A Gloomy Look at Greatness in Torah: Illustrations from Real Life (Column 722)
I have written more than once about notions of “greatness in Torah,” and about mistaken conceptions that have become entrenched regarding it. This time I wish to demonstrate part of what I meant, by way of two examples from statements by Rabbi Dov Landau, leader of the Lithuanian (mainstream, not the “Jerusalem Faction”) Haredi public. I believe the words speak for themselves, and these are just two out of many examples that happened to come my way in recent days, and of course not only about him.
There is no doubt that Rabbi Landau is a Torah giant in Haredi terms. Both his knowledge and his analytical abilities are exceptional and very impressive (I have heard him in the past, and we even spoke a bit once about some question after one of his lectures). Therefore it is no surprise that he was chosen (by whom? apparently the Yated Ne’eman system) to lead the Lithuanian public also on the public plane. In the past I wrote that greatness in Torah is not only mastery of Torah materials and/or skill in analyzing them and drawing conclusions, but also the ability to think and understand, sound common sense, understanding and knowledge in other fields and an understanding of the surrounding world in general. Even if one can accept the Haredi model of greatness in Torah for a Talmudist or a Rosh Yeshiva (and even there in my opinion it is insufficient), when it comes to a public leader who rules and decides public questions, this is out of the question. In column 720 I described the situation as an entire public walking like blind men in a chimney after a brilliant child (and here the child doesn’t even seem all that brilliant).
The first of the two examples I bring here illustrates the low, cardboard-cutout level of thinking in areas that are not strictly Torah, and this is well known. The second example is more surprising, for it illustrates the point also on a Torah–halakhic question, a field in which we might have expected Torah greatness even in the accepted Haredi sense. Judge for yourselves whether such greatness is indeed seen there.
First example: A look at reality
This example concerns Rabbi Landau’s observation of the events of these days (I took the statements from this article(. It’s just a random, unexceptional example that came my way recently. It begins with the sweeping declaration that the IDF wins only thanks to the Torah study of the yeshivot (the Haredi ones? see below). I assume readers will dismiss this with scorn. It’s clear that even he himself doesn’t take himself seriously (I’d like to hope so). At most one could say that he is making general educational declarations that have no real content. Does he mean something concrete? For example, does he have an answer as to how much the study helped? What would have happened without it? I think that if one insists on taking this declaration seriously, then the minimal content I would attribute to it is this: he intends to say that without this study we would not have reached the achievements we reached. That is, without them the Iranians’ missiles would have covered the land and a third world war would have broken out (with China and Russia; see below). That is already a factual claim (albeit hypothetical, since it is not really possible to test it empirically).
And yet I will ask: from where does he know this secret? Has prophecy returned to us and no one told us? Fine, but that’s not the issue. The flinging of unfalsifiable declarations with no basis is a daily matter. It’s a bit disappointing when it doesn’t come from the masses but from one considered a great in Torah and a religious leader of a public, but from such “gedolei Torah” I expect nothing else. It is worthwhile for every reader to ask himself whether, when he hears such declarations, he even pauses for a moment to wonder or whether it seems like part of the ordinary landscape. That says something not only about us and our dulled senses, but about our expectations from Haredi “gedolei Torah.”
Of course I have further questions, which border on attempts at empirical refutation. For example, how does he explain the disaster of October 7? Is that also attributed to laxity in yeshiva study? Why didn’t they warn about it in real time? Where is their responsibility? Or perhaps the pilots over Iran were greater righteous people than the kibbutzniks who were murdered and kidnapped in the Gaza envelope? I am aware that this is a common discourse, but I would be happy if the reader would seriously ask himself whether he believes such declarations. Forget the question of whether this is heresy or not—just personal honesty. So why do these empty boasts not cause even a flicker of an eyelid in any of his audience? Why do they all continue to treat this nonsense as the living word of God from the mouth of the “great of the generation”? Are they all drugged? It looks like a cult of zombies who have lost all elementary critical sense. They are used to hearing more and more statements that say nothing and that no one believes, and to keeping silent or saying amen.
This is a demonstration of infantile thinking, afflicted with the fallacy of cherry picking. People tend to take the facts that fit their thesis and rely on them to build and prove the thesis, while ignoring all the facts that contradict it (see, for example, in columns 663, 640, and more). Quite a few people are flawed in their thinking and fall into this fallacy (see the Wikipedia entry “Cherry picking”), but I would not confer upon them the title “gedolei hador,” and certainly not attribute to them brilliant thinking and/or freedom from errors in understanding reality.
Here is the thesis in his own words:
“The situation today is not natural at all. The Iranians could have covered the entire land with missiles, and the result, God forbid, could have been a disaster—who can imagine it.” “The fact that their plot does not succeed cries out that there is a Ruler in the capital,” “there is a Manager of the world and there is a Hand on the helm that runs everything; not an illusory steering wheel as mistakenly appears to the eye, as if ‘my strength and the might of my hand have made me this valor’… Let the Torah students know that through their study we are saved from enemies and we win the military campaign. There is an evil inclination of ‘we’—as if we won, we hit. Some speak this way and feel this way. There is a sense of ‘my strength and the might of my hand made me this valor’ among us as well—but it’s not so. They win because of our Torah, which protects and saves.”
So far, empty slogans that can be heard under every green tree, as is known. The fact that their plot does not succeed is the result of much effort, talent, and money invested in our technology, and of course of dedicated soldiers who operate it all. But the fact that the technology designed precisely for this indeed works is a sign and wonder of divine providence in the world. And if it had not worked? That would have been a sign and wonder that although we would have expected it to work, apparently we didn’t study seriously, or we desecrated Shabbat. This tautological thesis is proven in any case.
According to him, marveling at interception rates and the achievements of the war is nothing but “my strength and the might of my hand” (and not, God forbid, the result of scientific and technological efforts, of people’s dedication and talent). From an armchair in Bnei Brak one sees everything with crystal eyes and does not let reality interfere. From there it is very easy to declare that it’s all the Holy One, blessed be He, and the yeshiva students—and all the rest is “my strength and the might of my hand.” As is customary among members of sects in general, if one repeats a mantra enough times, the public eventually buys it.
As for the odd claim that being impressed by a technological, military, or scientific achievement necessarily detracts from God’s share—unpleasant as it is to point out, I will nonetheless do so. I understand that this does not appear in the Ketzot HaChoshen, but the author of Derashot HaRan, at the beginning of Derashah 10, writes simple things about this and even anchors them in verses (see column 279):
“He meant that although it is true that individuals have special qualities for certain things—just as there are people predisposed to receive wisdom and others predisposed to set counsel in their minds to gather and amass—and accordingly it will be true, in some sense, that the wealthy man can say, ‘my strength and the might of my hand made me this wealth,’ nevertheless, although that power is planted within you, you must remember from whom you received that power and whence it came. That is what it means (there, v. 18): ‘And you shall remember the LORD your God, for He is the One who gives you strength to achieve success.’ It does not say, ‘And you shall remember that the LORD your God gives you wealth,’ since if so it would exclude the planted power in man from being an intermediate cause in gathering wealth, and that is not the case. Therefore it said that although your strength makes this success, you must remember Who gave you that power, blessed be He.”
The alternative to “my strength and the might of my hand” is that the Holy One gives us the strength to achieve success, but the success is indeed ours. And no, the intention is not to the “valor” of the yeshiva students but of soldiers and technologists, and financiers and entrepreneurs blessed with talent. All these act by virtue of the powers God gave them, and there is not a shred here of “my strength and the might of my hand” in the negative sense. By the way, this is not the Ketzot and not only Derashot HaRan, but—as the Ran himself explains—the Torah itself. I will not go again here into the thesis “Torah protects and saves,” and into the bizarre interpretations he assumes without basis for that saying (even granting the dubious assumption that Hazal could know such metaphysical truths).
A hypothetical thought arises in me: if, then, a disaster had occurred, and the apocalyptic forecasts of many had indeed materialized, would that also have been God and not us? Would there not have been a need to examine the functioning of the army and the technological systems? So perhaps here we have a way out for the October 7 commission of inquiry.
If you thought the Torah students protect only us, have no fear. Their Torah protects the entire world and not only us:
“We hear that the Iranians are expanding their war also against the Americans. There is, God forbid, a fear of a world war, and Torah in such a situation can protect even the nations of the world, for harm to America could also harm Israel. And of course Torah protects the inhabitants of the Holy Land.”
Perhaps the Americans and Europeans should be updated so they will fund the yeshivot. After all, they are the main beneficiaries. I must say that with his protections, were I the world, I would build reinforced rooms and quickly head for the shelters.
But don’t fall into another mistake. You think he is saying that the merit of Torah protects us? Nonsense. Only the Torah of the Haredim can protect and save the universe. Don’t believe it? Here it is, straight from the mouth of the “great of the generation”:
“Indeed, in the land there are transgressors that because of their sins the land wishes to vomit them out—‘as it vomited out the nation’—and only by virtue of our Torah does the land not vomit them out. The Torah is the pill against vomiting, and sadly there are those who wish to take this pill and throw it into the sea. Torah study protects the ‘captured infants,’ Torah study protects the inhabitants of the land.”
They want to throw this protective pill into the sea. Whom do they want to throw? After all, the students of Hesder yeshivot remain in place. In fact, even the Haredi students—aside from a few years of army service—can study all their lives and protect us. But no: if one wishes to draft the Haredim (at least those who do not study), that is throwing the Torah that protects us into the sea. The idleness of the righteous of Bnei Brak on the railings, according to his approach, is greater than the study of all the students in the Hesder yeshivot and greater than the “unnecessary” efforts of all the technologists and the army. According to him, only the Torah of idlers who do not study it, and the distorted Torah of those who do study and reach such crooked conclusions, can protect us. But have no fear—you will not hear even a peep from the mouths of his drugged flock, who listen with holy enthusiasm to this drivel.
Well, so far these are really the usual stupidities. Nothing special. Let us look for a moment at the proofs he brings. Apparently Rabbi Landau assumes that his audience is not sufficiently convinced of this oh-so-logical and basic thesis, and therefore he brings them proofs. Above he brought proof from the small number of Iranian missiles and the small number of casualties (unrelated to reinforced safe rooms [mamadim], interceptions, and the IDF—you heretics). But here is one more proof (at least in the article there is no other, so this is apparently the strongest example they found in his words):
“In his remarks the rabbi claimed that even practically speaking it is impossible to explain the IDF’s victories without crediting the Haredi yeshiva boys: ‘It is impossible to explain the results from a military or political perspective.’”
In other words, here we have a proof. From a military perspective, it is impossible to explain the results, and therefore this proves that only the (Haredi) Torah brought us all this. And that can be explained? Is there some proof for that? Is that more grounded than the explanation that relies on safe rooms, interceptions, and pilots? Apparently so. For the Torah’s protection is visible under every common microscope. No wonder that in Bnei Brak they do not really insist on the matter of protected rooms. This proved itself during Corona and also in the “promises” of the Chazon Ish and R. Chaim Kanievsky that missiles would not hit Bnei Brak. Here too the facts do not really bother anyone. These, too, are theses unfalsifiable (yes, I know—Pardes Katz is not Bnei Brak, and whoever was hit there isn’t truly Haredi. What’s the proof? Simple: he was hit, wasn’t he?).
And since we arrived at this, let me say a word. How happy I was to hear that it suddenly turned out that those promises about the missiles were not accurate (see, for example, here). I am sure that many of you rejoiced as I did at reading this, for it reflects rare intellectual honesty, which we would not expect from “greats in Torah.” However, I am sorry to disappoint you. An honest person would say that indeed there were promises and now it turned out that they have been disproven. That would have been real honesty. But no—their honesty is to say that there were no promises, for the promises of the revered sages (maranan) cannot, as is known, be disproven (and if it is empty, it is from you). But I wonder: if indeed there were no such promises, where were all those “greats in Torah” and knowers of the Chazon Ish’s teachings up to the stage when missiles fell and people were harmed in Bnei Brak? Why only now did they suddenly find it right to reveal the fact that there were no promises, or that the rumors about them were inaccurate? Why didn’t they enlighten us earlier regarding such an important fact that was hidden deep in their satchel? After all, we are dealing with matters of life and death, not just theological nonsense. And above all—how does the Haredi public continue to be silent in a thousand languages and answer amen to all this drivel, and continue to see the speakers as “greats in Torah”? They promise, and then they revoke the promises, yet nothing will cause these doped ones to be weaned. I would have thought that crooked thinking, lack of intellectual honesty, lack of responsibility, and false promises are not the most recommended recipe for greatness in Torah.
Back to Rabbi Landau. Here is the proof I spoke about:
“It is not at all understandable that even countries friendly to Iran do not cooperate with her. And the reason for this is a motive known only to those who understand the language of heaven: when missiles break entire buildings and by the grace of Heaven there are almost no casualties, this is because of how people behave here in the land, because of reward and punishment, because there is Torah which protects and saves the inhabitants of the land.”
Admit it—this is a crushing argument. For my part, I do not know precisely which friendly countries he is referring to in the above passage. I assume he does not mean Egypt or Saudi Arabia, but perhaps China and Russia. It is simply not understandable to him why they did not intervene and cooperate with Iran. For this is the simple expectation, and if it did not happen, this is proof of direct divine involvement (and as for that, no need to say—it is only by virtue of the Haredi idlers).
The fact that this would mean entering a world war, and the fact that Russia is knee-deep in Ukraine and China is also not keen on entering direct confrontation with the U.S.—these are just common-sense considerations. One who “understands the language of heaven” knows there’s nothing to them. Our decision-makers—political, military, and intelligence—did not think that a world war would break out; otherwise there is no doubt they would not have embarked on this course. That is, their expectation, somehow, was different from his—but apparently they do not understand “the language of heaven.” So too with American security bodies; they too are much too “earthbound.” But Rabbi Landau, by his holy spirit from within the four cubits of halakhah, sees with his crystal eyes that all these fools were living in error. In fact, that was the most reasonable expectation—almost certain. And from here the necessary conclusion: the reason Russia and China didn’t get involved is only because of the yeshiva boys (the Haredi ones, of course). Moreover, divine grace overcame us so that even the nefarious actions of the non-Haredim who want to draft those who don’t study—and therefore, in effect, deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth because of this—do not succeed in offsetting the wondrous merits of the righteous sitters-on-the-railings in Bnei Brak, who protect us despite it all.
Any normal person sees that this is the outlook of a retarded and megalomaniac child. I do not know his understanding of the language of heaven, for I did not merit it, but in the language of the earth it seems he does not know his right from his left. I think it would be better for all of us if he remained gazing at the heavens. The problem is that his public, which apparently understands neither language, continues to follow him and his “sober” vision like a blind man in a chimney and to flutter after him in the skies. Any nonsense he releases into the air—and there is plenty—will not change that. For about this it was said: “For what great nation is there that has a wise and understanding people.” I will remind again that in column 720 I likened this to an entire public led by children (I then wrote “brilliant”—quite mistakenly) who lead it to ruin, like sheep to the slaughter. About this it is said: “And a little child shall lead them.”
I must sharpen again and say that the main problem is not the very stance that everything happens by virtue of the Torah and its students (the Haredim). I disagree with it, as is known, but I have already gotten used to the dogmatism and stupidity of religious thinking and of rabbinic leadership. We have all gotten used to empty slogans that say nothing and that no one gives a dime for, and to the fact that nonetheless many see them as sacred truths beyond all doubt. All this we have gotten used to. The main problem is in the reasoning. If these are the proofs he brings for his views, it is truly alarming. Here it is already a matter of logic and perception of reality. When a public leader is so detached from reality and common sense, his public—and everyone else around—has a problem.
So much for an example of a worldview from one who, through no fault of his own, is considered a “great in Torah,” bearer of “Da’at Torah,” and leader of the Haredi public, and of the reception he receives from the public he leads. You are surely wondering how this collective stupidity happens; how such a person becomes a celebrity. For that I have prepared another example, and this time it also touches on a halakhic matter, but no less than that on the general pageantry around him. The pageantry matters, for it is the mechanism that creates the image of “gedolei Torah,” who are the Haredi celebrities. Listen and see.
Second example: A Torah discussion between two “greats”
A few days ago I received on WhatsApp a video in which Rabbi Yitzhak Zilberstein pays a visit to Rabbi Dov Landau, and a conversation is conducted between them while all the viewers melt with delight at the meeting of the celebrities. I must say that it was a rather shocking experience, and before I explain why I recommend that you watch it.
I will preface by saying that watching the video sharpened for me to a great extent how little these notions of “greatness in Torah” speak to me. It was downright repulsive. First, the mutual fawning to the delight of all viewers. This video is nothing but paparazzi footage of celebrities. Among Haredim, the same shallow, low tendency is fed; only instead of the British royal family or models and soccer players in the secular world, they have different celebrities. But they play exactly the same role. It seems everyone there is melting from words of wisdom and wit (that were not there), and from the very meeting of the two idols. I must say it was truly disgusting to me.
And fine—if there had been something to admire. If that were directed at wondrous words of wisdom. But there were none. Two moral anecdote-stories told there, more fitting for a kindergarten, of course elicited the response “moyradik.” But if we leave aside the rapture and the level—at least that has some educational value for the audience. Surely better than the educational values of models and players.
What troubled me even more was the halakhic discussion. Rabbi Zilberstein asked Rabbi Landau about a case in which there are two candidates to serve as cantor (shaliaḥ tzibbur) in the synagogue: one, an outstanding Torah scholar with a disability (who cannot stand), and the other, not disabled but an ordinary Torah scholar. He asked whom it is appropriate to choose as cantor? One might think—what does it matter? Is there even a significant consideration here? Isn’t it obvious that halakhically both options are perfectly fine? This discussion references the well-known question from R. Hayyim (and also his father in Responsa Beit HaLevi) about a choice between an especially beautiful etrog that is a doubtful kosher versus a kosher etrog that is not especially beautiful. But there there is meaty Talmudic substance and the question is interesting. What is there here? A trivial matter that has nothing to do with halakhah, and also nothing conceptually interesting to engage with. Just because they refer to the Shulchan Aruch, it seems to them like Torah study. To me this is about as meaningful as discussing the quality of the pages in the local edition of the Shulchan Aruch.
If this were not a mass-circulation video I would say they chose a technical, unimportant topic just to amuse themselves with words of Torah (?). But especially in light of the filming—their rapture and that of the listeners—and the immersion in such a trivial discussion seemed delusional to me. Not every discussion about something that happens in a synagogue (say, the color of the walls) is Torah study, and certainly not meaningful study.
The person who sent me the video was very surprised that two such “maranan” do not know an explicit Shulchan Aruch ruling, which wrote: “One who was compelled to pray while seated, when he can, must go back and pray while standing.” They debate and hairsplit over such a simple question when it is explicit in halakhah. But to me this is not such a great deficiency. Especially for Rabbi Landau, who is a Rosh Yeshiva and not a posek; he does not necessarily know all the clauses of the Shulchan Aruch (though I gathered that his erudition in the rabbinic literature in general is probably immense, and therefore this was still a bit surprising). What disturbed me there were completely different things.
Beyond the triviality of the topic and beyond the fact that the question is a non-question, I was very troubled that everything there was done secondhand. There was not a single consideration on the merits of the matter. No conceptual analysis, no discussion of primary sources (and rightly so—there aren’t any). The entire discussion was about which posek holds this and which holds that. This is written in the Shulchan Aruch, and this is what the Mishnah Berurah wrote. Did Posek A cry out against Posek B loudly or merely disagree with him? Is there a majority and minority of poskim to this side or that? Can one pray a voluntary prayer, etc. Not a word on the merits: upon what does the question depend? What are the principles that stand here one against the other? To define the principles and concepts, to discuss whether each of them is essential to the laws of prayer or not, and then to reach a conclusion. This very absence was already shocking to me. Aside from one comment that was barely audible from Rabbi Landau (as far as I understood it, not really relevant to the discussion), there was nothing of substance there. Is this a sensible discussion between two of the “greats of the generation” in halakhah?! Two kollel fellows dealing with this trivial question could have said “Posek A says this and B says that,” and looked in the tabloids to see who shouted at whom. From “greats of the generation” I would expect some discussion that would give us something new, added value from their being “greats,” if only for the sake of the video. What was their distinctive contribution to this “halakhic” question? What is the added value of their being “greats of the generation”? With their crystal eyes do they diagnose better who shouted and who didn’t?
One more comment about the discussion itself. I would have expected that in a setting in which two moyradik stories about character development and ethics are told, one of them would introduce a consideration of avoiding harm to the scholar with a disability. Is that not a reason to prefer him? At least to discuss it as a consideration. After all, halakhah and learned takeaway certainly did not come out of there, so if we are already engaged in educational histrionics, I would expect them at least to raise such an opening thought, to achieve some education for the audience. But ethics and character traits are matters for grandma stories for kindergarteners, and not truly for a halakhic discussion.
And another halakhic comment (?!). Was there no place to raise a consideration of which of the two candidates has a pleasant voice (R. Hayyim’s comments about this are known), and to what extent each is acceptable to the public, etc.? The difference that one is slightly more of a scholar than the other seems to me completely marginal relative to these. Fine—this could be understood, since perhaps they chose to focus the discussion on that point in order to carve it out, as they were not discussing a practical question. Still, I would have expected some remark on the matter.
Finally, I also have comments about the conclusion itself (i.e., the outcome of the “lottery” held there over whether to take the words of the Shulchan Aruch or of some other posek). My interlocutor claimed that the answer is explicit in the Shulchan Aruch and therefore he wondered what place there was for the discussion. I wrote to him that in my opinion he, like the two “maranan,” is mistaken about this. Their claim was that the Shulchan Aruch writes that one who prayed seated must go back and pray, and from here that standing is part of the essence of prayer and therefore the healthy scholar who can stand should be preferred. In my eyes this is a completely spurious consideration. For it is clear that the Shulchan Aruch is talking about a healthy person who sat, but for a person with a disability his prayer while seated is, according to all opinions, ideal from the outset (le-khatchila) (only one who is able to stand is the Shulchan Aruch discussing whether he should go back and pray), and therefore there is no reason not to send him as cantor. I will add that, as is known, later authorities inquired whether the rule “the listener is as one who recites” (shome’a ke-oneh) applies also to ancillary requirements, such as standing for the counting of the Omer or for Kiddush. Practical difference: whether the congregation, seated, can be credited as if they recited while standing. So this cantor who will pray seated does not need to discharge the congregation’s obligation in standing, but only in prayer. Prayer he certainly does, and I myself am standing. So I do not see the problem.
Perhaps one could hairsplit and reject my claim (though in my opinion it is correct), but I would expect at least that this would be raised in the discussion. This is the only point that is connected in any way to a halakhic discussion with some taste that could be conducted here, but even that was not done.
There is also room to discuss, simply, the laws of a disabled cantor—not because of the rule that a cantor must stand. Is it appropriate to appoint a disabled person as cantor, even if he can stand? But even here it seems obvious that at least in our times there is no issue, for the status of people with disabilities today is different than in the past and there is no impediment to appointing him as cantor (see a similar consideration in my article on the status of converts in our times). All the more so since the person with a disability is the greater scholar, and that is a countervailing consideration. In my view not only is the answer not simple and not explicit in the Shulchan Aruch, but it is the opposite of what they concluded. But none of this arose at all. It is not that they decided these considerations are incorrect—they simply did not think of them and did not engage with them.
If I did not know these two figures, this video would tell me that they are absolute ignoramuses who do not understand what they are talking about. Not even a donkey carrying books, for in this matter they did not even know the books themselves. But none of this prevented “the director” from filming and circulating the video to magnify the names of those “greats,” for it was obvious to him that the entire audience would revel in these pearls of wisdom. Truly moyradik. Is this greatness in Torah? And here I am no longer speaking only about understanding the world and common sense. Here I am already speaking about halakhah in its narrowest sense. If they are not great in this, what remains?!
Conclusion
As I wrote at the start, as far as I know Rabbi Landau is a brilliant man with immense Torah knowledge, and Rabbi Zilberstein is no slouch either. But that is precisely what is worrisome here: that even such a person—when his horizons are narrow in the typical Haredi scholar’s way and he lacks common sense entirely—is simply not a “great in Torah.” Not only in public leadership; even in Torah proper, in its most limited sense.
It reminds me of what Dawkins wrote (annoying as usual): that in every group of people there are good people who act well and bad people who act badly. But only within religious groups are there good people who act badly. I will not hair-split here about this claim (there is substance to it, but of course it is not precise; see about it in my book God Plays Dice, chapter six). Here I will say, in paraphrase, that in every group of people there are wise people who speak words of wisdom and stupid people who speak stupidities. But only (more accurately: mainly) in the Haredi world are there great Torah scholars who speak nonsense in a Torah discussion (and all the more so in areas beyond). Moyradik.
To cap it off, I will repeat that beyond those “greats,” the public that buys these noodles and continues to regard them as bearers of “Da’at Torah” and giants of Torah, merely because Yated Ne’eman decided they are the leaders of the generation and thanks to paparazzi films like the one brought here, worries me far more. Usually public criticism improves leadership. If leadership does stupid things, the public will correct it or elect other leadership. Here the public is captive to the leadership, and this causes a very worrying escalation in their conceptions of Torah and of rabbinic leadership. And thus we return to the “and a little child shall lead them” syndrome.
I have almost no doubt that most readers of this column will not even understand what I am nitpicking about in these two so-ordinary phenomena. We have completely gotten used to “gedolei Torah” whose words are full of nonsense. This seems to us the normal state, and we accept it with complete indifference—not to say with enthusiasm. Tell me something new. Somehow it has become clear to all that “greatness in Torah” goes together with stupidity, cardboard-cutout thinking, flimsy proofs for disconnected theses, halakhic considerations of a first-year student in a small yeshiva, and so on—and for all this, of course, they receive applause and rapture from all listeners. The most natural thing in the world, no?!
I am reminded of a story I heard many years ago from a thoroughly secular friend, whose girlfriend passed away and needed burial. Her mother wanted to bury her in a cemetery where her father was buried, and she approached the Hevra Kadisha to arrange it. They told her that the cemetery was full and she needed to be buried in another cemetery. This was very inconvenient for the family, and they were very disappointed. But my friend did not lose his wits and immediately asked them: how much will it cost? Needless to say, for a “symbolic” sum of several thousand shekels the matter was arranged. What concerns us is that after the fact, when he told me this, he added: the most shocking thing here is that without even knowing the Hevra Kadisha, it was obvious to me that it was just a matter of money. It wasn’t even the result of any knowledge he had about their conduct. It was obvious to him that “dosim” operate this way, and that money answers everything. And indeed, he was not mistaken. Imagine a national service given to a citizen in exchange for money channeled into the coffers of the office that runs the service. Would you think of such a thing in the Tax Authority? At City Hall? In the Ministry of Welfare or Education? But among the “religious” this is self-evident. No one wonders about it anymore. I will not mention again the nepotism and absurdities in elections to the Chief Rabbinate and rabbinical courts, the statements of rabbis who serve as civil servants, and more and more. The standards simply do not exist there, and to all of us this seems self-evident (just now I noted in the Q&A a similar remark about distributing money to kollel fellows—also a phenomenon we have gotten used to and that has no parallel in other sectors).
I remembered all this because in my eyes, also in our matter, the most worrying thing is that no one will see any of this as exceptional or requiring attention. We have gotten used to the fact that “dosim” act in a corrupt manner and that “gedolei hador” are stupid, and that their flocks are even more stupid. This is the greatest destruction of Torah.
Oh, I will just conclude by saying that this column is lashon hara for a (very great) constructive purpose, and also concerns matters that are known to many. And in a place of desecration of God’s name, we do not accord honor to a rabbi.
Discussion
One could argue that lack of familiarity and understanding of this world impairs one’s ability to judge reality and lead it. But historically that is not something we are used to. I also don’t understand why you tie greatness in Torah to understanding and knowledge of this world. Rabbi Lichtenstein was not great in Torah because of his doctorate, and vice versa. Moreover, his political views stemmed mainly from his humanistic psychological inclination, which he only later also articulated intellectually. I do not remember him analyzing politics through Talmudic learning. He believed what would be best for the state and said his piece. True, because of his genius and erudition, his presentation was beautiful and elegant, but nothing essential.
So what if people aren’t used to it?
You would never hear such nonsense from Rabbi Lichtenstein. His positions were very well reasoned, even if you don’t accept them. Everyone has positions and values; that is not what is at issue here.
1. Do you think such a phenomenon also exists in the religious-Zionist ציבור (to a lesser extent, of course)?
2. I still don’t understand how you explain that people of such Torah stature discuss the halakhic question of the prayer leader at such a low level.
3. You quoted Lando at the beginning of the post saying that the secular people pride themselves on “my power and the might of my hand,” but really it is Torah study. I don’t understand how Torah study is an alternative to hubris. In the Haredi view, their Torah study has a magical power that produces wonders in creation; that too is “my power and the might of my hand.” It’s not that he says everything is heavenly grace and we must plead and ask God to protect us
1. Of course. But there is no comparison. The Hardalim are detached, but not quite that stupid.
2. In my opinion, celebrity has driven them out of their minds. It’s a performance for the viewers. Some of it also stems from their warped halakhic conceptions.
3. The question is whether he means the study itself as an act, or the merit of the study that causes the Holy One, blessed be He, to intervene. But even if it is the study itself, he will tell you that “my power and the might of my hand” is when one thinks natural force does the work rather than the use of Torah.
In the context of corruption, I am reminded of the last municipal elections, when Rabbi Lando made a shocking statement! that whoever did not vote in the Elad municipality for the corruption party, the party of the gedolim, was as if he had not put on tefillin! No less.
It is also very interesting to see that as the leader whom we are commanded in “And you shall do according to what they instruct you” to obey, it seems as though the commandment was written solely regarding election directives; I do not recall any other practical instructions to the public at all.
But in any case, this is an entire industry of operatives, politicians, advertising offices, and more, so it is not right to blame only Rabbi Lando for this, and not even the public, in whom a great deal is invested so that they will think what they think
On the matter of providence/intervention, you are exactly like Rabbi Lando.
He holds that he knows that God intervenes in reality and how He intervenes.
You hold that it is how one would expect God to intervene in reality (for example, in a clearly noticeable way fewer religious people would get sick or fewer religious people would die in traffic accidents), and because we don’t see that, then God does not intervene in reality.
You both know what heavenly calculations are supposed to look like, so what is the difference?
Every so often I come across comments so stupid and so lacking in reading comprehension that I wonder whether a person’s bias can really sink him that low (I am saying this bluntly and directly because you appear here under a nickname, so this is not a personal insult but merely rebuke. I am sure you are not as stupid as your comment makes you appear).
Although it is insulting even to respond to such nonsense, I will explain briefly. Rabbi Lando assumes divine involvement whose ways he knows (he “knows the language of heaven,” as you may recall), and I ask, according to his own view (!), how he explains the contrary phenomena. That is a question on his own terms. I, by contrast, do not know what divine involvement looks like (I only know that it should violate the laws of nature in some way), and therefore I merely write that there is no indication whatsoever of the existence of involvement (because by the methods through which I examine it there are no clear findings, no violations of the laws of nature), but I do not determine anything conclusively. I declare again and again that I do not know in this matter, which leaves room for sporadic involvement; rather, I come out sharply (and that is indeed done unequivocally) against those who do know. Maybe I am a liar, but that is what I write, so if you claim that I nevertheless think I know, you will have to bring evidence for that. Good luck.
And what is funny is that just 37 years ago Rabbi Lando sharply criticized Rabbi Shach and the massive politicization he brought about in the Haredi sector
It seems to me that he also opposed participation in elections, long before the zealots of the Peleg faction. He is generally a major zealot in other respects as well.
It’s like the gap between the high standard that a Torah scholar expects from the weekly shiur of the rosh yeshiva, versus the expectation of a seventh-grade level from the weekly mussar talk of the mashgiach.
When the mashgiach speaks, it is a platform for religious-aesthetic stimulation of “fear of Heaven,” while swaying over the shtender with closed eyes and a tune from seudah shelishit.
That is exactly what people expect from the gedoylim photo-op, and that is the merchandise they know how to supply.
There were several countries that bought prestigious defense systems from us for a great deal of money, and they did not fire even a single missile with them.
The fact that here so many missiles were fired at us and those same systems intercepted so many of them—doesn’t that prove heavenly intervention?
In the halakhic discussion itself, I actually did not find any flaw… They were indeed discussing at the second-order level: how important a certain law is, what weight the decisors gave it, and accordingly whether to prefer one cantor over another. A ten-minute discussion during a Chol HaMoed visit. He explains the principled sides in the video’s notes, and brings there the list of second-order sources. Afterward he just came to speak with Rabbi Lando, and mentioned this reasoning. This is the style of Rabbi Zilberstein’s shiurim; he very much likes to latch onto marginal stories and discussions like these. In his eyes, it is interesting; it is not for Torah study. And Rabbi Lando answers him that he is simply being stringent about unnecessary details, and there is no reason to be stringent regarding that cantor and disqualify him, and then starts telling him tales of righteous men.
Honored Rabbi,
I don’t understand your perplexities. The whole Torah is full of this. “If you walk in My statutes…” and “if you walk with Me casually,” and the entire Shema. The weather depends on “And it shall come to pass, if you surely listen”—that is, if we put on tefillin, the Torah assures us that there will be cucumbers. Rabbi Lando comes from a tradition that reads the Torah on the primary level. Not like Maimonides, for whom there are “false” beliefs so that the masses will be moral? Your question is really about the Torah. Why does the Torah speak to us as if to children? And Maimonides has an approach for that. And Maimonides already anticipated you: the masses are the majority, and the individuals who truly understand are a very small number.
Nicely put.
That is exactly the point: because this is not a serious subject, they probably discussed what the decisors say, and perhaps for that reason they did not bother at all to think of sources like the Shulchan Arukh. Not every conversation has to be accompanied by solemnity and a weighing of all the data. I also think the Haredim are immoral and do wrong to the rest of the people, but with the rabbi there is something else. His view of the Haredim is from an external negative perspective, so everything they do is bad. Even such an esoteric video draws poisonous criticism from him. What does this have to do with celebrities at all? Maybe they deserve it, but it does not reflect reality at all. Michi, try to look at things with a bit more charitable judgment, because pardon me, but you overdid it.
You are saying something that seems unequivocal to me.
To publicly state that prayer is the last thing one should do (when there are no other options), or that there is no indication at all that prayer helps (beyond placebo-type ways in which other things also help), that is unequivocal.
Beyond that, I can find references showing that you say there is no involvement not only because we did not find miracles in the laboratory, but also because one does not see a statistically significant advantage for the religious and the believers (which is also why you came out against the articles indicating that prayer has an effect, even though in the past you supported them). Again, if necessary I will provide references for that.
Therefore I repeat what I said—someone who holds that we ought to see statistical significance of better lives among the very devout is someone whose starting assumption is that he knows that, according to heavenly calculations, the very devout deserve better lives. And that is a person who does think he knows heavenly calculations to a certain extent, and that is where the similarity to Rabbi Lando lies.
This is of course an entirely legitimate thought that appears in the Torah (for example, “And it shall come to pass, if you surely listen,” “When you come,” and more), and of course in the words of the Sages.
But of course this ignores the argument of hanhagat ha-yichud (I assume you have heard of this) and other things.
I, for example, agree with this: I think God intervenes, and I have no idea what His considerations are.
I once heard in the name of some sage that when people spoke with him about the vision of the great men of Israel, he said that “crystal eyes” exist only among the blind.
I once heard in the name of some sage that when people spoke with him about the vision of the great men of Israel, he said that “crystal eyes” exist only among the blind.
Sorry about where this comment landed; it jumps around for me unrelatedly. I was responding to the article itself and not to Boaz’s and Ba’al Zevuv’s remark
Rabbi Lando’s criticism did not concern voting itself, but rather the attribution of mythic sanctity to the party and the party newspaper, and viewing the political field as a zero-sum battlefield in which one must and is obligated to behave like animals for the interests of the party machine.
He also criticized the cynical use made of concepts like Da’at Torah and faith in the Sages as a tool to silence criticism and justify political moves the party takes.
At the time this was tantamount to suicide and required great courage.
It is hard to believe this is the same person.
Good morning, Eliyahu.
Every Haredi kollel fellow with a little understanding knows that Rabbi Zilberstein is a Torah scholar but far from being called great in Torah; a small glance at his many books proves this immediately. But you insist on calling him great in Torah in order to make all the Haredi gedolei Torah ridiculous [those who are considered great in Torah in the eyes of Torah scholars, and not in the eyes of the marketing writers of Yated Ne’eman].
You took a foolish situation that Rabbi Lando was forced to participate in out of courtesy or kindness [what could he do if they inform him that Rabbi Zilberstein wants to come for a holiday visit? Refuse and insult him?], and if you had even a drop of objective perspective you would see how distasteful the situation was to him…, and you turned the situation into though it represents Rabbi Lando and the level of his halakhic analysis.
To complete your antisemitic thesis, you also decided that the meeting was intended by them for publicity purposes and therefore proves that they displayed in it their true Torah level. But what can one do when the distributor of the video signed his name to the video, and he is the idiot who has been marketing for years Rabbi Zilberstein’s “brilliant” musings.
In short [I know you will never retract, so I am writing mainly for the readers of the site]:
A Jew who is not great in Torah and not in wisdom wanted to make himself happy on the holiday by visiting Rabbi Lando. Rabbi Lando wanted to fulfill Maimonides’ words that it is a commandment to gladden the orphan and the widow on the holiday, and in his opinion this also means an orphan in understanding, and therefore he received that Jew warmly and tried to relate to him nicely according to that Jew’s level.
Another Jew who admires Rabbi Zilberstein and his teaching [which indicates his level of wisdom] decided to distribute the video because in his [idiotic] opinion the video adds honor to Rabbi Zilberstein.
Yet another Jew by the name of Michael Abraham [actually a wise Jew] did the unbelievable and managed to watch the idiotic video to its end [I admit I could not].
What caused him to invest his time and energy in the foolish video, to watch it and analyze it?
Hatred. Hatred is excellent fuel, and it is also what caused Michi Abraham to analyze the situation in such a crooked way
In other words, you are lamenting why the Haredim do not choose normal gedolim like Rabbi Asher Weiss. Usually dayanim are like that, even in the batei din of the Haredi public, because they deal more with reality. Another distinction is between the original Jerusalem Haredi school and the Bnei Brak school, which unfortunately has taken over everything.
Respect
Honored Rabbi,
I have been following your content for years.
The things you say and write are of such a high level,
and it grates that you descend to these resolutions,
and discuss this video and its implications in such detailed and serious fashion.
It does not seem reasonable to me that a person of your intellectual level
would bother himself at all to respond and write what he thinks about this.
The public that truly follows your content
is a hundred levels above this,
and anyone who tastes the quality of the content you provide
you have already elevated him a level, and therefore he has no taste for such nonsense.
In short—instead of descending to their level—
raise us to your level.
Let things speak for themselves.
With appreciation and respect.
Hello,
Unfortunately this nonsense is so widespread, and people are so impressed by it, that there is no choice but to attack it directly and in detail. That is why I deal with such absurdities, which really are not worth the time. It is very important to persuade Haredim that their rabbinic leadership is a collection of detached and rather stupid children. You cannot do that without a direct, detailed, reasoned discussion. Torah has been taken captive by these fools, and so has the public that studies and upholds it.
Here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O4WwLjHvDv361eN18f0AtCnjFKKikAW6/view?usp=drive_link you can see the great “admiration” that R. Dov Lando has for Rosh Yeshiva Zilberstein; in every second sentence there is hidden criticism, and toward the end he really stabs him (as if he is saying to him, “In the yeshiva everyone thought you would grow into the gadol hador; look what became of you!”). But your remarks are very interesting, especially since, as you wrote, Rabbi Lando is indeed known as a brilliant man, and even today at age 95 his mind is sharp and clear. See for example here https://drive.google.com/file/d/19O9dMyt9BbHY-XjtX2fhwfaake_vwEL0/view?usp=sharing, especially on p. 3, where he mocks and derides a Torah scholar such as Rabbi Asher Weiss, who is in fact known as a marvelous expert (and his criticism there of the words of Rabbi Shmuel Rozovsky is so sharp and delightful). So it really does not suit him.
I have already explained many times in the past my view regarding divine involvement and commandments, and that is not the subject of this post.
The link you put in the post, showing the give-and-take between R. Yitzchak Zilberstein and Rabbi Dov Lando, brings the viewer to the Maariv website, where all around it before and after there is Sodom and Gomorrah—girls scantily clad in thongs and bikinis and sights that are unbearable. I think the end does not justify the means, and the damage is many times greater than the doubtful benefit of enlightening us
It may not be the subject, but it connects like “a plug to a socket,” “a cast to a sprain,” and “Muhammad to Mecca” to the line and the argument between them. You cannot distance your testimony and say I spoke about it in the past, etc. You must analyze with a surgeon’s knife what the difference is between there and this discussion.
First of all, I owe you nothing, and I can do whatever I want. It is just worth setting the record straight. Second, the fact that you lack minimal reading comprehension obligates me even less. If you do not understand that this is not the subject here, then you have a serious problem.
Ay ay ay, Michi, one can see that many years have passed since you heard a Torah-mussar talk from a mashgiach (with a tune). Maybe I will give a taste of such a talk containing all the answers to your questions; you only need to add the requisite moralistic melody.
(What I mean by my answers is that your attacks on the gedolei hador of our day should really be directed at Scripture itself—go deal with that; why should you complain against us?)
Moses our teacher’s sin is well known: he struck the rock instead of speaking to it, and his punishment was immediate from the Holy One, blessed be He: “Because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me,” he would not enter the Land of Israel. The questions are: a) What difference is there whether the miracle came through striking or through speaking? Both are supernatural miracles. b) What is the connection between the punishment of not entering the Land of Israel and the sin of striking instead of speaking? c) After all, previously there had been exactly such a case, and there Moses was specifically commanded to strike in order to bring forth water, and so it was. So why this great wrath this time? A short introduction: It is written in the Sifrei—what was Moses supposed to say to the rock so that it would bring forth its waters? The Sifrei answers: One or two words of halakhah!
And now to our matter: as is known, with the staff Moses our teacher performed all the miracles in Egypt and afterward and so on. But now, toward Israel’s entry into the Land, the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to teach the people of Israel for generations (including Michi) this special matter of the power of Torah study of the mouth alone and its effect on all creation, beyond the mode of miracles that had until then accompanied the people of Israel and the staff, including the splitting of the Red Sea, etc., etc. This is an ascent in rank of the influence and form of the miracle, to the point that, were I not afraid, I would say that the Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw the end of all generations and saw Michi’s puzzlement in this post—what and how does Torah study relate to success in wars, including phenomenal successes?? What is the connection?? And that was precisely the Holy One’s claim against Moses: you caused, as it were, the prevention of sanctifying God’s name by striking instead of speaking. Just see what you caused for Michi, for this is exactly the point I wanted to educate all Israel about—the very point—so that if a Jew asks what the connection is between speaking words of halakhah to an inanimate rock and miraculous water coming out of the rock, then he will answer himself by that same token: that is the connection between the Torah study of all Israel and its salvation, all the more so; examine this carefully
This really comes right out of the current weekly Torah portion.
You can see, Michi, that many years have passed since you heard a Torah-mussar talk from a mashgiach (with a tune). Maybe I will give a taste of such a talk containing all the answers to your questions; you only need to add the requisite moralistic melody.
(What I mean by my answers is that your attacks on the gedolei hador of our day should really be directed at Scripture itself—go deal with that; why should you complain against us?)
Moses our teacher’s sin is well known: he struck the rock instead of speaking to it, and his punishment was immediate from the Holy One, blessed be He: “Because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me,” he would not enter the Land of Israel. The questions are: a) What difference is there whether the miracle came through striking or through speaking? Both are supernatural miracles. b) What is the connection between the punishment of not entering the Land of Israel and the sin of striking instead of speaking? c) After all, previously there had been exactly such a case, and there Moses was specifically commanded to strike in order to bring forth water, and so it was. So why this great wrath this time? A short introduction: It is written in the Sifrei—what was Moses supposed to say to the rock so that it would bring forth its waters? The Sifrei answers: One or two words of halakhah!
And now to our matter: as is known, with the staff Moses our teacher performed all the miracles in Egypt and afterward and so on. But now, toward Israel’s entry into the Land, the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to teach the people of Israel for generations (including Michi) this special matter of the power of Torah study of the mouth alone and its effect on all creation, beyond the mode of miracles that had until then accompanied the people of Israel and the staff, including the splitting of the Red Sea, etc., etc. This is an ascent in rank of the influence and form of the miracle, to the point that, were I not afraid, I would say that the Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw the end of all generations and saw Michi’s puzzlement in this post—what and how does Torah study relate to success in wars, including phenomenal successes?? What is the connection?? And that was precisely the Holy One’s claim against Moses: you caused, as it were, the prevention of sanctifying God’s name by striking instead of speaking. Just see what you caused for Michi, for this is exactly the point I wanted to educate all Israel about—the very point—so that if a Jew asks what the connection is between speaking words of halakhah to an inanimate rock and miraculous water coming out of the rock, then he will answer himself by that same token: that is the connection between the Torah study of all Israel and its salvation, all the more so; examine this well
What exactly is so problematic about the view that, with all the army and technology, we still could have screwed up? You think there are no margins in physics, and others think there are. Why has a difference of opinion become something idiotic?
Who said there is a problem? Of course we could have screwed up.
I mean, of course, that the screw-up did not happen because of divine assistance, at least according to his view. (Also according to Bibi’s view, by the way… you should have devoted a post to him to the same extent; he understands divine assistances no less than Rabbi Lando…). There is no logical or scientific claim here. Not every statement is examined under an empirical magnifying glass that checks whether it is falsifiable or not. He says from within his world and his outlook—that there is individual providence—that the hand of God was involved here.
After all, they say that the most optimistic forecast expected 400 dead, despite the sophisticated plan and advanced technology. In his view and in the view of many (not necessarily mine), only 7 percent of the scenario was realized because of divine assistance. If this is the bleak view of the gadol hador, then all one needs is to get different glasses.
I saw the second link you brought, with R. Dov Lando and R. Bunim. Truly these are among the finest iron assets of Talmudic learning in our generation (I only wonder to myself: if Michi had been there, would those topics have been like ancient Chinese to him? Since when has he gone over subjects like Kodashim—certainly, certainly with such extensive knowledge and mastery of those subjects? And just see what mastery those Torah scholars have of the whole Torah. Once R. Yosel Schreiber said, when they showed him a chaburah on migo as strength of claim during a trip from Bnei Brak to Jerusalem—they presented it to him as a chaburah by one of the kollel fellows, what he did not know was that it was a chaburah by Michi (Michi of old; there were no provocations or references to secular books and philosophy there, as I recall some Haredi student of his published it). I happened to meet him and asked what he thought of the chaburah? (I am hardcore Haredi.) He asked me, did you compose it? I answered, certainly not; I am not on the level to compose such a chaburah. So he said to me in these exact words: this booklet should be burned. Understand, this was not some statement of mere disagreement with a reasoning he did not accept; it was a very חריפה and uncommon statement. I asked him in astonishment, why? It was about 20 years ago, and it was hard to understand him too—he speaks very fast. What I remember from his claims is the following sentence: “He thinks he received the Torah from Sinai.” Just see the wisdom of Torah scholars: from a chaburah in Torah matters he detected Michi’s great problem, which later became clear to our eyes—how right he was. He thinks he can contend with such Torah scholars. Take him sometime to Rabbi Yisrael Shneur and then perhaps for the first time he will acquire a little humility and understand how much of an am ha’aretz he is by our accepted definitions. What a pity for what has been lost. We had a dream that maybe at last we had a baal teshuvah who could reach achievements, and look to what a broken trough he has deteriorated, to the point that perhaps the definition of him is apikorus (he does not deny that he may be one, and it does not even bother him), while some of his children are secular (including his wife Dafna, who was once Haredi and no longer believes), with a dog in the house and a television, and he still thinks he is going to give us understanding about the gedolei hador. It is all a puffed-up balloon of pride because of philosophy studies and talent for high-level analytical thinking. He allows himself to disgrace Torah scholars, and there is no cure for his affliction. Rabbi Elyashiv once said, as an example of what it means that “there is no cure for his affliction”: it is the disease of cancer. If you have a bit of integrity, Michi, if only out of fear of getting cancer, retract and ask forgiveness publicly from the platform for disgracing Torah scholars. Shame on you
As an observer from the side, I notice that the more Michi breaches the boundaries of free speech and fires upward at the high windows, the higher the flames he takes in return; and there is no denying it, these are comments with correspondingly painful hits, although for the most part he deletes them, yet their effect created the intended impact before they were deleted. I do not interfere in his considerations, but he should take into account that the more he grows extreme, the more the comments will grow extreme. He should be thankful we are not in a hot-blooded Muslim world where, to separate by thousands of distinctions, when they disrespect Muhammad (the filthy one), I do not need to tell you what the reaction would have been. See what happened just last week in Turkey to a local newspaper that made a cartoon with Moses and Muhammad (not degrading at all)—what became of them
Listen, my friend, I detect a bit of a contradiction in your words. On the one hand you regret that Michi could have been one of the great men of the generation, and on the other hand you write that he cannot even understand a conversation of two other great men. I am astonished. Can someone encouraged to become great really be unable even to converse with other sages?
In your eagerness to attack, you found the weakest possible example
Read again, this time with understanding and analysis. I actually praised him, but in knowledge of Kodashim and Taharot and other parts of Torah, he and Yair Lapid are equals; and certainly, certainly he does not have full mastery like the Torah scholars against whom he opened his mouth—apart from the yeshiva tractates he has no hand or foot.
“The Jew who sent me the video was very surprised that two such ‘maran’ figures do not know an explicit Shulchan Arukh, which wrote: ‘One who was forced to pray sitting—when he can, he must pray again standing.’ They discuss and debate such a simple question when it is explicit in halakhah. But to my mind this is not such a great deficiency.”
Did you and the Jew who sent you the video actually watch the video?
At minute 04:13 Rabbi Zilberstein mentions the words of the Shulchan Arukh, and later shows them to Rabbi Lando.
Unfortunately I watched it. I still haven’t recovered. Indeed Rabbi Zilberstein brought the Shulchan Arukh and the two of them discussed it, and only it, as I wrote in the post. But Rabbi Lando did not know it, and they brought him the book so he could examine it, and then they began discussing it.
A matter of taste. I watched it (after reading the post) and enjoyed it very much.
Here is another shocking example that was published today.
https://www.bhol.co.il/news/1698513
At the end of the day, the pimple-popping of the gedolei hador that Michi does for the readers’ enjoyment will not change the fact that these are the great Torah figures, with such shortcomings or others, whereas the others may perhaps be mature people, but the main thing, the essence, is missing from them—greatness in Torah.
Michi, I do not believe you really think this way. Do you know who can fall into such naïveté? Only a fresh baal teshuvah who does not know how to read situations of discourse among giants of Torah, especially of R. Dov Lando. But there is no choice; I will try to make it accessible to you, as to a new tourist in our land. Maybe you will be grateful, and maybe you will not, out of discomfort at your inability to read the map and grasp such situations, which belong to the inner Haredi world. I will just preface: I am an am ha’aretz among amei ha’aretz. I went to watch the video (which I learned from the commenters here exists). As soon as I saw Rabbi Zilberstein’s question, the aforementioned Shulchan Arukh immediately jumped to mind, and more than that, also the source of the Shulchan Arukh in Berakhot; there is also a story there on this matter about the father of Rav and Shmuel, etc.—look there. (I did not open a book; all I am telling you is from memory.) I promise you there is not an ignoramus who does not know this halakhah in the Shulchan Arukh and in the Gemara. Do you seriously think that either of them did not know? I ask you, Michi—I do not believe you really think so, to the point that I suspect you are trolling us. Especially since I do not understand you: let us say you play yourself as some kind of autistic person who does not understand the situation—but you, who are committed to scientific proofs, do you not know that this whole give-and-take, including the Shulchan Arukh and the sources, is brought in Rabbi Zilberstein’s book Chashukei Chemed as a question and answer, as well as what Rabbi Zilberstein’s master and teacher, Rabbi Elyashiv of blessed memory, said on this question? I am astonished at you, Michi, that you even write that you have still not calmed down. It is hard for me to believe you have become that distant. Ask: what is this whole show, as it were? I can try to bring it closer to you, because these are not words and a message that can be conveyed. It is a situation that every bar bei rav who grew up in our world grasps already at the beginning of his path. I am not sure I will succeed in making it accessible to you. It stems mainly from two traits: one, humility; the second, boundless love of Torah. Understand: I sat for years in the daily daf shiur of R. Moshe Mordechai Shlezinger, author of Mishmar HaLevi, and I would see these phenomena almost every day, almost every hour. Those great men, at their level, are really like children (I say this as the highest praise of their love of Torah), in their emotionality and wonderment at every matter of Torah and every tiny added illumination and note, as it is written, “drunk, but not from wine,” and likewise the parable of the fish that come out to receive every new drop that descends to them as if they had never seen water in their lives. Even on matters they had learned hundreds of times, and I knew full well that they remembered and knew them and had already spoken about them, sometimes even a few hours earlier—suddenly someone comes and speaks on the topic, and they act as though they are hearing the insight for the first time, and praise the insight and its speaker and compliment him without bounds and give him the feeling that he has taught them something new. How many times did we see that a young student approached R. Gershon, of blessed memory, and tell him some insight from R. Chaim, while R. Gershon himself had a whole chaburah on it, and R. Gershon gave the boy the feeling that he was hearing it for the first time, until the boy was sure he had taught him something new—and so on, thousands upon thousands of times. On the contrary, we small people, with our foul pride—if a sharp young Torah scholar came to me and spoke with me about the above matter, I would immediately fire at him the Gemara in Berakhot 30 and the Shulchan Arukh and the Mishnah Berurah to show how learned I am—a familiar phenomenon, one in whose company the Holy One, blessed be He, cannot stand. See the difference between someone who did not grow up within this particular Haredi world, who sees and judges such a situation (and in general, many years have passed since you were close to this public, and apparently you have also managed to forget even the situations you did manage to absorb), and someone like me, who just enjoys and enjoys and cannot stop laughing with happiness. Call it in your jargon “secondaryness,” but here it is praise and not really criticism of secondaryness that teaches about falsehood and deceit, but simply facts. In short, this is truly from the matter of the day of the weekly portion Balak: you came to curse but ended up blessing
Only if I may add a personal note. Why does the honorable rabbi fire the arrows of his pen and tongue only at the sages of the Haredi public, and not also at the sages of religious Zionism? At the great figures of the Eastern world, the students and students of students of Rabbi Kook? For they too hold that all the successes of the army, technology, economy—everything—derive solely from the power of the Creator of the world. Except what? That they also fight in the army, work in high-tech, develop weapons, and engage in developing the world, while adding—and this is the main thing!—that all wisdom and means are only tools that the Holy One, blessed be He, provides man so that he may build his world. So according to Rabbi Michi’s method, do they too think like children? Why does he not criticize them as sharply as he does the Haredim?
Rather, in my opinion, it is not the “childish thinking” itself that troubles Rabbi Michi. For if it were, he would also have to attack religious Zionism. What should really and primarily trouble one are the results such thoughts may bring about. And here, in my opinion, the honorable rabbi does not emphasize enough, and the main point is missing from the book: the rabbi attacks the style of thinking, but the real problem is the outcome—the damages this produces in reality.
And it does not always produce damage! Proof? The religious-national public.
So why not say: “Leave Israel alone to think childish thoughts, as long as it does not harm others”?
And that is exactly what is missing from your essay, in my opinion. One does not judge a person by his thoughts, but by what he does with them—especially when it destroys society. And as we see in the Haredi public, these thoughts can destroy a society, except that they rely on the self-sacrifice of others. In the end, in my humble opinion, the main point is lacking. It is not the thought but the consequences of the thoughts that can be a subject of discussion. Good luck
Michi taught me that words are cheap and there’s nothing to eat from them. Leave aside this post or that post—it’s all just talk. What interests me are deeds. Are you capable of doing what those whom you mock are capable of doing? Come show us receipts, and then we’ll talk.
https://www.bhol.co.il/news/1698928
It’s become the talk of the day.
Hemoglobin dropped: an open miracle אצל the posek of the generation—the circumcised infant was placed on his table
The great-grandson of the posek of the generation, Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch, was brought to his table so that he could bless him, just a few minutes after the circumcision, which had been carried out hastily before sunset after the baby’s hemoglobin levels in his blood had dropped. The full story
Moshe Weisberg
12 Tammuz 5785 08.07.25 |
How do you know what the essence is?
Rabbi, you are letting yourself off easy. The lack of seriousness in Torah study did not begin among the Haredim in our generation; it is only reaching its peak now. It began with acceptance of the Talmud, out of a mistaken understanding of the commandment to heed the words of the Sages. People take things said by our rabbis that are not correct (and this is no disgrace to their authors at all) and strain with all their might and against all logic to uphold them. Thus the errors pile up through the generations and reason goes to hell. It begins with Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (“Keep your children from higgayon, and let the words of Torah be burned”). Sages in earlier generations sought to hide away the Song of Songs of King Solomon, but in later generations everything must be accepted. And it goes on and on and on until one arrives at Nahmanides in his letter to his son (“Do not look a person in the face when speaking with him”) and the Vilna Gaon in his letter (“And the main fence is seclusion, that one should not go out from the doorway of the house, Heaven forbid”), to shame and wrath, until today we have reached the point that many times one cannot hear a Torah lecture without simultaneously having a lobotomy. But it is not the Haredim; it is the entire Oral Torah / Torah of exile. Therefore we await the revelation of the Shekhinah and the new covenant (the real one), as the verse says: “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt…”
To the Haredi commenter: you are completely mistaken in your claim that “he [Rabbi Michi] has no hand or foot except in the yeshiva tractates.” You can see in ‘Shiurim on the Shas’ that he has lectures on many topics and even tractates not studied in yeshivot, such as in tractate Shabbat on the categories of labor, and he even gave an analytic, in-depth, and impressive conceptual analysis of the labor of building. And that is only one example.
I agree that perhaps Rabbi Michi does not have the knowledge of Rabbi Bunim Schreiber, but do not forget that Rabbi Michi deals with many fields, even within Torah itself. And common sense and recognition of reality definitely add to him. Personally, however, I think these two do not replace knowledge and analysis (and he himself acknowledged this in the comments on his post about greatness in Torah, though in my view he did not emphasize it enough in the post itself), but it can certainly offset things if one compares him to a great rabbi, and not relative to the perfect model of a gadol in Torah.
Also what you wrote, that “in knowledge of Kodashim and Taharot and other parts of Torah, he and Yair Lapid are equal,” is also nonsense and empty wind. Rabbi Michi sometimes cites from Taharot (for example in the last post about warning in the sotah case), Zevachim, and more. Perhaps he is not Rabbi Itamar Garbuz in knowledge of Taharot and Kodashim, but he is very far from the person you mentioned in your words.
Regarding the first claim, I don’t understand why you picked on Rabbi Lando. After all, the entire religious public behaves this way too. They say Hallel, Nishmat, etc. Did anyone ask himself whether there really was divine intervention here? And if so, why do we deserve it? Are we better than the eve of 10/7? Did the higher powers suddenly switch sides because there is more unity among the people?