- This topic has 334 replies, 51 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
” It also reflects how little many[sic]of our ilk reject science or other higher learning”
So, finally Rebdoniel’s true agenda is out there for all to see:Those of us who blindly follow our gedolim and the derech halimud that has always existed, are “shtetle yidden” who know nothing of science(and, accordingly, can’t learn)and don’t understand higher learning – so how can we criticize the cronys at his modern institutions who offer us an enlightened perspective on how men and women in today’s modern age should learn (together).What a pathetic joke. And sorry, most of us are not of your ilk.
By the way, I happen to have attended one of the the nations top three law schools and give a nightly daf yomi shiur. I can assure you I dont recall anything of importance that I learned in law school (much less in college) but the words of my rebbaim still ring loud and clear.And none of those words sound anything like Linzer’s.
nitpicker: If you google a bit on this “sugya” you may come across articles by Jonathan Rosemblum (surely a chareidi sympathizer) where he corrects himself and says that Borokowsky indeed was not seen as a shomer torah umitzvos.
beninugman,rebdoniel, Sam2 and others: After all is said and done, what differentiates the Langer case from what Rav Sherman (and Rav Attyia) is not the halachic basis of the different epiaodes but how it was done. AS I said many times, Rav Goren did it ONCE (invalidating a previous geirus) but Rav Sherman invalidated EVERY single geirus by Rav Druckman. That alone showed why the psak din of Rav Sherman was erroneous. he did it by “passeling’ the whole Bais Din- and this is why it had all the hallmarks of chareidi overreach.Furthermore, a dayan of Rav Sherman’s own Bais Din (Rav Shlomo Dichowsky)objected to his psak.
There is more,much more on this in various writings (check out, Dov Zakheim’s -Transforming Israel’s Chief Rabbinate, November 2012)but the bottom line is that the chareidi leadership in Israel was-and still is- intent on controlling all aspects of the Rabbinical process in Israel and that they -and only they- can tell us what is right or not.As an example of this power play, did you know that many chareidi Rabbis would consider a Gyores who wears pants or doesn’t cover her hair as not adhering to kabbolos mitzvos? This surely was never meant to be the baseline.
ROB: R’ Ovadiah, the Tzitz Eliezer, R’ Shlomo Zalman, and even R’ Elyashiv cite R’ Unterman and R’ Hertzog. They might not Pasken like them always or even often (they almost never agreed with R’ Uziel), but the opinions are quoted with respect. Everyone who ever writes a Sefer on T’cheiles nowadays starts with R’ Hertzog. And R’ Tzvi Pesach Frank is well-quoted and well-respected by all of the major Poskim. R’ Goren is not.
Feminist-I guess some of your… um gender… don’t see a problem wth a rabbi using language that would have gotten a kid thrown out of public school 25 years ago… while giving a public daf yomi shiur.After all, times change. Right?
Popa, women should absolutely not be prohibited from hearing apikursus. How can you forget one of your most famous threads? Are they even Jewish?
I am not familiar with the public school administration of 25 years ago, or of today, for that matter. I can tell you that I would personally object to a kid using that word in public school just to horse around, or for the sake of saying it, as many kids do. However, were a kid to use that word in biology class, he would be justified, and if I were a teacher, I would actively encourage my kids to use it rather than a euphemism.
Within its proper context, there is nothing improper about it and no reason to be ashamed of using it. It is not graphic in any way and doesn’t conjure any images that wouldn’t also be conjured by a different term. If you are going to sit down and learn about it, you had better not be ashamed to describe what you are learning using real terminology, not couch it in kiddie terms that beat around the bush for no apparent reason.
Neither a conscious decision to remain ignorant of ma’aseh bereshit and the social and natural sciences, nor an attitude of blind obedience to human authority are religious ideals with any basis in Talmudic Judaism. Da’at torah is a relatively recent phenomenon, partially inspired by Roman Catholic teachings on papal infallibility (See Jacob Katz’s research on this issue). Hazal, the Rambam, Rav Hirsch, Rabbeinu Bechaye, etc. all attest to the great need to be schooled in all areas of higher knowledge. Sanhedrin 17a even attests to the need for education in comparative religion.
Sam2-you will forgive me for not being impressed by your (possible) quotes.You’ll have to show me any teshuvo by a chareidi Possek in the last fifty years that paskens like Rav Unterman or Rav Herzog. R”Zvi Pessach Frank is an exception because he was Rov in Jerushalaim.
The chareidi Poskim in the past century have denied the authority of Poskim that they did not wish to recognize for political reasons. See R”Dovid Hoffman’s “melamed lehoyil” or Rav Weinberg’s “Seridei EisH”, for example. This is not to denigrate the chareidi Poskim but just to show that they will not recognize Poskim that don’t align themselves with their political line. Rav Kook zz’l and the Rov zz’l are in that position too. Check out Rav meshulam Rath zz’l and yo uwill see what I mean. Rav Goren’s erudition was as good as anyone’s but his aggressive stand on the Israeli Army and Israel were anathema to the chareidim. This does not invalidate his Piskei halocho.
TOB: A quick Bar Ilan search shows me that R’ Ovadia quotes the S’ridei Eish 47 times, the Tzitz Eliezer 8 times, and R’ Shternbuch in his T’shuvos (I didn’t check the Moadim Uzmanim, but I assume he’s Chareidi enough for you?) cites either the S’ridei Eish or R’ Weinberg himself 15 times.
Rav Ovadia quotes the Heichal Yitzchak 36 times and the Tzitz Eliezer quotes him twice. Both refer to him as “Hagaon R’ Yitzchak Eizik HaLeivi Hertzog.
Rav Ovadia quotes the Kol M’vaser 40 times, the Tzitz Eliezer quotes him 4 times and even has a T’shuvah to R’ Meshulam Roth.
The M’lamed L’ho’il is quoted 81 times by R’ Ovadia, 32 by the Tzitz Eliezer, and 5 times by R’ Shternbuch.
(The Az Nidb’ru isn’t on my Bar Ilan but I’ve seen him quote the S’ridei Eish too.)
Yes, the Zionist Gedolim may not be so popular or learned by the Chareidi masses. I will grant you that. But the contemporaries and G’dolei HaTorah, who know good Torah when they see it, respectfully quote even the L’umi/modern Poskim. R’ Goren was not quoted with the same respect because his P’sakim did not carry the same weight. I am not going to judge myself. I will say, however, that they have judged for me and I feel fairly confident being Toleh Atzmi Big’dolim on this.
Sam2: Thank you for your very thorough research on this matter.I don’t have the means to do the same research. Actually, you have buttressed what I have been thinking all along. Rav Ovadia Josef shelita, throughout his whole life, was one of the meikilin on many matters. Hence, his preponderance in quoting Poskim that you may not find in the average chareidi teshuvo.Same with the Tzitz Eliezer. The only surprise for me is that R’Moshe Sternbuch shelita quotes the “seridei eish”. maybe it is the family connection (Rav Sternbuch has family in Switzerland).All that said, do you think that Rav Sherman (and Rav Attiya) were right in the recent controvesy? And do you think that Rav Goren did not have the authority of doing what he did? If you disapprove of Rav Goren, how can you accept Rav Sherman? At least, the opposite can be allowed in isolated instances, as Rav Goren did . I appreciate your intelligent responses, even as I don’t always agree with them.
dafbiyun,
We teach children not to use some words, not because the words are themselves vulgar but because children will use them in an improper context. I did not hear the shiur you are discussing, but I have listened to shiurim on hilchos nidda before. Where the crowd is not knowledgeable enough to understand the Talmudic terms (and especially out of town) the Rabbi will use the correct English terms even though a child using the same terms would have had his mouth washed out with soap in our schools
to the aptly self-named rabbi of berlin:
ok, I will one last go at it, though I am not sure why,
I really have nothing new to add.
You suggest I google for more info in borokovsky;
o.k. I will do that. perhaps I will change my mind on that point.
but just to say again what poster after poster has tried to explain to you, yes rabbanim are very makil in these cases.
But they don’t take your attitude that there is always a heter
to be found or made up to avoid an unpleasant situation.
And it is also important for people to realize that a kulah for the possible mamzer can lead to chumros and problems for many others or even the subject himself.
Thank you for pointing out that sofek mamzer is mutar m’dioraisa,
since none of us arguing with you could possibly have known that.
And I know you think we didn’t know that because you wrote zil gmor. Since you know this, you must also know that omdu chachamim v’asu maaleh byuchsin. They forbade shtuki v’asufi even though the sofek is a stretch. They didnt have your modern, enlightened attitude. They preferred to protect kedushas yisroel.
Poster after poster has tried to point out to you that being makil does not mean being moreh shelo c’halacha. But you obviously think it does or at least it should.
There is no point in discussing particular cases with you such as the OP or the Langer case. It is your attitude we disdain.
And we aren’t imagining the attitude. You gave yourself away when you wrote “rav Goren did the right thing when he..” Who are you to say so? Reminder, I did not comment on the psak but on your double standard. You didn’t even say his psak was correct, which you couldn’t possibly know due to ignorance of all the facts and the halacha, but he ‘did the right thing’, the halacha itself being just an obstacle to overcome.
ROB: That is my point. You’re expecting too much “party line thinking” from massive Talmidei Chachamim. In general, that just doesn’t happen. R’ Shternbuch will quote whoever is worthy of being quoted, Zionist or not. And the Kol M’vaser might have been a Zionist, but he certainly wasn’t a Meikil. And I already have a post saying that I don’t disagree with the principle but I disagree with the applications used by both R’ Goren and R’ Sherman.
ROB- you disingenuously disregarded my point. Druckman was found to have forged conversions that makes him disqualified as a Dayan and disqualifies his beis din!!! It’s a simple logical point, that you and any druckman supporter ignore. Why?
As for Goren: a little background, I learned in dati Leumi yeshiva and in chevron. I spoke to old-timer chevroners, and they told me that although Goren was considered smart he was also wild. Now- you have to understand that although he had the “potential” to become a great Rav he squandered it and wasted his intellectual honesty for political gain and power.
To tell me that poskim have always been meikel when it comes to mamzeirus could be true, although “always” is decieving. How can you always be meikel when there’s a Halacha called mamzeirus? So no one will ever be a mamzeir? Poskim took all things in consideration and after applying their vast knowledge, insight and intellectual honesty ruled what they did. You use as an example Rav Moshe zt”l as “always” being meikel. So then why did he sign against Goren???? Of he’s always meikel he should’ve agreed with him!!! Answer of course being is that sometimes there’s nothing you can do and a mamzeir is a mamzeir. No one called Goren an apikores for making a mistake. They called him an apikores for blatantly disregarding Halacha.
As for datei Leumi: in all the dati Leumi yeshivas they learn “chareidi” seforim and poskim. There aren’t any dati Leumi rabbis of the caliber close to the charedi poskim and they acknowledge that as well. When there was a difficult and complex question they ALL came to Rav Elyashiv zt”l or Rav Shlomo Zalman zt”l. Rav hertzog zt”l and Rav kook zt”l and the other rabbonim quoted earlier are NOT dati Leumi. The dati Leumi population USE them for their purpose since these rabbonim didn’t write against the Mizrachi and their words could be twisted.
Over a week and still shuddering. Impressive.
moshe_d, you’re an ignorant little fool.
Truthsharer- what a well reasoned argument. Now how can one possibly dispute that?
To Sam2- thanks for your input. At least , you have been polite in this discussion and you have brought some concrete sources to it.I still disagree with you on some aspects but we are having a civil discussion.
nitpicker: Please refrain from insults. You don’t know me, you don’t know whether my poster name means anything and you certainly cannot accuse me of wrong attitudes. If I have-in the past- insulted anyone, I have apologized and I always try to avoid “ad hominem’ attacks.
MOshe-D and nitpicker: Did you ever wonder why no one on this blog and probably very few Jews altogether know a mamzer? I mean, there have been thousands of weddings and separations and the like,yet, do you know of a mamzer? More to the point, do you know anyone who ever had that “pessul” mentioned in a shidduch?Well, allow me to quote you two quick stories. In my days in yeshiva (yes, I went to good yeshivas), one of the most prominent Roshei yeshiva of the past generation told this story while learning this sugya:”In the alte heim (old country for non yiddish speakers), if there was such a problem with a (possible) mamzer- in other words, they knew that there was adultery- they sent the child (and maybe mother) away to a distant town or village where he/she was not known and there he/she continued to live as a normal Jew. Reason for this: because of the lack od communication in the old country, they could not check the status and that child -by definition- became a ‘sofek mamzer” and hence was NOT a mamzer at all. That story I can attest to be true Second story: there is a well-known incident with R”Moshe zz’l who was messader kiddushin and ,under the chuppah, the mother of the chosson (or bride, i don’t know) blurted out that the child was not from her husband and therefore was a mamzer and could not get married. R”Moshe zz’l turned to her and said: ” you cannot make yourself a rosho and you are not to be believed” and he continued with the kiddushin.Again, this story is well known.
So, nitpicker and Moshe.D: you can say what you want about me but Poskim through the centuries have used every means possible to avoid mamzerus. And it is halocho BECAUSE of that klal: “soffek mamzer oman rachmono”. Unless you have incontrovertible facts- such as the husband in prison for a long time and the wife getting pregnant, every Possek through the centuries has done everything he could to avoid mamzerus. THAT IS A FACT.
The opposition to Rav Goren was political and the Sherman/Attiya episode just proves it.
WOW! I just saw the video clip of the debate on the Rabbanut Harashit between Rav Feuerstein and Benny Rabinowitz of Yated. If there is ANY doubt that the chareidim want to impose their will on the rest of the Jewish people and wil only accept THEIR Rabbonim – this will dispel any doubt. No wonder the public at large is fighting back! Benny Rabinowitz’s accusations are outrageous and they disqualify the rest of jewry!Shameful!
You can’t. It was short, simple, truthful and to the point.
Halevai all arguments would be like that.
rob wrote:
“nitpicker: Please refrain from insults. You don’t know me, you don’t know whether my poster name means anything and you certainly cannot accuse me of wrong attitudes
“
I believe I demonstrated and proved my point. You and others may see things differently.
As for insults, you are a pro. You prefer to insult entire groups rather than individuals though. Kind of a wholesaler.
rob: Rov B’ilos Achar HaBa’al. Ein Adam Meisim Atzmo Rasha. Chezkas Kashrus. These are legitimate Halachic concepts that can all be used to Mattir Mamzerim. They are not extra-Halachic and have applications in non-Mamzeirus issues. The opposition to Rav Goren was not only political. It was because he exceeded his bounds unilaterally. A Chareidi Rav attempting the same would have been blasted just as badly.
and do I personally know a mamzer?
not knowingly, but certainly in the tshuva seforim there are cases,
including the one I cited above.
Rav Moshe wrote
from memory but I think it is substantially correct:
—-
But to be machshir the first daughter,
there is no place at all to be machshir her,
for she is a mamzeris vadois midoraisa.
He then goes on to explain why the
Rav’s attempts at a heter were meritless.
In fact the very case of the Langer’s proves our point not yours.
for if in fact rav goren permitted them, other rabbanim did not.
this was before rav goren was involved and was not a political vendetta against him.
According to you , it should have been unanimous.
oh and by the way,
as to the din (that we didn’t know about) of sofek mamzer,
rav moshe zatzal has a really fascinating Chidush about it.
Sam2: This is where we differ. I think that there are many teshuvos where more extreme ways were found to be mattir possible mamzerim- NOTE- I say possible mamzerim, because , until it is adjucated, there are no mamzerim. And yes, I believe that if a chareidi Possek would have done the same he would never, ever be attacked like Rav Goren was.
There are examples in our recent past and previous gegerations where chareidi Poskim issued controversial Piskei halocho and were never attacked like Rav Goren was. (Think R”Moshe zz’l and artificial insemination).You have yet to show me where Rav Goren exceeded any bounds, ESPECIALLY if you support Rav Sherman, which is what happened with the chareidi Poskim.
nitpicker: we have very little to discuss as you prefer to insult “ad hominem”, rather that enter into a constructive discussion.
sam2, no it won’t be blasted the same way. YWN has repeatedly not allowed me to post the name of a charedi mamzer-maker.
If you want, you can ask ROY or R’ Shmuel Kaminetzky what they think of the charedi mamzer-maker.
Truthsharer: Lol. The YWN Moderaters, Heilige Talmidei Chachamim that they may be, are not a Ra’aya to what the Gedolei HaPoskim think. That was my whole point to ROB. Most people play politics. The Major Gedolei Haposkim, for the most part, don’t.
Oh, and ROB: I saw in the Jewish Action about R’ Elyashiv a mention of the weekly gathering of Talmidei Chachamim that R’ Hertzog used to have at his house on Friday nights. I think some of the names would surprise you.
This mod is a gedolei haposek.
Sam2: I absolutely believe that Rav Herzog zz’l had so-called chareidim join him in his house. Unfortunately ,these were different times- so much so that people don’t want to know that Rav Kook zz’l had R’Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld zz’l join him and together they visited many yishuvim in the 1930’s.
Can you imagine TODAY R’ Shmuel Auerbach shelita join any dati leumi Rov and do some joint appearance? Never in our lives, unfortunately. So, what happened sixty years ago is not being duplicated-sadly.
RoB: You’re obviously mistaken. There are many recent pictures of Rabbi Simcha HaCohen Kook Shlita joining together with Rav Shalom Yosef Eliashev zt’l.
There was more achdut and respect among gedolim back then.
Back then? I’m talking about in the last three years or so (as well as earlier.)
Back to the original topic for a moment. I have heard that one of the three promoters of the anti R’ Ovadia letter, the one that prompted this thread, is in line for a major promotion in the RCA. One of the head dayanim of the RCA, a landsman of his, said he can not get that promotion unless he travels to Israel and does a personal bakashas mechila from R’ Ovadia.
biology: Rav Simcha HaCohen Kook may be a respected Rov- but a leader of the dati-leumi crowd he is not (As a matter of fact, most chareidi posters probably know little about him) I specifically singled out R” Shmuel Auerbach shelita because his father zz’l was very moderate and he is now the most extreme “Ashkenazi” non-chassidische Rov and he sure doesn’t sit with dati leumi rabbonim.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.