Though, logicly and Halachicly I still think I'm correct, and for that Rabbi Kacev didn't even put up a challenge. The issue itself was already went over many times in the last posts. I still cannot believe someone Like Rav Aharon would say such a thing. I also would like to point out, that if Rabbi Kacev was realy interested in Bizu T.C., he would acknowledge what I wrote from one of is (hopefully mis)quote that it's a horrible Bizai T.C. and retract from it. But, just in case, that the truth is that Rav Aharon did happen to say such a thing (which I doubt) I retract my words and will be left with a Tzurech Iyun what Rav Aharon meant

Rav. Chiam--What is more important: the argument or the proper conclusion?One possable answer is that it is the argument that is more important. Our existance depends, in part, upon our ability to anilyze problems and evaluate alternative solutions. The better the argument, the more critical the analysis. Our survival as a people depends on good arument. Another answer is that it is the correct conclusion that is more important. Positiopn A (which is the incorrect conclusion) may be presented by the most erriodite advocate who has at hand numerous citations to sourses far more famious, and elusterous, then his opponant. But if he, and his sources, are wrong, a thousand angels swearing he is right won't make him so. Although, when we examine the "quality" of thoughts expressed by those who came before us, it is helpful, in guaging how much faith to have in them, to consider how their teachings have been accepted by others, claiming one sage to be "more right" then another is counter productive. We are tought to "accept wisdom from whatever source." We are tought to learn from all with whom we have contact. It is up to us, with the brain that Hashem gave us, to sort the truth from the fiction. Can a fool express wisdom? Doesen't a blind pigion occationally find an acorn? Hashem did not intend that man should cease thinking 3500 years ago. You may find authority for the proposition that I do not stub my toe unless it is first called out in heaven, but I think Hashem has more important things to do then be consered about whether I fail to walk carefully today. You may find Biblical authoity that the world is less then 5800 years old, but science, and the brain that Hashem gave us, says it is hundreds of millions of years old. I can't ignore the truth because some athiest finds evolution to be a good argument that there is no G-d. I disagree with him as to the conclusion to be drawn from the fact that after 3500 years man has made discoveries that seem to contradict the Bible. I am a Theist. My belief that there is a G-d is not bassed on "facts" nor upon a literal interpitation of the Bible. I think that Man who walks this earth today is far more inteligent and sophisticated then his ancesters who walked this earth 3500 years ago. I think that Man, today, is better able to interpit the Bible then he was 3500 years ago. Hashem sends the message. Man's understanding of it improves as Man becomes more educated. Rav Chiam---I have "faith" that Hashem is G-d and that He is "one." I don't claim to "know" this is trure. I will not have that "knowledge" in this world. In the world to come, I may have that "knowedge," or I may have to continue being satisfied with "faith."

All the world is Torah. Do not be afraid to study.

Dear Andrew,
I would like to say it doesn’t bother me to say the world is Millions years old, and rely on the theories of Dr. Gerald Schroeder that 6 days of creation from the outskirts of the universe translates to millions of years according to the theory of relativity. Nor does it bother me about evolution per se. I don’t even claim I know what the Torah means by 6 days of creation, taking on that I never learnt the part of torah of “Maaseh B’raishes” that has the secrets of the Torah in it of the creation, which is only taught to those that are experts in Talmud and the commentaries. As I realize that in the parts that I know that all is not the way it seems. For example, “an eye for an eye” is not literal, but rather money, so to creation there is a possibility that it’s referring to other things.
What I’m saying is, after all this, how do we know what is the real truth is. Evolution is called “the theory of evolution.” By definition it’s not a fact but rather a theory. It’s not by all means proven, nor is it universally accepted. PBS did a documentary about evolution and claimed that all scientists nowadays believe in evolution. Shortly afterwards, there was an ad in the NY Times, saying that they don’t believe in evolution and was signed by 100 scientists. So, we must keep in mind that we can’t accept evolution as absolute fact, especially if one studies the criticisms of the theory. Thus I recommended highly the Richard Milton book, which is exelently written, by a non-creationist, and writes in plain English these criticisms. Please read it and you’ll be amazed at the logically sound criticisms of evolution (some of them I brought down in the last post on this subject, therefore I need not repeat it). Even the age of the universe is not universally accepted. In the above book brings down criticisms of the dating process, For example, the carbon dating, There is proof that the atmosphere is not saturated with carbon 14 yet, which scientist say would take 30,000 years, hence the earth has to be younger than that. Also it proves that the carbon 14 wasn’t in a constant over the years, thus would make the content of carbon 14 useless to date anything. Further more, the byproduct of carbon 14 would be helium (that has 2 protons that would be left after the carbon 14 turns into carbon 12) and the world is not dominated with that much helium. So the scientist must say that it’s escaping into space. The only problem is that it’s presently gaining helium from space, and not vice versa. So scientist must say that there was a reverse in the gaining/losing of helium. This is all but speculative without any proof, nor it’s not the simple explanation for that data, it just has to fit into their belief system.

So to review
Please read the above book, and many other books of the type, so you should at least realize the scientific literature against evolution and for “the young earth theory.
Secondly, I’m not trying to prove one way or another. I’m just saying you must go into the subject with an open mind, and not to be impressed because the “scientific establishment” (which became that way more for the political aspects than their scientific aspects.) says something (which is very applicable to other political endeavors. Like you wrote in the beginning of your piece, we must realize what is the truth and come with an open mind.

Firstly, in all fairness to the Rashba, perhaps Beit Yosef dident included him amongst the "3 pillars" simply because he dident have a copy of his works. This is evident from the fact the he ussually quotes him from a third party source(often the Magid Mishne).
Perhaps an interesting Shmiras Haloshon lesson we may learn from this is that, we cant "pasken" based on what we hear, regardless of how reiliable the transmiter of the "information" is.

R' Chaim,
Without getting into the disscusion of B.T.C., i would have to agree with your comment but i think thats only half the story. To say that most people (Gedolim aside) are influenced by thier enviroment is quite true and to say that people are "scared" to pass judgment because of PC is also true. This would therfore influence their understanding of the situation one way. This does not mean that all those would say the opposite are free of outside influence when the look at this situation. ie. people who take a harsher view, G-ds wratth and punishment, arent necasarily doing so becuase this is what the torah says, but rather because they are predisposed to look at all people and situations stringantly.
In short, although those who dont pass judgment might be doing so because of PC (or because the look at everything with an ayin tov), those who do pass judgment might be doing so because they are natrualy more negative and strict.
With this said, and no mortal is born free from either of the above-mentioned nature, who can say that their interpritation of the Torah is absolute truth, rather then just their one sided prespective. The torah in broad enough and complex enough to find support for either view, but the Emet lyes in the balance and synthesis of both. This precise balance is a life long quest, somthing truly G-dly (see Rashis comment on Kachatzot Halayla, Shemot 11,4).
For an example to this we would ahve to look no further than Rashis pirush on last weeks parsha. On 20,1 Rashi explain that G-ds name of "strict jugment" is used to speack the 10 commandments, as opposed to a more merciful name, to teach that G-d will "collect from those who dont adhear to the law.
Yet, on the very next verse Rashi commants that G-ds revalation at sini was like an "old sage full of mercy"!
Now, the first camp would sight the second verse proving that even when G-d speacks the law he does so with great mercy, while the second camp would sight the first verse to show G-ds "vengance" to collect. Whos Right?
Rashis explainations dont controdict themselves, but rather the balacne of both together is the truth.

Even if one could prove (which is not possible, but for arguments sake) that G-d is "debt collector", who could claim to know the system He uses to calculate what is owed to Him.
1. It goes without saying that we as finite mortals have "less than zero" understanding of an infinite G-d. A child cant understand why his mother takes away his sweets, and both are of finite understanding, and the child will one day understand his mothers actions, are we than to understand the ways of an infinate G-d, what a (bad) joke. We just dont see the full picture.
2. G-d just dosent use the same system we do. Again to the 10 commandments. in pasuk 20, 5-6 its say G-d pays back 3 or 4 generations for sins and 2000 generations for keepers of the commandments. The human mind and justice system dosent understand a number of things here,
1. Why, at all, is one punished or rewareded because of what has been done by other people, who lived long ago and we've never even met!
2. Why am i Being punished (extra) because of the actions ancestors 3 or 4 generations ago.
3. Why am i being rewarded for the deeds of Adam, Avraham, Yackov etc.
4. And why is there no fair balance between punishment (3 or 4 generations) and reward (2000 generations!!!).
G-ds balance sheet dosent work like ours. G-ds way are clearly just and just as clearly out of human comprehension.
It is insulting for a human mind, blinded by his nature (to be leniant or strict), limited to its finiteness, and totaly out of touch with G-ds perfect justice system to theorize any explains.
Insulting to G-d. Insulting to the victims.

Along these lines i would suggest to andrew that, A) For G-d to monitor wether or not we stud out toe, would be no more insignificant to him than orcustrating world peace. Both are finite happenings, of themseleves equally insignificant to his infinatness. The only significance they have is that he willed it so (Why? Because). To us one may be great and the other insignificant, but to His infinatness, no differance. Just imagine how insiginficant peace on earth seems compared to the running of our (so called) "solar system". and then compared to our galaxy. and then compared to all the other galaxies, with the own systems and stars and planets... not much more than who stubs their toe tommorow morning.
In the same vein i would suggest that all the evidance (assuming it is legit) could very well have been placed in the world by G-d to give it the impression of being older than it is. For example, Adam was created not as a baby but as a 20 year old knowledgeable in gradening. Although he was only a day old, all examinations (carbon dating etc.) would give results closer to 20.
Another example, diamonds need about
3 billion years in the earth to get ready. I dont see any contradiction between this and the 5765 year old earth i live on. Its, in order to allow us to fulfil the Mitzvah of adorning a bride with jewels, G-d put diamonds in the earth when he created it.

Dear Chaim of L.A.,
I'll have to disagree with you on certain accounts. Firstly, I disagree with the premise of absolute middleness, that yuo take the furthest views and devide it by half. There are real truths in Torah, that you just can't fit all views in Torah. We must analize each caase seperate and come to a possible conclusion that doesn't need to be all accepting.
Of course we might not understand everything Hashem does, but things could make sense. the kid could understand why the parents are punishing him. the gemarah in beggining of Brachos deals with the question of tzadik V'rah lo and Rasha V'tov lo. It seems not to be worried by TZadik V'tov Lo and Rasha V'rah lo. According to you, everything should fit in the same umbrella, that we should have no clue why Hashem does anything.

The Rashi from Yisro I think doesn't have anything to do with our question. Over there when he gave the Torah he was not Paying back anybody. The whole question seemed to be a personality change, thus someone could make a mistake that there are 2 of Him (Chas Vsholom) thus We are pointed out that HE's one and the same.

(As far as the Rashba is concerned, I think the Bais Yosef quotes him enough straight from his Chidushim, toras Habayis and TShuva to conclude that he did have his writings, which would make sense, since he was one of the great poskim of S'fard. There where plenty other great rishonim that he doesn't count as the 3Poskim including RAmban , RAoh, RAmah, RAn etc. it's just that teh Big 3 where, in B"Y opinion a, above the rest.)

R' Chaim,
A. My point wasent that the middle of the two extremes is the torah view. The torah prespective dosent shift towards the middle change as one view becomes more extreme. Niether is this view all accpeting, quite the opposite. As a human we will never be able to precisley pin-point the absolute truth, just like we cant pin-point the moment of midnight. It just isent humanly possible.
B. "Of course we might not understand everything Hashem does, but things could make sense." I feel this statment indicates you dident see my point. In short, the ways of G-d are so removed from us that, even that we think we understand is hardly correct. G-d dosent use the same ssytem we do, so its foolish to draw conclusions for His actions through out understanding. A moshal to illustrate: In the old days people would fill up a barrel of water one a week use if to wash clothes,clean dishes and other house hold chores. Before the fresh water was filled up, the old, and by now quite tasty water was placed into the cows trough to drink. Lucky thing. It once happened that at a certain house the old maid retired and a new maid, not familiar with the custom of giving the water to the cow, was hired. Instead of pouring the water for the cow, she poured it out into the yard. The cow was understandably quite upset, but excused the maid assuming she just forgot. The same happened the next week and the cow was getting frustrated. By the thrid week of not recieving his "tasty" water the cow relized shes not forgetting, shes wothholdign this delacitcy purposely. But why, thoguht the cow. She have relized how good the water is, and kept it for herself!!
C.My intention of the mother keeping the candy from her child was to save his teeth, and not as a punishment to the child, as you understood. Is this perhaps an indication that you are natraly leaning towards strict-judgement, rather than mercy. (i obviously mean no offence in writing this.) or perhaps it was just because we were talking about reward and punishment.
D.As i worte in the begging of my comment, the torah of divinly inspiried Talmidai Chachamim, arent under these natral influences. But thats for a differant topic.
E. Rashi point is the best proof. G-ds revalations are multi-dimensiaonal, to the point that sometimes Hes reveled as a warrior, somtimes as a merciful sage, and somtimes both at the same time.
(F. Perhaps i "jumped the gun" with my comment about the rashba. in the dinim im currently learning (when i can make time), Eruvin, the BY never quotes the Rashba directly, but always from the MM. i did a random cheack and that yielded the same result. If there is proof the the opposite, i retract a statment made to hastily.)

a) Even without being able to pinpoint (even by the midmnight there are Terutzim there that you could.) You're not going to be off by much. Either you'll get 11:59:59 or 12:00:01. (since you're in Eiruvin, you can explain according to TOSFOS 5B-6A BY Ei Efshar Ltzamtaim, that it either could be a Masahu more or less.
b) Of course, if Hashem wants he can do things over our understanding, but it doesn't mean he has to. for instance,when I answer a question, I can choose to answer in a way that is above the level of the questionaire, and use technical terms that they wouldn't understand, or I can choose to explain it on their level. Thus both are possible, how do we know which way Hashem chose to do for us. Thus we need to look to Chazal. in Brachos 5a "If Yesurim comes to a person, he should check out his deeds, if he doesn't find anything, he should blame it on bitul torah, and if that not then it's Yesurin Shel Ahavah." If according to your assumption that Hashem's ways are above our understanding how he deals with people and Yesurim, then wouldn't such a checking be futile to finding the cause of the Yesurim? Wouldn't it be like a shot in the dark? Chazal is saying quite strongly that we can find the Mekor of yesurim.
C. My reason for judgement was that's what we are talking about. The reason why I feel strongly about it, because this is written about it plenty of times in Chazal.
E. Rashi has nothing to do with the question. What judgement was taken place that HAshem was holding back from doing by Matan torah that you're proving that Hashem doesn't pay back. On the contrary, in B"K it says that "Kol Haomar Hakadush Baruch hu Mivater hu Vitar Es Chayuv"
F. I did a piece of B"Y last night (last half of O.C. 177) and he quoted the Rashba directly like 6 times. I think that he only quotes him from the MM when the MM quotes him, because it was more used by the masses (as the Noseh Keli of the Rambam) so it was more popular, as we would quote M"A from MB, even though we definitely have the MA

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rav Chaim:

b) "Thus we need to look to Chazal. in Brachos 5a "If Yesurim comes to a person, he should check out his deeds, if he doesn't find anything, he should blame it on bitul torah, and if that not then it's Yesurin Shel Ahavah." If according to your assumption that Hashem's ways are above our understanding how he deals with people and Yesurim, then wouldn't such a checking be futile to finding the cause of the Yesurim? Wouldn't it be like a shot in the dark? Chazal is saying quite strongly that we can find the Mekor of yesurim."

This Gemmorah has no bearing on our question. The Gemmorah was speaking about checking for one's OWN fault not judging someone ELSES.

Rav Chaim said:
"The reason why I feel strongly about it, because this is written about it plenty of times in Chazal".

I have already brought a Psak from Rav Aharon Soloveichik as well as other Rabbonim stating that it is Halachakily forbidden to attribute fault to tradgedys involving other people.
I have yet to hear a quote from one other Possek yet that disagrees with this psak.
We have only been quoted statements from the Gemmorah as above that have no bearing on this.

I f Rav Chaim has a psak from a poseik let him let us know who it is.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
" Your quoting Rabbi Blech that those who say why tragedies happen are practicing bad theology which is worse than bad behavior. This is the thrust of these words that are being quoted from him. Which, if you think of it, saying that it's worse than being Michallel Shabbos. So besides being wrong, but basically calling Gedolim that do say such things, in fact, Apikorsim, Chas V'shalom. Uffur Lape"

As I said before we have yet to hear of a Godol who disagrees so how can there be any Bizuui Chachamim involved here.

a) Other answer or the pshat in tosafot are irrelevant to this discussion. Tosfot is talking in halachic terms, but the fact remains clear, it is humanly impossible to give precise measurements on anything. Not a wall of four amot and not the precise moment of midnight. In halacha we deal with the working model, that if one were to pull out a ruler and measure 4 amot carefully, we’ll consider this “efshar l’tzamzem”. But the fact remain the wall will be over or under four amot, perhaps even by only 0.0000001%.
While it is true we will be around the general area, but 11:59:59 is Sunday, and 12:00:01 is Monday, two totally different days.

b) Rabbi Kacev has already pre-empted me on the obvious answer, Thank you. To even have a passing thought to group the tragedy that befalls another C”V with the tragedy that befalls ones self C”V, indicates to me that perhaps we are on totally different pages regarding this issue. Would you say, it would be within the spirit of Chazals statement to reason away another persons tragedy by saying “that probably comes from his Bitul Tora”. I hope not.

c) As I pointed out before our Tora is broad enough to find source to many types of ideas. The truth however lyes in the combined total of all these ideas. By contrasting two apparently conflicting ideas, we can come to a new, better and truer understanding of each one. This concept should be familiar to any student of Tosfot.

e) I brought Rashi as an example to show that Hashems revelation is multi dimensional, even conflicting and sometimes both at the same time.

f) I retract my observation. I still haven’t come across such an instance is Eruvin. I don’t however retract the lesson.

To R. kacev:
As regards of the question of the difference between understanding your Yesurim and other Yesurim. I don't understand that. If the question is, are Hashem's way of punishment understandable, then we can understand punishment wether or not it happened to me or someone else. The same if it can't be understood, then nobody should understand. How could it be that I could understand my own punishment and someone else could be completely off, even though that person is much smarter than me? My proof from that Gemarah is that punishment is understandable

About Gedolim who gave reasons for the Holocaust where Rav Shach, Rav Avigder miller (I think he wrote a book or pamphlet on it) and Rav Ovadya Yosef. I also heard From RAv N. wolpin that Rabbitzen Geltzaler told him that her father, rabbi E. Dessler, also said when the attrocities where happining in europe, that you can dig up Mendolsan and point to what started this.

To C. of L.A.:
In Halacha, we deal with Svaros that are mistaber, and Rov and chazakos. We don't need to be precise, as long as we know it's around there. So, even if I'm a little bit off, the point is not, since it's deffinitely in the same area. BTW, in both cases, we Paskin Efsher Ltzamzem BBnai Adam. We also say that Moshe really knew the time of chatzos, but he was afraid the Mitzriem will make a mistake. This is what Rashi brings in chumish.

The broad Torah issue, that there can never be any Maskanah to anything, I don't agree on. Of course not every thing is simple, and needs Shakla V'taryos, questions and answers. But at the end, there should be a Maskana. Even the Rashi you brought have a Maskanah. Of course you look at the big picture, but after the big picture it will tell you what is Mistaber to be the Maskanah. Thus if I made a statement, and you tell me that there is a Mifairush a gemarah against it, and i have a gemarah, thus together we'll find a resalution to the apparent controdiction. but if I bring a Gemarah, and you say that there is no proof from that Gemarah, because the Torah is broad and maybe there is some Gemarah or Medrish that might controdict them, this of course is not something that I feel needs to be worried about. If so, we might as well never say any Hashkafa or Halacha, because maybe lurking out there is this one thing that we might of overlooked, thus everything we say should be Butel Umivutel.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
To R. kacev:
As regards of the question of the difference between understanding your Yesurim and other Yesurim. I don't understand that. If the question is, are Hashem's way of punishment understandable, then we can understand punishment wether or not it happened to me or someone else. The same if it can't be understood, then nobody should understand. How could it be that I could understand my own punishment and someone else could be completely off, even though that person is much smarter than me? My proof from that Gemarah is that punishment is understandable"

The question is not whether it is POSSIBLE to give a reason behind a tragedy, the question is whether it is Halachakily PERMISSIBLE.In this light the distinction is obvious.

Rav Chaim said;

"About Gedolim who gave reasons for the Holocaust where Rav Shach, Rav Avigder miller (I think he wrote a book or pamphlet on it) and Rav Ovadya Yosef. I also heard From RAv N. wolpin that Rabbitzen Geltzaler told him that her father, rabbi E. Dessler, also said when the attrocities where happining in europe, that you can dig up Mendolsan and point to what started this."

It is not enough to just throw out names at us.
We need to know the exact statements they made and the source for that quote. To quote what you heard from someone who heard it from someone else is basically meaningless.

Let me get this right, you are now Chozer from the "we're not prophets, so we can never know" theory. You're only question is, that even when you know what's wrong, who said you have a right to say the truth that you know on Indonesians? Is this your point?

The other point, about Rabbi Dessler, i heard it straight from a speach by Rabbi Wolpin that heard it straight from his daughter. You can still contact him to verify at the Jewish observer. The others, even though I remember them, and was conferred by my colleuges, I'll do research to find exactly were they said it, but right now I don't have the time. Maybe on Sunday.

I am not chozer at all. I still say there is no way to know for sure what was the cause for tragedy. However if one wants to speculate on what shortcomings may have caused it,he has a right to do it on himself, not for others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:


The other point, about Rabbi Dessler, i heard it straight from a speach by Rabbi Wolpin that heard it straight from his daughter. You can still contact him to verify at the Jewish observer.

---

This is not quite a proof. If I quoted a halacha that I heard form A Rav that heard it from the Daughter of Rav Moshe Feinstein who heard it from Rav Moshe,would anyone take it seriously or be somech on it?Even if it was verified that the Rav had said it?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rabbi Y. Kacev,

First of all, then how do you learn the Gemarah in B'rachos? that they give you permission to speculate for yourself? do you need such permission? How would it help you at all if it's just a shot in the dark? Obviously the Gemarah is saying that you'll find probable cause, therefore someone should find the probable cause, so by correcting it, would improve the pain you're having. It can't be learnt any other way. I have a proof that you when you're halachacly allowed to say for other people,. i think it's a Mifarish gemarah and in Shulchun orech, but we must clear this issue first. So tell me how you learn the Gemarah in B'rachos without getting any probable cause.

I don't have any reason to believe that she lied or made a mistake (neither did Rabbi Wolpin.) Especally on something not so complicated as this. i think your just grasping for reasons to dismiss it just so it wouldn't controdict your statement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
First of all, then how do you learn the Gemarah in B'rachos? that they give you permission to speculate for yourself? do you need such permission? How would it help you at all if it's just a shot in the dark? Obviously the Gemarah is saying that you'll find probable cause, therefore someone should find the probable cause, so by correcting it, would improve the pain you're having. It can't be learnt any other way. I have a proof that you when you're halachacly allowed to say for other people,.

I have explained it before, but will do it once again.The Gemmorah is giving good advice to people as to how to trace the origins of their troubles.
I still believe as I stated before that we are no longer on a level to be able to do this.
However whether we are or we aren't is irrelevant because the Gemmorah is giving this advice to people to look into their OWN transgressions, not to make judgement on OTHER
peoples transgressions. This is what the gemmorah is saying quite clearly.

Rav Chaim said:

I don't have any reason to believe that she lied or made a mistake (neither did Rabbi Wolpin.) Especally on something not so complicated as this. i think your just grasping for reasons to dismiss it just so it wouldn't controdict your statement.

---

I find this statement totally amazing!
Firstly, how many times have things been quoted in the name of a Godol which have turned out to be either misquoted, misunderstood,taken out of context,or never said? Yet you expect us to accept lhalacha something which is THIRD party hearsay?
Secondly, I previously told you a psak from Rav Aharon Soloveichik which I quoted verbatim from a Sefer that HE HIMSELF had written, yet you dismissed it as not being his shittah.
Now you give us thru THIRD person hearsay a statement given by Rav Dessler and my not being willing to accept it as fact means that I AM GRASPING???!!

The difference is Pushet. I'm repeating the shalsheles Had'varim, where you can verify it. I'm sure you will agree the Rabbi Wolpin is a most trustworthy person who heard it straight from the daughter of the GAdol. You can verify it with one E-mail from it. By what you quoted to explain the Mesech Chachma is something really impossible to say in it, as you admitted yourself. My colleagues who I repeated to was floored that anybody would say such a thing in the Meshech Chochma in which is explicitly not saying. this is why I'd rather not say that a Gadol said it. The statement is what I have problems with.

Also, I would like you to say how you learnt the Gemarah in B'rachos 5a, other than you can get a probable cause of your suffering. This is very important for you to answer.

ALso, my main acces to the internet is going to be cut off soon (I'm asking Rabbi Mitterhoff to maybe arrange a way for me to post via E-mail) so I can't wait to put all my arguments up. So this prohabittion of saying why tragedies happens. Under which Isser does it fall out under? (I know it can't be Bassur V'chuluv )

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rav Chaim,

(see my above post)
I found this on the web
"Because of the upsurge of the greatest defection from Torah in history, which was expressed in Poland by materialism, virulent anti-nationalism, and Bundism (radical anti-religious socialism, God’s plan finally relieved them of all freewill and sent Hitler’s demons to end the existence of the communities." ("Rejoice, 0 Youth", pp. 278—289).

(see my above posts)
Also i found
"A 94 year-old Orthodox sage has poured more fuel on the flames of religious controversy in Israel by contending in a sermon that the Holocaust was God's punishment (on the Jewish people)…" So reported the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in the January 4th edition of the Forward in 1991. They were talking about Rabbi Eliezer Schach, spiritual leader of Shas, the most influential religious party in the land of Israel. "God is longsuffering," contended Rabbi Schach, "but eventually, when a point of saturation is reached, he wreaks his punishment."