Paul,
Since my father does not read any blogs and will therefore not see this post unless I show it to him, I am writing to object to your criticism of his Cross-Currents post on the Slifkin matter. I enjoy your posts and respect your opinions, but you seem to have a particular disdain for Cross-Currents, even to posts that are clearly critical of charedi excesses.
My father's Cross-Currents post was (uniquely) unequivocal in criticizing the ban on the Slifkin ban. He wrote: "Whatever one thinks of [Rabbi Slifkin's] writings, the ban issued against his work is inappropriate and wrongful. Much the same can be said about several other celebrated recent condemnations of books, specifically including Rabbi Nosson Kaminetsky’s controversial works. There should be a more balanced and appropriate way of expressing disagreement with writers who are certainly shomere torah v’mitzvos without resorting to cherems and the like."
The post continued that the ban is also counterpro
(cont'd from previous comment)
The post continued that the ban is also counterproductive, because it undermines kiruv and repels observant Jews. To write that this "seems to imply that the reason why the 'Cherem' should not have happened is because of image" is absurd. The post was clear: The ban is inherently "inappropriate and wrongful" and there are respectful ways to submit disagreement with R. Slifkin without resorting to a ban.
The post's reference to the additonal negative consequences did not suggest that the ban would be acceptable if not for those additional factors.
By the way, for background, my father did not know anything substantive either about Slifkin or the ban until I mentioned it to him in the last week, after someone commented on my blog (in response to my criticism of the ban) with a quuestion of what my father's views are. I then sent him the text of the ban, the Yated article about the ban, the material on Slifkin's site, as well as Gil Student's posts on Hirhurim.
Paul: It evidently suits some unnamed purpose of yours to assume that Rabbonim who remain silent on this matter do so for reasons of cowardice. YOu have no evidence that this is why they are silent, you (along with Shmarya) simply assume it. But there may be other reasons for their silence. As I posted in another forum, I know of two Rabbonim who disagree with the ban, but are unwilling to defend him because they disagree strongly with his overall tone, which they see as disrespectful to Chazal and Rishonim. Like it or not, their coming to Slifkin's defense will be translated in the eyes of the public as a defense of his work, and they do not wish to be associated with his work.
You may disagree with their reasoning, you may feel that Slifkin is not disrespectful of Chazal - that is your right. But you have no right to characterize their silence as cowardice.
I ask you, you're the big journalist; have you called any big-time rabbonim to find out why they won't support Slifki
I ask you, you're the big journalist; have you called any big-time rabbonim to find out why they won't support Slifkin? If you haven't - and I assume that's the case, for you would have said so if you had - then why are you making unsupported accusations?
Paul isn't a journalist. He's involved in jewish education. His daughter miriam is the big time journalist (and daughter in law of even a bigger time one)
My mistake. Nevertheless, it doesn't absolve him of the duty to do some fact-checking before leveling accusations.
Paul, I'm also confused by your demand for "fair process." You probably would like the signers to give Slifkin a chance to explain why his works are not kefirah. But in their eyes, there is no defense that can be made. They are authorities in their own right, and they have decided that the books contain kefirah. They are entirely within their rights, and in fact obligated by their lights, to warn their followers of the danger. If the books are republished without the offending parts, perhaps they would rescind the ban. But so long as they stand as originally published, what is there to debate?
And I am aware that Slifkin offered to remove the offending portions. However, he has not yet done so. Therefore, these rabbonim, according to their views, are entirely within their rights to ban the books. They are not obligated to ask his opinion first.
who's miriam's father in law?
I find it appalling that after all the sniping at Cross-Currents, their detractors find it not at all remarkable that CC has come out universally against the ban. This blog and others would like to paint CC as a bunch of Haredi robots who cant think for themselves, but when something happens which upends their view of CC, they revert to nitpicking to support their narrow view.
It is ASTOUNDING that not ONE poster on CC supports the ban. NOT ONE. And this is the supposed Haredi apologist rag.
That this blog and others give CC no credit for its position, in spite of it not conforming to their precise demands, shows a real lack of maturity.
Dude!
Zev - the point is that the signatories did not read the books. Maybe there was something at the beginning of the books that put the content in a different light.
Heck, many of the signatories don't even read English. So they were relying on other people's opinions as to what's in the book. Why didn't they ask the author, or the rabbis who gave haskomot, if they had been given accurate information?
Lots of them read English; some are actually Americans.
Thanks for all of the above comments. I've re-read all the C_C postings, and I don't think I have anything to add to what I've already said.
"I don't think I have anything to add to what I've already said."
Not surprising...
For all those who think that CC should be getting some credit for their seeming independent mindedness - true, they expressed (half-hearted) disapproval about it all, but they didn't really say what needed to be said.
The "gedolim" screwed up. Not just screwed up. But acted in a way which was unfair, dishonest, and motivated by many factors other than "torah values". And no one is really taking them to task for what's happened. No one is demanding that the leaders be held accountable. All that we get is some half-hearted grumbling about it, but at the end of the day, the grumblers don't dare openly and unequivocally demand some justice. Or even just admit that there is something really messed up about the way this society is functioning.
What, you want us all to be impressed that people can admit that they aren't comfortable with what's happened? Ok, I'm impressed, but let's see something a bit more. Then they'll deserve real praise.
Dude: "I find it appalling that after all the sniping at Cross-Currents, their detractors find it not at all remarkable that CC has come out universally against the ban."
I assume Mr. Dude means unanimously when he says universally, but in either case: There has been one post on Cross-Currents in opposition to the ramifications of the ban on Orthodox retention levels. There have been two comments sort of standing up for Slifkin. This is neither unanimous nor universal, but I suppose we should be glad for whatever crumbs we can get.
More troubling is Zev's assertion that, "(l)ike it or not, their coming to Slifkin's defense will be translated in the eyes of the public as a defense of his work, and they do not wish to be associated with his work."
One wonders why these unnamed rabbis cannot express both their opposition to the ban and their concerns with the books. The chosen approach is consistent only with cowardice.
CC didn't do anything that deserves thanks or compliments. Their reaction to the ban, and their support for Slifkin, was lukewarm, timid and frightned.
The worst was Feldman's article which repeated all the myths and all the Haredi shibboleths about Orthodoxy. It was a hevy handed hack-job, lacking in perspective, sympathy, honesty or kindness.
On my blog Gil claims this was done because Feldman needed to first assert his own "credibility" before discussing Slifkin. If that's so, the Haredim are in worse intellectual shape than I imagined, and Feldman deserves scorn for playing to their close-minded ignorance.
"Lots of them read English; some are actually Americans"
A minority of those who signed speak English.
People are not upset with Cross Currents, and they give them some credit. But it's not enough! Since it's the ONLY condemnation one hears, it fails. If this is the BEST the charedi critics can do, it's not good enough. The posts on CC reek with fear of speaking only.
"only."
That should be "openly"
The problem with all you complainers is your demand that the folks on CC ignore reality.
They work and live in an environment where it is impossible to do what you demand. I am personally aware that at least two of the contributors to CC feel as you (and I) do but are afraid to speak out publicly. All you folks beat your chests and demand that they speak out as you so boldly have (in your anonymous blogs and your MO communities). It isnt that simple.
The point that I was making, which you choose to ignore is that the only reaction to the ban on CC has been negative. This runs directly counter to the incessant bad-mouting of CC as a Haredi apologist rag. Thus to compensate for this blow to the aformentioned disdain for CC, we get nitpicking on style.
Let me close by saying that there are many folks as angry as you who are trying to do what they can behind the scenes. Your demand that they simply let loose publicly is unreasonable, unrealistic, and simply unproductive.
Dude: With this ban, higiu mayim ad nofesh, and the time for silence and working behind the scenes is over. Someone in the chareid world needs to take a strong stance and say that this ban is WRONG, that the process was unfair, etc. The statement needs to be made with no qualifications, and they need to say also that the issue of Slifkin's style or attitude or tone is not on the table anymore, given the way the episode was handled. It's too late for objections to Slifkin's "attitude" now. If that was the objection, this ban is indefensible. The opposition to the ban can NOT be in the form of "I oppose the ban,but understand why the gedolim are oppposed to Slifkin's works." It MUST take the form of "Those who were opposed to Slifkin's overall tone have made their objections known in the most wrongful way, to the point that our objection to the ban is much greater than any possible objection to Slifkin can be."
Dude, you utterly miss the point. You write
"I am personally aware that at least two of the contributors to CC feel as you (and I) do but are afraid to speak out publicly."
They are AFRAID. People forgive the fear on a personal level - they are simply saying that so long as the contributors to CC are ruled by fear, they are part of the corrupt culture - more of the problem, not the solution.
The disappointment with CC is not personal - it's precisely the fact that people beholden to the charedi world lose their spine and cannot speak their mind that is being criticized.
The culture MUST change so that people can speak freely. So long as one cannot speak out, charedi culture will be run by zealots and mediocrities who write spin.
Despite saying I didn't have anything further to say, see my latest posting on Isaiah Berlin etc, and see the arguments in the comments section of Dov Bear's posting about Rabbi Feldman's neo-'19 letters' dialogue on C-C.
"With this ban, higiu mayim ad nofesh, and the time for silence and working behind the scenes is over."
How ironic that this is signed by "Anonymous." It's always nice to see a person display the courage of his convictions!
Anonymous -
I and those who feel as I do agree. We hope and wish that someone of significant stature would speak out. But no-one has. I am comforted that I have heard personally from two Gedolim who did not sign the ban who both disagree strongly with it.
I suppose they could speak out, but I ask you to think what practical result it would have. It scares me because I think a rift in Frum Judaism is inevitable, I just think that their speaking out would accelerate it. I know which side I stand on, and I fear for the future of Frum Judaism.
Many people I have spoken with have told me that this was the straw that broke the camels back. But no-one is quite sure what to do other than approach the signers and make clear what we feel went wrong.
The problem is that anyone who speaks out will be perceived in Haredi circles as a maverick who is unhinged (after all, look who he disagrees with!).
It is a bad situation with no good solution.
I find myself agreeing with Dud, and this frightens me, For it means that we have lost.
It means that a certain old, and very good style of Orthodox Judaism has been murdered; yet another victim of the Eastern European Jewish tsunami.
Paul wrote: "Rabbi Slifkin's view is not non-Orthodox. Most people agree with that."
What's your source for that assertion? Have you taken a poll? Has anyone? And what kind of Orthodox do you mean? Among the Orthodox I associate with, I can attest that Slifkin's view is exceedingly unorthodox, with both upper- and lower-case O.
Yes, because the Eastern European's have over taken us.
Zev, your observations is descriptive -it says what Orthodoxy is - but it does not say what Orthodoxy must be.
Paul is talking about what is, not what should, or might, or must be.
"a certain old, and very good style of Orthodox Judaism has been murdered"
Not just yet. My sense is that this form of Orthodoxy (most common in 'out-of-town' communities, as well as in much of the graduates of NIRC, Chofetz Chaim, etc...) is not going away just yet. I think though, that it will eventually split from 'Yated' Orthodoxy. In truth, to some extent it already has, it is simply these events which push the two sides apart.
I dont know what the future holds...but I am nervous.
It is clear that moderate charedim are rejecting much of the nonsense of some of the extreme charedi leadership. In the Queens neighborhood that I now live in - a mix of moderate charedim and centrist Orthodox, everyone has Internet access, most have TVs, and nobody takes bans seriously. Only in places like Lakewood are the extreme proclamations given any credence. Even there, a friend of mine (in the Lakewood kollel) has Internet access.
Zev,
It's not about what you or your friends believe Orthodoxy is. In fact, it doesn't really matter what the average Lakewood or YU guy thinks.
What matters is the truth.
In this case, the truth is clear – Tanaim and Rishonim held views very similar to Rabbi Slifkin's. Therefore, no matter who twisted your thought process may be, the views expressed by those rabbanim – R. Slifkin included – cannot be heresy.
You don't like Shitat Sefer Temunah?
Fine. Don't hold that way.
You want to make Philip Henry Gosse into a Gadol b'Torah?
I disagree, but you have that right.
But you and your 'gedolim' do not have the right to force your shitot on the rest of us.
If you cannot understand that, perhaps a return trip to kindergarten for some remedial sharing-and-playing-well-with-others work is in order.
"How ironic that this is signed by "Anonymous." It's always nice to see a person display the courage of his convictions!"
What idiocy. If I signed my post "Zev" would you know who I am?
I am anonymous on the internet for all the usual reasons. I am not anonymous in my real life, and I speak very openly about this matter and for that matter anything I post about. I have made my views known to the people I've talked to about it. "Dude" (Or is it LOU?) is doing exactly the same.
"I suppose they could speak out, but I ask you to think what practical result it would have. It scares me because I think a rift in Frum Judaism is inevitable, I just think that their speaking out would accelerate it. I know which side I stand on, and I fear for the future of Frum Judaism."
I do too.
"The problem is that anyone who speaks out will be perceived in Haredi circles as a maverick who is unhinged (after all, look who he disagrees with!)."
At least one well-respected (ex Chaim Berliner) spoke out this week. I doubt anyone thinks he is unhinged for speaking out. More people oppose the ban than support it.
"Even there, a friend of mine (in the Lakewood kollel) has Internet access."
I also have friends in Lakewood kollel with net access.
Proportionately fewer than anywhere else, though.
Zev:
Rav Chaim Kanievsky has stated that The Chazon Ish knew of R. Gedalyah Nadel's views and still approved of him. According to Rabbi Kanievsky, the Chazon Ish WAS aware of his views on evolution, contrary to what the spinners say.
If the Chazon Ish said it's not kefira, no one alive today has the stature to undo his p'sak.
"Rav Chaim Kanievsky has stated that The Chazon Ish knew of R. Gedalyah Nadel's views and still approved of him."
Really? Who did he say that to, and how do you know he said it? And where are R' Gedalya Nadel's views printed, and where is the Chazon Ish's haskama on them? This is all fourth-hand inaccurate gossip, so don't cite it as some kind of authoritative source.
For the record, I don't believe there's kefirah in there either, at least not in the stuff I've read. I'm simply defending their right to ban the book if they decide there is.
As for giving your name, if you do it elsewhere, fine. I was pointing out how silly it is to make ringing pronouncements about openly defying the ban when you're afraid to give even your first name.
I didn't hear it with my own ears. R. chaim kanievsky didn't sign the ban, however, and both he and the Steipler categorically refused to sign similar statments about R. Nadel for this reason. Rav Nadel's views are published according to R. Slifkin, or about to be. You can check R. Slifkin's website and the avodah list for details.
"I was pointing out how silly it is to make ringing pronouncements about openly defying the ban when you're afraid to give even your first name."
And I was pointing out what an idiot you must be to jump on people named anonymous and not on people named Zev. Anyone who makes up a first name or gives a common first name is "courageous" and those who are too lazy to make one up are hypocrites. How foolish.
"Anyone who makes up a first name or gives a common first name is "courageous"
Not at all. But I'm not the one saying how the time has come to take a stand, blah, blah, blah.
And the biggest idiot is someone who treats every nugget of rumour and gossip as gospel truth.
Zev, you apparently can't read either. I said that prominent people in the charedi world need to take a firmer stand. I said that in response to Dude who was questioning why people on CrossCurrents aren't given more credit. I am not a prominent person in the charedi world, and what I write on blogs will not make a difference. As it happens, I've been very vocal in person too, which might make a difference, assuming many others are vocal in person. Which leads me to your next criticism:
"And the biggest idiot is someone who treats every nugget of rumour and gossip as gospel truth."
Who's doing that?
I'm merely pointing out that those who accept R. Gedalyah Nadel to be maspid him were relying on the same information I cited above. There were many attempted bans on Rav Nadel and they never got off the ground because the Steipler and co. refused to go along with it. This is not a local b'nei brak concern, so they could do an end run around R. Kanievsky and R. Wosner. The fa
The fact remains that their position is known, and they hold it in the name of the Chazon Ish.
"Zev, you apparently can't read either."
Wow, some insult.
You're awfully tetchy, y'know? Try to relax a bit.
Marvin Schick expands on his previous Cross-Currents post.
Commenting by HaloScan
