Baruch Hashem, Nothing Has Changed

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Izgad says:

    I would see this issue as a major part of the failure of the rabbinic establishment in nineteenth century Eastern Europe and why I assume that the Haredi community will undergo a major collapse within the next few decades. The rabbinic establishment in nineteenth century Eastern Europe had nothing to offer Jews besides for being poor, oppressed and waiting for Moshiach. This becomes particularly problematic where the gentiles around you are moving ahead and you no longer can be confident of your own superiority. Say what you will about the Zionists and the Socialists, but they had a plan. They were offering real solutions that regular Jews could work for give their lives meaning. In the post-war period the Haredi community had something to live for, rebuilding the Torah of Eastern Europe. The problem now is that they succeeded. My generation can the continued existence of orthodoxy even Haredi orthodoxy for granted. Now what? The Haredi community now has nothing to offer its youth besides for bans and humrot.

  2. Nathan says:

    I once learned [from a source I do not remember] that the basless hatred [Sinat Chinam] that destroyed the Second Temple [Bayit Sheni] was the basless hatred of the Hellenistic and apikuris Jews, not the basless hatred of the Chachamim.

    If anyone would supply the exact source for this teaching, it would be appreciated.

  3. Akiva Blum says:

    “Is it not significant that when Rav Yochanan ben Zakkai decided to work with his nephew, the head of the sikrikon, that some of the tragedy was averted. I leave it up to the rabbanim of the Eidah to draw their own conclusions.”

    From the Gemora, it appears that his collaberation was done very quietly. If not for the Gemora, would would know nothing about it. Do the rabbanim of the Eidah work with some people very quietly? We would never know.

  4. Esther says:

    Nathan,

    The source is Rav Avigdor Miller zt”l in Torah Nation, chapter of the churban bayis sheini. His explanation of the Kamtza-Bar Kamtza story is truly eye-opening and extremely relevant to our times and this post.

  5. Chardal says:

    >The source is Rav Avigdor Miller zt”l in Torah Nation, chapter of the churban bayis sheini. His explanation of the Kamtza-Bar Kamtza story is truly eye-opening and extremely relevant to our times and this post.

    And see R’ Shaul Yisraeli’s Zt”l explanation of this story in his introduction to Eretz Hemda which has the polar opposite conclusion.

  6. dr. bill says:

    I wonder if the Eidah has inherited all of the respect for the community that R. Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld ztl exhibited. I have written a (partial) defense of a position of RYCS that was rejected by among others R. Shmuel Salant ztl. As an aside to that part of the article i included the following story in a footnote:

    A ruling of R. Sonnenfeld about a man who died on Shabbat adds balance to the view that some might hypothesize about this chareidi icon. The chevra kadisha of Jerusalem wanted to attend to the decedent 40 minutes after sunset. After setting aside the wishes of the family and ruling that that the chevra kadisha can attend to the body at that time, despite the fact that both R. Sonnenfeld and the deceased customarily waited for 72 minutes for the end of Shabbat, news of a second death that Shabbat afternoon, caused the widow to suggest that the second man can now be tended to first, leaving her late husband untouched until well after 72 minutes. R. Sonnenfeld insisted that the chevra kadisha work in their normal order, tending first to her husband, who died earlier. His logic was that when personal stringencies (72 minutes) conflict with the community’s traditional practice (an 8.5 degree depression angle or about 40 minutes), the latter is overriding, insisting on a strict adherence to custom.

Pin It on Pinterest