How wrong is Avi Shafran this time?
Very, as…
Hamodia (the place the ban was originally published and the house organ of the Gerrer rebbe) published five 'responses' to the ban. According to Blog in Dm (Hamodia is not online because the Gerrer rebbe banned use of the Internet), none of those responses deal with the main issues of the ban itself:
…Rabbi Shafan criticizes the Fourth Estate, bloggers, talk show hosts, and the Jewish Star. In my opinion, this criticism is misplaced. I think much of the public commentary, although not the comments left on some blogs, has been respectful of the rabbonim even as it questions they're handling of the situation. Those who feel it is forbidden to question rabbonim will find the notion of "non-gedolim" raising questions to be chutzpah. But I don't buy it. I suspect, given what I've seen of his writings, that Rabbi Shafran doesn't really believe so either.
Rabbi Shafran says that he had an informal off-the-record conversation with the editor of the Jewish Star and was surprised to find himself quoted in that article. He says a more accurate rendering of his opinion would have said that he "knew nothing about the circumstances surrounding the ban."
In my opinion, Rabbi Shafran is being disingenuous here. I'm not going to start parsing his words, but it seems obvious that the quotes attributed to him in the Jewish Star represent his current opinion of the text of the ban, even if that was not yet his opinion then.
As I've noted, it is self-evident for the ban itself. Any thinking person would have some of these questions.
Rabbi Shafran has some criticisms of the NY Times piece. Most of these are inconsequential.
Addressing the issue of Rav Kamenetzky's statement as quoted in the Times, Rabbi Shafran writes:
And right after noting that "Some critics say the rabbis were manipulated," the Times quoted Harav Shmuel Kamenetzky, shlita, as regretting that time constraints did not allow the Rabbanim to "meet together" as they often do before issuing a Kol Korei of this nature. Asked about the juxtaposition later, Rav Kamenetzky stated unequivocally that he was in no way manipulated and that the sentiment of the ban reflected his intention entirely.
I may not be parsing words today, but Rabbi Shafran is. Rabbi Shafran ignores the fact that Rav Kamenetzky has said that he is not opposed to all concerts. Yet, the text of the ban explicitly says that the Gedolim have prohibited all concerts.
This is tangential anyway. The main issue here, which Rabbi Shafran does not address in his essay, but Rav Kamenetzky acknowledges, is the abuse of process surrounding the ban. Put simply, even if you agree with the goals and ideals of the ban, as Rabbi Shafran quotes Rav Kamenetzky, the way it was implemented was wrong. Rav Kamenetzky admits as much. Rabbi Shafran is tap-dancing around this admission.
At the end of his essay, Rabbi Shafran acknowledges some other questions that were raised, most notably about the two-lines under the text of the ban signed by the "Vaad Mishmeres Hakodesh", which contained demonstrable falsehood. He doesn't address them though. I think he should have.
Here's how Rabbi Kamentzky was quoted by Hella Winston in today's New York Jewish Week:
…Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetzky, rosh yeshiva of the Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia and one of the signatories to the ban, admitted that the rabbis who signed it did not consult with one another. When asked about the ban’s origins, Rabbi Kamenetsky was vague, saying only that “it seems there was some input from Israel.” He added that he did not think this ban would affect other concerts, because it was issued specifically “for a certain looseness.”
His assessment seems to be contradicted by an advertisement published on Feb. 27 in Hamodia, signed by eight of the 33 rabbis [Malkiel Kotler, Matisyahu Salomon, Green, Shustel, Gross, Shteinmetz, Sharaga Feivel Hagar and Avrohom Schorr], praising Schmeltzer for backing out of the New York event and another one planned in London, and supporting a ban on all future concerts. Indeed, radio show host Zev Brenner told The Jewish Week that he is “hearing through the grapevine that this ban is chilling any future concerts [and might] seriously affect the Passover entertainment and concert scene.”
Numerous other signatories were contacted but would not comment or did not return calls.…
So, were the rabbis manipulated?
The idea that some of the gedolim were manipulated by Friedman and Schorr was broached by Sheya Medlowitz and others well before the Times report was published.
Also, as the NY Jewish Week piece shows, at least some of the rabbis who signed the ban (and one who arranged it, as well) viewed it as a ban against all concerts, not just one.
It is true the Times piece had several errors, including erroneously attributing Rabbi Kamentzky's quote to Hamodia when it really came from the Jewish Star, and calling Zev Brenner "Rabbi."
But the basics of the report were accurate and true.
It is understandable that Shafran would write to protect the gedolim he, after all, works for.
What is not acceptable, however, is Shafran's constant attacks on those who disagree with the actions taken by these gedolim or those who report the facts of the ban.
The ban itself; the lack of due process given and the lack of basic mentchlikeit shown to Schmeltzer, Mendlowitz and the others banned; what the ban means for the future of haredi music; and how the ban has effected the haredi street – these are the issues at hand – along with this:
“With all the problems our community is grappling with — teens leaving in unprecedented numbers, prominent yeshivas accused of knowingly employing pedophile teachers, chasidim rioting in the streets of Borough Park while their rebbes engage in public court battles over succession, I am astonished that this is the issue these 33 illustrious rabbis have chosen to tackle.
“Our children need an outlet,” Mendy continued, “and what could be better than a frum concert? Riots are OK, concerts are ossur [forbidden]?”
Rabbi Shafran will not address these issues. Neither will Agudath Israel of America.
And that is the real story behind this ban.