Tuesday, August 15, 2023
Malbim disappointed Rav Yisroel Salanter by neglecting halacha for Tanach in order to fight Haskala
RCA Issues Clarification of Its Position on reporting Abuse - Kolko case & Rav Belsky
Update: The RCA acknowledges it is bothered by the fact that Rav Belsky's position on the Kolko case is inconsistent with the official position of the RCA. However they allow him to deviate in the Kolko case - because he claims he has investigated the matter and knows Kolko to be innocent.
It fails to explain on what basis Rav Belsky has come to conclusion that Koko is innocent - despite the president of the RCA writing me that, "Concerning the Kolko case, Rabbi Belsky made it clear, based upon his involvement in the case, that he believes the defendant to be innocent of the charges and that the accusers are actually the guilty parties. He is convinced of this position, in spite of what seems to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
The RCA clarification also fails to deal with the fact that Rav Belsky has done much more than simply cling to the belief in Kolko's innocence "despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary." 1) There is no basis in Jewish law for calling someone a moser if he received a psak that it is obligated to go to the police. In this case he received a written psak from Rav Moshe Sternbuch that he was obligated to report the abuse [update and correction] [ 2) Rav Belsky not only has proclaimed Kolko innocent but he accused the victim's father of sexual abusing his own son and said that the victims's father reported Kolko to the police only to avoid being blamed himself. This astounding slander - which has no basis in fact - does not seem to bother the RCA - why not? Rabbi Goldin claims - contrary to the obvious translation of Rav Belsky's defamatory letter that "Rabbi Belsky did not accuse the father of abuse-but rather of rishus. He claims that the allegations were trumped up and that Kolko was framed and forced to accept a plea deal". Even if Rabbi Goldin's reading is accepted - Rav Belsky has presented no evidence to justify this slander. Why does the RCA allow Rav Belsky to continue to slander a great talmid chachom without any apparent justification?
In sum - How can the RCA make this "clarification" without addressing the elephant in the room of Rav Belsky obscene public slander of the father of the victim?
====================================
RCA Jun 12, 2013 -- The RCA remains steadfast in combating and condemning all forms of abuse. We are encouraged by the process that led to the guilty plea of Yosef Kolko, an Orthodox Jew who pleaded guilty for the sexual molestation of a young boy. For many years the RCA has condemned the efforts of many parts of the Jewish community to cover up or ignore allegations of abuse, viewing these efforts as against Jewish law, illegal, and irresponsible to the welfare of victims and the greater community. The RCA strongly advocates, as a matter of Jewish law, the reporting of reasonable suspicions of all forms of child abuse to the civil authorities and full cooperation with the criminal justice system. The RCA decries any invocation of Jewish law or communal interests as tools in silencing victims or witnesses from reporting abuse or from receiving therapeutic and communal support.
Rabbi Shmuel Goldin, President of the RCA, and Rabbi Mark Dratch, Executive Vice President of the RCA, concerned with the reported position of Rabbi Yisrael Belsky in the Kolko case met with Rabbi Belsky. Rabbi Belsky stated that based upon his knowledge of the case, which he explained at length, he deeply believes in Kolko’s innocence. When asked for clarification of his opinion concerning the reporting of suspicions of abuse in general, Rabbi Belsky informed us that he favors the reporting of credible suspicions of abuse directly to the civil authorities without the need to seek prior rabbinic permission. Upon our request, Rabbi Belsky recorded this position in writing in a letter sent to us and publicized a week after our meeting. Many feel that this is a significant achievement.
The RCA appreciates that this distinguished scholar has gone on record with this position, a position that echoes the RCA’s longstanding policy. We are confident that this statement will be helpful to many victims in the future. Nevertheless, due to the facts of the Kolko case as we understand them, the RCA disagrees with Rabbi Belsky’s defense of this admitted perpetrator. We pledge to work toward the time when all victims of abuse will find strength, healing, and justice with the support of their communities, its members, and its leaders.
It fails to explain on what basis Rav Belsky has come to conclusion that Koko is innocent - despite the president of the RCA writing me that, "Concerning the Kolko case, Rabbi Belsky made it clear, based upon his involvement in the case, that he believes the defendant to be innocent of the charges and that the accusers are actually the guilty parties. He is convinced of this position, in spite of what seems to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
The RCA clarification also fails to deal with the fact that Rav Belsky has done much more than simply cling to the belief in Kolko's innocence "despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary." 1) There is no basis in Jewish law for calling someone a moser if he received a psak that it is obligated to go to the police. In this case he received a written psak from Rav Moshe Sternbuch that he was obligated to report the abuse [update and correction] [ 2) Rav Belsky not only has proclaimed Kolko innocent but he accused the victim's father of sexual abusing his own son and said that the victims's father reported Kolko to the police only to avoid being blamed himself. This astounding slander - which has no basis in fact - does not seem to bother the RCA - why not? Rabbi Goldin claims - contrary to the obvious translation of Rav Belsky's defamatory letter that "Rabbi Belsky did not accuse the father of abuse-but rather of rishus. He claims that the allegations were trumped up and that Kolko was framed and forced to accept a plea deal". Even if Rabbi Goldin's reading is accepted - Rav Belsky has presented no evidence to justify this slander. Why does the RCA allow Rav Belsky to continue to slander a great talmid chachom without any apparent justification?
In sum - How can the RCA make this "clarification" without addressing the elephant in the room of Rav Belsky obscene public slander of the father of the victim?
====================================
RCA Jun 12, 2013 -- The RCA remains steadfast in combating and condemning all forms of abuse. We are encouraged by the process that led to the guilty plea of Yosef Kolko, an Orthodox Jew who pleaded guilty for the sexual molestation of a young boy. For many years the RCA has condemned the efforts of many parts of the Jewish community to cover up or ignore allegations of abuse, viewing these efforts as against Jewish law, illegal, and irresponsible to the welfare of victims and the greater community. The RCA strongly advocates, as a matter of Jewish law, the reporting of reasonable suspicions of all forms of child abuse to the civil authorities and full cooperation with the criminal justice system. The RCA decries any invocation of Jewish law or communal interests as tools in silencing victims or witnesses from reporting abuse or from receiving therapeutic and communal support.
Rabbi Shmuel Goldin, President of the RCA, and Rabbi Mark Dratch, Executive Vice President of the RCA, concerned with the reported position of Rabbi Yisrael Belsky in the Kolko case met with Rabbi Belsky. Rabbi Belsky stated that based upon his knowledge of the case, which he explained at length, he deeply believes in Kolko’s innocence. When asked for clarification of his opinion concerning the reporting of suspicions of abuse in general, Rabbi Belsky informed us that he favors the reporting of credible suspicions of abuse directly to the civil authorities without the need to seek prior rabbinic permission. Upon our request, Rabbi Belsky recorded this position in writing in a letter sent to us and publicized a week after our meeting. Many feel that this is a significant achievement.
The RCA appreciates that this distinguished scholar has gone on record with this position, a position that echoes the RCA’s longstanding policy. We are confident that this statement will be helpful to many victims in the future. Nevertheless, due to the facts of the Kolko case as we understand them, the RCA disagrees with Rabbi Belsky’s defense of this admitted perpetrator. We pledge to work toward the time when all victims of abuse will find strength, healing, and justice with the support of their communities, its members, and its leaders.
Rabbi Shmuel Goldin - president of the RCA - clarifies the RCA-Rav Belsky joint statement on child abuse.
I wrote to Rabbi Goldin:
I have been involved for a number of years dealing with various aspects of child abuse and have published three seforim dealing with the subject under the guidance and encouragement of Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita. One of the most problematic issues is that of mesira and one of the most troubling cases is that of the recent Yosef Kolko case. Even more troubling is the reported actions of Rav Yisroel Belsky shlita - especially when they seem to be contrary to the stated position of the RCA.
I respectfully request an explanation of how Rav Belsky's actions in this case are consistent with the accepted halacha regarding mesira as well as the RCA guidelines in reporting child abuse to the police?kol tuv,Daniel Eidensohn Ph.D.
Rabbi Goldin responded:
Dear Dr. Eidensohn,I responded with the following:
Thank you for your e-mail and for your continuing work in this important area.
Just to clarify a couple of points:
1. The letter we received from Rabbi Belsky clearly indicates that that an individual with credible suspicions of abuse should go directly to the authorities,
2. Concerning the Kolko case, Rabbi Belsky made it clear, based upon his involvement in the case, that he believes the defendant to be innocent of the charges and that the accusers are actually the guilty parties. He is convinced of this position, in spite of what seems to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
3. The problems you raise in your blog are complex. For those of us whose vision of Das Torah is not as encompassing as those who express, it is easier to carve out areas of expertise where we believe that outside experts, rather than halachic experts, might serve as more accurate sources of fact. In such areas-we can accept the possibility of 'error' even on the part of great sages.
Shmuel Goldin
Thank you for your thoughtful and cogent reply. You have confirmed my suspicions that Rav Belsky is not actually in agreement with RCA policy in this area. The father of the victim should not have been labeled a moser for doing what he thought was right - especially since Rav Sternbuch gave him written permission. In addition if Rav Belsky "knew that the father was the molester" he had an obligation according to his own words - to report him to the police - which he obviously failed to do. This strongly implies that Rav Belsky is committed to the position of the Aguda that only a rabbi can decide whether you can go to the police and that it is typically better to deal with these cases within the community and not go to the police even when it is definitely a case of abuse. This is clearly a violation of the RCA principles. From what I have heard Rav Belsky is severely undermining the credibility of the RCA and their perceived commitment to help the victims of child abuse.
Do I have your permission to report your view on the matter using your name on my blog?
Daniel Eidensohn
Rabbi Goldin responded:
I need to be clearer[Hebrew Text of Rav Belsky's letter] [English translation]
Rabbi Belsky did not accuse the father of abuse-but rather of rishus. He claims that the allegations were trumped up and that Kolko was framed and forced to accept a plea deal
You certainly can quote my positions as stated.
I am aware of the communities concerns and we are trying to determine what else we can do.
The need for WOW!! as an indication of the deterioriation of the system
============================
Rabbi Shmuel Brazil (Mishpacha Magazine 5/29/13 page 47). ... because of the pressure to keep up with other yeshivos and produce exceptional students, the rebbeim are unfortunately concerned more with the high achievers. "Take a bochur who's 50th percentile or lower - it's over. He has no motivation. He finds it very difficult."
This lack of connection to learning, Rav Brazil says, leads to a cascade of consequences. "It automatically makes you feel like you’re not mainstream. Everyone else learns Gemara, everyone else learns well- but you don’t. And if you're not successful in learning, you don't have pleasure in doing it. Hana'ah, pleasure, is part of the learning process. It’s not a luxury - without hana'ah, the learning doesn’t go inside."
Feeling outside the mainstream, says the Rosh Yeshivah, leads many frustrated bochurim to seek fulfillment in less wholesome pursuits. But whereas in a previous generation those pursuits took one to "the street," today they can be found close at hand.
"Now it's the handheld device," he explains, holding out his palm. "I just gave a shmuess on this the other day. 1 call it 'the wow.' The secular world of entertainment and media gives you a wow. How do you compete with this? I gotta sit in shiur and wait until you finally get to the kasha? In contrast, here I just switch on the machine and right away cars and bodies are flying all over the place. Wow!
"In order to combat that, you have to give kids today the wow in Yiddishkeit. It's not about intellectualism alone, anymore. It's al1 about igniting emotion. You've got to grab their emotions so that they should say 'wow.' It could be with a niggun, or with a rikud ... so that they should be able to say, 'You know, it really feels different from the disco.'''
Once a person's perception has been expanded by this experience, he is more open to perceiving the radiance in traditional Jewish wisdom - the ziv ha'Torah.
"On Shavuos it says that Hashem gave all the Aseres HaDibros in one dibbur, and then, Rashi says, He enumerated them separately,” expounds the Rosh Yeshivah. "What was Hashem trying to do? Say, 'Look what I can do’? What's the purpose of that?
"I heard an answer from the Munkaczer Rebbe shlita, at the hesped of Rav Gifter. He explained that there are two parts of Torah: there's the yedi'os of Torah, and the 'wow' of Torah - it's called hispa'alus. It's not enough to teach Torah - you have to get the hispa'alus. So Hashem gave it to them in one shot. To show that Torah has to wow you. And then you begin the limud haTorah, where you learn all the details."[...]
"I say to my bochurim all the time, and it’s true, when we say a good vort, everyone smiles," he notes. "It's an incredible thing. Say a goy would walk in to a shiur and see every one grinning. He'd say, 'What happened? Did someone say a joke?' and we'd answer, 'No, we just said an interpretation on a Biblical verse.' Imagine his reaction! Photographers should use this technique instead of, Say cheese.' It’s a koach of Torah to be able to make a person say, 'Wow. What a pshat.'
"That's what the rebbi's got to do these days - figure out what's going to pull them in, get them off the street, get them away from drugs, from all the gadgets. There's no substance to that world. I call it the cotton candy. It looks so good, a person's gotta have it. And then he gets it and finishes the whole thing and says, ‘Three dollars and twenty cents for this? It’s not worth it!' It's the fantasy of Olam HaZeh, all fluffed lip. We need to put the wow of Torah up against that."
This lack of connection to learning, Rav Brazil says, leads to a cascade of consequences. "It automatically makes you feel like you’re not mainstream. Everyone else learns Gemara, everyone else learns well- but you don’t. And if you're not successful in learning, you don't have pleasure in doing it. Hana'ah, pleasure, is part of the learning process. It’s not a luxury - without hana'ah, the learning doesn’t go inside."
Feeling outside the mainstream, says the Rosh Yeshivah, leads many frustrated bochurim to seek fulfillment in less wholesome pursuits. But whereas in a previous generation those pursuits took one to "the street," today they can be found close at hand.
"Now it's the handheld device," he explains, holding out his palm. "I just gave a shmuess on this the other day. 1 call it 'the wow.' The secular world of entertainment and media gives you a wow. How do you compete with this? I gotta sit in shiur and wait until you finally get to the kasha? In contrast, here I just switch on the machine and right away cars and bodies are flying all over the place. Wow!
"In order to combat that, you have to give kids today the wow in Yiddishkeit. It's not about intellectualism alone, anymore. It's al1 about igniting emotion. You've got to grab their emotions so that they should say 'wow.' It could be with a niggun, or with a rikud ... so that they should be able to say, 'You know, it really feels different from the disco.'''
Once a person's perception has been expanded by this experience, he is more open to perceiving the radiance in traditional Jewish wisdom - the ziv ha'Torah.
"On Shavuos it says that Hashem gave all the Aseres HaDibros in one dibbur, and then, Rashi says, He enumerated them separately,” expounds the Rosh Yeshivah. "What was Hashem trying to do? Say, 'Look what I can do’? What's the purpose of that?
"I heard an answer from the Munkaczer Rebbe shlita, at the hesped of Rav Gifter. He explained that there are two parts of Torah: there's the yedi'os of Torah, and the 'wow' of Torah - it's called hispa'alus. It's not enough to teach Torah - you have to get the hispa'alus. So Hashem gave it to them in one shot. To show that Torah has to wow you. And then you begin the limud haTorah, where you learn all the details."[...]
"I say to my bochurim all the time, and it’s true, when we say a good vort, everyone smiles," he notes. "It's an incredible thing. Say a goy would walk in to a shiur and see every one grinning. He'd say, 'What happened? Did someone say a joke?' and we'd answer, 'No, we just said an interpretation on a Biblical verse.' Imagine his reaction! Photographers should use this technique instead of, Say cheese.' It’s a koach of Torah to be able to make a person say, 'Wow. What a pshat.'
"That's what the rebbi's got to do these days - figure out what's going to pull them in, get them off the street, get them away from drugs, from all the gadgets. There's no substance to that world. I call it the cotton candy. It looks so good, a person's gotta have it. And then he gets it and finishes the whole thing and says, ‘Three dollars and twenty cents for this? It’s not worth it!' It's the fantasy of Olam HaZeh, all fluffed lip. We need to put the wow of Torah up against that."
Get Me'usa: An apparent contradiction between Igros Moshe and Tendler's Mesoras Moshe
I have raised the issue of the usefulness and reliability of Tendler's recently published Mesoras Moshe as a source of knowing Rav Moshe Feinstein's views. Mesores Moshe: What is it? [see also Review of Mesoras Moshe by Rabbi Hoffman] Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst writes in his haskoma to Mesoras Moshe that he went over the material to make sure that there was nothing that contradicted the Igros Moshe [something I found rather strange]. However in spite of Rabbi Fuerst's efforts I found something of importance that seems to be an apparent contradiction that has serious consequences. I would appreciate it if someone can explain why my understanding is incorrect.
The issue is, What type of pressure invalidates a get and produces a get me'usa? In the following teshuva from the Igros Moshe (vol 7), Rav Moshe clearly states that pressure that is done for punishment such as financial pressure, jail or beating is unacceptable. However in contrast pressure caused by a bribe to give a get rather than punishment is acceptable. Similarly a promise of help to get the husband out of jail on an unrelated charge is a legitimate way of motivating the giving of a get - but punishing with jail for not giving a get is not acceptable. Even conditioning the giving of a civil divorce on the giving of a get is acceptable because it is viewed as a benefit that he can choose to forgo.
In sum in the Igros Moshe he says that punishment produces a get me'usa while reward or bribe does not. In apparent contrast in Mesoras Moshe he is alleged to have said, if the husband is tortured to do something he really doesn't want to do by beating or imprisonment in a jail where he will be beaten or killed - then it is invalid as ge me'usa. However all other types of coercion - if he can withstand the pressure and not give a get unless he wants to - then it is not a get me'usa. There are significant differences between these two sources as what type of pressure can be used. According to the Mesoras Moshe it should be permitted to publicly embarrass the husband as ORA is doing. While according to the Igros Moshe it would clearly be wrong. The Igros Moshe is also in accord with the use of harchas of Rabbeinu Tam while the Mesoras Moshe is definitely not.
The translations of both the Igros Moshe and the Mesoras Moshe are mine and can not be used without my written permission.
=================
Igros Moshe( E.H. 4:106): This
that there is an effort being made to pass a law in the state
legislature that whenever a Jew becomes divorced in a secular court he
is also obligated to give his wife a valid get in beis din – this is
definitely a very major accomplishment. Such a law does not constitute
an illegal coerced get (get me’usa) because of the involvement of
non‑Jews. That is because the husband has the free will not to divorce
his wife according to the secular law. It is only because he wants to
obtain a secular divorce in order to be exempt from the financial
obligations of his wife and that he will be able to legally marry
another woman – and the secular government will not give it to him
unless he has given a valid get to his first wife. Therefore he is
giving the get of his own free‑will. This
is exactly equivalent to one who doesn’t want to give his wife a get
but when they give him thousands of shekel – suddenly he becomes willing
to give it. This is not considered coerced (me’usa) since he has the
free will to decide whether desire for the money is more important to
him than the desire not to give the get. It is a daily occurrence
amongst the Jewish people that a husband is given this choice.
The coercion which invalidates a get is when he is beaten or imprisoned or given some other affliction in order that she be given the get. Such cases are considered that he is being forced to give the get – only then is it in invalid. Similarly even in the case of financial pressure in a case where the government obligates him to pay as a punishment for not giving the get is considered as a get given with financial coercion because he doesn’t want to lose the money. An additional case is if someone takes a large sum of money from the husband and refuses to return it unless he gives a divorce – is also considered to be illegal coercion. [See the Shulchan Aruch E.H. 134.4 in the Rema and Pischei Teshuva (E.H. 134.11)] In contrast if the husband is given money to motivate him to want to give the get – it is obvious that this is not considered coercion and it is a daily occurrence. So this concern for obtaining a benefit is exactly the same thing as giving a get in order to obtain a civil divorce. Even if he is imprisoned for a different matter and the wife has someone who is willing to intervene to obtain his freedom on the condition that he give her a get – this is not considered that he was coerced to give a get. That is because the cause of his suffering was not caused by his not giving a get – but because of an unrelated matter. The giving of the get only provides a remedy for removing the suffering. Therefore a get given to stop suffering from an unrelated matter is considered to be total free-will. This is quite simple and logical. This is a valid get even in a situation where he has no obligation to divorce her. [...]
The coercion which invalidates a get is when he is beaten or imprisoned or given some other affliction in order that she be given the get. Such cases are considered that he is being forced to give the get – only then is it in invalid. Similarly even in the case of financial pressure in a case where the government obligates him to pay as a punishment for not giving the get is considered as a get given with financial coercion because he doesn’t want to lose the money. An additional case is if someone takes a large sum of money from the husband and refuses to return it unless he gives a divorce – is also considered to be illegal coercion. [See the Shulchan Aruch E.H. 134.4 in the Rema and Pischei Teshuva (E.H. 134.11)] In contrast if the husband is given money to motivate him to want to give the get – it is obvious that this is not considered coercion and it is a daily occurrence. So this concern for obtaining a benefit is exactly the same thing as giving a get in order to obtain a civil divorce. Even if he is imprisoned for a different matter and the wife has someone who is willing to intervene to obtain his freedom on the condition that he give her a get – this is not considered that he was coerced to give a get. That is because the cause of his suffering was not caused by his not giving a get – but because of an unrelated matter. The giving of the get only provides a remedy for removing the suffering. Therefore a get given to stop suffering from an unrelated matter is considered to be total free-will. This is quite simple and logical. This is a valid get even in a situation where he has no obligation to divorce her. [...]
===============
Mesoras Moshe (Even HaEzer #133 page 440): ... Rav Moshe was asked ... Is it permitted to force a disgusting and criminal husband to divorce his wife by beating him as some are accustomed to do. Rav Moshe replied that a get given as the result of a beating is a get me'usa and it is prohibited to do such. However all other types of pressure are permitted to do since the husband has a true choice concerning what he wants. In other words when he can decide that he would rather not lose money or kavod [that is not considered a get me'usa]. In contrast regarding torture even though he doesn't wnat to give a get but it is impossible for them to handle the pain. We see this in the statement of Chazal, "That if Chananya, Mishal and Ezarya were beaten" [Thus torture produces a get me'usa]. [in a footnote it states] ( And he viewed that only a beating given by beis din was legitimate but that which was given by laymen it is not clear that the consideration that a person really wants to listen to the chachomim applies). I then asked Rav Moshe when prison is considered to be torture [and thus would produce an invalid get]. He replied that in Europe there is no question that it would invalidate the get since it was such a horrible place that involved torture and possibly death... However here in America perhaps there are types of jail that are not so horrible [and thus would not invalidate the get]
Then I asked Rav Moshe if the husband was beaten but no one told him that the beating would stop if he agreed to divorce his wife but rather he was simply told "you think you can handle this torture. Perhaps now you understand the torture you have caused your wife by making her an aguna" and then stop the beating. If he gives the divorce after this without mentioning the beating..." Rav Moshe laughed and said that maybe the would be valid under these circumstances since the husband isn't t explicitly giving the get because of the beating it would not be considered a get me'usa. However in terms of actually poskening that way Rav Moshe did not want to take the responsibility for such a psak. He said, "Practically speaking it would be impossible for me to permit such an action."
Rav Sternbuch: The nature of the prohibition of not accepting lashon harah
Guest Post: 1) The following is a teshuva from R Sternbuch, my translation, which R Eidenhsohn has graciously agreed to print. I was excited to find this Teshuva because it addresses a basic question I've had for a long time: How can we be told whether to believe a story -don't we do so automatically based on whether we think it makes sense?
2)I found this Teshuva particularly hard to translate as it seemed highly repetitive and I'm not completely certain of R Sternbuch's conclusion. (Where exactly do you draw the line between chazakah and reality?)
3)I have opted for a somewhat freer translation. Readers who can do so, are obviously advised to consult the original teshuva
Teshuvos v'Hanhagos 1:555):
A question regarding accepting Lashon Harah {Henceforth LH}
2)I found this Teshuva particularly hard to translate as it seemed highly repetitive and I'm not completely certain of R Sternbuch's conclusion. (Where exactly do you draw the line between chazakah and reality?)
3)I have opted for a somewhat freer translation. Readers who can do so, are obviously advised to consult the original teshuva
Teshuvos v'Hanhagos 1:555):
A question regarding accepting Lashon Harah {Henceforth LH}
The holy Chafetz Chaim zt"l in Hilchos lashon hara (6:10) rules that it's forbidden to accept LH that one heard on his friend- rather he must assume that the guy remains with his status of not having sinned. Nevertheless, one may take precautions and it's necessary to investigate and clarify, however he must not have even a doubt in his heart- as the guy retains his presumed innocence {Chazakah}
And his words are very difficult: are people angels that when he hears from someone he trusts and who does not hate the guy he's speaking about and therefore the listener suspects in his heart that it might be true how can we say that this is an issur of accepting LH? Now, of course he may not harm the person spoken about at all based on hearsay, but in his heart he's going to have doubts that the report may be true! And it is hard to even imagine that he 'suspects' only in order to investigate but in truth he has no real doubt.- the law of chazakah itself leaves us unsure of the reality, just Halacha dictates to act as if the previous status remains! But it's never been ruled that even in one's heart it's prohibited to be in doubt of the true reality! But rather we have a doubt what the true reality is, and the presumption of innocence (chezkas kashrus) doesn't decide on this.
I likewise saw in the sefer Pe'as Sadcha (from RSD Munk zt"l) #29 that he reported that he asked the Chazon Ish zt"l about this and he replied "who can behave like that- this [the halacha regarding LH] is just lomdus". And he means as we said before that it's impossible to behave like this and the torah was not given to angels.
Therefore, it appears that that the Chafetz Chaim's intent was that since when one who hears LH,it's human nature to believe the reporter, especially if he's a reliable person, and it therefore becomes a full blown doubt by him that the LH may be true. And on this the opinion of the holy Chafetz Chaim is that he must know that the rules of the torah require that he presume everyone innocent- just that the halachah is that he is permitted to suspect- and as a precaution against something that's likely to cause him harm if the report is true. But, beyond this, it is definitely prohibited to tell others or cause the person in question any pain or the like. And this doubt that is permitted here to act on, is for himself to doubt the guy's innocence despite the general rule of chezkas kashrus, and to act as if the rumor might be true; but in his heart he needs to know clearly that the guy keeps his chezkas kashrus and therefore the LH report is false {Sheker}- and the torah was not given to angels.
In any case, we are commanded to "judge everyone favorably" - to find a mitigating factor {be melamed zechus} as much as possible. And there is no limit to how many mitigating factors one can find- as well as to entertain that the teller did not see what happened exactly or all the details and therefore did not relate all that was involved etc
And the primary prohibition of LH is that after one has heard the gossip, he should not change the way he relates to guy he heard about at all, and that as relates to the guy he does not suspect him of anything, even if he cannot be an angel who it would be clear to, as we have said.
תשובות והנהגות כרך א
סימן תקנה
שאלה: באיסור קבלת לשון הרע וגדרה
הקדוש בעל "חפץ חיים" זצ"ל בהלכות לשון הרע (כלל ו' סעיף י') פוסק שאסור לקבל לשה"ר ששמע רע על חבירו רק יש להעמידו על חזקתו שאין בו עולה, ומ"מ למיחש מיהת בעי לברר וליזהר, אבל אין לו עוד אפילו ספק בלבבו כל זמן שיש חזקה.
ודבריו תמוהין מאד, אטו בני אדם מלאכי השרת הם, וכששומע מאדם מהימן שאינו שונאו וחושש בלבו, היאך נימא שזהו איסור קבלת לשון הרע, ונהי דאי אפשר לו לנגוע בחבירו כמלא נימא על סמך שמועה, מ"מ בלבו מסתפק שמא השמועה נכונה, וקשה אפילו לצייר שחושש רק כדי לברר אבל באמת אין אצלו אפילו חשש, והלוא מדין חזקה גופא נשאר ספק רק הלכה לנהוג כמקודם, ומעולם לא נפסק בחזקה שגם בלב אסור להסתפק כלל, ועכ"פ יש כאן ספק במציאות והחזקת כשרות לא מכרעת על זה.
וכן ראיתי בספר "פאת שדך" (מהגר"ש מונק זצ"ל) סי' כ"ט מביא ששאל מהחזו"א זצ"ל והשיב "מי יכול לעמוד בזה אין זה אלא לומדות" וכוונתו כנ"ל שהרי אי אפשר לעמוד בזה ולא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת. ולכן נראה בכוונת הח"ח דכששומע לשה"ר הלוא טבע האדם הוא להאמין למספר ובפרט אם הוא אדם נאמן, ונעשה לו עכ"פ ספק גמור, ולזה דעת הקדוש החפץ חיים שצריך לידע שדין התורה הוא להעמיד כל אחד בחזקתו והרי הוא בחזקת כשרות, ורק הלכה היא שמותר לחשוש וכחששא לענין זהירות מדבר שעלול ליגרם לו נזק אם השמועה היתה נכונה, ומלבד זהירות זה האיסור בתורת ודאי לספר לאחרים או לצערו וכדומה, וחששא זו שהותר בזה היא שלעצמו חושש שלא כדין חזקת כשרות, אלא כאילו כן האמת, אבל בלבו צריך לידע ברור שחזקתו בכשרות, ולכן סיפור הלשה"ר הוא שקר, ולא ניתנה התורה למלאכי השרת. ובכל אופן מצווים אנו "בצדק תשפוט עמיתך" ללמד זכות כפי האפשר ואין גבול עד כמה אפשר ללמד זכות, וגם לצדד שההוא לא ראה בדקדוק או את כל הפרטים ולא סיפר או יודע כל הנסיבות וכו'.
ועיקר איסור קבלת לשון הרע הוא לאחר השמיעה שלא ישתנה אצלו היחס לחבירו כלל, וליהוי כאילו לא שמע, שלגבי חבירו אינו חושש כלל, אף אם לעצמו אינו כמלאכי השרת שברור לו, וכמ"ש.
Lesson for Shavuos: Your spiritual (& physical life) comes before that of others
When I read the following while indexing the Mishna Berura (Yad Yisroel) I was puzzled. How could it be that if there is a spiritual opportunity that you can not give it up to help another person? After all doesn't the Chofetz Chaim say that serving G-d with all your might means that you must be prepared to sacrifice that which is most precious to you. Therefore if you are Talmid Chachom you should be prepared to sacrifice your learning for the sake of serving G-d?
The lesson mentioned below for Shavuos is that Boaz did not want to sacrifice the spiritual opportunity to be the ancestor of Dovid HaMelech and therefore concealed the importance of marrying Ruth. Similarly Yaakov didn't want to miss the opportunity to be the ancestor of the Jewish people and therefore he bought it from a starving Esav with food - instead of simply feeding him.
I asked Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach why in the case of the prisoners with one kazayis of matzoh they have to fight over it and one can not simply allow the other to take it?
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach answered:. If you possess the matzoh you can give it to another person. However if neither of you have the mitzva - then you have to strive to obtain it. The reasoning is simple. By not making an effort but simply passively letting the other take the mitzva you are showing a contempt for the mitzva. You are showing that it really doesn't mean anything to you. However once you have the mitzva - then the giving the other person the opportunity does not show a disrespect for the mitzva.
Bottom line: The Torah(Devarim 1:17) says that one should not withdraw when confronted by any man. That means if you know the halacha - you can not refuse to pasken. You can not pretend you don't know the halacha. Nor can you refuse to question your teachers because they are so much superior to you (Sanhedrin 6b). Similarly, one can not be shy and humble when it comes to acquiring Torah learning or doing mitzvos. (See Mishna Berura in simon 1).
Shaarei Teshuva (482:1-2)
The Beis Yehudah asks when two people are in prison or in the desert and
there is only enough matzo for one of them to fulfill the mitzva – who has
priority? He answers that whoever is stronger gets the matzo. But this answer
doesn't seem correct because then the matzo would be considered stolen from the
other party and thus not able to used for the mitzva. … Apparently then the
Beis Yehuda's case must be in the case where the matzo is ownerless. This would
thus be no different than other situations where somebody acquires something
from hefker such as leket shicha and peah….You take precedent over everyone
else – even concerning something which is needed to live…. In the case of two
people in the desert, the halacha is that it is prohibited to give up your
portion of water to save the other – even if both die because of this. If this
is true concerning material things than it is surely true concerning spiritual
issues. The commentary to Megilas Ruth - Igros Shemuel - comes to a similar conclusion. Boaz referred
to Ruth as a Moabitess when he is talking to one who has the first right to
marry her. He did this because he knew with his ruach hakodesh that Ruth was
destined to be the ancestress of the royal family of Dovid. He wanted to
frighten the person away from marrying Ruth so that he himself could marry her
and thus be the ancestor to this great lineage. Even though it is prohibited to
deceive someone to get their possessions, that is only when dealing with
material possessions – but not mitzvos. Even though it is prohibited to take
mitzvos from others such as mila, nevertheless wherever the other has not
actually obtained the mitzva it is like the ownerless desert which can be taken
by anyone. Everyone is commanded to perfect his soul and to acquire
mitzvos. This can also be seen with
Yaakov concerning the rights of the first-born. Yaakov knew that Esav was
driven to do evil and that he needed the rights of the first born to perfect
himself. … Therefore if they have the matzo in partnership, if one overcomes
the other than it doesn't help for the mitzva since it is stolen. However there
still remains the possibility that there is a partial mitzva done with less
than the minimum quantity (i.e., chatzi shiur) according to the Ritva .
According to this possibility than each one should hold onto his half and
achieve a partial mitzva and neither would be allowed to give up his part to
allow the other to fulfill the complete mitzva and he would lose the mitzva entirely.
But it would seem even according to the Ritva it would be better to cast lots.
Then the person who won would achieve the complete mitzva but the loser would
still achieve reward for the mitzva since he was responsible for the other
being able to fulfill the mitzva completely. This would be comparable to the
Yissachor Zevulen relationship….because the complete mitzva is very much
greater that the reward for a partial mitzva. And when it is done complete by
means of another he merits and causes his brother to merit with him and it is
not considered as giving up the mitzva since he is doing this by means of the
lottery. Similarly if he gives to his portion to the other willingly it would
also seem that there is nothing wrong since this causes that the mitzva be done
fully. This would surely hold true according those who posken that there is no
mitzva at all for chatzi shiur… Thus one who voluntarily gives up his portion
to enable the other one to fulfill the mitzva properly gets reward with him and
it is considered as if he did the mitzva in its entirety by himself…
Making of a Godol: Rav Shimon Shkop stayed at YU in order to emulate Rav Yisroel Salanter
In researching the issue of what the Seridei Aish meant that Mussar was a frum Haskala - Rav Triebetz pointed out a passage in his father-in-laws sefer Making of a Godol. This passage indicates that there was more to the frum haskala then personal spiritual growth and yiras shamayim. page 1100-1101
=================
In fact, R' Shimon shunned the advice of both R' Chaim-Ozer Grodzensky and the Chafetz-Chaim to resign from his 5689 [1929] post as Rosh Yeshiva of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary [RIETS] in New York because he was sure R' Yisrael would have ordered him to keep it. He left the position after half a year only because of family reasons.'" It should be added that when R' Shimon had decided to stay in America, he also did not consider the feelings of his talmidim in Europe, who were heartbroken when they heard that their master would remain in the United States; see Shkop Book which records R' Yisrael-Zev Gustman's recollection, to wit, "I remember that there were bahurim who sat down on the ground and cried when they heard that R' Shimon was not planning to return to Grodno." R' Shimon obviously intended to emulate what R' Yisrael Salanter did in the last third of his life - that is, to leave the established Torah environment of Russia and function in Western Europe (and relegate visiting Russia to sporadic occasions only). The Salanter had gone to German communities and Paris because, according to Etkes Book o, "he was essentially drawn (there) by the challenge of restoring traditional values and modes of behavior"P. Katz Iq is more dramatic when it writes, "R' Yisrael had a greater design: he was not satisfied with his accom-plishments in Russia. His aspirations encompassed distant worlds and his eyes wandered vast stretches to strengthen Fear of G-d everywhere, and to inject the spirit of Musar, in which he saw the salvation of Judaism, into all corners of the House of Israel. His first glance fell on nearby Germany, where Reform ruled in all its force and swept away every vestige of Judaism. Assimilation was spreading with gigantic steps and soon no remnant of the House of Israel would remain. R' Yisrael moved to Germany and undertook to halt this deterioration and strew the Dew of Resurrection on Judaism [there]." R' Shimon, too, was drawn to the spiritual challenge that America posed in the interwar years . Also cf. The CCL which asserts about the Chafetz-Chaim that "in a certain sense, (he) considered R' Yisrael his mentor and guide in life" - as R' Epstein asserted in regard to R' Shimon Shkop. (R' Mordkhai Karlinsky, who studied under R' Shimon in Yeshivath Rabbenu Yitzhaq Elhanan, related that R' Shkop, his rosh yeshiva at the time, told him when he left to return to Europe that he considered America the future home of Torah and would gladly have taken a post in another yeshiva had there been one available - at that time, Yeshiva Torah Vodaath consisted of only an elementary level. This is consistent with R' Zelig Epstein's statement that R' Shkop was following a Salanterian stance in remaining in America.
Kinder Arois: The price we pay to keep our children innocent
Years ago, at a tisch in
Amshinov in Yerushalayim, a friend saw me drying my hands on my
handkerchief. He pointed to the towel hanging by the sink and said, “S’iz gantz triken — It’s pretty dry.”
I answered, “I’m superstitious. I still believe in germ theory.”
He looked more through me than at me and said, “The first people to
die in the Warsaw Ghetto were the ones who weren’t used to germs.”
David Phillip Vetter was born with severe combined immunodeficiency
(SCID). The disease disabled his immune system. Any exposure to germs
would kill him. He lived from 1971 to 1984 — in a totally sterile
environment.
It was a time when there was still such a thing as privacy. And,
respecting the family’s privacy, the media never mentioned his last
name. They simply called him the “bubble boy.”
I was deeply disturbed by “DEBATE: Photos of Tragedies: An important
message or an unbearable burden?” We all have a natural need to protect
ourselves. Even more so, to protect our children. But do we really need
to turn our children into “bubble boys” to protect them from all
possible “calamities that may come into the world?”
When we wrap our children in sterile bubble pack, we run a grave risk. Of course we want them to always be b’simchah. But life — real life — is more than just simchos. And they need to be able to deal with that.
I am not a psychologist. And I am not a rabbi. However, I am a father
and a grandfather. So I can speak from experience. Yes, the photo on
the cover of Hamodia that week was jarring. It was meant to be.
But it was far from a sensationalist gimmick. If your child is too
fragile, by all means, handle with care. Put the paper away — along with
your Eichah and Kinos.
We all know that at Yizkor, they give a klap in shul and call out, “Kinder arois —Children out!”
A first reaction would be that the mourning and crying is too much for children to handle. On second thought, halevai people still cried by Yizkor.
But I digress. It’s not only the children who leave. It’s anyone who still has parents. And the reasons brought down for the minhag are related to ayin hara, not to protecting the children from seeing the sorrow of their elders. No one sends children out of the shul on Tishah B’Av.
A Chassid once came to the Kotzker Rebbe, zy”a and complained
bitterly, “I can’t take it anymore. Everything I hear, everything I
read…. It’s just like Shlomo Hamelech says in Koheles: “Yosif daas, yosif mach’ov — the more you know, the more you suffer!”
The Kotzker answered, “Krenken zolst di; abi vissen zolst di — Suffer; as long as you know!”
Knowledge and feeling bring pain. So does learning to walk or to struggle over a Tosafos. But it’s worth it. Don’t deprive our children of learning to feel for others. It hurts, but it’s worth it.
Seridei Aish:Need to apologize to maskilim who fought against hypocrisy
It is a strong condemnation of the hypocrisy of the religious community and an acknowledgement of desirablity of the efforts of the maskilim to improving society by reducing hypocrisy.
בטיהר רוחני קיום עמנו
ב"ה עש"ק וירא, תשי"ג מונטרע
לידידי מכבובדי הרח"מ והסופר הגדול
מהרש"ז שרגאי שליט"א
שלו' וברכת רפואה שלמה ומהירה
הצטערתי לשמוע שכ"ת כבר עזב את מונטרע מבלי שנפרדנו בברכה כנהוג ומבלי שנתנה לי ההזדמנות לשוח בענינים העומדים ברומו של עולמנו. דבר אחד מעיק על לבי: הירידה המוסרית בתוכנו והסבלנות המופרזה ביחס אל הרמאות המצטבעת בצבע של חסידות ודאגה לעלבונה של תורה. הרמאות מתגברת והולכת. היא עובדת בערמה ובחוצפה ומלעיגה לתמימות המאמינים להם. אלמלי ניתנה רשות לגלות את ערמתם וערמימותם של הרמאים הצבועים הי' העולם נבהל ומשתומם ; אבל הרמאים מפילים את מוראם ופחדם על הכל בכלי נשק של רכילות, עלילת עלילות, מלשינות והלבנת פנים מחוצפה. ויש שרואים ומציצים בין החרכים אבל הם "נכבשים" ע"י חנופה וחלוקת כבוד מזויפת. ובין כך וכך הרמאות מצליחה ובהצלחתה היא מרעילה את האויר וגורמת ליאוש שיתגבר מתוך הכרה כי כן מנהגו של עולם : צדיק ורע לו ורשע וטוב לו. ברי לי כי בטהר רוחנית ובהרמת הגובה המוסרי תלוי' שאלת קיים עמנו וקיום מדינתנו, אלו המדקדקים ,בדיני כשרות, שעטנז, מנהגי ביה"כ וכדומה ועוברים בגליו ובשאט על עיקרי המסר והנימוס האנושי גורמים לריחוק בני הדור מן הדת וקיום מצוותי'. הצרה הגדולה ביותר היא שהעסקנות לשם הרבצת התורה ולשם שמירת הדת נעשתה מקור לפרנסה ולסולם המוליך לדרגא חברותיה גבוהה. יש בתוכנו אנשים שרק בעזרת עסקנות זו זכו לשם ולפרסום. הרגשה שהעולם מתחשב עמהם מפיחה בהם יצר המלחמה. אנו צריכים להשתטח על קברי "המשכילים" שלחמו נגד הצבועים ולבקש סליחתם על פגיעתנו בכבודם. הם לחמו בעד האמת שלהם בחרוף נפש. עכשיו כל אדם רוצה להיות מקובל על הבירות ומשלימים עם החנפים, ועם השוררים עזי-הפנים, ועם חאדמו"רים הקטנים שאין להם בעולמם ולא כלום. נרד לטמיון ח"ו אם לא נתעורר מעפר השקר וההנופה.
שבתא טבא גם לבניו
יחיאל יעקב וויינברג
Seridei Aish: Why were religious Jews attracted to Haskala?
Continuing the investigation into the expression of "frum haskala" that was used by the Seridei Aish for the Mussar movement. In the following letter he describes the miserable life most lived in the ghetto and why Haskala was viewed as a desirable alternative - even though it meant religious compromises and rejection. I just added a comparable quote from Rav S. R. Hirsch's 19 Letters
Seridei Aish (Volume IV page 366 translated by Rabbi Eliyahu
Meir Klugman in Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch page 16). The ghetto stood for
hundreds of years and produced men of great
stature, righteous people, who devoted their energies to Torah study and mitzvah observance, men whose entire joy and pleasure in life was to rejoice in the
Almighty. They attained lofty spiritual
levels and merited a degree of Divine inspiration that raised them high above the bitter darkness of
the exile. Such people's words and deeds were suffused with the sanctity of
the Torah, and its presence permeated
their lives.
Nonetheless, within the ghetto's walls there lived also masses of
people who were not privileged to taste the Torah's pleasures and to experience its inspiration. These
people thirsted for life, and their
inability to attain it made them depressed. They knew only difficulty, and the lives of a
significant portion of them were twisted
by an ascetic melancholy.
Finally the day came, new winds began to blow and the walls of the ghetto fell before them. Rays of hope,
of light and liberty, the prospects of
life and creativity, wealth and social position, wafted into the darkest
corners of the ghetto, to human beings who had been so long deprived of any
place in society. The innate thirst for a healthy and complete life which is so
natural to every Jew, a thirst repressed
for so many centuries, was reawakened amid
sound and fury.
These radical developments brought the Jewish people to a state
of crisis. One-dimensional life-denying; religiosity simply collapsed, totally
unable to restrain its children who strayed from its framework, rejecting the indignities of oppression, who strove to
break free from their constraints.
Confusion reigned in
the Jewish community. On the one side stood the elders, preservers of
tradition, who defended with all their might the accepted religious way, which
was predicated on a rejection of the pleasures and accomplishments of the
material world. On the other side were those drunk and dizzy with their new
freedom, who lashed out mercilessly at everything that was precious and holy in
the traditional order of Jewish life.
===============
Rav S. R. Hirsch (Nineteen Letters #18): [The
leaders of Orthodoxy] became at first enemies of this philosophical
spirit, and later of all specifically intellectual and philosophical pursuits
in general. Certain misunderstood utterances [e.g., Bereishis Rabbah 44:1] were
taken as weapons with which to repel all higher interpretations of the Talmud .
. . The inevitable consequence was, therefore, that since oppression and
persecution had robbed Israel of every broad and natural view of world and of
life, and Talmud had yielded about all the practical results for life of which
it was capable, every mind that felt the desire of independent activity was
obliged to forsake the paths of study and research in general open to the human
intellect, and to take its recourse to dialectic subtleties and hairsplitting.
Only a very few [e.g., R’ Yehuda HaLevi’s Kuzari and Ramban] during
this entire period stood with their intellectual efforts entirely within
Judaism, and built it up out of its own inner concept [Drachman translation]….
we are left with two generations confronting each other. One of them has
inherited an uncomprehended Judaism, as practiced by men from habit, a revered
but lifeless mummy which it is afraid to bring back to life. The other, though
in part burning with noble enthusiasm for the welfare of the Jews, regards
Judaism as bereft of any life and spirit, a relic of an era long past and
buried, and tries to uncover its spirit, but, not finding it, threatens through
its well‑meant efforts to sever the last life nerve of Judaism - out of sheer
ignorance [Paritzky translation].
===============
Rav Triebetz: Does Rav Yisroel Salanter have a legacy?
Last night we had a active and at times heated discussion regarding Rav Yisroel Salanter according to the understanding of the Seridei Aish. The focus was 1) what was Rav Yisroel Salanter trying to accomplish 2) Did he produce any significant change in today's Orthodox World 3) Are there any talmidei chachomim today whose outlook on life can be said to be that of Rav Salanter. 4) The Yeshiva world fought him until they could institutionalize his program and thus render it totally ineffective to what he was trying to accomplish. 5) To what degree did he actually believe in a "frum hashkala" i.e., open minded and empathetic to others - and how much of it was a pragmatic program to save people from the secular haskala. 6) Utilized Prof Steven Pinker description of the ebb and flow of the secular haskala in history to clarify the dynamics of the Mussar movement.
Summary: The focus was understanding what the Seridi Aish wrote here(in translated by Rabbi Leo Jung in Men of the Spirit page 242-247). In essence Rav Yisroel proposed Mussar as a frum haskalah - adopting the lofty ideals, interpersonal sensitivity, tikkun olam of the Englishtment. This was how he was understood by the Maskillim who thought he was a kindred spririt. In fact this was just a tactic which he was ready to discard when it wasn't needed anymore i.e., when the students were safely in yeshiva. Consequently the Mussar Movment of Rav Yisroel doesn't exist in the yeshivos anymore - because it serves no purpose. It now focuses on much more internal states rather than being a movement open to the world of man in all its glory and be concerned with fixing societies problems
======================
Summary: The focus was understanding what the Seridi Aish wrote here(in translated by Rabbi Leo Jung in Men of the Spirit page 242-247). In essence Rav Yisroel proposed Mussar as a frum haskalah - adopting the lofty ideals, interpersonal sensitivity, tikkun olam of the Englishtment. This was how he was understood by the Maskillim who thought he was a kindred spririt. In fact this was just a tactic which he was ready to discard when it wasn't needed anymore i.e., when the students were safely in yeshiva. Consequently the Mussar Movment of Rav Yisroel doesn't exist in the yeshivos anymore - because it serves no purpose. It now focuses on much more internal states rather than being a movement open to the world of man in all its glory and be concerned with fixing societies problems
======================
The Kovno years were the years of intellectual founding of the Mussar method, and of the growing realization
that the study of Mussar must assume its
place at the top of Hebrew education.
The Mussar movement, rooted in the desire for spiritual perfection
and the improvement of character, acquired a new factor in Kovno: concern for
very survival of Judaism, which was threatened
by the Haskalah movement, whose early romantic charm had long since passed and which could
now be seen in its furious conspiracy
against traditional Judaism. R. Israel's slogan was: "Fight the Maskilim with their own
weapons! Form an all Hebrew genuine Haskalah movement and educate rabbis and teachers to spread this pure Hebrew Haskalah among the
people!” It was aimed not at the outside
enemy threatening to destroy the Jewish
youths, but rather inwards, to fill
that youth with pride and
strength and to render it insusceptible to cultural elements - alien to the
spirit of the Torah. He would say: "If we have strong minded scholars of our own who will bear the
standard of the Torah with pride and
dignity, we need not fear presumptuous deniers
of the faith! Against firm infidels we must pitch a firm and
proud Jewry. Rejection of the secular Haskalah alone is not enough! " argued R. Israel.
"It is the nature of a new cultural trend to seep in through small crevices. Fighting it
with prohibitions and excommunications
alone will not stem the tide, for the spirit of man
is not to be stemmed by mere force The
suppression of the spirit in itself is of no value. It cut short spiritual
development and results in but a spiritual sterility The sole defense against a cultural movement
breaking in from the outside is the
establishment of an opposing cultural force, and the opening of doors to a fresh
trend of thought, stemming from the very depth of our
Jewish soul
“Thus not a war against foreign 'enlightenment', but
a war for Hebrew original Haskalah, which means moral perfection, nobility of
soul, and lofty ideals. Such a deep-rooted Haskalah need not fear foreign enlightenment, which is but
external polish and technical proficiency, has no roots
in Judaism, and cannot satisfy the
yearnings of a Jewish heart.”
R. Israel said also: "The best instrument for communal
influence is the the normal behavior of the teacher or instructor. The language
most readily understood by the people is that of exemplary
conduct. A great man's influence is in his personality.
Sermons . and
speeches can entertain, but they cannot captivate the heart Only deep and sincere faith, flowing
from heart to heart, and clad in mighty
deeds, can work wonders. The Greek philosophers , considered it
sufficient to teach the people what is good or bad beautiful or evil, to develop in man the
understanding of at is good and right in
order to realize the good in life. But history teaches us that these philosophers had little
influence upon their - people. They remained steeped in their heathen beliefs
and immoralities. Why? Because the
philosophers were men of thought but not
of faith, too many of them did not practice what they - preached. The
wise teacher can impart a certain amount of knowledge to his
listeners, but he cannot educate them. This 'knowledge does not become an
organic part of the students. The road from mind to heart is a very long one. Development
of the mind does not develop man's
heart, nor does it enrich his soul or form his character. The acquisition of knowledge turns
a man into a knowledgeable person, but
his spiritual make-up remains as it was
formed when he was born.
"Acquired knowledge remains in the mind without growing and causes no action. Only an improved
personality can conquer. The
inspiration, which comes from soul to soul is the sole factor in education."
R. Israel did not oppose the study of scientific knowledge and of foreign tongues. During his long stay
in Germany he became friendly with R. Ezriel Hildesheimer, and he praised him
to his students as a lofty and perfect
man. He dreamed of introducing a method of "Torah 1m Derekh Eretz (Torah
and Fine Mannners)" or "Torah and Modern Education" after
the fashion of German Orthodoxy and
worked towards a German translation of
the Talmud, hoping that it might be introduced into the universities as a scientific
study within the liberal arts departments.
His appreciation of secular learning notwithstanding, he refused
to admit these subjects to the yeshivot. "The yeshivah," he would say, "is not only a school for
Torah studies. It is a forma tive home
and a fertile field for the growth of the Jewish spirit. The atmosphere of a yeshivah must be pure of all secular
matter. Not he who completed his studies
at a yeshivah can be authorized to serve
as rabbi and teacher, but only he who matured in spirit so that he may take the yeshivah with him
wherever he may go."
"Mental, spiritual and moral training is plentifully
provided by the Torah. Secular learning
may be utilized as a source of income,
or in the fulfil1ment of practical needs in social and public service. Far be it from us to turn this
secular learning into a crown of glory;
it does not fit those who wear upon their heads the crown of the Torah. These new rabbis, who
graduated from the state rabbinical
schools, take pride in a false crown which is not theirs. But the Torah crown, in whose
name they preach and through whose
strength they rose to their position, is turned by them into no more than a ceremonial tool,
useful only to the extent of its
serviceability in religious ceremonies."
Apparently it was this attitude of R. Israel's towards secular learning, regarding it not as "heavenly
enlightenment" but solely as source
of practical and technical ability, that caused the Maskilim, who, at first,
had respected him, to turn against him and become his violent opponents. They did not
dare belittle or attack him during his
lifetime. But after his death, when the leadership of the Mussar movement was handed to his
disciples, who continued in his ways,
the Maskilim launched a bitter attack against this method. There is good reason to assume
that many Maskilim falsely believed R.
Israel to be one of them, or at the very least akin to them in spirit. They saw in 11im a
fighter against all that was stagnant in
Jewish religious life, as they saw the people limit themselves to physical, mechanical observance
of the religion only, ignoring or
neglecting, because of their spiritual poverty, the most important principle of Judaism, the wisdom of
Bahya's "Duties of the Heart."
They saw R. Israel calling for a spiritual renascence, the preparation of the
heart, moral purification, improvement of manners, and beautification of the
soul. They heard his new ideas set forth
in his sermons and they believed they saw a religious revolutionary, a seeker of new
paths, a religious fighter who wants to
change and rearrange all values of Hebrew life. Such a man they believed would not object to the
introduction of European culture "to the tents of Shem."
The Maskilim were gravely mistaken. They had completely misunderstood R. Israel. He did not fight
against the physical observance of the
religion, but only against the spiritual poverty caused by it....
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)