profile | register | search
|Forums | |||Post Reply||Send Topic To a Friend|
|e||Posted - 20 November 2001 22:21
um danny - who said mod must be objective? he is just a rabbi who calles himself modertaor. if you ask for his opinion dont go telling him its invalid. just b/c u dont like wat he says.
|bonse||Posted - 20 November 2001 23:29
Where in Halaha is the prohibition against Israel and Jews living in Israel?
And from what point saying bad things about Rav Kook becomes lashon hara ?
|MODERATOR||Posted - 21 November 2001 0:11
Nobody said it is prohibited for Jews to live in Israel. it is prohibited for Jews to have governmental control over Israel in Golus. The source for the prohibitioon are the Three Oaths, as explained above.
Talking about Rav Kook becomes Loshon Horah when the talk is not relavent to his status as a Torah authority. But since it is important for people to know which Torha authorities are legitimate and which are not, revelaing information that deligitimizes him is not Loshon Horah.
|IkeHolmes||Posted - 29 November 2001 21:00
Regarding Rav Kook, how does his deviation from the messorah, as far as Zionism is concerned, make him an apikores?
1) He never tried to undermine the whole concept of mesorah, never said "You don't have to listen to chachomim of previous generations". He made mistakes in shikul ha-daas in applying that mesorah to his times and situation, which is quiet bad - but not that bad!
2) The phenomenon that the Zionists and his followers/friends used his teachings to do aveiros is not bad enough in itself to make Rav Kook an apikores. We know the case of Antigonus Ish Socho and his student Tzadok, who abused Antigonus's teachings and started the heretical Tzeduki sect.
3)The statement about "soccer players" being "holy" is a clear misuse of the teaching that every jew has a 'pintele yid', a point of holiness, in him. But where did Rav Kook say that this holiness is as good as shmiras shabbos or that the "holymen" do not need to become frum?
4) The opposition of Gedolim to Rav Kook is a fact, but this fact by itself doesn't make him an apikores, as he never transgressed the Rambam's 13 ikarim of Emunah
Although we must not follow Rav Kook's teachings, and might have to condemn those that do follow them, we still have no proof that Rav Kook himself was an apikores.
The question is, was he a 'machtia as horabim' and 'megaleh ponim ba torah shelo kchalocha' to the extent of 'Ain lo chelek b'olam habo'? According to the Satmar Rav Z"l - yes; according to Chofetz Chayim - probably not ["Kook Shmook" is a mere ridicule, not a cherem]; Rav Hutner z"l learned from Rav Kook, so I assume he wouldn't want his Rebbe to lose Olam HaBoh; Chazon Ish z"l and rest of Gedolim - ?
I think "Apikores" is a dangerous judgement to pass - let's leave it to Hashem to decide what to do with Rav Kook's neshomah.
Besides, how can we say Rav Kook's intentions weren't lSheim Shomayim? Maybe he was whole heartedly motivated by love of Klal Yisorel? Who can't make a mistake? So, his mazal was bad that he made an awful miscalculation ...
|MODERATOR||Posted - 30 November 2001 0:49
As I said, different Gedolim had different opinions about Rav Kook. The Satmar Rav ZTL rules clearly that he had the status of an Apikores.
He bases this on a number of statements of Rav Kook that he says he saw first hand in his (Rav Kooks) writings, which include, it seems, statments about the non-frum Jews, probably the soccer players.
True he did not they they do not have to be frum, but he did say that their playing soccer in Israel is enough to make them praiseworthy to Hashem (Hanosen l'yaef Koach etc.) and holy even though they are total atheists and the socer playing actually takes place on Shabbos.
That's pretty bad, and nobody disagrees with that. Its much worse than a misconstuing of the "pintele yid".
The Satmar Rav quotes Rabbeinu Yonah in Brachos who explains why, if a Chazan skips the blessing of V'lamalshinim we suspect he is a Apikores, even though if someone skips Techiyas Hameisim we do not suspect him for denying Techiyas Hameisim.
This is because if someone refrains from cursing the Apikorsim we suspect he is one of them, even if the person may be the Gadol Hador (as was the case in the Gemora). But if a person skips Techiyas Hameisim there is no such suspision.
Therefore, he says, if someone considers them holy and praiseworthy he surely is not cursing them when he should be ...
Agree or disagree, thats his position, based on Halachic grounds.
Also, a "toeh b;shikul hadaas" becomes a plain Apikores when it was possible for him to have seen his mistake and willfully - due to vested interest or otherwise - espoused anti-Torah ideas.
Rav Kook was perceived by this group of Gedolim to have been way above the empty arguments he put forth on behalf of Zionism and his other deviant ideas. He was perceived as trying to fit a square peg into a round hole for the sake of Zionism.
Regarding Rav Hutner, it is true that when he was young he was a Talmid of Rav Kook, and that Rav Kook had a tremendous influence on him, in many ways. However, as time went on, Rav Hutner chnaged his position towards Rav Kook drastically, distancing himself from him in very obvious ways. He never, ever quoted Rav Kook in any of his Maamarim or Seforim or SHiurim in Yeshiva. In the '60's he took down Rav Kook's picture that he once had in his Sukkah - a public statement.
Although he definitely did not publicly humiliate Rav Kook, but he made sure not to give him any public honor, either, despite his being a Talmid. He made sure that his students knew that he felt Rav Kook was wrong.
Edited by - moderator on 29 November 2001 23:26
|MODERATOR||Posted - 30 November 2001 4:29
PS - The Chofetz Chaim's statement of Kook Shmook being a "ridicule, not a cherem" does not mean the Chofetz Chima did NOT consider him a machti es harabim. It was not the Chofetz Chaim's halachic ruling on Rav Kook, merely a one-time reaction.
|e||Posted - 30 November 2001 4:50
so you only quote the satmar rov wat about others ? why say the worst opinion and most extreme?
|MODERATOR||Posted - 30 November 2001 4:52
I didnt only quote the Satmar Rav, and his opinion is NOT the most extreme. But Ike quesitoned the fact that anybody considered Rav Kook an Apikores and if so why. My asnwer was Yes, there are those who did, and this is the reason....
You have to take the posts in context of the thread.
|green||Posted - 30 November 2001 7:17
I think also-and maybe this is what some ppl are trying to say-why can't we just say not to follow his teachings, they weren't correct, and leave it alone?cuz many ppl asking these questions are curious, it's not l'toelet, and once this becomes an issue that every person has to have his own opinion on no matter how little he is, it gets nasty..
|MODERATOR||Posted - 30 November 2001 7:20
Edited by - moderator on 30 November 2001 2:21
|MODERATOR||Posted - 30 November 2001 7:21
Well youre right, people should not have opinions - on anything, surely not Torah issues - unless they know what they are talking about.
But the issue of who is a Gadol and who to honor and respect is Torah like anything else, and therefore should be taught as accurately as possible.
I dont see any nasty here....
|linitz||Posted - 18 January 2002 5:26
I dodn't understand why you keep on repeating the statment from R' kook Z"l about the soccer players the Imrei emes z"l from ger said he retracted it b/c it was misunderstood.
Do the same problems apply to R' kook z"k son?
|MODERATOR||Posted - 18 January 2002 6:06
The Imrei Emes said that he had a letter from Rav Kook retracting his staement abotu the soccer players. Not because it was misunderstood, but simply because he regretted it. And some other statments in his books as well.
However, as an Odom Godol said to the Imrei Emes about that:
The whole world has his books - with the statements - and only the imrei Emes has this letter. If the whole world would have the letter and only the Imrei emes the books, that would be fine. But he publicly made statements, wrote them in his books, people built their lifestyles on them - and then, in private, he tells one person that eh regrets it.
But the public still has the old version!
Rav Kook never publicy retracted the statements that he said publicly. It is altgetehr possible that eh regretetd everythign he said, but if nobody knows what his "new" poilcies are - and they are still following the old policies, he still has mislead the masses of people.
Many of his follwoers even deny that Rav Kook ever wrote such a letter. In any case, a public policy cannot be retracted privately. His followers are still follwing his public policies, and even if there is a "Rav Kook" who we dont kow, who regretted a lot of what he said, the "Rav Kook" that is being followed in Mizrachi cricles is the well-known, public one.
|grend123||Posted - 18 January 2002 22:49
Mod, although your attitude is consistent that all 'real' (as in not Modern) rabbis do not hold of Rav Kook, I'd like to point out a counter. As far as I know there is only one rabbi today who is almost universally respected by all camps from the far right to the far left, and whom everyone considers one of their own. That is Rabbi Berel Wein, who somehow has managed over the years to gain the respect of almost all frum Jews, whether or not they agree with him on particular issues, and who cannot be pinned down by labels such as yeshivish or modern since he transcends both groups by sheer force of character. Rabbi Wein wholeheartedly endorses Rav Kook and refers to him as one of the spiritual greats of the last generation; with all due respect, his opinion carries a lot more wait with the vast majority of frum Jews than does the opinion of an anonymous rabbi on a judaism board. Yes, I know your chofetz chaim quote, but, as a world-renowned Jewish Historian who has written books on the subject of jews in modern times and on zionism, I would be more than suprised if rabbi wein did not know it too; even if he is not aware of that particular quote he definitely knows all about the controversy that surrounds rav kook's works.
|mX||Posted - 18 January 2002 22:49
"The Chachomim of Talmud wanted to put Shlomo haMelech into gehinom" Somebody said this in this thread, umm I'm a bit confsed, Mod can you elaborate on this?
Also, if MO suddenly stopped teaching gemara to girls, stopped encouraging the mingling of boys and girls, and only encouraged secular learning as a means to an end, or as an aid to Torah, but not as an end in and of itself, then would that make MO legit?
Click Here To Close Thread, Administrators & Moderators Only.
Show All Forums | Post Reply