Something in my personal life has come up, so I'm leaving the J-blogosphere. I'm putting blogging, blog-reading [updated: changed my mind on this one], commenting [update: changed my mind on this one too; I may comment occasionally.], and email discussions into retirement. It stinks, but it has
to be done.
The exception will be if R' Student or Seforim somehow end up posting something about me because the most substantial stuff comes up on those blogs. If one of them do, please let me know at yodamace@gmail.com 'cause otherwise I won't know.
I know I'm not an extremely important person, but I feel it an obligation to thank those who've helped me with this venture. I have learned much on the Internet and in the J-blogosphere. I mean, there was so much I was ignorant of and folks were able to clue me in on. I couldn't have come even this far on this journey without the assistance of the following people (not necessarily in any particular order):
--Rabbi F. for his guidance, tutelage, and encouragement.
--Dr. Marc Shapiro for patiently answering many of my questions and discussing some important issues with me.
--Dr. Lawrence Kaplan for discussing some important issues with me.
--Dr. Abramson, R' Ira Bedzow, and Menachem Butler for invaluable personal advice given by each.
--Joel Rich and Garnel Ironheart for their devoted readership and thought-provoking comments.
--R' Binyomin Eckstein, Israel, and LazerA for their comments which forced me to think harder about the issues and often forced me to come to more moderate conclusions.
--R' Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer for his outstanding example of derech eretz, critical thought, and kindness.
--Dr. Tzvee Zahavy, Steve Brizel, Steg, Mississippi Fred Macdowell, Bobbi Schwartz, Neil Harris, R., ZB, Joey Fried, and Dan Rabinowitz for their kind comments.
--Ezzie Goldish, Toby Katz, and Joel W. for the linkage and excellent correspondences.
--G for being G.
--Zorro for his coming to my defense at a time when it felt like my positions were being attacked by the olam.
--Jerry Friedman for his early readership.
--R' Student and R' Slifkin for patiently discussing issues with me and answering my questions.
--The rabbis and guys at OD, Ohr Somayach, and the Shabbos tables around Jerusalem for asking me questions which forced me to sharpen my exposition and for answering my questions about their views.
--FKM for consistently commenting and keeping the blog active.
--Chris Jones and Gene Ruyle, for enabling me to reach this point.
And last, but not least, the Supreme Master on high, the Ribono shel Olam.
Please moichel me for anything I might have done to you. If you wish to contact me, please do so at yodamace@gmail.com
Sof Dvar.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
R' Avraham Sherman on Everybody Else
According to Matthew Wagner of Jpost:
"A judge on the High Rabbinical Court who made headlines in recent months for casting doubt on the Jewishness of hundreds of converts called Wednesday on religious Zionist rabbis to recognize the primacy of haredi rabbinical leadership. ...[R' Avraham] Sherman said the major Torah sages of this generation were Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv of Jerusalem and Rabbi Shmuel Halevi Vosner of Bnei Brak, and that religious Zionist rabbis were obliged to abide by their opinions. Sherman said that even highly respected Sephardi rabbis such as former chief rabbis Ovadia Yosef and Mordechai Eliahu should defer to Elyashiv's halachic decisions regarding conversions. "
You know, I'm starting to get where Marc Shapiro, Isi Liebler, R' Yehuda Gilad, and R' Benjamin Lau are coming from.
[hat tip: Garnel Ironheart]
"A judge on the High Rabbinical Court who made headlines in recent months for casting doubt on the Jewishness of hundreds of converts called Wednesday on religious Zionist rabbis to recognize the primacy of haredi rabbinical leadership. ...[R' Avraham] Sherman said the major Torah sages of this generation were Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv of Jerusalem and Rabbi Shmuel Halevi Vosner of Bnei Brak, and that religious Zionist rabbis were obliged to abide by their opinions. Sherman said that even highly respected Sephardi rabbis such as former chief rabbis Ovadia Yosef and Mordechai Eliahu should defer to Elyashiv's halachic decisions regarding conversions. "
You know, I'm starting to get where Marc Shapiro, Isi Liebler, R' Yehuda Gilad, and R' Benjamin Lau are coming from.
[hat tip: Garnel Ironheart]
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Disclaimer
I have more stuff to write about R' Meiselman's response to the others and a lot of it's positive, but I've been busy, so hopefully it'll come some time this week.
R' Meiselman's View of the Rav
R' Meiselman's book and his old Tradition articles are somewhat relevant to my research on microcredit, so I've been going through them.
I wanted to get my thoughts down...
Just goin' through his arguments in his response to the Communications that came in response to his original article:
A. "I never contended 'that the Rav concurred entirely with his uncle
Reb Velvele's attitude toward the State,' or that 'the Rav was at one
with his ilustrious uncle.' No one could make such a foolish assertion...The Rav was an active member of Mizrachi...However, my point was that there is a difference between something that has pragmatic value and something that has intrinsic value."
Actually, nobody made either of the above claims...Let's look at the actual quotes of the interlocutors:
1. "R. Meiselman contends that the Rav concurred entirely with his uncle, R. Velvele's, attitude towards the state as 'religiously irrelevant,' as a secular Jewish state fits no classic halakhic paradigm."
2. "R. Meiselman contends that the Rav saw the state in purely 'pragmatic terms' and viewed it as 'religiously irrelevant.' Moreover, he states that the Rav was at one with his ilustrious uncle, R. Yitzchak Zev (Velvele) Soloveitchik, zt'I, the Brisker Rav, in this line of thinking."
So really, the interlocutors only accused R' Meiselman of saying lefi the Rav that the State of Israel was of purely pragmatic value and religiously irrelevant.
Did R' Meiselman write both of those things? Well, he goes on in his defense to defend his view that it's of pragmatic value, so nobody could dispute that. As for the idea that the State was religiously irrelevant, the following is from R' Meiselman's original essay:
1. "In his eulogy for his uncle, Rav Yitshak Ze'ev Soloveichik (the Brisker Rav), published subsequently under the title Ma Dodekh miDod) the Rav said that whereas a secular Jewish government in Israel does not fit into any halakhic categories, it is religiously irrelevant. This was not just a formulation of his uncle's position, but it was his as well."
R' Meiselman goes forth to defend his position that the State doesn't have intrinsic value, writing that, "All of the adduced quotes from all of the authors [of the responses] do not demonstrate an approach that the Rav may have taken to the State of Israel different from what I described [!?!?!]."
The following quote from the Rav seemed to me to be explicitly against R' Meiselman's approach (as quoted from his own essay above):
"Only our movement [Mizrachi] expressed itself unequivocally for the State of Israel and granted it halakhic status." (there are other quotes reflecting this which they quoted, but I'll stick with this one for now)
But R' Meiselman moves away from defining the State as outside of halachic categories as he did in his original piece and now writes that what he meant by pragmatic value was that, unlike certain NRP members, the Rav did not hold that "the very existence of a Jewish government there demands our enthusiastic support independent of any positive pragmatic result." He notes that R' Wurzburger is in agreement with him, because R' Wurzburger held that the Rav's Zionism was "completely devoid of messianic overtones but focused upon the material and spiritual needs of the Jewish people and the obligation to do whatever is in one's power to ameliorate their conditions." Firstly, can anybody who's read R' Wurzburger not be struck by the irony of R' Meiselman citing R' Wurzburger to support his position? Secondly, R' Meiselman's trying to quote R' Wurzburger in support of this position that we need not support a Jewish government in whatever they do, something which nobody in the conversation denied lshem the Rav. What they denied was that the State does not have intrinsic halachic and religious value according to the Rav.
R' Meiselman continues:
"I never mentioned that the Rav's atttudes were at odds with all forms of Religious Zionism. I did mention that it is at odds with the most common form of Religious Zionism present here in IsraeL. Quoting other Zionistic thinkers doesn't change the fact of what is the most
prevalent form of Zionistic thinking in Israel."
Actually, what he said was:
"In this article, the Rav rejects the two main points of the ideology of Religious Zionism: that there is intrinsic religious meaning to the establishment of a secular government in Israel, and that there is any pre-messianic meaning to such an institution."
[g2g, b'n, more this week]
I wanted to get my thoughts down...
Just goin' through his arguments in his response to the Communications that came in response to his original article:
A. "I never contended 'that the Rav concurred entirely with his uncle
Reb Velvele's attitude toward the State,' or that 'the Rav was at one
with his ilustrious uncle.' No one could make such a foolish assertion...The Rav was an active member of Mizrachi...However, my point was that there is a difference between something that has pragmatic value and something that has intrinsic value."
Actually, nobody made either of the above claims...Let's look at the actual quotes of the interlocutors:
1. "R. Meiselman contends that the Rav concurred entirely with his uncle, R. Velvele's, attitude towards the state as 'religiously irrelevant,' as a secular Jewish state fits no classic halakhic paradigm."
2. "R. Meiselman contends that the Rav saw the state in purely 'pragmatic terms' and viewed it as 'religiously irrelevant.' Moreover, he states that the Rav was at one with his ilustrious uncle, R. Yitzchak Zev (Velvele) Soloveitchik, zt'I, the Brisker Rav, in this line of thinking."
So really, the interlocutors only accused R' Meiselman of saying lefi the Rav that the State of Israel was of purely pragmatic value and religiously irrelevant.
Did R' Meiselman write both of those things? Well, he goes on in his defense to defend his view that it's of pragmatic value, so nobody could dispute that. As for the idea that the State was religiously irrelevant, the following is from R' Meiselman's original essay:
1. "In his eulogy for his uncle, Rav Yitshak Ze'ev Soloveichik (the Brisker Rav), published subsequently under the title Ma Dodekh miDod) the Rav said that whereas a secular Jewish government in Israel does not fit into any halakhic categories, it is religiously irrelevant. This was not just a formulation of his uncle's position, but it was his as well."
R' Meiselman goes forth to defend his position that the State doesn't have intrinsic value, writing that, "All of the adduced quotes from all of the authors [of the responses] do not demonstrate an approach that the Rav may have taken to the State of Israel different from what I described [!?!?!]."
The following quote from the Rav seemed to me to be explicitly against R' Meiselman's approach (as quoted from his own essay above):
"Only our movement [Mizrachi] expressed itself unequivocally for the State of Israel and granted it halakhic status." (there are other quotes reflecting this which they quoted, but I'll stick with this one for now)
But R' Meiselman moves away from defining the State as outside of halachic categories as he did in his original piece and now writes that what he meant by pragmatic value was that, unlike certain NRP members, the Rav did not hold that "the very existence of a Jewish government there demands our enthusiastic support independent of any positive pragmatic result." He notes that R' Wurzburger is in agreement with him, because R' Wurzburger held that the Rav's Zionism was "completely devoid of messianic overtones but focused upon the material and spiritual needs of the Jewish people and the obligation to do whatever is in one's power to ameliorate their conditions." Firstly, can anybody who's read R' Wurzburger not be struck by the irony of R' Meiselman citing R' Wurzburger to support his position? Secondly, R' Meiselman's trying to quote R' Wurzburger in support of this position that we need not support a Jewish government in whatever they do, something which nobody in the conversation denied lshem the Rav. What they denied was that the State does not have intrinsic halachic and religious value according to the Rav.
R' Meiselman continues:
"I never mentioned that the Rav's atttudes were at odds with all forms of Religious Zionism. I did mention that it is at odds with the most common form of Religious Zionism present here in IsraeL. Quoting other Zionistic thinkers doesn't change the fact of what is the most
prevalent form of Zionistic thinking in Israel."
Actually, what he said was:
"In this article, the Rav rejects the two main points of the ideology of Religious Zionism: that there is intrinsic religious meaning to the establishment of a secular government in Israel, and that there is any pre-messianic meaning to such an institution."
[g2g, b'n, more this week]
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Harry Wolfson
I've been looking for a certain thing about Harry A. Wolfson. I stumbled across two fascinating quotes about him, the first from his talmid Isadore Twersky and the second from Time magazine. I found them both very inspiring for some reason, especially the latter quote, as I am personally always struggling with losing things.
Dr. Twersky:
"He was reminiscent of an old-fashioned gaon, transposed into a modern university setting, studying day and night, resisting presumptive attractions and distractions, honors and chores, with a tenacity which sometimes seemed awkward and antisocial."
Time 1958:
"Harvard's intense, slightly built Harry Austryn Wolfson, 70, probably the world's foremost historian of religious philosophy. He went to Harvard as a freshman in 1908, has spent almost the entire time since in his book-sandbagged study at the Widener Library and his tome-cluttered flat near by—where, a friend relates, the scholar once searched unsuccessfully for a book in the refrigerator, thought a moment, triumphantly fished it out of the unlit oven. Ranging widely and deeply, he began with medieval Jewish philosophy, went on to trace with minute thoroughness the works of such men as Spinoza and Crescas back to the ancient Hebrew, Christian, Moslem and Greek philosophers, took time out only to catch every film shown at Harvard Square's second-run theater. Says Scholar Wolfson: "It is wonderful to start with an original text, an unstudied text, and to realize that there is nothing between you and this text. You try to find out everything that is implied in every term, every phrase, to get behind the words into the man's mind."
Dr. Twersky:
"He was reminiscent of an old-fashioned gaon, transposed into a modern university setting, studying day and night, resisting presumptive attractions and distractions, honors and chores, with a tenacity which sometimes seemed awkward and antisocial."
Time 1958:
"Harvard's intense, slightly built Harry Austryn Wolfson, 70, probably the world's foremost historian of religious philosophy. He went to Harvard as a freshman in 1908, has spent almost the entire time since in his book-sandbagged study at the Widener Library and his tome-cluttered flat near by—where, a friend relates, the scholar once searched unsuccessfully for a book in the refrigerator, thought a moment, triumphantly fished it out of the unlit oven. Ranging widely and deeply, he began with medieval Jewish philosophy, went on to trace with minute thoroughness the works of such men as Spinoza and Crescas back to the ancient Hebrew, Christian, Moslem and Greek philosophers, took time out only to catch every film shown at Harvard Square's second-run theater. Says Scholar Wolfson: "It is wonderful to start with an original text, an unstudied text, and to realize that there is nothing between you and this text. You try to find out everything that is implied in every term, every phrase, to get behind the words into the man's mind."
The Beauty of Censorship
From R' Maryles' blog comments:
All,the issue of the heter mechirah is long debated. as i have pointed out many times, what is unique is the vigorous nature of those who are attacking it. To get a sense of what is going on, RSZA ztl, who opposed the heter mechirah, but politely and not strenuously has been "EDITTED" by our current "gedolim" DELETING his temperate attitude. It did not help his cause that he also referred to Rav Kook ztl in that discussion as "mara d'eretz israel."Fortunately an uncensored edition has also just been published. Forget the slifkin charade, but we are now censoring gedolai yisroel. I might add even the late satmar rebbe did not allow his chasidim to do that when they tried editting the words of R. Noson Adler quoted in chiddushai chatam sofer. This helps define what level of extremism we are now facing.
HaShem yerachem!
dr. bill 09.18.08 - 11:21 am #
My response (awaiting moderation):
Dr. Bill,
Bet nobody addresses your points.
All,the issue of the heter mechirah is long debated. as i have pointed out many times, what is unique is the vigorous nature of those who are attacking it. To get a sense of what is going on, RSZA ztl, who opposed the heter mechirah, but politely and not strenuously has been "EDITTED" by our current "gedolim" DELETING his temperate attitude. It did not help his cause that he also referred to Rav Kook ztl in that discussion as "mara d'eretz israel."Fortunately an uncensored edition has also just been published. Forget the slifkin charade, but we are now censoring gedolai yisroel. I might add even the late satmar rebbe did not allow his chasidim to do that when they tried editting the words of R. Noson Adler quoted in chiddushai chatam sofer. This helps define what level of extremism we are now facing.
HaShem yerachem!
dr. bill 09.18.08 - 11:21 am #
My response (awaiting moderation):
Dr. Bill,
Bet nobody addresses your points.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
