21 Comments
User's avatar
Leib Shachar's avatar

Beautifully written and well presented. I'll add that we say שבעים פנים לתורה. It doesn't mean there are 70 separate peshatim to each idea but Panim, meaning ways of looking at things. Why? because there are 70 כוחות הנפש and different people have their stronger כוחות to look at things in a different way based on their כוחות. Sanhedrin was also 70 people since that is the ultimate diversity where one can come to a consensus. Same with the understanding of 70 nations and 70 languages.

However, this article still doesn't answer the question because Shamai and Hillel didn't make a "joint aguda". They both held their own and led two separate communities.

Expand full comment
Yosef Hirsh's avatar

Thanks!

It was not intended to adress the Agudah aspect.

It was a general point about accepting both sides as legitimate that has carry over to many other controversies.

As far as Agudah being an umbrella organization, initially I had an opinion on the matter but discovered that I don't know enough about the founding and purpose of Aguda to have a right to an opinion.

I would like to make the obvious disclaimer that my views don't necessarily reflect the views of IM or any of its writers.

Expand full comment
MK's avatar

It's refreshing to see a post on this blog that is not childish and petty. It just goes to underline the point that you don't need to resort to that for "PR" purposes, or to properly make a persuasive argument. Kudos - well said.

Expand full comment
Happy's avatar

Hey

Expand full comment
Yosef Hirsh's avatar

I was referring to " well said"

Expand full comment
shulman's avatar

well said! (as usual)

main point, imo, is find your rebbi. here's how i phrased it: https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/the-agudah-crisis/comment/43834026

Expand full comment
Yosef Hirsh's avatar

Exactly.

Expand full comment
test's avatar

"Follow the Gedolim that you resonate with, and understand that the opposition has a legitimate view as well."

Unless the opposition is against the mesorah/modernish/not from our beis hamedrash/just wrong, of course. And who decides that?

Expand full comment
Yosef Hirsh's avatar

I didn't put that caveat in.

Expand full comment
test's avatar

Well, this blog and its authors clearly holds of that caveat otherwise it would shut up shop, no?

Expand full comment
Yosef Hirsh's avatar

Slifkin is intolerant and attacks chareidim.

This blog is a defense of chareidim.

Expand full comment
Happy's avatar

Well, we do hold of caveats just like anybody. Nobody expects us to follow the pope. I think we do a pretty good job explaining why those we oppose are fundamentally anti-Torah and it's not just another machlokes in halacha/hashkafa.

Expand full comment
Yosef Hirsh's avatar

True.

Obviously there is a line to be drawn.

This piece was specifically about the rally.

Expand full comment
test's avatar

You do a lousy job, actually. Leitzonus, word salads and our of context quotes from aggadatah is not true scholarship. And if you believe it is, that justifies everything I write about the state of yeshivaland learning in 2023.

Expand full comment
Happy's avatar

If it's true scholarship you are looking for, I would suggest The New England Journal of Medicine. Or l'havdil, if it is Torah scholarship you seek, the Pri Megadim.

Expand full comment
Prophet Mohammed Piggy's avatar

dude seriously ur a troll

Expand full comment