My point exactly. For a Brooklyn Bais Yaakov educsted woemn, it is not the most impotant thing to ba able to tell her husband’s seforim apart. I do not know what that initial story had to do with the them of the article.

“I have asked a cross-section of leviim including many who have spent years in yeshivah the following question. How do we read the Torah when there is no Levi in shul? The vast majority haven’t a clue.”

When they come to Shul, there is always a Levi there. They evidently forgot or didn’t read the rules that apply. Is this the most important thing to know?

An average Beis Yaakov educated women, well dressed or otherwise, cannot be expeted to tell the difference between an Eimek Halacha and the Shoeil Umeishiv. They are not taught torah shebaal peh. Their post seminary learning is limited to AS and Tanach. Their husbands do not study Tanach. To them the rest of the Torah is a black box – I mean a brown box.

I have asked a cross-section of leviim including many who have spent years in yeshivah the following question. How do we read the Torah when there is no Levi in shul? The vast majority haven’t a clue,

If one wants to know what gedolim hold and they can’t ask them, the next best thing is to learn their seforim inside and to listen to their shiurim where possible. Not to read newspaper announcements.

Also, I am wondering if the perceived difficulty in reaching gedolim might not actually be a projected lack of desire to know what they really hold. If it were really important, people would find a way. Sometimes we might be afraid to learn that a particular gadol holds exactly the way he said in a shiur or wrote in a sefer. I once asked Rav Reuvan Feinstein about his father’s famous t’shuvah regarding college, which I wanted to attend. I had heard all sorts of t’rutzim as to why that t’shuvah didn’t represent Reb Moshe’s true opinion. But Reb Reuven told me that his father held exactly what he wrote. So the popular ways of explaining it away where actually a different type of spin.

Of course, a true gadol will likely give a different answer to each asker. But at least his seforim can give a major starting point for knowing his overall hashkafa on a subject.

[YA - You could be right, but it is also true, I believe, that too many people give up on getting an accurate picture. You are not limited to your own rav. If he doesn't have the ability, you may be able to find someone who does.]

From Ynet:

Neturei Karta member apparently suffering from Munchausen syndrome arrested after security cameras catch her disconnecting malnourished son from feeding tube; toddler’s condition improving; Jerusalem welfare office set ablaze in protest of arrest.

But how will we know if some of todays chumros,like blotting a womans face in a picture are not “insane chumros followed by simple folk”

Re. RSZA: He was obviously writing about personal chumros a person takes upon himself to grow in ruchnius, but not about chumros to be enforced as norms on a tzibur who has not expressed his desire to do so.

Comment by Doron Beckerman
=======================================
Herein lies the rub, extrapolate your approach and the people who you go to got to someone else who goes to the top, but the top has “the askanim” who filter the message etc.

[YA - This may be the point where much of the discussion gets stuck - and I think it is not accurate:
1) It is much easier to get to gedolim regarding matters of personal hadrachah without interference from the gatekeepers than regarding public policy ones. (At least usually. I will never forget the time I presented a personal question to Rav Moshe zt"l - in a slow, deliberate manner - and had two gatekeepers take me aside afterwards to convince me that Rav Moshe meant the polar opposite of what he had said.)
2) Not every question has to go to the top gedolim. (For that matter, not every question has to be asked, period. HKBH gave us brains and a Torah.) There are fine talmidei chachamim in many communities who can competently answer many thorny questions.
3) My own experience, over decades of time, is that you can often do an end-run around the gatekeepers. With a bit of prying and investigation, you can often find out whether a signature on a letter was meant as a real expression of principle, or a desire to lend chizuk to a smaller group of people. You need to find chaverim and rabbeim who are clever enough to be able to sort things out - and to be skeptical about what you hear or read in the name of gedolim without getting "inside" confirmation.]

There could be such a correlation without the phenomenon being limited to such cases. There are probably many causes, this could be one of them.

I would strongly recommend the newly published Sefer about R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, with all stories sourced, called Chiko Mamtakim. RSZA was no zealot, and yet he said, when asked by a group of Avrechim who asked what to start with in terms of their strong desire to grow close to Hashem:

I’m not sure I understood this point – did Rav Shlomo Zalman mean that Avreichim looking to grow in Ruchniyus should first focus on their wives rather than themselves?

I beg to differ with Rav Dovid that this problem is not found in the MO or Israeli RZ world. As we know, the destruction of Gush Katif involved the misleading of Rav Avraham Kehana Shapira ZT”L. But RAKS learned in Hevron in Yerushalayim and maybe should be could be considered hareidi. But the people weren’t hareidi and Merkaz HaRav is not a hareidi yeshiva (hardal, yes).

If it’s because the intermediaries provide essential services, including financial support and insulation from unwarranted distractions, better means need to be devised to provide the same services. If there is any intimidation by intermediaries, communities making up a Gadol’s constituency need to offer him (and each other) the necessary moral and physical support, including, if necessary, security details.

Regarding the author’s reference to MO, he may believe that the broad MO community, at least in Israel, is less factionalized than the broad Chareidi community. This would not be a criticism of MO.

1) That the burka ladies of Ramat Beit Shemesh have taken things to excess is clear. But they have not all been accused of abuse and neglect, and I am sure that this angle would be one investigated by the police. What happened here, the way I see it, is that one charismatic מרשעת acting in a way of over-פרישות attracted the attention of other women who thought this remarkable and someone to emulate. This is far from the first time something like this has happened. The name Shabbetai Tzvi comes to mind, along with other false Messiahs who “added” insane Chumros and were followed by simple folk (Abu Issi in Persia – the Rambam relates to him in Iggeret Teiman), Yudghan (see Emunos V’deos by Rav Saadya Gaon, Maamar 8), and many, many others.)

2) Violence by the “before Matan Torah Jews” (I guess that would count as primitive):

See Pe’er Hador volume 4 page 260 and on. During the time of the Chazon Ish there was a “religious underground” of self-proclaimed “Kanaim” who would follow cars openly driving in Yerushalayim, later identified their license plates and BURNT them. Yes, there were far less public car drivers on Shabbos as a result. At the time the Tzeirei Agudah, guided by the Chazon Ish, put out an announcement titled לא זו הדרך that blasted these people and their methods. It said:

העושים דין לעצמם לא נטלו עצה מפי חכמי התורה ואין רוח חכמים נוחה מהם. לא במעשי אלימות תושלט התורה הקדושה ומצוותיה, כי דרכיה גרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום. הטירור זמורת זר הוא בכרם היהדות הנאמנה… נתגייס להגנת קדשנו באמצעי שכנוע, חינוך ועמידה גלויה ואמיצה בשער, תעלולי טירור מכתימים את מלחמתנו

Rav Shach said: האלימות במאבק נגד החילוניות הוא אמצעי טרף.

The Chazon Ish added on a different occasion:

כל מי שמאמין שאפשר בכח אלימות לנצח במלחמת הרוח, סימן כי גם הוא נתפס להשקפה של כוחי ועוצם ידי עשה לי את החיל הזה. סימן שאין הוא מאמין שבכוחה של האמת לנצח את השקר, או שהוא מסופק אם האמת שלנו היא, והשקר נחלתם של פורקי עול התורה

The element of youth who do not listen to what their own leaders say is nothing new. Why do you fear that they are a growing gang? Do you hear admiration of them among students in Chevron, Ponevezh, Klausenberg, Belz, Vizhnitz, etc.? It is a fringe that sadly garners alot of attention from the media, and reflects horribly (unfairly) on us, but if the media were truthful about this they would note that the overwhelming, vast majority of Charedim in Yerushalayim are not violent.

For example, separate buses. The Miriam Shear debacle was bad news. But since then, there have been thousands of separate buses running their routes, official and unofficial, and many “violations” of the seating arrangements. I don’t ride the buses that often, and have seen such “violations” at least fifty percent of the time (maybe this is not representative, I don’t know. But I know what I saw). I have never seen anything close to violence. I have only seen, if anything, a respectful request or notification that there is room in the back. That’s it. You can be sure that had such a thing occurred again it would have hit the news and/or the blogs. But good behavior, which is the norm, doesn’t make the news.

An increase in reports of abuse in subsets of the UO community are more likely a function of an increase in reports of abuse, as opposed to abuse. There are problems that have festered in some of these cloistered communities which are finally seeing the light of day. Which is a good thing.

I do not think there is a correlation between Vaad Hatznius and going off the Derech. To dismiss it as such, as if this phenomenon is limited to those where the head of household is violent in enforcing Tznius, which includes a relatively very small number families in Israel, is a great understatement of the issue, and can lead to a שלום עליך נפשי attitude among those who do not act in this way. This phenomenon knows no bounds and is not limited to any particular set or subset within the Orthodox community. I know some very kind people whose children went off the Derech, and I think that casting a shadow of doubt on whether they may belong to a group of hoodlums is unfair.

In truth, I sometimes get the sense that some of the opposition to Tznius issues is not limited to the despicable manner some zealots try to enforce it, but to the concept of Hiddurim in Tznius at all. I would strongly recommend the newly published Sefer about R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, with all stories sourced, called Chiko Mamtakim. RSZA was no zealot, and yet he said, when asked by a group of Avrechim who asked what to start with in terms of their strong desire to grow close to Hashem:

כל החומרות וההידורים לא ישוו להידור אחד קטן בצניעות. בעניני קדושה וצניעות, יש לכל הידור קטן משמעות לאין שיעור, והיא מרוממת, מקדשת ומקרבת את האדם לבוראו, כמאמרם ז”ל, כל מקום שאתה מוצא גדר ערוה אתה מוצא קדושה. מי שנפשו צמאה לרוחניות, עיקר ותחילה הן הצניעות והקדושה

Of course, guidance about the particulars is vital, but the attitude is one worth inculcating into one’s mindset.

3) “Gatekeepers”, as Rabbi Adlerstein already pointed out in a different post or comment, are nothing new either. Dovid Hamelech (I think he was a Gadol) was faked out by Tziva, (in fact he made the wrong decision based on this fake-out even after receiving all the facts), and it hasn’t stopped since.

4) I suspect this comment won’t be popular with some who like to paint Charedi society with a broad brush of ineptitude, backwardness and intolerance. But many of those who do so now would do the same at the time of the Chazon Ish as well, so, again, this isn’t new.

There are VERY big problems in the Orthodox community, in all of its sets and subsets. By way of a solution to the issues raised in this piece, I think it is incumbent on every person to find the biggest Talmid Chacham and Bar Daas they know and to turn to him for guidance in one’s personal life. One must lead his life according to the Shulchan Aruch, in all of its sections, which includes when to be Mocheh and how to be Mocheh. Everything else is merely a distraction.

Comment by Mr. Cohen — July 12, 2009 @ 11:16 pm

In specific areas (zemanim and shiurim, for example) – certainly, but by and large certainly not. R. Lichtenstein on a number of occasions quoted the Rav in the name of his father ztl that we pasken based on gemara and rishonim however “min controleert mit dem shulchan aruch.”

R. Landesman has an amazing article here. I don’t believe that line was a
“swipe” at MO. MO has is it’s own, very different, issues. I appreciate that as a Chareidi Rabbi, writing on Chareidi blog, he is trying to focus on Chareidi issues…

Comment by Menachem Lipkin — July 12, 2009 @ 11:12 pm

Indeed, but i did not say that line was the swipe. that line is simply naive; the swipe i noted explicitly was refering to the SA as 3 ring binder. That is both irrelevant and incorrect.

Now I ask you: Would not Calev or Nachson have gladly handed back over the reigns of leadership to Moshe? Therefore, I believe Tosefos is telling us, that it was the underlings who would have killed each other. The ones who were part of the new administration would be loathe to step down.

So instead came the sin of the Golden Calf.

It seems, lulei demistafina, that this issue has plagued our people for quite some time.

However, the Shulchan Aruch was written in 1525 in Eretz Yisrael and first published in 1535 in Venice.

In a few months, the Shulchan Aruch will be 485 years old.

Is it not true that over the past 100 years, the decisions of the Shulchan Aruch were sometimes reversed by revered poskim whose Torah knowledge Yirat Shamayim were beyond question?

R. Landesman has an amazing article here. I don’t believe that line was a
“swipe” at MO. MO has is it’s own, very different, issues. I appreciate that as a Chareidi Rabbi, writing on Chareidi blog, he is trying to focus on Chareidi issues.

A hearty Yasher Koach to R. Landesman

Bob Miller, do you have an idea for a cure? I suspect Dovid Landesman doesn’t either.

Yilamdeinu rabbeinu what you mean by this statement, or was it just to say this is not the topic you wish to talk abou

It is far beyond the scope of this article to try to explain why rabbis permit these handlers to assume the authority that they do.

Yet this is the key issue to a daas torah community. How can a community that pledges allegiance to daas torah function when daas torah is filtered through others so that the community (unless they choose to ignore it) knows that they are not getting daas torah but daas askonim? How can the bearers of daas torah be all knowing but not know this is happening, and if they know it is happening why do they allow it?

KT

tizku l’mitzvos!