The Crass Chutzpah of the Haredim
Emanuel Feldman has an essay rebuking Elliot Spitzer published on at least two sites in addition to the Jerusalem Post, on both Big Aish and Cross-Currents, both ultra-Orthodox sites. While it sure is wonderful that the fahfrumpt are taking time out to discuss the secular former governor and how he was guilty of immorality, I can’t help but wonder why these sites are consistently silent on the problem of sexual abuse in their own communities, and the role that their Great Ones have played in enabling it.
Look at this!
Gov. Spitzer did not invent or discover immorality. He is preceded by a centuries-old lineup of presidents, kings, prime ministers, and ordinary politicians.
Gee…I wonder who else you could put on this list a little closer to home?
Unbelievable.
I give both Big Aish and Cross-Currents a heter not to drink this Purim. They already are long past the point of “ad lo yada.”
28 comments
Kings David and Solomon? Oh wait, they still were allowed to be promiscuous.
What Cross-Currents wrote about Spitzer doesn’t sound remotely as strong as what you’ve written about, say, Robert Moses. And pretty much what anyone would agree about him: He thought he could get away with anything, precisely because he had lived such a charmed life.
What’s wrong with that?
Ron,
There is no comparing Spitzer and Robert Moses. The former slept with overpriced whores; the latter was a cruel dictator.
The problem affecting the frum community is not the sexual deviance of kings or politicians, Ron. This is stealth gloating. Oh, yes. We are so frum, their (the “frya”) leaders are so depraved.
They. Need. To. Stop. Enabling. Molesters.
They need to crack down on rabbis who are touching little boys inappropriately. EVEN if their is no penetration. Even if they aren’t quite ass raping children in front of two witnesses.
Even then, Ron.
That is what they should be dealing with. Not Spitzer.
They do no such thing.
Do you see the very unfortunate, even dangerous, hypocrisy, Ron?
>>They. Need. To. Stop. Enabling. Molesters.
Good point.
No bans, no cherems, etc. Just bring the molesters from Israel to Brooklyn to face trial.
What do you expect from circles that marry off 16-year-old girls even if the legality and legitimateness of doing so are highly dubious?
About Sarah’s first post- King Solomon was a monarch and a diplomat, so royal marriages were how diplomacy was done in a monarchy system and that’s why I imagine Solomon gets a pass for marrying all of those gentile women.
King David idk.
Or rather, SJ, it was common practice - otherwise his special prerogatives as a monarch had been stressed, but that’s only something you find later rabbis coming up with. King david got chided by the Prophet Nathan for having Batsebah’s hubby killed, not for marrying a non-Jewish woman (at that time, a wedding constituted out of intercourse). For all we can positively tell, the ban on intermarriage was enforced in the post-expulsion era of the Jewish diaspora, likely even in response to an environment where Jews could not legally marry non-Jews. (Here’s some reading on intermarriage: http://www.jewishencyclopedia......ermarriage)
But I don’t aim to digress, double standards do get applied in those circles from what I have seen, and it would do the credibility of religious leaders good if they determined a more consistent policy.
But DK, the fact that “they” are enabling molesters does not mean other orthodox Jews aren’t allowed to express opinions on topics that… aren’t even related.
Ron, that’s such crap and you know it. When has ANY haredi publication including Cross-Currents EVER taken on the rampant sexual abuse that “The Gedoylim” have enabled and abetted? When, Ron? When it was on Dateline NBC? In the NY Post? Why not, Ron?
Because the only time frummie writers are interested in sexual stuff is to condemn it in the west — the inferior, amoral west.
If they can’t be bothered to tackle their own major problems — and they can’t, they are notoriously obstructive to such improvements — they should at least do us all a favor and shut their holier-than-thou mouths when it comes to sexual indiscretions in the secular world.
Unless the writer is trying to defend Spitzer, (highly doubtful) he definitely should not be touting around Spitzer’s mistakes and colorful sex life. And oh so piously preach talmudic thou shalt not passages and reiterate haughtier than thou rhetoric .
The way he conducted his personal sex life should not be any of their concern unless they are actually concerned about Spitzer himself.
Jaded, by your standard neither you nor DK should comment about rabbis unless “they are actually concerned about Spitzer himself.” Highly doubtful!
Actually the Jewish Observer had a series of articles dealing with abuse several months ago, which generated quite a bit of controversy.
I cannot speak for Cross-Currents. It’s not exactly how I would run a frum blog. Obviously — I’ve had so many comments rejected by them that I don’t even read it any more.
“I cannot speak for Cross-Currents. It’s not exactly how I would run a frum blog.”
You don’t say…
Ron,
I was goin on DK’s premise that “they should shut their holier than thou mouths when it comes to sexual discretions of the secular world” and taking it just a little further on one possible angle, the “negative/derogatory speech” angle.
As for me, I don’t differentiate between religious and secular when it comes to “derogatory speech” nor does it affect my opinions and staunch stances on stuff. When I’m careful about those laws, I go all the way, in that I’m an equal opportunity refrain from “negative/derogatory speech” believer.
What happened to the we should be super careful about every word and opinion we utter rhetoric, everyone was preaching when trying so hard to misconstrue Professor Noah Feldman’s piece of analytic brilliance in the Times - “Orthodox Paradox” ? Those fun laws swing both ways.
Jaded, you believe someone (a piece of crap in particular) like Feldman should be allowed to write what he wants about the frum world (why even an ultra-modern place like DK would presumably approve of) and not be subject to criticism because of… what, hilchos lashon hora?
If I understand Jaded, she’s pointing out that the rules of lashon hara have become twisted, tortured and mangled to the point that they have morphed into a coward’s device used by the “religious” to silence critics.
We can say whatever we want about Noah Feldman: “a piece of crap in particular”, because, well, he shouldn’t be “allowed to write what he wants about the frum world”. (And who, in the great name of Hashem, is in charge of dispensing this permission, Ron?)
We can tear Eliot Spitzer apart and hang him from the rafters (in our free time between spiriting child molesters off to hide in Israel) because “Living by the disciplines of the Torah, as well as studying it, can help overcome the Tempter, and clearly, this was ex-gov Spitzer’s downfall. If you sense hypocrisy here, you’d best keep your mouth shut- it’s lashon hara.
How do you defend the indefensible? Easy: throw up a smokescreen and accuse anyone who sees through it of lashon hara.
C-Cirl, have you ever learned the halachos of loshon hora? They manifestly do not apply, by their own terms, to Noah Feldman. They manifestly do not apply to the protection of child molesters, either.
The argument that you cede the right to criticize a public figure in a place for commentary on public issues by not also addressing the issues DK, Jaded Topaz and C-Girl mandate is not particularly persuasive. You have not made an argument regarding hypocrisy, which only be appropriate if the critics were violating the Mann Act themselves.
Lashon hora is simply not a relevant topic in this discussion.
Ron- yes, I have learned, but my knowledge is surely not prodigious. But I must say that I know enough to be quite sure that the question you posed to me, without any knowledge of my scholarly background, dances on the edge of permissible.
Ron,
Other than the “don’t judge the decisions of the learned ” prohibition which is generally touted around like its going out of style, spiritually, not much else is touted around equally or in the same way.
A write up (specifically Avi Shafran’s recent cross currents piece actually) that includes lofty concepts like “don’t judge others until you’ve stood in their space” cannot coexist peacefully in the very same write up that is using someone that the author considers a “sinner” (biblically speaking, prostitutes are not sinners) to remind everyone what happens when you let “temptation” tempt you over the edge of rigid discipline.
Do you ever see write ups about “Gedolim” that have made mistakes and how the temptation in all of us and them to control others to the point of dictatorship sometimes gets the better of us and them ! To the point of absurd.
And how we shouldn’t rejoice in the downfall of rabbinic intellectualism.
And we should separate the sin from the sinner and maybe write the gedolim “it’s never too late for teshuva !” poetry and love letters to romanticize our concern for the “Gedolim” that have gone out of control .
The Gedolim don’t ever bother explaining their own mistakes ! We are just supposed to believe and move on and piously too.
On the other side of reality we have pious preachers determined to keep their pride intact by preaching the importance of every word and opinion we utter about anyone.This concept swings both ways and is a universally applicable concept.
Mussar speeches should not be reserved exclusively for brilliant individuals like Noah Feldman who present a brilliant analytical piece on contradiction and religion.
Write ups about the “contradictions” concerning Eliot Spitzer should be dealt with in the same way Noah Feldman’s write up on “contradiction” was dealt with.
If you want to be fair that is, from a controlling point of view, highlighting any one person’s contradictions should be a problem if you find contradiction and or the quest for public reconciliation a problem.
Inconsistency always annoyed me if you want to be a control freak at least be consistent about it otherwise its not very fair.
Controlling orthodox Judaism adherents is not my thing though.
I’m more of a free spirit adherent to whatever I deem logical at this time .
C-Girl, why do you think my question “danced on the edge of permissible”?
Jaded, I have made it clear I am not defending the editorial POV of Cross-Currents, ok?
Noah Feldman, by virtue of marrying a non-Jew, has removed himself from the halachic definition of one who is protected by the laws of lashon hora. Your obsession with, and universal forgiveness of, “brilliance,” at least when applied to anyone other than publicly prominent orthodox Jews, is kind of interesting, Jaded.
I do not, incidentally, have any interest in the “reconciliation” of Noah Feldman’s choice to abandon Judaism with his fantastic ego nor his bitter lashing out against the culture that gave him every opportunity to become exactly the kind of fully fleshed out orthodox Renaissance man our host DK extols as the ideal observant Jew. His journey into self-hatred (yes, in this case it is appropriate, considering his role in the Tenafly eruv case as well as his slanderous piece in the Times Magazine) is the best argument for — what is the term, DK? — RWUO I can think of, unless…
Well unless, like you Jaded, and most of the commenters here, you don’t really care if a person keeps the Torah, has Jewish children, or even acts and communicates in such a way as to enhance the world’s view of the Torah and God. And especially if, say, you share the same antipathy towards those things that Feldman does.
But if you do, I would not expect you, Jaded — in fact, based on what you have written, I know you would not — pretend to be offended when the orthodox Jewish world asks you to get lost, much less to use that pretense of offendedness as an excuse for another New York Times slam on religion. With you, Jaded, and with DK, I get a degree of intellectual and moral honesty not available to Noah Feldman, World’s Greatest Scholar.
Spitzer? Really, in the big picture, not of any particular Jewish interest. It was trite to write about him in a Jewish publication, actually.
And, uh, Jaded, if you are dropping the word “Gedollim” arbitrarily into your comment to fit the DK decor, I am sure it is not necessary. Kelsey is not so particular! Otherwise I have no idea what “gedolim” has to do with this discussion.
Oh, and by the way, this is really one of the most special paragraphs I have read today — the one that starts out, “Inconsistency always annoyed me …” and ends with “I’m more of a free spirit adherent to whatever I deem logical at this time.” Delicious!
Ron,
Avi Shafran is the director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America.
While he did have some good points in his piece,(especially cuz he used Bruria’s insights about separating sin from sinner as a source among other valid points if read without the surrounding context)but my “godol” was the main character.
What do obscure Tenafly eruv issues have to do with anything ?
Do I sound like the kind of girl who cares about some Jersey town’s archaic eruv issues ?
Do you judge your rabbinical leaders according to every decision ruling and opinion they did/had ?
Noah Feldman/Eliot Spitzer/Mayor Bloomerg/Shalom Auslander/Steve Almond are my new diverse sources for intellectual inspiration.
They are my new “Gedolim”.
Ron, while asking me a question is, in itself, not a violation, how a question is framed can push it over the precipice.
If you already knew that I was well versed in the halachot of lashon hara, asking me a question like that would be superfluous but okay. Your actual assumption, however, appeared to be that I was unfamiliar with the halachot of lashon hara. The reason you asked, as shown by your follow-up statements, was to rebuke. There is a clear prohibition against halbanat panim.
While I take your comments to be in your usual brusque style, if I were in a position where they would cause harm to my credibility, we might have a serious issue.
Sorry, meant to write more.
If, instead, you had presented exactly the same ideas as…
“Well, C-Girl, I don’t understand how the halachos of loshon hora apply here. They manifestly do not apply, by their own terms, to Noah Feldman. They manifestly do not apply to the protection of child molesters, either.”
…it would have made all the difference because it would have been a statement meant to educate rather than to point out another’s possible shortcomings.
C-Girl, granting your premise for argument’s sake, I don’t believe there is any issue of lashon hora in pointing out the shortcomings of an anonymous and unidentifiable person. Can you tell me how I might be mistaken?
Actually, Ron, the premise of internet obscurity was one of the LH issues that intrigued me the most.
In the old days of the ‘net, there was a cartoon that showed a dog in front of a terminal with a caption that read “in cyberspace, no one knows you’re a dog”. Nowadays, we can call ourselves whatever we want- Ron Coleman, C-Girl, Halfsours, whatever. But unless I personally know you, one name is as anonymous as another, provided you’re not a public figure that is widely known. I’m probably as likely to run into you as I am to run into someone that happens to really be named halfsours. In that sense, we are not “actual” people here in cyberspace, no matter who we say we are. You are not Ron Coleman, the guy, to me. You are “Ron Coleman”, a person who writes things, just as I am “C-Girl,” another person who writes things.
But yet, when we write things on sites, like this one, for example, it’s easy to forget that we are writing to actual people, not anonymous lumps of matter. So in that sense, the normal laws of lashon hara do apply. As was pointed out to me, one who posts, even if they represent themselves with a valid-sounding name, still might be the person next to you on the bus that always smiles and says hello, your next-door neighbor, your rav (attempting to see how you might behave when you think no one’s looking- strange, but I’ve known of cases where it’s happened) or your mother.
In other words, if your message might make someone’s face turn color in public, you need to consider that it might do the same, figuratively, if you present it in public on the internet.
Of course, it is more difficult to ascertain whether actual harm has come to someone because of something written to or about them in a comments section or a post, but it is safe to say that it is better to err on the side of restraint, especially if one wishes their online persona to be known as religious, observant, Torah-true, etc.
Oh, one more thing.
If someone is commonly referred to on the net as, for example, Ploni the Phony, a name that is recognized as derogatory, it is forbidden to call them that, even if they’re used to it and even if they answer to it. Right?
So is it okay to refer to Noah Feldman as “a piece of crap in particular�? Do different rules apply? No one I asked seemed to think so.
Oops- should have read:
“As was pointed out to me, one who posts, even if they do not represent themselves with a valid-sounding name…”
And sorry about the italics run-n, I’m posting as I’m flying out the door.
Have a good day!
I think you raise valid points, C-Girl. I am not sure I agree with them all, however. I for one made a decision early on in my involvement in the Net that I would not participate pseudonymously, and I have stuck to that 99.5% of the time. There have been situations where abuse was simply guaranteed and I have commented anonymously, but otherwise I am who I am. Contrary to your suggestion, I have a pretty substantial “Net rep” and am readily recognized as “the same Ron Coleman” from the Internet as people know from shul, school, professional life, and of course in my everyday function as defender of freedom and democracy worldwide, model family man and nationally-ranked black-hat baal teshuva.
On the other hand, I was thinking along the same lines as you — if you are C-Girl on the Net, well, you are C-Girl, aren’t you? And, indeed, if C-Girl is, “b’parhessia,” a shomeres Shabbos, then does she indeed get the same presumption of kashrus as in “real life”?
I think these are good questions for an expert in halacha, which I am not, as to how they might apply to lashon hora. I would bet Gil Student has, at some point, addressed these questions on some level, at some point, maybe, possibly.
Leave a Comment