If you actually analyze what he is saying, it is nonsense, even if it is a high level nonsense. There is no issur in the SA or the Rambam to set up a State - and the 3 oaths have not been put down as halacha. he is trying to pull the fast one that even if you are totally observant of halacha as per the SA and by implication, the Rambam, you are still breaking halacha!
So he is not only arguing with "Amram B" (who was a nobody anyway), or even the CC, who was great. He is arguing with halacha - with the Sa and the Rambam. Essentially, his position is the same as Reform.
You Kalonymus Anonymus are an Apikores especially with your Greek (Yavoni) sounding name Nebach an ..an apikores is oich an Apikores So said Rav Chaim Brisker
Haha, in my religion, we are able to analyze and question what the rabbis said. Even if they are the greatest. Remember, he wasn't bothered by Herzl and nordau, he was bothered by Rambam and Rav yosef caro.
In any case. These are reported discussions not halachic rulings. He is quoted as making a statement to Amram (who was kicked out of the Eda). It brings no sources, reasoning or justification. The fact that he was a great lamdan does not mean his worldview is definitive. Also, this statement was distorted and the chofetz Chaim was substituted for Reb Amram. The same website distorted the Loshon hara against rav kook, claiming it came from the CC.
R’Elyashiv was a follower of three Jerusalem sages: R’ Shimshon AharonPolansky—known as the ‘Rov of Teplik’, R’ Reuven Bengis who servedas head of the Rabbinical Court of the Edah Charedit , and R’ YitzhakIsaac Herzog, Chief Rabbi of the Land of Israel during that period,whose relationship with R’ Elyashiv’s grandfather has already beenelaborated. Several of Jerusalem’s brightest and most promisingyoung scholars of that time clustered around these three sages andin their homes; the forum that would gather in R’ Herzog’s homeevery Friday during the forties and fifties until his death on the 19thof Tammuz 5719 (1959) was fairly well known. Among the participantsin this forum were the late Rabbis Betzalel Zolty, Shlomo ZalmanAuerbach and Yosef Shalom Elyashiv as well as R’ Ovadiah Yosef—allhalachic masters who would later be counted among the most prom-inent halachic authorities of the second half of the twentieth century.This was no accidental process: as Chief Rabbi, R’ Herzog secured theappointment of prominent scholars as community rabbis and judges inthe religious courts under his jurisdiction, in the expectation thatthese conspicuous scholars would catalyze the integration of Halacha into the state judicial system.
In this manner, R’ Elyashiv found him-self officiating as Chief Rabbi of the city of Ramle following the Warof Independence, then as a judge at the Jerusalem District RabbinicalCourt and immediately thereafter at the Chief Rabbinate’s main office."
As far as I recall, Berel, you always were mevazeh mainstream Hareidi and general Gedolim.
The question is, what is the issur? If it is not the Three Shevuos, then what is it?
The fact that something is not in SA or the Rambam does not impress me per se. First of all, the SA only dealt with what was halakha le maaseh in his time, and setting up a state was not on the table. As for the Rambam, he did deal with all areas of halakha. But the fact that he does not mention "setting up a state" does not mean anything, because setting up a state might involve some other prohibition. The Rambam does not discuss using a telephone on Shabbos either, but there are things in the Rambam that may render that assur.
But that begs the question -- what is the issur to set up a state (assuming it is run al pi Torah)? Just quoting the Brisker Rov like that with no analysis or even a source means nothing.
Rav henkin also opposed the establishment of the State, but afterwards he changed his position, saying its assur to take the side of Israel's enemies.
ReplyDeleteIf you actually analyze what he is saying, it is nonsense, even if it is a high level nonsense.
ReplyDeleteThere is no issur in the SA or the Rambam to set up a State - and the 3 oaths have not been put down as halacha. he is trying to pull the fast one that even if you are totally observant of halacha as per the SA and by implication, the Rambam, you are still breaking halacha!
So he is not only arguing with "Amram B" (who was a nobody anyway), or even the CC, who was great. He is arguing with halacha - with the Sa and the Rambam. Essentially, his position is the same as Reform.
You Kalonymus Anonymus are an Apikores
ReplyDeleteespecially with your Greek (Yavoni) sounding name
Nebach an ..an apikores is oich an Apikores So said Rav Chaim Brisker
Haha, in my religion, we are able to analyze and question what the rabbis said. Even if they are the greatest. Remember, he wasn't bothered by Herzl and nordau, he was bothered by Rambam and Rav yosef caro.
ReplyDeleteDid you see the Rema who said philosophy is safer than kabbalah, which can mislead people
ReplyDeleteIn any case. These are reported discussions not halachic rulings. He is quoted as making a statement to Amram (who was kicked out of the Eda). It brings no sources, reasoning or justification. The fact that he was a great lamdan does not mean his worldview is definitive.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this statement was distorted and the chofetz Chaim was substituted for Reb Amram. The same website distorted the Loshon hara against rav kook, claiming it came from the CC.
R’Elyashiv was a follower of three Jerusalem sages: R’ Shimshon AharonPolansky—known
ReplyDeleteas the ‘Rov of Teplik’, R’ Reuven Bengis who servedas head of the Rabbinical Court of the Edah Charedit
, and R’ YitzhakIsaac Herzog, Chief Rabbi of the Land of Israel during that period,whose
relationship with R’ Elyashiv’s grandfather has already beenelaborated. Several
of Jerusalem’s
brightest and most promisingyoung scholars of that time clustered around these
three sages andin their homes; the forum that would gather in R’ Herzog’s
homeevery Friday during the forties and fifties until his death on the 19thof
Tammuz 5719 (1959) was fairly well known. Among the participantsin this forum
were the late Rabbis Betzalel Zolty, Shlomo ZalmanAuerbach and Yosef Shalom
Elyashiv as well as R’ Ovadiah Yosef—allhalachic masters who would later be counted
among the most prom-inent halachic authorities of the second half of the
twentieth century.This was no accidental process: as Chief Rabbi, R’ Herzog
secured theappointment of prominent scholars as community rabbis and judges
inthe religious courts under his jurisdiction, in the expectation thatthese
conspicuous scholars would catalyze the integration of Halacha into the state
judicial system.
In this manner, R’ Elyashiv found him-self officiating as
Chief Rabbi of the city of Ramle following the Warof Independence, then as a
judge at the Jerusalem District RabbinicalCourt and immediately thereafter at
the Chief Rabbinate’s main office."
As far as I recall, Berel, you always were mevazeh mainstream Hareidi and general Gedolim.
The question is, what is the issur? If it is not the Three Shevuos, then what is it?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that something is not in SA or the Rambam does not impress me per se. First of all, the SA only dealt with what was halakha le maaseh in his time, and setting up a state was not on the table. As for the Rambam, he did deal with all areas of halakha. But the fact that he does not mention "setting up a state" does not mean anything, because setting up a state might involve some other prohibition. The Rambam does not discuss using a telephone on Shabbos either, but there are things in the Rambam that may render that assur.
But that begs the question -- what is the issur to set up a state (assuming it is run al pi Torah)? Just quoting the Brisker Rov like that with no analysis or even a source means nothing.
Just to clarify, is the image depicted here the actual quote? And it was misquoted somewhere else? Please clarify. Thank you.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC2WA-XncwQ
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC2WA-XncwQ t
ReplyDelete