first of all, let's not forget about the other letter he wrote in הפרדס in '73 https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=12701&st=&pgnum=9 where he says not to touch the "ישיבות הגדולות" referring to full time learning (as opposed to hesder) - אל תגעו במשיחי ובנביאי אל תרעו!
so even if marc shapiro is correct about this previous letter, either he changed his mind or he had a public opinion and a private opinion. you tell me what you think Natan. My best bet is that when he saw he was up against everyone he was מכניע, as talmidei chachomim do. when there are fifty expert doctors and one has a different opinion, he hopefully has enough humility to realize that he may be missing something. maybe Rav Zevin realized afterwards that politically we need to patur the bnei yeshiva otherwise they will never patur them ever. or he realized that it's just not as simple as it was when he penned the first letter. my guess is as good as anyone's.
but secondly, even r' zevin zt'l's opinion was clear, do you want to list all the letters of gedolim who held otherwise? including rav kook and dozens of other RZ gedolim. there's a reason why אחרי רבים להטות
This is indeed an important source. unfortuately the I cant seem to find the end of the letter. when you turn the second page, it simply moves on to some elses letter. This requires further study, but on the surface, read to gether I think we can distinguish between 2 issues. The second letter delat with yeshiva *deferals* whic R Zevin apparently supported. he compares draft exemptions givne inthe US to seminary students. This does not mean that yeshvia bochrim will never serve. In deed at the time the second letter was written many charedi yehsiva bochrim did do soem army service at some point. The first first letter deals with those who would argue that yeshiva students should be entirely exempt from army service. this R. Zevin rejects.This is the situation we face today regarding every boy who is born into a charedi family. This only began in the 80's. .I agree there is a still a real tension between the letters.
If I'm not misunderstanding you, במחילת כבודך, I don't think you're making the argument you think your making. There's a contradiction between these two letters. If rav zevin truly wrote the first one as well, there was a major change of heart from '48 to '73 between those two dates. What happened in '77 has nothing to do with this convo.
In 1948 he's saying no one should be exempted. In 1973 he's speaking about a low-level phenomenon. That's not a "major" change of heart. It would only be "major" if he wrote it in, say, 1985.
The end of the letter is in the next page under the line (weird formatting).
Your pshat may be right (it's pure speculation so who knows? Personally i don't see where you got any of that from. He sounds like he is agreeing with the full stop petur...) but there still is a clear change of heart going on here
Point is, if everyone as big or bigger then you is saying not like you, you rethink your decision. I'm suggesting that's what happened. If you don't think that's the lomdus of "acharei rabbim..." so be it. Leave that line out.
Contemporary poskim (Rav Asher Weiss and Rav Moshe for instance) do not take into consideration who among their contemporaries might be as big or bigger than themselves, nor how many of their contemporaries would disagree with their psak, nor whether every other posek would disagree with them.
That is false. When in EY in 1948 and the chazon ish says something, even if your name is reb shlomo Zaman aurbach, you think more than twice about your dissenting psak.
Reb moshe was as big as the chazon ish and probably thought of all the same arguments before reaching his conclusion.
Reb Asher Weiss doesn't hafta care about some other rabbi in America who disagrees with him but be would care very much if someone far greater than him disagreed
Perhaps you are not familiar with Rav Moshe's teshuvos, nor with Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's, nor with Rav Asher Weiss's.
Rav Shlomo Zalman had no issue disagreeing with Chazon Ish on electricity, even though he considered Chazaon Ish greater than himself.
As for Rav Asher Weiss, I asked him that exact question. He told me that he makes his decisions without regard to which Gedolim would agree or disagree.
When it comes to Acharonim, all he cares about is the quality of an argument, not on who said it.
I'm very aware! I didn't say he didn't disagree at the end of the day, but by golly did he think twice (or more)!
When someone like the chazon ish says something you think twice because you know that he weighed his position really, really carefully before concluding.
Same with rav Asher weiss, there's a difference between coming out lemaaseh based on rishonim, but you still need to weigh the chazon ish's points if you can
As a general rule, it is Impossible to know what any "Rabbi X" would say "now", but there is no real contradiction here. In 1948, there was an existential threat from which it was absurd to exempt anyone who could contribute as a general rule; Ben Gurion and the "Charedi" rabbis settled on an exemption for 400 full time yeshiva students. In 1973, he argues that one should not completely eliminate a draft exemption for full time Yeshiva students that existed even in the US and this was at a time when there weren't that many exemptions. This was when the exemption had a quota of somewhere in the hundreds or low thousands (different sources I have seen give different numbers) and had no substantial impact on the size of the draft-eligible population. In 1977, the law was changed to massively expand the exemption to where it exempted basically all Charedim and is now a significant percentage of the total draft age population and growing (55,000 exemptions in 2008 around 11% of the draft eligible).
So the situation does not perfect match neither 1948 nor 1973. If we went back to the 1973 status with an expanded quota of even 5,000 total exemptions for the top Yeshiva students, then all of the issues would go away. Charedim could reintegrate into society and we would still have a thriving Yeshiva cohort of the best Talmidim.
I'm fine with that, but then, by the same token, what does this letter that Natan posted have to do with anything we see today? It's all just speculation about what these different great people would've said in today's very different circumstances.
Rav Zevin deals with the sources that were cited in his day, and that are still cited today. Hence, merely from the perspective of assessing those sources, the letter retains its relevancy.
Great מראה מקום! It's interesting, I thought the article RDNS posted was quite passionate, but his passion in the article you linked matched that same passion. He really did a full 180°!
You know who else where widely excepted gedolim who disagreed? The Chazon Ish, Rav Shach, The Brisker Rav, Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Issur Zalman Meltzer and many many many others.
I think it is worth translating/summarizing Rav Ofran's post.
He is the head of a religious pre-army Mechina for boys ["Ruach Sadeh"]. It is a one year (generally with a partial 2nd year option) program to prepare the boys spiritually and physically for army service (other Mechinot that may be more familiar include Otzem, formally in Atzmona in Gaza, and Eli).
Boys attending these programs defer army service for a year (drafting in August) or a year and a half (drafting in March)
Rav Ofran was apparently informed that due to man-power shortages in the army, the boys in all the Mechinot will have to draft in March of their first year.
He is asking that students in Hesder or other Yeshiva programs that draft after 2-3 years (not to mention Hareidim who almost never draft).... to consider advancing their induction dates, so that the boys in the Mechina can at least complete one full tear of learning.
The Mechina programs are win-win for everyone, as the boys enter the army a year more mature and highly motivated, except that the army apparently is feeling such man-power shortages that it needs to cut deferrals.
Bottom line, there is a real and acute shortage of soldiers to the extent that the army needs to cut even programs that simply defer full service.
..and 2nd bottom-line, those getting deferrals/exemptions because they are in yeshiva, are preventing others from being able to learn
And knowing the situation today and how many problems the army has with shabbos Kashrus and tznius we have no idea what Rav Zevin would say. Your answer works in both directions!
That's not an answer as neither was Rav Slifkins. You cannot say the Chazon Ish or Brisker Rav would suddenly send the Yeshiva boys to the army. Keep in mind they lived through far worse wars than this and did no such thing! Also I don't see how soliders got more kadosh. If they were they are nothing has made that more or less
Hold on. You are saying that defending eretz yisrael results in shabbos and kashrus problems. and therefore chareidi students are automatically disqualified. first of all, that is extreme hearsay, secondly, there are thousands of frum hesder students that apparently have found a way to make it work, thirdly, when in a milchama/pikuach nefesh situation, you fight on shabbos and eat what you can anyway. fourthly, the food they eat in the army is things like tuna in a can, so no "kashrus problems" to worry about, fifthly, the more chareidi students get involved in tzahal, the more they can raise the level for everyone, sixth, you quote chareidi gedolim, but there are dati l'umi gedolim that have not voiced these concerns -- if they are actually concerns (and of course they will say that their constituents are not obliged to go to the army and if they did, who would listen necessarily?), seventh, the levels now are higher than ever
As per the Rambam, "וכל הנלחם בכל לבו בלא פחד ותהיה כוונתו לקדש את השם
בלבד מובטח לו שלא ימצא נזק ולא תגיעהו רעה ויבנה לו בית נכון בישראל ויזכה לו ולבניו עד עולם ויזכה לחיי העולם הבא"
Sound likes קדושה to me. Rav Asher Weiss said that assisting the soldiers is קודש קדשים (by implication, the solider are even holier than that!), and Rav Aryeh Levin referred to soldiers as מלאכים. Need I quote RSZA?
all of those problems were worse when R. Zevin was writting. KAshrus has gotten much much better in recent years. soon all the meat will be mehadrin. Shabbos is in principle a non issue, though it can at time be dififuclt. as for tznius- that needs to be defined. Thing for girls have gotten much much better in recent years. As for mixed units- this si a serious issue which thus far benei yeshiva has been able to avoid. However the reason why the left wingers are wining this fight is because of serious manpower shortages when it comes to combat troops. I dont knwo the exact numbers, but the chaeidi community could easily solve this shortage of combat soldiers with out signifcantly reducing the numer of guys learning (and mean learning, seriously all day)
This is simply not correct. Kashrus in the army has gotten significantly worse. Mehadrin meat is useless when the ovens and keilim are treif. Hashgacha was outsourced from the military Rabbanut to civilian contractors with no real power. Shabbos has always been an issue and remains so. As far as tznius even the Chareidi units still end up serving with female soliders when not on base. So no sorry things havnt really improved and the army has shown zero interest in actually being willing to cater to mainstream Chareidi soliders!
more vast ignorance and propoganda. you are simply wrong regardign kashrus in the army. did you ever speak to any one inthe rabbanut tzvait or rashei yehivot hesder about this. as for tznius- you are corrrect that the army cannot garuntee that male soldiers are completely insolated from females. this is the crux of the matter- charedeid refusal to serve has less to do with talmud torah than it does with a desire to wall themselves off from contact with the non charedi world. in America yeshivish young men take jobs in mixed enviornemnts all the time. they even go to colleges with female instructors. they certainly work with non jews and non charedi jews. but in ISrael this is considered unthinkable. it is true if chareidim have no interest in intergrating with Israel society and contribute to it in way that others will recognize at the even the most minimal level, and only demand money in welfare benefits (unlike the averegae non charediisraeli who pays in thousands of shekels a month more than they receive, the average chareidi takes in thousands) and for their yeshivos ( while screaming bloody murder at any attempt to regulate whay is taught- there is no western country where schools get money from the government but the government has no say in what goes on there) and of course expention from the universal draft, they cannot expect anyone else in the society to be very sympathetic to them.
The percentage of religious jews whose spiritual level goes down in the army is what ?
The DL community has a retention rate of what? In this 18forty podcast r reuven taragin (educational director at world mizrachi ) mentions as an aside that the retention is horrible
If the choice is children who protect knesses Yisrael and are mechalel shabbos vs. shomrei Torah umitzvos who shirk a responsibility to serve, the choice for any chareid ldvar Hashem is clear.
And yet back in the "old days" we were told you can be perfectly religious in the army, its all 100% kosher, etc etc etc. Nice to see they've finally admitted it.
Rav Aharon Kotler held that the Rambam in the end of שמיטה ויבל was not talking about the average Torah scholar, but someone who doesn't depend on someone else for financial support.
In the matter of haBrisker. Rabbi Meir Goldvicht was his student and was sent by him to found the Hesder yeshiva of Yavneh and was head of the yeshiva for decades.
I know personally 2 talmidim who studied in Kollel Hazon Ish 1948 and served in the army. After the war, they returned to the Kollel. So there may have been more. I also remember that Rabbi Haim Kanievsky was serving in the army at the time, but I don't remember the origin of these things.
Haven't the slightest idea what you are trying to prove here. Haredim in Israel follow the lead of the Brisker Rav and the Chazon Ish, the leaders of the Yeshivos, whose descendants and talmidim became leading Roshei Yeshiva and carry on their legacy. Rav Dov Landau, a talmid of the Chazon Ish (who you have ridiculed) said this expressly the other day at a public gathering in TelzStone.
First, the current charedi communities situaiton, valeus and political stances are radically different than they were in the 50's. I good case can be made that the current community does ntor eflect the valeus of the brisker rav and the CI. The brisker rav never would have supported charedi parties joiningthe government (indeed I dont think he was in favor of charedi parties in the knesset at all) if the CI would have supported it, it would have come with a radical change inhis attitude towards the State. he was not one to take money and then curse the people who gave it. the current charedi worldview is the product of people like R Shach and R. Elyashiv.
furtherthe mishnah says עשה לך רב וקנה לך חבר every jew, has to take resposnibility for the rabbis and communties they choose. this is especially true of Chareidm from chul who chose to leave their communties and rabbis and embrace very different ones. Saying " I follow this rav" or "this what my communtiy does," in sum "Dass torah" is not a legitamate response to seriosu criticisms on the halakhic, moral or hashkafic level.
The point was that Rabbi Slifkin was seemingly bringing an argument from this towering rabbinic authority, and Walter is saying that the chareidim have much greater authorities to rely on. You can speculate all you want that maybe the CI would have said this, would have said that, but it's all just your own speculation. And besides for the authorities that chareidim rely on, they also have plenty of halachic and hashkafic arguments. As you say, עשה לך רב, and the Rav that chareidim choose are consistent with their own hashkafos, which you may or may not share. But that wasn't the point of this post.
By the way, it was publication of this letter in Tradition, and the mention of Artscroll there in the introduction, that led to the exchange of letters where it was revealed that Artscroll had been censoring him. An early example of "This man was such a great gadol you should buy his books from us, but he wasn't such a great gadol that we can't assume to have known better than him and thus can censor him."
What's with the Artscroll obsession? All religions and political streams censor, as Marc himself wrote. Agatha Christie is the best selling author in history, and many passages in her books have been censored.
What obsession? I'm just pointing out a fact. But if you must know:
1. Until recently Artscroll had a near-monopoly on English Jewish books, including those used by Modern Orthodox Jews. So you'd expect them to get a bit more scrutiny than, say, some publisher in Germany in 1650.
2. Artscroll's response only made things much, much worse. You can follow the thread at Tradition's site.
I know about the issue, I read it בשעתו. OK, it could be it was a mistake of Artscroll, and if so, it is one of their more higher profile mistakes, like the Shir Hashirim translation. But they get so much criticism, one has to recognize one cannot get to the giant behemoth stage they're at without making some mistakes along the way. On the whole though they've done a pretty good job, and you cant argue with success.
I'm not one to deny that Artscroll does a lot of good work. I davened from Artscroll siddurim and learned from their sefarim for years. But I'm also not going to pretend that they haven't kept "making mistakes" all these years, right up until now. And that was one of the first indications.
Commentators here are correct that Rav Zevin was not an "authority."
But that is what made him stand apart: He never argued from authority; his writings rise and fall based on the quality of the argument, not because of who said it.
He persuaded not through authority, but through astonishing scholarship, brilliant writing, and clarity of thought.
Encyclopedia Talmudit is used not because it's authoritative, but because it's great.
Same with the essay quoted here.
Rather than focus on who's bigger then whom, as if that in and of itself is a refutation or support, perhaps it's best to focus on the quality of Rav Zevin's arguments: Are they good arguments or bad arguments?
Aren't all Torah arguments ultimately arguments from authority? When somebody quotes the Rambam, isn't that an argument from authority? Is quoting a Mishnah not an argument from authority? It's hard to find anything in Rav Zevin's letter that would not be classified as an argument from authority. And that's normal for Torah discussions. Maybe you meant something else?
But how would you draw a distinction between arguments that are actual arguments (classic teshuvos, for instance) and arguments that are not arguments at all, but pure appeal to authority?
Also, wouldn't there be a difference between "see if this makes sense to you" (see Hakdama to Iggeros Moshe, for example) and "You must accept this because I said so", not because I've written persuasively"?
Also, would there not be a difference between invoking the authority of Rambam vs invoking the authority of a contemporary?
I would say the "argument from authority" fallacy is not really applicable to Torah, given how much Torah relies on authority. Usually it is used for science, logic, or philosophy.
But it really depends on what you are doing when we talk about Torah discussions. If the question is "do I have to keep Chalav Yisrael in 21st century US?" then relying on Rav Moshe is usually enough, since almost everybody considers him a credible posek, even those who disagree. But if the question is "What does the sugya have to say about keeping Chalav Yisrael?", then you will have show that your pshat makes sense in the sugya and Rishonim. Quoting Rav Moshe is not enough to tell you about the sugya.
It depends how much you are holding in the sugya. As someone who knows really little about the mechanics of cars, I defer to my mechanic and trust his expertise. Same with my doctors, lawyers, insurance agents. For some odd reason everyone is an expert on hashkafa and halacha because they think it is just about reasonability and nothing else. It's not true. There are a ton if undercurrents which come along with devoting one's life to torah, with clarity of matters that can often differ from what a "torah layman" might think. There is a fine line and great skill at knowing when to employ "using your seichel" vs deferring to the greats. That's one of the things tought in the yeshivos and it takes years and years to know how to tow this line properly.
Learning b'iyun is a skill. Appreciating how torah creates a person requires an insider's understanding. If you wanna think that it isn't, if you wanna think that it's all just brainwashing, I can't help you.
Your mechanic has a track record of fixing your car.
Re Rabbonim, when things don't work out, its just 'rotzon hashem' or a 'time of hester ponim'. It's 'rotzon hashem' that OTD is too high, its 'rotzon hashem' there is a shidduch crisis, 'Meron' was ratzon hashem. Not once do they take accountability for anything. If a wheel fell of your car, your mechanic would be accountable.
but he was a chabadnick as far as I know. to use college terms, perhpas division I but not "our" league. In either event, R. Gustman was more than an all pro. but we only have direct quotaions from eye witnesses (which is more than enough for charedim when they support their possitions) but nothing in writting. But really for Israeli charedim the only people who count are the Brisker Rav, selected elements of the CI, R, Shach, R Elyashiv and R. Chaim K. In the US, it R A Kotler and R Hunter in his final, Satamar stage. Most of the litvish leadership of the pre and post war era were much much less radical and to some degreee sympathetic to Zionism. R Isser Zalman, RZP Frank, R. Kahanaman, RSZ, and RMF and RY Kaminezky in the US. But they are really irrelevant to charedim. their possitions onthese matters are ignored or re written.
Zionism is not the issue, learning Torah is the issue.
There was no daylight between Reb Isser Zalman and the Brisker Rav regarding the draft of Yeshiva bochurim. Reb Hirsh Pesach went with him to BG to beg for a reprieve for the bochurim.
But the great respect shown to Rav Zevin is vastly overstated. He wrote some Seforim that are popular with the masses. He was not in the big leagues by any yardstick. If people are to be categorized, he was level 3. Like any middle aged Rosh Yeshiva nowadays. This blog post calling him 'a towering Rabbinical authority' is an absolute lie, truly befitting this blog. He was not an authority anywhere. He may have been a great scholar but was never an authority. (It is possible that the blog author does not know what authority means. It's not just Torah he is ignorant about.)
you ignorance is stunning. The was a huge difference between them. The Brisker Rav thought eh medina was evil and thought that no one should go to the army. R Isser Zalman, was quite symapthetic to Zionism. R. Amital, who was his married to his grand daughter told us that R. Isser Zalman made it clear that he saws the exemptions as a horaas shaah. In the wake of the shoah the tiny Israeli yeshiva world needed to be protected (RA also said that RIZM was overjoyed he when he presented him with with the kuntrus he wroting dealign with practical halakhic issues raised by servining in Zahal. It was the first effort. RIZM said that at long last hilchot zava could find its palce in the Shulchan aruch) At the time the time most RZ rabbanim and even some secular Zionist leaders supported at least some exemptions for yeshiva bochrim. It dont think it occured to anyone that all limits on yeshvia exemptions would be lifted as they were when the charedim joined the ogvernment under Begin, the exemption would become a way of exempting all charedim from the army.
As for R. Zevin i would be surpised if there is a single "middle aged rosh yeshiva today" who comes up to his ankles. If you doubt it take a look at the first volumes of the Encyplopedia talmudis, which he basicaly wrote on his own and are far better than what followed. That fact that you dont think of him as such is product of the fact that the chareidi world cannot admit othe existenc eof charedi gedolim, Either as in the case of the Rav and the Seridie Eish, the deney or ignore their zionism, or as inthe case of R. Herzog and R. Zevin, deny that he was a gadol. It is true that he was not aposek and never had a wide following. But I all think R SLifkin meant was that he was a towering authority on Torah, whose views are are as or more legitamate as any other big Rav's.
Your information about the Brisker Rav is also quite faulty. He was not a Satmarer. Once the State was established, he did not believe it should be dismantled.
If you read full sentences, you won't have to be stunned.
And your ignorance of current events seems to be stunning too. Most RZ Rabbinic leaders and Roshei Yeshiva also support the Charedi Yeshiva bochur exemption, even if they don't want it for their own talmidim.
I dont know where you get that statistic from. I dont know of many DL rabbnic leaders and RY, who think it is OK that the virtually no charedim go to the army. They mostly think it is unacceptable and a vast chillul hashem in my experience. what is your basis for these assertions about the RZ rabbinic world. Charedim like to beleive that "real" RZ essentially support them. nothing copuld be further from the truth. It is true that smotrich and his kavnick allies beleive that they should politcally ally themselves with chareidim against left wing chilonim. He onlu represents a small proportion of the RZ community.
Totally wrong, and really, this is schoolyard "My gadol is bigger than your gadol" stuff. He was equally great or greater in learning than any of his contemporaries. But he wasn't part of the yeshivah world and didn't share their politics, so of course he wasn't an "authority" for them, how could it be otherwise?
If you are revising your comments to be simply about "authority", לחיי. He indeed was not an authority to the charedi public (because he chose not to be.) But that's not what you said. You said, "the great respect shown to Rav Zevin is vastly overstated. He wrote some Seforim that are popular with the masses. He was not in the big leagues by any yardstick." And that is simply mistaken.
He was not an authority anywhere. He was not a Rav of note, revisionist history is trying to uplift his legacy, because something he wrote fits with the narrative some people need.
And his Seforim are 'gantz fein', nothing close to that which was produced by the top tier of his generation.
Do you think any middle aged Rosh Yeshiva nowadays could get semicha from the Rogachover? Stop showing your ignorance. A gadol's greatness isn't measured by how many fanboys he has in Bnei Brak.
When you have an actual, relevant, מראה מקום of Rav Zevin's, that shows his outstanding genius, you won't have to resort to irrelevancies like 'fanboys in Bnei Brak'.
You're point about authority is correct, but there is no reason to belittle a gadol b'torah. Some would argue that he was "not in the big leagues" only because of his political views like this one, which is very unfortunate. (And I'd like to meet some of these middle-aged roshei yeshivah.) The main point is that even if he was an "authority", it would not matter because he is just ONE opinion.
Amazing find. Just skimming through the comments over here, there’s alot to respond to. Shay makes this an amazing find is being that he prescribed to the chareidi world ideology, yet insisted on army service. Now most anti IDF arguments on the chareidi side, go back to when the chareidim where in the single digits so to speak. And therefore quite frankly quoting them now is irrelevant. Now to have a RY in the infancy of charedi Jewery, still insisting on full army service. Despite the small number of chareidim, clearly he felt the “dangers” are not so. This conversation about chareidim in the army must be had. It’s the elephant in the room. And we are all being to think skinned to admit there’s major problems!
RNS is discussing the "what" and the "why" following the pattern of תשובות over the centuries. The "who" type of approach (as in "who said it and how big a Godol Hador he is?") doesn't feature in תשובות.
I will highlight in the comments, which group people identify with. That may help to explain some reasons for the differences of opinion.
I don't think this is true. Like I say in my below comment, Torah relies much on the "who", which is why sourcing things in earlier authorities, whether Rishonim, Amoraim, or Tannaim is so important. So I think your statement 'The "who" type of approach (as in "who said it and how big a Godol Hador he is?") doesn't feature in תשובות'-is false. I don't think Rabbi Slifkin agrees with you either. He starts off with "Rav Shlomo Yosef Zevin was a towering rabbinic authority of the twentieth century". When you bring a letter from a "towering rabbinic authority" which is itself mostly a collection of citations and paraphrases from even more towering rabbinic authorities, you are treating the "who" with utmost importance.
What exactly is the point of this? R. Zevin was indeed a great scholar, no one denies it. Does that mean one has to agree with whatever he he said here? The Satmar Rebbe was also a great scholar - should we follow his opinions? R. Meir Kahane was a great Zionist - do you agree with his opinions? What precisely is your point?
The chareidi world bases its position onthe argument that they are following "the gedolim." to them the "who" appraoch allows them to avoid actually justifying thir opinions. The reality, as empahsized by the post, is there is no one "daas torah" eveyr one chooses their leaders and their community and they are responible for those choices. this sort of personal responsibility, though one would think it fundamnetal to ORthodox beleif, is not acknowledged by most charedim
It is self-understood that people choose the "Gadol" that best matches their position, and then follow him. But this is true in every stream of every religion and every political organization. It's not quite "the leaders follow the masses", but the leaders have to be in step with their followers. Religious Zionists are exactly the same, only their "Gedolim" are politicians, not rabbis. They'll follow their chosen politician only so long as he agrees with them; the moment he veers off the reservation, they'll form a new party and choose new Gedolim to lead them.
u1) this is not self understood by most charedim. 2) DL do have rabbis. they just believe they are human beings not gods. politicians are only meant to be support as long as one agrees with them. that called democracy
We will have to disagree. I think Charedim understand this perfectly, they are just misunderstood by outsiders. And I didnt mean to imply the DL dont have rabbis, they certainly do, great ones. But they don't afford them the same respect and deference ("hero worship", to detractors) as Charedim. The point, though, is that DL too will only follow their leaders as long as their leaders follow them. This is all too human - "Je suis leur chef, il fallait bien les suivre!"
(By the way, if you were a student of Rav Amiel, that is certainly something to be proud of. I've not read his works, but I understand he was a gaon.)
first of all, let's not forget about the other letter he wrote in הפרדס in '73 https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=12701&st=&pgnum=9 where he says not to touch the "ישיבות הגדולות" referring to full time learning (as opposed to hesder) - אל תגעו במשיחי ובנביאי אל תרעו!
so even if marc shapiro is correct about this previous letter, either he changed his mind or he had a public opinion and a private opinion. you tell me what you think Natan. My best bet is that when he saw he was up against everyone he was מכניע, as talmidei chachomim do. when there are fifty expert doctors and one has a different opinion, he hopefully has enough humility to realize that he may be missing something. maybe Rav Zevin realized afterwards that politically we need to patur the bnei yeshiva otherwise they will never patur them ever. or he realized that it's just not as simple as it was when he penned the first letter. my guess is as good as anyone's.
but secondly, even r' zevin zt'l's opinion was clear, do you want to list all the letters of gedolim who held otherwise? including rav kook and dozens of other RZ gedolim. there's a reason why אחרי רבים להטות
Everyone should read the letter linked here before reaching a conclusion.
Shulman - great find!
Thanks Yo! You sound like a teacher;)
This is indeed an important source. unfortuately the I cant seem to find the end of the letter. when you turn the second page, it simply moves on to some elses letter. This requires further study, but on the surface, read to gether I think we can distinguish between 2 issues. The second letter delat with yeshiva *deferals* whic R Zevin apparently supported. he compares draft exemptions givne inthe US to seminary students. This does not mean that yeshvia bochrim will never serve. In deed at the time the second letter was written many charedi yehsiva bochrim did do soem army service at some point. The first first letter deals with those who would argue that yeshiva students should be entirely exempt from army service. this R. Zevin rejects.This is the situation we face today regarding every boy who is born into a charedi family. This only began in the 80's. .I agree there is a still a real tension between the letters.
Exactly. Widespread lifetime deferrals didn't become standard after 1977. This is apples and oranges.
If I'm not misunderstanding you, במחילת כבודך, I don't think you're making the argument you think your making. There's a contradiction between these two letters. If rav zevin truly wrote the first one as well, there was a major change of heart from '48 to '73 between those two dates. What happened in '77 has nothing to do with this convo.
In 1948 he's saying no one should be exempted. In 1973 he's speaking about a low-level phenomenon. That's not a "major" change of heart. It would only be "major" if he wrote it in, say, 1985.
Natan would never have quoted this second letter in his blog. It sings a very different tune.
The end of the letter is in the next page under the line (weird formatting).
Your pshat may be right (it's pure speculation so who knows? Personally i don't see where you got any of that from. He sounds like he is agreeing with the full stop petur...) but there still is a clear change of heart going on here
אחרי רבים להטות is not a serious claim here. who decides who gets counted? that refers to a beis din of the sanhedrin.
Who decides who's on the sanhedrin?
Point is, if everyone as big or bigger then you is saying not like you, you rethink your decision. I'm suggesting that's what happened. If you don't think that's the lomdus of "acharei rabbim..." so be it. Leave that line out.
Contemporary poskim (Rav Asher Weiss and Rav Moshe for instance) do not take into consideration who among their contemporaries might be as big or bigger than themselves, nor how many of their contemporaries would disagree with their psak, nor whether every other posek would disagree with them.
That is false. When in EY in 1948 and the chazon ish says something, even if your name is reb shlomo Zaman aurbach, you think more than twice about your dissenting psak.
Reb moshe was as big as the chazon ish and probably thought of all the same arguments before reaching his conclusion.
Reb Asher Weiss doesn't hafta care about some other rabbi in America who disagrees with him but be would care very much if someone far greater than him disagreed
Perhaps you are not familiar with Rav Moshe's teshuvos, nor with Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's, nor with Rav Asher Weiss's.
Rav Shlomo Zalman had no issue disagreeing with Chazon Ish on electricity, even though he considered Chazaon Ish greater than himself.
As for Rav Asher Weiss, I asked him that exact question. He told me that he makes his decisions without regard to which Gedolim would agree or disagree.
When it comes to Acharonim, all he cares about is the quality of an argument, not on who said it.
I'm very aware! I didn't say he didn't disagree at the end of the day, but by golly did he think twice (or more)!
When someone like the chazon ish says something you think twice because you know that he weighed his position really, really carefully before concluding.
Same with rav Asher weiss, there's a difference between coming out lemaaseh based on rishonim, but you still need to weigh the chazon ish's points if you can
As a general rule, it is Impossible to know what any "Rabbi X" would say "now", but there is no real contradiction here. In 1948, there was an existential threat from which it was absurd to exempt anyone who could contribute as a general rule; Ben Gurion and the "Charedi" rabbis settled on an exemption for 400 full time yeshiva students. In 1973, he argues that one should not completely eliminate a draft exemption for full time Yeshiva students that existed even in the US and this was at a time when there weren't that many exemptions. This was when the exemption had a quota of somewhere in the hundreds or low thousands (different sources I have seen give different numbers) and had no substantial impact on the size of the draft-eligible population. In 1977, the law was changed to massively expand the exemption to where it exempted basically all Charedim and is now a significant percentage of the total draft age population and growing (55,000 exemptions in 2008 around 11% of the draft eligible).
So the situation does not perfect match neither 1948 nor 1973. If we went back to the 1973 status with an expanded quota of even 5,000 total exemptions for the top Yeshiva students, then all of the issues would go away. Charedim could reintegrate into society and we would still have a thriving Yeshiva cohort of the best Talmidim.
I'm fine with that, but then, by the same token, what does this letter that Natan posted have to do with anything we see today? It's all just speculation about what these different great people would've said in today's very different circumstances.
Rav Zevin deals with the sources that were cited in his day, and that are still cited today. Hence, merely from the perspective of assessing those sources, the letter retains its relevancy.
Great מראה מקום! It's interesting, I thought the article RDNS posted was quite passionate, but his passion in the article you linked matched that same passion. He really did a full 180°!
Wow, you're able to respond to yourself under so many identities!
You know who else where widely excepted gedolim who disagreed? The Chazon Ish, Rav Shach, The Brisker Rav, Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Issur Zalman Meltzer and many many many others.
Of course, most of them lived at a time when Orthodoxy was very weak. We have no idea what they would say today.
And Rabbi Zevin lived at a time when the IDF was very weak. We have no idea what he would say today.
I guess you're not aware of the IDFs manpower needs.
I don't think you are either...
How many people is the IDF short of?
https://www.facebook.com/ilay.ofran/posts/pfbid02QXyk3qLCx4zQ8P8QyLC9kJDFs1gXAV1WA5SFFaL34QKzYunJu28Ejqx2E1TkkCsQl
I think it is worth translating/summarizing Rav Ofran's post.
He is the head of a religious pre-army Mechina for boys ["Ruach Sadeh"]. It is a one year (generally with a partial 2nd year option) program to prepare the boys spiritually and physically for army service (other Mechinot that may be more familiar include Otzem, formally in Atzmona in Gaza, and Eli).
Boys attending these programs defer army service for a year (drafting in August) or a year and a half (drafting in March)
Rav Ofran was apparently informed that due to man-power shortages in the army, the boys in all the Mechinot will have to draft in March of their first year.
He is asking that students in Hesder or other Yeshiva programs that draft after 2-3 years (not to mention Hareidim who almost never draft).... to consider advancing their induction dates, so that the boys in the Mechina can at least complete one full tear of learning.
The Mechina programs are win-win for everyone, as the boys enter the army a year more mature and highly motivated, except that the army apparently is feeling such man-power shortages that it needs to cut deferrals.
Bottom line, there is a real and acute shortage of soldiers to the extent that the army needs to cut even programs that simply defer full service.
..and 2nd bottom-line, those getting deferrals/exemptions because they are in yeshiva, are preventing others from being able to learn
and this describes the situation of reserve soldiers, many of whom have been away from home for >90 days, with no clear end in sight:
https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/yokra13763580
And knowing the situation today and how many problems the army has with shabbos Kashrus and tznius we have no idea what Rav Zevin would say. Your answer works in both directions!
Dream on.
The current war has elevated the soldiers to unimaginable levels of קדושה and אהבת ישראל.
Maybe they haven't had enough time to dot every ב or ת. But they have far more important things to think about in their current situation.
Go check out the רמב"ם in הלכות מלכים ומלחמות
Then express an opinion.
That's not an answer as neither was Rav Slifkins. You cannot say the Chazon Ish or Brisker Rav would suddenly send the Yeshiva boys to the army. Keep in mind they lived through far worse wars than this and did no such thing! Also I don't see how soliders got more kadosh. If they were they are nothing has made that more or less
Hold on. You are saying that defending eretz yisrael results in shabbos and kashrus problems. and therefore chareidi students are automatically disqualified. first of all, that is extreme hearsay, secondly, there are thousands of frum hesder students that apparently have found a way to make it work, thirdly, when in a milchama/pikuach nefesh situation, you fight on shabbos and eat what you can anyway. fourthly, the food they eat in the army is things like tuna in a can, so no "kashrus problems" to worry about, fifthly, the more chareidi students get involved in tzahal, the more they can raise the level for everyone, sixth, you quote chareidi gedolim, but there are dati l'umi gedolim that have not voiced these concerns -- if they are actually concerns (and of course they will say that their constituents are not obliged to go to the army and if they did, who would listen necessarily?), seventh, the levels now are higher than ever
" Also I don't see how soliders got more kadosh."
They're engaged in a מצוה.
As per the Rambam, "וכל הנלחם בכל לבו בלא פחד ותהיה כוונתו לקדש את השם
בלבד מובטח לו שלא ימצא נזק ולא תגיעהו רעה ויבנה לו בית נכון בישראל ויזכה לו ולבניו עד עולם ויזכה לחיי העולם הבא"
Sound likes קדושה to me. Rav Asher Weiss said that assisting the soldiers is קודש קדשים (by implication, the solider are even holier than that!), and Rav Aryeh Levin referred to soldiers as מלאכים. Need I quote RSZA?
Or do you prefer חרדקים?
all of those problems were worse when R. Zevin was writting. KAshrus has gotten much much better in recent years. soon all the meat will be mehadrin. Shabbos is in principle a non issue, though it can at time be dififuclt. as for tznius- that needs to be defined. Thing for girls have gotten much much better in recent years. As for mixed units- this si a serious issue which thus far benei yeshiva has been able to avoid. However the reason why the left wingers are wining this fight is because of serious manpower shortages when it comes to combat troops. I dont knwo the exact numbers, but the chaeidi community could easily solve this shortage of combat soldiers with out signifcantly reducing the numer of guys learning (and mean learning, seriously all day)
This is simply not correct. Kashrus in the army has gotten significantly worse. Mehadrin meat is useless when the ovens and keilim are treif. Hashgacha was outsourced from the military Rabbanut to civilian contractors with no real power. Shabbos has always been an issue and remains so. As far as tznius even the Chareidi units still end up serving with female soliders when not on base. So no sorry things havnt really improved and the army has shown zero interest in actually being willing to cater to mainstream Chareidi soliders!
more vast ignorance and propoganda. you are simply wrong regardign kashrus in the army. did you ever speak to any one inthe rabbanut tzvait or rashei yehivot hesder about this. as for tznius- you are corrrect that the army cannot garuntee that male soldiers are completely insolated from females. this is the crux of the matter- charedeid refusal to serve has less to do with talmud torah than it does with a desire to wall themselves off from contact with the non charedi world. in America yeshivish young men take jobs in mixed enviornemnts all the time. they even go to colleges with female instructors. they certainly work with non jews and non charedi jews. but in ISrael this is considered unthinkable. it is true if chareidim have no interest in intergrating with Israel society and contribute to it in way that others will recognize at the even the most minimal level, and only demand money in welfare benefits (unlike the averegae non charediisraeli who pays in thousands of shekels a month more than they receive, the average chareidi takes in thousands) and for their yeshivos ( while screaming bloody murder at any attempt to regulate whay is taught- there is no western country where schools get money from the government but the government has no say in what goes on there) and of course expention from the universal draft, they cannot expect anyone else in the society to be very sympathetic to them.
The percentage of religious jews whose spiritual level goes down in the army is what ?
The DL community has a retention rate of what? In this 18forty podcast r reuven taragin (educational director at world mizrachi ) mentions as an aside that the retention is horrible
https://18forty.org/podcast/reuven-and-shani-taragin-whats-next-the-future-of-religious-zionism/
If the choice is children who protect knesses Yisrael and are mechalel shabbos vs. shomrei Torah umitzvos who shirk a responsibility to serve, the choice for any chareid ldvar Hashem is clear.
Well, things are a lot better than they used to be (did you know the IDF only buys glatt these days?), so I think we know what he'd say.
And yet back in the "old days" we were told you can be perfectly religious in the army, its all 100% kosher, etc etc etc. Nice to see they've finally admitted it.
You could be in the past, and it's easier now, especially for charedim. It's not either-or.
Rav Aharon Kotler held that the Rambam in the end of שמיטה ויבל was not talking about the average Torah scholar, but someone who doesn't depend on someone else for financial support.
Definitely part of the "Who" group of commentators.
Definitely part of the "annoying" group of commentators.
In the matter of haBrisker. Rabbi Meir Goldvicht was his student and was sent by him to found the Hesder yeshiva of Yavneh and was head of the yeshiva for decades.
Rav Goldvicht whos career was ended by politics because he said that Torah is more important than the army?
Surely, you meant Chaim Goldvicht.
Beat me to it.
Definitely part of the "Who" group of commentators.
Definitely part of the "annoying" group of commentators.
I know personally 2 talmidim who studied in Kollel Hazon Ish 1948 and served in the army. After the war, they returned to the Kollel. So there may have been more. I also remember that Rabbi Haim Kanievsky was serving in the army at the time, but I don't remember the origin of these things.
I also remember story of 10 miraglim vs 2...
Be careful of how you refer to the greatest men of there times. Hashem doesn't take their Kavod lightly
Definitely part of the "Who" group of commentators.
Definitely part of the "annoying" group of commentators.
Haven't the slightest idea what you are trying to prove here. Haredim in Israel follow the lead of the Brisker Rav and the Chazon Ish, the leaders of the Yeshivos, whose descendants and talmidim became leading Roshei Yeshiva and carry on their legacy. Rav Dov Landau, a talmid of the Chazon Ish (who you have ridiculed) said this expressly the other day at a public gathering in TelzStone.
First, the current charedi communities situaiton, valeus and political stances are radically different than they were in the 50's. I good case can be made that the current community does ntor eflect the valeus of the brisker rav and the CI. The brisker rav never would have supported charedi parties joiningthe government (indeed I dont think he was in favor of charedi parties in the knesset at all) if the CI would have supported it, it would have come with a radical change inhis attitude towards the State. he was not one to take money and then curse the people who gave it. the current charedi worldview is the product of people like R Shach and R. Elyashiv.
furtherthe mishnah says עשה לך רב וקנה לך חבר every jew, has to take resposnibility for the rabbis and communties they choose. this is especially true of Chareidm from chul who chose to leave their communties and rabbis and embrace very different ones. Saying " I follow this rav" or "this what my communtiy does," in sum "Dass torah" is not a legitamate response to seriosu criticisms on the halakhic, moral or hashkafic level.
The point was that Rabbi Slifkin was seemingly bringing an argument from this towering rabbinic authority, and Walter is saying that the chareidim have much greater authorities to rely on. You can speculate all you want that maybe the CI would have said this, would have said that, but it's all just your own speculation. And besides for the authorities that chareidim rely on, they also have plenty of halachic and hashkafic arguments. As you say, עשה לך רב, and the Rav that chareidim choose are consistent with their own hashkafos, which you may or may not share. But that wasn't the point of this post.
Definitely part of the "Who" group of commentators.
Yes, Rabbi Zevin is totally entitled to his opinion, but...
By the way, it was publication of this letter in Tradition, and the mention of Artscroll there in the introduction, that led to the exchange of letters where it was revealed that Artscroll had been censoring him. An early example of "This man was such a great gadol you should buy his books from us, but he wasn't such a great gadol that we can't assume to have known better than him and thus can censor him."
What's with the Artscroll obsession? All religions and political streams censor, as Marc himself wrote. Agatha Christie is the best selling author in history, and many passages in her books have been censored.
"Agatha Christie is the best selling author in history, and many passages in her books have been censored."
Passages or fundamental plot points?
What obsession? I'm just pointing out a fact. But if you must know:
1. Until recently Artscroll had a near-monopoly on English Jewish books, including those used by Modern Orthodox Jews. So you'd expect them to get a bit more scrutiny than, say, some publisher in Germany in 1650.
2. Artscroll's response only made things much, much worse. You can follow the thread at Tradition's site.
I know about the issue, I read it בשעתו. OK, it could be it was a mistake of Artscroll, and if so, it is one of their more higher profile mistakes, like the Shir Hashirim translation. But they get so much criticism, one has to recognize one cannot get to the giant behemoth stage they're at without making some mistakes along the way. On the whole though they've done a pretty good job, and you cant argue with success.
I'm not one to deny that Artscroll does a lot of good work. I davened from Artscroll siddurim and learned from their sefarim for years. But I'm also not going to pretend that they haven't kept "making mistakes" all these years, right up until now. And that was one of the first indications.
But you can argue that they could be successful and honest too.
So I guess you agree to Rabbi Zevin's position regarding drafting bochurim, not during wartime?
Or you picked this article because it fits your agenda at the current moment?
This letter is dynamite (pun intended).
What I find remarkable is that (nearly) no one in the comments has addressed the actual content of Rav Zevin's letter.
Remarkable, and yet not surprising!
Commentators here are correct that Rav Zevin was not an "authority."
But that is what made him stand apart: He never argued from authority; his writings rise and fall based on the quality of the argument, not because of who said it.
He persuaded not through authority, but through astonishing scholarship, brilliant writing, and clarity of thought.
Encyclopedia Talmudit is used not because it's authoritative, but because it's great.
Same with the essay quoted here.
Rather than focus on who's bigger then whom, as if that in and of itself is a refutation or support, perhaps it's best to focus on the quality of Rav Zevin's arguments: Are they good arguments or bad arguments?
Definitely part of the "What" and "Why" group of commentators.
Aren't all Torah arguments ultimately arguments from authority? When somebody quotes the Rambam, isn't that an argument from authority? Is quoting a Mishnah not an argument from authority? It's hard to find anything in Rav Zevin's letter that would not be classified as an argument from authority. And that's normal for Torah discussions. Maybe you meant something else?
Good point.
But how would you draw a distinction between arguments that are actual arguments (classic teshuvos, for instance) and arguments that are not arguments at all, but pure appeal to authority?
Also, wouldn't there be a difference between "see if this makes sense to you" (see Hakdama to Iggeros Moshe, for example) and "You must accept this because I said so", not because I've written persuasively"?
Also, would there not be a difference between invoking the authority of Rambam vs invoking the authority of a contemporary?
I would say the "argument from authority" fallacy is not really applicable to Torah, given how much Torah relies on authority. Usually it is used for science, logic, or philosophy.
But it really depends on what you are doing when we talk about Torah discussions. If the question is "do I have to keep Chalav Yisrael in 21st century US?" then relying on Rav Moshe is usually enough, since almost everybody considers him a credible posek, even those who disagree. But if the question is "What does the sugya have to say about keeping Chalav Yisrael?", then you will have show that your pshat makes sense in the sugya and Rishonim. Quoting Rav Moshe is not enough to tell you about the sugya.
It depends how much you are holding in the sugya. As someone who knows really little about the mechanics of cars, I defer to my mechanic and trust his expertise. Same with my doctors, lawyers, insurance agents. For some odd reason everyone is an expert on hashkafa and halacha because they think it is just about reasonability and nothing else. It's not true. There are a ton if undercurrents which come along with devoting one's life to torah, with clarity of matters that can often differ from what a "torah layman" might think. There is a fine line and great skill at knowing when to employ "using your seichel" vs deferring to the greats. That's one of the things tought in the yeshivos and it takes years and years to know how to tow this line properly.
So learning in [charedi Ashkenaz litvishe] yeshivos teaches you how to the correct hashkafah about being charedi Askenaz Litvishe?
Haha
Learning b'iyun is a skill. Appreciating how torah creates a person requires an insider's understanding. If you wanna think that it isn't, if you wanna think that it's all just brainwashing, I can't help you.
That is a classic dodgy yeshivish moshol.
Your mechanic has a track record of fixing your car.
Re Rabbonim, when things don't work out, its just 'rotzon hashem' or a 'time of hester ponim'. It's 'rotzon hashem' that OTD is too high, its 'rotzon hashem' there is a shidduch crisis, 'Meron' was ratzon hashem. Not once do they take accountability for anything. If a wheel fell of your car, your mechanic would be accountable.
Are you mixing up asking a halachic authority a halachic question with asking for generarabbinic.
" otd is too high" it's under 7% by chareidim what's the number in army going circles? Food for thought.
The shidduch crises doesn't exist ,almost all singles are married by 30. It's just not at 21.
Which rabonim were in charge of security by meron? Politicians aren't generally (sadly) rabbonim.
Definitely part of the "Who" group of commentators.
I think my comment contradicts your dichotomy. Do you have a response?
Thanks for sharing this. This is the first source I've seen for someone respected by all pro the draft.
but he was a chabadnick as far as I know. to use college terms, perhpas division I but not "our" league. In either event, R. Gustman was more than an all pro. but we only have direct quotaions from eye witnesses (which is more than enough for charedim when they support their possitions) but nothing in writting. But really for Israeli charedim the only people who count are the Brisker Rav, selected elements of the CI, R, Shach, R Elyashiv and R. Chaim K. In the US, it R A Kotler and R Hunter in his final, Satamar stage. Most of the litvish leadership of the pre and post war era were much much less radical and to some degreee sympathetic to Zionism. R Isser Zalman, RZP Frank, R. Kahanaman, RSZ, and RMF and RY Kaminezky in the US. But they are really irrelevant to charedim. their possitions onthese matters are ignored or re written.
You are confusing issues.
Zionism is not the issue, learning Torah is the issue.
There was no daylight between Reb Isser Zalman and the Brisker Rav regarding the draft of Yeshiva bochurim. Reb Hirsh Pesach went with him to BG to beg for a reprieve for the bochurim.
But the great respect shown to Rav Zevin is vastly overstated. He wrote some Seforim that are popular with the masses. He was not in the big leagues by any yardstick. If people are to be categorized, he was level 3. Like any middle aged Rosh Yeshiva nowadays. This blog post calling him 'a towering Rabbinical authority' is an absolute lie, truly befitting this blog. He was not an authority anywhere. He may have been a great scholar but was never an authority. (It is possible that the blog author does not know what authority means. It's not just Torah he is ignorant about.)
you ignorance is stunning. The was a huge difference between them. The Brisker Rav thought eh medina was evil and thought that no one should go to the army. R Isser Zalman, was quite symapthetic to Zionism. R. Amital, who was his married to his grand daughter told us that R. Isser Zalman made it clear that he saws the exemptions as a horaas shaah. In the wake of the shoah the tiny Israeli yeshiva world needed to be protected (RA also said that RIZM was overjoyed he when he presented him with with the kuntrus he wroting dealign with practical halakhic issues raised by servining in Zahal. It was the first effort. RIZM said that at long last hilchot zava could find its palce in the Shulchan aruch) At the time the time most RZ rabbanim and even some secular Zionist leaders supported at least some exemptions for yeshiva bochrim. It dont think it occured to anyone that all limits on yeshvia exemptions would be lifted as they were when the charedim joined the ogvernment under Begin, the exemption would become a way of exempting all charedim from the army.
As for R. Zevin i would be surpised if there is a single "middle aged rosh yeshiva today" who comes up to his ankles. If you doubt it take a look at the first volumes of the Encyplopedia talmudis, which he basicaly wrote on his own and are far better than what followed. That fact that you dont think of him as such is product of the fact that the chareidi world cannot admit othe existenc eof charedi gedolim, Either as in the case of the Rav and the Seridie Eish, the deney or ignore their zionism, or as inthe case of R. Herzog and R. Zevin, deny that he was a gadol. It is true that he was not aposek and never had a wide following. But I all think R SLifkin meant was that he was a towering authority on Torah, whose views are are as or more legitamate as any other big Rav's.
Your information about the Brisker Rav is also quite faulty. He was not a Satmarer. Once the State was established, he did not believe it should be dismantled.
" R. Amital, who was his married to his grand daughter told us that R. Isser Zalman made it clear that he saws the exemptions as a horaas shaah."
I recall that in this context RIZM used the term "עת לעשות".
If you read full sentences, you won't have to be stunned.
And your ignorance of current events seems to be stunning too. Most RZ Rabbinic leaders and Roshei Yeshiva also support the Charedi Yeshiva bochur exemption, even if they don't want it for their own talmidim.
I dont know where you get that statistic from. I dont know of many DL rabbnic leaders and RY, who think it is OK that the virtually no charedim go to the army. They mostly think it is unacceptable and a vast chillul hashem in my experience. what is your basis for these assertions about the RZ rabbinic world. Charedim like to beleive that "real" RZ essentially support them. nothing copuld be further from the truth. It is true that smotrich and his kavnick allies beleive that they should politcally ally themselves with chareidim against left wing chilonim. He onlu represents a small proportion of the RZ community.
So from Rabbanim and Roshei Yeshiva, we have moved to the 'RZ community' or the 'real RZ'.
Move the goalposts, because actually debating in good faith has you trounced.
Definitely part of the "Who" group of commentators.
Totally wrong, and really, this is schoolyard "My gadol is bigger than your gadol" stuff. He was equally great or greater in learning than any of his contemporaries. But he wasn't part of the yeshivah world and didn't share their politics, so of course he wasn't an "authority" for them, how could it be otherwise?
So 'great in learning' equals 'authority'.
Well, not in the English language. The issue was 'authority' nothing else. Not 'whose Gadol is greater'.
If you are revising your comments to be simply about "authority", לחיי. He indeed was not an authority to the charedi public (because he chose not to be.) But that's not what you said. You said, "the great respect shown to Rav Zevin is vastly overstated. He wrote some Seforim that are popular with the masses. He was not in the big leagues by any yardstick." And that is simply mistaken.
He was not an authority anywhere. He was not a Rav of note, revisionist history is trying to uplift his legacy, because something he wrote fits with the narrative some people need.
And his Seforim are 'gantz fein', nothing close to that which was produced by the top tier of his generation.
Definitely part of the "Who" group of commentators.
Do you think any middle aged Rosh Yeshiva nowadays could get semicha from the Rogachover? Stop showing your ignorance. A gadol's greatness isn't measured by how many fanboys he has in Bnei Brak.
When you have an actual, relevant, מראה מקום of Rav Zevin's, that shows his outstanding genius, you won't have to resort to irrelevancies like 'fanboys in Bnei Brak'.
Leading to one conclusion.
Wow. כל המבזה וכו. Maybe join yhe army, you'd do better there.
Definitely part of the "Who" group of commentators.
You're point about authority is correct, but there is no reason to belittle a gadol b'torah. Some would argue that he was "not in the big leagues" only because of his political views like this one, which is very unfortunate. (And I'd like to meet some of these middle-aged roshei yeshivah.) The main point is that even if he was an "authority", it would not matter because he is just ONE opinion.
Definitely part of the "Who" group of commentators.
Definitely part of the "Who" group of commentators.
https://doc-0g-90-prod-02-apps-viewer.googleusercontent.com/viewer2/prod-02/pdf/b4pck7apso4prqnlgur0mq2cpfg8eqe5/n8i8m0roeanh2njefm46dfuooig5nlch/1705928550000/3/106182638701524124859/APznzaYKKYZknLSIDG5_Y1yLYcWaGQPtNfrU1V0nvqA3OIpj3lextCxzJEjn0TdzqSFaMyv10-Ua3-aiQlfkBE1xO439NTD_SmShnXYP_5BQAkeak6ySKKg-Ymy8437XJ1r5S-CTiKs0rKjMLszMEG8iMWn6OJp8MOARuQfvpNksDBywInM9HxM27icWMILysDa75Jna2CoaJS-veW8XCzfaRw8sw0okHRp5pnSkUommONaVrrkc-WFka8mSPkoNQesX9JdNHccfA-ecbEiKRhf9qg2HRbYzadVI5DnBIWigqGiA7z7vGjGHlMoQcVoFqH4ReGq8-uhD5KKD17pRTl-Z4RUdO1H2317JT8v4AzWhBxB3RzvxLwsv9NrFF3ZTYI5n6Zl-bxnrQdcq_qo2IS5Ve5sV_nXqkg==?authuser=0&nonce=hbuva4uj3cllo&user=106182638701524124859&hash=v3vqpg9as6uojfsuf0d19r27fgc4da21
Rav Gustman on IDF service.
Amazing find. Just skimming through the comments over here, there’s alot to respond to. Shay makes this an amazing find is being that he prescribed to the chareidi world ideology, yet insisted on army service. Now most anti IDF arguments on the chareidi side, go back to when the chareidim where in the single digits so to speak. And therefore quite frankly quoting them now is irrelevant. Now to have a RY in the infancy of charedi Jewery, still insisting on full army service. Despite the small number of chareidim, clearly he felt the “dangers” are not so. This conversation about chareidim in the army must be had. It’s the elephant in the room. And we are all being to think skinned to admit there’s major problems!
Thanks Rabbi Slifkind!
There are 2 types of commentators on this blog.
- the "who" group; and
- the "what" and "why" group.
RNS is discussing the "what" and the "why" following the pattern of תשובות over the centuries. The "who" type of approach (as in "who said it and how big a Godol Hador he is?") doesn't feature in תשובות.
I will highlight in the comments, which group people identify with. That may help to explain some reasons for the differences of opinion.
I don't think this is true. Like I say in my below comment, Torah relies much on the "who", which is why sourcing things in earlier authorities, whether Rishonim, Amoraim, or Tannaim is so important. So I think your statement 'The "who" type of approach (as in "who said it and how big a Godol Hador he is?") doesn't feature in תשובות'-is false. I don't think Rabbi Slifkin agrees with you either. He starts off with "Rav Shlomo Yosef Zevin was a towering rabbinic authority of the twentieth century". When you bring a letter from a "towering rabbinic authority" which is itself mostly a collection of citations and paraphrases from even more towering rabbinic authorities, you are treating the "who" with utmost importance.
Yes, you can add RNS to the "Who" group, as well as David Wachsman:
"What is most significant is that they were written by someone of Rabbi Zevin's stature..."
Surely, Richie, you don't expect anyone would give this article the time of day if it was authored by say a college professor or Reform Rabbi.
😂
This comment is part of the incredibly dumb group
How many tshuvos have you learned?
It's very common to see " however since so and so ruled otherwise we defer".
How many times does the taz say -since however the mechaber rules such how can we argue?
How many times does the beis yosef say - since so and so rules we will follow.
What exactly is the point of this? R. Zevin was indeed a great scholar, no one denies it. Does that mean one has to agree with whatever he he said here? The Satmar Rebbe was also a great scholar - should we follow his opinions? R. Meir Kahane was a great Zionist - do you agree with his opinions? What precisely is your point?
The chareidi world bases its position onthe argument that they are following "the gedolim." to them the "who" appraoch allows them to avoid actually justifying thir opinions. The reality, as empahsized by the post, is there is no one "daas torah" eveyr one chooses their leaders and their community and they are responible for those choices. this sort of personal responsibility, though one would think it fundamnetal to ORthodox beleif, is not acknowledged by most charedim
It is self-understood that people choose the "Gadol" that best matches their position, and then follow him. But this is true in every stream of every religion and every political organization. It's not quite "the leaders follow the masses", but the leaders have to be in step with their followers. Religious Zionists are exactly the same, only their "Gedolim" are politicians, not rabbis. They'll follow their chosen politician only so long as he agrees with them; the moment he veers off the reservation, they'll form a new party and choose new Gedolim to lead them.
u1) this is not self understood by most charedim. 2) DL do have rabbis. they just believe they are human beings not gods. politicians are only meant to be support as long as one agrees with them. that called democracy
We will have to disagree. I think Charedim understand this perfectly, they are just misunderstood by outsiders. And I didnt mean to imply the DL dont have rabbis, they certainly do, great ones. But they don't afford them the same respect and deference ("hero worship", to detractors) as Charedim. The point, though, is that DL too will only follow their leaders as long as their leaders follow them. This is all too human - "Je suis leur chef, il fallait bien les suivre!"
(By the way, if you were a student of Rav Amiel, that is certainly something to be proud of. I've not read his works, but I understand he was a gaon.)
How would their Torah citations stack up against Rav Zevin's?
Pretty well, actually.
Definitely part of the "What" and "Why" group of commentators.