THE CAMPAIGN TO DISCREDIT RABBI MOSHE FEINSTEIN
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 июл 2019
- After being offered an obscure book called Maaneh Le'igros by a bookdealer, Rabbi Dunner stumbles across the long-forgotten story of a concerted campaign to undermine the halachic authority and status of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein during the 1960s. Rabbi Dunner charts the ups-and-downs of this fascinating kulturkampf, later abortively reignited by the author of Maaneh Le’igros in 1973. In this fascinating lecture, discover how the lines were drawn for orthodox Jewry as the first generation of Holocaust survivors struggled to recreate the lost world of pre-war European orthodoxy.
08/06/2019 RABBI DUNNER ADDS: A number of viewers have pointed out that Rav Moshe, in three published teshuvos, prohibited shaking hands with women and questioned those rabbis who permitted it. These queries are justified -- my apologies for implying that Rav Moshe allowed this "lechatchila". However, many talmidim of Rav Moshe have confirmed (some to me personally) that although he was reluctant to go on record on this issue, he would allow business handshaking in certain situations. This is confirmed in Mesoret Moshe (1:EH #56) published by Rav Moshe’s grandson, where Rav Moshe is quoted as permitting shaking hands with a woman to perform the kinyan of mechirat chametz. Aditionally, Rav Getzel Ellinson, in his comprehensive work on “Women and Mitzvot” (Vol. 2, Ch. 2, FN #86) writes that he clarified the issue with Rav Moshe personally. Rav Moshe made a distinction between extending a hand (which he said was unequivocally prohibited) and returning a handshake which he found difficult to openly permit, but which he acknowledged was both done and permitted by pious individuals. Actually, if you look at Rav Moshe's teshuvos, he says that one is prohibited "lehoshit yad" -- to extend one's hand -- implying that if a hand is extended to a man by a woman he may take it. From another talmid of Rav Moshe I heard that any such handshake shouldn't be a grip, but the hand should remain limp, so that it is in the category of "karka olam", based on the gemara in Megilla about Esther and Achashveirosh. Once again, I apologize for implying in the video that this was lechatchila, and I hope the above clarifies the details.
![Skilla Baby - Misfits (Feat. Polo G) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IjsylSnNMyw/mqdefault.jpg)
The Satmar rebbe and R Moshe had-more respect for each other than we can imagine. They were both giants. To talk against either of them is playing with fire.
More than we can imagine? Please don't exaggerate.
Satmar rabbi knew that rabbi Moshe Feinsten was against Zionism, and even came to protest against Israel.
@@liamsandal6360 no exaggeration very dangerous
This is pure Motzi Shem Ra on the Satmer rebbe. I myself am a big fan or “chosid” of Reb Moshe Zt’l and I have nothing with Satmer....
But to say 17:15 this on the Holy Satmer Rebbe is wrong and disgusting
LOL! I grew up in a satmar community. Whether what he’s saying is true or not, we’ll never really know. But the satmar community definitely has absolutely no respect for reb Moshe. You will not find a copy of Igros Moshe in Rodney street. Reb Moshe is considered a conservative rabbi in Williamsburg
@@hillelfergusson2141 They are brought up with a great deal of sinat chinam. The bikkur cholim they do is wonderful, but it does not cover their hatred for other Jews.
@@liamsandal6360 such a big loshan hora on thousands of erliche yiden.
Wait. Rav Moshe's stance on the Eruv , that the Eruv is invalid was specifically for some areas of New York City. He in no way banned Eruvin. In fact he was behind the Eruv in Queens in NYC
In 1983 I asked the Lubavutcher Rebbe a personal question about Invitro Infertilization. The Luavitcher Rebbe said I should pose the Question to Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. I have it in writing.
Can you send me a scan of the letter? That would be fantastic. My email address is pinidunner@gmail.com. Thank you!!
Thank you.
What you say at 8:06 regarding Rav Moshe Feinstein's זצ"ל approach to halachic rulings suggests that he followed the approach that the Maharal advises in Netivot Olam. (quote below). Clearly one needs to be a Talmid Chacham to be using this apporach.
מהר"ל, נתיבות עולם, נתיב התורה סוף נתיב טו
כי יותר ראוי ונכון שיהיה פוסק מתוך התלמוד, ואף כי יש לחוש שלא ילך בדרך האמת ולא יפסוק הדין לאמיתו שתהיה ההוראה לפי האמת, מכל מקום אין לחכם רק מה שהשכל שלו נותן ומבין מתוך התלמוד. וכאשר תבונתו וחכמתו תטעה אותו, עם כל זה הוא אהוב אל השם יתברך כאשר הוא מורה כפי מה שמתחייב מן שכלו. ואין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות.
והוא יותר טוב ממי שפוסק מתוך חיבור אחד, ולא ידע טעם הדבר כלל שהולך כמו עיור בדרך.
I heard that two questions that Reb. Moshe said people didn't ask him. One, was how do you bring up children?
Two, how much should one give to charity?
Reb Pini, your lectures are phenomenal. Extremely informative and very well-presented. Yasher Koach
Hard to believe that the Satmar Rebbe who was an Ish kadosh would be so petty and discredit Reb Moshe for his own power trip.
THIS IS HIS OWN FICTION.I KNOW PERSONALLY THAT WHEN THERE WAS A MEETING ABOUT ISSUES AT HAND THEY SAT TOGETHER AND DISCUSSED THE MOST INTRICATE SUBJECT IN SHASS I VERY FRIENDLY MANNER
Then you don't know the history of Satmer rav.
@@qazwsful AS MUCH AS YOU ANYTIME
@@josephgrunfeld9927 you’re in la la land.
@@josephgrunfeld9927 smart response grunfeld.
Go do your research “real research” on the relationship and the respect Satmer Rav had with/towards Reb Moshe... and stop being motzie shem raa
Did he have different views on Halacha then R Moshe? Absolutely! But to go say these things?? Come’on R’ Yid stop spreading false information.
You seem to confuse artificial insemination with donor sperm. The psak of Reb Moshe permits a woman whose husband is infertile to use sperm from an unknown donor. Artificial insemination refers to the method. This method is also used when the husband is not infertile but the woman can't conceive in the natural way. The controversy about the psak is the fact that the sperm is from a donor. Artificial insemination is not a problem, it's only a problem when the sperm is not from the husband.
He is not confusing anything. He said that artificial insemination by donors should be done by nonJewish donors. The shaileh referred to artificial insemination from donors.
You are clearly very intellectual, articulate, and research talented. This is my 2nd video i viewed from you on youtube, the first one was "Grand Larceny" which had turned off comments. During your lectures I couldn't help but feel like I was marinating in a pool of Lashon Haraa, bigotry, aggression, and simply pure negativity. I fail to see your point or message if there is one. It feels like you enjoy digging up Jewish/Rabbinic dirt or controversy. I am not a Rabbi but I highly doubt one is allowed to relive or re-dramatize the dirty laundry of Hashem's people or worse "add salt" as you seem to be doing. Given your multiple talents, I would suspect that you can make a much bigger difference in people's lives by providing truly deep Torah intellectual lectures filled with Torah information and a positive message that can positively inject people with inspiration and drive to emulate our great Rabbis thus enhancing their lives and thereby coming to appreciate the beauty of our great Torah personas.
If we do not learn from our mistakes, how are we to grow in the future? The Torah if not the entire Tanach is filled with "lashon Harah" of the bad things we and our leaders have done. It is from our mistakes from which we learn our greatest and most powerful lessons. As a Rabbi of mine used to say, "In Judaism, we have no Saints!"
What a powerful retort!! Turning a blind eye to all the terrible mistakes of some leaders is not what Judaism is about.
Someone woke up. woke, woke, woke. Korah was evaporated not for his Lamduss but for his twisted mind and sin'ah. (Referring to why Dunner brought in the lowlives who tried to bring down the Gadol. Dunner seems to be a stickler for accuracyl
A number of viewers have pointed out that Rav Moshe, in three published teshuvos, prohibited shaking hands with women and questioned those rabbis who permitted it. These queries are justified -- my apologies for implying that Rav Moshe allowed this "lechatchila". However, many talmidim of Rav Moshe have confirmed (some to me personally) that although he was reluctant to go on record on this issue, he would allow business handshaking in certain situations. This is confirmed in Mesoret Moshe (1:EH #56) published by Rav Moshe’s grandson, where Rav Moshe is quoted as permitting shaking hands with a woman to perform the kinyan of mechirat chametz. Aditionally, Rav Getzel Ellinson, in his comprehensive work on “Women and Mitzvot” (Vol. 2, Ch. 2, FN #86) writes that he clarified the issue with Rav Moshe personally. Rav Moshe made a distinction between extending a hand (which he said was unequivocally prohibited) and returning a handshake which he found difficult to openly permit, but which he acknowledged was both done and permitted by pious individuals. Actually, if you look at Rav Moshe's teshuvos, he says that one is prohibited "lehoshit yad" -- to extend one's hand -- implying that if a hand is extended to a man by a woman he may take it. From another talmid of Rav Moshe I heard that any such handshake shouldn't be a grip, but the hand should remain limp, so that it is in the category of "karka olam", based on the gemara in Megilla about Esther and Achashveirosh. Once again, I apologize for implying in the video that this was lechatchila, and I hope the above clarifies the details.
Very engaging talk. Pinny you are a wonderful man. And I love the Melava Malka in Notting Hill! My favorite album for sure. Your position on Rav Moshe זצוק"ל style at 8:05 is unfortunately very incorrect. While he certainly examined the gemara he would never ignore the Rishonim or early Ochronim. He always analyzed the nosay Kaylim of the טוש"ע, The Bach, the Taz, and the Shach. All the way down to the mishna Berura and shaar hatzion. Gr"a and Chasam Sofer are quoted extensively. And while he definitely was willing to disagree, whenever he argued with ANY of these Giants it was always through analysis of the pertinent Rishonim. And he certainly showed complete subservience to the reshonim and SHU"A 100% of the time. So much so that every Semicha Eav Moshe ever issued clearly stated that if the rabbi in question ever ruled against something found in the shulchan aruch the semixha was immediately null and void.
His book, Eyes to See, is also an incredibly sad book.
יש תרגום לעברית?
It’s in “loving memory of his father” that’s the point
Maybe in honor of your mother you can make a “shiur” on how some of SR own chasidim broke a mirror in his own house private house. Just to prove that he didn’t really actively vilified hooliganism…. And he had 0 control on old school marmorosha bullies?
Rabbi Pinni you are a very brilliant and Knowledgeable person.
But in this case you speak your own Theories!
Is there a possibility that you just don’t like the Satmar Ruv? Therefore your shifting stories in a wrong and false direction?
The Satmer Ruv Ztz”l may have had Disagreements in some Halachot with the Godel Hador Rav Moshe Ztz”l, and he was totally entitled to it, but never in the way that you are trying to direct it with your own fabrication.
The third mishnah in eidiyos states;Hillel quotes his rebbe one way Shammai quotes his rebbe a second way.Two Weaver's from the dung gate quote a third way,their quote is the halacha. According to you to your promise that we go by the one who is the bigger genius. We shouldn't be listening to the third-party.In halacha everyone has the right to say how they feel. The later generations will decide who is right. The reason that your assertion is wrong is if heaven forbid there is a mistake in RAV M o s h e 's
Rabbi Dunner, you have a rather impressive knowledge of recent Jewish history, and a superb talent for gathering evidence of historic happenings and presenting them in a uniform and highly interesting manner. As such, your lectures could truly serve as a highly illuminating source of knowledge on such important events and leaders. Therefore, I find it truly sad and disappointing that both in this lecture and in other RUclips talks, you repeatedly succumb to the use of outright lashon harah and hotza’as shem rah, as well as fail to accurately research the full and true details of the events and people you describe. Lest I be accused of making false charges, let me point out a number of such examples in this talk. I profoundly hope that you will consider my criticisms, even if they seem somewhat harsh, because were it not for these faults, I would be a great admirer of yours. Moreover, it leads me and others to question whatever you write - including the absolutely true facts.
1) You claim based on “someone who was at the meeting” between the Edah Hacharedis and Reb Moshe, that they admitted to him that the campaign was not about AI (Artificial Insemination) from non-Jews, but rather because they needed to undermine his growing authority as a competitor of the Satmar Rebbe for the role of Posek Hador, and that is why they chose AI and not mechitza or chalav stam, but rather an issue that applies to Chassidim as well. IMHO this is preposterous for the following reasons: a) Citing a single eyewitness to smear the reputation of a Gadol HaDor? The man could be lying through his teeth, and who will disprove him 55 years after the event? b) It is beyond belief that an Edah representative would admit this to Reb Moshe, as he would instantly lose any position he had in the Edah for doing so. c) The claim is nonsensical on its face, because it was not Satmar alone who led this campaign against AI. Every Chassidic Rav and Rebbe, as well as all leading Litvishe Gedolim attacked the heter of anonymous donor AI, as documented in the recent “Pesichas HaIgros.” d) Finally, how can you compare chalav stam and mechitza to an issue that most poskim held bordered on zenus and mamzerus? It is obvious why they went to war on this specific issue!
2) Your claim that the Satmar Rebbe’s battle against AI was politically motivated is shameful. As I noted earlier, the entire world of psak was up in arms over this, and for Satmar it was especially repugnant, looking at it from a chassidish perspective. Furthermore, there was no competition ever between the two as poskei hador. While many Chassidic rabbonim may have asked shailos of Reb Moshe, that is because unlike the Satmar Rebbe, he was available 24/7 to answer shailos on anything and everything. But not a single Rav from Hisachdus HoRabbonim would think of accepting a psak of Reb Moshe that the Satmar Rebbe refuted. Secondly, Reb Moshe’s main claim to fame was as a posek. The Satmar Rebbe’s claim to fame was as a kedosh elyon, tzaddik hador, and locheim milchamos Hashem -- who also happened to be a gadol b’Torah. But he was never the primary posek in the chassidish world. Chassidish gedolim like Reb Yonasan Shteif, and later on the Minchas Yitzchok and Rav Wosner, were turned to for pesakim far more than the Satmar Rebbe.
3) Your claim that representatives sent directly by the Rebbe to Reb Moshe told him that if the AI heter was allowed to stand, Satmar girls wouldn’t marry Satmar girls, is too ludicrous to even merit a response - both regarding the notion that they would actually fear such a thing (that unmarried Satmar girls would bear children from AI, rather than get married), and that they would admit this to Reb Moshe even if it were true. With all due respect, you either heard this from hallucinators, or from people who are trying to make a fool out of you.
4) Reb Moshe did not become gadol ha’dor after Reb Aharon was niftar; they were never competitors. For years, they were the joint Gedolei HaDor of Litvish America -- Reb Aaron as the greatest Rosh Yeshiva, and Reb Moshe as the preeminent posek. Tons of pictures confirm this, at Agudah conventions or dinners of Torah U'Mesorah and other leading organizations.
5) The city of Satmar was all clean shaven and the Rebbe had a shtibel in his house. Are you joking??? How was he elected Rav of Satmar if all he had was a shtibel? Do you not know that he had a yeshiva with hundreds of talmidim in Satmar?
But worst of all is your distorted belief, put forth in so many of your videos, that any gadol who is sharply critical of another regarding purely halachic issues is either a political or personal attack. Here, based on zero evidence and much contra-evidence, you conclude that the Satmar Rebbe, Rav Schwarz, and Rav Savitsky were all motivated by such reasons. Did any of them write a single personal attack on Reb Moshe outside of a halachic context? Rav Savitsky wrote a halachic teshuva (calling it "a vicious article" is also misleading and inappropriate) against his AI psak in a halachic journal read by Rabbonim. The Satmar Rebbe led a heated battle against his AI psak. Rav Schwarz wrote a single, very high-level (albeit harshly worded) halachic sefer containing the refutation of over 150 of Reb Moshe's teshuvos, and then published three other major works in the remaining years of his life w/o mentioning Reb Moshe in those seforim or attacking him in any other venue that I have heard of. I also find it hard to believe that anyone seeking to become a prominent posek by refuting Reb Moshe, would think this could be achieved by attacking him so harshly in his sefer that every store or yeshiva would be afraid to put it on its shelves. And though he caught a ton of flack for his harsh language in ML, he was and is revered as a gadol by such a range of gedolim as Rav Meir Mazuz (I heard him speak highly of Rav Schwarz in his weekly Motzaei Shabbos shiur, in which he noted that Rav Ovadia cited Maaneh L'Igros 13 times and accepted his view in each of those cases), Reb Moshe Shternbuch (who told me personally that he uses his pesakim often in the Bedatz Beis Din), and Rav Hutner Z"l (whose talmid muvhak told me that the ML was on his desk in his Chaim Berlin office for 7 months after its publication). I doubt they would do so if they looked upon ML as a politically motivated sefer. In any case, all these gedolim may have used harsh language, but that doesn’t make it political or personal! To accuse acknowledged Gedolei Yisroel of attacking another Gadol in Halacha because of political or personal motives, w/o presenting a shred of evidence to back up these charges, is pure hotza’as shem rah, and it undermines the respect and reverence that all Jews are supposed to have for Gedolei Torah. That such reckless charges are made by a respected and highly talented Rav, who has an extraordinary ability to teach the public about vital leaders and events in recent and past Jewish history, is especially painful.
First you write "citing a single eyewitness to smear the reputation of a Gadol HaDor? The man could be lying through his teeth, and who will disprove him 55 years after the event?" -- and then you say that Rav Schwartz was revered as a gadol by "Rav Hutner z"l (whose talmid muvhak told me that the ML was on his desk in his Chaim Berlin office for 7 months after its publication)". So, according to you, a single witness asserts that Rav Hutner considered the author of ML to be a gadol. Bottom line, your sources are no more reliable than mine -- based on your own rules. Meanwhile, the facts speak for themselves -- Satmar acolytes did everything in their power to destroy the reputation of Reb Moshe, with (at least) the tacit approval of the Satmar Rebbe. But in the end, Reb Moshe's pesokim were accepted and even Satmar chasidim use his AI pesokim. So it goes. And yes, people -- even gedolim -- have personal motivations and biases. That's not sacrilege. Chazal record this exact phenomenon frequently in gemara and medrash, about tanoim and amoraim. Gedolim are not malochim. Pure emes is only in shomayim. I have answers to many of your other points to prove you are wrong, but let's leave it here. Cheilcha le'oraysa.
@@RabbiPiniDunner I appreciate your quick response. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But as to your retort that I too used only one witness - a) I cited him as only one of 4 gedolim who revered the author of ML, and it was the only one based on a witness, as one of the others I heard from personally, while the facts re Rav Ovadia Z'l and Rav Mazuz Shlita can readily be confirmed, since they were said or written in the public domain. b) I think most people would agree that evidence used to publicly declare that a Gadol's halachic battle was for selfish purposes rather than l'shem Shomayim, should be far stronger than the evidence used to make a public declaration that Rabbi X is an adam gadol.
As for Satmar's alleged attacks on Reb Moshe -- in Hungary, a posek who was poretz geder and matir issurim was fair game for broken windows and false fire alarms. It's anathema to me, but not in their society. In their eyes, that is all part of locheim milchamos Hashem. Thus, even if they were instigated by the Rebbe himself, yet another unproven step in your accusation chain, it still does not prove whatsoever that his underlying motive was personal and political.
Once again, I wrote all this more out of regret and disappointment, than out of anger. I think your lectures would be so much more respected and impactful, if you left out all the negative gossip and unsubstantiated rumors. There was so much interesting and largely unknown info in this video about the halachic battles of Rav Schwarz and the Satmar Rebbe against Reb Moshe that one cannot find anywhere else. Don't you think that would be sufficient to draw a strong audience - even w/o adding the unnecessary and unjustified conclusion that they were both politically and personally motivated?
@@lsmart the mistake you and others here are making is assuming that R Dunner would have an audience without his lashon hara and click bate riddled bites of controversy. He believes that he is capable of judging gedolim and he'll quote rayos etc. It's a waste of time arguing with him, he clearly doesn't have the same regard for these gedolim as the bnei torah do.
@@davidhammond1942 You may be right. I tried to be dan l'kaf zchus. But if you are correct, it is indeed a big shame, because he is not someone with nothing to offer except lashon hara and clickbait titles to get lots of views.
I happen to be somewhat open-minded in that I am willing to consider criticisms of rabbonim accepted by the public as Gedolei Yisroel, esp. those of the more recent past, given the obvious yeridas hadoros. However, as Rabbeinu Yonah says in Avos, someone with a reputation of an ehrliche Adam Gadol must be judged l'kaf zechus until there is no reasonable way to explain the bad conduct you see or hear about him. Thus, if I thoroughly investigate and find incontrovertible proof that someone whom many accept as a Gadol is actually a fraud, or a mushchas b'middos, or he has a corrupted emunah, I will reject him despite the broad public support. However, if there is no such proof, and instead you must twist and contort the simple facts to come up with a bad result, you are violating the Mishnah directly, being motzie shem rah on an Adam Gadol, and you raise questions as to your own emunah, middos, and ehrlichkeit.
@@lsmart do certain Rabbonim have human biases, or not ? Or are they considered Malachim without human biases.
Who is the son of Reb Yom Tov?
All your lectures are very interesting. Thanx.
Your here too??
this pini dunner twists the truth and is apikorus with false and twisted logic. I knew pesonaly both gedolim.
dunner puts biits and pieces of truth but the vast majority is false. and i also knew rav savitzky and rav amsel. They were all talmidie chachomim and they gave me a whole different account about what transpired
Rav Moshe didn't write that you had to make sure the donor is not Jewish. He wrote that since al pi rov, the donors are not Jewish, there is no cheshash and the child will be permitted to all women (I.E. ch' 1, siman 10). The Satmar Rav had a different problem with Rav Moshe's view. Rav Moshe held that mamzeirus can only occur from the sexual act. Therefore he permitted a donor to be a person other than the husband. This, the Satmar Rav disagreed with vehemently.
Very interesting and informative, but I think the Rabbi Savitsky story could have been related without identifying details, seems to be lashon hara, on a deceased person no less.
Also, the conjecture that the Satmar Rav had a personal agenda in opposing Rav Moshe's pesak is difficult to accept, in light of the fact that numerous Gedolei Haposkim similarly took issue with it. e.g. Rav S. Wosner and Rav M. Sternbuch.
While other poskim took issue with the HM psak, none of them had devoted followers who harassed RMF and none of them endorsed the vilification campaign, nor did they stand by as RMF was hounded and mistreated. The SR never once publicly condemned those who behaved badly towards RMF, and in the chasidish world no chosid does anything if there is an inkling that the rebbe disapproves. Those are the facts. With regard to Rav Savitsky, all of the details are in the public arena, including his published articles against RMF and the details of his troubles with the Federal authorities. The point of the story was not to reveal information about Rabbi Savitsky, but to reveal the gadlus of RMF.
Thanks for your prompt reply.
Regarding the Satmar Rav, I don't know what he felt about the attacks on RMF, he certainly didn't ACTIVELY 'endorse the vilification campaign' and I have read in other sources (Rabbi Frankel's book 'The Satmar Rebbe and His English Principal') that he did have a respectful relationship with Rav Moshe and that the disagreements were strictly regarding Halacha. The AI ruling is indeed very controversial and encountered much opposition, but Satmar is one of the largest Chassidic groups and it is only to be expected that there will be hoodlums who will act regardless of what the Rebbe actually feels regarding their antics.
Regarding R' Savitsky, I googled his name and the only NYT article that came up is the obituary. One has to do some considerable searching to uncover the 1970's article about the IRS story. Nowhere in the public arena is there anything about him not apologizing. The same point could have been made about Rav Moshe's gadlus without naming the other party.
Please accept my critique as hopefully being constructive - your lectures are fascinating and I would like to listen to more of them, but I don't want to have a guilty conscience while doing so and constantly wonder if the Chafetz Chaim would approve.
@@RabbiPiniDunner We are old friends (and I want to keep it that way, my critic here notwithstanding)and I'm impressed with your knowledge and oratory skills (which you haven't got from a stranger). As to Rabbi Savitzky zl (who I was zocheh to meet and speak to), even if the trouble with the authorities are in the public arena, they are not well-known here in the UK and it is pure לשון הרע to spread it. Besides that, as you weren't in the house of Rav Moshe zl when Rav Savitzki zl came for that letter and you have no way knowing that he didn't apologize or explain himself, unless you heard that from someone there. You are not allowed to believe that לשון הרע from whoever that was. The הלכות לשון הרע apply even, or perhaps even more so, at a public lecture. הצלחה
@@RabbiPiniDunner YOU SHOULD NEVVVVER TALK LOSHEN HARA ON SOMEONE WHO CANNOT DEFEND THEMSELVES....never mind that he was THE SATMAR REBBE,A TZADDIK GADOL OF VAST PROPORTIONS! What a shame.! That small people can take on a GADOL HADOR! AND P.S. yes, there are unfortunately chasidim who dont exactly listen to everything their Rebbe says. They have their own agenda. Nothing new.
ALSO THE MUNCHAS YITZCHOK, RAV BREISH OF SWITZ ,, MISHNA HALOCHOSINDEPENDENTLY
I cannot see anyone opening a shul school yeshiva named reb moshe feinstain. Where houndred of shuls schools yeshivas opening on the name of the satmar rebbe.
Whoever brings the most donations gets to name the schools and also are the ones who get schools open in general.
סטאפיד סטאפיד סטאפיד ...
Excellent !
What was the point to this lecture?
Don't you see the value of history?
@@marcmorsel9311 why would you believe a word he says
It would have been useful to also mention that a much bigger Chassidic Rebbe was very close to Reb Moshe abd gave him a huge amount of love and Respect. Reb Moshe was very respected by The Lubavitcher Rebbe and reb Moshe and The Lubavitcher Rebbe both mention each other in their respected igros. It's well known for example Reb Moshe returned to putting on Rabanu Tam Tefilin because of The Lubavitcher Rebbe.
Feinstein & Schneerson both came from the post-WWI Stalininst Era, and their turf overlapped in the "old country".
Feinstein lived in Chabad country until he came to US, and came out of an environment where Chabad towns were happy to have "Litvish" yeshivah rabbanim as their town rabbis - most notably - R YM Epstein.
It's the Satmar/eastern Hungary-NW Roumania gang who were isolated and without any local alternative who played at absolute rulers, not the chabad gang who lived and operated along the MInsk-Warsaw railway axis.
@@crankyinvestor 100%
@@crankyinvestor Luban was not "Chabad country" nor were Uzda, Slutzk and Shklov. Very little territory in Russia was "Chabad country".
It is a lie to say that The Lubavitcher Rebe was larger than the Satmar Rebbe. I hate when the Lubavitch lie and twist stories to agrandize themselves. It is trash talk.
Phenomenal! Thank you!
You are confusing artificial insemination ( from the husband) with sperm donation from an outside source. The Igros and many others held that mamzerim can only be created by the sex act otherwise Ben Sira the son of Yiramiyahu would have been a mamzer!
עי רילי קרעיזי פערסון ...
great lecture, how can I see the book online
Wow! What an excellent class! It would be interesting to extract the lessons we can learn from these disputations and apply them to our current state of affairs.
Only if you're dumb enough to believe him
The "St.Mary" chasidim showing their true colors-as expected!
Exactly.
Living in the past. Just look at that them.
Wow, this is very fascinating!
"satmar rav" is probably more accurate than "satmar rebbe" . [although ofcourse he was a rebbe ]
If the issue was of greatest importance why didn't the satmer rebbe go himself to rav moshe?
This guy is completely naive and biased
You linked to totally unrelated items. The satmar RAV was against the heterim.He was against the total disregard of the poskim of the previous generations.Rav Ovadia Yosef permits shaking a woman's hand.Rav Moshe writes he does not know a heter for it. Your controversy is controversial.The question of the Eiruv in 1959 was on all of brooklyn.parts of Brooklyn can have an eiruv, even according to R.Moshe. the rest is politics. Enough said.
Can u find me the teshuvah in which Rav Ovadia Yosef permitted shaking hands with a women
said nothing
Sadly this all adds up from reading the books about them. The Satmar Rov was obsessed with control.
Well, first, you have no right to denigrate a godul betorah. Being a litvak, makes you a biased person. If a chosid would talk the opposite, they’re also biased. However, ALL yidden should be careful not to talk or even give credence to a godul and his views and values.
It’s chutzpah even to say who’s right or wrong and to question them. This is our answer and your talking here, gives bad leadership to our youth that need to respect gedolim. If you can talk against a godul, how are you assured that your children will be ehrliche yidden? Because they will also question gedolim and err c”b.
Now, the word dometz means dayan imoreh tzedek. Meaning: both psakim and ways of life to their community.
A leader has all the right to use his moral ideas to show his opposition to things he’s seen bemesorah. So attacking this and just giving a blank statement against the idea of hashkafah is preposterous.
As far as the world, it’s true that harassment wasn’t allowed by the masses but Satmar within its boundaries, was right to fight for hashkafah. Bobover rebbe respected reb Moshe (it happens to be that the Bobover was a huge Talmud chochum and had approbation from the biggest gedolim in Poland for 4 chelkei shulchan aruch) but was upset at many of his leniencies.
He though was extremely sensitive and very smart with humility and never spoke against a godul, despite him having issues. Matter in fact, he didn’t agree with everything the Satmar said nor what the lubavitch said!
Lubavitch and Satmar were unique in speaking for the world and felt the need to express dissatisfaction. Lubavitch would do this without using names and be careful about talking about gedolim. The Satmar wouldn’t talk publicly against gedolim but it would be obvious whom he’s talking about and did show lots of kanuous in his stands.
So to say that Reb Moshe was the godul hador and anyone else needs to subjugate to him; the eiruv as an example, is like me saying that the Satmar rov was the only godul hador.
I meant ONLY. The Satmar rov, lubavitch, Bobov, kapushnits were are gedolei hador, as well as reb Moshe zt”l. But when you create the defacto godul, it’s dangerous precedence.
Reb Moshe was the Godul in the Lithuanian people, at least in America. R Shlomo zalmin (not my own assessment), was deemed the R’Mishe in eretz hakodesh, and so forth. This whole, who is THE godul that took over reb chaim, rav shach, rav eidelstein, is very foreign to chassidim because although it’s different that it has much more factions and is very aligned to the Rebbe idea, but it was very repulsive when people would say the Satmar rebbe is the godul hador and everyone has to listen to him. Henceforth the idea of finding THE godul is counterproductive and leads to strife.
In conclusion: let’s not try to be apologists to gedolim. Let’s understand that we can’t understand. Let’s understand that every godul had different reasons(not always halacha), why he gave certain pesakim. Definitely not to accuse a godul to be hungry to be the godul hador. It was lesheim shomayim.
shkoyech
Rav Schwartz has legitimate points. Such as on mechitza, artificial insemination, milk, etc.
Maybe he did have legitimate points, but why the nastiness? Even Rav Yosef felt it went too far, and he didn't have a dog in the fight.
same god,Allah