Comment by michoel halberstam — September 3, 2007 @ 11:36 am

NOTHING sums up the difference between much of the charedi world and the modern orthodox better than this statement. Given my cynical nature, i might wonder if the reason charedi culture denigrates history, is its desire to believe as written above.

At least from the days of Hillel and Shammai, we have always had “shittos.” Practice in an evolving environment, by its very nature, creates the reality of divergence. Think of our Mesorah as demanding consistency not abstract correctness; then, as long as the divergent shittot remain consistent with our (written and oral / mimetic) traditions, their “correctness” derives from the principle of “eilu ve eilu”. Once you try to step beyond that and argue for some idyllic state with a defined “answer” ALWAYS derivable from first principles, you step into a logical abyss. To the extent that such an idyllic state may have existed prior to Hillel/Shammai, as some statements of chazal imply / assert, it was likely the result of Horoah - a Beit Din haGadol, not just first principles (and shimush), that acted as an oracle. (BTW I was careful to word this from an orthodox versus orthoprax perspective, the orthoprax take / push this arguement a few steps further.)

and IMHO “divrei” is plural for multiple reasons!

- “vocal” implies that it’s on the radar. i think it’s more of a cluelessness

I’m afraid I don’t get your analogy. You’re confusing kiruv krovim with kiruv rechokim. There’s an unusual openness to kiruv rechokim amongst Chareidim both in EY and the US. It’s kiruv krovim where the problems exist and much more so in EY than in America although to some degree, it’s here as well. Your examples are from EY where there is a great degree of prejudice against the Sefardim [across the board btw - not just amongst Chareidim] and while I’m not excusing it at all, if one hasn’t lived there, it’s not possible to comment on it because there are many dynamics that aren’t well understood. [I learned that much from the years I spent living in EY. Is that prejudice wrong? Absolutely. But not everything that appears to be motivated by prejudice really is.]

Bottom line - your statement that among Chareidim there is a vocal minority against kiruv [assuming you meant of the rechokim variety] is where I’m still at odds with your sentiments.

As far as your point that it’s unhelpful when people of any stripe insist that it’s their way or the highway - I couldn’t agree more.

You don’t have to look too far to find the “circle the wagons” people. It isn’t even denied that Israeli chareidi schools discriminate openly against anyone not of their exact type. Can a sephardi girl get into a good high school, can a girl whose brother goes to Maarava get into a good school? My friend Meir Fialkoff told me that his daughter needed special orthopedic shoes and he got them for her in the USA. The school she attended told her that if she wore these “different” shoes she would not be accepted into a high school. I checked this out and found that he is not the only one who experienced such intolerance of any diversity. If this is how they treat frum bnei torah families, what connection do they have to those of a different madreiga(level).

Here in Baltimore, Bais Yaakov has always done outreach and many very frum girls came from modern or less than strict homes.This is still true today and we are better for it. I know that in Lakewood, the schools are much more segregated. I admit that I have the internet in my house and even look at Cross-Currents,yet , so far, my children can go to school.

In brief, my rabbeim are the teachers of the founders of the Kiruv Movement, so we are open to kiruv, but kiruv requires openess and a willingness to understand other people, even overlooking things. Many people truly fear that exposure. Their rabbeim did not and do not teach what my rabbeim taught.

I agree that this can, at times, drive someone to distraction! What bothers me, is not that the authors of the letters express strong disagreement, but rather that the issues are expressed as a Federal case without attempting to understand another point of view, which in turn creates undue pressure on the editors(who already have a rabbinical board).

I understand why some may want to oversimplify matters in order to maintain haskafic purity; some people may feel that such an approach can benefit impressionable young students. Ideally, those who feel this way should form their own, pure, “shemen zayis zach” publication, and there will be shalom al Yisrael!

There is, however, a bright side to the current situation. A few months ago, Mishpacha printed a letter, where the author noted the headaches that all editors of Charedi publications have, to make their publication “acceptable”; if one publishes letters which acknowledge a problem, that, itself, is something positive. Mishpacha also prints advertisements for Lander College, for which I can see them taking some heat for. So it will be interesting to see how far Mishpacha can push the envelope, while still remaining within the Charedi world.

I’m not saying you’re wrong on this, but I’ve never seen evidence of this in my own work. To the contrary, I’ve spoken with very prominent Roshei Yeshivah [Rav EM Shach zt"l, Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel, Rav AC Levin, Rav Gamliel HaKohen Rabinovich to list a few] and some well-known Mashgichim [Rav M. Salomon, Rav S. Dishon] who have all actively encouraged kiruv and spoken publicly to that effect. There is an enourmous amount of Kiruv taking place around Lakewood and is supported by the Yeshivah BMG.
Hamodia runs a weekly feature discussing Kiruv and its importance.

Perhaps you’ve seen something different, but I’ll venture a guess that this minority [if it exists] falls under the category of “batel B’shishim”. I’d be curious to hear what you’re basing your opinion on if you’re willing to share it.

That should not affect what each of us needs to do.

Regardless of whether we follow the yam shel shlomo, I don’t think the Yam shel shlomo requires us to correct other people’s mistakes.

“Noah Feldman’s screed not only blackened the face that Torah shows the world, he may well have put Jews in mortal danger by adding respectability to old canards about Jews that had gone underground, emerging only in the febrile rants of the lunatic fringe.”

I’m sure I read an essay on CrossCurrents arguing that Noah Feldman did us all a favor! All this stuff is available on hate sites, etc. Actually, in an interview, NFeldman argued the same as you did - it’s on hate sites, why shouldn’t it be in the NYTimes?
The answer of course is that people dismiss what they see on fringe sites and dont dismiss what they read in the NYTimes. Feldman knows this, as dareIsay does the author of that CC piece. Although it is a judgement call, I thought it was a mistake for you to take NF’s line about the harmlessness of his article in what was otherwise an excellent essay; what he wrote has potential to be harmful and I think we should condemn his mischief making frankly. People understand “there are no OJ doctors leaving gentiles to die and why is this guy fomenting distrust” v’idach pirusha.

I didn’t want to post it in the body of the article and give it more exposure. But since you asked (and 95% of our readers, we believe, do not read the comments) here it is:

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070820/28984_Christian_Evangelism:_Threat_to_Jewish_Survival%3F.htm

Thank you for your articulate “limud zechus”. In truth, it was more than simply a limud zechus.

I do not want to speculate on which of multiple approaches R. Lamm was taking. But let me stake out two (extreme) positions a Posek might take when he is ethically perplexed by aspecific view of Chazal, particularly in a halachic context:

1) Get past the simple cases: a) it is an isolated / minority opinion or one spoken under extreme circumstance, or b) Chazal may have spoken with the assumption that the context was understood, did not (fully) provide it, and/or it may have changed. Rather assume Chazal have clearly expressed their “psak” and its context and the Posek is still bothered. Two letters of RYYW zt’l to Prof. Atlas a’h on this topic (and Prof. Blidstein’s quote of RYBS zt’l) indicate that RYYW (and RYBS)was troubled particular halachot. I suspect both would work to avoid the application of such halachot via halachically sanctioned, majority approved approaches. I believe there are examples of this even among charedi Poskim, albeit described more obliquely and most often not even acknowledged. You use your ethical sense to guide your halachic reasoning and practical decisions. This begs the question of how that ethical sense is developed, a deeper topic than blogs or the moderation panel allow.

2) There is a personally more acceptable minority view (sometimes not even explicit) that disagrees with the majority and the accepted psak, that a contemporary posek feels that he must/can adopt using the principle of Yiftach Bedoro…. The stories on hirhurim: R. Riskin on RYBS (based on a Ramban) and R. Feldman on Prof. Lieberman zt’l, might imply that. (Note the conflicting opinions on the position of the Rav. My (vague) recollection of his brother’s position is similar to R. Riskin’s attribution to the Rav. But RAS zt”l may have been only addressing a non-Jew living in a Jewish state versus a non-Jew outside of Israel.)

IMHO, Chachmei HaMesorah not just can but must behave using either approach described above in situations they feel warrrant it without regard for the abuse they will likely receive.

Thank you for an interesting perspective and a very thought-provoking one at that. If I may be so bold to suggest what triggered the outrage at his words I would say that it was those words [which most certainly need a good explanation - though you may have provided one] coupled with a general attitude that his entire piece gave some the impression that he didn’t have a major problem with NF’s expectation that the law be ignored or changed because it offends our sensibilities. All he argued was that NF could have seen another side of the coin.
In other words, NF attacked MO for what he felt was inconsistency in demanding that the secular and holy can be reconciled seamlessly. Dr. Lamm’s response gave off the impression that it really could but one would have to do some fancy footwork.
Your point about anti-semitism, this would have been a great opportunity for a luminary from the MO to stand up and say, “Darn Right! HAlachah does override our sensibilities! You misunderstood what we were teaching. Never can Halachah be breached in favor of looking good for the Umos HaOlam. You NF simply don’t understand the Halachah which makes many exceptions to the law you quoted out of context…”
Instead, he only confirmed the uncomfortable feeling that many have that MO is not as clear on this point as need be. The statement about “creative halachahists” only exacerbated that point.

Just my two cents and a limud zechus on those who took umbrage at his words.

I just threw out the idea; in fact, in one case, a Charedi leader issued a public statement to correct an impression that was in the media. Those in various positions of leadership obviously will decide what the best approach to take is as far as what is needed as a communal public response to the Feldman Affair and related issues, as well as to make sure that internally, there is the correct balance between particularism versus universalism. As far as individuals relating to any philosophical issues, people can clarify these issues for themselves on an individual basis.