part of the inheritance from his father. He organized a gang of bums - which Chazal teach us mean that birds of a feather flock to together - and lived the life of one rejected by society. That continued until the Jewish nation was threatened by an outside enemy and it was realized that only the military prowess of the bum Yiftach would save them from being conquered. He was offered the position of leadership of the Nation as an enticement to defend the Nation and he was successful and ruled for 6 years. Amongst his other accomplishments he killed 42,000 of his fellow Jews and sacrificed his daughter as a korbon olah. It is the latter which is out concern.

Yiftach took an oath that if he was successful in battle he would offer as a sacrifice whatever came out first to greet him when he return home. His daughter was the first to greet him. It is absolutely clear with no dissent - that one can not offer a human being as a sacrifice and that his oath was totally worthless. There is a discussion in Bereishis Rabbah (60) as to whether he needed to give the monetary equivalent of the sacrifice. But no one holds that the oath obligated him or even gave him the right to kill his daughter.

So why did he do it? Our Sages say it was because he was ignorant (Medrash Tanchuma, Taanis 4a). In fact Rashi (Taanis 4a) mentions that he became dismembered and the parts buried in different cities -  as punishment for the horrific and ignorant thing that he did.

More important is the question why no one stopped him. Our Sages mentioned that Yiftach should have gone to Pinchus and be told that there was no basis for the oath. But he didn't go because after all he was the leader of the Jewish people. For this prideful act he was punished. (In fact Seder Olam brings that this horrible error required that R Chanina ben Tradyon be burnt to death as atonement). More relevant is the question of why Pinchus (the great man who was a zealot concerned with stopping wrong - even killing wrong doers even though he was endangering his life). Some say that Pinchus is Eliyahu - and he is the foundation of the Mesora since he lived for many years. Given the character of Pinchus - why didn't he stop Yiftach? Again it seems to have been a the result of misplaced pride. He was after all the greatest talmid chachom and the baal mesorah - and therefore Yiftach needed to come to him for guidance. Our Sages say that Pinchus was punished by losing the Divine Spirit. G-d was severely displeased with him.

Thus the meaning of Yiftach in his generation is like Shmuel in his generation is that the leader of our community is not necessarily a great man - nonetheless he is to be respected because of his office. But we also see that not only can inferior leaders such as Yiftach make great errors -but also great leaders such as Pinchas also can err - for such mundane reasons as pride in being a leader.

In summary, We learn from Yiftach and his comparison to Shmuel that while a person who has an exalted position must be respected for that position - he is not infallible and that he can make serious mistakes. A leader such as Yiftach needs to be criticized when he does some wrong - such as sacrificing his daughter in the name of piety. As Daas Sofrim notes, he was an ignoramous who became pious - and we know from Avos that an ignoramous can not be truly pious. But we also see from Tanach that Pinchus also made an incredible error due to his pride of being a great leader. Pinchus also needed to be criticized by those inferior to him. Because no one spoke up Yiftach's daughter suffered a horrible death. 

We as as members of the holy Jewish people have to always remember that all Jews are bound into a collective entity. All Jews are responsible for what all other Jews do. We can not use the excuse that the wrong doer is a great man - a gadol - and who are we to criticize him when he makes a serious mistake. If we don't speak up, we will all suffer - chas v'shalom - from the sins done by our leaders.

Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky is responsible for getting Rav Greenblatt to give Tamar Esptein a worthless heter to remarrry without a Get. Rav Kaminetsky refuses to accept responsibility for his actions and insists that it is entirely Rav Greenblatt's responsibility to undo this pervision of Torah and halacha. He refuses to tell the adulterous couple to separate. He refuses to apologize for insulting and shaming Aharon Friedman in his misguided efforts to help Tamar Epstein. 

Consequently it is our responsibility as members of the Jewish people to correct the damage. We can not use the excuse that this issue is only for gedolim. We can not use the inaction and silence of our leaders to allow injustice and corruption. We need to learn from what happened with Yiftach and Pinchus - that one who does not act to correct wrong - causes suffering to others and will he/she will suffer as punishment..

81 comments:

  1. Rav Dessler's explanation seems itself to be an apologetic one - it is well known and explicit in many sources in Rishonim and Acharonim that it is permissible for commentators to argue with Chazal in non-Halachic matters, such as explanations of Pesukim. The Rishon espousing a certain view presumably understood it to be correct.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My only quibble is as to why you are referring to Yiftach as a "major rabbinic figure." From reading the Navi, it seems that he was more of a military and political leader than a rabbinic figure. The more apt contemporary comparison would be the Israeli Prime Minister, not R' Shmuel Kamenetzky.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Again - permission to presesent alternatives to Chazal does mean that they are true. That is the lanaguage "here is an explanation but Chazal said something else" Why mention that they are disagreeing with Chazal.

    The statement of the Radak is perhaps critical "If they had a Mesora then we have to accept it" Why? And Why assume that Chazal say things for which they don't have a Mesorah?

    ReplyDelete
  4. this is an extension of the discussion I am having with Harry who is claiming what you are saying shouldn't be claimed. Will add more material that addresses your issue.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Very strange. Obviously if there is a tradition going back then it is presumably accurate - just as we rely on tradition regarding Tefillin being black for example - but if there is no clear tradition then of course we can assume that Chazal are saying their own Chidushim - after all, they did have Chidushim, they were not mere parrots! - and there was a Shita in the Mefarshim that these Chidushim can be argued upon, precisely because there is no Mesora and thus no guarantee of truth. That is why we find Rishonim ubiquitously presenting different Peshatim than Chazal when it comes to Peirushei Pesukim but much less when it comes to Halacha.

    This is a very widespread view, strange that you don't seem to know it, and think that everyone was just "writing to the confused" or "arguing though they knew they were wrong".

    ReplyDelete
  6. please present sources other than the fact that you find it strange - which doesn't carry much weight. It is clear from Tanach that he was an am haaretz. Chazal say he was an am haaretz, Rishonim such as Rabbeinu Bachye say he was an am haaretz. There obviously is no mesora say he was a talmid chachom

    Bottom line: It is clear from the sources that Yiftach was an am haaretz. Those who want to make up explanations to defend his behavior (apologetics) have the burden of proof other than the circular one - Since he was a gadol hador he obviously didn't do something so stupid and so therefore since he didn't do something stupid he was a great Torah scholar. There is absolutely no evidence that he was a great Talmid chachom or even a mediocre one.

    ReplyDelete
  7. “In fact all Chazal say the expression of Yiftach b'doro means is that one to treat the major rabbinic figures with kavod (Rashi Devarim 19:17) - even they are not as great as previous generations - and even though they are not great scholars.”
    Here’s further proof, Hertz Chumash on “And the Lord sent Jerubbaal [Gideon] and Bedan [Samson] and Jephthah and Samuel, and delivered you from the enemies around you; and you dwelt in security” (1 Samuel 12:11).
    “The mention of Jephthah’s name alongside of Samuel’s gave rise to the Rabbinic saying that even the meanest person invested with the authority must be treated with the respect that would be accorded the worthiest occupant of that office: יפתח בדורו כשמואל בדורו Jephthah in his generation is like Samuel in his generation.”
    I love how Jephthah tried diplomacy before going to war: “Jephthah then sent messengers to the king of the Ammonites, saying, “What have you against me that you have come to make war on my country?” “(Judges 11:12).
    This is important for today in our world fight against anti-Semites. Hertz Chumash says: “Jephthah proves that the Israelites in the wilderness made a wide detour to avoid the territory of the kinsmen of the Ammonite, the Moabites, who were then in occupation of th eland in disrepute. When the Israelites took the land, it belonged neither to Moab nor Ammon but to their Amorite conquerors; see Num. xx-xxi.”
    Jephthah felt that he must keep his vow. He probably made a house for his daughter and kept her separated from mankind. The rabbis blame Jephthah and the High Priest. Hertz:
    The Rabbis severely blame Jephthah for not having his entirely invalid vow annulled (see Additional Note on Num. xxx). Phinehas the High Priest ---who the rabbis assume was still living at the time---could have absolved him from his criminal vow; and but for the rivalry between them would have done so. Phineas said: I, the High Priest, should go to that ignoramus! Let him come t o me. And Jephthah said, I, the Prince of the land, should humiliate myself before one of my subjects! Both were overtaken by punishment. Jephthah dies a horrible death. And as, for Phinehas, the Holy Spirit departed from him. The condemnation of Jephthah’s vow by the rabbis has been re-echoed in many tongues and many lands. A thousand years later, Dante wrote…”
    I say, today, blame goes to Greenblatt-Kamenitsky for their actions in approving Tamar to marry her boyfriend and also to supporters and admirers of Greenblatt-Kamenitsky for their inaction. I quote Hertz Chumas on “If a person incurs guilt— When he has heard a public imprecation and—although able to testify as one who has either seen or learned of the matter—he does not give information, so that he is subject to punishment; (Leviticus 5:1) The Hertz Chumash explains “imprecation”: adjuration. Addressed to a person in possession of evidence to come forward and offer testimony. This adjuration was known as אלה, 'curse,' probably because it was accompanied by the pronouncement of a curse upon the person should he maintain silence. Having interfered with the execution of justice, he required expiation through a sin-offering.”

    ReplyDelete
  8. If the bottom line of this post is while rabbinic leaders deserve respect, we all understand that they can (and do) make mistakes (if in halacha than certainly in non-halachic or meta-halachic or psuedo-halachic issues, I'll sign.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The gemara in Taanis doesn't say that Yoiftoch wasn't a talmid chacham. It mere states that he was mistaken about a particular issue. The Rambam says that it is a lav to appont a dayan (shoifet) who is not a great talmod chacham. He continues to say that one who got in through money does not earn respect and we may be mezalzel in him. In this case he got in because he damanded it in return for his services. If was wasn't otherwise worthy than 1 - it was a lav to appoint him (maybe the heter was pikuach nefesh but then we shouldn't be using him as the example of ain lecha ella ahoifet shebeyomecha), 2- he didn't deserve honor, but the gemara says he did deserve honor.

    So although he erred in a particular issue, he was still a shoufet and as I brought from early reliable sources he was the mamashich of kol haTorah kula.

    It's impossible to understand that Chazal would be requiring us to obay in Torah rulings someone who doesn't possess Torah

    Today's 'gedolim' (most, and especially the ones of our discussion here), on the other hand
    1- have not been appointed
    2- dont know very much of the Torah, certainly not kol haTorah kula

    So there's no comparison and the expression Yiftoch bedoro should not be cited

    ReplyDelete
  10. Because the Geonim say so:

    R. Shmuel b. Hofni Gaon:
    Aggada is any interpretation brought in the Talmud that does not explain a commandment. This is Aggada, and one should only rely on it within reason. You should know that all laws that the rabbis [of the Talmud] enacted on the basis of a commandment come directly from Moshe our Teacher, may he rest in peace, who received them from the Almighty. One may neither add nor detract from them. But when [the rabbis] interpreted [non-legal] verses, they were expressing their own opinions and what happened to occur to them. We rely on these interpretations only when they are reasonable.

    R' Sherira Gaon:
    All Midrash and Aggada which we derive from verses are mere approximations… They represent the opinions of individuals. But for us, “a man is praised according to his reason” (Mishlei 18:12). So, too, the Aggada transmitted by the (students of) students, like R. Tanchuma and R. Oshiah and others, are mostly not reasonable, so we do not rely on words of Aggada.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The gemara in taanis says that Yiftach made an inappopritae statement (it's actually a pasuk). How does that in any way show that the traditional understanding of Yiftach is incorrect?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes the Gaonim said such things - but that is not how we talk about the words of Chazal today

    Shmuel HaNagid (Introduction to the Talmud): Agada are all the statements in the gemora that are not concerned with Mitzvos. You should only learn from them what makes sense. Those statements of Halacha which Chazal indicate are from Moshe Rabbeinu which he received from G d cannot be modified, however Chazal’s explanations of verses were done according to whatever each one thought was correct. Therefore, whatever makes sense of these explanations you should study and the rest do not rely on.

    . Rav Dessler (4:355) that I cited was talking about that exact issue. The rest of the quote is

    Michtav M’Eliyahu (4:355): R’ Shmuel HaNagid in his Introduction to the Talmud is to be understood in the following manner. Those words of Agada which we don’t understand - we are not obligated to learn them and to base our service of G d upon - even though we know that all agada are foundation principles of the Torah. In contrast, Halacha which is involved with deed, is obligatory even if we don’t understand it. The purpose of Agada is inspiration and therefore when it doesn’t inspire us because of our limited ability to understand we have no obligation to study that which doesn’t inspire. When we reach the level that that we can understand it then it becomes obligatory. Furthermore, Agada has deep secrets of the Torah. As long as we are not on the spiritual level that these secrets should be revealed in a particular Agada, there is no reason to study it since we would be misunderstanding its true meaning. This is actually what R’ Shmuel HaNagid meant when he said if the Agada doesn’t make sense to use we shouldn’t learn it or rely on it. You will notice that he didn’t say that those Agada that we understand are true and the rest are fantasies - G d forbid! However, it is as we explained that there is no benefit in learning profound material that we don’t comprehend. This is also the correct way of understanding commentaries such as Rashi and the Radak when they say a medrash is far from the simple meaning of the verse or doesn’t fit the verse. They are saying the medrash can’t be used until it is comprehended and clarified


    Additionally as the Redak points out - if Chazal had a mesora on this then we certainly can't argue. It is generally presumed today that they did have a mesorah on what they said.


    Finally there is a distinction made between medrash and that which is found in the Talmud

    Ramban (Dispute): We have three types of books. The first is the Bible and everyone believes in it with perfect faith. The second is called Talmud and it is a commentary on the mitzvos of the Torah. The Bible has 613 commandments and there is not one which is not explained in the Talmud. We believe in it concerning the explanations of the mitzvos. There is a third type of book which is called medrash i.e., sermons. It is comparable to a preacher getting up and giving a sermon and some listening liked it and recorded it. Concerning medrash - it is fine if one wishes to believe them. However there is no loss if one doesn’t want to believe them.

    Chasam Sofer (O. H. 1:16): The Ramban has stated in his debate with the apostate that the obligation to believe agada and medrashim only applies to those found in the Babylonian and Yerushalmi Talmud. The validity of other medrashim can be accepted or rejected.


    According to the view of the Ramban and Chasam Sofer - since the view that Yiftach was an am haaretz is in the Talmud (Taanis 4a) - we need to accept it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. NO. The mistake described in Taanis is so great that he could not have been a talmid chachom. That is obvious and that is what Rav Malinowitz said to me. Yiftach was a political and military leader - not a rabbinic leader. In those days he was called a shofet. There is no indication that he was other than an am haaretz as the Tanchuma and Rabbeinu Bachye, and Daas Sofrim note. There is not indication that he was part of the Sanhedrin or pasken any halachic issues. So your pilpul about a judge is irrelevant.

    The source you brought Machzor Vitri did not say Yiftach - those words were added later. Rambam does not have him listed in his chain of mesorah. It is clear that Pinchas was the halachic authority since he was punished for not correcting Yiftach. Why should he be punished if Yiftach was capable of understanding the elementary halacha that a person is not offered as a korbon period.

    There is no place that says Yiftach had any halachic authority so there is no problem in not obeying that which he didn't say.

    Consequently your conclusion is wrong and irrelevant

    ReplyDelete
  14. what traditional understanding? The one that is obvious from Tanach where he is described as the son of a prostitute who gathered to him a gang of bums and then killed his daughter because he didn't understand elementary halacha? A view which is accepted by Chazal in Taanis 4a ,Tanchuma, Rambam, Ramban and Rabbeinu Bachye. Or are you claiming the apologetic version that claims he was a gadol in Torah - that has absolutely no source to rely on - is the tradional one? We also have gadolim today - whose greatness is in their titles that they inherited from their fathers - not in their Torah knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Those words were muga in the sense that the order was changed but it was always there.

    ReplyDelete
  16. All I said was that the gemara in taanis makes one statement about yiftach's infamous neder. It says nothing about him not understanding elementary halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I said that it is obvious that only an am haaretz would keep such a neder and he is described as an am haaetz by other sources based on this gemora

    ReplyDelete
  18. Again it is not authoritative since there is nothing to justify such a description other than a wish to remove the embarrassment of having such a leader. You are conveniently ignoring the fact that the clear weight of evidence is on my side not yours.

    ReplyDelete
  19. A) you didn't say that. B) he obviosuly made a horrendous mistake but other leaders made worse mistakes (shaul, for example) and you wouldn't call any of them an am haaretz. You are taking your own view (which may very well be accuarte) and twisting the gemara to back it up.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The Gemara is very well known, and everybody who says the Haftorah parshas chukas knows the beginning of the story and everybody who looks it up knows the end of the story. This story isn't a farvofener chazal that only you and Rabbi Malinowitz discovered.

    This is the Sifri taht the Gemara in Rosh Hashana brings:
    אשר יהי' בימים ההם אמר ר' יוסי הגלילי וכי תעלה על דעתך שאדם הולך אל שופט שלא נמצא בימיו אלא מה ת"ל אל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם שופט שהוא כשר ומוחזק באותן הימים היה קרוב כן הוא אומר (קהלת ) אל תאמ' מה היו שהימים הראשונים היו טובים מאלה כי לא מחכמה שאלת את זה ודרשת והגידו לך את דבר המשפט כו
    you see from hefre and more so if you look inside the psukim and the sifri that this is spoken in the context of a Torah authority. This is brought in the Gemara in connection to what thre Gemara says there Yiftoch bedodro etc. Also Rashi brings this Yiftoch bedoro etc in devarim 19, 17, which is clearly referring to a Torah Shofet.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The evidence is your understanding that if he did that he must have been an am haoretz, so the fact that these sources show otherwise is no probleb because we go streight to chazal and we can argue with rishonim about how to understand things. There is no evidence on your side at all. Only you think that you can judge things better than the rishonim. That's not eveidence.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I quite had enough of this. There is nothing i will say or no source I will bring that will make you rethink your position so why am I bothering.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This obviously wrong heter has no resemblance to Yiftach bedoro. In the Fiasco Saga of RNG vs' the K's, both admitted that they were off target, by placing the blame on the other for not disclosing vital information, and on each other for endorsing the psak on Phantom non-facts, and/or giving a conditional psak on information and belief that it's true. After a wave of protests from Geoinei UPoskei haDor for being matir eishes ish lashuk, K' jr. went to Gava'ad R' Weiss asking for a Timeout so to have R' Dovid be a sholish veyachria beinehem and accept whatever he might rule as being the final word, putting their own Heter aside. When R' Dovid finally ruled that the Heter is Worthless, as far as the K's, RNG and their cohorts never acknowledged to publicly accept R' Dovid's ruling and retreat, nor telling the eloped couple depart. They all just went on as if business as usual.

    If after admitting by themselves that they were in the wrong, and after refusing to uphold their word given to the Ga'avad and after refusing to abide by R' Dovid's ruling, you have no more a Yiftach nor a pesach Heter left to rely on, how then do you go compare to Shmuel uBeis Dino. What you do have is, a Worthless Heter, with a few ziknei mamre supporting it, caught holding the bag with a pack of lies on top of more lies. It is much rather comparing apples to oranges shelo bo laolam. Who Yiftach, what Yiftach? No Heter, no nothing. Im ken, lama ze onoichi, and putting up a face as if they are holding on their own?

    ReplyDelete
  24. This if from the medrash Tancuma:
    הלכה אצלם ולא מצאו פתח ליפתח ולהתיר לו את נדרו
    That the sanhedrin didn't see a way out of his neder, so you would have to say that all the sanhedrin in that generation were amay haoretz.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This if from the medrash Tancuma:
    הלכה אצלם ולא מצאו פתח ליפתח ולהתיר לו את נדרו
    That the Sanhedrin didn't see a way out of his neder, so you would have to say that all the Sanhedrin in that generation were amay haoretz.

    ReplyDelete
  26. if he was a shofet, then he judged people within his own limitations. hence yiftach .. ke shmuel.

    (my feeble attempt at a comparison) if rabbi kamintestky does not know who to write the name of a get and is a top talmid chacham, then yiftach never learn hilchos nedarim, but still managed smichah

    ReplyDelete
  27. argue with some rishonim - other rishonim agree with what I am saying. Of course there is evidence on my side - Your evidence is primarily that yiftach names was included in the list of mesorah by the Machzor Vitri - you are simply ignorning the preponderance of evidence against your position.

    ReplyDelete
  28. you are conveniently forgetting the evidence that disagrees with your position

    ReplyDelete
  29. the ramban disgarees with chazal that the jews were 210 years in mitzrayim, even though that is in the gemarah

    http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/olam_hatanah/mefaresh.asp?book=2&perek=12&mefaresh=ramban

    http://torahandscience.blogspot.co.uk/2006/04/ramban.html

    And if so, the word thazria [in ishah ki thazria] will be like u'cheganah zeiru'eha thatzmiach (as the garden causeth the seeds that are sown in it to spring forth (Isaiah 61:11)). And so did Onkelos render it: "If a woman conceives." [translation of Rabbi C. Chavel, Ramban, Nachmanides, Commentary on the Torah, Vol. 3, Brooklyn: Shilo, 1974

    ReplyDelete
  30. The bigger problem is they don't want to correct their mistakes. (We'll leave out apologies and public steps.)

    And in cases that they took on and knew (or should have known) they might have to retract, they took upon themselves such a responsibility.

    ReplyDelete
  31. If I recall correctly he relies on statements in Chazal or Chumash to come up with his view. What we are dealing with here is something else. To say that Yiftach was gadol hador, one of the critical links in the mesora, and yet killed his daughter for something that the average 10 year old knows is wrong - and yet there is no evidence in chazal to support such a position is very problematic. The Ohr haChaim also states in five places not to be surprised that he is differing from the views of Chazal

    ReplyDelete
  32. שו"ת מהר"י ווייל סימן קסג

    ואם יש לבעל דין לחלוק ולומר הא אמרי' פ"ב דר"ה יפתח בדורו כשמואל בדורו יש לי להשיב היינו
    דווקא שצריך לשמוע לגדול הדור שלא יסרב נגדו על הוראתו ועל תקנתו אבל לא לעניין כבוד תלמידי חכמים

    ReplyDelete
  33. Let me start again. This was my statement that began this entire discussion:

    I think there is another important purpose here. To give the message to people not to be a blind sheep following an incapable sheppard. R' Akiva Aiger in sadly no longer with us. RMF is sadly also no longer with us. Those who we have today are not on that league AT ALL. They are not gedolim. They are simply people who were at the right place at the right time or who have a certain charisma and charm which appear to simple folks as having something to do with Torah greatness but in fact dos not, or opportunists who know how to position themselves well and fool the people. Or, at best, talmiday chachomim who while they can learn are still very far from being gedolim which requires many other qualities besides knowing how to learn. Do not follow them blindly. They are not worthy of such following. USE YOUR BETTER JUDGEMENT!

    To which someone replied
    יפתח בדורו כשמואל בדורו

    Does anybody here really think that we have to sit by and ignore our better judgement, and put ourselves, goof and neshama, in the hands of mediocre rabbonim? Does anybody think that the Chazal יפתח בדורו כשמואל בדורו requires this of us? I don't! I think this chazal is being taken out of context and being totally misused. But if anyone wants to use this chazal to promote the fantasy that we are meant to follow these 'gedolim', then go ahead and keep trusting the untrustworthy while ignoring what you know is true.

    ReplyDelete
  34. There's an old joke:

    The Gemara says יפתח בדורו כשמואל בדורו.

    אבער וכי יפתח איש בור

    ReplyDelete
  35. The K's are not into piskei halochos, RNG (is)/was a bar samche in Gittin but not in betiv Kidushin veakiroso, they have no more chezkas kashrus. Neither is baki betiv and both should recuse and retreat, velo yehe eisek imohen. Both still owe an apology to Aron ubito and must publicly declare for the paramour to depart teikef umiyad, veteitze mize umize.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Very partial agreement:
    so you wrote: 'RMF is sadly also no longer with us.'
    Really? and he was with us, did you make the decision that he was good enough for all to follow? (i am not saying he wasn't, IMHO of course he was) but now that he is not here, you are going to tell us the Hashem left the jews w/o any leaders who are talmidey chachomim and tzadikim (and yes , i know the last moshna in sota)?
    and because one gadol got involved in something pretty bad, (which i personally totally disapprove) but nevertheless many other gdolim came out against it;
    neither is the first time something similar happened (R' Goren and the mamzerim)

    So yes, יפתח בדורו כשמואל בדורו

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dear Chaim, a few years ago you were saying something slightly different but not quite the opposite. You suggested that there were Neviim whose opinions were transmitted to Chazal, but were not recorded in T'Nach. You also strongly opposed any later authorities who disagreed with Chazal, although I don't quite recall if this was only in halachic matters.
    Thank you

    ReplyDelete
  38. the reason why the ramban disagrees with chazal that the yidden were 210 years in egypt, is because he cannot accept that chazal say ain mukdum umechor betorah.

    also you say 'The Ohr haChaim also states in five places not to be surprised that he is differing from the views of Chazal'. so presumably he would disagree with r. dessler's interpretation of the geonim ?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Eddie - I have not read your comment yet, but it is nice to hear from you!

    ReplyDelete
  40. If I recall correctly, I was taking issue with a certain Rav's statement that Chazal "could not possibly" have known about what is in Olam Haba, because no one has died and come back to tell the tale! I said that this is ridiculous - it is quite possible that the knowledge came to them by way of נבואה via the Neviim. This does not mean, however, that Chazal did not record their opinions on these and other matters (non-Halachic in nature) - which were NOT based on Mesora, and there is a view that in these areas the Mefarshim can indeed argue.

    There is much more to say on this. and the complete story is more nuanced (isn't it always!), but that is my position in a nutshell.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Very strange. I didn't even broach the subject of Yiftach, only your reliance upon a statement of Rav Dessler which is definitely not normative. You would usually reject out of hand suggestions that many statements of Rishonim are merely מפני התועים and were not considered to be truthful by the ones who wrote them. Don't you know about the Rambam, Ramban, Tos. Yom Tov et al that in non-Halachic matters הרשות נתונה לפרש דלא כדברי רז"ל?

    ReplyDelete
  42. When Torah lishmo, yes. not so by megaleh ponim baTorah.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Politically IncorrectSeptember 19, 2016 at 7:32 AM

    I once read that someone told one rebbe (about another rebbe), "Well, Yiftacin hia dor, like Shmuel in his dor" to which the rebbe replied, " For that, one must be at least a Yiftach".....

    ReplyDelete
  44. yes and what is a Yiftach - that is the whole question

    ReplyDelete
  45. onkelos translates etz, as ilon in berishis 2:16 (etz ha daas), oai in shemos 25:13 (azei shitim of oron) and tzliva in devorim 21:23 (hanging on gallows) because of their different meaning

    yet in shoftim 12:7 and 12:8 onkelos translates vayishpot of yiftach and avzan, as 'dan'

    he should give different translations as they mean entirely different things. military leadership or judging the questions of klal yisroel


    http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/u/up0101.htm
    http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/u/up0207.htm
    http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/u/up0506.htm
    http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15820

    ReplyDelete
  46. Politically IncorrectSeptember 19, 2016 at 5:34 PM

    Obviously, a leader needs a minimum of credentials, not totally or virtually zero...

    ReplyDelete
  47. “Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Yiftach was in his time as Shmuel is in his time Understanding rabbinic leadership through generations”
    Yiftach was the commander of the people of Israel as stated:
    “Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “[Very well,] if you bring me back to fight the Ammonites and the Lord delivers them to me, I am to be your commander.” And the elders of Gilead answered Jephthah, “The Lord Himself shall be witness between us:
    we will do just as you have said.” Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him their commander and chief. And Jephthah repeated all these terms before the Lord at Mizpah. (Judges 11:9-11).
    Now, Greenblatt and Kamenitsky are not the commanders of the people of Israel. They are two rabbis that made serious mistakes. The supporters and admirers of Greenblatt and Kamenitsky continued silence interferes with justice regarding Aharon.

    ReplyDelete
  48. is any leader better than no leader?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Politically IncorrectSeptember 19, 2016 at 8:32 PM

    Even one that leads straight to hell? Apparently not :)

    ReplyDelete
  50. Yiftach's credentials were that he was a strong military leader, nothing more than that. Look it up (Shoftim perek 11 and on).

    ReplyDelete

  51. (1) משנה מסכת אבות פרק ג
    (ב) רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי מִתְפַּלֵּל בִּשְׁלוֹמָהּ שֶׁל מַלְכוּת, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא מוֹרָאָהּ, אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ חַיִּים בָּלָע

    ReplyDelete
  52. Politically IncorrectSeptember 20, 2016 at 1:14 AM

    Ya'asher Koach, you are talking about government, I am talking about gedolim. ..

    ReplyDelete
  53. Kamo tshuvos bedovor.

    Yiftach was asked to lead by all of Israel, they were desperate at the time. He even at first turned them down, made his conditions and they so accepted. Shmuel was annointed by divine recommendation through the Kohen haGadol beyomov. This case TE vs. AF was in a Shmuel BD, namely BBD of the caliber of veato Sechze, voted in by the towns people, dayonim mumchim, baki betiv gittin veKidushin, Bar Samcha, anshei chayil, yirei Elokim, Anshei Emes, sonei betza . Come the K's out of nowhere, no one asked them for their help, no one asked them to intervene, just grabbed it out of the hands of BBD, not their Town, not their case, none of their business, misaber al riv loi lo and assigned themselves to be Judge, Jury and executioner. Ha'echad bo logur, vayishpot shofoit??? Lo zu haderech velo zu ha'ir. Mi bikesh zos miyedchem remos chatzeroy?

    Lehavdil, can an Attorney come and take over a case from a legitimate Court, set up a Field Court of Kangaroos, appoint themselves in charge, apply chukei Sdom with false evidence, courtmartial cruel and inhumane corporal punishment, when that failed, they invent ways and means of dissolution in absentia, and when caught in hot pursuit each Kangaroo blames the other, I didn't do it, it's his fault, and even when proven that all is/was false shav vesheker, they still think it should hold, with a ma sheosui ossui. Even Yiftach didn't operate like the Mafia. Absolutely no comparison! Not even like Chummus to Falaffel. Poskei haDor said no Dice, R' Dovid that they agreed to abide by, was also ignored. Even RHS said that he lifts his Smicha along with Sod H' lireiov et al., from these self appointed once it's obvious sheta'a Behedye. Shkorim behedye, al achas pi kamo. Furthermore, Yiftach was under the guidance of Ruach H', what ruach do they claim got into them? Totally unbecoming

    They owe Aron F an apology kovel am voeido, tell the paramour's to depart, Declare publicly that Aron and Daughter are welcome in any and all houses of Worship, anytime any place, take everything back, and do tshuva. Anything less, will not cut.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Not that I am disagreeing with your basic approach to Biblical characters or rabbinic figures but: statements that you (RDE) made here are the type of statements that pushed Rav Tau to cut all ties with Machon Herzog.

    Welcome to the world of Modern Orthodoxy and Torah b'Gova Einayim.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Thank You. Checked it. One thing is certain: your leader on the basketball team is definitely incomparable to your spiritual leader for Klal Yisroel. Why - you think they compare? Yiftach b'Doro k'Shmuel b'Doro means they are flatly comparable? They made him their leader (because they were desperate ...and also put all of their trust in him out of desperation, so he therefore had Siyata DiShmaya) in conquering the B'nai Amon, perhaps like Shmuel had Siyata DiShmaya (aside from his own virtues that were lacking in Yiftach .....a wonder why he couldn't ask a shayla and the Chachomim would have certainly been matir. ....perhaps he was too ignorant to ask....).

    One more point worth mentioning: Yiftach was not megaleh ponim baTorah shelo k'halacha as has apparently been breached in the aforementioned fiasco.....

    ReplyDelete
  56. Good, I remember the subject now, was RAv Lichtenshtein's view I think! (But also the Rambam).
    A Rav can make a statement based on a Rishon or Chazal, and there is nothing wrong with that.
    There are some amazing statements that come from the Rambam and the Raavad, but the ones Iike most are usually viewed as being "not authoritative".
    Even in Halacha, there are views of Rishonim, which are not accepted , especially in Haredi world. The Meiri said that Gezeiros D'rabbanan lose their force when th original reason for them disappears; the Raavad says that you don't need to be greater in number or wisdom to remove a geziera, whereas the Rambams claims you do.
    These are halachic statements made by the greatest Rishonim, yet if someone tries to rely on the Meiri today he would be called an apikores.

    Sorry, i am ranting, but it is an interesting discussion!

    ReplyDelete
  57. Do you really agree with Harry's claim that Rav Akiva Eiger was to be trusted unconditionally?
    Do you agree with his claim that Rav Moshe Feinstein was to be trusted unconditionally?

    You once wrote a post specifically saying that G-d set it up that everyone should know that Rav Akiva Eiger was not beyond error. http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/11/rabbi-akiva-eiger-like-all-gedolim.html

    You've mentioned many times that Rav Moshe insisted that he was not beyond error and that he should not be followed blindly.

    There was certainly a certain type of trust that we were able to put in prophets, when we had them. However, we were clearly held responsible if we put our trust into false prophets.

    However, were any of our leaders ever able to be followed blindly?
    Harry is claiming that there does not exist any sort of authentic Torah leadership today. Do you agree with this? It is true that our current leaders may not measure up to Rav Akiva Eiger. But did Rav Akiva Eiger measure up to the Ramban? Etc.

    I have observed that those who say never to trust Torah scholars are selective about whom they do not trust. They are quick to trust anyone with degree from a secular institution. They may even be quick to trust a clown like Justin Bieber, or someone similar, if they offer advice on whom to vote and on other political issues - despite the fact that these type of people have made all sorts poor decisions in their own lives.

    I think that it is fair to say that we do have authentic Torah scholars today that can be trusted that way Torah scholars deserve to be trusted. That does not mean to be trusted blindly. But it does mean that they can be trusted however an authentic Torah scholar is to be trusted. Even if they do not measure up to authentic Torah scholars of previous generations, I think the lesson from Yiftach is still that they should be afforded the respect that do deserve - even if they do not measure up to Rav Akiva Eiger. Rav Akiva Eiger also deserved respect, even if he did not measure up to the Ramban.

    ReplyDelete
  58. without the Rishonim, we do not really have a halacha either. We rely on the rishonim to learn the Gemara, since if we picked one up without meforshim, we would not have a clue what is going on. Rambam, Ibn Ezra etc give us tools to unlock the Torah and halacha. You can't just reject half of Judaism because it doesnt agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  59. could you give an example of something we don't have a clue about without the Rishonim?

    ReplyDelete
  60. The Geonim are hardly referred to these days. The occasional mention of Rav Saadia, but that's about it. However, they were the true heirs to Chazal, since they were closer to them, they understood them better than we do.

    Perhaps the Chazal have become more deeply canonized in each generation -is that possible? Although the Geonim faced the Karaite schism, but the acharonim faced Reform.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Yes - my thinking is like this - when you learn a Gemara, you learn Rashi, Tosefos to find out what is actually being said. When you learn halacha, whether you learn form the SA or earlier sources, you rely on the Rambam, and Rosh and other rishonim. How would you pasken halacha from the Gemara if you didnt have these rishonim? You can't argue that you learn from your Rosh Yeshiva, because he knows only virtue of these seforim and commentaries of the rishonim.

    If I have got it wrong, please correct me.

    ReplyDelete
  62. To put it another way, the hareidi way of thinking is not one that existed int he "golden age" of Rishonim and Acharonim, and is only an extremist world view, which became more powerful as a reaction to Haskalah and Reform movements.

    ReplyDelete
  63. you are talking in generalities - please give specific examples to support you claims

    ReplyDelete
  64. I asked for an example -you are just repeating your original claim . I don't know what you are talking about

    ReplyDelete
  65. Certainly, look at this
    http://www.dafyomi.co.il/azarah/insites/az-dt-019.htm

    He does not learn it like Prof. Neusner would, instead he cites all the comentaries, maharsha, Rashi, Tosfos, Rambam etc. Some of them may be Acharonim. True he mentions the Arizal, but most people are not endowed with the powers of the Arizal to learn something through Ruach Kodesh.
    If we had no rishonim, then we would struggle to get a grip of what the Gemara is saying.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Look in Shabbos Daf kuf yud tes, brochos Daf yud tes, Rambam perek vav Talmud Torah halacah yud alef, nidorim lamed tes.

    ReplyDelete
  67. One should be careful as if one inadvertently embarrasses a talmid chochum the repercussions are enormous. A blog is not an appropriate venue for individuals who are truly concerned about issues. Form a delegation of individuals who are capable and willing to RESPECTFULLY approach those you feel have erred and speak with them.
    Continued Hatzlocah

    ReplyDelete
  68. tmy posts are not accidental

    less confrontational approaches were tries\d but failed. perhaps you will try and talk to him

    ReplyDelete
  69. He denies involvement. What does ng say?

    ReplyDelete
  70. “shmuel in his generation is like yiftach in his generation”
    “Jephthah the Gileadite was an able warrior, who was the son of a prostitute. Jephthah’s father was Gilead; but Gilead also had sons by his wife, and when the wife’s sons grew up, they drove Jephthah out. They said to him, You shall have no share in our father’s property, for you are the son of an outsider. So Jephthah fled from his brothers and settled in the Tob country. Men of low character gathered about Jephthah and went out raiding with him. Some time later, the Ammonites went to war against Israel. And when the Ammonites attacked Israel, the elders of Gilead went to bring Jephthah back from the Tob country.” (Judges 11:1-5).
    My theory is that the brothers of Jephthah were Left-wing ignoramus fellows that had their prime interest in money. See, kicking out Jephthah means more money for them. They had a huge desire for money, as much as possible. They were Left-wing ignoramus fellows who agreed with the wicked King of Amon: 13The king of the Ammonites replied to Jephthah’s messengers, When Israel came from Egypt, they seized the land which is mine, from the Arnon to the Jabbok as far as the Jordan. Now, then, restore it peaceably.” (Judges 11:13).
    The brothers of Jephthah were like the Peace Now and similar left wing radicals today. Surely, Israel was strong enough, to fight the wicked Ammonites, but these ignoramuses actually agreed with the King of Amon and this weakened Israel. . Much like the Left, Israel and the US, says we stole the Shomron etc Heaven forbid. Pinchas may have felt that he had little influence over these left-wing ignoramuses, that didn’t even know Chumash and basic laws of vows etc.
    Pinchas was like the Inspector General in NYS and in the USA that is supposed to intervene when officials do inappropriate and unnecessary actions. This is my letter June 28, 2018 to NYS IG, etc:
    “2.I argue that the court does unnecessary and inappropriate actions to rule the 9/10/2013 NYS civil divorce after Susan's lawyer, Popkin, admitted in court papers 3/24/1993 “My client has advised me that she received a “Get” from your client several weeks ago and has since received the certificate (p'tur) of receiving that Get. It is my understanding that because one or both parties are Cohens, the Get is final and irrevocable. They can never remarry, whether or not the separation action is determined becomes immaterial.” After a final and irrevocable Get 2/17/1993, it would be inappropriate and unnecessary to rule on a NYS civil divorce 10 years later. After a final and irrevocable Get 2/17/1993, it would be inappropriate and unnecessary to rule on freezing my TIAA pension 100% early 1994. After a final and irrevocable Get 2/17/1993, it would be inappropriate and unnecessary to rule a QDRO awarding Susan 100% of my TIAA pension in 1997. After a final and irrevocable Get 2/17/1993, it would be inappropriate and unnecessary to rule a QDRO awarding Susan 55% of my TIAA pension in October 1997. After a final and irrevocable Get 2/17/1993, it would be inappropriate and unnecessary to rule the phony/fake 1995 Rigler Order of Separation.”

    ReplyDelete
  71. The individual who feels wronged should approach whomever they are accusing of wrongdoing. It's purpose should be to come to peace Not to perpetuate machlokos Rochmana litzlon.

    ReplyDelete
  72. what is the next step after being ignored?

    ReplyDelete
  73. הצרי אין בגלעד אם רפא אין שם כי מדוע לא עלתה ארכת בת עמי. -ירמיהו ח כב

    פי' רש"י: "הצרי אין בגלעד" - שהצרי בא משם כמו שנאמר עלי גלעד וקחי צרי (לקמן מה) כלומר וכי לא היו להם אנשים צדיקים ממי ללמוד ויטיבו דרכיהם. "ארוכת" - רפואת (אינפלאשטר"א בלע"ז)י

    מלבי"ם: "(תשובת ה'), הצרי", וכי היו שבט יהודה צריכים לרפואתם סמים ותרופות מארץ מרחקים, הלא "הצרי", שבו ירפאו "נמצא בגלעד" ששם מקום הצרי, וכן "הרופא" המסדר איך יקחו את הצרי ואיך ירפאו בו ג"כ "נמצא שם", וא"כ "מדוע לא עלתה ארוכת בת עמי?" ר"ל הלא רפואת העם תלוי בשייטיבו מעשיהם וישובו ללכת בתורת ה' ובקרבם נמצא בין התורה והמצוה שנתתי לפניהם שהוא הצרי, בין הנביאים והחכמים המישרים ומלמדים אותם דרכי ה' שהוא הרופא, ומדוע לא נרפאו? וא"כ הם עצמם אשמים בדבר, שלא אבו להרפא מחלים!. דוק

    ובגמ': כד רגיז רעיא על ענא - עביד לנגדא סמותא. פי' לעז המושכת מנקר עיניה, ונכשלת ונופלת בבורות, והעדר אחריה - כך כשהמקום נפרע משונאי ישראל - ממנה להן פרנסים שאינן מהוגנין. -ב"ק דף נב

    ReplyDelete
  74. בעל הבור ישלם כסף ישיב לבעליו והמת יהיה לו

    ReplyDelete
  75. King Saul vs achav, frum & loshon hara. Vs idolatry without the loshon hara

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.