העורך Editor

ברסלב – ה’חסידות’ האהובה על הליטאים

החפץ חיים אמר לתלמידו בישיבת ראדין, ר׳ הירש לייב ליפל:

״אם חפצה נפשך בחסידות, בחר לך את חסידות ברסלב שבה שומרים על כל סעיף קטן בשולחן ערוך.״

וכבר הערתי במקו”א שלכן ברסלב היא בכלל לא “חסידות“, כי חסידות בימינו פירושה שיש ערך מרומם יותר מדקדוק הדין, רח”ל.

A Perfect Illustration of Rabbi Asher Weiss’ Halachic Method

Excerpt from Rationalist Judaism:

In his discussion of this topic, both in a shiur transcribed online and in Responsa Minchas Asher II:58, he acknowledges the problem with the notion that you can do mitzvos and credit the reward to other people. Rav Weiss notes that Maharam Alashkar and others state clearly that the reward for mitzvos cannot be transferred to other people, and that they give powerful reasons why. However, he takes the approach that it simply cannot be so. Why? Because everyone does it!

That is actually his position, and he says it explicitly in his responsum. If everyone does it, it can’t be that it doesn’t make sense! He tries to come up with a way of making it work even according to Maharam Alashkar et al., but is forced to admit that there is no convincing way to do so. And he tries to find earlier sources who defend it, but they are extremely limited (as they are referring specifically to charity) and tentative. Accordingly, Rav Weiss concludes that it simply does work, albeit inexplicably, and that it is one of the secrets of Divine providence.

It’s simply astonishing. It means that Rav Weiss is saying that all the Geonim and Rishonim and Acharonim who said that it doesn’t work, are wrong. But he would rather do this than say that the conventional practice today is baseless. There are many cases where we defend historical tradition, even on weak grounds, shelo lehotzi la’az al ha-rishonim (so as not to cast aspersions on the earlier generations), but this is the opposite; discarding the historical tradition, shelo lehotzi la’az on what people do today.

Read the rest here…

I didn’t check within, but I have seen many similar things, myself.

My Correspondence With a Jewish Blogger Who Supports E. Berland (Shortened)

Me:
Do you still support Eliezer Berland, yemach shemo, after the recent major ruling against him and his Sabbatean heresy by three major Israeli Jewish courts?
Them:
First of all, thank you for not assuming my position for me, one way or the other, and for being patient. A lot of things are going on in the wider world and, like it or not, our fellow Jews are being dragged into them. Is it possible they involve even you in some way?
Even though I don’t consider myself and my blog all that important in the grand scheme of things (and therefore, I don’t understand why you’re chasing after me to call me to account on this issue), I will try to answer your question. I’m pretty sure you’re not going to like my answer.
I’m not on the side of blatant sinners and scoffers (see Tehillim 1).
However…when it comes to actual judgment in court, there are some things that must be considered. It may be my ignorance/lack of understanding of what I am looking at, driving me to what I have written/commented on my blog, as well as the following questions. But I want to be sure that judgment in Israel is well-considered, particularly from religious people, since the Jewish beth-din-based system starting with the 3-man beth din and ending with the Sanhedrin/Anshei Knesseth haG’dolah at its head is part of the wave of the future and forever, eventually, G-d willing. The seculars (courts, media, etc.) here haven’t been doing so well lately, whether with this case or with others.
I don’t know a whole lot about batei din and how they operate.  So, can you tell me…
  • What are the requirements to have witnesses from both prosecution and defense regarding accusations against a defendant?
  • If both must take part, what attempt is made to be sure that both sides are represented among the witnesses?
  • Is there a way to weed out those who present a personal conflict of interest regarding the defendant, either way, from testifying? Alternatively, does testimony from such people have any use at all to a given case?
  • What kinds of limitations, if any, do batei din have regarding what kinds of cases they can adjudicate until the system becomes normative in Israel?
Many thanks again for your patience. I also hope this answers your question. It’s all I’ve got.
I grant that you have the advantage of seeing these particular events from up much closer than I. But at least some of the people you are working with, as far as I can tell, seem to have a long-standing conflict of interest regarding EB; this is what I have referred to above as the “intra-Breslev war” and for which I explained my reasoning in detail and still stand by.
I read the judgment on The Yeshiva World that you sent me the link to; the judgment the batei din gave is ostracism (herem), not the death penalty that the picture on the left side of the Breslevemet website masthead implies.
Me:
This is a fresh new Beis Din. And there probably won’t be any future ones, either, because unlike the first one which comprised Breslov-linked rabbis, this latest one consists of all the important independent Torah judges in Israel (and, therefore, the world).
Both sides were officially represented at the case (Berland sent three Toanim Rabbani’m [quasi-lawyers]). The case took no less than 18 months, and started out with a proclamation against speaking out against Berland until the court had made its decision.
Sadly, Jewry has not yet recovered the judicial power of the Torah’s death penalty yet, so all the joint court could decide on is the question of Berland’s guilt in itself (not even excommunication). This also explains why the rules of evidence are less severe. We don’t have semicha, etc.
Tread carefully before casting aspersions on the court. Indeed, one who wantonly rejects Beis Din’s ruling is considered an evildoer, and it is permitted to shame him and generally speak Lashon Hara about him (Chafetz Chaim Lashon Hara chapter 4:8). I assume you don’t want to fit into that category by defending on your site someone who was already found guilty.
I recommended in the past you consult people mentioned on your site as your rabbis (or something similar), such as ________________ or any alternative competent halachic authority. Seeing as the facts are now more clear than ever, I would again suggest you do so.
Yours,
Hyehudi.org Editor

Me:

See this explaining the attempted whitewash of the ruling:  סילוף דברי הרב שריאל רוזנברג אודות הפסק נגד כת ברלנד הנואף

No response given…

Note: Links added to the above only after the fact.

Hyehudi’s Most-Read Articles (All Readers) LAST 30 DAYS…

  1. תיקוני תשובת המשקל לפגם הברית ועוד – חלק שני
  2. What’s So Great About the ‘Practical Guide to Speaking with an Atheist’?
  3. The TRUE Berland Scandal: Why Did Rabbis In the Know Delay Protesting So Long?!
  4. בד”ץ שערי שלום Badaz Shaarey Shalom
  5. ר’ משה ברנדסדורפר העיד שקר במזיד נגד הקרבנות של ברלנד
  6. חנניה ווייסמאן Chananya Weissman
  7. הרב גדליהו אקסלרוד בענין מטריית ‘מגן השבת’ ו’רבנים’ ליברלים
  8. About Page
  9. If a Jew in America Accidentally Hits a Black, What Do You Think Will Happen?
  10. ספר ‘מענה לאגרות’ נגד שו”ת אגרות משה

Enjoy!

הצלחה איננה אחת משמותיו של הקב”ה

יש אומרים שצריך לתמוך ב”הסכם המאה” של טראמפ ונתניהו, משיקולי תועלת. ומאויבי תחכמני, שיותר הזיקו תומכי הסכם אוסלו, מאשר הזיקו הנמנעים ממנו בשיקול שלא רצו אפילו להכיר במדינת ישראל.
אך לע”ד, א”א לדעת “מה היה אילו” עד עבור הרבה זמן (ולאמתו של דבר, עד חתום ההיסטוריה בעוה”ז), אלא צריך לקיים את התורה. וניתן להתפשר ולקבל פחות מרצוננו, אבל בשום אופן לא “להפסיד” כלום, כי התורה והארץ אינם שלנו לגבי לווותר על קוצו של יו”ד.
כמו שאמרה נחמה לייבוביץ, “הצלחה איננה אחת משמותיו של הקב”ה”. כלומר, מה שאמת זה לאו דווקא מה שנראה לנו כעת כמצליח.