Touro or YU?

I know what Rabbi Blau was trying to do. He’s Orthodox. he was trying to do a public event to publicize what Rabbi Aharon Feldman writes in his letter- you can have feelings and as long as you dont’ act on them, you’re still a frum Jew.

He failed spectacularly. Read the press coverage from jpost, Jewish star, and allthe blogs- what he ended up doing was giving the impression that’s it’s ok to be a practicing mishkav-zacharnik. And the entire crowd cheered these people on. It was a massive chilul Hashem, and it should have been done much more carefully. Having a practicing mishkav-zacharnik getting cheered on by the crowd accomplished exactly this. Someone should have made sure the guest list didn’t include this guy. Again, this just doesn’t happen in Touro. Rabbi Blau didn’t tell the entire crowd to cheer on a practicing mishkav-zacharnik. but they did, which says a lot about YU.

The defenders of the Beacon say they are just publishing things which are relevant to the average YU person instead of sweeping it under the carpet and pretending it’s not true. This is what I’ve seen on various Jewish news sites and blogs. The fact that they had this “hava amina”, and it’s well-supported by the anonymous interviewees in the Jewish news articles, makes the loud protests irrelevant. The fact that there are many on the student body who are accepting of these breaches makes the whole place a sakanah for a frum Jew.

Rav Hershel Shachter may be a tzaddik and a major talmid chochom, but if the price of hearing his shiur is YU then no thank you. Touro or Naaleh.

Jothar: What the blogosphere and press decide to do is not Rabbi Blau’s fault. Anyone who was at the event or read a transcript/watched the video of it cannot call it a Chillul Hashem. No one knew that one guy was practicing until he mentioned a reference to it in his speech. No one cheered that. If the mods will let me (which I highly doubt), I will link the transcription of the event and you can decide for yourself if the press represented it properly.

Stop asking questions and making claims against the event. Read the transcription or watch the video. And no one really realized. It was one line that seemed to imply he is actively violating this and he snuck it in there well. Most people didn’t realize it, I think.

So mods, can someone answer. Will I get away with posting the link to the transcription?

I read the transcript of the event. I have no objections. (Maybe I missed something.)

I don’t know. Why don’t you tell me what their objections were, and then maybe I’ll understand.

Google curious Jew and being gay in the Orthodox world. It’s on the curiousjew blog on blogspot. I have found that it’s one of the best transcriptions and I don’t think there was anything else on the page that would be offensive to this site. I did not read all of the comments so I can’t vouch for them.

yidperiod:

I see.

Now, I’d just like to point out, that both of those reasons are sort of “external” reasons. Meaning, that they don’t speak to the substantive issue, but whether it was a bad idea for a different reason.

I think that the public discussion of the issue is a substantive objection. It borderline provides legitimization for it. Hence Rav Twersky’s point. It would be equivelent, as I believe R. Twerski himself pointed out, having a public forum at YU for adulterers to discuss their taivos for other folks’ wives.

Health: Let me attempt to address your various points.

I didn’t call you a liar, I said you lied. And (to paraphrase Rabbi M.D. Tendler) that’s NOT an insult; it’s a fact.

I’m not calling false statements lies because I haven’t seen proof that they are true. I’m calling them lies because I (personally) know they’re lies.

I’m glad they’re closed Shabbos and Yom Tov, and I’m glad you went there as a student…um, yeah, I don’t think the post-Lander administration has changed those things.

Dr. Lander is now 96 or so years old and dead for nearly 2 years. The idea that he “instituted all policies in any Touro school” – some 30 schools, at least one of which did not belong to Touro in his lifetime – is, I think, hard to believe.

No, for the most part, Touro policy is not dictated by me.

Also, for something to be motzi shem ra, I believe it has to be false.

sorry not sure if im yeshivish or not

poppa

I dont think I was clear then. To avoid misrepresenting what R Twersky said, (my fault for being unclear sorry) please read his response.

I don’t think he was making a chiluk between sexual issues and other, but more that one’s taivas and dealing with them in personal cases should be private matters.

TO EVERYBODY

Again, institutions make mistakes, YU readily admits this event should never have occurred. But don’t make it into something it wasnt. It was never intended to provide any legitimization for mishkav zachor. Unfortunately, the event was construed by people to be such, which is partially why the event was a bad idea. Also, hence all of this discussion.

The way all of this came up in the thread was people claiming YU supports mishkav zachor, or at one point did. That has never been the case. Now that that point specifically was cleared up, can we move on from that faulty assumption/accusation and stick to the original focus of the thread. The only thing that event proves that is counter-YU is that the oversight committee in YU made a mistake. LOTS has changed as a result of that event. Admitting fault and learning from mistakes is a maileh; as opposed to ignoring mistakes and sweeping them under the carpet, pretending nothing ever happened, IMHO.

Shvartza Wolf:

Why is it so hard to believe he “called the shots” at the various Touro campuses? By the way, schools don’t get bought and sold overnight so I imagine he could easily have had some input into that new school as well. Would the YU board and President Joel not “call the shots” at YU satellites as well, like the Torah MiTzion Kollels?

I believe Rav Daniel Lander is the new Chancellor, so that should resolve that question.

I’m sure you know that Lishon HaRa is an aveirah even if true, so your post about Motzi Shem Ra was irrelevant as it’s still assur by your own implication.

Sam2, in case the prior responses have not sufficed to make the point, I humbly offer the following notes on your response.

>> My remarks should begin with these characters at the beginning of each paragraph.

HaKatan: I don’t even know where to begin with this.

>> I was sincerely hoping that you did; I’m sorry to hear that.

>> For instance, I was hoping you might start by addressing the terrible hashkafa these incidents portray and especially the point I made at the end about the objection being the attitude more so than the practice.

You are taking an article by one Overes Aveirah as an indictment on a whole community. I would hope that someone who knows what Jews have gone through throughout our history would be able to see past that.

>> I will begin by reiterating that I know many YU people who are fine Binei Torah, and I am happy to believe the kaf zechus that much of that population is likely tinokos shenishbu. So none of this was or is an attempt to besmirch any person(s), CH”V, but rather to address the ideology and its practice.

>> First, as I indicated, any serious talmid from YU that I have asked about these scandals, simply brushes it off as not nogeia to them, but not that it’s *wholly* non-indicative of the school’s hashkafa. Anecdotal comments bear this out, though that is not proof, of course.

>> As well, from reading the various intellectual pseudo- (and actual) kefirah plus azus neged HaTorah combo pieces that spring forth from various student publications, it clearly is a serious indictment of the community even if not its individuals. I’m sorry that’s too hard for you, but a pattern tends to indicate the underlying reality. When you have one “winner” after another, it *almost* gets to be predictable and, as stated, indicative of the underlying ideology.

Rav Schachter talks about when the cardinals visit and why and why YU lets them in the Beis Midrash. Before they come, someone always announces in the Beis Medrash that they should be ignored and that learning should continue as normal.

>> Seriously? And therefore? The Commentator still glowed how the Cardinals had such nachas from seeing how the talmdim “sharpen their minds” in the Talmud as the Cardinals engaged them in conversation. So maybe Rav Schachter gave some students permission to be Mevatel Torah and those did not have to follow the directive you mentioned?

>> Besides, it’s still a Bizayon HaTorah (and bittul Torah), and my understanding is that the R”Y there were not exactly BiSimcha about it. A Beis Midrash is a Makom Torah, even more so when seder is in session, and not an object of interest for curious observers, not to mention the Avodah Zarah issues. I suppose it made for some good halacha limaaseh shu”t. Hashem Yiracheim.

>> Honestly, you really expect anyone to believe that when a handful of regally attired Catholic Cardinals walk into the Beis Midrash that it will have absolutely no impact on anyone’s learning even if the Commentator hadn’t reported as it did and even with Rav Schachter’s alleged directive?

>> This is another example of modernity *trumping* CH”V the Torah. Let’s be egalitarian, regardless of what happens to seder; we’ll just have Rav Schachter issue edicts that we know won’t solve the issue. I’m sure Rav Schachter did his best so I mean no disrespect towards him, CH”V, but that doesn’t make the issue disappear.

>> As I said in my previous post, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionists don’t claim fidelity to OUR Torah; MO does, so MO has the uniquely impossible job of reconciling our holy and pure Torah with, lihavdil, the incredible cultural morass around us. This would be extremely comical if it weren’t just as extremely sad. (At least by Rav JB’s times there might have been a hava aminah so it’s understandable why he said what he did, given the prevailing winds at that time. But clearly traditional orthodoxy is quite obviously not a “museum piece”, B”H, despite his prediction to the contrary.)

I cannot answer why Broadway shows are Muttar. I know people have been given Heterim (I also know of several people who bring iPods to listen on during Kol Isha parts), but I do not know why they would be Muttar.

>> People are given legitimate heterim for all sorts of things (within limits), but that doesn’t therefore make it generally acceptable halachic practice for anyone and everyone. I happen not to believe anyone ever received a heter to attend a typical Broadway show. But, regardless, the arguments they put forth for Broadway shows have nothing to do with heterim other than inventing ones that never did, and never will, exist.

>> Please forgive my cynicism here, but should those people be applauded for bringing an iPod for the Kol Isha parts? First of all, the whole proposition of doing so is farcical at best and I’d be embarrassed to try to rationalize such behavior to anyone, even to a school-child.

>> But even suggesting such a “solution” only underscores the point I made in my last post of secular culture de facto trumping halacha. It’s assur, but since secular culture is more important than, er, also important in addition to, Torah, let’s find some laughable pseudo-solution and fool ourselves that we’re following halacha. And we wonder why non-MO disagrees.

>> Second, what about the seviva and the visuals in the theater, even with an iPod to somehow protect against Kol Isha? I guess that’s muttar lichol HaDeios? Or do they not watch the shows and also come in a protective bubble-suit? This is absurd.

>> I assume further that “Uvikuseihem lo seileichu” is also, CH”V, moot in favor of elevating secular culture?

You seem to have a very strong complaint against a group of people and are not giving a real support for your indictment of a large group of Frum Jews, unless you think that Broadway shows are enough to Passul an entire group.

>> As I stated, the whole *attitude* of Modernity trampling the Torah (as most recently indicated in the Beacon incident where they are not even apologetic for publishing such nivalah and azus) is deplorable, even if the overwhelmingly vast majority of individuals mean well, and I would be open to that possibility.

>> By way of example, and not to open another can of worms, just because some people really believe Rabbi Schneerson Z”L is, CH”V, their “Borei” doesn’t make the opinion in any way tolerable. It’s still absolutely unacceptable. So is any intentional dilution of our Torah, large or “small” by anyone.

>> So you have a group that openly ignores their own Rav JBS (and does the same with Rav SR Hirsch – who really has nothing to do with MO – by ignoring his Austritt provision and misunderstanding his whole philosophy to begin with – on top of that convenient omission of Austritt). This group has no shame in publicly glorifying their toeivos and their worst aveiros (the editors had no problem publishing it in the name of intellectual opinion and other non-svaras, so it wasn’t just the baalas aveirah’s clear mistake in writing the piece, particularly the way it was written).

>> Incidentally, going to Broadway shows (in addition to the clubs and other mekomos hatinuf they unabashedly and proudly speak of patronizing and even review in their publications) would likely make them Prutzim BaArayos, which means, for example, that it would be assur for a woman to be miyacheid with (not only 1 man) but even 2+ men who attend these shows, as the heter of 2+ only applies to kisheirim and not to prutzim.

>> This *attitude* is obviously a big problem, though of course each individual stands in his own chezkas kashrus. Regardless, the point is that you’re playing with dinei nifashos, as in ruchnius, by ignoring all this.

Sam: Why would someone quote “completely anti-religious” attend YU, and moreso even publish a periodical under the YU name?

Passfan: She wanted a “Jewish experience”. She was very into cultural Judaism.

Health: No. The Beacon is not a publication of YU. It’s not. It’s a publication by some YU students. Many of the writers never even attended YU (some of the editors may not have either). YU couldn’t stop the girl from making her own website. I guess they could have fought over having the word “YU” in the name but no one really cared and the Beacon was (and still mostly is) considered a joke by most people around YU and is viewed as just a way for a few journalism majors to boost their resumes. No one cared about it and it wasn’t a big deal until this piece went viral. People complained a lot about at least one article every week in the Beacon, even articles about inappropriate sexual things. This one just got a lot of press for some reason.

The Beacon is not a publication of YU, It was run by a bunch of student orginally it had gotten student funds, but it does not.

An Anti-religious person might attend YU because he is anti-religious NOT Anti-Jewish and might want to learn about jewish traditions and spend college time with his fellow tribesman.

Besides YU has an excellent reputation so you can attend and still get into the top law and medical schools

Passfan: Right, because YU cannot stop students from expressing their freedom of speech. That doesn’t mean they condone anything.

Just to clear things up. The Beacon has nothing to do with YU. Nothing! It was never an official publication. All of last year it was just people writing whatever they wanted. This year, since a fair number of students were involved, they successfully petitioned Stern’s student council to receive money as a student club. This means that they got t-shirts and money for pizza once a month or so. It still wasn’t an official YU publication. And everyone knew all along that this wouldn’t last, and that at some point their mission statement of being “censorship free” and not necessarily caring about Halacha would wind up with something happening that would end their status as a club. No one just thought it would blow up this badly.

Sam: The least YU should have done was to officially denounce the YU Beacon after they published that. They went in the opposite direction with their official comments of no censorship, freedom of speech, etc. Where were the condemnations for such an egrigious incident? They too have freedom of speech to condemn something they don’t agree with.

If they didn’t agree with it, that is.

Are you kidding, Sam? I am willing to wager any money that if the YU Beacon published a story of a YU guy who proudly recounted how every Sunday night he hangs a noose on a tree in front of his black neighbors house as he and some of his YU friends yell racist comments, the YU administration would very quickly officially and publicly condemn that in unequivocally strong words.

Racism no but znus yes??

YU also has freedom of speech to register their opposition to something. YU saying they oppose something does not infringe upon anyone else’s speech.

YU didn’t condemn it in official YU Administration capacity. There spokesman was very equivocal without a word of criticism for the Beacon.

Even if it were milder, and an author published an article in the YU Beacon expressing support for slavery and segregation on buses with blacks in the back and wished there was still a poll tax, I’m quite sure that the YU administration would strongly condemn it in no uncertain terms. Despite the authors constitutional freedom of speech and press to express racist views. Yet for one of the worst averias they do less?

Health

You said “Rabbi, Dr. Lander A’H, is the one whom instituted all policies in any Touro school. These are all acc. to Halacha. The school carries on his tradition to this day.”

optimusprime – What you think he okayed it? Secondly, even if he did, does that mean he knew what he was going to speak on?

I said policies, not speeches.

Seriously Sam? If the YU Beacon ran an article advocating the reinstatement of slavery and the New York Times, CNN, the Slate, etc. were running leading stories titled “Racism at Orthodox University”, when they contacted Mr. Fertig you think he would not condemn the article? He would start equivocating about no censorship, etc? I think we both know quite well that YU’s administration would officially condemn it, unlike their response to the znus article.

As I said, I know perfectly well what he was trying to do. But in a case like this, where it is apt to be misunderstood, he should have made sure he was super-clear beforehand what is and what is not happening. And he should have made sure none of the speakers were active mishkav-zacharniks. This was a slow-motion train wreck that anyone could have predicted.

The writers of the Beacon claim support from a lot of YU students for their writings. You can’t just brush it off with “nobody listens to them anyway”. It is clear they thought they were representing a large part of the student body. And in fact, this same student body cheered on an active mishkav-zacharnik and gave him support. Finally, the atmosphere inevitably affects people. A school in which a large part of the student body thinks mishkav zachar and gross violations of halacha are ok is clearly not for a frum person. Saul Lieberman was Orthodox too, but nobody would have said to go to JTS.

Mistakes happen. Some of them, like YU, endure for years.

Jothar: It’s clear that the Beacon wants to be representing a large portion of YU students, not that they actually are or even honestly think they are.

Health: Once it became clear that people actually cared about what the Beacon said (which only started with this article, they’ve had worse stuff before; no one cared at all), YU felt the need to show that they didn’t have anything to do with them.