Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 156

Saturday, August 7 1999

• Re: MUNKACS: Wishful thinking
• Fwd: Rav Aron Soloveichik
• Re: Avodah V3 #155
• Eim HaBanim Semeichah

"Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" wrote:

> . It is too bad. Since I believe the Munkatcher's hashkofos were incorrect,
> it would be nice to be able to retain the belief that he would have been
> chozer bo, as sliim as that possibilitty may be.
>
>
> This argument, however, I tend to doubt. It is prevalent in many circles
> to dismiss a person's writings at some stage based on his state of mind.
> I believe that the Minchas Elazar's son-in-law, who became somewhat more
> "Zionistic" and had a shtiebel in Petach Tikva is also dismissed in a
> similar fashion.
>
> In any event, I do not thiink the EhBS claims that his Rebbe would have
> become a Zionist! Rather that the extreme zealotry manifest in remarks
> like that "KMZA" one would have been relinquished by him.
>

The above musings and conjecture ignore the point that the precise hashkofa is
not necessarily related to the published writings or speeches. The issue of
whether a gadol would have changed his hashkofa is confounded by the issue of
clearly understanding his hashkofa in the first place.

One of my rebbeim told me not to learn certain musar seform because of their
harshness. He said that hashkofa was expressed differently in Europe because
life was so hard that one had to speak harshly (emphasize the negative) to be
heard In America that same speech would be understood totally differently and
thus the gadol would have (or should have) expressed himself differently to
create the same understanding in the listener (emphasize the positive). I have
also heard that Rav Soleveitchik expressed himself significantly differently
depending upon the particular audience. Therefore one needs to be careful he
is not comparing apples and oranges.

Another confounding point is that a number of gedolim associated with the
Aguda agreed (agree) in essence with the anti-Zionist hashkofa - but for
tactical reasons did (do)  not express it. Rav Reuven Grozovsky (who strongly
influenced Rav Aaron Kotler) writes that he agrees with the Neturei Karta
hashkofa but the times require cooperation with the Zionists. The writings of
Rav Elchonon Wasserman also seem consistent with the Neturei Karta. There was
a change in the rhetoric after the state of Israel came into existence. Not
because of a change in hashkofa but because it was counterproductive to
express it in the same way. [see Rabbi Wein Triumph of Survival pages
402-403]  In sum - one needs to disentangle tactical versus ideological
rhetoric.

Finally there is a question of whether the rhetoric is for internal or
external consumption. One expresses himself differently in a kiruv seminar
than in a mussar shmuss in yeshiva. A lot of the harsh rhetoric was directed
at internal consumption so that the followers knew the group's boundaries. It
was not anticipated that it would change the position of outsiders. As long as
there is a homogeneous group it is appropriate to maintain it.


                            Daniel Eidensohn

--0-719885386-933949194=:28120
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline



Note: forwarded message attached.

_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

--0-719885386-933949194=:28120
Content-Type: message/rfc822

X-Apparently-To: moshe_feldman@yahoo.com via mdd301.mail.yahoo.com
Received: from shamash.org (HELO shamash3.shamash.org) (207.244.122.42)
  by mta103.yahoomail.com with SMTP; 6 Aug 1999 03:42:32 -0700
Received: (qmail 25948 invoked from network); 6 Aug 1999 10:44:20 -0000
Received: from shamash3.shamash.org (HELO shamash.org) (207.244.122.42)
  by shamash.org with SMTP; 6 Aug 1999 10:44:20 -0000
Return-Path: <butrfly@actcom.co.il>
Delivered-To: tachlis@shamash.org
Received: (qmail 25733 invoked from network); 6 Aug 1999 10:43:45 -0000
Received: from lmail.actcom.co.il (192.114.47.13)
  by shamash.org with SMTP; 6 Aug 1999 10:43:45 -0000
Received: from p24.j1.actcom.co.il (p24.j1.actcom.co.il [192.115.22.61])
	by lmail.actcom.co.il (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA24257;
	Fri, 6 Aug 1999 13:44:52 +0300
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19990806122929.09a7d97e@actcom.co.il>
X-Sender: butrfly@actcom.co.il
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (16)
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 12:29:29 +0300
To: Informal Aliyah discussion group <tachlis@shamash.org>
From: Yehuda and Rebecca Poch <butrfly@actcom.co.il>
Subject: Rav Aron Soloveichik
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-tachlis@shamash.org
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.06 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Content-Length: 999

I just spoke with Rav Aron's daughter-in-law here in Ramat Beit Shemesh
Apparently, the Rav was in the hospital this week for a few days, though
she did not tell me why.  He will be coming home, IYH for Shabbos, and the
Kabalas Panim that was scheduled for Sunday evening with Rav Lau in
attendance is still on as scheduled.

 
-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-
 
   ____ \/ ____					   ____ \/ ____
   \ o \||/ o /                                    \ o \||/ o /
    \ ^ || ^ /       Yehuda and Rebecca Poch	    \ ^ || ^ /
     >--||--<       Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel	     >--||--<
    / v || v \         butrfly@actcom.co.il	    / v || v \
   /___/  \___\  				   /___/  \___\

-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-


------------------------ tachlis@shamash.org -----------------------+
Hosted by Shamash: The Jewish Internet Consortium  http://shamash.org
------------------------ tachlis@shamash.org -----------------------=


--0-719885386-933949194=:28120--

<<Where are the "tanna demesaye's" to Rabbi Teichtal zt'l? >>

[1] Clearly, a man whose position has been totally ignored concerning how to 
deal with the Zionist entity. He was migedolei, gedolei haposkim - Rav Yosef 
Eliyohu Henkin ztl. His writings concerning his chance of position once the 
state was founded ought to be studied with a fine tooth comb.

He knew the Brisker Rav persoanlly and also the Chazon Ish. And he knew the 
same Torah they did. He changed his mind based on solid halochoh.  Has anyone 
studied him lately?

[2] Rav Henkin's seforim were without hashkomos.

[3] As far asthe Brisker Rav is concerned two small comments that deserve 
longer treatment by someone. First, the Brisker Rav was dead set against a 
word of ugly protest (the kind that is rife in certain politicallly correct 
ragsheets) against the Zionist establishment. "Would they talk that way in 
Moscow?" Second, the most compelling point of the ambivelance of the Brisker 
Rav is explained by his nephew, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik, ztzal, as being a 
situation where there was no halachic category which R. Velvel could relate 
this too. 

Concerning boith Rav Henkin and the Brisker position I heartily advise, drosh 
vekabel sochor.

[4] As for Brandsdorfer: He is a very formidable talmid chochom, well known 
in Yerushalayim. In a small sefer he published a while back, he lists his 
yichus as the grandson of R. Teichtal, author of Shut Mishnas Sochir. No 
mention whatsoever is made of any other sefer, surely not Eim HaBonim 
Semeichah. How tragic when he knows for sure the rule of "yikov hadin es 
hohor," Truth is truth even when someone may be unconfortable with it. 

chaim wasserman

Reb Shlomo quoted someone as making several observations which I would like
to comment on.
1) "Amongst them was the obvious observation (which probably rebuts those
who speculate if the Munkatcher Rebbe would have been ''chozer bo''): Where
are the "tanna demesaye's" to Rabbi Teichtal zt'l? Of the hundreds of
rabbonim and rebbe's  who suffered but survived the horrors of the
Holocaust - losing their nearest and dearest - - how many were "chozer bo"?
How many of these rabbonim published works  ''klapping al chet'' for their
anti-zionist
views?"
I am quite surprised that you fail to observe the post holocaust behavior
of practically every chassidishe rebbe with the exeption of Satmar.  Almost
every single chassidic group put their emphasis post war on settling and
building in Eretz Yisrael B'Davka.  Ger, Belz, Klausenberg, Boyan/Rizhin,
and many many more.  Now, they did not exactly become "Zionists," but the
primary issue that Rav Teichtal is so upset about is the fact that the
chassidic leaders in prewar Europe did not emphasize the importance of
building the yishuv and making aliyah.  That is what he claims his rebbe
would have been choizer bo about.  Please look at the Eim HaBanim Semeichah
daf 98.  He specifically refers to his rebbes shita that the geulah is
supposed to be bederech nes and NOT by us actively building EY beyadeinu.
It is THIS shita that he claims his rebbe would have changed.  In this
respect I can hardly think of a Chassidic Rebbe that didn't support binyan
haaretz.
Let me add here that My great grandfather, the Modzitzer Rebbe was very
active pre-war in building and supporting the yishuv in Eretz Yisrael, he
in fact sent his son with a group of his Chassidim to move to EY in the
1920's and he strongly urged his Chassidim to move there .  Post war
several days before my great grandfather was to set off to settle in EY (he
died shortly thereafter), he met with the young Klaussenberger Rebbe (who
prior to the war was an "antagonist" of Modzitz because of what he thought
of as treifa "Zionist" views.)  During their meeting,  My great grandfather
urged the Klausenberger Rebbe to change his derech in light of the recent
churban and what had occurred in Europe.  The Klausenberger Rebbe (who was
at the time very much the Junior of my great grandfather) promised him that
he would devote himself to building the chassidishe yishuv in EY.  This
version of events has been passed down in my family.
2)"Rabbi Teichtal does not have a single Haskomo on the EHS. This in itself
is highly unusual as it is rare to find a sefer published by a Hungarian
Rav not to include a Haskomo."
From whom exactly was he supposed to get a haskamah in Hungary in 1943?
The Munkatcher Rebbe? The other Hungarian Rebbes who were anti-Zionist? The
Polish Rebbes in 1943!?!?  The Zionist leaders in Palestine in 1943?!?!
I'm sorry, but this objection is nothing less than absurd.
3)"Sadly, Rabbi Teichtal, at the time of writing EHS was in a state of
anxiety and depression having gone through several years of terrible
deprivation and suffering"
Sadly, this objection could be made to Yetzias Mitzrayim, Veyitzaku
LaHashem Batzar Lahem.  Ah yes, and when we all do teshuvah when under
distress we must be not in our true, sensible state of mind.
4)"that his promotion of Binyan and Yishuv Haaretz should not be
misconstrued as support for secular Zionism."
You are absolutely correct.  He doesn't support secular Zionism in his
sefer period.  But he does sound awefully close to the views of Religious
Zionism.  Certainely a lot closer than to the views of Satmar.
Shaul Weinreb

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]