Visnitzers like to say that Rav Shach admitted that the reason his son turned out that way, is because he did not sing Shabos zemiros, My question, did Rav Shach's father sing shabos zemioros?
To Anon: Wow! I heard about shabos zmiros when I was not yet religious 22 years ago in Italy on the way to US but without the names attached, was said though about a rov in Meah Shearim, who complained to r.Elyashiv that his son is off the derech, and r.E. asked him how he spends his Friday night, he answered - quickly eat and rush to grab Gemoro. - Well, and I am singing, - r.E. answered. So was that Shach in Bnei Brak?
there are pictures from rav shach in his younger age looking like a nice modern orthodox yinger man so the question is how did 'he' turn out to become Rav shach!
The story doesn't sound true. Why would R'Shach badmouth his son who was a frum yid? Besides singing zemiros is not a Litvishe answer. This is a Hungarian/Chasidic story.
My dear anonymous who posted at 9:02PM on Oct.18: You certainly are entitled to your opinion regarding the way I call that person or another and you certainly entitled to believe your opinion is firmly rooted in Torah. IMHO your position is very interesting, as according to it no child in cheder would be allowed to hold negative opinion of Korach, because none of those children at that time (and absolute majority of them during the whole their life) would never come to the level of Korach's tremendous knowledge of Torah, about which we know from trustworthy sources.
BTW, if r.Efraim is a frum yid (if not the ultra, others would like to see him), the story is likely got mixed up with other person, as in the story that I heard the son went off the derech completely. The few Litvacks that I saw, ascribe tremendous importance to sing by Shabbos table. In difference, unfortunately, from many (by far not all of course) chabadniks, who don't sing zmiros because Alter Rebbe did not include them in siddur so that the chassidim would discuss chassidus, but chassidus is not discussed either and niggunim are not sung, and even "Azamer", "Asader" and "Bnei heycholo" that are printed are not a must.
Reb Yakov, I understand that the sect that you joined is fond of comparing their leader to Moshe Rabbeinu. However, as much as you'd like to believe he was the Moshe of the dor, I would venture to say that emunah shleima in the Rebbe is not one of the 13 ikkarim.
http://www.col.org.il/%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%97%D7%91%D7%93_%D7%A2%D7%9B%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%95_%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A9%D7%A8_%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A1%D7%9D_%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%A9%D7%9A_%D7%91%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%97%D7%91%D7%93%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA_64569.html hirshil check out the link
Dear Anonymous of Motzoei Shabos Koidesh at 10:43: It amazes me how consistently you and your ilk try to show off your daas Toiro by ascribing some nonsense to your opponent and then proudly fighting that nonsense. (That's about 13 ikkarim). And you may be assured that I bother to answer only because you and your ilk's predictable and uniform reactions provide some moderate but unfailing amusement.
Anon "I understand that the sect that you joined is fond of comparing their leader to Moshe Rabbeinu" Our great Tzig posted awhile ago the article of reb Moredechai Gross how MARAN is Rashbi, I think he counts 24 ways... so stop with name calling a part of Klal yisroel sect.. when defending your own loony tribe..
Anon "I would venture to say that emunah shleima in the Rebbe is not one of the 13 ikkarim." it is only if you dont believe the ZOHAR that we have a Moshe Rebinie in every genaration. BTW, there is no issur to add to the 13 ikkarim
Anon "However, as much as you'd like to believe he was the Moshe of the dor" look at the inscription on the tomb, the inscription Oso Shele Tishtakach Torah Myisroel. How by creating the new Degel Party? By Shearith treifene scandal ridden chicken and Matzohs? By Yated Nemon that is a Even Negef Lebais Yisroel, mostly for the yeshivesher gedolim.?
Reb Yakov, I'm sorry if you didn't understand what I meant; I'll try to be clearer. Korach was a kofer b'nevuas Moshe Rabeinu, which is one of the Rambam's 13 ikkrim, and was therefore a heretic. Although you consider the Rebbe the Moshe of the dor, I would venture to say that one who argued with him does not receive the status of a kofer; hence your reasoning comparing your derogatory manner to Rav Shach to our negative opinion of Korach is somewhat flawed. I hope that clarifies my opinion to the rest of those commenting above as well.
That said, I fully understand Chabad's reaction to Rav Shach - they obviously did not share Rav Shach's opinion of the Rebbe and, as such, felt maligned and attacked by someone who they felt bichlal hated Chassidim and definitely had no shaychus to CHaBaD. My original comment was referring to your specific circumstance.
So, reb Anonymous at 5:08, you continue to ascribe to me some more opinions that you would mightily reject? Was it not obvious that I did not compare all the circumstances of Korach and the other person? Was it not obvious that the only thing I was comparing was Torah knowledge of Korach vs. Torah knowledge of cheder students and just the fact that he was negative personage? The same can be said about Shimi ben Geira, the meraglim, Doeg, Achitoifel and so on. And the only common thing is that all these individuals were tremendous Torah scholars and still deserve negative attitude for what they did. Except with such a passage of time their negative impact remains mostly academical, while the other one's poison unfortunately still has force.
Reb Yakov, Another thing all those individuals have in common is that the Torah tells us that what they did was wrong - making the negative attitude towards them objective. Does the fact that you follow the man that was attacked perhaps make you subjective in your judgement, especially considering that the effects are still being felt today, as you wrote, "...[his] poison unfortunately still has force."?
Reb Anonymous at 3:51, Any individual is subjective in any assessment. That includes not only me but you also. I hope you are not in denial regarding that. So having this inherent impediment of human nature an individual is trying his/her best in assessing the situation and drawing a conclusion. And any normal individual would try to make assessment based on Torah to the best of his/her abilities and ask Hashem to help to make right decision. Being that the situation regarding these personalities mentioned in Tanach is similar in the core respect to the case in consideration, the conclusion is corresponding.
Reb Yakov, I agree with you wholeheartedly. We are inherently subjective as human beings and, without access to nevuah, this is apparently how we are supposed to function - as you so accurately write "And any normal individual would try to make assessment based on Torah to the best of his/her abilities and ask Hashem to help to make right decision." As such, I respect your right and ability to make a decision regarding whether Rav Shach was right or wrong and live your life accordingly. I have not spoken about that aspect during our entire discussion. We are discussing a different matter, which is your passing of judgement and speaking derogatorily of Rav Shach the person (even if he said things about the Rebbe as a person). I don't think you can use Na"ch for this as, for example, Dovid Hamelech was a king, annointed by a navi, and Shimi was a moreid b'malchus - objectively. You can believe what you want about the Rebbe, but won't you agree that your beliefs are subjective? Therefore, don't agree with R' Shach but to consider him bad instead of mistaken has been the focus of my posting. To use an unoriginal analogy, Klal Yisrael has been accepting of both Rav Yaakov Emden and Rav Yonason Eibischutz.
Of course, my beliefs are subjective. And "to the best of my knowledge" the person we are talking about was "meein moirid bemalchus" and was wicked because considering his stature and knowledge I hardly can imagine he was not knowing what he was doing. Hopefully Moshiach will be revealed now and will sort out all that requires sorting out, but if chas vesholom chas vesholom it will not happen for another number of years, at least my children would be able to look at that with the same academically indifferent amusement as we look now at r.Emden - r.Eybeschutz controversy.
Reb Yakov, If I understand you correctly - and please correct me if and where I misstate your opinion: 1) You formulated an opinion of the Rebbe based on the only method of evaluation at our disposal - as you so succinctly put it - "And any normal individual would try to make assessment based on Torah to the best of his/her abilities and ask Hashem to help to make right decision." You attributed various titles/functions/leadership roles to the Rebbe using the above method as well. 2) The conclusion that you reached is absolute - in fact, the greater Torah knowledge one has, the clearer that conclusion is. It is impossible to use the aforementioned evaluation technique and conclude any differently. Anybody acting not in accordance with that conclusion must be doing so maliciously. Are those 2 points not contradictory? On a side note, I wasn't referring to the "academically indifferent amusement" to the controversy but our regard to both as people. RY Eibischutz occupies a place of prominence in our chain of Torah leaders and commentators, which means that Klal Yisroel has implicitly decided that RY Emden was wrong in his attacks. However, RY Emden is also a respected figure and his Torah is studied and printed, which means we did not invalidate him because of his position on RY Eibischutz. Korach and Doeg will never be respected.
No, you didn't understand me correctly. My conclusion was that in that particular case the person was doing it maliciously. I think so because of some other indicators than mere general principles. These indicators I have no desire to discuss as they are not going to convince you in anything. And I know you were not referring to indifferent amusement but I brought it up to show a different side of that controversy.
Reb Yakov, A Gut Voch. So: A)It is entirely possible for a truthful person looking to make an honest assessment of the Rebbe to conclude roughly along the same lines as the view that Rav Shach promulgated, and act publicly on that belief. Mistaken as he might be, this does not make him a wicked person. B) Rav Shach fully recognized the Rebbe for who and what you believe him to have been. Within that framework, what he did is terribly malicious, analogous of what Chazal say of Nimrod and the people of Sodom - yodeia es ribono umiskaveyn limrod bo.
You choose (B) over (A) because of certain indicators. You are correct in that the specifics of those indicators and my opinion regarding their validity are a topic of a different discussion than the one we have been involved in. What is relevant to this discussion though, is that you believe that these indicators are proof to an objective observer, i.e. one who has no previous affiliation to the Rebbe or Rav Shach, and is not dependent on being a chossid of the Rebbe.
You are talking about general principles and I already said: My conclusion was that in that particular case the person was doing it maliciously. I think so because of some other indicators than mere general principles. Independent of whether Rebbe was or not recognized for what he truly is.
Reb Yakov, So you are not assuming to know what Rav Shach believed about the Rebbe. Regardless of what he held, though, you believe, based on indicators, that the intent of the attacks was malice as opposed to genuine concern for what he believed to be a problem?
Reb Yakov, Yet you readily offer that your interpretation of those indicators is subjective. This is not a decision that directly impacts your life, so what is compelling you to make this assessment and pass definitive judgement on him, a judgement which is clearly influenced by personal beliefs? What is your motivator, especially considering the stakes - your public disparaging of a Torah scholar? Why not recognize your partiality and refrain?
Reb Anonymous: Would you agree in general that when a person does certain things they go beyond reasonable benefit of doubt? For example, Stalin was getting rid of all popular charismatic party leaders, who were tortured and shot and still before their death they screamed "long live Stalin", as they still believed it was not his fault. I think that kind of benefit of doubt is a little too far stretched. Now, regarding Na'ch and comparisons from it that you reject. of course all the situations are different, but still I see nothing wrong in trying to learn from the holy books and see the applications in day-to-day life. As about subjective, ultimately just because of fact that we are human beings, what we believe and what we consider to be known is still a matter of personal choice, that is, particularly, we choose the proofs and so on, that the Toiro is emes and so on. Also regarding judgment, are you the same Anonymous who called Chabad "sect" on October 22 at 10:43PM? Well, I guess, that person who posted then, is absolutely sure without any trace of doubt as clear as those present at Mt.Sinai at the Giving of the Toiro, that his attitude is 100% correct and warranted. BTW, was the disparaging you are talking about - to omit the title "Rov"?
Reb Yakov, I am the person who referred to Chabad as a sect. You are not the first poster to have understood that usage with negative connotations. I meant nothing offensive - I was writing in English and referring to a subgroup within a larger group. It is quite standard in the media to refer to a chassidus as a Hassidic sect. Perhaps not the best choice of words, but certainly not trying to imply anything negative by using it. I was referring your to your omitting a "Rav" or the like. I am aware that Chabad is less 'formal' in addressing even its own rabbinic figures, but you did bequeath Rav Elyashiv a "r." so it seems to have been done purposely. I am also used to how the Lubavitchers I know generally speak about Rav Shach after referring to him in that manner, and I, perhaps mistakenly, attributed the same to you. As for NaCH and subjectivity, I am referring specifically to passing definitive judgement on somebody else, especially a Torah scholar. What is the need to do so? I'm not saying to judge him favorably either, just to recognize your subjectivity and abstain from judging. As far as your Stalin analogy ( and no, I'm not accusing you of comparing any person to anybody else), is there anything that the Rebbe could or could not have done that would've made giving him the benefit of the doubt unreasonable? Would you not agree that the very considering of certain things "beyond reasonable benefit of doubt" is in of itself subjective?
OK. Sorry for suspecting you unjustly (regarding sect). I take back then whatever my jabs were directed at you. And consequently I'll try to answer more to the point. Yes, I omitted "rav" in that case, as it just does not come out by me that easy for him. Sorry. More about subjective judgement. You go to a store, select apples. Looks, like they are rotten. You don't buy them even though they are cheaper. But in reality they were OK. So here you made you judgement. You walk the street occupied in reviewing Mishna by heart. Suddenly you hear a screech of bus' breaks, you interrupt you review and turn your head. Was that head turning really needed? You made a judgement. Are these judgements definitive? For you - yes. Does it impose on anyone else to make it objectively definitive? No. Now, let's say you are worried about the spiritual well being of another Jew (that is me) and concerned that I am "buying rotten apples" here - have a wrong attitude to another Jewish person. On one hand it is a little to late. I already "bought" it. I don't want to specify why I think about Shach what I think, because I believe it is useless - no purpose. Especially considering that I don't believe I would convince anyone. Usually, people are already convinced in something and then tend to view the facts accordingly. I don't exclude myself from that, but it seems to me, I can discern that in other people also. Besides, convincing by itself is not necessarily needed at all. In this case - whoever considers him godol or whatever - gezunterheit. In the whole story above I was not interested to put the man down specifically, it is just my attitude to him. I was interested merely in the story (of singing) itself. So it was not for purposeful bashing, it just happened that he has connection to the story, and I mentioned him.
Reb Yakov, Thank you. Buying the apples or turning your head are decisions concerning how to lead your life. You must make those decisions and you must make them definitively. As human beings, we are constantly responding to the world and events around us, formulating opinions, judging other people and their actions,etc. We then incorporate those opinions into future decisions we make for our own lives. However, before we publicly express those opinions of others, (and ideally, even before incorporating them into our lives) do you agree that we should first make sure that there is any purpose to what we are doing and concurrently examine our motives and prejudices in that opinion and the need to publicly express it? In my own life, my family had dealings with a man widely considered to be a 'leading gadol' in my circles. I believe he displayed insensitivity and bad middos. I now will steer clear of him and his advice as he has lost his stature in my eyes. However, the transition to publicly expressing this disparaging opinion will not be automatic. I've already said that I understand the chassidim's reaction to the attacks. What I was trying to ask was if you were being honest about the level of objectivity inherent in the confidence of speaking a certain way of a person.
I agree with you in general. In particular (and again, I don't want to bring up details, so I will again resort to examples), let's say, I hold pretty disparaging view of Napoleon, while significantly many people today think he was great by himself and great for France and the world. Do I promote my opinion? No. But if the talk is about Napoleon, and I mention him, my disparaging opinion very well may display. But more important for the whole conversation: do you imply that in my case transition to publicly express disparaging opinion was automatic? Well, really it does not matter. If you suspect me in not being honest - it is fine with me. Why would I try to prove my intentions to such questioning? Yes, there is such a thing as to be clean in the eyes of Hashem and man, but here I don't know you, you don't know me, here are just 2 virtual characters in virtual reality. Besides, what value is in dialogue, if one is suspected in dishonesty? I think - zero.
Reb Yakov, I apologize for the accusatory tone inherent in my choice of words. I did not mean to accuse you of dishonesty. What I am getting at is that the transition from personal opinion to public expression is a serious process. It means taking what you saw/heard and applying it to the very foundation of the person's character and invalidating him; from the perspective of how that person fits in to your life to paskening about the person himself through the power of speech. On Napoleon, who cares? Another yid, we must be careful. On a Torah scholar, how much more so. I have found that when many a Lubavitcher speaks of Rav Shach there is a heavy dose of emotion, of visceral reaction, and understandably so. For that matter, when many 'misnagdim' speak of the Rebbe they are deficient in that regard as well - in appreciating the seriousness of speaking on another person. My Rosh Yeshiva (who would be considered very much a 'snag') once told me, in one of our discussions about current Chabad (I initiated it, as I was struggling with it at the time), that he cannot speak about the Rebbe personally as he was clearly a 'big' person and his tayvos were not to sleep in late and make barbecues (sounds simplistic but he was making a rather sharp point to a bachur who was doing just that). I was inquiring if you, on an intellectual level, can possess the confidence requisite to make such a serious step. You might read an accusation into that but I don't mean to accuse. The perspective I've been promoting seems clear to me and I'd like to hear yours.
There are 2 points coming from your post, as I see it: 1. You are worried that I did not consider all the problems connected with disparaging talmid chochom in public. 2. Whatever my logic was in taking out for myself that person from what is covered by that prohibition regarding another yid and especially Torah scholar - it is not necessarily flawless and should be abandoned in view of the possible grave sin. So the answer is: yes, in this case for certain reasons that, again, I don't want to discuss, as it would just make more disparaging and so on, I do have such confidence. In the example of Napoleon I was just trying to bring up the point that a person may have, using your terms, confidence in judgement regarding someone's character, that (judgement) not being universally accepted. In shorter terms, I hear what you are saying, and I agree in general, and I don't want to go into details why in my humble but (for myself) definite opinion this case is different.
Reb Yakov I agree with your reluctance to speak of the specifics, and I am not trying to goad you into doing so. I thank you for continuing the discussion for this long and I admire your ability to do so without mixing in emotions or 'party politics' as is unfortunately the case in so many disagreements in Klal Yisroel and the rest of the world. My final question is: Has there been, could there have been, or could there be an instance in which a 'misnaged' speaks out publicly about something which he feels is problematic with Chabad and/or the Rebbe and you would not reach the same conclusion as you have in this case?
The answer is: yes. A lot (if not majority, and maybe even absolute majority) of negative stuff that I hear/read or heard/ had read about Chabad and the Rebbe I may be upset, disagree, believe to be misinformed or poorly educated but certainly not malicious. Well, with a lot of stuff about Chabad I even agree:) (That stuff we'd rather say to ourselves than hear from others and get defensive)
Reb Yakov, I thank you again. The same is true for most of us individuals and groups. The world would be alot more peaceful if that weren't the case. I wish you a long healthy life of בני חיי ומזוני, a life of אהבת תורה ויראת שמים, filled with שמחה של מצוה and making נחת רוח for our Creator.
48 comments:
Visnitzers like to say that Rav Shach admitted that the reason his son turned out that way, is because he did not sing Shabos zemiros,
My question, did Rav Shach's father sing shabos zemioros?
He was not only Dr.; Rav Dr. Shach also had smicha from his great uncle Rav Isser Zalman and from Rav Yechezkel Sarna.
why the H*** r u posting this on a "pro" chabad site...????
Because Tzig is open minded and loves all things Yiddish.
where did they bury him?
To Anon:
Wow! I heard about shabos zmiros when I was not yet religious 22 years ago in Italy on the way to US but without the names attached, was said though about a rov in Meah Shearim, who complained to r.Elyashiv that his son is off the derech, and r.E. asked him how he spends his Friday night, he answered - quickly eat and rush to grab Gemoro.
- Well, and I am singing, - r.E. answered.
So was that Shach in Bnei Brak?
there are pictures from rav shach in his younger age looking like a nice modern orthodox yinger man so the question is how did 'he' turn out to become Rav shach!
umm, I've seen pictures of Rav Shach, we probably all have, he dressed like a typical litvishe bochur of the time
Which was "like a nice modern orthodox yinger man"
ok, but the point is that the point that he "became Rav Shach" is a little lost in that context
So Yakov, you are frum for less than 22 years, but you already have the right titles for Rav Shach. Geshtiggen!
The story doesn't sound true.
Why would R'Shach badmouth his son who was a frum yid?
Besides singing zemiros is not a Litvishe answer.
This is a Hungarian/Chasidic story.
My dear anonymous who posted at 9:02PM on Oct.18:
You certainly are entitled to your opinion regarding the way I call that person or another and you certainly entitled to believe your opinion is firmly rooted in Torah.
IMHO your position is very interesting, as according to it no child in cheder would be allowed to hold negative opinion of Korach, because none of those children at that time (and absolute majority of them during the whole their life) would never come to the level of Korach's tremendous knowledge of Torah, about which we know from trustworthy sources.
BTW, if r.Efraim is a frum yid (if not the ultra, others would like to see him), the story is likely got mixed up with other person, as in the story that I heard the son went off the derech completely.
The few Litvacks that I saw, ascribe tremendous importance to sing by Shabbos table.
In difference, unfortunately, from many (by far not all of course) chabadniks, who don't sing zmiros because Alter Rebbe did not include them in siddur so that the chassidim would discuss chassidus, but chassidus is not discussed either and niggunim are not sung, and even "Azamer", "Asader" and "Bnei heycholo" that are printed are not a must.
The niftar was certainly a frum yid, unfortunately not all his children turned out that way.
Reb Yakov,
I understand that the sect that you joined is fond of comparing their leader to Moshe Rabbeinu. However, as much as you'd like to believe he was the Moshe of the dor, I would venture to say that emunah shleima in the Rebbe is not one of the 13 ikkarim.
http://www.col.org.il/%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%97%D7%91%D7%93_%D7%A2%D7%9B%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%95_%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A9%D7%A8_%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A1%D7%9D_%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%A9%D7%9A_%D7%91%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%97%D7%91%D7%93%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA_64569.html hirshil check out the link
http://www.col.org.il/חדשות_חבד_עכשיו_אפשר_לפרסם_אפרים_שך_בהתוועדות_חבדית_תמונות_64569.html
With this story we can understand why chabad looks the way it does ..... They don't sing shabbos zimiros
Dear Anonymous of Motzoei Shabos Koidesh at 10:43:
It amazes me how consistently you and your ilk try to show off your daas Toiro by ascribing some nonsense to your opponent and then proudly fighting that nonsense. (That's about 13 ikkarim).
And you may be assured that I bother to answer only because you and your ilk's predictable and uniform reactions provide some moderate but unfailing amusement.
Anon
"I understand that the sect that you joined is fond of comparing their leader to Moshe Rabbeinu"
Our great Tzig posted awhile ago the article of reb Moredechai Gross how MARAN is Rashbi,
I think he counts 24 ways... so stop with name calling a part of Klal yisroel sect.. when defending your own loony tribe..
Anon
"I would venture to say that emunah shleima in the Rebbe is not one of the 13 ikkarim."
it is only if you dont believe the ZOHAR that we have a Moshe Rebinie in every genaration.
BTW, there is no issur to add to the 13 ikkarim
Anon
"However, as much as you'd like to believe he was the Moshe of the dor"
look at the inscription on the tomb, the inscription Oso Shele Tishtakach Torah Myisroel.
How by creating the new Degel Party?
By Shearith treifene scandal ridden chicken and Matzohs?
By Yated Nemon that is a Even Negef Lebais Yisroel, mostly for the yeshivesher gedolim.?
"The story doesn't sound true."
Sounds quite plausible...and I'm sure R' Elyashiv sings Zemiros...and was Zoiche to have Einiklach that Shtam from Chassidim of the Alter Rebbe
Reb Yakov,
I'm sorry if you didn't understand what I meant; I'll try to be clearer. Korach was a kofer b'nevuas Moshe Rabeinu, which is one of the Rambam's 13 ikkrim, and was therefore a heretic. Although you consider the Rebbe the Moshe of the dor, I would venture to say that one who argued with him does not receive the status of a kofer; hence your reasoning comparing your derogatory manner to Rav Shach to our negative opinion of Korach is somewhat flawed. I hope that clarifies my opinion to the rest of those commenting above as well.
That said, I fully understand Chabad's reaction to Rav Shach - they obviously did not share Rav Shach's opinion of the Rebbe and, as such, felt maligned and attacked by someone who they felt bichlal hated Chassidim and definitely had no shaychus to CHaBaD. My original comment was referring to your specific circumstance.
So, reb Anonymous at 5:08, you continue to ascribe to me some more opinions that you would mightily reject?
Was it not obvious that I did not compare all the circumstances of Korach and the other person? Was it not obvious that the only thing I was comparing was Torah knowledge of Korach vs. Torah knowledge of cheder students and just the fact that he was negative personage? The same can be said about Shimi ben Geira, the meraglim, Doeg, Achitoifel and so on. And the only common thing is that all these individuals were tremendous Torah scholars and still deserve negative attitude for what they did. Except with such a passage of time their negative impact remains mostly academical, while the other one's poison unfortunately still has force.
Reb Yakov,
Another thing all those individuals have in common is that the Torah tells us that what they did was wrong - making the negative attitude towards them objective.
Does the fact that you follow the man that was attacked perhaps make you subjective in your judgement, especially considering that the effects are still being felt today, as you wrote, "...[his] poison unfortunately still has force."?
Reb Anonymous at 3:51,
Any individual is subjective in any assessment. That includes not only me but you also. I hope you are not in denial regarding that. So having this inherent impediment of human nature an individual is trying his/her best in assessing the situation and drawing a conclusion.
And any normal individual would try to make assessment based on Torah to the best of his/her abilities and ask Hashem to help to make right decision.
Being that the situation regarding these personalities mentioned in Tanach is similar in the core respect to the case in consideration, the conclusion is corresponding.
Reb Yakov,
I agree with you wholeheartedly. We are inherently subjective as human beings and, without access to nevuah, this is apparently how we are supposed to function - as you so accurately write "And any normal individual would try to make assessment based on Torah to the best of his/her abilities and ask Hashem to help to make right decision."
As such, I respect your right and ability to make a decision regarding whether Rav Shach was right or wrong and live your life accordingly. I have not spoken about that aspect during our entire discussion.
We are discussing a different matter, which is your passing of judgement and speaking derogatorily of Rav Shach the person (even if he said things about the Rebbe as a person). I don't think you can use Na"ch for this as, for example, Dovid Hamelech was a king, annointed by a navi, and Shimi was a moreid b'malchus - objectively. You can believe what you want about the Rebbe, but won't you agree that your beliefs are subjective? Therefore, don't agree with R' Shach but to consider him bad instead of mistaken has been the focus of my posting.
To use an unoriginal analogy, Klal Yisrael has been accepting of both Rav Yaakov Emden and Rav Yonason Eibischutz.
Of course, my beliefs are subjective. And "to the best of my knowledge" the person we are talking about was "meein moirid bemalchus" and was wicked because considering his stature and knowledge I hardly can imagine he was not knowing what he was doing.
Hopefully Moshiach will be revealed now and will sort out all that requires sorting out, but if chas vesholom chas vesholom it will not happen for another number of years, at least my children would be able to look at that with the same academically indifferent amusement as we look now at r.Emden - r.Eybeschutz controversy.
Reb Yakov,
If I understand you correctly - and please correct me if and where I misstate your opinion:
1) You formulated an opinion of the Rebbe based on the only method of evaluation at our disposal - as you so succinctly put it - "And any normal individual would try to make assessment based on Torah to the best of his/her abilities and ask Hashem to help to make right decision." You attributed various titles/functions/leadership roles to the Rebbe using the above method as well.
2) The conclusion that you reached is absolute - in fact, the greater Torah knowledge one has, the clearer that conclusion is. It is impossible to use the aforementioned evaluation technique and conclude any differently. Anybody acting not in accordance with that conclusion must be doing so maliciously.
Are those 2 points not contradictory?
On a side note, I wasn't referring to the "academically indifferent amusement" to the controversy but our regard to both as people. RY Eibischutz occupies a place of prominence in our chain of Torah leaders and commentators, which means that Klal Yisroel has implicitly decided that RY Emden was wrong in his attacks. However, RY Emden is also a respected figure and his Torah is studied and printed, which means we did not invalidate him because of his position on RY Eibischutz. Korach and Doeg will never be respected.
No, you didn't understand me correctly.
My conclusion was that in that particular case the person was doing it maliciously. I think so because of some other indicators than mere general principles. These indicators I have no desire to discuss as they are not going to convince you in anything.
And I know you were not referring to indifferent amusement but I brought it up to show a different side of that controversy.
Reb Yakov,
A Gut Voch.
So:
A)It is entirely possible for a truthful person looking to make an honest assessment of the Rebbe to conclude roughly along the same lines as the view that Rav Shach promulgated, and act publicly on that belief. Mistaken as he might be, this does not make him a wicked person.
B) Rav Shach fully recognized the Rebbe for who and what you believe him to have been. Within that framework, what he did is terribly malicious, analogous of what Chazal say of Nimrod and the people of Sodom - yodeia es ribono umiskaveyn limrod bo.
You choose (B) over (A) because of certain indicators. You are correct in that the specifics of those indicators and my opinion regarding their validity are a topic of a different discussion than the one we have been involved in. What is relevant to this discussion though, is that you believe that these indicators are proof to an objective observer, i.e. one who has no previous affiliation to the Rebbe or Rav Shach, and is not dependent on being a chossid of the Rebbe.
Did I get it this time?
You are talking about general principles and I already said:
My conclusion was that in that particular case the person was doing it maliciously. I think so because of some other indicators than mere general principles. Independent of whether Rebbe was or not recognized for what he truly is.
Reb Yakov,
So you are not assuming to know what Rav Shach believed about the Rebbe. Regardless of what he held, though, you believe, based on indicators, that the intent of the attacks was malice as opposed to genuine concern for what he believed to be a problem?
Exactly.
Reb Yakov,
Yet you readily offer that your interpretation of those indicators is subjective. This is not a decision that directly impacts your life, so what is compelling you to make this assessment and pass definitive judgement on him, a judgement which is clearly influenced by personal beliefs? What is your motivator, especially considering the stakes - your public disparaging of a Torah scholar? Why not recognize your partiality and refrain?
Reb Anonymous:
Would you agree in general that when a person does certain things they go beyond reasonable benefit of doubt? For example, Stalin was getting rid of all popular charismatic party leaders, who were tortured and shot and still before their death they screamed "long live Stalin", as they still believed it was not his fault. I think that kind of benefit of doubt is a little too far stretched.
Now, regarding Na'ch and comparisons from it that you reject. of course all the situations are different, but still I see nothing wrong in trying to learn from the holy books and see the applications in day-to-day life.
As about subjective, ultimately just because of fact that we are human beings, what we believe and what we consider to be known is still a matter of personal choice, that is, particularly, we choose the proofs and so on, that the Toiro is emes and so on.
Also regarding judgment, are you the same Anonymous who called Chabad "sect" on October 22 at 10:43PM? Well, I guess, that person who posted then, is absolutely sure without any trace of doubt as clear as those present at Mt.Sinai at the Giving of the Toiro, that his attitude is 100% correct and warranted.
BTW, was the disparaging you are talking about - to omit the title "Rov"?
Reb Yakov,
I am the person who referred to Chabad as a sect. You are not the first poster to have understood that usage with negative connotations. I meant nothing offensive - I was writing in English and referring to a subgroup within a larger group. It is quite standard in the media to refer to a chassidus as a Hassidic sect. Perhaps not the best choice of words, but certainly not trying to imply anything negative by using it.
I was referring your to your omitting a "Rav" or the like. I am aware that Chabad is less 'formal' in addressing even its own rabbinic figures, but you did bequeath Rav Elyashiv a "r." so it seems to have been done purposely. I am also used to how the Lubavitchers I know generally speak about Rav Shach after referring to him in that manner, and I, perhaps mistakenly, attributed the same to you.
As for NaCH and subjectivity, I am referring specifically to passing definitive judgement on somebody else, especially a Torah scholar. What is the need to do so? I'm not saying to judge him favorably either, just to recognize your subjectivity and abstain from judging.
As far as your Stalin analogy ( and no, I'm not accusing you of comparing any person to anybody else), is there anything that the Rebbe could or could not have done that would've made giving him the benefit of the doubt unreasonable? Would you not agree that the very considering of certain things "beyond reasonable benefit of doubt" is in of itself subjective?
OK. Sorry for suspecting you unjustly (regarding sect). I take back then whatever my jabs were directed at you. And consequently I'll try to answer more to the point.
Yes, I omitted "rav" in that case, as it just does not come out by me that easy for him. Sorry.
More about subjective judgement.
You go to a store, select apples. Looks, like they are rotten. You don't buy them even though they are cheaper. But in reality they were OK. So here you made you judgement.
You walk the street occupied in reviewing Mishna by heart. Suddenly you hear a screech of bus' breaks, you interrupt you review and turn your head. Was that head turning really needed? You made a judgement.
Are these judgements definitive?
For you - yes. Does it impose on anyone else to make it objectively definitive? No.
Now, let's say you are worried about the spiritual well being of another Jew (that is me) and concerned that I am "buying rotten apples" here - have a wrong attitude to another Jewish person. On one hand it is a little to late. I already "bought" it. I don't want to specify why I think about Shach what I think, because I believe it is useless - no purpose. Especially considering that I don't believe I would convince anyone. Usually, people are already convinced in something and then tend to view the facts accordingly. I don't exclude myself from that, but it seems to me, I can discern that in other people also. Besides, convincing by itself is not necessarily needed at all. In this case - whoever considers him godol or whatever - gezunterheit.
In the whole story above I was not interested to put the man down specifically, it is just my attitude to him. I was interested merely in the story (of singing) itself. So it was not for purposeful bashing, it just happened that he has connection to the story, and I mentioned him.
Reb Yakov,
Thank you. Buying the apples or turning your head are decisions concerning how to lead your life. You must make those decisions and you must make them definitively.
As human beings, we are constantly responding to the world and events around us, formulating opinions, judging other people and their actions,etc. We then incorporate those opinions into future decisions we make for our own lives. However, before we publicly express those opinions of others, (and ideally, even before incorporating them into our lives) do you agree that we should first make sure that there is any purpose to what we are doing and concurrently examine our motives and prejudices in that opinion and the need to publicly express it?
In my own life, my family had dealings with a man widely considered to be a 'leading gadol' in my circles. I believe he displayed insensitivity and bad middos. I now will steer clear of him and his advice as he has lost his stature in my eyes. However, the transition to publicly expressing this disparaging opinion will not be automatic.
I've already said that I understand the chassidim's reaction to the attacks. What I was trying to ask was if you were being honest about the level of objectivity inherent in the confidence of speaking a certain way of a person.
I agree with you in general.
In particular (and again, I don't want to bring up details, so I will again resort to examples), let's say, I hold pretty disparaging view of Napoleon, while significantly many people today think he was great by himself and great for France and the world. Do I promote my opinion? No. But if the talk is about Napoleon, and I mention him, my disparaging opinion very well may display.
But more important for the whole conversation: do you imply that in my case transition to publicly express disparaging opinion was automatic?
Well, really it does not matter. If you suspect me in not being honest - it is fine with me. Why would I try to prove my intentions to such questioning? Yes, there is such a thing as to be clean in the eyes of Hashem and man, but here I don't know you, you don't know me, here are just 2 virtual characters in virtual reality.
Besides, what value is in dialogue, if one is suspected in dishonesty? I think - zero.
Reb Yakov,
I apologize for the accusatory tone inherent in my choice of words. I did not mean to accuse you of dishonesty.
What I am getting at is that the transition from personal opinion to public expression is a serious process. It means taking what you saw/heard and applying it to the very foundation of the person's character and invalidating him; from the perspective of how that person fits in to your life to paskening about the person himself through the power of speech. On Napoleon, who cares? Another yid, we must be careful. On a Torah scholar, how much more so.
I have found that when many a Lubavitcher speaks of Rav Shach there is a heavy dose of emotion, of visceral reaction, and understandably so. For that matter, when many 'misnagdim' speak of the Rebbe they are deficient in that regard as well - in appreciating the seriousness of speaking on another person. My Rosh Yeshiva (who would be considered very much a 'snag') once told me, in one of our discussions about current Chabad (I initiated it, as I was struggling with it at the time), that he cannot speak about the Rebbe personally as he was clearly a 'big' person and his tayvos were not to sleep in late and make barbecues (sounds simplistic but he was making a rather sharp point to a bachur who was doing just that).
I was inquiring if you, on an intellectual level, can possess the confidence requisite to make such a serious step. You might read an accusation into that but I don't mean to accuse. The perspective I've been promoting seems clear to me and I'd like to hear yours.
There are 2 points coming from your post, as I see it:
1. You are worried that I did not consider all the problems connected with disparaging talmid chochom in public.
2. Whatever my logic was in taking out for myself that person from what is covered by that prohibition regarding another yid and especially Torah scholar - it is not necessarily flawless and should be abandoned in view of the possible grave sin.
So the answer is: yes, in this case for certain reasons that, again, I don't want to discuss, as it would just make more disparaging and so on, I do have such confidence.
In the example of Napoleon I was just trying to bring up the point that a person may have, using your terms, confidence in judgement regarding someone's character, that (judgement) not being universally accepted.
In shorter terms, I hear what you are saying, and I agree in general, and I don't want to go into details why in my humble but (for myself) definite opinion this case is different.
Reb Yakov
I agree with your reluctance to speak of the specifics, and I am not trying to goad you into doing so. I thank you for continuing the discussion for this long and I admire your ability to do so without mixing in emotions or 'party politics' as is unfortunately the case in so many disagreements in Klal Yisroel and the rest of the world.
My final question is: Has there been, could there have been, or could there be an instance in which a 'misnaged' speaks out publicly about something which he feels is problematic with Chabad and/or the Rebbe and you would not reach the same conclusion as you have in this case?
The answer is: yes. A lot (if not majority, and maybe even absolute majority) of negative stuff that I hear/read or heard/ had read about Chabad and the Rebbe I may be upset, disagree, believe to be misinformed or poorly educated but certainly not malicious.
Well, with a lot of stuff about Chabad I even agree:) (That stuff we'd rather say to ourselves than hear from others and get defensive)
Reb Yakov,
I thank you again. The same is true for most of us individuals and groups. The world would be alot more peaceful if that weren't the case.
I wish you a long healthy life of בני חיי ומזוני, a life of אהבת תורה ויראת שמים, filled with שמחה של מצוה and making נחת רוח for our Creator.
Nu, kol mevorech - nisborech
Post a Comment