Background: A group of authorities signs a letter of condemnation regarding a certain approach. The accused, from their own community, has the backing of numerous diverse people on this particular approach (even from those who disagree with the accused on other matters), and who are stunned by this condemnation. One of them approaches one of the signatories, a rabbi with a long white beard, to explain his position:
Questioner: How could you sign such a letter?
Rabbi: Because the accused did a terrible, terrible thing!
Questioner: How do you know? Are you familiar with the facts of the case?
Rabbi: No, I don't quite know, I'm not an expert in these things. But I know people who are! And they also condemn it.
Questioner: Are you aware that there are plenty of experts who do not condemn it?
Rabbi: Well, I suppose there are, but I personally agree with those who did condemn it.
Questioner: But if you admit that you don't actually know what happened here, what right do you have to decide to agree with the condemnation? Here is the actual data and arguments, which show that the accused didn't do anything terrible at all. What he did was perfectly normative, even heroic.
Rabbi: Listen, I might not be able to actually explain why it was a terrible crime, but it's one of those situations in which I can say that I know it when I see it!
Questioner: But I've provided actual arguments and evidence which show that there was no crime at all. And you haven't been able to come up with anything in response!
Rabbi: Goodbye. Have a nice day.
The questioner then approaches another bearded signatory, a purported expert in Judaism:
Questioner: Can you explain your basis for signing the condemnation? The accused did exactly what was appropriate!
Bearded signatory #2: You're ignoring the main issue, which is the fact that the accused started this whole situation in the first place.
Questioner: I don't agree at all - I think it was an existing situation which the accused was simply trying provide a solution for. But even if your claim is true, how would that justify condemning him for doing exactly what was appropriate at this point?
Bearded signatory #2: I never said that! You're mischaracterizing my argument!
Questioner: Okay, so can you tell me what your argument actually is?
Bearded signatory #2: No. It's not worth discussing it with you. Your views in other areas are so misguided that it's a waste of time. Stop harassing me.
Questioner: But you signed a very public letter of condemnation. You don't have to engage with everyone who argues with you about it, but surely you need to somewhere publicly justify why you signed.
Bearded signatory #2: I'll explain it privately to my disciples. I'm not interested in engaging with you or providing any public justification. Goodbye.
* * *
The above is a great description of what happened with the ban on my books, 16 years ago. But it's actually not what I'm describing at all. Instead, it's something very, very different and much more recent. The astonishing details - which make the analogies to the ban on my books all the more amazing - will be revealed in the next post.
If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you.
Cant wait
ReplyDeleteI was confused why you were again rehashing the events that happened to you so long ago.
ReplyDeleteGreat twist at the end. Can't wait for the next instalment.
Rabbi Shiner actually provides a perfect example of why your books are kefira.
ReplyDeleteDenying that creation took place as recorded in the Torah is Kefirah.
You couldn't have made it more obvious that you too didn't read the book!!!
DeleteIs creation (in the scientific sense) even recorded in the Torah?
If so - is it being 'denied'...?
This and way more is discussed at length in the book.
Check it out, it's a great read!
DeleteAs many know, Rabbi Belsky ZTL was like a second father to me, my Av Bais Din, my Rebbe and Rav— and we had many spirited debates about all sorts of things, including modern interpretation of the past.
Rav Belsky, ZTL made it clear that in interpreting Chazal aggagata should not be taken at face value, because they can seem “strange and puzzling.” Chazal speaks in “deep and more abstruse terms when teaching agadta than when teaching Halacha because they deliberately hid their wisdom in such writings to prevent fools” from abusing the great wisdom of the Torah. One must apply great knowledge and research and toil years to understand the statements made be our sages.
In today’s society the internet has allowed idiots, for lack of a better word, to control the debate. We have “internet rabbis” with little or now knowledge spreading rumors about everything from Covid to the opinions of Gedolim. Natan Slifkin’s story is no different, and still within some of us that consider ourselves “charedi” rabbonim to signal a fearful ignorance that can occur with mass media controlling weak minds.
As a frum, community of bnei Torah of all backgrounds, we can not allow the uneducated masses and new media to control the conversation. It’s pure insanity.
I read the "pashkeville" above. Without actually getting into any arguments about the content, what struck me immediately was the fact that, as opposed to rabbis Weintraub and Scheiner, who are English speakers, Rabbi Lefkowitz, who I actually knew personally and was such a sweet and warm man, certainly was not! He did not know what was written in the accused books, rather took Weintraub's word for it. Disturbing, to say the least. Proves your point.
ReplyDeleteAccused = Naftali Bennett?
ReplyDeleteReplace the bearded rabbits with woke activists and you have a decent description of discourse about Israel.
ReplyDeleteA gadol once told my sil that many times his name appears on lists of rabbinic signatories that he in no way signed or even saw the document. He said never believe these "decrees" because many are faked.
ReplyDelete