How do we know that anti-Zionist posters are Jewish?

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee How do we know that anti-Zionist posters are Jewish?

Viewing 48 posts - 51 through 98 (of 98 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2457422
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @avi

    netsiv supported chovevei tsion , we do not know his opinion of zionism

    stick to the facts .

    .

    #2457423
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @avi

    rav kook is quoted by the imrei emet as saying about himself that he not a tsioni and also not a ‘mizrachist’ ….

    printed in osef michtavim.

    there might be other sources . I don’t know of them ….
    .
    .

    #2457424
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @AAQ

    have a look in dugma midarkei avi , in the three volume set of sifrei hafets hayim

    where hafets hayim’s son quotes his fathers opinion about the balfour declaration .
    .
    .

    #2457426
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @avi

    haavara plan was a ‘great success’ ….

    one can wonder whether without the haavara plan , the nazi economy would have rebounded so quickly from the great depression ???

    who knows ??

    this rebounding, fueled subsequent nazi aggression ….

    one of the mysteries of world history ….
    .
    .

    #2457425
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @Avi

    while the factors you quote did exist ,

    you are [deliberately?] ignoring the clear role zionism played in the decline of religion pre WW2 in eastern europe and in EY ….
    .
    .

    #2457834

    Yankel, thanks for the idea to look at Balfour declaration for Chofetz Chaim. Here is what I am finding:

    Rav Shmuel Greineman, footnotes to Chofetz Chaim divrei Torah that he published (parasha bo)

    ארץ זבת חלב ודבש שמות” י״ג:ה׳” “A land of milk and honey”

    Chofetz Chaim: The soul certainly can not survive without a body, and all the commandments that are dependant on The Land can not be fulfilled without Eretz Yisrael. Our nation can not last in exile, and it is forbidden for us to remain here, nor to go elsewhere to be involved in business. Here they attempt to catch us and accuse us, nevertheless we live and survive, if but in difficulty. But Eretz Yisrael without Torah is nothing but a clump of earth, a body without a soul. ..

    Note:
    The Chofetz Chaim never let his mind wander from the mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisrael.

    I remember, in the winter of 5678 (1918), when the Chofetz Chaim was told about the tremendous joy that spread throughout Jewish homes in reponse to the Balfour declaration. The Chofetz Chaim burst out crying, and said, “What does joy accomplish? Hashem promised us that we would ‘burst forth westward, eastward, northward, and southward.’ This is a guaranteed document that Hashem will pay up in its appointed time.
    “Now people have come and only admit to a small part of Hashem’s document, and everyone is getting excited as if the redemption has almost arrived!
    “People are ready to be satisfied with a small amount… They don’t expect more… Woe unto us!” And he continued to cry.

    #2457835

    R Berl Wein
    The son of the Chofetz Chaim ,.. writes in his memoirs that his father donned his Shabbat clothing upon hearing the news and stated that “the matter (of Jewish redemption) has now begun and that we should be careful not to ruin this opportunity.”

    #2457836

    I think this is from same notes
    One time, they read him an article from a newspaper, in which one of the ‘maskilim’ expressed his hope that in the end Eretz Yisrael would be an independant country like Bulgaria, which was established on the ruins of Turkey. The Chofetz Chaim burst out crying and said, “Does this matter make sense? We are suffering for one thousand eight hundred years, our blood flows like water, we increase our prayers and supplications for a respite from the difficulties of the exile, and here they satisfy themselves with only a small amount? They have completely forgotten about the roles our prophets set out for us, and the promises of our holy Torah.”

    One time we heard how the Chofetz Chaim expressed his anguish about the leftists in Eretz Yisrael, “Could it be that something good will come out of the left, that the Divine Presence will rest on their actions?”
    ….
    It is a grave mistake that these people make, to think that the Torah and mitzvos are secondary matters and are unconnected to the building of the land. Remember the words of the Torah (Vayikra 18:21), “That the land not vomit you out when you contaminate it, as it vomited out the nations before you.” Eretz Yisrael is the palace of the king, one who sins there sins a great sin, and the danger [that results from sin] is much greater there!

    The son of the Chofetz Chaim, Harav R’ Leib zt’l, would tell over that when the British announced the Balfour declaration in regards to Eretz Yisrael, the Chofetz Chaim saw in this a type of אתערותא דלעילא (awakening from above) in regards to the redemption, and he spoke then of the Ohr Hachaim on the verse “וקם שבט בישראל” – “and a rod shall rise in Israel.” [There the Ohr Hachaim speaks about the two possibilities in regards to the redemption. It can come miraculously, if the Jewish people merit it, or it can come in a natural way, if they do not. This part of the passuk refers to the redemption coming in a natural way in the merit of the tzaddikim of the Jewish people, who are referred to as Yisrael.] He said, however, that he was worried that the ‘frei’ would destroy it [as a result of their bad deeds], heaven forbid. He would also say that were many times in the past that had been opportunities lost for the redemption as a result of the destructive deeds of the generation.

    #2457837

    A little different interpretation of seemingly same lines in another secondary source:
    His son, Reb Leib, used to tell over that when the English announced the Balfour Declaration regarding the Jewish return to the Land of Israel, the Chofetz Chaim saw in this a sign from above that Heaven was preparing the Geula. However, he said that he was afraid that the secularists might ruin it, chas v’shalom. Many times in the past the time was ripe, but the people in the generation ruined it.

    Once the Chofetz Chaim was heard expressing his aggravation regarding the leftist factions in Eretz Yisroel. “Is it possible that anything good can come from these people? How can the Shechina come down and rest on something they established?” When he was shown a newspaper where one of their journalists wrote that it’s possible to be a good Jew without the Torah, the Chofetz Chaim wrote a long rebuttal to be published all over. “The existence of Yisroel depends upon the Torah, not on a country or a language! If we don’t keep the Torah the medina and the language won’t save us!” (Chofetz Chaim on the Torah, Parshas Bo)

    #2457838

    here are some interestingquotes from a site that defends shevuos and starts with “Zionism was the most successful violation of the oaths in our history, but it wasn’t the first. I”

    The Chofetz Chaim says that there is one kind of war that is permitted even during exile: a war against a decree of shmad, a decree made by a government that forces Jews to give up their Torah observance. The classic case of a war against a decree of shmad was the Maccabean revolt, he says. This war took place during the Temple era; nevertheless the Chofetz Chaim said that such a war would be permitted even today, when the oaths are in force, against an empire that outlaws the Torah, such as Communist Russia. (Recorded by Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman in his article “Omer Ani Maasai Lamelech” section 9.)

    When the British government issued the well-known Balfour Declaration regarding Eretz Yisroel, the Chofetz Chaim saw it as an arousal from above regarding the redemption… But he said, I am afraid that the irreligious will ruin it, G-d forbid. He would said that many times there have already been times of favor, but those generations ruined it.” (Chofetz Chaim Al Hatorah p. 101) In any case the Chofetz Chaim never said that it was permitted to found a Jewish state. Similar, the Ohr Somayach was quoted as having written a letter in support of immigration under the Mandate, stating that immigration did not violate the oaths. He never said that conquest of the land would not violate them.

    #2457839

    third version of the same story from the anti-zionist POV. Seems like everyone agrees on the words Chofetz Chaim said, but interprets them somewhat differently.

    footnotes of Chofetz Chaim Al Hatorah, Parshas Bo:

    In the winter of 5678 (1917-1918) when they told the Chofetz Chaim about the simcha that had spread in Jewish homes because of the Balfour Declaration, the Chofetz Chaim burst out crying and said, “What is the point of this simcha? Hakadosh Baruch Hu promised us, ‘And you shall spread out west and east and north and south’ – here is a sure promisory note, which Hakadosh Baruch Hu will pay up when the time comes. Now some people come and admit to a small part of Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s promisory note, and everyone is happy about this declaration, and they see it as a sort of redemption. They are satisfied with a little… they don’t wait for more… Oy, what has become of us…” and he continued crying.

    The Chofetz Chaim’s son, Reb Leib, used to relate: “When the British government issued the well-known Balfour Declaration regarding Eretz Yisroel, the Chofetz Chaim saw it as an arousal from above regarding the redemption. At that time he quoted the comment of the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh on the verse, ‘a tribe will arise from Israel’ (Bamidbar 24:17). But he said, I am afraid that the irreligious will ruin it, G-d forbid. He would said that many times there have already been times of favor, but those generations ruined it.”

    #2457851
    Avi K
    Participant

    Yankel Berel,

    1. They are not in effect. (if they ever were – as I pointed out, Reish Lakish said the opposite) according to Rav Chaim Vital, Rav Meir Simcha, and Rav Soloveichik.

    22. Secular Zionism did not play any role in secularization. It was a result.

    3. Rav Shlomo Zalman said that when he wanted to go to kivrei tzaddikim, he went to the military cemetery on Mt. Herzl.

    #2458124
    Avi K
    Participant

    Always,

    1. The religious ruined it by not heeding Rav Kook’s call to make aliya en masse.
    2. Rav Meir Simcha said that the San Remo Convention cancelled the oaths. He also personally contributed to the JNF.
    3. Ramban says (Sefer haMitzvot, Mitzvot that Rambam “forgot” 4) thatt here is a mitzva to conquer the Land in every generation.

    #2458320
    smerel
    Participant

    >>>third version of the same story from the anti-zionist POV. Seems like everyone agrees on the words Chofetz Chaim said, but interprets them somewhat differently.

    All three versions of the story are quoting the same person. Yet anyone who looks inside to see what he actually wrote can see they are all inaccurate. See the actual Kitzur Toldos Chayav written by R’ Leib Poupko himself. He did say similar things but not nearly as dramatic or as strongly as being claimed by the anti-Zionists. No he did not burst out crying about hearing people celebrating the Balfour Declaration. In fact he celebrated it himself! He did express his worry that the secularists would ruin things

    The Chofetz Chaim on the Torah, Parshas Bo is probably the most accurate depiction of what the CC said and felt about the issue. But according to his son (The R’ Leib quoted here) the CC was actually uncertain about publishing his one and only anti Zionist letter which opposed the claim Zionists then made (they no longer do) that by living in EY and speaking you can be a good Jew without keeping Torah. He wrote it and was still weighing the possible unintended consequences publishing such a letter could have, when the person in charge of his correspondence sent it to be published without his explicit instructions that they do so.

    #2458722

    Avi> The religious ruined it by not heeding Rav Kook’s call

    Agree, but you are mindlessly repeating the lashon hara terms – as if followers of R Kook were not “religious”. As somejew showed, it is asur to speak such loshon hora.

    #2458727

    smerel, R Greineman writes as if he saw this first hand, not from R Poupko and it seems from the text that he was writing with CC approval. I understand his crying is not because of Balfour, or a possible misuse of Balfour, but that people are satisfied with such a small step towards the geulah.

    If I dare to add, CC seems not to be familiar with the chinese saying – a journey of a thousand li begins with a single step.

    #2458737

    > CC was actually uncertain about publishing his one and only anti Zionist letter which opposed the claim Zionists then made (they no longer do) that by living in EY and speaking you can be a good Jew without keeping Torah.

    smerel, thanks for answering my question – that CC was very limited in his public arguments against Z. I had this impression from reading his correspondence and finding arguments against every other group, but it is hard to prove a negative. The question then on REW – how could he have such a drastically different position? Was there any discussion between REW and CC? Did REW ask? Did CC respond to what REW was saying and writing?

    #2458888
    Avi K
    Participant

    Always, I was referring to the religious masses. At the beginning of the Mandate, the gates were wide open. The High Commissioner, Sir Hebert Samuel, was Jewish and a Zionist. However, very few came.,,

    As for REW having a radically different opinion, the Gemara has many examples of chachamim who disagreed with their rabbanim. REW never met Rav Kook. The Chafetz Chaim did and encouraged him to go into the rabbinate. REW may also have been influenced by courtiers who gave him misinformation. BTYW, the CC, in his introduction to Mahaneh Yisrael, said that Jews should join European armies in order to gain experience for our own army.

    #2460021

    Avi K > As for REW having a radically different opinion, the Gemara has many examples of chachamim who disagreed with their rabbanim

    I have no problems with REW holding his own opinion. But some here see him as a authority, and especially as a student of CC. So, it seems that in this aspect it was REW who disagreed with his teacher.

    #2460067
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @avi k

    there is no indication whatsoever to be taken from the fact that hafets hayim approved of rav kook going into the rabinate

    even if historically correct ,

    towards any of his later sayings about hebrew university

    or his actions while in the newly established rabbanut harashit

    which made him controversial

    those things happened only much , much later
    .
    .
    .

    #2460203

    yankel> there is no indication whatsoever to be taken from the fact that hafets hayim approved of rav kook going into the rabinate
    even if historically correct ,

    agree, approval at early times is not necessarily an agreement on later actions. Still, we seem to have established here that CC and REW had different views, or at least public views at the overlapping times. So, if you want to follow REW, you need to explain why you are not satisfied with following CC.

    #2460231
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @aaq

    ch’ch was betokfo in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s up until mid 1920’s.

    thereafter his health declined , he was niftar in 1933

    REW ‘s ma’marim were written in the mid and late 1930’s

    different times , different situations

    he always ran them past R Chaim Ozer , and at least once did not publish a maamar after RCH’O objected
    .
    .

    #2460420
    ZSK
    Participant

    “REW may also have been influenced by courtiers who gave him misinformation.”

    This would not surprise me. I suspect many Rabbonim who were opposed to Zionism were fed misinformation – deliberately – by the evil known as Askanim. Especially insofar as Rav Kook is concerned (who today would be considered very Charedi).

    And there’s also the Hungarian establishment in the Old Yishuv’s sole objection to Rav Kook being, “He’s a Litvak. We ain’t listening to no Litvak”.

    #2460424

    Yankel, I was reading ch ch letters of 1920s until early 30s, and didn’t find any negative statements on zionizm, even as his main topic is decline of observance. So it is just several years difference. Speculating: maybe ch ch objected and thus REW published only after his petirah? I didn’t know about RCHO involvement, thanks. Is this from independent sources or from REW chasidim?

    #2460497
    Avi K
    Participant

    ZSK, actually, Rav Kook and Rav Sonnenfeld were good friends and participated in the teshuva tour of kibbutzim and moshavim together. One Motza’ei Yom Kippur, RS saw RK at the Kotel and gave him a beracha that the following year he should be up to his thighs in blood (as the Cohen Gadol). RK was very pleased.

    #2460583

    ZSK, I don’t think you can write off REW on disinformation. It is one thing when we are talking, say, elderly R Eliyashev being mis-informed about one book by R Gershon Kamenetsky. Maybe, maybe, you can have a similar excuse for R Soloveitchik on the question of demonstration for Soviet Jews (“mislead” by Israeli gov that it is better to be quiet) – yes, this is an issue of great public importance, but not the main focus for American Jews at a time (and RJBS writes in other places “I am not a politician or from a family of politicians”) but here REW addresses, consistently, over the years, the issue discussed by the Jewish public. It was on him to get the right information before making his public statements.

    #2460821
    Avi K
    Participant

    Always, Rav Soloveichik did not take a position on demonstrations. When asked, he told questioners to ask a Kremlinologist. In general, his position was that rabbanim should not answer questions that are the realm of secular experts. The Baal haTanya also took this position (he also held that it is bittul Torah of the rav) and Rav Lichtenstein has an essay, availavle online, he unauthorized translation is called “If There Is No ‘Da’at,’ How Can We Have Leadership?” The Hebrew original is אם אין דעת, מנהיגות מניין.

    #2460826
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @avi k

    that tour was when rav kook was still rav of jafo

    before he moved to the newly established rabanut rashit
    .

    if not mistaken rav sonnefeld called him by the title of ‘the yafo rav’ even when he was already rav rashi in yerusalem
    .

    every fact has to placed and considered within its context

    otherwise the wrong impression is given
    .

    #2460827
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @AAQ

    this comes from talmidei rav chaim ozer
    .
    .
    btw – I myself heard from a witness who saw emrei emet talking to REW for over two hours in marienbad in 1937

    those who knew emrei emet , say that this was almost unheard of that he should spend so much time with someone

    REW was an adam gadol me’od .
    .
    .

    #2460823
    ZSK
    Participant

    @Avi K – True. However, an issue of Mekor Rishon (Hebrew RZ newspaper, if you’re aware of it) from a year or two ago stated such and provided a documented source of the statement I summarized. Based on that, it does appear that the Hungarian establisment was not prepared for a Litvak to hold any authority over them. But that also reinforces a statement I made in another thread, that these “disputes” and “fights” were largely ideological without real animosity, with the most notable exception who made it personal was a certain Rav Teitelbaum.

    @AAQ – I was not writing off REW. I was condemning Askanim – both past and present – for providing disinformation, causing Rabbonim to make statements based on deliberately incorrect or incomplete information and creating rifts that don’t need to exist – such as that between the Charedi and RZ public.

    Regarding R Elyashiv and R Kamenetsky – It was disinformation, just like what was done to R Slifkin. I have no doubt regarding that.

    #2461707

    Avi > Rav Soloveichik did not take a position on demonstrations. When asked, he told questioners to ask a Kremlinologist. In general, his position was that rabbanim should not answer questions that are the realm of secular experts.

    Not a contradiction here. My source is memoirs by one of the students involved. They first asked R Feinstein, R Tetz, Lubavitcher Rebbe – they all answered negatively from their belief that (1) afraid that their quiet activities for soviet Jews will be disrupted (2) that students are putting their lives in danger from Soviet agents (we are talking 1960s!). When they approached R Soloveitchik, he indeed followed the approach you described – he asked his trusted contacts in Israeli government and they also suggested negative. So, batting 0:4 in daas Toirah, students started what they started. Later on, this student while driving R Soloveitchik casually asked him – we are doing things you did not approve of, but you did not reprimind us. Rav responded: I was mislead. I asked Israelis “what is best for Soviet Jews” and they responded based on what is based for them (presumably, before 1967, when Israel tried to re-establish better relations with USSR). Halakha of pikuach nefesh is – you do what is best for the person in danger, not for others.

    #2461711

    Avi> The Baal haTanya also took this position (he also held that it is bittul Torah of the rav) and Rav Lichtenstein has an essay, availavle online, he unauthorized translation is called “If There Is No ‘Da’at,’ How Can We Have Leadership?” The Hebrew original is אם אין דעת, מנהיגות מניין.

    First, thanks for the reference to the essay. Very thought provoking. Not sure what Alter Rebbe has to do with the topic, but he took an extreme political pro-Russian position during Napoleonic wars – contrary to almost all other misnagdim and chassidim, and he passed away while running away from Napoleon. The reasons being a mixture of seeing a danger of haskalah (as if it was possible to escape it, but delaying could have helped) and real-politik – as Chabad was further in Russia than most other groups, so presumed that his chasidim will be under the czar after the war anywas, so it is better to cooperate.

    #2461712

    yankel> emrei emet talking to REW

    I am not questioning R Elchonon’s mailos at all.

    #2461889
    Avi K
    Participant

    Always, the point is that RS did not pasken. He simply relayed the opinion of those whom he held to be experts. BTW, Rav Moshe did not take a position on “land for peace”. Rather, he told Begin to follow the advice of security experts. On the other hand, those rabbis who opposed it ruled that it is halachically prohibited based on Ramban in his Sefer haMitzvot (mitzvot that Rambam “forgot”) and the obvious principle that pikuach nefesh does not override a milchemet mitzva.

    BTW, the Mir yeshiva went from Vilna to shanghai against Rav Chaim Ozer’s pesak. When asked about it years later, one of the rabbanim said that that was before daat Torah was invented.

    #2462293
    yankel berel
    Participant

    Avi k

    you are mixing issues

    RMF halachically [!] disagreed with those who assered giving back land even bimkom pikuach nefesh . nothing to do with the principle of datt torah

    there was no ‘psak’ by r ch’o about shanghai at any time

    by the way rch’o was niftar just weeks after the soviets marched into vilna

    before the yeshiva moved from lithuania

    daat torah was never invented

    it exists only to the extent that there are sources in the torah supporting it

    and cannot be an invention if thereare sources for it
    .
    .

    #2462359

    Avi> one of the rabbanim said that that was before daat Torah was invented.

    R Zelig Epstein. As I heard it, he used subtler language “before daas Torah” without the harsh word “invented”. In reality, R Chaim Ozer position seemed to be more nuanced – he wanted older Rabbonim to have a priority for visas, as they would be more useful both for the ones who are left behind and to Americans themselves. I think we can see the wisdom of that from history – a small number of survivors started revival of Torah in US.

    Interesting also that you put R Soloveitchik and R Chaim Ozer in the same paragraph. When R Soloveitchik was studying philosophy in Berlin, he would visit R Chaim Ozer during summer and present him with his hidushim developed during the year. R Chaim Ozer, who was famous also for his library, would nod and find a sefer where that “hidush” was already discussed.

    #2462800

    yankel > there was no ‘psak’ by r ch’o about shanghai at any time
    > by the way rch’o was niftar just weeks after the soviets marched into vilna

    I think this issue relates to the shailah that I mention above – preference for older v younger rabbonim. You might be right that technically, after the Rav was niftar, the DT would have transferred to a living Rav. Presumably, they did not “go” to REW then, or they would have stayed in Mir.

    #2463026
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @aaq

    WW2 started september 1939 with germany and then soviet russia attacking poland

    mir , in eastern poland was conquered by the soviets

    the yeshiva fled mir which was under soviet occupation towards vilna in october 1939 after receiving a clear psak [!] from rav ch’o that they should even be mehalel shabat to do so

    rch’o took the initiative to send telegrams to the yeshivot under soviet occupation at the time

    vilna was also under soviet occupation at the time

    but r’ch’o was told that vilna would be handed over to the then still free and neutral Lithuanian government

    which actually happened a few weeks after the yeshivot arrived in vilna

    the question of yeshivat mir fleeing from vilna to the far east came up later , after the soviet occupation of free lithuania in the summer of 1940

    that was during the period lithuania was occupied by the soviets for the period around one year between the soviet invasion during the summer 1940 and the nazi invasion during june 1941

    during that year the yeshiva was grappling with the question about applying to the soviets for exit visas

    and that was after r’ch’o was niftar already

    at no point was there any ‘psak’ from anyone either way , re the advisability of filing requests to exit the communist ‘paradise’ .
    .

    #2463576

    yankel, thanks for history recap, you on a solid ground (many people when discussing R Ch’O psak think that they were expecting Nazi invasion rather than soviet in Vino).

    Still, I am referring to his teshuva to a shailah about exit visas for young v older Rabbis – possibly pre- or immediately after Soviet invasion of Lithunia in June 1940. I am not sure whether this was in advance of the invasion maybe in May-June 1940 (that was my understanding from reading about it many years ago) or immediately after – Sugihara started giving his visas mid-July and R Ch’O was niftar early August.

    #2463970
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @AAQ

    there is no written tshuva from him re the issue you mention .

    there are reports of an oral one .

    that was not a psak as such , as far as I understand

    that was an etsa , an advice ,

    by the way , from a klal yisrael perspective , with the benefit of hindsight , it was sound advice …
    .
    .

    #2464042
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @AAQ

    @Avi
    k

    @zsk

    re the hafets hayims postion re zionism

    it is well known that aguda was established as a reaction to mizrachi and its willing affiliation and support of the zionist movement

    hafets hayim was a leading founding member of aguda

    the lack of open writings against zionism from hafes hayim ‘s side , should be attributed to tactical reasons , not to strategy
    .
    .

    #2464048
    SQUARE_ROOT
    Participant

    I have been reading the wicked comments of HaKatan and UJM
    for more than two years, and I noticed that they *** NEVER ***
    criticize the Nazis or the Arabs or the Muslims,
    and they *** NEVER *** blame the Nazis or the Arabs or the Muslims
    for *** ANY *** problem.

    Instead, they blame “The Zionists” for 100% of the problems, 100% of the time.

    This false version of History is disgusting anti-Semitic Victim Blaming,
    and it is the symptom of minds that are very sick and very dangerous to Jews.

    There are good reasons why I suspect HaKatan and UJM
    of being paid agents of Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran.

    #2464054

    in what sense was it an etsa and not a psak, esp if you are working under daas Torah hypothesis?

    (granted, I often get such “etsa and not a psak” both from the Rav that does not believe in DT and from the one who does! 🙂

    > by the way , from a klal yisrael perspective , with the benefit of hindsight , it was sound advice …

    I agree, the small number of great rabonim who came to the US made a lot of difference.

    #2464617
    Yaakov Yosef A
    Participant

    ZSK – Historical fact check. The Yerushalmi establishment at the time was very much Litvish, from the Prushim descendants of the Talmidei HaGra. In fact, the previous Rov of Yerushalayim, R’ Shmuel Salanter (from Salant in Lithuania), suggested before his passing in 1909 to appoint R’ Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld (from Slovakia = Oiberland Non-Chassidish Hungary) as his successor. His suggestion was rebuffed for more than a decade mainly because – the Litvaks didn’t want a Hungarian… Hungarian Jews, especially Chassidish ones, didn’t become a majority in the Eidah orbit until much later, probably only after the Holocaust.

    #2465035
    somejewiknow
    Participant

    @yaakov-yosef-a

    rav yosef chaim zonenfeld ztz”l founded the Eida Charedis, who was the first Gaved. After his passing, the Eida begged the Satmar Rebbe ztz”l to become the second Gaved, but he declined (He ultimately conceded after the war and lead the Jerusalem community until his passing in the 70s).

    The eida was and continues to be very much a unified beis din for the ashkenazy kehila, both litvish chasidish and otherwise, but its roots are (also) very Hungarian. So, I’m not sure where you got your history from.

    #2465495
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @AAQ

    a psak – means halachik

    which means logically and traceably sourced in shas and poskim

    subject to logical counter arguments and counter proofs
    .
    .

    whereas an etsah is either intuitive,

    or sourced in the more ‘murky’ part of aggadeta

    or mesorah received ish mipi ish

    not subject to logical counter arguments and proofs
    .
    .

    .

    #2465496
    Yaakov Yosef A
    Participant

    somejew – Check the dates… That was much later than when Rav Kook became Chief Rabbi. The Eidah considered themselves as the hemshech of the united Ashkenazi Beis Din (Badatz), which had been led for 60 years by R’ Shmuel Salanter, and was primarily controlled by the Prushim. ZSK seems to hold that the real problem the Badatz had with Rav Kook was that he was a Litvak, which is ridiculous.

    #2465498
    yankel berel
    Participant

    @somejew

    @yaakov
    yosef

    it was rav ch ozer rav of vilna , who merited the hakarat hatov from rav dushinsky for his appointment as rav of the edah

    and it was again the same rav ch ozer who r moshe blau the then rosh hakahal of the edah was continually consulting with re the steps the edah should be taking

    interesting facts to consider
    .
    .

Viewing 48 posts - 51 through 98 (of 98 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.