According to this qualification, we need to define “following daas Torah” as being “m’vatel daas”, meaning following it even when disagreeing. If a guy follows his rebbeim 90% of the time, but the other 10% not, because he doesn’t agree on those matters, he can’t really be said to be following daas Torah.

I think you are combining two distinct categories. Some people don’t respect the rabbi on anything other than saying what the Shulchan Aruch says. Other people respect the rabbi tremendously, even in non-halachic matters, but don’t go so far as to be mevatel da’as when they have strong reason to believe the rabbi is wrong. There is a big difference between these two categories which manifests itself in situations where the person does not have his own strong evidence. The second person will follow the rabbi whereas the first person won’t.

Popa:

I can’t claim to speak for Modern Orthodox people, but leshitascha that R’ Aharon Lichtenstein “is definitely Modern Orthodox”

( http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/thoughts-on-the-yeshiva-gush#post-337966) I can tell you that he did differentiate between halachic and non-halachic questions:

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/daas-torah-2/page/5#post-525980

But I think there might be a more fundamental dispute, and that is what I mentioned earlier about using the pasuk of v’asisa as the source to follow a rav in actual halacha. Someone might say that that would be directly against the pasuk. The pasuk is saying that there is a Sanhedrin which everyone is bound by, in order to prevent everyone from having their own Torah. So it might be construed as somewhat ironic to use that as the source that everyone should have their own Torah (i.e. follow a specific rav).

DaasYochid:

I wasn’t particularly differentiating between Popa and his Rebbe. As we only know of his Rebbe’s sevara through him I referred to it as his sevara.

Your second paragraph is in accordance with the sevara that I quoted. My point was that I understood Popa’s (Rebbe’s) sevara to be something different, and that the one that I mentioned gets rids of gavra/ubiquitin’s questions the best – it’s specifically talking about during the wedding and it’s specifically talking about discussing the possibility of the husband being exceptionally cruel to the wife, as opposed to stam a discussion of the potential cessation of the marriage.

Whereas according to #2 (Popa’s first way) the kashya from kesuba is a much better kashya (which is not to say that there is no answer).

R’ Chaim Berlin writes:

????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??”? ???? ?”? ?’ ????? ?? ?’ ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??????

Your last statement is rather cryptic. Can you clarify which aspect of what I wrote you are responding to?

Okay, I may have misunderstood you. I thought you were trying to distinguish between halchic vs. non-halachic issues. Now it seems that you are not. Unless your question actually was whether or not Modern Orthodox people agree with you that there is no difference between halachic and non-halachic issues.

Here is the actual reference from Ohr Hashem:

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=22063&st=&pgnum=418&hilite=

I would say that ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? is somewhat more positive than ???? ????.

Where is the actual ??”? ?????

I have no idea. It might not exist. All I know is that R’ Dovid Sinzheim in Sheva Chakiros claims that the Rosh said this. As far as I know it is unsubstantiated.

That’s right. We can easily apply anything that anyone ever said to anything else we want it to apply to.

Rebbe Yid, I can’t be certain considering this is the written word, but my sarcasm detector went off when reading this line. I don’t know if you read the sefer that I linked to, but I was certainly not saying that we can apply anything anyone ever said to anything we want. What I was saying is that if someone had a certain sevara and applied it to case A and the similarities between case A and case B are such that the sevara would be equally applicable to case B, we can apply it to case B even though the originator of the sevara never directly addressed case B. ?????? ????, R’ Yaakov Levinson mentioned an objection to the suggestion that at the wedding, the husband should appoint the wife as a shliach. His objection was not an objection to the halachic mechanism, so there is no issue if the mechanism of the prenup is different; his objection was that bringing up a discussion of divorce/mean husbands during the happiest moment of her life is a bad idea. The prenup and the shliach suggestion are similar in that regard – they both bring up the same discussion at the wedding. The only difference is the halachic mechanism by which it seeks to resolve the potential problems. Thus, it would be very reasonable to assume that R’ Levinson would have the same problem with the prenup as he had with the shliach sugestion. That is not to say that there is no way to avoid his objection, nor is it to say that anyone is bound by his objection. It is simply to say that there is a sevara against bringing up certain discussions during the wedding.

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7512&st=&pgnum=101&hilite=

(Last paragraph; It’s not discussing the prenup, but we can easily apply it to the prenup.)

However, the Tzlach in Berachos 10a writes:

??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????

Seemingly, then, you could come back as a gilgul even if you never did anything wrong in your past life.

Part of what I quoted above from R’ Rakeffet is confirmed by R’ Shlomo Riskin, in the Jerusalem Post:

During lectures, when Soloveitchik would be at a loss to remember where a particular reference could be found in the Talmud, it was Lichtenstein who would step in and inform him of the correct place to look, Riskin recalled.

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/is-aliyah-a-wise-choice-in-the-nuclear-age/page/3#post-565261

I’m not claiming that R’ Hutner was a Zionist. But it is possible to hold that R’ Kook was one of the Geonei V’tzadikei Olam, without agreeing with his positions on Zionism. You were responding to jazar who was attempting to prove R’ Kook’s chashivus from the fact that he was the mesader kiddushin for R’ Elyashiv. You were thus using R’ Hutner to demonstrate that even though at one point R’ Kook may have been considered chashuv, that changed. But you didn’t prove that. All you proved is that R’ Hutner took down R’ Kook’s picture (and even that you didn’t prove, though it’s okay because I have other sources for that so I don’t need to rely on you). So now the question is why did R’ Hutner take down the picture, and why did it take him 30 years to do so? Having a picture of R’ Kook is no stira to being an anti-Zionist. So a simple explanation for why he suddenly took down the picture, is as I suggested. If you have a better one, I invite you to share it with us.

And speaking of R’ Hutner, you claim that taking down the picture of R’ Kook in the 60s demonstrates that R’ Hutner was “against” R’ Kook. However, R’ Kook died in 1935. Which means that R’ Hutner had R’ Kook’s picture up for some 30 years after R’ Kook died. During that period, R’ Kook obviously could not have done something to lose favor in R’ Hutner’s eyes. It is rather implausible that R’ Hutner simply woke up one day and decided that R’ Kook was all wrong. Perhaps a more likely explanation is that by the 60s, R’ Hutner had to so to speak “pick a side” and the side that he wanted to be on (i.e. the yeshivish velt) did not mesh well with R’ Kook, so he had to “publicly distance himself” from R’ Kook, though it may not have reflected what he actually held. Additionally, in ???? ??? p. 863, it says: ????? ??? ???? ????? ??”? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???????? ???? ????? ????

Granted, it doesn’t provide an original source.

Joseph:

I have never met anyone who told over this story, and cannot find online, a single person who claims to have heard this story from R’ Gorelik. I don’t think that qualifies as “well known in the public”. A youtube video of R’ Gorelik saying it would be nice, but at least some proof that someone who was a talmid of his actually heard him say it would be a start. Bare in mind, though, that even if I heard the story directly from R’ Gorelik himself, my disproofs wouldn’t “fall by the wayside”. They would be just as strong as ever, though if he was alive, we could theoretically ask them to him and see if he can be meyasheiv them. And another source against the stories, which I forgot to mention in my last post, is the Artscroll edition of R’ Moshe Meir Yoshor’s biography of the Chofetz Chaim, on p. 161, which says:

The Chafetz Chaim spent a great amount of time in Torah study with the young Rav Kook at that time. Ever since then, the pious sage greatly esteemed and honoured him. [Though it is somewhat unclear who is who in the second sentence.]

When I tell you that I don’t have the sefer, I am not disproving your claims. I am just saying that you are asking me to look something up which is not available online, and even if I was willing to buy the book just to look up your claims, it is not sold around here nor is it sold online. So at this point it is very unlikely that I will be able to see the sefer anytime in the near future. If you think there is such a strong case to be made from it then I invite you to give us the details. I have spent a lot of time typing out full quotes when I can’t link to a source I am quoting; you can do the same. Or if you don’t want to take up any of your time, it really shouldn’t be that hard to put the relevant page online. It is somewhat suspicious when Weinman’s book is quoted over and over again by anti-Zionists, yet no one can be more helpful than “it’s your problem to get access to a book which is nigh inaccessible, and I refuse to give you any details of what it says, and you just have to trust me that he disproved R’ Kasher”. And expecting me to get my hands on an Aguda publication from 37 years ago is likewise unreasonable.

Haleivi:

It’s like, his favorite word. Although, according to the Coffee Room spellchecker it’s not a real word.

Joseph:

I have no idea if two major roshei yeshivos said this story over. All I know is that you, an anonymous poster, claim that two roshei yeshivos said it over. There is not exactly a plethora of their talmidim sitting next to me for me to ask, and even if I did have access to someone, it wold be hard for me to report it here without causing my own anonymity to be placed at risk, and even more so, it wouldn’t necessarily prove anything because a talmid not hearing it (or remembering it) doesn’t mean it wasn’t said. So based on the very small amount of evidence in favor of the stories, combined with the very strong evidence against the story, I cannot accept the stories as evidence of great rabbis bashing R’ Kook.

Regarding the letter from the Chofetz Chaim’s son-in-law, where exactly do you expect it to have appeared before it was printed in sefarim documenting the situation with R’ Kook?

Regarding the story about the knessia, there is an early, non-Zionist source. In ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? published in 1937, R’ Moshe Meir Yoshor writes (p. 160):

??? ???? ??? ???? ???”? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ? ???? ??????????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??????????? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ??????

I also posted a letter from the Chofetz Chaim himself to R’ Kook. The claim that the Chofetz Chaim would badmouth someone whom he knew back in Europe, (and knew that he was a talmid chacham) and that he would even believe the report in the first place, is an extraordinary claim and as such would require extraordinary evidence. I think in this case the extraordinary evidence is against the story.

Regarding R’ Soloveitchik’s view of R’ Kook:

Even if I grant that the quote from Thinking Aloud is 100% accurate and reflects R’ Soloveitchik’s official position on the matter, it is not a source which delegitimizes R’ Kook; it simply says that R’ Soloveitchik was not particularly awed by R’ Kook’s intellectual greatness. Now it happens to be that I am not ready to grant that this quote accurately reflects R’ Soloveitchik’s official position on the matter, for the reasons I mentioned in my last post (and yes, there is a big difference between an off-the-cuff discussion and a prepared talk/written essay). Furthermore, I will now add that there is a different recording of R’ Soloveitchik where you can hear him talk about R’ Kook, and you will see what he held of him (though it is not a praise of intellectual greatness). Here is a link (Moderators, there is nothing at the link other than a play button to hear the recording, if you want to allow it. If not, you can just edit out the link and I will try to transcribe the recording in a future post, though the link would be much appreciated): http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/c/2/7/c2793c7709ef7f97/Fri_16_06_06-ebick_erevshabbatbehaalot.mp3?c_id=1555275&expiration=1429415778&hwt=e922f07611f9bebac9b10a481cd9468c The discussion about R’ Kook begins at about 16:20.

And about the kol korei, your response does not address my point. The vast majority of people only saw the kol korei as printed by R’ Kasher. Which means that you have all these religious Zionists (and probably even non-Zionists and anti-Zionists) who now think that all these great rabbis signed a kol korei which said “aschalta d’geula”. These people would have no idea that this kol korei was a forged conglomeration of other things. So if Zvi Weinman informed all these rabbis of this situation, the rabbis should have done everything in there ability to correct a widespread belief that is antithetical to Torah. Speaking of the claims in general, if Weinman actually provided documentation of the original kol korei’s, it shouldn’t be that hard for someone to put it on the internet. All someone needs to do is scan the page, or take a picture of the page, or even type up the page. Note, I am not saying that this proves that Weinman did not document it; I am merely pointing out that it is odd that I can’t find it on the internet. You would think that some anti-Zionist site would want to post actual proof.

(Moderators: I apologize for all the lengthy posts in this thread but I think it would be impractical – if not impossible – to have this discussion via short posts.)

Joseph:

I first want to reiterate that we are still straying far off topic with this whole discussion about R’ Kook. That said:

The dissection is precisely to prove my point that a 100 year old story is not so reliable, especially when various details don’t check out. And they are not all small details. If my dates are correct then R’ Yerucham Gorelik wouldn’t be a reliable source for the story. And the Chofetz Chaim’s objection to newspaper was in regards to reading them, not in regards to buying them (though he may have also objected to that in some other source). He writes that it is a tremendous waste of time, and newspapers contain leitzanus, lashon hara, rechilus, machlokes, etc. So he probably wouldn’t want someone else to read it to him either. Obviously the story changed somewhat in the last 100 years, so we don’t really know what to take out from the story. And again, it is contradicted by the letter. (And both stories, as you told them, are responses to things that R’ Kook never said or wrote.)

You ask about the letter. It is not “a photocopy going around online”. It is printed in several seforim. The earliest source that I have seen it in is ????? ????”? p. ???? which was published 29 years ago. So it is clearly not an invention of the internet age. I presume that he mentioned his yichus because he was claiming to represent the Chofetz Chaim’s position.

You are correct that Avi K said “YU grad”; however, merely being a YU grad doesn’t make someone an authority on R’ Gorelik. I therefore assumed that Avi meant an actual talmid. He can correct me if I made an incorrect assumption.

The story about the Chofetz Chaim at the Knessia is also brought in several seforim. In ???? ????”? p. 217, the source of the story is R’ Nissan Zaks.

Can one imagine anything more contradictory to the basic values of our Torah?

Why is this contradictory to basic Torah values? In fact R’ Kook was basing himself on the Rambam who writes:

?????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?”? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ????

In fact, in ???? ????”? p. 244, it describes how R’ Kook met with ?????”? ???????? ?????”? ???? ????? ?’ ???? ??? ????? about this very inyan:

????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?????”? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??????

(The source of the story is R’ Shmuel Aharon Shazuri.)

As R’ Moshe Tzuriel pointed out:

?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ????”? ????”?

(Obviously, one can argue that R’ Kook was taking the Rambam too far, but l’maaseh, that’s not what the admorim argued in this story.)

Regarding R’ Yosef Yedid, his objection is that no one can surpass Moshe. However, R’ Kook writes “?????? ?????”, by which he is presumably referring to ???? ?????. If that is the case then see what I wrote:

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/shmuly-yanklowitz-novominsker-and-oo-theology/page/3#post-524991

Back to the Chofetz Chaim, we actually have a letter written by the Chofetz Chaim to R’ Kook in 1923 in which he discusses the machlokes in Eretz Yisrael. It is printed in several seforim, and apparently was first printed in ??? ???? ???”? (i.e. the very year that it was written):

???”? ??? ?’ ??? ???”? ??”?

?? ???? ????? ????? ?”? ???’ ???’ ???”? ??”? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?”?

???”? ???”?

???? ??”? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ?’ ????? ???????? ??? ??”? ?????????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???”? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ??”? ????? ??”? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??”? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ?”? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???”? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??”? ???? ??? ?????? ??”?. ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???”? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ??”? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???”? ????? ?”? ???”? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??”?. ??”? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?’ ?????? ????? ???? ?”? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ???”? ????? ?????? ??”? ?? ?”? ???? ???”? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ???

????? ???????

????? ???? ????

???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?’ ???? ???? ?”? ??”? ???? ???????????? ?????? ???? ??”? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??????

??”?

This letter should be rather instructive as to how the Chofetz Chaim viewed R’ Kook.

Regarding the quote from The Rav Thinking Aloud, there are two points to be noted. First of all, some of the Rav’s closest talmidim spoke against the book. R’ Hershel Schachter was interviewed in Mishpacha Magazine December 16, 2009. Here is an excerpt:

I ask Rav Schachter for his impressions of the newly released book The Rav Thinking Aloud, which consists of transcripts of

impromptu personal conversations with Rav Soloveitchik. He tells me that he does not believe that every off-the-cuff and off the record remark is fit to print. People speak differently in the privacy of the home from the way they speak when they address Klal Yisroel, and that distinction needs to be honored.

R’ Aaron Rakeffet, in a recorded lecture, discussed this interview and he said:

You notice the way R’ Hershel handles himself. Alright, he doesn’t maledict the Holzer volume the way R’ Aharon [referring to R’ Aharon Lichtenstein – PAA] did.

Apparently, both R’ Schachter and R’ Lichtenstein are not such fans of the book. Furthermore, about this very meeting with R’ Kook, there is a different perspective, also culled from direct conversation with R’ Soloveitchik, by R’ Moshe Tzvi Neriyah. Part of it was translated in Tradition 39:3. Among other things, he has a copy of what R’ Soloveitchik wrote in the visitors book (translated):

I, too, add my prayers to those of the Jewish people, asking mercy for the well being of Rabbenu ha-Gadol,the prince of Israel and its glory,

Maran Avraham Yitshak ha-Kohen Kook shelita. Israel lifts her eyes to heaven, that He who dwells on high should send a complete healing to the

[July 16, 1935]

Yosef Dov ha-Levi Soloveitchik, Boston, USA

He further quotes R” Soloveitchik as saying:

Ha-Rav left a great impression on me. I have seen

gedolim. I grew up in the presence of gedolim, but his was a unique personality, a completely different type [of gadol]

The second point is that we have to consider how much weight to give in the first place to R’ Soloveitchik’s impression. Remember, this is an impression based on one meeting with someone who was essentially on his deathbed – hardly the best way to get an accurate picture of the person.

And finally, to address your last claim about the kol korei, granted it may have been unheard of before R’ Kasher published it but Weinman spoke to the signatories well after R’ Kasher had published it.