Denigrating Gedolim

My point in bringing all the Gedolim who were Machshiv Rav Kook wasn’t to show that his Hashkafah was right. My point was to show that most of the Gedolim, viewed Rav Kook – even with his Hashkafos about Zionism- as a huge Gadol. They did not feel that his Hashkafah ruled him out as a Gadol. It is not fair to say that because Rav Elchanan called Rav Kook A Rasha, that’s an excision of Rav Kook as an Adam Gadol. I have tremendous respect for Rav Elchanan, but i also have tremendous respect for the countless Gedolim who viewed Rav Kook as a Gadol, developed a Kesher with him, and got Haskamos from him. I don’t think it’s fair to say that all these Gedolim were not aware of his Hashkafos. Perhaps you can say that about some of the Gedolim who lived in America. The Gedolim who lived in Eretz Yisroel, however, were well aware of Rav Kook’s opinions. Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, Rav Isser Zalman, and Rav Aryeh Levine were Rav Kook’s closest friends during all of the controversies surrounding Rav Kook. Rav Kook was public about his Hashkafos, and the Kanoim made his life miserable; callim him a Rasha, and throwing rocks at him. These Gedolim were well aware of Rav Kook’s Hashkafos, but they nevertheless defended him, and considered him to be a Gadol. They did not rule him out as part of The Mesorah. Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shlomo Zalman lived in Eretz Yisroel as well; they developed relationships with him during the midst of his contreversies. To say that they simply did not know his Hashkafos is not a plausible assumption. As mentioned above, Rav Elchanan was extremely great, but the fact is, that although he may have ruled Rav Kook out of the Mesorah, the majority of Gedolim, though not accepting his Hashkafos, did not think that he should be ruled out of the Mesorah. To the contrary, they viewed him as an extremely Chashuv person. In regards to Rav Miler calling him a “Frum person”, he had to call that because there are plenty of Kanoim who believe that he’s a Kofer. Rav Avigdor Miller later says that any faults in Rav Kook were due to his Temimus, and says that he wants to be careful about Rav Kook’s Kavod. It was found on Toras Avigdor.com, not sure where it was said.

It is also important to note that the famous letter in which Rav Elchanan HY”D calls Rav Kook a Rasha was because he assumed that Rav Kook supported Keren Hayesod. Rabbi Eitan Henkin Hy”D, in an essay, come out clear that Rav Kook did not actually support Keren Hayesod.

You seem to be assuming that something changed, and even if Gedolim were Machshiv Rav Kook, now we know the truth and can rule him out of the Mesorah. I don’t think we really know anything new about Rav Kook, which would make it ok to disrespect him, in contrast to the views of the majority of the Gedolim. Rav Kook was very controversial for the twenty years or so of his life. He made known his views and many Kanoim would act disrespectful, or even violent towards him. Nevertheless, the Gedolim defended him, and considered him to be a Gadol. Nothing suddenly changed or came to light about Rav Kook that would make it OK to disrespect him, or not be Machshiv him.
It is also important to note that because Rav Kook was so poetic, his Machshavah Seforim were very deep and cannot necessarily be taken at face value. People like taking out pieces from his Seforim, taking each word at face value, and making fun of Rav Kook, but it’s not fair to read poetically-written things, which were originally from his notebooks, as if they’re a Lomdishe Gemara. He wrote them in a poetic style and have to be taken as such. When Rav Kook writes radical ideas, such as Zionists being holier than Religious Jews, they can’t be understood at face value. It means that to some extent, living in Eretz Yisroel gives a certain Kedushah, which those living in Chutz Liaretz don’t have. There are ideas like this in Chazal as well. The Gemarah in the end of Kesubos describes many merits which people living in Eretz Yisroel have. The Gemarah even says that anyone who walks four Amos in EY is guaranteed a share in Olam Habah.
The same can be said of Rav Tzadok. Many of his writings sound very radical. People understand, though, that he brings out ideas poetically, but they should not always be understood as literally as they seem. Oviously, we can’t compare Rav Kook or Rav Tzadok to Chazal, but Chazal in Ageddata express things poetically as well (as Maharal and other Meforshim explain). If taken at face value, some of the ideas sound very radical, or almost like Heresy. We understand , however, that Aggedeta is a different style than Halacha, and is meant to be taken differently.

y1836,
for last couple of centuries, we live through one of the greatest upheaval times of the Jewish and world history. It would be surprising, and even disappointing, if all opinions about modernity will be the same, disregarding personalities, opinions, environment in different places, etc.

so, I don’t think it is an issue of who is right or wrong or who is acceptable, but what different people were able to discover and how it will all get integrated at the end.

Aaq – I’m not sure exactly what you mean. could you elaborate?

Aside from the very unique exception of Rav Yaakov emden’s statements about rav yonasan eibeshutz(an issue that rav hutner said is the one area of Jewish history that is impossible to understand) we don’t have any other machlokes in which one side considered the other to be reshoim. Sharp differences, yes, but not to that level. Like i said, that’s an excision on a personal level, but rather than dwell on rabbi kook the gavra, i focus more on the individual opinions and actions he professed. Before him and after him, no one condoned such beliefs or statements. Therefore, he was not mesorah-based, and any statements by gedolim about him need to be taken with that in mind. Haskama on a gavra to me means very little if the same gedolim would recoil in horror if you told them that it’s ok to praise chilul shabbos and that such people are better than the frum.

I’d like to reiterate that if we take rabbi kooks words with a grain of salt….is there such a thing as a gadol too caught up in poetry and philosophy that we cannot take his words directly as torah? That itself is a disqualification. We might not take mekubalim at face value, because they were talking to people who were on a very high level of learning… The arizal was talking to other mekubalim, after all. Rabbi kook was talking to everyone…where do we have a person accepted as a gadol whose words cannot be accepted as they are because of their personality? Torah makes a person above personal bias.

I will agree that at one point, rabbi kook learned a lot of torah(this is why i continually refer to him as rabbi), and the only context where it is appropriate to point out his non-gadol-ship is a constructive conversation about why his views are incorrect. That’s my policy on rabbi yoshe ber too, though his issues are probably less consequential than rabbi kook’s, in my opinion.

Nomesorah, what backlash did rav elchonon receive for his statements? The satmar rov did receive criticism for his resistance to the majority who permitted voting and his issur chitun with them, but for calling out rabbi kook? Who was bothered by that to the point of public condemnation?

Mods, My bad. I misread him. My apologies.

Not sure I understand what you are referencing

Avira Deara- In regards to Rav Kook’s ideas, certainly they weren’t the mainstream, but I’m not so sure that they’re completely alien ideas to Torah. Certainly the ideology of the secular Zionists, that nationalism is all that that matters, instead of Torah, is completely foreign to Yiddishkeit. Rav Kook never even remotely proposed that, however. He writes about how Jews developing the land of Eretz Yisroel have a certain holiness, even if they’re unfortunately not frum. There seem to be ideas like that in Torah. As mentioned before, the end of Kesubos discusses the importance of Eretz Yisroel. An Amorah kissed the rocks of Eretz Yisroel while another one rolled in it’s dust. The Meraglim were punished severely for speaking badly about Eretz Yisroel. Tosafos in Avoda Zarah has a Havah Amina that The Passuk which says “Lo Savie Toevah El Baysecha” (referring to idols” is only referring to a house in Eretz Yisroel since only EY can truly be considered our home. There is a famouys Sifrei which implies that there is an extra meaning to Mitzvos done in EY. Century after century The Jewish people have longed to live in EY. Some of the great transmitters of our Mesorah, such as Ramban, Rav Yehudah Halevi were Moser Nefesh, travelling for months, to get to Ey. The Gra and Baal Shem Tov both sent their Talmidim to Eretz Yisroel to build up the land. Kol Htor attributed to the Gra’s Talmid based off the Gra’s teachings talks about the importance of building up the land. Admittedly, Rav Kook’s statements are not the mainstream, but I don’t think that means they’re foreign concepts which have no basis in Torah, only in nationalism.
In regards to his Shittah about befriending the Kofrim who were building up the land, they were mostly Tinok Shenishbah, in regards to whom it is universally accepted that we are supposed to be loving to. He was also trying to be be Mekarev them, and he was actually succesful at being Mekarev many people. Rav Kook was not the only one like this. The Gemorah (Sanhedrin 37A) records that Rav Zeira befriended the local hooligans to be Mekarev them (although the Gemarah says that the other Chachomim disagreed), and was successful. The Baal Shem Tov was known to befriend the local thieves to try to be Mekarev them. Rav Levi Yitzchak would find the good in every Jew, even the biggest Baal Aveirah. This was a common theme in Chassidus.

“There’s a world of difference between rabbonim who were happy to have a place to go after the Holocaust, and those who were nationalistic, who believed in a state as an ideal, in contrast to the mesorah of how jews ought to behave in galus.”
If You’re referring to the Shalosh Sheveuos, many Gedolim didn’t view it as a problem for varios reasons. 1) Belfour Declorations means the state was established with concent of nations. 2) Shevuos are interdependent. When the nations broke their end, we can break our end, and establish a state. Mesoras Moshe quotes that Rav Moshe viewed this as a strong Sevorah. There are other reasons also. If theres no problem of Shalosh Shevuos, then theres no reason why a state shouldn’t be ideal, unless from angle of Pikuach Nefesh which is a different discussion. As mentioned before, Rav Tzvi Pesach frank, and Rav Isser Zalman viewed it as Aschalta Digeulah which means they certainly did view it as ideal.

“Religious Zionists as a result routinely give weight to other things besides torah. They believe it valuable to serve in thea army, that any and all soldiers are martyers and holy, despite living with women in the same barracks.”
i can’t speak for all of them, but i think the reason why many of them consider it so important to serve in the army is not because they consider nationalism to be just as important as Torah. It is because they consider the goverment to be Malchus Yisroel, and consider the wars to be a Milchemes Mitzvah. If this is actually the case, then they are actually doing a Mitzvah. You might not agree Halichically, that it’s Milchemes Mitzvah, but their Shitah is based off Halacha, not based off of their equaling nationalism to Torah.
In regards to their considering soliders to be holy, one cannot deny the incredible Mesiras Nefesh that the soliders have to fight for their fellow brethren. Also, this is not just a Religious Zionist view. Chareidi Gedolim have also considered the soldiers to be very holy. During one of the wars, for example, Rav Chaim Shmulevitz remarked that any solider who gets killed in battle has the status of Herukei Lod, who have an exceptionally lofty status in Olam Habah (quoted in “Timepieces” by rav Lopiansky, among other places). Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach remarked to a Bochur that when he’s looking for Kivrei Tzaddikim to Daven at, he goes to Mt. Hertzl to the grave of the murdered soldiers and Davens there.

Avira, capital letters is a show of respect, so why don’t you use it for gedolim?

The Litvish Rosh Yeshivos talk less about their peers than the Rebbes do. But to be honest, Rav Elchonon did talk about Rav Kook, he wrote. And I’m unsure if the Satmar Rav ever mentioned him.

There are three different discussions about ties two luminaries. 1) The views they had that are not accepted in many yeshivos. 2) their Seforim on all areas of Torah. 3) How personal attacks over topic 1, prevent the study of 2.

If you are trying to get the yeshiva minded to change their opinion on 1, you are wasting your time.

If you are justifying the existence of 3 you are wrong.

I suggest we switch the topic to focus more on 2: the other Seforim they wrote. How popular they are and aren’t and why.

As far as I can tell from my nomadic yeshiva existence, whey are increasing in popularity. Especially Rav Kook’s Seforim. Growing up in the yeshiva I did not know he had any. Now the new publications are available and advertised all over. Including yeshivaleit that wrote perushim on his Seforim.

Regarding soldiers, those are 2nd and 3rd hand reports – id like to see something from a gaol themselves, as the greater the claim one makes the more proof is needed to substantiate it. Being a milchemes mitzvah is untenable with people who don’t believe in the mitzvos to begin with. If an atheist makes a bracha, we don’t answer amen, because his bracha is not a bracha. Their kibush is not a mitzvah either, even if it fulfilled the necessary requirements (which it doesn’t, as there’s no king).

Malchua yisroel is even more contrived, as there’s nothing in the state that fulfills the requirements for malchus, including a navi for non davidic kings, shemen hamishcha etc

Y18, i have to say that this is probably the most civil conversation of zionism I’ve had on here, and i appreciate your tone and willingness to hear the other side.

I think that when we say chazal speak in melitzos umesholim, they’re chazal, and there’s a mesorah (be it kabalistic, metaphoric, or otherwise) in how to interpret what they’re saying – they know that they’re transmitting Torah, and they’re speaking its language. It’s not that they’re personally involved or emotional and thus inhibited from being able to be clear about their intentions.

Nomesorah; unless you’re experience in the yeshivos is reading online bloggers who call themselves charedi, can you please tell me which talmidim of ponevezh, mir, chevron, or lakewood, mirrer Brooklyn, chaim berlin, etc have written perushim on rabbi kook’s seforim? I’d be pleased to know.

Rather, what it sounds like is analogous to my experiences with chabad bochurim. They come frequently to my yeshiva on kiruv missions, on yat kislev mostly, and on some yomim tovim. One time they remarked that my yeshiva was chabad oriented because, while ignoring dozens of woefully unfamiliar names(that the rest of the frum world mostly knows well) they noticed one of our roshei yeshiva was a chabad chosid (prior to the rebbe’s ascension as head… I’m not sure what his feelings were of him). It’s with that kind of myopia that they and religious Zionists view pur world. To be honest, i might be the same way if I visited a religious zionist school and noticed a picture of, say rabbi tzvi yehudah kook sitting next to rav shlomo zalman – it’s natural to notice things you’re familiar with, but the difference is that I’m aware of it and won’t draw conclusions based on such feelings.

Prior to the gerus issue, i noticed many yeshivishe rabbonim were pleased with eliezer melamed; we try to be accepting and open to those who are mevakhei Hashem, but time and again we are shown to not be so trusting…

edited

There was a sefer from Rav Kook put out this past Elul. It had a perush and was advertised in Lakewood shuls. I’ll track down the author for you. There is no Rav Kook propaganda arm in America. The only people pushing his ideas, are those that picked them up first hand from his writings. Which further proves my point.

But either way- your quibbling around the point. The yeshiva is much more open to outside seforim than it ever was. And unfortunately it is losing familiarity with some of it’s own core Sefarim.

Nomesorah; sorry, can’t let you get away with that claim – you admit that you’re an outsider looking in, so you’re basing this claim on speculation, without having had meaningful connections with people and institutions which matter.

There’s a guy who floats around BMG who tries to induct young men into the gender bender cult..he wears a hat and jacket, and used to be frum. Does that mean that “charedi society is moving towards acceptance of gender change”?. That’s exactly what an untrained eye of an outsider would think if they read the tablet articles on mike moskowitz.

Go to seforim stores in Lakewood. See if this supposed sefer is there. It isn’t. You can find it in Brooklyn, where there’s a big mix, but not in Lakewood, monsey, or especially bnei brak/geulah/meah shaarim. Wont happen.

wow mesivta world!

Just my 2 cents. [not “my”, as in original, “my” as in “parroted”)

Avira quotes an unnamed RY that R’ Aharon held R YB to be an apikores…..yet he invited him to speak at the chinuch atzmai event. Tiyuvta.

Avirah – In regards to the Shalosh Shevuos, Rav Moshe, whom you previously acknowledged as the Posek of America, said that the second Sevorah (that the Shevuos are interconnected) is a strong Sevora (Mesoras Moshe volume 3, page 365-366).
In regards to the stories with Rav Chaim Shmulevitz and Rav Shlomo Zalman, they’re very well known stories, quoted by many people. It appears from Rav Lopiansky’s report in Timepieces that Rav Chaim would say it every Yom Kipur, and Rav Lopiansky learnt in Mir for years; I think this qualifies as first hand.
“Being a milchemes mitzvah is untenable with people who don’t believe in the mitzvos to begin with. If an atheist makes a bracha, we don’t answer amen, because his bracha is not a bracha. Their kibush is not a mitzvah either, even if it fulfilled the necessary requirements (which it doesn’t, as there’s no king).”
Rav Tzvi Pesach Pesach Frank considered the wars in EY to be Milchemes Mitzvah. Either way, the Shitah of the Religious Zionists is based on their understanding of Halacha. Even if you think it’s a ridiculous Shitah, they base it off Halachah, and give Teirutzim. Therefore, I don’t see why it should be different than other Machlokesim in Halacha. I don’t think it’s fair to say that religious Zionists serve in the army because they equate nationalism to Torah and Mitzvos.
Also, it should be noted that Rav Kook assumed that a democracy is considered like a king in Halacha, and Rav Ovadya took this as a Pashtus in his Teshuvah about Dinah Dimalchusah Dinah.

The comment of the Brisker Rav was told by a Rebbi but I don’t have the source.

Rav Aaron referred to Rav Soloveitchik as the Bostoner Rav. And if definitely did not consider him an apikorus. Rav Aaron’s closest talmidim had a guarded appreciation of the Bostoner Rav.

As a talmid of rav belsky, him being my main halacha rebbe and madrich, he never once quoted rabbi kook. He may have said a story or two including rabbi yoshe ber, but never quoted him as a source for anything. What rabbi moshe dovid Leibowitz does is his own business, but it is neither a reflection on the yeshiva or rav belsky. None of the other rebbeim in the yeshiva quote either of the two, at any time, having learned by and having had a shaychus with pretty much all of them.

Additionally, rav belsky was not happy with likut seforim. He did not approve of seforim like piskei teshuvos, and halachikally speaking, even though rabbi Leibowitz quotes rav belsky very often – enough to issue a volume entitled piskei rav belsky, in fact.

Judaica stores are very different from seforim stores. They get wholesale english titles, and you’ll probably see norman lamm and israeli biographies of ben gurion and whatnot too.

I acknowledge that you will find shuls and yeshivos where especially individual bochurim will have the chidushei hagrid series. It’s mostly a shtik, but it does have a lot to do with rabbi soloveitchik’s pedigree, inspite of his degrees.

Re, mesores moshe – nobody takes Mordechai tendler’s stance and reports on such issues seriously. He has a negius in these and many other issues which he does not hide. Chelek 8 of igros moshe is considered not authoritative in general because of this.

As having had experiences with talmidim of rav moshr, including rav bluth, rav belsky and others….this does not comport.

I asked a friend who work in a Lakewood seforim store. He did not recall the author that I was talking about. But if said that Rav Dovid Weinberger’s Song of Teshuvah is a good seller.

“the Balfour declaration was not agreed upon (insert italics) by the people who lived in eretz yisroel, and their suroundings,”

Why is that necessary? I was under the impression that halacha recognizes conquest as creating ownership. The British conquered Palestine from the Ottoman’s it was theirs not the inhabitant’s and certainly not the neighbors (not sure why that would even enter the equation) ?

“They were mesalek themselves from the whole issue,”
Not exactly, they handed the “question of Palestine” to the U.N. Now the U.N gets to decide. The U.N voted to create a Jewish State

It is always entertaining to watch you put down people who don’t idolize those Rabbaim you have put on a pedastal (primarily because they have a foot in the secular world) while simultaneously degrading, discounting and pointing fingers at people who choose to live a more restricted lifestyle (yes, save your breath. I know you don’t really say anything derogatory. Some of your best friends wear black hats. And you even see a kollel out your window)

Ubiq – the UN decided on a Homeland, not a state. There was also provision for an arab state in the area. That makes the arabs, according to your reasoning, baalei devarim too.