העורך Editor

Rabbi Yaacov Ades‘ numerous huge black-cover volumes of “דברי יעקב” are donated to a great many study halls, but these are hardly cracked open. They are distributed for free, not for Chessed, because there is no demand. They are placed by the beadle on the highest or lowest shelves possible and are the first to go when something else comes along, ישן מפני חדש תוציאו.

Why are they not studied? (The font is a bit large; so what?)

I’ll tell you why: Although people don’t always have good sense in choosing wise seforim to study, these ones really aren’t worth the time (I’m referring specifically to the Halacha\Gemara ones), although he occasionally makes some good points.

I’ll give one example, from Chazon Ish Y.D. 119:2:

ונראה דענין גירות אינו אלא להאמין ביסודו שצוה ד’ את ישראל חקים ומשפטים ע”י משה נביאו… אבל אם אינו מאמין בכל זאת אלא שמקבל עליו להתנהג ע”פ חקי התורה מפני שההנהגה הזאת מטיבה אותו או מצלת אותו מן ההיזק אין זה קבלת גירות, וכדאמרינן יבמות [מ”ז א’] והוי יודע עד שלא באת למידה זו אכלת חלב אי אתה ענוש כרת כו’…

The “Divrei Yaacov” on Gerus quoting the C.I. wonders what’s wrong with a convert thinking the Torah was given to, say, Avraham Avinu, instead of Moshe Rabbenu, etc.

But he misunderstands the simple meaning of the text. All the Chazon Ish is saying is the Ger must know and understand well his radical change in status from non-Jew to Jew. (Even “Lishmah” is only needed for the technical reason that otherwise, the decision to become Jewish forever is lacking, ודוק). So he adds the well-known background. This is very clear from the whole Se’if Katan, from the Gemara Yevamos being quoted, and from the fact the C.I., unlike others, doesn’t ever make things up.

(Again, I’m not referring to any of his juicy Kabbalah\Segulos\Mussar stuff.)

Note well:

When certain Batei Din signed against the huge group of ostensible rabbis who allow Niddos based on a lack of understanding in Mar’os, they were careful to not mention any names. (With one exception.) On the other hand, when writing against Rabbi Nosson Kamenetsky, they made sure to include his name when claiming he deserved Nidduy (based on a mix of false and zero testimony).

(By the way, why was nothing done since about this global, ongoing scandal? For every “Pirtza”, true and false, it has become customary to start new straw “Va’adot Rabbanim”. Of course, the difference is where the problem originates. Rabbis are like a government worker’s union.)

The book “Tamim Teheyeh”, and the accompanying proclamations, too, while railing against numerous charlatan Kabbalists made sure not to mention any names. But again, this was not fear of “Shmo’a bein acheichem”, because that hasn’t been observed in action since about Shabtai Tzvi and Nosson of Azza’s time, who were shockingly called before Beis Din before they were denounced. Perhaps the claim is they didn’t want anyone to think this was an exclusive blacklist because there are so many such corrupt individuals. But why couldn’t they bring a just few obvious examples?

They don’t want to deal with libel laws? Is nothing worth fighting for? They didn’t mind fighting Yaron Yad’an and his pamphlets in secular court after being accused of libeling him – and won.

Enough said for now.

Just like we all know purely about our own Panassah\fields of expertise. Of course, politicians are even more ignorant by that measure.

It’s been called the Igon Value Problem.

Wait, so are you calling for the complete abolishment of journalism and politics?

How did you ever notice…? Yes!

Journalism ought to be accurately renamed “news entertainment”.

Some rabbis from around that era (most called Yosef, interestingly) claimed women need not cover their hair at all, period. Then-modern “Modern Orthodoxy”, with which Rabbi Soloveitchik is partly-correctly associated was lax in various halachos, especially Tznius, of course (things have changed for the better). Nevertheless, Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik explicitly held, as do virtually all Poskim, married women must cover their hair in Reshus Harabbim.

I saw this in “Conversations With the Rav” p. 114, עיין שם. The author notes the same is recorded in Rabbi Hershel Schachter’s “Nefesh Harav” p. 255 (I don’t have the book).

התעלמות רוב בתי המדרש שבימנו מבירור המציאות בכל הנוגע להלכות התורה, התעלמות “מכוונת מבוססת ושקולה”, חרפה גדולה לנו. וכמו כל מגפה רעה, גם בית בריסק אשמה קצת.

כאילו נתחדש איסור חדש להכיר כל פרט ידע ביוגרפי, היסטורי ומציאותי שעה שדנים בתורה שניתנה לבני חלד. אילולא ראיתי לא האמנתי: תלמידי חכמים שבאו לגבורות מעירים על סתירה בין הרב שמעון בן אלעזר משאנץ שבתוספות, ובין הרב שלמה בן אדרת בחידושים ושו”ת!

לפחות אלו נאלצים לסייג על כרחם, שלא יהיו לקלס: “בהנחה שזה אותו אחד (אני לא יודע דברים כאלו!)…” והרי זה כעין עשרות מקרי הבדיחותא בספר “חידושי רבינו חיים הלוי על הרמב”ם” בו הוא כותב “גירסא א’ סוברת… וגירסא ב’ סוברת…”

בפסק הלכה, הדברים לא הגיעו עד כדי כך (בינתיים!), אבל הלא בדורנו עיקר התורה נחשבת דוקא העסק בהוויות בלי נגיעה להווה, ועוסקי תורתך “מהנדחים לכל אפסים בים ההבלים של רוח עועים”, יחזירנו ית’ בתשובה שלמה.

ת”ל שיש צדיקים שמנסים להחזיר עטרת הרצינות התורנית ליושנה בכל עוז, כגון אנשי ארגון “מטמוני ארץ” הי”ו, וכל כיוצא בהם.