Did Rav Moshe Feinstein read newspapers?

Recently, Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi posted the following on Facebook, presumably copied and pasted from this Revach post:

Rav Moshe Feinstein reading a newspaper.
Brought to my attention by
Mississippi Fred MacDowell.

The Steipler once sent a shaliach to Rav Moshe Feinstein regarding an important issue which the Steipler wanted Rav Moshe to become involved in. The shaliach discussed the issue with R' Moshe and told him all the details. When he was finished, he pulled out a Hamodia newspaper, explaining that this newspaper happens to have an article about the inyan. Rav Moshe declined to take the newspaper, saying that he had already heard the details so there is no need for him to see the article. The shaliach persisted, explaining that it was possible that he missed one or two important details. 

Rav Moshe responded, "I have not held a newspaper in my hands for seventy years. As soon as I read a newspaper, I will no longer be qualified to pasken because my mind will not be one hundred percent Da'as Torah."

This is an interesting story. It puts forth the idea that Gedolim have daas Torah, seemingly defined here as an oracular quality in which their pronouncements reflect the Divine Will, and that this daas Torah could be spoiled by paying attention to secular sources of information such as newspapers. We are perhaps meant to deduce that we should not read newspapers either, that we should respect Gedolim more than sources of secular knowledge, and should be impressed with deliberate ignorance of the world, because that is more likely to lead to an accurate, Torah-sourced, answer. The idea is that secular influences are a pernicious, corrupting force, and one should avoid it at all costs.

It is strange that the shaliach could discuss the details with Rav Moshe orally, and this didn't spoil Rav Moshe's daas Torah. Even though the shaliach had read HaModia. Or that, had the shaliach written down the details in the newspaper, then reading those same details from the shaliach but in newsprint would have spoiled Rav Moshe's daas Torah, such that he would not be qualified to pasken.

Besides the picture above, which shows Rav Moshe Feinstein holding a newspaper in his hands, and even (lo aleinu!) reading it, there are other reasons to believe that the story is bogus:

1) Rabbi Moshe Tendler has stated (see here, which excerpted from a Mevaser article here) that this claim about his father in law (Rav Moshe Feinstein) is in all the books, but that he and a thousand talmidim can testify that it is false, and further, that Rav Moshe's teshuvot benefited from this window to the world:

My shver was uniquely sensitive to society. Despite what they write in all the books about him, my shver never failed to read the Yiddish newspaper – either the Tog in the early years or the Morgn-Zhurnal later on – cover-to-cover every single day. People publish that he would walk down the street and avert his eyes when he passed by newspaper stands. There are a thousand talmidim of his who will testify, “I bought the paper and handed it to him in the lunchroom in the yeshivah,” but it does not make a difference for some people – they do not want to hear that. Even when he was not well and the doctor insisted that he must lie down to sleep for an hour, he would go home, put on a bathrobe, and smuggle a newspaper into the bedroom so that his wife would not see it. He sat there reading the whole time, rather than sleeping. I used to ask him, “Why do you read this chazeray (junk)?” He would respond to me, “Dos iz mayn vinde” – this is my window [to the world]. He understood society and his piskei Halachah show that. He used to say, “People think that because I’m aware of society, I became a meikel (lenient decisor). What do they want me to do – paskn incorrectly? I’m not a meikel – I paskn the way it has to be. The Halachah takes into account societal factors.” This willingness to be exposed to society made his teshuvos more meaningful and more acceptable.

2) Rabbi Dovid Feinstein, Rav Moshe's son, says something which falsifies the part of the story in which Rav Moshe asserts daas Torah as the basis for his authority and thus as a necessary qualification for a posek:

Rav Dovid Feinstein (personal communication): In response to the question of whether his father ever justified his halachic decisions Rav Feinstein told me the following, “I never heard my father claim that his authority was from Daas Torah. He always insisted that the authority of his rulings was because they involved correct reasoning.”

3) On that Facebook thread, someone (a named person) writes:

Did it occur to you to confirm this? Cause i just confimed with Reb Moshes family that its false.

Modern Psychology, Gedolim, and Ben Sorer Umoreh

From a derasha from Rav Moshe Shternbuch, written down by Rabbi Travis, and posted at the Daas Torah blog.

Here is the page in full. But is this claim about what Modern-day psychology proposes indeed true?

Consider the following, from an Intro to Psychology textbook:

It would seem, then, that in describing these three parenting styles, "modern-day psychology" does not promote the parenting style of "overly permissive parents". Indeed, their conclusion seems to be more or less the same as that of Rav Moshe Shternbuch, that it produces dependent, immature children who misbehave frequently. Instead, it seems more like they are promoting an "authoritative parenting style" as effective parenting.

But I suppose if he wants to attack some position, he might as well attribute it to modern psychology, because he has a definite anti-science bent.

Assuming this is an accurate summary of his derasha, this is not the first time Rav Sternbuch has attacked modern science while getting some all-important detail wrong. In the past, he attacked Darwinian evolution because it is progressionist -- that species were developing in a way of progress, becoming "better" each time. That, Rav Sternbuch felt, was contrary to the teachings of the Torah that previous generations were greater than ours, which he would extend to the physical realm as well, and prior to the creation of man. (Really? The animals, created before Adam, were on a higher level?) But this is an attack on Lamarck, who was a progressionist. Darwinian evolution, and especially modern evolution is decidedly non-progressionist.

Should we really take criticism of science from those who treat it as heresy and therefore do not take the time and effort to truly understand it?

Rebbe Moshiach Concert by MBD and Shweky

As noted in the previous post, MBD and Shweky performed in a concert in honor of the Rebbe Melech haMoshiach.

I just saw a picture on Vos is Neiaz that shows that this was not just in the posters for the event, but was featured prominently. Look at that tarp on the ground, with a picture of a crown, and the word משיח in Hebrew. I really have to wonder whether Rav Ovadiah Yosef was apprised of this important aspect of this concert when they requested his imprinteur, or whether there was manipulation. But his son, Rabbi Yaakov Yosef, was present at the concert! How could he be unaware of it? Perhaps they just do not see this belief in a dead messiah, or that the Rebbe is not dead, as a big deal.

Manipulating Gedolim pt ii

With the background of yesterday's post, and with the general trend of askonim attempting to manipulate gedolim, I think it is clear that when we hear a halachic ruling in the name of Rav Kanievsky, we should take it with a grain of salt. We should read carefully, or inquire carefully, into the circumstances of how the question was asked and barring being able to determine that information, we should not simply assume that everything was on the up-and-up.

As YeshivaWorld reports, ARecently, chareidi activists started publishing a "black-list" of stores where Arabs are still employed, "Following the p'sak halacha (Rabbinical ruling) by Rav Chaim Kanievsky Shlita." (I think following is used in the sense of logical outgrowth rather than paying heed to.) Yet I am not at all convinced that this was the meaning of Rav Chaim Kanievsky's ruling. It is an extension of it. And even the original ruling is suspect. Please Note that I do not know that everything was not on the up-and-up in the following case, but there are certain aspects of this that give me pause.

Based on information from various reports, what happened was that administrators of a particular yeshiva thought to fire " older Arab man who they do not suspect of any involvement in terrorism." But for such a serious matter, they decided to consult daas Torah.

Look, if they wanted to do it because of security concerns for their students, they did not have to ask a gadol about it. If they really had fears, and they thought this the right approach, go ahead and do it. But asking a gadol and then publicizing the result accomplishes two things, assuming you can get the gadol to agree: it justifies your approach, and it might just force everyone else to adopt your approach as well.

That is, there is potential for manipulation here, in which someone has a "brilliant" idea, and to get the community to adopt is, "consults" a gadol and persuades him that this is the right approach. How does one "persuade" him? Rav Kanievsky is unfortunately susceptible to it -- all you need to do is present the metzius in the appropriate light.

It is one thing to go to him without suggestion, and ask for guidance in general of how yeshivot should act, and relate all the various aspects. But if a particular gadol if susceptible to suggestion, don't strongly suggest one specific approach, describe questionable metzius to support that conclusion, come without anyone else who would argue the opposite position with other metzius, then expect me to follow it as a ruling from that person!

There are three points of metzius that Rav Kanievsky appears to have been unaware of, and that the did or could have informed him of.

1. He expressed surprise that yeshivot and other places were employing Arabs. Thus, this was something they informed him about.

2. He said that one should employ a Jewish person first, unless there is a huge disparity in cost. "Rabbi Kanievsky went even further, saying that Jews should refrain from employing any non-Jews, not just Muslim Arabs, and instead grant livelihood to Jews, unless there exists a huge disparity between the labor costs." In fact, Arab and non-Jewish labor is indeed much cheaper than Jewish labor, so there is consistently this huge disparity. Stating it as an "unless" implies lack of knowledge about this metzius. (I also wonder if he is aware of Israeli anti-discrimination law, which might make such discrimination illegal. This would also be something in the metzius to be informed of.)

3. He was presumably informed of the specific reason for considering this measure now. And that was that this was in the immediate aftermath of the Mercaz haRav terror attack, where an Israeli Arab mamzer attacked Jewish teenage boys as they were studying Torah. There were rumors that this Arab had worked as a driver for the yeshiva. And the yeshiva administrators who were asking the question wanted to fire an elderly Arab driver for the yeshiva. The fear was that Arab workers for yeshivas would have a certain security clearance, which would put the students at risk. And this recent case, this metzius, is proof. Indeed, news reports about the ruling mention "following reports that the terrorist who carried out the massacre at Jerusalem’s Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva had been hired as a driver on occasion."

But, subsequent police investigation showed that these rumors were false. The terrorist had not been employed as a driver for the yeshiva. If Rav Kanievsky based his ruling on security concerned put forth by these particular yeshiva administrators which were false, and was not informed of the general large labor disparity, then he would might well have been basing his ruling on false metzius.

Furthermore, after he agreed with them that it was forbidden to employ Arabs, particularly at yeshivot, all this was was his personal assessment of the halacha. And it is an assessment that is based both on the sources and on an assessment of the metzius. But not everyone follows Rav Kanievsky on every matter. His followers (as I have experienced) want everyone worldwide to follow him as Gadol haDor, with whom there can be no dispute. But there are other rabbonim, and other gedolim, who can both (a) read the sources differently, and (b) read the metzius differently. And I don't think Rav Kanievsky would disagree with this assertion.

He did not say "this is absolute halacha; and everyone must follow it; and no one can argue; and no one may consult their own daas Torah; and anyone who argues is wrong and a mechutzef." Indeed, he did not ask for this proclamation to be distributed as a takkana at all. Rather, we see that

When Rav Kanievsky was asked if his ruling should be publicized, he stated “certainly” and now, after his ruling is public knowledge, hundreds of Yeshivos around the country are expected to follow his decision.

This was the second part of the scheme of the manipulators. He did not ask that this be a takkana. But he was asked if they could share this information with others, or had to keep it secret. Rav Kanievsky was not ashamed of his ruling, and others should know about it, and either follow it, or consult their rabbanim and decide. But this was manipulation in the questioning and then in the spinning of the response, just as we saw in yesterday's post about manipulation by Kupat haIr.

And indeed, if there are many stores that employ Arabs, and there are non-discrimination laws on the books, and there is indeed a huge labor-cost disparity, and your evaluation of the metzius is that there is no security risk, and you do not rely on Rav Kanievsky as your sole daas Torah, then there is no reason to be blacklisted. Yet now, activists are taking down names and on the basis of the erroneous ruling, are applying it to stores in general and coercing them via flyers and posters to fire their Arab employees. And making the assumption that Rav Kanievsky's manipulated opinion is the only possible position within the bounds of halacha.

Nor do I think that if you asked Rav Kanievsky, he would say that one must, or should, boycott all stores (secular, or religious) that do not follow his ruling. Rather, this is independent action by kanoim taking his statement and running forward with it, to pressure store-owners in the community.

It is shameful situation, but it is an important lesson in general about how these things work, and how to react to them.