Sholom D

Given that the discussion has now turned from the propriety of banning a peirush that the Eida Charedis Beis Din has declared “kulo kodesh” (!!) and has veered towards Ibn Ezra, here’s what Ibn Ezra had to say about Rashi’s peirush, in his grammar sefer Safah Berurah:

אין ספק שהם ידעו הדרך הישרה כאשר היא, על כן אמרו כלל: אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, והדרש הוא תוספת טעם. והדורות הבאים שמו כל דרש עיקר ושרש כרב שלמה ז”ל, שפירש התנ”ך על דרך דרש, והוא חושב כי הוא על דרך פשט, ואין בספריו רק פשט אחד מני אלף, וחכמי דורנו יתהללו באלה הספרים.

(In fairness to Rashi, the question is not whether Rashi’s peirush was valuable and wonderful, but whether it was on the derech of “peshat.” I know of NO Rishon, not even Rashi’s grandson (Rashbam) who considered Rashi’s peirush by and large al derech peshat. Not Ramban, not Radak, not Bechor Shor, No One. Yes, it’s “ikkar”, according to Ramban, but not peshat.)

Logician:
Let’s break down just one part of the Kol Koreh; we’ll use the English translation posted above. I will limit myself to just one section:
(I remind you again that the Lakewood letter reflects the political attack by the Eitz people, which has been thoroughly investigated in EY — and rejected by two Battei Din. I remind you again that the Rabbinnic organizers of the ban are also Eitz people.)

“The aforementioned book also has strange and fake interpretations in the name of the Meforshim, and there is a spirit of Haskala in it. And it is not correctable at all.”

And what might these “strange and fake interpretations in the name of Meforshim” be? The examples cited in the pamphlet shown in Lakewood are demonstrably false. In fact, they do have sources in meforshim (Rishonim). You need not take my word for it, nor Rav Shternbuch’s Beis Din’s word for it, who declared the peirsh “kulo kodesh.”.
Go to an online Mikraos Gedolos that has peirush haRadak, peirush Rav Avraham ben HaRambam, Ibn Ezra’s two peirushim, Rav Sa’adia Gaon, Ralbag, etc and compare for yourself, to see if the peirushim are fake.
As for being “in the spirit of haskala,” again that’s what the Eitz people said, that the editors are affiliated with a Beit Midrash that they are at war with (Beit Midrash HaGra).
Not that Beit Midrash haGra is so terrible, but the two Battei Din, who investigated each and every editor and writer, said that in fact the editors and writers have no affiliation whatsoever with Beit Midrash haGra.
In other words, absolute lies on all counts.
As for the peirush being “not correctable at all,” one of the Battei Din said it needs no correction and is “kulo kodesh” and the other said that the publishers could sell the existing copies, but should also make certain corrections and once done, that Beis Din will also give it their haskoma.
But Lakewood says “no correction is possible,”
On what basis?
Because the editors are affiliated with Beit Midrash haGra — and therefore not kosher?
But two Battei Din have declared this a lie.
Lakewood Rabbonim have better information than the Ertetz Yisroel ones?

Next:
“And the great Torah scholars in the Land of Israel have already published their opposition in writing and by letter.”

Really?
Like whom?
Aside from the fact that Great Torah Scholars (Rav Shternbuch and the Eida Beis DIn) call it “kulo kodesh,” are we going with letters that were written BEFORE the Beis Din did their investigation — and which the Beis Din declared to be false?
So, we’re saying that despite this, we”ll proceed as if that fact-finding Din Torah never happened?

Does anyone have any reaction to what I wrote above, describing the background and political context to this ban (Eitz activists), which the Lakewood Rabbonim issued as if Rav Shternbuch’s Beis Din, after having someone go through Peshuto shel Mikra in its entirety (all five volumes, every single word), had not declared Peshuto shel Mikra: “kulo kodesh”?

And where two Battei Din, one in Bnei Brak and Rav Shternbuch’s in Yerushalayim, investigated both the sefer and its writers, met with every one of them, and NEVER disparaged them personally, unlike the Lakewood Rabbonim?

It’s quite interesting that this issue started in EY a year-and-a-half ago and has been through several Battei Din there, yet the Lakewood Rabbonim issued a harsher condemnation than either of the EY Battei Din had.

The Eida Chareidis and Bnei Brak Battei Din were in personal contact with the authors of this peirush. Neither of the Battei Din disparaged the authors of this peirush personally. And neither of them said the harsh things that the Lakewood Rabbonim’s condemnation said.

The Eida Chareidis Beis Din said that their shaliach had reviewed the entire set of all five volumes and determined that peirush was “Kulo Kodesh.” They therefore ruled no changes were necessary and it could be used as is.

Incidentally, this publishing team’s newest work, Chok l’Yisroel, was just published and has current haskomos from this Beis Din.

The Bnei Brak Beis Din of Rav Sariel Rosenberg said that a revised edition should be printed, as replacement for the current one, and that the publisher could continue to sell the remaining copies of the present edition. They did not disparage the authors personally and said that the sefer needed to be “fixed.”

The Lakewood Rabbonim, however, were far stronger in their condemnation and even said — unlike the EY Battei Din that had fully investigated the matter, gone through all five volumes, and spoken to the authors — that no “tikkun” was possible.

I was wondering if any of the oylam here had spoken to any of the Lakewood Rabbonim and asked them what led them to sign a letter that was far more harsh and far-reaching than the EY Battei Din. Did they have information that was unknown to the EY Battei Din? If so, have they shared this information with the EY Battei Din?

ujm: Doesn’t create more deer, but because their living areas are being taken over and they are limited to smaller areas, they are more likely to be in the same areas as people. (No where else to go.)

And more likely to need to cross back and forth on the roads, in search of food.

The above is why you’re more likely to see them — and run into them — in Monsey than, for instance Sloatsburg.

UJM: Yes, Otzar haChochma has many more seforim, but their “Bnei Torah” edition specifically excludes works from certain authors, generally those that are Religious Zionist or academic. That’s what differentiates it and that’s why it’s called the “Bnei Torah” edition — it censors out works that do not match yeshivishe expectations.

As I wrote above,
‘As mentioned above, very different products.
Aside from what’s already mentioned, Bar Ilan’s library includes Encyclopedia Talmudit, tries to use the most accurate version of all its texts, and includes important texts by Rabbonim and poskim from the Dati Leumi world, including journal articles, teshuvos, etc.
Those texts do not appear in the “Bnei Torah” version of Otzar, which deletes works from outside the charedi world.
If you would like to learn about Shevi’is, for instance, and don’t want to be exposed to the works that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach considered the most essential ever written on that topic, quoting them on nearly every page of his own work (Rav Kook’s seforim on Shevi’is), then Otzar haChochma Bnei Torah Edition is for you.
If you would like to see what Rav Shlomo Zalman learned and what he thought was essential, then you’ll need Bar Ilan.”

As mentioned above, very different products.
Aside from what’s already mentioned, Bar Ilan’s library includes Encyclopedia Talmudit, tries to use the most accurate version of all its texts, and includes important texts by Rabbonim and poskim from the Dati Leumi world, including journal articles, teshuvos, etc.
Those texts do not appear in the “Bnei Torah” version of Otzar, which deletes works from outside the charedi world.
If you would like to learn about Shevi’is, for instance, and don’t want to be exposed to the works that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach considered the most essential ever written on that topic, quoting them on nearly every page of his own work (Rav Kook’s seforim on Shevi’is), then Otzar haChochma Bnei Torah Edition is for you.
If you would like to see what Rav Shlomo Zalman thought was essential, then you’ll need Bar Ilan.