Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 031

Wednesday, October 16 2002

• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• RE: Gedolim and their foresight
• RE: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and their foresight
• Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and their foresight
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and their foresight
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust

"Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com> writes:
>>Reread the original post. As I said, quite clearly, three times,
our courts/rabbis have no authority to judge dinei nefashot. Therefore,
whatever other conditions apply when they are not judging dinei nefashot,
siyata d'shmaya doesn't apply to life-and-death decisions.

Ein eilu elah divrei nevius. You extrapolate from the decision of the
Sanhedrin not to paskin dinei nefashos, to saying that no life and death
decision by any posek thereafter has siyata diShemaya. If you wish to
say NO pesak has siyata diShemaya, OK, but to make this decision based
on this criterion is without basis anywhere but in your conjecture.

That doesn't mean it's wrong; it only means that it's a step way out
on a limb that I cannot follow you on.

>>And as for the ones who left while telling their followers to stay -
that's just craven. To leave and tell the followers to try to leave,
and then they fail, that's one thing. To tell them to stay?

Which gedolim did that? I have heard of those who did the opposite.

>>Saying "Hashem turns back the eyes of the wise" is, IMHO, more
theologically problematic than saying that Hashem didn't say yea or nay
through the Gedolim. It indicates an active antagonism towards those
Jews who ask their rabbeim for advice.

Not at all. It means that while most times one should ask for advice,
the gedolim are not infallible, and there's no way to know that a priori.
Which in turn means that in general, ask advice of the gedolim and
follow it; there will be situations in Jewish history where that won't
be enough.

>>When it was used in the Gemara, it wasn't talking about direct
life-and-death situation. It was talking about things that, several
stages later, led to the destruction of a building and some loss of life.

Take another look at the Gemara; the loss of life during the time of
the churban was on a par with the shoah. The Romans did not have to
contend with CNN on location or with Betzelem.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Gil Student [mailto:gil@aishdas.org]
> Regarding the claims of some that Hashem caused the gedolim to err, R'
> Mordechai Willig makes this suggestion as well at
> http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2000/parsha/rwil_shmini.html.

To be fair, he wrote: "The proper resolution is that while Torah confers
great insight on general matters to those who pursue it lishmah and
master it, mistakes, both large and small, do exist and at times are
caused by divine intervention confounding the wise."

IOW, Rabbi Willig does not believe in the Desslerian view of daas
torah--that the gedolim are infallible. Rather, he believes that
although gedolim do receive a certain measure of siyata dishmaya, they
can make errors. *At times* the errors are due to divine intervention
confounding the wise, but not always.

Moreover, he writes:
<<Advice is, by definition, not binding. One who seeks rabbinic advice
and chooses to ignore it does not violate halachah. Indeed, if he is
convinced, based on superior information , that the Rabbi has erred, he
should ignore the advice. Many rabbis do not offer specific counsel when
the expertise of others in a particular area exceeds their own. Instead,
they advise the questioner to follow the opinion of an expert in the
field.

The possibility that the greatest of scholars can err in strict halachah
is explicit in Vayikra (4:13 see Rashi). Even in that case, an individual
who is convinced that the Sanhedrin erred may not rely on their decision
(Horayot 2b).

The Talmud (Gittin 56b) cites the view of Rabbi Akiva that Rabbi Yochanan
ben Zakai, the greatest Torah leader of his day, erred grievously in a
political decision equivalent to advice for Klal Yisrael. While it is true
that the Talmud defends Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai's view, and, assuming
it is wrong, attributes it to divine intervention which confounded the
wisdom of a chacham, nonetheless, the principle of rabbinic fallibility
is extended from pure halachah to more general matters. >>

The idea of equating the extent of gedolim's siyata dishmaya in halacha
with that of their siyata dishmaya in non-Torah matters directly
contradicts the idea of daas torah.

(BTW, I do not disagree with Rabbi Willig's main point about halachic
public policy, BTAT.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Gershon Dubin [mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com]
> >>At the same time, when a talmid remarked: "If the gedolim had told people
> to leave Europe in time, so many more would have been saved," he answered:
> "A ben Torah does not talk like that."
> 
> Those who have posited this conjecture (that "if the 
> gedolim...) need to hear both sides of the Rav's position.  
> Thank you for balancing things.

I believe that you are reading too much into the Rav's statement.
All the Rav was saying was that people should not speak disrespectfully
about gedolim. It is well known that the Rav did not believe in the
doctrine of daas Torah and considered the Holocaust to be evidence that
the concept does not exist.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com [mailto:kennethgmiller@juno.com]
> R' Moshe Feldman asks <<< Huh? Are you saying that a person 
> who had a choice to flee Europe (based on gut instinct that 
> things were too dangerous) or listen to the gedolim should 
> have stayed because he might have gotten a better share in 
> the Olam HaEmes? I find that difficult to stomach -- Judaism 
> emphasizes living in *this* world -- the only place we can 
> have the ability to perform mitzvos. >>>
> 
> Excellent question. Unfortunately, I'm unable to answer it, 
> because I don't know the reasoning which those gedolim used 
> in making that decision.

If one believes that gedolim are all-knowing beings, your statement makes
sense. But if they are not all-knowing, then it doesn't. They made the
decision BEFORE they knew that the Holocaust would occur. Once they knew
the extent of the Holocaust they encouraged people to try to flee, but
by then it was too late. Certainly, the gedolim in America (including
Rav Aharon Kotler) made every effort to save those they could save.

> Perhaps - PERHAPS - some 
> gedolim felt that maintaining a Jewish presence in the Nazi 
> ym"s era fit that halacha. 

That is demonstrably false--once they knew the extent of the atrocities,
they tried to escape.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

"Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM> writes:
>>I believe that you are reading too much into the Rav's statement.
All the Rav was saying was that people should not speak disrespectfully
about gedolim.

If in fact, as you say, "the Rav considered the Holocaust to be evidence
that the concept does not exist", then no disrespect would be shown by
saying that they made a wrong decision. It is only in context of _A_
concept of da'as Torah, whatever form it may have taken to the Rav,
that one could construe that statement as disrespectful.

Rabbi Carmy?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

"Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM> writes:
>>he believes that although gedolim do receive a certain measure of
siyata dishmaya, they can make errors. *At times* the errors are due
to divine intervention confounding the wise, but not always.

Q.E.D.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Gershon Dubin [mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com]
> If in fact, as you say, "the Rav considered the Holocaust to 
> be evidence that the concept does not exist", then no 
> disrespect would be shown by saying that they made a wrong 
> decision.  It is only in context of _A_  concept of da'as 
> Torah, whatever form it may have taken to the Rav, that one 
> could construe that statement as disrespectful.
> 
> Rabbi Carmy?

Rabbi Carmy already answered your question when he wrote:
<<The Rav indeed did not view greatness in Torah as a guarantee of
infallibility in political matters.>>

Kol tuv,
Moshe

"Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM> writes:
>>Q.E.D. what?  

>>This is *not* an affirmation of the concept of daas torah, which
requires complete infallibility. It just says that *sometimes* a gadol
has siyata dishmaya.

Da'as Torah comes in different flavors; the discussion is fixating
on the one you describe. Apparently the Rav had a different concept,
but it's not binary, that either there is D"T or there isn't.

QED was that you had basically restated my position, with the change from
"usually" to "sometimes" which we can argue about or just disagree about.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

"Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org> writes:
>>I think you misunderstand R' Gershon. RMW writes EXACTLY what R'
Gershon has been saying.

Q.E.D. <g>

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

"Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM> writes:
>>Rabbi Carmy already answered your question when he wrote:
<<The Rav indeed did not view greatness in Torah as a guarantee of
infallibility in political matters.>>

Then permit me to be medayek in his words.  No  _guarantee_.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

I wrote <<< Perhaps - PERHAPS - some gedolim felt that maintaining a Jewish presence in the Nazi ym"s era fit that halacha. >>>

R' Moshe Feldman answers <<< That is demonstrably false -- once they knew the extent of the atrocities, they tried to escape. >>>

Excellent point. Thank you very much!

B'ezras HaShem, I must remember this argument for the future. The same conclusion as others have offered, but an entirely different train of logic.

Others had tried to use the apparent results of the situation as a proof that the strategy was flawed, but I reject that because there are results other than the apparent ones. But now R' Moshe Feldman is pointing out that the same gedolim who had previously said to stay in Europe, they themselves changed their p'sak in favor of escape. I have two responses to this:

1) Hodaas baal din k'meah eidim dami! If they themselves retracted their p'sak, saying "If only I had known then what I know now!" then they are admitting that the original p'sak was mistaken.

2) But it is also possible that the original and later p'saks were *both* "correct", but that they each reflected a different set of circumstances. This corresponds to my earlier suggestion that if more people had stayed in the 30's, the whole situation might have played out differently. (Just to be clear, I personally suspect that it would NOT have made much of a difference. I'm only saying that we don't know for absolutely sure.)

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

RGD:  
> ---------- "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com> writes:
 
> > Reread the original post.  As I said, quite clearly, three times,
> > our courts/rabbis have no authority to judge dinei nefashot. 
> > Therefore, whatever other conditions apply when they are not judging
> > dinei nefashot, siyata d'shmaya doesn't apply to life-and-death
> > decisions.
> 
> Ein eilu elah divrei nevius. You extrapolate from the decision of
> the Sanhedrin not to paskin dinei nefashos, to saying that no life
> and death decision by any posek thereafter has siyata diShemaya. 
> If you wish to say NO pesak has siyata diShemaya, OK, but to make
> this decision based on this criterion is without basis anywhere
> but in your conjecture.

On the contrary.  If you say that psak has siyata dishemaya, and 
there is one case where the Divine imprimatur has clearly ruled
like the Sanhedrin (that dinei nefashot are no long justiciable),
it seems a clear psak.

> That doesn't mean it's wrong;  it only means that it's a step
> way out on a limb that I cannot follow you on.
 
> > And as for the ones who left while telling their followers
> > to stay - that's just craven.  To leave and tell the followers
> > to try to leave, and then they fail, that's one thing.  To tell
> > them to stay?
 
> Which gedolim did that?  I have heard of those who did the opposite.

I've heard of one or two.  I don't remember the names, nor do I
particularly want to, but no doubt some of the listmembers who
are more attuned to recent history can do so.
 
> >>Saying "Hashem turns back the eyes of the wise" is, IMHO, more
> theologically problematic than saying that Hashem didn't say 
> yea or nay through the Gedolim.  It indicates an active antagonism
> towards those Jews who ask their rabbeim for advice.
 
> Not at all.  It means that while most times one should ask for
> advice, the gedolim are not infallible, and there's no way to
> know that a priori.  Which in turn means that in general, ask

Asking "Should I try to leave Europe, knowing that Hilter wants
to kill the Jews, and is making life extremely difficult for us?"
seems to me to be a sufficiently a-priori question.

> advice of the gedolim and follow it;  there will be situations
> in Jewish history where that won't be enough.

Sure.  But we're talking about hindsight: do we condemn those who
left for ignoring the advice of the Gedolim?  Do we say that the
Gedolim spoke in that case with or without siyata dishemaya?  About
the most one can say based on my conjecture is

a) the Gedolim were not speaking with siyata dishemaya when they said
to stay or go;

b) don't ask the Gedolim if you should stay or go, if that's the choice;

c) we can't fault anyone for going against the Divine Will if they ignored
the advice of the Gadol and left.
 
That's not to say

a) the Gedolim never speak with siyata dishemaya;

b) we can know in other cases that they don't speak thus;

c) we shouldn't ask Gedolim for advice.

As it happens, I don't think of Gedolim as having any better advice
than any other friend might in non-halachic questions.  About the 
most "daas Torah" I can accept is that described by R' Simcha Weinberg:
that the goal of the talmid chacham is to become so imbued with Torah
that his own thoughts are generated in consonance with Torah.  That 
doesn't mean that they can rule definitively in political and/or other
non-Torah questions - viz. the contradictory political pronunciamenti
made in the name of "daas Torah" - to give up land or not, etc.

> > When it was
> > used in the Gemara, it wasn't talking about direct life-and-death
> > situation.  It was talking about things that, several stages later,
> > led to the destruction of a building and some loss of life.  
 
> Take another look at the Gemara;  the loss of life during the time
> of the churban was on a par with the shoah.  The Romans did not
> have to contend with CNN on location or with Betzelem.

Are those numbers taken literally, or as hyperbole?  I was given
to understand that the actual loss of life was much greater during
the Bar-Kochba revolt; certainly the loss of Torah scholars was 
greater, and thus more parallel to the destruction of Polish Jewry
in the Shoah.

Take a look at those numbers  again: even modern J'lem only has a
population around 350,000.  So how could it have had 940,000 to be
killed by Nevuzaradan?  4,000,000 in Beitar?   Come on.  The number
of Jews in the world wasn't 6,000,000.  64,000,000 people in Beitar?
More things which look fishy: Nevuzaradan looks like a Bavli name, not
a Roman name; all the stories are in the name of later chachomim, not
in the name of early tannaim.  Folk process at work, doncha know.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

From: Gershon Dubin [mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com]
> QED was that you had basically restated my position, with the 
> change from "usually" to "sometimes" which we can argue about 
> or just disagree about.

There is a world of difference between "usually" and "sometimes."  The
doctrine of daas torah depends on the notion that Hashem is *always* guiding
gedolim (and if He misguides them, that is His decision, which we cannot
escape anyway--think of the prophet Yonah running away).

Once we posit that gedolim have siyata dishmaya only a certain percentage of
the time (and in political matters, my loose understanding is that RYBS felt
that it was less than a majority of the time), then one should take what they
say under advisement; where political mavens all recommend otherwise, one
should follow the latter.  This completely undermines the Desslerian view of
daas Torah.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

>>>BTW, I respect many people who are not infallible (including the
Pope!).>>>
======================================================
I too respect many non-infallible people (yes, that's a word, because I just
made it up), but, after hearing recently hearing a tape of R' Gifter, z'l, I
am reminded that we probably shouldn't "respect" the Pope.  The tape was of
a speech given in 1987, a few weeks after the Pope visited Miami.

According to R' Gifter, the entire city of Miami came to a standstill for
four hours to accord honor to the Pope, and clerymen of all stripes came to
a stadium to see him.  These clergymen included  O rabbis.  R' Gifter
expressed his shock that O rabbis would go see the "Avi Avos HaTumah."  (He
did mention with admiration that one O rabbi (a musmach of Telz) organized a
program in which, during these four hours, men and women could come to shul
and learn/hear shiurim.)

On an unrelated note, I also recently listened to tape from a 1981 speech
given by R' Gifter relating to the "alternative lifestyle" club at Einstein
Medical School.  While R' Gifter certainly didn't hold back in expressing
his feelings about this issue, he did give credit where credit was due.  He
mentioned that RIETS was (one of) the first yeshiva established in the US,
and that, without RIETS, it would've been very difficult for other yeshivos
to start and proper here.

(I listened to these tapes while driving, and my wife was in the car. She
was quite shocked to hear a gadol speak in such blunt terms about certain
people and she asked: "Isn't this lashon hora?"  I answered her by
mentioning that hilchos lashon hora are complicated and that if we hear a
gadol saying something that sounds like lashon hora, we can assume that he
already considered the halachic implications......  She was still
uncomfortable listening to the tape......)

KT
Aryeh

"Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM> writes:
>>Why do you expect that Hashem helps them
more in advising a person whether or not to go into business X than in
advising how to follow the halacha

I didn't say that. I'm only saying that in each area, sometimes there
is siyata diShemaya, sometimes "hands-off" and sometimes hindering.
You seemed to be saying that everyone agrees to this lehalacha, but not
in business, to use your example. I am saying that the three choices
obtain in both areas and I wonder whether the "setpoint" correlates.

>>think of chamoro shel Pinchas ben Yair)?

OK, I thought of it <g>.  Now what?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

I understand R' Gershon as saying that sometimes, perhaps frequently,
gedolim have siyata dishmaya.  Therefore, we should listen to them for two
reasons:

1) They tend to be wise
2) If you follow their advice you have a chance of following divinely
inspired guidance.  If you don't then you don't have any chance.

Gil Student

"Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM> writes:
>>There is a world of difference between "usually" and "sometimes."  The
doctrine of daas torah 

There is more than one doctrine of daas Torah.

>>and in political matters, my loose understanding is that RYBS felt
that it was less than a majority of the time

IOW, if in the absence of any countervailing opinion, yours or anyone
else's, you should carefully listen to what the gadol tells you to do
and do the exact opposite. Since he has less than a 50% chance of being
right, it's odds on that the opposite will be the way to go?

Now THAT's an interesting theory of d"T <g>!

>>This completely undermines the Desslerian view of daas Torah.

I thought this entire discussion was shelo al pi Dessler.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

"Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM> writes:
>>Why do you expect that Hashem helps them
more in advising a person whether or not to go into business X than in
advising how to follow the halacha

I didn't say that. I'm only saying that in each area, sometimes there
is siyata diShemaya, sometimes "hands-off" and sometimes hindering.
You seemed to be saying that everyone agrees to this lehalacha, but not
in business, to use your example. I am saying that the three choices
obtain in both areas and I wonder whether the "setpoint" correlates.

>>think of chamoro shel Pinchas ben Yair)?

OK, I thought of it <g>.  Now what?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Stein, Aryeh [mailto:AStein@wtplaw.com]
> While R' Gifter 
> certainly didn't hold back in expressing his feelings about 
> this issue, he did give credit where credit was due.  He 
> mentioned that RIETS was (one of) the first yeshiva 
> established in the US, and that, without RIETS, it would've 
> been very difficult for other yeshivos to start and proper here.

Not surprising, as he studied there (under R. Moshe Soloveitchik).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

"Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com> writes:
>>If you say that psak has siyata dishemaya, and 
there is one case where the Divine imprimatur has clearly ruled
like the Sanhedrin (that dinei nefashot are no long justiciable),
it seems a clear psak.

Ein elu elah divrei nevius.  It's a nice derush, but IMHO without basis.

>>Asking "Should I try to leave Europe, knowing that Hilter wants
to kill the Jews, and is making life extremely difficult for us?"
seems to me to be a sufficiently a-priori question.

Nobody, at the time that leaving Europe was still possible, KNEW that
Hitler wanted to kill the Jews. Most people, Jews and nonJews, didn't
believe him and considered him a raving maniac. Which he was, but he
did unfortunately mean it. But nobody knew it at the time.

>>a) the Gedolim were not speaking with siyata dishemaya when they said
to stay or go;

>>b) don't ask the Gedolim if you should stay or go, if that's the choice;

And my point is that b does not follow from a.  A is hindsight; b is a priori.

>>As it happens, I don't think of Gedolim as having any better advice
than any other friend might in non-halachic questions.  

That is your right.  I am convinced that in most cases (in my experience), their advice is very wise;  this may segue into who is a gadol, where I emphatically do not wish to go.  

>>Are those numbers taken literally, or as hyperbole? 

Probably not, but clearly there was more than incidental loss of life as you describe it. IIRC Josephus also describes the slaughter as horrendous, and from what we know of ancient warfare, it wasn't Marquis of Queensbury and Geneva Conventions.  Don't forget the Romans considered this a major victory.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Gershon Dubin [mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com]
> IOW, if in the absence of any countervailing opinion, yours 
> or anyone else's, you should carefully listen to what the 
> gadol tells you to do and do the exact opposite.  Since he 
> has less than a 50% chance of being right, it's odds on that 
> the opposite will be the way to go?  

No.  You should carefully *consider* what he has to say.  But if he is
advising you where to operate but has no medical degree, I suggest that you
consult a doctor too.

> >>This completely undermines the Desslerian view of daas Torah.
> 
> I thought this entire discussion was shelo al pi Dessler.

No, that's not how we started.  We started with the Desslerian view, and all
my responses have been to counter that view.  

You yourself wrote yesterday:
<<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.>>

This implies that one choose not to listen to the gedolim.  I am saying that
one should hear what they have to say and then make one's own decision based
on all sources of information (including from doctors and political
scientists).

(As an aside: no one would argue that in retrospect the biryonim were right.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

R' Moshe Feldman wrote <<< 2. Isn't the more obvious answer that before, they did not realize that Hitler would build concentration camps?  (No one could have imagined that.) >>>

Yes, I'll certainly concede that this is the more likely answer. All I'm saying is that we don't know for sure.

Which reminds me... I'm really tiring of this whole conversation. Unless we know something more detailed than simply "the gedolim said not to leave" how can we even pretend to guess their reasoning? (I think the technical term is "talking out of one's hat".) Can anyone supply any additional info?

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

	>>>Not surprising, as he studied there (under R. Moshe
Soloveitchik).>>>

	And R' Gifter mentioned that in his speech.  IIRC, this was why he
felt compelled to try to do something to resolve the situation, as he felt
indebted to RIETS for helping him become who he became.

	KT
	Aryeh

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com [mailto:kennethgmiller@juno.com]
> Unless we know something more detailed than 
> simply "the gedolim said not to leave" how can we even 
> pretend to guess their reasoning? (I think the technical term 
> is "talking out of one's hat".) Can anyone supply any additional info?

Anyone wish to transcribe a page or two from Lawrence Kaplan's article?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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


[ 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         ]