- This topic has 109 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Breaking news! i heard from a reliable source that Rav Yisroel Lau will be the guest speaker at the siyum Hashas as of now its 99% confirmed.
can anyone give details.
The siyum in Tel Aviv?
Can’t you just make a Siyum Hashas thread instead of 10 different ones?
Hopefully at MetLife Stadium. At least he would speak English or/& Ivrit, and not Yiddish.
In light of all that he has done for Jonathan Pollard, it would be a huge Zechus to hear this Rov address 90,000 Jewish people, since he is such a huge Oheiv Yisroel.
It would not be a positive thing if Rabbi Lau was disinvited
Boruch Hashem a show of Achdus in Klal Yisroel. It is a step towards Moshiach.
this whole thing is going to get messy I’m afraid…
gavra: When chassidim say they’re going to boycott the siyum because a Zionist will be speaking, it isn’t a show of achdus. It’s very sad, especially during this time of year.
The Beis Hamikdash was destroyed because of sinas chinam, and these people are preventing it from being rebuilt.
gavra: When chassidim say they’re going to boycott the siyum because a Zionist will be speaking, it isn’t a show of achdus. It’s very sad, especially during this time of year.
The Beis Hamikdash was destroyed because of sinas chinam, and these people are preventing it from being rebuilt.
You are way off here, and you should really take that back.
Sinas chinam? Since when is disagreeing with someone sinas chinam?
If they disagree with zionism, and think it is krum, and feel strongly enough about it, then it would be quite natural for them to boycott an event where a zionist was speaking. I don’t know if they feel that way or not, but I don’t go calling them sinas chinam for it.
And why sinaa? Do you think this has something to do with hatred? Where do you get this ideas?
Suppose you would decide to not attend because a zionist wasn’t speaking. Would that be sinas chinam.
I am very bothered by your comment.
popa, if u truly believe what you just said, that is very sad.
sinas chinam has become a catchphrase in this generation for not respecting someones opinion. this is a total shtuss and i dont see any reason from a torah perspective to accept opinions of nutjobs. tell a lubob the rebbes dead and he’ll call it sinas chinam. thats retarded. sinas chinam became the cry of all those who desire to be accepted by the larger community no matter what they hold. tell a na-nach hes made a carnival out of judasim (exact words heard from my RY) and he’ll tell you thats sinas chinam. disagreeing with a hashkafa, holding that an approach to yiddishkeit isnt just different,(as in the case of chasidim and litvacks nowadays), but entirely kineged the ratzon Haboreih isnt chinam. im not saying i agree, anyways who am i, but you should all rethink the teich of chinam, and the teich of a machlokes lishaim shomayim.
When chassidim say they’re going to boycott the siyum because a Zionist will be speaking, it isn’t a show of achdus. It’s very sad, especially during this time of year.
Then I guess they’ll stay home, cut the lawn, and trim the hedges. Maybe they’ll learn better by the next go round. (And we wonder why Moshiach hasn’t come yet??)
PBA: Boycotting someone for a belief (but for most people, especially Talmidei Chachamim, it’s more of a Halachic position than a belief) that is held of by tremendous Talmidei Chachamim does indeed sound like Sinas Chinam to me. And yes, I think that boycotting someone for a valid Halachic position is Sinas Chinam, and I would call it that if someone would boycott because a Zionist isn’t speaking. Just like I would say it’s Sinas Chinam to refuse to recognize a valid Halachic opinion. (e.g. Thinking that anti-Zionism isn’t a valid opinion is just denying reality, as the Satmar Rav was certainly a Bar Hachi of having an opinion on this matter, whether or not I hold by him.)
I hope they do boycott the siyum then we can part ways and move on. they cant get together with us unless we make all kinds of chamges for them anyway, because were not frum enough. So its for the best. The only religious aspect we have in common is that we both worship money
Would you feel the same if Rav Lau decided to boycott the event because the Vishnizer Rebbe was speaking because he was anti-zionist
Yasher Koach popa_bar_abba. Very well said and precisely correct.
Sam: You are wrong, and for two reasons. First, you should not be critical of this position (if indeed anyone is taking it). Second, even if it is wrong, it is certainly not sinaah, and calling it that is harmful.
First: It is entirely natural that if you disagree about something important enough, you would not want to lend any stamp of approval to it. For example, I am confident that the Gra would not have gone to a siyum hashas where the Besht was speaking.
Part of having an opinion, is that you think the other side is wrong. And if you think they are wrong on something which is important, then you would want to make sure that people don’t think what they are doing is legitimate.
Second: It simply is not sinaah. They don’t hate them. They aren’t really motivated by some inner hatred for Rabbi Lau. To suggest that is ridiculous, and is motzi shem ra.
It is also harmful in that when you tag everything you don’t like with the term “sinaas chinam”, you cheapen real sinaas chinam, similar to what the liberals have done to terms like racism.
And Zdad: You always seem to assume that I will take a hypocritical position. Have you ever seen me do so? Of course I would think the same way if Rabbi Lau were to refuse to come.
PBA: No, because this is precisely what Sinas Chinam in Judaism is? It doesn’t mean pure, pointless hatred. I don’t think we had that in Bayis Sheni. What we had were fights because we wouldn’t accept one another. And your point about the Gra is off because the Gra held that the Besht wasn’t a Bar Hachi of having an opinion. And if someone will say that about all Zionists (however they define the term, because there is clearly a tremendous difference in levels of “Zionism” between Rav Lau and most leading Dati L’umi Rabbanim) then they have bigger problems than just boycotting a Siyum.
The 2 biggest mistakes the Siyum organizers could commit now, is:- 1) un-inviting HoRav Lau shlita 2) Having speeches in Yiddish;
Whilst none of us are big enough to judge which of these 2 actions would be worse, we are all big enough to say in no uncertain terms, that either of both of these actions will cause unforetold damage to the upcoming Siyum, & I hope & trust that the organizers will know better.
PBA: You have become affected by the lack of confidence in your identity that so many Orthodox Jews share. There is no reason for someone on either side of halachic discussion of the Dati Leumi vs. Chareidi positions regarding Eretz Yisrael to boycott a gathering celebrating Talmud Torah. The siyum haShas has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with Zionism or any other halachic machlokes. Going to it when someone with opposing views is attending or speaking does not lend anyone credibilty; rather, it shows strength of character that one is able to rise above the machlokes which is irrelevant to the Siyum haShas and celebrate limud HaTorah together. It shows that one has confidence in his commitment to Torah in the way he approaches it, and is able to find the common ground with others. If this were a conference about religious Zionism, things would be different. But it’s the siyum haShas, and to feel your attendance lends credibility to anything but limud haTorah shows an unfortunately extreme lack of self-esteem and confidence in your relationship with Hashem.
Sam:
It’d be easier if you’d be precise about which points you are addressing.
On point 1: I’m not sure why you think it is more obvious that Rabbi Lau is a bar hochi, than the Baal Shem Tov. Certainly the chassidim won’t agree with you on that.
On point 2: Where is the hatred? What has this to do with hatred?
Jewish unity: You don’t need to make this personal. You can just talk about the issue without talking about my motivations for saying what I say.
PBA: The difference is that Rabbi Lau is not the only Zionist Rabbi in the world (Mah She’ein Kein the Besht and Chassidus at the time) and that Zionists have been accepted as being Bar Hachis of having an opinion in the past.
I guess it depends on how you define hatred. I think that refusing to acknowledge someone or attend an event just because they will be speaking (even though the event does have another, much more important purpose) qualifies as hatred.
On point 1: Is that the difference? And after 30 years the misnagdim would have gone to a siyum hashas with the chassidim? I think not.
And have these parties (if they exist) ever accepted any of those as bar hochi?
On point 2: Sorry, hatred is an emotion, not a specific action. Killing someone is also often hatred, but when a state executioner kills someone, there is not necessarily hatred.
Sam2,
Just like I would say it’s Sinas Chinam to refuse to recognize a valid Halachic opinion.
So if you refused to recognize the opinion which considers Zionism to be k’firah as valid, would you be guilty of sinas chinom?
Sinas chinam? Since when is
disagreeing with someone sinas
chinam?
It may not be. But shaming someone in public certainly is. The beis hamikdash was destroyed because of sinas chinam in which episode? In the story of kamtza and bar kamtza, where many ask the obvious question that this was seemingly a private sinah and disagreement between 2 private individuals. Why should the entire klal yisrael be labelled in this way as having sinas chinam and suffering the loss of the beis hamikdash?
One of the answers goes as follows. Why did kamtza and bar kamtza hate each other? Because bar kamtza was a tzeduki! So of course kamtza threw him out of his house. But he shamed a fellow Jew. And it was a taaneh against all the rabbonim who were sitting there and allowed it to happen without interfering.
This is why all klal yisrael had to suffer. It was not just a private fight between 2 individuals but leading gedolim were held culpable too.
And all because they shamed who? A tzeduki! That was enough “sinas chinam” to destroy the beis hamikdash!
So if anyone were to shame Rabbi Lau by withdrawing his invitation, what would be the difference between the 2 stories?
I am not chas vshalom calling Rabbi Lau shlita a tzeduki, nor am I fit to question the holy monsey viznitzer rebbe. But I am calling on the organizers not to let this outstanding, unparalleled and sacred kiddush hashem descend into machlokes!
Sam: Vayoel Moshe is clear that Rabbi Kook is not a Bar Hochi and that applies to other zionists rabbis. You’ve acknowledged above that the Satmar Rov is certainly a Bar Hochi on this matter. Obviously the Vishnitzer Rebbe agrees with the Satmar Rebbe.
What about the effects of such a move? Maybe the Vishnitzer Rav is not guilty of sinas chinam because he is fighting against a position that he disagrees with, not the person. He “hates” Zionism, not R’ Lau. But this move will definitely cause MO’s and Dati Le’umi’s to hate that chassisuds… and possibly all chassidus. This move might accidentaly send the message to the Chassidim to hate Zionists. If this move isn’t sinas chinam, it will definitely cause sinas chinam.
DY: I believe I said that. (Though does anyone actually hold that Zionism-probable depending on how you define it-is necessarily K’fira? Or is it just that the early Zionists who controlled the movement were all Kofrim and therefore you can’t join any outgrowth of it?)
Shticky:
First, I’d like to see that source.
Second: I don’t think you should read that the way you are. It doesn’t mean that it is always inappropriate to exclude a group because of their beliefs. It just means that for groups which you are not otherwise mechuyav to hate, you should not allow your hashkafa disagreement to become hate as well.
As far as that goes, you have no reason to think that has happened here.
But also as far as that goes, I think we need to understand your source a bit more. We are mechuyav to hate tzedukim “??? ?????? ? ????”. So (if this source exists), it may be differentiating between hate based on the rishuus, and hate based on the personal things. So perhaps it is saying that the hate there became personal.
PBA: I believe there is a Yerushalmi (only heard it quoted; haven’t seen it inside) that says that the Bais Hamikdash wasn’t destroyed until there were 24 Kitos in K’lal Yisrael. Sectarianism is Sinas Chinam, by definition.
Sam: OK. So do you read that to mean that you can never exclude another group based on their beliefs? No. So it depends on the beliefs. So we agree.
Toi- your making a fundamental mistake. Of course disagreeing isnt sinas chinam. But imposing your opinions on someone is. I may not believe the lubavich rebbe is moshiach, but if someone believes that its his right to believe it. I may not agree with it, or even hold that its assur, but even if it is so what? thats not my problem. Jews should be able to hold whatever their like and we shouldnt judge them. Especially at the siyum hashas were jews of all cultures and sects are joining together for the sole purpose of celebrating torah learning.
does anyone actually hold that Zionism-probable depending on how you define it-is necessarily K’fira
I don’t have a source, and I’m really not fluent in the Zionist-anti Zionist debate, but I believe that there are those who consider it kefirah.
Jews should be able to hold whatever their like and we shouldnt judge them.
Then you shouldn’t judge anyone who feels it’s proper to publicly shame Zionists. After all, you hold they’re entitled to that opinion.
I don’t have a source, and I’m really not fluent in the Zionist-anti Zionist debate, but I believe that there are those who consider it kefirah.
far east- and lets say my attending a function could be seen as an endorsement of those shittos, which i in fact hold to be kineged ratzon Hashem. now if im lil od me, thats not a real big deal. but if im a rebbe of thousands of chassidim, it could be suggested that my endorsement of said movement will result in a deep misunderstanding in hashkafa in my followers. its not illogical to take an action so as to avoid that misundrstanding, even if i dont hate the person i disagree with. as a public figure it makes sense to assume that my every action will be scrutinized and repeated by my following.
from a friend of mine :
I do disagree with the “Kamtza v. Bar-Kamtza” comparison. (Besides the obvious, common, error that they 2 hated each-other. Kamtza wasn’t the host. And he and Bar-Kamtza might have never even met.)
It seems that the Host hated Bar-Kamtza on a personal level. Not Stam cause he was a Tzidoki. And the sin wasn’t that he wasn’t invited. The Aveira was that after he was there already, and it was due to an innocent mistake, he tossed him out “Bifnei Kahal V’Aida”!
Yes, if the Vizhnitzer Rebbe attends and Rabbi Lau suddenly shows up and they have him chucked out, (or even if at that point the Vizhnitzer Rebbe demonstratively leaves) that would be different! That would be very wrong. And the Rebbe would, of course, never do that.
Sam2: Again from my friend:
this guy would be right only if the Zionist Rabbis would not be official employees (receiving paychecks) of the Medinah. If they were coming as private individual Talmidei-Chachamim, then the Vizhnitzer Rebbe would Takeh overlook their ideological differences and would gladly attend, and even shake their hands with a smile.
The Oylum doesn’t understand. This is not a typical boycott. I don’t think anybody (that matters) proclaimed any “Issur” to attend. It’s simply the Kana’ishe Rebbes demonstrating the Shittah of “Hisbadlus”. They together with “agents” or “lackeys” of the “Merida K’neged Malchus Shomayim” cannot participate together in any function.
Their sitting at the same dais, or being speakers, can easily be misconstrued as a “relaxing of opposition”.
The followers of “V’Yoel Moshe” are behaving appropriately L’Shittusum. I would be surprised (and somewhat disappointed) if the Vizhnitzer-Monsey and his peers would act differently. This is not some private affair, like a Sheva-Brochos. This is as public as it gets…
If both sides were guests of somebody with a separate or higher status, say the President of the U.S. then that would be different too, because they are not “partnering” in an official function.
Not to be “partnering” is the key word.
Popa: Once again, yes, groups should be excluded at certain times. Examples would be a Yom Ha’atzmaut parade, at which it would be downright mind-boggling to see a chassidish Rebbe. Or if there was a conference to limit/eliminate secular education in schools, it would be wholly unnecessary and even chutzpahdik to have someone MO to speak. But not at the Siyum HaShas-this is about limud haTorah!!
DY: There is clear and fundamental difference between something b’yechidus and b’rabim. The point ‘far east’ is trying to make, is that we have no buisness imposing our beliefs on others who practice something b’tzina. It does not follow that one should be fine if someone’s shittah is to embarass people publicly and that we have to accept that. Why? Because that’s b’tzibur! That becomes everyone’s responsibility to respond to. Ma she’ein kein, when someone comes to speak about limud haTorah, and nothing about his beliefs of Eretz Yisrael, there is no reason to take to task for those beliefs.
Toi, Sports, and others: For all the talk of lending credibility by attending, besides my post about lack of identity above, if any Rov or Rebbe actually found value in rising above these machlokos and coming together for the Siyum haShas, they could easily do so without creating such problems. Because if their mere presence can cause such large assumptions to be made, kal v’chomer that if they gave a shmuz pre or post-siyum that their attendance in no way speaks of their haskama of religious Zionism, then their Chassidim would have no confusion of the Rebbe’s beliefs. So far all the power everyone’s ascribing these Rebbeim, do they not have enough power to get up give a shmuz to give clarity and avoid the machlokes?!
jewish unity: You draw your lines; they draw their lines. The fact that you cannot respect their line drawing says more about you than about them.
Interestingly enough, however, I davka did not draw any lines-I simply made the point that pure limud haTorah untainted by side machlokos, or in this case celebration of pure limud haTorah untainted by side machlokos, is of supreme importance. If you’d like to respond, please do so with substance and address some of the concerns I’ve raised; don’t simply throw out a pithy phrase which makes me look intolerant.
I don’t know what you want me to say more. You are drawing a line that a torah event should be all inclusive and include any group whatsoever that wants to join. Thus, my line.
Yasher Koach, popa. Well put.
Jewish unity,
The point ‘far east’ is trying to make
I don’t know what (s)he meant, I only know what (s)he said.
I also don’t think that it’s okay to publicly shame someone; I was only demonstrating the absurdity of far east’s argument.
Nobody is trying to shame R’ Lau, but because the siyum is b’rabbim, great care must be taken to keep hashkafos pure, and, apparently, in the Vishnitzer Rebbe’s view, attending the siyum would compromise this.
I davka did not draw any lines
You davka did – you do not sanction exclusion from the siyum, but would from a yom ha’atzmaut parade or education conference.
If the Viznitzer Rav had a problem with Rabbi Lau, he should have made them months ago. You dont make demands 2 weeks before an event.
There is much money at state now, the tickets were alot of money, there are people flying in for the event.
Not to mention Rabbi Lau and others flying in from Israel and expensive involved with That.
If as Getzel says, Rabbi lau was invited because of Shottenstein, then dont accept their money. If you are going to accept a large donation from someone , accept the terms that the money is given.
If people would be as strong about keeping the Torah as they are about being anti Tzioni the Jewish world wouldnt look like it does today. ???? ???? ?????? ????.
If the Viznitzer Rav had a problem with Rabbi Lau, he should have made them months ago. You dont make demands 2 weeks before an event.
He is not the one who invited him. I do not know when the invitation was offered, accepted, and announced, but I didn’t know about it until a couple of days ago. You’re right, though, that there was lack of aforethought in inviting someone controversial.
If people would be as strong about keeping the Torah as they are about being anti Tzioni
Are you c”v accusing the Vishnitzer Rebbe of not being as strong about other parts of the Torah as he is about being anti-tzioni?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.