Wednesday, July 24, 2013

An Editorial on Discourse: A response to Ami Magazine By Rabbi Yair Hoffman

This article is written in response to Rabbi Yitzchok Frankfurter’s editorial in the latest issue of Ami Magazine entitled, “Dov Lipman and Force-Fed Geese.”   I consider Rabbi Frankfurter a friend, and someone who earnestly seeks out the good of the Torah community.  However, in all honesty, I was rather horrified at the extreme tone of Rabbi Frankfurter’s attack on Rabbi Lipman.

Rabbi Frankfurter states that (Rabbi) Lipman is infuriating because of “his peculiar conviction that he wears two hats, one of a politician and the other of a rabbi.”  He further writes, “It is in his self-delusional latter role, in which he preaches as a ‘rabbinic authority’ about those things he says are good for the Torah-true community, that he is so irksome.”

I would like to take issue with Rabbi Frankfurter on two matters:  Firstly, Rabbi Frankfurter is certainly entitled to disagree with both Rabbi Lipman’s views and what he perceives as an “only I know what is good for you” tone.  Yet stating that Rabbi Lipman is self-delusional in the latter role of being a Rabbi is somewhat perplexing.  Rabbi Lipman was a teacher of Torah for many years and was involved in the field of Kiruv Rechokim as well.  To strip Rabbi Lipman of a title that he earned is an act of delegitimization that even the Roshei Yeshiva of Ner Yisroel where he earned his S’micha have not done.  There are many Orthodox Jews that refuse to confer upon the reform or conservative clergy the title of Rabbi because of non-adherence to matters of theology regarding Torah miSinai.  But in this case?

Let us argue from here to tomorrow about issues, but let us not engage in unbecoming ad hominem attacks on others where we engage in the delegitimizing of others.  It could very well be that Rabbi Frankfurter has not delegitimized his S’micha and only takes issue with his preaching as a Rabbinic authority – but the fact that he never refers to Rabbi Lipman with the title of Rabbi, however is indicative that this is not the case.

The second issue, however, is even more disturbing than the first.  Is Rabbi Frankfurter really comparing Dov Lipman and or the government of Israel to the Nazis?  He writes, “What is so tragic about Lipman’s latest pomposity is that Israel would hardly be a light unto the nations by taking measures to ensure animal and poultry welfare.  It was Nazi Germany with its limitless compassion for animal welfare that was deserving of that distinction.”     Have we lost our minds?  Nazis?  Invoking the murderers of our people when speaking about Dov Lipman and the State of Israel?  Why is it that when we voice disagreement with someone that we rush to the ultimate label of offense?  

The main objection of the Chareidi community to what Rabbi Lipman is doing is that he seems to be embarking upon the implementation of an agenda without consulting with the Gedolei Yisroel the leaders of our Torah nation.  But isn’t Rabbi Frankfurter doing the same thing by not having consulted with Gedolei Yisroel as to whether we can compare Dov Lipman to the Nazis?  One cannot imagine Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l or yblc”t Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky Shlita comparing or drawing any analogy between Rabbi Lipman and his actions to the Nazis y’mach shmam.

As of this writing, this author has just returned from the Knesset where the Knesset committee members are ironing out the details of the plan for conscientious objectors to serving in the IDF  to instead serve in Chareidi-only communities in a medical capacity.  While the determination of who will be considered a conscientious objector will still be overseen by the IDF – the plan overall does allow for Chareidi Jews to enter the work force in attempt to address the issues of rampant poverty.  We in the Chareidi world may think that the way Rabbi Lipman is going about things is misguided – but the comparison to Nazis is wholly unwarranted, divisive and inflammatory.  As far as tzaar baalei chaim and geese go, this author does take issue with Rabbi Lipman on this matter – and Rabbi Lipman agreed to revisit the matter – even agreeing to visit a foie gras processing plant to see things for himself as to whether the force fed geese display any gag reflex or appear to be unduly suffering.  

No one is calling into question the notion of arguing or taking issue with the views of others.  Jews have been arguing since the formation of who we are as a people and even before.  What must change, however, is the inflammatory discourse, and the realization that when we have crossed the line – we must apologize.  

The author can be reached at yairhoffman2@gmail.com

28 comments:

  1. An excellent article, and while I too disagree with Dov Lipman on many levels, I think the discourse for the most part coming out of Israel is frightening and a Chilul HaShem. It is interesting to note however this comment by Rabbi Hoffman,

    "One cannot imagine Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l or yblc”t Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky Shlita comparing or drawing any analogy between Rabbi Lipman and his actions to the Nazis y’mach shmam".

    All very true but note that these are Gedolim in America. While I wish this statement would be true today in Ertez Yisrael, I am not sure that the reality is so... a very disturbing reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the discourse coming from america isn't so great either.

      Delete
    2. This guy was declared to be a rasha by the Rosh Yeshiva of his own Yeshiva! And although the RY retracted (while still saying he is grossly wrong) the retraction was only because the originally cited reason wasn't entirely accurate, there are many more uncited reasons that title still applies to him.

      Delete
    3. Harsh rhetoric must be measured and gauged for its value. Israel has always played the 'dramatic cards' while American Rabbonim have normally dealt and spoken 'Bdarchei Noam'.
      Now that the Chassidic (European, Israeli)American velt is larger and stronger, American rhetoric is on par with the Eretz Yisroel Olem.
      Rabbi Frankfurter is no surprise (since he belongs to the latter group),,,,his editorials are all personal POV, with facts that he sees, he hears and he understands starting with the Bet Shemesh incidents, leading to the Williamsburg abuse case down to Israeli issues. There is a REASON besides financial that he left Mishpacha to start his own "Sensational Paper"

      Delete
    4. AMI is more left-wing than Mishpacha.

      Delete
  2. Great artilce by R' Hoffman. But R' Lipman's concern about force feeding geese is upheld by a certifiable Gadol of the past, R' Aharon Soloveichik. Although I'm not sure if R' Aharon ever directly addressed the foie gras issue (...he may have - I am just not aware of it) He did address the process of milk fed calves for puproses of produicn veal. He called it Tzar Baalei Chaim and condemned the procedure.

    So... R' Dov has some pretty strong legs to stand upon - on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And rav ovadia as well. shas supported previous bills on this issue because of rav ovadia told them to.

      Delete
  3. "Knesset committee members are ironing out the details of the plan for conscientious objectors to serving in the IDF to instead serve in Chareidi-only communities in a medical capacity. While the determination of who will be considered a conscientious objector will still be overseen by the IDF – the plan overall does allow for Chareidi Jews to enter the work force in attempt to address the issues of rampant poverty."

    Two points on this:

    1) This is factually inaccurate. The Kenneset is NOT considering or proposing any exemption of Army Service under the newly proposed Chareidi draft law for Chareidi or any "conscientious objectors". They make no such provisions and they do not recognize the concept of a concientous objector under the proposed law.

    2) Even if they WOULD recognize a conscientious objector, the idea that only the IDF can recognize WHO is a "true" conscientious objector makes a mockery of the entire idea as we all know that the IDF will routinely deny conscientious objectors status to most of those that will claim it.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is perhaps telling that this and other articles which are sympathetic to r Lipman are published here, including a previous apology by a Rosh yeshiva who called Lipman a Rasha.

      So, as far as the Haredi Brotherhood is concerned, calling a fellow haredi a Nazi or a rasha is bad, even if it is a spokesman for Lapid's party.

      On the other hand, calling greater rabbis and DL people "amalek" is fine, since the Haredi Brotherhood does not consider consider DL as true muslims... sorry true Jews.

      Delete
    2. AND within countries who should chose the status of conscientious objector according to you?

      Delete
  4. Those who can, debate.
    Those who can't, argue.
    Those who can't, delegitimize.
    Those who can't, scream "Nazi!"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Harry R' Moshe Feinstein permitted veal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. try again. he forbid raising veal in small cages and wrote that a ba'al nefesh won't eat it.

      http://curiousjew.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/meat-jewish-ethics-rabbi-moshe.html

      Delete
    2. Ben wrong. Rav Moshe clearly bases his psak on the fact that it did not actually improve the meat, but merely whitens it. Where the meat becomes better it is permitted. therefore Rav Elyashiv rules that creating foie gras is mutar. R' Elyashiv's reasoning is that here the pain is being suffered in order to improve the animal for human consumption

      Delete
    3. Rav Moshe' position when the cruely produces more than just whitening it is really not clear. In particular what level of benefit would permit cruelty - clearly not every benefit is permitted

      Delete
    4. see Rav Moshe's teshuva below

      Delete
    5. Ben -

      Rav Moshe also paskens that a baal nefesh will not eat cholov stam.

      Delete
  6. nice article but it took a while in coming. the frum world, especially the american frum world, has taken the "rabid dog" approach to rav lipman for months.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't publish anonymous comments!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Ben Torah,

    Thank you for your comments. The point that you told me was factually inaccurate may be but I was in the offices of two knesset members yesterday and was being given the play by play. You may have better sources than this, but it is hard to imagine as I was between four and five feet away - Yair Hoffman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear R. Yair Hoffman,

      It is rather easy to see that Ben Torah is factually correct as the proposed law has already been voted on in the keneset and the text of the proposed law is public. It makes none of the provisions you state, as ben torah already pointed out.

      Delete
    2. Rabbi Hoffman: "Will Hill" makes a good point regarding your above response to "Ben Torah".

      What is your retort, if any?

      Delete
    3. f Dov Lipman were only interested in the welfare of geese one might argue for his legitimacy. However, when the same Dov Lipman is the one who is literally taking the bread out of children's mouths, then his concern for geese rings very hollow. The fact of the matter is that the present government led by the likes of Lapid, Lipman, Piron, Bennet and so on, are taking away money that by all fair reckoning should go to the charedi community. And before you respond, research exactly how much money the charedi community gets, it is much less than what they should get relative to their percentage of the general Israeli population.
      For further details see: http://www.mohoshiv.com/the-humanitarian/

      Delete
    4. mohoshiv doesn't give any details

      Delete
  9. Rabbi Yair Hoffman has always been a sane voice (sometimes the lone save voice) in the world of Chareidi issues. He should live and be well!

    ReplyDelete
  10. שו"ת אגרות משה אבן העזר חלק ד סימן צב

    בענין עגלים שמפטמין אותם באופן שבשרם יקבל מראה לבן.

    ובדבר העגלים שנתחדש זה לא כבר שמפטמין אותן כל עגל במקום מיוחד לבד צר מאד שאין להם מקום אף לילך איזה פסיעות, ואין מאכילין אותן כלום ממאכלי בהמות הראוים לעגלים ולא טעמו חלב אמם כלל, אלא מפטמין אותן במשקין שמנים מאד שאין הבהמות נהנים מזה, להיפוך מהמבואר בבכורות ריש דף ל"ט מותר ודאי מעלי ליה וכו'. וגם נעשים חולים מזה וצריכים למיני רפואות, וכפי שאומרים שוחטים מובהקים לא נכשרו מהם אלא ט"ו עגלים ממאה, ולשוחטים המקילים הוא ערך מ"ד או מ"ה עגלים כשרים למאה, והכל מודים שרובן טרפות היפוך מחזקת בהמות שהן כשרות, ומשמע שהוא רק מטרפות הריאה שרואין זה השוחטים מדין בדיקת הריאה, אבל אפשר איכא עוד טרפות בבני מעים, שפשוט שצריך נמי לבודקם שמסתבר שיש לחוש לזה מאד. שלכן מהראוי היה לאסור מלעשות זה ובעלי נפש אין להו לאכול כלל מעגלים כאלו אף אם יבדקו גם הבני מעים. והבדיקה בבני מעים אינו מנקבים ובועות שנעשים מנקבים אלא משינוי מראה דהבני מעים ומבועות שנעשים ע"י חלישותן, ובלא בדיקת הבני מעים אין להכשירם.

    והנה לאלו שעושין זה איכא ודאי איסור דצער בע"ח דאף שהותר לצורך האדם הוא כשאיכא צורך, כהא דלשוחטם לאכילה ולעבוד בהם לחרישה ולהובלת משאות וכדומה. אבל לא לצערם בעלמא שזה אסור אף אם יהיה לאחד הרוחה בזה, כגון שנכרי אחד רוצה להרוג או לחבול באיזו בהמה שכעס עליה שודאי אסור אף שמשלם לו שכר בעד מעשה הרע הזה דלהרוחה שמותר הוא לאכילה אף של אחרים ואף של נכרים, אבל להרוג ולחבול בשביל הרצון דאיזה רשע אחד אסור אף שהוא עושה להרוחה דיליה, מחמת שמשלם לו בעד האכזריות שאמר לו לעשות, דבשביל מה שאירע לאחד שיש לו הרוחה מהריגת וחבלת בע"ח אסור אף שהוא להרוחה לצורך האדם אלא דוקא בדבר שדרכן דאינשי בכך. ומהאי טעמא אסור לאחד שמצטער מאד על מיתת אביו להכות את בהמתו מאיסור דצער בע"ח ואף לא לשרוף ולאבד לכבוד אביו שום דבר אף שהוא מכבד את אביו הרבה והצער אצלו גדול מאד והחבלה בבהמתו ובאבוד ושרפת כליו ישכך חמתו וצערו מזה כדמצינו ברש"י שבת דף ק"ה ע"ב שפי' על קורע בחמתו דנחשב מתקן משום דקעביד נחת רוח ליצרו שהוא משום שמשכך את חמתו, ומ"מ אסור כדאיתא שם משום דאין זה מצורכי האדם שהותר לצער בע"ח אף כשלא מזיקן והורגן ממש, וכן אין זה מצורכי האדם לעשות לשכך יצרו וחמתו בשרפת ואבוד חפצים וכלים, ונחשב זה השחתה בעלמא שלא לצורך הנאת האדם ורפואתו וכדומה שהאדם רשאי לעשות בחפציו. עכ"פ חזינן שלא כל דבר רשאי האדם לעשות בבהמות שמצער אותם אף שהוא להרויח מזה, אלא דבר שהוא הנאת האדם ממש כשחיטת הבהמות לאכילה ולעבוד בהם וכדומה. וכן היה מותר לזונם בדברים שיותר טוב להמתיק את בשרו ולהשמין את בשרו באופן שהאינשי שיאכלו את בשרו יהנו יותר מכפי שהיתה אוכלת שחת. אבל לא בדבר שהוא רק לרמות ולהטעות את האינשי שיאכילום בדבר שגם לאינשי אינו כלום ורק לרמותם להאינשי שמזה שיראו מראה הבשר שהוא לבן ולא במראה אודם קצת שיטעו מזה שהוא בשר טוב יותר לבריאות ולהנאה וישלמו בשביל זה יותר. אף שליפות האוכלין אף שאין שום תועלת מזה בעצם היה מותר מדין אונאה כשיכירו האמת שאינו אלא יפוי בעלמא, וכשיטעו מזה לומר שהוא בשר משובח וטוב יותר להנאה ולבריאות וכדומה יהיה אסור מדין אונאה כמפורש בס"פ הזהב בב"מ דף ס' ע"ב אף כשלא יעלו יותר, אבל עשו זה כדי למשוך את הקונים לחנותו, שא"כ היה שייך להתיר באם יודיעו שאין בשר לבן זה יותר טוב ומשובח אלא שהוא יפה יותר שג"כ היו רוצים בבשר זה שהוא יפה יותר לקנות. מ"מ אסור לצער את הבהמה להאכילה דברים שאין לה הנאה מהן שהיא מצטערת באכילה, וגם הם נחלות מזה וסובלין יסורין מהחולי, שבשביל הנאה זו דיכול לרמות האינשי אסור לעשות כן מאיסור צער בע"ח מדאורייתא שלא הותר זה להאינשי לצער בע"ח.

    חותנך אוהבך, משה פיינשטיין.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lipman is part of the lapid party, who vote for release of the terrorists.
    Bennet, on the other hand, is part of the Bayit Yehudi party, and he voted agasint the release.
    However, Lipman has an advantage over Bennett - whilst Lipman's boss votes to release Amalek, he is protected from criticism by his black skull cap.
    Bennett, n the other hand, is being called Amelek, and his knitted skullcap does not offer him any protection.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.