This may not be the greatest articulation of an argument. I'll admit that much. But if Reb Shlom'ke said so איז אזוי. And besides, we'll try and get the shtikkel קובץ באו"י , cited in הערה ע"ה, to buffer the argument. Not that it's REALLY Necessary.
"אל תפחד מן האריה, הצדק אתך"
Here's the kovetz BAVY (the relevant haoro is on page צה):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hebrewbooks.org/42711
That's what I meant in my previous comment two days ago.
ReplyDeleteSo, fact checker from Vohlin. Did you check the facts of the בית אהרן וישראל? Or did you take his assertions at face value?
ReplyDelete"but if R' Shlomke said so איז אזוי"
ReplyDeleteWHY?
It should not come as such a surprise that he is choilek on the chazon ish. Although you are right, thar his arguments are not the most articulate, others have made very articulate arguments against his position, notably the lubavitcher rebbe. In fact on this issue, the chazon ish was a daas yochid , because in the asifas horabonim in yerushloayim in 1946 all the rabonim held differently, and the previous lubavitcher rebbe the riyatz z"l , concurred with their opinion. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to state, that the chazon ish was machshil yidden with chilul shabbos and yom tov. He was so confident with his opinion, that he never even suggested to keep 2 days lechumro as he has written in his famous letter before yom kippur, to fast on thursday and not on Wednesday and not to be concerned at all.
ReplyDeleteSorry, as I mentioned before, none of the Rabbonim had learnt the sugya. They all relied on two or three people who were not at the toenails of the CI in anything. The teshuvos written about it do not actually make a good point to the objective observer.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, the same objective observer would not consider the LR much of a bar plugta of the CI either.
Therefore it would not be unreasonable to state that the LR was machshil yidden in chillul shabbos and achila on yom kippur.
"This may not be the greatest articulation of an argument. I'll admit that much. But if Reb Shlom'ke said so איז אזוי."
ReplyDeleteExplain what you mean?
Do you mean that that position is correct because R'Shloimkeh held so although in the sefer the argument is not done convincingly enough?
I am not making fun, but i really don't understand what point you are trying to make.
The guy who claimed that the Rayatz also disagreed with the Chazon Ishs' opinion, can you show a source?
Generally the Rayat'z did not take public stands in such issues,especially in light of his physical state at the time which would make such a difficult and new sha'ala be a major effort, so id be surprised if this can be sourced
Did the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R'MM, have an opinion on this issue?
ReplyDeleteAs the previous poster has said, the Lubavitcher Rebbe (r"mm) at the time was not very well known and at 40 relatively young.The Chazon Ish at the time had was held of in the utmost esteem in Eretz Yisroel, .In Europe there was obviously nobody to ask in those dark times
yonah
ReplyDeletecall me a shvantz, but I see it like the story with the Rebbe Reb Zushe, that he knew the tosfos from the same place that the baalei tosfos knew it..........
You said it right.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, we listen to Tosfos, not to the place Tosfos knew it from.
Hirshel,
ReplyDeleteI"m not calling you a shvantz,HOWEVER,to be honest ,when I first read it that is the way I thought you meant it that you were trying to say that since R'Shloimkeh held that way , it had to be the right way and the halochah.Then I said to myself, though I"ve had numerous run ins with you on the blog, I can't believe you would actually say such a strange thing!
Firstly how would you expect any conducive discussion or debate on the topic, if you use such logic:A choshuveh chasidic rebbe said so so he is right!?Even if that is what you personally think.Secondly, this approach is not the Torah way of "loh bashomayim hi"
the famous machloikes between R'Eliezer and chachmim in bava metzia 59, where chachomim paid no heed to rebbe eliezer despite his proofs that that was what was held beshomayim and in fact he was put in nidui for that attempt
Yankel
ReplyDeleteReb Shlomeke did obviously learn the sugya, as it is obvious. And with his holy keen mind he concluded his conclusion which was the conclusion.
The Chazon Ish has to do too many Manuscript fixing and dochkim to keep his shitah going.
I am not debating now who knew better Tharas, Zroim. Maybe reb Shloimke knew kol hatorah kuloi, As a chosid I would say yes,but you can differ and only believe what your flesh eyes see,
But by Kav Hatarich he knew the sugya clear and he said it the way it is without dochkim
Alter chosid
ReplyDeleteIn which rishon is Reb Shlomke's shita found?
Yeshivaman
ReplyDeleteAccording to Rav tikutzinski in kovetz Talpios, Reb shlomke told him its shitas Harambam
I am not sure who measured holiness that they can be sure Reb Shloimkeh was more holy than the Chazon Ish, but whatever floats other people's boats has no bearing on halacha.
ReplyDeleteAfaik, the only Rishon that said he has a Gemoro that says because the dateline is in x, therefore the halacha is y, is the Ba'al Hama'or. The Rambam is not saying a halacha and he is not trying to pasken anything with his statement. The question that Schvadron is bothered by "How could the Rambam leave out such an important halacha?" is a boich sevoro, irrelevant to the halacha. The Rambam only brings halachos quoted in the Gemoro and he did not learn the Gemoro like the Ba'al hama'or. He believed that the Gemoro was trying to reconcile the Molad ha'emtzai with the molad ha'amiti with no connection to the dateline.
Now anyone who keeps Shabbos on Sunday in Japan has a definite shitas horishonim to rely on, the ba'al hama'or. The Ritva and the Ran agree with his peshat.
The Rambam is no match for this, especially when he did not mean to deal with the halacha. It is an intellectual stretch to utilize the 'emtza hayishuv' as a source for where the day starts.
Additionally, there is no source for Schvadron's assertion the Reb Isser Zalman disagreed with the CI. He asked a question, that is it. Right after he was niftar, a zayfan mefursam claimed to have a letter from him. The same zayfan tried to convince people that the CI told him he was choizer. Not only is this impossible to believe, this same zayfan printed a 'kesav yad' from an unknown Rishon, and wonder of wonders, somehow in the middle of the kesav yad he 'found' a source for his opinion.
Who is being machshil chillul shabbos now, the ba'al hama'or or the misasfim?
Yankel,
ReplyDeleteAlthough your argument is appreciated it's probably lost on the blogmaster and some of the other bloggers.
a)i do not believe they have any familiarity with this topic at all
B)Their argument is not a logical one, its emotive.All they say is that if a choshuve chasidishe rebbe said something, he is right, whatever the evidence to the contrary!
Those who have been here on the blog for a long time have seen this pattern repeat itaelf over and over.
Some examples:
*A misguided belief in a supposed stash of letters from talmidei habaal shemtov known by many as the "chersoner geniza".The letters supposedly authored by chasidic masters are so inarticulate as to make it impossible that they were written by men of such stature.Many of the supposed dates are on shabos and yom tov, and in some cases the place the letter was written, was not knows as such till many years later.Clearly an opportunist had forged letters and sold them to gullible people.one of the people who would know, r'chaim lieberman, secretary of R'YY Schneerson the previous Lubavitcher rebbe, testified that he knew the author/forgerer, a drunkard, who neede money.
*A strange belief that the fairy tale of the Golem miprag existing and kept in the boydem of the altneu shul in prague.The golem meprague was a fairy tale popularized by a well known forger who lived in motreal.
etc, etc
those who are on the blog long enough know Mr. Faish and his ramblings quite well
ReplyDeleteSo now I have become involved in the pointless discussions about goilems and genizahs!
ReplyDeleteTell me again, how do we get from the dateline and a gemoro in rosh hashana to a genizah of letters that have no practical relevance to my life.
Yankels
ReplyDelete"I am not sure who measured holiness that they can be sure Reb Shloimkeh was more holy than the Chazon Ish, but whatever floats other people's boats has no bearing on halacha."
you are putting in words that nobody ever said
It was explicitly said that his point was not a rebishe one. The word holy was used on his mind when he decided on the Halkacha.
the chazon ish in his letters are big time in to this holiness business.
Yankel,
ReplyDeleteI may have strayed from the point.Agreed.
What I was trying to bring out was that Tzig had clearly stated in the comments that R'Shloymkeh is right since he was privy to Hashems Torah directly mishomayim.
Do you think that you could win such a debate when the debate is not about who has better proof from Gemora or Rishoinim?
That's why I brought the other examples, where on the face of it both cases would not be accepted as being grounded in reality.
which is why I told you to go ahead and call me a shvantz. Obviously I wasn't talking about hocus-pocus, but rather that the Eibershter gives those are דבוק in him the right answers
ReplyDeleteWe can debate this issue if you want.
ReplyDeleteLoh bashomayim hi, comes to exclude this exact point.Torah was given to Yidden here and there are rules about how to pasken.As we see from the story with Rebbe Eliezer in bobbe metzia nun tess (i think)although min hashmayim they agreed wit Rebbe Eliezer, the halachah is against him and he was put in cheirem.
If a Novi tells you a psak based on his nevius without using the regular rules of psak you do not listen to him.
I"m sure more learned bloggers will be able to bring you chapter and verse of the Rambam paskening against the Eybishter! There is a gemara iirc where there is a machloike between the Eybishter and pamalya shel maalo,(or similar case don't remember..)and the Rambam does not pasken like the Eybishter
Fitting to mention the great goan rav chaim aaron halevi zimmerman(1914-1995) though he agreed with the CI in principle argued with him in key points. His early classic on the dateline was אגן הסהר. I was zokeh to learn by him when he moved to israel in 1972. His uncle was rav baruch ber L. One of his mehutanim is Yakov maid famous by r yom yov erlich.
ReplyDeleteyes. Reb Chaim Z would often come to the Lubavitcher Rebbe to red in lernen
ReplyDeleteUntil he became rebbi, then ge stopped. Once he came to 770 to sell his book and noone approached ... Then he pounded on a table and announced he is going to show where rav aaron k maid mistakes... Immediatly a croud gathered...
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite sure you're right about him stopping to come after the Nesius
ReplyDeleteOn what points did Rav Chaim Zimmerman disagree with the Chazon Ish? (Agav, that's one chisaron in Schvadron's article - he doesn't have R chaim Zimmerman's opinion. any reason for that?)
ReplyDeleteI heard from his son, ידיד נפשי, hagoan rav avraham yitzock zimmerman that he stoped coming. I think it was mentioned in כפר חבד magizine in there חספד. The points of disagreement with the CI i will בלי נדר, try and find...
ReplyDeleteObZerver
ReplyDelete"Until he became rebbi, then ge stopped. Once he came to 770 to sell his book and noone approached ... Then he pounded on a table and announced he is going to show where rav aaron k maid mistakes... Immediatly a croud gathered..."
this is a nice Bubeh Maiseh