A new sefer, recently authored by Rav Aron Felder
The Gadol hador would mark his birthday with family every year 7 Adar, by drinking LeChaim, etc. I guess he too learned from King Pharoah, eh...
We see how Reb Moshe was a master of the Finfte Shulchan Aruch...
And not always was sheer Halochoh all that mattered either
1) Very interesting! R' Hirshel, how thick is this sefer? And is chelek beis out as well (what's within)?
ReplyDelete2) Just to add to #34 -
The Rebbe was indeed also against the fact that they were in Synagogue council, and the letters in English are printed. All shluchim are thus not part of local "Board of Rabbis" m'hei tayma. But still, like RMF, the Rebbe didn't asser OU hashgocha either..
3) Also, re #41 -
This just goes to show the true colors of the Tendlers u'syaatam, who always try to paint R' Moshe zt"l differently "oh, i served him chalav stam and he didn't mind", after they're mak'chish the famous story when RMF vomited upon hearing it was cholov stam..
See number 18 and contrast that with the past few weeks events with Roshei Yeshivos and their talmidims weddings.
ReplyDeleteSee number 39 and take a peek into most kollelim.
Priceless !
#36 Hazro'oh m'lachtusis -- If only he was more open about this then, that he is really against it...
ReplyDelete--ZIY
Anon
ReplyDeleteThe sefer is like 60 pages
It is volume 1, published 3 nonths ago
Anonymous #1
ReplyDeleteWhen you write "Tendlers u'syaatam" are you referring to the Feinsteins and Reb Moshe's actual teshuvos in Igros Moshe? Or do you just presume to undestand precisely why Reb Moshe said what he did in THAT particular maaseh?
A true Godol Byisroel!!!
ReplyDeleteI read these beautiful vinigettes and I am struck about how in every story R Moshe says something original every time. What chocmah and emes. Simply a joy too read!
ReplyDelete@Anon 4:37 --
ReplyDeleteThanks!
@Anon 5:03 --
I should've wrote more clearly.
1) If anything, I didn't mean the IM set, rather chelek ches, which many of his talmidim muvhakim say is epes shtinkt.. [Agav, they write in Hakdoma there - "IYH we'll also print vol 9..", whatever happened to that??]
2) To clarify better what I wrote: RM Tendler denies the mayseh with vomiting. And as a ra'ya - "why, I served him cholov stam without any qualms from him about it!"
Same as they did about the sh'mua that RMF only stated his heter for shaving/trimming in a sha'as hadchak [and that ethically, RMF was opposed to it] - by stating, "why, I would trim the shver's beard willingly on his part too"..
Anon 10:07, you wrote "which many of his talmidim muvhakim ..." isn't that a contradiction in terms? Talmid muvhak by definition is very select. I think that comment alone speaks volumes about your credibility. But in any case, name ONE who you can quote saying such a thing.
ReplyDeleteAs to the actual tshuvos--Reb Moshe ztvkl is quite clear in Igros that chalav stam is muttar and not even b'toras kulah--but I agree, he never drank it himself; he was after all, the Gadol Hador.
As to you Vol. 9 comment, I'm really not sure what you're getting at with that...
Please quote where such statements were made re: Reb Moshe. And please state any basis for which you seem to think that his psak re: shaving was shas hadchak--this I know was completely refuted by Reb Dovid shlita. Do you have an authority to the contrary. I don't believe you that anyone from the mishpacha ever said they fed Reb Moshe zatzal cholov stam--this is silly back bench gossip.
ReplyDeleteTo 10:46
ReplyDeleteYou're credibility is definitely in question as you write 'it is quite clear that chalav stam is muttar....not even a kulah'.
Poppycock !!
He specifically writes that it is a kula.....and that is why it is forbidden , with no heter whatsoever to drink it where it is available. He writes 'zero heter'.
"He specifically writes that it is a kula.....and that is why it is forbidden , with no heter whatsoever to drink it where it is available. He writes 'zero heter'."
ReplyDeleteYou don't know what your talking about. Read the tshuva, it says: "Baal Nefesh Tov L'Hachmir" meaning it's a chumra to drink only chalav yisroel.
Let's try and quote chapter and verse when discussing R'Moshes' psak regarding cholov akum in America.
ReplyDeleteIf Tzig wants to be so kind he can actually post the pages.
Rabbi Zirkind from crown heights says that it is masse Rav that R' Moshe had cholov stam in his house.
ReplyDeleteI would venture to say that it depended on the years that in the earlier years he had it while in the later years he did not.
Even from this story quoted above he only said that the guy shouldn't buy it because the difference in price was nt big, but if it would be big it sounds that he would have been matir.
Is anyone prepared to take a bet how long it will be till this is banned or some kind of denial with ad hominem attacks on the author. I loved 24 and 35. mi yitein vehoyo such poskim in our times.
ReplyDelete@10:46 -
ReplyDelete1) Ok, I meant to write "several [talmidim muvhakim]", gimme a break oif yeder vort adam nidon over here.. And I don't think I'm at liberty to say his name. Suffice to say he's from the top hanhala @ YTJ, R' Moshe's yeshiva..
2) What I meant re vol. 9, is - it's a whole bunch of years since then, and we haven't seen anything in print. Is it just more forgery so after the flack they got, they're terrified to bring it to book form??
(I may be mistaken, and for all we know - the various new tshuvos/chidushim of R' Moshe which are prined in the quarterly's (sp?) are from this "vol 9"..)
Here's link to preface, where they write re vol 9. This is 5756!?
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=922&st=&pgnum=9
3) Not as a gelechter whatsoever CH"V, but as we're speaking of RMF zt"l - here's a link to one of the menagdim (Satmar possibly?) "Mayneh L'Igors". Has anyone refuted it, for k';vod shmo shel haRav? Or, "lo b'shufteni askinan" and we ignore the jealous detractors?
The "review" on the book (with a link to the PDF) -
http://bhol-forums.co.il/topic.asp?topic_id=2832365&forum_id=19616
Some sources where it's brought in seforim -
http://ishimshitos.blogspot.com/2008/12/maaneh-ligrots-biggest-fan.html
Where can this Sefer be purchased?
ReplyDeleteAnywhere Online?
Please let me know, thanx!
Yisroel and all Anon's
ReplyDeleteI don't see where this Chulev Yisroel discussion is going,
RMF wrote a letter to Toronto that the Kehila should organize to buy Chulev Yisroel, eventough you can be miekel but lekatchila you should use Chulev Yisroel and by the Kehila buying it, it will bring down the price that it should be available to everyone.
The letter is from the late Sixties, and printed in volume 8,
this is a letter to a large Kehila and can be verified by the elders in Toronto, so the Chelek Ches denial in not valid. By us Jews whenever we don't like something of a author we have the standard cliches as Talmud Toeh Koisvoi...etc.. the facts don't matter.
Hirshel
ReplyDeleteit is important to note, that Reb Moshe celebrated his Yom Holedeth, even tough it was 7 Adar, and a Yom Taanis by many, as the Chasam Sofer writes in his famous Teshuva(RE Lag Beomer)
Anonymous 8:47:
ReplyDelete1) First you say it was many talmidim. Now you are saying just one who you don't want to quote. But if it were true, wouldn't it be important to state? And once again, you lose total credibilty: as anyone with any mashehu of a clue to anything--it is MTJ not YTJ--and no, that is not an easy mistake to make. And may I remnd you that the Rosh Hayashiva of MTJ's name (Reb Dovid shlita) signed the hakdama to Chelek 8).
2) Again with you motzi shem ra. What forgeries are you referring to? Please poin to one tshuva which you find questionable (if you can). Perhaps you should have the dignity to ask to see the Ksav Yad which exists for all teshuos printed.
As to Chelek 9, stay tuned. But suffice to say it will have the heskem of all that matter--but I am sure that woon;t stop the likes of frustrated individuals such as yourself to cast aspersions.
3) The very fact that you even quote that Satmar pice just invalidates everything you have said so far. Why would anyone waste their time refuting such a disgraceful embarassment?
Reb Moshe's psak is well known from both his psakim ("Baal Nefesh Raui Lihachmir") as well as what he told his talmidim. A story from Toronto and what he said to an Avreich is perfectly consistent: he obviously felt the Yungerman was someone who should be machmir and he felt that in Toronto the proce would come down and his shitta was that if there is no significant price difference to buy the Cholov Yisroel. Bit that doesn't make Chalav Stam a kulah.
ReplyDeleteDid you see #38. Better give money to charedi chdorim than Russina Kiruv. It seems although RMF was somewhat of a Lubavitcher because he did not drink cholov hakompanies and celebrated his birthday, (and said yechi) all of which are true Lubavitcher chidushim, he still was not so much on board when it came to kiruv.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to take your quoting some mystery man from Reb Moshe's yeshiva when you don't even know what MTJ's name is.
ReplyDeletePlease cite one teshuva for which you can suopport your accusation that Chelek 8is a forgery. I am unaware of ANY legitimate/real talmid of Reb Moshe's who has ever said such a thing. Especially considering all the Kisvei Yad exist and the Hakdama was signed by both of Reb Moshe's sons. But perhaps you know better than them.
I learned Yorah Deah in MTJ from 1972-74:
ReplyDelete1 The milk they used in the yeshiva was J&J.
2 All the dairy products served in the yeshiva were cholov yisroel.
3 His grandson, Rabbi Mordechai Tendler, who learned there, told me that the dairy products used in Rav Moshes home were cholov yisroel.
4 He also told me that on Pesach, Rav Moshe ate gebruchts but did NOT use company matzoh meal. The Rebbetzin made her own matzoh meal from crushed hand baked matzohs.
5 They only ate hand baked matzah the entire Pesach.
Anon 10:22, the word "Chareidi" meant Orthodox in the US until the mid 90s. What I think he meant here was supporting Torah Umesorah day schools.
ReplyDeleteJust a thought, The godol had correspondent rather with some lengthy response with satmar rav on a major issue of the time, but none on his v'yoel m'oshe, in contrast to rav hirshprungthe godol from Montreal which a third of the v'yoel moshe was written to him as a response with which he seems to agree (halacha wise) with satmar rav
ReplyDeleteThe v’yoel m’oshe address some ‘major issues’ concerning halacha why the silence ? even when the satmar rav send his sefer to every godol at the time requesting comments!
Dont talk like an idiot, Reb Moshe was no chosid at all and no Lubavicher in particular. Eventough his background were Koidniver Chasidim, if he performed customs that coincides with another communities customs, does not make you a Sefardi or a Skverer. His pesak on kiruv is that when funds are limited then Aniye Ircho are first. It is a Pesak in hilchos Tzedaka, that the locals come first.You can not conclude that according to torah there is no mitzva of tzedaka for a stranger of a different city, it is simple and self explanatory.
ReplyDeleteAnon
ReplyDelete"The godol had correspondent rather with some lengthy response with satmar rav on a major issue of the time"
He never spoke or wrote to satmar ruv in halacha, don't invent lies.
he had no problem with Satmar Ruv's torah in no field.He was a small ungarisher village Ruv vs. a giant that would be a chidush even in the era of Chasam Sofer, Kovner Ruv. But nobody can compete with the sigeter/satmar derush, it is even worse when it is in the facade of halacha.
BTW, reb pinches Hirshprung never asked him anything, he probably spoke to him and gave him the sources, and he created a teshuva.
Interestingly enough, at least according to the INDEX of Artscroll's newly expanded bio "R' Moshe" - there's only 1 passing mention of the Rayatz (and not even the Rebbe): That in connection with the persecution in Russia, RYYS had already been imprisoned in 1927..
ReplyDeleteWhat about the Rebbe's story with R"T tefilin etc etc, which is documented in the Igr"M and in its "Yad LMafteach"??
So much for censorship..
are there any other changes in the new edition? did they take anything out?
ReplyDelete“Please cite one teshuva for which you can suopport your accusation that Chelek 8is a forgery. I am unaware of ANY legitimate/real talmid of Reb Moshe's who has ever said such a thing. Especially considering all the Kisvei Yad exist and the Hakdama was signed by both of Reb Moshe's sons. But perhaps you know better than them.”
ReplyDeletePoppycock. In the Hakdamah to chelek ches they write that not all teshuvos in this chelek exist as a ksav yad only as typed copy. Why do we have to believe that these teshuvos were not tampered with? I also know that Rabbis Feivel Cohen and Hillel David call chelek ches Igrot Mordechai.
Don Yoel Levy was once in yechidus with his father R' Berel Levy a"h. The Rebbe told DYL to get involved with the OK. He said he doesn't want to bec they give hechsheirim on chalav stam. The Rebbe said that if they didn't many people would buy the products anyways, and would be eating treif gomur. This way the hechsher makes sure that the product is kosher. The Rebbe wrote many letters about zehirus in chalav yisroel, m'tamtam haleiv v'hamoiach, etc. Yet to insure that people who were far from Torah/mitzvos should eat one less ounce of treif, he pushed OK to give chalav stam hechsheirim. IMHO, R' Moishe's tshuva should be understood in the same vein, and using it for frum people is a disgrace to the leading poisek of the generation.
ReplyDeleteAbt mai'ne al ha'igros, he is a lowlife scumbag shmuck, and should be ignored totally. I know this from personal issues involving his family with divorces, and how he blackmailed and shlepped money from families who were naive enough to be meshadech with him.
Nice tidbits about Reb Moshe. Totally in character, sai l'shitas R Tendler, sai l'shitas ha'acheirim.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the swipe about the russians was anti-kiruv or anti-chabad. It's something I've heard from others too: Dollar raised for dollar raised, being mekareiv/mechaneich Russians, adults and even children, has a very very lousy ROI compared with dealing with American adults and children. Soviet Cynicism provides a serious immunity to idealism of any kind, let alone the Torah kind. Russian/Soviet Baalei Teshuva post-1970 are precious because they are rare.
BTW, regardless of how Reb Moshe felt about the degree to which one should be machmir about Cholov Yisroel, he was absolutely unequivocal in stating that Cholov Hacompanies is mutar m'ikar hadin. He went so far that he wrote that anyone who is machmir altz chumra needs a hatara if he chooses later to be meikil, but that that one who claims that it's ossur m'ikar hadin is a toeh, to the point that he doesn't require hatoras neder in the event he decides to be meikil later! That is a serious way for him to phrase how clearly he saw the issue.
Anonymous 12:31, or can I just call you Poppycock,
ReplyDeleteI have trouble following your logic: Because the editors wanted to be fully transparent and made clear precisely what was typed and what was not (they also specify vefore each such teshuva), as well as where they added and therefore put in their edits in differnt font--your next logical step is to think it was a forgery. Interesting.
Your supposed quoting of Rav Feivel and Rav Hillel is also apparent of your lack of knowledge. The fact is almost all of Chelek Ches was actually edited by R' Shabtai Rappaport. Perhaps the reason why they do not know that is because neither of them are talmidim of Reb Moshe (muvhakim or otherwise).
Just to bring you back to the point: you have absolutely no basis whatsoever to say what you have about Chelek Ches. Are you saying now that you ONLY dispute the teshuvos that were printed? If so, can you point to anything in those teshuvos which you find to be suspicious? Or do you question ALL the teshuvos including the ones written back in Europe?
This is typical yeshivishe hock from people who know half a story.
spoke to a long time talmid of MTJ, milk served to the students in the elementary school etc was Chalav Stam. RMF himself used Cholov Israel.
ReplyDeleteLife is a series of changes, it may be that later on MTJ went with the program and used Chalav Israel. Under RAK Lakewood too used Chalav Stam.
Mr. SFM served chalav Stam to TVD for the "simple" reason of expense.
Hirshel -
ReplyDeleteIndeed I just had a brief look at the Artscroll in a store.
And, as I hinted, it's possible the Rebbe is brought, but not easily enough researchable to be in the index..
Charedi was NEVER used in the US to refer to Orthodox. Frume , ortodoksishe, Erliche but no one called orthodox jews charedim until the advent of the New Hungarian inspired orthodoxy. I don't even think the Aguda used the word Charedi more than few times in DOY YIDDISHE VORT. It was invented to refer to Ultra orthodox (fervently Orthodox ) Eventually the OU started calling themselves that as they started to "produce glatt kosher meats.
ReplyDeleteTake a look at the Orthodox Yiddish daily newspapers from 1925-1971 and you will note that Charedi was never used . DER YID and the Satmar used it.
Hershel -- can you Puhlease tell me where this Sefer can be purchased??
ReplyDeleteYitzi
ReplyDeleteFelder, Aaron Rabbi
8019 Langdon St
Philadelphia, PA 19152
(215) 745-2968
ask him where they sell it in your neighborhood, or buy it direct!
To Anon
ReplyDeleteone he did speak to satmar rav z’l at a nichem avelim, although satmar rav met many times rav teitz,kamanetsky,kalmanovits and kotler, I wonder why not reb moshe to?) 2) in the controversially issue of ‘artificial insemination ‘ satmar rav wrote 3 very lengthy t’suvias l’halacha (no derush there,all available in print) each was in response to reb moshe’s t’shivous on this topic, it was printed at the time in H’amoer (probably before your time) 3) your ignorance just compounds in concern to rav hirshprung see v’yoel m’oshe last chapter addressed to rav hirshprung where he mentions that rav hishprung agreed to his t’shivou last but not least ‘hava zohr bagacaloson’ you’re ignorance is bordering on stupidity or worse in heresy c”v
Anon
ReplyDelete"I also know that Rabbis Feivel Cohen and Hillel David call chelek ches Igrot Mordechai"
as big Gedolim that they are, do they have scientific proof ?or wishfull proof ? as alot of people would wish that the Noda B'yehuda gave no heter for shaving on chol hamoed or the Lemberger Ruvs gave no heter on Machine Matzohs
Bigeleisen has it
ReplyDeleteAnon 12:49:00 PM
ReplyDeleteMy point is that you can't claim that there is a ksav yad for all the teshuvos in chelek ches, as you wanted us to believe, because it's not true. There is a teshuvah hanging in Dr Zemba’s office in Brooklyn that was written to him and in chelek ches they changed it to Tendler. Also the famous teshuvah about eruvin they removed the word Borough Park in this chelek to cover their tracks.
Rabbanit Elsie said
ReplyDeleteit is simple, that when it gets to mass consumption as a yeshiva kitchen it is a Hefsed Meruba, but not in a private kitchen
Anon
ReplyDelete"Also the famous teshuvah about eruvin they removed the word Borough Park in this chelek to cover their tracks"
are you sure it was changed in this volume? or in earlier volumes? I know about that issue it was brought to light by the BP eruv saga.
Yeuhupitz
ReplyDeleteI"m quite surprised at your honesty re:R'Moshes psak about "cholov stam".
In Lubavitch cholov stam is a biggee,in fact I believe that R'Landau from Bnei Brak said in a derosho (maybe shabbes hagodol, i saw a pamphlet on the net..)that in a way it could be worse than an issur deoraysah legabei timtum (he needed some hoops for that, though...)
So as a Lubavitcher your being candid shows that some of the emmes from Ner still remains
Rabbi Tendler was interviewed recently on the Zev Brenner show, he said the ninth chelwek is coming out soon iirc
ReplyDeleteBy Lubavitchers cholov stam is as bad or worse as chazer.Two question I have:1)If cholov stam is so terrible why does OK Labs, a Lubavitch hechsher give supervision to cholov stam and 2)Why are they always bothering people who do rely on the lenient psak?Aren't people supposed to rely on their rabbis?Lubavitch also do things that others may find questionable but get really pissed if people bring up eating before davening or no sleeping in sukka because they feel they have the halachik grounds for it
ReplyDeleteAnon 2:36PM wrote:
ReplyDelete"My point is that you can't claim that there is a ksav yad for all the teshuvos in chelek ches, as you wanted us to believe, because it's not true."
OK perhaps I could have been more precise: Obviously where the editors specify that the originals were not handwritten there exits no Ksav Yad--but there are originals of the typed teshuvos signed by Reb Moshe. Most importantly--are you saying that the tyoed teshuvos are forgeries, and if so, please provide ANY explnanation why you would think that.
"There is a teshuvah hanging in Dr Zemba’s office in Brooklyn that was written to him and in chelek ches they changed it to Tendler."
Are you trying to say tha the contecnt of the teshuva is a forgery? If so, wouldn't that be true of the one hanging on the wall as well?
"Also the famous teshuvah about eruvin they removed the word Borough Park in this chelek to cover their tracks."
Do you have any doubt as to what Reb Moshe held about the eruvin in Brooklyn?
Today there couldbe an issur of tarfus in cholov stam because of a veterinary procedure that makes the cows non kosher.Ask your local rov
ReplyDeleteTo Anon
ReplyDeleteone he did speak to satmar rav z’l at a nichem avelim, although satmar rav met many times rav teitz,kamanetsky,kalmanovits and kotler, I wonder why not reb moshe to?) 2) in the controversially issue of ‘artificial insemination ‘ satmar rav wrote 3 very lengthy t’suvias l’halacha (no derush there,all available in print) each was in response to reb moshe’s t’shivous on this topic, it was printed at the time in H’amoer (probably before your time) 3) your ignorance just compounds in concern to rav hirshprung see v’yoel m’oshe last chapter addressed to rav hirshprung where he mentions that rav hishprung agreed to his t’shivou last but not least ‘hava zohr bagacaloson’ you’re ignorance is bordering …
Dear "Poppycock flip flopper":
ReplyDeleteI think what this boils down to, is you repeated some babyish hock that you had no source for. When you were called out on it, you decided to talk about the weather.
If you could present any psakim in chelek ches that's content is forged, then share it with us. If not, stop spreading dirty motzei shema ra. It's disgusting.
Rav Elmer the OU had the word החרדים is their name for the bulk of the 20th cetnruy.
ReplyDeleteThe point is if they can remove a word they chould have changed other things in the teshuvos. The teshuvah was not a ksav yad that hung in the doctor’s office. Can you answer why they took out the words Borough Park from that teshuvah? No doubt they changed things in the last chelek you just can’t come to terms with my two proofs. If I had time I can dig up additional proofs. The Feinstine’s and Tendler’s can say what they want but those in the know agree that chelek ches was tampered with.
ReplyDeletePoppycock,
ReplyDeleteFirst you quote "talmidim muvhakim". When you're challenged, you retreat to it being one anonymous individual at a non-existent yeshiva. You then seem to backstep to it not even being a nonexistent person at a nonexistent yeshiva but rather two Rabbanim who never learned by Reb Moshe and who possess no actual knowledge of anything. (I dont even believe they were m;chavain to the same joke that was alsopremised on lack of information)
Then, you spread some shmutz about forgeries and when challenged you've retreated to taking issue with who the recipient of the teshuva was.
At this point a retraction would be in order: You have not said one factual thing thus far. Its all unsubstantiated drivel and Motzi Shem Ra.
Abt mai'ne al ha'igros, he is a lowlife scumbag shmuck...
ReplyDeleteThat's a compliment!:)
Soviet Cynicism provides a serious immunity to idealism of any kind, let alone the Torah kind.
That's why the only success in russian kiruv you see when it is done by Russians themselves (Chabad,Toldos Yeshurun, Rabbi Binski etc.)
Anonymous at 4:51 wrote:
ReplyDelete"The Feinstine’s and Tendler’s can say what they want but those in the know agree that chelek ches was tampered with."
Wow, now that's a loaded statement. First of all, you are now admitting that your suposed person at "YTJ" doesnt exist--unless that person knows better than the actual Roshei Yeshiva. But more importantly my dear anonymous/poppycock--you have now said that the Reb Moshe's own children/talmidim are not the ones "in the know". Well, I thnk this is where any neemanu on your part has officially been terminated. So all the people with actual knowledge are not in the know--only people like you who never learned in MTJ/YTJ by Reb Moshe--and who clearly know nothing about Chelek Ches's pubication are "in the know". Your coments would be hilarious if not so tragic.
Concerning the Artscrolls' 'Reb Moshe', at the time that the author, R' Shimon Finkel, was working on it, ( I know him personally and have spoken to him, he teaches in YDT ), he had before him a velt of material that would have have portrayed Lubavitch's interaction with Reb Moshe. He had interviews, stories and letters from kli rishon. It might have taken up a few chapters.
ReplyDeleteIt was all edited and redacted. v'dal
R' Shimon openly admitted this.
Chapters that might have caused an inquisitive mind to mistakenly think that Lubavitch is part of 'normative Judaism'.
Anon 4;24
ReplyDeleteHe spoke to RMF 2 words and some crude joke that was inappropriate
, since it was beneath him to be like Moshe Rebieni "Hoida Velio Boish (Rashi Shemini).
Rav Hirshburg never asked him that shaila,period, as all the big names that are made in to questioners.
The Mishna of Ghachloson is pertaining to Reb Moshe too, eventough it is not confirmed that he was a Noiter Habris for 10 generation,
He never broke ground in non of his teshuvas, he is basing his info on reb Moshes sources, and splits hairs.
People
ReplyDeletewe need to get our names right!
Finkelman, (IIRC) not Finkel
Hirschprung, not Hirschburg
Just curious, are there any pics of Rabbi Feinstein and the Rebbe?
ReplyDelete1) @Anon 6:21 -
ReplyDeleteYes, in the "Mekadesh Yisroel" album (kehot). They were by the same chasuna, and thus appear in 1 pic together (punkt they're not looking at each other).
2) Agav -
I know this is not the right post, but seems ppl are looking more at the first post:
A) In the "Efes Biltecha Goaleinu" sefer recently printed by Satmar's "Natruna" - a likkut of gedolim on the treife medina (Yes, they even quote Rashab and Rayatz of Chabad..) - They bring from R' Shalom and R' YD of Belz, but not from R' Aron.. (as the pashkvillen in the lower posts here).
B) I just saw an English book "The Rebbe", a new bio on rabbeini Yoel m'satmar. Any reviews on it?
Eli Duker said...
ReplyDeleteRav Elmer the OU had the word החרדים is their name for the bulk of the 20th cetnruy.
you mean "ortodoxin"
http://chabad.info/index.php?url=article_en&id=22362
ReplyDeletethis is a sloppy cut and paste job which obviously is forged and only that that is r moshes handwriting is genuine
http://chabad.info/php/bigpic.php?lang=en&imageid=335430&mode=undefined
ReplyDeleteבחן'טא צורה
Anon
ReplyDelete"R' Shalom "
reb shulem belzer was a little too early for zionisim,
Anon
ReplyDelete"In the "Efes Biltecha Goaleinu sefer recently printed by Satmar's "Natruna" - a likkut of gedolim on the treife medina "
what is your message?
@ 8:52 -
ReplyDeleteMy message is that there wasn't what to bring from R' Ahron Belzer zt"l (=he didn't say anything against the medina), or at least acc to their agenda, there wasn't what to bring..
(As ppl brought in the earlier post, Satmar were fans of RYD but not RA).
As I've written earlier, I don't like quoting this website, but what can I do..
ReplyDeleteThe link below is a PDF (from Wolpo's 4th Shemen Sasson book, no comment on the authenticity always), RMF's erech there [pic with Rebbe is on 5th page of PDF] --
http://chabad.info/images/update/340.pdf
Anon 4:51 and 4:53:00 PM
ReplyDeleteI am not the same anon that you are referring to. Therefore, I do not owe any apology. However, you do not have what to answer to my claims so you resorted to ad hominem attacks. There is no doubt that they tampered with chelek ches and maybe even more.
"grainom said...
ReplyDeletehttp://chabad.info/index.php?url=article_en&id=22362
this is a sloppy cut and paste job which obviously is forged and only that that is r moshes handwriting is genuine"
On a previous chain of posts we learned about some anonymous "talmid chochom" who allegedly was an expert in facial expressions.Above we have another "talmid chochom"????, this time named, who claims,allegedly, to be be an expert on "obviously forged" letters.Do they give out degrees to these self anointed "experts"?
@גרונם of 8:46 -
ReplyDeleteWhere'd you learn Ivre??
וצ"ל באקאנטע צורה
And YES, we know - it's a photo of R' YY Braun (still with levish..) with his Zeide baal Shaarim Metzuyanim b'Halacha zt"l, by Dollars.
A video there is too, ask Reb Google..
Anon said:
ReplyDelete"There is no doubt that they tampered with chelek ches and maybe even more."
So YOU say. Once again--please provide one shred of proof supporting your hotzaas shem ra. All you have said this far is the same yeshivishe hock that every 16 yr old spews for cheap kicks. I notice you now say tampered as oppsed to forgeries.Interesting.
Hirshel, this one's for you --
ReplyDeleteI just read, that the Rebbe told R' Naftali Kraus by Dollars(Originally from Hungary. Israeli journalist, SK's father) - that he does NOT speak Hungarian..
Putting all flaming accusations and flaming defenses aside, it is reasonable to grant Cheilek Ches less authority as an accurate portrayal of Reb Moshe's rotzon as a poseik than the first seven volumes.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Not because of sinister conspiratorial claims of falsehoods. Simply because he didn't edit cheilek ches. The einikel's ... issues only add to the diminished stature of the volume, but are not the reason for it.
I have been told that Reb Moshe's involvement in the first seven volumes consisted of choosing which teshuvos should be published, i.e. be made mefursam, and which teshuvos should not become as mefursam. There were also times, I am told, when Reb Moshe added some thoughts for publication. This shikul hadaas is a very big deal, since Poskim answer far more shailos in private than they do in public, for good reason. And this Shikul hadaas is missing from the eighth volume.
yehupitz: If Reb Moshe wrote the teshuva then why do you give it less "authority"? You can certainly question whether the teshuvos would have been published had Reb Moshe been alive--though his children okayed everything--but I fail to see how that ahs anything to do with the actual Psak Halachah.
ReplyDeleteIs that Eli Duker from Gramercy?
ReplyDeleteAnother complaint I have with chelek ches is that they inserted the editor's comments within the text in a slightly different typeface.
ReplyDeleteThis is an offensive intrusion and would barely be acceptable in footnotes, never mind as part of the main text. The slight change in font can also confuse the reader whether it is the main body or the editor's interjections.
When combined with the other criticisms I think it is fair to say that the editors did this quite deliberately in order to imply equal weight to their notes as to the author's text as well as confuse the reader whose text he is considering.
Anon 10.22
ReplyDeletethe old grnaration of satmar were all Belzer Chasidim ,the Satmar Ruv had to work 24/7 to wean them off from believing in Tzadikei Emes, he built a Achov Tzadik theory etc... Even his rebetzin went to Belzer Ruv and cried for Zera shel Kaumaya.Reb Moshe Arye went to Belz even after the machloke.
As a youngster in Willi their was a rumor that the Satmar Ruvs eulogy on RYD was censored when it was printed in the Divrie Yoel series. In the original he said that he left a son as big as him.
Yehupitz
ReplyDeleteYour theory diminishes the halachic validity of every teshuva sefer that was printed after a authors death, which is the bulk of most seforim of our gedolim.
Ah, Anon 4;24
ReplyDeleteSo u moida b’mikzas u said he ‘never spoke’ now u say he spoke 2 words, I understand u now what they spoke about but u don’t mention it … is it because RMF referred to a ‘das yecudia’ maybe? Like u and the likes try to corner RYT z”l as a ‘das yecudia’ ?
You state (.) that rav Hirshprung never asked him a shaila! And how exactly can u know that? ‘lo ruini eina raya’ satmar rav z”l himself writes to him by name as printed in his sefer and he calls it a ‘teshuvo’ that implies that he was asked.. a shaila.. And by u denying it one of u is a lying guess what RYT z”l of whatever schmutz was dumped on him (by now tons of it) that he is a liar That will be the first! I wouldn’t say that about u!
Who RMF or RYT was or wasn’t I’ll not even attempt to discuss or compare for one u probably didn’t know either of them… (and reason 2 to 100, well… I’ll not dare..) I’ll repeat for your own sake ‘hava zohr bagacaloson’.
And last I’m sure u are aware that a “tana” knew how to kosherize a sheretz with 150 reasons, that don’t mean that he did just that he knew how!! … (I would let u finish this sentence).
Anon 12:04 , I hear your taina.
ReplyDeleteI believe the difference here is that whereas I don't know the ratio in the earlier SHuT seforim, here we've got 7 the Poseik DID edit, and 1 that he didn't, but that someone who the Oilam suspects has issues did edit. So I understand why the 7 have a perceived maila over the 8th.
The second part of that is that since Reb Moshe was a mechadeish and sometimes a meikil, his chidushim and kulos were given added weight by the force of his reputation. The reputation has added force when it is known that he himself chose for a given teshuva to be disseminated in public.
Personally, I don't think that invalidates Cheilek Ches at all. But it does bring the samchus factor down a notch, or maybe more depending on your opinion of the editor.
"@גרונם of 8:46 -
ReplyDeleteWhere'd you learn Ivre??
וצ"ל באקאנטע צורה
-----------------------
Anon8:57
Grainom meant ""בחן'טע צורה
A tzureh with "chein" we he was not ashamed of his peyos,short chasidishe haircut and chasidishe levish.I agree with him.There is a yiddishe cheyn to the levish from the alteh heim
Yehupetz,
ReplyDeleteYou did not answer this fellows comment
Yeuhupitz
I"m quite surprised at your honesty re:R'Moshes psak about "cholov stam".
"In Lubavitch cholov stam is a biggee,in fact I believe that R'Landau from Bnei Brak said in a derosho (maybe shabbes hagodol, i saw a pamphlet on the net..)that in a way it could be worse than an issur deoraysah legabei timtum (he needed some hoops for that, though...)
So as a Lubavitcher your being candid shows that some of the emmes from Ner still remains"
anon 11.59 that's why the you are'nt one of the editors of ohr hatzufen ,the hoyf can't control each yuchid ,you're not doing no favor for belz,in the last few years belz has made peace with major hoyfen ,vilst dich nemmen tzi einems beiner nem dich tzi a haantige
ReplyDeleteAh, Anon 4;24
ReplyDeleteSo u moida b’mikzas u said he ‘never spoke’ to RYT z"l now u say he spoke 2 words, I understand u know what they spoke about but u don’t mention it … is it because RMF referred to a ‘das yecudia’ maybe? Like u and the likes try to corner RYT z”l as a ‘das yecudia’ ?
You state (.) that rav Hirshprung never asked him a shaila! And how exactly u know that? ‘lo ruini eina raya’ satmar rav z”l himself writes to him by name as printed in his sefer and he calls it a ‘teshuvo’ that implies that he was asked.. a shaila.. And by u denying it one of you is lying, guess what RYT z”l of whatever schmutz was dumped on him (by now tons of it) that he is a liar That will be the first! I wouldn’t say that about u!
Who RMF or RYT was or wasn’t I’ll not even attempt to discuss or compare for one u probably didn’t know either of them… (and reason 2 to 100, well… I’ll not dare..) I’ll repeat for your own sake ‘hava zohr bagacaloson’.
And last I’m sure u are aware that a “tana” knew how to kosherize a sheretz with 150 reasons that don’t mean that he did, just that he knew how!! … and that don’t mean either that anyone who ‘knows how’ is a tana. (I would let u finish this sentence).
ps: Rav Hirshprung, visited on many occasions RYT z”l in his home in Williamsburg are you sure (.) that he didn’t ask him a shaila there verbally either? Or you not so sure about that?
yehupitz
ReplyDeleteMost of the biggest poskim of the last 2 centuries did not print their Teshuvahs in their lifetime, Starting by the Chasam Sofer, Noda Beyehuda Mahadura Basra,Avnie Nezer, etc..
Anon 2:42
ReplyDeleteA fact brought up by yehupitz, by mentioning the issues that people have with the person who edited RMF's teshuvos after his petirah.
Contrary to the teshuvos of the gedolim mentioned in your post, who apparently were edited by people who had no issues....
I commented on the typeface of the comments in chelek ches, but it hasn't appeared.
ReplyDeleteNumber 35 is the Lubavicther Rebbes Shittah thrugh and thrugh
ReplyDeletebeidem
ReplyDeleteevery human being has issues
new weeek new post please.
ReplyDeletethankss
Anon
ReplyDelete"You state (.) that rav Hirshprung never asked him a shaila! And how exactly u know that"
because he told it to too many people that I know.
Anon
ReplyDelete"And by u denying it one of you is lying, guess what RYT z”l of whatever schmutz was dumped on him (by now tons of it) that he is a liar That will be the first"
by saying that someone spoke to you in a Sugya, and then come home and write to that person about it, is not lying, it is just a good PR stunt,and the Satmar Ruv needed these kind of PR very important. He was very sensitive that is image should look universal and not some crazy like Amrom Blau or Moshe Ber Beck.
Lets be clear about it, Reb Pinchas Hirschprung was not in a halachic dilemma that he needed Reb Yoel of Krulle Satmar to decipher it for him.Besides it is again a non shala shala, I don't care if the liar in chief Gelbman will have some lies in the name of the Payer Ruv that say differently.
Anon
ReplyDelete"is it because RMF referred to a ‘das yecudia’ maybe? Like u and the likes try to corner RYT z”l as a ‘das yecudia’ ?"
Reb Moshe wrote 1000's of pesakim that are the pillars of the halacha world till Moshiach and after Moshiach. His halachic stature is not diminished by Reb Zalman Lieb Fulop or Reb Shloma Lieb Wienberger not mentioning him.To call him a daas yechidou and the satmar ruv (may he biggest tzadin since the divrie chaim)a daas rabim,is sheer willi stupidity and no reason for me to keep the dialog runing, unless you come up with devorim shel taam
it's not a rumor..
ReplyDeleteReb Duvid Feldman, an old gevaigter chasidisher yid a shochet in Montreal, whom as very young bocher I remember ranting and raving when the Divrei Yoel with the hesped on the Belzer Rebbe RYD was published.
He said I was at the hesped and SR spoke during hesped that he left a son as great as himself.
"הניח בן כמותו
So he was angered at the censorship. But here we go into the state of mind SR had after his stroke.
Yosef 718
Yosef
ReplyDeletewas Feldman, a yelid Krule? (I think that this hesped was delivered when Satmar Ruv was Ruv in Krule.At that year the Keren Leduvid was the Rav of Satmar.
T0: Anon u ever heard of 'Alanon'?that may help u with ur anger look it up, untill than guy shlufen zise chalomies.
ReplyDeleteI nevr heard anyone in English refer to orthodox Jews in English as Charedim until the 1970's
ReplyDeleteAt OU conventions did the speakers refer to their convention as the meeting of Charedi Jews ?
In Yiddish Orthodox jews were called frume Yidden, Ortodoksishe yidden erliche yidden but I do not recall the Yiddish Press like DER TOG MORGEN Zhurnal using Charedishe yidden. Perhaps Aguda circles did , but no one else.
Rav elmer
ReplyDeletethe term Orthodox jews started after the Tielung in Hungary, not before that
speaking about CHALAv AKUM,are you aware that non other than the CHAZON ISH Z"L,is MATIR CHOLOV AKUM
ReplyDeletewherever the governments have srict laws against mixing in any other kinds of milk.
CHAIM.S
in Pamie Yakov a periodical by Rav Landaus kolel there were long articles regarding the Chazon Ish shita, on Cholev Akum I think they had new letters from him regarding that issue
ReplyDeleteI have yet to meet R' Moshe's bar plugtya who disagreed with him on cholov hakompanies. So far, there is no credible disagreement to him. The Krasne Rov loses his credibility in his hakdomo. The only reason to be machmir, is that by his admission, the Chasam Sofer disagrees with him.
ReplyDeleteBoruch Ber
ReplyDeleteI like your style, the Krasner Ruv is no good because he wrote in his preface so and so.
That is not called objective from your part,, he writes a nice teshuva, eventough he starts out with that Kolomayer style diatribe,he considered himself Reb Hilels Memala mokem.
lozmirup: "The Rebbe wrote many letters about zehirus in chalav yisroel, m'tamtam haleiv v'hamoiach, etc. Yet to insure that people who were far from Torah/mitzvos should eat one less ounce of treif, he pushed OK to give chalav stam hechsheirim. IMHO, R' Moishe's tshuva should be understood in the same vein, and using it for frum people is a disgrace to the leading poisek of the generation."
ReplyDeleteChasidim in general, and Lubavitch in particular (e.g. R' Zalman Shimon Dworkin zt"l, etc.) insist on CY because to them, there is no heter for chalav hacompanies - all the timtum haleiv stuff, etc., it's about the chasidish ideas about kedushah. Which is why it still boggles me that RDYL can certify non-CY products. If he certifies non-CY which he won't eat, who's to say that he wouldn't certify, say, non-glatt? To name something else that's nominally kosher, but no Chabadnik would be caught dead eating. Or most contemporary Orthodox Jews, for that matter.
Still, your final sentence "IMHO, R' Moishe's tshuva should be understood in the same vein, and using it for frum people is a disgrace to the leading poisek of the generation," is simply wrong. It may be your opinion, but it's based on not understanding where RMF was coming from.
For non-Chasidim, Reb Moshe was right - the iqar is the kashrus, the lack of actual contamination. For chasidim, the iqar is that it was made in a holy way, by Jews or with Jews watching/participating. So RMF's teshuva does work for frum people, INCLUDING HIS OWN FAMILY, and it is no gnai to say so. Because RMF and Chabad are coming from totally different assumptions - about the relationship between halacha and kabalah, about relations between GTI, etc. Also, RMF was only reinforcing, and providing a written rationale for, the psak that was then standard in America, which had been made in earlier generations by the likes of R Moshe Soloveitchik and RYE Henkin.
My wife used to spar with a granddaughter of RMF. So she asked, "do you drink CY?" The other woman responded "Naah." You might want to use that to write off her frumkeit, but it would be wrong, because you and she come from different schools of Torah thought.
For RMF, CY was a chumra in the US (if a necessity elsewhere). He explicitly recommended that yeshivos buy it (as someone else noted, MTJ bought it for their talmidim), a "baal nefesh" should use it (so if he used it in the house, why shouldn't he hold by his own chumra?), but me-ikkar hadin, CHC is kosher, so the story of him vomiting non-CY milk is pure nonsense.
If you read the teshuvos, you will see:
cholov stam is not edible,
cholov hacompanies IS cholov yisroel because the regulatory process is EQUIVALENT TO a Jewish witness, and
labeled cholov yisroel is a chumra for the baal nefesh or for institutions.
For the late Rebbe, cholov hacompanies was the same as cholov stam, therefore inedible, because of the chasidic ideas about kedushah.
lozmirup:
ReplyDelete"The Rebbe said that if they didn't many people would buy the products anyways, and would be eating treif gomur. This way the hechsher makes sure that the product is kosher. The Rebbe wrote many letters about zehirus in chalav yisroel, m'tamtam haleiv v'hamoiach, etc. Yet to insure that people who were far from Torah/mitzvos should eat one less ounce of treif, he pushed OK to give chalav stam hechsheirim."
So are you saying that the late Rebbe believed, like RMF, that me-ikar hadin, cholov hacompanies IS cholov yisroel, but that chasidim must be machmir? Because that doesn't shtim with what I've read of chasidish poskim.
BTW: See this Avodah digest: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n107.shtml#12
ReplyDeletefor conflicting stories of whether or not RMF used chalav hacompanies (ChC), from R Mordechai Tendler saying his grandfather always used ChC at home, to R Harry Maryles story of going with RMF to farms in the Cleveland area to observe milking and buy the CY thus milked, so RMF could have his CY.
I think I saw a claim By Rabbi Moshe Landau from Bnei Brak that cholov akum can be worse than treyf.His rational was that the make up of an issur derabonon can somehow affect a persons soul more than an issur deoyraysa.I may be mistaken so maybe one of the Lubavitch posters can explain.
ReplyDeleteAnon
ReplyDelete"Another complaint I have with chelek ches is that they inserted the editor's comments within the text in a slightly different typeface."
I don't see no confusion it is clear, you need new reading glasses if you got confused
Lighten up folks! I once heard a vort from zelimer ruv z"l he said: I was the first man to produce in mass cholev yisrael in America (J&J), but satmar ruv z”l was the one who produced people who wanted to drink 'cholev yisrael! … I would say it’s a nice criteria for a manhig who inspires people to drink cholev yisrael , don’t you think so ? not vice-a-verse.
ReplyDeleteAnon
ReplyDelete"I once heard a vort from zelimer ruv z"l he said"
you heard the vort?
Everyone in Rav Moshe's house drank regular milk, Rabbi Tendler said, and the only reason Rav Moshe himself did not do so is because he did not want "to be mattir neder" - to formally change his lifelong practice, dating to the first 40 years of his life in Europe, of drinking "traditional" Chalav Yisrael.
ReplyDeletefrom the Jewish Press
Thank you, I've just been searching for info approximately this topic for a while and
ReplyDeleteyours is the best I have came upon till now. However,
what concerning the bottom line? Are you positive in regards to the source?
Exceptional post however I was wondering if you could
ReplyDeletewrite a litte more on this subject? I'd be very thankful if you could elaborate
a little bit more. Bless you!