Responding to/explaining the CS would take us far afield, but al regel achas, it is not normally assumed that what is said only by mekubalim is normative.

Has Chabad or Shapiro or the Gush Ram reached that level – except for a (small) percentage of extremists in Chabad, my guess is not. However, that does not mean one cannot criticize their viewpoints or in the extreme, attempt to isolate them certainly within one’s community. You do not have to be a felon to be strongly criticized. Even putting books is cherem is certainly within one’s privilege; considering one a kofer or “outside the pale” should have the standard proposed above.

I apologize if I am overstepping, but lack of a theological position and still searching, does not make one an Orthoprax (I hope,) if that might be what you are implying. When pressed against the wall, I would perhaps deflect with R. Albo’s three, but I see little value in engaging / blogging publically on this topic.

As the serenity prayer goes, “G-d grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change…”. I’ve been thinking for some time of the relevance of Kubler-Ross model (R. Yaakov Horowitz, for example, recently applied the Kubler Ross concept in “Wallmart is Coming” to the internet, so one can apply it here as well). Instead of denying reality and grieving for what “was”(or for what one thinks is no more, but may actually “still be”, to an extent), people should move into the “acceptance” phase and accept certain realities for what they are–no more and no less. As in the Kubler Ross, I think that acceptance may come and go in cycles.

“I don’t like it; my talmidim don’t like it; lots of people don’t like it…. Speaking in absolutes, and in harsh language, does the job for a vast community that looks for absolutes, and cherishes authority rather than chafes at it.”

This can create problems for someone who doesn’t like absolutes, but interacts with people who do. My own solution is to try to express myself with caution if I think that I’m speaking to someone who might object to any “chiddushim”(novel concepts), and then when among more like-minded individuals, being more open. I don’t think that this is the most serious problem facing the klal or the individual(it’s certainly not for me), but it can be an issue.

“Amazon.com recommends “Must a Jew Believe Anything? Second Edition with a New Afterword” and more”

That is hardly balanced. Rabbi Leff’s got his response on the seforim blog, soon after his review appeared. His rebuttal is eagerly awaited as you indicate; it is tellingly late already. Rabbi Blau’s jabs at Shapiro were hardly consequential, certainly not the things that require/necessitate rebuttals. What R. Blau asked for (3 years ago) is Shapiro’s theology that might stand in place of what Shapiro showed was not universally established Jewish theology. Last i checked, Shapiro is a historian, not a theologian. I have had many an occasion to comment, that all too often, what constitues a (barely) passable Drash, is labeled theology. I would hope that Dr. Shapiro’s response comes if and when he has developed a comprehensive theological position, something that rarely happens, except by yechidai segulah, in one’s thirties.

I for one take seriously Chazal’s admonition that not all things ought be discussed in public; serious theology is certainly in that category.

I’m not quite sure if this paragraph is a response to my post. Rabbi Adlerstein wrote (or implied) above that those claiming the middle ground are basing themselves on Reb Yaakov. If I am understanding correctly, R. Adlerstein is now saying that we don’t need to project R. Yaakov view because we can ask current g’dolim who are standing in R. Yaakov overall approach.

I agree but just want to re-stress the importance of us not slipping into black and white thinking while criticizing others of that. There are Talmidei Reb Yaakov that would agree with everything Rav Elyashiv says and there those that would disagree. There are many, many Talmidei Rav Shach, living in the US, that have a tremendous subltety in their approach to issues and different human needs, and they attribute this to their Rebbi zt”l.

One can appose bans and still believe that particular books are k’fira. One can accept certain modern science and believe (along with Professors Spetner and Levi) that the theory of evolution is silly.

This past Shabbos, I saw in a sefer called Bris Krusah L’sfasayim, written to argue the necessity of metzitzah b’peh. He quotes a Kol Koreh from 100 years ago, from Rav Shmuel Salant and others. Its language makes some current Kol Korehs sound warm and cuddly. Strong, over-the-top-sounding language is not a modern Israeli inovation. Soft subtle langauge (which I would like to see more of) is the more of an innovation.

The specific question raised concerned the criticism of innovations on the left relative to what seem like equally foreign innovations on the right. My response, in part, is that innovators on the left are sitting ducks for criticism, since there are very few talmidei chachamim in their ranks. We were not talking about parshanut or academic papers about history, but about changes that have to stand up to the scrutiny of halachic discourse. I was offering not a description of what a talmid chacham should be, but how the layman can recognize someone who can and cannot even hope to voice an opinion in a serious halachic debate.

The real question and debate, however, is whether analysis of the ikkarim, hashkafa and related issues is a “serious halachic debate” in the same sense as whether a given eruv is kasher. Clearly the rambam thought otherwise – his famous parable of the palace, and placing most rabbinic scholars as outside the palace. The fundamental difference is over the appropriate assumptions and methodology for hashkafa and theology – and being a talmid chacham (even of the highest caliber), baki in shas and poskim and by any other criteria, is no proof of any expertise at all in the areas of machshava – and someone may be expert in hashkafa without being baki in shas… Even without this more radical formulation, there is a general understanding within halacha itself that there are different areas of expertise – and a talmid chacham who is expert in gittin is not necessarily an expert in eruvin – and therefore, halachic expertise does not translate into expertise in hashkafa.

The second issue is defining communal norms.
Now, R Adlerstein would wish to reformulate R Leff’s critique that this is not a declaration of heresy, but of being outside communal norms. Whether this is indeed R Leff’s position I will leave to him to declare.
Restricting the debate to communal norms rather than heresy is far more palatable, as there has been a traditional reluctance to label major sources as heresy – and also has backing in the radbaz’s tshuva limiting heresy to more willful rebellion rather than intellectual error, but allowing the community to exert control over its norms.

However, as this in reference to Marc Schapiro’s works, what marc Schapiro has done is to demonstrate, through extensive documentation, that a significant part of the community recognized as Orthodox – not just the ibn ezra, but even far more recent figures, have espoused postions that are at variance with the 13 ikkarim. If the issue is communal norms rather than arguing the halachic and hashkafic basis for these sources – he has shown that the communal norms are actually very broad -unless one has redefined the community to be very narrow – with all those sources now not being part of the community.

Now, it is one thing for the Satmar community not to hire a graduate of Merkaz harav, or for Brisk not to hire a hasid – however, that is quite a different issue than arguing that these positions are outside the norm of the Orthodox community considered more globally – even if they are not ours.

Furthermore, if historical communal norms are the criteria, a community that can argue that the rambam, rav hai gaon, rav hirsch, the tiferet yisrael, etc are outside of its communal norms (as in the age of the universe debate) may be reasonably argued to have placed itself outside the traditional norms of the Jewish community…..

Meir Shinnar

We’ve been there before. There are many reasons for this. Reasonable people may disagree as to whether these reasons are satisfactory, but it ain’t gonna change anytime soon. This is an imperfect world, עד ביאת הגואל . We might as well get used to it, and work with what we have. We will all have a more satisfying ride if we stop complaining about what we cannot change, and take advantage of what we do have. To use your word – you are looking for “reasonableness.” It hasn’t disappeared. You may have to look for it a bit harder, but HKBH will not let you down. Further details next time you come over for Shabbos.

Ori wrote: Why employ such hyperbole? Doesn’t it just make people discount rabbinic opinions, making it harder for those Rabbis to express themselves when things are really serious? Isn’t there a story about the little Kol Koreh who cried wolf?

Why? Because it is devastatingly effective. I don’t like it; my talmidim don’t like it; lots of people don’t like it. But you can’t ignore the fact that the system works quite well for a very large group in Israel, and increasingly in certain redoubts in the US. Speaking in absolutes, and in harsh language, does the job for a vast community that looks for absolutes, and cherishes authority rather than chafes at it. If you will point to the problems this creates for some people, to all those who are driven away by such a system, you will hear two responses. First – it is more important to deal with the needs of the core group of loyalists than to pander to the marginals. Second – can you point to a system or protocol any other community actually uses that produces better results?

Garnel wrote – The problem for Rav Adlerstein, it seems, isn’t the idea of having a discussion, but rather who should be allowed to participate. It’s one thing to have a colleague of his quote problematic teshuvos, quite another for someone from the world of scholarship to do that. It doesn’t sit quite right.

I therefore wonder about the limits of intellectual debate within such limitations. It seems that anyone who doesn’t “fit in” doesn’t belong in the debate. Am I missing something?

Missing something? I certainly hope so. I said nothing of the kind. “Accept truth from whomever says it” is a motto cherished by lots of us. There are no preconditions. I engage in friendly correspondence with several of the names cited frequently by commentors: Dr Shapiro, Dr Kaplan, Dr Kellner. I disagree often; I learn much from them. I have no problem admitting that they run rings around me in knowledge of sources. Occasionally, I score a point nonetheless. I agree with several commentors that Dr. Shapiro landed a good number of blows in his letter; I look forward to seeing Rabbi Leff’s response. (I also believe that Rabbi Blau got in a few jabs in his Torah U-Mada article, and many still await Dr Shapiro’s response to them.) I don’t see why my post should be seen as ignoring or denying the validity of Dr Shapiro’s points. It concerned itself, as I have said umpteen times, with one point alone, which I thought was important enough (if not central) to preserve and support. (Had Rabbi Leff come across as the clear hands-down victor in the exchange so far, there would have been no need for me to write, would there?) That point was the notion that certain notions are beyond the pale, even if they are not heretical. The only points that I argued were to be treated this way are those outside the collective experience of not only the greater part of Klal Yisrael, but nearly the entire community, within a generation and for previous generation. All the hysteria about who calls the shots, and who defines people as beyond the pale dealt with an issue I didn’t discuss (and about which my sympathies are with the commentors, not against!) – smaller communities who try to argue that their definitions are the only acceptable ones, and all those who do not accept them are beneath contempt. This has nothing to do with my argument.

Are there discussions that are closed to certain people? Sure. Geologists do not debate members of the Flat Earth Society; real physicians don’t have very much to speak about with reflex kinesiologists or whatever. Those are extremes. But to a lesser extent, the analogy has some validity in some halachic discussion. Those who lack fundamental skills and background cannot really take part in the discussion. And some very eminent talmidei chachamim could not hope to take part in a discussion of the finer points of Ohr Hashem.

JO wrote – I know of no quote attributed to the Amercan gedolim that implies they took issue with the approach or philosopies of the Israeli gedolim.

After writing several responses and staying civil, I am about to lose it. Is this supposed to be funny? You mean you believe that American talmidei chachamim would have answered the key question at last year’s Torah Umesorah convention like R Aharon Leib Steinman shlit”a answered? They would have said that day school teachers should not play ball during recess with their students? You think there is no difference of opinion between Bnei Brak and parts of the US about whether kiruv workers can give a shiur on a one time basis in a non-Orthodox synagogue? (How else did a particular Rosh Yeshiva start a campaign a scant few years ago against R. Shmuel Kamenetsky shlit”a, if not by asking the question in Israel, getting a negative answer, cutting out the last paragraph where the gadol wrote that rabbanim in the US should nonetheless defer to local opinions if available, and then gather more signatures on the basis of that one gadol?) Do you believe that R Chaim Kanievsky shlit”a would answer a question from a recent baalas teshuva in medical school the same way R Yaakov zt”l did? (She met a guy, realized that he would have to do much learning to catch up, necessitating her dropping out of medical school if they continued the relationship. R Yaakov questioned her reasons for wanting to become a physician, and in the end told her that chesed was a chiyuv d’orayso for her; getting married was not! She dropped the guy, not school. Years later, they happened to meet again, after she finished school, and he had gone off to Israel to learn. They married!)

The suggestion is risible. The contention that thousands of people in the gap that now exists between the centrist and haredi communities get their ideas from projecting what R Yaakov would have said were he alive is narrow and silly. They don’t have to do that. They have living gedolim to go to. The people I hear the most playing the silly game of living their lives according to what someone would say if he were here are the group always telling us what Rav Aharon zt”l would have said.

Comment by Ori

The talmidim of R’ Yaakov are sending their children/grandchildren to yeshivos that are staffed by talmidim of the less tolerant of a R’ Yaakov’s

don’t forget R Yaakov was also a Rav of a schul for years-thye tend to be more tolerant than pure RYs-see eg disagreement between RAK and R E Silver and RYK.

“MANY of their greatest figures say things that are completely outside the collective historical experience of Klal Yisrael – e.g., that Maase Bereishis must only be understood entirely literally and nobody ever said differently”

I would greatly appreciate some substantiation of this claim. I am not aware of even one gadol who has said such a thing and certainly not “MANY”.

I think the MO was saying the same thing 30 years ago. The along came a large number of teachers and rebbeim in the MO schools who were trained in RW yeshivos, and the MO started complaining about what was happening to their schools/children. The talmidim of R’ Yaakov are sending their children/grandchildren to yeshivos that are staffed by talmidim of the less tolerant of a R’ Yaakov’s views (many yeshivos and rabbonim could be mentioned). I would imagine we will be in the same boat as the MO in 10 years time.

Rav Noson KAMENETSKY the authOR IS RAV YAAKOV’S SON. R. Noson is also the son-in-law of Rav David Lifshitz-the YU Rosh Yeshiva and head of Esras Torah for a while. Of course, that also gives him the yichus of bieng the brother-in-law of great Ortho sociologist Prof. Waxman.

Ori: Why employ such hyperbole? Doesn’t it just make people discount rabbinic opinions, making it harder for those Rabbis to express themselves when things are really serious? Isn’t there a story about the little Kol Koreh who cried wolf?

Toda, Ori the comfortable beyond the pale resident