Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 029

Wednesday, October 16 2002

• RMF on microphones and modern gezeirot
• Newsweek article re FDR and the Shoah
• Re: Newsweek article re FDR and the Shoah
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Newsweek article re FDR and the Shoah
• Re: Newsweek article re FDR and the Shoah
• Gedolim and their foresight
• RE: Newsweek article re FDR and the Shoah
• Re: Gedolim and The Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and The Holocaust
• Re: Gdolim and The Holocaust
• Re: Gdolim and the Holocaust
• RE: Gedolim and their foresight
• Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re:Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re:Gedolim and the Holocaust
• re: Gedolim and the Holocaust

A number of threads are trying to deal with RMF's categorical statements
re using microphones on Shabbat. Specifically, there is one view that it
is a gezeirah, even though that does not appear to be articulated by RMF.

So here is my USD0.02:
First, REMT already posted about the importance of the Aggudat haRabbonim
up until the 1950's included, thank you most for this invaluable info,
REMT.

One of the threads where the selfsame issue came up recently is the
abortion thread, although we didn't cover this aspect in depth.

Anyway, in both cases (microphones and abortion) we are dealing with
tshuvot by RMF that make claims that some may say are outlandish, and take
positions that could much more readily be explained as gezeirot of sorts.

I had the great fortune of studying much material on abortion with rav
JD Bleich, including that tshuvah by RMF, and the tshuvah by REW he
was reacting against. The conclusion one makes, considering the Talmudic
genius RMF was, is that undoubtedly he did make sort of outlandish claims,
and intentionally. He seems to have overstated some arguments in cases
where he felt very strongly that there was a need to follow his position,
more so than in other cases.

Considering the two examples I gave, abortion being a possible
transgression of retzi'hah, and microphones a possible 'hillul Shabbat,
we can see that he restricted such pronouncements to particularly
grave cases.

It seems that RMF wanted to use all the support he could muster to avoid
that, as he saw it, Klal Yisrael would fall into a dangerous trap.

Let me elaborate on the abortion tshuvah: RMF denies any support that
REW had for his position permitting abortion in some cases. RMF went,
for example, so far as to, after having amended the girsa of a Tosafot,
claim that it is obvious that Tos. supports RMF's interpretation of
the matter. Now, it is one thing to say that Tos. cannot be raised as
an objection to RMF's position because RMF has a different girsa. It is,
however, quite a different thing to claim that Tos. actually supports RMF,
as others may cling to the printed text of Tos.

Anyway, this conclusion is not mine, but rather the conclusion of
the shi'ur (3 students + RJDB), which means at least with the tacit
approval of RJDB (I don't remember if he is himself the one who made
this conslusion, so I refrain from claiming that).

RAM wondered, if this is like a parent telling a child no without an
answer, and some 'Oveid wondered if the effectiveness of such an approach
isn't extremely limited.

Well, yes and yes, although this needs some elaboration. First of all,
yes, it is kind of a gezeirah by RMF in that in both cases he refused to
aknowledge the possible validity of the opposition. Furthermore, it is
like a gezeirah because he *may* have been more worried about the side
effects of following the opposition than about the issur itself, although
this is pure speculation (more about this in next paragraph). But most
importantly, it is like a gezeirah in that he asked blanket acceptance
(although that is not entirely obvious in the case of microphones, as one
'Oveid pointed out that he permitted people to daven in a microphone shul,
if it relied on the maqilim), like the parent saying no to a child. He
clearly overstepped the habitual limits to a moreh horaah's authority
because he felt that it was necessary, and that, as president of the
then most important rabbinic organization, he could get away with it
and expect to be followed by many. And yes, the effectiveness of such
measures is severely limited, but RMF used it very sparingly.

I mentioned in the previous paragraph a speculation that RMF may have
been most worried about side effects of being moreh heter. I suggest
(and would like to hear what you think about this) that he was woried
that (a) reliance on REW will make some people think that abortion isn't
so bad and will bring them to avail themselves to abortion on demand -
a very serious consideration keeping in mind that abortion rights were
still new, and the consequences of at least aknowledging a heter where
hard to gauge, and (b) the use of microphones in shul would bring about a
wholesale obliteration of Shabbat by relience on electrical fixes. Even
if some of the fixes would be halakhicly sanctionable, all would not
be, and even if all where, making Shabbat irrelevant from a practical
standpoint (because we would be doing all kinds of vokhedige things
through electrical 'Shabbat appliances'. BTW, how does one translate
vokhedige into English? Weekly? nah... RSM, help me) would have done
little to maintain our distance with C and R.

This last worry, about Shabbat becoming irrelevant from a practical
standpoint, was a real worry of RMF. One long time Lower East Sider told
us last week that it was the leading reason for RMF's innovation that
using a timer is like amirah le'akum and only permitted for lights
(since when is ALA permitted for switching on dining room lights,
anyway?). It apparently still plays a role in RDF's psaq, though less
so. (long time LESer spent some time arguing with RDF WRT elevators on
Shabbat, and quote heavily on RSZA who didn't quite share RMF's worry
here, and RDF did agree to a certain extent, but not all the way.)

The notion that RMF was making modern day gezeirot, as for example in
the case of timers on Shabbat, is held by many rabbanim, including my
one time RY, rav Yehudah Aryeh Treger of Antwerp, SIL of RSZA, who is
the first to have introduced me to this issue.

In fact, none less than RMF's grandson, RMT junior, has an elaborate
theory why RMF could make binding gezeirot, while nobody else
can. Essentially, it is based on a notion that there is a particular
legislative power granted to ubergedolim, and RMF was so much such a
gadol, that nobody of his contemporaries where his peers. In fact, says
RMT junior, RMF was so great, that the only people in his league died
20,30 or 40 years before him. A little short of claiming he was a rishon.

Now most of us may disagree with RMT about the justification for RMF
making gezeirot, but he does agree with the observation that RMF was
making gezeirot bizman hazeh.


Hoping the above makes sense to you,
Arie Folger

[Bounced from Areivim, truncated for relevence. -mi]

                           .... Yet, without denigrating the Ahavas Torah,
Dikduk BMitzvos, Mussar and Chasidus at all of our own Gdolim, can we say
that their Daas Torah was correct in their evaluation of the Nazi threat,
their assessment of the spiritual potential of the US and EY and their
advice to their followers?For two different perspectives, see Michtav
MeEliyahu ( Vol.1 , 75-77 ) and The Rav Speaks , Pp25-33. Comments in
a non flaming fashion please?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

On 14 Oct 2002 at 16:43, Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
> without denigrating the Ahavas Torah, Dikduk BMitzvos, Mussar and
> Chasidus at all of our own Gdolim, can we say that their Daas Torah
> was correct in their evaluation of the Nazi threat, their assessment
> of the spiritual potential of the US and EY and their advice to their
> followers?

You're looking at events with 20-20 hindsight. Gdolim aren't 
infallible. The question is, based on what they knew then was their 
insistence on staying in Europe justifiable? And if they had decided 
to leave Europe, was there really anyplace else to go? IMHO, the 
answer to the latter question is no. 

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

R Steve Brizel:
> Yet, without denigrating the Ahavas Torah, Dikduk BMitzvos, Mussar and 
> Chasidus at all of our own Gdolim, can we say that their Daas Torah was 
> correct in their evaluation of the Nazi threat, their assessment of the 
> spiritual potential of the US and EY and their advice to their 
> followers?For two different perspectives, see Michtav MeEliyahu ( Vol.1 , 
> 75-77 ) and The Rav Speaks , Pp25-33. Comments in a non flaming fashion 
> please?

I am not familiar with either of the books you mention, but I remember
discussing this question with my father z"tl on a number of occasions.
Al regel achas (I've been skimping sleep too much lately and I'm tired),
he said that with the knowledge available to the gedolim at the time,
bederech hateva, their advice was correct. The spiritual churban of
America was manifest, and the physical churban of the Holocaust was not
foreseeable. All very well, with 20-20 hindsight, to fault the gedolim
for not seeing what none of us would have seen back then, either.

You could say that gedolim should have had supernatural vision, ruach
hakodesh, to save their flocks--and in certain individual cases, they did
(see Yaffa Eliach's book)--but the bottom line was, as my father said,
"GEZAIRAH HI MILFANAI." HKBH withheld knowledge from Torah leaders.
Everything, everything conspired against us. Rommel was in north Africa,
don't forget. No one knew whether the Jews in E"Y would be spared.
And door after door closed in our faces. We always had a country we could
run to, in every other time of persecution--all of a sudden there was no
country to run to. Every single country passed restrictive immigration
laws, all at the same time. My husband's relatives were on the last
boat out of Lithuania that was allowed to enter South Africa in 1939,
before S. Africa closed its doors. America, Australia, the whole world.
It was a horrible, horrible gezairah, and there was no escape. There
was nothing anyone could have done.

We have to daven that we never know such a hester panim again.

Accusations now against the gedolim of then are based on nothing but
arrogance (paraphrasing my father). And although many of the gedolim
were spared--obviously in a Yosef-preparing-the-way-in-Goshen Divine
scenario--most of them perished along with their fellow Jews, and many
of those who escaped lost their families in the inferno. So the answer
to your question is, yes, their daas Torah was correct. G-d Himself
passed this decree, and there was no appeal. And don't be so arrogant
as to shout, "Never again!" Instead, daven, "Please G-d, never again."

Toby Katz

R' Ezriel Tauber has an interesting answer to this question in his From
Darkness To Dawn. He suggests that the churban in Europe was a gezeira
on the kelal. Individuals could escape the churban but if everyone had
tried to escape, i.e. the kelal moved to America or Israel, the gezeira
would have moved with them. It is for this reason, RET suggests, that
the gedolim could not advise to leave Europe.

Gil Student

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>>Then you are saying they were wrong. Mislead by the Best, and therefore
>>not blameworthy, but still wrong.

>So what's to prevent them from being wrong -- from having knowledge
>withheld -- again?

>Nothing.  

I heard the same approach which R'n Katz quotes from her father, directly
from him several times.

IIRC, he connected this with the Gemara in Gittin, that at the time of
the churban, Hashem was "meishiv chachamim achor veda'tam yesakel".

They (Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai et al)had no way of knowing they were
wrong bigezerah, neither did the gedolim in Europe, nor would we if ch"v
the situation were again to arise.

The implication of the "never again" philosophy (which Rav Bulman z"l
was strongly opposed to) was that those who chose not to listen to the
gedolim were right. Just as the biryonim at the time of the churban
were "right". And we should continue doing as we see fit, without the
guidance of the gedolim.

IOW, we can overcome gezeras Shamayim.  Don't work that way.
 
Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

RCS wrote:
<<You're looking at events with 20-20 hindsight. Gdolim aren't 
infallible.>>

Wow! Do you realize what you just said? Can you try to convince a 
Desslerian of this? Radical stuff, man. Could make you end up like rav 
Steinman ater the Tal bill.

<<The question is, based on what they knew then was their 
insistence on staying in Europe justifiable? And if they had decided 
to leave Europe, was there really anyplace else to go? IMHO, the 
answer to the latter question is no.>>

That is not simple. I have a relative who passed away a few years ago 
at a ripe age in his 90's. He left Galitzie for Israel in the 30s. 
Since my great grandfather, reb Oosher Zeilig Fertig, was the big man 
in the family (a real 'oveid and parnas hatzibbur; gabbai for 
kollel 'Hibat Yerushalayim for many years), the man wanted to meet reb 
Oosher Zaeilig. He traveled 150 kilometres for that; when my great 
grandfather heard the man is going to Israel, he refused to see him. 
Such behaviour cannot be labeled as considering choices; it is simply 
arefusal to consider an option.

It was hard to reach Israel, and even before the 20s, hard to reach 
America, but life in Eastern Europe was hard, too, very hard and 
dangerous, too. In fact, while we consider this topic, why not ask why 
gedolim would not accept that it was time to fertilize America with 
Yiddishkeit? When an occasional major TC came, his peers in Europe 
critisized him for that. (details available upon request; it's in a 
paper by an 'Areiv that I stroed on my handheld.)

Now, this is not to critisize the gedolim of yore; I wasn't there and 
cannot attest that my judgment is any better. However, I believe that 
it is safe to say that the general mood of our leaders in those days 
was pessimistic and reactionary, and they were not scanning the world 
for opportunities, rather trying to cuddle up safely to save whatever 
frum Jews are still clinging to our faith. The most important 
ingredient in saving yiddishkeit in small communities throughout the 
world is something that they did not consider: it's the economy, 
hedyoit (we don't mention the word stupid in connectino with our 
leaders;-))

Already around 1900 there were serious calls for mass immigration, and 
there were less restrictions back then - and less secular Zionism. But 
no rav worth his kapotte endorsed immigration to either the 
goldene/treifene medieneh or to Israel, except for excentric 
nonconformists (now, with hindsight, we call them visionaries and 
gedolim, but back then they had plenty of critics). Meanwhile, 
antisemitism in Eastern Europe was proved to be more hardy than 
political enlightenment that was sweeping through the area as well.

I am indicting nobody, but I don't think that an unbiased observer 
would have agreed with reb Carl's view, either.

Kol tuv,

Arie Folger

RCS wrote:
<<You're looking at events with 20-20 hindsight. Gdolim aren't 
infallible.>>

Wow! Do you realize what you just said? Can you try to convince a 
Desslerian of this? Radical stuff, man. Could make you end up like rav 
Steinman ater the Tal bill.

<<The question is, based on what they knew then was their 
insistence on staying in Europe justifiable? And if they had decided 
to leave Europe, was there really anyplace else to go? IMHO, the 
answer to the latter question is no.>>

That is not simple. I have a relative who passed away a few years ago 
at a ripe age in his 90's. He left Galitzie for Israel in the 30s. 
Since my great grandfather, reb Oosher Zeilig Fertig, was the big man 
in the family (a real 'oveid and parnas hatzibbur; gabbai for 
kollel 'Hibat Yerushalayim for many years), the man wanted to meet reb 
Oosher Zaeilig. He traveled 150 kilometres for that; when my great 
grandfather heard the man is going to Israel, he refused to see him. 
Such behaviour cannot be labeled as considering choices; it is simply 
arefusal to consider an option.

It was hard to reach Israel, and even before the 20s, hard to reach 
America, but life in Eastern Europe was hard, too, very hard and 
dangerous, too. In fact, while we consider this topic, why not ask why 
gedolim would not accept that it was time to fertilize America with 
Yiddishkeit? When an occasional major TC came, his peers in Europe 
critisized him for that. (details available upon request; it's in a 
paper by an 'Areiv that I stroed on my handheld.)

Now, this is not to critisize the gedolim of yore; I wasn't there and 
cannot attest that my judgment is any better. However, I believe that 
it is safe to say that the general mood of our leaders in those days 
was pessimistic and reactionary, and they were not scanning the world 
for opportunities, rather trying to cuddle up safely to save whatever 
frum Jews are still clinging to our faith. The most important 
ingredient in saving yiddishkeit in small communities throughout the 
world is something that they did not consider: it's the economy, 
hedyoit (we don't mention the word stupid in connectino with our 
leaders;-))

Already around 1900 there were serious calls for mass immigration, and 
there were less restrictions back then - and less secular Zionism. But 
no rav worth his kapotte endorsed immigration to either the 
goldene/treifene medieneh or to Israel, except for excentric 
nonconformists (now, with hindsight, we call them visionaries and 
gedolim, but back then they had plenty of critics). Meanwhile, 
antisemitism in Eastern Europe was proved to be more hardy than 
political enlightenment that was sweeping through the area as well.

I am indicting nobody, but I don't think that an unbiased observer 
would have agreed with reb Carl's view, either.

Kol tuv,

Arie Folger

"Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM> writes:
>>Therefore, I agree with your statement from a non-Desslerian
>>perspective. But R Dessler believed that gedolim had something
>>akin to ruach hakodesh and that Hashem guided them in making their
>>decisions--this is the concept of daas torah. Why didn't those gedolim
>>do the "responsible" thing?

If daas Torah means that the gedolim are always right, even in hindsight,
then I too don't know how they learn the Gemara in Gittin (or any
significant period of Jewish history for that matter).

If daas Torah means that we must follow their daas even if we disagree,
then clearly, per that Gemara, there are times that they will not turn
out right, bigezeras Shamayim. But going forward, we still need to
defer our da'as to theirs.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Carl and Adina Sherer [mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il]
> You're looking at events with 20-20 hindsight. Gdolim aren't 
> infallible. 

Doesn't R Dessler believe that Daas Torah = the gedolim (as a collective, at
the very least) are infallible?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> He suggests that the churban in Europe was a gezeira on
> the kelal.  Individuals could escape the churban but if everyone had tried
> to escape, i.e. the kelal moved to America or Israel, the gezeira would have
> moved with them.  It is for this reason, RET suggests, that the gedolim
> could not advise to leave Europe.

1) Proof?

2) assuming that this is so, is R Tauber asserting that all and any kinds
of resistance and hishtadlus would have been futile? WADR, I understand
the concepts of hester panim and Tzimtzum as working rationales and
starting points but I think that the notion of a world wide gzerah
strikes at the concepts of Bni Bcori Atah and Am HaNivchar, etc.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

>1) Proof?

I can prove beyond any doubt that R' Ezriel Tauber does, in fact, write
this.  I have the book at home and you are invited to come check it out for
yourself.  Just call in advance.

>2) assuming that this is so, is R Tauber asserting that
>all and any kinds of resistance and hishtadlus would
>have been futile?

No.  And I should add that his rebbe, R' Michoel Dov Weissmandel was active
in the resistance.  He claims that resistance would and did save individuals
but would not have saved the kelal.

>WADR, I understand the concepts of hester panim
>and Tzimtzum as working rationales and starting
>points but I think that the notion of a world wide
>gzerah strikes at the concepts of Bni Bcori Atah
>and Am HaNivchar, etc.

It was not a world-wide gezeirah.  The Jews in America were in little
danger.

Gil Student

> IIRC, he connected this with the Gemara in Gittin, that at the time
> of the churban, Hashem was "meishiv chachamim achor veda'tam yesakel".

> They (Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai et al)had no way of knowing they were
> wrong bigezerah, neither did the gedolim in
> Europe, nor would we if ch"v the situation were again to arise.

Read that Gemara again with Rashi ,especially R Akiva's strong comments
that R Yochanan ben Zakkai was wrong in seeking only after the welfare of
Yavneh and its TCs , as opposed to the Beis haMikdash and Yerushalyim. Was
R Akiva wrong in his criticsm or we are merely unable to understand what
he meant in his comments?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

> I can prove beyond any doubt that R' Ezriel Tauber does, in fact, write
> this.

The fact that R Tauber writes such a theory does not render it absolute
emes. What are his proofs? IMHO, such a theory requires ruach hakodesh.

[Email #2. -mi]

> He claims that resistance would and did save individuals
> but would not have saved the kelal

Take a look at the uncensored versions of the Belzer Rebbe's speech to
his chasidim, R Menachem Ziemba's call for support of the Warsaw Ghetto
revolt and Aim Habanim Smecha for a different take on some aspects of
this issue.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

From: Gershon Dubin [mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com]
> If daas Torah means that the gedolim are always right, even 
> in hindsight, then I too don't know how they learn the Gemara 
> in Gittin (or any significant period of Jewish history for 
> that matter).
> 
> If daas Torah means that we must follow their daas even if we 
> disagree, then clearly, per that Gemara, there are times that 
> they will not turn out right, bigezeras Shamayim.  But going 
> forward, we still need to defer our da'as to theirs.

Actually, the pashut pshat in the gemara is that there is no such thing as
daas torah.  The gemara blames anvsanuso shel Zecharia ben Avkulus for the
churban, and implies that we should learn a mussar haskel for the future.
The gemara does not at all imply that Hashem misled Zecharia ben A.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Gershon Dubin writes: "The implication of the "never again" philosophy
(which Rav Bulman z"l was strongly opposed to) was that those who chose not
to listen to the gedolim were right.  Just as the biryonim at the time of
the churban were "right".  And we should continue doing as we see fit,
without the guidance of the gedolim.

IOW, we can overcome gezeras Shamayim.  Don't work that way."

But what about those who did not listen to the Gedolim -- and I am referring
to those who were told by them what to do and decided not to follow what
they were told -- and as a result were saved while those who listened and
stayed were killed?  Weren't the ones who did not listen "right"?  I
emphasize, of course, that we are dealing with 20-20 hindsight, and I
therefore do not cast any aspersions on the  guidance given by the Gedolim.
But if those who followed their guidance died, and those who did not lived,
can't we say, at least with 20-20 hindsight, that the Gedolim's guidance was
not "right"?  And if that is the case, then isn't one lesson that can be
learned from this is that although one must always carefully consider the
guidance one receives from Gedolim, the ultimate decision, that is, the life
and death decisions, is ours to make, because we are the ones who ultimately
whose lives are at stake?  Or, to put it somewhat differently, I think R'
Gershon's statement, "we should continue doing as we see fit, without the
guidance of the gedolim" is somewhat off the mark.  Rather, I think we
should   do as we see fit, after carefully considering the guidance of the
Gedolim.  (This applies, of course, when we are speaking about "guidance"
and not psak halacha.)

Joseph C. Kaplan

"Joseph Kaplan" <jkaplan@tenzerlunin.com> writes:
>>Weren't the ones who did not listen "right"?

The terminology being used in this thread is confusing. The fact that
a person didn't listen, and survived, means only that he survived.
It doesn't mean that if everyone had listened to HIM, they would have
survived as well, nor that what he did, was correct under the conditions
that he did it.

We need to keep a clear distinction between what one should do going in,
and what turns out, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. We all know
that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai SHOULD have asked for the Beis Hamikdash
not to be destroyed. He didn't, at the time.

There is another Gemara which I cannot now "chapter and verse" where
RYBZ expressed his own doubts as to the wisdom of the path he chose
(ve'eini yode'ah be'ezeh derech molichim osi...). He too had difficulty
distinguishing between what he knew then, what he knew afterward, and
what he (possibly) should have known beforehand.

If he had trouble with his own decision, anan mah na'aneh abasrei about
other people's decisions? Humility dictates extreme caution in judging
others, especially gedolim yere'im ushelemim.

[Email #2. -mi]

"Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM> writes:

>>Actually, the pashut pshat in the gemara is that there is no such thing as
>>daas torah.  The gemara blames anvsanuso shel Zecharia ben Avkulus for the
>>churban, and implies that we should learn a mussar haskel for the future.
>>The gemara does not at all imply that Hashem misled Zecharia ben A.

No, it implies that Hashem misled Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. As that
great American Reb Yogi said, you could look it up.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
> R' Ezriel Tauber has an interesting answer to this question in his From
> Darkness To Dawn.  He suggests that the churban in Europe was a gezeira on
> the kelal.  Individuals could escape the churban but if everyone had tried
> to escape, i.e. the kelal moved to America or Israel, the gezeira would have
> moved with them.  It is for this reason, RET suggests, that the gedolim
> could not advise to leave Europe.

Does that mean that the gedolim realized at the time that that was the
reason (which seems like a huge chiddush to me) or that this is the
reason HKB"H led them to the decisions He did?

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
<daniel@cfd.ame.arizona.edu>		1130 North Mountain Ave.
Dept. of Aerospace & Mechanical		The University of Arizona
  Engineering				Tucson, AZ  85711

I hope that we can all agree that living is better than dying. And I
think that we can all agree that those who did not listen to the guidance
of the Gedolim and left Europe for America or Palestine had a much better
chance of surviving the war than those who listened to the guidance
and stayed.

If that is so, then I think, unlike R' Gershon, that one who didn't
listen did more than simply survive. Since survival is so important,
it means he made the right decision. Yes, I do believe that we can say
now (perhaps not then, but now) that such a decision was the correct
decision under the conditions in which it was made.

And isn't that one way how we learn; I.e., don't we, shouldn't we learn
from experience, from history. The lessons aren't 100% accurate of
course, but to ignore them is, as Santayana said, well, you all know
what he said (and if you don't, ask Carl). And I believe that there is
an important lesson to be learned from this history. Not, of course,
that one should not listen to the guidance of Gedolim. But what one can
learn, and what I think should be learned, is that gedolim are, as all
humans are, fallible, and sometimes give guidance that is not the best,
not out of, of course improper motives or because they are foolish,
but simply because they are human. And the message that I learn from
this goes one step further; that ultimately, I am responsible for my own
crucial decisions, and that while I should carefully consider the advice
and guidance from anyone and everyone who is wiser than I, including
Gedolim and countless others, when it comes time to make the decision,
I must do what my heart and my conscience and my intelligence and my
common sense tell me to do, and not ignore all that and simply follow
what others, Gedolim or not, suggest I do. I guess I think that's one
of the important things that I think being an adult is all about.

Joseph C. Kaplan

R' Joseph Kaplan wrote <<< But what about those who did not listen to
the Gedolim -- and I am referring to those who were told by them what to
do and decided not to follow what they were told -- and as a result were
saved while those who listened and stayed were killed? Weren't the ones
who did not listen "right"? I emphasize, of course, that we are dealing
with 20-20 hindsight, ... But if those who followed their guidance died,
and those who did not lived, can't we say, at least with 20-20 hindsight,
that the Gedolim's guidance was not "right"? >>>

How does your limited hindsight allow you to conclude that <<< the
Gedolim's guidance was not "right"? >>>

 From where I sit, all we know for sure is that most of those who
listened to those gedolim perished, and most of those who didn't listen
(but escaped from Europe) were able to survive. That does NOT mean that
the Gedolim were wrong, and I say this for two reasons:

1) If more people had stayed in Europe, things might have turned out
differently in Europe. Who knows which emigrant(s) was the butterfly
whose having left Europe shifted the winds ever so slightly, but made
a major impact?

2) Even if Europe would have played out the same way, the story does
not end there. Who knows what awaits those people -- or us -- in the
Olam HaEmes?

To think that we have "20-20 hindsight" over such things strikes me as
somewhat arrogant.

Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]