The Visionary
“Because I am one of the great followers of the Prophet, who in my opinion was a very wise and intellectually honest man.”
That’s what you wrote in one of the last columns.
A. What is so special about him, more so than the other ultra-Orthodox leaders of his time? For example, Ahiezer or Rabbi Elchanan?
B. The Chazo wrote, “We are horrified to hear doubt cast on the words of Chazal, whether in Halacha or in legend, as a rumor of slandering the Rabbi,
And he who deviates from this is, according to our acceptance as a heretic in the words of Chazal,
“And that his slaughter is withered, and invalid as a witness, and so on.”
Many testimonies say that he truly believed that the wine of a Mazruhnik was a wine of wine (see the act of a man).
He wrote that Mizrahi education is a fake education.
Doesn’t he exaggerate in a strange way and not look at the facts and reality in your opinion? Can these statements be justified? One could argue that it’s all just like you claimed in that column and that it’s just to justify the result that they won’t ponder the words of the sages, but it seems that he really believed that (from the writing and from the many testimonies)
C. (Continuation of B) Is it possible that he really received this from his rabbis, and that this was accepted throughout all generations, that any attempt to throw away a book based on the words of the Sages is serious, and that wine is a wine of sacrifice (he writes “according to our acceptance”)?
D. If he were in our generation, do you think it would have been appropriate to let him lead? (Is he connected to reality?)
I highly doubt whether he really believed any of this. It is a general impression of his personality, leadership, and teachings. It is difficult to reason more unequivocally.
I don’t agree with his method and I certainly wouldn’t accept his instructions on a blind person, but that’s true for everyone. I don’t let anyone “lead.”
From your perspective, if he believed all of this (that's how it seems, so I ask),
is he still worthy of respect?
In other words, does the system that the words of Chazal cannot be challenged in itself show that a person follows conventions without thinking like a blind person, or is it a legitimate opinion that you just don't agree with?
Yes, if you get to know the environment, you will see that many were like that, for example, R. Chaim and the Geriz (not exactly the same environment, but roughly) also spoke like that against those who did not really think that the Magi were the servants of the Plus, and one must understand the fear of enlightenment, etc., and the fear that every small flaw is a slippery slope...
To this day, the same phenomena exist in the Haredi public.
Many later scholars interpreted the statement of Chazal, “If the first are like angels: If we believe that they are like angels, then we are like humans, and if we believe that they are like humans, then we are like donkeys.” The difference between angels and humans is that angels have a complete, immediate intellectual perception, while humans need to labor and examine things until they understand them in their natural state. And indeed, many things that were simple for the Tannaim – the Amoraim – were difficult for them, and many things that were simple for the Amoraim – the Rishonim – were difficult for them, and many things that were simple for the Rishonim – the Aharonim have difficulty with them. Simply put, the further a generation is from the status of Mount Sinai, the lower its level is, and the greater the use of Torah is than the Talmud.
What's the point of catching a person in the corners? And even if he did hold a few strange opinions, what difference does it make? It could have been a sign of his overall opinions that his judgment was weak, but the assessment came from a direct consideration of some amount of his overall opinions (the others, usually the halakhic ones) and therefore no "sign" of other strange opinions would help.
Rabbi Michi?
If he really believed this, then that's a point to his detriment. And he still has many aspects that deserve great appreciation (as T wrote).
In my opinion, his contempt for Mizrahi, at least, stemmed from the need at that time to emphasize and build the wall that exists between Mizrahi (or the national religious and religious Zionists) and the Haredim.
And perhaps the contempt also relates to his statement towards them that there have always been people in the Jewish people who were mediocre in observing Halacha and in faith, but only in Mizrahi did they turn this into a system (and probably the reference is to the accepted historical image that was widespread in the public at that time, that is, very mixed dances. Ease in maintaining contact and in general, very high Amaritz, who traveled from ignorance and returned familiar with Halacha - it should be noted that I do not pretend to say that this was really the case-)
This disdain was real. Indeed, this was the situation with most of the Mizrahi people. Their serious layer is a very late development. At that time, they were really isolated. Most of the public was hooked on the Mizrahi ideology and used it to live a comfortable and normal life. Without much knowledge and without much halachic strictness. This was not the ideological system there (except in certain layers), but this was the situation with most of that public.
It is worth reading Dov Schwartz's article: “Religious Zionism in the Days of Rabbi Raines and Rabbi Kook: History and Ideas”:
http://www.unisyn.org.il/%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%AA/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%93%D7%AA%D7% 99%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A1-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9 9-%D7%94-%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A7-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA
With countries – even if there was – does not lead to concern about them. The concern stemmed, in my opinion, from the question of milking on Shabbat.
I am bothered by the fact that the Hazon Ish defined everyone who arranged a shemitah as assisting those who committed a crime.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
