The recent news story of an investigated report of a prominent Modern Orthodox Rabbi who was accused of deceptive use of fictitious names, has lit up the frum Blog world. The story was covered by many of the blogs and websites with shock and sadness, while others jumped on the opportunity to bash and show the hypocrisy. As is the case in Blogsphere there is no hadracha or guidance by Rabbonim it is each to his own. There is no accountability or responsibility most of the frum blogs are anonymous (this one too). Any scandal that the frum print media would never have covered or reported, is open forum and top news on the frum blogs and websites.
The frum print media, the newspapers and magazines usually wouldn't and has not covered a scandal or print the name of the accused. Perhaps do to the exposure and popularity of the blogs where everything is reported and brought to light, this has had an affect on the frum papers to report or reference to these stories. One paper went all out in reporting the aforementioned story immediately in great detail, something it has rarely done before. The exposure on the blogs contributed to their quick and thorough coverage.
This weeks Ami Magazine had an article referenced to the story titled "A False Testimony Revealed". It started with an editors note: Ami magazine is publishing the following news story per the directive and psak of various gedolei torah, to refute false claims that have been made in the name of several gedolim" The article did not mention the Rabbi by name, but focused on the lenient psak that married woman dont have to cover their hair which was proven that claims of various gedolim who approved of the psak was a clear and brazen falsification. Being a Editor of a Frum Paper is a tough job, the Bloggers make that work even harder and we cant let them set the narrative.
Again your attack on the Yated, though you didn't mention them by name this time. Yes, the Yated is different than your Hamodia. Yes, the Yated has an ideology and Hashkaffa, a purpose and a mission, that they are obligated to fulfill. (Unlike the politically correct paper you go to bat for, whose sole mission is $$$$$). They exposed this rabbi the same way they exposed Avi Weiss. The same way they exposed Moshe Dovid Tendler in the Metzitzah B'peh issue - all those years ago (8+ years). If you recall, the Hamodia didn't even report anything about Metzitz b'peh back then! Nothing!
ReplyDeleteA personality who got very involved in "halakhik pesakim" which are open orthodox, has to be exposed. [For the irony of it, he always made sure to throw into his "halakhik pesakim" that dishonesty in business is the worst - and that Chasidic rebbes are engaged in dishonesty in business. Time after time.]
Exposing MB is part of a paper that has a backbone, a mission, an ideology and a hashkaffah. He had to be exposed. He had to be stopped. Exposing the hypocrisy did a lot in ensuring that MB will never again be able to issue his "halakhik pesakim" with authority. Every Jew that cares about fulfilling Hashem's Will, about kiddush Hashem, should be thankful to the Yated.
__________
I used to like your blog and even told others about it. However, now, with your continuous cheap-shots, I've become very disinterested. I will seek to tell others about this as well.
In no way did I attack any paper read the article. All it states is the fact how the blogs are setting the agenda. The yated is the paper that represents the yeshiva world hand has an ideology. The coverage on this story was a result of the blogs, that was the point.
Deleteyour previous support is much appreciated.
This is what you wrote:
Delete"Any scandal that the frum print media would never have covered or reported, is open forum and top news on the frum blogs and websites.
"The frum print media, the newspapers and magazines usually wouldn't and has not covered a scandal or print the name of the accused. Perhaps do to the exposure and popularity of the blogs where everything is reported and brought to light, this has had an affect on the frum papers to report or reference to these stories. One paper went all out in reporting the aforementioned story immediately in great detail, something it has rarely done before. The exposure on the blogs contributed to their quick and thorough coverage."
You are clearly saying that the story was published because of blog-type attitudes. You are clearly insinuating that it goes against Rabbonim etc. But you are lying. He was exposed for one reason, and one reason only. A reason that's consistent with the Yated's mission. To stop a "rabbi" for continuing to pervert the Torah - in whatever venue he chose to do so, be it through a beis din (did you miss that article?!), be it through a rabbinical organization and their magazine (same article as the Beis Din), or be it through blogs...
He wasn't exposed in an internet smutz like fashion.
The Yated could have taken a higher road not stooping down to the bloggers level.
DeleteYou forgot to go anonymous on this comment ;-) (time stamps are very revealing).
DeleteAgain, you missed the boat. Yes a politically correct paper that wants to make sure they can get as many reader$ as possible (revenue), will never confront reality and truth. Yes, yes, the'll have an excuse of the "high road". But when money is your bottom line, that's a very low road. And what's even lower is when you claim to be representing "Torah Jewry" while refusing to stand up for the Torah and allowing all sorts of distortions! Sorry buddy, Torah Jewry is NOT about money.
However, a high road is one that will stand up for Hashem's Torah - the altimate Truth - regardless of monetary considerations. That's the road the Yated took.
That's the road the Pnei Menachem would probably have taken as well. Chaval al davdin, velo mishtakchin!
-------
Speaking of taking a high road you demand, admitting to having made a mistake is taking the high road. Are you capable of that?
Lying is a very low road.
Taking cheap-shots is a very low road.
Cheap shots are the low level of bloggers. Are we willing to practice what we preach in anonymity, T.P.V.?
If the point was to expose him, then the article should have been written by the editor, and should have explained what he did and what was wrong with it. This article was more of an attack on the MO bloggers for seemingly going soft when it was one of their own that had sinned.
ReplyDeleteCorrect. These bloggers (sponsored by "the center for the jewish future") made it clear that they will continue to look out for his articles. There were three articles in the Yated that week, and they all went together. After having their hypocrisy exposed, leaving the bloggers in a state of defending the indefeasible, they won't be able to highlight MB anymore. Simple math.
DeleteMB won't be highlighted anymore - is because of MB. Not because of Yated.
DeleteYes and no. Actually, the blogs specifically stated that they will continue to look out for MB's scholarly works. Several of them specifically said so. Had the Yated not called them on their hypocrisy, they would have carried out what they said they will and would be looking out for his works. Now, they can't do so without looking foolish.
DeleteHowever, it is MB who did himself in by being consistently deceitful. Deceitful in many ways, including the scholarly articles where he misrepresented Hashem's Will.
Actually, it was an attack on MO bloggers for NOT going soft when it is a chareidi being accused. Is he not also "one of their own"? Isn't the halachic obligation to give the benefit of the doubt equally obligatory?
DeleteThe fact that they soft-pedaled the Broyde story or the MTA abuse scandal is being used as a foil, to show that they are capable of such behavior when they want to.
But the editorialist didn't do his research, and went after Hirhurim without actually getting a bearing on what that web site is. Hirhurim is far more a Torah e-Journal than a blog, and only covers news at all in a sidebar of links. R' Gil Student and the other writers rarely if ever mention current events in the chareidi community. Had he actually read what he was attacking, he would have realized how silly he sounded to those who actually do.
First of all, the MTA abuse story (and all the many others) received no coverage whatsoever in the Yated.
DeleteNada. Zilch. Klum. Gurnisht.
There were three intertwined articles in the Yated that week, and all had boxes to see the other story, something I usually don't see in the Yated. It was clear that they were intertwined.
And no, he didn't goof on Hirhurim. Hirhurim certainly was Broyde's mouthpiece, and defender. You can say he sounded silly. That's not the point. The point was very clear, and Gil got it. Gill will not highlight Broyde and his "Halakhik Pesakim" anymore.
And Gil certainly did have a very big ax to grind with chareidim. To deny it sounds very very silly. It's all over his blog. Any google search to a juicy - and no so juicy - topic will reveal that.
Anon,
Delete1- I didn't say anything about Yated covering the MTA story. Read and think before you respond. I realize writing anonymously gives you the freedom to kneejerk. Pity it's still assur, though. Now, for what I really did say:
I talked about the contrast between the MO blogosphere playing down the story compared to how they handle similar accusations against chareidi rabbis. And I said that in general it's a fair accusation -- but not true of Hirhurim in particular.
2- Name a single place where R' Student or any of the other bloggers criticize chareidim. You say he has a "big axe to grind"? Find one example, never mind your alleged many.
Yes, Hirhurim was Broyde's platform of choice. But that's BECAUSE the blog is about Torah, not attacking others or even noting what they do altogether.
3- Your anonymous attack of an MO site turns the whole thing into pot-kettle-black. Your words reduce to: They are nasty and accuse others without evidence, just as I'm doing to them now!
Micha,
Delete1 - This is what you wrote:
"Actually, it was an attack on MO bloggers for NOT going soft when it is a chareidi being accused. Is he not also "one of their own"? Isn't the halachic obligation to give the benefit of the doubt equally obligatory?
"The fact that they soft-pedaled the Broyde story or the MTA abuse scandal is being used as a foil, to show that they are capable of such behavior when they want to."
You very clearly DID write that the Yated attacked the bloggers for going soft on MTA and MB. The reality is though, MTA was never mentioned by the Yated.
Would you like to consider rebuking yourself about reading and thinking before you respond - with freedom to kneejerk? How about, "pity it's still assur, though"? Thanks.
Do you feel this type of attack was appropriate?.
2 - Now, which scandal involving a Chareidi Rabbi is it that Hirurim didn't post any defaming links, comment, or post other authors comments, or snipe at? Please mention just one. Thank you.
[I did a quick google search of "hirurim spinka". This is what I picked up on the first link I clicked on.
"Where's the outrage over Rubashkin
I've seen a lot of outrage over Rubashkin's prosecution (or persecution), conviction and sentencing. Where's the outrage over his white collar crime? Remember the post-Spinka era, when we as a community were going to send a message that white collar crime isn't acceptable? Now we're turning a convicted criminal into a hero, with little kids walking around collecting money for him and community-wide gatherings that lionize him. Have they read about what he's admitted to doing?"
Doesn't sound like much ignoration to me.]
3 - Please quote where I attacked "an MO site". Thank you.
Micha Berger,
Delete"Name a single place where R' Student or any of the other bloggers criticize chareidim. You say he has a "big axe to grind"? Find one example, never mind your alleged many.
"Yes, Hirhurim was Broyde's platform of choice. But that's BECAUSE the blog is about Torah, not attacking others or even noting what they do altogether."
So, ironically, on the day after you wrote your comment, Gil wrote an article titled "Cognitive Dissonance". What's it about? He has a problem with the Moetzes having called yesterday, erev Rosh Chodesh, for a Yom Tefilah.
That's far from ignoring. And yes, it was an attack. Claiming that being modern orthodox is a free-pass for attacking chareidim - and that that's the definition of his Judaism -reveals a lot about Gil. It also reveals a lot about his sponsor and employer, CJF.
Interesting thing is that AMI goofed in the most crucial aspect, in depicting the ostensible David Keter discussion with R' Shach.
ReplyDeleteThey described it as if it was an accepted fact that the SA and the Rambam disagree as to whether (completely) uncovering hair is a da'as moshe or da'as yehudis, and RMB's big chiddush that he falsely attributed to R' Shach was just that according to the SA shita that it's just a DY it's dependent on prevailing customs.
In reality, that's the smaller chiddush (and thus the smaller falsehood). The idea that there is any sort of dispute on this score between the SA and the Rambam is completely baseless, and is itself the main distortion that RMB has been pushing all these years. Once you grant him that, the rest is not nearly such a big deal.
This is a problem of people who didn't learn through the sugyos commenting on halachic/torah matters.