http://www.jewishpress.com/
conte...contentid=35537
see the only comment there...
I see that you picked up on MA's favoritism. Very blatant. He could have had more impact if he would have been more fair.
That was excellent. Yiasher Kochacha.
I can relate to the woman who defends R' David and her complaint of cultural imperialism. All four of my grandparents came from Germany, and now, just two generations later, only a few of their minhagim are left. In yeshivah I was always taught Eastern European minhagim as if they were noramtive halachah.
"The father comes home from shul Pesach night and puts on his kittel"
Except that my father never did.
"We make sure to shlug kaporos before Yom Kippur."
Except that we don't.
My grandmother, who grew up in a frum family, never covered her hair until my grandparents moved to New York, thought they were married twenty years earlier. My mother wouldn't dream of walking outside with her hair uncovered, and my sister worries about wearing socks.
Thanks. I don't see favoritism as a problem. I think it is that he chose to portray the presumptive rosh yeshiva and his wife as jerks. I understand they he may not have intended it. After all, he didn't portray the deceased rosh yeshiva that way. I believe him when he says in that Jewish Press interview that is not that Rabbi Grossman is arrogant (or, in my words, a jerk) but he is a zealot. Thus, I think R. Angel didn't mean to portray Rav Shimshon as a person with grave character flaws, except insofar as zealotry itself is a character flaw. But in my view he did not succeed here. Not even a shadow or a glimpse of any kindness or benevolence is seen in Rav Shimshon. He may have austere, exacting standards, but that doesn't mean he has to fly into a rage at Rav David when he was his student. He can give shtarke mussar coated in honey, he can push away with the left hand, and pull closer with the right, all while being a really farchnyukte kannoi.
That said, certain ways his jerkiness manifests itself is pretty authentic, like his lectures about Daas Torah (without ever naming the concept). There are specific, living individuals (some of whom are seen as pretty nice guys, politics aside) who have said equally strident things that disgust the modern listener.
As I said in my review, I felt he was most successful in portraying the talmidim. Each one was "nice." They were also both fair, respectful and passionate and able to convey what it was they were passionate about. Those two chapters are about as close as it gets to a real, honest debate without rancor over these two sides.
The book was highly unplausible. Very, very stereotypical. Very harsh towards the UO and very strong in pushing the "enlightened" agenda.
How many YU lomdim spent anytime in a right-wing yeshiva? Caricatures are often written by those who only look in from the outside.
I think I may need a review of this review :)
>While it pains me to say this, given my whole "Why is Rav Shimshon a jerk" spiel above, this attitude is not at all inauthentic.
Exhibit A: http://www.cross-currents.com/ar...gnated-drivers/
The yeshivish attitude is that only gedolim are entitled to opinions. The more moderate ones will say that only gedolim are entitled to express opinions. And this attitude is a "jerky" one - for better or for worse (ya - it's for worse).
I used to daven in a yeshivish shul. When my daughter onces asked me if its more important to learn Torah or be nice - I mistakenly told her to ask a rabbi who sat near me. His answer was "learning Torah is very very important. Being nice is also important, but less so." And there you have it "derech eretz kadma laTorah" is no more in this society - and the rest is commentary.
"in my opinion the fact that the midrash features two brothers might be a clue that it is not really a rabbinic teaching"
You'll have to clue me in here.
1. "First, I wish that R. Angel had included references"
but the same can be said of many novels. can you imagine how much longer Potok's books would have been if there were footnotes and appendexes attached?
2. yours was not the only, nor first, venue for the non midrash standing of the 2 brothers story. which means R Angel didnt bother checking many places. neither apparently, asking his son, who surely knows this. but perhaps it was meant more innocently-- ie R Angel knows its not a midrash but most ppl in the "outside world" dont, and that includes rebbeim in a yeshiva -- and thus to portray that ignorance? more puts it as a midrash in the rebbes mouth.
but i second Nachums plea for further elaboration why 2 brothers might signal a non midrash
3. i remember showing R M Willig a piece in Kafah's explanation that apparently answered a stira he was pointig out. and how surprised r willig was to discover rav kafah.
4. i think you should have a regular column/blog in which you review popular fiction, contemporary or older, that has strong statements/criticisms of contemporary judaism (perhaps specifically oj)
-- mivami
Me too. (I'm evidently not a "mavin".)
Re the kiddush cup issue, people have claimed that kiddush cups in Europe tended to be very small due to extreme poverty. I don't know how much validity there is to this claim. But there are other things that require shiurim, and some were rather large, e.g. mikva'os.
Chardal: "When my daughter onces asked me if its more important to learn Torah or be nice - I mistakenly told her to ask a rabbi who sat near me. His answer was "learning Torah is very very important. Being nice is also important, but less so." And there you have it "derech eretz kadma laTorah" is no more in this society - and the rest is commentary."
It's a difficult question, because it's hard to be sure the questioner and questionee had the same understanding of what was meant by learning Torah versus being nice. IOW how ignorant versus how educated, and how nice versus how much of a jerk.
I would speculate that the rabbi may understood the question as being the classic question of "I have some spare time and should I spend it learning Torah or doing chessed?". But even if not, there is probably more of an assumption that of course a certain level of basic decency is present, versus in the case of Torah learning where it is not.
By the way, Thanksgiving hasn't been observed continually since 1789.
"You'll have to clue me in here."
Zugot?
Thanks for the review (although you should put "spoiler alert" in the title).
Finally, I don't think portraying the father as a more sympathetic figure mitigates the lack of nuance in the portrayal of the UO Yeshiva world -- idealizing traditional yeshiva figures of yesteryear (e.g., the Netziv, R' Moshe Feinstein,R' Yakov Kaminetsky) as more openminded is typical of the MO outlook.
"a rabbi who was serving the students of Barnard and Columbia."
wo knowing the entire context its hard to be sure, but i would bet this is a ref to rabbi charles sheer. i am pretty sure he and r angel were/are friends
--mivami
By the way, Fred, I laughed out loud a number of times while reading this. Thanks.
Nice review.
I personally wouldn't like either of them as my Rosh Yeshiva - Rabbi Grossman for being too jerky and Rabbi Mercado for being too left-wingy.
This is despite my being a Turkish Jew whose great-grandmother's middle name was Sultana.
BTW, does the extensive halachic basis for sons having precedence in these appointments (if they are qualified) actually come up in the book, or is this portrayed as completely a part of the son's personal sense of entitlement?
Re Grossman Jr's attitude to the board, this is said to be exactly the attitude that the Alter of Novhardok took with his financial supporters (per T'nuas Hamussar) and it was said to work very well for him, as his backers were impressed with the fact that he wouldn't kowtow to anyone including them. RM Feinstein was known as a pretty nice guy generally, and not an arrogant jerk, but I'm pretty sure he once fired the board of MTJ in some sort of dispute or other.
Basically the idea that ba'alei battim have a legitimate opinion in Torah matters based on their money is generally anathema in yeshiva circles. Of course some amount is unavoidable, in most cases. Mi sheyesh lo me'ah, yesh lo de'ah. And there's a certain amount of diplomacy required in making this point as well.
>It's a difficult question, because it's hard to be sure the questioner and questionee had the same understanding of what was meant by learning Torah versus being nice. IOW how ignorant versus how educated, and how nice versus how much of a jerk.
She was a 7 year old girl. The correct answer is: You have to be nice in order to learn Torah properly. NOT that sitting down and learning is superior to the basic moral framework of a child which can be reduced to "nice == good ; mean == evil"
I have dozens of other examples. Just go to the average yeshivish day school and see how the children act towards the secular studies teachers. the attitudes of the kids reflect an ideology that ONLY values torah to the exclusion and minimization of most other traditional values. Yeshivish society reinforces this imbalance. I could list examples of this for hours ... if it didn't cause my blood presure to rise.
>You'll have to clue me in here.
What's so great about two brothers who love each other? At the risk of sounding very Orientalist, that's a very Arab theme, and not very Chazalic. Oh, we have our own chauvinism and tribalism (as well as universalism), but it's wider than two brothers being kind to each other, at least that is a hunch I have.
>but the same can be said of many novels. can you imagine how much longer Potok's books would have been if there were footnotes and appendexes attached?
Yes. But I didn't review them, I reviewed Angel!
>yours was not the only, nor first, venue for the non midrash standing of the 2 brothers story. which means R Angel didnt bother checking many places.
Of course not. I was kidding about the reference to him not reading me; I'm not that conceited. I linked to me, of course, because I want to direct people to what I've written, so long as it's relevant.
>but perhaps it was meant more innocently-- ie R Angel knows its not a midrash but most ppl in the "outside world" dont, and that includes rebbeim in a yeshiva -- and thus to portray that ignorance? more puts it as a midrash in the rebbes mouth.
Unlikely; and even if so, then it was a bad choice then to put it in the mouth of the Mercado supporter.
>i remember showing R M Willig a piece in Kafah's explanation that apparently answered a stira he was pointig out. and how surprised r willig was to discover rav kafah.
Surprised and happy, or surprised and chagrined?
>i think you should have a regular column/blog in which you review popular fiction, contemporary or older, that has strong statements/criticisms of contemporary judaism (perhaps specifically oj)
Thanks. Any suggestions?
>By the way, Fred, I laughed out loud a number of times while reading this. Thanks.
Thanks!
Chardal, while I agree with you that there is some unfortunate realism, let me give you an example of what I mean by saying that Rav Shimshon didn't have to be a jerk.
As a kid I had a rebbe who was a very sweet man. As a kid I was basically oblivious to who is and isn't a "zealot." I could see who was nice and who wasn't, but I just expected rabbis to be against popular culture, to push more frumkeit, etc.
As it turned out, being a children's rebbe was only an early stage in this rebbe's career, and now he is a widely respected ba'al machshava, ba'al etzah and talmid chochom. So it was as an adult that I heard him speak, and I was shocked to hear how zealous and lacking in nuance he was. This and that was "assur." Period. Assur. Now the truth is, he didn't change. He wasn't talking to kids this time. But even though his attitude is obviously "Of course I am right and there's nothing to debate," he is still pleasant. He is nice. He would not humiliate a talmid or anyone. I don't think he is compromising at all, about his interpretation of Orthodoxy. But he is a mentch; and I bet you he would have told your daughter something different, or another way.
>BTW, does the extensive halachic basis for sons having precedence in these appointments (if they are qualified) actually come up in the book, or is this portrayed as completely a part of the son's personal sense of entitlement?
The latter.
>Basically the idea that ba'alei battim have a legitimate opinion in Torah matters based on their money is generally anathema in yeshiva circles.
We know; that's what this book is partly about. That's why it ends with Mercado imploring them to transcribe and print the minutes; evidently that's what the book is! He and his way lost, but he managed to reach the baal ha-batim in a small, yet significant way.
One more reference Rabbi Angel should have added: R' Yosef Messas regarding women covering their hair. Do you really think Rabbi Angel didn't have this in mind??!! http://www.urimpublications.com/
...uct_Code=Search
And don't forget about Rabbi Angel's novel interpretation - or does he have a source? - of the mishnah in Avot about the rabbi being asked to be a shul rabbi and responded that he won't for all the money in the world.
I agree with you that Rabbi Angel's depictions are often heavy-handed, but the writing was still entertaining and flowed well - I read the whole book in one sitting! - and the hashkafot seem to have been expressed pretty much accurately.
He did mean him. He explicitly mentioned him in the interview with the Jewish Press linked to in the first comment. I have to say, that's kind of an embarrassing justification.
I agree, in general it was pretty good, despite my prejudging the book based on the really crazy premise. He transcended the premise, and really didn't leave too many stones uncovered.
Re being a rabbi, R. Yaakov Emden only served as a rabbi for a few years, in Emden. While he often referred to that experience positively, he also often thanked God that he was not a rabbi, even invoking that meaning in the beracha shelo asani avad.
>i think you should have a regular column/blog in which you review popular fiction, contemporary or older, that has strong statements/criticisms of contemporary judaism (perhaps specifically oj)
Thanks. Any suggestions?
off the bat, i would say any of the potok books, or naomi ragen, or some of faye kellerman. that old time fav James Michener's "The Source" (not specifically about oj, but enough historical data to work with); "like a driven leaf"; "With All My Heart, With All My Soul," by "B. D. Da'Ehu".
basically any historical novel, or obvious commentary on contemporary jewish life.
in hebrew, dov elbaum stuff is good ("zeman elul" leaps to mind). there are many many more relevant stuff in hebrew.
--mivami
>in hebrew, dov elbaum stuff is good ("zeman elul" leaps to mind). there are many many more relevant stuff in hebrew.
תיאום כוונות is one of the most amazing works of fiction I have read (which were published in the last 10 years - I am excluding classics):
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7...A1%D7%A4%D7%A8)
I believe it was translated into english but I can not imagine that the english comes close to the original. You have to have some basic grasp of IDFAD (Israel Defence Forces Acronym Dialect) to keep up with the flow of the book - but other than that it is a smooth and inteligent read (as is anything written by Haim Sabato)
smooth and inteligent read (as is anything written by Haim Sabato
his ke-afapei shahar reads like Agnon exactly. truly wonderful, if a bit simple.
--mivami
Rabbi Angel has also taken this book on the road. He came to my shul and effectively performed a one man show acting as Rabbis Mercado and Grossman each giving their speech, and then allowing the audience, playing the board, to ask either one of them questions. Despite it being a strongly MO shul I think Rabbi Mercado was asked the more difficult questions.
No vote on who to elect was taken by the audience. In post-play shmoozing a number of people expressed the idea that Rabbi Mercado should start his own yeshiva, but changing the course of the existing Yeshiva in the fashion he proposed was unacceptable.
It was interesting to watch then changes in Rabbi Angel's body language and voice as he plays each character. Rav Shimshon comes off as very intense - he never seems to relax at all.
>his ke-afapei shahar reads like Agnon exactly. truly wonderful, if a bit simple.
There is a small renaissance of inteligent, well written fiction being written by members of the RZ world. Some of it quite good. I wonder if a subtext of R' Angels books is that ideas and attitudes such as R' Mercado must 'exile' themselves to Eretz Yisrael in order to have an environment where they can thrive.
I think it is. I don't think it's even much of a subtext, it seems pretty blatant. I saw it as basically giving up on America, although it contained a little optimism that it can be exported back to America somewhere down the line (perhaps the way aspects of Israeli style zealotry is beginning to be imported by Americans).
Interesting that you liked it. I did not. Reasons why not available here.
One need look no further than whats going on in Telshe Cleveland, Ponovezeh, or Satmar to see a scathing indictment of the effects of yerushah and family business as a means of running yeshivos. Similarly, one need look no further than HTC (Skokie) or YU to see the problems associated with lay board of directors running Torah institutions. Ultimately, talmidim and their parents are the decisors since they vote with their feet if the hanhalah ruins the yeshiva.
The above is true regarding "movements" inside and outside of Orthodoxy. Ultimately, it is the tzibbur that decides the viability of an approach. If lomdus or modern scholarship resonates with enough people it will flourish. The convers is true as well in the marketplace of ideas.
Chana, I read your review. Couple of points. One, the chicken without a heart is not from the Talmud. It's an 18th century chicken she'eila, which became a very famous and popular issue. Secondly, David was a young man at the time, and his complaint is that Rav Shimshon abused him for giggling and doubting that one of the positions was worthy. The implication is not that it's okay to laugh at Talmudic texts (in this case, 18th century Acharonim, which obviously can't be compared to the Talmud itself) but that he did laugh, and was belittled and abused for it. In fact, your review is a perfect example why I wrote that R. Angel should have footnoted these allusions, because it would have probably cut out two paragraphs of your review!
Secondly, not liking/ agreeing with positions of certain characters should not determine whether one likes a book! Not that I am calling myself a TUMnik (or that Rav David is necessarily supposed to be one) but I think it is great when one says something one disagrees with. In hachi nami, maybe you are right that his position that incorporating secular study in Torah "powerfully strengthened" him, and thus would others too, is ridiculous [ie, across the board]. So what? That means you disagree with Mercado, but does that mean you shouldn't like the book?
However, in essence I agree with you that he slanted the discussion by depicting one side with a halo and the other as a pack of not-nice people, where in reality proponents of the austere approach R. Angel doesn't like might also be nice, in real life. Thus, it serves as a distraction from the issues, and serves to let readers from the right dismiss it due to bias, and readers from the left dismiss the arguments from the right, because they're not nice people.
That said, I think R. Angel did it intentionally because as stand-ins for an entire approach, I think he simply believes that the RW yeshivish approach is, in essence, not nice, individuals notwithstanding. I personally don't disagree with him so much as I think that he undermined the purpose of his book, and also could have succeeded in imparting his favored position even with a rabbi and rebbetzin who are even nice people.
(cont.)
As for the ger issue, I also sort of took exception to that, because I think that -- notwithstanding the Sherman stuff going on now -- in general the yeshivish world is not hostile to gerim, and are even proud of them. Perhaps some Chassidish communities see it as a big pegam, but of course gerim don't generally wind up in those communities, where there is a bigger language and cultural barrier. But here's the rub. While it may be true that yeshivish people don't have a ger problem, I think that in general yeshivish people would have a problem seeing a woman who does not cover her hair as having really undergone giyur ke-halakhah, not matter what certificate she has. In that conception, accepting Torah and mitzvos entails accepting certain cultural norms as well, and going from gentile to Left Wing Modern Orthodox Jewess is not really a journey they are likely to see possible, ke-halacha.
Shmuel, you're right to an extent, but sometimes the crap rises to the top, not the cream. I'm not so optimistic about capitalist economic principles, especially where monopoly is involved. If the market ultimately comes around to embracing the best stuff, why am I, and probably you, using a computer with Windows on it? Not only doesn't lomdus and the like compete with other ideas in fact, it also won't, mostly because packaged in with the system is the usually successful notion that nothing else exists, or if somehow that didn't work, than the popular notion that nothing else can be investigated. As if bochurim and rabbeim are eschewing, say, accurate texts because they are competing ideas and they test them both?
I'm not saying that the best or even the truth will triumph. Rather I'm saying that a populist approach will succeed. If academics can not get out of the ivory tower long enough to present their findings to a large enough audience then they will beome irrelevant. Windows ( and ArtScroll) succeeds because they provide a product which is good enough for an audience that is large enough not because its the best.
You're right, but part of the reason why Artscroll and the like succeeds is because it has an infrastructure in the form of an entire culture (although I admit some amount of circularity in which is a result of and which helps to create the infrastructure). While not thinking that anyone really buys Artscroll because certain rabbis give divrei bracha which they publish, it certainly is not lost on many readers that many of the books feature "haskamos" from R. Moshe Feinstein, R. Gifter and many rabbis they respect highly. It isn't Artscroll which convinced that public that these "haskamos" are valuable or that these rabbis are to be looked up to, it was the larger infrastructure. You're just not going to get divrei bracha from, ich veis, R. Shmuel Kamenetsky in a Torah im Tolstoy book. This is only one such example, but there are many more.
Maybe academics should start wearing black hats to influence the hamon, I don't know.
I had a most interesting conversation with my nephew once about peshat vs lomdus. I don't try to undermine him, since he is too young to be a navoch in the environment he chooses to be in, but we do shoot the you-know-what about all kinds of topics, so it happened that I was mildly criticizing lomdus. His best defense was that it must be a superior approach because it was sanctioned by the gedolim as appropriate bzman hazeh. That's the kind of infrastructure I am talking about. Many people, even if they "hear" another point of view, are conditioned to discount it because it's kneged da'as Torah or whatever. It's not that I am saying "wah, no fair, the yeshivish cheated" but that it really is the task of unseating a monopoly, especially since presentations of popular kind of academic stuff has a re'ach of epikorsus to the hamon, again, because of the monopoly.
That said, the popularity of many blogs like mine, and even Hirhurim, show that maybe the hamon is not as herdable as I am acting like they are.
Wonderful review!I did not read the book, but based on your review I would have to express doubt at the correlation between Mercado's talmudic methodologies and any real movement in bourgeoisie Modern Orthodox America. On the other hand, maybe that's not what R. Angel was getting at.
Also, I have to say that having learned in a black hat yeshiva at a unique time with a very small group of "frum masklim" of various stripes,and a certain Ram giving pseudo-scholarly shiurim once a week, the book's premise is not as ridiculous as it might seem. (Sorry for the vaguness)
You may think it's vague, but with my clairvoyant powers I think I can identify your yeshiva and your ra"m.* Spooooky.
In any case, I think ultimately a movement typified by Mercado is what R. Angel wishes could be found in America, not what he sees in America. However, under the surface I think there is a little bit of frum Haskalah even in bourgeoisie [Modern] Orthodox America. In the second issue of Hakirah, forced to respond to an elitist letter by Yaakov Elman, the editor pointed out that Eichler's sold all 300 sets of newly reprinted Dikdukei Soferim in a matter of a couple of weeks. In Flatbush.
* Of course I will not do that here.
Well actually, it's not as if my blog is strictly anonymous. But pray tell, were we there together?
"I must say that despite some problematic portrayals and misperceptions of the yeshiva world, the book succeeds in accomplishing what it sets out to do, which is to analyze a big divide in contemporary Orthodoxy, and to take a side."
I'm conflicted if taking a side is a good thing in a popular novel.
Hey S,
Thanks for the comments. I thought it was more about the fact that it was okay to laugh at texts than the abuse. You really think the author meant to write off an entire sect of people as 'not nice' - hence the fire and brimstone rabbi? Interesting, had not thought of that. I don't like that approach if so. Would have been a much stronger book if both protagonists were nice people; they just lived differently, a la 'The Chosen.' Danny & Reuven are both nice- and so is Danny's father, even though he is strict. Chaim Potok didn't need to make everyone in Danny's camp into a stick-wielding fanatic...
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. Laughing at "texts" means many different things, and laughing at an opinion of an acharon in the early 18th century is not to be compared to laughing at an opinion or a case in the Gemara; no rebbe would think of comparing it. Also, the point isn't that he laughed, but that he thought that view was farfetched and pilpulistic. You're allowed to dislike pilpul. The trouble, of course, is practically speaking applying it to a view in the Kresi U-plesi, as opposed to some type of anonymous, generic "pilpul." Incidentally, I saw somewhere were some guy claims that in the early 18th century there was a scientific view that mammals lacking an organ might have another organ step up and fulfill the same function, so in fact this view was actually in consonance with early modern science. However, this doesn't impact young Mercado's issue here, which is, does God really make a special miracle so that a specific chicken would live without a heart? Of course, in reality this acharon (R. Yonasan Eybeschutz, in fact) was not making a scientific statement, but endorsing the special miracle possibility.
Anyway, yes, I think he meant to define the essence of an entire sect as "not nice." In fact, it seems that his defense of this charge, which repeatedly comes up, is something like, Hey, it's true. And I myself agree that in certain respects it's true. For example, the whole "You cant have an opinion" is entirely true. Maybe that can be presented in a sugar-coated way, but it's a very real attitude. Also, I don't think the point is that "everyone in Rav Shimshon's camp" is a stick-wielding fanatic, but that everyone who counts and who is influential is. He may be wrong, but hey, that's how he sees it.
I agree, it would have been much stronger if both sides were decent, and the arguments alone spoke and convinced.
S. "I think he simply believes that the RW yeshivish approach is, in essence, not nice, individuals notwithstanding"
But there's a big difference between an approach being "in essence, not nice" and the individuals being not nice on a personal level. You're endorsing the former, but he apparently (I've not read the book) depicted the latter.
"In that conception, accepting Torah and mitzvos entails accepting certain cultural norms as well"
You seem to be presupposing that a woman covering her hair is a "cultural" issue.
>But there's a big difference between an approach being "in essence, not nice" and the individuals being not nice.
This is true. However, in the yeshivish world there exists a unique type which can be nice on a superficial social level but whenever any question of Torah or ideology comes up becomes a sort of mean kannoi. I have seen it many times. The ideological approach lends itself to various kinds of bad middos. When a whole shita holds that "only gedolim are entitled to express opinions" then that leaves 99.99% percent of everyone else exposed to attack whenever they express an opinion.
>You seem to be presupposing that a woman covering her hair is a "cultural" issue.
Of course not, I do not dispute that halacha requires married women to cover her hair, but accepting her is cultural.
What you wrote was: "I think that in general yeshivish people would have a problem seeing a woman who does not cover her hair as having really undergone giyur ke-halakhah, not matter what certificate she has. In that conception, accepting Torah and mitzvos entails accepting certain cultural norms as well, and going from gentile to Left Wing Modern Orthodox Jewess is not really a journey they are likely to see possible, ke-halacha"
I understood this to mean that yeshivish people tend to treat certain cultural norms as if they were included in "Torah and mitzvos", such that non-acceptance of these cultural norms would therefore mean the geirus was not kehalacha, in this view. And as an example of such a cultural norm, you cited hair covering.
Perhaps I misunderstood you.
chardal: "However, in the yeshivish world there exists a unique type which can be nice on a superficial social level but whenever any question of Torah or ideology comes up becomes a sort of mean kannoi. I have seen it many times. The ideological approach lends itself to various kinds of bad middos. When a whole shita holds that "only gedolim are entitled to express opinions" then that leaves 99.99% percent of everyone else exposed to attack whenever they express an opinion."
That's fine. But that's not what we are discussing here. Because that's not the nearly extent of the bad middos that R' Angel gives his charedi protagonist. He seems to be an all-purpose arrogant jerk in ways that are completely unrelated to this ideology.
I think that yeshivish people probably have a tough time wrapping their head around the fact of a goy converting to what is essentially Left Wing Modern Orthodoxy. That's a cultural thing.
>That's fine. But that's not what we are discussing here. Because that's not the nearly extent of the bad middos that R' Angel gives his charedi protagonist. He seems to be an all-purpose arrogant jerk in ways that are completely unrelated to this ideology.
What you said. As I mentioned earlier, I had such a rebbe who certainly affirms a very rigid Da'as Torah position, but he wouldn't belittle people. Or if he did, or if someone felt he was being belittled by the force of the views themselves, at least he'd deliver it with a spoonful of sugar that could not be denied, and not merely because he's crafty, but because he really tries to be kind and loving, he just stridently believes what he believes, and he's not going to distort the emes, in his view. This is not Rav Shimshon by a long stretch.
By the way, did you know that R. Nosson Kamenetzky mentions you by name (ie, by your F-P handle) in a lecture on YUTorah.org?
But like I said, I think R. Angel's point is to somehow try to typify the entire "movement" or culture, and to do so he felt he had to make the one man (and his wife), corresponding as they are to the entire culture not being nice. I argue that doing so gives his position weakness, not that he is necessarily wrong, although sweeping generalizations like that are tough. The reader can decide if his opinion is reasonable.
"I think that yeshivish people probably have a tough time wrapping their head around the fact of a goy converting to what is essentially Left Wing Modern Orthodoxy. That's a cultural thing."
True or not, I was just commenting on the hair-covering example specifically.
"By the way, did you know that R. Nosson Kamenetzky mentions you by name (ie, by your F-P handle) in a lecture on YUTorah.org?"
Yes - it was not about a substantive matter.
"But like I said, I think R. Angel's point is to somehow try to typify the entire "movement" or culture, and to do so he felt he had to make the one man (and his wife), corresponding as they are to the entire culture not being nice."
He could have portrayed them like your rebbe - guys who are trying to be nice but whose ideology had the effect of making them not nice in some circumstances.
" Of course, in reality this acharon (R. Yonasan Eybeschutz, in fact) was not making a scientific statement, but endorsing the special miracle possibility."
I don't think so - see R R Margoliyos Sibat Hsngduso, and JJ Schacters dismissal in his diss.
I think R Yonoson contacted some professors somewhere who say that there can be a stand-in for the heart.
Truth is, I didn't look into it. There are of course other discussions of it besides for Chacham Tzvi and R. Yonasan Eybeschutz.
Larry:
I would love to see Rabbi Angel acting out R' Shimshon! That sounds hilarious.
Commenting by HaloScan
