Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Re, chofetz chaim and rabbi kook – exterior sources and Kushyos do not dispel historically verifiable accounta. It’s not “the empty wagon”, but rather the father in law of that book ‘s author, rav yerucham gorelick, who was a big talmid of both rhe chofetz chaim and brisker rov, who was also a rosh yeshiva in YU. Not only him, but other talmidim were there at that time and attest to it. The story is common knowledge in South fallsburg, a yeshiva started by rav yerucham ‘s son, rav abba gorelick.
Gil student doesn’t like the story, so he finds ancillary problems with it. “Fun a kasha shtbart min nisht”. The answer to his concerns is clear – the praise of the reshoim was after the agudah conference. The chofetz chaim’s son in law doesn’t speak directly to his father in law’s beliefs, and like I said, gedolim (such as rav hutner which you correctly referenced) changed a lot on both rabbi kook’s ideas and personage. The way you describe rabbi kook as a poetic, blissfully unaware ideological philosopher only serves to further rule him out of the category of gedolei yisroel. Rav elchonon, another great talmid of the chofetz chaim, js quotes in kovetz maamarim as calling rabbi kook a rasha and zionism as avodah zara. That’s no longer a machlokes, that’s an excision of one person and his actions and beliefs from the klal.Chochma bagoyim doesn’t mean Torah bagotim. Chochma is logic, math, science, and old philosophy. It helps, key word, helps, understand things in Torah, but it doesn’t determine them. The rambam didn’t learn Aristotle until he was a massive gadol with Torah-defined hashkofos, and that’s what he cautions others to do as well in mishneh torah. The kaftor veferach writes that greek philosophy has its origins in torah, and that we’re just taking back what was originally ours. Haskalah was not like that.
Rav Hirsch never used secular studies to define torah; he wrote repeatedly that the chochmos are handmaids to Torah, they serve it, are subordinate to it. Rabbi yoshe ber, while not at the heretical point of torah umadah, where torah is as important as secular studies, still gave it independent importance to a degree.
The fact that rav miller calls rabbi kook a frum jew is telling. Would you call rav Moshe feinstein a “frum jew”? Also, where was that q and a stated?
My main point is that unlike hashkofos themselves, which are gleaned mainly from the words of gedolei yisroel midor dor, attitudes about people are much harder to determine, because people change, are nuanced, and not every gadol knows every detail aboit every controversial figure… believe me, they have more important things to use their mental energies on than if rabbi kook was legitimate or not.
Rather than approach it in terms of “how good/bad was rabbi kook” and quote gedolei yisroel who said kach vekach, a better alternative would be to quote what gedolim say (insert italics) about the issues themselves. What do gedolim say about nationalism(not the state being a salvation, which many gedolim said it was) as an idea, that there is a concept of a jew absent of torah (rabbi kook’s main idea, which he took from European nationalism), look at praising reshoim as an idea and ask – is it ok to praise reshoim? Is it ok to say that Rembrandt was a tzadik? Is it ok to absolve all mechalelei shabbos because they do supposedly holy work building a land they consider no more valuable than Uganda?
Is it ok to say that we need to make compromises to save torah?
Also, re operas…in my yeshiva it is known that rav shraga feivel mendelowitz almost hired rabbi yoshe ber as rosh yeshiva, but conditioned it on 3 tanaim; one of which was to cease attending operas.
It should also be noted that rav shlomo zalman, quite amazingly, wrote meorei ha’aish when he was a teenager.
Emunas chachamim doesn’t mean, for instance, that we praise shabsai tzvi or refuse to get involved in a “machlokes” since some rabbonim praised him early on. Everyone adapted to the reality of who he was revealed to be. The Torah world saw the truth about rabbi yoshe ber, rabbi kook, and others who you mentioned but I won’t do so because it’s unnecessary….but suffice it to say, that there are rabbonim in your post whose psakim and views are not entertained by the core yeshiva world because their views came to light. I’m not saying that rabbi kook and rabbi yoshe ber were anywhere near as divergent as shabsai tzvi; i am comparing the development of the Torah world’s approach to general divergence as it comes to light.
My current schedule doesn’t afford me the ability to write long, detailed, researched replies anymore, but I’ll just say that we have first hand accounta of the chofetz chaim literally making fun of rabbi kook’s name when he made his twisted statements about soccer playing mechalelei shabbos being “holy”. He called the pritzus painting artist Rembrandt a “tzadik”. He eschewed eating meat in clear, open violation of the gemara in Nazir which calls a lerson who abstains from devorim mutarin as a sinner, from “asher chatah al hanefesh”.
Rabbi yoshe ber believed compromise was necessary to save Judaism, and that the yeshiva world would crumble into obscurity if we didn’t create a “new talmid chacham”, who can darshen up the new york times. He believed in lowering our standards lf greatness to save us, much like conservatism, minus the outright denial of the Torah. But that is in its own right a denial or ki lo sishakach mipi zar’o, that torah – pure torah – will never be forgotten. He based his idea of odom harishon on kiekeergard. He had no problem attending operas and did nothing to chastise his waywars community.
Your quotes about the state being aschalta degeula come from menachem kasher, who forged signatures, some from rabonim who had already been niftar. Rav ovadia believed those quotes in his teshuva regarding saying halel on 5 iyar. His decision was largely based on that fallacy. Yeshivishe sefardim who are very into rav ovadia do not say hallel on 5 iyar, or omit tachanun; that’s what’s done by sefardim in chazon ovadia mosdos, as well as places like ateret torah in Brooklyn.
Rabbi yoshe ber’s own observance, as rabbi kook’s, was not wavering. They kept halacha (minus the operas, kol ishah is assur), but diverged from the mesorah in dangerous ways that their talmidim only expanded on and completely left normative judaism.
The issue isn’t secular knowledge. That’s a strawman argument. The rishonim who were knowledgeable (most, I’d argue all were) were not influenced by non jewish philosophy any more than they were influenced by Christianity or Islam, though many knew those systems in order to refute them.
Haskalah was a different era with different problems. Rabbi kook and rabbi yoshe ber in their own ways allowed alien, admittedly non torah ideas into their judaism, to differing degrees at different points in their life. Zionism/nationalism, the idea that somethinf besides Torah makes one a Jew, was called outright by rav elchonon in ikvesa demishicha as heresy. Cut and dry apikorsus, not a “machlokes”. If Rav Yaakov knew what we knew about rabbi kook, i highly doubt he would have referred to him as such, but to many he was respected. He was a shem dovor, but was known to some as off. When rav miller said that, was he completely aware of the above? Or was he only aware of zionism and simply believing in a state? Rabbi yoshe ber himself, however, remarked in a published interview that he was not at all impressed with rabbi kook’s “scholastics” as he called it.
Shlomo goren was, at one point, respected to a degree, and so was eliezer melamed until recently. Times change, people change, or reveal who they truly are.
AAQ, the “some” who are machmir on canned tuna include rav moshe feinstein. He held that there needs to be a mashgiach on the boat at all times, to prevent mixtures of tuna and crustaceans. Salmon may have been different, since it has a distinct color. The issue didn’t involve bishul akum as far as I know.
The OU allowed it, and certifies bumble bee and other companies that do not have full-time mashgichim. Rav Aharon kotler held this was acceptable.
Canned tuna was one of the very few things that rav belsky would not eat with an OU certification.
I think a lot of it is psychological, but factors like the materials in the oven, duration of baking, and thickness probably play a role
Square, you’re going in different directions. I answered your claim that it’s childish to have emunah Peshutah. I also answered your question about the value of emunah despite it being fragile. Now you’re pivoting to a different issue, which I’ll address, but I’m starting to think you have a desire for emunah to not be reasonable.
The comparison to the American revolution is not in the content of the event, it’s that something of national proportions is established as a historical fact. I didn’t mean to compare it in attitude, because unless you’re descendant from a US soldier who fought in the revolution, I doubt it would bother you much to question it.
Matan Torah is supposed to be emotional. It was an experience of communication with Hashem. We’re not supposed to be dispassionate about it. Holocaust denial probably bothers you because you know for a fact that it happened, and it trivializes the suffering and deaths of 6 million Jews.
A more visceral response should be triggered at the casting of doubts about matan Torah and the other miracles we experienced before and after for thousands of years, until churban bayis sheni. Denying a G-d that you have a relationship with and who all of your forefathers knew personally should bother you.
Square, i answered it in my first reply. I said it’s reasonable, and not childish to believe based on mesorah.
I’ll further add that just as chazal say that divrei Torah are hard to acquire as gold but easy to lose as glass, emunah is a refined trait that is easily damaged by bias, middos, the perverse culture we live in, and other factors. That’s why it’s in the same pasuk as not going after “your eyes after which you stray” in lo sasuru, referring to looking at women. Emunah was designed to be something that one works on consistently, not merely the winning of a philosophical debate
The chosid yaavetz(who lived during the Spanish inquisition, not to be confused with rac yaakov emden) writes that the Jews of Spain who had not explored philosophy left during the decree, but those who were into it became illicit marranos.
Enunah is to be guarded as one guards any other valuable, irreplaceable item. The rambam cautions against free thinking speculation by saying that it “destroys the world”, in avodah zara 2:2 ואם ימשך כל אדם אחר מחשבות לבו נמצא מחריב את העולם לפי קוצר דעתו
Even the rambam who holds of philosophy for those ready for it, understands that emunah is not weak if the person attempting to acquire it is a regular human with frailties and biases.
Saying you “agree” with one shitah of rishonim is arrogant, presumptuous, and belittling of all the other opinions. It’s saying that you’re entitled to decide who among them was more correct. That’s when it’s a typical machlokes.
Here it’s a daas yochid; effectively saying that the vast majority of ashkenaz rishonim and achronim are wrong and that their holy words are chas veshalom “shtus”
Saying that Hashem created us for Him means that he needs something and does not have it. That is an imperfection. Hashem created everything for the sake of the created, to be maitiv lezulaso
Syag, while it obviously would have been best to cast him out as soon as he started engaging in sinful behavior, things don’t work that way even in the non jewish world. When someone is in a position of power, it can take a long time to bring things to light. Also, I hear your point that people shouldn’t be defending him, but at the same time, wlif chas veshalom the belzer/gerrer/satmar/ any other rebbe turned bad, would everyone automatically drop them? If they clung to their rebbe, would they be cultists? To bring the point a little more down to earth, when someone’s family member is accused of abuse, are we to fault them for wanting to protect their father/brother/mother? The same way that’s not cultist, but rather nornal human frailty, i believe barland’s followers are defending their rebbe because they love him, as they would a family member. It’s wrong, and can cause harm to the victims, but i wouldn’t call it cultish.
My point about his background is not to praise him or talk about his maalos; far from the case, being a qualified rov only makes sinful behavior worse, not better. My point is that people who follow(ed?) him are no different than those who follow any other established rov.
Also, unlike the founder of lev tahor, barland was, at some point, a talmid chochom who was recognized as such. He was a rosh yeshiva who gave shiurim. He was held in moderate esteem by his contemporaries, but was not without his detractors either.
LT was started by a confused, probably manic depressive megalomaniac with little education who decided that the whole world was off the derech.
Gadol, I agree with the sentiment that lev tahor is a cult. It literally has every characteristic of one – it’s insular, views any outsiders as eternally condemned heathens, makes its adherents live in squalor, has one or two leaders who everyone gives their undying loyalty and money to, engages in immoral behavior for the sake ot its continuity…the list goes on
I don’t believe barland’s followers are part of a cult. As far as i know, he did not separate them from the rest of the world and make them live on communes. He didn’t make all of his followers give him all of their money. He also didn’t regard any non-shuvu bonim person as a heretic. They live normal lives, except for the few criminals he had in his orbit. I don’t see the comparison.
Ready, you don’t need to hyphenate the word god when it’s lashon chol. You’re allowed to say “I don’t believe in elohim acherim” without saying elokim as well, because it’s not a name of Hashem.
There’s a popular (and hartzig) isaac honig song that includes the words “ain kemocha be’elohim Hashem”, there is none like you among the… Powerful ones? gods? I forgot the pshat in that phrase, but either way, when i sing that song i say elohim because it’s lashon chol.
מנהגים = גהינם
Belittling minhagei yisroel, peppering anti Torah vile with sources, only makes bizui Torah worse.
I don’t envy you.
Amom, ashreich vetov lach. The sad reality is that many professional women find it difficult to both value their own career choices, and their husband’s dedication to learning. We also live in a society that suggests to young women that it’s more mentchlich to work…not just work, but to be wealthy and materialistic. Women who have simpler jobs have an easier time not feelijg superior to their husbands. It also depends on the type of work environment and friends one decides to have. If a woman hears all day about their friends’ husbands who take them on vacation, close major deals, or support entire yeshivos, it can lead to an unfair comparison.
Ujm, if a Jew’s host country is accused of misdeeds, will it be devastating to him? If someone told me that america is engaging in genocide, it won’t hurt my feelings. Russian jews (at least authentic jews) are not going to be offended if for some reason Russia is “right” and we condemn it.
Effectively telling Ukrainian yidden that they aren’t really suffering is, on the other hand, extremely offensive. Imagine someone suffering and being told “no, no…youre not really suffering; I don’t believe you, this is all a conspiracy”. Take out russia, insert Germany, and you have Holocaust denial.
I will note that shlomo has yet to answer my question; if there is a nafka mina between academic approaches to a rambam, or shulchan aruch, and the mesora-based view of those seforim, will you follow the opinions of academics over the poskim?
If yes, you are advocating a dismissal of halachik process. If no, you’re admitting that there’s little gain or truth to the academic process, because if it’s valid enough to explain rishonim, why not use it to determine halacha?
Saying it’s not a question because it doesn’t happen is like saying you won’t agree to kill an amaleki, because we don’t have amalekim among us. It’s evasive, and an attempt to straddle two opposing worldviews.
Marx, it’s exactly those rare exceptions that prove my point – real rabbonin spur all torah that is contaminated by outside influence. If this was par for the course, it wouldn’t be a criticism to say that someone wrote kach vekach just because he was taking advice from Aristotle, or because he lived in a country that favored one philosophical method over another, or because he wanted to disprove a contemporary.
These attacks are saying not that the recipient erred, but that their statements are not Torah. That is something that only people in their league can accuse, like the example of rav huna and rebbe which we discussed earlier.
There is a place for academia as a “handmaid” to Torah, as rav hirsch puts it. Not to inform our perushim, but to understand the artifacts, measurements, weights, geography, and other practical matters.
You’re also using circular logic; because you believe that the rishonim were biased and influenced by things other than their pure torah/shoresh neshoma, then when i say that “how can torah that’s a result of bias be binding?” your answer is “ain hachi nami, but that’s an extreme view”…. it’s just the logical extent of your perspective. What i clearly said is that they were NOT biased, and that their Torah is pure.
There is, at the very least, consistency in the reform mindset. They believe that the torah entirely is man made, and therefore don’t keep it. There is less consistency in conservative, which believes that the Torah is “divinely inspired” but also the product of human bias, especially torah she baal peh. They are wishy washy, accepting some teachings as divine and eschewing others, usually based on what’s in vogue at the time.
Your perspective though, is untenable. The logical extension of a claim that the transmitters of torah, be they chazal, rishonim, or achronim, are transmitting not torah, but an admixture of cultural, sociological and philosophical biases…is that their torah is not binding. The other side, one that is “evidenced” in chazal (kol ma shetalmid vasik…and many other examples), is that the torah that we have, both oral and written, is from Hashem. It is 100% true, emes veyatziv. It has no mixture of non-jewish ideology, or personal bias. It has been preserved through the process of torah lishma, something academics have no grasp of…a language of itself, with siyata dishmaya and kedushah, even ruach hakodesh.
As a halachik example, the divrei chaim (y.d. 400-something) has a famous teshuva regarding a rebbe in a cheder who taught his students that the ohr hachaim was a great sefer, but was not written with ruach hakodesh. The divrei chaim in this piece discusses what ruach hakodesh is, and concludes that it is the ability to be mechaven to the amitah shel torah, which is something every talmid chacham can do. That is evidenced by the gemara in gittin regarding pilegesh begivah. He further says that to deny this concept, essentially that the torah is hefker subject to human error, that talmidei chachamim are not imbued with siyata dishmaya and the ability to ve mechaven to the amitah shel torah, is apikorsus. One can reach this level of apikorsus by taking some api-courses in a local college on jewish studies, because that’s exactly the problem with the academic method. It strips the Torah of its divine quality, and its divine method of preservation and transmission.
Rav Belsky would often say that it’s important to keep pesach minhagim, even those which seem irrelevant and dependent on European agricultural standards
Shlomo, I’m being consistent. I believe that talmidei chachamim learn torah lishma and their torah is pure, guided by not only their pristine, non biased intellect, but also by siyata dishmaya. There is hashgocha in “dor dor vedorshav”. Their decisions are binding.
I didn’t say that nothing is binding without sanhedrin; that’s putting words in my mouth.
Silent, there have been cults that don’t differentiate between genders, such as scientology.
Gadol, maybe because she wants to achieve the greatest spiritual heights attainable for a woman in her capacity as enabling her husband and children to learn?
The idea that we can understand rishonim by studying the culture that they lived in means that their Torah is not completely Torah, but rather the product of outside influences. Academics who are wholly influenced by everything but torah enjoy validating their interest in the outside world by claiming that chazal, rishonim and achronim were too. They will trample on halacha by saying that things like tav lemaysav were cultural sentiments or even misogyny had they been said today. Are we to take as authoritative, mere reflections of non Jewish societies? Also, how is this approach “evidence based” when it’s simple conjecture and juxtaposition? Let’s say the prevailing philosophy of the hometowns of the rambam and raavad was kach vekach; is that definitive evidence? Can there not be coincidences?
And yes, there is a nafka mina even in this case. As I said, how can a halachik opinion have weight and authority if it’s not a halachik opinion based on the 48 kinyanei Torah, many of which include the removal of bias?
Rav belsky held it’s kitnios, as it’s processed like the 5 grains, is a staple grain of its countries, is stored with the 5 grains, and is included in breads.
Rav moshe heiniman disagreed
Ujm, we don’t find that yushke claimed divinity. The early accounts say that he prayed; god wouldn’t pray to himself.
Paul attributed divinity to him, but even this wasn’t formalized into christian doctrine until the council of nicea hundreds of years later.
Cults are “cultivated”, around charismatic yet dubious individuals who are interested in power, self gain, etc
Religions are organized movements which don’t require such a dynamic, although there have been many which did.
I did, more than once.
We have a strong inclination to believe whoever is saying that the mainstream is wrong. We do this with medicine, in a mad dash towards anything with the term “alternative” attached to it. We do it with news, listening only to the minority goyim who go against the majority goyim.
Before we carry on with our theories from the comfort of our living rooms, we should think – what if a Ukrainian yid were to see what we’re saying? Wouldn’t that hurt his feelings? Perhaps there are some who access YWN…
Shlomo, that’s evasive. You and I both know that the way you interpret a rambam almost always has a halachik nafka mina. I will ask you again; if there’s a halachik nafka mina between the “evidence based” academic interpretation of a rambam, and the shulchan aruch’s interpretation of the same rambam, will you overturn a halacha of shulchan aruch (or any other authoritative sefer) because you have strong evidence that his interpretation is incorrect?
Calling something ‘evidence based ” is a buzz word used by many on the left today to substantiate reforms and changes in traditional societal norms. Torah has its own system, and using alien methods is fitting a square peg into a round hole.
Except the hole here is the pischa shel gehinnom
Dealing with the prospect of a get before even getting married is a recipe for disposable marriages that are more common the more modern one becomes
Damoshe – amazing story, very good example!
I also would like to point out that this issue is an example of how learning advanced studies, chasidus, kabalah, etc…can lead to tragic misconceptions and even heresy r”l. If one learns a Tanya without having an elementary education in the basics, these kind of mistakes are almost inevitable.
CS, I never said that Hashem chas veshalom doesn’t care about what we do and that it’s just for ourselves so what’s the big deal if we fail.
What I said is that Hashem does not need anything. This is basic jewish theology outlined in the rambam and everyone else. Needing something means that there’s a lack, there’s an imperfection, r”l.
We are needed in Hashem’s plans. We have a given mission, both individually and collectively. Our avodah is necessary – the most important thing in the world. Hashem gave us a responsibility, and from our perspective it’s not for ourselves; it’s to be mekadesh shem shomayim, to help others, to be davuk bashem, many intentions. From Hashem’s perspective, it’s for our benefit.
I’ve encountered many, many lubavitcher men, and I’ve never seen one that has payos that are long(aruchos), that are left from the temple around the ear to dangle (the words of the arizal, meduldalos) until reaching the beard. I don’t believe you’re understanding the picture presented by the words of rav chaim vital.
Square – I’ll clarify. The methods of many geonim and rishonim, including rav saadia, rambam, rabbeinu bachya, and several others, included using philosophical arguments to prove the existence of Hashem and vital notions of Him, including oneness, incorporeality, omniscience, shlaimus, that He is a boreh umanhig (this was in sharp contrast to the philosophers of their time and the Greeks), and that Hashem created the world yash may’ayin.
They held that such study – when undertaken after amassing Torah knowledge and the stripping of bias and bad middos that comes in its wake – is a kiyum of the mitzvah of ve’hashayvosa, that you shall place emunah in your heart. If done without the strong background in shas and poskim, this is extremely dangerous, as one can come to disbelief or doubts. The rambam cautions would-be philosophers that such pretentious prattling “destroys the world” in his words, since sometimes the free thinker (or academic) will accept torah misinai, sometimes he won’t. Sometimes he’ll believe in Hashem, other times the alternative will appear clear to him. These are verbatim translations of the words of the rambam, whose name is dragged in the dirt by people who never excelled in gemara and real learning, and instead chose to become self styled “philosophers” who devote their time and energy to “machshava”. Modern Orthodoxy is full of such mischievous peddlers of false sophistry, who spend time wondering why people are important and if they’re the purpose of creation, while ignoring true learning that is mayviah lidai maysoh, that leads to fulfilling the mitzvos, yiras shomayim, tikun hamidos, and ahavas Hashem.Then there’s havchanah. That is recognition of Hashem both in our lives, as well as in the briah. The rambam says that studying nature (not secular biology courses where the intent is to hide the Creator) brings one to ahavas Hashem. The chovos halevavos devotes an entire shaar, called shaar habechina, to this study. Rav avigdor miller, the chazon ish, and virtually every achron writes about this, even the most anti-philosophy shitos. There is no harm in this study, as it does not involve reckoning with the “other side”, as attemps at philosophical proof does.
Shlomo, you are incriminating yourself by saying on an Orthodox forum that academics argue from “evidence” while seforim argue from….torah? Lomdud? Mesorah based logic?
Are you saying that if there’s a halachik Nafka mina between academics and the way the cesef mishnah understood a rambam, we should pasken according to the “evidence based” writers?
Not to mention that bias is everywhere in academia. Achronim learned torah lishma and their words are holy, not influenced by secular values, culture, and methodology.
Rav Hirsch wrote extensively on learning Torah “from its own perspective”, not from an outside view or in the context of alien valueals, methods and viewpoints.
To say that Hashem created something for Himself would imply that he was lacking cv”s. Diroh b’tachtonim is a method of imparting shlaimus, godly perfection onto people. The mesilas yeshorim says in the first few paragraphs that Hashem created us to bestow upon us pleasure, and the place of that pleasure is mainly olam haba.
Hashem created us for us, to give us. We gain that by being selfless and by doing things for the sake of heaven, but Hashem does not need our avodah, does not need anything, because he is perfect and whole in every possible way.
Chabad children, I’ve seen with such payos, but once they have beards they cut their payos the same length as the rest of their hair, like a number 3 or 4.
I didn’t claim that they’re the same, i grouped them together because they all share one thing in common – they learn rambam and everything else in a way that’s not in keeping with the mesorah and the way seforim kedoshim learn and analyze. They’re all treif in varying degrees.
TS, i read what you posted from the sefer and that’s just not what it’s saying. I think you’re going by what others told you. If you want to refute it please post the Hebrew and your translation, because i read it and it’s simply not saying what you claim.
In arab propaganda, caricatures of traditionally dressed jews are common media – I don’t think they know that charedim are anti zionist. One thing neturei karta is good at is trying to change that, but individual extremists associate all jews with Israel.
Suggesting exclusively academic authors, whether they wear fabric on their head or otherwise, is to imply that the hundreds of mainstream seforim on the rambam – the meforshim on him, and myriad others, like the ohr somayach, are all not as important or informative….
Iif the only view of “Maimonides” you have is from maskilim, when talmidei chachamim have “learned up” rambams for centuries… it’s very telling of where your emunah lies. When you learn gemara, you go to (I hope) rashi and tosfos – when there’s a “shverer”, difficult rambam, you go to the meforshim – take a look st the frankel rambams with the massive, exhaustive index of seforim…..not a single academic/maskil/heretic on there.
TS, I saw it – it says that the arizal would let them grow long let them dangle, until they reached the area of the beard, then he would cut them, because at that point they’re not called payos anymore. Sounds like mid-sized payos, several inches long – he even refers to them as “aruchos”
Definitely not the way chabad takes a number 3 haircut all over; this is a proof to the other side, that there’s an inyan to have long payos. Not as long as most chasidim, but what he’s describing sounds exactly like the length of the netziv’s payos that we see in his photos.
Here we go with the myopia again – I’m saying it’s offensive to lay sole claim to the arizal”s shita, and say that chabad doesn’t have payos because of him, which would imply that everyone else doesn’t follow the arizal. To prove that point, I mention 4 leading figures in Arizal based kabalah, and your answer is “but what about the baal hatanya?” Yes he was an expert in kabalah(and halacha, and everything else for that matter), but he was not the only one and does not have any more of an objective authority on arizal than the gr”a(who held of payos).
TS, luckily for us, poskim such as mori verabi rav belsky zt”l, didn’t get their definitions of torah concepts by googling things.
TS, I wasn’t saying you should answer for other chasidim. I’m saying that it’s typical myopia where whatever chabad says is the only way things are – if chabad holds something isn’t tznius, then it’s not tznius, regardless of how many other groups of legitimate jews do it (or is no one else legitimate?….)
It would be like me telling a sefardi that I don’t warm up food on hotplates on shabbos because it’s chilul shabbos, while he does and is a mechalel shabbos. No – the way I tell him is that Ashkenazim hold that we’re not allowed to heat up food this way, because we hold that it’s nesinah lechatchila, but we respect other minhagim which permit it.
To be clear, satmar has higher standards of tznius in dress than chabad by a wide margin. They also separate genders far more fastidiously, and keep shmiras aynayim better because they don’t go out to the outside world.
In my own experiences, there are certain trends that go on in crown heights which are acceptable, and not treated with revulsion as they would be elsewhere. The details of this aren’t tznius to post online, but hamyavin yovin.
The amount of violations would be less if there were clear community guidelines as there are in boro park and Williamsburg (moreso in the latter). Every community has problems, but at some point, if not checked, they will spread, and in an effort to be mekarev people with little yiras shomayim, you will cause a community wide abandonment of tznius and other mitzvos.
Shlomo, I didn’t see in his first question a doubt or inquiry regarding the nature of bias hamoshiach; rather, he asked how it can be considered an ikkar if it’s a “machlokes”. I answered that we see this by Miriam, so there’s precedent for ikkarim to be subject to halachik jurisprudence. That’s not saying “it’s a halacha”, it’s saying that it’s not static and that can be evidenced by its halachik development.
Re, kuzari; I don’t see how your points on the kuzari and the issue of how there can be machlokes regarding ikkarim are related to the OP’s original assertion that believing without derisha vechakira is “childish” and my response to him, which was demonstrating the soundness of mesorah based emunah without drishah vechakira.
But to answer the issues raised:
We don’t find a machlokes in the rishonim regarding the veracity of the ikkarim. Contrary to what some sensationalist bloggers and zoologists claim, we don’t have any rishonim on record who believe in corporealism. Nor do we have any who say that Hashem isn’t omniscient, omnipotent, above time/space, or finite. The rest of the ikkarim are the same. The only machlokes is about the need for ikkarim (just believe in the Torah!), The definition of an ikkar, and so on.
In terms of the mesorah, this can be analogous to how most halachos that are based on drashos are universally accepted, while the pasuk or s’vara that they are derived from are debated (this is how the ohr somayach explains most machlok’sim). There can also arise questions as to which halachos are deoraysoh and which are derabonon, asmachtos, etc..
Sevara is deoraysoh. The rishonim who held of deriving hashkofos from philosophy believed this to be Torah in itself (when Torah logic and exegesis are used, which is part of why the rambam says to first learn torah and then go into philosophy. The same way the conclusions we derive from our own lomdus are true and misinai(kol ma shetalmid vasik asid lechadesh….), Hashkofos are as well. M’idach gisa, the bartenura on moshe kibel torah misinai aays that pirkei avos begins with the shalsheles of mesorah in order to stress that hashkofos and mussar aren’t something chazal determined on their own, the way chachmei umos haolam do, but rather is part of moshe kibel torah misinai. Based on this, the rishonim definitely had a mesorah for hashkofa (which would explain that they agree to all the ikkarim), while machlokes can arise in areas that may have not been as vital, like whether hashgocha protis applies to animals, and other very abstract concepts.
Marx, to be a qualified posek, one needs to spend years learning shas and poskim, not reading the Babylonian talmud for 45 minutes every day while drinking coffee .havei mesunim bedin, be diligent in paskenint – ine needs time, not an hour or two of perusing rishonim. One needs to have shimush. Kara veshana velo shemash is an am haaretz. Halacha requires a clear head, free of bias and foreign junk that one absorbs online, in the work place and through media consumption. It also requires a tremendous amount of yiras shomayim.
If someone is missing even one of these things, they cannot rule on any halacha shailos.
Shlomo, I still don’t understand your question. When did i say that we should have emunah because the rishonim say so? The status of the ikkarim is a halacha issue that is decided by the same poskim who decide what you can and can’t do on shabbos. Whether or not we understand their reasoning doesn’t change the halacha, and OP wasn’t asking for an explanation of the ikkar itselt, but rather how it can be an ikkar when there’s a machlokes regarding it. That question isn’t about understanding bias hamoshiach itself, but rather its ikkar status – to that i answered that it can still be an ikkar and we see that ikkarim aren’t static.
I didn’t say that emunah based on mesorah, withoit drisha vechakira isn’t childish because the kuzari says so, i gave a logical argument by comparing it to other historical occurrences on which no one disagrees or even questions it, because something that happens to an entire nation whose progeny are still around should be regarded as true. That’s not an argument from authority.