Jump to content


Photo

R' Kook


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 torah613

torah613

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 27 November 2011 - 11:22 PM

Are R' Kook's seforim are assur to read nowadays? Is it only his "Oros" seforim or also other seforim?

#2 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 03 December 2011 - 09:05 PM

The Chazon Ish said it is forbidden to read any of his Hashkafa Seforim but the purely Halachic seforim without any hashkafa in them are permitted. The Satmar Rebbe said it is prohibited to rely on any of his Torah regardless of the topic.

See also here.

#3 kneesox

kneesox

    Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 03 December 2011 - 09:28 PM

Where is the source for the Chazon Ish's psak?

Thanks.

#4 mamash

mamash

    Member

  • Members
  • 50 posts

Posted 03 December 2011 - 09:46 PM

Is the reason the Chazon Ish forbade the non halaha Seforim because of Rav Kook's position on zionism? If so, why the chiluk? Isn't zionism a halachik issue as well?

#5 torah613

torah613

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 04 December 2011 - 12:16 PM

But won't his Halachic reasoning be messed up by his crooked hashkafos? Doesn't it say that one shouldn't learn Torah from a Rebbe who is off the derech?

#6 shaya

shaya

    Member

  • Members
  • 108 posts

Posted 04 December 2011 - 07:44 PM

why is it permitted ? isnt it nichlal in ספר תורה שכתבו מין ?
i think i saw many poskim and rabanim calling him a מומר להכעיס
Start with God - the first step in learning is bowing down to God; only fools thumb their noses at such wisdom and learning.

#7 taon

taon

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 406 posts

Posted 06 December 2011 - 05:05 PM

Shaya, maybe the Chazon ish didin't hold he was a mumar?

Maybe these seforim were written before the issues came up, or based on the kosher Torah from beforehand?

#8 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 11:22 AM

Where is the source for the Chazon Ish's psak?

Thanks.

See either Yalkut Daas Torah #68, Maaseh Ish vol. 2 p.163, or Orchos Rabbeinu vol. 5 p. 172.

#9 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 12 February 2012 - 10:36 AM

why is it permitted ? isnt it nichlal in ספר שכתבו מין ?
i think i saw many poskim and rabanim calling him a מומר להכעיס


Is the reason the Chazon Ish forbade the non halaha Seforim because of Rav Kook's position on zionism? If so, why the chiluk? Isn't zionism a halachik issue as well?


But won't his Halachic reasoning be messed up by his crooked hashkafos? Doesn't it say that one shouldn't learn Torah from a Rebbe who is off the derech?


First, not everyone would agree with the Chazon Ish regarding the non-Hashkafa books.

Second, he didn't say he'd recommend them. He just said they're not Assur.

But most importantly, we need to understand that there are two distinct questions here that cannot be conflated:

1) What is the status of R. Kook's teachings?
2) What is the status of R. Kook himself?

The answer to #1 is obvious. The teachings are against the Torah. No Godol has ever defended the content of his books even in an "eilu v'eilu" sort of way. How can anyone defend them? They are not defensible. Things like this for instance:

"The Nefashos of the non-religious Jews before the coming of Moshiach, if they are involved with issues of the Jewish people and the rebirth of the nation, are greater than the Nefashos of the religious Jews who do not have this trait of dedicating themselves to the benefit of the public, the building of the nation and the land." (Oros MeOfel, 43)

How can anyone defend such a thing? Such teachings are simply abominable distortions of Jewish values. As the Imrei Emes politely put it: "He declares the unclean clean, and the clean, unclean." (טמא/טהור). (That line, by the way, was purposely edited out of the Imrei Emes's letter about R. Kook by S. Raz in his biography on R. kook).

About that there is no discussion. R. Kook's teachings such as the above are against the Torah, baseless, and simple heresy.

The second question is, what is the status of him as a person? An important rule: Just because someone spouts Apikorsus does not necessarily make him personally into an Apikorus. This is a broad topic of discussion in the Poskim, which includes the well-known comment of the Raavad on the Rambam's statement that someone who believes Hashem has physical attributes is an Apikores.
.
א"א ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות
.
Of course, even the Raavad would agree that the opinion that Hashem is physical is itself Apikorsus. His question is, would having such an opinion automatically render someone an Apikores? The Raavad held no.

The Chazon Ish, in general, had a particularly lenient position on questions of dividing the status of a person and the status of his beliefs. אע"פ שהמחבר הי' ירא שמים עבד את המינות בשוגג he wrote about something he saw in a certain Sefer. (That's just a small example of the concept - the Chazon Ish applies this position regarding a broad range of issues.)

Regarding R. Kook in particular, this dichotomy is described very clearly in the Sefer Shearis Yosef, in a Teshuva about R. Kook entitled "Regarding an Apikores That We Need to Protest Against."

Even if there is a bit of room to judge him favorably, saying that he himself would not be considered a Min and Apikores, for perhaps some spirit overcame him, and he is mistaken in his imaginings - see what the Besamim Rosh writes ... and therefore, he too, perhaps is in the category of someone who had such imaginings or ideas that entered his thoughts, perhaps because of his learning philosophy or some other reason. But in any case, whether we are to judge him an Apikores or not, certainly these words that come out of his mouth are heresy and Apikorsus.

See it inside here - second paragraph.

That's the first issue.

The second issue is, because his teachings are deviant ...

What is the best way to combat his influence?

This question is irrelevant to whether or not the Chazon Ish considered R. Kook himself an Apikores. Both the Rambam and the Raavad, for example, would not allow someone to learn that Hashem is physical, regardless of whether such a person is automatically considered Apikores for thinking so.

Here, too, the Chazon Ish had his particular Derech. See here. (By the way, that website is an excellent source of information regarding the opinion of the Gedolei Yisroel about R. Kook and the National Religious movement in general). He is quoting from R. Shlomo Lorincz in his book Bemechitzasam.

"מרן היה ידוע כמתנגד מובהק לרבנות הראשית. (אגב, מרן החזו"א דחה את עליתו לא"י כדי לא לעלות לא"י בעזרת אישור עליה של הרבנות הראשית.רק כשקבלה אגו"י מכסות עליה משלה להעלאת רבנים (בשנת תרצ"ד) עלה מרן החזו"א לא"י) בהזדמנות ספרתי לו שרב ראשי בעיר גדולה מתפאר בכך שהוא מקורב מאד לחזון איש, והוא מתייחס אליו בהערכה. שאלתי את מרן, האם אכן הוא מקבל את הרב הנ"ל לעתים קרובות, ואם כן, מדוע? מרן ענה לי, שאמנם מקבל הוא את אותו רב לעתים קרובות, והסביר: "הוא חושב, שהוא בא אלי כדי לרמות אותי, אבל האמת היא שאני "מרמה" אותו... הוא בא אלי כדי להראות לי שיש לו הערכה אלי, בכך הוא חושב לרכוש אותי, ואילו אני מוותר על כבודי ונותן לו קצת כבוד, אבל ע"י זה אני רוכש אותו, משפיע עליו, והוא נמנע מדברים, שאילו לא הייתי נוהג בו כבוד, ודאי היה עושה אותם. אני נותן לו הרגשה שהוא אחד המקורבים אלי, כדי שירגיש מחויב כלפי, וע"י זה אני מונע ממנו לעשות דברים שלא יעשו". עוד מספר שם הר' לורנץ (עמ' 64) וז"ל: "ערב אחד בקשני מרן להתלוות אליו לחגיגת בר מצוה של נכדו של אחד מזקני רבני הדור, אשר נודע כבעל השפעה גדול, במיוחד בחוגי הרבנות הראשית. חגיגת הבר מצוה היתה מחוץ לבני ברק, ומרן השתהה בה זמן רב יחסית, מעל ומעבר להרגלו. בצאתנו, הבעתי בפניו את תמיהתי, והוא ענה לי: "הרי אתה יודע, שעומד על הפרק הענין של שרות לאומי. הסבא של חתן הבר מצוה יש לו השפעה גדולה בענין זה. רציתי לתת לו שוחד של כבוד, כדי להבטיח שהוא ילך בדרך שלי...". ע"כ.

The Chazon Ish's looked at his relationship to the Zionists as analogous to a bunch of muggers holding guns on their intended victims. The Zionists are the muggers; the frum Jews are the intended victims. You need to be very nice to the person holding a gun at your head, not antagonize him, and if sweet talking him will get him to allow you to keep at least your car keys, who would not do it?

He actually used this Moshol, as related in the Sefer Maaseh Ish, when asked why he tells people to vote in the Israel elections. Isn't such a thing an implicit approval of the Zionist government? he was asked.

His answer was, if a mugger demands your money, and you negotiate with him to maybe take the cash and leave you your photos, would that mean you approve of his mugging you? No. All it means is that you are trying to salvage what you can. So too regarding voting. It is not at all meant as an approval of the State. It is merely a way to try to salvage what we can from the Zionists.

The Chazon Ish was very worried about the "muggers" harming the Jews and making Gezeiros of Shmad (such as the drafting of women, for example).

And so the Chazon Ish would give honor to Zionist rabbonim even if they didn't deserve it in order to "bribe" them - the way you would try to bribe in any way possible your armed captors if they were holding you hostage.

Now back to R. Kook. There was no question that he spread deviant teachings that were heretical. But, as we see from the Chazon Ish quoted above, he wanted to be at peace with the Rabbanut even though he was against them, because that way he would have more influence on them. He said that he deceives (that is the world used in the English version of Bemechitzasam, p.83) them by giving them honor.

Now the question is, if the Chazon Ish would come out saying it is prohibited to rely on anything R. Kook says - would that increase or decrease the influence that the Chazon Ish wanted to have? Would it help or hurt the Chazon Ish in his battle against the Zionist Rabbanut?

It would surely hurt it. So the Chazon Ish walked that tightrope. He prohibited the books that had Apikorsus in them - there is no choice in that matter - while at the same time not alienating the Rabbanut, and strategically gaining as much influence as possible over them.

As far as the Halachah of ס"ת שכתב מין ישרף, I can only surmise that the Chazon Ish would answer with the same manner of svara that he put forth in Chazon Ish Sheviis 12:9.

The Halachah is, it is permitted to buy fruits of Sheviis from an Am Haaretz, even though doing so may cause the Am Haaretz to be nichshal in the laws of Sheviis, which would constitute Lifnei Iver. Explains the Chazon Ish: Because the prohibition invovled here is Lifnei Iver, that is a reason to permit the produce. Because even though it is true that the Am Haaretz could be caused to sin by improperly guarding his produce if we allow ourselves to do business with him, still, NOT allowing ourselves to do business with him would cause an even greater violation of Lifnei Iver. Because such behavior would only cause the Am Haaretz to hate us and violate לא תשנא את אחיך בלבביך, So if Lifnei Iver is the concern, we should NOT prohibit buying his produce.

So too with R. Kook's books. The Halchah of ס"ת שכתב מין ישרף is designed in order שלא להניח שם לאפיקורסים - to negate the influence and power of the Apikorsim. That being the case, the very Halachah of ס"ת שכתב מין ישרף would demand, in a case where burning his Sefer Torah will only hinder us in our fight against the spread of heresy, that we allow the Sefer Torah to remain.

Of course, that is only if the Sefer Torah is a real Sefer Torah. But if there is heresy in the book, the reason to prohibit goes way beyond ס"ת שכתב מין ישרף and there would be no heter to allow them.

Ergo: Hashkafa books prohibited; books with no Hashkafa, not prohibited.

That is my understanding of the Chazon Ish.



#10 shaya

shaya

    Member

  • Members
  • 108 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 02:10 PM


So too with R. Kook's books. The Halchah of ס"ת שכתב מין ישרף is designed in order שלא להניח שם לאפיקורסים - to negate the influence and power of the Apikorsim. That being the case, the very Halachah of ס"ת שכתב מין ישרף would demand, in a case where burning his Sefer Torah will only hinder us in our fight against the spread of heresy, that we allow the Sefer Torah to remain.

Of course, that is only if the Sefer Torah is a real Sefer Torah. But if there is heresy in the book, the reason to prohibit goes way beyond ס"ת שכתב מין ישרף and there would be no heter to allow them.



this understanding goes against all i was taught, so i have a hard time understanding it.
first is this quote above the CI's chidush/comparison?
and if so, i would ask, isnt there a mega difference between isur shviis and apikorses?
and since we see that in the end the CI didnt achive much as all his dealing with the heads of state faltered in the end with gius bonois etc. isnt right to say perhaps the CI was toeh?
and also what was the satmar rebbe shitah then? why didnt he see it this way?
Start with God - the first step in learning is bowing down to God; only fools thumb their noses at such wisdom and learning.

#11 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 09:11 PM

first is this quote above the CI's chidush/comparison?

No. It was my comparison.

isnt there a mega difference between isur shviis and apikorses?

By giving Kovod to those rabbis, the Chazon Ish was fighting Apikorsus, not permitting it. Yes, on one hand it can give someone a פתחון פה to falsely claim (as the Zionists do ) that the Chazon Ish's respect he paid these people shows a certain amount of approval or tolerance, but the Chazon Ish balanced the damage that they could do against the changes he could make by leveraging his relationship with them thereby preventing them from spreading their Apikorsus. He decided that in the aggregate, the second way accomplishes more in his case. Remember - he did not permit any Sefer that could have Apikorsus in it, namely, Rabbi Kook's hashkafa Seforim. He knew very well that R. Kook was a danger. As the Chazon Ish said about R. Kook (quoted in Maaseh Ish): "His Gehennom will be that in the next world they will show him what he has caused, and tell him; 'Kook!'" ("Kook" means "Look!" in Yiddish).

and since we see that in the end the CI didnt achive much as all his dealing with the heads of state faltered in the end with gius bonois etc. isnt right to say perhaps the CI was tohea?

What makes you say he didn;t achieve much? Look at the rest of that chapter in Bemechitzasam and you'll see examples of how he in fact did control their actions because he kept peace with them. There is no way to assess "what if" he tried a different tactic. How could one assess that?

And for the record, he did in fact prevent Ben Gurion sr"y from making his Gezeirah of Giyus Banos, by telling Ben Gurion, when he asked the Chazon Ish how he could possilby stop the ZIonist police from forcing the girls to go to the army, that he would Pasken that the girls should give their lives rather than go to his army. Ben Gurion backed down because he saw the Chazon Ish was serious - and so were the Bnos Yisroel.

and also what was the satmar rebbe shitah then? why didnt he see it this way?

First, he didn't live in EY with these people so he was never in such a position to begin with. The Chazon Ish worked to stop things like the drafting of women, she'arut l'umi, letting soldiers get married on Yom Haatzmaut, and the like. He was faced with dealing with the the Zionists face to face. The Satmar Rebbe wasn't. So the idea of being nice to your kidnappers who have a gun to your head that the Chazon Ish employed did not apply to the Satmar Rebbe in Chutz Laaretz.

In fact the Satmar Rebbe wrote that the Zionist government has no fear of the religious Jews living in EY because they have so much power over them, and therefore the Jews in Chultz La'Aretz can accomplish more by raising their voices against what israel does more than those living there. The battlefields of the Chazon Ish and Satmar Rebbe were different.

But aside from that, the Satmar Rebbe, like the Brisker Rav, held that the best way to prevent the spread of Zionism was not through deceiving them but rather by making sure that the they do not deceive us into tolerating or even adopting Zionism - and deceit was what the Zionists used to get us to tolerate them, as the Chazon Ish said in that story cited above (from Bemichtzasam - "הוא חושב, שהוא בא אלי כדי לרמות אותי, אבל האמת היא שאני "מרמה" אותו).

It was a Machlokes regarding what was the best strategy to fight ZIonism and the influence of the Zionists. But both agreed, equally, that it needed to be fought. In the same book that records the story of the Chazon Ish giving honor to the ZIonist rabbis in order to deceive them, it mentions as well that the Chazon Ish considered Zionism total idolatry. On that, there was no disagreement.

This was one of the reasons the Brisker Rav cited for instructing the Eidah HaChareidis to appoint the Satmar Rebbe as chief Rav of Yerushalayim (which they did). He said that the Satmar Rebbe has a proper Mesorah directly from his father and grandfather etc.regarding how to deal with heretical Jews and their influences (like they did in Romania), which is a vital quality for the head Rav of Jerusalem, in order to properly combat the ZIonists

#12 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 19 February 2012 - 07:29 PM

As far as R. Kook himself, as I mentioned, if a person says Apikorsus, that itself does not make him yet into an Apikores. However, the Satmar Rebbe and Rav Elchonon Wasserman pointed out, using two totally different statements, both by Rabbeinu Yonah, that when one's Hashkafa violations involve the particular sin of praising Reshayim, then they reflect on the person himself.

The Satmar Rebbe, in a letter to Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld in response to the latter's request, (printed in Teshuvos Divrei Yoel and Michtavim Divrei Yoel)pointed to a Rabbeinu Yonah in Brachos. The Gemora says that if the Baal Tefilah skips the Bracha of Velamalshinim, we remove him from his post, because we are concerned that he is an Apikores. The Gemora is clear that this applies to everyone, even a Godol HaDor. Rabbeinu Yonah asks why the same Halachah would nto apply if someone skips the Bracha of Tehciyas HaMeisim, for example. Why are we not concerned that he does not believe in Techiyas HaMeisim?

His answer is, the concern that the Baal Tefillah is an Apikores is not justified because someone skipped Techiyas HaMeisim. It could be he did that by accident. And even if he is an Apikores, he may say the Bracha anyway, even though he does not believe in it. But, says Rabbeinu Yonah, if he skips Velamalshinim, that is different. because Velamalshinim contains a curse on the Apikorsim, and if he is really an Apikores, he would not want to curse himself. And even though it is possible that he did it by accident (which was actually the case in the Gemora), especially since this Halachah applies even to Gedolei HaDor, and removing him from his post is humiliating him, still, if someone seems to refuse to curse the Apikorsim, that makes us concerned that he is one himself. No matter how big that person is.

Therefore, says the Satmar Rebbe, someone like R. Kook who not only does not curse the Apikorsim but actually praises them, certainly is in that category and we are required to be concerned that he is one of them himself.

Rav Elchonon Wasserman, in a letter to Rav Yosef Zvi Dushinsky, printed in Kovetz Maamarim, makes reference to a different Rabbeinu Yonah,in Shaarei Teshuva. explaining the Posuk איש לפי מהללו. He says that it means you can tell who a person is by who he praises. If he praises Reshayim, says Rabbeinu Yonah, וְהַמְשַׁבֵּחַ מַעֲשִׂים מְגֻנִּים אוֹ מְהַלֵּל רְשָׁעִים, הוּא הָרָשָׁע הַגָּמוּר וְהַמְחַלֵּל אֶת עֲבוֹדַת הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ: - he therefore concludes that since R. Kook praises Reshayim we must conclude that he is a Rasha Gamur.

These Gedolim paskened not only on the teachings of R. Kook, but on R. Kook himself Both for the same reason - the praising of Reshayim / Apikorsim - but from different sources.

As an aside, I would say that the Rabbeinu Yonah of the Satmar Rebbe and the Rabbeinu Yonah cited by Rav Elchonon are really the same principle, and it is רבנו יונה לשיטתו based on an explanation of the Mezrich Magid on a Posuk in Mishle (28:4): ) עֹזְבֵי תוֹרָה יְהַלְלוּ רָשָׁע - "Those who abandon Torah will praise the Rasha."

In the Sefer Ohr HaEmes, Torahs from the Kedushas Levi (p. 59b), there is an explanation on that Posuk from the Magid. Ozvei Torah are not Reshayim themselves. If they were, it would have said Reshayim yehalelu rasha. Rather, Ozvei Torah in that Posuk is referring to Tzadikim who, even though they are righteous, they are "soft" and do not protest against the Reshayim. Their lack of protest against the Reshayim is considered tacit praise - עוזבי תורה יהללו רשע - those who abandon Torah, i.e. Tzadikim who are soft and do nto protest against evil doers, are in effect praising the evil doers.

According to this, the Rabbeinu Yonah cited by the Satmar Rebbe and the Rabbeinu Yonah cited by Rav Elchonon can be לשיטתו. Rabbienu Yonah says that someone who refuses to curse the Apikorsim is suspect to be an Apikores himself. Why? Because the refusal to curse them is a tacit praise - עוזבי תורה יהללו - and someone who praises the Apikrosim is considered one of them, because איש לפי מהללו!

#13 matan

matan

    Member

  • Members
  • 24 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 10:56 AM

Rav Kook was the misader kidushin for Rav Elyashiv

#14 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 02:53 PM

Not exactly. He was the Mesader Kiddushin for a Bochur who was later to become Rav Elyashev (by the way R. Kook was also the Shadchan). Besides which we know Rav Elyashev has drastically changed his opinion on things like the Rabbanut and the State since then. What relevance to this discussion does your comment have?

#15 torah613

torah613

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 03:30 PM

I believe Rav Shapiro mentioned somewhere else that even those that disagreed strongly with R' Kook's hashkafah still considered him a great talmid chacham.

But I saw on a website (which recommended earlier) that the Chazon Ish considered R' Kook an "am ha'haretz" !? How does that make sense? http://www.yoel-ab.c...tava.asp?id=184

#16 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 10 August 2012 - 09:32 AM

I believe Rav Shapiro mentioned somewhere else that even those that disagreed strongly with R' Kook's hashkafah still considered him a great talmid chacham.

But I saw on a website (which recommended earlier) that the Chazon Ish considered R' Kook an "am ha'haretz" !? How does that make sense? http://www.yoel-ab.c...tava.asp?id=184


It's not a contradiction.

But first, I didn't say what you are quoting me as saying.

You said "even those who strongly disagreed with R. Kook's Hashkafa..." That is a misrepresentation of what I said,and a misrepresentation of the facts. I said that all Gedolei HaDor held that his Hashkafos were deviant, invalid, and are prohibited to even consider following. That's not the same as " strongly disagreeing." Gedolim strongly disagreed with the Chazon Ish's shita that you cannot use nails in a Sukkah but it is a Torah opinion לכל הדעות. WIth Rabbi Kook they considered his teachings not Torah teachings but Torah distortions, obtained from secular sources or his own imagination. By way of analogy, saying something like "Many Gedolim strongly disagreed with Christianity" would be a sheker, because it conveys the impression that Christianity is a shitah, like Bais Shammai, for example, but is disputed. Rabbi Kook's teachings were never considered even to be on the level of a shitah, but simple aberrations, to be ignored and not permitted to be considered by anyone.

There is a very big difference. And it is very important to understand that.

Second, the Chazon Ish certinaly did not mean that Rabbi Kook did not know whether Korbon Chatas has precedence over Korbon Asham, for example; he did not mean to say that he would not know who Elisha's mentor was. It looks like what he meant to say was that Rabbi Kook is unable to understand Torah matters properly, even in non-Hashkafic areas. That does not make his Seforim prohibited, but it does undermine his authority even in non-Hashkafic areas.

And of course, it is all relative. I suppose when the Chazon Ish called someone an Am Haaretz it means does not mean compared to a first grader.

And that's of course if the story is accurate.

That said, such a statement would not be very surprising in view of the famous dictum of Rav Chaim of Volozhen quoted by the Ridvaz in his commentary on Chumash, that "if someone believes even one piece of Kefirah he will be unable to understand אמיתה של תורה in any area whatsoever."

In addition, others, even Zionists, have conceded that Rabbi Kook's prowess in learning was overrated. Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveichik  told his students that, he was "not impressed with R. Kook's scholastics" (quoted in "The Rav Speaks" vol. 1).



#17 torah613

torah613

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:04 PM

Wasn't Rav Hutner a talmid of Rav Kook (though not in his shitah on Zionism)?

 

On the old site there was a whole shtikel about that from the moderator. Check it out:

 

http://classic.frumt...etz Yisroel&M=0



#18 torah613

torah613

    Member

  • Members
  • 71 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:50 PM

"The teachings are against the Torah. No Godol has ever defended the content of his books even in an "eilu v'eilu" sort of way. How can anyone defend them? They are not defensible."

 

Didn't Rav Yaakov Moshe Charlop defend R' Kook's teaching in this book:

 

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/32492



#19 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 02:12 PM

Yes, and so did his other students, including but not limited to his son. Of course, none of that diminishes the accuracy of my statement.