Tuesday, November 18, 2014

The absolutism of מרן החזו"א when it came to other opinions























Photo Courtesy of Yeshiva Eitz Chaim


We bring you a shtikkel from the latest volume of גנזים ושו"ת חזון איש, courtesy of a devoted and kind reader הרוצה בעילום שמו, where a copy of a שער בלאט of a sefer by the late R. Yechiel Michel Tuktchinski (who married a granddaughter of Reb Shmuel Salant) on the issue of the International Dateline (קו התאריך) is shown. The Chaz"I wrote a small but very poignant inscription at the very top of the page, which some say was indicative of his opinion of those who disagreed with him; - such as Reb Chaim Noe - namely, that they were treif. The CI doesn't say exactly in his own script why he wrote that the sefer is "neged Chazal," but Reb Shmerel Greineman quotes him as saying that RYMT writes נגד חז"ל והראשונים and bases his opinions on the Maskil and Apikores Hayyim Zalman Slominski, who wrote a book/sefer on Astronomy and such. I don't know if RYMT admits to him being the source, or if the CI smelled it on his own. Was טוקצינסקי the only one who used astronomy books etc. to pasken regarding complicated matters of astronomy? Why, even the Pupa Rov used a געבילדעטע מענטש to create a luach for him!

What I would like to know is whether or not this applies to all of RYMT's seforim, or at least to all of his zmanim? He would publish the "לוח ארץ ישראל", which is published by his grandson עד היום. That luach is used by most Jews in Eretz Israel who don't follow shitas Rabbeinu Tam. Obviously the Chazon Ish'nikkes and Briskers have their own zmanim and shiurim, but all other Prushim use that, as do some Chassidim, especially regarding zmanim like end of fasts, etc. But we do see a clear example of the absolutism that we mentioned in the header - which mind you, he wasn't the only one who was an absolutist, but he was an absolutist when it came to his OWN shittos, which is unique - I think. They say that the Rebbe Rashab was learning a Kamarner sefer when he saw how he disagrees with the Alter Rebbe, so he closed the sefer and never leaned Kamarna again. But that was the Alter Rebbe, not his own shittos. This that people like the Steipler were להשמיד ולהרג against anybody who disagreed with their Rebbe the CI, is also to be understood. In a way. But I speak of the CI alone.

ווי איך פארשטיי שיקען די בריסקער קינדער זייערע קינדער קיין עץ חיים, מיסודו של הרי"מ טוקצינסקי, ווייל דארט לערנט מען אויף אידיש, און ס'איז א חדר אויפ'ן אלטען דרך - כאילו. א חזון איש'ניק שיקט אויך אהין? כנראה אז נישט. איז די שאלה צו דאס איז ווייל ס'איז טוקצינסקי'ס מוסד? אדער סתם אזוי.

?וואס ווייס איך





39 comments:

  1. Not sure why the RYMT's source is any worse than th Rambam's:
    רמב"ם הלכות קידוש החודש פרק יז

    הלכה כד
    וטעם כל אלו החשבונות ומפני מה מוסיפים מנין זה ומפני מה גורעין, והיאך נודע כל דבר ודבר מאלו הדברים, והראיה על כל דבר ודבר, היא חכמת התקופות והגימטריות שחברו בה חכמי יון ספרים הרבה והם הנמצאים עכשיו ביד החכמים, אבל הספרים שחברו חכמי ישראל שהיו בימי הנביאים מבני יששכר לא הגיעו אלינו,

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think your question about Etz Chaim is kind of moot, because how many CInikers are in Yerushalayim? Aren't they all in BB?

    And about the CI so strongly defending his own shita - that's exactly the point - he held he wasn't defending his own shita, he was defending Chazal's shita.

    ReplyDelete
  3. yea, but others had different opinions regarding ChaZaL and what they held, no? or chose different Rishonim on whom to base their opinions, no?

    ReplyDelete
  4. No, they didn't. They used creative thinking to try and tortuously force their way of thinking into Rishonim, but any disinterested observer sees that they were not serious. This may not be true in every shita of the Chazon Ish, but regarding the dateline I cannot understand how it is possible to disagree with him.
    Reb Isser Zalman did have a kashe on the CI, but his sources were proven to be missing. He did not have the full text of the Raavad in his hasogo on the Ba'al Hama'or.
    I have seen the Teshuvos of others regarding the issue, but those that did not see the ba'al hama'or are groping in the dark and those that did do not have an adequate answer. I won't name names מפני כבודם but I personally would definitely keep shabbos on Sunday in Japan and say the שיר של יום of the CI etc without even being choshed for the cholkim.

    ReplyDelete
  5. אין ספר מעשה איש ח"ה [מעשיות של החזון איש] איז געבראכט אז די חזו"א פלעגט זאגען אויף געוויסע שאלות "ס'איז א מפורישער לוח" און הגר"ח קנייבסקי האט מציין געווען "הכוונה ללוח של ר' מיכל"
    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=52990&st=&pgnum=31&hilite=

    ליטווישער יונגערמאן

    ReplyDelete
  6. Reb Shlomke Zveliver disagreed with the chozon ish on the timeline topic too.

    ReplyDelete
  7. as did others like Rav Herzog, who I guess was also treyf posul. But where did Reb Shlomke voice his opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  8. the periodical Bais Aron veYisroel of Karlin had lately some long articles in the subject. There I saw the reb Shlomke was strongly on the other side of the Chazon Ish. Most Gedolai Yisroel were not on the side of the Chazon Ish .
    Rav Nievirth of Brooklyn created a big storm in the Monsey Oir Yisroel, by claiming that the Chazon Ish way of figuring does not add up. Rebuttals of the chazon ish were flowing in, even Reb Chaim was consulted

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think Grienimans biur is not correct,

    ReplyDelete
  10. Go and learn the Rishonim. The only credible way to learn them islike the CI.
    This idea of 'most Gedolei Yisroel' is not entirely correct. Most of them had no opinion because they had not learnt the sugya. Rav Herzog admitted as much. Reb Shlomke Zvhiller is a new name in the issue from the Karliner Kovetz, but until we see his Teshuva we don't know if there is another credible opinion. Those that wrote before the CI on the issue did not have a clue how to go about it. They had not discovered the Ba'al Hama'or and the Kuntres from the Tchortkover Rov makes it clear that they are not beney plugta of the CI. The ma'amar שבת בראשית ושבת סיני is basicaly a joke and Reb Chaim Zimmerman proved as much in אגן הסהר. The Teshuva of Rav Henkin is an enigma to me. He was surely a ga'on, but this teshuva just does not make sense. If the two teshuvos were put side by side without names, I think any rational person would prefer the CI by far.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fact Checker,

    Please elaborate...what is Rav Greineman's biur?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Chalmer
    Hirshel put it on

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh, you mean the biur of why he had to write this on the cover...

    So what's your biur?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yankel
    please read the article Of Rav Shavadron , Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol 22 and Moadim Uzmanim vol 6
    then come back with your disagreement on the amount of gedolim...

    ReplyDelete
  15. The CI argued several times on the luach. He also preferred minhagei chu"l to those of EY explaining that in Chu"l much greater poskim lived than in EY.

    ReplyDelete
  16. First of all, there's a difference between using astronomy to understand the metzius like the rambam did in kiddush hachoidesh and paskening about the halachic international dateline which is a total halachic shailoh, keneged the rishoinim and the opinion is only found in an article written by a maskil(according to chazon ish).Secondly the Chazon ish didn't have any problem with people that disagreed with him.Just look in sefer שלום יהודה from R' Lazer Palchinsky where there are letters back and forth arguing with the Chazon Ish and chazon ish writes how happy he is to be mefalpel with him. Also,the real chazon isshniks argue alot with the chazon ish.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yeshivaman
    The holy Stiepler writes in his sefer on shiurim, that he is using secular books for his work against Rav Noeh, and it his mutar to do so, if it is done for the sake of Birur Halacha.
    Please explain the difference?
    even though I still did not get your other biur of why the rambam could use secular books, but please explain first, why the BIL, used secular books for torah, and his sefer is Mutar Lovoi Bekohol

    ReplyDelete
  18. This is not about where he got his sources. He believed that Chazal paskened this sha'alah already and a personal sevoro against Chazal is wrong. That has no shaychus to the Rambam.
    Generally a pesak is not personal. The CI did not suggest that RYMT is a bad person who may not be quoted. He held this sefer is wrong, not that anything RYMT touched was evil.
    And btw, the ba'alus of RYMT on EC is not a davar muskam. Reb Shmuel Salant made the mosad for the public and there were dinei Torah against Nissan Tikutschinski when people felt that he was not running the mosad for the public's good.

    ReplyDelete
  19. but he founded the EC outside the walls. Dinei Torah can be conducted against anybody, whether or not they're the boss.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The din torah was about this issue. I used to learn sometimes in their beis hamedrash on Yaffo when I was a bochur and I heard about it there.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yankel
    ". He believed that Chazal paskened this sha'alah already and a personal sevoro against Chazal is wrong."
    Did the Chasm Sofer say the same on the Nodah Beyehuda regarding their argument on Shaving chol hamoed...or other issues that since I wrote a pesak in a certain way so you are against chazal...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Your point is that the CS held as much of the NB as the CI held of RYMT?
    It is way too easy to discuss in the abstract. Learn the sugya from the sources and you will see how many really opposed the CI.

    ReplyDelete
  23. btw RYMT in earlier sefer (I think in ספר בין השמשות) he also paskens like the baal hamaor.

    ReplyDelete
  24. No it was way before that.He stam wrote that the day starts 6 hrs. b4 yerushalayim like the pashtus in baal hamaor.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Fact Checker,

    You never told us your biur in why the inscription was necessary...

    ReplyDelete
  26. the guys in Kobe, did they only ask the Chazon Ish? I seem to remember Rav Herzog chiming in as well. Did Reb Hirsh Pesach also send a telegram?

    ReplyDelete
  27. The גנזים ושו"ת has the story. Reb Chatzkel lived in Petach Tikva before he was called back to Europe when Reb Yerucham was niftar. Therefore, he knew the CI and sent it to him. Others asked the Brisker Rav because Reb Chaim had said something about it and Reb Berel was planning on going to Japan. Rav Herzog was involved in his capacity as Chief Rabbi. THe BR was very upset with this. Not because of Rav Herzog as a person but because it was allowing the official capacity as Chief Rabbi to give the imprimatur of an absolute Pesak.
    At the Assifa that the CI boycotted Rabbi Kasher, Rabbi SHapiro and Rabbi Tikutzinsky gave opinions. The Gedolim sitting there did not have their own opinions. You can hardly use them as a tzad in the machlokes.

    ReplyDelete
  28. My friend once heard someone asking avery chashuve person in lubavich, if this & this is the reason that the rebbe didn't like the Chazon Ish. He answered "neh הרבי סתם לא אהב אותו ".So, instead of saying that the chazon ish was a this and a that just write "I am a real chosid ואני סתם לא אוהב אותו".

    ReplyDelete
  29. well, if your friend heard it then it must be so.

    unlike you, Yeshivaman, who cannot see past his prejudices, I have a great admiration for great Torah personalities, no matter their affiliation or politics.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It doesn't seem like it from the way you write about the Chazon Ish.Would you write that way about the נשיאי חב"ד?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yeshivaman,
    Please elaborate...what's "this and this reason" that the Rebbe possibly didn't like the Chazon Ish?

    Derech agav, what did the Chazon Ish think of chabad, and the Rebbe?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Yeshivaman
    "It doesn't seem like it from the way you write about the Chazon Ish.Would you write that way about the נשיאי חב"ד?"
    after awhille I get a feel what our Yeshivaman has up his sleeve.
    He is doing researsch on some old hate...
    and he is shocked that not every chabadnik is up to par on this....
    After all his said.
    the guys that print the Genuzim are idiots for printing this on Tikutzinsky, and they embarrassed the Chazon Ish.. not chabad not Hirshel its the Grieniman family..

    ReplyDelete
  33. The chozon Ish had nothing personal against chabad, but he wasn't a big fan of the whole rebbe/chassidus idea.
    Being a chusid of the chozon Ish is oxymoron, his whole derech was not to have a kabbala/blind kabolos oal to what you were taught

    ReplyDelete

Please think before you write!
Thanks for taking the time to comment
ביטע טראכטן פאר'ן קאמענטירן, און שרייבן בכבוד'דיג, ווי עס פאסט פאר אידן יראי השם

ביטע נוצן עפעס א צונאמען כדי דער שמועס זאל קענען אנגיין אויף א נארמאלן שטייגער

Please, no anonymous comments!!