Guest post by Ploni
First, a definition: Quid pro quo ("something for something" in Latin) means an exchange of goods or services, where one transfer is contingent upon the other.
Word is that there’s pressure for some “deal” that might work something like this: Aharon should be משליש a Get in Bais Din … in return he’ll receive better visitation, a semi-apology from Tamar and her family … and the Chillul Hashem will hopefully sink into oblivion.
Even assuming that sufficient safeguards were placed to insure that the “other side” sticks to its promises (a big if!), here are THREE REASONS why כל אשר נגעה יראת ה' בלבבו should protest against such an approach:
1) This won’t rectify the real problem. The most pressing issue is no longer visitation and obtaining a semi-apology for totally irresponsible character assassination that relied on non-existent evidence. Rather, the real issue is the wholesale dismissiveness towards the very principle of TRUTH, as defined by the basic concept of fact checking and due diligence. TRUTH is an extremely highly cherished principle of our faith, so much so that the רבינו יונה in שערי תשובה states that “sticking up” for truth is the ONLY antidote of חילול ה', which has no כפרה as long as a person is alive:
שע"ת לר"י, שער א' מאמר מ"ז: כאשר האדם משתדל לתמוך ביד האמת. ויעזור אחריו ויתעורר בדבריו. והופיע אורו לעיני בני עמו. ויחזק ידי אנשי האמת. ונשא ראשם. וכתות השקר ישפילם יגיעם עד עפר. הנה אלה דרכי קדוש ה'. והוד והדר לאמונתו ועבודתו בעולם. ועוז ותפארת במקדש תורתו.
שער ד' מאמר ה': ואמר שלמה המלך עליו השלום (משלי טז) בחסד ואמת יכופר עון וביארנוהו בשער הראשון מן התשובה וענין אמת שהזכיר ביאורו שיכין החוטא לבו לחזק ידי האמת. ולעזור למבקשי אמונה ולהסיר השקר והעול. כי הודעת האמת והשיבו לבצרה כבוד אלקים.
2) We are supposed to be מחזק those that endeavor to act ע"פ תורה, because doing so strengthens the כבוד of Torah. The evidence points to the fact that Aharon has suffered PRECISILY BECAUSE he tried doing the “right thing” . Instead, what he got in return … again and again … was just ביזוי בזיונות.
Evidence shows that the core issue of socializing originally separating the couples worldview was very much intertwined with not wanting to talk לשון הרע and דיבורים אסורים. Why hasn’t this issue been properly addressed in therapy and through Tamar’s Rabbinic advisors? It is not far-fetched to say that had this been dealt with properly, the whole tremendous חילול ה' never would have started.
Evidence shows Aharon’s concern with ethics and morals. This is not only highly valued ע"פ השקפת התורה but also seen as a tremendous asset for sustainable intrinsic wellbeing / happiness in cutting edge psychology. Why hasn’t this issue been properly addressed in therapy and through Tamar’s Rabbinic advisors?
Evidence shows that Aharon listened to his Rabbinic advisor and took his disagreement to Bais Din instead of ערכאות (after getting the היתר ערכאות for only emergency purposes), which later ended up costing him dearly. Why hasn’t this issue been properly addressed through Tamar’s Rabbinic advisors? Shouldn’t they, OF ALL PEOPLE, be concerned with upholding the intuition of B”D? Why, to this day, has the Bais Din never issuing a Siruv against Tamar? Why have רבנים חשובים had to send private messages of support to Aharon, while stating that doing so publicly would only damage them and not do anything to help him?!
It is important to note that our obligation is to be מחזק those that ENDEAVOR to act ע"פ תורה. It has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with whether or not their concerns ultimately end up being accurate. Judaism is wholly centered on השתדלות to do the right thing. Failure to be משתדל is what counts, and therefore the punishment for being dismissive of a ספק איסור is greater than that of a וודאי איסור:
תלמידי רבינו יונה בשם רבינו יונה ברכות א: מדפי הרי"ף: עיקר היראה ליזהר מהספקות ושלא לעשות המצות על דרך ההרגל שעונש הספק יותר מהודאי וכן מצינו שעל הודאי מביא חטאת ... דמי כשבה או שעירה שיביא לחטאת ... היא מעה ... ואם מביא אשם על הספק .... צריך להביא ב' סלעים שהם מ"ח מעין ... והטעם בזה למה החמירו על הספק יותר מן הודאי אומר מורי הרב שהוא מפני שעל הודאי משים האדם החטא אל לבו ודואג ומתחרט עליו וחוזר בתשובה שלימה אבל על הספק עושה סברות ואומר ... אולי היתה מותרת, ולא ישית אל לבו לשוב, ולזה החמירו בו יותר.
3) It is disgusting, unethical and against Halacha to “barter” for removing the stain of defamation / הוצאת שם רע. We should resist such “bartering” even if only monetary matters were at stake, and surely when the issue is defamation. Furthermore, pressuring Aharon while offering only muted criticism of the process used in Taamr’s heter only adds indescribable insult to injury.
Even in regards to simple monetary matters, Halacha prohibits the advancement of a false claim so as to improve the strength of a party’s self-interest. This is a prohibition for Dayanom (חו"מ ס' י"ח ס"א), Witnesses (חו"מ ס' כ"ח ס"א), and litigants ((חו"מ ס' ע"ה ס"א, ס' י"ב ס"ו וע' תרה"ד, עונג יו"ט ותומים
How low must one stoop to use this unethical approach in matters that are so serious as הוצאת שם רע, for which the following is written in שו"ע או"ח ס' תר"ו ס"א
וְהַמּוֹחֵל לֹא יִהְיֶה אַכְזָרִי מִלִּמְחֹל (מַהֲרִי''ל) ... וְאִם הוֹצִיא עָלָיו שֵׁם רַע, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִמְחֹל לוֹ. מָרְדְּכַי וּסְמַ''ג וְהגה''מ פ''ב מֵהִלְכוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה וּמהרי''ו). מג"א ס"ק ה': משום דאיכא דשמע בהואצת שם רם ולא שמע בפיוס ולא נפק האי גברא מחשדא.
Yes, there are evil men .. just like there are evil women. Like EVERY PERSON – male or female - Aharon deserves the basic human right of being judged only based on meticulous fact-finding which is congruent with Halacha, Hashkafa and if using psychology …only the most congruent and only following widely recognized “best practices” and solid, cutting-edge research.
-=-==-=-
BUT WHAT ABOUT CHAINED WOMEN? Concerned Members of Greater Washington Jewish Community write: “We wish to live in a community wherein interpersonal relationships are conducted not only upon the basis of the letter of Halakha, but also upon its spirit of empathy, sensitivity & mutual respect”. Yes, they’re very right … and very wrong … but that is IY”H for another post.
“It is disgusting, unethical and against Halacha to
ReplyDelete“barter” for removing the stain of defamation / הוצאת שם רע.
We should resist such “bartering” even if only monetary matters were at stake,
and surely when the issue is defamation.”
I agree.
I quote Amotz Asa El in today’s Jerusalem Post: “The
religious libel that the Jews killed God, the secular canard that the Jews
control the world, the fascist fingering of the Jews as traitors, and the
biological damnation of the Jews as subhuman, also began as mere words. They
began as words and they ended as murder.”
Tamar and her supporters libeled A. F. It began as words but ended up as adultery. Now,
rumor has it, that Tamar and her supporters want to end the adultery!
Sotah 37b:
“R. Judah b. Nahmani, the lecturer [It was customary
for a teacher to impart the lesson to a lecturer who delivered it to the
disciples.] of Simeon b. Lakish, expounded: The whole section [of the blessings
and curses] refers to none other than the adulterer and adulteress. [It
states,] “Cursed be anyone who makes a sculptured or molten image, abhorred by
the Lord, a craftsman’s handiwork, and sets it up in secret.—And all the people
shall respond, Amen” (Deut. 27:15). Does it suffice merely to pronounce cursed
with such a person! [The penalty is death] But it alludes to one who has
immoral intercourse, and begets a son who goes to live among heathens [Being
the offspring of an adulterous union, he is debarred from the Assembly and
cannot marry an Israelite woman.] and worships idols; cursed be the father and
mother of this man since they were the cause of his sinning. [And not only with
idolatry. His heathen association will lead him to commit the other offences in
this section, provoking upon his parents the enumerated curses; v., however,
Rashi.] Our Rabbis taught: “When the Lord
your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and possess, you
shall pronounce the blessing at Mount Gerizim and the curse at Mount Ebal” (Deut.
11:29).
Susan libeled me from the beginning and even now in
her November 4, 2015 court papers saying:
“Appellant abandoned me and our six children, ages 6,
11, 14, 16, 18, and 20, in 1991 and failed to pay child support. He has been tormenting me ever since with
hundreds of pages of repetitive and frivolous motions and attempted many times
to overturn the court’s enforcement of his child support obligations.”
Susan lied when she signed, in 1989, that she wants to
live in Jerusalem with me. Susan went to
Rabbi Ralbag’s bait din in 1992 with Rivka Haut. Susan accepted the get in Rabbi Ralbag’s bait
din in 1993.
Susan and her lawyer Myla Serlin did a fraudulent 2013
NYS civil divorce which includes a forgery, the 1995 supposed Judge Rigler
Order of Separation. Susan’s libel lead
to her doing serious criminal crimes in NYS.
What did Rav Shmuel say about the eruv?
ReplyDeleteDanielNY1:
ReplyDeleteFirst off, to clarify again - this is not the same as many, many
מחלוקות between Gedolim throughout the generations where we "little
people" have no business getting involved בין ההרים הגדולים. This is a
case of serious falsifications and misconduct followed by smear
campaigns and stonewalling, so as to give the APPEARANCE of there being
two subjective opinions. If you're in doubt, please read the voluminous
and specific evidence posted elsewhere on this blog.
Now, unto the issues you raise:
"What I'm reading from this post is that there's a dozen reasons to keep the מחלוקת going. All supposedly Lshem Shamayim".
Absolutely not. I hope to ברצות ה' get to a solution that could be mutually acceptable, but it will take several more posts. The points raised here would have to be rectified, for starters, and I believe that's possible, since i see Tamar's side (especially she herself) as misguided and not as a demon. Still, I'm under no illusion that it will be easy to do, as it will require a change of MINDSET. But I digress..
" a smart person will take the better terms of custody and walk away from this sordid mess".
You missed the point of this post. I'm trying to explain that it relates to much more significant issues than custody. Please reread more carefully. I suspect that you're allowing your preconceptions to color your understanding of what I wrote.
"As far as who will answer for all that was done, there's a דיין who will square all that away on His timetable"
חס ושלום for anyone besides for the aggrieved party themselves to EVER say that. Have you missed all the Pesukim in Tanach that decry the lack of justice that brought about the Churban ... including the הפטורה של יום כיפור?
That would be the case even if Gedolim weren't involved. The fact that they are involved GREATLY MAGNIFIES the importance of this issue. TRUTH touches on the very foundation of דת, and is something we take more dearly than life itself, as evidenced by ואהבת את ה' אלקיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאודך. it is impossible to be taught to seek counsel of Gedolim who have total indifference to truth. The lack of congruity zaps any motivation to make the hard choices which are required by yiddishkeit.
Is your comment meant as a פשט in what I wrote "(a big if!)? If so, יישר כחך. If I missed something .. please explain.
ReplyDeleteThank You.
ReplyDeleteI obviously don't know about that case, but yes, when truth becomes expendable, contradictions are rampant. it could very well become possible to both "get involved" and also claim "not wanting to get involved".
ReplyDeleteWhere is ORA ? How do you jump from Heter & FREE, declaring someone insane that Al Pi Halacha cannot even procure a Get, into marrying and going on as if business as usual, to all of a sudden in need of a Get, order one without even asking for one, never mind all the while living in sin? Don't you remember? Beggars cannot be choosy. And in exchange for what? "For *BETTER*" visitations, did he have ANY visitations since she moved long distance and eloped, outside when the goons beat him up upon returning his daughter? Just ignoring everything what happened in this time lapse tween HETER al haMETER to all of a sudden in need of a GET, is nothing other than an insult to our intelligence. Am I missing something? Huh? Do you really think that you now will cough up some cockamaime report from some unknown non-existent MUMCHE beilum shem posting on ORA from these ANSHEI SDOM VA"AMORA CHACHOMIM LEHEIRA RO'OIM VACHATOIM LAHASHEM MEOD, that all of a sudden A.F. is SANE... A.F. IS INDEED SANE! HAVE YOU NO SHAME? HAVE YOU NO DECENCY? Do you think that we are MESHUGE OF TOIT or TOIT MESHUGE as if itim chalim itim shoitim, eating your straw and hay as if overnight Toires Lukshen? Hey' you and you and you out there, We want JUSTICE, charatah al ha'avar and kabala al heosid, in Public with Kidush Levana oisiyos so as to disinfect it in the sun lechol man deboiye, CHOTOSI AVISI POSHA"ATI, deprogram the child of all the garbage she has been fed against her father Nero yair, veOZ ulay yerachem. Nothing less will do! NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!
ReplyDeleteFurthemore, you publicly declare, YOU meaning ALL those in this choir working in tangent, you will never ever have anything to do with neither Iskei Kidushin VeKidushin nor any other esek in HOIROEH veHALACHA beToiras Moshe veYisroel, No more ISKEI BISH, lo bimos haChamo velo bimos haGshomim, hein bimos haChol, vehein biShaar yemos hashono, veOZ ulay yerachem.
The lesson we can learn from all this is, LO ALMAN YISROEL, SOF DOVOR HAKOL NISHMA, veELOKIM YEVAKESH ES haNIRDOF veSOF GANEV LITLIYEH, AMEN VEAMEN!!!
Don't fully understand the scenario. Mah nafshach, if you hold by heter, there is no need for get. But if you don't hold by heter, a get won't help, as asurah lbaal, ulboel, etc.
ReplyDeleteAlso, visitation probably limited more by geographical circumstances, than by anything else.
Was a very sad case all around. Feel very sorry for both parties.
a) The terms under which Mr. Friedman chooses to give a get are his own business, no one else's. He's not obligated to be moseir nefesh for someone else's frumkeit.
ReplyDeleteb) Have you indeed heard from him that he's being pressured for a quid pro quo. You've written that you're in touch with him. Or is this your own supposition?
The eruv around the Young Israel of Las Vegas did not exist at that time. It does not exist even now, just the borders of it are delineated, because of the same reasons people had to establish a kosher minyan there separate from the Young Israel. A minyan that Peretz Steinberg, head of Young Israel Council of Rabbis, LIED about when he asked Rav Shmuel to write a letter against it.
ReplyDeleteAs I said before, to know more about Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky's involvement with the Las Vegas situation, please contact Reb Moshe (Stanley) Peltz.
To Asher and Mr Ploni:
ReplyDeleteShavua Tov, gentlemen. I reread the post, and I think not.
You seem to be making an argument that the get should now be held up for either the sake of אמת, or to ensure that the other side engage in a teshuva process for being מוציא שם רע.
I find neither value relevant to AF for getting out of this conundrum. As kishkeyum said above, why should he be moser nefesh himself and continue to withhold the get? The question is magnified, since I've been under the impression it is the custody issue that has been the issue between them for all this time.
And as far as the הוצאת שם רע, is it wise to stay in this mess for that? Why can't that be pursued afterwards? He's not even under an obligation to EVER grant mechila for that...so he's going to stay stuck in this to try to get her to do teshuva for that? Really?!
a) I'm not protesting against him doing what he wants. I'm protesting against those that might want to PRESSURE him to do what he DOESN'T want.
ReplyDeleteb) Not at liberty to answer that one.
I was just reaffirming what you wrote - based on my understanding.
ReplyDelete"I find neither value relevant to AF for getting out of this conundrum. As kishkeyum said above, why should he be moser nefesh himself and continue to withhold the get"
ReplyDeleteFirst off, as I mentioned to kishkeyum, I'm not talking for AF, just saying why he shouldn't be forced into a corner.
I was actually attempting to state what I understand is necessary to "for getting out of this conundrum".
The sake of אמת here is not [only] a noble cause onto itself, but rather a crucial step in bringing about the necessary prerequisites BEFORE the two sides can even sit together at the negotiating table and start talking to each other.
As things stand now, BOTH sides feel victimized. Tamar, for marrying a crazy person .. and AF for all that was done to him.
Even if the diagnosis is retracted, which I assume will iy"h happen, the minds of Tamar and her supporters won't be changed. They still BELIEVE AF is missing a few screws. Some would say "so what, who cares", but I'm saying WHY WE SHOULD CARE.
Specifically in THIS case of AF, I believe due diligence and reinterpretation of facts presented in the wrong light would make Tamar's side see that they painted a "black" picture of AF where "grey" or perhaps even "white" is more appropriate. I believe that the same can be said, not in every case - but in MANY.
"And as far as the הוצאת שם רע, is it wise to stay in this mess for that? Why can't that be pursued afterwards?"
I've B"H never been in that position, but I've heard from people who have that after as a condition for a "get" the side that was demonized often requests in writing that the other side withdraw the הוצאת שם רע spread, which they often do. Yet, it changes nothing, so there is no "afterwards". I'm attempting to do better.
I don't see why anyone that cares about Aharon would advise him to not seek a resolution and move on with his life.
ReplyDeletea) We're told that all he wants is better visitation. If he receives that, along with an apology, why shouldn't he give the get? Visitation agreements can be legally enforced, so I don't hear the חשש of the other side not keeping their word.
ReplyDeleteb) That kinda answers the question.
Specifically in THIS case of AF, I believe due diligence and
ReplyDeletereinterpretation of facts presented in the wrong light would make
Tamar's side see that they painted a "black" picture of AF where "grey"
or perhaps even "white" is more appropriate.
A Pollyanish view in my opinion. At this point, the best scenario for everyone would be to bring this to an end with some sort of compromise on visitation. Sadly, no one wil come out of this clean, but the less dirt shoveled, the better it will be.
"the less dirt shoveled, the better it will be"
ReplyDeleteand you believe that it is Pollyanish for anyone to assume that my proposal will perhaps result in "less dirt shoveled" ... just maybe?
a) What about השתדלות.
b) What about AF's rights?
c) what about being דן לכף זכות Tamar's family, that perhaps once the emotional barriers are removed they'd really negotiate, especially after the negative publicity? You know, negative publicity works wonders sometimes.
d) What about the other couples that might avoid the same faith. Oops! I'm not supposed to be an idealist. sorry.
If I *may* suggest:
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I have seen firsthand more than one case like this. Nobody comes out the total victor and more troublingly, justice is NEVER served 100% in such cases.
Unless he gets a heter me'ah rabbonim (if he's entitled to it) AND have enough money so that a marriage prospect will be a overlook the stigma that comes along with it and unless he's prepared for ORA, his ex family and their cronies, then and only then........ never mind........what am I wasting my breath, chances for that are slim.
However, My friend, though in Las Vegas did just that. Guess he knows how to gamble. .......
Bottom line: what is of prime concern, what is of greater relevance to Issues of Jewish Identity the private case of Aharon and Tamar or the future of Klal Yisroel to eradicate bogus heterim of aishes ish? Can Klal Yisroel afford to shut down this open partially (meaning for just this case) or must this issue be stamped out in totality? I would think the latter. Can the guilty rabbis in this matter be forced to TOTALLY retract OR put in cherem with this couples children put in a memzer registry (that still needs to be created, you my knowledge)? I think yes.
as to a) אל תדין את חבירך עד שתגיע למקומו. B"H I've never been there, but been involved in several. Not everyone is a utilitarian, some people were "manufactured" differently & they care about being demonized, esp. when they feel strongly that they meant - and did - well (like going to B"D instead of court, etc.).
ReplyDeleteAlso, people constantly play games with visitation, go back to court to change things, etc. especially when they have money and esp. when when they're vindictive.
b) don't assume anything. and don't read anything into my words, k?
Hi Barry!
ReplyDeleteDid you have a chance to verify with your Rav the veracity of what I wrote to you a while back about men and women's rights to divorce being much more similar than many ORA supporters portray it?
(still owe you on the smelly socks!)
this is an attempt at the best possible resolution.
ReplyDeleteVisitation agreements can be legally enforced, so I don't hear the חשש of the other side not keeping their word.
ReplyDeleteNo, they cannot. Children are considered wardens of the court, which does not allow any deals, agreements or arbitration to overrule what the Court will see as best for the child. As such, in 3-6 months, Tamar and co. can begin the whole process of challenging the agreement with freshly cooked "psychological" reports, allegations and other stupidities. While Aron would be exonerated in the end, it would tie up his time, money and efforts into continuous court battles. If, however, Tamar would put a significant amount of money into escrow... then, that would be a protection. Think about it. The Epsteins and Glicks have enough money, and have thrown out large chunks in their battle of Aron. If they are serious, it should not be a big deal to put some into escrow for a few years. If they manage to behave, they will get it all back.
Well, then, you're saying that there is no way to change visitation once the court sets it. I find that hard to believe. If the mother petitions the court to change things to be more in favor of the father, I don't see why it cannot work.
ReplyDeleteTo counter the threat of reviving the accusations after six months, let him make the get על תנאי for five years, contingent upon there being no repetition of the accusations etc.
a) Not everyone is a utilitarian, some people were "manufactured"
ReplyDeletedifferently & they care about being demonized, esp. when they feel
strongly that they meant - and did - well (like going to B"D instead of
court, etc.).
Well, sure, assuming this is AF speaking. But it's not AF, it's Ploni, and as you have stated, you do not speak for AF. Why, then, do you assume that he would not be okay with better visitation, as he himself has demanded?
Separately, even if it's not his best-case scenario, it still might be the best option available.
Finally, what's with the sudden אל תדון business? There's been lots of judging done, and you've done your share.
b) Nope, not "k." I get the clear sense from what you've written that this is not just guesswork. I also have some knowledge about an attempt at negotiation in the works. I'll call it as I see it.
Be as idealistic as you wish. But you may end up doing more harm than good (as idealists often do). My experience is that when things reach such levels of bitterness, no one walks away happy, so it's best to negotiate an imperfect settlement that no one loves but everyone can live with.
ReplyDeleteI think the two of you are are not necessarily disagreeing but rather possibly misunderstanding each other. The point seems to be that even if the mother now agrees to change the visitation arrangement/schedule to benefit the father, and then the father gives her a Get, six months or a year later she can backtrack and go to court and petition the visitation be changed again to disfavor the father.
ReplyDeletelet him make the get על תנאי for five years, contingent upon there being no repetition of the accusations etc
ReplyDeleteGitten al tnei are not done nowadays. Additionally, it wouldn't help her much, as she will not be able to get married since she could violate the conditions and find herself still married to the first husband.
Well, then, you're saying that there is no way to change visitation once the court sets it.
It could be changed, if the court chooses to change it. The point I am making is, even if there is an out-of-court agreement, that agreement can continuously be challenged. Especially if the out-of-court agreement runs contrary to what the court had already decided. I believe that this is the reason why the Baltimore Beis Din will not rule on a case that has been ruled upon in court - even if the parties had no right to go to court and had already signed to accept the Beis Din's ruling (as happened in this case). They won't rule on a case that can easily be overturned in court - as has already happened (which is what brought about their policy).
When you are dealing with people who have shown that they do not have any good faith in their negotiations, you cannot act in a way that does not protect yourself from further abuse.
Does that answer points a-d?
ReplyDeleteIsn't your retort to "a" contradicting "b"? Is ploni in cahoots with AF or not? Point "a" says no, and "b" says???
ReplyDelete"There's been lots of judging done, and you've done your share"
אל תדין assumes unjustified תדין..... Examples, please?
My contradiction reflects your own.
ReplyDeleteThose who judge always assume theirs is justified. You have been judging the two RSKs and RNG incessantly. But wait! Have you been מגיע למקומם? I don't think so. So let's not get all frum when others indulge in the same behavior.
Anyhow, I wasn't judging AF. Simply pointing out that based on what he has been saying all along, a change in visitation should yield a get.
Absolutely! I'm surprised you don't see it. All four points are variations on a theme: the theme of your idealism. The best option in my opinion is to leave the idealism out of it, and compromise in a way that everyone can live with, even if they are not overjoyed.
ReplyDelete"in a way that everyone can live with"
ReplyDeletewho says they can both live with it? I think it's not idealism at stake .. but a lack of basic empathy.
Details please. That's why I added "unjustified".
ReplyDeleteYes, believe it or not, there ARE objective ways of measuring such things. That's what Torah and ethics is for.
"Have you walked a mile or a block in their shoes".
Well, fwiw, I HAVE been heavily involved in עסקנות, including the bottomless pit of mosdos-running. so I have a pretty good "insider view" of what motivates them.
Not sure what further details you want.
ReplyDeleteObjective ways of measuring what? Again, unclear what you're responding to. But honestly, I don't really care. I've invested about as much as I plan to in this particular conversation.
You are not a 96 year old poseik and rav from the South, so you probably have no idea what it's like to be RNG. You are not a rosh yeshiva, or the son of one, so you have no idea what's it's like to be either RSK. Your experience in askonus biases you to think in a certain direction -- no telling whether it's the right one. This supports my point: Everyone assumes their judging is justified. It's always the other guy who has not be מגיע אל מקומו.
If one side can't live with it, he/she won't accept the compromise. If they accept the compromise, it's b/c they can live with it, even if it doesn't make them happy.
ReplyDeleteIt might make you feel virtuous to accuse me of lacking basic empathy, but it doesn't speak to the point I'm making, which is that empathy and idealism aside, no one usually walks away from these things with everything they want.
My intention wasn't to accuse you of anything - just to point out that understanding AF's reservations about accepting the deal you seem to favor and why such deal is NOT something he can LIVE WITH requires a level of empathy that looks at the whole struggle and his character traits and principles.
ReplyDeleteI'm not interested in seeming virtuous, just arguing passionately that those that are (like AF) deserve at least as much sympathy as those leaving marriage for feeling distressed about issues that good guidance and interpretation could have resolved to mutual benefit.
The "we're all biased" argument has only a grain of truth.
ReplyDeleteIt's a STARTING POINT point to what researchers call "debiasing" and what ספרי השקפה like חובות הלבבות, רבינו יונה spend lots of time on.
My עסקנות background has indeed biased me against those that use the "we're all biased" argument as an ENDING POINT, because it precludes correcting serious issues that not only should but also COULD be corrected.
It's unfortunate.
Isn't it convenient that while you deem yourself properly "debiased" and therefore permitted to judge, others who offer opinions are accused of violating the dictum of אל תדין את חבירך עד שתגיע למקומו or lacking basic empathy?
ReplyDeleteAs I said, this conversation is going nowhere, so from my side, I'm ending it now. For real this time.
I have no problem understanding AF's reservations about accepting the deal (assuming they are in fact his reservations and not your own -- you keep bouncing back and forth on this point). My point has nothing to do with a lack of sympathy. It's an expression of pragmatism.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, when you tell someone you are arguing with that he lacks basic empathy, you are making a negative statement about the person in service of your argument. Happily, I long ago ceased to take umbrage at internet comments about me by people I don't know who don't know me. But let's not pretend that was not the intention.
I agree it's not going anywhere. But for the record, no I don't consider myself "debiased". This debiasing stuff is a constant day-to-day battle, that most of us don't care for.
ReplyDeleteBeing aware of the struggle (probably out of necessity in my line of work) just makes me more aware of the biases that lie hidden under everyone's consciousness, and therefore more amenable to understand the sensitivities of BOTH Tamar and Aharon, and why he might hesitate.
הצלחה!