Once upon a time - one Sunday evening - I had to meet someone @ Cong. Beth Aaron
That night Rabbi Slifkin was the featured speaker. I had a 10 minute window in which to listen to him and - as it turned out - to open my own big mouth.
Rabbi Slifkin was reluctant or simply refused to condemn his Hareidi Critics. He said that they were entitled to their POV [point of view] due to the Principle of Elu v'Elu.
I "snuck-in" one challenging question:
"But, Rabbi - where is THEIR Elu v'Elu towards you?"
I don't recall his reponse - if any
Of course he could have simply said "I choose the moral high-ground and refuse to fight fire with fire!". Or something of that sort.
My point was not to ad hominum Hareidim back, rather to make it abundantly clear that any ad hominem attack upon him was unfair and illegitimate. OTOH, they have every right to dispute him, or even to condemn his POV as illegtimate.
However, Rabbi Bashing by Rabbis can come back to haunt. What goes around comes around. Thus, Zilzulei deVei Dina is a 2-edged sword.
More on Elu v'Elu and Zilzulei devei dina re: Mishnah RH 2:8,9
Shana Tova
RRW
2 comments:
Further on this issue of Eilu v'Eilu, specifically when one party invokes this concept while the other rejects it within the specfic concept, I invite you to look at my extensive discussion on the matter in my 4 part series "The Slifkin Affair Revisited" in the Commentary Archives on the Nishma website at http://www.nishma.org/articles/commentary/commentaryindex.html. While Part specifically mentions Eilu v'Eilu, the entire series discusses the difficulties inherent in the application of this concept specifically within a realm of disagreement of its application to a specfic situation. To highlight this complexity, I draw your attention to the view of Mizrachi of the Chazon Ish and what we must define as, what would seem to be, its essential bewilderment.
While on the Archives page, you may also wish to access my original article on the Slifkin Affair, "Authority and Wisdom: The Slifkin Affair."
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Well, WADR to RNS, he's not quite a baal pelugta of the people who accused him. That's not a matter of right and wrong -- plenty of people of great stature posited the ideas that got him condemned.
But a 20-something musmach from Or Samayach can't respond to R' Elyashiv in the same tone R' Elyashiv can respond to him. The situation demands more kavod on RNS's part than he received, and he displays it.
FWIW, I think there is much you can criticize about his books. Not his position, his presentation. (As I would say when wearing my Avodah morderator hat "tone, not content".)
There is a danger to limiting chazal's and subsequent baalei mesorah's authority without being clear about the limits to those limits. IOW, if someone repeatedly questions their science, even where their might be halachic impact, one should leave the reader clear approaches as to where to draw the red line on that.
Second, at times his youthful self-certainty comes through, which when questioning the conclusions of others far grater than him (e.g. Rabbei Tam) comes across as less than the traditionally lulei demistafina hayisi omeir or bemechilas kevod Toraso.
I agree with RNS's conclusions, usually. For that matter, I do not know how R' Elyashiv could justify saying RNS follows a minority opinion -- until the counter-reformation of the 19th century and possibly not until my own lifetime, the approach he espouses was that of the majority! Nor I don't believe in book banning as a strategy. But there are things about his oeuvre that when my son started making his way through "Mysterious Creatures" I told him I wanted to discuss it afterward.
-micha
Post a Comment