Exploring the legacy of the rationalist medieval Torah scholars, and various other notes
Huh? Am I missing something? Rav Elyashiv says that he didn't read the books either, he just sent them out for review by his "experts"! Sounds like a case of "your expert v. my expert".
While it can be argued that one Gadol is greater than another Gadol, and that his opinion should carry more weight, why should the "mumchim" of one Gadol be more reliable than others?
This is a notice that yesterday I inquired of Rabbi Eliashiv what is his opinion of marriage counseling books by Mrs. Tehilla Abramov, and he answered me that he approved of them after subjecting them to inquiry by a qualified Bet Din (including the English versions). They found no flaw except for several small matters which were corrected in the new printed editions. Regarding those opponents of these books, he says tget shouldn't read them, and their opinion is to be disregarded.Aharon Feldman
That's not quite accurate. He says that "Regarding those opponents of these books, he says that he is certain that they did not read them, and their opinion is to be disregarded."
And what is your point? Do you believe that if RYSE would read her seforim he would find them treif?Or if he would read yours he would find them kosher?You know the answers.
My point was to respond to the recently-publicized claim of a certain rabbi that anyone who claims that the Gedolim can be manipulated is "not a frum Jew."
"My point was to respond to the recently-publicized claim of a certain rabbi that anyone who claims that the Gedolim can be manipulated is "not a frum Jew."I don't think I've seen the claim so can you please give me more hints?Plus if that is really the claim, there are so many sources against it that it is truly a waste of time to answer.
Apropos:http://torahmusings.com/2008/09/walking-dog.htmlExcerpt:"The Mishnah at the end of Sotah (49b) says that immediately prior to the coming of the messiah, one of the misfortunes of the era will be that "פני הדור כפני הכלב - the face of the generation is like the face of a dog." What does this mean? R. Yisrael Salanter is quoted by R. Elchanan Wasserman (in his essay Ikvisa Di-Meshicha) as explaining that when an owner walks his dog, the dog is in front of the owner and seems to observers as if he is leading the owner around. However, in reality the dog keeps looking back and checking with his owner where he should go. In the generation described in the Mishnah, the leaders of the Jewish people will act like a dog and check with their "followers" to know where they should go."
This could also be the meaning of the passuk in Deuteronomy 28:13 "The LORD will make you the head, not the tail". If your the head then by mere inferance you are not the tail?! It could be that the passuk is telling us that if we truly go in the way of Hashem, we will be true leaders, who do not look at their constituents to make decisions for them. This is how Rabbi Zweig understands this passuk.
“My point was to respond to the recently-publicized claim of a certain rabbi that anyone who claims that the Gedolim can be manipulated is "not a frum Jew."”Anyone who thinks that is totally ignorant as it is well known that the great tanna R’ Akiva was fooled by Bar Kochba.
Oh please, you made it sound as if some important Rav made an hashkafic statement. In reality, Reb Dovid Orlofsky gave just another confused and unfounded shiur. How is that a chiddush?Do you really want to spend your time commenting on that?
I agree with your point, but are you sure that opponents to the Abramov books are also against the corrected editions?
Rabi Akiva was not "fooled" by Bar Kochba. Bar Kochba was not a "false messiah" but rather a "failed messiah". Rabi Akiva was following the rules when he supported Bar Kochba. Bar Kochba united the people in a way that had not been known for centuries and in ways that have lasted until today.
Nathan, I assume you acknowledge that there exist opponents of yours whose views are legitimate and can be taken seriously. They don't maintain that Gedolim can never make a mistake. Their issue is more along the lines that it is improper to ascribe mistakes to them using certain language or attitude etc. Some have accused you of having an unhealthy obsession with finding factual errors with Rishonim etc. They may be wrong, but at least they make sense.Why not concentrate on addressing legitimate concerns. There is nothing in the rationalist platform that mandates disrespect, or making a goal out of finding errors with earlier writings.
BM - Do you know how many mistakes I ascribed to Chazal in my banned books?And have you read my essay In Defense Of My Opponents?And do you realize that this post had nothing to do with the ban on my works?
The following is even more "apropos" than my last comment.See "Chareidi Leumi"'s comment here:http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2010/09/16/3554/#comments"This is of course, assuming that R’ Sonnenfeld was active in any autonomous capacity during the late 20s and early 30s which according to R’ Zvi Pesach Frank in his letter to R’ Haim Hirschenson, he was during this period manipulated by zealots towards more and more extreme ends … to the point that when R’ Frank confronted R’ Sonnenfeld regarding the nature of the posters to which his name is signed the latter admited (sic) to being consistently manipulated by overzealous youth."
I totally want one.
Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.