21 Responses

1. Baruch Dayan HaEmes. Please put ZATZAL or ZT”l after his name as he deserved the title and it might hurt some of his talmidim or family members seeing that appelation. Thank you.

2. I think an Av Bais Din deserves the title of Gaon or Zatzal.

3. Isn’t the “Z”L” misplaced?

   Rabbi Yaron Reuven played a clip in which the late Sacks publicly said kefirah g’murah (that the story of Adam and Chava in the Torah is only a moshol, chas v’shalom.)

4. Baruch dayan emes. :'(

5. Boruch Dayan Emes. Rabbi Sacks was a real mentsch. A walking Kiddush Hashem. A thinker. A sensitive person who didn’t compromise his beliefs, but had the wisdom to know how to give it over so that people were interested in listening. So much to learn from.

6. BDE He was a special person. He was a great speaker. He was a prolific writer. He was able to change people for the better with his speaking and charisma. He will be missed.

7. Sorta disappointed to see R. Lord Sacks as Z”L while R. Dovid is ZT”L. With the posts next to each other it’s obvious. I guess they didn’t consider R. Sacks a tzaddik.

8. The AV Beis Din is a ceremonial title, the actual head of LBD is the Rosh Beis Din previously Dayan Eherntrau and currently Dayan Gelley.

   The Chief Rabbi does not (and did not) have a smicha for dayanus.

9. Today כ”א מרחשון is the 21st יארצייט of Chief Rabbi Lord Immanuel Jakobovits זצקללה”ה. It is eerie that the 2 Chief Rabbis would have their יארצייט literally 2 days running:- I hope 1 of our remaining גדולים could share some insight on this uncanny anomaly?

10. @Derekh_Eretz_Kadmah
    What a misnomer. “Chutzpan” or “Chutzpadik piece of trash” is more appropriate. The Chief Rabbi had semicha, it would behoove you to refer to him with the appropriate title.

11. The deceased was an acclaimed orator and a popular personality in the secular world, but he had VERY questionable hashkofos and his book drew criticism from prominent Rabbonim in the UK who published their opposition to the views he expressed.
    He was a far cry from the earlier Chief Rabbi Lord Emmanuel Jakobowitz who was a Yerei Shomaim and truly represented Orthodox Judaism.

12. in 200 years only one of the two will still be read; think about it.

    no one thought of Ibn Ezra or Yosef Albo as a Talmudist or halakhic posek. their seforim are still studied. Ibn Ezra believed in astrology, something that today is karov le’minus.\

    History not YWN will assign their long-lasting significance.

13. Humanish: Reb Dovid was the poseik for all of klal yisrael. Rabbi Sacks was not recognized as a poseik for klal yisroel.

14. BDE, whilst Rabbi Sacks z”l was a polished orator whose speeches reached out to both Jews and non-Jews the world over, please not let us get carried away by comparing him with HaRav HaGaon R. Dovid Feinstein zatzal, a major Talmid Chochom and one of acknowledged Poskei HaDor.

15. As a brit:

    the late Rabbi Jacobovitz and his predecessors – inclufing R’ y abramsky zatza”l served as both chief rabbi and ab”d

    Rabbi Sacks as noted was neither an ordained Rav nor a dayan, as such with his ascent the positions were split And R’ Chanoch Ehrentrau was appointed ab”d.

    Nonehteless he was a mensch ….

    Derech Eretz Kadmah you ahev a point, although one needs to know exactly what he held.

16. @Derekh_Eretz_Kadmah and anyone who questions Rav Sacks

    Rav Sacks’s comments regarding adam and the story of Gan eiden being a moshol was not introduced by him. There are MANY other sources that say similar ideas that what happened at creation were not literal- and even what is meant to be literal has many deep ideas-way beyond basic literal understanding. The story of creation and meanings behind it are some of the deepest most intricate parts of Torah. This is part of what “Pardes” is- whereby of the 4 greatest rabbis who delved into its understanding of god- 1 died, 1 became a Kofer, 1 went crazy-and one rabbi Akiva came out the other side unharmed.

    For anyone today to claim that they are the only true source of knowledge in torah today-and they know for sure what maase merkava really and thats why they are THE authority was should really make you pause and think if you are not just following a cult.

    Rav Sacks has brought thousands of people towards hashem and torah and has been teaching about love and acceptance for decades. Rabbi sacks NEVER ONCE stated something from the torah is not true. He only quoted other torah greats in the past in saying that what is meant by the creating story has a lot of room for interpretation.

    Further food for thought- can you look back to any other of the great tzaddikim of our past who openly declared a talmud chacham of this calibur to be a Kofer? No matter how much the Vilna Gaon disagreed with Chasidut- and cheirims were definitely given out- NONE called the other an outright Kofer.

    Look into your source. Look how he degrades other torah scholars that do not practice like him. Does this teacher really sound like how a tzaddik talks and interacts? Is this “dracheha darchei noam?” is this the roll model you see in torah?

    A tzaddik is someone who lives their live doing “tzeddek” ie righteousness. In this regard Rav Sacks was par excellence for life and is well deserving of the title “Tzaddik” whether he had smicha or not.

    Baruch Dayin Haemet to a true Tzaddik HaRav Ya’akov Zvi ben David Arieh z’’TL

17. D E k perhaps we can have link?

18. The hard truth:

    I am somewhat confused.

    Are you aware of the specific things that derech Eretz Kadma was referring to?

    Without that it is a little difficult to reach any conclusion.

    Have you ever studied the book “The dignity of difference”? Are you aware about what Maran Harav Elyashiv may have said about it?

19. Direct source for my previous statement concerning the late Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks:
    Jonathan Sacks and Richard Dawkins at BBC RE:Think festival 12 September 2012

    My transcription of ~17:55 – ~19:27 below.

    NOTE: Emphasis indicated by bold-text is mine. Use of italics is to indicate emphasis on the part of the speaker. Question-marks within brackets indicate that was what said was not clearly audible to me, so I offered my best guess.

    ______BEGIN TRANSCRIPTION______

    Dawkins: Well, what about Adam and Eve? I mean, what do you think about that? Is that symbolic or–?

    Sacks: Well, Adam and Eve is clearly a parable because there was no first human and, there may have been a mitochondrial Eve, but I mean, that was somewhere else, in another country [,?] besides [?], the wench is dead. [In response to something said by Dawkins that I could not make-out:] Exactly so. So, no, I mean Adam and Eve are, really, if you trace it back 6,000 years ago, obviously the Bible is telling us the story about the first dawn of civilization that is [inaudibale; “an art”? “a part”?] of 25,000 years–

    DAWKINS: So, Adam and Eve is symbolic,

    SACKS: Yes,

    DAWKINS: and the Parting of the Red Sea. But how do you decide which bits are symbolic and which are not?

    SACKS: Very simple. The rabbis of the tenth century laid down the following principle: If a Biblical narrative is incompatible with established scientific fact, it is not to be read literally. And that was eight centuries before the word ‘science’ was coined, so they weren’t just doing to please Richard Dawkins, they were doing it for their own intellectual integrity.

    MODERATOR: But many people do believe it literally and its [inaudible; “increasingly controversial”?] —

    SACKS: Exactly so. But in Judaism, we take a strong stand on this, and we have now for 2,000 years. We say, reading the Bible literally is heresy. Why so? Because we believe– and it’s a fundamental of rabbinic Judaism– that there’s an oral tradition, alongside the written tradition, and simply to read the words as they are written is heretical.

    _____END TRANSCRIPTION______

20. [MODERATOR: Please remove the earlier version of this I just submitted and REPLACE with the following edited one. Sorry for bother.]

    Direct source for my previous statement concerning the late Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks:
    Jonathan Sacks and Richard Dawkins at BBC RE:Think festival 12 September 2012

    My transcription of ~17:55 – ~19:27 below.

    NOTE: Emphasis indicated by bold-text is mine. Use of italics is to indicate emphasis on the part of the speaker. Question-marks within brackets indicate that what was said was not clearly audible to me, so I offered my best guess.

    ______BEGIN TRANSCRIPTION______

    Dawkins: Well, what about Adam and Eve? I mean, what do you think about that? Is that symbolic or–?

    Sacks: Well, Adam and Eve is clearly a parable because there was no first human and, there may have been a mitochondrial Eve, but I mean, that was somewhere else, in another country [,?] besides [?], the wench is dead. [In response to something said by Dawkins that I could not make-out:] Exactly so. So, no, I mean Adam and Eve are, really, if you trace it back 6,000 years ago, obviously the Bible is telling us the story about the first dawn of civilization that is [inaudibale; “an art”? “a part”?] of 25,000 years—

    DAWKINS: So, Adam and Eve is symbolic,

    SACKS: Yes,

    DAWKINS: and the Parting of the Red Sea. But how do you decide which bits are symbolic and which are not?

    SACKS: Very simple. The rabbis of the tenth century laid down the following principle: If a Biblical narrative is incompatible with established scientific fact, it is not to be read literally. And that was eight centuries before the word ‘science’ was coined, so they weren’t just doing it to please Richard Dawkins, they were doing it for their own intellectual integrity.

    MODERATOR: But many people do believe it literally, and its [inaudible; “increasingly controversial”?] —

    SACKS: Exactly so. But in Judaism, we take a strong stand on this, and we have now for 2,000 years. We say, reading the Bible literally is heresy. Why so? Because we believe– and it’s a fundamental of rabbinic Judaism– that there’s an oral tradition, alongside the written tradition, and simply to read the words as they are written is heretical.

    _____END TRANSCRIPTION______

21. @”thehardtruth”:
    I have now submitted a comment containing a link to the discussion between the late Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks and Richard Dawkins that was the original source for the statements that I cited in my initial comment. I also included a transcript I took of the part of the interview in which the specific statements that I cited were made.

    I would challenge you and anyone else who would defend the statements-in-question to cite a single, recognized authority within the Haredi world in support of your position; i.e., someone who is on-record as stating that such views are kosher, i.e., other than kefirah/apikorsus.

    “For anyone today to claim that they are the only true source of knowledge in torah today-and they know for sure what maase merkava and thats why they are THE authority…”

    Who here has made any such claims? I certainly never have, and I would be quite surprised (to put mildly) if Rabbi Reuven ever has either. My familiarity with Rabbi Yaron Reuven is extremely limited but from what I have heard from him, I believe that your characterizations are at best wild exaggerations. To denounce those who have made public statements that one holds constitute kefirah or apikorsus is not at all the same as degrading Torah scholars merely for having different views or approaches. I highly doubt that Rabbi Reuven does the latter, as you allege he does.

    From the little I know of Rabbi Reuven, I have no reason not to consider him at least worthy of the same assumption of a chezkas kashrus that any shomer Torah u’mitzvos is entitled-to. As someone who would appear to also be a marbitz Torah who is m’karev and m’zakeh many people, Rabbi Reuven may very well be worthy of some level of additional respect. I have never suggested that I would presume to know whether the man is a tzadik or even how much of a talmid chacham he is. Your statements in that vein are therefore complete straw men and red-herrings.

    At any rate, Rabbi Reuven is ultimately irrelevant here as I am not relying upon him for anything.

    “can you look back to any other of the great tzadikim of our past who openly declared a talmud chacham of this calibur to be a Kofer?”

    There were plenty of great tzadikim and gedolim who openly declared individuals of far greater caliber to be kofrim, apikorsim and more. This is no secret.