Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Baseless Hatred or Principled Policy?

I've been forwarded an article on a possible boycott of the Agudah's Siyum haShas by the Vizhnitzer Rebbe. The article begins,

According to a Kikar Shabbat report, the Vishnitzer Rebbe from Monsey Shlita may boycott the main Siyum HaShas because “Zionist rabbis” are expected to address the tzibur. This apparently may also lead to other prominent rabbonim and admorim shlita to boycott the event.

Those who have forwarded this to me contend it is an example of sinat chinam, the baseless hatred which one gemara (Yoma 9b) says led to the destruction of the second Beis haMikdash and our current, long-running exile.

I'm not sold, though. Why is he not entitled to take a strong stance? Of course I disagree - I am one of those "Zionist rabbis" whose presence he would oppose - but why is he not entitled to decline to participate, if he feels that participation would endorse my stances? It's not as though he is coming out with guns blazing, on the offensive, looking for trouble.

Update: To clarify-
Ezra refused to build the second Beis haMikdash along with the Samaritans, because he believed they wanted to use it to further their anti-Torah cause.
The Rambam, Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi, the Radvaz and others prohibited teaching Torah to Karaites, believing that they wanted to use it to further their anti-Torah cause.
As Pirkei Avos 1:7 says, one may not join with "a wicked person".
We would not celebrate Torah with Jews for J missionaries, for the same reason.
If he truly believes that we are opposed to authentic Judaism, and that we are spreading that opposition beneath the disguise of supporting Torah, why would he join with us?


50 comments:

  1. I think, taking the timing (currently the 9 days) and the event being celebrated into account, the stance should be one of unity. We are celebrating Shas, isn't that enough of a reason to look beyond any differences and look what we, as a people from all walks, have accomplished? If we can't get together for this, what can we?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous-
      Thanks for your comment, which inspired an addendum to my post. What is your response to that addendum?

      Delete
    2. Thank you for the addendum. If he truly believes that the Rabbis celebrating at the siyum have distorted halacha and Judaism to the point of the Samaritans and Karites or even J4J, we have an even bigger problem on our hands. Ezra and the Rambam knew the methods and distortions of those groups. In my opinion, I don't think the Rebbe or others that hold like him, see these "Zionist rabbis" for what they truly are.

      Delete
    3. It is this "closemindedness" the idea of "my way or the highway" that is today's sinas chinam. I have walked in different parts of my city on Shabbos wearing my hat and not, the amount of replies I get (I always initiate) greatly differs. There's no concept of the idea that it's another frum Jew walking on Shabbos (even if i wasn't frum-all the more reason to reply)or in this case coming to celebrate the Siyum HaShas-for heaven's sake. Instead let's walk around thinking that if he doesn't conform to ALL my beliefs, he's not worth it. And then sit on the ground on Tisha B'av. Well with that mindset, I hope the ground is comfortable.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 11:15 AM-
      What if he believes that we are in violation of שלא יעלו בחומה, and that we warp sources to fit our view?

      Anonymous 11:28 AM-
      How do we choose which beliefs we can forgive, and which we cannot?

      Delete
  2. Just because there is a mechanism to thrust a spear theough the "bellies" of sinners doesn't mean it is always correct to do so and that we need to respect the opinion of the kana'i. Sincerity of intent is not enough. You also need to be correct. And it is wrong to boycott a aitum because the other orthodox rabbis are beneath your religious contempt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And who says that we are correct and he is wrong? It's not as though we have all of the sources on our side.

      Delete
    2. One can engage in talmudical hairsplitting hairsplitting and cite sources till one is blue in the face but it is still wrong. Again, regardless of sincerity of intent.

      One refuses to share a podium with catholic priests. One does not refuse to share a podium with other bnei torah.

      Delete
    3. Melech-
      Who gets to define "bnei torah"?

      Delete
  3. Organizing a boycott is a step beyond not showing up himself, no?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do we really know he's trying to mobilize other people?

      Delete
    2. Did he tell his followers to not attend either, or did he make clear it's a personal decision?

      Delete
  4. HE IS BOYCOTTING THE AGUDAH! Good for him. He gets my vote.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think he is against the presence of "Zionists" at the siyum hashas, but against "Zionists" addresses (giving them a pulpit). I don't think he would oppose your presence if you so choose to attend.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not that I'm the original Anonymous, but there is an answer to your addendum. All the cases/scenarios that you quoted, the Samaritans, karites, J4J, etc, have a halachic status of questionable Jews, if at all. That would imply that if he used that as a basis, that he would hold that Zionist Jews, etc. are questionably Jewish...That's a really slippery slope to go down...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is questionable about the Jewishness of a Karaite, or a J4J (assuming we mean a Jew who proselytizes for Christianity)? They are fully Jewish, so far as I have ever learned.

      Delete
    2. Please read R' Aharon Lichtenstein's article entitled "Brother Daniel", in Leaves of Faith vol. 2. They are fully "Jewish", but have lost their Jewishness, their Kedushat Yisrael. He discusses your question fully.

      Delete
    3. How did I know that was coming, Russell? Nonetheless, even Rav Aharon's unique view won't extend to Karaites.

      Delete
    4. I am unsure why you would think that. Were they any more sectarian than early Christians were? IIRC His position was not just against Catholics who believe in the trinity (which may have halachic ramifications), but against any sect of Christianity or any other religion/community that is Judaism, including our perception of J4J.

      Christians generally, and J4J specifically, accept the divinity of as much of the Torah as the Karaites, though they ignore some laws in it. The Karaites, according to our understanding of the Torah, also ignore many laws. Just like us, both view themselves as the legitimate continuation of Judaism as discovered by Avraham Avinu and defined in the time of Moshe Rabbeinu. I am unsure why you'd make a chiluk between the two.

      Delete
  7. I think the Rav's view is baseless, though I don't think hatred is involved. I doubt the Rambam hated Karaites.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would bet that he did, based on his commentary to Avos 1:6.

      Delete
  8. The interesting issue with kannaut iiuc from pinchas is that one never knows till after the fact whether they qualified for the exemption or will be judged on the act under normal halacha. Also note that if zimri had killed pinchas, zimri would not have been culpable (but don't try either at home by yourself)
    KT
    Joel RIch

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you for this very intellectually honest post!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. The opposition of the Rambam to the Kararites is based on the latters' denial of various ikkarim. Can the Rebbe say which ikkar Rav Lau denies?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Rambam (Shut haRambam 265) may be read as specifying Karaitic denial of certain ikkarim, but I am not so sure. And R' Eliyahu Mizrachi (57) and Radvaz (2:796) did not. Their issue was mockery of Torah and/or specific mitzvos.

      Delete
  11. The problem with extremists is even if we dismiss them there is still a trickle down effect as their menuvaldik opinions are watered down and deemed acceptable. Now you guys are arguing if zionist rabbis who participate in daily talmud harbatzat torah can be considered to have the status of Catholic priests or Karaites.
    And make no mistake: there will be a trickle down effect by not allowing speakers who may offend these extremists. Because while it is fine to offend the LW Chas veshalom the RW should ever be offended.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And before boycotting a siyum attended by R Lau let's see him boycott an event attended by rabbis who take succession fights not to batei din but to secular courts.

      Delete
  12. Maybe we could have a major Torah event that acknowledges up front that its speakers and attendees represent different facets of Orthodox Jewry united for a common cause (in the case of the big siyum, Talmud study) regardless of their particular approaches, and that participation is no endorsement of the other approaches.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There is a fine line between the need to marginalize those who are truly dangerous to communal values and the need to include the variety of voices that exist within the community and that can help improve the community for the better. It seems to me that to compare religious Zionists to Samaritans and Karaites misses the point. These types of judgments must be made after very thoughtful analysis. Religious Zionists are not rejecting or undermining the authority of Torah she-be-al Peh or Nach, as one of the commenters already pointed out. They simply interpret the same texts differently. When the students of Shammai massacred the students of Hillel (see Gemara Shabbos), they likewise probably felt they had ample precedent from history, and while I am not comparing boycotting to murder, the point is that those students involved no doubt excused their behavior based on those kinds of precedents. So why not argue that they, too, had a legitimate "concern"? Sin'at hinnam is really a reflection of narcissistic tendencies gone wild without any countervailing concern about the proper application of halakhah in these tricky situations (hence, Shammaites could even commit murder). True concern about Torah values would never have allowed things to go that far. So here, while the Vishnitzer Rebbe may have precedent to boycott, and while he may not "hate" religious Zionist in the strong sense of the term and would most certainly not condone violence against them, the psychological factors involved in making that decision reflect a thought process conducive to the development of sin'at hinnam, namely, the rush to judgment on other types of Jews based on the view that one's own values are the "correct" Jewish values and no other interpretations are legitimate. Why not, instead of invoking the precedent of Samaritans and Karaites, invoke the precedent of shiv'im panim la-Torah?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm confused. Why is it not okay to make the leap from Karaites to Us, but it's okay to make the leap from not-attending an event to murder?

      Delete
    2. The murder was an end-result of sin'at hinnam, and shows how horrible the phenomenon is. But the Shammaites who committed the massacre didn't wake up one morning and suddenly decide to kill Hillelites. It was the result of a mentality that developed over time. As Reuven Kimelman implied in his article on Judaism and pluralism, the psychology was probably, "We are right (obviously), and they are wrong, and if they do not see eye-to-eye with us, they must be exceptionally wicked." Once you put "religious Zionists" in the "wicked" category deserving of a boycott, you create divisions conducive to the development of sin'at hinnam. Whether or not that leads to murder or physical violence (it almost often does at some point in the hands of someone) depends on a host of other factors, but that's not the point. Sin'at hinnam can and does exist even without extreme violence. Boycotting might be one example in certain contexts. And so I ask again, why is it OK for the Vishnitzer Rebbe, according to what you've said,to compare Us to Karaites rather than to compare us to Hillel/Shammai?

      Delete
    3. Joseph-
      I think he believes that our rejection of anti-Zionist sources is not lishmah, and that the harm we cause is grievous.

      Delete
    4. Ha-Rav,

      In that case, we could throw it right back at him - that his opposition to Zionism is not lishmah and the harm he is causing is grievous. Yet I did not hear any attempt at boycotting him by Zionist rabbis. It seems that they do not view him as wicked but merely as someone with whom they disagree, which seems to me a lot more appropriate.

      Delete
    5. I suppose, but why would I say something that I don't believe is true (that his opposition is not lishmah)?

      Delete
    6. Why would you give so much credence to his (apparent) insistence that our (including your) support of religious Zionism is not lishmah?

      Delete
    7. Because I know the sources which support him. I may not follow them, but I cannot deny that they could be read his way.

      Delete
    8. But we also have sources that support us and, would he have been open-minded enough, he would have realized they could be read that way as well. The point is that you've created a double standard, with the burden being on our side, and I'm not sure why ("they have to be lishmah because they "have sources," but we can't/may not be lishmah, even though we have sources, because...???") Why would you lack that much confidence in people such as R. Kook, or even yourself, while putting so much faith in the Vizhnitzer/Satmar point of view?

      Delete
    9. Why does respecting someone else's point of view need to mean dropping your own? I am confident in the position of Rav Kook, but I can respect the thought process that leads someone to disagree.

      Delete
    10. We're not talking about a simple disagreement. We're talking about boycotting. When I boycott, I'm not only saying that I disagree with you; I'm saying that you and your arguments have no legitimacy.

      Delete
  14. In defense of Vishnitz, there are other groups who do not participate en masse. I don't think either Chabad or Satmar participate en masse in the Siyum Hashas.

    The Vishnitz Rebbe sees opposition to the official capacity of Rabbi Lau, not to his person; he doesn't want to legitimize the concept of Zionism in the slightest, but the opposition is not personal. The distinction is somewhat like the European Rav who drank the finger-water of the king, but not his wine being yayin nesech, to show that the opposition is not personal.

    That being said, this is not my vision of an ideal Orthodoxy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The talmudical hairsplitting and semantics don't impress me:

    Ruling religious zionists are epikorsim and therefore one can't attend functions with them, or save them from a pit, or invite them for a yom tov meal...but personally saving even religious zionists from a pit and inviting them to yom tov meals because it's not personal. Hating religious zionism as the sitra achra but loving religious zionist Jews.

    Colour me unimpressed.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don't know why the Rebbetzin's Husband is being so open minded. Does the rebbe have a right to hold R. Lau beneath his religious contempt? Yes he does. But so do we have the right to reject such views as absurd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I am often accused of excessive open-mindedness.

      Heh.

      Delete
  17. I think the Rebbetzin's Husband's position can be defended by imagining the situation reversed: Imagine if one of the Zionist rabbis pulling out of the siyum because anti-Zionist rabbis were on the program. Many of you would be applauding his principled and courageous act. I rest my case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MO and RZ rabbies don't pull that shtick. I rest my case.

      Delete
    2. And I don't know what your point is. Just because there are extreme cases where certain rabbis are indeed contemptable such as the clowns who cozy up with the worst antisemites and enemies of the Jews in Iran and the PLO that doesn't mean it is acceptable to consider R. Lau contemptable.
      So because normal people consider NK rabbis beyond the pale it is ok to consider R. Lau beyond the pale? Sorry but that's a logic fail.

      In spite of the bending over backwards to consider the views, and they are indeed sincere views, of the rebbe acceptable, it simply is not acceptable to make analogies to J for J or Karaites or NK rabbis when speaking of R. Lau.

      Again, the rebbe is sincere and he is entitled to his view. And I am entitled to consider that view unacceptable.

      Delete
    3. I agree with Melech on this one. I myself have listened to anti-Zionist rabbis, whom I do not boycott, even as I vehemently disagree with them. The only exception would be those who, in Melech's words, "cozy up" to enemies of the Jewish people, but most anti-Zionist rabbis do not do this.

      Delete
  18. Everyone agrees that chilul shabbat is a sin. No argument there. What about zionism? Lots of argument there. There are gedolim on both sides of the issue: a machloket. Is the machloket real? Very much so! Is the machloket leshem shayamim? Definitely not!! It is a machloket that has its roots in politics. The same sort of politics that the Gemara in Gittin describes as leading to the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash. When the whole Jewish world gets together to celebrate learning Torah and some Jewish leaders boycott for political reasons, I dispair of Moshiach coming anytime soon. I have a lot more to say on this issue, but as long as people are too involved with the appearance of "Torah Study" and don't spend enough time internalizing the Torah, and living by the Torah, there is not much point.

    ReplyDelete