The sentiment Rav Elyashiv expressed is still shared by most mainstream chareidim even today. They refrain from speaking about it in public forums such as the papers precisely because it can be misconstrued in the way you seem to be doing.
Most chareidim recognize that the miracles of the 6 day war are reasons to be happy and thank god for, but there are 2 issues that make it impossible to celebrate openly in the way you would like:
1. Unfortunately the way theses events are celebrated and recounted by the majority of Israeli's (and the way it is celebrated by the state and its institutions) is a story of the mighty IDF defeating our enemies, a story of the greatness of the Zionist enterprise etc. A typical story: one Israeli general was asked shortly after the 6 day war if he looks up to the heavens before he goes to war. his answer - no. I only look to the left and the right to see how many tanks I have. Can there be any bigger blaspheme? But this is a sentiment shared by a vast amount of Israelis and most of its elite class. Anyone with a shred of religious sensitivity cannot help but be disgusted by this. This makes it very difficult to celebrate in Israel the events of the 6 day war without being misconstrued as joining and supporting the way its celebrated . It would also cause much confusion amongst the simple masses of charedim who are unable to understand the complexity of our position.
2. Most dati leumi view the events of yom haatzmaut and yom yerushalayim as basically getting us most of the way there to the geula sheleima. Look - the country has been rebuilt, the economy is booming, look at the high-tech center, look at our powerful army, etc. etc.. Most charedim on the other hand view it very differently. While these things are positive developments, they are very very far from the geulah sheleima. We still have no Beis hamikdash, no Malchus, no Avodah, no Sanhedrin, no Kohen gadol, no meaningful rabbinic authority. Judaism is a shell of how its meant to look in practice in the holy land. When the messiah comes there will need to be an upheaval of biblical proportions to get us where we need to be. The country is run by a secular government by secular laws with a secular court system. The vast majority of Jews are openly antagonistic towards Judaism or know nothing about it. etc. etc. This is what makes it so hard for the charedim to celebrate jubulantly.
The charedi position is nuanced. on the one hand they hold that there were miracle that we should be happy about and thankful for. On the other hand they have the 2 issues I listed above. Rav Elyashiv was simply expressing the first hand in response to someone who saw no reason to be happy at all. Nothing more, nothing less.
I'm curious, do you think Rav Elyashiv was a closet zionist, who secretly said hallel on yom yerushalayim and yom haatzmaut? Are you familiar with his history and writings at all? You must know that he did not celebrate Yom haatmaut or yom yerushalayim in the way the dati leumi do. For anyone familiar with him (even as he was in the 60s) its absurd to think he was expressing anything more than I described.
I'm not sure where I misunderstood. You speculated on why he said what he said without a lot of evidence about his true position but instead making general statements about Charedim who had a very wide variety of views on the state and their tolerance or embrace of Zionism. Establishing new holidays is and saying Hallel is its own issue that conservative (small c) poskim are reluctant to embrace regardless of their view on the significance of the state. R Elyashiv had his own independent positions on Zionism which were opposed to the (non-Eidah) Charedi leadership of the time: he was Dayan in the Rabbinate and only became assimilated to the Charedi leadership after he resigned. He then turned around and revolutionized Charedi Judaism by having it take over the Rabbinate which was considered off-limits before. I do agree that most of the supposed idealism of modern Charedism about the state is just tribalism to create a separate identity from the accursed Zionists. The issue here is that in the past there were disagreements on approach without being so accursed. That is why, e.g. Rav Kook's Haskamos have been censored out of charedi publications. So it requires evidence of R Elyashiv's positions to suss out his position; projecting current Charedi/Zionist politics on to R Elyahsiv is unenlightenting.
Rabbi Slifkin brought this story of Rav Elyashiv expressing a certain sentiment in a private conversation as unusual and surprising. He then used it to support the theory that things have changed and that what was said and done in the chareidi community back then is significantly different then now.
I argued that once one understands the core ideas of the chareidi hashkafa in this area (as it was then and now), this story is not surprising at all. That core being a tension between recognizing the miracles and being happy about them on the one side, and the 2 points I listed above on the other. This story fits very neatly into that picture. Rav Elyashiv was simply expressing one side of that tension. I have myself heard numerous Roshei Yeshiva and senior Ramim in the Israeli yeshiva world of today express similar sentiments in similarly private settings (and some even in more public ones). My conclusion - the premise of this post is incorrect. this story does not make the point Rabbi Slifkin thought it was.
What part do you argue on?
It may be that there is other proof out there that sheds more light on Rav Elyashiv's personal hashkafa, but neither Rabbi Slifkin or you have brought any.
The fact that he had tremendous respect for Rav Kook (as did many gedolim) does not mean he held of all of his hashkafos. Likewise, the fact that he served on the rabinate does not prove anything - this has been an issue in the charedi community from the beginning - namely, now that the zionist state exists how should we deal with it pragmatically. Should we boycott its institutions completely or should we partake in them in order to effect as much good as possible. Rav Elyashiv was of the opinion that the good he did by serving in the rabanut took precedence over other considerations. This proves nothing about his personal hashkafa towards Zionism.
This an out-of-context story from an ardent Zionist where we don't hear the other side, that is otherwise inconsistent with what we know about R' Elyashiv. "R Elyashiv didn’t say any of those things though in the story"- is a non-objection.
I'm reading this thread and I'm just puzzled by @David Ohsie's position. Don't you realize there is the (a) maisseh itself, the (b) chareidi reaction and (c) our pirush on what makes each gear turn?
Charedim are generally happy about the states success and victories (a), but due to its secularity (is that a word?), they can't grant it full kudos (b) so as not to give the treif state a hechsher and have people conflate yiddishkeit with the state (c).
Let's call this mechanism "purposeful stigma"; I believe "x" but respond "y" to as not to allow people to walk away with "z". I'm not implying this is done consciously, it's just how societies and ideas work - RNS asks all his questions at point blank range without factoring any of this in.
(And to answer RNS's question as to why Rav Elyashiv changed times over the years: as the world grows increasingly secular, the neejerk defense of frum people is to self-insulate, which includes not praising secular entities.)
See my other comment. R Elyashiv had his own unique positions and background. And modern Charedi Judaism censors out its past relationship with Zionism. So I would not draw conclusions from such general speculation about who different R Elyashiv's position is from the typical view (as least as professed publicly) today.
How much each group censors is not relevant here. The point is that the censorship of past association to zionist figures indicates that there has been a shift in attitudes from zionism being another view to being a verboten view.
They were, but things still started off with a bang and just went downhill after, as opposed to this where much progress needs to be made. Also there was still Sanhedrin running many aspects of the general society, and there was a Bais Hamikdash then, among many other differences. So yes, partial kudos is most appropriate.
Well, we know he did not skip tachanun on any Zionist holidays, he didn't say Hallel on either 'yoms' and was not known to celebrate any of their 'mourning' days.
I’m not sure it’s completely accurate to say R. Elyashiv’s sentiment is shared by most mainstream Chareidim even today (or then, for that matter). I think R. Elyashiv had a particularly unique perspective that many others did not (could not) have.
I came into this conversation about 2 weeks late, and I don’t think very many people will even notice this comment, but it bears noting - and I’m actually more than a bit surprised none of the 200+ comments on this post seemed to bring this up:
about a year ago Mishpacha magazine had an article about R. Elyashiv (10th yahrzeit), and it noted that his Toddler daughter Rivkah had been killed by Jordanian shelling in 1948.
I think it entirely plausible that traumatic event strongly impacted him, and his view of and response to the events of 1967 were through that particular prism.
"This is what makes it so hard for the charedim to celebrate jubulantly."
It sounds like R' Elyashiv was pretty jubilant.
I think we all would be jubilant too if we just got saved. Not hard at all; actually, quite natural. It's different when you analyse it from a dry, removed, detached perspective. That was R' Elyashiv's whole point. Did I miss something here?
Also, are you sure R' Elyashiv didn't say Hallel on Yom Yerushalayim? I'm just asking. And if not (I assume not- it would make a big spectacle if he did), has he explained in his writings why not? I would like to know.
When I was in Israel I would always hear about Rav Shlomo Zalman quietly saying Hallel on Yom Yerushalayim. He said he would say it because he had a personal yeshua but that has nothing to do with the rest of klal yisrael, as we don't add yomim tovim unless they change for the whole klal yisrael, and he held this was not the case.
Thank you, I didn't know that about R' Shlomo Zalman. That'd be exactly what I was thinking about with R' Elyashiv! The way it was described, I thought it sounded like there was a personal 'neis' for the people who were there, and that nobody else living many miles away could fully relate to it. It would be like any community who experienced a 'yeshuah' from Hashem, and commemorate it.
Notice how he didn't tell him to join, he just pointed out to him that he did not go through the pain and subsequently, the happiness, of the residents who experienced it.
In short, it sounds like "Hallel for me, but not for thee" :)
It is also well known that Ponevizh flies a flag on Yom Haatzmaut, following what Rav Kahanaman instituted. I heard from Rabbi Berel Wien who asked him about it, and he said he did the same with a Lithuanian flag in Lita. Then he added: און דא איז ניט ערגר" - "Its not worse here."
Rav Elyashiv expressed deep intense emotion. He clearly had a very meaningful connection to the Kosel (he was known to go at least once a month - this from a man who didn't waste a second) and also recognized the great miracle of God saving the yishuv in the 6 day war.
Maybe I should have been more clear but what I meant by "celebrate jubulantly" was in the way the dati leumi celebrate - with a formal, official day of celebration and festivities, with special prayers, flag parades, day off from yeshiva etc. etc.
It doesn't sound like it bothered him. On the contrary, it seems like he quite well understood it. Wouldn't you agree?
What you mean to say, is that the Charedim who were not present in Yerushalayim at the time, including the ones today, have a hard time celebrating it. But R' Elyashiv explained that too; and in fact, I it was his whole point.
P.S.- Thanks to you, I am now fully absorbing the impact of R' Elyashiv's words.
Let me share with you that a relative of mine who is considered "very Charedi" was seen in an old photograph celebrating Yom Haatzma'ut in his backyard in Yerushalayim, by sitting for lunch at a set picnic table adorned with two Israeli flags on it. It was surprising. He responded: "Back then, everyone celebrated, it did not matter [what your background was]."
No one prevents the ultra-Orthodox from deciding for themselves how they thank G-d for the miracles of Independence Day, the Suez War and the Six Days. No one forces them to give thanks like the State of Israel and the national religious people. But: let them thank G-d! Not only that they decided not to thank God in their way but continued to make sure to say a Tahanun that day.
משנה תורה לרמב"ם, ספר אהבה, הלכות תפילה וברכת כהנים, פרק ה', הלכה ט"ו: "מנהג פשוט בכל ישראל שאין נפילת אפים בשבתות ובמועדים ולא בראש השנה ולא בראשי חדשים ובחנוכה ובפורים ולא במנחה של ערבי שבתות וימים טובים ולא בערבית שבכל יום ויש יחידים שנופלים על פניהם בערבית וביוה"כ בלבד נופלים על פניהם בכל תפלה ותפלה מפני שהוא יום תחנה ובקשה ותענית"
It is an accepted custom among the entire Jewish people not to utter the supplication on Sabbaths or festivals. Nor [does one utter it] on Rosh Hashanah, Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah or Purim or in Minchah on the eve of Sabbaths or holidays, nor in the Evening Prayer of any day. There are [however,] individuals who do utter the supplication in the Evening Prayer.
On Yom Kippur only, one utters the supplication prayer in every prayer, since it is a day of supplication, requests, and fasting
(Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Ahavah, Tefilah and Birkat Kohanim: prayer and the priestly blessing Chap. 5 Halahah 15
"In the answers of the Geonim, it is explained that the prayer of Tachanun is optional and it is possible to refrain from saying it. Similarly, the days on which Tachanun is not said are a customary practice. Therefore, it is necessary to find the common denominator for all the days on which Tachanun is not said. Rambam brings the principle at the end of his halacha: Tachanun is said on days of distress, and therefore also on Yom Kippur. Therefore, they also learned the opposite, that on days of joy or in a joyous setting, Tachanun is not said. According to this common denominator, they established that on every day of community salvation, called Purim of..., Tachanun is not said. This is how all the communities of Israel have practiced since time immemorial."
When the Kehilla institutes a Yomtov, it is different. A government Rabbanut does not have that right, and we don't have Kehillos nowadays to make these Yamim Tovim.
1. This was a nearly half-century old recollection, from a man then in his mid to high 70s, and a particularly ideological man, at that. As much as I admired R. Gold, this hearsay memory is almost certainly inaccurate or incomplete. (Assuming, of course, that you yourself are reporting it accurately.)
2. People's positions are never as simplistic as their opponents try to characterize them. R. Elyashiv in particular, who everyone knows was a paid employee of the Israeli govt, certainly would have had mixed feelings about the state of Israel, as indeed, any thinking person must have.
"this hearsay memory is almost certainly inaccurate or incomplete. "
Why?
" People's positions are never as simplistic as their opponents try to characterize them."
But they are as simplistic as their adherents try to characterize them?
Rav Elyashiv was a unique individual, and so were all (most?) Gedolim. Charedi hagiography would have none of that, and consequently any connection to Zionism, no matter whether minor or major, is covered up. Because nuance (i.e. pesky objective reality) is the enemy of ideological purity.
But if you reject oversimplifying positions, and accept complexity, what's wrong with Rabbi Gold's narrative?
Adherents do not "characterize" the opinions of their leaders. They know them well, and want to understand them fully, in all the angles. Opponents, on the other hand, are interested only in charicaturing and misrepresenting., gross simplifications they can feed to their base.
Sorry, my spell checker failed me. I didn't mean "adherent", I meant "true Scotsman".
No. Adherents often distort history; they revise history to make their leader closer to their own world view.
You need not look further than many Artscroll biographies, or see Lawrence Kaplan's "Revisionism and the Rav". The dispute over the legacy of Rav Kook, is a controversy that involves many his adherents.
Some positions in these disputes do recognize the complexity, but many resort to oversimplifying.
I think I can guess your age, Ephraim. Complainting about Artscroll "hagiographies" is so 1990s. It had a good run, but its sun has set. The questions about the right approach to biography have bedeviled writers since Plutarch. Boswell himself recorded different viewpoints on whether or not to include information that puts the subject in a bad light. It gets to the very question of what biography is - a source of inspiration, or a collection of facts and records?
Anyway, while I see why you mentioned it, it has really nothing to do with my point. Adherents strive to understand what their mentors say and think, and do not cavalierly misrepresent it. Opponents do not. Thus, to close the loop here, you would never get a proper statements of RE view's here (or any Charedi), even if the blog host was capable of it.
Saying "is so 1990s" is so 2010s. But insisting truth, is not only "retro" and cool again- it's also an eternal value.
" it has really nothing to do with my point. Adherents..."
No. Your point was about adherents and opponents. You insisted that adherents, unlike opponents, do not engage in revisionism. Now, you justify revisionism by citing some authorities, and you qualify your defense of the hagiographers with " do not cavalierly misrepresent it." i.e. that it's okay to misrepresent, so long as it's not done "cavalierly".
"Opponents do not."
Honest one do. (That's why many Zionists know Satmar ideology better than the Chassidim.)
Garvin appears to have conceded the point when he stopped defending his assertion and started in about whether a practice from the 1990's can still be questioned in 2023.
Truth is cool again?? You must be living on a different planet from the rest of us.
I said nothing about "revisionism", that's an MO totem like "hagiography". I said adherents to a particular teacher or Rebbi have an interest in fully understanding that teacher's thinking, from all its angles. Opponents, by contrast, are interested only in scoffing and deriding, not in fully understanding. This is the way the world works.
And you're hopelessly deluding yourself if you think "many Zionists know satmar ideology better than the chassidim." Do you actually know real Chassidim, or you just know them from blogs. And who are these "many Zionists" you speak of, with this deep knowledge of Satmar hashkafa? Members of the ZOA? Amit? Where are they all hiding?
You didn't address Ephraim's point. When a Charedi biography of a Rav excises the fact that they were followers of an RZ poseik like Rav Kook, how is that striving to understand?
DOZ, you (and Ephraim) are speaking about biographies. I'm not, and I never mentioned them. I was speaking about adherents and mentors. A students wants to understand his rebbi properly. The opponent wants no more than to cherry pick a phrase or two that he can use to mock. Thus, eg, while OF COURSE they each claim to understand the other, you dont study conservative philosophy by listening to Bernie Sanders speeches, and you dont brush up on socialism by reading Barry Goldwater.
Since you keep mentioning biography, I will do more than let one of my favorite authors, Boswell, speak for himself. As you can see, its an old issue, and even Johnson himself held "conflicting" (that is, nuanced) opinions on the subject:
"Talking of biography, I said, in writing a life, a man's peculiarities should be mentioned, because they mark his character. JOHNSON. 'Sir, there is no doubt as to peculiarities: the question is, whether a man's vices should be mentioned; for instance, whether it should be mentioned that Addison and Parnell drank too freely. For people will probably more easily indulge in drinking from knowing this; so that more ill may be done by the example, than good by telling the whole truth.'
Here was an instance of his varying from himself in talk; for when Lord Hailes and he sat one morning calmly conversing in my house at Edinburgh, I well remember that Dr. Johnson maintained, that 'If a man is to write A Panegyrick, he may keep vices out of sight; but if he professes to write A Life, he must represent it really as it was:' and when I objected to the danger of telling that Parnell drank to excess, he said, that 'it would produce an instructive caution to avoid drinking, when it was seen, that even the learning and genius of Parnell could be debased by it.' And in the Hebrides [Scotland -G.] he maintained, as appears from my Journal, that a man's intimate friend should mention his faults, if he writes his life. "
Why do Charedi publishing houses only publish hagiographies of their leaders then? That is not consistent with wanting to understand them fully. And the notion that people, as a rule, don't want to understand their "opponents" or that anyone that they disagree with is an opponent is odd. There is a hard to explain tic of today's charedi orthodoxy that no orthodox authority from a different camp is even recognized to exist, but that is an oddity of time and place.
I am not sure what you are trying to say, Rav Elyashiv was always known to be more accepting of the fact that we have a state, only had a more right wing view of how to deal with the irreligious.
Marc Shapiro often points out that the idea of a gadol hador is a misnomer. The chareidi world chooses a "gadol" that matched their hashkafic expectations. If a torah scholar veers from the hashkafic norm, he just won't be accepted. Who decides what the accepted halachic norm is, is not clear. But these norms choose thr gadol and not the gadol deciding on the norm ie Das torah.
In this case he is correct. The 'bnei torah and company" chose who is and who is not an approved rabbi/goddol based on their own opinions. Which is why whenver you find a broader minded rov, perhaps a bit more pro proper secular education,.zionism, maybe too many kulos, criticising the establishment (for example the nepotism, attitude towards protection of abusers), critices gezel and mateh akum, and similar, you get the look and feel from body language or even verbally 'he's not from our beis hamedrash', a bissle modernisch etc etc.
R Elyashiv himself had to separate from the Rabbinate before he was accepted fully accepted into Charedi society. Resigning didn't bring him more Torah knowledge, but it did match the then-current Hashkafah. He then turned around and changed the norm so being a Dayan in the Rabbinate was now OK.
The Rabbinate was in a state of flux at the time, as the CR position was granted to the one that would permit issurim. If Rav Elyashiv would not have resigned, he would have supported the evil that the Chief Rabbinate was about to become.
He was a Dayan in the Rabbinate when Charedism did not allow for it and this disqualified him at the time from Charedi leadership. He resigned over a controversial ruling of R Goren. Then he became a Charedi leader. What part of that is warped?
You decided that we don't care about a Talmid Chacham, merely about a hashkafic litmus test.
Therefore, as a Dayan on the Rabbinate, Rav Elyashiv was automatically disqualified from Charedi leadership, even though he was a world-class Talmid Chacham.
You then use that as proof that we don't really care about a Talmid Chacham, merely about a hashkafic litmus test.
Known as circular logic, as warped as warped gets. All the way around.
"You decided that we don't care about a Talmid Chacham, merely about a hashkafic litmus test." No I didn't say that. In addition to erudition, there is also a "hashkafic" alignment required. It's not like anyone disputes that. No Zionist or Chassidic or Sephardi Talmud Chacham is going to become a Charedi Gadol. With R Elyashiv, at the time, being a Dayan in the Rabbanut was a disqualifier. Resigning made him eligible.
Let's talk practically. Find me one world-class Talmid Chacham, with whom we can discuss most of Shas be'iyun, who is a Talmid of Gedolim of previous generations, has the leadership qualities, Yir'as Shamayim, and was willing to lead the generation, but was excluded due to any Hashkafic litmus test.
He doesn't exist, because the theory is bunkum.
I know how various names will be brought up, but go through the list above and check off every box for him. You will see it is impossible.
Marc Shapiro is claiming that the public decides. In most of the people you mention it was because big people WHO WERE ALREADY LEADING GEDOLIM distanced from them, or came on the scene with different opinions AFTER the first opinion was already accepted. Don't know why you think people should change everything every ten years.
Saul Leiberman was ousted by Rav Moshe Feinstien and others for his involvement in JTS, Rav Ruderman told his students to stay away from him as well.
Not sure what you mean by Rav Moshe sterbuch, he's fully accepted, maybe just a bit out of the box in psak.
Lubavicher Rebbe - Rav Shach did him in completely.
Sridei Aish was not involved in the mainstream Chareidi leadership to begin with.
R JB Soloveichick, that was Rav A Kotlers doing
Rav Aron lichtenstein publicly argued on most chareidi positions. What do you want? Everyone to just slam the door on Rav Shach and just follow R lichtenstien?
Rav Shmuel Aurbach was accepted but Rav Shteiman was running the show before him, sorry.
Rav Sachter is a talmid of someone not fully accepted, what do you expect?
Rav Asher wiess not accepted??
Rav Herzog was running israel at the time, and only anti zionists don't like him, again, because their Rebbi's shita came first.
Rav Ovadia was accepted till Rav Shach took a swipe at him, and even then, not so much. If for his being Cheif Rabbi, again, thats because of people following previous opinions.
Shlomo Goren? Every leading Gadol opposed him besides for Rav Tzvi Yehuda. And I read his sefarim... c'mon. (Walking into the dome of the rock with that ridiculous קל וחומר from יריחו didn't make him look any better.)
Don't know about this Polachek person.
Rabbi Zimmerman also aligned with different positions than the already followed postions.
Exactly. Every single name you can come up with some chiluk. That's exactly the point.
"Rabbi Zimmerman also aligned with different positions than the already followed postions"
I am not entirely sure what that means, but surely the mark of a true 'godol', a leader, is to challenge and change things when necessary? Since when is every leader meant to be a carbon copy of the other? What sort of leadership us that? That is exactly the point. Toe the party line or you will not be a 'godol'. What a joke!
Just curious why you think Saul Lieberman belongs in this list. He was a massive talmid chacham but his yiraas shamayim was questioned by really big people. Even if he was kasher, he wasn't in the caliber of yiraas shamayim as his peers as even he would gladly admit
Which of those wished to lead the nation, offered ideas for everyone, and was rejected?
RJBS positioned himself against the previous generation of Gedolei Yisroel, and was rejected then, when the position was not open. When they passed away, it was too late. Which is true for his son in law after him.
Rabbis Zimmerman, Polachek, Weinberg, Schechter, Weiss and Lieberman had/have no desire at all to offer opinions for the public.
Goren was an am haaretz, and had no leadership qualities besides a burning desire for power and attention.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe was not a Talmid of any Gedolim of previous generations.
Rabbi Yosef was a Gadol by most standards, his opinion counted all over the place.
Reb Shmuel Auerbach was one opinion, there is no rule that other Gedolim must follow him. But if there were, he would be in the wrong. So either way, he proves nothing.
Bekitzur, none check off the list I wrote. And Rav Shteinman did.
Anyway your statement is ridiculous because who decides who is a world-class talmid chochom? Who paskens on 'yiras shemoyim'. Yeshivaland Inc will just decide that anybody with shittos they don't like does not have enough yiras shomayoim and passel him. You have sort of prooved the point. After all, anybody who supported maybe yishuv eretz yisroel back in Europe clearly did not have enough yiras shamayim, right?
Rav Kook was a world class TC with tremendous yiraas shamayim and was received as that. He was 'rejected' because of his shitos which other gedolim felt were incorrect
Rav Moshe Shapiro is on record for saying RSRH is not from our beis hamidrash, and many in yeshivaland claim his shittos were a 'horo'os sho'oh'. Names escape ke and I can't be bothered to look it up.
Actually, even though for an outsider it seems like we make it up as we go, any insider knows why certain people are gedolim. They are simply the absolutely best Jews who follow God as best as a human possibly can and care about nothing but God's will and law, and the rest of us are busy with our miserable bodily desires and wish more than anything else that we were more like them
That is true, but insufficient. Someone else could, theoretically, be a greater scholar and a greater Tzadik than the Gadol Hador. Leadership qualities, great intelligence, and a clear Hashkafa, are not pre-requisites for a Tzadik or Talmid Chacham. But a Gadol Hador must have them. But these are only after they are known to be self-negating world-class Talmidei Chachamim.
I mostly agree but by the same time those who are really up there usually understand people and logic and epic reasoning really, really well. To be an emese talmid chacham one needs extreme clear thinking which is usually the main quality of. Sometime who really understand nuance and wisdom and people are usually those who know how to understand Hashem and His Torah... of course we have those who can't and they either hurt people or aren't accepted but for the most part klal yisroel knows who to turn to for which matters.
I'm sorry, I don't understand half of what you just said. Did I pull of the "looks are deceiving"?
All I said was that our gedolim are the people who spend their lives being the best Jews possible. They follow God to a "t" as best as a human could. We, who are striving every day to be that good, look up to them for advice, because we understand that they "have it right". those who don't understand the subculture don't see what we see in these people and as sad outsiders they look on bewildered, not understanding what we see in these people.
There's no lie, no "noble lie" either. Only the truth. What you responded has nothing to do with the discussion at hand
So you think 'Head of the Moetzes' is an absolute title.
Interestingly enough, Reb Dov Landau isn't even a Moetzes member. Yet he is calling the shots. I wonder why. In the US, Moetzes member is almost a pejorative, it certainly does not add prestige or power to a member. Reb Zelig Epstein was no less powerful than Reb Aaron Schechter.
I can't talk for a specific moetzes, but all the names on the 'gedolim' cards, for example pick those who are malachei Elyon in olam hazeh. If you don't get that your an outsider
Does anyone know what R' Elyashiv's opinion is on why we wouldn't say Hallel on Yom Yerushalayim? But more importantly, I would like to know where to find his decision on the matter in writing.
Rav Elyashiv was also proficient in the works of Rav Kook (though I'm sure he didn't agree with everything). But he was willing to keep his sefer on his desk for all to see.
This all being said, there is a valid distinction between being happy that Yerushalayim being back in Jewish hands and celebrating it together with Zionists (secular or religious).
I once met Reb Shalom in 1969 at the house of his close friend from Ner Israel, Rav Yisroel Ber Caplan, a totally Chareidi rosh kollel in Jerusalem. I got the impression he was a man who had one foot in the Chareidi Yeshiva world and the other foot in the Religious Zionist/Modern Orthodox world. I don't think that he actually integrated them together in his life.
"I never really figured out what he wanted. Should we bring the British back and renew the Mandate? Close Eretz Yisrael to all the world's Jews? Did he want us to hand the Kosel over to Jordan or the Vatican? He was vague (or confused?)."
"You were in America for the nineteen years that we were here unable to pray at the Kosel. You obviously don't appreciate or understand the depth of our feeling for Yerushalayim and the pain of being separated from her."
"It is inconceivable for such a story to be reported in the charedi press in at least the last twenty years, or for them to claim that Yom Yerushalayim is a “Great Day.”"
It's not terribly complicated. The 19 years *started* when the state was founded. Yes, we're deeply grateful that the Israeli military recaptured the kosel in 1967. We just wish it had never been lost in 1948. 'Hakotel be'yadenu' was very thrilling in the immediate aftermath, but as the 2 events recede, it's largely a wash between pre-1948 to post-1967. <Cue the meraglim accusations.>
"Rav Gold was molded in Torah VoDaas, Chevron, Ponovezh and suchlike" I thought Chevron is an oil company. What's wrong with "Hevron"? The word starts with a ח, not a כ.
I repeat. Why shouldn't "Hevron" be the proper transliteration of "חברון"? "Chevron" is an oil company. Try googling "Chevron" and see if you get an oil company or a city in Israel.
Not everywhere, I'm sorry to say. Artscroll, as they often wrote, would use sefardic consonants with ashkenaz vowels. Hence "Halacha". But I frequently see, in the blacker parts of the yeshivah world, doubling down on the ashkenaz. Hence "Halocho". I'd prefer the Artscroll approach, but waddaya gonna do.
The Politics of Transliteration. You want to see some deep rooted philosophical differences, that's where the action is.
Popping a dot under the H of Hevron is done only in academic speciality journals. People who usually read only the lay press think the dot is a speck of dust on their screen.
As an Ashkenazi American Yeshiva graduate I can tell you are clearly not one, since everyone in any yeshiva I went to knew that, especially when talking about krias Shema. But I get it, you don't like Yeshiva boys to the point you assert that all of them are unaware, you won't even use the word "most".
IDK which American Yeshiva you went to, but those who either learned Mishna Berura, grew up in Flatbush surrounded by Sefardim, or learned in Brisk, know that these sub-sets exist.
Weaver, when u make a point on website, I suggest u do so in the most direct, not facetious, language. Further, when u rhetorically speak in a voice other than your own, please indicate that. Do not force readers to "interpret" your statements.
Not only "tone." When u speak facetiously live, u have facial expressions and winks to guide the listener. All of that is impossible in a 1-sentence printed line.
2nd, more importantly, do not ever admit to being "sarcastic." That word essentially means "nasty." Rather, say "I was speaking facetiously." As an OTD, I assure u that out here in the oylem emes, yeshivish-style "wit" and sarcasm r always yatza s'charo b'heftzedo! U may think u win on 1-upmanship, but u lose more by creating an enemy. Solution: use victimless wit, or make yourself the victim of the wisecrack.
You've got it all wrong.
The sentiment Rav Elyashiv expressed is still shared by most mainstream chareidim even today. They refrain from speaking about it in public forums such as the papers precisely because it can be misconstrued in the way you seem to be doing.
Most chareidim recognize that the miracles of the 6 day war are reasons to be happy and thank god for, but there are 2 issues that make it impossible to celebrate openly in the way you would like:
1. Unfortunately the way theses events are celebrated and recounted by the majority of Israeli's (and the way it is celebrated by the state and its institutions) is a story of the mighty IDF defeating our enemies, a story of the greatness of the Zionist enterprise etc. A typical story: one Israeli general was asked shortly after the 6 day war if he looks up to the heavens before he goes to war. his answer - no. I only look to the left and the right to see how many tanks I have. Can there be any bigger blaspheme? But this is a sentiment shared by a vast amount of Israelis and most of its elite class. Anyone with a shred of religious sensitivity cannot help but be disgusted by this. This makes it very difficult to celebrate in Israel the events of the 6 day war without being misconstrued as joining and supporting the way its celebrated . It would also cause much confusion amongst the simple masses of charedim who are unable to understand the complexity of our position.
2. Most dati leumi view the events of yom haatzmaut and yom yerushalayim as basically getting us most of the way there to the geula sheleima. Look - the country has been rebuilt, the economy is booming, look at the high-tech center, look at our powerful army, etc. etc.. Most charedim on the other hand view it very differently. While these things are positive developments, they are very very far from the geulah sheleima. We still have no Beis hamikdash, no Malchus, no Avodah, no Sanhedrin, no Kohen gadol, no meaningful rabbinic authority. Judaism is a shell of how its meant to look in practice in the holy land. When the messiah comes there will need to be an upheaval of biblical proportions to get us where we need to be. The country is run by a secular government by secular laws with a secular court system. The vast majority of Jews are openly antagonistic towards Judaism or know nothing about it. etc. etc. This is what makes it so hard for the charedim to celebrate jubulantly.
R Elyashiv didn’t say any of those things though in the story. This seems to be a tendentious reading of the story.
You seem to have misunderstood.
The charedi position is nuanced. on the one hand they hold that there were miracle that we should be happy about and thankful for. On the other hand they have the 2 issues I listed above. Rav Elyashiv was simply expressing the first hand in response to someone who saw no reason to be happy at all. Nothing more, nothing less.
I'm curious, do you think Rav Elyashiv was a closet zionist, who secretly said hallel on yom yerushalayim and yom haatzmaut? Are you familiar with his history and writings at all? You must know that he did not celebrate Yom haatmaut or yom yerushalayim in the way the dati leumi do. For anyone familiar with him (even as he was in the 60s) its absurd to think he was expressing anything more than I described.
I'm not sure where I misunderstood. You speculated on why he said what he said without a lot of evidence about his true position but instead making general statements about Charedim who had a very wide variety of views on the state and their tolerance or embrace of Zionism. Establishing new holidays is and saying Hallel is its own issue that conservative (small c) poskim are reluctant to embrace regardless of their view on the significance of the state. R Elyashiv had his own independent positions on Zionism which were opposed to the (non-Eidah) Charedi leadership of the time: he was Dayan in the Rabbinate and only became assimilated to the Charedi leadership after he resigned. He then turned around and revolutionized Charedi Judaism by having it take over the Rabbinate which was considered off-limits before. I do agree that most of the supposed idealism of modern Charedism about the state is just tribalism to create a separate identity from the accursed Zionists. The issue here is that in the past there were disagreements on approach without being so accursed. That is why, e.g. Rav Kook's Haskamos have been censored out of charedi publications. So it requires evidence of R Elyashiv's positions to suss out his position; projecting current Charedi/Zionist politics on to R Elyahsiv is unenlightenting.
I'm trying to pinpoint your argument here.
Rabbi Slifkin brought this story of Rav Elyashiv expressing a certain sentiment in a private conversation as unusual and surprising. He then used it to support the theory that things have changed and that what was said and done in the chareidi community back then is significantly different then now.
I argued that once one understands the core ideas of the chareidi hashkafa in this area (as it was then and now), this story is not surprising at all. That core being a tension between recognizing the miracles and being happy about them on the one side, and the 2 points I listed above on the other. This story fits very neatly into that picture. Rav Elyashiv was simply expressing one side of that tension. I have myself heard numerous Roshei Yeshiva and senior Ramim in the Israeli yeshiva world of today express similar sentiments in similarly private settings (and some even in more public ones). My conclusion - the premise of this post is incorrect. this story does not make the point Rabbi Slifkin thought it was.
What part do you argue on?
It may be that there is other proof out there that sheds more light on Rav Elyashiv's personal hashkafa, but neither Rabbi Slifkin or you have brought any.
The fact that he had tremendous respect for Rav Kook (as did many gedolim) does not mean he held of all of his hashkafos. Likewise, the fact that he served on the rabinate does not prove anything - this has been an issue in the charedi community from the beginning - namely, now that the zionist state exists how should we deal with it pragmatically. Should we boycott its institutions completely or should we partake in them in order to effect as much good as possible. Rav Elyashiv was of the opinion that the good he did by serving in the rabanut took precedence over other considerations. This proves nothing about his personal hashkafa towards Zionism.
Those are your words, not Rav Elyashiv. Everything you write is speculation.
Why not be honest and say that Charedi hashkafa is not 100% in consonance with Rav Elyashiv's sentiments?
You seem to have misunderstood.
Rabbi Slifikin used this story to make a point. I showed how the story doesn't prove that point. Where is the speculation?
This an out-of-context story from an ardent Zionist where we don't hear the other side, that is otherwise inconsistent with what we know about R' Elyashiv. "R Elyashiv didn’t say any of those things though in the story"- is a non-objection.
I'm reading this thread and I'm just puzzled by @David Ohsie's position. Don't you realize there is the (a) maisseh itself, the (b) chareidi reaction and (c) our pirush on what makes each gear turn?
Charedim are generally happy about the states success and victories (a), but due to its secularity (is that a word?), they can't grant it full kudos (b) so as not to give the treif state a hechsher and have people conflate yiddishkeit with the state (c).
Let's call this mechanism "purposeful stigma"; I believe "x" but respond "y" to as not to allow people to walk away with "z". I'm not implying this is done consciously, it's just how societies and ideas work - RNS asks all his questions at point blank range without factoring any of this in.
(And to answer RNS's question as to why Rav Elyashiv changed times over the years: as the world grows increasingly secular, the neejerk defense of frum people is to self-insulate, which includes not praising secular entities.)
See my other comment. R Elyashiv had his own unique positions and background. And modern Charedi Judaism censors out its past relationship with Zionism. So I would not draw conclusions from such general speculation about who different R Elyashiv's position is from the typical view (as least as professed publicly) today.
Didn't R. Elyashuv receive Smicha from R. Herzog?
Whether chareidi Judaism censors anything (of course, Zionists and secularists censor PLENTY, see here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/censorship-in-the-modern-orthodox and here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/a-shocking-omission-from-the-zionist), this story does not support that point. Nobody censored anything here, all we have is a story from the point of view of an ardent Zionist without the other side or any nuance or context.
How much each group censors is not relevant here. The point is that the censorship of past association to zionist figures indicates that there has been a shift in attitudes from zionism being another view to being a verboten view.
"but due to its secularity (is that a word?), they can't grant it full kudos"
What about "partial kudos"?
What does "full kudos" means? I mean, it's not like the most messianic/fervent dati leumi believe that the State has reached its full potential.
Or is any deficiency of the State, whether material or spiritual, sufficient cause to negate any celebration of יום ירושלים?
We're many kings of Judah without terrible sin?
They were, but things still started off with a bang and just went downhill after, as opposed to this where much progress needs to be made. Also there was still Sanhedrin running many aspects of the general society, and there was a Bais Hamikdash then, among many other differences. So yes, partial kudos is most appropriate.
Well, Rav Elyahiv was allowed to say such things. But we cannot.
Rav Medini was allowed to say such things. But you guys are not
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/a-shocking-omission-from-the-zionist
Rashi was allowed to say such things. But we cannot
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/a-very-very-problematic-rashi
What is that we know about R Elyashiv that is inconsistent with this story?
Well, we know he did not skip tachanun on any Zionist holidays, he didn't say Hallel on either 'yoms' and was not known to celebrate any of their 'mourning' days.
Where in the story does he say anything about that?
in·con·sist·ent
/ˌinkənˈsist(ə)nt/
adjective
not staying the same throughout.
"the quality of the material was often inconsistent"
acting at variance with one's own principles or former conduct.
"parents can become inconsistent and lacking in control over their children"
not compatible or in keeping with.
"he had done nothing inconsistent with his morality"
Does that help?
This is a completely different argument. You just don't trust a story from someone who you consider an ardent Zionist.
Can 2 more people like this to bring this to 30 likes lol I'm getting a kick our it if this:)
I’m not sure it’s completely accurate to say R. Elyashiv’s sentiment is shared by most mainstream Chareidim even today (or then, for that matter). I think R. Elyashiv had a particularly unique perspective that many others did not (could not) have.
I came into this conversation about 2 weeks late, and I don’t think very many people will even notice this comment, but it bears noting - and I’m actually more than a bit surprised none of the 200+ comments on this post seemed to bring this up:
about a year ago Mishpacha magazine had an article about R. Elyashiv (10th yahrzeit), and it noted that his Toddler daughter Rivkah had been killed by Jordanian shelling in 1948.
I think it entirely plausible that traumatic event strongly impacted him, and his view of and response to the events of 1967 were through that particular prism.
"This is what makes it so hard for the charedim to celebrate jubulantly."
It sounds like R' Elyashiv was pretty jubilant.
I think we all would be jubilant too if we just got saved. Not hard at all; actually, quite natural. It's different when you analyse it from a dry, removed, detached perspective. That was R' Elyashiv's whole point. Did I miss something here?
Also, are you sure R' Elyashiv didn't say Hallel on Yom Yerushalayim? I'm just asking. And if not (I assume not- it would make a big spectacle if he did), has he explained in his writings why not? I would like to know.
When I was in Israel I would always hear about Rav Shlomo Zalman quietly saying Hallel on Yom Yerushalayim. He said he would say it because he had a personal yeshua but that has nothing to do with the rest of klal yisrael, as we don't add yomim tovim unless they change for the whole klal yisrael, and he held this was not the case.
Thank you, I didn't know that about R' Shlomo Zalman. That'd be exactly what I was thinking about with R' Elyashiv! The way it was described, I thought it sounded like there was a personal 'neis' for the people who were there, and that nobody else living many miles away could fully relate to it. It would be like any community who experienced a 'yeshuah' from Hashem, and commemorate it.
Notice how he didn't tell him to join, he just pointed out to him that he did not go through the pain and subsequently, the happiness, of the residents who experienced it.
In short, it sounds like "Hallel for me, but not for thee" :)
Yup, agreed.
It is also well known that Ponevizh flies a flag on Yom Haatzmaut, following what Rav Kahanaman instituted. I heard from Rabbi Berel Wien who asked him about it, and he said he did the same with a Lithuanian flag in Lita. Then he added: און דא איז ניט ערגר" - "Its not worse here."
Rav Elyashiv expressed deep intense emotion. He clearly had a very meaningful connection to the Kosel (he was known to go at least once a month - this from a man who didn't waste a second) and also recognized the great miracle of God saving the yishuv in the 6 day war.
Maybe I should have been more clear but what I meant by "celebrate jubulantly" was in the way the dati leumi celebrate - with a formal, official day of celebration and festivities, with special prayers, flag parades, day off from yeshiva etc. etc.
It doesn't sound like it bothered him. On the contrary, it seems like he quite well understood it. Wouldn't you agree?
What you mean to say, is that the Charedim who were not present in Yerushalayim at the time, including the ones today, have a hard time celebrating it. But R' Elyashiv explained that too; and in fact, I it was his whole point.
P.S.- Thanks to you, I am now fully absorbing the impact of R' Elyashiv's words.
Let me share with you that a relative of mine who is considered "very Charedi" was seen in an old photograph celebrating Yom Haatzma'ut in his backyard in Yerushalayim, by sitting for lunch at a set picnic table adorned with two Israeli flags on it. It was surprising. He responded: "Back then, everyone celebrated, it did not matter [what your background was]."
No one prevents the ultra-Orthodox from deciding for themselves how they thank G-d for the miracles of Independence Day, the Suez War and the Six Days. No one forces them to give thanks like the State of Israel and the national religious people. But: let them thank G-d! Not only that they decided not to thank God in their way but continued to make sure to say a Tahanun that day.
So you draw the line at Tachanun. That is too much. Why can't they thank Hashem as well as saying Tachanun?
משנה תורה לרמב"ם, ספר אהבה, הלכות תפילה וברכת כהנים, פרק ה', הלכה ט"ו: "מנהג פשוט בכל ישראל שאין נפילת אפים בשבתות ובמועדים ולא בראש השנה ולא בראשי חדשים ובחנוכה ובפורים ולא במנחה של ערבי שבתות וימים טובים ולא בערבית שבכל יום ויש יחידים שנופלים על פניהם בערבית וביוה"כ בלבד נופלים על פניהם בכל תפלה ותפלה מפני שהוא יום תחנה ובקשה ותענית"
It is an accepted custom among the entire Jewish people not to utter the supplication on Sabbaths or festivals. Nor [does one utter it] on Rosh Hashanah, Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah or Purim or in Minchah on the eve of Sabbaths or holidays, nor in the Evening Prayer of any day. There are [however,] individuals who do utter the supplication in the Evening Prayer.
On Yom Kippur only, one utters the supplication prayer in every prayer, since it is a day of supplication, requests, and fasting
(Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Ahavah, Tefilah and Birkat Kohanim: prayer and the priestly blessing Chap. 5 Halahah 15
So which one of that list includes Yom Yerushalayim? I didn't see a mention there.
"In the answers of the Geonim, it is explained that the prayer of Tachanun is optional and it is possible to refrain from saying it. Similarly, the days on which Tachanun is not said are a customary practice. Therefore, it is necessary to find the common denominator for all the days on which Tachanun is not said. Rambam brings the principle at the end of his halacha: Tachanun is said on days of distress, and therefore also on Yom Kippur. Therefore, they also learned the opposite, that on days of joy or in a joyous setting, Tachanun is not said. According to this common denominator, they established that on every day of community salvation, called Purim of..., Tachanun is not said. This is how all the communities of Israel have practiced since time immemorial."
When the Kehilla institutes a Yomtov, it is different. A government Rabbanut does not have that right, and we don't have Kehillos nowadays to make these Yamim Tovim.
Nothing to do with 'time immemorial'.
Now that's a litvak I like!
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/a-shocking-omission-from-the-zionist
1. This was a nearly half-century old recollection, from a man then in his mid to high 70s, and a particularly ideological man, at that. As much as I admired R. Gold, this hearsay memory is almost certainly inaccurate or incomplete. (Assuming, of course, that you yourself are reporting it accurately.)
2. People's positions are never as simplistic as their opponents try to characterize them. R. Elyashiv in particular, who everyone knows was a paid employee of the Israeli govt, certainly would have had mixed feelings about the state of Israel, as indeed, any thinking person must have.
What makes you think he didn’t write it down shortly after it happened and could verify his memories?
"this hearsay memory is almost certainly inaccurate or incomplete. "
Why?
" People's positions are never as simplistic as their opponents try to characterize them."
But they are as simplistic as their adherents try to characterize them?
Rav Elyashiv was a unique individual, and so were all (most?) Gedolim. Charedi hagiography would have none of that, and consequently any connection to Zionism, no matter whether minor or major, is covered up. Because nuance (i.e. pesky objective reality) is the enemy of ideological purity.
But if you reject oversimplifying positions, and accept complexity, what's wrong with Rabbi Gold's narrative?
Adherents do not "characterize" the opinions of their leaders. They know them well, and want to understand them fully, in all the angles. Opponents, on the other hand, are interested only in charicaturing and misrepresenting., gross simplifications they can feed to their base.
Sorry, my spell checker failed me. I didn't mean "adherent", I meant "true Scotsman".
No. Adherents often distort history; they revise history to make their leader closer to their own world view.
You need not look further than many Artscroll biographies, or see Lawrence Kaplan's "Revisionism and the Rav". The dispute over the legacy of Rav Kook, is a controversy that involves many his adherents.
Some positions in these disputes do recognize the complexity, but many resort to oversimplifying.
I think I can guess your age, Ephraim. Complainting about Artscroll "hagiographies" is so 1990s. It had a good run, but its sun has set. The questions about the right approach to biography have bedeviled writers since Plutarch. Boswell himself recorded different viewpoints on whether or not to include information that puts the subject in a bad light. It gets to the very question of what biography is - a source of inspiration, or a collection of facts and records?
Anyway, while I see why you mentioned it, it has really nothing to do with my point. Adherents strive to understand what their mentors say and think, and do not cavalierly misrepresent it. Opponents do not. Thus, to close the loop here, you would never get a proper statements of RE view's here (or any Charedi), even if the blog host was capable of it.
"is so 1990s."
Saying "is so 1990s" is so 2010s. But insisting truth, is not only "retro" and cool again- it's also an eternal value.
" it has really nothing to do with my point. Adherents..."
No. Your point was about adherents and opponents. You insisted that adherents, unlike opponents, do not engage in revisionism. Now, you justify revisionism by citing some authorities, and you qualify your defense of the hagiographers with " do not cavalierly misrepresent it." i.e. that it's okay to misrepresent, so long as it's not done "cavalierly".
"Opponents do not."
Honest one do. (That's why many Zionists know Satmar ideology better than the Chassidim.)
Garvin appears to have conceded the point when he stopped defending his assertion and started in about whether a practice from the 1990's can still be questioned in 2023.
Truth is cool again?? You must be living on a different planet from the rest of us.
I said nothing about "revisionism", that's an MO totem like "hagiography". I said adherents to a particular teacher or Rebbi have an interest in fully understanding that teacher's thinking, from all its angles. Opponents, by contrast, are interested only in scoffing and deriding, not in fully understanding. This is the way the world works.
And you're hopelessly deluding yourself if you think "many Zionists know satmar ideology better than the chassidim." Do you actually know real Chassidim, or you just know them from blogs. And who are these "many Zionists" you speak of, with this deep knowledge of Satmar hashkafa? Members of the ZOA? Amit? Where are they all hiding?
You didn't address Ephraim's point. When a Charedi biography of a Rav excises the fact that they were followers of an RZ poseik like Rav Kook, how is that striving to understand?
DOZ, you (and Ephraim) are speaking about biographies. I'm not, and I never mentioned them. I was speaking about adherents and mentors. A students wants to understand his rebbi properly. The opponent wants no more than to cherry pick a phrase or two that he can use to mock. Thus, eg, while OF COURSE they each claim to understand the other, you dont study conservative philosophy by listening to Bernie Sanders speeches, and you dont brush up on socialism by reading Barry Goldwater.
Since you keep mentioning biography, I will do more than let one of my favorite authors, Boswell, speak for himself. As you can see, its an old issue, and even Johnson himself held "conflicting" (that is, nuanced) opinions on the subject:
"Talking of biography, I said, in writing a life, a man's peculiarities should be mentioned, because they mark his character. JOHNSON. 'Sir, there is no doubt as to peculiarities: the question is, whether a man's vices should be mentioned; for instance, whether it should be mentioned that Addison and Parnell drank too freely. For people will probably more easily indulge in drinking from knowing this; so that more ill may be done by the example, than good by telling the whole truth.'
Here was an instance of his varying from himself in talk; for when Lord Hailes and he sat one morning calmly conversing in my house at Edinburgh, I well remember that Dr. Johnson maintained, that 'If a man is to write A Panegyrick, he may keep vices out of sight; but if he professes to write A Life, he must represent it really as it was:' and when I objected to the danger of telling that Parnell drank to excess, he said, that 'it would produce an instructive caution to avoid drinking, when it was seen, that even the learning and genius of Parnell could be debased by it.' And in the Hebrides [Scotland -G.] he maintained, as appears from my Journal, that a man's intimate friend should mention his faults, if he writes his life. "
Why do Charedi publishing houses only publish hagiographies of their leaders then? That is not consistent with wanting to understand them fully. And the notion that people, as a rule, don't want to understand their "opponents" or that anyone that they disagree with is an opponent is odd. There is a hard to explain tic of today's charedi orthodoxy that no orthodox authority from a different camp is even recognized to exist, but that is an oddity of time and place.
I am not sure what you are trying to say, Rav Elyashiv was always known to be more accepting of the fact that we have a state, only had a more right wing view of how to deal with the irreligious.
Not saying otherwise. Opinions on important subjects cannot be reduced to bumper stickers or isolated anecdotes.
"Opinions "
What opinions? I think you're reading too much into this post.
Oh. for sure.
I'm with Rav Elyashiv, as usual.
Marc Shapiro often points out that the idea of a gadol hador is a misnomer. The chareidi world chooses a "gadol" that matched their hashkafic expectations. If a torah scholar veers from the hashkafic norm, he just won't be accepted. Who decides what the accepted halachic norm is, is not clear. But these norms choose thr gadol and not the gadol deciding on the norm ie Das torah.
Marc Shapiro often emits absolute nonsense.
In this case he is correct. The 'bnei torah and company" chose who is and who is not an approved rabbi/goddol based on their own opinions. Which is why whenver you find a broader minded rov, perhaps a bit more pro proper secular education,.zionism, maybe too many kulos, criticising the establishment (for example the nepotism, attitude towards protection of abusers), critices gezel and mateh akum, and similar, you get the look and feel from body language or even verbally 'he's not from our beis hamedrash', a bissle modernisch etc etc.
Too many vague terms in your request so it is a fool's game. For example, what precisely do you mean by "bnei torah and company"
Go and play your games with somebody else. Bye.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/a-golden-treasure/comment/40783967
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/a-golden-treasure/comment/40758112
R Elyashiv himself had to separate from the Rabbinate before he was accepted fully accepted into Charedi society. Resigning didn't bring him more Torah knowledge, but it did match the then-current Hashkafah. He then turned around and changed the norm so being a Dayan in the Rabbinate was now OK.
What a warped statement!
The Rabbinate was in a state of flux at the time, as the CR position was granted to the one that would permit issurim. If Rav Elyashiv would not have resigned, he would have supported the evil that the Chief Rabbinate was about to become.
The Chief Rabbinate changed, not him.
He was a Dayan in the Rabbinate when Charedism did not allow for it and this disqualified him at the time from Charedi leadership. He resigned over a controversial ruling of R Goren. Then he became a Charedi leader. What part of that is warped?
You decided that we don't care about a Talmid Chacham, merely about a hashkafic litmus test.
Therefore, as a Dayan on the Rabbinate, Rav Elyashiv was automatically disqualified from Charedi leadership, even though he was a world-class Talmid Chacham.
You then use that as proof that we don't really care about a Talmid Chacham, merely about a hashkafic litmus test.
Known as circular logic, as warped as warped gets. All the way around.
"You decided that we don't care about a Talmid Chacham, merely about a hashkafic litmus test." No I didn't say that. In addition to erudition, there is also a "hashkafic" alignment required. It's not like anyone disputes that. No Zionist or Chassidic or Sephardi Talmud Chacham is going to become a Charedi Gadol. With R Elyashiv, at the time, being a Dayan in the Rabbanut was a disqualifier. Resigning made him eligible.
It's all fine in theory.
Let's talk practically. Find me one world-class Talmid Chacham, with whom we can discuss most of Shas be'iyun, who is a Talmid of Gedolim of previous generations, has the leadership qualities, Yir'as Shamayim, and was willing to lead the generation, but was excluded due to any Hashkafic litmus test.
He doesn't exist, because the theory is bunkum.
I know how various names will be brought up, but go through the list above and check off every box for him. You will see it is impossible.
Saul Lieberman?
Moshe Shternbuch?
Lubavitcher Rebbe?
Sridei Aish?
RJBS?
Aharon Lichtenstein?
Shmuel Auerbach?
Herschel Schachter?
Asher Weiss?
Yitzchak Herzog?
Ovadia Yosef?
Shlomo Goren?
Shlomo Polachek?
Chaim Zimmerman?
Marc Shapiro is claiming that the public decides. In most of the people you mention it was because big people WHO WERE ALREADY LEADING GEDOLIM distanced from them, or came on the scene with different opinions AFTER the first opinion was already accepted. Don't know why you think people should change everything every ten years.
Saul Leiberman was ousted by Rav Moshe Feinstien and others for his involvement in JTS, Rav Ruderman told his students to stay away from him as well.
Not sure what you mean by Rav Moshe sterbuch, he's fully accepted, maybe just a bit out of the box in psak.
Lubavicher Rebbe - Rav Shach did him in completely.
Sridei Aish was not involved in the mainstream Chareidi leadership to begin with.
R JB Soloveichick, that was Rav A Kotlers doing
Rav Aron lichtenstein publicly argued on most chareidi positions. What do you want? Everyone to just slam the door on Rav Shach and just follow R lichtenstien?
Rav Shmuel Aurbach was accepted but Rav Shteiman was running the show before him, sorry.
Rav Sachter is a talmid of someone not fully accepted, what do you expect?
Rav Asher wiess not accepted??
Rav Herzog was running israel at the time, and only anti zionists don't like him, again, because their Rebbi's shita came first.
Rav Ovadia was accepted till Rav Shach took a swipe at him, and even then, not so much. If for his being Cheif Rabbi, again, thats because of people following previous opinions.
Shlomo Goren? Every leading Gadol opposed him besides for Rav Tzvi Yehuda. And I read his sefarim... c'mon. (Walking into the dome of the rock with that ridiculous קל וחומר from יריחו didn't make him look any better.)
Don't know about this Polachek person.
Rabbi Zimmerman also aligned with different positions than the already followed postions.
Exactly. Every single name you can come up with some chiluk. That's exactly the point.
"Rabbi Zimmerman also aligned with different positions than the already followed postions"
I am not entirely sure what that means, but surely the mark of a true 'godol', a leader, is to challenge and change things when necessary? Since when is every leader meant to be a carbon copy of the other? What sort of leadership us that? That is exactly the point. Toe the party line or you will not be a 'godol'. What a joke!
Everything you wrote is true. (For quibbler, at least 90% true). But none of it justifies ZD's claim.
Just curious why you think Saul Lieberman belongs in this list. He was a massive talmid chacham but his yiraas shamayim was questioned by really big people. Even if he was kasher, he wasn't in the caliber of yiraas shamayim as his peers as even he would gladly admit
Which of those wished to lead the nation, offered ideas for everyone, and was rejected?
RJBS positioned himself against the previous generation of Gedolei Yisroel, and was rejected then, when the position was not open. When they passed away, it was too late. Which is true for his son in law after him.
Rabbis Zimmerman, Polachek, Weinberg, Schechter, Weiss and Lieberman had/have no desire at all to offer opinions for the public.
Goren was an am haaretz, and had no leadership qualities besides a burning desire for power and attention.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe was not a Talmid of any Gedolim of previous generations.
Rabbi Yosef was a Gadol by most standards, his opinion counted all over the place.
Reb Shmuel Auerbach was one opinion, there is no rule that other Gedolim must follow him. But if there were, he would be in the wrong. So either way, he proves nothing.
Bekitzur, none check off the list I wrote. And Rav Shteinman did.
In other words, they failed the "Hashkafic litmus test."
Rav Shimshon Refoel Hirsch possibly?
Anyway your statement is ridiculous because who decides who is a world-class talmid chochom? Who paskens on 'yiras shemoyim'. Yeshivaland Inc will just decide that anybody with shittos they don't like does not have enough yiras shomayoim and passel him. You have sort of prooved the point. After all, anybody who supported maybe yishuv eretz yisroel back in Europe clearly did not have enough yiras shamayim, right?
Too many vague terms in your request so it is a fool's game. For example, what precisely do you mean by 'passel'?
Go and play your games with somebody else. Bye.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/a-golden-treasure/comment/40783967
So no cigar.
Do you have a name? A single one? Or do you prefer to imagine what I would do if you produced an actual name?
Oh the hypocrisy Mr Zichron Devorim.....
what the heck? RSRH was in no way rejected
Rav Kook was a world class TC with tremendous yiraas shamayim and was received as that. He was 'rejected' because of his shitos which other gedolim felt were incorrect
Rav Moshe Shapiro is on record for saying RSRH is not from our beis hamidrash, and many in yeshivaland claim his shittos were a 'horo'os sho'oh'. Names escape ke and I can't be bothered to look it up.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/a-golden-treasure/comment/40758112
Forget secular studies - can you imagine UTJ picking Reb Moshe Sternbuch shlit"a as THE gadol hador?
QED
Actually, even though for an outsider it seems like we make it up as we go, any insider knows why certain people are gedolim. They are simply the absolutely best Jews who follow God as best as a human possibly can and care about nothing but God's will and law, and the rest of us are busy with our miserable bodily desires and wish more than anything else that we were more like them
That is true, but insufficient. Someone else could, theoretically, be a greater scholar and a greater Tzadik than the Gadol Hador. Leadership qualities, great intelligence, and a clear Hashkafa, are not pre-requisites for a Tzadik or Talmid Chacham. But a Gadol Hador must have them. But these are only after they are known to be self-negating world-class Talmidei Chachamim.
I mostly agree but by the same time those who are really up there usually understand people and logic and epic reasoning really, really well. To be an emese talmid chacham one needs extreme clear thinking which is usually the main quality of. Sometime who really understand nuance and wisdom and people are usually those who know how to understand Hashem and His Torah... of course we have those who can't and they either hurt people or aren't accepted but for the most part klal yisroel knows who to turn to for which matters.
I'm sorry, I don't understand half of what you just said. Did I pull of the "looks are deceiving"?
All I said was that our gedolim are the people who spend their lives being the best Jews possible. They follow God to a "t" as best as a human could. We, who are striving every day to be that good, look up to them for advice, because we understand that they "have it right". those who don't understand the subculture don't see what we see in these people and as sad outsiders they look on bewildered, not understanding what we see in these people.
There's no lie, no "noble lie" either. Only the truth. What you responded has nothing to do with the discussion at hand
So you think 'Head of the Moetzes' is an absolute title.
Interestingly enough, Reb Dov Landau isn't even a Moetzes member. Yet he is calling the shots. I wonder why. In the US, Moetzes member is almost a pejorative, it certainly does not add prestige or power to a member. Reb Zelig Epstein was no less powerful than Reb Aaron Schechter.
You are viewing our society with your lenses.
I can't talk for a specific moetzes, but all the names on the 'gedolim' cards, for example pick those who are malachei Elyon in olam hazeh. If you don't get that your an outsider
"No true chareidi"
Hey, are you related to Ari?
My brother.
He's an old pal of mine, from before he made aliyah. I would send regards, but of course, my real name isnt Garvin. (It's Marvin.)
Does anyone know what R' Elyashiv's opinion is on why we wouldn't say Hallel on Yom Yerushalayim? But more importantly, I would like to know where to find his decision on the matter in writing.
Rav Elyashiv was also proficient in the works of Rav Kook (though I'm sure he didn't agree with everything). But he was willing to keep his sefer on his desk for all to see.
https://jewishaction.com/jewish-world/people/rav-kook-rav-elyashiv/
This all being said, there is a valid distinction between being happy that Yerushalayim being back in Jewish hands and celebrating it together with Zionists (secular or religious).
I once met Reb Shalom in 1969 at the house of his close friend from Ner Israel, Rav Yisroel Ber Caplan, a totally Chareidi rosh kollel in Jerusalem. I got the impression he was a man who had one foot in the Chareidi Yeshiva world and the other foot in the Religious Zionist/Modern Orthodox world. I don't think that he actually integrated them together in his life.
"I don't think that he actually integrated them together in his life."
In other words, he was normal.
End of an era.
"I never really figured out what he wanted. Should we bring the British back and renew the Mandate? Close Eretz Yisrael to all the world's Jews? Did he want us to hand the Kosel over to Jordan or the Vatican? He was vague (or confused?)."
"You were in America for the nineteen years that we were here unable to pray at the Kosel. You obviously don't appreciate or understand the depth of our feeling for Yerushalayim and the pain of being separated from her."
"It is inconceivable for such a story to be reported in the charedi press in at least the last twenty years, or for them to claim that Yom Yerushalayim is a “Great Day.”"
It's not terribly complicated. The 19 years *started* when the state was founded. Yes, we're deeply grateful that the Israeli military recaptured the kosel in 1967. We just wish it had never been lost in 1948. 'Hakotel be'yadenu' was very thrilling in the immediate aftermath, but as the 2 events recede, it's largely a wash between pre-1948 to post-1967. <Cue the meraglim accusations.>
=======
This fruit-stand theology is so annoying. https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/pure-gold/comment/18294191
Why don't you just come out and say ארץ אוכלת יושביה היא, huh?
"Rav Gold was molded in Torah VoDaas, Chevron, Ponovezh and suchlike" I thought Chevron is an oil company. What's wrong with "Hevron"? The word starts with a ח, not a כ.
As my mom (and prob your mom) says - If you have nothing smart to say, dont say nothing at all...
I repeat. Why shouldn't "Hevron" be the proper transliteration of "חברון"? "Chevron" is an oil company. Try googling "Chevron" and see if you get an oil company or a city in Israel.
Whether you like it or not, Artscroll is the פוסק אחרון on how to spell Hebrew words in English.
Not everywhere, I'm sorry to say. Artscroll, as they often wrote, would use sefardic consonants with ashkenaz vowels. Hence "Halacha". But I frequently see, in the blacker parts of the yeshivah world, doubling down on the ashkenaz. Hence "Halocho". I'd prefer the Artscroll approach, but waddaya gonna do.
The Politics of Transliteration. You want to see some deep rooted philosophical differences, that's where the action is.
RNS, I appreciate the use of normal spelling.
Because it's not spelled Hevron, it's spelled Ḥevron. If you're going to be obsessive, you'd better know the typographical arts.
Popping a dot under the H of Hevron is done only in academic speciality journals. People who usually read only the lay press think the dot is a speck of dust on their screen.
As far as i understand, this is because when Americans write H as in Hannukah/Hareidi, Brits write Ch as in Chanukah/Charedi....
Only stuffy pedantic academic journals would use "H" or "Kh" for Chevron
Actually, academic journals would only use the Ḥ (with a dot under it) for חברון. The KH is reserved for the כ.
Ashkenazi American Yeshivah boys are unaware that most other subsets of Jews differentiate in pronunciation between ח and כ.
As an Ashkenazi American Yeshiva graduate I can tell you are clearly not one, since everyone in any yeshiva I went to knew that, especially when talking about krias Shema. But I get it, you don't like Yeshiva boys to the point you assert that all of them are unaware, you won't even use the word "most".
IDK which American Yeshiva you went to, but those who either learned Mishna Berura, grew up in Flatbush surrounded by Sefardim, or learned in Brisk, know that these sub-sets exist.
You may have misunderstood me, but that's exactly what I said.
Did you mean to respond to JT?
Chaf and ches make the same sound, and Jews who aren't from Central Europe are Sefardi, and they are all the same. There. I said it.
Weaver, when u make a point on website, I suggest u do so in the most direct, not facetious, language. Further, when u rhetorically speak in a voice other than your own, please indicate that. Do not force readers to "interpret" your statements.
Not only "tone." When u speak facetiously live, u have facial expressions and winks to guide the listener. All of that is impossible in a 1-sentence printed line.
2nd, more importantly, do not ever admit to being "sarcastic." That word essentially means "nasty." Rather, say "I was speaking facetiously." As an OTD, I assure u that out here in the oylem emes, yeshivish-style "wit" and sarcasm r always yatza s'charo b'heftzedo! U may think u win on 1-upmanship, but u lose more by creating an enemy. Solution: use victimless wit, or make yourself the victim of the wisecrack.
Pronunciation is irrelevant. ת and ט have been pronounced the same for millenia. The issue is spelling.
Aware and don't care
K with a dot under it is my favorite
And Yeshivas Suchlike should have been Suhlite
Like it or not, most of the frum community uses 'ch' for ח. I don't think there's a right or wrong here. How about Khevron?
This is a beautiful story! Thank you for sharing!