Recently, there was another incident on a mehadrin bus, a 497 from Beit Shemesh to Bnei Brak, where some people got out of hand and a melee ensued, involving stones and police, etc., etc. We've heard it before.
What particularly interested me here was a reaction we're starting to see on the blogosphere. Some are asking, why do the Rabonim not do something? Some are even asking, why don't we see bans? Cherems?
I believe these questions are based on a false premise, one that is product of the JBlogospheres, and perhaps the wider MO community's own imagination.
There appears to be a belief that the Israeli Chareidi society is tightly controlled by a system of bans and threats. Every form of freedom, indeed any action that is done by more than three people is subject to review and control. The Gedolim are the ultimate big brothers.
Well, it ain't like that. Sure, there is a fair amount of involvement of Gedolim in public affairs. But the truth is, that most people pretty much do whatever they want. Bans etc. are all only for the people who want to listen. You want a non-meushar phone? Go ahead. If you're not embarrassed, no-one's going to stop you. Want to ride a non-mehadrin bus? It's a free country. Don't like the school rules? Send your kids somewhere else, or open your own. People do it all the time.
And if you think you're a tzaddik gomur, but you're too frustrated to speak to a woman and ask her nicely to move, and can't handle it when she says no, well, just beat her up.
No amount of public proclamations are going to help here. There's no-one listening, and those who are, it doesn't apply to them. When our brothers across the sea start to reign in their imaginations and realize the nature of society in Israel, we might hear some useful suggestions.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
A New Churban
The Waqf is currently doing work on Har Habayis involving heavy machinery. A trench is being dug and archeologists claim that in the process, an ancient wall is being destroyed, possibly a wall of the ezras noshim. What are we to take from this?
Chazal say (Yerushalmi Yoma 1:1) that any generation that the temple was not built in it's day, is as if they destroyed it. This means the the existence of the temple is an accurate reflection of the spiritual state of Jewish people.
I would suggest an additional perspective, based on an idea I heard from R' Zev Leff a number of times.
The generation of the churban had their aveiros and were the cause of the destruction. What would happen if we had that temple? Would it survive, or would it too be destroyed? Nowadays we don't actually have anything there to destroy, but the message must get through. So the goyim have to dig up something, and destroy that! Do you get the message? Are we witnessing a replay? Could this be an actual churban? If not on the scale, but surely the message is there.
This is so sad I should sit on the floor and weep and weep.
The answer for us cannot be simply to raise a cry, involve the authorities and prevent the construction. We must deal with the message. Are we combating the root causes of the churban?
Chazal say (Yerushalmi Yoma 1:1) that any generation that the temple was not built in it's day, is as if they destroyed it. This means the the existence of the temple is an accurate reflection of the spiritual state of Jewish people.
I would suggest an additional perspective, based on an idea I heard from R' Zev Leff a number of times.
The generation of the churban had their aveiros and were the cause of the destruction. What would happen if we had that temple? Would it survive, or would it too be destroyed? Nowadays we don't actually have anything there to destroy, but the message must get through. So the goyim have to dig up something, and destroy that! Do you get the message? Are we witnessing a replay? Could this be an actual churban? If not on the scale, but surely the message is there.
This is so sad I should sit on the floor and weep and weep.
The answer for us cannot be simply to raise a cry, involve the authorities and prevent the construction. We must deal with the message. Are we combating the root causes of the churban?
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Chareidim and Violence
A point worthy of thought is the apparent disposition of certain sectors of the Chareidi community in Eretz Yisroel towards violence. Where does this come from? There is no history of violence from Jews in thousands of years, and here in only recent history.
Firstly, I would like to deal with some of ideas I've seen thrown around. One is a suggestion that this is due to the insularity of chareidim, a general reluctance to engage the wider world. I question this. This insularity is widespread within the chareidi world, even some communities in the States have very little exposure to outside society. Our history is crowded, literal, with ghettoes. Many were the times and places with large groups of Jews who simply couldn't speak the host country's language (Russian, Polish etc.), and we didn't see any violence. Furthermore, abhorrence of violence is not a value that is derived exclusively from outside secular sources. Jewish sources alone should be a more abundant source for correct behavior.
It has also been suggested the opposite. It is the small exposure to world events and the learning of what others get up to. It is the fault of just that little bit of modernity without the tempering of good healthy dose of modernity. This solution is even worse. It too ignores any possibility that our own sources might be a sufficient source for appropriate behavior, if not superior, and only recognizes the modern world as a source of good. It also ignores thousands of years of Jewish history. Why is there no precedent.
Both these solutions overlook a basic observation which I believe is the correct interpretation.
Rock-throwing does not happen in Bnei Brak. It doesn't happen in Kiryat Sefer. Nor in Beitar. Or Ashdod, Emmanuel, Rechasim, RBS A, Arad, Petach Tikva, Tzfas and all the other centers of Chareidim. It doesn't happen in almost all the Yerushalayim neighborhoods. It certainly doesn't happen anywhere in chu"l. It ONLY happens in Mea Shearim and RBS B. Why?
I believe there are several factors working here.
The first is the education of that particular sector in recent history (meaning the past 60 odd years). Most of chareidi Jewry has come to terms with the State. We may hate it. We may feel it's the biggest chillul Hashem since the churban habayis. We may be infuriated by it's conduct and abuse of basic Jewish principles, values and laws. And we may not recognize it's legitimacy. But we do recognize that it's a fact of life and you have to live with it. So we act as good citizens, reap the benefits of organized, lawful society and recognize the positive.
But some have grown up with a world view that the zionist state is the Ultimate Source of all Evil and Tumah in the world. It is 100% evil. It has no redeeming factors. Anything associated with it must too be a great evil. That includes traffic police (and traffic lights). It includes garbage collectors and street cleaners, (as an aside, I can't understand why these people are so free to drop garbage on the streets - why do you think is going to clean up?) and their property. It includes bus companies and their buses. In short, everything evil is now viewed in the light of it's zionism. However bad other governments may have been, they were recognized to be legitimate.
So when faced with something that has no positive value whatsoever and is nothing but evil, so why not react with violence. Smash it! Destroy it!
This may be compounded by a feeling that EY is different. Here, it is OUR country. Here it is or right to call the shots and enforce correct behavior. This recalls a famous story with the Brisker Rov who accused a 'kanoi' of being a zionist. "In Russia you wouldn't have reacted this way. Why is here any different?"
There is perhaps one further factor which I am somewhat afraid to mention. It is easy to misinterpret, so I request from you, please, don't read what you want me to say, or what you think I should be saying. Listen to what I say the way I want to say it.
Many people have an attitude towards those in full-time learning that relates to them as people who are engaged in Torah and mitzvos in any form that they present. If someone needs a minyan, well, just pick up a few bochurim or avreichim. They're available for all Torah and mitzva related purposes. Need a chesed? Need someone to do mishnayos? No problem. That's what they're there for. Due to this attitude, I've noticed many yeshivas are highly reluctant to allow their students to get involved in any external activities, however righteous the cause. The students need to learn that right now, they are far too busy at their 'jobs' to do anything else. But I could imagine a setup where the attitude is actually the former, and encouraged. You are engaged in avodas hashem. Most of the time that means serious learning. But it could allow many other things as the need arises. This creates a very flexible schedule amongst people who feel obliged to direct their efforts towards the good of their society.
I am NOT advocating a change in kollel acception or in widespread enrollment. In fact, I'm not advocating any change at all. I simply observe that these people may be in a better position than their working counterparts, or in their counterparts in other yeshivas and kollelim. This part is really conjecture, so consider it on the basis of your own knowledge of their setup (and not your own conjecture).
Firstly, I would like to deal with some of ideas I've seen thrown around. One is a suggestion that this is due to the insularity of chareidim, a general reluctance to engage the wider world. I question this. This insularity is widespread within the chareidi world, even some communities in the States have very little exposure to outside society. Our history is crowded, literal, with ghettoes. Many were the times and places with large groups of Jews who simply couldn't speak the host country's language (Russian, Polish etc.), and we didn't see any violence. Furthermore, abhorrence of violence is not a value that is derived exclusively from outside secular sources. Jewish sources alone should be a more abundant source for correct behavior.
It has also been suggested the opposite. It is the small exposure to world events and the learning of what others get up to. It is the fault of just that little bit of modernity without the tempering of good healthy dose of modernity. This solution is even worse. It too ignores any possibility that our own sources might be a sufficient source for appropriate behavior, if not superior, and only recognizes the modern world as a source of good. It also ignores thousands of years of Jewish history. Why is there no precedent.
Both these solutions overlook a basic observation which I believe is the correct interpretation.
Rock-throwing does not happen in Bnei Brak. It doesn't happen in Kiryat Sefer. Nor in Beitar. Or Ashdod, Emmanuel, Rechasim, RBS A, Arad, Petach Tikva, Tzfas and all the other centers of Chareidim. It doesn't happen in almost all the Yerushalayim neighborhoods. It certainly doesn't happen anywhere in chu"l. It ONLY happens in Mea Shearim and RBS B. Why?
I believe there are several factors working here.
The first is the education of that particular sector in recent history (meaning the past 60 odd years). Most of chareidi Jewry has come to terms with the State. We may hate it. We may feel it's the biggest chillul Hashem since the churban habayis. We may be infuriated by it's conduct and abuse of basic Jewish principles, values and laws. And we may not recognize it's legitimacy. But we do recognize that it's a fact of life and you have to live with it. So we act as good citizens, reap the benefits of organized, lawful society and recognize the positive.
But some have grown up with a world view that the zionist state is the Ultimate Source of all Evil and Tumah in the world. It is 100% evil. It has no redeeming factors. Anything associated with it must too be a great evil. That includes traffic police (and traffic lights). It includes garbage collectors and street cleaners, (as an aside, I can't understand why these people are so free to drop garbage on the streets - why do you think is going to clean up?) and their property. It includes bus companies and their buses. In short, everything evil is now viewed in the light of it's zionism. However bad other governments may have been, they were recognized to be legitimate.
So when faced with something that has no positive value whatsoever and is nothing but evil, so why not react with violence. Smash it! Destroy it!
This may be compounded by a feeling that EY is different. Here, it is OUR country. Here it is or right to call the shots and enforce correct behavior. This recalls a famous story with the Brisker Rov who accused a 'kanoi' of being a zionist. "In Russia you wouldn't have reacted this way. Why is here any different?"
There is perhaps one further factor which I am somewhat afraid to mention. It is easy to misinterpret, so I request from you, please, don't read what you want me to say, or what you think I should be saying. Listen to what I say the way I want to say it.
Many people have an attitude towards those in full-time learning that relates to them as people who are engaged in Torah and mitzvos in any form that they present. If someone needs a minyan, well, just pick up a few bochurim or avreichim. They're available for all Torah and mitzva related purposes. Need a chesed? Need someone to do mishnayos? No problem. That's what they're there for. Due to this attitude, I've noticed many yeshivas are highly reluctant to allow their students to get involved in any external activities, however righteous the cause. The students need to learn that right now, they are far too busy at their 'jobs' to do anything else. But I could imagine a setup where the attitude is actually the former, and encouraged. You are engaged in avodas hashem. Most of the time that means serious learning. But it could allow many other things as the need arises. This creates a very flexible schedule amongst people who feel obliged to direct their efforts towards the good of their society.
I am NOT advocating a change in kollel acception or in widespread enrollment. In fact, I'm not advocating any change at all. I simply observe that these people may be in a better position than their working counterparts, or in their counterparts in other yeshivas and kollelim. This part is really conjecture, so consider it on the basis of your own knowledge of their setup (and not your own conjecture).
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Mehadrin Buses - A Chareidi Perspective - Part IV
Pregnant and elderly women. Firstly, this doesn't apply on intercity routes. There is no natural division between the front and back sections. It moves in respect to the makeup of the passengers. Even on an intracity bus where the division is clearer, I really don't see the issue here. Do only men have to offer their seats but not women? Why can't a woman stand? And what happens when an elderly man gets on the bus? Why is any of this relevant only to mehadrin buses?
Now to Miriam Shears. Before you jump, no I don't approve of any violence, and what happened was completely unjustified. But she was also not entirely innocent. By her own admission, she regularly and deliberately sat in the men's section. She consistently refused to move, even when requested politely. She knew she was annoying people. She knew was antagonizing people. Even if she couldn't be expected to understand, after all, she'd heard of Rosa Parks, and the whole Mehadrin arrangement was strange to her, why couldn't she see what she was doing? What did she hope to achieve? Re-education?!? Eventually someone got annoyed enough.
So was she within her rights? Yes. Did she deserve what she got? No. Does she deserve any sympathy? Absolutely not!
Now to Miriam Shears. Before you jump, no I don't approve of any violence, and what happened was completely unjustified. But she was also not entirely innocent. By her own admission, she regularly and deliberately sat in the men's section. She consistently refused to move, even when requested politely. She knew she was annoying people. She knew was antagonizing people. Even if she couldn't be expected to understand, after all, she'd heard of Rosa Parks, and the whole Mehadrin arrangement was strange to her, why couldn't she see what she was doing? What did she hope to achieve? Re-education?!? Eventually someone got annoyed enough.
So was she within her rights? Yes. Did she deserve what she got? No. Does she deserve any sympathy? Absolutely not!
Mehadrin Buses - A Chareidi Perspective - Part III
What about the violence?
Firstly, it must be pointed out that all the unpleasentness is not on the private lines. I have travelled these buses and sheruts for years and nobody has ever, ever had a complaint. Why should they, it's private.
What I have seen is on the Egged routes, someone will get on and sit in the wrong area. After a while, a fellow passenger may approach him/her and point out that this is a Mehadrin, while politely requesting that they move their seat. I have even seen, and I stress that this is only rarely, the offending passenger refuse to comply. So somebody else attempts, and still no go. So he shrugs his shoulders, as if to say, "Nu, what can you do. Some jerk has to be a nudnik". End of story. I have, after many years, never seen a case of someone forcibly evicted, nor of any physical fights, spitting or even name-calling. I don't claim that it doesn't occur, but this must be approached in perspective. The chareidi community, by and large, is non-violent and tolerant with regards to nudnik jerks.
What to do about the violent ones? I don't believe there is anything you can do. They are individuals and are basically impossible to identify. Public declarations do not register with them. Bans and cheirems don't apply because they are unidentified.
In addition, this has nothing to do with mehadrin. A thug doesn't need to see a good arangment violated to get angry. He can get just as easerly angry with no arrangement at all! Stopping the system does nothing to appease him.
Firstly, it must be pointed out that all the unpleasentness is not on the private lines. I have travelled these buses and sheruts for years and nobody has ever, ever had a complaint. Why should they, it's private.
What I have seen is on the Egged routes, someone will get on and sit in the wrong area. After a while, a fellow passenger may approach him/her and point out that this is a Mehadrin, while politely requesting that they move their seat. I have even seen, and I stress that this is only rarely, the offending passenger refuse to comply. So somebody else attempts, and still no go. So he shrugs his shoulders, as if to say, "Nu, what can you do. Some jerk has to be a nudnik". End of story. I have, after many years, never seen a case of someone forcibly evicted, nor of any physical fights, spitting or even name-calling. I don't claim that it doesn't occur, but this must be approached in perspective. The chareidi community, by and large, is non-violent and tolerant with regards to nudnik jerks.
What to do about the violent ones? I don't believe there is anything you can do. They are individuals and are basically impossible to identify. Public declarations do not register with them. Bans and cheirems don't apply because they are unidentified.
In addition, this has nothing to do with mehadrin. A thug doesn't need to see a good arangment violated to get angry. He can get just as easerly angry with no arrangement at all! Stopping the system does nothing to appease him.
More in next post..
Mehadrin Buses - A Chareidi Perspective - Part II
Why the women at the back? Why not the men at the back or side by side?
One major issue here is the Rosa Parks experience. Anyone who is capable of a detached observation will recognize that our concerns with the 'back of the bus' is a knee-jerk reaction. Blacks were sent to the back to degrade them. So they were degraded. There is no such objective here. Even though there may be something intrinsically inferior in the back than the front, one has to start by removing al his cultural prejudices. So why the back? It's the most practical arangement. The men hardly see the women. The women don't care to see the men. This is unlike a side-by-side arrangement where everybody gets a good look. A curtain down the middle is really not a practicle option, and it doesn't avoid the jostling problem. Someone suggested seating the men at the back - facing backwards. This person does not seem to be a regular bus ridder, or else he would be aware that the seats do not swivel, and they're fixed facing the front.
One major issue here is the Rosa Parks experience. Anyone who is capable of a detached observation will recognize that our concerns with the 'back of the bus' is a knee-jerk reaction. Blacks were sent to the back to degrade them. So they were degraded. There is no such objective here. Even though there may be something intrinsically inferior in the back than the front, one has to start by removing al his cultural prejudices. So why the back? It's the most practical arangement. The men hardly see the women. The women don't care to see the men. This is unlike a side-by-side arrangement where everybody gets a good look. A curtain down the middle is really not a practicle option, and it doesn't avoid the jostling problem. Someone suggested seating the men at the back - facing backwards. This person does not seem to be a regular bus ridder, or else he would be aware that the seats do not swivel, and they're fixed facing the front.
More in next post..
Mehadrin Buses - A Chareidi Perspective - Part I
There seems to be a recent revival of the mehadrin bus brouhaha, and there have been a number of points raised which I wish to address.
1) Why do we need these busses at all. Is it just another opportunity to control or abuse women?
2) Why now? Gedolei Yisroel rode the busses and never complained.
3) Why is it good enough to have mixed busses in the US but not in Israel?
4) What next? Separate times or lines in the makolet? banks?
5) Why should non chareidi be forced to fit chareidi contrived standards?
6) What about pregnant and elderly women? Why should they be forced to stand?
7) Why women at the back? Why not the men?
8) Are we just following the lead of a few violent thugs, and are too afraid to raise our voices? Or are we by our silence really acquiescing?
1) Why do we need these busses at all. Is it just another opportunity to control or abuse women?
2) Why now? Gedolei Yisroel rode the busses and never complained.
3) Why is it good enough to have mixed busses in the US but not in Israel?
4) What next? Separate times or lines in the makolet? banks?
5) Why should non chareidi be forced to fit chareidi contrived standards?
6) What about pregnant and elderly women? Why should they be forced to stand?
7) Why women at the back? Why not the men?
8) Are we just following the lead of a few violent thugs, and are too afraid to raise our voices? Or are we by our silence really acquiescing?
It is a fact of life that men's minds do not work the same as women's. A woman can stare at a man from morning till night and not suffer for distracting thoughts, or alternatively, she will get little enjoyment from it. A man's mind works very differently. He can receive pleasure from staring at women, even briefly. Note the popularity of pin-up girls. Similarly, if he wishes to remove such images from his mind, it is very challenging. The Torah exhorts him to prevent those images in the first place. And because of this weakness, even a fully clothed woman be a distraction. Not as much, but a distraction nonetheless. While a woman can hardly be blamed for arousing such thoughts in a man, provided she acts within the spirit of the laws of tznius, she does have the opportunity to participate in overcoming his challenges.
But how far should she have to go? As already stated, if her dress and actions are those that do not arouse undue attention, which means basically, not sticking out, anything else is hiddur.
In addition there is a problem of men and women jostling each other. This is a problem, for both men and women. Mixing with women who are improperly dressed is also a problem (at least for men). So what's the hetter? If the issur is not meikar hadin, strictly forbidden, then the hetter is due to the fact there is no suitable alternative.
That is the idea behind the mehadrin bus. A man can have a ride on the bus with one less thing to disturb him. A woman can enjoy a bus ride without being jostled by women. From personal experience, I have found exactly that. Peace of mind. Perhaps I have a problem that others don't. Perhaps not. But I don't need a woman who understands nothing about men's minds, especially one who has a poor sense for tznius or kedusha, to tell me where I stand.
Once we understand that the issue is hiddur and not issur, the questions of gedolim and history, banks and the US become easier to understand. Men and women jostling each other on public transport is a problem. Being in places where women are poorly dressed is a problem (for a man). When all you have is the regular bus routes, there's no alternative. So there's no problem - as far as the mixing problems are concerned. The US has no other options. The banks are not offering other options. It was never an issue in the past, because there were no other options. The hiddur issue doesn't even start.
But Israel has come of age. The chareidi community is large enough to support it's own transport, run according to it's own preferences. In fact, on a small scale, the system has been running for years. Anyone who has traveled between Bnei Brak and Yerushalayim by way of sherut knows the arrangement. Full size buses were just the next step. So these buses ran alongside Egged buses, intercity. Nobody had a problem. Don't like it - go with Egged - or walk. This is a private bus. The success, and continuing success, of these routes is testimony of the desire of the community for Mehadrin.
The problems really only started when Egged stepped in. Egged came to an arrangement with a number of private intercity routes to take over, according to the same format. Some routes were also started intracity in the absence of competition under pressure from passengers. Some routes were bullied into submission by price cuts and legal methods. All these new lines are still not exclusive. Don't like it. Take the non-Mehadrin. True that many of the Mehadrin buses are far more frequent than the alternatives, but this is simply a capitalist market response. The Mehadrins are more popular.
But Egged has been negligent. The buses are not properly marked, and the alternative routes have also not been made clear. So a person could really get on without being aware that in some way he has committed himself to a set of guidelines. This is where the antagonists find their nitch.
So if you don't like a Mehadrin bus, pick up the phone and ask Egged what your alternatives are. Perhaps due court activity will force the issue.
More in next post..
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Perlstein, Malinowiz and of course, Slifkin
Rav Shlomo Zalman Perlstein, known by many as Mara d'asra of Ramat Beit Shemeh Aleph, wrote a letter concerning the recently started series of shiurim by Slifkin in Beis Tefila on Torah and the Animal Kingdom.
In it he declares that one should not attend the shiurim as express by the Gedolim.
The rav of Beis Tefila, Rav Chaim Malinowitz, wrote a letter in reply, transation as follows:
About the question regarding the letter publisheda few days ago in a local RBS publication, as if it had been written by a local Rav ABD (av beis din) against R' Natan Slifkin. It is obvious and clear that the letter is a forgery, as I will show. And it is a shame for the honor of said Rav ABD that has been desecrated by this forgery, as if it emanated from him, that contains within it things that never happened.
The letter is forged by its content, as is clear from the wording of the letter that the forger never actually checked the facts of the situation (as will be explained). Even in regards to HKB"H it says in Breishis 11:5 and in Rashi in brieshis 18:21, etc, "And Hashem went down to see... this teaches us that a judge cannot convict until he goes down to see and understand." See Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 10:1 and 17:5-8
The facts are that the Rabbonim Gedolei hador have paskened for those who follow their words that they shall not read the science books of R' Natan Slifkin because those books deal with questions as if there is a contradictions between science and Torah, and R' Slifkin attempts to resolve the questions. Our Rabbis have taught that these books should not be read except by those disturbed by such questions (and some have said nobody should read these books); They have clearly stated (to all those who have asked) that they are not dsqualifying (passuling) chas v'shalom the person [R' Slifkin] himself and not his other books on subjects other than science, only those science books do they instruct not to read. The forger has contradicted the words of our Rabbis that "things that will be revealed to all, a person will not lie about". All this can be clarified to anybody who checks, and it is clear this is a forgery.
As well, R' Natan gives lectures (on the topic of the wonders of creation) in the English language, and those who attend the lectures are those who speak and understand English. The letter had been written in Hebrew and was placed in a magazine whose readership is the Hebrew speaking public. Had it been a serious psak, it should have been wirtten in English and publicized in a publication dediated to the English speaking public. This is another proof that the letter was forged and simply for the purpose of causing argument.
As well, the letter was written as if R' Slifkin is giving lectures on science topics, and just the opposite, because the Rabbonim have decreed that his words on science should not be read or listened to, R' Slifkin is careful in his lectures (which are for the Haredi public in RBS as well) to only lecture on topics of wonders of creation and thereby increase the glory of Hashem and love and fear of Hashem. The forger of the letter claims otherwise, and that is further proof to the forgery.
There is no need to lengthen the topic, and I write and sign in protest against the great desecration of the honor of the Rav AB"D whose name was forged in the letter.
This letter is difficult to understand for many reasons:
1) Our Rabbis have taught that these books should not be read except by those disturbed by such questions
The original ban can be found on zootorah.com/controversy. Where does Rav Malinowitz see that it was only intended for some? The opposite, it says to keep him away from kiruv!
2) and was placed in a magazine whose readership is the Hebrew speaking public
The chadash is distributed to all houses and is read by everyone. Some read just some of it, some just flip through it, but all chareidim will at least take a look.
3) Had it been a serious psak, it should have been written in English and publicized in a publication dediated to the English speaking public.
Is Rav Malinowitz's letter supposed to be taken seriously? Why can he not write in english?
4) There is to my knowledge no english language publication in RBSA that would publish such a letter. There are in fact very few english language publications at all, certainly not chareidi ones.
4) The chadash is the only weekly local paper distributed to all chareidi homes. Wouldn't that be the best place to put the letter?
5) Obviously Rav Malinowitz knows that the letter is original. So what's his explaination? Or according to his forgery theory, why was it in hebrew? Does he think the forgers can't write english? To cause argument - amongst Israeli's who haven't got a clue what a slifkin is?
In conclusion, I wish to state for the record that I have the greatest of respect for Rav Malinowitz. I have heard him speak on numerous occasions, seen him in action and read many of his writings. He is unquestionably a talmid chocham and a pikeach. But the questions I feel are so strong, I have no choice but to conclude that the letter must simply be a forgery.
In it he declares that one should not attend the shiurim as express by the Gedolim.
The rav of Beis Tefila, Rav Chaim Malinowitz, wrote a letter in reply, transation as follows:
About the question regarding the letter publisheda few days ago in a local RBS publication, as if it had been written by a local Rav ABD (av beis din) against R' Natan Slifkin. It is obvious and clear that the letter is a forgery, as I will show. And it is a shame for the honor of said Rav ABD that has been desecrated by this forgery, as if it emanated from him, that contains within it things that never happened.
The letter is forged by its content, as is clear from the wording of the letter that the forger never actually checked the facts of the situation (as will be explained). Even in regards to HKB"H it says in Breishis 11:5 and in Rashi in brieshis 18:21, etc, "And Hashem went down to see... this teaches us that a judge cannot convict until he goes down to see and understand." See Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 10:1 and 17:5-8
The facts are that the Rabbonim Gedolei hador have paskened for those who follow their words that they shall not read the science books of R' Natan Slifkin because those books deal with questions as if there is a contradictions between science and Torah, and R' Slifkin attempts to resolve the questions. Our Rabbis have taught that these books should not be read except by those disturbed by such questions (and some have said nobody should read these books); They have clearly stated (to all those who have asked) that they are not dsqualifying (passuling) chas v'shalom the person [R' Slifkin] himself and not his other books on subjects other than science, only those science books do they instruct not to read. The forger has contradicted the words of our Rabbis that "things that will be revealed to all, a person will not lie about". All this can be clarified to anybody who checks, and it is clear this is a forgery.
As well, R' Natan gives lectures (on the topic of the wonders of creation) in the English language, and those who attend the lectures are those who speak and understand English. The letter had been written in Hebrew and was placed in a magazine whose readership is the Hebrew speaking public. Had it been a serious psak, it should have been wirtten in English and publicized in a publication dediated to the English speaking public. This is another proof that the letter was forged and simply for the purpose of causing argument.
As well, the letter was written as if R' Slifkin is giving lectures on science topics, and just the opposite, because the Rabbonim have decreed that his words on science should not be read or listened to, R' Slifkin is careful in his lectures (which are for the Haredi public in RBS as well) to only lecture on topics of wonders of creation and thereby increase the glory of Hashem and love and fear of Hashem. The forger of the letter claims otherwise, and that is further proof to the forgery.
There is no need to lengthen the topic, and I write and sign in protest against the great desecration of the honor of the Rav AB"D whose name was forged in the letter.
This letter is difficult to understand for many reasons:
1) Our Rabbis have taught that these books should not be read except by those disturbed by such questions
The original ban can be found on zootorah.com/controversy. Where does Rav Malinowitz see that it was only intended for some? The opposite, it says to keep him away from kiruv!
2) and was placed in a magazine whose readership is the Hebrew speaking public
The chadash is distributed to all houses and is read by everyone. Some read just some of it, some just flip through it, but all chareidim will at least take a look.
3) Had it been a serious psak, it should have been written in English and publicized in a publication dediated to the English speaking public.
Is Rav Malinowitz's letter supposed to be taken seriously? Why can he not write in english?
4) There is to my knowledge no english language publication in RBSA that would publish such a letter. There are in fact very few english language publications at all, certainly not chareidi ones.
4) The chadash is the only weekly local paper distributed to all chareidi homes. Wouldn't that be the best place to put the letter?
5) Obviously Rav Malinowitz knows that the letter is original. So what's his explaination? Or according to his forgery theory, why was it in hebrew? Does he think the forgers can't write english? To cause argument - amongst Israeli's who haven't got a clue what a slifkin is?
In conclusion, I wish to state for the record that I have the greatest of respect for Rav Malinowitz. I have heard him speak on numerous occasions, seen him in action and read many of his writings. He is unquestionably a talmid chocham and a pikeach. But the questions I feel are so strong, I have no choice but to conclude that the letter must simply be a forgery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)