“Sages: Be Aware of What You Say”
Once upon a time there was a teacher named Rabbi S. He was asked to teach a course on Halachah using the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah as his primary text. His colleague, Rabbi A., had little use for Sephardim in general and for the Rambam in particular. He considered the Rambam at best a radical and at worst a heretic.
As the semester wore on, Rabbi S. noted that many of his students began to lose interest in his course, and he was increasingly bothered by this trend. He attempted an intervention with them, but it was to little avail. His better students requested to learn Talmud instead and his lesser students wanted to learn Mishnah Brurah instead. This reaction puzzled Rabbi S.
Next year, Rabbi S re-visited some of his former students. He did a brief post-mortem. “Why did my Mishneh Torah program unravel during the middle of the year?” he queried. There were several diverse answers. One that disturbed him the most was from Student C.
“Don’t you realize that your colleague, Rabbi A., was constantly attacking Sephardim, the Rambam ,and the Mishneh Torah? In fact he would rail what a waste of time it was to study the writings of such a heretic especially when we don’t follow his Halachic opinions nowadays anyway! Tell me, dear rabbi, what student WOULD be motivated to waste his time on a useless text no matter HOW WELL it was taught!?” exclaimed student C.
Rabbi S. was crestfallen. And he felt a bit cheated. After all he did not PROPOSE this course, he just did his best to teach it. He might have preferred teaching Shulchan Aruch, but that was not offered to him as an option. Rather he showed the pluses and minuses of the Mishneh Torah and taught it as best as he could. But, it would never be enough. It COULD never be enough – simply because the students had been “brainwashed“ to see the Mishneh Torah as a waste of time.. several weeks later Rabbi S. met with Rabbi A. “Why did you slam the Mishneh Torah so early and often?” he asked. Rabbi A., replied: “I tell ONLY the Truth.” “But, don’t you realize how you undermined nearly an entire year’s worth of work? Did you HAVE to express EVERY negative opinion you have on the matter? Couldn’t you have just kept your counsel to yourself or at least balanced it with some positive feedback?” Rabbi A. felt he had done the right thing and was not the least bit contrite.
KT
RRW
Originally Posted 5/17/07
As the semester wore on, Rabbi S. noted that many of his students began to lose interest in his course, and he was increasingly bothered by this trend. He attempted an intervention with them, but it was to little avail. His better students requested to learn Talmud instead and his lesser students wanted to learn Mishnah Brurah instead. This reaction puzzled Rabbi S.
Next year, Rabbi S re-visited some of his former students. He did a brief post-mortem. “Why did my Mishneh Torah program unravel during the middle of the year?” he queried. There were several diverse answers. One that disturbed him the most was from Student C.
“Don’t you realize that your colleague, Rabbi A., was constantly attacking Sephardim, the Rambam ,and the Mishneh Torah? In fact he would rail what a waste of time it was to study the writings of such a heretic especially when we don’t follow his Halachic opinions nowadays anyway! Tell me, dear rabbi, what student WOULD be motivated to waste his time on a useless text no matter HOW WELL it was taught!?” exclaimed student C.
Rabbi S. was crestfallen. And he felt a bit cheated. After all he did not PROPOSE this course, he just did his best to teach it. He might have preferred teaching Shulchan Aruch, but that was not offered to him as an option. Rather he showed the pluses and minuses of the Mishneh Torah and taught it as best as he could. But, it would never be enough. It COULD never be enough – simply because the students had been “brainwashed“ to see the Mishneh Torah as a waste of time.. several weeks later Rabbi S. met with Rabbi A. “Why did you slam the Mishneh Torah so early and often?” he asked. Rabbi A., replied: “I tell ONLY the Truth.” “But, don’t you realize how you undermined nearly an entire year’s worth of work? Did you HAVE to express EVERY negative opinion you have on the matter? Couldn’t you have just kept your counsel to yourself or at least balanced it with some positive feedback?” Rabbi A. felt he had done the right thing and was not the least bit contrite.
The Issue of Ethics and of Derech Eretz
Questions:- Does Rabbi S. have the right to feel indignant?
- Does Rabbi A. owe Rabbi S. an apology?
- Does telling the “Truth” outweigh the damage done to the course and the amount of Bittul Torah and Bittul Zman incurred?
- What are the ethical implications of Rabbi A.'s behavior?
- What are the implications of Rabbi S.'s response?
KT
RRW
Originally Posted 5/17/07
9 comments:
> Question: Does Rabbi S. have the right to feel indignant?
Absolutely. Rabbi A is a Richard (well, the diminutive form of the word anyway). First of all, is it so universal the Mishneh Torah is a worthless book no one follows? What's the explain its continued strong sales after 900 years of continuous publication as well as the pending Hollywood movie deal? Someone other than Chabad is buying copies. Rabbi A has, in a display of religious arrogance, decided that because HE has no use for the more fun half of our people and one of the greatest gaons we've ever produced, that there isn't ANYONE who would. He is narrow minded and probably giving children a biased and simplistic education.
> Does Rabbi A. owe Rabbi S. an apology?
For sure, but S will never get it. The words "I'm" and "wrong" are about as easy to put to together for Rabbi A as a quantum mechianics kit for a Chelm'nik. Besides, you could never convince A he's wrong. He's decided he's the absolute repository for truth.
> Does telling the “Truth” outweigh the damage done to the course and the amount of Bittul Torah and Bittul Zman incurred?
This is a loaded question. Rabbi A hasn't told any truth. He's given his opinion and decided that it's the final, authoritative one. Like the Richard he is, he can't see anyone disagreeing with him and that makes his opinion the truth. And his arrogance prevents him from even saying "Well, S is wrong but his feelings are hurt so I'll apologize to make him feel better."
> What are the ethical implications of Rabbi A.'s behavior?
Simple. Does we drag him behind the schoolhouse and beat him with a tire iron or do we leave him to the mercy of a crowd of woman-deprived lesbian bikers with a hate on for male genitalia?
(I go with the second. We could videotape it and sell it on E-bay)
> What are the implications of Rbbi S.'s response?
If the police match his fingerprints from the tire iron, he goes to jail.
If the lesbian bikers aren't satisfied with A, they'll run him down and hurt him too.
Well put Super Rock Star!
Now consider the same parable but shift the title from Mishnah Torah to say one of the following:
Peirush Rashi on the Torah
or
Torah Temimah
or
Kitzur Shulchan Aruch
or
Mishnah Brurah
Would the shift from a relatively universally recognized "Gaon" such as Maimonides also shift your feelings on this matter? Or would Rabbi A'.s abuses still be reproachable?
-RRW
> Would the shift from a relatively universally recognized "Gaon" such as Maimonides also shift your feelings on this matter? Or would Rabbi A'.s abuses still be reproachable?
I'm not aure what the point of that question was. All four sources listed are also about as "universal" as you can get in the Torah world. I think the only one of the four not universally accepted by all people is the Kitzur and that's because of the understanding that "he's too frum for most people".
Perhaps something difference like the Malbim's commentary and setting the discussion back to when it was just published would be a better example. Because of his emphasis on grammer and his "modern" approach to Torah exegesis, he wasn't accepted in his day by many authorities. Of course, nowadays he's a standard.
The bottom line in all this is: Rabbi Richard is discounting the Mishneh Torah for two reasons:
(a) he's a racist bugger
(b) he hasn't learned that arriving at a proper understanding of halachah means not only learning the final psak but the rulings that led up to it to understand how it developed. His approach is far too simplistic.
I think that Rabbi A. is saying that certain texts are irrelevant to the one and only true pesak or the true peshat. And since that is true there is no harm avoiding that particular sefer.
While Rabbi A.'s behavior would be [almost] universally recognized as obnoxious, the issue remains: did Rabbi A's bashing of Rabbi S.'s text casue real harm to Rabbi S's course of study, and to Rabbi S's effectiveness as an instructor! Bby first using Rambam, I weighted that aspect of the story too heavily. Noww, I would like to focus on the inter-personal aspect w/o regard to the merits of the text involved. in other words [IOW] is Rabbi A's bashing still over-the-top as unethical behavior towards a colleague even if the text in contention was not a slam-dunk authority!
-RRW
> is Rabbi A's bashing still over-the-top as unethical behavior towards a colleague even if the text in contention was not a slam-dunk authority!
Absolutely.
Consider:
1) Rabbi A (which is the first letter of another word that describes him perfectly) has spent the term bashing the text Rabbi S is using. What does that imply about his opinion of S? After all, if he was a good rebbe, they'd have given him a better text to teach. So he's impugned S's reputation and appearance of competency.
2) Think about poor S. He's just wasted a school year of his life. Come summer break, he's got to be wondering: if they give me the same crappy class next year, should I bother trying to do a good job? Should I even go back? What if he quits and can't find other work? What if he doesn't and gives a lousy shiur because, in his mind, it doesn't matter?
3) Think about the yeshiva administration. They stasrt getting calls from parents concerned that their child wasted a year on a stupid course with a lousy teacher. Now they're starting to wonder if they want Rabbi S back.
In Avos, we're told the treat our colleagues with the respect owed to our rebbes, and to treat our colleagues' financial well-being as we would treat our own. Rabbi A, or Richard as he should be known, is in violation of both no matter how irrelevant the text might appear in his eyes. He has personally damaged Rabbi S.
Now, are you going to call the lesbian bikers or am I going to Canadian Tire for that tire iron?
Well Put. I wanted to isolate EACH issue separately so that people do not simply gloss over this post as being the ethics of Rambam bashing. I was not only conserend about giving the Rambam his fair due, but also about treating one's coleague with a modicum of "derch eretz" or simple "menschlichkeit"
If I had to reduce Torah to 2 principles I would say thusly,
1) Be a "Mensch"
2) Be Holy
which after all is about bein adam lechaveiro and bein adam lamakom in simply more modern lingo.
Also, be a Mensch not a MEANIE! There are wasy of expressing dissent and criticism without going ad hominem and while still respecting the target of the criticism.
-RRW
There is an old story about the German philosopher Nitsche who asked to put on is gravestone the writing "God is Dead... signed: Nitsche"... then somebody added on that gravestone: "Nitsche is dead... signed: Go-d"
We have to look at it from a different direction. Maybe, just maybe, the great Sephardi Rabbis in general and the Rambam in particular have a little or no use for Rabbi A. Maybe all of them and all the Ashkenazi Rabbis as well would consider Rabbi A. a Hatzuf and arrogant and shallow Am ha-Aretz who should have more respect to all our great thinkers.
And for the students, it is clear that Rabbi A. is extremely charismatic if he managed to push all these students away from the respected traditional teachings of Rabbi S. However, and unfortunately, history is full of such charismatic people who managed to push people and even whole nations over the edge to the other side (I have some notorious examples in mind, both Jews and otherwise just from the last century.)
People like Rabbi A. are not going to appologize. If they are not stopped they would continue in their evil ways to conquer and dominant their domain. There is only one way against them, to unite and stop them while we can.
ZA
Okay, I'm back from Canadian Tire. I got a really good deal on the tire iron too! Now, where Rabbi Richard?
Anyway, za's post reminds me of the opening scene from Terry Gilliam's "The Fisher King" where Jeff Bridges rails against yuppie culture.
Unfortunately, he's also right. Now, how do the people on this list suggest we organize a way to bring about his dream?
WHACK!
(Got 'im)
Disclaimer: Choshen Mishpat is not my expertise; I wish it would become.
Being an absolute 'am ha'aretz in such matters, I will refrain from quoting sources but try to approach it as one who could muster them would. I will probably fail dismally.
Note: if you want to get the iron for me, too, please keep in mind that I am half Sefardi and half Ashkenazi. ;-)
Defamation is actionable in Beit Din even nowadays even though we don't do dinei knassot. It is actionable insofar as a remedy can be sued for that will at least prevent defamation in the future, perhaps even reverse somewhat its effects in the past. Hence, S could have a claim against A if it is clear he acted improperly. That in turn does require that we analyze the matter from A's perspective, to avoid qim-li claims.
The actions of A hurt S, no question. In addition, the choice of material wasn't S' but the schools, and A is possibly hurting the school, too.
OTOH, A feels that S and the school hurt the students by teaching them inapplicable and inappropriate subject matter.
Thus, A could claim that he was acting in the interest of the students. A true test would thus be (a) whether the claim that the students were being hurt was reasonable, and (b) whether the remedy he chose was most appropriate.
Since even learning a shma'ata shelo aliba dehilkhata is talmud Torah, I would only consider A's claim reasonable if (1) the argument of the material being heretical could be taken seriously, which, regarding halakhah it wouldn't be (if he was teaching the Moreh, that might be different); or (2) it wasn't age/capacity appropriate.
(b) is a much higher hurdle, as it is doubtful that talking about the matter with S and with the administration was impossible, and if it was, A may want to review his employment there, anayway, as he is lending a hand to that, which he considers heresy, which probably permeates the school a lot more thanin this one course.
In conclusion, unless the material can reasonably be considered heretical, and that the damage would be immediate and irreversible and could not be dealt with differently, only then can A be considered free of blame. Otherwise, he might owe him a public apology and then some.
Kind regards,
Arie Folger
Post a Comment