Over four years have elapsed since Rabbi Moshe Weinberger was brought back to YU/RIETS to spread Chasidus, sufficent time for students to have entered and graduated YU with him there for their whole tenure. As such, sufficient time has passed to take a hard look at what has occurred there, and on the neo-Chasidic front in general, in the last few years.
Fortunately, we are ב"ה aided in this vital work by reflections (last four paragraphs) shared by veteran RIETS Rosh Yeshiva and YU Chasidic pioneer R. Hershel Reichman, recently published in Kol Hamevaser, The Jewish Thought Magazine of the Yeshiva University Student Body.
Let us focus on a few important, fundamental points.
1) Neo-Chasidus at YU is a revolution, a revolutionary development. That cannot be denied. While some people may have wanted to (and still try to) pretend that bringing in R. Moshe Weinberger with special custom-designed provisions catering to him (special, limited, tailored hours, the new Chasidic title of mashpia, after starting first as mashgiach, etc.) and rolling out a red carpet for him, was just adding another faculty member, and nothing out of the ordinary, that is patently false. Such efforts to obscure the magnitude and significance of the move are diversionary and misleading.
2) The Rav (R. Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik) is old, neo-Chasidus at YU is new and hip. For many years, Modern Orthodoxy and RIETS/YU was dominated by the Rav, R. Yosef Dov Solovitchik z"l, and his Torah. Now, the pendulum has swung in a different direction. While the Rav and his legacy is still a giant presence in the YU/RIETS world, especially among older talmidim and staff, among some younger ones there is a significant shift, led by Rabbi Weinberger and others, away from Brisk, to locales like Medzhibozh, Uman, and Lubavitch.
3) R. Reichman, a devout Chasid himself, expresses disappointment at a decline in high level, intellectual, rigorous talmud Torah concomitant with the rise of neo-Chasidus.
Rabbi Reichman says that many talmidim leave the yeshiva knowing little of the Rav's Torah.
And that is a key in a discussion like this. We need to look at the younger students, the future. What are the trends among the younger students?
The bringing in of R. Weinberger was done under Richard Joel, the first YU President lacking semicha, and not simultaneously Rosh Yeshiva of RIETS. It was also done after the departure of longtime RIETS dean R. Zevulun Charlop. It is not coincidental that such a radical break with RIETS history and tradition took place took place under such a new regime.
With R. Weinberger on an extended trip to Eretz Yisrael (perhaps he is contemplating aliyah?), now seems like a good time for a cheshbon hanefesh, to sit down and assess the results of R. Weinberger's appointment and the YU/RIETS Chasidic revolution, and think about adjustments that may be in order after this extended period of revolutionary experimentation.
Let us hope that any corrections that need to be made are seriously considered, rather than ignored, or kicked down the road.
Tuesday, December 26, 2017
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
Learning Longevity From Litvak Luminaries
Maran Rav Aharon Leib Steinman z"l just passed away, reportedly at the age of 103. Five plus years prior, Maran Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv z"l passed away at a reported age of 102. Approximately a decade prior to that Maran Rav Elazar Menachem Man Schach z"l passed away at a reported 102 (if not greater age) as well.
A group of gedolim, manhigei hador, born in Lita, who lived most of their years in Eretz Yisrael.
Oustanding gedolim with outstanding longevity.
הלא דבר הוא - worthy of note.
What can we glean from their extreme years?
Al pi derech hateva (looking at it from a natural perspective), they lived very healthy (spartan we might even say - pardon the expression :) lifestyles - not smoking, eating little (cf the teaching of Rambam that most sicknesses come from overeating, IIRC), eschewing luxuries, living very modestly. Spiritually, they lived rich, meaningful lives, with a wealth of Torah and mitzvos. Of course, they benefited, especially at the end of their lives, from excellent personalized medical care, as well.
Of course, when considering such things, we should examine Torah sources regarding arichas yamim. A fundamental one is the posuk in Mishlei which tells us that יראת ה' תוסיף ימים ושנות רשעים תקצרנה, yiras Hashem adds days to a person. See the beautiful pshat of the holy Vilna Gaon there.
They are exceptional cases, and longevity is not limited to those with their exact background. Rav Shmuel Wosner, a fellow Bnei-Brak gadol, from a Vienna reportedly lived to 101, as did Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg z"l of Yerushalayim, who differed from the above by virtue of living in America for many years (although he was born in and lived in Europe as well). The Chofetz Chaim, a gadol of an earlier era, when modern medicine and health science was far less advanced, lived well into his 90's. There are non-celebrities of extreme age living quietly in nursing homes, with family, and elsewhere. There are cases of people of other faiths living extremely long as well. However, some, many, or most of them, seem to be relatively sheltered, and not too active. Whereas the gedolim above continued, B"H, to be active in their leadership roles (with vital assistance of course) to their last days, more or less.
In general, there are more people today living longer, b"H. I recall reading or hearing some time ago that more people are over one hundred years of age now than ever before in human history.
Takeaway - Those interested in longevity might contemplate living a lifestyle akin to their's. One needn't run daily for miles.
A freilichen and lichtigen Chanukah.
A group of gedolim, manhigei hador, born in Lita, who lived most of their years in Eretz Yisrael.
Oustanding gedolim with outstanding longevity.
הלא דבר הוא - worthy of note.
What can we glean from their extreme years?
Al pi derech hateva (looking at it from a natural perspective), they lived very healthy (spartan we might even say - pardon the expression :) lifestyles - not smoking, eating little (cf the teaching of Rambam that most sicknesses come from overeating, IIRC), eschewing luxuries, living very modestly. Spiritually, they lived rich, meaningful lives, with a wealth of Torah and mitzvos. Of course, they benefited, especially at the end of their lives, from excellent personalized medical care, as well.
Of course, when considering such things, we should examine Torah sources regarding arichas yamim. A fundamental one is the posuk in Mishlei which tells us that יראת ה' תוסיף ימים ושנות רשעים תקצרנה, yiras Hashem adds days to a person. See the beautiful pshat of the holy Vilna Gaon there.
They are exceptional cases, and longevity is not limited to those with their exact background. Rav Shmuel Wosner, a fellow Bnei-Brak gadol, from a Vienna reportedly lived to 101, as did Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg z"l of Yerushalayim, who differed from the above by virtue of living in America for many years (although he was born in and lived in Europe as well). The Chofetz Chaim, a gadol of an earlier era, when modern medicine and health science was far less advanced, lived well into his 90's. There are non-celebrities of extreme age living quietly in nursing homes, with family, and elsewhere. There are cases of people of other faiths living extremely long as well. However, some, many, or most of them, seem to be relatively sheltered, and not too active. Whereas the gedolim above continued, B"H, to be active in their leadership roles (with vital assistance of course) to their last days, more or less.
In general, there are more people today living longer, b"H. I recall reading or hearing some time ago that more people are over one hundred years of age now than ever before in human history.
Takeaway - Those interested in longevity might contemplate living a lifestyle akin to their's. One needn't run daily for miles.
A freilichen and lichtigen Chanukah.
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
The Litvak Caveman - Modern Historical Development of a Polemical Stereotype
Years ago, a controversy erupted when a past President of Yeshiva University and Rosh Yeshiva of RIETS, in an attempt to delineate and distinguish between his yeshiva and those of the more right wing Yeshiva world, stated, that unlike at some other institutions, his students were not cavemen.
Some right wing Yeshiva world elements then reacted with furor, seemingly thinking that the caveman reference was to a neanderthal type creature. Actually, however, the learned speaker and masterful darshan was referring to the famous gemara that tells of R. Shimon ben Yochai and his son R. Elazar staying for years buried in earth in a cave, when they were fugitives from governmental tyranny and religious persecution, with the speaker meaning that his students interacted with the outside world more than those of more insular institutions.
Over time, that speaker retired from Yeshiva University, and the controversy became a piece of history, past rather than present, for a while.
More recently however, the caveman stereotype has reemerged in a new form, with Hasidic figures at YU and elsewhere invoking it more broadly, not just against YU's right wing rival yeshivas, but as a rhetorical tool against Litvaks in general.
In the new form, Litvaks are carricatured as monkish types who do not engage with, or even reject the world, rather remaining isolated studying Torah all day. In other words, unbalanced people, who's lifestyle is a departure from Jewish tradition. On the other hand, Chasidim are portrayed favorably as people who engage with the outside world rather than cower from it, who believe in בכל דרכיך דעהו.
Exhibit one of this new form of the polemic - A few years ago, Rabbi Moshe Weinberger, Rabbi of Cong. Aish Kodesh, and RIETS Mashpia, basing himself on Rabbi Mottel Zilber (aka Rabbi Mordechai Silver), a (one of two) Stutchiner Rebbe (son-in-law of Rabbi Moshe Wolfson, spiritual leader of Cong, Emunas Yisrael of Brooklyn, NY, and mashgiach of Yeshiva Torah Vodaath of Brooklyn), attempted to propagate it in a talk at YU, under a guise of 'A Chasidic View of Parnasah', as part of his 'introduction to תורת הבעש"ט' series there.
Exhibit two - Rabbi Hershel Reichman, RIETS Rosh Yeshiva and neo-Hasidic pioneer, in a just published message, reflecting on neo-Hasidism at YU/RIETS (interestingly he expresses some reservations about it there now, entertaining the possibility that it has gone too far), says (last paragraph) that Hasidism is a seamless fit with Modern Orthodoxy, because they both see opportunities for avodas Hashem in every area of life, as per the fundamental Torah teaching of בכל דרכיך דעהו. As if Litvaks have excised that from their Yiddishkeit!
What is the problem here? Does anyone else realize what is wrong with this rhetoric? May I suggest a few points to ponder.
1) Litvaks as a whole are being conflated with a certain type of modern yeshiva/kollel (long term/indefinite "Torah-only" study for the masses) lifestyle, and its constituency. As if such a thing ever existed in Lita, Jewish Lithuania, the 'old country' for them where the amount of kollel students pre-WWII did not even get close to three digits, and where the typical man, with rare exception, was a 'balabos' (בעל הבית) rather than a kollel yungerman. The fact is, though, that Litvish in general is not totally identical with Yeshivish. Yes, there is overlap, and common cause, and collaboration at times, but they are still distinct identities and categories.
2) Chasidim nowadays have gone into kollel in a big way, and now have some of the largest kollelim in the world (in Kiryas Joel, New Square, etc.).
3) Pre-WWII Chasidim had similar things to kollel, even if the term was not used by them (e.g. the famous Belzer 'yoshvim' system).
4) Many of the most extremely insular segments of the contemporary Jewish world are actually Chasidic communities.
5) I don't recall this argument/polemic being raised in the days of when the Chasidic-Misnagdic clash was in full swing 200+ years ago. Chasidim then did not (IIRC) accuse Litvaks of being monk-like cavemen. Why not? Simple. Because it would have been ludicrous. There was no such thing! There was no kollel movement in Lita, Jewish Lithuania and environs, at that time, in the time of the Vilna Gaon! It is a modern invention, which became a mass movement only in recent decades. That itself shows that there is a problem with a polemic linking such a lifestyle to core Litvak ideology and identity.
I wonder, would Rabbi Reichman have proclaimed such drivel in front of his late rebbe Rav Soloveitchik z"l, or Rabbi Weinberger in front of his (alleged - I don't know if I have ever heard him say over Torah from the Suvalker Rav z"l despite listening to quite a few of his talks - if he ever does, it definitely seems to be quite rare) rebbe Rav Dovid Lifshitz z"l, and other past Litvishe RIETS greats? I seriously doubt it. Now, however, after their passing, these people feel free to spout anti-Litvish rhetoric openly in the institution where their teachers taught Torah for so many years.
Let us speak out strongly against this grotesque carricature of the Litvak being propagated by some to promote aims of their own, in which the Litvak is a Christian monk like figure, who doesn't believe in בכל דרכיך דעהו.
It is time for this defamation campaign to be exposed and retracted. The contemporary figures propagating it should be challenged for their words, and held accountable for the ugly stereotyping. Issues can be debated, but leave the broad brush stereotyping out please. Hopefully those responsible will consider their words more carefully in the future, and refrain from such talk, restoring a measure of peace among us.
Some right wing Yeshiva world elements then reacted with furor, seemingly thinking that the caveman reference was to a neanderthal type creature. Actually, however, the learned speaker and masterful darshan was referring to the famous gemara that tells of R. Shimon ben Yochai and his son R. Elazar staying for years buried in earth in a cave, when they were fugitives from governmental tyranny and religious persecution, with the speaker meaning that his students interacted with the outside world more than those of more insular institutions.
Over time, that speaker retired from Yeshiva University, and the controversy became a piece of history, past rather than present, for a while.
More recently however, the caveman stereotype has reemerged in a new form, with Hasidic figures at YU and elsewhere invoking it more broadly, not just against YU's right wing rival yeshivas, but as a rhetorical tool against Litvaks in general.
In the new form, Litvaks are carricatured as monkish types who do not engage with, or even reject the world, rather remaining isolated studying Torah all day. In other words, unbalanced people, who's lifestyle is a departure from Jewish tradition. On the other hand, Chasidim are portrayed favorably as people who engage with the outside world rather than cower from it, who believe in בכל דרכיך דעהו.
Exhibit one of this new form of the polemic - A few years ago, Rabbi Moshe Weinberger, Rabbi of Cong. Aish Kodesh, and RIETS Mashpia, basing himself on Rabbi Mottel Zilber (aka Rabbi Mordechai Silver), a (one of two) Stutchiner Rebbe (son-in-law of Rabbi Moshe Wolfson, spiritual leader of Cong, Emunas Yisrael of Brooklyn, NY, and mashgiach of Yeshiva Torah Vodaath of Brooklyn), attempted to propagate it in a talk at YU, under a guise of 'A Chasidic View of Parnasah', as part of his 'introduction to תורת הבעש"ט' series there.
Exhibit two - Rabbi Hershel Reichman, RIETS Rosh Yeshiva and neo-Hasidic pioneer, in a just published message, reflecting on neo-Hasidism at YU/RIETS (interestingly he expresses some reservations about it there now, entertaining the possibility that it has gone too far), says (last paragraph) that Hasidism is a seamless fit with Modern Orthodoxy, because they both see opportunities for avodas Hashem in every area of life, as per the fundamental Torah teaching of בכל דרכיך דעהו. As if Litvaks have excised that from their Yiddishkeit!
What is the problem here? Does anyone else realize what is wrong with this rhetoric? May I suggest a few points to ponder.
1) Litvaks as a whole are being conflated with a certain type of modern yeshiva/kollel (long term/indefinite "Torah-only" study for the masses) lifestyle, and its constituency. As if such a thing ever existed in Lita, Jewish Lithuania, the 'old country' for them where the amount of kollel students pre-WWII did not even get close to three digits, and where the typical man, with rare exception, was a 'balabos' (בעל הבית) rather than a kollel yungerman. The fact is, though, that Litvish in general is not totally identical with Yeshivish. Yes, there is overlap, and common cause, and collaboration at times, but they are still distinct identities and categories.
2) Chasidim nowadays have gone into kollel in a big way, and now have some of the largest kollelim in the world (in Kiryas Joel, New Square, etc.).
3) Pre-WWII Chasidim had similar things to kollel, even if the term was not used by them (e.g. the famous Belzer 'yoshvim' system).
4) Many of the most extremely insular segments of the contemporary Jewish world are actually Chasidic communities.
5) I don't recall this argument/polemic being raised in the days of when the Chasidic-Misnagdic clash was in full swing 200+ years ago. Chasidim then did not (IIRC) accuse Litvaks of being monk-like cavemen. Why not? Simple. Because it would have been ludicrous. There was no such thing! There was no kollel movement in Lita, Jewish Lithuania and environs, at that time, in the time of the Vilna Gaon! It is a modern invention, which became a mass movement only in recent decades. That itself shows that there is a problem with a polemic linking such a lifestyle to core Litvak ideology and identity.
I wonder, would Rabbi Reichman have proclaimed such drivel in front of his late rebbe Rav Soloveitchik z"l, or Rabbi Weinberger in front of his (alleged - I don't know if I have ever heard him say over Torah from the Suvalker Rav z"l despite listening to quite a few of his talks - if he ever does, it definitely seems to be quite rare) rebbe Rav Dovid Lifshitz z"l, and other past Litvishe RIETS greats? I seriously doubt it. Now, however, after their passing, these people feel free to spout anti-Litvish rhetoric openly in the institution where their teachers taught Torah for so many years.
Let us speak out strongly against this grotesque carricature of the Litvak being propagated by some to promote aims of their own, in which the Litvak is a Christian monk like figure, who doesn't believe in בכל דרכיך דעהו.
It is time for this defamation campaign to be exposed and retracted. The contemporary figures propagating it should be challenged for their words, and held accountable for the ugly stereotyping. Issues can be debated, but leave the broad brush stereotyping out please. Hopefully those responsible will consider their words more carefully in the future, and refrain from such talk, restoring a measure of peace among us.
Friday, October 27, 2017
A Comprehensive Look At The Modern Lulav Industry - Great New Video and Article
In the previous post, we showed how people not familiar in a comprehensive way with lulavim used for מצות ארבע מינים, erred and took a 'lulav' from a different type of (non-date) palm tree, departing from the tradition of כלל ישראל with regard to what a lulav is.
To get a better idea of, and actually see how lulavim grow and are harvested in general, while also learning of modern and recent innovations in the industry, I highly recommend this article and video taken in ארץ ישראל recently.
Even though this year's Sukkos has just passed, and the next year's is many months away yet, learning related to a mitzvah is always in season.
To get a better idea of, and actually see how lulavim grow and are harvested in general, while also learning of modern and recent innovations in the industry, I highly recommend this article and video taken in ארץ ישראל recently.
Even though this year's Sukkos has just passed, and the next year's is many months away yet, learning related to a mitzvah is always in season.
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
When a Lulav Is Not Kosher - The Giant "Perfect Lulav" - An Open Orthodox - Lubavitch PR Scam
A Lubavitcher website is reporting a joint effort of an 'Open Orthodox' (OO) spiritual leader from Washington DC, Shmuel Herzfeld, and a Lubavitcher shliach in California, Yossi Cunin, to get a giant lulav for the OO leader to use at his house of worship.
The (Los Angeles) Jewish Journal has as an article by Herzfeld about it, Best of Friends, Best of Fronds: A Lulav Story.
According to the reports the story had a happy ending when the shliach sent the OO leader a giant lulav from his own garden in California.
There appears to be one major problem though. It seems quite clear that the tree the lulav involved came from is not the traditional date palm where lulavim for arba minim come from.
The (Los Angeles) Jewish Journal has as an article by Herzfeld about it, Best of Friends, Best of Fronds: A Lulav Story.
According to the reports the story had a happy ending when the shliach sent the OO leader a giant lulav from his own garden in California.
There appears to be one major problem though. It seems quite clear that the tree the lulav involved came from is not the traditional date palm where lulavim for arba minim come from.
The traditional date palm has a wider, rough trunk, due to persistent leaf bases of dead leaves. The palm involved here, shown in the video at the Lubavitcher website, has a plainly smoother and thinner trunk, and different appearance.
Caveat emptor - buyer beware.
Just because something seems like a cute story doesn't mean it is correct, or על פי הלכה.
A bracha should not be made on that lulav.
Why the Chofetz Chaim Did Not Hold or Shake His Lulav During Hallel One Year in Radin
This beautiful story, showing the great sensitivity of the Chofetz Chaim z"l, appeared in the Yated Ne'eman (USA) recent Rosh Hashanah edition (p.44), in an interview by Avrohom Birnbaum of Rav Chaim Walkin.
Rav Walkin shlit"a related that he heard the story from his zeide, Rav Shmuel Dovid Walkin z"l before he was bar mitzvah.
One year, in Radin, there was only one lulav and esrog, for which a dear price was paid, and it was in possession of the Chofetz Chaim. At the first day of Yom Tov davening there was a significant crowd in attendance, including greats such as Rav Elchanan Wasserman Hy"d, Rav Moshe Londinsky z"l, and Rav Naftali Trop z"l. People waited to see what the Chofetz Chaim would so, and how he would advise people to fulfill the mitzvah of daled minim.
Before Hallel, the Chofetz Chaim took the lulav and esrog, made the brachos, shook the lulav briefly, and then passed it on to another person to do the same. And so it went for all the men there. Then the Chofetz Chaim announced in front of the congregation 'This year we will not hold the lulav or shake it during Hallel, myself included.' He proceeded to explain, 'It is impossible to give the lulav and esrog to everyone during Hallel. There are too many people. If we give it to some and not to others, it might make some feel slighted. To cause someone else pain or suffering is an issur deoraysa, a Torah prohibition, while shaking the lulav during Hallel is a minhag instituted by the nevi'im. It is far better to be doche a minhag nevi'im than to even entertain the possibility of transgressing an issur deoraysa.'
A beautiful story (there are others in the feature as well, if you can get a copy), which shows us the gadlus of true gedolim, talmidei chachamim, and tzadikim. With such stories, it is no wonder the Chofetz Chaim was/is so beloved among various segments of Klal Yisroel.
A kosher and freilich Yom Tov.
Rav Walkin shlit"a related that he heard the story from his zeide, Rav Shmuel Dovid Walkin z"l before he was bar mitzvah.
One year, in Radin, there was only one lulav and esrog, for which a dear price was paid, and it was in possession of the Chofetz Chaim. At the first day of Yom Tov davening there was a significant crowd in attendance, including greats such as Rav Elchanan Wasserman Hy"d, Rav Moshe Londinsky z"l, and Rav Naftali Trop z"l. People waited to see what the Chofetz Chaim would so, and how he would advise people to fulfill the mitzvah of daled minim.
Before Hallel, the Chofetz Chaim took the lulav and esrog, made the brachos, shook the lulav briefly, and then passed it on to another person to do the same. And so it went for all the men there. Then the Chofetz Chaim announced in front of the congregation 'This year we will not hold the lulav or shake it during Hallel, myself included.' He proceeded to explain, 'It is impossible to give the lulav and esrog to everyone during Hallel. There are too many people. If we give it to some and not to others, it might make some feel slighted. To cause someone else pain or suffering is an issur deoraysa, a Torah prohibition, while shaking the lulav during Hallel is a minhag instituted by the nevi'im. It is far better to be doche a minhag nevi'im than to even entertain the possibility of transgressing an issur deoraysa.'
A beautiful story (there are others in the feature as well, if you can get a copy), which shows us the gadlus of true gedolim, talmidei chachamim, and tzadikim. With such stories, it is no wonder the Chofetz Chaim was/is so beloved among various segments of Klal Yisroel.
A kosher and freilich Yom Tov.
Monday, October 2, 2017
Great 5778 Hadassim Scare Debunked - Healing Hadassim Hysteria with Halachic Clarity
A few days ago, an explosive article with inflammatory language was published online at a prominent website, as well as in a widely circulated newspaper in the NYC area, claiming that a Hadasim scam and scandal exists, with most hadassim sold (for Sukkos, ד' מינים) not being kosher for that purpose.
While the author discusses various issues that can arise with hadassim, his main allegation is that, in his view, there is a widespread deficiency in the area of having leaves that are משולש. He defines meshulash narrowly. In his view, people should inspect the nodes on the hadassim to see that they are closely aligned.
But is such a measure really necessary, appropriate and realistic? Is the situation really so dire? Must a person spend a great amount of time inspecting every node and leaf of multiple hadasim closely?
It appears that his standard is overly narrow, not necessary, not realistic, and not in accordance with mainstream halacha. Consequently, the article is misleading and alarmist.
Let me explain, and share some of my research.
1. Rav Avrohom Reit שליט"א is a choshuve talmid chochom in NY, who has, in recent years put out some excellent publications on various inyanim such as tekias shofar, chalitza, arba minim, etc. He specializes in clarifying, to a high level, the realia, the physical reality of a situation, the metzius that halacha is applied to. If someone doesn't know this metzius well, serious difficulties can develop in havonoh, understanding, and application of halachah.
In his excellent sefer Lekicha Tama: The Lulav and Esrog Buying Guide, Rabbi Reit writes about meshulash (which he calls "whorled" in English) (emphasis mine)
"two issues must be clarified: 1) is it the leaves, leafstalks, or nodes that must be whorled and 2) how closely aligned must they be to be considered whorled?
Whorled has traditionally been understood to mean the leaves appear as one set, with all the leaves at the same level. The focus is on the leaves themselves, not on the leafstalks or nodes. This is the standard of the pre-packed hadasim, of the old Yerushalmi experts, and this is how we were taught as children."
Practically speaking - מעשה רב מגדולי הדור
"When (Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zatzal) inspected hadasim he looked only at the general appearance of the hadas - not at the stem [הליכות שלמה פרק י' אות י' ובארחות הלכה 43]"
להבחל"ח
"when...Reb Dovid Feinstein shlita checks hadasim for the public, he gives a cursory glance at the leaves without touching them (he does not examine the leafstalks or nodes)."
With permission of Rabbi Reit, I post below images of relevant section of his sefer where the above words appear, along with further elaboration.
2. Rabbi Shlomo Gottesman is editor of the prestigious ישורון Torah journal, a fine talmid chacham, and marbitz Torah.
In a shiur he gave about hadassim last year (bottom of page) he seems to also differ with the article (certainly in tone) (14:00-). He states that even the renowned machmir, the Brisker Rav, was not makpid to have all the nodes aligned exactly (if that were even possible).
May we merit clarity in Torah knowledge, and a joyous zeman simchaseinu.
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
Trashing Kapporos - Kapporah Gain, or Kapporah Deficit?
There has been much debate over the Kaparos custom for many years.
Some of it has been about the very basis, the theory of the matter (e.g. is there a question of foreign Darkei Emori practice, as the mechaber of Shulchan Aruch maintains), while other parts of it was about the actual activity, how things worked out on the ground (e.g. was the shochet tired, calling the shechita into question, tzaar baalei chaim concerns). Now, it seems that there is a new issue raising additional concern about the practice.
Evidently, in some places, the chickens, after shechita, are just treated as refuse.
While in the past it was assumed that the chickens were ultimately used as food, which seems to have usually been the case, when people were not so affluent, and were used to kashering (salting, removing blood, etc.) chickens at home themselves, nowadays, on the other hand, most people are used to the modern convenience of buying pre-kashered chickens and are not versed in, or comfortable with dealing with kosher fowl preparation themselves. The chickens nowadays are relatively inexpensive as well, due to mass production, and modern scientific advances, with G-d's bounty.
An additional difficulty is that most kaporos centers are not near the giant poultry plants where kosher fowl is usually prepared. So even if people would want to give their chickens to the plants for the balance of the necessary preparation, distance and other difficulties present significant barriers to such action.
So now that it has been revealed that fowl (the extent is not known, but a significant amount of chickens have evidently been involved in the past) are trashed after the ritual, which invokes the issue of Bal Tashchis, the prohibition against wasting things, particularly food, should those people who do it with chickens reconsider their participation?
This question was the subject of heated debate recently at a Chabad-Lubavitch website.
One writer called for using money instead of chickens, as some others have done for years. Another writer claimed, in response, that trashing the chickens does not invalidate successful kaporos.
Many commenters weighed in with various thoughts and suggestions.
Let us hope that people take such considerations into mind, and avoid a situation of יצא שכרו בהפסדו (gain outweighed by loss) in this season of repentance.
P.S. After Yom Kippur we learned of a new Kapporos scam - Halal Kapparos.
Some of it has been about the very basis, the theory of the matter (e.g. is there a question of foreign Darkei Emori practice, as the mechaber of Shulchan Aruch maintains), while other parts of it was about the actual activity, how things worked out on the ground (e.g. was the shochet tired, calling the shechita into question, tzaar baalei chaim concerns). Now, it seems that there is a new issue raising additional concern about the practice.
Evidently, in some places, the chickens, after shechita, are just treated as refuse.
While in the past it was assumed that the chickens were ultimately used as food, which seems to have usually been the case, when people were not so affluent, and were used to kashering (salting, removing blood, etc.) chickens at home themselves, nowadays, on the other hand, most people are used to the modern convenience of buying pre-kashered chickens and are not versed in, or comfortable with dealing with kosher fowl preparation themselves. The chickens nowadays are relatively inexpensive as well, due to mass production, and modern scientific advances, with G-d's bounty.
An additional difficulty is that most kaporos centers are not near the giant poultry plants where kosher fowl is usually prepared. So even if people would want to give their chickens to the plants for the balance of the necessary preparation, distance and other difficulties present significant barriers to such action.
So now that it has been revealed that fowl (the extent is not known, but a significant amount of chickens have evidently been involved in the past) are trashed after the ritual, which invokes the issue of Bal Tashchis, the prohibition against wasting things, particularly food, should those people who do it with chickens reconsider their participation?
This question was the subject of heated debate recently at a Chabad-Lubavitch website.
One writer called for using money instead of chickens, as some others have done for years. Another writer claimed, in response, that trashing the chickens does not invalidate successful kaporos.
Many commenters weighed in with various thoughts and suggestions.
Let us hope that people take such considerations into mind, and avoid a situation of יצא שכרו בהפסדו (gain outweighed by loss) in this season of repentance.
P.S. After Yom Kippur we learned of a new Kapporos scam - Halal Kapparos.
Monday, September 4, 2017
The Nesivos Shalom Controversy and Its Broader Ramifications for the Torah World
Lehrhaus has just published an extraordinary piece. An exposé by a fervent Israeli (Dati-Leumi) Chasid, Rabbi Dr. Zvi Leshem, of problematic aspects of the נתיבות שלום of R. Shalom Noach Berezovsky, a Rebbe of one faction of Slonimer Chasidim, a work that has gained a cult-like following in some quarters in recent years.
Visitors to this site may recall that a number of the months ago, there appeared here a different critique of the Nesivos Shaom phenomenon, from a Litvishe-Misagdic point of view, in reaction to a Lehrhaus piece lauding it.
Now, with the appearance of Rabbi Dr. Leshem's excellent piece, it is evident that the Nesivos Sholom phenomenon is long overdue for some serious scrutiny. If traditionally opposite camps both have serious problems with a work, it is time to reevaluate it, and its place among us.
The question is asked, what accounts for the popularity of the Nesivos Shalom, among certain segments of the community? Building on what Rabbi Dr. Leshem states on the matter, it seems to me that it has become a staple fed to students from the diaspora at many seminaries and yeshivas, as it is Hasidism light. Things like modernistic Hebrew, and a more open attitude toward Israel than prevails in some other Hasidic sects, make it an easy fit for faculty who want to offer something a bit different to fill time in the year or more that many Modern Orthodox types study in Israel (or elsewhere) for.
As an aside, I do take exception to the conflating in Rabbi Dr. Leshem's piece of the Litvishe tradition as a whole, with some severe mussar texts or schools within (or without of) it. Not all Litvaks were part of the mussar movement. Some opposed it strongly. And even among those who were part of it, there were great differences. Just like Slabodka and Novhardok were quite different, so too there were significant differences among other Litvishe as well. For example, the Michtav Me'Eliyahu of Rav Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler z"l (cited by Rabbi Dr. Leshem in his piece as an alleged exemplar of the Litvishe world), was opposed by some of his Litvishe brethren for various reasons. The traditional Litvishe velt would take strong exception to certain aspects of the Nesivos Shalom just as Rabbi Dr. Leshem does.
בכל דרכיך דעהו, within a framework of moderation in dealing with the physical world, was and is taken very seriously by Litvishe תלמידי חכמים past and present. The Litvishe Torah world extends far beyond black hat yeshiva walls, and its representatives are found in various places and positions, not just or necessarily ראשי כולל, ראשי ישיבה, and some משגיחים.
There also is in this episode an important broader lesson, namely that before people become followers of a leader or sect new to them and their background, they should exercise due diligence, and go beyond the figurative headlines to check for suitability, acceptability, and compatibility.
May we merit appropriate and fitting spiritual guidance, on a deep level.
Visitors to this site may recall that a number of the months ago, there appeared here a different critique of the Nesivos Shaom phenomenon, from a Litvishe-Misagdic point of view, in reaction to a Lehrhaus piece lauding it.
Now, with the appearance of Rabbi Dr. Leshem's excellent piece, it is evident that the Nesivos Sholom phenomenon is long overdue for some serious scrutiny. If traditionally opposite camps both have serious problems with a work, it is time to reevaluate it, and its place among us.
The question is asked, what accounts for the popularity of the Nesivos Shalom, among certain segments of the community? Building on what Rabbi Dr. Leshem states on the matter, it seems to me that it has become a staple fed to students from the diaspora at many seminaries and yeshivas, as it is Hasidism light. Things like modernistic Hebrew, and a more open attitude toward Israel than prevails in some other Hasidic sects, make it an easy fit for faculty who want to offer something a bit different to fill time in the year or more that many Modern Orthodox types study in Israel (or elsewhere) for.
As an aside, I do take exception to the conflating in Rabbi Dr. Leshem's piece of the Litvishe tradition as a whole, with some severe mussar texts or schools within (or without of) it. Not all Litvaks were part of the mussar movement. Some opposed it strongly. And even among those who were part of it, there were great differences. Just like Slabodka and Novhardok were quite different, so too there were significant differences among other Litvishe as well. For example, the Michtav Me'Eliyahu of Rav Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler z"l (cited by Rabbi Dr. Leshem in his piece as an alleged exemplar of the Litvishe world), was opposed by some of his Litvishe brethren for various reasons. The traditional Litvishe velt would take strong exception to certain aspects of the Nesivos Shalom just as Rabbi Dr. Leshem does.
בכל דרכיך דעהו, within a framework of moderation in dealing with the physical world, was and is taken very seriously by Litvishe תלמידי חכמים past and present. The Litvishe Torah world extends far beyond black hat yeshiva walls, and its representatives are found in various places and positions, not just or necessarily ראשי כולל, ראשי ישיבה, and some משגיחים.
There also is in this episode an important broader lesson, namely that before people become followers of a leader or sect new to them and their background, they should exercise due diligence, and go beyond the figurative headlines to check for suitability, acceptability, and compatibility.
May we merit appropriate and fitting spiritual guidance, on a deep level.
Thursday, July 13, 2017
The Dynamics of Spiritual Momentum - Insights into the Workings of Mitzvah Goreres Mitzvah
We are taught in Pirkei Avos, Ben Azai says מצוה גוררת מצוה and עבירה גוררת עבירה. One mitzvah drags along another mitzvah, and conversely, an aveirah drags along an aveirah.
Seems pretty simple.
However, even a seemingly straightforward teaching, can be understood in different ways by different people at times. This mishnah has featured in Chasidic-Misnagdic debate over the years.
Exhibit one -
Chasidim who davened late were criticized for missing zeman tefillah. One answer given by R. Yitzchak Meir of Gora Kalwaria was as follows. The mishnah says aveirah goreres aveirah. However, according to the Chasidic respondent, those Chasidim who davened late, after davening would learn Torah. If so, according to him, that proves that their davening late was not an aveirah, but rather a mitzvah, since it was followed by another mitzvah, rather than by an aveirah (source)
Misnagdic responses to this clever defense could be as follows.
1) Mitzvah goreres mitzvah doesn't mean that one mitzvah observance will, with total certainty, follow another (and conversely with aveiros). Rather, it means that it will bring another mitzvah opportunity in its wake, following it. A type of positive spiritual momentum, if you may. In the final analysis, however, the person involved will have to choose if they will continue in the mitzvah path or not, by acting to take advantage of the new opportunity, or to lose the momentum, and squander the new opportunity.
Therefore the fact that people were learning after davening late, doesn't prove that the davening late was entirely proper. It may be that they just took separate action to move on to learning, not that they coasted there with the momentum of what they did previously.
2) Davening late (at least within some type of correct time frame, e.g. not davening shacharis during the time of mincha) is not an aveira (such as eating non-kosher or wearing shatnez), but rather carrying out a spiritual activity without following its prescribed regulations. Such a act might be endowed with different dynamics than an actual full-fledged aveirah.
Seems pretty simple.
However, even a seemingly straightforward teaching, can be understood in different ways by different people at times. This mishnah has featured in Chasidic-Misnagdic debate over the years.
Exhibit one -
Chasidim who davened late were criticized for missing zeman tefillah. One answer given by R. Yitzchak Meir of Gora Kalwaria was as follows. The mishnah says aveirah goreres aveirah. However, according to the Chasidic respondent, those Chasidim who davened late, after davening would learn Torah. If so, according to him, that proves that their davening late was not an aveirah, but rather a mitzvah, since it was followed by another mitzvah, rather than by an aveirah (source)
Misnagdic responses to this clever defense could be as follows.
1) Mitzvah goreres mitzvah doesn't mean that one mitzvah observance will, with total certainty, follow another (and conversely with aveiros). Rather, it means that it will bring another mitzvah opportunity in its wake, following it. A type of positive spiritual momentum, if you may. In the final analysis, however, the person involved will have to choose if they will continue in the mitzvah path or not, by acting to take advantage of the new opportunity, or to lose the momentum, and squander the new opportunity.
Therefore the fact that people were learning after davening late, doesn't prove that the davening late was entirely proper. It may be that they just took separate action to move on to learning, not that they coasted there with the momentum of what they did previously.
2) Davening late (at least within some type of correct time frame, e.g. not davening shacharis during the time of mincha) is not an aveira (such as eating non-kosher or wearing shatnez), but rather carrying out a spiritual activity without following its prescribed regulations. Such a act might be endowed with different dynamics than an actual full-fledged aveirah.
3) There may have been another, possibly unseen, or unnoticed, act between davening late and the learning, which arrested the initial negative spiritual momentum.
Exhibit two -
Rebbe Yitzchak of Radvil asked as follows. We put tefillin on in the morning. This should lead to more mitzvos, because מצוה גוררת מצוה. So everyone should be a tzaddik, as this mitzvah should lead to another, which would lead to another, and on, and on. Why don’t we see this happening? He answers; it depends on how the person does the mitzvah. If he does it with joy, then definitely so. If not, however, it won't have this ability (source, p.8-9).
A Misnagdic response to the above would be (IMHO) that, as above in exhibit one, מצוה גוררת מצוה is not an unstoppable force. Rather it is a type of momentum, spiritual momentum. Just as physical momentum has limits, so too does spiritual momentum. Momentum is not inevitability. We would not agree that 'a mitzvah done without simcha' (as if such could be so easily measured or determined, if it exists at all), or otherwise in less than optimal fashion, is devoid of the power of momentum. Misnagdim have a more expansive, inclusive view of spiritual momentum, and don't limit it to what people consider mitzvos done besimcha.
A Misnagdic response to the above would be (IMHO) that, as above in exhibit one, מצוה גוררת מצוה is not an unstoppable force. Rather it is a type of momentum, spiritual momentum. Just as physical momentum has limits, so too does spiritual momentum. Momentum is not inevitability. We would not agree that 'a mitzvah done without simcha' (as if such could be so easily measured or determined, if it exists at all), or otherwise in less than optimal fashion, is devoid of the power of momentum. Misnagdim have a more expansive, inclusive view of spiritual momentum, and don't limit it to what people consider mitzvos done besimcha.
Exhibit three -
A fine contemporary hit song, known as שכר מצוה, states העושה מצוה אחת קטנה בשמחה מגלגלין לו לעשות מצוה גדולה מהראשונה - someone who does a small mitzvah with simcha, the opportunity is given to him to do a greater mitzvah.
While some people may not notice or pay heed, those lyrics actually differ from the mishna in פרקי אבות. While the mishna speaks of mitzvos generally, without classifying them as being smaller or larger, and without discussing if the mitzvah was done besimcha or not, the song lyrics introduce those new classifications/qualifications/limitations. I don't know where the lyrics are from, but I suspect that they are from (a) Chasidic source(s). If someone can shed light on the matter, please enlighten us (note - I subsequently was informed that the source is the תפארת ישראל on the mishnah, עיין שם).
Let us hope that we seize our moments for good, and maintain positive momentum forward.
Monday, July 10, 2017
The Many Friends of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l
The other day, while listening to the Headlines program, I heard stated, in the introduction of a well-known New York Rav (רב יהודה דוד בלייך שליט"א, Rabbi J. David Bleich) "he's one of the few people in the world who can say that Rav Moshe Feinstein referred to them as yedidi" (1:08:55-1:09:30 approximately).
I heard similar words in another program by the same host about the same guest in the past.
It didn't sound right to me, didn't square with my recollection however.
Just to check, I opened up אגרות משה (which can be seen at www.hebrewbooks.org), and in the pages I went through, it seemed like just about every שואל was referred to that way, i.e. as ידידי (with some exceptions, such as relatives, e.g. Rav Moshe's uncle, who were referred to based on their relationship).
I believe Rav Moshe also signed some public letters with the words ידיד כל אחד ואחד, משה פיינשטיין.
So it seems like an out and out error.
Rav Moshe z"l was a man of many friends.
Since Headlines and its author/host have become important players on the frum scene, it is proper to treat them with appropriate attention and seriousness, which includes correction of errors, such as the above.
Also, in another recent program, the host stated (1:35) "we love when people disagree, the koach of Klal Yisrael was always the כח of argument, discussion", as well as citing Bill Gates at another point, or in another recent program, as saying along the lines of that one learns more from those who disagree with them than those who agree with them.
Based on the above, the host should welcome these corrections. אי"ה there will be more coming.
I heard similar words in another program by the same host about the same guest in the past.
It didn't sound right to me, didn't square with my recollection however.
Just to check, I opened up אגרות משה (which can be seen at www.hebrewbooks.org), and in the pages I went through, it seemed like just about every שואל was referred to that way, i.e. as ידידי (with some exceptions, such as relatives, e.g. Rav Moshe's uncle, who were referred to based on their relationship).
I believe Rav Moshe also signed some public letters with the words ידיד כל אחד ואחד, משה פיינשטיין.
So it seems like an out and out error.
Rav Moshe z"l was a man of many friends.
Since Headlines and its author/host have become important players on the frum scene, it is proper to treat them with appropriate attention and seriousness, which includes correction of errors, such as the above.
Also, in another recent program, the host stated (1:35) "we love when people disagree, the koach of Klal Yisrael was always the כח of argument, discussion", as well as citing Bill Gates at another point, or in another recent program, as saying along the lines of that one learns more from those who disagree with them than those who agree with them.
Based on the above, the host should welcome these corrections. אי"ה there will be more coming.
Friday, May 26, 2017
The Road From Uman to the Vatican - Understanding the Astounding
A few weeks ago an astounding video was published online, proceeding to go viral in short order. It showed a group of ostensibly Haredi Jews dancing and singing (during sefirah, with instruments no less) before the Pope in Vatican City to the words of Tehillim, אורך ימים אשביעהו ואראהו בישועתי (I will satiate him with long life and show him my redemption).
A firestorm of criticism erupted online. R. Yair Hoffman, a newspaper writer (along with a Lubavitcher shliach that was removed from his post years ago, by the name of Shmuley Boteach), attempted to tampen down the outrage, but many others took a much harsher view of the event, including Lubavitch, which took action against their shliach that participated.
I want to comment on an aspect that has not received much, if any attention. That is the Uman-Breslov connection involved.
A great amount of the participants in the singing and dancing are alumni of the annual Breslov Uman Rosh Hashanah gatherings. One of them even has his own large minyan there. Zvi Gluck is an Uman veteran. While perhaps Rabbis Pinson and Gluck senior didn't attend, nevertheless the majority or overwhelming majority of the participants appear to be Uman alumni. R. Pinson, although of Chabad-Lubavitch background, has close ties to the Uman group, and spoke for them a number of months ago in a trip in the Middle East.
The Uman Rosh Hashanah gathering has been described as a sort of Jewish Woodstock (Of course, not all Breslovers and Uman visitors are the same. There are different types of Breslovers, and different types of minyanim at Uman. Nevertheless, for some there it has the atmosphere of such a giant festival). Coupled with Breslov teachings about simcha, and doing foolish things to make merry, and the lack of a current supreme Rebbe in Breslov, one can see that the door is left open, or it is encouraged for people to come up with various jolly stunts. In this case, the stunt is singing and dancing a Shlomo Carlebach song in various places around the world.
With most of the participants being younger people with limited life experience and knowledge of Jewish-Catholic relations, and with that Breslover mentality, we can understand how the astounding event came to pass. What is more surprising, however, is how the (by far) senior member of the group, Rabbi Edgar Gluck, born before WWII, went along with it. Perhaps it is part of the pre-messianic confusion of פני הדור כפני הכלב in which the youth lead the elders, instead of the reverse, as the Torah mandates.
Also interesting is how Haredi media reacted to it. Interestingly, it appears that major Haredi media, including Yated Neeman and Hamodia, as well as major website Matzav.com, did not report the story at all. A blackout was imposed. Perhaps they felt bewildered and had trouble explaining the idea of a group of ostensible Haredim from Brooklyn, NY, with the leader in full Hasidic dress, came to sing and dance before the pope. And they were not singing מה יפית either, though perhaps in a way it was somewhat analogous. One could imagine if non-Orthodox leaders would have done the same thing, or some from left-wing Orthodoxy, what kind of an outcry likely would have ensued, in protest of breaching of traditional religious boundaries.
The bottom line is that it was a stunt of a few people, and not representative of mainstream Haredi Judaism. The people involved are not major Rabbis. Despite the seemingly impressive title of chief Rabbi of Galicia, R. Edgar Gluck has not given up his longtime home state of New York, where he continues to be active in local affairs, as an askan or shtadlan. Chief Rabbi of Galicia pre WWII would have been impressive. Now, however, what remains of Judaism there is a miniature shadow of its former self.
I have doubts that Reb Nachman of Breslov himself would have approved.
Let us hope that in the future people will act more responsibly, and curb frivolous instincts they may have, or at least not publicize inappropriate behavior around the world.
A firestorm of criticism erupted online. R. Yair Hoffman, a newspaper writer (along with a Lubavitcher shliach that was removed from his post years ago, by the name of Shmuley Boteach), attempted to tampen down the outrage, but many others took a much harsher view of the event, including Lubavitch, which took action against their shliach that participated.
I want to comment on an aspect that has not received much, if any attention. That is the Uman-Breslov connection involved.
A great amount of the participants in the singing and dancing are alumni of the annual Breslov Uman Rosh Hashanah gatherings. One of them even has his own large minyan there. Zvi Gluck is an Uman veteran. While perhaps Rabbis Pinson and Gluck senior didn't attend, nevertheless the majority or overwhelming majority of the participants appear to be Uman alumni. R. Pinson, although of Chabad-Lubavitch background, has close ties to the Uman group, and spoke for them a number of months ago in a trip in the Middle East.
The Uman Rosh Hashanah gathering has been described as a sort of Jewish Woodstock (Of course, not all Breslovers and Uman visitors are the same. There are different types of Breslovers, and different types of minyanim at Uman. Nevertheless, for some there it has the atmosphere of such a giant festival). Coupled with Breslov teachings about simcha, and doing foolish things to make merry, and the lack of a current supreme Rebbe in Breslov, one can see that the door is left open, or it is encouraged for people to come up with various jolly stunts. In this case, the stunt is singing and dancing a Shlomo Carlebach song in various places around the world.
With most of the participants being younger people with limited life experience and knowledge of Jewish-Catholic relations, and with that Breslover mentality, we can understand how the astounding event came to pass. What is more surprising, however, is how the (by far) senior member of the group, Rabbi Edgar Gluck, born before WWII, went along with it. Perhaps it is part of the pre-messianic confusion of פני הדור כפני הכלב in which the youth lead the elders, instead of the reverse, as the Torah mandates.
Also interesting is how Haredi media reacted to it. Interestingly, it appears that major Haredi media, including Yated Neeman and Hamodia, as well as major website Matzav.com, did not report the story at all. A blackout was imposed. Perhaps they felt bewildered and had trouble explaining the idea of a group of ostensible Haredim from Brooklyn, NY, with the leader in full Hasidic dress, came to sing and dance before the pope. And they were not singing מה יפית either, though perhaps in a way it was somewhat analogous. One could imagine if non-Orthodox leaders would have done the same thing, or some from left-wing Orthodoxy, what kind of an outcry likely would have ensued, in protest of breaching of traditional religious boundaries.
The bottom line is that it was a stunt of a few people, and not representative of mainstream Haredi Judaism. The people involved are not major Rabbis. Despite the seemingly impressive title of chief Rabbi of Galicia, R. Edgar Gluck has not given up his longtime home state of New York, where he continues to be active in local affairs, as an askan or shtadlan. Chief Rabbi of Galicia pre WWII would have been impressive. Now, however, what remains of Judaism there is a miniature shadow of its former self.
I have doubts that Reb Nachman of Breslov himself would have approved.
Let us hope that in the future people will act more responsibly, and curb frivolous instincts they may have, or at least not publicize inappropriate behavior around the world.
Saturday, May 13, 2017
Lag Baomer in pre WWII Mir Yeshiva in Europe
In the current issue of the Yated Ne'eman (USA) newspaper (p.59), we learn about Lag Baomer in a protypical Litvishe yeshiva.
R' Yitzchok Hisiger reports that someone once asked the legendary R. Leib Malin z"l what Lag Baomer was like in the famed Mir Yeshiva of old. R. Leib's response was וואס מיינסט דו? מען האט געציילט ספירה (What do you mean? We counted sefirah). The writer goes on to say that that was it, otherwise the yeshiva's sedarim went on as usual.
Paragraphs of commentary follow. Rav Yitzchok Sorotzkin shlit"a comments that it is ironic that some use the day to slack off in Torah, the opposite of what it stands for, in view of R. Shimon ben Yochai's maximalist reading of the words of the posuk that לא ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך (see ברכות לה ע"ב).
So the next time someone tries to convince you that you need to go to Meron, dance around a fire, or engage in some other foreign thing to be "yotzei" Lag Baomer, remember R. Leib, and let them take a hike.
Wishing you a good day from virtual Lita.
R' Yitzchok Hisiger reports that someone once asked the legendary R. Leib Malin z"l what Lag Baomer was like in the famed Mir Yeshiva of old. R. Leib's response was וואס מיינסט דו? מען האט געציילט ספירה (What do you mean? We counted sefirah). The writer goes on to say that that was it, otherwise the yeshiva's sedarim went on as usual.
Paragraphs of commentary follow. Rav Yitzchok Sorotzkin shlit"a comments that it is ironic that some use the day to slack off in Torah, the opposite of what it stands for, in view of R. Shimon ben Yochai's maximalist reading of the words of the posuk that לא ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך (see ברכות לה ע"ב).
So the next time someone tries to convince you that you need to go to Meron, dance around a fire, or engage in some other foreign thing to be "yotzei" Lag Baomer, remember R. Leib, and let them take a hike.
Wishing you a good day from virtual Lita.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Chabad-Lubavitch Acts Against Emissary for Inappropriate Vatican Activity
Although we have significant differences with Lubavitch here, nevertheless, I want to compliment them for their action in the wake of the visit of a Hasidic delegation to the Vatican the other day.
It seems that they have removed the listing of the Lubavitch branch of the shliach involved from their website.
While we are prepared to work with others, including leaders of other faiths, to advance certain important goals, nevertheless, gedolei Yisrael, including such different personalities as Rabbi Yosef Ber Soloveitchik z"l and the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, have delineated guidelines for such meetings, warning against interfaith theological discussion. They have instructed that traditional faith boundaries be respected. Those guidelines seem to have been violated in this case.
Also problematic in the event was the singing, with instruments, of a verse from Psalms, in front of the Pope. It is problematic for a number of reasons, such as we are now in a historic mourning period, part of which is due to commemorating the many thousands of victims of the Crusades who were massacred in this time of the year, in which live music and dancing with instruments is banned, as well as the danger of the verse and the action being misconstrued, if not worse.
We need to make it clear that the delegation was not made up of major Jewish leaders. Rather it was a group of minor ones.
Hopefully in the future we will will merit the blessing of Chazal that אשרי הדור שהקטנים נשמעים לגדולים, fortunate is the generation in which the small heed the direction of the gedolim, the great Jewish leaders.
It seems that they have removed the listing of the Lubavitch branch of the shliach involved from their website.
While we are prepared to work with others, including leaders of other faiths, to advance certain important goals, nevertheless, gedolei Yisrael, including such different personalities as Rabbi Yosef Ber Soloveitchik z"l and the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, have delineated guidelines for such meetings, warning against interfaith theological discussion. They have instructed that traditional faith boundaries be respected. Those guidelines seem to have been violated in this case.
Also problematic in the event was the singing, with instruments, of a verse from Psalms, in front of the Pope. It is problematic for a number of reasons, such as we are now in a historic mourning period, part of which is due to commemorating the many thousands of victims of the Crusades who were massacred in this time of the year, in which live music and dancing with instruments is banned, as well as the danger of the verse and the action being misconstrued, if not worse.
We need to make it clear that the delegation was not made up of major Jewish leaders. Rather it was a group of minor ones.
Hopefully in the future we will will merit the blessing of Chazal that אשרי הדור שהקטנים נשמעים לגדולים, fortunate is the generation in which the small heed the direction of the gedolim, the great Jewish leaders.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
The Man Who Was So Busy Learning That He Had No Time To Become A Talmid Chochom
The story goes that back in the old country there was a Yid that was always learning Torah, yet remained in the realm of ignorance, not becoming a talmid chacham.
R. Chaim Brisker was asked to explain the phenomenon. He explained that 'he is so busy learning, he has no time to become a talmid chacham' (source - Kerem Yehoshua: Bring Clarity To Your Learning And Master Shas, By Rabbi Yehoshua Cohen).
What does that mean? It means that the idea of learning Torah is to become knowledgable in it. One needs to learn with seichel, with a method, to grow in Torah knowledge and understanding. Just 'learning' alone, without proper digestion and absorption of the Torah studied, can leave a person in (relatively) ignorant state, despite numerous hours spent 'learning'. Just like someone eating profusely, but not allowing his body to digest and absorb his intake properly, will not be healthy.
A related teaching from Chazal is brought in Rashi on the first pasuk of parshas Vayikra, which we just read. It tells us that Moshe Rabbeinu had hafsakos, breaks, between one parsha and the next, to have space/time to think. To digest and absorb the Torah he learned. And afortiori, all the more so, for people on a lower level, with lesser teachers, that such breaks are needed for proper Torah learning.
A related Litvishe teaching is that there is an inyan of bittul Torah be'eichus. Bittul Torah in terms of the quality, the level of the Torah study. If someone can learn on a higher level, with deep understanding, and instead remains on a simplistic level, he has fallen short. Bittul Torah is not just a matter of quantity.
We need to keep in mind that the goal of Torah learning is to truly understand Torah, and not be like the pious fool that was always learning, but remained ignorant.
May we merit becoming true תלמיד חכמים.
R. Chaim Brisker was asked to explain the phenomenon. He explained that 'he is so busy learning, he has no time to become a talmid chacham' (source - Kerem Yehoshua: Bring Clarity To Your Learning And Master Shas, By Rabbi Yehoshua Cohen).
What does that mean? It means that the idea of learning Torah is to become knowledgable in it. One needs to learn with seichel, with a method, to grow in Torah knowledge and understanding. Just 'learning' alone, without proper digestion and absorption of the Torah studied, can leave a person in (relatively) ignorant state, despite numerous hours spent 'learning'. Just like someone eating profusely, but not allowing his body to digest and absorb his intake properly, will not be healthy.
A related teaching from Chazal is brought in Rashi on the first pasuk of parshas Vayikra, which we just read. It tells us that Moshe Rabbeinu had hafsakos, breaks, between one parsha and the next, to have space/time to think. To digest and absorb the Torah he learned. And afortiori, all the more so, for people on a lower level, with lesser teachers, that such breaks are needed for proper Torah learning.
A related Litvishe teaching is that there is an inyan of bittul Torah be'eichus. Bittul Torah in terms of the quality, the level of the Torah study. If someone can learn on a higher level, with deep understanding, and instead remains on a simplistic level, he has fallen short. Bittul Torah is not just a matter of quantity.
We need to keep in mind that the goal of Torah learning is to truly understand Torah, and not be like the pious fool that was always learning, but remained ignorant.
May we merit becoming true תלמיד חכמים.
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
The Religious Imperative of Giving Yourself a Pat On The Back - A Little Known Genesis Gem From R. Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik (aka "The Rav")
Some are of the belief that in the Litvishe hashkafah, people are expected to always put down, or minimize their accomplishments (as part of religious mandated humility presumably). Is that correct however?
Recently, through the magic of technology, I heard a fine vort from Rav Yosef Dov (aka R. Yoshe Ber) Soloveitchik, renowned Bostoner Rav, and R"M at ישיבת רבינו יצחק אלחנן, addressing and illuminating this important issue.
In the words of his dedicated talmid, R. Yehudah (Julius) Berman shlit"a -
"In his inimitable fashion, the Rav started off by referring to the creation of the world, as reflected in the Torah in the beginning of Bereishis. The Rav pointed out that the Torah repeatedly states in the course of creation that וירא אלקים כי טוב, and G-d saw that it was good. And then finally, in noting the conclusion of creation, after six days, the Torah states וירא אלקים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאוד, And G-d saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.
The Rav asked a simple question.
Is it really necessary for Hashem to look back to his creation and conclude that "it was good"? Could it really have been otherwise? Is there a suggestion here that G-d may have, of his own free will, created something and then turned around and said that he had, if one could be so bold as to use the phrase, 'goofed'?
The Rav went on to answer his own question.
Obviously, there is no real issue as to whether what G-d had created was good in his eyes. In his eyes it could not have been otherwise. But G-d was teaching us a lesson, as to how we, as simple human beings, should relate to our own past activities during life. Normally, when we look back at our actions during the year, there is a tendency to focus upon the defects or deficiencies, in our performance, with the hope that we can correct them, by resolving to do better in the future. However, pointed out the Rav, there are times in one's life when one should, upon reflection, focus upon the positive aspects of one's past activities. Not only Hashem, but every human being, has the right, and indeed the duty, והלכת בדרכיו (imitatio Dei), to reflect upon one's past activities, and acknowledge achievements and accomplishments. And that is what G-d taught us when he bothered to look back at his own creation and judge its merits."
Source - address (app. 1:08:50-1:11:33) of R. Berman at recent חג הסמיכה of ישיבת רבינו יצחק אלחנן)
So even a Litvak can enjoy their own pat on the back sometimes.
געשמאק
A gutten chodesh Nissan.
Recently, through the magic of technology, I heard a fine vort from Rav Yosef Dov (aka R. Yoshe Ber) Soloveitchik, renowned Bostoner Rav, and R"M at ישיבת רבינו יצחק אלחנן, addressing and illuminating this important issue.
In the words of his dedicated talmid, R. Yehudah (Julius) Berman shlit"a -
"In his inimitable fashion, the Rav started off by referring to the creation of the world, as reflected in the Torah in the beginning of Bereishis. The Rav pointed out that the Torah repeatedly states in the course of creation that וירא אלקים כי טוב, and G-d saw that it was good. And then finally, in noting the conclusion of creation, after six days, the Torah states וירא אלקים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאוד, And G-d saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.
The Rav asked a simple question.
Is it really necessary for Hashem to look back to his creation and conclude that "it was good"? Could it really have been otherwise? Is there a suggestion here that G-d may have, of his own free will, created something and then turned around and said that he had, if one could be so bold as to use the phrase, 'goofed'?
The Rav went on to answer his own question.
Obviously, there is no real issue as to whether what G-d had created was good in his eyes. In his eyes it could not have been otherwise. But G-d was teaching us a lesson, as to how we, as simple human beings, should relate to our own past activities during life. Normally, when we look back at our actions during the year, there is a tendency to focus upon the defects or deficiencies, in our performance, with the hope that we can correct them, by resolving to do better in the future. However, pointed out the Rav, there are times in one's life when one should, upon reflection, focus upon the positive aspects of one's past activities. Not only Hashem, but every human being, has the right, and indeed the duty, והלכת בדרכיו (imitatio Dei), to reflect upon one's past activities, and acknowledge achievements and accomplishments. And that is what G-d taught us when he bothered to look back at his own creation and judge its merits."
Source - address (app. 1:08:50-1:11:33) of R. Berman at recent חג הסמיכה of ישיבת רבינו יצחק אלחנן)
So even a Litvak can enjoy their own pat on the back sometimes.
געשמאק
A gutten chodesh Nissan.
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
The Rav & The Rebbe - The Rest of the Story - Vital Information & Missing Context
A few months ago a book called Rav and Rebbe (Amazon link), by the prolific Lubavitcher author Rabbi Chaim Dalfin, was published.
I have found a very interesting, and detailed review of the book online, from Australia, which (along with other posts by the author, such as this one, about a hidden letter from the Lubavitcher Rebbe) contains important information, which should be required reading for anyone interested in the subject. The author is a very knowledgable person, who studied and davens in Lubavitch (as well as non Lubavitch) institutions and has close family members that are Lubavitchers
To whet your appetite, here are some brief passages from the detailed and forthright review -
"I see the book as a pseudo-academic work designed to also function as a soft and diplomatic/disguised approach to convince the non Chabad students of Toras Rav, that:
I have found a very interesting, and detailed review of the book online, from Australia, which (along with other posts by the author, such as this one, about a hidden letter from the Lubavitcher Rebbe) contains important information, which should be required reading for anyone interested in the subject. The author is a very knowledgable person, who studied and davens in Lubavitch (as well as non Lubavitch) institutions and has close family members that are Lubavitchers
To whet your appetite, here are some brief passages from the detailed and forthright review -
"I see the book as a pseudo-academic work designed to also function as a soft and diplomatic/disguised approach to convince the non Chabad students of Toras Rav, that:
- the distance between Chabad and the Rav’s Mesora is closer than they think;
- since the Rav was exposed to Chassidus as a child it not only affected his vista of Yahadus, but the Rav’s Talmidim should do likewise; and
- the Rav continued being an avid reader of Chassidus."
On the other hand, another interesting passage, referring to Rabbi Meir Fund, a well known scholar with an extensive background with both the Rav, as well as Chasidism, well placed to address the topic, is this -
"Rabbi (Meir) Fund states that“His [the Rav’s] exposure to Chassidus was limited"
As I was researching this topic, I also found a video online of the author, Rabbi Dalfin, speaking about the book a few months ago at a Shul in New Jersey.
One can get a much better understanding of the matter through the links above, a more balanced and accurate picture than through some other unbalanced and biased sources out there.
May we be merit reaching the Emes, in this as well as other matters.
"Rabbi (Meir) Fund states that“His [the Rav’s] exposure to Chassidus was limited"
As I was researching this topic, I also found a video online of the author, Rabbi Dalfin, speaking about the book a few months ago at a Shul in New Jersey.
One can get a much better understanding of the matter through the links above, a more balanced and accurate picture than through some other unbalanced and biased sources out there.
May we be merit reaching the Emes, in this as well as other matters.
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Headlines Radio Program Advocates and Spins for Lubavitch Acceptance, Rabbis Wary
Dovid Lichtenstein is an intelligent man, a fine talmid chacham and philanthropist, who has come to some prominence in recent years. A number of years ago, he authored an interesting work entitled Headlines: Halachic Debates of Current Events. Sometime afterward, he started a weekly radio broadcast, along similar lines. The program can be quite engrossing, and even riveting, with prominent Torah scholars regularly featured as guests.
In a recent episode, for close to half an hour in the beginning of the program (approximately 2:00-29:35), the featured topic was 'Revisiting our relationship with Lubavitch'.
Below is a synopsis of the program, with some comments and analysis. It is not a full transcript of the program, nor the full story.
The Question
The host's question to his panel of prominent rabbis, allegedly from a listener's letter, basically was that 'given all the favors that Chabad does for Klal Yisroel, that travelers and anyone with a sick family member in a far away place will attest to, and given that dire predictions that they would leave our religion, or even commit suicide, after the death of their Rebbe, did not materialize, should we revisit our attitude to Chabad?'
Lichtenstein was very open about his sympathies to Lubavitch, relating episodes where he was helped by their shluchim in Mexico and Italy in difficult circumstances, during his travels, and that definitely produced a significant tilt in the program in favor of Lubavitch.
Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky
The first Rav who the host turned to in the program is Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky shlit"a, Rosh Yeshivas Philadelphia, from whom he played a short, enigmatic snippet proclaiming that Lubavitch are our brothers ("We should surely consider them our brothers.").
The host describes that as "an amazing opinion". Obviously, he wants us to view it answer as a full-throated endorsement of Lubavitch, with the Philadelphia Rosh Yeshiva going along with his advocacy of general acceptance of present-day Lubavitch. Of course, that would be a giant departure from the longstanding Litvish Yeshiva world position. But is it indeed so?
Analysis & Reality Check - Despite what the host might wish, that is not what the Rosh Yeshiva said. Someone can be viewed as a brother, but still as a person with a different way of life, whom you differ with in important ways, and keep some distance from. We did not hear exactly what query was proposed to Rav Kamenetsky either (at other times, both the host's queries as well as answers of guests are aired, in contrast), nor what else he may have said beyond the short snippet aired. It is clear that editing is involved in the program, which is almost always prerecorded. In view of the above, a giant question mark hangs over Lichtenstein's interpretation that Rav Shmuel shlit"a has suddenly departed from the longtime Litvishe Yeshiva world consensus to embrace Lubavitch unconditionally. Large questions about editing, spin, and interpretation loom in the background.
Just to be sure, I contacted a very highly placed source in Philadelphia who confirmed to me that Rav Shmuel does not give a total, blanket hechsher on Lubavitch.
If the host would ask the Rosh Yeshiva about our attitude to non-Orthodox Jews, he would also agree that they are our brothers. But does that mean that we accept them totally, with everything they stand for? Of course not.
Similarly, in another Headlines program just one week after the one under discussion (http://podcast.headlinesbook.com/e/2417-do-we-still-love-a-child-that-has-become-an-apikorus-secular-studies-in-mesivta-chiyuv-or-bitul-torah/), at just after 15:00, when the Rosh Yeshiva was asked about dealing with a child 'who is seriously off the derech', the Rosh Yeshiva said 'we should accept them, and love them, and tell them that we hope they change their mind.' So we see that to the Rosh Yeshiva, acceptance of someone as a relative does not preclude serious disagreement.
Rav David Cohen, Congregation Gevul Yaavetz
Following Rav Shmuel, the host presented the well known mechaber Rabbi David Cohen of Congregation Gevul Yaavetz of NY, who commented 'I don't even know why you need my comment. Of course they should be embraced - they are our brothers. The fact that many of them believe that the Rebbe was moshiach, in no way excludes them from Klal Yisrael. Throughout the ages there have been people who had this kind of hashkafah and it's not a psul. The only people who deserve richuk are people who are apikorsim and it is very difficult to be mekareiv them. There are unfortunately those who believe in the 'Elokai milimatah' (not clearly elaborated upon, but referring to certain belief with regard to the last Rebbe) Those individuals need richuk. But Lubavitch as a whole? The fact that some people resented that they believe the Rebbe is moshiach, has nothing to do with richuk.'
Analysis - a) Rabbi Cohen says that many believe the Rebbe was (past tense) moshiach. He does not address the belief of at least some, perhaps many, in Lubavitch, that he still is moshiach now, b) he does mention an undefined group that does need richuk (distancing), but doesn't define what they believe exactly.
In a recent episode, for close to half an hour in the beginning of the program (approximately 2:00-29:35), the featured topic was 'Revisiting our relationship with Lubavitch'.
Below is a synopsis of the program, with some comments and analysis. It is not a full transcript of the program, nor the full story.
The Question
The host's question to his panel of prominent rabbis, allegedly from a listener's letter, basically was that 'given all the favors that Chabad does for Klal Yisroel, that travelers and anyone with a sick family member in a far away place will attest to, and given that dire predictions that they would leave our religion, or even commit suicide, after the death of their Rebbe, did not materialize, should we revisit our attitude to Chabad?'
Lichtenstein was very open about his sympathies to Lubavitch, relating episodes where he was helped by their shluchim in Mexico and Italy in difficult circumstances, during his travels, and that definitely produced a significant tilt in the program in favor of Lubavitch.
Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky
The first Rav who the host turned to in the program is Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky shlit"a, Rosh Yeshivas Philadelphia, from whom he played a short, enigmatic snippet proclaiming that Lubavitch are our brothers ("We should surely consider them our brothers.").
The host describes that as "an amazing opinion". Obviously, he wants us to view it answer as a full-throated endorsement of Lubavitch, with the Philadelphia Rosh Yeshiva going along with his advocacy of general acceptance of present-day Lubavitch. Of course, that would be a giant departure from the longstanding Litvish Yeshiva world position. But is it indeed so?
Analysis & Reality Check - Despite what the host might wish, that is not what the Rosh Yeshiva said. Someone can be viewed as a brother, but still as a person with a different way of life, whom you differ with in important ways, and keep some distance from. We did not hear exactly what query was proposed to Rav Kamenetsky either (at other times, both the host's queries as well as answers of guests are aired, in contrast), nor what else he may have said beyond the short snippet aired. It is clear that editing is involved in the program, which is almost always prerecorded. In view of the above, a giant question mark hangs over Lichtenstein's interpretation that Rav Shmuel shlit"a has suddenly departed from the longtime Litvishe Yeshiva world consensus to embrace Lubavitch unconditionally. Large questions about editing, spin, and interpretation loom in the background.
Just to be sure, I contacted a very highly placed source in Philadelphia who confirmed to me that Rav Shmuel does not give a total, blanket hechsher on Lubavitch.
If the host would ask the Rosh Yeshiva about our attitude to non-Orthodox Jews, he would also agree that they are our brothers. But does that mean that we accept them totally, with everything they stand for? Of course not.
Similarly, in another Headlines program just one week after the one under discussion (http://podcast.headlinesbook.com/e/2417-do-we-still-love-a-child-that-has-become-an-apikorus-secular-studies-in-mesivta-chiyuv-or-bitul-torah/), at just after 15:00, when the Rosh Yeshiva was asked about dealing with a child 'who is seriously off the derech', the Rosh Yeshiva said 'we should accept them, and love them, and tell them that we hope they change their mind.' So we see that to the Rosh Yeshiva, acceptance of someone as a relative does not preclude serious disagreement.
Rav David Cohen, Congregation Gevul Yaavetz
Following Rav Shmuel, the host presented the well known mechaber Rabbi David Cohen of Congregation Gevul Yaavetz of NY, who commented 'I don't even know why you need my comment. Of course they should be embraced - they are our brothers. The fact that many of them believe that the Rebbe was moshiach, in no way excludes them from Klal Yisrael. Throughout the ages there have been people who had this kind of hashkafah and it's not a psul. The only people who deserve richuk are people who are apikorsim and it is very difficult to be mekareiv them. There are unfortunately those who believe in the 'Elokai milimatah' (not clearly elaborated upon, but referring to certain belief with regard to the last Rebbe) Those individuals need richuk. But Lubavitch as a whole? The fact that some people resented that they believe the Rebbe is moshiach, has nothing to do with richuk.'
Analysis - a) Rabbi Cohen says that many believe the Rebbe was (past tense) moshiach. He does not address the belief of at least some, perhaps many, in Lubavitch, that he still is moshiach now, b) he does mention an undefined group that does need richuk (distancing), but doesn't define what they believe exactly.
Nevertheless, despite those two very important caveats, the host gushes about how pro-Lubavitch the response allegedly was. Which is not telling the entire story.
Rav Hershel Schachter, Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan
Rav Hershel Schachter, Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan
Rav Schachter said that he thinks the Yeshiva world is worried about people davening to the Rebbe, and those that believe the Rebbe is moshiach, which can lead to avoda zara, as it did in history. Overemphasis on moshiach can lead to avoda zara.
Rav Menachem Mendel Shafran, Chasidishe Dayan in Eretz Yisroel
Nobody hates them, everybody who really travels is mechabed Chabad for good they do, whatever they are doing good is very good, but what they are doing no good is no good.
We don't have to be machshir problematic things due to good things done. They can't be toveia (demand) that we have to accept their hashkafos, a hechsher on everything, because they are doing tovos for Klal Yisroel.
Rav David Yosef, Rav, Rosh Kollel, member Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah (Shas)
Opened by saying 'it's a very difficult question'.
He starts with high praise for Lubavitch and the late Rebbe, talking about shluchim he met, and their work in distant places.
From the other side, he believes that they are not allowed to say that the Rebbe is still alive. He wishes they will open their eyes. That he could convince them that they are wrong, it's a very bad idea, against Judaism, against Torah.
Reb Dovid Lichtenstein, the host, speaks
Says that he grew up in 'a Litvishe environment', went to great Litvishe yeshivos. He never saw the Rebbe (Ramash), and never was in 770 E.P. (Lubavitch HQ). Says 'I'm a Litvak' (I believe he means in terms of institutions studied at - family roots can be a different matter).
He repeats old Lubavitcher arguments claiming that it is not problematic to believe the late Rebbe is moshiach, both before as well as after his passing, claiming that is okay based on gemaras. Of course, interpetation is key. How the passages are interpreted.
Rav Nisson Kaplan
Rav Nisson Kaplan of Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem, refrained from giving an opinion, as he stated that his mother told him not to get involved in such a matter, due to her personal history during the WWII era.
Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky of Lubavitch
At the end, the host brings on Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky of Lubavitch, who works with Lubavitcher shluchim and chairs their annual conference. Lichtenstein asks him about people davening to the Rebbe, to which he says the Rebbe was a Shulchan Aruch Yid, and that if anyone does that he is not a real Lubavitcher (the no true Scotsman response).
The host says that we have to take him at his word, he's certainly an עד כשר (kosher witness) (but isn't the category of נוגע בדבר relevant?).
Closing thoughts
There are longstanding differences of opinion, חילוקי דעות, in the Jewish world about certain inyanim. The fact that Lubavitchers do chesed, and did not convert, or commit suicide, after the passing of their Rebbe, is a red herring. The differences still exist. Those that agreed with Lubavitch in the past, likely still agree with them, while those that didn't, likely still retain reservations. Everyone can/will believe as they wish, but we should be honest about things.
The bottom line here is that the host was advocating for Lubavitch and spinning things for them to the point of distortion and misrepresentation. People should be aware of this and not be misled. It also raises questions about the program in general, e.g. how reliable is it? In this program, as well as in a later follow up segment with Rabbi Dr. David Berger, the program is seriously compromised by the host's obvious feelings about the matter. It leads one to wonder if that has happened in other instances as well.
As our holy Torah tells us, כי השחד יעור עיני חכמים.
In a way, it is sad, but it is also good that it brings this issue to light, that we need to be wary of conclusions based on programs that can be edited and manipulated.
May Hashem lead us in the path of truth, and may we merit שלום על ישראל במהרה בימינו.
Rav Menachem Mendel Shafran, Chasidishe Dayan in Eretz Yisroel
Nobody hates them, everybody who really travels is mechabed Chabad for good they do, whatever they are doing good is very good, but what they are doing no good is no good.
We don't have to be machshir problematic things due to good things done. They can't be toveia (demand) that we have to accept their hashkafos, a hechsher on everything, because they are doing tovos for Klal Yisroel.
Rav David Yosef, Rav, Rosh Kollel, member Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah (Shas)
Opened by saying 'it's a very difficult question'.
He starts with high praise for Lubavitch and the late Rebbe, talking about shluchim he met, and their work in distant places.
From the other side, he believes that they are not allowed to say that the Rebbe is still alive. He wishes they will open their eyes. That he could convince them that they are wrong, it's a very bad idea, against Judaism, against Torah.
Reb Dovid Lichtenstein, the host, speaks
Says that he grew up in 'a Litvishe environment', went to great Litvishe yeshivos. He never saw the Rebbe (Ramash), and never was in 770 E.P. (Lubavitch HQ). Says 'I'm a Litvak' (I believe he means in terms of institutions studied at - family roots can be a different matter).
He repeats old Lubavitcher arguments claiming that it is not problematic to believe the late Rebbe is moshiach, both before as well as after his passing, claiming that is okay based on gemaras. Of course, interpetation is key. How the passages are interpreted.
Rav Nisson Kaplan
Rav Nisson Kaplan of Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem, refrained from giving an opinion, as he stated that his mother told him not to get involved in such a matter, due to her personal history during the WWII era.
Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky of Lubavitch
At the end, the host brings on Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky of Lubavitch, who works with Lubavitcher shluchim and chairs their annual conference. Lichtenstein asks him about people davening to the Rebbe, to which he says the Rebbe was a Shulchan Aruch Yid, and that if anyone does that he is not a real Lubavitcher (the no true Scotsman response).
The host says that we have to take him at his word, he's certainly an עד כשר (kosher witness) (but isn't the category of נוגע בדבר relevant?).
Closing thoughts
There are longstanding differences of opinion, חילוקי דעות, in the Jewish world about certain inyanim. The fact that Lubavitchers do chesed, and did not convert, or commit suicide, after the passing of their Rebbe, is a red herring. The differences still exist. Those that agreed with Lubavitch in the past, likely still agree with them, while those that didn't, likely still retain reservations. Everyone can/will believe as they wish, but we should be honest about things.
The bottom line here is that the host was advocating for Lubavitch and spinning things for them to the point of distortion and misrepresentation. People should be aware of this and not be misled. It also raises questions about the program in general, e.g. how reliable is it? In this program, as well as in a later follow up segment with Rabbi Dr. David Berger, the program is seriously compromised by the host's obvious feelings about the matter. It leads one to wonder if that has happened in other instances as well.
As our holy Torah tells us, כי השחד יעור עיני חכמים.
In a way, it is sad, but it is also good that it brings this issue to light, that we need to be wary of conclusions based on programs that can be edited and manipulated.
May Hashem lead us in the path of truth, and may we merit שלום על ישראל במהרה בימינו.
Friday, March 10, 2017
Will Purim Be The Only Yom Tov Left Standing After Moshiach Comes? Let's Take a Closer Look
Some people claim, with certainty, that Purim will be the only Yom Tov after Moshiach comes.
But is it really so simple? No.
It is a matter of serious disagreement. See also here.
Good Shabbos, and a freilichen Purim.
P.S. Rabbi Yair Hoffman chimes in, cites בני יששכר and דברי יואל as agreeing that other ימים טובים will continue.
But is it really so simple? No.
It is a matter of serious disagreement. See also here.
Good Shabbos, and a freilichen Purim.
P.S. Rabbi Yair Hoffman chimes in, cites בני יששכר and דברי יואל as agreeing that other ימים טובים will continue.
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Oh My, How the Shtreimels Have Grown - Purim in Williamsburg 5731 (1971) vs. Forty Years Later
Note the size (and type) of the shtreimels in this Purim video from Williamsburg Brooklyn in 5731/1971 (h/t), as opposed to in this Purim one forty years later. Extra credit for noticing other changes in the scenes.
Hopefully the growth was not just external.
A gutten chodesh Adar.
Hopefully the growth was not just external.
A gutten chodesh Adar.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
When A Chasidic Tale Clashes With Halacha - A Recent Account From Neo-Chasidism
About three years ago, at a Shabbos in Manhattan, a visiting Rabbi related an old Chasidic tale that left students in an uproar. It was Shabbos of parshas Mishpatim of 5774, and the location was Yeshiva University.
The visiting Rabbi told of a family who had two sons that were circumcised and died afterward due to it (perhaps due to what we call today hemophilia). In such a case, Jewish practice dictates that future sons are not circumcised, due to pikuach nefesh (the imperative to save and preserve life), as it assumed that they are also in mortal danger from a bris. However, in this case, in the Chasidic tale, a Chasidic Rebbe, Reb Pinchas of Koritz, visiting the area, noticed the young uncircumcised male child and asked about him. He was told that the child's brothers had died due to milah, so he was not circumcised, as above. Whereupon he said that the child would be alright, and that he himself would perform the bris milah on him the next day. So people got together the next day, and a bris milah was done. However, after the milah, the child was bleeding, and it could not be stopped, and it appeared that he would die like his brothers had before him. There was panic and despair in the air. Reb Pinchas walked outside where he encountered the Rebbe Reb Zushe, who was told about the situation, and said don't worry, I'll take care of it. He then went inside and said that everyone should sit down and eat, and things will be okay. During the meal, things came under control with the child's situation. Later on Reb Pinchas asked him how he knew that would solve the problem. He responded that it says in the pasuk (in Mishpatim, this week's portion) ויחזו את האלקים ויאכלו וישתו - when middas hadin, signified by the shem Elokim, is seen, one should eat and drink, show friendship to one another, and so on, and things will be okay.
The tale left some talmidim of the yeshiva very upset, as it appears to endorse going against halacha, and they protested to hanhalah about it.
Who was the visiting Rabbi at YU who told over the tale? It was Rabbi Moshe Weinberger, the then new mashpia of Yeshiva University, and rabbi of Congregation Aish Kodesh in NY, someone who has been written about here previously, due to other problematic statements and teachings of his.
One of the hanhalah members of YU commented that it is a Hasidic tale, and there is a saying of Chasidim themselves that 'anyone who believes all Chasidic stories is a fool...'.
(heard from reliable, well connected Yeshiva Rav Yitzchak Elchanan sources)
Chasidic stories have a goal of promoting Chasidus and Chasidic leaders.
If eating and drinking is a way to solve all dangers to life, why wasn't/isn't it done it done to save other people as well?
Anyway, it is hard to understand such things.
For non-Chasidim, we don't have such problems. We know that we are supposed to follow halachah, and that is it.
Good Shabbos and a gutten Chodesh.
The visiting Rabbi told of a family who had two sons that were circumcised and died afterward due to it (perhaps due to what we call today hemophilia). In such a case, Jewish practice dictates that future sons are not circumcised, due to pikuach nefesh (the imperative to save and preserve life), as it assumed that they are also in mortal danger from a bris. However, in this case, in the Chasidic tale, a Chasidic Rebbe, Reb Pinchas of Koritz, visiting the area, noticed the young uncircumcised male child and asked about him. He was told that the child's brothers had died due to milah, so he was not circumcised, as above. Whereupon he said that the child would be alright, and that he himself would perform the bris milah on him the next day. So people got together the next day, and a bris milah was done. However, after the milah, the child was bleeding, and it could not be stopped, and it appeared that he would die like his brothers had before him. There was panic and despair in the air. Reb Pinchas walked outside where he encountered the Rebbe Reb Zushe, who was told about the situation, and said don't worry, I'll take care of it. He then went inside and said that everyone should sit down and eat, and things will be okay. During the meal, things came under control with the child's situation. Later on Reb Pinchas asked him how he knew that would solve the problem. He responded that it says in the pasuk (in Mishpatim, this week's portion) ויחזו את האלקים ויאכלו וישתו - when middas hadin, signified by the shem Elokim, is seen, one should eat and drink, show friendship to one another, and so on, and things will be okay.
The tale left some talmidim of the yeshiva very upset, as it appears to endorse going against halacha, and they protested to hanhalah about it.
Who was the visiting Rabbi at YU who told over the tale? It was Rabbi Moshe Weinberger, the then new mashpia of Yeshiva University, and rabbi of Congregation Aish Kodesh in NY, someone who has been written about here previously, due to other problematic statements and teachings of his.
One of the hanhalah members of YU commented that it is a Hasidic tale, and there is a saying of Chasidim themselves that 'anyone who believes all Chasidic stories is a fool...'.
(heard from reliable, well connected Yeshiva Rav Yitzchak Elchanan sources)
Chasidic stories have a goal of promoting Chasidus and Chasidic leaders.
If eating and drinking is a way to solve all dangers to life, why wasn't/isn't it done it done to save other people as well?
Anyway, it is hard to understand such things.
For non-Chasidim, we don't have such problems. We know that we are supposed to follow halachah, and that is it.
Good Shabbos and a gutten Chodesh.
Monday, February 20, 2017
The Vital Legacy of Rav Moshe Shapiro z"l - Living Refutation of An Old Canard
Rav Moshe Shapiro was niftar recently in Eretz Yisroel. A gadol baTorah and gadol bemachshavah, with many talmidim. Numerous hespedim were held for him in various parts of the world at various points after the his passing.
One important aspect of his legacy that is worthy of note, is that he personally was a living refutation of an old canard. The disgraceful slander referred to here, which certain people and sects have been spreading for many years already, is that the Litvish type of Yiddishkeit and Torah is (ח"ו) superficial and external, and that for 'inner Torah', or פנימיות התורה, people need to look elsewhere, for example to a Hasidic sect. As if at מתן תורה the Litvishe only received a limited portion, just some lomdus perhaps, and not the full package of Torah. These propagandists were (and are) stereotyping the Litvish Torah world as a whole as being people concerned and involved with relative externalities, trivialities, superficial things, while claiming that members of their sect were/are connected to deeper, inner Torah, more 'spiritual', and so on.
Rav Moshe Shapiro z"l, a proud Litvak, and giant in מחשבה, was a living refutation of their disgraceful propaganda. His greatness in מחשבה attracted talmidim from a wide range of backgrounds, including Chasidim. It was so great that it could not be denied, even by members of sects who think that area belongs to them. Hopefully his talmidim will perpetuate this important legacy of his.
תנצב"ה
One important aspect of his legacy that is worthy of note, is that he personally was a living refutation of an old canard. The disgraceful slander referred to here, which certain people and sects have been spreading for many years already, is that the Litvish type of Yiddishkeit and Torah is (ח"ו) superficial and external, and that for 'inner Torah', or פנימיות התורה, people need to look elsewhere, for example to a Hasidic sect. As if at מתן תורה the Litvishe only received a limited portion, just some lomdus perhaps, and not the full package of Torah. These propagandists were (and are) stereotyping the Litvish Torah world as a whole as being people concerned and involved with relative externalities, trivialities, superficial things, while claiming that members of their sect were/are connected to deeper, inner Torah, more 'spiritual', and so on.
Rav Moshe Shapiro z"l, a proud Litvak, and giant in מחשבה, was a living refutation of their disgraceful propaganda. His greatness in מחשבה attracted talmidim from a wide range of backgrounds, including Chasidim. It was so great that it could not be denied, even by members of sects who think that area belongs to them. Hopefully his talmidim will perpetuate this important legacy of his.
תנצב"ה
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)