skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Welcome to the Nishma Commentary Discussion Forum blog.
Commentary with Rabbi Benjamin Hecht is a regular column on the Nishma website in which Nishma's Founding Director analyzes contemporary issues, in the general as well as the Jewish world, from a Torah perspective.
If you have a comment on an article within this column, we invite you to place your comments here; then we invite everyone to join the discussion.
Authority and Wisdom: The Slifkin Affair
A rabbi gave a haskomoh based on hearsay about an author. He then retracted the haskomoh based on different hearsay about the book's contents. Then 2 rabbis recommended a ban based on hearsay from a third rabbi. Then 22 more rabbis signed a ban for books that most of them never read, based on hearsay from one or two more. Now, would all of these rabbeim have been so impelled to address this via the extreme measure of a complete ban if the book didn't have a haskomoh that got retracted? After all, rabbeim who are dinstinguished enough for authors to seek out their haskomoh can never be so completely mistaken about a work, can they? They have Daas Torah! I suspect it was this embarassing moment that impelled the crackdown -- if anything, as a diversion from the real issue. You see, it's a crackdown on the wrong thing. Instead of banning the books, how about banning the practice of haskomos based entirely on hearsay? (Or for that matter, how about banning the signing of BANS where the signatory's knowledge of the circumstances is based on hearsay from only one side?) It's kind of like feeding ruminant neural tissue to cows for years and suddenly when that first Mad Cow is detected, everyone's so shocked and surprised that something went wrong! So somebody bans all beef for a while, but continue to feed random ruminant remains (including brain and spinal tissue) to other farm animals intended for human consumption. This is a common human error, especially where large organisations are involved: continue with an obviously sloppy procedure for as long as you can get away with it, and then finally when something really goes wrong, overreact, point fingers at someone else,
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, there's also a problem with R' Slifkin and other writers soliciting letters of approbation from luminaries who had not read the work and have little or no personal acquaintance with the author. This is especially so when the written work is in one language (say, English) and the haskomoh is in another language (say, Hebrew). This is because the haskomoh would not be in a language understandable to the reader. Under these conditions, a hoskomoh is a kind of 'misleading advertising', because it suggests to the reader a degree of authoritative stamp of approval of the work that isn't really there. An author who is a willing participant in this act of misleading his readers is no less culpable (indeed perhaps moreso) than rabbeim who offer these kinds of haskomos. Finally, if it is so important to the gedolim that any work which bears the hoskomoh of one of their constituents contains only statements that are consistent with their worldview, then why do they allow the practice of giving hoskomos to books that they haven't read? Or to authors that they do not know personally? It is this practice that made this mess possible in the first place. Otherwise, the books would have either stayed under their radar, or this would have been just another mundane book banning.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that is bothering me about this whole affair is that it demonstrates a sickness within us the "Modern" Orthodox. Why should we even care about a bunch of Haredi Rabbis think. The previous Pope, unlike these Rabbis, was someone I respected, he actually was a moral force for the world. That being said he was not part of my religion so nothing that he said could really affect me. If we are really committed to the notion that the purpose of Torah is to engage and redeem the secular then anyone who stands against that project is in truth denying the Torah and as such should be viewed as an outsider. By that definition the Haredi rabbinate must be viewed as at best outsiders at worst active traitors to our cause. I am almost glad for the Slifkin ban, it has made everyone honest at last. There can no longer be an "engaged" Yeshivish. (Oh We to have our modernity all the while we eat our gedolim cake) Not even Aish is willing to pretend any longer, they have pulled Slifkin's articles from their site. The fact that we still care what they say subjagates us to their blackmail. Even worse it demonstrates a lack of faith on our part in the true Torah project. We cannot afford to hesitate from cutting the bonds that hold us to the Haredi world. And yet I hesitate.
ReplyDeleteOne must be very cautious with one's remarks, especially during this time of the year. It is understandable that there's a lot of anger in the Modern Orthodox community against the Chareidim but words like "traitor" must still be seen as beyond the pale. The main problems with the Modern Orthodox in this day and age are twofold: (1) There is a constant tension vis a vis the Chareidim over the (usually accurate) perception that they are not taken seriously as religious Jews. (2) There is an internal tension within the Modern Orthodox community vis a vis the two words that make up the label. My rebbe (a Chareidi) once ask me (a Dati Leumi) which was more important: the "dati" or the "leumi" part of the label? The right answer is the "dati", of course because what should give a Jew his strongest connect to Israel is his faith. The problem with Modern Orthodoxy is that many of its adherents, whether they realize it or not, put more emphasis on the "Modern" at the expense of the "Orthodox". As a result, they violate established halachot and minhagim and excuse this behaviour by saying "Well, it's not like I'm Chareidi. I'm modern." These are all evident in issues of modest dress, hair covering, strictness of kashrut observance, observance of laws of familiy purity and the embracing of secular culture. If one watches decent programs on television (assuming any exist, other than Star Trek, of course), there needs to be a halachic reason to permit this behaviour. If the reason is "Well, I'm not Chareidi so I watch television," this is not a far cry from "Well, I'm not Orthodox so I don't keep kosher". All accepted Jewish behaviour is based on halacha. Modern Orthodox Jews often simply don't have a halachic basis to justify their behaviours. And this is often why Chareidim don't take the Modern Orthodox seriously. As they walk out of their yeshivas, their MO counterparts are walking out of the movie theatre across the street, dressed indistinguishably from the non-Jewish population and often acting just like them as well. If the purpose of being Jewish is to learn how the Torah wishes us to behave (in contradistinction to the belief it's to reach out to the secular), then they are doing it far better that the MO community. Why should we care about what a bunch of Chareidi rabbis think? For exactly that reason. If a Chareidi rabbi stands up and says "Zionism is against the Torah!" and provides a series of halachic sources for it, the only legitimate response is to list contradictory halachic sources. Another salient example is the recent controvery over Rav M.D. Tendler's comments on metzitzah during circumcision. The Chareidi world's response to those comments was to cite halachic decisions contradicting him. The proper response to it site responsa of equal worth supporting it. There's actually a whole book like that in Judaism
ReplyDeleteOne must be very cautious with one's remarks, especially during this time of the year. It is understandable that there's a lot of anger in the Modern Orthodox community against the Chareidim but words like "traitor" must still be seen as beyond the pale. The main problems with the Modern Orthodox in this day and age are twofold: (1) There is a constant tension vis a vis the Chareidim over the (usually accurate) perception that they are not taken seriously as religious Jews.
ReplyDelete(2) There is an internal tension within the Modern Orthodox community vis a vis the two words that make up the label. My rebbe (a Chareidi) once ask me (a Dati Leumi) which was more important: the "dati" or the "leumi" part of the label? The right answer is the "dati", of course because what should give a Jew his strongest connect to Israel is his faith. The problem with Modern Orthodoxy is that many of its adherents, whether they realize it or not, put more emphasis on the "Modern" at the expense of the "Orthodox". As a result, they violate established halachot and minhagim and excuse this behaviour by saying "Well, it's not like I'm Chareidi. I'm modern." These are all evident in issues of modest dress, hair covering, strictness of kashrut observance, observance of laws of familiy purity and the embracing of secular culture. If one watches decent programs on television (assuming any exist, other than Star Trek, of course), there needs to be a halachic reason to permit this behaviour. If the reason is "Well, I'm not Chareidi so I watch television," this is not a far cry from "Well, I'm not Orthodox so I don't keep kosher". All accepted Jewish behaviour is based on halacha. Modern Orthodox Jews often simply don't have a halachic basis to justify their behaviours. And this is often why Chareidim don't take the Modern Orthodox seriously. As they walk out of their yeshivas, their MO counterparts are walking out of the movie theatre across the street, dressed indistinguishably from the non-Jewish population and often acting just like them as well. If the purpose of being Jewish is to learn how the Torah wishes us to behave (in contradistinction to the belief it's to reach out to the secular), then they are doing it far better that the MO community. Why should we care about what a bunch of Chareidi rabbis think? For exactly that reason. If a Chareidi rabbi stands up and says "Zionism is against the Torah!" and provides a series of halachic sources for it, the only legitimate response is to list contradictory halachic sources. Another salient example is the recent controvery over Rav M.D. Tendler's comments on metzitzah during circumcision. The Chareidi world's response to those comments was to cite halachic decisions contradicting him. The proper response to it site responsa of equal worth supporting it. There's actually a whole book like that in Judaism
ReplyDelete(2) There is an internal tension within the Modern Orthodox community vis a vis the two words that make up the label. My rebbe (a Chareidi) once ask me (a Dati Leumi) which was more important: the "dati" or the "leumi" part of the label? The right answer is the "dati", of course because what should give a Jew his strongest connect to Israel is his faith. The problem with Modern Orthodoxy is that many of its adherents, whether they realize it or not, put more emphasis on the "Modern" at the expense of the "Orthodox". As a result, they violate established halachot and minhagim and excuse this behaviour by saying "Well, it's not like I'm Chareidi. I'm modern." These are all evident in issues of modest dress, hair covering, strictness of kashrut observance, observance of laws of familiy purity and the embracing of secular culture. If one watches decent programs on television (assuming any exist, other than Star Trek, of course), there needs to be a halachic reason to permit this behaviour. If the reason is "Well, I'm not Chareidi so I watch television," this is not a far cry from "Well, I'm not Orthodox so I don't keep kosher".
ReplyDeleteAll accepted Jewish behaviour is based on halacha. Modern Orthodox Jews often simply don't have a halachic basis to justify their behaviours. And this is often why Chareidim don't take the Modern Orthodox seriously. As they walk out of their yeshivas, their MO counterparts are walking out of the movie theatre across the street, dressed indistinguishably from the non-Jewish population and often acting just like them as well. If the purpose of being Jewish is to learn how the Torah wishes us to behave (in contradistinction to the belief it's to reach out to the secular), then they are doing it far better that the MO community. Why should we care about what a bunch of Chareidi rabbis think? For exactly that reason. If a Chareidi rabbi stands up and says "Zionism is against the Torah!" and provides a series of halachic sources for it, the only legitimate response is to list contradictory halachic sources. Another salient example is the recent controvery over Rav M.D. Tendler's comments on metzitzah during circumcision. The Chareidi world's response to those comments was to cite halachic decisions contradicting him. The proper response to it site responsa of equal worth supporting it. There's actually a whole book like that in Judaism
ReplyDelete