Forum Replies Created
Without even addressing the veracity of your Rav Elchanon claim, all you have is one purported letter advising one purported student not to emigrate? And with that you slandered many Rabbonim?
I nevr slandered many rabbanim. I have however spoken in condemnatory tones about R. Elchanan Wasserman z”l for advising people to stay in Europe rather than leave to the United States. And By the way, this is a personal matter for me. The rav who taught me more Torah than any other rav, who have me tremendous hadracha in learning, R. Shlomo Elimelech Drillman, zt”l was a close talmid of R. Elchanan Waserman in Baranovich. I only with I had known about R. Elchanan’s stance on this issue before R. Drillman died. Perhaps he might have clarified matters for me, perhaps he would have agreed with me, I’ll never know.
cantoresq – Please. Porter is a FICTION novel writer. Your going to take a novelist over an anthropologist? (And because some dead link gave you misinformation to boot!) I must say you betray an agenda, not a search for the truth. Prove me wrong please.
Kol haposel b’mumo posel.
Just a note, that Eichmann interview was done in 1958 with a German publication prior to his capture. (Life republished it after his capture.) So he was NOT about to be executed. And what he said, fit in to what Vrba said, Rav Weissmandl, Judge Halevi, Hecht, and many others. (And as was pointed out, Eichmann was in the thick of things with Kastner, and privy to everything.)
Also, it is worthwhile pointing out, prior to your upcoming rereading of Perfidy, that Hecht was a spectator in Halevi’s courtroom. (This will explain his knowledge of the interactions occurring in the court.)
Will if you want to want to take the word of a mass muderer of Jews to confirm your prejudices about another Jew, go right ahead. In my book that tells me that in some chareidi circles, the Nazis won. After all, you find a Nazi to be more credible than other eye witnesses (i.e. Joel Brand, Hansi Brand etc.) As I said before neither Vrba nor R. Weismandel were in Budapest at the time, so they could not have known anything. Go ahead Will accept the word of a Nazi over a Jew.
Which Rabbi(‘s) advised anyone who had the means to leave (visa, available transportation, etc.), not to leave Europe? And on what scale (wholesale, individual)? Specifics, times, and sources please. (Especially sources.)
Since you made such scurrilous allegations, I would expect you already have this information.
There is a famous letter from R. Elchanan Wasserman to a yeshiva student advising him not to leave Europe, where he would die a mere physical death, and emmigrat to america where he would die a spiritual one.
Of Course I’ll read Dr. white’s essay. But I mus point out that a quick perusal of his CV tells em that history is not his field. He’s a psychologist and anthropologist. Moreover I’ve seen a report, which sadly lerd to a dead link, that this former assistant professor beieves that 9/11 was an “inside job” and not an act of foreign terrorists. Sorry Will, I think you’ve hit on a “nutty professor.” But it should make for a decent read.
“Let’s not forget that on appeal, the Israeli Supreme court completely reversed Judge Silberg’s findings and Order. Silberg was a political hack and his conduct during the trial reeked of cronyism.”
Umm, actually Silberg was an appellate Judge, NOT the trial judge. But don’t let the facts get in your way cantoresq. Go ahead and call Halevi, the trial Judge, all sorts of names now. In fact, conveniently transfer all the ad hominems you made against Silberg, to Helvi. That should do the trick, and “win” the argument in your mind. After all defending Zionism, and by extension Kastner, IS your ultimate duty. For with Zionism shown for the corrupt murderous regime it is, what have you left in your religion?
Posted 2 hours ago #
Will Hill, you might make a decent cite checker. You’re not much of a scholar, but you sem to be a decent research assistant. BTW you ahve ye to address of my substantive posts. Feel free to avoid them and instead pick up on inconsequential errors in details. I guess that’s about all you can handle. I made you an offer. In fact, I’ll tell you I plan to re-read Perfidy regardless. After twenty eyars, I should have some more nuanced persepctive in my treatment of it. Do you plan on reading Porter’s book? Are ready to risk your pre-concieved notions, or are you afraid to entertain the possibility that Kasztner might have been one of the good guys? Were you to come to that realization, what might that do to your religion?
Berlin, I never said anything about girls learning Gemorah. So get your facts straight (something you are demonstrably unable to do in this matter as in other matters… tsk tsk)
Pashut, Kastner is merely an example of the full Zionist enterprise being complicit and in collaboration with the Nazis ym’s.
cantor, You (and Berlin, but he always ends it with a disclaimer “but I’m not charging them with this chet” after charging them) keep blaming the Rabbis for telling the Jews not to leave Europe and therefore being responsible for their deaths. (See Rav Hutner ZTL’s response to that in the extensive quotes from Gedolim a few pages back.)
Posted 14 hours ago #
If that’s what you mean, then yes you’re correct. Klapei Shmaya I think thos rabbonim have to answer for their actions/advice
“Hecht’s book is not sourced as it happens. He gave no footnotes, rendering his book uesless as a piece of scholarship.”
Obviously you haven’t even read Perfidy in your zeal to defend Kastner. As it happens, Perfidy IS sourced and DOES have footnotes, 205 to be exact. Additionally, a majority of the body of the book is verbatim quotes from the trial. So instead of attacking the author with false charges, why not read the material? And if you then still disagree with some aspects of it, kindly comment on his monumental work, not on the person — a sure sign of someone who lost the argument is they stoop to argumentum ad hominem.
You’re right. It’s been about twenty years isnce I read Perfidy. Lo and behold the footnotes are there. I rad it at a time when footnotes meant little to me. I now know better. Since I must now admit that my familiarity with Perfidy is lacking, I propose the following. I’ll re-read Peridy, if you’ll read Anna Porter’s Kasztner’s Train. We can then continue the conversation. What do you say, deal?
And cantoresq, fully granted Eichmann is a Nazi ym’s. But what he says a) corroborates what others say and proof indicates AND b) what purpose has he to lie at that point? Kastner was already dead and he was THE MOST intimate player in this matter (he dealt personally and directly with Kastner). I think that interview (on top of the last page) is very telling.
Posted 19 hours ago #
Eichmann was about to be executed. The only think he could do was try to shape his legacy. He took the opportunity to paint Jews, the Zionist movement in particular, with which he had a long antagonistic fascination, as comlicit in his crime. Nazis don’t look so bad when Jews work with them. His motive to lie is clear.
Why has Israeli “democracy” feared the truth and felt compelled to ban Perfidy and confiscate any copies it could get its dirty hands on, for decades?
“Academic research” is the liberal and Zionists age-old method of attempting to suppress and or change the “truth” to their liking. Anything that does not fit their story line, is deemed “non-academic”, “non-historic”, “unverifiable”, and “not research worthy” (or “unresearched.”) Repeating their lies over and over is the other trick they pull out of their hat. Suppressing any evidence not their liking is their strong-armed tactic.
First of all, most countries ban sedition, even the U.S. But I don’t know that Perfidy has been banned in Israel.
As to avademic research, why are you opposed to it? Only those who’s theories cannot meet the standards of real researach oppose it. Moreover, I suggest you read Professor Marc Shapiro’s monograph on Rabbi Saul Lieberman. You’l find some interesting examples of chareidi plagarism of secular scholarship.
Actually cantoresq, it would be far more appropriate for you to direct your attacks on the Rabbis on a site called Reform World, rather than Yeshiva World. What position are you in to be critical of them? Do you consider yourself to be a greater man than them? And you have been far more invective against them than the slight you suffered here. You have gone so far as to insinuate that they are complicit to murder.
I doubt I would find people nearly as charming as you, Zalman, on a reform site. I’m not attacking rabbis. I asked a question about the Satmer Rav’s conduct; indeed there was some criticism contained in the question. Rather than ask me about my self perception, ask yourself why you are so defensive? Why is the answer to my question not self evident? Also, to the best of my knowledge I never said any rav was complicit in a murder.
Last I checked Israel never resembled to Soviet Union. If, as you assert, the Israeli Supreme Court acted as a kangaroo Court in exonerating Kasztner. why was Justice Silberg allowed to write a dissent focusing on the Vrbo/Wetzler report? Please spare me youe baselss conspircy theories.
Again, for the third time, please refer me to the “reasonable observers,” you mention, please tell me where one can find the trial transcipt and supply references to it to back up your assertions. Hecht’s book is not sourced as it happens. He gave no footnotes, rendering his book uesless as a piece of scholarship. As regards the testimonies to which you refer,again identify them, and also please explain the way in which you determine how you weigh the various testimony and justify your methodology. For example who might you believe more, Hansi Brand’s version of what happened, or Rudolph Vrba’s? Hansi Brand or Moshe Schweiger? Saly Mayer or Joel Brand? Otto Komoly or Fulop Freudiger? It’s very difficult to divorce personal bias from the stories told my witnesses and determine what of their testimony is actual recollection and what is post facto editorialising. One must also be careful not to allow his personal biases to interfere with his analysis of the evidence. How might you go about doing that? You’ve suggested that I’m unreasonable and biased. In responde I’ve supplied you with the sources I’ve relied upon. I’ve asked you to name your sources, and aside from Hecht, who cannot be relied upon for anything given his celar and palpable bias, have supplied no other sources. Joseph, who mistakenly called me a “Nazi apologist” seems to (ironically) rely on Eichmann’s interview with Life magazine as more dispositive than the eye witness accounts and documents that form the backbone of Porter’s research. But generally you and your coterie on this subject aoppear to rely ont he age old tactic of repeating something over and over again until it is accepted a true. Sorry aint gonna work here no more. BTW, I’ve come to learn from digging around the internet in response to this conversation, that Professor Yehuda Bauer, a well respected Holocaust historian rejects Vrba’s take on Kasztner completely. But scholarship isn’t nearly as important to you as the mikveh reid myth you prefer.
My intent was to say “Zionist apologist”, so my apologies for the unfortunate phrase above. With the near constant shrill attacks on Rabbonim, I fail to see the justification for both of your intense taking umbrage when the shoe is on the other foot. I seem to particularly recall rabbiofberlin regretting a statement made in person with Think Big, how ever comparable or not. Nevertheless, please both accept my regrets for that phrase.
Posted 3 hours ago #
I suggest you proofread mroe carefully in the future. This was no mere typo; rather Freud’s concept of parapraxis comes to mind. Moreover there is a big difference between writing critical comments about rabbis on a form called “Yeshiva World” and calling someone a Nazi apologist. I hope you appreciate that.
cantoresq: the trains passenger list is public information available on the website kastners defenders setup, that you provided on the previous page. it is untenable to deny that it is mostly constituted of kastners cronies. (ironically, we keep hearing in the news from zionist circles, including recently, that “new information” exonerates kastner. obviously the zionist themselves ad hayom hazeh realize this is a black mark that they cannot so easily coverup that they still feel the need to defend themselves 50-60 years later.)
you still haven’t responded to my query for what reason on earth did eichmann agree to provided this train to kastner. there must’ve been some benefit to eichmann coming from kastner for eichmann to make such a monumental arrangement on kastners behalf.
you ask other for their sources. what is your sources for all your claims?
I’ve seen the list of Egon Mayer’s site. Where does it say that most of the passenger’s were Kasztner’s cronies? you state that it’s “untenable to deny” that fact. Why is it untenable? Based on what piece of serious scholarship or credible evidence do you base that assertion. And then please answer how it is that the Satmer Rov and the Belzer Rebbe made it on if all Kasztner wanted was to save his family and friends. I believe that Eichmann truly believed that worldwide Jewry would pay his ransom for Hungary’s Jews. Germany needed the money at that point. Becher, based on Porter’s book got involved to create favorable evidence in the event he would ever be put on trial.
My sources are primarily Anna Porter’s book, and the AJC rejoinder to Perfidy. Yours are?
You fail to understand that the appeal is besides the point. First of all the appeal fully upheld one of the findings against Kastner (his false defense for Kurt Becher). Secondly the other 3 points, the appeal split 3-2. Thirdly, the very fact a ZIONIST court admitted his collaboration with the Nazis speaks volumes. It was in their interest to deny it. If there was an iota of basis to deny it, they would. The appeal (on the 3-2 counts) was due to sympathy for his recent killing and to cover up the Zionists murderous sins. Its no chiddush. And even that was a split verdict.
I’ve browsed through it some time ago. It isn’t “3,000 pages”. BTW even Kastners defenders have admitted that he did fill the train mostly with family and friendly Zionists of his.
The apeal is besides the point because you want it to be. But it is the crux of the issue. Why do you assume that the appellate court was more plotically motivated and corrupt than the lower court? It seems that when Zionists happen to do that with which you agree you accept the action as significant. but when they do something you don’t like, it’s due to something nefarious. That’s a great dialectic to adopt over chulent and kigel noch davenen, but it isn’t goind to get you far in serious inquiry. In the end he was exonerated. Moreover, he was not found to have collaborated. He was found to have assisted Becher AFTER THE WAR. That’s a far cry from collaboration at the time of the genocide. And I admit that Kasztner’s actions in this regard confound me. His wife felt it was because he had made a promise and kept his word. I ascribe it to a combination of PTSD, frustration and bitterness. That affidavit was his last chance to be a macher. Which defenders admit that he filled the train with his cronies? Provide me a source. I’ve based most of my writing on this subject on two sources: The AJC’s rejoinder to Perfidy and Anna Porter’s recently published book, Ksztner’s Train. What are your sources?
“Kasztner agonized over how to hanld the report, ultimately giving it to the Swedish legate in Hungary and other Hungarian members of the resistance.”
Baloney. Read the Kastner trial transcripts. Where do you ever come up with this gobbledigook?
He should’ve PUBLICIZED the report, so Hungarian Jewry would resist. (But that would have killed his “gentleman’s agreement” with Eichmann.)
Mr. Hill, you’ve read the 3000+ pages of trial transcript? Pray tell, where can one find a copy of it? You’ve read nothing beyond Hecht (if even that much) and no nothing more than the drivel that the chareidishe velt accepts as fact, the evidence notwithstanding. What amzs me here is that you’re all so quick to rely on the trial court, but you totally ignore the appellate review. Why is that?
catnores: how did kasztner select people for his train? i’ve wondered about that for awhile. you asked someone above for documentation that he sold tickets for profit, so i assume you don’t know yourself, since you are asking. but if you do, kindly would you share that information?
i’ve actually seen in the past authoritative information that most of the slots were taken by his family and friends. whatever was left i don’t know, but pray tell why would a sworn zionist like kasztner voluntarily select the satmar rebbe (the biggest anti-zionist in all of occupied europe) given he was in control of who got on? (if he was just trying to prove that he wasn’t just choosing his own, why not some less rabid anti-zionist?) that is the million dollar question to me.
What “authoritative information” have you seen? Please share it with us. As far as I know various groups in Budapest submitted lists of proposed passengers, and seats were then alloted based upon availibility and the making “Sophie’s choice” type decisions. As far as I know, Kasztner’s wife, Bogyo and father in law were Joszef Fischer were the only members of his family on the train.
Fellow Zionists (Judge Halevi, Ben Hecht, et al), Fellow Nazis (Adolf Eichmann, et al), and Fellow Jews (Rabbi Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl, et al) all made incriminating statements towards Kastner yet cantoresq and rabbiofberlin remain in denial. Who cares for these Nazi apologists? G-d himself could come down and convict Kastner, and cantoresq and rabbiofberlin will still remain in denial.
First off, ultimately Kasztner was completely vindicated by the Supreme Court of Israel. Ben Hecht, Rav Weissmandl and Rudolf Vrba were not in Budapest and could not know what happened. If one wants to rely on the word of Eichmann over the historical record, feel free.
BTW for the first time ever you’ve truly enraged me. My grandparents, uncle and a host of cousins died in Auschwitz. I grew up experienceing my father’s horror at what eh endured under the Nyilas party. Where I to ever meet you, I’d probably beat you within an inch of your life for calling me a “Nazi apologist” you smug arrogant punk.
Regardinog the Kasztner affair, I think some perspective is needed. At the outset there is a big difference between mistakes in judgment, negligence and intentional harm. The standards by which we judge someone change with each level of complicity. When it comes to mistakes of judgement, we need to evaulate what was the standard of conduct? Moreover, we have to avoid judging a situation with the advantage of hindsight. To establish negligence, one must prove that a reasonable person would have acted differently in the same situation. Intentional harm requires malice aforethought. As I will demonstrate, Kasztner at best made some blunders in judgment and nothing more, if even that.
What are the facts as we know them? Kasztner was a Hungarian lawyer/journalist who at the time of the German invasion of Hungary was living in Budapset. As a Zionist leader in Hungary he had certain entre with Hungarian officialdom. both Jewish and non-Jewish. We know he negotiated with Eichmann and with Kurt Becher, that a trainload of Jews left Budapest and arrived in Switzerland via Bergen Belsen. Those are the undisputed facts. Now let’s fill in some blanks with accusations and analysis of them.
Let’s begin with a minor issue, the Vrba/Wetzler report. There is some dispute as to whther Kasztner was given a copy of the report in German or Hungarian. If he was given a German copy, it would have to have been translated, which takes time. But the accusation is that Kasztner 1)actively supressed the report or 2) delayed transmitting it or 3) actually used it as a tool to negotiate with Eichmann to his personal benefit and the destruction of other Jews. Nonne of the people who level any of the three accusations were actually in Budapest at any of the relevant times. How can they therefore know what Kasztner intended or did? Let’s look at each claim though and see what culpability we could find if they are true. ACTIVE SUPRESSION: Why might he have done that? Perhaps he wanted verification of allegations that on their face seemed outlandish. After all an atrocity such as Auschwitz had never been known in human history prior to WWII. Perhaps he feared that the Jewish reaction to the deportations would have resulted in greater and more immediate loss of life and therefore he supressed the report in order to negotiate and cancel all deporatations of Hungarian Jews. Remember this was a “chess game” and the stakes were higher than we can ever imagine. I ignore the third possibility because there is no evidece at all that he was a monster. May it have been a mistake to delay/supress the report? perhaps. Would a reasonable person have acted differently? I’m not sure. Moreover, we know that he did not supress it but passed it on the Swedish legation and Hungarian resistance.
Let’s consider now the actual train. Accusers say that Kasztner was a criminal because he 1) charged for tickets on the train 2) put his family, friends and cronies on the train and 3) actually made a profit off it. It’s true that some people did buy there way onto the train. Most however were not charged. Why were seats sold? To pay Eichmann. The Allies blocked all attempts at sending money for bribes. Neither the Zionist movement not the joint in Europe had sufficient funds to send to Kasztner. So Kasztner, in an attempt to appear as if he had the money, took it from those passengers who had what to give. BTW, in the end Kasztner paid about 1/10th the agreed upon price, and that money was later confiscated by the Allies. Places on the train were split up between the different communities and groups extant in Budapest. The Neologs, Orthodox, Zionist and other groups were asked to submit lists of proposed passengers. I don’t know how seats ultimtaely were allotted. Kasztner and his associates made that decision. But it was impossible to save everyone; should he have therfore saved no one? Indeed he did put his wife and father in law on the train. So what? He also put the Satmer Rov and the Belzer Rebbe (no friends of his to be sure, even after the fact) on the train Anyone would have done the same. As to the profit accusation, show me the money. No there is nothing to accuse Kasztner of here.
KURT BECHER: Kasztner supplied him a crucial affidavit in his application for de-nazification. This was a huge blunder which I cannot explain. But at the same time, no one died or was harmed as a result. It’s also possible that Kasztner genuinely felt that Becher was no such a villain. Assuming he did feel this way, there was no ethiacal impreitive to assist this cog int he Nazi killing machine. But no one died as a result.
When you lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Kasztner, due to the forces of history laid down with the dirtiest dog of them all. Sure he made errors in judgment and even miscalculated. But can anyone actually say that s/he would have done differently; that s/he could have done better; that Kasztner should have known better? The evidence clearly says no.
This is a quote from Rudolf Vrba, who escaped Auschwitz and reported what was happening there to Kastner:
I am a Jew. In spite of that, indeed because of that, I accuse certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war. This small group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of silence. Among them was Dr. Kasztner, leader of the council which spoke for all Jews in Hungary. While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the exterminations . . . I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas chambers . . . Kasztner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’ Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kasztner up in S.S. uniform and took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid bargaining end there. Kasztner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars. With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine . . .
Zalmen, you’re acusing a Jew of actively participating in the annihilation of European Jewry. Your basis is Vrba’s conjecture? How does Vrba know what Kasztner did with the report? Was Vrba present whan Ksztner allegedly disclosed the report to Eichmann? Vrba made those accusations up after the war becuase he was frutrated that his report wasn’t publicized sooner. Eye witness reports say that Kasztner agonized over how to hanld the report, ultimately giving it to the Swedish legate in Hungary and other Hungarian members of the resistance. So much for that nonsense.
Regarding Kasztner wearing a uniform, many Jews wore Nazi uniforms as protetion. Pinchas Rosenbaum the son of the last Ravof Kleinwardein famously wore one and “arrested” Jews and brought them to the Glass House for protection. I don’t know if Kasztner ever wore an SS uniform or not. Nor do I care. But if you’re going to accuse a Jew of the genocide of Jews you need better proof than Ben Hecht and the accusations of someone who could not have been there to know what happened. I do know that over 1000 Jews got a train orchestrated by Reszo Kasztner, the Satmer Rov and the Belzer Rebbe amongst them. I know they all survivied the war because of him. All you seem to know are oft repeated facts devoid of any real evidence.
Let’s not forget that on appeal, the Israeli Supreme court completely reversed Judge Silberg’s findings and Order. Silberg was a political hack and his conduct during the trial reeked of cronyism. But of course by the time his name was cleared it was too late, Kasztner had been murdered. His blood was on Tamir’s hands. Tamir committed the most serious violation of a lawyer’s professionalism. He stoked his ambition at the expense of others. He was fre more interested in looking like a great lawyer than in serving the truth or justice.
I must confess I too once believed that Kasztner was ethically compromised during the war. I then read a bit more about him. Take a look at the following sites for more accurate information about him:
Indeed I can’t understand Katner’s defense of Kurt Becher, except to ascribe it to a desire on his part to remain a “player” after the war, and to some form ot Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. But to suges that he collaborated with Eichmann y’msh is simple slander.
Kastner is well-documented in the book Perfidy by Ben Hechy (who incidentally was a zionist).
Just as Rebi Yochanon ben Zakki saved the Rabbonim in Yavneh, so too here Klal Yisroel needed malachim on the caliber of the Satmar Rebbe to be saved from destruction. The proof is in the pudding. The Satmar Rebbe single-handedly (along with Rav Ahron Kotler) made Torah in America to be what it is today.
According to your warped logic, the Satmar Rebbe should’ve “thanked” Adolf Eichmann for “saving” him. After all, Eichmann approved AND FULLY ARRANGED for the train to me made available for the trip to Switzerland. Without Eichmann, Kastner had nothing. So the logical conclusion of your drivel is that Eichmann is owed a hakoros hatov by the Rebbe.
Of course both Eichmann and Kastner were cold-blooded mass murderers. Whatever purported good either did, had only evil behind it. Kastner received the Vrba-Wetzler report before the Hungarian deportations began, but kept it secret from the Hungarian Jewish community, per his sweetheart agreement with Eichmann, in order not to imperil his sweetheart deal to save his own family’s skin and those of his chosen zionists. Eichmann and Kastner worked hand-in-hand with each others towards their mutual goals. This is who you demand be thanked?!
Like I said, I strongly suggest reading Perfidy, by Ben Hecht.
Perfidy? You refer me to Perfidy, the hatchet job of a minor league pornogprapher? Yes that’s what Ben Hecht did, made nudie b-films. Give me a break. Every serious scholar of the era has debunked that screed for what it is; just so much nonsense.
That you compare Kasztner, a Jew to Eichmann, says fro mroe about you than anything you’ve ever written. It’s interesting that you keep saying that Kasztner was in it only to save his “chosen Zionists.” But yet the Satmer Rav, and the Belzer rebbe were on the train. I guess they were chosen Zionists. BTW do you have any idea how passengers were selected for the train?
Rav Herschel Schachter wears it.
I’m unfamiliar with R. Esriel Hildesheimer or the Sridei Eish. My apologies for my unfamiliarity with every Rabbi of past and present.
The Satmar Rebbe’s talmidim purchased a train ticket out of Hungary from Kastner ym’s (much like Rebi Yochanan ben Zakki saved the Rabbonim in Yavneh through Vesapian), after Kastner sold the lives of 600,000 Hungarian Jews to Adolf Eichmann in exchange for his train. (Who aside from the tickets he sold for his profit, Kastner mainly filled with his family and Zionist friends.)
I suggest you familiarize yourself with those great sages. But to give you a small history lesson, R. Esriel Hildesheimer was the Rav in Eisenstadt in the 1860’s. He was close friend of the Maharam Schick and the K’sav Sofer. His was the first yeshiva in Hungary where secular subjects were taught along with Talmud and Shulkhan Arukh. He fell into disvafor with R. Hillel Lichenstein, the Rav of Szikszo, later “Zaddik” of Kolomea over his willingness to endorse a plan to build a kosher seminary. In other words he was against the chaluka between the Orthodox and the Neolog fomented by R. S.R. Hirsch and acted upon by R. Lichtenstein. During the congress of 1868 he became so disgusted with R. Lichtenstein’s terroristic tactics of religiously (almost psychotically, I’m convinced he suffered from mental illness) deligitimizing any Rav who dared disagree with him that he left Hungary for Berlin, and founded the Rabbinical Seminary there; the same type of Seminary he envisioned for Hungary. He was succeeded in Berlin by R. Dovid Zvi Hoffman, the author of Shu”t Melemd L’ho’il (I’m sure you never hear of him either), and then by R. Yechiel Weinberger, the Seridei Eish. R. Yechiel Yaacov Weinberger was a talmid muvhak of the Alter of Slabodka. He was a gaon atzum who toiled ferverently for Klal Yisroel. He was also a tremendous scholar and developed a system of synthesizing secular Jewish scholarship with traditional study. But I’m sure such things are of no interest someone like you.
What is your proof that Kastner made a profit off the train? He died impoverished and his widow struggled to support herself, running a newsppaer kiosk, for years as the Israeli government refused to give her a pension despite her husband’s Zionist activism before and during WWII. A text source for your assertion would be appreciated. Otherwise you would be wise to not slander the dead. As to the Satmer Rav’s travel on that train, I have no problem with it. He had a chance to get out alive and he took it, as did Pinchas Freudiger, the head of the Orthodox community of Budapest, who fled to Bucharest just before the Soviet onslaught (it seems he was forewarned of the Soviet invasion and times his departure to avoid it). No one can ever be blamed for saving themselves. Conversly however one does need to recognize and admire the valient sacrifice of Samu Stern, the head of Neolog community who chose to stay in Budapset for the duration rather then escape when he could. But again to someone like you, he was merely a “Jewish goy” unworthy of any accolade despite his choosing to stand with his brethern as opposed to his Orthodox counterpart, the Satmer Rav and the Belzer Rebbe (and we all know the famous speech his brother in law gave in the Rebbe’s name in the Kazincy schul before his departure as well as the Nitra Rav’s Daughter’s rejoinder to it). No the Satmer Rav did what everyone wanted to do; survive and that’s fine. He deserved to be piloried however for never being makir tov to the man who saved his life; Reszo Kasztner. Kasztner asked him for such a letter during the Grunwald trial, and the Satmer Rav said “G-d saved me, not any man.” David Hamelech gave Shlomo a tazva’ah to remember the B’nei Barzilai and be kind to them as they once did David Hamelech a favor and fed him when he was fleeing Avshalom. Why couldn’t R. Yoel zt”l have done similarly and simply acknowledged the one who saved him when that hero needed it most? Why did R. Yoel have such deep hatred for Zionists (i.e. Jews) that he ignored the truth?
cantor, it is also a statement of your hypocrisy that on one hand you harshly critique Rav Elchanan Wasserman for NOT saving his life in WWII, and criticize the Satmar Rebbe FOR saving his life. With your ilk the Rabbonim can do no right.
I don’t criticize R. Elchanan Wasserman for forfeiting his own life. It was his to forfeit. I do however fault him for counseling others to firfeit theirs rather than emmigrate. Who was he to tell others to die? Let’s not forget the words of R. Velvel Brisker:
How can the little rabbis and heads of yeshivas take upon themselves the determination of things dealing with life and death? It is obvious that the partition will bring with it the anger and hostility of the Arabs and other nations of the world. This whole thing touches on the shedding of blood. HOW DO THEY HAVE THE ARROGANCE TO MAKE JUDGEMENTS DEALING WITH LIFE AND DEATH?
Or were those words reserved only for Zionists?
This conversation, inane though it is, raises an interesting issue. To what extent are the standards of tzniut subject to the subjective standards of (good) taste? Crocs are ugly. Every time I put mine on, I feel like a fool wearing them (but they are so very comfortable), and I generally wear them only around the house. But to say they are immodest seems quite a stretch.
The reason that the Satmar Rebbe and the Litvishe Gedolim are accepted universally as Gedolim including by the Mizrachi, is simply because they are indisputably Gedolim. The Mizrachi has not produced anyone of the caliber of the Satmar Rebbe, Rav Shach, Rav Elchonan, Rav Elyashev, etc.
No Zalmen, it’s just that closed minded people refuse to recognize as great anyone who operates outside the small box of what you terms legitimate. For you it’s axiomatic. It is not torah scholarship or actual yirat Shamayim that matters. Rather it’s doctine and the chitzyoinius of dress etc that matter. Answer this question please. Was R. Esriel Hildesheimer a gadol in your eyes? How about the Sridei Eish?
On a differnet note, do you recall how the Satmer Rav left Hungary in 1944?
Mariner, I’d like to point out that while Hungarian Jewry, both the Orthodox and Neolog were generally opposed to Zionism, among the Orthodx rabbinate there were two notable exceptions, R. Moshe Aryeh Roth of Papa (where r. Shlomo Breuer was Rav prior to moving to Frankfurt) and R. Moshe Glasner of Kolosvar (Klausenberg). Moreover, the first Mizrachi conference in Hungary took place in 1904 in Pressburg of all places.
ms. saythatagain, you are mistaken. See matisyahu28’s comment on the bottom of page 3 of this thread for additional information. Even Agudah was opposed to the establishment of the medinah, as was the vast vast majority of all of Torah Judaism.
And the Agudh was wrong in that stance as was the Satmer Rav z”tl z”ya. The Hakamat haMedinah has done more good for Jews than any other event in Jewish history since the second churban.
Az m’fregt a sha’aleh m’enfret treif.
cantoresq: I read your post and was going to write that I am in agreement, until I read your last line. Why do you feel the need to engage in personal attacks?
Where was this quesion from you when Rabbi Norman Lamm was referred to “Mr. Lamm?” Am I not entitled to defend the kavod of those I know to be gedolim? And on the ote, it’s intereting in the non-chareidi Orthodox world, one will never hear a reference t chareidi gadol in anything other then respectful terms. That applies even to those who isult and delegitimize us the most. They are always referred to as Rav so and so or Harav so and so. It makes me wonder which group actually understands the idea of kavod haTorah.
With regard to any disrespect shown in the “Yeshivish” world towards Rav Soloveitchik, I think he brought much of that on himself. The Rav was not shy about voicing opinions HE KNEW to be unpopular in the “frum velt”. Just read some of his musings in his lectures about the “Mizrachi”. How about his endorsement of teaching Gemara to girls? How about his refusal to sign on the ban dealing with the New York Board of Rabbis?
Perhaps the “frum velt” went too far (such as calling him JB). But the fact remains that he publicly went against his own family traditions, so I don’t think we should be too shocked at the reaction.
I see. So a gadol in Torah can only be one who “tows the party line.” Conceptions of truth, and honest debate about G-d’s will have no place. It’s doctrine doctrine doctrine that means everything. Your’s is a sick understanding of Judaism.
I find it hilarious that someone would translate emunas chachamim as ‘believe of the sages’, because that really doesn’t mean anything.
The baryonim, were wrong because they went against daas torah – they thought they were right, and they thought they were doing the ratzon hashem. Now, according to norman lamm’s idea, which, I challenge you to find me in any sefer ever written, (not those written by lamm, obviusly), the baryonim were correct – they followed their OPINION on what daas torah was(so rabbiofberlin would say they werent wrong, after all, they had a sevara, and isnt that what’s most important, svara? we cant just blindly follow people like rabban yochanan ben zakkai after all) – now, they disobeyed chachamim, but accoding to norman lamm, they did no such thing – after all, they may have had faith in sages, whateevr that means(I’m really waiting for someoene to define that for me, what can it possibly mean? faith in the ‘idea’ that sages are right? or what? i mean, come on, for a concept in our emunah which is so omnipresent in torah literature, it must mean something which, well, i dont know, the seforim describing it say it means)
So according to mr lamm, the baryonim were not guilty of disobeying the sages, since they had a svara, and im sure if you asdked them they would come up with some sort of psak about it, and their only crime was being wrong in judgment, which they would not have been if they listened to the sages.
Dont you see how ridiculous this is?
That is a very interesting read on the gemara in Gittin. But the gemara never says that the chachamim would have been successful in hteir suit for peace. Moreover, look a further on the daf. R. Yochanan was unsuccessful in his negoationd with Vespasian. In fact Vepasian talked R. Yochanan into silence whcih was interpreted to be Divine intervention. Then when Vespasian told r. Yochanan to make a request, all he sought was Yavneh and its sages, not Jerusalem as it forgone that Jerusalem would fall. So I reject your selective reasding of that gemara.
Moreover, how DARE you refer to a gadol b’Yisrael as Mr.? You are an imbecile incapable of even reading a Gemamra straight. And you have the inmitigated gall to insult a gadol? Shame on you.
wasn’t Lamm the meyased of ‘centrist.whatever that entails?
Indeed it was Rabbi Lamm who coined the term “centrist.” Have you taken the time to read his basis for the term? How much of R. Lamm’s writing have you read?
And i’ll also join with those who think its hilarious to knock the Gedolei Yisroel based on a diyuk by Norman Lam (the title rabbi was intentionally omitted). Cantoresq, maybe you can ask Dr. Lam the brilliant question of “I can only Try” about how he would translate Emunas Hashem
Now now Charlie, please show some respect for a rav who has forgotten more Torah than you’ll ever learn. As to how to translate “Emunas Hashem” I plead ignorance to ever seeing it in a primary source.
Rather than reinvent the wheel, I refer you to Moshe Sokol’s Article in Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy (The Orthodox Form Series, Jason Aronson, 1992. That article pretty much shapes my thinking on the subject.
More related to the topc of this thread, I don’t understand the ire of people here. Rabbi Silberberg, who I have known for nearly thirty years, is a Lubavitcher. He chose to Lubavitch as his derech when he was in yeshiva. Something about it resonated with him spiritually, and he followed the call and has become a wonderful Rav and manhig. I know of, at this point hundreds of people who are religious Jews as a result of his efforts. Rabbi Belsky said publicly something very uncomplimentary of Lubavitch. Is there any wonder that R. silberberg would be offended? Is this reaction so unexpected?
To cantorseq – the concept of emunas chachamim is well-founded in torah literature, norman lamm’s grmmatical ‘diyuk’ if it can even be called that, does not change its definition as defined by chazal.
First of all, it is not a mere “grammatical diyuk.” It’s the actual meaning of the words. Secondly please show me where in Chazzal one finds thrd Da’at Torah and Emunat Chachamiom int he wasy currently used?
rabbiofberlin you are correct, but I want to draw people’s attention to the fact that the terms, taken from the Mishne, on which they realy for this notion, does not in fact mean what they seem to believe it means. Emunat chachamim menas the “belief of the sages” not belief in the sages; which would be “emunah bachachamim.” To my mind, the entire weltanschaung is based on a gross mistranslation. I can’t however take credit for this point. Rabbi Norman Lamm once pointed it out in a lecture.
what do you, a balhabas writing on an internet forum, or me, a bochur doig the same thing, know in the face of a gadol beyisroel? your emunas chachamim
Can anyone here please accurately translate the term “emunas chachamim?” An entire Jewish school of thought is based on a mis-translation of the words in Avot.
In terms of mimkomcha, the story I heard, possibly from SC himself or from one of his students (It was a long time ago and the story is fuzzy so don’t take it as 100%) was when SC sang it for the Amshnav Rebbe zt”l (I think) the Rebbe said that this tune is nusach from the beis Hamikdash.
The Amshinover Rebbe may hve liked the piece. In fact I do too. It just has no place being sung during davening. As a folk tune, it’s great though. I can prove that such a meoldy was NEVER heard in the Bais Mikdash. I know this becuse there is absolutely no similarity to trope in the melody.
Today, all over the Jewish world, his kabbolos shaboss is sung by thousands and thousands
To the great chagrin of anyone how prefers proper traditional tefilah, and not some erstaz touchy feely kumsitz. YECH!!!!!!!!!!!
Eh ujm: “Ein lecho adam sh’ein lo sh’ah”
The single greatest cause of divorce is. . . .marriage.
To cantoresq, I am showing my ignorance here in telling you that I do not know what the Ahava Rabbah nussach is. At least not by that name.You are,obviously, very knowledgeable in nussach and its components, a lot more than me, I fully admit. However, for you, to say that the nussach goes back to the Maharil and “even further back to Temple times”. How do you know that? There is about 1300 years between the maharil and the Churban habayis. Are you so sure that the nussach comes down from then? I am not sure at all, especially in view that the all Sefardim have very different nussach.(I am not a student of music history but to say that the Yemenite nussach resembles the Ashkenazi one defies my own listening, for one) I also think you are wrong in stating that shlomele z’l did not have a nussach. His kabbolos shaboos is clearly a nusssach.
And your last comment brought a smile to my face. Is cantoresq here the same cantoresq who has been excoriating all of those who believe the many “urban Jewish stories” ?(see other postings). “Off a muhl” -suddenly- you believe a story of six hudnred years ago! WOW !! You have joined the gullibel ones !
The Ahava Rabbah is the Ukranian Doric minor. It’s the nussch for Shabbos Shachris. It’s also identical to the sephardic Makam Hijaz, to elucidate my statement about the similarities between Ashkenaz an Sephardic nussach. The two sound differenc due to pronounciation, and because, as I understadn it, Sephrdic nussach is more formally developed and more rarified. As to how we know that nussach goes abck to the Temple times, wel we have records of ancient Greek music from that era and we can see it’s similarity to trope. I’ve stated before that SC generally adhered to the klalei hanussach. It is his students who abandoned it ni favor of his folk melodies. Also, why would I question the Maharil’s beliefs about his daughter’s death. I don’t know that she actually died because he daperted from the nussach. But based on the passige in Hilchot Yom Kippur in the Sefer Haminhagim, I know he believed that to be true.
What’s a Shwekey?
Rabbi, i’m sorry you took offense. I did not intend to lump you together with Cantoresq
In certain cirlces being lumped together me with would be thought to be a good thing.
cantoresq…your posting begs the question…Which trope do you accept as nussach? The litvishe trope? the German trope? The Galitzianer trope? The Yemenite trope? (Probably the most authentic one)
In truth, none of us even how what they sang in the Bais Hamikdash and what was music two thousand years ago. And nussach changes all the time but them, we have argued over that in another posting….
Firs of all, I really am limiting my comments to ashkenazi nusach. I’m not very well versed in the development of Sephardic chazzanut much beyond a very superficial exposure to the makamot. But to answer your question, first off, there is remarkably little difference between say, the Lithuanian trope system and the German one. Secondly, I refer you to the seminal research of Leib Glantz and Abraham Idelsohn before him into the origins of trope, their relation to Greek tetrachords, the distintcly Jewish adaptations of those terachords, the expansion of trope into nusach, with the addition of additional tetrachords, and the expansion of nusach into chazzanut. Indeed we do not know precisely how the shira sounded. That tradition has been lost to time. But we do know the basis for that shira and can trace how that basis developed into Ashkenazi chazzanut. For a good book on the topic, I suggest you read the recently published The Man Who Spoke to G-d; festschrifft puvlished by Jerry Glantz in tribute to this father Chazzan Leib Glantz.
to cantoresq…I do not understand your question about mimkomcho at all.Is there any specific nussach that is immutable on that part of kedusha? I have heard countless of different variations on mimkomchu
As far as nussach in general, pray tell, which nussach are you talking about? the Chassidische nussach? the maharil’s? Maybe Levandowsky? Or maybe the yemenite one? there are as many nussachs as there are Jewish people and thank G-d for them. Sure, there is a traditional nussach on many of the tefillos but so what? Shlomo zz’l initiated a new nussach, specifically for kabbolas shabbos, and half the world sings it now. I am sorry that you don’t like his songs and music but this is a far cry from saying that “his progeny destroyed the traditional music of prayer”. PLEEZE!!!
Indeed Mimkomcho, like the rest of the Shacharit Kedusho is supposed to be suing int he Ahava Rabbah mode. SC’s is in the western (i.e. not the pentatonic) major. How do I know the rule on might ask. Look in any primary source of nusach, like Baer’s Ba’al Tefilah, Ephros’ anthology, Ravitz’s books, Ne’eman’s books, and they all set Mimkomcho in the ahava Rabbah.
When I refer to nusach, I refer to the traditional prayer modes as handed down to us from our forefathers. Indeed they date back to the Maharil and even further back to Temple times. Chassidic nusach, when it’s done properly also adheres to the rules and modes as given to us by tradition. Yemenite nusach is based on the 24 makamot which happen to closely resemble the Ashkenazi prayer modes. It’s well known that much of Lewandowski’s music, while beautiful, is not nusach. Sc did not create new nusach for anything. He abandoned the traditional modes and substitued his folk melodies. That isn’t nusach, it’s just so much nonsense that people eagerly swallow up becuase it is feel good hand clapping nonsense as opposed to serious and dignified worship. That you ask “so what” to traditional nusach, tells me that you simply don’t understand the importance of it. But here’s a hint, the Maharil believed his daughter died becuase he once departed from the traditional nusach when he davened for the amud.