Who Needs Charedi Columnists?

letter-447577_1280

Reb Chaim Brisker and the Chofetz Chaim were once discussing the wisdom of having a Torah newspaper. Reb Chaim Brisker asked the Chofetz Chaim who would write for the newspaper. “You won’t write because you don’t have time. I won’t write because I don’t have time. So who will write?” he asked. Then he answered his own question, “Those who have time.”

The strong implication was that only those who have too much time on their hands would end up writing, and in that case the public might well be better off without the benefit of their wisdom.

Of course there have been gedolei olam who wrote frequently for the broader public. German Jews of the mid-19th C. spent hours every Shabbos with the weekly essays of Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch. Rav Elchonon Wasserman’s, Hy”d, great work Ikvesa D’Mashicha was not originally written in book form, but as a series of essay on current events for popular journals.

Obviously we do not have access today to the thoughts of gedolim of comparable stature on current events. Once again the field has been left to those who have time. And if that is the case, the question begs to be asked: Why should the public want to hear their thoughts?

I don’t ask the question about someone like my esteemed colleague Rabbi Moshe Grylak, who had intimate contact with some of the greatest figures of our time for over half a century and is himself a walking repository of Torah wisdom. Rabbi Grylak collected most of the material for Pe’er HaDor on the Chazon Ish, whom he knew as a young boy, and as the founding editor of Yated Ne’eman was in constant contact with Rav Shach.

But what of someone who had the zechus to learn for many years in kollel, but who even in those halcyon days never had the title “talmid chacham” mentioned in connection with him.

TRADITIONALLY, THERE have been a few models for chareidi columnists. The least problematic, of course, are those who served as the shofar of the gedolim. R’ Moshe Shonfeld, for instance, was a close associate of the Chazon Ish, and readers knew that whatever they read under his by-line reflected the views of the Chazon Ish. No one writing today bears a similar relationship to such a towering figure.

Then there are those columnists who appoint themselves as the watchdogs at the gate determining who is a proper chareidi and who is not. A noble calling no doubt, but one requiring far more confidence than I could ever muster. The question regularly addressed to all chareidi columnists – Mi samcha (Who appointed you)? – seems particularly apropos here. And after reading the comment of one community askan about the tragedy of drop-out youth – “As the community grows so to do the dregs grow” – I could not help thinking that part of our problem might be that we are a bit too ready to classify our neighbors as the “dregs.”

So what possible function remains for those who fit into neither of these categories and why should anyone care about their opinions? About the most that might be said for a columnist who is not a talmid chacham is that perhaps he has the ability to give expression to others ‘inchoate feelings in a way that clarifies things for them. What was it that Emerson said?: “In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts – they return to us with a certain alienated majesty.” I doubt, however, whether since R’ David Zaretsky there has been a chareidi writer upon whom the crown genius rests easily.

Another possible way for the chareidi columnist to employ all that free time granted him while others are either learning or employed at honest labor would be to investigate and report on all the good things that are happening in the Torah world and the dedicated people behind these projects. One ironclad rule: If something big is happening, it is only because one or more person has made himself a “meshuganeh l’dvar echad.” Here the key is to look for projects that have had a major impact in particular field, but that are based on models that can be replicated elsewhere and benefit many more Jews. I will confess that discovering and publicizing such models is the most satisfying aspect of writing.

Finally, a columnist can attempt to place on the communal agenda for discussion issues that are on the minds of many. If he is wise, he will do so only after clarifying in his own mind that the resolution of whatever problem he happens to address does not lie with him. And even if he is not wise, he should at least be smart enough never to forget this fact, for if he does, there will be many to remind him.

Again if he is wise, he should recognize that any problem that he writes about is multi-faceted, and that there are many aspects of the issue, far more than he is capable of addressing in any one column. An awareness of the complexity of the subject is something that he should strive for before writing about it. At the very least the effort to clarify the different sides of an issue in his own mind should serve as a reminder as to why the resolution of such issues is not left to those “with time on their hands.”

In any event, the whole idea of placing issues on the communal agenda for discussion only raises a host of other questions. Is there a place for open public discussion in a Torah society? What kinds of forums are appropriate? And who should participate? What value, if any, is there to lay people giving expression to their concerns and difficulties, or their opinions about possible solutions? What, for instance, is the proper function of a Letters to the Editor page that gives readers of many points of view an opportunity to express their opinions?

Ultimately, the question may not be so much what is the role of a chareidi columnist, as what is the role of the chareidi public in discourse bearing on major communal decisions. I have no answer to either of these questions, and would be eager to hear from readers what they think.

This article appeared in Mishpacha Feb 20 2008

You may also like...

10 Responses

  1. Dovid Kornreich says:

    I would venture to say that if Chassidishe gedolim came out against something that Litvishe gedolim did not, then you can assume that the Chassidishe pronouncement was only intended for their inner circle of chassidim and not the wider Chareidi public.
    And visa-versa.
    The questions start when you many litvishe gedolim sign to something but not ALL the litvishe ones. Are there two litvishe worlds– Israeli and American? Maybe B’nei Brak and Yerushalayim are also different worlds and America is a third? Maybe New York is a third, and Monsey and Lakewood are a fouth and a fifth? All very good questions.

  2. Bob Miller says:

    Regarding the Comment by Dovid Kornreich — March 4, 2008 @ 10:02 am:

    If only some Gedolim are known to have made that policy decision, then what?

    The “other” Gedolim (assuming they have not made contrary views known) might be for or against that decision.

  3. Dovid Kornreich says:

    In any event, the whole idea of placing issues on the communal agenda for discussion only raises a host of other questions. Is there a place for open public discussion in a Torah society?

    I thought a Mishpacha interview with Rav Mendel Weinbach a while back gave one good rule of thumb:
    Issues in Charedi society which the gedolim have already made a policy decision about can no longer to be put on the agenda for “discussion” by the laity.
    It seems that anything else (which is a lot) is fair game.

  4. Ori says:

    Jonathan Rosenblum: Reb Chaim Brisker and the Chofetz Chaim were once discussing the wisdom of having a Torah newspaper. Reb Chaim Brisker asked the Chofetz Chaim who would write for the newspaper. “You won’t write because you don’t have time. I won’t write because I don’t have time. So who will write?” he asked. Then he answered his own question, “Those who have time.”

    Ori: How is writing for a newspaper that will be read by thousand of Jews less important than giving a Drasha, which will only be heard by a few hundreds?

  5. Daniel Shain says:

    Charedi columnists can and should help raise awareness on issues of community importance. The Gedolim do not seem to speak out on such issues, at least not to the general frum public (I am not sure why – if you know, please explain). Important issues that have been raised and addressed in recent years like “at risk youth”, spouse abuse, child abuse, educational issues, etc, have been with the help of frum authors and columnists.

    I am impressed that Cross-currents and other similar forums are starting to address issues of importance to the frum community, and stimulating thought and discussion on these issues, rather than writing only about maaselach and gedolim tales of questionable veracity.

    As to the issue of public discussion: Part of Torah learning is to discuss and understand halachik and hashkafic issues that we face. Even if we are not all talmidei chachamim, many frum people need to think and understand what they are doing and why.

  6. Baruch Horowitz says:

    “Who Needs Charedi Columnists?”

    I do; yeyasher cochacha and please continue.

    “Is there a place for open public discussion in a Torah society?” What kinds of forums are appropriate?

    Perhaps there need to be different forums for different people. For example, discussions which include open questions on gedolim’s decisions might not belong in the mainstream charedi press, but such discussions in the correct forum can still be considered part of a “Torah society” at large if done correctly.

  7. la costa says:

    1] i think the gdolim would see the use of columnists as pure hasbara, to try and kosherize ,to the non-haredi world,decisions of the gdolim that would seem to outsiders as untenable. as bans on just about anything are propagated daily, the columnists sole job should be to make haredi philosophy not seem ridiculous.

    2] halevai the gdolim would have advisors like these writers, instead of fomentors of dissent, pseudo-Torquemadas , looking koh vacho to embroil the gdolim in autos-de-fe….

  8. Yonason Goldson says:

    In response to some of my own published articles, I have discovered many learned, sincere, committed b’nei Torah who admit to feeling increasingly disillusioned and frustrated with (what they perceive as) the calcification and polarization of Torah society. Some months ago, Rav Emanuel Feldman published an essay in Jewish Action lamenting how the right and the left within the Torah observant world are growing ever more alienated from one another, with individuals on each side frequently eschewing reasoned debate in favor of dogma and stereotyping. It is my experience that, on the one hand, many prefer the psychological expedience of black-and-white hashkofah while, on the other hand, many end up feeling like barely-tolerated house-guests in their own communities because they can’t fit themselves neatly into either camp.

    Perhaps, as the author suggests, the greatest benefit of Torah writing from non-gedolim is to raise awareness of common trends of throught within the Torah community. By doing so, some good people may feel a little less disenfranchised; at the same time, this kind of writing may alert our gedolim to the need that many feel for guidance in resolving their inner conflicts and uncertainties.

  9. Jewish Observer says:

    “the whole idea of placing issues on the communal agenda for discussion only raises a host of other questions. Is there a place for open public discussion in a Torah society?”

    – I think this is the most relevant and insightful point in this intelligent and honest essay. I propose the answer to Reb JR’s question depends on one’s hashkafa. That is to say, if you believe, as today’s mainstream charedi camp does, that there is a boolean right/wrondg in every ussue and that it can be divined from what the gedolim tell us, it is, in fact, paradoxical – nay sacriligious – to have the masses be discussing these issues. Taken to it’s logical conclusion, this thinking implies that any historical precedent of torah-true discussion forums flies in the face of today’s mainstream haredi hashkafa.

    Ironically, for RJT to even pose this question to us as readers, versus asking this as a hashkafic shaila of gedolim, is a violation of the precept about which he wonders.

  10. LOberstein says:

    ” what is the role of the chareidi public in discourse bearing on major communal decisions”. How does it work? First of all, the chareidi papers don’t really tell what is going on. If one wants to find out why the Lipa Schmeltzer Concert was prohibited, one has to read the Jerusalem Post.There we find out that 2 activists can get over 30 rabbis to sign a ban without any process of finding out the facts. No one talks to the parties affected, no one tries to mediate, to salvage the financial investment. This pattern repeats itself time and again,we are a community that is subject to bans and condemnations and are helpless to defend ourselves.
    If a chareidi columnist would print a a “J’ Accuse” like in the Dreyfuss Trial, he would be destroyed immediately by those who would make his life unbearable . Chareidi Journalism is most comfortable writing eulogies to deceased men and women, dealing with the warts and injustices in the Chareidi world is too dangerous.