who wants it removed? and who cares what they want?
who? they, the Powers That Be at YRCB. We care because we don't like that they manipulate history.
They want to throw it under the rug that R' Hutner was makrivim ze lize with r kook. read the last paragraph.What exactly is our problem with R' Kook? There were other quasi mizrachist rabbonim who we still hold in esteem. R' Kook in my opinion seems to be erlich, though interesting, needless to say.Is our aversion to him really a result of his followers? or is it really r'kook himself?
it was rav hutner himself who tried to distance his name from his previous associaton with rav kook. the powers that be (as you call them) are trying to do their rebbe's will. on the other hand, yerushalmi gedolim like rav s.z. auerbach and rav y.s. elyashiv never denied their links to rav kook.
I would say "nishtaneh hateva". Back in the early decades of the medina, especially after the 6-day war, when the State and Zionism were an actual Taiva, there was a reason the anti-Zionists perceived a need to make a "Siyag laTorah" Nowadays, in the absence of the Zionist Taiva, and in the shadow of Rav Elyashiv who was clearly not a Zionist and yet felt no need to make such a Harchaka, all of us, even the Talmidei Ha"Toras Hanazir" can relax and leave the haskama, or even restore it.
Tzig,This is "old stuff".Why don't you copy Lot #87 from the Catalogue, that has a disputed Likutei Torah which testifies to the bitter machlokes between Kapust and Lubavitch? Or, find out what says in those letters being sold written "in the interim period" after the petirah of the Riyatz zt"l.
I hadn't noticed, Kovner. I'll take a look. See? we all see what we wanna see.
ok, lot #87 was recently reprinted by a Lubavitcher! so no big deal here.where are the letters from "the interim?"
The pirsum rishon blog had uploaded some letters from the interregnum. Letters to the Chassidim signed by RND, Rashag and the Rebbe.
R kuk has a degree of אחריות for the תרפט by encoraging the youthful zionest demonstraters at the kotel.Heard from רב יוסף צבי בן פורת. Avaiable on you tube.
Chaim berlin tragedy, what's your take on this issue?
Tzig,You sound like you really hate yeshiva R'Chaim Berlin...Or maybe you are trying to be holier than the pope, because you want to show what a "mekushar" you are.You can make a Hunk, "hoongarian" into anything.Satmar,Belz,Lubob, but you can't get their vanity and stupidity out of them.What a "magyar fing"!!
Rav Hutner's style of thinking and speech as reflected in his ma'amorim was greatly influenced by Rav Kook. He never denied that. In his maamorim, Rav Kook was alluded to by the nickname of "kedoshei elyon". Rav hutner held that rav Kook was the greatest in kabbalah in EY in his time. Also he was a tzaddik and gaon. However, although Rav Kook was respected by most rabbopnim in EY in his time, the yeshiva velt of the '60s and onward totally rejected Rav Kook, probably because brisk and the chazon Ish did not hold of him. so instead of trying to change the mind of the yeshiva velt, Rav hutner tried to avoid showing his connection. Therefore in his NY edition he omitted the haskamah. Rav Hutner always rejected Rav Kook as a manhig, he only respected him as a gaon and tzaddik. However, the ways of hashgachah are interesting. rav Elyashiv never tried to hide his connection, and when asked would clearly speak of Rav Kook's greatness. It was pretty difficult for the Yated ne'eman, since when Rav Shach was the manhig, Rav Kook would never get the title "gaon", but when Rav elyashiv took over the reigns, he clearly respected the person and his greatness.................
KovnerI can agree on all your theories, but where did you find any negative vibe from the Chazon Ish against Rav Kook....there are a million and one lies, but there is 1 fact there is a ksav yad of the CI where he asks his a question in Halacha and calls him Maran..
Fat checker,I didn't tell you theories. It's all known stuff to anyone familiar with the Chaim Berlin crowd. Moshe Shoenfeld in his addendum to Ikvese D'Mishicha called Daas Torah quotes the CI as having advised a seforim dealer not to sell the sifrei machshava of rav Kook. Likewise, anyone familiar with the Chazon Ishnike crowd knows that the CI was against Rav Kook. If he would not have been then they would not be. Apparently, although at first the CI greatly respected him, and wrote lavish praise in that letter, and there is a famous picture of the CI standing by the chanukas habayis of Beis Yosef yeshiva in Bnei Brak when Rav Kook was talking, nevertheless he must have changed his mind later. Maybe we can get a glimpse of the reason for the change of mind based on the fact that in the election for the Chief Rabbi after Rav Kook was niftar the CI backed Rav Herzog and not R' Charlap, although Rav Charlop was your standard yerushalmi, and Rav Herzog was also "Dr.", but the CI said something to the effect that a person who deals with "nitzotzos" is unpredictable.
PS I find it hard to believe that there are talmidim today of R' Hutner who want that edition of Toras Hanazir removed from the sale. Everybody knows about it and it's not such an issue anymore. However if they would be selling Hillel Goldberg's book, then I believe they would still quietly buy it out.
The חזן איש stood by R kook's speach so he wouldn't have to stand when he entered as he told to is talmid rav m y landau ( recent interview in דורות-העדה( () The CI sent a letter wihout זל on r kook which r t y kook never forgotאכנל
Tzikie Kedere"The חזן איש stood by R kook's speach so he wouldn't have to stand when he entered as he told to is talmid rav m y landau ( recent interview in דורות-העדה( ()"Every side has his interview, And I dont believe non of them All are agenda drive. There are seforim and seforim from both sides and I believe all of them the same. Rav Nariyu's facts are as good as all the 7 volumes Maseh Ish. But the facts are the facts,He wrote Maran Shlita and ask him a question in Halacha, and I think he did not ask no one a question in Halacha outside of him, there is no excuse that he needed it for certificates as the brisker excuse goes.If I am correct he was standing when he heard him on the mic talking by some Even Hapinah etc....is a fact that no one denies. He was against the whole extreme kanoais of Reb Elchonen which you see in multiple letters back and forth, so don't make him into some pariah.
Tziki Kedere"( recent interview in דורות-העדה( () What newspaper?Kovetz? Magazine? is this.Who is behind it
דורות is a עדה החרדית publication
Kovner"Apparently, although at first the CI greatly respected him, and wrote lavish praise in that letter, and there is a famous picture of the CI standing by the chanukas habayis of Beis Yosef yeshiva in Bnei Brak when Rav Kook was talking, nevertheless he must have changed his mind later."What year was the Letter, and when was the chanukas habais of bais yosef?Do you have a way to check?This Herzog Vs, Charlap selection is new to me, but there is no question that Rav Herzog was the goan hadoir, and why should he go for some nice yerushalmi talmid chochem, why do we need the Nitzotzois Losha Hora
Hirshelinfamous for hagiography, could compete with pre perestroika Pravda
The קשר between the CI and r kook is welldocumented by yoel-ab in his sight and books עיין שםAlso the. Biography shows his fight against r harlop wrutten ddr brown of bar ilan umany docs arefound in פאר הדור also
Who is yoel-ab?
Dont be lazy and use google yoel-ab...
FC... Look at browns book ... He brings the nuria girsa and the חרדי girsa and looks for the אמת
As someone commented above r kooks failed attemt to change the status quo at the kotel hsd tragic resuts in the 1929 massacres. I personaly spoke with rav moshe tzurial and lawyer elyakim haetzni on this saD episode.
Tziki Kedara". I personaly spoke with rav moshe tzurial and lawyer elyakim haetzni on this saD episode."Did they admit, the Massacre is Rav Kooks fault?
The Chevron massacre has been blamed on the Imrei Emes, Rayatz and I imagine others. I personally just blame the Arabs.
E haetzni said r kook has responabity but also the ישוב in hevron for refusing hagana reinforcements. Hagoan rav tzuriel first denied everything but after i told him haetzni's comment he reluctanly agreed.
AA ... לץ... Nobody blames those you mentioned... Read any history book of the time ( including the r kook biographys) and think which לצים don't do.
So I went...I went to salvage this rare piece of historical significance.The bidding started at $300 and very quickly -to the surprise of many collectors and dealers at the auction- reached $1,000.At $1,000 the auction slowed down a bit and went to $1,700.At $1,700 Aron Stefansky of Lakewood joined the fray and bid $1,800. After a brief pause where it looked like Stefansky might just win, the bid of $1,900 came in and the item sold.Interestingly, the bid of $1,900 came from a bidder over the phone who was not there in person. I have my suspicions as to whom it may have been, and you can all guess who that is. And I also have a feeling that this copy of Toras Hanazir will unfortunately join the rest of the first editions and never be seen again...
thank you for trying. Let's hope it didn't go where we think it went...
Yes Tzig, let's hope... But I think our suspicions are correct and our hope is hopeless.Especially because the Sefer had an estimated auction price of $400-$600.You see, a efer printed in 1932 is not all that rare and most collectors and dealers have no interest in anything that recent. The real value and significance in the book is that it belonged to Rav Yaakov Weinberg, was given to him as a gift by his mother and has a beautiful inscription from her. And that is what gave it an estimated value of $400-$600.Stefansky is smart and probably knew that he can pawn it off to a CBer (who may want to preserve or revise CB history) for more than the $1,800 that he bid on it. But to anybody else, other than Anonymous on the phone, the Sefer is is not worth all that much.This means that the person who bid on this sefer knew exactly what they were bidding on and that they were willing to pay far more than its value to get it. And I do not know of anybody who is so dead set on preserving RYHs kesher to Rav Kook that they would throw away so much money; but we do know of people who are so dead set on revising that kesher...
Some interesting points legabei this post:1: A friend of Mine in CB was by Reb Yonasan David (RYD) when he was asked why the haskama of Rav Kook (RK) was removed from the second and third printing of Toras Hanazir. RYD said that it just so happened that the printer removed the page...I mentioned that to Reb Lazer Katzman before the auction and he (like everybody else who hears this) thought it was preposterous.2: RYD was also asked why the picture of RK was removed from Rav Hutners (RYH) Sukka after hanging there for many years and RYD responded that no harm was intended, Bachurim would decorate the Sukka of RYH every year and it just so happened that one year the Bachurim didn't hang the pic up. But ask around and the story sounds a lot different. I've heard one version where RYH took it down b'fnei kol am v'eidah and made some comments about it...Perhapt "Chaim Berlin Tragedy" can clarify.3- Rav Ahron Schechter (RAS) currently has a picture in his living room of Rav Yosef Chaim and RK. However I doubt if any Talmidim in Yeshiva have any idea who the person with Rav Yosef Chaim is.A friend of mine was once by RAS when somebody asked who was in the picture and RAS responded "Ehrliche Yidden"
Post a Comment