London’s Hampstead Garden Suburb United Synagogue, an Orthodox Shul with nearly 1,800 adult members, has discontinued an adult-education class on Tanya following objections from three congregants who called the Sefer “racist.”
The complaints had come from professor Steve Miller, a former vice-chairman of the Shul, Vivian Wineman, the senior vice-president of the Board of Deputies, and Shul member Dan Rickman.
Mr. Wineman said: “The text contains comments about Jewish superiority which we regard as racist and unacceptable. If the local church were running a course which said that gentiles were superior spiritually to Jews, we would think that should not be tolerated.”
The Shul had “done well”, he added, “to take a stand and say no. Lubavitchers are nice people, but Lubavitch philosophy has elements which are unacceptable.”
Prof. Miller explained that he felt a “small section” of the Tanya which talks about non-Jews is “frankly racist and morally objectionable. Whilst I wouldn’t dream of censoring what individual members do, I do feel that the Shul should not be sponsoring a course which disseminated the Tanya.”
But in the current edition of the Shul’s magazine, the move was denounced as “spineless.”
“We Jews have suffered continuously from censorship and book-burning, usually by the Christians and occasionally self-inflicted,” wrote columnist David Lew in the Shul magazine. “But to find it going on in our own community is truly outrageous, and the victory of the gang of three is bitterly disappointing. The shul’s reaction to the objections of those members was, to say the least, spineless.”
Bernard Taub, the Shul’s chairman, said he would not discuss the issue. “The whole thing is dead and buried,” he said.
(Source: Free Public / COL)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
73 Responses
So we must hide that we are the Chosen Nation…
When You say “Orthodox” how “orthodox” do you mean cause that word has lot’s of meanings
well professor steve, vivian, and dan
a nice lineup, im sure quite well qualified to rule on basic foundational pillars of the Torah.
Depends what you mean by “chosen”.
How Pathetic! I don’t object at all to members of other religions thinking theirs is superior. I would naturally assume they feel its superior, otherwise why would they belong to that faith group? By the thinking of these so-called “orthodox Jews”, I think they should edit the Siddur also, and remove all terms of “asher bachar banu meekol ha’amim”, “romamtanu meekol ha’le’shonot”, “ha’bochair b’amo Yisrael be’ahava”, etc., etc., etc. If they do not believe Yahadut is superior, they should find what they think is, and move over there! and… if they think all religions are equal, the smart thing would be to find the easiest one to observe (certainly that is not Judaism)and make life easy for themselves! As I said at the outset,-PATHETIC!
I guess this guy doesn’t lsiten to the torah reading either- he probably would find it “unacceptable”
weinman should ban the siddur and many other holy sforim as it contains references to ‘am hanivchar’,’am kodosh’ etc…he can join the maskilim who had ,have the same shita
to #2 they probably forgot to change their sign on the temple to ‘progressive’..
Sounds like real apikorsus against a sefer written by a helige tsaddik. Of course people can take everything out of context about the Torah itself. Are they going to ban the Torah too because of mechias Amalek, the destruction of the Mitzrim and the 7 nations?
weinman should also ban another ‘book’as some sections contain verses that can be interperated to racisim..its called the ‘heilige toireh’
The amazing thing is that they said
” If the local church were running a course which said that gentiles were superior spiritually to Jews, we would think that should not be tolerated”
of course they do and of course it is tolorated.
you have no business tolerateing or not
what the church teaches and vise versa.
and of course they believe their religion
is superior! what else.
why did a shule like this get a tanya class in the first place?!
steve, vivian and dan
the VERY FIRST WORD OF THE TORAH (which you read today) tells us that the entire creation of the universe, existence itself, was only for the sake of Klal Yisroel (see Rashi)
do you wish to ban the Torah from your allowed reading list? perhaps you would prefer editing out the parts that are objectionable to your feelings?
I’d be surprised that they didn’t ban the Torah for being racist, but they probably haven’t read that yet!
Seforim ha’Kedoshim teach that the final stage of galus Edom (our current galus) will have elements of galus Yavan, when we were “in exile” in our own land and when the “enemy” were our own people – the misYavnim. Gedolim of the past generation have said, and present-day Torah giants have concurred, that the nisayon of our generation is in recognizing/appreciating “Attah b’chartanu m’kol ha’amim. Need I say more?
Realizing an individual’s or group’s special talents or unique qualities, is not inherently racist. Hating an individual or group because of those talents or qualities is.
what happened to the brocha shelo assani goy
ban that ban this
to#14 thats a good one..
“The complaints had come from professor Steve Miller, a FORMER VICE-CHAIRMAN of the Shul, Vivian Wineman, the SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT of the Board of Deputies…”
In most shuls (especially modern-orthodox ones), these positions often go to people of financial significance.
Im willing to bet that money was a key factor in the shul’s decision to comply with these members’ demands (not that it makes the decision any less ridiculous)…
to #16..they probably dont daven so they dont know about it..some ‘orthodox’ circles dont say ‘shlo usanu isha’
It is surely a zchus for the holy author of the tanya to have his sefer removed from a place like that and is definately no busheh for him.”Ha’kol Lfee Ha’m’vayish V’ha’misbayish”
While I agree that we are the Chosen Nation and I agree with those who sarcastically write “ban the Torah and Siddur for the same reasons”, I do have something else to say. Judaism (Lubavitch in particular-and no I’m not Lubavitch)has a lot of converts and I hope they don’t find such comments about non Jews to be insulting. Also we all know that Ha-Shem created ALL people. We learn that when the B’nei Yisroel came out of Mitzrayim and the Mitzrim drowned, the B’nei Yisroel sang Shira. The Malachim (angels) also sang it. Ha-Shem said to the Malachim – why are you so happy? My children just drowned and you’re singing praise? I understand the B’nei Yisroel singing – they are flesh and blood and their lives were just saved.
No – we are not Malachim – but from this we should learn a lesson. All people are creations of Ha-Shem and must be treated accordingly – with the exception of Amalek whom we are commanded to destroy. May we all be Zoche to see the coming of Moshiach – PEACEFULLY- Bimhayra B’Yameinu Amen.
This all makes me think that the argument of racism was really a brainy trick! The Vice President did not agree with the Hashkofos of ther Magid Shiur “Vahmaivin Yuvin”. Tanya is of course Kodesh Kodoshim and certainly does not need any Haskomos!
The Alter Rebbe, the Ba’al HaTanya, had befriended, and come to the aid of many non-Jews through his lifetime, and many came to him in search of guidance and blessings.
When Tanya – and other seforim, speak about the more spiritual nature of Jews, this is done so that we feel encouraged to strive even higher to realize this potential.
As well, Judaism is open to anyone who sincerely desires to be a Jew or Jewess – and non-Jews who respect and live by the universal moral code, the Seven Mitzvos of the B’nai Noach – the Noahide Code – are also considered to have risen beyond base animal nature – which IS the underlying nature of all mortal life. This is why we consider it necessary that to be truly moral, a person must either live a traditional Jewish life, or align themselves with general idealistic moral principles. Anyone who has done this, and recognizes the challenge in this, will not be offended by the language of Tanya – whether they be Jewish or gentile – as they’ll understand these in proper context.
To paraphrase the Brisker Rav “every time a dog barks, must we respond”
This is really all politics, soon its gonna be connected with the Rubashkins incident, its all politics against Lubavitch, just end it already!!!
Every religion is right in its own sight. Gentiles, Christians, are hated and considered unlean because they are not frum people in the sight of Judaism. Jews are considered un-saved and bound for gahena by some Christians. Truth of the matter is Hashem made both! There are those of us who long to be Jewish but can’t be because we were born into the wrong religion to the wrong parents, to a wrong life style we did not choose for ourselves and for that we are hated, despised, and considered unclean. Yet we would gladly fight for and give our lives in defense of Yisrael. Imagine how hard it is to be on the outside looking in at a life you crave but can never have, a faith into which you would and will never be accepted because you were born to the wrong parents in the wrong land at the wrong time. That is true pain.
London’s Hampstead Garden Suburb United Temple Timeline –
Oct 23 2008. Temple Bans Tanya due to claim of congregants that “it may hurt the feelings of non jews”
Nov 14 2008
after hearing the Rabbi’s Sermon Saturday morning, a congregant feels that the Rabbi’s view is too subjective and wonders what the other denominations think, he is loudly congratulated for his progressive wisdom, and the following Saturday, the Orthodox Temple invites father Paul O’ Keefe to give the Sermon.
Dec 17 2008
after a loud and rambunctious meeting,
the Temple board decides to remove the middle partition, known to the elders of the temple as “the Mechitza” this has been a eyesore to many a congregant, as it offended some of the female members.
Feb 12 2009
After the last of the Torah scrolls were removed from the Ark and sold to the Chasidic Shul in a nearby community (the Torah parchment offended Peta) the brand new, non denominational scrolls (made from 100% post consumer recycled organic hemp) were added amid pomp and ceremony, as Steve Miller, a former vice-chairman of the Shul, Vivian Wineman, the senior vice-president of the Board of Deputies, and Shul member Dan Rickman
Looked on and Beamed with pride.
Chevra,
You’ve all got the wrong forum to ridicule these “profs”. Go to the shul’s web page and let them have it over their heads. And while you’re at it give it to the Rabbi too.
//www.hgss.org.uk
This comes from a professor, he looks at the world, and Judaism, with different lenses than the rest of us, thats why this might have happened, there’s many ways to look at something like this, it could just be politics.
This isn’t the Torah they are complaining about. It is a separate book that is not an obligation to learn, unless you wish to.
It is a sad day when Jewish people are calling other fellow Jews racists because they don’t happen to “agree” on some things. This is an optional class, and if they do not agree with what is being taught, then don’t attend. Why are people always using the “racist” card? They’re going to wear it out, and before you know it, that word wont mean a thing to people, it wont have the same impact it did some years before.
I’m not sure what everyone is so bothered.
Are you not bothered by writings of the Tanya and other sifrei kodesh. Yes, he was a tzaddik, but so what?
Does it not bother you, when you hear that “Jews are superior” or that you aren’t supposed to be mechalel shabbos to save a goy.
Asher Bachar banu does not mean “superior” as in the Nazi’s sense of herrenvolk, it means chosen to bring G-d conciousness to the world. It’s a responsibility…a great responsibility. But not “I’m chosen so I’m better and I can cut you in line, or steal from you etc.”
I don’t agree with their (the shul’s) conclusion, but it also bothers me when I read certain Chassidishe sefarim.
#33 You have fallin pray to our Golos America, show your ROsh Hayisheva what u wrote maybe he can explain it to u.
NoRedHerring — Jews ARE superior. Period. And you cannot be mechalel Shabbos for the reason you mentioned. Period.
#34 Care to explain what you mean.
i think that everyone is getting very excited here over a poorly written article. there are two DIFFERENT points being confused both in the article and by most of the posters here, and i think it’s very important to distinguish them. They are:
1. the status of bnei yisrael as hashem’s special “chosen” people (a theme which runs through chumash, etc.)
2. the purported “inferiority” of non-jews as compared to jews (an idea which is not stated in chumash, but which is stated explicity in Tanya, in discussing the inherent spiritual inferiority of non-jews. this idea is far less straightforward, see for instance the rambam in hilchos teshuva who says that a non-jew can merit olam haba, etc.)
It is very important that these two ideas not be confused as being the same. they are in fact quite different. for instance, while most would agree that an elected official (i.e. a senator, a president, etc.) is certainly a more ‘special’ or ‘chosen’ person (and who enjoys more perks and benefits, but also additional responsibilities), few would agree that an average citizen is somehow “inferior” or less important or valuable as a human being than an important elected official. quite simply, the fact that one person or group has a special role or significance does NOT automatically mean that other individuals or groups are inferior to them.
while the torah clearly teaches that jews are a special people with special roles and responsibilities, the torah does NOT teach (in my opinion) that other nations and individuals (created b’tzelem elokim) are “inferior” to jews. this idea of “inferiority” is, however, found in the tanya, and it is this particular point that the members of this shul seemed to find offensive or ‘racist.’ reasonable minds can disagree on this matter, but i think its important to realize where these people are coming from. i do not think they are simply casting aside an important torah principle because they are worried about how non-jews perceive them. they simply don’t hold of the tanya’s shitta on this matter, much like many people do not follow the satmar rebbe’s shitta on the state of Israel, zionism, etc. i don’t think that they learn vayoel moshe in merkaz harav, and i don’t think they learn rav kook’s writings in satmar, but that doesn’t mean that either group should be condemned simply because they choose not to spend lots of time learning points of view that they disagree with.
and to those posters who are drawing conclusions based upon the NAMES of the people involved…and who are drawing conclusions and predicting when the shul will tear down its mechitza…its time to grow up. it doesn’t take much to belittle and mock…its coming up with a thoughtful response as to why you disagree that takes a bit more effort.
#36, #34 means that you have become victimized by American egalitarian culture. Throw your “Western values” into the trash, and reacquaint yourself with “Jewish values” (i.e. “Torah values.”)
#39, No you are NOT allowed to be mechallel Shabbos for that. And if someone did, with eidim and hasrah, he is chayiv misah. Period.
Charlie:
You’re talking about currently. However, in tannaic times, it was not the case…
to #33 and #39: it’s the Gemora and Shulchan Aruch who write that you may not be mechalel Shabbos to save a Goy, not “some Chassidishe seforim”.
In fact, you cannot save an oived avodah zorah even on a WEEKDAY, and some say any nochri.
Avodah Zarah 26a: Shabbos may not be violated for a Gentile. For those who are gerei toshav, the Rambam writes that one may not even be mechallel Shabbos to save their lives (although the Ramban disagrees). In fact, Shabbos cannot be violated to even save a non-frum Jew! (R. Yosef Teomim, Pri Megadim, Orach Chayim 328 MZ 6)
In a situation of mipnei aivah (hostility), we may set aside chilul Shabbos. But Ikur Hadin, we are prohibited from being mechallel Shabbos for this reason. And even then, the poskim write that a doctor must attempt to avoid being in a position in which he will have to heal non-Jews
and non-religious Jews on Shabbos.
In fact, Mishna Berura 330:8 paskens that you CANNOT be mechallel Shabbos even because of aiva.
to #39..charliehall..please take your amharatzes to that shul..you are not allowed to be mechallel shabbos to save a goy o’chaim 328 ..but not because he is inferior
#39 not only goy but also one who is mechalel shabbos your your not allowed to be mechalel shabbos see o’chaim 328
Do these three individuals think that by banning a sefer because its not politically correct changes the metzius of us as a nation? We have suffered through the years of persecution, we are the least “racist” nation, so much so we tolerate people like steve, vivian and dan. To have vivian on a board of an “orthodox” shul show how tolerant and un-biased we are! Get a life you three there are more important things in life then bible-bashing your own flesh and blood.
“Midrashim are not necessarily to be taken literally”
this statement is 100% correct
i just want to stress however the words: “not necessarily”
sometimes they ARE to be taken literally.
to #50, #51 see gemmorah bava basre 75a middle wide lines ‘yosiv reb yochenan vkadarish asud h’kudosh boruch hu..’…so can any of you 2 bring mekor that midroshim should not be taken literaly. either way let us know. this is to a big acreious to say on your own..see maiseh we mentioned
to #52 jent –
please tell me you are kidding. i suggest you read the rambam’s introduction to perek chelek (FYI its the 10th perek of sanhedrin).
seems that not much has changed in 800 or so years…
please zalmy read all achronim, marsha etc all over ..pashute yid your non-refutation refutation hot nit kain pshat. ..so that gemmorah in bava basra doesnt mean what it means ? we can bring plenty other to zalmy..you mean thousands of years(not 800) since the days of yetzias mitzraim when most klal yisroel were ‘reshoim ‘ who didnt want leave mitzraim see medresh why ,and it means exactly what it means,so 4/5s (2,400,000) died and so every generation since then the ehrlicha yidden were a miut, yes yes things didnt change..to zalmy you don understant the rambam dont show it..we are not going to take each gemmorah from shass and you should explain what it means if it doesnt mean what it means well never end..you have the same shita as the other poster who says all these memres are just’ethical parables’. of course the tam nister he says so is because he doesnt belive in the koiach of the holy tzaddikin, tanoim amoroinm to perform these deeds,the same with you.
to #55 jent,
i’m not a big gaon like you, i apparently don’t know ‘achronim all over.’ i’m a ‘pashuteh yid’ i just know the rambam (and a few other things). it’s very easy to just dismiss me and say that i “don’t understand the rambam” without providing a proper explanation of what the rambam (according to you) does mean.
as far as i can understand (according to you, not very well), the rambam in his hakdama to chelek clearly states that midrashim of chazal should not be taken literally. if you have an alternative understanding of this rambam, i ask that you share it with me so that i can better understand this inyan.
thank you in advance.
#57.we understand the rambam very well it is you who applies it to your westernized kop see #55 last 2 lines
zalmy, pashute(?) yid,now lets take few gemmorahs one by one..the beginning brochos ‘reb yochenan ben zakai .etc gave him hand and he became well’..is ist just a moshol? if yes for what ..’reb chanine ben dose put his foot to the hole and the arut bit him and the arud died’ is it just a moshel? so waiting YOUR pshat in these..pashute yid from qouteing ‘i once heard’ ‘a gadol once said’ ‘i was in the car…’ is no reious..anyway your tachlis is see #55 last 2 lines
jent –
i still do not understand you. are you referring to this line of yours?:
“of course the tam nister he says so is because he doesnt belive in the koiach of the holy tzaddikin, tanoim amoroinm to perform these deeds,the same with you.”
i’m not sure i understand you correctly. from what i can gather from your words, you are suggesting that the rambam lacked some sort of “belief” in tzadikkim. is this what you mean? if this is your ‘explanation’ of the rambam, why do you suggest that i misunderstand him? it would seem that we both agree that the rambam says that midrashim should not be taken literally. the only difference is that you seem to claim that this is a ‘chisaron’ in the rambam, whereas i would never dare suggest such a thing.
i sincerely hope that you mean something other than what i think you mean with regards to the rambam. i await your response. until then, in the machlokes jent vs. the rambam, i am inclined to side with the rambam in this regard.
#60 brush up on your reading comp..we are not refering to the rambam we are refering to you and pashute..and we clearly indicated the holy rambam does not mean what you want him to mean…
#60 in #55 last 2 lines we are refering to another poster and he should know what we are talking about.
jent –
i ask you again to simply explain to me what the rambam (according to you) DOES mean. i have clearly explained the way i understand him. if i am wrong, please correct me. these are important inyanim. please set me straight.
charlie,
Sorry to have to be the first to break it to you, but Torah and halacha does NOT change with current public opinion and political correctness.
In fact, in Williamsburg Hatzalah follows the psak of the Mishna Berura I quoted above in #44. And even those poskim that do follow mipnei aiva, say that a doctor must attempt to avoid being in a position in which he will have to heal non-Jews
and non-religious Jews on Shabbos.
charliehall – well said an important clarification. To the best of my knowledge the earliest psak to this effect Council of Four Lands (Va’ad Arba’ Aratzot) was the earliest Beth Din to make this ruling (don’t have mekor to hand to check date)
charliehall, and I work with, and learn from, the Gedolim of this dor. And I know the psaks they receive, and from whom they receive them. And they aren’t what you say. Research Williamsburg Hatzalah. The Rabbis of our times, follow the Rabbis of the past. Your paskening here contrary to every living posek who has spoken on the subject is highly problematic; you should consider retracting your statements.
P.S. rabbiofberlin, You have made a VERY SERIOUS ERROR. You have spelled it “Yeshuoys” rather than “Jeshuoys”! 😉
Dr Tendler did.
As a matter of fact, Dr. Tendler did worse then kill a Jewish person.
He massered on him!
And don’t start denything this. It was all recorded during the Hilchos Nidah Shiur at YU….. yes…the shiur that was pulled off the YU website real quickly….
But that’s ok.
We copied it first.
So getting back to the point, of a Rabbi telling a doctor….. awww shuks….Tendler aint no rabbi…. he’s not even a Dr…..
Rabbi Dr. Samson Raphael Hirsch Z”L was a Rabbi & a Dr, not crud like Phonie Tendler
to #56 we believe it is literal from all the meforshim we can see so . and if you dont belive is not literal why davka this why not all mioifsim,so we assume you dont believe in other moifsimm either so we can say you have explanations to the 10 makkos too, like that other apikores who comes with his ‘thomas mcc’ham’s explanations..where do start believing in and where do end. what about all the moifsim tanoim ameroim performed mentioned all over shas..so you will say the same .so this rabbi weinberg either you made it up ‘im ratzo lidvorachs lehishama hitla beilon godl’ otherwise we wont comment .lets just take this one the ,rashi brings, saye explicitly ‘her arms stretched’.listen the like of you dont believe the 10 makkos happened either and explain it with natural occurences. tell us ,do you believe that the riboni shel oilem gave koiach for tzaddilkim to be meshsneh the teve? do you believe pincho ben yair split that lake 3 times , reb chanine ben diso’s miricales mentined thruout ?
charlie, speak to R’ Daniel Eidensohn in Eretz Yisroel.
#64 maybe there is a difference bet ofricial DR and private hatzolah member..
charliehall #70
as I recall I read it some time ago in a sefer which I don’t have now for some reason, sorry
this ruling is referred into in an article online by the late Rav Lord Jakobovits, z’l http://www.medethics.org.il/articles/JewishME/JewishME4.asp#_ftn43 [NB: the article suggests that the earliest source is Misheh Torah Hilchot Avodah Zara (Kochavim) 10:2 – with respect to the author of the article, whilst I see the relevance of this halacha I don’t see that this is clear cut!)
it is interesting that this aspect has emerged from the rather fractious (and ill informed) thread above. Rav Lord Jakobovits also wrote an article in Tradition based around an alleged incident where an Orthodox Jew had refused to allow his phone to be used on Shabbat to save the life of a non-Jew. His article is called “A Modern Blood Libel–L’Affaire Shahak” and is available online http://www.edah.org/backend/document/jakobovits1.html
according to some views on this thread is this actually a “blood libel”? (chas veshalom)
and le-maaseh were you in such a situation have you asked yourself what you would do when you see a fellow human being – who you may know as a neighbour for example – in desperate need of your help?
I know doctors as well who have asked shailos from poskim who specialise in medical halacha and all would say as you do to the best of my knowledge. This is an area where if one is machmir one is in danger of being a chosid shoteh
to me, its interesting to note the two parallel discussions/disagreements in this post:
1. jent’s continued insistence that midrashim should be taken literally, his assertion that i misunderstand the rambam in perek chelek who states that midrashim should not be taken literally, and that by taking midrashim literally, these people make bnei yisrael and torah look foolish (note: the rambam certainly seems to be concerned with how goyim will relate to and view us, specifically with regard to our understanding of torah!). i have asked jent several times to please explain to me the correct pshat in the rambam (since i misunderstand it according to him), but he has yet to. instead he continues to simply say that i misunderstand the rambam, and he insinuates that this somehow belies the lack of some sort of ‘belief’ as he calls it.
2. joseph, etc. insistence that a jew may not save a non-jew on shabbos, despite charliehall’s request for a single reference of a present day posek who will agree with this statement.
i think these two discussions are interesting because i believe (hope?) that in their heart-of-hearts, both jent and joseph realize that the positions they maintain border on the absurd – jent’s from an intellectual standpoint (insisting that midrashim must be taken literally just makes you sound very, very silly, says no less than the rambam), and joseph’s from a practical one (insisting that it is completely assur l’chol hadeyos for a jew to save a non-jew on shabbos b’zman hazeh is silly as well. yes, there are such shittos out there, but the VAST majority of poskim, including no less than R’ moshe feinstein, etc., clearly do not hold this way). joseph – if r’ moshe was standing in front of you and issued his psak that a doctor may save a non-jew on shabbos, would you tell r’ moshe that he is wrong, and tell the jewish doctor that he is chayav misah if he listens to r’ moshe (these were your words above in #40)??
to me, this is what the kana’us that we sadly see more and more of each day is all about. i will tell you that i personally consider myself ‘yeshivish’. maybe i even daven in the same shul as jent or joseph. but i simply can’t relate to their insistence that its their way or the highway – chas veshalom a medrash should mean anything more than the incredible stories jent was told in cheder. and chas veshalom there should be any differences of opinion regarding pikuach nefesh on shabbos – if you don’t follow joseph’s yet-to-be-named posek, you’re chayav misah (nevermind r’ moshe, right?)!
i think its great for people to have different opinions, and to discuss them. but when all you can do is insist that you are right, and that the rest of the world of wrong just because you said so – ESPECIALLY in these two cases when the positions being held border on the absurd – something is very, very wrong.
shammas/76, it isn’t a matter of being “machmir.” Its a matter of following clear psak din that it is Chillul Shabbos. (You can read my comments in the 40’s above. Some might hold there are exceptions for mipnei aiva, but the Mishna Berura clearly paskens against even aiva. And even those that hold aiva, it is clearly a limited exception.)
zalmy/77,
Please read carefully prior to misquoting me. Nowhere have I said its “l’chol hadeyos.” I repeated more than once that some poiskim hold of mipnei aiva. But the MISHNA BERURA paskens against aiva, and this psak is what many hold by. You are FAR from correct in stating the vast majority of poskim say otherwise. As I said above, some parts of Hatzalah go by the psak against aiva.
Additionally I referred Charlie to R’ Daniel Eidensohn in Eretz Yisroel who authored the Yad Moshe, an index of the Igros Moshe. If you have a mekor from the Igros Moshe where Rav Moshe paskens on this matter, please share it as I would be interested in Rav Moshe’s psak, whether you quoted him faithfully or not (like misquoting me.)
I think you ought to retract calling the Chofetz Chaim ZTV’L’s position “bordering on absurd.”
Mishna Berura:
“One must be aware that even pious doctors in our time totally disregard this halacha and travel and write on Shabbos for the care of a non-Jew. For even if one were to say that it is permitted to violate a Rabbinic prohibition to avoid aiva (and the Pri Migadim is unsure of even this much), ALL AGREE that one may not violate a biblical prohibition.”
In Igros Moshe O.C. 1:127 in a Teshuva on an aspect of the halacha of being mechalel Shabbos for pikuach nefesh (see the Mogen Avrohom brought in Mishna Berura 248:26), holds of a concept of subjective pikuach nefesh that is dependent on the fortitude of each individual.
Joseph
thanks for the response – you didn’t answer my question which is also repeated by zalmy in other words. As noted R Moshe Feinstein clearly paskaned that this is allowed and we have a principle of halacha ke-basroi, as I am sure you are aware. Further as I recall the Mishneh Berurah is out of line of earlier and later poskim so when you say “some” might hold that is ok mishum eivah (NB: not mipnei eivah in the sources I have seen at least) actually it is the other way round.
zalmy/77 and your previous comments – kol hakavod for all your contributions on this thread
shammas/81,
Like I asked, please cite the mekor in Igros Moshe. I’d like to learn it and see what Reb Moshe says regarding this. See the Igros Moshe I quoted in #80.
“The Mishna Berura is out of line”!? That’s a new one. You may wish to consider your words carefully. Please, respectfully, cite your sources, as I have mine. Your “recalling” unfortunately doesn’t hold water.
I’ve seen Rav Daniel Eidensohn, author of the Yad Moshe (index on the Igros Moshe) write against mipnei aiva. I’m uncertain if he was referring to his own shitta or Reb Moshe’s.
And like I pointed out, I offered at least one branch of Hatzalah that follows the Chofetz Chaim, and does NOT rely on aiva.
And as far as earlier poiskim, see my comment #43, where I pointed out that the GEMORAH, RAMBAM, and the PRI MEGADIM all were opposed to saving a nochri on Shabbos. (And even saving a non-Shomer Shabbos Jew according to the Pri Megadim, and even a Geirei Toshav according to the Rambam.)
In fact, many hold you cannot save any nochri (some say only a baal avoida zora — which the xtians are according to Rambam) even on a WEEKDAY!
Joseph
see Igros Moshe Orah Hayyim 4:79 also Igros Moshe Orah Hayyim 5:25 is relevant to some of your comments. As for earlier rulings and status of other religions – a much larger and separate topic.
shammas/84,
Thank You. So the Igros Moshe indeed disagrees with the Mishna Berura. Both are ”contemporary” poiskim. I know that the Mishna Berura I quoted has a wide following as psak din today, and I’m certain so does the Igros Moshe.
To violate a midiraisa, like Chillul Shabbos Kodesh, you need a strong mekor. The Igros Moshe is that. Ikur Hadin, you cannot be mechallel Shabbos for a nochri or non-Shomer Shabbos. And many poskim pasken like that, while others pasken otherwise.
The Gemora says you cannot save a nochri. Rambam, Pri Migadim, and Mishna Berura (amongst others) say aiva doesn’t override Shabbos. The Igros Moshe says you may rely on aiva to be mechallel Shabbos. But even according to Reb Moshe a doctor must take steps to avoid a possible situation where he will have to be mechallel Shabbos Kodesh to heal a nochri or non-Shomer Shabbos on Shabbos Kodesh.
joseph, let me remind you of your words again:
“#39, No you are NOT allowed to be mechallel Shabbos for that. And if someone did, with eidim and hasrah, he is chayiv misah. Period.”
do you retract this kana’us or not? honestly, it is not your opinion on this matter that is the problem, so much as how you express yourself. there is a way to respectfully disagree with someone, present an alternate shita, etc. however, when anyone who doesn’t hold exactly like you is “chayav misah. period.” something is very wrong. think about talmidei r’ akiva who were not noheg kavod zeh ba’zeh. perhaps they were expressing a similar sentiment – ‘if you don’t hold like me, you are chayav misah’ – i.e., its my way or the highway, there is only 1 correct shitta, 1 right answer, and everyone who doesn’t hold exactly like me is “chayav misah.”
this attitude also shows a frightening amount of ga’avah.
i humbly suggest that next time, before insisting that everyone must hold exactly like you (under penalty of death!!), you consider this situation, where it turns out that there are other shitos, besides the one that you personally happen to hold by, which are perfectly legitimate and valid.
i think that this ‘my way or the highway’ attitude and its inherent ga’avah is the root of most of the kana’us that has intensified in our communities of late.
Dear zalmy,
Is there a Beis Din today that is empowered to issue a death sentence? Surely you are aware that not. So clearly that quote was made in reference to a time when a Beis Din could pass such a sentence, with eidim and hasrah. And when a Beis Din is so empowered, there is no issue of aiva involved.
The person that quote was made to is the one who insisted on his way or the highway. And hence that strong response, laying down the law. Some people have a tendency to think that if you don’t lick up to the liberal, Westernized, public-opinion-sensitive, politically-correct, gentile-loving, reinvented for the modern age din, then you are a kanoi (which actually is a compliment).
So yes, the ikur hadin is you may not save nochri. It may sound harsh to someone who doesn’t understand the reasoning, but that is the law. There are limited heteirim IF necessary, according to some opinions.
I humbly suggest that next time you read comments in context and quote accurately. Nowhere have I, or anyone for that matter, stated that “if you don’t hold like me, you are chayav misah”, and I think you are smart enough to be cognizent of that fact, as well as the fact that I quoted both shittas in my initial comment, (as much as pointing that out would have made all of your comments extraneous and irrelevant.) Perhaps with these points in mind, you will understand what is being said, rather than relying on your own mistaken assumptions of what others have said.