I have to say, that I didn't expect it, but they did what's right.
Here is the editorial of the Yeshivaworld blog: in response to the maniacal rant of the Romanian Rabbi.
Yelamdeinu Rabbeinu.
There is a recording of the Rav’s recent talk on the tragedy of the murder of three precious neshamos in Klal Yisroel.
Among the Rav’s words were the following:
“Instead of just eulogizing [their children] they should have also said ashamnu bagadnu, klap all chait, that we had a portion in this.. They caused the retzicha of their own children.”
One can understand the Rav’s view on Zionism. One can also understand the Rav’s view on the three shavuos that Klal Yisroel took. What I cannot understand, however, and this meant with the utmost respect, is how does the Rav read a simple Gemorah? It is in Bava Metziah 58b.
Tanu Rabbanan: Our Rabbis Taught
Lo sonu ish es amito ...........A person should not anguish his friend
B’onaas Dvarim hakasuv medaber.. The pasuk is speaking about anguish brought through words..
Ha Kaitzad?.. What are examples of this?..
Im hayu yisurin ba-in alav.. If he was suffering from difficulties..
Oh shehaya mekaver es banav Or he was burying his sons
Al yomar lo kederech He should NOT SAY TO HIM in the manner
Sh’amru lo chaveirav l’Iyov that Iyov’s friends said to him
“Surely, your fear was your foolishness, your hope and the sincerity of your ways. Remember now, who was innocent that perished? And where were the upright destroyed?”
The words that the Rav spoke seem to be in direct contradiction to this Gemorah.
Does the Rav feel that this Gemorah is not l’halacha?
How can this be? All the Poskim quote it.
Does the Rav feel that these parents are not within the category of Amito? This also cannot be because the Rav’s words described the children as precious neshamos in Klal Yisroel.
The prohibition of Onaas Dvarim is very severe. It is also true that the Rav would never knowingly violate this issur.
One can only conclude that the Rav -
1] feels that it is permitted to speak like Iyov’s friends if the words do not reach the person suffering.
2] was unaware that his words would be recorded and would reach the ears of the parents too.
Unfortunately, the second point is not true. Whenever anything is said publically or recorded one should make an assumption that others will hear of it.
I am certain then that the Rebbe will correct this error at the first opportunity,
With blessings of peace and achdus,
Dovid Kates
Here is the editorial of the Yeshivaworld blog: in response to the maniacal rant of the Romanian Rabbi.
Yelamdeinu Rabbeinu.
There is a recording of the Rav’s recent talk on the tragedy of the murder of three precious neshamos in Klal Yisroel.
Among the Rav’s words were the following:
“Instead of just eulogizing [their children] they should have also said ashamnu bagadnu, klap all chait, that we had a portion in this.. They caused the retzicha of their own children.”
One can understand the Rav’s view on Zionism. One can also understand the Rav’s view on the three shavuos that Klal Yisroel took. What I cannot understand, however, and this meant with the utmost respect, is how does the Rav read a simple Gemorah? It is in Bava Metziah 58b.
Tanu Rabbanan: Our Rabbis Taught
Lo sonu ish es amito ...........A person should not anguish his friend
B’onaas Dvarim hakasuv medaber.. The pasuk is speaking about anguish brought through words..
Ha Kaitzad?.. What are examples of this?..
Im hayu yisurin ba-in alav.. If he was suffering from difficulties..
Oh shehaya mekaver es banav Or he was burying his sons
Al yomar lo kederech He should NOT SAY TO HIM in the manner
Sh’amru lo chaveirav l’Iyov that Iyov’s friends said to him
“Surely, your fear was your foolishness, your hope and the sincerity of your ways. Remember now, who was innocent that perished? And where were the upright destroyed?”
The words that the Rav spoke seem to be in direct contradiction to this Gemorah.
Does the Rav feel that this Gemorah is not l’halacha?
How can this be? All the Poskim quote it.
Does the Rav feel that these parents are not within the category of Amito? This also cannot be because the Rav’s words described the children as precious neshamos in Klal Yisroel.
The prohibition of Onaas Dvarim is very severe. It is also true that the Rav would never knowingly violate this issur.
One can only conclude that the Rav -
1] feels that it is permitted to speak like Iyov’s friends if the words do not reach the person suffering.
2] was unaware that his words would be recorded and would reach the ears of the parents too.
Unfortunately, the second point is not true. Whenever anything is said publically or recorded one should make an assumption that others will hear of it.
I am certain then that the Rebbe will correct this error at the first opportunity,
With blessings of peace and achdus,
Dovid Kates
לכבוד הגאון הרב הצדיק יסוד עולם סוע”ה כקש”ת מו”ה אהרן טייטלבוים
שליט”א, אדמו”ר דסאטמער
ילמדנו רבינו. ישנה קלטת של שיחת רבינו בענין האסון של רציחת ג’ נפשות
בישראל ר”ל.
ובתוך דבריו, הרב אמר:
“ובמקום הספד היה להם לומר אשמנו בגדנו וגם שהיה להם ל”קלאפ” על חטא
שהיה לנו חלק בזה (ברציחה זו).” ושוב אמר, “ההורים אשמים ברציחת בנם.”
ניתן להבין את שיטת הרב בענין הציונות. וגם ניתן להבין את שיטת הרב
בענין הג’ שבועות [שלא לעלות בחומה]. אבל קשה לי מאד להבין, איך הרב מבין דברי
גמרא מפורשת בבבא מציעא נח ע”ב.
לא תונו איש את עמיתו – באונאת דברים הכתוב מדבר. אתה אומר באונאת
דברים, או אינו אלא באונאת ממון? כשהוא אומר וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך או קנה מיד
עמיתך – הרי אונאת ממון אמור, הא מה אני מקיים לא תונו איש את עמיתו – באונאת
דברים. הא כיצד? אם היה בעל תשובה אל יאמר לו זכור מעשיך הראשונים, אם היה בן גרים
אל יאמר לו זכור מעשה אבותיך, אם היה גר ובא ללמוד תורה אל יאמר לו פה שאכל נבילות
וטריפות, שקצים ורמשים בא ללמוד תורה שנאמרה מפי הגבורה. אם היו יסורין באין עליו,
אם היו חלאים באין עליו, או שהיה מקבר את בניו, אל יאמר לו כדרך שאמרו לו חביריו
לאיוב הלא יראתך כסלתך תקותך ותם דרכיך זכר נא מי הוא נקי אבד.
ובמחילת כבודו לכאורה דברי הרב הנ”ל הם ממש כנגד דברי הגמרא הנ”ל. ואיך
יתכן? האם הרב ס”ל שלא ק”ל כהגמרא להלכה? הלוא כל הפוסקים מביאין הדברים כפשוטם.
ואם הרב ס”ל שההורים יצאו מכלל אמיתך, הרי לא משמע שזה שיטתו מכיון שהרב בעצמו
דיבר על ג’ נפשות יקרות מישראל.
והנה ידוע שאיסור אונאת דברים חמור מאד ולא יתכן שהרב יעבור על איסור זה
במזיד חלילה. אלא ע”כ ס”ל לרבינו שמותר לומר דברים של אונאה שלא בפניו של זה שנפגע
– אם בטוח שדבריו לא יגיעו לזה שקובר את בניו. אך בזמנינו דבר זה לא שייך, שכל
דברים של אדם נכתבים ונקלטטים מיד. ובטוחני שרבינו יתקן הטעות בסי המהירות.
בברכת שלום ואחדות,
דוד קייטז
