Lashon Hara, Rechilus, MS”R against the MO, DL, Conservative, Reform community

[ujm]

This thread is to discuss allegations of Lashon Hara, Rechilus and Motzi Shem Ra against the Modern Orthodox, Dati Leumi, Conservative, Reform and other offended communities.

ZSK has alleged that I’ve engaged in one, two or three (he wasn’t specific) of the above regarding the Dati Leumi community. I refute such. But if ZSK has any proof of such, which would be extremely simple to provide with a link to the Coffee Room thread where he had a fantasy that it occurred and the specific quote his imagination categorized as such, I invite him to provide said links and quotes below in this thread. Then anyone can judge whether they agree with his vivid imagination.

But in eighteen years of posting on this forum, all of which are still available here, I’v seldom even discussed the DL community relative to that timeframe. So good luck with that. Perhaps ZSK can man up and admit he either confused me with others or he simply pulled a rhetorical distortion out of his verbal toolbox when he lacked much else. But, I rather suspect he’ll double-down with some innocuous remarks or candid points that are לתועלת and recategorize them as something nefarious.

And since ZSK is so concerned about Lashon Hara, Rechilus and Motzi Shem Ra against the DL community (he did not express any such concern regarding communities to the right of DL), inquiring minds might be wondering whether he shares this same concern regarding L”H, Rechilus and MS”R against the Conservative and Reform communities?

[HaKatan]

That’s interesting.

Rav Elchonon Wasserman and many others all write explicitly that Nationalism/Zionism is idolatry and that Torah and, liHavdil, Nationalism is Torah and idolatry biShituf. The Brisker Rav published, and the Gerrer Rebbe and others signed on, that “Dati Leumi” education is a “sea of heresy mixed in with a drop of Torah”.

So, perhaps a better question would be why anyone would possibly follow these grotesque distortions of Torah (Zionism of any flavor) rather than simply following liHavdil only the Torah.

To be fair, though, the reason that ZSK isn’t likely concerned about L”H against Conservative and Reform communities is that ZSK likely agrees that those movements are heretical and that its followers are unfortunately not biChlal amisecha.

[ujm]

So what your are saying is that everyone agrees the only question is where to draw the line of who is in, and who is out; but that everyone agrees there is a line, and some groups are outside the line? (And those Jews outside the line it is permitted [or even a Mitzvah] to speak L”H, R, MS”R, etc. of.)

[Always_Ask_Questions]

There is a difference between not recognizing something as legitime Judaism and excluding from amitecha. R Soloveitchik was once invited to an opening of a synagogue where his personal friend was a Rabbi. He wrote a respectful letter back that he would be happy to attend a dinner in the honr of the Rabbi and that those who made effort to build the synagogue should proud of his achievements, but that he is not able to associate with the place that does not have a mehitzah, etc and why exactly he disagrees with that.

[ujm]

The inclusiveness of amisecha has a formal halachic definition.

[SQUARE_ROOT]

Yankel Berel said:

“FYI. Steipler writes clearly, black on white,
in Karyane De’Igreta, volume 1,
that it is assur to say lashon hara about Dati Leumi Yehudim,
even if they [mistakenly] believe that the state is the forerunner of our ge’oula.

They are not ‘begeder yatsa miklal amitecha’
and are to be considered our brother in all halachik respects.”

__________________________________________
MY RESPONSE:

Thank you very much for your relevant quote.

When you are able to, please give us a more exact source:
chapter number, paragraph number, page number, etc.

I thank you very much in advance.

[yankel berel]

katan > Rav Elchonon Wasserman … writes explicitly that Nationalism/Zionism is idolatry and that Torah and, liHavdil, Nationalism is Torah and idolatry biShituf.

The Brisker Rav published, and the Gerrer Rebbe and others signed on, that “Dati Leumi” education in their time and locale was a “sea of heresy mixed in with a drop of Torah” ….

…. To be fair, though, the reason that ZSK isn’t likely concerned about L”H against Conservative and Reform communities is that ZSK likely agrees that those movements are heretical and that its followers are unfortunately not biChlal amisecha.

—

katan should open his eyes to the clear and stark reality in front of his eyes .

all rebbeim of gur without exception [!] consider all fully frum dati leumi jews as halachically included in ‘amitecha’

even a ten year old knows that

to claim otherwise is akin to denial of the sun’s existence …

so why did he sign that letter re dati leum education ?

answer – this is figurative , not halacha

like a ko’ess who according to hazal is like an oved avoda zara

is a ko’ess not biklal amitecha al pi hahalacha ??? has veshalom !!!

same with dati le’umi …..
.
.

[somejewiknow]

@yankel-berel

it is Strange for me how you regularly confuse the distinction between rejection of the ideology and rejection of the person who might be a follower of that ideology. The Chazon Ish famously wrote (YD 1) that in our generation we have to judge each person individually and you can’t simply go after titles. However that certainly doesn’t mean that the majority of anybody falls on one side of that line or the other. It is certainly possible, acourding to the Chazon Ish, that all of Reform and Conservative and Catholic and Muslim and Modern Orthodox and dati lumi and 4/5 of the haredi world are all not part of “Amisecha” because of the avoda zureh you are referring too.

Many reform People think they are part the Jewish nation and if you would tell them That according to Torah followers of Reform heresy are not part of the Jewish people They would be incredulous and say are you really going to be pusel 80% of the Jewish world?! So too the Catholics would say you have to go after the majority and look the majority of the world 99% accept the Catholic version of Judaism! so how could it be the Catholics are all wrong?! But of course the truth is that the Torah is not a numbers game. There’s Torah and – lehavdil – there’s heresy. It is certainly possible that there is only a small “minyan mitzimtzen” of kosher Yidden alive today. So too the opposite extreme. It could be that in Bais Din shel Ma’aluh half the Reform population is nebuch tinik shenishbuh that will get their rewards as Jews. None of this changes the Torah. None of this changes the rules and axioms how we basar v’dum are supposed to relate to kefira and kofrim in either direction.

It’s not our business to know the actual din v’chesbon of anyone, since we can never know what’s in a persons heart. But we must point out heresy when it shows itself and we must reject with two hands every false moshiach or distortion of Torah such as Reform, Catholic, or Dati Leumi.

[yankel berel]

Dear square root

you want me to quote the page no ?

I want you to recant or delete you motsi shem ra rant about haredim ….

deal ???
.
.

[yankel berel]

@somejew

it is Strange for me how you regularly confuse the distinction between halachik terms and haskafic terms

halacha is absolute

someone who believes in halachik avoda zara is halachically not amitecha , no issur lashon hara

someone who believes in haskafic “kefira” is halachically included in amitecha , with an issur lashon hara.

he has hashkafot pesulot but we are mehuyav to love him , EVEN IF THERE ARE NO EXCUSES OF TINOK SHENISHBAH or other excuses…

that’s what the staipler writes .

athaltah d/g is a hashkafa pesula and is wrong , but that hashkafa is not considered halachik kefira

therefore its forbidden to speak lashon hara about him , as he is included in amitecha

whereas believing in the trinity is halachik kefira and takes the person out of amitecha and therefore its permitted to speak lashon hara about him.

whatever I wrote is not my chidush , it is merely a quote from the staipler

and is accepted practise in all batei din all over the globe

all rebbeim of gur without exception [!] consider all fully frum dati leumi jews as halachically included in ‘amitecha’

even a ten year old knows that

and that is referring to fully frum mizrachisten with kipot serugot halacha lema’aseh here and now .

.
.
to dispute that , is like disputing that the sun exists ….
.
.
.

[somejewiknow]

@yankel-berel

I have no idea what you are talking about. Is this a distinction you made up? is there a kosher source you can point me to that gave you this concept?

Ideas of kefira and ideas of a”z are by nature “hashkafik”. When one acts on them and one must poskin on those actions, it becomes “halachik”. To be a bit more precise, the “halaha” is the thing you must do in response to a situation. So, vis-a-vis kefira, the psak halacha is the required reaction to a person (that seems to be) acting on a specific “hashkafa” of kefira.

However, there are not two types of a”z, one called “hashkafic” and one called “halachik”. That’s wordy gibberish trying to obfuscate actual thinking. Try expressing your idea without using the terms “haskafic” or “halachik”. I can do that very easily with my stance:

An idea that is inconsistent with traditional Torah teachings is called “heresy”. A person who knowingly believes in a heretical idea – either rejection or replacing a Torah teaching – is called a “heretic”. However, there are many cases of common misconceptions where kosher Jews innocently maintain heretical ideas either because they have been socially mainstreamed or because he was never exposed to the Torah concepts that challenge his flaw. Those people may not be heretics despite believing heretical ideas.
The “13 ikkarim” are an exception to this rule, as a person who even unwittingly rejects – or even has passing doubt in – those 13 fundamental Jewish concepts is necessarily a heretic, as those fundamentals are baseline requirements for Judaism.

I would ask you to try to do the same thing and talk about the thing you are actually trying to say without hiding behind vague and distorted specific words. Try actually talking about the thing.

[yankel berel]

@somejew

has veshalom . I did not make anything up.

tanya writes that anyone who gets angry is kofer in hashgacha , because if would have proper emuna

he would realize that anything which happens is straight from the RBSHO ,

that’s the explanation of the connection between ka’as and avoda zara

nu , what do think , mr somejew ? does that mean that a ko’ess is yatsa michlal amitecha ?

has veshalom .
.

similar thing is mentioned in writings of r chaskel levenstein , he says :

any avera is really kefira , because if he would have proper emuna and understands who the RBSHO really is

and what an avera really is , it would be impossible to do any chet at all

so again – what do think , mr somejew ? does that mean that anyone who committed one chet ,is yatsa michlal amitecha ?

has veshalom.
.
.

[yankel berel]

@somejew

as continuation of previous post …

its clear from the above that certain things could be called ‘kefira’

but they are not at the level of ‘kfira’ in the context of yatsa michlal amitecha

I think that what I wrote here , is pashut

it does not make a difference to me how you prefer to label those two different levels of kfira

the important fact here is that there are two levels of kfira , both are labeled as ‘kfira’

but have two different meanings depending on the context

so – how do we differentiate between the two ?

when does the word kfira mean the “trinity type” of kfira and

when does this word mean the “ka-as of the tanya” type of kfira ?

the answer is very simple – the proof is in the pudding

look at how halacha treats it , an ed who is a ko’es is kasher

whereas an ed who believes in trinity is pasul .

as simple as can be .

so the question is – what is our athalta d/g believer ? like a trinity believer , as katan would have us believe ?

again , the proof is in the same pudding – ALL rabanim and batei din agree , he is kasher le’edut !

so there you are – its not my psak , – it is the rabbanim’s psak ….
.
.
.

[somejewiknow]

@yankel-berel
it is certainly an interesting deep dive into when kefira is “yotzi m’klal amisecha”, but that doesn’t change what kefira is. the idea is kefira regardless of where on that red line an individual might fall. the kefira doesn’t become valid because we don’t pasul the yid!

[Author]

Posts