I remember reading that Reb Yosef Ber retracted his strong initial opposition to German post-war reparations to Israel. When he saw how much it contributed to growth and development, how much it improved the lives of Israelis, he decided that it must have been the right thing.
You don't often see Gedolei Torah changing their hashkafos, or piskei halacha that stem from their hashkafos, on the basis of the flow of history. The Satmarer did not drop "דער שיטה" because Eretz Yisrael became such a phenomenal wellspring of Torah. As Rav Schwab famously pointed out, a purely historical analysis of the Neis Chanuka might lead to trivializing the victory. It was essentially reversed within a hundred years with the fratricidal wars of Hyrcanus and Aristobolus and finally by Hordus, and perhaps we were worse off than before. The Ramban says this was a punishment for the Chashmonai usurpation of the throne. But despite the disastrous post-Chanuka events, we do not say that in retrospect, it renders the original miracle meaningless.
One might say that this disregard for apparent fact is the secret of Jewish tenacity. If we thought that this endless cycle of suffering and misery was evidence of having made a mistake somewhere along the lines, we would have all long ago dropped Judaism in favor of some religion that has had a placid history. We would have all become Lutherans or Hindus. But those of us that remain have learned to refuse to accept history as evidence. Our certainty and our faith overcomes everything. We know the truth, and we are not going to believe our lying eyes.
This came to mind because of the diametrically differing perspectives I saw in Rav Chaim Zaichyk's Ohr Chadash and in Rav Ahron's Mishnas Reb Aharon.
(What the Shevatim regretted is a well-known question with varying answers. Examples: Contrast the Seforno and the Kli Yakar. What I found interesting was how Kletzk and Novarodok used it so forcefully to support such disparate hashkafos. "Look at this! From here you see a tremendous Yesod about life as a Ye'rei Shamayim!")
Reb Aharon:
ויאמרו איש אל אחיו אבל אשמים אנחנו על אחינו אשר ראינו צרת נפשו בהתחננו אלינו ולא שמענו על כן באה אלינו הצרה הזאת ויען ראובן אתם לאמר הלוא אמרתי אליכם לאמר אל תחטאו בילד ולא שמעתם וגם דמו הנה נדרש
כלומר: גם כשראו האחים שיש ﬠליהם תביﬠה מן השמים ־ לא שינו את דעתם לגבי עצם הדין שדנו אותו, אלא שחשבו בדﬠתם שיש ﬠליהם תביﬠה ﬠל חסרון הרחמים "אשר ראינו צרת נפשו בהתחננו אלינו ולא שמענו." ורק ראובן טען שעצם הדבר היה חטא. אבל הם עדיין הוסיפו להחזיק בדעתם כי כל מה שעשו בדין עשו, כי חשבוהו לרודף, ..... וגם מניעת הרחמים היתה אצלם על פי דין, שהיו סבורים על פי עומק דעתם בדין זה שאינם רשאים לרחם, ואחרי שראו עונש בהשגחה, הרהרו בתשובע ע"ד מניעת הרחמים אבל לא על עצם הדין, כל כך היה הדין ודאי אצלם.
and here is how Rav Zaichyk sees it. Page 245.
ויפתח האחד את שקו וגו' וירא את כספו וגו' ויחרדו איש אל אחיו לאמר, מה זאת ﬠשה אלקים לנו"
כפי המבואר במדרשים ובמפרשי התורה, היו הם תקיפים בדﬠתם ובטוחים בﬠצמם כל הזמן, כי מכירת יוסף אחיהם בצדק היתה ומבוססת על ההלכה, כיון שהם חשבו את יוסף לרודף שכל הקודם להרגו זכה, כשאין דרך אחרת להציל את הנרדף. הם גם דנו אותו למוציא דינם ומוסר הראוי לﬠונש מיתה בדיני אדם. הם היו כה בטוחים בצידקתם ﬠד כי ישבו לאכול לחם, בﬠיניהם לא היתה זו תקלה ﬠד כי תמנﬠ אותם מלקבוﬠ את סﬠודתם, ﬠל שחשבו כי מן השמים מסכימים לפﬠולתם.
אולם אחר כך, כאשר ראו כי מן השמים מרמזים להם כי לא כמחשבתם מחשבת הקב"ה ודﬠתו, והם טﬠו בהלכה, אז נחﬠוררו להרהר אולי טﬠו. הם ראו את אצבﬠ אלקים מרמזת להם באמצﬠות המאורﬠות והפגﬠים שבאו ﬠליהם, כי דנו שלא בצדק, מהנהגת הּשׂי'ת נפקחו עיניהם ונחרדו מן הרמז הנרמז להם משמים, כי כל תלאותיהם וצרותיהם באו ﬠל אשר דנו דיך מוטﬠה ובלתי נכון.
I don't think I am an imbecile, so I am not equating anyone with anyone else here. I am only pointing out the striking difference between Harav Zaichyk, the great Novarodoker Rosh Yeshiva and lifelong exponent of the Navorodoker mesorah, and Reb Aharon.
One tiny he'ara. Why does Reb Ahron hold that the Shvatim accepted they had made a mistake as far as feeling rachmanus, but not as far as the din as a whole? Reb Aharon describes them both as halachic decisions. So if you take your later experiences to be evidence of error in one, why not the other? Maybe pshat is that they held they were right, of course. Their hard experience clearly showed the RBSO was angry about something they had done as a group. As long as they could be toleh on the lesser matter of מצוה לרחם\אסור לרחם they had no reason to re-think the major psak about Yosef being a Rodef and a mechallel shem shamayim by delaying the creation of a Klal Yisrael. But the question still bothers me.
Thank you , Reb Micha, for that great zug from RYB! Assuming, as he obviously does, that there is a difference between halacha and hashkafa, it answers my question. Hashem does not pasken Halacha. But through history, He does pasken on Hashkafa. Perhaps אסור לרחם\מצוה לרחם falls under the latter. Based on Reb Micha's heara, I should really change the title of this piece. It really should be "Changing a psak halacha...." but everyone knows that לא בשמים היא, as implicit in RYB's words, so that's a problem. It's probably a problem for Rav Zaichyk, too. Unless, as I said, that rule does not apply when you are dealing with a halacha that stems from a hashkafic determination. Additionally, לא בשמים היא does not, I think, preclude the RBSO from paskening on the world on the basis of what He holds lehalacha, irrespective of what Reb Yehoshua paskened. But even if world events show that the RBSO holds different than the Beis din shel mattah, they wouldn't have the right to change their psak, any more than Rebbi Eliezer did. I don't like to stick my nose into this kind of machshava.
More than that, in "Yoseif veEchav" (Fir Derashes), RYBS explains why he left the Agudah for Mizrachi. And it also was framed as (loosely): Hashem can't pasqen halakhah, but through history He does pasqen on hashkafah.
ReplyDeleteR YB Soloveitchik was actually the first head of the American Moetzes. And when he applied to be Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv (1935), it was as an Agudah candidate. His hesped for R CO Grozhinsky, "HaTziz vehaChoshen" is all about Daas Torah -- how the same kohein gadol who carries "Qodesh Lashem" on the tzitz has to be the same one bearing the names of the shevatim on the choshen. No division into religious and secular leadership.
There is a translation at The Rav Speaks: Five Addresses on Israel, History and the Jewish People (Judaica Press, 2002) pp. 34–36. From that translation:
I was not born into a Zionist household. My parents’ ancestors, my father’s house, my teachers and colleagues were far from the Mizrachi Religious Zionists… My links with Mizrachi grew gradually; I had my doubts about the validity of the Mizrachi approach… I built an altar upon which I sacrificed sleepless nights, doubts and reservations. Regardless, the years of the Hitlerian Holocaust, the establishment of the State of Israel, and the accomplishments of the Mizrachi in the Land of Israel, convinced me of the correctness of our movement’s path. The altar still stands today, with smoke rising from the sacrifice upon it… Jews like me… are required to sacrifice on this altar their peace of mind as well as their social relationships and friendships.
Thank you. I already incorporated it into the piece.
Delete"R YB Soloveitchik was actually the first head of the American Moetzes."
DeleteThis is incorrect. The Rav was on the first American Moetzes. But the heads , or chavrei nesius as reported in Hapardes, were Rav Aharon, Rav Leizer Silver and Rav Shlomo Hyman.
>>> If we thought that this endless cycle of suffering and misery was evidence of having made a mistake somewhere along the lines, we would have all long ago dropped Judaism in favor of some religion that has had a placid history. We would have all become Lutherans or Hindus
ReplyDeleteI think you are comparing apples and oranges and equating a potential mistake on the largest macro level with mistakes on the micro level as it relates to individual and specific cases. We have halachos of to'eh b'dvar mishna and to'eh b'shikul ha'daas and a whole masechta of horiyos on how to deal with mistakes. I don't think Ramban's hesber that kaasher zamam v'lo kaasher asa because "Elokim nitzvav b'adas K-l" and B"D does not err when they mete out punishment is meant as a general rule that psak cannot be tested for truthfulness against reality.
Similar to the 2 views you quote, last week when I wrote about dreams I came across the Birchas Avraham (https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=47576&st=&pgnum=112) quoting a story of a man who came to R' Chaim Volozhiner because he had a recurring dream that he would fall into the ice and drown if he attempted to cross the frozen river in the town. R' Chaim told him not to pay attention to dreams. The guy tried to cross the river and drowned. When people complained to R' Chaim, R' Chaim insisted that the psak was right and it was just coincidence that he happened to fall in. R' Chaim Kanievsky quotes the nearly identical story (Derech Sicha I p176) from his father, except he quotes the shayla as having been asked to R' Yitzchak miVolozhin and in his version R' Yitzchak concluded that sometimes you do have to pay attention to dreams!
I have to think about the connection to the Ramban. The story with Reb Chaim is so strange!!! It sounds like a megalgelin zechus etc story, and not something for him to just say "not my fault."
DeleteAs to the main point of the post, perhaps kushya m'ikara leisa. R' Aharon's comment is on the pasuk ויאמרו איש אל אחיו אבל אשמים אנחנו . R' Zaichyk's comment in on the pasuk later in the parsha ויחרדו איש אל אחיו לאמר, מה זאת ﬠשה אלקים לנו". These are two different stages in the story.
ReplyDeleteSeforno comments on the earlier pasuk that: בהתחננו אלינו ולא שמענו – והיינו אכזרים נגד אחינו, אף על פי שחשבנוהו לרודף היה לנו לרחם ״בהתחננו״, וכנגד מדת אכזריותנו זה האיש מתאכזר נגדנו Exactly like R' Aharon, that the din was just, but it was the achzariyus (or lack of rachmanus, in R' Aharon's softer formulation) that was the shevatim's error.
Seforno comments on the later pasuk: מה זאת עשה אלקים לנו – שנתן בלב זה, עם היותו ירא אלקים (פסוק י״ח), שיעשה לנו ״זאת״ כדי לכבוש אותנו לעבדים בבואנו אליו, כאמרם אחר כך ״ולקחת אתנו לעבדים״ (בראשית מ״ג:י״ח), וזה לשלם לנו מדה כנגד מדה על מכירת אחינו. והנה המכירה לא היתה מאתנו להרע, אבל היתה מפני שחשבנוהו לרודף ובן מות, ומה שלא הרגנוהו היה על צד החסד בהיותו אחינו. Here, based on the midah k'neged midah, the shevatim came to acknowledge that the sale itself was in error, not just the lack of rachmanus, like R' Zaichyk's approach.
Reb Aharon says that only Reuven decided they were wrong. The others never changed their minds, not in the beginning, not in the end. I happened to be sitting with my shver in the hospital yesterday, and he strongly agreed with Reb Aharon. He said that Yosef cried because the brothers never asked him mechilla, and they never asked mechilla because they decided it was only the hard-heartedness to a brother that was wrong, but they never changed their minds about him being chayav missa.
DeleteThere's an amazing midrashim brought in Otzer Hamidrashim titled Tzavaas Naftali Ben Yaakov. He warns his kids to stay far away from bnei Yosef, that they bring on galus etc..
ReplyDeleteSeems from there that they always held they were right, just needed to make shalom but keep distance.
Either was two different shitos, or Avodos or both.
What I never understood was what Yaakov held. It says toldos yaakov- Yosef! He gave over his Torah, his mahala h, that they were most similar. So why were the shvatim apprehensive he was like eisav? It must be these 2 mahalchim were from Yaakov. But why wasn't Yaakov machria h?!