Brilliant piece. Just one kushya, if I may - what's the functional difference between this being forbidden, and that being 'ossur'? And why does only the latter merit sneer quotes?
Excellent question. You will have to address Mr. Shaviv (honestly surprised it's not "Dr.", but who knows, these days they let just any Joe Shmoe become the head of Ramaz. Besides, his genius and wit speaks for itself, without need for resort to doctorates.)
"But a young Haredi Rav recently confided to me that he had never heard of the Books of the Maccabees “until recently” and that for his shiur he had to look up the history of Hanukkah in … “The Little Midrash Says”.
The guy was probably trolling him. I can't stop laughing at the idea of a charedi rav 'confiding' in Paul Shaviv that he's not familiar with the book of Maccabees. !אוי מה היה לנו
FWIW - the “Little Midrash” background. A rabbi (no further details) was giving an online Gemara shiur on the last day of hannukah, on the well-known passage in Shabbat, “Mai hannukah?”. I was online. Leave aside all other issues with his shiur, but when he came to the phrase ‘k’neged Parei haChag’ - one of the explanations acc to Bet Shammai of why they preferred starting with 8 candles and decreasing - he stated “I have never understood why this is at all relevant”. I pointed out the passage in 2 Maccabees which links the first celebration of hannukah to a belated celebration of Sukket. It was complete news to him. He went on to say that the existence of the books of the Maccabees had been unknown to him until “recently”. I asked him what his source of knowledge for the history of Channukah was then, and he replied (giggling) “The Little Midrash Says”. I have no idea whether or not there is anything about the Chag in that book or not, and I don’t intend checking. We then had a brief discussion about the history of Channukah, sources, the oil vs the military victory etc. his final comment?”wow! That’s so interesting. Why don’t they teach us any of that in the yeshivos?” (My response:”I’d rather not answer that.”)
There is only one other thread I want to respond to. It is incontrovertible, IMHO, that the labor Zionist movement established the State of Israel and its institutions. Any reading of any history book will show that. The right-wing had, perhaps, a part in making life untenable for the British in 1945-47/8 - but, really, little else. The Haredim had no part in the establishment of the State; RZ as a whole had a peripheral role. After 67, and more so after 73 - a different story.
Most history books don't write much about how the leftwing seized control of all of the main institutions and almost all facets of communal life during the early years of the British Mandates and later, and what they did to their opposition.
Us yeshivishe guys only learn Mishnah Berurah. The Oruch Hashulchan is far too meikel in everything. And he often basis his pesak on what people do, not vos shteit in seforim.
I can't speak for US yeshivish guys (having left the US almost thirty years ago, and not being very "yeshivish". according to your definition, then or later), but from what I see in תשובות and ספרי פסק the ערוך השלחן is not ignored at all
"Yes, we have stadiums full of committed Jews celebrating Daf Yomi, although the nature and quality of their learning is never assessed."
That is an objective fact. Even you can't deny that. And it can of course be extended to the yeshivah and kollel world too. (Yes, I know, some kollelim and yeshivos do have regular testing - kol hakovod, I'm talking about the rest).
A connected issue is that gedolim on their deathbeds or seriously ill, also issue pesokim and guidance to their flocks, relying on Dovid(TM)'s views that they are learned in torah more than the rest of us, and that is that. Period. There is a reason why secular judges (l'havdil) have compulsory retirement ages, even though in other fields that is now illegal.
PS Nothing above should be taken as an endorsement of Mr Shaviv and his wierd views.
Do you accept then that gedolim can make mistakes, when they are ill?
Because I guarantee you Rav Elyashiv was being asked shailos even on when terminally ill.
And if you accept that gedolim can make mistakes when they are ill, why can you not accept that may suffer age related dulling of their mental abilities?
Do you accept that there are well known stiros in Mishnah Berurah (including biur halolchoh and sharei tziyon)? There have been kuntressim published listing them out? How could that be if gedolim never make mistakes?
I'll repeat again (maybe others can help me explain this): Of course they can make mistakes, especially on their death beds if they are disoriented. Usually they wouldn't say something if they know they aren't in their right mind, but if they can't control that, they can and probably will make mistakes. That being said, usually, in normal circumstances, they weigh their every word and think before they talk (someone who understands 'levels' of perfection can appreciate this). Many gedolim are nowhere near Reb Elyashiv and talk more freely and make plenty of mistakes.
About age, the gemara end of Kiddushin famously says שכל אומנות שבעולם אין עומדת לו אלא בימי ילדותו אבל בימי זקנותו הרי הוא מוטל ברעב אבל תורה אינה כן עומדת לו לאדם בעת ילדותו ונותנת לו אחרית ותקוה בעת זקנותו בעת ילדותו מהו אומר וקוי ה' יחליפו כח יעלו אבר כנשרים בזקנותו מהו אומר עוד ינובון בשיבה דשנים ורעננים יהיו
and we see in our experience this being true.
The mishna brura, we all know he spent 25 years of his life, what may seem like a stira is usually a carefully weighed opinion. See Rambam in Moreh about different types of stiras...
I am still looking for the source, but I was told by a few Rabbanim that stiros in the MB are because there was a level of assistance he had, and Rav David Feinstien maintained that The MB did not intend to Pasken but to clarify everything in shulchan aruch based on the poskim and therefore didn't try to correct these minor differences.
There have been kuntrassim published listing them all out. Sometimes you can reconcile like you suggest and sometimes there are downright contradictions, like whether to eat afikoman again if one forgets to lean. Or between rescuing a meis and seforim, which one has a kedimah.
"At 76... Douglas suffered a debilitating stroke in the right hemisphere of his brain. It paralyzed his left leg and forced him to use a wheelchair. Douglas was severely disabled but insisted on continuing to participate in Supreme Court affairs despite his obvious incapacity. Seven of his fellow justices (with Byron White disagreeing) voted to postpone until the next term any argued case in which Douglas's vote might make a difference.[67
...
Douglas maintained that he could assume judicial senior status on the Court and attempted to continue serving in that capacity, according to authors Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong. He refused to accept his retirement and tried to participate in the Court's cases well into 1976, after John Paul Stevens had taken his former seat.[69] Douglas reacted with outrage when, returning to his old chambers, he discovered that his clerks had been reassigned to Stevens, and when he tried to file opinions in cases whose arguments he had heard before his retirement, Chief Justice Warren Burger ordered all justices, clerks, and other staff members to refuse help to Douglas in those efforts. When Douglas tried in March 1976 to hear arguments in a capital-punishment case, Gregg v. Georgia, the nine sitting justices signed a formal letter informing him that his retirement had ended his official duties on the Court. It was only then that Douglas withdrew from Supreme Court business.[70]"
"At the very least we can thank him for making the obvious connection between the Reform movement and what he calls “classic M.O.”, something that many of our opponents vigorously deny."
Not sure what you get from that. R Hirsch is part of that group too. And he lumps charedim with Sabatteanism. His point is that one side tends to be more emotional-mystical while the other is more 'open-minded.' Neither is necessarily better than the other. You could point to similar differences between Polish chassidus versus the Hungarian variety.
My point was that he lumps *himself* (“classic M.O.”) together with the Reform movement. I would never nonchalantly lump myself together with Sabbateans, despite the fact that I could conceive of a way of slicing things such that I would be on their side.
Polish Chassidus was much more open. They were supportive of Agudas Yisrael, Beis Yakov, and tended to be somewhat more tolerant of zionism. Hungarian chassidim were much more militant. Satmar, munkatch, etc. Eidah charedis types. (That's obviously oversimplifying, but so is a any such grouping.)
Do you have any specific arguments? If not its just both sides layghing at each other. You guys write silliness as well. Should it be a contest of how many silly articles the other side digs up?
We have lots of posts with specific arguments. Most of them, in fact. But we try to be entertaining at the same time as being educational. If you weren't entertained by this, what can I say?- we will try harder next time!
One thing he got right, though - he's definitely not Happy. Not even close.
Brilliant piece. Just one kushya, if I may - what's the functional difference between this being forbidden, and that being 'ossur'? And why does only the latter merit sneer quotes?
Excellent question. You will have to address Mr. Shaviv (honestly surprised it's not "Dr.", but who knows, these days they let just any Joe Shmoe become the head of Ramaz. Besides, his genius and wit speaks for itself, without need for resort to doctorates.)
"But a young Haredi Rav recently confided to me that he had never heard of the Books of the Maccabees “until recently” and that for his shiur he had to look up the history of Hanukkah in … “The Little Midrash Says”.
The guy was probably trolling him. I can't stop laughing at the idea of a charedi rav 'confiding' in Paul Shaviv that he's not familiar with the book of Maccabees. !אוי מה היה לנו
It's doubly funny because there is no Little Medrash says on Chanuka
Is this true?
Ok, I read the comments. Did you know a woman wrote the midrash says?
That's cool, never knew that.
It's probably discussed in one of the volumes. Maybe related to the menorah etc.
Mr Shaviv did provide some sort of clarification;
Paul Shaviv 5 days ago
FWIW - the “Little Midrash” background. A rabbi (no further details) was giving an online Gemara shiur on the last day of hannukah, on the well-known passage in Shabbat, “Mai hannukah?”. I was online. Leave aside all other issues with his shiur, but when he came to the phrase ‘k’neged Parei haChag’ - one of the explanations acc to Bet Shammai of why they preferred starting with 8 candles and decreasing - he stated “I have never understood why this is at all relevant”. I pointed out the passage in 2 Maccabees which links the first celebration of hannukah to a belated celebration of Sukket. It was complete news to him. He went on to say that the existence of the books of the Maccabees had been unknown to him until “recently”. I asked him what his source of knowledge for the history of Channukah was then, and he replied (giggling) “The Little Midrash Says”. I have no idea whether or not there is anything about the Chag in that book or not, and I don’t intend checking. We then had a brief discussion about the history of Channukah, sources, the oil vs the military victory etc. his final comment?”wow! That’s so interesting. Why don’t they teach us any of that in the yeshivos?” (My response:”I’d rather not answer that.”)
There is only one other thread I want to respond to. It is incontrovertible, IMHO, that the labor Zionist movement established the State of Israel and its institutions. Any reading of any history book will show that. The right-wing had, perhaps, a part in making life untenable for the British in 1945-47/8 - but, really, little else. The Haredim had no part in the establishment of the State; RZ as a whole had a peripheral role. After 67, and more so after 73 - a different story.
There is an wonderful חרדי edition of ספר מכבים א
http://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=37738&hilit=%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%90%D7%9C+%D7%91%D7%9F+%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%99&sid=aa268ab5a23186b90d34e7f92ce165c7#p420879
History is written by the victors.
Most history books don't write much about how the leftwing seized control of all of the main institutions and almost all facets of communal life during the early years of the British Mandates and later, and what they did to their opposition.
I guess the GRA sending people didn't count
The connection with sukkas in 2 Macabees is a tirutz to the beis yosef's kashyoh you will never hear......
It's brought in the Aruch Hashulchan, why would you never hear it? I heard it many times.
Us yeshivishe guys only learn Mishnah Berurah. The Oruch Hashulchan is far too meikel in everything. And he often basis his pesak on what people do, not vos shteit in seforim.
I can't speak for US yeshivish guys (having left the US almost thirty years ago, and not being very "yeshivish". according to your definition, then or later), but from what I see in תשובות and ספרי פסק the ערוך השלחן is not ignored at all
I wouldn't be suprpised though if there are Chareidi Rabbis that never heard of it.
Of course. I think barely any of them have heard of it. My point was just that they wouldn't be ashamed to say so. It's one of the seforim chitzonim. Why *should* they know it exists? I only know about myself from YUtorah shiurim https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/938904/rabbi-mark-glass/the-book-of-maccabees-part-1-the-history-of-the-story/ and the like........
My grandfather literally wrote a book on part of the Maccabees: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23506827
I like to think he gets nachas from me in shamayim.
You should know that Ramaz is the far far left of MO high schools btw.
That just means they are early adopters and a leading indicator of the future of MoDox.
"Yes, we have stadiums full of committed Jews celebrating Daf Yomi, although the nature and quality of their learning is never assessed."
That is an objective fact. Even you can't deny that. And it can of course be extended to the yeshivah and kollel world too. (Yes, I know, some kollelim and yeshivos do have regular testing - kol hakovod, I'm talking about the rest).
A connected issue is that gedolim on their deathbeds or seriously ill, also issue pesokim and guidance to their flocks, relying on Dovid(TM)'s views that they are learned in torah more than the rest of us, and that is that. Period. There is a reason why secular judges (l'havdil) have compulsory retirement ages, even though in other fields that is now illegal.
PS Nothing above should be taken as an endorsement of Mr Shaviv and his wierd views.
Don't misrepresent my views please.
Do you accept then that gedolim can make mistakes, when they are ill?
Because I guarantee you Rav Elyashiv was being asked shailos even on when terminally ill.
And if you accept that gedolim can make mistakes when they are ill, why can you not accept that may suffer age related dulling of their mental abilities?
Do you accept that there are well known stiros in Mishnah Berurah (including biur halolchoh and sharei tziyon)? There have been kuntressim published listing them out? How could that be if gedolim never make mistakes?
I'll repeat again (maybe others can help me explain this): Of course they can make mistakes, especially on their death beds if they are disoriented. Usually they wouldn't say something if they know they aren't in their right mind, but if they can't control that, they can and probably will make mistakes. That being said, usually, in normal circumstances, they weigh their every word and think before they talk (someone who understands 'levels' of perfection can appreciate this). Many gedolim are nowhere near Reb Elyashiv and talk more freely and make plenty of mistakes.
About age, the gemara end of Kiddushin famously says שכל אומנות שבעולם אין עומדת לו אלא בימי ילדותו אבל בימי זקנותו הרי הוא מוטל ברעב אבל תורה אינה כן עומדת לו לאדם בעת ילדותו ונותנת לו אחרית ותקוה בעת זקנותו בעת ילדותו מהו אומר וקוי ה' יחליפו כח יעלו אבר כנשרים בזקנותו מהו אומר עוד ינובון בשיבה דשנים ורעננים יהיו
and we see in our experience this being true.
The mishna brura, we all know he spent 25 years of his life, what may seem like a stira is usually a carefully weighed opinion. See Rambam in Moreh about different types of stiras...
I am still looking for the source, but I was told by a few Rabbanim that stiros in the MB are because there was a level of assistance he had, and Rav David Feinstien maintained that The MB did not intend to Pasken but to clarify everything in shulchan aruch based on the poskim and therefore didn't try to correct these minor differences.
"....and we see in our experience this being true...."
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Like everything else. You tend to suffer from confirmation bias.
The old-age/care homes in EY are full of talmidei chachomim who are incapacitated/with dementia etc. That's just the way it is.
There have been kuntrassim published listing them all out. Sometimes you can reconcile like you suggest and sometimes there are downright contradictions, like whether to eat afikoman again if one forgets to lean. Or between rescuing a meis and seforim, which one has a kedimah.
This gadolatary is getting a bit much.
if anyone else can check out this discussion and see if there's any other words I can possibly use to get the point across: https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/subverting-yeshaya/comment/21240286
"There is a reason why secular judges (l'havdil) have compulsory retirement ages, even though in other fields that is now illegal."
US Justices can and often do serve until death. And at least one had completely lost his marbles by the time he retired.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_O._Douglas#Retirement
"At 76... Douglas suffered a debilitating stroke in the right hemisphere of his brain. It paralyzed his left leg and forced him to use a wheelchair. Douglas was severely disabled but insisted on continuing to participate in Supreme Court affairs despite his obvious incapacity. Seven of his fellow justices (with Byron White disagreeing) voted to postpone until the next term any argued case in which Douglas's vote might make a difference.[67
...
Douglas maintained that he could assume judicial senior status on the Court and attempted to continue serving in that capacity, according to authors Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong. He refused to accept his retirement and tried to participate in the Court's cases well into 1976, after John Paul Stevens had taken his former seat.[69] Douglas reacted with outrage when, returning to his old chambers, he discovered that his clerks had been reassigned to Stevens, and when he tried to file opinions in cases whose arguments he had heard before his retirement, Chief Justice Warren Burger ordered all justices, clerks, and other staff members to refuse help to Douglas in those efforts. When Douglas tried in March 1976 to hear arguments in a capital-punishment case, Gregg v. Georgia, the nine sitting justices signed a formal letter informing him that his retirement had ended his official duties on the Court. It was only then that Douglas withdrew from Supreme Court business.[70]"
There's always one.......
"At the very least we can thank him for making the obvious connection between the Reform movement and what he calls “classic M.O.”, something that many of our opponents vigorously deny."
Not sure what you get from that. R Hirsch is part of that group too. And he lumps charedim with Sabatteanism. His point is that one side tends to be more emotional-mystical while the other is more 'open-minded.' Neither is necessarily better than the other. You could point to similar differences between Polish chassidus versus the Hungarian variety.
My point was that he lumps *himself* (“classic M.O.”) together with the Reform movement. I would never nonchalantly lump myself together with Sabbateans, despite the fact that I could conceive of a way of slicing things such that I would be on their side.
Shaul,
'You could point to similar differences between Polish chassidus versus the Hungarian variety."
can you give some examples, plz?
Thx
Polish Chassidus was much more open. They were supportive of Agudas Yisrael, Beis Yakov, and tended to be somewhat more tolerant of zionism. Hungarian chassidim were much more militant. Satmar, munkatch, etc. Eidah charedis types. (That's obviously oversimplifying, but so is a any such grouping.)
got it, thx.
Do you have any specific arguments? If not its just both sides layghing at each other. You guys write silliness as well. Should it be a contest of how many silly articles the other side digs up?
We have lots of posts with specific arguments. Most of them, in fact. But we try to be entertaining at the same time as being educational. If you weren't entertained by this, what can I say?- we will try harder next time!
I try to write serious arguments, check out my latest post
No they don't. Hence the general leitzonus. Anybody who has the serious counterarguments will not be found on blogs.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/was-the-bais-hamikdash-destroyed
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/response-to-rabbi-chareidis-attack
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/qanon-natan
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-art-of-the-rebuttal-part-3
etc etc etc.
Why am I bothering to respond to an idiotic reflexive statement from an idiot?
There's no good answer to that question.
That explains your presence then.