Rabbi Shalom Gold 'Confronts' Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein

Rabbi Shalom Gold has attempted to answer Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein's open letter (PDF download) to Rabbi Avraham Kahane Shapira concerning Disengagement.

Rabbi Gold's main point is the circumstances have changed since Rabbi J.B. Soleveitchik (Rabbi Lichtenstein's father-in-law and teacher, often-quoted in Rabbi Lichtenstein's letter) ruled land could be ceded for reasons of pekuakh nefesh (to save lives). But what Rabbi Gold fails to make clear is Rabbi Kahane Shapira is opposed to ceding land even for reasons of pekuakh nefesh. Further, Rabbi Kahane Shapira's ruling contains internal contradictions as noted by Rabbi Lichtenstein. Rabbi Gold disengenuously does not address these issues, and therefore his 'answer' is no answer at all.

It should be noted that Rabbi Kahane Shapira has himself refused to answer these questions as well, perhaps because in truth there is no answer that is acceptible halakhicly (in Jewish Law). Rabbi Kahane Shapira and his followers have illegally elevated shleimut ha'aretz (unity of the land) to the position of a cardinal mitzva (Divine commandment), a mitzva that overrules all others including pekuakh nefesh. This is akin to idolotry. Worse yet, it is strikingly like the theology of the zealots of the Second Temple whose zealotry lead to the Temple's destruction and almost 2000 years of exile.

Rabbi kahane Shapira owes all of us a clear response to Rabbi Lichtenstein's letter, one that addresses all points and answers all questions. Until he does so, Rabbi Kahane Shapira should not be viewed as anything other than a zealot whose zealotry has led him astray.

[UPDATE: For an understanding of what PM Sharon is trying to achieve, see the article by Victor Davis Hanson linked in the post immediately below.]

Comments

[I Love Hashem]

Why should one support the Disengagement while Jihadists cry happily that the Disengagement is a direct result of their terrorism and that in order to repeat more Disengagements more terrorism is necessary?

Why do we have to support the Disengagement when it is much more productive to retaliate with 5 five missiles after each time they shoot one at us?

How is this Pekuach Nefesh? Why don't we eradicate those vile creatures (the terrorists, not the innocent ones, and anyway there hardly are any innocent Palestinians nowadays, if there ever were) and be finished with it?

[I Love Hashem]

"There is no use in giving concessions. The more you concede, the more generous you are, the more it is seen as weakness and they will attack you again to get more concessions." - former Muslim extremist "Tawfik Hamid"

[Contributor]

You Love Hashem,

You are correct, there is no pikuach nefesh involved in a unilateral retreat under-fire and the handover of Israeli land to a warring enemy. Pikuach nefesh advocates actual law enforcemnt by the government which occupies the land, not allowing terrorists to roam freely under the presumption that it is the enemy's responsibility to prevent terror agains Israeli citizens.

As for innocent Palestinians: If all of the liberated territories were officially annexed, Israeli sovereignty was bestowed upon them, and the Palestinians were given human rights and legal resident status - meaning that they would have the right to work and to national health care but would also be subject to Israeli law and those voiolating it would be incarcerated & prosecuted as any Israeli criminal would be - you'd see how many, many innocent Palestinians there really are. Do you really think that under such circumstances most Palestinians would be criminals fighting against the "Zionist occupation"?

[imainish]

I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Rabbi Gold makes some excellent points. Rewarding and moving terrorist closer seems like creating a situation of Pikuach Nefesh not avoiding one. You disingenuously compare this situation to the era of the Second Temple. Surrender in that situation would have brought about peace. This won't. The Palestinians have never wavered from their objective which is the complete annihilation of the Jewish State. They are celebrating the disengagement from Aza as just a first step. Also, I'm a little surprised that you so easily dismiss the financial misdeeds of the Sharon family and friends which is more than likely the cause of this disastrous shift in policy. Taking into account the quotes that headline your blog I suggest you stick to uncovering the fraud at Chabad.

[MP]

Rabbi Shapira's grandson, Rabbi Avraham Yisrael Silvetzky, wrote a response to Rabbi Lichtenstein's letter. This response "addresses all points and answers all questions". Rabbi Gold provided a link to that response in his article. http://www.a7.org/article.php3?id=4791
But Scott, Rabbi Silvetzky's response is written in Hebrew, so you are excused for not being able to understand it.

[Shmarya]

Rabbi Lichtenstein's main points are, 1) That land ***CAN*** be ceded for reasons of pekuakh nefesh and, 2) Military, intellegence and political experts are allowed to make those decisions.

Rabbi Kahane Shapira is demanding shleimut ha'aretz become more important than pekuakh nefesh. Rabbi Lichtenstein confronts him on this point, and Rabbi Kahane Shapira does not answer the challenge.

One can disagree on whether ceding Gaza and isolated settlements in the West Bank is – or is not – pekuakh nefesh. But one cannot raise shleimut ha'aretz to a position supreme to all other mitzvot. This is what Rabbi Kahane Shapira has done.

For an understanding of what PM Sharon is trying to achieve, see Victor Davis Hanson's article here:
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2005/08/why_sharon_was_.html

[Shmarya]

MP –

I must say that my Hebrew is not good enough to make an accurate translation. But in reading through the response, I do not see that Rabbi Lichtenstein's main points are answered. Any lo ta'ase (negative commandment) outside of the cardinal three can be violated for pekuakh nefesh. Further, the decision to violate is based not on rabbis but on experts in the field – doctors, military leaders, political figures. The only cases where this is not true go to humra (strict understanding of the law). For example, many dental emergencies mandate violation of Shabbat even if doctors say such violation is not necessary – we err on the side of life and break Shabbat anyway. But in cases where experts say Shabbat must be violated to save lives, it must be violated. This is normative halakha.

But, again, shleimut ha'aretz does ***NOT*** trump pekuakh nefesh, and decisions of pekuakh nefesh are made by experts, not rabbis – that is the halakha.

If you are able, please make a translation of this Hebrew response and I'll post it.

Thanks …

[MP]

I do not have enough free time on my hands to translate such a lenghty response. But it seems to me your Hebrew was not only "not good enough to make an accurate transaltion". You are way out of your depth here, as you are on virtually all matters addressed by this blog.
Regarding the main point of your concern: Rabbi Silvetzky quotes from the Minchas Chunich that explains why pikkuach nefesh is only doche the mitzvah of kibbush veishuv hooretz if it is pikkuach nefesh derabbim, not pikkuach nefesh of yechiddim as is the case with all other commandments. He further explains that even according to those that disagree with the Minchas Chinnuch - presumably the Rav z"l - would, at the very least, have to agree that as it is in any case where 2 experts differ in their opinion in the extreme (i.e. Doctor A holds that a given procedure will help the patient and Doctor B holds it will not only not help, but even hurt the patient), the klal of shev veal taaseh must be invoked in the Gaza case where expert opinions likewise differ.
To sum up:
1. That pikkuach nefesh deyochid is not doche the mitzvah of kibbush hooretz – is a valid and old hallachic position.
2. Even those that do not subscribe to that opinion, must take into account the diametrically opposing expert opinions on the matter of Gaza withdrawal and pasken “shev veal taaseh” - thus no heter for withdrawal.

[Shmarya]

1. That in no way answers Rabbi Lichtenstein's questions.

2. Many security and military experts see the Disengagement as a ***GOOD*** thing. Others do not. But the government itself has to make the decision, and did so based on the best information available.

3. The Minchat Chinuch is does not "doche" (push off) all other normative halakha.

4. Rabbi Lichtenstein correctly points out that Rabbi Kahane Shapira has raised shleimut ha'aretz above pekuakh nefesh. This is ***AGAINST*** normative halakha.

5. We're not talking about pekuakh nefesh for an individual. We're talking about pekuakh nefesh for a an entire country. To claim otherwise is foolish at best and an outright lie at worst.

[Shmarya]

Further, according to your (and RAKS's grandson's) logic, as long as experts disagree, even if the majority support Disengagement, or the most prominent support Disengagement, the status quo must be maintained.

This is foolish and a complete misrepresentation of the halakhic system.

The Rebbe tried to pull something similar to this off by having every Chabad yeshiva student obtain watered-down 'smicha'. He then claimed that the "majority of rabbis agree …" with whatever Chabad's agenda was. And, in fact, Chabad used the same tactic with Disengagement. But that is not how halakha works.

[MP]

"This is foolish and a complete misrepresentation of the halakhic system"
So says Scott about the words of a talmid chochom, the words Scott - by his own admission - can't even read very well. People, is this not the very epitome of the bizarre?
I will not bother commenting on your points further, since everyone that CAN read & comprehend rabbinic Hebrew can see for themselves that you did not at all understand Rabbi Silvetzky’ response. So here is that link again:
http://www.a7.org/article.php3?id=4791

[Shmarya]

MP –

Not at all.

I don't feel competent to translate the letter. I wrote that ***YOU*** could translate it and I would publish that translation.

***YOU REFUSED.***

If you feel I misunderstand the letter you refused to translate, explain how I misunderstand. And, while you're at it, stop equating language skill with intellegence or knowledge.

You have choices:

1. Translate the letter.

2. Show how I misunderstand the letter.

--or--

3. Do both.

[MP]

I have NOT equated language skills with intelligence. I merely pointed the obvious - a person not comfortable in rabbinic Hebrew lacks, by definition, any semblance of expertise to pass judgment on any Rabbi's halachic opinion, and surely not on the "halachic system" in general.
As to the rest of your points - I am satisfied that the folks who can read the response in Hebrew will be able to judge for themselves.

[Shmarya]

No.

Let them understand that an arrogant Chabad sympathiser refuses to specify what I have misunderstood.

[settler]

The Michas Chinuch raises very valid points concerning the mitzva of milchemet mitzvah (and by extension the lav of Lo T'chanem, of not weakening the army, Mitzvat Yishuv Haaretz, etc. etc) Simply put it is impossible to perform these mitzvot without people dying - unless one is reliant upon miracles (will that make RAL, RYBS and/or Shmarya messianists?). We have never been treated to a serious explanation of how RYBS and/or RAL deal with this michas chinuch, how they define the parameters of pikuach nefesh and how they see the issue of milchemet mitzvah in contradistinction to the Minchas Chinuch. RAKS has NOT elevated yishuv haaretz ABOVE pikuach nefesh. He has just applied normative halachic principles of milchemet mitzva and yishuv haaretz to this situation. BTW, no one in the government ever said the entire state will collapse if we do not leave Gaza - not once. They never even siad lives will be saved - if anything they said the opposite. As Rav Slylvetsky writes in Hebrew, it is RAL who made some amorphous assumptions regarding the ability of the army to function if soldiers don't listen to the government. Arguable assumptions at best. He also points out the tautological inconsistencies within RAL's position - so much for RAKS being contradictory.

I fail to see how RAL took any basic Pikuah Nefesh calculations into consideration in reaching his p'sak halacha. Between 1967 and 1993 (Oslo Acords and removal of IDF from Gaza), 90 soldiers and civilians were killed in the Gaza Strip area. That's less than 4 per year. From 1993 until 2003, 179 Israelis were killed - that's over 15 per year. From 2003 when the disengagement plan was announced until the actual implementation, 49 were killed in 18 months. Where's the Pikuach Nefesh? Did RAL even have these statistics in front of him when he wrote his psak halacha. Or is he relying on secular/political considerations in saying "we trust the government". Is this what RYBS meant when he said we rely on the experts - that we take it at face value and then make our halachic decision based upon what they say. If I ask rabbi about a medical issue (e.g. amputation) and he says go to a DR. and the doctor says "trust me, amputate - it will save your life" do I take that at face value, and does the Rabbi take this at face value when allowing chabala to be performed? or do we do our own analysis as well - especially if their are conflicting opinins? Do we examine the success/failure rate of this surgery? of other options? Did any of this cross RAL's mind when he wrote his p'sak halacha or his subsequent letter? Did RAL take any other economic or opportunity cost considerations into account as well? How many lives will be lost b/c there is no budget for medicines or treatements or road accident prevention over the next decade b/c of the 15 million spent on the disengagement, and the severe blow this might be to the Israeli economy? Are those lives less in number than the 4 per year that was the norm when the IDF controlled the Gaza Strip? Did RAL take this into account as well?

[Shmarya]

Funny, isn't it, that the vast majority of poskim agree with Rabbi Lichtenstein and not with Rabbi Kahane Shapira.

Perhaps their language skills are simply weak.

[Sebi]

Th majority of Rabbis beleive in the idea of giving up land for peace because the majority of rabbis are cowards.

Think for a second, if giving up land for pikuah nefesh is what is mandated by the Torah, the the Meraglim(Spies) did what the Halakha demands.

They discouraged Bnei yisrael from conquering the land in order to save jewish lives. Pikuah nefesh.

It's amazing to see the writer of failed messiah who delights in attacking every Rabbi and religious person that he sees, suddenly become a pious type. Talking about how we must listen to Rabbi lichtenstein and the majority of Rabbis.

What a Joke.

What I said about the Spies doing the correct thing according to this halakhic reason is TRUE.

TRUE. TRUE. TRUE. TRUE. TRUE.

And no amount of cowardly Rabbis can change that simple fact.

[YEHOSHUA SHILONI]

After 5 years of whether it was permissible to give land to terrorists or not because of "pikuach nefesh" (or not), in hindsight Rabbi Shapira and the Nationalist camp were 100% right!
In today's situation, returning even one inch to terrorists, let alone half the country is suicidal madness, no matter how many guarantees we get from america or how many "we can handle it" evaluations from the "chachamim" in the IDF.
Anyone with a brain in his head can see that we are dealing with terrorists, and for a solution, there is one, REMOVE THEM FROM THIS WORLD!