העורך Editor

Try to skim-read the following from YWN.

IMPORTANT: If you start feeling physical symptoms, cease reading and consult your doctor

HaGaon HaRav Edelstein Instructs: “Maran” For Moetzes Members Over Age 90

May 31, 2022 12:30 pm0

From l. to r., HaGaon HaRav Bergman, HaGaon HaRav Edelstein, HaGaon HaRav Ezrachi and HaGaon HaRav Povarsky. (Photo: Shuki Lehrer)

For the first time on Tuesday morning, the Israeli Yated Ne’eman honored HaGaon HaRav Gershon Edelstein with the title “Rabban shel kol Bnei HaGolah” (‘רשכבה”ג’).

In the past, the רשכבה”ג title was used for HaGaon HaRav Elazar Menachem Shach, z’tl, the founder of the Yated, as well as for the Steipler, z’tl, HaGaon HaRav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, z’tl, HaGaon HaGaon HaRav Aryeh Leib Shteinman, z’tl, and most recently, HaGaon HaRav Chaim Kanievsky, z’tl.

After the founding of Yated, HaRav Shach, z’tl, also instructed Yated editors to use the title “Maran” for HaGaon HaRav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, z’tl, [before he became רשכבה”ג], HaGaon HaRav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, z’tl, and HaGaon HaRav Dovid Povarsky, z’tl.

Until today, the title used for HaRav Edelstein was “Rabbeinu Maran Rosh HaYeshiva HaGaon” and the other members of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah were called by the title “HaGaon HaGadol”. After the death of HaRav Chaim, z’tl, the Yated staff consulted with HaRav Edelstein about the titles used for the members of the Moetzes. HaRav Edelstein instructed that the title “Maran” should be used for the members of the Moetzes who are over the age of 90, and “HaGaon HaGadol” for those under the age of 90.

The four members of the Moetzes over age 90 who will now be called “Maran” are HaGaon HaRav Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi (94), HaGaon HaRav Meir Tzvi Bergman (92), HaGaon HaRav Dov Landau (92), and HaGaon HaRav Berel Povarsky (91).

It should be noted that only Rabbanim over age 80 are generally appointed to the Moetzes, with the exceptions being Rosh Yeshivas Mir HaGaon HaRav Eliezer Yehuda Finkel, as the Rosh Yeshivah of the largest yeshivah in Eretz Yisrael, and HaGaon HaRav Shraga Steinman, due to his status of his late father HaGaon HaRav Aryeh Leib Shteinman, z’tl.

According to a B’Chadrei Chareidim report, the titles used byYated Ne’eman are considered very significant and arouse much interest in the Litvak Olam HaYeshivos, with the title “Maran” usually signifying the next leader of the Torah world.

Maranite worship is unparody-able.

לפעמים האמת פשוטה ומלווה בתמונות. למה לא?

לצפייה כאן…

מיועד למבוגרים
לא מתאים לילדים ולבני נוער

במקום הקדמה

במאמר זה יתואר כיצד עם ישראל טעו ועבדו לעגלי הזהב בתקופת ירבעם בן נבט עד גלותם מעל אדמתם. עם ישראל – עם קדוש וטהור, אשר היה תחת שלטונו הנשגב והמרומם של שלמה המלך; עם שהיו מעולי הרגלים לירושלים בכל שנה וראו שם עשרה ניסים קבועים; עם שישבו בשלווה והשקט ולמדו תורה והלכה – בבת אחת הפסיקו לעלות לבית המקדש בירושלים והחלו לעבוד עבודה זרה ולהשתחוות לעגלי הזהב שהעמיד ירבעם בן נבט – בדן ובבית-אל.

התוכן ברובו נבנה על פי מפרשי הנביא, מדרשי חז”ל, והספר “ילקוט מעם לועז”, התיאור פעמים שנעשה באופן מודרני כדי להבינם ברוח זמננו.

מטרת מאמר זה לענות על השאלות המטרידות רבים: כיצד יתכן שכלל ישראל טועה בדבר הלכה מסוים, הלכה חמורה עד כדי עבודה זרה? כיצד יתכן שיש ת”ח שאינם מעוררים ומתריעים על כך, ואף קרוביהם נכשלים בדבר זה? כיצד יתכן שלמרות כל ההתראות משמים, עם ישראל לא נרמזים ומנסים לתלות זאת בסיבות שונות ומשונות מלבד עבודה זרה?

להורדה כאן…

Excerpt from Moldbug:

When proselytizing toward a libertarian or any other red republican, a royalist has another easy question to start with. What is the difference between Frederick the Great and Hitler? Both, after all, exercised absolute personal authority over a country of Germans. Yet refugees fled from Hitler’s Germany; to Frederick’s Prussia. Was this predictable? If so, how?

Until you understand the difference between a king and a dictator, you will continue to confuse the timeless human institution of monarchy with these monstrous 20th-century abortions. In truth, the dictatorships of the 20th century were attempts to restore the vitality of the old regime. The bad ones were just bad attempts. Bad is bad; anything can be done badly, monarchy and democracy certainly both included.

Hitler himself was a huge Carlyle fan. But Hitler was also Hitler. If you don’t understand the difference between Hitler and Frederick, it is not because you are ignorant of Hitler! The educated person of our time has a remarkably accurate picture of Nazi Germany. Of all the historical periods he understands, he understands the Third Reich best—usually, much better than his own present day. His view of the democratic regime, which survives, is shrouded in democratic euphemism; his view of the Nazi regime, which does not, is free from Nazi cant. And of the actual old regime, he knows nothing at all.

There are many differences between Hitler and Frederick, but perhaps the key one is stability. Frederick, while not intrinsically secure from his foreign enemies, was quite secure from any domestic opposition. No one was trying to kill him; no one could have accomplished anything by killing him. He was, in short, a monarch. A dead monarch is replaced, automatically, by another monarch—the identity of whom is already known. If the old monarch was assassinated, God forbid, the new monarch is generally not the assassin (or his employers).

Not so for a dictator! People were trying to kill Hitler all the time, and it’s a Satanic miracle that none of them succeeded. If, say, Elser’s bomb had worked, it would have changed the course of history. There was no Hitler 2.0, or vice-Hitler, or Son of Hitler, waiting in the wings. Hitler, for all his faults, was one of a kind. Thus, the incentive was considerable.

And thus, Hitler—unlike Frederick—has to devote considerable effort to shoring up his sovereignty, which is by no means secure. He has to scapegoat the Jews and fight the Communists, for instance; his sovereignty depends on his popularity, and he is popular because he fights these popular enemies. Otherwise, what’s the point of Hitler?

Hitler is also noted for his “two in a box” management style, in which he gives multiple subordinates the same job and lets them fight it out. This is generally not recommended at Harvard Business School. And so on. Thus, irrespective of his (dubious) sanity, Hitler has a rational motivation for tyranny. His regime is inherently violent, thus inherently chaotic.

The same, but far worse, is true for Hitler’s great adversary—Stalin. One of the most amazing documents of the 20th century is the Webbs’ essay Is Stalin a Dictator?. Their answer, of course, is no:

Sometimes it is asserted that, whereas the form may be otherwise, the fact is that, whilst the Communist Party controls the whole administration, the Party itself, and thus indirectly the whole state, is governed by the will of a single person, Josef Stalin.

First let it be noted that, unlike Mussolini, Hitler and other modern dictators, Stalin is not invested by law with any authority over his fellow-citizens, and not even over the members of the Party to which he belongs…

In other words, Stalin is not a dictator because (unlike Hitler) he is not legally a dictator. On paper, he is just what his title says he is: general secretary of the CPSU. A purely clerical position. As the title, of course, implies.

In real life, of course, Stalin was a dictator. Which made his position rather precarious! By the nominal collective, bottom-up, democratic structure of the Communist Party (completely absent, of course, in the Nazi Party), Stalin was a mere clerk. In the actual, unwritten reality, he was a Tsar.

Thus, the capacity of this system to revert from its informal Tsarism, to its formal “democratic centralism,” was on every second of every day latent. Formally, officially, Stalinism is an ultra-democratic, left-wing, bottom-up form of government. Actually, unofficially, it is an ultra-despotic, right-wing, top-down form of government. The contradiction is quite great. Here is our chaos: black and white, sharing a single desk. Stalin has the power of the Tsars, but not the security of the Tsars.

No wonder Stalin killed so many old Communists. He had to. At least, once he started. He was riding the tiger. After Stalin died, Beria tried to take Stalin’s place and hold this system together. A lot of bad things have been said about Beria and no doubt most of them are true, but no one to my knowledge has ever described him as a softie.

So he lasted surprisingly long: almost four months. After that, of course, he was shot. The Soviet Union never had a true dictator again. It did not become a democracy, of course, but an oligarchy. Later general secretaries were strictly primus inter pares among the Politburo.

Thus we see the chaos implicit in tyranny. The tyrant is depraved, on account of he’s deprived. Regardless of his personal mental stability, the instability of his regime compels him to tyrannize. Of course, if he’s a paranoid sadist, this may compel him as well; and indeed, this tendency may aid him in getting the job. It certainly is not a qualification for monarchy.

Dictatorship, of course, can evolve into monarchy. Every historical monarchy has originated as, in some sense, a dictatorship. Caesar’s is a good example. But if a dictatorship is to make this transition, if it is to achieve stability and permanence, it had better be designed to do so. 20th-century dictatorships were designed primarily to fit the needs of the processes that brought them to power. These were ugly processes, with no particular affection for stability and permanence. Hence, they bred tyrants. Only tyrants could harness the evil, chaotic power of these democracies gone wrong.

Continue reading here…