Total Pageviews

..

Sunday, 26 May 2013

ifyoutickleus is back.... Guest post by “Moish”

From: http://www.ifyoutickleus





Apologies in advance to readers who must by now have tired of the 'painful saga', but an article in this week's JC underscores an aspect of the ensuing fallout that has yet to be fully appreciated. It demonstrates the seismic shifts taking place in frum London, if not the UK, effected in large measure by this very saga.

For the first time in living memory, a spokesman for the United Synagogue (and not merely individual dayonim acting in their capacity as 'NW London rabbonim') has gone on record criticizing the UOHC. The significance of this cannot be overestimated, especially as the criticism relates not to the UOHC's financial probity, general accountability or its (lack of) democratic mandate but on issues of chupa and kidushin. The US lecturing the Stamford Hill establishment on yiddishkeit may not be quite like North Korea lecturing the USA on human rights but in the Adath’s eyes it must come scarily close.

The story of Orthodoxy, if not Judaism, in the UK, as well as the world over, during the last few decades has been to a large extent the seemingly inexorable ascendancy of the Charedim. Their growing numbers have been accompanied by an increasing confidence not only in expressing their views, but in policing the limits of acceptable rabbinic thought and behaviour amongst those to their left. UOHC rabbonim alongside their stable mates up north have been frenetically ferreting out the slightest whiff of heresy in their backsliding 'mainstream' counterparts. Whippers-in like good old Joe have made it their job of propping up the rear (where many of their heads are firmly ensconced) from his perch in Anglo Orthodoxy's organ and through the presidiums and presidencies that have fallen his way.

Whether it was the near-career-ending furore over the mischievous leaking of the Chief Rabbi's letter to the late R. Padwa over Hugo Gryn's memorial service or the auto-da-fe that ensued over the Chief's 'Dignity of Difference', God's self-proclaimed inquisitors were always on the case. In halachic matters too, from the brouhaha over the NW London eruv to the excoriation of Dayan Lopian for his overly liberal approach to yom tov sheni, any overt deviation from the Stamford Hill cum Bnei Brak line was swiftly and harshly condemned and without the adjudication of an ad hoc Beis Din.
Although this condemnation did not always lead to a retraction on the part of the offending party, the bearded bearers of 'Torah True' principles became the force to be reckoned with on Judaic matters. This self perception of the 'Adath' rabbonim was widely in accordance with how they were viewed by the Jewish public at large: uncompromising adherents to unchanging principles.

And it is here where the tectonic shifts are taking place. Without repeating the sordid allegations of 'the curious incident of the rov in the night-time' with which readers of this blog will be well versed, it can safely be said that the reputation of the UOHC rabbinic leadership has taken a pounding. It will take a long time if ever before anyone outside their insular citadels will look to them for guidance or authority on anything, never mind issues pertaining to the status of women, sanctity, marriage or education. In the immortal words of Rav Padwa, "the solution doesn't lie with the police," and it definitely does not lie with the self-appointed UOHC religious and modesty cops.
It is no coincidence that the UOHC has chosen to keep its counsel while mainstream Anglo Orthodoxy has been undergoing a mini-revolution of its own. From the appointment of a 'yoetzet halacha' in Kinloss to the election of women onto the boards of Federation shuls and as presidents of several United Synagogues; from the expansion in the number of women's megilla readings to increased contact with rabbinic personalities from New York's Yeshiva University, a not-so-subtle snub of Charedi norms has been gaining traction while the guardian angels have been looking less than beatific.

Of course this has not all come about as a result of the UOHC's recent failures and the LBD is still firmly ensconced in black-hat territory. What has changed, however, is the deterrent factor the UOHC and its allies once represented. Whereas in the past, R. Sacks felt the need to offer an abasing response when he was called to account by the late Rav Padwa, a similar demand from the current UOHC Head (were it not to be retracted on the same day) would likely be greeted with a mixture of scorn and bemusement.

Rather than cowering in fear as they may once have done when facing an attack from their exposed right flank, mainstream Orthodox leaders would more likely be on the floor in fits of laughter. It will be a long time indeed before the rabbis of the United Synagogue are prepared to take lessons from their Charedi counterparts on what should be considered a 'deviation' from our sacred mesorah.

And it is not just external forces that are weakening the UOHC. It may be imploding internally too as their predominance on their home turf is being eroded and they concentrate their efforts on modesty squads and the like. While In the past hell would erupt at the change of hechsher of a mere yoghurt supplier, nary a peep has been heard from Kedassia officialdom in response to the tanks of a rival butcher shop parked firmly on their lawn. Since the ba'alei machshirim are a Stamford Hill Rov with the backing of a large kehilo and an ex-Stamford Hiller in out-of-reach Edgware, there is every reason to believe that the eyes and direction of the newbies are firmly set east. Were Belz to establish its own meat in Stamford Hill Satmar would have no option but to follow suit. The absence of the revenue provided by a profitable meat production would mark the practical end of the UOHC.


It would be a mistake to attribute the decline in the Union’s ‘footprint’ solely to recent events. If Rav Padwa's inaugratory address on a decapitated calf didn't raise doubts on the leadership quality of the victor at the funeral coup d'état, then by the time of his incoherent discourse on nobody-quite-knows-what at the Siyum Hashas, he had richly earned his nickname as the 'Moro D'saster'. This latest saga has however metamorphasised the headless calf into a headless chicken and shown the emperor to have no bekitshe and barely a loin cloth. And for this they have a certain resident of Bridge Lane to thank.


16 comments:

  1. What was the yom tov sheni issue?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dayan Lopian made some Piskei Halocho regarding the keeping of yom tov sheni in Eretz Yisroel which were perceived to be munificent in their leniency by the learned gentry of N16.

      Delete
    2. I understand the Chabad Shulchan Aruch HaRav permits chutznikim to keep one day yom tov when in Eretz Yisrael. Other Poskim permit it if you have a home in Eretz and/or spend three festivals a year in Eretz etc. Those with stiff necks from looking over their shoulder objected on the grounds of 'Why be lenient when you can for the same price be stringent'. Each person must ask his own Rav.

      Delete
  2. Dayan Gershon Lopian is of true Litvish stock. Always a stickler for adherence to halocho the Dayan is known, nevertheless, to be tolerant of Chassidus. Personally, I doubt that the Dayan allowed the Shulchan Oruch Horav to inordinately influence his responsum.

    PS. I hasten to add that which I omitted in my earlier comment. Lenient or strict, Dayan G Lopian puts the N16 mob in his back pocket, in the fields learning, paskening and yiras Shomayim.

    If Heineken made Poskim, they would make them like him; probably.

    ReplyDelete
  3. and you - Yossi heller - are no doubt well enough versed in the fields of learning, paskening and yiras shomayim (as well as being intimately acquainted and knowledgeable about the people involved)to make the judgement that dayan lopian puts the n16 mob in his back pocket.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 'anijustnaive' -

    You don't have to be as good as Gareth Bale is at football to know that Steven Gerrard is a world class player.

    So you've got an illogical 'tayneh'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. no, but to judge someone's knowledge vs someone else's, you have to know what they both know.

      Delete
  5. Anon, Yossi made a judgement on the abilities of DL vs The union Rabbonim. It's one thing saying that one or the other is a big Talmid Chochom, it's quite another to make a judgement or compare them, something Mr Heller is definitely not qualified to do. (yes I am qualified to judge Mr Heller)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. a friend from yeshiva27 May 2013 at 18:30

      Its a very sweeping statement you made about Dayan Lopian, Yossi, and while he is a talmud of r' moshe, I dont know where you know the rest from; and while I cant argue with it,I'd like to know on what you base yourself.

      Delete
    2. My thanks to Anonymous for standing up to my detractors.

      Why am I not surprised that 'shalom' defends the honour of the dishonourable? Attempting to qualify himself by disqualifying me, yet failing to even attempt to substantiate either part of his claim.

      Lastly my a friend from yeshiva. Very few who do understand these matters would argue with it. I could substantiate my words in numerous ways, but the easiest of all would be to ask him outright. He will try to wangle out of giving any reoly, but his reply will be truthful.

      Delete
    3. a friend from yeshiva28 May 2013 at 02:42

      and by the way yossi, to refer to the stamford hill mob is a bizoyon hatorah and is a terrible indictment of a mokom which has got a lot of kedusha in it. This is not the place for a shomer torah umitzvos to insult munhigim. Which only proves my view that you are not qualified to say who is greater than who.

      Delete
    4. My friend. I do not intend a bizoyon hatorah c"v nor its munhigim. I used mob for its double meaning (a) crowd (b) Mafia.

      Delete
  6. Chaim Shel Sholoim27 May 2013 at 18:06

    the Chacham Tzvi in his teshuvois paskens that not only may one keep 1 day in eretz yisroel but to keep 2 days whilst there would be oiver on Baal Toisef.

    The Shulchan Aruch Harav also points out that if a family come over to CHu'L they should indeed keep 2 days.

    DL bases hios pesak on the Chacham Tzvi, who was the father of reb Yoinason Eibishitz and the Zeida of the Divrei Chaim from Tzanz.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Chacham Tzvi wasn't the father of Reb Yoinason Aibeshutz, get your facts right. In fact he was the father of R' Yaakov Emden who was I guess I will not say of R' Yoinason Aibeshutz.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Seriously, who gives a flying f....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Get a life z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z..z.z.z.

    ReplyDelete