Year: 2018

Where Are Your Shoes?!

We recently pointed out the counterfactual of there being “too many” men studying in Yeshiva and Kollel (follow the link).

There is a known story the Netziv told about himself, where his parents wished him to be a tailor, since he was unsuccessful in his studies, and he made a firm decision to apply himself and was allowed to return to studying Torah. When later in life he published one of his Torah works, he imagined the path not taken, having become a shoemaker, instead of writing his destined works, and coming to heaven a kosher Jew, who thought he had done all he could be asked, only to be asked where his Sefer was.

I heard a contemporary Torah great remarked some will come to heaven at the end of their lives with their Torah works only to be asked: Where are your shoes?!

 

re: The Steipler’s Noble Lie

In response to my post titled “The Steipler’s Noble Lie”, I received the following from a reader:

I think that you are referring to the Steipler’s Karyana D’igarta, vol. 1, number 113, p. 128. However, the Steipler is not talking about washing flesh but rather about washing clothing which became stained. He specifically mentions Kevisa which refers to laundry.

Yikes!

I have a stay of execution, though, at least until someone (me or another) manages to verify this is the only source for sure.

Update: Indeed, I was wrong. Read this.

The Steipler’s Noble Lie

The Steipler wasn’t against lying for “principle” in principle. There is plenty of proof for this (not to mention his promotion of Rabbi Shach), including his infamous letter on the Besamim Rosh. And I’m not even talking about the book “Shi’urim Shel Torah”.

Update

In the original article I then added:

“In the special collection of the Steipler’s letters to unmarried men dealing with problems of personal holiness (adapted from Kraina De’iggresa) he writes: It is a Torah prohibition of “Rechitza” to wash Keri off the flesh on Shabbos, even with regular water alone and no towel. Since this is false, I assume he was trying to stop his questioner from Aveiros this way. (This is from my notes; I’m away from a good library and I’ll try to find the reference later.)”

This is totally incorrect, however, see here!