Monday, January 25, 2010

Why I've Unsubscribed from Areivim

I've finally unsubscribed from Areivim (not from Avodah), a list I cofounded in the '90s. The advent of blogging made it largely marginal and irrelevant, but there was still some independent value in a forum of identified peers, as opposed to the comments sections on blogs.

Finally, however, the moderation became too onerous. I wrote in yesterday, concerning the Kiddush Hashem that came about through my talmid at MTA, Calev Lebowitz, recounting a frustrated email that I sent the AIA. The email read:

Your implication that Calev Lebowitz (a talmid of mine) acted
inappropriately or precipitously in any way, shape or form is vile
slander, and you should ask his mechilah forthwith. An even more
egregious statement was made by Rabbi Shafran in its far more direct
implication. The AIA continues down the slippery slope of irrelevancy
that began with its incomprehensible, irresponsible and downright
stupid closing of the JO.

It seems that Agudath Yisrael of America seems to agree that
sensitivity training is necessary and has already made up brochures
[according to what you wrote] and has worked with the TSA to educate
them. This makes it an even more egregious insult to Jews that the
stewardess and pilot would do what they did, as they could have and
should have known better. All airlines should require their personnel
to have this training and if there is no public outcry then they will
not have any reason to do so.

The fact that the Agudah is telling people to be cautious and to
alert airline staff as to what they are doing is not because the bachur
did anything wrong, but just an added caution to help inform others who
wish to listen so as to attempt to keep them calmer. This does not
guarantee a positive response and does not make what was done to the
bachur right or correct. If Jews there do not speak up they will
continue to be treated badly.

The Moderator at Areivim rejected this post, saying:


We found the tone of your words to be more likely to add heat to
the discussion rather than light. This does not mean the content is
inappropriate. If you can find a way of making the same point in a
manner more likely to lead to constructive conversation, kindly do so
and re-submit.

It may be helpful to consider the following question when rewriting:
Is this how I would say it if I were standing in a room with all of
the list's diverse membership in earshot?

Thank you,
The Areivim Moderation Team

To which I responded:

Go jump in the lake. I am reporting what I wrote, no more no less.

I'm tired of this. I'm unsubscribing. Be well.

KT,
YGB


74 comments:

  1. Bit more background, from a comment I posted on Emes v'Emunah:


    If you write:

    > "At the same time," said Rabbi Mark Kalish, national director of government affairs for Agudath Israel of America, "we have also cautioned members of our own community that they must understand that many citizens may not be familiar with Jewish prayer rituals, and that they should explain the practice to individuals in authority before boarding planes, buses, trains, and other forms of public transit."

    And do not state immediately before or after the disclaimer that, of course, Calev Lebowitz is not to be assumed to have not "explained the practice" to the flight attendant, and we at the AIA are concerned and actively investigating what is apparently a highly inappropriate response on behalf of USAir's affiliate," then the implication you leave is obvious!!! I certainly did not see that you "surely are proud" of Calev.

    And Rabbi Shafran's remarks cited in "The Jewish Star" certainly conveyed the message that Calev was, at best, imprudent, and most probably a blithering idiot for not realizing that he was about to "easily spook" his fellow travelers, and that his reason may certainly be questioned, if he did not expect "to cause consternation on a plane."

    >
    > “Well, it’s pretty obvious that someone who’s never seen tefillin before could easily be spooked by them,” explained Rabbi Avi Shafran, director of public affairs at Agudath Israel of America. “Even the Gemara says that they inspire awe in others. These days, the sight of anyone strapping something on their arm and head — little black boxes yet — can reasonably be expected to cause consternation on a plane.”
    >
    > Rabbi Shafran said that when he flies, he makes sure to inform his seatmate and the flight attendant that he’ll be praying and what it involves.
    >
    > “I think that is prudent behavior for anyone these days,” he said.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Did you see my response to your comment on my blog?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you should reconsider your resignation form Areivim. I get frustrated by the moderators too. But I also think it's a valuable resource and your absense there will be a major blow.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The response from the "Areivim Moderation Team" was certainly formulaic, to say the least. I don't know if they know who you are or not, or that you are a long-time, well respected participant and co-founder of the forum. Even if they do know who you are, perhaps their response was this pre-written standard automatic response that is sent whenever the "moderation team" clicks on the "reject" button. Certainly, if the "moderation team" insisted on nevertheless rejecting your post, they/he should have sent you a personal response rather than the standard response that would obviously be viewed as patronizing when sent to a participant of your standing in the forum. Perhaps the person merely failed to consider that this message would be sent when they clicked "reject". Perhaps the person did not even realize that this message would be sent. Perhaps the "moderator" intended to reject a different post entirely, and yours was rejected instead by accident. Obviously, I am not in a position to know if any of the mitigating factors I mentioned are plausible. Only you would know that.

    Even aside from the message sent to you, the rejection itself might suggest a derisive attitude towards your standing in the forum. The "moderator" should be very hesitant to reject a post by a long standing and highly respected member of the forum. As I mentioned above, maybe the "moderator" doesn't know who you are or maybe the rejection was an accident altogether.

    Even (worst case scenario) if this rejection was intentionally meant as a slap in the face, you obviously still wouldn't have unsubscribed without due consideration. You also probably wouldn't have unsubscribed if this were an isolated incident.

    Still, despite everything, maybe the readers of Areivim will be better off if you re-subscribe and stay on - even if your posts are slapped down from time to time. So please, for all the regular folks out there, reconsider re-subscribing!

    As someone ignorant of the background to this incident, take my post for whatever it's worth.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Moderators and others have to be able to distinguish between righteous indignation and garden-variety flaming. However, there is so much of the latter, even in our Jewish world, as to predispose moderators to use a heavy hand.

    Now, on the substance:

    TSA personnel and flight attendants are not always totally "with the program" as regards Jewish religious observances. I do not rely on the fact that one or more Jewish organizations have tried to raise these people's consciousness somewhere along the line.

    It's wrong to imply that the Jewish student in the recent incident was the one at fault, but it's right to recommend prudence. If the Agudah's pronouncements fuzzed this distinction over, they should indeed clarify the matter now, in public and in private.

    It's also necessary for the Agudah and other Jewish organizations to be more active in getting TSA and airlines to protect Jewish passengers from harassment. Somehow, Muslim organizations, who have far less justification if any, have managed to bend the TSA and airlines to their will.

    If you see that the Agudah's pronouncements in general are striking a wrong note, why not write privately to the individuals involved?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am sorry that you feel that you can not be part of the Areivim list. Your rejected post violated the rules of the list. Specifically no personal/organizational attacks & no incendiary language.

    The moderators do not make exceptions for the list owners/founders or other moderators. Yes, the moderators do make mistakes at times & this type of post does slip through.

    Yes, most of the moderation responses are "canned". This is to help the moderators, as the volume on Areveim is very large.

    The Areivim list is not a free for all, as most blogs are. We try to have discussions without flaming.

    Saul Guberman (part of the Areveim moderation team)
    P.S. This commment is my own, without consultation with the other moderators or listowners.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bob:

    I am in contact with them, and will try to get them to issue some sort of re-statement.

    I'm tempted to link these issues and start a new listserv/group: "The Real Agudists," or something similar. I think a lot of us sentimentalists with longing for the golden ages of the '30s and '40s, prior to the split, and the ultimate demise of PAI, will be a good nucleus for something resembling the old notion of a "movement" rather than an "organization." Anyone game?

    IIRC, once upon a time Micha and I envisioned Aishdas as a movement. Saul's accurate elaboration of Areivim's current policies indicates why it cannot be helpful in service of a movement. By its nature, it tends to promote stasis. So, I hereby ask Micha and all of the rest of our hearty band to participate in creating the "Alt-Neu" Agudah. (I avoid the full term Agudath Israel so as not to be guilty of trademark infringement, for now at least.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. RYGB,

    Would your movement be along the lines envisioned by Nathan Birnbaum and Isaac Breuer? It would take a lot of effort to reintroduce, update and promote their ideas to the point of making these generally understood, but people disappointed by recent developments may be ready to hear.

    Have you and Micha analyzed why today's Aishdas has not become a movement?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Part 1: History of my correspondence with the AIA:

    This was their press release:

    Orthodox Group Calls for Better Training, Greater Understanding after Plane Diversion

    Today a U.S. Airways Express flight from New York to Louisville was diverted because an Orthodox Jewish 17-year-old wore his tefillin on the plane, prompting concern among passengers who were unfamiliar with this practice.

    Tefillin, or phylacteries, are black leather boxes containing small sacred scrolls. They are tied to the arm and around the head with black leather straps during morning prayers.

    For several years, Agudath Israel of America has worked closely with TSA to sensitize the agency to the various religious objects and practices of Orthodox Jews; this effort has been led by Rabbi Abba Cohen, Esq., Agudath Israel's Washington Director and Counsel. Agudath Israel has also reached out to airlines in America and throughout the world to promote a greater understanding of Jewish prayer rituals. Agudath Israel has advocated for, and continues to support, enhanced training for flight attendants.


    "To facilitate training and awareness, we recently created a brochure explaining Orthodox customs for individual airlines, and would be happy to share this brochure with other airlines upon request" said Rabbi A. D. Motzen, Agudath Israel's Ohio regional director who oversaw that project.

    "At the same time," said Rabbi Mark Kalish, national director of government affairs for Agudath Israel of America, "we have also cautioned members of our own community that they must understand that many citizens may not be familiar with Jewish prayer rituals, and that they should explain the practice to individuals in authority before boarding planes, buses, trains, and other forms of public transit."


    Agudath Israel of America is fully aware of the challenges we face as a nation regarding the need to prevent terrorism and exercise extreme caution, but we hope that this incident will raise awareness among airline leaders, the traveling public, and members of our own community about the need for greater training and a higher level of understanding of Orthodox practices. An educated public, truly, is a safer public.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Part 2:

    This was my response:

    Subject: Re: Agudath Israel Addresses "Tefillin Scare" on US Airways

    Your implication that Calev Lebowitz (a talmid of mine) acted inappropriately or precipitously in any way, shape or form is vile slander, and you should ask his mechilah forthwith. An even more egregious statement was made by Rabbi Shafran in its far more direct implication. The AIA continues down the slippery slope of irrelevancy that began with its incomprehensible, irresponsible and downright stupid closing of the JO.

    KT, GV,
    YGB

    This was the AIA response to me:

    Putting emotion aside; how can I help you? Honestly. What would you like me to do?

    I'd be happy to come to his school and publicly apologize with no press.

    Re: JO, all I know is that it was bleeding $150k a year and the Agudah was broke.

    Also, please ask Harry Maryles to stop his very public lambasting of us. It's beneath him. He's better than that and it sure can not be halachikly appropriate, can it?

    Thank you.

    B'yididus,

    This was my response to their response:


    What does that mean "publicly apologize with no press" - that sounds paradoxical to me!

    I would want the AIA to issue a statement regretting:

    a) the most unfortunate manner in which Rabbi Shafran expressed himself (as I saw yesterday, HaModia on Friday also based its reporting on his asinine statement).

    b) the unfortunate implication of the presse release that AIA issued.

    Coming to the school be damned: You know that I know that there is no way the AIA will publicly praise someone associated with the YU world - which is why no press can be present. When there was a JO that would have been possible, through a thoughtful essay. Since the AIA no longer does thought, and no longer does essays, only PR, that is no longer possible - since the PR would provoke potential protest, and loss of the almighty donation, of some potential cash cow.

    Don't you see? In closing the JO you lost any zechus ha'kiyum that you had. The Agudah was supposed to be a movement, not an organization. It is now no better (and probably not as worthy of support) than the OU (at least they do kashrus and kiruv - what does AIA do now? so far as I can tell lobbying - and a siyum every seven and a half years). You may have been financially broke, but non-profits are not supposed to be making money. The JO was your "yeshiva" - do you close a yeshiva with a mission and a proven track record just because it happens to be broke?! Give up your Manhattan-based office; solicit funds for the express purpose of saving the JO - but close it?!

    As to Harry, if you can articulate a reason why the AIA should be defended from him other than that it may disrupt your efforts to raise funds to keep the organization alive, let me know and I will come to your defense.

    But as someone who believed in Agudism (albeit in an older model thereof, as I have written many times in the JO), I don't see what the AIA has to do with Agudism, and therefore find it, ba'asher hu sham, indefensible.

    KT,
    YGB

    And this is the AIA final response to me:

    I'm sorry; hatzlacha.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bob Miller said...
    RYGB,

    Would your movement be along the lines envisioned by Nathan Birnbaum and Isaac Breuer? It would take a lot of effort to reintroduce, update and promote their ideas to the point of making these generally understood, but people disappointed by recent developments may be ready to hear.

    Have you and Micha analyzed why today's Aishdas has not become a movement?


    1. Yes, that is the nature of the movement that I would love to see re-established.

    2. Neither Micha nor I are independently wealthy. Without a committed core group, there is no way either, or even both of us, can orchestrate that change effectively. Moreover, by now Aishdas is identified as a somewhat on-the-fringe neo-Mussar group. This type of movement needs to have a fresh identity.

    ReplyDelete
  12. My dear friend: Without going into the (at least debatable) issue of the AIA statement, I was more than surprisd by the tone and vocabulary in your aggressive responses - so totally out of character for you! Divrei chachamim benachat nishma'im! Your push thus led to their shove, which no doubt you can understand. If it had been a similar instance, not affecting you in some way or another (bakol adam mitkane chutz mibno vetalmido - thus making you somehow a noge'a bedavar), I doubt whether you had written that way, and most likely in position of moderator you would have reacted the same as they did on Areivim.
    Next time, take a deep breath and count to ten before you write/respond, and reread your words from the perspective of others reading them. Kol tuv.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Is Shafran planning an essay "Why I like the underwear bomber better than the Tefilin boy" ?'-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Avi Shafran's idiotic response is to be expected,have you seen his recent response to the Tropper scandal? Small wonder the AIA has become a bloated laughingstock! But Shafran has a history of defending sexual deviants,and was even associated with one in a yeshiva in California

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous' pathetic screed of Tuesday, January 26, 2010 11:20:00PM, above, shows why moderators are needed in our world and how anonymity promotes recklessness.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Isn't saying this bad for . . .? Will your blog be forced underground now?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Harav YGB, I think that you did the right thing. There is way too much hate on Areivim. However, I ask of you why do you post on that scurrilous blog devoid of any Torah, the one that belittles everything Charedie. It’s unfortunate that AIA is even bothered by a blog that is total ersatz, but then again olam golam, the blog has a large following.

    ReplyDelete
  18. David,

    Of course you answer your own question, but I would like to add that the AIA, by: a) closing the JO (incomprehensible); b) not using the Internet (understandable, albeit questionable - see how Aish, Ohr Somayach, Chabad etc. make positive use of the web), has surrendered any control of venue for discourse, and they have thus contributed to the power of blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  19. If there is some significant demand for a JO-like periodical, or if that demand can be created, why is no one standing up to fund one under new auspices?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Also, that "scurrilous blog", as David called it, really is unworthy. RYGB, have you made any attempt to post articles or to comment at crosscurrents.com ? I've seen some useful discussions there.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sorry, I meant cross-currents.com

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think the popularity of Mishpacha basically put JO out of business because given the choice of advertising market, Misphacha has the advanatage of 1) being a weekly and 2) offering something to female readers, who by and large do most of the shopping.

    A magazine takes thousands of dollars to print. Using the web to deliver an e-zine is more economical and these days may actually reach more people.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Harav YGB, I agree. Its pathetic how out of touch the AIA and its leadership is with the world around them.

    Harav Chaim, I belive that Mishpach helped put the JO out of business, but for a different reason. The fact that Mishpach does not follow a group of out of touch old men, and has articles that would be to controversial for the JO makes it much more palatable for today’s public.

    ReplyDelete
  24. While Mishpacha makes for a good weekly, it lacks the scholarship and gravitas of the JO. Moreover, because it is a weekly, its articles have a very short shelf-life, and are therefore not even written with the eye on posterity with which one would write for the JO.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Is there still a significant audience for this scholarship and gravitas? If so, wouldn't someone be trying to make money meeting this audience's needs?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think Hakira is starting to fill this gap http://www.hakirah.org/

    ReplyDelete
  27. Rabbi Bechhofer, have you considered starting your own
    e-zine in which you would write articles that adhere to this standard? Perhaps you could also recruit others to submit articles as well

    ReplyDelete
  28. While using the term "Agudah" will probably not elicit any claims of infringement from AIA, you might want to talk to
    http://www.glbt.org.il/

    But I don't understand why you are so upset. You know you can write an article that will be posted on the various news websites, such as VIN, MATZAV, or YESHIVA WORLD. Yes, judging from the comments many of the readers are fourteen year old intellectual delinquents, but they do have the numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I am a great admirer of your writing, but to say that the JO had scholarship is really pushing it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. And furthermore, I say to you what I've said to the YU oilem that complained that the Agudah has co-opted the concept of the Daf Yomi: nobody's preventing you from stepping into the breach. You have people in the family that are familiar with magazine publishing for the Jewish community, and there are plenty of talented writers out there, such as yourself, Adlerstein, Menken, and so forth.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Bob Miller said...
    If there is some significant demand for a JO-like periodical, or if that demand can be created, why is no one standing up to fund one under new auspices?

    I cannot answer why Gvirim are so short-sighted when it comes to ventures that are predicated on idealism. I have an hypothesis or two, but nothing definite.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Saul said...
    I think Hakira is starting to fill this gap http://www.hakirah.org/

    C'mon, who's going to take seriously anything named a Flatbush journal of thought?! Talk about oxymorons! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  33. MLB said...
    Rabbi Bechhofer, have you considered starting your own
    e-zine in which you would write articles that adhere to this standard? Perhaps you could also recruit others to submit articles as well

    Who remembers what an e-zine said a week ago - much less keeps a collection and peruses it from time to time? The medium does not lend itself to timelessness...

    ReplyDelete
  34. Barzilai said...
    But I don't understand why you are so upset. You know you can write an article that will be posted on the various news websites, such as VIN, MATZAV, or YESHIVA WORLD. Yes, judging from the comments many of the readers are fourteen year old intellectual delinquents, but they do have the numbers.

    Ah, Barzilai, such exquisite sarcasm. Delicious, understated cynicism!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Shimmy said...
    I am a great admirer of your writing, but to say that the JO had scholarship is really pushing it.

    Perhaps. But think to what I was comparing it! Mishpacha, Yated, HaModia, the venerable JP and the yellow-journalistic JW. Theory of relativity!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Barzilai said...
    And furthermore, I say to you what I've said to the YU oilem that complained that the Agudah has co-opted the concept of the Daf Yomi: nobody's preventing you from stepping into the breach. You have people in the family that are familiar with magazine publishing for the Jewish community, and there are plenty of talented writers out there, such as yourself, Adlerstein, Menken, and so forth.

    $$$$'s. Several years ago Marvin Schick spoke to me about a parallel in the world of machashavah to the Journal of Halachah and Contemporary Sociey. That would have been great!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Well, obviously if it were funded by YU qua university, it would be done before it was begun. If, on the other hand, there were an individual at YU who is generally (if grudgingly) respected, and it was made clear this was a Yeshiva publication as opposed to a university publication, and the university had absolutely no editorial rights, then it's possible that it could find a place in the frum, even the yeshivishe, world.

    I believe that considering YU's recent breakout into out of town kollelim they would be interested in backing such a venture, and that they would be willing to take on board members that are not associated with Yitzcak Elchanan, as long as they are not declared enemies of YE, such as yourself, or Chafetz Chaim types. I say so because they, parochial though they might be, cannot help but realize that this would broaden their readership and allow yeshivishe people to not have to get the magazine in plain brown paper.

    I'm not a literary agent or a broker, but this is an easy call.

    ReplyDelete
  38. If you do choose to approach them, I would suggest that it be proposed as a joint venture, not funded exclusively by them, although their name would be prominent. Again, if it were funded by only them, it would be just another modern orthodox publication that no yeshivishe people would subscribe to. So you would need some nominal outside funding just in order to justify the statement that it is a broad based and inclusive publication, beholden to no-one, diverse in its demographic and hashkafos. In fact, though, it would be 99% YU.

    I'd be willing to guess that if you would give it a moment's thought, you would have ideas about the format that would improve on the JO. Just do me a favor: don't presume an audience of doctoral candidates, who have not choice but to plow through lengthy and tedious articles. In order to survive and ultimately to flourish, it would have to seize people's interest in bite size pieces. You could, of course, massage your ego by doing it 'scholarly journal' style, but that would last two months and burn a hole in your pocket, while a breezier alternative could actually earn money.

    ReplyDelete
  39. R YGB,
    Sorry for jumping into this thread so late.

    FWIW, originally Cross-Currents was slated to be a printed publication. However, costs were just too high.

    Maybe you and some others should start an "Algonquin Round Table" type site, similar to C-C that would incorporate the ideals of Aish Das in a more interactive framework.

    I know that you and Micha both have full time jobs, but even if you could schedule a few people to write essays a few times a month, it might make Aish Das appear less of a "somewhat on-the-fringe neo-Mussar group" (great phrase, BTW).

    Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I hope that, in our communities, people with good new ideas are not presumed to be on the fringe.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The problem is, Bob, that most people don't think as you do (sadly). That is exactly why the web is good "meeting place".

    In larger metro area, it's more probably that like-minded people will attempt to affliate at the same shul, beis midresh, or with the same Rav.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Your implication that Calev Lebowitz (a talmid of mine) acted
    inappropriately or precipitously in any way, shape or form is vile
    slander, and you should ask his mechilah forthwith. An even more
    egregious statement was made by Rabbi Shafran in its far more direct
    implication."

    Sorry, I just don't see where this happened. Could you be more specific? (Maybe I am just tired...)

    ReplyDelete
  43. RYGB, There is a new blog on the block, without the Lashon Hara and all...there was a recent post on the Jewish Observer. Check it out. In my opionion, he has a very good idea in how to resuscitate the JO.

    On another note, just because some moderator rejected your post is not reason enough to unsubscribe. Please come back.

    ReplyDelete
  44. My dear friend: Without going into the (at least debatable) issue of the AIA statement, I was more than surprisd by the tone and vocabulary in your aggressive responses - so totally out of character for you! Divrei chachamim benachat nishma'im! Your push thus led to their shove, which no doubt you can understand. If it had been a similar instance, not affecting you in some way or another (bakol adam mitkane chutz mibno vetalmido - thus making you somehow a noge'a bedavar), I doubt whether you had written that way, and most likely in position of moderator you would have reacted the same as they did on Areivim.
    Next time, take a deep breath and count to ten before you write/respond, and reread your words from the perspective of others reading them. Kol tuv.


    Whether I am justified being so upset at the AIA, is one matter. I believe the closing of the JO to be so horrific a contradiction to its mission and such a loss to Yahadus to more than justify the most vituperative response.

    Be that as it may, however, the rejection on Areivim is altogether another matter. I was not issuing the challenge to the AIA via Areivim; I was reporting to Areivim what I had written the AIA. It is absurd for the Moderation team to demand that I alter the tone of the letter for Areivim if I had not shied from that tone in sending it to the intended recepient!

    ReplyDelete
  45. I'd be willing to guess that if you would give it a moment's thought, you would have ideas about the format that would improve on the JO. Just do me a favor: don't presume an audience of doctoral candidates, who have not choice but to plow through lengthy and tedious articles. In order to survive and ultimately to flourish, it would have to seize people's interest in bite size pieces. You could, of course, massage your ego by doing it 'scholarly journal' style, but that would last two months and burn a hole in your pocket, while a breezier alternative could actually earn money.

    The nature of a periodical that is put out by a movement is to advocate that movement. The JO, notwithstanding some mistakes and gaffes, was the periodical of a movement that advocated thoughtful Judaism that with absolute fealty to Halacha both: a) took up the cudgels of confrontation with the contemporary world and its internal and external issues and challenges, and, b)did so in an accessible way that did not limit its audience to an intelligentsia. In this manner the AIA educated its adherents and challenged them to "move."

    YU is not a movement; it is an educational institution. Without getting into specifics, no educational institution, dependent as it is on fundraising, will be bold in its official publications - not YU, not Lakewood, not NIRC, not Chafetz Chaim, not Chabad.

    The JO's chiddush was that the AIA was willing to risk its fundraising for the movement - something no institution to the left of Brisk or Satmar would do.

    And then there were none. Idealism has officially expired, and is dead. TNZBH.

    ReplyDelete
  46. In retrospect, the divorce of Areivim from Avodah and moderation were not good ideas. The great debates of the early '90's have not recurred on Avodah in many years now. We should have left the intermingling of social and theological matters untouched, and allowed the participants to find their own ואת והב בסופה

    ReplyDelete
  47. ...The JO's chiddush was that the AIA was willing to risk its fundraising for the movement - something no institution to the left of Brisk or Satmar would do...

    Can you please explain?

    ReplyDelete
  48. "And then there were none. Idealism has officially expired, and is dead. TNZBH."

    Isn't that a cop out? It takes $$ to have such a publication? Why is that?

    What's to stop idealistic people from writing meaningful, scholarly essays a few times a year and disseminating them for free? I know you've done that with Lulu. I'm sure there are other inexpensive ways to publish and disseminate them.

    My guess is that since the closing of the JO you continue to write and will always do so, even if nobody would offer you money to do so. I'm sure there are others like you. With 4 or 5 like-minded talmidei chachomim who can write, something of impact can happen. Sorry, it will mean less (or no) financial incentive to keep writing, but didn't you say this was about idealism?

    I hope you don't mean that your idealism has died as well!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Your accusation that AIA "implied" in its statement that Calev "acted
    inappropriately or precipitously" is absurd and derives from a tortured reading of AIA statement.

    In fact the AIA statement they issued in response to the plane incident, is about as a perfect response that could be formulated.

    The Areivim moderator was absolutely correct in denying that rant from being posted.

    ReplyDelete

  50. ...The JO's chiddush was that the AIA was willing to risk its fundraising for the movement - something no institution to the left of Brisk or Satmar would do...

    Can you please explain?


    Only in extreme circles, where it is part of the "persona" of the institution, do we find the publication of polemical pieces in mouthpieces of those institutions. That is because those institutions are congruent with some movement or another.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Isn't that a cop out? It takes $$ to have such a publication? Why is that?

    Because the JO would not have been the JO without R' Nisson Wolpin. You need an editor who can devote significant time to the project. That means it must be a paid position.

    ReplyDelete
  52. What's to stop idealistic people from writing meaningful, scholarly essays a few times a year and disseminating them for free? I know you've done that with Lulu. I'm sure there are other inexpensive ways to publish and disseminate them.

    I do what I can with a blog, the Aishdas website, and the various websites that have my audio and video shiurim.

    To write polemical essays, however, is not an easy thing to do when the movement to which you want to direct that polemic has cut off its avenue of communication.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Your accusation that AIA "implied" in its statement that Calev "acted
    inappropriately or precipitously" is absurd and derives from a tortured reading of AIA statement.


    What can I do? In yeshiva they taught us to be medayek...

    In any event, as I am sure it is obvious to all by now, my "rant" concerning these statement is influenced by my pain and anger at the closing of the JO.

    ReplyDelete
  54. In yeshiva they taught us to be medayek...

    Except this isn't being medayek, but rather of seeing things said that never were.

    In any event, as I am sure it is obvious to all by now, my "rant" concerning these statement is influenced by my pain and anger at the closing of the JO.

    The anger was then misdirected. There was no reason for the confluence of your concern regarding the JO and ripping into AIA for something they never said on a different matter.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Rabbbi YGB;

    You wrote:

    "Your accusation that AIA "implied" in its statement that Calev "acted
    inappropriately or precipitously" is absurd and derives from a tortured reading of AIA statement.

    What can I do? In yeshiva they taught us to be medayek...

    In any event, as I am sure it is obvious to all by now, my "rant" concerning these statement is influenced by my pain and anger at the closing of the JO."

    You really hurt me. Really. I may have a title that caused your rant, but please remember that I am a human being who once respected you greatly. In fact, it was you who introduced me to mussar. It was you who gave me my first true mussar va'ad.

    Please don't respond to this or anything else in writing. My phone number is 646-408-1013 and I hope to hear a verbal apology before Yom Kippur.

    Yehiel

    ReplyDelete
  56. An apology for what?

    The fact that I allow comments such as Joseph's with which I disagree doesn't make them right.

    AIA issued a statement which I found self-serving and artificially even-handed - hence vile. It was issued without prior conversation with the boy involved.

    Don't personalize this, it's not about you.

    ReplyDelete
  57. An apology for what?

    Exactly my point to your demand that AIA apologize to the boy for something you misread from the AIA's statement! Their statement did not imply anything whatsoever insofar as the boy's actions on the plane.

    Anything "artificial" or "self-serving" you (mis)read into the AIA statement stems from your admitted linking this issue to your still unbridled anger over the unrelated issue of AIA discontinuing its publication of the JO.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Exactly my point to your demand that AIA apologize to the boy for something you misread from the AIA's statement! Their statement did not imply anything whatsoever insofar as the boy's actions on the plane.

    Anything "artificial" or "self-serving" you (mis)read into the AIA statement stems from your admitted linking this issue to your still unbridled anger over the unrelated issue of AIA discontinuing its publication of the JO.


    I disagree. I am not trying to convince you. But I will restate in simple terms: In not praising the boy involved, only using him and the incident as a springboard for lecturing everyone else, the AIA implied that this boy did the things that they are now cautioning the public to avoid.

    Where were the accolades and chizuk for Calev Lebowitz?

    And, in following the Agudah's lead, papers such as HaModia also refrained from accolades and chizuk.

    You may assert that it was not a premeditated denigration, just a thoughtless oversight. That ties into the thoughtfulness that the AIA jettisoned with the JO. When events must be treated in press releases they are subject to the lack of nuance and inadvertent unfortunate implications that inhere in such communications.

    ReplyDelete
  59. the AIA implied that this boy did the things that...

    Disagreed. The AIA made no such implication whatsoever IMHO.

    Where were the accolades and chizuk for Calev Lebowitz?

    Calev made a massive Kiddush Hashem simply by putting on his tefilin b'rabim. Even if nothing else would have transpired. And the fact that this made international news made Calev's Kiddush Hashem that much greater -- now the whole world knows a Jew is proud to wear his tefilin, as G-d wishes him to, even amongst people who may find it quaint. He is not embarrassed of his religious duties.

    And of course Calev bears absolutely no responsibility for a silly flight attendant redirecting the airplane due to the most innocent - and holy - activity. Calev even respectfully explained to the attendant what the tefilin was and why he was wearing it. He is a real Jewish hero.

    That being said I don't know that an AIA press release is the proper forum to provide someone who made a Kiddush Hashem the "accolades and chizuk" - which he deserves every bit of. And even it it were the proper forum, the lack of it did not warrant the tirade you issued against the AIA.

    And, in following the Agudah's lead, papers such as HaModia also refrained from accolades and chizuk.

    So direct your angst over that oversight to HaModia, not AIA. I think you have a case over there. That would be a more proper forum than an AIA press release, to provide the well-deserved accolades and chizuk.

    You may assert that it was not a premeditated denigration, just a thoughtless oversight.

    I am assenting that the AIA made no such oversight whatsoever. And whilst you may disagree, I don't think you should expect the AIA to fulfill your demand "to issue a statement" of regret for all the reasons I just outlined. (Disclaimer: I am neither a spokesman nor even a member of the AIA.) This, despite the magnanimous offer described above that the AIA extended to you, that you rejected, offering to apologize for your perceived slight.

    ReplyDelete
  60. By the way this incident happened, it's clear that the message about tefillin was not fully delivered to the airline employees.

    AIA's response to this incident should have been to consider why AIA and airline supervisors had failed to communicate the message adequately, and to deliver a strong remedial message now.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Lawrence Kaplan

    Rabbi Bechofer: I am the last to defend the AIA. But while their official press release -- I am not talking about R. Shafran's comment -- may be open to legigitimate criticism, to refer to it as "vile slander" etc. is way over the to and out of line. As you yourself admit, you were (Rightfully) upset by the AIA closing down the JO and that effected the tone of your e-mail. You should learn how to admit your errors.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I have the greatest respect for R. Bechhofer as well as for his Rebbitzen. I would like to suggest to R. Bechhofer with all the respect that is due to him that the flavor and tenor of a blog such as this is a very poor substitute for the thoughtful scholarly articles that so much better suited him and that he was able to publish in JO, the closing of which he plaintfully laments. If I could I would like to further respectfully suggest to R. Bechhofer that he take a second look at Hakira and ignore its return address. :) If R. Bechhofer thinks JO was scholarly, he will be more than pleased with the level of scholarship that Hakira puts out in each issue -- sans polemics. Not that R. Bechhofer needs my assistance, but if he would like to be introduced to the editor, I would be happy to oblige.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Chaim,

    Hakirah is an awesome journal and I can't wait to devour each new edition, but there seems to be an underlying theme with this publication to constantly "challenge the limits" of orthodoxy. Be it with women handshaking, Bris Milah, corporealism, you name it.

    Now this may be just an outgrowth of the pendulum swinging away from chareidization, but I can certainly understand why someone would choose to publish elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Another possibility is that it seeks truth without regard to political considerations, which makes it only appear to be pushing the envelope of Orthodoxy.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Chaim, doesn't the choice of subject matter bespeak an attempt to come to terms with or to Judaize political correctness?

    ReplyDelete
  66. I've never heard of Hakira before this thread but I am curious... What does a typical issue discuss?

    Do they seek truth in the leniency department only or are there essays that ponder chumras as well? That might shed light on how objective the Truth seeking is...

    ReplyDelete
  67. Ploni, their website is http://www.hakirah.org/. I believe most of the articles are available online at that website.

    Bob, if your comment is a question, I'd like to answer it, but it's too cryptic. If you would like me to respond, please elucidate.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "Another possibility is that it seeks truth without regard to political considerations, which makes it only appear to be pushing the envelope of Orthodoxy."

    After browsing through several volumes of Hakira I see that in their group of writers, some have nothing to do with seeking new halachic frontiers but in many of their vMy sense is that the editors are trying to show that they can appeal to all sorts of members interested in reading scholarly essays.

    The JO would have never allowed many of those articles in its pages because it did not want to grant legitimacy to pushing the envelope. While many of these articles have sources in halacha, there is also a social agenda. To deny that is to put on blinders. I don't think that halacha is only about pure technical law without reverence for the social traditions. Treading lightly when suggesting social change is nothing to be ashamed of.

    The JO attempted to be in some ways like the scholarly journal that RSR Hirsch published. Its goal was to promote his understanding of community and Torah im Derech Eretz. I don't think that journal was the right place for alternative views (other than to debate them.) I'm probably not too far off in this comparison as the first editor was Rav Nachman Bulman z"l who was a passionate Hirschian.

    I don't know enough about RYGB to be certain but I think he is most at home in the (perhaps LW) Agudah world and the JO would have been the place for him to have an impact on the part of the Jewish world that he associates with most.

    ReplyDelete
  69. On two separate occasions, upon reading articles by authors I knew personally, I came across text that just did not flow, was political in nature that I was certain would not have been in the authors' submissions and had to be the editor's additions. When I next had occasion to ask each of the authors, they admitted that the identified text was not theirs and stated that if they complained to the editor, they would likely not be published again.

    So if you want polemics thrown in to articles, then don't consider publishing in or even reading Hakirah. I am not an expert in Hirschian thought, but I suspect that RSRH is more likely to have approved of Hakirah than the post-Bulman JO.

    (I don't mean to suggest that R. Bechhofer's articles in JO suffered the same fate. It may be that he was able to avoid emendations to his articles that were not consistent with what he would have written.)

    ReplyDelete
  70. B"H. We seem to have been mashpi'a!

    http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2010/02/12/calebs-gift/

    I will post this separately as well.

    I looked at hakirah.org - there is no way in the world this can be construed as a JO replacement. It is a forum for the intellegensia to varf. Inspirational, it's not.

    Let's clamor for the JO!

    ReplyDelete
  71. Chaim,

    My question was about whether Hakirah authors were trying to address or advance questions that had their basis in the secular academic community's attitudes toward feminism, science vs. revealed religion, etc., and have now spilled over into left wing Orthodoxy. The use of halachic analytic methods to answer such questions might not overcome the problem of their origins and motivations.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Bob:
    My apologies for the delay in addressing your comment/question, as I did not see it until just now. (Does web etiquette require one who has left a comment to keep coming back to the website to look for follow up comments? I don't know the answer. I'm just asking.)
    Your question is so loaded, I don't know where to begin. I don't share your attitude toward "science vs. revealed religion", wouldn't know how to identify questions with the "basis" that you're talking about, and if I did, I can't relate to your concerns about answers that are otherwise adequate somehow not overcoming "the problem" with the questions' "origins and motivations."
    Perhaps you should proceed by identifying a specific question that you're troubled by, rather than speak in what can charitably be described as generalities.

    ReplyDelete