Originally published 3/30/08, 10:33 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
In the latest halachic debate in Israel between the charedim and other Orthodox views in Israel, we again see the strong language of dissension. The issue is the definition of death and the position of the charedi community is that brain death does not define halachic death.
The controversy that is surrounding this issue, aside from the very halachic debate itself, is in how the charedi community is expressing its view. It presents its view as the only legitimate halachic view and other views that accept brain death as a halachic standard are simply dismissed. This seems to be another case of the charedi world simply dismissing views with which it disagrees as outside the pale.
The intersting thing that hit me though is the actuality of how meforshim throughot the centuries have responded to others with positions with which they disagreed. In many cases we also find harsh language, disparaging comments and a rejection of the opposition even amongst those that in other circumstances demanded respect for others within the halachic process. In truth, we find within halachic literature throughout the ages strong language similar to the charedi defense of their position. Is it just possible that the charedi world, rather that really dismissing those with which they disagree, is simply following the examples of language that have been used throughout the ages?
In truth, it is clear that for many charedim there is a dismissal of other positions in a most outright and simplistic fashion. Yet it has always bothered me -- could charedi scholars really be rejecting the reality of machloket in halacha? The answer may be that they are not. They are simply adopting a language that they have seen within the halachic literature in cases of disagreement. The only problem is that, while in the hands of scholars this language is known to have one connotation, as this language spreads to the masses, the result is a simplification of Torah that challenges its very essence.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
4 comments:
The problem is with the term Chareidi. Go back in time a few centuries and the term doesn't exist. There were Misnagdim, Chasidim and Other, or on a more global basis, Sephardim and Ashkenazim. You either accepted the authority of Torah or you didn't. The idea of entire movements of Jews arising who didn't have a complete allegiance to Torah but still wanted to be recognized as authentically Jewish was unhead of. If you were a Karaite or the like, you were a different religion.
The importance of the Chasam Sofer's creation of the Chareidi community was that it was the first time an "us vs them" concept was created that actively excluded even other Torah observant Jews as long as they didn't meet the stringent monochromatic model he formulated.
As a result, when Chareidi poskim dismiss other Jewish positions, it is quite likely that they are doing exactly that. Anything outside their position is "beyond the pale" and unacceptable since their definition of acceptable is their version of things.
unfortunately, this is inherent in the current Charedi culture. The value of the TRUTH has diminished. Nof ah, it was killed. Beginning from the Hafatz Hayim Ztz"l who made the Issur Loshon Haro into the 14th Ikkar (next to the traditional 13 coined by the Rambam) and thus disallowed saying anything in the spirit of truth if it even somewhat (in the eyes of the beholder) diminishes the character of somebody. Continuing with Rav Shimon Schwab Ztz"l who assured to write histories and in essence called to lie about the past (to be true to the spirit of truth, there are other views and interpretations about what these Gedolim actually have said, but I insist that however you read them, the results are kind of deterministic.) The craze of censoring anything that even remotely disagree with the current crop of Gedolim (at least in their own eyes) and therefore censoring the truth whenever somebody of prior generation disagrees with them, this craze is rampant.
I am sorry that I have to use harsh terminology, but the situation is bad and it's time to fight back.
The application of loshon hara to history is indeed a subject worthy of investigation. What gets me is not the general principle -- we do not have to discuss negative behaviour of others be they of the past. What gets me is the judgemental nature of this argument. Let us say a certain gadol did something. We can assume that this is an indication that this action was alright or we can declare this wrong and reflecting negatively on the gadol. The argument not to describe this behaviour assumes the latter and thus also prevents the presentation for an argument for the former. There is indeed to much emphasis on promoting one's own agenda and neglecting the truth. By stating that such behaviour should not be reported and by thereby implying that we should not report the negative behaviour of this person, the potential argument that this behaviour was actually permitted - afterall this gadol did this -- is lost.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
There are two ways to approach an intellectual issue. The intelligent way is to keep an open mind as to what the eventual conclusion will be and then analyze the facts to see what the best answer is.
Then there's the Chareidi way - decide ahead of time what the answer will be and then dismiss any sources that refute that answer as non-existent, non-binding or apikorsus.
Thus the hagiographies of the great rabbinic leaders of yesteryear. First, modern "frummer-than-thou" behaviour is ascribed to the historical figure. Then a biography is written which includes only those facts that fit the predetermined profile. Anyone pointing out historical facts that contradict this thus becomes an "outsider" or a heretic and as a result, his work is ignored by the Chareidim.
Post a Comment