Long time readers of my blog know that I do not ascribe to the doctrine of rabbinic infallibility. I believe that it is possible for gedolim, including Rav Shteinman to be in error*. So, if you believe that Rav Shteinman is wrong, I have no problem with someone marshaling forth their arguments and making their case, even forcefully.
But there's a very clear and distinct line between forceful, civil disagreement and outright disrespect and outright demonization --- and the people in this video completely blew past that line. To call someone who is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest living sages extremely wicked and to use the epithet "y'mach sh'mo" -- an epithet reserved for only the most reviled people in history is, in my humble opinion, completely and utterly beyond the pale.
I can't help but think that their version of "shivim panim laTorah" (that there are seventy facets to the Torah) is similar to Henry Ford's idea of choice of color for the Model-T -- the customer can "have any color so long as it's black." It's one thing to believe that your path is legitimate. It's quite something else to believe that only your own narrow ideology is correct and that anyone even slightly outside it is not just wrong, but a wicked person whose name deserved to be wiped out.
Interestingly enough, I see the same thing happening in other places as well. For example, in a recent thread on the YWN Coffeeroom, a discussion cropped up about the recent earthquake and Hurricane Irene both hitting the northeastern United States in such close proximity. Some posters felt that there was a Divine message there. One poster (ronrsr) stated that it was mere coincidence. Another poster decided to attack that position by saying:
sorry, ronrsr, to call this a coincidence is pure apikorsus
Let's leave aside the fact that that ronrsr's respondent clearly doesn't know what constitutes apikorsus. What disturbs me far more than his ignorance is the fact that the respondent sees no possible middle ground between his own opinion and heresy. In his eyes, it seems, it's not possible to simply be wrong (let alone have an alternate, legitimate opinion). Instead of being incorrect, his disputant has to be labelled as an apikorus -- possibly the worst designation you can give to a Jew.
Whatever happened to the idea of respectful disagreement? Whatever happened to the idea that someone could be wrong but they don't have to be demonized? In short, what ever happened to common civility?
The Wolf
* I personally don't know enough about the issue to say whether Rav Shteinman is right or wrong on the issue. The issue here is not whether Rav Shteinman is right or wrong, just that it is within the realm of possibility that he is wrong.
11 comments:
"what ever happned to ..... respect, civility..."
was there ever a time when that was commonplace amongst our people?
> Let's leave aside the fact that that ronrsr's respondent clearly doesn't know what constitutes apikorsus
Technically speaking it was actually apikorsus as we hold that nothing simply happens by chance, everything is part of "the plan". Far better to say "We can't possibly know the reason but we should all work on being as good a people as we can in the meantime".
> was there ever a time when that was commonplace amongst our people?
Probably when the original 12 brothers were still quite young.
As for the Satmar/NK's, this is again another good example of how we need a right border to what is considered Orthodox just like we have a left border which, if you proceed beyond it, you are no longer in "the club". Satmar and the NK's have, for decades (if not centuries) exemplied unJewish and anti-halachic behaviour cloaked in extreme self-righteousness.
"This past Tisha B'Av, a group of Chassidim (I believe they were Neturai Karta, but I could be wrong about that)"
You must be wrong. NK aren't Chasidish. The NK are actually Litvish. They come from the Talmidei HaGRA that emigrated to Eretz Yisroel in the first Yishuv. NK davens Nusach Ashkenaz.
Your quoted comment from the YWN Coffeeroom is not, as you indicate, someone calling someone else an apikorsus. Rather it is saying that the statement calling something coincidental is apikorsus. There is a fine distinction.
It's on the endangered species list
> Let's leave aside the fact that that ronrsr's respondent clearly doesn't know what constitutes apikorsus
>Technically speaking it was actually apikorsus as we hold that nothing simply happens by chance, everything is part of "the plan". Far better to say "We can't possibly know the reason but we should all work on being as good a people as we can in the meantime".
Actually, no. There are many traditional schools of thought that do allow for coincidence. "We" don't hold anything. Torah sages throughout the centuries have had many opinions on this subject. For example, the Rambam holds that hashgacha pratis only applies to those of extremely special merit.
Wolf: They aren't NK. נטורי חרתא is but one group of the many European antisemites who made their way to Israel simply because they are technically Jewish.
Garnel:
>Technically speaking it was actually apikorsus as we hold that nothing simply happens by chance.
When did they vote the geonim and the RaMBaM out of "we"? Hashgacha klalis has long been a part of the Jewish tradition.
>Probably when the original 12 brothers were still quite young.
You're being very optimistic, Garnel. Have you ever seen a bunch of little kids go at it?
Dovid: Today's NK are not R' Amram Blau's perushim.
IS: Another group of European antisemites who made their way to Israel simply because they are technically Jewish were the Zionists.
these are the pple that speak with amalek. they are really not pple. they are animals. couldn't care less. how can they badmouth rav shteinman? that's amalek for you.
there is plenty of civilty about but sadly, you hardly find it among those wearing black and white clothing. probably best to hang out with another gang.
I think it's apikorsus to say that it happened for a specific reason.
Post a Comment