Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 032

Thursday, October 17 2002

• Re: Gedolim and their foresight
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Administrivia: Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• RE: RMF on microphones and modern gezeirot
• Parshas ha-Melekh
• RE: Parshas ha-Melekh
• Re: 'hakofos sheniyos' (in Eretz Yisroel)
• 'hakofos sheniyos' (in Eretz Yisroel)
• Re: Avodah V10 #28
• [Areivim] Daas Torah, Nevuah and Malchus
• Re: More on Klapping during Selach Lanu
• Fwd: YerushalmiOnline.org - Dvar Hashem me'Yerushalmi Week 1, Eruvin 1
• Re: Parshas ha-Melekh
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• RE: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• RE: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> ---------- "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM> writes:
> 
> >>I believe that you are reading too much into the Rav's statement.  All the Rav was saying was that people should not speak disrespectfully about gedolim.
> 
> If in fact, as you say, "the Rav considered the Holocaust to be
> evidence that the concept does not exist", then no disrespect would be
> shown by saying that they made a wrong decision.  It is only in
> context of _A_ concept of da'as Torah, whatever form it may have taken
> to the Rav, that one could construe that statement as disrespectful.
> 
> Rabbi Carmy?

Having reported the Rav's words, I don't want to put additional words in
his mouth.

Let me just point out that one may regard a person as liable to error and
still object to having that liability chatted about, especially when it is
implied (rightly or wrongly) that these persons were directly or
indirectly at fault for the deaths of thousands.

The fact that we are talking about gedolim does not lower the level of
verbal tsniut required. To the contrary.

RGD:
> JJB: 
> > Asking "Should I try to leave Europe, knowing that Hilter wants
> > to kill the Jews, and is making life extremely difficult for us?"
> > seems to me to be a sufficiently a-priori question.
 
> Nobody, at the time that leaving Europe was still possible, KNEW
> that Hitler wanted to kill the Jews.  Most people, Jews and nonJews,

If the Gedolim had siyata dishemaya, wouldn't they have known it? 
Knowing things that one can't otherwise know, such as the thoughts
of others, etc., are how Chazal determine that Megillat Ester was 
written with Ruach haKodesh.

If they didn't know it, it puts them in the theologically problematic
position of "God told me to sentence lots of Jews to death".

Or, they just didn't have sd"s, at least on this issue.

> didn't believe him and considered him a raving maniac.  Which he was,
> but he did unfortunately mean it.  But nobody knew it at the time.

He said it in Mein Kampf years before he gained power.  He was syste-
matically oppressing the Jews of Germany for six years before the
Anschluss. Surely stories were circulating about the death camps by
the early 1940s. One can't diss Roosevelt for knowing about the death
camps and doing nothing, while holding the Gedolim up to a different
standard.  When was Kastner?  1944?  By then people surely knew the
axe was falling.  Begin made it out from Poland, so it wasn't com-
pletely impossible to leave.
 
> >a) the Gedolim were not speaking with siyata dishemaya when they said
> to stay or go;
 
> >b) don't ask the Gedolim if you should stay or go, if that's the choice;
 
> And my point is that b does not follow from a.  A is hindsight; b is a priori.

Yes.  And a priori, then, we should not now treat the advice of Gedolim on
life-and-death issues as any more Divinely inspired than any other advice
on such questions from other people.
 
> >>As it happens, I don't think of Gedolim as having any better advice
> than any other friend might in non-halachic questions.  
 
> That is your right.  I am convinced that in most cases (in my
> experience), their advice is very wise;  this may segue into who
> is a gadol, where I emphatically do not wish to go.  

No, no, you're quite right.

> >>Are those numbers taken literally, or as hyperbole? 
> 
> Probably not, but clearly there was more than incidental loss of
> life as you describe it. IIRC Josephus also describes the slaughter
> as horrendous, and from what we know of ancient warfare, it wasn't
> Marquis of Queensbury and Geneva Conventions.  Don't forget the
> Romans considered this a major victory.

Marquess of Queensbury isn't rules of war, it's rules of boxing.

And I don't see Israel as being completely wiped out like Poland was,
until the Bar-Kochba war.  

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

"Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com> writes:
>>If the Gedolim had siyata dishemaya, wouldn't they have known it? 

Ruach hakodesh does not equal siyata diShemaya. I'm not sure if r"hk
requires knowing that one has it, but s"d certainly does not.

>>If they didn't know it, it puts them in the theologically problematic
position of "God told me to sentence lots of Jews to death".

That's a pretty strong statement to put into their mouths/thoughts/actions.  

The s"d position is that they reached their conclusions based upon their
Torah-saturated way of thinking, and the s"d is either there or not.
Usually, sometimes, take your pick; clearly in this instance it was
not there.

Sure would have been easy to say "God told me to tell you the following",
but they were neither nevi'im nor shotim.

>>He said it in Mein Kampf years before he gained power.

Read your history.  Virtually nobody believed him. Nobody.

>>Surely stories were circulating about the death camps by
the early 1940s. 

Nobody had options of getting out then, at least en masse, even if they did previously.  And nobody was saying NOT to go then, either.  The whole discussion is about the 1930's when it was theoretically easier to get out (to go where?  Nobody wanted Jews) and the handwriting was not as clear on the wall as it was once the doors were slammed shut.

>>One can't diss Roosevelt for knowing about the death
camps and doing nothing, while holding the Gedolim up to a different
standard.  When was Kastner?  1944?  By then people surely knew the
axe was falling.  Begin made it out from Poland, so it wasn't com-
pletely impossible to leave.

I challenge you to find me one gadol who knew about the camps and told people to stay in Europe. Your time frames are off.  FDR knew and could have acted and did not act;  the gedolim (and everyone else not in positions such as FDR's) either did not know (earlier) or knew but too late (like the pathologist joke <g>).  

Begin made it out, so did hundreds/thousands of others.  But a mass yeshua was no longer possible, if it ever was.
 
<<Marquess of Queensbury isn't rules of war, it's rules of boxing.

So sorry <g>.

<<And I don't see Israel as being completely wiped out like Poland was,
until the Bar-Kochba war.>>

Would there have been a Bar Kochba revolt if the Romans had been asked and agreed to go home and leave the Jews alone as the Gemara says they should have been, had not "meishiv chachamim achor" been operative?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Obviously there is no way I could have bounced a 60+ post thread over
to Avodah correctly. My apologies for any errors.

PLEASE do not continue to misdirect this discussion.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org            remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org       winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Peter Marshall

From: Arie Folger
> Anyway, in both cases (microphones and abortion) we are dealing with
> tshuvot by RMF that make claims that some may say are outlandish, and take
> positions that could much more readily be explained as gezeirot of sorts.
...
> Now most of us may disagree with RMT about the justification for RMF
> making gezeirot, but he does agree with the observation that RMF was
> making gezeirot bizman hazeh.

SK:

Bimchilas kvodchoh, and that of JDB, the only thing I have seen in this
debate which one might justifiably call 'outlandish' is the use of the
word 'outlandish' regarding a teshuva from RMF a"h.

 Where I come from, if one finds a claim by RMF a"h to be outlandish we go
back and read it again. And again. And again, until we understand why
it is not outlandish. Then we decide if we agree or not.

I might find it 'outlandish' if REW chose the term 'outlandish' to argue
against RMF but I wouldn't say his doing so was 'outlandish'. I would
say that due to my miniscule understanding of REW's argument I do not
understand how he could call anything RMF a"h wrote outlandish. And if
it bothered me enough, I would learn and re-learn REW's torah until I
understood why he called RMF's torah 'outlandish'.

I am currently teaching devorim to high school seniors, and we are
tackling the concept of Melekh as found in Tanakh and as developed in
Chazal and the Meforshim. I am looking for material (either on the web or
otherwise) that deals with Torah models of political systems, checks and
balances etc. in a way that is sophisticated and engaging to students who
lehavdil are familiar with the rudiments of modern political thought from
history course. Particularly, they were troubled by the "carte blance"
granted a Melekh to kill mordim, and the reason for dynastic kings
(who, once the dynasty was established, did not require meshicha or even
the approval of a navi) even though experience seemed to show horrific
failures within dynasties, as well as egalitarian concerns (Melekh ve-
lo malka, restirction on geirim even after multiple generations, and
esp when extended to all mesimos.)

All feedback would be welcome.

Kol Tuv,
Daniel Yolkut

From: HaLeviY@aol.com [mailto:HaLeviY@aol.com]
> I am looking for material (either on the web or otherwise) that 
> deals with Torah models of political systems, checks and balances etc. in a 
> way that is sophisticated and engaging to students who lehavdil are familiar 
> with the rudiments of modern political thought from history course.

Over 10 years ago, I studied these issues with Prof. Bernard Septimus
(my law school permitted us to cross-register with other faculties and
get credit too!). To my recollection, important sources are the Drashas
HaRan (melech vs. sanhedrin) and the differing views among rishonim
as to whether a melech is good or bad to have--contrast Devarim (not
negative) to Shmuel aleph (very negative about the desire for a king);
IIRC see esp. the Arbarbanel. (I think he may have also brought late
rishonim who lived in Italian city-states.)

Prof. Septimus thesis was that commentators' attitude towards malchus
was colored by whether their personal experience of kings was positive
or negative. This also affected their views of dina d'malchusa dina
(vs. dina d'malka).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On 16 Oct 2002 at 0:01, Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
> 1) What is the idea of 'hakofos sheniyos' ? He had trouble
> understanding it - he said something like 'has anyone ever heard of a
> second seder ?

Generally another set of hakafos with live or recorded music. 

> 2) Is one allowed to take out sifrei Torah for such an event which
> (licheora) has no source in the past ?

L'ma'aseh in many places they do. I don't know what the basis for 
that is.
 
> 3) Is it proper for a ben / bas chutz lo'oretz to take part in such an
> event if it includes music, etc., which is prohibited to them at that
> time (when it is still yom tov for them) ?

What's the issur? The people making the music are doing so for their 
own benefit, and there is no mar'es ayin issue because everyone will 
assume you are a Ben Eretz Yisrael holding one day of Yom Tov. (I'm 
not sure mar'es ayin would matter - this is not the same as someone 
paying for a Ben Chu"l to ride the buses on Yom Tov Sheini). 

> 4) Licheora a ben/bas chu"l cannot be yotze hakofos Simchas Torah by
> attending 'hakofos sheniyos' - since the bnei EY putting them on have
> no chiyuv to make them, while the bnei Chu"l do - correct ?

I'm not sure what the "chiyuv" is. How is one yotzei the "chiyuv" of 
hakafos? Walking around the room seven times? Saying "...Hoshea Na, 
.... Hatzlicha Na, ... Aneinu b'Yom Koreainu." 

> I told the fellow that I believe it is basically a dati-leumi thing,
> not engaged in by chareidim. Is that correct ?

Nope. Most of Meah Shearim makes them. Ner Yosef (the big Shas shul 
across the street from me) makes them. Yechave Daas (ROY's shul in 
Har Nof - I used to live across the street from it) makes them. 
Agudah makes them in Gan ha'Atzmaut or in Kikar Shabbos. 

BTW - for being leibidig, the second night hakafos run by the 
Yeshivos for their bochrim holding two days of Yom Tov tend to be 
much more leibidig. When we first came on aliya and knew many of the 
bochrim, I used to take the older kids every year. 

-- Carl

From: Phyllostac@aol.com
> 1) What is the idea of 'hakofos sheniyos' ? He had trouble understanding
> it - he said something like 'has anyone ever heard of a second seder ?
> I told the fellow that I believe it is basically a dati-leumi thing,
> not engaged in by chareidim. Is that correct ?

I don't think so.

AFAIK it was instituted by the Ari Hakodesh.

SBA

 
> Someone asked me about 'hakofos sheniyos' recently and asked me to
> 'ask my chevra' about it. So here goes....

> 1) What is the idea of 'hakofos sheniyos'? He had trouble understanding
> it - he said something like 'has anyone ever heard of a second seder 
                  
> 2) Is one allowed to take out sifrei Torah for such an event which
> (licheora) has no source in the past ?

> 3) Is it proper for a ben / bas chutz lo'oretz to take part in such an
> event if it includes music, etc., which is prohibited to them at that time
> (when it is still yom tov for them) ?

> 4) Licheora a ben/bas chu"l cannot be yotze hakofos Simchas Torah by
> attending 'hakofos sheniyos' - since the bnei EY putting them on have
> no chiyuv to make them, while the bnei Chu"l do - correct ?

> I told the fellow that I believe it is basically a dati-leumi thing,
> not engaged in by chareidim. Is that correct ?

I'm sure my chaveirim in Ponevez, and their counterparts in Hevron
and Slabodka, will be surprised to learn that they are dati-leumi
for having a band come in to the Beis Medrash on Motza'ei Yom Tov for
"hakafos Sh'niyos." But if memory serves me (it's been almost 50 years),
the sifrei Torah were not removed; it was just dancing and general
merriment. My wife, a Yerushalmit, informs me that in Merkaz Harav,
they were removed -- she remembers the singing of S'u sh'arim when they
were returned.

Why should there be a problem for a ben chu"l? The music is not being
played for him exclusively (music l'echad, music l'me'ah), and even if it
were, the Brisker Rav paskened that a ben chu"l could not only benefit,
but could even ask a ben E"Y to do m'lachah for him on Yom Tov Sheni.
His reasoning was that asking a goy is a g'zeirah of amirah l'akum,
but there was never a g'zeirah of amirah l'Yisrael -- usually it's
prohibited because of the chilul Shabbos or Yom Tov on the part of the
one asked. True, in this case the one asked has no Yom Tov, but we do
not make new g'zeiros.

As for the final question, what chiyuv is there on anyone to be "yotze
hakafos"? There is no chiyuv of any kind. As a prelude to k'rias
haTorah, we say an expanded version of Vayhi binso'a (Atah Horeisa),
and on the way to the bimah to read, we accompany the sefer in which we
intend to read with all the other s'forim, and proceed to show our joy
by circling the bimah with those s'forim seven times. What obligation
is imposed on the individual, that he has to be yotzei?

Elazar M. Teitz

In preparing for a recent shiur, I came across a gemarah in Bava
Basra, 12a that seems to me (l'ad) to be the "source" for Rabbi Bernard
Weinberger's reference to the semi-prophetic "Daas Torah" capabilities of
gedolim in his JO article, "The Role of Gedolim", Jewish Observer 2:1,
(October 1963), which was first made (in)famous by Dr. Lawrence Kaplan
in his Tradition article in Fall 1980 ("Rabbi Isaac Hutner's Daat Torah
Perspective on the Holocaust . . ." )and then his subsequent, longer
piece on Daas Torah in "Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy."

See the maamar of R. Avdimi on BB 12a re: "miyom shecharav Beis Hamikdash"
regarding nevuah being given to [or not being taken from] Chachamim,
and see further the Kosav in the Ein Yaacov quoting a Ritva -- which I
could not find -- on this maamar. According to the Kosav, the Ritva says,
based on the gemarah, that nevuah was given to the Chachamim to allow
them to comprehend with their sechel, i.e., intellectual faculties,
many things that others would not naturally comprehend. Ayain sham.

Compare this to Rabbi Weinberger's statement that "Gedolai Yisroel possess
a special endowment or capacity to penetrate reality, recognize the facts
as they really are and apply halachic principles. This endowment is a
form of ruach hakodesh, as it were, bordering, if only remotely on the
periphery of prophecy."

I do not pretend to understand precisely (or even remotely) what
the gemarah meant or for that matter what the Ritvah was conveying.
Nonetheless, R. Aharon Feldman explained in a letter to the Editor
to Tradition (Spring 1994, at page 97), that the decision-making of
Rabbanim (gedolim) are based on their intellectual, human capacity --
notwithstanding the "presence" of the schechina -- which seems to be the
import of the Ritvah brought down in the Kosav. Moreover, if one looks
in R. Rakefet's book on the Rav ztl (vol. 2 at page 189 re "The Divine
Presence") one also finds the Rav speaking of how he felt the shechina
standing behind him at times when he was engaged in learning at night.
I do not think that people would accuse the Rav of claiming nevuah --
and I don't think that Rabbi Weinberger really meant any different in
his article.

*************

One additional point regarding Daas Torah of interest, is its possible
"foundation" or "source" based on keser malchus that Chazal apparently
took over. See, e.g., Rav Dovid Cohen in his sefer "Maaseh Avos,
Siman Labanim" chelek aleph (translated by Artscroll in "Templates
for Ages" at page 33: "The Crown of Torah and the Crown of Kingship;
the Hasmoneans and the Concept of Daas Torah"). See also R. Mendell
Lewittes' "Religious Foundations of the State of Israel" (Aronson) at 87
where he also explains -- and bases himself on the Ran in Drashos Haran --
that "in the absence of a kingdom, the religious authorities are able to
assume the responsibilities of political leadership." See also page 56,
where R. Lewittes writes:

    "When the first Temple was destroyed and king and priest were
    banished from Israel, the prophet assumed the whole burden of
    leadeship . . . but when, six and a half centuries later the Second
    Temple was destroyed and again king and prophet were banished, the
    chief scholar was able to assume the whole burden of leadership
    for a vanquished but surviving people. Thus, R. Simon could now
    say that in Israel 'there are three crowns: the crown of the Torah,
    the crown of the priesthood, and the crown of kingship' (Avot 4:13);
    and another Sage could add: 'Torah is greater [in its emoluments]
    than the priesthood and kingship.' (Avot 6;5)."

[Parenthetically, R. Lewittes' book, was reviewed by R.Solomon Spiro
in Tradition (vol. 18 no. 1 Summer 1979) wherein he wrote: "There is
little radically new, provocative or controversial in the work [!!]"]

See also Gitin 62a calling rabbanim, m'lachim and finally see Harrirai
Kedem (R. Michal Shurkin's sefer based on the Rav's Torah) at reish
samach hei, where (as my brother pointed out to me) the Rav compares a
morah d'asrah to a melech.

If, indeed, one can liken Daas Torah authority to the power of the melech,
that could "explain" in some measure (without my agreeing or disagreeing)
the at times inflexible, unreasoned pronouncements of some g'dolim --
they are akin to a royal decree, if you will.

In this regard, also see Emes l'Yaacov of R. Yaacov Kaminetzky ztl,
wherein he brings down the Ibn Ezra on the pasuk in Shoftim "Ki yipalei
mimcha davar" as the source for the issur of being "mored b'malchus"
because "shofet" in the pasuk there is the "melech." L'ad, that could mean
that the principle of "lo sasur" a few p'sukim later, applies to royal
pronouncements which must be obeyed regardless of their unreasonableness,
and even (according to the Ran, for example, with some limitations)
if they are inconsistent with dinai haTorah. If this is correct, then
even if "lo sasur" applies -- when it comes to *judges* -- to Beis Din
Hagadol *only*, Chachamim today might still be able to apply "lo sasur,"
from the din malchus that they assumed ("Yiftach b'doro.").

Yitzchak Kasdan

According to those who say not to 'klop' during Selach Lanu on
non-Tachanun days, what about Tisha B'Av? We do skip Tachanun on that
day. We don't even say Selichos, unlike all other fast days.

In discussing the saying of Avinu Malkenu on Rosh Hashana (O"C 584:1),
there is a principle voiced that "Vidui is not said on R"H", but I did
not see any source or explanation for this principle. The Be'er Hetev
seems to offer several ways that A"M can be seen as a tefila and not as a
confession, and the practice of not klopping at "Avnu Malkenu Chatanu
L'fanecha" would support that.

I suspect that the klopping at Selach Lanu can be seen in a similar
light: Selach Lanu might be interpreted as a mere prayer for forgiveness
(though I wonder how "chatanu" and "pashanu" would be translated in such
an interpretation), but the klopping turns it into a blatant confession.
If so, then our homework assignment will be to figure out *why* vidui is
not said on R"H, and then perhaps we'll understand how to apply it to
other non-Tachanun days.

Akiva Miller

Just one sample - anyone interested in weekly doses can sign up through 
Yerushalmi Online directly.

KT,
YGB

>Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:09:22 -0400
>From: yerushalmi-announce <admin@yerushalmionline.org>
>Organization: yerushalmi-announce
>Subject: YerushalmiOnline.org - Dvar Hashem me'Yerushalmi Week 1, Eruvin 1
>List-Archive: http://www.seforimonline.org/cgi-bin/mojo/mojo.cgi?f=archive&l=yann
>List-Subscribe: http://www.seforimonline.org/cgi-bin/mojo/mojo.cgi?f=s&l=yann
>List-Unsubscribe: http://www.seforimonline.org/cgi-bin/mojo/mojo.cgi?f=u&l=yann
>List-URL: http://www.seforimonline.org/cgi-bin/mojo/mojo.cgi?l=yann
>
>B'ezras Hashem each week we shall post (on Erev Shabbos) a brief insight 
>or interpretation pertaining to the coming week's Daf Yomi Yerushalmi 
>(from Friday to Friday). Please do not hesitate to respond and comment!
>
>Since next Friday, 19 Marcheshvan, 25 October, is the first day of Eruvin, 
>our first Dvar Hashem me'Yerushalmi is from Eruvin, 1b:
>
>The halacha of "karpaf" requires that any area to be enclosed by an eruv 
>that is a Beis Se'asayim (5000 square amos, the shiur of the chatzer in 
>the Mishkan, from whence most parameters of Meleches Shabbos are derived) 
>or greater, must be mukkaf l'dira, i.e., it must be enclosed for the 
>express purpose of habitation, not enclosed merely by happenstance of 
>natural growth. For example, if the foliage of a tree or several trees 
>droop down to the ground in the form of a "wall," that enclosure forms a 
>"natural" eruv. If, however, the trees grow to encompass a Beis Se'asayim, 
>even if
>the foliage forms a wall, it cannot serve as the enclosure of the area, as 
>it is not mukkaf l'dira.
>
>Similarly, natural riverbanks or cliffs cannot comprise an eruv of an area 
>large than a Besi Se'asayim unless some portion of their circumference is 
>artificial.
>
>The Yerushalmi here goes further. In discussing the parameters of the 
>rectification required at the entrance to a mavui - an alley that is 
>enclosed on three sides, but open on its fourth side to a reshus ho'rabbim 
>- which Chazal decreed to require either a vertical post or horizontal 
>beam (lechi or korah), the Yerushalmi rules that a grapevine or gourd tree 
>can only serve as a lechi or korah for an area under the size of a Beis 
>Se'asayim. If the area is larger, then despite the fact that three of its 
>sides are enclosed by man-made walls, the lechi or korah must also be 
>man-made, i.e., mukkaf l'dira (see R' Chaim Kanievski shlita's Biur!
>
>This is very interesting in and of itself, but, even more so, because in a 
>classic four-sided eruv, only a small portion of the enclosure need be 
>artificial. Yet here, even though the vast majority of the enclosure is 
>artificial, this does not suffice! Clearly, the Yerushalmi regards the 
>lechi or korah as a separate category unto itself with its own specific 
>parameters. So far as I know, this severity of the Yerushalmi is not 
>brought down l'halacha.
>
>Kol Tuv,
>YGB
>ygb@yerushalmionline.org
>http://www.yerushalmionline.org
>http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

In a message dated 10/16/2002 11:42:44 PM EDT, MFeldman@CM-P.COM writes:
> Over 10 years ago, I studied these issues with Prof. Bernard Septimus ...
>                   To my recollection, important sources are the Drashas
> HaRan (melech vs. sanhedrin) and the differing views among rishonim
> as to whether a melech is good or bad to have--contrast Devarim (not
> negative) to Shmuel aleph (very negative about the desire for a king);
> IIRC see esp. the Arbarbanel. (I think he may have also brought late
> rishonim who lived in Italian city-states.)

> Prof. Septimus thesis was that commentators' attitude towards malchus
> was colored by whether their personal experience of kings was positive
> or negative. This also affected their views of dina d'malchusa dina
> (vs. dina d'malka).

I did a tikkun lel shavuot on this topic in 1999 and solicited help
from this forum. If you look back at vol 3-33 you'll find an extremely
helpful response from Eli Clark (IIRC he made aliya and left our list
poorer for it - of course it was the right thing to do) I think he may
have written an article in Tradition or some such publication but am
not sure. B"N I'll look for it. I'd appreciate any other sources etc.
that you come up with.

KT
Joel Rich

On 16 Oct 2002 at 13:05, David Riceman wrote:
> Even when I was growing up (sixties and seventies) only Hassidim (and
> there weren't too many in Boston) believed that Rabbis had binding
> authority when not giving psak. 

... and followers of one other Boston-based Rav. 

But since most of Boston followed either RYBS or the Rebbe, what 
you're saying is not at all surprising (nor is it really proof to 
what went on elsewhere). 

-- Carl

In a message dated 10/16/2002 11:22:35 PM EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> There is another Gemara which I cannot now "chapter and verse" where
> RYBZ expressed his own doubts as to the wisdom of the path he chose
> (ve'eini yode'ah be'ezeh derech molichim osi...). He too had difficulty
> distinguishing between what he knew then, what he knew afterward, and
> what he (possibly) should have known beforehand.

brachot 28b

KT
Joel Rich

> I don't think we're dealing with accusations, rather the practical
> question (which I'm sure we will never resolve nor convince each other
> to change positions) of (what for lack of a better phrase) following daat
> torah in all situations. In shamayim, how is one who heard from his Rebbe
> to stay in Europe but escaped to the soon to be State of Israel, judged?

Well, if one can say that Hashem guides all events that happen in the
world as well as the thoughts/actions of men, then why would it seem to
be contradictory to say that according to the daas Torah of a certain
Rebbe, his kehilla should not be urged to flee, but since ploni almoni
was meant to get to Israel, then he felt something urging him to get
out at all costs?

I have personally known of situations where someone did something very
unlike themselves and their lives were saved -- it seems that Hashem
sent a malach down to strongly urge the person to do a certain thing
that they would not otherwise do.

If, as R' Tauber was reported to say, this was a gezeira on the klal,
then it makes perfect sense to me that there were those individuals from
within the klal that Hashem had decreed would be saved no matter what.
This is why we had some surviving the death camps and some not --
sometimes someone in worse health survived when someone slightly better
off did not. This would seem to offer proof for Hashem's constant
hashgacha on each and every one of us.

---Rena

R' Moshe Feldman wrote <<< 2. Isn't the more obvious answer that before,
they did not realize that Hitler would build concentration camps?
(No one could have imagined that.) >>>

Could it not be that the gezeira changed over time? Even the mabul
started as a gentle rain. It could be that there was no reason to leave
in the early 30's or later 30's but the gezeira was strengthened for
some reason and then the advice of the Rabbonim of the time changed to
reflect the changing situation?

I don't think that it is necessarily true that the Gedolim did not know
what they were saying, but very likely that the advice they gave was
for the time that they gave it.

---Rena

In a message dated 10/16/2002 11:27:34pm EDT, AStein@wtplaw.com writes:
> I answered her by
> mentioning that hilchos lashon hora are complicated and that if we hear a
> gadol saying something that sounds like lashon hora, we can assume that he
> already considered the halachic implications......  She was still
> uncomfortable listening to the tape......)

Sounds like another version of the infallibility discussion. Since we
often are in the position of learning from a "mmaseh rav" what halachot
in lashon hara would she/you take away from the tape?

KT
Joel Rich

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]