Ori: I wrote a comment with my reasons for thinking that way, but the moderators decided it’s inappropriate. If you want to discuss this, my email is ori at simple-tech.com . As you might expect, I don’t think it’s incredibly lame.

R. Menken, do you think this really flies? Orthodox rabbis really don’t bash Reform? Whom do you think reads this blog? We don’t know what we’ve heard from rabbis and rabbeim and read in many periodicals and books all of our lives?

My own experience is quite the opposite. Thus the rational conclusion is that the summation of these experiences seems to prove that it happens on all sides. Is anyone confused as to whether “left” comprises the set of all possible directions? Otherwise, left is not all. That is what I was trying to say.

Meanwhile, Garnel (and others) clearly misconstrued what I said. All agree that “The Rav” was a Talmid Chacham. But the Moetzes clearly had issues with the hashkafos of the Rav which they did not with, by contrast, those of the Satmar Rebbe, Rav Yoel Teitelbaum zt”l — although both were not part of the Agudah due to differences in hashkafah.

What the comments suggest is that unless these differences are laid out in stark terms, they don’t exist and the Gedolim had no rationale (besides politics) for their position. This is obviously untrue, and itt’s also not our topic.

If we go back to Dr. Gewirtz’s original comment, he argued that the JO’s “insufficient respect” was tantamount to bashing. Whether or not the language in that article was a mistake, it was made by sincere people who were trying to craft a statement that was too PC for everyone. There were — and are — a lot of different positions on the Rav and his hashkafos. Personally, I’m happy that his name is frequently found in the Divrei Torah on Torah.org, from Rav Yissocher Frand and many others.

Comments related to the book and its advertising are more than welcome at this juncture, but I don’t think this detour warrants further space.

First there was…”What I can say categorically is that Toemoe8 is mistaken when he states that yeshivos specifically “bash” those hashkafically to the left.”

and then…”Moishe’s personal experience isn’t necessarily of greater relevance than my own,…Individual experiences only seem to prove that it happens on all sides.”

So does it happen or not?

Of course they did. Have you read the obituary?

“To say that one is not a Gadol on the level of the Moetzes is quite different from saying a person is not a Talmid Chacham.”

You’re doing it again. You’ve just said that someone not on the Moetzes isn’t, by definition, as great as them. And that’s just wrong. (Moshe Rabbenu wasn’t on the Moetzes.)

“I think I, or any of us, can claim all the necessary qualifications to comment.”

Sure we can. You don’t have to be a gadol b’torah to know basic derekh eretz. That they know more than me about halakha I’ll admit in a second. Anything else? Not neccesarily.

So here’s the implication I draw from this statement: You can sit and learn, come up with great teshuvos and chidushim, be a model of piety and righteousness, but if you don’t belong to the Agudah, you can’t be a “real” Gadol because you’re not on the level of the Moetzes.

Hence the Rav, or in our day qualified leading sages amongst the Dati Leumi/Mizrachi or even Yeshiva University can grudingly be considered talmidei chachamim but their potential for “godlus” is squashed by their political affiliation. Oh, if only the Rav had stayed in the Agudah, Artscroll would have commissioned a hagiography… I mean biography on him too!

If this is true, then “Gadol” is not really a religious term but a political one. It’s not what you know but who you hang out with. And therefore, not being a member of the Agudah, what allegiance do I owe to their halachic decisions? Now that’s an absurd thought. Would I dismiss the psaks of Rav Auerbach, zt”l or Rav Feinstein zt”l simply because they wore black hats and I don’t? Yet that is what I take away from this statement.

Maybe Rav Menken could clarify this a bit further.

http://bariveshema.blogspot.com/2006/05/problematic-legacy-of-rav-soloveitchik.html

And it’s also not on topic.

and one more point. I would not expect the JO to eulogize the Rav like every other Gadol, “the way they did to those whom they consider the leading Gedolei Torah.” In fact RAL makes a striking point that often eulogies of gedolim are insufficiently differentiated, a point he illustrates by many/most of the hespedim for RAK ands RMF ztl. But to describe him inadequately and/or to assume only members of the moetzet, are true gedolim, is something deserving of remorse/regret not excuses.

bill aka “uncle axe.”

Kerem B’Yavneh is an interesting example of how the terms “Modern” and “Centrist” and “Ultra” really don’t do justice to the diverse nature of the observant community. Rav CY Goldvicht zt”l was a Talmid of Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, zt”l — Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l’s father in law. It is reported that Rav Goldvicht repeated a parable attributed to the Chazon Ish, Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l, and/or others, regarding Rebbe Akiva, and applied to Hesder service. Rebbe Akiva turned back after 12 years without speaking to his wife, when he heard her declare (through the window, as he approached the house) her desire that he remain another 12. Why didn’t he say hello? “Because 12 + 12 doesn’t equal 24.” This is the Rosh Yeshiva of a Hesder Yeshiva, speaking to his Talmidim!

One of his Talmidim, by the way, joined a largely charedi group of counselors at a brief summer camp for children of English-speaking olim. He appeared to be mispallel the most seriously of all of us.

Anyone who knows my wife’s family and my own knows that we live with religious diversity on a daily basis. To differ with someone philosophically, if addressed in a civil and intellectually honest fashion, is not to “bash.” I’m sure we all have family members with whom it’s safer not to talk religion, family members with whom it’s safer not to talk politics, and family members with whom it’s safer not to talk parenting. Then there are those with whom it’s barely safe to talk about the weather, but we’ll leave Uncle “Max the Axe” out of the discussion.

All joking aside, to address Moishe’s second point: he’s put his finger on the issue. Rav Soloveitchik wasn’t considered, by the Moetzes, to be one of them. If Garnel is right that it was his own decision to separate, rather than that of the Moetzes, then it is even more surprising and even irrational to expect the Talmidim of the Moetzes to grant him equal reverence. They did not, by any measure, “bash” him, which is the topic of the present discussion. Let’s try to stay on-topic.

It depends what you mean by “Torah.” Which Torah? The Torah of the Rishonim, the Torah of YU, or the Torah of Bnei Brak? At the yeshivah I attended in England, one maggid shiur famously publicly stated, “A Yiddishe bochur doesn’t ask ‘why’!” Outside of kiruv-talk, I think that his attitude was quite representative of the Charedi world. Most yeshivos would actively (and not without good reason) discourage critical thinking when applied to theology (as opposed to when applied to Bava Kama), and in general discourage people from pursuing questions of religious philosophy. Emunah peshutah is definitely presented as the ideal.

For whatever this is worth, when I attended a right-wing yeshiva for high school, the left-bashing was incessant. On the other hand, at Kerem B’Yavneh, there were exactly zero instances of any rebbeim deriding any other hashkafos.

RYM#2: “It’s a claim I’ve seen frequently, but no one has shown what they should have said, in light of the fact that the Moetzes of the Agudah did not seat him among them, despite how he was revered in other circles.”

I don’t want to sound snarky, but they should have been maspid him the way they are maspid any other gadol. The failure to include him in the Moetzes was bad enough - I don’t see how that error justifies any continued bizayon of a talmid chacham.

This is very selective history. It can easily and successfully argued that Rav Soloveitchik, zt”l, had no interest in sitting amongst the Agudah’s leadership, considering he left them for YU and Mizrachi. The fact that a leading, possibly THE leading Jewish mind of that generation, rejected them for non-Chareidi schools of thought is not something the Agudah has ever gotten over.

Gershon and Avigdor, you would have a good point — an excellent point — if I were critiquing the book. But I’m not, and I was very up-front about that: “Without a review copy, I’m not able to review the book itself, only these promotional materials.”

I’m reviewing and critiquing the advertisement, the website, and the video, all of which I have, of course, actually read. Whether or not a person actually picks up the book, the full-page, full-color advertisement in B’nai B’rith Magazine makes its own contribution to Jewish dialogue, for better or worse.

To those who argue you can find similar literature from Rabbi Miller zt”l and others, I must disagree — although I have not read them with any depth (I must admit that I never truly appreciated his writing style). What I can say categorically is that Toemoe8 is mistaken when he states that yeshivos specifically “bash” those hashkafically to the left.

As I said in a recent post, “Children in cheder schools are not taught the beauty of Judaism with generous doses of ‘intolerance and fraternal hatred.’ When I began studying in Ohr Somayach, I only learned that the Orthodox don’t think a [Conservative] JTS ordination is legitimate because a Conservative co-worker (whose nephew was studying in JTS) told me so. It simply isn’t part of the program.”

On the other hand, I know a young woman who went to charedi schools and then to charda”l (charedi dati le’umi, which would be to the ‘left’ of charedi). She said that it really bothered her the way teachers would complain how charedi Rabbis dismissed their charda”l philosophy, and two minutes later would be claiming their path was the only correct one. And further, she barely heard anything about this while she was in charedi schools.

To go far further to the ‘left’, Ismar Schorsch of JTS made bashing the Orthodox a recurring theme in his weekly Divrei Torah published online. None of Ohr Somayach, Aish HaTorah, the OU, or Torah.org did anything even remotely similar.

Dr. Gewirtz, I realize that the JO did not show respect to Rabbi Soloveitchik zt”l the way they did to those whom they consider the leading Gedolei Torah. It’s a claim I’ve seen frequently, but no one has shown what they should have said, in light of the fact that the Moetzes of the Agudah did not seat him among them, despite how he was revered in other circles. No one seemed amazed that the passing of Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l did not draw adoring spreads in Chabad journals… But the evidence remains that people appear to bash “to the right” more often than the opposite.

Rabbi Menken, the JO has a bit of history giving insufficient respect to the opinions and person of “traditional,” non-chareidi gedolim. Given their readership, doing that while not bashing the Reform as you claim, may be more aptly attributed to practicality than refinement. IMHO it is equally deserving of condemnation.

Most of the book is a refutation of the standard kiruv arguments, like Bible codes, the Kuzari “proof”, and the camel-hare-hyrax argument. If it is fair for kiruv groups to present these arguments for TMH in the first place, it is certainly fair for people who believe to the contrary to present the contrary perspective.

The last (and smaller) section of the book seems to be an attack on the hashkafah of the “fundamentalist” divine-revelation understanding of Judaism. Again, if Orthodox Jews can criticize more liberal Jewish movements as not being authentic forms of Judaism, I think it is fair for people who disagree not merely to defend their own beliefs, but also to criticize Orthodox Judaism for not being based on what they believe is the accurate historical record.

Of course, Orthodox Jews can disagree with the book, just as liberal Jews can disagree with the opposite position. But I’m not sure I see the difficulty than this. Am I missing something here, or is there something more problematic with this book?

Also some by Rav Shimon Schwab. And quite a few others! Not to mention the countless unrecorded examples from yeshivas rabbeim to impressionable children.

Within the Jewish world, the Torah observant community has long held the role of “Catholic”. The same Reformers who are so quick to scream when the question of “who is Jew” is raised and their definition is not accepted are the same ones who block the construction of Orthodox shuls and eiruvs because they don’t want “religious oppression” in their neighbourhood.

Therefore it’s no surprise that this book exists. Frankly, the author would probably be the first to shout in protest should the fictional book about bashing Reform be published.

But I have to take exception with one point in the post:

> Torah Judaism does not read the Torah literally (”an eye for an eye”) but as one component of a rich Written and Oral teaching

So are we going back to the whole “six days of creation means 144 hours” argument?

False books can take a positive or negative tone, and each type serves some bad purpose.