With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

There are many that have said that the recent bans promulgated by the Gedolim (i.e. Rabbi Slifkin, the Lipa concert, The Making of a Gadol and now Vos Iz Neias among others) have caused the stature of the Gedolim to become far less relevant and important today.  To some extent, that is true -- the mishandling of some of these bans has exposed the flaws in the process of some of their recent halachic rulings and has damaged the reputation of the Gedolim among the general populace. 

Nonetheless, as evidenced by what happened with some of the cases mentioned above, the Gedolim still can be said to have enormous power.  They can bring pressure to bear on people and events which can lead to loss of money, public embarrassment and communal shunning.  The ability to bring such pressure to bear is an enormous power -- one that must be wielded with extreme care.  I would think that if one has the ability to wreck a person's life, that ability should only be wielded with extreme care and great trepidation.  The power to do such is a great power -- and, as Uncle Ben reminded Spider-Man, with great power comes great responsibility.

Do the Gedolim have a responsibility to us?  I believe they do.  Any leader has a responsibility to the people that he or she leads.  If a Gadol (or anyone else for that matter) is going to assume the power to greatly affect the lives of others, then he must be responsible to make sure that that power is used wisely and appropriately.  There must be safeguards, checks and balances to make sure that the power is being used properly -- and those wielding the power must be responsible to make sure that those safeguards, checks and balances are in place.

Sadly, today, there are no such checks and balances.  We have recently seen how the current edifice of halachic decision making is flawed and that the leaders (perhaps unintentionally, but still disasterously) have shirked their responsibilities.   Those responsibilities include the following:

The responsibility to adequately investigate the facts and circumstances before making a ruling.


If a Gadol is going to issue a ruling that will impact a person (and all the more so if the impact is going to cause a severe loss of money or prestige), he has a responsibility to independently investigate the circumstances surrounding the case.  This includes contacting the people affected and giving them a chance to adequately respond.

We saw this responsibility cast aside numerous times.  The Gedolim who signed on the ban against Lipa's concert were told that there was going to be mixed dancing (among other misinformation) at the event.  At no point did any of the Gedolim who signed on the ban even so much as pick up a phone and call Lipa or one of the event organizers to determine if this was true (it wasn't -- there wasn't even going to be mixed seating).  The same thing occurred with Rabbi Slifkin -- he was phoned (not by any of the Gedolim who signed on the ban against his books) and told that he had hours to retract his books and was not given any real chance to respond.  In addition, the ban against his books was signed, in many cases, by those who did not even read the book.

Another aspect of this responsibility is the responsibility to not simply rely on the signature of another Gadol when deciding whether or not to sign on to a halachic decision of considerable importance, scope and effect.  If Gadol X signs on a document, I should have the right to assume that Gadol X has actually looked into the matter and came to the decision himself.  If, however, Gadol X is signing on the document only because Gadol Y signed, then what is really the value of the signature?  To say that he trusts Gadol Y?  We already knew that he probably did.  In the end, you get documents where twenty or thirty Gedolim sign, but only one or two probably actually gave any real, serious thought to the decision at hand.  If so, is it really twenty or thirty Gedolim issuing a decision?  No it's not -- it's merely one or two making the decision.  In the end, however, I believe that if a Gadol is going to sign on a document, they have an absolute responsibility to investigate the matter for themselves.  If I'm to be told to obey a document because Gadol X signed, I have the right to be assured that Gadol X actually did his due diligence to investigate the case -- and not rely on the word of a third party -- even that of a fellow Gadol.

A Gadol has, in my humble opinion, an absolute responsibility to do his utmost to ascertain the facts of a situation before issuing a ruling on it.  It's not reasonable to expect a Gadol to get every fact correct every time -- they are only human and sometimes mistakes will be made -- but they must do their absolute best to make sure they have the facts of the situation before issuing a ruling. If the Gedolim are going to fail in their responsibility to investigate the facts (including all sides), then how can we have a responsibility to listen to their words?

The responsibility to avoid even the appearance of manipulation by those with agendas.

If a Gadol's ruling is to have any meaning, it must be clear that it is a fair ruling.  If people perceive that the ruling was manipulated or engineered by those who have a particular axe to grind or agenda to push, many people will simply ignore the ruling.

I find it extremely ironic that a Dayan (judge) in a Bais Din must take great pains to figuratively bend over backwards to avoid even the appearance of manipulation or favoritism in a court case involving a lousy five dollars, but when it comes to public policy that affect wide swaths of the community on a far grander scale, no such impartiality is enforced.  It will all too well known that many of the now-infamous halachic decisions that have been handed down lately (including, according to several reports, the recent ban on Vos Iz Neias) were engineered by parties with a particular political, monetary or ideological grudges against others.  It is, in my humble opinion, the absolute responsibility of a Gadol to make sure that his decisions are not only arrived at in a fair manner without undue influence, but that they also don't even have the appearance of manipulation by insiders or outsiders.  If a simple five-dollar case in Bais Din requires this, I would think that it's a no-brainer that major halachic and public policy decisions requires the same -- and in this, the Gedolim have failed.

The responsibility to clearly elucidate their rulings including defining the parameters of those rulings, the process of how the question came before them and the process of how they arrived at their decisions.


A Gadol who issues a ruling has a responsibility to make the ruling as transparent as possible.  That includes not only clearly defining the parameters of his ruling (i.e. in what circumstances does it apply and under what circumstances does it not apply), but also on what facts and assumptions the ruling relies, how he came to make the ruling in the first place (this is a part of maintaining the appearance of independence from manipulation) and upon which sources he relies to make his rulings.  The saying "sunshine is the best disinfectant" is wholly applicable here -- a Gadol who is not being manipulated by others and is making his best effort to issue a correct ruling has no reason to fear being completely transparent about the factors that go into his decision.  Allowing people to see how the decision was arrived at will increase people's confidence that the ruling is impartial and correctly arrived at.

The responsibility to ensure that their rulings can be verified by the general public.

Rav Elyashiv has been famously quoted as saying that there are so many rulings being issued in his name that are not, in fact, from him that unless you hear from him directly (or see it in a responsible Torah journal or legitimate sefer) that you can assume it's false.

While I can applaud Rav Elyashiv for his honesty in this matter, I believe that he (and other Gedolim) have absolutely abdicated a fundamental responsibility that accompanies power -- the responsibility to ensure that forgeries are not issued in their name.

This is something that is extremely important.  The government takes great pains to try to shut down counterfeiters -- not necessarily because their efforts might devalue the currency (although that can be a factor) but also because counterfeiters, by definition, usurp power that the government alone has -- the power to print currency.  Likewise, one of the most carefully guarded objects of rulers of old was their signet rings and seals -- not because they liked to wear rings or have pretty designs made in wax -- but because such objects actually conveyed power to those who wielded them.  If you saw an edict sealed with seal of the king, such an edict was extremely likely to be obeyed, whether the king actually endorsed the edict or not.   It's not for no reason that the writer of Megillas Esther focuses on the fact that the king gave his ring to Haman -- the one who wielded the ring truly wielded the power.  A ruler or leader who does not actively take steps to find, stop and punish those who wrongly usurp their power is no true leader, since it is difficult (if not impossible) to determine which of their edicts are proper and legal.

While the Gedolim may not have signet rings and seals, they have, in my humble opinion, utterly failed at the responsibility to protect the validity of their rulings.  By allowing word of their rulings to spread by word of mouth and broadsheet, they allow far too many opportunities for other people to either put their own spin on their rulings or, worse, make up rulings for them out of whole cloth. 

I find it utterly incomprehensible that in today's day and age, we still disseminate rabbinical rulings by word of mouth and by posters plastered on walls.  Oddly enough, I think that the World Wide Web is an ideal medium for the Gedolim to issue their rulings.  If a Gadol had his own website under his firm control, he could post his rulings there -- and people would be able to be reasonably confident that the ruling was, in fact, issued by the Gadol who owns the site.  In addition since "space" and "paper" are not true issues on the Web, the Gadol can expand on his ruling as much as necessary to cover some of the other points I made in this post. Even if the Gadol in question did not want to get involved with the Web, there is always the option of having an automated telephone system where people can call and hear a recording of the Gadol saying something to the effect of "yes, I issued this ruling, these are the parameters, this is how I came to the decision, etc.  The Gadol, of course, would have to be vigilant in ensuring that only content he approves of goes up on the site or the telephone system (the site/telephone system, in effect, becomes his signet-ring) - but as I mentioned earlier, an essential part of having the power to issue rulings is the responsibility to protect the integrity of those rulings.  Failure to do so results in an open invitation to having the very validity of the rulings he issues questioned, disregarded and, ultimately, ignored.

The responsibility to be able to make independent decisions regardless of the personal consequences and free from communal pressure.

This responsibility is perhaps the most important responsibility that a Gadol has and yet, at the same time, the one that may be the hardest for him to make because of the potential personal cost involved.

In the United States, justices to the Supreme Court are appointed and, failing any misconduct on their part, maintain their positions for life.  There is an important reason for this lifetime appointment -- the need to maintain an independent judiciary.  It is vitally important that, if a decision is to be a correct one (meaning free of political pressures and based strictly upon the law and his or her interpretation of it) then it is important that they not be subject to recall based on those decisions.  You may argue with how successful the implementation of this has been (both conservatives and liberals can probably quote numerous cases where they feel that judges ruled based on their political biases rather than the law*), but the principle is sound.  When a correct decision needs to be made, it has to be free from political pressure.

This also needs to apply to the Gedolim as well.  If a Gadol is going to issue a ruling, it is his responsibility (as I mentioned above) to ensure that the ruling is fair and not manipulated or engineered.  However, it also has to be free from personal considerations as well, including those of power and prestige.

Unfortunately, it is all too apparent that in many cases, Gedolim sometimes make decisions because it's the popular decision to make and one that will appease the masses.  Jonathan Rosenblum, in an article about a year ago, made the point very clearly.  In discussing why there would be no public statement regarding a possible change in communal policy, he says the following:

There is another reason that there will be no such public statements. Any such statement would be met with vicious attacks by the “kenaim,” who would say about the gadol in question precisely what KollelGuy asks me: Who are you? The Chazon Ish did not say what you are saying; Rav Shach did not say it.” Perhaps KollelGuy remembers the attacks on one of the Sages he mentions for his tacit support of Nahal Chareidi. (Even Rav Shach used to say that he was afraid of the stone-throwers.) One of the members of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of the United States told me recently that the gedolim cannot even discuss questions surrounding poverty because if they did the “street” would just label them fake gedolim.

In other words, there are cases where the Gedolim are afraid to make a correct ruling (or public policy decision) because it would mean the possible loss of their positions as Gedolim.   Even if you put aside the fact that this causes their rulings to smack of corruption (even if there is, in fact, no corruption in any particular ruling), this undermines the whole point of having Gedolim determine public policy to begin with.  Of what value is there to have a Gadol make a determination if there is a possibility that the determination is rooted in his fear of being labeled a "fake Gadol?"  Aren't we relying on them to give us true rulings?  If their rulings can be influenced by "the street," then how can anyone trust their rulings?

I'll admit that it's not easy to ask any person (Gadol or not) to put their positions on the line when they are faced with making an unpopular ruling.  But part of being a true and responsible leader is to take responsibility for your leadership decisions.  If the cost of a true ruling is the loss of personal power and prestige (i.e. by being labeled a "fake Gadol") then perhaps that's the price you must pay.  If a person is going to accept the awesome responsibility to wield the power to ruin lives, then he must also be willing to take the responsibility to stand up and assure the people that his decision is correct, even if it comes with personal consequences.  Failure to do so simply means that the inmates are running the asylum.

If one is going to posit that the Gedolim have the power to make important communal and halachic decisions and that we, the general populace, have a responsibility to follow their decisions, then they have a responsibility to make sure that their rulings are factual, informed, fair, honest, clear, verifiable and free from manipulations, agendas and communal pressure.

The Wolf



*  But then again, if both sides feel this way, perhaps it's right after all...

Sit Down, Shut Up and Don't Question

An editorial appeared today on Matzav.com concerning whether or not it is acceptable to publicly question "da'as torah" or the words of the gedolim. The editorial, written by Shmuel Miskin, is in response to an post that appeared on The Lakewood Scoop.

Beth Medrash Govoha (the big yeshiva in Lakewood) has a policy that prohibits its students from going to Blue Claws games (the Lakewood Blue Claws are Class-A affiliate of the Philadelphia Phillies). An anonymous author (M.E.) wrote to the Lakewood Scoop wondering if BMG might consider loosening the ban on Blue Claws games in light of the fact that people today need a "kosher" outlet -- more so than the past.

To be fair, I know next to nothing about the Blue Claws, BMG or the restriction -- but then again, that's not really the point here. M.E. may have a point that the restriction should be lifted or he may be utterly and completely wrong. It's all beside the point for the purpose of this discussion.

Shmuel Miskin, in his editorial, takes offense that someone has dared to even ask a question publicly about the ban. M.E., in his post, was not critical or disrespectful of the yeshiva administration. He wasn't even saying that the yeshiva should rescind the ban -- he merely brought up the question. But apparently, even that's unacceptable for Shmuel Miskin -- his view (unless I read the editorial wrong) is that even asking a question in public about policy change is wrong, disrespectful and "nothing less than a Chillul HaShem." Our lot is simply to accept the rules and shut up.*

But what if the rules are wrong? Yes, I know that some people may not be able to accept the fact that gedolim can possibly make an error -- but I'm not addressing people who believe in the Jewish version of papal infallibility. We have, unfortunately, seen time and again that there can be instances when gedolim base their decisions on incorrect information, are harried and/or manipulated into making decisions without properly reviewing all the facts. Sometimes, they can make the right decision and, due to the laws of unintended consequences, still have it turn into a disaster. And sometimes, a gadol may just may be plain wrong. So, if you believe that a decision is wrong for any one of the above reasons (or perhaps for another reason altogether) -- and it's a public policy decision that affects many people -- then why shouldn't it be subject to public debate? If something affects me, should I not have a right to speak my voice on the matter -- even if in the end I am overruled? Or am I a sheep whose job is to simply follow the shepherd without so much as a bleat of independent thought?

I am a firm believer in civil debate. I believe that if you're going to debate someone on an issue, s/he deserves to be addressed civilly and with respect** -- and that certainly goes all the more so for the gedolim. It's unfortunate that some may abuse the idea of respectful debate and start calling the gedolim names and otherwise denigrating them; but I don't believe that because some abuse a system that all have to suffer. If you follow that path, then no one should be allowed to own a knife or a car. But there should be no reason at all to disallow respectful questioning on public policy in public.

In some respects, it may be sad that the world of passive acceptance of the words of the gedolim without question has passed us by -- but it is a product of a bygone world. Sadly, since the gedolim have shown that they can err (and do so very publicly), there has to be a mechanism in place to allow for the respectful questioning (and yes, in public) of those public policy decisions that affect us.

The Wolf

* Yes, he does allow for private questioning, but I think that, at least with some gedolim, my chance of getting an audience is close to nil.

* *Of course, there are those that hold that the very act of disagreeing is disrespectful; but I obviously don't hold of that position.

Are The Inmates Running The Asylum?

R. Jonathan Rosenblum has a column on Cross Currents dealing with the issue of whether or not the current kollel situation is sustainable in light of the crushing poverty that it brings to the chareidi Israeli community. In it, he argues that the "everyone in kollel" was meant to rebuild the Jewish community that was destroyed by the Holocaust and that, at this point, that task is complete. Perhaps the time has come, he argues, to tell people to go to work and that only the best and the brightest, the ones who are willing to dedicate themselves to serving the community and who have the potential to be the next generation of leaders be allowed to continue in kollel indefinitely.

One reader took him to task on this asking if his position is backed up by any of the current gedolim. R. Rosenblum noted that there was no such proclamation from the gedolim and he provided two reasons for that. The second reason is as follows:

There is another reason that there will be no such public statements. Any such statement would be met with vicious attacks by the “kenaim,” who would say about the gadol in question precisely what KollelGuy asks me: Who are you? The Chazon Ish did not say what you are saying; Rav Shach did not say it.” Perhaps KollelGuy remembers the attacks on one of the Sages he mentions for his tacit support of Nahal Chareidi. (Even Rav Shach used to say that he was afraid of the stone-throwers.) One of the members of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of the United States told me recently that the gedolim cannot even discuss questions surrounding poverty because if they did the “street” would just label them fake gedolim.

I find this rather frightening. I thought central idea of chareidi life was that they are supposed to listen to the words of the gedolim. If the gedolim are afraid to express their opinions about the right and wrong derech, then of what value are they? We might as well just have mob rule (or is that, in effect, what we have already?).

Now, this may sound a bit strange coming from me. After all, a while ago, I suggested that the gedolim need to be accountable to their constituents. But I think that there is a qualitative difference between what I called for and what is going on (according to R. Rosenblum) in chareidi society.

I don't necessarily have a problem with a gadol saying that X is forbidden or that Y is bad -- provided that he can explain to us why it is so. In short, the days of a gadol saying "X is assur" and leaving it at that are done and gone. Today's public needs to be informed as to the reasons behind the decrees of the gedolim if they are going to listen to them. But in the end, I expect a gadol to speak up if he feels something needs to be said for the good of the community -- whether popular or unpopular. If he feels that everyone needs to be in kollel, then he has to say so -- and articulate why. If he feels that the kollel system we have now is crushing the populace and unsustainable, then he needs to say so -- regardless of the consequences -- and, again, articulate why that's the case. But a gadol who is afraid to speak for fear of losing his position and is willing to allow countless people to continue suffering from crushing poverty for the sake of not being labeled a "fake gadol" is already a fake gadol.

The Wolf

OK, But Why Is It Forbidden?

Yeshiva World News is reporting that several rabbanim in Israel (including Rav Wosner, Rav Eliyashiv and others) have ruled that one is not permitted to use Shabbos elevators. In their statement, they state that using such elevators on Shabbos violates an issur d'orissa (a Torah prohibition -- as opposed to a "mere" rabbinic prohibition).

The decree states that the ruling was reached after consulting with technicians and engineers that work on such systems. Personally, that's fine... I'm glad to see that the rabbonim are doing due diligience to ascertain the halacha (although please see the comment by Rav Rosen of the Zomet Institute in the original article). However, I was disappointed to see that there was no actual explaination given for the decree.

I know that there are some of you who will scream and yell "Rav Wosner doesn't owe you an explaination! He knows more Torah in his pinky than you'll know in your lifetime..." On the surface, I suppose that's true. Rav Wosner et al don't owe me an explanation. They don't *have* to tell me how they arrived at their conclusion that Shabbos elevators are forbidden.

Nonetheless, I think that an explaination of how the ruling was arrived at would be highly beneficial for several reasons:

1. It will increase compliance. Let's face it, today we're living in a world where you can freely choose to listen to the gedolim or ignore them. There will be those who will blindly listen to Rav Wosner and those who will choose to ignore him and continue using the elevators. But there's also a group in the middle - a group that won't blindly listen to the gedolim because of past (real or imagined) instences of "chumra abuse," but will listen to them where there are sound halachic reasons to do so. They may look at this latest decree as merely another chumra (despite the fact that the decree says it's an issur d'orissa) and choose to ignore it -- but when presented with solid halachic and technical grounds for observing it, they will do so. This will especially be the case where observing the ban will cause a great hardship -- infirm people who will, effectively, become prisioners in their homes for Shabbos or visitors to hospitals and other such institutions.

2. It will encourage Torah learning. When people see a decree like this, it's basically a "black box" type of decree -- you know that technical and halachic details went into the box, but you have no idea how the output (the ruling) was generated. As such, as a tool for Torah learning, it is very poor.* It could be made a much greater tool for Torah learning if the inner workings of the box were exposed and people could see how the ruling was arrived at.

3. It could result in a reversal. I know I'm going to tread on what some would consider to be hallowed ground here but, let's face it -- for all their learning (which is, by any measure, extremely great), there is the possibility that Rav Wosner et al made an error. By allowing for others to see how the ruling was arrived at, it's possible that someone could spot something or think of a possibility that Rav Wosner et al missed. I would think that especially in a case like this, where the ruling is going to cause significant hardships for some, that would want to possibly find ways to permit the use of these elevators if at all possible. By allowing more people to see the ruling, you allow a greater chance of finding just such a hetter that Rav Wosner can then consider.

There are those who will argue that it's demeaning to the gedolim to demand that they explain their rulings. There are those who will say that to do so is to possibly lead to a denigration of the gedolim by those who don't agree with their position.

To them I simply say to open up a copy of the Igros Moshe to almost page. Therein, one will find how R. Moshe Feinstein took pains to not only provide rulings on questions, but to explain those rulings, sometimes in painful detail. It was not beneath R. Moshe to do so... and even when people disagree with his rulings, it's done with respect. I don't see any reason why today's gedolim should be any different. For the reasons I listed above, I believe a reason should be given as to why shabbos elevators are forbidden. It doesn't have to be highly technical or highly detailed, but it should be enough that a person with a decent yeshiva background should be able to understand the ruling and "replicate" the results themselves.

The Wolf

* Yes, I know the ruling wasn't designed to be a Torah-teaching tool. But is there any real reason why it shouldn't be?

But There Is No Joy In Askanville, For the Mighty Banners Have Struck Out!

I'm sure that most of you remember the debacle that occurred last year concerning Lipa Schmeltzer's "Big Event" concert. For the few that don't remember, or are new here, I'll quickly recap:

Lipa Schmeltzer arranged to have a concert in Madison Square Garden in New York last March. Most (all?) of the profits were going to go to a tzedaka organization in Israel that (IIRC) helps orphans in Eretz Yisroel.

Some askanim who, it seems, have it in personally for Lipa, went around to several of the gedolim and lied about his concert. They reportedly told the gedolim that there was going to be mixed dancing (lie: there was even separate seating!) and who knows what would go on. This was all done less than a month before concert. The gedolim, upon hearing this, signed a ban on the concert without trying to ascertain for themselves if the information they were being given was truthful, without reaching out to Lipa to get his side of the story or without even consulting with one another. In short, 33 signatures were obtained and the ban was published. In the end, Lipa had to cancel the concert. Since this happened right before the concert was to occur, there were a great losses to Lipa and his partners -- not to mention the fact that the tzedaka organization in Eretz Yisroel lost out. To my knowledge (and I may be wrong), Lipa and his partners have not been reimbursed for their losses.

In the end, R. Shmuel Kamenetzky, one of the signers of the ban, to his credit, admitted that proper procedures were not followed and that the ban last year was a mistake.

Well, Lipa decided to hold another concert this year. As was the case with last year's concert, the date of the concert was well-known long in advance. And, sure enough, the banners tried it again this year. However, this year, they failed. Miserably.

The askanim managed to get some signatures for a ban, but by the time they got their act together, it was far too late -- the concert was pretty much sold out, some of the original banners refused to sign and it seems like no one is going to listen to the banners. Once again the banners decided to try to have the concert cancelled at the last minute, but this time, thank goodness they failed.

There's a particular aspect of this that bothers me - and it's not the ban itself. I personally don't listen to Lipa's music, so I can't honestly and in good conciense say that it's good or bad for Jews to listen to. So, if you feel that the music is spiritually harmful, then by all means say something -- that's your right. What bothers me the most about this whole ugly affair is the way the ban was carried out last year and the way it was attempted again this year.

In both cases, the concerts were heavily advertised well in advance. If anyone had any objections to the music, the venue, the seating or any other aspect of the event, they could have spoken up well in advance. But the banners decided to wait until the last minute before making their move. Because they waited for the last minute, the gedolim could not investigate the true story behind the concert and Lipa and his partners lost a great deal of money from the cancellation. I believe (and yes, it's only my opinion) that this was done on purpose.

The same thing occured this year. Again, the concert date was known well in advance. And again, the banners didn't raise their ugly heads until the last minute. Rather than standing up for their principles in the right way, they again chose the underhanded and cowardly way of going about their business. And this time they lost. The concert is going on as planned and, as I hear it, it's likely to be a packed house.

The Wolf

EDIT: Upon further review, I think the word "kanoi" works better than "askan" in this post. There are plenty of askanim for the Jewish community who are wonderful individuals who selflessly give of their time and money. However, since I put it in the title, I can't easily change it. But you all know what I mean.

The Wolf

Mistakes of the Past Come Back To Haunt

Firstly, I'd like to thank everyone who wished me well when I was feeling ill earlier this week. I had been under the weather to one degree or another since the previous week, but Tuesday was, by far, the worst day. Normally, I fast extremely well, but Tuesday was such torture for me that by 1:00, I had to give it up. I ended up eating on a fast day for the first time since my Bar Mitzvah -- truly a weird experience. Baruch HaShem, I am feeling much better now. Now, on to business...

HaMercaz is reporting that R. Shmuel Kamenetzky is not objecting to Lipa's new concert. I suppose that's a good thing. The article goes on to discuss the events surrounding the cancellation of Lipa's "The Big Event" last year. In the article R. Kamenetzky is quoted as saying that people are upset about the cancellation from last year, and he doesn't understand why.

What's difficult to understand is why R. Kamenetzky doesn't understand the reason for people's anger. After admitting that he signed the banning document in undue haste, that the rabbonim did not follow the standard procedure for deciding on such matters and that they did not do due diligence in investigating the circumstances surrounding the concert which resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars for the concert's organizers and the loss of revenue for a worthwhile charity, I would think that he would understand why people are upset.

If people are going to entrust our rabbonim with the power to decide that certain events are permitted or prohibited, it is encumbent upon those very same rabbonim to investigate the matter before making a decision with large finanical consequences for many people. Had the rabbonim done their best to investigate the matter and gotten it wrong, I think that not so many people would be upset -- none one (including the rabbonim) are perfect and they, like everyone else, can make mistakes. But when they make important decisions without performing a diligent investigation into the matter, that's when people get upset. People expect leadership based on facts and information. People will accept if a rav says assur (prohibited) or muttur (permitted), provided that the decision is based upon a proper review of the facts surrounding the situation. But when the rabbonim "wing it" (so to speak) and make decisions based on a lack of information (or worse, biased and blatently false information), that's when people rightly become upset. To quote Stan Lee: with great power comes great responsibility. If a gadol is given the power to make important decision, then he has to be responsible for the inputs that goes into those decisions.

And, of course, the damage to Lipa is still ongoing. In the article, R. Kamenetzky relates the following:

“Last night I was at a certain affair,” R' Kamenetzky said on Monday. “Reb Lipa had to come there for some reason. He sang. And someone came over with Tainas to me. And I said, as far as I know there is no problem with letting him sing. As far as I know he is an Ehrliche Yid.”

The Wolf

Related Posts:
The Big Event Cancelleation: Lipa Says The Rabbanim Were Lied To (linked to in the post)
The Gedolim And How They Relate To The Common Person

Questions About The New Lakewood Ban

Blog In Dm points us to a news article on HaMercaz about a play for women that was banned in Lakewood yesterday. There were two things about this ban that were very unusual.

Firstly, it was delivered by autodialer. A machine called up homes in Lakewood to advise people that the Roshei Yeshiva in Lakewood had banned the performance.

The second unusual factor about the ban was it was announced right before showtime. Literally.
According to the article, the phone calls were made after 8:00pm on the night of the performance. Most people had already left their homes by then.

Blog in Dm makes the valid point that there is absolutely no reason in the world why this ban should have been issued at the last minute. Much like the ban against the "Big Event" in March, the event was well-advertised ahead of time and that if one was going to ban it, it should have been banned well in advance. Banning it on the night of the performance is inexcusable and laughable.

To me, however, the whole thing just doesn't pass the "smell test." There are just too many troubling questions here. Some of the questions I have are:

1. Was this for real? Did the Roshei Yeshiva really ban the concert just hours before showtime (or at all), or is this someone's idea of a sick joke? Or was it an attempt by someone with an agenda to sabotage the event without the approval of the Roshei Yeshiva? After all, anyone with the proper equipment can set up an autodialer.

2. If the ban is real, who described the planned event to the Roshei Yeshiva and what, exactly, did they say would happen at the event. How accurately was the program depicted to the Roshei Yeshiva? The phone call didn't say why the show was banned, only giving a vauge "not in the spirit of tznius."

3. Were the organizers of the event given an opportunity to defend the show? Were they even consulted? Or did the meeting and banning happen entirely behind their backs?

4. Why weren't we told exactly why the show was banned? What, specifically, is objectionable?

5. Why was the ban issued at the last minute? Why wasn't this talked about and any possible objections brought to the fore in the weeks preceeding the event?

There are probably other questions that can be asked as well. I'm curious if anyone knows the answers to these questions.

The Wolf

Related Posts:
The Gedolim and How They Relate To The Common Person
Do The Gedolim Understand the Nature of Today's Orthodox Jewish Community?
One Final Note On the Lipa Concert

Infallible Gedolim Or Just A Looney Letter?

I'm sorry folks. I know it seems like I'm beating a dead horse but I can rarely resist when I see letters like this.

This week's Letters to the Editor of the Jewish Press contains a letter that is just so irrational and full of silly logic that I just have to step in and say something. Here's the letter verbatim:

Re the criticism leveled by readers at the banning of the Lipa Schmeltzer concert (Letters, March 21):

Whatever happened to “naaseh v’nishmah” or “kiymu v’kiblu”? Whatever happened to listening to daas Torah and emunas chachomim? Chazal say the common sense of people is the opposite of the wisdom of the chachomim.

The same rabbonim who pasken on whether the chickens we eat are treif are now paskening on whether our entertainment is treif. We trust them for kashrus – why not for our ruchnius? Perhaps we should have a mashgiach’s hechsher haskomah on our “kosher” entertainment, especially when we expose our children to it. Why can’t we have kosher concerts with completely separate seating with mechitzas and shomrim for tznius? We sit separately in shul and at simchas – why not at concerts?

It was a complete chillul Hashem that this story leaked out to The New York Times. The secular world does not have to see us degrade our rabbonim by calling them “dictators.” They are infallible! These gedolim from across the spectrum are very responsible, caring, concerned, sincere tzaddikim who worry 24/7 about our hashkafa – our ruchnius and our gashmius.

The cancelled concert was billed as “The Big Event.” The real Big Event for B’nai Yisroel was Mattan Torah at Har Sinai, when we accepted our zekainim our leaders, our daas Torah. We have to listen to our gedolim even when we have questions. If Chazal say it’s night, we must trust them even if it’s really day.

These rabbonim help people day and night with agunas, almonos, yesomim, shidduchim, children at risk, chinuch, parnossah etc. They daven for us and make time for us to answer our questions, solve our problems, etc. There’s an aveirah min haTorah of “Lo sosur m’divrei chachomim” – which applies even when we disobey the chachomim in our days. If we’re not going to obey our elders, why should our children respect us when they disagree?

On Purim, the Jews did teshuvah for disobeying Mordechai and once again accepted his leadership and decisions. Let us reestablish our own commitment to our chachomim, our gedolim, our tzaddikim, our rebbes.

Oy. Where to start? Well, I suppose we can start at the beginning:

Whatever happened to “naaseh v’nishmah” or “kiymu v’kiblu”?

Sorry, but when the Jews said "na'aseh v'nishma" they said it specifically on things that were coming from God, not from Moshe. In fact, having learned about the Dor HaMidbar (the Generation of the Wilderness), I'm always willing to bet dollars to donuts that they were only willing to accept what God gave them. Had Moshe said "oh, and I have this 614th mitzvah for you as well" they would have rejected it out of hand (the prohibition of Bal Tosif [adding commandments] notwithstanding).

Whatever happened to listening to daas Torah and emunas chachomim? Chazal say the common sense of people is the opposite of the wisdom of the chachomim.

Sorry, but "Emunas Chachomim" has never meant completely shutting off your brains and literally following the gedolim without seeking to understand why they rule as they do.

The same rabbonim who pasken on whether the chickens we eat are treif are now paskening on whether our entertainment is treif. We trust them for kashrus – why not for our ruchnius?

There is a very good reason why we should not trust the rabbanim on this issue (at least specifically with regard to the Lipa concert). When I bring a chicken to a rav and he rules trief, I know that I can be reasonably assured of four things: (a) he will actually look at the chicken in question and base the decision on his own findings (b) I can also inspect the chicken and look up the halachos and also determine that the chicken is treif, (c) if I take it to another rav, the overwhelming likelihood is that he, too, will say it's treif and (d) if I bring another identical chicken to the rav, he will give an identical ruling.

That's not the case here. The Lipa Schmeltzer concert was banned based on false information, rumor and innuendo. The gedolim (to the best of my knowledge and according to published reports) did not so much and pick up the phone and contact the organizers of the concert or the performers to find out if the rumors they were hearing were true or not. They simply took the word of the instigators and relied on that without any further efforts. In other words, they didn't even look at the chicken.

In addition, I know that if I bring my rav a chicken, I can ask him *why* the chicken is treif. I can ask him to show me where in the Shulchan Aruch or later authorities it says that it is treif. In other words, I can ask him what the basis for the ruling was. No real basis for the ruling was given in the kol koreh that was distributed.

The biggest problem, however, is the last item I mentioned above. There have been countless other concerts in the past that have gone on, some with mixed seating and some with separate seating, without any problem. In addition, there are concerts coming up in the future that have both mixed-seating and separate seating sections and there is no kol koreh concerning them. Why not? If one of the criteria for a concert being "bad" is the presence of mixed seating (as indicated later in the letter) then why haven't the 33 rabbanim who signed the previous kol koreh against Lipa also signing one against the upcoming Miami Boys Choir concert? In short, if a rav rules my chicken treif and then one that is more obviously trief is ruled kosher without explaining why, then I *have* to question the rav's judgement. Of course, if he can tell me the reasons for his ruling, then that's a different story. But that's not what is happening here.

Why can’t we have kosher concerts with completely separate seating with mechitzas and shomrim for tznius? We sit separately in shul and at simchas – why not at concerts?

The short answer to your question is because there is no halachic requirement to have a mechitza by a concert. If you want to hold to the chumra of separate seating by a concert, then kol hakavod -- but don't force your chumras on me or everyone else.

The even shorter answer is that the Lipa concert had *ony* separate seating -- so don't try to pretend that that's the reason the concert was banned.

It was a complete chillul Hashem that this story leaked out to The New York Times. The secular world does not have to see us degrade our rabbonim by calling them “dictators.”

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... Seriously - if you're suggesting that the gedolim be given the power to dictate every last detail of our lives, then what else would you call them but dictators?!

They are infallible!

I don't know how any rational, thinking person can believe this. I have to conclude that the letter writer is completely ignorant of Jewish history where gedolim who were far, far greater than the current group have made errors - sometimes very grave ones with terrible consequences for the Jewish people as a whole.

Only God is infallible. To suggest that any human being is infallible is bordering on heresy IMHO. He is attempting to ascribe to a human being a quality that God alone has.

These gedolim from across the spectrum

From A to B (okay, maybe from A to D). I didn't see anyone outside the yeshivish/chassidic communities signing the prohibition. Or does the letter writer just assume that people who fall outside the narrow band of the communities represented by the gedolim aren't "Jewish enough" to be included?

are very responsible, caring, concerned, sincere tzaddikim who worry 24/7 about our hashkafa – our ruchnius and our gashmius.

I'm certain that some of them are. But that doesn't make every decision that they make very wise or even correct.

The cancelled concert was billed as “The Big Event.” The real Big Event for B’nai Yisroel was Mattan Torah at Har Sinai, when we accepted our zekainim our leaders, our daas Torah. We have to listen to our gedolim even when we have questions. If Chazal say it’s night, we must trust them even if it’s really day.

You might want to check out the Yerushalmi in Horiyos on that. It says that you should listen to Chazal only when it is correct -- not when they make obvious errors.

These rabbonim help people day and night with agunas, almonos, yesomim, shidduchim, children at risk, chinuch, parnossah etc. They daven for us and make time for us to answer our questions, solve our problems, etc.

That's all true and to their credit. And yet, it's completely irrelevant to the question of their fallibility.

There’s an aveirah min haTorah of “Lo sosur m’divrei chachomim” – which applies even when we disobey the chachomim in our days.

Again, see the Yerushalmi in Horiyos. And I'd like to ask the letter writer the same question that I asked last week -- if a rav told him to do something completely drastic (divorce his wife, move to the Congo, kill his neighbor, send his kids to live with frum strangers on the other side of the country, etc.) would he really then follow up and do so without a second thought or without *any* hesitation?

If we’re not going to obey our elders, why should our children respect us when they disagree?

There's a difference between respect and blind obedience. I respect my father, but if he told me to take my 401(k), cash it out, and invest it in a uranium mine in Asbury Park, or no-cal pizza, I'm not going to do it (unless he can really convince me that it's the right thing to do). We owe our parents respect for the hard work and effort they put into raising us, but not blind obedience. They same applies to the chachamim. They deserve respect for their Torah knowledge and for their efforts to the community; but not blind obedience.

The Wolf

One Final Note On The Lipa Concert

Sometimes it's nice to receive a confirmation of one's words.

A few weeks ago, in this post, I said the following:

In the past, gedolim used to do first-hand research to discover the facts of a situation before they ruled on it. Yes, there were times that they got it right and there were times they got the facts wrong... but at least they tried to get them.

Today, however, it seems that gedolim simply take their cues from neighborhood zealots. They are fed misinformation about a situation causing them to rule on cases that do not exist. I can think of two examples off the top of my head:

a. The concert ban at hand. Chaim, at Life of Rubin, shows how gedolim are fed misinformation to get them to sign onto bans. One person signed only after he told that there would be mixed seating, when, in fact, the concert is separate seating.

b. The ban on Rabbi Slifkin's books. His books were banned by rabannim who, for the most part, had not even read the books. Even three years later, some of his opponents are still seeking to continue the ban (warning: PDF) based on misinformation and distortions of what he said.

We're all familiar the idea of GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out. In order for a posek to make a ruling on an issue, he has to have first-hand knowledge of the facts of the issue. If you're going to ban the circumstances of a concert, at least make sure that the facts are as they've been presented. If you're going to ban a book, at least make sure that the book actually states what you think it states.

This past Shabbos, the rav of my shul spoke and made the *very* same points that I did (and expanded on them a bit). He pointed out that the ban reflected a very severe lack of Ahavas Yisroel on the part of the askanim. After all, had it been their families' monies at stake, would they have pushed for this ban without so much as a phone call? Even if you want to be extremely generous, and state that their actions were l'shem shamayim (for the sake of Heaven -- motivated purely for the religious good), you can still bet that if it were their families monies, they would have at least tried to contact the producers and performers to express their concerns. They certainly wouldn't have had a ban instituted less than three weeks before the performance when the only possible outcome could be an extreme loss of money. The fact that they did this clearly shows a lack of Ahavas Yisroel on their part.

In addition, he also brought up the issue of the ban itself. Since it's apparent that at least some of the signers of the ban didn't have all the facts, he wonders how such a ban could have been signed. When issuing a p'sak (ruling), a rav has to have the facts of the situation. That means that he has to investigate all the details before issuing a ruling. He can't rely on second hand reports from people with axes to grind. Likewise, he pointed out, if you're going to ban a book, you have to make sure that it says what you think it says. You can't rely on a translation from someone who claims that it says something on page X without seeing it for yourself. Now, I should point out that the rav of my shul has been critical of Rabbi Slifkin and his writings -- but at least I know that he's read the books. He's ascertained that they actually say what it is he is critical of. To do anything else, IMHO, is irresponsible.

The Wolf

Do The Gedolim Understand The Nature of Today's Orthodox Jewish Community?

In the aftermath of the BigEvent concert cancellation, BloginDM has an excellent set of questions that need to be answered regarding what transpired. I don't actually expect any of them to be answered anytime soon, but they should still be asked.

In any event, there is one quote that has come out of all this that has troubled me very much. The quote comes from Rabbi Asher Friedman:

"The gedolei yisroel don’t want that issue [to be discussed] on the radio and in newspapers. It doesn’t belong for the public to decide on issues that belong for Da’as Torah.”

In short, this amounts to "shut up, do as we say, and don't ask any questions."

Personally, this attitude troubles me very much. Not so much because it demands unquestioning obedience and unquestioning compliance (which is bad enough) but because it shows a complete ignorance of the reality of the world of today as opposed to the world of a hundred years ago or more.

Specifically, the issue at hand is the assumption that the masses are not only unable to decide these things for themselves, but that they are incapable of even understanding the issues involved. In short, by stating that the issues shouldn't even be discussed in public (let alone decided there), Rabbi Friedman (or maybe even the Gedolim themselves -- I don't know for sure) seem to think that having the public informed of the reasons for the decrees which bind their lives is a Very Bad Thing.^TM

The problem with this approach is that while it might have worked a hundred years or so ago, it does not work today. The fact of the matter is that the laity today is far more knowledgeable and far more sophisticated than the laity of a hundred years ago. It is an ever-shrinking portion of our community who is saying that they will blindly and unquestioningly follow "Da'as Torah." The percentage is smaller today than it was a century ago, then it was fifty years ago, and even smaller than it was ten years ago. The Torah knowledge of the average Orthodox Jew today is much greater than it was back then. A century or more ago, a person took the rabbi's decree without question because they had no practical way to look up the issues involved. Today, thanks to better yeshiva educations, new and better translations of classical works, better communications and the proliferation of shiurim (Torah classes) available to the public, the average Orthodox Jew has a much better chance of looking up and understanding the Rishonim and Acharonim on any particular issue. In short, the average Orthodox Jew is far more "Talmudically literate" than he was a century ago. Whereas in the past, you pretty much had to take a gadol's word on the matter, today you can "double check" his answer and ask questions on your own.

It's the failure of Asher Friedman (and maybe the Gedolim -- although I don't see how they could miss this) to recognize this basic fact that is the most troubling of all. It shows that he (they?) doesn't have a grasp of how Jews today think and how to relate to the Orthodox Jewish community as a whole.

In addition, there is another factor that needs to be taken into consideration -- the fact that we live in the United States of America. One of the most basic ideas of Americanism is that the leaders are accountable to the people that elect them. The President, the Governor, the Mayor -- all of them have bosses -- the voters. If they want to implement a particular policy, they have to (at some level) explain it to us, the voters. Failure to do so is usually a good way to ensure that you don't get re-elected (unless you're in the New York State legislature -- but that's a rant for a different day). This idea (whether you like it or not) is creeping into American Jewish communities. While our gedolim are not elected, per se, they still need to be accountable to us. When they ban concerts, they have to explain why they are banning a concert and what the parameters of the ban are. While they can't be voted out of office for this, they face a worse danger -- being rendered irrelevant. If they can't (or won't) give people good reasons to listen to their decrees, they will find that larger and larger segments of the Orthodox Jewish world will simply tune them out and ignore them. And that would be particularly sad; because it will show that while they may have a great amount of Torah knowledge, they lack a very basic skill of leadership -- learning the needs of your followers and how to make them want to follow you. If you can't get people to follow you, then your relevance as a community leader is greatly diminished - no matter how big of a talmud chacham you might be.

The Wolf

The Gedolim And How They Relate To The Common Person

Last week, Yossi Ginzberg wrote an excellent guest post for this blog on why gedolim fail. His basic thesis is that due to the global nature of communications today, gedolim are more accessible than ever before in the past, the gedolim have to be available to more and more people, leaving them less time to attend to strictly communal matters.

Yossi has some excellent points in his post and I don't want to seem like I am contradicting him. A lot of what he says is true. And yet, in some ways, I think that part of the problem is the fact that the gedolim aren't accessible enough to and don't relate to us (the common person).

There are several issues to be addressed here:

1. The gedolim aren't accountable to the people they are leading.

I know that this may sound like heresy, but if the gedolim want the respect of the people they are leading, they have to be accountable too. The problem isn't that gedolim issue bans - the problem is that no one clearly knows *why* things are banned and no one knows the thought process and decisions that go into those bans.

For example, consider the latest ban on the "Big Event" concert, which caused one of the performers to back out. When the ban came out, it was unclear whether or not the ban applied to this concert only, or to all concerts. Why this concert? Why not the HASC concerts or any of the other concerts that go on around the country. Is there any official explanation to this? Have any of the gedolim issued a follow up statement explaining why *this* concert is bad but others are okay?

Here's an even better question -- why was the concert banned? Look at the banning document (from Life Of Rubin): okay, there's something there about the singers and kalus rosh (frivolity) but (unless I missed something), I didn't see a single reason listed -- it basically boils down to "because I said so."

Of course, for some people, that's good enough. Some people will follow a gadol blindly no matter what he says. He'll just assume that the gadol's decree comes straight from Heaven and follow it no matter what. Well, if that's the way you want to live your life, then fine... if it works for you, gezunt. However, it doesn't work that way for all of us. Heck, it doesn't even work that way for most of us. If something is assur, I'd like to know why. Call it a lack of emunah on my part, if you want -- it doesn't matter. Some may scream that "Gadol X doesn't owe you an explanation!" You're right, he doesn't "owe" me an explanation... but if he wants me to follow his words, he should provide one. The world of old doesn't exist anymore... gedolim cannot continue with a "because I said so" approach. It may have worked a hundred years ago, but it is falling out of favor with an ever-increasing portion of the frum community.

And lest anyone think that it's beneath his dignity to have to explain his reasoning to the common man, let him feel free to open up an Igros Moshe, where R. Feinstein zt"l didn't just say "assur" or "muttar," but oftentimes went to painful lengths to explain his reasoning.

2. The gedolim live in ivory towers.

In the past, gedolim used to do first-hand research to discover the facts of a situation before they ruled on it. Yes, there were times that they got it right and there were times they got the facts wrong... but at least they tried to get them.

Today, however, it seems that gedolim simply take their cues from neighborhood zealots. They are fed misinformation about a situation causing them to rule on cases that do not exist. I can think of two examples off the top of my head:

a. The concert ban at hand. Chaim, at Life of Rubin, shows how gedolim are fed misinformation to get them to sign onto bans. One person signed only after he told that there would be mixed seating, when, in fact, the concert is separate seating.

b. The ban on Rabbi Slifkin's books. His books were banned by rabannim who, for the most part, had not even read the books. Even three years later, some of his opponents are still seeking to continue the ban (warning: PDF) based on misinformation and distortions of what he said.

We're all familiar the idea of GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out. In order for a posek to make a ruling on an issue, he has to have first-hand knowledge of the facts of the issue. If you're going to ban the circumstances of a concert, at least make sure that the facts are as they've been presented. If you're going to ban a book, at least make sure that the book actually states what you think it states.

3. The gedolim take a heavy-handed approach

It seems of late that the gedolim have taken a "my way or the highway" approach to rulings. For example, it is my understanding (and if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me) that before there was no effort to contact the concert's organizers and address the objections before the ban. Not one of the gedolim reached out (or had their representatives reach out) and see if the concert could be changed to accomodate them. It was simply "no, don't have it," and that's it.

The same thing occurred with Rabbi Slifkin and his works. He was simply told "retract," without being a chance to explain or justify his works. None of them contacted him privately beforehand to say something to the effect of "Reb Nosson, we've been hearing some very disturbing things about some of the books that you've published. Is it true that you said X? Do you really hold of Y? Do you think we can allow a book that says Z to be owned and read by members of our community?" From my understanding (again, if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me), that did not happen. Rabbi Slifkin was basically given an order to cease and desist without any opportunity to discuss the matter.

It seems that there is no desire on the part of the gedolim to privately fix whatever they perceive to be the problems in the community before going public with a massive ban. While some problems can be fixed with diplomacy, they seem to be fixated on using a bazooka to kill every roach.

4. There has to be a better way for the gedolim to communicate with the community

I find it bizarre that in this day and age, the medium of choice for the word of the gedolim is the broadsheet. I understand that they don't want to get involved in television, radio or the Internet. But there are definitely better ways for gedolim to be able to verify that they have, indeed, signed onto a banning document.

Consider what happened when the concert ban occured. At first, no one knew if the document was real or not. Some figured that it was a Photoshop job of an earlier ban. The next day, a (forged) pashkiville came out stating that the first one was a forgery. In the end, it was verified that most (if not all) of the signatories actually did sign... but there has to be a better way. I can even suggest one.

I live in New York. The climate here is usually pleasant, but on occasion, we get blizzards and lots of snow. When this happens, the schools sometimes close. But I don't have to speak to the administrator of the school to find out if the school is closed on any given day. I have a number that I can call and hear a recording. The recording tells me whether or not I need to bring one of the Freds into school that day. No direct human contact is needed. The same could be done here. How hard would it be for a gadol to pick up a phone and record a three minute message: Hello, this is gadol X. Yes, I did sign on the ban for the concert. It is my opinion that it is wrong to attend this concert because...?" Last time I checked, no one "assur"ed the telephone, answering machine or recording device.

I don't want it to seem like I'm bashing the gedolim here... that's not my purpose or my intent. I can (and do) hold the gedolim and their Torah learning in high respect even if I disagree with the way they choose to communicate with us or the way they investigate situations before they issue bans. But sometimes it seems like they are completely out of step with all except the "we'll follow blindly" portions of our community.

The Wolf

Guest Post: Why Gedolim Fail

This guest post was sent to me by Yossi Ginzberg. It deals with how our relationship with our gedolim have changed over the years. I'll save my comments on it for later.

Aside from formatting, there was no editing done on my part.


Why Gedolim fail


The failure of the Gedolim is perhaps the most frequently complained about topic in Orthodox Jewish blogdom.

Their failure to protest issue X, behavior Y, their failure to support initiative Z. No better is when they do decide to act- The Indian hair isn’t really forbidden, the concert tickets were already sold so it’s too late, why attack that person while ignoring this worse one. All are ripe fodder not only for the small fearless media, but also for conversations across every community that isn’t totally black-hat territory, and even some that are.

Why?

Why do we do this to them- destroying the precious image of our leaders in our own minds and in the minds of our kids- and why do we do this to ourselves- torturing ourselves into a situation where we continue to obey those whom we have written off in our minds?

I’d venture to put forth that this is a huge issue and must be dealt with soon, because whatever the causes are, it can only get worse, and at some point there won’t be even be a minyan to accept more directions or Daas Torah.

I’ll offer my analysis, and let’s see if anyone agrees.

Our history books have drawn for us a fairly clear picture of the relationships between the people and the gedolim. There were, in every era, the occasional “big” issues, but for the most part each community had it’s own leader, it’s own accepted halachic decisor. The term “Marah D’Asrah” meant exactly, Master of that Place. Local rabbis ruled on all the day-to-day issues, and for everyone, that was enough. On the rare “big issue” occasions, the Rabbi himself would get together with other Rabbi’s, to make the larger decision for the area. Examples would be the Takanos Rabbenu Gershom, the Vaad Arba Haaratzos, the meeting called to discuss the issue of electricity on shabbos, and the like.

Chassidim would of course go to their Rebbe for visits and for a bracha, but did not have phone access to call for piskei halacha or the like; they too relied on the local rabbinate for their daily needs.

Every town had it’s own Rabbi, the larger cities of course having several different kehillos, but still, the same reality applied: With your rabbinic issues, whether shailos or advice, one went to his own local posek. No second opinions, no calling to the Gadol in Israel.

I have been privileged to spend a fair amount of time in the homes of various high-profile Rabbi’s, both pulpit rabbi’s and Roshei Yeshiva. The common denominator in both was that the phone rarely stopped ringing. Some ignored it, others had a tape giving a time when calls could be accepted, some had children answering to say call later, and so on.

Who are all these callers?

Few are congregants or talmidim.

They are Askanim who need to discuss an idea, they are tzedaka trustees needing a letter or an approval, they are a million people from anywhere in the world who have heard that Rabbi X is a gadol, and they want to pour out their hurt, or ask for help with a shidduch, or get his approval for their project, or find out something about someone. No one writes letters anymore, and since few rabbis are reachable by email, telephones are the way to go.

Unless they visit.

Anyone who ever was a talmid or a congregant now has carte blanche to visit whenever they want, whether they actually need the time or not. If they’re VIP’s, they need to return home saying that they met with rabbi so-and-so. If they’re askanim, they need another approval, another haskomo, another pat on the back and acknowledgement that they are very important to Judaism. (This is not to denigrate the real- but very rare- actual crisis that needs a meeting.)

Since even Rabbi’s and roshei yeshiva need to sometimes eat, sleep, and speak to their wives, the constant barrage of calls and visits creates a situation that rapidly becomes untenable. Given that even for them a day is 24 hours, what happens?

What happens is that they run themselves ragged, trying to satisfy all the various people that each demands a piece of him. Whether they put in extraordinary efforts to do that or not seems not to matter one whit- easier access just means that more people will try.

The fallout appears in many forms. For the reputed Gadol/ Rabbi, it will be a congregant with serious issues not being able to get through in a timely fashion to discuss or perhaps resolve them. I know of many cases of people whose Get was delayed months by inaccessible rabbi’s, and many others who needed advice on a shidduch or a yeshiva for a child and were on tenterhooks because it was hard to get. One cannot blame the rabbi, since his obligations are in fact to the community, but his income is frequently greatly enhanced by the out-of-area askers, so when it’s an issue between being with a newly-bereaved congregant and a more profitable get, too often being close loses because the rabbi too has a lot of expenses. The person who is neither a congregant nor a profit center- say someone calling to ask about a congregant for a shidduch- too often may be left hanging on a back burner.

(A personal note: I have been on the calling side: I had a very ill baby many years ago, and a well-meaning person suggested to a distraught mother that a bracha from the Ribnitzer Rebbe (a”h) would help. Unfortunately, he was in Miami and we weren’t. I spent many frustrated hours on the phone unsuccessfully trying to get to him, stymied by his circle of protectors. I cannot blame him, of course, and I’m sure he was totally unaware, but the tears of parents in pain fall to the account of whoever controlled that phone)

For a Rosh Yeshiva, priorities are different. Or at least they should be.

One would think that a Rosh Yeshiva’s primary allegiance, timewise, would be first to his current talmidim and after that to the supporters of the yeshiva since, after all, someone must pay the bills.

Yet, it’s apparently too often not that way. Aside from the obvious aberrations, where Roshei Yeshiva are dragged into local political battles or domestic disputes, somehow the idea has evolved that if one ever learnt in any yeshiva, that Rosh Yeshiva owes him an audience at will.

More, Roshei Yeshiva have been conflated with poskim, not to imply that they aren’t capable. Still, it adds an unnecessary burden.

Worst of all is the daily invasion by askanim. These range from real communal activists to do-gooders, and from politically motivated to profiteers. Each feels that he is the most important meeting on the Rosh yeshiva’s agenda for the day, and has no compunction about making his feelings known.

An important fiber in this web of time-wasting for the Rabbi’s is this:

Borders have disappeared, thanks to air travel.

Every day, one hears of people flying to or from Israel for a haskama on something or other. If not a sefer, it’s for a new tzedaka idea. If not that, it’s so he can have a photo in the Orthodox paper, showing how important he is, that Rabbi XXX is taking time off to meet with the famous klal askan Rabbi YYY.

We’re no longer constrained by the old boundaries of travel. And the result is that well-known gedolim have not only their talmidim, former talmidim, and supporters to deal with, they have to meet every self-appointed askan in the world. Every visiting Rabbi, every wanna-be rabbi, and every person who, thanks to easy access, just wants a bracha.

One last causative factor: One of the coping mechanisms used by long-term yeshiva students is having inflated self-esteem. Where and when this started I have no idea, but it is in fact necessary, so as not to be jealous of classmates who went on to become doctors, lawyers, and Indian chiefs. While this does very much aid long-term Torah study, it has negative side effects. This was been remarked upon extensively years ago in the book “The World of the Yeshiva”, and is the dissatisfaction created when, after years of intensive study, students cannot find the prestigious positions they feel entitled to. Add to that their continued study in the Daf Yomi programs, and the result is that in too many religious communities, the Rabbi is looked upon as a colleague rather than as an authority. As one wag put it, “What frum guy today hasn’t slept through shas at least twice?”

So, what’s to be done?

First, let’s stop treating the Gedolim as if they didn’t need to sleep. There’s no benefit to Klal Israel in parading them around like traveling exhibits.

Then, let’s stop the pressure on them to endorse every tzedaka project. If someone comes asking for tzedaka for orphans, it really makes no difference at all if the father was a first-tier talmid chachom or not- They’re just hungry kids, and you should give what you can irrelevant of the signatures on the letter. It doesn’t take the gadol hador to testify that the story is true. The same applies for Mosdos and other projects- anyone with enough money to donate can tell if it’s a worthwhile project easily.

Second, let’s get the askanim away from them. At least 90% of those meetings can be skipped without any difference to anyone. The same for haskomos- get one good letter from wherever you learned, there’s no reason for 20.

Third, let’s not treat them like some kind of magic amulets. Should you happen to see one I the street or at an event, fine, but don’t make a whole social call to ask for a bracha. It’s not that I don’t respect their powers, it’s that I respect their need for time more.

Fourth, realize that 99% of your questions and needs can be met by your local Rav. It is of course not as prestigious to say, “I showed my esrog to Rabbi Plony” as it is to say, “The Chazon Ish liked my esrog”, but that could be your donation to the future accomplishments of whatever gadol you restrained yourself from seeing. Local rabbi’s re quite competent, and the yeshiva’s are full of qualified candidates praying for positions, if you need more in your area.

The results will be excellent for all sides. You kids will be more inclined towards torah, because the Gedolim will deal will real issues, because they have less time-wasting calls and visits, and you won’t be frantically searching for brachos.

Win-win, it’s called.

What will the gedolim do with all this new-found time? Let’s hope they’ll deal with the problems we all talk too much about.