The Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir Flip Flop

Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir of the Business Ethics Center of Jerusalem wrote a column a few weeks ago endorsing public criticism of public figures. This week, Rabbi Meir has 'modified' his message – Rabbis are lagely exempt from such criticism. Why? follow Rabbi Meir's 'logic':

If we apply the exact same criteria to a politician, we find that reasonable criticism will generally meet them. Having a bad political leader can result in great damage to the community, and having timely knowledge of the abilities and character of candidates is of benefit because these people typically stand for election at fixed intervals and the information is of practical use to the community. No one has a right to a political office, so if someone gets voted out because of an item revealed in a blog, this is not "undeserved."…

But why not rabbis?

1. "[Rabbis have a] reputation for upstanding conduct, then giving [rabbis] the benefit of the doubt is not merely a good deed, it is simply good judgment."

2. "[A] person can't exactly phone up the governor and schmooze with him or her over the way to improve their failings. [I do not recall Rabbi Elyashiv taking any calls from the masses over the Rabbi Slifkin Book Ban. The same holds true for Dovid Feinstein and a number of other'gedolim.']"

3. "Compare this to the average spiritual leader. Even if we are convinced that they have made mistakes, revelation doesn't always make the most sense. Many of these people are surprisingly accessible [sic], and so often it is much more practical and ethical to merely confront them with any concerns. And it is worth asking if letting followers know about shortcomings will ultimately be of benefit.

"Due to their great moral authority of these leaders [sic], undermining their status can do immense damage to the community -- perhaps more than the damage resulting from having authority in the hands of an imperfect individual."

In other words, Rabbi Meir should believe that if the governor would take your phone call, publicly noting that he had failed as a leader would be wrong, especially if it would lead the masses to distrust other political leaders and our poitical system as a whole. But he does not believe this. Why?

Having a bad political leader can result in great damage to the community [and a bad rabbi cannot?], and having timely knowledge of the abilities and character of candidates is of benefit because these people typically stand for election at fixed intervals and the information is of practical use to the community. No one has a right to a political office, so if someone gets voted out because of an item revealed in a blog, this is not "undeserved."

Therefore, because rabbis are not democratically elected and are not responisble to their communities, and because they have a self-ordained "right" to retain their office (in perpetuity, no less) no matter how flawed their leadership is, rabbis are above criticism.

Rabbi Meir's point is clear:  If Jews are going to leave Orthodoxy because they learn the truth about our 'gedolim,' or if they will shift Orthodoxy's worldview to the religious Orthodox left, then the truth must be hushed up.

If Haza"l had used Rabbi Meir's standards, much of Nakh would have been censored.

It is also important to note that 'gedolim' are political leaders, their followers often vote in blocks, and that 'gedolim' are regularly and actively involved in the political process. Yet Rabbi Meir ignores these facts in order to shield 'gedolim' from public scrutiny.

Let's face it, people. Orthodox Judaism is anti-democratic, anti-modernity, anti-science and anti-rationalist, and no amount of kiruv-based apologetics and sugar coating can hide that fact. We are Islam but without a theocracy. God forbid we should ever aquire one.

Comments

[Contributor]

First of all, under a democratic Judean government one could expose the corruption of all the leaders and there would be no risk (or escape) of them abandoning the observance of Judean law.

Second, it seems that were the offer given to the Jews of Palestine to have unfettered access to all holy sites and complete freedom of "religion," with the stipulation that the governing authority would return to the British, you'd take that option in the blink on an eye.

You pray three times a day "Return our Judges..." but you are diametrically opposed to doing anything about it.

Shame on you.

[Contributor]

Had you been around, you would have opposed the political evdeavors of Ezra and Nehemiah. You would have opposed the revolt of the Hasmoneans. You would have opposed the revolt of Bar-Kosba, behind whom Rabbi Akiva through his unconditional support. You would have opposed Shimon ben Shatach who sent his own son to be stoned, who was framed and after being sentenced was found innocent on a technicality, but did so to consolidate the authority of the Pharisees.

Do you think that Mashiach is some kind of ferry who will walk in one day and whip up a government like a crème broulet? Roll out the red carpet and build the infastructure to welcome Mashiach.

You probably won't like him either if he rules like Shimon ben Shatach with an iron fist, who hanged eighty women by their dead hands on posts on a single day (after pouring boiling lead down their throats) for practicing supersticious witchcraft, denying them the due process which demands only one capital crime to be tried on a single day (and certainly without all the biblical requirements for a capital sentense).

You have lost your Judean principles. Go back to Yeshiva and maybe you'll find them there.

[rebeljew]

"for practicing supersticious witchcraft"

Contributor, please amend, it should be:
"for practicing THE WRONG, UNAPPROVED superstitious witchcraft."

[Contributor]

rebeljew,

What? I'm sorry, you'll have to explain. Witchcraft is halachically defined as superstitious and phoney. I'm not aware of any "right" or "approved" witchcraft.

[rebeljew]

I am counting on you to figure it out, Contributor. Not one, not two, not three. Go. And make sure not to cut your fingernails in sequence and be sure to pour off the first drop of water, lest a demon affect you.

And if you cannot find it at that point, I am sure that an acupuncturist can help.

[Contributor]

Oh, yeah, okay, I meant simply to qualify all "witchcraft" as superstitious. I did not mean that there is witchcraft that is not superstitious, nor that the prohibition is based on the fact that it is a superstition.

I see now how my words were easily misunderstood. Yes, the women were killed for practicing witchcraft, which is a WRONG & UNAPPROVED superstition.

[thebizofknowledge]

While I am not in any way an expert on the subject of Jewish business ethics, I found this discussion quite thought provoking. It's amazing to me that political leaders are considered open-to-criticism, but that rabbis are not!

[Another Contributor]

You seem not to have read Rabbi Meir's entire column. He also says:

This doesn't mean that these criteria can never be fulfilled. Sometimes it will be appropriate or even necessary to conduct a public discussion of the character and qualifications of religious leaders. But the considerations will be much stricter not because of any arbitrary "privilege of clergy" but simply because of the consistent application of the underlying principles of right speech.

One more point needs to be emphasized. Respectful disagreement does not fall into the category of negative speech at all, and so there is no need to apply the Chafetz Chaim's criteria. If a rabbi gives a sermon and someone comments that he doesn't know what he is talking about or that he is insensitive to some vital interest, that is negative speech and careful application of the above criteria would make us extremely reluctant to express ourselves in this way.

So clearly, if remaining silent will damage the community, Rabbi Meir says you should go and criticize.

And if you disagree about the Slifkin ban or whatever else, go ahead and say so.