The Yeshiva part of YU’s student council (SOY) publishes an annual “Torah” journal called “Beis Yitzhack.” Each year, Roshei Yeshiva, rabbinic alumni, Kollel or rabbinical students, and some undergraduates submit Hebrew articles on a variety of topics. This year, Kollel Elyon member R. Daniel Stein published two articles which offended many readers and embarrassed YU’s Kollel.
Normally in order for BY to get such negative reaction, someone has to make a big deal out of it.1 A few years ago, some students published a “mehqar” (academic talmud) -type piece in BY and attributed something to Ha-Gaon R. Shaul (GRAS”H) Lieberman.2 Probably no one would have noticed it unless the authors themselves hadn’t pointed out to everyone that were able to publish this piece in the typically “traditional” BY.3
I’m not around YU this year, so I don’t know exactly what is currently happening between the walls of the Yeshiva. I do know that Protocols posted something about this edition, and consequently sparked a vicious flame war in the comments and a subsequent follow-up post. I’ve been told, The Forward got wind of this and will cover it soon.
Thanks to Avraham I managed to get copies of the offending articles.4 My reaction? Honestly, I didn’t like either article.5 Are they worthy of the extreme reaction they’re getting? That’s a different story, and a more complicated issue.
What gets published or rejected is ultimately up to the editorial staff of the BY. What are their standards? I have no idea. Assuming they accept everything submitted, BY would be ideologically “open,” but it would eventually have to publish articles which diminish its credibility. However, in order to reject submissions, BY would need some objective acceptable criteria, which would invariably alienate some if not all of its intended readership.
What about R. Stein’s responsibilities? He took positions, and defended them based on his (or other’s) interpretation of selected sources. Should he have not quoted controversial opinions?
Once an opinion is published, it’s part of the public record. If this opinion is actually Torah, then why should we be embarrassed? The sages of Israel did not hide anti-secular laws from the Romans.(B. Bava Qamma 38a) Or following the mentality of the yeshiva, if these “gedolim” are at a level in which we may not question them, then who are we to censor them? If you find that they have ridiculous opinions, then perhaps they are not as great as you would like to believe.
In one of his articles, R. Stein belittles a methodology employed by at least one of YU’s Roshei Yeshiva. If he gives himself the right to evaluate and criticize one of the Roshei Yeshiva, then certainly R. Stein should not be held to a higher standard and above criticism himself. R. Stein chose to put his position in print, and consequently opens himself to peer evaluation.
There are certain rules of discourse which are determined by “common sense” or basic civility. If R. Stein is wrong, prove it. Demonstrate how he misreads sources. Prove how his logic and conclusions are incorrect. Many of the commentors in Protocols didn’t even read the article and were relying on one person’s abridged translation. With no actual evidence, people hide behind “anonymous” screen names and feel free to hurl invectives at anyone who disagrees with them. This is less of a problem with Protocols than it is with the entirety of the web. Slashdot and Kuro5hin both depend on the community moderating itself such that the insightful get read over the trolls.
I’m not a fan of censorship, but on the other hand we can’t accept every single possible position as part of every discussion. For now, I’m just advocating accountability. Accountability for Roshei Yeshiva in terms of their own methodologies and how closely they follow Torah. Accountability for the critics to demonstrate why they disagree. And finally accountability for the “netizens” for their comments.
Don’t censor articles from BY, but make sure they’re well argued. Don’t hide issues of the BY, but RTFA and respond coherently. No one is above criticism, but no one deserves an intellectual lynching either.
If you really think you’re right, put your name on the line and defend your position. Don’t suppress others and don’t hide behind anonymity.
If YU wants to maintain any credibility, it has to stop hiding from controversies and civility.
It’s time to put up, or shut up.
Update: I “put up” my own review of R. Stein’s article.
1. The fact that it’s written in Hebrew probably has something to do with its readership around YU.
2. R. Lieberman taught at the Jewish Theological Seminary. Despite being a world class Talmid Haham, many in YU do not take him seriously simply because of his affiliation with the conservative movement. Other might reference his Tosefta Ki-fshuta, but for the most part he is ignored. In this case, authors sinned by attributing the hallowed honorific reserved for select sages.
3. The best analogy I can think of is a high school yearbook. Every year someone puts in a “hidden” message which normal people won’t see. Nothing happens until someone points it out to the administration at which point, people get banned from graduation, pages get ripped out, etc.
4. As per my arrangement, I will not distribute my copies under any circumstances. Don’t as me, don’t ask Avraham. Just buy the book.
5. I realized in my GNU Testament post, I took a “cheap shot” at Rushkoff in that I disparaged his book without providing the exact flaws. For this, I apologize. Since I will not go into detail about the article’s content, I am intentionally not elaborating here. I may blog about the specifics later.
(כִּי לֹא מַחְשְׁבוֹתַי מַחְשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם וְלֹא דַרְכֵיכֶם דְּרָכָי (ישעיהו נה:ח
House Of Blues
January 6, 2004 Jewish Culture, Jewish Law / Halakha, Jewish Thought, Theology, and Machshava
Josh – Very well said
Sorry about hiding behind my initials. If anyone is that curious about my name, they can email me.
Just curious – since I have no way of obtaining these articles (everyone I know around YU is yeshivish and would give me two hours of OJ mussar for specifically asking them to obtain for me controversial articles), what are the topics of the articles that make them controversial (do they both discuss murdering non-Jews or are there other controversial topics)?
As to Lieberman, those authors obviously added the honorific Gaon to make some kind of point. People rarely read BY unless referred to a specific article for a specific reason. I spent my two years in yeshiva in Israel at an Israeli hesder, where tosefta kipshuta was a mainstream book, hardly anyone knew enough about it to know that it might be controversial, so there were no points to be made by adding honorifics, and no one would ever term him Gaon. Simply Harav Shaul Lieberman.
J.I. – if you want to obtain a copy of the articles, walk into the YU beit midrash and take one from the box under the bima. There is a whole box of them. (Judging from the presence of several $10 bills in the box, I’m guessing that’s the price). The fact that they are still available makes me think that no one in YU thinks there is much of a controversy; YU certainly knows how to confiscate controversial publications.
I’m almost finished with the article. Maybe I’ll post again after I finish it and look up some sources. BTW – I looked through some other articles as well. 1) There is at least one other article that makes mention of a possible lower status of retzicha of goyim. 2) There is an article which I didn’t read about the mitzva to tech your son a trade, and possibly the mitzva to have a trade – I wonder if that is controversial in the kollel?
As a side note – in the gemara you (Josh) referenced in bava kama, the text keeps saying: “<kenaani> {nochri}”. What do those brackets mean? I assume it means someone was trying to cover something up, or at least soften it.
It’s funny that a guy from kumah assumes that everyone can just walk into the YU beis medrash. For me, that would entail first walking over a large sea and then an even larger ocean. The reason I asked what the controversy is because here and at protocols everyone seems to assume there’s a controversy, but anyone I’ve asked in YP, including a sibling, haven’t heard anything about a controversy.
J.I. –
My apologies for falsely accusing you of living in the exile. I can fax you a copy of the articles if you like. You can email me at ben at kumah dot org.
Ben – No problem. Hope to see you here soon. No need to fax the articles, I was just curious what the topic of the second one was, but now that half of YU is here for winter break I found out on my own.
BTW, for all you blog readers out there, I haven’t spoken to one YP student who was even aware that there was anything possibly controversial in the latest Beit Yitchak. Which leads me to believe that it was nothing blown out of proportion by protocols.
J.I. – Most students at YU could care less about what’s in the BY, assuming even that they could read the Hebrew. Few students are thoughtful on these (or any) issue, and so they would either agree or disagree in their own minds and move on. Finally, few students are active enough to actually do something about anything unless their Rosh Yeshiva tells them to say Tehillim against a new YU President. Therefore, you’re not going to find many controversies on the mass student level.
It’s hard to say what counts as a controversy or not. I suppose it depends on your circle in YU. From what I hear, elements of the right-wing at YU as well as Roshei Yeshiva are quite upset at the Beis Yitzhack. The controversy may be limited to the the “upper echelons” of YU, but from what I am hearing, it is quite intense.