Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It makes a lot of sense to say the Mi shebarach for soliders. Regardless of ones feeling towards the state, here are the facts on the ground.
1) Eretz Yisroel has the largest grouping of Jews in the world, with millions of Jews there Bichasdei Hashem. The Arab countries surrounding it, and some Arabs inside it are trying to kill these Jews Chas Veshalom. The Soliders are being Moser Nefesh to defend these millions of Jews against their enemies.
2) The majority of these soliders are Jews. At least 125,000 Jewish soliders are in the Israeli army, in a potentially dangerous situation.
You can’t compare this with Shomrim and the like. With the Israeli army, you have a whole country of millions of Jews being protected, and you have over 100,000 Jewish soldiers in the army risking their lives to protect these Jews. This has nothing to do with Zionism but everything to do with a significant amount of Jews being Moser Nefesh to protect millions of other Jews from blood thirsty nations trying to kill them.
(I do personally beleive that Medinas Yisroel is a Chashuv thing, as did The Ponivetzer Rav, Rav Dessler, Rav Yaakov Kametsky, Rav Yechiel Michel Tichotzinsky, The Tzitz Eliezer, Rav Ovadya, Rav Herzog, Rav Yoshe Ber, Rav Elya Meir Bloch, and many other Gedolim, and possibly a Mitzvah Daraaysa (Lichaora, Lifi the Ramban), but this is not relevant to this discussion. Even if one were to take a very anti Zionist position, the facts on the ground are as said before.
It should be noted also that many (probably most) Gedolim considered soldiers in the IDF to be heroes, and held that IDF soliders that were killed were considered Neharag Al Kiddush Hashem. Just a few examples:
Rav Chaim Schmulevitz would often tell his Talmidim that any solider who is killed in service has the place in Gan Eden of the Harugei Lod.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, when asked which Kivrei Tzadikim to Daven by, responded, “Theres no need to go all the way to Tzfas. When i want to Daven by Kivrei Tzadikkim, i go to the military cemetery in Mt. Hertzl to Daven (His Yeshivah, Kol Torah was right by Mt. Hertzl).
Rav Gustman went to ben Menachem Avel the father of a Ben Torah who served in the Idf and was killed during the Lebanon war. He told him “My son was killed Al Kiddush Hashem in the Holacaust, and is in a high place in Olam Haba, but your son is in an even higher place, because my son was killed without his choice, but your son willingly gave up his life to protect us all.” (page 192 in Artscroll’s Rav Gustman biography).
Rav Wolbe also writes about the tremendous gratitude we must have for the soliders, and that religious soliders are making a Kiddush Hashem.Avira- i don’t have time for a long response, but i do find it interesting that you write there were different schools of thought, and then limit yourself to the approaches of the Satmar Rav and the Brisker Rav, both of whom viewed it negatively.
How about the school of thought of the Ponivitzer Rav who strongly felt that the state is is a Yeshuah for Klal Yisroel?
Or of Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky who held that the state was meant as a Chizuk to Bnei Yisroel after the despair of the Holacaust?
Or of Rav Yechiel Michel Tichitzinky who saw in the state, a Kiyum of the Pessukim which discuss the Geulah?
Or of Rav Dessler who writes that one has to be blind not to see the Chesed of having a state?
Or of the Tzitz Eliezer who considerd the state to be “Aschalta Digeulah”?
Or of Rav Ovadya, who in fact, uses the miracles of winning the wars, as support that the state of Israel is positive (see his article about “land for peace” in Torah Shebal Peh journal )?
This is just on the top of my head.
And this is all besides for the views of the numerous Gedolim in the Mizrachi world (Rav Herzog, Rav Zevin, Rav Yoshe Ber, etc.)
Doesn’t seem so intellectually honest to write about all these schools of thought, and then limit yourself to the ones you personally ascribe to.Avira- i’m not aware of your Mareh Makom from Rav Chaim, however i do know that Rav Ovadya, the spiritual leader of the Shas Party, and of Rabbi Deri, has an explicit Teshuvah writing that Dinah Dimalchusah applies to the Isreaeli goverment, and one can’t argue “Kim li”; and i would imagine that Rabbi Deri would be bound by this Psak.
Incidentally, Rav Moshe also held that taxes in Israel are binding.
Regardless of Dinah Dimalchusa, though, one of the most Chamur Aveiros in the Torah is Chillul Hashem. For a religious leader, representing Torah to be caught evading taxes, would, i imagine consitute a big Chilul Hashem (“See, those religious parties are dishonest also”).
I do not want to judge anyone; and i know Rabbi Deri has definitely done much good, but to pretend he did nothing wrong is a complete distortion of Yiddeshkeit.Spot on- Rav Isser Zalman and Rav TP Frank used the term “Aschalta Digeulah”, but i am not aware of \ them saying “Reishit Tzmichat Geulaseinu”.
Avirah- The settlers Rav Kook was praising were building up Eretz Yisroel; and accomplishing Yishuv Eretz Yisroel. Granted, they weren’t being Michaven for the Mitzvah; but Rav Kook felt that it had great value anyway. This is not saying that things other than Torah make you holy; this is saying that doing the Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel, and helping Klal Yisroel, makes you holy. Keep in mind also, that there is a Mesorah in Yiddeshkeit, especially with Chassidus, in trying to find Kedushah in every Jew. The Baal Shem Tov would spend time with the town thieves, trying to find the good in them. Also, Rav Kook felt, that praising what the Zionists were doing, and speaking about their Kedushsah, would help be Mekarev them. And in fact, he was somewhat successful. Many of the secular people, seeing that he appreciated what they were doing, became more religious. There were whole Kibbutzim which became Frum because of their encounters with Rav Kook. Granted, many of the Gedolim felt that it was better to avoid contact with these people, who, and by and large were anti-Torah. This was a Machlokes Lisheim Shamayim.
Keep in mind also, that there are statements of Chazal which can be interpeted as saying similar ideas as Rav Kook. The Gemara says “Anyone who walks 4 Amos in Eretz Yisroel is assured a portion in Olam Habah”. Is the Gemara saying that nationalism, rather than Torah makes a Jew? The Gemarah says that anyone living in Eretz Yisroel it’s Domeh that they have a G-D, while those living outside EY it’s Domeh that they don’t have a G-d.” Is this Kefirah also?
Even if Rav Kook was misguided about these ideas, though, and as the Gerrer Rebbe said “Ahavah Mikalkeles es Hasurah”, does this mean that we shouldn’t be Machshiv Rav Kook as one of the Gedolim, that we shouldn’t quote his Pesakim etc.? According to you, the Tzitz Eliezer, Rav Isser Zalman, Rav Dessler (and many others) were misguided by the euphoria of the times to look favorably upon the state and to call it “Aschalta Digeulah” in the case of the first 2. Or take the other unnamd Gadol (i know who you’re refferring to, but will leave him unnamed), who’s views were similar to Rav Kook. Yet, you are still Machshiv these Gedolim (although considering them a lower level, as you wrote before), so why can’t you say the same thing about Rav Kook. Perhaps, he was overly accepting. As you wrote from the Satmar Rebbe, this is not a Stirah to Gadlus Hatorah. In fact, as i mentioned on a different thread, this is exactly how Rav Avigdor Miller viewed Rav Kook. He viewed him as a Chashuv person, who Davka because of his Temimus, was misled by the secular Zionists. Rav Miller is very careful not to directly criticize Rav Kook though, writing “i have to be careful with his Kavod”. This is coming from Rav Avigdor Miller, who’s Shitah on the state of Israel was similar to Satmar. Point is, even if he was misguided, it was due to his Temimus and Ahavas Yisroel, and it doesn’t Passul him as a Gadol.
About Heter Mechirah, you are completely misunderstanding Rav Kook’s Shitah. Rav Kook did not want to Lichatchilah rely on the HM; he only held of it because it was such a Shas Hadchak and people were starving. In fact, there’s a letter, in which Rav Kook laments the fact that they have to rely on HM, and makes it clear that it’s just because a Shas Hadchak. According to Rabbi Efrati, Rav Kook would certainly not have held of it nowadays. I don’t find it so ironic, though, that he held of it, because it’s only Mafkia for one year, and also it enhances the Yishuv Haretz for the other years, so in the long run, it enhances Yishuv Eretz Yisroel. People like to make fun of the Heter Mechirah, but keep in mind that it was supported by Gedolim such as Rav Yitzchak Elchonon, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank and Rav Ovadya. Rav Shlomo Zalman wrote a Sefer on the topic, and i beleive he is not Machria either way since there were great people on both sides.
There are 2 reasons why i do not like the Tropper Mashal. 1) While abuse is unequivocally terrible, i am not convinced that Rav Kook’s Shittos were Treif, as you write above. They were contreversial; many Gedolim disagreed with his Hashkafos, i view it more through the lenses of a Machlokes which perhaps Rav Kook was a Daas Yochid on, then something unequivocally Treif.
2) Even if Rav Kook was misguided, he was misguided due to his Ahavas Yisroel, and even if i don’t accept these statements i can still be Machshiv him as a Gadol and quote him, and i beleive the Gedolim would have been Machsiv him the same even if they knew these statements. Abuse, on the other hand is an act of Rishus to the highest degree, and the Gedolim would certainly not have respected Tropper had they known.Avirah- Yes, there are times when we say Tzarich Iyun, but why should we say Tzarich Iyun, when there’s a simple explanation. The most logical thing to say is that Rav Shlomo Zalman knew about Rav Kook’s controversial views, and while he may not have agreed with them, he did not feel that they Passul him from being a Gadol. He probably took into account, also, the fact that Rav Kook was very poetic, and did not mean these statements in an absolute way. It seems much more logical to assume like this, rather than leave it as a Tzarich iyun.
You make the assumption that “one Gadol’s Tzadik can not be another Tzadik’s Rasha”, and based off this, assume that the Gedolim who were Machshiv Rav Kook were misguided. This would then mean that Rav Isser Zalman, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, Rav Aryeh Levine, Rav Boruch Ber, Rav Elyashiv, Rav Shlomo Zalman, Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, The Tzitz Eliezer, Rav Ovadya and many more Gedolim were all misguided. Wouldn’t it be more logical to say that Rav Elchanan was misled (i say this with the upmost respect for a huge Gadol)? As i mentioned before the letter Rav Elchanan writes is clearly based on the premise that Rav Kook supported Keren Hayesod, something which we know now to not be true. It seems therefore that the letter you’re quoting from Rav Elchanan was based on false premises.
Your assumption that “one Gadol’s Rasha is not anothers Tzaddik”, to begin with is questionable. Gedolim do not have monotheistic views on everything, and that is part of the beauty of Torah. Because one Gadol held one way is not a reason to say that all the other Gedolim were misguided and really would have agreed.
You mentioned Rav Boruch Ber, so i’ll just mention that he writes a letter to Rav Kook in which he praise him very highly calling him a Tzadik and “kohen Tzedek”.
UJM- It can be found in “An Angel Among Men”, a biography on Rav Kook.
It is true that Zionist-leaning sources sometimes distort things to fit their agenda, but this is also true sometimes with ant-Zionist sources. Many anti-Zionist publications, for example will claim that all Gedolim were against the state, completely ignoring Rav Dessler’s letter (Michtav Meliyahu volume 3, page 352), The Tzitz Eleizer’s Teshuvah, the Ponivitzer Rav’s positive view, as well as the many other Gedolim who viewed it positively. With Rav Kook as well, read any Neturei Karta publication; they pretend Rav Kook was a pariah rejected by all the Gedolim. To pretend that distortion only happens in one direction is just silly and untrue.
About Rav Yoshe Ber, i heard a completely different version of what he said. I heard that he said that he wasn’t impressed by Rav Kook’s scholarship, but he was impressed by his Tzidkus. This changes the whole picture. If it’s in writing though, then i would love to see it inside. where is it written? Also, keep in mind that Rav Yoshe Ber delivered a Shiur titled “Remembering Rav Kook” in which he praises Rav Kook and discusses the great contributions he made to the Jewish world (the Shiur can be found on YUTorah). Rav Herschel Schachter a close Talmid of the Rav often quotes Rav Kook, as well.
It is funny you are accusing Rav Nosson Kamenetsky of not being reliable being that he spent decades painstakingly doing research for “The Making of a Gadol”, making sure his information was accurate. The fact that it was banned has nothing to do with the credibility of the book; it’s because some of the Gedolim felt that some of the stories should not be published because people might interpret them in a bad light. It seems, however, that there were Kanoim who spread lies about the book to some of the Gedolim, including telling them that Rav Nosson continued to distribute the book after they told him not to (listen to “Making of a Ban” by Rav Nosson Kamenetsky (on YUTorah)). Incidentally, Rav Moshe Shternbuch, who you quoted earlier in this thread, thought highly of the book and encouraged people to read it. As did Rav Zelik Epstein ZT”L. The quote can be found in “Making of a Gadol, page 1087).
I am in fact familiar with what Rav Elchonon writes; however he is clear from the language of the letter that he is writing this in only in response to the fact that “It is well known that he [Rav Kook] supports Keren Hayesod”. It is clear, however, that contrary to what many people thought, Rav Kook did not support Keren Hayesod. As such, Rav Elchanan would not have wrote what he wrote.
The Sephardi Beis Din may have put Rav Kook in Cherem; as many Kanooim did, but the views of the Gedolei Hador matter much more. Rav Ovadya Yosef, the leading Sefardi Posek, quotes Rav Kook all the time in his Seforim, giving him honorable titles.
Where does the Steipler write the comment you wrote? Anyway, it’s clear that Ruba Diruba of the Gedolei Yisroel viewed Rav Kook as a Gadol; not necessarily did they agree with his Hashkfah, but they viewed him as a great Gadol. You’re assuming that they would have been Chozer, but i don’t see any reason to say assume that.About the Lubavicher Rebbe, many Gedolim were Machshiv him, including Rav Avigdor Miller who equated him with the Satmar Rebbe. See this quote
“Look, if you advance beyond that stage, then all Rebbes become “My Rebbe.” All Rebbes! The Satmerer Rebbe! Ahh! Zol ehr lang leiben! He’s a wonderful man. A big warrior; and he accomplished for us so much. The Lubavitcher Rebbe, zol ehr lang leiben! He accomplished so much and he is accomplishing. They should both be our Rebbes” (Toras Avigdor)
What makes you say that they were Chozer?Zushy- Just to add to your list.
Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer was very close to Rav Kook and once told Rav Chaim Ozer “We are only Gedolim untill we come to Rav Kook’s front door”. He also gave a Hesped for Rav Kook.
Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank was very close to Rav Kook and had a “Talmid Chaver” sort of relationship with Rav Kook.
Rav Elyashiv was approached by one of the editors of “Otzar Mifarshei Hatulmud” who refused to quote Pshatim of Rav Kook in the Sefer; and was therefore fired from his job. Rav Elyashiv responded “Rav Kook was an Ish Kadosh. I would have fired you also”.
According to Rav Nosson Kamenetsky, Rav Yaakov said about Rav Kook that he was “A Gaon and a Tzaddik”.AAQ – Agreed. That is why i was bothered by Avira’s definition.
Avira- I’m confused. You’re basically saying that we can write off Teshuvos from Gedolim, as being emotional, and influenced by the times. After all, Gedolim are human. But then when it comes to Gedolim who we decide have the level of “Kadoshe Elyon”, (your definition seems to be, Gedolim who were anti-Zionist), then it becomes “Halacha Moshe Misanai”.
Avira- i was not equating the two. I just found it ironic that someone who is willing to make fun of big Talmedei Chochomim because they don’t like their Hashkafah, was making such a big deal about Rav Henkin’s Teshuvah. Also, while i wouldn’t equate Rav Henkin to the Satmar Rebbe; i also wouldn’t equate us to Rav Henkin who lived his life immersed in Torah. As such, there is somewhat of a comparison. See the Gemara in Yevamos (105B) for example, which suggests that there can be some sort of “comparison” between the difference from an ordinary person to Moshe, and from Moshe to Hashem.
I am well aware that Rav Henkin’s name is not known in much of the Yeshivish world. This has no bearings on his Gadlus though. The Chazon Ish was not well known for much of his life; same is true about many great people. I admire many things about the Yeshivish world (being part of it myself); but i believe that the tendency to rush be Mivazeh Gedolim who’s Hashkafos are diferent than theirs, is a tremendous mistake. Most commonly, there is a tendacy among some to call Rav Solleveichik JB, which i think, even you agree is wrong. Point is, with all the Maaylah’s of the Yeshivish world, the fact that the Yeshivish world doesn’t quote him, does not rule out someone as a Talmid Chochom and Gadol.
I know that the reluctance to call Rav Kook Zatzal is because they feel that his Hashkafah caused damage. Once, you assume, however, that leading people to what you believe is the wrong Hashkafah is reason not to call them Zatzal, then you have no Taaynah on Rav Henkin. Rav Henkin held that the state was a big Chesed of Hashem, that Hashem wants us to make Aliyah, to be Mekayyem the Mitzvah which is Shakul to all the Mitzvos. From Rav Henkin’s perspective, it was the Satmar approach which was misleading people to neglect Yishuv Eretz Yisroel, to stay in Galus, and was influencing the groups which hold hands with Arafat, and beat up police officers. You disagree with Rav Henkin’s Hashkafah but Lishitascha, that influencing people to have the “wrong” Hashkafah is enough to warrant disrespect, there is no Taaynah on Rav Henkin.
Incidentally, many of the people who quote Rav Kook to justify things which are wrong, often also quote Rav Hirsch, the Rambam and even the Gemara itself. The whole heretical movement of the Tzedukim was started by Tzadok and Baysis, who were misled by the language which Ben Bag Bag wrote in the Mishnah. In fact, as the Raavad writes, great people were misled by the language of the Torah itself to believe heretical ideas. Ein Lidavar Sof.
No, my Jewish education is not from online; it’s from years of Yeshiva, but as someone who’s naturally curious, I do read articles from online Torah forums, here and there.
Incidentally, you mentioned that you have fond memories of Ohr Shraga; i went to Ohr Shragah for a few years as well, and enjoyed it tremendously. It’s a great camp.My mistake. It’s in Chelek Zayin, Teshuvah Mem Ches, Perek Yud Beis.
Ujm- I don’t know where the Teshuvah is, and therefore haven’t seen it inside. I owe Rav Henkin the courtesy of learning his Teshuvah inside to see what he has to say; the context etc. before concluding that he’s “unqualified for anything serious” as you write.
Keep in mind “Bnei Bnom” is a Shu”t Sefer, and as such Rav Henkin responded to questions posed to him. Assuming that Rav Henkin concludes that you say Zatzal, you don’t have a Taaynah on Rav Henkin, just on the one who asked it.
Truth be told, I find it very ironic that you’re so bothered by the lack of Kovod Hatorah in this Teshuvah. You’re willing to adress Rav Henkin, who was a huge Talmid Chochom as “Hertzl Henkin” and “no more than a little joker” because you disagree with his Hashkafah, yet you don’t think Rav Henkin can discuss calling the Satmar Rebbe Zatzal.
Or even further, some in the Chareidi world wouldn’t refer to Rav Kook as Zatzal (including probarly the Satmar Rebbe), even though he was a tremendous Talmid Chochom because they disagree with his Hashkafah. Are you as ouraged by these people? If you saw a Teshuvah by a Chareidi Gadol discussing calling Rav Kook Zatzal. Or Rav Shlomo Goren Zatzal. Or any of the Gedolim who’s Hashkafah you think is terrible. Would you be as upset, and dismiss that Gadol as unqualified for Psak. If the answer is no, then you have absolutely no Taaynah on Rav Henkin.
You can’t have it both ways.Avirah- Look at the the Tzitz Eliezer (i beleive it’s Chelek Zayin, Lamid Ches), who says that the establishment of Israel was in fact, Hashem’s Pekidah of Bnei Yisroel, and we are supposed to reclaim the land. In fact, he suggests that Hashem Davka used non-beleivers as his Shluchim so that it would be more of a Nes, that those who don’t care about the Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel are reclaiming the land, and we would know that it’s in fact the time which Hashem wants us all to come back.
Avirah- You still have no basis whatsoever for accusing Rav Henkin of lying. You base this accusation off Rav Yehudah Henkin quoting his grandfather as saying that those who say Hallel on YH have a basis, but as i mentioned before, this does not contradict Rav YE Henkin’s view about the Shalosh Shevuos at all. It just shows that he had enough respect for the Gedolim he disagreed with in Hashkafah, so as not to be Moche against their Talmidim who follow them. You find this all the time, that while Gedolim may feel strongly a certain way, they won’t be Moche against those who are Noheig differently, because they understand that the others have who to rely on. In regards to his Teshuvah about saying Kaddish, i don’t know why you’re assuming he distorted his grandfather’s view.
The fact that Rav Henkin went to mixed high school has nothing to do with this discussion. No, Rav Yosef Henkin was certainly not happy that his grandson went to mixed high-school. This has no bearings whatsoever on Rav Yehudah Henkin’s Gadlus or Neemunus. Rav Yehudah Henkin never supported co-education as a Rabbi, and the fact that his father sent him there has as much bearing on Rav Yehudah Henkin’s Gadlus as it does on Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel’s Gadlus (he also went to a co-ed high school). In fact after Rav Yehudah Henkin finished high school, he was Mishamesh his grandfather for five years and received Semichah from him, and was probably one of his closest Talmidim.
Limaaseh, i agree that Rav Yehudah Henkin’s Hashkafah was in some ways different than his grandfather’s, but as i am quite bewildered at your shocking accusation that Rav Henkin “spread numerous lies about his grandfather”, when you provided practically no basis; just a few assumptions which can easily be disproven.“I’m not even going to ask about rav henkin, because the way you know it is probably from his feminist, intergender mingling grandson yehudah hertzl, who spread numerous lies about his illustrious grandfather.”
As you know, i don’t agree with your disgraceful description of a towering Talmid Chochom. Even separate than that, though, what makes you think that he spreads lies about his grandfather? Do you actually have examples of supposed lies he spread about Rav YE Henkin?
Quite frankly, i think the people spreading lies about Gedolim are those that pretend a Gadol didn’t hold a certain way because it doesn’t fit into the classis “Yeshivish” mode, even where’s towering evidence to the contrary.“Speak to any talmidim of rav Moshe (half of my rebbeim were) this story is very well known. Rav Moshe didn’t want the public to perceive that he was accepting of goren at all; he said that his psakim are invalid and that he has no authority in halacha.”
Many well-known stories are simply not true or misunderstood/taken out of context. Could you at least name one Talmid of Rav Moshe who quotes this story? My quote about Rav Henkin’s view of Rav Goren was said explicitly by Rav Henkin’s grandson. You might not like the source, but the story with Rav Moshe and his supposed statement that “his psakim are invalid and that he has no authority in halacha”, was not backed up with any sources. I would find it much more convincing if you named at least one Talmid who says this.
Rav Henkin was Machshiv Rav Goren, and said “Ein Liharher Achrav”. Also noteworth is Rav Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg’s written Hesped for Rav Shlomo Goren in which he writes about his incredible Hasmadah, and praises him in the strongest way.
1. I assume the rule changed.
2. He would be able to tell if it’s a boggart based on if his worst fear comes out and if he’s able to change it by saying the boggart spell.
3. It’s a good question. Not sure.1. “Because they’re invisible!”
The thestrals are invisible but the riders aren’t (i assume) which means that observers see people flying unsupported.
I like the other answers.Avirah- where does Rav Shlomo Goren say this? Often controversial statements like this are taken out of context.
Avirah- I just saw on Sefaria that Bnei Bnim does in fact have Haskamos from all the Gedolim mentioned. They all write very great things about him, referencing his Tzidkus and Yiras Shamayim.
UJM- Where are these Teshuvos? (Which volume, which Teshuvah), Which Gadol was he referring to?
Avirah- Here are a few things to consider:
While, I’ve never seen a hard copy of Bnei Bnom (i’ve just seen Teshuvos from Sefaria), and therefore haven’t seen the Haskamos, acoording to an article by Tzvi Leshem about Rav Henkin’s legacy, the first volume of BB did in fact contain Haskamos from these Gedolim (as well as some others such as Rav Ovadya and Rav Mordachai Eliyahu).
In regards to the Teshuvos you quoted, i think it makes more to learn the whole Teshuvah before disregarding Rav Henkin as a feminist. He probably brings sources. I will try to read the Teshuvos.
I think you’re reading too much into what he wrote about Aliyos. It’s clear that he was against them; It’s unfair to say he was beyond the pale when he clearly writes that any Shul which implements them won’t remain orthodox.
The insituition of Yoatzos was very contreversial, but it’s important to keep it in context. It’s specifically for a certain category of Halachos, and has many limitations.
His support of women learning may be controversial but there is a Halachic basis for it. The Prishah, Rav Shach, Rav Chaim Kaneivevsky and many others allow women who are motivated to learn to do.” One thing that stands out is that you believe the accounts of hertzl henkin, aho is a confirmed feminist rabbi who has tried for years, unsuccessfully, to allow the mixing of genders that is rampant in the fabric-wearing community.”
That’s a very general accusation; could you bring examples of what you mean?
Rav Yehudah Henkin was a huge Talmid Chochom and Posek as seen from his Seforim. In fact the first volume even has Haskamos from Gedolim such as Rav Moshe; the Tzitz Eleizer and even Rav Menashe Klein. He does give some lenient rulings in regards to women things such as women learning Gemara etc. but he brings sources. I’m not aware of him trying to mix the genders; I’m pretty confident he was against co-education, as were Rav Solleveichik, Rav Lichtenstein and all the Gedolim of all the worlds. Notably, he was very against Parnership Minyanim, and was certainly against women rabbis. It’s not fair to categorize him as a feminist Rabbi. Was Rav Ovadya a feminist Rabbi for supporting Bas Mitzvahs? Was Rav Moshe a feminist Rabbi for allowing a woman to be a Mashgicha for food?
Additionally, even if someone has a different Hashkafah, that doesn’t make them a liar who is willing to fabricate stories. Just because you don’t agree with Rav Yehudah Henkin’s Hashkafah, doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t believe what he’s quoting directly from his grandfather.I believe that the quote from Rav Yechiel Michel Tichitzinsky can be found on pages 63-65 of Sefer Hashmittah.
PS. I found it very funny that you saw people claim the Satmar Rebbe wasn’t an anti-Zionist.
American Yerushalmi- I agree that most of the Gedolim were against people saying Hallel with a Beracha, because that would be a Safeik Bracha Levatalah. Even Rav Ovadya was fire and brimstone against that. When i said that many Chareidi Gedolim were fine with people saying Hallel, I meant without a Berachah.
Avirah- Much of the list is first hand (Rav Dessler, The Tzitz Eliezer, Rav Ovadya, Rav YM Tichitzinsky etc.). Some of it is from the Sefer Aschalta Hi, written by Yitzchak Dodon (and has a Haskamah from Rav Avraham Shapirah, who regardless of Hashkafah was a huge Talmid Chochom). It discusses the views of various Gedolim towards the state. He usually brings first hand accounts, and names the person who witnessed it, which makes it more reliable. The statement about the different views about Hallel was told by Rav Michalel Weissbrod, Rav Shlomo Zalman’s neighbor.
The comment from Rav Yechiel Michel Tichitzinsky is from his Sefer “Sefer Hashmitah”.
In regards to Rav Moshe, he does write “Bichasdei Hashem” when referring to the fact that Yerushalayim is not Bershus Humos. That doesn’t sound like being neutral. Also, being that i’ve never heard any Talmidim say that Rav Moshe was against the state, I’m inclined to beleive Rav Shabtai Rapaport (even if his name is Shabtai). I also want to note, that Rav Moshe in IM writes to two Talmidim in Hesder that serving in the army is an “Inyan Gadol”, although learning full-time is greater.
Incidentally, you seem to assume that teaching in Bar Ilan is a terrible thing. Apparently, Rav Moshe is quoted as telling someone that there’s no problem with delivering a Shiur in Bar Ilan, but they might want to avoid it because of the Kanaaim (Mesoras Moshe, I don’t have the exact source offhand).In regards to Rav Henkin, i think it goes to show that although he thought the state was a violation of the Shalosh Shevuos, he understood that there are Gedolim who have a different Hashkafah, and their Talmidim can be Somech on them. (It is noteworthy that Rav Henkin had great respect for Rav Shlomo Goren (even after the contreversies), calling him one of the Gedolei Hador (quoted by Rav Yehudah Hertzl Henkin).
I agree that the most of the Gedolim were not in favor of creating settlements and provoking the Arabs. My point was just that viewing the state positively was far from a minority view, as you wrote before.
In regards to the Chazon Ish, Rav Tzvi Yehudah who was a close Talmid, writes in a letter that the Chazon ish was not against the state, and that the rumors that that the Chazon Ish predicted it’s doom C”V are not true (You can see the letter online).
I find it hard to beleive that the Ponivitzer Rav would have been just as happy if America had accepted the immigrants, although I can’t prove it.
“and that’s a ton better than the barely observant masses of nationalist jews who wear fabric on their head,”
There are many types within Dati Leumi. While some are not so strict about Halacha, there are many that are Moser Nefesh to keep Halacha (including some who I know personally). It is not fair to label them all together in such a degrotary way.“Whatever minority opinions there were about a positive view of s state”
If one were to be intellectually honest, it is not fair to call it a minority view. While the Satmar Rebbe, Rav Shach and others viewed the state as totally Treif, many Gedolim viewed the state more positvely or at least in shades of nuance. Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, and The Tzitz Eliezer called it Aschalta Digeulah. Rav Dessler considered the state to be “Chasdei Hashem”. The Ponivitzer Rav insisted on having the flag put up on the Yeshivah on YH. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, Rav Shlomo Zalman, and Rav Ovadya (as well as many others) all expressed positive things about the state. Rav Yechiel Michel Tichitinsky writes “Now that we Baruch Hashem have Jewish control on our land”. Even Rav Moshe writes ” now that Bichasdei Hahem, Yerushalayim is not under the Reshus of the Umos, theres strong reason not to tear Kriyah (IM, Chelek Hey, Lamid Zayin, Aleph ).
According to Rav Shabtai Rappaport, Rav Moshe’s grandson, Rav Moshe viewed the Medinah positively, but the was antagonistic towards the government since it was anti-religious. He viewed the goverment more positively, when Begin came to power.
You might not view the state positively, but it seems like a distortion to pretend that those who do are just a minority.“even rav ovadia yosef, who was the only charedi rov to allow halel on 5 iyyar.”
Rav Ovadya was far from the only Chareidi Gadol to allow Hallel on 5 Iyyar. While, the Chareidi Gedolim generally did not say Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut, many of them were quite tolerant of others who did, and did not see anything wrong with it. Just 2 examples:
When Rav Shlomo Zalman was asked about saying Hallel on YH he responded that there are those who say Hallel and those who don’t, and each side has whom to rely on. Additionally, someone witnessed Rav Shlomo Zalman reciting the Perakim of Hallel from a Tehillim on YH (Aschalta Hie, volume 2).
Rav Henkin didn’t encourage saying Hallel, but he told his grandson not to be Moche against those who do, because they have what to rely upon (Aschalta Hi, Volume 2).I know this thread has been closed for a while, but here are some more questions I’ve been bothered with.
1)In the 2nd book, Harry and Ron almost get expelled for being seen by Muggles in the flying car. In the 5th book, though, Harry and his friends fly thestrals to the Department of Mysteries, and no one is upset.
2) Why in the world does Dumbledore allow Harry to endanger himself in the Tri-Wizard Tournament. It’s clear that someone put in his to endanger him. I think the book says that there is a magical bond, but this doesn’t really suffice.
3)Why doesn’t Voldemort supply Felix Felicis to all the Death Eaters. Or Dumbledore to the Order of the Pheonix. After all they’re the Greatest Wizards of all time. They for sure know how to make.
4)It seems like Harry didn’t really accomplish anything in the first book. Quirrel wasn’t able to get the stone because he wanted to use it for Voldemort, and the stone can only be used by those who won’t use it. So, if Harry hadn’t went after the stone, Quirrel still wouldn’t have been able to get it. (it’s not really a question, but it’s strange).
5) When people are around Horcuxes they become very agitated and depressed. If so, why didn’t everyone get agitated around Harry, being that he was a Horcux?
6) Students need a permission slip to go to Hogsmeade, so why don’t they need one to play Quidditch, which is much more dangerous?
7) Why are the Weasley’s poor when they can just use magic to create/fix things?I respect Satmar for the tremendous Chesed they do,
I respect Chabad for bringing Torah to places which are full of darkness.
I respect Breslov for their empathis on Emunah Peshutah as well as Simchah.
I respect Chareidim for their focus on intense Limud Hatorah, and their willingness to insulate themselves from negative influences.
I respect DL for their empthasis on Yishuv Eretz Yisroel (which is Shekulah Kniged Kol Hamitzvos), and on learning Tanach.
I respect MO for adressing question in Emunah/morality which other segments of Yiddeshkeit are afraid to address.Avira- Rav Kook doesn’t say it’s wrong to own a human being. To the contrary, he explains how being owned can be in a slaves best interest. Rav Hirsch is the one who seems to assume that it is better for there not to be slavery; it was only permitted for Jews to own if there was already slavery. I get the impression that Rav Hirsch is a person you are Machshiv.
I think we are mostly on the same page about this. I agree that that owning a human being is not “Lo Dibrah”, but some of the Halachos might be. I think it’s a very good thing that slavery in America was abolished, because it was done in a very cruel way, which was never permitted in the Torah. Instead of being enslaved by merciful, kindhearted masters, who would lead them in the way of the Torah, they were enslaved by vicious monsters who would beat them to the point of death.Regarding Rav Kook and meat, i believe Rav Kook’s position was that in an ideal world, we should not be eating meat. In the current world, however, where there is so much cruelty against people, he felt that it’s ridiculous to stop eating meat. We have to focus on the big things, like human bloodshed, before focusing on the less important things. He felt, that at some point after Mashaich’s arrival, when the world would be so perfected, it would be proper to become vegetarian.
In regards to Rav Hutner, i don’t think he publicly take the picture down. The way i heard it was that for the first few years after he arrived in America, he had a picture of Rav Kook in his Sukkah. He had been a Talmid of Rav Kook in Eretz Yisroel, and was in awe of him. After a few years, he stopped putting up that picture and instead put up a picture of The Satmar Rebbe. He was still Machshiv Rav Kook though. In the 1960’s he sent a letter to Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook, writing about his warm feelings towards Rav AY Kook. Later in life, he republished “Toras Hanazir”, which had a Haskamah from Rav Kook. He didn’t feel comfortable printing Rav Kook’s Haskamah, but he also didn’t think it was respectful to take out Rav Kook’s Haskamah, and keep the other Haskamos. He therefore removed all the Haskamos. I think this story reflects much of Rav Hutner’s feelings towards Rav Kook. He was Machshiv him, and felt that he had gained a lot from him, and he couldn’t do anything which would seem disrespectful to him. Nevertheless, he disagreed with much of his Hashkafah, and didn’t want to be associated with his circles. I had a Rebbi who is a Talmid of Rav Hutner; and who quotes him alot. He said that although Rav Hutner disagreed with Rav Kook’s Hashkafah, he was Machshiv him as one of the Gedolim. He also said that Rav Hutner would often quote ideas from Rav Kook without quoting Rav Kook by name. Rav Hutner’s top Talmidim, however, knew that he was quoting Rav Kook.
Avira- When discussing slavery in Behar, The Torah writes that we can’t work our fellow Jew with hard work. Right afterwards, the Torah writes that we can buy a non-Jewish slave and work with them. A case can easily be made from the format of the Pesukim, that the Torah allows acts of servitude in non-Jewish slaves, only so that at least we won’t be doing these things to Jews.
Also, Hashem punished the Egyptians severely for enslaving us, and he heard our cries from our hard labor. The first few generations of Egyptian converts can’t even marry Jews. If laboring a slave with intense labor, is Lichatchilah, then the first few Parshios of Shemos are not understandable.
I tried to make it clear that i don’t think it’s likely that the insituition of owning a slave is “Lo Dibrah Torah”. This can be understood, with Rav Hirsch, Rav Kook, or any of the other ways in which people understand it. I think, however, it’s very likely that certain licenses that a master has to a slave are “Lo Dibrah”. This does not contradict the fact that Tzadikkim had slaves, as they treated them wonderfully, and did not take advantage of some of the licenses a master might have. The Gemara talks about how the Tanaaim would give their good food to their slaves and treat them well. Look at Rav Gamliel and his relationship to his slave Tavi. Eliezer was more of a Ben Bayis to Avraham than a slave. To the extent that if Avraham had died childless then his possessions would have went to Eliezer.
I think it is very likely that the Rambam understands some of the Halachos of slavery this way. This would explain why he considers laboring a slave with hard work to be the way of cruel people, although the Torah itself permits it.
For Hirsch’s perspective, see Rav Hirsche’s commentary to Chumash, Sefer Shemos, Perek 12, Passuk 44.
See also Rabbeinu Avigdor, (i believe on of the Baalei Tosafists) who suggests that it’s Assur to be Rodeh Biferech an Eved Kasher.“The telz roshei yeshiva changed drastically shortly after the founding of the state. Rav gifter was very anti zionist, and said that his rebbeim had changed their shitos – originally they celebrated yom haatzamaut, but it did not last long.”
Do you know for sure that he changed. Do you have a recording of Rav Gifter saying that Rav Elya Meir became anti-Zionist. Rav Elya Meir Bloch’s letter states black and white that he was pro the state of Israel. Hearsay doesn’t compare to a clear letter.“Most of the rabbonim you quoted (besides rabbi yoshe ber, his brother rabbi aharon, and aharon Lichtenstein) did not believe in zionism – reb yaakov said that reading vayoel moshe had changed his perspective on zionism, for starters. But those who did show a certain amount of positivity were motivated by non-nationalistic kdeas. They felt it was a hatzolah after the Holocaust, that there was a safe place for jews (well, it wasn’t really safe, but that was the propaganda).”
I agree that that most of these Rabbonim didn’t want a state for nationalistic reasons. Their reasons for a state were very different than secular zionists. They felt it was a Hatzalah for the Jewish people after the Holacaust, which it certainly was. Over two hundred thousand Jews had no place to call home after going through the horrors of the Holacaust. If not for Israel they would have been stuck in the filthy conditions of the DP camps; unable to rebuild their lives. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky also considered it good because it restored Jewish pride after the Holacaust. One can just imagine how much despair was felt, and how much hope and pride the Jewish people felt about having a state. Another Maaylah which was expressed by many Gedolim was simply the fact that through the state, millions of Jews returned to Eretz Yisroel, where we belong. Under Palestinian control, it would have been unimaginable for so many Jews to be allowed to live in Eretz Yisroel.
Regardless of their reason, they felt that having a state was a very positive thing, and was a present from Hashem. They did not feel that having a state was an anathema to Halacha, as someone wrote before.
Where is it quoted that Rav Yaakov was Chozer. The footnote of Emes Liyaakov, written by a close family member of Rav Yaakov, says that he would often express this idea. I would think he would know if he was Chozer.
Many of the Gedolim quoted viewed it as possibly part of Geulah. Rav Dessler writes that it’s difficult to call it “Aschalta Digeulah” (though he calls it a big Chesed), not totally outlying the possibility”. There is first hand account of Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank calling the state “Aschalta “Digeulah”. Before the state was established, Rav Isser Zalman said, that having a state would be “Aschalta Digeulah.“Rav Shra Feivel mendelowitz had said that he didn’t know for certain, but that he thought the state might be linked to the geulah – he said he’d wait to see what the gedolei hador say.”
Regarding Rav Shraga Feivel, a few days after he gave his talk in Torah Vidaas, about the state likely being part of the Geulah, the Satmar Rebbe yelled at Rav Shraga Feivel for his “Zionist” views. Rav Shraga Feivel later told his Talmidim that he could have answered him Chazal for Chazal, but he didn’t want to face his wrath, since he’s a Tzadik, and has a fiery temper. He told his Talmidim that if he was their age, he would go to Eretz Yisroel, and fight in the war of independence (Last chapter in Artscroll biography).
“Your post has many “proofs” from footnotes and artscroll books – talk to talmidim themselves, you’ll get a much clearer picture. I know about reb yaakov’s views because my rebbeim were talmidim of his; i really don’t care what “they” wrote about him”
Yonason Rosenblum, does a lot of research for his books. He talks to Talmidim who knew the Gedolim personally. His book on Rav Shraga Feivel is full of first hand accounts by Rav Nesanel Quin, a very close Talmid, and Chasuv Rav, as well as other students. The footnote of Emes Liyyakov was written by Rav Yaakov’s close family.
“It’s funny how you save the biggest names; the chazon ish and the brisker rov, as an afterthought – they were the gedolei hagedolim, the ones everyone else turned to. Rav desler, the ponevezer rov, the tzitz eliezer, would defer to them in a heartbeat. They don’t deserve to be a “yesh omrim”.”
I’m not sure that we can rank Gedolim, saying who was greater. The Chazon Ish and The Brisker Rav were Gedolei Olam, as were the Ponivitzer Rav, Rav Isser Zalman, and the other names quoted.
I don’t feel comfortable saying with certainty who was greater. It’s true that many of the Gedolim I mentioned would often defer to The Chazon Ish. In regards to their Hashkafah to the state, though they didn’t. If anything, this shows how strong their positive views on the state were.
It seems to me that the views of the Brisker Rav, Chazon Ish, Steipler, etc. were a minority. The other Gedolim would strongly criticize the secular nature of the state, but I don’t think they felt that the state was inherently a bad thing. Very rarely do you find the Agudah Gedolim bringing up the Shalosh Shevuos. The Steipler was an exception. Their criticism was mostly directed on the secularity of the state, not negativity about a state at all. I think it is also possible that the Chazon Ish and Brisker Rav would have changed their mind. They lived in the beginning of the state, when the founders were the “Shpitz” secular Zionists, who wanted a state to replace Torah. The future of Torah in the state seemed bleek. Only 400 Yeshivah students received an exemption from army service; it looked like religious Jews were a dying breed R”L. Even as more Torah spread in the state, it seemed like the anti-religious would uproot every segment of religion R”L. There was the terrible incident with Yemen, as well as other fiascos. Bichasdei Hashem, the nature of the state improved tremendously since then. There are B”H many more Yeshivos and Bnei Torah in the state of Israel than the Chazon Ish would have ever imagined. Many of them are even financed by the secular goverment themselves. Religious Jews in EY are nearing a majority. There is a big Kiruv movement in Ey, with Aish and Ohr Samayach receiving many students B”H. The old secular Zionist philosophy is almost in the wastebin. The only Real Zionists are the Dati Liumi/Chardal. Neither the Chazon Ish nor Brisker Rav could have ever predicted this. The Chazon Ish, in fact, assumed that the state would C”V crumble after just a few years.
” You also omitted dozens of gedolei hador who were vocally opposed, including rav shimon shkop, rav boruch ber, rav chaim ozer, rav chaim brisker, the munkatcher rebbe, satmar rov, lubavitcher rebbes until the last one, the steipler, rav yosef chaim zonnenfeld, rav hirsch, the rogotchover gaon, rav dushinsky…off the top of my head. I can provide many more and sources for each if necessary.”
I purposely ommited the Gedolim who lived before the Holacaust because the Holacaust made many people rethink their stance. Almost everyone agrees that before the war most Gedolim were against a state, some because of Shalosh Shevuos, but most because they felt there was no need, and they didn’t want a secular state. After the Holacaust, however, many reconsidered.Rav Yoshe Ber only allowed himself to become Zionist, against the Brisker Hashkafah, because he assumed that Rav Chayim himself would have changed his Hashkafah after the Holacaust. The need for a home for all the refugees, a need for Jewish pride, the need for a safe haven after such unspeakable horrors, as well as other factors, changed the mind of many Gedolei Yisroel. The Klausenberger Rebbe, a ferment anti-Zionist changed his Shitah after rebuilding his life in Eretz Yisroel. Agudas Yisroel which had previously been anti-Zionist, became Non-Zionist and mostly did not oppose the founding of Israel. They agreed to Ben-Gurion’s status quo and did not try to convince the UN otherwise. Rav Aharon Lopiansky, (Time pieces) adressing Aguda’s post-Holacaust stance, writes that they feel that it is unclear whether The state is good or bad. They can not call say Hallel on YH, when there is so much secularity in the state, but they can not say Kinnos either, when there is so much good. That piece was complimented by Rav Reuven Grovsky. Rav Lopiansky has stated numerous times, that the Hashkafah, his Rebbe, Rav Chaim Shmulevitz, of his father-in-law (previous RY of Mir), and the Mir as a whole was non-Zionist, not anti-Zionist. This is a far-cry from the Agudah’s previos stance. I therefore did not think it was fair to bring views of Gedolim from before the war. (I also ommited views of the Gedolim who supported it who died before the war, such as Rav Kook, Rav Teichtal, and possibly the Netziv, and Rav Meir Simchah).
There were Gedolim after the war who were opposed, whom i didn’t mention. There were also, however, many who were not opposed whom i didn’t mention. Rav Pam, for example seems to have viewed it positively. Rav Moshe seems to not have been concerned with the Shalosh Shevuos. Rav Baruch Sorotzkin assumed that the Satmar Rebbe was a Daas Yochid, and many other Gedolim were more neutral.
Also, as someone mentioned before, much of the pre-war opposition to the state, came not to having a state, but to associating yourself with secular movement which opposed religion. There was a huge danger that reading Zionist material and associating oneself with it’s leaders, would make someone not Frum. None of that danger exists in thanking Hashem for giving us a state, and viewing it’s existence positively.“Rav ovadia was misled by menachem kasher’s forgeries in his teshuva permitting (not requiring) halel on YH. Many of the signatures on kasher’s placard were from rabbonim who had already been niftar. Rav ovadia was not at fault; he was tricked – this happens sometimes even to very big people.”
Rav Ovadya was misled by the forgeries to call it “Aschalta Digeulah”; that’s true. His being pro-the state has nothing to do with Rav Menachem Kasher though. He writes in his Teshuvah, how he can’t hide from the great things which have happened as a result of the state of Israel. He is making his own observations, not simply quoting Rav Menachem Kasher. In his Teshuvos about this topic he makes mention of Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, Rav Herzog, Rav Kook, Rav Meshulem Roth, Rav Zevin, and other Gedolim who for sure were Zionist. This has nothing to do with Rav Menachem Kasher.“I don’t believe that rav aharon called rabbi herzog the “sar hatorah”.”
i remember hearing that he did, but i don’t have a source offhand. Regardless, he certainly was Machshiv him tremendously, and he asked to speak at his Levayah, in which he spoke very highly of Rav Herzog. Rav Shlomo Hoffman asked Rav Aharon about Rav Herzog, as to which Rav Aharon responded that he knows him personally and can testify that he certainly classifies as a Talmid Chochom. Rav Herzog was also very close to Rav Dessler, and spoke in Ponivitze by his Levayah.Torah slavery was very different than the way which it was implemented in America. American slavery involved slaves who had no rights who were cruelly beaten, often to the point of death, without any consequences. Jewish slavery, on the other hand gave the slave many rights. He could not be beaten unjustly, and if he broke any of his limbs then he automatically went free. This served as a deterrent from a master unjustly beating a slave. According to many authorities, there was even an Issur of Onaas Divorim on an Eved Kinaani. The Gemarah is very clear that a slave was only given for slavery, not for humilation, and thus can’t be caused unnecessary embarrassment. Clearly, The Jewish concept of slavery is on a different wavelength than American barbaric practices.
It is true that Maikar Hadin, there are certain Halachos of slavery which seem unjust. Mayikar Hadin, a master can burden his slave with hard labor. This is not what the Torah wants from a person, however. The Rambam in the end of Sefer Avadim outlines clearly the proper way for a Jew to treat his slave; with compassion, and dignity. He should pay attention all of his slaves complaints, and help him. He should give him from all of his food the way which the Tannaaim and Amoraaim did. According to the Rambam, someone who uses a Halachik loophole to treat his slave unfairly, is a cruel person; the antithesis of Avraham, Avinu.
One might wonder then, why, certain things are Halachically permissible, in regards to slavery. It is possible that some of the Halachos, are a similar concept to “Lo Dibrah Torah Ela Kineged Yetzer Hara”. in other words, there are occasionally things in Halacha which are permitted not as an ideal but only because of the fraility of human nature. This is reason for the Heter of Eshes Yifas Toar. This is presumably not the reason for the slavery at all, as Avraham Avinu, as well as many of the Tanaaim and Amoraim owned slaves. Possibly this the reason for some of the leniencies in Halacha about slavery though. This seems to be how the Rambam understands it. It is quoted that Rav Aharon Solleveichik ZT”L understood slavery (or at least some of it’s Halachos) this way.It is also important to point out the way in which Rav Hirsch understands the institution of slavery. He points out that a Jew can’t create a slave; he can only buy someone who is already a slave. Thus, he views the Torah’s permissibility of slave ownership to be restricted to when there is slavery in a society. Thus, a Jew can buy a slave because he is already a slave, and will presumably be treated better under a Jew than under his previous owner. Rav Hirsch, would however, (presumably) consider it better for there to be no slaves at all.
Also, Rav Kook ZT”L points out that in a society in which there is a hierchy of rich and poor people, it is actually advantageous for someone on the lower end to be a slave. As a slave, he will be considered the property of the rich servant, and will therefore be fed and taken care of. If not a slave, however, he may be taken advantage of and put in dangerous situations. His only source of income, for example, might be working on a dangerous minefield. His boss won’t care less about him since he can always replace him with someone else. Thus, sometimes, being owned as a slave can be in a poor persons best interest.
There is a world of a difference between having national pride and shouting “death to the Arabs”, and harassing them. While Religious Zionists celebrate Israel only a minority fringe segment chants hate messages, and fighting with the Arabs. These actions are generally condemned by many leaders in the Dati Liumi world. Rav Aharon Lichtenstien, a very influential Rav in the DL world condemned in the strongest terms these types of things. As do many leaders in that world.
Yserbius123- i don’t think you’re right that having a state is Kneged Hatorah. Certainly the secular nature of the state is terrible and we have to try to make it as religious as possible. There is no excuse to use violence against innocent people. The state of israel however, was looked at a gift from Hashem by many Gedolim. The secular Zionists intended it as a way of replacing religion Rl, which was terrible. Nevertheless, many Gedolim viewed it as a Berachah, even if the founders had bad intentions. Here are some examples of Gedolim’s views.
The Ponivitzer Rav didn’t say Tachanun on YH, clearly viewing The State of Israel as a happy event. He also supported hanging an Israeli flag on The Yeshivah on YH, a practice continued to this very day.
Rav Dessler (Michtav Mieliyahu, volume 3, page 352) writes about the miracle of The State of Israel. He criticizes those who are blind from seeing the the miracle.
Rav Isser Zalman celebrated the founding of the state of Israel, as testified by his Talmid, Rav Reuven Katz.
Rav Ovadya Yosef (Yabia Omer, Chelek Vav, Teshuvah Mem or Mem Aleph), writes how he can’t hide from all the good things which have occoured from the State of Israel.
In a footnote to Emes Liyyakov (Parshas Bo), they quote that Rav Yaakov considered the State of Israel to be a way of Hashem strengthening Jewish identity after the Holacaust.
The Tzitz Eliezer in his Hakadamh to his Sefer Hilchos Medinah writes about the great Chesed of Hashem in bringing the Jewish people back to EY (with the founding of the state of Israel.
Rav SF Mendelovitz was very excited about the UN proposal for a state and made a Shechiyany on it. (See one of the last chapters of Artscroll biography of him).
Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank viewed the State positively, according to testimony from a Talmid.
Rav Elya Meir Bloch, Rosh Yeshivas of Telz, co-hosted a YH event with Mizrachi. He writes a letter justifying it in which he writes that the mere existence of the state of Israel is of great significance, and that Aguda’s “war” against the secular goverment is not targeted against the state itself which is a good thing.
Rav Zevin, Rav Herzog, Rav Yosher Ber Soleveitzik, and Rav Aharon Solleveichik among other Gedolim celebrated YH. I know they weren’t associated so much with the Chareidi world, but they were nevertheless big Talmidei Chachomim and Gedolim and recognized as such by many of the Chareidi Gedolim (For example Rav Aharon Kotler eulogized Rav Herzog as “Sar Hatorah”)
Certainly, many Gedoim disagreed with these views. Examples include the Chazon Ish, Rav Shach, The Brisker Rav among others. The fact remains however that many Gedolim viewed did in fact consider the state of israel to be a positive thing, not a bad thing which we have to accept after the fact.“But to completly dismiss the Achiezer, Seridei Eish, Maharit , R’ Yaakov Emdedn Tzitz eliezer, R’ Shlomo Zalman, chavas Yair, Minhas chinuch, Rashi, Tosfos (some Baalei Tosfos there is a machlokes) among others as not even existing!?!”
You are right on most of those accounts, but i believe that Rav Shlomo Zalman considered abortion to be Retzichah for Jews also, like Rav Moshe. Also, Rashi’s Shitah is vague like some of the other Rishonim, and Rav Moshe assumes that Rashi holds it is Ritzichah. Also, although there is a Tosafos which implies that it’s not, Rav Moshe assumes that it’s a Taus Sofrim.By the way,”Halichically speaking” volume 8, a yeshivish series written by a Talmid of Rav Belsky, quotes both Rav Kook and Rav Yoshe Ber. Also “Judacia Plaza”, probarly the biggest Seforim store in Lakewood sells numerous english books which discuss the thought of Rav Kook. Also a Yeshivish Shul in my neighborhood has the Chiddushim on Gemarah of Rav Yoshe Ber.
The comment of the Brisker Rav was told by a Rebbi but I don’t have the source.
Avirah – In regards to the Shalosh Shevuos, Rav Moshe, whom you previously acknowledged as the Posek of America, said that the second Sevorah (that the Shevuos are interconnected) is a strong Sevora (Mesoras Moshe volume 3, page 365-366).
In regards to the stories with Rav Chaim Shmulevitz and Rav Shlomo Zalman, they’re very well known stories, quoted by many people. It appears from Rav Lopiansky’s report in Timepieces that Rav Chaim would say it every Yom Kipur, and Rav Lopiansky learnt in Mir for years; I think this qualifies as first hand.
“Being a milchemes mitzvah is untenable with people who don’t believe in the mitzvos to begin with. If an atheist makes a bracha, we don’t answer amen, because his bracha is not a bracha. Their kibush is not a mitzvah either, even if it fulfilled the necessary requirements (which it doesn’t, as there’s no king).”
Rav Tzvi Pesach Pesach Frank considered the wars in EY to be Milchemes Mitzvah. Either way, the Shitah of the Religious Zionists is based on their understanding of Halacha. Even if you think it’s a ridiculous Shitah, they base it off Halachah, and give Teirutzim. Therefore, I don’t see why it should be different than other Machlokesim in Halacha. I don’t think it’s fair to say that religious Zionists serve in the army because they equate nationalism to Torah and Mitzvos.
Also, it should be noted that Rav Kook assumed that a democracy is considered like a king in Halacha, and Rav Ovadya took this as a Pashtus in his Teshuvah about Dinah Dimalchusah Dinah.I would recommend Emes Veemunah from the Kotzker. Each piece is very short, some only a line or two, but they’re sharp and powerful.
Also Tzidkas Hatzadik by Rav Tzadok is very powerful. Can be hard to read though.
Sichos Haran by Rav Nachman is powerful also. it’s easier than Likutei Maharan, also by Rav Nachman, since the ideas in Sichos Haran are short comments from Rav Nachman, wheras Likute Maharan is longer pieces which are often based off Kaballah.I hear what you were saying about there not being other Machlokesim to this extent, but I’m not sure if that’s true. The Vilna Gaon called the Chassidim Baal prophets and held they were Mamash Kofrim. The Brisker Rav supposedly said about Rav Chaim Shmulevitz that his wine is Yayin Nesech after the latters statement about the soldiers (i don’t know how serious he was).
in regards to Rav Kook talking poetically, I hear your point, but I think there are other Gedolim who did the same. Chazal express themselves poetically in Aggaditah. Rav Tzadok and other Rebbes do.
I hear your points though and will consider them.Avira Deara- In regards to Rav Kook’s ideas, certainly they weren’t the mainstream, but I’m not so sure that they’re completely alien ideas to Torah. Certainly the ideology of the secular Zionists, that nationalism is all that that matters, instead of Torah, is completely foreign to Yiddishkeit. Rav Kook never even remotely proposed that, however. He writes about how Jews developing the land of Eretz Yisroel have a certain holiness, even if they’re unfortunately not frum. There seem to be ideas like that in Torah. As mentioned before, the end of Kesubos discusses the importance of Eretz Yisroel. An Amorah kissed the rocks of Eretz Yisroel while another one rolled in it’s dust. The Meraglim were punished severely for speaking badly about Eretz Yisroel. Tosafos in Avoda Zarah has a Havah Amina that The Passuk which says “Lo Savie Toevah El Baysecha” (referring to idols” is only referring to a house in Eretz Yisroel since only EY can truly be considered our home. There is a famouys Sifrei which implies that there is an extra meaning to Mitzvos done in EY. Century after century The Jewish people have longed to live in EY. Some of the great transmitters of our Mesorah, such as Ramban, Rav Yehudah Halevi were Moser Nefesh, travelling for months, to get to Ey. The Gra and Baal Shem Tov both sent their Talmidim to Eretz Yisroel to build up the land. Kol Htor attributed to the Gra’s Talmid based off the Gra’s teachings talks about the importance of building up the land. Admittedly, Rav Kook’s statements are not the mainstream, but I don’t think that means they’re foreign concepts which have no basis in Torah, only in nationalism.
In regards to his Shittah about befriending the Kofrim who were building up the land, they were mostly Tinok Shenishbah, in regards to whom it is universally accepted that we are supposed to be loving to. He was also trying to be be Mekarev them, and he was actually succesful at being Mekarev many people. Rav Kook was not the only one like this. The Gemorah (Sanhedrin 37A) records that Rav Zeira befriended the local hooligans to be Mekarev them (although the Gemarah says that the other Chachomim disagreed), and was successful. The Baal Shem Tov was known to befriend the local thieves to try to be Mekarev them. Rav Levi Yitzchak would find the good in every Jew, even the biggest Baal Aveirah. This was a common theme in Chassidus.“There’s a world of difference between rabbonim who were happy to have a place to go after the Holocaust, and those who were nationalistic, who believed in a state as an ideal, in contrast to the mesorah of how jews ought to behave in galus.”
If You’re referring to the Shalosh Sheveuos, many Gedolim didn’t view it as a problem for varios reasons. 1) Belfour Declorations means the state was established with concent of nations. 2) Shevuos are interdependent. When the nations broke their end, we can break our end, and establish a state. Mesoras Moshe quotes that Rav Moshe viewed this as a strong Sevorah. There are other reasons also. If theres no problem of Shalosh Shevuos, then theres no reason why a state shouldn’t be ideal, unless from angle of Pikuach Nefesh which is a different discussion. As mentioned before, Rav Tzvi Pesach frank, and Rav Isser Zalman viewed it as Aschalta Digeulah which means they certainly did view it as ideal.“Religious Zionists as a result routinely give weight to other things besides torah. They believe it valuable to serve in thea army, that any and all soldiers are martyers and holy, despite living with women in the same barracks.”
i can’t speak for all of them, but i think the reason why many of them consider it so important to serve in the army is not because they consider nationalism to be just as important as Torah. It is because they consider the goverment to be Malchus Yisroel, and consider the wars to be a Milchemes Mitzvah. If this is actually the case, then they are actually doing a Mitzvah. You might not agree Halichically, that it’s Milchemes Mitzvah, but their Shitah is based off Halacha, not based off of their equaling nationalism to Torah.
In regards to their considering soliders to be holy, one cannot deny the incredible Mesiras Nefesh that the soliders have to fight for their fellow brethren. Also, this is not just a Religious Zionist view. Chareidi Gedolim have also considered the soldiers to be very holy. During one of the wars, for example, Rav Chaim Shmulevitz remarked that any solider who gets killed in battle has the status of Herukei Lod, who have an exceptionally lofty status in Olam Habah (quoted in “Timepieces” by rav Lopiansky, among other places). Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach remarked to a Bochur that when he’s looking for Kivrei Tzaddikim to Daven at, he goes to Mt. Hertzl to the grave of the murdered soldiers and Davens there.Aaq – I’m not sure exactly what you mean. could you elaborate?
My point in bringing all the Gedolim who were Machshiv Rav Kook wasn’t to show that his Hashkafah was right. My point was to show that most of the Gedolim, viewed Rav Kook – even with his Hashkafos about Zionism- as a huge Gadol. They did not feel that his Hashkafah ruled him out as a Gadol. It is not fair to say that because Rav Elchanan called Rav Kook A Rasha, that’s an excision of Rav Kook as an Adam Gadol. I have tremendous respect for Rav Elchanan, but i also have tremendous respect for the countless Gedolim who viewed Rav Kook as a Gadol, developed a Kesher with him, and got Haskamos from him. I don’t think it’s fair to say that all these Gedolim were not aware of his Hashkafos. Perhaps you can say that about some of the Gedolim who lived in America. The Gedolim who lived in Eretz Yisroel, however, were well aware of Rav Kook’s opinions. Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, Rav Isser Zalman, and Rav Aryeh Levine were Rav Kook’s closest friends during all of the controversies surrounding Rav Kook. Rav Kook was public about his Hashkafos, and the Kanoim made his life miserable; callim him a Rasha, and throwing rocks at him. These Gedolim were well aware of Rav Kook’s Hashkafos, but they nevertheless defended him, and considered him to be a Gadol. They did not rule him out as part of The Mesorah. Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shlomo Zalman lived in Eretz Yisroel as well; they developed relationships with him during the midst of his contreversies. To say that they simply did not know his Hashkafos is not a plausible assumption. As mentioned above, Rav Elchanan was extremely great, but the fact is, that although he may have ruled Rav Kook out of the Mesorah, the majority of Gedolim, though not accepting his Hashkafos, did not think that he should be ruled out of the Mesorah. To the contrary, they viewed him as an extremely Chashuv person. In regards to Rav Miler calling him a “Frum person”, he had to call that because there are plenty of Kanoim who believe that he’s a Kofer. Rav Avigdor Miller later says that any faults in Rav Kook were due to his Temimus, and says that he wants to be careful about Rav Kook’s Kavod. It was found on Toras Avigdor.com, not sure where it was said.
It is also important to note that the famous letter in which Rav Elchanan HY”D calls Rav Kook a Rasha was because he assumed that Rav Kook supported Keren Hayesod. Rabbi Eitan Henkin Hy”D, in an essay, come out clear that Rav Kook did not actually support Keren Hayesod.
You seem to be assuming that something changed, and even if Gedolim were Machshiv Rav Kook, now we know the truth and can rule him out of the Mesorah. I don’t think we really know anything new about Rav Kook, which would make it ok to disrespect him, in contrast to the views of the majority of the Gedolim. Rav Kook was very controversial for the twenty years or so of his life. He made known his views and many Kanoim would act disrespectful, or even violent towards him. Nevertheless, the Gedolim defended him, and considered him to be a Gadol. Nothing suddenly changed or came to light about Rav Kook that would make it OK to disrespect him, or not be Machshiv him.
It is also important to note that because Rav Kook was so poetic, his Machshavah Seforim were very deep and cannot necessarily be taken at face value. People like taking out pieces from his Seforim, taking each word at face value, and making fun of Rav Kook, but it’s not fair to read poetically-written things, which were originally from his notebooks, as if they’re a Lomdishe Gemara. He wrote them in a poetic style and have to be taken as such. When Rav Kook writes radical ideas, such as Zionists being holier than Religious Jews, they can’t be understood at face value. It means that to some extent, living in Eretz Yisroel gives a certain Kedushah, which those living in Chutz Liaretz don’t have. There are ideas like this in Chazal as well. The Gemarah in the end of Kesubos describes many merits which people living in Eretz Yisroel have. The Gemarah even says that anyone who walks four Amos in EY is guaranteed a share in Olam Habah.
The same can be said of Rav Tzadok. Many of his writings sound very radical. People understand, though, that he brings out ideas poetically, but they should not always be understood as literally as they seem. Oviously, we can’t compare Rav Kook or Rav Tzadok to Chazal, but Chazal in Ageddata express things poetically as well (as Maharal and other Meforshim explain). If taken at face value, some of the ideas sound very radical, or almost like Heresy. We understand , however, that Aggedeta is a different style than Halacha, and is meant to be taken differently.“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””.
That story is quoted in “The empty wagon”. Nevertheless, it is refuted by many people including Gil Student on Torah Musings. It seems very unlikely; being that there are many stories which show how much The Chafatz Chaim was Machshiv Rav Kook. There is, for example, the famous story of how in 1923, by the first Agudah Meeting, one of the speakers made fun of Rav Kook. The Chafatz Chaim got very upset, and screamed “How dare he make fun of The Rabbi of Yerushaliyim”. The Chafatz Chaim’s son-in-law, in fact, wrote a long letter in 1928, defending Rav Kook, and writing about his greatness. He writes in the letter, that The Chafatz Chaim, his father-in-law feels highly about Rav Kook, but didn’t want to publicly protest so as not to give the extremists publicity. He ends off by writing about how terrible it is to make fun of Tamidei Chachamim, and that people who make fun of Rav Kook should be banned. It would be extremely suprising for The Chafatz Chaim to mock so strongly someone who he was Machshiv so much.“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””.
I’m pretty sure that Rav Kook has a piece in which he discusses why it’s not good to be a vegetarian.
“He based his idea of odom harishon on kiekeergard”.
“Chochma Bagoyim Taamin”. He felt that outside knowledge can help us with our understanding of Torah if we’re able to take out the good . That was his Shitah. Just like the Rambam and Ramah were willing to quote Aristotle.“He had no problem attending operas”
The story about Rav Yoshe Ber going to the opera, if true, was when he was in Berlin. He never recommended going to operas later in life. In fact “The Rav Thinking out Loud” quotes Rav Yoshe Ber as saying that we can’t rely on any of the common Heterim for Kol Isah.
“And did nothing to chastise his waywars community.”
He was very critical of certain things in Modern Orthodoxy and he let it be known. He would also publicly criticize certain decisions of Mizrachi.“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.”
The quotes from Rav T.P. Frank and Rav I.Z. Meltzer are not from Rav Menachem Kasher. Rav T.P. Frank is quoted as telling people that The State of Israel is a Yeshua Gedolah for Bnei Yisroel, and Aschalta Digeulah. Rav Herzog in his Hesped for Rav Isser Zalman said that Rav Isser Zalman told him that The State of Israel is Aschal;ta Digela.” Rav Reuven Katz, a close Talmid of Rav Isser Zalman quoted Rav I.Z. as being extremely happy about The Founding of The State of Israel even with all it’s deficiencies. (look in Chakirah magazine volume 23). It is true that Rav Ovadya seems to be basing his Teshuvah off of Rav Menachem Kasher, but I think it is very likely that he would have viewed Israel positively even without it. He was Machshiv Rav Herzog very much, and even got a Haskamah from him, and Rav Herzog was a Zionist. He was also close to Rav T.P. Frank. Many other Gedolim viewed the state positively, though, even if not calling it Aschalta digeulah. The Tzitz Eliezer, for example, writes in the Hakdamah to his Sefer, Hilchos Medinah, about Hashem’s Chesed in allowing us to be free in our land.“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.”
Just because Rav Yoshe Ber had different Hashkafos does not mean he diverged Mesorah in dangrous ways. The main ways in which his Hashkafos differeded were in his openness to secular studies and Zionism things in which had been debated in Yiddishkeit for years. He followed much of The Brisker Mesorah. His learning and Minhagim were based of Rav Chaim. Their Tamidim, for the most part, were Chashuv people who did not leave mainstream Orthodoxy. Rav Schachter, Rav Willig, Rav Miesleman, Rav Shurkin, and many other students of his are very Chashuv people. There are some people or Rabbis connected to Modern Otherdoxy who are unfortunately doing things against Halacha, but they weren’t Talmidim of his and don’t really understand his Hashkafah. There may have been Rabbis who took his Hashkafos in the wrong way, but unfortunately that is the case with many Rabbonim, and even with a Tanna as brought in the post. The same can be said about Rav Kook.“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.”
Many of the Gedolim did use non-Jewish sources to help understand and clarify Jewish concepts. Obviously, they didn’t follow the Non-Jewish sources blindly, but they thought about the concepts, and they used whatever they felt could help explain Torah, and rejected what was foreign to Yiddishkeit. i think the same is true about Rav Yoshe Be. I don’t think he introduced alien concepts to Torah. He took out from secular subjects which he felt were useful for explaining Torah.
“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”.
I assume Rav Yaakov knew about the controversy surrounding Rav Kook. It wasn’t a secret. i don’t know exactly how much. Rav Yaakov was far from the only Gadol was was Machshiv Rav Kook, though, as brought in the post. Many Chareide Gedolim like Rav Shlomo Zalman, Rav Elyashiv, Rav Ovadya, Rav Isser Zalman, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank and Rav Hutner were (Rav Hutner later on rejected much of his Hashkafah but was still Machshiv him) . Rav Nissin Alpert, a close Talmid of Rav Moshe gave a Hesped on his 50th Yahrseit. Many of the Gedolim (such as Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, and Rav Isser Zalman) knew him very well and knew his Hashkafah. They didn’t agree fully with his Hashkafah, but they were Machshiv him tremendously. I don’t think it’s fair to assume that we know better now, and we can make fun of a person who was held in such high regard by most of the Gedolei Yisroel. People assume that the Chazon Ish wasn’t Machshiv Rav Kook, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. He argued very strongly with his Hashkafah, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t Machshiv him as an Adam Gadol. it seems like he told people not to read Rav Kook’s Hashkafah Seforim, but it is also quoted that he told people to learn Rav Kook’s Sheilos Uteshuvah Seforim to get a feel for Psak. Also, it should be noted that in the end of his life, he had a close relationship with Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook, Rav Kook’s son.
“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?”
Here is the exact quote.
Q: “Can the Rav share with us his opinion regarding Rav Kook?A:
Rav Kook was certainly a frum Jew – only here we come to the mixing of the boundaries.The boundaries were overstepped. Rav Kook made a very big mistake because he prepared the way for the worse ones to come. Now, it took some time before the worst ones appeared on the scene, but the worst ones couldn’t have come if the good one hadn’t prepared the way.
In those days there was no opportunity for the Va’ad Le’umi – that’s the National Council – to gain any control over religious affairs, because they were irreligious Jews. But money they had. So they were able to organize a religious council. But they needed some authority that would sanction – that would give them an entrance into Jewish religious affairs. Rabbi Kook, and I’m going to tell you now, maybe it was never published before but I heard it firsthand from the last Telzer Rav z”l – that’s the older brother of Rav Elya Meir z”l, and this happened in Lithuania. He told the following to us. He said that Rav Kook was a poetic soul, a man who became interested and excited over ideals. But he wasn’t always practical. He didn’t understand things in a practical way and therefore he undertook a new plan of action whereby he hoped that through his idealism, he would lead the pious Jews into the camp of the irreligious and they would occupy all the places. But the end was that the irreligious took his prestige and used it to occupy all the places in the Orthodox camp and that’s why today we have an entirely different picture. Eretz Yisroel up till a certain time was all Orthodox and the irreligious were all outsiders. They were pounding on the gates with bags full of money but they couldn’t get in. Rav Kook, in his innocence, in his temimus, he opened up the door for them. At first it wasn’t a flood – because who came after him? Rav Herzog was also an erlicher yid and a talmid chochom. And even Rav Unterman was an old- time Rav. But little by little – it’s like the old Rav Zonnenfeld said – the first Chief Rabbi will be a Kohen. That was Rav Kook. The second, a Levi, Rav Herzog. And the third, a Yisroel. The fourth – I don’t know what he’s going to be. And so I want to be very careful with the kavod of Rav Kook because there’s no question – and even Rav Herzog was an erlicher yid. But there’s no question also that these people made an error because all the gedolei yisroel disapproved – the vast majority – of this step. And what they did was to open the doors.”
The 2nd Beis Hamikdash was destroyed because of Sinas Chinam, so it would come to follow that to bring Mashiach, we should work on that. It is important to note that according to the Nitzviv (in Hakdamah to one of his seforim), the Sinas chinam which led to the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, was based on each person thinking that anyone who disagreed with their Hashkafah is a Kofer.
Another point to consider is that the Smag writes that he thinks the reason why Mashiach is not here yet is because people don’t return Taus Akum (extra money given by non-Jews for a loan or the like), which is Halichically permissible (in certain cases). Nevertheless, he felt that for Mashiach to come, we have to make an effort in showing the world how ethical we are. Otherwise, Mashiach would lead to a Chillul Hasdhem, as the nations would question why Hashem redeemed such an unethical nation. When we act above and beyond to jew and non-jew alike, and make a Kiddush Hashem, then Hashem is ready to bring Mashiach.Regardless of what one thinks about their Hashkofos, Rav Kook and Rav Yoshe Ber were both Gedolei Olam.
Rav Kook was an outstanding Talmid Chochom who was an expert in all areas of Torah. He authored many works in Halacha including, “Shabbat Haaretz” a work on the Halachos of Shemittah. He also published Shailos Uteshuvos Seforim which adressed questions about almost all area of Halacha. it is quoted that The Chazon ish would recomend Talmidim to learn it. He was also an expert in Machshava and Kabballah as evident from many of his other Seforim.
it is true that he was a zionist, which many view as negative, but is important to note that there are a variety of views on the Zionism and the state of Israel from various Gedolim, and many Great Gedolim viewed The State of Israel as a positive thing. Granted, Rav Kook was a much stronger and more radical Zionist than the other Gedolim, but nevertheless many of the Gedolim did view The State of Israel positively. Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, and Rav Ovadya Yosef (in a Teshuvah about saying Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut) all used the term “Aschalta Digualah” about the state of Israel. Rav Dessler was not willing to go that far, but he nevertheless writes that the state of israel is a gift from Hashem (Michtav Meiliyahy). Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky is quoted similarly (Emes Liyaakov, in a footnote on Parshas Bo). Rav Herzog and Rav Zevin, two Giants of the last century, recited Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut. The Ponivitzer Rav, refrained from saying Tachanun on Yom Haatzmaut. (There were certainly many Gedolim who felt otherwise, though).
The Gedolim, with a few exceptions, viewed him as a Gadol in a full sense. Here are just a few examples:
Rav Isser Zaman, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank and Rav Aryeh Levine, were very close to him and talked very highly about him. Rav Elayashiv at a young age, developed a Kesher with Rav Kook, and Rav Kook was in fact his Shadchan and Mesader Kiddushin. He seems to have been Machshiv him later on life as well, and he even supported the firing of and editor who took out references to Rav Kook’s Seforim. Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach was Machshiv Rav Kook very much, and even got a Haskamah from him on his Sefer Meorei Haish. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky is quoted as calling Rav Kook “A Gaon and a Tzadik” (The making of a Gadol p. 1087.) Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky, in a letter to Rav Kook, praised Rav Kook very highly. Rav Ovadya Yosef quotes Rav Kook several times in his Teshuvos. Even Rav Avigdor Miller who very strongly disagreed with Rav Kook’s ideology, when asked for his opinion on Rav Kook, makes sure not to directly criticize Rav Kook. At one point in the answer, he even says “I want to be very careful with the kavod of Rav Kook.” Most of The Gedolim didn’t agree with much of his Hashkafah, but that in no way undermined the respect they had for him.Rav Yoshe Ber, as well was undoubtfully a Gadol. Most of the other Gedolim had objections to some of his Hashkafos, but that should not undermine our respect for him.
The fact that he had an openness to secular studies should not be viewed as being due to his falling prey to the Yetzer Harah. The question of how much openness to secular studies is an issue which has been debated for many centuries, with Chashuv people on both sides. (There are obviously some things which shouldn’t be studied. The question is just where to draw the line). Already in the times of the Rishonim, this was a major difference between The Ashkenazi and Sefardi Rishonim. While the Ashkenazi Rishonim generally viewed secular studies, especially philosophy, with disdain, some of the Sfardi Rishonim such as The Rambam and Meiri were very knowledgeable in many secular subjects. in later centuries as well, there were different perpectives. Great Leaders, such as The Chasam Sofer and the Beis Halevi were more limiting in their views of secular studies, while The Rama and The Gra seem to have been more open to forms of it. Later on, it became one of the major differences between the Lithiunian Rabonim and Rav Shimshon Rifoel Hirsch, Rav Hildenscheimer and the other Rabonim in Germany. The Fact that Rav Yoshe Ber was more open to secular studies, therefore, does not have to be viewed as an inherently negative thing. He was following the lead of great people before him (although it was admittedly different that the Brisker Mesorah). It is important to note, also, that when he went to university, it was a much safer place than it is now, and other great people went such as the Lubavicher Rebbe and The Sereidi Aish.
In regards to his wife not covering her hair, it is important to note that in that time period there was unfortunately a big laxity in women covering hair, and many lithiuanian women, including wives of other prominent Rabonim, did not cover their hair. Rav Shach is even quoted as allowing a someone to marry a Lithiuanian girl who didn’t cover her hair, because it was viewed by the women as not a big deal, and did not reflect an overall laxity in Halacha on their part (although certainly it is Assur).
It is true that Talmidim quote conflicting things from him, but this does not make him any less of a Gadol. Much of it has to do with the fact that his Hashkafah changed greatly in certain areas over time. for example, in his early years he gave a Hesped for Rav Chaim Ozer which discussed how Daas Torah is necessary even in totally non-Halachic scenarios, a position which seems to be at odds with his later Hashkafah. Also, he switched from Agudah to Mizrachi. A switch of opinion is totally acceptable and can be found in other Gedolim also. Rav Hutner, for example, went from being a Talmid of Rav Kook, to adopting an almost Satmar-like position on The State of Israel (although he was still Machshiv Rav Kook). Some of it may also have to do with the fact that different Talmidim interpeted his stamements in different views. This is not a Chisaron in Rav Yoshe Ber, it is found with many other Gedolim also. Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky and Rav Hutner for example, were all very influenced by The Alter of Slavodka, but they all had unique perspectives. The Gemarah also is full of conflicting reports from Amoraim (as someone pointed out before). Antignos Ish Socho had two Tamidim who left Yiddishkeit because they misunderstood what he meant in Pirkei Avos (See Avos 1,3, with Meforshim).
Although many of the other Gedolim disagreed with some of his Hashkafah, almost none of them disrespected him and many of them were clearly Machshiv him. Rav Moshe Feinstien called him every Yom Tov. Rav Hutner referred to him as a Gadol. Rav Shmuel Rosofsky was in Boston in the end of his life and would often talk in learning with Rav Soloveichik. The ponivicher Rav is quoted as calling him The greatest Rosh Yeshivah in ASmerica. These are but a few examples.They were both huge Gedolim and should be viewed as such.