From the comments of the Cross blog:
Sorry, Rabbi Menken, I can't say I see it your way, not from the female side of the mechitza, that is. [ ] At the black hat shul I've attended, the tall steel mechitza with the smoked glass in front of it effectively locks out the women. We can't see anything, we can't hear anything. Hence, the women wind up admiring each other's sheitls. That's not a source of inspiration I can admire.
Comment by Roman Catholic — March 21, 2007 @ 1:25 am
Stop. Before you go any further ask yourself this: What does the author of this comment want? To gawk at men, or to join the service? Think you know the answer? Okay. Here's Rabbi Menken's reply:
Going to synagogue to "participate" (or to see over into the men's section) is missing the point. We go to synagogue to pray. Those who are serious about it, of both genders, don't spend their time looking around the room, because that's not why they are there.
Comment by Yaakov Menken — March 21, 2007 @ 10:49 am
Gag me. We go to synagouge to pray? And praying isn't particpating?
I don't claim to be as smart as Rabbi Menken but it seemed perfectly obvious to me that the woman wanted only what shul-going men take for granted. We are able to follow the chazan, and answer the responsive parts, and hear the sermon, and I expect the writer of the comment would only like to do this, too. I guess Rabbi M saw something else, which is why he brought out the hammer.
Showing posts with label Cross Currents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cross Currents. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Very Odd
Five days aga, I wrote a short post congratulating myself for having better Blogad stats than Cross Currents. Though I provided a link to the stats, I didn't publish the numbers on my blog, nor were they mentioned in the comments.
This morning, an anonymous commenter asked:
Stranger still, the commenter appears to have seen the stats from five days ago. How else would he know that Cross Currents had improved its estimate by about 5000 page views? Yet, in his comment the man attempts to undermine my original post, and the idea that my numbers were ever better than Cross Currents', by suggesting the post was a joke. Hmmm.
This morning, an anonymous commenter asked:
So did they suddenly jump ahead of you by nearly 5000 page views, or was this a joke?How puzzling. In just five days, Cross Currents has managed to add 5000 page views to their estimated weekly totals. Blogad stats are estimates of future performance based on past results. When I wrote the post, the system was estimating that Cross Currents would receives 8000 or so page views per week. Now, five days later, the estimate is 13000 and change. How CC managed this jump is anyone's guess.
Stranger still, the commenter appears to have seen the stats from five days ago. How else would he know that Cross Currents had improved its estimate by about 5000 page views? Yet, in his comment the man attempts to undermine my original post, and the idea that my numbers were ever better than Cross Currents', by suggesting the post was a joke. Hmmm.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Bigger than Cross Currents
Ha!
Had I known this last year, I'd never have been so deferential and respectful to them.
Memo to Avi Shafran: See? You should be guest-blogging HERE.
Had I known this last year, I'd never have been so deferential and respectful to them.
Memo to Avi Shafran: See? You should be guest-blogging HERE.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Toby Tackles Miriam Shear
Shorter Toby Katz: "If Miriam Shear arranged in advance to video tape her abusers, it is as if the abuse never happened."
Anyway, as Toby's own commenters have pointed out (and with a fair amount of ire) Miriam Shear's email address is easily found via Google; Toby's blog colleague Jonathan Rosenblum spoke to Miriam Shear directly; and on the DovBear post where Miriam's account first appeared I offer to assist with verification. I'm only a degree of separation or two away from Miriam Shear, and I can put any doubters in touch with her quite easily.
If Toby's questions about what happened on the #2 bus that day in late November were serious and objective, she might have attempted to contact the victim before using her platform at Cross Currents to cast aspersions on the story. She didn't. If her goal was something other than crude apologia, it's fair to ask: Why not?
Toby's post: http://tinyurl.com/yq6oql
PS: Get a load of Ed insisting that Miriam Shear got what she deserved. (in the comments) Naturally, Cross Currents publishes Ed's remarks unedited. Given how Ed's interests intersect with the goals of that blog, I bet it's only a matter of time before he's invited to join the team.
Anyway, as Toby's own commenters have pointed out (and with a fair amount of ire) Miriam Shear's email address is easily found via Google; Toby's blog colleague Jonathan Rosenblum spoke to Miriam Shear directly; and on the DovBear post where Miriam's account first appeared I offer to assist with verification. I'm only a degree of separation or two away from Miriam Shear, and I can put any doubters in touch with her quite easily.
If Toby's questions about what happened on the #2 bus that day in late November were serious and objective, she might have attempted to contact the victim before using her platform at Cross Currents to cast aspersions on the story. She didn't. If her goal was something other than crude apologia, it's fair to ask: Why not?
Toby's post: http://tinyurl.com/yq6oql
PS: Get a load of Ed insisting that Miriam Shear got what she deserved. (in the comments) Naturally, Cross Currents publishes Ed's remarks unedited. Given how Ed's interests intersect with the goals of that blog, I bet it's only a matter of time before he's invited to join the team.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Me and Michael Medved
Michael Medved is an Orthodox Jewish movie critic who loved, loved, loved the Passion of the Christ. He's also a bit bonkers about Borat (to the grave disappointment of some of his wingnut fans.)
Like most Orthodox Jews with even a glimmer of historical awareness, I found Passion to be offensive in the extreme. Though the New Testament is silent on the subject, Jew-hater Mel Gibson saw fit to depict the Jews in his movie as Medieval caricatures, complete with big noses, beady eyes, and an unhealthy fixation on money. He also included scenes based not on the christian bible, but on the hallucinations of an insane 19th century nun. She, for example, is the one who says the cross was built by the high priest, not the New Testament, yet this scene is present in Gibson's movie, a fact that didn't prevent Gibson from marketing his movie as the "word of God."
I hated Passion, but I thought Borat was laugh-out-loud/fall-off your seat funny. In this movie, anti-Semitsm was everywhere but it was pure parody, and too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Still, some people cringed at the running of the Jews, and even I was made uncomfortable when Borat threw a handful of bills at a pair of roaches he thought were "shape shifting Jews." The rest of the movie, however, more than made up for these akward moments.
I'm not alone. Most of the OJ people I know who've seen both movies (a small population) liked Borat, and hated Passion. A few OJ people thought Borat was a little crude, and a little gross, but they also hated Passion, which, to a Jew, is basically a snuff film, and one tedious parade of whippings, beatings and other tortures. (If the nude wrestling in Borat makes you cringe, how can you stomach the abuse depicted in Passion?) And though I'm too lazy to Google for proof, I suspect that people like Daniel Lapin, and perhaps the commentariat at Cross Currents, hated the the sophomoric humor in Borat - not to mention the way he embarrassed gentiles - while simultaneously adoring Passion. I know Lapin's wife (or daughter?) avoided Borat because of the bathroom humors, but I'm not sure if she shares the Rabbi's obscenely high opinion of Mad Mel's movie.
This makes Medved the odd one out. He's the only Jewish person I know who liked both movies. I think that's a little mad, and kind of incoherent.
Like most Orthodox Jews with even a glimmer of historical awareness, I found Passion to be offensive in the extreme. Though the New Testament is silent on the subject, Jew-hater Mel Gibson saw fit to depict the Jews in his movie as Medieval caricatures, complete with big noses, beady eyes, and an unhealthy fixation on money. He also included scenes based not on the christian bible, but on the hallucinations of an insane 19th century nun. She, for example, is the one who says the cross was built by the high priest, not the New Testament, yet this scene is present in Gibson's movie, a fact that didn't prevent Gibson from marketing his movie as the "word of God."
I hated Passion, but I thought Borat was laugh-out-loud/fall-off your seat funny. In this movie, anti-Semitsm was everywhere but it was pure parody, and too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Still, some people cringed at the running of the Jews, and even I was made uncomfortable when Borat threw a handful of bills at a pair of roaches he thought were "shape shifting Jews." The rest of the movie, however, more than made up for these akward moments.
I'm not alone. Most of the OJ people I know who've seen both movies (a small population) liked Borat, and hated Passion. A few OJ people thought Borat was a little crude, and a little gross, but they also hated Passion, which, to a Jew, is basically a snuff film, and one tedious parade of whippings, beatings and other tortures. (If the nude wrestling in Borat makes you cringe, how can you stomach the abuse depicted in Passion?) And though I'm too lazy to Google for proof, I suspect that people like Daniel Lapin, and perhaps the commentariat at Cross Currents, hated the the sophomoric humor in Borat - not to mention the way he embarrassed gentiles - while simultaneously adoring Passion. I know Lapin's wife (or daughter?) avoided Borat because of the bathroom humors, but I'm not sure if she shares the Rabbi's obscenely high opinion of Mad Mel's movie.
This makes Medved the odd one out. He's the only Jewish person I know who liked both movies. I think that's a little mad, and kind of incoherent.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Open Teddy Kollek Thread
On some of the lesser and lower blogs, the memory of Teddy Kollek, who died this week, is being roundly denounced, using language you won't ever hear me use about another human being. I don't know enough about the man to launch a defense, and in truth, perhaps he doesn't deserve it. Perhaps he was the "most anti-Frum Mayor in Israeli History" as one fine blog put it. I don't know. But I would like to find out.
Your thoughts in the comments, please. The best ones will be added to the post.
An aside: I take a lot of heats for the comments on this blog. Recently, my friend MoChassid dedicated two whole posts to the subject. My reply, always, is that I don't moderate comments, and, therefore, I can't be responsible for the horrible things some of my readers occasionaly say.
But what about blogs that do moderate comments? Both Yeshiva World and Cross Currents moderate comments, and both blogs frequently publish the very worst sort of anti-Semitic comments, the drivel on Yeshiva World's current Teddy Kollek thread being a prime example. Shouldn't the owners of those blogs be taken to task? Unlike me, they take active responsibility for their comments. They refuse to publish comments they don't like. Doesn't the appearence of anti-Semtic remarks on their threads strongly suggest that the blog owner shares those sentiments? So where's the reprobation?
Around the horn
- Cosmic X is negative without being ugly. He has a fair and good summary of Kollek's warts.
- I see he was also a friend to Bringham Young University, the Mormon YU. (Hmm. Was Kollek responsible for putting the LDS Temple on Mount Olives, the one that made Mordechai Ben David so famously unhappy?
- Jim Davila says "Watch for imbeciles to claim that he was finally done in by their pulsa di-nura curse, which they put on him more than twenty-five years ago."
- Ted Gross calls him a "Giant among men"
- AKS says "It's official, Shimon Peres has outlived everyone... that was my first thought."
- And finally, Jill says "I will always remember thinking that he looked like a big rolly teddy bear."
Your thoughts in the comments, please. The best ones will be added to the post.
An aside: I take a lot of heats for the comments on this blog. Recently, my friend MoChassid dedicated two whole posts to the subject. My reply, always, is that I don't moderate comments, and, therefore, I can't be responsible for the horrible things some of my readers occasionaly say.
But what about blogs that do moderate comments? Both Yeshiva World and Cross Currents moderate comments, and both blogs frequently publish the very worst sort of anti-Semitic comments, the drivel on Yeshiva World's current Teddy Kollek thread being a prime example. Shouldn't the owners of those blogs be taken to task? Unlike me, they take active responsibility for their comments. They refuse to publish comments they don't like. Doesn't the appearence of anti-Semtic remarks on their threads strongly suggest that the blog owner shares those sentiments? So where's the reprobation?
Around the horn
- Cosmic X is negative without being ugly. He has a fair and good summary of Kollek's warts.
- I see he was also a friend to Bringham Young University, the Mormon YU. (Hmm. Was Kollek responsible for putting the LDS Temple on Mount Olives, the one that made Mordechai Ben David so famously unhappy?
- Jim Davila says "Watch for imbeciles to claim that he was finally done in by their pulsa di-nura curse, which they put on him more than twenty-five years ago."
- Ted Gross calls him a "Giant among men"
- AKS says "It's official, Shimon Peres has outlived everyone... that was my first thought."
- And finally, Jill says "I will always remember thinking that he looked like a big rolly teddy bear."
Thursday, December 21, 2006
A question for my conservative friends
Do you sing the paragraph [*] of Maoz Tzur that is about destroying the red states?
No, I don't sing it with any extra gusto, but please don't deny that deep thinkers on the right would be making something from this on their own lame blogs if "red: equaled "East coast liberal" instead of "toothless, NASCAR-loving hillbilly."
[*]D'chay admon / destroy the red one [...] hokaym lonu roim shivaa / restablish for us the seven shepherds
Ok, let me be serious for second. As discussed before, Edom, or the Red One, is a longtime stand-in for Christianity. The seven shepherds are: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Joseph, and David. The author of the sixth stanza of Maoz Tzur (who is not the author of the other five) reeling from the shock of persecutions and expulsions, is asking God to intervene once more on behalf of his people and to defeat our enemies.
Is that relevant today? Maybe. We're not longer under attack, thank God, and most Christians are liberal minded - or at least moderate minded - when it comes to the issues that matter most to Judaism. However there are exceptions.
In 2006 we have our own Hellenizers, men like Daniel Lapin who rejoice at finding common ground between Judaism and the most backwards and least tolerant of Christians. Unfortunately, this common ground is almost always achieved by diluting Judaism. Our positions on abortion or homosexuality or any of the moral issues that animate appeasers like Lapin are richer and more complex and more ambiguous than the Evangelical's absolute 'No.' As readers of the Rabbis are aware our thinking on evolution and the age of the universe is also more accomodating than Christianity's. Samson Rephael Hirsch, for example, was famously flexible about evolution. And the Tiferes Yisroel thought Adam's children married pre-Adamic 'men.'
All of that great Jewish diversity is in danger of being forgetten if our goal becomes out-fruming Evangelical Edom. As we rush to show that we Jews are moral, too, the danger is we'll forget the nuances and details of our own rich tradition. It's already happened on bad blogs like Cross Currents where all doubt about deep questions has been replaced with the smugness of certainty.
NOTE: Post has been modified to make it's point more narrow, and stronger.
No, I don't sing it with any extra gusto, but please don't deny that deep thinkers on the right would be making something from this on their own lame blogs if "red: equaled "East coast liberal" instead of "toothless, NASCAR-loving hillbilly."
[*]D'chay admon / destroy the red one [...] hokaym lonu roim shivaa / restablish for us the seven shepherds
Ok, let me be serious for second. As discussed before, Edom, or the Red One, is a longtime stand-in for Christianity. The seven shepherds are: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Joseph, and David. The author of the sixth stanza of Maoz Tzur (who is not the author of the other five) reeling from the shock of persecutions and expulsions, is asking God to intervene once more on behalf of his people and to defeat our enemies.
Is that relevant today? Maybe. We're not longer under attack, thank God, and most Christians are liberal minded - or at least moderate minded - when it comes to the issues that matter most to Judaism. However there are exceptions.
In 2006 we have our own Hellenizers, men like Daniel Lapin who rejoice at finding common ground between Judaism and the most backwards and least tolerant of Christians. Unfortunately, this common ground is almost always achieved by diluting Judaism. Our positions on abortion or homosexuality or any of the moral issues that animate appeasers like Lapin are richer and more complex and more ambiguous than the Evangelical's absolute 'No.' As readers of the Rabbis are aware our thinking on evolution and the age of the universe is also more accomodating than Christianity's. Samson Rephael Hirsch, for example, was famously flexible about evolution. And the Tiferes Yisroel thought Adam's children married pre-Adamic 'men.'
All of that great Jewish diversity is in danger of being forgetten if our goal becomes out-fruming Evangelical Edom. As we rush to show that we Jews are moral, too, the danger is we'll forget the nuances and details of our own rich tradition. It's already happened on bad blogs like Cross Currents where all doubt about deep questions has been replaced with the smugness of certainty.
NOTE: Post has been modified to make it's point more narrow, and stronger.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
More on Miriam Shear
Miriam Shear is the women attacked on Jerusalem's #2 bus, as well as in the comments of this blog and others, for daring to sit in the front of a public bus. Her story (ie: the one so many of you insisted couldn't possibly be true) has been published by Haaretz, a fine newspaper even if, like Jonathan Rosenblum of Cross Currents, they omitted to credit this blog as their source for the story.
Meanwhile, those of you who were so eager to label the story a hoax, might want to ask yourselves this: If acts of violence against women are so uncommon in Jerusalem's ultra-religious precients, why did the Bes Din Tzedek think it was necessary to publish this?
Fred, my friend and frequent email correspondant, titled his post about the Bes Din Tzedek's flyer "Credit where credit is due." I think this is outrageous. As mevaseretzion reminded me, the custom in late Temple days was for the Sages to force the Kohen Godol to swear that he would carry out the Yom Kippur Service according to the teachings of Rabbinic, rather than Saduccean, law. At the time of the vow, both the Sages and the Kohen Godol would weep. The KG would weep for having been suspected, and the Sages would weep because the oath was needed. Though the Mishna doesn't mention bloggers, I rather doubt anyone gave the Sages "credit" for administering this unfrortunate oath. The fact that it was needed in the first place tells us only that the Rabbis had failed at their work, and were losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the class of people most likely to produce the High Priest.
Though I'm glad the Wise Men of Mea Shearim are willing to raise their voices when women are beaten in the streets, I hardly think this elementary display of common decency entitles the Bes Din Tzedek to maftir yona, and a hearty yashar koach. Moreover, the appearance of this flyer reveals only unpleasant facts about the people of Meah Shearim, and their teachers. We weep because they were suspected, and also because such a flyer is needed.
Meanwhile, those of you who were so eager to label the story a hoax, might want to ask yourselves this: If acts of violence against women are so uncommon in Jerusalem's ultra-religious precients, why did the Bes Din Tzedek think it was necessary to publish this?
Fred, my friend and frequent email correspondant, titled his post about the Bes Din Tzedek's flyer "Credit where credit is due." I think this is outrageous. As mevaseretzion reminded me, the custom in late Temple days was for the Sages to force the Kohen Godol to swear that he would carry out the Yom Kippur Service according to the teachings of Rabbinic, rather than Saduccean, law. At the time of the vow, both the Sages and the Kohen Godol would weep. The KG would weep for having been suspected, and the Sages would weep because the oath was needed. Though the Mishna doesn't mention bloggers, I rather doubt anyone gave the Sages "credit" for administering this unfrortunate oath. The fact that it was needed in the first place tells us only that the Rabbis had failed at their work, and were losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the class of people most likely to produce the High Priest.
Though I'm glad the Wise Men of Mea Shearim are willing to raise their voices when women are beaten in the streets, I hardly think this elementary display of common decency entitles the Bes Din Tzedek to maftir yona, and a hearty yashar koach. Moreover, the appearance of this flyer reveals only unpleasant facts about the people of Meah Shearim, and their teachers. We weep because they were suspected, and also because such a flyer is needed.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Paging Cross Currents
Another Christian Minister needs your defense:
Pastor Quits After Revealing Same-Sex Relations - New York Times
Hat-tip: BTA
Related
Pastor Quits After Revealing Same-Sex Relations - New York Times
Hat-tip: BTA
Related
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Cross-Currents abdication of responsibility watch
The entire Orthodox world - blogs included - have been buzzing about the arrest of Yehuda Kolko, with one exception: Cross Currents. To date, they have not written a single word about Kolko. Not one.
Wearing boots, goggles, and rubber gloves I waded through the last 6 weeks worth of posts on Cross Currents to see what sort of stories have been capturing their imagination instead. This is what I found:
9 posts on the Gay Parade
3 posts on the threatened boycott of El Al
2 posts on adulterer/liar/homosexual Minister Ted Haggart, and why Cross Currents loves him
2 posts on why Democrats are (or are not) Anti-Semites
2 posts on Intelligent Design
1 post on the Seattle Airport's Christmas Tree
The balance of the posts are largely about personal or hashkafic issues. Gedalya Litke, for example, regales us about his recent trip to Berlin. Shira Schmidt shares the dirt from a schlarly conference she recently attended. Yaakov Mencken urges us to vote, and celebrates the Mishna Berurah's 100's birthday. Yitazchak Alderstan attempts to say something nice about Nancy Pelosi, and for his trouble is raked over the coals by the heaven-fearing Jews who comment at Cross Currents. in another post RA calls everyone's attention to the new issue of Jewish action and (cough, cough) the articles written by Cross Currents contributors. And so on.
All this detritus, and not one word about Kolko.
Look: I don't expect Cross Currents to engage in scandal mongering (unless the scandal involves a liberal Jew, of course) I am just surprised that the scolds who file posts at Cross Currents have managed to keep themselves from wagging even a mild and halfhearted finger - if not at Kolko, who of course, is officially innocent until proven guilty, than at the system that allowed 25-years worth of accusations to be rebuffed. They are full of suggestions when Conservative Judaism is contemplating the ordination of homosexuals, and not one good idea crosses their mind when it seems a sexual predator has been on the loose for three decades? Even, when the good people of Boro Park rioted last spring, Cross Currents tentativly suggested that their behavior was not in keeping with the Torah. What is keeping them from making the same sort of peircing observation about Kolko?
Wearing boots, goggles, and rubber gloves I waded through the last 6 weeks worth of posts on Cross Currents to see what sort of stories have been capturing their imagination instead. This is what I found:
9 posts on the Gay Parade
3 posts on the threatened boycott of El Al
2 posts on adulterer/liar/homosexual Minister Ted Haggart, and why Cross Currents loves him
2 posts on why Democrats are (or are not) Anti-Semites
2 posts on Intelligent Design
1 post on the Seattle Airport's Christmas Tree
The balance of the posts are largely about personal or hashkafic issues. Gedalya Litke, for example, regales us about his recent trip to Berlin. Shira Schmidt shares the dirt from a schlarly conference she recently attended. Yaakov Mencken urges us to vote, and celebrates the Mishna Berurah's 100's birthday. Yitazchak Alderstan attempts to say something nice about Nancy Pelosi, and for his trouble is raked over the coals by the heaven-fearing Jews who comment at Cross Currents. in another post RA calls everyone's attention to the new issue of Jewish action and (cough, cough) the articles written by Cross Currents contributors. And so on.
All this detritus, and not one word about Kolko.
Look: I don't expect Cross Currents to engage in scandal mongering (unless the scandal involves a liberal Jew, of course) I am just surprised that the scolds who file posts at Cross Currents have managed to keep themselves from wagging even a mild and halfhearted finger - if not at Kolko, who of course, is officially innocent until proven guilty, than at the system that allowed 25-years worth of accusations to be rebuffed. They are full of suggestions when Conservative Judaism is contemplating the ordination of homosexuals, and not one good idea crosses their mind when it seems a sexual predator has been on the loose for three decades? Even, when the good people of Boro Park rioted last spring, Cross Currents tentativly suggested that their behavior was not in keeping with the Torah. What is keeping them from making the same sort of peircing observation about Kolko?
Monday, December 11, 2006
Shame on Shafran
Holy Smokes:
ANSWERS
1 - Because he was an employee, more than 30 years ago, of one of the camps you run! (Credit Avi Shafran himself for that one)
2 - Because men closly associated with your organization have been running interference for him for 25 years.
3 - Because as an organization, Agudah's takes it upon itself to comment on almost everything that happens in the (right wing) Jewish world. Blogs, for example, were on your agenda at the recent convention. In the past, Agudah has politely ordered schools to participate or to ignore various rallies and campaigns. You make your thoughts known about various acts of legistlation and the position of various rabbis from across the Jewish spectrum. And so on. Why would such a chatty and meddling organization suddenly go silent?
4 - In the past, you, as an individual have published fiery condemnantions of Conservative Judaism, feminism, and religious pluralism. You've had 23 letters published in the New York Times, many of them filled with indignation. And your work on Cross Currents, the worst blog in the world, ranges from attacks on homosexuals to liberals to the media. But now, when a child molester who has enjoyed the protection of Agudah Rabbis is caught in your own back yard, the cat finally catches your famously flapping tounge? Now, the blood pressure medicine begins to work?
I call BS Avi. And your abdiciation of responsibilty here does more to explain the decline in deference for your organization and the Rabbis it represents than do the scribblings of any blogger.
If you agree, please send this post to Avi with my greetings.
RELATED
Last year, I reported that Agudah was working with the Catholic Church to undermine a NY State law which would require parochial schools to report abusive teachers. And at the height of the Lanner scandal, Avi Shafran argued against the creation of a centralized body to deal with the problem of sexual abuse in schools. He said: [Complainants would be encouraged to] “go to the rebbe or community rabbi” on an individual basis. And when that happened during the Kolko case, the people who went to Kolko's boss on an "individual basis" were marginilized, ignored, humiliated and scorned.
Let's get the drum beating: I am calling right now for the resignation of Zweibal, the chief Rabbi of Agudah, and his hack PR flack Avi Shafran. If you agree, please post this on your blogs, and your bulliten boards and distribute it via email to anyone who cares about children.
Asked to provide comment [on the Kolko case], R’ Avi Shafran replies in an e-mail:Let's help Avi out. He asks: "Why would we have comment about the arrest of an individual?"
Why would we have comment about the arrest of an individual? Because he was an employee, more than 30 years ago, of one of the camps we run (that have had thousands of employees over the years)? I don’t think that requires comment on our part. We are not even a party anymore to any lawsuit filed against the accused, as I understand it. The suit of the accuser who included Camp Agudah in his action (John Doe #1) has been dismissed (without prejudice, I believe, so it can still be refiled, but hasn’t been)." [On Canonist, via Orthomom]
ANSWERS
1 - Because he was an employee, more than 30 years ago, of one of the camps you run! (Credit Avi Shafran himself for that one)
2 - Because men closly associated with your organization have been running interference for him for 25 years.
3 - Because as an organization, Agudah's takes it upon itself to comment on almost everything that happens in the (right wing) Jewish world. Blogs, for example, were on your agenda at the recent convention. In the past, Agudah has politely ordered schools to participate or to ignore various rallies and campaigns. You make your thoughts known about various acts of legistlation and the position of various rabbis from across the Jewish spectrum. And so on. Why would such a chatty and meddling organization suddenly go silent?
4 - In the past, you, as an individual have published fiery condemnantions of Conservative Judaism, feminism, and religious pluralism. You've had 23 letters published in the New York Times, many of them filled with indignation. And your work on Cross Currents, the worst blog in the world, ranges from attacks on homosexuals to liberals to the media. But now, when a child molester who has enjoyed the protection of Agudah Rabbis is caught in your own back yard, the cat finally catches your famously flapping tounge? Now, the blood pressure medicine begins to work?
I call BS Avi. And your abdiciation of responsibilty here does more to explain the decline in deference for your organization and the Rabbis it represents than do the scribblings of any blogger.
If you agree, please send this post to Avi with my greetings.
RELATED
Last year, I reported that Agudah was working with the Catholic Church to undermine a NY State law which would require parochial schools to report abusive teachers. And at the height of the Lanner scandal, Avi Shafran argued against the creation of a centralized body to deal with the problem of sexual abuse in schools. He said: [Complainants would be encouraged to] “go to the rebbe or community rabbi” on an individual basis. And when that happened during the Kolko case, the people who went to Kolko's boss on an "individual basis" were marginilized, ignored, humiliated and scorned.
Let's get the drum beating: I am calling right now for the resignation of Zweibal, the chief Rabbi of Agudah, and his hack PR flack Avi Shafran. If you agree, please post this on your blogs, and your bulliten boards and distribute it via email to anyone who cares about children.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
In which I judge the three most yeshivish blogs
Tip of the hat: To Harry Maryles for linking his blog to the Open Letter. Harry has an audience I can't reach; thank God he made sure they were aware of the Kolko case, and the cover-up that followed.
Wag of the Finger: To Gil Student. He's mentioned the Kolko case on his blog before, and I know he's upset with how the Rabonim handled it (see, for instance, his critism of the speech R' Salamon delivered at the convention) but his attitude toward the letter is unconscionable. On the Letter's comment thread he says the fact that the letter is annoymous is the reason why he won't bring it to the attention of his readers. He goes on to day that without a signature, he can't be sure the contents aren't fabrications. This is punting, plain and simple: Gil knows for a fact that letter's central accusations are true. Anyway, if the letter was signed, wouldn't Kolko's protectors seize on that and seek to discredit the writer? Wouldn't they go after him? By staying anonymous the letter-writer forces Kolko's friends to respond to the letter itself, and gives them no opportunity to go ad hominum.
Sicillian guesture of contempt: To Cross Currents. They claim to be a blog concerned with issues that matter to the Jewish world, but, to date, they have not said one word about the case, or the cover-up. This is not because they are public figures -- Gil is, too, and he's made his feelings known. It's also not because they are reluctant to write about sex scandals -- as you may recall, the blog gave us three posts about the towering moral superiority of liar/adulterer Minister Ted Haggard.
No, the reason for their silence is this: They are apologists and wimps who use their blog to make excuses for the yeshiva world and for the Christian right, while simoltaniously capitilizing on any and every misstep made by more liberal Jews.
Cross-Cowards would be a better name for that group.
Wag of the Finger: To Gil Student. He's mentioned the Kolko case on his blog before, and I know he's upset with how the Rabonim handled it (see, for instance, his critism of the speech R' Salamon delivered at the convention) but his attitude toward the letter is unconscionable. On the Letter's comment thread he says the fact that the letter is annoymous is the reason why he won't bring it to the attention of his readers. He goes on to day that without a signature, he can't be sure the contents aren't fabrications. This is punting, plain and simple: Gil knows for a fact that letter's central accusations are true. Anyway, if the letter was signed, wouldn't Kolko's protectors seize on that and seek to discredit the writer? Wouldn't they go after him? By staying anonymous the letter-writer forces Kolko's friends to respond to the letter itself, and gives them no opportunity to go ad hominum.
Sicillian guesture of contempt: To Cross Currents. They claim to be a blog concerned with issues that matter to the Jewish world, but, to date, they have not said one word about the case, or the cover-up. This is not because they are public figures -- Gil is, too, and he's made his feelings known. It's also not because they are reluctant to write about sex scandals -- as you may recall, the blog gave us three posts about the towering moral superiority of liar/adulterer Minister Ted Haggard.
No, the reason for their silence is this: They are apologists and wimps who use their blog to make excuses for the yeshiva world and for the Christian right, while simoltaniously capitilizing on any and every misstep made by more liberal Jews.
Cross-Cowards would be a better name for that group.
Monday, November 27, 2006
God loves rebels
The posuk says: "He smelled the smell of his clothing (bigadav), and blessed him, and said, "Behold, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which God has blessed"
Writing well after the introduction of hellenistic ideas, and hellenistic factions, into Judaism [*], the sages of the midrash wrote: Don't read "bigadav"; rather read "bogdov" - his traitors. After centuries of fighting between the various factions, centuries that had given the Jewish people their share of rebels and traitors, the Sages still imagined Issac giving Jacob the desperatelty coveted blessing because of the sweetness of his traitors.
And note, this isn't the view of a self-serving liberal Rabbi from the far left corners of Judaism. This is the midrash. The midrash.
[I suppose this reading comes as a shock to the good Jews of Cross Currents, and Williamsburg where I believe they read it begadav and darshan "see! Yizhak Aveenee saw mit de ruach hakodesh our shteimrals and kapatas!]
[*] This sentance first read "Writing well after the hellenization of Judaism" An alert reader corrected the obvious mistake. DovBear regrets the error.
Writing well after the introduction of hellenistic ideas, and hellenistic factions, into Judaism [*], the sages of the midrash wrote: Don't read "bigadav"; rather read "bogdov" - his traitors. After centuries of fighting between the various factions, centuries that had given the Jewish people their share of rebels and traitors, the Sages still imagined Issac giving Jacob the desperatelty coveted blessing because of the sweetness of his traitors.
And note, this isn't the view of a self-serving liberal Rabbi from the far left corners of Judaism. This is the midrash. The midrash.
[I suppose this reading comes as a shock to the good Jews of Cross Currents, and Williamsburg where I believe they read it begadav and darshan "see! Yizhak Aveenee saw mit de ruach hakodesh our shteimrals and kapatas!]
[*] This sentance first read "Writing well after the hellenization of Judaism" An alert reader corrected the obvious mistake. DovBear regrets the error.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Cross-Currents » How low will they go?
The comment they printed: OJ Simpson, with more money and fame than he apparently knew what to do with, murdered two innocent people, wasted taxpayers money trying to deny the obvious, and has continued ever since to thumb his nose at basic moral human decency. can anybody imagine even the most left-wing, secular, self-hating jew behaving in such a manner? i truly believe that we jews are indeed different.
Comment by Raymond — November 20, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
The comment they won't print: Perhaps the "most left-wing self-hating Jew" would not behave in so vile a fashion.
However, when one looks at the proud Chareidi Jews who sit in jail for defrauding the government out of millions on school lunch programs, or TAP, or Fannie Mae scams, yet, still have their name emblazoned on the walls of several yeshivos, and still use the money they stole to purchase honors for themselves . . . well, I find myself saying I hope to God that we Jews are NOT different, because I REALLY don't want to claim that behavior like that is unique to our people . . .
200 DovBear points to whoever can word this in a way that gets it past the Cross Current censors.
Hattip: Him
Comment by Raymond — November 20, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
The comment they won't print: Perhaps the "most left-wing self-hating Jew" would not behave in so vile a fashion.
However, when one looks at the proud Chareidi Jews who sit in jail for defrauding the government out of millions on school lunch programs, or TAP, or Fannie Mae scams, yet, still have their name emblazoned on the walls of several yeshivos, and still use the money they stole to purchase honors for themselves . . . well, I find myself saying I hope to God that we Jews are NOT different, because I REALLY don't want to claim that behavior like that is unique to our people . . .
200 DovBear points to whoever can word this in a way that gets it past the Cross Current censors.
Hattip: Him
The laugh I needed
From the comments at Cross (loving) Currents:
I am really sorry that Rabbi Menken is “fed up with Fox.” The Fox news channel has risen to prominence due to its wholesome “we report, you decide” approach and willingness to offer a fair and balanced presentation...
Comment by David N. Friedman — November 18, 2006 @ 11:31 pm
And you thought Jews were smart.
I am really sorry that Rabbi Menken is “fed up with Fox.” The Fox news channel has risen to prominence due to its wholesome “we report, you decide” approach and willingness to offer a fair and balanced presentation...
Comment by David N. Friedman — November 18, 2006 @ 11:31 pm
And you thought Jews were smart.
What will Aguda do? I
It's three days to the big Aguda meeting on blogs, and like the rest of the Jewish blogosphere I am waiting on tenterhooks (whatever the hell that means) for the results. Will the blogs be banned? Will any of us be singled out for special disapprobation? Will Gill and Harry wheedle an exception for themselves?
There are two main directions Agudah could take, one smart, one stupid. As follows:
The smart approach
Agudah should create its own blog, and use it to promote the Aguda agenda and also to respond to the issues bloggers have raised. Instead of attacking from the pulpit or from behind posters, let Aguda join the blogosphere and make its case coherently and constructivly. In an open encounter the truth has nothing to fear. If they choose to ban the blogs, or to otherwise regulate them, it will show us only that the Agudah leadership has no faith in the truth of their own positions. [This, incidently, is why Cross Currents moderates and deletes comments. It's also why I solicit and publish guest posts from every hashkofic and political corner of the blogosphere. One of us is pursuing truth; the other has a different agenda.]
The stupid approach
The worst thing aguda could do is make themselve into a luaghingstock by banning blogs. Why a laughingstock? Two reasons: First, a ban would announce to the world that the Aguda emperor is naked. Only someone who is wrong is afraid of arguments. Second, the ban would be impossible to enforce, and for this reason it would reveal that along with being wrong, the organization is impotant.
If history holds, Aguda will take the stupid approach. Alas.
There are two main directions Agudah could take, one smart, one stupid. As follows:
The smart approach
Agudah should create its own blog, and use it to promote the Aguda agenda and also to respond to the issues bloggers have raised. Instead of attacking from the pulpit or from behind posters, let Aguda join the blogosphere and make its case coherently and constructivly. In an open encounter the truth has nothing to fear. If they choose to ban the blogs, or to otherwise regulate them, it will show us only that the Agudah leadership has no faith in the truth of their own positions. [This, incidently, is why Cross Currents moderates and deletes comments. It's also why I solicit and publish guest posts from every hashkofic and political corner of the blogosphere. One of us is pursuing truth; the other has a different agenda.]
The stupid approach
The worst thing aguda could do is make themselve into a luaghingstock by banning blogs. Why a laughingstock? Two reasons: First, a ban would announce to the world that the Aguda emperor is naked. Only someone who is wrong is afraid of arguments. Second, the ban would be impossible to enforce, and for this reason it would reveal that along with being wrong, the organization is impotant.
If history holds, Aguda will take the stupid approach. Alas.
Friday, November 17, 2006
New J-blog
And look who's running it: Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz
Things about this that are funny:
1 - Rabbi Horowitz is going to allow unedited, unmoderated comments. Take that Cross Currents!
Things about this that are promising:
1 - I don't know Rabbi Horowitz from a hole in the wall, but the articles he's written about parenting are never political, and never crazy. The blogosphere needs more apolitical, intelligent Haredim.
2 - Unedited, unmoderated comments!
Things about this that are threatening:
1 - Poor Gil. In a few weeks time he may not be the top Torah blog anymore.
2 - Unedited, unmoderated comments? Hey! That's my shtick!
Things about this that are funny:
1 - Rabbi Horowitz is going to allow unedited, unmoderated comments. Take that Cross Currents!
Things about this that are promising:
1 - I don't know Rabbi Horowitz from a hole in the wall, but the articles he's written about parenting are never political, and never crazy. The blogosphere needs more apolitical, intelligent Haredim.
2 - Unedited, unmoderated comments!
Things about this that are threatening:
1 - Poor Gil. In a few weeks time he may not be the top Torah blog anymore.
2 - Unedited, unmoderated comments? Hey! That's my shtick!
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Cross Currents: Grosser than Usual
Dear Yaakov,
Just a short note to let you know that your blog's efforts to rehbilitate Ted Haggard are making me physically ill. You're running a Jewish blog, right? One that alleges itself to be concerned with issues that matter to the Jewish world. Yet two of your last four posts are about how Ted Haggard, a man who lied to his flock and cheated on his wife, is really a great guy, after all.
Why any religious Jew should take notice of Ted Haggard is beyond me. The man is an idol worshipper, an adulterer, and a viscious human being who made a career persecuting homosexuals. If, like me, you believe that homosexuality is between man and god, Haggard's behavior with the prostitute is no concern of ours, but his treatment of his wife and other (gay) human beings is reprehensible. Plus he's an idol worshipper who wishes to make America into a nation of idol worshippers, so my view is: Let him hang.
At Cross Currents, the calculus should be similar. Yaakov and the boys, may not mind that Haggard spent his professional life acting miserably toward his fellow (gay) creatures, still, from the perspective of Cross Currents, Haggard is a sinner three times over: He sleeps with men, he cheats on his wife, and he lies about it. So why, is Cross Currents sending this man Valentines?
Two possibilties:
(1) The fact that Haggard is a public and professional Christian forgives all sins. If this is Cross Currents view, it throws the theory of moral absolutes on its head. Social conservatives don't grade on a curve. A murderer who lived a good life is still a murderer. If you (like Cross Currents) believe that homosexuality is a serious sin, the fact that the sinner lived an otherwise upstanding life is neither here nor there. More importantly, from the Jewish perspective Haggard decidedly did not live an upstanding life. He cheated on his wife. He lied to his congregation. And besides that, he spent this tainted life hawking Christianity. If you recall, the Jewish God does not want the worship of Jesus Christ to gain ground. The Jewish God is a jealous God, remember?
(2) The fact that Haggard paid superficial support to Israel forgives all sins Why do I use the word "superficial"? Because men like Haggard don't really love Israel. They love the idea that Jesus will come back and slaughter Jews and other infidals by the millions sometime after the Jews return to Israel. We're just pawns in the rapture story. And I utterly reject the idea that a man who supports us only because he thinks that support will one day bring about our complete destruction is entitled to any special consideration.
As you can tell, I strongly disagree with what I call the "Cross Current Jews/" They seem to think that all religons (save for Islam and liberal expressions of Judaism, of course) must be venerated and protected because the alternative is liberalism, atheisim, cynicm, and mandatory French education in the public schools. But this is bogus. The real alternative to Haggard and his Christian agenda is freedom, ie: the right to choose any religion and any lifestyle you like. Anything the marginlizes the pious frauds of the American heartland advances the cause of freedom, and freedom is what minority Judaism must have if it is to flourish. The fact that Haggard has been discredited helps us. By rehabilitating him, Cross Currents hurts us.
Just a short note to let you know that your blog's efforts to rehbilitate Ted Haggard are making me physically ill. You're running a Jewish blog, right? One that alleges itself to be concerned with issues that matter to the Jewish world. Yet two of your last four posts are about how Ted Haggard, a man who lied to his flock and cheated on his wife, is really a great guy, after all.
Why any religious Jew should take notice of Ted Haggard is beyond me. The man is an idol worshipper, an adulterer, and a viscious human being who made a career persecuting homosexuals. If, like me, you believe that homosexuality is between man and god, Haggard's behavior with the prostitute is no concern of ours, but his treatment of his wife and other (gay) human beings is reprehensible. Plus he's an idol worshipper who wishes to make America into a nation of idol worshippers, so my view is: Let him hang.
At Cross Currents, the calculus should be similar. Yaakov and the boys, may not mind that Haggard spent his professional life acting miserably toward his fellow (gay) creatures, still, from the perspective of Cross Currents, Haggard is a sinner three times over: He sleeps with men, he cheats on his wife, and he lies about it. So why, is Cross Currents sending this man Valentines?
Two possibilties:
(1) The fact that Haggard is a public and professional Christian forgives all sins. If this is Cross Currents view, it throws the theory of moral absolutes on its head. Social conservatives don't grade on a curve. A murderer who lived a good life is still a murderer. If you (like Cross Currents) believe that homosexuality is a serious sin, the fact that the sinner lived an otherwise upstanding life is neither here nor there. More importantly, from the Jewish perspective Haggard decidedly did not live an upstanding life. He cheated on his wife. He lied to his congregation. And besides that, he spent this tainted life hawking Christianity. If you recall, the Jewish God does not want the worship of Jesus Christ to gain ground. The Jewish God is a jealous God, remember?
(2) The fact that Haggard paid superficial support to Israel forgives all sins Why do I use the word "superficial"? Because men like Haggard don't really love Israel. They love the idea that Jesus will come back and slaughter Jews and other infidals by the millions sometime after the Jews return to Israel. We're just pawns in the rapture story. And I utterly reject the idea that a man who supports us only because he thinks that support will one day bring about our complete destruction is entitled to any special consideration.
As you can tell, I strongly disagree with what I call the "Cross Current Jews/" They seem to think that all religons (save for Islam and liberal expressions of Judaism, of course) must be venerated and protected because the alternative is liberalism, atheisim, cynicm, and mandatory French education in the public schools. But this is bogus. The real alternative to Haggard and his Christian agenda is freedom, ie: the right to choose any religion and any lifestyle you like. Anything the marginlizes the pious frauds of the American heartland advances the cause of freedom, and freedom is what minority Judaism must have if it is to flourish. The fact that Haggard has been discredited helps us. By rehabilitating him, Cross Currents hurts us.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Why are people so eager to suspend their critical thinking and flock to the quacks?
Why are people so eager to suspend their critical thinking and flock to the quacks?
- Yitzchok Adlerstein
Replies Fred* from On the Main Line:
Why must it be that frum people are taken in by all sorts of counter-rational ideas, ranging from autistic children communicating by computer to produces messianic predictions in broken Yinglish? Why do people embrace the strangest forms of alternative medicine, not just as an adjunct to the conventional therapies, but sometimes even to their exclusion – even resulting in death of children? Why did so many people so uncritically jump on the Bible Codes bandwagon, when the vast, vast majority of experts (yes, the frum ones too) decided that the evidence didn’t support the hypothesis?
R. Adlerstein, it isn't a mystery. A culture that doesn't endeavor to teach people to think critically will not think critically. Actually, I must emend that: it is interesting to note that we produce, for example, physicians who certainly know how to think critically. They could not function in their field otherwise. And yet I know that even physicians are susceptible to Bible Codes and to miracle workers, having seen it firsthand--because these touch on fields in which they were not taught to think critically, even discouraged. However, these physicians certainly do not embrace strange forms of alternative medicines. Why? Because in that field they must know how to employ their critical faculties and if they didn't develop them then they would not have made it in that field.
But they didn't learn to think critically when they read the Golem cartoons in the Jewish Press when they were children, and that legend was reinforced by their teachers or rabbeim. They didn't learn to think critically when fantastic--or even mundane--legends about all sorts of personalities were told as fact. It is considered a schtikle sophisticated to note that "not all of them" are true. Reb Moshe Feinstein's Artscroll biography begins noting something his family said ISN'T true, that he finishes Shas 200 times. Why then is it in the biography? Not only that, a major American ra"m repeated that claim before 10s of thousands of people at the last Siyum Ha-shas. Critical thinking? And this particular rosh yeshiva is brilliant!
Recently regarding the Monsey kashrut scandal a story begun circulating about the grandfather of the butcher who was also a butcher in Switzerland and lax in kashrut (specifically about accepting stunning) and a rav said that such a man will have a grandson who will also be careless in kashrut.
Now, I haven't seen sure rebuttal of that story. I do not promise that it isn't true, even in whole. Strange things can happen. But surely the way that story was passed around, complete with conflicting accounts of who the oracular rabbi was, bore all the hallmarks of urban legend. I saw many people hear the story and nod their head. This story was even passed by a great rabbinic leader in a major American Jewish community. Should I assume he rigorously fact-checked it? Did he call the butcher's bereaved ex-wife or sons to ask about their elter zeide?
I think there is an inherent tension between desiring critical thinking and managing where those thoughts will lead. Surely it must be acknowledged that honest, critical thinkers do not always conclude what our traditions maintain and perhaps it is sometimes viewed as a greater good to inculcate credulity rather than incredulity, so long as the incredulity can be managed (eg, it shouldn't lead to a new Shabbetai Zevi episode or similar).
I hope this isn't beginning to sound like a diatribe, but please be assured that it is דברים שבלב.
Ay, you'll say, this gadol be-Torah was rigorous and that one you couldn't fool him for a second. Someone once tried to defend a difficult passage in a Bertenura on a mishna to R. DZ Hoffman and had to employ mental acrobatics to do it. R Hoffman said "It's a printer's error. When you rise to shamayim you won't be greeted by the Bertenura to thank you for defending him, you'll be met by the zetser (typesetter) of the Romm printing press to give you a shkoyach for defending him"
That's a great story. But hagaot ha-bach or the gra notwithstanding never once in my life have I seen such a thing, not in a shiur in yeshivot and not in laymen's shiurim. I once told someone of some stature an interesting idea contained in the Torah Temima's sefer on tefilla Barukh Sheamar. The TT had a question: in bentsching we say "hameleah, hapesucha, haqedosha, harechava." The first, second and fourth are similes. What is "haqedosha" doing in that sequence? God's expansive, wide, holy hand? It is really in disharmony with the others.
Before I could even give his suggestion, which was the it was in fact a scribal error and it originally read "hagedosha" with a gimmel, making the sequence flow beautifully, I could not get this person to acknowledge their was even a question. "What do you mean? It's the liturgy. There's no problem." Finally I did convince him enough so that we could move on to the suggestion, but when I offered it the person acted as if I was telling him that the Samaritan aseret ha-dibrot were a better text. I mean, this person was really appalled. If he had a better solution or could otherwise rebut the suggestion I was all ears. I wasn't claiming this was definitely so; certainly there isn't manuscript evidence, so the emendation has to be considered conjectural.
So what's my conclusion? Yes, R DZ Hoffman thought critically. Many people of all eras, today included, great and not-so-great think critically. But our culture doesn't encourage it and many, if not most, among us don't even know how to. Is it any wonder that those who could think that the scientific method is akin to a shittah, and one which can be rejected because it is a minority, would also swallow sugar pills? Elu ve-elu! The doctors say azoy and the smiling man in the ad says the voodoo therapy produces excellent results. Have you heard the one about the pigeons and the hepatitis? It sounds like the beginning of a bad joke. It is.
[*N.B: Fred submitted this comment to Cross Currents. For reasons known only to Yaakov Menken, it was not immidiately published. After seeing other comments published while his remained "in moderation", Fred asked me to print his comment here. (a good idea, because more people read this blog anyway.) If one of your comments is rejected by Cross Currents, please send it to me (yourfavoriteblogger@hotmail.com) and I'll consider it for publication here.]
Update: Fred's comment currently appears on Cross Currents
Related (1): The Godol Hador's attack on Yitzchok Adlerstein
Related (2): DovBear vs Cross Currents: A short history [More]
- Yitzchok Adlerstein
Replies Fred* from On the Main Line:
Why must it be that frum people are taken in by all sorts of counter-rational ideas, ranging from autistic children communicating by computer to produces messianic predictions in broken Yinglish? Why do people embrace the strangest forms of alternative medicine, not just as an adjunct to the conventional therapies, but sometimes even to their exclusion – even resulting in death of children? Why did so many people so uncritically jump on the Bible Codes bandwagon, when the vast, vast majority of experts (yes, the frum ones too) decided that the evidence didn’t support the hypothesis?
R. Adlerstein, it isn't a mystery. A culture that doesn't endeavor to teach people to think critically will not think critically. Actually, I must emend that: it is interesting to note that we produce, for example, physicians who certainly know how to think critically. They could not function in their field otherwise. And yet I know that even physicians are susceptible to Bible Codes and to miracle workers, having seen it firsthand--because these touch on fields in which they were not taught to think critically, even discouraged. However, these physicians certainly do not embrace strange forms of alternative medicines. Why? Because in that field they must know how to employ their critical faculties and if they didn't develop them then they would not have made it in that field.
But they didn't learn to think critically when they read the Golem cartoons in the Jewish Press when they were children, and that legend was reinforced by their teachers or rabbeim. They didn't learn to think critically when fantastic--or even mundane--legends about all sorts of personalities were told as fact. It is considered a schtikle sophisticated to note that "not all of them" are true. Reb Moshe Feinstein's Artscroll biography begins noting something his family said ISN'T true, that he finishes Shas 200 times. Why then is it in the biography? Not only that, a major American ra"m repeated that claim before 10s of thousands of people at the last Siyum Ha-shas. Critical thinking? And this particular rosh yeshiva is brilliant!
Recently regarding the Monsey kashrut scandal a story begun circulating about the grandfather of the butcher who was also a butcher in Switzerland and lax in kashrut (specifically about accepting stunning) and a rav said that such a man will have a grandson who will also be careless in kashrut.
Now, I haven't seen sure rebuttal of that story. I do not promise that it isn't true, even in whole. Strange things can happen. But surely the way that story was passed around, complete with conflicting accounts of who the oracular rabbi was, bore all the hallmarks of urban legend. I saw many people hear the story and nod their head. This story was even passed by a great rabbinic leader in a major American Jewish community. Should I assume he rigorously fact-checked it? Did he call the butcher's bereaved ex-wife or sons to ask about their elter zeide?
I think there is an inherent tension between desiring critical thinking and managing where those thoughts will lead. Surely it must be acknowledged that honest, critical thinkers do not always conclude what our traditions maintain and perhaps it is sometimes viewed as a greater good to inculcate credulity rather than incredulity, so long as the incredulity can be managed (eg, it shouldn't lead to a new Shabbetai Zevi episode or similar).
I hope this isn't beginning to sound like a diatribe, but please be assured that it is דברים שבלב.
Ay, you'll say, this gadol be-Torah was rigorous and that one you couldn't fool him for a second. Someone once tried to defend a difficult passage in a Bertenura on a mishna to R. DZ Hoffman and had to employ mental acrobatics to do it. R Hoffman said "It's a printer's error. When you rise to shamayim you won't be greeted by the Bertenura to thank you for defending him, you'll be met by the zetser (typesetter) of the Romm printing press to give you a shkoyach for defending him"
That's a great story. But hagaot ha-bach or the gra notwithstanding never once in my life have I seen such a thing, not in a shiur in yeshivot and not in laymen's shiurim. I once told someone of some stature an interesting idea contained in the Torah Temima's sefer on tefilla Barukh Sheamar. The TT had a question: in bentsching we say "hameleah, hapesucha, haqedosha, harechava." The first, second and fourth are similes. What is "haqedosha" doing in that sequence? God's expansive, wide, holy hand? It is really in disharmony with the others.
Before I could even give his suggestion, which was the it was in fact a scribal error and it originally read "hagedosha" with a gimmel, making the sequence flow beautifully, I could not get this person to acknowledge their was even a question. "What do you mean? It's the liturgy. There's no problem." Finally I did convince him enough so that we could move on to the suggestion, but when I offered it the person acted as if I was telling him that the Samaritan aseret ha-dibrot were a better text. I mean, this person was really appalled. If he had a better solution or could otherwise rebut the suggestion I was all ears. I wasn't claiming this was definitely so; certainly there isn't manuscript evidence, so the emendation has to be considered conjectural.
So what's my conclusion? Yes, R DZ Hoffman thought critically. Many people of all eras, today included, great and not-so-great think critically. But our culture doesn't encourage it and many, if not most, among us don't even know how to. Is it any wonder that those who could think that the scientific method is akin to a shittah, and one which can be rejected because it is a minority, would also swallow sugar pills? Elu ve-elu! The doctors say azoy and the smiling man in the ad says the voodoo therapy produces excellent results. Have you heard the one about the pigeons and the hepatitis? It sounds like the beginning of a bad joke. It is.
[*N.B: Fred submitted this comment to Cross Currents. For reasons known only to Yaakov Menken, it was not immidiately published. After seeing other comments published while his remained "in moderation", Fred asked me to print his comment here. (a good idea, because more people read this blog anyway.) If one of your comments is rejected by Cross Currents, please send it to me (yourfavoriteblogger@hotmail.com) and I'll consider it for publication here.]
Update: Fred's comment currently appears on Cross Currents
Related (1): The Godol Hador's attack on Yitzchok Adlerstein
Related (2): DovBear vs Cross Currents: A short history [More]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)