Comments on: To Ignore or Confront Controversy? http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/03/15/to-ignore-or-confront-controversy/ A Journal of Jewish Thought and Opinion Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:17:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Michoel http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/03/15/to-ignore-or-confront-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-1321 Michoel Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:45:35 +0000 http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/03/15/to-ignore-or-confront-controversy/#comment-1321 Menachem, One of us needs to re-read that Rashi. Menachem,
One of us needs to re-read that Rashi.

]]> By: Menachem Petrushka http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/03/15/to-ignore-or-confront-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-1320 Menachem Petrushka Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:11:08 +0000 http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/03/15/to-ignore-or-confront-controversy/#comment-1320 Living Gedolim are not "ArtScroll" Gedolim. They are saintly human beings not demi-gods. Rashi in Parshas Shoftim addresses the issue by telling us that the Torah demands we adhere to the judges(Gedolim) in our time even if they are not "ArtScroll" Gedolim. Living Gedolim are not “ArtScroll” Gedolim. They are saintly human beings not demi-gods.
Rashi in Parshas Shoftim addresses the issue by telling us that the Torah demands we adhere to the judges(Gedolim) in our time even if they are not “ArtScroll” Gedolim.

]]> By: shira X http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/03/15/to-ignore-or-confront-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-1302 shira X Wed, 16 Mar 2005 04:23:21 +0000 http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/03/15/to-ignore-or-confront-controversy/#comment-1302 "in apologetics (a respected branch of rhetoric that defends and justifies theological positions)." this here appears to be your mistake. do you think your apologetics were defensible - that is, do you really believe ROYs statement was acceptable if properly understood? If so, you are engaging in explanation, a legitimate defense of a misunderstood position. If you are apologizing defensively, the article was a mistake and you'd have been better off being quiet. The article reads like (b); you "Explain" or translate ROY and then basically chastise him for not following Bruria's and his own advice. So why did you expect to win converts? You basically think he was wrong. “in apologetics (a respected branch of rhetoric that defends and justifies theological positions).”

this here appears to be your mistake. do you think your apologetics were defensible - that is, do you really believe ROYs statement was acceptable if properly understood? If so, you are engaging in explanation, a legitimate defense of a misunderstood position.
If you are apologizing defensively, the article was a mistake and you’d have been better off being quiet.
The article reads like (b); you “Explain” or translate ROY and then basically chastise him for not following Bruria’s and his own advice.
So why did you expect to win converts?
You basically think he was wrong.

]]>