A Catholic Understanding of the NY Times vs. Rav Yaakov Perlow
Why does it take a Catholic blogger to so aptly describe the NY Times attack on Rav Yaakov Perlow?
Give credit where credit is due.
- Next story Freedom, Love and Blintzes
- Previous story Children’s Programming
Recent Comments
- Yitzchok Adlerstein on These Are A Few of My Unfavorite Things
- mark on These Are A Few of My Unfavorite Things
- mycroft on These Are A Few of My Unfavorite Things
- Yehuda L Oppenheimer on These Are A Few of My Unfavorite Things
- Nachum on These Are A Few of My Unfavorite Things
- Nachum on These Are A Few of My Unfavorite Things
- Nachum on These Are A Few of My Unfavorite Things
- joel rich on These Are A Few of My Unfavorite Things
- Yitzchok Adlerstein on These Are A Few of My Unfavorite Things
- Dr. E on These Are A Few of My Unfavorite Things
- Chana Siegel on These Are A Few of My Unfavorite Things
- Chana Siegel on These Are A Few of My Unfavorite Things
- Yitzchok Adlerstein on These Are A Few of My Unfavorite Things
- Nachum on These Are A Few of My Unfavorite Things
- Caren May on These Are A Few of My Unfavorite Things
Archives
Recent Posts
- These Are A Few of My Unfavorite Things
- Metzora – Miserly Mindset
- Tazria – Speech Pathology
- Shemini – Beware Phony Frumkeit
- The Charedi Draft Crisis: An Alternate History
- Tzav – The Constancy of His Kindnesses
- Masquerading As Feminism
- Vayikra – Prelude to Prayer
- Rav Yitzchak Sheilat’s Open Letter to Charedi Brothers
- Pekudei – Panic Today, Joy Tomorrow
- Vayakhel — Just Do It
- Ki Sisa — Knot Theory
- The Day After Is Now
- Tetzaveh – Divine Right vs. Divine Role
- Terumah – Ulterior Merits
Let’s agree that this address was based on principle and was not hate speech. But what did this audience need to hear to bring about some positive good? Just a reinforcement of its much-repeated rejection of schismatic groups and outlooks, and of its sense of being besieged? Something more positive and inspirational could have more real impact.
What is also clear, from reading the piece in the NYT is that this was fed to the NYT. Either by one of the hateful bloggers or by someone from OO, who have been none to post false stories in the NYT and other public forums in the past.
[I disagree. The press corps was there listening as Rav Perlow spoke, and the NYT hardly needs help from “someone from OO” in order to create a false story. –YM]
The answer to why is that Jews who read about it all have biases and each one deduces that he meant what they think he meant,but not necessarily what he really meant.
As far as saying that Reform and Conservative are no longer adversaries worth battling as the battle has been won, that is standard orthodox thinking and not out of the ordinary. The R and C call this “triumphalism” and think one is being snooty and their feelings are hurt.
Also, Catholics believe in relgion, the non orthodox Jews are largely secular.
The Agudah and Open Orthodoxy have little in common and neither comes in contact with the other. What the rabbi wants is for the RCA and YU to take a stand. The question then is has the Agudah built bridges to these institutions so that they will listen to him? Dialogue is an ongoing process and I am not aware or unaware if the Agudah has conversations with the RCA and YU. maybe they do, who knows?
Did you read the Catholic blogger’s article in full? Give credit where credit’s due? Please take down this post.
[Yes I did, and I don’t see what it is you find objectionable. Right down to “Do they not see that they are what they falsely claim others to be?” — which echoes Kol HaPosel, B’Mumo Posel. — YM]
The Novominsker’s speech was aimed far more at YCT than at R or C. Unfortunately, the NYT, whose former editor once R”L described the NYT as truth incarnate, has had an anti Charedi bias in its coverage for a long time.
Except for the fact that the sympathetic blogger doesn’t realize that Rav Perlow’s convention audience did not need to be warned, as there was barely anyone there who hadn’t already known of this heresy or is in any way attracted by it.
Mor was there barely anyone there who has a relationship of influence with anyone who attends an OO synagogue, attends classes by OO Rabbis, or reads books written by OO Rabbis (excepting, of course, those who do this for the purpose of da ma sh tashiv). And the latter hardly needed Rav Perlow’s warnings.
It therefore seems to me incorrect to say that Rav Perlow’s audience needed to be warned and it is therefore a legitimate question as to why Rav Perlow would use his speech to denounce OO and other non-Orthodox movements.
[Is it possible the Novominsker knew the press was there and responded accordingly? Why, indeed, did he not limit himself to the inspirational remarks about the Agudah that he more regularly delivers at the Dinner? What you have said above might have been arguable if there was no press (though as a blanket statement applying to a crowd estimated at nearly 1000, it’s merely arguable in that case as well), but there was. So you’re trying to criticize his choice of topic based upon a theoretical circumstance that was not actually the case. –YM]
R. Perlow seems to be following his own words, spoken at an Agudah Convention about twenty years ago(quoted in “R. Yissocher Frand in Print”):
“…We feel compelled to speak out of pain and protest. But if that militancy is not mixed with a sense of pain and anguish, and is not coupled with a genuine ahavas Yisroel for Jews who are ma’aminim bnei ma’aminim and coupled with a real desire to reach out to them, then our zeal is misplaced and flawed”. The current Agudah statement echoed this as well.
There are two issues which I think play a role as well:
(1) Since the “ultra-Orthodox” have their own problems, there is a natural tendency to say to them, as Chazal describe at the beginning of Megilas Rus the anarchy of the Shoftim period , “טול קורה מבין עיניך ” or “קשט עצמך ואחר כך קשט אחרים”. The opposite of these saying is ושמע האמת ממי שאמרה.
(2) R. Adlerstein wrote “When a fire breaks out, our first response has to be to put out the fire – not to fire-proof the rest of the village”(“Is Heresy Horrible?”, July, 2013). Eventually, one needs to deal with the rest of the village, ie, with the underlying intellectual issues themselves that are raised by Open Orthodoxy.