BDE. R. Gold was a tremendous force for Jewry. He founded the Bnai Torah shul in Toronto, which today has fallen on hard times but was THE most vibrant shul in the city throughout the entire 1980s. A great man.
I once heard him ask: In Numbers 13:27 the Spies said about the land of Israel וְגַם זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ הִוא וְזֶה פִּרְיָהּ. R. Gold explained that they used the word וגם in the sense of, "just like Egypt". (In 16:13 it says הַמְעַט כִּי הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר) It was a deliberate attempt to insult the land by comparing it to Egypt. (R. Gold noted similarly that some people try to trivialize the word "Holocaust" by applying it to all sorts of events of lesser magnitude.) This is why Joshua and Caleb pointedly responded in 14:8 אֶרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הִוא זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ, ISRAEL was the blessed land (היא), not anywhere else. He further observed that this is why the Torah reading sometimes ends, in the middle of a narrative, when the phrase זבת חלב ודבש is used, to make one focus and reflect upon it.
Re the letter - if he asked you to publicize it, then you were right to post it. And what the man said, as quoted by R. Gold z"l, assuming accurate, was ugly. Its ugly when you bash Charedim, and its ugly when Charedim bash Mizrachim. All of it is ugly, ugly, ugly. I don't think I ever heard R. Gold say bad about other people, he focused only on the good. In the three week period, could there not be a better time for us to learn from his example?
R. Gold ztz"l was openly critical of satmar and anti-zionist charedim. Listen to his lecture on the very topic of this letter and you will hear how harsh he was and rightly so.
One can be critical of a person or movement, it its used as a means to draw a contrast. One's focus, in speeches or writings, should be on PROMOTING something one believes in. As part of that speech or article one might cite a foil and criticize it, to use as a means of illustrating differences. But it should be sandwiched between positives:
* Our approach is the way to go b/c of X.
* (We don't subscribe to the other guy's approach, which believes in Y, bc of Z.)
* And that is why our model of X is the way to go.
What bothers you and the other Chareidi commentators on this blog is that Rabbi Gold advocates a DL philosophy while he has Chareidi credentials,Smicha, Ponevitch, etc..Also the letter cited Rav Pam and Rav Dessler,. Chareidi stars. This stands in contradiction to the Chareidi narrative expressed at this blog that DL are all Reform,irresponsible poskei halacha and terribly responsible for the corruption of Jewish religious youth. This followed by epithets such as apikores,choteh omachte etc., as stated in this blog.
"taking advantage of a man's death to do so, is not virtuous."
The letter was 100% Gold. Quintessential. Those who are familiar with Rabbi Gold's shiurim, know that the letter is representative of his views.
And I don't think that you, who hangs around the blog of someone who consistently maligns great rabbonim from all streams of the Torah world without uttering a peep of protest, has any standing to protest the faithful quotation of one of Rav Gold's most famous articles.
I can see how one feels that way, especially given this blog's track record. In this case though, it seems appropriate, a timely opportunity to publicize something the מנוח asked to publicize.
I know nothing about the departed; I'm sure he was a wonderful man despite this inane piece of literature. But it is no kavod to his memory to put this up as a monument to him.
Hamodia writes a typical chareidi anti-Zionist statement and he responds with 15 paragraphs of classic Zionist rhetoric. Why not just chop it down to one line: "I, Shalom Gold, personally align with the Zionist position on this matter"...
What's weird and arrogant and narrow minded about the whole thing is the assumption that regurgitating a volley hackneyed Zionist talking points that everybody knows already and those who disagree with disagree with, serves as some kind of tayna on Hamodia for ascribing to an alternative point of view. Typical Modox myopia, if you don't mind my saying so.
It's not a tayna on Hamodia, he was making a מחאה against what he (and many others) saw as a repugnant attitude. When a Rabbi isnt moche, we say שמע מינה דניחא ליה and he is held accountable. And why he should he be limited to a single line? If that were the standard, most of the קובץ מאמרים of RE Wasserman would be worthless, along with all the Satmar Rebbe's works, and about 80% of RSR Hirsch's writings. For they could have sufficed with a single line, whether against Zionism or Reform or anything else, to write simply that they didn't ascribe to it.
This goes too far. There's nothing wrong with writing passionately and at length about meaningful topics (tho granted it might cost you readers.) And occasionally one might criticize others too, that's part of it. But bashing others should never be seen as the focus. It shouldn't be overly frequent, and when it happens, it should be sandwiched between a more positive POV the writer or speaker subscribes to. The טפל and not the עיקר. More אהבה, less שנאה. The stronger right hand is מקרבת, only the weak left is דוחה.
Anyways, my point was that this is rehashed talking points that have been debated for well over a hundred years. He may have articulated one side very beautifully, and it may be an excellent article to educate or inspire the base in a Zionist journal. But he didn't present it as such; he quite explicitly presented it as if he was responding to the other side and calling them out on their statement - or better yet "examining it in a dispassionate manner".
Which is inane. They didn't say his opinion because they have a different view of these matters, a view which he neither acknowledged nor addressed. Their statement was actually a fairly basic sentiment of a worldview that has been articulated and argued for generations. He may find it repugnant, but instead of actually recognizing its existence, dealing with it (which at this point would be an exercise in redundancy) he chose to simply put the words "a statement of authentic Torah-true hashkafah" in sneer quotes and go on to intone the classic Zionist observations, which we all know already and those who disagree with disagree with because they consider other considerations more relevant.
So the entire piece of flowery verbiage amounts to a statement of how dare you chareidim hold on to your anti Zionist viewpoints, when I, Rabbi Gold, agree with the pro Zionists on this matter.
In my experience most ( i.e. average Joe ) chareidim don't know the basic zionist or modox talking points.
For those uneducated masses who've never made a decision because they never recognized a choice rabbi gold can have a real impact - even with basic talking points-.
(I think this is true for run of the mill followers of many movements; there is a minority of relatively educated who know the opposing talking points on a basic level , and then there is a smaller minority who know them on a deeper or even complete level).
The same same logic as found in the previous comment can be applied to the repetitious sometimes long anti-R. Slifkin/anti Rationalist/anti-DL/anti Modern Orthodoxy/anti-Medina & IDF/ anti-etc etc pro Chareidi comments.
Again, applying the logic of the previous comment, this is a blog started by Rabbi Sifkin whose purpose is, I imagine, to discuss the various aspects and applications of a Rational Hashkafa and comparing it to the other hashkafa. As mentioned in the previous comment, any opposition should not be repeated over & over. One sentence would suffice.
My comment is to show that we sometimes do the very thing we accuse the other side of doing. And at times. we do it with righteous indignation.
To protest something requires more than just the bare words, "I protest!" You have to articulate a position, and that's just what R. Gold did. If boiled down to its core, as you suggest, every debate on anything can be reduced to "How dare you hold X, when I hold Y."
(I appreciate the love, brother, and send it right back at you.)
Slifkin can't even honor the passing away of a rabbi without attacking the charedim. What charedim mean is that spiritually to be in a secular Jewish state is more painful then in Russia, Germany etc., not that they had more fruits and vegetables in Poland.
I once said that every rabbi is zocheh to one good line in his career. Mine is, "If you want to speak to G-d, go to the Kotel, but if you want to see Him, go to Shuk Machaneh Yehudah."
Today we pray at the makom kadosh but we see Hashem so clearly from His magnificent bounty, especially food. Did you ever open a Tehilim? Did you ever learn Chovos Halivavos? Walking through the marketplace is a way of seeing Hashem.
R Slifkin didn't write those lines. R Gold did. Quoting someone is Kavod to them. He is saying that whatever you think about the plastic tax or reducing the child allowance pales in comparison with the physical destruction by the Germans and the spiritual destruction by the Soviets. We read twice a day in Shema that we will be rewarded by product of the Land of Israel. He is taking that seriously. Also, as he points out, in his youth, food was not in such abundance. We are taking that for granted.
R' Slifkin, unrelated to the arguing in the comments. I think the picture of you with Rabbi Gold should be removed form this article. Of course you should keep it as a memento, but since he didn't make it, I just think in hind site its just in bad taste to post it here. Best wishes.
In my experience and interactions with him, Rav G. was a pleasant person, as were his sons. (Last I heard, my dear R' Menachem was devotedly providing spiritual uplift for our brothers in Afula. May he and the entire family have a Nechama.) My father was friends with Rav G. from the olden days. Fortunately, we never discussed politics, so we had a nice 'Chutz la'aretz' relationship in which you don't wear your religion on your sleeve, and find nice things in common.
Rav G. might have had Chareidi credentials in his youth, but Chareidim fail to keep all their youth, and Rav G. is one of those. Chareidim (and probably anyone) also invite outsiders to their educational institutions for the prospect that they might make them into insiders. Not everyone who passed through a Chareidi (or any) institution remains a card holder.
Rav G. quotes what Rav Dessler said in the early days of the state, (as he only lived for about five years after it was founded). It is to be speculated if this was before he sent his students at Ponovizh to rescue immigrant children facing Akiras Hadas in the Machanot Klita, at which point he was confronted with a darker aspect of the state. Quotes from Chareidi authorities need to be dated. As one would be hard pressed to find a Chareidi authority today to say such a thing at all, or at least without quantification, or not in the interest of expressing that the cup is half (or whatever fraction) full as beneficial under the circumstances.
I would be interested also to know the date of Rav Pam's statement. We had Rabbonim whose sympathies with (religious) zionism held strong until the episode of Rabbi Rubenstein and the Vilna Rabbonus, when they walked out on it. We had Rabbonim whose sympathies with (secular) zionism held strong until the zionist congress (in Basel, I believe) voted that the proposed state would have no religious character. Those Rabbonim walked out on the congress and founded the Mizrachi movement. We had some prominent, devoted students of Rav Soloveitchik who outed on him when he did not participate in the prohibition against joining Heterodox 'Judaisms'. And in the other direction, Rav Soloveitchik himself had once been a part of Agudah and left it for Mizrachi.
Rav Pam, as was his Rebi Rav Mendelowitz, was soft towards zionism. This is the Torah Vodaas approach, also exemplified by Rav Belsky joining the OU. Certainly the Modia's sentiments, which they explicitly attribute to one rav, also fall within the umbrella of Chareidi thought, while Rav Pam's is quite absent in Modia's Israel.
The post omits a crucial bit of context, and SHAUL SHAPIRA's comment bringing it into the conversation is therefore the TOP COMMENT of all so-far over 200 of them. That the Modia comment was prompted by the Lapid government consideration to jail Yeshivah students who refused to serve in the army. We're being told that Rav G. often gave a shout-out for the state. We're curious how often he gave one for Yeshivah students not serving in the army, and if he did so during Lapid's threats.
WADR to the revered Rav Pam, firstly I'm curious to see his statement about Medinas Yisroel in context. Rav Pam happens to repudiate, as his Rebi Rav Mendelowitz did before him, the Mizrachi formulation Eretz Yisrael L'am Yisrael al pi Toras Yisrael. They found that lopsided. Rather it should be Toras Yisrael L'am Yisrael B'eretz Yisrael. (This happens to a by-line of the Shuvu educational network that he founded.) I trust the reader to understand the subtlety distinguishing the two (maybe I shouldn't!), and see how a simple turn of a phrase can make all that difference.
Anyway, however one wants to extrapolate from Rav Pam regarding the Modia statement, another Chareidi leader, Rav Avraham Kalmanowitz (d. 1965?) opined on the VERY ISSUE, as reported by an eyewitness in בוצינא קדישא pages 138-139.
A few prominent Hungarian Rabunim, accompanied by the Litvack R Kalmanowitz, visited Israel consul Shlomo Argov in New York during the 'Yoselleh' episode. Argov was prepared for the visit and had a thick pile of papers (evidence for what he wanted to say) on the table, including newspaper clippings in which various parts were underlined in red ink.
The Voidislav Rav spoke on behalf of the visitors and as soon as he finished, Argov started complaining how the state is maligned in the Chareidi press. He pulled out an article from Der Yid (Satmar) and read from it that the state harrasses religion and the religious, and that the state conducts itself LIKE COMMUNIST RUSSIA.
Before anyone else had a chance to say anything, R Kalmanowitz, the 'outsider' among the Hungarians, said he would like to respond. He said that his name is Avraham Kalmanowitz and would like to introduce himself and what he did in his life, so the consul should know with whom he is talking. He told Argov, you can confirm with the heads of the state of Israel and of the various zionist organizations, and they'll tell you about my past activities—my efforts in Washington, in the state department, in the pentagon, and my influence there during the first years of the state of Israel; and about my intense Hatzalah efforts during WWII; and how during the war of Israeli independence I put in great effort to assist and protect our Jewish brothers in the holy land.
R Kalmanowitz continued, I say to you regarding the statement in Der Yid EQUATING the state of Israel with communist Russia—listen to what I say, that the state of Israel is EVEN WORSE THAN COMMUNIST RUSSIA. I say this with full responsibility! I LIVED UNDER COMMUNIST RULE in Russia for a number of years and suffered there from terrible troubles and harrassments. I say that the hatred for Chareidim in Israel is NO LESS than the hatred of the communists. Rather, it EXCEEDS it. This is told to you by a Jew who has done much for the Jews in Israel!
(The rest of the rabbis were Hungarians who had no experience with the Russians.)
R Kalmanowitz continued with more sharp words and Argov was left speechless and dumbfounded ....
So take the Modia article in context of בוצינא קדישא's FIRST HAND account of R Kalmanowitz'es FIRST HAND experience. And in the context of him being a Chareidi authority.
First my condolences to Rav Gold family. I skimmed the link and it references the 'prophecies' Yechezkel Chap 36, 37, 38 as being fulfilled with the emergence of the State of Israel over 2000 years from the when the prophecy was made. However, many of the terms in those prophecies have not been fulfilled nor likely they will ever be. In addition, it seems the Chapters are referring to a near term event, not one thousands of years later. ACJA
I hope you are feeling better and no residual headaches from what was clearly a strong bump on the head.
I noticed in the picture where your dressing was, right over the tefillin resting place.
I have a halachic curiosity….did you ask a shaila about wearing a shel Rosh? Over the dressing? Or temporarily remove the dressing? If over the dressing with, or without a bracha?
I think this is a unique opportunity to discuss the halachic ramifications of your unfortunate incident.
Wishing you a refuah sheleima,
David Ilan
PS: can’t wait for the Feast erev Sukkot!!
Can I have a preview what’s on the menu and especially the wines being considered? I pray they will be top quality non mevushal 😉🍷🍷🍷
"Today, in my local store I am overwhelmed by the dazzling amounts of produce." Better than USA, similar to Europe, but costs twice as much. There has been lots of progress but even more remains to be done.
BDE. R. Gold was a tremendous force for Jewry. He founded the Bnai Torah shul in Toronto, which today has fallen on hard times but was THE most vibrant shul in the city throughout the entire 1980s. A great man.
I once heard him ask: In Numbers 13:27 the Spies said about the land of Israel וְגַם זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ הִוא וְזֶה פִּרְיָהּ. R. Gold explained that they used the word וגם in the sense of, "just like Egypt". (In 16:13 it says הַמְעַט כִּי הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר) It was a deliberate attempt to insult the land by comparing it to Egypt. (R. Gold noted similarly that some people try to trivialize the word "Holocaust" by applying it to all sorts of events of lesser magnitude.) This is why Joshua and Caleb pointedly responded in 14:8 אֶרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הִוא זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ, ISRAEL was the blessed land (היא), not anywhere else. He further observed that this is why the Torah reading sometimes ends, in the middle of a narrative, when the phrase זבת חלב ודבש is used, to make one focus and reflect upon it.
Re the letter - if he asked you to publicize it, then you were right to post it. And what the man said, as quoted by R. Gold z"l, assuming accurate, was ugly. Its ugly when you bash Charedim, and its ugly when Charedim bash Mizrachim. All of it is ugly, ugly, ugly. I don't think I ever heard R. Gold say bad about other people, he focused only on the good. In the three week period, could there not be a better time for us to learn from his example?
R. Gold ztz"l was openly critical of satmar and anti-zionist charedim. Listen to his lecture on the very topic of this letter and you will hear how harsh he was and rightly so.
One can be critical of a person or movement, it its used as a means to draw a contrast. One's focus, in speeches or writings, should be on PROMOTING something one believes in. As part of that speech or article one might cite a foil and criticize it, to use as a means of illustrating differences. But it should be sandwiched between positives:
* Our approach is the way to go b/c of X.
* (We don't subscribe to the other guy's approach, which believes in Y, bc of Z.)
* And that is why our model of X is the way to go.
What bothers you and the other Chareidi commentators on this blog is that Rabbi Gold advocates a DL philosophy while he has Chareidi credentials,Smicha, Ponevitch, etc..Also the letter cited Rav Pam and Rav Dessler,. Chareidi stars. This stands in contradiction to the Chareidi narrative expressed at this blog that DL are all Reform,irresponsible poskei halacha and terribly responsible for the corruption of Jewish religious youth. This followed by epithets such as apikores,choteh omachte etc., as stated in this blog.
Smicha from Rav Herzog and Rav Elyashuv
"taking advantage of a man's death to do so, is not virtuous."
The letter was 100% Gold. Quintessential. Those who are familiar with Rabbi Gold's shiurim, know that the letter is representative of his views.
And I don't think that you, who hangs around the blog of someone who consistently maligns great rabbonim from all streams of the Torah world without uttering a peep of protest, has any standing to protest the faithful quotation of one of Rav Gold's most famous articles.
I can see how one feels that way, especially given this blog's track record. In this case though, it seems appropriate, a timely opportunity to publicize something the מנוח asked to publicize.
I know nothing about the departed; I'm sure he was a wonderful man despite this inane piece of literature. But it is no kavod to his memory to put this up as a monument to him.
Hamodia writes a typical chareidi anti-Zionist statement and he responds with 15 paragraphs of classic Zionist rhetoric. Why not just chop it down to one line: "I, Shalom Gold, personally align with the Zionist position on this matter"...
What's weird and arrogant and narrow minded about the whole thing is the assumption that regurgitating a volley hackneyed Zionist talking points that everybody knows already and those who disagree with disagree with, serves as some kind of tayna on Hamodia for ascribing to an alternative point of view. Typical Modox myopia, if you don't mind my saying so.
It's not a tayna on Hamodia, he was making a מחאה against what he (and many others) saw as a repugnant attitude. When a Rabbi isnt moche, we say שמע מינה דניחא ליה and he is held accountable. And why he should he be limited to a single line? If that were the standard, most of the קובץ מאמרים of RE Wasserman would be worthless, along with all the Satmar Rebbe's works, and about 80% of RSR Hirsch's writings. For they could have sufficed with a single line, whether against Zionism or Reform or anything else, to write simply that they didn't ascribe to it.
This goes too far. There's nothing wrong with writing passionately and at length about meaningful topics (tho granted it might cost you readers.) And occasionally one might criticize others too, that's part of it. But bashing others should never be seen as the focus. It shouldn't be overly frequent, and when it happens, it should be sandwiched between a more positive POV the writer or speaker subscribes to. The טפל and not the עיקר. More אהבה, less שנאה. The stronger right hand is מקרבת, only the weak left is דוחה.
Well said. Inspiring. Bravo. And I love you.
Anyways, my point was that this is rehashed talking points that have been debated for well over a hundred years. He may have articulated one side very beautifully, and it may be an excellent article to educate or inspire the base in a Zionist journal. But he didn't present it as such; he quite explicitly presented it as if he was responding to the other side and calling them out on their statement - or better yet "examining it in a dispassionate manner".
Which is inane. They didn't say his opinion because they have a different view of these matters, a view which he neither acknowledged nor addressed. Their statement was actually a fairly basic sentiment of a worldview that has been articulated and argued for generations. He may find it repugnant, but instead of actually recognizing its existence, dealing with it (which at this point would be an exercise in redundancy) he chose to simply put the words "a statement of authentic Torah-true hashkafah" in sneer quotes and go on to intone the classic Zionist observations, which we all know already and those who disagree with disagree with because they consider other considerations more relevant.
So the entire piece of flowery verbiage amounts to a statement of how dare you chareidim hold on to your anti Zionist viewpoints, when I, Rabbi Gold, agree with the pro Zionists on this matter.
Like I said, classic Modox (or whatever) myopia.
And of course: I love you.
In my experience most ( i.e. average Joe ) chareidim don't know the basic zionist or modox talking points.
For those uneducated masses who've never made a decision because they never recognized a choice rabbi gold can have a real impact - even with basic talking points-.
(I think this is true for run of the mill followers of many movements; there is a minority of relatively educated who know the opposing talking points on a basic level , and then there is a smaller minority who know them on a deeper or even complete level).
YidPoshut
The same same logic as found in the previous comment can be applied to the repetitious sometimes long anti-R. Slifkin/anti Rationalist/anti-DL/anti Modern Orthodoxy/anti-Medina & IDF/ anti-etc etc pro Chareidi comments.
Again, applying the logic of the previous comment, this is a blog started by Rabbi Sifkin whose purpose is, I imagine, to discuss the various aspects and applications of a Rational Hashkafa and comparing it to the other hashkafa. As mentioned in the previous comment, any opposition should not be repeated over & over. One sentence would suffice.
My comment is to show that we sometimes do the very thing we accuse the other side of doing. And at times. we do it with righteous indignation.
To protest something requires more than just the bare words, "I protest!" You have to articulate a position, and that's just what R. Gold did. If boiled down to its core, as you suggest, every debate on anything can be reduced to "How dare you hold X, when I hold Y."
(I appreciate the love, brother, and send it right back at you.)
"Hamodia writes a typical chareidi anti-Zionist statement"
It wasn't typical. And neither was Rabbi Gold.
Don't forget that Rabbi Gold was part of the Chareidi world. There was a time when it was common for Chareidim to be Zionists.
As someone who knew R Sholom Gold and his family in RBS, he was a great man and will be missed.
Slifkin can't even honor the passing away of a rabbi without attacking the charedim. What charedim mean is that spiritually to be in a secular Jewish state is more painful then in Russia, Germany etc., not that they had more fruits and vegetables in Poland.
I once said that every rabbi is zocheh to one good line in his career. Mine is, "If you want to speak to G-d, go to the Kotel, but if you want to see Him, go to Shuk Machaneh Yehudah."
I let this speak for itself.
Huh? It's a fantastic line.
Today we pray at the makom kadosh but we see Hashem so clearly from His magnificent bounty, especially food. Did you ever open a Tehilim? Did you ever learn Chovos Halivavos? Walking through the marketplace is a way of seeing Hashem.
This is true of any market place, but it's not what being said here.
Yes it is. Hashem sent a bounty of shefa to Eretz Yisroel, and like R' Pam pointed out, Hashem sent it on the heels of the war. Don't be an ingrate.
You Rasha! You are like the 10 evil spies!
I love the halva sellers! They're fantastic!
I never considered for a second to mock them.
Am I missing some tiny subtle flaw that you've perceived in them?
R Slifkin didn't write those lines. R Gold did. Quoting someone is Kavod to them. He is saying that whatever you think about the plastic tax or reducing the child allowance pales in comparison with the physical destruction by the Germans and the spiritual destruction by the Soviets. We read twice a day in Shema that we will be rewarded by product of the Land of Israel. He is taking that seriously. Also, as he points out, in his youth, food was not in such abundance. We are taking that for granted.
Baruch Dayan HaEmes
R' Slifkin, unrelated to the arguing in the comments. I think the picture of you with Rabbi Gold should be removed form this article. Of course you should keep it as a memento, but since he didn't make it, I just think in hind site its just in bad taste to post it here. Best wishes.
They couldn't publish it because they had no meaningful response
false. what a distortion "from one extreme of six million slaughtered to the other extreme of the settling of our people in their own medina"
He misses out a 'Nun' It is His Medinah. nothing do do with a zionist state.
1-
In my experience and interactions with him, Rav G. was a pleasant person, as were his sons. (Last I heard, my dear R' Menachem was devotedly providing spiritual uplift for our brothers in Afula. May he and the entire family have a Nechama.) My father was friends with Rav G. from the olden days. Fortunately, we never discussed politics, so we had a nice 'Chutz la'aretz' relationship in which you don't wear your religion on your sleeve, and find nice things in common.
Rav G. might have had Chareidi credentials in his youth, but Chareidim fail to keep all their youth, and Rav G. is one of those. Chareidim (and probably anyone) also invite outsiders to their educational institutions for the prospect that they might make them into insiders. Not everyone who passed through a Chareidi (or any) institution remains a card holder.
Rav G. quotes what Rav Dessler said in the early days of the state, (as he only lived for about five years after it was founded). It is to be speculated if this was before he sent his students at Ponovizh to rescue immigrant children facing Akiras Hadas in the Machanot Klita, at which point he was confronted with a darker aspect of the state. Quotes from Chareidi authorities need to be dated. As one would be hard pressed to find a Chareidi authority today to say such a thing at all, or at least without quantification, or not in the interest of expressing that the cup is half (or whatever fraction) full as beneficial under the circumstances.
I would be interested also to know the date of Rav Pam's statement. We had Rabbonim whose sympathies with (religious) zionism held strong until the episode of Rabbi Rubenstein and the Vilna Rabbonus, when they walked out on it. We had Rabbonim whose sympathies with (secular) zionism held strong until the zionist congress (in Basel, I believe) voted that the proposed state would have no religious character. Those Rabbonim walked out on the congress and founded the Mizrachi movement. We had some prominent, devoted students of Rav Soloveitchik who outed on him when he did not participate in the prohibition against joining Heterodox 'Judaisms'. And in the other direction, Rav Soloveitchik himself had once been a part of Agudah and left it for Mizrachi.
Rav Pam, as was his Rebi Rav Mendelowitz, was soft towards zionism. This is the Torah Vodaas approach, also exemplified by Rav Belsky joining the OU. Certainly the Modia's sentiments, which they explicitly attribute to one rav, also fall within the umbrella of Chareidi thought, while Rav Pam's is quite absent in Modia's Israel.
The post omits a crucial bit of context, and SHAUL SHAPIRA's comment bringing it into the conversation is therefore the TOP COMMENT of all so-far over 200 of them. That the Modia comment was prompted by the Lapid government consideration to jail Yeshivah students who refused to serve in the army. We're being told that Rav G. often gave a shout-out for the state. We're curious how often he gave one for Yeshivah students not serving in the army, and if he did so during Lapid's threats.
2-
WADR to the revered Rav Pam, firstly I'm curious to see his statement about Medinas Yisroel in context. Rav Pam happens to repudiate, as his Rebi Rav Mendelowitz did before him, the Mizrachi formulation Eretz Yisrael L'am Yisrael al pi Toras Yisrael. They found that lopsided. Rather it should be Toras Yisrael L'am Yisrael B'eretz Yisrael. (This happens to a by-line of the Shuvu educational network that he founded.) I trust the reader to understand the subtlety distinguishing the two (maybe I shouldn't!), and see how a simple turn of a phrase can make all that difference.
Anyway, however one wants to extrapolate from Rav Pam regarding the Modia statement, another Chareidi leader, Rav Avraham Kalmanowitz (d. 1965?) opined on the VERY ISSUE, as reported by an eyewitness in בוצינא קדישא pages 138-139.
A few prominent Hungarian Rabunim, accompanied by the Litvack R Kalmanowitz, visited Israel consul Shlomo Argov in New York during the 'Yoselleh' episode. Argov was prepared for the visit and had a thick pile of papers (evidence for what he wanted to say) on the table, including newspaper clippings in which various parts were underlined in red ink.
The Voidislav Rav spoke on behalf of the visitors and as soon as he finished, Argov started complaining how the state is maligned in the Chareidi press. He pulled out an article from Der Yid (Satmar) and read from it that the state harrasses religion and the religious, and that the state conducts itself LIKE COMMUNIST RUSSIA.
Before anyone else had a chance to say anything, R Kalmanowitz, the 'outsider' among the Hungarians, said he would like to respond. He said that his name is Avraham Kalmanowitz and would like to introduce himself and what he did in his life, so the consul should know with whom he is talking. He told Argov, you can confirm with the heads of the state of Israel and of the various zionist organizations, and they'll tell you about my past activities—my efforts in Washington, in the state department, in the pentagon, and my influence there during the first years of the state of Israel; and about my intense Hatzalah efforts during WWII; and how during the war of Israeli independence I put in great effort to assist and protect our Jewish brothers in the holy land.
R Kalmanowitz continued, I say to you regarding the statement in Der Yid EQUATING the state of Israel with communist Russia—listen to what I say, that the state of Israel is EVEN WORSE THAN COMMUNIST RUSSIA. I say this with full responsibility! I LIVED UNDER COMMUNIST RULE in Russia for a number of years and suffered there from terrible troubles and harrassments. I say that the hatred for Chareidim in Israel is NO LESS than the hatred of the communists. Rather, it EXCEEDS it. This is told to you by a Jew who has done much for the Jews in Israel!
(The rest of the rabbis were Hungarians who had no experience with the Russians.)
R Kalmanowitz continued with more sharp words and Argov was left speechless and dumbfounded ....
So take the Modia article in context of בוצינא קדישא's FIRST HAND account of R Kalmanowitz'es FIRST HAND experience. And in the context of him being a Chareidi authority.
This one is for you Natan:
https://vinnews.com/2023/07/11/rabbi-dov-landau-attacks-new-yeshiva-combining-secular-studiesdont-send-there-or-support-in-any-way/#comments
First my condolences to Rav Gold family. I skimmed the link and it references the 'prophecies' Yechezkel Chap 36, 37, 38 as being fulfilled with the emergence of the State of Israel over 2000 years from the when the prophecy was made. However, many of the terms in those prophecies have not been fulfilled nor likely they will ever be. In addition, it seems the Chapters are referring to a near term event, not one thousands of years later. ACJA
Smicha from Ner Yisroel, Rav Ruderman.
Natan,
I hope you are feeling better and no residual headaches from what was clearly a strong bump on the head.
I noticed in the picture where your dressing was, right over the tefillin resting place.
I have a halachic curiosity….did you ask a shaila about wearing a shel Rosh? Over the dressing? Or temporarily remove the dressing? If over the dressing with, or without a bracha?
I think this is a unique opportunity to discuss the halachic ramifications of your unfortunate incident.
Wishing you a refuah sheleima,
David Ilan
PS: can’t wait for the Feast erev Sukkot!!
Can I have a preview what’s on the menu and especially the wines being considered? I pray they will be top quality non mevushal 😉🍷🍷🍷
For those who want to get Rabbi Gold's book: Touching History: From Williamsburg to Jerusalem https://a.co/d/8YWMF4U
"Today, in my local store I am overwhelmed by the dazzling amounts of produce." Better than USA, similar to Europe, but costs twice as much. There has been lots of progress but even more remains to be done.