Loshon Hara About Gedolim

A recent post by my cousin R' Ally was very interesting, discussing his thoughts regarding ruminating about various Rabbonim and Gedolim and their shortcomings. It's a worthwhile read, and as he asked for feedback at the end, this is what I e-mailed him (very slightly edited). Please note that this was a quick middle of the night e-mail and therefore not fully fleshed out, particularly the last paragraph which ends abruptly.

For whatever it's worth from a non-Halachic mind...

I've long felt that using sechel is important. Obviously what the Chazon Ish says about it needing to be accurate is of utmost importance (as it always should be), but once that's established, I see no issue in reporting the truth and informing people about Rabbonim/Gedolim/et al. By definition a gadol needs to be someone whom a person can respect, and if knowing a piece of information will change a person's mindset as to how they view a Rav/Gadol and what they are saying I would think that is critical.

A few years ago, I was criticized by some for allowing to be published on my blog a [public] letter of a Rebbe where he spoke out in a very nasty way about a certain institution. Nobody disputes the accuracy of what was written, yet I received threats from some of his talmidim for 'saying badly' about a 'Gadol b'Torah'. I believe all of those people were wrong - there are many parents who would be hesitant at best to send their child to a Rebbe with those views, feeling that he will not teach their children appropriately, and it is important to show those parents what he thinks in his own words. I don't think this constitutes lashon hara whatsoever.*

Perhaps more importantly, a friend once went around to a number of Rabbonim/Rabbeim and Gedolim asking them to explain the concept of Da'as Torah clearly. He felt the best answer he received was from a Rebbe of ours who said that while he can't define the term, he can advise that a person find a Rebbe who "cares most about what's best for him [the Talmid] than anyone/anything else [i.e. the Rebbe, the Yeshiva, perceptions, etc.]". Based on that, which I think rings very much as Emes, I would further state that it's important that people understand which Rabbeim and Rabbonim and Gedolim are most capable of doing so. Therefore, I think it not just permissible but perhaps important to be clear about what a person's strengths and weaknesses might be particularly as it relates to being a Rav/Rebbe/Gadol.

I should add that it has often struck me that many Rabbeim I've met or even had are not capable from a Middos perspective of doing so, and that has always bothered me (perhaps particularly coming from a Mussar perspective, having grown up down the block from R' Dessler in Cleveland and learning in a Chofetz Chaim branch in a small town) - how can these people lead others, serve as their Rebbeim, etc.? (To varying degrees, and some people with poor middos can still accomplish a great deal in other areas of chinuch or Rabbonus etc., I don't mean to paint a broad brush at all.)

*A Rosh Yeshiva I respect who was directly negatively impacted by the incident expressed very nicely to me a couple of years later that my posting about the letter had hurt, and he felt I should not have done so, though he said he was fully mochel regardless. I disagree (and didn't ask for said mechila, though it's nice to have in case I'm wrong) for the reasons stated above.

On The Positive Side

A few positive stories worthy of note:

• With yesterday's surprising news of Kadima joining the Israeli government, the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Netanyahu is now the largest unity government in Israeli history. That's really amazing. Jameel has a fantastic summary of who stands to gain and lose from this, and this was a great point:

  "Obama is a partisan president, while Bibi is the leader of the largest national unity coalition in the history of Israel. Netanyahu has the support of most of the country behind him for whatever he may need to do."

  Is it not often the case that those who lead with clarity and purpose and most of all, responsibility, tend to gain support, while those who constantly heap blame on others tend to divide? 
• A brilliant campaign on texting and driving: Force people to pass a road test while they text. (HT: Josh)
• A frum 11-year old girl in Baltimore is a finalist in the Google Doodle contest with a really impressive drawing (vote for her here). The school she's in added to the kiddush Hashem by balancing their stance on the Internet with her accomplishments, and combined forces with an understanding Google for a pair of assemblies in her honor which also stressed how each person has their own talents they can use to achieve in life. Really well done all around.
• (HT: Jonathan H.) A fantastic smackdown by R' Shteinman of school administrators looking to reject kids who aren't "the right type" for their school. He questions why this family isn't good enough for the school, he calls out the egotism of the parents who think less of other parents, and when the administrator refers to the person as important, then R' Shteinman calls him an even bigger ba'al ga'avah. It's troubling what pains the administrators go to to try and get a heter to reject the kids, and they don't quite seem to get that R' Shteinman's lines are partially directed at them, but it's an incredible video worth watching. He also notes that he and the Brisker Rav and others went to regular Talmud Torahs growing up, and wonders why that's not good enough for these parents who are concerned about the influence these children of open-minded parents will have on their own:

  "He's worried about his kids going off the derech? Kids in the good schools go off the derech too."

Agudah Clarification on Reporting Abuse

The Agudah has put out a statement clarifying its position on reporting abuse to the authorities. Read it in full please.

Personally, it is extremely non-compelling and somewhat distressing. The Agudah is saying that one should report abuse if they are reasonably sure, but not in a case of mere suspicion, and instead talk it over with someone. However, because people are not experts in what would qualify as knowledge/assurance vs. what would qualify as a mere suspicion, they should first discuss that with a Rabbi knowledgeable in the matter.

That essentially boils down to saying that a person should talk it over with a Rav regardless of what they think, to make sure that they are making the right call in reporting to the authorities. That seems to be a huge error, as this again means it is solely up to the Rav involved to determine if the authorities should be contacted, which was exactly the problem previously. This comes off more as a protective clarification where the Agudah is saying "of course abuse must be reported", but in practice it will come down to the personal discretion of the Rabbonim who are asked.

It is also disingenuous for the Agudah to claim that telling all people to report to the authorities is 'further than the law', which only requires mandated reporters; the law certainly feels everyone should report abuse as well, but adds an additional level to mandated reporters that by law they are required to do so or they can face punishment for failing to.

Lesson Finally Learned?

I just read this piece by R' Yitzchak Adlerstein and actually clapped upon reading it. After the horrible news yesterday about Leiby Kletzky, the little boy who was picked up and horribly murdered and dismembered by confessed murderer Levi Aron, I noted and questioned to a few friends that it would be interesting to find out if anyone knew if this Levi Aron was a molester or pedophile, and someone covered it up as has been done all too often in the past. However, without proof, I was reluctant to even mention it, until reading R' Adlerstein quote an unnamed respected rav:

I am sure he was, and I am sure he molested many others, and I am sure that there were people that knew and hushed it.

Whether this was the case here or not, there are certainly people like Levi Aron who are free because people have done exactly that: Hushed up cases of abuse, molestation, and the like. This needs to end, once and for all.

As R' Adlerstein says:

It is time to forever bury the myth that reports of pedophilia can be managed and dealt with by committees of rabbonim, even for a short time. It is time to bury the myth that there is a serious halachic barrier to going to authorities to deal with credible reports of such behavior. Enough baalei halacha have told us that there is no barrier. 

Choshen Mishpat 358:12 tells us that those who vex the public can be handed over. Any pedophile does at least that, and poses a danger of doing much more. Moreover, mesirah of a molester exposes him to a safek of danger; pedophiles pose a much greater danger level to many more victims. 

It is natural and good that many people were not eager to rush to modes of address that themselves could be too sweeping and harsh, with terrible consequences to people and their families. They thought that various types of modus vivendi were possible. By now they should realize that this is not true. Rabbonim cannot handle the issue. We have enough evidence of this. Failure to take notice of this could have been said, figuratively, to be shefichas damim/ bloodshed. 

Today, it is no longer figurative. 

It is not a stain on our record that it took time to learn the facts about molestation. Reacting far too slowly is a terrible stain, though. 

Leiby’s horrific petirah can save the lives of many others – those who could meet a similar fate, r”l, and those victims whose lives are a living death. 

I may still be proven wrong, but the analysis will not change. Parents will be speaking about safety to their children. Whatever really happened to Leiby, the fact is that our kids are often in far greater [sic: danger] in school, shul and camp than from encounters with detested “others” while walking home. 

The greatest aliyah for Leiby and nechamah for his family will come from all of us getting serious about molestation. 

If your rov doesn’t get it, think of getting a new rov.

Agudah Says Abuse Allegations Must Go To Rabbi First

(Hat tip: Da'as Torah)

Honestly, the first question that comes to mind if this is illegal (after thinking "dumb, dumb, dumb!!") -

At the daylong “Halacha Conference for Professionals,” held in Brooklyn on May 15, speakers elaborated on a recent ruling by Rabbi Shalom Elyashiv, one of ultra-Orthodoxy’s foremost authorities on Jewish religious law, or Halacha. Elyashiv recently decreed that Jews with reasonable suspicions that a case of sexual abuse has occurred are permitted to go to secular law enforcement authorities, notwithstanding traditional religious prohibitions against mesirah, or informing on fellow Jews.

But at a panel discussion titled “Molestation Issues and Reporting: Current Halachic Thinking,” the panel’s leader, Rabbi Shlomo Gottesman, cautioned that Elyashiv never explained what constitutes “reasonable suspicion.” To establish this, Gottesman said, a person should consult a rabbi “who has experience in these issues” before going to secular authorities.

“If [the rabbi] thinks reasonable suspicion has been met, then you would be allowed to overcome mesirah and report,” said Gottesman, a board member of Torah Umesorah, the National Society for Hebrew Day Schools.

Rabbi David Zwiebel, Agudah’s executive vice president, told the conference that even mandated reporters — teachers, social workers and people in certain other professions who are required by law to promptly report any suspected cases of sexual abuse — should consult a rabbi before going to the police.

“If somebody just comes and makes a claim, that’s not a sufficient basis to invoke the tikkun olam [benefit to society] reason for overriding the general prohibition against mesirah,” Zwiebel elaborated in a telephone interview with the Forward. There must first be “some circumstantial evidence or something that would appear to bolster the claim.”

I'd be amazed if the Agudah doesn't get some legal flak over that second statement. Mandated reporters (which often includes Rabbonim, I believe) are mandated reporters, period.

In general, I do believe that people should have at least some circumstantial evidence before making a claim - it's all too common to have false accusations - but to always consult with a Rav first seems unwise, particularly in light of past history.

Honesty and The Jewish Community III: Rabbi C.

(continued from here)

Back in high school, I can only recall three instances where I felt that lying might be the best course of action. In the first, I believe I or the friend I was with misled someone; in the second, I avoided the question; and in the third, I believe I told the truth. To this day, all three of the stories bother me for different reasons, but the important lessons actually come from the people who placed me in the situations by asking difficult questions.

WITS, my high school, has a number of interesting rules. Some people may accept these as baseline givens; others may think them strange if not outright crazy. A recent news story involving a basketball player at a religious university touches on what I believe to be an important point: Regardless of what one thinks of a set of rules, if a person accepts those rules upon themselves, then breaking those rules means accepting the consequences as well. In WITS, some rules included no talking to girls, no non-Jewish music and no headphones, no movies, and no sports betting or pools.

Being a relatively poor out-of-town kid in high school, extended off weekends where people could choose to go home if they wished often meant I was one of a handful of students who would remain in the school. This was actually awesome to those of us who stuck around - we had a lot of free time and freedom, we would make some really great food, and we would often go have fun we otherwise didn't have time to do, from playing golf at a local public par-3 course to attending Bucks and Brewers games. The longer weekends, though, could get pretty boring, and when I was a sophomore a junior friend asked me if I wanted to come with him to see a new movie, Enemy of the State, starring Will Smith. When we came back, one of the rebbeim was heading out from the campus and asked us where we'd been. On the way back we had stopped at OpenPantry (like 7/11), so my friend replied we were on the way back from there. The rebbe seemed skeptical, but simply noted that we are required to check out before going off-campus, which we apologized for.

A year and a half later, our principal Rabbi C. confronted me in the parking lot of the campus after asking me to walk him to his car. As any high school kid might be, I was a bit nervous. However, he asked me a very surprising question: "Are you aware of an NCAA pool in the yeshiva?" The evening before, a friend who often helped me run the annual underground pool had said "Ezzie, I think this year you should let a couple other people run the pool. The Rabbeim are certainly going to be on the lookout this year and the first person they're going to ask is you." [I had been previously shut down for running a pool.] We agreed that the others would run the pool, and I wouldn't be involved at all now that it was already set up. I replied to Rabbi C. that I was not running a pool this year. He then replied "I didn't ask if you were running a pool; I asked if you were aware of one." I again replied simply that I was not running one, and he did not press the point, letting me go.

About one year later, during my senior year, for whatever reason the Super Bowl (which until then had been shown at WITS albeit with no commercials) was not going to be shown - perhaps because of the way winter break worked out, I can't recall. I had a conversation with Rabbi C. about it, and was told essentially that it was not being shown despite the case I made for it, so I decided to watch it at a friend's house, who ironically was an employee of WITS. The next day, Rabbi C. called me in and told me that he was upset about what I did and I was to receive an in-house suspension - forced to remain in my room - until such time as I understood what I did wrong. The next day at lunch, I came down to speak to him and explained that while I believe I understood why he was so upset, I did not understand the extent of the punishment. He explained that he was dismayed that I had lied to him, and when I was taken aback, he said he had specifically told me during our conversation not to watch the game elsewhere and I had said I would not. I answered that I honestly did not recall such a statement and that I thought I had agreed not to press further that it would not be shown in the school, and he lifted the suspension. While he was certain he had said not to go elsewhere, he believed me that I had not recalled it and therefore it wasn't right to punish me further. (He also removed the grade losses I'd have incurred from the suspension, changing them to excused absences.)

In all three situations, and in other instances which occurred with friends throughout high school, the key was how our Rabbeim approached honesty and integrity. Generally, if a person was being asked about something that they may have done, it was with good reason. Yet unless there was specific evidence that showed someone was lying, students were taken at their word. It was up to us to be honest, not up to them, and if we made a statement, we were believed to be truthful about whatever it is we were saying. Perhaps more importantly, they never wanted us to lie or feel compelled to lie - they would rather stop a conversation than make it worse by forcing the student to lie to hide something or protect someone, at least in my experience.

Thinking back to and about WITS, one of the traits I find most interesting about both the Rabbeim and my friends who went there is how almost without exception they were - and are to this day - incredibly honest. There are certainly numerous reasons this may be true, particularly the incredible focus on mussar and the specific emphasis on avoiding rationalization of improper behavior. But this approach alone would not be enough: Seeing our Rabbeim living it day to day was by far the best example of all. For all the disagreements we may have had with them as immature or even as rarely correct high school kids, there was never a question as to the integrity of the Rabbeim, particularly our principal and rosh yeshiva Rabbi C. He felt and taught us that to succeed in life, we must be fully honest not only with others, but particularly with ourselves. Unless a person is honest with himself, he cannot be honest with his life or with others.

(to be continued)

On Deference, Questions, and Disputes

There was a question-and-answer session recently which I attended at which a number of excellent issues were brought up, ranging from child and sexual abuse (report to the authorities immediately) to toiveling a new dish (no mikor for using something once before toiveling) to the Rambam's ikkarei emunah, to how much someone should put into their work as hishtadlus (whatever is considered normal for that profession; but one should consider from a personal point of view whether it's worth working 100-hour weeks and never seeing one's family).

One interesting discussion was regarding not da'as Torah per se, but rather what one is expected to follow vis-a-vis halachic precedents, and what one can or should determine for themselves rather than defer to the opinion of another. In summary, I believe the conclusion was that while the subject is a very broad one, it is difficult to break from established traditions taken on by the overall community. If one's own Rav has ruled something, then certainly one may follow that, and people may certainly have different Rabbonim for different issues based on their expertise (i.e. one who knows kashrus, another niddah, etc. - a rosh yeshiva may have little familiarity with hilchos niddah or related matters, and a mashgiach with Shabbos, etc.), though people should be intellectually honest and not be "shopping around" for a psak. In addition, people can of course use their own logic and understanding of halacha to make their own determinations. There's no need, and it can be very difficult, if people constantly seek out a Rav to ask every shaila that comes up. In essence, common sense is as one would think it is.

Yesterday, R' Gil Student raised a closely related but slightly different issue, that of deference. As of this writing, it has over 200 comments due to the subject matter, despite it being a rather "pareve" post overall. He quotes R' Lichtenstein and summarizes:

Rabbis are fallible and, if they lack adequate information, may rule incorrectly. If after discussion and investigation I honestly believe they have ruled based on wrong information, I will ignore their conclusions.

But if it is an issue of interpretation or judgment, I defer to those with greater experience and expertise, those who have devoted more hours to diligently plumbing the depths of Torah than I have or ever will, those more brilliant and wise than I am or ever will be.

This is also along the same common sense line; similar to any other field, if it seems clear the person is wrong, then go your own route. But in a matter of expertise where someone has that expertise, you would defer to their knowledge and understanding. Growing up, this same idea was presented to us in the following way: If you believe you have a great question or answer related to the statement of a commentator, then perhaps you do; but the person you're discussing was no fool either, and had learned the subject in depth. Try to think through it in different ways to see if your question or answer has its own flaws, or to understand why they wrote as they did. (This is actually a great practice for life in general: It allows you to far better understand differing points of view and how people came to the conclusions they have.) Essentially, err on the side of deferment.

R' Gil concludes that he recognizes his status and that "If a top notch Torah scholar issues an opinion, I may ask questions about it but I will not dispute it." In a post about R' Gil's post, R' Natan Slifkin seemingly disagrees with this approach (though I don't know how different they are), and disputes the idea of deference at all. He acknowledges that anyone may choose to defer, but questions if there is really a reason to do so, pointing to an interesting pair of psakim by R' Moshe Feinstein on the subject:

Rav Moshe Feinstein has two important responsa on the topic of disputes vs. deference. One is regarding the propriety of a rabbi in Bnei Brak disputing the Chazon Ish (see translation here), where Rav Moshe says that it is inconceivable that there would be any reason why he would have to defer to the Chazon Ish. He says that even a student may not rule in accordance with his teacher if he disagrees with him - all the more so with someone who is not his teacher. And in another responsum (translated here), he explains why he sometimes disputes Acharonim and even Rishonim. His reason is that everyone has the responsibility to form opinions based on what makes sense to them.

All in all, it seems easy to understand both sides of the discussion, and as noted, they don't seem incredibly different as a practical matter - R' Gil reserves the right of people to disagree, just is more reluctant to do so.

What is most important in this discussion, however, is that it completely demolishes the idea that seems to be expressed more and more that people cannot question Rabbonim, but must defer completely to their judgment. Bracha Goetz wrote an article, republished by BeyondBT, asking Aren't We Supposed to Question? She relates a recent story:

The couple was discussing something about what the rabbi had said in shul, and David piped in with a question about what the rabbi said. I don’t even remember anymore what the actual topic was. All that I remember vividly is the brief exchange that transpired next.

The wife stated very emphatically that one must never question a Rav. David responded very innocently that he thought that Judaism was a religion that welcomed questions, so rabbis would welcome being questioned. “Aren’t we supposed to question?” he asked, and a stiff silence followed. Nobody responded to David. Not even me. I just didn’t know what to say then.

She admits this is extremely troubling:

When did the encouragement of questioning stop?

And why don’t we feel safe anymore to question?

I’ve been trying to figure that out ever since.

It no longer tastes like the Torah we were first offered, when those with clout invalidate sincere questioning by dismissing it as being presumptuous.When people only feel unafraid to voice their doubts and questions as anonymous comments on frum blogs, we can be grateful for these opportunities for suppressed voices to be heard, but it also highlights that a fear of speaking up is prevalent. Instead of feeling threatened by these anonymous comments, and seeking to forbid them by imposing bans on these venues, we need more leaders who can garner genuine respect by encouraging as much open questioning as possible. Then they too can actually benefit from the perspectives and challenges presented.

What seems clear from the posts of R' Gil and R' Slifkin is that there certainly is no basis for the concept of not questioning Rabbonim - even disagreeing with them seems perfectly fine, and expressing that disagreement appropriately is as well. The only point at which disagreement becomes murky seems to be actual psak, and at that point it is a matter of discussion as to when one may or may not and should or should not be following the rulings of others. The question of whether one should follow the psak of others or use their own judgment while researching a subject likely related back to the debate discussed by R' Gil and R' Slifkin, but certainly a person should be open to questioning the wisdom behind the various psakim they may hear about or receive.

Ms. Goetz writes well about how the ability to question is what helped so many grow so strongly in their understanding of Judaism. Quashing that ability is self-defeating, and as she notes as well, ours is not a religion of blind allegiance or infallible leadership.

Painful experiences have taught us to fear communal reprisal, arrogant attacks from those who wield power, and mafia-like intimidation tactics within our midst. We discovered that our leaders made decisions based on financial backing and political favors, instead of on pure spiritual motivations. And we found out that this has been going on unquestioned. As we learned a little more Torah that we hadn’t initially been taught, we also came to understand that in the hands of unscrupulous people, Torah can be misused as a deadly poison (Yoma 72b).

Hopefully, a better understanding of what it means to defer, as opposed to follow without question, will allow us to ask better, stronger questions in all matters related to Judaism - and those in turn will help us ask questions regarding our communities and how they function. We will be far better off for having done so.

Girls Not To Date Until 21-22?

Rumor has it that a large Orthodox Jewish community in the yeshivish world will be coming out with an announcement this week, instructing its girls not to date until the ages of 21-22 for three primary reasons:

• To quell some of the shidduch "crisis", by evening out the number of available men and women and by reducing the average age gap, and also to reduce the pressure on girls
  
• To help the women be established with college degrees to better be able to support their families (particularly husbands who are in klei kodesh fields or in kollel).
• To reduce what seems to be a major factor in the high, growing divorce rate in the Orthodox Jewish community.
  

If this is true, it is a) fascinating b) surprising and c) a huge step in the right direction, even if it's a strange one with a couple its own, possibly flawed assumptions.

NY Times Article on Abuse in Frum Communities

(Hat tip: Harry-er) Good piece in the New York Times on sexual abuse (particularly of children) in the Orthodox Jewish community.

Of some 700 child sexual abuse cases brought in an average year, few involved members of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community — about 180,000 followers of Hasidic and other sects who make up the largest such cluster outside Israel. Some years, there were one or two arrests, or none.

But in the past year, there have been 26. District Attorney Charles J. Hynes has brought charges against a variety of men — yeshiva teachers, rabbis, camp counselors, merchants and relatives of children. Eight have been convicted; 18 await trial.

If the sudden spike in prosecutions is startling, even more surprising is the apparent reason: ultra-Orthodox Jews, long forbidden to inform on one another without permission from the rabbis who lead them, are going to the police and prosecutors on their own.

[...] Now, a growing number of haredi Jews in Brooklyn say they do not think they can get justice from the rabbinical courts, which in several high-profile cases have exonerated people who were later criminally convicted of child abuse.

One of the best aspects of this is that it forces Batei Dinin to shape up their own approach to handling issues - if they aren't handling things properly, then people will simply go to the local or federal authorities who will. Hopefully, this will encourage Batei Dinin to take a more responsible approach to various issues within the community.

EZ Reads 7/16/09: Religious Security

Some really good posts today...

• Erachet tackles Honestly Frum's rant (mentioned yesterday) on Modern Orthodoxy by discussing Religious Security. Excerpt:

  It is a call for you to start wondering where you fall. And not to look at other people so much. Just because someone seems to be of a different camp does not mean that person is any more or less frum than you, and therefore you have no business judging anyone but yourself. If you work on your own religious observance, you will feel more religiously secure. And the more religiously secure you feel, the less you'll care about anyone "looking down" on you or "trying to change you." You'll just laugh at that because you'll have a feeling of shleimus that cannot be breached. Not by something so silly as someone else being too judgmental of you.

• Great analogy by Treppenwitz in weighing the question of who is responsible when someone gets hurt in a "dangerous area".
  
• Interesting post by R' Gil on papal infallibility and Da'as Torah.

  When did papal infallibility become a binding dogma? While it had been discussed and invoked for centuries, it became official Catholic dogma in 1870. Similarly, while ideas similar to Da'as Torah had been discussed prior, the main establishment of Da'as Torah as a binding dogma -- at least in those groups that accept it -- was in the mid- to late nineteenth century.

• RafiG points out the homepage of the 18th Maccabiah Games.
• Mark Frankel with a very good introduction to learning Gemara at BeyondBT.
• Seen in a few places, links to this piece about a Madoff victim who is giving $5 million to cover the employees' 401(k)s. What a kiddush Hashem.
• Cool ad for HP (and it didn't even win!).
• Mayam Bialik (Blossom) asks Jew in the City about how Orthodox women are regarded. Interesting.
• Trailer for No Impact Man on A Negative Benefit, about a guy who has his family have absolutely no carbon footprint for a year. Strange but cute and funny, sort of. Definitely thought-provoking.
• On a similar note (via Freakonomics), you can sell (or give) your old cells to CycledCells, which either reuses parts or gives away phones to people in third world countries.
  

Enjoy!

Inflammatory Discussion**

In another disappointing Cross-Currents piece, R' Doron Beckerman of OJ seems to attack bloggers as a whole for attempting to force their opinions on Jewish communal public policy, stating simply

I believe that actual calls for adherence should be channeled through Torah leaders, whatever camp they may come from. There are lines of communication to all the English-speaking Torah leaders, both in the US and in Eretz Yisrael. I do not think it appropriate for any blogger who is not a Torah authority to be determining practical public policy, whether on Klal issues or how to relate to particular incidents relating to individuals.

What R' Beckerman seems to miss throughout the piece, in which he implies that bloggers are trying to do away with Torah leadership and create constructive change on their own while ignoring Torah leadership, is that his base assumptions are completely incorrect to begin with. Moreover, it is some of the side comments he makes which are particularly grating to people who are paying attention.

At one point in his essay he discusses a recent (/current) situation where a Rav allegedly stated that cheating on taxes is muttar. After explicitly noting

Those who have spoken up about this, say that they consulted with their Roshei Yeshiva who allowed for publicizing this issue.

he decries their doing so, arguing

I don’t understand why it is deemed necessary for people who are not at all considered equals of this Rabbi to act as jury and judge. Torah leadership demands that other Torah leaders take such a stand publicly, not k’tanim.

Skipping for a moment the backwards view that someone could be "better" than others, and that non-Torah leaders are "ktanim", who is acting as jury or judge? People are disseminating information about an incident that they - and their rabbonim - find to be important. Where is the Torah leadership that R' Beckerman is referring to regarding what happened? If it is false, as some have claimed, then have the Rav publicly state that cheating on taxes is assur. Have other Rabbonim come out and make such a statement. It is very easy to defuse the situation with a clear statement, much as is the case in other situations. Where are the lines of communication to gedolim that R' Beckerman claims exist? When people seek out their own Rabbonim, that apparently is not good enough; what is?

R' Beckerman notes the obvious flaw in his piece at the end:

People may ask a whopper of a question on this essay. Shouldn’t Gedolim be issuing statements like this? Aren’t you issuing a call for public policy here, in defiance of your own suggested guidelines?

Yes, I am. But only because asking for respect for Torah leadership is, perhaps, the one public policy vehicle the K’tanim should be driving.

Sadly, not only does his conclusion not satisfactorily answer his second question, it doesn't address the first one whatsoever. Where are the gedolim? Why isn't there any leadership? Why are the only statements from gedolim filtered through kol korehs on mostly irrelevant issues which R' Elyashiv acknowledges have little impact?

R' Beckerman seems to misunderstand what people are trying to accomplish when they write about issues which are troublesome in the frum community.* The objective is not to throw off the yoke of Torah and to replace Torah leadership at the head of our communities. It is to call out for a strong Torah leadership which acts in the best interests of the community at large. Someone named Chaim Fisher commented on Cross-Currents very simply:

I would like to question the implication here that somehow bloggers are having too much influence and power. Why? Blogs don’t have power; ideas have power.

If some am haaretz with little background writes a fantastic svorah and other people like it, great. And if he writes silliness then nobody’s going to pay any attention to him.

The ideas on blogs which are attracting attention and picking up momentum are ones which are resonating with a struggling community looking for ideas and assistance on issues which matter in their day-to-day lives. The gedolim are being presented with a plethora of ideas and some really excellent discussion on every subject; they merely need to step up and lead from a place where people know it's a) coming from them and b) demonstrate that they understand the issues and possibilities being presented before expressing what they think will work and why.

People are looking for Torah leadership to help implement the ideas and solutions necessary to turn things around. Where is it?

* I'm excluding deliberately inflammatory and contrarian blogs, whose only objectives seem to be hits, money, and attention. It's quite easy and proper to ignore such blogs.

** Note: The title of this post is Inflammatory Discussion because of how the Cross-Currents piece came across. What is particularly hard to determine from the piece is what R' Beckerman expected to accomplish other than start an inflammatory discussion on blogs about blogs, including posts such as this one. Perhaps he truly felt compelled to post much as one might feel compelled to respond as I have here, but that is difficult to believe in light of comments such as the implications that people aren't willing to shift to the right because it's a problem for "the hit counter", or the poor joke about violating J-blog ettiquette by quoting from an ArtSctroll biography. The snark is unnecessary and uncalled for if the objective is to point out what one views as a serious flaw.

Finally, if R' Beckerman had simply been dan l'kaf zchus on what most bloggers write about these subjects for he could have easily understood that his own throwaway lines actually summed it up perfectly:

A more critical problem – it isn’t healthy. Input from the layman is critical to proper decision-making, and sometimes the best ideas come from them. [...]

Besides, the status quo may need some fixing.

The Worthless Kol Koreh?

Fascinating quote of R' Elyashiv, emphasis added:

According to the weekly Belz-affiliated BaKehilla newspaper, HaGaon Rav Yosef Sholom Elyashiv is going to comply with the growing number of requests from rabbonim and roshei yeshiva and will be prohibiting MP4 players.

Roshei yeshiva visited Maran this week, and one case that was shared was a bachor who he noticed was totally engulfed in the gemora, swaying back-and-forth rhythmically as he stared at the sefer, prompting the rav to go over to his talmid to experience the event. It was then that he noticed the bachor was swaying to the music and not his gemora, hooked into his MP4 player which was well hidden.

The report adds that seminary rabbonim concur, fearing many good students may be corrupted by the influence.

When Maran asked “what can I do?” he was requested to publish a letter prohibiting the device.

Rav Elyashiv asked, “The tzibur still pays attention to such letters?” to which they responded the letter lends credibility to their statements that the players are problematic. It also gives rabbonim in yeshivas and seminaries the authority to send students home if found with the “portable TV units”.

Rav Elyashiv indicated a letter would be released, a letter that other Gedolei Yisrael will also sign, but it is unclear if the letter will be directed to talmidim and talmidos, or a general ban on the device.

It is extremely interesting that R' Elyashiv's assumption is that people seem to not pay attention to the kol korehs, though it seems logical to assume that such letters do give some credence to the Rabbeim's words about the negative impacts of things as they responded. It's also interesting that they did not say yes, but implicitly acknowledged that in fact, kol korehs are by and large ignored.

This seems like quite a (quiet) shift in the Jewish landscape and approach to da'as Torah.

Something is [Maha]rotten in the state of Denmark

Over at JewSchool, there is a summary of an excellent rant-style article on the recent pseudo-ordination (or MaHaRa"T-Madricha Hilchatit Ruchanit Toranit, if you are keeping score at home) of a woman, Sara Hurwitz, by Rabbi Avi Weiss, of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, written by Jonathan Mark.

Though I loathe the tendency in religious/political debates to ignore cogent criticisms strictly because they may come from a "different camp", Mark is a columnist for the Jewish week and a congregant of R' Weiss', so this hardly can be dismissed as some right-wing and/or ultra-orthodox hatchet-job.

In his own words:

The irony is that YCT was founded to be the avante-garde of “Open Orthodoxy.” (”Open Orthodox” is their idea of a clever Maharat-type name for Very Modern Orthodox.) But after the YCT Guy Maharats graduate, several of them say they want jobs not in the avante-garde but in mainstream OU-YU congregations, the kind that give out lifetime contracts and a house.

Trouble is, mainstream OU-YU shuls want mainstream rabbis with mainstream training. YCT students get excellent, even brilliant pastoral training. Rabbi Dov Linzer, YCT’s dean, has a profound appreciation of Jewish education, and not just for the elite. Some at YCT can teach Torah beautifully, particularly Davidi Jonas, whom I’ve heard the most and whose shiurs I try not to miss. Nevertheless, not all but too many YCT Maharats lack gravitas; not all but too many are concerned with leftist politics rather than Jewish education and Jewish concerns; not all but too many offer sermons that are anecdotally and intellectually shallow; not all but too many are self-indulgent when leading services. (Self-indulgent? One YCT Maharat, when leading a Kol Nidre davening, decided on his own to chage the time-honored melody of Kol Nidre to a tune that only he knew, leading to an almost tangible disappointment among many congregants. Imagine going to shul on Kol Nidre night and hearing, instead of the inspirational classic, a YCT whim, as if Kol Nidre night was a summer camp where a YCT counselor might decide to lead Shabbos davening to “Puff the Magic Dragon.”)

OU-YU shuls have a right, and I respect their right, to choose rabbis with whom they are simpatico, rabbis who are traditional about everything from Kol Nidre to women’s ordination. So hey, YCT, I’m going to give you a clue: If some of you aren’t getting hired by OU shuls, or not getting admitted to the RCA, it’s not because of Sara Hurwitz. So you might as well call her rabbi, if that’s what you really believe. You’re already known for being a left-wing yeshiva. Be radical and proud. Some people might admire your guts. Calling her Alta Maharat won’t fool anyone. You’re already in a street fight with OU-YU. Why get cute?

Read the rest here.

Does He Have A Rav?

One of the most commonly asked non-basic question that we get from people asking about guys for shidduch purposes is "Does he have a Rav?" Every time I get this question, I clarify first, "What do you mean?" Usually the answer is, "Does he have a specific rav he goes to for halachic (Jewish law) questions and for advice?" While I'm often tempted to ask why the assumption is that those two go hand in hand, I typically answer politely that the boy in question has a number of Rabbonim and Rabbeim whom he is prone to speaking to or asking questions of about different subjects. If the guy does have a particular Rav or Rebbe he is close with, I'll mention it, but I'm often struck by the surprise and shock on the other end* to the very idea that a guy will not have a particular Rav that he goes to for everything.

More than one such call has resulted in a discussion on the subject, but I remember in particular a young lady who was extremely troubled by the idea that a guy she had dated for a while and liked very much, and was considering dating again, did not have a single specific Rav. This young lady was extremely bright, well-spoken, and was a serious bas Torah and professional - not by any means a brainwashed flake. Yet she was hung up on the idea that a boy must have a specific Rav that he goes to, or it was problematic. Aseih l'cha Rav - make for yourself a Rav: Isn't that a basic concept? That a person should have a Rav that he essentially submits himself to?

Well, no. It is a nice thing to have if a person can find it, obviously, but especially today, as halacha and life have become more complex and the ability of a person who is becoming a Rav to grasp so many different and growing fields within halacha has become strained, it seems to be an unreasonable expectation to have of a thinking young man. Finally, there is a good, clear explanation of what seemed logical enough on its own, courtesy of Rav Aviner:

Q: Does the concept of "Get Yourself a Rav" (Pirkei Avot 1:6, 16) mean that you must have one Rabbi for everything?

A: "Get Yourself a Rav" is not an obligation. It is not stated in the Rambam or the Shulchan Aruch that one is obligated to have a Rav but it is exalted advice. If a man has a Rabbi, the Rabbi can direct and guide him. He helps to exalt him in a spiritual sense. But it is not an obligation. A person can therefore have more than one Rabbi. He can also have a Rabbi for all questions and issues except for one. For example, the Gemara in Shabbat (22a) writes that Rava followed his Rabbi - who was called "Rav" - in everything except three cases. There is also a concept called "Rabo Muvhak," i.e. a Rabbi from whom one has acquired the majority of his wisdom (see Bava Metzia 33a). Nonetheless, there is a halachah in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 242:4) that it is forbidden for a person to give a halachic ruling or to establish a yeshiva without permission of "Rabo Muvhak." The exact wording is that one needs permission from one's foremost teachers – "Rabotav Ha-Muvhakim." But how can one have more than one "Rabo Muvhak" - after all a "Rabo Muvhak" is a Rabbi from whom one has acquired the majority of his wisdom?! The Shach explains there (#12) he has "Rabo Muvhak" in Torah, "Rabo Muvhak" in Gemara, "Rabo Muvhak" in Halachah, etc… We see from here that a person can have various Rabbis, each in a different area. The ideal is obviously for a person to have one Rabbi for everything so that he can have a unified system of thought and practice.

* Often by girls or mothers, much less often by fathers, interestingly.

R' Feitman on Yoatzot Halacha: Second Letter

In this past week's Five Towns Jewish Times, there was a piece published by R' Yaakov Feitman (formerly the Rav of my parents' shul in Cleveland, currently the Rav of "The Red Shul" in the Five Towns) about the issue of Yoatzot Halachah - female halachic advisors. Upon reading the article, I will readily state that I was less than impressed by the arguments cited. Certainly, the examples of a shtender or the tzuras haDaf as examples of not altering our mesorah came off poorly; as commenters on the piece noted, it is difficult to imagine that Moshe Rabbeinu learned at a shtender or that a form created by a non-Jew to allow for easier printing is somehow such an important part of our tradition. Furthermore, only after a later closer reading was it clearer just how R' Feitman intended the role of the rebbetzin and how that was quite dissimilar to that of the proposed yoetzet. Prior to that, my reaction had been to wonder how what he described was different than what was expected of a yoetzet.

Between my own confusion as to his article and after reading other (disrespectful) criticisms elsewhere, I decided to contact R' Feitman asking for a clarification: [e-mail was sent to Rebbetzin Feitman; only relevant parts included]

I'm writing because I feel like your husband is going to get harshly criticized for the Yoetzet piece in the 5TJT. [...] the substance of the piece comes off rather weakly, I have to say. A careful reading suggests that a few points come off a little differently than he may have intended, so perhaps a clarification would help, though certain points simply don't work well.

Not sure why I'm writing this, just felt somewhat frustrated reading it originally. Perhaps R' Feitman could rewrite it in a way that comes off more clearly? I don't know. But it felt important enough to comment to you/him about.

R' Feitman wrote a letter in response to me, beginning with a simple statement noting that he has no further intention in responding in any way, feeling that he has said what he needs to say and is moving on to other things. He then shared a few thoughts for my own sake, but allowed me to quote him if I felt it would be productive. As I had a much greater understanding of his position after reading the points he made, I have decided that the same may be true for others and have decided to do so. [again, only relevant portions included]

Dear Ezzie:

Sholom Aleichem.

[...]

Regarding your e-mail and my article, [...] I actually have no intention of further responding in any way. I said what I needed to say and am moving on to other things.

However, for your sake only, I will share a few thoughts. Feel free to quote me if you feel it will be productive:

1. I purposely did not cite sources.

Much of Torah decision-making and Hashkafah positions are more related to the essence of the Torah and elemental issues than to a particular footnote. It is famous that Poskim treated the "Yirah Li" ("I believe") of the Rosh as a stronger statement than when he sourced his P'sak. There is a famous story to this effect as well with Rav Chaim Soloveitchik and Rav Chaim Ozer Grodjenski. As a matter of fact, Rav Soloveitchik ZTL used this method in responding to Ben Gurion's famous "Who is a Jew?" query. He chose to answer succinctly and with almost no sources jointly with Rav Chaim Heller. The point he was making was

• a. There is no need for us both to respond since this is basic and there is only one Torah;
• b. This does not require lengthy analysis or pilpul. It is self-evident-poshut.

2. The points about women being more comfortable with a woman than with a man are of course all valid. My only contention was that this has certainly not gotten worse in recent times. If anything, I believe the opposite is true and there IS a time-honored approach to this matter. I am well aware that Nishmat advocates that the Yoatzot turn to a Posek for complicated or novel issues. However, this is not enough. The sense from the Nishmat web site and literature is that they believe their training is sufficient for the overwhelming majority of Shaalos. This is simply not true. They provide a great deal of INFORMATION. However, even basic P'sak often involves methodology and training far beyond the purvey of those with a thousand or even two thousand hours of study. It is, of course, true that not every Rov is a Posek or the expert we all ought to be. But that does not justify ejecting millenia of tradition.

3. I never, obviously, would claim that a shtender, Tzuras Hadaf or particular type of shiur was the sine qua non of Torah study but the point I was making was that Tzurah or form is part of the tradition of Torah. Clearly, there are numerous legitimate forms -- Chassidim, Sepahardim, Hungarians, Litvaks each maintain authentic but different Tzuros. However, each of those groups would be guilty of a lapse in their own Mesorah if one of their leaders unilaterally cancelled his own tradition even in favor of one of the others. Rav Hershel Schechter, who speaks often in my Shul, has written eloquently in his Nefesh Harav (in the name of the Rov) and especially in his lengthy essay "Tz'ei Lach B'ikvei Hatzon" of the requirement in Torah of emulating earlier generations in both format and substance. This applies most urgently to this subject because we are speaking about the Mesoras Hatorah. We have nothing more sacred than this.

4. Another source which I did not quote (but of course could have) is the famous Yam Shel Shlomo No.9 on the Gemara in Bava Kamma 38a which seems to indicate Jewish bias toward gentiles concerning monetary matters. The Maharshal in this sefer asks, why couldn’t the rabbis have simply withheld the one Mishnah in all of Shas which caused difficulty? The answer, he writes, is that when it comes to presenting the Torah accurately even a sin of omission is as bad as a sin of commission, and may not be utilized even if it means putting all of k'lal yisroel into danger. Analogies are always imperfect and dangerous but it is clear from this Gemara and Maharshal that one must be extraordinarily careful when tampering with any Mesorah.

Those who make the point about changes brought about by individuals such as Sarah Schnierer etc. are correct. However, she did go to the Chofetz Chaim, Gerrer Rebbe and others, the Gedolei and Ziknei HaDor, who with the the most profound of gravity, decided that these innovations were acceptable and necessary for the survival of K’lal Yisroel. This process has certainly not happened with the Yoatzot.

There is much more but it is Erev Shabbos [...]

B'ahava,

Rabbi Yaakov Feitman

At this point it is important to remember what R' Feitman's original intent was in publishing the article in the 5TJT:

...Since this was reported without critical comment or dissent, I feel that an alternative view must be presented to your readers. So please consider this article a macha’ah—one man’s protest and disagreement with the “rave reviews” this project has reportedly received.

His intent was not and does not seem to be to pasken or say with finality that the idea of a yoetzet is anathema to and must be rejected as an attack on Jewish tradition. Rather, he seems to be simply noting an alternative way of looking at the issue by making a few succint points about how it seems to have come about and what the purpose of it is, by questioning why it is necessary and what it really adds. This does not mean that there is no merit to the other side of the discussion, but merely questions whether those merits outweigh or countermand the tradition that is already in place and properly address the other points that have been raised. Certainly, it is worthwhile to think about these issues from both sides before rushing to judgment either way.

EZ Reads, 3/6/09: Frumkeit

• Josh at Parshablog discusses the implications of "miracle stories". Really good analysis.
  
• Adventures in Chinuch with another excellent vort, this time discussing from the Parsha how Aharon teaches us a lesson in how we view ourselves and others, and attaches that to Purim and happiness.

  Aharon wasn't jealous of Moshe becasue he truly appreciated the differences between people. He truly understood that makes one person great does not impinge on the uniqueness of someone else. Every person has different talents and different faults. Therefore, everyone is destined for something else. When Aharon found out he wasn't going to be the leader, he wasn't jealous becasue he understood that this wasn't his purpose; this wasn't him. Therefore, he could be completely happy for Moshe. His simcha stemmed from his personal sense of purpose that nobody else could ever touch.

• The Apple asks why frum people that otherwise know better seem to throw out certain parts of halacha at certain points in their life, particularly when it comes to tznius.
• Ariella discusses a conversation with a mattress store owner where he relates that some will have covert deliveries of larger mattresses in neighborhoods where the standard is to have smaller ones. In addition, a charedi newspaper wouldn't print an ad that showed two pillows on one bed, citing implied inappropriateness.
• An interesting essay on Orthoprax Jews by Yossi Ginzberg at HaEmtza.
  

Enjoy!

EZ Reads, 3/2/09

Following are links to two of the best posts I've read in a while.

YD writes a beautiful piece utilizing a point from Parshas Terumah, explaining how logic does not necessarily progress to eternity:

The first step is for a person to be honest with himself or herself.

This, I believe, is a large part of the flipping-out phenomenon. Kids are being inspired to take their religion more seriously (which is a great thing), but are not given the tools to make decisions within gray areas. Therefore, many of them shift to the extreme because that's the only thing they can logically formulate. They need to be taught to take the emotional aspect, the lev, into account as well, both in terms of mental health and persistence

In a discussion I found rather related, Moshe related a story from his entrance interview to medical school, where a (Jewish) professor challenged his religious views, bashing them. He then expounds on how he thinks and acts:

The difficulty and frustration this presents is that I often demand this same process from those who are closest to me, my friends and family. I expect them to think before they act, to understand what they are doing, to appreciate their practices, and to recognize that actions without thought are pointless. I find myself frustrated and upset when people (especially family and friends) act without reason. If someone has thought about a topic and comes to a different conclusion, that is fine. However, it hurts me when they act without thinking or say and do certain things without understanding “the why.”

Elsewhere:

• The Wall Street Journal and Wolf (twice) discuss The Event, last night's concert at Madison Square Garden starring Lipa Shmeltzer - which was canceled last year due to hubbub and meddling by kannoim. LoR links to pictures and video from the concert.
• On a somewhat related note, ADDeRabbi with a line on the role of a Rav. Perfectly put.
• A rather brilliant analysis of defense and how the Rockets shut down Lebron last week. (Also shows just how good he is in general.)
• (HT: Josh) A great Calvin & Hobbes that is apropos for the current economic mess.
• MiI and Hirhurim discuss R' Ovadia Yosef's psak that women can read megillah for men if no men are able to.
• A cute article on using Faceboook to move up the social ladder. It's like having people vouch for you without them having to do so.
  

Enjoy!

The Declining Gadol?

In a rather interesting and well presented piece that appeared in the Yated and on Cross-Currents, Jonathan Rosenblum (in a wider discussion about the Israeli elections and the Charedi voter) touches on an interesting subject. While first noting a number of reasons Charedim increasingly feel disenfranchised by the Charedi party of United Torah Judaism, he then goes on to make a curious argument that jumps out when reading the piece:

In recent years, we have witnessed the creation in a number of localities of splinter parties of those who identify themselves as chareidim. And in most of these cases, the major impetus for the creation of the new party was a sense of being rejected or treated as second class members of the community.

But one concern stands out above all others in connection to the declining fortunes of United Torah Judaism. No principle is more central to chareidi education than that of fealty to gedolei Torah. Loyalty to the gedolim remains as strong as ever today. That means, however, that if calls issued in the name of the gedolim are no longer as effective as in the past, then it must be that there is a perception among many that major decisions concerning the elections – e.g., whether to run as one party or two, who should be on the list – were not made in the way that the chareidi public has been educated to expect – i.e., with the gedolim sitting together and various askanim present only to the extent that they were needed to provide relevant information.

Hopefully, that perception, to the extent it exists, is completely wrong...

Earlier in the piece, Rosenblum himself had noted

The party is the province of a few askanim, and the rest of the chareidi public is consigned to the role of voters. And no more.

so it is odd that he then treats it as a perception that hopefully is completely wrong. But beyond that, it is strange that he does not consider the possibility that the Charedi public is in fact less loyal to the gedolim when it comes to certain issues than they were in the past.

If the responsibility of a gadol in terms of the klal (community) is to not only lead, but help create a community where all feel the people's needs are being properly addressed both in the short-term and the long-term, Rosenblum has already listed in his piece numerous reasons why people may feel less inclined to trust that the current crop of gedolim is either best equipped or able to do so:

• No one asks them for their opinions
• No one takes polls of their major concerns
• They do not participate in primaries to determine whom they think would best represent them
• Rotation agreements convey the message that competence and expertise do not matter
• How well a particular mayor or representative serves his constituents is irrelevant, and those constituents’ interests are of no concern
• The party is the province of a few askanim
• Children from English-speaking homes cannot get their children into Bais Yaakov seminaries in one Jerusalem neighborhood
• Children of Chevron graduates are considered too “modern” in some other city
• A sense of being rejected or treated as second class members of the community

With all of that and plenty more - a seeming focus on blocking off any technological tool due to its danger despite its great potential for the positive, an increasingly restrictive approach to education, women, daily life, many aspects of what had become part of the Charedi lifestyle, and a disconnect between what is desirable and what is practical, it is understandable why Charedim may be less likely to hold gedolim in the same regard they have in the past. While there is certainly still a respect for the concept of da'as Torah and for their wisdom in particular fields and on particular issues, it is not surprising that when it comes to day-to-day living that the average person may be less inclined to listen to a gadol whom they don't feel fully appreciates a situation and more inclined to follow their own understanding of what must be done practically.

The primary difference between politics and other aspects of life is that in the political realm, the decreasing loyalty to the gedolim is far more measurable - votes are counted. Despite, as Rosenblum noted, "tens of thousands of potential chareidi voters who have reached the voting age since the last elections", despite higher turnout overall throughout the country, despite the sorry economic state of the Charedi world, UTJ garnered just 863 more votes than it did in the last election [147,091 - 147,954]. (To compare to other parties, there was a 236,326 increase in total votes over the last election; Arab parties with similar population growth rates had about a 77 thousand vote increase [252k to 329k].)

It seems that either a small but growing portion of the Charedi electorate is turning away from the gedolim or that the younger generation is simply not falling into the same voting line. Either way, it does not require much of a leap to assume that this is not limited whatsoever to politics. There will need to be fundamental changes in the Charedi leadership's approach to dealing with the community, whether it start with a dismissal of the askanim who (positive intentions or not) seem to filter that which comes to the gedolim and that which comes from them, to a demonstrable understanding of the lifestyle, needs, and difficulties that face the community, to a more refined and practical approach to technologies and their uses. Perhaps this would lead to a revitalization of the Charedi community and its respect for da'as Torah; until that happens, however, we will most likely continue to see this slow but steady trickle away from it.

Comments Worth (re-)Reading

Josh:

About the concept of yeshiva relying on charity.

Someone told me recently that the current economic crisis might, in some way be a good thing because it will make yeshivas realize that you can't always rely on big donors and should plan accordingly. Perhaps many of the kollels and yeshiva's are "not necessary" and it would be a good thing if some of them closed so that there is more money for the ones that really need it. The people learning in the closed ones can switch to other ones, hence "not necessary". (Of course, there are different types of people who need different types of yeshivas so many of them are "necessary", this is for daas Torah to decide)

I think that the Rosh Yeshiva (Ez: R' Henoch Leibowitz of Chofetz Chaim) ztl said that a yeshiva shouldn't go into debt without a backup plan, in other words more than the yeshiva's total assets are worth. So, for example, if a yeshiva has a $5 million building they can go up to $5 million in debt because they can always rely on selling the building. Anything more than that would be considered relying on miracles. A Rosh Yeshiva must be willing to close down his yeshiva if he no longer has the money to run it. Until then he should have bitchon that Hashem will provide, but he has to understand the difference between bitachon and relying on miracles.

G (elsewhere):

Nobody can tell you what makes you happy and you're right that it can be found in both areas...hence the dilemma.

it's a long life and there is time/room for more than one path. I would only make sure that you feel/think whatever it is you feel/think about a given aspect of this issue because it is what YOU HONESTLY HOLD. I would hate to see someone decide on something because "well everyone else seems to think that this is important so then it MUST be to me too".

cultivating a talent - living large - utilizing strengths - making a difference...these are all valid things from which to draw happiness, just make sure they are from what YOU can draw happiness.

Rabbonim vs. Roshei Yeshiva

I noticed over Yom Tov this piece in the Jewish Action discussing with seven older, former rabbonim some of the issues facing Orthodox Jewry today and the transitions within the community over the past half-century. I still haven't read through the whole piece, but this section caught my eye:

Mr. Savitsky: Many people today are claiming that the community rabbi is being replaced by the rosh yeshivah, since more and more she’eilos, questions, are being asked to the rosh yeshivah, and not the rabbi. What do you see as the role of the community rabbi in the years ahead?

The answers varied, with different Rabbis taking different positions on the subjects. It was the final comment that struck me in particular:

Rabbi Schonfeld: Rav Joseph Ber Soloveitchik told us thirty years ago that the tekufah of the rav is [over and that a new] tekufah of the rosh yeshivah was beginning. We didn’t quite understand what he was trying to say [at the time], but we can see it today.

The function of a rosh yeshivah is to teach Torah, to be a model to the community, more than the rabbi is. Oftentimes, a rosh yeshivah is brought in from Israel to be a mesader kiddushin, at an expense to the [parents]. By the following year, the rosh yeshivah forgets the talmid’s name! There are great roshei yeshivah who remain part of the talmid’s life, and those are outstanding people. But the rabbi who lives day and night with the family should not be excluded when it comes to times of joy. It’s not a question of kavod. It’s a question of the function of the rabbi as a servant of the community—an eved Hashem and an eved of Klal Yisrael. Very often, [they are] pushed aside.

The function of a rosh yeshivah is not to get involved in paskening [rendering a rabbinic decision] the she’eilah, unless you ask him. That’s the function of the rabbanim, who know Yoreh Deah. Not that the roshei yeshivah don’t know [it], but their function is to set the mode of life to the talmid. The rabbi’s function is to be involved in the life of the congregation. The daily life; the day-to-day problems. We have to find a modus vivendi of not overlapping each other.

It's worthwhile to read the comments of all of them on the subject (and on breakaway minyanim and on kiruv, which I may write about later), but this last one in particular was interesting. Firstly, do people agree with the split R' Schonfeld has stated? One of the other Rabbonim seemed to disagree somewhat. Second, if you do agree with R' Schonfeld, where does the problem lie in order to fix it - is it the people who seek out the Roshei Yeshiva over the Rabbonim who are not understanding what the functions of each of them are, or should the Roshei Yeshiva be instructing these students to seek out the advice and psak from their Rabbonim instead of from them? Whatever one feels, what can and should be done about this - or should nothing be done?