Myths and Facts: Musical Instruments on Shabbat
(Crossposted to Mah Rabu.)
This post addresses popular misconceptions concerning classical halachic sources about playing musical instruments on Shabbat. The purpose of this post is not to promote a particular stance about halacha (what should and shouldn’t be done) or meta-halacha (how one should determine what should and shouldn’t be done). I’m not suggesting (chas veshalom) that the only (or the best) way to justify one’s practices is by finding a pre-modern halachic text that supports them; I’m just clarifying what those pre-modern texts do and don’t say. Of course, people may have all sorts of reasons for their practices, including aesthetic preferences, mimetic traditions, logical arguments, and cultural/denominational/communal identities. My goal is not to invalidate those reasons, but to knock them off their “halachic” high horse. The intended result is that when we’re discussing questions about musical instruments on Shabbat — in distinguishing one community from another, or talking about where we will and won’t daven, or determining policies for our pluralistic communities — we’ll have to be explicit about those aesthetic preferences, mimetic traditions, logical arguments, and cultural/denominational/communal identities, rather than simply playing the “I’m halachic and you’re not” get-out-of-jail-free card. (No, I don’t think such a card should exist in the first place, whether it’s the “forbidden” card of Stage 1 or the “uncomfortable” card of Stage 2, but I can’t change the world overnight.) If you find factual inaccuracies in the post, please post corrections in the comments (with appropriate citations), and I’ll update the post. If you have a stance on the issue that differs from mine, then that’s swell — I totally support your right to have different aesthetic preferences, mimetic traditions, logical arguments, or cultural/denominational/communal identities, or to come up with new and innovative halachic interpretations.
(Many thanks to R. Elisha Ancselovits and his Hilchot Shabbat class for introducing me to a number of these sources. However, any mistakes are my own, as are formalistic interpretations that Rav Elisha would almost certainly frown upon. The deeper discussions about what the sources are really talking about are an important conversation, perhaps for a later post, but this post is addressing the sources on the most literal level, in order to clear up misconceptions so that that conversation can start with a clean(er) slate.)
Myth: The reason for prohibiting musical instruments on Shabbat is mourning for the destruction of the Temple.
Fact: In all of Jewish tradition, there is no value of X for which “We don’t do X on Shabbat (but do X on weekdays) because of mourning for the destruction of the Temple.” In fact, many things are precisely the opposite. Public mourning is forbidden on Shabbat, so many personal and communal mourning practices are suspended on Shabbat.
So where does this idea come from in the first place? Perhaps from sources such as the Gemara’s statement in Gittin 7a (codified by the Rambam in Hilchot Ta’aniyot 5:14 and by the Shulchan Aruch in OH 560:3) that in the aftermath of the destruction, all music (instrumental or vocal) is now forbidden (any day of the week). Needless to say, this prohibition is not widely observed. In light of this, later commentators have limited its scope, but none by saying that it specifically refers to Shabbat.
[Yes, there is a principle of à éï ùáåú áî÷ãù (rabbinic prohibitions regarding Shabbat do not apply in the Temple), and this principle may have some relevance to the question of musical instruments on Shabbat (viz. it means that the fact that musical instruments were played in the Temple on Shabbat isn’t sufficient to convince everyone that musical instruments are ok outside the Temple on Shabbat). But it is undisputed that this means in the Temple, not at the time of the Temple. Any restrictions that apply today outside the Temple also applied in the time of the Temple outside the Temple. And Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 4:1 shows one example of these restrictions being relaxed (not strengthened) after the destruction.]
Myth: The Mishnah explicitly prohibits musical instruments on Shabbat and yom tov, as it says (Sukkah 5:1) äçìéì çîùä åùùä – æäå äçìéì ùì áéú äùåà áä ùà éðä ãåçä ìà à ú äùáú åìà à ú éåà èåá (“The flute, five or six [days] — this is the flute of simchat beit hashoeivah, which does not override either Shabbat or yom tov”).
Fact: From the larger context of the Mishnah (Sukkah chapter 4 and the beginning of chapter 5), it’s not at all clear that the flute itself is the reason that simchat beit hashoeivah isn’t done on Shabbat or yom tov. These mishnayot are built around the short mnemonic phrases in Sukkah 4:1, and “äçìéì” could simply be synecdoche for the celebration as a whole, much as ìåìá is synecdoche for all four species, and òøáä is synecdoche for the whole ceremony of encircling the altar. There are certainly other aspects of simchat beit hashoeivah that are more obvious Shabbat prohibitions, such as lighting fire (for non-sacrificial purposes), and perhaps excessive levity.
Myth: The Gemara explicitly prohibits musical instruments on Shabbat and yom tov, âæøä ùîà éú÷ï ëìé ùéø / a rabbinic decree lest one repair a musical instrument [on Shabbat] (Beitzah 36b).
Fact: Not quite. Mishnah Beitzah 5:2 lists a number of activities that are rabbinically prohibited on Shabbat and yom tov, and the list includes clapping and dancing. The Gemara then provides reasons for these prohibitions, and states, as the reason for prohibiting clapping and dancing, âæøä ùîà éú÷ï ëìé ùéø / a rabbinic decree lest one repair a musical instrument [on Shabbat].
It’s certainly not such a huge logical leap from saying that clapping and dancing are forbidden on Shabbat lest one repair a musical instrument to saying that playing a musical instrument is also forbidden. But that’s not what the decree actually said. So those who think that clapping and dancing are permitted on Shabbat should think carefully before citing this source as a reason for prohibiting musical instruments.
Myth: The reason for prohibiting musical instruments is that one might tune the instrument, or replace a string that breaks.
Fact: Supposing that âæøä ùîà éú÷ï ëìé ùéø is a reason for prohibiting musical instruments on Shabbat, the question arises as to which repairs are of concern. Tuning is not mentioned in any of the sources (and is not what would ordinarily be considered “repair”), and replacing a broken string is explicitly permitted by Tosefta Eruvin 8:19 (at least under limited conditions, which aren’t 100% clear).
Tosafot (Beitzah 30a) distinguishes between “their time”, when they were expert at making musical instruments, and “our time”, when we’re not. (They even go so far as to say that the decree doesn’t apply in “our time” as a result.) So they clearly understand the prohibited “repairs” to be significant enough to require a luthier or other skilled professional, in contrast to tuning an instrument or replacing a broken guitar string, which any amateur musician can do.
Myth: There is a distinction between playing percussion instruments and playing other (string, wind, etc.) instruments.
Fact: The sources do not mention such a distinction. If the issue with musical instruments is ùîà éú÷ï ëìé ùéø, then percussion instruments are just as much at issue (since they can be repaired, and since they can accompany clapping and dancing). And if the issue is äùîòú ÷åì (making noise), then this category is also construed to include sounds that are percussive (or otherwise non-melodic) in nature, such as letting a mill run during Shabbat (Shabbat 18a), knocking on a door (Eruvin 104a), and a baby’s rattle (Shulchan Aruch OH 339:3). (In fact, the Me’iri cites a view that the prohibition is only on loud percussion, and not on other music.)
Myth: There is a distinction between playing instruments during kabbalat shabbat and playing instruments during ma’ariv or other Shabbat services.
Fact: First of all, the classical sources about musical instruments on Shabbat don’t mention anything about prayer at all. The question of which (if any) prayers are being accompanied never comes up. Second of all, kabbalat shabbat didn’t even exist before the 16th century.
Yes, there are communities where instruments are played during kabbalat shabbat (BEFORE SUNDOWN) and not during ma’ariv (before or after sundown). But the relevant distinction here is between playing instruments on Friday (universally acceptable, except among those who hold by the opinion above that all music is forbidden) and playing instruments on Shabbat. Two possible ways for Shabbat to begin are 1) the setting of the sun, 2) the recitation of Psalm 92 at the end of kabbalat shabbat. Once either of these has happened, it is Shabbat, and the community’s Shabbat practices (whatever those may be) go into effect.
This means that if the entire service takes place after sundown (for example, during the winter), there is no basis in premodern sources for distinguishing between kabbalat shabbat and ma’ariv. Of course, one might have an aesthetic (or other) basis, which is not the subject of this post.
Awesome. I enjoyed the erudition, as well as the disclaimer at the beginning of the post.
Here’s my understanding of the issue, which I believe reads validly alongside your sources/commentary:
(I apologize in advance for the lack of references. Hopefully you or others can supply them)
Tuning an instrument is prohibited on Shabbat because it (a) is the final step in ‘building’ an object, or relatedly (b) it turns something un-usable into something usable.
Because tuning an instrument is so closely linked to playing it (even instinctual for many musicians as soon as they pick up an instrument), the Rabbis forbade playing musical instruments on Shabbat.
This prohibition, like the other rabbinical Sabbath prohibitions as you mentioned, was only in effect OUTSIDE the Temple, which is why they played instruments in the Temple on Shabbat, leading to people-nowaday’s confusion as to the source of the prohibition.
Concurrently or possibly at a later time (depending on whether “tuning” can be synonymous with “letaken”), clapping and dancing were also forbidden on Shabbos for similar reasons. Clapping and dancing have fallen back into vogue on Shabbat by coming in through the “back door” of Simchas Torah, where later Rabbis explicitly allowed these practices.
Some questions:
1. Why do you hold that “letaken” and “to tune” cannot be synonyms?
2. Do the sources you reference about “hashma’at kol” forbid or allow those practices? On what basis?
The Gush shuffle was started at Yeshivat Har Etzion, aka Gush, because either Rav Amital or Rav Lichtenstein(I forget which one) forbid dancing on Shabbat. So there are people who are careful about not dancing on Shabbat.
Your analysis is technically correct that the prohibition explicitly mentions dancing and clapping, but that could be because playing an instrument was considered an obvious prohibition. Of course the tosefta you mention could make the whole issue moot.
I think the distinction people make with percussion instruments is more using a table/bench as a drum vs. a traditional instrument. If people argue that using a tunable drum is permissible and a flute isn’t you’re right that there is no support for their argument.
Finally, if you think about the possible issues you mentioned: tuning, breaking a string, repairing. I think it’s interesting to note that the least problematic instrument would probably be a pipe organ.
chillul Who?, I disagree with your reasoning on why tuning is prohibited. As any decent musician will tell you, an instrument that is out-of-tune is still very useful. A guitar that is out of tune can still be played beautifully, so long as the musician knows how far out of tune it is. After all, the frequencies that each string is tuned to are simply a convention for easier play – the guitar produces sound regardless. Moreover, many songs are played in non-standard tuning, like drop D, or open G, or many others. Beyond that, different people use different precise frequencies for defining any particular note, such that any claim that a guitar is ‘in tune’ or ‘out of tune’ has more to do with how the musician would like to play the instrument than an indication of deficiency or incompleteness in the instrument itself.
Put more technically, tuning a guitar, in particular, is ‘derech tashmisho’ (part of the normal usage of an object), and therefore, it cannot be considered a completion or repair. This is not true of many other instruments, but is true of at least most stringed instruments. Your comment about the close between playing and tuning is precisely the point – tuning a guitar is part of playing it in a way that is not true for a piano, for example.
Avi: I think the didg competes with the organ in that regard.
A bold post. I’m kind of interested in a sophisticated frum rebuttal. Rabbi Gil Student or someone like that. Hey, Hirhurim! http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/
This is fascinating.
I want to mention a practical dilemma though, which is that I dare say that many members of ommunities that use musical instruments are illiterate of these sources and even the language you’re using the describe them! (I am not trying to generalize, just extrapolate from my own experience and situation.)
I am certainly feeling wiser by the minute but I still am not macho enough to go fight a battle with my community about why we can’t have drums. That will take a confident yeshiva graduate. Want to come fight my battles for me? 🙂
“I still am not macho enough to go fight a battle with my community about why we can’t have drums. That will take a confident yeshiva graduate.”
No, that will take someone not afraid to be called-out as a hippy. 🙂
I saw 35 Grateful Dead shows in my youth and groupied around with Phish at length for years. I have no fear of being called a hippie, What I am concerned about is being called a liberal Jew by the likes of you frummies.
BZ – why have you not taken into account the general dislike of producing noise on the sabbath? That is the one principle that explains the prohibition on musical instruments nicely.
I wrote a bit about this here (originally in response to BZ’s knesset election contest.
I actually gave a shiur at NHC06 on neginah b’shabbat, discussing R’ Ehud Bandel’s article in Et La’asot. Basically, he argues that the prohibition of shevut was misunderstood by the yerushalmi (which later led to the tosofists rejecting the Bavli’s prohibition ‘because we are no longer experts in fixing instruments’), and, as haGr”a Lieberman points out in Tosefta kiFeshuta, the Yerushalmi understands shevut as “uvdin d’hol”, a non-shabbosdik activity.
Even if you can prove that neginah or electricity aren’t shevut, they nonetheless may nonetheless by prohibited as uvdin d’hol, weekday activities as the original meaning of the mishnah
(Note: I’m responding to these comments in my own voice, rather than the quasi-objective voice of the main post.)
chillul Who? writes:
Tuning an instrument is prohibited on Shabbat because it (a) is the final step in ‘building’ an object, or relatedly (b) it turns something un-usable into something usable.
Because tuning an instrument is so closely linked to playing it (even instinctual for many musicians as soon as they pick up an instrument), the Rabbis forbade playing musical instruments on Shabbat.
I’m with rejewvenator here. As a (non-professional) musician, I think of tuning as simply part of playing the instrument, rather than as part of “building” it. (And physically, it’s really not so different from playing it: tightening/loosening a string and pressing a string down on a fret are two different ways of changing the string’s fundamental frequency.) Taking my guitar out of its case also turns something unusable into something usable, and is the final step before I can play it (assuming it’s already tuned), but that doesn’t seem like something that would be problematic.
2. Do the sources you reference about “hashma’at kol†forbid or allow those practices? On what basis?
Some of each. As Amit says, many of the sources have a general dislike of producing noise on Shabbat. Someone who may or may not wish to be quoted by name suggests that this aversion comes from an early conception of Shabbat that predates the later rabbinic trend of putting everything into categories such as the 39 avot melachot (e.g. making cheese = boneh), so it may not be possible to place these into other rabbinic categories. The concern about hashma’at kol seems to ebb and flow over time in different cultural contexts.
sarah writes:
which is that I dare say that many members of ommunities that use musical instruments are illiterate of these sources
And many members of communities that don’t use musical instruments as well.
Amit writes:
BZ – why have you not taken into account the general dislike of producing noise on the sabbath? That is the one principle that explains the prohibition on musical instruments nicely.
What do you mean “taken into account”? I’m not writing a teshuva, I’m just addressing specific misconceptions. And I did mention hashma’at kol. I think this principle is a consistent position for communities that actually maintain a quiet atmosphere for Shabbat, but I’m not sure how to square it away with, say, the Carlebach Shul.
OJ writes:
Even if you can prove that neginah or electricity aren’t shevut, they nonetheless may nonetheless by prohibited as uvdin d’hol, weekday activities as the original meaning of the mishnah
This begs the question. Yes, activities that are not done on Shabbat (in a particular milieu) are, by definition, weekday activities. And if they’re permitted on Shabbat, then they’re not weekday activities. Nu?
I’m very much enjoying this conversation, as I’d encountered enough of those halachic points before to not be especially convinced that it’s actually asur [forbidden], but still uncomfortable with it, as I’m so used to music being something that’s just not done on shabbos. Not as uncomfortable as I was, say, a year and a half ago when I first went to KZ/J-m, but still 🙂
As someone who played the violin for years but did not always like to practice as much as his parents preferred, I can assure you this post is not going to go over very well with the liberal shtetl children of the world. It is, perhaps, for their sake that we most need to hear the Modern* Orthodox opinion on this matter.
*Just a gentle reminder for the recently gloating frummies on this site that Haredism has nothing to do with the heritage of pre-war American Jewry.
Just a gentle mention that “it’s not at all clear that…” is not quite the same as “it’s not the case that.”
Otherwise, nicely done.
I’ve studied this before, in the somewhat long ago past, and it seems to me that there are other arguments to be raised, but I’m not up to getting out of bed (sick) and dealing with them now… maybe someone else will give it a go.
Well done on this post. There is much more to say; what you have clarified in this post is an important start.
The synecdoche reading of Mishnah Sukkah is possible as a local interpretation of the phrase without considering its implications. Indeed, the permissive view cited by Meiri in his Magen Avot (for a fairly full list of sources, including this one, and a basic narrative, I invite you to go look at the still crude, soon-to-be-launched Halakhah Think Tank (www.halakhah.org) that I am starting up) must assume something like this reading. But close attention to the phrase æäå çìéì ùì áéú äùåà áä ùà éðä ãåçä indicates that there is another kind of çìéì—not part of excessive levity or unnecessary pyrotechnics—that is ãåçä Shabbat and/or Yom Tov. But when something is ãåçä, that means that it is basically forbidden unless another principle overrides the prohibition. Therefore, the most straightforward reading of this phrase is that the Mishnah is implying that a çìéì itself is something forbidden that is only played on Shabbat or Yom Tov if there is an overriding principle at work, such as the importance for beautiful music to accompany sacrifices (which the Torah itself already seems to demand in Bemidbar 10—again, see sources).
It seems pretty straightforward to me to say that once clapping is feared to lead to the fixing of a musical instrument, playing an instrument would produce the same fear. But we don’t need to speculate here, Rabbah/Rava (depends on manuscripts) on Eruvin 104a explicitly forbids any musical noise, which would clearly include playing instruments. Also, I don’t think Tosefta Eruvin 8:19 is helpful, since that is a mikdash-specific source and might be a case of the ãåçä rule implied in Mishnah Sukkah. But I confess to thinking, like Amit, that the original issue here has nothing to do with a fear of fixing things and everything to do with creating a certain kind of atmosphere.
Regarding Tosafot’s understanding of why the prohibition no longer applies, it is important to note 2 things: 1) They are justifying an exisiting practice that was already going on in the time of the gemara and is attested to in Massekhet Beitzah. Therefore, they will try to come up with any theory that is remotely plausible. 2) Arukh Hashulhan attacks the Tosafot precisely because he assume that tuning and replacing a string is a problem and that there is no plausible way to claim that this is beyond an average person’s expertise. So I wouldn’t build too much on that Tosafot, but that’s also because I don’t think shema yitakein exhausts the issue here.
I love this conversation– it’s always been a tricky question for me as someone who makes music for a living and feels decidedly ambiguous about musical instruments in shul.
Since I don’t feel qualified to take on the sources, let me add a tachlis point. Orthodox communities don’t use musical instruments on Shabbat, and that’s very unlikely to change. And while we can debate the validity of that, maybe we (or at least those of us who do pray in that setting) can also take a moment to allow that common practice to heighten our sense of Shabbat, Menucha, etc. Indeed, much of halacha is ultimately a construct that could’ve gone this way or that, isn’t it? But once we make a decision as a community, we should dedicate that decision to deepening our spirituality and connection to God and to each other.
So speaking as a musician who uses music daily as a spiritual conduit, I’d add that (when in Orthodox settings) the absence of music on Shabbat forces me to introspect and search for that spirituality in a different way.
My focus sometimes shifts to our common musical instrument– the voice– and how it expresses that spirituality (especially when we sing together as a group). A couple years ago I was at a Kol Zimrah service, and I think the most powerful moment was when the players cut out and we were all just singing. The contrast was remarkable, and I try to remember that when the players aren’t there to begin with.
Other times, it is the quiet of Shabbat that allows me to focus on what has been given to me rather than my creative/work “output”. Rather than putting more of myself out into the world, I can focus on my gratitude for creation.
I wrote:
I think of tuning as simply part of playing the instrument, rather than as part of “building†it. (And physically, it’s really not so different from playing it: tightening/loosening a string and pressing a string down on a fret are two different ways of changing the string’s fundamental frequency.)
Let me state this in a less formalistic way, lest anyone think that Rav Elisha’s class has been going in one ear and out the other. There is a longstanding distinction between doing something for later / in large quantities (in which case I’m doing “work”) vs doing something for now / for Shabbat / in small quantities (in which case I’m merely eating, or doing some other Shabbat activity) — cf. many many examples from boreir, dash/socheit, tochein, etc.
Assuming particular musical conventions, a guitar has to be tuned every time it is played, since it can go out of tune due to changes in temperature and humidity. This means that if I tune my guitar on Friday afternoon, it won’t necessarily still be in tune on Shabbat morning, and if I tune it on Shabbat morning, it won’t necessarily still be in tune on Saturday night. This means that if I tune a guitar on Shabbat, it is clear that I am doing it for now, rather than doing work to prepare for after Shabbat, or doing something that could/should have been done before Shabbat.
A piano, on the other hand, is tuned much less frequently (every six months is recommended) and must be tuned by employing a professional (most pianists don’t know how to tune a piano themselves). Therefore, there is a strong case for not tuning a piano on Shabbat, since this is “work” by a number of definitions – it can’t be claimed that I’m just tuning the piano for immediate use.
On the other hand, by the Tosafot’s logic, this means that playing a piano on Shabbat shouldn’t be a problem, since there’s no risk that playing a piano will lead to tuning it, since people who know how to tune pianos aren’t readily available.
Ethan- FWIW, I started a Halakha / Judaism wiki at http://halakhapedia.com halachapedia.com jewdapedia.com though there’s not much there yet.
I’m also planning probably my next free time (whenever that is) to create a torah commentary wiki-like verse by verse site. I’ve already drafted it, just need to code it. I don’t know if you’re interested in that, as well
If you accept haGra”sh Lieberman’s logic that the original prohibition of mipnei shevut was because of “uvdin d’hol”, then it was in part an aesthetic choice. Certainly climbing a tree is a problem from a 39 avot melachot perspective, but assuming, like R’ Yitshak Gilat demonstrates in perakim b’hishtalshelut hahalakha that the avot structure came later, it is more an uvdin d’hol issue.
The earliest sources of prohibited activites on Shabbat were organized differently. They were more focused on non-shabbosdik activities, rather than trying to, for example, prohibit business as ‘perhaps you’ll write a receipt’ when it’s explicitly mentioned in Jeremiah and Nehemiah if not against the very understanding of what Shabbat is.
Take into account that the Maccabees wouldn’t originally defend themselves on Shabbat and the akkadian origins of Sapattu as a day of superstitious cessation of activity (as Exodus 16 says, ‘stay in your homes’), it seems that shabbat was simply a day for which, as the mekhilta says “six days you shall labor and on the 7th, you shall rest- that is, finish all your weekday labor in the six days” so that on Shabbat you are free from weekday concerns
That is, a historical understanding of an early rabbinic Shabbat would be a day where you simply tried to avoid weekday activities, which would include, for example, the tailor carrying his needle outside on Shabbat, or anything else useful for a weekday activity. It was only later that the procrustean bed of avot melakhot (which there is evidence that mishnah Shabbat 7:2 which ennumerates them is a later accretion) was created.
BAM! MO hit back — take that, BZ!
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2008/01/rock-and-roll-davening.html
My response to DK on his blog:
BZ of Jewschool claimed musical instruments on shabbos is no big whoop.
That’s not what I claimed at all. My claim was simply that a number of popular explanations for prohibiting musical instruments are inaccurate, as are a number of justifications for drawing distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable use of instruments, but I also said explicitly that one might still have other reasons for one’s practices. Gil Student did not directly refute any of my claims. (In fact, I’m not sure he was even responding to me; the links at the beginning of his post are to recent articles in the press, not to my post.)
My post also focused on pre-modern (and thus pre-denominational) sources, while most of the sources brought by Hirhurim are modern (19th century), and as he notes, are Orthodox reactions to the Reform movement. This may be convincing for those who identify as Orthodox today (and indeed, I mentioned denominational identity as one possible outside-of-pre-modern-sources reason for one’s practices), but these authorities have no standing *as authorities* (rather than as arguments that may or may not be convincing on their merits) for those who don’t identify as Orthodox, no more than the Reform sources he cites have authoritative standing for those who don’t identify as Reform. To state that the Orthodox and Reform worlds have gone in different directions on this question is to state the obvious.
DK…. I wouldn’t call Rabbi Student “MO”.
Also, why are you trying to turn this into some kind of a competition?
DK says on his blog: BZ of Jewschool claimed musical instruments on shabbos is no big whoop. Rabbi Gil Student has what to say about that. Still…on some level, even a crushing defeat at the hands of Rabbi Student is an honor for BZ. How many Reform Jews in their 20s can earn that kind of erudite halachic rebuke? BZ is the Reform blogger to beat. So do I enjoy watching an MO rabbi pummel his ass? Well…yes. But it’s out of respect.
This is just obnoxious, and symptomatic of the aggressive, “mine is larger than yours” attitude toward halachic discussion. (“Crushing defeat”? “Pummel his ass?” Give me a break. This is Torah, not WWF wrestling. What do you make of “kol haTorah kulah mipnei darchei shalom”?) And, as BZ points out, GS wasn’t even responding to BZ’s post. BZ’s not some pisher of a Reform blogger who needs your backhanded “respect”.
“What do you make of “kol haTorah kulah mipnei darchei shalomâ€?”
(Yawn)
“This is Torah, not WWF wrestling.”
For many Jews, debate is the closest thing to WWF.
“And, as BZ points out, GS wasn’t even responding to BZ’s post.”
Well…true… but it looked related.
Chillel Who wrote,
“I wouldn’t call Rabbi Student “MOâ€.”
He stood up for and published Rabbi Slifkin, against the B’nai Torah ban. I would.
“Also, why are you trying to turn this into some kind of a competition?”
Oh, for Christ’s sake, never mind. Go back to agreeing with each other.
He stood up for and published Rabbi Slifkin, against the B’nai Torah ban. I would.
He could be Charedi-with-an-education, then. I can agree to disagree on where the MO/Charedi line lies.
Oh, for Christ’s sake, never mind. Go back to agreeing with each other.
If you’ve read back to the comments here, most people actually were disagreeing with each other. And doing so maturely.
Haredim don’t publicly stand up to “The Gedolim.” They just don’t. But let’s look at how Rabbi Student defines himself.
“I am Yeshiva University-trained but I’m not “one of those” (you know, those on the cutting-edge left). I live in a moderate Haredi neighborhood, attend Haredi synagogues, send my children to moderate Haredi schools but still maintain professional and friendly relations with the Modern Orthodox world.”
So he sees himself as essentially in between.
Source: http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2004/03/in-beginning.html
“And doing so maturely.”
Oh, aren’t you so wonderful.
For an application of these issues to pluralistic communities, see Hilchot Pluralism Part VII (new!).