For an enlarged, easier to read index click here . To "google search" this site, scroll to the bottom of this page. (This site is best viewed with "Firefox")

(Tips: F11 key enables full screen viewing & Ctrl-F to search the index)


SCHAR V'ONESH-----video of my life?

Lsheva Posted - 23 September 2003 13:28

Ok, i know hashem is all good and everything. But then how could it be, if the worst thing in the world is to embarrass someone, that when we go to the heavens after 120 that Hashem shows every one your whole life and all your avierot?

This is beyond embarrassing and painful. I know it’s probably not totally accurate but it must have some truth to it because a teacher told us this. I asked my rabbi teacher and he said that if you do teshuva your sins are all erased, even from the archives. So I said ok but still even if you don't do full teshuva how could Hashem do this to us? It just seems so cruel and harsh!

MODERATOR Posted - 23 September 2003 14:01

The video thing is only a moshol. The more accurate concept is that lies and fakeness only exist in this world since it is physical and false. In the next world, the Olam HaEmes, there is no such thing as hiding or being a faker or putting on a facade. And therefore, what you really are - which is a sum total of every single thing you ever did and said - is exactly what you will "look like" and the Truth in its purest form is so real and so clear that every single individual act will be shown on your "face".

So your question is like asking, if someone paints a stupid looking tattoo on his nose, why does G-d embarrass him by allowing everyone in the street to see the tattoo?

The answer to your question is the same as the answer to that one.


FACTIONS-----tide and r hirsch 2

Alexander Posted - 18 March 2010 0:56

Dear Moderators:

Could you please unambiguously clarify the following?

1) Satmar Rav's position on working. Why? For Whom (only Satmar or suggestion to Klal Israel in general), Based on what sources?

2) Philosophy of K'Hal Adath Jeshurun

"KAJ under Rav Breuer and his successors continues to adhere to the philosophy of "Independent Orthodoxy"which rejects both the legitimacy of other branches of Judaism and any dealings with organizations associated with them.

KAJ also bases its approach, and structure, on Rav Hirsch's philosophy of "Torah im Derech Eretz" which encourages involvement in the modern world under the dominion of Torah without any compromise of loyalty to Torah and its precepts. Learning Torah is a core of the Kehilla and there are many intensive Shiurim and learning programs at various levels for men and women of all ages".

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? How and why is it legitimate? Thanks!!!

MODERATOR Posted - 21 March 2010 22:12

"Other branches" in this context means "branches" other than Orthodox.

"Involvement in the modern world under the dominion of Torah" doesn’t say, in and of itself, anything that anyone would disagree with, depending how you interpret "involvement". (Nobody has a problem with driving a car or having a telephone for example, but everyone - including KAJ - would have a problem with going to rock concerts.) So don’t read into this statement more than it says, and it does not say much. Nothing more, or different, in any case, than the TIDE that you understood before you read that statement. It changes nothing.

As far as the Satmar Rav's position on working, he did not have much more or much different a position than anyone else - everyone agrees that learning Torah is a much more glorious pastime than anything else (how could anyone disagree with that?). The question is, though, how best to meet your objectives as a Manhig. Thus, the Satmar Rebbe once supposedly told one of the Litvishe Roshei Yeshiva, as an explanation as to why he differs with him/them regarding his not encouraging everyone to learn in Kollel: "You are creating Gedolei Yisroel; I am creating a Klall Yisroel."

In other words, the objective of the Satmar Rebbe was to create a complete Torah Kehilla - with its own shechita, mikvaos, a complete educational system, its own culture, its own system of shidduchim, and even its own economy, to the extent that is possible. The focus of the Litvishe Roshei Yeshivos was on creating Gedolei Yisroel. Therefore, the emphasis of Kollel exclusively not found in Satmar as it is in the Yeshivos.


ZIONISM / ANTI-----r henkin 2

Ary Posted - 22 April 2010 22:23

Listen!!!!! I can’t believe that you represent the view of Gedolim like this!

Your quotes represent R" Henkin's view BEFORE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL. If you look at R' Henkin's view AFTER THE ESTABLISHEMENT he actually says in his teshuva that ONE SHOULD THANK HASHEM FOR THE MIRACLES THAT HE DID FOR US WITHIN ERETZ YISRAEL. He states that one does not necessarily have to do this on yom haatzmaut, but one can rather take a second on pesach when one says "omdim alenu lechalotenu" and thank Hashem for the nisim that Hashem did for us...

I am not, chas veshalom accusing you of anything..."kol yisrael chaverim". Hatzlacha

MODERATOR Posted - 22 April 2010 22:49

No, what I quoted was Rav Henkin saying, way after Israel was established, that he opposed its establishment, on Halachic grounds, because its establishment violated the Oaths. In fact, he also says that the holocaust came about as a punishment for the violation of the Oaths:

What Rav Henkin said was that after the against-the-Torah establishment of the State of Israel, the fact is there are now millions of Jews living there and whose safety depends on the physical security of the country, and so nobody should do anything that puts Jews in danger (either that, or the statement I quoted at the beginning of this forum about hisgarus b'umos), including strengthening the Arabs.

Of course, nobody disagrees with that. The Satmar Rebbe writes more than once that now that the State is established, we cannot allow the Arabs to take over, and only prayer - and Moshiach - can safely dismantle the State. No big chidush there.

And what you are quoting regarding thanking Hashem for keeping us miraculously safe, nobody disagrees with that either. What Rav Henkin's message is - as opposed to the way you quoted it - that Yom haatzmaut is NOT the day to thank hashem for keeping Jews safe in EY, because we have always thanked Hashem for keeping us safe, everywhere and at all times, and that includes EY as well, because no matter where Jews are - Omdim aleinu lechaloseinu. And Pesach is the day we celebrate that.

In other words, there is nothing about the safety we have in EY more than the safety we have in any other country or ever had, that merits a separate celebration. We are in danger everywhere, always. And we thank Hashem for keeping us safe. Through Nissim, every day. None of this has anything to do with, and is certainly not unique to, the State of Israel. America, Canada, France, Israel - bechol dor vador omdim aleinu lechaloseinu. And it is only Hashem's chesed - and nisim - that protect us.

(And that’s merely why Yom Haatzmaut is invalid as a holiday for thanking Hashem for safety - the other, main reason they made that day are certainly invalid.)

Yom Haatzmaut is not a Jewish holiday. Celebrating it is against the Torah, for since the establishment of Israel was against the Torah, celebrating it is like celebrating any other aveirah.

How much against the Torah is it? Said the Chazon Ish: Who is a frum APikores nowadays? Anyone who celebrates Yom Haatzmaut, or who says that the Gedolim were responsible for the Jews being killed in Europe."

And the fact that Yom Haatzmaut is ignored in the Torah world is not because they are merely "non-Zionist" as opposed to anti-Zionist. It is because, as the Brisker Rav told Rav Amram Blau - "You fight against Yom haatzmaut and I ignore it. That is because you are not anti-zionist as much as me. To you, it is a day you recognize, even if to oppose; to me, it is nothing at all."

To the Yeshivos, Yom Haatzmaut is ignored for the same reason Ramadan is ignored. Why in the world should we celebrate it - but why in the world should we protest it?

Ary Posted - 03 May 2010 15:28


Moderator: I am saddened to say that I believe you are mis-representing R' Henkin's zt"l's views unintentionally. The following are the EXACT words of his teshuva, AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL:

“I was shocked to read in Chomoteinu (Cheshvan 5719) the slanderous notion that we are required to give our lives to frustrate and resist the efforts of the State of Israel in its struggle against those who would rise up against them. This was stated as a psak din based on "Israel is restricted from rebelling against the nations." (Ketubot 111a) [...] but once done, though the admonition was ignored, we are required to support them with mesirut nefesh. [...] Once the state was declared, anyone who plays into the hands of the nations of the world even where there is no imminent danger, is clearly an informer and pursuer (rodef). All the more when there is danger to destruction of life in so doing. [...]

Those essays I wrote before the advent of the state (many of which have been reprinted in my book Leiv Ivra) will testify to the fact that I am not a supporter of the government, and I objected to the entire idea of a state. (It is for this reason I am not a member of Agudah so that I not be judged incorrectly as one who agreed with their position in the founding of the state.) But now it is our obligation that we all support the state in the face of its external enemies and then go on to guide it in the ways of Torah.”

Please do not refrain from posting this: it is not chas veshalom an attack on you, but I want his views clear (I also heard and learned this teshuva during a shir (from the actual hebrew)...


MODERATOR Posted - 03 May 2010 15:44


I have no idea what you are talking about. Thank you for quoting the Rav Henkin, which shows exactly as I stated. (By the way, that article was the one I mentioned in the first post in this thread).

Rav Henkin says that the creation of the State of Israel was against the Oaths. That means it is a terrible crime against Hashem and punishable by mass death and destruction of Jews, at the hands of the Goyim. (Which is why he says elsewhere the Holocaust was a punishment for Zionism.)

And he says that nevertheless, the fact that the creation of Israel was an avarieah is no excuse to support the Arabs, or to frustrate Israel's attempts to protect themselves form the Arabs, and anyone who does so puts the Jews in Israel in danger - whether the danger is "imminent" or not.

Of course that’s true. Again, the Satmar Rebbe also wrote that now that the State of Israel is here, we cannot allow the nations to dismantle it because that would be a sakanah for the Jews living there.

Bother Rav Henkin and the Satmar Rebbe (whose views are not those of that article in HaCHomah or Chomoseinu or whatever it is) hold that the State of Israel is a violation of Hashem's will. It is punishable by terrible death and destruction.

Both also agree that this doesn’t mean you may aid and abet the Arabs, either directly by supporting them in their attacks against Israel or by preventing Israel from protecting their people against them.

However, none of this means (a) everything Israel does is in fact in the interest of protecting the Jews. Israel, like any despot nation, may choose to go to war for political or nationalistic or territorial reasons, sacrificing lives for political gains or various other agendas.

Neither Rav Henkin nor the Satmar Rebbe would say that in such cases the State of Israel itself is nothing but a Rodef against the Jewish people. So too are they Rodfim when they incite and antagonize needlessly the nations of the world.

All Rav Henkin was talking about is, as you quoted, Rav Henkin being opposed to the "notion that we are required to give our lives to frustrate and resist the efforts of the State of Israel in its struggle against those who would rise up against them."

Nothing I wrote here disagrees with that.

But it doesn’t mean that every time Israel does something, including military action, it is in fact engaging is a "struggle against those who would rise up against" it. Nor does it mean that the way Israel does engage in that struggle never puts Jews in danger needlessly for the sake of political goals.

All he is saying is that Israel is not obligated to allow the Arabs to take over, which is what that Chomoseinu article basically said. And someone who tries to make that happen is a Rodef.

No big chidush.


MISC----losing olam haba

ProudlyJewish Posted - 12 May 2009 15:22
I was learning Halacha, and found that if you embarrass someone publicly, you lose your share in olam haba. Is there anything you can do to repent? Does this sin go away on Yom Kippur?
There are SO many sins that cause you to lose your olam haba, it seems hardly anyone would get any.
So, what is that all about? I'm realy confused

MODERATOR Posted - 12 May 2009 23:59
You only use Olam habah if you do those aveiros willfully (and in many cases, frequently), and do not do Teshuvah. Someone who tries to do what Hashem asks will not lose Olam habah.

Embarrassing someone in public is bein adam l'chavero and does not go away unless the victim forgives you. Someone who embarrasses someone in public should also try to undo as much of the damage as he or she can, by spreading a positive report, for example. Any additional punishments for a complete cleansing depend on the aveirah and situation. There are some aveiros where full teshuvah is not reached until death.


MISC-----authority of rabbis

Posted - 03 March 2009 13:10

O.K. Here goes.

I hope that I can get this issue clear once and for all.

What is the Authority of a Rav?

What makes someone a "Gadol"?

In what situation are we meant to listen to them. Is it only in inyanei halacha?

If a Rav gives someone advise, does that mean that he has to listen to it.

Are the Gedolim the Manhigei hador?

What is the authority of Rav Elyashiv? What makes him the "Gadol Hador"?

In what situation can one say, "the Rav says x, but I think differently"?

What does Ase lecha rav mean? What does it bind you to? Does that mean that you should have one particular rav ,and ask only him your questions?

In what situation can or should one ask for a second opinion? Is that just basically choosing what you want to do?

You get the picture,

Being confused on this basic topic, makes me not confidently be able to say that I have emunas chachamim, and that I totally accept it, but admitting to such a thing, is stating "I don't have emunas chachamim" and then ppl totally look down upon you and you are basically ostracized,
And makes it hard for me to understand what I am obligated when a rav tells me something.

Let me know what you think?

Posted - 03 March 2009 13:33

{What is the Authority of a Rav?}

Depends what you mean by "rav." A person is an authority in whatever topics he has expertise. "Rav" means "rabbi," and they have many different levels of authority, from zero to very very much.

{What makes someone a "Gadol"?}

Godol is a relative term; it means someone who stands out among his generation in greatness, which is measured in terms of Torah knowledge, and righteousness. There is no measurable threshold beyond which you are categorically a "godol", like there is when a person gets a medical degree and becomes a "doctor." Being that the term is relative, different people apply it to different levels of people, and even among those who are commonly referred to as Gedolim, they are not all the same. Rav Shach was a Godol, but he was not the Chazon Ish, for example.

{In what situation are we meant to listen to them. Is it only in inyanei halacha?}

No. First, Judaism is much more than inyonei halachah, like hashkafa, of course. But Gedolim, being super refined in their midos excel in intellectual honesty, objectivity, intellectual caution and precision, as well as seeing the world through Torah eyes, which provides a level of insight that a non-godol does not posses. On top of that, there is the siyata dishmaya that a Godol is granted that makes it smart to listen to what he says.

{If a Rav gives someone advise, does that mean that he has to listen to it.}

No. But don’t shrug it off either.

{Are the Gedolim the Manhigei hador?}

All manhigei hador are gedolim. But again, the term is used in so many different ways, you can have a "godol" who is not a manhig hador. The greatest gedolim are the manhigei hador.

{What is the authority of Rav Elyashiv? What makes him the "Gadol Hador"?}

I don’t know if he is "the" godol hador, but I won’t argue with someone who says he is. The godol hador means the greatest person in the generation.

To be continued

Posted - 04 March 2009 0:42

{In what situation can one say, "the Rav says x, but I think differently"?}

The authority of the rav comes from his expertise, not from his position. It's not like let's say in a corporation you have to listen to the manager because he’s your boss even though you may know better. It's more like the reason you listen to your doctor - cuz he knows what he's talking about.

So the question is - when can you say "the doctor says X but I think differently?" The answer is, when you know better. Like, if lets say you’re a doctor too or you’re more educated in a particular area.

The same with your rav. If your mind is as sharp knowledgeable and full of Torah-vision as your rav then go ahead, argue. If not, then perhaps the doctor knows what he’s talking about.

That having been said, it is possible the rav was not informed about your situation properly, and you know the circumstances better. In such a case, you have to understand that the rav only gives advice based on the facts he knows. If they are incorrect or incomplete, so can be his advice. You need to consider that as well.

{What does Ase lecha rav mean? What does it bind you to? Does that mean that you should have one particular rav ,and ask only him your questions?}

It means that in the interest of consistency, and the benefits of having a rav who knows you very well, it is smarter to stick to one person. However, it does not mean that you cannot learn from others or even ask others. Again, it’s the same as doctors - but let’s use a therapist-doctor here, since the moshol works better. Your therapist knows you better than anyone else, he knows what works for you, and you don’t want to get advice form someone who will tell you something that, no matter how smart it is, is a contradiction to the approach that you are working with.

There is a great advantage in having a rav who knows your particular circumstances and who provides one consistent approach. That doesn’t mean you can’t seek wisdom elsewhere as well. Just know who your primary care physician is.

{In what situation can or should one ask for a second opinion? Is that just basically choosing what you want to do?}

Contrary to popular belief, you are allowed to ask a rav something that you already got an answer from a first rav, PROVIDED that you tell the second rav that you already asked and what you were told.

But that’s what you are ALLOWED to do. That doesn’t mean it’s always smart to do so. It depends on your motive for asking the second rav. If you’re looking for different perspectives and a broad array of wisdom, then, where advice is concerned (not necessarily halachah) that is a good thing - Rav Chaim Volozhen says so on the Mishna Marbeh Eitzah Marbeh Sevunah. But if you’re just looking for someone to tell you what you want to hear, don’t do it.

Posted - 05 March 2009 0:30

Thank you very very much for shedding light onto this topic and for thoroughly going through the points.


FACTIONS-----GRA vs Baal Shem Tov

satinsword13 Posted - 16 June 2009 18:17
A question that bothered me for a while:

If the GRA was the gadol hador at the time of the baal shem tov, and he came out so absolutely strongly against chassidus, so much so that he wanted to put them in cherem, how come we can even consider going near it? I say this not out of spite, but out of a real sincere question?

Many have told me that R Chaim Volozhin never signed the cherem- I don’t now what that helps anything- it’s still clear the GRA was against. I mean, If he was the leader of Torah Jewry, at least Ashkenazik, and along comes the Baal Shem tov with his focus on different things, and the GRA says "Out!" then there shouldn’t be anything to talk about!

I’m actually scared to go against him? And who are we to go ahead and explain the GRA? "Well, really the GRA was only scared because of the historical context, Shabbtai Tzvi and everything.." That’s a scary thing to do - to explain away the GR"A, no?

I’ve seen a Chofetz chaim brought in kovetz maamarim, the second chelek that was printed, that says that the GRA thought chassidus was krum because Hashem had to make it look krum so the sitra achra would let it down, but time had shown that it was good for Klal Yisroel, but its mipi hashemua, and it makes me uneasy.

Am I asking a legitimate question here, do I have a legitimate concern, and are there e legitimate answers?

MODERATOR Posted - 05 July 2009 22:42
First, the Baal Shem Tov and the GRA really weren’t precisely at the same time, though they did overlap. The GRA was around 40 when the Baal Shem Tov was nifter.

You have nothing to be concerned about for many reasons, the simplest being that the GRA's cherrem is completely irrelevant nowadays, because in order for you to be concerned about Chasidim you need to define the term. Because someone wears a shtreimel and Bekishe certainly does not qualify him for anyone's cherem, and that certainly was not the GRA's intent. What did[/d] the GRA have against the Chasidim then, and who qualifies as possessing that characteristic today? The name "chosid" certainly isn’t the problem. But then..what is?

In other words, in whom do the characteristics of Chasidim that disturbed the GRA exist today, if at all?

Today, Chasidim aren’t what they were, and misnagdim aren’t what they were. The generations deteriorated so, that it’s all we can do to hopefully fulfill torah and mitzvos. As the moshol, attributed to various gedolim, goes, Chasidim used to eat milchigs and misnagdim fleishigs - so they had to have separate kitchens. Today neither can afford such luxuries and we're all eating bread and water.

There are no more Chasidim or misnagdim. Not in the derech-of-the-baal-shem-tov sense. You’re confusing what we call Chasidim today for what was called chasidus in those days. So the entire issue doesn’t apply.

And even if it would, because you have no idea what chasidus is or what it wanted, you would have no way of identifying who is in cherem anyway.

But besides that, for the record:

1) How did you assess that the GRA was bigger than the Baal Shem Tov? (Chasidim were also Ashkenazim)

2) The statement that you found in the name of the chofetz chaim is entirely reasonable and no need to be skeptical about it. You assume it is "explaining away" the GRA. It is not. It is simply "explaining" him. Many other similar explanations have been given by various Gedolim, in similar directions - such as the GRA saw the craziness that chasidus would lead to nowadays with his ruach hakodesh and wanted to stop the problem in its tracks before it leads to contemporary Lubavitch and Na-Nachers and Rebbes who give out shirayim yet have no idea how to learn a Tosfos.

And you have many similar instances where "historical context" as you call it motivated Gedolim to act in such ways - such as the opposition to Rav Yonason Eybushitz and the Ramchal. The Chofetz Chaim is saying that is the case here and more: Worse than in the case of Rav Yonason and the Ramchal, there was a real danger of Chasidus evolving into, well, what in some circles it in fact evolved into today.

And that's enough to try to slam the breaks on it back then.

Remember - Yaakov Avinu refused to bless his two of his own grandchildren because he saw that Yehu and Menashe were going to be descended from them.

It's not explaining away the GRA - it's actually a fine pshat.

But never mind all that. The thing that you’re missing most here is simply that whatever you know about the greatness of the GRA, the Divrei Chaim (for example) knew better; and whatever Yiras Shamayim you have to stay away from bad things, the Sfas Emes (for example) had more of.

And so, if these great Tzadikim and Geonim saw the same thing you see and decided there is not anything to be concerned about, it is clear that it makes no sense that you do.

At the very least, there's two shitos here.

Or were. Today there are zero.

As Rav Shach used to say, "someone who is more machmir than the chazon Ish, you have to be concerned about such a person."

So too someone who is more worried about bad hashkofos than the Satmar Rebbe, you should have to be concerned about such a person as well.

In short, leave the paskening to the poskim. And if so many great poskim paskened here differently than the GRA, you don’t need be concerned about those who follow them.

MODERATOR Posted - 05 July 2009 22:43
PS - The Baal Shem did not "focus on different things." Not at all.