tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post111266742537725651..comments2023-09-22T12:40:26.587-04:00Comments on Da'as Hedyot: Black & WhiteThe Hedyothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15193083251783618457noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1113414494928948832005-04-13T13:48:00.000-04:002005-04-13T13:48:00.000-04:00Just a question. In the last dor, when R' Moshe, R...Just a question. In the last dor, when R' Moshe, R' Yackov, etc..<BR/>who we all acknowledge were true Gedolim in every sense of the word,<BR/>did the moetzes of agudah speak with one voice? At least in public?<BR/>I believe so but I may be wrong.<BR/><BR/>Just a thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1113249695928193282005-04-11T16:01:00.000-04:002005-04-11T16:01:00.000-04:00I posted about this The delegitimization of oppos...I posted about this <A HRE="http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2005/04/delegitimization-of-opposing-views.html"> The delegitimization of opposing views</A> recently. What has happened in the past century is the complete intolerance of other views.blukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03774763780910614203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112910017782054732005-04-07T17:40:00.000-04:002005-04-07T17:40:00.000-04:00I didn't say the flaw isn't present at all. I say ...I didn't say the flaw isn't present at all. I say that you don't *understand* charedi society too well and misinterpret the goings on. <BR/><BR/>I despise charedi society, and I really doubt that my objections have much to do with the fact that you are critical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112879062890817042005-04-07T09:04:00.000-04:002005-04-07T09:04:00.000-04:00Maybe you have narrow experience, or maybe what I ...<I>Maybe you have narrow experience, or maybe what I wrote originally is true...</I><BR/><BR/>It's just as likely that you're the one with the narrow experience. I spent many years in the chareidi community, interacted with individuals from different locales (Brooklyn, Monsey, Lakewood, Midwest, England, Canada, Israel), so I don't think my experiences should be viewed as any less representative of the overall chareidi community than yours or anyone elses.<BR/><BR/><I>...or maybe what I wrote originally is true...</I><BR/><BR/>Or maybe what <I>I</I> wrote originally is true and you just don't like what it says about a community that you value.<BR/><BR/><I>...it's you engaging in black and white thinking about what you hear...</I><BR/><BR/>I won't deny this possibility. I have unfortunately adopted many of the more negative traits of my former world. Looking at things in B&W is one of them. As I've said in my posts (see "A Proper Chinuch"), a lot of things about how I was raised are still in me. And I'm constantly trying to undo them. But just because I have the flaw doesn't mean it's not also present in the wider chareidi society.The Hedyothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15193083251783618457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112862134521147942005-04-07T04:22:00.000-04:002005-04-07T04:22:00.000-04:00"But your last words of, "All of this is well unde..."But your last words of, "All of this is well understood by the charedi public" are not true in my experience. Maybe the people you interact with understand it that way, but everyone who I know who identifies themselves as chareidi takes these things very seriously."<BR/><BR/>Maybe you have narrow experience, or maybe what I wrote originally is true, and it's you engaging in black and white thinking about what you hear and misinterpreting what you see around you. <BR/><BR/>"And the Kanoim are definitely not in the smarter camp. Or maybe they are, and thats davkah why they work so hard to keep the illusion going, to keep the power."<BR/>Some and some, as I'm sure you know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112857510314667702005-04-07T03:05:00.000-04:002005-04-07T03:05:00.000-04:00I think the problem starts with the concept of tru...I think the problem starts with the concept of truth. We all believe that Torah is true, and that Judaism is true. But then we go the wrong way. We start to say that everything connected to Torah and Judaism must also be true and we define that "everything" as "what the rabbis tell us". And if you question the rabbis, then you question Torah. <BR/><BR/>But, we are all only human. None of us grasp Truth, we can only strive to get approximate it. Only G-d knows truth. So we have to accept that any 'truths' are only approximations and therefore can be questioned. <BR/>How does this relate to your blog? THe black/white issue starts coz we think there is truth. If we have truth, then by definition anything that questions, disagrees or raises questions in a critical manner must be false. <BR/>Once you realise there is no truth, then everything is shades of grey. <BR/>And maybe then we can start getting closer to truth, as opposed to being handicapped by old "non-truths".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112849723808338302005-04-07T00:55:00.000-04:002005-04-07T00:55:00.000-04:00But you said it better. Its true that the 'smarter...But you said it better. Its true that the 'smarter' chareidim realize this, as one commentator pointed out Unfortunately there are a lot of 'dumb' charedim out there (w.r.t. to this issue). And the Kanoim are definitely not in the smarter camp. Or maybe they are, and thats davkah why they work so hard to keep the illusion going, to keep the power.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112849386129596282005-04-07T00:49:00.000-04:002005-04-07T00:49:00.000-04:00I blogged this very point over a month ago. Actual...I blogged this very point over a month ago. Actually, a month before that, but the older post got deleted in a fit of Teshuvah !<BR/><BR/>http://godolhador.blogspot.com/2005/03/inherent-paradox-of-chareidi-hashkafa.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112840660314891692005-04-06T22:24:00.000-04:002005-04-06T22:24:00.000-04:00Interesting pshat. But your last words of, "All of...Interesting pshat. But your last words of, <I>"All of this is well understood by the charedi public"</I> are not true in my experience. Maybe the people you interact with understand it that way, but everyone who I know who identifies themselves as chareidi takes these things very seriously. Admittedly, they might not follow everything so strictly, but they view that as their own failing, and are very critical of anyone who suggests that the directives are not meant to be taken as seriously as any other psak.The Hedyothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15193083251783618457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112839858353292272005-04-06T22:10:00.000-04:002005-04-06T22:10:00.000-04:00I know it's cloaked in halacha whenever possible (...I know it's cloaked in halacha whenever possible (and in this case there was a minor halachic issue). But it's understood to be political advice cloaked in halacha, and advice is not halacha. So for ex when the g'dolim advise not going to rallies for some cause, that's well-understood to be political advice. <BR/><BR/>When they say dont go to rallies for Russian Jewry, they say it's ossur, and the REASON it's ossur is that it's going to make the Soviets take an even harder line. This is a judgement based on political evaluation - it amounts to a political finding of fact or judgement followed by a "p'sak" (that in this case appears to have been wrong). But everyone who thinks that doing X will make matters worse for soviet jewry, agrees that then it's pikuach nefesh and one can't do X = the only question is if doing X will improve or worsen the situation. <BR/><BR/>Ditto on dozens of other things. The p'sak is pro forma; it follows naturally at the point that one reaches a judgement of fact. Where people disagree is on the fact, so in effect everyone views the aguda as holding forth on politics. <BR/><BR/>separately, most "p'sak" on hashkafa is advice for how to organize a community and what trends to encourage or discourage, not actual p'sak on what it purports to be. All of this is well understood by the charedi public.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112756946367050822005-04-05T23:09:00.000-04:002005-04-05T23:09:00.000-04:00...they are a political organization...it's not a ...<I>...they are a political organization...it's not a source of PSAK...</I><BR/><BR/>Can you explain this to me please? I honestly don't follow what you mean by that. As far as I know, at any Moetzes convention or Agudah convention, the discussions are all about policies, perspectives, and activities of the frum world. Whenever people refer to the "Gedolim say..." they are referring to the halachic and hashkafic positions of those individuals, not any political agendas. When they say the gedolim must be listened to, they mean it absolutely, like a psak, just like if their rabbi had said something wasn't kosher.<BR/><BR/>For example, when the Moetzes (or representatives of it) expressed disapproval of Reinman joining the book tour with Hirsch, it might have had political motivations (vis-a-vis Reform), but they dress those statements up as Da'as Torah, as if it's a halachic issue they are responding to. And when people spoke about the issue, they were unequivocal: "The Gedolim have said it is assur!"<BR/><BR/>I understand that Agudah has a lot of political clout, and uses that to try to further its agenda. Is that what you mean by political? If so, I don't see what it has to do with the rabbonim who people look toward for positions on all sorts of halachic and hashkafic issues.<BR/><BR/>I don't think I'm understanding your statement. Please explain further.The Hedyothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15193083251783618457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112756035538233132005-04-05T22:53:00.000-04:002005-04-05T22:53:00.000-04:00"Same applies for R. Hirsch, who was viewed in the..."Same applies for R. Hirsch, who was viewed in the East as a great gadol -- for the West. When his views began to be reproduced in Eastern Europe, then that was "maskilish"."<BR/><BR/>this is also incorrect. they paid lip service to rabbi hirsch for political/existential reasons - they thought he was saving german jewry. In that sense, they always said he was a gadol. But they didn't approve of his views at all. <BR/>When the hamon am became acquainted with his views, they publicized their pov on R Hirsch, which they might have preferred to keep silent. But this wasn't a matter of "so long as the elites know, it's ok, but it's not for the hamon am." <BR/>It was a matter of so long as this is only being taught to people who will otherwise become irreligious, that's ok...<BR/>they were consistent with their views on rav hirsch - they never agreed with him, and never pretended to agree except to the fact that his approach might be necessary for the west.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112755523658506262005-04-05T22:45:00.000-04:002005-04-05T22:45:00.000-04:00"But they certainly did not promote them, which is..."But they certainly did not promote them, which is why Maimonidean rationalism did not win the day "<BR/><BR/>they couldn't have effectively promoted them, the masses were rejecting them. <BR/><BR/>moreover, the rambam himself didn't expect the masses to buy into his ideas, many of which he thought were for elites.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112755437078896482005-04-05T22:43:00.000-04:002005-04-05T22:43:00.000-04:00DH:because they are a political organization. ever...DH:<BR/>because they are a political organization. ever go to a political convention? do people put their differences up front?<BR/><BR/>the point is that the aguda is political and everyone in the charedi society understands that is so. <BR/><BR/>ronashton:the MASSES were the ones who resisted the rambam after the initial disputes. for ex, they were teh ones who kept on praying to angel intermediaries and the like. chassidus was a popular movement, catering to the masses, not an elite movement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112738916547421202005-04-05T18:08:00.000-04:002005-04-05T18:08:00.000-04:00That was a great post, but I have to disagree with...That was a great post, but I have to disagree with this:<BR/><BR/>"<I>The answer is very simple: In the not-too-distant past, religious society was able to countenance a multiplicity of views on many subjects (definitely complex ones like this topic). </I>"<BR/><BR/>In my opinion this reflects the tendency to romanticize the past. Firstly, the "hamon am" really didn't have access to all the opinions on all these issues. After the Maimonidean controversy was effectively settled by history's judgement of the Rambam as a giant of Jewish thought and law, most people really had no idea what his views actually were - for centuries. To this day people are completely shocked when they find out many of his views. You can make the case that Torah scholars tolerated diverse views, being that they were aware of them. But they certainly did not promote them, which is why Maimonidean rationalism did not win the day and why R. Na Na Nahman Me'Uman would attack the Rambam's views. Since the masses didn't have any idea what the Rambam believed anyway, it made no difference. But now that the Nosson Slifkin's of the world are telling the masses -- oy, that's a problem. Same applies for R. Hirsch, who was viewed in the East as a great gadol -- for the West. When his views began to be reproduced in Eastern Europe, then that was "maskilish".<BR/><BR/>In short sum, so long as the hamon am are not being seduced by un-orthodox (i.e. incorrect) doctrine no one cared. But boy do they care when those views are sold for popular consumption.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112726000535570242005-04-05T14:33:00.000-04:002005-04-05T14:33:00.000-04:00It would really help if all of you Anonymous comme...It would really help if all of you Anonymous commenters could distinguish yourselves somehow. Just make up a name if you don't want to use your own.<BR/><BR/><I>The moetzes is NOT in agreement on all issues..</I><BR/><BR/>Of course not on all issues. I never claimed that. I'm talking about the major issues. And I know that even on many of those bigger issues they aren't actually in agreement, but for some reason they try very hard to pretend that they are. Why?The Hedyothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15193083251783618457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112725017877722562005-04-05T14:16:00.000-04:002005-04-05T14:16:00.000-04:00"Why does the Moetzes, which is arguably THE repre..."Why does the Moetzes, which is arguably THE representative body across the spectrum of chareidi Judaism, feel it necessary to always have the gedolim be in total agreement on the issues?"<BR/><BR/>do you realize how stupid this is? The moetzes is NOT in agreement on all issues, for example they have chassidiche representatives and card carrying misnagdim on the moetzes. they dont aim to promote a single vision of judaism, they aim to unify on matters - mostly political matters - that they agree on.<BR/><BR/>this comment alone shows how out of touch you are <BR/><BR/>you're far more black and white than the moetzes is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112724846136348792005-04-05T14:14:00.000-04:002005-04-05T14:14:00.000-04:00because they are aiming for political power. the a...because they are aiming for political power. the aguda is a political organization. it's not a source of PSAK.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112707272830354652005-04-05T09:21:00.000-04:002005-04-05T09:21:00.000-04:00To anyone who feels that this is all an exaggerati...To anyone who feels that this is all an exaggeration, I have one question: Why does the Moetzes, which is arguably THE representative body across the spectrum of chareidi Judaism, feel it necessary to always have the gedolim be in total agreement on the issues? Why at the Washington Rally in 2002 couldn’t some gedolim have OPENLY supported it while others openly opposed it? Instead we had to get all these convoluted teirutzim reconciling one view with another? Why when the Reinman/Hirsch debacle arose, couldn’t the gedolim who initially supported the project continue to do so? Why did they have to retract their view when others opposed it? Simply put, if you think I’m exaggerating, please explain to me, why can’t there ever be OPEN disagreement amongst the gedolim?The Hedyothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15193083251783618457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112692484350716092005-04-05T05:14:00.000-04:002005-04-05T05:14:00.000-04:00DH,Good job on destroying the foundations of the m...DH,<BR/><BR/>Good job on destroying the foundations of the modern invention of Daas Torah, a House of cards utilized purely to keep their constituency in check. Yes, we must have Emunat Chachamim, but there are many Chachamim, with many acceptable yet conflicting approaches, like the Yud Beis Shevatim and Shivim Panim to Torah. Until there is a Sanhedrin there is no monopoly on Halachah and even more so on Hashkafah.<BR/><BR/>TRKTRKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11068536432406221644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112683030042281032005-04-05T02:37:00.000-04:002005-04-05T02:37:00.000-04:00You should read two books by Chief Rabbi Jonathan ...You should read two books by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks - <BR/>Arguments for the Sake of Heaven<BR/>and<BR/>One People?<BR/> <BR/>In both these books he details many patterns in todays Jewish world especially these issues that you have highlighted in your post.<BR/><BR/>On a personal note, these issues have been obvious to the rest of the Jewish world, and the fact that the UO world has resisted so much is, to my mind, a large factor in the negative feelings and perception that the non-UO world has towards the UO worldAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112676903057666942005-04-05T00:55:00.000-04:002005-04-05T00:55:00.000-04:00uh huh, they represent a fraction of charedi figur...uh huh, they represent a fraction of charedi figures, esp in E"Y, but they do not represent all charedim and many in charedi enclaves completely reject them. a lot of others nod their heads, but ignore them. thats part of the deal - there are public pronouncements that are not taken that seriously (this time they are serious, because theyve hurt a specific person). you are taking a lot of rhetoric way too literallyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112675532268677232005-04-05T00:32:00.000-04:002005-04-05T00:32:00.000-04:00I admit that there is a lot of room for variation ...I admit that there is a lot of room for variation in the concept of DT. But not in the popular chareidi view of things. You might have a more moderate, reasonable view of the issue, and identify yourself as chareidi, but the chareidi view is still pretty dogmatic. I recommend you read any of the letters that have been released in response to the Slifkin affair (from the chareidi perspective: e.g. Orlofsky, R' Moshe Shternbuch) to see how flexible they are in this issue.The Hedyothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15193083251783618457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9839224.post-1112674821574046022005-04-05T00:20:00.000-04:002005-04-05T00:20:00.000-04:00as usual, you exaggerate the degree of importance ...as usual, you exaggerate the degree of importance of daas torah to charedi ideology, and simplify the idea doing away with numerous more realistic versions of it. <BR/><BR/>In fact, you do on this blog exactly what you accuse the charedim of doing - you turn it into a black and white ideology, when it's a loose sociological/ideological classification with much more room for variation than you claim. <BR/><BR/>From someone who does nothing but caricaturize ojudaism generally, and charedism specifically, this post is incredible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com