There have been murmurings for the past 2 weeks about an incident in which Rav Avi Ronski, the Chief Rabbi of the IDF, supposedly desecrated the Shabbos. Rabbi Ronski spent the Seder night, the first night of Pesach, in the town of Yerucham. The next morning there were reports of a terrorist infilltration by the Gaza border, and Ronski got in his car and drove to the location (I think he had a driver and he sat in the back, but different articles are unclear on that) of the incident. Supposedly he was not needed there, and his presence had not been requested, so it was chillul shabbos for no purpose.
HaModia newspaper in Hebrew has brought out the story from being just murmurings making the chillul shabbos claim against Rabbi Ronski. NRG reports that Haredi activists are demanding his resignation, in light of the fact that Ronski has refused to explain why he acted in the way he did.
What happened to being dan l'kaf z'chus? We right away assume he had no purpose, despite the fact that some soldiers present said there was no need for him to be there? Maybe he thought there was? Maybe his presence was requested? Maybe he thought he could provide some sort of support to the wounded? Maybe something else?
Why are the Hamodia, and Haredi activists, assuming that the Chief Rabbi of the Army was mechalel shabbos for no reason? Does he have to report to them on his decisions? If you would see a Haredi fellow driving in his car on Shabbos, you might assume he is rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital, or perhaps he has some other life threatening situation. Why does the Chief Rabbi of the Army deserve less?
Do the Haredi activists think that they run the country and the army and its officers have to report to them and explain their actions?
At the same time, even though Rabbi Ronski is not obligated to report to any of us on his actions, in light of the fact that what he did was made public knowledge and is difficult to understand because we do not know his reasons and we do not have the full picture, perhaps it behooves Rabbi Ronski to explain, to put out a statement, why he did what he did and why his presence was necessary, or why he thought it was.
I have no doubt that the Chief Rabbi of the Army did not desecrate the Shabbos on a whim. I am sure he had a valid explanation. Perhaps to avoid further chillul Hashem (not brought out by him), it might be prudent to respond to the allegations against him and clear things up.
"Why are the Hamodia, and Haredi activists, assuming that the Chief Rabbi of the Army was mechalel shabbos for no reason?"
ReplyDeletewhy are hamodia and haredi activists sticking their noses where they don't belong? what hutzpah.
just to clarify, does hamodia report on scandals among its own rabbis or only among the RZ (i don't know)
ReplyDeleteand what in the heck do haredi activists care about what a tzahal rabbi does? it's not an institution they care about, so i just don't get the concern.
"Does hamodia report on scandals among its own rabbis or only among the RZ (i don't know)"
ReplyDeleteYou're joking, right? They didn't even report on the child abuse cases in their own community. And unlike the chief rabbinate, they don't report on kashrut infractions that get through their hashgachot.
"sticking their nose" is one thing. they are a newspaper and have army correspondents and report on army and defense issues.
ReplyDeleteAttackign the Chief Rabbi, when perhaps they should be assuming he had a good reason (even if they try to find out what the reason was), seems less appropriate. Especially when they have all these articles and regular columns in the paper (in the english edition at least) about being dan lkaf zchus and the like.
Yeah, you have to be dan lkaf zchus the trempist, the driver the guy who spoke too long at the family simcha and all those other people they are always writing about, but the Chief Rabbi of the army does not deserve that same level of respect.
Wow! The Chareidim care about the workings of the army!! Maybe more will join!
ReplyDeleteUnless my calendar is different, aren't we talkiung about chilul Yom Tov here, rather than Shabbos (if at all). Which carries are far less severe punishment.
ReplyDeleteAnd I believe the punishment for motzi shem ra is more severe.
Unless my calendar is different, aren't we talkiung about chilul Yom Tov here, rather than Shabbos (if at all). Which carries are far less severe punishment.
ReplyDeleteAnd I believe the punishment for motzi shem ra is more severe.
it's not difficult to understand at all. we do not know all the classified info involved. HE'S IN THE ARMY!!!!!
ReplyDeletewhat right do they have to question his behavior? In his case, dan l'kaf z'chus is enven more applicable as there are always things we do not see with the army.
"it might be prudent to respond to the allegations against him and clear things up."
ReplyDeletehow do you thing we should and could do that?