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.
THE SLIFKIN AFFAIR REVISITED - Part 1: Issues of Tolerance
There is a classic Monty Python skit in which a person goes looking for an argument. He finally finds the person and pays him to argue with him for 5 minutes. One of the customer's complaints during the skit is that he's not having a real argument. "You're not really arguing. All you're doing is disagreeing with every statement I make!" "No, I'm not!" came the reply. The Slifkin Affair reveals that there is a great difference between debating and arguing. Any idiot can argue. Watch the Parliamentary channel and you can see it happening for hours. People argue and accomplish nothing in terms of defending their point of view or refuting their opponents. On the other hand, debating is far more structured. It relies on a person accepting that his opponent has a legitimate point of view and has a right to express it. It requires a person to understand that to win, one must not only refute his opponent but that he must successfully defend his own position. It requires fairness in that each person gets an equal opportunity to speak. Finally, it demands a certain amount of personal maturity - after all, you might lose and find yourself having to accept your opponent's position as superior.
ReplyDeleteIn the real world it's very hard to debate. Witness any Jewish-Muslim dialogue and you get the point. When the Muslim speaks, the room is generally quiet. When the Jew gets up to defend Israel, the Muslim supporters immediately shout and insult the speaker, grinding the procedure to a halt and making the unmistakable point: Our point of view is the only one we want expressed. Within the Torah world, this infantile approach to differences of opinion has gone one step further. Whereas Muslim activists welcome "debates" because it gives them a chance to intimidate and threaten those who disagree with them, within the Torah world debates are rapidly becoming an extinct species. There is very little real debate within the yeshivos of modern Jewry and for very good reason - no one wants a real debate for fear of losing it. The Sliffkin affair is, in this perspective, not an independent event but merely a manifestation of the underlying trend in Jewish discussion that has rapidly been devolving over the last 200 years or so. The split between Mizrachi and Chareidi, the Metzitzah b'peh vs b'tzinor debate, all these are part of the same phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteThe article mentioned the Chazon Ish as an example of how there used to be universal Torah authorities but I beg to differ. It is the generation of the Chazon Ish and the few before his that saw the first fragmentation in the Torah world. Historically, the Jewish community had always had 2 kinds of leaders. Secular leaders such as rich or politically well-placed businessmen would intercede on behalf of their community before their non-Jewish countrymen. Rabbanim were the authorities inside the Jewish community
ReplyDelete(although they also interacted with non-Jewish authorities when needed). However, no one or group ever contended that the Torah was the source of authority for the Jewish community. If one wasn't religious, one simply didn't perform mitzvos. With the rise of the Reform movement, something new happened. For the first time since the Tzadukim, a group of Jews on a large scale cut themselves off from the Torah world while still insisting that they were "good" Jews. The reaction from the Torah world was one of non-acceptance, ranging from Rav S.R. Hirsch's intellectual refutation of their position to the Chasam Sofer's famous "Anything new is forbidden". It was this statement that changed the course of Jewish history by now demanding that to be a "good" Jew you had to accept a particular philosophy, hook, line and sinker, or else.
The second event of note was the rise of the Zionist movement. With the Reform, it was relatively easy to be dismissive. You cannot claim to be a good Jew at the same time as you disavow all those values which had been traditionally and authoritatively Jewish. Zionism went further with its visions of a new Jew whose identity would be residence in an indepedent land of Israel. The reaction from parts of the Torah world to this movement was as reactionary as it was to the Reform. There was no attempt to debate or consider different points of view, just a dogmatic non-acceptance of anything outside the accepted dogma. The problem wth this was the creation of the Mercas Ruchani, or the Mizrachi movement as it is now called. As opposed to the secular Zionists, the Mizrachi movement mined the classical Jewish sources and found ample support for an organized return to Israel within the parameters of halachah. This was perhaps the greatest threat to the anti-Zionist parts of the religious world. Their whole argument, that Zionism was against halachah, was being challenged by the very process for determining Jewish law that they held was sacrosanct. It was once thing to dismiss Herzel and Ben Gurion, but the Netziv, Rav Kalisher and the Eim Habanim Semeichah as well? These works presented strong proofs as to the halachic correctness and feasibility for a large scale return of the Jewish people to Israel. The response to this from the Chareidi world was to segment themselves off as the "legitimate" form of Torah-observant Judaism and work on promoting themselves as such. By doing this, they removed any need to debate "the other".
ReplyDeleteAfter all, as the article notes, eilu v'eilu presupposes two Torah-valid viewpoints worth debating. Declaring that anyone who disagrees with you is outside the pale means not having to debate them. Thus when Rav Kook formulated the heter mechirah to help the struggling pioneers observe some form of Shemittah, the response from the Chazon Ish and his contemporaries was immediate dismissal. "You're wrong and so they're no point in arguing with you." The list of similar incidents goes on endlessly. That's probably why modern Orthodox people don't want to hear the point of view of the Satmar Rebbe. When he decreed that Zionism was against the Torah, he wasn't throwing out an idea for discussion. His position was clear. Zionism is wrong, it's against the Torah and if you disagree with you, so are you. There's no point in trying to understand or reason through his opinion because nothing productive can come of it. You either accept it or you don't and the reason is the Satmar attitude. The Sliffkin affair, therefore, is only one of the latest manifestations of this problem. The Chareidi world sees itself as the standard of Judaism today. A man named Sliffkin, calling himself a Rabbi and Orthodox, wrote a book which does not agree with many of their standard dogmas. Therefore he is a threat to be eliminated because otherwise people might think it's acceptable to be a Torah observant Jew and not be chareidi. Because of this, there is little room for meaningful discussion within different segments of the Torah world. Each side views itself as the "standard" agsinst which all other approaches are to be measured. People enter discussions, when they bother to at all, with the attitude that they're not going to change their mind no matter what the other side says, turning any debates into arguments and rendering them meaningless. People are more worried about what their social positions and what their community will think than the truth and will fight to preserve their halachic beliefs even in the face of contradictory facts. Our generation is truly one full of arrogance but in that statement is a sense of reassurance. We are beyond the ability to redeem ourselves which means Hashem himself must soon intervene in history. The only problem will be what kind of hat he wears when he doesn't because if it's not the right kind, or Heaven forbid, he has a seruga on...
ReplyDeleteAfter all, as the article notes, eilu v'eilu presupposes two Torah-valid viewpoints worth debating. Declaring that anyone who disagrees with you is outside the pale means not having to debate them. Thus when Rav Kook formulated the heter mechirah to help the struggling pioneers observe some form of Shemittah, the response from the Chazon Ish and his contemporaries was immediate dismissal. "You're wrong and so they're no point in arguing with you." The list of similar incidents goes on endlessly.
ReplyDeleteThat's probably why modern Orthodox people don't want to hear the point of view of the Satmar Rebbe. When he decreed that Zionism was against the Torah, he wasn't throwing out an idea for discussion. His position was clear. Zionism is wrong, it's against the Torah and if you disagree with you, so are you. There's no point in trying to understand or reason through his opinion because nothing productive can come of it. You either accept it or you don't and the reason is the Satmar attitude. The Sliffkin affair, therefore, is only one of the latest manifestations of this problem. The Chareidi world sees itself as the standard of Judaism today. A man named Sliffkin, calling himself a Rabbi and Orthodox, wrote a book which does not agree with many of their standard dogmas. Therefore he is a threat to be eliminated because otherwise people might think it's acceptable to be a Torah observant Jew and not be chareidi. Because of this, there is little room for meaningful discussion within different segments of the Torah world. Each side views itself as the "standard" agsinst which all other approaches are to be measured. People enter discussions, when they bother to at all, with the attitude that they're not going to change their mind no matter what the other side says, turning any debates into arguments and rendering them meaningless. People are more worried about what their social positions and what their community will think than the truth and will fight to preserve their halachic beliefs even in the face of contradictory facts. Our generation is truly one full of arrogance but in that statement is a sense of reassurance. We are beyond the ability to redeem ourselves which means Hashem himself must soon intervene in history. The only problem will be what kind of hat he wears when he doesn't because if it's not the right kind, or Heaven forbid, he has a seruga on...
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, I agree with much that you wrote. Eilu v'Eilu is about debate -- it actually demands debate. In part 2, I am going to get more into this and deal with how debate is suppose to develop within Torah. In the meantime, there are two questions you have to address in your comments. Question No. 1 1. Why did the Chatam Sofer entrench? Afterall you are talking about the Chatam Sofer -- he knew all about the value of debate and yet created the world of argument. My view -- it was a hora'at sh'ah out of fear of the Reform and what thinking and debate may do to Klal Yisrael. The fact is that to enter into debate, as you stated, one must be willing to adopt the other view if proven wrong. The question thus, would be: do we want an average individual to enter into such debate and thereby possibly drop the essential beliefs of Torah? The Chatam Sofer, I believe, made a decision to cut off debate with those outside the pale -- and even with views within the pale that would open up the door for someone to leave the pale -- in order to protect observance. But, as mentioned, I believe that the Chatam Sofer saw this as a hora'at sha'ah measure and never expected it to become the standard.
ReplyDeleteQuestion No. 2 2. You have to distinguish between within the pale and outside the pale. Now, in truth, debate can apply even in relationship to the Reform but there is a distinction in Eilu v'Eilu and how we are to deal with ideas within Torah and ideas not within Torah. In other words, one is called upon to treat a machloket Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai differently than a disagreement between an Orthodox rav and Reform rabbi. This is more problematic than it may seem. The arguments for tolerance, that you make, apply to the latter as well. The charedi individual then attacks you for treating apikorsus in a respectful manner -- which in fact may have some halachic problems. Now what about Slifkin where the argument includes whether he is presenting apikorsus or not. Your call for tolerance, which also applies to the Reform rabbi, is already discounted because the charedi person attacks apikorsus. But you're talking now about a position within the pale -- but how do you get him to recognize a tolerance within the pale? To apply your language. Debate would be the language of Eilu v'Eilu. Argument the language for discussion outside the pale. The charedi individual is calling R. Slifkin outside the pale -- and thus applies the framework of argument. You believe that R. Slifkin is within the pale and call for the framework of debate. How do you bridge the gap. The key point is that intolerant individuals apply argument, let us say, universally. Tolerant individuals apply debate, again let us say, universally. Torah presents the strange world of distinguishing between a realm that demands debate and a realm that demands argument (at least prima facie -- this is in itself a matter for further study). It is this divide that needs to be further investigated. T
ReplyDelete1. Why did the Chatam Sofer entrench? Afterall you are talking about the Chatam Sofer -- he knew all about the value of debate and yet created the world of argument. My answer -- it was a hora'at sh'ah out of fear of the Reform and what thinking and debate may do to Klal Yisrael. But I think that it was a hora'at sha'ah thing and that theChatam Sofer never expected it to become the standard. (RBH's comments from above postings are quoted to give reference to my comments.) You’re going pretty easy on him considering he was Hungarian. My feeling from what I’ve read about the history is that it’s always easier to dismiss than to confront. Look what the haskalah did to European Jewry and ask: If Judaism is such a great culture rich in spiritual and philosophical areas why did people abandon ship as soon as Emancipation came? As Rav Dovid Gottleib says in one of his lectures, you can’t really debate with the Reform. After all, a Torah-observant Jew would usually restrict himself to Torah sources to buttress his arguments while the Reformer would have no hesitation to use any source, however tenuous the connection to Judaism, to support himself. Without a common frame of reference, there can be no debate.
ReplyDeleteBut with the rising of Reform, it went beyond that. When Christianity started out, the Roman Empire was hungry for monotheism but not so much for 613 mitzvos and cutting the tip off of Mr. Winkie. So Paul offered them what they wanted – a religion with one God (who fooled around, no less!) and the religion took off. Reform offered something similar to Jews who didn’t want to live a “chareidi” lifestyle but still wanted to call themselves good Jews and therein. The Chasam Sofer, whose wisdom and holiness I do not question, certainly recognized this and all realized that in between his position and that of the Reform was partial modernizing, ie. Keeping the Torah but making some accommodations to secular culture. Where does one draw the line? At the shtreiml and bekisher or the postage stamp kippah and jeans? At the skirt and sheitl or the “extra-long-and-baggy” shorts and ball cap on Shabbos morning when in shul? He recognized that if one moves the line a little, someone else will come along and move it some more and in a few generations it winds up exactly where he didn’t want it to go. “Kol chadas assur min haTorah” is the only answer that prevents that kind of creeping change to your standards. Interestingly, behind the scenes, much of the Torah-observant world did continue to evolve but within the framework of halachah. My grandfather was an observant Jew but wore modern clothes and kept his beard short. He sent his children to both Polish school and Cheder/Yeshivah. But he never made it into a “hashkafah”. Torah was his central reference and he quietly worked within it to provide as Jewish a life for his family as he could. I don’t think the Chasam Sofer would ever have had a problem with that.
ReplyDeleteWhen you speak about a need for a common frame of reference in order to facilitate debate, this is precisely the essence of my point in regard to defining whether an idea is within the pale or outside the pale. Reform introduced a challenge to observance but it also, and perhaps more importantly, challenged the basic beliefs of Torah (Orthodox) Judaism. The challenge to the individual was thus two-fold. It argued for the allowance of behaviour that was more in line with the general culture of the time. It also argued for changes in what one may believe. On the surface, to the average individual, the two were related. The truth, though, is that the two are not necessarily related -- thus it is possible for one to adopt behaviour of the general culture while still being within the philosophical framework of Torah -- as per, for example, Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch. Thus two arguments emerged within Orthodoxy. One was the very argument about Halacha's view of general culture -- and this was recognized as a halachic machloket with both sides respected. The second argument, however, was the question of the effect on the population of adopting a positive view of general culture (albeit permitted by some views). The concern was whether people would be able to distinguish between the Orthodox and the Reform when the distinction was not as clearly demarcated? One view is as long as the division of philosophy is powerful and we make a clear demarcation based upon the concept of Torah MiSinai, the challenge of similar behaviour becomes less of an issue -- thus it is not surprising that the Hirschian camp was the strongest opponent of any contact with Reform or the general Jewish community. But others still felt that any accomodation to general culture will open the door to the Reform. I believe that this structure is key to understanding the full impact of your words. This will be expanded upon in my response to your next posting.
ReplyDeleteThe using of Rav SR Hirsch as an example of accepting certain parts of modern culutre while remaining loyal to Torah MiSinai is an example of something the Chasam Sofer feared. One of R' Hirsch's talmidim, Heinrich Graetz, wound up rejecting much of the Torah-viewpoint of his teacher and wrote a history of our people that was extremely secular. Would that have happened if he had gone to a Hungarian yeshivah instead? The other question is one of legitimacy. Debate implies a certain legitimacy between the opposing positions. If one position is meaningless, why is it being debated? By debating Reform, Orthodoxy implies that it is Jewishly legitimate, that it is a real form of Judaism. The subsequent confrontation, therefore, no longer matters. The Reform have already acheived their priniciple goal: recognition. This could be the other issue vis a vis the Chareidi leadership. In their view, being Chareidi is the only "real" way to be Jewish. Anything else that calls itself Torah-observant is a variation or dilution of the real thing. Having unilaterally defined the pale of observance, they then decline to acknowledge or try to eliminate anything outside this definition for fear of granting it legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteBesides, even if the Chasam Sofer meant for it to only be a temporary decree, the problem is that the Reform confounded that attempt. Usually when two extreme positions face off against each other, over time they either destroy each other or they slowly merge somewhere in between the two positions. The classic example of the latter is the conflict between the Misnagdim and the Chasidim. In the case of Reform vs. Torah-observance, both positions made it their policy to move further apart. The more Reform embraced the secular world, the more the chareidim entrenched themselves in their community, trying to stop time from passing. And this still hasn’t changed. There is no cause too debased for the Reform to support (except possibly sex with sheep and I understand they’re looking into a heter for that for Scotsmen) and there’s no chumrah too strict for the Chareidim to suddenly announce in Torah L’Moshe M’Sinai. 2. You have to distinguish between within the pale and outside the pale. Oh, that’s easy. Pale is everyone who agrees with me. Outside the pale is everyone else. I know it sounds facetious but when you look at which groups in the Jewish world actually have civil discussions with each other, that’s how it breaks down. > Now, in truth, debate can apply even relating to the Reform But not on Jewish subjects because (see above) their frame of reference is too different. I care about what Hashem wants me to do. So do they but for me, Hashem is an independent entity with His own values and ideals. For them, Hashem is simple secular society and their own personal desires. > how we are to deal with ideas within Torah and ideas not within Torah. According to the Vilna Gaon, there were no ideas not within Torah with the possible exceptions of traffic lights and the Maple Leafs.
ReplyDeleteYou actually truly identify the problem. If you view the spectrum solely within Orthodoxy, than Reform is simply outside the pale and not a factor to be considered. If you view the spectrum of Jewish behaviour from Reform to charedi, than Reform is a consideration. This is the way the average person sees the world. Reform is not a qualitative different world but a quantitative different world. My rabbi says this while your rabbi says that -- both perceived as working within the same parameters. The response would seem to be chadash assur min haTorah. There is a demarcation and it is clearly evident in behaviour. Two clearly distinguishable worlds. But more lenient Orthodox views confound this perception. The concern is that the average person will not be able to recognize the distinction of Reform and Orthodox without the black-and-white distinction so a more lenient Orthodoxy will only re-introduce a perception of the broad spectrum from Reform to Orthodox with the sliding scale you mentioned previously. Interestingly, while I think you accept these ideas you still fall into the trap by comparing the liberal trends of Reform and the more stringent treands of charedi Orthodoxy. As long as we put Reform and Orthodoxy on the same spectrum, we force ourselves to move to the right in order to clarify distinction -- because we are accepting the behavioural and black-and-white necessity of distinctions that emerges from the average population base. If we however, create a strong philosophical wall of demarcation that challenges a presentation of such a spectrum, we allow for the spectrum of Orthodoxy to spread because the fear of the sliding scale is overcome by the dividing line of Torah MiSinai. The challenge is whether the average population can accept this much more esoteric view of the divisions. As long as they cannot, the situation calling upon the Chatam Sofer to decide as he did, still applies. As we discuss this issue, it must also be recognized that if we turn to the issue of Torah MiSinai as the demarcation point of Torah, which it truly is, we must recognize that we are putting out this issue into the realm of thought, open to attack from Reformers and the like. The question to the Chatam Sofer must also have been: can the people handle the depth of this philosophical inquiry? And in regard to the Vilna Gaon, no ideas outside of Torah? Why not ask your friendly neighbourhood Chabad chasid that one? I know what you are saying about the Gaon but a bit too far...
ReplyDeleteYou actually truly identify the problem. If you view the spectrum solely within Orthodoxy, than Reform is simply outside the pale and not a factor to be considered. If you view the spectrum of Jewish behaviour from Reform to charedi, than Reform is a consideration. This is the way the average person sees the world. Reform is not a qualitative different world but a quantitative different world. My rabbi says this while your rabbi says that -- both perceived as working within the same parameters. The response would seem to be chadash assur min haTorah. There is a demarcation and it is clearly evident in behaviour. Two clearly distinguishable worlds.
ReplyDeleteBut more lenient Orthodox views confound this perception. The concern is that the average person will not be able to recognize the distinction of Reform and Orthodox without the black-and-white distinction so a more lenient Orthodoxy will only re-introduce a perception of the broad spectrum from Reform to Orthodox with the sliding scale you mentioned previously. Interestingly, while I think you accept these ideas you still fall into the trap by comparing the liberal trends of Reform and the more stringent treands of charedi Orthodoxy. As long as we put Reform and Orthodoxy on the same spectrum, we force ourselves to move to the right in order to clarify distinction -- because we are accepting the behavioural and black-and-white necessity of distinctions that emerges from the average population base. If we however, create a strong philosophical wall of demarcation that challenges a presentation of such a spectrum, we allow for the spectrum of Orthodoxy to spread because the fear of the sliding scale is overcome by the dividing line of Torah MiSinai. The challenge is whether the average population can accept this much more esoteric view of the divisions. As long as they cannot, the situation calling upon the Chatam Sofer to decide as he did, still applies. As we discuss this issue, it must also be recognized that if we turn to the issue of Torah MiSinai as the demarcation point of Torah, which it truly is, we must recognize that we are putting out this issue into the realm of thought, open to attack from Reformers and the like. The question to the Chatam Sofer must also have been: can the people handle the depth of this philosophical inquiry? And in regard to the Vilna Gaon, no ideas outside of Torah? Why not ask your friendly neighbourhood Chabad chasid that one? I know what you are saying about the Gaon but a bit too far...
ReplyDeleteThere are two ways of looking at the "spectrum". The Modern Orthodox Jew either dresses in a modern fashion, working in a modern workplace and occassionally watches acceptable programs on television either because (a) having learned the relevant parts of the Shulchan Aruch he's satisfied that he's not doing anything halachically unacceptable and therefore he can act in this way without compromising his strong Torah attachment or (b) he's not chareidi so he doesn't have a problem doing this stuff. In my experience, most MO's are of the (b) variety, doing "modernish" things to define themselves as not being "fanatic". This is possibly one of the things the Chasam Sofer was afraid of because ultimately you continue to drift until you reach a point where the line between right wing Conservatism and left wing Modern Orthodox. becomes very fuzzy and again, non-Torah viewpoints are granted equal legitimacy with Torah ones. Hence the Chareidi position - any point of commonality with the outside grants the outside an undeserved legitimacy.
ReplyDelete>This is more problematic than it may seem. The arguments for tolerance that you make apply to the latter as well. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I can tolerate a guy in the Adas who says he’s Jewish (although his mother isn’t, for that matter, neither is his wife) but I can’t accept his demand to be counted to minyan. I understand that I must be respectful when I explain the situation to him but respect doesn’t mean accepting his position. > The charedi individual then attacks you for treating apikorsus in a respectful manner -- which in fact may have some halachic problems. As Beruriah famously said to Rabbi Meir, pray for the sin to be destroyed, not the sinner. We made this differentiation when we spoke about homosexuality. The homosexual act is an abominations but the homosexual is an individual in need of compassion and understanding. The non-religious Jew is not an evil person, merely misguided. I don’t have to accept his position to treat him with respect. > Now what about Slifkin where the argument includes whether he is saying apikorsus or not. You're talking now about a position within the pale -- but how do you get him to recognize a tolerance within the pale? The chareidi position, quite clearly, is that anything that is not Chareidi is outside the pale. Whether or not Rav Sliffkin’s comments have support from genuine Torah sources is irrelevant. We’re not dealing with an honest intellectual debate but rather a political one. He went against the Chareidi point of view, therefore he is outside their pale. The REAL issue, therefore, becomes: Who are they to set the standard and then unilaterally decide what’s acceptable and what’s not?
ReplyDeleteArgument vs Debate - Epilogue
ReplyDeleteI'm just kidding. I've got nothing more on this right now.
A couple of things you did not bring up, perhaps you intend to deal with them in part 2. This, as far as I am concerned is strike three. Strike one was the cheirem put on the book cowritten by the reform Rabbi and the Chareidi. Unless you believe that the chareidi was lying, he got consent of his Rabbonim before he started the project, only to see his haskomos revoked when someone questioned the propriety of the book. He was left twisting in the wind and forced to recant and do a mea culps. Then, of course there was tha book by Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky's son. Do you really think that the Roshei Yeshivo's waded through the book before they banned it. What happened to ein l'dayan ela ma shebefonov? How can they ban a book that they have not read? They have abandoned any pretext of objectivity , fair play, drisha v'chakira or any kind of Halachic values. Their answer, if you can call it that is "WE say so and who are you to question us." And then of course there is Rabbi Slifkin. I am handicapped by not having read his book, but be assured it reads like Galileo against the inquisition. The Catholic Church still has not lived down the embarassment of trying to use the Bible as a scientific textbook. Now our illustrious Roshei Yeshiva are trying to do the same. But the second issue is more interesting. Bais Shamai and Bais Hillel disagreed on Halacha. Do we light 1 candle on the first night of Chanukah and build up, or do we light 8 on the first night and work down? A decision has to be made. On matters of Hashkafa no decision need be made. It makes no difference. Let everyone believe what he will. We are not Christians whose religion is based on faith and doctrines., and each difference in doctrine leads to a split and a new religion. We are a religion of deeds. We describe an observant person as a SHOMER SHABAT. Let the Roshei Yeshivot have any position on Hashgacha that they want. But they no right to call anyone who differs with them an apikorais. And they have no right, even on their own terms, without themselves reading the works inquestion, and meeting with the "defendant" to issue any kind of "halachic" statement. And that is why I am mad as hell, and don't think that the Roshei Yeshivot have any right to due consideration.
ReplyDeleteA couple of things you did not bring up, perhaps you intend to deal with them in part 2. This, as far as I am concerned is strike three. Strike one was the cheirem put on the book cowritten by the reform Rabbi and the Chareidi. Unless you believe that the chareidi was lying, he got consent of his Rabbonim before he started the project, only to see his haskomos revoked when someone questioned the propriety of the book. He was left twisting in the wind and forced to recant and do a mea culps.
ReplyDeleteThen, of course there was tha book by Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky's son. Do you really think that the Roshei Yeshivo's waded through the book before they banned it. What happened to ein l'dayan ela ma shebefonov? How can they ban a book that they have not read? They have abandoned any pretext of objectivity , fair play, drisha v'chakira or any kind of Halachic values. Their answer, if you can call it that is "WE say so and who are you to question us." And then of course there is Rabbi Slifkin. I am handicapped by not having read his book, but be assured it reads like Galileo against the inquisition. The Catholic Church still has not lived down the embarassment of trying to use the Bible as a scientific textbook. Now our illustrious Roshei Yeshiva are trying to do the same. But the second issue is more interesting. Bais Shamai and Bais Hillel disagreed on Halacha. Do we light 1 candle on the first night of Chanukah and build up, or do we light 8 on the first night and work down? A decision has to be made. On matters of Hashkafa no decision need be made. It makes no difference. Let everyone believe what he will. We are not Christians whose religion is based on faith and doctrines., and each difference in doctrine leads to a split and a new religion. We are a religion of deeds. We describe an observant person as a SHOMER SHABAT. Let the Roshei Yeshivot have any position on Hashgacha that they want. But they no right to call anyone who differs with them an apikorais. And they have no right, even on their own terms, without themselves reading the works inquestion, and meeting with the "defendant" to issue any kind of "halachic" statement. And that is why I am mad as hell, and don't think that the Roshei Yeshivot have any right to due consideration.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that halacha and hashkafa do dovetail in various ways. One is in regard to the definition of an apikorus which has halachic consequences -- such as what to do with a sefer Torah written by an apikorus. We need to define creed in order to define deed. Another is in regard to the definition of Shomer Shabbat. Rashi in Chulin writes that the reason why the definition of Shomer Shabbat serves as the sign of allegiance to Orthodoxy is because it is a sign of belief in God the Creator. It is not simply a sign of deed but of creed. This actually has major halachic significance today because many of those who maintain that the restrictions on the non-shomer Shabbat individual that one finds in general halachic works are not applicable today base their argument on the fact that this deed no longer marks the same creed as it once did -- and that the non-shomer Shabbat individual today can not be seen as necessarily having a creed outside the pale. So creed still does have some role in Torah however the main thrust of your remarks still have force. Creed has always been approached with greater flexibility than deed with an allowance for a greater variance of opinions. So why the tighter reins today? And your question about due process must be addressed?
ReplyDeleteI believe it was the ABARBANEL that asked how could we have a commandment to believe "I AM YOUR GOD". Actions can be commanded beliefs cannot. Many others have asked similiar questions. I believe the Abarbanel answered that the belief in the creator is so elementary that one must make an effort to disbelieve. The point is that matters of belief are very hard to command. As Galileo is supposed to have muttered after his encounter with the Inquisition: "but still, it moves." Did Moses act as a stenographer, or as a reporter? We are familiar, at least through science fiction with the concept of telepathy. Does telepathy work with words or with impressions? Can any book, include EVERYTHING that happened? Does the Torah even claim to be a total record of all that transpired? What is important is a commitment to observe halachah. If you have that, along with a beleif in a creator and revelation, in whatever form that revelation may take, you are NOT an Apihorais. Look at Ibn Ezra if you want to see an early preview of Biblical criticism. Rabbi Louis Jacobs was NOT an apikorais any more than Ibn Ezra. I'll tell you what is apikorsus. Claiming that rabbis have devine or semi devine(?) powers. Taking long trips to pray at their graves. The Rambam is so careful about any possibility of praying to an angel. Now everyone prays to their local Rebbe. and that is considered tzidkus. As Howard Beale said on NETWORK "I am mad as hell and will not take it any more." If people claim authority on the basis of there expertise in torah and diregard the basic premises of the torah, why do they deserve my respect. If they took the trouble to read a book, called in the author to discuss it, met in session with 23 rabbis, and then made a decision I might disagree but I would then consider it a case of Eilu V'Eilu. What happens is some lackey gets a bug up his behind, and gets his boss to send a letter to some colleagues. Then his colleagues feel pressured to add their name to the list. I have been told that sometimes the lackey sends out a letter without even speaking with his nominal boss, who is now on the spot, since others who have now joined in this witchhunt. So are we really supposed to give the respect of Eilu V'eilu to a process that may not even originate with the "GEDOLIM" ? And was Rav shach more of a "Gadol" than Adin Steinzalts? or the many others that he disagreed with. Apikorsus is the first resort to those who have no faith in the ability of God to speak a truth to many generations, not necessarily literal one. We have obviously accepted that the earth is not floating on water and that the earth revolves around the sun. Most of us accept that Methuselah did not live 965 years. Why are we fighting a rear-view battle to defend the literal meaning of certain parts of the Torah. If it is not ALL literally true, what difference does it make if some parts are less literal that we tell our c
ReplyDeleteI believe it was the ABARBANEL that asked how could we have a commandment to believe "I AM YOUR GOD". Actions can be commanded beliefs cannot. Many others have asked similiar questions. I believe the Abarbanel answered that the belief in the creator is so elementary that one must make an effort to disbelieve. The point is that matters of belief are very hard to command. As Galileo is supposed to have muttered after his encounter with the Inquisition: "but still, it moves." Did Moses act as a stenographer, or as a reporter? We are familiar, at least through science fiction with the concept of telepathy. Does telepathy work with words or with impressions? Can any book, include EVERYTHING that happened? Does the Torah even claim to be a total record of all that transpired?
ReplyDeleteWhat is important is a commitment to observe halachah. If you have that, along with a beleif in a creator and revelation, in whatever form that revelation may take, you are NOT an Apihorais. Look at Ibn Ezra if you want to see an early preview of Biblical criticism. Rabbi Louis Jacobs was NOT an apikorais any more than Ibn Ezra. I'll tell you what is apikorsus. Claiming that rabbis have devine or semi devine(?) powers. Taking long trips to pray at their graves. The Rambam is so careful about any possibility of praying to an angel. Now everyone prays to their local Rebbe. and that is considered tzidkus. As Howard Beale said on NETWORK "I am mad as hell and will not take it any more." If people claim authority on the basis of there expertise in torah and diregard the basic premises of the torah, why do they deserve my respect. If they took the trouble to read a book, called in the author to discuss it, met in session with 23 rabbis, and then made a decision I might disagree but I would then consider it a case of Eilu V'Eilu. What happens is some lackey gets a bug up his behind, and gets his boss to send a letter to some colleagues. Then his colleagues feel pressured to add their name to the list. I have been told that sometimes the lackey sends out a letter without even speaking with his nominal boss, who is now on the spot, since others who have now joined in this witchhunt. So are we really supposed to give the respect of Eilu V'eilu to a process that may not even originate with the "GEDOLIM" ? And was Rav shach more of a "Gadol" than Adin Steinzalts? or the many others that he disagreed with. Apikorsus is the first resort to those who have no faith in the ability of God to speak a truth to many generations, not necessarily literal one. We have obviously accepted that the earth is not floating on water and that the earth revolves around the sun. Most of us accept that Methuselah did not live 965 years. Why are we fighting a rear-view battle to defend the literal meaning of certain parts of the Torah. If it is not ALL literally true, what difference does it make if some parts are less literal that we tell our c
ReplyDeleteWhat is important is a commitment to observe halachah. If you have that, along with a beleif in a creator and revelation, in whatever form that revelation may take, you are NOT an Apihorais. Look at Ibn Ezra if you want to see an early preview of Biblical criticism. Rabbi Louis Jacobs was NOT an apikorais any more than Ibn Ezra. I'll tell you what is apikorsus. Claiming that rabbis have divine or semi divine(?) powers. Taking long trips to pray at their graves. The Rambam is so careful about any possibility of praying to an angel. Now everyone prays to their local Rebbe. and that is considered tzidkus.
ReplyDeleteAs Howard Beale said on NETWORK "I am mad as hell and will not take it any more." If people claim authority on the basis of there expertise in torah and diregard the basic premises of the torah, why do they deserve my respect. If they took the trouble to read a book, called in the author to discuss it, met in session with 23 rabbis, and then made a decision I might disagree but I would then consider it a case of Eilu V'Eilu. What happens is some lackey gets a bug up his behind, and gets his boss to send a letter to some colleagues. Then his colleagues feel pressured to add their name to the list. I have been told that sometimes the lackey sends out a letter without even speaking with his nominal boss, who is now on the spot, since others who have now joined in this witchhunt. So are we really supposed to give the respect of Eilu V'eilu to a process that may not even originate with the "GEDOLIM" ? And was Rav shach more of a "Gadol" than Adin Steinzalts? or the many others that he disagreed with. Apikorsus is the first resort to those who have no faith in the ability of God to speak a truth to many generations, not necessarily literal one. We have obviously accepted that the earth is not floating on water and that the earth revolves around the sun. Most of us accept that Methuselah did not live 965 years. Why are we fighting a rear-view battle to defend the literal meaning of certain parts of the Torah. If it is not ALL literally true, what difference does it make if some parts are less literal that we tell our c
ReplyDeleteClearly, the question of commanding faith/ideas is one of the great issues in Hashkafa? Can you command one what to think or feel? Yet, there is a certain minimum that is necessary to be within the parameters of Orthodoxy. This is the minimum faith that gives Halacha the force of Divine decree, i.e Torah MiSinai (a term that still may be a subject of discussion but I am referring to some minimum standard that defines Orthodoxy). All I was really saying was that there are some issues of creed within Orthodoxy, but I can't disagree with you that Orthodoxy over the ages has shown great flexibility in matters of creed as deed does serve as a more rigid standard of demarcation. The one point I would add, though, is that your anger at what is occurring prevents you from truly contemplating what is occurring. I do not wish to get into specific details in what you wrote with which I may disagree but, given what you point out regarding attitudes to differences in creed - which seems to be supported by traditional sources - rather than attack those that seem to be pushing a narrow agenda, my question becomes why? Why are these individuals -- gedolim, and I refer to that term with respect -- doing this? I don't think this may quell your feelings of anger but the issue to me is trying to figure out what is really going on - given the force of your original argument about the flexibility of creed throughout the ages. This is actually where I will be going in Part 2.
ReplyDeleteAs Spock wisely said (and I can bring him here because the character is, according to canon, Jewish) in Star Trek II: "You must learn to control your emotions, they will be your undoing." Chazal said that someone who gets angry is like someone who worships idols because anger causes you to lose your control and connection with the Divine. Getting "angry" at the gedolim, using words like "lackey" to describe people with tremendous amounts of Torah scholarship, and being dismissive of actual p'sukim in Torah are dangerous things to be doing. I agree that the process used to ban R' Sliffkin's book was faulty. I doubt the Rav Eliashiv, shilt"a, for all his brilliance, knows enough English to read the book. He's dependent on someone else and that someone else may have an agenda. That, IMHO, should be the issue here. What's happened is that the opinion now being expressed in defence of R'Sliffkin is "Well, of course he's right and those gedolei hador are being ignorant because not only were they wrong for banning him and his book, they're wrong for thinking he's wrong." This comes close to the same level of intolerance the position decries. Does the Torah contain the sum of all knowledge? If one defines Torah as that scroll we take out in shul to read from, then no. Torah contains a brief history of the world and the Jewish people until the death of Moshe Rabeinu and a whole lot of laws that take the fun out of Saturday night partying. But if one defines Torah in the more expansive sense, as a concept, a field of knowledge and religious thought as it were, then yes, the Torah does contain everything. The Midrash tells us that Hashem looked into the Torah to create the universe, and therefore the Maharal concludes that everything is said universe is in the Torah. Oh and the quote is "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"
ReplyDeleteRabbi Lamm writes that the "golden mean" of the Rambam does not mean never hot or cold but only lukewarm and bland. It means being in charge of your emotions and using them apropriately. I am not angry. I just believe in presenting my case as powerfully as I can.This is the (atleast)third time. Ignoring basic procedure is not an arcane halachic matter, where only gedolim can offer an opinion. There was a doctor in Florida who took out the wrong kidney. Another amputated the wrong leg. Any lay person can see the malpractice. You don't need to be a "gadol" to realize that when someone bans a book written in a language that he doesn't understand, when the author of the book is not given an opportunity to explain, what we are seeing is not halacha, but a witch hunt. They did it to Rav Adin Steinzalts. They did it to Rav Jonathan Sacks (Chief Rabbi of England) They did it to the son of Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky. ERnough. And BTW Pinchas got angry, and G-d praised him and his anger.
ReplyDeleteThe only word cut off in a previous post was the word children. Let me tell you a true story. I will not cite a name hear in a .public forum,but I will give it to you privately. About 25 years ago, a then young Rabbi, who already had an international reputation as a charismatic teacher, wanted to open a Yeshiva in Yerushalayim that would offer classes in secular subjects. My Rosh Yeshivah, Rav Scheinberg had agreed with this idea, and one of his talmidim had agreed to be one of the rebbeim. Our young charismatic Rebbi, received threatening phone calls, from chareidim who felt that offering secular subjects was not permitted in Yerushalayim. Our charismatic Rabbi, was willing to accept the threats, and the phone calls at 2:00 and 3:00 AM. However when these terrorists began to call our hero's father, a Rosh Yeshivah with a heart condition, at 2:00 and 3:00 AM our hero folded. He was not willing to risk his father's life. The mysterious phone calls then stopped.
ReplyDeleteYou ask why this narrowing of what is considered "acceptable" Jewish thought. The simple answer is because they can get away with it. Terrorism succeeds in proportion to the lack of fight against it. Rabbi Moshe Tendler once told me that his illustrious father in law, Rav Moshe Feinstein, would get these middle of the night phone calls, when he issued a controversial psak. Rav Moshe Zt'l had broad shoulders and ignored the calls. But even he had certain areas where he would not go. You will notice that nowhere in his Shailos and Teshuvos is anything relating toYom Ha'atzmaut, and I know for certain that he was asked about it and I know what his answer was. Terrorism does terrorize and normal human beings can be intimidated. But there is another reason which is more interesting which I will deal with in my next post.
ReplyDeleteThe difficulty here is that the main cause for the problem is being forgotten. There are two issues: (1) people with an ideological agenda but without the necessary halachic backup to force their agenda on others and (2) intellectual immaturity leading to fanaticism. The first manifests nowadays as the concept "Daas Torah". I recently had a discussion with someone about Rav Moshe Tendler's struggles regarding metzitzah b'peh. I was told that the Gedolei HaDor had ruled that it had to be done directly, mouth to member, or it was invalid. I tried to point out various major poskim who ruled that doing metzitzah indirectly using suction and a pipe was also fine and that a couple of them said it was preferable. I was shouted down and told "Rav Eliashiv said it's not allowed and it's Daas Torah!" The second thing mentioned above manifests as acts of intimidation as described in yoru post. No one is immune from that. Even Rav Eliashiv has been publicly assaulted by the Neturei Karta. There are two ways to respond. To the first issue, one must remain calm and completely halachic. You say "Daas Torah" and that's it? I say Chasam Sofer, Igrot Moshe and Beis Halevi. If you can't match me then I win. No trump cards allowed. To the second, you identify the perpetrators and go to their rebbes. If they refuse, you make it a public issue. But at no time can we afford the luxury of empty arguing. There's no point.
ReplyDeleteWhat are lawyers taught? If the facts are on your side argue the facts, if the law is on your side, argue the law, and if you don't have either, speak very loud and wave your hands a lot. For the past two hundred years the 'Gedolim" have a remarkable record of being consistently wrong on Social Issues. This country, from its earliest days, had a remarkable record of religious tolerance. The Quakers found a place, as did the catholics and even the Amish. In New England the shortage of labor forced a revolution where women were allowed to work in factories. It was, in retrospect, a wonderful opportunity for leaders to transplant there entire communities to America. Instead, they proclaimed that America was a treife Medina, which became a self fulfilling prophecy. If leaders would not come, there was no infrastructure to support religious observance. (see next post)
ReplyDeleteHindsight is alway 20-20 and I do not blame the Rabbis for not seeing an opportunity, but if they have the miraculous inner vision that they claim, they would have. And then there si Zionism. The overwhelming majoruty of "Gedolim" opposed Zionism. As late as WW2 Nathan Birnbaum recalls that his Agudah chapter turned down a rent free meeting place because it had a "Zionist Flag." He recalls this proudly, more than 40 years after the creation of Israel. And then, while Zev Jabotinsky was running all through Europe, begging Jews to get out, crying out that there would be a fire, the "Gedolim" told there communities to stay put. "God will protect you." Many of the "Gedolim" were saved by, of all things, the Zionists who they opposed, but there communities went up in smoke as Jabotinsky predicted. (see next post)
ReplyDeleteAs I said, to err is human, and I cannot criticise anyone for not being a prophet, but when prophetic powers are claimed, it is appropriate to look at the record. Now, these "Gedolim" live in Israel, and see all the young men serving in the army. They choose to follow Moshe's instructions to Reuven, Gad and half of Menashe, who were told to learn in Kollel while their brothers went to war. OOPS, that's not exactly what Moshe told them, is it? Oh well, what the Torah says in black and white doesn't matter, what matters is that they represent Daas Torah. That is superior to anything else and gives them powers far beyond mortal men. OOPS!! that's Superman, isn't it? Oh well, never mind. (See next post)
ReplyDeleteBottom line. These "Gedolim" are not stupid. They know that others support them, others defend them and others resent them. The only way they can justify this lifestyle is by making there role, their "contribution" to society, MORE IMPORTANT than anyone elses. And so they have developed, admittedly from certain sources, an ideolgy that relies on God's will, and miracles, as a substitute for human action. Why go to America? God can support you just as easily in the Shtetle. Why go to Israel? If God wanted there to be a Jewish State, he would bring the Messiah. Why leave Europe? If God wants you alive, you will be spared, and if he wants you dead, where will you hide? There is a bottom line, however. The Bottom line is that these Gedolim need stability to maintain ther own life style. If the status quo is upset, what will happen to them? Are they trained as Doctors, or engineers or pharmacists to survive and thrive in world that is changing? (See next post)
ReplyDeleteThe torah tells us to be very careful of shochad, bribery. American Law states that a judge must recuse himself when he has a conflict of interest. But these "Gedolim" had a major conflict in that thay could only maintain there position and status in a stable world. So Like King Canute, who commanded the tide not to come in, the Gedolim commanded the world to remain as it was when they were growing up. The world did not listen to the "Gedolim" any more than the tides listened to Canute. And now, as the world is moving faster and faster, as the young families need more and more support, as the government is less and less willing to increase their level of support, as the common person views the chareidi with contempt and hatred, the Gedolim are being forcred into a corner. They could admit that they were wrong, that there should and must be an interplay between human effort and divine will, that learning and davening are not enough. This would place them in the camp of Religious Zionists. This is where the Rov, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik ZTL' found himself after WW2. (See next post)
ReplyDeleteOne must also look at the other side of the positive things you mentioned. Yes, America opened up opportunities never seen before for Jews. Nowadays, the big opportunity to live a life comepletely unconnected from Judaism and a 65% change of marrying out. Openess has its benefits and detractors. The State of Israel is a Godsend for us, and now the centre of the Jewish world but the opportunities for Chilul Hashem are that much greater there too. Now, what's your approach? If you see the State of Israel as the first flowering of the redemption, and the struggles we're going through now as the beginning of the birthpangs of Moshiach, then anything negative is overshadowed by the positive. That's the Mizrachi (and my position). If you believe that the State of Israel is an aberration, a man-made creation that lacks the approval of the Divine (the Charedi position), then you look at the negatives because they overshadow the positives. We may disagree with that (somewhat vehemently from the tone in your posts) but that is their perspective. NEXT...
ReplyDeleteOr they can dance ever faster. There must be some reason God is not answering our prayers. We are fulfilling our role. We don't talk to women. We don't go on the internet. We wear the same clothing in a hot Mediterranean climate as our ancestors did in a cold European climate. All right, we look ridiculous, and we sweat like hell, but great grandpa dressed like this and that's good enough for me. (Which leads to the famous question, if great grandpa was a horse theif, what would that make you). But they have created a world that only exists intheir imagination. One reason Rav Kaminetsky's son's book was banned was that he recounted his fathers shock that none of his bochrim had read Tolstoy. Yes, learning is important, but that does not mean that there is no value in science and literature. So, since this conclusion is unacceptable, the only other answer is to keep drawing smaller and smaller circles. All those outside the latest, smallest circle, is a witch, oops, Apikorais, and is keeping the Messiah from coming. (Sound familiar? It's meant to) In short, The chareidi world feels guilty for not contributing to society and feels threatened by the contempt and hatred of the outside world. They are also facing economic threats to their continued viability. Faced with these threats, rather than admit that they have been folloing a wrong path, they continue to place the blame for then failure of the world to conform to their vision on those who step over the line. It is those who dilute their message, who take any positive steps toward a true encounter with the world, who are the true enemy of thei position. And they are fought with all the weapons that can be brought to bear. For if the world can be encountered, then their life is a waste. And thay can no more admit that than can a secular Jew admit that he might have been wrong.
ReplyDeleteWell, isn't that a mouthful? I will readily agree with some issues in your post. It is a matter of historical fact that the Gedolei HaDor have, in the past 2 centuries, not done a great job of predicting the future. As you noted, they opposed moving to America to escape the grinding poverty of Eastern Europe. They opposed Zionism and wound up burning in the flames of the Holocaust. They opposed the establishment of Israel and then complained it wasn't frum enough for them. Fine. However, all these complaints are true ONLY because history turned out the way it has. Let's change a few things that might have easily happened instead and see what happens. A mass exodus to America happens 120 years ago. Most Jews relocate out of crowded New York into the rural areas, lose touch with their Judaism and then disappear through assimilation. Instead of their children dying in Auschwitz, they are born nearly Christian instead and leave Judaism completely by the time WW II comes around. Second, let's say they join up with the Zionists around 1920. Most chasidim who go to Israel during that time either living in terrible poverty in Yerushalayim or go out and join the kibbutz scene, also dropping their Judaism because of the pressures of work and living. Once again, a massive loss of Torah-observant Jews. And then let's say Israel lost the war in 1948-49, R"L. It turns out to be all for nothing. Hindsight is 20/20. NEXT...
ReplyDeleteThe horse thief comment, for example, is not a great example. Perhaps a better way to say it would be to point out that the Rambam wore robes and a turban so what's with the black hats and suits? However, most haredi uniforms are not random creations but full of symbolism. We may not see the importance of it but they do. We seek a connection to our ancestors through cetain rituals and behaviours. So do the Chareidim but they include clothing. Again, we cannot criticize. Finally, confrontation will not change their ideas or bring them to the table for dialogue. It is a quiet fact in the chareidi world that more and more boys, faced with the choice of sitting in yeshivah and begging on weekend or going out to work are starting to do the latter. Mostly it's the kids with well-off fathers from North America who are the biggest pushers for full-time learning. The "real" chareidim are slowly starting to change. Meeting them quietly, providing them opportunities, encouraging them to take on those parts of the real world that don't conflict with their views is the way to bring their community around. NEXT
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that "the Gedolei HaDor" will never change. You don't get to that level without certain prerequisites and hardened political beliefs. The way towards communication between the Mizrachi and the Chareidi communities is through inter-personal contact and encouragement.
ReplyDeleteThe "Gedolai Hador" are not people who meet certain objective standard. i.e. we know who hits 40 home runs and who hits 50. They become "gedolim" because other "gedoloim" say they are. And if you disagree with their lockstep voice, you are not a gado, its as simple as that. I would love to be fly on the wall at their meetings and converations. They muster majorities for their point of view that would embarass Joseph Stalin. As far as second guessing, my criticism is not that they were wrong, its their arrogance in claimimg "Daas Torah" makes them uniquely qualified to give advice on world affairs, despite the fact that they make no effort to learn anything about the real world. And why should Judaism fall apart in America. The Amish did not. In early 19th century New England, a labor shortage forced the puritans to allow their women to work in factories. They would have preferred men to work 5 days rather than allow women to work. The reason Judaism struggled in early America was their was no support system and no demographic base for stability. It is one of the great what ifs of history if a Rabbi had taken his community with him and moved over, lock stock and barrel. The social pressures that enforced Orthodoxy in Europe would then have served the same function here.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I have to note that some comparisons seem a little extreme. Mentioning Josef Stalin, y'sh, for example, is a little much. People don't hesitate to scream when you use Hitler's name is vain, y'sh, but Stalin was just as horrible an enemy of our people. There are two responses I should like to make to your points. One is that you are right that "Gedolei Hador" pick their own. However, who else is there out there? In the Chareidi world, there is a rigid hierarchy on both the Litvish and Chasidish side of things. People know whose psak's to follow. In the Mizrachi/Modern Orthodox world, there's no such thing. If the Rav Hershel Shachter were to come out with a major psak on some great social issue tomorrow, what percentage of MO's would even know he had, let alone adjust their personal religious patterns according to it? This leaves the Gedolei Hador on their own in terms of definitive leadership in the Orthodox world. NEXT...
ReplyDeleteCONT... Secondly, I disagree with your comparison with the Amish. The reason the Amish have survived culturally like they have is specifically because they have adopted a charedi-like philosophy of "real world rejection." Psychologically, Jews coming from Europe would have experienced the opposite. The Emancipation in Europe showed how hungry Jews were to become part of general society. An even more open America was an even greater temptation. If the Rav you mentioned brought his whole community with them, the enterprise would have lasted a few years at best. Once his flock realized that the whole land was open to them with all its opportunities, his attempts to keep the "shtetl" intact would have fallen apart. The reason social pressure enforced Orthodoxy in Eurpoe was twofold: One was the high level of anti-Semitism. Even if a Jew in Poland wanted to go to university, the Poles wouldn't let him. The second was the low level of Eastern European culture. Jews spoke and read 3 languages (the local tongue, Hebrew and Yiddish). The average peasant couldn't even read his own language, let alone speak any others. Why would a Jew look up to that? In America and Western Europe, however, the second reason didn't apply and the Emancipation/New World diminished the first, hence the level of assimilation.
ReplyDeleteI use wild examples, that is part of my charm. The point is that the Moetzes is not what I would consider a democratic institution. I am a student of American Jewish history, and while all what if's are speculative, I can tell you that the early Jewish Settlers tried very hard to keep their heritage and the reasons for failure revolved around the lack of qualified teachers, to convey knowledge and desire to the next generation, and insufficient numbers to allow for marriage and growth. The early settlers were Sefardim, from Marrano families. They were neither learned, nor particularly semsitive to ritual observance. There were various opportunities for Jews to come over and form there own communities, and someday I may write an "alternate universe"novel where that happened. I do know that when massive immigration did occur, post WW@, the communities grew very rapidly and thrived, despite the fact that the country was open and opportunity existed in the great wide world.
ReplyDeleteWild examples might be charming but they detract from the efficacy of the argument. Appearing sarcastic might be fine with people who know you but on a bulletin board it seems to imply a condescencion for the people you're arguing with, hardly the impression you want to give with the point you're trying to make. The Chareidi rulership isn't democratic, but why should it be? Where in Torah does it say that leadership should be democratic?
ReplyDeleteConsider it this way, something I call the "Saddam Hussein effect". Why did Iraq not surrender to US demands a few years ago? Did Saddam really think his army could take on the US? Well, yes he did. He was surrounded by generals who knew that if they said "You know, Bush is gonna open up a can of whupp-ass on you" they would be killed for disloyalty. So all he heard all day long was "Yes mighty leader, we can destroy the Americans" and he came to believe it. Now consider this: The whole Toronto kerfuffle started when Rav Kelman invited Rav Sliffkin to speak at Torah in Motion and Rav Miller called him up to tell him to call it off. Why would Rav Miller do that? After all, if Holy Blossom or Adath Israel invited Rav Sliffkin, he wouldn't have. But consider Rav Miller's position. All day he sits and learns surrounded by people who seem him as their leader. He gives a psak, they do it, only questioning him as to the specifics. No one says "no" to him. He can walk into any shul up and down Lawrence and people will stand and listen to what he has to say. That's his world. NEXT...
ReplyDeleteSo now he hears that a rabbi is inviting Rav Sliffkin to Toronto. And he's Orthodox. Well, every other Orthodox rav he's ever had anything to do with in Toronto respects and listens to him. Maybe this one didn't hear about the ban against Rav Sliffkin. So he calls him up and expects Rav Kelman to say "Oh, there's a ban? Fine, I'll cancel the program." And why shouldn't he expect that? Every other rav he actually knows would do just that. This goes back to my earlier comment about a lack of leadership within the non-chareidi Orthodox community. Who's the chief rabbi of Mizrachi and Modern Orthodoxy in Toronto, New York, Israel or the world? Who provides direction and leadership for the Mizrachi and Modern Orthodoxy? No one. So why shouldn't the Gedolei HaDor move into that empty space and claim leadership over all Orthodoxy? To that end, I nominate Rav Hecht as the new Chief Rabbi of all non-Chareidi Orthodoxy in Toronto. Any seconds?
ReplyDeleteI know Rav Hecht for a long time, and he can speak for himself, but I think he would take a Sherman. (If you don't know your USA history, general Sherman was asked to run for President and said "ig nominated I will not run and if elected I would not serve.) Anyway, since when do we need a Chief Rabbi? Yes, I know England has one, but that's because English Jewery modelled itself on the English Church which is hierarchal. Judaism has always been Congregationalist. Every Rabbi is Morah D'asrah in his own Congregation. If a layperson is not happy with the Rabbi, he can either try to get him replaced or move to a different shul. New York has not had a chief Rabbi since the illfated r' Yakov Yosef, 100 years ago. Rabbi Pinchas Teitz proclaimed himself the Chief rabbi of Elizabeth NJ, but who cared? Anyway, for the benfit of this New Yorker, is Rabbi Kelman related to Rabbi Wolf Kelman, the late executive vice President of the RA? Is Rabbi Miller related to the late R' Avigdor Miller?
ReplyDeleteI don't know if Rav Kelman is related to the ones you mentioned, nor if Toronto's Rav Miller is related to the one in the Artscroll Books. I don't even know if you're related to the Rav Willig I have mp3's of. But as for the concept of Chief Rabbi, there are two compelling reasons to have one. The first is because if we don't, Lubavitch will annoint one. It's happening all across Europe now. The second is that the Modern Orthodox/Mizrachi community is weak in its confrontations with the Chareidi community for that exact reason. Chareidim know their chain of authority and who to quote. Being MO means almost the opposite, a refusal to accept authority. To the Chareidim, a rav is a leader, to the MO's he's an employee. This is not merely an observation but also a huge problem in that no non-Chareidi community can ever set up standards because people simply will not follow them on the principle that to do so would be "Chareidi" and they don't want to do that. Why does this matter? How many MO kids go to Israel after high school and come home with black hats and a dismissal of everything their family taught them? How many Chareidi kids come home with kippot serugot and a new appreciation for the variety in the Orthodox world?
ReplyDeleteThere are a growing number of Chareidi dropouts, but that is not the point. What the basic problem is, because of ignorance of the "Roshei Yeshivot" Orthodoxy is becoming Christian in thought, rather than authentic to its own traditions. Pilgrimages to the graves of Saints? That is an ancient Catholic tradition. Why do you think Chaucers travelers were going to Canterburry? and what about Lourdes? Banned books? Well Hello, can anyone say Galileo and the inquision? When I was young I had a job near Battery Park and I remember going out for lunch and listening to a Protestant Bible Thumper, tell everyone just what it was that they had to believe in in order to be saved. THAT IS CHRISTIAN DOGMA. Man according to Protestant doctrine is saved by faith, and not by works, so if you do not have the correct set of beliefs, you will not be saved. Judaism believes in Mitzvot, God says would it be that they left me and kept my Mitzvot. Even then we do not know how HE keeps score. I have no patience for Ayatollahs and their Fatwas, where the Ayatollah is Muslim or claims to be a "Gadol". If this be heresy, make the most of it, but I will wait for GOD to tell me what I should have believed. Somehow I'm more worried by what he might think I might have done. PS If you could find out about Kelman and Miller I would appreciate it. I know Rabbi Joseph Kelman is Wolf Kelman's brother, but he is an older man and I believe he is traditional Conservative.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many things to comment on this latest post, I don't know where to begin. All right, one of the dangers of saying that Jews are picking up Christian ideas (although it's something I talk about all the time and agree is a present danger) is that sometimes the stuff we think we're picking up from them is stuff they stole from us. JC dying for your sins? How about the gemara stating that the righteous suffer for the sins of their generation? Faith being a precondition of being saved? How about "Mitzvos need proper intention." Calling Roshei Yeshivot Orthodox "ignorant" is also uncalled for. They are doing what they feel is best for the survival of their school of thought. Visits to the places of special occurences or dead people is mentioned as far back as the Tanach. As for keeping score, yes you're right. The Mishnah in Avos tells us specifically that but I'm not sure how Islam popped into this discussion. Nor do I know how mentioning Madonna's daughter is relevant. Let me submit it this way: A couple of years ago there was an editorial piece at jewsweek.com by a non-religious Jew who claimed that being religious was temporal in nature. For example, if he decided to visit a sick friend, while he was doing that he could consider himself "temporarily Orthodox" because he was doing a mitzvah. And while an identifiably Orthodox Jew was cheating on his taxes, he could not call himself Orthodox because he was breaking the rules about fraud, lying, etc. This is a disingenious argument. Orthodoxy, more than ever today, is about identification with a movement. It's political to a large extent. After all, what's the difference between a Mizrachi kollel guy and a Chareidi kollel guy who both work at the same level of observance? The kippah, that's it yet two pieces of cloth put them poles apart. The bottom line, if that's true, is that the Chareidim are simply the dominant political party in the Orthodox world and in the absence of any viable competition, they have moved into the position of leadership. If you have a complain, then organize an opposition party that stands for something more than simply "opposing" the ruling party. As for Chaucer's travellers, (Canterbury, not burry) they were having more fun on the trip. I don't know if they ever even made it there.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many things to comment on this latest post, I don't know where to begin. All right, one of the dangers of saying that Jews are picking up Christian ideas (although it's something I talk about all the time and agree is a present danger) is that sometimes the stuff we think we're picking up from them is stuff they stole from us. JC dying for your sins? How about the gemara stating that the righteous suffer for the sins of their generation? Faith being a precondition of being saved? How about "Mitzvos need proper intention." Calling Roshei Yeshivot Orthodox "ignorant" is also uncalled for. They are doing what they feel is best for the survival of their school of thought. Visits to the places of special occurences or dead people is mentioned as far back as the Tanach. As for keeping score, yes you're right. The Mishnah in Avos tells us specifically that but I'm not sure how Islam popped into this discussion. Nor do I know how mentioning Madonna's daughter is relevant.
ReplyDeleteLet me submit it this way: A couple of years ago there was an editorial piece at jewsweek.com by a non-religious Jew who claimed that being religious was temporal in nature. For example, if he decided to visit a sick friend, while he was doing that he could consider himself "temporarily Orthodox" because he was doing a mitzvah. And while an identifiably Orthodox Jew was cheating on his taxes, he could not call himself Orthodox because he was breaking the rules about fraud, lying, etc. This is a disingenious argument. Orthodoxy, more than ever today, is about identification with a movement. It's political to a large extent. After all, what's the difference between a Mizrachi kollel guy and a Chareidi kollel guy who both work at the same level of observance? The kippah, that's it yet two pieces of cloth put them poles apart. The bottom line, if that's true, is that the Chareidim are simply the dominant political party in the Orthodox world and in the absence of any viable competition, they have moved into the position of leadership. If you have a complain, then organize an opposition party that stands for something more than simply "opposing" the ruling party. As for Chaucer's travellers, (Canterbury, not burry) they were having more fun on the trip. I don't know if they ever even made it there.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I read through my postings three times, and I can't find any mention of Madonna, or her daughter. Did I throw it in somewhere? It does not sound like something I would sat. Anyway, a Jewish Pope would be useful in certain ways. He would speak ex-cathedra on certain matters and his opinion would govern. Unfortunately we don't have and won't have a Jewish Pope. What has happened is that the Roshei Yeshivot have conflated their role with that of the Chasidishe Rebbe, as controllers of their adherents body and soul. And to eliminate the old conundrum of they both can't be right, they have determined to march in lockstep as much as possible. So instead of TESHUVOT, which can be argued with and stand on their facts as well as their logic, we get fatwas, prclamations. We cannot argue with them they have 10, 20, 50, 100 names lined up. But a fundamental rule of Mathematics is 100 times Zero is still ZERO. I do not have to ask for an Halachic opinion unless I have an halachic question. If I am know that drinking water in NYC is kosher, I do not care how many learned Rabbis sign a letter and say it is treif. If the OU gives a hechsher on wood alcohol, which will kill if swallowed, I don't have to be a scholar to wonder how much they were being paid for that hechsher. I just pray every day that no one sees the hechsher and takes a swig. In short, the emperor wears no clothes and I get a perverse pleasure shouting out this message to all that may hear. And most of all, I wait for the day when the LORD GOD will ask the question he asked to Job's friends. "WHY DO YOU DEFEND ME WITH LIES?!!! Why don't you have the faith to realize that it is an insult to the DIVINE NAME to defend it with lies." The truth is GOD"S seal. We are faithful to HIM when we proclaim it loudly and clearly.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry. I thought you knew who Lourdes was. I agree that the Roshei Yeshivot have become "Rebbes" in their own domains and that there are far too many teshuvot floating around for which there were never any shailos in the first place. However, there are two levels to the shailoh-teshuvah process. The first is the personal level. I have a question, I ask my rabbi, he gives me an answer based on his knowledge of halachah and my personal level of observance. The second is the national level. Throughout the millenia many teshuvot became part of halachah because of the authority of the rav who issued it. It didn't matter if you'd never heard of the Rashba or the Ritva when they released their teshuvot. Their authority which was based on their scholarship and thoroughness in their approach to halachic interpretation made their rulings authoritative. Another good example are the Derech HaChayim and the Mishnah Berurah. What is happening nowadays is that the Orthodox community has split along traditional and modern lines. The traditional community continues to give their leading rabbanim the same authority they did in "the old country". The modern community looks upon rabbanim as community employees whose job is to make the bar mitzvah inspirational. So it's no wonder that the modern community doesn't understand the idea of Gedolei Hador. As I said before, the Jewish world abhors a leadership vacuum and in the absence of any universally respected Gadol (like the Chofetz Chayim) whose piety and love of Am Yisrael cut across denominational lines, a new bunch have set up shop. The only way to counter that is to provide a viable alternative. In the world of Modern Orthodoxy that doesn't exist. Instead, MO rabbonim spend their time defending their being "modern" as if it's an essential requirement to lead a full Jewish life and wind up not getting taken seriously either by their flocks or their chareidi counterparts.
ReplyDeleteI now see where we differ. Yes, there is an informal shaila veteshuva process, where you ask your rebbi and he answers you. But teshuvot were NEVER accepted because of who wrote them, only because of the argoments that were marshalled. People disagreed with the Rashba and the Ritva. People disagreed with RASHI. His sons in law and grandchildren didn't hesitate. That's Tosefos. Open the Shulchan Aruch and on every page you'll see the Shach and Taz disagreeing. The Oruch Hashulchan disagrees frequently with the Mishneh Brurah. Now you have not Teshuvot that stand on their logic but fiats or gezerot that stand only on the basis of the list of signatures that race to append thamselves and be included as a Gadol. What really bothers me is that there is a deliberate confusion of the two aspects, teshuvot and gezerot. There is also a tremendous fear of making waves, of saying anything controversial. Example: Rav Moshe never published a psak un Yom Ha'atzmaut. I know that he was asked, because my bar mitzvah was made with music on Yom Ha'atzmaut. Two of the guesta were students of Rav Moshe and each asked him. They both attended. Why wasn't this teshuvah published? Fear of controversy and of 2:00 AM phone calls. Terrorism works, whether it's muslim fundamentalism or Jewish fundamentalism. Okay, there is a big difference between 2:00 AM phone calls and actual death threats and death, but the principle of ruling by fear is there. BTW I once had a letter to the editor published that was critical of R' Elia Tzvei of Philadelphia. I received 4-5 phone calls between 2 and 3 AM
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of fact, we're not disagreeing at all. We both agree there is a difference between teshovos and gezeiros. As the gemara says, "come see the difference between the earlier and later generations." People who disagreed with Rashi (some relatively unknown guy named the Ramban comes to mind) did so based on a knowledge of the sources and a different interpretation of them giving weight to different ideas that Rashi might not have. But I doubt the Ramban ever approached his critiquing of Rashi wihtout first filling himself with a sense of awe and reverence for who he was disagreeing with. It's said of the Vilna Gaon that he fasted for 3 days before daring to make an emmendations to the Shulchan Aruch, even when he was sure he'd found something incorrect. That's the essense of true debate. I disagree with you but respect you and the legitimacy of your point of view.
ReplyDeleteNowadays, that intellectual maturity is completely lost. First of all, unless you belong to a specific, politically defined group, your opinion does not count and you can be shouted down with impunity. Secondly, if you're in the group and disagree with the "religiously correct" opinion, you have become a traitor to the group and can be harrassed freely because of that. Even the Rav Eliashiv, shlit"a, has been physically attacked in public by the Neturei Karta from time to time because of their intolerance for other points of view. For me, the response to this is a story I heard from the Rav Moshe Tendler, shlit"a, about a psak from HaRav HaGaon Moshe Feinstein, ztk"l, on artificial insemination. The Satmar Rebbe of the day disagreed vehemently with the psak and sent his three finest scholars to tell the Rav to repudiate his views but under no circumstances were they to engage in discussion with him. Unfortunatley, these scholars had more intellectual curiosity than their master and did so. The Rav was able to answer all their challenges and justify the legitimacy of their view. When the scholars, duly humbled, returned to their Rebbe, his angry response was "I told you not to discuss it with him!" The is the essence of what's going on today. No discussion! I'm right and you're wrong. Done! However, where Modern Orthodoxy falls down is that it generally fails to produce large numbers of people with the same fervour for its philosophy that the Chareidim do. A Chareidi will argue his point and reference several of his Gedolim. The MO will justify his point by saying "Well, I'm not Chareidi." This summer I spent a week at a MO camp where there is dancing in the dining hall on Friday nights. The dancing is separate but there is no mechitzah. When the camp Rav announced that one should be put up, the two answers from the executive were "We're not Camp Agudah" and "We didn't ask your opinion". Now, with an attitude like that, why should the Chareidi not see themselves as the only legitimate players in the field?
ReplyDeleteI think that this dialogue will be even more appreciated as the later parts of this article are presented. There is a need for a mixture of awe and recognition of the intellectual value of the argument. There is no doubt that the force of argument was the deciding factor in many deliberations but the personhood of the posek also did carry weight. Throughout the commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch we see presentations of arguments against the decisions of other gedolim that only to end with the one disagreeing stating that, practically, one should still follow the view of the one with which he disagrees -- for it still... Other times we find the same person, disagreeing with the same previous scholar, stating that he should be followed. The person mattered. The argument mattered. It was also part of the halachic call. But still, the reason the person mattered was because he was a master of Torah thought and there was humility imbedded in the one disagreeing to recognize that the inability to accept the argument could be based in his own failings.
ReplyDeleteThere is the story of one of the Sfas Emes' ancestors writing a commentary on the Shulchan Aruch that he was told, upon review, was so brilliant that it would replace the Shach's in future editions of the book. In response, he burned his manuscript stating that his humble thoughts could not possibly be used to replace the Shach's. Even generation has its own sin. The 70's had polyester, wide collars and disco (okay, they had three). Ours is aorrgant selfishness. Chazal tell us that if a person runs after kavod, kavod runs away from him but if he runs from kavod, then kavod chases after him. One commentator then asks: If he's running from kavod, why should it chase him? The answer is that there are some people who run from kavod but constantly check over their shoulder to make sure it's chasing after them. Nowadays, this is the greatest stumbling block of humility. We want everyone to know how humble we are and we'll show off as much as we can to get people to notice it. That is another factor that has led to the decline in halachic debate. The thought that I might be wrong and the other guy who wears the wrong hat might be right is inconceivable. I'm so much more humble than him!
ReplyDelete