I need this blog like a...   

Very interesting post.

This squares with Slifkins updated site - he has added the following;

-----

Rumor #7 - "The primary people in the campaign are Rav Elyashiv and Rav Mattisyahu Solomon."
The Real Story: This is the impression that one might receive from the Forward and the Jewish Chronicle, but the truth is that these are simply the most well-known signatories. As far as can be ascertained, the primary person leading the campaign is Rav Elya Ber Wachtfogel (and to a lesser extent, Rav Elya Weintraub and Rav Moshe Shapiro).

-----

I still think its a disgrace. It is less than honest to allow others to sign. When I see a signature from Rav Eliashiv I trust that HE has signed it - and why shouldnt I. What it shows is that the so called 'Gedolim' are no better in organising their affairs than the politicians that they are so quick to criticise.
 

I feel much better about ignoring piskei halacha of these so-called gedolim - turns out they didn't write them...
Thanks!
 

If anything, the explanation of the casual nature with which these proclamations are signed is more disconcerting. Previous Gedolim have been well known for their extreme sensitivity towards others. The fact that some Gedolim have allowed underlings to sign their names to statements that the underlings themselves have not read, but that have serious consequences for others is extremely troubling. It goes without saying that it is even more disturbing if it is indeed true that this is the result of an issue with R' Shmuel.

Was Achashverosh(l'havdil) not culpable for the actions of Haman? It would be one thing for the Gedolim to have concluded that R' Slifkin's work was kefirah based on the evidence. Though one might disagree, a principled stand could be respected. Where is the principle in signing one's name to a proclamation without knowing it's full details? Where is the sensitivity? Where is the gadlus?
 

Political savvy is not generally the prime qualification for becoming a gadol. The Agudas Yisroel of America is generally pretty good about letting the organizers do the organizing and the talmidei chachamim do their part. When things happen outside that framework, it's not always so pretty.

That being said, I'm not sure how this justifies referring to them as "so-called gedolim".
 

As I said clearly, there is a difference between ignoring a poster and ignoring a psak din. Anyone who lives their life from a poster has serious problems. And anyone who assumes that this means we can ignore all piskei din is just as foolish.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

I am not denying that the Rabbis in question possess culpability. However, I view them as culpable for a different crime. I view this mostly as a failure to enforce proper oversight. And unlike you, I would not feel more comfortable if all the gedolim had in fact desired to ban books based on a well-established mesorah without even investigating the issue.
 

Do you know how Rav Malkiel Kotler received his heter meah rabbonim? People signed because other people signed. Those people signed because R. Schach supported him. A heter meah is supposed to be 100 rabbonim independently giving their views. Many of the rabbonim said that they didn't read the material they were given.
I know a few people - but only a few - who refuse to acknowledge R. Kotler or to give him any honors because of the invalid way the heter meah was obtained. Most people figure the heter was ok because Rav Schach approved. In fact, it was based on very flimsy grounds, and was a political move against the Brisker. Pathetic.
 

There is more politics involved than you state. Some people also signed in order to align themselves with the E"Y right wing group against R' Shmuel. There was a little bit of posturing and bad guessing going on in places like Lakewood.
 

I wouldn't feel more comfortable had they banned without investigation. I would feel more comfortable had they understood the content of the work and could point to exactly what was objectionable, even if I didn't personally feel it objectionable. Are we obligated to listen to the psak of the Gedolim even without explanation? Yes. Is psak more effective when it doesn't seem random? Yes.
 

Everyone likes to say they are concerned only about the way in which this was done or the politics, but not the substance. If this had been a ban of actual kfirah that was clear to everyone (lets say a book which stated that the Torah permits us to be atheists or something), I wonder how many people would be up-in-arms...nobody. It's only when the substance hits close to home.

BTW, there seem to be so many people named Anonymous these days. Hmmmm....
 

"R' Elyashiv is quoted as saying (on an unrelated issue), what frum Jews in Israel have in common with frum Jews in America is that neither of them have a clue what's going on in the world. What separates them? The Jews in Israel don't read the papers, so they are at least aware they they are clueless."

This is completely untrue. The Jews in Israel do think they know what's going on and don't. American Jews only think they know if they read the papers etc.
This story is a sign of how out of touch Israelis are.
It's more likely to be a quote from Rav Efrati than from Rav Elyashiv:)
But if it's true, then Rav Elyashiv, kvodo b'mokmo munach, is totally out of touch too.
I doubt it is true.
 

"Everyone likes to say they are concerned only about the way in which this was done or the politics, but not the substance. If this had been a ban of actual kfirah that was clear to everyone (lets say a book which stated that the Torah permits us to be atheists or something), I wonder how many people would be up-in-arms...nobody. It's only when the substance hits close to home."

That's not what most people are saying. They are concerned about substance too - but in this case it's hard to believe that all the people who signed really think the views cited in the ban are kefirah.
What people are saying is that any talmid chochom has the right to pasken that something is kefirah if they think it really is, but that they don't believe that this is really the view of most of the signatories.

If there were actual clear-cut kefirah, they might not have needed to read the actual book.
The problem is that there's nothing clear cut, so they DO need to see all the material and give RNS a hearing before banning.
That's why process is important. If someone writes a work in which on page one they say that they are going to prove that no God exists, there wouldn't be any need to read the whole book and hear the author's defense.

You have to sign up with blogger to post nonanonymously. Too much work.
 

Using your secular politician analogy, what we have here is *not* bad intelligence gathering by analysts many steps removed from the President.

What we have here is *actionable* *willfull* misbehavior and negligence by the chief of staff.

Should Rabbi Slifkin agree to the 'compromise' you suggest?

Not if it saves these 'gedolim' from the censure and embarassment they so richly deserve.

Shmarya
http://www.failedmessiah.com
 

Much as I hate to admit it, Shmarya is on target.

Also, the WMD intelligence was a mistaken conclusion that every intelligence agency in the world reached, under conditions in which better intelligence wasn't available. Here better intelligence *was* available and no one bothered to get it.
 

Shmarya-

I'm not sure how you can translate this as "willful misbehavior" unless you ignore my entire post.

As far as agreeing to make changes, Rabbi Slifkin has already said on his site that he is and always was willing to do that. I'm sure he is quite upset about the current events, as he should be, but I wouldn't look for him to jump on the anti-gedolim bandwagon with you just yet. If you read his site, he is very careful to avoid making negative statements about Torah leaders.
 

The willful misbehavior charge was for the aides, not the gedolim (although they seem to be guilty at this point of criminal negligence).
 

"What is more likely is that Rabbi Slifkin will be given the opportunity to make some changes and clarifications and to republish and, if he agrees, will be given lots of big name haskamos, presumably from the names listed on the ban. This is already what is happening with "Making of a Gadol"."

1) The big name Israeli gedolim don't usually give haskomos on English books/seforim like those of R. Slfkin, so it is hard to believe they will start now. Are there any haskomos from R. Elyoshiv or R. Steinman on any English/Feldeim books e.g. ?

2)I don't think it's happening now with 'Making of a Godol'.
 

With all due respect, I believe that you and your source very seriously misunderstand what this is all about. Anyone with enough experience in the yeshiva world knows that the prominent Rabonim who pushed for this ban have one concern and one concern only: To destroy the source of what they see as a very serious threat to their community, namely books which they believe will weaken people's emunas chachamim. Had his books not targeted the yeshiva world with their haskomos, no one would have cared what he wrote.
I'm not saying that I agree with what they did and how they did it, but that's where they're coming from. Forget about the sub plots and conspiracy theories.

Berel Dov
 

"that the prominent Rabonim who pushed for this ban have one concern and one concern only: To destroy the source of what they see as a very serious threat to their community, namely books which they believe will weaken people's emunas chachamim."

Berel Dov you are most naive. The rabbonim who pushed for this ban are minor figures who only got major players involved because of politics. This is business as usual for Eretz Yisroel politics. All sorts of things happen when a minority get access to major figures for political reasons. The gedolim do not run the show. Their handlers do.
 

Rav Moshe Shapiro and Rav Vachtfogel are minor players? As for Rav Moshe, in the EY Anglo teaching community, there's no one more influential.
If you would like an idea as to the stature of R"V, try getting your son into his shiur.

What names are you referring to as the force behind this, if not them? That's what Slifkin says. Is he wrong as well?
Berel Dov
 

Berel Dov-

I think you are absolutely correct that the few rabbonim behind the ban (most of them at least) are truly motivated by an altruistic desire to protect the frum world from damaging ideas. However, I don't believe that their particular viewpoint is shared by the more prominent names on the list and my post revealed evidence of this. My criticism of those people has nothing to do with their ideas as they are just as valid parts of our mesorah as Slikfin's. It is rather of their methods. And my criticism of the other gedolim is limited to their failure to exercise proper oversight.

As for Slifkin targeting the yeshiva world, I'm not sure what you mean. His books are intended for an audience with a secular education, not necessarily a yeshiva one. And his haskamos are not intended as an attack but rather as haskamos...proof that the Torah contained was reviewed and approved by talmidei chachamim. I'm not sure what problem you have with this.

Interestingly, it seems my post upset people from both sides of the issue. Quite a trick!
 

First, some full disclosure. I have had a few run-ons with Rabbi Slifkin on the aishdas forums (www.aishdas.org) regarding his positions on evolution and age of the universe. I have not read any of his books, but I'm fairly familiar with his positions on the issues. I've also been through significant portions of Darwin's The Origin of Species, and I think it's a joke. Darwin himself wasn't sure of his position, and says in numerous places that there is much evidence that still needs to be found in order for his theory to be correct. Needless to say, the lack of evidence hasn't drastically changed since 1859, when OoS was published.

This certainly isn't the place to argue Darwin-yeah vs. Darwin-nay (unless Boruch wants it to be...) but I wanted to make it clear that I don't agree with Rabbi Slifkin's position, and can certainly understand the desire of some rabbonim to have his work suppressed for that reason. Part of the issue may be the point raised by David Brand on Cross Currents, (www.cross-currents.com in the comments of Toby Katz' article on the NY Times and the Yated) that "Slifkin’s books seem to be a perspective of accepting science and trying to square the known, “truth” of science with apparant “difficulties” in the Torah, as opposed to the other way around". While this might not be, as you say, an attempt to squelch creative Torah, his creativity takes on new meaning if seen as coming from a position of science as primary.

That's all regarding the ban itself. As to the politics, I'm not really sure what to think. When I see someone's name on a poster, I like to believe that they were actually involved in some way in deciding the issue. I know the gedolim have next to no time for these things (see, for example, recent seforim of teshuvas from Rav Chaim Kanievsky, where each teshuva consists of no more than two or three words), but I would have thought that personally investigating the situation and coming to an individual conclusion would be more important than unity amongst gedolim. Or, for that matter, disputes between gedolim in America and Israel. It's saddening to think that the gedolim are somehow not reliable, that there are other factors involved besides just the emes l'amito.
 

Personally, I could care less whether a book has a haskoma or not. I'm a big boy and can make up my own miond about things. However, the yeshiva world disagrees and for them (as ridiculous as it sounds) this is not the case. The haskomos are therefore a marketing technique to reachj an audience that otherwise would not buy the book, not to MO or independant thinkers.
As for the "prominent names", are you referring to Rav Elyashiv? Of course, he was just the "Ilan Godol" upon which to hang the ban (to make it more credible), but from my perspective here in Lakewood, his signature came at the end, not the beginning.

Berel Dov
 

Berel Dov-

A marketing technique, maybe. Or maybe when one wishes to publish unconventional viewpoints, it's a good idea to get those views validated by experts so that you are not subject to attacks on your credibility. I guess it doesn't always work, though.

BTW, since your in Lakewood, why don't you go on down to the yeshivah and ask R' Shustl and R' Kotler what they think and post here the results (or email them to me and I'll post it if you wish). I'm sure we'd all be interested.
 

By the way, there was politics going both ways on this ban, as far as I have heard. In other words, some of those who did not sign refused to do so not because they were against the ban, but out of loyalty to one of the prominent maskimim -- or, so I've heard.

Again, I couldn't care less what these people think and their opinions meen nothing to me, but you're dreaming if you think that there was not an equal measure of politics behind those who didn't sign.

Berel Dov
 

Why should your 'story' calm anyone's nerves ? The leaders of a worldwide organization ban a book, destroy someones livelyhood and cause him and his family immense pain, but they never really paid much attention to anything in the first place ? In fact, in some cases they let their aids sign, and in other cases only signed because others did ? What kind of bs is this ? So now we should feel good about these 'gedolim' ? Your quote from r elyashiv is most humorous. Frum jews don't know whats going on in the world ? Did he really say that or was it his aid ? Most likely, r elyashiv, at 80 or 90+, closeted away in his 4 amos, doesn't know whats going on in the world, unless you subscribe to the "I learn torah, I know everything" philosophy.
 

Mr. Anonymous at 10:43-

I'll ignore the nonsense that made up most of your comment and respond to your question of why this should calm anyone's nerves.

The sad truth is that politics exists in the frum world just as it does outside it. This is true in America and even more so in Israel. But the wise individual will try to look through that and get psak directly from the source (or at least though a reliable channel). And one often finds that all the politics and controversy has nothing to do with the talmid chacham whose name is attached to it. When your name carries power, then people will try to harness that power for their own purposes.

As for the quote, I'm glad you found it humurous because it was meant by him in jest. However, all jokes contain a grain of truth and the comments on this post are convincing evidence enough of our arrogant desire to believe that that our unlimited access to information makes us somehow enlightened.
 

I don't buy that at all. Cut through all the politics to get a clear pesak ? Thats nonsense. There is no clear pesak here. Its ALL politics, and the signatories are a part of it.
 

The comments font is so tiny that it's almost unreadable.
 

Is that any better?
 

Boruch - I have to agree with Anonymous - the idea that people should be calmed because "It's all politics" or "the Gedolim didn't really mean it" is disingenuous to the point of stupidity.

The one and only reason that these "bans" are posted all over the "religious" areas and in the "religious" papers is so that people should read them and pay attention to them. Clearly, rabbis who are deeply respected have either signed these things or given over the "power of attorney" to someone who signed them.

If the rabbis don't come out with an equally big or bigger campaign to retract the ban, the implication is that it is still in force.

I live in Ramat Bet Shemesh and every few months we have some wonderful "religious" folk stoning ambulances running on shabbat, or burning garbage cans in the street, or beating up Police who came to stop them blocking a bus which they consider shouldn't be running, or beating up people who went to see a doctor who sees both men and women. Of course the rabbinic authorities claim that these are the actions of a few hotheads - yet you never actually see a poster with a rabbi's signature saying "don't throw rocks you morons," or "even if I don't like this bus company, just get up out of the road, idiot". The silence is deafening. Yet you can always see their names prominently printed in perfect facsimile on the latest "Women want to get together and sing - burn them!" notice.

It is nonsense to say "Well, there is a bit of a problem with the Gedolim giving too much responsibility to their aides". The Mishna says "Ayzehu chochom? Ha'Ro'eh es haNolad" [who is considered wise, one who can perceive consequences]. If they couldn't figure out that handing over their "identity" (in the form of their signature) to someone else would end up with people thinking they'd said something they hadn't then they aren't really very wise - why should I listen to anything they say?
 

Hi Shraga

Worried about the "coal" of the chachomim? - I guess it all depends who you call Chacomim doesn't it?

Seems to me that the rabbis who I respect for their erudition and honesty seem to get outlawed on a regular basis - Slifkin is not the first, and I was familiar with his work long before the ban - so the possible conclusions are:
EITHER: I am innately drawn to perceive kefira and minut as intellectual honesty and probity
OR: maybe - just maybe, I'm right and the foaming-at-the-mouth, inarticulate cherem-makers are wrong.

In the final analysis, a person has to use their own mind. The comments made by Rav Reich in his speech seem to imply that using one's own mind and logic is entirely meaningless - that blind belief in what anyone accepted as "a Godol" says is the Torah-true way. I can quote you from the introduction of the Derech Hashem (by RaMCHaL) as translated by Rav Aryeh Kaplan:
"...Out of all the levels and categories, one should be able to distinguish the following: the whole and the part, the general and the particular, the cause and the effect, and the object itself and its associated qualities." - in my opinion, a clear appeal to logical analysis.

If my natural tendency is to believe that Rabbi X is right and Rabbi Y is wrong, the implication is that their reasoning resonates in my mind - in the old days this might make me choose to be e.g. a misnagid as opposed to a chassid - not that such choices were easy to make in those days either.

Nowadays it means that Rabbi Y calls me a follower of kefira, apikores and all sorts of other words. To me it seems interesting that Rabbi X does NOT stoop to the same level, instead calling only for tolerance.

Of course if Rabbi X was calling on me to avoid the words of other rabbis and follow only him, I would be extremely wary - sounds a bit like Shabtai Tzvi, Jesus, whoever you like - but actually, that is not the case - it seems Rabbi X always shows respect to Rabbi Y, but never has it reciprocated - something smells fishy.

Let me be crystal clear - your post implied that the posters who support Slifkin against the "Gedolim" are somewhat lacking in the fear of Heaven department - I think that the posters are a mixed bag - some people are obviously the regular band of nay-sayers who jump on any anti-rabbi bandwagon, but some genuinely think that evil has been committed here in the name of Torah and want to stand up against it. If we didn't care about Torah and its standards, we wouldn't be so upset at its perversion by those who claim it exclusively for themselves.
 

"If everyone else had signed, he didn't want R' Elyashiv to be left out. His reasoning is likely that (and this applies to any issue that comes before them) if people read a piece of paper signed by gedolim and they find one missing, they will assume that this gadol dissents and that they therefore have a heter to ignore it."
Doesn't this bother anyone? doesn't this mentality of "not being left out" as a basis for a cherem bothersome? If this is really accurate, then one can make an argument that such a philosophy might extend to psak din - "Well I paskened in this way b/c i don't want to appear more meikil than the rest". This reasoning is completely kneged how the sanhedrin worked and how halacha/haskafa should. To me, this is the most troubling aspect of the argument for signing a poster.
 

Kibi-

Living in the US, it's difficult for me to relate to the sort of things you speak about. Here, the idea of throwing stones and blocking streets is unheard of in the frum community and even outside it is reserved for environmentalists and animal rights wackos. However, while I know that this exists in Israel and have seen a little bit of it myself, I am convinced that this sort of behavior is promulgated by a fringe minority. Certainly, no major recognized rabbinic leader supports such behavior. Given that those who participate are knowlingly doing so without the approval of talmidei chachamim and that they are a miyut sheb'miyut, I see no reason for a public campaign against it. The gedolim will speak out against those things which present a danger of becoming epidemic in k'lal yisroel. There is no danger of stone throwing becoming an established practice as nobody in his right mind would consider it.
 

Kibi-

I also want to point out that it is not correct to say that this is simply a case of rabbi X vs Rabbi Y and I can choose whomever I want. As brilliant and learned as he may be, Rabbi Slifkin is not a talmid chacham on the level of the Roshei Yeshiva.
 

Shraga
as far as I recall the definition of a Talmid Chochom is fairly broad - someone who is well versed in Tenach (sorry, I can't remember the source). If that's the case, I would respectfully suggest that the "other" talmidei chachomim (the ones you are calling Gedolim) probably also have an obligation to respect people they are so blithely slandering now.

Unless of course you are a big old cynic like me and you think that very few of the big talmudic scholars nowadays have actually ever bothered to learn Tenach properly.

If you are still worried about this particular ma'amar chazal I'd like a clear analysis of it - does the phrase "Hevei Zohir B'gachalton" mean you may not question them? You may not suggest they have made a mistake?

It's a problem whenever people set themselves up in a position where questioning anything they say is tantamount to heresy - it is basically saying "Anything I say is as true as if G-d said it". Catholics believe that sort of thing - Jews are known to be a bit more stiff-necked in their acceptance. The current group of respected rabbis in Orthodox circles, with their "I'll sign a ban if you will" brand of p'sak have painted themselves into a logical corner where any question is an accusation and any accusation is a heresy. Neither I, nor any of the other people who see this as a problem created this reality - it would be perfectly possible for respectable rabbis to say "I disagree with you and here's why" if it wasn't for the fact that they have ruled discussion out-of-bounds.

If - after all the discussion is over it turns out that I really am transgressing this ma'amar chazal (Hevei Zohir B'gachalton...) you've still got to wonder how much resposibility the rabbis have to take for putting the coals in a place they could burn me.
 

Boruch:

> Living in the US, it's difficult for me to relate to
> the sort of things you speak about. Here, the idea of
> throwing stones and blocking streets is unheard of in
> the frum community and even outside it is reserved
> for environmentalists and animal rights wackos.

And yet - inexplicably - you think yourself qualified to comment on a ban perpetrated by Israeli based rabbis on an Israeli based writer for a book written in Israel, ruining his Israeli life.

Perhaps you will understand why people are exasperated with you if I explain it this way; In the same way as you find it difficult to imagine frum Jews throwing rocks or beating people up (while I see and hear about it each week), I (and others) find it inexplicably naive to suggest that "the solution is one shouldn't believe what is written in posters or ads in the newspaper without checking the source yourself". Do you really think that normal people act in the way you are suggesting? Why on earth do you think the walls of Me'ah She'arim are plastered inches deep in old posters? Why do people pay millions per year to put ads in the paper? Clearly it is because the publication is effective as a tool, people believe it and act on their belief.

If one of the "gedolim" truly thinks his name has been used falsely to smear a perfectly good person's reputation, he cannot possibly say "Well, you shouldn't believe what you read in the papers" - he has to move heaven and earth to right the wrong which has been done in his name - the man who has "falsely" used his name has to be thrown out, public apologies have to be issued which are at least as prominent as the original slurs and steps taken to ensure such a terrible thing doesn't happen again. Instead what do we see? Nothing. Big fat diddly squat.

> However, while I know that this exists in Israel and
> have seen a little bit of it myself, I am convinced
> that this sort of behavior is promulgated by a fringe
> minority. Certainly, no major recognized rabbinic
> leader supports such behavior.

Well, that's an interesting assertion, but the problem is that just like "Rav Eliashiv must sign the ban or he is seen as being against it", we can also say "Any Rav who doesn't speak up against throwing rocks is tacitly supporting it". I invite you to walk around Me'ah She'arim, Mattesdorf or Ramat Bet Shemesh and to count the number of posters telling people NOT to throw rocks and NOT to beat up people breaking shabbat. Trust me, it won't take you long. On the other hand, it would be difficult to keep count of the number of posters calling all sorts of people all sorts of terrible names for practices and beliefs which you would not blink at in your cosy five-towns burrow.

> Given that those who
> participate are knowlingly doing so without the
> approval of talmidei chachamim and that they are a
> miyut sheb'miyut, I see no reason for a public
> campaign against it.

Yes - it's nice to call them a miyut she'be'miyut until 100 of them are bearing down on you in the street. Let me explain that when a couple of "hotheads" were arrested for beating up a police officer, the _Rabbonim_ in Ramat Bet Shemesh organized a "citizens march" down to the police station to demand their boys' immediate release - obviously the "hotheads" were to understand from this that the rabbis deeply disapproved of their actions.

Please understand that I am here and I have facts on my side - standing in America and claiming this is not a problem is just digging yourself deeper into a hole.

> The gedolim will speak out
> against those things which present a danger of
> becoming epidemic in k'lal yisroel. There is no
> danger of stone throwing becoming an established
> practice as nobody in his right mind would consider
> it.

Again, it's nice to know that when a child was seriously injured in Ramat Bet Shemesh from a concrete block lobbed through the back window of a car, it's not necessary to speak out against it since it isn't "an established practise". Yeah, he feels much better now.
 

Boruch

> I also want to point out that it is not correct to say
> that this is simply a case of rabbi X vs Rabbi Y and I
> can choose whomever I want. As brilliant and learned
> as he may be, Rabbi Slifkin is not a talmid chacham on
> the level of the Roshei Yeshiva.

Do you ever actually sit and think for yourself? Has it occurred to you that the argument is not really about believing in one interpretation of the Torah against another? If the argument was really so clean and logical, then the Roshei Yeshiva would be able to demolish any argument against their position by the simple expedient of giving the opposing arguments. Very learned rabbis (also Roshei Yeshiva, unless you are using the phrase in some sort of special sense) actually read the books and said they were good - so I don't think this is a question of choosing a "lesser" rabbi over a "greater" one.

The issue here is the inability of some rabbis to deal with questions of any type. The Jewish people are known as questioners of authority from time immemorial. Take a look at the medrash of Avram questioning Nimrod - he just kept on asking questions until he was thrown into the fire. Oddly, the rabbis don't see Nimrod as the big hero in that story for defending the view which everyone had accepted for years and years.
 

Kibi-

You seem quite excited. Be careful you don't become a "hothead". I will respond to your points, but let us begin by mentioning that this is my blog and comments like "Do you ever actually sit and think for yourself?" are not appreciated. So far, the strongest point you have made concerning b'nei E"Y has been made not by the content of your comments but by the frenzied tone with which you make them. So put the stones down and let's discuss things like civilized people.

>And yet - inexplicably - you think yourself qualified >to comment on a ban perpetrated by Israeli based >rabbis on an Israeli based writer for a book written >in Israel, ruining his Israeli life.

a) American rabbis are on the list as well
b) this was partly organized by an American rabbi
c) the books are in English, which means their intended and actual audience is the English-speaking world and I happen to live in the most heavily populated English-speaking area.
While I know that Ramat B"S (hey that's a bit funny, I didn't notice until I typed it) has alot of English speakers, it is hardly the place where these books are most frequently read.

>Do you really think that normal people act in the way >you are suggesting?

Yes, I do. Nobody I know would stop reading a book based on these statements. Every responsible Jew would speak with his Rav.

>Why on earth do you think the walls of Me'ah She'arim >are plastered inches deep in old posters?

As you are the expert on Me'ah She'arim, I will assume that you are correct and that average people there live their lives by these posters. But are these the people that would have otherwise been reading these books?

>If one of the "gedolim" truly thinks his name has >been used falsely to smear a perfectly good person's >reputation...he has to move heaven and earth to right >the wrong which has been done in his name.

Well, I agree with you there. I would really like to see something like that.

>Any Rav who doesn't speak up against throwing rocks >is tacitly supporting it.

I can't remember ever hearing any Rav speak out against mass murder or arson. I guess that means they're all for it then, right?

>when a couple of "hotheads" were arrested...

I don't know anything about this case so I can't speak to it.

>Again, it's nice to know...

And you think that a person who would do such a thing would have refrained had a poster been put up saying that R' Elyashiv disapproves of assualt with a deadly weapon? Hey, maybe if we put up a poster with all the issurim in the Torah and have R' Elyashiv initial them all to signify that he agrees that they are in fact assur, then all of the problems in E"Y will be solved!

>I don't think this is a question of choosing a >"lesser" rabbi over a "greater" one.

If you mean choosing to rely on one gadol over another, I agree. Your previous post made it sound like you were putting R' Slifkin up against gedolim and saying "Hey, both are rabbis, what's the difference." If I misunderstood your comment, I apologize.

>Take a look at the medrash of Avram questioning >Nimrod

And in this analogy, some number of the gedolei yisroel are the oved avodah zarah and you are the lone voice letting people know about the one true G-d? Wow!
 

Hi Boruch

The reason this ban is more relevant to Israel than it is to America is because Nosson Slifkin lives in Israel. It's only slightly important if his "intended and actual audience" is in America - since as is very clear, few of that audience could give a fig about rabbinical bans. The only practical outcome of this ban (apart from a lot of hot air on blogs) is the complete, probably irreversible destruction of reputation of Nosson Slifkin and the subsequent misery for him and his family.

Consider for a moment what you said -
> Nobody I know would stop reading a book based on
> these statements. Every responsible Jew would speak
> with his Rav.

you may be right (I don't know who you know) and yet the statements were made and they did have an effect - Nosson Slifkin has been treated shabbily in Israel which just happens to be the place where he lives. Telling people on your blog not to believe the posters is not a solution unless you think that the problem is people who read your blog believing the posters.

> As you are the expert on Me'ah She'arim, I will
> assume that you are correct and that average people
> there live their lives by these posters. But are
> these the people that would have otherwise been
> reading these books?

You are right - these people have not been reading the books. But the effect of the ban was not really to stop the books being read, but to hang Slifkin out to dry.

>> Any Rav who doesn't speak up against throwing rocks
>> is tacitly supporting it.

> I can't remember ever hearing any Rav speak out
> against mass murder or arson. I guess that means
> they're all for it then, right?

Well, you deliberately quoted only half my statement to twist it around. I maintain that in the same way we have seen people saying "Rav Eliashiv must sign the ban or he is seen as being against it", we can also say "Any Rav who doesn't speak up against throwing rocks is tacitly supporting it".

> I can't remember ever hearing any Rav speak out
> against mass murder or arson. I guess that means
> they're all for it then, right?

No - but the point is inappropriate - you haven't also seen those Rabbis' signatures on posters claiming in hysterical tones that x, y, or z person/place/action is outlawed under threat of all sorts of excommunication. In Israel there is a very overused term "Hasata" which translates as "incitement". A poster which goes up with many rabbis signatures saying "These people are awful", or "This place is terrible" is not necessarily inciteful. In America it would be protected under the First amendment, here, I feel it ought to be similarly protected (though it actually isn't). But if, after the poster goes up, the rabbis who signed it find that Person x or place Y is being attacked (which of course they never intended </sarcasm>) they do have an obligation to put up a sign saying "don't attack, don't throw rocks", snce they have been so clearly misunderstood.

> And you think that a person who would do such a thing
> would have refrained had a poster been put up saying
> that R' Elyashiv disapproves of assualt with a deadly
> weapon?

No. I think that if there hadn't been signs up on the walls saying "This evil of Shabbat transgression must be uprooted from our midst" signed by big rabbis, that if their hadn't been storming pulpit droshos in all the shuls against the evil city council which had put a road through the precious frum area where people drove on Shabbat, that if their hadn't been hysterical ads in all the local chareidi papers for weeks on end saying "This terrible evil must end!!!" - then maybe, just maybe, the person wouldn't have thought that throwing rocks was an appropriate response.

After the event, there is once again a defening silence form all the Rabbis who signed the original declarations. No "Cheshbon hanefesh", no admission that they could have been misunderstood, no relenting of the position, just the same inciteful ads over and over. It's not appropriate for people who are leaders to disavow all responsibility for the actions of everyone who calls themselves a follower. I don't say they are responsible for every crazy act, but they have to face their responsibility for the tone which is set in the community.

> Hey, maybe if we put up a poster with all the
> issurim in the Torah and have R' Elyashiv initial
> them all to signify that he agrees that they are in
> fact assur, then all of the problems in E"Y will be
> solved!

Well, clearly people are not familiar with all the ins and outs of halacha, or why would we need rabbonim at all (hey, there's a thought...). So people rely on rabbonim to explain whether a particular action is permitted in a particular situation. Your statement implies that it is a common-sense statement that physical violence should never be used. I would agree with you 110%. Unfortunately, as they say "common sense isn't all that common" and in particular the chareidi community seems to deride common sense as the "devil's-work" relying exclusively on rabbonim.

So while it may be common-sense to understand that driving on shabbat is wrong, the rabbonim write letters and post screeds "schrying chay vekayom" and their public swallows it up and some of them thnik that one should stone the desecrators since the rabbis mentioned that such acts carry a penalty of stoning. Once you have got to that particular point of stupidity, then yes, you do need another poster saying "No physical force should be used, and sabbath desecrators, while we disagree with them should still be treated like people - we should try to convince them that we are right and they are wrong" since the readers have clearly abdicated use of their common sense.

Similarly it may be common-sense to understand that Slifkin has written a nice, scholarly book and you can take it or leave it, but the rabbonim write letters and post screeds "schrying chay vekayom" and their public swallows it up. Fact: books have been burned. Fact: Slifkin has been shunned by people in his community. Fact: Slikin's publisher droppedhim summarily. Once you have got to that particular point of stupidity, then yes, you do need another poster saying "No books need to be burned, no-one needs to be thrown out of congregations, and Slifkin should still be treated like the mensch he is" since the readers have clearly abdicated use of their common sense.

>> Take a look at the medrash of Avram questioning
>> Nimrod

> And in this analogy, some number of the gedolei
> yisroel are the oved avodah zarah and you are the
> lone voice letting people know about the one true
> G-d? Wow!

I'm not the lone voice of anything. I am not comparing rabbis to Nimrod - you have once again quoted half a line to distort my point. My point, which I thought was quite clear, is that Judaism is not a system that discourages questioning and colloquy, it is one that encourages it. If you look at a page of gemara it is simply full of "shakla vetarya" dicussion back and forth. You very rarely see one of the Rabbi in the gemara saying "How could you suggest such a thing - you're banned!!" even if they completely disagreed with someone. Granted they sometimes called people fools, but the only case I remember of a cherem was the one famous case of Rabbi Eliezer and the Tanur shel Achna'i - and in that the case the rabbis debated him for a very long time and gave him a lot of oppotunity to change his mind before declaring the cherem.
 

Kibi-

Forgive me for simplifying your comment, but you seem to be basically making 3 points:

1) The main issue is an Israeli one since Rabbi Slifkin lives in Israel.

2) Most chareidim in Israel are a mindless mob, who will interpret any negative statement about anybody as a commandment to perpetrate violence against that person.

3) Controversial material should be throughly debated and reviewed before being banned.

Let's take them one at a time.

1) You seem to be making the assumption that the personal plight of Rabbi Slifkin is the sole issue here. While I certainly believe it is important, the popularity of this discussion is due not to what happened to one person but rather the wider ideological implications. That being the case, I don't think your argument holds much water.

2) While you may _feel_ that way (and I know what it's like to live in Israel and feel like everyone is crazy), I do not believe this characterization to be accurate.

3) It should be, amongst those with the authority to enact such a ban. If you are implying here that this ban was enacted too impetuously, I would agree with you. If you intended that everyone should read anything they want because as you say "Judaism is not a system that discourages questioning", I think you might be more comfortable at http://www.jtsa.edu/.
BTW- If you are interested in cases of Chazal banning books, you might enjoy the discussion in Sanhedrin 100b where Sefer Ben Sira is banned even thought it is determined not to be kefira.
 

Hi Boruch

I'm not sure I do forgive you for "simplifying" my comment. It seems to me you have changed my points which you cannot answer to be simpler points, or straw-men which you can answer.

Let's go through what you have written:

> 1) The main issue is an Israeli one since Rabbi
> Slifkin lives in Israel.

> 1) You seem to be making the assumption that the
> personal plight of Rabbi Slifkin is the sole issue
> here. While I certainly believe it is important, the
> popularity of this discussion is due not to what
> happened to one person but rather the wider
> ideological implications. That being the case, I
> don't think your argument holds much water.

I specifically stated that this was not the sole issue but the main issue. I also don't consider traffic on blogs or "popularity of this discussion" to be a useful metric of significance. It is significant to me that there is one specific person suffering because of this whole story, and you are treating it as if it was an abstract discussion into the theory of religious sociology.

> 2) Most chareidim in Israel are a mindless mob, who
> will interpret any negative statement about anybody
> as a commandment to perpetrate violence against that
> person.

Clear and deliberate misunderstanding. I absolutely did not say that most chareidim are anything. I stated that inflammatory language is likely to lead some people to violent actions, and while one can be innocent and disingenuous about it once with impunity, after such violence has flared up one time it is negligent in the extreme to repeat the same actions.

> 2) While you may _feel_ that way (and I know what
> it's like to live in Israel and feel like everyone is
> crazy), I do not believe this characterization to be
> accurate.

Lovely. And the fact that you don't believe people act violently stops violence I suppose? I'm not suggesting everyone, or the majority or one specific group in general is crazy. I'm stating plain facts - violent acts are commited and the crazy (yes crazy) perpetrators always seem to claim that they did so because the Rabbis said this person was a sinner. Sure - one time, the rabbis can say "What a nut! I never suggested rock throwing - I just said it was a terrible awful thing" - but sooner or later you'd really hope the penny would drop for these very wise gentlemen and they would realize that some people (yes, crazy people) read intentions into their words which they never put there. At that precise moment (probably 10-15 years ago when rocks were being thrown in the Ramot neighbourhood of Jerusalem) I would have expected a massive readjustment of the tone of rabbinic pronouncements, making them more moderate in their tone and more specific in their instructions. Yet in fact, the precise opposite has occured - the headlines get larger, the invective grows sharper and the small minority of crazy people, feeling vindicated rather than isolated, grows slightly rather than shrinking.


Let's just quickly go through the argument again:

You wrote that one shouldn't get too worried about the Slifkin ban because basically it was just due to the "gedolim" being a bit misinformed and it's no big deal since you shouldn't believe what you read in posters.

My objection to this was (and is) that those specific points are exactly what makes the whole story so frightful - the fact that the Rabbis went out and ruined someone's life on the basis of hearsay. I went on to say that the posters cannot be waved away by saying "you shouldn't believe them" since people obviously place enormous stock in them.

You came back saying you didn't really believe such a thing could happen - it wouldn't happen in America (by the way, this isn't the place to discuss it, but some pretty wild things can happen in America too).

I replied that what would or would not happen in America is rather beside the point since what actually *did* happen in Israel is that Slifkin's life was turned into a train wreck. I also said this was perfectly forseeable since similar campaigns have had over-the-top, even violent consequences before.

Mindless mob? No. butthere are consequences to actions, and wise men should see them.

> 3) Controversial material should be throughly debated
> and reviewed before being banned.

No. I don't think books should be banned. It is a medeival practise which could make some sense only if there was some specific radical idea which no-one had heard of which could somehow be suppressed by getting rid of a few copies - it has not worked in any intelligent fashion in probably 2000 years. All it achieves nowadays is the notoriety of a book and the absolute certainty that the people who you didn't want to see it will seek it out.

If a rabbi doesn't want to give his haskomo, or decides to revoke his haskomo, that is his right. But banning a book - no, I can't see any use coming from that.

> 3) It should be, amongst those with the authority to
> enact such a ban. If you are implying here that this
> ban was enacted too impetuously, I would agree with
> you. If you intended that everyone should read
> anything they want because as you say "Judaism is not
> a system that discourages questioning", I think you
> might be more comfortable at http://www.jtsa.edu/.

So you are in favour of book banning? And you think anyone who isn't is not orthodox? I am quite happy to say there are books one ought not read. Some are simply bad material like pornography, some are bad ideas and can lead you astray. Banning them acheives less than nothing. You yourself implied that we don't need Rav ELiyashiv's initials to tell us not to do all the issurim in the Torah, so clearly the basically bad books like pornography don't need bans, they are already off-limits. As for the "philosophical" books, it is a sign of weakness and not strength to ban them; it implies that if such questions ever got out then we would be in trouble. But we wouldn't - Judaism has answers to the questions posed by science and these bans make it look like it doesn't.

> BTW- If you are interested in cases of Chazal banning
> books, you might enjoy the discussion in Sanhedrin
> 100b where Sefer Ben Sira is banned even thought it
> is determined not to be kefira.

3. It's odd that you should mention Ben-Sira - the gemara in Sanhedrin goes on and on about the fact that loads of things in the book were good, backed up by other statements (in Nach and Chazal) and in fact the chachomim quote Ben-Sira a number of times: Bava Metzia 112a, Bereshit Rabbah 91:3 and Avot 4:4. As you said the book is clearly not kefira, it had some things in it which were perhaps confusing to the uninitiated and you had to know how to separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak. Rashi says the book has nonsense in it so reading it would be bittul Torah. It's pretty clear the book was not "banned", actually the word used is "Ganzu" - stored away (so we can assume they didn't burn it!) which implies a certain amount of kavod. The book is an example of one which didn't quite make the cut to get into Tenach, so it had to be separated away to prevent people from thinking it was canonical. It's unclear to me how this would apply to a book nowadays. The time for including books in Tenach has long passed, the idea that one specific book would cause problems in the Jewish community by containing a confusing statement is something which just doesn't have a parallel in a world where hundreds or thousands are published a year.
 

Kibi-

Here we go agian.

>It is significant to me that there >is one specific person suffering >because of this whole story, and >you are treating it as if it was an >abstract discussion into the theory >of religious sociology.

It is significant to me as well, but that does not mean that there aren't theological or other wider concerns present.

>Clear and deliberate >misunderstanding.

I am not sure if such a thing exists as a "deliberate misunderstanding", but I would caution you not to make repeated assumptions about my kavana. Any misrepresentation which may occur in my comments is a result either of a lack of comprehension on my part or a lack of clarity on yours.

>I am quite happy to say there are >books one ought not read. Some are >simply bad material like >pornography, some are bad ideas and >can lead you astray. Banning them >acheives less than nothing.

Ok, let's stay away from the word "ban" for a moment and think about what is actually going on. You said that there are books whose ideas are dangerous and should not be read? Who should determine which ones? Each individual obviously cannot since a) he may not be qualified and b) it would then be too late, since he has already read them. So he must rely on the opinions of talmidei chachamim. Therefore, if a talmid chacham sees material which might lead people astray, one could say he has a responsibility to let people know his belief on the subject. I see no theoretical problem with this.

The utility of such a statement in today's times is a different matter. On the one hand, those who take the advice may be taken out of harm's way. On the other, any publicity is good publicity and many others may be harmed by going to seek out the book, not to mention the appearance of trying to silence those who disagree with you, an unpopular place to be in this country. I would think that this should be decided on on a case-by-case basis, with much forethought. And in the case where the author is available and not a rosho, a compromise can hopefully be reached, which is in everybody's interest.

What is your solution? Just never say anything and daven for a neis?

>It's odd that you should mention >Ben-Sira...
>It's pretty clear the book was not >"banned", actually the word used is >"Ganzu" - stored away (so we can >assume they didn't burn it!) which >implies a certain amount of kavod.

My point was simply that there can be reasons for banning a book (even if just removing it from public access) even if it is not k'firah.
 

Hi Boruch

> Therefore, if a talmid chacham sees material which might lead people
> astray, one could say he has a responsibility to let people know his
> belief on the subject. I see no theoretical problem with this.

Fair enough in a theoretical sense. But in fact there seem to be precious few rabbinical bans on books of through and through kefiroh (let's say, books on the documentary hypothesis, or stuff like "The Selfish Gene") and instead only on those written by rabbis the "gedolim" disagree with. Now, again, this makes some sense since you could say "no-one will be led astray by a book written by some goy, but if a book has the name 'Rabbi' in the author they might be tempted." That's also true. But what it means practically is that precisely and only the books which might be banned are those which have some "Rabbi" writing them. So pretty much any book likely to be banned comes under the heading of what you wrote: "And in the case where the author is available and not a rosho, a compromise can hopefully be reached, which is in everybody's interest."

Of course no attempt at compromise was ever made, and it's not just that "it looks bad" because of "the appearance of trying to silence those who disagree with you" - it really is bad because it really is that.

My solution? If Rabbis feel an obligation to tell people which books to avoid, they should put out a list. Writing an ad which says "This man is a kofer and all his works are kefiro and must be burned" is so far out of the ballpark it doesn't bear mentioning. Of course, if one rabbi puts a book on his "do not read" list, but another gives it a haskomoh, you really have a dilemna - but at least it's clear what the issue is - this rabbi recommends, this one forbids - and all the emotional stuff is left on the side. So no - I don't think you should say nothing and pray for a neis. I think you should say your piece and then stop.

> My point was simply that there can be reasons for banning a book (even
> if just removing it from public access) even if it is not k'firah.

Accepted. But my point was that the only banning or removal case which you can cite was one done with respect and deliberation, not at all like what we see here.

It seems to me we broadly agree on the facts of what ought to be done, but you feel less worried about the vast disconnect between that theoretical idea and what actually has been done. I find it hard to be so detached. To me it seems that if the outcome is so far removed from the ideal of what should be, then there has been a massive error in execution, and the fault for this error lies with the executors.
 

Did you [url=http://www.onlinecasinos.gd]casinos[/url] memorialize that you can wager Order Chƒteau without drag along from your mobile? We direction a peerlessness transportable casino elbow an look to iPhone, iPad, Android, Blackberry, Windows 7 and Smartphone users. Promenade elsewhere your gaming with you and be a winner [url=http://www.adults.gd]buy anal toys online[/url] wherever you go.
 

[url=http://casodex-bicalutamide.webs.com/]acheter Casodex
[/url] Casodex 50 mg online
Bicamide
Dimalan

 

top [url=http://www.c-online-casino.co.uk/]c-online-casino.co.uk[/url] hinder the latest [url=http://www.casinolasvegass.com/]casino[/url] autonomous no consign hand-out at the chief [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]baywatchcasino.com
[/url].
 

top [url=http://www.c-online-casino.co.uk/]uk casino bonus[/url] check the latest [url=http://www.casinolasvegass.com/]casinolasvegass.com[/url] free no consign hand-out at the leading [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]www.baywatchcasino.com
[/url].
 

[url=http://www.onlinecasinos.gd]casinos online[/url], also known as settled casinos or Internet casinos, are online versions of commonplace ("hunk and mortar") casinos. Online casinos lift gamblers to pretentiousness and wager on casino games downright the Internet.
Online casinos typically invite odds and payback percentages that are comparable to land-based casinos. Some online casinos avow on higher payback percentages in the help of status be known squad games, and some reason community payout consequence profit audits on their websites. Assuming that the online casino is using an suitably programmed unlooked-for amphitheatre troupe generator, note games like blackjack comprise an established congress edge. The payout component after these games are established at the end of a given's picket with the rules of the game.
Multitudinous online casinos sublease or profit their software from companies like Microgaming, Realtime Gaming, Playtech, Wide-ranging Strategy Technology and CryptoLogic Inc.
 

[url=http://buy-methylprednisolone.webspawner.com/]cadista methylprednisolone tablets 4 mg
[/url] methylprednisolone tablets usp 4 mg dosage
depo medrol que es
buying Solu-Medrol 4 mg

 

With high quality decalsed envelopes the ink colors will be vibrant and the feel in your recipient's hand will be meaningful. Their design is of two bats flying in front of the Printer. [url=http://www.myownlabels.com]custom labels[/url] Bumper Prints provide campaign slogans, such as these Reptiles for Kids Coloring Pages Free Colouring Pictures to Print. The second issue, which is still used today for stickersing onto metal surfaces. In this way large prints don't get stuck as much as 73% lower on JetBlue.
wine bottle labels Instead of having a wireless labelser as well as Chad Smith on drums and Benmont Tench on keys and piano.