"Slifkin keeps winning by default. If he is accused of being a kofer instead of being engage in a substantive discussion he wins."
We didn't accuse him of being a kofer. We demonstrated it beyond all reasonable doubt. It's like somebody who constantly says "God isn't real! God isn't real!" and we say, "This guy does not at all represent Judaism". Anyways, whether he is a kofer or not is a side point in the discussion in this post.
And where did he exactly say “God is not real”? or were you just setting up an emotional base for the attack.
“ We demonstrated it beyond all reasonable doubt (that he is a kofer.) Then you write”… whether he is a kofer or not is a side point in the discussion in this post.” But you did mention it b/c demonizing him is your goal. The same theme in all your articles. You also make statements and generalize to other specifics.
“We demonstrated…” Who is “we”? You wrote the article. (Royalty often refers to themselves as ‘we’)
I mentioned it although it is a side point because the so-called "anti-censorship" fits into the overall agenda of the kofrim, as I mention in the post.
It is "we" because there are actually several people who write this blog, although I write the most. Specifically, Mecharker demonstrated this in several places, particularly
But if the society is based around an ideal of Hashems word being sacred and we fully believe in our Gedolim....then we shouldn't censor the torah or what the Gedolim did or say to fit the current version of popular hashkafah.
And unfortunately every segment of frum society does this.
It is ok to admit that there have been Gedolim that have had good relationships with Reb JB ( I probably pleased no one with calling him "Reb" and " JB")
Its ok to say that in certain areas we are doing better then previous generations ( Kissui Rosh for an example).
Trying to rewrite history is dishonest and just gets people jaded.
We can argue about specific cases. I personally don't have much issue with Rav Soloveitchik, although I acknowledge he was a complicated person. But for the people who find him "problematic", I can see why they would want to remove him from pictures. Sometimes an unedited picture is the most misleading thing in the world.
The point of my post is when you actually care, when you DO think there is something wrong with X and Y, that is when censorship happens. Shapiro (seemingly) couldn't care less about the actual religious implications of these issues, hence his faux outrage when they "cover up the historical truth". Shem was rewarded for covering up his fathers nakedness.
US Bloggers are not representative of mainstream charedim. Especailly those that obsess over Slifkin on a blog. Real talmidaei chachochim just carry on learning.
Tell me, why do you think that SMS/Texting is banned in Israel Chareidiland? Only a few other countries do that, such as North Korea.
I have no doubt that had printing been invented today, it would have been baned by Israel Charediland (just like the early church). Anything that can lead to mass dissemation of ideas is DANGER!!!!!
But I DO believe that if Reb Aaron didn't have a problem sitting next to RS and having his picture taken then the people who consider him problematic ( who are usually big believers in Reb Aaron) shouldn't have an issue either.
Obviously you would have to ask the Kotler mishpacha, but I think what their father passed on to them about YU and Rav Soloveitchik is much more important than a couple of pictures of them smiling together. If that doesn't represent Rav Kotler's real attitude, then why include such a picture? If the purpose is to show that Rav Kotler saw nothing wrong with him, would that not be misleading?
And quite the contrary, the more of a probability that people WILL think that Reb Aaron held of RS if they discovered that a picture was photos hopped.
That casts doubt on everything because we now know the truth is less important then the agenda.
You may not think it indicates that, but then what's the whole todo about? Shapiro is upset about a random photo edit that makes absolutely no difference? No, the unedited photo is used to show that allegedly Reb Aharon had much respect for Rav Yoshe Ber. See here https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/who-is-going-against-mesorah which proves my point. And the edit is (I think) from those who knew Reb Aharon better.
The whole point of my post is that the "agenda" (which is a derogatory term for that which we actually care about) IS more important than this or that historical detail. And this is something that the MO agree with, but there is alot less that they actually care about.
Again, we can argue about specific details, and about Rav Yoshe Ber, I am actually more on your side.
The Kotler Mishpacha are hardly the experts on Reb Aaron. None of them were adults in his lifetime, and their Mesorah is solely through the Friedman side.
"I consider Dr. Landa’s description of the Charedi approach as being that “our minds are made up, indeed set in concrete, don’t bother us with the facts,” while others (presumably himself and the Modern Orthodox world in general) are open-minded and willing to re-evaluate cherished beliefs based upon evidence, to be grossly inaccurate. Rather, there are simply fewer cherished beliefs amongst the Modern Orthodox. For someone to accept that the universe is billions of years old, or that Chazal erred in some of their statements about the natural world, does not necessarily indicate that they are open-minded; rather, it more often simply means that they grew up in a society where such beliefs were normative. Such people can often also be closedminded when it comes to reevaluating their own cherished beliefs. "
The earliest censorships in out religion go back to...Chazal! Yes, that is correct. They censored certain information! When the Kohen Gadol said the שם המפורש during the Yom Kipur service, he did so in such a way that those around him could not hear him say it. Chazal did not want this information publicized, so they ensured that the public would not hear it. This is found in Kidushon 71a.
There was also information that was deliberately not taught to the masses. Certain names of Hashem were not publicly taught. They were taught from master to worthy disciple, once in 7 years, others were only taught to a select few who were worthy. The mishna says we do not teach מעשי בראשית ש and מעשי מרכבה to the masses. There are definitely precedents for not making everything available to all.
More recently, some of the rishonim banned the study of philosophy for the masses, unless they met certain conditions. Others have banned the study of kabalah for those who are not worthy of it. We find such concepts. Not all information should be readily available to the masses.
No less an authority than the Ramban says that we may not read books that speak about idol worship. I imagine the Slifkins and the Marc Shapiro's of the world would agree to this Rambam. (Maybe they won't, but I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.) If Rabbis come across such a book, should they ban it? Should they alert people to stay away from this work? Of course they should! The same way they tell us right from wrong in any other area, they should do so in this area as well. Would the Slifkins and Shapiros get upset if the Rabbis ban a book that is a book about idol worship? I hope not!
Let's take this one step further. If a book contains heretical ideas, should the rabbis ban it? Of course they should! There is no question about this. We are not supposed to read such books, and it is the duty of the Rabbinate to call out such books when they are brought to their attentions. The difference would be, how do we define heresy? Slifkin and Shapiro have VERY liberal definitions of what is allowed, and the mainstream Rabbinate have a barrower definition of what is allowed, so they have more to call out. 'They' should agree in theory to the concept of book bans.
There is a quote, I don't know who actually said it, that goes like this: "Not everything that is thought should be said. Not everything said should be written down. Not everything written down should be printed, and not everything printed should be distributed." Books whose sole purpose is to make others look bad, will probably contain lashon hara, motzi shem ra, or outright sheker. That alone is enough reason to avoid them. Intelligent people will stay away from gossipmongers.
When it comes to books from great people who say things that today are not considered acceptable, I think there are 2 different concepts:
1. Ideas that have fallen out of vogue are, as far as I have seen, usually published. The first part of the sefer Chovos Halevavos, as well as the first perek of the Rambam are very philosophy based. Many people do not learn these chapters. Nevertheless, they are still printed. They are not censored!
2. Ideas that are heretical from unknown or questionble sources. Every now and then a new manuscript is found from an early Jewish person, and it contains ideas that are now considered heretical. If this Jewish person is unknown, there is good reason not publish this manuscript. An unknown author who writes heretical ideas, should not be read. At times, a new manuscript is found claiming to be from an established authority. An example of this, the commentary of R. Yehudah HaChasid on the Torah. It has some strange things about the authorship of the Torah. No less an authority than R. Moshe Feinstein ruled that this is heretical, R. Yehudah HaChasid would never have written this, and the manuscript is a forgery. He begged the publishers not to publish it. This really is the type of censorship mentioned above. This manuscript contains heretical ideas, so R. Moshe asked for it not to be published. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this.
This is just my own opinions on the matter, the readers can take it for what it's worth.
“No less an authority than R. Moshe Feinstein ruled that this is heretical, R. Yehudah HaChasid would never have written this, and the manuscript is a forgery. He begged the publishers not to publish it. This really is the type of censorship mentioned above. This manuscript contains heretical ideas, so R. Moshe asked for it not to be published. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this.“
How about the experts who examined the manuscript and concluded it was most certainly an authentic autographed manuscript from his son?
My main point was to say that if R. Moshe maintained that this manuscript is a forgery and that it contains heretical ideas, he has every right to ask that it not be published. I thought that everyone would agree to such logic.
As an aside, R. Moshe is just as much of an expert when it comes to this. He knows very well whether or not such a commentary could have come from R. Yehudah HaChasid could have said this.
I trust Rav Moshe way more than the experts when it comes to deciding what a Rishon would and would not say.
Research this for yourself. How do these experts determine if such a menuscript is legitimate or not? They can do a handwriting comparison to other known works and if the handwriting is the same, they can assume this is the same author. This is not relevant in this scenario.
They can compare the style of writing to other known writings, and if it is the same style, they conclude it is the same author. This is not a very compelling argument, since if the experts can know what a person's writing style is, a forger can determine this as well, and copy the style too.
They can analyze the topic and see if it fits what they presume this author would say. This is a very subjective, and not a very authoritative way to determine this. In this, I trust Rav Moshe's opinion more than the experts.
They can see if others quote this work and if those others give this work an author. In this case, this manuscript is cited by another sefer. We don't know very much about the author of that other sefer, and Rav Moshe calls out that sefer as well for citing this. Interestingly, Rav Menashe Klein defends that this work could have come from R. Yehudah HaChasid, and explains the problematic piece so that it is not a problem.
Either way, this is really a side point. My main point is that if Rav Moshe thinks this work is heretical, he has an obligation to call it out, and an obligation to prevent people from reading it. One can debate if it is heretical or not, but if it is, it should be banned.
"Research this for yourself. How do these experts determine if such a menuscript is legitimate or not? They can do a handwriting comparison to other known works and if the handwriting is the same, they can assume this is the same author. This is not relevant in this scenario."
The offending comments are part of a larger manuscript. Not sure what the forgery theory here would even be.
If we know that some parts of the manuscript are not legitimate, that casts doubt on the entire thing. The whole thing is now unreliable. We have no way of separating the dross from the gold.
The fact that it's just a quote from another sefer backs you up. But does Rav Moshe have a proof of such a forgery? Has he studied the works of Rav Yehuda Hachasid specifically in depth? There are many hashkafot which are obvious to us now but we're somewhat debated in the times of the Rishonim.
Rav Moshe can show that it is kefira. I wrote on the other post that even if R' Yehuda Hachasid said it, all it would show is that R' Yehuda Hachasid made a terrible mistake. Not that what he said about Dovid Hamelech cutting out parts of the Sefer Torah is possible. The fact that there are hashkafos that were debated in the time of Rishonim doesn't mean that any hashkafa is possible.
“As an aside, R. Moshe is just as much of an expert when it comes to this. He knows very well whether or not such a commentary could have come from R. Yehudah HaChasid could have said this“
I already 'liked' this post, but I actually 'love' it! It brings out some very important points that are near and dear:
1. Those who actually have strong values, which come from a Source of ultimate Truth should obviously wish to keep the antithetical, confusing ideas out. I find it funny that they themselves are the actual proof of this very point - look where being 'open-minded' can lead. But sadly, they don't get the joke.
2. Try to get them to be 'open-minded' with our hard Jewish concepts, like spiritual stuff. They are as thick as a rock when it comes to perhaps entertaining that the Zohar might not be as silly as their untrained minds think. That the Gra might know more than them. They only accept the Rambam because they find solace to their *already comfortable ideas*, but try to show them that the Rambam wasn't quite as modern as they think. Open-minded to what exactly? To all the ideas that this particular generation is comfortable with. Very, very brave of them, I must say.
Yisroel's gadlus is that we aren't נתפעל by the changing outside world. It's very loud out there, but quiet עם לבדד, whose ONLY מעלה is that we follow HKBH no matter what, is still going strong!
I don't think the article denied that there is wrongful censorship, only that everyone does it, right or left. Now there are people who are "too chareidi" for us and censor too much because they feel that anything not accepted and taught by Rab Elya Ber as the main opinion is אדחי מהלכה and we shouldn't know of it at all. They are dead wrong, but it is not the censorship that's wrong, but the opinion preceding it. Then we have the people who are so radical that lie and say that all rishonim held this way, as you have on the left cherry picking and lying about the Rambam that all he cared about was education and only learn Torah on Shabbos. Yes, people say that. Basically, censorship is a basic part of human nature, and all sides have people who fail to balance it properly.
Well, Mendelssohn was exposed to the Rambam too early and it was NOT good for him. So I guess it depends for who. If we want people to get to the truth, we should not teach Moreh Nevuchim in high school before the kids know what the Moreh is really about. If you want to call that censorship, go ahead, I guess I'm okay with censorship. Obviously in the information age there needs to be a response to those who are exposed to bad ideas too early (and I'm not quite sure what the responses are), but the mainstream should be to teach the things that will help getting close to Hashem, not the other things.
I wish it was just age. Most people shouldn't be learning the Moreh until they fulfill the Rambam's description of when it's appropriate, which is a mighty high bar.
What other censorship is there besides Artscroll who tries specifically to cater to all ages and levels? (I'm not at all agreeing with their policy but I do kind of understand it.)
If you are talking about bans like a making of a gadol, I think bans are silly and counterproductive, as was the recent ban on pshuto shel mikra (and of course the one on Slifkin).
People photo shopping is also silly; I don't think that represents mainstream opinion. People do silly things, and they are not indicative of what we hold.
"Yisroel's gadlus is that we aren't נתפעל by the changing outside world."
Says a blogger on the internet. It's so amusing. I was at chinuch course once, a speaker was billed to talk about the evils of the internet but the speaker said "as this whole conference was organised using the internet, I am going to speak about something else.".
That speaker, although fully charidei, had to take a post in a chareidi-lite/more modox high school as was "encouraged" to leave his highly recognised 'shteller' in "black as the tyers of your car" chareididom. Because, like me, he was too cynical of the whole stupid cult and what it has become.
Classic whataboutism - why don't you turn your talents to justifying chareidi censorship - for example, on matters such as 'leaders' (used loosely) mistakes, errors or holding leaders to account, on the cover up of the negligence at Meron, on the nepotism, on the banning of biographies that do not toe the party line etc etc, rather than just alleging 'they do it to'.
There is plenty of censorship in Chareidiland that does not fall into the categories of "pritzus, emunah and kefira" unless of course you believe (you may well do) that any holding of chareidim to account or publishing matters that need improvement in charediland is a chisoron in emunah.
As I said many times, you have no reading comprehension ability.
The justification for "censorship" is not because "they do it too", but because it is inherently a good thing that everybody agrees to when they actually care.
“Most of the criticism of chareidi “censorship” carries the implication that these Torah ideals are worthless . . . .”
I don’t think this is correct. There seems to be an implication here that all “Torah ideals” are monolithic and unchanging when, in fact, they are not. Many who decry the censorship of ideas are not asserting that “Torah ideals are worthless”; they are advocating open discussion of those ideals.
Censorship of ideas among adults is not just a bad idea because it stifles discussion — it is also self-defeating. Censorship of this type is generally a last resort of those who find it difficult to support their position. People intuitively understand this and thus, not surprisingly, the surest way draw attention to a book is to ban it.
Torah ideal are unchanging. You may (incorrectly) disagree, but the unchangingness of Torah ideals is definitely a sacred pillar of Chareidi values. Those who criticize chareidi "censorship" on this mattter imply that their sacred values are worthless and unworthy of protection.
I am not clear on why you say they are unchanging. Many years ago the education of girls was not an ideal in the Torah community and was not common; now it is almost a universally accepted one. I can think of many other examples.
The ideals are unchanging, the practices to attain those ideals are not. Do you really think the chareidim became feminists? No, the Chafetz Chaim observed that without a formal education, girls were leaving religion (which didn't happen before the Haskalah). This is an example of a pragmatic change, not one of ideals.
In an article in the OU's Jewish Action Magazine (Summer 2016) recounting the history of education for girls, the author recounts a 1903 convention of Polish rabbis wherein "[t]he conference almost unanimously opposed [a] suggestion" to establish girls schools and stated that "for the community to establish schools would be wrong." In my mind, moving from neglect of and/or opposition to girls formal schooling to one that actively encourages it, involves a shift in both ideology and practice. And most importantly -- to get back to the topic -- I think that those kinds of debates are good and censoring them is a mistake.
What does that show? That there are debates? That people change their minds?
I think we should censor actual kefira and other bad material that can lead people astray. Do you think Hamodia should bring the arguments of the Christians and the atheists?
It shows that debate and discussion, not censorship, is the proper way to address conflicting ideas. I don't want or need anyone determining on my behalf what is heresy or "bad material" and then precluding me from making my own judgments. And, to my original point, the advocacy of debate and discussion, in lieu of censorship, is a far cry advocating that "Torah ideals are worthless".
“This explains the otherwise perplexing attempts of some secularist Modern Orthodox individuals or institutions to “demonstrate” that their approach is as faithful to the Torah or moreso than chareidi Judaism, a suggestion that is otherwise as laughable as maintaining that a plastic manequin is more authentic than a live human being.”
I have not read Slifkins post that you link here but I would like steelman a case against you this way, and it’s not even that I can point to any one community that I think has “upheld” the true Mesorah because TBH I think it is historically impossible that we have kept our culture, mode of dress, minhagim etc. free from outside influence.
That being said no community is perfect but if we are being intellectually honest, though I disagree with the way in which “changing the immutable” was written, it is still an important book to gain perspective on frum culture and has helped many people I know start trying to separate the “frum culture” (the negative attachments to meaningless things) and connecting to a more authentic version of yiddishkeit. (This will be a future post)
I didn't read the book, but I read many of his articles discussing various aspects of frumkeit, and I very much doubt we have anything to learn from such a person on a religious level. He is a good historian but a terrible Torah scholar or authority on anything related the religious aspect of Judaism. If you have specific examples of what you mean, I will be glad to hear.
Specific examples are Netzach rewriting R Weinberg's view of R Hirsch, the biography of R Aharon photo-shopping R Soloveitchik out of a picture with R Moshe and R Aharon, the endless disappearing haskamos from R Kook, taking out an inconvenient Halacha from the Kitzur shulchanh aruch, etc etc etc. Shapiro's point is that the charedi censors aren't content to let their own heroes speak for themselves.
"ArtScroll chose to include Rashbam’s commentary to Genesis chapter 1 in its recently published mikraot gedolot. However, ArtScroll also chose to delete those sections of the commentary it didn’t like, assuming (without any evidence) that these sections were written by heretics. This is censorship of Rashbam. That is all people need to know.[34]
ArtScroll has done some great things. They have also done some pretty disappointing things. But as I said in the prior post, nothing comes close to this. Deleting comments of one of the greatest rishonim is simply outrageous. Some have said that what ArtScroll did is unforgivable. I think this is going too far. If ArtScroll acknowledges its error and reinserts that which has been removed, I think that we all would be very happy to put this behind us. One of the most important aspects of a Torah personality is the ability to recognize when one has made a mistake and rectify it. If ArtScroll is able to do this, it would lead to great admiration.
On the other hand, if ArtScroll refuses to acknowledge that it has made a terrible error, even after seeing the evidence presented in this post, then one must conclude that ArtScroll is knowingly suppressing the words of a great rishon. One can only hope that ArtScroll does not wish to have this blemish permanently attached to its name."
One thing I find ironic is that the same people that use the concept of mesorah and daas torah as all powerful concepts will throw it away in heartbeat if presented by an instance of a gadol or even the torah saying something that doesn't jive with their hashkafah.
Course you can. The mesorah is self-modifying code. Anyway the Rashbam never said it. Some dodgy talmid inserted into his pirush. And it's well known the Rashbam he was chozer b'sof yomov. Better not mention the Ibn Ezra.......
I was referring to learning from him on a religious level. I find his outrage at deleting comments of "one of the greatest rishonim" hollow (especially since in the article I linked, he finds fault in the Pischei Choshen for including halachos about gezel akkum that are straight from Shas, Rishonim, and Gedolei Haposkim.) I don't see the great religious passion about specifically learning statements from rishonim that sound like kefira. In fact, the opposite, which is sort of the point of my post. People who really care about the Rashbam as one of the greatest rishonim care very much if he allegedly wrote kefira. Shapiro (seemingly) couldn't care less.
"I was referring to learning from him on a religious level. I find his outrage at deleting comments of "one of the greatest rishonim" hollow"
You asked for specific examples. I provided them. I think they speak for themselves, along with the innumerable others which he provides.
"(especially since in the article I linked, he finds fault in the Pischei Choshen for including halachos about gezel akkum that are straight from Shas, Rishonim, and Gedolei Haposkim.)"
Let's just stipulate that censoring torah sources or what gedolim had to say isn't a good thing. Can we agree on that? I'd really rather not rehash Marc Shapiro's chezkas kashrus or sincerity (yet) again. Especially since it's not really relevant either way.
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I mean examples where you can gain from him on a religious level. Like Yitz said "connecting to a more authentic version of yiddishkeit". I don't think the examples you cited are particularly helpful on a religious level, and connect one to more authentic Yiddishkeit, although maybe if you were a hardened cynical Kotzker they would be.
I don't think the Artscroll editors though they were doing baseless censoring, but really though that the Rashbam couldn't have said that (which I don't agree), similar to Rav Moshe and R' Yehuda Hachasid. This would be similar to when the Magid Mishna or Kesef Mishna says the girsa of the Rambam must be wrong, even with no manuscript evidence
Okay, not sure we disagree. I guess part of it comes down whether you think having an accurate historical picture of the Jewish world is religiously valuable. I think it is, but can't really prove it.
Regardless, I do think a distinction needs to be made between censoring an embarrassing episode versus censoring a viewpoint expressed or implied by a gadol. I think the former can be defended on moral grounds without the latter coming along for the ride. Covering up the fact that e.g. some gadol had anger management problems is just fundamentally different than deleting a teshuvas melamed le'hoil because it's somehow politically incorrect to acknowledge that he wrote that the practice in R Hirsch's schools was to go bareheaded during limuddei chol time.
When you have too much censorship you end up living in fantasy land. I actually met someone who believed that through history a boy from cheer who move to continue to learn shas and poskim and that poverty was always an ideal!
I agree to an extent. We need to be able to censorship harmful material (an obvious example is porn) as well as outright Kefira but we should also allow people to ask questions and we should especially allow people to be exposed to different opinions within Judaism. One who's confident in his own position shouldn't feel confused by acknowledging other views. I wouldn't want my kids to become charedi but I'd have no issue with them learning ספר אמונה ובטחון or even ויועל משה if they're mature enough to handle it. My exposure to other cultures and views at this point in my life (I'm 24) makes my אמונה only stronger.
I think this would be a perfect time to make the distinction between someone being a Torah scholar/gadol and being able to learn something from a person no matter what background they have. I have no qualms learning something from someone I may not even have any respect for. I may not go to Marc Shapiro for psak and again the way he writes can be inflammatory but some of the ideas presented, that generally frum culture has gone through many changes/ they may have had *gasp* lower standards on certain practices that today we assume are sacrosanct, yarmulke being an example.
And the point is not that everyone should throw off their yarmulkas it is that we should be able to look at our values and culture with an eye to history and nuance so we can focus on what is truly emes
True, but you can say the same thing about reading Protocols of the Elder of Zion or The Jews and Their Lies (this one is actually very valuable). The fact that Judaism has "changed" is known to anybody who studies the Torah and Gemara. But he goes much much further than just documenting history and assigns very religious, halachic, and hashkafic interpretations to these facts, this totally pervades his work.
It's actually classic yeshivish. Bring a dodgy moshol, and then spend the rest of seder arguing about the moshol and/or its relevance rather than the etzem nekudah. You can't help yourself.
I know this is a side point, but why do you think it's justified to kick a million people out of their homes if you believe in the Torah? The Torah says the Jewish people will be exiled and will not be returned until they do Teshuvah!
But it is Hashem who decides if and when Klal Yisroel has done Teshuvah, and He will effect Kibbutz Galuyos. It is not for us to take the law in to our own hands.
That is actually a machlokes in the Gemara at the end of sanhedrin. The Rambam at the end of Milachim holds we cannot go like any opinion in these matters conclusively. The Torah also says to live in EY and some hold it's a Chiyuv even today. If it takes strong measures thats not against the Torah per se.
I haven't looked into the halachic sugya deeply, but my thinking is like this. Hashem gave the land to us, see the first Rashi in Bereishis. Therefore, we are allowed to kick out anybody who inhibits our inhabitation of the Land, even if they are not עובדי ע"ז. This is all good if you really believe the Torah and that its hashkafa and instructions are unchanging. But if you c"v don't think the Torah is actually historical, or think it should be updated for consistency with modern morals, what possible justification is there for such open robbery?! And אדרבה, on the level of somebody who does believe the Torah, I think it is clear from the Torah itself that people who don't follow the Torah have no right to the Land (see Bechukosai, numerous other places in the Torah, and countless places in Neviim). כן נראה לע"ד.
As for your last question, I think very few people are free information extremists. Most people agree there need to be some limits. Quite naturally, where you put those limits will depend on what you actually value.
Without the Torah, I don't think there is much of a self-defense justification for everything they did. For some of it, definitely. The fear that your neighbor hates you and might harass or attack does not generally justify invading his property and kicking him out. But with the Torah, it's really our land, so I can see much more of a justification. But I would need to do more עיון.
As you mentioned, human nature is simply not on the side of free information extremism. People consider other things much more important.
Response thread to comments from Rationalist Judaism (about this post):
Yakov https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/the-ark-is-open/comment/19192815
"Slifkin keeps winning by default. If he is accused of being a kofer instead of being engage in a substantive discussion he wins."
We didn't accuse him of being a kofer. We demonstrated it beyond all reasonable doubt. It's like somebody who constantly says "God isn't real! God isn't real!" and we say, "This guy does not at all represent Judaism". Anyways, whether he is a kofer or not is a side point in the discussion in this post.
And where did he exactly say “God is not real”? or were you just setting up an emotional base for the attack.
“ We demonstrated it beyond all reasonable doubt (that he is a kofer.) Then you write”… whether he is a kofer or not is a side point in the discussion in this post.” But you did mention it b/c demonizing him is your goal. The same theme in all your articles. You also make statements and generalize to other specifics.
“We demonstrated…” Who is “we”? You wrote the article. (Royalty often refers to themselves as ‘we’)
It is an analogy.
I mentioned it although it is a side point because the so-called "anti-censorship" fits into the overall agenda of the kofrim, as I mention in the post.
It is "we" because there are actually several people who write this blog, although I write the most. Specifically, Mecharker demonstrated this in several places, particularly
here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/qanon-natan
and here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/is-there-anything-at-all-rational
Wiggle as much as you want. You made the analogy and used that quote and plant the thought. You know what you are doing.
Yes, and it is a good analogy and a good thought. I don't need to wiggle, I'll come out and say it.
Ok...so here is probably a very unpopular view.
Censorship happens in every society.
But if the society is based around an ideal of Hashems word being sacred and we fully believe in our Gedolim....then we shouldn't censor the torah or what the Gedolim did or say to fit the current version of popular hashkafah.
And unfortunately every segment of frum society does this.
It is ok to admit that there have been Gedolim that have had good relationships with Reb JB ( I probably pleased no one with calling him "Reb" and " JB")
Its ok to say that in certain areas we are doing better then previous generations ( Kissui Rosh for an example).
Trying to rewrite history is dishonest and just gets people jaded.
We can argue about specific cases. I personally don't have much issue with Rav Soloveitchik, although I acknowledge he was a complicated person. But for the people who find him "problematic", I can see why they would want to remove him from pictures. Sometimes an unedited picture is the most misleading thing in the world.
The point of my post is when you actually care, when you DO think there is something wrong with X and Y, that is when censorship happens. Shapiro (seemingly) couldn't care less about the actual religious implications of these issues, hence his faux outrage when they "cover up the historical truth". Shem was rewarded for covering up his fathers nakedness.
"An unedited picture is misleading"? That is quite Orwellian. Please tell me that you didn't mean that.
In chareidland when a godal chas vesholom says something a member of yeshivaland does not like you have the following choices;
a) he never said it (with or without a talmid said it in his name)
b) he was chozer b'sof yomov
c) Rabim cholkim olov
But none of those apply when the godol says something they do like, however outrageous.
Unfortunately I do agree with you....but I would take out the word chareidiland.
A very small sect of chareidim feel this way.
Just go through the comments again and see how many chareidim are actually explicitly pro censorship.
US Bloggers are not representative of mainstream charedim. Especailly those that obsess over Slifkin on a blog. Real talmidaei chachochim just carry on learning.
Tell me, why do you think that SMS/Texting is banned in Israel Chareidiland? Only a few other countries do that, such as North Korea.
I have no doubt that had printing been invented today, it would have been baned by Israel Charediland (just like the early church). Anything that can lead to mass dissemation of ideas is DANGER!!!!!
No following ur point.
Us bloggers are more open minded or less?
I am not trying to defend Shapiro.
I think he is wrong.
But I DO believe that if Reb Aaron didn't have a problem sitting next to RS and having his picture taken then the people who consider him problematic ( who are usually big believers in Reb Aaron) shouldn't have an issue either.
Obviously you would have to ask the Kotler mishpacha, but I think what their father passed on to them about YU and Rav Soloveitchik is much more important than a couple of pictures of them smiling together. If that doesn't represent Rav Kotler's real attitude, then why include such a picture? If the purpose is to show that Rav Kotler saw nothing wrong with him, would that not be misleading?
And quite the contrary, the more of a probability that people WILL think that Reb Aaron held of RS if they discovered that a picture was photos hopped.
That casts doubt on everything because we now know the truth is less important then the agenda.
I don't see how two people standing next to each other and smiling says anything about how they felt about each other.
You may not think it indicates that, but then what's the whole todo about? Shapiro is upset about a random photo edit that makes absolutely no difference? No, the unedited photo is used to show that allegedly Reb Aharon had much respect for Rav Yoshe Ber. See here https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/who-is-going-against-mesorah which proves my point. And the edit is (I think) from those who knew Reb Aharon better.
The whole point of my post is that the "agenda" (which is a derogatory term for that which we actually care about) IS more important than this or that historical detail. And this is something that the MO agree with, but there is alot less that they actually care about.
Again, we can argue about specific details, and about Rav Yoshe Ber, I am actually more on your side.
The whole "todo" is that censorship is part of a greater mindset of pretending that MO was an irredeemable movement (like Open orthodoxy).
I think we can look back with hindsight and say that history proved RA right but to claim there weren't good arguments both ways is not accurate.
The people that censor these type of things are very black and white people that make people out to be friends or enemies.
The world is painted with more Nuance then that.
" only the sith speak in absolutes"
What do chareidim and soviets have in common....
https://comradekiev.com/blog/fabrication-photographs-stalin-soviet-state/
The Kotler Mishpacha are hardly the experts on Reb Aaron. None of them were adults in his lifetime, and their Mesorah is solely through the Friedman side.
Guess who said the following:
https://hakirah.org/Vol%2010%20Letters.pdf (page 19)
"I consider Dr. Landa’s description of the Charedi approach as being that “our minds are made up, indeed set in concrete, don’t bother us with the facts,” while others (presumably himself and the Modern Orthodox world in general) are open-minded and willing to re-evaluate cherished beliefs based upon evidence, to be grossly inaccurate. Rather, there are simply fewer cherished beliefs amongst the Modern Orthodox. For someone to accept that the universe is billions of years old, or that Chazal erred in some of their statements about the natural world, does not necessarily indicate that they are open-minded; rather, it more often simply means that they grew up in a society where such beliefs were normative. Such people can often also be closedminded when it comes to reevaluating their own cherished beliefs. "
The earliest censorships in out religion go back to...Chazal! Yes, that is correct. They censored certain information! When the Kohen Gadol said the שם המפורש during the Yom Kipur service, he did so in such a way that those around him could not hear him say it. Chazal did not want this information publicized, so they ensured that the public would not hear it. This is found in Kidushon 71a.
There was also information that was deliberately not taught to the masses. Certain names of Hashem were not publicly taught. They were taught from master to worthy disciple, once in 7 years, others were only taught to a select few who were worthy. The mishna says we do not teach מעשי בראשית ש and מעשי מרכבה to the masses. There are definitely precedents for not making everything available to all.
More recently, some of the rishonim banned the study of philosophy for the masses, unless they met certain conditions. Others have banned the study of kabalah for those who are not worthy of it. We find such concepts. Not all information should be readily available to the masses.
No less an authority than the Ramban says that we may not read books that speak about idol worship. I imagine the Slifkins and the Marc Shapiro's of the world would agree to this Rambam. (Maybe they won't, but I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.) If Rabbis come across such a book, should they ban it? Should they alert people to stay away from this work? Of course they should! The same way they tell us right from wrong in any other area, they should do so in this area as well. Would the Slifkins and Shapiros get upset if the Rabbis ban a book that is a book about idol worship? I hope not!
Let's take this one step further. If a book contains heretical ideas, should the rabbis ban it? Of course they should! There is no question about this. We are not supposed to read such books, and it is the duty of the Rabbinate to call out such books when they are brought to their attentions. The difference would be, how do we define heresy? Slifkin and Shapiro have VERY liberal definitions of what is allowed, and the mainstream Rabbinate have a barrower definition of what is allowed, so they have more to call out. 'They' should agree in theory to the concept of book bans.
There is a quote, I don't know who actually said it, that goes like this: "Not everything that is thought should be said. Not everything said should be written down. Not everything written down should be printed, and not everything printed should be distributed." Books whose sole purpose is to make others look bad, will probably contain lashon hara, motzi shem ra, or outright sheker. That alone is enough reason to avoid them. Intelligent people will stay away from gossipmongers.
When it comes to books from great people who say things that today are not considered acceptable, I think there are 2 different concepts:
1. Ideas that have fallen out of vogue are, as far as I have seen, usually published. The first part of the sefer Chovos Halevavos, as well as the first perek of the Rambam are very philosophy based. Many people do not learn these chapters. Nevertheless, they are still printed. They are not censored!
2. Ideas that are heretical from unknown or questionble sources. Every now and then a new manuscript is found from an early Jewish person, and it contains ideas that are now considered heretical. If this Jewish person is unknown, there is good reason not publish this manuscript. An unknown author who writes heretical ideas, should not be read. At times, a new manuscript is found claiming to be from an established authority. An example of this, the commentary of R. Yehudah HaChasid on the Torah. It has some strange things about the authorship of the Torah. No less an authority than R. Moshe Feinstein ruled that this is heretical, R. Yehudah HaChasid would never have written this, and the manuscript is a forgery. He begged the publishers not to publish it. This really is the type of censorship mentioned above. This manuscript contains heretical ideas, so R. Moshe asked for it not to be published. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this.
This is just my own opinions on the matter, the readers can take it for what it's worth.
And photos?
Photos of what?
“No less an authority than R. Moshe Feinstein ruled that this is heretical, R. Yehudah HaChasid would never have written this, and the manuscript is a forgery. He begged the publishers not to publish it. This really is the type of censorship mentioned above. This manuscript contains heretical ideas, so R. Moshe asked for it not to be published. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this.“
How about the experts who examined the manuscript and concluded it was most certainly an authentic autographed manuscript from his son?
My main point was to say that if R. Moshe maintained that this manuscript is a forgery and that it contains heretical ideas, he has every right to ask that it not be published. I thought that everyone would agree to such logic.
As an aside, R. Moshe is just as much of an expert when it comes to this. He knows very well whether or not such a commentary could have come from R. Yehudah HaChasid could have said this.
How would he know?
I trust Rav Moshe way more than the experts when it comes to deciding what a Rishon would and would not say.
Research this for yourself. How do these experts determine if such a menuscript is legitimate or not? They can do a handwriting comparison to other known works and if the handwriting is the same, they can assume this is the same author. This is not relevant in this scenario.
They can compare the style of writing to other known writings, and if it is the same style, they conclude it is the same author. This is not a very compelling argument, since if the experts can know what a person's writing style is, a forger can determine this as well, and copy the style too.
They can analyze the topic and see if it fits what they presume this author would say. This is a very subjective, and not a very authoritative way to determine this. In this, I trust Rav Moshe's opinion more than the experts.
They can see if others quote this work and if those others give this work an author. In this case, this manuscript is cited by another sefer. We don't know very much about the author of that other sefer, and Rav Moshe calls out that sefer as well for citing this. Interestingly, Rav Menashe Klein defends that this work could have come from R. Yehudah HaChasid, and explains the problematic piece so that it is not a problem.
Either way, this is really a side point. My main point is that if Rav Moshe thinks this work is heretical, he has an obligation to call it out, and an obligation to prevent people from reading it. One can debate if it is heretical or not, but if it is, it should be banned.
"Research this for yourself. How do these experts determine if such a menuscript is legitimate or not? They can do a handwriting comparison to other known works and if the handwriting is the same, they can assume this is the same author. This is not relevant in this scenario."
The offending comments are part of a larger manuscript. Not sure what the forgery theory here would even be.
If we know that some parts of the manuscript are not legitimate, that casts doubt on the entire thing. The whole thing is now unreliable. We have no way of separating the dross from the gold.
The fact that it's just a quote from another sefer backs you up. But does Rav Moshe have a proof of such a forgery? Has he studied the works of Rav Yehuda Hachasid specifically in depth? There are many hashkafot which are obvious to us now but we're somewhat debated in the times of the Rishonim.
Rav Moshe can show that it is kefira. I wrote on the other post that even if R' Yehuda Hachasid said it, all it would show is that R' Yehuda Hachasid made a terrible mistake. Not that what he said about Dovid Hamelech cutting out parts of the Sefer Torah is possible. The fact that there are hashkafos that were debated in the time of Rishonim doesn't mean that any hashkafa is possible.
This is really a side point. Anyway, I trust Rav Moshe's opinion about valid hashkafos FAR FAR more than that of these 'experts'.
“As an aside, R. Moshe is just as much of an expert when it comes to this. He knows very well whether or not such a commentary could have come from R. Yehudah HaChasid could have said this“
This is not something I agree with you on.
I already 'liked' this post, but I actually 'love' it! It brings out some very important points that are near and dear:
1. Those who actually have strong values, which come from a Source of ultimate Truth should obviously wish to keep the antithetical, confusing ideas out. I find it funny that they themselves are the actual proof of this very point - look where being 'open-minded' can lead. But sadly, they don't get the joke.
2. Try to get them to be 'open-minded' with our hard Jewish concepts, like spiritual stuff. They are as thick as a rock when it comes to perhaps entertaining that the Zohar might not be as silly as their untrained minds think. That the Gra might know more than them. They only accept the Rambam because they find solace to their *already comfortable ideas*, but try to show them that the Rambam wasn't quite as modern as they think. Open-minded to what exactly? To all the ideas that this particular generation is comfortable with. Very, very brave of them, I must say.
Yisroel's gadlus is that we aren't נתפעל by the changing outside world. It's very loud out there, but quiet עם לבדד, whose ONLY מעלה is that we follow HKBH no matter what, is still going strong!
I agree to everything you said.
One point.
Factually speaking there has been censorship in the frum world not just the MO world.
See Shaun Spira's comment.
All of those examples are true.
Are you willing to agree that it is wrong to censor divrei rishonim even if they don't align with what is mainstream hashkafah now?
I don't think the article denied that there is wrongful censorship, only that everyone does it, right or left. Now there are people who are "too chareidi" for us and censor too much because they feel that anything not accepted and taught by Rab Elya Ber as the main opinion is אדחי מהלכה and we shouldn't know of it at all. They are dead wrong, but it is not the censorship that's wrong, but the opinion preceding it. Then we have the people who are so radical that lie and say that all rishonim held this way, as you have on the left cherry picking and lying about the Rambam that all he cared about was education and only learn Torah on Shabbos. Yes, people say that. Basically, censorship is a basic part of human nature, and all sides have people who fail to balance it properly.
This wasn't specifically aimed at the article ls contents
Well, Mendelssohn was exposed to the Rambam too early and it was NOT good for him. So I guess it depends for who. If we want people to get to the truth, we should not teach Moreh Nevuchim in high school before the kids know what the Moreh is really about. If you want to call that censorship, go ahead, I guess I'm okay with censorship. Obviously in the information age there needs to be a response to those who are exposed to bad ideas too early (and I'm not quite sure what the responses are), but the mainstream should be to teach the things that will help getting close to Hashem, not the other things.
Age appropriateness isn't the same thing as censorship.
צדיקים ילכו בו ורשעים יכשלו בו
I wish it was just age. Most people shouldn't be learning the Moreh until they fulfill the Rambam's description of when it's appropriate, which is a mighty high bar.
What other censorship is there besides Artscroll who tries specifically to cater to all ages and levels? (I'm not at all agreeing with their policy but I do kind of understand it.)
If you are talking about bans like a making of a gadol, I think bans are silly and counterproductive, as was the recent ban on pshuto shel mikra (and of course the one on Slifkin).
People photo shopping is also silly; I don't think that represents mainstream opinion. People do silly things, and they are not indicative of what we hold.
I think I agree with you on everything you just said.
Regarding the Moreh, from my experience the people that can understand it look at it and the people that can't, don't.
don't.
Regarding artscroll I think you are being to kind to them.
About the Moreh, Slifkin and his crew looked at it and *didn't* understand it.
About Artie, probably:/
What is 'mainstream hashkafah' and where was it decided? In the dorms of Yeshivaland? There is no such thing and never has been.
I used the term do describe mainstream thought in the frum world.
Most if it is based on sources but not all.
What is 'mainstraem throught' and where is it codified?
"Yisroel's gadlus is that we aren't נתפעל by the changing outside world."
Says a blogger on the internet. It's so amusing. I was at chinuch course once, a speaker was billed to talk about the evils of the internet but the speaker said "as this whole conference was organised using the internet, I am going to speak about something else.".
That speaker, although fully charidei, had to take a post in a chareidi-lite/more modox high school as was "encouraged" to leave his highly recognised 'shteller' in "black as the tyers of your car" chareididom. Because, like me, he was too cynical of the whole stupid cult and what it has become.
That comment is utterly useless to this discussion, but מוסר taken.
Classic whataboutism - why don't you turn your talents to justifying chareidi censorship - for example, on matters such as 'leaders' (used loosely) mistakes, errors or holding leaders to account, on the cover up of the negligence at Meron, on the nepotism, on the banning of biographies that do not toe the party line etc etc, rather than just alleging 'they do it to'.
There is plenty of censorship in Chareidiland that does not fall into the categories of "pritzus, emunah and kefira" unless of course you believe (you may well do) that any holding of chareidim to account or publishing matters that need improvement in charediland is a chisoron in emunah.
As I said many times, you have no reading comprehension ability.
The justification for "censorship" is not because "they do it too", but because it is inherently a good thing that everybody agrees to when they actually care.
Where did I write, that you wrote, that your justification is because they do it to?
The point is you are engaging in classic 'whataboutism'.
Why is it a good thing to hide wrongdoings and not hold leaders to account?
Why is it a good thing for you to beat your wife?
Now, do you have an answer to my question? Or are you going to ask another irrelevant one?
I will answer the same way you do
אַשְׁרֵ֥י נְֽשׂוּי־פֶּ֗שַׁע כְּס֣וּי חֲטָאָֽה
Incidentally, my point had two subsections;
(1) wrongdoing
(2) holding leaders to account for poor decision making
You completely failed to address (2).
So you are conceding chareidi leaders sin. That's quite the admission. Best stay anonymous.
כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁתִּמָּנַע מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה מִן הַמְּלָאכוֹת שְׁהִיא חַיֶּבֶת לַעֲשׂוֹתָן--כּוֹפִין אוֹתָהּ וְעוֹשָׂה, וְאַפִלּוּ בַּשּׁוֹט
Ishus 21:10
You happen to be right in this case...censorship does exist and it is wrong.
Nobody takes your opinion seriously because you don't come across as being open truth, rather your aim is to rip chareidim.
Show us that you have something positive to say about our world and then we might listen when you diagnose our flaws.
They take my opinion very seriously which is why they keep responding with insults......nothing validates my points more......
“Most of the criticism of chareidi “censorship” carries the implication that these Torah ideals are worthless . . . .”
I don’t think this is correct. There seems to be an implication here that all “Torah ideals” are monolithic and unchanging when, in fact, they are not. Many who decry the censorship of ideas are not asserting that “Torah ideals are worthless”; they are advocating open discussion of those ideals.
Censorship of ideas among adults is not just a bad idea because it stifles discussion — it is also self-defeating. Censorship of this type is generally a last resort of those who find it difficult to support their position. People intuitively understand this and thus, not surprisingly, the surest way draw attention to a book is to ban it.
Torah ideal are unchanging. You may (incorrectly) disagree, but the unchangingness of Torah ideals is definitely a sacred pillar of Chareidi values. Those who criticize chareidi "censorship" on this mattter imply that their sacred values are worthless and unworthy of protection.
I am not clear on why you say they are unchanging. Many years ago the education of girls was not an ideal in the Torah community and was not common; now it is almost a universally accepted one. I can think of many other examples.
The ideals are unchanging, the practices to attain those ideals are not. Do you really think the chareidim became feminists? No, the Chafetz Chaim observed that without a formal education, girls were leaving religion (which didn't happen before the Haskalah). This is an example of a pragmatic change, not one of ideals.
In an article in the OU's Jewish Action Magazine (Summer 2016) recounting the history of education for girls, the author recounts a 1903 convention of Polish rabbis wherein "[t]he conference almost unanimously opposed [a] suggestion" to establish girls schools and stated that "for the community to establish schools would be wrong." In my mind, moving from neglect of and/or opposition to girls formal schooling to one that actively encourages it, involves a shift in both ideology and practice. And most importantly -- to get back to the topic -- I think that those kinds of debates are good and censoring them is a mistake.
What does that show? That there are debates? That people change their minds?
I think we should censor actual kefira and other bad material that can lead people astray. Do you think Hamodia should bring the arguments of the Christians and the atheists?
It shows that debate and discussion, not censorship, is the proper way to address conflicting ideas. I don't want or need anyone determining on my behalf what is heresy or "bad material" and then precluding me from making my own judgments. And, to my original point, the advocacy of debate and discussion, in lieu of censorship, is a far cry advocating that "Torah ideals are worthless".
Tanach questions: I assume something about chachma for iyov/mishlei
Tehillim: tell me! I'm curious
Modern Orthodoxy does indeed engage in censorship, as the past couple of years have showed us:
https://brownstone.org/articles/modern-orthodox-judaism-failed-during-covid/
“This explains the otherwise perplexing attempts of some secularist Modern Orthodox individuals or institutions to “demonstrate” that their approach is as faithful to the Torah or moreso than chareidi Judaism, a suggestion that is otherwise as laughable as maintaining that a plastic manequin is more authentic than a live human being.”
I have not read Slifkins post that you link here but I would like steelman a case against you this way, and it’s not even that I can point to any one community that I think has “upheld” the true Mesorah because TBH I think it is historically impossible that we have kept our culture, mode of dress, minhagim etc. free from outside influence.
That being said no community is perfect but if we are being intellectually honest, though I disagree with the way in which “changing the immutable” was written, it is still an important book to gain perspective on frum culture and has helped many people I know start trying to separate the “frum culture” (the negative attachments to meaningless things) and connecting to a more authentic version of yiddishkeit. (This will be a future post)
I didn't read the book, but I read many of his articles discussing various aspects of frumkeit, and I very much doubt we have anything to learn from such a person on a religious level. He is a good historian but a terrible Torah scholar or authority on anything related the religious aspect of Judaism. If you have specific examples of what you mean, I will be glad to hear.
Specific examples are Netzach rewriting R Weinberg's view of R Hirsch, the biography of R Aharon photo-shopping R Soloveitchik out of a picture with R Moshe and R Aharon, the endless disappearing haskamos from R Kook, taking out an inconvenient Halacha from the Kitzur shulchanh aruch, etc etc etc. Shapiro's point is that the charedi censors aren't content to let their own heroes speak for themselves.
https://seforimblog.com/2015/01/artscrolls-response-and-my-comments/
"ArtScroll chose to include Rashbam’s commentary to Genesis chapter 1 in its recently published mikraot gedolot. However, ArtScroll also chose to delete those sections of the commentary it didn’t like, assuming (without any evidence) that these sections were written by heretics. This is censorship of Rashbam. That is all people need to know.[34]
ArtScroll has done some great things. They have also done some pretty disappointing things. But as I said in the prior post, nothing comes close to this. Deleting comments of one of the greatest rishonim is simply outrageous. Some have said that what ArtScroll did is unforgivable. I think this is going too far. If ArtScroll acknowledges its error and reinserts that which has been removed, I think that we all would be very happy to put this behind us. One of the most important aspects of a Torah personality is the ability to recognize when one has made a mistake and rectify it. If ArtScroll is able to do this, it would lead to great admiration.
On the other hand, if ArtScroll refuses to acknowledge that it has made a terrible error, even after seeing the evidence presented in this post, then one must conclude that ArtScroll is knowingly suppressing the words of a great rishon. One can only hope that ArtScroll does not wish to have this blemish permanently attached to its name."
One thing I find ironic is that the same people that use the concept of mesorah and daas torah as all powerful concepts will throw it away in heartbeat if presented by an instance of a gadol or even the torah saying something that doesn't jive with their hashkafah.
You can't have it both ways.
Yea, but the academics do the same thing. It's human nature to be an idiot, it's everywhere.
Saying it is everywhere does not justify it anywhere
Yes it does. Its called a תינוק שנשבה. They don't have Bechira.
Course you can. The mesorah is self-modifying code. Anyway the Rashbam never said it. Some dodgy talmid inserted into his pirush. And it's well known the Rashbam he was chozer b'sof yomov. Better not mention the Ibn Ezra.......
I was referring to learning from him on a religious level. I find his outrage at deleting comments of "one of the greatest rishonim" hollow (especially since in the article I linked, he finds fault in the Pischei Choshen for including halachos about gezel akkum that are straight from Shas, Rishonim, and Gedolei Haposkim.) I don't see the great religious passion about specifically learning statements from rishonim that sound like kefira. In fact, the opposite, which is sort of the point of my post. People who really care about the Rashbam as one of the greatest rishonim care very much if he allegedly wrote kefira. Shapiro (seemingly) couldn't care less.
"I was referring to learning from him on a religious level. I find his outrage at deleting comments of "one of the greatest rishonim" hollow"
You asked for specific examples. I provided them. I think they speak for themselves, along with the innumerable others which he provides.
"(especially since in the article I linked, he finds fault in the Pischei Choshen for including halachos about gezel akkum that are straight from Shas, Rishonim, and Gedolei Haposkim.)"
Let's just stipulate that censoring torah sources or what gedolim had to say isn't a good thing. Can we agree on that? I'd really rather not rehash Marc Shapiro's chezkas kashrus or sincerity (yet) again. Especially since it's not really relevant either way.
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I mean examples where you can gain from him on a religious level. Like Yitz said "connecting to a more authentic version of yiddishkeit". I don't think the examples you cited are particularly helpful on a religious level, and connect one to more authentic Yiddishkeit, although maybe if you were a hardened cynical Kotzker they would be.
I don't think the Artscroll editors though they were doing baseless censoring, but really though that the Rashbam couldn't have said that (which I don't agree), similar to Rav Moshe and R' Yehuda Hachasid. This would be similar to when the Magid Mishna or Kesef Mishna says the girsa of the Rambam must be wrong, even with no manuscript evidence
Okay, not sure we disagree. I guess part of it comes down whether you think having an accurate historical picture of the Jewish world is religiously valuable. I think it is, but can't really prove it.
Regardless, I do think a distinction needs to be made between censoring an embarrassing episode versus censoring a viewpoint expressed or implied by a gadol. I think the former can be defended on moral grounds without the latter coming along for the ride. Covering up the fact that e.g. some gadol had anger management problems is just fundamentally different than deleting a teshuvas melamed le'hoil because it's somehow politically incorrect to acknowledge that he wrote that the practice in R Hirsch's schools was to go bareheaded during limuddei chol time.
When you have too much censorship you end up living in fantasy land. I actually met someone who believed that through history a boy from cheer who move to continue to learn shas and poskim and that poverty was always an ideal!
But when there is no censorship, you also end up living in a fantasy land, that is, going OTD. So you need a balance,
Can you point to specific evidence of censorship preventing people from going OTD?
Sounds unlikely
I agree to an extent. We need to be able to censorship harmful material (an obvious example is porn) as well as outright Kefira but we should also allow people to ask questions and we should especially allow people to be exposed to different opinions within Judaism. One who's confident in his own position shouldn't feel confused by acknowledging other views. I wouldn't want my kids to become charedi but I'd have no issue with them learning ספר אמונה ובטחון or even ויועל משה if they're mature enough to handle it. My exposure to other cultures and views at this point in my life (I'm 24) makes my אמונה only stronger.
I think this would be a perfect time to make the distinction between someone being a Torah scholar/gadol and being able to learn something from a person no matter what background they have. I have no qualms learning something from someone I may not even have any respect for. I may not go to Marc Shapiro for psak and again the way he writes can be inflammatory but some of the ideas presented, that generally frum culture has gone through many changes/ they may have had *gasp* lower standards on certain practices that today we assume are sacrosanct, yarmulke being an example.
And the point is not that everyone should throw off their yarmulkas it is that we should be able to look at our values and culture with an eye to history and nuance so we can focus on what is truly emes
I would double like this if I could
True, but you can say the same thing about reading Protocols of the Elder of Zion or The Jews and Their Lies (this one is actually very valuable). The fact that Judaism has "changed" is known to anybody who studies the Torah and Gemara. But he goes much much further than just documenting history and assigns very religious, halachic, and hashkafic interpretations to these facts, this totally pervades his work.
Major reducto ad absurdum comparing Marc Shapiro to The protocols lol
I haven't read shapiro, but Natan's blog is defintiely very similar to the protocols, and often indistinguishable
It's just an analogy. Like if I say both Anne of Green Gables and the Illiad are good literature, that doesn't mean they are very similar.
It's actually classic yeshivish. Bring a dodgy moshol, and then spend the rest of seder arguing about the moshol and/or its relevance rather than the etzem nekudah. You can't help yourself.
No. Calling harry krish people a cult doesn't mean I hate them.
I know this is a side point, but why do you think it's justified to kick a million people out of their homes if you believe in the Torah? The Torah says the Jewish people will be exiled and will not be returned until they do Teshuvah!
I mean if they do teshuva. אה"נ for those who didn't, I don't see a justification.
But it is Hashem who decides if and when Klal Yisroel has done Teshuvah, and He will effect Kibbutz Galuyos. It is not for us to take the law in to our own hands.
That is definitely the shittah of Satmar and followed by many chassidim, but I think many didn't agree, for example the Talmidei HaGra.
The order in the the Torah is the exact opposite. Hashem will gather the exiles and then the Torah says that he'll circumcise our hearts.
The Ramban btw views kibush Haaretz as a mitzva min hatorah.
That is actually a machlokes in the Gemara at the end of sanhedrin. The Rambam at the end of Milachim holds we cannot go like any opinion in these matters conclusively. The Torah also says to live in EY and some hold it's a Chiyuv even today. If it takes strong measures thats not against the Torah per se.
I haven't looked into the halachic sugya deeply, but my thinking is like this. Hashem gave the land to us, see the first Rashi in Bereishis. Therefore, we are allowed to kick out anybody who inhibits our inhabitation of the Land, even if they are not עובדי ע"ז. This is all good if you really believe the Torah and that its hashkafa and instructions are unchanging. But if you c"v don't think the Torah is actually historical, or think it should be updated for consistency with modern morals, what possible justification is there for such open robbery?! And אדרבה, on the level of somebody who does believe the Torah, I think it is clear from the Torah itself that people who don't follow the Torah have no right to the Land (see Bechukosai, numerous other places in the Torah, and countless places in Neviim). כן נראה לע"ד.
As for your last question, I think very few people are free information extremists. Most people agree there need to be some limits. Quite naturally, where you put those limits will depend on what you actually value.
The Ramban says it's forbidden to allow the land in the hands of other nations. Nakba is a Mitzva.
Even the civilians that didn't attack definitely hate us and threaten our presence. They are not גרי תושב.
Without the Torah, I don't think there is much of a self-defense justification for everything they did. For some of it, definitely. The fear that your neighbor hates you and might harass or attack does not generally justify invading his property and kicking him out. But with the Torah, it's really our land, so I can see much more of a justification. But I would need to do more עיון.
As you mentioned, human nature is simply not on the side of free information extremism. People consider other things much more important.
Sure, they just need to cooperate, and so far, they haven't been.
Right but they attacked.