- This topic has 65 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
@AviraDeArah
There is not necessarily a contradiction between with what Rav Yisrael Chaim Kaplan reports and what Rabbi Reisman and other talmidim report. Rav Yaakov could have been extremely relieved and happy with Israel’s victory at the moment but on later reflection conclude that there was no outright nissim. His views towards the Medinah were probably quite nuanced and hard to fit into a neatly defined box.right, but you didn’t reference any rabbeim, you claimed to know more and better. You yourself, not crediting your outlook to anyone.
Marx, that’s a good point and clear thinking – there were many tzadikim who reacted to the medina with gratitude to Hashem for giving them a place to go after the war; not connected to zionist ideology – they would have been just as grateful(probably more so) if America had taken them in too.
I agree that thanking Hashem for Jews being safe after a war doesn’t equal pro zionism, or that the war was a neis – I think I’d actually have the same reaction.
Syag; I figured it was a given that my knowledge… Anyone’s knowledge, is the product of learning. Who did i learn from? It’s not yesh may’ayin.
I originally said that i think i know better because of my connections to the insular core Yeshiva world. It affords me perspective and knowledge that r. Wein is largely not aware of.
your not making sense. You said you know better, you didn’t say you have heard differently from teachers. And you are trying to walk it back.
Bottom line, you have no clue who Rabbi Wein is and what he knows, it’s a chutzpah for you to proclaim you know more at your age than he knows, let alone make statements about who he knows or where he gets his information. I am offended by your arrogant stand (not that you need to lose sleep over that) and I question the credibility of your other claims now knowing the lack of credibility to these.I sadly don’t expect this to take up even a moment in your day. But at least I tried.
We seemingly have a glaring disagreement here about R Kamenetsky’s reaction in 1967 between witnesses. This is very uncomfortable. Can we resolve it?
It really doesn’t matter to me how much rabbi wein knows or doesn’t know, or how much i know – it’s an off the cuff speculation. It’s also way off topic, and i generally choose to not make my posts about me or any other poster. Take from them what you will, if any, and disregard whatever you don’t like or think is arrogant. I do think my willingness to accept when I’m wrong and acceptance of others’ opinions who i otherwise disagree with (like with marx above) is what i try to go by.
It mattered enough for you to declare that you know more than he does in order to boost yourself up to make a point. It stopped being important when you got called on it. To me, credibility is pretty important.
AAQ – if you were paying attention only one of the “witnesses” was first hand reporting.
Thanks Syag, Marxist, stories seem to reconcile. This seems to shed some light on how Avira’s stringent opinions are formed: they consist of very precise recollections, but contrary opinions do not exist in this memory, so the overall picture gets distorted. As to veracity, here is a first-hand account: I heard from R Shapiro Z’L from Beth Israel Miami that he went to Israel for 6 days war helping out the Army somehow, maybe as a nurse.
“This seems to shed some light on how Avira’s stringent opinions are formed: …….so the overall picture gets distorted.”
Umm, no offense, but you may not be the right candidate to point out distortions of points and thoughts.
>>>The state of Israel purposefully grew the myth of both the danger they were in as well as the legend of their unlikely victory.
To answer your question as to where Rabbi Wein’s observation came in, it because the only three groups who make such claims about the Six Day War are (1) Far far right frum groups (2) militantly atheistic anti religious secular Jewish Groups and (3)anti-Semites.
When Yitzchok Rabin said that “anyone who thinks we should be thanking for our victory is the six day war is mistaken. Is was all out superior planning” that statement was unacceptable in the frum world. Rabbi Shapiro saying it doesn’t make it any better or different. It’s not for no reason that Rabbi Shapiro is such good friends, quotes and appears at so many events with Gilad Atzmon (google the two names together) a guy who makes the typical secular Israeli seem like a tzadik. And it’s not for no reason that both of them are quoted in anti-Semitic literature
All rabbi shapiro did was talk with atzmon in an interview with them both: he is certainly not friends with him. Rabbi shapiro spends a lot of time trying to tell the world that zionists don’t represent Jews, and that interview was one such opportunity.
Facts are facts, and the fact that another group who we disagree with states them doesn’t detract from their truth. What r wein is basically saying is that since the frei say it, they must be wrong – that’s not intellectual honesty. If the frei happen to be presenting military facts and say that the war was not a miracle, but rather no different than the hundreds of other wars in the 20th century whether or not they’re right depends on whether or not the facts are true, not their ideology or goals in stating those facts
Their goal is to minimize Hashem and say that everything is nature
Our goal is the opposite; it’s to minimize chilul Hashem and say that he is not going to do miracles for you if you are an enemy of torah, and say that Hashem will not do miracles for a wicked army when he said so in the Torah that he will turn away from such an army. We’re saying that people make up these miracle stories to claim that Hashem approves of their actions, which he doesn’t, because they’re against his torah.
To group them together is classic misdirection and not proper historical research. It’s like when MO say “what? You want us to be like Uganda and punish toevah with the death penalty?” The fact that Uganda happens to get it right in one way doesn’t detract from the truth of the position mitzideinu. That’s misdirection and an emotional ploy, but it’s not rational.
Take two people. One is my Rosh Yeshiva, who says that when he’s asked his nationality, he says “American”, because Judaism isn’t a nationality, but rather a religion. An MO person might say the same answer when asked, but not because he thinks Judaism is not a nation – he believes very much in zionism after all. He’ll say it because he identifies with America as part of himself, while the rosh yeshiva looks at it the same way he would describe his eye color or skin tone; inconsequential – he doesn’t identify with anything other than torah.
>>>All rabbi shapiro did was talk with atzmon in an interview with them both
That isn’t true. They both quote each other on plenty of other occasions and I’ve seen Shapiro make other references to conversation he had with Atzmon . As a rule by people like Shapiro hischabrus wiht resoyim is only wrong when the Rosha is suspected of being a Zionist. And if the Rosha is an anti-Zionist then even chanufa to Resoyim is allowed.
>>>What r wein is basically saying is that since the frei say it, they must be wrong
Rabbi Wein said nothing of the sort. It was a neutral observation commenting on political views and activism done in Russia over 125 years ago. BUT Chazal said “lo Bchinom holoch hzarzar etzel H’arov” is based on Pesukim in the Torah
>>>If the frei happen to be presenting military facts
If it were the consensus of secular world that would be true. If it is only the militantly secular who are presenting such “facts” but the more mainstream view is and was that the Six Day War results were better than any expectation then it is suspect.
I am not sure where this conversation is going, but it seems that everyone is confidently assigning their own view to Hashem and then interpreting events from that position. Maybe some humility is in order.
Also, we may be mixing up our Shapiros, the one I mentioned is niftar long ago.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.