Welcome to the Nishma Insight Discussion Forum blog.


The NISHMA INSIGHT is our popular dvar Torah, distributed almost every week by e-mail, that touches upon an important concept in the Parsha, theme in a holiday or event in contemporary society.

Often, readers respond, via e-mail, with comments that initiate a further dialogue. Through this Discussion Forum, we now wish to open this dialogue to others. If you have a comment on the INSIGHT, we invite you place to your comments here; then we invite everyone to join the discussion.

(If you are not receiving the NISHMA INSIGHT, we invite you join our mailing/e-mail list through completing our sign-up form available at our website.)

Friday, May 13, 2011

Insight 5771-31: The Danger of Simplicity

For Behar

Not yet available on the Nishma website.

3 comments:

  1. Bennett M. RackmanMay 16, 2011 at 10:40 AM

    Dear Rabbi Hecht,

    I usually find your articles, divrei Torah, well thought out. Your analysis of issues is stimulating and often uplifting.

    Not so with Behar!

    One may have a principle to respect variant halachic viewpoints, but one need not defend ALL positions. No amount
    of pilpul will ever justify the omission of women in the photograph. Are we to now delete the pictures of true gedolim of
    earlier generations who saw nothing wrong with a picture of a man and woman, husband and wife, at Agudah and Torah
    Umesorah dinners? When some Orthodox "leaders" meet with evil dictators, e.g., Ahmadinjad, do you say that halachic
    norms condone such action? No picture is better than a "doctored" picture.

    The editors were caught with "egg" on their faces. Hashem is the final judge. HE will decide if a chilul HaShem was
    committed. However, from my limited perspective as a finite being, it would certainly appear that there is no justification
    for what happened.

    Respectfully,
    Bennett M. Rackman

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Rabbi Rackman:

    Thank you for your kind words in general about my articles and for your specific comment in regard to this Insight. I have always found an appropriate application of the principle of eilu v'eilu to positions with which I strongly disagree to be a great challenge. Indeed not every position presented as a Torah position is one, and the application of eilu v'eilu in such a case is a misrepresentation of Torah (or worse, as would be the case if an argument of eilu v'eilu was used in connection to those who met with Ahmadinjad). Yet, in the same vein, it would seem that the call of eilu v'eilu also demands of us to accept as part of the cheftza of Torah even positions with which, within the arguments of the beit medrash, we would have great difficulty. I found myself facing this dilemma in this case and it may be as you say that I erred on the side of tolerance for that which there should be no tolerance.

    More to the point, in retrospect it would seem that my focus was too narrow and that from a broader perspective there were clearly real problems with this behaviour that placed it outside the realm of Torah. Specifically, the doctoring of this picture to falsely portray a historical event is problematic and the fact that it has now become the vogue in certain parts of the "Torah" world to change historical reality I do not believe can be acceptable even within the parameters of eilu v'eilu. I, though, do not believe that those who doctored this picture did so with the intent to manipulate history and so it was not, rightly or wrongly, a consideration of mine in drafting my Insight. Perhaps it should have been for only those who are comfortable in manipulating history would doctor such a picture for any reason.

    My focus was of course on their removal of these pictures of women for tzniut reasons and it was within this issue that I directed my words. I find the issue of women in Judaism and that of tzniut to be a most difficult one within Torah precisely because there are such divergent opinions on the topic within the spectrum of Halacha and the call of eilu v'eilu in this regard is really most troubling. I, for example, find any limitation of Torah education for women to be problematic from a halachic and hashkafic perspective -- in fact I am proud of one of my daughter's who, when she is home, can often be found with a gemara learning. Yet, at the same time, as much as I am dismayed, even angered, by the view of the Satmar Rav not even to teach women Rashi, I find it difficult to dismiss his position as outside the pale. (The Rav's dialectic?) It was within this framework that I was thinking when I wrote my piecs and, indeed, it may have narrowed the actual issue. At least, if one is going to adopt a position because one believes it to be the true Torah position, don't insult Torah and other human beings by presenting foolish reasons to justify such positions. If one feels that one has to follow such a a chok, do everyone and Torah the decency of labeling as such. That was my point but making this point in this context may have been inappropriate.

    RBH

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bennett M. RackmanMay 16, 2011 at 10:44 AM

    Dear Rabbi Hecht,

    I thank you for your response. Indeed, you must have spent considerable effort and time to answer and I found your words comforting. I sense that we are on the same page regarding this issue; it being a small nuance how to deal with eilu v'eilu (the newspaper was certainly within their right to interpret Halacha as they understand it. They did not realize that in our OPEN society, we live in glass houses.

    ReplyDelete