Sunday, August 7, 2016

Harry Maryles condemns alleged blockbusting in Lakewood area - while he acknowledges he doesn't know if it actually happened

Guest post. I reread Harry's post twice as well as the many comments to make sure it was a bad as the guest post described. It was. Why should Harry accept allegations of Chareidi blockbusting in the Lakewood area as true - when he acknowledges he doesn't have any evidence and knows very little about Lakewood?! Because it might be true?! This is "when did you stop beating your wife" logic translated as "why did chareidim start blockbusting?"  And even the allegations he relied upon are not necessarily illegal or inappropriate - and do not constitute blockbusting.
==============================================

There's a new controversy brewing with bloggerwho presents himself as honest and righteous, but is also seen as having a long history of shooting from the hip, without bothering to ascertain the facts before criticizing and slandering people. He was taken to task this week for a recent article of his. At this point, to me, the details of the article are not the relevant part. What is relevant is that this blogger clearly stated that he does not know the facts and that he has not researched the claims that were made. However, not only did this not stop him from publicly lambasting a community; he brazenly insists that he was correct in his criticisms of that community, even though he got the facts all wrong.

Besides for not apologizing for slander, Rabbi Harry Maryles went to Matzav.com to defend his slander.  After making some sarcastic comments, he stated as follows:

"But I felt that as an Orthodox rabbi, I should speak out about what this community has been accused of". 

By speaking out, he does not mean defending this community against vicious slander. That is something that he reserved for the likes of Rabbi Michael Broyde. By speaking out, he means that somehow it is the responsibility of "an Orthodox rabbi" to further false accusations and slander. 


In a comment on the article, a reader challenged him


A rabbi has the responsibility to research the facts before he ever shoots from his hips. Not researching the facts is highly unethical and, of course, a true chilul Hashem. What you are doing is furthering distrust of [rabbis like you]. Now, whenever a ... rabbi as yourself makes a claim, it is highly suspect. 

Those of us who follow the Daas Torah blog may remember a similar episode from this past January. Again, I feel that the subject is not what is relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that the blogger came on here and declared

You won't be publishing this, but I'm going to tell you anyway since you will in fact be reading it before you delete it.

It is not your view about the halachic issues involved here that is in question. You may in fact be right. .... In doing this in such a public manner, you have lost your Chezkas Kashrus among so many of your former supporters

[As an aside, as a follower of this blog I have observed that Rabbi Eidensohn is very liberal in allowing different viewpoints to be expressed. The only exception, where I have seen Rabbi Eidensohn remove or refuse comments are when there is clear abusive language, or when people keep on repeating the same things over and over. Particularly when they are not true.] 

I guess that Rabbi Maryles is selective about who may be criticized publicly. This reminds me of a famous line from George Orwell in Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Rabbi Eidensohn's response was on mark, which never received a substantive response.

Conceding that I might be correct regarding the facts leaves you in a rather difficult situation when you claim to condemn me for besmirching chashuva rabbonim. If my facts are correct they deserve to be publicly condemned! ....
Harry you apparently didn't bother reading the letters written by a wide range of gedolim that I published on this blog. As you unfortunately have done with other issues you don't bother ascertaining the facts before you pontificate. And you respond on an emotional level rather than as an adult with concern for the truth.

On January 5th, at 4:32 PM the blogger responded:
You're right. I didn't read every single post you wrote on this subject. But I read enough to know that you condemned these Rabbonim Chashuvim many times. 
If they deserve to be publicly condemned, Why haven't I seen R' Sternbuch's condemnation. Not his disagreement. His condemnation the Philadelphia Rosh HaYeshiva. 
If he did and I missed it, show me his letter now and I will apologize to you.
Rabbi Eidenson immediately responded

Harry your lack of basic integrity is astounding. You are acknowledging you don't know the material or what has been going on - and yet you start blasting away and then afterwards say you are sorry? You are simply another Joe McCarthy and have no sense of shame.
You might want to read the letter from ... and ... Read the other letters which condemn the joint efforts of ....
So please cut out your nonsense of "Why haven't I seen R' Sternbuch" ..... but you in your gaaveh induced visions "know" better than everybody else in the world.
Harry - you are the one who has to bring proof that what I have done is wrong. Your approach of hanging the accused with a lynch mob based on meditating on your navel and then saying well I will apologize if I made a mistake - is simply rishus. You are a chasid shoteh!
I have letters from many of the gedolim in the world who have condemned the actions of ..... You need to publicly apologize to them for your nasty ignorant comments.
Although all the letters are readily available on the sidebar of this blog, Rabbi Marles has still not apologized, nor has he removed his slanderous post. Apparently, some seven months later, he has still not read the letters and properly investigated the matter. Either that, or truth is simply not one of the requirements that he has for his blog.

I would like Rabbi Maryles to explain his position briefly. At what point will you stop your slander? 

He also used obvious falsehoods in the past. A judge's ruling was publicly available. However, Rabbi Maryles decided to quote the now defunct Failed Messiah blog in order to slander this community. Again, he did not read the material. In an effort to justify himself he declared:
Now, I’m sure many reading this will discount the report because they do not trust the source (to say the least). But I am inclined to believe it. Because even though it serves his alleged purposes of bashing the religious world, there is no way Mr. Rosenberg’s blog could continue to credible to even his biggest supporters if he were caught in an outright lie.
Again, why not just read it. It would be quicker than the time it took him to compose his long blog post. In reality, the judge did not say anything of the like. Additionally, Mr. Rosenberg had a reputation of being dishonest. In fact, what was it that brought him to sell off his blog? An ethical person would personally investigate the facts before slandering.
Interestingly, Rabbi Maryles outright denied doing this on Matzav.com. A simple Google search proved otherwise.

I feel that it is high time for the impugned masses of Torah Jews to declare that the emperor has no clothes, and lacks any intellectual honesty.

I think that it is time for the Modern Orthodox world to hire an ethical Literary Ethical Ombudsman - similar to the one that works for the New York Times and similar publications - to review Rabbi Maryles' articles before he posts them. It would also be proper for him to seek out a competent Modern Orthodox therapist to help him understand why he abandoned his integrity when it comes to Torah Jews.

Sincerely,
A Fellow Jew

36 comments:

  1. I don't know what blockbusting means, and whether or not it is taking place, but I condemn it anyway, because it shouldn't be happening. For some reason that comment is more appropriate for Adar.

    ReplyDelete
  2. At this point, it remains to be seen how much integrity the Modern Orthodox blogsphere has. Will they circle their wagons around Harry Maryles and defend his indefensible actions, will they be quite, or will they condemn him as well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. For what it's worth, and after years of reading his stuff, my sense is that R Harry is basically a good guy who ...

    - has a naïveté, not based on malice
    - is well meaning, with fundamentally good integrity
    - has deep anti haredi and anti Hasidic biases
    - does not have the intellectual capacity to think beyond his gut instincts, which are often based on nostalgia and misinformation that he readily accepts
    - has an arrogance rooted in cluelessness, not a sinister agenda
    - when frustrated by an inability to respond on an intellectual level, resorts to sarcasm and personal insults

    I have experimented with a blog intended to, among other things, call out his errors

    http://thejewishobserver.blogspot.com/2016/04/all-or-nothing.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rabbi Eidensohn, I am surprised you published this drivel. Even if I am wrong about protesting even the appearance of blockbusting... EVEN IF I'M WRONG (...and I don't think I am) if you read the post in question and the one subsequent to it, you will see that I am far from a Lakewood basher.

    Jews that claim to have the highest standard of ethics must live their lives Lifnim MeShuras Hadin. Lakewood residents DO live like that. But isn't it possible that some residents there might err...in response to a housing crisis? Isn't it possible that a secular neighborhood might not be indifferent to the possibilty of the kind of cultural change that an expansion of Lakewood would bring to their community? Even if there wasn't any blockbusting but just an announcement that by an organization like Agudah that Lakewood should be pioneers and seek to expand their borders?

    BTW, the term 'blockbuster as I used it was not meant in the legal sense. I described what I meant (knocking on some doors to see if a homeowner was willing to sell their home)- which is probably legal, but might still be upsetting to the neighborhood.

    You and others can disagree. But to allow this kind of smear on your blog dishonors you more than it does me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Harry you can't define words in an idiosyncratic way. Block busting does not and never meant just knocking on some door to see if a homeowner would sell.

    You clearly are wrong - 1) stating that they are blockbusting 2) acknowledging you don't know the facts 3) condemning the whole community for what they might be doing when you acknowledge you don't know that they do it.

    Harry I do think you are sincere and I also think you really don't understand what everyone else does. When you bash a community for something that they haven't done - because may the did and they should have - and then you say nice things about other aspects. You are a basher of Lakewood!

    You are just incredibly naive and think that if you label your printed views as your opinion - then they don't harm anyone if wrong and if right - well you knew it all along. After all if I cry "fire!" in a crowded theater - no one told anybody to listen to me.

    Harry you done this before. Especially with the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter which you clearly didn't research the halacha or the clear and overwhelming consistent facts which support my actions - and yet you felt it necessary to publicly condemn me. Do you acknowledge that that was drivel. Or your condemnation of me for the excesses of the Chicago Beis Din in the Meisels seminary case - which again you didn't know the facts or the halacha but you issued "Harry's views on something I don't know anything about"

    What if David Duke said, I don't know if it is true - but there have been constant allegations throughout history that Jews kill Christian children for their blood to use on Passover. If it is true then Jews are horrible for doing such and I condemn the practice. Even if it is only some Jews who do this - it is a terrible practice and I can understand if it were true why there is so much anti-Semitism. Even if they only wish they could have Christian blood - they have an obligation to be pious people and even the thought of should be terrible. Of course I want to emphasize that I am not an anti-Semite myself. I am just saying that their alleged practice would be justification for anti-Semitisim

    Describing clearly and accurately the distortions and false allegations you pass off as true or maybe true - is not a smear. It is simply telling the truth.

    Hopefully you will think twice about reporting on unchecked facts that smear communities and individuals. Sincerity is not the issue - integrity is

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Agudah responded, as did NJ radio personality Judi Franco posted a clip on you-tube and explains that what is gong on in NJ towns like Toms River, Lakewood, Jackson and Howell, is not blockbusting. The statements made about Lakewood by HM are ignorance.
    http://hefkervelt.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-shtickle-ignorant.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. What is the real purpose of Harry's blog? Was it part of the "solution" that a $6.5 think tank came up with in order to stop Jews from being more observant? Does his blog deserve credit for the unfortunate, horrendous and saddening 50% attrition rate of Modern Orthodox high school students? The fact that they have chosen to now hide the study does not change the fact. Thousands and thousands of Jewish souls are needlessly suffering and being pushed away due to this selfish agenda and empty ideology.

    Something is rotten in the state of Demark.

    Are you certain that perhaps you yourself do not suffer from some naïveté?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I am surprised you published this drivel"
    - example of resorting to insult

    "I am far from a Lakewood basher"
    - irrelevant straw man. The issue at question is this particular post

    "Jews that claim to have the highest standard of ethics"
    - Shoulder chip shining through. Only in Harry's mind is this community 'claiming' anything

    "I didn't use blockbuster in the legal sense"
    - you didn't use it in any sense that is correct. It's a nasty smear, based on conjecture, for which an apology is in order

    Why not just apologize and let's move on

    ReplyDelete
  9. Harry Maryles does not call himself Modern Orthodox - he calls himself a "centrist" which means he is in nobody's camp. Not a lot of friends there.

    BTW, I consider Jewish Observer's assessment as spot on.

    Poor thing!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Not sure what taking a swipe at MO has to do with Harry and his post. It's not his fault.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I would also add that he is a lazy man - based on his lack of doing any fact checking.
    One wonders why The Jewish Press gives him his own column.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I would also add that he is a lazy man - based on his lack of doing any fact checking"

    - yes I really don't get that part, particularly when the lack of doing easy research makes him look bad

    ReplyDelete
  13. It is more than high time that Harry Myrles be exposed for his hate against chareidim and his despicable opinions especially when it comes to divorce and Bais Din. Harry would like you to believe that his commitment to Shulchan oruch is as strong as any chareidi. This myth has been long ago exposed. Krum hashkofohs lead to krum halochohs. According to Harry Myrles, a woman is automatically entitled to a get on the breakdown of a marriage. But that is totally contradicted by the Shulchan Oruch. Furthermore when a woman goes to secular court which is the default situation today unfortunately, she is in arko”oys and is almost invariably lo tzias dina. If so what right has she call any jew to bais Din. Why doesn’t harry Myrles open the Shulchan Oruch and see what it says in Chshen Mishpot 26. Someone who is lo tzias dina loses all rights to call another Jew to Bais Din. If so, how can the Bais Din Harry is so fond of, the BDA issue seruvim against men whose wives are in arko”oys? On Harry’s own blog someone wrote quite a while back that R Gedliah Schwartz is so proud of the fact that he hasn’t ever issued a seruv against a woman. Isn’t this completely against halocho? The Steipler had very harsh things to say about those who always favor women. What about all the mesirah involved in a divorce including being moser the money of the husband which is also considered mesirah. When was the last time Harry ever stood up for a man?
    A woman who is in arko”oys is not only not entitled to a get if the husband is willing to go to any kosher bais din of his choice but she is required in most cases to repay the husband’s legal fees according to halocho. Harry when was the last time the BDA followed the halocho? But Harry you have had very harsh words and things to say about Rabbi Gestener’s bais din. When has he been guilty of the same level of corruption of halocho that the BDA has been?
    Harry you should look inwards before criticizing so much. Your hashkofohs are very krum. Your hatred for chareidim is despicable and you can deny it all you like. You present yourself as someone who loves the truth. You love your altered perception of reality which you have warped into your outlook as being true. You and all the MO who subscribe to the BDAs corruption of halocho don’t just have krum hashkofohs but krum distrotions of halocho. You have no idea how many men out there have been percecuted and had their lives destroyed by the corrupt divorce courts and all this has been adided and abetted by the warped ideology of the BDA/ MO crowd. I am not talking about withholding a Get for spite when the woman is not running to secular court but to many cases where she cries agunah after destroying her husband in the most vicious way! Harry I am not fooled by you. Hopefully neither are many others.

    Just do me one favor explain how women going ot arko”oys is muttar and how the BDA can issue seruvim against men in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @honesty which study came up with that 50% figure for MO OTD?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Jewish Press is the same driven as Harry. Always has been.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Harry has always been like this. A few years ago Matzav called him out on another anti-Chareidi drivel post of his where he viciously attacked gedolei yisroel. Harry's Chareidi children forced Harry to apologize, which he did in a subsequent post, and begged Matzav to delete their article calling Harry out. Which they did a month later after Harry deleted his original post.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Isn't it possible..."

    so that's why I said that it was happening!

    ReplyDelete
  18. https://rabbipruzansky.com/2012/10/12/the-three-ply-cord/

    ReplyDelete
  19. This wasn't a swipe. Saying that it's not his fault without having being transparent about the purpose of his blog and who asked him to start it etc doesn't do anyone well. It's time to put all the cards on the table.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Actually the OU has been calling themselves "centrist" for a long time. Harry has plenty of support in the MO world. I don't know why you say that he doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I have to say - I never perceived his attacks as coming from a place of visciousness, although their net effects might be the same. I think it is his acute naïveté, not sinister motives, that causes him to be so sure of himself and stubbornly defiant of alternative views

    ReplyDelete
  22. true and stubbornly defiant of the facts

    ReplyDelete
  23. I used to be an avid reader of Harry's blog but have stopped, partly because the comments are largely just fanboys bickering among themselves, partly because I am frustrated with the inadequate levels of reporting that Harry does (too much conjecture), but also because of an encounter I once had when I forwarded him a news article I thought he should discuss; Harry took the article and proceeded to bash the Rov involved in the story for an issue I had no inkling of. As others have pointed out he does unfortunately appear to have too much anti Charedi bias to be now trusted to write cogent objective pieces. Shame

    ReplyDelete
  24. Not sure if your 50% statistic is accurate, but do you acknowledge the sex abuse and other horrific crimes that Harry reports on, appear to be much less prevalent in the MO quarters than in the Charedi one?

    ReplyDelete
  25. prevalence of sex abuse is not determined by the frequency that the items appear in newspapers of Internet. The professionals I have asked say that the rate of abuse appears about the same in diverse populations. Do you have any other evidence except for the amount of space they take up on Harry's blog?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I can't comment on R' Harry and Lakewood, but one of the problems I have with critics and R' Harry is instead of focusing on the problems of their own communities and their sphere of influence , they focus on the problems of other communities.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 1) "But isn't it possible that some residents there might err...in response to a housing crisis?"

    Even if this was wrong, the slightest bit of research would have informed you that an ordinance was passed and this has not been taking place for months.

    2) " Isn't it possible that a secular neighborhood might not be indifferent
    to the possibility of the kind of cultural change that an expansion of
    Lakewood would bring to their community?"

    A lot of things are possible, including the fact that many people may not want other ethnicity's or religions moving into their neighborhood, that does not make their point of view correct, that is bigotry and discrimination, and you are taking their side.

    Note, the complaints from Jackson are not from the neighbors of people who actually moved in, as they get along well. It is from people who have a fear, but no experience, of having Jewish neighbors move in.

    3) You irrationally seem to object to Orthodox Jews moving into surrounding towns and assail Agudah for suggesting that. Are you aware of how small and overdeveloped Lakewood is? Perhaps you would want Lakewood to construct a barbed wire fence to keep the population in the ghetto.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Honesty That's what I thought. But do you know which study R. Pruzansky is referring to?

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Honesty That's what I thought. But do you know which study R. Pruzansky is referring to

    ReplyDelete
  30. So why did you ask, and what is the purpose of your questions? How about we get right to the point?

    ReplyDelete
  31. He says it's unpublished ...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Rare will I blast a frum Jew in public but HM deserves it. His blog is vicious. It's pure anti charedism. I can't say that I have ever seen a more self righteous and pompous pile of garbage than his blog. I think he is sinister.

    ReplyDelete
  33. HM you are the king of smear. Your blog is an atrocity. You talk with such confidence from such ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  34. He doesn't care how he sounds, if he's accurate, if he's fair. Doesn't care about context or the fact that people are imperfect. Has no fear of bashing top gadolim in public. I'm talking about gadolim from 50 years ago. His treatment of the Satmar Rav is on the level where he could lose his olam haba. The guy has a sickness. I guess it's just giva. There are many people like that today, just driven by giva all day long. Some in the privacy of their homes. Here, it's in public, on public issues where he embarrasses and misrepresents people on a daily basis. He is probably so thrilled to have an audience and a known blog but it's ruining his life. He actually gets worse by the month. Nearly every post begins with the word I - today's post for example. I, I, I. He confuses opinions and fact. And his opinions are all negative. Look at the last 6 posts - he blasts YCT in two and Satmar in the 3rd, charedim in general in the 4th, Satmar in the 5th, New Square in the 6th. Somebody has got to tell this guy about the sins of lashon hara and chillul Hashem, not to mention feeling superior to everybody. The blog should be called I am the moral conscience of the universe and my job is to judge everyone else. He is the walking embodiment of the old line that any body to the right of me is a fanatic and to the left is an apikoris. The irony is that he accuses everyone else of intolerance.

    I used to read his blog and based on it when I moved to Israel I expected the worst from the Charedi community. I expected what he portrays which is all bad. I was shocked to find really terrific people. In Beit Shemesh Beit, there's amazing people all over the place. meah Sharim too. and Bnei Brak. They have some of the best people around. HM just completely slanders and misrepresents them. It's nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The Satan desires Chava. There's your answer as to why this is happening.

    ReplyDelete

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