(See disclaimer at http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/is-aliyah-a-wise-choice-in-the-nuclear-age/page/2#post-565158 )
(Thank you Moderators for allowing the link in my last post.)
He said it. There’s a great deal of evidence in support of it, as previously stated, and little against.
I think you might be overstating your case a little bit. Let’s summarize the evidence offered on both sides:
In Support of the story:
1) Anonymous person on the internet claims that R’ Yerucham Gorelik and R’ Berel Soloveitchik said one story and that R’ Berel Soloveitchik also said another stories. When questioned, he shifts the burden to the questioners to research the story.
Against the story:
1) There are two separate stories, both alleging that the Chofetz Chaim said “Kook shmook”, once in response to something R’ Kook said and once in response to something R’ Kook wrote. Yet R’ Kook never said what the story claimed he said, nor did he write what the story claimed he wrote. So either the Chofetz Chaim never said “Kook shmook” or he was completely misled and therefore his statements have no bearing on reality.
2) The stories claim that the Chofetz Chaim, whose life’s work was to battle against lashon hara, was informed of a statement/writing of someone whom he knew prior to this to be a talmid chacham, and without trying to be dan lekaf zechus in the slightest, he accepted the report and publicly disparaged someone. This is a rather extraordinary claim to make about the Chofetz Chaim.
3) R’ Kook’s writing that the Chofetz Chaim supposedly disparaged was written when R’ Gorelik was no older than three years old, thus he would not be a reliable source for this incident. (I did point out that I am not sure that R’ Kook’s writing was published right away, so it is possible that the Chofetz Chaim only found out about it years later, when R” Gorelik was already older.)
4) The story claimed that the Chofetz Chaim read about it in a newspaper, yet we know that the Chofetz Chaim was stridently against reading newspapers. (This doesn’t necessarily disprove the story but it at least shows that some of the details have been corrupted.
5) The Chofetz Chaim’s son-in-law wrote a letter which explains the Chofetz Chaim’s angst at the disparagement of R’ Kook. The response to this is that we have not yet been able to locate this letter prior to 29 years ago.
6) The Chofetz Chaim himself wrote a letter to R’ Kook in which it is clear that he was not against R’ Kook.
7) There are several different sources which tell the story of the Chofetz Chaim’s defense of R’ Kook at the knessia. Yes, there are minor differences between the versions, but the basic story is the same.
8) (As per Avi K’s clarification) A rav who is a graduate of YU said that R’ Gorelik would never have disparaged a talmid chacham. (Obviously this is of very limited value as it is an anonymous person quoting an anonymous YU graduate who may have barely even known R’ Gorelik.)
9) We still have no original source for the second story.
If you have more evidence, please share it, and if it is overwhelming I will be happy to retract. Until then, though, the preponderance of evidence is against the story.
Another piece in support of the idea is the aforementioned letter of Rav Elchonon, the Chofetz Chaim’s talmid muvhik who the CC recommended as his successor.
First of all, as I pointed out earlier, the letter is not as damning as you made it seem. (This is one reason why I get suspicious when people refer to statements/writings of gedolim without providing direct quotes.) Second of all, as I pointed out, according to R’ Elchanan’s letter the Chofetz Chaim would also be a rasha gamur (chas v’shalom), as he praised R’ Kook. Third of all, the fact that R’ Elchanan had a certain position by no means means that the Chofetz Chaim held the same position. Being a talmid, and even a talmid muvhak does not mean that all your positions are in line with your rebbe. (See also, Tears Of Light: The Sixtieth Yahrtzeit Of HaRav Dovid Leibowitz Zt’l where R’ Moshe Musman writes: In later years, whenever he heard someone described as “a talmid of the Chofetz Chaim,” Reb Dovid would laugh and say that the Chofetz Chaim had no talmidim, and that if anyone was entitled to call himself his talmid, he was.
Interestingly, in a recently published volume of Me’ir Einei Yisroel, HaRav Zachs, a grandson of the Chofetz Chaim, makes the same observation about his grandfather. Even HaRav Elchonon Wasserman zt’l Hy’d, who used to travel regularly to Radin and who took from the Chofetz Chaim as much as he could, never referred to himself as a talmid.) For example, the Rosh paskens that one can be mafsik even ????? ???? for kaddish, kedusha, and barchu. He writes (Berachos 2:5): ??? ???? ????? ??”? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?”? ????????? ?????? ???? ???? ??????. All the more so, here, where R’ Elchanan might not have known the extent of the Chofetz Chaim’s relationship with R’ Kook.
Regarding the fake KK, I’ll suggest again procuring a copy of Mikatowitz ad Hei B’Iyar. Your answers are there.
Thus far I have been unable to find it.
I don’t have the timeline in front of me, but as I recall R. Kasher printed the KK years later, after many of the alleged signatories had already passed away.
If the signatories had already died then Weinman obviously didn’t contact them. My question is only on those whom Weinman spoke to.
And it did not garner the widespread attention you seem to assume it stirred.
I think it did garner widespread attention. Any good Zionist propaganda will have this prominently quoted. R’ Ovadia quotes it in his teshuva (which I cited several posts ago). The signatories would not have known how widespread it was in Zionist circles. Unless Weinman specifically told them that they needn’t bother to make a statement (which would be mightily suspicious), the rabbis should have repudiated R’ Kasher’s kol korei.
About the internet: you are speaking of communities that have largely shunned the internet.
You and your various names on various sites are on the internet. True Torah Jews is on the internet. Frumteens is on the internet. All of the above quote Weinman; none of the above provide the actual quote. All of the above quote R’ Elachanan; none of the above provide the actual quote. all of the above quote the Brisker Rav; none of the above provide the actual quote. This, I think, is a very important point in this discussion (and really any discussion). I don’t expect anyone here to trust me. In fact you absolutely should not trust me. I am an anonymous poster, who for all you know might be a Buddhist prophet who happens to like debating Jews. since there is very little reason for the readers to trust me, I make a strong effort to either provide a link to my source, or type out the quote in full. I strongly urge everyone to look up sources that I quote. But for all the anti-Zionists quoting these sources all over the internet (which is not really all that many since they are almost all copied and pasted from each other, so I don’t even know who originally wrote it), I can’t find a single place where Weinman’s quotes or documentation is provided, nor where the R’ Elchanan quote is provided, and nor where the Brisker Rav quote is provided. I want to see these sources so that I can make an informed decision, yet no one invested the time or effort to provide them. I’m not saying this makes them wrong. But it makes it hard to have a debate.
Furthermore, you could consider Rabbi Weinman’s publishing these very facts about the forgery in Z’eirei Agudas Yisroel’s Digleinu (Shvat 5738) as well as his Ad Hei B’Iyar to be the very response you seek. He cited the denials of the alleged signatories in both those publications and that’s how they let it be known they never signed.
If he provided proof of their denial then as per what I wrote above, I would love to see it. If he did not provide proof then why should we accept his word over R’ Kasher’s?