1) I think that historically this issur of hischabrus was generally organizational and for religious purposes, while this rally was intentionally neither and hence does not fall into those guidelines.
2) The main issue was the lack of communication, where the agudah first promoted going and then backtracked.
3) this rally fiasco did not happen in a vacuum. This is the culmination of many events inside the moetzes, which show a fractured moetzes, essentially since the passing of the Novominsker zatzal, who kept everyone together. There are some RY on the moetzes who have adopted what is essentially Etz's ideology towards the Medinah, which has not historically been the Agudah's. This has resulted in that basically every Eretz Yisroel related event, there is disunity - think the WZO fiasco. This has frustrated many baalei habatim, not because they don't respect daas torah, but they realize -correctly - that certain elements of the Moetzes have taken a sharp rightward turn, going against the practical viewpoint towards the Medinah that the Agudah has traditionally held. The rejection of the rally was felt not to be the classic issue of hischabrus but rather a rejection of Zionism in the Agudah that was hitherto unheard of. This is the true issue and the main reason why the moetzes can only agree on that people should not give bochrim to drink on purim.
1. In general the sensitivity was specifically NOT just about religious purposes. See the various communications and the 1956 kol korei.
The rally was a demonstration of Jews as Jews about Jewish issues. It's definitely open to interpretation. You're entitled to your opinion, others are entitled to theirs.
2. Yes, that was a fiasco. I acknowledged as much in the essay.
In fairness, R. Feldman did have an explanation for the last minute retraction, like it or lump it.
3. I don't know where you're getting your information from about historical Moetzes views on the Medina. In R' Elya's day it certainly wasn't as you say. R' Aharon Shechter was also far to the right. Going back to R' Reuvein he was fairly radical in theory, see Baiyos HaZman. And R' Aharon Kotler was even more to the right than many EY gedolim, broke with them over joining coalitions. So maybe the point is just that differences of opinion is not a new phenomenon.
3b. Most incomprehensible about your statement: The WZO fiasco certainly does not demonstrate a shift to the RIGHT by the Moetzes. As everybody knows, Aguda policy has always been staunchly and emphatically AGAINST joining WZO. So if some Moetzes members (as far as I know it's exactly one member) decided that now is a good time to for some reason break precedent, that constitutes a shift to the LEFT, no?
Funny hischabrus l'rosho never seems to apply to taking money. Yeshivos will take money from any Jew or give kovod to any gvir who even hints at giving money, whatever their level of observance. Look at Israel, for one example of many, very few mosdos won't take money from the state.
You know as well as I do had the hostages been a bunch of chareidim, or Hamas had invaded half a dozen chareidi yeshivos all sorts of reasons would be found such that hischabrus would not be an issue.
Hmm, that's why Gedolim have outlawed participation in WZO for a century, despite ba'alei batim insisting that it was necessary in order to get millions for Yeshivos...
Do you have no real-life friends to display your ignorance to that you must come online to share it with us?
I know as a fact yeshivos will happily take from individuals whatever their state of observance, reform, conservative, whatever........and if you are correct, it's a little odd that they will not take from the WZO but happily take from the state itself.....
You might want to get into the habit of educating yourself before shooting off your mouth. This an old, well-trod sugya. You can start by working your way through bayos haZman.
Just to get you started - there's no isur hischabrus to take money from someone (hey, them are the perks). Why should there be? There's also no hischabrus in having someone as a guest at at OUR event. (You can invite your frei neighbor for Shabbat too).
Within certain parameters, there CAN be a problem to sit with them on a body in which we are taful or even co-equal. Hence the problem with WZO, despite the enticement of the money.
Sitting in Knesset is a separate issue with strong chilukei dei'os. But those who are matir do so because of conceptual differences between the Knesset and WZO.
Homework: what are those conceptual differences, and would they in any way apply to our discussion? Good luck.
A big difference between almost all the cases you brought down, and the rally, is that the rally was a one time event. Whereas the others were talking about joining the apikorsim as an official, long term policy. So you can't really compare RSRH, R' Reuven Grozovsky, etc. to this case.
I think you offered a possible distinction. Which may or may not hold water as a chiluk hamechalek. That's where havana and shikul hada'as comes in. (Personally I don't hear it, but who cares.)
"In 1973, Eretz Yisroel was actively being shellacked, with a real imminent threat of a full-fledged holocaust."
That's you again, making your own chilukim to support a particular agenda. I believe what happened shmini atzeres was pretty much a fill-fledged holocaust for those effected.
You write a long screed about opining hither and dither without knowing the real reasons, and then you bring in hischabrus which was not presented as a reason by anybody!
For obvious reasons, it as nothing to do with standing side by side with people at a rally, and in any event does not have a strong weighting against pikuach nefesh and all that goes with it on the other side.
Well said!!
tzbeen awhile rt. i liked every single line! well said, chazak ve'ematz!
1) I think that historically this issur of hischabrus was generally organizational and for religious purposes, while this rally was intentionally neither and hence does not fall into those guidelines.
2) The main issue was the lack of communication, where the agudah first promoted going and then backtracked.
3) this rally fiasco did not happen in a vacuum. This is the culmination of many events inside the moetzes, which show a fractured moetzes, essentially since the passing of the Novominsker zatzal, who kept everyone together. There are some RY on the moetzes who have adopted what is essentially Etz's ideology towards the Medinah, which has not historically been the Agudah's. This has resulted in that basically every Eretz Yisroel related event, there is disunity - think the WZO fiasco. This has frustrated many baalei habatim, not because they don't respect daas torah, but they realize -correctly - that certain elements of the Moetzes have taken a sharp rightward turn, going against the practical viewpoint towards the Medinah that the Agudah has traditionally held. The rejection of the rally was felt not to be the classic issue of hischabrus but rather a rejection of Zionism in the Agudah that was hitherto unheard of. This is the true issue and the main reason why the moetzes can only agree on that people should not give bochrim to drink on purim.
1. In general the sensitivity was specifically NOT just about religious purposes. See the various communications and the 1956 kol korei.
The rally was a demonstration of Jews as Jews about Jewish issues. It's definitely open to interpretation. You're entitled to your opinion, others are entitled to theirs.
2. Yes, that was a fiasco. I acknowledged as much in the essay.
In fairness, R. Feldman did have an explanation for the last minute retraction, like it or lump it.
3. I don't know where you're getting your information from about historical Moetzes views on the Medina. In R' Elya's day it certainly wasn't as you say. R' Aharon Shechter was also far to the right. Going back to R' Reuvein he was fairly radical in theory, see Baiyos HaZman. And R' Aharon Kotler was even more to the right than many EY gedolim, broke with them over joining coalitions. So maybe the point is just that differences of opinion is not a new phenomenon.
3b. Most incomprehensible about your statement: The WZO fiasco certainly does not demonstrate a shift to the RIGHT by the Moetzes. As everybody knows, Aguda policy has always been staunchly and emphatically AGAINST joining WZO. So if some Moetzes members (as far as I know it's exactly one member) decided that now is a good time to for some reason break precedent, that constitutes a shift to the LEFT, no?
Noviminsker Rebbe was pro till he backed down, and so was Rav Shmuel. Rav Elya Brudny is still pro. R' Dovid Feinstein abstained, as expected.
Funny hischabrus l'rosho never seems to apply to taking money. Yeshivos will take money from any Jew or give kovod to any gvir who even hints at giving money, whatever their level of observance. Look at Israel, for one example of many, very few mosdos won't take money from the state.
You know as well as I do had the hostages been a bunch of chareidim, or Hamas had invaded half a dozen chareidi yeshivos all sorts of reasons would be found such that hischabrus would not be an issue.
Hmm, that's why Gedolim have outlawed participation in WZO for a century, despite ba'alei batim insisting that it was necessary in order to get millions for Yeshivos...
Do you have no real-life friends to display your ignorance to that you must come online to share it with us?
I know as a fact yeshivos will happily take from individuals whatever their state of observance, reform, conservative, whatever........and if you are correct, it's a little odd that they will not take from the WZO but happily take from the state itself.....
You might want to get into the habit of educating yourself before shooting off your mouth. This an old, well-trod sugya. You can start by working your way through bayos haZman.
Just to get you started - there's no isur hischabrus to take money from someone (hey, them are the perks). Why should there be? There's also no hischabrus in having someone as a guest at at OUR event. (You can invite your frei neighbor for Shabbat too).
Within certain parameters, there CAN be a problem to sit with them on a body in which we are taful or even co-equal. Hence the problem with WZO, despite the enticement of the money.
Sitting in Knesset is a separate issue with strong chilukei dei'os. But those who are matir do so because of conceptual differences between the Knesset and WZO.
Homework: what are those conceptual differences, and would they in any way apply to our discussion? Good luck.
But of course, I don't expect 'hischabrus' to be defined in such a way as to cost money......pure coincidence of course.......
A big difference between almost all the cases you brought down, and the rally, is that the rally was a one time event. Whereas the others were talking about joining the apikorsim as an official, long term policy. So you can't really compare RSRH, R' Reuven Grozovsky, etc. to this case.
Maybe, maybe not. You're definitely entitled to your opinion and hagdaros. I'm sure those who look to you as their moreh derech attended the rally.
Nope, I didn't offer my opinion on the matter. Just explaining what you can and can't compare.
I think you offered a possible distinction. Which may or may not hold water as a chiluk hamechalek. That's where havana and shikul hada'as comes in. (Personally I don't hear it, but who cares.)
"In 1973, Eretz Yisroel was actively being shellacked, with a real imminent threat of a full-fledged holocaust."
That's you again, making your own chilukim to support a particular agenda. I believe what happened shmini atzeres was pretty much a fill-fledged holocaust for those effected.
This was fascinating; I hadn't known that bit of history. Thank you!
You believe that תינוקות שנשבו are רשעים?
As far as the איסור התחברות goes, there should be no difference between תינוקות שנשבו and others.
Additionally, even if the majority are תינוקות שנשבו, there are still many that are not. Including many of the organizers of these kinds of events.
Which organizers?
Btw this is an איסור which is נפסק להלכה? If so i wonder how the Rabanim who supported it dealt with the issue.
I believe that was addressed in the essay
You write a long screed about opining hither and dither without knowing the real reasons, and then you bring in hischabrus which was not presented as a reason by anybody!
For obvious reasons, it as nothing to do with standing side by side with people at a rally, and in any event does not have a strong weighting against pikuach nefesh and all that goes with it on the other side.
That's literally the reason the Lakewood letter presented, no?