So goes a DovBear post, in support of Rabbi Gil Student of Hirhurim. He makes some good points.
The background is firstly the scandal or 'scandal' involving false personas created by Rabbi Michael Broyde, exposed by Steven I. Weiss. Then, The Trusty Shovel (a reference to the Devarim 23:13, because it serves similar purpose) had an article attacking Rabbi Gil Student and "Mr." [sic] Harry Maryles for attacking chareidim for their scandals but offering defenses or only muted criticism of Rabbi Broyde. You can see Rabbi Student's letter to the editor about this and the authors response here.
I think that the Yated article was wrong to attack Rabbi Student, because indeed, Hirhurim is NOT at all what they allege it to be. (Emes veEmunah is another story, in that it at least actually does often criticize chareidim as well as various chareidi rabbis.)
On the other hand, perhaps some of the criticism in the original Yated article is correct, but better directed at me, and other bloggers of this tier.
I am not talking about the likes of Failed Messiah, which reports all such scandals equally. Rather, I am talking about those who take the middle ground.
On occasion, I have criticized certain rabbinic figures or even random chareidim for lapses or scandals. For instance, I called attention to that fellow who refused to help his wife give birth, instead flagging down a truck driver to perform the delivery. I called that fellow a chassid shoteh, I still think to make a point. Or I called attention to Baba Eleazar's quite likely being a con artist who preyed on vulnerable innocent Jews, and decried the religious culture that let people like this operate with impunity. Or I pointed out that Rav Kanievsky believes that Jews and gentiles have a different number of teeth, for the sake of pointing out that we should not necessarily give weight to positions of chareidi Gedolim when it comes to matters involving the intersection of science and halacha. Or the rabbi in Israel who thinks that he caused the previous Pope to resign. Other times, I may read articles in the secular press about chareidim and not think very kindly of them.
Yet the criticism and exposure of Rabbi Michael Broyde pained me. Not because I really agree with his ideological positions, or his halachic methodology. I am not sure that I do.
Rather, I am a lot more ambivalent about the exposure of this scandal. I don't think that it was a good thing that Steven I. Weiss did, ruining (directly or indirectly, as he would prefer to frame) Rabbi Broyde's position in the name of a scoop. I think that what Rabbi Broyde did was stupid and immature, like much of conversations which happen on the Internet, but that it was not really harming anyone.
Similarly, many of the "scandals" involving Rav Schachter, such as the most recent one, which was publicized by an ignorant journalist who entirely missed Rav Schachter's intent (that one should report child molesters even if it falls under the category of mesirah for reason X; the journalist put it as that one should not report child molesters because it is mesirah for reason X). And then various liberal touchy-feely rabbis write articles distancing themselves from him and in that way puff themselves up. And I don't think very kindly of the journalists in question.
In these instances, I think I have a more nuanced position. But this was perhaps the Yated article's main point. Cross out Hirhurim (where it is not true) and put in parshablog, and cross out Rabbi Student (where it is not true) and put in Rabbi Waxman:
I think I have a good rejoinder to this, about my selection and purpose. But still, at its core, the author's point is not so dumb. It is asking where the nuance is in regard to chareidim, and where is the achdus when it comes to chareidim?
The background is firstly the scandal or 'scandal' involving false personas created by Rabbi Michael Broyde, exposed by Steven I. Weiss. Then, The Trusty Shovel (a reference to the Devarim 23:13, because it serves similar purpose) had an article attacking Rabbi Gil Student and "Mr." [sic] Harry Maryles for attacking chareidim for their scandals but offering defenses or only muted criticism of Rabbi Broyde. You can see Rabbi Student's letter to the editor about this and the authors response here.
I think that the Yated article was wrong to attack Rabbi Student, because indeed, Hirhurim is NOT at all what they allege it to be. (Emes veEmunah is another story, in that it at least actually does often criticize chareidim as well as various chareidi rabbis.)
On the other hand, perhaps some of the criticism in the original Yated article is correct, but better directed at me, and other bloggers of this tier.
I am not talking about the likes of Failed Messiah, which reports all such scandals equally. Rather, I am talking about those who take the middle ground.
On occasion, I have criticized certain rabbinic figures or even random chareidim for lapses or scandals. For instance, I called attention to that fellow who refused to help his wife give birth, instead flagging down a truck driver to perform the delivery. I called that fellow a chassid shoteh, I still think to make a point. Or I called attention to Baba Eleazar's quite likely being a con artist who preyed on vulnerable innocent Jews, and decried the religious culture that let people like this operate with impunity. Or I pointed out that Rav Kanievsky believes that Jews and gentiles have a different number of teeth, for the sake of pointing out that we should not necessarily give weight to positions of chareidi Gedolim when it comes to matters involving the intersection of science and halacha. Or the rabbi in Israel who thinks that he caused the previous Pope to resign. Other times, I may read articles in the secular press about chareidim and not think very kindly of them.
Yet the criticism and exposure of Rabbi Michael Broyde pained me. Not because I really agree with his ideological positions, or his halachic methodology. I am not sure that I do.
Rather, I am a lot more ambivalent about the exposure of this scandal. I don't think that it was a good thing that Steven I. Weiss did, ruining (directly or indirectly, as he would prefer to frame) Rabbi Broyde's position in the name of a scoop. I think that what Rabbi Broyde did was stupid and immature, like much of conversations which happen on the Internet, but that it was not really harming anyone.
Similarly, many of the "scandals" involving Rav Schachter, such as the most recent one, which was publicized by an ignorant journalist who entirely missed Rav Schachter's intent (that one should report child molesters even if it falls under the category of mesirah for reason X; the journalist put it as that one should not report child molesters because it is mesirah for reason X). And then various liberal touchy-feely rabbis write articles distancing themselves from him and in that way puff themselves up. And I don't think very kindly of the journalists in question.
In these instances, I think I have a more nuanced position. But this was perhaps the Yated article's main point. Cross out Hirhurim (where it is not true) and put in parshablog, and cross out Rabbi Student (where it is not true) and put in Rabbi Waxman:
I think I have a good rejoinder to this, about my selection and purpose. But still, at its core, the author's point is not so dumb. It is asking where the nuance is in regard to chareidim, and where is the achdus when it comes to chareidim?
