One of the trademark innovations of Neo-Chasidus (in addition to the Tisha B'Av kumzitzes) is its Hallel with musical instruments playing. Mostly guitars it seems, but there could be other instruments too. Such things can be seen on Rosh Chodesh, and on various Yamim tovim.
Now, not everyone realizes that the propriety of such a service is not a simple matter. Significant halachic authorities do not permit such things, for various reasons.
A short time ago, I noticed a post at the Life in Israel blog, related to this. According to it, a dispute erupted after someone came into a minyan with a violin and started playing it during Hallel. Later on, they agreed to ask a שאלה to a מורה הוראה about it. The question was posed to Rav Shlomo Aviner, a leading Dati-Leumi Rabbi, and he said that it should be avoided.
I am writing this to call attention to this matter, but also in general to the innovations of Neo-Chasidus, which some people do not seem aware of, which warrant scrutiny. As we see here, even in the Dati-Leumi camp, there exists opposition to (at least some of) their actions.
A freilechen Yom Tov.
I'm not sure why you're troubled by neo-Chasidus. I was told by someone I trust that Rabbi Weinberger's congregants are serious learners. I'm not challenging your assessment, I just need to know more about the subject making my judgment.
ReplyDeleteYou think a Tisha Be'Av Kumzitz is normative Orthodox Judaism? Guitar strumming hallels? And some other problematic things documented for years here. Get to know it better, no problem, and then you can decide. You don't have to take my word for it blindly. You can start with reading posts related to Reb Weinberger here, do a search for Weinberger in the search box.
ReplyDelete"serious learners" -
You mean they gobble up what he feeds them eagerly? Or something higher than that? A kid in fourth grade could be a serious learner too, you know. :)
As I mentioned I'm really not familiar with the subject. I mean I know a couple of YU boys who went the Tanya route, but overall I really can't say much. Are there other Rabbis besides Weinberger behind this movement, and what is their overall plan?
Delete"You mean they gobble up what he feeds them eagerly? Or something higher than that? A kid in fourth grade could be a serious learner too, you know. :)"
DeleteActually they have chaburas of baale battim learning halacha, gemara b'iyun, shiurim in Chovos Halevavos etc..
I know that they have learning sessions...the question was intended in particular about Rebbe Moshe Weinberger of Woodmere's neo-Chassidus preachings to them. The same for preachings of his students like Rebbe Judah Mischel and others. Like when Rebbe Weinberger has told them extreme things, like about the Rebbe who danced on Tisha B'Av, and how the Litvaks don't get it, and about throwing a vidui booklet to the ground (BFG - if you are new here, you may have missed important posts like those. If so, just do a search for posts with Weinberger in them). And other extreme teachings of Rebbe Weinberger. Does anyone challenge him? Or they just sit there, drinking in his ravings, and his despicable attitudes toward the Litvishe Torah velt.
DeleteI am very familiar with R' Weinberger's teachings. Taken within the greater context of what he is trying to accomplish I don't find some cherry picked hyperbolic statements to be particularly extreme or despicable. (Not to say I necessarily agree with him.)
DeleteYou seem to do this often from what I've seen. Do you think he actually means that people should literally throw the viduy books on the ground? Please..
In your post about the dancing on Tisha B'av you ask why they don't do that in his shul. Are you serious? C'mon
"Or they just sit there, drinking in his ravings, and his despicable attitudes toward the Litvishe Torah velt."
You make it seem like this is all he does, sit around and bash litvaks. Please.
A good portion of his kehilla have children and grandchildren in Litvishe yeshivos and kollelim because of him and him alone. I know them personally.
I can cherry pick negative things he's said about the Chassidishe world as well.
Litvaks don't get dancing on Tisha B'av..oh my what a horrible thing to say.
Listen, you may not agree with his overall message and approach. I get it. But, in my opinion, you're missing the forest for the trees.
I am quite familiar with his teachings too, I dare say. :)
DeleteYou seem to imply, if I understand correctly, that he is basically okay, just a few times he slipped, and erupted in some anti-Litvish tirade. But I take issue with that. It has not been just a few rare, isolated instances (which also require accountability, especially for an influential spiritual leader like that). He has been doing this for years. Some things he has said have not been written about here, but are documented, and could come to light in the future.
Rebbe Weinberger basically communicates an attitude that the Litvishe world is superficial, baalei gaavah, that have no connection to פנימיות התורה, and on, and on. True, he doesn't sit and bash Litvaks all day, because it is not necessary. He has already indoctrinated his followers with his doctrines that Litvishe Torah is superficial and external. It is already baked into them. So they don't need to review it every day explicitly, It is there between the lines anyway. When he says "the ספרים הקדושים" his disciples know that he is referring to Hasidic works, and not ח"ו Litvishe ones. When he talks about "the צדיקים" they know he is referring to Chasidishe Rebbes.
If some of his followers have family members in Litvishe yeshivos, good for them. But is that because they wanted davka Litvish? Or maybe because they knew there was no way they would fit into Satmar, or Bobov, or Vizhnitz, and so on.
He is an intelligent fellow, no fool at all. But his agenda is dangerous. So it is important to let people know what he is preaching, beyond the glossy feel-good articles in Mispacha and Jewish Action.
"Rebbe Weinberger basically communicates an attitude that the Litvishe world is superficial, baalei gaavah, that have no connection to פנימיות התורה, and on, and on."
DeleteNo, he communicates an attitude that the majority of the current frum world including Chassidim are that way.
"When he says "the ספרים הקדושים" his disciples know that he is referring to Hasidic works, and not ח"ו Litvishe ones. When he talks about "the צדיקים" they know he is referring to Chasidishe Rebbes."
Uhh..that's what everyone means when they use those terms, including litvaks. I've never heard a litveshe Rosh yeshiva say seforim hakedoshim and mean the Gr"a. I have heard them say it many times referring to chassidic works.
"If some of his followers have family members in Litvishe yeshivos, good for them. But is that because they wanted davka Litvish? Or maybe because they knew there was no way they would fit into Satmar, or Bobov, or Vizhnitz, and so on."
Or maybe its an indication that his agenda is not to tear down the litveshe torah world and stand there
cackling maniacally as he watches it fall.
I would love to hear in a clear and concise way what you think his agenda is.
"Uhh..that's what everyone means when they use those terms, including litvaks. I've never heard a litveshe Rosh yeshiva say seforim hakedoshim and mean the Gr"a. I have heard them say it many times referring to chassidic works."
DeleteReal Litvishe Rosh yeshivas don't use terminology like "ספרים הקדושים" for Chasidic works. It is against the whole Litvishe השקפה. If you have heard some do that, maybe they are really Hasidic in Litvishe levush, half Hasidic, under the influence, or just some young confused guys.
We can be דן לכף זכות, for argument's sake here, and say that he wants to bring פנימיות and נשמה in, and fight מצות אנשים מלומדה. And those are great intentions, מה טוב ומה נעים! R. Chaim Volozhiner had an expression for such people (used in Nefesh Hachaim), אנשים אשר קרבת אלקים יחפצון, people who desire closeness to Hashem. A great thing! However, the question is how and where to proceed from there. Someone who goes around convincing people that פנימיות התורה = חסידות, and is מבטל other דרכים, is a מחוצף ושקרן, מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה, ואוי לו בזה ובבא.
וה' ירחם על עמו
"Real Litvishe Rosh yeshivas don't use terminology like "ספרים הקדושים" for Chasidic works. It is against the whole Litvishe השקפה. If you have heard some do that, maybe they are really Hasidic in Litvishe levush, half Hasidic, under the influence, or just some young confused guys."
DeleteMr L., you can choose to believe me or not but I am telling you it was none of the above. I was actually shocked on one occasion to hear that particular RY say it and I thought I was hearing things so I confirmed it with someone else that was there.
I'm interested to hear why you say its against the litveshe hashkafa to use that term?
"Someone who goes around convincing people that פנימיות התורה = חסידות, and is מבטל other דרכים, is a מחוצף ושקרן, מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה, ואוי לו בזה ובבא."
I've heard him say many times when talking about the importance of p'nimiyus hatorah that he's not referring only to chassidus. I don't remember the exact quotes but he's said the GR"A, Nefesh Hachaim, Ramchal among others.
A) The fact that you were shocked by it proves my point. If it was normal, why would you be shocked? You sensed that something was seriously amiss, even if you couldn't explain why.
DeleteB) Firstly, some of the theology in Chasidic works is rejected by Litvishe השקפה.
Secondly, the Litvishe belief is that all proper Torah is holy. So to use expressions that imply that only certain parts of Torah are holy, is misleading, and denigrates other parts of תוה"ק.
To illustrate the point, let's take the common idea of Torah being composed of פרד"ס - פשט, רמז, דרוש, סוד. If someone just describes one of those categories as holy, they are implying that the others are not holy. That is a big problem.
C) Rebbe Weinberger is a smart fellow. He was on the verge of entering law school (Columbia, IIRC), before changing his career path. So he puts out a disclaimer when he speaks sometimes, to protect himself, like a good lawyer might do. Like some company trying to sell you something (e.g. commodity, stock) that they try to make you think is about to shoot up in value. But, after they make their pitch, they put in a disclaimer, like past performance is no indication of future results, markets are volatile, results are not guaranteed. Lip service. But read between the lines (and sometimes he says it even explicitly), and you will get a better idea of what he really believes.
A) No, it does not prove your point. You said real litveshe RYs don't use that term. And I have heard several them use it. My shock to it happening doesn't negate that. I would have been equally shocked if I had heard this RY quote specific chassidishe sefer by name instead of using the general term seforim hakedoshim.
DeleteB) Using he term seforim hakedoshim to refer to a specific subset of seforim does not imply that others are not. Please, you think that someone that uses that terms thinks that the Kedushas Levi is kadosh and Tanach, Shas, Shulchan Aruch, Sifrei HaGr'a etc.. are not?? On the rare occasion that I use that term (I generally like to quote the specific sefer) I certainly don't mean that and I'm pretty sure the real litveshe RYs I have heard use it didn't mean it either.
C) So you think that Rabbi Weinberger holds that Toras HaGr"a is not p'nimiyus hatorah because its not chassidus and is not a valid derech?
A) A few exceptions do not disprove a general rule.
DeleteB) Words have meanings. Tell me then, if you think such terminology has no meaning, why do Chasidim call certain Hasidic works "ספרים הקדושים", if they believe they are just the same as other ספרים? They are clearly expressing and signaling their belief with such terminology, that those works are something above and special, vis a vis other works.
C) I would speculate that he holds it is a level of פנימיות, but not פנימיות דפנימיות.
Mr L, please advise if you received my comment and are not posting it or you haven't received it.
DeleteThank you.
I received it, but held off on posting it due to it's sharpness, for one thing. I don't want to ח"ו have this site become a center of red-hot machlokes and descend into the earth ch"v. חילוקי דעות is one thing, that is often part of תורה, but if it reaches a certain temperature, then we have the inyan of יד סולדת בו, we pull back our hands. :). I have posted strong comments of your's in the past, you know. But sometimes, if things are getting "too hot", I think a "cooling off period" is a good idea. Maybe I will post your comment later, maybe slightly edited, if that is okay. I felt one word in particular in it was too much.
Deleteוהאמת והשלום אהבו
P.S. By the way, I don't know if you are aware, but in the home of R. Yaakov Perlow, Novominsker Rebbe, Rosh Agudas Yisroel, who was just niftar around Pesach time, there was (I assume it is still there) some type of piece of art, a painting I guess, with the Vilna Gaon and Baal HaTanya together, with those words.
My apologize if it was too sharp. I'm in agreement with you about avoiding machlokes and my intention is not c'v to create any. Unfortunately, you made some very harsh statements and accusations which needed to be protested. Its nice and well that you want to avoid machlokes but if you say some of things you said and you're not ready to get hit back well that doesn't seem much like your interest is shalom and emes. I have no particular interest in defending R' Weinberger or chassidim or to convince you to like their mehalech. My point is to make you perhaps see the otherside in a more of a positive light.
DeleteI was unaware of the painting. I like that very much. And actually in concept that is actually all I'm trying to accomplish with the comments on this post.
Regarding my last comment, I would prefer if you didn't edit it. I can rewrite less sharply if you'd like. Just please let me know which word I used that was too much as I don't believe I used any such words that you haven't used yourself.
I think you've always showed good judgment. You give us leeway to express ourselves but not to cross over the line. As I mentioned in a previous post, when I submit letters to various Jewish publications they're often censored before being printed. The truth is that it's not because I said anything improper, but simply that the paper didn't agree with my opinion. In contrast, you've printed everything I've submitted without making any changes, and that's another reason I value this blog.
DeleteThanks for the nice words and the chizuk R. Ploni!
DeleteRe editing comments here - from what I see, it is not as easy as with other platforms. Also, I feel it is somewhat dishonest to print someone's piece after it was edited as if it was exactly what they submitted, when actually it was altered. On the other hand, if it is made apparent that editing took place, e.g. by the addition of (edited), or perhaps an ellipsis, then at least you are being up front about it.
BFG - I found a mention online of that piece of art displayed in the house of the Novominsker Rebbe that you were taken with. Ninth paragraph from the end of the second article, here - https://mishpacha.com/all-on-his-shoulders/
DeleteMr L,
DeleteThank you for he link. Honestly, I was not taken by the art itself but rather what it represents to me.
I would be interested to hear what the painting represent you?
Well, it represents a longing for שלום between Chasidim & Misnagdim. I think in addition to the general aspect of it, however, the Novominsker Rebbe, who had the piece in his private office, according to the Mishpacha article, felt the tension between the two acutely, more than many others, because he went to Litvishe yeshivos in his youth, then taught in a Litvishe mosad in Chicago, followed by a stint as Rosh Yeshiva of Khal Adas Yeshurun, aka Breuer's, in NY, but then he became a Chasidishe Rebbe (of course, he was deeply part of the Chasidic world even before that, from his youth, as well, but not as prominently so perhaps in earlier years). So he had these two sides of him, he was part of two worlds, he got along very well with the Litvishe and Breuer's people, people loved him, and the reverse, but Chasidus was also very important to him, עד כדי כך, that he penned a critical response to Sefer HaGaon (3v. set on the GR"A) of Rav Dov Eliach שליט"א. So I could understand how he yearned for שלום between these two sides. For him it was not just a distant, theoretical thing, it was part of his own life. Now who actually put it together in the frame, who conceived it, when it was put together, and so on, that I don't know.
DeleteI was raised on the Lower East Side, and our community is extremely tolerant of all branches of valid Yiddishkeit. My understanding is that Rav Moshe's family was Chassidish(I think his father converted for a Shidduch), and of course, his son-in-law was affiliated with YU. Many years ago I heard Rav Reuvein Feinstein say the following,"Judaism isn't that complicated." I think that sums it up beautifully. Everyone should know what's required of them, but when people look to bring innovations to make the religion appealing then we generally have a problem. My point with this post is that it's no Chiddush that the Novominsker was comfortable in all worlds. He was a real Jew and that's all that matters. The beards, streimels and all the other accoutrements are simply window dressing.
DeleteRav Moshe זצ"ל's paternal family were descendants of ר' אברהם אחי הגר"א, mechaber of sefer מעלות התורה, as well as the באר הגולה. On his maternal side, he was a descendant of של"ה, סדר הדורות, מהרש"ל, וכו. The matter you refer to, as well as other aspects of his family background, are discussed in the beginning of אגרות משה חלק ח.
DeleteThanks for the clarification. I was just trying to make the point that Yichus is not the be all and end all. I'm quite stridently anti-Chabad but when I have a difficulty with the Gemara I go to Rabbi Zajac a Chabad Rabbi from LA. He's incredible. From my experience there are quality Jews from every circle and each group also has the other type.
DeleteMr L,
DeleteI find the way you phrased your response as to what the art represents to you to be fascinating. Perhaps I'm understanding your words differently than you meant...
"Well, it represents a longing for שלום between Chasidim & Misnagdim."
Is there not shalom between chassidim and misnagdim now? Has there not been for a very long time?
"...the Novominsker Rebbe, who had the piece in his private office, according to the Mishpacha article, felt the tension between the two acutely, more than many others..."
I don't particularly see any tension between the two. In fact it seems quite the opposite to me. We seem to be have been in a process of an ever growing, beautiful integration and synthesis of the two for a long time with each "world" incorporating aspects of the other and leading to a clearer understanding that they are not actually "two different worlds".
כולם נתנו מרועה אחד אל אחד נתנן פרנס אחד אמרן מפי אדון כל המעשים ברוך הוא
And I don't believe the Noviminsker felt any such tension. In fact I would say that he did not view them as two worlds or two sides of him, as you said, but rather as two parts of a whole. That's why he was able to navigate between "both worlds" so fluidly.
Thanks for the comment.
Delete"Is there not shalom between chassidim and misnagdim now? Has there not been for a very long time?"
Interesting question. We can use a משל from the outside world to clarify this, I think.
Let's say two countries have a war (may Hashem spare us from such things). There could be a short period of a "hot war", when there is shooting, explosions, and so on. Then, let's say that the UN or some mediator comes in, a cease-fire is negotiated, and comes into effect. Later there might be a disengagement agreement negotiated, and a buffer zone established to keep the two sides separate and apart, to keep the peace. Ultimately, perhaps a peace treaty is negotiated and signed, borders opened, and hostilities end on the governmental level. However, significant differences between the nations may remain, with hostility lingering. So the peace remains a cold peace. There is no war, but relations are not close and warm. On the other hand, in other cases, the peace could be a warm peace, in which the citizens are enthusiastic, happy, and involved.
Now we know that war is a terrible thing, and, as the saying goes, a cold peace is better than a hot war. But nevertheless, to be honest, we must recognize and acknowledge that there are different and varying levels, beyond just the two simple categories of "war" and "peace".
So in this case, there is no open conflict now as there was, say two hundred fifty years ago, with bans being issued. But differences still remain and occasionally there are "skirmishes". Such skirmishes may be small and local, or limited to one group or sect, e.g. one group that enters territory or institution of the other and tries to convert their followers to "the other side", may elicit a strong response. Usually, these are just on the ideological level, however. On the other hand, there can also be cases or areas where there is a warm peace between the two, e.g. perhaps in a small community, where they cannot afford the "luxury" of machlokes, and both sides work well and closely together.
I will conclude with the words said at the end of a siyum - ה' עוז לעמו יתן, ה' יברך את עמו בשלום.
So to sum up your view...
DeleteChassidim and Litvaks are, overall, in a state of cold peace. Neither side particularly likes the other or is interested in learning from the other. Both sides have basically just come to grips with the fact that the other is not going away.
Is that an accurate portrayal of your view?
Also, I'm very curious to hear what you have to say specifically directed at the second part of my comment.
Also, just to be clear, within the context of this conversation when I say Chassidim I am not referring to Chabad. They have alienated themselves from both the Litveshe world and the rest of what is generally referred to as the Chassideshe world.
DeleteI think I'm on BFG's side this time. I really don't sense any tension between the two sides. The only place where the embers are kept alive is within Chabad which pejoratively refers to Misnagdim as Snags. The fact is that Chabad has no use for other Chassidim either since they believe that they alone represent the true purveyors of that movement. Personally, I was never raised to see differences between any group.
DeleteNo, as I said, it varies. There are cases of very good, even warm relations, and there are other cases of colder relations. Both warm peace and cold peace. Occasional skirmishes are limited.
DeleteSince both sides are often in close geographic proximity, and with the effects of modern technology and communications, they both affect and impact on each other. (Some) Chasidim go to Litvishe yeshivas and daven in Litvishe minyanim. (Some) Litvaks daven at Chasidic places (I am describing what happens at times, not necessarily endorsing it), and listen to Chasidic speakers.
We live in a time of openness. Many people are tired of old divisions, and try to transcend them, by learning from, and engaging with, other groups.
Re Lubavitch, yes, I understand, they are a separate category sort of, a מין בפני עצמו.
DeleteMr L,
DeleteI find that your answers are often very grey and vague and don't really directly answer the questions as to what you truly feel. It's fine if that's how you'd like to respond but it's difficult for me to have an open, honest discussion and for this to be a learning experience that way. Of course these things are quite nuanced but I think a little more clarity and directness would be beneficial.
"No, as I said, it varies. There are cases of very good, even warm relations, and there are other cases of colder relations. Both warm peace and cold peace. Occasional skirmishes are limited."
I am unaware of any skirmishes whatsoever in recent times that are strictly the result of Litvish/Chassidish divide. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened but it would seem to be so utterly rare and isolated that its completely insignificant in regards to the bigger picture of what is taking place. Perhaps its more common in E"Y but I would not pin that on the Litvish/Chassidish divide as things are much more politicized there.
And considering what you said in the following paragraph I'm really not sure as to why you're not willing to say that it is a "warm peace" overall. It would sure seem to me to be that way. It almost seems that this is coming from a lack of desire for it to be so on your part. And honestly, that is the overall feeling I get from this blog. The mashal you used of the two countries at war with a subsequent peace treaty is, I must say, a frightening way to look at the relationship between two different valid groups and mehalchim within Klal Yisroel. I don't mean C"V that I think you want there to be machlokes but you'd rather let the Chassidim be Chassidim and Litvaks be Litvaks and never the twain shall meet. I could very well be wrong but if I'm correct I would certainly like to hear why you feel that way.
"(Some) Chasidim go to Litvishe yeshivas and daven in Litvishe minyanim. (Some) Litvaks daven at Chasidic places (I am describing what happens at times, not necessarily endorsing it), and listen to Chasidic speakers."
I wonder what you mean when you say you are "not necessarily endorsing it".
You mean that you don't endorse it or you mean that you are just stating the fact that it happens and you are not a expressing a positive or negative opinion about it?
"We live in a time of openness. Many people are tired of old divisions, and try to transcend them, by learning from, and engaging with, other groups."
And vis a vis the relationship between the Litveshe and Chassidish communities and hashkafos you see this as a positive thing or negative thing?
חז"ל teach us in מסכת אבות פרק ה that a מחלוקת לשם שמים, סופה להתקיים. The differences between Chasidim and Misnagdim have been going on for over two hundred years.
DeleteThere are different explanations of the mishna, see commentaries (for example, some commentaries explain that through the debate and tension of machlokes, the אמת comes out more), but the point is that sometimes a מחלוקת is desirable and beneficial. :)
Mr. Litvak , I must thank you again and again for this blog. Until I discovered this blog I often felt so frustrated about these kumzitz style Hallel, Tisha B'av, and Selichos events, because I felt that no one was articulating my frustrations. But finally I discovered your blog where you give a coherent, articulate voice to our concerns. These kumzitz style davenings are simply a way of evading the real task of davening properly, which is something that naturally is not attractive. In truth our avodah is to work on ourselves to make them fulfilling, and it is not easy- that it how it was designed. But with these new approaches it just becomes a fun pastime, and they convince themselves that this is real davening.
ReplyDeleteI totally concur with Old Litvak. Another reason this blog is so appealing is that I can express myself without fear of being censored.I've been published hundreds of times in the past thirty years, however I've discovered that certain subjects are taboo and when I try to broach them the newspapers act accordingly. In contrast the only requirement of your blog is that one speaks the truth or at least what he believes to be true and I find that refreshing. At times we may disagree on certain points but as long as we're not disagreeable to each other I'm sure we'll earn Hashem's imprimatur.
DeleteThanks for the comment!
ReplyDeleteWell, we need to look at innovations through the lense of הלכה, first and foremost. However, if something is new and doesn't seem right, it could be a tip off that it is incorrect, and needs to be scrutinized.
Several possible issues come to mind re the הלל with musical instruments. One is the inyan of keeping in mind that we are in a time when the בית המקדש, בית תפאראנו, is still בחורבנה, another is its association with Reform. A different type of issue can be when different people are jamming with instruments, a type of freestyle jam, not controlled with a leader. In the Beis Hamikdash such freestyle jamming was not authorized, AFAIK.
Certain parts of davening are meant to be joyous, and הלל is one of them. So we are not saying that no one should sing during Hallel. חס ושלום מלומר זה. Aderaba, people should! Hallel is not שמונה עשרה. But still, there are certain גדרים in our הלכה and מסורה that need to be taken into account and respected.
FYI. Last night's Zev Brenner program was fascinating. He had on a Professor Riggs who wrote a book explaining that both the 6th and 7th Lubavicher Rebbes were rescued from Europe by the Nazis. I would suggest that you listen to the podcast, it was eye opening.
ReplyDeleteWas my last comment too over the top ��
ReplyDeleteHi Old Litvak!
DeleteI have been thinking about it since I saw it....Some points of it are quite good, of course, but some details may be incorrect, exaggerated, lacking context, and so on, so I hesitated to let it through. I try to keep things here 100% accurate, to adhere to Emes. Even if we are talking about people who we are strongly opposed to some of their ways, we must try to be 100% accurate and precise in any charges against them, and ideally to document them, so people cannot say that the charges are trumped up (no pun intended ;-). If we are not accurate, it hurts our case. Think of a District Attorney who brings cases in court, he cannot be sloppy or inaccurate, lest he lose credibility with the jury/judge, and lose the case, even if overall he is on the right side of things. I hope you understand what I mean. If I knew of a way we could communicate outside of the comments section here, maybe that would be a better way to discuss it.
I am mekabel( it may have been the infamous article in mishpachah that triggered what I wrote).
ReplyDeleteThanks indeed for sticking to the truth, an I look forward to more of your posts
ברוך תהיה
ReplyDelete!
Neo-Chasidus is not a uniform thing. Despite the leading position of Rabbi Weinberger in the movement in the USA, he is not the official head of it. I have heard, and seen, that in some matters, some of his disciples are more extreme than he is.
Additionally, it seems that Reb Weinberger has become more guarded in his public remarks in recent years. I guess he felt the heat from some of the legitimate criticism emanating from places like this in reaction to some of his pronouncements. If in earlier years he could fly under the radar, and bash the Litvishe velt with impunity, nowadays, when so much is recorded and available online, the situation has changed. In the past some people thought that neo-Chasidus was some cute thing of a few Modern-Orthodox kids, that should be indulged, and be given a free ride. Well, it has grown, and is more than just a few kids now. They have pushed themselves into the spotlight and into the big leagues, and the free ride has ended.
I wish you'd clarify your concerns with neo-Chasidus. I'm not questioning your opinion I just think that there must be something more than the fact that they play guitar during Hallel.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure when you arrived here, but there have been posts on that for years. Going through them should help. You can do the "mishnayos" alone (just the posts), or with the "gemara" (comments) too.
Delete"Now, not everyone realizes that the propriety of such a service is not a simple matter. Significant halachic authorities do not permit such things, for various reasons."
ReplyDeleteYou then go on to quote a blog post quoting a single halachic authority, a halchic authority that you would no doubt disagree with on many topics.
Did you even read the end of the post...??
"The article is strange and a bit questionable. It refers to an incident in Modiin Ilit, Brachfeld, in a kloiz. Yet they asked the question of Rav Aviner and referred to Rav Kook in the arguments. Very strange. I suspect there is something incorrect or inaccurate about this."
I read the end of the post. However, I also know that this idea of bringing musical instruments into Shuls, and playing instruments during Hallel is something that is opposed by many poskim, far and wide. פוק חזי מאי עמא דבר. In how many places do they have it? Even in places where it exists, it often seems to be done in people's houses, or in some other ad-hoc way, not under official auspices, rather like an underground group. The chidush in this case was that it was opposed even by a Dati-Leumi poskek. But in the Charedi world there is broad opposition to it. Show me Charedi poskim and Shuls or Batei Medrash that allow it.
ReplyDeleteSo even if the details re the incident the blog post referred to got mixed up, it doesn't change the overall picture of broad opposition to it. And anyway, I believe that Rav Shlomo Aviner is on the conservative side of the Dati-Leumi spectrum, so it would fit with what I know of him. Maybe more information about the incident will emerge.
Looks like I missed a feisty debate between Mr L. and BFG.
ReplyDeleteBFG: Rabbi Weinberger could simply observe his misguided version of Yiddishkeit along with his followers, and just leave everyone else alone. Then perhaps we Litvaks wouldn't be so bothered by him. But instead, he constantly lampoons the Litvishe Yeshivos and Roshei Yeshivos, while is "chevra" chuckle along. And he loves doing it; I've heard at least one tape where he boasts that all the Roshaei Yeshiva can't stand him -he's actually proud of it. You think he didnt know that his article in Mishpacha would raise the ire of the The Yeshiva World ?? He knew shoin ain mol, and that's exactly why he did it ( incidentally throughout that critique he never mentions that he is a chossid. Quite disingenuous).
Of course, he makes these little disclaimers that he doesn't mean only Chassidus but thats just to fool people like BFG. To Rabbi Weinberger, if you didn't find the light of Chassidus, you're a lost soul.
He's pretty sneaky too. Many times he doesn't criticize overtly but rather in a subtle manner- you have to read between the lines. Its just another way he could protect himself.
Hi OL!
ReplyDeleteBFG commented quite strongly here a few weeks back. It got quite lively, shall we say. I let all his comments through, except for one, in the interests of open dialogue.
R. Weinberger is a very talented person. There are serious problems that are either not addressed at all, or are inadequately addressed by others, which he addresses, which is what gives him his power and influence. We cannot blame everything on him, he is, in a way, a product of problems that others have created, including some in the "Litvishe/Yeshivishe" world. As an aside, I think it is important for people to distinguish between institutional Litvish and pure Litvish. Institutions can have their own interests, and, as Rav Yitzchok Hutner z"l reportedly said, א ישיבה איז א סדום בעט. So there are many people out there who had difficult experiences when in institutions, who are quite understandably later trying to get far away from what they identify with pain and frustration. So they mistakenly blame Litvish as a whole, as a category, as a מהלך, when they should instead be blaming an imperfect institution or a specific teacher. They unfortunately might throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water.
I do recall hearing Rabbi Weinberger admit quite openly once (perhaps it was in a program with David Lichtenstein of Headlines), in a discussion about learning "פנימיות" and so on, that he believes that Chasidus is "אור שבעת הימים", the light of the first seven days of the בריאה, a special exalted category above and beyond. So if someone asks him directly, I think he admits that.
We want to have שלום. However, sometimes if there is deception taking place, and/or confusion reigns, there is a need to speak out and set things straight.
May Hashem help us do the right thing.
The quote which I believe is attributed to Rabbi Weinberger is that Chassidus is the Torah of Moshiach. This is eerily reminiscent of Shmuel Butman who would constantly repeat on his radio program that when Moshiach comes there won't be any more "Shnayim Ochzin B'Tallis." Instead there will only be the Kabbalistic interpretations of Shnayim Ochzin B'Tallis i.e. conventional Talmudic study will no longer take place. The Vilna Gaon beautifully and succinctly explained that the reason we're brought into this world is to work on our Middos. The Weinbergers and Butmans of the world apparently have quite a different understanding.
Delete